ML20117G333

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Bar Appearance as Witness & to Exclude Any & All Testimony by G Carroll.* Opposes Filing 960222 Suppl Discovery Responses in Lieu of Board- Ordered Written Testimony.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20117G333
Person / Time
Site:	Neely Research Reactor
Issue date:	05/15/1996
From:	Evans A GEORGIA, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20117G318	List: ML20117G316 ML20117G333
References
95-710-01-REN, 95-710-1-REN, REN, NUDOCS 9605210122
Download: ML20117G333 (7)

Text

- ._.

I l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPSGSSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Dr. Peter S. Lam

)

In the Matter of )

)

GEORGIA INSTITUTE )

OF TECHNOLOGY ) Docket No. 50-160-Ren

)

Atlanta, Georgia ) ASLBP NO. 95-710-01-Ren

)

Georgia Tech Research )

Reactor )

1

)  !

-Renewal of License No. R-97 )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BAR APPEARANCE AS WITNESS AND TO EXCLUDE ANY AND ALL TESTIMONY BY GLENN CARROLL In the course of a telephone conference call held on February 29,-1996, the Board concluded that it would require the prefiling of the testimony on direct examination of those witnesses who were not hostile or agreeing to appear only under l subpoena. This was confirmed in this Board's March 13, 1996

" Memorandum and Order (Telephone Conference Call, 2/29/96; Hearing Schedules)," p. 3. This prefiling of proposed written ;

testimony is, of course, expressly authorized by 10 C.F.R. S i 2.743 (b) (1) .

l 9605210122 960515 PDR ADOCK 05000160 G PDR

9 The most appropriate format for this prefiled written testimony is manifestly the traditional question and answer approach which courts routinely require when the testimony is given orally. The reason for this is that this is the only realistic manner of having the testimony focused on specific matters ~as opposed to: rambling all over the lot. This is imperative not only for-the presentation of precise objections by adverse parties of competence, relevancy, materiality, reliability'and the like, but also for the Board's ability to

- precisely understand, analyze and rule upon these objections.

The difficulty in dealing with a lengthy narrative stew composed of all manner of mixed ingredients, including both permissible and incompetent opinions, hearsay, guesses and conjecture interspersed here and there with the witnesses'

' factual observations , in addition to presentation and j disposition of objections, is that it' greatly interferes with the ability-of counsel to present a clear and concise cross-examination.

It would be difficult to imagine a more farcical attempt to end-run the very plain requirement for the prefiling of written )

i tesdmony than Ms. Carroll seeks to perpetrate in this I instance. Essentially she tells us that "The greater part of

[her) testimony is contained within" the supplemental discovery responses which she filed on behalf of GANE on February 22, 1996. In attempting to convert this discovery response of GANE, an " organization" of some sort, into her own personal testimony, Ms. Carroll nowise identifies the particular parts or sections of the discovery which are to be specifically included'in "The greater part of my testimony." Looking at the discovery responses themselves, we find a mdlange of matters to which Ms. Carroll was not a personal observer but simply

" heard" about from people who can speak for themselves (i.e.

Dr. Brian Copcutt who is an anticipated witness), not to i

mention her setting forth opinions on technical matters.as to ,

which she is plainly incompetent to testify.

Because the discovery response referred to is such a big stew, the presentation of specific objections and this Board's ,

1 I disposition of such objections becomes a hugh burden, and conceivably could require a clause by clause, sentence by sentence cross-examination likely to extend many days over what could be accomplished with dispatch had Ms. Carroll prefiled the written testimony she was directed to file.

l l

Finally, allowing Ms. Carroll to avoid the proper consequences of her failure to file written tesdmony as required would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to the Georgia Institute of Technology. Counsel for the Georgia Institute of Technology believes that he has expended somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 or more hours preparing the appropriate question and answer testimonial format of its three principal witnesses. GANE (and Ms. Carroll) have had the benefit of carefully reviewing this examination prior to the evidentiary hearing both for purposes of preparing their cross-examination l

f l l i

l i 1

I i

i l

of these witness, and for presenting their own l

counter-evidence. All of this has been precluded to THE l GEORGIA 2NSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY by Ms. Carroll's failure to comply with the Board's direction respecting her prefiling of her written testimony.

l CONCLUSION A " level" playing field between adverse parties is sine qua j non to the fairness and integrity to any judicial proceeding.

To permit Glenn Carroll to ignore this Board's clear and unambiguous direction for the filing of written testimony, and

! to allow her in lieu thereof to present a discovery response either as testimony or as a documentary exhibit (complete with all of the objectionable materials contained therein) would be i

grossly unfair and prejudicial to The Georgia Institute of Technology and would permit Ms. Carroll and GANE to secure an unfair advantage over the Georgia Institute of Technology precisely because Georgia Tech did as it was supposed to have i done (while Ms. Carroll did not) in prefiling of the testimony of its witnesses in proper question and answer form.

Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL J. BOWERS 071650 Attorney General I

(Signature continued on next page)

-4 -

l l

i

-A l- JEFF L .MILSTEEN 509820 )

l Deputy Attorney General I

l DENNIS R. DUNN. 234098. .l l ' Senior Assistant Attorney General J I'

i l,

4

'\ *

-be{b g .

S l .. tw. t44 %

ALFRED'1[ EVANS, JR. '251400 Senior Msistant Attorney General-

, PLEASE ADDRESS ALL .

l COMMUNICATIONS TO:

1 ALFRED L. EVANS, JR.

. 40 Capitol Square f Room 232 Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300 Telephone: (404) 656-3389-  ;

l I- i l

l l

i l

i.

l

-5 -

e

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONNISSION USHRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 96 MAY 17 P3 :52 Before Administrative Judges:

OFFICE OF SECPETARY-Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman 00CKEilNG & SERvlCE Dr. Jerry R. Kline BRANCH Dr. Peter S. Lam

)

In the Matter of )

)

GEORGIA INSTITUTE )

OF TECHNOLOGY ) Docket No. 50-160-Ren

)

Atlanta, Georgia ) ASLBP NO. 95-710-01-Ren

)

Georgia Tech Research )

Reactor )

)

Renewal of License No. R-97 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Motion to Bar Appearance As Witness and to Exclude any and all Testimony by Glenn Carroll and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Bar Appearance as Witness and to Exclude any and all Testimony by Glenn Carroll have been served upon the following persons by U.S. Mail, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirement of 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.712:

Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Peter S. Lam Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Board U.S. Nuclaar Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Randy A. Nordin, Esq.

' Susan S. Chidakel, Esq. E. Gail Gunnells, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Georgia Institute of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Technology Commission 400 10th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30322

, Glenn Carroll Office of the Secretary (2)

Georgians Against Nuclear Attn: Docketing and Service Energy Mail Stop: OWFN-16 G15 Post Office Box 8574 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

!] Atlanta, Georgia 30306 Washington, D.C. 20555 Adjudicatory File (2) Dr. R.A. Karam Atomic Safety and Licensing Neely Nuclear Research ,

j Board Center Mail Stop: T-3 F23 900 Atlantic Drive i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0425 l

. Commission  !

Washington, D.C. 20555 l This /871 day of May, 1996.

l k' Qhh 4'nA% .

ALFRED !L. EVANS, JR. I

Senior Assistant Attorney General !

l

<