ML19345E576

Requests ASLB Reconsider & Rescind Ruling That Intervenors Can Only cross-examine Witnesses Whose Subj Matter Relates to Individual Intervenor Contentions.Ruling Threatens & Restricts Intervenor Rights

ML19345E576
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/29/1981
From:	Schuessler W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8102050231
Download: ML19345E576 (2)

Text

=

4, \ Ni 7 in f3 4 i .p@\ r r~

Q UUITED STATES OF AMERICA 64 _ g III > 3 S DnO . g c

U UUCLEAR REGULATORY COI:MISSIOU 'w j/l BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AMD LICE!SI"G E0ARD' /

I N.,. # ' N the Matter of  ;

i ECUSTON LIGHTIHG & F01/ER CCMPAUY Docket Ho. 50-466 g

( Allens Creek Muclear Generatin;;

Station, Unit 1) i January 29, 1981 INTERVENOR SCHUESSLER'S MOTION TO RECO:! SIDER AND RESCIUD CERTAIN RULINGS AMD ACTIC:IS OF THE BOARD At the evidentiary hearing on Friday, January 23, 1981, the Eoard ruled that Intervenor Wayne E. Rentfro would not be permitted to cross-examine an available expert witness on the ground that Mr. Rentfro had not previously demonstrated a discernible interest in the subject matter of the contention being considered.

I move the Board reconsider and rescind that ruling and recall the witness, if necessary, to properly afford Mr. Rentfro the opportunity to cross-examine.

This Board Ruling places upon Mr. Rentfro and his rights as an Internening Party a restriction, or limitation, which has not been applied to any of several other Intervenors who have cross-examined prior to the appearance of Mr. Rentfro. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, Intervenors have not been advised of this restriction in any Board Orders, nor at any of the prehearing conferences. If this ruling is permitted to stand as a precedent, it will clearly be a very real and present threat to narrowly restrict the rights of all Inter-vening Parties to participate ". . . fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, with respect to their contentions related to 'the r.atters at issue in the proceeding." (10 CFR, Part 2, App. A, III (3).) (Emphasis added)

It seems fair to state that this action on the part of the Board created a situation where, for the moment, no Intervenor was present (and permitted) to cross-examine the available witness, and the witness was quickly dismissed. Based on infor-mation provided by other parties, I am lead to believe that the transcript will show that this Board-created break in the continuity of Intervenor questioners was immediately seized upon by both Applicant and Staff as an opportunity to enter into the record a number of documents at a moment which vir- -

(- 810205r$3\ h

~

tually guaranteed against any objection or challenge by other parties. As a result, I understand, these documents will not be subject to any further examination or challenge during this hearing. The hearing was then brought to a precipitant close by continuing through the normal lunch break and recessing the hearing approximately three or four hours earlier than the published time schedule provides. This was also an unexpected deviation from earlier practice in this proceeding.

This early recess lef t at least three Intervenors (Scott, McCorkle and Bishop) present but unable to cross-examine the witness that af ternoon, as they had every right to expect. The Board Order of Nov. 25, 1980 sets the hours to begin at 9:00 AM and recess at 5: PM. It is clear that these three Intervenors have been injured by this action of the Board, and it is equally clear if such a practice continues other Interveni ta Parties will be similiarly injured.

I move the Board reconsider this act in light of all itc real and potential effects on the rights of the parties, and adopt practices which will not be injurious to parties and their rights in circumstances such as these; That the Board adopt a policy of maintaining hearings as scheduled unless parties are -

given adequate advance notice of change; and That the Board take ,

those steps necessary to correct and remedy the injuries to ' >

these three parties.

On more than one occasion the Bocrd has expressed its intention that the record of this proceding be sound and complete. The soundness and completeness of the record should not and must not hang upon the ability or willingness of the Intervening Parties to meet and match the attendance records of the members of the Board, parties representing the Applicant, NRC Staff and expert witnesses--all of whom are paid, full-time participants. After only one week of hearings it is painfully obvious that this will be a difficult process for all. There are some very serious problems in regard to availability of witnesses and Intervenors.

Given the simple truth that Intervenors simply cannot reorganize their lives totally around this proceeding, any approach to the conduct of these hearings which says, in effect, "be here when your chance pops up, or lose it," would not produce expeditious process desired. Such an approach obviously would fcree Inter-venors to protect one another's interests and rights--a respon-sibility which is properly the Board's--the best way they can.

I would suggest that the 3 card seriously consider the obvious advantages of some evening sessions. Such hearings would surely offer at least a partial solution to this problem.

cc: To service list by Respectfully submitted, mail or hand delivered. J r By or about Feb. 2, 1981 -

• ff%4M : 1 [- '

Wm. J. S uessler (2)