ML20065J150: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot insert
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:, - -                            - - - - . - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - -                      _-
{{#Wiki_filter:,
j                                                                                                                                                   .
j OOCKETED USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OOCKETED USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                               '82 ET -4 A10:59 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard{gCf                                                                                TG    YE N[
'82 ET -4 A10:59 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard{gC f
In the Matter of                                                                                         )
YE N[
                                                                                                                                    )
TG In the Matter of
Philadelphia Electric Company                                                                             ) Docket Nos. 50-352
)
                                                                                                                                    )               50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,                                                                             )
)
Units 1 and 2)                                                                                         )
Philadelphia Electric Company
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO MOTION BY DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC. TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF E.H. BOURQUARD IN CERTAIN RESPECTS Preliminary Statement On       September     27,   1982,                                                 Del-Aware               Unlimited,           Inc.
)
(" Del-Aware")         filed a motion to strike the testimony of Everett H. Bourquard, one of Applicant's witnesses in this proceeding,           concerning     the                                       design,                         configuration           and construction of the Point Pleasant intake. Nothing asserted by Del -Aware affects the relevance or materiality of the
Docket Nos. 50-352
                                                                                                                                                                            ~
)
testimony         or   the   witness's                               professional                                   qualifications.
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO MOTION BY DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC. TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF E.H.
BOURQUARD IN CERTAIN RESPECTS Preliminary Statement On September 27,
: 1982, Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc.
(" Del-Aware")
filed a motion to strike the testimony of Everett H.
Bourquard, one of Applicant's witnesses in this proceeding, concerning the
: design, configuration and construction of the Point Pleasant intake.
Nothing asserted by Del -Aware affects the relevance or materiality of the testimony or the witness's professional qualifications.
~
Moreover, all of. the matters raised by Del-Aware merely go to the weight which the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Moreover, all of. the matters raised by Del-Aware merely go to the weight which the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing         Board"   or   " Board")                                                             should   give         to   this testimony.         The motion to strike should therefore be denied.
(" Licensing Board" or
" Board")
should give to this testimony.
The motion to strike should therefore be denied.
Argument The entire underpinning of the motion to strike Mr.
Argument The entire underpinning of the motion to strike Mr.
Bourquard's testimony is Del-Aware's assertion that he has not conducted " studies" of the "hydrolics (sic] or hydrology                                                                                             !
Bourquard's testimony is Del-Aware's assertion that he has not conducted " studies" of the "hydrolics (sic] or hydrology I
I of river currents in various configurations"                                                                             or of the
of river currents in various configurations" or of the 8210050382 821001
                                            ~
~
8210050382 821001
-PDR ADOCK 05000352 9
  -PDR 9  ADOCK 05000352 pop                                                                                                                         ,                i
pop i


                                                                            "hydrolics                               [ sic]   of eddies." d/                                               This assertion is not supported                               by   Del-Aware's       citations                                                     to                 Mr. Bourquard's deposition,                               which   indicates,                     to                   the                       contrary,             that Mr.
, "hydrolics
Bourquard has performed other intake engineering work and has               prepared                   studies   pertaining                                       to                   the               hydraulics   and hydrology                               of   the   river   flow                           at                     the                         projects   he   has engineered. dI                                   At the reference cited by Del-Aware, Mr.
[ sic] of eddies." d/
This assertion is not supported by Del-Aware's citations to Mr.
Bourquard's deposition, which indicates, to the
: contrary, that Mr.
Bourquard has performed other intake engineering work and has prepared studies pertaining to the hydraulics and hydrology of the river flow at the projects he has engineered. dI At the reference cited by Del-Aware, Mr.
Bourquard simply indicated that he had not performed a "microstudy" of a particular eddy. d!
Bourquard simply indicated that he had not performed a "microstudy" of a particular eddy. d!
The statement of professional qualifications attached to Mr. Bourquard's testimony fully supports his competence to testify as to the design, structure and operation of the Point Pleasant intake.                                   Mr. Bourquard holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering and has completed graduate work in soils Mechanics, Hydrology, Advanced Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics.                                 He has 27 years of experience as President and Chief Engineer of his firm, which specializes in water resources engineering for water supply, flood control, dams and reservoirs, water resources, drainage, and waste water projects.                               He also has 14 years of experience in earlier Government employment with related water resource design and construction projects.                                   It should be noted that almost all J/               Del-Aware's Motion to Strike                                                               the Testimony of E.H.
The statement of professional qualifications attached to Mr. Bourquard's testimony fully supports his competence to testify as to the design, structure and operation of the Point Pleasant intake.
Mr. Bourquard holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering and has completed graduate work in soils Mechanics, Hydrology, Advanced Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics.
He has 27 years of experience as President and Chief Engineer of his firm, which specializes in water resources engineering for water supply, flood control, dams and reservoirs, water resources, drainage, and waste water projects.
He also has 14 years of experience in earlier Government employment with related water resource design and construction projects.
It should be noted that almost all J/
Del-Aware's Motion to Strike the Testimony of E.H.
Bourquard at 1.
Bourquard at 1.
J/               Deposition of Everett H.                                           Bourquard                                                   (August 6,   1982)
J/
Deposition of Everett H.
Bourquard (August 6,
1982)
(Tr. 4-6).
(Tr. 4-6).
3/               Id. at 7.
3/
Id. at 7.


projects undertaken by Mr. Bourquard include hydrologic and                                                             )
, projects undertaken by Mr. Bourquard include hydrologic and
hydraulic   studies                                   and investigations. Mr.                       Bourquard is therefore   certainly                                     qualified   to render                 the         proffered testimony.                 See generally Duke Power Company                                               (William B.
)
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-669, 15 NRC 453, 475 (1982).
hydraulic studies and investigations.
Del-Aware also errs in alleging that Mr. Bourquard has l       attempted to render a " biological opinion" as to particular species   of                               fish.         Mr. Bourquard   simply                       expressed   a professional opinion as to the' design criteria of wedge wire screens   to minimize                                     the impingement   and         entrainment               of aquatic life.                                       The " biological opinion" as to the impact upon shad which might be exposed to the wedge wire screen intakes was in fact proffered by Paul L. Harmon.
Mr.
Even   though                                   Del-Aware's   arguments   lack                       merit, the points it has raised would, at most, bear upon the weight the Licensing Board should give Mr. Bourquard's testimony, I
Bourquard is therefore certainly qualified to render the proffered testimony.
See generally Duke Power Company (William B.
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, 15 NRC 453, 475 (1982).
Del-Aware also errs in alleging that Mr. Bourquard has l
attempted to render a " biological opinion" as to particular species of fish.
Mr.
Bourquard simply expressed a
professional opinion as to the' design criteria of wedge wire screens to minimize the impingement and entrainment of aquatic life.
The " biological opinion" as to the impact upon shad which might be exposed to the wedge wire screen intakes was in fact proffered by Paul L. Harmon.
Even though Del-Aware's arguments lack
: merit, the points it has raised would, at most, bear upon the weight the Licensing Board should give Mr. Bourquard's testimony, I
not the admissibility.
not the admissibility.
{
{
As the Appeal Board stated in McGuire, ALAB-669, supra,
As the Appeal Board stated in McGuire, ALAB-669, supra,
(       the Commission utilizes Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence,                                                           1 in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Under                                                             )
(
the Commission utilizes Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence, 1
in determining the admissibility of expert testimony.
Under
)
this rule, a witness qualified as an expert by " knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" may testify if
this rule, a witness qualified as an expert by " knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" may testify if
        " scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will l
" scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will l
J/ Applicant's Testimony on " Water !ssues" (September 20, 1982) at 19 ej seq. See e.g., 1515-17.
J/
Applicant's Testimony on " Water !ssues" (September 20, 1982) at 19 ej seq.
See e.g., 1515-17.
l 1
l 1


assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."                                 5_/ And as stated by the Board in the Skacit proceeding,                                 a licensing beard "is granted considerable discretion in determining the qualifications of a witness as an expert, but once so determined, the evidence adduced need not be accepted in its entirety, and likewise, need be given only the weight that the                                                           (licensing board) concludes is persuasive."                               6_/
, assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."
Conclusion                                                   l l
5_/
For the reasons discussed above, the motion to strike
And as stated by the Board in the Skacit proceeding, a licensing beard "is granted considerable discretion in determining the qualifications of a witness as an expert, but once so determined, the evidence adduced need not be accepted in its entirety, and likewise, need be given only the weight that the (licensing board) concludes is persuasive."
.                  is without merit and should be denied.                                                                             )
6_/
Conclusion l
l For the reasons discussed above, the motion to strike is without merit and should be denied.
)
l Respectfully submitted, 1
l Respectfully submitted, 1
Troyg.onner,Jr.                    B.%.            i.
B.%.
Mark J. Wetterhahn I
i.
Robert M. Rader Counsel for Applicant 1
Troyg.onner,Jr.
Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M.
Rader I
Counsel for Applicant 1
October 1, 1982
October 1, 1982
  ~
~
1 J/, McGuire, ALAB-669, supra at 475.
1 J/, McGuire, ALAB-669, supra at 475.
6/   Portland General Electric Company                                                           (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-514 and 50-515, " Order Denying Intervenors' Motion to Strike" t
6/
(November 4, 1976) (slip op. at 5).
Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-514 and 50-515, " Order Denying Intervenors' Motion to Strike" (November 4, 1976) (slip op. at 5).
i b.. .
t i
        . . , .              _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _}}
b..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _}}

Latest revision as of 19:40, 16 December 2024

Response in Opposition to Del-Aware 820927 Motion to Strike Testimony of Eh Bourquard Re Design,Configuration & Const of Point Pleasant Intake.Assertions Do Not Affect Relevance of Testimony or Witness Qualifications
ML20065J150
Person / Time
Site: Limerick  
Issue date: 10/01/1982
From: Conner T
CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8210050382
Download: ML20065J150 (4)
v • d • e


Text

,

j OOCKETED USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'82 ET -4 A10:59 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard{gC f

YE N[

TG In the Matter of

)

)

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket Nos. 50-352

)

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO MOTION BY DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC. TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF E.H.

BOURQUARD IN CERTAIN RESPECTS Preliminary Statement On September 27,

1982, Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc.

(" Del-Aware")

filed a motion to strike the testimony of Everett H.

Bourquard, one of Applicant's witnesses in this proceeding, concerning the

design, configuration and construction of the Point Pleasant intake.

Nothing asserted by Del -Aware affects the relevance or materiality of the testimony or the witness's professional qualifications.

~

Moreover, all of. the matters raised by Del-Aware merely go to the weight which the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Licensing Board" or

" Board")

should give to this testimony.

The motion to strike should therefore be denied.

Argument The entire underpinning of the motion to strike Mr.

Bourquard's testimony is Del-Aware's assertion that he has not conducted " studies" of the "hydrolics (sic] or hydrology I

of river currents in various configurations" or of the 8210050382 821001

~

-PDR ADOCK 05000352 9

pop i

, "hydrolics

[ sic] of eddies." d/

This assertion is not supported by Del-Aware's citations to Mr.

Bourquard's deposition, which indicates, to the

contrary, that Mr.

Bourquard has performed other intake engineering work and has prepared studies pertaining to the hydraulics and hydrology of the river flow at the projects he has engineered. dI At the reference cited by Del-Aware, Mr.

Bourquard simply indicated that he had not performed a "microstudy" of a particular eddy. d!

The statement of professional qualifications attached to Mr. Bourquard's testimony fully supports his competence to testify as to the design, structure and operation of the Point Pleasant intake.

Mr. Bourquard holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering and has completed graduate work in soils Mechanics, Hydrology, Advanced Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics.

He has 27 years of experience as President and Chief Engineer of his firm, which specializes in water resources engineering for water supply, flood control, dams and reservoirs, water resources, drainage, and waste water projects.

He also has 14 years of experience in earlier Government employment with related water resource design and construction projects.

It should be noted that almost all J/

Del-Aware's Motion to Strike the Testimony of E.H.

Bourquard at 1.

J/

Deposition of Everett H.

Bourquard (August 6,

1982)

(Tr. 4-6).

3/

Id. at 7.

, projects undertaken by Mr. Bourquard include hydrologic and

)

hydraulic studies and investigations.

Mr.

Bourquard is therefore certainly qualified to render the proffered testimony.

See generally Duke Power Company (William B.

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, 15 NRC 453, 475 (1982).

Del-Aware also errs in alleging that Mr. Bourquard has l

attempted to render a " biological opinion" as to particular species of fish.

Mr.

Bourquard simply expressed a

professional opinion as to the' design criteria of wedge wire screens to minimize the impingement and entrainment of aquatic life.

The " biological opinion" as to the impact upon shad which might be exposed to the wedge wire screen intakes was in fact proffered by Paul L. Harmon.

Even though Del-Aware's arguments lack

merit, the points it has raised would, at most, bear upon the weight the Licensing Board should give Mr. Bourquard's testimony, I

not the admissibility.

{

As the Appeal Board stated in McGuire, ALAB-669, supra,

(

the Commission utilizes Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence, 1

in determining the admissibility of expert testimony.

Under

)

this rule, a witness qualified as an expert by " knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" may testify if

" scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will l

J/

Applicant's Testimony on " Water !ssues" (September 20, 1982) at 19 ej seq.

See e.g., 1515-17.

l 1

, assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."

5_/

And as stated by the Board in the Skacit proceeding, a licensing beard "is granted considerable discretion in determining the qualifications of a witness as an expert, but once so determined, the evidence adduced need not be accepted in its entirety, and likewise, need be given only the weight that the (licensing board) concludes is persuasive."

6_/

Conclusion l

l For the reasons discussed above, the motion to strike is without merit and should be denied.

)

l Respectfully submitted, 1

B.%.

i.

Troyg.onner,Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M.

Rader I

Counsel for Applicant 1

October 1, 1982

~

1 J/, McGuire, ALAB-669, supra at 475.

6/

Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-514 and 50-515, " Order Denying Intervenors' Motion to Strike" (November 4, 1976) (slip op. at 5).

t i

b..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20065J150&oldid=4438315"