ML20080D202

Motion to Strike H Pearlman Testimony Re 15 C Graphite Temp Due to Wigner Release.New Conclusion Inserted Into Evidence W/O Supporting Basis.Declaration of Svc Encl

ML20080D202
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	08/26/1983
From:	Hirsch D GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308300234
Download: ML20080D202 (7)

Text

_

TEO COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 8/26/83 00ggC u

1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Ios Angeles, California 90025 (213)478-0829 '83 AUG 29 All:23 0FFE OF SECREiuy UNITED STATES & AMERICA $NffchERVU NUCIEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

& CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of i FacilityLicense)

(UCIA Research Reactor)

BOARD NOTIFICATION AND MCffION TO STRIEE AS TO TESTIMON OF DR. HARRY ~PEARLMAN l

I. Introduction During the July 19 - August 2, 1983, evidentiary hearings on inherent safety matters, several disputes arose as to the testimony of Applicant's witness Dr. Harry Pearlman. The Atomic Safety and Licensing l

Board provided CBG an opportunity to move to strike certain portions of Dr. Pearlman's testimony, motion to be submitted after the hearing (TR 1870) and additionally requested that CBG notify the Board, by August 26, whether it wished to have Dr. Pearlmn recalled as a witness in October (TR 1872).

CBG hereby moves to strike Dr. Peariman's last answer on re-re-direct, and notifies the Board that recalling Dr. Pearlman in October will not rectify the problems occasioned by Applicant's handling of Dr. Pearlman's testimony.M 8308300234 830826 PDR G

ADOCK 05000142 PDR M In order to expedite scheduling decisions relttive to the October hearing, tf.e Board was informed last week by telephone of the decision not to recall Dr. Pearlman. '

)

II. Background On June 15, 1983, the Applicant served its profiled written testimony. Included therein was written testimony by Dr. Harry Pearlman on the m tter of Wigner energy storage in graphite.

Dr. Pearlman's testimony consisted primarily of certain generalized observations and a numerical conclusions graphite temperature after Wigner release asserted to be 108 degrees C if the release occurred in 1983, 178 degrees C if in the year 2000 (Testimonyat4). Dr. Pearlman, in that testimony, provided no calculations showing how he reached those conclusions, nor any input numbers except the estimated total thermal neutron exposure in the year 2000. Despite assertions in his written testimony that the input parameters used by Mr. Hawley and Mr. duPont were in error as to operating temperature, rate of accumulation, specific heat italues, finx, and operating history (testimony at p. 5), Dr. Pearlman provided in his testimony neither basis for the assertions that the parameters used by others were in error nor did he identify the parametemshe himself had utilized. Preparation for cross-examination was thus essentially impossible, as the witness's prefiled testimony merely recited a conclusion without any of the underlying inputs that led to that conclusion. While understanding that a witness need not, and probably cannot, detail every input leading to a conclusion, CBG was left merely with the conclusion and none of the inputs.

At the commencement of the evidentiary hearing, counsel for Applicant identified a series of exhibits he wished to introduce that were not profiled. Included therein were four pages of detailed calculations performed by Dr. Pearlman. (TR1046). There was strenuous objection by CBG to admitting the exhibit, which constituted the heart' of Dr. Pearlman's

'estimony, when it was not included in the profiled testimony, -

3_

and thus denied CBG the necessary preparation for cross-examina' tion.

When Dr. Pearlman took the stand, he made a number of additional correcticns and additions to the testimony and proferred exhibit. One of the two central conclusory numbers in the testimony was altered (from 108 0C to 118 C), a number of other numbers were changed, and an important new assumption was added to the calculation exhibit (the statement that the 1

) calculation was based on the assumption that one megawatt-day at the UCIA reactor is equal to one megawatt-day ver adjacent _ ton at Hanford).

'Ihe Board denied admission of the late-filed calculation exhibit, l

but admitted the written testimony.21 CBG was Asked to begin cross-examination i on what matters it could, with the right to recall Dr. Pearlman at a later time.

I CBG pursued, as best it couid under the circumstances, the bases for Dr. I Pearlman's conclusions in his writtes testimony that the maximum graphite temperature due to Wigner release would be 118cc in 1983 and 178 C in r,he year 2000 CBG indicated (1T.1872) that its ability to cross-examin6 this witness had been severely injured. .The Board offered to re-call Dr. Pearlman y.

if that would help, and asked CBG to so notify it if that was the, case.

2 2] Over CBG foundttional objections.

4 Dr. Pearlman's Iast Answer After two days of examination of the bases for his calculation of a 17800 graphite temperature due to Wigner release in the year 2000, in response to a question by Applicant on re-re-direct for a qualitative answer, Dr. Pearlman turned his back on his own 178'C figure that had occupied the hearing so long and said that the true figure should be merely a 15 C temperature rise. 'Ihat figure had never come up before, was i

non-responsive to the question asked (certainly not a qualitative answer),

and beyond the scope of the re-cross.

l And it was extremely prejudicial. Dr. Pearlman had submitted testimony and calculations indicating that his estimate was 178*C ending temperature after a Wigner release. Despite the fact that the Applicant had shielded the basis for that cor.clusion from Intervenor until the hearing, CBG had to cross-examine essentially " blind" about the basis for that number. After two days of such cross-examination, at the close of re-re-direct, Dr. Pearlman, neither responsive to the question asked nor within the scope of re-cross, says the real number should be a 15 C rise.

Imaving everyone htek at square one, with a (new) conclusory number, and no calculations or basis given to support it.

III. Discussion

'Ihe injury occasioned by Applicant's handling of the Pearlman calculations supporting the 118 0 (1983) and 178*C (2000) conclusions cannot be rectified by recalling Dr. Pearlman in October response to those assertions will have to occur in some other fashion.

-5 The matter of the new 15 C conclusion, " snuck in" in response to a supposedly " qualitative" question on re-re-direct, can only be remedied I by striking the answer.

l The entire matter had previously been ruled out of order by the Board when counsel for Applicant attempted to get the new figure 3(calculations Dr. Pearlman had performed on the effect of neutron transport differences, butwerenotincludedeitherinhistestimonynorhisexhibit)inonredirect.

(TR1834-6,1838-9). On re-redirect, k. Cormier again attempted to get the new number in, asking "aside from your calculation','" "what the real situation would be?" &. Cormier asked the question with a preface that Dr. Pearlman had " mentioned"in recross "something" about it.

CBG objected tPr.t the matter was beyond the scope of recross

and had previously been ruled out of order. h. Cormier respo51ed by saying he only wanted a qualitative response, not a quantitative one as had previously been ruled out. Cn that basis, the question was permitted. Dr. Pearlman I answered (TR 1869)in qualit&tiva-terms, and when he began to attempt to summarize his testimony, Judge Frye indicated that, the question had been answered. , W. Carmier insisted that there was more to the answer, and at that point (TR 1870) Dr. Pearlman gave his non-qualitative, 1500 figure, although the calculations providing foundation for it remain unknown.

CBG moved to strike, and Judge Frye indicated that he wished to move off that subject and would consider a motion to strike after the hearing.

This pleading is that motion.

IV. Conclusion The injury occasioned to CBG by Applicant shielding the calculations forming the basis for Dr. Pearlman's conclusions in his written testimony of a 118-178*C graphite temperature after a Wigner release cannot be remedied by recalling him in October.

I

Permitting Applicant to " sneak" in, at the end of two days of cross-examination on the 118-178 C figures, a totally new 15 C & conclusion, when the same matter had been ruled out of order on re-direct and was beyond the narrow scope of re-re-direct, would vastly compound the injury.

It was non-responsive to Mr. Cormier's " qualitative" question. Certainly if this indeed is Dr. Pearlman's conclusion on the Vigner natter, it should have been in the written testimony, supported by calculations and available for thorough scrutiny, not " thrown in" on re-re-direct after two days of thorough ev==4mtion of completely different conclusions.

CBG therefore respectfully moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to strike Dr. Pearlman's 15 C answer at page 1870 of the transcript, lines 15-18.

Resp tfully bmitted, cl I

Daniel Hirsch President COMMITIEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP dated at Ben Iomond, CA this 26th day of August, 1983 l l

l UNITED STATES OF APERICA NUCLEt.R REGUIATORY COMMISSION EDr0RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIC:DISING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

& CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)

(UCIA Research Reactor) j DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: 30ARD NOTIFICATION AND MOTION TO STRIKE AS TO TESTIMONY & DR. HARRY FEARLFJui in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this dates August 26, 1983 .

John H. Frye, III, Chairman Christine'Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Glenn R. Woods U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 390 University Hall Dr. Emmoth A. Imebke 2200 University Avenue Administrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John Bay Washington, D.C. 20555 i 3755 Divisadero #203 San Francisco, CA 94123 Dr. Glenn C. Bright Administrative Judge j Atomic Safety and Licensing M Ms. Igun Naliboff i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy City Attorney Washington, D.C. 20555 City Hall 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section ** "'

Office of the Secretary Dorothy Thompson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Iaw Center Washington, D.C. 20555 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 Ios An6eles, CA 90048 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 attentions Ms. Colleen Woodhead ---

William H. Cormier Ms. Carole Kagan Esq.

Office of Administ2m tive Vice Chancellor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l University of California t

405 NCged Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was Los Angelee. CElifornia 90024 'gton,/[D.Q.20555

/,

yJ,7 l Ofw t

Daniel Hirsch President CCMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP

.