ML20210B155
| ML20210B155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-804 OL, NUDOCS 8609170465 | |
| Download: ML20210B155 (72) | |
Text
NGR O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
BRAIDWOOD STATI0l1 50-456/457-OL UNITS 1 & 2 COMMUNWEALTH EDISON 0
LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLIll0IS PAGES:
12,781-12,851 DATE:
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 D
j i
0\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street gg,og170aos s5071r Washington, D.C. 20001 F DR ACacK O S C O ",g6 (202) 347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
12781
(,I 1
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR R EGULATORY COMMISSION 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
__________________x 6
In the Matter of:
7
- Docket No. 50-456 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457 8
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 9
and 2)
__________________X 10 bi 11 l
Page: -12,781 - 12851
'~s 12 United States District Court House 13 Courtroom 1919 Chicago, Illinois 60604 14 Friday, September 12, 1986 15 16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 17 at 8:10 A.
M.
18 BEFORE:
19 JUDG E HERB ERT G ROSSMAN, Chairman 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D.
C.
~22 J UDG E RICH ARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
()N washington, D.
C.
's.,
24 J UDG E A.
DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 j
1 12782 1
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S. Nuclear Regul-atory Commission 2
' Washington, D.
C.
3 APPEARANCES:
4 On behalf of the Applicant:
5 MICHAEL I. MILLER, E SQ.
JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
6 I sh am, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Pla'za 7
. Chicago, Illinois 60602 1.
.8 (k1 behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 9
Commission Staff:
1 10 GREG ORY ALAN ' B ERRY, ES).
i r"'g U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(
11 7335 Old Georgetown Road' Be thesda, Ma ryland 20014 12 on behalf of.the Intervenor:
j 13 i
ROB ERT G UILD, ESQ.
14 DOUGLASS W.
CASS EL, J R., E SQ.
15
{
16 17-i 18
-19 4
- :2 0 -
r 21-22 23 24
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
\\
12793 j-g ss
'I 1
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM S. LITTLE Page No.
2 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY:
12824 3
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 4
BY MR. GUILD:
12829 5
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM S.
LITTL E 12840 6
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION.
BY MR. GUILD:
12841' 7
PREFILED (
SUMMARY
) TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM 8
S. LITILE 12846
-9:
CROSS EXAMINATION i
-BY MR. GUILD:
12847 10 BOARD EXAMINATIN 11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
12848
(
12~
I 13 3-14 15:
16
-17 I
l 18 j.
19 l
20 i
i 21 i
22 23 24 i
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
._..._-_ __._ _ __-,._ _-0262. -... -... - - - _ - _ - _ - - -
(312) 232
l 12784
.n C
l JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 64th day of hearing.
3 We'll hear the arguments on the 10 CFR Section 4.
50.57(c) motion.
5
'I had asked the parties to concentrate on some 6
points yesterday, but that was after1just a cursory 7
reading of Intervenors' motion, and I don' t really think -
8 those-items I mentioned are that pertinent.
9 As I understand Intervenors' motion now, the main 10
-points are.that the activity to be conducted by H11 Applicant involves the use of the electrical system-12 that's in question here and whether or not the plant can 13-be safely shut down.
14 The systems are being used, and, ther ef or e, th e 15 contentions are. relevant to the use,.and, therefore, 16 there has to be some findings by the Board under 17 50.57(a), and those-- findings are basically the same i
18 findings we would have to make with regard to the ~ entire 19 proceeding.
)
'20 So' those are the two points being made, and I guess s
21 we'll just have to concentrate on that, and perhaps I've 22 missed other things, but that's that's where my 23.
understanding is at the moment.
24.
JUDG E COLE:
It's your understanding of the i
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
,L Geneva, Illinois 60134
__ _ _._-0262, _. _. _ - _ _
(312) 232
~
l 12785 I
i
\\ m/
1 argument of the Intervenors?
2 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Yes.
3 JUDGE COLE:
Okay.
4 JUDG E G ROSSMAN:
And so those are the matters 5
to be addressed, plus whatever else the parties want to 6
address.
7 Since Intervenors have just raised that now, it's 8
up to Mr. Gallo to lead of f, and we won't restrict any 9
parties from rebutting ' add infinitum until we have a 10 f ull understanding of what's involved.
[
)
11 So proceed, Mr. Gallo.
V 12 MR. G ALLO:
Thank you, your Honor.
13 I think you have identified the central areas of 14 disagreement on the legal question between the 15 Intervenors and the Applicant, on one hand, and the 16 Staff as well.
17 I don' t believe there's any disagreement that the 18 threshold issue to be decided is one of relevance, and 19 the matter to be -- the subject matter of the relevance 20 inquiry is the pending contention, and that the question l
21 of relevance is to be determined as a matter of law 22 consistent with the Commission's statutory authority as l
23 well as the Commission's regulations.
[- sT l (,)
24 We do disagree on the point identified by the i
l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12786 1
Chair.
2 Intervenors, I think, take the position that under 3
their reading of 50.57(c), their contention is relevant 4
to the activities sought-to be authorized, and they 5
point out in their brief that the electrical systems and l
6 circuitry will be used during the precritical testing i
7~
and fuel load functions,~ and that is true.
j 8
The main point here, however, is not whether these i
9 systems will be used, 'but whether they are needed, l
10.
needed for purposes of safety concerns, and our 11 pleading, I believe, demonstrates that they are not.
12 It is the purpose of Applicant's affidavits and, i
j 13 indeed, the staf f's affidavits to show that the 14 precritical and fuel load activities -- that is, the 15 precritical testing and the fuel load activities -- can
}
16 be conducted without -- and can be conducted safely 17 without reliance on electrical systems and circuitry to 18 maintain the reactor subcritical.
19 These affidavits are uncontroverted and I think 20 must stand for the propositions they indicate.
21
%ey are clearly submitted f or the purpose of i
i 22 showing non-relevance.
They are not submitted, as the I
23 Intervenors suggest in their brief, to run to one of the 24 findings under 50.57(a).
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
f Geneva, Illinois 60T34
[
(312) 232-0262
k 1.
i:
12787.
. (N 1
Nov, what Intervenors would have us do -- or would 2
have the Board do would be to hold a hearing on whether f
3 or not the. precritical testing and fuel load activities 4
can be successfully conducted.
l-S That is'not. an issue that is cognizable either 6
under the Atomic Energy Act or the Commission's 7
regulationn or under this Board's jurisdiction.
j 8
The Board's jurisdiction, commission's regulations 4
j 9
and the statutory authority' make it clear that the 10 concerns are safety concerns; 'and if there a~re no safety:
11 concerns, then there's_ no requirement, indeed there's no i
12 authority, to hold a hearing on non-safety concerns.
13 It's the purpose of these affidavits to show that 14-there is no_ safety concern; and by the Intervenors 15 having failed to controvert those affidavits, I believe j
16 the matter is disposed of in that manner.
17-Now, theIntervenors argue that a plain reading, as 18 they see it, of 50.57(c) refers to the. activities sought 19.
to be authorized, not the safety activities; whereas I 20 believe the issue ought to be framed that the ; contention 21 must be found to be relevant insofar as it raises safety 22 questions in regard to the activities sought to be 23 authorized; not just questions, but safety questions.
24 I think that's plain on a f air reading of 50.57(c).
Sonntac Reporting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134
(
(312) 232-0262
12788 N
i
_ ('~'h As-s l
1
. The sentence referred to by the Intervenors must be 2
read together with the following sentence, which says 3
that if a finding of relevance is noted, the Board must
-4 make findings under 50.57(a).
5 Now, the reference to that section to me clearly 6
means the safety findings.
7 Intervenors argue on brief at Page 5 that the 8
findings under 50.57(a) have safety findings and 9
non-safety findings.
10 That just is simply an error.
All of th'e findings (D
( )
11 under - 5 0.57 (a), starting with, " Construction of the 12 facility has been substantially completed," running 13 through, "The Applicant is technically and financially 14 qualified," running through, "The satisfaction of the 15 provisions of Part 140," and.the other more obvious-16 provisions, clearly deal with safety questions.
That's 17 the purpose of their promulgation.
18 It is not to deal with non-safety issues or 19 non-safety findings as suggested by the Intervenors.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
In other words -- let me 21 understand this correctly, Mr. Gallo.
22 You are saying that, as an example, with 50.57(a)l, 23 that if the facility were completed not fully in O) i
's,,
24 conformity with the construction permit, but with regard 1
t Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.~
.. ~..
.... - ~ - -.....
I 12789 7-~
' k I
1 to the safety systems that it was, that that would be 2
taken as substantially completed in conformity with the 3
construction permit?
4 MR. GALLO:
I believe the answer to your 5
question is yes.
6
. The reason why the Commission is interested in 7
construction of the f acility being substantially 8
completed in conformance with the construction permit i
1 j
9 and -the applicable regulations of the commission is for
.0 safety concerns.
1
, - r) 11
(
I.mean, those provisions in the construction permit 12 set out general design criteria and other requirements 13 that must be satisfied.
14 Those criteria and requirements all bottom on 15 safety concerns, safety questions and safety criteria, l
16 not on non-safety; criteria.
l 17 The same point flows through the rest of all the-
~18 5 0.57 (a) findings.
i 19 Now, the reason I make this point is if one goes i
20 back to 50,57(c) and. focuses on the sentence cited by i.
21 Intervenora, which simply says something about the lL 22 activities to be conducted under the authorization i
?
L 23 sought by the motion, it has to be read in conjunction 24 with the following sentence that says the Board is to i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
i 12790 i
i v'
1 make the findings under 50.57(a).
2 Those are safety findings.
You read the two 3
sentences together and it's clear that the Board's 4
jurisdiction is with respect to safety questions.
5 Intervenors suggest that what the Board should do 6
is inquire as to the adequacy of the electrical systems 7
because they are going to be used in the preeritical 8
testing and fuel loading activity.
9 It's not enough.
What we need here is a suggestion 10 that they cannot be safely used; and these affidavits go (v).
11 to, and unequivocably demonstrate, tha t th ey, indeed, 12 can be safely used.
13 Now, if there was any disagreement on this point, I 14 think that the Commission put it to rest in the Diablo 15 Canyon case.
16 If the Board would ref er to Page 9, I believe, of 17 the Staf f's -- actually, it's Page 12 -- Page 12 of the 18 Staff's pleading, the Staff quotes the relevant portion 19 of the Dlablo Canyon proceeding, and it's at the middle 20 of Page 123, and it's cited at 18 NRC at Page 1149.
21 The Commission, in that case, faced with a request 22 by the Applicant for fuel loading and precritical 23 testing authority, and f aced with a request for a
()
24 hearing by the Intervenors, dealt with the question, and Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
N 12791 f3 i
L
%/
4 1
'as Staff quotes, "The risk to public health and safety 2
from fuel loading and precriticality - testing is 3
extremely low since no self-sustaining nuclear chain 4
reaction will take place under the terms of the license 5
and, therefore, no radioactive fission products will be i
~
6 produced."
7 And then here's the most important point that I 8
think buttresses our position that it's safety concerns 9
that are the subj ect of a hearing, not just concerns.
10 The Commission continues, " A r evi ew of th e n.
( )
11 pleadings or joint of" -- let'me start again.
"A review 12 of the pleadings," _and I'll paraphrase, "of joint 13 Intervenors do safety" -- let me start again.
"A review 14 of the pleadings of joint Intervenors' two hearing 15 requests reveals no significant safety ' concerns material 16 to fuel loading and precriticality testing."
17 That seems to me, your Honor, dispositive of this 18 debate between the Intervenors and the Applicant and the 19 Staff on the other hand as to just what is cognizable 4
20 for hearing purposes under a 50.57(c) motion.
21 Indeed, if the Commission was writing an order in 22 this case, this paragraph would read -- the first 23 sentence would read the same, and the second sentence
,)
24 would say, "A review of the pleadings of Intervenors' i-y Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 12792
,~
t 1
V 1
hearing request reveals no significant safety concerns 2
material to fuel loading and precriticality testing" 3
This should not be surprising, since the 4
affidavits of the Applicant and the Staff establish, 5
without challenge from the Intervenors, that rae 6
activities sought to be authorized can be safely 7
conducted without reliance on systems that are the 8
subj ect of the pending contention.
That is. exactly how 9
that paragraph would be written in the context of this 10 proceeding.
o (J) 11 I think for those reasons, the legal arguments of 12 the Staf f -- I'm sorry -- the legal arguments of the 13 Intervenors should be rej ected and the motion granted.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Was Diablo -- I'm sorry.
15 Was this directly on point as to the relevance 16 question, the Diablo Canyon decision?
17 MR. GALLO:
I think it was, yes, sir.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay.
19 MR. GALLO:
The only -- well, the factual 20 underpinning was dif ferent.
21 J UDG E G ROSS MAN :
Yes.
22 No, no, no.
I meant, was the question before the 23 Commission what we' re discussing right now, the
_,)
24 relevance point?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12793
, k) 1 1
. MR. G ALLO :
Yes, sir, I believe it was.
2 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
3 MR. G ALLO:
Unless the Board has questions on 4
other aspects of the _ motion, -I would rest my argument at 5
this. time.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
Okay.
7
- Just one question.
8 I take it you don' t wish to challenge the -
y 2
I 9
Intervenors' position that if we went beyond relevance, 10 if we decided adversely to you on c elevance, that
(
11 basically we'd have to make the same findings on the 12 50.57(c) issue as we would have for the whole 13 proceeding, and tha t, really, you are not _ pushing beyond 14 the relevance point?
15 MR. GALLO:
Yes.
I think if the Board was
[
16' to find some aspect of the Intervenors' contention 17 relevant, then the findings under 50.57(a) clearly would i
18 have to be made by the Board.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
[
20 So we really have to just concentrate on the 21 relevance question, and that's what's before us.
22 Mr. Berry, do you wish to add anything to that?
23 MR. BERRY:
No, Mr. Chairman.
I think Mr.
N 24
.Gallo has also fairly well summarized the Staf f's 7
i 1
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 L._
(312) 232-0262
i 12794 C
1 position as reflected in this~ proceeding.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
3-Mr. Cassel.
4 MR. CASSEL:
Well, Judge, I1think you asked.
5 exactly the right question with respect to Diablo 6
Canyon; namely, was it. the same legal issue that you are 7
facing here.
8 The answer is that the case clearly was not the 9
legal issue you are ' facing here; and the fact that Mr.
10 Gallo has to reach out to Diablo Canyon, a totally
~
11 dif ferent legal. question in a fatally distinguishable 12 procedural posture, indicates the plain fact that there 13 is no law in support of Mr. Gallo's effort to 14 misinterpret Section 50.57(c).
15 Diablo Canyon was a case 'in which the 50.57(c) 16 hearing had already been held.
17 As we pointed out in our brief, that hearing was 18 held af ter a lengthy process of discovery and motions 19 for summary disposition and a ruling by the Board.
I-20 think the whole process took close to a year.
21 Following the 50.57 (c) hearing, the ruling was made 22 that the low power license should be issued and, in 23 fact, it was issued.
t 1
(,/
24 After the issuance of the license, the design Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
t Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
I 12795 4-(x,j/
i 1
problems out at Diablo Canyon with the drawings, that-2 I'm sure the Board is f amiliar with, 'were discovered, 3
and at that point the NRC -- the full Commission took an 4
enforcement action and suspended the low power license 5
based on these newly-discovered problems.
6 The opinion from which Mr. Gallo read you excerpts
-7 and which is cited and quoted in -the staff's brief was 8
rendered two years later by the Commission; and what had 9
happened in those two years was that an independent
-10 design verification program had been conducted, the A
~
()
11
. design problems' had been ironed out and the utility came 12 back in and said, "Now we want to have our suspension 13 lifted," and also because the initial license had only 14 been granted for a period of a year and the year was up,.
~15 the utility made a second request, which was to extend 16 the time period of the low power license.
17' The Commission ruled on those two issues; first, 18 whether to lift the suspension of the previously granted 19 low power license, and in ruling on that losue, the-t 20-Commission expressly stated that the governing law was 21 the Commission's policy with regard to formal 22 adj udicatory hearings on enforcement actions, and cited 23 the Marble Hill case, so on that issue what the
("j y
t r
s 24 Commission was really talking about was an enforcement t
Sonntaq Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 12796
\\v]
[1, t.
1 action.
2 In an enforcement action, there are a whole set of 3-equities and policies that come into play t. hat simply 4
.have no place at all in a 50.57(c) hearing.
5 On the second question -- namely, whether to extend 6-the 'previously-granted low power. license -- the 7
Commission caref ully pointed out at Page 114 8 that there 8
was no safety significance or~ basis in the adj udicatory 9
record for limiting the term of a low power license to 10 one year.
The modification of the expiration date would O) 11 merely. shif t in time the period.
3 u
12 So in each of those instances, the Commission was
+
13 relying on the fact that the 57(c)' hearing had already 14 been held, the 57(c) findin'gs had &lready been made, and 15 it was simply a question of enforcement, on the one 16 hand, and extending the period of the license, on the 17 other hand.
18 Indeed, with respect to the original 57(c) hearing, 19 in the. Appeal Board's opinion earlier in that same 1,
20 Diablo Canyon case, LALAB 72817 NRC 777, at Page 801, j
21 Note 72, the Appeal Board stated language that is.
1 31 22 consistent with Intervenors' interpretation of 57(c),
23
.and it sets up a different legal standard than the j
q i
r
,)
24 procedural issues addressed subsequently by the 2
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12797 OU 1
Commission in Diablo Canyon.
2 Specifically, the Appeal Board stated, quote, '"When 3
an. Applicant for an operating license files a motion for 4
authority to conduct low power testing in a proceeding 5
where the evidentiary record is closed but the Licensing 6
Board has not yet issued an initial decision finally 7
disposing of all contested issues, the Board is 8
obligated under 10 CFR 50.57(c) to issue a decision on 9
all outstanding issues (i. e., contentions previously 10 admitted and litigated) relevant to clow power testing O
1 11 before authorizing such testing," end quote.
t%)
12 Nou, that's in a situation where the record has 13 already closed.
14 Here the record is still open, and the statement 15 would apply with at least as much force.
16.
So the short of the whole discussion of Diablo 17 Canyon is that the statements quoted by the Staff and by 18 the Licensee are simply not applicable to the present 19 context, and we are returned to the question of what 20 does 50.57(c) mean, r
21 Now,-as Mr. Gallo has suggested in his argument, 22 our pleading on this subject, our opposition to 23 Applicant's motion, relies first on the plain language
~,s
(
)
x,,/
24 of 50.57 (c), and I won't repeat the plain language Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
12798 I
.~ 1 arguments, but Mr. Gallo then goes on to attempt to 2
construct a disagreement between his position.and our -
.3 position which does not exist.
4 He.is at pains to tell us 'that the other 5
, requirements of 57(a) -- that is, -the requirements other i
'6
.than the reasonable assurance ' of safety, and I'm 7
. referring specifically to the. requirement of conformity 8
with the construction permit and application as amended i
9 and compliance with the rules and regulations of the-10 Commission and all the other requirements that 'we've set O) 11 out in our.brief, except for the two that we did not l (v 12 mention, which have to do with financial qualifications, 13 which are not pertinent here -
Mr. Gallo is at pains to
~
14 argue that the purpose for the promulgation of those 15 other 57(a) requirements is safety.
16 He's. exactly right, we agree,. and.that's precisely 17 why this Board has jurisdiction, contra ry to Mr.. Gallo's 18 argument, to look at each of those other 57(a) criteria; F
f 19 not just reasonable assurance of safety, but compliance 20 with all the rules and regulations, and it's precisely 21 why you were correct in suggesting -to Mr. Gallo that in j
22 such a 57(a) hearing, we would not be looking at the i
23 adequacy of the electrical system in -- of the 24 electrical aspects of non-safety systems.
We would be i
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
i.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
12799
. fM
]
1 looking at the adequacy of the electrical work in safety 2
systems at the plant.
3 I don' t care.whether the _ electrical system in the 4
employee cafeteria works, and that's not going to be an
-5 issue in the hearing, and that's not something that is 6
called for by 57(a),. but we're talking about the kinds 7
of systems which Applicant is going to be testing in 8
precriticality testing, which ultimately have safety 9
functions.
The purpose of the precriticality testing is 10 to find out if they work; and the import of 57(c) is a O) 11 two-step process.
(V 12 The first one is the threshold, and that's the 13 question we're dealing with today, and that's relevance, 14 and the simple question before you get into controverted 15 issues of facts and before you are asked to make factual 16 rulings on the kinds of detailed questions raised by 17 Applicant's affidavits -- the threshold question is 18 simply, "Are we talking about systems that will be 19 tested that have some relationship to Intervenors' 20 contention?"
21 The answer to that is clearly yes.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let me ask another question,
.which is not di rectly -involved here.
23'
,)
24 But let's assume that we decide the question in Sonnta4 Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12800
(/3]
1 f avor of Applicant and there is this precriticality 2
testing.
3 Are we going to be opening Pandora's box now on yet 4
a third aspect of the case that we have not yet gotten 5
into; and that is, a contention on'one side or the other 6
that the use of the system demonstates either that the 7
system was safely constructed or was unsafely 8
constructed ?
Are we going to be getting into that, 9
also?
10 Mr. G allo.
O) 11 MR. GALLO:
I really don' t see how -that
(
12 particular point -- I take it the Board's question is-in 13 conj unction with the full operating license activity and 14 the hearing associated with it?
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Pardon?
16 No.
17 MR. GALLO:
You mean if you find rel.wance on 18 50.57(c) and a hearing is conducted, whether or not the 19 matters you've identified have to be addressed?
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No, no, no.
21 What I'm asking is:
22 Let'c say we were to grant a 50.57(c) permit -- or 23 license, and then Applicant used its electrical system 24 in precriticality testing.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I L
12801 p.v) i 1
Are we going to ' be now faced with a third aspect of 2
the evidentiary hearing relating to either the use of 3
the system was done saf ely and, therefore, the system 4
was constructed safely, and, on the other hand -- or, 5
perhaps, on the other hand, a contention by-the 6-Intervenor that something went wrong during.
7 precriticality testing with the use of that electrical 8
system, and, therefore, that proves that the system 9
wasn't constructed properly?
Are we going to be 10 getting into that?
(O) 11 MR. GALLO:
I think the answer is clearly no.
12 The adequacy of those systems is really a matter 13 for ultimate disposition by the Staff and the 14 Commission, and the basic contention as filed by the 15 Intervenors, insofar as it raises questions about the 16 conduct and activities associated with the inspections 17 by the Comstock QC Inspectors, I think, is unaffected by 18 the point.
19 Certainly we would not intend to raise that kind of 20
. question.
l 21 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Well --
We would ~ answer tha t question 23 differently, Judge.
O k,,/
2 4 And the case law -- again, I'd have to dig through j
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 12802
%. __/'
1 the cases, but I don't think we need a case. citation for 2
the proposition that at any point in the proceeding when 3
new evidence emerges, and the results of the tests could 4
be new evidence, Intervenors are always entitled to 5
press new contentions, provided they can meet the five 6
factor test, which, as you know, provides' substantial 7
protection to Applicant from contentions that should not 8
be heard at~a late date.
9 So certainly the answer to your question is yes; 10 and we would expect to be reviewing the results of that 7-~ 3
(
)
11 low power testing and keeping a close eye on whether it 12 indicates to us any problem.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
W ell, I'm not even thinking 14 in terms of a new contention, but just as now where 15 Applicant has a two-tiered case.
That's why I keep 16 saying a third aspect.
17 The one point is direct evidence whether QC's 18 review or inspections were adequate, and, therefore, the 19 system adequate, and then you-have the second point on 20 rebuttal -- called rebuttal in which you go into the 21 testing of the hardware itself.
22 This would be a third thing with actual use of the 23 hardware; and I just wonder if we're opening Pandora's s
(,)
24 box on this, not j ust in this proceeding, but in other Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12803 m
./
1 proceedings, where you now have an opportunity to run 2
your sistem and say, "Well, just on running the system, 3
we demonstrate that it's safely constructed."
4 So I want to handle that at the outset before we 5
find out that we're into another marathon case on some 6
aspect that we hadn't considered to begin with, plus 7
setting precedent for -a new form of hearing, a new form 8
of proceeding, for all operating license cases.
9 Do you want to say something further on that, Mr.
10 Gallo?
{Oj 11 MR. GALLO:
Yes.
12 I think that the Applicant's rebuttal case -- that 13 is, the BCAP material as well as the PTL overview -
14 material -- certainly addresses, among other things, the 15 systems that will be used in this precritical testing 16 and fuel loading activity, but it is not our intent to 17 try to bootstrap, by surrebuttal or otherwise, the 18 successf ul performance -- tha t is, bootstrap the case in 19 chief by surrebuttal by proving in the main operating 20 license proceeding that the procriticality testing was 21 successful.
22 Indeed, if the Board's concern was followed to its 23 logical extension and the concern was deemed to be
{'s,,/
24 correct and appropriate, one could never get a 50.57(c)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
0 12804 O
- Q) l' license in a contested situation.
2 It's clear that 5 0.57 (c) simply does not 3
contemplate that kind of result; and that's the best 4
answer I can give you with respect to that point.
5 I have some other points, but I'm not sure -that Mr.
6 Cassel has finished.
7 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Had you finished and you 8
just want to respond to that point now?
9 MR. CASSEL:
I hadn' t finished, Judge; and I 10 also wanted to respond to your point -- your question, D) 11 rather.
'sv 12
'Not only would there be the possibility of new 13 conten tion s, there would also be the possibility of new 14-evidence; and while Applicant foreswears the intent to 15 raise new evidence, certainly if we are aware of 16 evidence that indicates a less than successful function 17 and which tends to impeach the purported results of BCAp 18 and it were within the scope of the electrical systems, 19 so it would be relevant to the quality of the system, 20 the issue that's been raised by our contention, we would 21 certainly want to bring that to the Board's attention.
22 So I think there is unavoidably the possibility 23 once you get into procriticality testing while na hearing i
k_,)
24 is still under way.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12805 f\\
'\\~s]
1 The record hasn't closed in 'this case as it 2
'normally is in a 50.57(c) hearing, and that's the 3
problem with Mr. Gallo's last point.
4 Once the evidence is available to us, and if it's 5
pertinent to the issue that's pending, it is simply not 6
a service to the public and doesn't make any sense for 7
this Board to say, "Well, we're not going to look at 8
this new evidence even though the record is still open 9
and even though the evidence is relevant to the existing 10 contention" i
11 And if it isn' t relevant to the existing V
12 contention, then the question becomes, "Does it meet the 13 five criteria for a new contention?"
)
14 So it.seems to me you are opening the possibility, 15 contrary to what I presume to be Applicant's hopes, to 16 move this proceeding along to a conclusion -- you are 17 actually opening the door to stretching out the 18 proceeding and expanding the scope of the proceeding by 19 allowing a whole new source of evidence to arise, while 20 the record is still open, in a case where it clearly 21 would be pertinent.
22 The only other point I wanted to make in my 23 response to Mr. Gallo's initial remarks is that the n,
24 issues that we have -- well, there are two other points.
g, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)
'232-0262
t'
'12806
(
)
s,/-
m 1-One is that the issues ~ that we have suggested need 2
to be addressed in a 57(c) hearing -- namely, the other 3
aspects of 57(a), including whether the general design criteria are met. -- inherently involve safety issues.
4 5
Even if there is a possibility of a safe shutdown 6
in the immediate situation or no need for safe shutdown 7
because of the boron level, you still have the very 8
definition of the general design criteria which would be 9
at issue, - that these are the design -- these are the 10 criteria necessary to maintain a ' reasonable assurance of f) 11 safe ty.
That's how those criteria are defined; and so v
12 by looking at whether the electrical components of the 13 plant systems to be involved in the testing meet the 14 general design criteria and the TECH SPECS, you are 15 inherently looking at a safety issue, and you are also 16 doing precisely what we suggest you should do in the -
17 context of a 57(c) hearing.
18 The other point I wanted to make was just the 19 procedure for a 57(c) hearing from our point of view.
20 In such a hearing, of course, the Applicant has the 21 burden; and we would suggest several steps for such a 22 hearing.
23 The first is that the Applicant should specifically
(
/
24 identify which plant systems are to be used in the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 12807 10 N]
1 pre criticality ' tes ting..
2 That identification, while it may be available 3
somewhere in Applicant's or the Staf f's files, was not 4
set forth in Applicant's motion.
5-We don't even know from looking at the motion, and 6
the Board doesn't know just f rom looking at the motion, 7
which specific systems Applicant intends to test, 8
although, obviously,u from common knowledge we can ~ all 9
surmise pretty much what they are likely to be.
10 Second, the Applicant should identify which, if -
[)
11 any, of those systems it wants to test that do not have
%J 12 electrical components or subsystems or rely for their 13 functioning on the electrical work done by the Comstock 14 Com pany.
15 I would suspect the answer to that is none, but 16 there might be-some, and if there are any, they should 17 be excluded from the hearing because they are not 18 relevant to the pending contention.
19 Third, the Applicant should identify which of the 20 general design criteria and TECH SPECS it believes to be 21 applicable to the electrical aspects of those systems it 22 proposes to test.
23 And, again, we' re talking about safety-related i
24 systems here.
We don't care about the cafeteria line.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
t Geneva, Illinois 60134
(
(312) 232-0262
12808-
.XIv) 1 Fourth and finally, it would then be incumbent upon 2
Applicant to prove that the electrical work in those 3
safety-related plant systems is of adequate quality to 4
meet the general design criteria and the TECH SPECS S
despite Intervenors' pending contention that the quality 6
of electrical work is indeterminate because of the 7
harassment and production pressure which has occurred.
8 That final issue, of course, would be the ultimate 9
issue in a 57(c) hearing.
It's also the ultimate issue 10 in this case.
( )
11 The only difference is that in this case we're 12 talking about all the electrical work, whereas in the 13 57(c) hearing, we'd be talking only about the electrical 14 work involved in thoseL systems which would be used for 15 the testing; and, again, as a practical matter, in our 16 brief, as we have suggested, it's not obvious to us _ that 17 there's any way to distinguish those issues, although if 18 the Applicant thought it had some particular evidence of 19 relevance only to the systems it proposes to test, we 20 would certainly be open to a separate hearing.
21 But it does seem to us that the hearing under 57(c) 22 would most efficiently be conducted in a manner 23 consolidated with the hearing that's now being Q
24 conducted.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262'
y 4
12809
.(
1 That concludes my ~ response to Mr. Gallo.
2 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Mr. Gallo.
3
- MR. G ALLO:
Your. Honor, Mr. Cassel argues 4
that,'indeed, Intervenors are interested in a hearing on 5
safety questions. -
6 Neither in his argument nor in his brief have they 7
identified any safety concerns other than to rely on the 8
general.allega tions in the original pending contention.
9 His. argument ignores the realities of the motion 10 filed by Applicant as well as the response from the b,
11 Staff.
12 The systems that may be deemed indeterminate that 13 are relevant and pertinent for this discussion that may 14 be deemed to be indeterminate based on the original 15 contention are the reactor protection systems.
Those 16 are the safety systems that may well be called upon l
17 during the activity. sought to be authorized -- that is, 18 fuel load and precritical testing -- that might be at 19 issue in this case.
20 I would concede that i t there was a reactor
-21 protection system that relied on electrical circuitry 22 that was needed and required in order to safely conduct 23 the activities, then we would have lost on the motion; 24 but it is the very point of those supporting affidavits I
Sonntaa Repor tinq _ Se rvice, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134
(
(312) 232-0262
.12810 Ch L) 1 those reactor protection systems will not be relied 2
upon.
3 The reactor -coolant system and the. reactor 4
coolant -- the reactor protection boundary will be 5
borated at 2,000 parts per million and the system will 6
be isolated and blocked off as described in the 7
8 It is not necessary, in the event something goes 9
wrong during the precritical testing and fuel loading, 10 to rely on those reactor protection systems.
- Instead,
(
11 the borated condition of the coolant will keep the 12 reactor subcritical.
13 There will be no fission products developed and 14 there's no safety. concern as a result, indeed, as the 15 Commission indicated in the Diablo Canyon case that I 16 cited.
17 Now, let's turn to Diablo Canyon.
It is a 18 complicated procedural case.
19 I think Judge Bowers, in her decision on February 20 12, 1981, did an admirable job of trying to explicate 21 the procedural backdrop.
22 This was a case where the Intervenors had contested 23 the Applicant on several fronts, including a general 24 quality assurance contention that attacked the adequacy Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12811
/" ').
\\J
~-
1 of the design of the plant.
2 Indeed, the record had been closed.
Then the l
3 Commission issued its TMI guidance, its Policy 4
Statement, implemented NUREG 0737, and the Intervenor 5
filed a motion to reopen the record based on the 6
Commission's Policy Statement which established 7
- guidelines for reopening records. based on the new requirement imposed as explained in the Staff's 8
s 9
document, NUR EG 0737.
10 The Board found that the record should be reopened, 11 not to hold a hearing on 50.57(c), but because of the 12 new issues raised by the Commission's Policy Statement 13 implementing the TMI requirements.
14 Now, the Appeal Board, in reviewing this matter 15 with respect to the footnote cited by Mr. Cassel, it L
16 seems to me, did not be contrary to the position urged 17 by applicant here.
i 18 Clearly the footnote indicates that it's the 19 Board's obligation, with respect to contentions i
20 previously admitted and litigated in the context of a 21 reopened proceeding, to determine and decide the issues 22 relevant to the low power testing; and that's exactly 23 what we're about in this proceeding.
I 24 And, indeed, when the same question reached the Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
^
12812 ys
(
)
v 1
Commission, the Commission decided the matter as I have 2
indicated in my direct argument.
3 The Intervenors had sought to interpose a request 4
for' a hearing in conjunction with their motion to reopen 5
the record generally on the operating license as well as 6
a hearing on the 50.57(c) motion that was filed by the 7
Applicant in the Diablo Canyon case, and it was that 8
aspect that was disposed of by the Commission in the 9
quotation that I read on the record.
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
(Gv)
I don't think it's worthwhile to go any further 11 12 into Diablo Canyon.
13 MR. G ALLO:
I only have one last --
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
We'll read it and make our 15 own decision as to how applicable it is to the request 16 here.
17 MR. GALLO:
All right.
18
- Yes, My last point is that if 50.57(c) is 19 interpreted, as suggested by the Intervenors, and if 20 it's limited -- the application on 50.57(c) is limited 21 as a possible hypothetical situation as suggested by the 22 Board, then either one would render any relief under 23 50.57(c) nugatory.
There would be no basis for ever
',/
(
24 expecting a low power license in a contested situation; Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12813 (m\\
V 1
and it seems to me that that flies clearly in the face 2
of 50.57(c), because if. it does anything, 50.57(c) makes 3
clear that a relevancy finding has to be made.
4 Well, a relevancy finding becomes unimportant 5
either under the Intervenors' arguments or the 6
suggestion by the Board.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. G allo, it's possible 8
that the contentions might relate to the electrical 9
system, and that your precriticality testing might not 10 use the electrical system or some other kind of system, O) 11 so it's conceivable that you could have contentions i'a 12 relating to one aspect of the Company's operations and 13 not need that particular aspect in the testing, so I 14 don't see that deciding f or Intervenor would necessarily 15 rule out a 50.57(c) o pera tion.
T' 16 MR. GALLO:
But, Judge Grossman, it's very 17 difficult to imagine a situation where any kind of 18 contention, other than an emergency planning contention, 19 wouldn't af fect the testing itself.
I mean, we don' t --
20 the precriticality testing itself.
21 It's unimportant on this record whether an 22 electrical pump works or doesn't work under the 23 procritical testing activity, because the safety system 7-s I
)
(,j 24 that will control and maintain the activity successfully Sonntaq Reporting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232 0262..
(312)
i 12814
/
i 2
f V
1 is the borated condition of the reactor coolant, and 2
even if that pump f ails or 'some other component that is 3
being tested that relies on electrical aspects, 4
electrical circuitry -- even if they fail, the reactor 5
coolant system will still remain borated and there will 6
be no safety consequences.
7 That's the thrust, that's the point, tha t the 8
Intervenors have not addressed in their papers or in 9
argument.
10 J UDG E G ROSS MAN:
Well, there's one problem
(
)
11 with that argument that I see, also, Mr. Gallo, and that v
12 is:
13 What if we had that type of system operating, even 14 with full plant operation, and it was one of the systems 15 that could bring the plant to a chutdown and protect the 16 plant:
17 Wouldn't we still be required to make findings on 18 the other systems, the other safety systems?
19 MR. GALLO:
Well, in the context of the full 20 power operating license hearing, to the extent it was 21 relevant to the contention, but not in the context of a 22 50.57(c) motion.
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Well, I don't know why that p-s f
1
(__,/
24 would be, and I have to think about that, Mr. Gallo.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
12815
-Im\\
V 1
But does Staf f have anything to say on that?
2 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, at the risk of not 3
being repetitive, the Staff would just state generally 4
we' re in agreement with the Applicant as reflected in 5
our pleading.
6 I would note, Mr. Chairman, that it appears to the 7
Staf f the purpose of the Staff and this Licensing Board 8
is to resolve safely questions.
Particularly we' re 9
interested in safety matters.
10 The quection should be, it seems to this party, (A) 11 whether the activity sought to be conducted poses any 12 safety question, any safety concern.
13 The pleadings reflect that because of the borated 14 condition of the water and the other measures, you know, 15 that there's no danger of reaching criticality, and that 16 because of the actions committed to by the Applicant 17 and, you know, to be imposed as a condition for the 18 license by the Staff, that there's no danger, you know, 19 that the borated water will drop below 2,000 parts per 20 million, that there is no safety concern.
21 I haven't heard -- you know, that issue hasn't been 22 joined by the Intervenor.
We have not heard from the 23 Intervenor whether they dispute, you know, the fi rst --
(
24 I guess the first part -- the first f act or the second Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 12816
.O d
1 fact.
2 On this record so f ar there are no safety concerns; 3-and 50.57(c) makes clear that the Board, in deciding the 4
motion, must determine whether the contention is 5
relevant to the activity sought.
6 This contention does not contend that the prefuel 7
loading and precriticality testing poses any safety 8
concern because of, you know, the installation or the 9
construction of the systems.
10 The electrical systems are not important for
( )
11 purposes of this motion and those activities at all, and 12 unless that issue is joined or controverted by the 13 Intervenors, it appears that, on the basis of the 14 affidavits submitted by the Applicant and the Staff, 15 that the Doard can determine, one, that the matter is 16 not relevant to the activity sought; and, two, also, I 17 believe, that the activity could be conducted in 18 accordance with the -- you know, without endangering the 19 public health and safety, 20 J UDG E G ROSSMAN :
Mr. Cassel has to leave 21' because he has a hearing at 9:30, so let's get the rest 22 of this very quickly.
23 Mr. Gallo, did you have something?
24 MR. GALLO:
One final point, and I think it Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)
'232-0262
12817
/T
\\
l v
1 bears on the last comment made by the Board during the 2
course of the colloquy with me:
3 We very carefully selected the relief we requested 4
under 50.57(c).
5 One alternative was to consider an application for 6
a 5-percent low power testing.
7 We would have to rely on electrical systems to 8
operate at that level.
It was only in order to avoid 9
any reliance on electrical systems were we able to 10 develop as much as we did request; that is, fuel loading 13 11 and precritical testing, (w) 12 It is in that conjunction, in that very limited, 13 narrow scope as described by the Commission in Diablo 14 Canyon, that there is no need to rely on electrical 15 systems.
The borated condition of the reactor coolant 16 is not enough if you go to power and go critical.
You 17 have to rely on the reactor protection systems then.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Cassel.
19 MR. CASSEL:
Judge, the kind of position that 20 Mr. Berry expressed would make sense if one were writing 21 on a clean slate and saying, "It's one of several 22 permissible ways to do it," if one were writing on a 23 clean alate and saying, " flow should we set up these 24 regula tions ?
Why don't we write a regulation that says
(,j Sonntag neporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 12818 G/
1 you can conduct precriticality testing as long as the 2
testing itself does not impose an immediate threat.of 3
danger to the public. "
4 Now, that's essentially the kind of regulation 5
which the Staff and Mr. Gallo are attempting to write, 6
but that's not what 50.57(c) and 50.57(a) say.
7 What 57(c) says is once the contention is relevant 8
to the a:livity -- and here we' re talking about a.
9 contention involving electrical systems to be used in' 10 the testing -- then you have to -- then the Board, prior O( )
11 to authorizing that testing, has to make the 57(a) 12 findings on general design criteria, TECH SPECS and 13 other points, and the regulation, the way it's written, 14 is every bit defensible as the regulation Mr. Barry and 15 Mr. Gallo propose to write, because the TECH SPECS 16 themselves, as we understand it, identify those 17 safety-related systems which must be operabic in order-18 to conduct precriticality testing.
19 And there is a procedure, if Applicant is not happy 4
20 with those requirements of the TECH SPEC, by which 21 Applicant could seek, if it chose to do so, an exemption 22 from the applicable TECH SPEC or the applicable general 23 design criteria, and in such a proceeding, it could 24 argue, "we don't really need to have this TECH SPEC Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12819 f)
N_/
1 applicable now because there's no safety issue whatever 2
that arises under it during the testing," but that issue 3
is not one that comes up in 57(c) hearing.
4 That issue must be raised, if Applicant wants to 5
raise that separate issue, by seeking an exemption from 6
the applicable TECH SPEC on the grounds there's no need 7
to apply it at this stage; and, indeed, tha t is 8
precisely what the commission required LILCo to do in 9
the Shoreham case.
10 LILCo attempted to get its low power license, (D
iv) despite its f ailure to meet one of the TECH SPECS, and 11 12 made the argument that it doesn't matter, and the 13 Commission said, "If you want to make that argument, 14 what you have got to do is file an application for 15 exemption f rom that TECH SPEC, but you can' t 16 short-circuit," as the Ehoreham case made cl ar, "the 17 procedure for an exemption from the TECH SPECS by 18 attempting to pretend that no TEC3 SPECS need even be 19 considered in a 57(c) hearing.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAM:
Does that conclude what 21 you had to say?
22 MR. CASSEL:
Yes; except the argument would be 23 the same, but Mr. Guild has directed me, the point at l
(,j 24 issue in Shoreham was not a TECII SPEC, but it wac a Sonntag Reportijn Se rv i_cef_ L t d._
Geneva, Illinola 60134 (312) 232-0262
[-
12820 (v
1 general design criteria, but the point is the same with 2
both.
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
4 Why don't we release Mr. Cassel now to go to his 5
other hearing, and we'll take a short recess before we 6
put Mr. Little on the stand.
7 MR. CASSEL:
Thank you very much, Judge.
8 I appreciate the courtesy by the Board and the 9
other parties accommodating my schedule.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Thank you.
11 (Whereupon, a recess was had, after which 12 the hearing was resumed, as followss) 13 JUDG E G ROSSMAN:
Let's go back on the record.
14 Off the record Mr. Derry has reported back to us on i
15 the status of the investigation by OIA of Mr. McGregor, 16 and apparently the field investigation has been 17 completed, and the preliminary findings are that the 18 charges have not been substantiated, but that that has 19 not been reviewed finally, and so that apparently right 20 as of this moment, no final assurance can be given to 21 fir. McGregor that those are the findings, but it appears 22 as though there will be a final resolution of this very 23 shortly, and that Mr. McGregor will, in all likelihood, I
24 be able to come back and complete his testimony, ppngtag Depo _rtin LServico,_Ltd.
Geneva, Ilflnois 60134 J312) 232-0262
12821 (U
1 MR. BERRY:
I would only note, also, that the 2
Office of Inspection and Audit has indicated that they 3
will notify the Board and Mr. McGregor and his attorney 4
that the fialdwork has been completed and the 5
preliminary conclusions they've reached, and the final 6
report should issue very shortly.
7 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, we would ask that 6
such a letter, unless it discloses other confidential 9
material -- if it simply states that conclusion, that 10 that be made a part of the record simply because there s(/)
11 have been public record references made to this matter x_
12 by Mr. McGregor himself.
13 MR. BERRY:
Well --
~
l 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I don' t know that we' re 15 going to make any determination now as to what ought to 16 go in a public record ---
17 MR. GUILD:
I understand, Judge.
18 J UDG E G ROSSMAM :
-- and that I think Mr.
19 McGregor ought to have some say in tha t, too.
20 He may or may not wish to have anything further on 21 the public record, 22 I thought what we said now is what we really are 23 obligated to say in view of the f act that the char 7es
~_
'(
24 were mentioned on the public record, and so I thought it Sonn, tag _ Repgr t in13e rvi ce, _ f td.
_ _ _ _ _j f
}
Geneva, Illinoic J0134
[
(312) 232-0262 j
~12822
/'
!s 1
=was only f air that we say something 'about the 2
preliminary findings, also.
3 Fine.
You can call your next witness, - Mr. Berry.
4 11R. BERRY:
At this time, Mr. Chairman, the 5
Staff would call to the stand Mr. Willi'am S.
Lit tle.
6 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, there are motions 7
to strike pending with regard to Mr. Little's testimony, 8
and perhaps before taking the stand we can deal with 9
those.
10 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I have a preliminary r%
)
11 matter.
J 1.
Given the information we now have about Mr.
13 McGregor, I believe _that we can probably anticipate that 14 he will be able to return and complete his testimony in 15 a relatively short period of time.
16 subj ect to that, how ever, I'd like to have some 1
17 sort of representation on the record as to whether or 18 not, with that caveat, the Intervenors rest their case 19 in chief.
20 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
The only other matter that 21 we have in mind, Judge -- and I haven't brought this up 22 to either of the parties, but since Mr. Miller wants 23 some statement of our position, I should do it now -- is
,)
24 we have contemplated asking the Board to take a site Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 c_
u 12823
.O
\\J 1
visit, and in the nature of what, in civil practice, 2
would be a j ury view, I guess.
3.
We have in mind asking that the Board view some 4
certain locations in the. plant, 'and we would like.to 5
have those locations be ones where, without advance 6
notice, the Board and representatives of the parties can 7
view the conditions as they are without having them 8
painted, cleaned up, what have you.
9 I haven't formulated with any more precision than 10 that the particulars of this request.
I believe it's (r) 11 generally within the authority of the Board to make such
\\ J 12 a visit.
13 of course, Boards commonly visit the site for 14 general purposes, being briefed on the status of the 15 plant.
16 I don' t have that in mind.
I had in mind more 17 particularly looking at the physical locations that have 18 been material to the f acts within the scope of the 19 Quality control Inspector harassment contention.
20 We would, of course, consider that part of 21 Intervenors' case in chief.
It's not testimonial in 22 character, so I don' t think it need take place now 23 before we close our case, unless the parties insist on 24 it; but I wanted to note that for the record.
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
12824
[U
'T 1
MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, if and when such a 2
request is made, we would like to be heard on it.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
4 Mr. Berry has called his next witness.
5 Mr. Little, would you stand, please, raise your i
6 right hand.
7 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Please be seated.
9.
Mr. Berry.
10 WILLIAM S.
LITTLE
.,Q
'(
)
11 called as a witness by Staff herein, having been first duly 12 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 0
Would you state your name and spell your last name for 16 the record?
17 A
My name is William S.
Littl e, L-I- T-T- L-E.
18 0
Mr. Little, you are the Director ' of the Braidwood 19 Proj ect, are you not?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Mr. Little, do you have.before you a document, five i
22 pages in length, with an attachment, your resume, 23
' entitled "NRC Staff Testimony of William S.
Little
~
/
24 Regarding Bridget Little Rorem, et al., Subcontention Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
=
F~
12825 7y i
)
y/.
1 2"?
2
.A Yes,_I do.
3 Q
And was that document prepared by you or under your-4 direction?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Are there any changes or corrections you would like to 7
make to that?
8 A
There are two minor corrections.
9 On Page 4 in the answer to Question 6, in the last
.10
.line, it starts-with, "Nos. 50-457."
That first 457
(
11 should be 456.
It should read, "Nos. 50-456/84034; 12 50-457/84032."
13 0
Is there another one?
14 A
Yes.
At the top of Page.5, in the answer to Question 8, 15 the first line of the answer, the date, which now reads 16 December 31,1985, should be 1984.
17 Q
Are there any other corrections to your testimony, ~ Mr.
18 Little?
19 A
No.
20 Q
As so corrected, is your testimony complete and 21 accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Do you have also before you, Mr. Little, another O
! (,,,jl 24 document, three pages in length, with, once again, a Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
l-f
.12826
(' ~~\\
~i l
copy of your resume attached to it, entitled "NRC Staff 2
(Summary) Testimony of William S. Little Regarding 3
Bridget Little Rorem, et al., Subcontention 2 (QC 4
Inspector Harassment)" ?
5 A
Yes.
6 0
Was that document also prepared by you or under ycur 7-direction?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Are there any changes or corrections you wish to make to 10 this document?
(O 11 A
No.
12 MR. BERRY:
At this time, Mr. Chairman, the 13 Staff would ask that the two documents reflecting Mr.
14 Little's testimony that we have just identified be 15 received in evidence and bound into the transcript at 16 this point as if read.
17 Now, I understand there is a pending motion to 18 strike with respect to both of these pieces of 19 testimony, and before the testimony is admitted, that we 20 entertain argument on Intervenors' motion to strike.
I assume that you are I
22 holding to your obj ections -here, Mr. Guild?
23 MR. GUILD:
Yes, I am.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
I'd suggest that when we go Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- ( 312 ) 232-0262
12827 V
1 over point by point, that where Mr. Little just recites 2
procedural aspects of handling, that perhaps you might 3
wish to recede from the objections, but when he purports 4
to speak for Mr. Schulz, I think maybe your obj ections 5
are significant.
6 So let us then consider your motions.
7 MR. GUILD:
The first motion goes, indeed, to 8
the testimony to which you just referred, Mr. Ch airman, 9
and that is the testimony in which Mr. Little, in 10 effect, is surrogate for the absent Mr. Schulz, who is, n( )
11 of 'c'ourse, the Inspector who performed the inspection 12 activities on the John Seeders matter.
13 We think, in short, that the Staff has simply 14 avoided putting forward a witness who is the only 15 witness capable of sponsoring this testimony, and that's 16 the witness who performed the inspection activities, a.
17 witness who has direct personal knowledge and formed the 18 judgments and took the actions that are simply recounted 19 by Mr. Little by way of reference to documents and 20 papers.
21 Mr. Little, we don' t believe, has any special 22 competence to offer this testimony, with all due respect 23 to his official position, which is now supervising the 24 inspection activities at the site.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12828 t
1 During much of the time, of course, when the Mr.
See' ers matters were developing, Mr. Little was. not in 2'
d 3
the position he holds today..
4
'We understand that Mr. Little took that position in 5
April of 1985, and so all of the matters before April of
'6 1985 are not even within the-scope of his official 7
responsibilities during that point in time.
8 The short and long is we don' t think - that, as to 9
the recounting of - procedural matters, of. course, little 10 is in dispute there.
~11 If we take the documents,- the records of the 12 Commission,~indeed_ exhibits offered by Intervenors,Las 13 recounting the procedural steps -that were taken, little 14_
- dispute ---little remains in dispute, little depends on i
15 Mr. Little's_ testimony,. but if we are' going to rely on l
16 Mr.. Little's testimony to support the conclusions 17 reached on the Seeders matter, that's another question 18 altogether; and we thinki there it's inappropriate to 19 offer Mr. Little as the witness for the Staff. supporting 20 that position.-
21 with that introduction, we can turn to the
-22
. specifics, Mr. Chairman, but I think fundamentally that 23 reflects.our position.
I (y
24 I'd be happy to conduct some voir dire, if there's i
L 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
. 3.312[_-,232-0262 j
4
12829
~g s)
.1-any lack of clarity. about what the scope of Mr. Little's 2
personal knowledge is on these matters, but I don't 3
think the Staff offers Mr. Little because of his 4
personal knowledge; only because Mr. Schulz is no longer 5
in the employ of the Agency and Mr. Little now is in a 6
position where he would have supervised that inspection 7
activity.
.8 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Do you have any response now1 9
or do you just wish to wait until we go over it point by 10 point?
(
f 11 MR.. BERRY:.
Yes, I'll respond point by po' int.-
~
12 MR. GUILD:
The motion to strike goes to all 13 after Mr. Little identifies himself and states the 14 purpose for his testimony; namely, to Questions and 15 Answers 5, 6, 7 and 8.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, my-r eview of 'this
.i 17 indicates that 5 and 6 really are matters that Mr.
i 18 Little could have reviewed, and they are basically 19 procedural matters.
I don't see anything of substance.
20 If you do see something that is material or of 21 substance that is in dispute, we'll reconsider,. but it 22 looks like 5 and 6 should not be objectionable.
23 MR. GUILD:
.If I may just conduct brief voir
)
,,/
24
- dire on those two points.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12830 t
)
v 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
2 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 3
BY MR. GUILD:
4 0
Mr. Little, do you have your prefiled testimony relating 5
to the seeders. subject before you?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Okay.-
I'm l'ooking at Page 3 of your testimony,. Question 8
and Answer 5.
9 And is it true that that Answer 5 recounts the P
10.
procedural handling of the seeders allegation based on
,(rs 11 your review of documents?
12 A
It's based on ny review of our Allegations Coordinator's 13 files on the allegation.
Also it is based on 14 discussions that I had with Mr. Schulz and Mr. Well.
15
-Q All right.
16 I take it based then, in part, on reviewing'the 17 file, Mr. ' Weil's file; is that right?
18 He's the --
~19 A
Yes.
20 0
-- Allega tions Coordinator ?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
.And then discussions with others.
23 But not on personal involvement in the matters b
(,,/
24 yourself?
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12831 bl V
'l A
Tha t's correct.
2 0
'All right.
3 Now, as to Question and Answer 6, what actions _ did 4
the Staf f take -- and, again, are these based on the 5
same sources'of information -- this answer based on the 6
same sources?
7 A
Yes, on our records, Mr. Weil's files and, again, 8
discussions with Mr. Schulz and Mr. Weil.
9 Q
All'f ght.
i 10 And is it correct, Mr. Little, that you took r\\)
i 11 responsibility for Braidwood matters when you became --
\\_./
12 I'm sorry -- is it Braidwood Proj ect Manager?
Is that.
13 the title, sir ?
14 A
The Director of Braidwood Proj ects.
15 Q
Excuse me.
16
-- Director of Braidwood Proj ects in April of 1985?
17 A
That's when I took over that position.
18 You know, starting in 1982, I was in a position 19 where I was responsible for the electrical inspections 20 done by our specialists in the Division of ~ Reactor 21 Safety.
22 Q
All right.
23 Aside f rom that _ involvement, did you have any
~
. :24 personal responsibility for the Seeders matter before l
l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232- 0262
F 12832 i
in,
\\s 1
you came on in your present position in April of 1985?
2 A
I don't recall.
3 It could-have been in the position that I was in at ~
4 that time that we had asked if -- we had been asked if -
5 we had the inspection resources to put on it.
6 I don't recall that occurring, but it could have 7
happened.
8 0
okay.
9 You have no recollection of having personal 10 involvement before your April,
'85, assignment?
'll -
A No.
12 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, on that basis, 13 while we agree that procedural matters are not in 14 contest, we just don't believe it's proper for the Staff 15 to sponsor a witness whose testimony is going to be 16 relied upon to recount those when his only source of 17 information is review of documents and conversations 18 with persons who'either have not testified, in the case 19 of Mr. Schulz, who have personal knowledge, or who did 20 testify, in the case of Mr. Weil, but who either --
21 whose testimony could even stand on its own footing on 22 these subj ects or weren' t examined on these subj ects.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, to which answer does
)
24 that obj ection go to?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12833 v'
1 MR. GUILD:
To both 5 and 6, Mr. Chairman, to 2
the extent that, as Mr. Li ttl e, in response to my 3
questions, states that his testimony is based on a 4
review of documents or on conversations with Mr. Schulz 5
or Mr. Weil.
~
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Guild, do you see 7
anything in Answers '5 or 6 which is in dispute?
8 MR. GUILD:
Well, I'coul3 go line by line.
9 If you choose, I'll do tha t.
10 J UDG E G ROSS HAN :
Well, I would like you to not (O) 11 read us those lines but look through the answers.
%J 12 MR. GUILD:
Yes, I will.
13 For example, the lash line on Answer 5, "Mr.
14 Seeders stated" -- the last ' sentence, "Mr.
Seeders 15 stated in his letter that he had not compromised the 16 quality of his work because of this alleged harassment 17 and intimida tion ~. "
18 I'm not certain that this is, indeed, a fair 19 conclusion of that from reading that letter; but, in any 20 event, the letter speaks for itself and --
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
W ell ~, yes.
22 But I don' t see that your obj ection on lack of 23 personal knowledge would go to that particular item.
((
24 MR. GUILD:
You are right, sir.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'I i
12834 V
As far as it being 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 conclusory and speculative,-you can examine the> witness 3.
On that.
4 So we' re going to overrule your obj ection. on that 5
score.
i 6
MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
.7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So I don't see anything in 5 8'
that really would. sustain an obj ection, and we' re going.
'9 to overrule-it with regard to 5.
}
10~
Now, look at 6.
(
11 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir, j
12 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
I'm not' sure that there is 13 any dispute as to the facts there, _either; but certainly i
l 14 consider the second sentence --
![
15 MR. GUILD:
Yes, yes.
t 16 JUDGE G ROSSMAN:
-- there.
t l-17 MR. GUILD:
To-the extent he's recounting 18
'what Mr. Weil did or what the -basis was for OIs action, f.
19 Mr. Little simply is not competent' to of fer that 20 testimony.
That may be a matter to dispute.
I 21.
Certainly the propriety-of what OI did -or didn't l
22 do, whether.or not wrongdoing was alleged, are matters t
l 23 of some significance, and we don't believe Mr. Little 24 can speak to those matters.
It's hearsay.
l.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 r
(312) '232-0262
12835 A
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I think that;second 2
sentence really is an indication that that was the 3
reason given for the investigation not being warranted.
4 I don' t believe that it's offered to " prove that no 5
wrongdoing was alleged by Mr. Seeders.
6 Is that correct,' Mr. Berry ?
7 MR. BERRY:
Yes, it is true, Mr. Chairman.
8 I mean, Question 6 itself states, "What action did 9
the Staff take," and the answer goes on to relate, you 10 know, what happened or what actions were taken.
I mean, 1
s 11 it's taken in response to information that was made 4
12 available to the Staff.
13 It's not offered to prove the truth or the falsity 14 of the underlying facts.
I think that's clear.
15 Mr. Little is the Director of the Braidwood 16 Proj ect, senior official in the Region III offices.
17 Certainly he has. access to the official records and 18 documents of the Region, you know, that recount and 19 document actions and events and circumstances, you know, 20 which the Agency has knowledge of.
21 I think there's no question that he's competent to 22 come forward and relate, you know, what those documents 23 say, what they indicate the Staff has done; and the only s,)
24 purpose of this testimony in Answer 6 is to state what I
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
12836 s
%)
1 actions the Staff took with respect to that allegation.
2 JUDG E G ROSS MAN :
Okay.
3 We'll accept the second sentence as only indicating 4
the reason given for not conducting the investigation, 5
and we'll overrule the objections to 6 and we'll 6
adnitted Answer 6.
7 With regard to --
8 MR. GUILD:.
All right, sir.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- 7, we'll accept the first 10 sentence of Answer 7, and we'll sustain the obj ection to (m) 11 the rest of Answer 7, which is all based on what Mr.
12 Schulz is the only one in a position to testify to.
13 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, may I be heard 14 briefly --
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
-Sure.
16 MR. BERRY:
-- regarding that?
17 I'd ask the Board to reconsider.
18 The question is, "What were the inspection 19 results?"
20 Mr. Little has reviewed the Inspection Report.
The 21 Inspection Report exists, and its been in existence 22 since December 31, 1984.
23 Mr. Little has read the report and is relating what 24 that report reflects.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
12837
- h(-~y t
1 I'm not of fering it and not relating that it's true 2
or not, that the Inspectors spoke truthfully or candidly 3
or Mr. Seeders reached the correct conclusions based on 4
the information available to him, but he did reach a 5
conclusion, and based on that actions were taken.
l 6
Now, that leads into Question 8, and what 7
additional action has Staff taken regarding these 8
allegations based on what was reported in that 9
Inspection -Report forms part of the basis of the 10 subsequent actions taken-by the Staff.
O
( )
11 I would ask that the Board admit that testimony for 12 that limited purpose, t
i 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I don't see that 14 there's any probative value to the answer with the i
15 limitations that you've given, Mr. Berry.
16 To me it seems like it's only a back-door way of 17 getting in Mr. Schulz' conclusions; and Mr. Schulz is
_18 available for subpoena.
19 If that's of any importance here, we think Mr.
20 Schulz ought to be here to testify and to undergo 21 examination on these conclusions.
-22 So I think we'll stick with the ruling that caly i
23 the first sentence of Answer 7 is admitted.
24 Now, let's go on to the next one.
i f
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
1 b
12838
/
'T r
L.J l
MR. GUILD:
Again, Mr. Chairman, with the 2
understanding -- with respect to Answer 8, with the 3
understanding that this is simply recounting a 4
procedural history that has come to Mr. Little by way of 5-the same source as the other recountings of the 6
procedural history and is not offered to prove the truth 7
of the matters that are asserted, other than that 8
procedural history, we will recede f rom our obj ections 9
if, indeed, that is an accurate reflection of the 10 Staff's position here.
p
)
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now, of course, that last (O
12 sentence in Paragraph 8 is a conclusion by the witness 13 with regard to Staff, and I understand, Mr. Guild, you 14 are not accepting that, but certainly the witness is 15 here available for cross examination.
16 So we'll admit Answer 8 under the understandings of 17 what has been expressed by Staff in regard to the last 18 answer and by Mr. Guild with regard to this.
19 Okay.
Mr. Berry, did you have any further 20 questions to pose to the witness?
21 MR. BERRY:
No, I have none.
22 I would ask, you know, with the modifications 23 stated by the Board, that NRC Staf f Testimony of William i
1
(,j 24 S.
Little Regarding Bridget Little Rorem, et al.,
Sonntaq Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t J
r 12839 i
i
~
l Subcontention 2 be received in. evidence and bound in the 2
transcript at this point at this time.
3-JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
This, then, will be.
i li received to the extent already indicated by the Board 5
and will be set forth in the transcript as though stated f
i 6
here:a't the hearing.
A' 7
8' 8
9 10 j
11 12-s f
13 7
l 14 r
15 16 17 18.
i l
19 20 l
21 i
l 22-i, 3
23 i
24 i
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
12840
,- 3 (V
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild.
2 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
3 Now, there's a second piece of testimony that also 4
is the subj ect of a motion to strike.
5 This is what's been described as the summary 6
testimony of Mr. ' Little.
7 Does the Board have that available to it as well?
8 It's the testimony of three pages.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, do you.wish. to voir l
10 dire on this, Mr. Guild, or do you wish to just conduct 7%.
- ( )
11 your cross examina tion? -
12 I think perhaps it would be easier to indicate on 13
.the record that your objections are-that the testimony 14 is conclusory, speculative and lacks personal knowledge, 15 and that we ought to perhaps admit the testimony subject 16 to those objections and just have you conduct your 17 regular cross examination.
18 MR. GUILD:
Well, sir, I would ask the Board 19 to consider the motion because, frankly, the decision as 20 to whether there should be any cross examination at all 21 is dependent' on the Board's ruling on our motion to 22 strike the testimony, of course.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, why don' t you conduct s_,f 24.
your.voir dire, then.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12841-b')
1 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. GUILD:
3 0
Mr. Little, as you stated a moment ago, you took on the 4
position you.now hold in April of 1985?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
And you didn' t personally conduct any of the inspection 7
activities that are the subject of your summary 8
testimony, did you?
9 A
I did not conduct any inspections myself.
10 I was responsible for those inspections conducted
("%
(
)
11 by 'the Resident Inspectors starting in April of '85 12 until this time.
13 I was also responsible for the inspections that 14 were conducted by our electrical-inspections specialists 15 starting in 1982 on through the end of 1984.
16 0
All. right, 17 You relied on.the inspections conducted by Messrs.
18 Neisler and Mendez. with regard to the allegations by the 19 24 or so Comstock QC Inspectors; is that correct?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
And the inspection conducted by Mr..Schapker with 22 respect to Mr. Puckett's allegations?
23 A
I relied on that, yes.
p(,)
24 Q
Now, do I recall correctly from your deposition Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (7
(312) 232-0262
12842
}
q,.?
1 testimony that although you started in your position, I 2
believe, April 1, 1985, that you had not seen Mr.
3 McGregor or Mr. Schulz' March 29, 1985, memorandum 4
recounting the concerns of the 24 -- strike that --
5 recounting the concerns of the Comstock Inspectors 6
expressed to them on March 29th until Intervenors filed 7
our amended quality assurance contentian?
8 A
I had not seen their memos.
I had been briefed on what 9
had occurred.
10 0
All right, sir.
(,-)
11 But you were not a recipient of the memo in the v
12-April, 1985, time frame?
13 It was much.thereaf ter, long thereafter, before you 14 actually saw that memorandum?
15-A That's correct.
16 Also, like I say, both Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz 17 had told me what had occurred.
18 Q
All right, sir.
19 So your testimony, when you make the statement in, 20 say, Question and Answer 6, describing the Staf f's 21 action, that is the action of other Staff persons as you 22 understand it through reading reports and having 23 conversations with those other Staff persons?
l 24 A
No.
It really takes into account everything I know Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12843
[
i (J
l about Braidwood and the Comstock activities; and, again, 2
you know, there's no way I can disassociate in my mind 3
those things that I knew starting in 1982.
4 0
Well, sir, I don't want to go back too far here now.
5 In making your testimony at Page 2, Question and 6
Answer 6, with regard to the concerns of the Comstock 7
Quality Control Inspectors that were brought to the 8
Agency's attention beginning March 29, 1985, you relied 9
on what other persons with the Staff have looked into, 10 as you used the term, not your own actions; isn't that f~)
(
)
11 appa ren t, Mr. Little ?
%J 12 A
The incidents described in the Intervenors' harassment 13 contention, primarily relying on those inspections done 14 by Mr. Neisler and Mr. Mendez, Mr. Schapker, In the 15 Worley Puckett area, Mr. Kevin Ward, Mr. Cordell 16 Williams, who interviewed Mr. Puckett and were involved 17 in making a decision as what to do about Mr. Puckett's 18 allegations.
19 They worked for me at that time.
20 0
Okay.
21 And on the seeders matter, that's the subj ect of 22.
the other piece of testimony you just talked about?
23 A
Right.
7~
(
\\
(,)
24 Q
And when you say, in Answer 6, "The Staff looked into Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12844
, - ~.
Iv]
1 each," et cetera,.you are referring to the actions' of 2
those gentlemen as recounted to you?
3
'A Yes.
4 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, on that basis, it
.5 seems clear to me' that, first, Mr. Little, in sta ting 6
the purpose for his testimony, states that he is 7
communicating Staf f's position with respect to these 8
subj ects.-
9 Now, we believe properly that that 16 a function of 10 coun sel.
Counsel takes the facts and takes the j'~s
~
( }
11 testimony and takes the record and advocates from that 12 record and takes a legal position for the NRC Staff and 13 has done so in this proceeding.-
14 But to the extent that a witness is sworn and put 15 on the witness stand and asked to do that, he's required 16 to do that on -the basis of a demonstrated foundation for 17
.such testimony, competence to speak to those issues.
l 18 Now, I believe here Mr. Little can ably do as he 19
.has said he is doing, and that is, recount what others 20 have told him, recount what he knows in his supervisory 21 position, recount what he's read-in reading reports.
22 That testimony in communicating the staf f's
{
-23 position, however, has no probative value; has no 24 probative value on which this Board is entitled to rely Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
{_
(312) 232-0262
n 12845 gg
(
)
%d.
1 in reaching conclusions on the facts in dispute.
2 Staff's position is clear, it is stated by counsel, 3
it is stated in the-pleadings in this case and will be 4.
stated on brief or findings.
5 How eve r, it's simply inappropriate.for Staf f to, in 6
fact, try to buttress their case by offering a summary 07 witness, whose ability to speak from personal knowledge 8
is limited, as Mr. Little has demonstrated in response 9
to my voir dire questions.
10 J UDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
/(j 11 Mr. Guild, I don't agree with you that counsel can 12 or ought' to be required to have only itself speak to 13 what the official position is of the NRC.
1:
14' I think it is appropriate to-have Mr, Little or i
15 someone else from the technical staf f state what ' the l
16 of ficial. position is, and we accept this testimony as i
17 being just that; that is, the supplemental testimony _ ac 18 being a statement of the Staff's official position.
f 19 We do not understand that, because it's being.
I 20 offered by Mr. Little, that Mr. Little's opinion is I
21
-being used to buttress Staff's case.
22 I think, from your voir dire, we have confirmed who 23 it is that conducted the inspections and reached the 24 conclusions, and it's clear that these were not Mr.
f t
l
__Sonntag ' Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12846 7~.
\\
1 Little's investigations or inspections and conclusions, 2
other than in some-of - the later ones he reviewed and 3
approved these.
4 It really is not a matter of any weight to further 5
discuss it.
6 We'll accept this as the official position of the 7
NRC.
8 To the extent that anything in Mr. Little's 9
testimony could be used to back door the only Inspector 10 who we haven' t heard, who is available to be heard, (h
( }
11 we're not going to accept anything like that; and.to the' 12 extent that Mr. Schulz' opinions or positions or 13 conclusions are material to the case, the parties are 14 still welcome to subpoena Mr. Schulz, whoever wants to 15 take the chance.
16 So the obj ection is overruled and we'll accept the 17 supplemental testimony.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
-0262-..
(312) 232
12847
-s Aj l
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You may cross-examine, Mr.
2 Guild.
3 MR.. GUILD:
I 'believe it's Mr. Miller's turn.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's correct.
5 Mr. Miller.
6 HM R. MILL ER:
I have no questions, Mr.
7 Little -- I beg your pardon -- Mr. Chairman.
8 MR. GUILD:
I guess it's my turn next.
9.
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Ye s.
10 CROSS EXAMINATION b')
11 BY MR. GUILD:
g%/
12 Q
Mr. Li ttl e, if you would turn in your testimony, 13 regarding the Seeders matter, to Page 5; that is, your 14 last question and answer, Answer 8.
15 After you recount Mr. Seeders did not respond to 16 the Staff's requests for contact; af ter. it came to the 17 Staf f's attention that Mr. Seeders had given affidavits
-18 in the Puckett DOL case where he had made reference to 19 f alsification of documents, you then conclude, quote, 20
" Based upon the information now available to it, the 21 Staff has no basis upon which to concir:de that Mr.
22 Seeders failed to identify discrepancies because of 23 harassment or intimidation from L.
K.
C. supe rvisory p
k 24 personnel" i
I L
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
+
Geneva, Illinois 60134
-(312) 232-0262
1 l
12848-fx 1
Now, I take it that when you used the ' word "now,"'
2' that referred to a point in time when you prepared your 3
testimony ?
4 A
That's right.
-5 Q
All right.
6 And you prepared your. testimony -- time flies 7'
now -- but in the April, 1986 --
8 A
Approximately.
9 0
-- time frame?
10 All right, sir.
(
11 Is that your testimony today as you sit here?
12 A
Yes.
I 13 MR. GUILD:
I have no further questions.
14 MR. BERRY:
I have no questions, i
i 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
16 W ell, I have one question that doesn't go into your 17 testimony, but I have a question regarding some 18 information that was not supplied to the Board as 19 Board's notification af ter it was determined by the 20 Allegations Board that the Board would be notified about l
21 that information.
t l
22 BOARD EXAMINATIN 23 BY JUDG E G ROSSMAN:
I 24 Q
Can you tell me why, when the Allegations Board decided
(
s Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12849
.,- 3 (Q)~
l Lin early June to. turn certain information over to the 2
Board, that we d!.dn' t receive that information for 3
another six weeks, Mr. Little?
4 MR. BERRY:
Does the witness --
1 5
. JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I believe that was the 6
information concerning Mr. Martin, who was on the stand,
'7 and' we received the information only after he left the 8
stand -- I believe the day after -- even though that was 9
six weeks after the Allegations Board had decided that 10 the information would be turned over to us.
7 11 A
As I recall, ~ we were planning on making the (j
212 notification, and in-doing that, we discussed that with
-13 our lawyers.
I had several conversations in the -. I 14 think the one that I recall was with Mr. Treby, and we 15 discussed it.
16 He indicated that we needed to make sure that the 17 allegation was both material and relevant; and I think 18 it was a joint conclusion at-that point in time that, 19 until we had completed our inspection -into his 20 allegation, we really couldn' t say, and that's my 21 recollection as to why we then held up on making the 22 Board notification.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No further questions?
24 MR. GUILD:
None.
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvi ce, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
(
(312) 232-0262
12850
,m l
I Q.J l
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
W ell, if all the witnesses 2
go as quickly as this, we ought to be done very soon.
3 Thank you f or testifying, Mr. Little.
You are 4
excused.
5 (Witness excused.)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
We're adjourned, 7
then, until 2:00 o' clock on Wednesday.
8 MR. MILLER:
Yes, your Honor.
9 I was wondering whether it would be appropriate now 10 to set a resumption of the hearing after the week of the l
11 22nd?
,LJ 12 I'd suggest either Tuesday, the 30th, or Wednesday, 13 October 1st.
14 That would be, with the time off next week, 15 approximately a two-week break in the hearing in 16 accordance with the Board's ruling of yesterday.
17 JUDGE GROSSM AN:
October 1st is a Wednesday?
18 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
19 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I haven't~ had a 20 chance to review the calendar or to consult specifically 21 with the people I'm going to be relying on in order to 22 make that preparation.
23 I would ask the privilege of being able to make I,_ )\\
(_,
24 that consultation before we seal in stone the date on Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12851 f~~,
'l which we are to resume.
2 JUDG E G ROSSMAN:
Well, that's fine.
3 It seems to me as though.that covers two weeks, and 4
that's fine, so we'll consider it further next week, 5
just to see that there are no conflicts.
j 6
MR. GUILD:
October 1st is a Wednesday.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And 'we can point out, Mr.
8 Gu'ild, that we didn' t assure you -you would have a full 9
two weeks, so it's possible that you may -get even less, i -
once we get into ' he nitty-gritty of this.
10 t
("j\\
11 Okay.
Now we're finally adjourned.
We'll allow q
12 the Reporter to pack up and leave.
13 (WHER EU PON, the hearing of the 14 above-entitled matter was continued to 15 the 17th day of September, 19 86, at the 16 hour1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> of 2:00 P. M.)
i 17 18 19 20 21
- 22 23 24 f'
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262