ML19225A401
| ML19225A401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1979 |
| From: | Shane S SHANE & REBEL |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A402 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-91 NUDOCS 7907190134 | |
| Download: ML19225A401 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE WILLIAM H.
ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
DOCKET NO. 50-358 INTERVENOR MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO ALLOW NON-ATTORNEYS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LICENSING IIEARING Firatly, MVPP is and has been without :unds since the inception of these proceedings and the three present counsel:
Leah Kosik; James Feldman; and the undersigned have not re-quested or received a single cent as compensation.
This is in contrast to the counsel representing the applicants who are obviously working for a corporation with large financial resources, and are being conpensated for everything which they do in behalf of their client.
Counsel for the applicant speaks of "profeasional re-sponsibility" and, coming from his mouth, smacks somewhat of hypocracy.
The undersigned cannot help but wonder whether Mr.
Conner would be devoting all his time and effort if his client was without any resources to pay him.
With regard to our professional responsibility toward MVPP, each of us made it clear from the inception, to our client that we would have problenc with our time and that we would have to give priority to other matters.
This critical disclosure is what allows ur to draw a distinction between the present situation and one wherein the client is told one thing and a commitment is subsequently broken. -,
n 190760/yr L6 co
Being that each of us may have other commitments which we consider as having a greater priority, there may come a tLme when none of the present three will be available and, therefere, a negative ruling on this Motion will, in essence, deny MVPP participation at these hearings.
Secondly, the regulations of Board,10 C.F.R.S2.713 (a),
specifically provide for non-attorneys being able to partici-pate at hearings such as the one in question.
Specifically, 10 C.F.R.S2.713(a) states as follows:
"A person may appear in an adjudication on hi s own behalf or by an attorney-at-law in good standing admitted to practice before any Court of the United States, the District of Colu=bia, or the highest court of any state, territory, or possession of the Uni ed States."-
This re931ation was promulgate d by the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission pursuant to authority from Congress and has the full force and effect of being law.
It clearly stands for the proposition that MVPP has the right to represent them-selves with or without counsel.
Opponents of this motion argue a strained and illogical interpretation of this section.
They claim that its meaning dictates an "either - or" kind of situation in that MV7F can either represent themselves, or, if they have counsel, they must have counsel represent them.
This is truly an absurd view and one not supported by the regulations.
Thirdly, the staff contends that through Mr. Barth, non-lawyers will not he qualified or ec=petent to handle their interests at the forthcoming hearing.
This attitude is il-logical, elitist, and dangerous.
ea7
_-,:::,o c-It is significant. that the Licensing Board is composed of three members, only one of which happens to be a lawyer.
In a court of law, which follows very strict rules of evi-dence and procedure, obviously it is important that both the trier of f act and the participants be trained in the law.
At the very foundation of administrative law, is fhe premise that the regulatory agencies are not going to be bound by strict rules of evidence and procedure.
The membership of the Board itself, is a manifestation that it is helpful to have the expertise of individuals with other than the legal perspective.
As an attorney, the under-signed counsel is somewhat embarrassed at Mr. Earth's essentially elitist view expressed at the recent pre-trial hearings.
It is this attitude that drives a wedge between the public and the legal profession and creates such a bad image for our pro-fession.
.f 6
n w.;.; ;y 2 Most significantly, the non-lawyers involed with the MVPP have a much greater understanding of the technical aspects of its contentions.
They are much better suited to the formu-lation of questions than their counsel.
Finally, in a matter which he.s such an eno:rmous potential impact on the public, it would be folly to accept the view of this Motion's opponents.
It could result in a total loss of confidence in this agency, which would certainly be bad ti=1ng.
i 33b nU, L
CONCLUSION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is for the protection of the public, not simply for the protection of the legal profession.
FTilure to comply with its own regulation with regard to the subject of this Motion, will certainly be grounds for reversal of any of its rulings in federal district court.
For this and for all of the above-mentioned reasons, the undersign :d counsel urges that its motion be grented.
Respectfully su *itted by:
1,
/
W ^^
'/. k/' '4, STEVEN C. SHANE
(.
ATTORNEY FOR MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT SHANE & REBEL SUITE 202, GWYmiE BUILDING 602 MAIN STREET CINCIMIATI, OHIO 45202 (513) 241-4030 oqq
-, - e O U !)
E~'