ML20214Q598
| ML20214Q598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1830 OL, NUDOCS 8612050209 | |
| Download: ML20214Q598 (55) | |
Text
ORIGINAL O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456-OL BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 & 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON TELEPHONE CONFERENCE O
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. PAGES: 18406 - 18461 DATE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1986
,/ /
0 1
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001
(
hDR D 00 56 T PDR NADONWIDE COVERACE
.J
CR29094.0 18406 OMT/dnw
- f 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\_)
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC- SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 5 .
6
- Docket No. 50-456-OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457+0L 7
8 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
& 2) :
9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 10
. Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 11 444 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Suite 402 12 Washington, D. C.
(} 13 Wednesday, December 3, 1986 .
14 The telephone conference in the above-entitled matter 15 reconvened at 10:30 a.m.
16 BEFORE :
17 i JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 8
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D. C.
20 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
22 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24 Washington, D. C.
() 25 -- continued --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mi646
18407 1 APPEARANCES:
f 2
On behalf of the Applicant; 3
MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
4 PHILIP P. STEPTOE, III, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 5
Three First National Plaza
- 9 ' " "
6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 7
Commission Staff; 8
STUART TREBY, ESQ.
9 EU>INE I. CHAN, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 10 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 11 On behalf of the Intervenors; 12 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
, O t3 14 a
15 16 17 18 j 19 20 21 22 4 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3Wr,64
18407.1-,
4 1 C O N,T_ E_ N_ T_ S_
2 3
. EEELEETE 4
INTERVENOR'S EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED RECEIVED i
5 Exhibit 200 18442 18442 I
Exhibit 201 18445 18445 7
.chibit 202 18446 18446 8
Exhibit 205 18451 18451 Exhibit 206 18452 18452-1 10 i
! 11 4
12 13 14 15 16 i e
17 18 19
- 20 1
- 21
- 22 i
4 23
'24 25 I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 233H646
_ _ _ . .- _ . . _ , , . _ - , , _ , - - . . . ~ _ _ _ . - . , _ ._ ._ _ . . _ _. , , , _ . . - . - , . . _ , . _ _ , _ . _ _ . , _ .
940 01 01 18408 1 LIVEbw 1 PROCEEDINGS i JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We seem to get some 3 static here. ,
4 I'm not sure I got everyone who's present.
5 Mr. Guild present?
6 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, I'm here. -Can you hear me?
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Okay. And.I take it, j 8 you're alone representing Intervenor?
9 MR. GUILD: Yes, I am.
i 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
4 11 And who do we have for the Staff? Mr. Trevi, 12 Mr. Berry and Ms. Chan?
O 13 MS. CHAN: It's just Ms. Chan and Mr. Trevi.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay. Mr. Berry's not 15 there.
16 MS. CHAN: Correct.
) 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. And for Applicant, 18 Mr. Miller?
i 19 MR. MILLER: And Mr. Steptoe.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller and Mr. Steptoe.
21 Okay.
22 And we have the three Board members.
23 We might just well designate this as the 98th day-g 24 of hearing, since we have the record still open.
(> 25 And what is the first order of business, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-247-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 % 6646
, _.~ - ,, ,- _ . _ -,. - . - , _ - , ~ - , . . - , , , , - .,
l 940 01 02 18409 1 LIVEbw 1 Mr. Miller?
2 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I thought that we would 3 spend some time discussing the documents that Mr. Guild 4 designated from the materials that were supplied by 5 Mr. High. There are some, oh, 90 or so additional 6 exhibits. I have no objection to some of them, but I do 7 have objections to others. I'd like to be heard on those.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I'm not sure which 9 exhibits we're talking about. I got two packages, and I 10 believe that Judge Cole got two packages here.
11 The first package had some Intervenor numbers on pm 12 Q them. The second package did not, and the first package
'~'
13 started with Intervenor 197.
14 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, Judge, there was an error 15 -- there's a smaller package of documents, that I believe 16 had typewritten numbers on them. They were sent from 17 Chicago in error. I neglected to head off a partial set 18 going out from Chicago. When I went back to South Carolina, 19 I sent a full set out myself from South Carolina that --
i 20 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: I see. Okay. Yes, I see that 21 you have the Intervenors' numbers on the bottom here typed 22 l in.
l 23 Okay. Just disregard that package then; is that
-, 24 correct?
)
25 MR. MILLER: The handwritten numbers, beginning ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147-374 W) Nationwide Coserage 800-3 % 6646
940 01 03 18410 1 LIVEbw I with 197 in the upper left-hand corner. That's the package 2 you should be working with.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. And the others ought to 4 be discarded. They're just duplicates of part of that.
5 MR. MILLER: They are, sir.
6 -JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
7 Now I've read these documents, and they don't 8 appear to be that material or relevant. They all appear to 9 have been submitted earlier. At least they have Bates stamp 10 numbers. Is that' what they're referred to?
t 11 j MR. MILLER: They are, but . Judge Grossman -- this 12 is Mike Miller again'-- but the Bates stamp numbers were
.O 13 applied af ter Mr. Guild and the attorney from our office 14 used the documents.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So these were not 16 supplied originally?
17 MR. MILLER: There are, in fact, four-documents 18 that were a part of. earlier submittals by Applicants, and I '
-19 can identify those as it goes through.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Wait. Let me ask, is the 21 reporter - taking this down?
22 REPORTER MAGGIO: Yes, sir.-
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Do you know who's-24 speaking?
u) 25 REPORTER MAGGIO: So far, I do.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700' Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
J 940 01 04 18411
-1 LIVEbw 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
2 Would everyone please mention their -- state 3 their names before they start talking, so the reporter -- it 4 will make it easier on the reporter.
5 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, this is Mike Miller 6 again, As I say, there are four exhibits that our records 7 indicate comprise documents that were previously made 8 available and produced for Intervenors, and two -- I'm 9 sorry, there are actually five of them. And those,are 10 exhibits that have been marked as Intervenor's 240.
4 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Right.
12 MR. MILLER: 257, 255, 260 and 2 --
i O 13 JUDGE CALLIHAN: This is Callihan.
14 Mr. Miller, the~1ast number was 273?
15 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
l'6 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
17 In addition, of course, there's some duplication i
18 among these 50-odd exhibits?
19 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, and I haven't addressed --
20 I don't necessarily expect to address that. There did 21 appear to be some small amount of duplication.
22 I am prepared, if the Board wishes, to provide 23 the Bates stamp numbers for these documents,_as they were 24 originally produced to Intervenor, well, probably at least 7-)
%.)
25 six months-ago.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-147-3700 Nationwide Coverage . 863364M6 :-
940 01 05 18412 1 LIVEbw 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is that necessary, Mr. Guild?
2 MR. GUILD: I guess that depends on what 3 Mr. Miller's position is, Judge. If his position is that 4 those documents, the five out of 100, should be excluded, on 5 some grounds that they've been previously made available, 6 then, yes, I'd like him to give me the Bates stamp number, 7 so that I can make response.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Miller, continue 9 then.
10 MR. MILLER: Intervenor's Exhibit 240 was 11 previously made available as Bates Stamp No. O, and the last 12 four digits are 7429, 7437.
13 What's been marked as Intervenor's Exhibit 257, 14 previously made available as Bates Stamp No. 012538.
15 Intervenor's Exhibit 255, previously made i 16 available as Bates Stamp No. 02103, 2107.
17 Intervenor's Exhibit 260, previously made 18 available with Bates Stamp Nos. 01220.
19 And Intervenor's Exhibit 273, previously made 20 available as Bates Stamp Nos. 086 --
21 Your Honor --
22 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I think you trailed off there.
23 That last one, please.
24 MR. MILLER: I'm sorry.- The last one was 25 Intervenor's 273, Bates Stamp No. was 08668.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
> ' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8rG 33 H 646
, , ~
940 01 06 18413 2 LIVEbw 1 Your Honor, when these docaments were made 2 available, I think all of us were uncertain as to the extent 3 which they had previously been produced.
4 You may recall, when he described these 5 documents, Mr.- High said that they came from a variety of-6 sources, the Sacklack. files, the Worthington files and.
7 documents that he had felt had accumulated over the course 8 of his tenure at Braidwood.
9 And it is clear, looking at these documents that, 10 indeed, some of.them do come from Mr. Sacklack's files and 11 find that some of them have not been previously produced.
12 But the ones that have been previously made O 13 available,'it seems to me that Intervenors should be 14 precluded at this point in the proceeding from simply 15 introducing them into the record without testimonial 16 sponsors.
17 A number of them are documents that -- well, are 18 authored by Mr. De Wald or Mr. (inaudible), those 19 . individuals that you may recall appeared very early in the s 20 proceeding, were available for cross-examination and i
21 possible redirect, as well, but that--- their time has now 22 come and gone. It seems unfair to require Applicants to l
23 recall those individuals. That would be our decision to 1
- - 24 deal with documents that could have been dealt with when, in l
\_/ 1 25 fact, they appeared (inaudible.) l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
202-347-3700' Nationmide Coserage 800-33&MM
J 940 01 07 18414 1 LIVE bw 1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Just for the record, Mr. Miller, t 2 these Intervenors Exhibits 197 through 284, thereabouts, are 3 the so-called " Joe High papers" and-the so-called "Sacklack 4 Pearl Harbor file"?
5 MR. MILLER: Well, these documents come to us 6 from Mr. High, and they comprise documents Lthat he culled 7 f rom Mr. Sacklack's files, including, I believe, the 8 so-called " Pearl Harbor file," when he succeeded to -- well,=
9 when-he succeeded to his position, I believe, as vault 10 supervisor, following Mr. Sacklack's . termination in the 11 spring-of 1985. He, I think, was.quite. clear on the record,
_ 12 saying that while he might be able to identify some i 13 documents as to their origin, and I think all of us could 14 make pretty educated guesses on some of them, that he did 15 not separately segregate the documents that he himself had 16 obtained, that he had obtained from Mr. Sacklack's' files or 17 documents that he had obtained from a man named 18 Worthington, who is also a Comstock quality control 19 supervisor in the 1984-1985- time frame.
20 JUDGE CALLIHAN: What portion of all the 21 documents in the categories you just described, do these 22 selections, I presume, by Mr. Guild, represent?
~
23 MR. MILLER: I think it's somewhat difficult to 24 say. I think that clearly the'ones that are dated prior to 3
25 July of 1982, and there are a few in that category, predate ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationmkle Coverage 853% m
940 01 08 18415 1 LIVEbw 1 Mr. Sacklack 's arrival on the site, and while he may have 2 had custody of them at one point in time, I don't know 3 whether -- I don' t know what we can say about those.
4 I believe, in addition, there are some documents 5 that may be dated after Sack]ack departed, but perhaps not.
6 There are certainly some in March of 1985, and he was still 7 present.
8 Other than that, it's very difficult to tell, 9 Mr. Callihan, as to the --
10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Well, as to -- Callihan, still 11 --
., 12 Mr. Guild, what was the basis for your selection?
13 Is there a broad category into which these fit?
14 MR. GUILD: Well, sir, of course, what we were 15 seeking was what Mr. Sacklack described as the " Pearl Harbor 16 File," and I have no better way of knowing than Mr. Miller 17 whether that was what we got. I do believe, as Mr. Miller 18 seems to acknowledge, that from looking at the face of the 19 document, we can identify a large portion of them as coming 20 ' from Mr. Sacklack's file. They are either addressed to 21 Mr. Sacklack or show him on copy with a check mark by his 22 name suggesting that it was Mr. Sacklack's copy of documents 23 circulated to others, including himself. They cover y 24 essentially the span of time that he was in his position as 25 supervisor at L. K. Comstock from mid '82 until April of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3XX) Nationwide Coserage Rn3346646
940 01 09 18416 1 LIVEbw 1 '85.
2 They also, of course, include a few documents, as 3 Mr. Miller pointed out, . predate Mr. Sacklack's appointment 4 to that position, but only a few. I haven't counted them 5 up. If you'll notice in the documents, very quickly skip 6 from -- I think I see 197 as a March '82 and 198 as a March 7 '82 document, and in 199, begins a July '82 document.
8 So I only see two offhand. There may be others, 9 of course, that predate Mr. Sacklack's position 10 There are apparently some documents that do come 11 from Mr. Worthington's file, because I see Mr. Worthington 12 as the addressee of the document or on copy.
O 13 They may or may not also show Mr. Sacklack on 14 copy, so it's maybe impossible to distinguish between those 15 two.
a 16 Then there may be some Joe High documents.
, 17 Frankly, if there are any Joe High documents in there, since 18 Mr. High became the supervisor of quality control inspectors 19 in April of '85 or in his later position as vault 20 supervisor, I'm not aware of those.
J 21 Principally, what we're talking about is the vast 22 majority of them are Mr. Sacklack's documents,-and there may 23 be a few that are Mr. Worthington's.
24 From that class'of documents, I dons't have the 73
\J 25 total number. I know Mr. Miller had a Bates stamp number on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage ' 80Cu336-#M6
1-940 01 10 18417 1 LIVEbw 1 each of them, so perhaps he would have readily available the 2 total count of documents that were made available.
3 This is>a subset of total number of documents 4 made available, and I'm prepared to make a showing of 5 relevance as to each document.
6 I, of course, would have been -- would have 7 preferred the documents that had been made available much 8 earlier in this proceeding. It would have facilitated the 9 trial of the case greatly if, when a document involving 10 Mr. De Wald from this latest batch that was not previously 11 made available was available to Intervenors for use in 12 examining Mr. De Wald.
O 13 And that same principle applies to Mr. Sacklack, 14 of course, as well. Mr. Sacklack was on the stand for 15 several days, and there were lots of documents from this --
16 there are many documents that are included in this case of 17 documents that would have added Intervenor greatly in 18 examining Mr. Sacklack.
19 But of course, for whatever reason, I think the 20 reasons are not chargeable to Intervenor,'these documents, 21 with the exception of the five out of approximately 100, 22 were not previously made available, and I had no way of 23 knowing one way or the other. I didn't recognize any of 24 them,-and I take Mr. Miller at his word that those five O 25 would be made available in some form or fashion.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage - W4336-6M6
940 01 11 18418 1 LIVEbw 1 But we now find ourselves at a point where a 2 variety of facts that are of interest to Intervenor, and we 3 believe are relevant are established by these documents, 4 which are admissions by Applicant, and we offer them all in 5 evidence. We believe that they are properly admissible as 6 admission.
7 Now ~if there's a requirement for showing 8 relevance as to-each document, we are prepared to do that.
9 I should only mention this, Mr. Callihan, and 10 other members of the Board, that I was asked yesterday 11 evening by the Staff, if they would agree'to a continuance 12 of this conference call until sometime tomorrow, so that O 13 they could have additional time to review both the Gedecki 14 deposition that was served yesterday on me in South 15 Carolina, and these documents which I served on them on 16 Monday, and I said I'd have no objection to doing that, but 17 suggested that we go forward with the call at least to the 18 point of being ab'e to establish an agenda, and at least 19 have the parties state their position for the record, 20 generally, about what_-- about_the matters at hand.
21 I am prepared to.go today through each of the 22- documents and make a showing of relevance, or I'm prepared 23 to defer that until --
- 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let's understand -- this s'
25 is Judge Grossman -- whether Mr. Miller is contesting the 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8%33MM6
1 I
940.01 12 18419 1 LIVEbw 1 relevance of these documents.
2 MR. MILLER: I do not contest them all. As I 3 say, there are probablyfat least half of-them to which I l
4 interpose no objection.. And others, I.have a variety of.
5 objections, of which relevance is only one.
6 And why don't I-set forth some of the other --
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
8 MR. MILLER: -
general objections that I have.
9 They are really kind of exemplified, if you will, by 10 Intervenor's Exhibit 197. I have an objection to the j 11 relevance of that document. It does predate Mr. Sacklack's 12 appearance at the site, and therefore, in accordance with 13 what I understood the Board's ruling to be, with respect to 4
14 Inspection Report 8302 during Mr. Gregor's examination, the 15 relevance of the document was nonexistent (?).
16 Secondly, this is the document that is authored 17 by Corcoran, and I don't wish to transgress at all on-any 18 protected order issued by the Commission, but given what I 19 understand the ruling to be, and I still have received a 20 copy of the opinion, it seems to me'that' Applicant for 21 documents which are authored by_Corcoran is in an_. impossible 22 position. That is, there is simply no way, even if we-wish 12 3 to, that we can call the author to explain or'otherwise_give 24 testimony with respect to those pieces of paper.
u) 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(XL336-6646
940 02 01 18420 2 OMT/bc 1 Finally, one looks at Intervenors Exhibits 197, 2 one sees that out of there is handwriting. And there are 3 numbers of handwritten documents, or documents that are 4 pa-tially handwriting in this exhibit.
5 Where the author is clearly identified and there 6 are -- they stand as typewritten business applicants or 7 Comstock subtract, but on this one, there are initials at 8 the bottom that I simply don't understand and don't know who 9 they are.
10 Looking at. this, however, and looking at the i
11 handwritten date, suggests to me that perhaps the 12 typewritten data up there is an error. Maybe it ought to be O 13 a (inaudible). One of my objections.
14 But, in any event, I don't know how we could be 15 charged with handwritten material that are placed on there 16 by...placed on documents by individuals.that are 17 unidentified and essentially unidentifiable from the face of 18 the document.
i 19 MR. GUILD: If I could, Judge, just to clear this 20 up, it seems to me that these particular documents, the 21 handwritings are pretty obviously authored by Chuck Stiles.
- 22 The copy is not perfect. It cuts off part of the name at 23 .the top, but it says "To" and that word should read " Chuck 24 Stiles" at the top, "From TFC," which should be Tom Cocoran, 25 "please read, initial and return to me."
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347 3700' Nationwide Coserage 80 M E % 86
i 940 02 02 18421 1 OMT/bc 1 And, at the bottom, we have the notes with the 2 initials I believe to be Mr. Stiles, because it looks like I 3 CHS.
4 Mr. Stiles had some responsibility for -- I'm 5 going to say administrative duties at Comstock Company, as I 6 understand it,' at the time.
7 'And I believe Mr. Miller's correct that it is a 1
- 8 3/3/83 documet. If you look at the control number, it' reads'
]
9 "83-03-01".
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -Well, I don't.think the matters 11 you raise, Mr. Miller, just now really would preclude us 12 from admitting the document. The fact that you may not --
0 13 question Mr. Cocoran under your understanding of the -
14 Commission's order certainly does not preclude us from 15 admitting a document, a company document,-in which, on
- 16 behalf of the company, he took a certain position.
17 MR. MILLER: But,-your Honor, if the-1 18 individual --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
20 MR. MILLER: -- has knowledge of what's meant, or 21 what was intended when these documents were prepared is 22 simply not available to the applicant or the board or any of 23 the other parties, I think that there is.due process 24 ground.
O 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Perhaps you ' re . right, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage im-33MM6
940 02 03 18422 1 OMT/bc 1 Mr. Miller, but that does not relate to our admitting or not 2 admitting -- to our admitting the document. That relates to ;
i 3 what the Commission's order would preclude you f rom 'doing.
4 I don't think that the Commission's order exempts 5 the company from allowing documents to be placed in there if 6 they were authored by Mr. Corcoran.
7 We'll just have to do the best we can. The 8 document.itself is the best evidence of what was done here.
9 And whether you can get any additional insight into it, or 10 anything to contradict the documents from the person himself 11 is something you would have to take up with the Commission.
12 But, as fer as the document itself goes, and
_O 13 whatever inferences can be made from what appears on the 14 document, I don't think that we're precluded from using the 15 document in that way.
16 MS. CHAN: Your Honor, the Staff has a position l 17 it would like to express. l l
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, Ms. Chan.
19 MS. CHAN: Mr. Guild has not yet explained the 20 relevance of this document or produced or explained the l 21 nexus to the contention at issue.
22 And other than just saying that all these l l
23 documents relate. For example, 197, we need to have some l
~
I 24 tie in with the contention that we've been litigating for I
( I 25 the last 97 days. I 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage - &n33MM6
940 02 04 18423 1 OMT/bc 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, yes, Ms. Chan, that's 2 clear, I think. My opening comments on the documents were 3 that we didn't see that there was that much relevance 4 involved.
5 But we're not up.to that point of relevance yet.
6 I don't believe that -- well, I don't know. If we're ready 7 to discuss relevance on all the documents, then we'll go 8 ahead and do that.
9 Is the staff prepared to discuss each document?
10 MS. CHAN: Yes, the Staff is prepared to discuss 11 each document.
12 I wanted to note also that the Staff shares the O 13 Applicant's reluctance in discussing any of the material 14 authored by Mr. Corcoran for fear of potentially violcting 15 the protective order.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't understand that.
17 These documents are not offered in any way that relate to 18 the matter before the Commission.
19 They're offered as company documents reflecting 20 an official's position, the company's position as expressed 21 by a particular individual.
22 MS. CHAN: Well, the examples I was thinking of 23 were that some of the items authorerd by Mr. Corcoran might~
24 potentially be used by Mr. Guild to support his contention.
O 25 And since Mr. Guild has not signed the protective ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 80433MM6
940'02 05 18424 2 OMT/bc 1 order, Staff does not want to aid or abet the introduction 2 of documents that might be used to contravene the Staff's 3 responsibility under the protective order at a later date.
$ 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't understand that, 5 Ms. Chan. I don't know how much we can discuss about the 6 Commission's protective order, but I just don't see it 7 applying to' documents that in which a company position is 8 stated, or at least a portion of the company's position, a 9 division or some other entity, is stated by that particular i
j 10 person.
11 I don't see how the commission's order affects 12 that. It may affect any followup that can be initiated
(
13 with regard to the document, but that's a different 14 problem.
15 I don't see how it precludes us from accepting 16 the document. Now, I have a problem on relevance on the 17 document also. But certainly not because Mr. Corcoran's 18 name is on that document. :
19 MS. CHAN: Well, the Staff was looking ahead to 20 the possible use of the document in the future and erring on 21 the side of caution wanted to express its opinion in that 22 regard at this time, at the time the document might be 23 admitted.
fy 24 That's all.
\)
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now, Mr. Guild -- Mr.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804319M6
940 02 06 18425 2 OMT/bc 1 Miller, have you finished with your full objections to this 2 particular document?
3 MR. MILLER:' I haven't expressed myself yet on i
4 relevance.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's what I thought. So, why 6 don't you proceed on that?
7 MR. MILLER: Rather frankly, I share Ms. Chan's 8 inability to discern how this document, and many of the I 9. others, relate to any issue that has been before the Board i
10 or you could reasonably comprehend it's within the scope of 11 the intention of litigating.
12 This appears to be an exchange between C:)
- 13 Mr. Corcoran, or a . memorandum to Mr. Corcoran f rom i
14 Mr. Roland, and a handwritten comment as to the reasons why 15 the memorandum was sent.
16 But, really,-for the life of me, without.-- I 1 17 don'.t understand the subject matter of the memorandum to.
18 start with, and how it's relevant to the proceeding is...-
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes,'I think we should have 20 Mr. Guild indicate how it is relevant.
i 21 Mr. Guild, could you tell us, please?
i 22 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman,.I'd be happy to do 23 that. I guess what I'd ask though is I unde rstood i 24 Mr. Miller was using this document as a vehicle to make a O 25 more general demonstration of what his' objections were to 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide roverage Rn33M646
940 02 07 18426 1 OMT/bc 1 be.
2 And, frankly, before we go document by document, 3 I would appreciate it if, since I've offered these documents 4 and they have come to me in the unusual fashion that they 5 have, that, as typically occurred, when a document is 6 offered, they're offered first and then objections are 7 heard.
8 And the parties objecting to the receipt of the 9 documents are required to state, at least identify the 10 nature of the objection.
11 And I hear Mr. Miller to say that he only objects 12 to the relevance of half of the documents that have been O 13 offered.
14 And I would ask him to identify the documents 15 which will be the subject of his objection. O the rwise , ' I 16 fear that I'm going to have a moving target here. And I 17 really don't think that that's the position Intervenor ought 18 to be put in because of the manner in which these documents 19 came to us.
20 I think it would be absolutely apparent how the 21 vast bulk of these documents are relevant if they_were 22 offered during the course of the examination of witnesses, 23 .where a foundation could be established under normal' 24 circumstances, the witnesses could be asked to focus on.the O 25 specific subject of a document,~and testimony could be l
ACE-FEDERAL' REPORTERS, INC.-
N2-347-3700 - Nationwide Coverage Am336-6M6
.1
940 02 08 18427 1 OMT/bc 1 testimony could be elicited.
2 The document then would be an aid in cross-3 examination or would itself be evident. But, you know, I'm 4 put in I think an unfair position of long after these 5 witnesses have left the stand, all parties' recollections 6 are somewhat dimmed, having to make a showing-7 affirmatively.
8 I'd ask that Mr. Miller identify the documents to 9 which he has an objection. And then I'd be more than happy 10 to argue the ones that he objected.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, whether Mr. Miller does
,s 12 identify each of those documents first, nevertheless, you 13 are going to have to make your affirmative showing as to 14 each of the documents anyway.
15 I don't see how we can ask any party to argue the 16 negative on relevance until you show how, unless it's 17 apparent on the face of the document that it is relevant, I 18 think, Mr. Guild, it's going to be up to you to establish 19 relevance.
20 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me 21 that I've gotten documents that are produced by principals 22 l in this case. I've gotten documents that came from the file 23 of the quality control supervisor, who everyone acknowledges
, - , 24 was guilty of harrassment and intimidation, was fired for I
25 that reason.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37f X) Nationwide Cosc age mn3MM6
940 02 09 18428 2 OMT/bc 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
2 MR. GUILD: I've gotten documents that are 3 clearly relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding.
4 Now, it seems to me that, having done that -- and 5 there's no documents in this collection -- none -- zero --
6 that are extraneous to those general -- that general 7 connection.
8 N ow , each document has some aspect of it that is 9 of interest to the Intervenor. And I'll be happy to make 10 those showings. And I 'll do it now.
11 But, the fact of the matter is it really does put
,, 12 the cart before the horse because having established the
\ l 13 relevance to the subject matter, having established that 14 they're from -- they're additions --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. Mr. Guild, I don't know how 16 you have established that they are relevant. You've gotten 17 them from a certain place, but that doesn't establish their 18 relevance. Whether they were in Mrs. Sachlach's files or 19 not does not make them relevant.
i 20 MR. GUILD: Well, sir, I think --
21 ll JUDGE GROSSMAN: And once you're challenged, 22 whether it's at the hearing or you have a live witness 23 on the stand, or where we don't have any witness, once m 24 you're challenged on grounds of relevancy, you have to make 25 some sort of showing.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Naikmwide Coverage 80fk34 (M6
940 02 10 18429 1 OMT/bc 1 MR. GUILD: Exactly,_ sir. And I'm prepared to do 2 that. My only request was that I understand what the scope 3 of the challenge is to relevance. Not on argument.
4 All I want to understand is, of the 90 documents, 5 which ones do the applicant or the staff object on relevance 6 grounds.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, do you have ' a 8 listing handy that.you can give.us now of which documents?
9 MR. MILLER: Sure. I'd be happy to.
10 Object on the basis of relevance to Exhibits 197 11 through 213.
{ 12 MR. CALLIHAN: Callihan here.
O 13 Mr. Miller, this is a recitation of the 14 Intervenor's Exhibit Numbers which the Applicants say are?
15 MR. MILLER: Irrelevant.
j 16 MR. CALLIHAN: Irrelevant. All right.
- 17 MR. MILLER
- 197 to 213. 17 --
18 MS. CHAN: Was that 217, Mr. Miller?
19 MR. MILLER: Yes, it is.
20 MR. MILLER: 223 to 225.
21 MR. CALLIHAN: All right, Mr. Miller -- 217 to 22 220?
, 23 MR. MILLER: No, no, no.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 217, 223, 225.
O 25 MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, 223, 224 and 225.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3m) Nationwide Coverage 8@33MM6
940 02 11 18430 1 OMT/bc 1 (Pause.)
2 MR. MILLER: 232, 233, 235, 243 to 245, 262, 265, 3 266, 268, 270, and I believe that concludes my list.
4 MR. CALLIHAN: All right, sir.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right, now will Staff 6 withdraw objections to relevance with regard to the others, 7 or do you also have objections to other documents, Ms. Chan?
8 MS. CHAN: Well, the Staff has not made a list as 9 such. We just marked each exhibit as we went along. I can 10 go through and see if it correlates with Mr. Miller.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And then you'll be prepared to
,_, 12 argue, or will you --
13 MS. CHAN: Yes.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- accede to Mr. Miller's -- no, 15 you wish to argue each one of the ones that you have listed?
16 MS. CHAN: Well, if they agree with Mr. Miller's, 17 we will not argue them separately. The Staff wanted to make 18 a general objection known that even if the Staff believes 19 that the document was relevant, Staff believes that the 20 material is cumulative.
21 ; And since it does not contradict any material 22 already in evidence, that it is not vital that the document 23 be admitted at this late date; because its cumulative, it 24 , doesn't add anything to the record other than another cite,
(
25 perhaps.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tU Nanonwide Cmcrage 80ik 344M
4 940 02 12 18431 1 OMT/bc- 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, but, Ms. Chan, nor does it 2 delay the hearing at all if we just~ admit the documents 3 without any further testimony.
4 So I don't see that that's a valid objection to 5 admitting it. There's the reason for not allowing-j 6 cumulative evidence, primarily cumulative testimony, is that
- 7 it delays the hearing.
8 Here we just have a one-shot matter. We either-9 admit them or not. And if they are relevant, and we admit i 10 them, we don't lose anything. We only gain something.
11 So-that's not really a big objection. But, 12 fine. If you can go through now and give us a listing of
) 13 j which ones you wish to offer the relevance objection to, t
14 we'll take that down also, i 15 MS. CHAN: All right. Exhibit Nos. 197 through
. 16 201, 203, 205, 206, 208, 213, 224, 230, 232, 233, 235, 240, i
! 17 243, 244, 245, 249...
18 (Pause.)
,L
, 19 .. 260.
20 MR. CALLIHAN: Callihan.
21 That was 2-6-zero?
22 MS. CHAN: Six-zero.
I i 23 MR. CALLIHAN: ,Thank you.
24 MS. CHAN:- 266, 268...
25 -(Pause.)
4
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 - ' Nationwidecoverage MA3366646
940 03 01 18432 1 'OMT/bc 1 MS. CHAN: (continuing): And that was it. All 2 the rest are possibly relevant.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. Have you concluded 4 your arguments on the objections, Mr. Miller?
5 MR. MILLER: Well, other than addressing _the
- 6. individual relevance of-each exhibit, as long as.I'm 7 understood to have a continuing objection with respect to 8 documents authored by Mr. Corcoran, yes, I have.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now, let me understand 10 whether this listing you gave us, which I had asked for only 11 relevance objections, also includes other objections other 12 than the Corcoran objection.
O Or is there a separate list for those documents?
13 14 MR. MILLER: I have a few other objections, your 15 Honor, to specific exhibits which, in my judgment, contain 16 unattributed handwriting. And it is to the handwritten I 17 portions of those specific exhibits that I have additional 18 objections.
19 That is, that I do not believe it is appropriate 20 to attribute admission to the applicant from handwriting 21 that can't be identified as coming from a person who is, 22 well, we don't know where the handwriting came from.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Then, we have to make an
- 24 . inference. Either we infer that it is a certain person, or 25 it might be a certain person, or it isn't a certain person.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-)?00 Nationwide Coverage 80rk336-fM6
940 03 02 18433 1 OMT/bc 1 But I don't know how else we can handle that.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest 3 a couple of things. First, I know it is a problem but at 4 least a problem in terms of matter of evidence whose 5 handwriting is it, if that's the question.
6 First, I assume that Mr. Miller and Ms. Chan 7 would stipulate that the handwritings appear on the 8 documents in the form that they were made available to 9 Intervenors, except of course the Intervenor number which is 10 placed on them.
11 But, all handwritings are on the documents in
-, 12 their original form.
)
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, I agree with that.
14 MR. GUILD: And there are several documents --
15 and I don't have the numbers readily available, although if 16 I go through them, I can get to them -- but there are 17 several documents that I was going to propose stipulations.
18 For example, the documents where the handwriting 19 appears to be Mr. Sachlach. Now, that's my inference from 20 !: having seen Mr. Sachlach's handwriting.
21 I was hoping, frankly, to preclude the necessity I
22 l for simply having a witness to sponsor or identify the l
23 ; handwriting, to seek a stipulation where it appears apparent i
~
24 that the author, either because it's signed or because the l 25 handwriting appears to be Mr. Sachlach's, that no one would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- s._ m m. -- ,
i
_ 940_03 03 18434 >
i- 1 OMT/bc 1 dispute that it is Mr. Sachlach. )
2 That's a. possibility, but I don't'believe that -
3 it's of necessity that Intervenors establish whose
'4 handwriting it is so long as the genuineness of the document 5 is not in dispute.
t
+
6 MS. CHAN:- Staff. Except.the applicant's 7 . representation as to the handwriting appearing on the 8 documents, because the staff has-no independent basis for 9 disagreeing. <
10 They received the documents through the same
! 11 channel as the intervenor.
4' 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. Why don't we just C) 13 take each document one by one? Now that we have the
.I
- j 14 listing, I think we might junt as well look at all the 15 documents just to make'sure that there aren't other 16 objections other than relevance, which were the documents l 17 listed. -
18 And we might just as well start off now, 19 Mr.' Guild.
i i-20 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I have in front of me 1-21 Intervenor's 197. Again, it appears to be misdated in the 22 top righthand corner, but appears to be a 1983 document, or 23 March 3, 1983 document.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -Well, I think it's pretty clear i
O 25 that it was a 3-3-83 document. It_seems to me that that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2fD-347-37(X1 Nationwide Cosera 8(Xh336-6M6 I
1 l
l l
940 03 04 18435 i .
1 OMT/bc 1 would follow from the document.
2 Is there any problem with that as far as the 3 parties are concerned, Mr. Miller?
I 4 MR. MILLER: Oh, I agree that it is.
i 5 MS. CHAN: Staff. I see that it's probably a 6 1983 document.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: .Okay, that's fine. I don't ;
l 8 think there's a problem with that.
9 Now the' question really is relevance here.
10 MR. GUILD: Well, we're talking about a document 11 that was' authored in a time f rame that's clearly af ter 12 Mr. Sachlach came on the site. So we don't need to argue O 13 the question of scope in time.
14 This document, in Intervenor's opinion, shows a 15 couple of things. First, it reflects the relationship
) 16 between quality control and production, a relationship that 17 ' appears to be somewhat uneasy and testy, on the face of. this 18 document; indication between Corcoran, QC manager, and 19 Roland. The subject matter is cost and schedule.
20 It directly referred to, time and cost reduction, 21 as being a goal of quality control. And in particular, the I
22 specifics of the subject matter are how' to reduce the number 23 of ICRs.
, 24 And, apparently, one means for doing so was to
. O 25 have the craf t shoulder responsibility for eliminating ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8M33MM6
.- , , - . _ . . , . , _ . . _ . ~ - - - _ . - - - , _ _ -_.,., -. . _ . . - _ , _ . _ , . - . . . - _ - ~ _ . _ , ..
l I
940 03 05 ,
18436 1 OMT/bc 1 problems before they became quality. control responsibility 2 for doing so.
i 3 At the bottom, Mr. Stiles appears to suggest this 4 memo was necessitated because Roland would not give Stiles 5 an audience. Apparently, they make the same point that the i-6 memo makes.
7 Again, we're trying to...there's going to i 8 be...the applicant, in their rebuttal case, tries to make 9 showings of before and af ter, before July '82 and af ter July 10 '82, before December... excuse me, August '83 and after 11 August '83.
12 There is obvious relevance at least to the matter 13 of foundation establishing what. happened in the before time i
14 period, and, in this case, we can see that there were l 15 conflicts between quality. control and production interests 16 in the preceding Mr. De W51d's tenure as quality control 17 manager, '83. -
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller?
19 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, you know, this seems to 20 me to be a routine thing with respect to how, evidently, 21 certain types of discrepancies, he feels...the document.
22 It really requires some reading. It's well 23 beyond inference to suggest that this has a relationship to 24 a sort of harrassment of quality control personnel by O 25 quality control management.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage Ikn336-fM6
940 03 06 18437 2 OMT/bc 1 And, indeed, there has never been any indication 2 that Mr. Corcoran, who authored this memo, was an individual 3 who was responsible for any alleged harrassment to the 4 quality control personnel.
5 If what we are looking at now is relationship 6 which may have been good, bad or indif ferent between 7 Comstock Production as headed up by Mr. Roland and Comstock 8 quality control, headed up first by Mr. Corcoran, then by 9 Mr. De Wald.
10 It seems to me that this is a dimension to the 11 hearing that has simply not been addressed at all in the 12 past. And in its Eleventh Hour -- lith hour and 59th O 13 minute, probably -- we have a few documents -- there are 14 others -- that relate to this relationship.
15 I believe it's irrelevant to that extent.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan?
17 MS. CHAN: Well, the staff views this document as 18 not shedding any particular light on any of the items 19 discussed in the contention or litigated because the Staff's 20 position has been that there is nothing improper about 21 management's concern with production or scheduling and the 22 quotas and management objectives to complete the plan did 23 not have adverse implications.
24 So, therefore, the staff does not find this O 25 particular document relevant to the items litigated.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3 M Nationwide Coverage NA336 M46
1 940 03 07 18438 2 OMT/bc 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it doesn't seem to me to 2 be relevant, really. Certainly, as f ar as Mr. Corcoran is 3 concerned, he is not relevant to what we have here.
4 The only question is whether Mr. Roland's 5 position is a carryover. And if there was something 6 substantial here, I would think that we would admit it.
7 But it doesn't seem as though this really says 8 very much. So I think the Board's just going to rule that d
9 i it's not relevant.
10 DR. COLE: This is Dr. Cole. I agree with that. .
I 11 j JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So let's go on to 198.
,_ 12 MR. CALLIHAN: You will find this one again in i i I 13 the Intervenor's 231. But I subscribe to the irrelevant, 14 both places.
15 DR. COLE: I'm sorry. 197 appears again, 16 Dr. Callihan?
17 j MR. CALLIHAN: My records show that it also 0
18 appears in your No. 231. So we can look for it when we get 19 f there.
h 20 i JUDGE GROSSMAN: The third page of Exhibit 231.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask that 22 _ 197 and any other documents that are not admitted be --
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Subject to an offer of proof?
fs 24 ! MR. GUILD: That they be marked and travel with
( ,
x.s l 25 ; the rest.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! m>m ~ m_ < - mo -
a 940 03 03 18439 1 OMT/bc 1 JUDGC GROSSMAN: Okay. Are you making an offer 2 of proof of these?
3 MR. GUILD: Yes, I am.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
5 MR. GUILD: 198, document is from a time frame 6 prior to Mr. Sachlach and Mr. De Wald coming on. Again, I 7 believe that if applicant is going to be able to rely on the 8 rebuttal case, that is, preparing before and after period, 9 that Intervenors must be given an opportunity to establish 10 that during the before period there were forces at play that 11 make a comparison, before and after, as applicant has done, 7,
12 unpersuasive.
/
l 13 This is an '82 document. For a more narrow 14 purpose though establishes that long prior to Mr. Puckett 15 identifying problems with the completion of quality 16 documents, making changes, alterations, so-called 17 corrections, there was an explicit, written directive i
18 l specifying how such alterations were to be made, changes l
19 were to be made.
20 j And, of course, changes found by Mr. Puckett 21 years later in contravention of the clearly-stated prior 22 policy existed long after the policy had been established by 23 l this document.
I g~ 24 ! JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I don't believe that we 25 have any direct issue with regard to this particular ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- x. _ s-mm_. mu m
l l
l i
940 03 09 18440 1 OMT/bc 1 documentation correction, as far as Mr. Puckett goes.
2 So the Board's ruling is that this isn't relevant 3 either. And Dr. Cole agrees with me here.'
4 DR. COLE: I agree with you.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let's go on to 199.
6 MR. GUILD: 199, similar argument. This is 7 Edison's position about how one makes correct -- Edison's 8 position is the second page of the document, 8-27-82 memo to 4
i 9 contractors. The cover is a July 12, '82 memo on Comstock 10 letterhead to Comstock personnel. -
l 11 Again, the subject is a clear statement of policy i 12 as to how documents are to be - quality documents are to be l
( 13 corrected, establishing that, early on, long before 1 14 Mr. Puckett, there was a statement of policy that was 15 contravened by the findings made.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, but same ruling on this, 17 and so 199 is not admitted.
A 18 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. 200 is a July '82 19 status report from Comstock quality control to Commonwealth 20 Edison Company establishing that as of that date, there was i 21 a significant backlog of items that had not yet been 22 inspected, although they had been directed for attention.
23 The figure for hangars, 16,703 installed. And 24 that there were only 74 percent of welding inspections had
- 25 been completed as of that date.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.~
202-347 37tu Nationwide coverage 8m33MM6
l 940 03 10 18441
! l OMT/bc 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Miller, what is your 2 objection to relevance? Shouldn't we have a question of 3 backlogs about this' time? !
4 MR. MILLER: No, sir. I believe that backlog 5 issue that was addressed took place almost two years later, t .
^
6 hitting at the spring of 1984...well, the backlog existed ,
7 when Mr. De Wald took over in fall of '83. ;
j 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me ask you again, when did
~
9 Mr. Sachlach take over?
i 10 MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Sachlach, I see, is listed i
l 11 as having received a copy of this document. This has to be l
)
i 12 within a few days or, at most, a_few weeks of his employment
() 13 by Comstock Quality Control.
t 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it seems to me to be 15 relevant on the question of Mr. Sachlach having been perhaps 16 as alleged by Intervenor put in that position that_he was 1
! 17 given in order to move production along.
~
18 I don' t. . . it's certainly not a conclusive 19 document, but it certainly relates to that area.
- 20 Ms. Chan, was this one of the documents that --
21 MS'. CHAN: The staff objected to this as j
- 22 irrelevant.
I j 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I think we'll allow this 1
24 document. So we'll admit this document, Intervenor's 200 --
!( 25 201, Mr. Guild?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 2024:Mw Nationwide coverage m 33u 6 6
l .
940 03 11 18442
! l OMT/bc 1 (Intervenors Exhibit 200 identified 2 'and received in evidence.) -
4.
3 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, if I may have a moment.
i
- . 4 If I could...this is a very poor copy. This is i
5 another instance of a duplicated document. If you would i
f 6 look at Intervenor's 206, there is a clearer copy of this 7 very same document. At least, the text is the same.
8 Here, you can read it. Its an August 17, 1982 i
! 9 memorandum from Mr. Cappella, who is a Commonwealth Edison i
10 Company employee in the project construction department, to
]
i 11 Mr. Brown of Comstock Quality Control.
j 12 And, here, in response to an inquiry about
' (:) 13 Comstock seeking a corrective action to prevent recurrence
- 14 of cable separation problems, responds that, first, it's not 15 their responsibility -- Comstock's -- to suggest corrective
- 16 action; that theirs is only to identify and report 17 concerns.
l 18 Further, that these concerns are not considered l
19 reportable or nonconforming pending a Sargent and Lundy 20 review. And our belief is that of course we.had talked l 21 specifically about cable separation problems; more j 22 generally, we believe that this reflects Edison's
! 23 discouraging of quality control initiative to, under i 24 Appendix B, not only identify conditions that are either 4
C:)
25 nonconforming or discrepant, but to suggest ways to prevent ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(X) Nationwide Coverage un3%u,46
_m
940 03 12 18443 OMT/bc 1 recurrence.
2 And, of course, here we know in '82, there were 3 separation problems identified, separation problems 4 continued uncorrected and undocumented until 1986. Witness, 5 Mr. Archibald's observation in the upper cable spreading 6 room and other places.
7 MR. MILLER: Your !!onor, this is Mike Miller.
8 I think Mr. Guild put in an extra map, but 9 characterizing the document as I read it, it says "are 10 reportable", and considered nonconforming pending Sargent 11 and Lundy's...
,_ 12 But, again, the relevance of this to the I )
13 assertion that there were efforts of intimidation of quality control. This is something that occurred, a memorandum, 14(
15 l; four years later, earlier than -- concern by Mr. Archibald 16 in 1986.
17 i I just...to separate it in time and space and, in i
18 l any event, the distance with Intervenor's characterization Y
of it.
19 l 20 MR. GUILD: You're right, Mr. Miller. I did put l
21 a double negative in there. But the point remains the same, 22 , Mr. Chairman, that we aren't talking about just 23 ; harrassment and intimidation, we're talking about
, 24 ' harrassment, intimidation, production pressure.
( I 25 Intervenor's theory in this case is about ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2H2-147170H Nanonwnie Cmcrage Mk 31A 6644
940 03 13 18444 1 OMT/bc 1 production pressure emanated from Commonwealth Edison 2 Company. .
3 And here we see evidence, in our opinion, that 4 early on Commonwealth Edicon Company, by word reflected in 5 the face of this memo was discouraging quality control from 6 pe rf o rming its quality control function with respect to this 7 issue of cable coverage.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan?
9 MS. CHAN: Your Honor, the staff views the 10 contention, as it has stated before, somewhat more narrowly 11 than the other parties in that unless an item is related to 12 three major incidents, that of Puckett, Cedars or the gang i i 13 : of 24, that it's not relevant.
I 14 l And the staff does not see that a 1982 memo about
!l 15 LI requiring S&L review and reportability in this case any l
16 relevance to production pressure exerted on the gang of 24 17 years later. So...
18 19 !
20 21 ;
22 23 i
c3 24 !
LJ 25 ;;
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 2o: m n., s.,_ uc <,,,mye mu-
940 04 01 -18445 1 LIVEbw 1 So the Staff maintains its position that this 2 document is not relevant to the contention it has. :
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll let this document in. So i 4 we'll admit Intervenor's 201.
5 MR. GUILD: If I could make a suggestion that -- .
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- that we use the one that's in 7 206 instead? ,
8 MR. GUILD: Sir, just in terms of legibility.
9 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, that's be fine.
i 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think, why don't we take that il second page -- is there any reason why, in a document in 12 206, there is that connection between these two documents?
O 13 MR. GUILD: If I can have a moment, 14 Mr. Chairman. I'll check.
15 (A pause.)
16 There doesn't appear to be any connection at all, 17 Judge, and it may simply have been a collation error that 18 the two fell together.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Fine. Why don't we 20 separate them and remark that second page of what was 21 Intervenor's 206 as Intervenor's 201.
+
22 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And we'll admit that. !
t 24 (Intervenor's Exhibit 201 0 25 identified and received.)
-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.147 37tn Nilonwide Coverage sixk3M fM6
940 04 02 18446 1 LIVEbw 1 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. I take it, 202 is 2 subject to objection as well?
3 MR. MILLER: It is.
4 MR. GUILD: All right.
5 1 Mr. Chairman, 202, signed by Mr. Sacklack , to OC 6l Inspectors, in short, telling them that NCRs and ICRs are 7 required to be closed out and completed in two days or t
8 less. That's about as direct evidence of a time limit, 9 quota, production pressure, as you could find, and it 10 certainly suggests that early in Mr. Sacklack's career, he 11 ! was telling his inspectors that they were --
~12 l JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay. Fine. I don't think we t)
13 ! need argument on that. We'll allow this, and whatever 14 ! arguments you want to make about on brief or findings will 15 be appropriate.
16 ! (Intervenor's Exhibit 202 identified 17 l and received.)
l 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's go on co 203.
19 MR. GUILD: 203, poor copy, and I apologize, but 20 ' it is a 1982 document to quality control personnel from 21 i Mr. Stiles, the OA engineer, he's identified there as "CHS,"
22 Chuck Stiles.
23 , What he's transmitting here is an excerpt from a I
g- 24 Z imme r inspection report, that portion of the Zimmer q
)
25 1 inspection report where a level 3 violation, a $50,000 l
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- o2 mn., s. _ ,x ~, , m nm-
I 940 04 03 18447 i LIVEbw I civil penalty is levied against Cincinnati Gas & Electric 2 for a quality documents discrepancy.
3 The point is made in July of 1982 to all OC 4 personnel at Comstock that the NRC can, and they emphasize 5 the word "can" in the memo, place severe -- impose severe 6 punishments for sloppy maintenance of documents. Obviously, 7
1 history suggests that there was little heed paid to the i
8h early recognition that the NRC, at least at Zimmer, treated 9 this matter seriously.
10 MR. MILLER: Your lionor, the relevance of some 11 i sort of cautionary instruction to Comstock quality control
,s 12 l personnel -- as Mr. Guild explained the document, perhaps I
( I 13 l should succeed from my objection, because --
l 14 l MR. GUILD: I wish you would.
15 ' MR. MILLER: -- it sounds consistent with 16 1 Applicant's view of the case, but I still am at a loss to 1
17 j see how the transmittal of something that occurred at Zimmer 18 is relevant to the issuance of production pressure, f
19 ' harassment and intimidation at Braidwood.
20 MS. CFI AN: The Staff agrees with Mr. Miller, in 21 ! that the transmittal was not even to Commonwealth Edison, it 22 was given to Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company. It's not 23 ) the same company. It has a very detached significance in 7 24 this -- it has no more significance than a newspaper article
~>
25 i about Zimmer being circulated at the Braidwood site, and l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 ) W Nationwide Omcrage *ML1M f4
940 04 04 18448 i LIVEbw 1 the Staff maintains its relevancy objection.
2 l MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, obviously, it's better 3 than that. We have the inference that the quality engineer 4 here at Comstock thought it was relevant, because he 5' transmits it to all OC personnel and makes the point that 6 the NRC may or can get tough for poor quality document 7 maintenance.
8 We think that it establishes that they recognized 9 -- that somebody recognized that it is important to maintain 10 l documents of quality, and obviously, not withstanding that L1 l fact, there was a significant deficiency identified in l
,_ 12 Comstock's quality document.
- ) l
'~
13 [ JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That doesn't seem to be 14f that good a showing of relevance, Mr. Guild. So we're not 15 going to admit 203, 16 204.
17 MR. GUILD: This is Corcoran in September '82 to 18 QC supervisors, which would include Mr. Sacklack, 19 establishing what their duties were. Among the duties i
20 i charged to Mr. Sacklack and other supervisors were, numbe r 21 h 6, knowing the quality plan, initiate and verify compliance, 22 7, know quality procedures to be employed by subordinates, 23 , verify compliance by reviewing NCRs,et cetera. A number of
-s 24 j supervisory tasks, in terms of maintaining proper working s
) ~
25 I relationships, supervisory relationships. Clearly, the i
l -
.i l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, :o m n., . s.,em.ac cmm,e mn v. ,.
, 3 i
940 04 05 18449 ,
i LIVEbw 1 management was telling Mr. Sacklack that he should conduct 2 his -- that he was responsible for being familiar with the 3 procedures and quality program.
4 We maintain the evidence to show that he was not 5 familiar with the areas that he supervised. He did not get >
6 certified in the areas that,he was --
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Guild, this doesn't 8 appear to us to be relevant to what we're permitted to have 9 in issue here, and you may wish to use this for your appeal, ;
10 but it doesn't seem relevant for our purposes. So we won't 11 admit 204. ,
12 205. '
O 13 MR. GUILD: 205 is an Edison audit of Comstock.
14 In short, what it reflects is the basis for subsequent 15 action by Edison, and that was to require 100 percent f 16 inspection by Comstock of the areas which had previously ,
17 only been subject to sampling inspection. '
i 18 If you turn to Attachment 3 to the document, 19 there is an October 26, '82 memo f rom Mr. Cipella of the PCD 20 Edison to Brown and Rowland at Comstock, stating that 100 ;
21 percent inspection is to be required. ;
22 By the way, the 100 percent inspection includes, -
23 and I am reading from the document, " hangar configuration, !
24 conduit and table pan installation," not simply i I 25 configuration.
I' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3hn) Nationwide Coverage Eth34fM6
940 04 06 18450 1
1 LIVEbw 1 The basis for the expansion from 35 percent to 2 100 percent is reflected in the finding by the audit, and i
3 I'll paraphrase that as a finding that there were large i 4 portions of the facility where Comstock did an ineffective 5 sampling -- Comstock OC did an ineffective sampling of the 6 page-related installation work. Therefore, deriving a 7 meaninglesu measure of the quality of work.
I'm quoting, " breaking down the drawings by 8l 9 building, the results are as follows: Containment 1, there 10 were 19 percent total OC inspections, but 84 percent of the 11 l drawing areas had no quality control inspection." And the t
~ 12 aux building relationship is 36 percent total inspection, 63 13 percent of crawings, no quality control inspection.
14 This simply reficcts that Comstock quality 15 control during the times that were the subject of this 16 audit, failed to implomont the quality program by utilizing 17 OC inspections to effectively control and verify the quality 18 of installation.
I 19 ;.
That was the basis for going to 100 percent. It 20 i was not voluntary initiative on the part of SECO , as they 21 maintained in this record, response to NRC findings. It was 22 , a failure by Comstock quality control to effectively 23 implement their program.
~s 24 I JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it seems to me that we did s ) <
~'
25 I have some testimony on this, and for what it's worth, I l
t ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
xmm s _ a,om,,e m m,m,
940 04 07 18451 1 LIVEbw I suppose that some of the background for it. So while it 2 doesn't seem overwhelminingly relevant, I think we'll just 3 let that it.
4 So we will admit Intervenor's 205.
5( 1 (Intervenor's Exhibit 205 6 identified and received.)
7 MR. GUILD: 206. 206 reflects in September of 8 '82, there was also a backlog in the performance of quality 9 control inspections at Comstock.
10 l Edison's theory of the case suggests that there i
11 l was only a backlog at a certain point, that is, a point in
, 12 time, where Mr. De Wald came on, and that therefore, we can
('
) I 13 l explain all of the after, if you will, in terms of the 14 ~ height and pressure that existed only during that period of i
15 time.
16 l;.
Here we are reficcting that -- here's there's a 17 l document, af ter Mr. Sacklack came on, but before Mr. De Wald I
18 came on, in the before time period that Edison wants to use 19 f as a base of data for the rebuttal case, that there was a 20 ; backlog reflected at this time.
21 Mr. Corcoran is requesting all employees for 22 Saturday overtime in October of '82, and he's reflecting 23 that they have, at that point, accomplished 70 percent of 24 the backlog inspections, but there are -- I am quoting --
25 , "There are 3421 more hangars to do." "We are seeing the l
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! :e m n., u, _ aeo.m,y, mow.
l 940 04 08 18452 l
l LIVEbw 1 end of the tunnel," he goes on to say.
l 2 It simply. establishes as background and as a l
3 foundation that the problems at O. K. Comstock with backlog l 4 in the production pressures simply did not materialize only I t
i i
l 5 before Mr. De Wald arrived on the scene, and backlog l
6 pressure did no occur only in 1984 and '85, and that it --
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, for what it's worth, we'll 8 let this one in too. It seems to relate also to the time 9 period that Mr. Sacklack was in there. j 10 (Intervenor's Exhibit 206 identified 11 and received.)
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we go on to 207. t
(:) 13 MR. GUILD: All right, then. 207. Again, this c
14 is a memorandum transmitting f rom Mr. Roland to Mr. Brown of 15 Quality control in October of '82, af ter Sacklack came on, i .
l 16 stating that there would be 100 percent inspections of 17 safety-related installations as of November 1.
18 The handwritten aspects of it are what's of 19 interest. I read: "What about all inspections prior to 20 11-1-82 that were not 100 percent inspected? What has the ,
I 21 client considered here? Careful!!!" -- underlined with 22 three exclamation marks. "This constitutes a change, t 23 apparently, in requirements that may not have been done in 24 the past, where 100 percent inspection documentation would I C:)
l 25 not exist. This lejter, as of November, indicates the start l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide roverage im33MM6 l
940 04 09 18453 i LIVEbw 1 of" - "of" -- I can't make it out.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: "100 percent."
3 ' MR. GUILD: "100 percent. Very important 4 letter."
5 Obviously, someone recognized the fact that 6 Edison or at least Comstock management hadn't addressed the 7 implications of going to 100 percent as of November 1, and 8 there are quality implications of not having addressed the 9 prior non-100 percent inspection. ,
10 Someone raises this point. It's in 11 Mr. S a ck lack 's file, and no one appears to address that 12 question.
i 13 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Callihan. Whose writing, 14 Mr. Guild?
15 MR. GUILD: That I can't tell you, Dr. Callihan, 16 and this -- my -- my impression is, this is not 17 Mr. Sacklack's handwriting. Mr. Sacklack has a very 18 distinctive hand, and we'll see it when it comes up. This l
19 ! does not appear to be it. Again, it was on the document 20 f when it was made available to me.
21 MR. MILLER: Your lionor, I think that this is a 22 memo from Mr. Roland. I don't know who "R. Brown" is.
23 Comstock Brown was replaced by Corcoran. But -- and I dn't 24 i know where the Brown employed by Comstock*went after this.
25 l But it really is the handwriting that is of concern here. I l
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! :o: m u , n m,-am,-y mu m
4*
940 04 10 18454 i LIVEbw 1 don't know when this was -- there is no indication of when 2 this writing was put on or who the author was, And I think 3 that to constitute an admission against Commonwealth Edison 4 Company, there ought to be indication that it was a 5 responsible individual, whose conduct is attributable'to 6 Commonwealth Edison for it to be considered as binding on --
7 on the company.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I think that's correct. I 9 don't think that we can use this.
10 Pirst of all, I think there are two different 11 b handwritings on here. And we just don't know anything about
- 12 that handwriting. So we're just not goina to admit this m/
one.
13 f 14 Perhaps if you had a chance during discovery, you 15 would have discovered who wrote this, Mr. Guild, but we're 16 just not in that posture now. So we won' t admit 207.
17 l 208?
18 l MR. GUILD: 208 is -- Mr. Corcoran, as of 19 l Novembe r 8, '83, was communicating with Mr. Sacklack and 20 l Mr. Cass that, as of that date, daily -- inspectors' daily 21 summary reports are not necessary. Each area supervisor 22 should track their people's work habits.
23 j We'll see a series of memos during the course of 24 , the period reflected in these proposed exhibits, changing 7s j
! ! i 25 ' that position, but what the inference I would draw from this I
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3471Ns1 Nanonwide Costrage Nn)% f4m
940 04 11 18455 1 LIVEbw 1 document is that up till Nqvember 8, '83, for some period of 2 time, there was an inspector's daily summary report.
3 Thereafter, for a period, it appears that Mr. Corcoran 4 suspended that specific requirement and said, instead, that 5 individual supervisors should track work product-ivity.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't see anything 7 relevant there. Now how about the last page of this? Is 8 there anything relevant on that?
9 MR. GUILD: Well, the last page is -- is an 10 extraneous document, M r. Cha i rman, and --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, then, we won't 12 admit 208.
i )
13 } MR. GUILD: Judge, if I could, there's a -- if I 14 I could draw the Board's attention back to Applicant's direct 15 case, where they maintained -- they made quite a bit of how 16 Mr. Sease did the status thing, and how individual inspector 17 productivity did not come to the attention of quality l
management. It was made available only to the first line 18 l i
19 t supervisor.
i 20 The basis for knowing what individual inspectors' 21 i productivity was during periods of time had changed, and 22 this document reflects, before November of '82, there were, 23 l indeed, individual inspector productivity records. A
,- 24 j subsequent document will show that that changed.
\ )
25 ! Mr. De Wald reinstituted individual inspector productivity 1 .
1 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3e m m., mm.,m ~,m mm.
940 04 12 18456 1 LIVEbw 1 records for a period of time.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, but it's only that 3 reinstitution that we're concerned with, and it really 4 doesn't matter that they had this earlier, as far as our 5 purposes go. , ,
6 So we will stick with that ruling. We won't 7 allow -- we won't admit 208.
8 Let's go on to 209.
9 MR. GUILD: 209 reflects an explanation of what 10 the significance was of various OC sign-offs on quality 11 documents at Comstock. It re f le cts , in particular, what the 12 Level 2 reviewer's signature reflects of a Level 1
( ~'
13 i ispector's work .
14 That is on page 1. It reflects, in addition, 15 what the significance of a quality control manager's 16 l signature is.
\
17 I The Level 2-Level 1 point is that you will 18 recall, while a subcontention item that was dismissed by the 19 Commission, the Level 2-Level 1 item was a matter that was i
20 I identified by Mr. Gardner, and it was the subject of his 21 ! rebuttal testimony. Gardner essentially said he identified 22 l that Level I had been doing a certain job, with respect to 23 weld inspection that he found inconsistent with the ANCI
,~ -24 ! standards for quality control qualifi' cation.
25 Edison's position -- I'll paraphrase -- was that t
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- o: wm, nu,- ucc~,nc mawn
940 04 13 18457 i LIVEbw 1 it was not inconsistent and that the resolution of that 2 disagreement turned on what, in fact, the Level 1 inspectors 3 actually did vis-a-vis the Level 2 inspectors who signed 4 those inspection reports.
5 Later, Edison did some -- claimed to'have done 6 some kind of field review or audit to have learned that, in 7 fact, the Level'2s were not -- the Level 1s were essentially 8 delegated much -- afforded too much responsibility for 9 actually performing field inspections without a Level 2's 10 review.
11 The fact of the matter is, this November 15, 1982 i
7 12 l document, which occurred years before Edison claimed to be
('^ )
13 uninformed about what the Level is were actually doing, 14 specifies very clearly that the Level 1s were, indeed, being 15 sent out to the field to verify field conditions, and that 16 the Level 2s, while they had the prerogative of going out to 17 the field to verify conditions'. And that "B" under "2" 18 l there, that the Level 2's real responsibility was simply to 19 review the check list for completeness, legibility, 20 trackability and clearly defining the status of the item 21 j inspected.
22 Early in '82, there was a documented basis by the 23 ; Quality Control Department sent to Mr. Summerfield of l
,- 24 i Commonwealth Edison Company establishing very clearly that
, i f 25 l the Leve l 2s , as a matter of course, were simply looking at i
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347.)?(R) Nalienwide roserage hitO3/>td46
$ 940 04 14 18458 7
1 LIVEbw 1 a piece of paper and not going to the field.
i 2 Now what that suggests is that, indeed, .
J 3 Mr. Gardner was correct, and that Edison's position.that
. 4 somehow they made a good faith -- stated aegood faith
. t 5 position in disputing the validiEy of a Level 1 -- disputing
. 6 whether a -Level $1 weld inspector .was a violation of the - ANSI 7 standards ~and, therefore, a nonconforming condition.
8 They simply had all along a document that made 9 clear to them what the condition was.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Miller, I don' t know 11 how this impacts on Mr. Gardner's testimony, but why 12 shouldn't we have a document in which indicates the various
() 13 functions of those Level is and Level 2s?
14 , MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, as I understand
- 15 it, the document is offered as somehow casting doubt on the 16 position that Commonwealth. Edison took --
i
- 17 (Identified voice broke in at this point j
) 18 obscuring the arguments of counsel.)
i 19 MR. MILLER: --
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Hello, is someone trying to get i
21 in -- I'm sorry.
22 MR. MILLER: -- comments were only made in the, 23 context of whether or not a cap was properly processing certain observationa - .
E '
j . Q. .2 4 '
l 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well,,h'old on, before you l
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I
', 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m 33M646
1 940 04 15 18459
.1 LIVEbw 1 finish, le t's get. Somebody may be having trouble here.
2 MR. MILLER: I regard it as a --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller -- ,
4 MR. M LLER: -- as an innocous document.
~
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, do you hear me?
6 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, I do.
7 : JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Hold on for a.second. I l 8 think we may have lost someone.
9 MS. CHAN: I think we lost Mr. Guild.
1 4
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
11 (No response.)
J 12 MS.CpAN: I think-he.was-disconnected, your O 13 Honor. .,
j 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
15 Why don't we try and get in touch with him. I 16 think now is a good time to bring. This is going to be a 1
j 17 tedious process.
i j ,
18 Why don't we try and resume later on today. ,
1 l
19 Mr. Reporter?
20 REPORTER MAGGIO: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oka'y. Were you one of the 22 reporters before, or is this a local?
l
- l 1 -
l 23 REPORTER MAGGIO: I wasn't a reporter before on '
i <
~ '
l 24 this particular case. l r Q' .
25 '
JUDGE GROSSMAN: You weren't. Okay. Fine. '
l
/
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 3C 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
0940 04 16 18460 1 LIVEbw 1 You haven't had trouble identifying anyone, have 2 you?
3 REPORTER MAGGIO: No, sir.
4 .. JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
5 Would you be available at, say, 1:30?
6 REPORTER MAGGIO: Sure.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I think we ought to 8 adjourn now until 1:30.
9 VOICE: 1:30 Eastern time?
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN : And I will - yes, 1:30 Eastern 11 time.
12 Is that okay with you, Mr. Miller? ,
( )
13 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, unfortunately, I will
~
14 only be able to participate for approximately 45 minutes 15 after that. I have a long-deferred doctor's appointment 16 that I must --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
18 MR. MILLER: Unless we can make some additional 19 progress and then resume perhaps tomorrow with --
20' l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, maybe we ought to resume i
21 ) tomorrow. That's what Mr. Guild had in mind anyway, and why 22 f don't we set this for 10:00 o' clock tomorrow morning. That i
23 would be more time. Would that be all right with you, 7, 24 Mr. Miller?
25 MR. MILLER: That would be just fine with me, i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
->m, ~ _ u m ,. mos-
s ,
j 940 04.17 18461
! 1 LIVE bw 1 hourl[o~nor. .
2' VOICE: 9:00 o' clock Chicago time. l r !
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. .That,',s 9:00 o' clock
~
4 4 Chicago, and 10:00 o' clock our time,'and we wi11 contact )
5 Mr. Guild -and have him available then.
6 So we'll make the same arrangement, and
- 7 Mr. Reporter,' Ne're then asking that you be present at this 8 again. ,
9 REPORTER MAGGIO: Very well.
j i 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Thank you.
1 11 And we'll adjourn right now.
- 12 MR. MILLER
- Thank you very much, your Honor.
13 MS. CHAN: Thank you, your Honor.
i 14 (Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the telephone 15 conference was adjourned, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m.,
16 Thursday, December 4, 1986.)
'- M 17 4
i 18 i
19 20
. 21 22 23
! 24 L ()
j 25 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- i. 202-347 37m Nationwide Coverage 83k3346646
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before >
the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: l NAME OF PROCEEDING: COMMONWEALTII EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1
& 2)
TELEPIIONE CONFERENCE DOCKET Nb.':
- ^
50-456-OL 50-457-OL -
. 'I PLACE: Washington, D. C.
O oATE: weaee aer, oecember.3, 1988 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) \ M <
(TXPED) M Joseph R. Maggio Official Reporter Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Reporter's' Affiliation O ,
E