ML20082R770
| ML20082R770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1983 |
| From: | Dignam T, Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312130295 | |
| Download: ML20082R770 (11) | |
Text
Filcd: Dec2mbar 8, 1983 i ;~
00CKETED USHRC
'83 DEC 12 R2:01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICg FE'E OF SECF C;Chim3 L SEi';n -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2.,A C H before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO MASSAG MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT On October 26, 1983, the Massachusetts Attorney General ("MassAG") filed a motion to correct the transcript.
Some 52 corrections were requested to the transcripts spanning five days of hearings.
On November 10, 1983, the Board ruled on that motion, denying 27 of the requests in whole and one in part, and allowing the balance.
Now MassAG has filed a motion for reconsideration as to six of the denied 8312130295 931208 PDR ADDCK 05000443 G
pyg
o requested " corrections."
The Applicants now submit their response to the pending motion.1 Tr. 1063, Lines 17-18 As presently rendered, the transcript reads as follows:
JUDGE H0YT:
I believe we're into adverse weather effect?
MassAG requests a correction so as to read as follows:
JULGE HOYT:
I believe we're into adverse weather affects
?
The MassAG cross examination plan for the witnesses then on the bench contains, on page 9, the following 2 Applicants did not respond to the original MassAG motion prior to the time when it was ruled upon.
In part this was due to the fact that the motion seemed to be addressed to matters that were (1) inconsequential, in that they related to obvious errors (of the sort as to which correction is hardly necessary), or (ii) related to matters as to which the Board has personal knowledge at least as good as that of the Applicants, and as to which the Applicants would be content with the Board's recollection, or (iii), in one case, related to an attempt by MassAG to purport to know the unexpressed thoughts in the mind of the Chair, a debate into which the Applicants were (and are) hesitant to join.
For these reasons, and given the press of other motions as to which responses were considered more substantive, the original motion to correct the transcript was assigned a lower priority and, in the course of things, was ruled upon before it could be reached.
We apologize to the Board for any inconvenience that may have resulted to it.
item of relevance:
"VI. Examination re Adverse Weather Estimate "A.
Agree that adverse weather affects estimate?"
The apparent purpose of the requested change is to feed an argument to the effect that the Chair was in the process of reading the entire sentence following the letter "A."
See " Memorandum in Support of Attorney General Francis X.
Bellotti's Motion for Disqualification and Recusal of Judge Helen F. Hoyt and Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Hoyt's Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition and Motion for Rehearing" (filed October 28, 1984) at 16-17.
As to this requested change in the record, the Applicants suggest that the following propositions are true: (i) the two versions of the statement (i.e.,
the one that the reporter heard and recorded and the one that MassAG contends was made) are ':honctically identical; (ii) the reporter knows best what she heard; (iii) the Chair knows best what she said; (iv) the Chair knows better that the Applie::.nts, and better than MassAG, what she intended to say.
To contend that both the reporter and the Chair are incorrect in what one.
~,
heard, the other said, and the other had in her mind, is presumptuous; it is presumptuous on the part of MassAG and it would be presumptuous on the part of the Applicants.2 While we do not believe that terribly much would turn upon the difference between the two statements in any event, the Applicants are content with the Chair's recollection of the matter and are not in a position to offer evidence one way or the other.8 Tr. 1159, Line 21 The Applicants have no particular recollection of words spoken.
We must observe, however, that the 2The authors must confess to having no particular recollection one way or another since the exchange did not portend the significance that later events were momentarily to confer upon it, and they simply were not paying that close attention.
80ne observation does seem irresistable.
MassAG apparently believes that its proposed correction is the only version that is logical, since it is the only version that would be consistent with the speaker intending to read a printed document.
But there is no reason for assuming that the speaker was reading.
The topic in question has been loosely called " adverse weather effects" for some time, and that is an apt shorthand notation for the entire matter subsumed in the material under the heading "VI" of MassAG's cross-examination plan (as well as constituting one-half of restated Contention NECNP III.12 &.13).
Thus in context it is just as logical for the speaker to have been using what had become a recognized generic label for the entire topic as it is to assume that the 8
-4 l
thought that the authors heard the Board convey is consistent with the correction that MassAG proposed, namely that the Board had neither intended to nor in fact revealed MassAG's cross-examination strategy.
Thus, while we have no present recollection of what was said, the correction proposed would leave the transcript consistent with what we recall having heard and understood.
Tr. 1165, Line 7 MassAG has proposed substituting the words "to date" for the word "today" in order to connote a reference to arguments made the previous evening (and taken by the Board under advisement).
We have no recollection one way or the other; nor, however, do we speaker was intending to read the single specific item under "A," and given the context in which the Chair made its inquiry toMassAG, the use of a phrase denoting the topic strikes the Applicants as a more logical thing to expect than a reference to only one of several items under that topic.
The foregoing, of course, is not meant to indict the wisdom of our earlier observation that speculation about the mental processes of another person is at best presumptuous; it is I
offered, rather, only to rebut what MassAG contends is the only logical solution.
_. - ~
see the significance, since in context the speaker's meaning is clear even if she mis-spoke herself.*
Tr. 1216, Lines 18-20 The Applicants are not willing to say whether they recall Professor Herr say "at live" or "I live," which are phonetically difficult to distinguish.
The Applicants do recall the gerund " parking," however.
On the other hand, at the time the Applicants assumed that Professor Herr was simply employing a curious way of saying that he had engaged in " live parking,"
i.e.,
that he stopped his car but did not get out.
- Thus, prescinding entirely from whether reporter's or witness's error caused the dubious recorded grammar,
- We do, we must observe, have some difficulty with the proposition that "since the statement was one by Ms. Shotwell herself, it is highly unlikely that any other person has a better recollection of the statement than does she."
MassAG Reconsideration Motion at 4.
There is a large difference between a recollection as to what one intended to say and what one said, and the fact of the matter is that it is the experience of counsel for the Applicants that lawyers are prone to mis-speaking on occassion without at all being aware that they have done so.
the Applicants do not see either much ambiguity as to import or reason for extended controversy.
Tr. 1246, Lines 5-7 On this proposed correction, we submit that what MassAG is attempting to do is to clean up some poor diction on the part of the witness.
We doubt that corrections of the magnitude proposed are warranted.
On the other hand, as is the case in prior instances, we do not believe that, however badly the witness may have expressed his thoughts, there is much doubt as to the thought he was trying to express.
Unfortunately, correction of the transcript lies only as to reporter's errors, not witness's bad grammar.
We suggest this is an attempt to repair the latter and was properly denied.
Tr. 1264, Lines 8-12 Here MassAG proposes no changes to the words.
Proposed, rather, are changes to the punctuation supplied by the reporter.
We think this a trivial objection -- one with no potential for changing. -..
. = _
meaning, and we stand totally indifferent as to its disposition.
ly bmi ted, Thomas G.
ignan, Jr.*
R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone:
423-6100 Dated:
December 8, 1983 i
i I
, l l
l
CERTIFICATE OF__ SERVICE I,
R. K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on December 8, 1983, I made service of the within " APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO MASSAG MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Diana P. Randall Atomic Safety and Licensing 70 Collins Street Board Panel Seabrook, NH 03874 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke William S.
Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss Board Panel 1725 I Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 506 Commission Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour G. Dana Bisbee, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 208 State House Annex Commission Concord, NH 03301 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Roy P.
- Lessy, Jr.,
Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory P.O.
Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 -
,-e,-n-w n
w n
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Anne Verge, Chairperson Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Department of the Attorney Town Hall General South Hampton, NH Augusta, ME 04333 Carole F. Kagan, Esquire Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Department of the Attorney General Commission One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Rm. E/W-439 Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20555 Charles Cross, Esquire Ms. Olive L. Tash Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern Designated Representative of 25 Maplewood Avenue the Town of Brentwood P.
O.
Box 366 R.F.D.
1, Dalton Road Portsmouth, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Mr. Patrick J. McKeon Designated Representative of Selectmen's Office the Town of Hampton Falls 10 Central Road Drinkwater Road Rye, NH 03870 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Designated Representative of City Manager the Town of Kensington City Hall RFD 1 126 Daniel Street East Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S.
Senate Chairman of the Washington, D.C. 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Richard E.
Sullivan 1 Pillsbury Street Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 _.
Mr. Donald E. Chick Town Manager's Office Town Manager Town Hall Town of Exeter Friend Street 10 Front Street Alaesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 Brian P. Cassidy, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Regional Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency - Region I 442 POCH Boston, MA 02109 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Holmes & Ells 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 t' M,
y k
2 R.
K. Gap /III l.
._..