ML20214S061
| ML20214S061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1987 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214S063 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3659 OL-5, NUDOCS 8706090114 | |
| Download: ML20214S061 (6) | |
Text
--
5$fp $f 00tKETED WNPC June 1, 1987
'87 JDJ -4 M1 :43 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFE 1
00CF.E l iM
/ E F.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
' ' dU t
)
'.c In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY Suffolk County moves this Board to permit Suffolk County to present brief rebuttal testimony by Dr. Gary E. Simon on Contentions Ex 15/16.
The proposed rebuttal testimony is attached to this motion.
The need for submission of rebuttal testimony arose after Suffolk County's cross-examination of the LILCO Contention Ex 15/16 panel.
In that testimony, LILCO witness Dr. Hockert expressed the view -- and held to that view during cross-examination -- that the weights or values ascribed to standard FEMA objectives in the IEAL Report corresponded to some physical q!
reality.
Dr. Simon demonstrates in the rebuttal testimony o
8706090114 870601 PDR ADOCK 05000322
'l y
PDR 6
3 50
i attached hereto that Dr. Hockert's conclusions are not supportable based upon the methodology of Dr. Saaty which is utilized in the IEAL Report.
Suffolk County has no means of knowing what weight, if any, the Board might give to Dr. Hockert's testimony.
Suffolk County is concerned, however, that the Board may give some weight to that testimony which, as demonstrated in Dr. Simon's rebuttal testimony, is not reliable or probative.
The Board should not be in a position of having such non-probative evidence in the record absent an opportunity for Suffolk County to address that testimony and to demonstrate why, in the opinion of the County's expert, it is not reliable.
Suffolk County could not have anticipated the need to rebut Dr. Hockert's testimony in the Contention Ex 15/16 testimony which the County filed on April 6.
The County knew Dr. Hockert would rely in his testimony on the IEAL Report and the importance ranking system described therein.1 The County also knew that Dr. Hockert generally believed that exercise objectives of similar weights could be interchanged.
The County did not know, however, how Dr. Hockert would attempt to relate these matters to 1
The County learned what it knew of Dr. Hockert's anticipated testimony when it deposed Dr. Hockert on February 3, 1987, virtually the last day of discovery.
Even if the County had been able to determine from that deposition that it needed to rebut Dr. Hockert, this would have necessitated the designation of a new Contention Ex 15/16 witness well after the last witness designation date and at a time when all effort was being devoted to preparing the first set of exercise testimony.
Shoreham and the full participation exercise issue.
At the time of his February 6, 1987, deposition, Dr. Hockert had done little work in preparation for Shoreham testimony.
He had not reviewed the FEMA Report with any care, but did intend to do so to determine which standard objectives were addressed in the Shoreham exercise.
He said the FEMA Report would be the primary source for any Shoreham comparison he performed.
Hockert Dep. at 26-27, 29.
Dr. Hockert indicated at his deposition that he intended to provide testimony relating to how many objectives (from a weighting point of view) need to be tested in order to be a full participation exercise.
As of February 6, however, he had reached no judgment in this regard.
Hockert Dep. at 117-18.
He went on to state with respect to how he would account for objectives that were overlooked in the exercise:
I think, to be very honest with you, I am probably going to have to think a little bit more on that.
I appreciate your bringing it up, and I will try to address it fairly in the testimony.
Hockert Dep. at 120-21.
He stated with respect to questions on the school demonstration (EOC 18), that he had not concluded how he would assess the exercise performance.
Hockert Dep. at 122.
And, later, the following exchange occurred:
Q Are you going to take the Shoreham objectives, forget whether they were demonstrated or not, but the objectives that are in the Shoreham report, and see how close to one they add up to in your judgment?
A That was part of the analysis, yes, sir.
Q Have you performed that analysis?
A Not to a sufficient precision that I would care to state it at this time.
Q Well, you said you believe it was a full participation exercise based upon your comparison of the objectives.
A Yes.
Q Does that mean you believe that the number is somewhere over.50?
A Yes, sir.
That, I think -- I think what I have done so far is precise enough to say that.
I would be hesitant to say that it were, out to three decimal places.
I would like to recheck and be certain that I am correct before I say that.
Hockert Dep. at 122-23.
And in terms of adding up the weights in the Shoreham Exercise, the following exchange took place regarding EOC 18 which doesn't correspond precisely to a standard objective:
Q So, you are going to take, for instance, this early dismissal and figure which stancard objective it relates to the most, and assign either some or all of that weight to it since it is in here, since it is in the assessment report?
A Yeah, certainly some of that will come through.
The how you get from the sum or all or most is still not certain in my mind.
Q And that will be on the basis of judgment as opposed to a mathematical analysis?
A It will be as mathematically rigorous as I can make it.
Q How will you be able to make it mathematically rigorous?
o A
I have not looked at it enough to know for certain.
Hockert Dep. at 126-27.
In sum, as of April 6, the County knew only generally about Dr. Hockert's anticipated testimony.
The detail.s of Dr. Hockert's testimony were not available during discovery.
The County does not criticize Dr. Hockert or LILCO in this regard -- given the fast pace of discovery, some witnesses did not get deeply into their testimony work until after their discovery depositions.
The critical point for instant purposes, however, is that in these circumstances, the County could not determine how -- or indeed whether -- to seek to rebut Dr. Hockert's views.
Thus, good cause is demonstrated for the filing of rebuttal testimony.
Suffolk County has been timely in the preparation and submittal of this rebuttal testimony.
The need to submit rebuttal testimony arose only after Dr. Hockert was cross-examined on May 14 and adhered to certain statements contained in his April 6 testimony.
Thereafter, Suffolk County promptly asked Dr. Simon to review the transcript of May 14.
Dr. Simon prepared f
a draft of the rebuttal testimony on May 19.
However, due to the i
ongoing trial which occupied the undersigned Suffolk County l
counsel with lead responsibility on Contentions Ex 15/16 and 21 l
and the necessity for Dr. Simon to prepare for and appear as a witness on Contention Ex 21, it was not possible until the latter
o 9
part of last week to move the testimony from initial draft form to final form.
Dr. Simon reviewed the final draft form over this past weekend and gave final comments on it this morning.
We have spoken with Dr. Simon regarding his availability to appear to sponsor this rebuttal testimony.
Dr. Simon is generally available to appear during the weeks of June 9 and June 16, 1987.
We have not yet inquired regarding his availability to appear at other times.
Suffolk County respectfully requests that the Board consider this motion as one of the preliminary matters to be taken up by the Board on Tuesday, June 9, when the hearing reconvenes.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 N
Lawrence Coe LanpW6r Karla J. Letsche Michael S. Miller Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County J -.
__