ML20244D430

Applicant Objection in Nature of Motion in Limine to Admission in Evidence of Prefiled Testimony of H Harris.* Testimony Not Matl or Relevant to Any Issue Presently Before ASLB

ML20244D430
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/05/1989
From:	Cook G PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20244D394	List: ML20244D390 ML20244D430 ML20244D442 ML20244D456 ML20244D462
References
OL, NUDOCS 8906190055
Download: ML20244D430 (9)

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .

.- PDLKEirP

.u g June' 5, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUL*. TORY COMMISSION 5l,..

before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. } 50-444-OL

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site Emergency

) Planning Issues)

)

APPLICANTS' OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF DR. HOWARD HARRIS Applicants object to and move this Board in the nature of a motion ID limine to exclude as evidence in this proceeding the "Testirony of Dr. Howard Harris on Behalf of James M. Shannon, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Concerning JI-13 and MAG EX-11 (Training)"

[ hereinafter " Testimony"). In support of their motion, Applicants say that the Testimony is not material or relevant to any issue presently before this Board.

I CClisJRIE .NS 8906190055 890605 PDR ADOCK 0500 T

SUMMARY

OF TESTIMONY The Testimony announces its intent to address JI 13, j which concerns the alleged inadequacy of the prerequisites and training for eight specific ORO positions, but the witness instead examines the process through which the SPMC's training program was developed. The witness's purpose, he writes, is to assess "the overall design of the SPMC's training" and not the content of that training. Within this concededly " broad conceptual framework," Dr. Harris postulates a naed for " meaningful verbal learning." He describes learning as the act of understanding new material in relation to previous knowledge and expe.rience. Then, instead of examining the previous experience associated with each of the prerequisites specifically at issue, the l

Testimony makes only the general supposition that all trainees may not have significant relevant experience.

The Testimony's remaining paragraphs discuss a theory called "the psychology of meaningful verbal learning" and apply the theory to the Training System Development ("TSD") q process used by the SPMC. The theory, according to the witness, calls for repeated exposure to new concepts and a l 1

sequence of instruction that moves from general information i

to specific issues. Dr. Harris goes through the conceptual i

elements of TSD and, in every case, concludes that the design l of the NHY ORO training program does not provide sufficient l

j i

i

I documentation, explanation, or structure.to insure that such l' a repetitior,or-sequential movement takes place. Dr. Harris concludes not that any training itself is-inaccurate or incomplete but that,the training program as a whole needs to 1

be rede< signed. -!

I ARGUMENT The Testimony lies outside the scope of the contentions still being litigated in this proceeding. Specifically, the Attorney General of Massachusetts (" Mass AG") has withdrawn the one contention, JI 14, that would have raised a general attack on the'overall design of Applicants' training program.

Moreover, although the Testimony is offered to support JI Contention 13, gag Testimony at 4; Trial Brief of the i Massachusetts Attorney General [ hereinafter " Trial Brief") at 29p(April 10, 1989), that contention-is concerned predominantly with the prerequisite experience for particular

)

ORO positions and incorporates the issue of the content of I

training only as a substitute for experience. Finally, l despite the Mass AG's suggestion-that the Testimony is i relevant to MAG Ex-11, that contention does not support the  :

Testimony's general attack on the overall design of the i SPMC's training program. j The only contention that would have supported the Testimony was JI Contention 14. JI 14, which questioned the adequacy of the ORO's training, was focused and defined by  !

a

=' its Basis, which criticized the'overall quality'of...the-training process. It stated, A review of the'ORO training modules and

information received from those who have received ORO training indicates'that'the'. training;is-entirely too general.in nature,.is muc?. too brief, 11 Det well done [ emphasis added),. arf aoes:not qualify ORO staffers to perform their jobs under ,

the difficult.and confusing circumstances.that willi prevail in the. event'of a serious radiological emergency at seabrook Station.

Joint Intervenor (JI) Contentions on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC), at 30 (October. 28; 1988).

That JI-l4 was a general critique.of training technique, as opposed to the position-specific criticisms of JI 13, i's confirmed.by an examination of the original MAG 79 (incorporated in JI 13) and MAG 80 (incorporated in JI 14).

The NRC staff also-observed the difference in character between the two contentions. When'it first responded.to the contentions, the. staff raised no objection to MAG 79-(JI 13).

provided it was " limited to the examples. set out in the bases for the contention." The staff objected,'however, to the-

" broad generalizations about the inadequacy of the utility-training program" in MAG 80.(JI 14). NRC Staff's Resoonse to

, Contentions Filed by Towns of Amesbury. Newbury, Salisbury and West Newbury, the Cities of Haverhill and Newburvoort, and by the Massachusetts Attorney General. NECNP and SAPL, at 53-64 (June 17, 1988). The staff argued that MAG 801(JI 14) did "not provide notice of any specific issue to be

- - - - - - - - - - . - - -_ __.---_--1_________.

litigated" and "should be rejected for lack of . . .

specificity." Id.

When the Mass AG replied to the Applicants' and Staff's

. objections, he explicitly claimed that the " issue" in MAG 80 (JI 14) was "the adequacy of the training modules." Reolv of the Massachusetts Attorney General to'the Response of the NRC Staff and the Aeolicants to Contentions 7 Throuch 83 Filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General, at 50 (June 22, 1988).

Mass AG himself, then, recognized the distinction between the specific concern in'JI 13 for the content of any training that would compensate for experience and the general criticism in JI 14 of the design of Applicants' entire training program.

Joint Intervenor Contention 14, however, was withdrawn as part of the February 7, 1989 stipulation that was agreed to i

and signed by Applicants and the Mass AG. Egg Joint j i

Stimulation Recardina Status of Admitted Contentions j

[" Stipulation"), at 2-4 (February 7, 1989). The Stipulation j withdrew JI 14 and most of the version of JI 13 contained in the October 28, 1988 version of the contentions.  !

l Significantly, the present JI 13 adopts no language from JI i

14. Each of Bases A, B, and D of JI 13 now contain the same claim--that training cannot compensate for inadequate experience--which the corresponding bases in the previous version of JI 13 included. And'the present Basis C to JI 13, by alleging that neither the PAR decision-makers' experience l

i C__1____ __

nor their training will enable them to make Appropriate choices, also attacks the content, and not the design, of the training provided. Any claim Interveners had:to present testimony criticizing the design of the SPMC's training program was withdrawn along with JI Contention 14.

Mass AG is bound by the Stipulation. The withdrawal of JI 14 was part of the overall stipulation, which involved consideration for both sides. The specific exchange involved relative to JI 14 was withdrawal of that contention (and the ,

narrowing of JI 13) in exchange for treating training as a Second Part -- i.e., April 3 instead of February 21 -- issue.

Mass AG, having taken the benefit of that stipulation, cannot now be heard to renounce it. Kansas Gas & Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-26, 20 NRC 53, 58 n.2 (1984), aff'd, ALAB-798, 21 NRC 357 (1985).

Because Mass AG has expressly withdrawn the only contention that would have supported a general,. theoretical criticism of Applicants' training program, the Testimony should be excluded as irrelevant.

JI 13, and Bases A, B, and D, raise the issue of training only by asserting, in the last sentence of each basis, the perfunctory statement that "The training provided by the SPMC is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency." This allegation, by using the term

" compensate," challenges the sufficiency, or content, of training as a substitute for particular stated prerequisites.

i i

4 ..

• In' Basis C, it is-the end result of training, the' ability of ORO personnel "to make appropriate PAR decisions," not the process used to train, that is alleged to be inadequate. The Testimony, on the other hand, by evaluating the "overall design" of the training performed against the " psychology of meaningful verbal learning,"-constitutes a general, theoreticalLattack upon the entire structure of Applicants' training program. For example, it alleges that the SPMC lacks an "overa11' instructional plan," questions whether.what is presented in the classroom will be " reinforced" through drills and exercises, and challenges a perceived emphasis on

" guidelines and policies" over " learning theory" and

" instructional methodology." Testimony, 11-12. By ignoring the eight ORO positions put at i'ssue in JI 13 and instead choosing to find fault with the design of the SPMC's training, the Testimony goes far beyond the scope of JI Contention 13.

Mass AG also argues that the Testimony is offered to 4 l

address Contention MAG EX-11, Basis B(~ . Trial Brief at 28-

29. Basis B(3) alleges that "The Exercise demonstrates a fundamental need for greater flexibility in shaping -)

-l appropriate PARS for the Massachusetts communities."- When the Board admitted MAG EX-11, it observed that the  !

contention and its bases challenge ORO's judgment in making PARS, asserting that that judgment was  !

flawed. We therefore will treat this contention as asserting a fundamental flaw in ORO's training program which is required by sec. 50.47(b) (14),

(15), and (16), and par. IV of App. E. If after hearing, the Attorney General's allegations concerning ORO's lack of judgment in making' PARS are substantiated, significant revisions in the training program may be required.

Memorandum and Order (Rulina on June 1988 General Exercise Contentions), at 33-34 (Dec. 15, 1988).

The Board's conclusion that MAG EX-11 chiefly alleges errors in judgment makes it manifest that the thrust of this contention is how well the substantive content of the ORO's training prepares trainees to make decisions, not the details of the process by which the training proceeds. Moreover, the NRC regulations cited by the Board, which define the purpose and the evaluation of training, concentrate on content. In particular, Appendix E, parafraph IV, subpart F of 10 CTR Part 50, which requires a description of the training program, states that the purpose of exercises is to " test the adequacy of timing and content [ emphasis added) of implementing procedures and methods . . . and ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties." Finally, subpart F's focus on the need to correct any " weak or deficient areas" in training demonstrates that knowledge of the subject matter is the relevant issue. .In sum, though the Board has interpreted Basis (B) (3) to challenge the adequacy of the ORO's training, the basis indicts the ability to choose appropriate PARS, which reflects the content of specific training, not the design used in planning and creating the overall training program.

0 Therefore, the Testimony, with its' general attack on training-

~ design, also falls outside of Contention MAG EX-11.

CONCLUSION.

For the reasons stated above, the Testim'ony'should be. _j excluded.

Respectfully submitted, l

\ j

<j M f b - ..f7 ,

Thomas G.' Digpan, Jr.

George H.'Lewald .

Kathryn-A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout 1 Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey.C. Cook William L. Parker Ropes & Gray l 1 International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 951-7000 a

l

-i i i l

l l l l ,

1

. - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _