ML20070M127
| ML20070M127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1983 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8301120307 | |
| Download: ML20070M127 (32) | |
Text
O
' 1/07/83 j
o
'O
. UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00(KET,E0 WiNFo
~~
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,
J '83 ilAN 10 A11:37
)
e N $dFiw r In the Matter of.
~')
- Mf[cf;
~
)-
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
,)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,'
)
Unit 1)
)
)
RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY.TO LILCO MOTION TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCISCO J. SAMANIEGO ON TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY'S INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION On January-5, 1983, LILCO moved to strike the Suffolk County testimony of Dr. Francisco J. Samaniego concerning the methodology used in the Torrey Pines Technology ("TPT") con-struction verification program for Shoreham.
The County opposes LILCO's motion.
1.
LILCO asserts that Dr. Samaniego is not qualified to provide testimony on the TPT program due to his lack of direct prior experience in the field of nuclear power.
This argument is aimed at the wrong target.
Dr. Samaniego is an expert in the field of statistics, not nuclear power, and the subject matter of his testimony is whether statistically valid concl,usions were reached by TPT, given the non-random sampling methodology which TPT utilized.
Such testimony on statistics, particularly relating to sampling methodology,'is without question within Dr. Samaniego's area of expertise.
8301120307 830107
~
PDR ADOCK 05000322 p%h
a.
2.
Dr. Samaniego, an expert in statistics, has testified
'~in' essence that statistical methodology could have and should
.have.been used-by'TPT,-and its failure to do so results in
^
l unjustifiable conclusions.
See Direct Testimony of Mr. Hubbard and Dr. Samaniego, pp. 27-30.
Mr. Hubbard,'whose experience is in the field of' nuclear power, concurred in this testimony.
Ibid. at 4.
LILCO's Motion to Strike is nothing-more than an attempt to controvert this expert-testimony by lawyers' arguments instead of presenting LILCO's own statistical experts to take issue with Dr. Samaniego's testimony.
3.
LILCO incorrectly asserts that Dr. Samaniego's testi-i t
many cannot assist the Board in an evaluation of the TPT program.
3 In fact, Dr. Samaniego's testimony directly addresses the issue of whether the conclusions of the TPT report are justified, a
an issue of most critical importance to the Board's evaluation of the TPT review.
His testimony will undoubtedly assist the Board.
i 4.
LILCO quotes Dr. Samaniego's deposition extensively in an attempt to demonstrate his lack of knowledge and expertise j
i i
in the area of nuclear power.
As indicated above, that issu'e is l
l not relevant, since it does not refute Dr. Samaniego's qualifications to provide the testimony on statistical methodology he is sponsoring.
However, it must be pointed out that the i
I quotations used by LILCO are taken out of context and omit t
relevant testimony which explains Dr. Samaniego's position.
l i'
l s
~
.l
.l.
l l
The foregoing points are addressed below in SectionsL
'II and III of this response.
In Section I, the County briefly addresses the Rule'702 standard for admission of expert testimony..
I.
.The Rule 702 Standard for Expert Testimony The County agrees with LILCO that the recent Appeal Board
~
1/
~ decision in the McGuire proceeding indicates that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an appropriate standard to judge admissibility of expert testimony in NRC proceedings.
Rule 702 states:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or-to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
l The County also agrees that the basic test under Rule 702 is two-fold:
whether the witness is gnalified; and whether the witness' testimony will assist the trier of fact.
There are certain Rule 702 principles, however, that deserve further examination.
First, as is clear from Rule 702 itself, a witness does not need to have worked in a j
particular industry in order to be qualified to provide expert j
testimony concerning that industry.
Thus, the basis for
[
expertise may be derived from " knowledge, skill, exparience, 1/
Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station,
~
Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, 15 NRC 453, 475 (1982).
l i
1
~n,
_4_
1 1
training or education."
For' instance, in Baumholser v. Amax Coal Co.,
630 F.2d'550 (7th.Cir. 1980), a dispute' concerned whether blasting operations at defendant's' coal mine caused foundation damage to plaintiff's home several miles away.
Plaintiff's witness, a geologist, testified-that the blasting had caused the damage.
The witness reached his conclusion'in
'part by studying-the soil.in the area and by application.of general principles regarding shock waves.
Defendant objected
- to this testimony, arguing that the witness-hadfno previous experience with strip mining or the effects of blasting.
The.
court rejected defendant's position, ruling that the witness was properly testifying to a subject matter within his geologic expertise.
Eeg 630 F.2d at 551.-2/
A key factor, therefore, in assessing a witness' quali-1' fications is to consider those qualifications against the particular subject matter which is the object of the testimony.
In the instant case, as noted hereafter, the subject matter of Dr. Samaniego's testimony is not nuclear power construction processes.
Rather, Dr. Samaniego's testimony addresses the narrow question whether there is a statistically valid basis for the TPT conclusions, given the sampling methodology which TPT utilized.
The subject matter of Dr. Samaniego's testimony is statistics, a matter clearly within his expertise.
-2/
See also Knight v. Otis Elevator Co., 596 F.2d 84 (3d Cir.
IT79) (witness could express opinion regarding elevator design defect although he had no-background in design and manufacture of elevators; court rejects rule that expert must have practical experience in a particular industry to
[ cont'd. on next page].
~5-Second, an expert may. testify even if he does not express an opinion.
Rather, an expert "may give a dissertation or exposition of. scientific or other^ principles = relevant to the case, leaving the trier of fact to apply them to the facts."
Rule 702, Advisory Comm. Notes (emphasis supplied).
Since.
conclusions are stated in the TPT report, a proper area for expert testimony would be for a witness to provide "a dis-sertation or exposition of.
. principles" relevant to the i
validity of such conclusions.
Dr. Samaniego's testimony certainly provides such relevant statistical information by which this Board can evali9tmthe-validity of the TPT conclusions.
II.
Dr. Samaniego Is Qualified and His Testimony Will Aid the Board The thrust of LILCO's objection to Dr. Samaniego's testimony is that he has no prior nuclear power experience.
Thus, LILCO asserts that Dr. Samaniego:
2,/
[ cont'd.]
provide testimony); Gardner v. General Motors Corp., 507 i
F.2d 525, 528 (10th Cir. 1974) (Appeal Court approves trial court ruling that "where an expert has the education or background to permit him to analyze a given set of circumstances, he can through reading, calculations and reasoning process from known scientific principles make himself very much expert in the particular product even though he has not had actual practical experience in its manufacture").
e
.----,-,~,--e
-,,3--_..m
.e.. -,
---.7v-------------.._--,----..,,ww, m..e--,w,,-
..m.,-.,,y-,,-
,,,9--v,
-w.-,y,
(1) has no general knowledge of nuclear power plants or Shoreham; (2) has never studied, reviewed, designed, attempted to design or had any personal experience whatsoever with a statistically based methodology for measuring or verifying the effectiveness of the quality 6
assurance program or the adequacy of the construction procese for a nuclear power l
station;
{3) does not know whether anycne else has developed or implemented a methodology i
for measuring or verifying the effective-ness of the quality assurance program or the adequacy of the construction process for a nuclear power station using statistically cased methodology; and,
[
(4) has very limited knowledge of the Torrey Pines Report.
LILCO Motion at 2-3 (emphasis supplied).
Without agreeing that the foregoing assertions are 3/
accurate,~ the County submits that these " bases" for LILCO's i
motion are irrelevant when the actual subject matter of Dr. Samaniego's testimony is examined.
First, LILCO does
(
not allege that Dr. Samaniego is unqualified as a statisti-4/
cian.
LILCO similsrly does not question Dr. Samaniego's qualifications to provide testimony regarding sampling methodology and the statistical principles regarding the validity of drawing conclusions from samples.
His resume h
i 3/
In Section III, infra, the County rebuts these factual assertions.
l
-4/
Indeed, at page 2 of its motion (lines 13-14), LILCO admits to Dr. Samaniego's expertise as a statistician.
l clearly documents his wide-ranging qualifications in these areas.
See Exhibit 1.
Further, he has lectured on sampling
)
techniques for the last 10 years at the annual short course on Statistical Quality Control at the University of California, Davis.
See Prefiled Testimony, at 2.
See also Hubbard/
Samaniego Dep. at 27-32 (description of some of Dr. - Samaniego's work regarding sampling methodology).
Given Dr. Samaniego's unchallenged expertise in statistics, it then is instructive to examine exactly what Dr. Samaniego states in his prefiled testimony.
Such examination demonstrates conclusively that Dr. Samaniego has testified only to statistical matters within his expertise.
PAGE TESTIMONY SUBJECT MATTER
- p. 27, line 14 References TPT conclusions that Besides describing TPr thru p. 28, ccostruction of Shoreham has nethodology, subject line 10 & fns.
been adequate. Notes that TPT matter is purely 28, 29 conclusion is based upon sanples statistical, namely:
but that sanples were selected what is required in the by TPT in non-randcm manner.
science of statistics in States that "to make statistically order to reach statistically valid inferences about the general valid conclusions when character of the plant," one sanpling is used.
nust use a methodology that ensures that precise sanples which are selected are representative of the population.
- p. 28, line When particular sanples are Subject matter again 14, thru p.
chosen on the basis of is purely statistical, 29, line 24 engineering judgment, there concerning statistical is (a) a high risk of validity of extrapola-statistical bias; (b) no tion depending on type rigorous methodology to of sanple used.
extrapolate frun a judgment Dr. Samaniego's testimony sample to the population.
concerns basic elementary When random sanples are statistical principles chosen, statistically valid as applied to the extrapolation is possible.
specific sanpling method-ology used by TPT.
1 -
1 PAGE TESTIMONY SUBJECT MATTER
- p. 30, lines Discusses role of engineering Statistical subject 1-11 judgment in statistical matter. Shows statistical /
studies. Such judgment is use-rardne selection ful to decide population (s) methodology does not to look at and questions to preclude use of
- ask and to follow up on engineering-judgment results. Also rHamases at proper tines.
popalation stratification.
A:tt.al testing phase of sanple nust be via objective (i.e.,
randam) methodology.
- p. 30, lines Sqports use of sanpling Purely statistical.
16-22 rather than 100% census to.
Sets forth criteria demonstrate proper otnstruction for a statistically of Shoreham. A statistically valid prcgram.
valid prw1.acs depends on random sanples of sufficient-size to estimate population parameters.
The foregoing synopsis demonstrates that Dr. Samaniego has proffered testimony which is squarely within his expertise as a professional in the statistical area, particularly relating to sampling methodology.
In sum, Dr. Samaniego'has reviewed the TPT methodology and determined:
1.
TPT reached overall conclusions regarding the adequacy of construction of Shoreham.
2.
The TPT conclusions were based upon samples of the Shoreham construction effort, not a 100 percent census.
3.
The TPT samples were selected on a judgmental, non-random basis.
4.
Settled principles of the science of statistics I
indicate that conclusions about a total popula-i l
i
9-tion cannot be justified if. drawn from the results of non-random samples.
5.
For'the TPT conclusions to be statistically justified, random samples would need to be chosen.
Indeed, the narrow statistical fccus of Dr. Samaniego's t.
testimony was clearly stated on several occasions.during.his deposition on December 27:
Q:
[Mr. Powell].
And Is it also a fair statement that in your view, the Torrey Pines conclusions are unjustified because they are insufficiently t
grounded in quantitative and objective data as 4
i opposed to qualitative, subjective data?
4 l
A:
(Dr. Samaniego].
No, that isn't the grounds
)
on which I would criticize the report, although it may be subject to criticism on these grounds.
My particular view on the Torrey Pines Report and its deficiencies relate to the process that Torrey Pines has employed in developing general l
conclusions about the plant, particular components i
in the plant and documents generated at the 71 ant, general conclusions about those matters on t.se basis of inspecting a subcollection of items chosen in a non-random manner.
Hubbard/Samaniego l
Dep. at 9 (emphasis supplied).
The same basic point was reiterated by Dr. Samaniego later on December 27:
Q:
(Mr. Powell].
If in fact it's true that the Torrey Pines p*ersonnel involved in the verification as a general matter have a lot of individual and combined experience in the field of nuclear engineering, would it be your testimony that because they chose to rely on l
f I
i,
~~-a..
m
---,-- -, - - - --_--,m..
.wm-w
-ev-,--.-r-
--er--,-w w-e vv, r
- y
-=-,w aw,---,-,--.,4-----mn,c,-=,e-~,w
,-~~-,ww.--vee r, c-g-, - - - - ~ - + - - -
~em www m-y--g-
7 r
their judgment'rather:,than'a statistically-based sampling; methodology,1that the' con-clusions-'that:theyidraw'as a result are.
3 unreliable?
.I could' explain A:
Yes, that's my contention.. '
why that is and --
Q:
You're welcome to carry on.
A:
Okay.
Well, 'let me ' take a; stab ati it.
One j'
can select items according to hunches and-engineering judgment and experience or whatever and pursue the possibility of dis-crepancies and faulty items and so forth and.
in fact,'one's intuition might lead.'one to look at particularly-susceptible items for the purpose of sniffing out faulty items.
'It might be that following an engineer.'s
[in] tuition is the best way to go, but the real question is whether you can take the sample of items that the engineer has selected in the process of looking for j
faulty items, whether one can interpolate j
from that and comment on the general population.
Now, the point-is that there 1
is no systematic methodology for doing that J
and the flaw in the Torrey Pines Report is that general conclusions are made about the population of items, about population of welds, for example, or. valves or other characteristics or items in the plant.
General comments are made about the plant as a whole when the items were not selected in such a way that they can be -- they can be justified a.s being that they can be -- they can be justified as being representative of resembling the population and therefore having the same characteristics as the general population.
I'm not saying that engineering judgment is of no use whatever, but in the process of making general conclusions about a population from a sample that one examines, if judgment is used in the development of that sample and if-the sample is not random, then there is no mathematical or statistical way of interpolating from the sample of the population and the statements, the general statements that appear in the Torrey Pines Report purport to describe the
~
general population on the basis of inspections of such samples is simply not : ustified.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 71-72 (emphasis supplied).
Accordingly, the County submits that Dr. Samaniego's testimony addresses a subject matter -- statistical principles, sampling methodology and the statistical validity of conclusions drawn from samples -- which is squarely within his expertise as a professional statistician.
Thus, the first criterion of Rule 702 -- that the expert be qualified -- is clearly met.
Under Rule 702, the second inquiry -- beyond finding the witness to be qualified -- is whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact.
LILCO has alleged that Dr. Samaniego's testimony will not assist the Board because:
Dr. Samaniego has no substantive knowledge concerning nuclear power plants or the details of TPT's Verification Program.
Consequently, any discussion of statistical methodology can only be done in the abstract.
But the Board is not asked to decide the abstract question of whether statistical methods may theoretically be applicable to all human endeavors.
Nor is the Board called upon to consider whether statistical sampling methodologies could have been used by TPT.
Rather, the Board must addres,s the question whether the Torrey Bhm[s] methodology is an appropriate means of verifying the I
adequacy of the construction of a nu~ clear i
power plant.
Clearly, Dr. Samaniego has nothing to offer on this question.
- Thus, his testimony is of little or no assistance to the ASLB in making an objective evaluation of TPT's Verification.
LILCO Motion at 17.
?
1
LILCO's rationale quoted above is plainly _ false.
- First, contrary to LILCO's. assertion, Dr. Samaniego clearly does
- have substantive knowledge regarding those aspects of the TPT program which he addresses in his testimony.
Dr. Samaniego j
reviewed TPT's sampling methodology so that he could offer his views on whether that methodology permitted TPT to drawithe i
conclusions quoted at page 27 of the-County's-testimony.
3 Indeed, Dr. Samaniego reviewed all portions of the TPT report which related to the subject matter of his testimony:
MR. DYNNER:
Mr. Samaniego, Mr. Powell asked you some questions about the amount of time that you had spent reviewing the Torrey Pines Report before you prepared your testimony.
Given the limited amount of time that you had to review the report, how could you reach the conclusions that you reached in your testimony?
WITNESS SAMANIEGO:
Well, the report, of course, is -- contains many, many pages,-
hundreds and hundreds of pages, but really only a small fraction of the cumulative pages in the report have to do with the process of sampling.
In particular, all of Volume 3 which consists of two thick books was of no relevance to my particular study.
Essentially consists of a catalogue of findings and their dispositions.
So I was interested in the use of statistical method-l ology of sampling process by Torrey Pines j
in reaching the conclusions that they stated in their report.
I was primarily interested, therefore, in the executive summary and particular sections of Volume 2 of their report.
I examined references to the sampling process in that report and it was very clear that the methodology used in develop-ing the conclusions stated in the report l
2
. -. ~...
- - ~
was_ faulty and it was not a matter of any time limitations that led me to look no further than I did.
I feel that I adequately read and digested.the portions of the report that deal with the sampling process and the process of extrapolation and my testimony comments on those portions of the report.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 231 (emphasis supplied).
Second, Dr. Samaniego's discussion is not "in the abstract."
Rather, it specifically addresses the TPT methodology (use of non-random samples) and asserts that from such non-random samples, TPT's conclusions regarding the adequacy of construction of Shoreham could not be justified.
Such testimony from a qualified statistican is crucial if the Board is to critically evaluate the weight to be given to the TPT results.
It certainly 5/
is not "in the abstract."~
Third, LILCO states that " Clearly, Dr. Samaniego has nothing to offer on [the] question" whether the TPT "metodology is an appropriate means of verifying the adequacy of the construction 5/
Even if Dr. Samaniego's testimony were solely "in the abstract," that does not mean it would be of no use to the Board.
Under Rule 702, an expert may provide a
" dissertation or exposition of scientific principles relevant to tha case, leaving the trier of fact to apply them to the facts."
In this instance, Dr. Samaniego's testimony would be useful to the Board in establishing a basis to judge whether the specific sampling results may be extrapolated beyond those specific items.
This is directly relevant to any Board decision on whether (as LILCO states above) "the Torrey Pines methodology is an appropriate means of verifying the adequacy of the construction of a nuclear power plant."
of a nuclear power plant."
That is false.
Dr. Samaniego's testimony stands squarely for the view that the non-random TPT sampling methodology is not appropriate for extrapolation beyond the specific items which are sampled.
Accordingly, Dr. Samaniego has offered testimony on precisely the point which s
even LILCO states the Board must decide.
Finally, LILCO objects to Dr. Samaniego's expertise because he has questioned the TFT conclusions allegedly "without any knowledge whatsoever regarding the subject matter of TPT's Verification."
LILCO Motion at 5.
Again, LILCO misses the i
point.
TPT used a non-random sampling methodology, but draws conclusions regarding a population beyond the specific items which have been sampled.
That methodology does not permit justifiable conclusions.
It was unnecessary for Dr. Samaniego, in reaching his conclusions, to learn about particular welds, or to know about the Shoreham FSAR.
Rather, his purpose was to address one aspect of the TPT program -- the sampling methodology -- which is squarely within his expertise.
He reviewed all aspects of the TPT program which were relevant to the testimony he prepared.
See Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 231 (quoted at pp. 12-13, supra.).
1 The basic fallacy in LILCO's Motion to Strike is that it attempts to use lawyers' arguments to overcome expert testimony i
that the non-random sampling method used by TPT does not justify the conclusions of the TPT report.
No doubt LILCO dis-agrees with this testimony, but the appropriate course of action l
I is for LILCO to call its own experts on statistics to refute this testimony.
Dr. Samaniego, an acknowledged expert in-statistics, testified in essence that appropriate statistical methodology could and should have been used by TPT in the review of the Shoreham construction, and TPT's failure to do so resulted in unjustified conclusions.
Prefiled Testimony, pp. 27-30.
See also Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 34 (Samaniego testimony regard-ing broad applicability of science of statistics, quoted at pp. 18-19, infra).
Dr. Samaniego made clear'that an expert in statistics, in order to apply statistical methodologies, did not have to be an expert in the field in which statistics were to be applied:
e MR. DYNNER:
. Gentlemen, Mr. Powell asked you some questions concerning the applicability of statistics to a construction review of a
-nuclear power plant.
Is the science of statistics applicable to other disciplines and areas without the statistician also being an expert in those other areas or disciplines?
WITNESS SAMANIEGO:
If I may comment on that matter, the current practice in the statistical profession is to engage rather extensively in collaborative work with experts in other fields for the general advancement of science or for the furthering of knowledge in a particular area.
And it's commonplace for experts in a given field, whether it be an academic disci-pline like genetics or engineering or psychology, or other fields such as that, or an industrial area, it's commonplace for experts to work together in solving problems that require statistical methodology.
e e
w
---g w
In assessing'the use of sampling methodology in'this particular context ~ discussed here,.the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, and in particular the Torrey Pines Technology Report, on their recent review, it's certainly appropriate -
-for a statistician to comment on.the methodology used to make general inferences about the status, the various systems and documents and procedures within that plant.
And it is in that capacity that I have presented testimony here.
I have restricted my testimony 'to a very-narrow discussion of statistical issuesi and I do not
-represent myself as an expert on nuclear power plants or the nuclear area in general.
On the other hand, if you wish.to inspect.my biblio-graphy, you'll note that I have published work in journals in fields like psychology and engineering and genetics, among other fields, in which I have made contributions to studies in these fields without in fact having direct expertise in these areas.
And I think it's a well-understood and accepted notion that a statistician is an individual professional with expertise in mathemetics, statistical methodology, and with enough training'and experience to comment on the general process of statistical thinking and methodology as it applies to a wide variety of areas.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep.
at 224-25.
If LILCO wishes to controvert Dr. Samaniego's testimony, it is welcome to attempt to do so by contrary testimony of its own expert witness in statistics.
.But it is clearly ground-less for LILCO to challenge Dr. Samaniego's expertise and to seek to bar his testimony because it disagrees with his substantive conclusions.
Further, Mr. Hubbard, who has substantial exoerience in l
l the nuclear industry, and is familiar with the Shoreham plant, has reviewed the entire TPT report and has concurred in Dr.
Samaniego's testimony.
See Prefiled Testimony, p.
4.
- Indeed,
.-o---
...--1-r,w.
,-e.
,--v..-,----,--,yn--
r---e,r---,- - - *
,w.-
y--,wr.
---,--,-yv+-
Mr.. Whhard, with his expertise and experience, has testified that there is nothing about the complexity of a nuclear power plant that would make application of statistical methodology inappropriate.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 230.
(See p.
23, infra, for the full quotation).
Mr. Hubbard also noted many examples where statistical methodology is used in the nuclear industry.
- See, e.g., Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 39, 40-41, 43-44, 227-30, 234-35.
In conclusion, LILCO's assertion that Dr. Samaniego's testimony will not aid the trier of fact is clearly incorrect.
Dr. Samaniego, an unchallenged expert in statistical matters, has testified that TPT's use of a non-random sampling methodology resulted in unjustified conclusions regarding the entire population of construction activities at Shoreham.
Dr. Samaniego has proffered testimony which demonstrates that such conclusions are not based upon a statistically valid methodology.
He is eminently qualified to provide this testimony which directly concerns one issue which the Board must decide.
Accordingly, the County urges that LILCO's motion be denied.
III.
LILCO Has Quoted Portions of the Hubbard/
Samaniego Deposition Incompletely and Out of Context At pages 5-16 of the Motion to Strike, LILCO quotes deposition extracts which allegedly support its position that Dr. Samaniego is not qualified to sponsor his prefiled testi-mony.
As noted in the preceding section of this Response, the County believes that LILCO's argument misses the point since I
l w-
the actual. statistical subject matter of Dr. Samaniego's
~
testimony is within his expertise.
However, for purposes of a complete response, the County sets forth below extracts from the deposition which LILCO omitted to include in its motion.
These extracts further demonstrate why LILCO's motion must be denied.
- 1..
At pages 5 and 8-9 of the LILCO motion,. LILCO quotes extracts to document that Dr. Samaniego has not previously consulted on or had direct experience regarding nuclear-power.
LILCO omits to quote Dr. Samaniego's testimony, hcwever, th'at in statistical consulting, he has often provided expert services without becoming intimately familiar in the underlying subject matter.
See Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 224-25 (quoted at pp.15-16, supra).
See also Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 46-47, 225-27, 233 (detailing that a statistican will work closely with experts in the substantive area; in this instance, Dr. Samaniego is working closely with Mr. Hubbard who supports Dr. Samaniego's conclusions).
LILCO also omits to cite Dr. Samaniego's statements that he believes his statistical consulting experience in non-nuclear areas is related to the use of statistics in the nuclear power area.
Q:
(Mr. Powell).
Do I correctly infer that you do not have any experience in preparing statistically-based methodologies that in any fashion relate to the design, construction or operation of a nuclear power plant?
A 1[Dr SamaniGgo).-
Wall, I wouldn't agrd3 with thOt ctatenent, Cnd tha rekon io that statistics is a science that deals with.
abstractions of some basic principles that apply very generally to lots of applications.
And over the years I-have-been involved-with
~
just dozens and dozens of different areas.of application, and often the statistical principles involved in these studies or researches are the same.
So when I'm asked to commant on a statistical; design, the area of application doesn't really matter.
If statistical principles are violated, it's a bad study and doesn't really
. matter what the study is about.
It could be nuts and bolts, or it could be fruits in a.
' field, and in either case the process of inference isn't-going to yield worthwhile results.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep at 34 (emphasis supplied).
t e
i Dr. Samaniego's testimony is clear.
He has had relevant l
experience which permits him to testify in this proceeding because "the practice of statistics is applicable to any situation where one wants to make general. conclusions about a j
population of subjects, based on studying a subgroup of those l
subjects, and the subjects can be virtually anything."
Hubbard/
Samaniego Dep. at 35.
Indeed, even Mr. Johnson, one of the LILCO witnesses, stated that " statistics is a tool that can be' used."
Johnson Dep, at 31.
Accordingly, the fact that.
]
Dr. Samaniego had not specifically had prior nuclear experience does not render him unqualified to testify on TPT's sampling j
6/
i methodology in this proceeding.-
2.
At pages 7-8 of the LILCO motion, LILCO quotes
{
~
deposition extracts to show that Dr. Samaniego has not reviewed Chapter 17.1 of the ESAR or the LILCO and S&W QA manuals, does i
i 6/
Again, LIICO's objection to Dr. Samaniego's testinony is grounded upon disap=-t with Dr. Samaniego's conclusiens.
Dr. Samaniego's conclusions, however, are based upon his statistical expertise and are supported by Mr. nt h rd who has many years of exoerience in the nuclear field.
If T.TTm disagrees with the conclusions reached by Dr. Samaniego and Mr. ns h rd, the proper route is through intro-duction of relevant evidence, not through an attenpt to bar the j
n-
not know the elements of.the Shoreham QA program, and does not know what an E&DCR is.
LILCO omitted, however, to quote Dr. Samaniego's statement that these items were not relevant to the subject matter of the testimony he was sponsoring:
MR. DYNNER:
Mr. Powell asked you a number of questions which you were unable to answer, as'I recall, and among those questions, for example, were those tnat included whether you knew the number of welds in the plant at Shoreham, whether you knew how many valves were in the plant, whether you knew the number of procedures that were in effect at Shoreham, whether you knew what an FSAR is and whether you knew what an E&DCR is.
Does your lack of knowledge concerning those questions or your
. ability to answer those questions in any.way impact upon your testimony or the conclusions stated in your t'estimony?
WITNESS SAMANIEGO:
Those details have no relevance whatever to a -- the development of commentary or my testimony on the statistical w
methodology used by TPT.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 232.
LILCO also omitted to note that Mr. Hubbard agreed that knowled,ge of items like the FSAR, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, or an E&DCR would not be necessary for Dr. Samaniego to know.
MR, DYNNER:
Mr. Hubbard, based upon your expertise in the nuclear area, do you agree with Dr. Samaniego that the identifica-tion of those matters that I just summarized
[ question quoted just above in this Response]
would not be relevant to an analysis of the statistical methodology used in the Torrey Pines Report?
a WITNESS HUBBARD:
Yes, I do.
As I said before, the working between an engineer and a statistician is an iterative process and I would expect the statistician, like Dr. Samaniego, to ask me about the interpretation of 10 CFR 50 of Appendix B,
for example, since that's my field of expertise.
Likewise, if he had a question what is an FSAR or E&DCR, again, I would expect him to~ask the engineer.
Likewise, if I were to want to establish statistically-based or systematic methodology for taking samples, then I would go to.him to talk about what sort of a sample size I would need to take and how I would go about doing that for either a procedure or a component.
So we would, through this iterative process, use both of our skills and that's really what we did in putting this testimony together.
Hubbard/
Samaniego Dep. at 232-33.
3.
At pagas 8-11 of its motion, LILCO quotes extracts to show that Dr. Samaniego has not developed statistical sampling programs for a nuclear power plant and that he had no knowledge whether statistical methods have been used in the industry.
The implication of these selected extracts appears to be that-LILCO believes a sampling methodology such as advocated by Dr. Samaniego is not feasible.
- However, Dr. Samaniego has specifically testified that the methodology he advocates is feasible in the nuclear power industry.
See Prefiled Testimony, p. 30; Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 35.
Further, Mr. Hubbard, having extensive nuclear experience, made clear that statistical methods are feasible and have been used in the industry.
See Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 39, 40-41, 43-44, 227-30, 234-35; portions of Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. quoted at page 23, infra.
Thus, the fact that Dr. Samaniego was not familiar with the use of statistics in the nuclear field is not relevant.
Mr. Hubbard clearly has knowledge of these matters and established that statistics are used in the industry.
In response, LILCO has produced no evidence to rebut the assertion that a statistically based methodology is feasible.
Certainly, legal argument on e
e a motion to strike is.no basis to rebut the testimony of Dr. Samaniego.and Mr. Hubbard that a proper methodology is feasible.
Indeed, the feasibility of a random sampling methodology.
~
was further emphasized by Dr. Samaniego and Mr. Hubbard in their deposition.
Again, however, these extracts were omitted by LILCO.
MR. DYNNER:
I have only one final question.
It relates to Mr. Powell's inquiry concerning the last question on Page 30 of the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Hubbard's and Dr. Samaniego.
And as I recall, the question was:
Isn't your answer -- I will paraphase the question as I recall it -- was to the effect that isn't your answer concerning the possibility of designing a statistically-valid program to demonstrate that Shoreham was constructed in accordance with design requirements only a theoretical possibility?
I wonder if you'd like to comment upon that.
WITNESS SAMANIEGO:
Well, given the fact that Torrey Pines did in fact view sampling throughout their study, the viability of a sampling approach in the study and evaluation of the nuclear power plant at Shoreham I think is already adequately established.
It is possible to sample, in fact, it's desirable in cases where a number of components and documents that exist is so huge that one couldn't possibly conceive of examining them all.
It's clear that sampling should take place and in fact, Torrey Pines' technology has used sampling methods, albeit incorrectly in developing their conclusions.
So in my mind, the process of sampling is very appropriate and in fact has been used and what I think should be done or should have been done would be to apply random sampling in a variety of circumstances where items were sampled for inspection and to thereby facilitate pre 7er extrapolation to the population interest.
So that there's no question that statistics and-random sampling is applicable and in fact, the
l Torrey Pines study. essentially lays the' foundations'for pursuing such an approach to the study.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep.-at 233-34 (emphasis supplied).-
MR. DYNNER:
'So, Mr. Hubbard, given your.
experience and background in the nuclear field, do you believe that there's anything peculiar about the complexity of-a nuclear' power plant or of the systems,. components that comprise a' nuclear power plant that would make.the application of statistical
- method-ology inappropriate?
WITNESS HUBBARD:
No, not at all.
And you i
know, the fact is that Torrey Pines did take samples and from those samples they extra-polated to the entire population.
So I think'it's not only, in my view, that sampling is possible, but Torrey Pines themselves felt that sampling was appropriate.
So the only question is that one -- if-you're going to do sampling, do you use a' proven scientific methodology or do you do it completely on an engineering judgment basis.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 230.
Indeed, in response to Mr. Powell, Dr. Samaniego made clear the basis for his belief that a statistica11y' valid sample selection methodology could have been-used by TPT:
Q:
In light of your never having designed such a program, and in light of your not being familiar with anyone ever having designed such a program, am I correct that your affirmative answer in response to that question would be more accurate if you said, " Theoretically, yes, it's possible"?
2 A:
The answer is developed based on my reading of the kinds of activities-that Torrey Pines pursued in their development of a report, and in the process of their study they listed a wide collection of systems that were physically examined and a wide collection of i
I l
i
component types that were examined, and they essentially outlined the process by which the safety-related items in this particular plant could be subdivided, stratified,..and what remains to be done'is to develop a random sampling scheme to access particular components that Torrey Pines has already characterized, and to then develop statistical formulae that will allow one to estimate the characteristics, the
~
general characteristics of components of various types and the plant as a whole.
b So judging from the description of the nature of the plant and the subdivisions that Torrey Pines has created, it -- it seems.quite reason-
{
able that'a complete statistical study can be accomplished by simply pursuing it with random t
sampling methods, and statistical techniques i
based on random samples, and it's on that basis that I answered the question the way I did.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 64-65 (emphasis supplied).
j Finally, at page 10 of its motion, LILCO questions Dr.
Samaniego's qualifications because he allegedly had "not l
even attempted to learn if there is a standard practice in the nuclear industry with respect to construction verification i
methodology.
However, Mr. Novarro testified that the t
TPT program was the first of its kind.
See Novarro Dep. at 94, 120, 144, 152-53.
Therefore, there would have been no i
purpose for Dr. Samaniego trying to learn if there were a
{
" standard practice," since there cannot have been such a 7/
standard practice for a first of its kind program.
l 4.
At pages 11-14 of its motion, LILCO quotes extracts I
to show the number of hours spent by Dr. Samaniego in review f
i of the TPT report and to show that Dr. Samaniego did not t
7/
Further, the identification of a so-called " standard practice" would not have been relevant to the subject matter of Dr. Samaniego's l
testimany. Assuming for sake of argument that the TPT metlxx3 ology is " standard," it is still wrong. 'Ihe identification of that method-ology as a " standard" would not make it statistically justified and l
thus would not have altered Dr. Samaniego's testinony at all.
1 t
--25.
q d
review.the entire report. -LILCO again omits certain important extracts.
First, Dr. Samaniego did not review the entire _TPT report because many. portions were not relevant to the points being made in his testimony.
He in fact read all portions of the report that were relevant to his particular testimony.
See
-Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 231 (quoted at pp.12-13, supra).
In this regard, LILCO's statement that Dr. Samaniego "has very limited knowledge of the Torrey Pines' Report" (Motion, p.
3).is extremely misleading.
Dr. Samaniego has detailed knowledge of those portions of the TPT report which are relevant to the subject matter of his testimony.
As he stated, however, "only a small fraction of the cumulative pages in the report have to do with the process of s'ampling."
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 231.-8/
Second, the LILCO motion imparts the impression that December 17, when Dr.-Samaniego first reviewed the TPT final report, was Dr. Samaniego's first involvement with Shoreham or the TPT issues or statistics as applied to Shoreham.
This is not true.
Dr. Samaniego started consulting on statistical matters for the County relating to Shoreham in August 1982.
Hubbard/Samaniego Dep. at 10.
He reviewed the prefiled testi-d mony on the QA/QC contentions and provided comments and draft i
testimony thereon to counsel insofar as statistical matters were 8,/
Similarly, at page 14 of its motion, LILCO criticizes
(
Dr. Samaniego for not reviewing all of the TPT resumes.
However, since Dr. Samaniego was addressing the' failure to use random sampling, the extent of experience re-flected in the TPT resumes was simply not relevant to the testimony being offered.
l l
concerned.
Id. at 10-12, 16-17, 24-25.
He had also reviewed the J
TPT August 1982 status report prior to December 17.
Id. at 16.
From his pre-December 17 review of the TPT status report, 1
Dr. Samaniego was concerned that the TPT sampling methodology was not adequate but he did not form a final' opinion on the matter until December 17.
Id. at 19-20.
Accordingly, it is a distortion for LILCO to assert-that "Dr. Samaniego spent less than ten (10) hours reviewing TPT's final report, forming his conclusions regarding their methodology, and drafting the testimony he filed on December 21, 1982."
Rather, prior to December 17, Dr. Samaniego had already reviewed the TPT status report, reviewed QA/QC testimony, and prepared comments and draft testimony related specifically to the Shoreham project.
Thus, when Dr. Samaniego began review of relevant portions of the final TPT report on December 17, he had substantial familiarity with Shoreham on which to build his opinions.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Suffolk County urges the Board to deny LILCO's Motion to Strike.
Respectfully submitted, David J.
Gilmartin Patricia A.
Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 AarrAMP
~
l Herbert H. Brown /~
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Alan Roy Dynner KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS Washington, D.C.
20036 January 7, 1983 Attorneys for Suffolk County
\\%4f5
.EXHISIT 1
' FRANCISCO J. SAMANIEGO Office:
Department of Biostatistics-Home:
3773 N.E. 153rd Street University of Washington a _ Seattle, Washington Seattle, Washington (206) 364-9983 j
(206) 543-1044 Education:
Degree Field Year Loyola University of Los Angeles BS
' Mathematics 1966 Ohio State University MS Math./ Stat.
1967 U.C.L.A.
Ph.D.
Math./ Stat.
1971 Rzeearch Interests:
Msthematical Statistics, Reliability and Survival Analysis, Applications of Statistics in Engineering and Public Health.
Emoloyment:
1982-1983 Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1979-1982 dssociate Professor, Intercollege Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis 1978-1979
. Acting Associate Dean, Intercollege Division of Statistics University of California, Davis 1977-1979 Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, University of California, Davis 1972-1977 Assistant Professor, Department of Mathem'atics, University of California, Davis 1971-1972 Post Doctoral Fellow, Department of Statistics, Florida State University Professional Activities and Awards:
Member, American Statistical Association, 1970-present
~
Mzmber, Institute of Mathematical Stat 1stics, 1971-present Mtmber, ASA Committee on Minorities in Statistics, 1976-1980 Follow, America'n Statistical Association, 1982-Principal Investigator, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Contract AFOSR-773180, "Modeling and Inference for Signal Plus Noise Data," 1977-1981.
Associate Editor, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1978-present.'
Assistant Program Secretary, IMS Western Regional Meeting, Davis, CA, June 1980.
Associate Program Secretary, Institute of Mathematical Statistics,1981.
Scnior Postdoctoral Fellowship, awarded by the National Research Council of the Nctional Academy of Sciences under the sponsorship of the Ford Foundation, 1982-83.
( Vita (
F..l.
Samanieno 1
Publications:
[1]
" Estimating a Binomial Parameter with Finite Memory," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. IT-19, September 1973, 636-43.
[2]
"On Tests with Finite Memory in Finite Time,'" IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. IT-20, May 1974, 387-388.
[3]
"On testing Simple Hypotheses in Finite Time with Hellman-Cover Automata," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-21, March 1975, 157-162.
[4]
"On T-minimax Estimation," The American Statistician,. 29 (1975), 168-9.
[5]
"A Comment on Adm ssibility and Completeness," The American Statistician (Letter), 29 (1975), 173.
'[ 6 ]
"A Characterization of Convoluted Poisson Distributions with Applications to Estimation", Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71 (1976),
475-479.
[7]," Optimal Sampling Design for Estimating the Integral of a Process with Stationary Independent Increments," IEEE T'ransactions on Information Theory, Vol. IT-21, May 1976,173.
[8]
" Mode Identification with Finite Statistics," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. IT-22, September 1976, 588-590.
- [9]
"Covariance Analysis in the Evaluation of an Enrichment Program,"
Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, Summer 1977, 121-137 (with S. T. Rickard).
[10]
" Posterior Distribution of the Parameters of the Pearson Type III Distribution:
An Application to Design Flood Series Analysis,"
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Risk and Reliability in Water Resources, (1977), (with B. Espildora and J. Amorocho).
( Vith F..l.
Samanlego
[11]
" Estimating Value in a Uniform Auction," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 25 (1978), 621-632 (with L. D. Kaiser).
[12]
"On the Power of the x Coodness of Fit Test at Signal Plus Noise Alternatives,". Communications in Statistics, B, 8 (1979), 75-90 (with L. D. Kaiser).
.m
[13]
"Two Characterizations of Pascal Signals in Additive Noise,"
Sankhya, Series A, 41, (1979), 219-231 (with G. Cong).
- r.
[14]
"Maximeu Likelihood Estimation for Binomially Distributed Signals in
= o..~
Discrete Noi.se(".J2u~rnal of the American Statistical Association, 75 (1980), 117-1212
[15]
" Performance of Activated Sludge Processes and Reliability Based Design," Journct of the Water Pollution Control Federation, March 1980, 2841-57 (with S. Niku and E. D. Schroeder).
[16]
" Discharge Standards Based on the Geometric Mean," Journal of the
- Water Pollution Control Federation, April 1981 (with S. Niku and E. D. Schroeder).
[17]
" Performance of Activated Sludge Processes:
Reliability, Stability and Variability," Research and Development Reports of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/52-81-227, (Dec.1981) 1-11 (with S. Niku, E.D. Schroeder and G. Tchobanoglous).
[18]
" Maximum Likelihood Estimation for a Class of Multinomial Distributions Arising in Reliability," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, i
43 (1981), 45-52 (with L. E. Jones).
1 (19]
" Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Estimation:
Theory and Applications,"
Annals of Statistics, (1981), 9; 861-69 (with G. Cong).
[20]
" Moment Identities for Nonnegative Variables Via Integrated Survival Curves," IEEE Transactions on Reliability, to appear.
( d# a - F.J. Samanlegn
~
[21]
" Evaluating Performance in Continuous Experiments with Feedback to Subjects," Psychometrika, to appear (with J. Utts).
[22]
" Estimating the Sib Proportion in Seed Purity Determinations,"
Biometrics, to appear (with P. Arus).
[23], "On Characterizing Discrete Signals in Additive Noise--A Unified s-Treatment," submitted for publication, (with R. Boyles).
TR #15.
[24]
"Modeling a d Inference for Positively Dependent Variables in c. ~:.:
Dichotomous Experiments," submitted for publication (with R. Boyles).
..x-
~
TR #19.
[25]
" Maximum likelihood Estimation for Discrete Shock Model," submitted for publication, (with R. Boyles).
TR #21.
[26]
" Estimating a Survival Curve when New is Better than Used," submitted for publication, (with R.'Boyles).
TR #22.
[27]
" Estimating a Survival Curve Based on Nomination Sampling," in preparation (with R. Boyles).
q i
- Technical Reports are available through the Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
O O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 (0. L. )-
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY TO LILCO MOTION TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCISCO J.
4 SAMANIEGO ON TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY'S INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION have been served to the following by U.S. Mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
Lawrence Brenner, Esq. (*)
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washing ton, D.C.
20555 Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Dr. James L.
Carpenter (*)
217 Newbridge Road Administrative Judge Hicksville, New York 11801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission W.
Taylor Reveley III, Esq. (#)
Washington, D.C.
20555 Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main St.
Dr. Peter A. Morris (*)
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C.
20555 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2' Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Empire State Plaza General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Tworey, Latham & Shea Mr. Brian McCaffrey Attorne/s at Law Long Island Lighting Company P.O.
Bcx 398 175 East Old Country Ioad 3? West Second Street Hicksville, New York 11801 Riverhead, New York 11901
f i
Marc W. Goldsmith Mr. Jeff Smith 2
Energy Research Group, Inc.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.C. Box 618 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq.
MHB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
County Executive / Legislative Suffolk County Attorney Building County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau
]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Department of j
Washington, D.C.
20555 Law 2 World Trade Center i
i Docketing and Service Section New York, New York 10047 1
office of the Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq. (*)
Commission David A.
Repka, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Matthew J.
Kelly, Esq.
Staff Counsel, New York i
Stuart Diamond State Public Service Comm.
Environment / Energy Writer 3 Rockefeller Plaza NEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223 Long Island, New York 11747 Daniel F.
Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 h
Lawrence Coe Langher KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS DATE: January 7, 1983 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor
(*)
By Hand Washington, D.C.
20036
(#)
By Federal Express
-