ML19338C075: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
~ ,1 f . | ~ ,1 f . | ||
-2 , | -2 , | ||
Page' 92d--12["This. | Page' 92d--12["This.((di f ference ) ,Jpei haps 3 ;is | ||
*: i 1 , | *: i 1 , | ||
*^ ' | *^ ' | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
V _,,[ Q | V _,,[ Q | ||
= - | = - | ||
((; ,; ~, | |||
~ | ~ | ||
, y | , y | ||
Latest revision as of 21:23, 15 March 2020
| ML19338C075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1971 |
| From: | Bauer J, Groening W, Wessel M DOW CHEMICAL CO., KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310657 | |
| Download: ML19338C075 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:9
..- - - . = _ _. . - . . . -_
s.o. _-> . f'g . 7 ;,_ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C0tGIISSION In the Matter of. ) - i
) Docket Nos ( 750-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )
) .. 50-330 Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 )
7 ~ DOW MEMORANDUM REGARDING FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION OF BRUCE F. WATSON On Wednesday, July 14, 1971, when the other parties state'-that they were not ready to proceed with their cross- - examinations of the Mapleton witness, Bruce F. Watson, Dow commenced cross-examination (Tr. 3575-3625). The fo'llowing morning the other parties were ready to proceed and Dow stated that it would submit a memorandum summarizing the
~
facts which it would have sought t'o elicit from Mr. Watson had it c'ontinued. This is that memorandum. Dow's cross-examination was designed to elicit the following:
- 1. That the witness was a paid professional witness (Tr. 3601; see Tr. 3557-5fs), whose
~_ hostility _was so great that he would not per-mit'the baces of the conclusions to which he testified on direct examination to be tested on crosc-examination, 3n time honored tradition (See, e.g., Tr. 3622). --
8007810 .g , m
n = w ~ . .. . 7
, y v m, -
,, s,, ,
- L ,, , di, ._y y : ;l lly , +-
', \Q
; [:+p a . . x. .
s-
- .- . . . ~
+
p I4 '.% n.';g. w[ .w _2 i i w ... _ ; .. . _ , . . _ . . . _ _ _ _:..._. _..J #, ._ : .. s 9 s ,
- -2.--That4 thsfwitness'1 background and qualifications
~
Lwereinot sufficientjto permit tha attachment ~of
~
lsignificant' weight?t'o .us' conclusions. 3 Thatfthe:? witness'iconclusions on direct.
,examinat' ion wer'e not: based:upon a proper study; J
(of.jthe; facts-in.this case. Subsequent dirbet~and' cross-examination of Drs. - ;Epstein and. Van derHoven in fact-brought out.most of the
~
material facts, so that this memorandum.will only bring
- together the' record r~eferences showing that the allegedly ,
- " useless" Dow data 'was not in ' fact "used": for any purpose
- for- whic.h ittis unsuitable, and - brisfly discusr the nature of-the' cross-examination as~to biasiand hostility.
1
~
.l.. The Allegedly 7" useless"
/ Data Was Not! Improperly-Used~
_- Mr. Watson 5s' crucial-testimony on direct examina-
-tioniwas;thatEthe Dow data-(and the Tri-City Airport' data,-
'. (to. a J1 esser extent )1were " meaningless and incompetent"
;(See,1e.gl,'TR 3l33,--3171,[3583 i et seq').
~
1 ,
.On~ cross ' examination, a'n effort was.made fir't to
~
s s
, (br1ng7outithat-such termsfare relative land significant only LinLrelationship;toitheir: purpose. -Thus, the Dow data
, accumulated (over:_the years for Dow's. purposes, may well be-0 >
jusefullin' predicting the path o'r a, vapor:. release even if~not-
" "EdentIat esfor)do s e s calculat ion' purpo s e s . This the-witness 2
4
~
.N ^
diilddmii: - ' '
-". . f' .
A b
w m .; , e .gR .,,t . .N _ 3 3. .% . : ~, A n , _
- i~
W .. i
~* ' '
'*'i*
AY-.'; Ml,
,'," r ". M; j z,,
~y '_ - f:'
*..t3 3 'l- ~ ~ ,,-
g f . -[fc; _[.
,y .
.4 - ~(;
, yg.l s
( , 4
;q + ; -- wz y ,
~
4;-(:M +:-w g /:A = n. - - m f W y+u.3 , .
- m. m t.. s. , zn . ~ .
qy,
. w:4 _fQ . 3:._; ,,_ . a gg .. .ph . . , .. u ._:_ . _. a_ ._ .,_ _..... ___zz_________,_,.n__..;_ _.,___
e g, - ,
~ -
y
+
. .s ,
u ~ _ I"Q. lNselsss', therefore,;is a? term.which;
.has significanceionlyfin connection iwithSits1 application,' correct _?' -
~ lA. LYeali, [okay" :(Tr. 358'). 3
' Subsequent cross-examination,;had it been con- <
Lducted',Mouldlhave' sought'to bring out~:first, that the Dow.- , datalwas::<used onlysin a. limited fashion by applicant ,- and, s second,<that the AECl staff limited.its use.(and the' airport l data 6sd): even ffurtlier. (a) *LimitationsL by. . -
-Applicant-
~
The i*ollowing references _are all to pages of the Prell' minary Saf4ty Analyses Report '(PSAR): - lPageT2A--2',L"The Dow data -were not ' amenable . to -
- -fthis-method'ofotreatment.1 .
~
iPage 2A 4, " Wind: velo' city andidirection'are measured.with a'.USWB TypeiF-420eC cupfanemometer:
~
- a n d ? w i n d ~v a n e.T s e t". i[as distinguishe'd from the'
" ~
Dow-Bendix aerovane? instrument'.which'the. witness stestifieditoisomelextent "ove'rshoots" L(Tr Q3435, d 3575-77 ).]"- -
~
-Page3 2h49, '.'Thef significantidifference between'.
. ~
i Tables.2A-3 and?2A-4;isMin the windjspeedLand.
;freqdency offcalm. qThelaterage monthly"speedi fatiDo.wHis somewhat flowerCtihan that 'at : Tri-City
^ -. Airport."a .
y
~ ,1 f .
-2 ,
Page' 92d--12["This.((di f ference ) ,Jpei haps 3 ;is
*: i 1 ,
*^ '
l indicative 1off.thefinfluencelof the plant N >buildingsincarcthe;Dow: anemometer." n' ' %n , 4 w w. q DC . , 4 ;:g j N.
? PagcJi 2 A-32 ', q."Neverthe'le s's , theLDow .. data : as ;
7p , l M' ,Ere'c'ordediby4the i;uard-observer:are not,suita5' JforNeither1 me.t,hodiforsthe; .- following reasons-:
;f, , ," .
' - .[ '[
6
=
V _,,[ Q
= -
((; ,; ~,
~
, y
- w. + ;. i_
- x, * ',a w
. n m3
-, , . -m , , -
, .. ,,;e - ,
-{g
~ ' ..
N
.L ~
~ -
w.ge.g;i . ,; g 4
~ ' *
, . ,y '
~
g-]' f [*~ ,
. . .j ig . , ..w 4._ . r ,;..y . , _ .n . . h ., .._ . w . . . ' ,.: . . . _ . ,.,. . . _... . ... . . _ . , ,,
N < The.'Dow? data include:no cloud: cover
~
- :li
or ? cloud ' ceiling; data. This .
- a: _
; eliminates;useiof' Turner method. ,
'~
~
- 2. TheTDow dataihave incompletetdetail
_ inLthe "gustiness"! category to 1
- c. ;
. assign 'a- Sladet or - Pasquill category .
4 3. : 'J he raw?Dow: data care too ' incomplete co<use1Slade'.s method.'" Pagec2A-36c, "The data from-Dow Building-4171 Jat.-Midland-were notzused-'to develop-the-two- _ fhour model-" Page_2A'-42c, "The~ data now available from. ,
' Building No. 47'are.inadequatecbecause they.
'were.-intermittently collected over short
. periods ~of time 2": .
L 2. Limitations Byg
'AEC Staff' i Amendmen't No. 5,? November 3,.1969,'PSAR Pages.3-1
~
andL3-2, refersTto the.AEC Staff, evaluation, sets'forth'the-- meterological _ba~ses for the-Stgff-calculations, and.. sets
. iforth theLresulting conclusion, accepted:by Applicant, that thefexclusioneboundaryfis' extended fromJ400 meters-to 500 meters.;
' ~
-Amenckmentf32 May'28,J 1969, PSAR 2 A-42c , states
^
~thatr" Continuo'usimeterologicalidata.(wind direction and'
- velocity)iare ;being; recorded 'and will continue until -a year's s
- history (isiobtained.from theiweather station at the Dow.
r e , Building'No.147." Amendmenti6,-(December 26,.1969,.PSdR 2-1,cmakes.
~
H reference?t.ojthe4AEC iStarf obj ection to cApplicant 's proposal..
' 'that-preoperational meterological measurements be made at-JBuildingcNo.c47 within-.theiDow . complex. Applicant; con-tended:thattthefStaff(conclusion sas wrong,istati'ng that. .
w '"the buildingi47 Imeterological data are not 'only adequate and ~ Wslid sut ilno? conservatively representative or the site meterology;
= - as reflected, 41niAmendment510_,iApril ~AECi staff obj ections' 10, 197.0,wereand ' successful'at reported ' page 10 forithe"Starfl Safety. Evaluation Report'which reads'in'part:-
~
("The s,applicantn::hase agreed ::tos conduc t ' on ? site : meterological --
...yA minimum oC_one fear's!
y ~ measurements programEtolinclude
,% fdctalwil19belavailablc/ prior: to? ouriroview 'of this plant M forfanjoperating711conse"l.
i
$ ,d. -
i'. f. .. I
m-r
~~
c,
.m .. . .
' ~'
W , ,.annl % 1 . n; 'J
++n s i W-- ,
,i
. . "~~c,, . z - . :,. . & n. _,
_a= s~ , '
.. 1
', f~%
'- uw u.
.. = . = .- 2. = .. ; - -
- ....-.-.2.....=..,-..:.... ~=.w.--.~.....-..
~ '
iAlso,-~at.pages.3-10 of the,StarfiSafety _ EvaluationiReport , . appears tra Staff conclusion "that; b - the Lavailablej meterological = info .,ation ' present.ed .by'
-5 Lthe applicant 5doestnotc,justifyfhis'3coposed. departure.
ifromLthe:standardfmeterological.model we use'..." ISafety ;5 valuation Report ', . pag'es. 64-6 sets
~
~ fhrthttheimeterologicalecon.ditions used:by thefStaff. .
- Seesalso AEC counsel. comment that the Staff has not relied'onithe Applicant's meterologicali data [in the
~
~
^
- dose. calculation](Tr.13215),.and'the Staff response to -
LDr.;HallL'.slQuestion 14 (Tr.-2490).
~
Staff ' Safety : Evaluation . Report , - Appendix C ,- 1contains theDReports; of the Staff consultant , Air' Resources Environmental:. Laboratory, Environmental Science. Services Administration,.: dated FebruaryL3 and. July '2B, 1969'and January 5.and. February 4, 1970'. These four Reports (appearingHat pages.101-7)'contain numerous references-to theninadequate' data.such as "In: addition to the r.cservations~statedjby'the applicant-with regard to the - use of Dow-: data ... we feel that ..." (page 107). 3 The? Uature'of
' Cross' Examination
-Comments by-the-Board during cross-examination-
'ofz Mr.zWatsonE 'suggest'that the Board may not agree with
- us;as'toithehapplicableilegal principals.
There is;no perfect'way to test a witness' con-clusions,lbut commonLl'aw experience' dating;fa'r back intocour English?heritageLdemonstrateslthat cross-examination is
~
_ ief fectivel; fcertainly.1t9 is ' the,- best - method. we know. Its l purpose <is'onlyftoTtest'the value of-what-the: witness has
. ~
- said ---not ,:cashsoNany.:peoplethink,Itoharass,antago.n3ze3
^ ~
y - it'ake! advantage.;offor; abuse,.although unfortunately sometimes
' ~
.thatim'ay.? occur.-lInfonly?aivery.small~ number of cases is-there
+ '
~
. ;icid urydinvolved ; In"mo'st; instances the cross-examination-
^
={._,, OO .O "h' x
.x
- =
x
. a.
L-
+
t ,.7 s c , ,
- ' , _ .4 L.L iuS.U .-yu n ,x ,
ibL Tf. r%.. 1 CJ _.. y ;_. s.n.c ...ga .-.w; - y .2... . # . a .- u- - ,.
.-----7--
$ iseeksjs'implyftbifindjoutlwhether the1 witness has: accumulated' ithe:;necessaryLinformation to support?his. testimony (Did;he
^
fhave? tiis glasses #ont whenithe - accidentihap' p ened?); orlis
' qualified: to' speak: (Haslhe~ taken a graduate course 'in the -
~
relevant' specialty?); on.isl pre.judicedEor biased (IsOthe
-' plaintiff your': employer?--Anyone whd.has tridd P" accident.
case knows that .10: witnesses who see the accident from the samelvantagerpointTmay-eachitestify differently without necessarily lying, because the witnesses each heard, saw, ,
~
. smelled,stouched l or tasted differently based'upon the-totali'ty of their experience).
These.1.rinciples are equally applicthle-to any witness, expert'or otherwise. .It}is[ entirely groper to bring. s
. .out-that-the-witness is a1 paid professional. witness.who
-testifias~for lawyers andLother. private parties as a.part .
of.his. profession, and who's future retainers-depend upoyl
~
favorable testimony to his client. Thus our cross-examinationLbEginning at Tr. 3620:regarding the Pasquill-Categories'.-twas not~toJshow. ignorance--any beginning meter- ._ clogy1 student- knows. these t cctegorice and Mr. h'ntcon had.
.tostified at.many points in his direct examination with.
2 regard to Pasquill category F:(See e.g.,-3461, 3464, 3510, ~ 4 l3523,03533, 3537,535411andL3552). 'Rather, it was designed to'show the: witness':hostilit'yfand refusal to permit ~ cross-
- examination lby anLadversary,'as-dcmonstrated by thesfollow-F l' ,
r ,z , 5 ..
n m, - 3, w _ - g;: m g~ - :.m . , 4
- :% g: , _ ,
-- . .tsn ~
yy ,
~r o .. . ,,
, (y. ) , ,' Mgi,Q
' ~ > g-. - x%9 5:l . im x *
' Kny;x e , '
,('.
+j,
~
-l[ +c
.;47 - .m.."- x .
IQ-., 4 _ s, . e _ , 4;Q,l+
- 'f p.o;7 . -
n ; . ;= . + ,. ; n
, .o a. . em . 3 s x ..+ w -4 ;a w.u < a : m I.
~
2"" %In:-otherEwordsitherejmayNe'aCategory,G?#
.x o .
~ _.;TheretcouldEbe. . :
s
~
- , . . . , , ...;- : . E , ,
4
' ;Q. - l. And 41t" isfnow1 your ; testimony 5 that- there 'might.
cbe?aiPasquill Category G?: ,. .
~
[N~) dir,wIthave.not^ read Pasquil11since;1963ior
'610, and:IJcertainlyican't1 remember.every '
4 < Lthinghthat;therefis'tonknow!about it. I
. ^v read many, s many 37:many things , and. I1ust
- ' .can ' t i remember ' eve,rything. ~ f(Tr .13622 )i
~
?andShisisubsequenth shouting;, even ' at the Chairman ?(Tr.13623) .
Would7Mr.~Tlsdalefhave acted-in such a fashion?
' ~
;TheBoardfis of-course empowered-to decide:all questionsLinithe~first instance, substantive'as.well.as-procedural, . andi it may;wellibe that the precise terms . of: a -
~ '
witness' compensation L(Tr. 3601-), or 'of the documents in Lhis .
-possession whichimight,have^showed conclusions contrary'to his/ testimony-or'been-otherwise helpful in=. obtaining-informa-.
1: (tion- to wh'ich :he refused .to respond on examination were.: , l
- f. _ cumula',1veD (Tr.1-3559--62 ) . I u m .
Butito'suggestLthat' seeking.suchiinformation is?
~
i iimproper)(Tr~ 1.35.6.0,c 3562), ory should. be furnished onlyL by
~
g .. 1way.}of)exchangeTforltheiterms.of,a lawyer's1 compensation
~
s _ (Tr.;73601)t$ndiaates
^ - -
a
/that "the fundamental? purpose being1 - %: ^
a-
- ' s
~ _ , . , - .
. _ .i a ;testedDon;examinationimayinot'ha've been made, clear--the
's . - -
f
'attorneyiie'byfde'initionEand[intentiontan'advocatefunder.
f _ fourlidversarybsystem?ofTlhw. (He'-1.sLpaidito speak for his
+ % '. - . . ..
L. _ ., . . . , M '
,4 iclient Wwithinlthe? bounds.of; ethics and law. That is'not 3-jwe: submitf,f the : role' of,.tthefwitness.
s v . , . 4
'N , - . d .. , .._
* '~ _
a ;,_ [
};g; 4 ' i
; ^ l " ~ I -
e s< = < s
- f - %
_ , . , .m n3 _ f . s n T -,1 gg n_- ~ D - c
o _ _ ,
~
F
, ' - .la : Q ' ' -;i, Afd '.
. - i.
.;. , ...G_Ob s ,. ,o
~ . -
-- _ y.:g
-m 4- ,
kry .. - -
;j . '.g e.
. ;.;.: , ;w -
=:9l ,.
7 ._
.x
. a:;;. .
JIti may cbet:significanti: that i n - h i s..- s u b s e q u e n t --
..y .
~
~
Lexamination,DDr. Ep'steiniomitted L the intemperate ' language:
~
~
~
.~of;his-affidaviki(Mapleton',JEx.23)and'or'whichhehad
~ ~
- - been (quoted j.(Tr. :2952 ; seef alsof Tr. 3214, 3219). .
I'. . , .
. y ,
Members ofiHearing l Boards may1not always_' fully:
~
~
i apprecidt'e that$..what theyjsay here:andt elsewhere is.
.g
.' repeated:not ~only:1on appeal and 'in other AEC licensing; -
proceedings but =in :theEhalls off Congress - and elsewhere. j(See remarksLof Myron M. Cherry b'efore-Joint Subcommittee, .
' July'14/ 1971,-pp. 13-15; Dow' Exhibit 1, footnote 27, referring .
,to testimony of?Dr.: Hall.)- For'this' reason-we regard lit 7
m as'especially important i that'st'atements.'which are contro-tverted :be.- made the. subj ect of ' argument., as'herein. (Seetalso
'Tr.13628-30, citing opinion.of' Chairman Jensch in' Indian Point No.'2).
~
m <
. -? .
; Dated: Midland, Michigan .
- Julyf 1$, ~-19713 -
n . .
^
Respectfully submitted,- y '
<- i.7.h b b ISce..,m , h5N).W [
- " Kay ,'Scholer,'Fierman,-Hays *-
& -. Handle r-. .
Hearing Counsel for "'m 'Dow Chemical stmpany
' ? Of f_ Counsel, C 4" [Mi,ltonlR.(Wesseli Joseph-P. Bauer,.
s m. Land. , W1311amlA. Jroening,i.Jr.,-
~
. . 2J a m e s N . d O ' C o n n'o r.'.:
8: a- *
...u ut. 1 . mom . . _ a}}