ML20096A723
| ML20096A723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1984 |
| From: | Farley E HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8408310224 | |
| Download: ML20096A723 (17) | |
Text
4W k'l :
. REOJiED C:5:CPCMDENCE LILCO, AUGUST 29, 1984 A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION USMC Before the Atomic Safety and Licenst a hard R2bl In the Matter of
)
)
I LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power. Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE JOINT DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT N. ANDERSON, PROFESSOR STANLEY G. CHRISTENSEN, G. DENNIS ELEY, ANEESH BAKSHI, DALE G.
BRIDENBAUGH AND RICHARD B. HUBBARD On August 7, 1984, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) filed its Motion To Strike Portions Of The Joint Direct Testimony Of Dr. Robert N. Anderson, Professor Stanley G.
Christensen, G. Dennis Eley, Aneesh Bakshi, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard (Motion To Strike).
In its Motion To 4
Strike, LILCO, inter alia, challenged the qualifications of Suffolk County's experts to testify as to matters figuring prominently in their testimony.
At the time of LILCO's August 7 filing, however, Suffolk County had not specified the sponsor of each element of testimony.
Pursuant to the Board's Order, Suffolk County filed on August 17, 1984 its Identification Of Witnesses Offering Specific Elements Of Testimony Regarding The County's Emergency Diesel Generator Contentions (Identification Of Witnesses).
8408310224 840829 0'
k, M' !
PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
PDR y.gh.X" 3SC3
6 a.
Based on the County's Identification of Witnesses, LILCO respectfully supplements its August 7, 1984 Motion.To Strike with a specific showing that suffolk County's witnesses are not
" qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or educa-tion" to express expert' opinions on certain matters.
See Fed.
R. Evid. 702.
Because Suffolk County has, for the most part, sought-to. support its Contentions based on attacks on LILCO's analysis, rather than the County's own independent. analysis, the credentials.of its witnesses should receive particular scrutiny.
Without such close examination, it is all too easy for Suffolk County to clothe un' supported and unreliable infer.
'l ences in eloquent garb, escaping the requirement that this pro--
ceeding be based on truth and not rhetoric.
The complexity of the matters before the Board renders meaningless opinion testi-mony by witnesses that have failed to demonstrate their ex-pertise.
Their testimony should not be allowed.
In support of this Supplemental Motion, LILCO states:
A.
AE PISTON SKIRTS (1)
Pace 28. first ouestion and answer, sponsored by all witnesses - This question asks'the witnesses to opine as to whether the difference in the experimental and finite element results is "quite good."
In order to provide an answer that is meaningful, the witnesses must possess a knowledge of the intricacies of~ finite element modeling.
In order to offer the.. _ -,_
w
- Board an evaluation of the finite element versus experimental
~
results, the witnesses should be required to demonstrate a working knowledge of~the complexities of modeling a structure and the factors inherent in choosing boundary conditions, ele-
-ments and nodes.
A witness with merely a lay or rudimentary knowledge of the finite element method and no experience inter-results-preting and using the results of the finite element should not be allowed to offer " expert" testimony in this pro-ceeding.
Finite element analysis is widely used by trained experts to determine the structural integrity of a wide range of struc-tures, but it is not subject to any meaningful scrutiny by a witness who lacks experience in the area.
None of the witness-es testifying on behalf of Suffolk County have demonstrated an expertise in finite element analysis.
Therefore, this answer should be stricken.
In fact, four of the witnesses have specifically denied any experience in this area.. The other two have indicated no experience in their credentials or their deposition.
For instance, Anderson responded to a question regarding the finite element method as follows:
Q.
Do you consider yourself an expert or qualified in the mechanics of finite dynamics?
A.
Finite dynamics.
No, I seldom work in that area..
l Anderson Deposition-(May 16, 1984) at 91.
(Attachment 1).
On May 3, 1984, Eley described his understanding of the finite element method as follows:
Q.
Do.you understand the finite element analysis?
I would not have the capability of A.
completing a finite element analysis myself.
Eley Deposition (May 3, 1984) at 166.
(Attachment 2).
Likewise, Hubbard testified that he does not know how to do a finite element analysis.. Hubbard Deposition (May 15, 1983) at 63.
(Attachment 3).
Finally, Christensen testified as follows:
-Q.
Did you have an occasion, Professor Christensen, to review the FaAA fi-nite element analysis of the replace-ment crankshafts?
A.
I did look at that, yes.
Q.
What if anything, sir, did you deter-mine after you looked at.that?
A.
We will, I will be.quite frank.
I went back to my textbooks on finite element analysis because it is not an area in which I could consider myself as an expert, not in any way.
~
As.I mentioned earlier, I am not an expert on finite element analysis, three dimensional finite element-analysis, but I think I know enough to be very cautious in its usage.
Christensen Deposition (May 9, 1984) at 289, 291.
(Attachment l
l.
- - ' " - - " ~
= ~
Y" ' -'
m y,.
.w w
The knowledge that Christensen obtained in order to review 4).
the FaAA finite element methodology came primarily from an in-troduction to finite element analysis contained in a As Christensen stat-McGraw-Hill mechanical engineers series.
ed:
i
[t]he preface of the book, which is the reason that I bought the book, it is not a methodology to be able to carry out a finite element analysis of calculations, it is a book which is more or less '
telling you the whys and wherefores lof it, as the book says in the introduction.
By his own admission, this does not make Chris-Id. at 292.
tensen an expert in the finite element method.
Paaes 28-29. second ouestion and answer, sponsored (2) by Anderson and sentences on Pace 29 by all witnesses - The en-tire answer details an explanation of the difference between the experimental and finite element results. The answer in its entirety should be stricken.
As demonstrated, without a thor-ough understanding of the process involved in modeling a com-plex component or experience in interpreting finite element re-suits, Anderson is not qualified to opine as to the percentage Further-accuracy or inaccuracy of the finite element results.
more, Anderson represents a general familiarity with the " usual "when methodology" of finite element analysis and states that
[it] may be an excellent tool for evaluating its crocerly done, structure."
(Emphasis added).
Without experience with finite -
. =..
,e.
element analysis, there is no basis for the witness opining about the FaAA analysis versus what is typical or proper in the finite element method.
The final sentence in the answer con-cludes that "the greater weight must be given to the results of
'the finite element analysis - that cracks are predicted to ini-This conclusion is without foundation because, by
-tiate".
their own admissions, the witnesses lack the requisite experi-ence with finite element analysis to offer this opinion.
(3)
Paaes 31-32. first full cuestion and answer, Bakshi - The last sponsored by Anderson. Christensen. Eley.
sentence of the answer, which continues on Page 32, should be stricken because it speculates as to the effect of higher peak firing pressure on the likelihood of AE piston skirt crack The crack initiation predicted in the FaAA Piston Report.
initiation predicted by FaAA was predicated on the finite ele-Eley has declared that he knows nothing about ment results.
finite element analysis, and Anderson and Christensen are not Baksi.1's credentials demonstrate no ex-experts in the area.
pertise with finite element analysis.
None of the witnesses can verify the effect of a higher peak firing pressure because they are not capable of performing a finite element analysis.
The witnesses do not have the expertise to offer this testi-Without a familiarity with and an ability to reiterate many.
the finite element results using a greater peak firing
l pressure, there is no basisfor:the-conclusion in the last sen-tence,of the answer continuing from Page 31'to 32.
Pace 34.'last sentence of the answer carried over (4) from Pace 33. sponscred by all witnesses - This testimony should be stricken for the reasons set forth1in Paragraph (3),
Section'A, of this Supplemental Motion.
-(5)
Pace 34-35, first full cuestion and answer,_
Anderson - The answer should be stricken in its soonsored by entirety. - The' question talks about assumptions in FaAA's Most of the alleged assumptions
" fracture mechanics analysis."
discussed by Anderson, however,-involve the finite element analyses that predicted the' stresses that were ultimately used The failure of Andersen to in the' fracture mechanics analysis.
recognize this fact merely reinforces the fact that he lacks.
familiarity and experience with-the finite element analysis, as well as with fracture mechanics analysis.
By his own admis-sion, Anderson does not have any experience with the finite el-ement method and should not be allowed to offer evidence crit-icizing the correctness of assumptions used in FaAA's finite Anderson has no ability to transform his element analysis.
He also has mere' speculation in to any meaningful analysis.
not demonstrated an expertise in fracture mechanics analysis, a Anderson's subset of the discipline of mechanical metallurgy.
temperature, principal area of expertise is the " chemical, f i
h d
amics of metals."
Anderson Deposition (May 1
' chemical t ermo yn 10, 1984) at 58.
(Attachment 5).
of the Pace 36, last sentence and oaraaraoh-(l)
(6)
' answer carried over from Pace 35, soonsored by Anderson - Once again, the answer should be stricken because the witness opines about the assumption in "the mathematics of FaAA's analysis" without the requisite expertise or experience to evaluate the finite element analysia.
Pace 39, first full cuestion and answer, soonsored (7)
Anderson - The answer should be stricken in its entirety be-
[l by cause the witness opines as to what could have been done in Without the requisite expertise or experience FaAA's analysis.
answer is nothing
-with the finite element method, the witness' more than a lay person's list of wishes that may or may not be related to the validity of the finite element analyses Without the necesssary under-underlying FaAA conclusions.
standing of the finite element method, the witness should not be allowed to offer such testimony under the guise of ex-pertise.
Pace 40, first full cuestion and answer, sponsored (8) by Anderson - The first and fifth sentences should be stricken Section A, of this for the reasons set forth in Paragraph (7),
Supplemental Motion.
_g_
..,____,m..,,.
n.
(9)
Pace 47, first~ full cuestion and answer, soonsored all-witnesses - This answer offers a general conclusion by about the probability of crack initiation _'and propagation in the Shoreham AE piston skirts.
The answer summarizes the crit-icisms of the FaAA finite element and fracture mechanics analy-For all-the' reasons previously set forth, none of the ses.
witnesses has the-expertise or experience to evaluate and judge
'the adequacy of the finite element analyses.. The answer >should-be stricken'in its entirety.
j B.
REPLACEMENT CYLINDER HEADS 1
(1)
Pace 62, Paracraphs (a), (d) and (f), oortions sponsored by Hubbard - The conclusions stated in Paragraphs (a) and (f) necessitate an understanding of fracture mechanics, yet Hubbard has stated that he is not familiar with the principles of fracture mechanics.
Hubbard Deposition (May 15, 1984) at
- 64. (Attachment 3).
Hubbard has also stated that, with the ex-ception of metallurgy' courses, he has had no background in casting methods.
Id. at 25.
(Attachment 3).
He thus lacks the requisite expertise to formulate an opinion regarding the reproducibility or TDI's casting process, discussed in Para-graph (d).
(2)
Pace 68, Sentence becinnina " Fourth" in answer _
continuina from Pace 67, portions soonsored by Hubbard - The 4
fourth point made in this answer requires familiarity with the
_g.
~ _,,..,.
.,..n
,,,..+---,..-.n
-,n.--,,v,.
principles of fracture mechanics.
Hubbard has stated that he has.no such familiarity.
(3)
Pace 74, answer to final cuestion on Pace 73, cortions soonsored by'Hubbard - Hubbard'has no expertise with which to judge.FaAA's design analysis, as he lacks expertise in the principles'of-fracture mechanics.
(4)
Pace 78, first and second Questions and answers, soonsored by Anderson -' Answering these questions requires ex-pertise in the area of foundry practices-for large steel cast-Anderson has stated that he:does not consider himself to ings.
j be an expert in foundry practices; that he has never been em-ployed by a foundry; that he has done consulting work mainly for foundries that produce small castings; and that although he has been involved in analyzing a number of casting problems, he has never analyzed cylinder heads prior to this case.
Ande; son Deposition (August 4, 1984) at 15-19.
(Attachment 6).
As Anderson is the sole sponsor of these questions, these two questions and answers should be stricken.
(5)
Pace 80, answer to second cuestion, oortions soonsored by Anderson, Hubbard - This question also requires I
the type of expertise in foundry and casting procedures which both Anderson and Hubbard lack.
I o
> c.
Egggs_11-83. second ouestion and answer, soonsored (6) l by Anderggn The answer to this question. requires an eva ua-
. Anderson does not tion of casting improvements made by TDI.
have.the requisite expertise in foundry practices to evaluate Since Anderson is the sole sponsor of TDI casting changes.
it should be stricken along with the answer.
this question, CRANKSHAFT SHOTPEENING~
C.
Pace 133. second auestion and answer, portions (1) sponsored by Christensen - The answer to this question requires
)
knowledge of stress analysis and fatigue analysis since it at-l tempts to define the most critical area of fatigue initiation Additionally, it also relates to metallur-in the crankshafts.
gical matters in terms of the effect of shotpeening on the ul-timate tensile strength or yield stress of the fillet material Nowhere in the qualifications, testimony of the crankshafts.
or deposition transcript of Christensen is there any indication that he is knowledgeable, either as a result of education or i
l training, on stress analysis, fatigue analysis or metallurg ca Indeed, a review of Christensen's qualifications and matters.
if not all, of his deposition testimony indicates that most, his experience relates to the operating aspects of diesel en-Thus, Christensen lacks the requi-gines, particularly marine.
site education or training.
+-
Paae 134,-first auestion and answer. second (2) sentence, portions soonsored by Christensen - This answer pre-supposes metallurgical knowledge.about the effect of heat upon -
Again, nowhere.in the qualifications of Chris-
- shotpeening.
tensen, his testimony or deposition is there any indication that he has any education or-training.in metallurgical matters sufficient to enable him to offer such an opinion.
Pace 135, both ouestions and answers cortions (3)
Again, both of these questions'and soonsored by Christensen -
f answers require again, a detailed knowledge of metallurgy and Christensen has not dem-f-
particular knowledge of shotpeening.
Thus, Christensen should onstrated competence in these areas.
not be permitted to sponsor this testimony.
Pace 138, first ouestion and answer, first
~
(4)
Elev and Bakshi -
sentence, oortions soonsored by Christensen.
This question and answer again presupposes a knowledge of i-3 Neither the stress analysis and fatigue initiation analysis.
testimony, nor the qualifications or depositions of Chris-tensen, Eley or Bakshi indicate any education, training or com-petence in these areas.
(5)
Paaes 138-139, second cuestion and answert beainnina of the second sentence, oortions soonsored by Christensen and Bakshi - This question and answer also assumes a knowledge of stress analysis, metallurgical matters and
?
These witnesses do not have this experience in shotpoening.
ify
- prerequisite knowledge and-should not be' permitted to test on those' matters.
I first and second cuestion and answert (6)
Paae 140.
by Christensen --Both of these questions portions soonsored and answers relate to the-metallurgical properties of the crankshafts and the effect on them of shotpeening correctly, Thus, they require a de-and allegedly incorrectly, performed.
i As tailed knowledge of metallurgical matters and shotpeen ng.
U demonstrated earlier, Christensen does not possess this knowl-
\\
l Thus, Christensen should be precluded.
edge.
portions (7)
P_ ace 142. second cuestion and answer, soonsored by Christensen - This question and answer also re-i quire detailed knowledge of fatigue analysis, stress analys s, Christensen does not metallurical matters and shotpeening.
have the requisite knowledge of these matters.
D.
CYLINDER BLOCKS Pace 162, first ouestion and answer, soonyored by (1)
Bakshi last two sentences, Eley, Anderson, Christensen; all but finite ele-
- This question asks about the accuracy of FaAA s ment analysis in showing the effects of stress on the top of The witnesses do not possess the working, detailed i
the blocks.
understanding of finite element analysis necessary to offer an
~
None of Suffolk opinion as to the accuracy of FaAA's analysis.
I 13-
-e-r r-w
r c-w-
e-,-v.-
,,--m-r
~ wee ~v m, -- e r w w w u--
p
if I
County's witnesses can' reduce the assumed boundary conditions and modeling required in a finite element analysis to mathemat-ical formulas and then run the finite element-analysis to de-
~
Without the demonstrated _ expertise or termir.e its accuracy.
experience to offer this opinion, the answer should be stricken.
(2)
Pace 163,'first auestion and answer, soonsored by Anderson, Christensen. Eley, Bakshi - This question requests the witnesses to opine on how FaAA's allegedly incorrect or non-conservative assumptions affected conclusions regarding l
crack growth predicted by-the finite element analysis.
- Again, these witnesses have no knowledge of how-any_ supposed.assump-tions were reduced to mathematical formulas, or how these num-1 bers were factored into the finite element analysis, or what effects,-if any, such assumptions had on the results.
The County's witnesses cannot.say whether FaAA's alleged f
assumptions had no effect, a 1% effect, or a 10%, 50% or 100%
4 effect on the analysis.
Hence, their testimony is couched in language like " cracks miaht well initiate" and "it.is not pos-sible to state by what percentage the FaAA conclusion is in
~ error."
The reason for'this is simple - these witnesses are not qualified to offer expert opinions on finite element analy-sis and the answer should be stricken.
I
_14 I
i
L, E.
CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing the-reasons, the noted portions of the Joint Direct Testimony of Dr. Robert N. Anderson, Pro-fessor Stanley G. Christensen, G. Dennis Eley, Aneesh Bakshi, Dale ~G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard should be stricken.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY f
.A l
E. Milton Farley, III r
I Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 19230 Washington, D. C. 20036 W. Taylor Reveley, III T. S. Ellis, III Darla B. Tarletz Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
David Dreifus Hunton & Williams P. O. Box.109 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 DATED:
August 29, 1984.
LILCO,-AuguOt 29, 1984 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
\\
In the Matter of.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL) hkO IherebycertifythatcopiesofLILCO'sSupplegyptalMo-r.0 P/2:37 tion To Strike Portions'Of The Joint Direct Testimony Of Robert N. Anderson, Professor Stanley G. Christense [kbbf?
Dennis
'Ek Eley, Aneesh Bakshi, Dale G. Bridenbaugh, and Richard B.
Hubbard were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by hand as indicated by an asterisk:
Secretary of the~ Commission
(
'i Lawrence Brenner,.Esq.*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel _
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel 4350 East-West Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Fourth Floor (North Tower)
Commission.
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris
- Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Administrative Judge Board Panel
]
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission 4350 East-West Highway Robert E. Smith, Esq.
Fourth Floor (North Tower)
Guggenheimer & Untermyer Bethesda, Maryland 20814 80 Pine Street New York, N.Y.
10005 F
Dr. George A. Ferguson*
i
-Administrative Judge Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
School of Engineering Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Howard University Alan R. Dynner, Esq.
l 2300 6th Street, N.W.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Washington, D.C.
20059 Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
' Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*
8th Floor David A.'Repka, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
l Commission Twomey, Latham & Shea i
Maryland National Bank Bldg.
33 West Second Street 7735 Old Georgetown Road P. O. Box 398 Bethesda, Maryland 20814-Riverhead, New York 11901 I
e-
---ear e
,.w-w
,-----%-r y,nm,--v.,7-4---,v.ww---s----s, e,
n w w --, # m -- -v ew w-
-em, wy-g..=-vy--wwmm--*y-',,-,,+qy n
m-Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
9 East 40th Street Attn:
New York, New York 10016 County Attorney' Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway-James Dougherty, Esq.
Hauppauge, New York 11787 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C.
20008 Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Energy Research Group Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
4001 Totten Pond Road New York State Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza MHB Technical Associates Albany, New York 12223 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K Howard L. Blau San Jose, California 95125 217 Newbridge Road i
Hicksville, New York 11801 f:
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Fabian G.-Palomino, Esq.
Special Counsel to the
' Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
[..
i Hunton & Williams
/
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue P. O. Box 19230 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATED:
August 29, 1984 i
l
.... ~
. - - - -. - -