ML20127L461
| ML20127L461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#385-653 OL, NUDOCS 8506280026 | |
| Download: ML20127L461 (179) | |
Text
i Uh n tU STA.tES
~
NUCLEAR REGUT ATORY COMMISSION DRIGLNAL o
s IN THE MAi1:.R Oh: DOCKET NO:
SHEARON HARRIS 50-400-OL EVIDENTIARY HEARING o .
LOCATION: APEX, NORTH CAROLINA PAGES: 7996 - 8167 DATE: TUESDAY, JUME 25, 1985 p\ 0 o h .
ace-FEDERAL REFoRims, INC.
C,T:blReportas lDg620026d50625 i s J. . 20 7 Dock 0500040o (202) ?A~-3700
- PDR NATIONYCE COVIRACE ,
7996 SueWalsh 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
5
X 6 In the matter of: :
7 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY :
and NORTH CAROLINA COMPANY : ;
8 MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY : :
- Docket No. 50-400-OL l 9 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power :
Plant) Evidentiary Hearing : l 10 -------------------------------X ;
11 12 Ramada Inn I'd
\'
Interstate 55 l 13 U. S. 1 South Apex, North Carolina 27502 14 Tuesday, June 25, 1985 15 16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 17 convened, pursuant to recess, at 9:05 a.m.,
18 BEFORE:
19 JAMES'L. KELLEY, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 21 GLENN O. BRIGHT, Member
() 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D. C. 20555 ,
24 JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member DFedwei neporters. ine. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
7997
@u;Walch 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Applicants:
3 THOMAS A. BAXTER, EsqQire
^"d
($) 4 DELISSA A. RIDGWAY, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 5 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 6
DALE E. HOLLAR, Esquire 7 Associate General Counsel l Carolina Power & Light Company j 8 P.O. Box 1551 >
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 l 9 ,
on behalf of the NRC Staff:
10 CHARLES A. BARTH, Esquire 11 and JANICE E. MOORE, Esquire 12 Office of Executive Legal Director
}
13 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 14 BRADLEY JONES, Esquire ,
Region II I
15 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Atlanta, Georgia 16 i On behalf of FEMA:
I 17 l STEVEN M. ROCHLIS, Esquire 18 Atlanta Regional Office Suite 700 19 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 20 On behalf of the Intervenors:
21 WELLS EDDLEMAN, pro se
() 22 718-A Iredell Street Durham, North Carolina 27705 23 ,
24 DFederd Reporters, Inc.
25 i
7- 3 t
7998 .
s uesalth. 'l CONTENTS g
$. .~3 2 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD l-3 Guy Martin, Jr. -
t and 't .
4 Joseph F. Myers (Resumed) 7999- 8108- ,
8110 5 ,
John C. Heard, Jr. ,
6 and Thomas I. Hawkins .
8128 .*
6132 8149 8152 8145 ,
7 ,
n 8 l 9 ,
r 10 EXH1 BITS 8 .
, i; r
i ,!
11 IDENTIFIED RECEIVED . /, J.
1i 4 12 Eddleman Exhibit Number 64 8012 8012 I
i Eddleman Exhibit Number 65 ' '
- 8017 8022 ' I, I l 13 Eddleman Exhibit Number 66 8024 l Eddleman Exhibit Number 67 \ M8037'
)
14 ,
e
' # 5 t
15 .
h b.Y_ - I_ N S_ '
16 Testimony of John C. Heard, Jr.
17 and Thomas I. Hawkins < Following~Page-8130 <-
18 .
I 19 20 21 ,
O
~
22
~
' 23 ,
}/.
24 ' /
w-Feases n ri.e., inc. /
25 ,
, 4.
/
7999 Sim 1-1 1 PROCEEDINGS
't 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Good morning. We are back on 3 the record on the hearing on Eddlemen Contention 57-C-10.
s p\ 4 Is there anything that counsel wants to raise 5 or Mr. Eddleman wants to raise before we resume Mr. Eddleman's 6 cross-examination of the witnesses?
7 MR. HOLLAR: Nothing from the applicants, 8 Your Honor.
9 MR. ROCHLIS: Nothing from FEMA or the staff.
4 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, Mr. Eddleman.
11 MR. EDDLEMAN: I am ready.
f 12 Whereupon,
(() 13 GUY MARTIN, JR.
14 - and -
t 15 JOSEPH F. MYERS 16 having been previously duly sworn, were further examined 17 and testified as follows:
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION INDEXXXX 19 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
3 20 Q Mr. Martin, if you would turn to, I think it is s
21 Tab 15 where you have got copies of my proposed exhibits,
'l-
~% 22 please. I want to ask you about the one that is shelter 1
(d 23 analysis for nuciaar design with the black cover marked 24 Ace-Feder:1 Reporters, Inc.
down at the bottom in the little white section 57-C-10-(c) .
25 Do you have that?
[
l I
l 8000 I
I.Sim1-2 j A (Witness Martin) Yes, I do.
2 0 Are you familiar with the document that this 3 consists of a few pages from?
) 4 A Yes, I am.
5 0 Do you use this document in your work as a I l
l 6 shelter analyst?
l 7 A Yes, I do.
! 8 0 Let me direct your attention to the back of 9 the first page with Roman vii down at the bottom, 10 entitled " Preface." It may be the second page if yours j 11 is just copied on fronts. Do you have that?
12 A You mean Roman numeral seven? I
) 13 Q Yes.
14 A Yes, I have that.
15 Q Okay. And it says, doesn't it that this 16 document is intended for use by qualified fallout shelter 17 analysts, does it not?
18 A Yes, it does.
19 Q Do you use the form that is shown on the next 20 page, viii, in shelter analysis?
21 A Do you mean Roman numeral eight?
22 0 Yes.
{w)T 23 A Yes, I do.
24 Q Did you use this form in putting in the Ze Federti Reporters, Inc.
25 input data for the survey that you led for the Harris EPZ?
8001 Sim 1-3 j A Yes, I did.
O All right. There is another page to the form, 2
is there not, the next page, Roman nine?
3
~j 4 A Yes, Roman numeral nine.
Q And you used that, too?
5 A It is really the same form, just the sides 6
7 of the page that came up on two pages in photocopying.
8 0 Okay. So it is the same form, but just 9
consists of these two pages?
10 A That is correct.
jj Q Mr. Martin, I would like to ask you if you 12 are familiar with my interrogatories to the applicants 13 concerning Contention 57-C-10 at all?
34 A Yes, I am.
15 0 Are you aware, for example, that there is 16 an interrogatory asking what study, if any, this is 37 directed to applicants, the state and county emergency 18 planners, what study, if any, have you made of sheltering 19 effectiveness for shelters typical of those available 20 within the Harris EPZ?
21 A Could you repeat the question, please?
22 0 Are you familiar with an interrogatory of 1
23 mine asking what study, if any, have you made of sheltering 24 effectiveness for shelters typical of those available Ac:-feder;l Reporters, Inc.
25 within the Harris EPZ?
8002 Siml-4 1 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Eddleman, could you identify 2 what interrogatory you are referring to?
3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. It is No. 57-C-10-1 (a) .
(' '
4
_ MR. HOLLAR: Could you give us a couple of 5 minutes to find it?
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Sure.
7 And the applicants' response to that is dated 8 July 25, 1984 to the 9th set of Eddleman interrogatories.
9 While you are looking, you might also dig' 10 out August 8 th, '84 applicants' supplemental answer 11 to Eddleman interrogatcry 57-10-3, 57-C-10-3, pardon 12 me.
13 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
14 Q Mr. Martin, do you have a copy of the 15 interrogatory responses available to you?
16 A (Witness Martin) I have a file of interro-17 gatories and responses to these interrogatories here, but 18 could you please repeat the numbers of interrogatories?
19 I didn't catch those numbers.
20 Q Yes, sir. The one I was asking you about 21 originally, and I will come back to as soon as your r')
v 22 counsel has gotten it and you have it, is 57-C-10-1(a),
23 and I believe the response to that begins, or the 24 interrogatory is listed on page 11 of the response dated Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 July 25, 1984. And the answer appears over on page 12
F 8003 Sim 1-5 of that same response.
)
2 (Pause.)
Do you have it, Mr. Holler?
3
(,) 4 MR. HOLLAR: Yes, I have it.
MR. EDDtEaAN: Do you, Mr. Merein2 3
WITNESS MARTIN:. Yes. I am just looking at the 6
interr gatory right now.
7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Certainly.
8 ,
9 (Pause.)
WITNESS MARTIN: To be correct, is that interroga-10 jj tory whose response is "No such study of typical structures" and so on and so forth?
12
()
n MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir.
13 WITNESS MARTIN: Yes, I have the interrogatory 34 and I have the response.
15 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
16 Q All right, sir. Let me ask you when did the j7 18 study that you directed of these Harris EPZ structures take 19 Place?
A (Witness Martin) There were two studies performed 20 which I directed both of them. The first study was done 21
~
22 in October of '84, if I recall correctly, and that study V
23 comprised the survey of the private residences around the EPZ and also of the nursing homes, hospitals and family 24
$e-Federti Reporters, Inc.
25 care centers.
7 8004 Sim.1-6 1
The second study was made up of a survey of the 2 industrial, commercial and institutional structures, and 3 that took place from May 13th, 1985 to May 30th, 1985.
I_)
~' And when were the results of that available?
4 Q 5 A They were available on June 10th, 1985.
6 Q Okay. And that is the date that your testimony 7 was filed, is it not??
8 A Yes, that is correct.
9 O All right. Let me ask you, was this building 10 that we are in here, which I believe is in the EPZ, was that 11 included in your survey?
12 A That is correct.
/ 13 Q All right. Maybe this is sort of a digression, 14 but I think it-would be better to take it here.
15 Did you determine the protection factor,.an 16 inhalation exposure protection factor for this building 17 itself that we are in now?
18 A The entire Ramada Inn complex was analyzed.
19 Q And does this structure that we are in here, 20 the mini-room structure, and I notice it has some block and-21 brick walls, do you recall whether in your study it has
.(' 22 a better protection factor than some of the guest rooms?
23 A Absolutely.
24 0 Would you then think that if sheltering were ke-Feder:1 Reporters, Inc.
25 ordered that it would be advisable to have the people in
8005 Sim 1-7 this building rather than in the guest rooms?
1 2 A I would say that I would not advise the 3 transfer of personnel from one building to another building (l
'd because that may entail going outside to the unprotected 4
5 environment and therefore you may have to receive a higher 6 dose than if you were to remain in place.
7 0 Okay. Now that is if radioactivity is already 8 present outdoors; is that right?
9 A That is correct, yes.
10 0 Okay. Suppose that there has been a release 11 but it hasn't gotten here yet.and people have time to move 12 down to this building. Would you then think it was 13 advisable for them to get into this structure here rather 14 than' staying in the guest rooms?
15 A Strictly from a protection factor viewpoint 16 without so much making policy for any state or any agency, 17 I would say yes to your question based upon the numerical 18 values of the protection factors.
end Sim 19 Sue fols 20 21 22 (2) 23 24 Ace-Federti Reporters. Inc.
25
8006 1 1
- 2-1-SueWalsh Q Okay. And from a protection factor viewpoint 2 again, when there was time for people to move into structures s 3 near them that did offer higher protection factors, in general, b 4 within the zone, would you likewise think that that was 5 advisable from the --
6 MR. HOLLAR: Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Chairman, 7_ I've let this go on a little bit further than I should have.
8 I believe this is outside the scope of Contention 9 57-C-10, as it has been limited by the Board's ruling on 10 Summary Disposition.
11 f JUDGE KELLEY: In that?
I 4
12 1 MR. HOLLAR: In that the contention is simply O 13 whether the ERP's treatment of the protection factors of 14 ! commercial and institutional buildings is sufficient.
15 f And Mr. Eddleman is probing as to whether persons i
16 ! should be moved from one building to another. And that's not 17 tl at issue in the contention.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Eddleman.
i 19 I ;MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I think that the availability
.i 20 '! of higher protection factors is often indicated in this a
21 study. Some are higher, some are lower. And that the gs ,
t s_) 22 sufficiency of the protection factors would certainly include i
23 l what protection factors actually have.
24 ! I don't propose to go any further than this
'"M Aecorters. Inc. !
25 ;
question along this line. But I do think that I am entitled
8007
- 2-2-SueWalsN to an answer to it.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Any comment from FEMA or the Staff?
3 MR. ROCHLIS: Mr. Chairman, I would say the 4 contention as limited by the Board is basically whether or 5 not the commercial and institutional protection factors should 6 be in the plan. And, of course, the Applicants have come 7 out with a survey of the protection factors.
8 And I would say that the question should be solely 9 limited to the survey that was done and how the survey was 10 i done and whether that survey is an accurate one, and whether l
1 11 l those protection factors should indeed be included in the I
12 I plan.
q D 13 h JUDGE KELLEY: Would you then distinguish between 14 the factors you just mentioned and the criteria a decision b
15 U maker would make of that information?
I 16l MR. ROCHLIS: Yes, I would. I would say that we d
17 P are not here for that reason.
V 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
I9 (The Board members are conferring.)
20 , JUDGE KELLEY: We think it's outside the scope, 21 but we are going to allow an answer to the pending question
() 22 nevertheless just for the interest of completeness.
23 But our determination that we are interested here 24lI on the survey that was done and its accuracy as distinguished
-
- t '?,*f A eoorters, Inc. I 25 from what a decision maker would later do with such information,
i.
8008 I
- 2-3-SueWalsh we will adhere to for the rest of the hearing.
2 If you could just respond to that question,.we 3 would appre'ciate it. j O 4 WITNESS MARTIN: Mr. Eddleman, would you care to 5 repeat the question, please?
6 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 7 0 Yes, sir. You said that strictly from a protection --
8 radiation protection viewpoint, I believe, that you would 9 recommend that people move within the Ramada Inn complex from 10 areas of lower protection factors to high protection factors II if that.would not expose them to additional dose in getting 12 ! to the higher protection factor.
- O- 13 I. What I was asking you is, would you make a similar
- l recommendation where it was possiblo to move people to areas 14j! !
15 of higher protection factors, or for them to move to areas of i ~
16 higher protection factors, say, a nearby building that's of l
d 17 ? brick or block instead of wood, or that just has a higher pro-18 >
U] tection.
factor and is known to have one, or is stated by the I9 emergency planning officials to have one?
f ,'
20 ll .Would you recommend from strictly a protection n
21 factor point of view again that people move to the higher 22 protection factor area if so doing would not involve exposing d
23 [ them to additional radiation dose?
a 24 {l A (Witness Martin) Strictly -- and again very w n.oonm. inc. y 25 . strictly from a higher protection factor viewpoint, I would n
8009 l
I l2-4-SueWalshi recommend that.
2 Q Thank you. Mr. Myers, I don't know if I am going ,
3 to run into an objection on this, but I believe you testified J
4 yesterday in respect to another contention that if you didn't i i
5 have time to move people out before a release of radiation '
6 that you would order sheltering. That was your plan; is 7 that right?
8 A (Witness Myers) That would be one --
9 MR. HOLLAR: Objection. I think that the Board 10 has established the ground rules, and Mr. Eddleman is again 11 seeking to go beyond the scope of the contention.
I 12 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman, any comment? '
13 h MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I think the record on the i
14 previous matters can speak for itself.
I don't know that I il f
ISP need to double it up here.
d 16 JUDGE KELLEY: We would have sustained it. So, ii 17 move on.
18 b'l MR. EDDLEMAN: All right, sir. I'm not, of course,
!I 19 'i waiving my previous position. But I know ya'll are the Board; 20 , I have to follow orders.
21 fi JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
O
() 22 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 23 l 0 Mr. Martin, I believe you've said that you did use i
l 24 ' the form that is shown in Eddleman Exhibit 57-C-10-C as your __
1 --t 9+oorters. Inc.
25 in the course of the survey that you directed of the i
I l
l
8010
?
,02-5-SueWalshi non-residential structures in the Harris EPZ?
2 A (Witness Martin) The forms were not used in 3 the course of the survey. They were used in the course of f-4 the analysis.
5 Q Okay. You took the data from the survey and re-6 corded them on this form; is that right?
7 A Yes, that's correct.
8 Okay. And this is the form that you sent in to Q
9 the FEMA computers to analyze?
10 A That's correct.
II Q Okay. And you sent that to FEMA on forms like l
12 l this?
O I3 A Right.
'd !j Q This form?
t 15 f A Yes, sir.
I!
0 MR. EDDLEMAN: At this time, I would move the o
I7 !' admission of Eddleman Exhibit 57-C-10-C into the record.
IO JUDGE KELLEY: Do you have a number on that, or 19 !
jj would that'be it?
4
!! MR. EDDLEMAN: Well --
I
,1 ,!
MR.ROCHLIS: For the record, why don't you state the form number, the FEMA form number?
U 3 This is -- well, it's MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay.
24 actually -- I'm not sure if it has got a FEMA form number.
. ~ e-m neartm, ine. [
25 It is " Shelter Analysis for Nuclear Defense, SAND," Number
8011 6-6-SunWalsh 1 TR-55, March 1983.- I believe that TR-55 is the FEMA form 2 number; is that correct, Mr. Rochlis?
3 MR. ROCHLIS: I -- let's see -- l.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman, could you refresh 5 my memory? In prior contentions in the case, have we in 6 effect started all over again with numbering whenever we ;
7 started'a.new contention? Or, have we got Eddlemar 1 up to 8 Eddleman 97 by now?
~9 MR. EDDLEMAN: We have Eddleman 1 through I think 10 about Eddleman 62, Judge.
II JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, on all the various contentions?
12 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir. I thought it would be O 13 clearer to number this one by the number that it has got on i.
'd !! it. But if we want to call this one Eddleman 64 --
ll 15 { JUDGE KELLEY: Do you know what the next one in i
16 j, order is?
17 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm not certain.
18 I MR. HOLLAR: Your Honor, we know. It's Number 62.
I 19 f I think it -would be less confusing for the record if we 20 could number them sequentially.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: We could note here then that this 22 , would be 62 or 63?
23 MR. HOLLAR: 62.
24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, if I may, I made an offer
- 9 Recortars. Inc,
'S of proof yesterday on the Numbers A and B that were not i
8012 32-7-SueWalshi admitted -- ,
2 JUDGE KELLEY: We can fix that, too. i 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: I would like to just number them f_)
4 61 and 62; is that right?
5 MR. HOLLAR: 62 and 63.
6 'MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Number them 62 and 63.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Right, as an offer of proof.
8 MR. EDDLEMAN: As an offer of proof, and then 9 call this Eddleman 64.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: That sounds desirable. Okay.
II (The document referred to was i
12 ! marked as Eddleman Exhibit f
INUEXX 13 j Number 64 for Identification.-)
I Mj MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Chairman, we have no objection 15 ; to the admission of this exhibit.
16,! MR. ROCHLIS: No objection.
a I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Eddleman 64 then is admitted.
l 18ll (The document previously marked b
I9 I for identification as Eddleman 20 Exhibit Number 64 was received d
$NDEXX 2I in evidence.)
/~')
.\s ,/ 22 h 0
MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you, h
I; 23 ll BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) n 24 f!
- Q Mr. Martin, I believe you said the results of your
-,mi sanonm, inc. ql
^5 survey were available first on June 10th, 1985. When did you f
8013
)2-8-SueWalsht receive back the results of the computer runs that you made
.2 using information on this form that is in Eddleman Exhibit 3 64?
O 4 A (Witness Martin) We analyzed more than twenty 5 structures in total, twenty-five structures. And we were 6 feeding that information into FEMA as the input was available.
7 And by the same token, the results came back to 8 us also as they were being fed in. So, I don't really re-9 call exactly when we obtained the results.
10 I would say from May 23rd through June 7th perhaps.
11 In that period of time.
ND #2 12 i i
egg [ws m
i 15 16 I 17 [
la 19 ,
20 I
21 j i
u :
24 l
, mi naturtm, inc.
25 i
)
8014 3-1-Jo] Wal l 1
Q All right, sir. I would like to refer you to 2 the interrogatories again.
3 If you will look at Applicants' supplemental j l
'~
4 answer dated August 8, 1984, to Eddleman Interrogatory 5 57C-10-3A through D, if you can locate that, please?
6 A Would you repeat that number, please?
i 7 Q 57C-10-3A through D.
8 A Is that the one dated August 8th 1984?
9 Q Yes, sir, and I want to ask you about on the 10 first page of that response, that answer -- supplemental Il answer -- would you please -- well, let me ask you this:
12 Does not Interrogatory 57C-10-3A ask you to identify all
'"' 13 documents, methodologies, data, equations, calculations or Id other information you have used or plan to use in calculating 15 or determining sheltering effectiveness for structures within 16 That is what that asks, isn't it?
the Harris EPZ?
17 A Yes, it does.
18 Q To your knowledge, have the Applicants' I9 identified or made available the survey data that you used?
20 A I am sorry. I don't understand the question.
21 Q To your knowledge, has the power company or the
() 22 State made available to me, the Intervener, or to anybody 23 else that you know of, the survey data that you used in your 24 study?
wFederal Reoorters, Inc.
25 The forms, or the results?
8015 3-2-Joa Wal
}
} A If I recall correctly, the survey data was f
2 prepared and was available following discovery. !
, 3 Q Well, this is continuing discovery, I believe.
f 4' If you prepare something later on, you are supposed to make 1 l
5 that available. Is that your understanding? l I
6 A I really don't have any understanding on the !
7 procedural matters in this case. !
8 I am just -- just do the analyses, and procedural-9 matters are left to the Applicants or attorneys. I don't 10 really know.
Il Q But to your knowledgc, you don't know that these 12 survey instruments or the data that you got in your surveys, l )
13 the raw data on the buildings, was made available to the 14 Intervener, do you?
15 A I don't know if they were made available.
16 Q Okay. Thank you. Let me now turn to your 17 testimony please on page 1 of your prefiled.
l 18 JUDGE KELLEY: I think at some appropriate 19 point if there is some dispute about the data and its i
20 availability, counsel perhaps should address the point. We 21 can go ahead for now, but at some point we would like to just
) 22 clear it up.
23 Go ahead, Mr. Eddleman.
24 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing)
W-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 Mr. Martin, you state you completed training Q
3-3-Jos Wel 8016 ,
1 l
1 offered by FEMA for certification as a fallout shelter l
2 analyst.
3 Can you tell me when you completed that O 4 training, sir?
5 A I completed the training as a fallout shelter 6 analyst.
7 Q At what time did you complete that training, sir?.
8 A December of '83.
9 Q And to your knowledge, are the same methods 10 used for evaluating sheltering effectiveness for a nuclear 11 power plant- accident fallout as for a fallout that one would 12 experience in a nuclear war?
O
\* 13 A Yes, the same methods apply.
14 Q Okay. Can you tell me, Mr. Martin, you 15 directed these surveys. Can you tell me who ordered the 16 surveys to be made?
17 A The surveys were performed as a result of the l
18 Board's order.
19 Q Okay, but the Licensing Board didn't send you 20 a letter and'say please make this survey, did they?
21 A No.
() 22 Q Well, who did actually instruct you to make 23 .these surveys. That was the question I was trying to ask.
24 A I understand. The survey was commissioned, if Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 you will, by CP&L.
3-4-Jo3 Wal 8037 i i
i' j Q All right, sir. And, in fact, in your Answer 4 2 on Page 2 of your prefiled testimony, you state that the i'
,, 3 purpose of your testimony is to describe the activities that
' ~ '
4 EBASCO has taken on behalf of Applicants' and in conjunction 5 with the State Division of Emergency Management of North 6 Carolina to address the remaining issues concerning Eddleman 7 Contention 57C-10, correct?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q All right, sir. I would like to ask you now 10 to please refer to the single page printed on front and back 11 in my proposed Exhibits marked 57-C-10 D, and I guess I would 12 like this marked for identification as Eddleman 65, please.
\/ 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
XX INDEX 14 l i
(Above referenced document 15 is marked Eddleman Exhibit 65 16 for identification.)
17 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
l (Continuing) 18 Q Do you have that before you, sir?
19 A (Witness Martin) Yes, sir.
20 'Now, I would like to ask you about the second Q
21 ' page. That is, the back of the sheet marked Page 4 at the i ) 22 bottom in this exhibit, sir.
23 A Could you show me the page, please?
24 Okay, I have that.
\m-Federat Reporters, Inc. ;
25 '
Q All right, sir. I would like you to take as much:
3-5-Joe Wal I time as you think you will need to read it over, and my s
2 question to you is- Is this a -- does this basically describe
- 3 the protection factors, or the basic principles of analyzing
- l 4 protection factors for direct radiation exposure in structures?
5 A No, it doesn't. i l
6 Q Okay. Would you please tell me what factors ;
7 you should analyze, in your opinion, for direct exposure 8 protection in structures?
9 A I don't understand your question.
10 Q Well, you said this does not describe the factors 11 that you should use in analyzing or finding out the protection 12 factors for direct radiation exposure, and I am speaking of x
13 that as opposed to inhalation exposure in structures, sir, 14 if I understood your previous answer, is that right?
15 A If I understood your question, I thought that 16 what you really were asking was does that page describe the 17 i methods used to calculate the peak protection factors for l
18 direct exposure.
19 Q No, sir; that was not the question I was asking.
20 Let me try again.
21 A Please.
) 22 Q Let me refer you specifically to the principle 23 that is stated at the bottom of the drawings on the left 24 side of that page of the exhibit, sir. Do you see that?
Aar-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 A Yes, I do.
- 3-6-Jon Wal 8019 1 -Q Now, is that principle a basic principle that 2 you-used in analyzing protection factors of buildings within i 3 the Harris EPZ?
O. 4 'A 'No, sir, it is not.
5 0 Okay. What principle did you use in analyzing 6 those?
7 A If I make may a clarification-here, Mr. !
l 8 Eddleman. This whole page here deals with the design of 9 shelters, not.the analysis of shelters. ;
10 Q I understand that it deals with shelter design, 11 but it does show in those figures that you have factors of -
r 12 mass, distance, and time to improve radiation shielding. .
13 Now, if you look at two different buildings, I
14 one of which has a lower mass and one of which has a higher i 15 mass, wouldn't you on the basis of this principle tend to 16 believe that the one with the higher mass would have the 17 _ higher protection' factor?
l 18 A That is correct.
End.3. 19 Mary Sim fol .
20 21 22 23 24 ,
DFMuc Rwortess, lm:.
25 l
8020 Sim 4-1 1 Q And it is true in general, is it not, sir, that 2 more mass between the occupant where they are located in the 3 building than the radiation source means better radiation p
k- 4 shielding as regards direct exposure; isn't that true?
5 A Yes, it is true.
- 6 Q Would you agree with the statement that is shown at 7 the bottom of the written column on the right side that the 8 basic design approach for radiation shielding is to separate 9 the occupants from the shelter from outside radioactive 10 fallout by a suitable amount of material mass?
11 A I would agree with that statement.
12 Q All right. Now would the same factors that one
() 13 would considering in' designing a building to have improved 14 protection factors be the factors that you would look at in 15 existing buildings to see which have higher protection factors?
16 A In general, yes.
17 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you.
18 At this time I would move that Eddleman Exhibit 19 65 be admitted into the record.
20 MR. HOLLAR: Your Honcr, I am going to have to 21 object to the admission of this exhibit. There is no showing r~w 22 that it was used by anyone in conducting the study of a
'\_)
23 shelter protection factors of building in the Harris EPZ.
24 The witness has stated that it was not intended he-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 for the purpose.
8021 Sim-4-2 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, that is why I asked him 2 that last question. I think that ties it back.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, haven't we heard the witness km 4 though express agreement with some of the principles that are 5 indicated by the page?
6 MR. HOLLAR : I suppose there are any number of 7 documents that he might express agreement with principles 8 about, but there certainly is much nexus between this parti-~
9 cular document and 57-C-10.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: I thought your study more or less 11 bore out the idea that the thicker the wall, the higher the 12 protrection factor; isn't that true?
( 13 MR. HOLLAR: You will have to ask ---
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Stated simply, crudely, but isn't 15 that the case?
16 WITNESS MARTIN: Yes, it is the case.
, 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Here is an official publication 18 of the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency that supports that 19 notion, and it seems to have some bearing on the topic very 20 broadly considered.
21 Any comment from FEMA or the staff?
22 MR. ROCHLIS: I would say that it has a limited
.O 23 purpose. Obviously Mr. Martin has testified that he hasn't 24 really used the document in his analysis, but there is some Ace-Federil Reporters, Inc.
25 applicability of the document to the shelter survey.
8022 Sim 4-3 j JUDGE KELLEY: Can any party point to any 2 prejudice in the admission of this document?
3 MR. ROCHLIS: No.
73
-(_,/ 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Given-a possibly debatable need-5 for it in the record and we don't see any real prejudice, 6 we are going to admit it. It is admitted.
7 (Eddleman Exhibit Nol. 65, previously 8
marked for identification, was 9 admitted into evidence.)
INDEXXX 10 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
11 Q Mr. Martin, let me refer you to that page 4 one 12 more time, if I may.
Do you see the illustration of the various f-)s
(_ 13 14 structures down at the bottom left of that page, sir?
15 A (Witness Martin) Yes, I do.
16 0 On the leftmost, do you see the one indicating 17 poor protection?
18 A Yes, I do.
19 Q How would you describe that structure, sir?
20 A Could you be more specific in your question, 21 please? I don't quite understand it.
f-'N 22 Q Well, for example, does it appear that that
'L) 23 structure contains a lot of mass?
24 A I would say it doesn' t.
Ace-Feder:I Reporters, Inc.
25 0 It is a single-store structure; is it not?
8023 Sim 4-4 j A Yes. From the two dimensional material 2
representation it is.
Q All right, sir. It doesn't have a basement, 3
sm.
(d 4 does it?
5 A No.
Q All right. The figure of an individual, I 6
7 suppose, in that leftmost structure is located as far as Possible from the walls; is it not?
8 A Yes, it is.
9 Q And that is still characterized there as poor 10 11 protection, isn't it?
12 A Yes.
Q And would you agree with that? Let me ask you 13 ja maybe more specifically. In a single-store structure of 15 1 w mass, is the protection as good as you can get in a 16 multi-store structure of high mass, the protection factor j7 against direct radiation exposure I mean?
18 A The protection factor will be lower in that j9 single-store structure of low mass than in the multi-store 20 structure of comparable mass.
21 Q And is it your understanding that the terms 22 " poor protection" and " good protection" as used on this page 23 4 of Eddleman 65 mean the same thing or roughly the same 24 thing as low protection factor and high protection factor?
brrFedertl Reporters, Inc.
25 A I would say they mean the same if one keeps in
8024 Sim 4-5 mind that all these terms are relative terms.
)
Q Yes, sir. So relative to a higher mass structure 2
r a multi-store structure, the single-store structure 3
4 provides, the single-store low mass structure provides poor Protection; is that correct?
5 A I prefer the term " low protection."
6 Q It is lower?
7 A Right.
8 Q Well, the characterization of poor protection 9
there was made in this publication of the Civil Defense 10 jj Preparedness Agency, wasn' t it?
A Yes, it was.
12 Q Thank you.
, 13 ja Let me refer you to the proposed exhibit marked 57-C-10(e), National Shelter Survey Instructions, FEMA 15 TR-84, and I would request that this be marked as Eddleman 16 j7 66, please.
JUDGE KELLEY: So marked.
18 j9 (The document referred to was marked 20 Eddleman Ehxibit No. 66 for 21 identification.)
I EXXXXX 22 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
23 Q Do you have that, sir?
24 A (Witness Martin) Did you say "C" or "E"?
Ace-Feder11 Reporters, Inc.
25 Q "E".
A Yes, I have that. ,
8025 Sim 4-6 Q All Iight, sir.
The Table 1 that is shown on page 3-13 in that xhibit, which is I believe is the second page on the front, 3
would you tell us what this table is titled?
A " Zonal Ventila, tion Requirements By County."
Q Okay. Can you tell us what a zonal ventilation requirement. is, sir? i 7
A I can, but may I preface my answer by saying that that has nothing to do with protection factors.
9
" ' " ""Y 9 10 g inhalation protection factors, sir, to your knowledge?
A No, it doesn't.
! Q You say it doesn't. Are you familiar with O)
(. 13 g this document, the National Shelter Survey Instructions fr m which these pages in this exhibit were excerpted, sir?
15 g A Just to the extent that I know of its existence.
Q Well now, do you know what the National Shelter l 7 i
"**"Y
- 18 A Very vaguely.
39 1
Q Can you tell us what your understanding of it:
20 i
s?
21
^ A If I re all rrectly, I think that some time 22 ag , I don't know exactly how many years ago, the Federal 23 Emergency Management Agency had requested the various States 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 of the Union to conduct surveys for the purpose of nuclear
e , (
8026 Sim 4-7 1 weapons for determining the adequacy'of the various buildings l
2 for the purpose of nuclear war sheltering.
1 3 Q Okay. Well now; let me'ask you this.
Does the r
k_)h 4 ' amount of ventilation that is going on in a building affect 5 the inhh!.ation radiation exposure of people inside that <
6 building?
7 A Yes, sir, it does. .
8 Q How does it affect it?
9 A It affects it by introducing radition inside t i
10 of the structure.
11 Q Okay. Now would that include radioactive gases 12 and particles that people might breathe?
() 13 A Yes, it does.
~
14 Q Would it include radioactive pa'rticles and l
15 gases which would contribute to the external radiation dose 16 received?
t 17 A We are talking about the same radioactive l
18 Particles and gases. <
t 19 Q So the an.= var t.s that'if these particles andU ii j 20 gases are introduced in" .he building, people cdnnot only '
21 breathe them and receive an additional inhalation dose from 22 them, but also because they are closer to the people, they
/~}
v 23 would give them additional direct exposure?
24 A QThat is correct.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Q All right, sir. How did you in your survey
,5
t 8027
+
I erm n e ven a n ra es ese buildings or Sim4-8 2 structures?
3 A From the published literature.
() 4 Q Is that the literaturecthathyout.refdrence in
., 5 your testimony, sir? -
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q I may want to come back to this in another 8 way later, but let me ask you now. Did you make any 9 direct measurement at all of the ventilation rates or air-10 change rates of any structures within the Harris EPZ?in
- ^
11 your studies or surveys?
12 A No, I didn't.
l() 13 Q Can you tell us why not?
14 A These numbers were available in the literature.
15 So I didn't feel that there was any need to go ahead and 16 duplicate somebody else's work which was already on the 17 record and found acceptable.
18 Q Well, are you aw'are of the variability of i 19 ventilation rates in structures that may be of the same 20 nominal type, for example, a frame building or a butler 21 building or concrete block or brick building?
, 22 A Yes, I am aware of that.
5 23 Q Is there a substantial range of that variability?
24 A There is a range. I would not quality it Ace-Federal Reperters, Inc.
3 25 as substantial.
t,
8028 !
1 1
SLm 4-9 1
Q Do you know what the range is, sir?
2 A Could you be more specific in which types of 3 buildings that you are talking about?
o
(_) 4 A Well, let's take a Butler building, for 5 example. Can you tell us what the lowest ventilation rate 6 or air change rate for those buildings that you know of in 7 the literature'.is?
8 A Yes. Tha t which lies between .5 air cha' nge.
9 per hour to anywhere to 1 or 1.5 air change per hour.
10 Q Okay. Now that is with the building closed up jj and the ventilation system not in operation; is that right?
12 A That is correct.
() 13 Q Say for a block building, can you tell us what ja the lowest air change rate is for block buildings?
15 A I am sorry, but that is not specific enough 16 f r me to respond to that question, because a block building j7 may have an epoxy covering on the inside and may have a 18 brick veneer on the outside and it may have several methods j9 of making it air tight.
20 Q All right. So you have got two sources of 21 infiltration on those buildings, I take it, through the wall 7N 22 in some cases, which these coverings or veneers might reduce,
\)_
23 and also through the normal cracks, holes, windows, doors 24 ventilators, et cetera; is that basically correct?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 A Very basically correct.
8029
-Sim 4-10 j Q Okay. Could you explain in some detail what might be more correct?
2 A The floor and the roof.
3 O 4 o roe seve to texe eir excaemee eareeea eae 11oer and the roof into account,also; is that what you are saying?
i 5
A In general y u w uld have to take a look.at the 6
specific leakage sources. You should take a look at the 7
verall leakage from the structure and not the specific 8
pathways of leakages.
9 Q Well, isn't it true, for example, that if you 10 11 had an open window in a structure, the air exchange rage might be very greatly increased compared to ---
12 A The same thing if you have an open door.
13 34 Q Right, compared in both cases to what it would be if the building were closed up tightly with no 15 16 ventilation systems in operation, correct?
j7 A That is correct, but the assumption here is 18 that we are referring to a completely isolated building.
j9 Q Okay.
20 A And I just want to make it very clear that 21 when one is talking about leakages from structures, the concern is not where the leakage will occur, but the 22 23 verall leakages, the integrated leakages from the 24 structure and not the individual pathways of leakage.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Q Well, if fallout is coming down on a building
8030 Sim 4-11 j from a nuclear plant accident or some other source, if the leakage is in through the roof, wouldn't that tend to 2
bring in more particles than if it were through the floor?
3
,j 4 A No, sir, because there is no fallout from
. an le r Power plant.
5 Q I thought that we described the particles ,
released in a nuclear accident as fallout. How would you 7
haracterize the particles and gases released from a 8
nuclear power plant when they come to the ground or come 9
in ntact with people?
10 jj A Deposited nuclides.
Q Okay. Now is fallout also deposited nuclides?
12 (7; 13
^ "' 8ir' it iS " t-g Q What is it if it is not deposited nuclides?
A Fallout is basically debris which has gone UP in the nuclear explosion and then which have returned 16 to earth,'and bound to those debris are nuclides from 37 the fission process.
18 Q All right. So your distinction between fallout 39 and deposited nuclides is that in the bomb fallout you have 20 21 Particles of other stuff with the nuclides attached to g them and from the nuclear power plant you just get the O nul ides; is that what you are saying?
23 MR. HOLLAR: Objection, Mr. Chairman. I 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
think we are straining pretty far away from the subject 25
8031 Sim 4-12 1 matter of 57-C-10 here.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Why do you say that?
3 MR. HOLLAR: The differences between fallout
(.
KJ 4 and radiation releases from a nuclear power plant are not 5 a point at issue in this contention.-
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Oh,il agree with that, sir, and 7 I will stripulate based on the witness' previous answer that 8 the analysis methods are the same and there is no practical 9 difference for purposes of these proceedings. But he said 10 there was a difference in terms of this infiltration and that 11 is what I was trying to pin down.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: I will overrule it at this point.
) 13 Go ahead, Mr. Eddleman.
14 We are going to take a break in a few minutes.
15 Do you want to take a break now?
16 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
17 0 Mr. Martin, would you like to answer that 18 question?
19 A (Witness Martin) Could you repeat the question?
20 Q As you are defining it here, if I understand you 21 correctly, fallout is debris which has nuclides attached
] 22 to particles of stuff that is not itself radioactive, whereas 23 from the nuclear power plant accident releases you would 24 simply get the nuclides themselves without their necessarily Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 being attached. to other particles or other material; is l
t
8032 Sim4-13 i that right?
2 A Generally that is correct, yes.
3 Q Okay. And is that the distinction that you were
./ 4 making when you said that what comes down on the roof from 5 a nuclear plant accident was not fallout?
6 A That is correct.
7 Q Okay. Now let me try to tie up the question we 8 started on.
9 If you have nuclides, gaseous and particulate 10 and whatever, coming out of a nuclear power plant accident, 11 and they ard coming down onto a structure, would not air 12 leakage in through the roof tend to bring in more of them
(_m ,
) 13 than air leakage through the floor?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. I think this is a good place 16 to break.
JUDGE KELLEY: Ten minutes.
17 18 (Recess taken.)
and Sim 19 Sue fois 20 21 7 22 L)i 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
i.
8033 l i'
b:;l-Su2Walsh1 (Whereupon, the hearing is again in session at 2 10:10 a.m., this same day.)
3 JUDGE KELLEY: I believe we are ready to resume. '
} ;
4 Could we have your-attention, please?
r 5 Okay.
6 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 7 Q Mr. Martin, I believe before the break that you 8 said that the air infiltration rate for a Butler building 9l i tightly closed up with its ventilation system not in opera-l 10 tion ranged from about a half to one and a half air exchanges per i
11 ! hour; is that right?
i 12 i A (Witness Martin) That's right, yes.
I3 l Q Okay. And that's a -range of about three times in l
'd the -- did you get that figure from the literature that you
,l 15 were talking about earlier?
16 A Yes, that's correct.
j 17 !! Q Okay. That's a range of about three times the 18 fliventilation I
rate, isn't it?
I A -Three times what?
20 ! O One and a half air e.mdunge an hour is three times 21 l .
half an air exdunge per hour, isn't it?
22 A Yes, it is.
23 So, the range is a factor of' three from the lowest Q
24 I to --
' *r* *4 R W rter s, I r1C. '
75
' 1 A That's true.
I
1 8034 ,
3-2-SusWalsh j Q. -- the highest for typical Butler buildings.
2 Now, a Butler building'has a metal wall, doesn't 3 it?
/'g C 4 A Excuse me, not for a typical Butler buildings 5 'but lor typical commercial structures.
6 0 okay. Twell, now I thought I asked you about a 7 Butler . building be fore .
8 .Do you know specifically what the' low and high 9 ranges, seither-in the literature you cited in your testimony, 10 or in any other information that you know of, of the air. exchange 11 per hour are for a Butler building, closed up, windows and
- 12 doors closed, with the ventilation system not in operation,
(
. i
' 13 ji what the lowest and highest air exdenge per hour rates for 14 I! such a Butler building are?
li 6
15 ' A No, sir. I do not. The literature that I re-
.i 36 0 viewed was not as specific as detailing the.very specific 17 [ s type of a ~tructure as a Butler building.
18li l1
- Q Well,-there are a goodly number of Butler buildings 19
- , within the. Harris EPZ, are there not?
U 20 A Yes, there are.
21 Q Okay. And do you have a number of them written i
' 22 f in your testimony, or in your attachments?
a f4 23 'l A I'm sorry. I did not unders,tand your question.
4 h
24 U Q The number of how many Butler type buildings there
.ft.mrtm,Inc.]
25 are, does that not appear in one of your attachments, specifically L
[
8035
)5-3-SueWalsh Attachment'3 under Category 2?
2 A o N, sir. That number does not appear in my .j 3 ' testimony.
U' 4 Now the number that you say doesn't appear is the-Q 5 air exchangerate number?
6 A No, the number of Butler buildings.
7 Q Will you take a look at your Attachment 3, :
i 8 please, because I think there is a number of the Butler 9 buildings there?
10 A No. This is the number of Butler buildings which 11 were analyzed. But this is not the number of Butler buildings 12 1 which are in the Shearon Harris EPZ.
6 13 i, Q Do you have Attachment 3 before you, sir? Are 14 you looking at it?
!i 15 p A (The witness is turning to the document.)
16 Yes,-sir, I do.
g 17 l[ Q You have turned to it now. You didn't have it I.
18 in front of you -- I mean, you weren't looking at it before b
19 when you made that other answer, were you?
20! A My answer still stands.
i 21 Q Well, let me -- that says number of commercial
.( ) .
22 and industrial structures by category, does it not?
23 A Yes, sir.
- 24 Okay. Now, you are saying that's the number -- were Q
D Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 that the number that were surveyed or the number that were ,
I
r-i !
, 8036 !
i
)5-4-SueWalsH analyzed,. sir?
2 A' It's the number that were surveyed, and it's the 3 nmnber _that was -- it's not the number that was analyzed. l
). 4 i
Q Okay. That number is the Attachment 4 -- it j 5 doesn't give a number, but it identifies the structures that 6 were chosen for detailed analysis; is that correct, in '-
7 Attachment 47 8 A Yes, sir, that's correct.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: When you say survey, just for ID ' clarity, that's your count in the EPZ, right, for that kind II of building?
I2 WITNESS MARTIN: Yes. To be more specific, sir --
O
'/ 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Actual count?
Id
, WITNESS MARTIN: -- we went around and identified i
15 twenty Butler-type buildings which could serve as candidate 16
, for analysis. But --
I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, so it isn't the count?
I8 WITNESS MARTIN: -- that does not represent the f
total number of Butler-type buildings which are in the Shearon 20 h Harris EPZ.
2I JUDGE KELLEY: So, it might be in three categories,
) 22 total number in the EPZ, survey number and analysis number?
23 WITNESS MARTIN: That 's corr'ect .
JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
IFFederal Rmorters. Inc.
BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) l
8037 l5-5-SusWalsh 0 M r ." M a r t i n , your statement before was that the i
i 2 total number of these different types of buildings within j 3 the EPZ doesn't appear in your testimony or the attachments; t
4 is'that right?
5 A It does not.
6 Q Okay. Do you know what those numbers are? .
t i
7 A No, I do not. '
8 0 Okay. So, all you can say for sure is that there -
9 are more than twenty Butler-type buildings within the EPZ; :
10 is that right? -
11 A I can say for sure that there are at least twenty 12 Butler-type buildings.
I'\~-) 13 , Q All right, sir. And there are more Butler-type 14 buildings, Type 2 buildings, listed in your Attachment 3 l
15 than any other category, aren't th re?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 [l Q Okay. Now, Butler buildings have a metal wall, i
18 don't they?
19 A Yes, they do.
j 20 Q And they typically have a metal roof on a steel I
21 ' frame?
() 22 A That's correct.
23 0 Okay. What kind of protection against direct 24 radiation is a cingle sheet of metal like those walls or
> Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 roo fs? What protection factor against direct exposure would
l 8038 i
- 5-6-SueWalsh that give? '
2 A Could you repeat the question, please?
3 Q Yes, sir. What protection factor would the single C) 4 sheet of metal that those walls and roofs typically consist i 5 of give against direct radiation exposure?
6 A 'There is no such thing as a protection factor by 7 one sheet of metal. There is a protection factor associated 8 with a structure made up of the type of sheet of metal.
9 Q All right, sir. Let me ask you this a little bit
-10 differently. Let's take the Butler building roof to start 11 o f f with .
12 i It's a metal roof, okay. Now, does that roof 13 typically offer more mass than the roof and attic construction i
14 of a wood frame house?
15 A Than what, now?
i 16 4
O Than the roof and attic construction of a wood il 17 I frame house?
[
18h A I would say it's comparable.
4 19 Q Okay. So, it gives you about the same mass?
l 20 [ A (No reply.)
21 Q Now, the distribution of mass though in the Butler l
()
t
! 22 l building is different, is it not? Most of the mass of that l
23 roof is in the support beams rather than the roofing material.
24 A I'm sorry. But that is a structural question that
-Ferteral Reporters. Inc.
25 ' I could not answer.
i l
l L
8039
)5-7-SucWalsh; Q Well, you have looked up at the roof of a Butler 2 building from below, haven't you?
~!
3 A Yes, I have. I O' 4 Q Can you tell us just generally how it's layed 5 out?
I 6 A Oh, I have seen quite a few of those outlays, and 7 we could be here forever in my description. But I could give 8 you examples that I have seen.
9 Q Please, give one.
10 [ A' Okay. But this is by no means a generalization.
11 Example,'you have steel girders covered by the sheet metal, 12 , steel deck. You may have a steel frame. You may have a
/~T l'
(/ 13 wood frame. You may have joists.
14 There are a number of supporting beams or combina-15 tion of beams covered by a steel metal deck.
16 ,' Q All right.
l A But there is no general support system.
17 l 18;: O All right. Now, the steel metal deck usually has I:
U 19 (h nothing under it except where the beams are; isn't that 20 y true?
il 21 j A No, that's not true.
i
()
22 ll l
Q What's under it besides the beams or supports?
23 1 A It depends on the structure again. There is no i
, 24 ! generalization.
pras ,u n.coner . ine. ! !
25 ' O Well, in the Butler buildings that you actually ,
l I
i i
8040 1
i
- 5-8-SueWalsH looked at for candidates in the EPZ for your detailed analysis, 2 how many of them had anything under the metal deck roof other 3 thui the support structure itself, the beam or whatever? '
4 A I would say a large fraction of them. Quite a 5 few.
6 Q Was that insulatior ?
7 A Yes. Sometimes.
8 Q Okay. How many times?
9 A Oh, I don't recall very specifically how many 10 times.
II Q Were there also drop ceilings on some of them?
12 A Yes. Some of them had drop ceilings.
) 13 l': O Okay. How much mass is in a drop ceiling?
Id A It's -- for the purpose of protection factor 15 evaluation, the drop ceiling does not offer any mass per se 16 f which is of any significance.
E 17 Okay.
Q Well, now the protection factor that you 18 get inside a building from direct exposure depends on both 19 the mass and the distance from the outside surface; is that 20 right?
2I l A Yes, sir, that's right.
() 22 i Q And I think you already said that the -- if 23 radioactive material, radionuclides, in' filtrate into the 24 n Federal R:po,ters, Inc.
building, come in with air exchange, that that can increase 25 both the inhalation and the direct exposure to people inside
8041 l
I
- 5-9-SueWalshl the building, right? f 2 A I don't recall having said that.
3 0 Well, the record will show if you said it or not.
~
4 Le t me j ust move on .
5 Now, if the -- can you tell me, for each of these ,
6 types -- we've already discussed the -- well, let's look at 7 Attachment 3, please. We are still on Attachment 3.
8 Do you have that?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 Q Now, for each of these categories here, can you II l give me some idea of what the range of air infiltration rates, I
I2
, from the information available to you, is?
~'
I3 What the highest and lowest are in air changes per
'd l hour?
l I
15 l A Yes, I can.
16 Q Please, do so.
A Point five to one air change per hour.
I7 l 18 f Q Well, now I thought you said earlier that typical 19
buildings '- typical commercial structures had point five to 20 one point five?
D 21 A Right. But in our study we used point five to one.
1 22
(_ Q Why do you do that?
23 A Because the values that are 'ncountered e in the i
24 i Aa-FafnJ Reporters, lnc.
- 25 I chose to use point five -- I chose to use point five to one
8042 e
)5-10-SueWalsd as'the result.of my survey of the values available in the 2 literature.
.3 _Q All right. But you've already said that you didn't
~O. -4 _make any measurements of the actual infiltration or air j 5 exchange rates of any of these buildings? !
6 A Yes, I said that.
7 Q Okay. Now, if the range were point five to one 8 point five, that's a factor of three; and point five to one 9 that you use is a factor of two. Right?
10 l A Yes.
Q Okay. A factor 'of two variation. I mean, is that I!
I2 !l right?
O 13 t: A Uh-huh. Yes, sir.
Id
- Q Okay. In any case, that means that if you are at 15 the high end of the range you are getting in more by what-16 !
ever the factor of the infiltration rate range is- than if you I7 are at the low end of the range; is that correct?
t 18 l A That's correct.
- O 'Okay. Now, in your Attachment 5, Page 3 of 4, 20 i there is a curve there or a - figure there of ventilation rate 21 and immersion time effects on fraction of dose avoided.
2 Correct?
23 A Yes, correct. '
24 Q Okay. Now, is that the curve that you used in your 25 surveys?
l
8043 35-ll-SueWalsh A No, sir, it wasn't. I i
2 Q- Well, let me ask you this. In-getting your re-3 :sults about the inhalation protection factors, did you use
'h. 4 this curve?
5 A Yes, I did.
6 0 okay. -So, that there is nothing from the surveys j i
7 that went into your use of this curve, right?.
8 A If you mean the physical survey of the. structures, ;
9 the answer is yes.
10 0 Okay.
II A The results of the survey, in terms of looking I2 at the structures to determine their structural characteris-O 13 i tics in . terms of what is comparable to what is described in
'd '
t he literature vis-a-vis commercial structures for the pur-15 pose of determining an applicable air exchange rate.
16 Q And that is what went into it, not the surveys, f.
17i [ right?
i 18 A Let me explain. Before I went ahead and made the determination of the adequacy of the air exchange rate, I 20 first had to examine the commercial structures and then made 21 a comparison between these commercial structures which I .
l 22 surveyed and those described in the literature.
23 The literature itself contai*ns numerical values of 24 3r.o n.oon.n, ine.
air exchange rates. To find out the applicability of the 25 d ata contained in the literature, I first had to examine the i I
I
e l
i I 8044 i
)S-12-SueWalsh structural characteristics of those commercial structures 2 'in the Harris EPZ. Having.found those structural characteristics, 3 then I could go ahead.and say that these commercial structures l
.C) 4 are comparable to what is described in the literature; there- !,
l 5 fore , the air exchange rates which are contained in the l 6 literature are applicable to the commercial structures found 7 in the Harris EPZ.
8 That's how the survey results were used in that 9 Attachment 5, Page 3 of 4.
f 10 l Q They were applied to that curve and then you got i
Il [ t he numbers that appear on Attachment 5, Page 4 of 4?
12 l A You mean the protection factor values?
13 i' Q Yes.
14 r h
A Yes, sir.
15 h Q Okay. Now, at ten hours even with just one air ,
16 exchange per hour you have already got ten air exchanges, 17 !' so there is not very much protection factor, is there?
A If you are using a value of one air exchange per 18 [
19 hour, then that's correct.
!i 20 h Q Okay. And, in fact, the range that you give there 21 b.isbasedonthehalftoonerange?
i
'. (_/
f") 22 >; A That's correct.
I Il 23 Q Okay. And the protection factor ranges from one il 24 ,
point one to one point two, right?
pFaterte Reporters,' inc, j.
25 " A From one point two to one point one.
l
8045
)5-13-SueWalsh Q Okay. Now, if you had used a higher -- or, if t 2 in fact there were a higher air infiltration rate in any l t
- 3 of these structures, the protection factor at ten hours would
/3
\ /
4 be even lower, wouldn't it?
5 A It would approach the value of one.
6 Okay. And these values of one point two and one Q .
I 7 point one are already pretty close to one, which is no 8 protection at all, are they not?
9 A Yes, they are pretty close to one.
10 Q Mr. Myers, I believe you testified also yesterday II that one was -- a protection factor of one was no protection; 12 is that right?
I 13 A (Witness Myers) Very limited protection, right.
I Id Q Well, it's no protection at all if it's one,
't 15 isn't it?
l 16 .
A That's basically correct. Very minimal protection.
I7 Q Okay. Now, do you agree with Mr. Martin's state-IO ment just made that these one point two and one point one are I9 i very close'to one, very close to minimal protection?
20 A They are getting near one. Yes.
21 Q Okay. Do you think that means minimal protection?
22 A As we stated earlier, one is very low protection 23 "
so it's getting to very minimal.
24
}Feife,d Fleporte,s, Inc.
Q Okay. Now, let me ask you one more time. Is a 25 protection factor of one, in your understanding, no protection?
l i
i 8046 I
- 5-14-SueWalsh A Basically, no protection.
2 Q The answer is yes?
c 3 A Yes.
l 4 Q Thank you. Mr. Martin, I want to ask you one 5 o ther question about a Butler building if I might.
l 6 Butler buildings have metal -- one other set of 7l questions, pardon me. Butler buildings have metal walls, l
8i don't they?
96 A (Witness Martin) Yes, they do.
10 -
a Q Don't sometimes these metal walls abut parking 11 :! areas or loading docks or things of this nature?
i
.I 12 r A Yes.
x ,
I 13 : Q Okay. Have you ever seen one of these metal walls 14 damaged by an impact from the outside, dented or bent up?
15 A I really haven't paid attention to dents in 16 buildings.
17 ' O Okay. Let me ask you this. This is sort of another 18 topic, but it also ties up.
19 Are you familiar with the techniques of analyzing 20 what the ventilation rates of buildings actually are in 21 . practice?
c~ 1 1 22 A For portain types of structures, yes, I am.
23 ' O Okay. Can you tell me what the main sources of --
24 main routes of air infiltration are in buildings and what WFede,al Reporte,s, Inc.
25 construction factors or matters affect those rates? Can you 11
8047 D5-15-SueWalsh summarize that?
/
2 A I only have very limited knowledge for certain types!
l 3 of structures. I could not answer that in a general sense.
4 If you want to be more specific --
5 0 All right. Please tell me what types of structures 6 you do have your limited knowledge of, and then tell me what 7 your knowledge is, please? .
i 86 A I have participated in air exchange testing of 9 control room for nuclear power plants.
10 l 0 Okay. And that's the structure with which you are i
11 ! familiar with the test techniques and construction techniques?
A: With testing techniques.
12 ]
O 13 I k
Q All right, sir. Do you know what kind of con-14 struction techniques or methods affect the air exchange 15 rate of buildings other than nuclear power plants?
16 [ A I can tell you what I do at my house.
17 i: 0 Okay. You know about your house and nuclear power 18 [ plants; is that right?
19 [ A Yes. I would say yes.
i.
20 " Q Okay. What do you do in your house?
d 21 l{ A Oh, I have used felt stripping around the windows 22 and doors.
t L f 23 f Q Okay. Now, why do you do that, sir?
24 A To save money.
pr.o.,n. port.,,,ine,L 25 g Q And how does it save you money?
l l
f
8048 P
D5-16-SueWalsh MR. HOLLAR: I'm going to object, YourHonor.
2 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 3 Q Let me ask you this. Does it save you money by
\/
4 stopping air infiltration?
i l
5 I will withdraw the previous question. I 6 MR. HOLLAR: Whether it saves him money or not 7 has nothing to do with the contention before the Board.
8 MR.-EDDLEMAN: Let me ask another question. I 9 don't want to get into this saving him money business.
10 h JUDGE KELLEY: Good.
- I U
+
11 il BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing)
Q Mr. Martin, what does the felt stripping around
() 12 ij 13 1 your windows and doors do in terms of air infiltration into n
14 h your house, to your knowledge?
15 A It minimizes it.
16 ! O It tends to reduce it, does it not?
17 " A Yes, it does.
18 E O Do you know, Mr. Martin, what the effect of wind 19 :- speed outside a building is on the air infiltration rate in I!
20 ( the buildings?
J 21 , A Yes, I do.
l 22 Q What is it?
I 23 (l
- l A It increases the differential pressure between 24 WFerteeg Reporters, Inc.
the outside and the inside of the building; therefore, in-25 creasing the potential for air infiltration by the presence of
8049
- 5-17-SueWalsh the pressure differential.
j 2 Q Okay. Now, this is true in general for all kinds
- 1 i
f3 (v )
3 of structures, to your knowledge? i 4 A Yes, it is.
END #5 5 loe J flws !
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 L b) !!
13 14 15 I i
i 16 17 '
18 19 o 20 l' 21I i
\
SV 22 23 l
24 l kw Faseral Reporters. Inc.
25
8050 ,
6-1-Joe Wal l
Q What wind speed is assumed in your half to one 1
f 2 air exchange per hour numbers that you use in your 3 information presented in your testimony?
4 A I do not know what the assumption for the !
5 wind speed is.
6 0 All right. Purely from a protection factor point 7 of ViOW, do you think it is important in judging the 8 inhalation dose to know what the wind speed is?
9 A No, I do not.
10 0 Well, you just testified that the wind speed 11 affects the air infiltration rate, right?
cs 12 l A Yes, I did.
( )
13 0 And the air infiltration rate affects the 14 internal and external dose. You also said that, right?
15 A I am sorry; could you repeat that, please?
16 0 The air infiltration rate, if it is higher, i
17 j increases the inhalation dose and the direct dose to people la inside the structure, doesn't it?
19 A I didn't say anything about direct dose.
20 : O I believe the record will show that earlier i
21' when I asked you about this, that you said when air infiltration
^'
- l
_)' 22 i brings in radio nuclides to the building, that that also I!
23 ! increases the direct dose because those nuclides are closer 24 to the people in the building.
wrwera neporters, inc. ,
25 Do you recall that?
l l
i 6-2-Joe Wal 1 A In general that is true.
2 Q It is true.
p 3 A Yes.
V 4 Q And wouldnht it be true if the higher ventilation 5 rate resulted from a higher wind speed outside?
6 A Yes, that is correct.
7 Q Okay. So, the answer to my original question 8 was yes, wasn't it?
9 A Dut it could also be, no.
i 10 0 Well, let me ask you this: In your survey of ;
11 buildings, did you look at the cracks or gaps around windows 12 and doors?
[' !
\
13 A No, sir, I didn't.
14 Q Did you look for cracks in the walls or roof?
15 A No, I didn't.
16 Q All right, sir. Let me refer you to your 17 Attachment 6, if we may.
18 Now, in the second from left most column there 19 on airborne nuclides, that is the inhalation protection 20 factor, is that right?
21 A could you read the heading of the column,
(~/)
L 22 please?
23 Q It says Airborne Nuclides.
24 A No, it is not.
kw Federal Reportets, Inc.
25 What is it, sir?
Q ;
i I
l
6-3-Joe W21 8052 1 A This is the protection factor associated with j 2 airborne nuclides as a result of whole body exposure. j 3 Q All right. Do you, in fact, show an inhalation tO V
4 exposure protection factor in this or any other attachments 5 or part of your testimony?
6 A It is contained in Attachment 5, page 4 of 4.
7 Q All right. And that is those ranges that i 8 we discussed earlier? i 9 A' Yes, it is.
10 Q All right. Now, in Attachment 6, the -- if we il can except for a minute the Ramada Inn, the Fidelity Bank, 12 and Data General and Allied Corporation, it is true that most O 13 of the structures that you made a detailed analysis for have 14 a protection factor for airborne nuclides of between 1.1 and 15 1.3, is it not? ;
16 A I am sorry, could you repeat'that?
17 Q If we except, do not look for the moment at the 18 Ramada Inn and the Allied Corporation, the vast majority of 19 the other. structures or buildings surveyed here have protection 20 factors that either are 1.2 or less, or range down to about 21 1.2, is that not true?
22 A I am sorry -- are you asking me to take a look 23 at Ramada Inn and Allied Corporation?
24 Q I am asking you to -- excepting those -- not WFederJ Reporters, Inc.
25 looking at those for the, moment, those two that showed the i
8053 6-4-Joe Wal 1 higher protection factors -- !
2 A Oh. You mean excepting those. !
-. 3 Q Yeah. Excepting, e-x-c-e-p-t-i-n-g.
4 A ~ Yes. And what is the question, please?
5 Q The vast majority of the rest of them either 6 have protection factors of 1.2 or less, or have a range down 7 to 1.2?
8 A Well, Data General has an upper end of 2. >
9 So, you would have to exclude that also.
I 10 Q Well, I asked you about the lower range, I i 11 think.
12 A The lower range is 1.1 from what I can see here.
)
13 Q And the lower range for Data General and 14 Fidelity Bank is 1.2, isn't it?
15 A That is correct.
16 0 So, the answer to my earlier question is, yes, 17 isn't it?
18 A Are you asking me to define the range?
19 0 I am asking you if these things don't have either:
20 a protection factor of 1.2 or less, or a range down to 1.2? ;
21 Excepting the Ramada Inn and the Allied Corporation.
,7 1 22 A Yes, except for the Ramada Inn, Fidelity Bank, i 23 Data General, Allied, I would say, yes.
24 Q All right. Now, Fidelity Bank and Data General !
ksfeder:$ Teporters, Inc.
25 have ranges from 1.2 up to 2.3 and up to 2, respectively,
6-5-Joe W31 i 8054 ,
)
I right?
- t i 2 A Yes, sir. ;
- 3 Q Okay. So,'would it be fair to say that most s-4 of the structures analyzed within the EPZ provide quite a
. 4 5 small protection factor for airborne nur:lide exposure?
5 6 A No, it would not be fair to say that.
^
7 Q Well, 1 is the smallest you can get,- isn't it?
8 A That is correct. ~
9 Q All right. The protection factor for a frame 10 house for airborne nuclides is about 1.1 or 1.2 isn't it? :
t <
11 A Yes, sir, s
12 Q Okay. Now, for the deposited nuclides, I notice ;
( 13 that there is a fairly large range 'on some of these, j 14 specifically let's look at Fidell'ty Bank. It ranges from )
15 3 to 20, isn't it? ~
16 A Yes. 3 17 Q Okay. Now, did you identify in your survey 18 places within the bank that have a protection fa,ctor of 20,~
19 is that the way it was done?
20 A Yes, sir, that is the way it was done.
21 Q And from a protection factor standpoidt, ~would o
()' 22 you think that it would be appropriate to te,ll pe ple to move 3
23 into the high protection factor areas within any of these 24 structures where there is a range?
4m-Festerd Repot ters, Inc.
25 MR. ROCHLIS: I am going to object to that
/
8055 6-6-Jco Wal 1 question.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman?
3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well --
4 MR. ROCHLIS: I will first state the basis.
5 Basically, we are not dealing with decision making at this 6 hearing.
7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, this information -- if you 8 say that the range is from 3 to 20, I don't know what that 9 tells you.
10 I mean if you say: Your salary next year will l 11 be between 3 and 20,000 dollars, that doesn't really tell me ;
,( 12 if I want to take the job, and I think the information that l
i 4 #d 13 is in there -- you know, if he can explain how it provides if 14 protection , that he ought to explain that.
' i 15 JUDGE KELLEY: That is not the question you !
16 asked, though, as I heard it. i It is a fair enough question i
17 to ask khat is the 20? I assume the answer is inside the 18 safe , but we can -- !
19 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing)
, 20 Q All right. Let me switch over and ask that.
21 What is the 20 protection factor area in Fidelity Bank, sir?
rx i
(_) 22 A (Witness Wilson) Inside the safe.
23 (Laughter. )
24 '
Q How many people will fit in there?
w.7ase,ei neoo,w, . inc. .
25
. MR. HOLLAR: Objection. Mr. Chairman, how many
/
8056 6-7-Joe W21 l
1 people will fit inside the safe is not at issue here. :
i 2 Whether you can relocate people within the building is not 3 at issue.
(
a
)
4 Whether the protection factors are good or bad 5 protection factors are not at issue. What is at issue is 6 whether we have accurately identified the protection factors .
I 7 for these structures. !
8 JUDGE KELLEY: That seems a fair general 9 s tateme nt. Mr. Eddleman?
10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, if you accept that Il as a fair general statement of the Board's ruling, I have 12 already stated what I think is the basic issue and I will just.
() 13 go on.
i
~
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
15 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 16 Q What is the 40 protection hctor area in Allied l
17 Corporation, sir?
18 A Are you addng me what is the specific area 19 where 40 is encountered?
20 Q Yes, sir.
21 A (Witness Martin peruses document.)
7-(_j 22 0 Can you tell me what document you are referring 23 to?
24 A This is not a document. It is just basically w reoer; neporari.inc.
25 the output given to me by FEMA as a result of the computer
6-8-Joe W21 8057 1 runs which were made for the results of the direct radiation ,
2 protection factor analyses.
3 3 Q It is the computer printout that gives the
\_)
4 results of the PF analysis based on the data that you sent 5 into FEMA?
6 A That is correct.
7 Q And you say that is not a document?
8 A Just a pile of com'puter cutputs.
9 Q Okay. Please go ahead and refer to it.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you need a couple of minutes Il for that?
' '/ / :
12 WITNESS MARTIN: Yes, I have to -- they are
^
13 25 structures and --
14 J'JD,GE KELLEY: Should we take a stretch break, yc -
15 five minutesilfor that?
16 WITNESS MARTIN: Yes. I 17 JUDGb::KELLEY: Let's do that.
i 18 -
(Short recess taken.)
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's go back on the record.
20 We took a short break to allow the witness to consult some
~
21 material.
O V 22 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 23 0 Mr. Martin, what is the 40 PF area at Allied .
I 24 Corporation?
hm Federal Reporters, Inc.
-25 l A (Witness Martin) The value of 40 is found in the I
6-9-Joe W21 8058 1 building which is referred to as the spinning polomer section e
2 of Allied Fibers. It is in the third-story corridorofthat,!
3 building.
i ,
4 Q In the third-story corridor. Don't you usually 5 have higher protection factors on the lower floors, or in the 6 basement of the structure?
7 A You normally do, yes.
8 Q okay. Let me ask you this. Let me ask Mr.
l 9 Myers this. Which parts of the information which are 10 presented in Mr. Martin's testimony and attachments are l
11 actually going to be incorporated into the emergency plan? i 12 A (Witness Myers) Well, we haven't come up with 13 the exact fo rmat ye t , b>1t basically Attachment 5, page 4 of 14 4, and Attachment 8. the summary of protection factor ranges, l
15 and I believe it is on pages 11 and 12 of his testimony. ,
16 Asummarydealingwithtypicalsmallercommercial!
I 17 establishments, such as churches and things of that nature. l 18 It won't be necessarily in this particular !
19 fo rmat . But our planners and technical support people will l
20 be taking this data and incorporating it into the plan.
21 Q You do not intend to incorporate the information ;
-~ ;
i 22 in Attachment 77 l I
23 A Attachment 5, as I said earlier, page 4 of 4, ;
24 Attachment 8, which is the summary of protection f actor l
=a.r.o n.i c.ce n m .ine. ;
25 ranges, and the summary addressing the smaller commercial-type!
8059 6-10-Joa Wal 1 establishments.
2 Q Okay. But not Attachment 7.
,- 3 A Right. Not -- this is the -- just the attach-4 ments that I alluded to.
5 0 okay, only those. Now sir, do you have 6 available to you or the State, the State or the Counties, have 7 available to it a copy of the printout that Mr. Martin has 8 there, the detailed results of the surveys?
9 A The State. At this time, the State.
10 Q Does have it?
11 A Yes.
12 O Okay. Let me ask Mr. Martin this. Referring 13 to Attachment 6, the numbers for airborne nuclides on the 14 facilities analyzed in detail, what is the typical value 15 of the PF for airborne nuclides?
16 A (Witness Martin) I am not sure I understand I
17 the question. !
18 Q I am not sure I can phrase it any more clearly. l 19 Let me refer you, if we may, to the restatement of the ,
20 contention, which I believe appears at the bottom of page 2.
21 Actually, maybe I have to look at J10-M, excuse
~
j I
,' 22 me a second. j i
23 (Mr. Eddleman peruses document. )
24 Let me rephrase the question, Mr. Martin. f es Feewel cecomm, ine. '
25 Are you familiar with the statistical use of the word,
8060 ;
6-ll-Jo] Wal .
4 1 ' expected value' or ' expectation value?'
2 A Yes, I am.
3 Q Okay. When we talk about the protection f actor
.~
~
4 expected for structures, are we talking about the same thing 5 as the expectation value?.
6 A No, we are not.
7 Q Okay. What is the difference?
8 A Expected value in my mind would entail the 9 knowledge which is founded upon purely objective analyses 10 versus expectations which I would say involved some kind of, 11 if you will, subjective or less than scientific determination 12 or deterministic sense, of arriving at a value.
I \
2 You are saying the expectation statistically 13 Q 14 is non-deterministic?
15 A In a sense, yes.
16 Q Okay. And so, to you the term expected 17 protection as used in NUREG 0654, Criterion 2J10M means 18 founded on specific measurennnts, is that right?
19 A Or calculated measurements.
20 Q All right, sir. Now, you do say that you 21 selected typical structuros for your analysis, your detailed j 22 analysis, right?
23 1 A No, I didn't say that. Let me see if I can 24 find it, um Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 Q Okay. You selected represenative structures,
6-12-Joe Wal 8061 1 that is what you actually say in your Answer 10 on page 8 of 2 your testimony, right?
3 A I will refer to page 8.
(~))
End 6. 4 M. Sim fols.
5 6
7 -
8 9
10 11 12 p\
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 gm d
'qj 22 i 1
23 l
24 j l
W Federti Reporters, Inc.
25 l
1
8062 Sim 7-1 '1 (Pause) 2 Yes, sir, I did use the word " representative 3 structures."
(')
\~/ 4 0 Okay. And you say later on on that same page 5 "one building typical of the downtown Apex shopping district 6 was analyzed," don't you?
7 A That is correct.
8 Q Is there any real difference between the use of 9 the word " typical" and " representative" in this answer?
10 A Yes, there is.
11 Q What is the difference?
12 A The representative structures are really limited 13 to those which are found in a given area or which are built 14 for a given purpose. Typical connotes a more broad sense 15 in terms of typical could be found any place, typical 16 structures, typical residential housing.
17 Q Okay. So the representative is a more, specific 18 term referring to specific types of buildings or buildings 19 built for specific purposes; is that the distinction?
20 A I was really using the words for the purpose 21 of showing that special attention was given to the structures 22 found within the Shearon Harris EPZ.
(v~}
23 0 Well, the Apex business district is within the 24 Shearon Harris EPZ, isn't it?
WFederti Reporters. Inc.
25 A However, a shopping district of that sort
8063 Sim 7-2 j can be qualified as typical.
2 Q The values given in your Attachment 6, are those 3 expected protection values as you defined the term earlier O)
(_ 4 for airborne and deposited nuclides?
5 A No, they are not expected values.
6 0 What- are they?
7 A They are specifically calculated values.
8 0 I thought we said that that is what expected 9 value meant and that the calculated from measurements was 10 what an expected value meant and expectation was a different 11 and more subjective or statistical term.
12 A Expected values in my mind carries the sense 13 of previous knowledge or fore-knowledge of the value.
ja Q Okay. And in this case aren't these the values 15 that you expect it to be in the event of a nuclear accident 16 at Shearon Harris based on your fore-knowledge?
17 A I had no fore-knowledge of those values. So I 18 did not expect any values. comparable to those. That is why' 19 I did the specific calculations.
20 Q But aren't the results, the expected values that 21 are required by Criterion 2-J-10-M?
22 A If you mean expected in the sense of this is d(
23 what J-10-M requires in the sense of values that should be 24 put into a plan, in that sense, I would say yes, but if you we-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 mean expected in the sense that did I expect a given
8064 Sim 7-3 j mathematical value, I would say I had no idea what the 2 mathematical values would come out to.
3 0 I wasn't asking you what you preconceived before (y
(_), 4 you did the survey, but the other thing which you just_
5 answered. -
6 The information in Attachment 6 is for the 7 representative structures as you selected them; is it not?
A Yes, they are.
8 9 Q Now in the categorization in Attachment 8, the 10 ranges that are given are the maximum extent of the jj range within any of those groups, are they not?
12 A Yes,.they are.
/O
(_/ 13 Q Okay. And regardless of say, for example, in j4 the -- I am trying to locate your list of buildings and check 15 it against Attachment 6. So you might want to look at your 16 Attachment 4 and Attachment 6.
j7 Now except for schools, Attachment 4 tells which 18 f the structures for which you present your expected protection j9 factors in Attachment 6, which of the categories they fall 20 into, right?
21 A Yes, sir.
^N 22 Q And those are the same categories that are listed
[D 23 in Attachment 8 along with schools, right?
24 A Yes, sir.
MFederd Reporters, Inc.
25 Q And the schools information is in Attachment 7?
E 8065 Sim 7-4 .A That is correct.
)
2 Q And that information is also expected protection 3
fa tors under 2-J-10-M for direct exposure, right/ the s
gd 4 information in Attachment 7?
A Insofar as there are other shelters, yes.
Q okay. Well, these schools are structures within 6
7 the EPZ, are they not?
A Yes, they are.
8 9
Q Okay. So they would fall under Criterion 2-J-10-M, 10 w uldn't they?
11 A- Yes, they would.
12 O Let me ask you this about Attachment 8. A pr tection factor of 1.2 for airborne nuclides direct 13
.j4 exposure is less than that of a brick house with no basement, isn't it?
15 A Which protection factor are you referring to 16 j7l here?
18 Q Please look at Applicants' Exhibit 29, and I j9 believe that is Mr. Myers' exhibit from the plan at page 51.
20 A Yes sir, I have that.
21 Q The protection factor of 1.2 is less than that 22 pr vided for airborne nuclides direct exposure in a single-L/
23 story brick house with no basement, isn't it?
24 A Yes, it is, he-Federij Reporters. Inc.
25 Q And.a protection factor of 5, if we are looking
8066 Sim 7-5
- at the_ ranges on deposited nuclides, the protection factor 2 f five is that for a single story orick house with no 3 basement, right?
(~)
\/ A Yes, that is correct.
4
,5 Q Okay. And the single story wood frame house 6 with no basement provides protection factors of 1.1 for 7 airborne nuclides direct exposure and 2.5 for deposited 8 nuclide direct exposure, does it not?
9 MR. HOLLAR: Objection. The numbers are in the 10 plan and in the t'stimony e and they speak for themselves. I ij am not sure how this is relevant to the issue at hand here.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, it is sometimes useful for
() 13 con tex t. I think when you have got a simple doesn't line 5 14 ,
say this, you can skip that and he can find it. Go ahead.
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right, sir 16 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
17 Q Mr. Myers, is the curve that it is given in 18 Attachment 5 of Mr. Martin's testimony, is that going to go 19 into the plan, page 3 I think of his Attachment 5?
.20 A (Witness Myers) No. As I stated earlier, it 21 would be Attachment 5, page 4 of 4 and Attachment 8.
22 O Well, would you agree that under conditions of 23 high wind the infiltration rate into buildings could be 24 rather higher than it is under low wind conditions, the air he-Federd Reporters. Inc.
25 infiltration rate?
8067
=Sim 7-6 A j I would have to rely on that type of information l 2
fr m my technical support people.
3 0 Have you ever asked them about that, sir?
. ,m U 4 A No, I can't recall exactly asking that, no.
S 0 All right. Well, do you know whether the 6 information on page 4 of 4 in Mr. Martin's Attachment 5 was 7 generated from the curve shown on Attachment 5, page 3 of 4?
8 Was it made using that curve, do you know?
9 A No, I don't know.
10 0 All right, sir. Is there any assumption that 11 you make about how long people would have to shelter if you 12 were to make a decision on sheltering?
13 MR. HOLLAR = Obj ec tion.
ja JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman, how is that within 15 the contention?
MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, it is within the information 16 j7 to be included in the plan in this way, Judge. The protection 18 factors given are calculated from this curve, which is based 39 on ventilation rate times emersion time if you look on 20 Attachment 5, page 3 of 4.
21 Now the information that is going into the plan es 22 is an expecta tion that Mr. Martin testified that he didn't U know what wind speed it was in, but it does depend on 23 24 ventilation rates, and it also depends on emersion time, hFederal Reporters. Inc.
25 S for the information to tell you what the
8068 Sim 7-7 1 expected protection is, I think you have to know the 2 emersion time, and that is what I am asking Mr. Myers about.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: 'Is this in.the sense that you 9 4 might have a protection factor of "X" in the firs't hour and 5 "Y" in the third hout and so forth?
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir, that the factor changes 7 with time.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Any comment on that, Mr. Holler?
9 MR. HOLLAR: My only comment is that the emersion 10 time has nothing to do with the length of time that people 11 would be sheltered.The emersion time deals with the time of 12 which they are exposed to a plume. Persons can be sheltered
('T
(_/ 13 for a longer or shorter period of time without regard to the 14 length of the plume being present.
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, I think that is right, 16 but the purpose of having them in shelters is to avoid 17 exposure to a plume, and they have got to stay in until the 18 plume is gone, as I understand it.
19 So, again, the length of time that they are 20 staying in shelters to avoid the plume that is coming by 21 does affect the expected protection factor for inhalation
(]
%J 22 exposure.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: This is a technical problem.
24 (Board conferring.)
Ac> Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: I am advised to allow the pending
rr-8069 Sm -8 1 question, which I will.
2 Go ahead.
3 WITNESS'MYERS: Could you restate your
\
(~'l
\- 4 question?
5 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
6 Q Mr. Myers, in.the plan's expected protection 7 factors for inhalation exposure what period of time in 8 shelter while a plume is passing by is assumed?
9 MR. HOLLAR: Objection, Your Honor. I don't 10 believe that was the question that was asked before.
11 MR. EDDLEMAN: I tried to refine it, based on the 12 discussion, but if necessary, and I don't remember the exact
() 13 question I asked earlier, but I could ask the reporter to 14 read it back, if there is a serious objection.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, why don't you go ahead, 16 Mr. Eddleman, and we will disallow the' objection, t
d 17 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
18 O Mr. Myers?
19 A (Witness Myers) Did you finish your question?
20 Q Yes, sir.
L 21 A Of course, this would be one of the tools, this l
/~N 22 information, that we would use in making some of our V
23 determinations, but I believe in your Exhibit 29, on page 24 51-D, RPS was responsible for the evaluation of all he-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 monitoring facility released data in projection of anticipated
8070 Sim 7-9 i dose and so forth, and they will be the recommended, or give 2 me the recommendations on protective actions. So I would 3 have to rely on my technical support people to give me this n
4 type of data.
5 0 Well; you haven't told me whether there is an 6 immersion time assumed in the protection factors for these 7 other buildings that are going into the plan, have you?
8 A .Have you asked me that question?
9 0 I tried to. May I ask it to you again?
10 A Please restate it then.
11 Q Is there an assumed emersion time involved with 12 the protection factors for inhalation exposure for buildings
,e
- (,, 13 other.than residential structures that are goiig to be put 14 into the Harris emergency plan??
15 A On Attachment 5, page 4 of 4, as you can see, 16 we were including in the plan, as I alluded to earlier, the 17 immersion times protection factors. This data, along with 18 what is on Attachment A, will be some of the tools that will 19 be used in evaluating _the time of stay within a shelter, 20 but the data and the advice will come from the technical 21 support people in the State's Radiation Protection Section.
/^T 22 O Now if the infiltration rate, or air exchange V
23 rate of the structures in the Harris EPZ is higher than is 24 assumed earlier in Attachment 5 -- well, let me ask you be-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 this. Is the air infiltration rate assumed shown on that
8071 Sim 7-10 j Attachment 5, page 4? Either one of you can answer, if 2 you know.
3 A (Witness Martin) I am sorry. Could you repeat
/
m ) 4 the question, please?
5 Q Is the air infiltration rate assumed in getting .
6 those protection factors shown on Attachment 5, page 4 of 4 7 of Mr. Martin's testimony?
8 A You believe you had stated previously that it 9 is between .5 to 1.
10 Q But is that shown on Attachment 5, page 4 of 4?
I 11 That is my question.
j2 A The answer is no.
( 13 0 Is that correc t, Mr. Myers?
14 A Correct.
15 0 If the air infiltration rate is different than 16 the 0.5 to 1 that Mr. Martin used, the protection factors 17 would also be different even for the same immersion time 18 shown on that page 4 of 4, would they not?
19 A (Witness Martin) Yea, they would.
20 0 Is that correct, Mr. Myers?
21 A (Witness Myers) Yes.
22 Q All right, sir.
23 Mr. Martin, at page 4 of your profiled testimony 1
24 you describe the surveys that you led as a supplement to the l (oFederd Reporten, Inc.
25i earlier survey which concentrated more on residential ,
1
8072
'cim'I-ll I structures. Do you have that before you?
2 A .(Witness Martin) Could you help me out by telling 3 me what line you are reading fr.,m?
U 4 Q It is about line 7 and 8 down from the top. It 5 begins in the middle of the page, and~I mean the middle 6 from side to side, "This survey is a supplement to the 7 earlier survey which concentrated more on residential 8 structures."
9 A Yes, that is correct. That is a correct statement, nd Sim 10 u
'e fols 11 12 O) k- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
(~)>
23 24 se Federti Reporters, Inc.
25
P 8073 I
?8-1-SueWalshi O What non-residential structures were included in l i
2 the~ earlier survey? '
3 A The same commercial, institutional and industrial V
4 structures which were analyzed for the purpose of this 5 testimony were also looked at as a result of the -- from the 6 previous survey.
i 7 Q They were looked at but they hadn't been analyzed, 8 is that --
i 9 A That is correct.
10 Q All right. On Page 6, you say at least one FEMA 11 certified shelter analyst was on each survey team.
12 1 Was one of those survey analyst
, yourself?
13 A Yes, that's correct.
Id O Who were the othere?
I IS l A Should I identify them by name for you?
}
16 Q I would like their names,'yes.
U 17 A From the State of North Carolina, Division of 18 Emergency Management, there was Dennis Moffett, Jeffrey Arndt.
19
._ From Ebasco Services, Incorporated, there was Robbie Bhatia.
I 20 0 And yourself?
21 A And myself.
( 22 Q And so, four certified shelter analysts?
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Does the Reporter need spelling?
24
, THE REPORTER: Yes.
n .F.sers Reporters. Inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you spell the names, please?
8074 l B-2-SunWalsh.1 WITNESS MARTIN: Moffett, M-o-f-f-e-t-t. Arndt, 2 A-r-n-d-t. Bhatia, B-h-a-t-i-a.
, 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
%) 4 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing)
I I
5 Q Mr. Martin, may we refer to your Answer 9 on Page l 6 7 of your prefiled _ testimony?
7 First, let me ask you about right at the end of 8 Answer 8, at the top third of the page, it says, "In addition,.
I 9i any facilities observed which were not previously identified i
10 j were recorded."
11 How many such facilities did you observe in your 12 ; resurvey; do you recall?
.rs 1 1 ) c
'" 13 b A Two facilities.
5 14 0 Which were they?
a 15 ' A Lan-O-Sheen in Fuquay-Varina and Flex Line also in 16 L Fuquay.
17 : Q Okay. Now, in your Answer 9 you are talking 18 about retail establishments such as service stations, fast 19 , food restaurants and convenience food markets .
1.
20 Do convenience food markets within the EPZ typically 21 f have large glass windows along one wall or more?
-( ) 22 A Typically, they do, although the size vary from 23 L. store to store.
l 24 J Q Okay. But, typically it would be more than half WFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 : the heighth of the wall, wouldn' t it?
I t i ll
8075 8-3-SusWalsh-1 A Of which wall?
2 Q The wall that the window is in.
. _ 3 A Yes. I would say yes.
%-)
4 O All right. Glass provides essentially no mass 5 for protection against direct radiation exposure; isn't that 6 correct?
7 A Yes, that 's correct.
8 Q Did you observe the weather stripping of the doors {
9 of thcse establishments? ,
A Yes, I did. '
10ij .l}
I I I' O. Has it got gaps in it?
12 { A No.
(] 13 Q Not at all?
D 14 ! A Not that I observed.
15 Q Okay. Did you check carefully for gaps?
i 16 A Not in the general sense, I didn't, no.
17 I Q All right, sir. In service stations, the bay 18 doors to those service stations, what are they typically 19 ,, constructed of?
3 20 ? A Wood or metal.
21 ;, Q Okay. It's fairly thin, is it not?
a
() 22 0
A I did not observe their thickness.
23!! O It doesn't provide much mass, does it?
- 24 L A No, it doesn't.
Aar Fede,3 Repo,te,s, Inc. -
25 j' O Okay. And the size of those doors is typically floor:
I i i i
8076 l 08-4-sueWalsh to ceiling and a width greater than that of a typical car 2 or truck?
3 A Yes.
/~'s ;
s /
'~'
4 Q All right. Do most convenience stores in the EPZ 5 have any interior walls? l 6 A The single story structures that I have visited 7 within the EPZ, most of them did not have interior walls.
8 Q All right, sir. So the best protection in those 9 structures will be to get as far as you could from the walls 10 and windows, right?
11 l A In general, yes, b
12 !- Q Would it be safer to sit down than to stand up
/ ' ~ ', Y V 13 i' because of the proximity of the roof?
1:
la ' MR. HOLLAR: Objection. This is outside the scope 15 ! of the contention.
O ii 16 i MR. EDDLEMAN: Let me withdraw that ,-
17 k JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
18F MR. EDDLEMAN: -- and ask him a different question.
i.
19 ' I think we will get at this.
r 20 [ BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) l 21 ' Q In assessing the expected protection factor, what 42 position are people assumed to be in?
(^/'s x-4 23 f Would the protection factor be different for me
!i 24 sitting here at the table than standing on the table near the DFederal Reporters, Inc. h 25 " roof if this were a one-story building with a metal roof?
8077 -
I
- 8-5-SueWalshi A The assumption is that the person who occupies 2 the structure is occupying the position which he would i
3 normally in his duties that he carries out in that building
( )
4 itself.
i 5 Q So that would be standing up in most of these a f
6 structures, wouldn't it?
7 A From a protection factor viewpoint, it doesn't 8I matter if you are lying down, sitting up or standing up.
9 0 Well, it matters how close you are to the ceiling 10 I of a one-story building, doesn't it?
I 11 A Yes. But you would normally be assumed to be on 12 I the floor of that building, not standing on the table or on i d
/
13 6 the chair.
14 Q All right. But even the distance between my --
15 for example, the typical heighth of these buildings would you I
16 say is about three meters or something like that?
17 ! A I bog your pardon? Would you repeat that question?
18 L Q The typical height of these convenience store I
o 19 ' buildings is about three meters?
l 20 A Could you convert that into feet, please?
I' Q About ten or eleven feet.
21 l'
) 22 A I would say about twelve feet.
i 23 0 Okay. About twelve feet. Is that also a typical n
24 k height for a single story industrial structure?
WFesteral Heporters, Inc.
25 A No. I would say, no, it's not.
.l
i 8078 ;
D-6-Su Walsh I Q What is?
2 A There is no such thing as a typical height for 3 a commercial building. !
4 Q Well, for one-story industrial and commercial 5
structures, within the EPZ, what is a representative height?
6 A I would say that there is no such thing either, 7 a representative height. Because you have to keep in mind, 8 Mr. Eddleman, that each commercial structure is constructed 9 with a specific functional design in mind.
10 , For example, you may have a warehouse which is i,
" f fifty feet tall, whereas you may have one which is thirty I2 , feet tall.
s I
(%. Okay.
13 [ Q And you are including ~ those as single story n
'# structures, right?
I 15 1' A They are single story, yes.
i 16 0 0 Okay. Now, let me ask you this. In a single I7 story convenience store, you have already given me a 38 "
representative heighth, can you tell me what proportion of 19 '
p the commercial single story structures within the EPZ have 20 heights less than about, say, twelve or thirteen feet?
21 A I could not tell you that.
(q_) 22 Q Do you have data available to you so that.you could 23 get that information?
.I 24 ,
DFederal Reporters, Inc. ,l
+
A No, I do not.
25 -
Q You didn't assess the heights of the structure in
8079 38-7-SueWalshi your survey? ,
2 A .Yes, I did. !
I f,
3 0 .Well,'then you know how many have certain heights, Q 4 don' t you?
5 A I do.
6 Q Okay. So, you can get that information?
7 A No, I cannot. I --
8 Q Why?
9 A -- can get that information for the structures 10 which I surveyed, but I did not survey every single structure 11 which was in the EPZ.
12 1 Q Okay. So, you only have the information for those r~h k-) 13 structures which you surveyed?
14 g A Yes, that's correct.
I t
li 15 h d
Q For the structures which you surveyed, what 16 h, proportion of them are less than about twelve feet?
il
'17 ! A' That information was not relevant to the PF calcula-18 h tion so I do not have that information.
19 Q Isn ' t the height of the building relevant to the 20 l' PF inside it?
21 1 A Yes, but not the fraction of the total buildings
() 22 which have different heights.
23 Okay.
Q So, you don't know?
24 l A Ike Federal Reporters. Inc. !
I do not need to know.
25 '
O Okay. Let's take a building which has a height of
3080 ;
i i 48-8-SueWalsd! approximately twelve feet and has a metal deck roof, okay.
I 2' '
Now, in this building isn't' a person standing up in a give'n 3
location, say, in the center of the building away from the 4
walls and doors -- I'm going to ask you to assume that the 1
5 person has located themselves so that they are at the best 6i protected location in terms of their distance from the walls 7 3 and doors, they are located at that point.
8i And the question is, isn't more of their body 9} closer to the roof if they are standing up than if they are i
10l lying down, or sitting down, on the floor at that point?
II A Could you repeat the question, please?
I
- 12 ; O If a person is located within a single story 13 structure like one of these convenience stores with a 14 metal roo ? and have located themselves in the place in the 15 two dimensional floor plan of the building which provides the 16 best protection factor relative to their position, away from 17 '
the walls and doors, isn't their body exposed to more --
18 isn't the protection factor higher if their body is more 19 away from the roof in that condition?
0 A I don't know.
21 O Well, isn't distance from a surface bearing radio-
, i 22 x- nuclides or having radionuclides outside it additional pro-23 tection if the distance is greater?
24 W Faie,ai Repo,ters, Inc.
25 0 Okay. So, the answer to that question before is
'l l
1
8081 38-9-SueWalsh yes, isn't it?
l 2 A I said I don't know.
3 Q All right, sir.
4 A The reason I don't know, by the way, is because 5 such detail, fine, nitpicking analysis concerning body 6 positions have not taken place in the determination of 7 protection factors.
3 81 We do not analyze for body position when we do '
l 9l a protection factor analysis. .One of the variables in the i
10 ; determination of protection factors isn't whether the person 11 is fat, skinny, or tall, or short, or lying down or standing 12 up. We are analyzing the protection of the structure, okay, .
not the position in which the occupants are going to be keep-13 Y f,
14 ing themselves.
15 ; Q So, -is it your position that it doesn' t make any n
16 ll difference what position or location within the structure --
17 ' or what position at a location within the structure people IU D are in?
h it 19 ', A .The position itself within the structure is relevant, 20 L but not the position that the body of the person happens to
.i 21' be in. Not the body posture, in other words.
() 22 c
Q But don't the body postures affect the distance 23 d from the ceilings of one-story buildings?
1 24 MR. HOLLAR: Objection, Your Honor. I think this DFederal Reporters, Inc. '
25 is getting to the point of being repetitive. I believe the
.I
s I
e, 8082 h8-10-SueWalsh witness has already answered --
2 MR. EDDLEMAN: I will drop it.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. , ,
rT
\ ;
'~'
4 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 5 0 Mr. Myers, do you kno;w whether' the protection factor; 6 would be higher for a person who has located their body )
7 farther from the ceiling of a one-story building? - l 81 A (Witness Myers) No, I don't know.
9 Q All right, sir. Mr. Martin, if I can refer you to i
10 your Page 10, about five lines up from the bottom.
11 !l A Yes, sir.
- 1 '
'l 12 l:
a 0 You state there, "The added advantage of churches fsk-) 13 ' is their larger size which helps increase the isolation 14 distance between their occupants and exterior sources of e
15 radiation." ,-
P 16 !! Did you tell the owners, operators, pastors of 17 : any churches or buildings about this fact?
18 MR. HOLLAR: Objection, Your Honor. Again, we j 19 are going completely outside the scope of this contention.
} The issue is not what we have toldjany pastors t ,
21 with respect to the protection factors of their structure.
d
(,)
22 The issue is whether we have accurately identified the pro-23 ( tection factor numbers for these various categories of
, i 24 structures, including churches. i DFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 : MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, let me come at it that way.
i k
i
8083 b8-11-Sue *4algh BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) l 2 O Mr. Martin, I believe you have already stated that t
t
[ 3 a person's location within a building affects the protection
() .
4 ~ factor -- effective protection factor -- that they get; is I
- l. ,
5 that not true? .
(~ l I 6 A (Witness Martin) Yes, I said that. ,
7 0 And when you have ranges of protection factors 8 such as shown in your Attachments 6, 7 and 8, some of that I I
i
-91 range depends on location, doesn't it?
10 A Yes, it does.
I 11 ! Q Does all of it depend on location?
e 12 I A Does all of the range, that is?
A
, ( >'
~ -
13 l! -Q Yes.
> 14 A No.
3' 15 :; O Well, other than location, what other variables a
161; l change the protection factor within the building that a
,s 17 ! person experiences?
A The presence or the absence of interior walls, 18 [!
l 19 h for example.
il 20 [ Q Okay.- But given that the building is there, then 21 the person gets inside those interior walls, that changes cw I
() , 22 [ their protection factor. So, that does depend on their 23 l location, doesn't it?
24 { A Yes, it does.
DFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 ' Q Okay. Now, given that, when you are trying to figure i
8084 l l
.#8-12-SueWalk out what protection people should expect within a structure, 2
it does vary by their location within the building, doesn't
.3 it?
4 A Yes. !
i, 1
5 0 okay. And the range -- strike that, please.
l.
6 In order to know what the protection factor a 7 person will experience within that range is, you -- it would 8 h elp you to know something about their location within the 9 building, wouldn't it? '
10 A It doesn't work that way in the calculation of II f protection factors.
l 12 [i Q I'm not asking you about the calculation. You O
v lI!
13 I have already calculated the protection factors for various 1:
Id '
zones I guess within these buildings, right?
u 15 A Right.
il 16c f! Q Or had them calculated, right?
I7 -A (No reply.)
18 Q I will go ahead. So, now knowing what the pro-I9 b
tection factors are in these various zones, if you want to 20 ! know what protection factor people are getting you need to
-21 i know where they are in the building, don't you?
M
_y 22 d i
A Are you asking me -- I'm not trying to --
23l Q Let me take an example here. Okay. We talked 24 j WFeriere Reporters, Inc .
about the bank where you've got a very high protection factor 25 in the vault. Protection factors in other parts of the bank I I
i
, 8085 i
?8-13-SueWalqh . gather are lower. Or, let's consider a convenience store j i
2 where the prctection factor right next to a big glass window 3 might be minimal.
.O, O~ 4 In other words, that would be true, a person stand-5 ing right next to a glass window would have a minimal pro-6 tection factor, wouldn't they? I 7 A No, that would not be true.
8 Q External glass window?
9 A That would not be true.
10 0 Why not?
11 A Because there are other factors which enter the 12 i calculation of the protection other than just the presence 13 , of an external window.
b Ls : 0 Well, you have already shown in your data that 15 [ for many of these buildings the protection factor in the 16 h building is no more than one point two. One is the lowest 17!- you can get.
18 h So, wouldn't it really be minimal protection if t>
19 '
you are standing next to a window in one of these buildings?
U 20 A Not always.
21 ' Q But most of the time, wouldn't it?
.() 22 ! A Not necessarily.
23 Q Well, standing next to a window is equivalent in 24 QFede, 4 Reporters, Inc.
terms of the direct exposure, isn't it, to having virtually 25 no mass between you and the radioactive materials outside the 4
i i
8086
- 8-14-SueWals building on one side; isn't that correct?
2 A There are other factors which enter those considera-
,- 3 tions.
4 Q Well, would you please answer my question and then 5 i f you want to, explain? !
6 A Could you repeat the question, please?
7 Q Standing next to a large glass window -- now, I'm 81 going to assume here floor to ceiling -- is equivalent to 9i having virtually no mass for purposes of protecting you from i
10 l direct radiation exposure on one side of you, isn't it?
1 11'i A No, that's not correct.
I li 12 1 Q What is correct?
13 1 A The statement that you made is not correct. It 14 is not a correct statement.
15 Q Okay. So, I'm asking you what is correct in that 16 - situation. .
17 ' A Well, if you could just define some circumstances 18 fo r me , I could tell you if that's correct or not.
19 Well, I --
Q 20 A There are myriads of circumstances that one could 21 describe right now that could disprove that statement.
, .l 22 O Well, let me back off of that because I don't 23 ' think we are using the time very efficiently.
24 In the bank situation where you have got different w raser:: seporters. inc.
25 protection factors in different areas of the bank, if you want i
i
8087 ;
}
08-15-SueWalsh to know what protection people can expect who are shelter-t 2 ing within that building, don't you need to know where they 7,
3 are located within the building?
b 4 A Yes.
5 Q All right, sir. Let me refer you please to my 6 exhibit marked 57-C-10-F, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 7 " Effects of Man's Residence Inside Building Structures on 8
Radiation Doses from Routine Releases of Radionuclides to the 9 Atmosphere."
10 Mr. Martin, have you had a chance to review this 11 document before coming here to testify?
12I' A Yes, I have.
13 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: I would request that this be marked 14 as Eddleman 67 for identification.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
16 !
(The document referred to was 17 I marked as Eddleman Exhibit Number INDEXX IB h I 67 for identification.)
BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 20 il Q As far as the models of radiation exposure that are il 21 used in.this document, Mr. Martin, do you have any disagreement I' 22 ,'h
(_)T . with those models' validity?
?
! 23 A Could you be more specific in terms of relative to
! lI 24 l something?
Fnsery Reporters, Inc. '
25 Q All right. Let me ask you this. Do you think the l
8088 I D8-16-SueWalsh ' equations accurately describe the matters that they -- or 2 that they would accurately calculate the values that they are 3 used to calculate?
O V A 4 I would_say yes, they do.
5 0 okay. So when we are talking'the various kinds of 6 doses and dose reductions, these equations would calculate 7 them accurately, given that you knew the input variables?
8 A I wouldn't say accurately, but I would say that 9 they - given the input and the proper equations, they would 10 - reflect numbers which are appropriate for that situation.
11 h. Q Okay. And'those numbers would be appropriate if li 12 F 'they were calculated from the input values using these 13 l equations, right?
f I4 ! A Yes, that's correct.
END #8' 15 U Ice'flws ;;
16 '
17 '
18 t
19 -
20 ,
i.
21 a
23 -h b'
24 h ka Federal Reporters, Inc. .
25 L l
I
9A l-Joe'Wal- 8089 1 Q Okay.. Did you use any of the types-of 2 equations or models in this document in your calculations of 7- 3 exposure, or protection factors for persons inside structures
\/
4 in the Harris EPZ?
5 A (Witness _ Martin) No, I didn't.
6 Q Okay. Could you calculate exposures using 7 these sorts of equations for these persons?
8 A You could calculate exposures, yes.
9 Q All right. At this time I request that 57C-10-F,,
i i 10 'Eddleman 67, be admitted into the record, please, and I l Il think I also didn't move No. 66 in, so I would move that in i 12 at this time also, rq.,') !
13 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Chairman, we would object to 14 the admission of both of these documents.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's take them one at a time.
16 MR. HOLLAR: Okay. On proposed Exhibit No. 66, 17 there has been no showing that this document was used by Mr.
~
18 Martin --
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you slow down. Let's get 20 that identified before we get into the argument, okay? Is 21 that it? I would like the title of the document.
O
\_/ 22 MR. HOLLAR: Okay. I am sorry. It is National 23 Shelter Survey Instructions.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Marked E by Mr. Eddleman, right?
pFederd Reporters, Inc.
25 That is 66.
I
.9-2-Joe'Wal 8090 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: That is 66.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Just the two pages, right?
b q 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: That is right. The exhibit is 4 not the entire original document. All of these proposed 5 exhibits are documents I got on discovery from CP&L, by the 6 way.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Speaking first then to 66,;
8 that is two pages, and it is about zonal ventilation require-9 ments by county, on the second page.
10 MR. IIOLLAR: That is right. And Mr. Martin II
. testified that zonal ventilation requirements are entirely 12 p irrelevant to determining sheltering effectiveness of V
13 structures.
Id And he did not use this document in any of his 15 calculations, and I don' t think that Mr. Eddleman has 76 established the relevance of the document at all.
I7 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think in questioning his 18 methodology or arguing about it, a clear statement about what 19 he didn't use is useful, and that is why I want it in.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: A clear statement of what he 21 didn't use did you say?
\'- 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: This is North Carolina specific 23 information that he says he didn't use, and he says it is 24 irrelevant.
eFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. IIOLLAR: Your Ilonor, I suppose that there
3-Jo3 Wal 8091
' l 1 are thousands'of' documents that he didn't use, but that 2 certainly does not make them relevant to this contention.
3 JUDGE'KELLEY: Is it your contention, Mr.
4 Eddleman -- and I take it-it is -- that it is relevant, is 5 that right?
6 MR. EDDLEMAN:- Yes. This'is shelter survey 7 . instructions, and --
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Why do you see it'as relevant 9 to the contention?
10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, if you are~ figuring the II expected protection factors, and you leave out the ventilation 12 requirements for people, I think you are making a mistake,
,( 13 okay?
Id He has testified that he thinks it is okay. I 15 think I ought to be able to argue it, and I think I ought 16 to be able to show the. information, have that information in I7 the record that'shows what it is that he didn't use.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Do we have a clear statement in I9 the record, and I asked for information about just exactly 20 what-a ventilation requirement is?
2I l MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe the witness testified 22 I that he didn't know what it is.
I can read you from the. document 23 what it defines it as.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: That might be helpful.
DFederst Reporters, Inc.
MR. HOLLAR: Your Honor, a point of clarification.
9-4-Jon Wal 6 '8'092 1
I' don' t believe the . witness said that he did not know what i l
'2 a zonal ventilation requirement was.
3 He said that it was irrelevant.
tl 4 MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe he said both things, 5 but the record will show 0 JUDGE KELLEY: I think I might want to ask the 7 -
witness to restate -- Mr. Eddleman, if you'want to give us :
8 'an idea -- #
9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Let me ask the witness first '
10 if he can define -- if he will give us a definition of
'II -
zonal ventilation requirement, to his knowledge.
I2
- p. s JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Go ahead.
Q .
13 WITNESS MARTIN:- Zonal ventilation requirement
I4 is the amount of air which is required specific to each '
15 geographical location within the country for the purpose of 16 maintaining comfort to its occupant, and comfort.being 17 defined at a given temperature, and relative humidity level.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: By county?
I9 WITNESS MARTIN: By county -- by' area. By 20 State,-if you will.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: So, if I live in Wake County Os 22 North Carolina, I can look in there and get a number which 23 will tell me what I need to be comfortable.
24 DFederna Fleporters, Inc.
WITNESS MARTIN: In other words, how much air
. 25 do you need to exchange with the outside, on average, to
9-5-Jos'Wal 8093 1 maintain your house at, for example, 76 degrees F, at 2 45 percent RH, the realitive humidity that is.
r' 3 JUDGE KELLEY: And do you regard that information '
D) 4 as not relevant to your survey here?
5 WITNESS MARTIN: It is not relevant for the 6 simple reason that the calculation of the inhalation protection 7 factors is based upon a completely isolated building as ,
8 opposed to a building at which there is forced ventilation, 9 either by a fan or by air conditioning system.
10 That is why the zonal ventilation requirements 11 by county is an irrelevant factor in this case. It is very 12 relevant for the purpose of designing structures in terms of O 13 the air ventilation systems.
f 14 For example, for heating ventilation and air 15 conditioning engineers, but for the protection factor 16 determination, it is completely. irrelevant.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: With regard to that factor, it 10 is whatever you find out there, is that right?
19 WITNESS MARTIN: In terms of what the literature 20 has for the purpose of isolated structures.
1 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, may I ask him a couple m
~) 22 of more questions. Maybe I can pin down my foundation on 23 this.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
OFediral Rtporters, Inc.
25 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 1 i
9-6-Joe Wel 8094 1 Q The assumption that people stay inside a buildingj 2 that is totally isolated, as with all windows and doors closed; 3 l
.and_the ventilation system turned off, is basic to your 4 analyses of protection factors, isn't it, Mr. Martin?
5 A (Witness Martin) Yes, it is.
6 Q Now, if they get uncomfortable in there, is 7 there a possibility that they might open some windows or 8 doors?
9 A Yes, there is a possibility.
10 0 Okay. I think that lays the basis for what II I wanted to do.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: But then you are contending that 13 people who have been told that there is a nuclear serious 14 accident, shut the windows, turn off the air conditioner e.nd 15 wait for further instructions, are going to open the window?
I6 MR. EDDLEMAN: If they get so uncomfortable 17 that they don't think they can stand it.
18 I will give you an example, Judge , okay?
I9 There was a gasoline storage tank near my home that had a 20 spill and they were digging it up, and there were a lot of 21 gasoline vapors in the air.
O V 22 Now, at first -- I know gasoline vapors can be 23 hazardous, so I kept my place pretty tightly sealed up, but 24 one afternoon it got so hot I said to myself I can't stand l DFederit Reporters, Inc.
25 the heat, and I don't want to turn a fan on, but I am going to i
/
9-7-Joa Wal 8095 l t
i 1 open a window, and I did. Okay? l 2 I am contending that it is possible for people 3 to react that way, and I think we have already got a basis 4 in the record for saying that if you do open a window or 5 door, then these protection factors literally are out the 6 window.
7 And I think that in not using that is something l 8 I want in the record to be able to make that argument.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: I think the only thing in the 10 window this morning was the protection factors. What are 11 they? 1.3, 2.7, et cetera?
m 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: The expectation of those numbers 13 depends on the assumption that all the windows and doors will, 14 in fact, be closed.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Correct.
16 MR. EDDLEMAN: But 2J10M does not say calculate 17 your expected protection factors, assuming that all the 18 windows and doors are closed.
l9 It says: What do you expect? At least, that 20 is the way I read it.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I think we have heard 22 i the argument. Let's hear an argument then on No. 67, would i
23 ' it be numbered?
24 MR. HOLLAR: Is that the Kocher document?
km Feder:1 Reporters, Inc.
25 JUDG3 KELLEY: Yes: I believe that is right.
9-8-Joa Wal 8096 !
1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, that is right. ,
t 2 MR. HOLLAR: Basically, I would object to the es 3 introduction of this exhibit into evidence on the basis that 0 4 again it is not a document that was used by Mr. Martin.
> Q,f
, 19'
.5 IfMr.Eddlemanwishedtohaveawitnesssponsorj L el 6 the document, he had that option, but he did.not do so. i.
H V ,,.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: I's that it?
8 MR. HOLLAR: Yes.
N{..d.b- b0 I would also -- one othe'r 9 thing. I would point out that the document itself deals 10 with radiation doses from routine releases, and this is b'o. t '-
y Il the issue here.. g 12 . We are talking about unusual releases.
13 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I think examination of 14 the model will show, and the witness testified that you could 15 use these equations to calculate protection factors for the I.6 purposes that he was doing.
17 It is another way to do it, and I think that is 18 good enough reason to have it in the record.
l9 , JUDGE KELLEY: Any comments from FEMA or the 20 f Staff?
i 21 ' MR. ROCHLIS: I basically would agree with the 22 Applicants' on the document entitled TR-84, National Shelter 23 , Survey Instructions.
l 24 l I think the whole idea of how the contention was Sn.recerti neporteri, inc.
25 narrowed was to provide a basis for protection factors to go
8097 i 9-9-Jod Wal 1 into the plan so that some rational decision-making process >
2 could be made by the people that make the decision, and I 3 think that was accomplished, and the fact that this document x ,
4 was not used in the decision -- in the survey, makes it 5 really irrelevant at this point in time. j l
6 With regard to 57-C-10, Exhibit F, D.C. Kocher'si 7 document, I would just basically echo the Applicants'
- s. ,
i:
itii
- 7'1 8 statement on relevancy.
g) ) ( \ ) 1: I, 9 And the fact that Mr. Eddleman did not offer a ql g.
10 witness on this particular document.
,p 9
II JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
~
!2 WITNESS MARTIN: Excuse me. May I say something?
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, please do.
14 WITNESS MARTIN: I just want to make a correction 15 or clarification here. Mr. Eddleman just stated that I 16 stated that the model used in here could be used for the 17 calculation of protection factors.
18 I What I did agree to was that it could be used 6 for calculation of exposures to occupants inside the structures ,
20 not for the calculation of protection factors .
2I JUDGE KELLEY: Is that because the protection 22 factor is, if you will, a grosser number? Having to do with 23 accidents? -
24 Would you have a protection factor for a routine be-Federal Reporter ,, Inc.
25 That would sort of surprise me.
release?
9-10-Jo3 Wal 8098 1 WITNESS MARTIN: Basically, you would-really not.
2 It would not be as significant as that for an accidential 3 release, for example, which is like an immediate versus O 4 continuously being exposed to a cloud of radio nuclides which 5 are released from a nuclear power plant on a routine basis.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
7 MR. EDDLEMAN: May I ask a clarifying question !
8 on that?
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure. j 10 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) !
11 Q The protection factor is, Mr. Martin, the ratio 12 between the radio nuclide dose experienced outside the
( 13 structure, and the dose experienced inside the structure, 14 isn' t that right? '
15 A (Witness Martin) Yes, that is right.
16 Q So, if you can calculate the exposures inside, 17 you could actually calculate a protection factor from that 18 if you know the release?
19 A It is the manner in which the exposure is 20 calculated which is relevant here, not the protection factor 21 itself.
) U We are really talking about two different 23 animals, or two different types of fruit here.
24 ke-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Exposure calculated for instantaneous releases 25 '
are totally different from exposure calculated on a routine
\
9-ll-Joe Wal I basis.
2 On the one hand, we are talking about-long term 3 buildup of nuclides; on-the other hand, we are talking about 4 very short term releases and exposures.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Isn't the whole idea of a 6 protection factor that I would be measurably safer in an l
7 actual situation if I go indoors and shut the windows?
8 WITNESS MARTIN: Exactly.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Now, if I am living in the 10 EPZ, X-miles from any nuclear power plant, and I am there 11 all the time, am I going to be safer if I go indoors?
12 I wasn't aware that that was true.
O' 13 WITNESS MARTIN: To a certain extent, but on a 14 very minimal basis,'I would say.
15 Because most of the activities, for example, 16 around Shearon Harris -- for example, take a farmer who is 17 plowing his field. He is mostly outside.
18 And the typical house for routine exposures --
19 well, take for example the example of the inhalation protection 20 factor, where that number approaches 1, which is virtually 21 no protection, as time goes by, routine exposures are usually 22 done on a yearly basis, so if after ten hours that number 23 approaches a value of 1, you could ima'gine what would happen 24 when you started approaching 365 days.
OFerferal Heporters, Inc.
25 Meaning that for a long term routine releases,
9-12-Joe W21 8100 l
i 1 the idea of protection factor is really not even comparable -
2 to the idea of protection factors for short term accidental l l
3 type releases.
7, s 4 That is why.this whole document here is not 5 even applicable to the protection factor calculation of 6 structures for nuclear power plant accidents.
I 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: I need to ask a question about 8 that. He changed what I understood his earlier answer to 9 be.
10 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 11 Q Mr. Martin, the equations in this document 12 depend on the time of exposure to the nuclides, don't they?
13 A (Witness Martin) No, they do not. As a matter 14 of fact, if you take a look at the equations,.the time 15 dependency of those equations has been removed.
16 Q Let me ask you to refer to page 19, at the top.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just say that we are in 18 a posture of pending motion for admission. I have been 19 asking some questions, you go ahead, but pretty quick here 20 we are going to either stop or make a ruling.
21 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think we are pretty close here.
- 22 , Do- you have that Page 19 before you, Mr. Martin?
l I
23 WITNESS MARTIN: Yes,-sir.
24 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) nFeder:% Reporters, Inc.
25 Q Would you please read the top sentence, the
1 9-13-Joe Wnl 8101 ;
1 first sentence on that page. l 2 A (Witness Martin) RETEN calculates the time 3 dependence of the dose rates from radio nuclides deposited n#
4 on the ground.
5 0 Okay. That is time dependent, isn' t it?
6 A Yes, it is.
7 0 Okay. So,- your earlier answer is not correct, 8 is it?
9 A Well, I only read one sentence out of a ten 10 thousand line document. I can also do the same thing to you 11 by pointing .out a sentence which removes the time dependency.
12 Would that make you incorrect?
13 0 Well, let me say, if there is one sentence in 14 there that says there is a time dependency calculated, then 15 that does make the statement that there is no time dependency 16 in the document incorrect, doesn' t it?
17 A Am I~ allowed to --
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
19 WITNESS MARTIN: Could you refer to page 3 of 20 the same document?
21 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right.
() 22 WITNESS MARTIN: Could you refer to the paragraph i 23 which starts by setting 1 minus linear AT equal to 17 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. Then it gives you a time W Fevler.1 Reporters, Inc.
25 independen,t reduction factor.
9-14-Joo W21 8102 1 WITNESS MARTIN: That is correct, yes. ,
2 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 3 0 Okay. Let me refer you then to Section 3.2, U) 4 pages 8 and 9, and -- !:
5 A (Witness Martin) Page what?
6 0 Pages 8 and 9, Section 3.2. Let me just ask 7 you this, Mr. Martin. Isn't it true regardless of what you :
i 8 and I might think of things, that some of these equations 9
in here are time-dependent, and some are not, and that you (
10 could use' the time-dependent equations to calculate radiation II doses to people inside buildings?
12 A I would have to qualify my answer by saying that
) 13 you could use the time-dependent equations when you want to 14 take a look at the effects in terms of short terms, but when 15 you are talking about'-- when you are referring to long term 16 routine releases for nuclear power plants, there is a 17 deduction decay process which takes place which eventually 18 leads to what is thought as equilibrium, in mathematical 19 terms, which effectively removes the time-dependency.
20 Q Right. So, , you wouldn ' t use the ones that 21 effectively remove the time dependency; you would use the
( 22 ones that had the time dependency, those equations?
23 A It depends on the circumstances. I would not 24 DFederd Reporters, Inc.
really say that you would remove those equations that have 25 time dependent equations, or use those which do not. It i
9-15-Joe Wal 8103 j I depends on the circumstances, what exactly that you are 2 after.
/~N 3 To calculate to go to the moon, for example, l O 4 you would not do that.
i 5 Q Rather than go to the moon, Mr. Martin, if we 6 wanted to calculate the exposure levels for people inside 7 structures for a short term release from a nuclear power 8 Pl ant, we could use the time dependent forms of these 9 equations in this document to calculate that dose, couldn' t 10 we?
11 A It depends on the nature of the nuclides that 12 l you are dealing with. You could, and you could not.
O 13 There is no general method here. You have to 14 analyze each situation specifically.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: I think that will do for purposes 16 of arguing the admissibility or not of this document.
I'7 Mr. Eddleman, did you make any effort to 18 determine the availability of Mr. D. C. Kodier as a witness 19 in this case?
20 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, sir, I did not.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Can I ask you about where
() 22 we are at this point, in terms of your cross?
23 MR. EDDLEMAN: I am basically done.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you have any more now?
wrnier , neporters, inc.
25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge -- I don'.t want to say l
i
9-16-Joe Wal 8104 1 unilaterally no without a double checking, but let me check ;
l 2 while you make your rulings. j I
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I thought we would like O 4 to consult, but I am just determining if you are done, or 5 about done.
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe I am about done Judge, ,
1 7 yes, sir.
8 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 9 Q I have just a couple of more questions of Mr.
10 Myers, and that will be it.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't you go ahead.
12 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing )
-O 13 Q Mr. Myers, for those structures within the EPZ 14 which weren't given detailed analysis by Mr. Martin and 15 aren't reflected in the Attachment 8 and data that you --
16 aren't reflected in the data in Attachment 6, which is the 17 basis of Attachment 8, which you are going to put into the 18 plan.
19 Is the State and the other emergency planning 20 people, are they going to assume that the protection factors 21 of those other structures fall within those ranges?
() ,
22 A (Witness Myers) We are going to use Attachment 8, 23 which is the summary.
- 2d Q So, you are going to assume that the other Wfeder# Heporters. Inc.
25 structures which have not been surveyed and assessed in
9-17-Joe Wal' 8105 I 1 detail do fall within those ranges?
2 A Right.
,, 3 Q Do you have any idea where the other structures 4 would fall within those ranges?
5 A Not without consulting with my technical support 6 people.
7 Q Okay. IIave you done that so far?
8 A Not at this moment I haven't. We have had some 9 preliminary discussions, but nothing in detail.
10 Q Do you have any idea where the other structures 11 would fall within those ranges?
12 A Not myself, I don't.
i 13 0 IIave any of your support people told you where 14 the other structures would fall?
15 A We haven't discussed in detail that question.
End 9. 16 M Sim fols.
17 18 19 20 21
() 22 23 '
24 kw. Metal Remrters, IN.
25
8106
-Sim 10-1 1 Q Would you wait until an accident happens to 2 find the answer?
3 A (Witness Myers) No. We will be incorporating 10 N/ 4 this material prior to the plant going on line and would 5 have this included into the state plan.
6 Q Now what do you mean by this material?
7 A The material that I will be including in the 8 state plan, which is page 4 of 4, Attachment 5 and Attachment 9 8. I would be consulting with RPS and with the' shelter.
10 survey people on my staff to make this determination.
11 Q So what would be included in the plan would 12 not include information about where in the ranges of the
() 13 information that is going in the plan the other structures 14 that didn't have a detailed survey fall; is that correct?
15 A We will use the survey, as I said, the 16 summary in Attachment 8.
17 Q And that is all you will use?
18 A And Attachment 5, and we will have a general 19 ' statement on pages 12 and 13 on the smaller facilities.
20 Q So with respect to the other' structures that 21 didn't have a detailed survey, the answer to my question is
(~T 22 that information about where they fall within those ranges V
23 will not be incuded in the plan? ,
24 A Correct.
he Federtl Reporters. Inc.
25 MR. EDDLEMAN:. Thank you.
8107 Sim 10-2 j That is all I have.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Perhaps we might just assess 3 where we are. Staff and FEMA, do you have questions, 4 extensive or not extensive?
5 MR. ROCHLIS: Just some very few questions, 6 Mr. Chairman.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: We will take a short break and 8 maybe we can come back and finish up, maybe just five 9 minutes or so.
10 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don't have many questions for 11 the FEMA witnesses.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: That had slipped my mind entirely.
() 13 Sorry. Let's take a break anyway. Five minutes.
14 (Recess taken.)
15 Back on the record.
16 We have a couple of pending rulings, and we 17 will give them a little la ter on. I think right now we would 18 like to move right to the staff and FEMA's questions.
19 MR. ROCHLIS: We are not going to ask any questions 20 at this time, Mr. Chairman.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, 22 (Board conferring.)
pJ 23 JUDGE KELLEY: The Board has no questions.
24 Redirect?
be-Fedwol Reportws, Inc.
25 MR. HOLLAR> I hEve just a couple of questions.
d
- cf . - .
' 8108 Sim 10-3 i REDIRECT EXAMINATION SNDEXXXXXX 2 BY MR. HOLLER:
J 3 0 Mr. Myers, you testified that you had not used, f3 or did not intend to include the information iE, Attachment C/ - 4 5 7 to Mr. Martin's testimony. in the emergency response plan.
6 Can you explain why? .
1.
7 A (Witness;Myers) Yes. That information is in 8 Attachment 8, which we plan to use. ,
9 Q Thank_you.
n 10 Mr. Eddleman also asked you, Mr. Myers, about 11 whether you knew whether the structures that were not surveyed 12 fell into the same protection factor ranges as the structures
() 13 that were surveyed. Do you believe that if ---
14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Objection. He is mischaracterizing 15 my question.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you restate it, please.
17 BY MR. HOLLER:
18 0 Mr. Myers, if your staff believed that the 19 structures that were not surveyed fell outside tqe range ,
20 of the structures that were surveyed wi thin each of the ---
t <
21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Objection. That is no,t what I 22 asked him about.
k, ,
23 MR. HOLLAR: Your Honor, I did.not characterize 24 Mr. Eddleman's question ---
5efederal Reporters. Inc.
25 MR. EDDLEMAN: I will withdraw the objection.
8109 Sim 10-4 j MR. HOLLER: Let me start again. ;
2l JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
3 BY MR. HOLLER:
4 0 Mr. Myers, do you believe that your staff would 5 have let you know if the protection factors of the buildings 6 that were not surveyed fell outside of the range of the 7 protection factors that were identified for surveyed structures I
gl within each of the categories of commercial and institutional I
9 buildings?
10 A (Witness Myers) Yes, they would.
jj Q Mr. Martin, I have a couple of questions for 12! you.
Mr. Eddleman asked you about the wind speeds tha t 13l 14 were associated with air exchange rates, particularly the 15 .5 to 1 range. Do you know what wind speeds are typically 16 assumed in assessing air exchange rates for structures?
j7 A (Witness Martin) In general, but not specifically 18 f r the range of .5 to 1. When one wants to assess the air j9 exchange rate of a structure, your typical wind speed is one 20 mile per hour.
gj Q Mr. Martin, were your calculations of protection r 22 factors for buildings in the EPZ dependent upon knowing where 23 persons are located in each of those structures?
24 A Yes and no, and I will r.xplain what I mean by yes Acc-Feder:l Reporters, Inc.
25 and no. When we did a calculation of the protection factors A
8110-8111 lSim 10-5
}
1 for a structure, more specifically for the direct exposure 2 calculation, and when we used the FEMA computer code, the
-r 3 code itself assumes up to nine standard locations within
( 4 a structure, which are assumptions for which one can base 5 the location of receptors, and by receptors I mean persons. ,
6 What we normally do after we receive the results 7 of the FEMA output, we compare it with nine standard locations 8 to the real locations within each specific structure for the 9 purpose of determining if they do correspond to places in 10 those structures where people can actually reside, and we l 11 eliminate those locations whero' residence cannot take place.
12 For example, if one of those nine standard
() 13 locations happens to be a boiler room, a mechancial equipment 14 room or a closet, we will eliminate those locations as 15 potential shelter spaces. ,
16 MR. HOLLAR: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Those are
! /
i7 all the questions that I have. '
f-1 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Any further cross, 19 Mr. Eddleman?
20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir, just to follow up on 21 this.
/~N 22 RECROSS-EXAMINATION O
23 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
9 INDEXXXXX 24 Q Mr. Myers, could you refer to Mr. Martin's w F.d.r.i n.por,.n. inc.
25 Attachment 7, please, which Mr. Holler asked you about.
8112 Sim 10-6' Now doesn' t that show that the characteristics 1
of the Apex Elementary School are considerably different than those of the Fuquay-Varina Senior High School for both O- eiraorme muc1uae e=a aege=1eea muc11ae 2 A (Witness Myers) It shows t,he range.
Q Well, for example, the Apex Elementary School for the deposit of nuclides is 4 and Fuquay-Varina is a range of 10 to 25; is that correct?
5 A That is correct.
9 Q And on Attachment 8 that information is shown 10 as a range of 4 to 25.
A That is correct.
12 Q Okay. Likewise for the airborne nuclides, Fuquay-Varina Senior High School has a range of 1.6 to 5.7, whereas Apex Elementary is only at 1.2, no range; is that correct?
A It shows the range from 1.2 to 5.7.
Q Well, that is what Attachment 8 shows, reflecting that information.
A I thought that was what you were referring to.
20 i- Q Okay. Attachment 8 shows a range of 1.2 to 5.7 for schools for airborne nuclide protection factors, i right?
A Correct.
ke-Federal Reporters, Inc. g g g 3
8113 Sim 10-7 i range and a range of 1.6 to 5.7 for another school, isn't 2 it?
3 A Attachment 8 is a summary of Attachment 7.
- 1
\" 4 Q Well, what I am getting at is that Attachment 5
8 doesn't really include the information for specific 6 buidings that is in Attachment 7, does it?
7 A Attachment 8 is a summary of schools.
8' Q Well, what I am getting at is if, for example, 9 the range of speeds of my car is given as zero to 55, but 10 the question is was I speeding as I drove through a 20-mile-11 per-hour zone in downtown Apex on my way to this hearing, 12 knowing that range doesn't help. But if you know specifically 13 what the speed was in a certain zone, that tells you 14 something.
15 What I am asking you is isn't it true that if 16 you have to know the protection factors for structures 17 in the EPZ, that it is better to have the information about 18 the protection factors of the structures themselves rather 19 than a range that simply goes from the lowest of any 20 structure in that category to the highest of any structure 2j in that category? Isn' t it more useful to have the
~
22 detailed information on the specific structures?
~_./
23 A The purpose of our plan, we believe it is best 24 to have the summary of the protection factor ranges.
ice-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Q Well, I didn't ask you what you believed is
8114 Sim 10-8~ l best. I asked you wasn' t it more useful to have the specific 2 structure information.
3 A I believe you asked me that, what was best.
O 4 Q Well, is your answer to isn't the information 5 more useful for the specific structures that that is not 6 best?
7 A The purposes for using this is as a tool. We 8 believe that what is on Attachment 8 will be the best informa-9 tion that we can use, which is a summary of protection 10 factor ranges in making our determinations.
11 Q But that doesn't give you the protection factor 12 for any specific structure, does it, sir?
13 A As I stated, it is a summary of the various 14 types of structures throughout the EPZ.
15 Q So the answer to that question is no, it doesn't 16 give you the protection factor for any specific structure?
17 A As I stated earlier, it gives us a summary 18 of the protection factors.
19 Q Please answer my question yes or no and then 20 explain, if you will.
21 A I think I did answer your question.
(} 22 Q Let me try to rephrase it.
23 Does Attachment 8 give you the specific protection 24 factors for any specific structure in the EPZ?
ka Federtl Reporters, Inc.
25 A Attachment 8 gives you a summary of the range
>. m
8115 e schools alluded to, if you are looking at part 7 ---
Sim 10-9 1 Q Please, sir, that is not what I asked.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Isn' t it also true though that I"') that particular Attachment 8 does not give you school-by-V 4
. school specific information?
WITNESS MYERS: That is true.
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: And that is true for the other 7
structures in there, too, isn't it?
WITNESS MYERS: That is true.
9 10 j)
Q Okay. Mr. Martin, you were asked about the e
typical wind sp'ed assumed for assessing air exchange rates g
p of structures, and I belieVe you said that the one that t
was used was one mile per hour; is that correct?
34 g A (Witness Martin) I didn't say that, no.
16 Y " ' YI A I said that in general for the purpose of g
determining the air exchange rates for structures, not:
18 specifying any given set of values. For example, I did say 19 n t specifically related to the .5 to 1 air exchange 20 per hour thht-I~have used, one uses a value of Jone mile 21 g g per hour in the determination of air exchange rates in
(
general.and n'ot tied down to any specific range -of air 23 24 exchange rates.
be-Federal Reporters anc.
25 Q Then you don' t know what specific air exchange
8116 Sim 10-10 1
rates were used in determining the .5 to 1 range; is that 2 correct?
3 A No, these are air exchange rates.
/ .
\
4 Q I may have misspoken. You don' t know what 5 wind speed is used to determine the range of .5 to 1 air 6 exchange rates that you adopted in your information that 7 you are presenting here?
8 A .I believe I have already answered that question 9 that you exactly asked me before, and the answer was no, I 10 didn't know.
11 Q okay, sir. Will you accept, subject to check, 12 that the average wind speed as measured at the Shearon Harris p(,) 13 site is about 7.7 miles per hour?
14 A I never heard that figure before.
15 Q Well, do you have any idea what the average 16 wind speed is around here?
17 A I have no idea.
18 Q Okay. Have you ever looked at the environmental 19 report for the Shearon Harris power plant and looked for 1 20 -the average wind speed here?
21 A No, I haven't. You asked me two questions in 22 one question. I have looked at the environmental report and 23 I have written portions of it, but they didn't deal with 24 average wind speeds.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 0 And you haven't looked for that information l
w
- 8117 Sim 10-11 -
in the parts of the report that you ---
1 2 A I never had any need to.
3 Q I didn't ask you that. What I asked you is
(,
kJ 4 hav; you in fact looked for that information in this report?
5 .A Never having the need to do so, I never did.
6 Q All right, sir.
7 Is 'it your opinion that you would get the 8 protection factor corresponding to typical wind speeds around 9 the Shearon Harris plant from using the average wind speed 10 around the Harris plant in the determination of the air 11 exchange rates of the buildings?
12 A No, it is not my opinion.
s_/ 13 Q What is your opinion?
14 A I don' t have one.
15 0 You have no opinion on that question whatsoever?
16 A No, I don' t.
17 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right, sir.
18 That is all the questions I have.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything further from the 20 applicants?
21 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Chairman, before the panel
(~N 22 is dismissed, maybe this would be a good time to address
\_).
23 one issue that you asked us to address earlier, namely, 24 Mr. Eddleman's earlier questioning regarding the availability MFedertl Reporters, Inc.
25 of the computer input.
8118 Sim 10-12 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Why don't we talk z. bout
)
2 that. Go ahead.
3 MR. HOLLAR: Basically our response is that 4
we did not feel that Mr. Eddleman's interrogatories fairly encompassed that information. .
5 Furthermore, Mr. Eddleman was put on notice 6
7 by both the affidavit that was filed in support of the
~8 motion for summary disposition and the testimony that was 9
filed that a computer code had been used to do the calcula-10 ti ns. We provided him with the results of the calculations.
11 He never made any request to us for the backup computer 12 input, and this is the first I have heard of it today.
rm
( ) 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Could we just hear the interro-ja gatory that is involved here and what the language is?
15 Have you got that Mr. Eddleman?
16 MR. EDDLEMAN: There are two that I think are j7 involved.
One asks what study, and this is 57-C-10-1(a) 18 j9 and (b), or actually 57-C-10-1 (c) . I asked in that 20 57-C-10-1 what study, if any, have you made of sheltering 21 effectiveness for shelters typical of those available in the Harris EPZ? Please identify all documents in whi~ch 22 23 you make such a study or any analysis of sheltering 9
24 effectiveness for such shelters. What study do you plan be-Federtl Reporters, Inc.
25 to make of sheltering effectiveness? When will each
8119 m 0-13 Then in C-10-3 (a) it asks please i
j study be completed?
identify all documents, methodologies, data, equations, 2
calculations or other information you have used or plan 3
V 4 to use in calculating or determining shelter effectiveness
. for structures within the Harris EPZ.
3 Then it asks some more detailed questions 6
about that, including statements about why the methods, 7
data or calculations were adopted. But these are continuing 8
I interrogatories and I got the continuing language right 9
ut f applicants' interrogatories to taa. So I presume 10 jj it is pretty good.
JUDGE KELLEY: It sounded like the third of 12 the three - can you give me the number again?
s 13 j4 MR. $DDLEMAN: Do you mean 57-C-10-3?
JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, the last one. Read that 15 16 nce more.
MR. EDDLEMAN: Please identify all documents, 17 18 methodologies, data, equations, calculations or other j9 information you have used or plan to use in calculating 20 your determining sheltering effectiveness for structures 21 within the Harris EPZ.
JUDGE KELLEY: So do you content that that O
V 22 doesn' t reach the computer material?
23 24 MR. HOLLAR: I would content that it doesn't l
he-Feder:1 Reporters, Inc.
reach the computer input material. We provided them with 25
8120 tim 10-14 the results. We described the computer code. If j
Mr. Eddleman believed that there was something missing from 2
what we provided him, he had the opportunity to ask us for 3
it.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Can we be a little clearer, at least for my benefit any, of exactly what we are talking about? I mean what are these papers now? This is what came 7
out of the computer and got sent back to you?
MR. HOLLAR: No. As I understand it, what 9
Mr. Eddleman is seeking is the completed forms, something 10 jj like the form in Exhibit ---
12 13 14 end Sim 15 sue fols' 16 17 18 19 20
-21
( 22 23 24 ,
he-Federti Reporters, Inc.
25
8121
- 11-1-SueWai MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe it's 64.
2 MR. HOLLAR: -- 64, with the completed information 3 that was fed into the computer.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: So, it's the input from Mr. Martin 5 to FEMA; is that what you are talking about?. ,
i 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, I think this Interroga- f 7 tory fairly encompasses both the input and the output. All 8 documents, methodology, data, equations, calculations, or 9 other information you have used or plan to use in calculating 10 i
or determining sheltering effectiveness for structures within II l the Harris EPZ. '
il 12 r I will say, I didn't call them up and scream about pN 13 -
it. I think the obligation is on the person who is answering 14 an Interrogatory, when the answer materially changes to 15 identify the information or produce it. Now --
II 6i JUDGE KELLEY: First of all, I just want to get I7 clear just exactly what we are talking about. I think I know.
0' It's the forms that came out of Mr. Martin's effort i
19 1
, p and got sent to FEMA and then FEMA used their computer on 20
, this information, right?
il 21 l And there was an output from the computer, and that O I Q 22 l was sent back giving a bottom line number of some sort in the protection factor; is that right? '
24 wrederei neponers, inc. MR. EDDLEMAN: And it also tells I think which --
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Computer printout is the word I'm
i 8122 I i
l
- 11-2-suewals) .trying to reach for.
2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right, Mr. Martin's printout that
- 3 he says isn't a document. But it also apparently gives the
\#
4 zone or -- what is the term of locations, the nine possible 1 cations, standard locations? Is th'at right?
5 i
6 JUDGE KELLEY: The next step I'm getting to, I I 7
think we now know what is being discussed at least, fairly clearly. Putting to one side whether there was an obligation 8
9, to disclose that earlier or not, where does that put us today?
10 What use would you have made of that? What use i
nj do you want to make of it?
12 j; MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, I can't tell exactly
/~T ti
~l 13 j how useful it would be without seeing it. And, since I was r
ja pretty overburdened on time I didnt make a great effort to 15 ;j get it, not knowing what use might be made of it.
16 The point I was simply trying to bring out was that j7 they were asked to produce this stuff and they didn't produce 18 , it. But they are at least making the results available to t'
19 J the State, which I think will allow them to use it if they 20 : need it.
21 . And that's more important to me than trying to
() 22 1
embarrass them about it.
23 ! JUDGE KELLEY: Well, do we have from you now any 24 i specific request or motion?
Am Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 i MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I asked Mr. Hollar informally I
i
8123
- 11-3-SueWalsh what, if any, of that information he had here. And he said he ,
2 would check. A'nd I haven't heard the answer to that yet. ;
7- 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I will put it differently.
(/
4 Are you asking the Board to do anything about this matter
~
5 at this point? And, if so, what?
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, I would request that 7 they ask him to -- that you direct the Applicants to supply 8 m e with a copy of this information. ,
9 JUDGE KELLEY: And then what?
10 MR. EDDLEMAN: And then if I think that it makes 11 a material difference to this record, I will make a motion 12 c to include it in the record.
13 '
JUDGE KELLEY: Is there any particular problem with 14 that, Mr. Hollar?
15 MR. HOLLAR: Your Honor, if Mr. Eddleman had 16 wanted this data for preparation for the hearing, he could s
17 [ have called me up and requested it some time earlier. He f
18 h has made a request at the last minute, after the hearing 19 began.
20 And I don't know what puroose it would serve to 21 provide it to him at this point in time.
(m_) 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Did you do any updating of your 23 Answers to Interrogatories? ,
24 MR. HOLLAR: We did not update. We supplemented
%cr-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 our Answers to Interrogatory 3.A back last August. We have l
8124 !
i
)ll-4-SueWalsip not updated the~information since then. We have, however, i 2 provided the results of the survey work that has been done 3 since then and the responses in the affidavits in support i f
4 of Motions for Summary Disposition and in the testimony.
5 The information -- the coinputer input information j 6 was only available a short period of time prior to when the 7
testimony was filed.
8 I would point out that this Interrogatory was 9 served by Mr. Eddleman last July, and it's a very broad type 10 It inquiry. If he felt that the information that we did provide I
11 him was not adequate and he wanted, you know, something in a i
12 i specific area he could have requested it specifically.
] i+
JUDGE KELLEY: Could we have some notion of just 13 14 sheer volume here? .Are you talking about -- take the input 15 I from Mr. Martin's team to FEMA, is that a hundred pages or iI 16 a thousand pages?
i 17 ! MR. HOLLAR: I don't know'the answer to that.
question. Perhaps-Mr. Martin does.
18[
ll
'9 I . JUDGE KELLEY: Do you have a rough estimate of that, I!
20 [ Mr. Martin?
9 21 ! WITNESS MARTIN: I would say approximately the 22 ; c ombination of the input and the computer output may total i l F 23 jl. a hundred pages . ,
l 24 JUDGE KELLEY: That's both?
Federal Reporters, Inc.
, 25 WITNESS MARTIN: Yes, that's both.
i
- i L
8125 ;
)ll-5-SueWalsh JUDGE KELLEY: The input -- what you sent in and i
2 what came back from the computer may be a hundred pages?
3 WITNESS MARTIN: That's correct.
V 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. .Does the Staff have any 5 views on this?
6 MR. ROCHLIS: No, Your Honor. !
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, we can discuss this 8 among ourselves. We will give you a ruling shortly. Certainly, 9 before we go home.
10 And as we understand it, Mr. Eddleman, your request 11 to the Board is that you be given a copy of the input and out-i 12 1 put papers that we have been talking about. And you then
(~N !)
\'_) l' would review them and you may, on the basis of your review, 13 1j 14 seek inclusion of portions of that, those papers, in the 15 i! record; is that correct?
16 ;N -
MR. EDDLEMAN: That's right. Give it to me to I:
17 l review. And if I think I need to make a motion to include it 18 !! in the record, then I will make that motion and we will deal
}l 19 ( with whatever arguments come up on it.
i!
20 f JUDGE KELLEY: We specifically are not talking 21 about reconvening here to ask questions about the paper?
() 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think the questions have already 23 been asked. I mean, there may be something I didn't think 24 of.
wFederal Reporters, Inc. .
25 JUDGE KELLEY: You may want to ask a further question i
L
8126 l
)ll-6-FueWalsh on a piece of paper and get a paper answer back. It doesn't 2 sound to me like anything we would reconvene the hearing on.
3 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, I don t anticipate ' that.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We will make a ruling on it 5 a little later.
6 Let me think. I got so absorbed in this I forgot 7 the sequence.
8 Do you have any further cross questions, Mr.
9j Eddleman?
10 h MR. EDDLEMAN: No. I'm done.
11 1: JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, gentlemen, with that
.l 12 r thank you very much for your attendance, your responsiveness.
A
(_) 13 E We appreciate it very much.
14 ' You are excused.
15 (The witnesses stood aside.)
0 16 - MR. EDDLEMAN: Can I. ask a question for clarifica-17 : tion? Has Applicants' Exhibit 29 already been admitted in 18 the record?
19 ' .hm. HOLLAR: Yes.
20 t t, MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Does that bring us to the l
22 FEMA witnesses?
. 23 MR. ROCHLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
prenei neponus, inc. ;
i 25 MR. ROCHLIS: As I understand it, Mr. Eddleman, you l
L
c-8127
)ll-7-SueWalsh are going to stipulate.to the testimony of the FEMA witnesses l I I 2 o n 57-C-107 l g 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, I'm not. I have a few questions.l rs/ l 4 ' BUR. ROCHLIS: Okay.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. .
l 6 MR. ROCHLIS: Then, I would like to call the FEMA 7 panel, Mr. Heard and Mr. Hawkins.
8 And in the meantime, I would like to take this 9 opportunity to introduce Mr. William Cumming of FEMA's National 10 .1 Office. Mr. Cumming is the Associate General Counsel for 11 F
Il ! FEMA, and he will be standing in for Mr. Spence Perry. Mr.
I2 . Perry will be taking a year's sabbatical to the Industrial gs U
13 f College of the' Armed Forces beginning in August of this year.
l-Id ' JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. And, I'm happy to know Mr.
15 Cumming. Where is he?
16 MR. ROCHLIS: Here.
I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Thank you. All right.
18 MR. ROCHLIS: Begining with Mr. Heard, would you --
I9 JUDGE KELLEY: I think I should swear them first, I
20 !; all right.
ii 21 Gentlemen, would you raise your right hands,
( 22 I please?
23 N (The witnesses are sworn by ' Judge Kelley.)
l DFMud Rgerters, 24 f inc :
MR. ROCHLIS: Thank you.
25 '
JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
4
8128 ,
I
)ll-8-SueWalsh Whereupon, 2 JOHN C. HEARD 3 -
- and -
(s) ,
t L./ !
4 THOMAS I. HAWKINS +
5 were colled as witnesses by and on behalf of FEMA and, having i i
6 first been duly sworn, were examined and testified as follows:
l 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. .ROCHLIS:
[NDEXXX 9 Q Mr. Heard, would you state your full name, please?
10 A (Witness Heard) Yes. John C. Heard, Jr.
P li l Q And what is your position with the Federal Emergency l
12 l' Management Agency?
/~T ;l V A I'm the Chief of the Technological Hazards Branch 13 {
c 14 within the Natural Technological Hazards Division, FEMA, 15 [ Revion IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
i; 16 i! O And what is the street address of FEMA, Region IV, 17 l for the record?
i 18 A 1371 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
19 : Q .And, Mr. Hawkins, would you state your full name E
20 ', and business title and address?
21 1 if A (Witness Hawkins) Thomas I. Hawkins, Emergency l l
' /')s
(, 22; Management Program Specialist, 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.,
n l i!
l 23 1' Atlanta. ,
l 24 Q Okay. I direct your attention to a document prasern Reporters, Inc. ;
l 25 ' entitled the " Testimony of John C. Heard and Thomas I. Hawkins, I-t
8129 i'
ll-9-SueWalsh] '" Federal Management Agency, Regarding Emergency Planning 2 Contentions Eddleman 57-C-10 and EPJ-4-b." ;
3 Do you have that document in front of you at this
'O 4 time?
5 A (Witness Heard) I do.
6 (Witness Hawkins) Yes.
7 Q And did you have occasion to prepare this testimony,.
8 j. Mr. Heard, or was this testimony prepared under your super-t 9f vision?
10 i,
A (Witness Heard) I had an opportunity to participate Il i: in the preparation of it. Mr. Hawkins was the principal l
12 r preparer.
b 13 i Q Okay. Do you adopt this testimony as your own?
i 14 A Yes.
15 0 And, do you have any changes to make to the 16 testimony at this time?
l 17 ' A No.
18 Q And, Mr. Hawkins, did you have occasion to prepare 19 this testimony?
i 20 A (Witness Hawkins) Yes.
21 Q And, do you have any changes - to make to this
() 22 testimony at this time?
23 A No. ,
l.
24 l Q Do you adopt this testimony as your own at this Federal Reporters, Inc. U l- 25 ; time?-
I
! I L._.
8130- ,
i
)ll-10-SueWalp h A Yes. '
2 MR. ROCHLIS: I ask at this time, Your Honor, 3 that the testimony'be entered into the record as read and ,
)-
4 indicate at this time that EPJ-4-b was formerly stipulated j i
to by Mr. Eddleman.
5 6 JUDGE ~KELLEY: Yes, that was true yesterday of 7 4-b.
8 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's on behalf -- the stipulation 9 then on 4-b is on behalf of the Joint Intervenors.
10 l ' JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
11 l MR. EDDLEMAN: I just want to clarify that.
l 12 ; JUDGE KELLEY: So, we have a motion. Any --
13 l MR. EDDLEMAN: No objection.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Without objection, the testimony 15 f' is admitted.
i
'NDEXXXX 16 (The testimony follows.)
171 j _.
-18 19 ,
20 21
-(:) u i'
23 >
24 DFederal Reporters, Inc.
25 k
f,frNd s 149 June 10, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, _s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U .
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOhRD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )
COMPANY and NORTH )
CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICI- ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL PAL POWER AGENCY ) -
50-401 OL
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear )
Power Plant, Units 1 and ) ,
- 2) )
l TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. HEARD AND THOMAS I. HAWKINS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS l( ) EDDLEMAN 57-C-10 AND EPJ-4-b We, John C. Heard, Jr. and Thomas I. Hawkins, are, employed by.the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Natural and Technological Hazards Division, Technological Hazards Branch, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia, as Branch Chief and Emergency Management Pro-gram Specialist, respectively. '
We are responsible for providing assistance to State and local governments in the preparation of Radio-logical Emergency Response Plans, reviewing the plans, h' and evaluating the exercising of the plans to assure compliance with NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (hereafter t
Official Cony
cited as NUREG-0654) and 44 CFR 350, 48 Federal Register 44332 (September 28, 1983). A statement of our pro-fessional qualifications is' attached to our testimony.
EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 57-C-10 The State Plan (pt. 1, p.45-46 and 50-53) provides no useful analysis or information on sheltering effective-ness; but without knowledge of sheltering effectiveness, the decision on that option vs. evacuation will be ill-informed and quite possibly wrong. The plan's discussion of protective actions is mostly a list of them and a little handwaving -- its hopelessly inadequate. The plan, for potential shelters typical of those in the SHNPP, Q plume EPZ, does not comply with Evaluation Critericu J.10.m of NUREG-0654, which calls for inclusion in the plan of
" expected local protection afforded in residential un'its or other shelter for direct and inhalation exposure...."
' RESPONSE NUREG-0654, Criterion J.10.m. reqdres plans to include:
The bases for the choice of recom-
' mended protective actions from the plume exposure pathway during' emergency condi-tions. This shall include expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter for direct and inhala- '
' tion exposure, as well as evacuation time estimates.
The North Carolina Emergency Response Plan as revised April 1, 1985, i
1 includes, at page 51, Part I, average protection factors for' residential and other structures.
O
a S
While these protection factors apply to single-story frame and brick residential structures without base-
- .s ments, these same protection factors would, of course, apply to commercial, public, or industrial buildings -
of similar size and construction. .
As indicated in the plan, page 51, Part I, the protection factor data is included to provide a sound estimate of " shelter effectiveness" and to add to the bases of choice between available protective action options.
These bases, in our opinion, are conservative since larger, institutional-type structures being normally
()
- more spacious and massive, offer a greater degree of protection. Therefore, in our opinion, the plan includes e adequate bases for reasonably assuring that adequate protective measures could be taken in a radiological emergency.
CONTENTION EPJ-4-b .
Adult bus drivers have minimal education and are paid very low wages.
They cannot be trusted to put'their jobs e above family obligations or to perform adequately in
, emergency situations.
RESPONSE
NUREG-0654 Criterion J.10.g. requires that the organiza-tion's plans to implement protective measures shall in-clude a means of relocation.
\
We understand, from the Board's " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Remaining Summary Disposition Motions)" dated April 24, 1985, that the Board's
(}
focus in this hearing is to provide the Intervenors an opportunity to conduct cross-examination to deter-mine the strength of Dr. Mileti's claims tha't adult bus drivers can be expected to perform the duties assigned to them under emergency plans.
As previously stated in the " Affidavit of Thomas I.
Hawkins in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions EPJ-4 (a) and EPJ-4(b)", FEMA Region IV has observed or participated in numerous
{ disaster operations and have found that emergency workers report for duty when asked to serve during emergencies and faithfully perform their designated duties. Respectfully submitted, 1 O John l% @ C. Hear Jr. Thomas . Hawkins) j-Mt N' k (,
\
e
John C. Heard, Jr.
- Professional Oualifications I joined the Federal Emergency Management Agency in July,' 1979. I am presently assigned as the Chief of the Technological Hazards
( -) Branch in Region IV. In this position, I am responsible for the " review of REP's, conducting exercises to test REP's and conducting - public hearings. Members of my staff and I also assist State and local governments in preparing REP's and coordinating Federal assis-tance. I served on the Regional Assistance Committee from December 1974 to December 1981. Since December 1981 I have provided staff support for and participated in all RAC activities. From July 1973 to July 1979, I was Regional"Dir.ector, Federal Pre-paredness Agency. The Federal Preparedness Agency was responsible for fixed nuclear f acility off-site planning from December 1975 , (Federal Register Notice) until made a part of the Federal Emer- ' gency Management Agency in July 1979. In December 1979, the Presi-dent assigned off-site responsibility to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Prior to 1973, I was employed by the Office of Preparedness, Execu-tive Office of the President. I was the representative on an ad hoc (]) Regional Radiological Emergency Planning Committee December 1971 to August 1973. Committee was chaired by EPA and composeo of repre-sentatives of Federal department / agencies, State radiological health i of ficials, nuclear power industry representatives, and re~presenta-tives of the academic community. Federal Register Notice January 1973, published by OEP assigned planning responsibilities to Regional Offices. My formal education is as follows: Attended the " Interagency Course in Radiological Embhgency Response Planning in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities." Course conducted by RAC agencies at Staff College in Battle Creek, Michigan in June 1975. Attended " Work Shop - Seminar on State Emergency Planning in Relation to Licensed Nuclear Facilities." Seminar conducted by Atomic Energy Commission in September 1972 at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Completed nine months course at the University of South Carolina from , September 1963 to May 1964. Course was entitled " Radiation Protec- ! (]) tions Institute". Course co-sponsored by Atomic Energy Commission and South Carolina State Board of Health. Completed Radiological Defense Officers course, Staff College, Eattle Creek, Michigan, June 1962.
Conducted and served as Principal Instructor for Radiological Monitor Instructors Course, University of South Carolina July 1961. Completed United States Department of Agriculture Radiolo.gical
~
Monitors Course February 1961.
/~N Assigned as South Carolina Radiological Defense Officer from \-) January 1961 to July 1964. Was issued AEC By-Products Material License from June 1961 until departed State employment to accept ' .
Federal employment in May 1970. While on active military duty, attended Atomic Weapons orientation course, Fort Bliss, Texas December 1958. . While on active military duty completed U.S. Army Command and Staff College (extension division), " Technical Considerations in Employment of Atomic Weapons", March-August 1958. o e U 9 e w - - __ - -
- 1 Thomas 1. Hawkins l
.)
Professional Oualifications . for My present position is Emergency Management I am assigned Program Specialict to the , Region (]) the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Radiological Emerge d e IV and the States of North and South Carolina. h preparedness for the State of North Carolina and the Carolina and for the local governments within these States. I have held the position of Emergency Management I have been Program employed Specialist by i (or its equivalent) since December 1981. : FEMA since July 1978. From April 1964 to January 1977 I was employed as Planning Director,' - of Clayton County, Georgia. My formal education is as follows:
- AB Degree, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 1958 196:
Master of City Planning Degree , Georgia Tech. , Atlanta , GA, Completed Radiological Emergency Response Course at the U.S. (]) Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site, April 1982 Of ficer and Radiological Defense Completed Instructor Radiological Course, DefenseGeorgia Emergency Management Agency, - Atlanta, GA, March 1982 Seminar for Emergency Management
- Completed Basic Management GA, Winter Personnel, Valdosta State College, Thomasville, ,
Ouarter, 1980
- Completed Radiological Emergency Planning Seminar,October hational 1982 Emergency Training Center , Emmitsburg , Maryland ,
=
e S 8
. - - . ~, - - . . - _ _ -
l 8132 1 l ' '#11-12-SueWalph A No. 2 MR. ROCHLIS: I have no further questions. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. Mr. Eddleman. l { (Z) t 4 CROSS EXAMINATION I i 5 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: I 8NDEXX 6 Q Mr. Heard, do you dispute any of the answers Mr. 7 Martin gave on cross-examination? 8 A No. 9 -Q Let me ask you -- I believe that Mr. Heard was 10 one of the preparers of FEMA's responses to my Interrogatories 11 to the NRC and FEMA staff. 12 !- Has FEMA itself made any studies of sheltering r' S 13 effectiveness for shelters within the Harris EPZ?
- i. .
La f A No. None other than through the contractual 15 e arrangements that our computer used for analyzing the work I6 ): done by the field personnel. 17 FEMA itself has not done any, no, sir. 18 ;. Q In other words, FEMA's participation was basically 19 ' supplying computer and program to run through the data that i 20 1 the power company had gathered, and then give the results of 9 21 that computer run back to them; is that right? () 22 I A Well, FEMA -- to put it in proper perspective, 23 FEMA has a shelter analysis course. And they train fallout 24 shelter analysts. And these people receive certification as Ac3 Federd Reporters, Inc. ,; 25 qualified fallout shelter analysts. I i
a 8133
#11-13-SueWal That is a FEMA-sponsored FEMA function. And there !
2 are people trained on the staff of the North Carolina State 3 q Emergency -- Division of Emergency Management, as well as b 4 courses through agriculture -- I mean, architectural and s 5 l engineering firms throughout the United States.1 ; i 6 That is FEMA's involvement. They provide the , 7 courses at no cost to the individuals and qualify them'as 4 8 qualified shelter analysts. They do the field work for who-9 ever, for the State, in a continuing updating of fallout 10 shelters. II The same analytical procedure is used to analyze i 12 !l a shelter, be it for wartime use or a peacetime use. So, O 13 ! 4 that fallout shelter field raw data is then fed into.the l Id " FEMA computer, and a end result being a protection factor. 15 0 All right, sir. Do you make any distinction be-n 16 9 tween a radiation dose from a nuclear weapons fallout as I7 ' far as protection factor of a shelter goes and radiation dose 18 from nuclear power plant accident releases? I9 A Yes. P 20 [ Q What's the distinction? i 21 [ A Well, generally it's a -- the intensity is far 22 i greater in a nuclear weapons accident and always, if it's a d 23 h surface burst in it and residual fallout results you have i! 4 particulate debris, radioactive debris made from a chain Am-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 reaction, result of an explosion, being deposited on the ; I i
8134 ; Dll-14-SueWalb ground and the roofs, waters, streams, whatever. 2 This is not the case in a release of gases released 3 from a nuclear reactor. 4 Q Are you saying that particulates can't come out 5 of a nuclear reactor accident? I i 6 A Nope. I didn't say that. I said that's not the 7 case when you have a gaseous release from a nuclear reactor. 8, O But you can have a release from a nuclear reactor 9 that includes particulates, can't you? 10 A Yes. II Q And that has to be taken into account in these sheltering effectiveness calculations, doesn't it?
.O 12 ['
13 l A Yes. Id ' Q Do you know if the production of radionuclides and 15 the chain reaction in a nuclear bomb, nuclear fisson bomb, j~ 16 ' is basically the same reaction that produces radionuclides 17 in nuclear power plants? 18 i MR. ROCHLIS: I'm going to object. It's outside I9 the scope of the contention. 20 ( MR. EDDLEMAN: He said the process was different, 21 f and I want to pin it down if it is different or not. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Which process? E 23 [ MR. EDDLEMAN: The process cif production of nuclides 24 l in the bomb. W Feder:A Reporters, Inc. j, 25 ' JUDGE KELLEY: Well, it's a question of how far you
8135 )11-15-SueWals l go with this. We are talking about accidental releases from i 2 power plants and protection factors for that, correct? l 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, he said that the same method 4 that was used for wartime and for this. So, I guess I can 5 leave it at that. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right. 8 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 9 In my Interrogatory 57-C-10-4 to FEMA and NRC Q 10 staff, I asked if you possessed any information on the number, II l types, number of persons in or times of day persons are in i. I2 structures in the Harris EPZ. q O 13 [ The answer came back-no. Is that still a truthful li I4 ' answer to that question, gentlemen? 1 15 i! A At the time that Interrogatory, of course, was 16 ;' prepared we had no knowledge. We still -- I still don't have i any personal knowledge. 17 { 18 So, my answer, I have obviously some ideas. But I9 b my answer, if you asked me the types and numbers of people a 20 h and where, I would say that I don't know. 21 Okay. And for structures, is the only information Q O 22 i L/ you have what has been produced by the Applicants here? 23 L A Yes. ' 24 Q All right, sir. Can you tell me which NRC rules DFederd Reporters, Inc. 25 apply to emergency response plans? I l
8136
- 11-16-SueWa3s MR. ROCHLIS: I'm going to object as outside the 2 scope of the contention.
g~y 3 JUDGE KELLEY: It's a legal question. I sustain , is' 4 the objection. 5 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) i 6 Q Well, let me ask you this. For FEMA to make its 7 finding that -- its presumption finding that -- strike that, 8 please. 9 Let me show you a document which I represent is 10 , some pages from NUREG 0654, FEMA, Rev 1, Revision 1, " Criteria Il for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency li
,,_s 12 [ Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power
( l 13 i Plants." 14 ' (Mr. Eddleman hands a document to the witnesses.) 15 i MR. ROCHLIS: Mr. Eddleman, what pages are those? 1 16 [ MR. EDDLEMAN: This consists of a cover page, and I'7 ! Pages 61, 63 and 64. Page 62 is a table, I might add, that 18 [ doesn't appear to tie directly into -- I don't think that I9 l ties into this contention. i 20 [ BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 21 b Q I've handed both of you gentlemen a copy of this.
,n,
- -' 22 Criterion 10 I believe begins on Page 61 about the middle 23 of the page, doesn't it, in Section J?'
i 24 A (Witness Hawkins) Yes, ofederal Reporters, Inc. 25 ND #11 (Witness Heard) Yes. 33 flws J
12-1-Jon Wal 1 Q Page 62 is a table. Now, when it talks about 2 the organization's plans in that first line of Item 10, does
-s 3 that mean the Emergency Response Plan?
I i
~
4 A (Witness Heard) Yes. 5 0 And it says those plans to implement protective 6 measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include, and 7 then there is a colon, correc t? 8 A Yes. 9 Q All right. And then if we fall on down, there 10 are items listed started with little a, and going all down 11 that page and the next page, and come over to Page 64, there
,, 12 ; is number m.
i
~
13 Now, is that the criterion that this Contention 14 is concerned with, in your opinion? 15 A Yes. 16 Q All right. Now, in your opinion, does that 17 criterion require .that information on the sheltering, the 18 protection factors for radiation exposure in structures 19 within the Harris EPZ be included within the plan? 20 A (Witness Hawkins) No. 21 MR. ROCHLIS: I am going to object. I am going 22 to ask that that answer be striken at this time, and get a 23 ruling from the Board as to whether on not that is a relevant 24 question at this time. erede,:.i nenoners, inc. , 25 ' It seems to me that it is outside the scope of I
2 12-2-Jon Wel 8138 i i i I contention. f; 2 The Board has already made a. ruling on this, and
- s. 3 whether FEMA believes at a previous time whether the actual 4 protection-facto 2.c have to be included in the-plan is really 5 moot at this point, since the Board has ruled.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe you can help me out. I 7 don't recall -- what are .you referring to? 8 MR. ROCHLIS: In previous answers -- in previous 9 affidavits in support of the Applicants' motion for summary 10 disposition on this contention, FEMA has indicated that II our rationale is that the protection factors themselves do not 12 have to be included in the plan itself. O 13 JUDGE KELLEY: May I -- I guess my recollection 14 is failing. You said the Board has ruled? 15 MR. ROCHLIS: Well, the Board -- in the way the 16 Board has narrowed the scope of the contention is that all l 17 we are here today -to decide is the Applicants' -- whether or 18 not the Applicants' should go out and perform a survey of the 19 commercial and institutional structures, and include those 20 PFs -in the plan, or to show why those PFs do not have to be 21 included in the plan. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: The last part, to show what -- ! 23 they don't have to be included in the ' plan? 24 MR. ROCHLIS: In essence. Federst Reporters, Inc. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: That is not what the contention
12-3-Jon Wal 8139 1 says, is it? 2 MR. ROCHLIS: I am referring to the . Board's ruling 3 of 7pril 24th. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Could.you cite me to a page? 5 MR. ROCHLIS: I believe it is Page 6 of the 6 ruling. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. 8 MR. ROCHLIS: Page 7. i 9 WITNESS HAWKINS: Page 7, at the end of the I 10 page. l Il JUDGE KELLEY: All right. 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: If it would save time, I will j C) 13 ' withdraw the question. I 14 JUDGE KELLEY: It probably would. 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay, I will withdraw it. I 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. 17 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 18 Q Let me refer you to page 2 of your testimony, 19 gentlemen . - 20 You state at the bottom of that page that North 21 Carolina Emergency Reponse Plan, as revised April 1, 1985, Pg (_) 22 includes at Page 51, Part 1, average protection factors for , 23 residential and other structures. ' 24 ) Federal Reporters, Inc. I believe Page 51 is in Applicants' Exhibit 29. 25 I would like to ask you what other structures protection i
8140 12-4-Joe Wal 1 factors are given for on that page, or in that part of the j 2 plan? I
- 3 A (Witness Heard) Well, the way the structures
%c' 4 that are listed are designated as a single-story wooden 5 frame house, no basement, and a single-story brick house, no 6 basement.
7 Q Those are residential structures, sir. I am 8 asking you what are the other structures that you mention 9 on Page 2 of your testimony? 10 A There are no other structures. Il Q That statement is incorrect, isn't it? 12 A If you consider residential and other structures,
/^\
LJ 13 and there are only residential structures listed, the statement 14 is partially correct. 15 Q All right. But the statement that there are 16 other structures included in the plan is incorrect, isn't 17 it? 18 A Yes. 19 Q All right. Let's turn ove r to Page 3. You say -- 20 A Let's see now'. May I modify. I am reading 21 from the plan. What is listed is, as I indicated, a single-22 story, brick and a wood. According to plan, Section E, from 23 a housing survey and guidelines contained in EPA 520-1-78-001 24 A and B, the following represents the expected local protection ks Federti Reporters, Inc. 25 afforded in residential or other structures within the Shearon
12-5-Jos W21 8141 , ) i l 1 Harris plume exposure EPZ for direct and inhalation l 2 exposure. 73 3 And our statement is taken from that narrative.
- \-)
4 Q Well, now, I don 't want to be too nit-picky.
-5 You say residential and other structures.
6 A The plan says that. , i 7 Q The plan says or, doesn' t it. l l 8 A Or, right. ! 9 Q Okay. But there are no other structure PFs 10 listed on that page 51, are there? I i 11 A That is correct. 12 Q All right. Now, let's look at page 3 of your ; 13 testimony. You say while these protection factors apply l 14 to single story frame and brick residential structures ! 15 without basements. 16 'Now, those are the protection factors that are 17 listed on Page 51'of the plan, correct? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q Okay. You then say these same protection factors; 20 would, of course, apply to commercial, public or industrial 21 buildings of similar size and construction. (~y - (_) 22 Now, have you made any determination of how many 23 of the non-residential structures within the Shearon Harris 24 EPZ are commercial, public, or industrial buildings of similar:
- p. rwer.i n oorteri. irw.
! 25 size and construction to a frame house? l 1
12-6-Joe Wal 8142 ' t 1 A No.
~
2 Q Do you think there are any? zs 3 A I don't know. , ( v
)
4 Q What about a similar size and construction to t 5 a brick house? i 6 A I don't know that. 7 Q All right, sir. 8 A But the PF factor would apply if it was similar 9 size and construction. 10 Q That is certainly true, but that would not apply 11 to buildings of different sizes or construction, would it? 12 A Of course not. I '!
'~
13 Q All right, sir. Let me refer you to Mr. Martin's 14 Attachment 6, please. 15 Do you have~that? I6 A I have Mr. Martin's testimony. 17 Q Please turn to Attachment 6, toward the back. 18 A Yes, I have Attachment 6. 19 Q All right, sir. Now, the first seven structures 20 listed on that Attachment 6 all have airborne nuclide 21 protection factors less than the 1.7 that a sj agle story (~) i my 22 brick house with no basement provides, don't they? 23 A (Witness Hawkins) Yes. - 24 Q And if we take the deposited nuclide protection Wi-Feder t fleporters, Inc. 25 factor for the single story brick house of five, and compare
o 12-7-Joe Wal 8143 1 it again with the first seven structures, all of them -- 2 well let's see, five of them -- pardon me -- three of these 7s 3 have a protection factor of two, which is rather less, less U 4 than half of what a single story brick house with no basement 5 provides, isn't that' correct? 6 A (Witness Heard) Numbers wise, that is correct, ; 7 yes. Two is less than five. 8 Q All of those have a low end to their range which 9 is -less than five. All those first seven have a low end of 10 the range that is less than five, don't they? 11 A That is correct. 2 Q And in fact, all of them except Allied Corporation 13 have a low end of their range that is less than five that are 14 listed in th'at table, isn't that right? IS A No, some are from two to six, and some are from 16 three to six of the first seven. 17 Q I said don't all of the structures listed in that 18 table have a low end to their protection factor range for 19 deposited nuclides that is less than five except for Allied 20 Corporation? 21 A _Oh, yes. 22 MR. HOLLAR: Objection. Your Honor, Mr. Eddleman 23 went through this same thing with Mr. Martin, and the numbers 24 are in the Attachment. I don' t see any purpose in belaboring yr omi neoo,tm, inc. 25 this.
12-8-Jo2 Wal 8144 , t 1 1 It is becoming very repetitive. j i 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Let me move to the point where i es 3 I am going out of, because -- L) 4 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. 5 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 6 Q You state in the third paragraph on Page 3, these!
'1 7 bases in our opinion are-conservative.
8 Now, the bases that you are referring to, the 9 PFs that are listed on Page 51 of the plan? 10 A (Witness Heard) Yes. Il Q All right, sir. If in fact the other structures 12 provide lower protection factors than do a brich house with O 13 no basement, that is not conservative, is it? 14 A If the structure provides a lower protection 15 factor, no it is not conservative. 16 Q Thank you. Now, the conclusion is in your 17 next sentence. You conclude it is reasonably assured that 18 adequate protective measures could be taken in a radiological 19 emergency. Is that your finding? 20 A Yes. 21 Q okay. That gives the degree of confidence you 22 have in that, is that correct? 23 A Yes. ' 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you. That is all the W-Faleed Reporters, Inc. 25 questions I have.
)
12-9-Jo] W:21 8145 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Questions from the Applicants'? 2 MR. HOLLAR: None, Your Honor. X INDEX 3 BOARD EXAMINATION 4 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 5 Q Mr. Heard, when you began to testify, I may 6 have misheard you, but I thought you said it was the intention 7 of the State of North Carolina to include in their plan i 8 Protection factors for specific structures. j 9 Did I mishear you or not? Is that what you i l 10 said? 11 A (Witness Heard) I understood that as being p 12 Mr. Myers testimony. That he intended to do this. 13 Perhaps I should correct that to say he indicated: 14 he would include a summary of protection factors. i IS Q That is very different then than information -- l 16 A Yes. There was some discussion whether he would i 17 use Attachment 7 or 8, I believe. ' 18 I don't have Attachment 8 -- yes, I do. 19 Summary, as opposed to the individual specific buildings in 20 Attachments 6 and 7. 21 Q Mr. Heard, in your job have you reviewed other
, 22 emergency plans for other nuclear power plants?
23 A Yes, sir. - 24 0 In those plants, do those plans include only % Federal Reporters, Inc. . 25 general statements about protection factors? l l I
1 a 1 cl2-10-Joa Wa,L-8146
-1 A Yes , sir, Edlat is correct.
I 2 Q Is there any -expectation' that in making decisions! 3 as to whether. to shelter or evacuate, where the protection 4 factors information comes into play, that that may be made 5 by a sector rather than for the entire EPZ? 6 A Yes, sir. It is frequently. made by sectors 7 as opposed to'the entire EPZ. 8 Q Could you see any virtue in providing the , t 9 decision maker information that was resolved and the 10 det' ail of invidivual sectors? ! 11 Would you expect that the protection factors 12 in say Sector A would be so different than the protection ()~ 13 factors in some other sector, that that would be compelling?
?
14 A It-has been our experience, sir, in observation 15 in this region, that there is generally very little 16 variation throughout the complete ten mile EPZ. 17 There is no one sector, to my knowledge, or 18 several sectors in a specific site plan that is materially 19 dif ferent from the entire EPZ. 20 JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you very much. That l 21 helps my perspective. X INDEX 22 BOARD EXAMINATION 23 BY JUDGE KELLEY: ' 24- 0 This is really a related question, Mr. Heard. w-resers neporters, Inc. 25 In looking at the Attachment No. 6 to Mr. Martin's testimony, i l' i L
12-11-Joe Wr.1 8147 1 where he shows these various values for various particular 2 places which one might -- well, it is characterized as gg 3 major commercial, industrial facilities. O 4 Do you regard those differences -- let me 5 state it differently. Do you regard -- looking then at 6 Page 51, in the Plan, where we were considering, for example, 7 single story brick house, and the airborne nuclide factor , l 8 was 1.7, and the deposited nuclide factor was 5. Many, if , t 9 not -- I think most of these facilities listed in i 10 Attachment 6 have lower protection factors, correct? l l 11 A (Witness Heard) Yes, sir. The lower range 12 is lower than the average of five, yes, sir. (9 v - 13 Q Do you regard -- would you regard those ; I I4 differences as significant to a decision maker? , I 15 A No, sir, because I think the decision maker 16 would use the airborne nuclide as the criteria, as opposed 17 to the deposited nuclide. 18 The airborne nuclide being a very low protection 19 factor of 1.1 to 1.7, or an average -- I won't say an 20 average -- but a mean of 1.5 as being what they co uld expect 21 if they ordered sheltering as opposed to evacuation, in 22 place sheltering as opposed to evacuation. 23 From what I would understand and read into 24 this, if sheltering was ordered, they would have something pFederd Reporters, Inc. 25 in the range of between 1 and 2, certainly not more than 2, ,
12-12-Jo1 WE, 8148 l
-l l 1 for airborne nuclides as a protection factor. ! ,
i 2 Q And if you are in the range between 1 and 2, i 73 3 whether it is 1.1 or 1.7, are you saying that a decision Q 4 maker would regard those as essentially the same? 5 A Between 1.1 and 1.7, sir? 6 Q I pulled that out of the air. , 7 A Well, obviously, 1.7 affords you more protection 8 than 1.1. 9 Each individual house would have to be analyzed 10 to know whether they are 1.1 or 1.7. But if you have a mean 11 range in your mind that if I order sheltering, I am going to 12 expect this kind of a protection to the public, as opposed f3 O 13 to evacuation. 14 That is what would be in the mind of the 15 decision maker. 16 Q And you say he is going to pay more attention 1:7 to the airborne number than the deposited nuclide number? 18 A I would think he would, sir. Generally, we 39 think of -- if it is a release of which sheltering is going 20 to be the protective action, you are concerned with an 21 airborne type release, and that certainly is the more
/~T l \_/ 22 conservative.
l l 23 The lesser protection factor. So, if he l 24 considers that, if it is deposited, then he has a plus Lw Feder t Reporters, Inc. 25 in his favor. It is a bonus. So he has got more protection. i
r-I 12-13-Jo2 WE. 8149 ) i 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, thank you. Any redirect? iXX~INDEX 2 REDIRECT EXAMINATION. 3 BY'MR. ROCHLIS: 14 Q Mr. Heard, why did you make the statement that 5 the ' residential survey performed provided a conservative 6 basis for decision makersZ? i
.7 Do you understand the question? l 8 A (Witness. Heard) I understand what you are j 9 saying. I. am not sure I understand the question. But could :
1 10 you expand on that, ' or -- II
-Q Okay. I believe in your testimony you indicated 12 that the protection factors that were determined by the O 13 residential survey provided a conservative basis for making 14 a decision on either sheltering.or evacuation, and could you 15 expand on your answer?
16 A Are you referring, Mr. Rochlis, to a specific 17 statement in the prepared testimony? 18 0 Yes. In your testimony on Page 3 you indicate 19 these bases in our opinion are conservative? 20 A Oh, yes. You clarified it, and I know what 21 you are speaking of now.
) 22 Yes, when only residential structures were 23 . included in the mind of the decision maker, obviously if 24 Lw Federal Rrporters, Inc.
more substantial buildings, industrial or commercial buildings 25 are included, then that is going to have a tendency on an I
~12-14-Jo2 Wa l 8150
~
l average to increase the protection factor, so if you only j i 2 consider the residential protection factors, it is going to j p '3 be a more conservative use of a number than if you used 4 larger, more substantial buildings. End 12.- 5 M Sims fols. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
~O 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 22 23 e 24
>r.o.rt4 nsporters, inc. 25
8151
' Shn '13-1 1 Also, I think it may perhaps clarify some of the 2 testimony that I have heard that sheltering as a protective 3 action in a fixed commercial' nuclear reactor accident is a r,.
4 protective acticn that is taken.when there is insufficient 5 ' time for evacuation. 6 To my knowledge, there is no plan in this region, 7 in the seven southeastern states, that envisions moving 8 ' people from residences into other type buildings within the 9 10-mile EPZ, be it a commercial or an industrial or something 10 with a larger protection factor within 10-mile EPZ as an 11 expedient. 12 In-place sheltering is where you are at the time.
- 13 If. evacuation is ordered, then you would move people to 14 facilities at 15 and preferably 20 miles from the site or 15 5 and preferably 10 beyond the 10-mile EPZ. .
16 To my knowledge, there is no plan that envisions 17 moving people within the 10-mile EPZ to more substantial 18 buildings. In-place sheltering would be just as the name 19 implies. You stay where you are. That is taken for a short 20 durati~on, generally one to two hours at the most. It is 21 not intended that that be any kind of a permanent protective 22 action. It is for a short term puff type release, and it (~} 23 would be over in preferably less than two hours. 24 However, if time provides for evacuation, in Federti Reporters, Inc. l - 25 al1~the guidance material that I have ever read and can L
8152
~ Sim 13 -2 be made hvaiable indicates that evacuation'would be the i
preferred protective action providing all of the factors that is provided in the material are taken into consideration O , aem eao e aeoi io= ere meae-MR. HOLLAR: That is all I- have.
.5 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything further, Mr. Eddleman?
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think I have got just a couple 7 of questions. 8 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 10 INDEXXXXXX Q Judge Carpenter asked you about having the information by sectors. Have you gentlemen made an analysis of which sectors some of these higher protection factor buildings like the Ramada' Inn and Allied Corporation are in in the Harris EPZ? 15 A (Witness Heard) I have made a superficial analysis. I haven't plotted each building on a 10-mile EPZ map to determine what sector it is in, no, sir. O So you can't say for sure that there is not substantial variation among sectors because there is certainly a substantial variation among these buildings in the protection factor, isn't there? 22 l A Well, Fuquay-Varina Shopping Center is in 23 Fuquay-Varina and Apex Shopping Center'is in Apex. They % Federal Reporters, Inc. 7 25
j 8153 i Sim 13-3 j Q And those have similar protection factors, right? A Yes. 2 3 Q But now there is a substantial difference () 4 between the lower protection factors of something like the 5 Apex Shopping Center or Amsco Medical Products or Weyerhaeuse r 6 and the protection factors of the Allied Corporation; isn't 7 that so? A I am not looking at specific numbers. Allied 8 is 2'to 5 on the airborne, and what was the other one 9 10 that we were comparing? jj Q Compare the Apex Shopping Center, if you will. A Okay. Allied has a higher range of protection 12 () 13 factors that the Apex Shopping Center. 0 And that is true also for the deposited 14 15 nuclides, is it not? 16 A Yes. 17 0 So do you think it would help in deciding on a sector of evacuation to know the specific protection 18 19 factors of the buildings within that sector? A It Perhaps would be nice to know. I a not 20 21 sure that would govern the decision made by the decision-22 maker. i '\ 23 0 Well, I am not asking you if that fact alone I.
- 24 would govern the process. Obviously many things have to NFedirti Reporters, Inc.
i 25 be taken into account, but wouldn' t the information be l- . -. . . . - _ _ . -- .- . - . . . . . _ - -.
8154 Sim 13-4 y helpful to have? A Yes, I would say it might be helpful. 2 Q All right, sir. 3
.m You also said that you thought a planner would
() 4 use the airborne nuclides protection factor as the main 5 criterion in a release. On that criterion there are only 6 a few of the structures analyzed here that provide a 7 substantial protection; isn't that right? 8 A That is correct. 9 Q You stated earlier in response to one of the 10 jj Board's question your opinion about what the purpose and nature of sheltering was. Do you know if that applies 12 t North Carolina's plans, specifically that for the Shearon
) 13 ja Haris plant, to your knowledge?
A I am not sure I understand what you are asking 15 16 me. Q Well, in response to one of the Board's questions 17 18 y u said the conditions under which you thought sheltering would be used, namely, a puff release for probably less 39 20 than two hours. To your knowledge, is that condition under which 21 sheltering would be used, does that apply to the North
/~T 22
( .' Carolina emergency response plan for Shearon Harris? 23 A I don't know what would apply to North Carolina. 24 2-Federri Reporters, Inc. 25 I know that is the criteria that is in the EPA guidelines,
g 8155 l Sim 13-5 1 and I know North Carolina uses those EPA guidelines, but 2 I can't speak specifically of course for North Carolina. 3 MR..EDDLEMAN: All right, sir. O)
\- 4 I have no more questions.
5 MR. HOLLAR: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. 7 RECROSS-EXAMINATION NDEXXXXXX g g . . , ., Q Mr.. Heard, would it be essential to have informa-9 10 ti n on the protection factor of buildings by sector in the i jj EPZ? Would it be essential? 12 A (Witness Heard) No, and I would like to qualify
/~') that if I may. If the decision-maker assumes that the
\_./ 13 average protection factor, airborne and deposited, is going 34 I to be around somewhere between 1.5 and 2, he can't get down 15 t individual sectors, well now here they have got pretty 16 j7 good protection over here, so we won' t evacuate these people, but over here and on this other side here, they don't have 18 j9 as good protection, and so we had better evacuate them.
You can' t run an evacuation or a protective 20 t
~
action process in large sectors by earmarking one sector 21 f- as having better protection so we will leave them alone. When 22
)
(_.T the sirens are sounded and when the EBS message is announced 23 l 24 t the public to evacuate certain sectors, generally the kce-Federal Reporters. Inc. entire two-mile ring is evacuated in sectors maybe out to 25 i I l
. 8156 Sim'13-6 1 five miles. time permitting, and time is a critical element 2 in the decision-making process.
3 So the fact that you have got higher protection r~s (-) 4 in-place sheltering, and keep in mind these are commercial 5 buildings, and if it is at hight, there is the possibility 6 most of them are not in use anyway, to my knowledge, it is 7 never intended to move people from their homes into better 8 Protected buildings within the 10-mile EPZ. That is not 9 a scheme within the evacuation plan. 10 So knowing that you have got better protected 11 factors in a selected number of sectors to me would serve 12 no purpose whatsoever. 10 (_/ 13 MR. HOLLAR: Thank you. 14 That is all the questions I have. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman? 16 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION INDEX 17 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 18 Q Mr. Heard, would you say your last answer is 19 consistent with the earlier answer you gave me about that 20 it might be useful to have the protection factors in making 21 the decision?
/~T 22 A (Witness Heard) It might be useful, but it should L) 23 not be taken into consideration as far as making the decision 24 on what to do.
ko-Federti Reporters, Inc. 25 0 I am not sure that clarifies it, but I guess
8157 Sim 13-7 . 1 if that is your answer, that is your answer. 2 Do you have any further clarification you want 3 to add? ('3 w/ 4 A No. You asked me if it would be useful. I see 5 no purpose of having it, but if he has it, he might use it 6 for whatever he could use it for. I don't know. I am not 7 making those decisions. If I were the decision-maker, and 8 I have explained my position as a decision-maker, it would 9 not be of any use to me because you can' t be selective in 10 taking parts of a sector or leave the Town of Apex alone and 11 evacuate all around it because they have got a little bit 12 more protection. c'^) (_j 13 You just can't define a general evacuation by 14 limiting certain parts of a sector or buildings within a 15 sector. 16 Q So are your answers to Mr. Holler in the context 17 of a general evacuation? 18 A Or any type evacuation. There are instances 19 where only one sector may be evacuated. 20 0 That applies to all of them? 21 A What applies to all? Now I want to to be sure
~N 22 I of what I am saying to you.
(G 23 0 Your answer applies to all kinds of evacuations, 24 whether all sectors are evacuated or only sector is evacuated? b;-Federil Reporters. Inc. 25 If you have got to make the decision to evacuate or not
8158 l l Sim 13-8 l 1 evacuate, you are saying that you wouldn't use the protection ; 2 factor differences between sectors at all in making that 3 decision; is that right? A 4 A No. In my mind there is a general rule, and 5 I think in the. southeastern region I think it is in the minds 6 of most of the decision-makers. They realize that the 7 average residential home has about an average of a PF of 8 2, and this may be a little high. That is an average of 9 airborne and deposited nuclides. That is the rule of thumb 10 we use, too. Il That means that half of the outside radiation 12 would be shielded out, a PF of 2. Half would be inside and 13 half would be outside. It is very low-level radiation, the 14 intensity we are speaking about in a nuclear reactor accident. 15 If there is time and there are safety conditions, I6 I think any decision-maker, and obviously there are other 17 factors, but by and large it is the time and the safety 18 conditions. If the roads are covered with ice and it would I9 not be prac.tical, you have to evaluate the harm to the 20 people. Is it better to leave them alone for a short 21 But assuming everything duration than it is to evacuate them? 22 is favorable and you have got time', then evacuation is the 23 preferred protective action. , 24 If you don't have time, your other option is 23e Federd Reporters, Inc. 25 in-place sheltering. And I think that the decision-makers
l 8159
-Sim l~'-9 j in-Region IV realize that when in-place sheltering is ordered 2 or. directed or advised, they are thinking in ranges of a
~
3 PF of about 2, in other words, about half of the outside l ) 4 radiation would be expected to penetrate that type structure. 5 Q And is that also in the context of a low-level 6 radiation release? 7 A Yes. 8- MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Heard and Mr. Hawkins, I think 10 that completes our proces then. We appreciate your 11 attendance and your attention. Thank you very much. You-12 are excused. () 13 (Witnesses Heard and Hawkins excused.) j4 JUDGE KELLEY: Ladies and gentlemen, we have 15 got a couple of rulings that we can make very shortly. l 16 I think we should come up with some dates for l j7 proposed findings. I 18 Have you already done that? 19 MR. BAXTER: (Nodding affirmatively.) 20 JUDGE KELLEY: You have doho that. Okay. Do you I 21 want to state that, Mr. Baxter? 22 MR. BAXTER: Yes. We have consulted with the 23 Parties present and move that the Board direct the parties l to file proposed findings on the following schedule. 24 kr.d.ra n. pori.rs sc. I 25 Applicants August 1; Interventors August 12; l'
4 8160 -8161
- Sim 13-10' 1 Staff August 22 ; and Applicants' reply September 3. And it 2 is my understanding those dates are agreeable to the parties 3 present.
^g
.{'l 4 JUDGE KELLEY: So say you all?
5 MR. ROCHLIS:' Yes. 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: (Nodding affirmatively.)~ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Motion granted. 8 Other than the couple of rulings we can give 9 in a minute, are there other things that we should speak 10 to right now? 11 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman? 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth. () 13 MR'. BARTH: I would like to express on behalf 14 of the staff and our good friend from FEMA the attendance 15 of Mr. Myers, who is the Director of a major North Carolina 16 agency, and he has testified as to thousands of disasters 17 a year, and he has other things to do, and he is not 18 associated here, and we appreciate his being here and the 19 State making.him available. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you very much for coming. 21 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Chairman, applicants would just like to second that he has been very cooperative in (} 22 23 participating in this hearing and has taken himself away 24 from other work to do. hFederd Reporters, Inc 25 JUDGE KELLEY: We appreciate your attendance
l 8162 Sim 13-11 very much, Mr. Myers. Thank you. 1 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don' t want to be lef t out of 3 that either. Thank you, Mr. Myers. s JUDGE KELLEY: 4 Anything else, Mr. Eddleman, that 5 you need to raise at this point? t 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: I can't think of anything offhand, 7 Judge. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxte'r? 9 MR. BAXTER: No, sir. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Maybe we can just huddle 11 here for just a second. 12 (Board conferring.) r-()x 13 JUDGE KELLEY: We would just like to wrap up 14 here. We have rulings on two proposed exhibits, and also 15 a motion from Mr. Eddleman to the applicants to turn over 16 certain material. 17 We are going to exclude the two exhibits numbered 18 I believe 66 and 67, and we are going to grant the motion 19 to turn over the material we discussed earlier. It is really 20 the input from the applicants to FEMA on the protection 21 factors and then the computer printout back to them giving 22 the factors. 23 As to 66, that is a two-page proposed exhibit, 24 which is about zonal ventilation requirements by county and be-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 it gives a chart.
8163 Sim .13-12 It seems to us that this material is not 1 sufficiently relevant to this particular contention which has to do with the accuracy and completeness of protection O , factors, eroteceien fecters which in ehis case were dased on the assumption that people would close the windows and turn off the fans as they were told to do. It may be that some people would get hot and tired and sweaty and want to open the window and that might ) 8 1 get us off into sort of a human behavior analysis if we 9 had such a contention. But we don't, and we think it is g g fair for our purposes to take the study on the assumption
~ i that was given.
12 O m we further re ~1111=e e e=eere i= the a sic assumption ,that most people would leave the windows shut and the fans off at least for some reasonable period of time. As to No. 67, that is an Oak Ridge study entitled
" Effects of Man's Residence Inside Buidling Structures,"
et cetera, by D. G. Kocher, and we also think that the g relevance of this study is tangential to the point that it ought not be admitted. 20 If we had a sponsoring witness, we might take 21 a different tack, butGMr. Kocher isn't here to answer 22 questions.nor is there anyone else to vouch for and speak 23 to questions about the study. 24 Ace-Federr.1 Reporters, Inc. 25 Beyond that it does focus on routine releases,
8164 Sim13-13 i and it seems to us that our focus here is on accidental 2 releases which are going to be of a considerably greater 3 magnitude and that the protection factors we are concerned (l 4 with are differ'ent in some substantial degree from whatever 5 Protection factors might be relevant in the case of routine 6 releases. 7 So those are our rulings on those two documents. 8: As to the material underlylng the study that 9 we spoke of, we heard both sides on the comparative 10 equities of turning over this material or not. We think 11 it is debatable under all the circumstances, but 12 Mr. Eddleman does have some case for being able to review (_,, 13 it. 14 We are limiting this ruling in this way. We 15 do not see this as a springboard for future hearings 16 certainly. In granting the motion the idea is that 17 Mr. Eddleman, as he indicated on the record, would get 18 the material and he would review it and if there were 19 portions of it that he thought were pertinent and ought 20 to be included, he could make a motion to have them so i 21 included. We should factor the timing for that into the
~i 22 23 proposed findings timing.
24 Is this something, Mr. Holler, that given the Ace-FederJ Reporters. Inc. 25 ruling you could provide to Mr. Eddleman pretty shortly? l I i 1
8165 Sim 13-14 j MR. HOLLAR: Yes, Your Honor. I think we could 2 provide it to him this week. JUDGE KELLEY: And the first findings are 3 a from you I believe on what date? 5 MS. MOORE: It is August 1, Your Honor. JUDGE KELLEY: So, Mr. Eddleman, if you had 6 7 this material by, oh, what is the 4th of July this year, il 81 next Thursday? 9 MS. MOOREP Thursday. 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thrusday, you are right. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: I am thinking of your filing 12 any motion you want to file. Well, once you have it in
) 13 hand, if the applicants deliver it to you on "X" day, then 14 could you not file any motion you want to file within five 15 days thereafter?
16 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think so. 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Shall we say then that the 18 applicants will deliver as soon as possible and within five 19 days after your receipt of the amterial, if you are going 20 to make a motion, to file the motion or inclusion. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right, sir.
- r. 22, JUDGE KELLEY: What we are trying to do is a
23 get it resolved so that if there are going to be any 24 proposed findings on this potentially late coming material, kee Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 that people will have it in time to include it in their
r i 8166 ! Sim13-15 1 submissions. ! 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Could I also at this time 3 request that Eddleman 66 and Eddleman 67 be made offers i 4 of proof? 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, I intended to say that. They 6 will be included'as offers of proof, right. 7 One other just observation, and that is where 8 is the Board on the safety decision. I am sure that is 9 a question that some of you may have asked yourselves, and 10 we haven't moved along as rapidly as we originally expected II or hoped, but I can tell you we have done a fair amount of 12 work and we are making pretty good progress. About all I () 13 can say is that we ought to have it out in the reasonably 14 near future. That doesn't tell you a great deal, but at 15 least it assures you that we are thinking about it. 16 Anything else before we adjourn? 17 MS. MOORE: Your Honor, what is the state of the 18 record at this time? Are you going to close the record? l 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Not on our own motion. L 20 MS. MOORE: Then the Staff moves that the 21 record on this issue be closed. ( 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Subject to the ruling on whatever
\%~}
23 motions Mr. Eddleman may make on the matters we just 24 discussed? yFederti Reporters, Inc. l 25 MS. MOORE: That is correct. L
.- - .. . - . = _ .- _.
4 8167 Sim 13-16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Now by this issue, do you mean j 57-C-107 2 MS. MOORE: 57-C-10 and EPJ-4-b. 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: No objection. (/ 4 MR. HOLLAR::,No objection here. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Motion granted. The record is 6 closed subject to the outcome of any motions Mr. Eddleman 7 may make, as we have just described. 8 Thank you very much. 9 i (Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the hearing 10 jj concluded.) 12
) 13 14 15 16 4
17 18 ' l 19 20 211 22 (:) 23 24 Federti Reporters, Inc. 25!
W NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before g the UNITED. STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter or_: NAME OF PROCEEDING: SHEARON HARRIS Evidentiary Hearing DOCKET NO.: 50-400-OL PLACE: APEX, N.C. O DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (stat) sf/ -
/
(TYPED) GARRE J. WALSH, R. Official Reporter Recorter's Affiliation {) ' Ace Federal Reporters
'/T G7), ! (4' Abl '
MYRTLM H' WALSH Official Reporter , 5 Ace Federal Reporters Fjf g,/
,///SM { MLA .%
MARY C. 4IMONS Official Reporter j Ace Federal Reporters i
8131
#11-ll-SueWdi BY MR. ROCHLIS: (Continuing) 2 Q Mr. Heard, would you briefly summarize the FEMA 3 testimony with regard to Eddleman Contention 57-C-10?
s.J ; 4 A (Witness Heard) Yes. The criteria J.10.m. i i 5 requires the bases for protective actions from the plume 6 exposure pathway. 7 The Regional Assistance Committee and the FEMA
!i 8 !!
staff reviewed the North Carolina emergency plan and determined 0 9l that those bases, primarily EPA documents, were referenced in 10 the plan and the bases were provided in the plan. II
? Q Since this testimony has been prepared, have 12 ; there been any changes that you are aware of with regard to ! )
13 ! the actions that Applicants have taken in this case? Id A Yes. There has been one complete revision of the 15 plan which includes protection factors. And my understanding 16 from the testimony here of Mr. Myers is that additional I7" specific protection factors for individual buildings will be 18 , included in a subsequent revision. l9 Q Have you reviewed the testimony of Mr. Martin, 20 the previous witness of the Applicants? 2I A Yes. (). (_ 22 - Q And are you familiar with that testimony? 23 t A Yes. , 24 Q Do you dispute any of that testimony at this MFMerd Reporters, Inc. , 25 time?
!:}}