ML20041E273
| ML20041E273 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203100314 | |
| Download: ML20041E273 (90) | |
Text
____________
py P
]
D, \\
NUCLEAR ' REGULATORT CleCSSICN l
yw
. p..
h,
/y./
3 sr
- s'\\
y G!
f
_j
[.\\
.' ;p s, y
~
%j;,,.__.
-y,
?
r III P.A.%t:::ar of:
)
THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al
)
)
-and
) DOCKET NO. 50-358-OL
)
WM. E.
ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1
)
DATE: March.4, 1982.
PAGTS:
7893 thru 7979 AT: Cincinnati, Ohio
-Tol 1
D/
.HDERSO.Y REPORTLTG O
E-k 400 v h p
'a Ave., S.W. Wa*hd".g.:=, D. C. 20024 i
O Talachc:a: (202) 554-2345 l
0 I
.t
, o n. k O'">M'l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
In the Matter of:
O THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.,
-and-Docket No. 50-358 OL WM. II. ZIliMER liUCLEAR POWER STATIOII, UNIT 1 Westin Ilotel Fountain Square Plaza Taft II Cincinnati, Ohio Thursday, 4 March 1982 The hearing in the a:acve-entitled matter was reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE:
JOllN H.
FRYE, III, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1
DR. FRANK F.
IlOOPER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1
DR. STANLEY LIVINGSTON, Member j
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
l l
I l
ACE REPORTING, INC.
216 E 9th St. / Barnster House / 6tn Floor CINCINNATl OHIO 45202 TELEPHONE. ARLA CODE $13 241 3200
1 L
=c APPEARANCES:
7894 1
()
Appearing on behalf of the Apolicant:
TROY B. CONNER, JR., Esq.
() 3 MARK WETTERHAHN, Esq.
Conner & Wetterhahn 4
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, D. C.
20006 S
-and-6 JEROME A. VENEMANN, Esq.
7 In-House Counsel Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company 8
4th and Main Streets Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 9
Appearing on behalf of the NRC Staff:
10 CHARLES A.
BARTH, Esq.
11 MYRON KARMAN, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director 12 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
( ) 13 Washington, D.
C.
20006 Pppearing on behalf of Intervenor Miami Vallev Proiect:
14 JAMES 3.
FELDMAN, JR., Esq.
15 Fifth Floor, Barrister House 216 East Ninth Street 16 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 17 Appearing on behalf of Intervenor Zimmer Area Citizens of Ohio and Kentucky:
18 ANDREW B.
DENNISON, Esq.
19 Dennison & Eckerson 200 Main Street 20 Batavia, Ohio 45103 21 Appearing on behalf of Intervenor Citizenry of Mentor:
22 DEBORAH FABER WEBB, Esq.
Attorney at Law 23 7967 Alexandria Pike
('-
Alexandria, Kentucky 41001
\\A 24 ACE REPORUNG. INC.
CINCINN ATl. OM60
3 PC Apoearina on behalf of Clermont County:
7895 1
{}
LAWRENCE R.
FISSE, Esq.
2 205 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 3
(}']
Appearing on behalf of Federal Emergency Management 4
Agency:
5 Brian P.
Cassidy, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel 6
Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, Southwest 7
Washington, D.
C.
20472 8
9 10 11 12
/'N
(-
s 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (D
k' 22 23 24 ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINCINNa rs. oMio
=
1 C0NTENTS 7896 O
2 WITNESS Cross 3
John W. Wesseler O
cart a ner9 r 4
Robert J. Howser Edwin M. Dyer 5
James G. Beasley By Mr. Dennison 7897 6
7 Jerry H. Monroe By Ms. Webb 7940 8
By Mr. Conner 7965 9
10 11 12 i O 13 l
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0
2 ACE REPORTING. INC.
CIMCINN Af t. OM40
1 1-PC EEOCEgD1NGS 7897 O
Whereueon, 2
JOHN W. WESSELER
()
EARL B.
BERGER 4
ROBERT J. HOWSER S
EDWIN M. DYER 6
JAMES G. BEASLEY 7
called as witnesses by counsel for the Intervenor Zimmer Area 8
Citizens of Ohio and Kentucky, having first been duly sworn 9
by the Chairman, were examined and testified as follows:
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. DENNISON:
()
Q.
Sheriff Wesseler, would you again state your 13 name, occupation and business address?
14 A.
(Witness Wesseler)
Sheriff John Wesseler, 15 Brown County Sheriff.
My business address is at the Brown 16 County Jail, Georgetown, Ohio.
17 l
Q.
And your last name, Sheriff, is spelled I
18 W-e-s-s-e-1-e-r?
19 A.
(Witness Wesseler)
That is correct, sir.
20 Q.
And Mr. Berger, would you state your name, 21
[]}
your occupation, from the standpoint of your association with Brown County, and your business address?
23
(])
A.
(Witness Berger)
Eajl B.
Berger, Brown County Commissioner, Administration Building, Fairgrounds, Georgetown, ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN47t. OMIO
2 1-PC Ohio.
7898 1
(])
Q.
And Mr. Howser, would you state your name, your 2
position with Brown County and your business address?
(})
A.
(Witness Howser)
Robert J.
Howser, Brown 4
County Commissioner in the Administration Building, Georgetown.
5 Q.
And Mr. Dyer, would you state your name, 6
indicate your relationship to Brown County and your business 7
address?
8 A.
(Witness Dyer)
Edwin M. Dyer, County Commissioner, 9
Administration Building, Georgetown.
10 Q.
And Mr. Beasley, would you state your name, your 11 business address and would you indicate your position with 12
{)
Brown County, Ohio?
A.
(Witness Beasley)
James B.
Beasley, Brown 14 County Engineer, Engineer's Office, Georgetown, Ohio.
15 Q.
And Mr. Beasley, are you the elected County 16 Engineer for the County of Brown?
[
17 A.
(Witness Beasley)
That is correct.
18 Q.
And do you possess a license and requisite 19 degree in civil engineering?
l 20 l
A.
(Witness Beasley)
That's correct.
21 Q.
Now, Mr. Berger, Mr. Howser and Mr. Dyer, were 22 the three of you the elected officials of Brown County, Ohio, 23 as the persons obligated by Ohio law to discharge duties as to the functioning, in a legal sense, of Brown County, Ohio?
ACE REPORMNG. lNC.
CONCSNN ATI. oms 0
3 1-PC A.
(Witness Howser)
That's correct.
7899 1
()
A.
(Witness Berger)
That's rioht.
2 A.
(Witness Dyer)
[ Witness shook head in the
()
affirmative.]
4 Q.
Addressing the commissioners, have you had the 5
opportunity to speak with any person representing the Ohio 6
State Disaster Service Agency, pertaining to the preparation 7
of any kind of plan relative to emergency planning, as it might 8
effect Browr. County, Ohio?
9 A.
(Witness Iowser)
We have talked to a fellow 10 by the name of Mr. Boise, I believe.
He's been in several 11 times discussing the disaster plan with us.
12
()
Q.
And, Mr. Howser, have there been any steps taken by the Commissioners of Brown County for purposes of 14 obtaining an individual to act as the Disaster Service Agency 15 director for Brown County, Ohio?
16 A.
(Witness Howser)
Yes, we did advertise in our 17 local papers for a disaster agent and had two people from 18 Sardinia, Ohio, that came in as volunteers but at another meeting, when Mr. Boise and, I believe another gentleman from 20 l
the disaster service from Columbus was down, and they felt 21
(])
it would be too much responsibility for them, so they chose not to volunteer for it.
23
(])
Q.
And is there any individual that you're currently entertaining as filling that particular position?
ACE REPORTING, INC, CthCINMa f e. OM*O I
l
4 1-PC A.
(Witness Berger)
We have consulted another 7900 1
(' '.
gentleman that seems to be interested in it, yes.
R/
y Q.
And, Mr. Berger, who would this gentleman be?
3
)
A.
(Witness Berger)
Harold Sparks.
x Q.
And have you, as the commissioned body at this 5
point, taken any active steps to make a determination whether 6
or not you would employ this gentleman?
7 A.
(Witness Berger)
We have discussed it at some 8
length.
We've made no definite commitments.
9 Q.
And, Mr. Berger, have you proceeded in this 10 direction from the standpoint that you want to become involved li in some manner in disaster planning and preparedness, as it 12 J~)
would relate to the Zimmer Power Station?
(_/
33 A.
(Witness Berger)
De finitely, yes, sir.
14 Q.
Have you had the opportunity to receive any 15 guidance from the State of Ohio, relative to commencing some 16 sort of planning, as it would relate to a Zimmer emergency as 17 it would effect Brown County?
l 18 A.
(Witness Berger)
I'm of the opinion that Mr.
19 Boise had indicated if we had a director, they would give us 20 some support and some advice.
21 gm Q.
Now, Sheriff Wesseler, you attended a meeting
'd 22 in Williamstown, Ohio, on February 23rd?
23 A.
(Witness Wesseler)
Yes, sir, I believe that's
(^)
Li 24 Correct.
ACE REf }RTING, INC.
CONCIMN A f t. OMIO
5 1-PC Q.
I would assume that the Commandant of the 7901 1
( )
Georgetown post of the Ohio State Patrol and some persons 2
representing the State of Ohio, I think Mr. Williams, may have 3
,~
(
)
been there?
v 4
A.
(Witness Wesseler)
Yes, sir, that's correct.
S Q.
At that time, did you discuss the utilization 6
of roadways into Brown County for the purpose of Clermont 7
County evacuation, in the event of a Zimmer-related emergency?
8 A.
(Witness Wesseler)
That's correct, sir.
9 Q.
And in the course of that meeting, was there 10 anything by way of structured plan'that arose from that 11 meeting as to, first, what routes would be used?
12
']
A.
(Witness Wesseler)
They were discussed, sir, x_-
but there was nothing definite, in my opinion, established 14 at that time.
15 Q.
And in that conversation, or that meeting, if 16 you will, was there any discussion as to the utilization of any 17 public facilities, by way of public schools in Brown County, 18 to be utilized as a relocation host center or to be utilized 19 as a monitoring center?
20 MR. CONNER:
Objection, Your Honor, this was l
21
( ~1 offered as rebuttal testimony and there was nothing brought up i' !
22 about using any school in Brown County.
23
(}
JUDGE FRY 3:
Overruled.
I think we're going to
~
24 let him get it in.
ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINCINN Afl. OMIO
6 1-PC MR. CONNER:
Will you rule on my --
7902 1
(^)
JUDGE FRYE:
It's overruled.
x_/
2 A.
(Witness Wesseler)
We had discussed that but 3
(])
our facilities over there were found to be inadequate, I 4
believe, to handle any decontamination or a host center for 5
evacuees.
6 Q.
Was that on the basis, Sheriff, that you did 7
not have the equipment to monitor the individuals and to 8
decontaminate them or was it for the reason that there was not 9
a bua ding present, which could be utilized?
10 A.
(Witness Wesseler)
Both, sir.
We have 11 buildings available but we haven't checked into them and we 12 i
(~)
have no way of monitoring anyone for any radiological monitoring sm./
13 l
in any way.
14 Q.
In the course of this February 23rd meeting, 15 were rhare any plans formulated, relative to a Zimmer-related 16 emergency, from the standpoint of what police agencies would l
17 l
be involved in Brown County, from the standpoint of blocking l
18 any roads involving themselves with access control or traffic I
19 control in Brown County?
l 20 l
A.
(Witness Wesseler)
Basically, it was decided 21 that two departments would handle it, my department and the
' 22 l
l Ohio State Highway Patrol.
23 (x
Q.
And was there anything of specifics as to the
'/ 24 manner in which this would be handled, the personnel, the ACE REPORMNG. lNC.
CINCINN A tl. ONIO
7 1-PC vehicles available and how it would be done?
7903 1
()
A.
(Witness Wesseler)
No, sir.
Q.
Now, Mr. Berger, and any other commissioner --
3
(,g)
I'll address it to Mr. Berger and any of you may reply along 4
with Mr. Berger.
S Mr. Berger, as a County Commissioner, do you 6
have any concerns relative to the utilization of Brown County 7
roadways, from the standpoint of Clermont County residents 8
coming into Brown County as a result of the Zimmer-related 9
emergency?
10 MR. CONNER:
Objection, Your Honor, no foundation 11 to illustrate that, even if such a concern existed,that it 12
()
would be anything that the county could do anything about, given the fact that these are state or federal highways.
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
Let's find out if 1S they have any concerns.
16 A.
(Witness Berger)
Yes, I'm definitely concerned 17 for the citizens of Brown County, if an accident should occur 18 and contaminate the vehicles and people who would enter Brown 19 County.
We would certainly need d method to monitor and 20 decontaminate or protect our citizens.
21
('J N
Q.
And, Mr. Howser, as a Commissioner, what is your k
i 22 feeling on the remarks of Mr. Berger?
23
(}
A.
(Witness Howser)
I understand we're outside the ten-mile limitations of the nuclear plant.
l ACE REPORUNG. INC.
CINCINN Att, OM'O
8 1-PC Q.
And how was that understanding derived?
7904 1
(])
A.
(Witness Howser)
Well, it's been through news 2
reports and local papers that were -- I never measured the 3
()
distance but I understand we're outside the ten-mile area.
4 Q.
And Mr. Dyer, based upon the remarks of your 5
fellow commissioners, Mr. Berger and Mr. Howser, do you possess 6
any concerns or have any concerns or have any concerns for the 7
Brown County residents, relative to a Zimmer-related 8
emergency as we've been discussing now?
9 A.
(Witness Dyer)
I have concerns and one thing 10 that bothers me very much, we've been told that we do not need 11 a plan and on the other hand, we're told that we do need a 12
{}
plan.
My main concern is, let's get it straight what we really need and at this time, our county doesn't have funds to support 14 a plan and we need help financially and we need help in order 15 to form a plan.
Yes, I'm concerned if this is a need.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINCINN ATI OMIO
~. _,
1
?.
(t'ITIESS Iloi?SEn)
I'll state that I, too, an 7905 1
['
concerned, sure, but like :Ir. Dyer stated, our county is 2
peor and we don't have nuch fundiny for this type thine.
3
(~)
0.
I:ou, Corrissionern, an a group, do vou feel a v
4 concern from the standpoint of a plan as it would relate to 5
decontamination, decontanination facilities, and the 6
reculations of the roadways in Broun County in the event o f 7
a radioactive erercency at the Zirner Station?
That is, do 8
you feel that you should have scre rechanism by way cf nlan 9
in order to monitor persons coring into 9rown County fron 10 Clerront County or those perhaps in Brown County and close to 11 the Clerront County border?
12
(~^
!!R. CO!*NER :
I don't want to object to too 13 nany leading questions, but these leadinc auestions are 14 leading, compounding, and succesting answers and everythinc 15 else.
16 You ought to draw the line sone place.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
I recognize the problea.
I don't 18 think they understood the previous question, but let'n cee 19 if we can get a little bit better.
20 B*R. CC::2:ER:
Le t Mr. Dennison r cke a atatorent 21 anc see if they can suear to it one ua" or the other to scvc c.
(
U 22 a lot of tire.
23
' !R. D C:"IS O: :
I think that coult x scre'.h t m
i e
24 s
leading, but wha t 's the Roard's decision?
ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINCINN Af t. OMIO I
t>
JUDGE PRYF:
To refrain fron anything leadi;r.
7906 1
N tR. DC:iIIISC:I:
All rirent.
2 0
I'n addressing that question to the Connircisnur s 3
( ';
as a group.
4 Can you tell us 'ehether or not you would.:cve 5
any concern in uhich you vould feel that there should be the 6
need for a.nlan or the converse no need for a plan in Drov:.
7 i
County fron the standpoint of the rer'ulations o f individuals 8
coming into Drcwn County to ascertain uhe ther they would be 9
subject to monitoring or not subject to r.onitoring o deterr.ine 10 if they would be contaminated or not contaninated?
11 ti.
("I::ESS DERGrF )
I definitely believe ue 12
, m.
abould have a plan.
People being reople, and ve're neighbors
( ;'
13 to Clerront County and so:r.e of these people are couc.d to.: ave 14 friends and rela tives in Brown County.
"he ther thef ray seek 15 shelter in such an area, that niciht bo hard to contrc1.
I 16 think uith everyone enterinc the coun ty, there should be a 17 plan to chech everyone.
18 0
And Sheriff "esseler, as the duly elected' 19
.cN.o rif f o f 2 rown County, uculd you concur in the rerarks c' 20
r. Cercer?
21
c",
eir, - do.
v..,,.,...,-
e...-, g w.. '
n.
.a
.a x....
.~
<, s r
i
~
22 0
"cu, vr. Deaale", as the County rincar, arc 23
/. '
fou f ar.iliar with t'.
';. 52, U.
S.
62, and C.
S.
F
,.s
'i s' 24 i
3.- w r e m., vu,
.r.
,, r.......e>.c
. x i
l ACE R EPORTING. INC.
f CINCINN AT6. Owto
P Do you have an'; infor ation as to the distance 7907 1
mI,,
on U.
C. 52 fron the Ercun Count r-Cler cnt Count.r border to 2
the intersection or junction wit'- U.
62?
~
3 s(y i
(r r.m.
..e.g n p.3.c to,_,3, i c o,.
w,..., 4 u,
c u t..,.,
..t a m
..u..-
4 available.
5 C
Feuld you have an'f indication b'r way cf 6
a pp rc::ina tion to give us sorc idc.a of the c'intance?
'?e cake the sare ohjection we 8
nade yesterday.
It's irrelevant uhat the dictance is since 9
th '- would be a designated evacuation route.
It ' culd he a 10 route if it was 1,900 riles or 1 -ile.
11 It's outside of the EP",
a r' fun..
12
/~j JUDGE "RYP:
It's also in the recor"? ct this 13 roint.
14
.m..<.
D r...
- t.. S r'..,
I is.
- i...
15 "R.
CC":iTR -
If this in o"fored to irrnach 16
' r. '.*i l li ar.s ' statorent, it may be a different point.
17
.y-..,... 4 '.,. g....
u, p.
p -.., r.g~...
7e,3
.a.
18
.... u. n...- o.. n..
19 E. no, i..,..
.. ;. D..,.
s.
20
"". D":'::I C OI':
I ha ve r.c f urth e r m:r - ' ' c r.s.
21 c..' n. /, - n..
Ic
- o.. n.. n. ns,
- w., -. ' s..., n. r
-.o u
l t -- <
~
gg
. #r03]')CI of OI' in
- o Ih e " '." 1
'* I.l3UI E 7 *[
' ^ '
3 23
~ e.J 'u i r.
4
- ~
s..,
w,.
v,,..
'. n
.e..i c. '. a.".
r'..'
s?-*^'...*-
f _8 w.
-.a t.
?
}
%.J
}j 4ww ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CleeCipeN ATI. OMeo
V v.-
l The only issue that was of fered was 20X as to 7908 1
(^'S whether er not Drown County should he included in the Plan.
\\.a/
2 chere is no evidence that this is or has c..
t~.ic 3
-( )
to do with tha contentions.
u,-
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Ucll, we'll deal with that in 5
the decision as ' eine evidence or no" and it will he tal-a 6
care of at tha t ti:?.e.
7 MR. CC:CER:
Are ycu aching me to withdraw 8
the motion?
9 JUDO FR'.'E :
- !o, we 're denying the r.o tion to 10 strike.
I'n Simo.lv askinc. if ".ou have an.v cross-examination.
11 M P.. COUNZR:
- 'o, we dc nct fecl it 's relevant.
A
- IR. 3 ARTH :
o cross-examination.
t /
%./
13
- 1R. CASSID'?
- o crcs s-e:-: arc.ination, ' lour Ecncr.
14 JUDGE F2'?":
Just a fe'i <:ues tions.
15 I take it that the three of you are the thrce 16 County Corrissioners and that there are no othcr corrissicnera?
17
(,,...,. E.,.,..e.
.,y c -,
,., 4,,3..
t,.
i...s ri..o 18
.e o,
,c 4... y u;.4, n o.,..,. 4 c a.,,
uw..
r.ivr...
.r
-r-- c.
.. ~
s
~
.v I9 cr do ycu feel you. ave an ongoing c~ialocue,;ith statt official 20 uith rovard to your plan?
21
(,,I.. c S P..u-.s. )
, ei,c.
v
/
\\
)
q,'
22
. r., f. -
- 7.., v...
...1. - c..i "
w, '". u u-c, " c c "-.4o.- ' ' ' * ' I e.s.~
23
,,.,..u. g
- n. i,..
,_ i 4
,,s,...
s v.4 a...
c, s.. u.,. 4 v.n.
o
.os.
..c_...c..,-...+
rs a...
a.
..=
i u
g]
2 mu I.x -
f;
- c. 3. Q. 4.e. t.
&.,, L%
.A.1 1, 4 c.
..b. u, 9 4
{ 4
- 7 n. u' I.s e.
a
o '.1'...'w ' S 'u C'
1 s,v n p.
h v-b o.
J 1S
.a
.i -
.~
s ACE REPORrING. INC.
CINCINN ATI. OM80 l
l
m, c
w by a paid enployee?
7909 1
i A.
(I'IT:!ESS SERCER)
"n're not sure yet.
2 JUICE FRYE:
I see.
3
/s )
A.
(t.'IT!!ESS EPRGER)
We hope for it to be a paid 4
employee.
He vill have a better director if we can put on a 5
full-time man.
6 JUDGE PRYE:
I sac.
7 No further questions.
Gentlenen, thank you so 8
much for coming in.
I am sure it uas not a very easy trip 9
this morning, but we appreciate you coming in and we appreciate 10 your tectimony.
11 A.
(FITSFSS MESSELER)
Thank you.
12
('3 A.
(FITUESS BERGER)
Thank you, sir.
(' U 13 A.
(MIT'!ESS HONSTR)
Thank you.
14 A.
(WITNESS DYER)
Thank you.
15 A.
(UITMESS BEASLEY)
Thank you.
16 JUDGE FRYr:
The titnesses are c:.:cused.
17 7.'hile we ' re here, let ce inquire frcr 'tr.
18 Tisse and :Ir. "etterhahn whether the county and ?.pplicant have 19 managed to finalize their acrcerent?
20 "R.
PETTERET.IP':
.T s to the acreement betwec."
21
,~
Clemont County and the.%pplicant, Cincinnati c-as & Electric Company, regarding certain ecuinrent and certain ecsistance 23
- o he nrovided, we have ccre to a: understanding and *. hat m
5 i
i f
unc'.erstanding has been rc6uced to writing.
ACE RE PORTING. INC.
CINCINN A ff. OMIO
?
~.._
PM-2 F
There is one clause which we're playinc with 7910
()
the words, but other than that, we have reached an agreerent.
2 It will be submitted to the _ nanacement, to
()
CG&E, which an approval is expected and will also be 4
submitted to the Clermont County Commissioners Doard of 5
Approval.
6
~
That is the status.
He intend to inform the 7
Doard when the approval is final, but that is all just as 8
a courtesy notification.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
10 MR. FISSE:
That's correct, sir.
11 JUDGE F2YE:
It would appear safe to assume
(}
then that these are just formalities that will be worked out.
u MR. FISSE:
Right.
j 14 MR. METTERIIAHN :
Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Anything else that we need to 16 take up at this point?
Yes, Your IIonor, there is'cne 18 i
matter if I could just have one. moment.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
20 FIR. DENNISON:
Your Eonor, at the tire that 21 the FE:!A Panel was seated, we had gotten into discussions
- Csf s
1 33 relative to the probative value of their testirony, at uhich 23 tire I had indicated to the Panel as we had lef t the area of b
24 voir dire and neglected to proceed into the matter as to ACE REPORUNG. lNC.
CINCINN ATI. OMIO
m_,
s potentiality conclusions of their tastircay as a rotion to 7911 1
.~
[(,
strike.
2 I am at this point Jaching to strike the 3
testimony of the FI"!A Panel as it "ould pertain to the :'irr_r 4
Area Citizens' Contentions to tihich they made some respense.
5 The basis of that is the same as I had indicated initiall" 6
and, that is, that the tesricony was presented by the statecent.,
7 of the witnesses within the circu~. stances of a preposed rule 8
of Part 350 and that is set forth in the FeCcral Recjister 9
in Volurc 45, page 42343.
10 That proposed rule frcm which the witnesses 11 indicated that they were addressing their rcrarks by their 12 9
tactirony and frot which I had previously asserted, must be 13 the standard to determine their testimony as it tould pertair 14 to its probative value in this proceeding.
15 That standard, as I uculd undcrstand it as 16 it's set forth in the Federal Register as I ' ave previcurly 17 indicatec, reruirca that their review and ar'roval he Sasoci 18 upon findint?s, assessrents, and evaluations of the ndoqunc" 19 o f the plana submitted by local an? stato acencies and 20 fur the r, the capabilities of those state and 1ccal covernncnta 21 O,
to effectively impicncr' the plan.
" 22 Frcr 'he standreint o f the a N~ ary c ?
23 t}
prepare: ness as to fi r s t,
t..e plans ther. salver, :r? srecndlc, 24 the ;ue.stier or issue, if "ru rill, of the ca"d ilitis o#
ACE R EPORTING, INC.
CINCBNN AT1, OMIO
r"_2 implerentation by stata and local covernment, I found no thinc 7912
(])
in the testincny of these FFMA witnesses, who had no findincs, 2
no inferendent Pnouledge of their own oc to the capabiliti n-3
( )h of the nlan to be implerented uhether it be in Kentucky e nC x
4 its political subc:ivisions or whether it be in Ohio or its 5
political subdivisions.
6 Such circurstances as ratio of energency 7
response personnel to a populaticn that they were to address,
8 and that they 're addressing, or the neans of implementing 9
either evacuation sheltering, verification access control 10 and traffic control points and other natters.
- one of these 11 things were known by any of these uitnesses and L1us ertained 12
( (ms~T to what I would contend as one of two things; either a stateren:
13 that I don' t know or in ny opinion, the plan is still auce,uate 14 notuithstanding that I have no knowledge concerning the 15 capabilities of implementing that plan by persennel and 16 otherwise.
17 That, I would state, vould go to the probstive 18 value of these vitnesses fron the stand;oint of their position l
19 l
in this proceeding.
Their position fror FD*?. is the scr.e 20 polition that they have taken no ratter what their tach r,2y 21 he and that tasP renains uniforn throrchout all of thcir 4
l 22 official duties and that is to assess these plans,to rai' 23 findincc concerning the plans to have %nowledce concernin~
r ) 24 r
L the clans frc,= which they could mahe a cualified ase0:r-c:.t ACE REPORMNG. INC.
CINCINN ATE OMIO
r e
in their jm: crent on the adequacy of the Plan in the firc' 7913 1
,'^S, instance and caoabilities of beinc. irolerented by stato
~.s 2
local percor.r.cl and second, I find that testimony 3
(];
incredibly wantine, thus, I have coca back to this basic 4
iscuc from the standpoint of ~.ovinc this Board to stri>0 5
that testirony because there has not ::cen significant 6
prcbative value from these witncoces to perform the tacP 7
assicned them.
8 All be it, b the proposed group, as I 9
understand it, during the course of this proceeding, not 10 oni'r in and of the ton timony o f FF"A witnesses, and furthcr, 11 frer the stand::oint of counsel from FF'tA and counsel fror 12 o,
S tc f f, the position is that that standard '.1ould have to s
, /
13 be applied in this proccetline t'n le s s I misunderstcod the 14 stateronts of counsel for the representative governmental 15 a"ency.
16 Thank you.
17 18 l
19 l
20 l
21 s,
[
)
22 i
23 g
i\\ '
}f
~/
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CaseCIN M A TE. O Mio
A:1-3 1
JUDGE PP.YE:
Mr. Cassidy?
7914 1
(_)
IIR. CASSIDY:
17e would, obviously, oppose 2
'tr. Dennison 's motion.
3
/is First of all, Your !?onor, as you will recall, 4
there are a number of Contentions for which there uas no 5
cross-examination by either counsel for ZAC or Counsel fer 6
"entor.
7 Therefore, there is no evidence, contrary to 8
P!r. Dennison's representation that the written testirony, 9
with regard to those Contentions, is not nethenticated, those 10 facts have not been verified, and '1r. Dennison is just plainly 11 wrong 'iith recard to those Contentions that there is no
(_
12 suf ficient information and those uritten ansvers, absent any 13 cross-examination, are uhat the recorr'. states.
14 We have, all through this hearin7, been 15 dealing with the situation of 44 CFR Part 350, and as.:r.
16 Heard testified the other day, the process for review uith 17 regard to the RAC Revieu o f the plans, with recarri to how l
18 these plans are reviewed through PAC, by the FF: A S taff, tha 19 deficiencies being pointed out for the state and counties, 20 those coming back to RAC, that whole process to which he l
21
/^
tastified to is not, as l'oth PE:iA *titnesses and *:r. Crires 22 indicated in his tes tir.cny, is not corpletef.
We're in 23 ricatrear uith regard to the final evaluation of theca ?lans.
24 Obviously, thers has been no final evaluatic;.
ACE R EPORTIN G. INC.
CINCepeN Afl. OMIO
J. :- ;
t There cannot be a final evaluation at this tire, and the 7915 1
(
testinony, based on the state of the plans as they are nc c'.
To say that the testinony nust be stricken 3
because there is no final PCn finding, flies in the face 4
of the ongoing discoursa that we 've had, specifically with 5
regard to last Thursday, before ve brohe, with regard to the 6
URC process and the Cparaissioners ' guidance to raake such 7
findings as can be made at the stage we are at.
8 Secondly, with regard, I think, besic'es those 9
Contentions uhich there is no cross-e::anination on, I th ink,
10 for Mr. Dennison to say that in every single Contention, 11 t'lat the uitnesses do not have ':nowledge of every singlo 12
(~
fact in the Contention is just not correct.
13 Certainly, there were some answers that the 14 individuals tes tified that they did not have personal 15 knowledge of.
16 This is to be expected, given the nature o f 17 the review process, whe re there are eight federal agencies 18 involved on the 21.C Corrittec, Nhere there arc a nurbc r of 19 people involved in tha various raciorni of fices that revier 20 these plans subsecuent to regional review heing corpleted, 21 7
uhich it has not ynt; further revim; a t the national ic"c' v 22
.c Fr:'7. and by o th:r federal agencic
^h vi c u.n ly, tecL1 23 in ever:* parscn that rant out in the i c i::,, '.1 o f th e e, 24 abcorvers, a ;crticular c: ercice hicP raraca in t'.; "~9%
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINNAfl. 0 810
,,..: -- 1 of 22 to 30 observers, to call ir all these individuals
+c 7916 1
('
testif/ ' ould require this croceer'in7 to to on for renths r<
v 2
he an impractica' ilitf, he irnractic:1.
3 J-)
In any cvent, the cues tions that **r. Dann! nor s
4 put to these witnesses, obviousl'f, *:cre aired at their 5
personal ':nctile'e e.
6 T.at does not nean th a t the.' cannot ferr 7
cpinions based on the information that the" h ave carnereC 8
fron their collear ucs, from their censultations with the 9
state and county officials, from their concultations vith 10 rerbers of PJtC and form an opinion given their c::pertisc,
11 which is in the record, as to uhether or not tha Plan is 12 (3
adacuate.
13 The ot..er issue that I thini; that we have 14 acan having problens with it'entifying, in the course of this 15 hearing, is c.1::.cren tiating.,ae tween w,..c.t is recuirac. In t.na 16 Plan under ::UREG-C6 54 and 44 CF:1 350,.thich '*r.
Grites 17 testified. is rerely a recap:. tula tion o f '.:U~'Z -0 C ~ 4 in te rr. s 18 o f.-that the stan?.ards arc.
19
, e n. c.,.. I.,
_,. :. s.
,n c.a
. m, m
m.....
u
.u 20
."7:r-0554, we're basicallf tali.ing the sa:.c staatard's, ' L th 21 those standards heire-a rmarized la M4 CFE.'Frt 250, c ' i.. ~
.m
( !
u re s;.onc e d on c.o r c cl earl" in l'.-'--% 5 4 23 o..... u - m u a
.,,._..s.
., n_. c. _. t._.
, r,i ma
...m-
_v I
4 24
..(..s.
..a LU.,,u,...,.,.
(. o v v....,,.,-
w,
- L e q.., o,..
r.,, e
- u..,._^
,,.,1.
r.u L.Aw ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN A TI. O H 80
':e all know, ac far as impler: ental:ility, 7917 1
that decision has not been nada at this coint in tine.
2 As ?Cr. Heard testifief, uhan :Ir. Cenniso:.
3 n
siJ acked hin as of " arch lat, 1992, uhe ther the I'lan could L 2 4
inplemented, his answer was, "::c, o f course not. "
5 The prompt notificatior Gystem is not in,' lac; 6
yet.
7 There are a nurber of things that have yet 8
to be developed and reviewed, and, of course, it was not 9
able to be ingleDented on that dato.
10 The bottor line, I th ink, as far as the 11 tactir.ony goes, is uhether or not, as far as those
~
12
(
Contentions are concerned, where we stand as far as the t
x-13 state of review, whether or not the plans subsecuent to r_he 14 corrections that have been identified and are 2 cine; maCo 15 uill provide, once those corrections have been race, rer sonable 16 accurances that it can be irplemented.
17 That decision has not been race.
'e're in 18 the procenc of rahing that.
19 The final peint I uculd rake is that 20 ree ardless of what the testinon" wac, uho ther or mot tSis 21 I
e roard finc:a good, had or indif ferent, goes te the 'sei ht 7
22 the Scar? ci"os the tectircny, not the testircr" itself, 23 i
o not the aFriasibilit".
24 The a6missibility of the testiren" is hace?,
ACE REPOR TING. INC.
CINclNN 4 f t. OMIO
TC'-3 5
when we are dealing with expert opinion, on their 7918 1 1
(-)
qualifications.
I 2
Uhat Mr. Dennison is really arcuing, I thin?-
3 rw i) is how much weight the Board should give it.
s_
4 Therefore, a notion to strike is certainly S
not proper.
6 The Board's consicieration nust be, based on 7
all the testimony they've heard, based on a review of the 8
expertise or their expert cualifications thct have been 9
presented in the record, what weight they're coing to give 10 that testinony.
11 I suggest it is not subject to a cotion to 12 Q
strike.
(s 13 JUDGE FRYF.:
Mr. Ce tterhahn?
14 MR. WETTERHAHM:
I'll trj to be brief.
15 I think Mr. Dennison's cotion confuses tuc 16 things, the responsibility of FE:TA as an agency, independent 17 of the NRC and the responsibility of this Licensing Ecard 18 with regard to the issues.before it.
19 This Licensing Ecard is constituted under the 20 Commissions' regulations, CF2 Part 2 and particularly Part 21 50 and the Erergency Planning Regulations they're under.
1 22 Part of the PC11. regulation is not oinding 23 upon this Licensing Board and thay're really irrelevant.
24 The "E:!A reculations de fine what F.7::
does ACE M EPORUNG. tNC.
CINCINN A76. OMfO
A"-3 L
i to approve a plan in their own right.
7919 i
1 i
The Commissions' regulations arc 50.47, with j
2 regard to emergency planning, which references UUREG-0654.
()
I have the Staff testincny before me and in 4
addition to referencing Part S0, it references UUREG-0654 as 5
the basis for the evaluation of off-site cmergency planning 6
of the Zimmer Nuclear Pcwcr Station.
7 So, whether Part 350 is proposed, in of fect, 8
it doesn't make any difference because the Staff testimony 9
relies on the criteria of NUREG-0654, which are binding on 10 this Licensing Board.
11 I may point out that the Board,
- itself, 12 rcquested PE:'A participation and held open a certain period g
j i
13 of tine and did not begin hearings until the FEMA testimony 14 -
was prepared.
15 I submit the Board invited FE!!A testimony.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
When did ue do that?
i I
j MR. UETTERH AliN :
I believe in Deccther, you 18 inquired as to when FE"A testimony would be prepared and --
19 JUDGE FRYE:
L'c were informed that FEiA would 20 be the principal government agency testifying here, uhich 21 uas fine,uith us, but I don't think we rec: nested it.
22 M2, ':E TTER"7 "" :
Mt ma c.mhnc ize FE."T. is 23 appearing as a pcrty er ic appearing en hohnif of a partJ.
24 They have provir'ad 'eitnesser, ' hey '.avo' s tt ted I
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CthCINN Afl. ONto
(
7 what they have done, what they have '.cokid at.
7920 I
,,T 1.,
.~.,.4 s 7' oa r '... r.a- '.
.c'....*..
a..
c "..;.'e n c n,
~
2 bo th of PP."T. and all the other.;arti.c not onl" that of 3
m
')
- r. r. ".,1.
4 I would acree with "r.
Cassidci that ifr.
2 5
Donnison's roticn only goes to tha
i.cht being accorr'od 6
the tecticony of PP '? r it does not ro to its edniscibilite 7
and t'icre 's nc ground for a notion to striko at this 'cint in 8
3 _4..n,.
9 JUDGE P*iY"-
.Ir. "arth, c'o "o u ' ant to 'ce 10 henr6?
11
. m.
nwTr.
v.,.,..o,u,._ e o.o..
12
(~)
Of course, as said, the last t' c lerfo rs that 13 cuestioned got three c'if ferunn answers.
14 I certainly accribe to the rencrha rne'.o by 15 "r.
Cascidv.
16 In addition, I vould like to reca,citulate 17 th e thrus t o f "r. Dennison 's arm.i. 2nt.
18 v..4. e.
- c_ u. c.. t 4-
- ".. ' " ",. ' cm- '. 4.. c r.,r "'. n c. 's o
19 "robative.
20 That is a ranter for Your !!onor to censider 21 c3 in your daciaion, not ap-'licaEle to a :cotien to a tri':e as c,
~ /
irrelevant and corrents *. iich are not rain?J,.. -
r.
J et. air e..
23
,o Che re fo re, us..c;1on ic inag;ro ri ;e cn;' '
I c
s _'
74
.i. o i ~,m
_- n_,,
t u n : u,,_.
... a
,.u...-
..c..,, u._.,
- c.
ACE R E PORTING. INC.
CINCIN N ATs. OM40
id:-3
.a I uculd like to say one other thing, however:
7921 1
()
I.s I have r.ade very clear here and Crian Grices. for the Staff, has testified, the is sue o f ?::~?.'s revieu o f the 3
(%
(_)
four county plans and the tuo state plans is not here at 4
issue, but what is here at issue are the Contentions and 5
the specific factual ratters that they raise, which were 6
approved by this Board and the. contentions' by :r. Dennison 7
on behalf of ZAC.
8 FC:!A testirony addresses that.
9 The ueight and probativeness of that evicence 10 is a tatter for your consideration.
11 Therefore, the Staff urges this Ecard to deny 12 f) the notion to strike.
~/
13 Thank you, ' lour I:onor.
14 JUDGE F2Y :
- -Ir Dennison?
15 rin. DE:nIISOM:
Tne probative valuo of the 16 evidence is directly related to the purpose of these vitnesses.
17 They core before this roard as quasi-c::perts,
18 as they have come from the covernrent agency uhich, through 19 an agreement ' tith the Nuclear Regulatory Corniscion, is 20 bound to give the considerations of the adequacy of plans 21 and the capabilitics of imp?.ementation.
i 22 Thus, the uhole purpose of these uitncsses i
23 g
uould be to speak to those issees as the issues were rsiser'.
1 24 IIere, I'n talking about two different issues l
ACE REPORUNG. INC CONCINN Afl. OMIO I
N '- 3 0
in a conse, as the issues raised in the Contentions thercal"es.
7922 1
~( )
So, that, thus, from this quasi-expert rula, 2
they must evaluate the Plan and its canabilities based u; on 3
the thrust of the Contention as to the adequacy of the Plan x-4 in the firs t instance and its capability of being inglenented 5
in the second.
6 That was never done here.
7 They are pernitted to testify in an opinionated 8
fashion, as to their conclusions of the adequacy of the Plan 9
and the capabilities of being implerented and this is all 10 they have testified to.
11 Thus, if there is no factual foundation as 12 that foundation must rest, in the 44 Code of Federal Pegulation s,
'J 13 Part 300, as the proposed rule or whether it relates to 14 0654 throughout, and there were universal questions niaced 15 to these witnesses on certain Contentions that, would this 16 be the circunstance as to all Contentions and the responres 17 were yes.
18 Hunerous tires, and I uculd hate to have to 19 count the nurber, the basic question now of 0554 was posed 20 to these uitnesses and I quote once again, the Plan shculc.
21 make clear what is to be done in an en ergency, hcu it is to Lj 22 na Cone and by uhon.
23
- e got a series of re;.ctitivc,
"I J.on't nc u r.
,_s
\\_ ' 24
/
ACE R E PORTING. INC.
CINCINN A fl. OMIO
r':- 4 1
tihether ue are considerinc it from the 1
~
7923
()
standpoint of the obligations, the dut', the responsibilities, f
2 that you will, that is imposed upon Fr.::7. by law and their 3
agreenent with the NRC Regulatory Comnission or we view it 4
from the standpoint of 0654 or what I would suggest would 5
be a combination of them all, these witnesses laid no 6
foundation to address an opinion and it's to that entent 7
the probative value issue is raised.
4 8
Their opinion obviously has probative value 9
if there is sone foundation actually for the opinion, not 10 a guess, not a hunch or when I glanced at it and compared 11 it with the guideline, the check list and 0654, everything 12 t
seemed to be all right.
13 I don' t think we ' re here for that kind. of i
14 determina tion.
15 Following or flowing from that is if Ue have i
16 no factual basis for the quasi-opinion or the opinion, as 17 i
l you uill, for which I decn these individuals to be obligated, 18 then ve have no probative value whatsoever tc tha t-opinion.
19 "e can simply stretch out a number of opinionc that 1cok fine 20 to me, it's adequate, it presents reascnable assurance.
21
(]} 22 1:e spent a nurber of da s trying to find cut f
hou they cane to those conrunications and of tenti. er I falt 23 O)-
wa 'etere going in gigantic circles, only to cc=e ':ack to t' e 24 point of beginning and to constantly engander a constant ACE REPORMNG. INC.
CINCINN ATI. De*lO
- m....
the me o f ch,
a s, there is assurance:
'es, these are 7924 f
f 1
7,
(/
adequate; "os, these are capable of uning irr-lcrented,but a
L 2
never a single, solit try factor to sey ort that
- as ever 3
-s
(
l
" resented.
4 That is the basis of the r.otion to strike.
S
hank you.
6 JUDGE F' RYE:
- Ir. Dennison, we uould like is 7
taho your motion under advisement and rule en it at a later 8
tir.c.
9
' tile we 've got sorc tire here, I did tant to 10 bring up the schedula for preposoF findings and I neglecte<.'
11 to bring uith me the now ti-c3 that are provided in the 12
/,
_ L,,, a 13 7
c,,
- p.,.14 c., n y..
..,t.,
.1.,.
v..,-m,,.....,.
. 1 x....v.
14
-,, r :...
- 1 c
- t.. u o an. t u.. o.
.r,. -,
u, 7.. 1c, o c. a, a = u,.,.. c,_ c..,..
u..
15 of record, for the Intervenors 'iculd Sc 40 fa"s anc'. for the 16 ei,'#.,
5(1 da"o, " i ...'."" 1 4 ". a ". '. ' e vo.k. L' " '.. _1
- .1' ". '
.A'".
= " ' - ' -
a o.
17
- t..,., e
,ee.
18
.T'.- " c.. " " ' v. "..
I r> *. k..' ",. " 4 " c <'<' " -...' t o -
4 n.
7.r"'.
s 19 e.... <,, g,
.*L s.
..e-.A., - -.......
- n..
4 20
.J w Cc-., v.Y.~
- e. c, ;s r,G, s..,,, L. s.-
s,
- n.. o.
21
,g, t v-r r, -, ".,....
7...,.,,.. :..., n g..
T.C P.,
e-g
....(.
22
.'. -n i c.,
6
--, t -, >, (- c:n -'
,% r-c-
.-lA
?-
8-
..,... m ]. m 3 c c.-. 4-., r '.., s.
3
- ~
... : r s
su 23 e's v'.,
. ' r _i.l 3 _~u~.
'. _4 <- k _i.s c,. c ' '. v. '.<."
" '. '., " ' i. a' kn " 4 ' c e' u.
c.
r
~
24 that '. a ", '.nyhov.
Intervenors ould be due on.' pril 12 t'.:
ACE R E PO R TI N G, 'N C.
CINCINN A TI. OtetO
e P::- 4 3
and the Staff's vould be due on April 23rd, widi our recpence 7925 1
[)
of findings in a consolidated forn to all parties due five s-2 days after 3arvice.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Would it be agreeable to acenn 4
that schedule sonewhat?
What I have in mind would be to 5
perhaps ask all parties to file 30 days af ter close of reccrd 6
and then give a period for all parties to connent on the other 7
filings sometinc after that.
8 Frankly, we 'd like to get the last filing in, 9
if we could, around the week of the 19th of April.
10 IIR. UETTER::AH:::
2:ay I suggest this -- tha t 's 11 fine uiEl the Applicant.
Since April 3rd is a Saturday, 12
^)
I would suggest that all the filings of all parties he 13 subr.itted by an exchange of Expresc :: ail or the ocuivalent 14 April 5th, uhich is that Monday, with cctments filed by all 15 parties on the 19th by Express :* ail to the Ecard or the 16 l
equivalent.
17 MR. DE:::ISC ::
Ycur Honor, I Con't see the 18 nood for Express :: ail, is the first instance.
I uculd suggert 19 that follcuing any reasonable rule, if the final day falls 20 on a holiday, go to the no::t working day,
^.ic'T uould 10 the 21
- ~)
5th and thinc.s. costed on the 5th would be satis factorv at 22 that ;nint.
I'm not sure the concent -- Since we've got 23 7s culti-things happening here, essentially there is threc
' ')
=
24 dif fer 2nt ar.2as o f courent to c: ch area o f inc'uiry he rM.
ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINCINN Aff. OMeO
m'-'
4 In other rords, we have Interverer, va have Applicant ant' 7926 1
'^
)
we 've go t t..o covarntental bcales renrosented here, so t'. n c ^
v are fcur filings that will go on.
Chmf nay not necessaril -
3 be by the sano counsel, but taking different viewpoints n n.'
4 the response coning bach, I would sucrest fourteen days 5
may be.a liniting factor.
Again, it may not, it depends a 6
good deal en the arount of connent and the fuglicating of 7
three dif ferent responses.
8 JUDGP FRYE:
Let na ash ttr. narth and :Ir.
9 Cassidy whether you have riven any thoucht to whether you're 10 going to file separate propcsca findincs or a cinele prorened 11 finding to represent vour view?
12
(~')
"2.
B ART': -
"e have not decided that, Your 13 Honor, but we 've decided that we will file as though we 14 were the covernment.
If no file separatel r, vc will file 15 that ourselves, so they will have the sare kind of tire 16 frate the covernnent has.
17 JUDGE FRYF:
Are you thinkinc about both 18 addressing all of the issues?
19 T!R. F7.n'"H :
Ue h ave no t arrive c' at that.
20 Ee have, in the o f fice, an e:cecutive legal director tha t c.na 21 lis ted the enhibits, the tcs tino ny, the se riousnccu a f the 1
22 natters and the of fice e::ccutive legal tirec cr will no t 23 aive the 50-day filin~ :;rcvision under 2.754.
"e faal tha t o
24 it tahas this ar.ount o f tir.e, a.equately, to addrecs the iscuec.
ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINCaNN A f f, OMIO
(
Apart from the decision, which has been mado 7927 1
s b" the office on behalf of counsel aerc, I'm not certain tha t 2
~.
2 commenting on everybody's findings la ';oing to do much rcre 3
em than reiterate the ad infinitum arguments that counsel has v
4 been having here, all of us, all the time.
5 All you're going to get is rore arguments.
6 The findings of the parties and the 3oard's deliberation of 7
those findings are adequate.
If any of the parties disagree 8
to your view, they arc entitled to appeal.
9 JUDGE TRYE:
So, you're --
10
- IR. DARTII :
As a good c:: ample of that, Your 11 Honor, may I point out that in *:r. Dennison's last notion
/ _
12 vou had three different lawyers and three different arcuments 13 and this really, af ter a while, loses its productivaness.
14 I'm satisfied, my o f fice is satisfied to have filings by the 15 rower company, the governnent, :Ir. Dennison and the other 16 co unsel, if they uish, in accord with the regulatiens and 17 have the Board maha its determination.
This, of coursc, 18 is after the close of the record, Tcur ':onor, cnd if rcu 19 close the record today, thich reans you would have to rule 20 on 'r.
Dennison's action, that '.'ould make the governren t3 '
21 fm papers due on IIarch for filing, April 23.
TcCa; i
- arch 22 T.rril 23 is 50 da'fa from toda; and, of course, if :'ou 23 i
/~N rule on :Ir. Denni.,en's notion later, the 50 dayr "culc' ': 0 7 n 24 to run from that ruling and the day ynu clescC the record.
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCIN M Afl. OMio
7 m,..i b
- 4 e
IIR. UETTEFHaliN:
I don't believe that'c a 7928 1
4 proper interpretation.
I don' t think that the record nus t wait to be closed until all rotions arc ruled on.
3 Ov JUDGE FRYE:
" ell, the S ta f f will no t wai.--
4 its 50 days.
5 MR. DARTE:
That's correct, Your Honor.
6
- 12. F ".Y C :
I' thinP tre '11 vant to ' chinh beut 7
this.
In there anything clso t e need to -- we can tche up 8
nc-- "hile we 're uaiting fo r Ms. Webb's witness?
9
!!R. CASSIDY :
If I might, I wa s going tc 'n.'s0 10, a suggestion as we reach the end of the procceclincs and since i
11
.re dc *: ave a break here, ay be as goof a tire en nn*;.
12
{'
13 In the course of this prcceeding, 're've ha f voluminous testinony on the issue of the reaZ:, the nurbcr 14 of n. ec."le that have driven the roads.
t'e 've hac? hichwa.'
15 engineers talking abcut the roada, the adequacy of the rat.N 16 et cetara.
I wanted to offer up a sugcestion to the rearf, 17 since tSis is what I would Co in any civil triil, as far as 18 this natter, is that the sin.plest way for the Board to shovel 19 through all this paperwork or the torc c:geditious uny Icight 20 be, in fact for the Board to take a vicu of the roads an '.
21 I uculd Jur_:: act that certainl", tha t's an op.aartunity that tic n
22
' yoard rui uish to avail itcelf cf and to accict
- in I
(
23 3 J{ analyzing the tac tirony th.c 's ':cen jrc:m*;nted tnrcu9ha 24 nurbar cl uitnesses, a nu:cl:cr of pro;;,cciors of the rcaf c; ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN ATI ONIO "mm'"'-i er m r r-7 m'mm um
~
7 to their drivability, at cetera, and I don' t think thorc 'c 7929 1
- O aar ceea cor cou==ot to ao out wiea ta= roc =c-ea1=a.
i 2
I in fact, maybe the best way fcr tXc Icard to handle it trot.l.'
3 I
be to take the evacuation caps fron ue Plan and drivo thu roads.
I just thought it might ':e a suggestion.
S JUDGE FRYC:
Lot tc say that wo did not --
?.:
6
{-
have not vicued the roads in any c:: tensive way.
i.'e did drive 1
7 j
out sonctine ago by the sito and took a rcad, I forget uhich 8
t one it was, and I think it connectcd up with Route 120 and i
1 9
came back that uay, but I don 't see -- personally feni the j
10 nood to take an c::tensivo view and I don't really think wo 11 have the tire to do so at this point.
12 j g Let me -- before I --
I was about to leave the subject. oJ proposed findings too soon.
I did want to 14 j
tall you that when we urito the decision, we intend to use I
15 a format uhich is different than the fornat that 's been used
[
16 heretofore and what wo intend to do is to urite very specific l
17 findings of fact and wo would appreciato it if your propcsed 18
}
filings were very specific and not arcurontativa.
19 It would simply say the road so and so has 20 a 90-degree turn at such and such a point, transcript so and 21 O
Go down the line that uay and then incluC.o, if you vish, so.
22 l
in an accompanying brief, any arturents that you wish to rahS i
23 g
with regard to the evidonce that you thinh has been -- or V 24 the facts that you think have boon established by the ' evidence ACE REPORTtNG, INC.
CINCINN ATE. OH90 1
PU-t 0
in the hearing and I can give you an c::anple of an opinion.
7930 1
(])
that pas written that way by Judna S.-itu at the District Court in the District of Columbia.
It's o blic Affairs u
3
(])
Associates, Inc. against Roahover at 263 F, sup. 444 That's the general sort of format ue'd like to use and it would be 5
helpful if the proposed findings could he cast in that fornat.
6 The other thing, ?tr. Dennison and t*iss Febb, 7
and anyone else to the e:: tent that they feel the decision 8
should find a problem in any one or nore respects with the 9
plans for the inplementation, we would appreciate it if you 10 would tell us what reliaf you think is appropriate with 11 respect to these problems.
12 MR. DENUISON:
Do you wish that to follou the finding of fact proposal as a portion of it or should it 14 be addressed in the supporting argument by way of ncnorandun?
15 JUDGE TRYE:
Hell, I'll leave it to your 16 discretion.
You night, I suppose, want to do it in both 17 places, say the Plan cannot be impler.ented or not ranco:able 18 assurance that it can be implenentet and in the brisf, say 19 this recuires that the license be denied or that a licenso 20 rrovision be imposed or uhat have you.
21 i
IIR. Cl?.TH :
- !av
^
On
^ I nahe a ver'r small corrent here?
23 JUDGE F3?D:
Tenh.
O 24
!"'. 2.UTL.
The isp;; cal roard binds all of us ACE REPORWNG. lNC.
CINCINN ATO. ONIO i
o l
1 e
s at certain tirca.
The Appeal 30ard has ntated in a nurLor of 7931 1,)
occasions that the Licensing Board ray have dif ferent 2
evidence presented for ovaluatici..
To evaluate that evi.J.c.ca, 3
(_)
it rauc t e:q) lain its rationale.
"h 2 r c,ac an earlie r dec.ia i.e.1 4
in Zirr.cr here that the Appeal Loard e ave, citation for tha t S
3 URC 3 a t page 10, which is an ap;eci from Zir nor and I 6
have lochcd at the Craith decinion and I certainly thir.P thin 7
is an admirable fornet to follows.
- akoa life a lot caciar 8
fo r me.
9 At the cano time, if there are conflicting 10 via'f a, ce feel sor.!c'.that cogellar in the findingn to pracont, 11 on Fehalf of our interpretation of your decicion to c:aalain 12
(
)
the rationale for dif ferent vieuc of the evidence.
The casa x/
13 they cite to e:: plain that in Creater Cocton T.V.
in the 14 Suprane Court.
A nurber of tinca they' ve cited th ic canc.. c 15 aatting forth the basic for thc decision o f fact, uSere the re 16
.tra con flicting vie troints, so I thin? '. e car. r ci t Gc t"c 17 to ge th a r, b u t --
18 19
'20 21
}
22 23 I
i i
%W ACK R EPORTING. INC.
CINCINN A fl. ONf G
1 5-PW JUDGE FRYE:
I think it would be appropriate 7932 1
(
to the extent you want to say that this wasn't for such and s_/
2 such reasons.
~
3 (j
MR. BARTH:
Thank you, Your Honor.
We seera to be on the same wave length.
5 MR. CONNER:
That format was done in one other 6
ADC case, I believe, in about 1969 and my memory says that it 7
was that Mr. Andersen tried that when he was presiding officer.
8 That format does exist in one of the old decisions which we 9
will look for.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
I can also tell you, I don't think 11 this format is quite the same as the formats followed by Mr.
12
/~ ;
l'end when he was with the Panel.
He followed a similar kind
't ;
13 of approach.
14 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Right, that was in the Peach 15 Bottom case.
16 MR. DENNISON:
Was that 268444?
17 JUDGE FRYE:
That's correct, yes.
18 MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, I do have some areas 19 of inquiry.
I recognize the circumstances of the request for 20 closing of the record at this junction.
However, what bothers 21
,ry me is that there are two issues still outstanding in this
'/ 22 record.
23
( ')
One, would be this this Court's ruling on the O' 24 20 X Contention.
If the Court rules favorably on that, then ACE R EPJRTING, INC.
CINCINN Afi, OMoo
2 5-PW there are a number of contentions which must come again to 7933 1
f) the hearing as it would pertain solely to Brown County.
2 There is further, the question as to one 3
fl contention which was denied on the basis of existing commission t-4 law at the time, which on January 7th was reversed by the S
D.
C. Court of Appeals and thus, that under the D.
C. Circuit, 6
which is the law at the moment, whether that is subsequently 7
appealed or subsequently reversed, is another point.
8 I would seem that it would be necessary for a 9
further hearing if for no other reason it's a single plan.
10 I don't know how the Court or Board wishes to 11 deal with that in relationship to those two situations, in 12
^
relationship to these findings of fact.
For that matter,
("') 13 whether you want findings of fact addressed to 20 X --
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes, I think it was our feeling 15 that we would ask for findings addressed to 20 X.
16 MR. DENNISON:
Okay.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
The second matter, we're simply, 18 I think, waiting for the Court's opinion.
I don't think we 19 can act on any of those matters.
20 MR. DZNNISON:
I am in somewhat of that position 21 and I'm rather pleased to know that the Board takes the same 7
K/ 22 viewpoints because one of the things that's troubling me is 23 f
when this issue surfaces, whether the Applicant is going to make V 24 some contention to the effect that this should have been more ACE REPORTING. INC, CINCIN N A TI. O M IO
3 5-PW timely presented.
7934 1
(])
I don't want an argument of laches or otherwise 2
on this particular issue.
()
JUDGE FRYE:
I can't control the Applicant's 4
arguments.
5 MR. CONNER:
Our objection was that it was not 6
written on embossed paper.
We fully anticipate, here again, l
7 not having seen the opinion, and it has to be said for everyone, 8
that the Commission will have to make some definitive position 9
on it which should guide the Board and everybody else.
10 They may seek a stay or any number of things.
11 They may refer to generic rule-making as there is no peculiar 12
()
problem in this case, if indeed it's a problem at all.
JUDGE FRYE:
I think it's accurate.
Let's 14 wait until we see the opinion and the Commission could then 15 arrive at some action.
16 MR. CONNER:
I truly expect this would be 17 definitive guidance from the Commission on a generic basis 18 and we will probably ask for it if nobody else does.
19 I don't think that there's any particular reason 20 why this case should be bogged down by a generic problem.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
It does not affect this case solely.
{}
It affects others as well.
23
(])
MR. BARTH:
Your Honor, you have pending before you the motion by the power company to dismiss the contention ACE REPORUNG. lNC.
CINCINN Afl. OMIO
4 5-PW regarding 20 X.
The record can't be closed until this is 7935 1
i done.
It's not a matter of fighting by both sides but there v;
2 are two motions pending which preclude the closing of the 3
()
record.
v 4
FEMA and 20 X.
We have two different findings, S
depending on.how you rule.
The psychological matter now 6
pending before the Board, there is no matter of psychological 7
stress in view of the decision by Judg^ Skelley Wright of 8
the Board.
9 This ill-behooves us, at this time, to move to 10 admit a contention three, four, five, six weeks after the 11 decision was distributed by anybody.
This would just be plain
~
12 (o')
ridiculous to start over again, g
If ZAC wants to make some argunent to re-open 14.
the record to sound a reason for their delay, and in six weeks 15 hasn't done so; the commision hasn't done that.
I am talking 16 about the kiddies' psychological stress.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
We don't have a decision and as to 18 that. That. issue was raised 19 MR. BARTH:
It's been raised now for the first 20 time.
21
,e JUDGE FRYE:
It was raised in a timely fashion
'v' 22 of their contention.
23
(,
MR. BARTH:
Since the Court's decision, Mr.
'w./ 24 Dennison has not mentioned the people having that.
The record ACE REPORT'NG. INC.
CINCINN ATI. OMeo
5 5-PN will show that.
7936 1
[)
JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I'm not sure, v
MR. DENNISON:
I think I would have raised 3
,(_j that.
I would say that we have been somewhat busy since that 4
decision was given to us.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Well --
6 MR. CASSIDY:
I would concur with Mr. Barth 7
with regard to the decisions on the two motions that are 8
pending on 20 X and on the FEMA testimony.
Obviously, since as 9
counsel for FEMA, if I have to -- well, it makes no sense to 10 sit down and write FEMA findings if the Board is going to 11 strike the testimony.
~ 12
( ')
JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
~-
MR. CASSIDY:
It's an additional burden for the 14 government and creates a great deal of havoc and I suspect that 15 if the Board did strike that, I would have to have consultation 16 with my general counsel and make an appeal in that issue, i
l 17 obviously.
l 18 JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
19 MR. CASSIDY:
Whether we write findings at all 20 at this juncture depends on how the Board rules on Mr. Dennison's 21
(~')
motion.
Additionally, as I understand the state of the record
' 2 2 with regard to the 20 X motion, if the Applicant's motion to l
23 strike that, if that's what the motion is at this juncture, is 24 disallowed, my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wronc, ACE REPORT NG. lNC.
CINCINN Afl. ONdo
6 5-PW that additional contentions would come into play at this 7937
~
1 s.
J.
juncture with regard to 20 X.
/
g JUDGE FRYE:
That's true.
3
(~j MR. CASSIDY:
Which would again require further 4
FEMA testimony in support of the Board and would require going 5
through that entire process again.
6 Certainly, if we wait until briefing scheduling, 7
and I believe we were talking about the last date as April the 8
23rd, that means that hearings would have to be opened up 9
again after that.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
That's true.
Were we to grant that 11 contention, the hearings would have to be opened up.
12
(]
The other thing, it seems to me, we have a t./
),
record on that contention and that we must write a decision 14 on that contention.
15 MR. CONNER:
For what it's worth, we would 16 simply propose to submit findings to the effect that 20 X 17 should not be allowed and second, assuming arguendo to the 18 Board contrary to all reasons allowed it.
19 And, it's not good from an evidenciary 20 standpoint because I think we can merge both points into one.
21.
MR. DENNISON:
If I understand Mr. Conner, he
() 22 is withdrawing the motion to strike?
23
(~,
MR. CONNER:
Not at all.
It seems to be the N j 24 case where we're mountain-climbing over a molehill.
The whole ACE R EPORTING, INC.
C)NCINNATI ONIO
7 5-PW thing can be put into one swell foop.
7938 1
l ()
MR. CASSIDY:
I request a ruling on that motion before the record is closed and before we are required to 3
()
write findings.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Let us confer on that.
5 MR. DENNISON:
Your Honor, there is one other 6
outstanding motion.
I don't know that that has anything to 7
do with the record or not.
That was the motion that I had 8
presented on sanctions and the Board has at least, I'm aware 9
that you have made no written announcement, is that correct?
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Right, we have not.
,I didn't view 11 that as something to be taken care of prior to the closing of 12 O
the record.
n MR. WETTERHAHN:
One other item, Your Honor.
14 What does the Board consider as the schedule for transcipt 15 corrections, please?
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, what would you suggest?
17 MR. WETTERHAHN:
A week after the last finding i
18 is filed.
At the time of our reply findings, we will furnish 19 transcript corrections and submit them.
20 MR. BARTH:
The Staff has no views in this
[
21
{}
matter.
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
23 f'N MR. DENNISON:
I have no views.
(/
24 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
We'll take it under ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN AT1. ONIO
5-PW advisement and rule when we come back.
7939 1
Q Let's adjourn now until 1:00 this afternoon.
Thank you.
2 O,
(Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken at 10:30 a.m.,
to reconvene at 1:00 p.m.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l
19 l
{
20 21 l
O 22 23 e
24 i
ACE REPORTING, INC.
CINCINN AT9. ONIO
,.. ~
,.-u 1
.g' "
JUDGE F. TIC :
"a. t'ahh, are "ou reaCy tc.:roceed?
1 I
)
I understand you have jus t one '.'itne:'c - 10 v
2 that right?
3
(
- ~.S. UC3E:
'Iha t 's co rrec t, Your '!cno r.
a 4
Your Ilonor, I believe the witnocs hac not S
l'ocn previoitsly cuorn.
6 J t.., c.,., n f r,.
3.11 f.4,.t.
u-.
.4..
7 t '.l o r c u p o n,
8 J,~,,...., 3
,., C..n. C,. P, 9
called as a '. fitness by councel for Intervonor Citinenr" o f 10
'!antor, having been duly sworn b the Chairnan, vac annnined 11 and testified ca folic'..'s :
12 C.. o.'.' ",
.r... o' '. I ".. n'. ~ m. '..
x.._/
13
.,,,.e.
,,. p.,.
-. ~
14 e
ould 'rou atate your nar.c anc' your husin n -
15 acidross and your of ficial capacity for the record, 'ir. ?'enrec?
16 I'n Jerry H.
"onroe, Director of Dicacto:-
17 nergenc Services for Car 7 ell Cornty, "entuc':".
h r
" hucinens n??renc 10 2 a " e c t " c u r t
- Ftreet, l
19
.~ ? r'n r t, "entucky, 41071 20
Te n r'. id "o u taha ovnr in thin o f ficial 21
.ccition oc Car-hell Count'r Director of "-erecnc".
cer'ricM?
m
'- 22 f.* g -},. p.,...
(,,
- 1. <$ 3 9.
=
23 1
6 "r. i'o nro e, is it your understandiac chet th?
lt.) 24 Judg2 D:cecutive o f Ca.mpbull Coun ty, ~1cyd Rogers,
' c.s ; c3 n ~
ACE M E PORTING. INC.
CINCINN ATO. ONIO
e
- n.. - u NID today, given no recormendation ac to these plans?
' 'e ^
1 A.
Yes, it is.
2 0
Is it furthcr your understanCino that bc fore 3
I[
.u '< ould give a recorr.endation, that he would see:. your 4
recorrendation as to uhother or not the Canpbell County 5
adioloqical Energency Plan is or is not af.ec:uate?
6 A.
Ye s, he wo uld.
7 C.
!! ave you reviewed the plans?
8 A.
Yes.
9 C.
raced on your reviou of theco planc, are they 10 currently adecuate as the" stand?
a 11
2. CASSIOY:
Objection, Ycur !!cnor, lack of 12 s
roundation.
\\ >,
13
.evic. of the plans?
Uhat constitutes reviou 14 of the plans in torus of whether ho 'a lochef. at thct, read 15 then, analyzed then in depth, has verifief the facts?
16 ZDCE I'2Y :
Yac, let 's f.evolcp tha t :- littic 17
- .0rC.
18
- .A. QC::.;E2-You nicht ncte s'r her'. sayin~i 19
" plan 3."
I'n not sure which plan.3 --
20
':5. UE23:
Tha Carpholl County Radiclec-ical 21 r i an..
.,./
y
.....c~..-.-.
r.,.m,,
.,.s.
C '. '-"e+. ' l l "w' " 1' '-;-
23 rn Tat:iciceical Plcnn.
(
4
/
N'%._.,,/
"culd you chato '< hat four re'rie ; o f the ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINCIN N A TI. O M IO
%*-6 3
Campbell County Radiological Plans have been?
7942 1
()
A I have read the Plan and I nicht add to that, that I was soteuhat involved in the development of the Plan
()
or input from the county level into the Plan as having been, 4
prior to ny assurption as Director of DES, had been assigned 5
c as Communications Cecrdinator under those plans.
So, I'm i
6 i
somewhat faniliar with the Plan.
7 O.
Have you had occasion to have conversations 8
uith organizations such as the various fire departments 9
within Campbell County as to their response functions under 10 the plan?
j 11 Yes, I have.
.12
(])
9 And have you had occasion to have conversatiens uith Mr. Soll and Mr. Voelker and school perso..nel as to what 14 their role may be under these plans?
15 A
- Yes, I have.
16 C.
Have you had occasion to talk to non Strassencar.
17 who's the Mayor of Mentor, as to what "entor's or what his 18 role as Mayor of Mentor may be as to these plans?
19 j
A Yes, I have.
20 l
n.
Have you also had occasion to attend various 21 r"N rectings durinn the development of the clans as to their 22 dev21cpment?
23 A
Yes, I have attended sore reetines as a renber
. {]) 24 of the Campbell County General Disaster Energency Services
%CE REPORTING. INC.
C'NCINN Aft. OMIO
M1-G 4
Committee, which is charged by local ordinance to have 7943 1
oversight over DES, generally, within the county.
j 2
G Based on your experience and knowledge of 3
(_)
these plans, have you been called on to give a recommendation 4
as to the adequacy of these plans today?
5 Uould you say that those plans are adequate 6
in the event of a radiological emergency at Zimmer?
'/
A Within the parameters that SOP's necessary 8
to implement that Plan are not fully developed, yes, I would 9
think adequate.
10 G
Is it your testimony that you feel the SOP's 11 are necessary in order to have a comprehensive approach to 12 f,
an evacuation in the event of a radiological emergency?
13 MR. CONNER:
Objection, Your Honor, the Plan 14 calls for implementing of SCP 's.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
She 's calling on her earlier 16 answer, I think we'll overrule it.
17 A
Hould you repeat the question, please?
18 G
Do you think that the completion of the SCP's 19 is necessary in having a comprehensive approach to an 20 evacuation in the event of a radiological emergency at 21 p,
Zimmer?
' 22 A.
Yes.
23
(^)
G Okay.
- Ir. Monroe, are you familiar with the L,< y, document, I be:ieve you brought a copy with you today, entitled, ACE REPORUNG. tNC.
CINCINN ATI, CasHO
AM-G 5
Emergency Preparedness Completion Schedule for the Ph. H.
7944 1
I Zimmer Nuclear Power Station"?
y 2
A Yes.
3 (j
MR. CCMMER:
Is that the care one we identified 4
as Applicant's Exhibit 15 for identification?
5 MS. UEBB:
Yes, it is.
6 R
And when did you receive a copy of this 7
document?
8 A
Yesterday afternoon.
9 G
And from whom did you receive a copy of it?
10 A
It was sent to me by Mr. Conner.
11 0
And was there a note or anything attendant 12
/~',
with the t?
LJ 13 A
Yes, thcre was a note which said simply that 14 this is for your information.
15 Q.
Do you concur in this document as to what it 16 represents?
17 MR. BARTH :
Objection, Your Honor, this is --
18 MR. CONNER:
Can we be a little more specific?
l 19 1
0 Do you concur in this docunent as to the 20 completion dates that are stated in it, as to those indivic'.ual 21 e
SOP's?
4 22 MR. CONMER:
Objection.
23 rm I:R. BARTI:
Objection, Your Honor, he has no --
t\\s' 74 this is beyond the witness' qualification because he doesn't ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCIN N A TI. OMIO
AM-6 6
write these things, he can ' t concur, he has no qualifications 7945 1
()
to do so.
It's non sequitur.
We 're also past that.
2 MR. CONMER:
Insofar as his knowledge is --
1 3
(
MR. BARTH:
Could I have a ruling on my 4
objection, Your Honor?
4
'1S. UEBD :
Let me withdraw --
6 JUDGE FRYE:
She 's going to withdraw that 7
question.
8 MS NEBD:
Let me withdraw that question and 9
preface it first.
10 1
0.
Mr. Monroe, is it your understanding that 1
11 you are going to be largely responsible and involved in 12
()
writing the SOP's for Campbell County?
13 A
Uot largely responsible, partly responsible, 14 concurrently with the Commonwealth of nentucky.
15 0
Have you taken steps, since you have become 16 director, to identify areas where SOP's need to be written?
17 i
A Yes, I have.
18 G
And have you specifically ret with Richard 19 McCormick and the fire departments as.to whether or not they 20 need an SCP?
21
!O,
^
'es-2 G
For that function?
23
({}
A Yes, I have.
O And is it your deternination that there should l
ACE REPORMNG. INC.
CINCINN ATI ONIO
A*1-6 7
he a separate fire SOP for those personnel?
7946 1
()
A Nithin Campbell County's segment of the Plan, yes.
3
, ()
9 IIas that been your determination alone?
4 A
Yes, mine based on my concept of implementation i
5 o f the Plan together with the recommendations of Campbell 6
County Fire Fighters Educational Association and its 7
committee.
8 G
You're familiar with :tr. ?!cCormick's testinony; 9
is that not correct?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q.
Do you feel the concerns he raised in.*.is 12
(]) 13 testimony before this Doard were valid concerns?
A Concerns in what area, ma'am?
14
- 1R. UCTTERIIA"II:
Objection.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah, let's give it a little I
16 more foundation.
17 O
Specifically, do you feel that his concern 18 that there was no planning for those fire personnel's fanilies 19 to be evacuated prior to their involvenent in duties other 20 than the Plan is something that nceds to be addressed?
21 I
A If you're referring specifically to his comment on the fact that he felt that he would see to his 23
{}
family's needs before he'd fulfill his duties as a fire l
fighter, yes, I think that's a valid consideration and it '.tas t
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CONCINN A TL OMIO
N4-6 8
one with which the committee was charged to investigate.
794 7 1
(])
G And how long is that investigation going to continue, if you know?
3
()
A I really can't give you a specific answer.
4 We have not established the next meeting of 5
the committee, but it will be within the ne::t two weeks.
6 G
Are you going to be involved in any. revising 7
8 A
Yes, there needs to be some revision made on 9
the SOP -- pardon me, the EOC evacuation activation procedures 10 and changes of designated personnel and call of procedure.
11 G
So, in other words, Mr. Monroe, you are involved 12 CJT in the development of these SOP's for Campbell County?
13 A
Yes.
14 G
Based on your involvement, do you concur with 15 the completion dates that are listed on this document that I 16 have referred to?
17 A
They are reasonable tire estimates, yes.
18 G
Nculd you adopt them as your own?
19 A
I can't answer that question, I stated that 20 I think they're reasonable time estimates.
21 O's I hope to have some of them completed prior to 22 these completion dates and some may take longer, I can't 23
-)
specifically say yes or no.
24 Q.
Do you know whether or not the position of the ACE REPORnNG. lNC.
CINCIN N ATO. ONf 0
TG-6 9
State of Kentucky or Campbell County has changed as to the 7948 1
('M distribution of KI?
L 3
A Officially, there has been no change issued 3
()
in the policy by Dr. Allen.
DES, Kentucky State DES, Executive Director Buntin is going to make a recommendation 5
to Dr. Allen that we distribute within the five-mile ring 6
to individuals and stockpile from five to ten miles.
7 I assume that that's a change in that the 8
original concept was having one distribution point within 9
the county.
10 0
And there will be an SOP?
11 L
Yes, if Dr. Allen concurs in that recommendation 12
('~
there will be an COP developed for that, yes.
13 14 15 16 17 IP 19 20 21
, ~.
'v 22 23 7.s f
> 24 ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN Afl. OMoo
1 7A-PC Q.
Mr. Monroe, are you familiar with the "635" 7949 1
()
exchange in Campbell County, based on your previous experience 2
and based on conversations that you've had with Mr. Sell?
3
(/)
A.
Somewhat familiar, yes.
Somewhat.
Q.
Are you aware that the general areas of the S
"635" covered is within Campbell County, is generally the J
ten-mile zone?
7 A.
Yes, I am.
8 Q.
And based on your previous experiences with 9
that exchange and with your conversations with Mr. Sell, has 10 it come to your attention that there is an overload problem 11 or at least has been an overload problem in the past with that 12
(^'/
particular exchange in that the entire exchange is knocked out?
s x-13 MR. CONNER:
Objection, Your Honor, this is 14 offered as rebuttal testimony.
Nobody's challenging that 15 point.
It's a leading question of the worst kind, of course.
16 MS. WEBB:
Mr. Conner, are you stipulating to 17 the facts as laid out in that question?
g 18 MR. CONNER:
No, I'm not stipulating to anything.
19 I'm simply saying there's no rebuttal needed on the point chat 20 you have an overloaded phone exchange.
It's also irrelevant 21
(~ )
to the implementation of the plan.
U 22 MS. WEBB:
Well, as I recall, there was testimony 23
.r~ 's as to what the overloading of the telephone systems meant.
L.) 24 MR. CONNER:
From your people.
l ACE REPORDNG,1NC.
CINCINN ATL OMIO
If she wants to rebut her own 7950 1
(])
people, this is a dreadful time for her --
MS. WEBB:
I'm not rebutting my own people.
3
(])
JUDGE FRYE:
One moment.
Refresh my recollection, did Mr. Badger speak to this exchange?
5 MR. CONNER:
I'm sure he did not.
6 MR. BADGER:
No, I did not.
7
'MS. WEBB:
My recollection is he did --
8 MR. BARTH:
Not in Kentucky, Your Honor, 9
according to the Staff.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
.It appears that I can't recall 11 that Mr. Badger did testify to the "635" exchange.
He did 12 k'~J T
testify to certain problems with the --
33 MS. WEBB:
And --
14 JUDGE FRYE:
-- telephones tbat are located in 15 the schools.
16 MS. WEBB:
I don't mean to interrupt.
And my 17 recollection was that when we got to this overload question, 18 the Applicant's position was that overload meant only as to 19 the school site itself and their phones, not as to the entire 20 exchange and that is what --
21 JUDGE FRYE:
That's not Applicant's position.
MR. CONNER:
That's not the Applicant's position.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
It appears he did not testify to the exchange and I'm not aware of any other testimony -- I'm not ACE REPORMNG. INC.
CINC4NN Af t. ON80
1 3
7A-PC aware of any other testimony on that line.
7951 1
()
MS. WEBB:
Okay.
I'll defer to the Board's 2
position.
()
Q.
Mr. Monroe, is it a fair assumption to make that 4
when you're developing plans, that the people that you are 5
planning for, that the planners need to have some extensive 6
contact with those people as to what problems they perceive in 7
effectuating an evacuation in this instance, in the case of 8
a radiological accident at Zimmer?
9 MR. BARTH:
Objection, Your. Honor, this rebuts 10 nothing.
This is merely cumulative, direct testimony by these 11 people.
We're here to hear this gentleman, according to his 12
,[ (])
counsel, rebut something.
Everybody's testified to that.
Cumulative, repetitive, does not rebut at all, it's improper, 14 further direct --
15 JUDGE FRYE:
What was your question, again?
16 MS. WEBB:
I'm asking him whether planners should 17 plan for the people involved in the plan by having extensive 18 contact with those people in finding out what their concerns 19 are, and there's two things I might mention; one, I will tie 20 this up and secondly, according to Mr. Barth's rule of rebuttal, 21
{}
as I understood it, that this witness is a new witness.
He has not had an opportunity to testify to this Board before and is 23
(])
in an official position with the State of Kentucky, and that the Board should hear what his views are as to these emergency ACE REPORMNG. INC.
CINCINN ATI. OMIO Jh
4 1
7A-PC plans and the planning process itself.
7952 1
llD-PC MR. CONNER:
Well, we would like to object on 2
the further ground that there is no contention related to this, 3
(_)
whether it's rebuttal or anything else.
We don't know what 4
it's rebutting.
More importantly, the question is ambiguous S
in the sense that it calls for must having extensive communication s, 6
whatever the word means, and I don't have any idea what that 7
means.
And the fact that, of course, it's leading.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
I tend to agree with the contention 9
at this time.
10 MS. WEBB:
It relates to the SOP contention.
11 In that one of the reasons we do not have SOP's at this point 12 f
is because the people in the community have not been contacted, 13 i.e., Mr. Sell, Mr. McCormick, those responsible agencies have 14 not been contacted to see what problems they perceive with 15 these plans.
So now, we're going to have a fire SOP.
- Now, 16 we're going to have SOP's to deal with those problems.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
I think, so far as specific 18 contacts, that's right, but I think the general question is --
19 I'm not happy with the general question.
20 MS. WEBB:
I'll withdraw.
21
(~)
MR. CONNER:
In any event, it's been asked and
'V 22 answered.
He already testified he talked to the fire department 23
(~J and Mr. McCormick, specifically.
's L
24 Is there any reason for the long pause?
l l
l ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN ATi. OMIO
5 7B-PC MS. WEBB:
Is the Board --
7953 1
('~;
JUDGE FRYE:
I'm sorry, please proceed.
l 2
MR. BARTH:
Your Honor, are you overruling the
~
3
(
'4 objection?
v 4
MS. WEBB:
I withdrew the question.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
The question's been withdrawn.
6 Q.
Mr. Monroe, is it your perception that the plan 7
merely outlines concerns that should be planned for, it does 8
not detail how the plan is to be implemented?
9 MR. CONNER:
Objection, Your Honor, the plan 10 speaks for itself, it follows 0654 and we've been over that 11 many times.
12
/'N,.
MR. BARTH:
I object because it's quite clear (J
13 the plan doesn't say we're concerned about X, Y,
Z, the plan 14 sets forth procedures.
The plan doesn't say, " Hey, we're 15 concerned with anything," so she's mischaracterized the plan.
16 MS. WEBB:
I'm merely asking him what his 17 perception of the plan is.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
19 A.
I view the plan, the basic plan itself, as a 20 resource material, resource volume, if you will, that addresses 21 em concern with which there may or may not be implementation l
Lj 1
22 specifics detailed in that plan.
If they are, fine; if they 23 are not, then SOP's need to be developed from those.
d(x 24 Q.
So, in other words, you need both of those items, ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CtNCa4N A fl. GeHO
6 7B-PC you need SOP's, as well as the plan, in order to implement 7954 1
Iv) the plan?
2 MR. CONNER:
We'll stipulate to that.
3 r~,(,)
A.
Yes.
4 Q.
Mr. Monroe, did you answer my question?
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes, he did.
6 Q.
And your answer was, yes, you need both?
7 A.
Yes.
8 Q.
And we do not have complete SOP's at this 9
moment?
10 MR. BARTH:
Objection, the Staf f' will 11 stipulate this.
It's been through this a dozen times.
12
, - ('s ',
Q.
Given the fact that we do not have completed
(
jg SOP's at this moment --
14 MR. BARTH:
We'll stipulate to that, too.
15 MR. DENNISON:
I think counsel ought to be 16 able to finish a question before being interrupted by any objection.
1 l
17 l
JUDGE FR'2E :
I think so, too.
l 18 MR. BARTH:
I thought she had.
19 Q.
Then you could not give a recommendation as to 20 whether or not this plan is adequate as it stands alone at i
21 (N
the present time?
~'
22 MR. CONNER:
Asked and answered.
23
/~'s MR. BARTH:
Several times, Your Honor.
(_)
24 JUDGE FRYE:
I think you've covered that.
He j
ac nepoariso. isc.
CINCINN AT1. OMIO
7 7B-PC i
said earlier he thought the plans were adequate, but that 7955 1
'L ')
you needed SOP's.
~
2 MS. WEBB:
Okay, I'll withdraw that.
3
(,
Q.
Are you aware that at the present time --
how 4
many meetings with Mr. Sell have you had in order to develop 5
the SOP?
6 A.
I, personally, had one meeting with Mr. Sell.
7 Q.
And are you aware that the P.T.A.'s now are 8
going to be apprised of the Campbell County Radiological 9
Emergency Plan as it deals with those respective school 10 children and they will be asked for some input into those 11 SOP's?
12
(
MR. CONNER:
Your Honor, we object to this.
> us Now, you get'to a point where you can only be so liberal.
I 14 don't have any idea what the contention, if any, this relates 15 to, but if it does, it certainly isn't rebutting anything, 16 that the P.T.A.'s are going to seek copies to the plan.
That 17 hasn't been brought up by anybody, even they didn't bring 18 that up.
19 MS. WEBB:
The question goes to whether or not 20 the P.T.A.'s are going to have some say-so in those SOP's.
21
('
MR. CASSIDY:
What's that rebutting?
22 JUDGE FRYE:
I guess I have trouble seeing the 23 relevance of it.
i xs y,
MS. UEBB:
It goes to the completion dates, to ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN AT4 OMso
8 7B-PC the process.
Where are we in the planning process?
7956 1
()
JUDGE FRYE:
All right, overruled.
2 A.
I have no personal knowledge of any involvement 3
<sU of P.T.A.'s.
4 Q.
Where are we, Mr. Monroe, in that planning 5
process?
6 A.
We have, as a result of a meeting with Mr. Sell 7
Thursday of last week, and another meeting with Bill Voelker 8
Monday of this week, developed the SOP's to the point that I 9
believe they are in what I would call, for want of a better 10 term, final draft and within the next week they will be 11 presented to the school authorities, to the state and local 12
- ()
DES authorities for our final review.
i3 Q.
Where are we in the overall planning process, 14 not just as to the schools?
15 MR. CONNER:
Objection, he just answered the 16
(
question to the extent of his involvement.
l 17 JUDGE FRYE:
I thought he answered as to the 18 i
schools, was that correct?
19 A.
That's correct.
i 20 Q.
Have you previously indicated to me, Mr. Monroe, 21
/~'T that.within the planning process, itself, that we had the cart 22 before the horse?
23
(]}
MR. BARTH:
Objection, Your Honor, we don't know which cart's been rebutted here.
l ACE REPORONG. INC.
CINCINN ATI. ONIO
Perhaps the horse is being 7957 I
p(-)
presented.
MR. BARTH:
Without the humor, sir --
3 (3
(_,)
JUDGE FRYE:
Without the humor, again, I think 4
I'm having trouble seeing the relevanca of it.
5 MR. WEBB:
The relevance of it goes to whether 6
or not we are -- to what stage we are in this planning process.
7 If we are just now to the stage of contacting the local people 8
to see what their concerns are regarding these plans, then 9
we may have substantial revisions to make in these plans, 10 l
whether it be in plans or SOP's.
If we are just now to the 11 point of finding out what thc pivblems are, it seems to me that f) we are in a different ballgame than if we -- it seems to me
, v 13 that we have had plans made without the benefit of input from 14 those who are being planned for.
If we get that input and it 15 starts to change things, as I think has happened, then we are 16 in an entirely different place.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
You know, we,quite some time ago, 18 denied a contention to that subject, if my recollection is 19 correct.
20 MR. CONNER:
We object for the further ground 21
(~')
that it misstates the record.
The premise of her argument is 22 that people have never, ever been talked to before.
This is 23
()
totally contrary to the testimony from the witnesses from the 24 county and the state.
Her point that she didn't talk to the ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN ATI. OMIO 1
10 7B-PC people she wanted them to --
7958 1
I.
JUDGE FRYE:
We did deny a contention earlier that appropriate contacts hadn't been made with the local people 3
{,,
by the planners.
Consistent with that, we have to sustain the 4
objection.
5 li MS. WEBB:
If Mr. Conner's recollection is that i
6 l the planners have stated that they have contacted the local l
7 people, then let me ask this question.
8 9
10 11 12
/%
13 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 2?
j'_.]
N y
23
_ /- \\
(
?
'..../
~
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN a f t. OMtO
Par.UG 1
G Mr. Monroe, do you fcel that with your 7959 1
g(_j appointment as Director of Cmergency Services for Campbell County, that there has been adequate contact in the pas t with 3
the local people?
4 MR. B ARTH :
Objection.
Same objection.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
I think it 's the same question.
6 MS. L'EDB :
All righ t.
7 G
Mr. Monroe, is it your understanding that the 8
group that is to be within the noc is or would include the 9
Mayor of Mentor?
10 A
It may or may not include the Mayor of Mentor, 11 depending on what arount of authority he wishes to delegate 12
( ';
to the county judge or DES organization, generally.
13 G
Dut he would certainly have an option to be 14 a member of that executive group?
15 A
Yes.
16 G
In the event he entertains to exercise Siat 17 option, how do you plan to notify Mr. Strassenger?
18 MR. CONMER:
Objection to th a t.
There's no 19 Contention.
Speculative.
20 Uitness has already answered it.
Mothing to 21 rw do with rebuttal.
i
)
' 22 JUDGE FRYE:
Well --
23
<~)
.!S. UEDE:
Your Honor, this goes to notification
' 24 of what ue got into yesterday and that is the prompt ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN A fl. OMIO
PamM3 2
notification system, and specifically, the reference to 7960 1
i()
NUREG that talked about the 7 tate and local officials, what 2
type of prompt notification they needed and whether a backup
()
system was needed.
4 MR. CONMER:
Objection on the further grounds S
that this has nothing to do with the Mayor of Mentor being 6
on a group or something like that, where the notification 7
- /culd be different.
8 There 's no official status of the na' ^r as f
9 such.
It's no more relevant as to whether the Mayor of 10 Pittsburgh would be on that group.
11 MR. B ARTH :
The Staff would object.
If they 12
,.(])
had bloun their case by not putting this in when they had 13 the opportunity, that is unfortunate. This is not rebuttal.
14 JUDGE FRYE:
There 's lots of testimony with 15 regard to notification of public officials that are coing to 16
_articipate in the EOC.
17 Overruled.
18 71R. CONNER:
Are you designating the Fla7or 19 of Mentor as a public official?
20 JUDGE rRYE:
He said he would have the option 21
(~
of being in that group.
22 A.
At this point in time, there's no special 23 notification process for the :tayor of Nicnter or any other
(~} 24 city involved with the EP: Planning "one.
ACE REPORUNG. INC.
CINCINN ATI. OH00
PAMUC 3
Notification vould come either through the 7961 1
f's rompt varning and notification systen or by comnercial e
w' 2
telephone at this point.
3
,( j) n.
Is it your understanding that the Mayor cf 4
Mentor may have the authority to order an evacuation of 5
Mentor even if Judge Rogers would disagree with that order?
6 MR. BARTH:
Objection.
That rebuts no 7
testimony given during the proceeding.
8 MS. FEBB:
We are bringing up additional 9
problems that were not covered by the Kentucky Panel.
'?e have 10 not had the opportunity of this witness before this Ecard to 11 state his position on the same things that the nontuchy Panel 12 f ~
had stated their position on.
s t" 13 MR. DEMNISOM:
It seems screwhat significant, 14 my recollection of Mr. Alexander's testirony, concerning 15 Campbell County 's preparedness and his role.
I've never 16 spoken with this uitness, by the way, but from what I'm 17 listening to and fron what he's responding, there's apparantly 18 scre difference in Carpbell County's Disaster Service Group as 19 to responsibilities of the Plan.
20 MR. COMMER:
Objection.
21
,- s JUDGE FR'lE:
I guess the probler that we're t
22 having is which Contention are ve talking about?
$7 hat does 23
(
that relate to?
s 24 "P.
'Tn3:
Me are in the notification Contention ACE REPORTING. INC.
CtN CeNN a TI. owso
PN4W8 4
in that if the Mayor of Mentor is supposed to be notified, 7962 1
()
ue do not have that notification pinned down.
Secondly, we are within the SOP Contention 3
$)
in that if we've got the Mayor of Mentor in there as to the 4
EOC activation, and he is giving an order to evacuate, we 5
have a change of command problem that has not been worked out.
6 It needs to be worked out before we can 7
complete the SOP as to that EOC activation area.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
We don't have that Contention on 9
the EOC information.
10 MS. WEBB:
We have the Contention that says 11 SOP's are not in the Plan; that there is no planning '
12
(~') 13 documents without these SOP 's.
If we can't establich the reasons why we need 14 those SOP's and why they should be a part of the Plan --
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Let's get the answer to the 16 question if he can.
17 Can the Mayor of Mentor order an evacuation 18 independently of the county?
19 A
Under Kentucky law, he has that authority,
20 yes.
21 MR. CASSIDY:
If I night, and I'"e been
(^;#
K-22 sitting here quietlj, but I'd like to put some prospective 23 on this, I would agree with Ms. Webb as far as testimony
{- } 24 regarding SOP's.
There has certainly been a great deal of ACE REPORUNG. INC.
CeNCINN AT1. OMIO
PTJT3 5
testimony with regard to SOP 's that would be subject to 7963 1
()
rebuttal.
%s y
I! owe ve r, the inquiries she 's making of this 3
[
witness have nothing to do with rebuttal.
iThat she has been 4
asking him and what-she stated a moment ago in her s tatements 5
is that because Mr. Monroe was not in this position as of the 6
date diat the Kentucky Panel testified, that she did not have 7
an opportunity to cross-examine him.
8 Now, if her position is that because tir. Monroc 9
is a new player here and the situation has changed and the 10 noard allous an examination on that, that would mean that 11 every time somebody leaves one of these planning agencies,
12 w
that ue're going to be opened up to all hinds of i;
13 recross-examination on the basis that, well, this person's 14 philosophy may be different.
15 That person may make dif ferent decisions.
16 That person comes in here fresh not knowing the plans and 17 maybe we agree or disagree.
I would suggest tha t that 18 cartainly, the line of questioning she's follcwing, while 19 there may be some appropriato questions to put to !!r. Monroe, 20 are not rebuttal and therefore, beyond the scope of this portion of the proceeding.
/ ; '
22
!!S. MEDE :
Mr. Chairran, ue had a change in 23 personnel that --
7 t
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Fell, I realise that.
That ACE REPOR TING. INC.
CINCINN AYl. OMIO
PIGU8 G
certainly is true and I think to a large extent, the prob 1cm 7964
.j we.'re having is the change of personnel or the status of the 2
planning efforts at this point, but I do think you need to 3
limit it to the Contentions and to the rebuttal points.
u-4 I don ' t want to get into, at this stage, a whole lot of new material.
6 MS. UEBB:
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor.
7 That's all, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Ms. Nebb, since I ruled on the 9
635 exchange matter, my attention has been drawn to the 10 fact that at 4 :03 on February 3rd,21r. Badger testified, 11 apparently, that the exchange probably was not overloaded, 12 m(j so I'm going to-reverse my ruling.
- 1S. UEDD :
Okay.
14 One more question.
15 O.
Mr. Monroe, --
16
- -!R. CO!!NER
Page 403?
17 JUDGE FR'IE :
At 4:03 p.m.
18 0
Mr. Monroe, do you recenber the question 19 previously put to you with regard to the 635 e::chango?
20 A
I would prefer diat you restate it, please.
21
(^)
O.
Based on your e::perience tith the G 35 e:: change 22 in the past and based on your conversctions with :!r. Cell 23
(^';
regarding his problers with the overicading of the tolophenc 24 system, is it your understanding that that overloading is ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINCINN Af f. ONeo
PA!NE 7
to the entire 635 exchange?
7965 1
)
A It has been my experience over the past 15 2
years or so that I've been a member of the Ccenunication 3
)
Comnittee of Campbell County and the Fire Fighters Educational m
4 Association, that there has been traditionally overloading of 5
the 635 exchange.
6 Now, the telephone company has done some 7
revanping of equipment within the last two to three years.
8 I'm not familiar with what those changes are and uhat the 9
conditions are as of this coment, but yes, traditionally, 10 they have had some problem with overloading the e:: change.
11 6
Did you state previously that that 633 12
]
c:: change does cover the ten-mila EPZ area?
In fact, the
. ~-
635 e:: change borders are almost coincidental with the 14 ten-mile EPZ?
15 A
That's correct.
16 IIS. UE3E :
That's all.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
"r. Conner?
18 M2, CO "!ER:
Yes, Your Honor.
19 CROSE-E:'XII:!ATIO:I 20 DY MR. COB::iER:
21 G
You were asked sore questions about your 22 backcround you were given a chance to develop it.
23
--]
Isn' t it a fact that you have been involved 24 in Public Safety work and emergency 'tork for sor.e time ?
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN ATi. OMto
Pt "'S 3
A Yes, I have.
Twenty-six years.
7966 1
()
O State for the record what that experience is.
A I have been a rember of the Police and Fire 3
(,,)
Departments in the City of Fort Thomas for 21 years since 1961.
4 For the past seven years, I've been Director 5
of the Disaster and Emergency Service for the City of Fort 6
Thomas, the City DES program.
7 I an currently President of the Kentucky State 8
Disaster and Kentucky Emergency Services Association.
9 Q.
Uhat does that group involve?
10 A
The association?
11 C.
Yes.
12
(~i A
The association is a group of, it's a N ~
13 professional association of DES directors throughout the 14 state at the local and state level.
15 0
When.were you elected president?
16 A
Well, I served -- well, with the election 17 process, it 's a two-year period.
You serve one year as 18 president elect, then the second year as president.
19 G
Mr. Monroe, other than working on the 20 implementation of the Plan by SOP's and so forth and changes 21 7
vou have. indicated, do you contend to carry out the Campbell e
i
\\_/
County Radiological Emergency Plan which you have examined 23 and read and worked on, a document I just indicated in this
,rm) 24 proceeding?
ACE A EPORTING. INC.
CINCINN ATI, OMIO
naens 9
A Yes.
7967 1
(])
C.
Do you believe that this Plan can, in fact, be implemented to provide for the health and safety of 3
I~')
Campbell County?
%s A
I do.
5 MR. CONNER:
No questions.
6 MR. B ARTH :
Staff has no questions, Your Honor.
7 MR. CASSIDY:
FEMA has no questions.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
I take it you have no questions?
9 MS. WEBB:
No, Your Honor.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
The Board has no questions.
11 We appreciate very much your coming down and 12 r's being with us this afternoon.
Thank you.
Your testimony
, (.s' 13 was helpful.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
( ) 22 x-23
\\_/ 24 ACE REPORDNG. lNC.
CINCINNa f t. OMIO
AM-9 1
JUDGE FRYE:
We feel tha t the problems go 7968 1
(^'
basically to the weight and probative value, and, the re fore,
2 we 're going to deny the motion and we 'll consider these 3
()
factors when we write our decision, us As to the motion to strike 20X, we're going to 5
deny that and we 're going to write a decision on the record 6
that we have now with regard to 20X.
7 That, I think, leaves only the pending motion 8
regarding the deposition, which ve 'll rule on after ue get 9
back.
10 I think it's largely moot, in any event, at 11 this point, but we 'll issue a written document with regard 12
~
to it.
- k. (U) 33 As to the schedule for findings, we discussed 14 it and we feel we can live with the schedule that's set fordi 15 in the rules but with one change and that is that we'd like for 16 the Applicants, if at all possible, to get their last filing 17 in five days af ter receipt of the Staff's filing.
18 MR. B ARTH :
We 'll. send ours by Federal Express 19 Mail.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, yo u ' re in the s ame town,
21 so if you can get it, I'm sure you can make arrangements to
(_) 22 pick it up.
23 MR. CONUER:
Yes, we will make arrangements, 7,
U 24 assuming there 's no problem.
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN Afl. OM40
AM-9 2
The only thing we would point out, we have 7969 1
('^';
found that opinion which you have referred to, I can't
' ' ~
2 remember the name of it, and I could present -- it might take 3
( 'j an awful lot of time to rule this out and it might take more m-4 time to rule this out if we only have five days to work on 5
the Staff's findings because their's will necessarily be 6
very voluminous, too, and to get it the way you want it --
7 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I guess if you could put 8
it in that format for your initial filing, and then if you 9
have problems with it, and if you have problems with it, 10 when you get the Staff's filing that you're going to be 11 responding to, certainly I'd rather keep the schedule --
12 c (]
MR. COUNER:
I guess I'm saying that that
' 13 five days may not be enough to run through what will probably 14 be 300 pages of findings.
15 If it 's a problem, we 'll bring it up.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Why don't you bring it up?
17 If it turns out to be a problemt when you get 18 the filing, we would like very much to get everything in by 19 April 28di, if I've computed the time correctly.
20 So, if it turns out to be a problem, let me 21 know at the time.
cs
\\
ss' 22 As far as transcript corrections, I think we 23 have no problem with the schedule that you suggested, which
,-s
't ) 24 I think was, what, one week after --
ACE R EPOR TING. INC.
CONCINN A f D OptO
AM-9 3
MR. WETTERHAUN:
After our findings or 7970 1
()
rebuttal findings.
i JUDGE FRYE:
One week after the rebuttal 3
findings.
That should be no problem.
5 Any other matters we need to take up?
6 MR. DENNISON:
One question, Your Honor.
7 On the 20X, I assume that this will be 8
independently handled by the Board relative to findings of 9
fact, that is, that you will simply separately address that 10 by memorandum or -- I'm not sure if I understood.
11 JUDGE FRYE:
No, I can't really very well do 12 (s
that with this schedule for proposed findings.
\\
13 You see, I anticipate that everyone will 14 submit the findings on 20X and then we will write a decision 15 on 20X along with all the other --
16 MR. DEMNISOM:
I thought you were handling 17 that separately, is the reason I asked.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
No, we have the pending motion.
19 MR. BARTH:
I am confused.
Are you stating 20 that -- what was his motion?
21 JUDGE FRYE:
There was a motion to strike
)22 with regard to 20X, which is still pending.
23 MR. BARTH:
20X is 3rown County?
b) 24 rs JUDGE FRYE:
Right, 20X went to the question ACE REFORTlNG. lNC.
CtNCINN Afl. ONIO
AM-9 4
of whether Brown County should be included within the EPZ, 7971
,m.,
(.)
the ten-mile EPZ.
2 MR. BARTH:
May I have a moment before we U
adjourn?
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
S (Off-the-record discussion.)
6 MR. B ARTH :
Your Honor, my understanding, 7
of course, is that opens up the other Contentions, so we 8
have to have an evidentiary hearing on this thing.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
That's quite right, if we were 10 to rule in favor of 20X, that's what we would follow.
11 MR. BARTH:
Ruling in favor of the Contentions, 12
()
Your Honor, the Contentions in this area which were denied 13 on the basis of 20X --
14 JUDGE FRYE:
I don' t understand your problem.
15 MR. CASSIDY:
Maybe I can try, because I came 16 in on the tail end of this, maybe my understanding is simpler 17
-- maybe a change of light.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Let me say this before you go 19 ahead.
20 Maybe we can proceed on this misunderstanding.
21
("')
We haven't made any ruling on the merits of 22 20X at this point.
23
[')
All we 're saying is that we want to treat it a
34 along with all the other Contentions in the decision.
ACE R EPORMNG. lNC.
CINCINN ATO. ONto
AM9-5 MR. DENNISON:
Your Honor, I think if I 7972 m
._)
perceive their problem, what they may be saying is if you admit 20X and all the rest of the findings of fact nay rest 3
,.(,)
there, they would not go to the circumstances of granting or 4
a denial -- they would not go to a granting of the license, 5
it could go to a denial of the license, and could not grant 6
the license in the face of yet-to-heard Contentions dealing 7
with Brown County.
8 Is that the problem that you're addressing?
9 MR. DARTII:
Yes.
10 As soon as he admits 20X, he's got to readmit 11 the other Contentions in this area and we have to have a 12
. (';
further evidentiary hearing on that.
13 MR. DENMISON:
They want to rule on that 14 and if they admit it, and I think what Mr. Barth is questioning 15 is you could not, at that point, grant an operating license 16 until those Contentions have been further heard.
17 MR. BARTII:
Until those Contentions are heard, 18 you can't write findings until you've got a closed record.
19 So, what schedule of findings are we talking 20 about?
21 (3
JUDGE FRYE:
Do you want to put 20X on a k ' 22 faster schedule?
23
(]
MR. B ARTII :
I t ' s no t me, Your IIonor, that's
%) 24 making the ruling, I don ' t think 20X should be in.
ACE REPORUNG. INC.
CINCINN A fl. OMIO
~
AM9 6
j i
HR. DENNISON:
Your Honor, I suggest this:
7973 1
(])
They follow the format you've already described as to 20X.
If you grant 20X, the record is open and we 3
()
need not go into the other fact findings.
4 If you deny 20X, then, in the order of denying 5
it, you can set forth these time tables of 30, 40 and 5.
6 Does that clarify the record?
7 MR. B ARTH :
If you deny it, they.. ave appeal 8
rights.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
That's the thing -- well, cither 10 way, if we deny it or grant it, the party has got an appeal 11 right, they're entitled to have something to appeal.
12
[}
Without a decision, I don't see how they've got it.
14 MR. DENNISON:
It would seem to me if you 15 granted it, there can be an appeal and if you deny it, it 16 can be a'ppealed.
17 Maybe we've got a legal can of worms started.
18 MR. WETTERHAHN:
It would not be final in either 19 case, under the Commission rules.
20 The denial of a Contention, unless it's the 21 f~g sole Contention of the Intervenors, is interlocutory.
kl 22
- 1R. B ARTH :
That's true.
23 MR. CASSIDY:
One inquiry, Your Honor, bear CS> 24 1
with me because this is my first hearine of this nature.
ACE REPORnNG. INC.
CINCINN ATI. OMIO
AM9 7
JUDGE FRYE:
Yes?
7974 1
)
MR. CASSIDY:
If I understand the Board i'~'
2 correctly, you're denying Mr. Conner and Mr. Metterhahn's 3
,o
(,!
motion to strike 20X?
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
5 MP.. CASSIDY:
And you're asking the parties 6
to prepare findings on 20X?
7 JUDGE FRYE:
Correct.
8 MR. CASSIDY :
My understanding would be that 9
if the motion is denied or the motion that has been filed 10 goes to the merits of whether or not a plan for Brcwn County 11 is necessary and, therefore, a denial of the motion as the 12
(~ ')
Doard has just indicated would require that the other Brown
-'~' 13 County Contentions addressed --
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Hell, that --
15 MR. CASSIDY:
That their testimony be heard 16 on this?
l 17 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I'm not --
18 MR. DENMISON:
Could I interject?
19 MR. CASSIDY:
Just for my understanding.
20 JUDGE FRYE :
Let me straighten this out first.
21 (m
Our intent was simply to get to a decision I
't ' 22 on the merits of 20X in the futu re, not to reach the nerits 23
(~3 of 20X now.
\\_/ 24 In other words, if we granted his motion to l
ACE REPORUNG,1NC.
csNCINN ATI. ONf 0
N49 8
strike --
7975 1
.f~N, MR. CASSIDY:
Right, 20X is out.
1
- J 2
JUDGE FRYE:
20X is out and all the other 3
(;
Contentions are out, but we still need to get the postfindings m-4 and write a decision on it.
5 So, I think the two are inconsistent --
6 MR. CASSIDY:
I disagree, I think if the Board 7
allows the motion of the Applicant to strike 20X, then there's 8
no need to make findings on 20X.
9 My unders tanding, at the outset of the hearing, 10 was that testimony was coming in conditional on the Board's 11 ruling on 20X.
12 (C 13 By allowing the Applicant 's motion, that would r s, mean that 20X is out and there would be no need to brief those 14 or rate those findings on 20X because it is, by the fact that 15 the motion has been allowed, stricken.
16 Doing the opposite, denying the motion, would 17 mean that 20X has been admitted, and, as I understand the 18 Board's prior ruling, admitting 20X brings into play the other 19 Drown County Contentions just by the fact that 20X has been 20 admitted and that further evidentiary hearings would have to 21 be held on these other Contentions.
7_
^ _) 22 MR. BARTH:
That's my understanding, too, Your 23 Honor.
k_J 24 9
MR. DEMMISON:
Your Honor, could I attempt to ACE REPORTING, INC.
CINCINN Afl. ONto
AM9 9
)
.h clear this up using an illustration?
7976 1
(
}
JUDGE FRYE:
Sure.
MR. DENNISON:
What seems to be not perceived 3
{}
in this is the nature of the motion.
He passed this once before, made by Mr. Conner, 5
which goes in the nature or, let's say, we have a jury trial 6
that what the motion addresses is the plaintiff, in this 7
instance, the Intervenor pas no evidence to support that 8
particular Contention and, therefore, nobody has to sit down 9
and decide it, unless you take over the jury, you discharge 10 them and everybody goes home.
11 As I understand your ruling, there is sufficient 12 j-)
evidence here for the Board to make the determination, ala s..x > 13 the jury, the motion is denied for a directed verdict, 14 judgment of acquittal or whatever you want to call it, and 15 now there's going to be deliberation on that issue and a 16 determination made.
17 I think they are trying to read more into 18 the denial of the motion than what stands there.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah, I think tha t's right, you 20 have summed it up precisely.
21 Ue want to go back, consider the evidence
( ) 22 and write a decision on 20X.
23 MR. BARTH:
Your Honor, may I point out that the other side of Mr. Cassidy's point, I subscribe to 'everythint ACE REPORTING. f HC.
C18eCINN A TO. OMf 0
NIR9 10 he said.
I think it is quite correct.
7977 1
7s tm,)
If you deny 20X, after the issuance of the 2
initial decision, Mr. Dennison has the right of appeal on 3
1_)
this matter, but I do subscribe, once you admit 20X, you 4
admit those other Contentions.
S There are rulings of the Board which I think 6
are rather clear in the transcript.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
We have not admitted -- I think 8
the conclusion is still there.
9 MR. CONNER:
Your Honor, would it help the 10 Board any if we gave you our view of the situation?
11 JUDGE FRYE:
Ne'd be happy to hear it if 12 q ~)
you want to advance it.
-i MR. CONNER:
That 's the first time the Board 14 has been happy to hear anything from the Applicant, I think.
15 (JDGE FRYE:
That 's not so, Mr. Conner.
16 MR. CONNER:
Let the record reflect they're 17 smiling for the second time.
18 We feel it is very simply, one, we objected 19 to any of these Contentions on Brown County, initially.
20 The Board established a threshold level to 21
(~;
admit, identified as 20X, as to whether this would be
/
22 considered.
23
(]
JUDGE FRYE:
That's right.
x.s MR. CONNER:
He moved to strike the Contention ACE R EPORTING. INC.
CINC4NN ATI. OMio
i K19 11 at the appropriate place because we said that threshold 7978 I
-s
( l had not been met..
v 2
Ne understand what the Board intends to do 3
~,.
(_)
is simply to review this, together with all of the other 4
matters in the case and rule on them.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Precisely.
6 MR. CONNER:
Me understand that there was a 7
risk that some time down the road, there is a possibility 8
the Board would rule against our position as to Brown County 9
being included in the emergency plan contrary to 0654.
10 We do not view this as a realistic risk, in 11 view of the record, the state of the roccrd, the evidence 12
( (Q that has been presented.
s 13 Ne do not view this as a real problem and 14 that's why we have no objection to the Board dealing with 15 it as the Board has indicated it wishes to do.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
I think that clears it up 17 and since, obviously, the Applicants are the ones who stand 18 to be injured by an adverse ru.'.ing or incurring the risk --
19 j
MR. CONNER:
Mc assume if the Board reaches 20 that adverse hearing, there would be an instant hearing before rm, it completed its initial decision, but, as I say, I don't l
22 think this is a real rish.
23
.3 74 ACE REPORDNG. lNC.
CINCINN Afl. ONSO
1
)
10-PC JUDP2E FRYE:
Fine, good.
Now, why don't we 7979 1
- l..("')
leave it at that.
We'll expect your findings to include 2
discussions of 20 X and we'll issue you a decision on the merits 3
i'~l of 20 X.
v 4
MR. CONNER:
I move the record be closed.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Any objections?
Hearing none, the 6
record is closed.
7 MS. WEBB:
Your Honor, one last-minute thought 8
occurred to me.
Do we need a clarification as to what Mentor 9
should prepare?
10 MR. CONNER:
Can't hear.
11 MS. WEBB:
Do we need a clarification as to what 12
(~')
Mentor should prepare findings as to?
In other words, do you 13 want double findings of fact on those consolidated issues, as 14 well?
15 JUDCE FRYE:
Oh, no.
I think where issues have 16 been consolidated, that I would expect you to only submit one 17 set.
18 MS. WEBB:
Thank you.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
The record is then closed.
20 Ms. Webb and gentlemen, thank you very much.
21
( '3 We appreciate your participation here.
\\J 22 23
. (~S (Thereupon, the proceedings were concluded at
., l -' 24 2:05 p.m.)
ACE REPORD NG. INC.
CINCINN A TE. oms 0
NtTCLEAR IG%KTLATORY COMMISSICN This is to certify that the. attachad proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel O'in the matter of:
[ late of Proceedisg.:.
March 4, 1982 Docket.Mumber:
50-358-OL PIace of Proceeding: Cincinnati, OHIO were held. as herei;r appears,. and that: this.is the original transcript th.ereof for-the f* ' a of the Commissicer Annette Mckeehan Official Esportar (Typed)
-knaJtG M., 6L s Official Reportar- (Signature)
F
NUCJi:AR REGULATORY COMMISSICtt This is to certify that the. attached proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
%'s the matter of:
i Date of Proceedisg,;
March 4, 1982 Ucckat Mumban 50-358-OL PIace of Proceeding: cincinnati, OHIO were held. as hereim appeart,. and that this. is the original transcript thereof for-the file of the Commissice Patty Walterman Offi.cial Kaportar (Typed)
'S bl 1r8%44 L4
~ ~ ~ ~
AP1.,
. Officia.L Reporter- (Signature)
J'
NUC2AR REGULATORY CO!SEISSICK i
This is to certify that the. attached proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel in the matter of:
Cate of Proceeding,:.
March 4, 1982 i
Ocekat. Number:
50-358-OL PIact of Pt oceeding:. Cincinnati, OHIO were held. as herei:r appears,. and that this Lx the original transcript thereof for the file ef the Commissicer.
Pam Wargo Offi.cial Reportar (Typed)
[ __ _. -
(Lfn 4)g Official Reportar (Signature) i
.