ML19225A308

Boston Edison Memo in Support of Admission of Expert Opinion Evidence in Proceeding

ML19225A308
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	06/08/1979
From:	Lewald G, Stoodley D BOSTON EDISON CO., ROPES & GRAY
To:
References
NUDOCS 7907180829
Download: ML19225A308 (6)

Text

. .

MPUM2C m;mnTr Pom5 '

• 4 g u ,1 0

,,,,1 L A.

-- . n_; u vcm,mec 1hAuv U, . n.y..: n.1m L~n u

es U $ f1R C

.a

- }-

1.9dCL;nd c. .n-auma n1, r m. v Ry 0 0 , .I.occ-m 101,.

JUN p 1973P.=M L-m . .

& cd" ase W"' b s

p

- = =. u- n =_ e .v.t=_ AmO.:I ..v o S. scum.y _m .

a .n. D L ~ L, =u nc i m y I.,e; p ..o s o. . D Wha aWa Ts

.t uR } *.. \.s m u

In Se2trcok, in responding to one of the several issues raised by intervenors, the Cort.13sion concluded that on remand of the case on other grounds, consideration of alternate sites should encon ass those sites ..there other units had been proposed and ere postp^ned, sites where other units a lr e ad', exist and cites .'here other units are postponed.A/ In conjunction with its decicion, tne Cctrission declared:

"In so rullng , '.te do not exclude the possibility that the Licensing Board .ill find, on the basis of evidence already in the record [i.e. legal and technical barriers] and other relevant factors that a limit on alternate site consideration to the area in or near the lead applicants' service

, ,, . m

a. vu s, n.y- w o y- wr 4 a +u 0-4-

-.. .po e n v.r . g. y .. ox<

w v. w i .ca - yy-14_

a u,-a,u _ o ,. . 'i 2 / y s 1/ Putlic Service Cr narv of '!e< HT':sb re (Seabrook, Unc 1 ond 2),

c; _ r - a; ^ , sa rr, ort-i u ,v,

, . ~

.0 cn

_o3, .

"', ' 9, 1

m i C/ T (, 1

-~ v

+ :y GQ AC l 1

~~~

7 9 0718 0 gj27

On review of the Licensing Board's findings after remand inter alla thet the subject alternate "ites "wculd meet with institutional and legal impediments ...",1/ the 1: peal Board observed that neither the Applicants nor the Staff has pre-sented any affirmative evidence en this score so as to support the Licensing Board's finding.S/ The Appeal ? card's search of the record revealed solely, that:

"In this regard, on cross-examinaticn the principal staff witness summed up the un-certainties in terms of an applicant en-counter.ng 'more hassle' if it is dealing with State regulatc c in other than its own jurisdiction."2I This the Appeal Board understandably found insufficient to support the Licensing Board's findings.

Against the foregoing back-drop, on inquiry by the Staff, the Applicants' sought the opinions of learned counsel in each of the respective sister New England states adj oining '~.as sa c h' etts as to the feasibility of the Pilgrir Unit 2 joint owners ..ith Boston Edison Company as lead participant, constructing and operating Pilgrim Unit 2 in their respective snates of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and Ne . Harpshire, counsel in due course rendered opinions on the questions presented. These opinions have been referenced in the NRC Staff's Final FES supplement and were offered in evidence by the Applicant. They 1/ Public Service of New Hampshire (Seabrook, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-43, 6 NRC 134, 130 (1977).

S/ ALAE-471, 7 NRC 477 (1978).

E/Id. at 495 409 273

',: e r e . e lved in evidence as Aplicants' Exhibit 15, as ecm-

.,1 04 -

.4ne, evcv vn r - . . 4.._v. g c +.w-. . ,4n .m -4 , ,l o- ...w s... i c .g +v- u. . g n -r, 4 <, a ".

. .+" o

. .. ..u- ee had fu"nished the Staff durinC the cource of the latte:s alterr. ate 31 e revie',. as reflected in its Final FES Supplement.P/

_T 1. r"2 M. . r. . uT "msc i i.m r .

',chether the opinions of counsel are admissible in evidence in this proceedinE without limitation as the opinions of expert

, ,. 4 - - r. . n c, o, nn u wv . n 4 -. o-- s v .o,o..-cb. 4 ry b s" *v b..o_ .4 ", ." o 0 9 oc *w * "s o-o u'vhoro".

T - n g , , e .- e , m

+'ri 1.1 . ti -1 JU ".1.. .

%. . . ; vc -, .. ._ . - . . .. -n -, , .- h , m -g n .m no., e. n o c. d b s, ev h e,

- 4 n t v c ,., r. e ns. . c a o.r.n m . _n ,

( " A +; t o rn e" General") cbj ected to the introduction of the sub-

,n,*

.- v , p.

m 4 p..c.- a.io c- +w . . n. c m -a - o .r. av se m e g -u.

n, o s, s, , ven _ ...g L, +v t, .y g y

, a uy c o.m +v g. vn

-.4 c. sA , .

reason that the opinions constitute local conclusions.2/

n. . . i e .

w n, ca,,-

. _ - . . -.ima...,

,e uv su-to ,oe +u y.-n  :. n. . .v., r,u n au, ai..

,o t,. ~.-+c. .n_s nu.u. n_ nvvo.

a n_ n n_ ., P.m, 3 coo on-n ns m, sn ue.n n.c

. . +v n_o. v

. n. , , _a ,, a, ,

.m.as e

+hn_

u m ~ .u. n. .- n_ on.- o .n. -n n d

,,,~,,u .c e.m a -+ - rsp.am,1,o ae -. u c w3e.c

• inn.

r-.mm +.. a. m_ n v u o .m.-. n s o% -

^

The o p ini o nsi'/ in question are each directed to the

'/

-/ o f_2,a., 1.g 1 . ,-Q. s tm ot .

_/ / " . '6"...  ;  % 1". .. ^. u l d- o r.2one" * ".v.o. *u 'v- h. e. .b. o_. o. " -s

_ . . _ . o- ' ' 'us

^ h i e c *. .'v." " ..'4 1 m ' b eo_

s n- ,/ t , , . . . t. mu bs. ehn- v 3 .,tom, n n+vav - +. 4 n oic .- u.

. g n. n .y e _n.m +-

. ~ -

-e uo .4. .Lneen-oo o .. n 4m, h

,.c the npplicants intend to do. ',' hile the ques tion of the 'litnesses '

n_ .y .y- n. . mu , n_ u. . _, c yov wo . v n_ n.

. .m. _4vn s m h s" tho n' +u*.

- v " .r. o_ s" G o_.r.e ." c_,l , t h. . i o" m'a- r o Dm,va

+t v1 nn te o n o +e- u, ..- y n u,a e

+o

. . hi c %.. 4 . . .m. . -e,.-A t , + n -s.. . csmn u . . e ' A n_ .u. n , + .4 o m. .

4 lo e e se t., e- h + .

o c

>on -- .. . +..n .m

. n, -

. o a n.m.n .u ,1,o- v. e .~ . ^ ". o r d u . . . , d.uo*uo d

>uno- 7, , ' .'s' 't O, .

'~

_' / m. . _ g 4n 1 v m. .o- u' ." e .' tu'.." ' .' n *v h. o *v k. 4 " d c . . r..' '-' o n. o #' .f n g.

- .. . . i " 1 4 c u. or. *v "o' P v. - .

D ,e c Ud4ee l e, t 4 o. n. +n O +- e o 1 C,- u, oc u - +~, c b . . n .n. vo .- - n r. ' c 4-

b. i1.1 1, -4 s o v .n. - m

+--

i 4.. v, .- .o +- h. e * ?...O. v euuA A ar. der ;he date of Aurust 2, 1973.

-,W

/j.

f , ~~ Q I r

question of the feasibility of constructing and ccerating Pilgrir Unit 2, given its present c'.:nership complement, in the several

" e '< England states contiguous to {assachusetts, as of 1973 and 1978. The oninions resc.ond to the c.uestions c.ut and crovide the bases for the opinions rendered. There can be no debate that,es the Federal Rules of Evidence providesthe Cornission's practice likewise contemplates the receipt cf expert opinion

+, n_ o 4 . s .r. ,,

. _4 .n. *wn v.. m v c~. , m...~n o .r- 4c .- .

w . e nu ,,. _4 n ,e . _"y ,/

v_ .1 -nn u v ++c

- e, v 1, m. . n_ s, . .a ca. . n ,., u, , ,

. . ... u. . o. e. n ~v

. u,e n. .e u,+m4 i,.;e m .>La. o. ...< g o_ .n. + .; a n,3.

use cf expert opinions, however, asserts here10/ that the opinions to be .croffered in evidence are conclusions of lah ahich tell this Board how the case shculd be decided; citing,

n. ,. Cv.n n. . 4 ,3...

-4 e ,.4 m . a m -m.e n_

vtz ca.ra.,

um -u , 0, I m0 qn v.C u .

m7 nr

.-nn a. n , u, +v _5 . > ,1 us o .e

. . +hn Opinicr Rule: Opinions en the Ultimate Issue." It appears that

.wn

..m  ; . --m mp.o.,..

. v. g, n_ e

. -r. n_ m._a ,. ...n ,, . g, a 2 +. .w. n_ -y.m .o c. a .s, n_a .. .- - c . _e .. v. n .y,, , nm .r. a. n

. n y. _c uv_co co 2 o r,.4 a

-v.w n. .t ,a ,. n o- V. m v A L n-4n. m, , .y ,,C_c,mn

• p-o . . . ,

4,w. o y .4 r._e_n.ac.

. v.

.- c_.mn . n. , n_ c _", i d .

. P.u' '. o '/ O c' ,

- c%.

^

"c . 0" . t . ao . p"o".'de"

. m o *ot-.

..m "If scientific, technical, or other specialised u

c.n u 1 n_ a, n.. r ,.

e n ..n,,,a vu m ao e c 4 o. - .- ..u. n_ +,,4v. e. v c .c me+e - a .o u

understand the evidence cr to determine a fact

. .r. 4-..o, u, ,,4 v.n.n_e-oo o_ u u' 1 4 e d _= o" m._

00 . . .

on a % m o_ ." ". b s-

.r.c..'l

. ,. o - dc c o_ , "v 'r'. 4 ' ' , o_.v."y e " 4 o r ^ e , + v. .. " n .'. .*1.4 ." r , r_ .' o u'"m' -

m _

cation, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

.ihether it is feasible to construct Pilgrin Unit 2 in states other than :.assachusetts is a matter which by analogy to

.miiw n_. vqc _. c.m t.J.m v . v. ns

t. e,ocm

v. e up o r.,n _3 4

1, nc

s. a n sv.

t.n,.no- -.

+o enn. U ac ..

- v .i4 ov4 cc Cn .4 n L,tn n.u.g...;. . e ., e no,- 4e "rpa e4 w - 4. 1 i &v r w

vmv 1 vo 3-. h n. o-w ,, p C n v 4.h 4 -

c> o . ..n v f'uane A v + hw u n+v v 4-u h-n n .s.

v y 1. .

4r2

r. o n.n-.r. a umn .n -o_m s, w.. o_ m.a. ny v.

-we-

,s . . . v qun_o e nv.n. .omn w, na 4n y n tu ." 'v-

. .- '_o-m C ."1 o [ t. p n_ 9

_- o.

,.3 1 f,

.v b' .r O.L y ._ . "[ a'20,,)

r **

-_/qng a . .

s

.c,.,.

s .IL g  %> _ .r. n m. ,,..ie o c n.-- .n s m., -2 u.,- -

d _ g: . (nO u/ LU

a review of the statutory framework in the sister states to Mssachusette does not render the opinions on this subject inadmissible.

"The facts or dates in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to hir at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions ...

upon the subj ect, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidenc e ." Fed. Rules of Evid. Rule 7 0 3 , 2 c l' . S . C . A .

.lh a t is mcre "[an] expert may testify in terms of opinion and cive his reasons therefor althout prior disclosure of the und erl; ing facts or data ..." Fed. Rules o[ Evid. Rule 705,

,o ,, o n dG - . C . L, . tt .

Finall3, the expert opinicn rules provide that "[t]estimony in tne forr of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not cbjectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decidea by the trier of fact." Fed. Rules o[ Evid. Rule 704,

,a e.L,.n.

zu b. .o

. hat the Attorr.e3 General actually takes issue with, if xe ccrrectl3 follct his :7.emcrandum argument, is not .cith the opinions of counsel rende:ed with respect to the questions posed, but is rather to certain aspects of the proffered testimony chich set forth, in part, the underlying bases for the opinion.

To be sure as the Attorney General asserts, conclusions of law are f;r the Board and not for a ditness to ~ne. However, a discussion of the statutory framework existinc in the respoctive sister states ne: :esenteu in the ^ ch et rf tne opinions them-selves as in the instant case, simp]y provides the facts and n 96 1

_c_

'(I U } LV1

data, among other matters, on <hich the opinion rests. As is demonstrated by a rrere reading of the rules, this caterial need not itself be admissible in evidence nor need it be dis-closed prior to an expert's testinony offered in terms of an opinion. In short, the Attorney General has confused the opinions offered with certain of their underIng bases.

<lere this proceeding before a judge and jury, the Attorney General's obj ec ticn, while nevertheless still without merit, would be afforded the color of an argument that the j ury right be confused as to law and fr t to a party's prejudice. How-ever, this situation is not presented in the instant proceeding, and surely this Board wnich sit, to detear.ine both law and fact is capable of mainta!ning the distinction and will not be t_ sled by nature of the testinsc3 proffered.

LvJ..u

~

T u v. . .1 - 1u a r U . . .

The Attorney General's obj ection to the proffered evidence on the grounds as set forth in his Memorandut should be overruled.

RespectJully submitted, k

Dated June 3, 1979 George :.. Lewaid Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, c.assachusetts 02110 Cob Dale G. Stoodley Assistant General Counsel

-coston edison Company 300 Eoylston Street Eoston, Massachusetts 02119 n c, 7

^ ~

(g 0 () LaL