ML19350D805

Answer Opposing Intervenor 810507 Motion to Classify G Barlow as Expert on Issue 1.Intervenors Failed to Demonstrate Expertise in Seismology,Geology,Facility Design or Any Matter Under Issue 1.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19350D805
Person / Time
Site:	Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png
Issue date:	05/12/1981
From:	Edgar G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8105190365
Download: ML19350D805 (5)

Text

,%

a 5/12/81 L *

,,cwd uG8 g

p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

, g gqB) * {i Il NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,

1. (d B

/

to In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. 50-70 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

)

)

Operating License (Vallecitos Nuclear Center

)

No. TR-1

1. 3M' /,

G General Electric Test Reactor)

)

(Show Cause)g R$0!i') %

MAY1319g,_

LICENSEE'S OBJECTION TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION E "*

TO CLASSIFY GLENN BARLOW AS AN EXPERT RELATIVE TO ISSUE NO. 1 b

,. 3. y R Q'qv i

On May 7,1981 the Intervenors submitted a motion to have Glenn Barlow designated an expert on Issue No.1, i.e.,

on the proper seismic and geologic design bases for the GETR facility.

The Licensee hereby opposes the motion on the grounds that the Intervenors have failed to demonstrate his expertise in seismology, geology, fac lity design or any other matter before the Board under Issue 1.

In support of its opposition, the Licensee states the following:

503 9

1.

When the qualificatio,ns of an expert witness are 5 f challenged, the party sponsoring the witness has the burden of I[l demonstrating his expertise.

Pacific Cas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1398,1405 (19 77).

In general, the qualifications of an 8195190365

n.

expert witness are established through a showing of either academic training or relevant experience, or some combination of the two.

Pacific Gas and Electric (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, UnitA 1 and 2), LBP-78-36, 8 NRC 567, 5 70 (19 78);

petition for directed certification denied, ALAB-514, 8 NRC 697 (1978).

The Intervenors have failed to demons trate that Mr. Barlow possesses either academic or actual practical knowledge in the subject matter at hand.

2.

Mr. Barlow admittedly has no academic background which would qualify him as an expert relative to Issue No.1.1/

His degree is in communications, not in seismology, geology, or any other discipline relevant to these proceedings.

3.

Further, Mr. Barlow does not possens the actual practical knowledge which might classify him as an expert.

Such practical knowledge requires actual detailed applications of the disciplines in which expertise is claimed mad not just knowledge at "the level of a well-informed layman."

8 NRC at 573.

As an example of the depth of experience required to i

i separate an expert from a layman, the LicensingtBoard in LBP-78-36 stated that the technical competence to evaluate the components of a security plan required practical knowledge l

" flowing from working _with the assembly of the ' nuts and bolts, '-

etc.,...at least to the extent of being sble to design an overall sys tem," 8 NRC at 569.

In that case, the board rejecced

\\

• /

Intervenor's Motion to Classify Glenn Barlow as an Expert Relative to Issue No.1, May 7,1981, page 2.

an individual's claim of expertise because of his lack of practical experience or academic credentials.

Participation before other NRC panels confers no mantle of expertise where none otherwise exists.

The Licensing Board in LBP-78-36 found that previous participation by an individual in NRC proceedings was of little value in the evaluation of his expertise since it was impossible to relate such participation with the subject matter of the current proceedings.

8 NRC at 5 73.

4.

Mr. Barlow's basis of expertise seems to be that he is a communicator who has talked with experts in the fields of geology, seismology, geophysics, and earthquake engineering. /

If his purpose in appearing before the Board is to communicate the opinions of experts in those fields who are not appearing before the board, since W. Barlow is not himself an expert, his testimony would constitute the worst form of hearsay.

The Licenst uld be unable to examine Mr. Barlow as to the veracity and basis of his testimony since he would be merely acting as a conduit for the opinions of others.

Further, if he is using his communications skills to interpret the expeyt opinions of witnesses appearing before the Board, he would be. usurping the role of the Board.

It is the responsibility of the Board, and not of some third party, to interpret and weigh the testimony presente d.

Mr. Barlow's acting as an intrepreter is not only redundant but also presumptuous,since the Board is quite capable of fulfilling its s tatutory rol'e.

• /

Intervenor's Joint Updated Answers to Licensee's Interrogatories,

February 25,1981, pages 11 through 13.

I

1. 1

• i 5.

In sunanary, if Mr. Barlow is presenting himself as an expert in any of the scientific matters before the Board, he is not qualified.

On the basis of the guideliness laid down by the Licensing Board in LBP-78-36, Mr. Barlow possesses i

neither the academic training nor the practical knowledge to appear before the NRC as an expert in seismology, geology, or any related subject matter.

Based on Mr. Barlow's demonstrated lack of expert qualifications, the Licensee respeetfully requests the Board deny the Intervenor's motion to classify him as an expert 4

concerning Issue No.1.

Respectfully submitted, Of Counsel:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

. d s

George L.

dgar Attorney or General Electric Company DATED:

May 12, 1981 i

t e

e

t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. 50-70 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

)

)

Operating License (Vallecitos Nuclear Center -

)

No. TR-1 General Electric Test Reactor)

)

(Show Cause)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing has been served as of this date by 7ersonal delivery or first class mail, postage prepaid, to cae following:

Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel OELD U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C.

20555 Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering-Howard University Daniel Swanson, Esq., OELD 2300 - 6th Street, N. W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20059 Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Harry Foreman Docketing & Service Section Director of Center for Office of the Secretary Population Studies U. S. Nuclear Regulatory University of Minnesota Commission Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Washington, D. C.

20555 (original and 3 copies) 3 Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, M.C.

Attention:

H. Lee Halterman, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 201 13th Street - Room 105 Board Panel Oakland, California 94617 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glenn W. Cady, Esq.

Washingt,on, D. C. 20555 Carniato & Dodge 3708 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 300 Atomic Safety and Licensing Lafayette, California 94549 Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Edward A. Firestone, Esq.

Commission General Electric Company Washington, D. C.

20555 Nuclear Energy Division 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 e

d r

(Mail Code 822)

Atto y for General Electric Company Dated:

May 12, 1981

-.,w-