ML20037C286
| ML20037C286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1981 |
| From: | Doherty J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8102030493 | |
| Download: ML20037C286 (3) | |
Text
7 U"I22] OTATS3 OF !.MZRICA Janucry 3 3, 3 2 3.3,
4
"..~'
., m -- -,- T v. a
- n..
- 1. 1.,, r...- R o k-..wa v.
v
~a..x. n a
rT,n.. m. ". 3 3m.. r. 3 y
^ D.
..--.2 oe v r3.m..r:-
- n. n r. u. w.~,
-m v
.~
~
. !,[
)
2 In the Matter of:
}
r
't HCU3EU LIGE'I:iG & FCVER CO.
)
Docket "o.
- 3 n66 C ? '--
' " u GEf,
~
( Allens Creek :!uclear Generating _
)
51 Station, Unit 1)
)
' i).
s
)
</
6 IUTZTV2::'R 004 0.TT'S M0 2IO:! 202 A 2UL2 TC P.:2:!IT IHSZ2TICN CF%' / u.
CRCS3 ZIA".IIIATION 3T CNE CR MORE PARTI 23 32 FORE A PRE 7ICUS CROS3 EXAMIUI"G PARTY COMPL2TES M AMIU.'.TICN OF A ';ITUZ33 CR PANEL CF ?!ITNESSES.
John'F. Dohert.7, Intervenor oro se in the above croceedings herein files this motion to pornit insertion of cross ex2mination b~ nne or oore parties before.a previous cross examining t
osrt7 com'letes cross enamination of a uitness or panel of wit-nesses.
This motion is.the result of considerable participation, ani observation of these evidentiary hearings, plus consultation.
I' with several intervening parties who have partici,ated thus far.
It acoears to offer advants;es to all parties, and the nr7gress l
of the hearings.
Intervenor has filed it to dashin-ton D. C.
so that all parties and the Boari acy have an oo'ortunitv to consider its merits away from the pressures of the hearing -rb -oafar' s%.b n
....i N, l
Current.rocolure
.?
... t.h :.F:
em
'o ei i
Ihe cresent rules carcit canals of witnesses on se.veral.
contentiono to accear simultaneously.
IntervenorsarellasN^No 0 03I
- Ta'
\\.
i c.uestion with Staff or Ac. olicant c.uestioning. before thM:r,l. EaMP-co.u.s. maaw,;g., &
.~.
intervonor is then required *to deliver his full set of q ^estions# v l
i on all contentions to the uitnesses on the panel.
- Thus, t.* %ds.a p Af w
Intervenor questioned a nanel of three Applicant en7 art witnesses covsriar four contentions.
l Hoaever, the most difficult aspect of the rule is not the 13ngthiness recairei for cross examination at a sinrle stretch, but rather that a unique burden of uncroductife attendance is olaced on a second intervenor waiting for the first to finish.
It is difficult for both cross examining intervenor and inter-venor-in-waitine to guess the length of a particular cross exn-ination.
The content of witness answers and rulin~s on "An excertion was ranted on 1/20/31, where an Intarvenor was granted entry at a coint where the cross enaniner had completed oncaf a three vitnese panel, for good cause, and on the assumption the Intervenor r9.nted the excention 'vould be able to continue his cross examination 1/21/91.
However, none of the three panelists were available 810 t"or the Intervenor grantei the exception the following day. o5 o80 %
psSf 6
s
--2...
on suitability of questions from the loard.are and certainly will c7ntinue to be frequently factors in determinin? the length of such ceriods.
The Treat oractical difficul.ty has come uhen Intervenor "A"must complete all his cross examination before Intervenor "3" may becin.- Intervenor "B" is forced to cuess correctly when he should appear and incur " waiver" of particioation should he arrive late.
The practical outcome of this rule is to invite human frailty to temptation to emerge to the loss of hearing time and productivity.
To illustrate this drawback, suppose all Intervenors have finished cross exacin ation but Intervenor 2 who believes in good faith 'ritness will be available to him at 3: 00 ?.M.
Following an answer'from witness which to Intervenor Y's surorise makes any further cuestions from his unnecessary at 2:15, Intervenor Y sees the danger to Intervenor 3 of " waiving" cross examination.
As a 'erson with sentiments si:ilar to Intervenor 3, does not the current rule strongly temnt Intervenor Y to prevent loss of Intervenor 3's right to cross examine?
And, cortainly In-tervenor Y is somewhat unlikely to state the nature of the situation, even though the Board might use a ^5 minute s' ace for other related natters.
Ilnesces and delays in trans-nortation ma7 well compound such difficulties in the future.
Jus 7icions arise (Tr.33&G) when cn Incorvenor arrives at an oo3crtune Oor.ent and the abnosphere beoones less aleasant for the 30ard's work.
3robably this frustrates witnesses also.
The Motion Intervenor hereby moves the 30ard -: rant parties the risht (subject to orchibtion for abuse) to begin cross exaninatian of a ciitnoss or witness panel although the proceeding cross exaniner has not completed his examination.
Discussion
- !cte that ONis tou'_d permit Intervenors to stand aside at t':o request of Applicant or Staff cross exa-iners.
The action is to alleviate the un'.esirable effects of the current orocedures as nresented above.
s
-3_
.In addition, the Motion would tend to equalize the opposing views crocedurally.
This is desirable, particularly between Anolicant_and Intervenors, uho are the most clearly defined rivals in this proceeding.
Applicant with several paid counsel, and having largely made its case through its pre-hearing filings, has no burdens that require its counsel to wait through periods of uncertain length, uncompensated. This constrasts with an Intervenor who risksunrenunerated wait unless the Board grants this ri5 t.
Such waits are likely to result in dislocated or h
uncertain activities for an Intervenor on the following day as well.
The Intervenors cro se include two attorneys, two graduate engineers, a law graduate, and a physician.
It is not that these persons have serious obligations, alone, but also that the current procedure reaos little benefit.unless a party un-willingly loses cross examination rights.
Otherwise the total cross exa=ination time would not be changed.
Moreover, the above has indicated ways in which the current require =ent may slow down or ourden the proceedings with frustration.
Finally, this Intervenor believes the rule chills the partici-cation of the public by not permitting a measure which would reduce the cost to intervenors to participate with benefit to the hearings 7rocress as well.
Surely, public participation through the interven-tion process is not be discouraged in a decision likely to effect the lifetime of the Houston participants.
Respectfully, JWf John F. Doherty Intervenor ero-se C2RTIFICATI 0F SERVICE Cooies of "II!TZR72:!OR JOE:2TT'5 MCTION FOR A RUL2 TO FERMIT IU-52RTICU CF CROSS EXAMI:!ATIGH 3T CliE OR MOR2 PARTIES 32 FORE A PRl7IOUS CROSS EXAMIUI:!G ?A2TY CCRPL2 TIS ELUIIUATION OF A WIT-
- !Z35 CE PAliE OF ':!ITNISSES" were served via First Class U. S.
Postal Service, this gL3td of Januar7, 1981, fro Houston, Texas, to the carties and persons celow:
Sheldon-J. ?lolfe, Isq. Chairman, 3ustave 1. Linenberger, Dr. S.
Leonard Cheatun, Administracive Judges.
2ichard A. Black, Esq. (3taff)
J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. and Jack R. Newnan, Esq. (Applicant)
Susan Flettnan, Isq (Texas)
& The 3everal Intervening Parties