ML12135A716
| ML12135A716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/2012 |
| From: | Brancato D, Musegaas P Riverkeeper |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22443, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12135A716 (8) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-247-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
)
and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
May 14, 2012
___________________________________________ )
RIVERKEEPER, INC. RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ENTERGY AND NRC STAFF WITNESS TESTIMONY I.
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (ASLB)
July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order,1 and the ASLBs April 18, 2012 Order (Memorializing Items Discussed at April 16, 2012 Pre-Hearing Conference),2 Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper) hereby submits this response in support of the State of New Yorks Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy and NRC Staff Witness Testimony as Impermissible Under NRC Regulations, dated April 30, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as New York States Motion to Strike). New York States motion properly seeks the exclusion of testimony that constitutes impermissible legal arguments and conclusions, and should be granted.
II.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations pertaining the admissibility of evidence at an adjudicatory hearing indicate that [o]nly relevant, material, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible 1 In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos.
50-0247-LR and 50-286-LR, ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01, Scheduling Order (July 1, 2010), ¶ K.4.
2 In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos.
50-0247-LR and 50-286-LR, ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01, Order (Memorializing Items Discussed at April 16, 2012 Pre-Hearing Conference) (April 18, 2012), ¶ B (If Intervenors file motions in limine on or before April 30, 2012, responses thereto will be deemed timely if filed on or before May 14, 2012).
2 document will be segregated and excluded so far as is practicable.3 In accordance therewith, the ASLB may strike any portion of a written presentation or a response to a written question that is irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, duplicative or cumulative, and restrict any evidence or arguments for the same reasons.4 As New York States Motion to Strike explains, lay witnesses cannot offer testimony that is legal in nature. While opinion testimony relating to the ultimate issue to be decided is not barred, any such testimony may not usurp the role of the fact-finder, and an expert may not give testimony stating ultimate legal conclusions.5 As New Yorks States motion explicates, experts may not invade the courts province by testifying on issues of law,6 and [t]he meaning of federal regulation is a question of law, not a question of fact.7 III.
ARGUMENT New York States Motion to Strike appropriately identifies testimony that impermissibly explains legal requirements, interprets the meaning and applicability of federal law, and draws legal conclusions; such testimony is not the proper subject of expert testimony, and should be stricken.8 Entergy has similarly offered this kind of impermissible testimony in relation to Riverkeeper and Clearwaters Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1. For example, 3 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).
4 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(e).
5 CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc. v. Graco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc., 815 F. Supp.2d 673, 677 (S.D.N.Y.
2011) (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) 2008 WL 197538 at *13) (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2008); Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp., 352 F. Supp.2d 1037, 1042 (D. Ariz. 2005) (quoting United States v.
Brodie, 858 F.2d 492, 496 (9th Cir. 1988) ([R]esolving doubtful questions of law is the distinct and exclusive province of the trial judge.);
6 In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Lit., 174 F. Supp.2d 61, 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing United States v. Leo, 941 F.2d at 196-97).
7 CFM Comms., LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Co., 424 F. Supp.2d 1229, 1234 (E.D. Cal. 2005); see New York State Motion to Strike at 5-6.
8 See supra Notes 5-7; New York State Motion to Strike at 6-11.
3 Question 44 in Entergys proffered testimony relating to RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 states [p]lease identify the NRC regulations implementing NEPA and briefly describe how those regulations apply to license renewal applications, and Entergys witness, Carl J. Paperiello, a nuclear consultant (who provides consultant services in the areas of health physics, fuel cycle and materials licensing, waste management, and decommissioning) provides a lengthy answer.9 Mr. Paperiello testimony goes on to further explain NRC regulations, and the meaning of significance for purposes of the NEPA review conducted in the Indian Point license renewal proceeding.10 Similar to the portions of testimony identified in New York States Motion to Strike, such testimony reads more like a legal brief than an expert opinion11 and is impermissible, as experts may not opine on what the law required or testify as to the governing law.12 Furthermore, after essentially (and unnecessarily) repeating what Entergy stated in its Environmental Report pertaining to the license renewal of Indian Point, all of Entergys witnesses conclude that Entergy has adequately and appropriately characterized spent fuel pool leaks at Indian Point as new, but not significant information13 - a conclusion that relates to and depends upon the legal interpretation of concept of significance. Such a conclusion essentially constitutes an opinion as to the legal standard at issue, as opposed to an opinion grounded in the areas of expertise Entergys witnesses purport to be qualified to testify about. This is 9 Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Donald M. Mayer, Alan B. Cox, Thomas C. Esselman, Matthew J. Barvenik, Carl J. Paperiello, and F. Owen Hoffman Regarding Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks) (March 29, 2012), at 8-9, 23-25.
10 Id. at 25-27 (Questions and Answers 45, 46).
11 CFM Comms., LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Co., 424 F. Supp.2d 1229, 1234 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
12 Casper v. SMG, 389 F. Supp.2d at 621 (quoting United States v. Leo, 941 F.2d at 196-97).
13 Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Donald M. Mayer, Alan B. Cox, Thomas C. Esselman, Matthew J. Barvenik, Carl J. Paperiello, and F. Owen Hoffman Regarding Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks) (March 29, 2012), at 90 (Answer 122).
4 inappropriate legal argument presented as expert testimony, that, like the testimony identified in New York States Motion to Strike, should be afforded no weight.14 Entergys practice of allowing its witnesses to proffer purely legal argument and draw conclusions of law is simply an unacceptable invasion of the tribunals role in this proceeding.15 IV.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the ASLB should grant New York States Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy and NRC Staff Witness Testimony.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Deborah Brancato Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc 20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 914-478-4501 (ext. 230) dbrancato@riverkeeper.org phillip@riverkeeper.org 14 Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1977); Amergen Energy Comp, LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No. 50-0219-LR, ASLBP No. 06-844-01-LR, 2007 NRC LEXIS 120, *1 (Sept. 12, 2007) (explaining how licensing board chose to refrain from actually expunging [any] irrelevant material from the record [r]ather, to the extent we conclude that material is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, we will accord it no weight).
15 CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc. v. Graco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc., 815 F. Supp.2d 673, 677 (S.D.N.Y.
2011) (quoting In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) 2008 WL 197538 at *13) (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2008); Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp., 352 F. Supp.2d 1037, 1042 (D. Ariz. 2005) (quoting United States v.
Brodie, 858 F.2d 492, 496 (9th Cir. 1988) ([R]esolving doubtful questions of law is the distinct and exclusive province of the trial judge.); In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Lit., 174 F. Supp.2d 61, 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing United States v. Leo, 941 F.2d at 196-97); CFM Comms., LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Co., 424 F. Supp.2d 1229, 1234 (E.D. Cal. 2005); see New York State Motion to Strike at 5-6.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-247-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
)
and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
May 14, 2012
___________________________________________ )
Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)
Pursuant to the ASLBs July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order,1 I certify that I am unaware of any attempt by the other parties to the proceeding to contact Riverkeeper regarding New York States Motion in to Strike.
Signed (electronically) by Deborah Brancato Deborah Brancato, Esq.
1 In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos.
50-0247-LR and 50-286-LR, ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01, Scheduling Order (July 1, 2010), ¶ G.7.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-247-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
)
and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
May 14, 2012
____________________________________________ )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 14, 2012, copies of Riverkeeper Inc.s Response in Support of the State of New Yorks Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy and NRC Staff Witness Testimony as Impermissible Under NRC Regulations, were served on the following via NRCs Electronic Information Exchange:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 190 Cedar Lane East Ridgeway, CO 81432 E-mail: Kaye.Lathrop@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov Michael J. Delaney Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing NY 11373 E-mail: mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov (718) 595-3982 John J. Sipos, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the New York Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 E-mail: John.Sipos@oag.state.ny.us Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail:
pbessette@morganlewis.com ksutton@morganlewis.com jrund@morganlewis.com
2 Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk Anne Siarnacki Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Martin J. ONeill, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, NY 10271 E-mail: Janice.dean@oag.state.ny.us Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov William C. Dennis, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave Beacon, New York 12508 E-mail: sfiller@nylawline.com Manna Jo Greene Karla Raimundi Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave Beacon, New York 12508 E-mail: Mannajo@clearwater.org karla@clearwater.org Melissa-Jean Rotini, of counsel Assistant County Attorney Office of Robert F. Meehan, Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.
Senior Attorney for Special Projects New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 14th floor Albany, New York 12233-5500 E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
Goodwin Procter, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Victoria Shiah Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com vshiah@sprlaw.com
3 Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 E-mail: Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us John L. Parker, Esq.
Regional Attorney, Region 3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners New Paltz, NY 12561 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us Sherwin E. Turk Beth N. Mizuno Brian G. Harris David E. Roth Andrea Z. Jones Office of General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail:
Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov brian.harris@nrc.gov David.Roth@nrc.gov andrea.jones@nrc.gov Sean Murray, Mayor Village of Buchanan Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 E-mail: vob@bestweb.net, SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com, Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com Signed (electronically) by Deborah Brancato Deborah Brancato May 14, 2012