Latest revision as of 12:34, 29 December 2020

Text

Public Version of Transcript of 830809 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,304-7,405
	ML20205H884
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	08/09/1983
From:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20084D328	List: ML20205H884; ML20205H890; ML20205H894;
References
	OL, NUDOCS 8601300002
	Download: ML20205H884 (104)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_ ( I 1 00CKETED l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USngc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 24 APR 30 A1053 l Orrt.0c.'r e u ,c., e t sf2aNc .* U , s:r t.~ ( In the matter of: 1 1 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l Docket No. 50-454 OL i (Byron Nuclear Power Station, 50-455 OL ( \ Units 1 & 2) I

l l l 1 IN CAMERA, EX PARTE HEARING i Location: Rockford, Illinois Pages. 7304 - 7405 Date: Tuesday, August 9, 1983 I I ( l 1 l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l Cout Rape,eus i 1625 I Sesset. M.W. Suise late l Washmenen. D.C. 21006 ! 8601300002gh$434 NN

POR ADOCK PDR G
cr'4
7304 k' i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

( 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 4

                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5                                                :

In the matter of: : COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. O- O 7 * (Byron Nuclear Power Station, : a Units 1 and 2) : 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x "3 } Courtroom 270

             'I Federal Building 211 South Court Street Rockford, Illinois g                                         Tuesday, August 9, 1983 g_          14 IN CAMERA, EX PARTE HEARING
  ~

3 g 16 8 The In Camera, Ex Parte Hearing session convened

             '7 at 5:00 p.m.

8 e 18 1 e 19 BEFORE: 2 2 20 JUDGE IVAN SMITH, i E-Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board. 21 l JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, g 22 Member, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board. 3 JUDGE RICHARD COLE, j 23 Member, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board. 24 25 b

cr5

        .                                                          7305 1

PRESENT IN THE ROOM: 2 i Steven Goldberg, Esq. I i 3 Mitzi Young, Esq. I d f Mr. Forney l 5 Mr. Hayes 6 Mr. Connaughton

7 Mr. Crocker 8

9

10. ,

11 12 _s . .. 13 i.

      .                  15                                                 l l

5 o-b

      =-
                     '17 8

e 18 I l M I9 j 20 e 2 21 1 22 8 23

     .I 24 25
   .C

     .       .                                                                                                 )

1 ar6 ; 7306 b 1 f O N _T _E _N _T _S

                                             ._C --                                                         ,-

2 Witness: Direct Cross Redirect Recross Board ' 3 4 5 6 7 .[None.] 8 9 , l 10 11 4 12 _E _X _H _I _B _I _T _S 13 . (C.- 15 - a (None.] 3 16 17 8 : o 18

     ~1                                                                 .
                   .19 r4                                                                                                       i j             20                                                                                         I
      =

l 21 t , g 22 8 4 23

      .I 24

. 25 9

l jl 10-1 ' n Cetera, ! x Parte

        - Hearing i

5:05pm i P R0 C EED I NG S 2 l JUDGE SMITH: This is the beginning of an l 1 3 in camera, ex parte presentation by NRC Staff, pursuant to d the motion of August 5. I 5 Present is Mr. Goldberg, of the Office of Executive l 6 Legal Director; Mr. .Connaughton, Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Forney, of 7 Region III; and Ms. Young. 8 As we stated while we were in the public session, 9 we will not go off the record during this session. 10 Mr. Goldberg. II MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, just let me make a few initial 12 remarks. 13 1 First, with respect to documents, we made a (b- Id discovory production of documents beginning July 29, pertaining 15 C to completed aspects of the Staff inspection into the totality to

    $                   of allegations received concerning Hatfield Electric.

8

37 8

We excised from those documents material pertaining l 18 g to uninspected allegations and confidential. informants. a I' g We also-had material concerning medical records and a 20 3 time records which we withheld for other stated exemptions. ( l 21 JUDGE SMITH: Time records? E j 22-MR. GOLDBERG: Personnel time records. I 23 g JUDGE SMITH: Sick leave, for example, or. chat -- 24 MR. HAYES: We were trying to determine the case 25 of Mr. Hughes. We were verifying that he, indeed, was working i s-l I l

ji 10-2 7308 b I on the day that certain activities took' place. 2 And there is the correlation between time records 3 and the records they gave us -- not only had Mr. Hughes' time records, but the records of a number of other inspectors. 5 MR. GOLDBERG: And we had one document which, as 6 I I indicated in the open session, pertained to a March 1983

i 7 allegation referred for OI investigation. 8 L We now have copies of the documents,both withheld i and expurgated, in their entirety to show the Board. 10 I have been unable to verify whether we have a complete set of unexpurgated documents for present retention 12 as a part of this g camera session if the Board wants

               '3 documents to be retained'as a part of this g camera session,

14 although such copies can be made.

15

There are, as I indicated, materials related to G

16

    $                cortplaced aspects of the inspection which have been provided 37 in their totality or in part to the parties on discovery.         I~

j 18 don't understand the Board to want that documentary material, e j

    <                as distinct from the material pertaining to the incomplets 0

aspects of the inspection. If so, the documents are more 21 extensive, and I -- ^ 2

   $                             MR. . COLE:   I'm not following you, Mr. Goldberg.

3 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Say it again. MR. GOLDBERG: Some allegations have been inspected 25 and some have been uninspected.

l cjl 10-3 7309 i 9

   '.               I We have provided documents pertaining to inspected 1

2

                      -aspects of the allegations to the other parties.                        j i
                                                                                                  \

i 3 ' JUDGE CALLIHAN: When you say " inspection," do you l 4 mean NRC inspection has been completed? l 5 MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. But we withheld ~ material 6 pertaining solely to uninspected allegations, and portions 7 o'f the material pertaining to inspected allegations were 8 excised-froe the produced documents, f 9 Now, the class of documents that we can show you 10 can be the total class of documents pertaining to completed 11 as well as incompleted aspects of the inspection or only 12 documents pertaining to the incomplete aspects of the

13 inspection, in which case that class of documents is smaller Id than the second class. 15

    .                             JUDGE SMITH:   Yes,    I don't think that we need the 5

g to complaced documents. 8

17 JUDGE CALLIHAN: If an allegation has been 8 l g

1 18 investigated and the investigation has been completed, can O g 19 that not come forth, if necessary, in an open session? 4 l 20 3 MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, and it will. It's a part of I e i

   !            21    our direct testimony.*   And the  --

t 22-JUDGE COLE: Well, we already have most of that. 8 23 MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And the documents underlying 5 24 the inspection -- undirlying the~ testimony are available for 25 untilization in cross-examination. Parties have those

+-

ji 10-3 7310 s m I documents. 2 JUDGE COLE: They have documents that we don'_t 3 have. j MR. GOLDBERG: They have documents you don't have. JUDGE SMITH: Aside from that very practical , 6 I observation made by my colleagues on the Board, there's another aspect. too. And that is this session should be limited to 8 I only that which is necessary in your viewpoint. So, you ; 9 should not have anything on completed investigations,because i 10 you're not asserting any needed protection. !

                  'I
                                      .MR . GOLDBERG:   We will also show you -- because 12 it.is difficult to segregate Staff memoranda which identifies I

the totality of the allegations, a'nd we will indicate which

   %J            3, of those are as yet uninspected.

JUDGE CALLIHAN: You're saying an inspection report N 16 2 -- a particular inspection report might refer to something 8

17

     ,                  that's already completed in part and another part might refer 18 to something that is not completed?           Is that what you just i     e
    $                   said?

0 MR. GOLDBERG: They would not be reflected in E o 21 ~ g inspection reports. They would be in. internal staff memoranda, g 22 which would tend to identify the allegations in their 23 l totality. JUDGE CALLIHAN: So, you're calling to our 25 attention that portion'of the document which has to do.with

ji 10-6 7311

,f.

I ongoing and completed inspections? j 2 i MR. GOLDBERG: We'll give you that document in its , 3 entirety, because it's difficult to'-- we will call it to your' attention, yes. And that will also be clear by comparison 5 of the expurgated form of the document made available for o discovery from the complete document that was made availabla 7 to you. 8 Another thing, at the outset, I'd just like to 9 indicate whether or not.che Board would like to either receive 10 oral information or see documentary material which identifies! Il confidential informants? 12 JUDGE SMITH: Bear in mind we know virtually I3 (- nothing about the information you are sitting on. And we a I# would like to have as much help from you and your Staff ! l 15

people as you can give us.

3 16

 $                         MR. GOLDBERG:       Well, we're prepared ~co give'you 8

17 !

the information containing the identities if you'd like. That l 8 ' 18 2 3 is part of the inf ormation you obtain. I' f JUDGE SMITH: The identities of people? 20

 -                         HR. GOLDBERGs       Yes.                                      1 a                                                                                       i g        21 t

JUDGE SMITH: I think we should know if it's 22 - -- - - - 3 I think we should'know that. 3 23 3 2 But other than that, I don't see how it would be relevant, 24 and I don't think that you have to give us information that -- 25 don't give us any information we don't need. s l l

                                                                                     .. l

j1 10- 3

    .                                                                                            7312 4,

1 I do think we ought to know whether it's'the three 2 people whom we know something about. 3 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. 4 With that -- 5 JUDGE-SMITH: Unless the identity is somehow 6 relevant to us in ways tha't we can ' t- imagine . 7 MR. GOLDBERG: If you would like to know the 8 identify of the confidential informants, our allegers, owe 9 will give those to you for your consideration. 10 Insofar as any further disclosure goes, identities 11 of confidential informants is one aspect that we may feel ! 11 should be entitled to even more restrictive non-NRC 13 disclosure than some of the other information. I V 14 JUDGE SMITH: It may very well be that we can 15 satisfy your needs and the needs of the adjudication by a t: 5 to

   .g                  the very outset, if it comes to that, providing only documents 8

17 with identities purged from the very beginning. Because I 3 g a 18 don't believe that the identities are relevant, and I don't { 19 chink they would be relevant or be meaningful to the parties. t j 20 So, I think there's a ground for approach there. U l { 21 It might be that there has to be something provided

t l g 22 to witnesses, a key or sosething, so that they know who's who. i I 5 23 I don't know. ~But I'm sure that there's a lot of flexibility. l 24 I can't see how it would be important to the 25 Intervenors, for example, to-know the name of a confidential

      -j l 10-6                                                                                                                                                                                   711, 1

informant when we.know. .porhaps, the rest of the context of 2 his allegation. .I don't know. 3 Now, I was speaking very fast -- I don't know how 4 the -- 5 JUDGE COLE: The Applicant would want to know that. 6 So he could say, "I want to be'able to defend against that. 7 And I have to know the name'in order to defned." 8 JUDGE SMITH: I think we'll have to take it up on 9 a case-by-case basis. . But I don't believe that in every to instance the name of an alleger or confidential informant has I 11 to be made known. 12 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. 13 Will it be made known for the purposes of this b' 14 presentation? 15 JUDGE SMITH: .It's up to you. 3 g to e I would recommend that, for the convenience of this 8

   =            17 O

in camera session, that you don't make them-made known, l 18 because we may be called upon to reveal even this transcript. 1 19 You know, there's a risk that you should be aware

  )t'           20          of before you go down this road too far.                                                           And that may very

{ 21 well be that the court over there will say: "You didn't under-t

  ..            22 stand this order, so release this transcript."

5 23 ' !' So, I would approach this on the basis that you 24 give' us only inrormation which is relevant. It's going to 25 require a lot of judgment -- and we realize it's judgment -- U

jl 15-1 7314 r' I on your part. And I think we have to work carefully together. 2 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. 3 Do the regional -- JUDGE SMITH: All right. Let's take the nature 5 of this, and let's explosre this. 6 4 7 propose that this session -- what they say -- be 7 called an "information depostion" and that they continue under 8 the oaths of witnesses that they gave under.the earlier testimony. 10 And the re'ason I say that is the Appeal Board II ~ seems to attach some importance to affidavits in their order. 12 I don't really think, for our purposes, it's I3 essential. But-if you don't mind, can we' approach it that Id way? 15

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

G j 16 JUDGE SMITH: All right, gentlemen, you're still a 37 under oath from your previous testimony. 8 18 f 3 MR. GOLDBERG: Just for p6rposes of our position, e I' g we feel that the public affidavit of Administrator Kepler' 20 provides the factual justification that the Appeal Board 21 found lacking, but that these individuals are available to 4 22 3 elaborate on any aspects of that affidavit as it pertains to 8 23 the investigative privilege which has been asserted. 24 But getting back to the identities of confidential 25 informants, do you have documentary sacerials now that you can L

    . J1 lo-e                                                                                 7315 3

produce'that would pertain >0 the allegations in their 2 entirety, exclusive of the identifies of the informants? 3 MR. FORNEY: No. I've got a sanitized copy. But d the original that's marked off in black, if you.have the 5 criginal, you could read what was sanitized. So, it has to 6 be Xerox-copy. 7 MR. HAYES: There are individuals that are 8

                      . subjects of the allegation; so,we're not talking just only 9

about informants, but we're talking about people. named as to the subject of an allegation. And we have to keep in mind 13 there are allegations; they haven't been proven or disproven. 12 That's part of our concern. I3 MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have an unsanitized version V ' id of the documents? That's what we're talking about right now. 33 j . MR. HAYES: Yes, we do. a 16 3 MR. GOLDBERG: In their entirecy? I 17 MR. HAYES: Yes. They have names and' everything. d

   ,            18 1                               dR. GOLDBERG:     Now, do you want to see those l'

documents in their entirety or exclusive of informants but

g 20 inclusive of targets? c { 21-There's no grounds, it seems to me, to decline to 1 22 3 indentify targets, at least in the context of-this session. 8 23 g MR. FORNEY: Due to the fact that' Judge Callihan 24 said that they may order us to release this, OI said that -- 25 MS. YOUNG: We're not going to discuss those M v

     -ji                                                                                             7316 10-10
  /h I   allegations.                                                                       .

2 ! MR. FORNEY: But if you give them a copy.that does . i 3 not exclude chose. people, then you're giving away all of d OI's information. 5 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute. l 6 Are you commenting for the record? Or are you 7 consulting with counsel? 8 MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't we consult for a minute. 9 MR. HAYES: We're prepared to give you a briefing to where we only talk about the allegations themselves, without II the documents. And I think from that -- maybe from that we 1 12 ] could proceed. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think that would be very Id helpful. 15 MR. GOLDBERG: I was trying to do the documents G j 16 first, and then you'd have something as a starting point.

-8*

end 10 37 But let's have the story first. 8 e is I

I9

{ 20 e l 21 g 22 8 23 1 - 24 l 25

%)

Aallegl 7317 1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: In your suggestion or-your offer, 2 does it leave people out? 3 MR. HAYES: Yes. 4 That's fine. That's a good place JUDGE CALLIHAN: to 5 start. 6 MR. HAYES: Really, in my own opinion I doubt if 7 these documents will really be of much value to you. They 8 very coldly set down wh'at the allegation is and they all start 9 off in our office. They are listed as accurately as we can 10 list them, and they are put into our process. They may later 11 get referred to OI, so everything that's been refered to OI 12 is in these documents. And then, if the decision is made 13 after that fact, after we've evaluated them,. which one could 14 involve potential wrongdoing and which one could involve just 15 a technical matter -- but they are intertwined and it is very 16 difficult to separate.

  !                                                                                            1 a

17 You might start out with wrongdoing and wind up with 18 {3 a technical matter and vice versa. In fact, that's already { 19 happened at a conference with OI and'chey said we've looked t j 20 into this a little bit closer and we believe you should take l 21 the lead and determine from a technical standpoint and see I g 22 if you can run into any.other evidence that might give us m o r e. 8 23 leads to go on from the wrongdoing standpoint. 24 JUDGE SMITH: So, maybe the arrangement that we 25 approved to separate the presentation is not going to. work

, AR11rg2 7.318 t f I out, is that possible? 2 We did sanction a commitment that you made to OI. 3 MR. GOLDBERG: I think so far as poss'ible we can proceed to matters that under IE exclusive review, it may 5 be that they'll bear on matters under OI investigation. It's 6 going to have to be -- ! t 7 JUDGE SMITH: Won't we honor the commitment that you! 8 2 made to OI if we proceed as long as you can. If you make a , 1 mistake and you slop.over into an OI area, they are going to

;                10 have a transcript available to them.       And if you do an II injustice to them or misstatement, they will have it availabl 12 to correct, okay?
                 '3 Do you thinic they'd be satisfied with that?

14 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I assume there is adequate cross-33 3

referencing between OI records and your records that the gap i 16 can be bridged.

                 'I MR. HAYES:     Yes, they will show which ones have been 3

j 18 assigned to OI. They won't necessarily show which ones I' slide back to, as it all goes back and forth sometimes. 20 f MR. CONNAUGHT0N: If we state the real allegations 21 here and how that were referred to OI without any commentary, 22

    !                 I don't think we could go wrong, because what we would give 8

23 you verbatim would be exactly what's in the documentation 24 that OI stated earlier this evening, that they would have no 25 problem if we provide it to you. V

                                                                     - - . ,     -s     -

ARlleg3 7319 f'~ I MR. GOLDBERG: Let me also say that one way possibly 2 of m'aking a a documentary -- I' don't know, display -- is. 3

l would the documents necessarily have to be retained? d JUDGE SMITH: By us? 5 , MR. GOLDBERG: By you or as a part of this l'nformation 6 deppsition. 7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: You mean like bound into the tran-8 script? MR. GOLDBERG: No, as separate exhibits or what have 10 you. II JUDGE SMITH: I don't know. 12 MR. GOLDBERG: LWell, why don't we get along with 13 j the oral presentation and we can read this at the judgment ! kb/ id question, I guess. 15 4

                                                        . MR . HAYES:            We put this together rather hurriedly.

4 3 l j 16 JUDGE SMITH: Let's assume that we take the documento 17 8 and we decide that the docuements have to be made available I8 g .co the parties under protective order or whatever, you still 0 I' I. have your' remedy that we will not do it until you get a shot , j 20 at the Commission. e l 21 MR. GOLDBERG: Right, right. . t

j 22 Well, anoch'er thing is is just to.show you the 8

23 documents to follow the oral remarks along. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Just *o . show them to us? 25 j MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. g(- I a

                                                                                             , , - , .         _ , . , , , . - . - - - - - . . .     --   ~ - , . .

1R1Irg4 7320 A fN 1 JUDGE SMITH: The difficulty is, under that procedure 2 that we assured the intervenors and the other parties that 3 when this business is all over they will have a record to 4 look at to see if we did right. So, that I think that that 5 pretty-well makes it necessary that we. preserve the documents 6 that we look at and make and judgments on. 1 7 MR. GOLDBERG: I think we'll proceed then orallyandf 8 then I think we ought to assemble the documents.in a form 9 in which ne are prepared to have be made a part of this par-10 ticular session. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 12 MR.~ HAYES: What we will first do is state the 13 allegation as we understand it and then we will discuss on b 14 facts we know today, what we see as a patenti'al safety- , 15

         -                               significance of these allegations, and then we'll talk a 16 g                               little bit about our plans, how we might go about loo' king intc
         $                        17
        ,                                them and how they might related to completed work or any work
        $                         18 g                                or any work activities in progress.
        $                         19 g                                              MR. COLE:   Are you going to handle this allegation

! 20 t

        ,                                by allegation or just general?

lg 21 MR. HAYES: t No, allegation by allegation. ' g 22 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Have you done any shifting safety-I 23 i { related versus nonsafety-related? l 24 MR. HATES: No, I think we are going to find some of 25 chase molehills have turned into mountains and maybe we'll get ky' _ _ , . . . . _ . - - ,. s- _ , _ . . . _ . , . . . , . . - . - ---.-~_e

i ARilrg5 7321 I them back down to molehills because some of this stuff is not 2 really that critical. 3 If their present position is that all of these allega-d tions must be investigated, OI's as well as ours must be 5 investigated before the plant is fuel-loaded. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Even if their -- 7 MR. HAYES: They may be limited -- 8 MR. CONNAUGHT0N: There are a limited number that 9 are absurd on the face. They lack substance. In those cases to 3 the items by our procedure will be formally documented, even 11 if they are argumented away, but it will be in an inspection 12 report. So we have a few here that were originally documented 33 by the recipients as comments and concerns, but later were j b Id t put into the tracking system as allegations and will be I3

addressed as such.

G , -j 16 MR. HAYES:' Now, although we feel that the allegation s 1 17 3 might be investigated prior to fuel load, if any of those are g 18 3 substantiated, then we'll look at the nature of the problem O a l' E and how broad it is and everything, and then we'll make the g 20 2 determination of which of those must be resolved or corrective 21 action complaced before various stages of the plant operation,

 !               22 like some of them might have to be resolved before fuel load, 8

23 g some of them might have to be resolved before initial criti-24 cality and some might can wait as late as before they go into 25 5 percent power, but we'll make that determination when we N

AR'11rg6 7322 e i have all the facts. ' 2 I guess we should go.into a bit of background on how 3 we receive allegations and'how we handle them. When we do i 4 receive them, we try to be good listeners and try to receive f 5 all the'information the alleger wants to tell us and not --~ i 6 you know, interrupting the minimum amount of time and not ! 7 trying to make any judgments as to validity or what. 8 We get all the stuff down in our notes and then we i o go back over them after he's finished and then try to elicit . 1 to foam him all the specifics and facts that he may have, the

                                                                                           .f si   location and the number, what the component involved is, 12   things of that nature, all the specifies we possibly can.

13 Then we try to document that and go over that with DP' 14 che alleger ~and make sure.that we've got his concerns and is allegations properly documented, that we've got everything 16 that he's told us.

    $               17             Then we arrange them in some logical order and put O

l is out a memo which is an internal memo, stamped "not for 1

   $               19    disclosure," and it's sent to our files with copies to indi-I j               20    viduals that should have a need to know on that or may have
   =

l 21 to act on it. That may include a OI, even though it may not I

   .               22    be refered to them , and that would include our division direc-2 23    tors.         ,

1 24 Then usually we have a meeting afterwards. In that

                 ' 2s    meeting we decide who should take the ball, who should follow ha

ARileg7 7322 A (?~

1 up on these, who has the lead.

2 Now, prior to January 1 all of the allegations we 3 received were -- 4 JUDGE CALLIHAN: January 1, 19 -- 5 MR. HAYES: 1983. Subsequent to January 1, 1983, o all. allegations are now being tracked by our headquarters 7 staff, so before we can close one, it must be investigated 8 and corrective action completed before we close off with a 9 tracking system. 10 We will bounce back and forth here between Kevin 11 and Bill. 12 REGE COUE': Mr. Hayes, you said prior to January 1st, 13 1983? L:' Id MR. HAYES: We tracked them internally in Reg.on III, 15 JEmM; COLP And what happens after January 1st, 19G3? 3 j 16 MR. HAYES: Our headquarters staff receives a copy 1 17 of the allegations and they track them and they are on a u 18 1 computer and we periodically get a computer print-out and 0 g I' it shows whether they are closed or open and who's got the t 20 3 assigned responsibility. I think that's true fo r all regions i

l 21 but I can't speak factually. t 22

]                              JUDGE' COLE:: When you say " headquarters," are you-                    ;

3 23 talking about -- 24 MR. MAYES: I&E headquarters. 25 JUDGE COLE: In Washington, D. C. or Glen Ellyn? ks s-

1R1*1r g8

   .                                                                              7323 D

1 MR. HAYES: Washington, D. C.. 'Bechesda, really. , 2 Okay, the first allegation states the uni-strut I 3 hanger members are being welded to plates with wedge anchors 4

                       -installed. Wedge anchors are thereby being subjected to 5

excessive heat and stress. That was his allegation. ! 6 l Okay, we have discussed this with our engineering ! 7 personnel as to what about this, what is the-significance of 8 this, and this is a common practice. They anchor these j 9 plates ; I am assuming everyone knows what a wedge anchor 10 and everything is, but stop me if'I'm assu=ing. These are 13

                     ' plates held to the wall or the floor with concrete cinch 12 anchors and.after they have put the plate on the wall, then 13 J                   they come alo73 and weld structural members to that place.

14 That's a very common practice. In fact, in would be diffi-15 5 cult in a lot.of cases to do it any other wpy. You have to g to cut these to siae and so forth and most of the time these i 1 17 8 members that are being welded to these places are small, they

 ,             18 1                    are uni-strut or channel iron or angle iron.        They are small e

a 19-I members and the amount of heat that it takes to weld these g 20

=                     is fairly small, such that it would be very unlikely that l              21 the plate would be distorted to the point that it would be t

22 an 3 undue or undesigned -- they take.chis into account in 8 23 g design. It wouldn't put any stress on the bolts or would 2d cause damage to the concrete. 25 JUDGE COLE: Would you sa that'.s standard'practica V s.

 '                                                                                          I AR11rg9 7324 1

d' b %. I to do it that way, but what's wrong with it? , 2 MR. HAYES: I don't think there is anything wrong 3 with it, because you are talking about a small amount of , 4 heat on a fairly thick plate. Most of these plates are ! 5 five-eighths to'three-quarters to one inch thick and you're 6 welding maybe an inch and a half by inch and a half angle 7 1ron to it, or uni-strue, which is a light material and'the 8 amount of heat input into that plate to accomplish that- , 9 ' welding is fairly small. 1 10 The plate is a good heat sink and it dissipates that' 11 heat such to the point that it would not damage the concrete 12 behind the place or would not put undue stresses on the anchor 13 bolts that are holding it in place. b' ' 14 JUDGE SMITH: Don't you have the authority then, at

   ,             15  that point, to say we've accepted it and we've docketed the

~5 g 16 allegation but we close it out because on the face of

  .                                                                              it, a

17 it is not a significant problem, or does he have enough

  $              18  expertise, the allager, that you'd better find out?       -

1 S 19 MR. HAYES: I think we usually give them the I 20 benefit of the doubt and maybe take another look. This is l 21 not a -- we routinely -- not only the NRC inspectors but the I g 22 licensee's QA personnel and the contractor's QA personnel, I I 23 take periodic cours of the plant, and if they have responsi-24 bility in that area they do observe these anchor places and 25 they would look at them from a number of angles. 4

ARileg10 7325 (~ ' { 1 . One of them would be the contact with the surface. 2f There is some requirements that the plate has to be i'n pretty 3' good contact with the surface. If it is distorted to the point 4 ! it would put undue stress you would be able to see that with' 5 your eye, ' 6' Another thing they would look at would be that the 7 bolts were torqued that you would have enough. nut engagement 9 on the threads o;, conversely, that the anchor bolt would be

installed deep enough. I I

10 i

                                       'these are just be second nature. Every time you       !

1 1 1 11 look at one of those, all of that checklist goes through your ' i 12 mind. 1 13 j JUDGE SMITH: And this is a confidential allegation?' k- 14 MR. HAYES:

                        ,                            Yes, I think it could very well be that,
    ,             '15       you know, there is     not any substance to it.
    -                                                                            The person just lo did not understand that is was a designed activity.

I 17 JUDGE COLE:

    ,o How'are you going about checking on this   ?

18 MR. HAYES: If I was going to do it -- 19 JUDGE COLE: It hasn't been done yet? I i le 20 MR. HAYES: No. { 21 JUDGE COLE: You haven't even started it? E i 22 MR. HAYES: Well, not enough-for the record, I guess. 5 ; 8 23 As I cour the plant, I do look for these' things and I've been l 24 more conscious of it since I've been aware of it and I'm sure l l 25 Kevin has done the same thing and some of our other inspectors, 1 i N' l I i

AR11rgli 7326 1 but it's just part of another inspection effect. 2 But I would make it a point to take a pretty exten-3 sive tour of the plant and look for this very thing along 4 With some other cinch anchors being torqued and things. 5 JUDGE COLE: This allegation was made how long ago?~ 6 MR. MAYES: 1 think this was made November 23rd,1982 , 7 JUDGE SMITH: So, it's low priority? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes. That's another thing I should have told you, that if we felt that these allegations were such 10 that there were activities in progress that were perpetuating I I' this thing, I think we would have had this investigation and 12 resolved these things a lot sooner. We don't see any of these 13 that we're going to tell you about as ongoing activities, 3d in other words, just piling problems on top of problems. We 15 5 don't think any of this stuff is occurring in the plant right 16 g now, my colleagues can correct me if that's -- 37 JUDGE COLE: You have not advised the Applicant that 8 e 18 this is an allegation'at all? I $ 19 MR. HAYES: No, we have not. I j 20 JUDGE COLE: Is that a policy, to advise the con-s ] 21 tractor that this is a problem so he can look at it too if 8 22 5 te.s being done by a contractor? I don't know how or why you 8 23 do things in certain ways. 24 MR. HAYES: I think that's part of the reason we feel 25 shouldn't disclose it.

ARilegl2 7327 1 MR. FORNEY: It is not our policy to inform the 2 Applicant because the potential alwayu exists chet they could; I 3 go out and cover something up if that were their nature. ~ 4 So, we always approach the problem that that possi-5 bility exists, therefore we never tell them. 6 If it were the type of all'egation that had the poten1 7 tial to be covered up by some future activity that then we a could not go out and investigate or inspect it and make that 9 determination, we would immediately go out'and do an investi-10 gation 3r en inspection. But given this is the type o'f an ' it- acetytcy %681 f .ven if it did continue. is the typa that can 12 he readily Os t e4 c ed , merely means that the Applicant would 13 have more work tw go back and redo. 14 The safety significance is diminished as opposed to is saying early-on you received an allegation against improper 16 rebar installation. Once you pour the concrete, you couldn't {

   !             17   terolve  t> J t. So, its nature is such that the safety signif-o l    End 11. 18    v a ra e isn't chere even if we did substantiate it, i
   $             19 I

j 20 t l 21 8 g 22 23 1 24 25

  ,jl' 12-1 I

We can't believe it's widespread. We don't j , 2 believe it's continuing. ; 3 And then an additional factor is if'we go out and d find a. dozen of them'or half a dozen, or whatever, it's the 5 type of thing that the Applicant can issue a DR at theat time 6 and redo the installation. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have any idea why -- I guess 8 we're using this as an example because it't the first one up -{ 9 any idea why what appears to be something that doesn't involve 10 wrongdoing -- why it was necessary for the alleger to come to ' II the NRC7 Was he frustrated in advance? ' Frustrated by 12 working with the contractor? 13 MR. FORNEY: One of the allegations that we ( Id received dealt with suppression of DR installation, that they 15

were being suppressed'from issuing a DR, which is a deficiency G

16

   $              report.

8

   *        '7 So, I believe that that's one reason you get this S
   ?
            '8    type of an allegation.

3 If he feels he's being suppressed in l'

  $               this area, then he's going to come to --

t 20 JUDGE SMITH: And this is all Hatfield you're l 21 talking about? E 22

  $                           MR. FORNEY:   Yes.

8 23 g JUDGE SMITH: This date of November 23rd keeps 24 popping up, I think, doesn't it? I 25 MR. HAYES: That's the date that three allegers i I l

7329 ji 12-2 1 came to us, one of which was Hughes. 2 MR. GOLDBERG: They're identified in our direct 3 testimony as "Mr. H u g h e s and "A" and "B." responsible for the allegations referred to in our prepared testimony. 5 Do you want to know who the other two are? 6 JUDGE SMITH: Is it g I MR. HAYES: It's one thing to reveal the name. 8 e gg s another thing to tie the name to a specific allegation. That's one of the things that if they had knowledge of this -- the number of people that might be inspecting in this area or

               'I involved in this area'might be fairly limited -- when you're 12 talking about one contractor        --

so, they might be able to

'3

( pin it down to an inspector. 14 MR. GOLDBERG: I guess, but for the risk of public

'3

disclosu o, I think the Board would benefit from having that 3

h information, and the Staff would provide it. 8

17

  ,                             I don't know how cangible that risk is.

18 Obviously, you can offer to the Court to give them o I' I y an expurgated copy of the g camera transcript to protect l 0 the confidentiality of informants, but it may not be lg 21 successful. 22 3 JUDGE SMITH: I think we're clearly excluded from 23 the District Court's warning in etis session. 24 And I really made the remark so that you don't 25 give us unnecessary information. It looks like it is material

j1 12-3 7330 r' I to know who these people are. And I think maybe you ought to 2 tell us who they are. 3 MR. YOUNG: Just "A " "B " and "C."

            'd JUDGE SMITH:          "A " "B," and "C" pop up quite a bit.

5 MR. YOUNG: "D" is unrelated. I 6 MR. HAYES: Whether this is "A" or "B" or -- 7 MR. GOLDBERG: Do you want to know the name of the 8 " the names of the trio, "A "B," and "C"? Or do you want 9 them associated with an allegation? 10 I Do you just want to know who the three are that l' i, are responsible for all the allegations that are pending? Or 12 do you --

           '3 JUDGE SMITH:          Why don't you just tell us who they
           'd are, and we'll come back if we have to.

15 MR. HAYES: Just the individuals, but not which 3 j 16 ones made the allegation?

          '7 o                          JUDGE SMITH:          Yes, I8 MR. HAYES:         One was qlllllgg and the other was 19 I

i h 20 2 JUDGE SMITH: { 21 g - 22

   $                          MR. HAYES:

8 There's one in here that remains for L s 23 t Mr. Hughes, and we'll get to that, 24 JUDGE SMITH: And "B" is 6 25 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yes, that's correct. }

jl 12-4 7331 I JUDGE SMITH: And who is "C"? 2 MR. GOLDBERG: "C" is an alleger whose allegation 3 is -- d 1 MS. YOUNG: No, no. ' l 5 JUDGE SMITH: Is his name even relevant? 0 MR. CONNAUGHTON: "C" is individual "A" -- no, 7 individual "A" was a gentleman who came to us in 1979 whose I O allegations are documented in Inspection Report 79-18, as f well as our investigative efforts. 10 Individuals "B" and "C" are II Individual "D" is anonymous even to us. \ 12 MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. I think the witnesses I3 ought to refresh the letter designations utilized in their k Id testimony, and it ought to be consistent. 15

Can I have just a moment to do that? I 3

i bu 6 16 (p,,,,,) II MR. CONNAUGHTON: I stand corrected. 8 18 l l Individuals "A" and "B" are j respectively. 20 ha t, . JUDGE SMITH: "C" -- has he popped up in any other ' 21 l context in this issue in this contention? g 22 MR. CONNAUGHT0N: No. 8 23 g JUDGE SMITH: All,right. Then, I don't see any 24 relevance to his name. 25 Now, how many of these do we have? 307

jl 12-5 f I MR. HAYES: We have 21 that it's cleary Region III's 2

purview.

3 And then, in the discussion with OI a couple of d days ago, they popped a couple of nore of then back to us, 5 saying, "You've got the lead, and we don't have enough to 6 proceed." 7 We already had a technical issue there as well, so 8 we'll take the lead. And pursuing the technical aspects of it , 9 if we find evidence of wrongdoing, we'll provide that to information to OI. II I'll provide that when I get to it. i 12 In conducting these investigations, we give the I3 alleger the benefit of the d o u b 't . We try not to make (- I# judgments. 15 G I would talk to people, other people, as'well as j 16 look at the installations. I would talk to other inspectors

  $            I7 8

in this area and see if they could provide any information to 18 2 us. ' 3 O I' And then I would go through the logs of DRs and 20. NCRs and see if I could find any evidence that this was 21 occurrin<; and was frequent and maybe what actions the company

  !           22 might have done if it was a' reoccurring-type problem.                 I 8

23 g And so, just -- you know, if you find a lot of 24 evidence that these things did occur, then you could.give more 25 cognizance to the alleger, that maybe some of them did get

     , jl 12-6 7333 r

I corrected. 2 MR. FORNEY: I don't think Mr. Hayes fully answered 3 the question. He talked about the 21 plus some that are in a changing state of flux with OI. The total is 30 that involve 3 allegers "A." "B," and Mr. Hughes and one by individual'"C." 6 who was on March 10th. I Of those 30, 21 clearly belong to Region III. Nine 8 of them were assigned to OI. And OI is tc1 king about giving some of them back to us, because they feel they deal 10 predominantly with technical issues. II MR. HAYES: I've got numbers 21 up through this 12 list that I've got, so I~ don't know which is gone. I3 JUDGE SMITH: Well, the numbers are roughly (_" ' 14 accurate, and they comport with your direct testimony, too.

! II e MS. YOUNG: But there's typos in the direct

 . G I6
      !             testimony. So, perhaps they should try to clarify as much 37 as they can.

8 I8 l JUDGE SMITH: I don't think, in the time.we have i I' available tonight, that we're going to be able to spend this I 20 amount of inquiry on these allegations. l g 21 MR. HAYES: I can go faster. I think we spent more I time on the first one -- 8 23 JUDGE SMITH: Excuse me. I want to get some idea-l 24 about the pattern here. 25 ~ We've had the testimony of John Hughes in his 4

                                            , ,                                  a

7334 j1 12-7 (, I deposition. And on his deposition, we found that most of them 2 did not lead anyplace. 3 And then you have direct testimony today which, if d it is uncontradicted, would lead us to the conclusion that 5 none of his allegations have been substantiated. 6 MR. HAYES: With one exception. But go ahead. 7 JUDGE SMITH: I'm only saying that to put in context 8 my' question. But virtually all of them were unsubstantiated. 9 Do you give equal weight to every allegation a 10 person makes even though you find, time and' time again, that 11 his allegations are misunderstood? 12 MR. FCRNEY: Let me answer that. 13 And maybe at this point I should tell you, since k.~ Id I'm already sworn in as a senior resident inspector for Byron, 15 I'm no longer the senior resident inspector. I'm now with v to g the Office of~Special Cases at Region III, assigned to Zimmer. 17 We have a backlog in excess of 500 allegations. 8 18 y a Right now our procedure for handling allegations l' t requires that we either investigate or inspect all a'11egations. 20 3 And that is a problem. t l 21 There's a procedure trying to be develeoped where t j 22 we can at least put them in categories and investigate or 8 23 inspect categories. g 24 And as long as an. allegation falls within a 25 category we're evaluating and that particular category turns O . , +

ji 12-8 7335 I out not to be a safety issue, then we would say that item 2 inherently is not. 3 But to answer your question right now, we do not have any latitude not to consider them all the same. 5 And myself and Kevin Connaughton received the o majority of these allegations. And I think I probably received 7 most of them. 8 Our system is designed so that initially the inspector that receives them.is act alloweu the latitude to 10 make a value judgment. II The information is taken down. And generally when 12 I was requested to meet with an alleger, I would ask another 13 _. inspector to come along. We would sit and listen and (~ I# independently take notes of what the alleger was telling us. I3

    .                And then, after we got back to our office, we would put our        ,

8 16

    $                notes together to make sure that we came out with the same II understanding.

8 38 f 3 And then, we would put this-in a letter to file I' through our supervisor, Mr. Hayes. 20 f w And then, ve also contacted the allegers to make 21 sure that our understanding of their allegation was their j i 22 understanding of the allegation. 8 23 g And then, from that point in time, we have to 24

                    . handle them by current procedures, all the same.

25 MR.' HAYES: We tried to avoid making judgments S.

j1 12-9 7336 r I as to validity, just offhand. 2 JUDGE SMITH: But you have. priorities. 3 MR. HAYES: We still give them the full treatment -- d at least I personally do. 5 Occasionally, one of them comes through. But some 6 of them'are emotionally charged, and you can say -- you can 7 usually tell those, and some of those - are very general and 8 subjective. And it nakes the job hard. MR. FORNEY: How rapidly you look at an allegation 10 makes the differecne. And I'll give you an ~ example. II One of the allegers, alleger "A." provided us 12 information that he believed that the DR reporting system was I3 not safeguarded and that he believed some DRs had been changed. Id He provided us a copy of one that he said had been changed. I3 However, he requested that we not take that in hand and 3 lo specifically use

    $                                 that one to perform and investigation at l         17 that time, because fut did not want -- that would automatically 8

18 f have disclosed who he was. And he had asked for confidentialit y. t I' So, recognizign that that is the type that, in my j 20 mind, needed.some urgent attention,'we went to the Hatfield e 21 organization, and I took along a Commonwealth Edison person 22

    !              and met with Mr. Buchanan and told buc. Buchanan that the NRC's 5

23 position was that they must obtain prenumbered DR reports, 24 blank reports. They must be presarialized. They must obtain i 25 presarialized nonconformance reports. And they must change

i i

ji 12-10 7337 I from their logging system, from a loose-leaf binder log to a 2 hard-bound log, which was immediately undertaken. It was 3 done within a week or so. They had to prepare the forms, which I believe took 5 a little longer than that. But it took them a little while

to transfer the log over also, because they had to certify 7

that all the information that was transcribed from one log to 8 another was, in fact, correct. And they maintained the 9 originals of the loose-leaf that weren't completed yet. Ic That was the type of allegation that we immediately went_out II a 12 and took action to resolve. 12 13 14

=           15 k           16 8

17 8

4 la a

$           19 I

j 20 e h 21 8 y 22 23 1 24 25 s:.

AR13rgi 7338 r 1 MR. HAYES: Ready for the next one? 2 JUDGE COLE: So a lot of these allegations you've 3 had for some time? Isn't the status of different allegations 4 and the index of their relative priority that you've placed 5 upon them, or does the complexity of review enter'into it 6 seriously? 7 MR. HAYES: It's a number. It might be availability 8 of maybe one type of inspector is available and he might star; 9 on an ellegation that falls within his a r e.a of expertise and 10 .maybe we might consider another one more higher priority. 11 But the expert is tied up on something else, so there 12 is no real good answer, 13 JUDGE SMITH: Give us a moment. ( - 14 (Pause.) 15 JUDGE SMITH: We've wondering if we might not have f 16 an approach like this. Much of what you've told as about your

    $          17    priorities and how you approach'different allegations and 0

18 things like that really are not secret, I mean, this~is {. { 19 information, I think, that you probably would want the partier

   ;          20     and the public to know about.

I 21 2 We'd like to develop it now to put the allegations, t

  ;           22     particular allegations, in context, so that we understand it, a

4 8 3 23 ana we are wondering about this procedure, how it might work 24 if we have a quick summary of the nature of'the allegations 25

                    .and then, perhaps, you would be willing to testify publicly s
                                                                                              )

l

AR13rg2 7339 1 as to your basic priorities and how you approach it and'what 2 you told us about no alleger is disregarded and that type of 3 thing. 4 Maybe this might satisfy the adjudicatative needs? 5 MR. GOLDBERG: Without revealing the substance of 6 the allegation, just the way in which they are inspected? 7 MR. HAYES: I think I alluded to the priority of that 8 If there is ongoing activity in which things are being done 9 wrong, and it's continuing, that gets a high priority and I 10 think we would get on that right away. 11 JUDGE COLE: Or safety-significance. 12 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Or it gets done right away. 13 MR. HAYES: I guess I might have misunderstood, but 14 there's a whole bunch of priorities. 15 JUDGE COLE: We are trying to get rid of problems. l 16 Mr. Hayes,'we are not trying to create.any. 8

17 MR. HAYES: I know it's difficult to understand. I've a a 18 been involved in a number of investigations and it gets hard j 19 to sort them out.sometimes. l t j 20 JUDGE SMITH: That's true.. Your direct testimony e l 21 on both of them did go pretty far in. explaining these. I I

I g 22 Let's see if perhaps in answer to our questions !

8 , 23 this afternoon or this evening,'let's say that you didn't I 24 explain this to us , maybe we'll make a list of those'and 25 put those on the public record too.

 .                                                          s

' AR13rg3 7340 r 1 MR. HAYES: We'll try to put as much as we possibly 2 can. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, why don't you go ahead, then. 4 MR. HAYES: I'll try to go quickly and the ones you 5 have an interest in, hold me back. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 7 MR. GOLDBERG: At the risk of interrupting, f i. r s t 8 of all, try to be a little more concise, but I'm also wonder-9 ing if part of the information deposition today and tomorrow to is to embellish, if the Board feels it needs embellishment, 11 the privilege claim and it may be that in talking about the 12 allegations, examples of ways in which an inspection of these

13 allegations might be compromised but unrestricted disclosure, (' 14 or do you not want to take up that matter of compromise at

,        15   the same time?

5 t to I'm tyying to find a format in whikh it can be readily w b 17 demonstrated and at the same time impact the information. 8 - 18 JUDGE SMITH: The parties in our iebate today have { 19 just assumed from looking at 2.744Lchat the test is first t j 20 privilege and then necessary to the decision.That may very l 21 well be in the discovery phase of the proceeding, but that's t , t 22 not where.we are now,'so it may be that we'll have to put i 5 23 chis to the parties, apply an entirely'different. standard, 24 and that is necessary to a decision notwithstanding privilege, i 25 or apply the standards of reopening the record, say. l

i

AR13rg4 7341 (~ 1 See 2.744 anticipates pre-hearing discovery, we are 2 long beyond that. This is reopened. So let's hear the nature-3 of the allegations, see how important they are, how serious 4 they are, before we start worrying about privilege. 5 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.. I guess what we'd like to say, 6 if-there is any -- we'd obvicusly -- as I indicated Sefore 7 in the first instance we want co make the full disclosure to 8 the Board. If the Board then decides that the information is 9 necessary for the decision and should be disclosed to the 10 parties under some restrictive arrangements..we would want 11 to see that those arrangements -- that if there is to be 12 disclosure, restrictive disclosure, then we'd like to do 13 whatever is necessary. 0 14 If you feel it is necessary.to substantiate that

 ,            15    position bafore you decide        --

f 16 JUDGE SMIT,H : Exactly right. If-we decide that thero

 !            l 7' should be d i s c'l o s n re , then.we start afresh, privilege, pro-8 18     tective order. everything else.

9 3

 $           19-                MR. GOLDBERG:

I And then we'd have a chance to ex-j 20 plain? E 21 ' JUDGE SMITH: Absolutely. I g 22 MR. GOLDBERG: Fine. 23

.s 24 25 i

AR13r35 7342

    .                                                                                      1 I

l l l I EVENING SESSION 2 (6:00 p.m.) 3 JUDGE SMITH: Sometimes you may allusion to the fact d that we're unsp2 pathetic to you r problem-but we assure you 5 again, we do not want to frustrate your problems. 6 We wish to preserve the informant's privilege, we I realize that's very important. 8 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay, I think we unders and, I'm sorry , MR. HAYES: The second one is the electrical area 10 at Byron station is going to be another Zimmer. II JUDGE SMITH: And that's it? Go on to the next one. 12 MR. HAYES: That was made by Mr. Hughes. 13 The third one, a conduit is being run before in-I# spections of weldds and associated hangers. Here, we don't 15

see any safety -- it just makes the inspector's job a little 3

I*

  $                  harder, but that's all and we have no e'vidence to ~ date that I7 that inspection was not done.

18 3 JUDGE COLE: And those hangers are available for 19 -

  )                  inspection?

4

             - 20 f                              MR. HAYES:    The accessibility is reduced, that's all, E

21 l but it's not impossible. 22 I MR. CONNAUGHT0N: We know of no instances where 23 relief from inspection requirements has been sought or grantec 24 on the basis of inaccessibility that could have been avoided. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. I l o

AR13rg6 #3'3 i (~. I MR.'CONNAUGHTON: The third -- fourth one, cable 2 pan covers are removed and reinstalled without reinspection 3 as required for initial installation. 4 MR. HAYES: Do you want to elaborate on that 5 a little bit? 6 MR. CONNAUGHT0N: At the time we got that applicction 7 permanent cable pan covers had not yet been installed. They 8 had some tempprary covers on to protect the covering from 9 general dirt and debris and mechanical damage. 10 Hatfield Electric has a program whereby they inspect 11 cable runs at a periodicity of every three months to inspect . 12 for damage,' housekeeping, unauthorized or improper erection 13 of scaffolding that could be deleterious, that kind of thing. (' Id There was no proeddure at-that time for the installation of 15 g permanent cable pan covers; that proc,edure'now exists and 3 16 3 requires QC inspection prior to. initial installation. 8

17 And if the thing is to be removed for any reason 8

18 prior to reinstallation, there has to be QC inspection as in a I' g .the original installation. So we don't believe that has any 20 f safety-significance at this point. 21 MR. HAYES; It's just a matter of doing a little more. j 22 inspecting and a little.more verifying of that procedure's 8 23 a 8 being effectively implemented, and we'll probably close that 24 one out. 25 The fifth one is, allegers told PTL inspectors that

   'ARi3rg7 7344 C           1 they are not to discuss problems with PTL supervisors.,            I.

2 guess that's one you are probably more familiar with, too. 3 MR. CONNAUGHT0N: In regard to the inspectors that 4 are cT. ployed and paid by PTL and detailed to Hatfield, they 5 report to Pittsburgh Testing Lab for time, payroll, employee-6 benefits and functionally they report to the Hatfield manage-7 ment supervision.For matters adfecting quality or safety, 8 the 4.n s p e c t o r s ' concerns are first to be given to Hatfield 9 supervision and their corrective action system.to be put in 10 motion. If the inspector is unable to get sa tis'f ac tion from 11 Hatfield, he may go to the Applicant and if he doesn't get 12 satisfaction there, the NRC. 13 i believe, as has been stated elsewhere in the r

\'

14 testimony, they,are indoctrinated in this approach as a means

      ,     15   for seeking satisfaction to their concerns and we don't feel' g      to   that this has potential safety significance.           Pittsburgh w

8

1:7 Testing Lab supervision -- while there is no reason that any-8 18 body should be disallowed from voicing their concerns on

{ 19 quality and safety, whether they are real -- but it's not E g 20 clear to us why they would necessarily want'to go to Pittsburg;h t E 21 Testing-Lab supervision, and the most efficient route -- t g 22 JUDGE COLE: This sounds like.something that Mr. 8 3 23 Hughes might allege. 8 w 24 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yes, and there problems we are 25 reading into this, that these problems are quality and safety

                                                                                       =4*--

  ,AR13rg8                                                                7345 t'

I problems as opposed to working conditions. 2 JUDGE COLE: Wasn't Mr. Hughes an employee of PTL 3 who was then on lonn? 4 MR. CONNAUGHT0N: As were the other two individuals. 5 JUDGE COLE: That seemed to me to'be a stran'ge 6 arrangement, particularly when Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory 7 was hired by Commonwealth Ed'ison to do the intependent' test-8 ing for Commonwealth Edison and to have people that were 9 working for Pittsburgh' Testing Lab assigned to work as to inspectors for subcontractors who were then again being 11 checked by Pittsburgh Testing Lab -- 12 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Is there any potential -- is there 13 a potential conflict of interest in this case here? I'm a ( 14 little bit bothered by it. End 13. 15 Let me describe the setup as I see it. a k 16 8 e

                 }7 8
    .            is a
    $           19 i

j 20 I 21 2 a g 22 8 s 23 8 24 25 s

pr7 7346

    #14 i                    ~ Commonwealth Edison hires a contractor to do 2           the electrical work. That contractor has his own inspectors.

3 Commonwealth Edison comes along and hires now an. independent 4 inspection agency, Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories. 5 Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory hires an inspector 6 and tells him to go look at Hatfield's work. It seems to 7 me for minimum of conflict that inspector would report back 8 to Commonwealth Edison through Pittsburgh. 9 MR. HAYES: As I understand it, there are to two groups of inspectors: Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory si in this case is acting more or less as a body shop. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Would you excuse me, Mr. Hayes? 13 I want to consult with the Board. 34 (Board conferring.) 15 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I withdraw my question. I 16 JUDGE SMITH: I want to explain what the 3 I 17 Board's consideration is. Each of the three of us noted 0 l 18 this, what we thought was a rather unusual body shop i

pp arrangement during the main hearing. So it comes up again I

I 20 and we are curious about it. But it doesn't really relate E l 21 to this very rare, unusual, narrow hearing. So we have a 22 decided if we think for some reason it has to be, it has 23 to be on-the.public record. But all the proposed findings 24 and everything else on this issue.are in, and it cannot be 25 a part of our consideration here. This should be a

        .f
               .   , ..-.---n                           -               _       - -.  .   - _ . . . _ .

7347 ar14-2. 1 I'

              -,  very narrow inquiry.                                                                     l 2               MR. GOLDBERG:    I am sure that the witnesses 3  will be glad to respond to questions during the public
               ,  session on that matter.

5 MR. HAYES: Commonwealth Edison also responded 6 to that. 7 okay, the next three allegations are a little a longer. First is the alleger claims to have reviewed 9 the qualification records of the Hatfield and PTL io electrical inspectors. Alleger considered only about six i, of eight Level 2 inspectors to be qualified for the position 12 they hold. 1 i3 As an example, the lead inspectors have background 34 in civil not electrical inspections. i3 The next one, which relates to that, is alleger i6 stated that five or six new welding inspectors had been

  !          i7  hired by PTL and detailed to Hatfield Electric Company f         18   since approximately December 7th, 1982.                                                   l 1

e p, one of'the individuals has no QC experience. t l 20 He worked in a fabrication shop. Only one or two individuals lt 21 have any experience in the nuclear business. l 22 The last one in this series that all relate to l 1 3 23 each other is Hatfield Electric has an extensive training ! 1 24 and retraining program which does not accomplish anything. 25 In December 1981 Hatfield only had four inspectors, but now s - l l 1 1

                                                                        -                          .   . -1

   ,    .                                                                                                        l 7348
  ,     ar14-3 r~.

I has 85. The program has not been able to handle and-adequately 2 qualify the number of new inspectors. ~ 3 JUDGE SMITH: That is sort of like the allegation 4 made in your prepared public testimony. .You h'ad a 5 Doctor of Divinity over there. I 6 Was that by the same alleger? I i 7 MR. HAYES: Do you want to take this one, Bill?' - l 8 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Based on the specifics of 9 the allegation,.where the only parameters that he mentioned to seem to be education ar.d experience, the allegations as 11 stated, if they were substantiated, would not necessarily 12 imply an improper certification, and therefore potential 13 unqualified individual performance. (E I4 JUDGE SMITH: As to this allegation, though, is you have made a survey of the qualifications of inspectors g 16 for Hatfield Electric, anyway, haven't you, so --

     $         17                    MR. FORNEY:             Yes, sir. The original evaluation 0

l 18 was made during the CAT team inspection and during that 3 { 19 period of time I evaluated nine Hatfield inspectors, and h j 20 three of them were not properly certified, and those were E I 21 ones that Hatfield had developed as inspectors themselves. g 22 Three of them that Hatfield did develop themselves were I i 23 certifiable, and then- the other three were body shop 24 through Pittsburgh Testing. 25 This allegation here was subject -- or came about

l. ._. - _ . _ _ . . _ _ _

7349 arl4-4 1 predominantly after the CAT. team response which required 2 CECO to issue a direction to all the contractors on how to 5 properly certify inspectors, which they did. And I reviewed 4 a number of those subsequently and I don't remember the 5 inspection reports at this time. 6 However, I issued a Level 4 item of noncompliance 7 againsu the Hatfield Electric Company QA manager who wasn't a I properly certifiable, and he~was removed. And I worked 9 in conjunction with Mr. Julian Hines, and there was another 10 inspector that we found not properly certifiable, and a Level 11 4 noncompliance was issued against him. 12 In addition, I looked into about another eight 13 individuals' background and they were'all certifiable.

14 JUDGE SMITH: This information is already

    ,          15   available publicly.

f'8 16 MR. FORNEY: In an inspection report, yes, sir. l a 17 It was 83/07 and 09. 1 o l 18 JUDGE SMITH: I mean it sounds like I have 1 19 already heardit before. t j 20 MR. HAYES: It's kind of a changing target u l E a 21 because inspectors are quitting and they are hiring g 22 additional inspectors, so it is a requalification process. 3 23 I did review an audit report conducted by 24 Commonwealth Edison, conducted in February, and that audit 25 said that all the inspectors were properly qualified. That l v.

                                                                                     ._.a - t -

    . e
   ,crl4=5                                                                              7350 j   was their audit.

2 In view of the attention that this has gotten, 3 I hope that audit will stand up eventually. We plan to go in 4 and sample and verify independently some of those_ findings. 5 MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, the Mr. Eines that 6 Mr. Forney referred to is Mr. Forney's successor as 7 senior resident at Byron. g MS. YOUNG: Mr. Hayes, perhaps you should explain 9 what actions will be taken to close out this allegation 3o on the (C inspector training and certification. i MR. HAYES: Kevin wrote this, so I will let him 12 do it. 13 MR. CONNAUGHTON: The entire population of i4 inspectors employed in the time frame that this allegation

     ~          '15    was made has not been performed to date.               If you read the 16    all'egations to ensure that you address it, that is verify I           i7    that the first allegation -- that there ' are not two Level -2 0

l 18 inspectors out there that are improperly certified, then i e i, one would have to review all Level 2 inspectors against i h 20 the certification criteria then in vogue. E { 21 On the second allegation concerning inspector a 22 certification and qualification, five or six new welding 8 23 inspectors hired approximately around December 7th, 1982. I 24 Again it recites that there were what he perceived to be

               '25     deficiencies in their education and experienen.

s 4

            --                  e s-  --     --,w      .       n .--                m -                                           v-,n-

arl4-6 7351 .~ I f i We would have to go back and review the 2 certification packages of weld inspectors, all weld inspectors a employed at that time, which is a handful, about a half 4 dozen or so. And those actions are planned. 5 JUDGE SMITH: What do you expect to find? 6 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Nothing. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Why? 8 MR. CONNAUGHTON: That's a subjective response 9 to your question.

                  -10                JUDGE SMITH:     I understand.

11 MR. CONNAUGHTON: The track record of these 12 individuals in terms of sheer numbers hasn't been very good i. 13 so far, in terms of substantiated allegations. 14 However, I think we would take the extra effort is with these two particular allegations in that of all the to allegations in all the areas that they've'been made, the

  !                17    ones substantiated to date did in fact involve inspector h                 is    certification, improper certification after-corrective 1
 %                 19    action was purported to be implemented in-response to the I

I 20 team inspection. Two individuals that were the subject E i I 21 of allegation were in fact improperly certified. g 22 JUDGE SMITH: Is that wrongdoing?

 !                23                 MR. FORNEY:    On the improper certification?

8 24 JUDGE SMITH: Purposeful? 25 MR. FORNEY: I believe it.wasn't purposeful. I

arl4-7 7352 l 1 I' i believe that it was a lack of real understanding on the 2 individualthatperformedtheevaluation{subsequenttous 3 writing those two Level 4 noncompliances that I alluded 4 to a minute ago, Commonwealth Edison re-reviewed the 5 methodology that was used by Hatfield to evaluate the 6 people. For example, one one Level 2 that we wrote the 7 noncompliance against, they had certified him based on , a three or three and a half years of prior nuclear experience, 9 which is required by the standard. n3 He had worked at Byron earlier for one other it contractor for approximately two and a half years, I believe 12 it was; and previous to that, he had some intermittent ~ 13 employment off the site. Prior to that he had worked as l b i4 an inspector for the contractor that had done the subsurface

      ,     15   pressure grouting.
      ~

1 16 Based on their evaluation,.they gave the individual

      !     17   three years experience.         Based on my evaluation, I gave him O

l is zero experience, because the program'where he inspected i . g i, for the pressure grouting, he did not receive any formal Z training as an inspector. lc 20 He did not work to a formal l 21 procedure, and generally the whole program that contractor E 22 used, in my estimation, did not adequately certify him as 3 an inspector. 23 So I gave him no credit. So that took nine 24 months of required time away from him. l 25 The other two and a half years experience he had l l l l l

arl4-8 7353 I' y at Byron, he worked as a carpenter on the cooling towers. 2 I gave him zero credit for.that, so essentially he ended 3 up with zero credit, where they gave him three years. 4 JUDGE SMITH: So you disagree with him, you don't 5 have any sense of fraud involved? 6 MR. FORNEY: No, I don't have any. sense of fraud. 7 Their interpretation was he had worked on a nuclear site and 8 therefore he automatically gets the exposure you get with 9 nuclear, and I believe the proper interpretation is for a io guy to get the credit working on a nuclear site, he must be ii working on the safety-related activities to get any credit, 12 and that is the interpretation the Region has placed on it, s i3 and that is the interpretation we are enforcing.

i4 Similarly, the quality assurance manager's 15 background. He had 10 years' background. However, after

    !v         16    an evaluation, we only applied, I think, around three and 3         37    a half to four years.        It required seven years. We issued-
 .0
    $          18    an item of noncompliance and they removed him.        That was 1
    ;          p,    a difference in interpretation, on whether they should give fe          20    him full credit when he worked as the manager of the i

t 21 electrical corporation here in town, which as the manager 22 of a corporation you.have the quality responsibility. I 23 However, our position was that is not a 8 24 predominant responsibility. Predominantly you are involved 25 with management, procurement, and so on. So we gave him i l

                            ,                   t

a'rl4-9 7354 f' 1 approximately about 20 percent of thatutime. When we added 2 up the different jobs and giving him appropriate credit 3 for how much he could legitimately consider, he was involved 4 in quality issues for three or four different organizations', 5 he came up two or three years short of the seven years o required by the ANSI standard. So we-issued an item of 7 noncompliance and they subsequently removed.him. 8 JUDGE SMITH: This is all past now, so we don't 9 really have to go into that. 10 MR. FORNEY: No. And subsequent to that, like I 11 say, Commonwealth went back in and reevaluated. It is my 12 understanding -- L3 JUDGE SMITH: This is the type of thing when 14 we come into something that's already gone and does'not have 15 to be in the secret session, you can just allude to.it. l 16 And if you think you have to add it to your direct testimony 8

0 17 in open. session, do it; because we want to keep this, in l 18 fairness to the parties and to avoid really difficult 1 l i 19 procedural problems, we do want to keep this very narrow j 20 to the completed, uncompleted inspection area.

2 cnd 14 . 21 2 I 22 3 3 23 8 24 25 s

                                                                                     -e V M5@*

1 9 +

.j l 15-1 1

You can, of course, allude to it to give us 2 context. But we really shouldn'~t hear anything we don't have 3 to hear. d If'you think it's something the other parties 5 should hear, you can attach it to your direct testimony, and 6 we'll provide for it tomorrow. 7 MR. HAYES: I'm not sure we answered your question 8 as to why we think this will not be a problem. There's an awful lot at stake in the inspection 30 program. II JUDGE SMITH: The question was -- now, I want to 12 remind you about the memorandum and orde'r which clarified the 33 scope of the reopened proceeding. k '. Id We emphasized seven things. One of the things 15

 ;              we emphasized is our particular concern is fraud.          And I C

j 16 suppose OI will have more to do with that. But that was'the 8

37 purpose.of my question there, was it an arguable difference 8

18 { or was it an effort to misrepresent, which is indicative or e O'bu 7 " symptomatic of'much deeper problems. t j 20 MR. HAYES: Okay. The next allegation states -- 2 I 21 MR. CONNAUGHT0N: The third allegation in that i j 22 area of QC inspector. training and certification alleged that-8 23 g their extensive training program accomplishes nothing and 24 has been unable to handle the dramatic increase in the number 25 of inspection ~ personnel.

           '                                                                      7356 ji 15 ;

v c-I The numbers reported by him, going from 4 to 85 in 2 roughly a nine-month period, was not substantiated by an 3 investigation.. That investigation had been par:1 ally 4 investigated. 5 JUDGE SMITH: That's alluded to in your' direct 6 testimony? 7 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yes, sir, that facet of it. 8 But the subjective statement that this extensive 9 ~ program accomp11shes nothing indicates further need perhaps 10 to sit on a few training sessions, rather than review 11 documente. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, I sse. 13

         .                            MR. CONNAUGHTON:   That's why that was up, and ie Q:s"~

Id will be evaluated as part of the 82-0519 follow-up. 15 MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know what 82-0319 is? , C j 16 MR. CONNAUGHTON: It's the CAT team fini'ngs } 8

17 which resulted in the inspection program.

3 18 g JUDGE SMITH: Right. 3 e g 19 MR. GOLDBERG: I~just don't want to use too much i j 20 shorthand, e lt 21 JUDGE SMITH: It took us a long time to figure that 22 i out. That was violation 2. 5 23 MS. YOUNG: g Off the record for a moment -- I just 24 wanted to let you know the janitor gave me the number to page 25 him when we want to leave the building. Ha's been t'o ld to s.. - s e t ",

jl 15-3 7357

   -f I

stay until we're ready to go. 2 I'm not.trying to cut off anything. 3 Dr. Cole looked like he was concerned. d JUDGE COLE: I'was looking at the lights, because 5 I thought they turned them out at 6:30. 6 (Laughter.) 7 JUDGE SMITH: I think we're doing fine. 8 To me, this is very helpful. I just hope we can i 9 t- c done. 10 MR. GOLDBERG: Go ahead. 11 MR. HAYES: The next one, the alleger advised he 12 had written a DR for exclusive amounts of dirt and debris on 13

                                  . top of motor controlecenters. For previously cited reasons,
    ^ '

14 the DR Awes refu~ sed. ,It wasn't voided, it was destroyed 15

      -                           and the DR number reissued.         Another DR was written for a

{ 16 linear crack in a steel beam. .This DR cannot be found,'and

     $                      l'7 the number has been reissued.

8 e 18 i a There's a note here that alleger provided one of 19 f our inspectors with a copy of both DRs, as well as several 20 E others with the sameproblem.)Thisallegationis.inpart, a'. g 21 I duplicate of another allegation received from this individual 22 3 on another occasion.. The portion of the allegation concerning 8 23 g housekeeping was dccumented in NRC inspection report 454-82/17 24 and 455/82-12. Housekeeping is implemented by the Applicant. 15 - If any individual observes poor housekeeping l l 1 - s' '

   - ji 15-4                                                                   7358 1

resulting in conditions adverse to quality, he is encouraged 2 to contact the Applicant to have the condition corrected. 3 Instructions for reporting housekeeping problems d are posted throughout the plant. 5 The portion of the allegation concerning a crack 6 in a steel beam has not yet been investigated. 7 The preparers of the structural beam would normally 8 be referred to the contractor, Hatfield Construction Company. 9 Nonconformances are to be written to be corrected in-house. 10 NRC Region III personnel will investigate to 11 determine whe~ther the conditions identified on the copy of 12 Descrepancy Report provided by the alleger have been corrected . 13 Hatfield can no longer destroy Descrepancy Reports once a DR 14 number has been assigned. That's before we made them go to 15

   .              prenumbered, bound logs.

5 j 16 JUDGE SMITH: So the problem represented by that 8

17 has been resolved?

8 18 g MR. HAYES: Yes, the basic problem. I t 19 MR. CONNAUGHTON: We addressed that, as to what j 20 they're doing today. And we acknowledge that their old system E g 21 was not tamper-proof. I g 22 However, this allegation does not indicate'that the 8 23 s items for which the DRs were determined inappropriate were . 5 24 corrected. 25 So, the safety significance of this allegation lies

   ' jl 15 '.

5 7359 )

( I with the current condition of the steel beam referenced by the 2 alleger in one of the DRs. 2 JUDGE COLE: And you have enough information to d specifically check that, because the DR describes the 5 location of the beam and the beam number? 6 MR. CONNAUGHT0N: Yes, sir. I MR. HAYES: I think this might be an example of 8 ~ one where our inspection could be subverted by getting to this beam before we could, i'n correcting the problem. And to then, when we eaw'it, we wouldn't know whether the allegation II had validity or did not have validity, and it may influence 12 us as to what we might do if it was valid. We might pursue I3 it further. (" JUDGE COLE: That might have some safety signifi-15 2 cance. 8 And it seems to me that would be one that would be l j 16 relatively easy to check. I I 17 8 How come you didn't get rid of that one six months e - 18 3 ago? MR. HAYES: I have a hard time. I'm on your side -- 20 I just can't understand some of these things. 21 I don't have a defense why some of these have not i 22

                        -- we have been very short of resources.

8 23 JUDGE SMITH: Is this this one -- let's say that 24 this is one which the Board, in its. role here, simply cannot 25 I valk away from. Is- this one that, for accommodation to the ' I

7360 jl 15-6 f I Board, could be accelerated? 2 MR. HAYES: I think so, yes. 3 In fact, we've kind of made the decision that we're d going to pursue something. We'd like to have an expert and a 5 guy that knowsstructural steels evaluate ~ this and be able to 6 do it. He has been very tied up in a lot of other areas. 7 { MR. FORNEY: He's predominantly -- the principal 8 in s p e ~c t o r in that area is prenominantly tied up at Zimmer.

                                    .MR. HAYES:      In looking back, you wonder                          --

I think 30 you'll see memos that we've tried to speed these things up. II MR. GOLDBERG: I don't want to ask this in any L l 12 l pejorative sense, but it is alluded to -- well, maybe it I3 isn't alluded to. But to what extent has your dedication to 14 the hearing process been a factor in t e'r m s of resource, 15 prerogatives, and assignements? il 16 3 MR. HAYES: Well, it's' impacted, no question about i

      $           17   gg, 8

' 18 { o JUDGE SMITH: I don't want to get into anything I'

   .@                  that isn't subject to public'--

1

                 'O                                                                                                                -

{ MS. YOUNG: Mr. Hayes, excuse me. The disclosure l E l 21

l. of these DRs'by the alleger, would that identify who the

{ 22

      $                alleggr was?

3 MR. HAYES: Yes, it would. 24 MS. YOUNG: And these are among the documents you 25 have.that relate to the allegations? k

l ji -7 7361 l 1 JUDGE SMITH: I think that this may be one where 2 it's easy for us to understand where disclosure might be a 3 problem. And a protective order may be a big deal. If the d matter can be resolved promptly, maybe we can avoid the whole 5 mess. 6 MR. HAYES: I don't know how -- I can try to get 7 an inspector out. there. We've got two inspectors out there 8 right now looking into allegations. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's just put this on the 10 burner and see where we cr.me out. 11 MR. HAYES: Okay. I'll try to see if I can't put] 12 some heat on. 13 JUDGE SMITH: I'm not asking that. I'm just' 14 - wondering when it -all comes to an end, do'you:have some 15 balancing to do? What'might be the solution? 3 ^ j 16 Understand, again, we're not authorized to, nor 8

17 do we make judgments on what your priorities should be.

8 g 2 18 You've got plenty of problems, and we don't even have any e . g 19 judgment on that. t 20 MR. HAYES: We have ten allegations that all 2 21 relate to welding. I can read -- let me go through of these. I g 22 f you want me to read them all, I will. 5 23 JUDGE SMITH: g These are 10 out of the 21? I s 24 MR. HAYES: I guess the 21st one is one that we'd < i 25 probably better wait on OI. l l

  . j1 15-8 7162    l I

1 I 1 MR. GOLDBERG: Go ahead. l MR. HAYES: The~first one: Weld undercut is wide-l 3 I spread and a serious problem. Some hangers do not have weld l 4 l travelers for the auxiliary steel. A large number of welds ' performed in '79 and '80 that were accepted as satisfacetory, 6 in reality, do not meet AWS requirements -- 40 percent due to procedural deficiencies for certain hangers covered with 8 fireproofing insulation and for which weld travelers were missing, the insulation was removed and welds reinspected. A reject rate of approximately.90 percent has been established 11 for these welds -- a rej ec t rate of 90 percent. 12 JUDGE COLE: Is that an allegation, or is that

       '      'O true?

14 MR. HAYES: No, that's an allegation. t A unit surveillance walkdown. of the system, and 7

     $              he didn't specify the system performed by Pittsbitrgh Testing      1

{ - 37 Labs and Commonwealth Edison Company resulted in a 38 percent 18 l weld rejection rate. These are all pretty much in that same vein. These ! 1 20 E are the ones that are all emcompassed in this reinspection: l program which is going back and looking at these welds.

    .        22

JUDGE COLE: Now these. allegations you say resulted E

23 l in a 90 percent rejection rate or 38 percent rejection rate, 24 what does that mean? Does that mean that they had to back ana do it again, and then it was reinspected? (I

jl 15-9 71A} ( l If the allegation is true, what is the significance: 2 Does it mean that the quality assurance is rejecting these 3 welds, which is good, if they're rejectable? Or what's the d sense of the allegation? Is it a good one or a bad one? 5 MR. HAYES: You can look at it a couple of ways. 6 ~ I look at it that the fact that they did have a 7 90 percent rejection rate, if that was true, evidentally they 8 would have to document it to come to that conclusion. Or we 9 would, you know, look at those rejection records. 10 Now, I have taken a preliminary look at the weld Il ' defects that they're identifying under the reinspection program 12 which encompasses these and which will really tell us whether

                '3 these things have any validity or not.

k '# JUDGE SMITH: Who is the alleger? 15

MR. CONNAUGHT0N: These are, I think, primarily 3

3 8

                                                                                                     )
               '7 MR. HAYES:

u l 18

   !                            MR. GOLDBERG:    Judge Cole said, "Is that good?

I' 3 Does that mean the program works?" h 20 MR. HAYES: If they're documented, it means the 1 21 l program works. 22 3 But if he failed to document them, no, it doesn't. 8 1 23

   !                            JUDGE COLE:    It certainly might be indicative of                   l 2

24 poor welding. But if they're catching it and correcting i t .-- 25 well, the system's working. s., e

                                                                                    ._ * * : W-. . .

1

      -jl 15-10                                                                             7364
   ?

I MR. FORNEY: The total context of what he's trying 2 to.say there was, when they were reviewing the package and 3 where a traveler was missing, they were, in fact, allowed to d require the fireproott.ng to be removed; and they reinspected 5 ~ it, and they found a 90 percent reject rate. 6 So, that was on one that appar'ently never got 7 inspected in the first place. And they found it out when they ' 8 were trying to do the closeout of the package. So, when they went and did the closeout inspection, 10 they found a 90 percent reject rate. II So, our conclusion is the same as yours, that 12 that's not bad. 33

  ,. .                            JUDGE CALLIHAN:        Had these been inspected t

I# previously? 15 e MR. FORNEY: There was no way to tell, because the 7 16 3 weld _ traveler card was missing. They were lost or destroyed 8

17 or probably not previously inspected. 8~ ,

18 JUDGE SMITH: I think, for the purpose of this I I'

record, you should to ahead and list those, all of those. 20 f MS. YOUNG: And try to distinguish between { E l allegations.

 ,g             22 MR. HAYES:        These were all allegations. I'm not 8

3 reading anything else that's been hubstantiated. JUDGE COLE: And then, something before you' finish, 25 if you have any idea of the status.of their inspection program and 15 in that area. l 1 l

                                                                                    . - , ,  - . _ _ _\

l ar16-1 7365. l T' - 1-MR. HAYE3: Okay, I can do that. 2 The next one, in Drawing Area 03051 or.13051 3 at the 426 foot level, 64 hangers were to be checked. Of 4 the 36 or 37 hangers that were accessible, 14 had bad 5 connections. Inaccescible welds had to be accepted on 6 the strength of the weld cards. Authorization to remove 7 insulation to inspect welds was denied. 8 Panels in the Unit 1 containment supplied by 9 Systems Control Corporation have welds that are not to code-10 and they are undersized. They are 3/8ths of an inch vs. 11 5/8ths of an inch required. 12 some welds that had been covered with fire 13 proofing are only tack-welded. When found, the traveler Id was written without a discrepancy report being written. 15 The next one. Anfinspection by alleger reve~aled 3 16 3 a weld not to plan. The welder indicated on the traveler 8

17 0

was neither on site nor issued weld rod on that date. h 3 18 The person asked the allager to. change the date on the I' f 2 traveler. A11eger said that he would not. l 3 20 General surveillance of this project illustrates Ig ' a 21 that approximately 90 percent of the bead welds on DB-164s 22 3 -- thase are hanger designations -- are 1/8th inch undersized 8 l 23 g tihere tube steel has been used. In most cases thia 24 represents a 40 percent decrease in size and 55 percent in 25 strength. t

cr16-2 7366 I 1 The last one. The disposition of the DR was 2 false. The report was written for lack of welding 3 preheat. The inspector observed the process throughout, 4 but the disposition engineer took the word of the welding 5 foreman who claimed preheat had been done. The report i o claimed the weld was removec, but it wasn't. , 7 And we have a copy of that DR. s_ a I guess we are waiting to complete our investigatior., 1 9 into this until we get the results of the reinspection ) 1o program which preliminarily indicates there is a large I n number of welds which do not fully meet AWS code requirements. 12 The bulk of those defects.is either undercut or -- JUDGE SMITH: 13 This is th e reinspection and this 14 is not private information that you just said there.

   ,          15                MR. HAYES:   It has not been fully released.

There is some of it in my report where~I document the f 16 I 17 number of defects they have identified as of June 4th, I O j la believe it was. Some of it has not been released; some of 3 - 19 it has. t f 20 JUDGE SMITH: But it's releasable? u l 21 MR. KAYES: Yes, I think so. Yes. E g 22 JUDGE SMITH: I_think it would be a good idea, I 23 and it's awfully late, I realize, if you were to add that i 24- to your direct testimony. 25 MR. HAYES: We do refer to that report and that b

             .                                                                           l

ar16-3 _ 7367 n 1 report.does document the status of that reinspection program 2 as of June 4th -- wasn't it? 3 JUDGE SMITH: You had three status reports. l 4 l MR. HAYES: Two of them are pretty -- there's ! 5 not very much there. The one that Mr. Hines and I did 6 was quite extensive. We did every contractor that was l 7 doing major work and gave a status of a number of things 1 8 that had been looked at and the number of defects that were { 9 found. j 1 10 JUDGE SMITH: But one did not get the sense from i 11 reading the reinspection of the Hatfield Electric work that l 12 it was as bad as you suggest tonight. I really think that fS 13 would be helpful if you were to add that to your testimony, 14 if you are able to. l 15 MR. RAYES: When you say bad, you have to look 1 i \ g 16 at these defects and it could well be'that they don't I 17 meet the letter of the code, but it doesn't mean they may is not meet the design. f 19 So without knowing -- we know they are calling then . l e 20 undercut, so we know they don't meet the 164 or 1/32nd for l

 !           21        undercut.      It may be just barely under that.                                                                           l t

1 22

g JUDGE ' SMITH: Well, I'm sorry I used that word. 5 23 I'm not qualified to do that. But my concern is you 24 have given us information-tor'ght that is not asserted 25 to be protected information, that really does-have a bearing, q

crl6-4 7368 r\ ~ 1

and at least the flavor of that did not shine through when I ! 2 read it. Maybe it would have when you testified. l 3 MR. EAYES: The only thing that information 4 would provide in our testimony is not directly tied back 5 to the allegations, but I think we say that these things 6 are encompassed within the reinspection program. 7 JUDGE. SMITH: So your feeling, then, is that - a the reinspection program as you finally accept it will take 9 care of the 10 welding allegations. But do the 10 welding . 10 allegations give you any cause to be concerned about 11 anything else? I mean, you know, the adequacy of the 12 sampling or anything like that? 13 MR. CONNAUGHTON: I think to do a meaningful

14 evaluaticn of the reinspection program results, we may.have

      ,       15   to take the reinspections of the items and the results and 5

g 16 ' divide them up into different populations, like those 8

17 covered with fireproofing, previously covered with fire-O

{ 18 proofing, or those DB-164s, and look to see what percentage j 19 of the rejectable welds were rejected on the' basis of under-20 cut, and arrange the population to see if the results -- the 3 c l- 21 statistics can assert something with respect to the validity I 22 of individual allegations as opposed to the qualifications 3 3 23 of present or past QC inspectors. g 24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, one of my concerns about 25 this allegation is that when we had the deposition of John b.

                          - . , - - - . - - . . - ,                        y               ,             , . _ _ _ , . . . , -                  . - - - . , _   ,m   .- .

    'arl'6-5' 7369 1

Hughes, we received a stipulated testimony of Mr. Ogsbury, 2 and the deposition of Mr. Hughes, 3 4 5 m And I understand the Staff did not join 6 in that stipulation. 1 7 JUDGE COLE: He made the allegations before he ! 8 left, didn't he? 9 MR. FORNEY: I believe feeling to was the handling by the Region of his allegations made him 11 happy. Typically what happens is after -- again after l 12 we have summarized them and put'the letter to the file, we i 13 provide that to the alleger. ! 14 Then as we complete inspection reports regarding

      ,,                    15              that allgger's allegations, we typically will provide j                     16              them a copy of the inspection report so they can see how 8

17 we adjudicated it. 18 JUDGE CALLIHAN: These allegations were made I 19 prior to his termination; correct? t t 4 g 20 MR. FORNEY: Yes, sir. 2

  .I                       21 JUDGE COLE: How much before he left did he make a

g 22 these allegations? Si:: months? 8 23 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Two or three weeks, I believe. 24 MR. FORNEY: Specifically, I don't remember which 25 ones. He initially came to us in August, so he was an 1 I

r. v

  . , - .   , _ - , ,    y            - . ,
                                              -9, . _ , . , _ . - , .

        ~                                                                             -

ar16-6 7370 I alleger to us from August to the end of the period of time. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Aren'tthelllllllfallegations 3 of such a nature that a protective order and affidavit 4 of nondisclosure carefully' selecting the people privy to 5 the information would b- tufficient? I mean basically what 6 it boils right down to. they are pretty general. And even 7 if you have a breach, they can't really go out and fix 8 them, and they can't really destroy -- there is some 9 problem with your documentation, though. 10 MR. EAYES: There is a number of problems. 11 JUDGE SMITH: But I am wondering why this 12 package of information could not be presented-under a

     .            13   protective order.

Id MR. EAYES: I might he going a step too far, 15 but one of the things that ccacerns us is given all of j 16 these things and involving one contractor, was there a 8 0 17 careless disregard of NRC rules and regulations by this {3 18 contractor; or, even further, was there a concerted effort l 19 to circumvent some of the requirements? 20 3 I think this is one of the answers that we g I 21 are trying to get, and it will be kind of a joint effort g 22 between OI and Region III. ~ 8 23 JUDGE SMITH: And.this is what we sensed 24 from the whole picture presented to us. 25 MR. EAYES: That's exactly the big concern. b.

l l cr16-7 7371 ' l l (g e i-1 MS. YOUNG: When will you be able to make that 2 determination, Mr. Hayes? l 3 MR. EAYES: You have to recognize that a lot of 4 things are kind of intertwined. We've got the Or thing ' 5 and we've got our own thing, and we've got the reinspection { 6 report. If you read.that report, that's no small. effort, 7 that is a multi-million dollar effort, requiring a. tremendous ; 8 amount. 9 The information I got today indicates that may 3 to not be done or completed until December. i It appears that 11 there will be increasing sample size at Hatfield, particularly 12 in this welding area. ! 13 MR. GOLDBERG: To answer Judge Smith's question, 14 do you have any comment to make on the disclosability of 15 the welding allegations?- ' C g to MR. HAYES 8 I have not evaluated those one by 17 o one, but I have a problem with -- just a general problem . te of how this is perceived by other people, in looking at how \ l l t 19 other inspectors might say,' well, you know, nothing is y 20 protected. And would this influence others or give them a l 21 chilling effect for coming forward. I g 22 JUDGE SMITH: The people who would have access 23 to this information under protective order would be Mr.

  ~1 24 Becker or Mr. Miller, perhaps somebody from Commonwealth                           l 25        Edison. Nobody from Hatfield Electric. They have no                                l O

l l l I

cr16-8 7372 C standing in this case. 1 And Ms. Whicher. And I don't see any 2 need for any member of the Intervenor group to be present, + 3 because they have no expertise to bring to it. 4 I am pushing you too hard, too fast, tonight. 5 MS. YOUNG: Would the substance of these 6 allegations identify the alleger? ond 16 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 b .4

      ,           15

k. I'6 17 8

e 18 1 1

    $            19

r l l

f 20 l 21 8 g 22 23 I 24 l I i 25-V

   ,arl7 17-1 7373 A

3 MR. EAYES: Well, I think with a good guess, I , 2 don't think they'd have any problem, but since we are under 3 a protection order -- 4 JUDGE SMITH: The difficulty is the protective 5 order has been used -- well, I don't know. The protective 6 order -- an informer's privilege is not immune from the 7 . protective order remedy, and I don't see any reason why a it is not just as effective at protecting the identity of 9

                                                -- I'm talking also about in camera proceedings, where f                                to             you' don't even have to give the name of the guy, but they 11 can probably guess who it is.                               We guessed who it was.

12 i MR. HAYES: I wouldn't have any problem. I 13 think we talked about the three stages, the Loard only, to i %/ 14 the Board and the legal rep esentatives, and then to the i . 15 Board and the legal representatives and principal representa-5 g 16 tives from the parties. l I 17 The only one.on Commonwealth Edison I think la 1 would be excluded would be someone who has direct 1 t 19 responsibility for construction. j 20 JUDGE EMITH: Well, that might not be possible. l 21 It may be that their expert that thei need to ccursel I g 22 them might be that. We im'ght be facing for the first time 3 23 in this proceeding the awful consequences of a Licensee's 2d employee who should violate a Board's protective order. I mean if they can't control their employees and' absolutely

25 l (_/ ' N-

           . - - . - - - - . ,                                      -      --    _        - - _ - -  n,_,-     . , , . . , .- .---  -.....~,r- , - , , . . .

crl7-2 7374 ' I assure the adjudicativ.e process in the Commission, that 2 protective orders will be complied with, that is a worse 3 problem than your welds. That goes to the basic management d integrity of the corporation. 5 MR. HAYES: I know of no case where that's e really happened. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I don't think we should 4 a push you. MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think we should push it, 10 either. I think firstly'the witness is a little fatigued, il but secondly, I think it is a matter that should have'more 12 a considered deliberation tomorrow when the' Board decides

. U 13 what, if anything, it wants to do about what, if any, of Id
        ~

thesa allegations in the future. 13

MR. HAYES: There is one more allegation that 4

16 3 is handwritten that we were going to get copies. Do we 8

17 i have that?

3 I 18 g . MR. GO DDERG: I'll give that to you in a a l' 3 minute. l 20 g The only other observation I'll make at this l l 21 point is, that as I indicated in the public session, even v 22 4 to provide this information at this time to a legal.and a 8 23 g nonlegal representative of the parties, and to bar them 24 from doing anything about it, creates another problem, 25 a possibly an ethical problem on bahalf of counsel privy to I b i

arl7-3

  .                                                                                                                 7375 D                        1 possible safety concerns, and maybe even an obligation 2         on the part of a company representative. I don't profess 3

to have the answers to those questions, and'I guess I 4 don't know what their present need would be for the 5 information. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Goldberg, protective orders 7 are not new to the NRC, as you know from your research. 1 8 They have been used many, many, many years,-and I can't see 9 what the ethical problem is because they are not going to j 10

                                   .get any information except through the NRC inspection route, 11 4

and they cannot be placed in an ethical bind.of getting 12 information they would not otherwise get unless they agree

                  '13               to the' protective order.

14 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I. guess that.would be for is them to decide, but also one of the problems is there is 5 q 16

      ~                             really not much in a meaningful way'they Would be able C

17 to do, then, in terms of preparing for any eventual !

                                                                                                                          \
      .              la

, I evidentiary session, because the people who are going to need 19 I the information are necessarily going to have to be the j 20 company and principals under inspection. That's where e [ 21 they are going to have to garner their factual presentation. I 22 g So right now, there is not much they can do in l I 23 terms of -- I l 24 JUDGE SMITH: And this may be a problem to which 25 there is no solution. This may be as close as we can get b2 En 1

                                                         ,         .,      . - - - . _ - . - - _ .-      y -

   .arl7-4                                                                        7376 b                 to justice in the case, and it r.ay be too far from perfect 2  justice. But balancings have to be made.      We have to come a's 3 close to disclosure as we can consistent with protecting.

4 Your mission is first, we recognize that. The 5 safety mission of the Commission is first, but we have to 6 come as close to meeting the adjudicative needs as we can 7 without prejudicing that. g Putting them in an ethical bind is closer than

              , having no disclosure whatever.

10 MR. GOLDBERG: But the disclosure would be is predicated presumably on a judgment by the Board that it 12 was necessary. 33 Well, whatever. Necessary for a decision, 34 necessary that it be disclosed.

 ,          i3               JUDGE SMITU:   Yes. I don't want to wrestle with to  that right now, if we can avoid those standards.       Okay.

I 17 That would be a good thing to do. f 18 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I'd like to come back to Mr. t

$          19   Hayes' 10 or so weld problems.

t j 20 Were those concerned with hangers for the c l 21 pipe and conduit and so forth, all of them? I 22 MR. HAYES: These would just be associated 3 23 with conduit trays that are just -- cable trays, not I' 24 anything to do with the piping systems. 25 JUDGE CALLIHAN: In your experience, has there b

cr17-5 7377

.I

s. I been allegarions which have co do with piping and were 2 substantive things in the plant, to the extent that they 3

have been -- to the extent that allegations have appeared d for the cable trays? ! 1 5 I think your -- I don't want -- I think you are 6 limiting yourself to Hatfield, and I don't want to broaden I 7 the issue. But how typical are these-allegations with : 8 l respect-to all allegations that you get? l i 9 MR. FORNEY: At Byron? Is.this relative to 10 Byron? 11 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I'm talking about Byron. 12 MR. EAYES: I'm not aware of but very.few 13 involving the piping contrac'or.t

  &                  14 MR. FORNEY:    I know of none that involve the
    .               15   piping contractor.

j 16 JUDGE CALLIRAN: Thank you. I 17 JUDGE SMITH: We'll come back to this probably 8 e 1 18 tomorrow afternoon and we might bring up again the l t l' usefulness of the protective order and your concern about j - 20 the band it puts on the' Applicant's people. . u l E 21 Just bear in mind that the Applicant was g 22 willing to take the risk of.having no hearing. The worst 3 23 that could happen to the Applicant's representative under 24 the protective order is that-they can take no action until 25 the investigation is completed. They, themselves. U

.v

l arl7-6 7378 i /#

1 In other things, allow things to run the same i

2 course they would run if we do nothing. That's a risk they 3 are willing to take. 4 MR. GOLDBERG: I think it probably warrants 5 exploration on the public record, too, but I think we 6 also have to explore the nature of the information that 7 would be imparted on a restrictive basis under a protective I 1 e order. 9 As I understand Ms. Whicher, she is contemplating 10 4 some kind of confrontational discussion of these matters i l 11 where she would cross-examine, much as she would in a j 12 public session. 2. 13

                    .             JUDGE SMITH:  She is not going to have a public
   \/          Id     session.

i 15 MR. GOLDBERG: I'm saying I think it's one 3 l 16 , g thing to say that we would impart under a protective order, 8 17 describe the allegations under inspection and their 8 , g is status and any judgments that have been derived about 1

  !*          l' their importance, et cetera. It's another thing to subject j           20 the inspectors to a confrontational type of examination I

I l 21 on uninspected allegaticns, much as would be done if this E j 22 was a full-blown evidentiary session in which they would 8 23 1 g have~ completed their investigation, arrived at definitive 24 fia.dtngs, and be able to substantiate those. 25 And there is also a concern that that kind of 1 u-

crl7-7 ' l I questioning could suggest inspection outcomes to the a 1 i

;                                    2 inspectors, and also interfere with the whole integrity of 3       the inspection process.

4 JUDGE SMITH: You mean bias them in their 5 future inspections? 6 MR. GOLDBERG: 4 Bias them in their inspection 7 of.these specific allegations and suggest.to them certain a 8 paths to follow or to resist or to instill certain pre- ) i 9 conceptions, y 10 j JUDGE SMITH: To make sure when they are l 11 inspecting that they don't prove ' or disprove the suggestions i

;                                  12       of the cross-examination?

i 13 MR. GOLDBERG: Something,l'ike that. I think 1 (. Id it's one thing to say here's the uninspected allegat' ions, i 1 15 now you know it; and another thing to say that we are going 3 j g 16 to have an adverse hearing in camera on those matters, and 17

 ,                                          I think that would be more problematic than the first i   o 18        course.

1 I' JUDGE SMITH: We also discussed -- I don't 'think i j 20 you are really concerned, really, about these gentlemen c { 21 being distracted from their inspection duties by Ms. a

!3                                22        Whicher's cross-examination.                    I realize that there has to be 8
;                                 23 compromises, there has to be a balancing and an effort to 24        meet the needs of everybody concerned.

25 MR. GOLDBERG:- I understand. We have offered i w 4 , W

                                                          . _ _ , . - , ,._.__,_-,r,,y-      _,_,,,...-,,m ,,  - , _ - - - , . . _ . ~ , . . . . . -      ,,,__,we-,
                           -.,m-.    , -- -        r                                             ,

crl?-8 7380 D ' I the conclusion of the inspections to -- that would be the ' 2 time really for litigation on the merits of the allegations. 3 No other party is going to have a position on the merits - 4 of the allegations. 5 JUDGE SMITH: How are we going to have an 6 adjudication on the merits next January? cnd 17 7 8 9 10 11 4 12 13 34

      ,                   15 5                                                                                   -

g 16

     $                    17 8

e 18 s -

     $                   19
  .I g                   20 k                   21 8

g- 22 6 23 I. 24 25 1

AR1'8tg1 ' 7381 O I MR. GOLDBERG: How are we going to have adjudication a 2 on the merits on uninspected allegations, unless they are 3 willing to volunteer opinions? 4 JUDGE SMITH: I would anticipate a hearing in which 5 they cold us exactly what they are telling us now and the

6 basis on which they are going to handle it, how it's going 7 to be handled. That'may or may not e adequate. I don't
8 know, but at least the parties have a chance to explore it.

9 . Always remember that we do not -- and if we should lapse for { lo a moment and try to instruct your people what to do, that's

11 a mistake.

, 12 All we are doing is listening to what they are doing. j - 13 We are not judging whether that's adequate. j (Ns"" - 14 MR. GOLDBERG I think you're right, there's a lot of ] A 15 things to balance and I think one of che' things to balance is

5 16 the ability of this t 'o abide the inspection conclusion and: g
17

. o reports and .that's something that may turn more'on timing l 18 considerations known only co'the Applicant. 4 1 2 19 4 I But I am concerned that we have an adversarial pro-j 20 caeding on uninspected allegations and I don't know where i i e l 21 that line becomes of paramount importance or it could possibly 8 l g 22 hurt, you know, the integrity of the inspection process. . I 8 23 JUDGE SMITg: What is shining through so far in this 24 case to us is that there is af aroma about Hatfield Electric 25 Companf, and I think we are A40:ing a little bit close :o it. 1 y v.w .#. -- t I

       ,          . . _ . _ ,            .  - - . _ _ _ ,                , , , ,      _m,. , ,   , , , . _ -   . . , . -,..--.r . , .   -

AR18rg2 7382 (?"5 1 If we have to. hold up the d e c i s i o_n , that's fine, or 2 if we have to reopen, that's fine, if we have to go to the 3 Commission, that's fine. d But I don't see how we can -- I don't know what else 3 we can do. I don't know what we can do, actually. 6 MR. GOLDBERG: One of the purposes of a presentation 7 is to allow you to form a judgment and I guess ask whatever 8 questions about what significance -- 9 JUDGE SMITH: And also to explore a way that all the 10 competing needs can be reso:ved without frustrating their 11 inspection efforts. If that's not possible, then it's not 12 possible, but it's the overriding consideration. 13

     )                      MR. GOLDBERS:~ Again, as I indicated at the outset, Id it depends on what kind of information the Board feels should I3 3

be disclosed as to what our opinion is about the arrangements j 16 for its disclosure. It just strikes me as -- . 1 I7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we already have guidanc e . The pro-8 18 g tactive order that we.'ve given you to consider as a draft o a i

            'I' talk's about the need to know standard, that is the standard 20 l

for safeguards information and it should be the standard here, l 21 and noone who does not need'co know learns the information. E 22 { MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not talking about -- I talking in j 8 23 ' .I part about the population, but I'm talking more about the 24 ) format, what information it is that would be the subject of 25 t restricted disclosure, what is that information? Ia it '

AilSrg3 7383

'/~5 1 documents? Is it a description of the allegation in some 2

detail, or is it an adversarial proceeding involving inspec-3 tors who have not begun to inspect these matters and they 4 form opinions on the basis of the totality of everythib's they 5 know about the company, past, present, and anticipated?t:And 6 what kind of evidentiary record do we have? 7 We don't have a decisional record that can be cited 8 in public findings until the c o n c lu s io n of the inspection and 9 the need for the confidentiality has been removed. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it can tell us -- we can receive 11 proppsed findings in camera. We can write i decision in 12 camera, a restricted, decision. It can tell us, number one, 13 can we go ahead to a decision believing that adequate evi- ! b. Id dence has been presented to us that no matter:how serious

   .           15   the problem is, it is going to be handled corrected.           Or, 5

g 16 on the other hand, do we have to keep the record open. I maar ., i 17 we don't know, we don'.c know any of these things, but we have

8 g 18 two very important considerations.

i l t 19 That is, this is an adve.sary proceeding where the

,  j           20 parties have a right to know as much as they can to the I           21 2   Bu-8         excent it will not frustrate the inspection.

, I g 22 We have to push each to that center point as far 8, 23 as it will go without breaking it. If your inspections are [ - 24 endangered by the adjudication, it has always been thac ) 25 public safety is more important than any adjudication. 'If we h i

AR18rge 7384 . I have to hold up the hearing, we will. 2 It may very well be that there'could be other things. 3 We want you to explore them. It could very well be that we 4 might have even a novel approach, or we might simply -- I 5 don't know, I don't know. 6 JUDGE COLE: It will be novel. 7 (Laughter.) 8 JUDGE SMITH: We could have, based upon 'this in 9 camera session, an in camera portion of our decision even. 10 We are going to new problems that have not come up in the 11 Commission before and we are going to have to develop new 12 approaches which take into account all the problems that 13 your clients have and the problems of adj udication. (_ . 14 The Commission has not yet released us from the 15 responsibility of having an adjudication.as thoroughly as we 3 g 16 can. 8

17 We have generally a Board who is philosophically 8

g la very much concerned about the problems that the Staff is l 19 telling us. Our attitude toward protective orders is a very j 20 strict one. r l t 21 MR. GOLDBERG: We've observed that and I don't want

22 anything to'suggest otherwise. I guess.we'll cross that 8

23 bridge when you d'acide what you want to do with the.informa-24 cion, unless you are already previewing that. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we haven't had a chance to confer b

AR.18RG5 7385 1 yet, but I'm somewhat concerned about, really, the serious-2 ness and the breadth of M accusations as he left and 3 I'm a little bit concerned about what is showing up in the 4 reinspection program. 5 And we have to talk about it. 6 MR. GOLDBERG: That also would be something that 7 you should explore in questioning here. I mean this is 8 somewhat of an abbreviated presentation we are going to 9 reconvene comorrow .at three. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Knowing what the concerns are, is there 11 anything where you can tell us about those 10 welding allega-12 tions? Anything we should know about do you think? 13 MR. HAYES:- I have no reason to believe now that 14 they are not being properly identified and handled, but we 15 are still going to look and make sure. to f JUDGE SMITH: Is it your impression thac M 17 o probably one of the more credible allegers? .

  $           18 3

MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yes. 19

 $                             MR. FORNEY:   Yes, I would say.

t 20 3 MR. HATES: I have talked to him a number of times u { 21 on the phone and he comes across as very credible on the i j 22 phone. 3 3 23 JUDGE COLE: All of these 10 welding allegations 24 pertain to cable liner installation? . 25 MR. FORNEY: Yes, sir. I ss l l

1

    . AR18eg6                                                                                                      7386 i
    ~0 l                                    1 MR. HAYES:   They are s'lely o                   isolated to that..yes.

2 There's about 45,000 welds and an awful lot a very large 3 number is being r.einspected.

4 JUDGE COLE: Could you give me some feeling'for the 5 safety significance of the welding assoc ~1ated with those o structures? 7 MR. HAYES: I can'give you my personal opinion. 8 It's based on discussions with people that have knowledge.

It's not my area of expertise.*We had this problem with 10 A4S welding a lot of places. Zimmer is one of them, where II if you judged a lot of these defects that are being identi-

12 fled today against the Code as it exists or I guess -- I'm l

33 a little bit fuzzy as to whether they have now changed the l (- Id Code or they have a proposal to change the Code, but that 15 is out there. 4 j 16 And if you judge some of these defects against that, 37 ! the new evaluation, a lot of them would go away. There-is ! S " 18 some -- you know -- some of these are pretty close calls and ! e a 19 then you have to consider -- I've seen things-out there that j 20 I would say had'a safety factor of a thousand, anyway. l 21 I You've got six inch cube steel holding up a two-inch g 22 l conduit and'you know you just look at it and say, somebody's 8 23 , asking a lot of money on asterial. You've got tube ~ steel -- 24 l I don't know -- are you familiar with tube steel? It's a 25 huge piece of steel. An.d so I think it's -- I don't want to o (./ i... e

       <     . - - . - . , . _ ,        , + - , - -     -   -e-  -            .,,.----y        -.g- n. -  ,    -    ,w~ r .,,s ,

e <

   ' AR18 r'g 7                                                                      7387     l P                   '

rule out that some areas might be close to design limitations 2 and I'm not making any excuses. Everybody know what the 3 requirements are. The welders should have welded to the requirements and the inspectors should have inspected to.the 5 requirements. I'm not making any excuses in that, area. 6 But from a strict safety standpoint, ~'m not sure 7 and we won't know for sure uttil we evaluate all these results. 8 In my own personal opinion, we don't have a great safety problem out there. 10 MR. FORNEY: May I say something? There's a whole

;                           lot of information I think that's going to have to be evalu-i 12 ated by the region.

33 One, it's my understanding Commonwealth' Edison has l' 14 requested some relief from AWS in interpretation of Code --

                     '8 t                     AWS Code requirements.      We have not seen that y et . The a

i '* 1/16th inch requirement under Code *at Byron was-also required

                     'I at Zimmer and has already been relieved by the Commission 8
                     '8 j                    ,

and NRR -- or the 1/32nd has been relieved at Zimmer to f 1/16th of an inch. 20

    ,                                  So if they request similar relief at Byron, it would E

2I l be granted at Byron. 22 I In addition, Zimmer has developed.a program that 8 23 [ they are going'co perform some tests and submit to NRR for 24 relief of the same type situation whereby they will go ahead

                   .25 questionable welds, develop worst case velds, sue'h as worst C

m t

AR18eg8 7380 l

r( 1 case undercoat, worst case overlap and so on, and then go to 2 destructive testing, drop test, break cest, so on and t ry ' ' 3 and develop an envelope of acceptance. Although they may not d be welded per AWS Code, through tests they are going'to try 5 and establish the fact that although they may not visually 6 look like they meet AWS requiremencs, they do meet the 7 strength requirements. 8 They presented that'in a written paper to my office. within the last two weeks and my position was that was 10 inappropriate for our office to act onf it and suggested they il submit it directly to NRR. 12 So, all of these. things, depending on how NRR ap-13 proaches that and depending on what the reinspection program Id '

reveals to us coupled wich correspondence that we received

!                       15 from AWS are all going to have to go into the Commission's 1

{3gj 1 16 position on these velds. 17 i o JUDGE SMITH: Let's bear in mind our inquiry here

                        '8 e

is not directly related to plant safety, but it's a quality , 19 assurance and quality control contention and we have no "I j 20 franchise to make our own inquiry into general safety problems. t

21 We won't do anything on any of these things until i j 22 we have an opportunity to explore further. We are not going

'   8 23 g                           to  issue orders or require anything until we give ypu a 24 t

chance to know what they might be and argue against their I 25 End 18. suitability. f

*e'

_____._____m

cr19-1 7389 O I suggest unless there is something else j 2 you can tell us about, thatwewaituntiltomorrowafternoon.l 3 MS. YOUNG: There is one more allegation. JUDGE SMITH: Are we done with welding? 5 MR. HAYES: I guess so, unless you have more questions. 7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: You've finished your list? 8 MR. HAYES: I can talk about a couple more. This allegation is corrective action is often

              'O untimely. Resolution of discrepancies may take up to f

four months. This may preclude the discrepancy report 12 originated from ..being reviewed for acceptability.

             '3 Can you summarize that faster than I can, since 14 you wrote it?

15 JUDGE SMITH: This is anonymous?

             'O MR. CONNAUGHTON:    No,
            '7 Q

We have a concern for the timeliness of corrective is f action also. However, our primary concerns are that f identified discrepancies -- if they are not resolved within 20 a given period of time, resolution may become either more 21 difficult, impossible, or suddenly the same discrepancy 22 5 applies to more and more items. But with regards to his 3 23 g concern that the originator may not be able to review I' the resolution for acceptability -- that, to us, is not a 25 concern. The person -- first of all, the deficiency is O

       'ar19-2                                                                                                             7390           t I

, required to be adequately documented such that -- and ' 2 } corrective action adequately documented, such that'an 3 individual who is properly certified reviews the res.olution d for acceptability and signs off. 5! we don't say that the originator necessarily 6 would be the individual who verifies -- does the quality 7 control verification of'the resolution was adequate to i a address the problem, if indeed all the other requirements are meet with regards to documentation of the conditien lo and resolution. 11 MR. FORNEY: That position directly relates 12 to the NRC's position that anybody can generate a deficiency 13 report whether he is qualified in a given area or not. L id t If an inspector has been previously certified f5 3 at another site in welding, but he's working in bolting 3 at Syron, if he sees something that appears to be wrong 17 i in the welding area, we have insisted that they provide 8 o 18 1 1 the guidance to the inspectors that anybody can generate a i DR, right down to the janitor, but only an individual iu 20 certified in that area may sign off on the DRs. J l 4 I 21 MR. HAYES: There is a couple originally that

2

, I we had turned over to OI, and just a day or so ago they 8 23 g were tossed back to us and I will read those two. If 24 the Board would like, we can read all of them that were 25 returned. _ _ - - _ . ,- - _ _ _ . - - - - - . - _ _ _ ~ _ _ - - . - - _ - - -__.

cr19-3 7391 l l l gs 1 MR. GOLDBERG: We are going to have a session 2 tomorrow with OI, and I think that office wants to be l 3 present during the discussion of allegations under their 4 organization. But if there are some that clearly now fall 5 within your jurisdiction, go ahead. i o- MR. FORNEY: I don't think it would hurt to go 7 over those. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want to consult with counsel?; 9 (Counsel conferring.) 10 MR. GOLDBERG: Before Mr. Hayes continues,-- and 11 I know we are going to resume this information deposition , i 12 tomorrow with OI's presence, Mr.nHayes or someone on the ; 13 panel will disclose with a supplement to his direct J 14 testimony, since the submission of that testimony

   ,           15   additional comments have been made by others which the j            16   Staff, for all practical purposes, will treat as allegations I            17   and will identify broadly the nature of those on the public is    record when it takes the stand. That is unrelated to the 1
  !           19    three allegers which comprise the material that was the I

j 20 subject of the Board's interest and the disclosure to date. l 21 However, if the Board wants to know that, - we a g 22 can tell you about that, too, but it is unrelated to the 5 23 allegations generated by these three individuals. It I' 24 arose since our August 1st testimony. In fact, it happened 25 August 2nd during their presence at the site, and we are s." ,

cr19-4 1 going to describe in general terms in a supplement to our 2 written testimony the receipt of those comments which 3 will be treated as allegations. 4 JUDGE SMITH: This is in addition to the -- 5 MR. GOLDBERG: To the March 10. 6 MS. YOUNG: To the 31 allegations. 7 MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, it is in addition to the j l 8 31 remaining uninvestigated allegations. 9 JUDGE SMITH: They relate to what? Hatfield? 10 MR. EAYES: Related to Hatfield. 11 JUDGE SMITH: I guess really we don't know if 12 we want to hear them until we hear them. 13 MR. GOLDBERG: Right. Na Id JUDGE COLE: These are in a different category 18 than the others? There's no informer's privilege or anything 18 { associated with it? I 17 0 MR. CONNAUGHTON: The individual indicated he

   }3         18 wished to remain anonymous.

I l' I JUDGE COLE: Then it's in the same category as

l 4

lm 20 the others.

  ]          21 MS. YOUNG:    Perhaps you should finish the two t

lg 22 that OI returned to you. 8 23 g JUDGE SMITH: If it's any guidance to you, 24 remember the Commission's policy statement, refer not only 25 to the information the Boards want to know, but the

I

, cr19-5 7393 l

+-                                .                                                                     !)

f: l /*N i 1 information the Staff wishes to inform the Board about. ' l i; 2 So let's let you decide;if you think it's relevant to the i 3 ,, 3 issue, well, we certainly want to hear about it. l : 1 4 MR. HAYES: ! It is going to come up tomorrow, so 5 perhaps it would be appropriate to give you all the background 4 e on it, so when it does come up, ycu'll know what's going on. I 7 Let me correct the record. I said there were e 10 allegations concerning welding.

Actually I miscounted.

There is 11. It's allegations 10 through 20. And then the

'O 21st one is the last one we just discussed.

Il

!                                               Now there's 10 allegations that originally were 12        turned over to OI, and they have tossed back'to us two of i

13 them and said you have to take the lead on this, and we won't I (~/ - Id i ] do anything until you get back to us. 3

      .             15 One of these is QC inspectors being pressured              ;

3 j j le to have all hangers inspected by January 31st, 1983. They i i 17 don't feel that there is enough substance there for them to 1 0 l i 1 18 proceed. I guess we will pursue that from the standpoint j A l' was there any shortcuts or anything on the inspections. i I j j 20 We don't believe so. We haven't seen any evidence of it, t { I 21 but we will explore it deeper to make sure. 4 s 22 5 And the other one was some electricians have 8 23 told alleger that they have overstressed cables in pulling 24 even to the point of breaking the cable. One name of the 25 person who witnessed this was provided by the alleger to us.

   ,L m

1

7396 cr19-6 I i And by accident I ran into this individual in 2 the plant. I was talking to Hatfield employees, both 3 contractor and cable pulling crews, in connection with Mr. 4 Hughes' allegation on the welding of the cable pipe with 5 the cable still in there. So not relating to -- just in a 6 general conversation I asked him about problems with pulling 7 cables and he did -- he confirmed that at one time they. a broke a cable. He said most of the time they don't have 9 any problem at all. He says they're so easy they can push to them. 11 So we got just a little bit of that one 12 investigated already, but it doesn't look like there's a 13 problem. But we will pursue that in depth. i,k 14 Okay, I guess on the rest of those they'll be 15 covered when OI has their session tomorrow. 5 to MR. FCRNEY: g Maybe I might say a couple of I L7 a words here regarding the item before the last one which

    $            is l

I was pressuring the CC inspectors because of the January 31st,. i 2 19 1983 date. I noticed that Dr. Cole raised an eyebrow because I

  .)s            20 January ?lst is obviously passed, and one might wonder what
    !            21 we're going to do at this juncture.

a 22 3 Recognizing that that date was coming f airly I I 23 soon at the time we got the allegation, I did do some 24 preliminary review of that item, whereby I went over and 25 discussed their methodology for ateting that date, and how (_/

'arl9-1 7395 r^ 1 they were eliciting work from the inspectors and they 2 generally.had applied for the review of the hanger packages 3 a two-hour time limit per hanger package to complete each 4 package for review, which would mean that each inspector 5 in an eight-hour day would be expected to complete'four 6 items. 7 So I further did some exploration to find out a if there were inspectors that were taking longer than two hours to complete them, and the answer to that, in talking 30 to their management, was yes. And I said, "Well, what do il you do when a guy takes four hours for one, three for one, 12 and he doesn't finish the third one he starts that day? Do 13 you discipline him or what happens? How do you make him Id meet your goal?" 15

;                         And it turns out that their philosophy of that 3

{ 16 was to establish a goal of two hours per hanger package.

!       87 Now if a guy would continually not be able to complete his 38 work in the two hours, then they would probably consider     ,

E l' some adverse action against him. I 20 I However, if the guy generally met what they 21 expected a certified inspector to be able to ace'mplish o in a 22 { day, once in a while taking longer on one hanger, recognizing 8 23 g that some hangers, if you have to go out in the field and 24 inspect, take longer to get to than others, management at 2s Hatfield indicated there wouldn't be any adverse action i b'

7396 cr19 8 r' T I against the inspector. 2 Then I also queried some inspectors to find out 3 if anybody knew of anybody that had disciplir.ary action d taken against them at that time for not meeting what was 3 inspected for a day and I couldn't find any -- didn't get 6 any positive responses. So I don't know at this juncture -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, John Hughes got fired for 8 l failure to produce. MR. FORNEY: Yes, that came -- when I did my 10 preliminary review initially it was before John Hughes was 1 il let go for -- the letter I read sending him back to PTL 12 didn't fire him. Hatfield pointed out they didn't need 13 his services because they cidn't feel that he was working ((_ 'd to the expectations of a normal inspector. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it was production. 3 , j 16 MR. FORNEY: Well, it had to do with work. I I 17 believe his was related, by my understanding and the is questioning of people involved, related to productivity S l' rate of an inspector, l I

  }           20
  =

In other words, the effectiveness of him as l 21 an inspector as opposed to them demanding more than he was a 22 3 capable. If the other inspectors were getting on an 8 23 g average daily basis what was inspected of them, and he 24 wasn't, then the conclusion they dreewas that he wasn't 25 capable of performing at the level of what they were paying C

cr19-9 7397 ( i for. So they sent him back to PTL. PTL didn't have any 2- . job for him, so they let him go. cnd 19 3 4 4 S 6 7 4 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14

    ,            15 i.

l7 3

 ,  ,           is I
 ;  E           19 I           to s

21 g 22

    '           23

I I

24 25 l l b i f

ji 20-1 7398 e I It's not clear that, you know, he was fired. 2 because their quota was unrealistic. 3 JUDGE SMITH: No, I didn't suggest that. I suggested that we did address the argument made by the 5 Intervenor that productivity has no place in inspection. And we rejected that argument. 7 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Individual productivity with 8 the production function, as opposed to the quality control assurance function. 10 MR. FORNEY: I just wanted to let you know that l' it's like nothing happened on that one, given that we knew 12 January 31st was -- we were passing that date.

               '3 JUDGE COLE:      It's not necessarily bad to set goals I'

to have an inspection completed. I don't think January '83

               '8 U

has any significance. It's what they do in achieving that I*

  $                 goal that's important.

I II o MR. TORNEY: My ability to delve into that area

              '8 had to be handled very carefully.           I knew OI wan't going to E           I' be able to support us in a timely manner.           They didn't have
 !              0 l                  the people available based on other work assignments.            But I 21 felt that item was in the population of items that at least 22 1                  had to have some initial look by the resident officer.

8 23 j MR. HAYES: I don't want to leave the impression 24 that Mr. Hughes was improperly relieved by Hatfield. I spent 25 a lot of time looking into Mr. Hughes' allegations. One of v \

ji 20-2 7399 A 3 the things I looked into was everything that man did. And I 2 sean everything. 3 In December, there was very lictie on the record 4 books that he did. 3 I talked to a lot of inspectors, and he was -- did 6 a lot of talking. they said. And he was always bragging about 7 how he shut down Zimmer. 8 And there was no -- very few inspection reports that were dated December. I think he was let go in January -- and I 10 chink for good cause. 13 This other -- let me characterize it a lictie bit. 12 because last Tuedday two individuals came into our office and 33 i talked to Kevin. And one of the individuals was a PTL super-

Id l visor, and the other was a PTL employee who was assigned to l

    .         'S    Hatfield.

5 ' 18

    ]                            And one was complaining -- and Kevin can correct 1        17 4

se if I'm wront, -- he was complaining about being hampered in I

              '8 writing an NCR and a couple of other things on record.              '

E l' I Perhaps anybe you'd want to -- I'm talking second-20 3 hand. You can talk firschand. e l 21 MR. CONNAUGHTON: Originally, his complaint was , E 22

    $               that he wanted to write an NCR for the fact that due to the 8

23 g difficulty in assembling all the records pertinent to any 24 given item -- as I mentioned earlier, this is an ongoing 23 process that has not gone to completion. But within the C

7/.00 ji 20-3 I reinspection program, once they sort the welding of an iten 2 -- sorttche weld traveler for a given item by quality control 3 inspector and time frame, which iw the basis for the d r'einspection program, they have to then determine whether or 5 not this particular veld inspection has been superseded. Later on in time, when the ites is reworked or I modified, for whatever reasons, at this point in time, that's a kind of a tough chore to do. It's kind of hard to do, to get a history of the iten, without doing an extensive document to search. His nonconformance taport was aimed at the fact 12 that compliance with one of their procedures was indeterminate I3 due to his inability to find recctds. They have a system in place now that when an ites

             '8
 =

3 is reworked all affected documenta which would be prior veld l I* travelers would be cross-referenced with that rework authoriza- - 1 37 tion number. 3

            '8 j                          ,

So now he's got this -- he's got a weld card for I' an ites; he wants to determine has this iten been superseded. / ' 20 If so, there should be a rework authorisation associated with I 21 it. He could not find the rework authorisation. 22

3. .The date of the. weld traveler in questica was I 23 g prior to the implementation of that procedure, requiring a 24 rework authorisation form. He did not know whether the rework 25 that he had reason to believe occurred was performed prior to a

j1 20-4 7401 r~h l 1 the implementation of that procedure or afterwards. And he ! 2 ! could not readily get an answer without doing a document ' 3 search. So, his nonconformance report -- the subject of the 4 conformance report that he felt he should write was that

       .            5 compliance with that procedure was indeterminate.

6 In ths course of talking to the individual, he 7 expressed concerns in general about what he perceived to be 4 the disarray that their documentation is sound. And though he did not come right out and say that 10 he has directly observdd the following, he stated that it is il so hard to determine whether or not a weld traveler, which is

12 a weld quality control inspection report, essentially has been e 13 supersdded; that an individual that's given a weld card and bJ 'd said, "Go reinspect that item --

that quality control IS

     .                  inspector, in that time frame, based on the date on the i            le g                 travelet, is subject to reinspection. Go reinspect that item. '

I 17 o As I stated, there's a great deal of difficulty 18 I in getting together the history on the item and, in some cases , E l' in determining whether or not that weld traveler is even I 20 g valid anymore and should be a part of the population for the 21 8 reinspection program.

    ]            22 He did not come out and say that he had directly 8

23 observed it, but he had reason to believe that it was dausing 2d QC indDectors so Buch frustration that they weren't bothering 23 to do this extensive document search and that perhaps they s(s

j i 20-5 7402 1: I were going out and reinspecting itemt that did not correspond 2 to the weld inspector and the weld -- you know, the original 3 quality control inspector and the item indicated on the d traveler that he was supposed to reinspect. JUDGE SMITH: Which means that the sampling 6 would -- I MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yes, if he found the item. 8 whatever item that might have been, acceptable. they might invalidly count an acceptable inspection to tn individual. 10 so __ II MR. HAYES: In fact, this really only came out 12 because of Kevin's questioning of the person. He didn't

              '3 L                   really associate the two together until the questioning made Id it obvious. But that's the way we're looking at it.
              '8 5

It cast some doubt on the validity of the three l 38 inspection efforts. But we did have a meeting with the ! 17 Licensee, and that will come out. I as sure, during the te testimony, what we discussed at that meeting. But that was ! I' one of the things that triggered that meeting. There were i 20 f t other things that triggered it as well. our own observattuna 21 l and comments by other inspectors. These just kept piling up. l 22 and we felt that we had to do something, so we had a meeting, t 23 JUDGE COLE: What do you mean, that will come out e::d 20 24 in the testimony? What testimony are you talking about? 25 C

$21 Crl 7403 p-k ' 1 MR. RAYES: The fact that a meeting occurred on 2 August 4th, it is our plan to bring that out. 3 JUDGE COLE: Okay, supplemental testimony. Okay. d I thought maybe I should have read that in the Applicant's I i 5 testimony and I didn't remember reading that. 6 MR. RAYES: No, it occurred after that and it 7 does bear directly on it, so we will make sure that that is a brought out. ' It will be an inspection report or document of that meeting. It just hasn't got out fast enough. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Our reporter was tired j 11 45 minutes ago. ' 12 MR. GOLDBERG: Can we just recap on documents? 13 We can provide for the information deposition record ( 14 documents from which we would propose in the first sentence

   . 35 to remove confidential identities, if you don't see the
   ?$

j 18 need for them, and provide those to you tomorrow. 17 JUDGE SMITH: In what area? O 5 18 f' I MR. GOLDBERG: In what area? These regard

  ?    19 i         the uninspected allegations of -- that we have been talking g   20    about.

e l 21 (Board conferring.) I 22 g JUDGE SMITH: It is only the steel beam allegation 23 and the M allegations -- 24 JUDGE COLE: Horizontal crack in the steel beam. 2S JUDGE SMITH: -- that we feel are necessary to V

ar21-2 7604 i

( l pursue. If we do feel that they are necessary to pursue. ; I 2 We are not saying that they are necessary, we are saying 3 that others are not necessary. 4 MR. GOLDBERG: The horizontal beam? 5 JUDGE COLE: The horizontal crack in the steel 6 beam. 7 MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the other? e MS. YOUNG: The 11 welding allegations. 9 MR. GOLDBERG: In the context of documents, then, 10 would you want -- I don't know how segregable the documents 11 are. The documents really are going to be a recitation it in large part of the allegations which have already been 13 cited and the balance of which you'll be advised tomorrow, (~ 14 and I don't know if supplementing the presentation with is documents, without conferring, would be informative or not. j 16 I guess'I'd have to confer with them. And if it I 17 is more information, whether it's segregable from the O l le other stuff. I

!           19                 JUDGE SMITH:     Honestly, I don't know where we are I

g 20 right now. I don't really understand what you just said. f 21 MR. GOLDRERG: Okay, I'm sorry. The material we a g 22 really have is internal memoranda which identify the I 23 allegations in their totality. I 24 JUDGE SMITN: All of those refer to -- 25 MR. GOLDRERG All the 31 and those which have been .h

l cr21-3 7405 l.' l ! g- ' inspected, and at some time the population was 65 or whatever.. 2 The entire population of allegations from the three people 3 that we have talked about. d JUDGE SMITH: Can we defer consideration on that? 5 MR. GOLDBERG: Sure. We'll have material here 6 tomorrow. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Our inclination is not to receive 8 documents, but let's consider it. l t MR. GOLDBERG: That's why I indicated I'm not i ' l

                'O sure how much more information they would be than the
                   oral information.

12 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. I sure appreciate your

                '3   staying, s
    ~

(Whereupon, at 7:40 p.m., the in camera

'8

ex parte hearing was recessed, to reconvene in C

   ]           16 open session at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, August
   !           '7         10, 1983.)

3

  .            Is i

i l' . . . . I g 20 21 8 g 22 8 23

I

             . 24 29 (s

              '.     ,                       C,ERTITICATE OF PRCCEEO C:33
     .s l

3 Chis is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 ::RC CC:Ot:5SION Commonwealth Edison Company In the matter of: (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2)

                    ,        cate of Proceeding: Tuesday, August 9,1983
                    .,       Place of Proceeding: Rockford, Illinois
                    ,  were held as herein appears, and that this is the original
                    ,  transcript for the file of the commission.

to Ann Riley official Reporter - Typed is .

                           ~
                      ~

82u () ,, officiaG Reporter fit

                                                                                    " Signature is is i7 ie is Io Il                                                                                   !

as as I t 34 ! It fAYkot ASSO CATIS acessfenso peersseeema6 nementene menrews, vinesmsa h.. . . . _ .J}}

ML20205H884: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:34, 29 December 2020

Text

Navigation menu

ML20205H884: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:34, 29 December 2020

Text

Navigation menu

Search