ML19338C075

Dow Memorandum Re Further cross-examination of Bf Watson. Statements Which Are Controverted Should Be Made Subj of Argument

ML19338C075
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/15/1971
From:	Bauer J, Groening W, Wessel M DOW CHEMICAL CO., KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER
To:
References
NUDOCS 8007310657
Download: ML19338C075 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:9 . = _ s.o. . f'g 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C0tGIISSION In the Matter of. ) ) Docket Nos ( 750-329 i CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) ) 50-330 Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 ) 7 ~ DOW MEMORANDUM REGARDING FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION OF BRUCE F. WATSON On Wednesday, July 14, 1971, when the other parties state'-that they were not ready to proceed with their cross-examinations of the Mapleton witness, Bruce F. Watson, Dow commenced cross-examination (Tr. 3575-3625). The fo'llowing morning the other parties were ready to proceed and Dow stated that it would submit a memorandum summarizing the facts which it would have sought t'o elicit from Mr. Watson ~ had it c'ontinued. This is that memorandum. Dow's cross-examination was designed to elicit the following: 1. That the witness was a paid professional witness (Tr. 3601; see Tr. 3557-5fs), whose ~_ hostility _was so great that he would not per-mit'the baces of the conclusions to which he testified on direct examination to be tested on crosc-examination, 3n time honored tradition (See, e.g., Tr. 3622). 8007810 .g ,m

n = w ~ v 7 y m, s,, y

l lly,

', \\Q a , di,._y

L,,

[:+p +- x. s- ~ p + _..J I4 n.';g. w[.w _2 i i w... _ ;.. s 9 s

-2.--That thsfwitness'1 background and qualifications 4

~ Lwereinot sufficientjto permit tha attachment ~of lsignificant' weight?t'o.us' conclusions. ~ Thatfthe:? witness'iconclusions on direct. 3 ,examinat' ion wer'e not: based:upon a proper study; J (of.jthe; facts-in.this case. Subsequent dirbet~and' cross-examination of Drs.

Epstein and. Van derHoven in fact-brought out.most of the material facts, so that this memorandum.will only bring

~

together the' record r~eferences showing that the allegedly

- " useless" Dow data 'was not in ' fact "used": for any purpose - for-whic.h ittis unsuitable, and - brisfly discusr the nature of-the' cross-examination as~to biasiand hostility. 1 ~ .l.. The Allegedly 7" useless" / Data Was Not! Improperly-Used~ Mr. Watson 5s' crucial-testimony on direct examina- -tioniwas;thatEthe Dow data-(and the Tri-City Airport' data,- (to. a J1 esser extent )1were " meaningless and incompetent" i 1 ~

(See,1e.gl,'TR 3l33,--3171,[3583 et seq').

.On~ cross ' examination, a'n effort was.made fir't to ~ s s (br1ng7outithat-such termsfare relative land significant only LinLrelationship;toitheir: purpose. -Thus, the Dow data , accumulated (over:_the years for Dow's. purposes, may well be-jusefullin' predicting the path o'r a, vapor:. release even if~not-0 " "EdentIat esfor)do s e s calculat ion' purpo s e s. This the-witness 2 .N diilddmii: - 4 ^ ~ f' A b

w m.; A .gR .,,t ..N 3

3..%. :

~, n i~ AY-.'; Ml, e ". M; '*'i* - f:' .4 - + ~(; g f. -[fc; _[. yg.l 'l- ~ ~ ~* W.. i

• ..t3 3

r j z,, ( ~y ,y

q wz y 4

s ~ 4;-(:M +:-w g /:A = m f W y+u.3, n. m. m t.. s. zn. ~ qy, . w:4 _fQ. 3:._;,,_. a gg...ph..,.. u._:_. _. a_._.,_ _..... ___zz_________,_,.n__..;_ e .g, ~ - y + .s u ~ I"Q. lNselsss', therefore,;is a? term.which; .has significanceionlyfin connection iwithSits1 application,' correct _?' ~ lA. LYeali, [okay" :(Tr. 358'). 3 ' Subsequent cross-examination,;had it been con-Lducted',Mouldlhave' sought'to bring out~:first, that the Dow.- datalwas::<used onlysin a. limited fashion by applicant,- and, s second,<that the AECl staff limited.its use.(and the' airport l data 6sd): even ffurtlier. (a) *LimitationsL by.. -Applicant- ~ The i*ollowing references _are all to pages of the Prell' inary Saf4ty Analyses Report '(PSAR): m lPageT2A--2',L"The Dow data -were not ' amenable. to -fthis-method'ofotreatment.1 ~ iPage 2A 4, " Wind: velo' city andidirection'are measured.with a'.USWB TypeiF-420eC cupfanemometer: ~

a n d ? w i n d ~v a n e.T s e t".

i[as distinguishe'd from the' ~ Dow-Bendix aerovane? instrument'.which'the. witness stestifieditoisomelextent "ove'rshoots" L(Tr Q3435, d 3575-77 ).]"- ~ 2h49, '.'Thef significantidifference between'. -Page3 Tables.2A-3 and?2A-4;isMin the windjspeedLand. ~ i

freqdency offcalm. qThelaterage monthly"speedi fatiDo.wHis somewhat flowerCtihan that 'at

Tri-City y

^ -. Airport."a Page' 92d--12["This.((di f ference ),Jpei haps 3 ;is ~,1 f -2 i 1

• ^

l indicative 1off.thefinfluencelof the plant ' %n, 4 q >buildingsincarcthe;Dow: anemometer." N n' w w. DC ? PagcJi 2 A-32 ', q."Neverthe'le s's, theLDow.. data : as ; 4 ;:g N. j l ,Ere'c'ordediby4the i;uard-observer:are not,suita5' M' 7p

f,,

JforNeither1 me.t,hodiforsthe.- following reasons-: .[ '[ 6

= V _,,[ Q = - ((; ~ y ~, x, ',a w n i _ w. + m3 N ~ ' .L ~ ~ w.ge.g;i.,; g 4 -{g ,,;e - -m ~ ~ ,.,y [*~ g-]' f 4._. r,;..y., _.n.. h.,.._. w... ',.:. ...j ig., ..w N

li The.'Dow? data include:no cloud: cover

~ or ? cloud ' ceiling; data. This.

a:

eliminates;useiof' Turner method.

'~ 2. TheTDow dataihave incompletetdetail ~ 1 _ inLthe "gustiness"! category to c. . assign 'a-Sladet or - Pasquill category. 4 3. : 'J he raw?Dow: data care too ' incomplete co<use1Slade'.s method.'" Pagec2A-36c, "The data from-Dow Building-4171 Jat.-Midland-were notzused-'to develop-the-two-fhour model-" Page_2A'-42c, "The~ data now available from. ' Building No. 47'are.inadequatecbecause they. 'were.-intermittently collected over short . periods ~of time 2": L 2. Limitations Byg 'AEC Staff' i Amendmen't No. 5,? November 3,.1969,'PSAR Pages.3-1 ~ andL3-2, refersTto the.AEC Staff, evaluation, sets'forth'the-- meterological _ba~ses for the-Stgff-calculations, and.. sets iforth theLresulting conclusion, accepted:by Applicant, that thefexclusioneboundaryfis' extended fromJ400 meters-to 500 meters.; -Amenckmentf 2May'28,J 1969, PSAR 2 A-42c, states ~ 3 ^ ~thatr" Continuo'usimeterologicalidata.(wind direction and' - velocity)iare ;being; recorded 'and will continue until -a year's

history (isiobtained.from theiweather station at the Dow.

s , Building'No.147." r e Amendmenti6,-(December 26,.1969,.PSdR 2-1,cmakes. ~ H reference?t.ojthe4AEC iStarf obj ection to cApplicant 's proposal.. ' 'that-preoperational meterological measurements be made at-JBuildingcNo.c47 within-.theiDow. complex. Applicant; con-tended:thattthefStaff(conclusion sas wrong,istati'ng that. '"the buildingi47 Imeterological data are not 'only adequate and ~ w Wslid sut ilno? conservatively representative or the site meterology; = - ~AECi staff obj ections' were ' successful'at ' page 10 as reflected, 41niAmendment510_,iApril 10, 197.0, and reported forithe"Starfl Safety. Evaluation Report'which reads'in'part:- ~ ("The s,applicantn::hase agreed ::tos conduc t ' on ? site : meterological -- y ~ measurements programEtolinclude...yA minimum oC_one fear's! fdctalwil19belavailablc/ prior: to? ouriroview 'of this plant M forfanjoperating711conse"l. i ,d. i'. f. I

m- ~~ .m r c, W ,. l % 1 n; 'J ~' W-- s i "~~c,, ++n ann z n. ,i _a= s~, 1 ', f~% '- uw =. =.- 2. =.. ;

....-.-.2.....=..,-..:....

~=.w.--.~.....-.. u. ~ iAlso,-~at.pages.3-10 of the,StarfiSafety _ EvaluationiReport,. appears tra Staff conclusion "that; b the Lavailablej meterological = info.,ation ' present.ed.by' Lthe applicant 5doestnotc,justifyfhis'3coposed. departure. -5 ifromLthe:standardfmeterological.model we use'..." ISafety ;5 valuation Report ',. pag'es. 64-6 sets ~ ~ fhrthttheimeterologicalecon.ditions used:by thefStaff.

Seesalso AEC counsel. comment that the Staff has not relied'onithe Applicant's meterologicali data [in the

~ ~ ^

dose. calculation](Tr.13215),.and'the Staff response to LDr.;HallL'.slQuestion 14 (Tr.-2490).

~ Staff ' Safety : Evaluation. Report, - Appendix C,- 1contains theDReports; of the Staff consultant, Air' Resources Environmental:. Laboratory, Environmental Science. Services Administration,.: dated FebruaryL3 and. July '2B, 1969'and January 5.and. February 4, 1970'. These four Reports (appearingHat pages.101-7)'contain numerous references-to theninadequate' data.such as "In: addition to the r.cservations~statedjby'the applicant-with regard to the use of Dow-: data... we feel that..." (page 107). 3 The? Uature'of ' Cross' Examination -Comments by-the-Board during cross-examination- 'of Mr.zWatsonE 'suggest'that the Board may not agree with z

us;as'toithehapplicableilegal principals.

There is;no perfect'way to test a witness' con-clusions,lbut commonLl'aw experience' dating;fa'r back intocour English?heritageLdemonstrateslthat cross-examination is 9 ~ _ ief fectivel; fcertainly.1t is ' the,- best - method. we know. Its ~ l purpose <is'onlyftoTtest'the value of-what-the: witness has - said ---not,:cashsoNany.:peoplethink,Itoharass,antago.n3ze3 y - it'ake! advantage.;offor; abuse,.although unfortunately sometimes ' ~ ^ ~ .thatim'ay.? occur.-lInfonly?aivery.small~ number of cases is-there + . ;icid urydinvolved ; In"mo'st; instances the cross-examination- ~ ^ OO .O "h' ={._,, a. L + x x .x - =

t ,.7 s c .4 L.L iuS.U.-yu n ,x ibL Tf. .. 1 CJ r% y ;_. s.n.c...ga .-.w; - y .2.... #. a.- u- - .-----7-- iseeksjs'implyftbifindjoutlwhether the1 witness has: accumulated' ithe:;necessaryLinformation to support?his. testimony (Did;he ^ fhave? tiis glasses #ont whenithe - accidentihap' ened?); orlis p ' qualified: to' speak: (Haslhe~ taken a graduate course 'in the - ~ relevant' specialty?); on.isl pre.judicedEor biased (IsOthe -' plaintiff your': employer?--Anyone whd.has tridd P" accident. case knows that.10: witnesses who see the accident from the samelvantagerpointTmay-eachitestify differently without necessarily lying, because the witnesses each heard, saw, l ~ smelled,stouched or tasted differently based'upon the-totali'ty of their experience). These.1.rinciples are equally applicthle-to any witness, expert'or otherwise..It}is[ entirely groper to bring. s .out-that-the-witness is a1 paid professional. witness.who -testifias~for lawyers andLother. private parties as a.part of.his. profession, and who's future retainers-depend upoyl favorable testimony to his client. Thus our cross- ~ examinationLbEginning at Tr. 3620:regarding the Pasquill-Categories'.-twas not~toJshow. ignorance--any beginning meter-clogy1 student-knows. these t cctegorice and Mr. h'ntcon had. .tostified at.many points in his direct examination with. 2 regard to Pasquill category F:(See e.g.,-3461, 3464, 3510, l3523,03533, 3537,535411and 3552). 'Rather, it was designed L ~ 4 to'show the: witness':hostilit'yfand refusal to permit ~ cross-

examination lby anLadversary,'as-dcmonstrated by thesfollow-F l'

r ,z 5..

n m, 3, w _ m .tsn ~ g;: g~ - :.m., - :% g: 4 ~r o... yy ' ~ > g-. - x%9 5:l im x ' Kny;x , (y. ),,' Mgi,Q e +j, ,('. ~ -l[

'f s,

e x IQ-., .;47 -.m.."- +c 4 . em. 4;Q,l+ -4

a w.u < a

p.o;7 +,. ; n 3 n ;. ;=. s x..+ w m , I. a. ,.o %In:-otherEwordsitherejmayNe'aCategory,G?# ~ 2"" o .x _.;TheretcouldEbe. ~ s ~ E 4 ' ;Q. - l. And 41t" isfnow1 your ; testimony 5 that-there 'might. cbe?aiPasquill Category G?:,. [N~) dir,wIthave.not^ read Pasquil11since;1963ior ~ '610, and:IJcertainlyican't remember.every ' 1 4 Lthinghthat;therefis'tonknow!about it. I ^v read many, s many 37:many things, and. I1ust .can ' t i remember ' eve,rything. ~ f(Tr.13622 )i ?andShisisubsequenth shouting;, even ' at the Chairman ?(Tr.13623). ~ Would7Mr.~Tlsdalefhave acted-in such a fashion?

TheBoardfis of-course empowered-to decide:all

~ questionsLinithe~first instance, substantive'as.well.as- ~ i procedural,. and it may;wellibe that the precise terms. of: a - witness' compensation L(Tr. 3601-), or 'of the documents in Lhis. -possession whichimight,have^showed conclusions contrary'to his/ testimony-or'been-otherwise helpful in=. obtaining-informa-. 1: (tion-to wh'ich :he refused.to respond on examination were.: , l f. _ cumula',1veD (Tr.1-3559--62 ). I u m ~ Butito'suggestLthat' seeking.suchiinformation is? i g iimproper)(Tr~ 1.35.6.0,c 3562), ory should. be furnished onlyL by ~ 1way.}of)exchangeTforltheiterms.of,a lawyer's1 compensation ~ _ (Tr.;73601)t$ndiaates /that "the fundamental? purpose being1 s ^ - - a a- %: ^ ~ _,., -. s . _.i a ;testedDon;examinationimayinot'ha've been made, clear--the 's. 'attorneyiie'byfde'initionEand[intentiontan'advocatefunder. f f fourlidversarybsystem?ofTlhw. (He'-1.sLpaidito speak for his iclient Wwithinlthe? bounds.of; ethics and law. That is'not - L. +M ,4 3 jwe: submitf,f the : role' of,.tthefwitness. s v 4 'N d.. [ '~ _ a

^

l " ~ };g; 4 ' i I

f -

e s< = < .m n3 f s s n T -,1 gg n - D ~ c

o F ~ ...G_Ob s .la

Q ' ' -;i, Afd '.

.;. i. ,o ~. - -- _.:g =:9l y -m 4-kry.. - - . a:;;..

j.

'.g . ;.;.:, ;w - 7._ e. .x JIti may cbet:significanti: that i n - h i s..- s u b s e q u e n t -- ..y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lexamination,DDr. Ep'steiniomitted L the intemperate ' language: .~of;his-affidaviki(Mapleton',JEx.23)and'or'whichhehad ~ ~

- been (quoted j.(Tr. :2952 ; seef alsof Tr. 3214, 3219).

I'.. y Members of Hearing l Boards may1not always_' fully: i ~ ~ i apprecidt'e that$..what theyjsay here:andt elsewhere is. .g .' repeated:not ~only:1on appeal and 'in other AEC licensing; proceedings but =in :theEhalls off Congress - and elsewhere. j(See remarksLof Myron M. Cherry b'efore-Joint Subcommittee, ' July'14/ 1971,-pp. 13-15; Dow' Exhibit 1, footnote 27, referring ,to testimony of?Dr.: Hall.)- For'this' reason-we regard lit 7 as'especially important that'st'atements.'which are contro-i m tverted :be.- made the. subj ect of ' argument., as'herein. (Seetalso 'Tr.13628-30, citing opinion.of' Chairman Jensch in' Indian Point No.'2). m ~ . -?

Dated

Midland, Michigan

Julyf 1$, ~-19713 n

^ Respectfully submitted,- <- i.7.h b b ISce..,m, h5N).W [ y Kay,'Scholer,'Fierman,-Hays *- & -. Handle r-. Hearing Counsel for "'m 'Dow Chemical stmpany ' ? Of f_ Counsel, [Mi,ltonlR.(Wesseli C 4" Joseph-P. Bauer,. Land. m. s W1311amlA. Jroening,i.Jr.,- 2J a m e s N. d O ' C o n n'o r.'.: ~ 8: a- ...u ut. 1 mom a .}}