ML20214M430
| ML20214M430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1799 OL, NUDOCS 8612030358 | |
| Download: ML20214M430 (111) | |
Text
0%GWAL l (
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
(
s LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES:
17782 - 17891 DATE:
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1986
. in
/(dk O
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Oficial Reporters 444 North Capitol Street a3iac ; _
.tt, 1 FDR N:;.
00 0 s Washington. D.C. 20001 I
P D!-
(202) 347-3700 N ATIONWIDE COVERAGE
3 17782 O
1 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 6
In the Matter of:
7
- Docke t No. - 5 0-4 56 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457 8
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 9
and 2)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 10 11 Page: 17,782 - 17,891 12 United States District Court House
~
13 Courtroom 1743 Chicago, Illinois 60604 14 Friday, November 21, 1986 15 l
16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened j
17 at 8:00 A. M.
I 18 i
BEFORE:
i 19 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[
21 Washington, D. C.
22 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
23 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D. C.
24 t
JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, i
25 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board g
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 I
17783
\\
v 1
Washington, D. C.
2 APPEARANCES:
3 On behalf of the Applicant:
4 4
MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
PHILIP P.
STEPTOE, III, ESQ.
5 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza
-6 Chicago, Illinois 60602 7
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 8
Commission Staff:
9 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
10 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road 11 Bethesda, Maryland 20014 i
12 On behalf of the Intervenor:
13 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
14 On behalf of Leonard G. McGregor:
15 JAMES A. GEOCARIS, ESQ.
Jenner & Block 16 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 s_
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
17784 O
1 TESTIMONY OF 2
RONALD NELSON GARDNER 3
4 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 4 BY MR. GUILD 17790 5
TESTIMONY OF' 6
LEONARD GEORGE MC GREGOR 8
E 7
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) i BY MR. MILLER:
17832 8
CROSS EXAMINATION 9
BY MR. BERRY:
17863 10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD:
17867
]
11 13 14
.i j
15 16 j
17
-18 19 i
20 l
21
[
22 23 24 25 l
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262 u
17785 g
(
\\_
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 94th day of hearing.
3 We had some matters still dangling.
I don't know 4
if they are resolved -- well, at least one matter, and 5
that is whether the parties have reached any stipulation 6
as to whether Mr. Keppler would have said the same thing 7
if he were called at hearing, and if there is any 8
agreement, fine.
If not, we'll just have to resolve the 9
problem.
10 Mr. Steptoe.
11 MR. STEPTOE:
Well, Judge Grossman, I haven't (G) 12 conferred with the other parties, and I really don't x_/
13 know what Mr. Keppler would say if he were here, but we 14 are receding from our objection as to the admission --
15 the use of Mr. Keppler's deposition comment as evidence.
16 I point out that it is only one piece of evidence, 17 and there is other evidence on the same points.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
19 And you may make your argument that perhaps Mr.
20 Keppler overstated the position for perhaps self-serving 21 reasons.
22 I'm just saying that I don't want to force you 23 into -- and we're not forcing you into -- accepting Mr.
24 Keppler's position; that you certainly reserve whatever
,s'
(_)T 25 arguments you wish to make with regard to the statement.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17786 i
/~N U
1 So we'll admit that statement, since you have 2
receded from your objection, and it's just, as you say, 3-one piece of evidence in that particular area.
4 Fine.
Was there something else?
5 I'm a little hazy.
I thought we had some other 6
matter that was subject to --
7 MR. STEPTOE:
I think the matter you are 4
8 thinking of is Mr. Guild asked me to stipulate as to 9
something in connection with the Orlov deposition --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, yes.
11 MR. STEPTOE:
-- and I will not stipulate as 12 to that point.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
14 Is Mr. Orlov prepared to respond to that question 1
15 some time this morning, or haven't you consulted him i
16 overnight after the original --
17 MR. STEPTOE:
Well, I have talked with him 18 about it.
i 19 I'm not sure that I will choose to put him on the 1
i 20 stand, Judge Grossman.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I think Mr. Guild requested 22 that he be asked one question.
23 I don't want to do it right now, until you've had a 24 chance to confer with Mr. Orlov, but I think we would i
25 agree to have him respond to a further question by Mr.
f Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ -, - - _ - - -. -.. _ - - - - - _ -._ -,. b
17787 1
Guild.
2 Is there any objection to that?
3 MR. STEPTOE:
Yes, yes.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay.
5 MR. STEPTOE:
I mean, Mr. Gardner's on the 6
stand.
7 If Mr. Guild thinks that there's an admission in l
8 the Orlov deposition that he can get in, he's free to 9
find that and try and put it in that way.
10 I don't want to put Mr. Orlov up.
4 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay.
[J) 12 MR. GUILD:
I understand Edison doesn't want
\\
13 to put him up, Mr. Chairman, but we certainly reserve 14 the right, as I presume any party has, to call a witness 3
I 15 who has knowledge that's relevant.
l 16 I will, of course, search out the relevant passage 17 in the deposition and see if I can do it that way; but I l
18 reserve the right to recall Mr. Orlov and ask him that 19 question.
20 MR. STEPTOE:
I don't think he can reserve 21 that right at this point.
22 He had Mr. Orlov listed as one of his witnesses.
23 He determined that he did not want to call him.
l 24 If he was planning to do that, he should have done 25 that before this.
I Sonntaa Reporting Service. L td.
,1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17788
,a k
l xy 1
MR. GUILD:
Well, that's a silly position, 2
Mr. Chairman.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, hold on, hold on, Mr.
4 Guild.
Let's not lose our cool over this.
5 You don't have the right to recall him without 6
leave of the Board --
7 MR. GUILD:
Well, Mr. --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- so you are not reserving 9
a right that you had.
10 The question is whether, first of all, we would 11 grant that right if there's any point in dispute, but, (n) 12 secondly, what you do have the right to do is to of fer
%J 13 an admission.
14 What is Mr. Orlov's position again, Mr. Guild?
15 MR. GUILD:
In this regard, I understood he 16 was the Assistant Director of BCAP.
17 Let's be absolutely clear about this.
The Staff 18 puts in rebuttal testimony after Orlov leaves the stand.
19 Do I not have a right to recall Mr. Orlov under 20 those circumstances?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
22 MR. GUILD:
It seems to me a silly position 23 to suggest that I somehow are --
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, Mr. Guild.
)
25 Thank you for the characterization, but --
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17789 f%
t i
g 1
MR. GUILD:
I'm not referring to the Chair.
2 I'm referring to counsel.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, okay.
4 If this is a point of rebuttal rather than a matter 5
that had been brought up before, if it is rebuttal of 6
something that a Staf f witness said, that's true, we 7
would not deny Mr. Guild the right to bring in his 8
rebuttal testimony.
9 It's another story if it had not been brought up 10 now but was something that Mr. Guild had neglected to 1
11 bring up in his case in chief and was now claiming to 12 reserve a right.
He wouldn't have.that right.
He would 13 need leave of the Board.
14 But to rebut something that is being brought up now 15 by the Staf f witness, certainly Mr. Guild has a right to 16 rebut that.
17 I'm just going to suggest that if Mr. Orlov has 18 stated the matter clearly in his deposition, Mr. Guild i
19 can simply -- again, let me ask, what is Mr. Orlov's 20 position?
Who is he employed with now?
21 MR. STEPTOE:
He's a consultant employed by j
22 BCAP -- I'm sorry -- by Commonwealth Edison Company, so 1
23 there's no problem on that score.
)
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay, okay.
\\
25 So he could achieve it by offering the deposition i
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17790
,.O 1
portion as an admission, in which case you would have 2
the right, Mr. Steptoe, to clarify the matter further 3
and call Mr. Orlov and respond to your questions on 4
that.
5 So, you know, procedurally I think it's pretty well 6
established what the parties' rights are in that regard, 7
and we don't have any ruling to make at this point, so 8
we won't prolong it.
9 With that, we'll recall Mr. Gardner to the stand.
1 10 Mr. Gardner, you remain under oath.
11 There are, I take it, no further preliminary l (
}
12 matters, and we 'll let Mr. Guild proceed with the cross v
13 examination.
14 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 Good morning, Mr. Gardner.
16 THE WITNESS:
Good morning.
17 CROSS EXAMINATION 18 (Continued) 19 BY MR. GUILD 20 Q
Now, I'm looking at what's been marked and received, in 21 part, as Staff Exhibit 25; that is, the final NRC report 22 on BCAP.
It bears a transmittal date of June 9, 1986.
23 You left the site a year before, June, 1985; 24 correct?
25 A
Yes, sir.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17791 O's /
1 Q
The BCAP final report was published in November of 1985?
2 A
That's correct.
3 0
The NRC, from the face of the transmittal letter, 4
conducted inspections in January and February and March 5
of 1986; correct?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 0
All right, sir.
8 But the report didn't get published until June of 9
1986?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
Now, when did you complete your work with respect to s
12 this report, Mr. Gardner, your inspection activities?
i 13 Which of those dates reflect your inspections, if 14 any?
15 A
I believe the January dates reflect mine.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 And the subsequent dates, the February and March 18 dates, are those of others involved in this report?
19 A
I believe so.
20 0
Okay.
21 Messrs. Mendez and Falevits?
22 A
Correct.
23 0
All right.
24 Now, of course, the Intervenors had pending, during (O) 25 January, February and March of 1986, an amended quality Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17792
.h DL /
1 assurance contention that, among other issues, called 2
into question three aspects involving the BCAP program.
3 Those were essentially the three items of non-compliance 4
that you mentioned in your testimony.
5 They were subparts of the contention; correct?
6 A
I remember that they were --
t Q
All right, sir.
8 A
-- they were parts of it.
9 That may be exactly what I said.
I don't remember 10 completely.
11 Q
You recall that I took your deposition -- it may have I) 12 been in March.
I'm a little --
D 13 A
The second deposition was in March.
14 Q
All right, sir.
15
-- March of 1986, and at that time, in substance, 16 you told me that the BCAP final report was still 17 incomplete pending work by others than yourself 18 necessary to complete that report?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
All right.
21 Well, events then transpired.
The Commission --
22 Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- undertook sua sponte a 23 review of the admission of the amended quality assurance l
24 contention, including the BCAP subparts, and issued a
'Y) 25 decision dismissing all of those subparts, including the Sonntaa Reoortino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
~
(312) 232-0262
17793 0)
V 1
aspects that related to BCAP.
2 Are you aware of that?
3 A
I believe so, yes.
4 Q
All right.
5 When we embarked upon this hearing -- it commenced 6
the 6th of May -- there was still no final BCAP report 7
as of that date.
8 We now understand that in late May, Applicant began 9
its process of anticipating the preparation of a 10 rebuttal case.
They retained certain witnesses, 11 prospective witnesses; began the process of assembling b
12 the data from BCAP to be used as measures of inspector l
13 performance; and then thereafter, and only thereafter, 14 the NRC published their final BCAP report in June of 15 1986.
16 That's the sequence of events, isn't it, as you 17 understand?
18 A
I'm af raid I'm not aware of all those intermediary 19 events.
20 Q
All right, sir.
21 Well, do you know whether or not the publication of 22 the final NRC BCAP report was in light of the f act that l
23 BCAP again was anticipated to be an issue in this l
24 proceeding by way of Applicant's rebuttal case?
25 A
Well, I believe that the NRC, as early as 1985, planned l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
17794
(%
1 on issuing the final BCAP report.
2 It's just that it took until June 9, 1986, for that 3
report to be issued.
4 0
Well, that's certainly the timing, and I don't at all 5
quarrel with the fact that there was initially a plan to 6
issue a final BCAP report.
7 It's just that that final report was in its 8
first -- as planned in March -- in March of 1986, when 9
you were deposed, that report was to be prepared and 10 completed in anticipation of addressing the BCAP issues 11 in this proceeding?
O 12 A
I don't believe there was a correlation between my 13 wanting to prepare a final BCAP report and meeting the 14 needs of this procer..'.ing.
15 I actually fe), and was told, that a final BCAP 16 report was required as soon as we got the Licensee's 17 final report, which ve subsequently -- which we received 18 in November, 1985.
19 Q
All right, sir.
20 But I don't mean to impute the motives to you, Mr.
21 Gardner.
You are an important cog, but a cog in the 22 wheel, shall we say.
23 Others made decisions -- I assume regional 24 management -- about assignment of resources, timing, and
(
i
(,S) 25 ultimately the total content of what would be the report Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17795 (w
1 on BCAP; correct?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
All right, sir.
4 Are you aware of whether the considerations that I 5
suggest -- that is, the anticipation that the BCAP would 6
again be a part of this proceeding by way of Applicant's 7
rebuttal case responding to Intervenors' harassment 8
contention -- whether those considerations entered into 9
the judgment of NRC management or others than yourself 10 in the timing of what is now 8603, the June BCAP report?
11 A
No, sir, I'm not aware of that.
[ h 12 0
Let me show you a couple documents.
\\_ /
13 The first is Intervenors' Exhibit 161 in evidence.
14 It's a Sargent & Lundy document.
It's Calculation No.
15 19.3.1, Ref 5.
It's a portion of it.
It's entitled 16
" Design Procedures and Assumptions for the Evaluation 17 and Classification of Discrepancies, Concerns and 18 Observations Identified in Braidwood Construction 19 Assessment Program, BCAP."
It's Intervenors' 161.
20 (Indicating.)
21 And first of all, can you familiarize yourself with 22 that document.
23 MR. BERRY :
Mr. Chairman, I would just note 24 that the Board struck that portion of Mr. Gardner's f
()
25 testimony relating to calculations.
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
T 17796
(N
\\v) i 1
It seems to me that Mr. Guild is getting ready to 2
embark upon a series of questions relating to this 3
subject, and I would believe that it would not be very 4
fruitful to do so, especially in light of the fact of 5
the witness' own testimony that he was not an expert on 6
structural calculations and the Board 's subsequent, you 7
know, striking of his testimony on that score.
8 MR. GUILD:
I'm mindful of the Board 's ruling, 9
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Berry's comments, and this is more 10 in the nature of a foundation question, but I do believe 11 the record is not crystal clear on what the extent and (m
12 limits of Mr. Gardner's knowledge is on this matter.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We 'll keep that in mind, 14 too, Mr. Berry, and when we have questions that you 15 think are appropriate for objection, please raise them, 16 and we'll be attuned to what you have said.
17 MR. BERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 A
I remember at one time asking the BCAP Task Force to 19 produce the Sargent & Lundy procedure, if any, that they 20 were using in their evaluation of BCAP discrepancies --
21 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
22 A
(Continuing.)
-- and I remember at one point they did 23 produce that.
24 I reviewed it, not in great detail.
I read it, I
()
25 believe, and that's about all I remember.
Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17797 es 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q
Well, was the document I've shown you it that you 3
remember?
4 A
I don't recall, I'm afraid.
5 0
Okay.
6 A
It could have been.
7 Q
It could have been, but you just don't recall?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
All r ight.
10 Now, the record reflects that this is the 11 structural depar tment's procedure, if you will.
It's a
(
12 part of a calculation, but it is, indeed, a procedure.
13 It's a document that was prepared under Mr.
14 Kostal's people, not necessarily by him or under his 15 direction, but his area of responsibility, the 16 structural department.
17 Now, does that refresh your recollection as to 18 whether you have seen this document before?
19 A
No, sir.
20 Q
All right.
21 Is there any NRC Inspection Report, either NRC 22 Staff Exhibit 25 or other report, where you evaluate 23 this document or the Sargent & Lundy procedure that you 24 referred to?
25 A
Me personally?
Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17798 m
1 0
Yes.
2 A
No.
3 0
All right.
4 I'm going to show you Intervenors' Exhibit 175.
5 It's a rather weighty document -- lengthy, shall we say.
6 It also is a Sargent & Lundy document.
7 (Indicating.)
8 Without saying more, let me ask you if you could 9
review that briefly and determine whether or not you 10 have familiarized yourself with that document before 11 now.
(
12 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, counsel has brought 13 a point to my attention.
14 The document -- the copy I showed him is the 15 complete document.
I put in a version that was a 16 portion of that.
17 The number that has -- that's the complete document 18 is --
19 JUDGE COLE:
It's Applicant's Exhibit 164.
20 MR. GUILD:
-- Applicant's 164.
21 Indeed, Applicant's 164 is what I have shown the 22 witness.
I read the wrong number.
23 Thank you.
24 A
I'm afraid I don't recall seeing that one, either.
(
)'
25 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17799 m
1 Q
All right, sir.
2 The version that's Applicant's 164, which is what I 3
have just shown you, includes, for each of the 4
electrical populations, a table -- one or more tables, 5
in f act -- first summarizing the discrepancy evaluations 6
by attribute -- that is, showing the numbers of 7
inspection points, observations for those -- that 8
attribute based on those number of inspection points; 9
evaluations actually performed by Sargent & Lundy; 10 categories of discrepancy -- that is, X, Y or Z --
11 depending on the significance; the capacity reduction IN))
12 value, the R value, for the discrepancy; and a listing 13 of whether any were design significant -- of course, 14 zeroes in that column for each of the populations -- a 15 use of an analytical screening tool to screen for trends 16 using a 1-percent screening for notable -- that is, the 17 Z category discrepancies -- and a 10 percent --
18 1-percent screening for notable discrepancies; a screen 19 of objective and subjective attributes, objective using 20 a 10-percent screen and subjective using a 5-percent 21 screen.
22 Now, that's a long paraphrase and a summary; but 23 then a narrative evaluation of the results of using 24 those screening devices, 25 Now, with that explanation -- and it's intended as y,f Sonntaa Reportino Service, Lt6.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
i 17800
's 1
a paraphrase, I trust accurate -- does that refresh your 2
recollection as to having seen this document?
3 A
No, sir.
4 0
Is an evaluation of either this document or the product 5
of the process tha. I just summarized contained in 6
either NRC 25 or any other NRC Inspection Report that 7
you prepared?
8 A
No, sir.
't 9
Q Let me show you Intervenors' Exhibit 159.
It's a series 10 of BCAP memos.
The memos document the population size 11 estimates calculated by the BCAP Task Force for the I
)
12 electrical populations.
13 (Indicating.)
14 With that explanation, let me ask if you have 15 familiarized yourself with those documents before today.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
What's the identification of 17 that document?
18 MR. GUILD:
It's Intervenors' 159.
19 A
I don't recall having seen this, either.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q
All right, sir.
22 Now, I'm looking at the top page of Intervenors' 23 159.
That's a December 12,
'84, memo, BCAP Memo 347, i
24 and on the face, what the calculation appears to reflect 25 is that given that -- given that BCAP CSR looked at a Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17801 s
p l
)
V 1
population of items QC accepted and installed as of June 2
30, 84, there was an effort made to estimate the 3
population sizes of the various construction categories.
4 Do you understand generally that that was done?
5 A
I've read that in the transcripts of this hearing.
6 Q
All right 7
Were you aware that that had been done, as the BCAP 8
Inspector, during the course of your work as the BCAP 9
Inspector?
10 A
I know that they had estimated populations.
I never 11 inquired as to the methodology.
12 Q
All right, sir.
13 In the instance of conduit hangers, using a 14 methodology that I'll summarize as they used the random 15 number table to pick the random selected portion of the 16 BCA' sample, they then went out and reviewed packages or 17 field installations, and at that point determined 18 whether an item was includable as in the defined 19 population; that is, QC completed, QC accepted and 20 installed as of June 30, 84.
21 In order to find sufficient numbers to meet their 22 sample size requirements, they had to go to a larger 23 number of items using the random number method.
24 Do you follow me so far?
25 A
I follow you.
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - b
17802
'sJ 1
I'm not sure I concur in that exactly the way you 2
described it.
3 Q
All right, sir.
4 It's a summary, and if -- is there something I've 5
said that is inconsistent with your understanding of the 6
process?
7 A
Well, I think you changed on me.
We're not now talking 8
about calculating the population.
We're talking about 9
defining the sample.
10 0
Okay.
11 No, I'm still talking about estimating the n\\
12 population, so let me go one further step.
(O 13 Having determined the proportion of items that were 14 final QC accepted -- therefore, within the definition of 15 the population as contrasted with the number of items 16 that they had to look at to -- had to look at but were 17 not included in the population because they were not 18 final QC accepted -- there was a ratio computed, and 19 from that ratio there was an estimate made of the 20 population size.
21 Now, with that explanation, let me show you this as 22 an example.
23 Conduit hangers is the first.
The estimated 24 population size was derived by computing a ratio for 61 25 randomly selected sample items.
369 items had to be Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
F '
17803 O
1 reviewed.
Of those 369 items, then 61 were final QC 2
accepted and installed June 30, 84.
3 They were aware that for both Unit 1 and Unit 2, 4
there was a total of 64,580 conduit hangers, Category 1 5
conduit hangers.
6 Applying that ratio that I have just described to 7
that total number, they derived the estimate that the 8
population size of conduit hangers final installed and 9
QC accepted as of June 30,
'8 4, was 10,67 6.
10 Now, that's a summary of what I understand the 11 evidence of record reflects and this document.
s
}
12 Now, did you understand, as the BCAP Inspector, 13 that that was the method employed to estimate the BCAP 14
. population sizes?
15 A
No, sir.
16 Q
Accepting my description, and the evidence in these i
17 documents suggests that there was a total population of 18 conduit hangers not of 10,676, that being only what was 19 QC accepted on June 30,
'84, but that the real total i
20 population for both units was 6 times that number --
21 therefore 64,580 -- were you aware that e BCAP 22 population for conduit h.
iers, the June 30,
'84, 23 population, was only roughly one-sixth of the total 24 population of conduit hangers in the plant?
25 A
Well, I was aware that the amount that had been j
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~.
17804
+
3
)
1 inspected and accepted was below that of the total 2
population.
3 I never really bothered to do a computation as to 4
the percentage.
5 Q
All right, sir.
6 You weren't aware that it was as small as one-sixth 7
in the case of conduit hangers?
8 A
I never -- I never evaluated or made a mental note of 9
it.
10 I might have considered that at some point in time, 11 but I can't recall.
12 O
All right, sir.
13 For electrical equipment, were you aware that the 14 population that met the description of QC accepted June 15 30,
'84, electrical equipment was estimated to be 1,843, 16 and that that compares to a total population of 6,283, 17 less than a third electrical equipment?
18 A
Again, I never made that correlation or computation, 19 either.
20 Q
For cable pan, the respective figures are estimated 21 population size June 30,
'84, of 893, total population 22 in the facility 2,262.
23 Were you aware of that relationship?
24 A
I never made the computation.
25 I was aware that there was -- again, that there was Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17805
\\~-).
1 less inspected and accepted than that which was 2
consisting of the total population.
3 0
Conduits, the values were estimated pcpulation June 30, 4
'84, 2,828 and total population for the facility of 5
6,834.
6 Were you aware of that relationship for the 7
population of conduits in the facility?
8 A
Again, I would repeat my previous answer.
9 Q
All right.
10 And cable pan hangers, finally, an estimated 11 population June 30,
'84, final installed and QC accepted 12 of 3,769 as compared to a total population in the 13 facility of 6,413.
14 Were you aware of that relationship?
15 A
I never made the computation or considered making an 16 evaluation of that data.
i 17 Q
All right, sir.
18 MR. GUILD:
May I have a moment, Mr.
19 Chairman?
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 Q
Now, Mr. Gardner, understanding the BCAP design, the 23 objectives as stated by Commonwealth Edison Company for 24 BCAP and the methodology employed that you have
('N
(
)
25 described, I want to direct your attention again to Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17806
,sU 1
Applicant's Exhibit 181, which used to be Intervenors' 2
145, and that is the results on an item basis and a weld 3
basis.
4 Recognizing the sampling approach that was taken --
5 that is, assertedly utilizing a random selection --
6 sample selection process for a portion of the sample, an 7
engineering judgment sample process for a portion of the 8
sample, asserting that an inference at 95 percent 9
confidence level with 95 percent reliability is possible 10 from at least the random portion of that sample, that 11 understanding or assumption -- can you express an A
A 4
12 opinion, Mr. Gardner, about the adequacy of Comstock
\\- /
13 Quality control Inspector work performance viewing the 14 rates of discrepancies, discrepant welds and notable 15 discrepancies reflected in Applicant's Exhibit 181 for 16 the electrical populations?
17 MR. BERRY:
Could I have the question 18 repeated?
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Pardon?
20 MR. BERRY:
I ask the Reporter read the 21 question back.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay.
23 MR. GUILD:
Let me rephase the question.
24 I don't want to interrupt the flow of the question, O()
25 and I'll see if I can truncate it a bit.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
T 17807 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q
Given the assumptions that were made in BCAP -- that is, 3
the design assumptions made, the approach made --
4 accepting those as appropriate -- I don't want to 5
quibble with those now -- utilizing the result of the 6
CSR element for the electrical populations as reflected 7
in Applicant's Exhibit 181, the discrepancy rates, the 8
weld discrepancy rates and the rates of notable 9
discrepancies, do those rates of discrepancies reflect i
10 that the work performance of Comstock Quality Control 11 Inspectors was adequate, in your opinion?
(
g
)
12 A
From their perspective of adequate in regards to not V
13 leading to identified design significant discrepancies, 14 yes.
15 In regards to performing exacting and highly 16 accurate first-line inspections, no.
17 Q
All right, sir.
18 The latter point is your -- your opinion is that it 19 does not reflect effective or adequate performance as 20 you define it in the latter case?
21 A
In the latter case, it would be my conclusion that it 22 doesn't reflect highly accurate.
i 23 It is adequate, I 'm af ra id, from the point of view 24 that it doesn't result in design significant g
j 25 discrepsncies.
In other words, the design was able to I
l Sonntaa Reoortino Service. Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. - = - _
1 17808 bV 1
accommodate the inspection discrepancies or 2
deficiencies.
3 Q
Well, we'll turn to that point in a moment, but let me 4
ask the corollary question.
5 Does the data in Applicant's 181, formerly 6
Intervenors' 145, reflect, in your judgment, effective 7
work performance by the Comstock Quality Control 8
Inspectors?
9 A
I'm afraid I'm not sure of what you mean by "ef fective."
10 I'm afraid I will end up giving you the same 11 answer, which may not be what you are looking for, so --
12 0
Well, I'm looking for your opinion, Mr. Gardner, but if 13 you are unable to answer the question as posed, let me 14 try another way.
15 The --
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I think the witness said 17 that he really did answer it to the best that he 18 could --
19 MR. GUILD:
All right, fine.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- and you would get the 21 same answer.
22 MR. GUILD:
Tha t 's f in e.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q
Do you know whether or not -- in your opinion, is it an 25 effective work performance for a Quality Control Sonntaa Reportina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17809 b)
L.
4 1
Inspector, in the case of inspectors of cable, to fail i
2 to identify, in 64 percent of the items sampled, the 3
existence of 1 or more rejectable conditions?
4 A
Again, if you could use a different word than effective.
i I
5 It was effective in that they did not seemingly l
6 miss any defects of a nature to result in design 7
significance --
8 Q
Right.
9 A
-- but it was not effective in the classical sense of 10 identifying all defects.
11 Q
All right, sir.
[b
\\
12 Now, again, let's talk about the design 13 significance point a moment.
14 Can we agree that it's appropriate to expect a 15-Quality Control Inspector to identify rejectable 16 conditions as those conditions are specified in the 17 acceptance criteria that that inspector utilizes?
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
All right.
20 It's not the inspector's task to determine whether 21 or not defects are or are not design significant?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
That's an engineering judgment, and in this case, one 24 made by Sargent & Lundy?
s 25 A
That's correct.
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17810 7-s U
1 Q
All r ight, sir.
2 Effective, then, as measured by what the t
3 inspector's responsibilities are -- and that is 4
identifying rejectable conditions -- applying those 5
acceptance criteria, in your opinion, does the failure 6
to identify rejectable conditions in 60 percent of the 7
cables sampled reflect effective job performance?
8 A
First of all, it's difficult to answer that, in that 9
I've never developed an acceptance standard -- minimum 10 acceptance standard or an acceptance standard which I
11 could be used to provide an overall judgment of an 12 inspection group.
13 However, my own personal standards are high, and I 14 would expect that a good inspection program would have 15 resulted in less than that.
16 Q
All right, sir, l
17 A
That's the best answer.I can give.
18 0
All right, sir.
19 Would your answer be the same if I asked you
)
20 whether or not the failure to identify discrepant 21 conditions, rejectable conditions, in 64 percent of the
)
22 cable pan population reflected effective work i
23 performance?
The same answer?
l 4
24 A
The same answer.
)
25 Q
Similarly, for the other -- well, similarly at 59
(
i Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17811 1
percent for the population of conduits?
2 A
Yes, sir.
3 Q
And 56.4 percent for conduit hangers?
4 A
That's correct.
i 5
0 86.2 percent discrepant items for cable pan hangers?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
And finally, 72.5 percent discrepant items for equipment 8
installation?
9 A
That's correct.
10 Q
Now, are you familiar with the definition of notable 11 used in the BCAP CSR program?
j
(
12 A
I've learned of that subsequent to my tenure as the BCAP A
13 Inspector, yes.
14 Q
All right, sir.
15 As you sit here today, you understand notable is i
16 defined using a calculation of capacity reduction value 17 for a discrepany?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
All right, sir.
20 You weren't aware that was the specific 21 calculational approach used by Sargent & Lundy at the 22 time you were the BCAP Inspector?
6 23 A
No, sir.
24 Q
Given the definition that a notable discrepancy is one I,
25 where there is a capacity reduction value of 90 percent Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. -. ~.
17812
- O 1
or lower -- that is, the capacity is reduced by 10 2
percent or more -- using their calculational approach, 3
the rate of notable discrepancies is displayed also in 4
Applicant's 181.
5 These, then, reflect not simply the existence of 6
any defect, but defects of a character to be defined as 7
notable.
8 Understood?
9 A
I understand that there's -- notable are characterized I
10 discrepancies other than insignificant.
11 Q
All right, sir.
\\
12 Now, in the cable population, there were zero 13 percent notable, zero calculated to be notable j
14 discrepancies or concluded to be notable discrepancies.
15 Do you know whether or not Sargent & Lundy made 16 calculations in the cable -- R value calculaticns --
17 excuse me -- capacity reduction value calculations, in 18 the cable population?
19 A
I don't think -- excuse me.
I don't think they would i
20 have done that for capacity for cables, because usually j
21 I think capacity would be more of a structural type of a a
i 22 calculation than for a cable.
l 23 Q
All right, sir.
(
24 Do you know what the basis was for Sargent &
i l
25 Lundy's determination that there were zero notable l'
I i
Sapntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
17813
(
l V'
1 discrepancies in the cable population?
2 A
No, sir.
3 0
In the population of cable pan, Sargent & Lundy's 4
calculation reflects that 8.9 percent of the items 5
sampled had notable discrepancies, were found to have 6
notable discrepancies; that is, discrepancies with a 7
capacity reduction of 10 percent or greater as 8
calculated by Sargent & Lundy.
9 Does that value of notable discrepancies in the 10 cable pan population, in your opinion, reflect effective 11 work performance by the Comstock inspectors, effective
/%
12 as we've defined the term to mean doing their job and (V) 13 identifying rejectable conditions?
14 A
Well, as I stated, an inspector shouldn't himself make a 15 decision as to whether an attribute is more significant 16 than any other attribute.
17 So I would just give you the same answer:
That 18 looking at the total number of discrepancies, and I'm 19 looking at some of the notable and insignificant, then 20 that leads to the answer that I previously gave for each 21 instance.
22 Q
All right, sir.
23 The same position, that an inspector doesn't make 24 the judgment about whether an item is design O)
(
25 significant, he doesn't make the judgment about whether Sonntag Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17814 (J) l an item -- a discrepant item -- is notable?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
All r ight.
4 He doesn't make any qualitative judgment about the 5
importance or significance of a discrepancy; he's not 6
supposed to, that's not his job?
7 A
Not unless he's directed to by his procedure.
8 Q
Understood.
9 His task is to simply apply acceptance criteria?
10 A
His task is to follow his inspection criteria and 11 procedure.
(.
12 Q
All right, sir.
(xs) 13 And for that reason it's consistent, isn't it, that 14 if the percent notable discrepancies that Comstock 15 inspectors failed to identify does not provide a measure 16 of their effectiveness, since they are not charged with 17 making that notable determination, that also the 18 existence or non-existence or incidence of design 19 significant defects identified or not identified by 20 Coms t ock inspectors -- that's not a measure of their 21 effectiveness, appropriate measure of their 22 effectiveness, either, is it?
23 A
I would think the same answer:
That whether or not 24 they identify discrepancies, regardless of their p
(
,,)
25 significance, is the best way to look at their Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17815
. f' N 1
effectiveness --
2 Q
Okay, all right.
3 Now --
4 4
A
-- except in the case, obviously, that since they did 5
not design -- excuse me -- they did not misidentify or 6
misdesign significant discrepancies, it looks like they 7
were -- and you have to give them some credit for 8
that -- I can't argue what you said previously; but, 9
again, I cannot refute the f act that what they did not 10 identify or what they failed to identify was not 11 identified subsequently to be design significant.
t s
12 Q
All right, sir.
13 A
It's a paradox that I cannot adequately address --
14 Q
All right, sir.
l 15 A
-- but it's true.
16 Q
Well, it's true, given a variety of assumptions.
I 17 It's true given the assumption that there are no i
18 design significant discrepancies that Comstock 19 inspectors failed to identify?
l l
20 A
Would you repeat that?
21 Q
It's true -- that statement you make, the paradox you 22 identify, is true given the assumption that there are, 23 indeed, no design significant discrepancies that i
24 Comstock inspectors failed to identify?
I 25 A
Yes; and that's what BCAP -- that's what BCAP found.
l 4
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17816 x,
O 4
1 Q
Indeed.
2 That is the conclusion that Sargent & Lundy made, 3
since Sargent & Lundy did the evaluations of those 4
discrepancies for design significance; correct?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
All right.
7 And that's the conclusion that Sargent & Lundy 8
made, extending as an inference, based on BCAP as a 9
sampling inspection, to the population as defined by 10 BCAP?
11 A
That's correct.
12 Q
A population which, as we've established, is not the 13 entire population of work at the facility, but is a 14 fraction, and in some instances, a small fraction of the 15 work at the facility?
16 A
Well, it is a portion of the work, yes.
I don't know if 17 small fraction totally characterizes it correctly.
18 Q
In one case, in any event, one-sixth of the total 19 population; that is, the case of conduit hangers that I 20 directed your attention to at first?
21 A
In one case, one-sixth, yes.
22 Q
All right, sir.
23 Now, someone else with the NRC is responsible for 24 whatever work was done in evaluating the calculational G
k )
25 conclusions by Sargent & Lundy as to design Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
3 (312) 232-0262
17817
\\s 1-significance.
That's a matter that is established.
2 Let's look at what the sampling of.BCAP, purports to 3
establish.
4 Now, you don't -- you didn't -- you weren't the 5
responsible NRC official that approved the design of 6
BCAP, but from Mr. Steptoe's question, I take it that 7
you have opinions on the subject in the course of your 8
work?
9 A
It depends -- again, I'd have to go back to your 10 definition of design.
11 I'm assuming, and I did assume yesterday, that your 12-definition of assign would -- design -- excuse me --
13 would encompass the statistical methodology, et cetera.-
I 14 0
Yes.
15 A
And that's true, I did not approve the statistical i
16 methodology.
17 Q
Okay.
18 Well, let me be clear, then, and see whether or not
[
19 you have an opinion.
f 20 BCAP, given all the assumptions that it makes, 21 which -- I'm not quarreling with -- at this stage I want l
22 to ask you to assume, purports to make statistical l
23 inferences about the population based on a small sample; 24 agreed?
l i
25 A
Based on a sample, yes, sir.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
=.
17818 l.
Q All right.
1 2
Well, small in the sense that the sample is a 3
sample of, say, between 60 and 120 -- we're talking' 4
about the randomly chosen portions of the sample --
5 items where the population of items is in the thousands 6
or tens of thousands?
7 A
Well, you are right, the sample would range from 60 to over 100 total when you added the random sample to the l
8 9
engineering to the more highly investigated.
l 10
-Q.
All right, sir.
i 11 Well, you understand, don't you, that the 12 statistical inferences -- not the subjective judgments 13 but the statistical inferences -- can only be made about 14 the randomly selected portions of the sample?
That's 15 the limit of even Applicant's assertion, isn't it?
16 A
Again, I did not do a review of the statistical 17 methodology that BCAP utilized.
18 Q
All r ight, sir.
19 Well, I ask you to use that -- make that assumption i
20 that I just posed to you, that the statistical 21 inferences are only made regarding the randomly chosen i
22 aspects, and those are, for each population, between 60 23 and I'm going to say roughly 100, 60 to 90, 24 approximately.
\\
25 And as to those, it's asserted by Applicant that 1
~
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17819 Ov 1
inferences can be made to the population, again defined 2
as that installed and QC accepted June 30,
'84, using --
3 with a 95 percent confidence level at 95 percentt 4
reliability.
5 Do you understand those to be statements that 6
Applicant makes?
7 A
Yes, sir, I understand that their population of random l
8 sampled -- or -- excuse me -- their total population of 9
items-to be inspected resulted, from their point of 10 view, in 95/95 acceptance results, 11 Q
All right, sir.
r l-
\\
12 Now, 95 percent confidence level, 95 percent 13 reliability, means that one can make statements about 95 14 percent of the items in the population, and that the 1
15 statements one can make about 95 percent of the items in 16 the population one can make reliably 95 percent of the 17 time.
18 Do you understand that to be the case?
19 A
I don't disagree with it.
I never really adopted it.
20 Q
All right, sir.
21 or evaluated it?
22 A
Or evaluated it.
23 Q
All r ight, sir.
24 What that boils down to, Mr. Gardner, is that in 20 g
25 cases in the population, one can speak to 19 of the 20 l
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
l i
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262 l
i
4 t
17820 7-ss.
e q) 1 cases.
That's what 95 percent confident level means.
2 Do you understand that to be the case?
3 A
That number sounds close.
4 Q
My math, I think, supports that.
5 And as to those 19 of 20 cases, one can speak with 6
reliability about the result 19 times out of 20, 95 7
percent reliability.
8 Do you understand that to be the case?
9 MR. STEPTOE:
I object.
10 Judge Grossman, he's trying to get an opinion out 11 of the witness on an area which the witness has
()
12 disclaimed expertise.
v 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, it appears that way.
14 We 'll let it go.
I think, you know, the answer is 15 going to be that the witness really doesn't have any 16 opinion on the area, and I think that's all that we're 17 going to get out of that --
18 MR. STEPTOE:
W911, then, he --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- but there's no reason to 20 stop it.
21 I don't think we've reached a point where it's 22 badgering the witness.
I think Mr. Guild just wants to 23 establish that, but I don't know.
4 24 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
(/A) 25 MR. STEPTOE:
Obviously, he does wants to s_
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
17821
[
h
\\.)
1 establish it, and he's trying to establish it through a 2
witness who can't give an answer which has any probative 3
value.
4 MR. GUILD:
Well, that may well be.
5 MR. STEPTOE:
He's --
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me, Mr. Steptoe.
7 You don't understand me.
I just believe that Mr.
8 Guild is attempting to establish that this isn't the 9
area that the witness could of fer an opinion on.
10 MR. GUILD:
Yes, that's true, Mr. Chairman.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
[ )
12 Q
Now, we've spoken about the relative rates of
%/
13 discrepancies, and, therefore, if you follow Applicant's 14 approach, the accuracy of Comstock inspectors reflected 15 in the incidence of discrepancies and the items found in 16 the BCAP sample.
17 Now, we can say, following Applicant's approach, 18 that if 86.2 percent of cable pan hanger items were I
19 discrepant in the sample, that 86.2 percent value has a 20 reliability of 95 percent.
21 Do you understand that to be the case?
22 You are certainly free to answer that either way, 23 Mr. Gardner.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
24 A
Yes, sir.
I've never made that correlation.
g )
25 0
All right, sir.
Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
17822
/
\\
l So it may not be precisely 86.2 percent?
The 2
reliability of the sampling approach does not allow one 3
to say that with precision, but there is an error band.
4 The reliability varies.
It's a 95 percent reliability, 5
that that is the value?
6 MR. STEPTOE:
Objection, Judge Grossman.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
I will change the 8
Board's ruling on that.
9 It does appear, Mr. Guild, as though this is not 10 the proper witness to establish what --
11 MR. GUILD:
Well, let me -- I certainly will
\\
12 respect the Board 's ruling.
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 0
One last question.
15 Laying aside, then, the results of discrepancies --
16 that is, whether it's 86 percent or some value higher or 17 lower than 86 percent -- Mr. Gardner, what BCAP purports 18 to do with the 95 percent confidence, 95 reliability, is 19 make a statement about the incidence of design 20 significant discrepancies.
21 Now, you do understand that to be the case, don't 22 you?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
All right,.
O )
25 Now, the Applicant's inference from BCAP is that i
'(
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.m._
vu u_
17823 O
1 they can speak to 19 out of 20 cases in the 2
population -- that is, 95 percent of the population --
3 with respect to design significant discrepancies.
4 MR. STEPTOE:
I'll object to that 5
characterization of Applicant's position.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear 7
that whole thing, Mr. Steptoe.
8 MR. STEPTOE:
I object to counsel's 9
characterization of Applicant's position.
10 MR. GUILD:
I'd ask to exclude the witness if 11 Mr. Steptoe wants to quibble with whether that's an
[
12 accurate characterization.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well --
14 MR. GUILD:
I have a --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- Mr. Guild, you can put it 16 in either one of two ways:
17 One, ask the witness to assume it, or secondly, ask 18 him whether that's his understanding of it, and either 19 way would be appropriate, but --
20 MR. GUILD:
That would be fine.
I 21 JUDGE COLE:
I have some problem with the way l
22 you are stating it, Mr. Guild.
23 MR. GUILD:
I appreciate you bringing to it 24 my attention, Judge.
25 JUDGE COLE:
I guess I don't agree that you l
I l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17824 t
\\
.()
1 can say it's 19.
The proper term would be at least 2
19 --
3 MR. GUILD:
That's helpful, that's helpful.
4 Thank you.
5 JUDGE COLE:
-- or 95 percent or more.
6 MR. GUILD:
Or more.
All right, sir.
7 There may be as many as 5 cases out of 100 where 8
you can't make any statement, maybe less than 5 cases.
9 There may be 1 case out of 20 or less than that one 10 case.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
I 12 Q
All right, sir.
13 Well, is it your understanding, Mr. Gardner, that 14 BCAP purports to make inferences about the population as 15 they define population, those inferences extending to, 16 as Dr. Cole points out, at least 95 out of 100 cases, 17 perhaps.only 95 out of 100 cases?
18 A
Again, I'm not aware and I didn't make an evaluation of 19 the data.
20 I do acknowledge the fact that the Licensee used a 21 9E/95 approach and they believe that the results of BCAP 22 support that.
23 Q
All r ight, sir.
24 Well, here's, I guess, the point:
25 You expressed an opinion about the effectiveness of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17825
{v 1
the design of BCAP that Mr. Steptoe elicited, and you 2
said it was adequate, and you've expressed some other 3
opinions on your own in your testimony.
4 Do you recognize that if a design significant 5
discrepancy is present in the population, it is a rare 6
occurrence?
7 A
Would you repeat that, please?
8 0
Yes.
9 If a design significant discrepancy occurs in the 10 population, it is a rare occurrence?
11 I'm not asking you about the BCAP results now.
I'm
[ )
12 asking you about in general the phenomena of a
\\J 13 discrepancy that is of design significance.
14 Would you expect it to be a rare occurrence?
15 A
Oh, yes, I would expect it to be a rare occurrence, yes.
16 Q
All right.
17 It is something that happens in small numbers of 18 cases, if at all?
19 A
I would hope so.
20 Q
All right, sir.
21 But because of its significance, because of its i
22 importance, a defect that has safety significance, one 23 wants to identify -- one wants to assure that in the 24 construction of a nuclear power plant, one has 25 identified and corrected those small numbers of Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17826 7s
\\
\\,,_j' 1
occurrences, if any, that happen in the population?
2 A
You want to take as much -- or do as much as you can to 3
identify design significant discrepancies, yes.
4 Q
All right, sir.
5 Well, even one might be unacceptable; can we agree 6
with that?
7 A
Could be.
8 Q
All r ight.
9 Now, my question to you, sir, is:
10 Given what you have told me about what you have 11 done by way of evaluating the statistical approach of
[V) 12 BCAP and what you haven't done by inference, do you have 13 an opinion that it is an acceptable level of confidence 14 to be able to say in at least the 19 out of 20 cases, 15 but maybe only 19, at least the 95 out of 100 cases, but 16 maybe only 95, that that rare occurrence of a design 17 significant defect does not exist?
Is that an adequate 18 level of confidence, an adequate level of reliability, 19 for that phenomenon; do you have an opinion?
20 THE WITNESS:
Well, could you be a little more 21 narrow in your question, please, or --
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, let's repeat it.
23 Maybe it's all right.
24 Could the Reporter repeat that whole question.
(%)
25 (The question was thereupon read by the
(
Sonntaa Reporting Service, L td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17827 O
1 Reporter.)
2 THE WITNESS:
My problem is, first of all, you 3
are asking me based on what I did and then you are 4
asking me based on what anybody would do, utilizing the 5
same statistical approach, would the results be 6
acceptable.
7 MR. GUILD:
No, sir.
I'm asking about based 8
on what you did.
9 I want to -- I'm not asking you to reach beyond 10 what you have evaluated with respect to BCAP.
11 Do you have an opinion on the question asked?
12 A
My opinion is this:
13 First of all, I did not and I do not accept, based 14 on the sample sizes, that you necessarily get 95/95 in 15 my testimony, and stop me if my answer is incorrect to 16 your question, because I'm trying to understand what 17 your question is --
18 MR. GUILD:
Certainly, certainly.
19 A
(Continuing.)
-- but my testimony and my own personal 20 belief, BCAP provides additional assurance.
I would not 21 quantify that to be 95/95.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q
All right, sir.
My point really was different.
24 It was -- and perhaps it's implicit -- I take it
)
25 then you don't have an opinion and have not reached a Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t 17828 (s
1 conclusion about whether 95/95 is adequate if that is 2
achieved?
3 A
Okay.
If you follow a program which relies on 95/95, 4
you've done, to my method of thinking -- or my way of 5
thinking, you've done a pretty good inspection.
6 I'm not saying, though, that BCAP -- the data that 7
BCAP -- or the numbers that BCAP used in their 8
population would ever give you a 95/95.
9 0
Und e rs tood.
10 A
I'm not able to tell this Board what numbers are 11 necessary to constitute a sufficient sampling to result 12 in a 95/95.
\\
13 However, I do think a 95/95, if attained, would be 4
14 quite a high level of acceptability.
15 Q
All right, sir.
16 Well, you certainly are aware that one could have a 17 higher level of confidence and a higher level of i
18 reliability?
19 A
Oh, certainly.
You could have 100 percent.
20 0
And 100 percent could be achieved by doing a complete 21 review of whatever the population is instead of a 22 sampling review?
23 A
Yes, sir.
l 24 Q
All right.
(j 25 And short of 100 percent, could be achieved -- say l
(
j Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17829 gg
\\
%/
1 99 percent -- say 99.9 percent -- could be achieved with 2
a sample, but a sample short of 100 percent 3
reinspection?
4 A
Well, the bigger the sample -- I guess my point is the 5
bigger the sample, the closer you come to 100 percent, 6
and obviously your confidence ratio or confidence factor 7
will increase.
8 Q
All right, sir.
9 Well, given that you understand that design 10 significant discrepancies are, by definition, rare 11 occurrences, that they are something that you are (A) 12 looking for in the population, and only one -- even only
\\_/
13 one might be unacceptable, if a design significant 14 defect occurs in only one of a thousand cases and you 15 only can speak to 95 out of 100, is that level of 16 confidence adequate to address the existence -- to 17 assure the non-existence of even one of those design 18 significant discrepancies, in your opinion?
19 THE WITNESS:
Well, first of all, could you 20 read that back.
21 I had an answer in mind, and then when you added 22 on, I was listening again and I forgot.
23 Could you read the question back.
24 (The question was thereupon read by the
.O i
25 Reporter.)
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Genova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17830 rN
}
-( O '
1 A
Well, to begin with, you don't make an assumption -- I l
2 wouldn't make an assumption that design significant 3
deficiencies are rare.
4 What your sample -- or what your reinspection 5
program sets out to do is to demonstrate whether or not 6
it is rare, and whatever results you find from that e
7 reinspection program you are stuck with, whether they be 8
good or whether they be bad.
9 If, in fact, it comes out you don't identify and 10 you have to postulate, since you did not do 100 percent, 11 that they are rare, then at some point in time you are
)12 forced to either accept the data you have, or if there 13 is probable cause, to increase the sample and go after 14 more assurance.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 0
All r ight, sir.
17 So you are not quarreling -- you are not prepared 18 to accept the assumption that a design significant 19 discrepancy is, by definition, a rare occurrence, not i
20 simply --
21 A
No, sir, I':n not.
22 0
All right, sir.
i 23 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
24 MR. BERRY:
I just noticed Mr. McGregor is
['
I ( j}
25 here, Mr. Chairman.
1 i
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
{
17831 fw
{
J 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, r ight.
l 2
And I was going to come to that.
3 I take it you haven't concluded with Mr. Gardner?
4 MR. GUILD:
No, sir.
]
5 And if Mr. McGregor -- if it's now time to turn to.
6 Mr. McGregor, let's do so.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, let's do so.
8 Mr. McGregor's meter is running because he has 9
private counsel here, so I think we ought to take him.
10 MR. BERRY:
Can we have five minutes, Mr.
11 Chairman?
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
I 13 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 14 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We 're back on the record.
16 Welcome back --
17 JUDGE COLE:
We don't have Mr. Guild.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
He's there.
19
-- Mr. McGregor and Mr. Geocaris.
20 I believe Mr. Miller will resume on behalf of 21 Applicant.
l 22 You may proceed, Mr. Miller.
23 MR. MILLER:
Thank you, Judge Grossman.
24 Good morning, Mr. McGregor.
We've met before.
I'm i
O()
25 Mike Miller --
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17832
%J l
THE WITNESS:
Good morning.
2 MR. MILLER:
-- another one of the attorneys 3
for Commonwealth Edison Company.
4 CROSS EXAMINATION 5
(Con tinued) 6 BY MR. MILLER:
7 Q
Mr. McGregor, during your examination by Mr. Guild some 8
months ago, you were interrogated regarding the 9
circumstances under which you came to be transferred 10 from the Braidwood Station to the Dresden facility, and 11 that's the subject matter that I'd like now to address 12 with you, 1
w/
13 It's correct, is it not, that the subject of a 14 possible transfer to Dresden was first raised by Mr.
15 Norelius in February of 1985?
16 A
Are you referring to my testimony?
17 Q
Yes, sir.
18 A
Could you tell me what page, sir?
19 Q
Well, if you would look at Transcript Page 11678.
20 A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
21 Q
Was there anyone else present besides you and Mr.
22 Norelius when he asked you to consider a transfer to 23 Dresden Station in February of 1985?
24 A
No, sir.
25 Q
Did Mr. Norelius at that point in time explain to you I
Sonntaa Reportino Service. L td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17833 G
1 what the reasons were for the transfer?
2 A
No, sir.
3 Q
Did you have any understanding at that point in time as 4
to what the reasons were for a transfer of you to 5
Dresden?
6 A
I can't think of any at the moment.
7 Q
Now, at some point in time, you became aware -- well, 8
did you know that Mr. Tung was then the Resident 9
Inspector at Dresden?
10 A
Certainly.
11 Q
Did you, subsequent to February, 1985, discuss with Mr.
[ )
12 Tung, if you will, a switch in positions between him and
(/
13 you; that is, you would go to Dresden and he would come 14 to Braidwood?
15 A
Prior to -- prior to February, 1985?
16 Q
No, no, no.
After, after.
17 A
After?
18 Q
Yes.
19 A
We discussed the transfer after it had been given to us 20 in writing that we would -- we would be transferred on 1 21 September.
22 Q
All right.
I 23 Now, you were informed, I think, in June, some time 24 in June, 1985, that the transfer was going to take
()
25 place; correct?
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17834 fNg
' \\j 1
A Yes, sir, June or July.
I'm not sure.
2 Q
All right.
3 And at that point in time, were you aware that Mr.
4 Tung was going to be your replacement at Braidwood?
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 Q
Now, did you and Mr. Tung together go to Mr. Norelius 7
and urge him not to make the transfer at that point in 8
time?
9 A
Well, we didn't go to him specifically.
I think Tom 10 wrote.a letter with regard to our feelings that it would i
11 be an in opportunity -- the time would be not an 12 opportunity for us to move with regard to inspection 13 efforts and self reports that were to be completed on 14 both sides, and we asked for a relief of this movement 15 until after the first of the year.
16 Q
Did you ever hear back -- well, do you know who Mr. Tung 17 adressed that communication to?
18 A
Mr. Norelius.
19 0
All right 4
20 Do you know whether he ever received a response 21 from Mr. Norelius?
22 A
I don't know.
23 I never did.
24 Q
At this time, June, 1985, how long had Mr. Tung been the 25 resident at Dresden?
i j
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17835
'(\\,
4 t
1 A
I think near five years.
2 Q
And how long had you been the Resident Inspector at 3
Braidwood?
4 A
I think approaching four years or four years.
i 5
Q There is, I think, you testified, an NRC policy that 6
calls for the transfer of Resident Inspectors af ter i;
i 7
approximately five years; is that correct?
4 8
A Well, there's_been a number of policies:
One to two
)
9 years; two to three years; then one at five years; and I 10 think the latest policy is probably on a case-by-case l
11 basis.
12 An' inspector could probably stay there much longer g
13 than five years.
14 Q
Have these policies been expressed in writing, to your 15 knowledge?
16 A
I don't recall.
17 They were normally discussed at residents' 18 seminars.
When we would come in, there would be l
19 speeches give.n on the resident program.
1
]
20 There could have been something written; but at the I
21 moment, I don't recall unything specific in writing.
l 22 Q
Well, in June of 1985, when you were notified that the 23 transfer was going to take place, was there any reason 24 stated for the transfer of you and Mr. Tung?
25 A
I don't recall of a reason given by Mr. Norelius, a I
Sonntaa Reoortino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
m -
17836 A
(
1 specific reason, as to why the transfer.
1 2
Q At that point, at least, it was your believe, though, 3
that this was an implementation of the then policy of 4
approximately five years for a resident in any given 5
site and then a transfer out; correct?
6 A
You are correct.
t 7
Q Now, I take it that you've known Mr. Tung for some 8
period of time since he's been a Resident Inspector; is 9
that right?
10 A
That's correct, true.
4 11 Q
In June of 1985, did you have any basis to believe that
]
I )
12 Mr. Tung was not qualified to take the position of V
13 Resident Inspector at Braidwood?
14 A
Well, I wouldn't make that decision.
j 15 His background has been in boiling water reactors 16 at Dresden.
I think af ter his assignment to Braidwood, 17 he was subsequently trained at Chattanooga on 1
18 pressurized water reactors; but it's not my policy nor 19 my decision to look at the qualifications of a person i
20 that they are sending.
I 21 Q
Well, I understand that that's not within the scope of i
i 22 your responsibility, Mr. McGregor.
23 But what I'm asking you, sir, is whether you had a j
24 belief, in June of 1985, that Mr. Tung was unqualified
[
25 to take over as the Resident Inspector at Braidwood.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
17837 A
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Miller, I think we 2
had this come up before, and I don't think it's 3
appropriate to ask NRC Staff people their opinions of 4
other Staff member's qualifications.
5 It puts them in a very difficult position that I 6
think we can avoid.
7 I believe we've had this before, and we've ruled 8
that way.
9 Unless it's highly relevant to what we have, I 10 don't think we're going to allow that.
11 MR. BERRY:
I believe the ruling was -- well, 12 I believe the ruling was, Mr. Chairman, that if the 13 witness wanted to volunteer an opinion, he'd be entitled 14 to do so, but the Board wasn't to compel him to do so if 15 he was reluctant to.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I believe that's the case.
17 And we'll follow that rule.
18 Do you wish to comment further on Mr. Tung's 19 qualifications?
20 THE WITNESS:
No, your Honor, I would not.
21 BY MR. MILLER:
22 Q
Now, in June of 1985, you had commented, had you not, on 23 Mr. Mendez' draf t Inspection Report regarding his 24 inspection into the allegations raised by the 24 (j
25 inspectors who came to the Resident's office on March Sonntag Reoorting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17838 7_
(
)
v 1
29, 1985?
2 A
Yes, sir, I did.
3 Q
And as I recall your testimony, Mr. McGregor, you said 4
that your comments to Mr. Cordell Williams were well 5
received by him; is that correct?
He thanked you for 6
your comments and said he would look into them?
7 A
I believe that's correct.
8 Q
And, in fact, after you made those comments, Mr. Neisler 9
was assigned to assist Mr. Mendez, and both Mr. Neisler 10 and Mr. Mendez returned to the Braidwood site to make 11 further inspection into the allegations; correct?
[mh 12 A
That's correct.
'w) 13 Q
Now, in June of 1985, Mr. McGregor, did you believe that 14 the comments that you had made on the draft Inspection 15 Report had any relationship to your transfer from 16 BI71dwood to Dresden?
17 A
No, none whatsoever.
18 Q
Now, at some point subsequent to June of 1985, I 19 believe, based on your testimony and under examination 20 by Mr. Guild, you came to a dif ferent conclusion or a 21 different understanding as to the reasons for your 22 transfer; isn't that right?
23 A
That's correct.
24 0
And when did you first come to change your mind as to O( )
25 the reasons for your transfer?
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17839 h
J 1
A I think it was shortly after -- within a month or so 2
af ter I had been at Dresden.
3 Q
All right.
4 And what was the event or events that caused you to 5
change your mind?
6 A
Well, I had been informed by some persons, that I think 7
I stated before, that certain Commonwealth Edison people 8
had approached the Commission and asked that I be 9
removed from Braidwood.
10 0
So this would have been some time in the October, 1985, 11 time frame; is that correct?
12 A
It's possible, yes, sir.
\\
13 O
And what is the name of the individual who --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me, Mr. Miller.
15 I want to ask you a question.
If we've already 16 ruled on questions that you are now about to ask, I 17 don't think it would be appropriate to ask those 18 questions.
19 I'm not making any determination right now that we 20 have, but I think if we've already ruled out certain 21 questions, that you are obligated to follow our old 22 rulings and not to attempt to reask questions that we 23 ruled were not appropriate.
24 So I'm leaving that up to you, and I just want to 25 set that right on the record without hearing any Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17840
/'
s I
\\
'\\_J l
objections.
2 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I don't believe that 3
Mr. Gallo, in his prior examinations, has gone into this 4
area at all.
It was the subject of examination by Mr.
5 Guild.
6 Dur ing the course of Mr. Guild 's examination, Mr.
7 Gallo raised objections, and over Mr. Gallo's objection, 8
Mr. McGregor was allowed to answer the question.
9 Now, I believe --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
It occurred to me now 11 that we had ruled on Mr. McGregor's identification of
<w
]
12 persons, and that we had ruled that out, but I don't 13 recall -- there's been so long a period of time that has 14 elapsed that I'm hesitant to say that with any level of 15 confidence, 95 percent or otherwise.
16 (Laughter.)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Could you refresh my 18 recollection, Mr. Berry, or Mr. Geocaris?
19 MR. BERRY:
Yes, sir.
i 20 It's my recollection, Mr. Chairman, that this 21 particular subject, I believe, on the pending question 22 has not been ruled out.
23 My recollection is that the Board has ruled that 24 questions regarding the qualifications, competence, of a
(%
(
)
25 fellow inspector are beyond the scope; questions s.-
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17841 Oig 1-relating to a witness' personal interests -- you know, 2
that is shorthand for that subject -- are beyond the 3
scope.
4 I believe the pending question has not been 5
presented to the Board.
6 JUDCE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
As to who told Mr.
7 McGregor --
8 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- that?
4 4
10 Okay, fine.
Proceed, Mr. Miller.
11 I'm sorry I interrupted you there.
12 MR. MILLER:
That's quite all right.
13 I believe there's a question pending to Mr.
14 McGregor as to the identity of the individual who told 15 him that Commonwealth Edison individuals had sought his 16 transfer.
17 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that 18 the Board approach this subject the way it did the 19 question of asking opinion evidence about other 20 inspectors.
21 The import of the question is appropriate.
I don't i
22 mean to suggest an answer, but I would ask the Chair l
23 inquire of the witness if he is willing to identify that 24 person before the Chair rules on compelling an answer to 25 the question.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17842 t
)
G/
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. McGregor, are you 2
willing to divulge the name of the person who told you 3
that?
4 THE WITNESS:
No, sir, I'm not.
5 MR. GUILD:
Given the witness' position, Mr.
6 Chairman, I would object, then, to compelling the 7
witness to answer the question.
8 MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor, it seems to me 9
that if that objection is sustained, then Mr. McGregor's 10 testimony with respect to this belief on his part should 11 be stricken from his direct testimony.
lr) 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I believe that's N
/
13 correct, Mr. Guild, so I think that would be the Board's 14 ruling.
We couldn't accept that kind of testimony 15 without allowing examination into it, and so I think --
16 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I think that the 17 question -- really, there are two matters here.
18 First, there is the issue of a question of fact, 19 and that is the fact of why Mr. McGregor was 20 transferred, and then there's the second matter, and the 21 second matter is Mr. McGregor's belief, his 22 understanding.
23 His understanding, obviously, is his understanding.
24 That is also a fact, but is a fact that has a different
'}
(
25 import, because it bears on his testimony here, it bears
( j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17843 O
1 on his opinion.
2 Now, as to the former, if Applicant has a means of 3
testing that f act -- that is, why he was transferred --
4 in some fashion that doesn't compromise the 5
confidentiality of the source of information of Mr.
6 McGregor, I think it's their obligation to do so.
7 Let's put this in perspective.
There is evidence 8
in this record that is circumscribed by an overriding 9
policy that the Commission has to protect 10 confidentiality of source.
11 Now, it seems ironic to me that where the
.12 Commission policy is applied to limit the adjudication
(
13 of matters to effect that policy, we find ourself 1
14 somewhat at variation with identical interests, Mr.
15 McGregor trying to protect the confidences of his l
16 source, and yet the result is simply we strike the fact 17 from the record.
18 I would oppose striking the testimony on both 19 bases.
20 First, I think that it's Applicant's obligation to i
i 21 probe the subject of the fact of Mr. McGregor's
{
22 transfer, the reason for his transfer, in a way that 23 doesn't compromise the confidentiality of the source, 24 and second, I don't think there's any ground for 25 striking the testimony on the second point, and that is,
}
4 J
i Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
17844 r~N I
)
v 1
what forms Mr. McGregor's belief and understanding.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
The Board just 3
doesn't agree with that, Mr. Guild.
4 Mr. Miller would certainly be entitled to probe 5
both aspects of this question, as you categorize the two 6
parts of that question, both the facts themselves and 7
Mr. McGregor's opinion.
8 He is certainly not required to accept Mr.
9 McGregor's credibility with regard to either of those 10 aspects; and it's really the Board's determination as to 11 whether that is a necessary element in the case so as to
/O s
12 override any interest we have maintaining (V) 13 confidentiality of persons who talked to Resident 14 Inspectors.
15 So in the Board 's opinion, it is a tangential 16 matter that does not require any further expenditure of 17 our resources, and we'll just disallow that entire area.
18 We will strike any references made to Mr.
19 McGregor's belief as to why he was transferred.
20 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I would ask first 21 that Applicant, since Applicant's the moving party here, 22 in that that matter has become somewhat dated since Mr.
23 McGregor's first testimony on the subject -- that 24 Applicant shoulder the responsibility of proposing t
25 specific page and line references.
j Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
\\
17845 f~%
t
)
y
'v/
1 MR. MILLER:
I'm prepared to-do that 'r ight
~
2 now.
3 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
4 And I would like to be heard.
I don't think it's e
5 necessary for the witness to be present.
6 We can complete his examin'ation, of course; but I 7
would like to be heard with respect to the specifics of i
8 Mr. Miller's motion at a later time before the record is 9
closed in this case.
1 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
. Well,~we'll just rule in 11 general right now.
t 12 MR. GUILD:
I understand the ruling, Jir.
~
s.
~
13 Chairman, I respect it, but as to the scope of its 14 application, I would like to have an opportunity to be 15 heard; and if Mr. Miller has page and line references --
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, let the Board rule 17 generally now as to the scope, and that is any 18 references to Mr. McGregor's belief as to why he.was 19 transferred will be stricken from the record.
20 Now, I don't want to let anything fall through the i
21 cracks.
If Mr. Miller omits a particular reference, 22 it's still covered in the Board 's ruling, and we would i
23 expect that you would not refer to that matter in your j
24 f ind ing s, except if you want to reserve an o.bjection to 25 it, and point that out where it's appropriate.
Then you Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
~--
17846 O
i
]
v 1
may do that.
2 We can't prohibit you from doing it; but we're 3
making our ruling now that it's not in evidence.
It's 4
been stricken from the record.
5 MR. GUILD:
I'd ask Mr. Miller to state his 6
page and line references, Mr. Chairman.
7 I believe that there is some precision required in 8
this matter, particularly in light of the fact that I 9
take exception to the Board 's approach.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, okay.
11 On the understanding there may be some things that 12 Mr. Miller wants to include that should not be included, 13 in your opinion --
14 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- we 'll allow Mr. Miller to 16 read his references.
17 MR. MILLER:
Sure.
18 It's Transcript Page 11706, Lines 15 to 24; and 19 Page 11709, Line 12; and Page 11710, Line 14.
20 Now, may I continue, Mr. Chairman?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, you may proceed.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
23 0
Mr. McGregor, af ter you were transferred to Dresden, did 24 you have any further contacts with Mr. Tung when he was
(
25 at the Braidwood site?
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17847
(
)
%_/
1 A
Yes, sir, I d id.
2 Q
And could you describe for us what the nature of those 3
contacts were?
4 A
It specifically was information that we passed bac,k and 5
forth with regard to training for him at Braidwood and 6
training for me over at Dresden.
7 Q
Did you impart to Mr. Tung likely inspection activities 8
that he might undertake, areas that you believed should 9
be the subject of his attention because, had you stayed, 10 you were going to look into these matters?
11 A
Well, I think we sat down with Tom and other inspectors (mv) 12 e
from the Region and we went over all of the open items 13 that were on our books and we assigned them to different 14 individuals to be responsible for them or to look at 15 them.
16 Tom and I discussed some of these that he would 17 pick up and follow up on.
18 0
And how soon after the September 1st transfer date did 19 this meeting take place?
20 A
Oh, I don't know.
Within -- probably within the first 21 45 days.
22 Q
Four to five or --
23 A
45.
24 0
45.
Thank you.
~.
( )
25 Was this a meeting that took place at Regional Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17848 i
\\,/
s 1
headquarters in Glen Ellyn?
2 A
Not that I know of.
3 0
Was it done on the telephone or --
4 A
We had telephone communications back and forth, and Tom 5
would invite me over and I would invite him over, and we 6
would transfer -- I think it's only eight or ten miles 7
between the sites, so it was not uncommon for me to go 8
over to Braidwood and sit down and talk with him or vice 9
versa.
10 Q
And do you know whether your management at the NRC was 11 aware of the f act that you and Mr. Tung were exchanging (n) 12 information and visiting back and forth on the basis
\\d 13 that you have described?
14 A
I don't think that would be -- I don't understand why 15 the management would be involved.
16 0
Well, do you know whether -- well, who was your Section 17 Chief at the time?
To whom did you report when you 18 were transferred to Dresden?
19 A
At the time I believe it was Jef f Wright.
20 0
And who was Mr. Tung's immediate superior once he was 21 transferred to Braidwood?
22 A
Mr. Little.
23 Q
To your knowledge, did Mr. Little ever teil Mr. Tung or 24 you to, in effect, cut it out, not have these O(,)
25 communications back and forth?
Sonntag Reporting Service, L td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 17849 m
l 1
A Not to my knowledge.
2 0
All right.
3 Did your superior, Mr. Wright, ever tell you or Mr.
4 Tung, to your knowledge, to stop having these informal 5
exchanges of information?
6 A
No.
7 0
over how long a period of time did these informal 1
8 exchanges of information between you and Mr. Tung take 9
place?
10 A
Well, it still continues today.
11 Q
Sometimes he will ask your advice about information that 12 you might have based on your experience at Braidwood; 13 correct?
i 14 A
That's correct.
15 And I've called him, asking him advice on certain I
16 matters over at Dresden.
17 Q
And, of course, you cooperate with him to the best of 18 your ability, don't you, Mr. McGregor?
19 A
Certainly.
20 Q
Now, Mr. McGregor, I'd like to show you a document 21 that's been introduced into the record as Intervenors' 22 Exhibit 107.
23 (Indicating.)
24 Mr. Guild examined you on that document, and it's O( )
25 actually a series of memoranda with respect to final Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17850 x- /
1 walk-down inspections.
e 2
I don't want to go into the subject matter of the 3
memoranda, but I'd like to inquire a little further as 4
to the circumstances under which you were involved.
5 My recollection of your testimony on examination by 6
Mr. Guild is that you said there was a seminar on 7
Braidwood that was conducted at the regional offices.
8 Is that accurate, sir?
9 A
I guess we could use the term.
l 10 It was a two-day meeting, if that would be more 11 appropriate.
(
12 Q
Okay.
i 13 And it took place in February of 1986; correct?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 0
All right.
16 At that point in time, you were, in fact, the 17 resident at Dresden?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 0
Who was it who invited you to this seminar or two-day 20 meeting?
21 A
There was a letter written -- I think it was by Mr.
22 Keppler -- to all residents, and then in parentheses it 23 said, "Also include Mr. McGregor" -- or, " include 24 McGregor," and that's how I was invited up to the 25 meeting.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17851 1
Q Well, when you say "all residents," is that --
2 A
With respect to all personnel that was involved with the 3
Braidwood inspection ef forts.
4 Q
Oh, I see.
5 Were you the only non-Braidwood resident that was 6
invited to the meeting?
7 A
Non-Braidwood resident?
8 0
I don't mean to be --
9 A
I'm just trying to think of the people.
10 I guess that would be a true statement.
11 Q
Okay.
(
12 A
I'm thinking of other people who were there, such as the 13 Licensing Project Manager from headquarters; Mr. Treby, 14 the lawyer from headquarters.
15 There were a lot of people that were there that 16 weren't residents, and that's why I'm hesitating.
17 Q
And what was the purpose of this two-day meeting, sir?
18 A
It was to discuss the problems at Braidwood, the closure 19 of the open items at Braidwood.
20 0
And how much notice of this meeting were you given, Mr.
21 McGregor?
22 A
I honestly don't know.
I have to find the memorandum 23 that was faxed to us.
24 0
Well, the first page of Intervenors' Exhibit 107 i
s i
25 indicates that -- and this is Mr. Little's word, I i
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
=,
)
17852 O
i 1
guess -- it's seminar in the second paragraph -- that a
'2 the seminar, as he describes it, took place on February 3
12, 1986.
4 And then, if we look back at the Attachment.3, 5
which is your memorandum to Mr. Little dated January 1
6 30th, can we agree that you probably had at least two 7
weeks' notice of the meeting?
8 A
Oh, no, I don't -- Attachment 3 is a January 30th i
9 memorandum that I wrote --
10 Q
Yes, sir.
11 A
-- which, naturally, preceded the meeting notice that 12' Mr. Little came out with on January -- or March the 13 19th, which was af ter -- it followed the February 14 mee ting, and it also followed his deposition with Mr.
15 Guild on the subject of pipe interferences.
16 The January 30th memorandum was in response to 17 problems that arose at the CELT meetings.
18 Q
I see, I see.
19 Well, prior to the meeting on February 12th, were 20 you informed as to what subjects specifically were going 21 to be discussed at that two-day meeting?
22 A
I don't recall the memorandum that Mr. Keppler wrote, 23 but it discussed -- I don't know as it got into the 24 specifics of -- it surely didn't get into the specifics
)
25 of pipe walkdowns or anything like that, but it just was Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
17853
~
(d 1
a general memorandum on problems and open items and 2
concerns at Braidwood.
3 Q
All r ight.
4 When you received that memorandum f rom Mr. Keppler, 5
what, if anything, did you do to prepare yourself for 6
the meeting?
7 A
The only thing that I could prepare myself with is the 8
notes and memorandums that we had written to the 9
Commission.
10 I wasn't privy to reports or the work that was done 11 over at Braidwood -- that was on file over at Braidwood,
[
'12 so I guess a fair question -- or a fair answer would be 13 there was not too much preparation on my part.
14 Q
All right, sir.
15 Did you discuss with Mr. Tung or with Mr. Schulz 16 any of the open items or other matters that were going 17 to be discussed at this February 12th meeting prior to 18 the meeting?
19 A
I don't recall.
20 Q
At the meeting that took place in February, Mr.
21 Schulz -- Mr. McGregor -- I'm sorry -- did you 22 participate in the discussions of the various open 23 items?
24 A
At the meeting in February is your question?
25 Q
Yes.
Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
... ~
17854 O
1 A
Yes, I did.
2 Q
All right, sir.
3 Did any member of -- I take it there were members 4
of NRC management present at that meeting?
5 A
I sat next to Mr. Keppler.
6 Q
I see.
7 Did Mr. Keppler or anyone else attempt to inhibit 8
you in your expression of your comments or opinions or 9
concerns?
10 A
Well, near the close of the meeting, Mr. Jacobson -- Mr.
11 Keppler asked everybody in the room what their opinion 12 of this meeting was, and I don't recall my words 13 correctly, probably, but it had something -- generally I 14 stated that I thought it was a very -- a very good 15 meeting.
I had wished that this would have happened a 16 year ago -- or a month ago or a year ago or two years 17 ago or three years ago.
Everybody in the room expressed 18 positive concerns about the meeting.
19 Mr. Jacobson stood up and said that he and Mr.
20 Muffett thought that there were too many items of 21 non-compliance that were written at Braidwood that 22 should never have been written.
23 I immediately said to him that he ought to be able 24 to prove that statement.
I thought it was a very O )
25
(
unfortunate remark to make.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ ~. _ _ ___ _ _ -
r I
17855
'l I questioned Mr. Keppler in the hallway in the 2
presence of Mr. Treby on that type of a remark, and I i
3 think Mr. Keppler also thought it was a very unfortunate 1
4 statement; and what he said or if talked to Mr. Jacobson 5
or Muffett, I'm not aware of.
i 6
Q All r ight, sir.
7 I think in your previous answer, you said that you 8
expressed your opinion, at the conclusion of the 9
meeting, that you thought it was a good meeting, that 10 you wished that it had occurred earlier, actually, and I 11 think;you said other persons expressed positive 12 concerns, or did you mean --
13 A
Well, I mean -- I mean positive --
14 0
-- comments?
15 A
-- comments.
16 Mr. Schulz.
I t'hink Pelke was there.
I think he 17 also commented.
Jan Stevens had some very enlightening 18 comments on the meeting.
19 Q
Miss Stevens was the NRC --
20 A
Is the Licensing Project Manager from the --
21 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, can we approach the 22 bench?
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, certainly.
24 Yes, Mr. McGregor, could you please go out in the
(~
g 25 hall.
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-=
=
l 17856 i
,fmi N '
1 THE WITNESS:
Certainly.
2 (Witness excused.)
3 MR. BERRY:
I'd make -- I'd raise --
)
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I was waiting for an 5
objection.
J 6
I think we're going too deeply into the internal
)
7 workings of the NRC for no reason.
8 MR. BERRY:
And I'd just like my objection to 9
be noted.
10 I do recall this matter coming up in a number of 11 depositions before this, this February 12th meeting that
()
12 we've been discussing.
13 Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding and my i
14 knowledge that that meeting was held, you know, at the 15 request of the Staff Counsel in order to prepare for 16 the -- prepare for the hearing, the preparation of 17 testimony and some response and some dispositioning on 18 the deposition, and there was a meeting held with all 19 the members of Region III to prepare for this.
I 20 I believe that all of this information of this 21 meeting here is subject to work product privilege and 22 attorney-client privilege.
j 23 I've not objected to questions generally who was 24 there and, you know, what kind of response, but I do 25 intend to object to questions along the nature of, "Who Sonntaa Reportina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17857 i
O 1
said what," "What did the lawyer say," or, you know, 2
"What did you say to the lawyer," and things like that.
3 I believe that this entire area is delving into the 4
internal processes of the NRC, I don't think it has much 5
probative value, and I think it just unduly interfers, 6
you know, with the ordinary ability of the Staff to 7
manage its affairs, to discuss, in a frank and candid 8
fashion, things that are of concern to the NRC.
9 I believe that for whatever purpose the testimony 10 is being elicited, it is one that's outweighed by the 11 interests cf the Staff.
12 I would just like the record to reflect that I have 13 a standing objection to this, to the subject matter.
I 14 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I've about concluded i
15 my examination of Mr. McGregor on this subject.
16 The thrust of my examination was to attempt to 17 probe the inference that might be drawn from his other 18 testimony that after he was transferred, he was somehow 19 cut off and excluded by his management wrongfully from 20 any further participation in the affairs at Braidwood.
21 The suggestion was certainly made that his transfer 22 was -- you know, notwithstanding the granting of the 23 motion to strike, the inference may still be drawn there 24 was still some connection between the raising of 25 concerns by Mr. McGregor and his transfer.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
]
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17858
(
)
'wd 1
I believe I've just about concluded my examination 2
on this subject matter, and I'm going to move on.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, my feeling was you 4
asked one question too many, anyway, Mr. Miller, but --
5 MR. MILLER:
Well, we came out okay with 6
respect to Mr. Keppler.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, that's correct.
8 So as long as everyone's agreed -- I know Mr. Guild 9
is not, but Mr. Miller is conducting the examination 10 now, and I think he says he's reached the limit of what 11 he's probing in that meeting, and so that's fine.
(
)
12 We're not called upon to make any further ruling
%,/
13 here, and so let's just move on, then.
14 BY MR. MILLER:
15 Q
Mr. McGregor, you've been an inspector for the NRC for 16 quite some number of years now, as I believe you 17 previously testified.
18 And you are aware, are you not, of the internal NRC 19 procedures by which an inspector or any other employee 20 of the NRC can express a dissenting technical opinion on 21 any subject; isn 't that right?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
All r ight, sir.
)
24 I don't think that this has previously come out on C
I s
25 the record.
v Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17859 1
Would you describe what your understanding of those 2
procedures for expressing a dissenting technical opinion 3
are?
4 A
Well, I don't know as I could give you an accurate -- I 5
haven't drawn the procedure out and read it for some 6
time, but you just basically state your differing 7
opinion and submit it to Region III or to your 8
supervisors, and that opinion is looked upon by the 9
Commission and a decision is made.
10 Q
And do you understand that there is any protection 11 afforded the Commission employee who registers such a (O) 12 dissenting technical opinion?
%J 13 A
There is certain things stated to the effect, yes.
14 Q
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear that.
15 A
I believe there are statements to that effect, that an 16 employee is protected by the Commission.
17 MR. BERRY:
Just to be clear, dif fering 18 professional --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
You will have 20 to speak into the microphone.
21 MR. BERRY:
Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, 22 to be precise, it's a dif fering professional opinion.
23 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
Thank you.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I thought there were two D.
(,)
25 categories, Mr. Berry.
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
j
(
17860
(~
1 Is there only one?
2 MR. MILLER:
I'm willing to take 3
enlightenment from any source on this, because I don't 4
have access to the procedures.
5 MR. BERRY:
That's what I'm aware of, Mr.
6 Chairman.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
Okay, that's fine.
8 BY MR. MILLER:
9 0
Would your answer be the same, Mr. McGregor, if we i
10 called it a differing professional opinion?
11 A
Yes, sir, it would be.
)
12 0
Okay.
Mr. McGregor, have you ever had occasion to prepare 13 14 such a document, a dif fering professional opinion?
15 A
No, sir.
16 0
The last day of your examination prior to yesterday was 17 September 4th, and just before you departed the witness 18 stand, Mr. McGregor, you made this statement at Page 19 11899:
20 "It's quite evident, in my opinion, that safety 21 issues and safety concerns are really not being 22 addressed by. Commonwealth Edison, nor are they being 23 addresses by the Staff in the positions that they are 24 taking."
(
25 Mr. McGregor, turning first to the subject matter
?
I Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
2 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17861 (v) 1 of this hearing -- that is, the allegations of 2
harassment, intimidation and production pressure that 3
Comstock quality control management was supposed to have 4
exerted on QC Inspectors -- are you aware of any safety 5
issues and safety concerns related to that subject 6
matter, sir, that are not being addressed by 7
Commonwealth Edison?
8 A
No, sir, I don't.
9 Q
Mr. McGregor, as counsel for Commonwealth Edison 10 Company, I want to state that the company has an abiding 11 interest in the safe construction and operation of the (m) 12 Braidwood f acility, and I ask you on the record, or by
/
L.J 13 any other means that you might choose, to inform us of 14 other safety issues or safety concerns that you feel are 15 not being addressed.
16 MR. GUILD:
Objection, Mr. Chairman.
17 Mr. Miller can make a statement like that, but he 18 certainly can't establish what the company's position is 19 on its desirability of identifying safety issues.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, the objection is 21 sus tain ed, because that goes beyond the scope of the 22 hearing.
23 You already asked the previous question, which was 24 within the scope of the hearing; and if you wish to
-~s
(
)
25 elicit that information from Mr. McGregor in some other v
Sonnt'g Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17862 ps
(
%_)
1 forum or personally, you are certainly entitled to, and 2
I think you should, but we're not here to hear those 3
other concerns.
4 MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor, so long as no 5
use is made in any proposed findings or any inferences 6
drawn from the comments of Mr. McGregor with respect to 7
these undefined other issues, I'm happy to leave it on 8
that basis.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, your comments are in 10 the record, Mr. Miller, and for whatever use anyone 11 wants to make of them, but we can only rule on what (n) 12 ought to be answered here, and that prior question is LJ 13 not within the scope of our hearing, and so we've ruled 14 on that.
15 Does that conclude your --
16 MR. MILLER:
I just have --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
18 MR. MILLER:
-- one other question.
19 The recess of Mr. McGregor's examination was a 20 result of an ongoing investigation, which has now been 21 concluded, and I don't have to ask the question of Mr.
22 McGregor, I will take the representation from his 23 counsel, but I simply inquire as to whether or not the 24 investigation was pertinent to any of the substantive
('N
(/)
25 issues that are before the Board; that is, the s_
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin~ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17863
(
)
As/
1 allegations of harassment, intimidation and production 2
pressure of Comstock quality control personnel by their 3
supervision.
4 MR. BERRY:
I'd object.
5 MR. GEOCARIS:
In general -- I can say, you 6
know, that they were not related as a general 7
proposition.
8 I wouldn't want to go any further than that.
9 MR. MILLER:
Fine.
10 That concludes my examination.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let's go of f the record for (y
12 a second, (w,;
13 (There followed a discussion outside the 14 record.)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
16 We 're back on the record.
17 Mr. Berry.
18 MR. BERRY:
Good morning, Mr. McGregor.
19 THE WITNESS:
Good morning.
20 CROSS EXAMINATION I
21 BY MR. BERRY:
22 Q
Mr. McGregor, I believe you stated, in response to one 23 of Mr. Miller's questions, that Dresden and Braidwood 24 are only about eight to ten miles apart.
i
/~~ N l
{
)
25 Do you recall that?
%)
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17864 m
1 A
Yes, sir.
2 Q
How far do you live from Dresden?
3 A
I drive it every day, and I-don't really pay attention.
4 I suppose it's 42, 45 miles, something like that.
5 Q
How far is your home from Braidwood, if you recall?
6 A
It's about the same difference -- distance.
7 Q
So when you were transferred, you and Mr. Tung switched 1
8 positions, do you know if either -- you didn't have to 9
move, did you?
10 A
I didn't move, that's right.
11 Q
Do you know if Mr. Tung had to move?
12 A
No, he didn't move.
13 0
Mr. McGregor, I believe there's been testimony in this 14 proceeding that a Resident Inspector is the eyes and 15 ears of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a 16 particular site.
17 Do you agree with that?
18 A
Yes, sir, I do.
19 Q
And I believe, Mr. McGregor, that in your case, anyway, 20 you devoted a substantial amount of your time to 21 observing, watching, looking, examining, inspecting, 22 around the sites which you have been involved in; is i
23 that correct?
24 A
You mean with regard to on-site time?
25 Q
Yes.
Sonntaa Reportina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17865 0
1 A
Yes, sir.
I think.if you wish to look at my T and A 2
records, time and attendance records, I think it will I
3 show that there's probably 8 to 10 to 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> of 4
volunteer overtime every week.
)
5 Q
Mr. McGregor, I believe there was -- Mr. Guild examined 6
you on a document, and I believe Mr. Guild also examined 7
you on a document from Mr. Forney, where he offered some 8
advice or direction as to how you and Mr. Schulz should j
9 allocate your time in respect to inspections at 10 Br aidwood.
11 Do you recall that?
,~\\
l i
12 A
Yes, sir, I do, i
\\s /
13 Q
And I believe that you were directed by Mr. Forney to i
14 devote roughly 40 percent of your time on administrative i
15 matters, managing the of fice, and also with MC 25/13 and 4
16 14 modules?
17 THE WITNESS:
I'm looking for the document.
18 I --
19 MR. GUILD:
It's Intervenors' Exhibit 102, 20 Mr. Chairman.
I 21 THE WITNESS:
102?
22 MR. MILLER:
103.
23 THE WITNESS:
Yes, I have it.
24 A
It says, "Len, you should spent 30 to 40 percent of your
)
25 time on MC" -- I'll do without mine.
If you can't hear i
Sonntag Reporting Service. L td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17866
,a 1
it, let me know.
2 He says, "Len, you should spend 30 to 40 percent of 3
your time on MC" -- that is manual chapter -
"25/13/14 4
programs and the remainder of your time devoted to MC 5
25/12 activities and manage office functions."
6 In that particular line or sentence, he's saying 7
spend 30 to 40 percent of your time looking at start up 8
and preop inspection program -- that's the 25/13 and 9
14 -- and the rest of my time on the 25/12 program, 10 which is the construction program and related 11 administrative requirements.
12 BY MR. BERRY:
13 Q
Mr. McGregor, if the Region were to give you an 14 assignment to follow up on allegations, for example, and 15 it would take about 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> to do the inspection, the 16 investigation, the follow up on the allegations, what 17 be ar ing, if any, would that have on your ordinary 18 inspection efforts or your job responsibilities?
How 19 would that impact on that, if at all?
20 A
If the Commission requested us to do an investigation 21 into an allegation, that would mean that that was a 22 priority, and we would then have to set aside whatever 23 we were inspecting and proceed with the investigation of 24 the allegation or our investigative work, and it would
)
25 impact the efforts of a Resident Inspector.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17867 g3Q l
Q Finally, Mr. McGregor, in your opinion, do you have 2
any -- do you see anything wrong with management 3
assigning an issue -- that is, that's been identified by 4
the Resident Inspector -- to another -- to a 5
regional-based inspector?
6 A
In my opinion, do I find anything wrong with that?
7 0
Yes.
8 Do you believe that's a prerogative of management?
9 A
Well, are you asking me two questions, my opinion of 10 what the management does and is it a prerogative of the 11 management?
Ih 12 Q
Well, strike that.
Let me withdraw the question and b
13 rephrase it.
14 Do you believe it's management's prerogative to 15 determine which inspector should follow up and iden tify 16 open items or an item of non-compliance or unresolved 17 item?
18 A
I would imagine the -- yes, sir, the Region can make any 19 decision it wants to.
20 MR. BERRY:
Thank you, Mr. McGregor.
21 I don't have any more questions.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild.
l 23 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
)
25 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
(
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.i
17868
<x 1
Q Mr. McGregor, you were commenting, in response to Mr.
2 Miller's questions, about a memorandum from Mr.
3 Little --
4 MR. GUILD:
Excuse me a second while I put my 5
hands on it again here.
6 Yes, it's Intervenors' 107.
I'm just trying to lay 7
my hands on it.
8' I seem to have misplaced it.
Perhaps I could 9
borrow a copy.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q
Intervenors 107, it's Mr. Little's March 19,
'86, memo
[
12 to Muffett, Jacobson, Kaufman, Mendez and Kropp, V]
13 subject, Braidwood final walk-down inspections, urging 14 those gentlemen to take into account concerns previously 15 expressed by you and Mr. Schulz about Edison's reliance 16 on final walk-down inspections when those inspectors 17 closed out previously identified items at Braidwood.
18 In response to Mr. Miller, you testified that the 19 chronology ended with Mr. Little issuing this March 19th 20 memo af ter being deposed on this subject.
21 Do you recall that testimony?
22 A
Yes, sir.
l 23 Q
All right.
24 Did you read a deposition of Mr. Little's on that 25 subject?
i Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 j
17869
't
("h.
1 V.
1 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I'm going to object.
1 2
Really, I used Exhibit 107 to determine the timing 3
of this meeting.
I did not go into the substance of the 4
walkdowns or anything else that is detailed in the 5
memoranda.
6 I believe this is beyond the scope of my 7
examination.
8 Excuse me.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I believe that's 10 correct if you are going to get into the substance of 11 that deposition, Mr. Guild.
[
12 MR. GUILD:
Well, I think what the point
\\.-
13 is -- is directly responsive to what Mr. Miller's 14 examination was -- Mr. Chairman, and that was whether, 15 in fact, Mr. McGregor was taken off of issues that were 16 assigned to others, whether, in fact, those assigned to 17 the issues raised by McGregor and Schulz, who were to 18 present testimony in this proceeding, effectively 19 addressed those issues, and why the NRC made the 20 reassignment.
21 Mr. Miller asked the question, Mr. Berry asked the 22 ques tion, "Why were reassignments made," and elicited 1
23 testimony on those subjects.
i 24 I don't think I have to live with what answers they 25 sought to elicit on that point.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
.= -
17870
(-)
1 MR. MILLER:
I don't believe, Judge Grossman, 2
that I asked any questions about assignments to issues.
3 I really wanted to find out -- the thrust of my 4
examination was the relationship between Mr. McGregor 5
and his management after his transfer from Braidwood and 6
whether he was able to express his opinions.
7 MR. GUILD:
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, that's 8
exactly right.
9 MR. MILLER:
I didn't go into the substance 10 of any of those, nor securing assignments or anything 11 else.
fm
}
12 MR. GUILD:
Only because he was not eliciting 13 favorable tectimony; but the fact that he went into that 14 subject, Mr. Chairman, and backed out -- when he backed 15 out doesn't preclude me, it seems, from --
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Berry went into 17 that area; but we don't have a specific enough question i
18 here to rule on, so we'll let you proceed.
19 I don't think we're going to get very deeply into 20 someone else's deposition --
21 MR. GUILD:
Indeed, Mr. Chairman.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
but we can't rule on a 23 question that's not before us yet.
24 So continue with your question and then, if it's 25 objectionable, we'll hear objection.
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17871
("%
lV) 1 MR. GUILD:
It's a foundation question, Mr.
2 Chairman.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q
Mr. McGregor, you read Mr. Little's deposition where he 5
was examined on the question of his response -- or the 6
Agency's response to your concern and Shulz' concern 7
about the reliance on walkdowns that is reflected in 8
your memo of June -- cf January 30, 19867 9
A It seems to -- yes.
10 If you -- if you wish, I guess I can elaborate on 11 this.
[J
\\
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, the only question now 13 is whether you read that deposition.
14 A
(Continuing.)
Yes, sir, yes, sir, I did; yes, I have.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q
All right, sir.
17 And isn't-it the case, Mr. McGregor, that Mr.
18 Little's memo of March 19, 1986, where he directs that 19 those inspectors respond to your concerns, came only 20 after Mr. Little was examined about your concerns in the 21 deposition that immediately preceded his March 19th 22 memo?
23 A
That's correct, sir.
24 Q
Mr. Miller asked you, Mr. McGregor, to identify the 25 informant, the person who told you information that, in
( j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17872
(
1 part, formed your belief'as to the basis for your 2
transfer to Dresden.
3 I believe the Board has ruled on the question, 4
which, I will, of course, respect.
5 You declined to identify that person.
6 And would you explain, sir, why you declined to 7
identify the person?
8 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I believe this is a 9
totally irrelevant line of inquiry, and we're going to 10 be in the same sort of a trick box, if you will, that we 11 were on the last one.
He's going to explain that 12 probably there's some sort of --
13 MR. GUILD:
No, Mr. Chairman, I would hope 14 that counsel will not --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, let Mr. Miller finish.
16 MR. GUILD:
Let's don't let him coach the 17 witness.
I want the witness' answer only.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, is he coaching the 19 witness?
20 MR. MILLER:
Then perhaps we should approach 21 the bench.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, that's fine.
i 23 Then we will have to ask Mr. McGregor to please 24 leave.
25 (Witness excused.)
'l Sonntaa Reoortino Service, Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17873 V
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I didn't mean to say that I'm 2
accepting your characterization, either, Mr. Guild.
t 3
MR. GUILD:
I don't mean to suggest a motive.
4 I just mean to suggest a potential result.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
6 MR. MILLER:
The witness is going to perhaps 7
say he declines to identify the individual because that 8
individual will be subject to retaliation or some other 9
punitive actions by Commonwealth Edison Company, and 10 I'll be in the same position that I am on the basic 11 issue with respect to the identification of the person, 12 and, really, it's another attempt to load up the record 13 with things that can be used as a basis for negative 14 inferences.
15 MR. GUILD:
Well, it's not, Mr. Chairman, 16 directly.
It's certainly one potential answer.
17 I don't know what the answer to the question is, 18 but it seems to me that in order to have the record 19 complete, and particularly in light of the Board's 20 ruling that the matter -- not directing the witness to i
21 answer the question is a foundation for striking other 22 evidence that the witness has presented -- I believe 23 that for completeness, the record has to reflect the 24 basis for the witness' reluctance or refusal -- I don't 25 know which is the appropriate term exactly -- to Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
4 l
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
)
17874
,y I
s, 1
identify that source.
2 Certainly one possible answer is the answer that 3
Mr. Miller suggests, but I don't suggest an answer for 4
the witness by the question, and believe that the first 5
step is that the record has to reflect what his basis 6
is.
7 There may be an innocent basis that has nothing to 8
do with Mr. Miller's supposed answer.
I mean, it may 9
be -- I won't even speculate, but maybe a basis that has 10 nothing to do with that; but the record needs to reflect 11 whatever that basis is that's in the witness' mind or
(
12 there simply is no way of being able to understand why 13 the witness reached that position.
14 I want to respect the witness' -- I'm sorry, Mr.
15 Chairman.
I want to respect Mr. McGregor's desire not 16 to identify someone, but if it's at the risk that I will 17 lose critical evidence in this proceeding, I'll seek to, 18 notwithstanding his desire, elicit an answer to the 19 question.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No.
It seems to me you are 21 only asking for an opportunity to support whatever 22 exception you take to the Board's ruling, and I don't 23 consider that to be relevant matters that we're going to 24 listen to here.
t c
25 Fe 've already made our determination that there -i.s Sonntag Reportina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17875 O
1 not sufficient probative value in these answers to 2
necessitate going into confidential information given to 1
3 Mr. McGregor.
l 4
MR. GUILD:
And we don't know it's i
5 confidential, Mr. Chairman.
l 6
I guess I would seek to do it by way of voir dire, 7
"Why does the witness decline to identify the source."
I l
l l
8 If the reason has nothing to do with a desire for l
l 9
confidentiality, has nothing to do with the matters that
)
I 10 Mr. Miller suggests, that's one thing, but if the f
11 witness' desire is to protect a source of confidence, is 12 indeed afraid that that individual might be subject to 13 retaliation, the record must reflect that in order to 14 have :.he witness' testimony understood effectively.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No, I don't see that that's 16 relevant to what we're doing here, Mr. Guild, and --
17 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, then I recede --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- we're not going to allow 19 a fishing expedition into that, which is basically what 20 it amounts to at this stage of hearing.
21 MR. GUILD:
I disagree, Mr. Chairman; and 22 what I would suggest is that I would then recede f rom my 23 position, would ask that the Board direct Mr. McGregor 24 to answer that question; would ask that that be C(
25 considered in camera, if that's the appropriate way to Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17876 O
1 do it; would ask that the participants be bound to 2
protect that confidence, if that -- ask the participants 3
be bound to protect that confidence.
4 But I believe that the evidence that now has been 5
struck should be included and the identification of that 6
witness, if the consequence is that the record is now 7
going to be devoid of what is important evidence to this 8
party, because there's been no showing of any basis for 9
protecting the identity of that witness, other than Mr.
10 McGregor's desire.
11 I do wish to honor his desire, but not without an
("
12 evidentiary basis for doing so.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Guild, we're not 14 here to determine whether anyone in management at 15 Commonwealth Edison is being harassed or intimidated, 16 which is basically what that amounts to.
17 MR. GUILD:
Whether they are harassing or 18 intimidating Mr. McGregor is the issue; whether they 19 procured his transfer because they didn't -- they were 20 concerned about his position as an inspector on the 21 merits of the technical issues that he had.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Mr. Guild, I don't 23 want to waste hearing time on that.
24 We've already made our ruling, and we are
)
25 reaffirming our ruling, and so we're not going to allow y
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17877 (q)
G 1
any.further questions in that area, and you have your 2
rights to take exception in your brief to that, so why 3
don't we get on with it.
-4 Let's recall the witness.
5 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I do take exception l
6 to the Chair's ruling made on the bench conference.
7 What I would like to do is have a moment, because I C
believe that not only is the ruling in error, but I'm 9
going to try to find some way of reaching what appears 10 to me to be very important evidence, and I'm trying to 11 understand how to do so consistent with the Chair's
(
12 ruling.
%/
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You wish to take a short 14 recess?
15 MR. GUILD:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
By the way, could you give 17 us an estimate of how long you have to go?
18 MR. GUILD:
Very little.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Very little?
20 MR. GUILD:
Five minutes.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We'll take a short recess.
22 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 23 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Please continue, Mr. Guild.
D 25 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntag ReDorting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17878
{
\\x) 1 Q
Mr. McGregor, let me direct your attention to your 2
testimony earlier in this proceeding.
It appears at 3
Transcript 11709.
4 Do you have a transcript available to you?
5 A
Yes, sir, I do.
6 11709?
7 Q
Yes, sir, 11709.
8 There and the following page you state two matters.
9 You state your belief, and that's the subject of the 10 motion to strike, the Board 's ruling, and you state also 11 an understanding.
[
)
12 The understanding stated there -- I'll paraphrase
's )
13 it -- is that Commonwealth Edison approached the 14 Commission and requested your transfer, and that that 15 fact, quote, "became common knowledge at Braidwood. "
16 Do you see that testimony, sir?
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 Q
All r ight, sir.
19 Now, what is the basis for your understanding as to 20 the fact that such an involvement by Commonwealth Edison 21 in your transfer was, indeed, common knowledge at 22 Braidwood?
23 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I object.
24 Given the Board's earlier ruling on the ultimate O
( )
25 opinion expressed by Mr. McGregor on those pages, this Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17879
-~
i s
\\_s' 1
inquiry is irrelevant.
2 MR. GUILD:
It's a dif ferent matter, Mr.
3 Chairman.
4 Here it's a question of fact, and that is the 5
common knowledge at Braidwood that Commonwealth Edison 6
Company procured Mr. McGregor's transfer.
7 MR. MILLER:
Yes; but, your Honor, eventually 8
we're going to get back to the same point we were 9
approximately an hour ago and I get my turn again, which 10 is in order for me to effectively deal with this, I must 11 be entitled to explore into the bases for this common
(/)
12 understanding and the ultimate issue.
w 13 It just makes -- there is no --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I understand what Mr.
15 Guild is trying to do now, and he's not talking about 16 confidential information, he is now focusing on common 17 knowledge; but I think we want to rule out this entire 18 matter as to the reasens for Mr. McGregor's transfer.
19 I thi1k Mr. McGregor's answer went a little further 20 into the internal workings of the NRC than we wished to 21 go in the first place, and, of course, we couldn't know 22 what the answer was going to be until it was given, at 23 least the Board couldn't, and we just don't wish to 24 pursue that.
It's outside the scope of what the hearing
(~ x
( )
25 is about; and we're just going to strike all the Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17880
)
a 1
references to that from the record, as we have, 2
including the question that you've posed right now.
3 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, if I might just be 4
heard briefly.
5 I'll respect the Chair's ruling, of course, 6
whatever it is; but just so the Intervenors' position is 7
crystal clear on this matter, I think that Mr.
8 McGregor's belief, of course, is important.
That's been 9
ruled on.
10 But I think more critically at this juncture is the 11 question of what is the fact, and that is if, indeed, 12 Commonwealth Edison Company had procured Mr. McGregor's 13 transfer, either directly or by pressure or suggestion, 14 urging, what have you, of the Commission, that's highly 15 improper, and what that suggests, frankly, is that not 16 only did Commonwealth Edison Company have a basis for 17 fearing what Mr. McGregor, as the resident, might do or 18 say with respect to the items of non-compliance which 19 were under Mr. McGregor's responsibility at the time he 20 was the Braidwood resident, perhaps including the impact 21 of Mr. McGregor's position on the licensing of the 22 facility -- obviously, including that -- but it 23 certainly suggests also that the NRC Staff's position 24 should be considered suspect in this proceeding if they
(
)
25 acquiesced in such a pressure.
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
F 17881 1
If, in fact, the Staff acceded to pressure from 2
Commonwealth Edison Company to replace the site resident 3
at Braidwood because they feared his position on items 4
of non-compliance he identified, then, indeed, the 5
Staff's position, when presented by witnesses other than 6
Mr. McGregor, would be suspect.
7 We called Mr. McGregor over the objection of the 8
Staff, and that should be completely clear in the 9
record.
The Staff resisted Mr. McGregor being called as 10 a witness.
11 We wouldn't even hear Mr. McGregor's concerns about 12 the handling of the harassment issue and others if it 4
13 weren't for the fact that Intervenors sought his 14 testimony.
15 We just simply believe, as much as the Board 16 desires to focus on the harassment contention as the 4
17 principal issue in this case, you have to weigh the l
18 credibility of the presentations by the Staff and the 19 company in reaching a determination; and this evidence, 20 we think, goes to that, Mr. Chairman.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, we don't want to 22 prolong the discussion here.
23 And by the way, I want to point out I was not 24 criticizing Mr. McGregor's responding to the question 25 the way he did.
He was asked his belief and he gave Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17882 g)
Iis 1
what, we have no reason to question, was his belief, and 2
so it certainly was an appropriate answer for him to 3
give, but the fact of the matter is, this is not the 4
proper forum to inquire into the motives of the NRC, if 5
they had any part in Mr. McGregor's transfer, and nor is 6
it a forum to even establish that fact.
It just is 7
inappropriate.
8 We can't be in a position of affording you any 9
forum for examining those questions, and so we 're going 10 to rule that type of question out.
11 MR. GUILD:
I think, Mr. Chairman --
es
(
J 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
It's outside the scope of s_s 13 what we are supposed to be hearing here.
14 MR. GUILD:
I don't think the point of the 15 answer has anything to do with the Commissioners as a 16 body of five, Mr. Chairman.
I think it's the 17 constitution of the Commission.
18 I don't think there's any suggestion on Mr.
19 McGregor's part that his understanding is that Edison 20 approached the Commissioners.
I think it is that there 21 was a contact between Edison and the Staff of the NRC.
22 I don't mean to suggest, and I have no reason to 23 suggest, that personally the Commissioners had anything 24 to do with Mr. McGregor's transfer.
/~S IV) 25 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, can I make this Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17883 Dd 1
brief --
2 MR. GUILD:
I think you misunderstand the 3
record in that regard, Mr. Chairman.
4 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, can I make a brief 5
remark.
6 I don't want to delay this proceeding any longer 7
than necessary, but as Staff has pointed out a number of 8
times before, every party to this proceeding has the 9
right, you know, as part of trial counsel's 10 responsibility, to determine the witnesses that they 11 deem will best present the position that they are 12 proferring in this proceeding, and the Staff counsel has 13 done that, and those reasons are best known to the two
~
14 Staff counsel.
It's their prerogative.
15 I would also suggest that, so we can move on, if 16 Mr. Guild wants to make an offer of proof or have his 17 remarks, you know, constitute an offer of proof, we
.1:8 could do that and we can move on.
19 I understand the Chair has ruled on this matter, 20 and I think all the parties have to live with that 21 ruling, s o --
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Guild, I don't 23 know that I have read the record incorrectly, but I 24 don't think this is the place to examine that question, 25 and so I don't think we're going to go any further into Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
17884 h
%)
1 it, we're just ruling it out; and you can make your 2
offer of proof or you can take exception to our ruling 3
in your brief.
4 MR. GUILD:
Fine, Mr. Chairman.
5 May I simply establish the question, with some 6
clarity, whether or not Mr. McGregor's testimony that I 7
directed his attention to was referring to the 8
Commissioners as the Commissioners.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No, I'm saying you can't.
10 Now, if you want to go and ask Mr. McGregor 11 anything you want personally, you are certainly entitled 12 to, but I don't think that's a proper matter for us to 13 examine into --
14 MR. GUILD:
Well, sir, if the --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- to examine or to inquire 16 into.
17 MR. GUILD:
Well, I should think if the 18 Chairman's ruling is dependent on reading that testimony 19 as referring to the Commissioners as a body of five, I 20 would suggest that there is no basis for that reading, 21 and that I would like to be able to clarify what the 22 record reflects, if the Chairman is relying on that 23 language for what I believe is an erroneous conclusion.
24 If the Chairman won't allow me to do that, I 25 certainly respect that, and I will simply take Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17885
~
)
,/
1 exception.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, I am not making 3
any interpretation of that right now,- and so you can 4
take the ball back in your court and you can read it 5
whichever way you want, but we're not going to inquire 6
into the inner workings of the Commission referring to 7
the organization as a whole or the five-member 8
Commission --
9 MR. GUILD:
Understood.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
and anyone who wants to 11 read, for their own personal enjoyment, what was said in
( )
12 the transcript is certainly entitled to do that, but v
13 we've ruled that out, we have stricken that as far as 14 our record in the case goes, and we're not going to 15 entertain any more argument or examination with regard 16 to that subject.
6 17 MR. GUILD:
I take it that also inclucas the 18 actions of Commonwealth Edison Coatpany in that regard as 19 well, Mr. Chairman, because, of course, that's the focus 20 of my questions?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
If it relates to 22 Commonwealth Edison approaching the NRC in order to have 23 Mr. McGregor transferred, as I understand your --
j l
24 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
O )
25
(
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- allegation is, yes, that Sonntaa Reportino Service, L td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17886 r~N h
v 1
includes that.
2 MR.-GUILD:
All right, sir.
3 And could I ask for a basis for the Board's ruling 4
that Edison's action in that regard is not relevant to 5
the proceeding?
6 I don't mean to try the Chair's patience, but I 7
really want to have this point clarified for the record 8
so I can preserve my rights.
9 of course, I will --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm not going to allow any 11 further discussion on that, Mr. Guild.
( )
12 We have said that we heard all the discussion we're v
13 going to hear, and we said it three or four times and 14 then we had further discussion on it --
15 MR. GUILD:
I don't want to discuss it.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- so -- no, no.
We gave 17 all the reasons we're going to give.
18 MR. GUILD:
Fine, fine, Mr. Chairman.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And it's not up to us to 20 establish relevance -- it's up to you -- or not up to us 21 to establish that things aren't relevant.
It's up to 22 you the establish that they are.
23 MR. GUILD:
I take it I need to make no 24 further showing on that point.
O(j 25 I don't mean to irritate the Chairman any further Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17887 n.
%J 1
than I have, but I am trying to protect my behind and 2
cover the record as best I can.
3 I believe this is important, and I believe the 4
Chairman is wrong.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's correct, we heard 6
that.
7 We are not going to entertain any further 8
questions.
9 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, sir.
1 j
10 I have no further questions, in that light, Mr.
1 l
11 Chairman, of Mr. McGregor, then.
\\
i 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Miller.
13 MR. MILLER:
Nothing further.
14 MR. BERRY:
Staff has no additional questions If for Mr. McGregor.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Geocaris, do you wish to 17 pose some questions?
18 MR. GEOCARIS:
No.
19 I just would -- this is not a question, but because l
20 Mr. Miller asked me, I just want to make a brief 21 statement, and I hope then we could excuse the witness.
22 I thank the Chair for taking the several months' 23 recess and allowing me the opportunity to meet with my 24 client on this matter and conclude some other business I 25 was doing with him and to allow me to participate.
Sonntaa Reporting Service.
L-d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17888 r
'v' 1
Mr. Miller caught me a little bit aback, and I want 2
to make sure my answer is absolutely clear for reasons 3
having nothing to do with the substance of the hearing.
4 It is true that the investigations for which I was 5
retained to assist the witness, as a substantive matter, 6
have nothing to do with the Comstock allegers, the 7
Comstock QC people.
8 The investigation did not, for example, have 9
anything to do with how Mr. McGregor reacted to them, 10 whether he disclosed their names, whether he did a good 11 job or a bad job on following up.
There was no 12 substantive relation at all, and I think that's what's 13 important here, what would be relevant here.
14 That's not to say something else, which is 15 irrelevant here, but I need to put it on so there's no 16 negative inference later in other developments.
17 There may be, in a broad sense, some relationship 18 to what triggered the investigations and Mr. McGregor's 19 activities generally at Braidwood, which, you know, may 20 have touched on Comstock.
21 So the f act that there's no substantive 22 relationship should not mean to rule out that there may 23 have been, you know, as a general proposition, some 24 role, which we believe highly improper, as a triggering O)
(
25 mechanism to those investigations which now concluded Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17889
\\
\\
/
1 favorably to Mr. McGregor.
2 That's all I'd like to say at this time.
3 And, again, I thank the Chair for allowing me to 4
participate.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, fine.
6 We understand now what you are saying, and that is 7
there was nothing directly related to the substance of 8
the case, but that certainly your client was justified 9
in, for one thing, retaining you and asking for the 10 recess, because there might have been some impact of 11 those investigations on his ability to freely testify,
/%
g i
12 and you are not ruling out or, on the other hand,
%.J 13 adopting any position with regard to motivation of those 14 investigations, which may or may not have been in some 15 way related to what we're hearing here, and I believe 16 that's the sum and substance of what you are saying, and 17 we appreciate that.
18 MR. GEOCARIS:
Just one little clarification.
19 I had been retained in the spring, so when he 20 was -- of
'86, so I was, you know, aware that he was 21 coming on earlier, and had told him that I didn't see 22 the substantive relation; you know, we should try to 23 cooperate unless somehow those investigations got 24 injected in here.
(n) 25 When he believed they were being injected, as he
,/
Sonntag Reco-ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17890 I
(d x
1 stated, he called me, and that is the reason for the 2
recess, and, you know, as I think you see, he wants to 3
cooperate and get the f acts relevant to this case out.
4 He always has.
5 I appreciate the Chair giving him the opportunity, 6
when his concern arose, to take the recess to bring me 7
when he did testify.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
9 We will say on the record now he only asked for the 10 recess when there were direct questions on the 11 investigations put by some person, so it was appropriate
[)
12 for him to ask for that recess.
'\\J 13 We appreciate that you have come here and 14 represented him.
15 MR. GEOCARIS:
All right.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Is there anything further we 17 have to hear on this matter?
18 (No response.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Thank you, very much, Mr.
20 McGregor --
21 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- for testifying, and you 23 are excused now.
24 (Witness excused.)
)
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let's now find out:
5w/
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17891 V'
1 How much more do you have with Mr. Gardner?
2 MR. GUILD:
I don't have much,-Mr. Chairman, 3
but since I anticipate we can't complete him -- in any 4
event, there won't be any other questions from any-other 5
party -- I would ask that we recess at this time.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, let's just go off the 7
record now.
8 (There followed a discussion outside the 9
record.)
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Back on the record.
4 11 We've had some discussions off the record, but only I
12 on basic procedure here, so there's nothing that really 13 has to go on the record.
i I
14 We'll adjourn until 2:00 o' clock on Monday, at 15 which time we will take Dr. Hulin, and after the 16 conclusion of his testimony next week, we'll then get 17 back to Mr. Gardner.
18 (WHE REUPON, at 11:00 A.
M.,
the hearing of 19 the above-entitled matter was continued 20 to the 24th day of November, 1986, at the 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> of 2:00 P. M.)
22 23 24 25 Sonntaa Reportina Service. Ltd.
\\
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
]
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STETES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 6 2 C0hB10NWEALTil EDISON DOCKET NO.:
50-456/457-OL (llEARING)
PLACE:
CllIC AGO, ILLINOIS DATE:
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the originai transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i (sigt)
.W (TYPED) f hb Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation l
l I
' O
~
i
_