ML20094P674

Motion for Leave to File Testimony of Wh Bleuel on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence

ML20094P674
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	08/13/1984
From:	Cassel D DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20094P677	List: ML20094P674 ML20094P683 ML20094P695
References
OL, NUDOCS 8408170319
Download: ML20094P674 (4)

Text

p g = ,

EELATED CORaEp0NDENE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ogj;ppTED .

In the Matter of: ) - '84 AGO 16 Pl2:38

) Docket No. 50-454 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) 50-4l5g,Og g .

) 00 CME.fING A SEf4V'f.f (Byron Nuclear Power Station, ) BRANCH Units 1 and 2) )

INTEftVENORS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM H. BLEUEL Intervenors DAARE/ SAFE and Rockford League of Women Voters, by their undersigned counsel, hereby move for leave to file the attached-proposed prefiled testimony of Dr. William H. Bleuel.

The grounds of this motion are as follows:

1. Dr. Bleuel first volunteered his services to inter-venors' counsel Victoria Judson on July 23, 1984. When inter-v'rIors' counsel advised the Board of this on July 24, 1984 and sked for guidance on how to proceed, the Board made several

" observations." (Transcript at 8579.) Noting that Dr. Bleuel's

~

volunteering was " virtually irrelevant as far as timeliness is

. concerned," Judge Smith stated:

We do not foreclose your making an effort to produce his testimony anyway. That is always your right. But before you expend a great deal of effort at it, it would have to be truly extraordinary information that he has to offer at this late date and the delay that that would cause.

(Tr. at 8579-80.)

8408170319 840813 PDR ADOCK 05000454

.T PDR hC bu ._

C; ~

2. Intervenors believe - that Dr. Bleuel's testimony does

.contain Textraordinary 'information, that its presentation should not cause prejudicial delay, and that'the best way to evaluate ,

.the importance of what Dr. Bleuel has to offer is on the basis of

~

a review'of his proposed testimony. Accordingly, it is attached to this motion for leave to file.

3 This issue at-this. juncture, of course, is.not whether the Board will ultimately adopt Dr. Bleuel's expert opinicas, but only whether the issues he raises and the information he presents are important to a decision in this case.

4. Viewed in that light, Dr. Bleuel's opinions and informa-tion are "truly e xt rao rd i na ry." He is a highly accomplished professional with twenty-five years of business experience in design assurance and quality-assurance in the fields of aero-space, defense, computen, control systems and business equipment.

He has worked on 'the space program and on military communications systems, matters requiring reliabilities greater-than those claimed by Edison for Byron. He also holds degrees in reliabil-ity engineering, statistics and electrical engineering.

5. If Dr. Bleuel's opinions were ultimately accepted by this Board, they would necessarily affect the result in this case

-- as well as any proposed. finding that there is " reasonable assurance" that Byron can be safely operated. Based on his years of business experience,.he concludes that there is.no reasonable assurance'that Byron is safe to operate, because in designing and

implementing the Reinspection Program,. Edison failed to use a 2

r 1

basic--tool l of reliability engineering knownias failure modes and effects analysis. In essence, Edison failed to focus inspec-tional, analytical and managerial resources on the most safety.

significant' systems at Byron, and likewise failed to impose-

-stricter safety standards (such as statistical reliabilities) son those systems.

6. Dr. Bleuel also finds Sargent - & Lundy's engineering evaluations of discrepancies to be unreliable, because they were based on criteria and methods that were neither clearly stated at the outset, nor the product of after-the-fact analysis by inde-pendent evaluators. Again, his expert opinion is based on years of practical experience, as well as his formal training.

7 He also conveys other information, including his exper-ience that use of the first three months for Reinspection Program samples is a non-conservative factor.

8. Dr. Bleuel's testimony does not duplicate that of inter-venors' other witnesses. None of intervenors' other witnesses addresses failure modes and effects analysis; none has the requi-site business experience and expertise in quality assurance to testify to Dr. Bleuel's expert opinion on the general need for an independent review. Although Dr. Kochhar shares-Dr. Bleuel's conclusion on the use of the first three months, Dr. Kochhar's view is based on laboratory experiments and academic study, whereas Dr. Bleuel speaks from practical experience.

9. Dr. Bleuel's testimony also embodies some of intervenors' e

3 u , _ _ _ _ -

Imost. important responses to the testimony of Edison witnesses Hansel and Laney. In that sense, Dr. Bleuel is, in reality, a rebuttal witness tc. Hansel and Laney, and should be permitted to testify at least-in that capacity. As a rebuttal witness, of course, his testimony is plainly timely.

10. No prejudicial delay need result from Dr. Bleuel's testimony. Intervenors filed his-proposed testimony on August 13, the date their other prefiled testimony was due, and on that date offered Dr. Bleuel to Edison and the NRC staff for deposition prior to resumption of the hearings August 20.

WHEREAS, intervenors urge this Board to admit Dr. Bleuel's testimony in this hearing.

DATED: August 13, 1984 Respectfully submitted,

, A -

DouglasY W. Cassel, Jr. N s,

One of the Attorneys for-DAARE/ SAFE and Rockford League of Women Voters on issues and matters pertaining to quality assurance of construction and design

__;s__ ___ . 1