ML20065N721

Motion to Regulate Conduct of cross-examination.Util & NRC Should cross-examine Witnesses First.Util & NRC Used cross-examination for Rehabilitation.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065N721
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	10/20/1982
From:	Finamore B, Tousley D HARMON & WEISS, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20065N625	List: ML20065N623 ML20065N644 ML20065N657 ML20065N671 ML20065N692 ML20065N721
References
NUDOCS 8210220295
Download: ML20065N721 (7)

Text

. _. .__ __ _ _

DOCKETED USNRC

'82 NT 20 PS:d1 October 20, 1982 FEcRETARY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

. 'TME NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Marshall.E. Miller, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

)

In the Matter of )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-537 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)- )

) _ . . _ . _

)

INTERVENORS' MOTION CONCERNING ORDER OF CROSS-EXAMINATION Inte r.venors , Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the I

Sierra Club, hereby move that the Licensing Board in the above-captioned proceeding exercise its authority under 10 CFR l c

$2.718(e) to order a fairer and more efficient sequence of cross-examination by the parties at the continuation of LWA-1 evidentiary hearings on November 16-19 and December 13-17, 1982.

4

, 9210220295 821020 PDR ADOCK 05000537 0 PDR

I f

f During the site suitability phase of the Limited Work Authorization-1 evidentiary hearings i.' Oak Ridge on August 23-27, 1982, direct testimony by Applicants' witnesses was followed first by cross-examination by Intervenors, then cross-examination by Staff. Similarly, Intervenors were the first to cross-examination the Staff's witnesses, followed by cross-examination by Applicants.

Examination of the hearing transcript makes it clear that cross-examination by Applicants and Staff of each other's witnesses was used almost entirely for purposes of rehabilitation. See Transcript at 1825-35, 2394-2404. The

" cross-examinations" reponded not to the direct testimony of the witnesses, but rather to Intervenors' cross-examination. That, it should be self-evident, is- the proper function of redirect --

I not cross-examination.

f Both Applicants and Staff have more than adequate legal and l

l technical resources to do their own rehabilitation on redirect.

1 i There is absolutely no reason why Intervenors should have to face this double-redirect in response to our cross-examinations. In

fact, the only " asset" of requiring Intervenors to. cross-examine l' the other parties first is that it permits'this double-teaming to i

1 I

.- . . - , _ . . - . _ . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _. _ . . _ . . . . . . . - . . , _ . ..____ _.-__ _ - , ~ . . - . - _ . _ _ _ . . . -

e occur.

In contrast, eliminating this situation by requiring

~

Applicants arid Staff to cross-examine each other's witnesses first would reedit in benefits to both the fairness and the i

efficiency of thts proceeding.

The fairness would be enhanced l

( because all the :barties would have the same burden of taking care of their own redirect / rehabilitation, and no party would have two shots at rehabilitation as has clearly been the case for Applicants and Staff.

The efficiency of the proceeding would be enhanced in 1 several respects by the grant of the instant motion. Disputes concerning the scope of recross-examination by Intervenors, the manner of Applicants' and Staff's cross-examinations of each other's witnesses (i.e., whether leading questions are asked), or i the propriety of inter-party cooperation would be largely

obviated. Finally, since Applicants and Staff address each

! other's testimony only for purposes of rehabilitation, they might I

forego cross-examination of each other altogether if that purpose is denied fulfillment by grant of the instant motion.

In conclusion, Intervenors urge the Board, in fairness to i the parties and in furtherance of the efficiency of the hearings, 4

to exercise its authority under 10 CFR 2.718(e) to regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the parties and order that when the hearings resume, Applicants and Staff should cross-examine each other's witnesses first, with cross-examination by Intervenors last.

Respectfully submitted, A.aQ.d,u,de v

Dean R. Tousley Ellyn R. Weiss HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, NW, Suite 506 Washington, D.C.

$,Y a h. La a4 yg i

Barbara A. Finamore S. Jacob Scherr Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

t 1725 I Street, NW, Suite 600 l Washington, D.C.

Date: October 20, 1982 Attorneys For Intervenors

! Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club

.\* .

~

COLKETED USN?C CERTIFICATE OF SERVI J SECRETARY I hereby certify that copies of INTERVENbhhbL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND THE SIERRA CLUB, MOTION FOR QUALIFICATION OF AN EXPERT INTERROGATOR UNDER 10 CFR S 2.733, AFFIDAVIT OF ELLYN R. WEISS, AFFIDAVIT OF THOPRS B. CCCHRAN, INTERVENORS REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING OF EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY DURING WEEK OF DECEMBER 13-17, 1982, INTERVENORS' MOTION CONCERNING ORDER OF CROSS-EXAPENATION, and AFFIDAVIT OF THObmS B. COCHRAN were served this 20th day of October 1982 to:

• Marshall E. Miller, Esquire .

Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

4350 East West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814

• Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814

!

• Daniel Swanson, Esquire

! Stuart Treby, Esquire

, Bradley W. Jones, Esquire ,

Office Of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Maryland National Bank Bldg.

7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, M3 20814

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing tnn, D.C. 20555 f

s I

• Atcmic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 (3 copies)

• R. Tenney Johnson, Esquire Leon Silverstrom, Esquire Warren E. Bergholz, Jr., Esquire Michael.D. Oldak, Esquire L. Dow Davis, Esquire Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Rm. 6A245 Washington, D.C. 20585

• George L. Edgar, Esquire Irvin N. Shapell, Esquire

- Thomas A. Schmutz, Esquire Gregg A. Day, Esquire Frank K. Peterson, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Director '

Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P.O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923 .

Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire James F. Burger, Esquire W. Walker LaRoche, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Vall,ey Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902

, O' i

William M. Leech, Jr., Esquire Attorney General William B. Hubbard, Esquire Chief Deputy Attorney General Lee Breckenridge, Esquire Assistant Attorney General

! State of Tennessee i

Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 i William E. Lantrip, Esquire City Attorney Municipal Building i P.O. Box 1 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37820 Nr. Joe H. Walker 401 Roane Street Harriman, Tennessee 37748 Commissioner James Cotham '

Tennessee Department of Economic t and Community Development -

Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 32219

? !V ^

! /Btrbara A. Tinamore I

j

• Denotes hand delivery.

l l

4

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