ML20082J488

Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 831110 Order,Sustaining in Part & Denying in Part,Atty General Bellotti Motion for Correction of Transcript of Aug 1983 Hearings.Reporter Incorrectly Transcribed Witness Statement

ML20082J488
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/28/1983
From:	Shotwell J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20082J493	List: ML20082J488 ML20082J494
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312020181
Download: ML20082J488 (6)

Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ _ _ _ _

e 00CMETED USHOOCHETED USUC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .-

before the DEC -1 A9 59 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFT!:E 07 Stcggge y tCChi(pnj,yy;,-

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) 50-444-OL OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, ~et al.

~ ~ ~

)

(Seabrook Station, ) November 28, 1983 Units 1 and 2) )

)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 10, 1983 (SUSTAINING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART " ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI's MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF TRANSCRIPT")

On November 10, 1983, the Board issued an order sustaining in part and denying in part Attorney General Bellotti's Motion for Correction of the Transcript of the August hearings. In that order the Board denied certain corrections which the Attorney General asserted were necessary if the transcript were to accurately reflect statements and testimony made. It did so in the absence of any contrary assertion by another party or contrary finding by the Board. Attorney General Bellotti submits that the Board has thereby erred and moves for reconsideration of those proferred corrections which were denied in the Board's original order and which relate to significant errors in the citerent transcription of the 8312O20181 831128 I PDR ADOCK 05000443 '

O PDR ep503

hearing. Each of these proposed corrections is supported by the attached Affidavit of Jo Ann Shotwell and the discussion below.

AUGUST 17, 1983 Attorney General Bellotti's motion to correct inaccuracies in the transcript of the August 17 hearing was denied in two significant respects. The Board, in the absence of any objection to the Attorney General's motion and without making any determination as to whether the transcript is or is not accurate, has denied the Attorney General's request that the portion of the transcript appearing at page 1063, lines 17-18 be corrected to read " Judge Hoyt: I believe we're into adverse weather affects...". Those lines currently read " Judge Hoyt I believe we're into adverse weather effect?"

As appears from the attached Affidavit of Jo Ann Shotwell, Judge Hoyt was at that point in the proceeding reading from the Commonwealth's cross-examination plan, a fact which has never been contested by any party or by Judge Hoyt. The transcript suggests that Judge Hoyt had completed a question, when in fact she was reading from a line of the Commonwealth's cross-examination plan and was interrupted by Ms. Shotwell, who was attempting to prevent further prejudice to the Commonwealth's interests. [The Commonwealth's cross-examination plan appears in the transcript of the August i

1 i

)

. 1 23 hearing following page 1755, and the relevant portion of it appears at page 9, question VI.A.] We move for reconsideration of the Board's denial of this requested correction.

Later in the day on August 17, Judge Hoyt made a statement with respect to this earlier incident. There is an error in the transcriptior_ of that statement as well. The transcript, at page 1159, line 21, indicates that Judge Hoyt denied having In revealed the Commonwealth's " cross-examination status."

fact, as appears from the attached Affidavit of Jo Ann Shotwell, Judge Hoyt denied having revealed the Commonwealth's

" cross-examination strategy." This is further confirmed by the newspaper article attached to the Affidavit of Jo Ann Shotwell, in which a reporter for The Boston Globe quotes Judge Hoyt in a manner consistent with the Attorney General's proferred correction and inconsistent with the transcript as it now stands. We move for reconsideration of the Board's order denying the Attorney General's request for this correction.

AUGUST 18, 1983 The Attorney General moved to correct the transcription of i

' a statement made by Ms. Shotwell at the August 18 hearing with respect to what arguments relative to the admissibility of the l

commonwealth's testimony she had addressed in her arguments the previous day. The transcript has Ms. Shotwell advising the i

Board that she had no further response to the arguments made l

l l

t i

_4_

l i

"today." See Page 1165, line 7. In fact, no arguments on testimony had been made on that day; Ms. Shotwell's reference f was to arguments made "to date." See Affidavit of Jo Ann I

Shotwell, Paragraph 4. The Attorney General has moved for this correction and no party has objected thereto. Nor has the i

Board found that the statement was not made as Ms. Shotwell has attested. Moreover, 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. In any event, no party has suggested a contrary recollection and the Board should reverse its denial of this request.

As appears from the Affidavit of Jo Ann Shotwell, attached hereto (Paragraph 5), the reporter has incorrectly transcribed a statement by the Commonwealth's witness at the August 18 hearing. The statement as transcribed does not make sense and is inconsistent with the clear recollection of the Commonwealth's attorney as to the witness' testimony. The relevent portion of the transcript reads as follows: "I parked illegally because I was unable to find short-term available parking, at live parking." See Page 1216, lines 18-20. In fact, the witness stated : "I parked illegally because I was unable to find short-term, available parking. I live-paricd."

We move for reconsideration of the Board's denial of this requested correction.

The Attorney General moved for correction of the transcription of another statement by the commonwealth's witness at the August 18 hearing. The statement, as transcribed, again makes no sense and is inconsistent with counsel's clear recollection of the testimony. See Affidavit of Jo Ann Shotwell, Paragraph 5. The transcript has the Commonwealth's witness responding to a question as to whether he has had occassion in his practice to address meteorological phenomena with the following statement: "There was some frequency -- meteorological phenomenon, in particular as they relate to storm warning and an important consideration in land planning work...". See Page 1246, lines 5-7. In fact, the Commonwealth's witness stated: "Yes, with some frequency --

meteorological phenomena, in particular as they relate to storm warning, are an important consideration in land planning l

work...". The Attorney General moves for reconsideration of the Board's order denying the requested correction.

The Board has denied another requested correction of a portion of the transcript of the August 18 hearing which, as transcribed, makes no sense. The transcript, at page 1264, lines 8 through 12, has the Commonwealth's witness testifying:

"Because prospectively, there will be an emergency response plan. And with that plan in place, it may or may not rely on traffic controls, which rely on areawide power to the degree l

t

r

~

that it does. It needs to anticipate the possibility that that areawide power won't be there." The Attorney General moved for correction of the transcript to read as follows: "Because prospectively, there will be an emergency response plan. And with that plan in place, it may or may not rely upon traffic To the degree that it )

controls, which rely on areawide power.

does, it needs to anticipate the possibility that that areawide power won't be there." It is clear from the context that this is what was, in f act, said by the witness. No party has asserted otherwise or objected to the Commonwealth's motion for this correction. We move for reconsideration of the Board's denial of that motion.

Respectfully submitted, FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL By: -M b -?

Jf fnn Shotwell AMistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265