ML20106E384
| ML20106E384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1985 |
| From: | Scheidt D KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-518 OL, NUDOCS 8502130297 | |
| Download: ML20106E384 (12) | |
Text
Sl)
-3 3
zN g TED @
SUFFOLK COUNTY, FEBRUARY 8, 1985
,3, s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'65 EE 11 A!1 5 7 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
(
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO y
STRIKE SUFFOLK COUNTY'S CYLINDER BLOCK TESTIMONY
\\
For the reasons discussed below, LILCO's Motion to Strike portions of the County's Cylinder Bl'ck Testimony should be de-nied.
I.
Question No. 7 LILCO has moved to strike the answer to Question No. 7 on two grounds:
(A) that the answer is unresponsive and lacks a proper foundation, and (B) that Mr. Bridenbaugh is not quali-fied to offer expert opinion on the particular subject matter.
Both arguments must be rejected.
A.
In Answer 7, Mr. Bridenbaugh states that measuring and strain gage monitoring of the cracks in the cam gallery.
k O
regions of the EDGs is necesuary for the reasons stated by Drs.
Anderson and Bush in their earlier testimony on the subject.
LILCO asserts that this testimony is not responsive to the questior. but fails to explain why it is not responsive.
In the absence of such explanation, the County does not understand LILCO's objection.
The question was intended to ask whether the County's position on measuring and strain gage monitoring had changed because of anything presented in LILCO's most re-cent testimony.
The County believes that the phrasing of the question is adequate for the purpose and that the answer is clearly responsive.
In any case, lack of " responsive'iess" is not a valid ground for excluding testimony.
See 10 CFR Section 2.743(c).
LILCO also asserts that this testimony lacks a proper foundation because the prior testimony of Drs. Anderson and Bush was given without the benefit of new data contained in-LILCO's additional testimony.
LILCO further asserts that the opinions of Drs. Anderson: and Bush might be different in light of this new data.
However, the prior testimony of those wit-
'nesses belies that assertion..Their prior testimony discloses-that their recommendation for measuring and strain gage moni-toring the cam gallery cracks would not have changed even if they had the new data available to them at the time.
. I
u
.i.
1
It is important first to note that the new data referred to by LILCO does not change LILCO's previous position concern-ing the can gallery cracking.
Indeed, in LILCO's recently filed testimony on this subject, LILCO acknowledged that fact in stating that the high magnification photographs and the x-ray crystallography results " confirmed LILCO's previous tes-timony that the cam gallery cracks in the original EDG 103 block were fabrication cracks that had not propagated during EDG operation."1/
LILCO also testified that the strain gage measurements confirmed LILCO's previous testimony that the cam gallery cracks are under compression.2/
Both Dr. Anderson and Dr. Bush, however, testified that, regardless of whether the cracks were fabricatio'n cracks that had not propagated during EDG operation and that were in com-pression during EDG operation, measurements and strain gage t
monitoring of the cam gallery cracks were required.3/
- Indeed, Dr. Bush agreed with LILCO's testimony that the cracks were 1/
See Additional Cylinder Elock Testimony of Dr. Duane P.
Johnson, et al.,
on behalf of Long Island Lighting Compa-ny, January 15, 1985, at.14; Tr. 26,525-26 (Rau).
2/
Id. at 20; Tr. 26,658-59 (Rau).
3/
See,-e.g.,
Tr. 26,767-68 (Anderson); Bush and Henriksen, i
ff. Tr. 26,775, at 4-6.
3.-
W 9
under ccupression and would not grow, but insisted that monitoring was necessary because the cam gallery cracks in EDG 101 and 102'had not been removed.1/
Monitoring was necessary, in Dr. Bush's opinion, even if the stress field in the cam gal-1ery was shown to be compressive through a test on EDG 103.1/
Dr. Anderson, who was aware of the preliminary strain gage results and had heard LILCO's testimony as to why monitoring was unnecessary, agreed with Dr. Bush that monitoring was nec-essary.
Dr. Anderson testified that even after all of the ex-aminations he recommended were performed, including x-ray crys-tallogra'phy, high magnification photography and strain gaging to ascertain residual stress levels, monitoring should still be' employed as an operational control.1/
In summary, it is clear from the context of the prior tes-timony by Drs. Anderson and Bush that their opinions in this area would not have been affected by the new data relied on by LILCO.-
LILCO's objection to the contrary is simply unsupportable.
4/.
- See, e.g.,
Bush and Henriksen, ff. Tr. 25,775, at 5.
5/
Id. at 6.
6/
Tr. 26,768 (Anderson).
9 B.
. LILCO also argues that the answer to Question No. 7 should be stricken on the basis that Mr. Bridenbaugh is not
~
qualified to offer expert testimony on the necessity for moni-
.toring cam gallery cracks (LILCO Motion at 6-7).
Without even
-attempting to support its assertion with any facts or analysis, LILCO baldly asserts that Mr. Bridenbaugh's testimony requires expertise in fracture mechanics analyses and the use of strain g
gage data to perform such analyses (LILCO Motion at 6).
The County disagrees with LILCO's assertion that Mr.
Bridenbaugh's testimony requires any expertise in fracture me-chanics analysis and strain gage. data.
Nevertheless, if any expertise in those fields were required to qualify the witness '
to give the testimony'in question, the County submits that it need be only the expertise to understand the meaning and sig-nificance.of fracture mechanices analysis and strain gage data, not-the expertise to perform a fracture mechanices. analysis or
. translate strain gage data from.one block to another as LILCO c'ontends.
The-County contends that Mr. Bridenbaugh does have the. training and-experience to understand the. meaning'and sig-
-nificance of fracture mechanices analysis and strain, gage data,
.and the testimony cited by LILCO.does not establish'the con -
/
trary.1/
Therefore, if it'is appropriate to challenge Mr.
s 7/-
Although Mr..Bridenbaugh did testify in his deposition Ethat he had no specific knowledge of whether the design (Footnote cont'd next page) e v.
r ll --
P' iig
Bridenbaugh's testimony on this basis at all, the challenge must await cross-examination to establish that Mr. Bridenbaugh
~does not in' fact possess that requisite expertise.
II.
Question and Answer Nos. 4 and 5 LILCO moves to strike portions of answer 4 and all of an-
.swer 5 in the event that the Board grants the County's motion to strike LILCO's cumulative damage testimony.
The County hereby withdraws its motion to strike the references to cumula-tive damage appearing on page 9/ answer 9 (second paragraph) and page 3/ answer 3.2 (third sentence) of LILCO's block testi-mony.
Those references were erroneously included in the Coun-ty's motion to strike the only other reference to cumulative
-damage calculations discussed in that motion, page 13/ answer 15 of LILCO's block testimony.
The County's withdrawal of the two (Footnote cont'd from previous page) differences between the EDG 103 block and the blocks on EDGs.lOl'and 102 would affect the transferability of the results.of the strain' gage testing in the cam' gallery area, Mr. Bridenbaugh's; deposition testimony goes on to describe the general bases for his opinion that the dif-ference in design make suspect-the relevancy of the endur-
-ance run on EDG-103 to the other EDGs.
Joint Deposition of Dale Bridenbaugh and Gregory Minor, December 18, 1984,
-at 63-64.
Those~ bases also. appear in greater detail in answer 6. of the County's cylinder block testimony.. This testimony further demonstrates that-Mr. Bridenbaugh is.
qualified to offer the challenged testimony.
. erroneously. included objections removes any alleged unfairness to LILCO.
The County continues to believe that the remaining reference to cumulative damage calculations should be stricken.
Striking that testimony works no unfairness to LILCO because the cumulative damage calculations which are the subject of tha. testimony are different calculations than the ones referred to in the County's Answers No. 4 and 5 here in ques-tion..
More particularly, the County's January 22, 1985 Motion to Strike-was really directed at LILCO's testimony at page 13/ answer-15 concerning cumulative damage calculations that were based on a so-called refined determination of stresses from'the' strain gage testing.
As the County's motion indi-cated, this.new testimony is outside the permissible scope of the ev'idence established by the Board's December 4, 1984 order
_because it does not concern the results of additional testing or inspections of the cylinder block after the endurance test run on EDG 103.
'In fact,.that testimony relates to refined cu--
mulative damage calculations based on strain gage testing pre-viously performed on the EDG-103 original block, and represents an improper attempt to supplement.the record on issues that were already closed, i.e.,
the adequacy of the blocks at 3500/3900kW (County Motion to Strike at 3).
7-
___.__________u-__-_---
T In moving to strike that testimony, the County mistakenly included the two additional references to cumulative damage analyses -- the portions of Answer No. 4 and 5 here in question
-- that were not based on a refined determination of stresses from the previously performed strain gage testing of the EDG 103 original block.
Because these two additional references relate to LILCO's original cumulative damage analysis and not to the " refined" newer one, they should not have been included in the County's motion and the County hereby withdraws its.mo-tion to strike those two references.
That disposes of LILCO's claim of prejudice and there is no other basis for striking the County's testimony here in issue.
For the foregoing reasons, LILCO's moti~on to strike the County's Cylinder Block Testimony should be denied.
e - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
1.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Y
~0 Alan ny Dyger Josep J. Brigati Douglas J.
Scheidt KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County February 8, 1985 e
O 9
9-
_____m_
~
swww %
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
- 05 0 _ 11 N157 In the Matter of
)
)
2.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No.5:..50-322-OL,r
)
~(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK. COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO~
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE SUFFOLK COUNTY'S CYLINDER BLOCK TESTIMONY, dated February 8,1985, have been cerved on the following this 8th dny of February, 1985, by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
' Lawrence J.!Brenner, Esq.*
MHB Technical Associates Administrative Judge 1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite K'
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Jose, California 95125 Washington, D.C.
20555 E. Milton Farley, III, Esq.*
Dr. George.A. Ferguson*
Hunton & Williams Administrative Judge P.O. Box 19230 Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
' School.of Engineering Washington, D.C.
20036
-Howard University 2300: 6th Street, N.W.
Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
Washington,.D.C.
20059 Hunton &' Williams 333 Fayetteville Street Dr. Peter'A.. Morris
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger lU.S.-~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York. State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel Long. Island Lighting Company James B. Dougherty, Esq.
250_Old. Country Road 3045 Perter Street,'N.W.
Mineola, New York-11501 Washington, D.C.
200FJ
I '
Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Guggenheimer & Untermyer Twomey, Latham & Shea 80 Pine Street' P.O. Box 398 New. York, New York 10005 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. Brian R. McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Mr. John Gallagher Shoreham Nuclear Power St'ation Deputy County Executive P.O. Box 618 H. Lee Dennison Building North Country Road Veterans Memorial Highway Wading River, New York 11792 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Joel-Blau, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond New Y'ork Public Service Commission Business / Financial
.The Governor. Nelson A. Rockefeller NEW YORK TIMES Building New York, New York 10036 Empire State Plaza
. Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
H. Lee Dennison Building Suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788.
Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Fabian Palomino, Esq.4
~
Special Counsel to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Governor Panel Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 l
Washington, D.C.
20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Appeal Board
.1717.H Street, N.W..
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.*
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
Staff Counsel
. Office of Exec. Legal Director
'New York State Public U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Service Commission
-Washington, D.C.
20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 r
~!.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq..
Rsgional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 4
L 1
N D'uglaj J. S peidt o
KIRKPA'{ RICK F LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE:
i By Federal Express By Hand Delivery
=
0
+
9
..i