ML20154F753
| ML20154F753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6403 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8805240063 | |
| Download: ML20154F753 (190) | |
Text
_ _ __. - _ ___. _ _ ___ _ .______ __ __.. . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ __ _ . _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
13 \A_
O UNFFED STATES - -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CORGdISSION e ss es m = = = = - - - == = == m . as == == == = se us as - = =s ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD P ANEL In the Matter of: )
1 )
EVIDENTIARY HEARING )
) DOCKET: 60-44l 01.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMP ANY OF ) 50-444-0!
) OPPSITF EMFRGENCY l NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al ) PLANNING
) '
CSEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) )
O i
l l l Pages: 11353 through 11540 P1 ace: Concord, New Hampshire Date: May 17, 1988 n 0\
1 q'\C Ok HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION ,
l O o m W A varars l 1220 L Serest, N.W., Sehe 600 '
l Washhgena D.C.20005 (2s2) m 8805240063 880517 PDR ADOCJ . 05000443 T DCD ,
s-m_g_.y.p_
11353 ' .
2 W 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2 ;
, Tax 50Ttl l 3 In the Matter of: )
4 )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. '
5 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL j G ) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY
' (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 ) PLANNING -
7 )
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ;
8 1
l 9 1 Tuesday.
l 10 May 17, 1988 l
11 Room 210 t
' Legislative Office Building 12 ( incord, New Hampshire ;
13 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 14 pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m.
15 BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i 16 U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Conmission i Washington, D. C 20555 17 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JP., MEMBER 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa!d {
i U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Conmission l 19 Washington, D.C. 20535 i
20 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission j 20555 Washington, D. C .
22 {
23 24 25 t
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
. - - - - ~ - --_
i- !
l !
- i L
11354 l
9 1 APPEARANCES: l i
2 For the Applicant: !
l 3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR. ESQ.
KATHRYN A. SELLELK, ESQ.
i 4 GEORGE LEWALD, ESQ. !
I Ropes & Gray i I 5 225 Franklin Street I L Boston, Massachusetts 02110 l
! 6 i i Por the NRC Staff: !
! 7 i i SHERWIN E. TURK. ESQ. ;
j 8 Office of General Counsel !
U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
9 Washington, D.C. 20555 j 10 For the Federal EmerRencV ManaR9 ment Acency: !
I i 11 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ.
l Federal Emergency Management Agency 12 500 C Street, S . W. ;
Washington, D. C. 20472 i h For the State of New Hamoshire: !
14 !
GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ESQ. l l 15 State of New Hampshire ;
I 25 Capitol Street [
16 Concord. New Hampshire 03301 i t
17 For the Commonwealth qf Messachuset ts:
18 CAROL SNEIDER. ASST. ATTY. GEN.
STEPHEN OLESKEY, ESQ.
19 Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 20 Boston, Massachusetts 02108
. 21 For the New EnRland Coalition against Nuclear Pollutian:
22 l ELLYN R. WEISS. ESQ. .
I 23 Harnon & Weiss l l
- 2001 S Street. N. W.
j 24 Washington, D.C. 20009
( 25 ;
I f Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-48G8 -
! I 1
l l l-t
! 11355 1 APPEARANCES: CContinued) l 2 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leonue:
3 ROBERT BACKUS, ESQ. -
I Backus, Meyer & Solomon l 4 116 Lowell Street i l Manchester. New Hampshire 03105
! 5 i JANE DOUGHTY, DIRECTOR
) 6 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League l
5 Market Street 7 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 ,
l 8 For the Town of HamotGD:
! 9 MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESQ.
l Shaines & McEachern !
) 10 25 Maplewood Avenue l P.O. Box 360 i 11 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 1
i 12 For the Town of Kensinnton: l l l I 13 SANDRA FOWLER MITCHELL, EMERGENCY PLANNING DIR.
l Town Hall
! 14 Kensington, New Hampshire 15 For the Towns of Hamo_ ton Falls and North Hamnton and South Hampten: r 1G :
ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
17 Backus. Meyer & Solomon j 116 Lowell Street 18 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 19 For the Town of Amesbury: l i
20 (No Appearances)
}
21 i 22 i l
! 23 i i !
- i i 24 l l 25 l IlIl Reporting Corporation
! Heritage l (202) 628-4888 I
t l
l l g 2 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM i i'
3 Panel- 'l 4 ROBERT GOBLE i ROBERT ECKERT 5 VICTOR EVDOKIMOFF f by Mr. Lewald 11364 l G. by Mr. Flynn 11459 by Mr. Turk 11470 l 7 .
8 9
- 10 r
1 l
?
i 12 il h
l 14
- 15 f
l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886
r 1
1 i 11357) 4 1 1RQE8 (Continued) f
?
j EXHIBITS: IDENT REC 'D red DESCRIPTION
]
j 3 ,
j Adol icant s ': j 4 i l No. 34 11404 11444 5 pages, excerpt, j i 5 EG8G article on ;
structure shielding l 6 by Burson & Profio. !
l I Dec. 1975 7
No. 35 11401 11402 1 page, photocopy 8 of photograph of ,
beach cott age !
9 l No. 36 11401 11402 1 page, photocopy 10 of photograph of beach cottage 11 No. 37 11411 11415 1 page. Stone a 12 Webster shelter ,
3 survey form, !'
13 Seaside Motel
! 14 15 I 16 i
! i 17 l 18 ;
i 19 l 20 21 22 23 l
24 ,
I l
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[
1 PROCEEDINGS i
! 2 MS. SNEIDER: Dr. Eckert just pointed out a 3 correction on Page 63 of the testimony; that the word 4 "not" -- there 's a Question No. 3. and it says, "Just slightly ,
i
! 5 more than half of the respondents indicated that their space !
6 was accessible from outside." l i
7 It 's supposed to say. "was not accessible." and I l 1
! 8 apologize for not having seen that sooner. j i
9 JUDGE SMITH: Do you adopt that change? l 10 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes. I do.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Is there any preliminary business? l 12 Mr. Lewald.
13 Mr. Flynn. ,
14 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me. Your Honor.
15 I had some further matters to report on the question l l
16 of the appearance of FEMA witnesses. I 'm af raid none of thia l
! l news is very firm, but nonetheless I feel obligated to report l l 17 t
l i 4
18 it.
i 19 On the matter of Mr. Thomas being separately {
20 represented, the question of whether FEMA will pay for that l
21 representation has been resolved, and FEMA will pay for 11.
22 However. I do not know at this point what Mr. Thomas 's decision )
23 will be as to seeking representation. If he has made a [
24 decision, that has not been communicated to me.
25 In light of that, it seems to me that if the Board !
Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 -- . - _ _ _ .. . . . - . _ _ . - . -
1 l
I 11359 1 should find it necessary to issue a subpoena, I don 't consider (
1 2 myself authorized to accept service of the subpoena. Earlier I i 3 had reported that, in our conversation on May 10th, that if 4 subpoenas were issued, I would accept them, and that remains 5 the case for the other FEMA officials. But because of the G unique circumstances. I don 't think it 's f air to say that I i 7 would accept the subpoena for Mr. Thomas.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Is that it?
9 MR. FLYNN: Yes.
10 JUDGE SMITH: There is another aspect about Mr.
11 Thomas 's appearance, and maybe the main aspect of our comment 12 about legal counsel was that there are going to be two A
f 13 witnesses testifying as to a state of affairs as to which we l
14 have seen a difference. and we wanted Mr. Thomas to be aware 15 that he had a right to confrcnt tho9e witnesses and be ,
f i 16 represented by counsel in doing it. I mean ' hat is probaoly 1
17 the most important part of it.
18 Now, presumably he 's known now for sometime that 19 Lanu.us and Bores will be testifying this week.
20 MR. FLYNN: I 'm sure he is aware of that, Your Honor, 21 but just to be abso'utely --
22 JUDGE SMITH: I just wondered if that aspect of it 23 has been focused on.
I 24 I think I am exceeding myself now by trying to manege 25 Mr. Thomas 's af f airs, but I just did want to point out that the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080 ;
. ..--.._ --- -~ --
! l l
l l
h
- 11360 '
e 1
j' 1 comment about legal representation was with some thought. You
( know, it was not made as a pej orative j udgment on Mr. Thomas at 2
3 all. It was, as a practical matter, looking at what the l 4 evidence was going to be presented this week. ;
I 5 MR. FLYNN: I will communicate that to him in the l
l :
6 spirit in which it was given. j i
7 MR. OLESKEY: Your Honor, did you mean by the use of l 4 l j 8 the word "confrontation" that you thought -- the Board thought i i
l j 9 that Mr. Thomas 's lawyer could cross-examine Bores and. Lazarus? i i
l 10 JUDGE SMITH: I think that we would entertain a l 1 !
11 motion to that effect. I mean, Mr. Thomas has his own :
l i ;
j 12 individual interests in this matter. I think. r l'
13 MR. OLESKEY: All right, 7. - - ;
l !
14 JUDGE SMITH: Even though he 's not a party, but I {
1-i 15 think, in fairness, maybe we should have explained that more l I r i 16 thoroughl y - t
(
17 Judge Harbour says why worry about the bounds of the ,
t 18 issues anymore. l l
19 (Laughter.)
20 JULGE SMITH: Those have been blurred.
l i l 21 MR. TURK: Your Honor, just a comment on that point. t i
I 22 JUDGF. SMITH: Just a nome nt , ,
! 13 (Beard confer.)
I 24 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk. !
i 25 MR. TURK : I don 't know if lour Honor would consider l l
I Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
f (202) 628-438C l i
l
/ ~
11361
'~ ' see 1 this to be an appropriate time to raise the point. I don 't 2 that there is necessarily a disadvantage to Mr. Thomas if he 3 does not attend or have an a',torney at tend when Dr. Bores and 4 Mr. Lazarus are on the stand. Mr. Thomas is not a party to 5 this proceeding and he 's not bound by the outcome personall:
6 So I don 't know that we have to -- for instance, if Mr. Thomas 7 say he needs two weeks or a month or whatever to hire an 8 attorney and to brief him, I don 't think that 's something that 9 should affect the course of this proceeding.
10 JUDGE SMITH: I agree that he has no right. He is 11 not affected by the outcome of this proceeding or any issues.
12 If we were to allow him to confront those witnesces, it would 13 be a matter of the Board 's discretion as what we see as an 14 issue of fairness, if in fact there is any confrontation 15 needed. We don 't know.
16 All right, now the Intervenors have a problem, shall 17 we issue a subpoena or not.
18 MR. OLESKEY' Well, let me j ust reply to Mr. Turk 19 briefly.
20 Thomas obviously isn 't a party, but from everything 21 that 's happened and been said, he could obviously be affected 22 by the outcome of the testimony, and I tore it, it was in that 23 sense that you, Judge Smith, made those conments.
24 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't want to stress that too much.
2b MR. OLESKEY: No, but i t 's there.
( \
l
<l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
1 113G2 f
> ((() 1 In that case. I don 't think anyone among the s !
? Intervenors understood until two minutes ago that the Board was i
, s 3 suggesting that Mr. Thomas 's counsel could appear and do that. !
- 4 I wonder if Mr. Flynn has conveyed that aspect of this to l 5 Thomas, and if so, where that leaves us with Bores and Lazarus
6 who are the next witnesses.
7 JUDGE SMITH: We were not -- we 're going to go ahead !
i 8 with Boras and Lazarus if they are up. We were not suggesting l 9 to Mr. Thomas any course of action. We were thinking ourselven i 10 that a lawyer representing him may wish to do aomething of that 11 nature, and that is why early on what has been taken as a 12 warning to Thomas, you kr.ow, to get a lawyer was not intended It was an invitation that he may do that if he !
O 13 14 as that.
perceives that his interesis are going to be affected. f 15 MR. OLESKEY: I am just pointing out that if that ,
16 aspect of it is going to be meaningful to him, someone has got "
i 17 to tell him very soon. I think. j t
1 18 JUDGE SMITH: I agree, I agree.
19 However, I also recognize that he was told last week l 20 and that presumably he knows that these people were here and 21 presumably if he 's going to have competent counsel, competent j 22 counsel would have recognized that would be comething -- I 23 don 't know. I simply don 't know. But we are not going to l L
i 24 delay Bores and Lazarus on that account. !
25 I think that perhaps it might be, if you see fit.
Heritage Reporting Corporation [
(202) 628-4888 ;
[
k
11363 9 1 tell him that we 're not going to delay Bores 's and Lazarus 's 2 appearance and that there is another aspect of it too, and that 3 is the transcript, of course, will be available, and we 're not
(
4 making any rulings. We are doing nothing except exploring a 5 possible solution to a sensitive problem which is not easily I
6 resolved, I don 't believe.
l 7 MR. ?LYNN: Your Honor, as soon as the hearing 8 resumes I will absent myself and communicate that to him by 9 phone.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further?
11 Well, how about the subpoena? I see that problem. I ;
12 thi nk that we are now aware -- wait until Ms. Weiss comes l 13 back -- we are now aware that Mr. Thomas may or may not appear, 14 and again, I 'm looking to you as being the parties who are nest I
15 interested in Mr. Thomas 's appearance.
16 Do you want a subpoena?
17 MR. OLESKEY: May we consult for a minute, Judge?
10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, right. I 'm j ust pointing out to 19 you that if you want one, you 'd bet ter ask for one because it ,
20 might not happen.
)
21 Well, e 've expressed an interest on our own that Mr.
22 Thonas appear. We have not consulted and decided whether we J
23 would compel his appearance if he declined. That would be an ;
24 entirely different situation.
25 (Board confer.) l l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation f
(202) 620-4888 L- - _ - __ _ __ _ _
f
- i 4
c- GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CP.OSS 11364
)
1 (Counsel confer.)
2 MR. OLESKEY: Our view preliminarily would be that we 3 would want to talk to Mr. Thomas 's lawyer, when he gets one, to 4 see what advise he is giving his counsel before we are put in 5 the position of asking the Board for a subpoena, 6 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, (
7 Mr. Lewald.
8 Whereupon, 9 ROBERT GOBLE 10 ROBERT ECKERT 11 VICTOR EVDOKIMOFF 12 having been previously duly sworn, were recalled as witnesses 13 herein, and were examined and testified further as follows:
14 CROSS EXAMINATION (Resumed) 15 BY MR, LEWALD:
1G Q Professor Evdokimoffi when we concluced yesterday you i
I 17 had responded to a Board question with respect to your 18 inspection of 12 so-called representative cottages. A nd I
- 19 think the Board 's question was particularly did you give a 20 price range?
i 21 A ( Evdokinof f.' Yes, I did.
f Did you answer as to what that price range was?
22 Q I 23 A (Evdokimoff) No, I didn 't.
f 3
24 First of all, I didn 't know what the price range was, l
25 and inen when I found out I gave -- well, they were going more
( !
~,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886
- - _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ . - . - _ _ _ _ _ . . - - . _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ . 2
GOBLE, EVDOi;IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11365 9 1 on a weekly rate, and it appeared to be 50 to 70 dollars a day 2 as 1 recall, but it was, more or less. I gave it for a week.
3 And one of the things, because I was there the week before 4 Labor Day, so the prices were coming down. They were saying, 5 you know, we can now gave you a better price.
6 So I originally asked -- I said we don 't want to 7 spend too much. We don 't want the top line, but we 'd like 8 something maybe moderate, or inexpensive to moderate is what I 9 said, and I didn 't know the price range at first so that 's how 10 I started. Could you j ust give us a range of say inexpensive 11 to moderate and that 's what I said.
12 And then when I went to other realtors and got a 13 sense of the price, then I was able to be more firm.
14 Q When did your inspection take place?
15 A (Evdokirrof f) September ist. As you recall, Labor 16 Day sort of fell -- it was 14ke a week later than usual. So I 17 was up there the whole week, the first week in September, and 10 Labor Day was like the next week, and I told the realtors that 19 we were contemplating maybe Labor Day or a week after; maybe 20 spending a week with my family up there.
21 Q So this was the week before Labor Day, 1907?
22 A (Evdokimoff) Right. People were starting to leave.
23 Many cottages were vacated at that point. There was still a 24 good degree of occupancy, but there wero many rottages that 25 were empty, and that 's why I was able to get into, you know,
,r-(v)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4086
l l
11366 GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS O 1 Q Get into the empty ones.
2 A CEvdokimoff) Right. Perhaps if I was there in July, i 3 it might be very difficult to see them, but it worked out well.
4 Q Now following this in your testimony, which I -- on 5 Page 26 you were talking about you were able to inspect 12
'6 representative cottages.
7 And then you go on to discuss the radiation exposure i 8 ana the shielding factors that are afforded. And then at the 9 conclusion of that first full paragraph on Page 27 of your ,
i testimony you say there 's one caveat for use of these factors:
2 10 11 Occupants may not remain near the windows or doors, but must ;
3 12 reside inside, preferable near interior walls of the structure 13 until it is safe to leave the shelter.
O 14 And my question is, is it your position that this 15 holds true, that this caveat holds true when we 're dealing with
- 16 0.09 shielding factor? ;
17 A (Evdokimoff) Yes, it is.
18 Q Or 0. 9. I 19 A CEvdokinoff) Those are Aldrich 's assumption, Mr.
20 Lewald, that I 'm using. He states that, you know, you have to i .
) 21 be away from thu windows and doors.
i i
22 The .9, there 's not a rep -- if you look at the l 23 table. I think it 's Table 1 in the February 1978 shelter study, j 24 there is not a representative factor for cloud shine point now, 25 but there is for other -- for example, a basement in a wooden {
)
i Heritage Reporting Corporation f i
(202) 628-4888 i
r 4
4 i
i i
j GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11367 9 I frame. And I think the whole sense of sheltering according to i'
2 Aldrich is that you should oe -- shelter -- he defines shelter 3 as a deliberate action to take use of the inherent shielding 4 properties of a structure by staying away f*om windows and ,
5 doors. That 's part of the definition in etll three of the 6 Aldrich statements, and I refer you to Page 8 on both the 7 January and February -- the multicompartmental ventilation 8 study which was the January '7 8 one, and the February one. So 9 that 's part of his definition of sheltering, to stay away from 10 windows and doors.
11 So. and the answer to your question, yes.
12 Q Well, didn 't we agreo yesterday that the tables 13 Aldrich used, Burson and --
14 A (Evdokinoff) Profio.
15 Q -- Pro f io 's t ables ?
16 A (Evdokinoff) Right, right.
17 Q And would it be fair to say that Burson and Profio do 18 not hold to the fact that being near windows or doors has any 19 signi ficance when we 're dealing with a shielding factor, a ;
1 20 protective shielding factor of 0. 9?
21 A (Evdokinoff) I can 't answer that. I didn 't read 22 Burson and Profio 's reference, but I did read Aldrich, and I 'm 23 just going on the assumptions that Aldrich uses, and I think i 24 Aldrich is sort of the expert. He did extract these concepts, 25 the shielding concepts f rom Burson and Profio. But I am j ust
(-
( ) .
%-./ 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation l (2021 628-4800 ,
1
l GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11368 h going on the assumption of Aldrich, which is the -- in my 1
- 2 opinion, which is the referenced -- who is a reference expert 3 in this. So these are the assumptions he 's inade, and I think 4 these are the assumptions that are referenced. ,
5 And the caveats put in my testimony are basically the l 6 assumptions that Aldrich makes, and I 've used those 1 '
7 assumptions.
8 Q Well, if I advised you that Burson and Profio state, 9 with respect to a wood structure and 0.9 shielding factor, that i
l 10 doors and windows will have little effect, and then going on.
11 and stucco has only a slightly greater tension. Thus, the 12 average reduction factor for above-the-ground room in an i
) 13 ordinary wooden frame house is about 0. 9. .
I !
l 14 MS. WEISS: Obj ect ion. I think the witness is being i
! 15 asked to comment on somebody 's conclusions. He ought to be ,
i >
I 16 able to read the document that you 're looking at. !
17 BY MR. LEWALD:
18 Q Would you accept that9 19 A (Evdokinof f ) I can 't --
l 20 MS, WEISS: Whoa, t here 's an obj ect ion. j 21 JUDGE SMITH : Wait a minute. I think that i t 's for 22 the witness to decide. Ms. Weiss. I think thet you have done 23 the witness a service by pointing out that might be something ,
24 he wants, but it 's f or the ;itness to decide, isn 't it?
25 MS. WEISS: Well, I 'd like to look at it myself.
Heritage Reporting Corporation '
(202) 628-4888 ,
i GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11369 9 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. That 's another natter.
2 Okay.
3 THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) I haven 't read that. Mr. ;
4 Lewald.
S JUDGE SMITH: Just a moment.
6 THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) Okay, I 'm sorry.
7 JUDGE SMITH: I think that he witness has indicated :
I 1
8 probably that he would like to see it bef ore he connent s.
9 (Pause.)
E10 10 (Continued on next page.) ,
11 12 14 1
I 15 16 l
17 18
{ 19
$ 20 21 4
) 22 1 23 24 i
25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
!. i r
w--w.---- _. m,_,.n_, , _ _ , _ _ , , _ ,,_ _, -
, , n._ _.g._, _ .
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11370 i',~s Yril 1 JUDGE SMITH: Do you recall the question?
2 THE WITNESS: (Evdokitof f ) Can I have it repeated to 3 me, Mr. Lewald.
4 BY MR. LEWALD:
5 Q I was referring to page 32. Well, I have put before 6 you a document entitled "Structure shielding from cloud and 7 fellout gamma ray sources for assessing the consequence of 8 reactor accidents." and by Zolin G. Burson and A. Edward 9 Profio; and this bears a pop logo of EGG- 1103-1670, December 10 1975. And I have put before you, Professor, the full document.
11 also excerpts from that document, pages 26, 32 and 34.
12 And my question to you with respect to page 34 -- 32 13 cf the article which is in reference to wood frame houses for 14 small houses, and the second to the last sentence with respect 15 to that subj ect where it says: "Doors and windows will have 16 little effect and stucco is only a Creat attenuation, that 's 17 the average reduction factor for en above ground room in an 18 ordinary wood frame house is about 0. 9. "
19 And I ask you whether you would accept that as being 20 Burson and Prof j o 's treatment?
21 A (EvdoX2ncff) I guess --
22 Q Of whether or not being near windows and doors was 23 significant when we 're dealing only with a 0. 9 protection 24 sheltering factor?
.5 A (Evdokinoff) I guess I feel a little uncomfortable
'm_,,.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(?O?) 628-4006
-s GOBLE, EVDOKIVOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11371
'"' 1 not having read the ful1 document. Some of my words I can 2 barely read here, so I feel like I 'm j ust -- somethini; is being 3 pulled out of context.
4 A (Goble) Can we consult for just one minute, please?
S Do you mind?
G JUDGE SMITH: Do you obj ect ?
7 MR. LEWALD: I have no -- no.
8 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
9 (Witnesses conferring) 10 THE WITNESS: (Evdokinof f ) I would agree w*th you.
11 but I would point out one of the tenets of radiation protection 12 is distance. The three ways to shield gamma rays: time, 13 distance and shielding from gamma rays.
14 Regardless of structural integrity of a building, if 15 you are against the windows of any structure and then you go 16 two or three feet further away the distance will cut the 17 exposure down; that 's the simplest distance, i t 's the inverse 10 square law.
19 So, it appears, and I haven 't read the document 20 fully, and it appears what you 're saying is true, that the . et 21 is j ust the windows and it doesn 't make any difference.
22 But I would point out, the concept that Aldrich is 23 putting forth is to cut the dose down as much as possible for 24 people, and t hat 'a by using basemants, t hat 's by staying away 25 f rom doors and windows and by usini; interior structures.
\v)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G2 fi- 4 08 8
~. - . _ - _ _ - . .- _. . - . - . . . . . - _ . - . - . __ -
- GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11372 j
O i So, that 's the whole point of sheltering is to 1
2 take -- to do the atrategies that are effective with distance 3 and using inherent structure of the building to cut your l
l 4 exposure down.
6 MR. LEWALD: I--
4 G THE WITNESS: (Goble) Excuse me, I could add two 7 little points on that, if you 're interested?
8 MR. LEWALD: Pardon?
9 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I said, I 'd like to add two 10 small points with regard to this, do you mind?
11 MR. LEWALD: You 're still with the question I asked.
12 Doctor? ,
13 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes.
g '
14 MR. LEWALD: Oh, okay. ,
10 THE WITNESS: (Goble) One point is, my 16 interpretation, for what i t 's worth, of the paragraph in 17 question is simply stating that - it 's st ating that doors and 18 windows have very little effect as shielding, i t 's no t -- and, 19 which is a well known fact, so they were not given credit in 20 this calculation f or any shielding provided by doors and i
21 windows.
22 The second point I 'd like to make is that, all of i 23 these shielding numbers are dcne ve y approximate They 're -
24 done -- they 're single digit accuracy, which is appropriate 25 given the wide range 01 housing characteristics that people are !
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
4 GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11373 l
j 9 1 usually averaging over.
i t
i 2 Now, when one starts to -- the next digit up from .9 i
3 is 1, there 's not a lot of range for planning around then, if j 4 you talk about things being 20 percent worse then 9, you might 1
5 still call that .9 shielding because i t 's -- we don 't know '
6 really whether we 're talking about .88 or .92 or 94.
7 We 're quarreling over very small dif ferences at thin 8 point
? BY MR. LEWALD:
10 Q Would you agree with the last sentence on page 34 of 11 the excerpt that the value suggested are estimrates for the 12 general case and had probably represented the upper 13 (conservative) range for the designated class of structure; cre 14 you disagreeing with that. Dr. Goble? ,
15 A (Goble) No. But I mean, I think the -- I would 16 agree with that, but I think the designated class of structure 17 is -- wood frame houses are much -- in general, much trcre 18 cubstantial than the cottages on the beach.
19 Q Professor Evdokinoff, could I refer you to the 20 excerpt on page -- the page 2G?
I 21 A (Evdokinoff) This is in my t e s t i mo ny . Mr. Lewald?
22 Q No, of this article -
23 A (Evdokinoff) In this document ? !
24 Q -- that I put before you. And doesn 't that indiente 25 that if we 're looking to protective chielding factors of 7~ l
\'- )
I Heritage P.e po r t i ng Corporation (202) 620-4000 i
l I
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11374 O 1 something in the range of 0.01 to 0.05, then it iu significant 2 thst you stay away from doors and windows?
3 A ( Evdol'.i rro f f ) I would not agree with that. I think I 4 Aldrich states the concept of sheltering is basically to go to l
! S the lowest -- to go to a bucement and to keep away f rom doorr I
G and windows.
7 There are other tablea in Aldrich that will also 8 state that, in fact, this applies to structurea of even .4 9 Q But let 's get -- didn 't -- at the tables in Aldrich 10 that you cite, aren 't they taken from --
11 A (Evdokicoff) Right.
12 Q -- Burson and Profio?
13 A (Evdokinoff) Richt. But I think Aldrich has made --
14 has added his own -- has added his own, perhaps, assumptions 15 and has perhaps somewhat -- I 'm not saying he hasn 't -- the 1G tables are the sama, but I t hi nk he has rrodi f i ed some thines.
17 And I think he is -- what he is telling us is that, there was a 18 strategy to sheltering. And the way he defines sheltering 13, 19 in a general sence, is to make use of the inherent structural 20 shielding properties of a structure by keeping away from doorn 21 and windows. That is on page eight of both documents.
22 And that 1. sort of a -- I have not read the document 23 by Butson and Profio, eo I don 't know what assumptions have 24 cone into this, but I certainly have read Aldrich and Aldrich 25 has stated that over and over again, hia concept of sheltrring.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 l
f l
I l
l
?
GOBLE. EV DOK I MOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11375 '
j 9 So I think -- I 'm not trying to read or suppose what
. Aldrich has in mi nd, but I believe the concept of sheltering is 3
! 3 to do the best you can, and that 's to keep away f rom doors and 4 windows and to go to a structure that will give you the best S radiation chielding which would be a basement, which would be a i
4
! 6 highrise building or some sort of industrial building. l i
l 7 And in fact, when he talked about strategy No. 2 in '
8 sheltering this is *vhat he says, is that people should go to a
! 9 basement and --
t i
10 Q Well, is what you 're telling me that if I icen e away 11 from a door or a window that I may do better than 0.9? l l
l 12 A (Evdokicoff) There were three components --
r I
I 13 Q Can you answer that yes or no? l k I 14 JUDGE SMITH: Well, the Board has some problems about i l
! 15 the testimony and we want to consult and see if we understand L
16 it.
i l
17 Well, the concern that I had is, you were speaking l
l 18 before about the reduction value of distance alone, and that 19 was with respect to the paragraph on page 32 which is the 20 shielding factors from sample structures, and with respect to a 1
21 cloud. And then we started talking about shielding factors I
l 22 with respect to deposited radioactivity.
i i
i 23 THE WITNESS: (Evdokiroff) Ground shina.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Ground shine.
25 THE WITNESS: (Evdokiroff) Yes, sir. i l ,
i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4880 l
I ;
I L -
___ = _ _ _ . _ ___ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11376 O i JUDGE SWITH: Now, it 's not clear to me if you 're 2 speaking about a change in distance from a cloud source 3 represented by the distance from a window to an interior wall l
4 or the change in distance from a window to interior wall from' 5 radioactivity deposited on the surface of the building. The l 6 proportion of distance would be vastly dif f erent, that was my l
j 7 question, 8 Now, wait a minute, we have another one, l
9 JUDGE LINENBERGER: With respect to page 26 excerpted 10 from the EG&G document distributed by Mr. Lewald, that table 11 seems to refer to reduction factors associated with a deposited 22 source on the ground. Several numbers are asterisked, and in 13 my copy I find no asterisk below the table to associate with 14 those asterisks. I can assume -- I do assume, but I don 't --
15 and here's my question, am I correct in assuming that the 16 asterisk there refers to the statement just below the line at 17 the bottom of that table which says, "Away from doors and 18 windows," is that what the asterisk refers to or can you tell
[ 19 me?
20 THE WITNESS: CEvdokimoff) the Aldrich table does do 21 that. I would agree with that, Judge Linenberger.
22 Perhaps, Mr. Lewald. I 'm not trying to confuse -- the
' l three components of dose, when you telked about a .9 factor l 23 j 24 you 're talking about cloud shine, but that 's one component of l 25 dose. If you 're talking ground shine that 's another.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation l
)
]
(202) 628-4888
] .__:=______._____ -
! l l
I GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11377 i
i
- i So I -- you know, we have to --
2 BY MR. LEWALD: l 3 Q Professor Evdokimoff, if ir answer to Judge 4 Linenberger 's question, if you would look to the full document 5 rather than the excerpt I think you 'd be able to address it.
l 6 The photocopy. unfortunately, is of poor quality. ;
i j
l 7 And could you look at page 26. you can respond to the '
8 question whether the asterisk is indicated below the line. I 9 aside of the legend. "Away fron doors and windows?" l l
! 10 A CEvdokimoff) It 's -- you cannot -- away f rom doors l i
11 and windows is highlighted in yellow and it appears there may 12 be an asterisk there, but I can't really say. I would assune 13 it is. It's a poor copy. Mr. Lewald. ;
14 Q You don't have an original or a better copy of this? i 15 A (Evdokinoff) I have -- no. I don 't. I haven 't read 16 the document. l 17 Q You 've never read the document ?
18 A (Evdokinof f ) Yes, that 's true. I haven 't read Burson 19 and Profio. But I can tell you Aldrich --
20 Q No, I 'm not interested in Aldrich.
21 A (Evdokimoff) You don 't want to hear about Aldrich.
22 I'm sorry. I would assume that it appears that this is an 23 asterisk.
24 Q All right. thank you.
25 MR. LEWALD: At this point. Your Honor. I would like O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
s l .
4 GOBLE, EVDOK!MOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11370 1
O 1 to offer the excerpts of the EG&G. the Burson und Profio i
I 2 studies.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have a better copy? Can you get 4 one?
S MR. LEWALD: I will endeavor to -- I would like to I 6 offer what I have now, but substitute a better copy, if 7 obtainable, which I 'l1 make every ef fort to do.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Are there obj ections?
9 MS. WEISS: Well, I do. I 'd like to see the full 10 document, to see whether these are a fair excision, you know, I
11 what 's in the rest of the document, whether there should be 1
i 12 more, before I agree. I may not have any obj ection, but I 've l 1
i 13 never taken a look at Burson and Profio.
14 MR. LEWALD: I have no obj ect ion to put t ing in the i i
1$ entire document except that I don 't have copies, l l 1
16 MS. WEISS: No, I 'm not a sk i nt; for that.
I 17 JUDGE SVITH: Well, she just wants to see it before ,
18 she --
l 19 MR. LEWALD: Sure. l I 20 MS. WEISS: I want to j ust take a look at it.
1 JUDGE SMITH: -- fni1a t o ot>j ec t ion.
j 21 f t
22 THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) Vay I point out t
) 23 something, Mr. Lewald?
l 24 MR. LEWALD: I --
I THE WITNESS: C Evook i rro f f ) There is a difference i
25
!O
) Heritage Reporting Coryoration i
i I
j
(?O2) is26-4888 i I
I ,
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11379
'- i between Aldrich and Profio, and in fact, if you look on page 11 2 of the Aldrien study which is January 20th. 19- -- I 'm sorry.
3 that 's the February one. aside one-and-two-story wood frame 4 house, no basement, it says. "Away f rom doors and windows. "
5 And the Profio document doesn't have that.
6 So I think what I 've gone f rom van Aldrich, so 7 there' -
fference between what Aldrich has and what Profio 8 has.
9 BY MR. LEWALD:
10 Q What is Reference 4 in the Aldrich article that you 11 were lpoking at?
12 A (Evdokinoff) Bursos, and Profio.
(
13 And what is it? Can you read the whole reference?
l O 14 Q
A (Evdokimoff) "Burson. Z.G. a nd A . E. Profio, 15 structure shielding from cloud and follow op gamma rey sources 16 for assessing the consequences of reactor accideats. EG&G.
17 Incorporated. Las Vegas, Nevada. EGG-1183-1670. 1975."
18 Q And then if you turn to the Aldrich article that you 19 were referencing on pages 10 and 11 there appear two tables 20 there, do they not?
21 A (Evdokinoff) Yes, Mr. Lewald.
22 Q And these tables, one is representative shielding 23 factors from gamma cloud source, from Reference 4 is it not?
24 A (Evdokimoff) Right, that 's t rue.
25 Q And table two is representative shielding factor for O Heritage Reporting Co rpo r at ion (202) 628-4080
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11380 9 1 surface deposited radionuclides, again from Reference 4; 2 correct?
3 A CEvdokimoff) Right. But if you look at both tables 4 there 's a dif f erence with the asterisk, and that 's what we 're 5 talking about here.
6 If you look at the Profio, page 26, and it says:
7 "One-and-two-story wood frame homes, no basement. 0. 4, " there 's 8 no asterisk.
9 If you look at the Aldrich table two: "Wood and two-10 story wood frame house, no basement," there 's a "B" above 0. 4, 11 and if you look under "B" it says, "Away from doors and 12 windows, " so there 's a dif f erence there.
-- N 13 Q We 're not dealing with 0. 9 in either case, are we?
il
~
.4 A CEvdokimoff? I was dealing with -
15 Q We 're dealing with 0. 4?
16 A (Evdokimoff) -- the concept that I thought, I was 17 trying to reduce as much as possible sheltering -- radiation 18 exposure +o people by inherent structural properties of a 19 building.
20 If you want to talk O.9, we can 't talk about that.
21 but that 's only a 10 percent reduction in cloud shine. That's 22 assuming,-- I believe, assuming a typical house, and these 23 cottages certainly have less mass than you would see in a 24 conventional house.
25 So, you know, I won 't say anymore than that. I don 't
( a) 1
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11381 9 1 believe these cottages are comparable to a typical wood frame 2 house without a basement, there 's less mass in there.
3 Q Well, goir.g to the cottages that you say you 4 inspected which -- and my understanding is that you looked at 5 these, what you j ust told us, a week before Labcr Day in 1987?
6 A CEvdokimoff) Thet 's correct.
7 Q Now, you say that, on page 28, that all of these 8 cottages are small, and then you go on to say that: "Typical 9 dimensions for a one-story dwelling 10 feet by 20 feet." And 10 then: "A typical one floor cottage has a porch with or without 11 windows or screens, 10 to 20 windows, and one-half foot crawl 12 space under the wooden floor."
13 A (Evdokinoff) Three --
14 Q Pardon?
15 A CEvdokimoff) It says three and a half feet.
16 Q I beg your pardon?
17 A (Evdokimoff) You said a half a foot, I said, it says 18 three and a half feet.
19 Q Oh, I 'm sorry; thank you.
20 "Three and a half foot crawl space under the wooden 21 floor. Two bedrooms, a lining room, a bathroom and a kitchen."
22 Haven 't you described a miracle of architectural design to get 23 a two bedroom: , a living room, a bathroom and a kitchen in a 10 24 by 20 structure?
25 A CEvdc kimof f ) That 's what I saw, and it 's hard to l
(~~')%
L Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
}
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11382 9 1 believe, just reading this you wouldn 't believe it, but that 's 2 what I saw. And these are small cottages and these are small 3 rooms.
4 Q Did you actually measure these?
5 A (Evdokimoff) Did I actually -
6 Q Measure these with a tape or something?
7 A CEvdok;moff) I m'asured them with -- my foot it 8 about 12 inches, so I walked it off.
9 Q You walked it off?
10 A (Evdokimoff) Right. But I think Dr. Eckert has 11 measured them and he has measurements. And perhaps, the video 12 will be able to show you, you kncw.
,. 13 Q But this is your estimate, is it, --
! /
14 A (Evdokimoff) I t 's a --
15 Q -- by pacing?
16 A (Evdokimoff) Right. But, you know, it could be 10 17 by 18, it could be 11 by 21. These are small. They 're small 18 structures. And, you know, that 's a predominant observation I 19 made as I went around, these are small structures. These are 20 not typical one wooden family dwellings like you 'd see 21 downtown.
22 Q Well, you say that all 12 of the cottages you entered 23 fit the same general profile, and then you make references to 24 17 Epping and 7 Boston, for example. And you say you looked at 25 two one-story cottages that were typical at one end of the
- .\
' W .)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11383 0 1 spectrum of the condition, that is largely unimproved with 2 considerable visible disrepair in evidence. Both of these, and 3 I assume you 're ref erring back to 7 Boston and 17 Epping where 4 12 by 20, from the 20 by 12 that you have there?
5 A (Evdokimoff) Right.
6 Q Is this another pacing off?
7 A CEvdokimoff) Yes.
8 Q If I told you th_t the actual measurements of 7 9 Boston were 12 feet and 6 inches by 33 and 10 inches; and 17 10 Epping as being 18 feet 4 inches by 40 feet, would you accept 11 that subj ec t to check?
12 MS. WEISS: Obj ec t ion, no foundation.
11 13 (Continued on next page.)
14 15 16 17 f
l 18 19 i 20 21
! 22 l
23 l
24 l 25
() Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11384 73 L )
Y'i2 1 THE WITNESS: (Evdokinoff) I can 't answer that.
2 BY MR. LEWALD:
3 Q You don 't know.
4 JUDGE SMITH: When counsel nbj ects, even - though it 's 5 not counsel sponsoring the panel. you should at least let the 6 Board have an opportunity to sort things out before you answer.
7 When you hear an obj ection, stop.
8 THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) Okay. Thank you.
9 MS. WEISS: As the witness has answered the question 10 already, I will withdraw the obj ection.
11 JUDGE SMITH: That was just a warning for future 12 purposes.
13 What page are you on?
)
14 MR. LEWALD: On Page 28 15 JUDGE SMITH: His answer was he can 't answer.
16 MR. LEWALD: I didn't hear you.
17 JUDGE SMITH: He said he can 't answer your question.
18 He said he cannot answer your question.
19 BY MR. LEWALD:
20 Q You don't know what the actual dimensions of either 21 cottage are, do you?
22 A (Evdokinoff) I paced it off. No, I don 't, but I 23 really don 't think it 's relevant here because the shielding 24 factors are still based on wood structures without basements.
25 so the factors still hold.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11385 9 1 Q Aren 't you representing these cottages as typical and 2 representative of all of those on the beach?
3 A (Evdokimoff) Yes.
4 Q And you don 't think it 's significant what the 5 dimensions are?
6 A (Evdokimoff) I think what I 'm saying is they 're very 7 small, and whether it 's e foot or two one way or the other 8 really doesn 't make any dif f erence, Mr. Lewald.
9 Q And you 're saying that the small was two bedrooms, a 10 living room, a bathroom and a kitchen.
11 A (Evdokinoff) Right.
12 Q Now, you go on to say that with respect to the Epping p -) 13 cottage stood on concrete blocks and has asphalt shingles.
J 14 Both had porches. Each had broken windows and screens and 15 neither -- I assume you 're adding 7 Boston and along with 17 16 Epping -- had interior ceilings.
17 Then you go on to say they each had about 10 windows 18 not counting the front and rear door windows, end or.e sash of 19 the Boston Street cottage could not be closed, right?
20 MR. LEWALD: Excuse me a moment, Your Honor.
21 (Pause.)
22 MR. LEWALD: I 'm going to show the witness two 23 photographs along with two photocopies in black and white of 24 the two photographa.
25 (Pause.)
( )
~J Horitage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11386
. [ -l} 1 MS. WEISS: Is there a question pending, Your Honor? !
No. !
2 JUDGE SMITH:
3 BY MR. LEWALD:
4 Q Professor Evdokinoff, do you recognize either or both 5 of those photographs?
6 A CEvdokinoff) I recognize the one with the gentleman 7 standing in front of it. I don 't recall whether it 's Boston or 8 Epping. I j ust don 't remember, but I do remember that.
9 The second one, the one that says Harris on it. I 'm 10 not sure.
11 I can definitely attest to the fact that the one with 12 the gentleman standing in front, I did go in that cottage. And
-~ 13 the second one, I don 't recall . I saw a lot of cottages and I 14 can 't swear to it. ,
15 Q But you only went in 12 16 A (Evdokimoff) Right.
17 Q And 7 Boston was one of the ones you went to, was it l 18 not?
19 A (Evdokimoff) Right. My notes indicated -- I took it 2(i from my notes, and I wrote down where I was and what my
! 2:1 observations were when I was in there. I do remember this 22 green one, but this other one I 'm j ust not sure.
23 Q If I represented to you that the other one -- the one 24: with not the person standing in front of it -- is 7 Boston, 25 would you accept that?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 J
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11387 1 A CEvdokinoff) I don 't know.
2 Q You don 't know.
3 A (Evdokitoff) No, I don 't. I can 't recall -- it 's 4 possible I could have ...ixed up the numbers on the streets.
5 It 's possible. But all I can say is with confidence is the 6 green one. I absolutely remcmber going into. I don 't remember.
7 I don 't remember whether that was Epping or Boston though.
8 Q But the other one you do identify as 17 Epping?
9 A (Evdokimoff) This one?
10 Q The one with the gentleman you said standing --
11 A (Evdokimoff) The gentleman standing in front. I 12 don 't know. I remember going -- I don 't remember whether it 13 was Boston or Epping, to be honest with you, Mr. Lewald.
G 14 I do remember it was on the east side of Ocean 15 Boulevard, and I do remember looking at one at 19 Epping, which 16 was across the way, and I 'm not -- I don 't remember whether 17 Boston -- I remember that there was one street that you could 18 see the ocean from, and I don 't remember w'iether that was 19 Epping or Boston.
20 Q Well, didn 't you represent, or don 't you represent 21 that 7 Boston was a one-story building that you could look 22 through and see the sky?
23 A CEvdokimoff) Right. My recollection was I could see 24 the sky in both of them, and that 's pretty strong. because that 25 was unexpected to me and that 's why I vividly remember that I i
't)S Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11388 9 1 could see right through the ceiling.
2 Q And at least one of these structures is one that you 3 could see through the ceiling?
4 A (Evdokimoff) The two structures that I listed in my 5 testimony and others I could see through. I could walk right 6 inside the middle and look right up and I could see light 7 coming through the roof.
8 Q But you don 't know now whether these are 17 Epping 9 and 7 Boston, is that what you 're telling me?
10 A (Evdokinoff) I know one of them I was in, and is 11 either the 7 Boston or the Epping.
12 The other one looks familiar, but again I -- i t 's
,- ., s 13 been almost a year.
i)
'~'
14 Q Would it be fair to say that these two cottages are 15 typical of the ones that you saw at Hampton Beach?
16 A (Evdokimoff) .' would say so. Some of them are 17 smaller than this, particularly the ones off of Ashworth 18 Avenue. There 's a whol e -- where nest of the one-story family, 19 one-story cottages are, and they are smaller. Many of them I 20 saw that are much smaller than this.
21 The one I 'm looking at from Harris. I would call that 22 a two-story, but I would say these are -- I think they 're 23 representative. I think some are worse looking, some are in 24 worse shape, and some are in better shape. So it reflects a 25 mix in the area.
(~ ;
v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11389 9 1 Q Well, looking at the pictures would you accept the 2 picture with the person standing in f ront, 17 Epping, measures 3 18 feet, 4 inches by 40 f eet ?
4 A CEvdokimoff) Well, this is a -- can 't quite fully 5 see the depth there. I could get a -- I would say 10 feet 6 certainly where the gentleman is standing is the porch area. I 7 think that -- as to the depth back, I 'm j ust not sure.
8 Q Well, i t 's fair to say that these are not 20 by 12.
o MS. SNEIDER: Obj ec t ion. The witness has said that 10 he couldn 't tell, no.
11 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, I would like to offer the 12 two photocopies that we have been discussing, and also I would 7 7 13 like to -- I guess if I could have marked in evidence the EG&G
\ j 14 excerpts that I have -- Exhibit 34 which we had previously 15 discussed, but which I do not think has been admitted in 16 evidence.
17 JUDGE SMITH: No. No, you haven t actually offered 18 it. I think that the state of affairs as '.o this document 19 should be this. It has been identified and that it has not yet 20 been offered because of Ms. Weiss 's rea'est to see the whole 21 document before she obj ects. Therefort. +5e responsibility of 22 offering it before she decides whether she 's going to obj ect or 23 not. Therefore, the responsibility of comind back to it will 24 rest with you.
25 Is that fair? I mean is that satisfactory?
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11390 1 MR. LEWALD: Well, it is. I have left the full 2 document with Professor Evdokinoff, and I would be glad 3 to --
4 JUDGE SMITH: I just want to establish whose 5 responsibility it is to take the next action on this document, 6 and I believe it 's your, Mr. Lewald.
7 MR. LEWALD: I would be glad to do that if I can 8 right now and just hand it to her so we can --
9 JUDGE SMITH: How about during the break?
10 MR. LEWALD: Fine.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
12 MS. WEISS: I 'm going to obj ect to the photocopies.
s 13 JUUbt SMITH: To the photos?
'~.] 14 MS. WEISS: Simply on the basis that I don't think 15 they are probative of anything at this point. The witness 16 hasn 't been able to say what addresses they are, or he does --
17 the only thing that he 's said is that he went into the one that 18 the man in standing in front of, and he does remember going 19 into it, and he can 't say whether Mr. Lewald 's assertions about 20 the dimensions are correct or incorrect just looking at this 21 picture.
22 And the second one, we have no identification at all 23 with regard to that at all from the witness. Doesn 't remember 24 what address it is, or whether he went into it, or anything.
25 So I j ust don 't think either of them is probative of anything.
, ~
AA Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4808
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11391 9 1 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, if only that these are 2 typical of cottages on the beach, I would -- I think they would 3 be admissible for that purpose, and this is, I think, what 4 Professor Evdokinoff has testified to.
5 JUDGE SMITH. Did he testify that they 're typical?
6 THE WITNESS: CEvdokimoff) I said they represent a 7 range. I think there are some that are worse and some that are 8 better.
9 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
10 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Mr. Lewald, a point of 11 clarification, please, with respect to the single-story 12 structure with the gentleman standing in front of it.
7 13 Although the witness was not in a position to confirm e
14 your representation about dimensions, there is a question in my 15 mind whether the dimensions you suggested or proposed to the 16 witness represent overall outside dimensions or interior living 17 space dimensions.
18 MR. LEWALD: I believe they 're the outside 19 dimensions.
20 JUDGE LINENBERGER: And include the porch.
21 THE WITNESS: (Evdokinoff) I didn 't include the 22 porch when I made --
23 MR. LEWALD: I 'm not able to state whether this is 24 foot space including the porch or not.
25 THE WITNESS: (Evdokinoff) My measurements, Mr.
~
%)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11392 9 1 Lewald, don 't include the porch, because that 's not an occupied 2 space. People wouldn 't be outside in the porch during a 3 radiation accident. They would be inside. So I didn 't include 4 the porch.
5 MR. LEWALD: Regarding 7 Boston, which I the other G photograph, I assume that that is the overall space of the 7 foundation which does include the porch.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, there 's no evidence that either 9 of these buildings are the building referred to in his 10 testimony. If they 're received, they will be received solely 11 for whatever value.
12 MR. TURY : Your Honor, may I be heard on the matter?
13 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
14 MR. TURK: It 's my recollection that Dr. Evdokimoff, 15 Mr. or Dr., I don 't recall.
16 THE WITNESS: CEvdokinoff) Working on my doctorate.
17 I 'm a prof essor in the School of Medicine at BU.
18 MR. TURK: Mr. Evdokinof f indicated that the 19 photograph with the man standing in front was either the Boston 20 or the Epping Street --
21 THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) Right.
22 MR. TURK : -- address.
23 THE WITNESS: CEvdokinoff) That 's correct.
24 MR. TURK : So as to that document with the man 25 standing on front, we 've got an identification as to it being
,/m
'i v
Heritage Reportine, Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11393 0 1 one of these two structures.
2 In addition --
3 MS. WEISS: Not very useful.
4 MR. TURK : Well, the usefulness can be argued in 5 proposed findings.
6 As to whether or not Mr. Evdokinoff indicated that 7 these photographs are typical, he did in fact say they were 8 typical. He went on to indicate further that some cottages 9 were smaller, some were larger, some were in worse shape, some 10 were in better shape, but he did identify these as being 11 typical structures within the beach area of the structures that 12 he saw.
13 MS. WEISS: I 'd be willing to stipulate that these
' ~ ~ '
14 are two cottages on the beach. The Board can accept them or 15 not for that purpose.
16 JUDGE SMITH: The Board will defer its ruling until 17 after the break.
18 BY MR. LEWALD:
19 Q Well, going on with your testimony, you say, in 20 better condition were two cottages that you -- I 'm ref erring to 21 Page 29 -- that you --
22 JUDGE SMITH: Just a moment.
23 BY MR . LEWALD:
24 Q -- visited in the Ashworth Street area, a one-story 25 and a two-story near the corner of J Street. Do you see that (n
~J_
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11394 9 1 on the top of Page 29?
2 A (Evdokimoff) Yes, sir.
3 Q Now, in your testimony which you previously had filed 4 in this proceeding, which I think was dated September '87?
5 A (Evdokimoff) Right.
6 Q You identified the one-story cottage by saying a one-7 story at 136 Ashworth.
8 A (Evdokimoff) That 's correct.
9 Q And the two-story was identified on the corner of J 10 Street and Ashworth.
11 A (Evdokimoff) That 's right .
12 Q And your testimony now deletes both identifications.
13 A (Evdokino f f) Right.
14 Q And is there a reason for that ?
15 A (Evdokimoff) Yes, there is.
16 It was pointed out to me by the Attorney General 's 17 office that what I had listed as 136 Ashworth wasn 't there.
18 And I went back in my notes and I had confused two realtors.
19 There is a Seacoast and a some thing else very close. The 20 cottage that I went into was to the left of the -- it was 21 actually a place -- it was a motel, and to the left of this was 22 this small, little cottage. And it was pointed out to me that 23 they couldn 't find it.
24 And I went back in my notes and I believe Seacoast 25 Realty was at 134. Now that was not the realtor that I was i n,
'w)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11395 ra 1 so I had identified the wrong -- I identified the wrong area.
2 So that was changed for that reason.
3 And the other -- so the Attorney General 's of fice 4 just changed it to be in the area.
5 And the one that was near J Street. I 'm not quite 6 sure. That other one was the one I went to with the realtor 7 f rom -- I 'm sorry, I get the two -- one 's Seacoast, and the 8 other one is maybe Surf, Surfwind or something like that. I 9 get them confused, but I do know -- I absolutely could find 10 them if my life depend on it; I could find those structures.
11 But I think what 's important is they were better -- they were 12 in better condition, you know, to look at. Aesthetically they were more pleasing, and they were paneled and so forth. ,
O t3 14 Q You didn 't change them. You just disguised where 15 they appeared, did you not, by taking the numbers away?
16 MS. SNEIDER: Obj ect ion. The witness has testified 17 what happened. I think the characterization that Mr. Lewald l
18 wants to use is inappropriate. l 19 JUDGE SMITH: I didn 't hear the last few words ot 20 your remarks.
21 That doesn 't help, incidentally. That 's j ust tied to "
22 the recorder.
23 MS. SNEIDER: The characterization that Mr. Lewald is 24 using is inappropriate in light of the witness 's testimony of 25 what happened.
O '
(_ )
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4880 l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11396 1 JUDGE SMITH: Because normally it would have a 2 pej orative connotation. I think that 's what counsel is 3 concerned about.
4 Was that what you intended, the use of the verb 5 "disguise"?
6 MR. LEWALD: Well, I submit it 's cross-examinat ion, 7 Your Honor; that there isn 't a change here. He 's j ust simply 8 taken the numbers off the street.
9 JUDGE SMITH : Well, if that 's what you intend, and if 10 you think it 's cross-examination, we 'l l accept it that way.
11 MR. LEWALD: Well, I won 't press it.
12 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't think that --
13 MR. LEWALD: It 's not that significant.
E12 14 (Continued on next page.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l
25
)I I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080 I
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11397
,_ _s 0
)
'rr13 1 BY MR. LEWALD:
- 2. Q Now, in your prior testimony your reference to the 3 cottage that you visited and were 10 in number, were-they not?
4 A (Evdokimoff) That 's correct.
5 Q And now it 's 12?
6 A (Evdokimoff) Right. That 's because I 've added a new 7 dimension, and --
8 Q You have what?
9 A CEvdokimoff) Added a new dimension. What -- there 10 are -- when I used the word "inspected" it involved two things.
11 With the realtors I was able to go into the cottages and there ,
12 was nobody in there except for one instance where I went with 13 the realtor and there were people already in there, but I was 14 able to tour the area -- tour the structure.
15 I also was in the doorway of three other structures 16 -- well, two other structures, so I could see in, but I ,
f 17 couldn 't walk around, and thore were the renters that I talked 3
18 with.
19 And to be perfectly honest I 've, you know, we 've had 20 a discussion about the word "enter and inspection" with the l 1
21 Attorney General 's Of fice and, you know, the way I define it.
22 you know, if I 'm in the doorway and looking in, you know, that 23 constitutes an inspection, but I wasn 't able to look all over
- 24 the building, for example.
25 So I was in those structures, but I wasn 't able to I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 :
I
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11398 9 1 walk around unimpeded. So, yes, I was, you know, I saw 10, but 2 I also was in two more through the renters that I talked with.
3 And in fact, I probably was able to walk around the buildings 4 and look in another 50 to 60 structures which I didn 't include 5 in my testimony, that would make the sample even more reliable.
6 But --
7 Q I 'm sorry, I lost --
8 A (Evdokimoff) The fire engine --
9 Q -- the last part of your last answer.
10 A (Evdokinoff) Okay. I make the distinction, Mr.
11 Lewald, between the realtors giving me the keys to these 12 cottages, I open them up and go in, there 's nobody in there and 7
13 I can look around.
5
)
/
' ~ ~
14 I added the renters to it, that was 10, the renters 15 were two; and I was able to be in the structures while I was 16 talking to two of the renters to look around. So I was 17 actually i n, again, but not in a -- not in a similar 18 circumstance.
19 Q And you make -- you, in conj unction with the Attorney 20 General 's Of f ice, made the decision to add these two to your 21 prior testimony in September of '87?
22 A (Evdokimoff) That was my decision, not the Attorney 23 General 's Of fice. I changed my testimony because I felt that.
24 here was some - here was cases where I was in, perhaps not 25 inspecting fully as if I was unimpeded, but I thought it was
(
C Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11399 O 1 important to add that. You know, there 's not a lot of 2 difference between 10 and 12, and, you know, the teatimony had 3 been changed. And I just -- it was my feeling that, you know.
4 why not take credit for something I 've done. And I did talk to 5 renters, and so that 's how it went from 10 to 12. I added the 6 renters in the end, standing inside the structure at the 7 doorway looking around as I was talking.
8 So that gave me -- I could see, you knJw, whether or 9 not there was, you know, there was light coming through. So 10 that put me into the structure.
11 Q Didn 't you tell us yesterday that the reason that you 12 felt that you had an unbiased sample of cottages was because
-' 13 the realtors didn 't know who you were --
7
\._, -
14 A (Evdokimoff) Right.
15 Q -- and gave you the keys, if you will --
16 A CEvdokimoff) Right, but --
17 Q -- for the 12?
18 A (Evdokimoff) Right. In sequence, Mr. Lewald, what 19 happened is, I talked to the renters first. So I was in those 1
20 two cottages first before I even hit the realtors; that was 21 like a couple of days later. So those were the initial -- that 22 was actually the first thing I did. After walking around I 23 started talking to people and I was able to get into two 24 cottages and look around by interviewing them.
25 So this add had been done before I was even ir.. And LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11400 0 1 then the realtor thing came, I think, several days later. So, 2 in time the realtors were after talking with the renters.
3 Q So the sample became representative after you --
4 A CEvdokimoff) Oh, no, no, I think -- it 's a small 5 number, but I think it -- I don 't think things changed much 6 between 10 and 12, but I just felt for completeness I, you 7 know, I talked to renters and I was actually in two structures 8 as opposed to going down the streets and haven 't gone into any 9 cottages, I just added the two more.
10 Q On page 31 of your testimony you add this up and say:
11 "In my opinion overall these cottages at Hampton Beach are 12 unsuitable for consideration as emergency shelters."
13 A (Evdokimoff) Where is that, Mr. Lewald?
14 Q On page 31?
15 A (Evdokimoff) Where? I can 't find it.
16 Q On page -- I 'm sorry, about five lines down where you 17 begin the sentence: "Therefore it is my opinion."
18 A CEvdokinoff) Thank you.
19 Q Now, so much for Hampton Beach. Wnat about Seabrook, 20 where do I find anything in your testimony about Seabrook?
21 A CEvdokimoff) There 's nothing in my testimony about 22 Seabrook. I 've been there -- I was there, I have some 23 observations, but my assignment was basically Hampton Beach.
24 And that 's where the population is, and that 's where the 25 numbers of people are, the summer beach population.
I) v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11401 0 1 Q Dr. Goble, over on page 35 you --
2 JUDGE SMITH: Let 's take a break at t.is point and 3 start after the break. 15 mirites, please.
4 (Whereupon, a 15 minute break was taken.)
5 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Lewald, the photos of the cottages 6 at Seabrook have not been marked for identification. I want to 7 tell you that the Board is going to rej ect them as having 8 insufficient probative value. You can mark them and offer them 9 and put them in the rej ected exhibit file, if you wish.
10 MR. LEWALD: Well, I -- I accept the ruling, Your 11 Honor, I 'd j ust like them marked for identification so that we 12 can preserve the record on that espect.
13 JUDGE SMITH: All right. So that will be, the two-
,y
(
/
14 story house will be Applicants ' * ,,iibit 35, will that -
15 MR. LEWALD: Or 35 and 36. I -- the two-story house, 16 the story and a half, I guess, is 35; and the remaining 17 photograph of the cottage with the person standing in front of 18 it is 36.
19 (The documents referred to were 20 marked for identification ac 21 Applicants ' Exhibits 35 and 22 36.)
23 JUDGE SMITH: And these are rej ected. These are 24 offered and rejected.
25 N ,l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4080 ,
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11402 0 1 (The documents referred to.
2 having been previously marked 3 for identification as 4 Applicants ' Exhibits 35 and 5 36 were rej ected. )
6 MS. SNEIDER: Your Honor, for the record I 'd j ust 7 like to point out that the actual photographs that the witness 8 looked at. I do think are significantly different than the 9 Xeroxes j ust in terms of what you can see on the Xerox and what 10 you can see on the photograph.
11 MS. WEISS: Your Honor. I 've had a chance to lcok at 12 the full Burson and Profio source, and I would not obj ect to 13 the admission of the few pages that had been offered. I 'd j ust 7
(
^'
w) 14 like to have the opportunity to read into the record the 15 description of the chart which appears on page 26 that 's 16 provided at the bottom of page 25 of Burson and Profio, and 17 t hat 's t i t l ed "G " --
18 JUDGE SMITH: Well. Ms. Weiss, the difficulty is, 19 this is coming in as an exhibit and your description of the 20 paragraph is going to be some place else. I mean, that 's fine, 21 it 's going to be in the evidentiary record, I guess, but it 22 will not be attendant to the exhib'.t itself.
23 MS. WEISS: Well, if the exhibit would be bound in at 24 this point I could just read that first paragraph.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, go ahead and read it. All right.
LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11403 ;
O 1 MS. WEISS: It 's ti t led, "G, summary structural 2 shielding from deposited radioactivity." And the text reads:
3 "The reduction factors in table eight for gamma radiation from 4 uniform deposited radionuclides from reactor accident are 5 recommended as representative of the type of structure or 6 situation indicated. No modifying factors were applied."
7 JUDGE SMITH: Now, you 're going to get a clean copy 8 of this?
9 MR. LEWALD: It would be -- yes. What I intend to do 10 it introduce the entire article and a clean copy of it.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
12 MR. LEWALD: Not excerpts; I was j ust using excerpts
- 13 for the witness ' convenience.
"~
14 MS. WEISS: Well, I didn 't understand that. I 15 thought you were offering the pages. If you 're going to of f er 16 the whole document, then I 'm really going to have to 'ake a 17 closer look at it. And I would obj ect to offering the whole 18 document.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Now, maybe we can avoid it. For your 20 purposes we 'll have the, if it 's satisf actory with ycu, we 'l l 21 have the cover page and page 25, 26, 32, 34, just include page 22 25 for the -- so the paragraph she read will be there. Well, 23 if you want to persist, that 's up to you, I j ust don 't think 24 it -- I j ust don 't want to take the time if i t 's not necessary.
25 MR. LEWALD: That would be sufficient, Your Honor.
(w_- )
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886
i I
l i.
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11404 (N '. ') 1 JUDGE SMITH: So that will be Applicants ' Exhibit i
l 2 34. MR. LEWALD: Yes.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Because you 're going to add an 4 additional page, page 25.
5 MR. LEWALD: Page 25, yes, sir.
j 6 (The document referred to was I
7 marked for identification as ;
l Applicants ' Exhibit 34. ) !
8 1
9 BY MR. LEWALD: l l
4 i 10 Q Dr. Goble, on page 35 and -6 of your testimony you l i i 11 describe the process that you went through to determine, in 12 your j udgment, how nany people would need sheltering space in g 13 the beach area, did you not?
1 7/
's - 14 A (Goble) That is right.
15 Q And this we discussed briefly last Friday, if I l l
16 remember correctly?
l l 17 A (Goble) Yes.
18 Q And then you went on to make a determination whether l
l 19 or not you found sufficient sheltering space in the beach area l i
20 to accommodate this population; is that what your study 21 represents? What your testimony represents?
22 A (Goble) Yes.
23 Q And you started the study by looking to the Stone & ,
I 24 Webster survey of March of 1986?
25 A (Goble) That 's correct.
() Heritage Reporting Corpora'..on (202) 628-4888
7 GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11405 O 1 Q Now, at the point when you started the study did you 2 not know that there had been a second Stone & Webster study of 3 August 1987?
4 A (Goble) No, I did not know that when we -- this we 5 started the summer of '87. And all of this work was done, I 6 think you were referring -- you referred earlier to testimony 7 that we had prefiled in September which was prepared over the 8 summer, and that -- and that second study arrived only as we 9 were virtually assembling a binding our initial study. So the 10 initial work was done before we had access to that second 11 study.
. 12 Q And is that why you didn 't begin with the second
( ~; 13 study initially?
O That -- that 's not the only -- I mean, 14 A (Goble) 15 that 's -- yes, that is the reason why we did not begin with the L l
! 16 se 2nd study. There miEht have -- if we 'd known about the l
17 second study we might still not have begun with it, but that 's l
l 18 the reason.
19 Q Now, going over to page 41 the question appears l 20 whether or not all of the buildings listed in the Stone & l l
21 Webster study were measured, and I think Dr. Eckert responds L l
22 that, "No, we measured 20 percent." And do we know, Dr.
23 Eckert, how many establishments that were in existence in 1986 24 were no longer in existence as public access buildings at the l 25 time of the Salmon Falls study? j
/~
i I V
Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 l !
l L___- _ _ -- _- - __ _ _ _ __
i i
l i
! GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11406 S 1 A (Eckert) Do you mean by that, how many had been 2 converted to other activities or burned down, things like that?
3 Q Anything, that they were j ust no_ longer public access 4 structures?
5 A (Eckert) We found that out when we went into the 6 beach to do our field work. So at the time we designed the 20 7 percent I was basing that entirely on the '86 Stone & Webster 8 data.
9 Q My -- so at the time you took your sample you did not 10 know that number?
11 A (Eckert) No.
12 Q And did you know how many were added from the Stone &
13 Webster 1986 study et the time you began your sampling?
14 A (Eckert) Could you clarify, added what to what? .
15 Q Adding public access structures?
16 A CEckert) Do you mean, as might have appeared in the 17 '87 study or --
18 Q No, might have appeared in actuality?
19 A CEckert) No, I didn 't have that information.
20 Q Now, on the bottom of page 41 you talk about an 21 initial random sample, and say, when that failed to yield 23 i
22 usable samples due to tne lack of cooperation from owners or 23 other factors, an additional random selection of establishments 24 was made. And I 'd like to know, were the replacements selected 25 from the same strata as the noncooperating unita?
/
I h4 LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4808 l
6
GOBLE, EV DOK IV.0FF, ECKERT - CROSS 11407 1 A (Eckert) The replacements were -- I 'm not sure what 2 you mean by strata, but --
l 3 Q Well, isn 't this a stratified random sample?
l 4 A CEckert) Yes, it is, and we --
5 Q Does that explain what --
6 A (Eckert) We -- yes, we essentially maintain the same 7 sampling procedure to make up the difference until we got our 8 20 percent sample established.
9 Q Now, you talk about the 20 percent subsample of 23 10 establishments; were there 23 from all of the towns, Seabrook, 11 Rye. North Hampton, and Hampton?
12 A CEckert) Yes, they were.
13 Q So that, how many from Rye, for instunce?
14 A (Eckert) I think that 's in here somewhere. It was a 15 fairly low number. Actually, I 'm not sure that I put the 16 number of establishments we sampled from Rye in this written 17 t e s t i nony , it may be in the attachment table.
18 Q Do we have a breakdown of that anywhere?
19 A (Eckert) Yes, we do. Do you want the breakdown?
20 Q Yes, if you have it.
21 A CEckert) There were three in the town of Rye. North 22 Hampton was originally the Union Chapel which was dropped out.
23 that was one. These are all proportional to how many examples 1
24 existed in the Stone & Webster survey.
25 And let me see. 16 in Hampton, and three in g
C Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11408 9 1 Seabrook; those were our final sample selections.
2 Q You consider that each of the 9tratified samples 3 would be statistically significant?
4 A (Eckert) No. The samples are not statistically 5 significant. They 're drawn in a random f ashion so that what I 6 worked with was exactly proportioncl to the nuaber of samples 7 that Stone & Webster identified as the number of shelters in 8 their study. So I had the same distribution to work with, but 9 my sample was drawn in an unbiased random fashion.
10 Q It 's the same distribution that Stone & Webster li chose?
12 A CEckert) That 's correct .
13 Q Now, at the top of, I guess in the bottom of page 42 9 14 and the top of page 43 you talk about a reduction factcr. And 15 you say, this was arrived at as a -- by consensus of the people 16 inspecting the structure?
17 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
18 Q Is there any way of telling whether or not the 19 reduction f actor for any building today is j ust as you found 20 it?
21 A CEckert) I would say that could change because our 22 reduction factor wss based on stored items that people had in 23 their basements, so that if that 's moved tiiat could be 24 different.
25 Q You took actual measurements?
r.
( s )
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886 i
~
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11409 1 A CEckert) In a few cases we took actual 2 measurements. Most of the time we estimated the percentage of 3 floor space that would be taken up by stored materials, 4 Q Now, on the bottom of page 49 you say, that issues of 5 space taken up by stored items and public access to shelters 6 from outdoors, were not discussed by Stone & Webster?
7 A (Eckert) That 's correct. In the 1986 report.
8 Q But it was in the 1987 report?
9 A CEckert) Yes, it was.
10 Q Now, on pages -- page 53 you criticize the Stone &
11 Webster report as including in their calculation of potential 12 shelter space the apaetment complexes that are found in some of 13 the public access buildings, do you not?
14 A CEckert) That 's right.
15 Q Now, does Salmon Falls have documentation that what 16 you ref er to as owner 's/ manager 's/ employee 's apartments are all 17 occupied by owner, owners?
18 A CEckert) We have documentation that indicates that 19 owners as identified on the tax card 9 in the tax office owns 20 those properties. And by observing some of the survey 21 responses we got later where we saw that those very owners 22 referred to their own apartments and living quarters, we have 23 that kind of a documentation for the actual owners are in those 24 apartments that we call owners. But we have other 25 documentation that indicates that there are apartments there.
l
\~- /
Heritage Reporting Corporation
( (202) 628-4888
GOLLE, EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11410 9 1 Q I appreciate that there are apartments there, but I 2 was asking you whether you have documentation as to all of 3 these apartments as to who is using them?
4 A (Eckert) We don 't have documentation for every 5 apartment as to who has actually used them, but we ;an point 6 out many where the owners actually are using them.
7 Q So that, there are a section or a segment of these 8 that could be rented?
9 A CEckert) That's possible, yes.
10 Q Now, moving further along in your testimony and still 11 on the critique of your Stone & Webster studies, in the middle 12 of page 56 you note that in -- you say: "In three cases Stone 13 & Webster made mistakes in arithmetic on the shelter survey 14 forms." What are the shelter survey forms?
15 A (Eckert) The shelter survey forms that I 'm ref erring 16 to are the work sheets that Stone & Webster had for their 17 study.
18 Q And these were acquired by your through discovery 19 process?
20 A (Eckert) Yes, I think so. We got them from the 21 Attorney General 's Of fice.
22 Q And in this area you reference -- in one of these 23 cases you say, they wrote that 65 times 12 equals 7800; right?
24 A (Eckert) That 's right.
25 Q Dr. Eckert, I place before you a document which bears
'1 v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
I I
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11411 O 1 a legend, "Shelter survey form, Seaside or Seaside Motel," and 2 I ask you if you can identify that? !
3 A CEckert) Yes, this is the shelter survey -- a copy i 4 of a shelter survey form entitled, "The Seaside Motel." I 5 would also ask that we get our copy of this out, and can we !
6 look at that. i l
7 Q My question, Dr. Eckert, is, the shelter survey form i i 8 that I placed before you or I 'm asking you whether or not that 9 is the shelter survey form or a copy of it that you 're l 10 referring to on page SG of your testimony where you say, in one i
11 of these cases they wrote that 65 times 12 equals 7800?
12 A (Eckert) Yes, it is.
r ~w 13 MR. LEWALD: I would like to mark that, if I may, as l ~j '
14 Applicants ' Exhibit 37.
i 15 (The document referred to was 16 marked for identification as ;
17 Applicant s ' Exhibit 37.) -
18 BY MR. LEWALD: ,
i 19 Q Now, the form that I have or the copy of the form 20 that I have showed you says more than, quote: "65 times 12 21 equals 7800," does it not? l 22 A (Eckert) Yes, it does.
23 Q It says: "Paced." does it not, "Paced 65 times 12?"
l 24 A (Eckert) That 's co rrec t.
25 Q And if we took a pace as being more or less a yard
,o L-]
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
l i (202) 628-4888
i I
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11412 l
1 and multiplied it by the 65 times 12. I ask you whether or not 2 we would not reach a figure approximately half the 7800? ;
3 A (Eckert) So you 're saying 65 paces equals 3 times 65 l 4 for feet?
5 Q Yes?
6 A (Eckert) Let me multiply it.
j 7 Q And 12 -- well, did you ignore the word "paced" on 8 there purposely?
9 A (Eckert) No. we didn 't ignore that word. We assumed
- 10 that a person had paced off the distance. That 's how we I
11 interpreted it.
12 Q But nevertheless, you wrote 65 feet times 12 in your 13 t es t imony ? <
h 14 A (Eckert) Well, the testimony says, "65 times 12 15 equals 7800." We didn 't say if it was paced or feet in the 16 testimony, to be accurate.
17 Q Did you take a look at the Seaside Motel?
18 A (Eckert) My field assistant and supervisor looked at i
19 that.
l 20 Q And do you know that to be a two-story building, do 21 you know?
1 22 A (Eckert) I can find out quickly because I 've got the 4
l 23 photographs right here.
24 Q Well, is your testimony now that there aren 't 15,600 j 25 square feet, approximately, in that building?
i t', i 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
]
I.
L--,---.--- - - - -_ _
-n,~_, __m,-a,.w m -----n -,
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11413 9 1 A CEckert) I would want to iefer to my notes before I ;
2 say that. My testimony is that this multiplication of numbers 3 is wrong.
4 Q But the mul tiplicat ion doesn 't say they 're 5 multiplying 65 times 12; it says a pace 65 times 12, doesn 't 6 it?
7 A (Eckert) That 's correct. On the form it says.
8 "Paced 65 times 12."
9 Q And then on the form it arrives at a total of 7800 10 feet, does it not?
11 A (Eckert) It says. 7800; it doesn 't Lay feet, if you 1 12 want to be technical.
13 Q Well. 7800. Then times two-stories?
14 A (Eckert) Right.
15 Q Well, would you check your notes to see whether or 16 not that --
17 A (Eckert) Yes.
18 Q -- that is not 15.600 or thereabouts?
19 A I need to get them from my assistant.
20 (Pause) et/13 21 (Continued on next page.)
22 23 24 20 Heritage Reporting Corporation J (202) 628-4808
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11414 1
v.I 1 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Okay, I have my now, and 2 could you repeat your question?
3 BY MR. LEWALD:
4 Q Do your notes indicate that the space attributed to 5 that building is 780 feet, square feet, as your testimony would 6 indicate?
7 A (Eckert) My notes do not indicate that -- the notes 8 do reflect that we noted it was a paced 65 by 12 In other 9 words, my notes repeat the figure here, but we assumed it was 10 square feet.
11 So, yes, my notes reflect that.
12 Q What do your notes reflect is the total, or the 13 potential space of that building?
14 A CEckert) Well, we had a lot of trouble with this 15 building because --
16 Q Do your notes reflect any numbers?
17 A (Eckert) Certainly they reflect numbers.
18 The information we had, we couldn 't reconcile with 19 the notel that exists there, because the description that we 20 got f rom Stone & Webster 's indicates a two-story building, but 21 there 's also a one-story building as part of that motel. So 22 the building as it exists there today is not one that can be 23 determined or is really well described by this worksheet. There 24 is nore than one building there.
25 Q Do you have some numbers of the total space of the
'/, ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4808
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11415
- 1 building?
2 A (Eckert) I don 't have numbers for the total space of 3 the building. l 4 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor. I 'd like to offer what I 5 have marked as an exhibit, which is the shelter survey from 6 which the witness identified as that which he received with 7 respect to this particular establishment.
I O JUDGE SMITH: Are there any obj ections?
9 (No response.)
10 JUDGE SMITH: Applicant s ' Exhibit 37 is received.
11 (The document referred to.
12 having been previously marked 13 for identification as 14 Applicants ' Exhibit No. 37 15 was received in evidence.)
16 BY MR. LEWALD:
17 Q Now, if you 'd turn over to Page 58 of your testinony, j 18 Dr. Eckert, and you reach a conclusion. I gather, that the l 19 adj usted square footage of potential shelter space after being l
20 prccessed through Stone & Webster 's A. E, and C categories for 21 Hampton is -- you say 800.061 square feet for Hampton, and 22 35,800 for Seabrook. Then you reach a total of these figures 23 of 896,800 minus the documented erroneous square footage, i 24 leaving a total of 710,866 square feet, correct?
25 A (Eckert) That 's right.
p.
l a
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080
I l
}
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11416 1 Q Now assuming that we allowed for this space, allowed 2 10 square feet per person, can you tell us how many -- what 3 population this square footage would give us? Or accommodate, 4 I'm sorry.
S A (Eckert) The remaining. It would be about 71,000, 6 Q So af ter you have adj usted the Stone & Webster 7 figures for correction of errors that you found, the space that 8 would be available would accommodate -- assuming we allowed 10 9 square feet per person -- would accommodate a population of 10 71,086, correct?
11 A (Eckert) That would be correct if you totally ignore 12 the whole issue of accessibility, t 13 Q All right, we 're j ust taking total space.
14 A CEckert) Yes.
15 Q And then if we go back to your --
16 JUDGE SMITH: Did you agree -- excuse me -- that that 17 would be available if accessible?
18 THE WITNESS: CEckert) If accessible.
19 MP. TURK Your Honor, just for clarification.
I
- 20 perhaps I didn 't hear the whole question, but I thought I heard i 21 Mr. Lewald use the number 71,000 people. I must have misheard.
22 Oh, okay.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Just where the decimal point -- ;
24 MR. LEWALD: A population of 71,000 people.
! 25 MR. TURK. Yes, I 'm sorry. I missed the first part i
j (~~)T
(
l Heritage Reporting Corporation .
l (202) 628-4888 l
_n-,-,n, .,_..n- , , - . . - - - - - . , , , - - -. , , - , , .
GOBLE. EV DOK I MOFF , ECKERT - CROSS 11417 O 1 of the question. Now I understand.
2 MR. LEWALD: No, the 710,000 is divided by 10, 3 710.866 divided by 10 is 71,086.
4 BY MR. LEWALD:
5 Q Let me make sure that I'm not confusing the record on 6 this, Doctor.
7 That your net figure, if you will, after making 8 correction of the Stone & Webster study leaves a total footage 9 ot 710,866 square feet.
10 A (Eckert) Thousand square feet.
11 Q Thousano square feet, I 'm sorry.
i 12 Then if we, assuming that a person to be sheltered is 13 to be allocated 10 square feet, then your net square footage 14 would yield an availability of shelter to a population, people, 15 of 71,086?
1G MR. BROCK. Obj ect ion. Your Honor. I obj ect to the 17 term --
t 18 MR. LEWALD: Is that not correct?
19 MR. BROCK: "Availability". I believe the witness 20 said excluding the issue of accessibility. He eimply was 21 testifying as to raw square footage and nothing more.
22 JUDGE SMITH: That 's correct. I don 't think there 's 23 any confusion about it.
24 Well, I don 't think that he agrees with what you 're 25 s ay i ng , but he nade it clear that availability does not - he Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 3
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF , ECKERT - CROSS 11410 1 dees not concede accessibility, but he does say that it would 2 be available if accessible.
3 THE WITNESS: CEckert) Yes.
4 MR. LEWALD: Yes, thank you.
1 5 BY MR. LEWALD:
! 6 Q Now, if we look at Page 35, according to your 7 calculations of Dr. Goble, the number of the beach population,
- 8 beach population numbers in Seabrook is 11,400, and in Hampton 9 Beach, there 's a number of 43,000, for a total of these two 10 towns, or beach areas, excuse me, of 55,260, correct?
11 A (Goble) Well, it 's actually my answer.
12 I don 't know where the last 60 came from. Perhaps l
13 you were working with unrounded figures. ;
14 Q Oh, I 'm sorry.
3 15 A (Goble) If I j ust do the arithmetic in my head, I 16 get 55 two.
17 Q You are correct, Doctor. I couldn 't read my own note.
18 JUDGE HARBOUR : That 's SS,200; is that correct?
19 THE WITNESS: (Goble) That 's correct. I 'm sorry.
20 BY MR. LEWALD:
21 Q Dr. Eckert, on Page 61 of your testinony you say, to 22 shed further light on the question of shelter availability, 23 that you conducted a survey of potential shelter owners in 24 which you asked them four questions. And you go on to say, the j 20 cost pertinent was whether they would admit people i nto their i
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 629-4888 1
i w-- --n-e-,-, n,w- , --,w- -,_,,-w-w-mm. _,_n--,--
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11419 1 establishments during a radiological emergency at Seabrook 2 station. And then you go on to point out the full survey with 3 responses is included at Attachment 12 to the Survey.
4 Now, can you tell us j ust how you went about 5 conducting this survey?
6 A CEckert) Sure. We used the names and addresses from t
/ the, I believe, '87 revision to determine where we would mail 8 these. I wrote the survey i r.s t rume nt and had it reviewed by 9 Dr. Luloff before it went out.
10 Q That 's the questionnaire?
i 11 A (Eckert) That 's the questionnaire, right, the survey l i i 12 instrument.
13 And we proceeded to mail out several mailings, or i
14 waves as they 're called, and count the responses wnen they came 15 back. Basically that 's an outline of how we did it.
'l
! 16 Q Now on the bottom of the page you say, a
]
17 questionnaire was designed to ascert ain, and then you list some I, 18 four items,
! 19 Did you draw up the questionnaire to begin with?
\
20 A (Eckert) I wrote the initial questionnaire, and then l
21 reviewed it with Dr. Luloff; that 's correct.
I i l 22 Q And did he make some changes?
1 1
23 A (Eckert) He made some minor changes?
l i
i 24 Q Pardon?
25 Minor changes? ;
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) G28-4808 l
l
GOELE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11420 i
e 1 A (Eckert) Minor changes, but basically felt that it 2 met appropriate criterion in his mind.
l 3 Q Now you talk about waves of mailing. Now the first l
l 4 wave went out on August 2Gth, did it not?
- 5 A (Eckert) Yeah, I think the dates are on the -- on !
> t 6 the survey instruments. I can give you the dates. l 7 The first mailing was August 26. 1 i
8 Q And can you tell me what response you had to that t
9 mailing?
- 10 A CEckert) Yes, we had -- we got about 27 percent of ,
11 our total response back as a result of the first mailing, i
12 Q Now the -- to whom did you send the first mailing? ,
1 13 A (Eckert) We sent the mailing to the owners of the 14 various establishments, owner / managers, j 10 Q You had a list, I presume? l l '
16 A (Eckert) We used the list from the Stone & Webster 17 survey. We may have changed some as we found mistakes in 18 addresses and things like that, but it was basically the '87 19 Stone & Webster list.
20 Q The '87 or the '86?
21 A (Eckert) The '87.
22 Q Do you have a copy of Attachment 12 before you?
23 A (Eckert) I don 't think I do.
24 Is that the survey? Do we have it?
25 Now I have it.
LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i
<w.._ - . . . . , . . - - - - - - -. _ _ - - -
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11421 9 1 Q I understand from your testimony that you say that 2 you had a copy of the Stone & Webster August '87 study at the 3 time that you sent your first mailing on the date of August 26, 4 1987.
5 A (Eckert) I 'm not sure of the exact date that we got 6 the '67 document. I j ust don 't rememoer when that came in.
7 Q Well, was it before or after August 26th?
8 A CEckert) Well, I assume if we got the addresses from 9 it, we had it before it.
10 Q Well, are you sure you did get the addresses from --
11 A (Eckert) Yes.
12 Q -- the '87?
13 A CEckert) Yes.
14 Q And how many were these in nunber?
15 A (Eckert) How many surveys did we send out?
16 Q Yes. How many addresses did have?
17 A (Eckert) We sent to 233 addresses, I believe.
18 That 's in here.
19 Q Now, on your first mailing on October 26, 1987, you 20 reference a Stone & Webster study which was done for New 21 Hampshire Yankee as of -- the Stone & Webster study that you I
22 mention is the study of March of 1986; correct?
23 A CEckert) That 's right.
1 24 Q Is there some reason for not including the 1987 25 study?
c.
') .,
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 i
! I i
J l
J GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11422 j O 1 A (Eckert) No, I 'm realizing now that since we I 2 refer'.~ed to the '86 study, that we hadn't gotten it yet .
j l 3 Q Well. do you maintain-that you still made 233 a 4 mail !.ngs ?
5 A (Eckert) Yes, that 's the total number of mailings l
6 that we made in the survey. f j 7 Q And do you know where you got the list of people to f I
8 whom to mail?
i 9 A (Eckert) Well. it had to come from the '87 survey. I 10 believe. I would have to check again with my notes to see 11 e>:actly the timing of those things.
12 Q Okay. now, how many responses in numbers did you get 13 from the first mailing?
14 A (Eckert: I 'll have to calculate it.
15 Q Well, you have a number, don 't you? l 16 A CEckert) It 's here. I 'd have to count the ones and !
17 do the dates and so forth. But I know that it 's 27 percent of l l
18 our 233, which is about 63 responses.
19 Q Fifty-three of --
20 A (Eckert) About 63.
21 Q Of 233? l I
22 A (Eckert) Yes. j 23 Q Now your first mailing informed the owner that the 24 owner 's building. or manager 's building, had been identified by 25 New Hampshire Yankee as a potential shelter for beach visitors O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11423 O 1 if there was an accidental radiation release at a power plant l 2 1' Seabrook.
3 And then it further advised the owner that you.
4 Salmon Falls, were conducting a survey of those conmercial 5 establishments included in the Stone & Webster 's report, and G that you were doing this for the At torney General 's of fice.
7 A (Eckert) That 's right, r
8 Q That is, of Massachusetts. l 9 And you asked for responses to several q,estions, and 10 then at the conclusion of these questions you further neked 1or ;
11 any conments that the person surveyed wished to make; is that
, 12 correct ?
l i m 13 A (Eckert) That 's right .
)
14 Q Now if the Stone & Webster report identified a 15 particular section of a building as being in Stone & Webst er 's 16 determination suitable for shelter for that study, did you make I 17 some interlineation or indication on the shelter form that l 18 that 's what you were referring to?
l l 19 A (Eckert) Do you mean did I on the survey instruments 20 that --
I 21 Q Yes.
i A (Eckert) -- we sent out indicate that some po r t i o r.?
i i '
1 23 I think all that I indicated was a -- I did not 24 identify that a part of the building might be utilized. I 25 think all we did was describe -- in the description actually of ,
(v l Heritage Reporting Q rporation
'. (202) 628-4000 t
t l
i i
a GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11424 k the basement with four rooms. I mean four stone walls, et I ;
2 cetera. in Ques tion 2, that was a description of suitable i i
j 3 thelter coming from the first Stone & Webster survey, so that 4 that could only -- could be on the only possible way that it i
5 could be construed that we defined anything, but we didn 't 6 indicate that all or part of a building would be used, i ;
7 Q Could you look at the third page of your -- of 8 Exhibit -- excuse me -- of Attachment 12?
I 9 A (Eckert) Yes, I have one indicated here from the
- 10 fire station. Is that the one?
11 Q Well, I was counting the first page, the title page i
E14 12 as Page 1 T^3 13 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, we have numbered this '
( ) l t 14 attachment, and if it would be of convenience to the Board, we 10 would circulate to the Board and the parties a copy of 16 Attachment 12 with numbered pages, rather than refer to 17 unnumbered Page 15 of 20, or whatever. i la JUDGE SMITH: That would be very helpful, i 19 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, while that 's being done 20 could I also reflect in the record, it 's my understanding that (
i.
21 what is being referred to as Attachment 12, which is the i
22 enumeration given it when it was filed, was actually admitted i
23 into evidence by the Board as Massachusetts Attorney General's 24 Exhibit 19. And you may want to reflect in tha record that !
25 those two terms are interchangeable in the examination, g_)
i
~/.
Heritage heporting Corporation (202) C26-4600
e GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11425 9 1 JUDGE SMITH: Fur t he rmo re, I wonder if there would
] 2 be any obj ection if we substituted the numbered pages for ,
i 3 Exhibit 19?
4 MS. SNEIDER: No obj ection as long as it 's complete.
5 JUDGE SMITH: No obj ection as long as what?
I G MS, SNEIDER: As long as it is complete. I would
- 7 assume it is.
8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, one note on that. I haven 't 9 seen the numbered exhibit and I 'm not sure how good a copy it i 10 is. And since we 're al ready making a copy of a copy. I would 11 say keep the original exhibit in since that 's probably a bet '.er
- 12 copy than whatever we are going to see uow.
l 13 MS. WEISS: Looks pretty good.
i 14 MS. SNEIDER: Does look like a good copy, 15 MR. TURK. For instance, Page 2 of my copy of I
16 Massachusetts Exhibit 19 has the bottom cut off, and I don 't f i I
17 know if that problem is exasperated by this new copy I 'm about h
l 18 to see -- exacerbated. It appee's to be somewhat exacerbated 19 on that particular page. I can 't say page by page whether the ;
20 problem is greater elsewhere, i
21 BY MR. LEWALD: l 22 Q Could you look at Page 3 of Attachment 12?
23 A (Eckert) Yes, I have it.
24 Q And that does contain en interlineation on the 25 first --
! )
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4336 i
-- ..__ __ - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ --m__ mr w --- _ -
)
)
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11426 O 1 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Lewald, would you wait a moment.
2 please? l 3 (Board confer.)
4 JUDGE SMITH : Would you restate your question, 5 please, and then proceed?
6 Our concern is sooner or later we 're going to have to 7 deal with the problem of a copy that cuts out information, but 8 we 'l l wait until you get done and see how bad the problem is.
9 MR. LEWALD: I was j ust asking Dr. Eckert if he could 10 turn to Page 3, and by Page 3. I am counting the face sheet.
11 JUDGE SMITH: You 're counting to Page 3 12 MR. LEWALD: I 'm counting the f ace sheet, the title 13 page.
14 JUDGE SMITH : Are we talking about the page numbered 15 3?
16 MR. LEWALD: Page numbered 3.
17 MR. DIGNAN: Four if you 're counting the f ace sheet?
18 MR. LEWALD: There are two title sheets. I guess, on i
19 my copy.
- 20 MS. WEISS
- Wnst 's the number at the bottom right-21 hand ?
22 MR. LEWALD: Page No. 3, tha 3 that we have 23 indicated.
24 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I have that page, I believe.
25 I
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 i
I f
I GOBLE. EVDOK IMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11427 l
1 BY MR. LEWALD: .
l 2 Q And there 's an insert, is there not, between the i 3 words in the first line "building" and "has"?
4 A (Eckert) Yes, there is.
5 Q And that insert is "basement"?
a 6 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
7 Q So it 's my understanding that where Stone & Webster j l
6 did dea;gnate a particular area of a building, then you copied j
' t 9 it in on your survey form? l 10 A (Eckert) Yes, we did. And I should point out that l l
11 there were -- some of this work was done by my supervisor and j i
12 assistants so that there may be very minor details like that j that crop up. I
! 13 I ( 14 I would also like to point out t'.lat absolutely no l j l i
l 15 changes were made in any of the questions throughout. If there l l 16 were changes, they were made in the introductory aspect of the 17 survey, ;
18 Q Well, we 'll get to those.
I ;
j 19 Now, in each case was the particular area of a i I
h 20 building designated by Stone & Webster interlineated on your l 21 survey form?
l 22 A (Eckert) I am unsure of that. I would have to check l 23 to see if that policy was carried all the way out.
t l 24 Q Do you have any instructions that you issued to do 25 that? l l
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11420 1 A (Eckert) I did not issue those instructions. but I 2 was aware that-this did go on for the early part of the -- for 3 part of the time.
4 We were trying to. I think. again be clear and, where 5 possible, suggest that the entire structure was not involved.
6 just in an attempt to be as straight forward as we could.
7 That 's basically what was going on.
8 Q Now on September 29th you had a subsequent mailing; ,
9 did you not? f 10 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
11 Q And to whom were these survey forms mailed?
12 A (Eckert) They were mailed to the owners that had not l
13 responded during the first mailing. first wave.
O 14 Q And only those? !
15 A (Eckert) Essentially only those. We were trying to 16 pick up those that hadn 't re spo nded.
17 Q And you changed some of the language of the 18 introductory paragraph, did you not?
19 A (Eckert) Yes. I believe we did.
20 Q And what was your purpose in making those changes?
21 A (Eckert) I just want to check the changes here for a ,
l 22 minute.
23 Our main purpose of making the changes we did were to l 24 not seem too redundant. We indicated. first of all. a few 25 weeks ago that they 'd received -- they may have received a ;
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
?
i GOBLE. EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11429 f
O 1 survey. They didn 't respond. And the small wording changes 2 were there to hopefully suggest that people would respond and 3 answer the survey.
4 Q And were these changes also cleared through Dr.
! 5 Luloff?
i i I 6 A (Eckert) These changes were not cleared through Dr. l l
7 Luloff because, in his opinion and in ours, the aspects of the i I
8 introduction can have some variation, and that there are l j 9 different philosophies on how one uses an introduction. This i
l 10 isn 't my expertise area, but nonetheless I'm just kind of 11 referring -- i i
! 12 Q This is not your expertise area? l l
13 A (Eckert) No, i t 's no t . l 14 The survey instrument design and so forth is not my 15 expertise area, but I was indicating that he had told me these 16 things.
17 Q But he never passed on say the second paragraph of ,
t 18 your September 29, 1987. mailings?
19 A CEckert) No, he didn 't pass on that.
20 Q This says, does it not, the second paragraph, and I 'm 21 referring to nunbered Page 38 of the attachment copy.
22 A CEckert) Yes. I 've sot that page, j 23 Q It is important that your views on this issue become 24 known. New Hampshire Yankee intends to use your building as a i
25 shelter according to the current evacuation plan.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
- l. . . -
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11430
} 1 A (Eckert) That 's what it says.
2 Q And the first sentence nowhere appears in the earlier l
3 questionnaire; does it?
4 A (Eckert) You mean the first sentence of the first ,
5 paragraph?
l 6 Q First sentence of the second paragraph I just read.
7 A (Eckert) That 's correct, it doesn 't appear in the 8 earlier ones.
9 Q And then if we look at the third paragraph. you again l
10 identify for whom you 're conducting the survey. i 11 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
12 Q A.td then you go on to say that your answers to the 13 following questions are crucial to evaluation of the evacuation O. 14 plan approved by New Hampshire Yankee. ;
I i 15 A (Eckert) That is correct.
! 16 Q Did Dr. Luloff pass on the third paragraph?
17 A (Eckert) No, he didn 't.
18 Q And this is your work; is it not ?
19 A (Eckert) Yes, it is, but I would add that he has l 20 read these and it 's his opinion that the -- as I said before. ,
21 the introduction can very some. It doesn 't have that large 22 effect on how people view the survey. So he reviewed them 23 after the fact.
24 Q Then on September 29th, you did another mailing. did 15 you not?
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
---_.-,__ m -_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __. - _ _ _ _ - - - - , , - _ - - - _ _ _ _ cwv
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11431 e i A (Eckert) That 's right.
2 Q And to whom did this mailing go?
3 A CEckert) It went to people again -- each mailing 4 went to people who hadn 't responded to any previous mailing.
5 Q Did you -- naybe I didn 't ask you.
G What respond did you have to your first mailing as of 7 September 29th?
8 A (Eckert) By September 29th, I indicated before we 9 had about 27 -- close to 27 percent of our response in.
10 Q What response did you get for your September 29th 11 mailing?
12 A (Eckert) That one was about 48 percent response.
13 Q And do you know how many people that would -- or how 9 14 many people responded?
15 A (Eckert) Let me calculate it here.
16 Approximately 112 people, 17 0 And you 're taking the balance of the 53 or so f rom 10 the 233 :: umber of the original survey mailings?
19 You initially sent out 233, thereabouts.
20 A CEckert) Right.
21 Q And you had a response of some 53 from that 233 22 A (Eckert) Yes. that 's what we calculated before, yes; 23 27 percent.
24 Q Of that balance, you say how many responded?
25 A (Eckert) We got 48 percent, an additional 40 percent O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4880
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11432 0 1 on top of the original 27 percent, so we 're up to a total of 60 2 percent or so of our total response.
3 (Pause.)
4 BY MR. LEWALD:
5 Q Doctor, I don 't want to interrupt your l 6 computations -- calculations, but do you wish to change your 7 last number, last answer?
8 A (Eckert) No.
9 Q Now, on Septerrber 29th you mede a mailing of the 10 questionnaire in somewhat different frcm the one that we have 11 just previously discussed. did you not?
12 A (Eckert) September 29 compared to August 26?
13 Q No, compared to the prior form on Page 38 of your 14 attachment.
15 A (Eckert) Which two are we comparing?
16 Q All right, would you look at Page 38?
17 A (Eckert) Yes.
i 18 Q And this is a redrafted, if you will, questionnaire l
19 that went out on the second wave.
l 20 A (Eckert) That 's right. It's the second wave.
21 Q Which says that your answers to the questions are 22 crucial.
23 A (Eckert) That 's ri ,ht t .
24 Q Now, on September 29th you also mailed to a certain 25 number of people another form, another questionnaire form; did O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4808
. _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ = _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l.
2 1
GOBLE. EVDOKIM0FF. ECKERT - CROSS 11433 i
g O 1 you not?
2 A (Eckert) Well, this one is dated Septerrber 29th, and i 3 you 're --
l 4 Q Could you turn to Page 60 of your attachment ?
l 5 A (Eckert) Sure i
G Yes. I have both of those, i 1
7 Q Now, on Page 60 you have a questionnaire form that O appears very much the same as the August 26th form that was 9 mailed except that added to the March '86 Stone & Webster study ,
10 is an interlineation August 1987.
11 Do ycu see that? l 12 A (Eckert) Yes, I do.
7
-~ 13 Q h'o w , who did you send this type of form to?
- 6 14 A (Eckert) The only thing I can say is thet they went 1
35 to part of the same mailing wave, so that we indicated to part 1
l 16 of tha' wave that it was the '86 study, and then to part of the i
17 wave we indicated there was also an '07 study.
10 Q What kind of a response did you get to the 19 questionnaire that you sent out that the f acsiraile is on Page t
20 60 of your Attachment 12?
21 A (Eckert) That is not separated out. I don 't know l t
22 what response there was to these two individual forms. They 23 are not separated.
24 Q So there is no way of telling what kind of rerponse 25 you got there. ,
r
(-
- - 3 '
Q__,J Heritage Reporting Corporation (102) G28-489H l
I i
,--mx__- - .-- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ___
_ _ _ _ , - . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . ~ _ _ _ _ . _ - - -
- .- - ---_ - - _ _ . . -__ =_ _- _ __
i GOELE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11434 l
O 1 A (Eckert) I can figure that out, but it would take a 2 little while to do that.
3 Q Well, you don 't know really to whom it was sent. do 4 you?
5 A (Eckert) It was sent to the people that hadn't 6 gotten the mailing in the earlier wave.
7 Q How did you determine what that numoer of people was.
8 or how did you identify the people who hadn't gotten an earlier 9 mailing?
10 A (Eckert) Okay, we coded on, using a dot system, who l '. these surveys went to, so we coald check our system. We know 12 who responded and so forth. So we had an exact record of where 13 each form went and what the response was.
14 Q Did you increase your total number of addressees 15 above your 233?
16 A (Eckert) No, it 's always been 233.
17 Q Now can we turn to Page 101 of the --
18 A (Eckert) Yes, I have that page.
19 Q And this is yet another form of the survey 20 questionnaire; is it not?
21 A (Eckert) Yes. I believe it 's slightly dif ferent.
22 Q And to whom did this form go to?
23 A (Eckert) That form went to peopic who had not 24 answered the questionnaire yet. That was part of the third 25 wave of mailings. l
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
GOBLE. EVDOKIMUFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11430 1 Q As tc any of the questionnaires?
2 A (Eckert) Right. That was sent to people who had not 3 yet responded who we knew we had sent forms to.
4 Q Well. the opening sentence says. "Last week you 5 received a survey form". correct?
6 A (Eckert) Right.
7 Q So did everybody that got a September 29th dated 8 survey form receive a copy of the October 9th questionnaire?
9 A (Eckert) If they -- in general. Thare my have been 10 some overlap but generally they were people in the September 11 29th or the earlier wave that hadn't responded yet.
12 Q All right, now we turn next, if you will. to Page 13 117.
14 A (Eckert) Okay, I have that page.
15 Q And this represents still another change in the 16 survey questionnaire form; does it not?
17 A (Eckert) In the introductory part, yes.
18 Q And on this form you have put in bold type the 19 sentence that New Hampshire Yankee intends to use your building 20 as a shelter according to the current evacuation plan.
21 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
22 Q What was your purpose of doing that. Doctor?
23 A (Eckert) I was again trying to indicate a sense of 24 urgency, and I was trying to increase our response rate.
25 Q What was your response rate with respect to this O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11436 k- 1 latter questionnaire?
2 A CEckert) It was around 10 percent.
3 (Pause.)
4 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Dr. Eckert, while we 're waiting 5 here let me ask you, do you attach any significance to this 6 lesser return on the form dated November 3rd, lesser percentage 7 return?
8 THE WITNESS: CEckert) I think the only thing I 9 attached to that is that almost everybody who was going to 10 answer the survey had answered it.
11 'UDGE LINENBERGER: So you 're saying, if I understand 12 you correc ly, that by this time the steadfast holdouts were 13 still bolding out, and --
14 THE WITNESS: (EcKert) I think we had gotten all we 15 were going to get.
16 JUDGE LINENBERGER: You had gotten. All right, thank 17 you.
18 JUDGE HARBOUR: If you gave a percentage of response 19 for ..ie October 9th third wave of mailing, I didn 't get it in 20 my notes.
21 Did you have a response?
22 THE WITNESS: CEckert) The October 9th was about 15 23 percent of the total.
24 BY MR. LEWALD:
25 Q It 's my understanding your response rate is based on Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11437 O
k 1 the total responses regardless of the changes in the form of 2 the introductory matter in the questionnaire.
3 A (Eckert) Yes, that 's true.
4 Q Now --
5 MR. TURK: Could I csk for a brief clarification on 6 that?
7 Your Honor, as I understand these response rates, the 8 10 percent for the November mailing and the 15 percent for the 9 October mailing, that 's a percentage of the total of 233; is l 10 that correct?
l l 11 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) That 's right.
12 MR. TURK: So that when Dr. Eckert indicated a 10 13 percent response rate, that means he had 23 responses.
14 THE WITNESS: CEckert) Yes, that 's how that would l
15 calculate.
16 MR. TURK: And the same for 15 percent; that would i
17 be. I assume. 34 responses.
1C THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Right.
19 BY MR. LEWALD:
20 Q Was this 15 percent of the total that was sent out, 21 or 15 percent of the balance left?
22 A CEckert) It's 15 percent of the total. Each time I 23 give a percentage I'm talking in reference to the total that 24 came in.
25 JUDGE SMITH: That ultimately came in.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11438 G 1 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) That ultimately came in.
2 JUDGE HARBOUR: Cumulative total?
3 JUDGE SMITH: Not as of October.
4 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) In response to the October 5 9th mailing, we got 15 percent of 233, and that 's the way it 6 goes for each one of them.
7 BY MR. LEWALD:
8 Q Did you talk to Dr. Renn at all about this 9 questionnaire?
10 A CEckert) No, I did not talk to Dr. Renn about the 11 questionnaire, and there was no intent to exclude him either.
12 Q Well, what attention did you give to the problem of 13 including systematic error and bias in the questionnaire as you 14 designed it?
15 A (Eckert) Well, attention was paid to that regarding 16 the questions by Dr. Luloff, and so I did not deal with that 17 question.
18 Q You didn 't deal with the question at all?
19 A (Eckert) Not in the construction of the 20 questionnaire.
21 Q Weren 't you concerned that you were addressing to a 22 number of building owners a questionnaire that directed them to 23 a public controversy?
24 A (Eckert) Well, I think we had to identify the 25 controversy. We had to identify -- maybe controversy is the Yx I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11439 9 1 wrong word -- the activities that happened that New Hampshire 2 Yankee did and the Stone & Webster, the work they carried out.
3 I was trying to identify that series of activities to them.
4 Q Don 't you believe then that the result of the survey 5 that you were going to get was simply people taking sides on 6 this controversy rather than trying to measure anything of help 7 in the questionnaire?
8 A (Eckert) I personally don 't believe that, but 9 professionally I can 't comment on that because i t 's no t my 10 field.
11 Q Were you trying to suggest to the building owners 12 what kind of a shelter might be a suitable shelter?
13 A CEckert) No, I was not trying to suggest that. I --
14 well, I 'l l stop there and see.
15 Q Why then were you directing their attention in your 16 questionnaire to masonry butidings and a basement?
17 A CEckert) The reason I did that was to reference the 18 Stone & Webster definition, the 1986 survey. They used words, 19 you know, basements and masonry walls. I felt that it would be 20 reasonable to present that information. It would provide a 21 common feeling perhaps for what we were talking about in terms 22 of, or what Stone & Webster actually was talking about in terms 23 of shelter.
24 You know, I felt that -- you know, it was my personal 25 opinion that some people might react negatively to thinking of Q)
Heritage Reporting Corpore' tion (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11440 1 everyone coming in their house and their living space and so 2 forth. So I was trying to provide a benchmark in that sense.
3 I don 't think I was trying to define suitable shelter.
4 Q Well, when you became aware of the second Stone &
5 Webster study, did you make any change in any of the 6 questionnaires?
7 A (Eckert) We made no change in any of the four 8 questions. They remained absolutely the same all the way.
9 Q Now were you intending to indicate to m owners of 10 the building that if they did not have a shelter area which was 11 encompassed by masonry walls or a basement that that was not a 12 suitable shelter in your Question 4?
3 13 A CEckert) No, no. There wasn 't any intent like that.
14 I merely was providing information withou+ eny thinking about 15 or cetting up a relationship say among the f our questions.
16 Q Well, you say --
17 A (Goble) E:ccuse me.
18 Q -- that Question 4 was the real, the pertinent 19 question here that you really wanted the answer to.
20 A (Eckert) Yes, that was an important question for 21 sure.
22 Q And can I ask you why answered --
23 A (Goble) Excuse me, could I j ust --
24 Q -- why you asked the first three?
25 A (Goble) Could I make a comment on that?
N.]
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11441
~-s
(
k \ 1 A CEckert) Let me answer his question real quick.
2 A (Goble) All right.
3 Q Dr. Goble, were you part of the shelter questionnaire 4 --
5 A (Goble) No.
6 Q -- design?
7 A (Goble) No, it was j ust myself.
8 I was not part of the design. On the other hand, we 9 did have conversations, and I did want to mention that in this 10 context I had a concern for checking the Stone & Webster 11 March -- the accuracy of the Stone & Webster March survey where 12 we 'd already seen numerous errors.
13 So I believe I expressed on occasions the suggestion.
~)
J 14 and this was merely what I wanted to point out, that this form 15 could also be used to provide some further information checking 16 the results of the March study, and I just wented to mention 17 that because I thought Bob -- I don 't know how influential that 18 was in his decision, but I thought he might have forgotten 19 those conversations with me.
20 I did not design this study, but I did give him 21 information about things that I wanted infornation about.
22 Q Did you have a position, Doctor, on whether or not it 23 would bias the study to indicate on whose behalf you were 24 conducting it?
25 A (Eckert) Are you asking me?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11442
- 1 Q I 'm asking Dr. Goble.
2 A (Eckert) Dr. Goble.
3 Q We 're already heard Profess Evdokinof f 's position on 4 that question.
5 A (Goble) Yes, I was -- I had nothing to do with 6 designing this study, and I don 't think I have an opinion 7 that 's particulary worth testifying to as to what kind of bias 1
8 would be -- might be introduced.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Would this be a good time to take a 10 lunch break?
11 MR. LEWALD: I only have a few more questions, but it 12 doe. t matter. I can do that after lunch as well as before.
g 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Return at one --
()
14 MR. LEWALD: No purpose would be served by doing that 15 now.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, 1:15.
17 (Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the hearing was recessed. -
18 to resume at 1:15 p.m., this same day. Tuesday, May 17, 1988.)
19 20 21 22 [
23 24 25
(
! Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4898 ,
l L L
l GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11443 t,,)
bri6 1 AFTERNOON SESSION l 2 (1:18 p.m.)
3 Whereupon.
4 ROBERT GOBLE 5 VICTOR EVDOKIMOFF 6 ROBERT ECKERT 7 having been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand 8 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows:
9 JUDGE SMITH: On the record.
10 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. I am now delivering to the F 11 Attorney General the documents he requested f rom New Hampshire 12 Yankee yesterday. I have an extra set for Mr. Brock.
13 MR. OLESKEY: I have a set of notes, Your Honor, for g
J 14 Mr. Dignan. And also for Mr. Flynn.
15 MR. FLYNN: Thank you.
16 MR. OLESKEY: I gave you, as the record shall 17 reflect, a second set of notes, drawing your attention to two 18 matters and ask for the panel judgment on that, which I 19 understand you 'll give.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. ,.
21 Mr. Lewald?
22 MR. TURK: May I ask, just by way of inquiry of Mr.
23 Oleskey, in yesterday 's conversation he indicated that there 24 was a certain portion of the notes that he wished not to (
25 produce, at least until his cross-examination of staff notes ;
i Lg)
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 i
_ _ , - . , - - - _ . . - . _ - . . - . , _ . _ , , _ . _ _ _ . - , _ _ - . . _ . _ . - _. - _ _ _ -___ _., _=
GOELE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11444
\
1 has been completed. Do we have that yet or is that --
2 MR. OLESKEY: No, that 's what I was just indicating, 3 Mr. Turk, I had given to the panel at 1:10 explaining to the 4 panel what the two matters were. One, a mental impression; and 5 one, the issue that I wanted held until after the cross-6 examination.
7 JUDGE SMITH: He means the Board.
8 MR. OLECKEY: Yes. Thank you, Judge.
9 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, we have distributed to the 10 Board and to the parties a copy of excerpts from the EG&G 11 article offered by Eurson and Profio, and have included therein 12 pages 25, 26, 32 and 34; and it is our view that, while these
-s 13 aren 't the best copies in the world they 're at least legible 14 and can be read.
15 And Applicant would like to offer this in evidence, 16 and I think it was identified as Applicants ' Exhibit 34.
4 17 JUDGE SMITH: I understand there are no obj ections 18 now. Applicants' Exhibit 34 is received.
19 (The document referred to having 20 been previously marked for 21 identification as Applicants ' l 22 Exhibit 34, and was received 23 in evidence.)
24 THE WITNESS: CEckert) Can I also indicate before we 25 start --
Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888 l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11445
' ~ 1 JUDGE SMITH: Who 's speaking.
2 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I 'm sorry. In going through 3 Exhibit 12 I notice that some responses were missing and my 4 assistant is now going through those to produce those extra 5 copies, so they 'll be in addition to Exhibit 12 which is 6 the --
7 JUDGE SMITH: You mean Attachment 12 to your 8 testimony?
9 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I 'm sorry. That 's correct ,
10 yes.
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
12 Mr. Lewald?
13 MR. LEWALD: I didn 't hear the beginning of that.
9 14 These are additions to Attachment 12?
15 THE WITNESS: CEckert) It 's additional survey forms, 16 correct, responses.
17 MR. LEWALD: Have they been circulated or --
18 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) She 's now going through the 19 process of getting those ready to distribute or to reproduce.
20 BY MR. LEWALD:
21 Q Dr. Eckert, what was the basis for your statement in 22 certain of these questionnaires that New Hampshire Yankee 23 intends to use your building as a shelter?
24 A (Eckert) What was the basis of this statement? I 25 think it was my interpretation of the Stone & Webster -- that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11446 l
[,_>q
} I
(- 1 they had funded the Stone & Webster study.
2 Q The emergency response plan, is that of the State of 1
3 New Hampshire, is it not?
4 A (Eckert) Yes.
5 Q And not New Hampshire Yankee?
6 A (Eckert) Correct.
7 Q Did you give any thought to asking the owners of the 8 building that in the event the State of Nc Hampshire in the 9 interest of the health and protection of its citizens may call 10 upon you to ask you to use your building for shelter, and if 11 so, would you accede to that request?
12 A (Eckert) No, I did not consider putting that in. As 13 I said before we were trying to, I think, identify the parties 73
( ') 14 involved; and that 's where that came f rom .
15 Q You were trying to identify the parties involved?
16 A (Eckert) That 's right.
17 Q Ana who are the parties you 're trying to identify?
18 New Hampshire Yankee?
19 A (Eckert) New Hampshire Yankee.
20 Q The Attorney General?
21 A (Eckert) And the Attorney General. And I identified 22 Stone & Webster as having done the sheltering study.
23 Q I think I asked you before the noon recess that if 24 the point of your questionnaire was to get an answer to 25 Question 4, what was your purpose in asking Questions 1, 2, and 0)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11447 9 1 3?
2 A (Eckert) The purpose of Question -- well, the 3 general purpose was to provide some background information; 4 that 's why I asked all these questions. We were interested in 5 Question 1 because we wanted to find out if people had been 6 notified that their building was on a list of a potential 7 shelter.
8 Q And what 's the purpose of finding that out, if you 're 9 looking to an answer to Question 4?
10 A (Eckert) Well, we were looking for answers to all 11 these questions; and this was one question of interes+ we had.
12 Q Were you looking to Question 1, 2, and 3 to interact 13 with Question 4?
9 14 A (Eckert) No, I was not. These were independently 15 determined questions set into here without any purpose of 16 interaction between them.
17 Q Then there was no real purpose insofar as to looking 18 to the -- looking to Question 4 and answering Questions 1, 2, 19 and 3 ?
20 A (Eckert) Well, no, not really.
21 Q I guess you 've lost me now. There was a purpose or 22 there is not a purpose?
23 (Eckert) There was no intent to have there be a 24 relationship where answers to one question might affect answers 25 to another question.
%)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
GOBLE, E7DOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11448 1 Q As far as you were concerned, all these questions 2 stood independently?
3 A (Eckert) Yes, as far as I was concerned.
4 Q And yet, the significant question was number 4; 5 correct?
6 A CEckert) It was -- it 's certainly one of high 7 interest, and I would say it 's probably the most interesting 8 and most significant relative to access to space in the beach 9 area.
10 Q And it 's your view that the answers to 1, 2, and 3 11 would shed no light on the answer to number 4?
12 A (Eckert) They were not put in there to shed light on 13 Question 4. It seems that in looking at Question 4 you riight
+
i
"~'
14 be able to shed light on it from some of the other quest'ona, 15 hut it was not designed that way initially.
16 Q Then you deny any attempt was being made to identify 17 a particular shelter or kind of shelter that the owners might 18 consider their buildings to afford?
19 A (Eckert) That was not a purpose of the survey, to 20 try to identify types of shelters.
21 Q Is it your view that shelter place space has no 22 suitability unless it has a direct access from the outside of 23 the building?
24 A (Eckert) That it has no suitability without direct 25 access from the outside?
p,
(. .,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11449 1 Q Yes?
2 A (Eckert) That 's not my view.
3 Q That 's not your view?
4 A CEckert) No.
5 Q What was the purpose of putting Question 3 in your 6 survey questionnaire?
7 A CEckert) That question came from trying to extend 8 our knowledge a little bit on accessibility. It 's an 9 accessibility kind of question. And we had observed from our 10 field work that some of these shelters had bulkhead doors, and 11 this is in terms of the '86 works, I 'm talking about the 12 basement-type shelters only.
13 Some of them have bulkhead doors where access might 14 be more easy than access through internal doors to a basement 15 where one would have to pass through a private resident, say.
16 So we were trying to get a feeling for what the >-
17 overall situation might be in terms of the owner 's perception.
18 Q And assuming that you did get some returns on that 19 subj ect , what did you intend to do with that information?
20 A CEckert) I think just add it to our data base, so
, 21 that we would have a better understanding of accessibility, 22 access in the beach area.
23 Q That would help your data base?
24 A (Eckert) It would help my understanding, our 25 understanding of accessibility.
C)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
' (202) 628-4888 l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11450 1 Q Among the instructions to Salmon Falls is to -- well, 2 it was to undertake to do for the Attorney General was to 3 acquire a data base, was it?
4 A (Eckert) It wasn 't directly to acquire a data base; 5 it was to r,ake some -- make a comparison between the Stone &
6 Webster stuJy to check for accuracy and so forth, and so that 's 7 what we were doing. And this is a small aspect of that.
8 Q Well, did you do the questionnaire on your own 9 without any guidance or direction from the Attorney General?
10 A (Ecker ) We knew the general -- the Attorney General 11 was interested in questions relating to shelter, and that 12 concluded access, it also included people 's at t itudes about 13 whether or not they would let people i n, that was kind of a 9 14 maj or question, so that was --
15 Q So what you 're telling me is, there was no direct 16 request by the Attorney General that you conduct a survey of 17 this nature?
28 A CEckert) There was a request to conduct a survey.
19 Q There was a request?
20 A CEckert) Yes.
21 Q And that 's what you represented in the questionnaire?
22 A (Eckert) That 's cc rrect.
23 Q Now, at the bottom of page 62 you say that, more than 24 four of every five responses came from Hampton, with 28 25 responses coming from other towns: four from North Hampton;
\
\ 2 Reporting Corporation Heritage (202) 628-4888 l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11451 1 five for Rye; and nine for Seabrook. And I ask you whether the 2 towns other than Hampton, whether the size of that response 3 sample is meaningful.
4 A (Eckert) Yes, I consider that a meaningful response, 5 some of those.
6 Q And you think that you can proj ect to the total 7 population in Rye, North Hampton on the bauis of that response?
8 A (Eckert) I think that I would have to defer to 9 someone like Dr. Luloff to make that answer. I 'm not sure that 10 we can make a proj ection f rom -- to those very towns.
11 Q Well, you 're not sure you can make a proj ection to 12 the population in the town of Hampton from the responses to
- 13 your study --
l l 14 A (Eckert) We have to be clear about whether we 're 15 talking about a proj ect ion or peop) e 's, I think, attitudes when 16 they answered the survey. Again, this isn 't my expert area, 17 but I believe the surveys indicated how those people felt at 18 the time they answered the survey.
19 Q Indicated how the people felt on the controversy that 20 you polled, but it doesn 't do anymore than that, does it.
21 Doctor?
22 A (Eckert) Well, on the situation we presented with 23 our survey.
24 Q On the top of page 65 of your testimony you say that 2S you performed a second survey because you wanted to know for U
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11452 i G 1 those owners who said that they would admit people in their l
1 establishments in the event of a radiological emergency, l 2
3 whether that meant that they would admit people just into the 4 common public areas such as: lobbies, hallways, basements, et 5 cetera, of the building or whether it meant that they would G also admit people into the private rooms of the hotel /notel l
7 guests? <
8 A (Eckert) Yes, that 's right.
9 Q And that was what you wanted to find out?
10 A (Eckert) Right, basically.
11 Q And can I ask you, if you wanted to find that out why 12 didn 't you ask that question?
13 A CEckert) Well, I think we did ask that question. I O 14 want to refer to the questionnaire.
15 Q Can I direct your attention to the last page of the 16 questionnaire?
17 A (Eckert) Yes.
18 Q Or the Attachment 12?
19 / (Eckert) Well, I still maintain that tnat 's the 20 question we asked in this survey.
j 21 Q Well, don 't assume it; it is or it isn 't , isn 't it?
! 22 A (Eckert) It is. We asked whether the motel -- who 23 has the right essentially to allow the public into a room for 24 which a customer has paid.
25 Q Tne question as put in the survey doesn 't say im f
%)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4880
J i
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11453
)
i i
.f,_}
%, 1 anything about common public areas such as: lobbies; hallways; 5
2 basements, et cetera, does it?
3 A CEckert) No, it doesn 't. But I would assume that 3 4 where you have rooms you have hallways and that would be the .
i 4
l 5 other -- the only public space, perhaps, in a motel would be i
! 6 that type of space, hallways and maybe dining areas, if that -
1 7 was there.
f
) 8 Q Yes, but your purpose as you say of what you wanted 9 to know was with respect to the owners that nid that they r
l 10 would admit people, as to whether they were referring to the i
11 public lobbies or the lobbies, the public areas, hallways, f
.2 basements or the private rooms or perhaps both. But your ;
13 question was j ust -- the survey question is just directed to !
i l
( 14 one of these aspects, is it not? {'
15 A CEckert) I' is directed to whether the question of [
16 who would allow the public into a trotel/ hotel room. You 're j t
17 correct in that. .
18 Q Which are the private rooms of the hotel / motel !
19 guests?
l 20 A (Eckert) Right. ;
21 Q Who drew up this question?
22 A CEckert) This is one that we drew up. ,
i 23 Q What?
24 A (Eckert) I drew this up with my assistant. t 25 Q Did you consult anybody with expertise in human ;
i
( !
t Heritage Reporting Corporat ion ;
(202) 628-4888 !
l
i i
i i GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11454
\- -
1 behaviorism in drawing this up?
2 A (Eckert) We consulted with Dr. Luloff again, after 3 we had written this document, written the instrument. ,
.i !
4 Q After you had written it and sent it? j 5 A (Eckert) I 'm not sure of the exact date that he ,
a l '
i 6 looked at it. I would have to check on that.
7 Q What response did you get -- well, let me first ask {
l 8 you, how many of these went out?
J i
! 9 A (Eckert) Let 's see. There was a low number. Yes, j i
i 10 indicate we had 10 respondents here. I think the number that ;
i 1
- 11 went out was 19 or 20. In other words, it was the number that j i
i
! 12 indicated, yes, to the fourth question, I believe, in the l 4 I l 13 original survey. ,
( 14 Q Did you consult with anybody else other than Dr.
{
1
. 15 Luloff? i 1
f I
Not about the survey. ;
i' 16 A CEckert) t 17 Q What did he say about the form of the languade here?
I l
18 A (Eckert) I don 't recall nis special comments, but l
i i 19 he -- I mean, his specific comments, but he indicated thet it 4
20 was acceptable for this purpose. f l
(
21 Q And what purpose is that? l
\
l i 22 A CEckert) The --
' t.
I 23 Q Is that the purpose that appears in your testimony or i
j 24 the purpose of the questionnaire?
I 25 A (Eckert) This is -- he attested or he agreed that -
- i. .
Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 e I l I
1 I L. -
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11455 l
9 1 to use this survey to try to answer these questions, the 2 question of entry into the customer 's room. He was specific to 3 the survey rather than the exact testimony of my purpose thct I 4 stated here. So he agreed that he was answering the question 5 about whether who would let people in the motel rooms or 6 whether that would be acceptable.
7 Q But you had that information at the time, didn 't you, 8 as to who said that he would let people in?
9 A (Eckert) We knew that people had said that they 10 would not or that they would, yes.
11 Q Did Dr. Luloff have the benefit of what appears in 12 your testimony on the top of page 65?
13 A (Eckert) I don 't believe that he had seen this 9 14 written testimony when he looked at this survey form?
10 Q Dr. Goble, on page 67 of the testimony and the last i
16 question on that page and the answer, and you 're talking about j 17 0.9 protection factor; and then at the very last sentence in 18 that answer you say, "The protection provided by structures 19 with 0.9 shielding is even less than Aldrich, et al . , have 20 assumed would be provided the average person at other sites in !
t
- 21 the country, even if no protection action was recommended," and i 22 you cite Aldrich, et al., February 1978. Are you refercing to l
23 the reactor safety study that Aldrich is referring to on page l 24 14 of his testimony -- excuse me, page 14 of his article?
25 A (Goble) Well, I would have to refresh my mencry with
\x ,l ,
l i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 >
I
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11456 1 the article. But the Aldrich article concerns itself with the 2 reactor safety study which attempted to make average statements 3 about the company.
4 Q Aldrich is using a weekly average, is he not, in this 5 relat ion that you 're ref erring to?
6 A (Goble) I 'm sorry. You mean, weekly in the sense 7 that he 's averaging -- he 's averaging over t ime and the -- i t 's 6 a question of behavior patterns and the norm, if you want to --
9 most people structure their lives on a weekly basis. You have 10 a week when you -- a set of week days when you have an 11 occupational pattern, and a weekend, so in that sense -- is 12 that the sense in which you 're meaning a weekly?
13 Q I 'm asking you in the sense that you 're using it?
@ 14 You 're not comparing the same thing, are you, Doctor?
et/16 10 (Continueo on hext page.)
16 17 10
' 19 20 1
21 22 23 24 25 r-Q)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
, - = .
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11457
(__f7 vv- 1 A (Goble) The --
2 Q You 're not saying that 0.9 offers less shielding 3 protection than no protection at all, are you?
4 A (Goble) No, I 'm not saying that. What I 'm saying 5 is --
6 Q Isn 't that what you 're f.mplying by using the Aldrich 7 article?
8 A (Goble) Well, if I were -- I mean, if that 's the way 9 the reader is reading this, then I 've not written it very well.
10 The sense in which Aldrich is defining it and the impression 11 that I wanted to give was simply that the normal person, in a L
12 normal place, living a normal life, on the average is spending 13 more of his time -- I mean, is spending -
is being -- spends
+
~J enough of his tine in better sheltering f acilities than a . 9 ;
14 15 shielding factor.
I 16 Q Is that your purpose?
^
17 A (Goble) Yes, that .9 is not very good. ,
6 18 Q And you 're not trying to say .9 is less --
19 A (Goble) I 'm not trying to say that .9 is greater l 20 than 1; I 'm not trying to say that. l Now, you would agree, would you not, that your ;
21 Q ;
22 reference to Aldrich is a weekly average that he is referring 3
23 to here? r 24 A (Goble) Well, I don 't remember. However. -- the 1
25 first e.nswer is, I don 't remember, although I would not be ,
C:) ;
Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888 I
1 GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11458 1 surprised if that 's true since that 's the usual time period 2 over which people try to average activity -- the activities.
3 MR. LEWALD: That concludes my examination.
4 JUDGE SMITH: All right. We 'll take a break and set 5 up now, we 'll have the demonstration.
6 CWnereupon, at 1:45 p.m. Jack Whetstine, computer 7 adviser to the Bonrd, presented a demonstration of computer 8 capabilities.)
9 JUDGE SMITH: As Mr. Oleskey indicated he had given 10 us two pages of notes containing bracketed material. One page 11 material bracketed indicated information that he wants to have, 12 he wants to delay revealing until after cross-examination. We -
,- q c 13 agree that that is appropriate' And the other bracketed 14 materist will be deleted primarily because it dces reflect 15 counsel 's ment al impression of situation; and t hat 's 16 appropriate deletion.
17 Mr. -- wait a minute.
18 Mr. Flynn, do you have questions?
19 MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor. I had previously 20 indicated that I did not have any cross-examination planned for 21 this panel, but I wish to follow up on two lines which were 22 opened up by Mr. Lewald 's examination. I will be brief, I 23 believe I will be done in 15 minutes.
2 '.
25 H e r i t ag r- Repo ting Corporation (202) 628-4088 i
l l
l GOBLE, EVDOK1MOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11459 p_
._e 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. FLYNN:
3 Q Good afternoon, gentlemen, I 'm Joseph Flynn and I 4 represent the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
5 My first questions will be addressed to Dr. Eckert.
6 In the testimony beginning at page three in the prefiled 7 t est i many, Dr. Eckert, you indicate that you are an associate 8 professor of forest resources and graduate program coordinator 9 in the Department of Forest Resources at the University of New 10 Hampantre.
11 Now, when I turn to your resume which appears as 12 Attachment 3 to the prefiled testimony I note that you do not 13 indicate the subj ect matter of your Ph. D. , but I would a'istme f
14 that it has to do with forestry; am I correct?
15 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
16 Q And Attachment 3 is a five page document and it lists 17 numerous articles, research grants, and one lecture. In my 18 examination of that resume it appears to me that all of those 19 articles, the lecture and the research grants have to do with 20 the subject of forestry in general; em I correct in that?
21 A (Eckert) Generally, yes.
22 Q Is there anything in the resume that indicates a 23 f amiliarity with the subj ect of human behavior?
24 A CEckert) No.
25 Q Now, turning back to your testimony at pages tnree O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11460 i
'- ' 1 and four you ref er to a nu'nber of surveys which you have 2 conducted, am I correct that in none of those surveys were you 3 measuring human behavior?
4 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
S Q And on page three of your testimony you say: "I have G received funding from the United States Environmental 7 Protection Agency to conduct large scale studies of the impact 8 of air pollutants on forests," and I believe you cite those 9 large scale studies as evidence of your competence to do 10 surveys of the type that you 've testified about this week; is 11 that correct?
12 A (Eckert) That citation is meant to indicate that I 7 ~3 13 handle 'arge quanti;ica of data, and for making comparative
( )
14 studies of one dat a collection witn another, that I 'm qualif ied 15 to do that.
16 Q ?Jow, the particular survey which was the subj ect of 17 Mt. Levrald 's exanination consisted of 233 questionnairee which 18 were mailed out and you got e response rate of 27 percent; is 19 that correct?
20 A (Eckert) We got a response rate of 70, about 72 21 percent.
22 Q Doing the arithmetic very roughly i n lay he ad , it 23 would seem to me that you got somethj'g under 200 responses; am 24 I right?
25 A (Eckert) We actually not 152 responses based on 211 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4008
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11461
( 1 surveys that we counted as our starting point. 233 were mailed 2 out, but the difference of 22 comes from surveys that were 3 undeliverable and situations like that.
4 Q So you were working with 152 responses and each of 5 those responses included, at most, the answers to four 6 questions?
7 A CEckert) That 's correct.
8 Q Would you consider that a large scale study?
9 A (Eckert) I would consider it a reasonably -- I 'd say 10 it's a naderate to small scale study.
11 Q Thank you.
12 The next set of questions that I have will be 13 addressed to Dr. Goble.
O 14 I will refer you, Dr. Goble, to page 10 and 16 at the 15 testimony; would you take a moment to look at that?
16 (Pause) 17 BY MR. FLYNN:
18 Q Is it fair to say, Dr. Goble, that the purpose of 19 that section of your testimony is to indicate those 20 circumstances under which sheltering as opposed to evacuation 21 is the most ef f ective pro +ective action or indeed the only 22 protective action?
23 A (Goble) That 's correct.
24 Q Is it also fair to say that, the circumotances under 25 which sheltering is most effective protective action are rather O Heritage Reporting Corporation f:202) 628-4888 1
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11462 m
i ;
1 limited, and your testimony indicates what the limitations are?
2 A (Goble) Yes. Limited but important.
3 Q And those circumstances are that there would be a 4 puff release, there would be little or no warning; and little 1 5 or no warning in advance of the release; and thirdly, that you 6 would know at the time that the protective action is decided 7 on, that the duration will be short, and that there will be no 8 deposits of radionuclides on the ground; is that correct?
9 A (Goble) Well, I think you 're confusing two 10 situations. There are really two situations referred to here.
11 One is an early release -- perhaps I have to go back to pages 12 13 and 14 which is the principal portion that I 'm t alking 13 about.
!q
'~'
)
14 The main situation of concern for emergency planning 15 it the situation in which there 's a relatively early release 16 for the substan'ial amcunt of radioactive materin] including 17 material that 's likely to pose a problem because of ground 18 deposition and possible inhalation doses. Okay, that 's the 19 maj or problem that I 'm addressing.
20 Now, there is a second problem which is a less severe 21 problem which is discussed at the bottom of page 15, which is 22 the release of -- a release that consists primarily of noble 23 gases and is of reasonably short duration. l l
24 Q I will come back to the subj ect of the early release, 25 but f or the noment let us concentrate on the puff release.
h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11463 k- 1 Would you agree that a puff release is one which is 2 of short duration and that the relative duration is known in 3 advance, and also that it is constituted by noble gases and not ,
4 particulates?
5 A (Goble) Well, I dcn 't want to get into defining the 6 puff release. I would agree that there 's a situation, which is 7 what I 'm trying to talk about at the bottom of page 15 that 8 meets that description. People argue about what counts as a 9 puff.
10 Q Would you not agree that it makes a difference at the i i
11 time that a decision is made whether you know how long the t 12 releuse is going to last? i
, 13 A (Goble) Yes.
14 Q So that, unless you know in advance that it is going f 15 to be of short duration, you don't assume that?
16 A (Goble) No is too strong a word. Unless you have good reeson to believe that the release would be of short
- 7 i
18 duration you might -- you would not assume that. l 2
19 Q Well, one --
20 A (Goble) You -- say again?
21 Q One circumstance that comes to mind when you might ;
22 know that would be a controlled venting?
i
- 23 A (Goble) For example? !
i 24 Q You 're suggesting that there are others?
25 A (Goble) I --
i Heritage Reporting Co rpo ra t '.o n [
(202) 620-4000 i I
t
. - . _ . . - - _ , . . _ . . , _ _ . . . . . _ . . . _ . , _ _ _ . . - . _ _ _ , . . _ . - .._.__,-..m..._ . - . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ , _ _ - . . . . , _ _ . .
I t
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11464 k/ 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well --
i 2 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I would prefer not to testify .
3 to different possible accident characteristics. I think that -
l 4 given time I could conjure up another kind of accident. But I 5 don 't think it 's the -- I don 't think this sort of accident is 6 the major concern in any event. t 7 BY MR. FLYNN:
8 Q I will accept your characterization that this is not 9 the major concern or as major concern as the early release, but 10 I want to ask you a few more questions before we go back to the 11 early release.
12 A (Goble) That 's fine.
13 Q I want to make a distinction between a precautionary ,
C 14 measure and a protective action. I don 't know whether you 're 15 familiar with the prefiled testimony that FEMA has filed with 16 the Board, but I would ask you whether it is necessary for the
- 17 purpose of my questioning to define for you what I mean by ,
18 those terms?
19 A (Goble1 I think I understand the terms.
20 Perhaps --
21 Q If there 's any doubt I will be happy to --
1 22 A (Goble) Perhaps it would be better if you defined ,
t J
4 23 them. L l
24 Q What I mean by precautionary action is something 25 which is recommended for the protection of people in advance of [
(::) !
Heritage Reporting Corporation '
(202) 628-4888 6
l GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 114G5 0 1 the necessity for doing so, specifically in advance of any 2 release of radiation. And I distinguish that from a protective 3 measure which is taken to protect the public from the effects 4 of a release which has already tcken place or which is 5 imminent.
6 A (Goble) All right. So the -- can I just make a 7 clarification. The distinction you would make is that, for a 6 precautionary measure you don 't know whether or not there 's 9 going to be a release, but you 're worried; and protective 10 measure you have good reason to anticipate a release if it 11 hasn 't already started?
12 Q Yes.
fq 13 A (Goble) Okay.
\ )
'~'
14 Q Now --
15 JUDGE SMITH: And it is imminent.
16 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Right.
17 BY MR. FLYNN:
18 Q I will ask you to assume for the sake of the question 19 which I 'm about to ask you that, a precautionary action is 20 taken at a level of emergency classification, less severe than 21 general emergency; are you familiar with the usage of emergency 22 classification levels?
23 A (Goble) Yes.
24 Q Now, my question is, at a t ime when e. precaut.2:aary 25 measure is being recommended, that is to say, before a release Q)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4088
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11466 1 has occurred or is known to be imminent, would it not always be 2 appropriate to recommend evacuation for areas within two miles I
3 of the source, namely, the nuclear powerplant?
4 A (Goble) Say the question again, please.
5 Q The focus of the question is, a recommendation to be 6 made at -- as a precautionary measure which-is to say, at the a 7 time when it is not yet known that a release will occur, but 8 simply that it may be possible if conditions at the plant 9 degrade. And the question is, under those circumstances is it 10 not always preferable to evacuate the population within two 31 miles of the plant?
12 A (Goble) Preferable you mean to -- ,
F 13 Q Sheltering them? .
- 14 A (Goble) -- sheltering them and -- or doing nothing. .
t 15 Well, we 're assuming you have a good basis for doing a ;
16 precautionary measure.
! 17 This goes to the definition of what is imminent. And i 18 I 'm hesitating because I 'm trying to phrase my answer w.i.th a ,
19 certain amnunt of care. The -- it is certainly preferable if a 20 release is not imminent.
21 Now, at issue in Seabrook the evacuation times at
[ 22 Seabrook establish a time scale on which one has to think abcut 23 what is or is not imminent. What is or is not imminent. In
- 24 Seabrook where the population may be trapped for a number of l 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> means that you have to be concerned with what might c 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
?
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11467
( i
-> 1 happen in a few hours as opposed to what might happen in half 2 an hour to one hour.
3 But with the caveat that you are going to initiate 4 precautionary evacuation, where you have no reason to expect.
S you 've done the best you can at proj ecting how bad things are 6 likely to do, you have no reason to expect that a release will 7 begin for several hours, then early evacuation would be the 8 preferable thing to do.
9 Q Thank you. ,
10 Let us turn now to the question of an early release, 11 and in this portion of your testimony I assume you were talking 12 about releases which include a ground shine component; is that 13 correct?
'~'
14 A (Goble) Yes.
15 Q And would you agree that the radionuclides which are 16 deposited on the ground by their nature tend to be relatively 17 long-lived?
18 A (Goble) Well, I would agree that the most important 19 ones are, yes.
20 Q So that if there is a ground shine component it is 21 something that would concern us for days and weeks, in any 22 event, more than just a few hours?
23 A (Goble) I would agree that -- I would agree that you 24 would be concerned for days and weeks. I would not agree that.
25 that means you wouldn 't worry about what was happening in the 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
' GOBLE, EV DOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11468 1 initial few hours relatively close to the plant.
2 Q In your analysis the -- with an early release, and I 3 aesume you mean by that. the release which occurs within an 4 hour or a few hours of the onset of accident conditions, in 5 your own analysis sheltering is the preferable protective 6 action; am I correct in that?
7 A (Goble) Sheltering in the situation in which it can 8 be implemented, and in the situation which appears to hold at 9 Seabrook under peak summer population conditions when there are 10 long delays in evacuation times, yes, et/17 11 (Continued on next page.)
12
(::) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
)
i 21 22 23 l 24 i
25 j
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 J
h
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11469 7s i
crJ 1 Q For how long a period of time do you assume that the 2 people who would go to shelter would remain in shelter?
3 A (Goble) In the event of an early -- we 're still 4 taking about this case, this severe, early case?
5 Q Yes.
6 A (Goble) I think we 're talking about a matter of 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />. This is not intended to be a long-term sheltering.
8 Q And under those circumstances, are the people who are 9 sent to shelter and then evacuated not exposed to a significant 10 amount of ground shine?
11 A (Goble) They would be exposed to a potentially 12 significant amount of ground shine, that 's right.
13 Q And is it not also the case that while they were in 9 14 shelter they are exposed to inhalation doses?
15 A (Goble) Inhalation doses and, although reduced, 16 cloud shine and ground shine.
17 Q So, is it not possible under those circumstances that 18 the cumulative dose could be greater for a strategy which has 19 people going to shelter and then evacuating than it would be 20 for an evacuation-only strategy?
21 A (Goble) It 's possible, and that exactly poses the 22 problem of emergency planning with -- that 's why the 23 implementation of sheltering, the offective implementation of 24 sheltering, both getting people in and getting people out, is 25 very important.
>\
J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11470 1 Without planning, I think it 's very likely that inat 2 would happen.
3 MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Dr. Goble. I have no other 4 questions.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk.
6 MR. TURK : Thank you.
7 I 'd like to move --
8 JUDGE SMITH: Certainly.
9 (Pause.)
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. TURK:
12 Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. I don 't think I have 13 introduced myself before. I am Sherwin Turk with the NRC O 14 staff.
15 I 'd like to turn to Page 6 of your testimony. And in 16 the top partial paragraph on that page there 's a statement that 17 reads, "Without sheltering, this population would have to 18 remain outdoors or in automobiles virtually unprotected f rom 19 radiation exposure for many hours while waiting to evacuate."
l 20 And I assume that this sentence speaks to the summer 21 beach population; is that correct?
22 A (Goble) That 's correct.
23 Q And is it correct also that the scenario that you 're 24 describing involved what we 've heard ref erred to as the peak .
25 summer weekend?
) ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i I GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11471 0 1 A (Goble) Well, there are gradations, but the peak 2 summer weekend is certainly the worst case. However, you get 3 substantial evacuation times for summer weekends, and for 4 fractions of the peak populations.
5 Q But your testimony describes population sizes. For 6 instance, if I 'm not mistaken there 's a ref erence to 7 approximately 11,500 persons for Seabrook, and approximately 8 46,000 population for Hampton beach; do you recall that?
9 I 'm sorry, Page 35: 11,400 for Seabrook beach, and 10 43,800 for Hampton beach.
11 Now those are the peak weekend scenario population 12 estimates, aren 't they?
- 13 A (Goble) Yes.
}
' And that 's the thrust of your testimony, isn 't it.
14 Q 15 this population?
1G A (Goble) No, I think the testimony deals with the 17 summer beach population of which this peak summer weekend is 18 the worst cace. But there is test imony, both provided by Tom 19 Adler to the Attorney General, and by KLD Associates for the 20 Applicant, that indicates that there is substantial evacuation 21 times for less than peak conditions.
22 Q When your testimony indicates, as I believe it does, 23 that there is inadequate shelter space for the beach 24 population, aren 't you there referring to the peak weekend 25 summer beach population?
7~
(
v
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11472
)
- 1 A (Goble) The comparisons we have done are with the 2 peak summer weekend population. On the other hand, there is 3 substantial shortfalls. So that if you wanted to scale the 4 population figures down significantly, you would still see 5 potential problems.
6 If you look. I think it 's Page 49, we have a summary 7 table.
8 So there is a substantial gap between those peak 9 figures and the space that we have identified as available.
10 Q Your testimony on Page 6 indicates that the summer 11 beach population would have to remain outdoors or in 12 automobiles for many hours while waiting to evacuate.
.-- 13 Did you have a figure in mind in terms of how long a 14 period of time they might have to remain in their cars or 15 outside?
16 A (Goole) Well, the -- the best figures perhaps are 17 the ones provided by Adler in testimony that 's recently been 18 submitted which explicitly deals -- previous testimony has 19 indicated times for clearing the entire emergency planning 20 zone.
21 For the purpoces of this t e s t i mo ny , I thing we 're 22 nost concerned with the amount of time it takes people to 23 travel relatively short distances to get out of the beach 24 areas, and there 's testimony provided by Adler -- there are two 25 sets of calculations. One was filed last fall which 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
d GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11473 4
S i specifically gave times for leaving the beach areas, and then 2 the latest piece of testitrony that was j ust submitted. In each 3 case there are times for clearing the beach, or clearing this 4 region, which are in excess of six hours.
S Q And when you use the word "clearing", you 're talking 6 about removing the last person.
7 A (Goble) That 's right.
8 Q So I take it you --
9 A (Goble) And median numbers, if you like, or 90 10 percent numbers run from four to six hours. He gives a I
11 distribution. You have an essentially immobile traffic jam.
12 Q You would agree that the traffic jam would be smaller
~ _s 13 in time duration when you have a smaller crowd at the beach.
( )
~ (Goble) Yes.
14 A 15 Q So that if you weren 't using a peak summer weekend 16 beach population estimate, but rather, a midweek summer 17 population estimate, the traf fic j ams would be shorter in 18 duration.
19 A (Goble) Well, there 's a problem with that.
20 Q You don 't agree to that?
21 A (Goble) I don 't fully agree. I don 't know how to --
22 let me explain the one difference which is the -- and my 23 recollection f rom Adler 's testinony which should stand on its 24 own rather than my recollection -- the summer weekday 25 evacuation times are compounded by -- a little b3t by numbers
,- s
%_/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888 i
-- - , , , , .n..- - - - - - - - - - - . . - _ .- - - - -
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11474 1 of people working in the general area, so that there 's --
2 there 's not a simple proportionate decrease when you have a 3 smaller beach population. And I don 't remember exactly how it 4 pans out, but summer weekdays also had substantial evacuation 5 times; perhaps a little bit shorter, but it was a small amount 6 shorter, not an enornous amount shorter for presumed beach 7 populations.
8 Q If there were to be a shorter evacuation time 9 estimate than that for the summer weekend beach population, 10 Scenario 1 as presented in the ETE study, would that effect --
11 let me start again.
12 If the evacuation time estimate was to be shorter y 13 than that for a summer weekend beach population, for instance,
)
14 if there was a midweek scenario or an off-season scenario, do 15 you believe that it would still -- well, which of the two 16 protective responses do you believe would be more appropriate.
! 17 sheltering or evacuation?
18 A (Goble) Well, depends on how much -- how much 19 shorter, and I think -- I think a detailed analysis would have 20 to be done to -- and I think in fact it 's a critical question 21 at what level of population you -- with what you can anticipate 22 about possible accidents you would make such a decision. I 23 think it requires a detailed analysis. It requires some 24 modeling.
I 25 Q You 're not able to provide an answer to that right i
1 ,r - t I k_\) !
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4080 ;
1 I i
i i
GOBLE, EV DOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11475 j i
- 0. 1 now; is that correct?
i 2 A (Goble) Well. I certainly -- I certainly would not l 3 wish to provide an answer that would be used as the basis for 4 developing emergency plans. I think it 's a serious problem ;
i 5 that requires a considerable aucunt of analysis. j I
6 I 've done some preliminary analysis, and if you make 7 the time short enough, you 'd rather have people evacuate.
l l 8 Q If you could make the evacuation time short enough? !
t 9 A (Goble) That 's right. l 10 Q Why is that?
11 A (Goble) That 's -- I feel I 've said that someplace, l 12 but that 's because --
- 13 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm sure many times.
(_-)/ 14 Is that really in dispute, that point?
i l
15 MR. TURK: Well --
16 THE WITNESS: (Goble) If you can take --
17 JUDGE SMITH: Wait. I --
i 18 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I 'm sorry. {
19 MR. TURK: Your --
20 JUDGE SMITH: All right, go ahead.
21 MR. TURK: I don 't recall an answer to a queation 22 posed that way.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. If you feel yo'. have to go that 24 way. {
MR. TURK: I think it 's the last question on this 25 f c::)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 W______._. -._. -_- ___ ____ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ __
a GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11476 1 series, Your Honor.
2 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Proceed. You may answer.
4 THE WITNESS: (Goble) If -- the advantage of an 5 evacuation is you 've got people away f rom the highest G concentrations of radioactivity. And if you can do that 7 reasonably expeditiously, and taking -- and if, further, you 're 8 fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of a certain 9 ancunt of warning time, which you sometimes have, then you will 10 get lower exposures for people, so that 's a better thing to do.
11 BY MP. , TURK:
l
, 12 Q You have all had an opportunity now to look at the 13 shelter space that exists in the beach areas; is that correct?
h 14 A (Goble) Well, we 've looked at -- I should let Bob I
15 answer.
16 We have looked at a significant portion of the 17 shelter space. We have not done a comprehensive survey of 18 sheltering space, i 19 Q Do you believe that the shelter space on average for 20 the beach area presents something than a 0.9 protection factor?
21 MS. WEISS: Obj ec t ion. I j ust -- when you say 22 shelter space, are you referring to the publicly accessible 23 buildings as Stone & Webster classified them in their second 24 study, or are you referring to all the buildings on the beach, 6 25 including private cottages?
,~
( T
'J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
i i
GOBLE. EVDOKIMCFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11477 m
l r +.
! O 1 MR. TURK: I thank counsel for the instruction. l 1
l 2 My question said on average the shelter space that t
l j 3 exists in the beach are. j t
'! . 4 MS. WEISS: 'fou mean for all the buildings on i .
5 average?
]
t
- 6 I would just like to understand the question, i 7 JUDGE SMITH
- I think the question is capable of ;
I j 8 creating some uncertainty on the part of the witness. Simply l
l 9 clarify it. Is it all the public -- access to the public and i 10 private, or whatever? l l l 11 MR. TURK: AlI right. Let me see if I can try it !
l i i 12 again. ;
13 BY MR. TURK:
i O 14 Q Dr. Goble, do you have en opinion as to the average I 15 shielding protection offered by the buildings that exist in the 16 beach area, and I'm including all buildings, public and )
I 17 private? !
i l
18 A (Goble) Okay. Averaged over all buildings. I would 19 say that one is -- and I assume the average is proportional to l 20 space available or something. l 21 I would say you are in the range of .9 cloud i
E19 22 shielding factors.
l T20 23 Q Given that consideration, do you believe that it is 24 inappropriate for the State of New Hampshire to consider that l
25 evacuation provides a preferable protective response when f O Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 l l
im-. . - , - . . . _ . . - _ . , . . . . .
1, .
GOBLE, EV DOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11478 i
l 1 cons'idered vis-a-vis sheltering for the summer beach 1
l 2 population?
3 A (Goble) Could you just ctate your question again.
I 4 please?
I
- 5 MR. TURK
- Well, let me ask to have the question i 6 reread by the reporter. )
7 JUDGE SMITH: Read it. please.
8 (Accordingly, the pending question was read ,
E19 9 back by the court reporter.)
10 (Continued on next page.)
11 12 4 {
15
! f f 16 l 17 l l l 18 l l
19 20 1
21 22 l 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I i
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11479 I 1 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I think the main thrust of .
2 our testimony is that it 's inappropriate, and I think that we-3 were aware of that consideration when we wrote the testimony.
4 BY MR. TURK:
5 Q Are you saying then that sheltering in the existing !
6 building in the beach area provides a preferable protective 7 response to evacuation for the summer beach population?
l i
1 8 A (Goble) No. I'm saying that -- what the testimony l 9 is -- what I'm saying i.9 that there is a problem, right? And 1
l 10 the problen is that you have long evacuation times and for the i I I 11 most important accident scenarios people are going to be l 12 exposed to substantial doses of radiation.
- 13 The question is -- this is a problem that is l 14 particular to the Seabrook roactor. So the question is -- the 15 emergency planning question is what do you do about this '
16 problem, and the answer of a six-hour traf fic j am doesn 't seem l l i 17 like a very satisfactory answer. Now --
18 Q Dr. Goble, if you put yourself in the shoes of an 19 emergency planner for the State of New Hampshire, and you have 20 to decide in advance knowing what you know about existing 21 shelter space, which protective response is likely to be {
22 preferable? Which of the two options are you more likely to t '
i 23 choose? l 24 Are you able to answer that?
25 A (Goble) I can answer that with one clarification )
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
% :- - :a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
I
_ _ . .__---.m._. ._ _ -._m .__m.m_-.m_ . - . _ _ . . - - _m _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _
I l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11480 l O
1 which I 'd like to provide myself and see if you can accept,
' I 2 okay?
3 I think there are two issues, and I think they arv 4 both addressed in our testimoay. One issue is what does one do S with -- in the existing situation with the existing plans, and 6 I think our testimony is very clear that under the -- in the 4
7 existing situation with the existing plans, we do not recommend -
8 sheltering at all in this situation, 9 So were the reactor to be operating, were there to be 10 an emergency, were these the plans, I would -- and were T 11 there -- I would, without hesitation, recommend evacuation, but 12 I would not be happy, but I wouldn 't hesitate either, all 13 right?
14 The attempt to implement sheltering in the existinc 15 situation with the existing plans would just create a mess, 16 okay.
I 17 Now if you instead -- so that 's the answer at one 18 level of decision.
3 19 On the other hand, if you ask me would I have done 20 anything different starting in 1980 or so in developing
- 21 emergency plans, then reach this point, the answer is it seems 22 to me, surely something better could have been done.
- 23 (Pause.)
24 BY MR. TURK
! 25 Q Let me focus for a minute. Dr. Goble, also on Page 13 l
lllI ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 629-4880 i
- - , . _ , , - - - - . _ . . , , . - , . _ - . , . - . , - - . . , ~ . _ _
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11401 1 of your testimony, a 2 At the top of that page I believe you 're describing 3 situations in which sheltering, if it were successfully i 4 implemented, would be the most effect protective measure for 1 5 the beach population. And you indicate there at the top of 6 Page 13 that except for accidents involving very small 7 radioactive releases, evacuation, when i t 's f easi' ole, is the
! O preferred protective response.
9 Now in most circumstances that you can imagine, do 10 you believe it would be possible for an emergency planner or 11 responder to predict with reliability the sice of a radioactive 12 release?
13 A CGoble) No.
' ( 14 Q I 'm sorry?
l I
15 A (Goble) No.
l j 1G Q A nd i n mo s t circumstances that you can postulate, do i 17 you believe it would be possible for an emergency planner or l
l 10 responder to predict reliability the duration of the release in l 19 advance of the release?
20 A (Goble) Not to predict reliably. It may be that 21 there may be indications sometimes, i 22 Q As a general rule what do you believe?
23 A (Goble) As a general rule, I believe it 's very 24 difficult to predict either the amount or the duration of 25 release. I t 's no t -- i t 's not, fortunately, an occurrence that j l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-40B0 i
i
--,--eh _ _ _ _ -- em-
S GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11462 l we have very much practical experience with. !
- 1 2 Q In that same paragraph you indicate that the 3 conditions in which sheltering would be preferred to evacuation t l 4 are those in which the accident develops rapidly; that 13.
S situations in which exposure would begin in times that are k
6 short compared to the times that it would take to complete an 7 evacuation.
8 Now tell me if I misunderstand you, but I believe you 9 agree that you cannot predict reliably in advance how long a 10 release may last or how large the release may be, t 11 Now isn 't it a very limited situation where this 12 condition as described in your testimony as I 've now read it 13 would actually exist assuming an accident were to occur?
7-I ( )
'# Well. I think I 've been through this point 14 A (Goble) 15 before. This is a limited situation which however is the crux
- 16 of the problem for emergency planning. This is the situation 17 in which you can hope to do real good by effective emergency !
10 planning, or verges cn it.
! 19 I t 's the serious accidents which happen relatively r
20 quickly are the ones you are of most -- are the ones that pose 21 the most challenge that you 're aest concerned with.
22 Q Dr. Goble, would you agree --
23 JUDGE LINENBERGER : Excuse me. Mr. Turk. I need a j 24 clarification here. ;
i
- 25 With respect to the sentence Mr. Turk was questioning l l
I j Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4000 i l
l t l
A--~_-.-- .. . _ _ _ . .. .. .- - - . , , - -n --
{
1 GOBLE. EV DOK I MOFF'. ECKERT - CROSS 11483
- 1 you about. Dr. Goble, situations that occurs -- the phraseology 2 "situations in which expoaure would begin in times that are 3 short compared to," et cetera. Now when you say exposure would 4 begin. are you talking about the rise time of a source term S pulse, or what do you mer.n by "situations in which exposuro G would begin in times that are short" in the context of the 7 sentence?
8 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. The sentence is I 9 qualitative, is intended to be a qualitative s t a t e me r.t . I hope 10 it reads as such.
11 What I 'm concerned about is not any slow rise of 4
12 exposure. I 'm concerned about will substantial exposures -- a r
13 substantial release of radioactivity, a substantial ancunt of l
i 14 radioactivity actually be encountering people, i
j 15 Now in a -- if you postulate a release that extends i 16 over a very long time that slowly rises, then I 'm not so
! i 17 concerned about the initial first exposure. But the types of 18 accidents that I 'm concerned about are accidents that have --
l 19 that typically are relatively short duration that involve high ;
}
20 releases of radioactivity, or relatively short duration of the 21 bulk of the radioactivity getting out, okay, and i t 's the bulk 22 of the radioactivity that would be released that's of concern 23 to me.
24 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Okay. Your answer was couched in 25 terms of duration of release, and my confusion is all rolled up Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4880 !
l o
ew - e -w . .rw - sr-rw - - - - rmew - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ . _ _ - - - .
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11404 1 in the time it takes the exposure to begin, and perhaps you 2 didn 't mean it quite that way. So, forgive me, let 's go on. ,
3 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay.
4 JUDGE LINENBERGER : Sorry, Mr. Turk, i 5 MR. TURK- No, that raises a good question. Your G Honor.
7 BY MR. TURK -
8 Q And that is, does the testimony need to be amended 9 here to change the word "begin" to something else?
10 A (Goble) Well, if you think i t 's -- if you think it 's t
11 confusing. I could say substantial exposures would begin.
12 Would that be an adequate clarification? l 13 JUDGE LINENBERGER : Does that express your meaning? ;
14 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes. ;
15 JUDGE !.INENBERGER : Don 't change your meaning fcr my 16 benefit.
17 BY MR . TURK i
18 Q As I understand this clarification, what you are 19 saying is if a substantial exposure, or substantial dose would 20 be incurred prior to the time it would take to complete an 21 evacuation, that 's the instance you 're ref erring to as being 22 pre .rable for shelter; is that correct?
i 23 A (Goble) Yes.
24 Q And I believe also that you would agree that i t 's in 25 nest cases not possible to predict reliably whether a 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11485 1 substantial release would be incurred prior to the time it 2 would take to complete an evacuation; in that correct?
3 A (Goble) No, I don 't -- I don 't thi nk that 's quit e 4 right.
S I 'm hesitat ing because 1 'm t rying not to make l G something complicated appear too simple.
7 You have a real concern if you have entered into a 8 core melt and a release has begun or has not begun that there i
9 might be a relatively -- that there might be a large, 10 relatively short duration of release, and i t 's that situation i
li that it is anticiputing that s.tuation even if you can 't be 12 certain that that 's what 's happening that may be appropriate to l
i 13 direct your choice of emergency atrategies, i-14 Q But you agree that 's a limited type of situation.
15 A (Goble) A limited type of situation, but important.
! 16 Q But as a cereral rule then you would continue to 17 believe that it 's dif ficult to predict reliably the amount or i
I 18 duration of a release in advance of that release.
19 A (Goble) That is correct. But the difficulty of l 20 doing it does not mean, it seems to me, that one should exclude 21 those situations from emergency planning. They are in fact the ,
i l 22 problem of emergency planning and you sho .d figure out what 's t 23 t he tro s t effective way of dealing with that situation, with its l
24 at t endant unknowns. ,
25 Q So what y o u wou l d r e c o rrc.e nd then would be that Heritage Reporting Corporatit ri (202) 626-4006 l
1 GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11406 i
i 1 evacuation would be the preferred protective response in most ;
2 cases. However, there are other cases when that 's not true.
3 Am I ris:at so far?
! 4 A (Goble) No, the -- No, what I would recorrmend is ,
5 that a detailed analysis be made of potential accident 1 G characteristics for this reactor at this reactor site, an i
l 'l evaluation of what you can predict to what you cannot predict 0 be made, and a determination of what 's the most effective i
j 9 approach in situations in which it 's certainly true there vi11 Il i 10 be certain amounts of uncertainty.
l l
l 11 And to my knowledge, that analysis has not been l
12 conducted. I certainly have seen no evidence of it, and I 'm 13 not going to guess without something to go on what would be the 14 most corrmanly recorrmended st rat egy once a core melt was begun, i 15 Q So you believe it would be appropriate for the state F
I 1G to consider both options, or at least hold both options in the i
i 17 reserve, depending upon the conditions as they develop; is that l
l 18 correct?
19 A (Goble) I believe that both options require a I 20 thorough evaluation in the 1icht of conditions at Seabrook, and ,
t i
21 I could guess at what the results of such an evaluation would 22 be. I think they could welI be that both options would need to 23 be held in reserve, particularly considering the high 24 variability in the population that 's present. Sometimes you 2$ nave a very large population on the beach. Sometin.es you have e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4t300 r
I
l l
i i
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11487 l s
9 1 quite a small population with the corresponding variation in 2 evacuation time estimates.
I 3 Q In other words, Doctor, you believe that the State of 4 New Hampshire should not rule out using a sheltering option 5 with existing shelters for the beach population; in that 6 correct? l 7 A (Goble) I think it should not be ruled out au part 8 of their planning process. I mean I th$'R that a great deal of 9 planning effort needs to go into considering sheltering as an (
10 option.
- 11 I would certainly not encourage them to consider 12 sheltering to be an option to be carried along in an unplanned-i i 13 for sheltering of the beach population, to be carried along as l
j l 14 an unplanned-for option that might be adopted under unspecified l 15 circumstances.
l I '6 But as part of the preliminary planning process, it I 17 certainly should be considered.
I 18 Q All right.
19 I 'd like to follow up for a noment on something that I 20 Mr. Flynn was asking in his cross-examination.
i 21 At the bottom of Page 15 you describe certain r I
22 circumstances in which sheltering would be the preferred ;
i 23 protective response, and I wasn 't sure how this broke out; 24 whether it was a single situation or two -- I believe in your f 25 response to Mr. Flynn you indicated there were two separate i
f Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4080 l
t i
- - -- - - - - . - - - - - - -- -- _,.--__ - - - ,... . , . --~.---,n - - - . -
.~ ;
l l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMJFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11460 l 9 1 situations considered here.
I 2 Could you paraphrase this for tr.e 30 I get a better !
3 understanding of the thrust of this paragraph?
i 4 A (Goble) Okay. The paragraph has two sentences. One 5 sentence is a discussion -- is a reprise of the previous 6 discussion about severe early accidents. The second cituation 7 introduces a new situation, a less serious release altrost i
0 exclusively of noble gaaes.
t l
I I 9 Q And do I understand in this paragraph, with respect 10 to the first situation which you describe as a rapidly j 11 developing severe accident for which you believe would be
) 12 preferable for people to go to shelter rather than be in their I
) 13 cars or wait outside, you are referring to the shelter na it i
14 exists in the Seabrook beach area?
15 And incidentally, when I use the phrase "Seabrook i
l 16 beach area", I 'm including the whole beach: Harrpton Beach, l 17 Seabrook, et cetera. !
18 A (Goble) Okay.
l 19 Q I assurne you are also.
20 A (Goble) Yes.
21 The s t a t err.e nt is a general .i t a t erno nt t hat 's bet t er --
l
(
l 22 if you 're waiting around, it 's bet ter to be sheltered than not. ,
i 23 I intena it to apply to the Seabrook situation, but that does i
.4 presuppose that you actually - that people get into the
[
)
2's shelters, that they get out of t herm that the process is not t
- i f
j Heritage Reporting Corporation i j (202) 62P-4698 l j i
< i
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11409 l
1 prolonging the evacuation times unduly, et cetera, et cetera, 2 depending on '.he characteristics cf the accident.
l 3 Q Wel1. what 's the bottom line then with respect to
)
j 4 this scenario you describe"?
S Do you believe that with the existing shelter space i
G in the Seabrook beach area that this type of situation would 7 suggest that sheltering would be preferable? !
, 8 A (Goble) All right. The attuation is very simple 9 conceptually, okay? And that 's what I 'm referring to. I t 's 10 very complex to i mp l en.e n t , but the concept is very simple.
11 The delay in evacuation that 's occurring on the beach 12 is essentially entirely waiting in line, waiting for your turn i
i 13 to evacuate. If you could spend that time in a shelter rather O 14 than out in the open or in your car, you would be better off. ,
10 And you would be better off even -- you would be a little bit 16 better off in a 1oor shelter. You would be significantly ;
l
) 17 better off if you were in nuitable shelter.
i l 18 Now the testimony la speaking to the possibility if ,
19 that could be arranged, that woulcs be preferable. And the fact 20 that it's conceptually possible, it seema to me means that the 21 situation should be addressed in the planning process and one l
1, 22 chould figure out to what extent could one take advantage of I
t j 23 the opportunity that there would be to provide shelter to j 24 people who are otherwise simply waiting in line for their turn l 25 to evacuate while a potential release is going on. So that 's l
i l pPriin{e R e p)r t i n g COrpOrat10n l t202) (22 0 - 4 D b 8
. . . . . _ , _ _ _ . , . _ . _ , _ _ , , . _ . - - . _ _, _-m___,_
l l
l l
j GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11490 l
@ 1 the thrust of that sentence. l E21 2 (Continued on next page.)
3 4
S l
G 1
7 8
9 l 1
4 10 i 11 i
12 13
' 14 15 i
. i 1
- 16
- 17 l
18 l
a ;
1 19 i i
1 1 20 !
I i 21 l
22 ,
i 23 i
\ \
24 l 1 l J 25 ,
l I h Heritage Reporting Corporation I
I r
i 1
(202) 628-4008 l
I (
i !
[ .
--.--,,,w.o _, .nn, e-,.~,_,m . wwm,e--o,,r.,,oy __on, e, ~m we- , _ __ - - , - . .p--g<
y . . - ~ ~ .-. . . - -- _- __
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11491 2 1 Q Is it your position, then, that the State should 2 develop instructions to the population, that those people who 3 are able to find. quote. "Suitable shelter." and then ;
4 presumably the State would go on to define what a suitable I
! 5 shelter 13. that those people ',hould wait indoors, other G persons who could not find that so-called suitable shelter 7 should evacuate?
h' 8 A (Goble) You're asking me on the witness stand to
' 9 develop a set of plans which is a reasonably complex 10 undertaking. And my position is that, that such a possibility r
11 ought to have been evaluated. There are a variety of (
12 possibilities that should have been evaluat ed in determining i However, there are quite a few g) i 13 14 protective action responces.
problems in implementation, a number of which are documented in
- 15 our testimony, and I wouldn 't want to give the impression that ,
16 the development of a particular version of this plan is clently '
i, the most appropriate one or that 13 it si..iple to do.
2 l
17
- 10 But I think the opportunity potential provided by ;
I 19 shelters is one that requires more exploration than has been j l
i 20 given to it. ;
i 21 Q Are you aware of whether the State has made that kind j 22 of an analysis as to whether instructions should be given to j i
l l
l 23 people to shelter or not shelter based on the kind of chelter i 24 space they may find available to them? You don 't know?
t l
25 A (Goble) Well. I 've read the plan. Certainly there l i I
i O
! Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
' C202) 62 t1 4 6 f30 i
l >
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11492 1 is -- there are no provisions for doing that in the plans.
2 Q But you don 't know whether that kind of a concept has 3 been considered?
4 A (Goble) The -- I know that -- I know a few things.
5 I know that the State has responded to inquiries that it is not G done -- has not made any attempt to develop -- develop or use 7 models that would compare alternative response strategies to 8 determine what would be more or less effective.
9 Q Based on the type of accident; is that correct?
10 A (Goble) Based on -- vell --
11 Q You 're ref erring -- what you 're saying, as I 12 understand it, is the State has not done an accident specific 13 analysis?
14 A (Goble) To my knowledge, they 've not done any kind 15 of quantitative analysis which can be generic in form by 16 averaging over a possible analyses. They 've not compared 17 protective response strategies.
18 And so to that extent I don 't know -- I don 't know on 19 what other basis they have rej ected pursuing these 20 possibilities, but I know they 've not attempted to do any kind 21 of quantitative comparison of effectiveness of response 22 strategies.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Can we take a break now, Mr. Turk, --
24 MR. TURK - Yes.
25 JUDGE SMITH: -- without disturbing your cluss Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4000
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11493 1 examination. 10 minutes.
2 (Whereupon, a 10 minute recess was taken.)
3 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board 4 is concerned that a great deal of discussion recently with this 5 panel of witnesses, and presumably discussion yet to come with 6 this panel of witnesses leaves the record somewhat confused and 7 somewhat ambiguous with respect to the Board 's att empt in later 8 days to synthesize a decision based on the testimony.
9 Let me be a little more explicit. There are 10 statements -- there is a statement, for example, that the 11 average DRF for an average person shelter space in the beach 12 area is of the order of . 9. Well, I don 't see how that can be 13 so. If it is so, I can see it leading to a contradictory 7 ~s
( )
' ' ' And the record, as it stands now, is certainly not 14 situation.
15 going to shed light on that contradiction.
16 There are statements about gaseous releases, and it 17 is difficult to determine whether, in the context of the 18 answers to certain questions as well as in the context of the 19 questions themselves, whether gaseous releases means strictly 20 that, gaseous, without particulate matter, that can contribute 21 to fallout or whether it includes particulate matter that can 22 contribute to fallout.
23 There are discussions about whether people are better 24 off remaining in their cars for certain periods of time versus 25 better off getting out if they can.
_,l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11494 1 Okay. I think some of the answers to some of those 2 questions are ambiguous in that, if there is no fallout, one 3 situation obtains; if there is fallout, automobile bodies can 4 interdict particulate matter and keep it from settling on the 5 skin of the occupant.
6 There are a host of, forgive me, fuzzy kinds of 7 situation such as this that are going to be awfully difficult 8 to clarify at decision writing time.
9 I j ust make a plea now without going to specific 10 questions, to clarification. I don 't promise not to come back 11 to some of those questions, make a plea now, try both 12 interrogator and panel, try to be as explicit as possible about 13 the assumptions, conditions, circumstances that are subsumed
)
14 within the question and within the answers, 15 Thank you.
16 MR. TURK Your Honor, I 'm going to move down to No.
17 6 on the cross-examination plan.
18 BY MR. TURK:
19 Q Dr. Goble, you indicated in earlier examination here 20 that when you were doing your earlier drafts of testimony you 21 had not yet seen, and I 'm -- or known of NUREG- 1210 ; do you 22 recall that testimony?
23 A (Goble) Yes.
24 Q Now, when did you first become aware of the existence 25 o f N UREG- 1210?
,/
Heritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF , ECKERT - CROSS 11495 1 A (Goble) I don 't recall when I first became aware of 2 its existence. I was -- I was told to read it by my colleagues 3 on the proj ect, and I didn 't get around to reading it until 4 some time late fall of 1987.
5 Q And when you say, you were told to read it by your 6 colleagues, you mean attorneys with Mass. AG?
7 A (Goble) No, I 'm sorry, this -- I thought I said my 8 colleagues working on the Three Mlle Island proj ect.
9 Q So you began reading it in the fall of 1987?
10 A (Goble) That 's correct. Well, late fall, early 11 winter. November, December, some time around then.
12 Q You 've never been trained in using NUREG-1210 by
,- 1 13 members of the NRC staff, have you?
( ' l 14 A (Goble) No.
15 Q Have you ever had conversations with members of the 16 NRC staff or other persons involved in draf ting NUREG-1210 17 about the contents of that document?
18 A (Goble) No. At least not substantive conversations.
19 Q At pages 16 and 17 of your testimony there 's a 20 discussion of NUREG-1210, and you indicated, and I 'm going to 21 quote here: "The strategy is premised on the observation that 2 '4 for most nuclear reactor sites only a few hundred people live 23 within the area of two to three milee from the plant, and 24 therefore that this immediate area can be evacuated on almost 25 all cases before plume arrival," close quote.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11496 S 1 Who provided this part of your testimony? Who 2 drafted that sentence?
3 A (Goble) I think I drafted it. The -- I think I 4 drafted it. I worked -- I worked with Ms. Sneider and it's 5 possible that she altered -- made some suggestion about 6 altering the phrusing sort of thing.
7 Q So that statement, then, is based entirely upon your 8 interpretation of NUREG-1210?
9 A (Goble) That 's correct. And simply from reading it; 10 it 's not based on research as to what the sources in NUREG-11 1210, it 's based on -- simply on what the document says itself.
12 Q How long did you spend reading the document?
-s 13 A (Goble) Well, I 've picked it up and put it down
( )
14 numerous times. I don 't think I can really answer that.
1 15 Q Do you remember how many volumes are in that
)
l 16 document?
s 1 17 A (Goble) Yes, there are five volumes.
18 Q Did you read each volume?
19 A (Goble) Well, I may not have read all of it because 20 I -- what I have done, that 's part of picking it up and putting 21 it down, is to select things that I was particularly concerned [
22 with. We 've used it as a source in doing the planning that ,
23 we 've been doing on the Three Mile Island proj ect. I 've reed 24 most of it.
25 Q On page 17 of your testimony you indicate, and I 'm
/~ s l Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 r
i G - . _ . __ _ , . . - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11497 1 going to read the sentence again, quote: "NUREG-1210 in fact 2 specifically addresses exceptions to its generic assumpticas 3 including the type of situation we are faced with like the 4 Seabrook site, where due to the high density population 5 evacuation before or shortly after plume release is 6 impossible." I think I 've put the emphasis incorrectly. The 7 last portion reads: "Where due to the high density 8 population," perhaps there should be a comma there.
9 A CGoble) Yes.
10 Q "Evacuation before or shortly after plume release is 11 impossible. NUREG-1210 calls this situation entrapment," close 12 quote. Now, who provided that sentence or those two sentences
- 13 in your testimony?
.'~'
)
14 A 'CGoble) Again, I basically wrote the sentences. It 15 has gone through a certain editorial process, I can 't say that 16 no one suggested changes in wording.
17 Q Dr. Goble, if I suggest to you that NUREG-1210 is not 18 premised on nuclear sites having 200 to 300 people within two 19 to three miles of a site, but rather applies generically even 20 to high density population sites, would that change your 21 t es t imony ?
22 A (Goble) No. My testimony is based on my reading of 23 what 's in NUREG- 1210, which I thi nk is pretty clear. Now, 24 perhaps we have this problem of the use of the word "premise."
25 The -- my use of the word merely refers to statements made o
'~-)
f A i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11498 1 in -- statements made in the text that were intended as a basis 2 for conclusions that were drawn. And the text explicitly 3 states that because -- well, I don 't remember the exact quote, 4 but because at most sites only a few hundred people live within 5 two to three miles, therefore, something or another, i t 's in 6 that sense that I 'm using the term "premise. "
7 So -- well, i f -- so to answer your question, I 'm 8 sorry. Your question was, if you told me it wasn 't premised on 9 that would that change my t es t i mo ny . The answer is, first, it 10 wouldn 't change my testimony about the subj ect at hand which is 11 not based on, primarily on 1210.
12 Second, I would be surprised because that does not 13 agree with my recollection of NUREG-1210 i
14 I put a copy of volume four in my briefcase, if you 15 wanted to take a few minutes we could -- I could show you the 16 phrases in it.
17 Q Well, I don 't think that 's necessary right now.
18 Apart from the language that appears in NUREG-1210, 19 you 're not aware of any other interpretations of NUREG-1210, 20 authoritative interpretations which would support your view 21 that NUREG- 1210 would cal l a high population density site to be 22 a site characterized by entrapment, is that correct?
23 A (Goble) That 's correct.
24 May I ask -- well, go ahead.
25 What 's concerning me, ano perhaps I 'm - - I 'm f eeling s /
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11499 1 worried about Judge Linenberger 's remarks, is that we 're 2 getting confused by vocabulary. And I don 't want to -- I don 't 3 want to be put in the position of pushing a particular 4 definition of entrapment.
5 What I 'm concerned about is a situation which I think 6 NUREG-1210 addresses and it 's the situation that I 'm 7 addressing, which is, essential innobility of an exposed 8 population for many hours. That 's the situation we 're talking 9 about.
10 And perhaps the term "entrapment" does not apply to 11 all such situations at which case. That 's all I 'm talking 12 about, is the situation, where you have a population that 's
, 13 essentially immobile for four to six hours or more.
I b
14 Q And t hat 's -- those words don 't appear in NUREG-1210, 15 that 's a situation which you are now applying NUREG-1210 to?
1G A (Goble) That 's -- I don 't think in any of this 17 testimony I 'm apply ing NUREG- 1210. What I 'm t rying to do, and 18 the purpose of introducing this was simply to indicate the 19 relationship between our analysis and NUREG-1210. N UREG - 1210 20 which is a generic documents; talks about situations in which 21 you can have an immobilized population; and indicates that in 22 such situations sheltering needs to be considered in -- at 23 Seabrook, on high beach populations one has an immobilized 24 population. -
25 Q Doctor, I 'd like to discuss, to some extent, the L)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . . . . . . . . , - - - - - - - - _ - - , ~ ~ . . . . . w wev - - __ _ _ - _ww.---. - , . - we
1 GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11500 1 testimony at the bottom of page 17 of your prefiled testimony 2 where you discuss the possible dose reductions that might be i
3 obtained if effective implementation of sheltering were ;
4 possible.
5 Now, I 'd like to ask you, first of all, a rather 6 elementary question I think and that is, do you agree that 7 ground shine doses accumulate with time, assuming that the 8 release -- that plume passage continues over an area?
9 A (Goble) Yes.
10 Q Would you also agree that the longer or that as the 11 time of plume passage is extended, there is a likelihood that 12 additional hot spots of radiation may be created which had not 13 existed earlier in the plume 's passage?
O 14 A (Goble) Yes.
et/22 15 (Continued on next page.)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11501 1 Q Now, if we assume that persons in the beach area go 2 to shelter rather than evacuate, and that the plume 3 continues -- that the release continues over time while people 4 are in shelters, wouldn 't you agree that it 's likely that those 5 persons run an increased chance of incurring doses from ground 6 shine the longer they remain in their shelters?
7 Is that confusing?
8 A (Goble) I fear this is one of these unspecified 9 situations in which I think one needs to do quite a bit of 10 detailed analysis.
11 JUDGE SMITH: You asked a comparative question, but 12 you didn 't give the situation and circumstance to which you 13 compare it, nor for that matter has the witness in his answer.
f J
'~'
14 So ther'e we are.
15 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I haven 't answered it yet.
16 MR. TURK: We 're in a box --
17 JUDGE SMITH: No, I meant the answer that he 's being 18 examined on now.
19 MR. TURK: We 're in the box then that Dr. Linenberger 20 sought to keep us from entering.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
22 MR. TURK : Let 'a see if we can both be --
23 JUDGE SMITH: You 're talking about degrading shelters 24 and increased particulates deposit on the ground. Then you 25 asked him wouldn 't there be a danger of greater exposure.
5 /
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
7 3
j GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11502 1 Greater than what?
2 MR. TURK: Greater with time. That the risk of 3 exposure increases with time, f
4 JUDGE SMITH: Over time.
5 MR. TURK: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I don 't think that 's actually 7 the question you want to ask.
8 MR. TURK: Well, that 's the one I 've asked. Doctor.
4 9 (Laughter.)
10 MR. TURK : Let 's t ry mine first.
11 If there is a problem in your understanding of it, 12 let me know and I 'll see if I can rephrase it.
- 13 JUDGE SMITH: Answer the question if you can. But if 14 you don 't think the question makes sense, explain why.
15 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. The -- well, if the 16 question is will there be more radioactivity outside that 17 somebody might potentially be exposed to later on in the plume 18 passage, the answer to that is yes.
19 MR. TURK: That 's the question I should have asked, 20 Doctor. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay.
22 BY MR. TURK :
23 Q And what we 've been talking about right now has been 24 the ground shine.
25 If we also consider cloud shine, would you agree that i !
~,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ __ - _ _ ~ . _ . . _ . . _ _ _
GOBLE. EVDOKIMCFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11503
(~~T
\~~) 1 the longer the person remains in shelter the more likely it is 2 that his exposure to cloud shine will increase over time while 3 he 's in that shelter?
4 A (Goble) Well, radiation doses are cumulative. So 5 that -- now I want to specify the conditions that we 're talking 6 about.
7 If we imagine a radioactive cloud that has some 8 duration, you receive a dose from the cloud that depends on how 9 much radioactive material is in the cloud at that particular 10 time. But you accumulate doses if -- if the cloud lasts for a 11 period of time, you 've got a dose f rom the first part of the 12 cloud, then a dose from a subsequent part.
13 Now is that what you 're addressing, or are you --
14 Q Well, that 's part of it.
15 A CGoble) Okay.
16 Q And there 's other situations I think you can f airly 17 anticipate, and that is over time the plume is going to be 18 moving a little bit. It 's not going to be stationary in one 19 set direction over exactly the same locations on the ground.
20 Would you agree to that?
21 A CGoble? In most cases, yes.
22 Q So that if someone is in a shelter, which at the 23 beginning of the release may not be close to the cloud, as time 24 goes on there 's a possibility, or the possibility increases 25 that the cloud will move closer to that person.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, , . - . -- - - - - . - , , , , - - - - - - . - ~ . , . - . , .-.---..,,n-- ,,---..-,e- > . - - - , . - - , - ,
-s- , --
1 l
,. i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11504
-- 1 That 's correct, isn 't it?
2 A (Goble) That 's correct.
3 It 's also possible that somebody sitting in a shelter 4 might have the cl.'ud more away from him, right.
S Q I understand.
6 But one other point we should touch on and that is, 7 if you have a situation at Seabrook where there was a low wind 8 speed, let 's say on the order of four miles per hour, do you ,
9 believe it 's likely that the plume will pass in a predictable, 10 straight fashion, or only a limited area of the beach?
11 A (Goble) Well, as the wind speed becomes lower, 12 things become less predictable. Things aren 't very -- and four
,- 13 miles per hour is pretty low in that context.
k' 14 ' Furthernere, the beach itself makes life not very 15 predictable as well.
16 Q The beach what?
17 A (Goble) The fact that you 're on a beach also t 18 introduces additional uncertainties into what you can expect 19 the plume will do.
20 Q Why -- let me see if I understand that.
21 Why are you saying that?
22 A (Goble) Because the meteorology on a shoreline is 23 complicated.
24 That doesn 't sound like an answer. That sounds like 20 a restatement of what I said.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.. . . _ . . , . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , . ~ _ _.- . _ _ -. _ .- .
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11505 1 Q No, I understand you.
2 All right, I 'd like to ask you egain, Dr. Goble, to 3 turn to Page 20 and 21 of your testimony where you list these 4 nine different factors which you believe affect whether or not 5 you could have a successful implementation of a sheltering 6 response for the beach population.
7 And when I look at that list of nine, I see two which 8 I believe are the most important. I would like to see if you 9 would agree with me. Those would be Nos. 2 and 3 on your list:
10 The existence of adequate amounts of sheltering space, and good 11 shielding factors for that sheltering space.
12 Wou ldn 't you agree that those are the two critical
, -~ 13 elements of any determination of whether or not to go to l
' ^ '
14 shelter?
15 A (Goble) Well, I certainly agree that they are 16 critical. I think -- I think implementation of a sheltering 17 strategy requires more than the existence of space and these 18 other issues address implementation.
19 Q And would you also agree that those two factors are 20 ne re important than the other factors listed on Pages 21 and 21 21?
22 In other words, Doctor, if you don 't have shelter to 23 go to, what 's the dif f erence what the rest of the plan for 24 shelter looks like?
25 A (Goble) That 's right.
pr--w L~_)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11506 1 On the other hand if people won 't get into the 2 shelters, what difference does it make how good they are.
3 My instinct as somebody from a technological 4 background is to start with physical facilities. They are 5 things I understand, and so my instinct is simply to agree with 6 you to say Items 2 and 3 are the starting point for an 7 analysis. But in fact I 've done a lot of work with people who 8 always argue with me that it 's not j ust conditions of machines 9 and the environment that 's impor tant , it 's what people will do.
10 And the fact is the sheltering space, the shielding factors by 11 themselves are not enough to protect people.
12 So emotionally I want to agree with you.
,- 13 Intellectually I 'm forced to introduce a bit of hesitation. I
\ l
think these are critical factors. I think the implementation 14 15 which these other issues address is also critical.
16 Q Now in Item No. 3 you use the phrase "good shielding 17 factors".
18 What do you mean by that?
19 A (Goble) Okay. On whatever page it was that I was 20 quizzed on before, I gave some representative figures for what 21 I thought were suitable shielding factors.
22 Q As I recall, your testimony was on the order of 40 to 23 50 percent dose savings?
24 A (Goble) Yeah, of that order.
25 Q One question I guess I should raise in general. At f
~~-
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11507 1 different places in your testimony -- I believe Dr. Goble can 2 answer and if anyone else wants to add, please do.
3 At different places in your testimony there are 4 references to positions which had been expressed by FEMA with 5 respect to beach shelter. And I just want to confirm that your 6 citation to FEMA is essentially a reference to the documents 7 you 've read and your understanding of what FEMA has said based 8 on your reading.
9 A (Goble? That 's correct.
10 Q Is that correct?
11 A (Goble) That 's correct.
12 Q Is that true for the other menibers of the panel?
x 13 A (Eckert) Yes.
t 14 Q And, Dr. Goble, on Page 35 of your testimony you 15 estimate the number of persons in the beach area for the New 1G Hampshire portion of the EPZ to be 70,500. It 's at the bottom 17 of Page 35 And your testimony then goes on to discuss how 18 many shelter spaces would be required for that number of 19 people. And I want to see if I understand something.
20 These are not the number of persons who are on the 21 beach itself. These are persons in the beach area; is that 22 correct?
23 A (Goble) That 's correct.
24 Q And some of those persons would be on the beach, 25 correct?
x _;
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF ECKERT - CROSS 11508 1 A (Goble) Yes.
2 Q And others would be in buildings; is that correct?
3 A (Goble) Presumably, yes.
4 Q And still others might be on sidewalks in the 5 shopping districts; is that correct?
6 A (Goble) That 's correct.
7 Q And some might be in their summer residences.
8 A (Goble) Yes.
9 Q And others might be in their permanent residences if 10 they have them in the beach area; is that correct?
11 A (Goble) It 's a relatively small number, and I 'm not .
12 certain, and the reascn I 'm not certain is thinking about tha s 13 methodology through which these were calculated when people 14 were counting parking spaces, what counted as a pe. dng space.
15 But if parking space is included, parking spaces 16 included driveways of permanent residences, of which there are 17 only a few, then yes; the answer would be yes.
18 JUDGE HARBOUR: Does it include people in their 19 automobiles driving around, or in their vehicles?
20 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Well, I would eay yes. The 21 methodology is one of counting parking spaces and multiplying 22 by vehicle occupancy; a reasonably crude methodology. So that 23 if you are imagining somebody driving around looking for a 24 parking place when every parking place was full, then that 25 would be -- I would say it counts people in vehicles.
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11509 9 1 JUDGE HARBOUR: I wasn 't trying to quiz you. It 's 2 your testimony. I just wanted to find out what you meant by 3 your testimony.
4 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes. Well, that 's right.
5 It 's an approximate number. Most of the people will 6 be on or near the beach.
7 BY MR. TURK:
8 Q I want to turn very briefly to the discussion in your 9 testimony as to the reduction factor that you estimated for 10 available shelter space, and this turns to Dr. Eckert.
11 At the bottom of Page 42 and the top of Page 43 12 there 's a discussion about a reduction factor that was 13 estimated for the percentage of floor space covered by stored 3
()
14 obj ect s and equipment. And then your testimony says that you 15 reduced the square footage by this reduction factor.
16 How did you determine how to estimate this number for 17 each of the buildings you evaluated?
18 A (Eckert) What we did for each building was to take 19 an estimate from each person who was in the field with me on 20 the percentage of floor area that was taken up by obj ects or 21 furnaces, and convert that to a percentage, and then take an 22 agreement on the percentage of that floor space that was taken 23 up. So it was a visual estimate.
24 Q So you estimated approximate floor space taken up by 25 obj ects that were stored there already, and then you simply
\~_/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
h au
.= _ _
i 1
- 1. .
i I
~ '
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11510 i
()
(/ 1 deducted that estimate from the total square footage of the j
l i.
2 shelter. )
)
l 3 A CEckert) Yes, that 's right. l 1
l 4 Q And in doing that I take it you assumed that whatever ,
5 was placed on the floor already would simply remain in place in i 6 the event the building was to be used as a shelter; is that I 1
7 correct? ;
8 A (Eckert) In certain cases, as I 've stated here, we i 9 would assume that the best disposition of that material would l
{
' l 10 be taken by the people moving into the shelter. That is, tha' l
" l
! 11 they might -- in the example I have cited here in the Surf
- 12 Hotel, there are intrusions of bedrock into the basement. And
! - 13 we assume there that stored material would be moved where
\,) l 14 people could not access very well.
l 15 So we used that approach in terms of putting together f
! I i
16 our estimates. ;
r 17 Q Apart from the Surf Hotel basement where you find an ,
i 18 area was not high enough to stand in, did you assume that j l 19 obj ects would be moved over to the side? l 20 A (Eckert) We assunad that the obj ects would perhaps ,
21 be piled in a corner or compressed to yield the most floor i
22 space. ,
L 23 Q Did your people actually estimate how much ;
24 compression they could obtain from moving things ov(r to the [
I 25 side? j Heritage Reporting Corporation t (202) 620-4080 ;
i' L -- - . _ -
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11511
,/~
\~J 1 A CEckert) We didn 't actually test the compression of 2 that. We did take measurements to estimate the percent floor 3 space in a couple of cases to check ourselves.
4 Q So it 's a pretty rough estimate, isn 't it?
5 A CEckert) Yes, it 's a rough estimate.
6 Q Did you assume that obj ects would be placed on top of 7 each other?
8 A CEckert) Yes.
9 Q How high? ;
10 A Well, to the ceiling, or we tried to come up with 11 some reasonable estimate.
I 12 Q Was that a uniform estimate?
. 13 A (Eckert) Well, we had the sene proce. ore in mind .
14 when we made our est. mates. In other words, we ut.--d the same 15 standard that we 'd pile as high as reasonable, and then try to 16 make an estimate from that. >
17 Q Out of curiosity, on Page 46 of the testimony you 18 indicate that the police station would "in any case be
)
l 19 unavailable as a shelter in the event that of an emergency."
20 What do you base that upon?
21 A CEckert) That is based on my personal assessment of 5 22 the situation with the police station. First of all. it is a ;
23 fairly small, crowded building with many rooms, some of which ;
I 24 are unavailable. They are under very tight security there:
! l 25 the ammunition room, evidence room and so forth. l
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation *
> (202) 628-4888
__...,,..-J
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11512 1 So I assumed since that would be -- could 2 potentially be an emergency center of operations, thet it would 3 not be available during the -- you know, during an emergency 4 for the storage of people that need sheltering.
E23 5 (Continued on next page.)
J 6
7 8
9 10 ,
il 12 O 14 15 16 17 I
18 19 l
I l 20 21 22 23 24 25 l l 1
O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1
1 I
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11513
/~N
\,_] 1 Q You don't have any direct knowledge as to whether or 2 not the police officials would permit people in during an 3 emergency, do you?
. 4 A (Eckert) I don 't have direct knowledge of whether 5 they would let people in. I know that the security is tight, 6 and you can't get past the f ront door without a lot of 7 explanation as to who you are.
8 Q That 's in non-emergency situations.
9 A (Eckert) In a non-emergency situation.
10 There is also some information that the police might I
11 not even be there during an emergency. Just how that enters 12 in. I 'm not sure I want to speculate on at this moment.
13 Q I 'd like to explore a little bit again, Dr. Eckert.
O 14 on Page 47 where you discuss the differences between the Stone i
i 15 & Webster estimate of shelter space and your own. And the 16 second question and answer on that page you talk about what you 17 term the majer reasons for these dif ferences.
18 Have you made any breakdown for each of the reasons 4
19 stated in your answer as to how much of the difference is 20 accounted for by each of those categories?
21 A CEckert) I haven 't broken it down exact ly according 22 to those categories. The information is available. It could 23 be broken down that way.
24 Q Do you recall which of these different categories 25 accounted for the most significant difference between your Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11514 1 estimate and Stone & Webster 's estimate?
2 A CEckert) I would say that, and this is based on the i 3 first analysis, that it 's the inclusion of private space 4 misidentified as public space in the buildings.
5 Q And what are you referring to there? Are you 6 referring to whole buildings which --
. 7 A CEckert) In some cases whole buildings were 8 identified. In some cases private living areas. It would be 9 perhaps a tie, though, with inappropriate wood-framed 10 structures that were identified as shelters.
11 Remember, according to their definition of what-they 12 were seeking were masonry and basements, and we found a lot of 13 the places were actually wood frame.
O 14 MR. TURK: Your Honor, may I have a moment?
15 JUDGE SMITH: Certainly.
16 MR. TURK : I 've moved on to Page 2 of the cross-l 17 examination outline. I hope I can eliminate a bit of this
. 18 based on Mr. Lewald 's prior examination.
19 CPause.) ,
i 20 BY MR. TURK :
j 21 Q Dr. Eckert, I 'd like to move to consideration of [
t 22 Massachusetts AG 's Exhibit 19, which is the survey response you p i
23 obtained, and we did have some questioning on that earlier 24 today.
25 MS. SNEIDER: Excuse me. Your Honor '<ould this be O Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
l (202) 628-4888 .
1 1
. - - - . . - , - . - - - - . . . - , , . - -.-.-n._..n..._.,---. .-_,_-.,-.~,.-...--,_...,,-,,,.,.--n,-, - , -
l'
- i I
i i
i I GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11515 !
j i -
1 an appropriate time. I do have those missing pages now to hand 1^
l 4
2 that out? ;
5 ,
j 3 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I 'm af raid we have some bad news I
! 4 for you. We 're going to send you back for some more work. We i
- 5 think that a clean copy of Exhibit 19 with numbers on it should ;
, 6 be prepared and substituted, because it 's going to be very f
+
1 l 7 difficult to have proposed findings.
t j 8 So, in cooperation with -- well, I guess it 's really
- [
i i
) 9 your burden -- that the page numbers should be the same as the f i
- 10 page numbers provided by the Applicant, but they should be l I
11 clean, because otherwise proposed findings will be very i I !
! 12 difficult, t
' I 13 MS. SNEIDER: That 's fine, Your Honor, i O 14 I just thought it might be helpful, at least for the {
I i l 15 convenience of the parties now to at 1. east -- l 1 ;
16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, if you want to do it now for the j l I
! 17 purpose of this -- l.
18 MS. SNEIDER: And I 'l l resubmit it as soon as I get 4 i
, 19 back to Boston an entire new, complete copy with page numbers, j i
t !
20 JUDGE SMITH: That 's good. That 's fine. :
, )
i 21 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, we haven 't yet seen it, and i to just introduce it without some prefiling, short as it may !
i 22 i
h j 23 be, seems to be somewhat of a -- _
' I 24 JUDGE SMITH: These are just clean sheets. j
]
i j 25 MR. DIGNAN: These are new. j
()
}
Heritage Reporting Corporat ion j (202) 628-4888 :
l i
' GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11516 !
1 MR. LEWALD: These are new?
i
. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, we misunderstood that. We were i t 3 talking --
- 4 MR. DIGNAN: We understand these are new sheetc that !
- j. S were not included in the prefiled testimony nor included in the ;
i 6 offer at the time it went i n.
7 JUDGE SMITH: These are new additional sheets, ;
l i (
! 8 additional survey. We didn 't understand that. ;
9 MS. SNEIDER: The testimony refers to 152 responses.
I 10 When Dr. Eckert was going through the attachment with the i i t 11 numbered pages at lunchtime today, he realized that it didn't l l
i 12 include 152 I don 't know how that happened. So during lunch j l
j 13 we went through, found the missing responses, and made copies l 14 of those responses. And I apologize that it happened, l
i !
1 15 JUDGE SMITH: How many new ones do you have?
i !
! 16 MR. LEWALD: Sixteen, probably. t k
i
- 17 MS. SNEIDER
- The 1G respenses from establishments ;
' i
' 18 that weren 't included. There is also two establishments that !
t j 19 filed two responses. [
i I 20 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, well -- j 21 MS. SNEIDER: So there is 18 pieces of -- 18 survey 22 responses.
23 JUDGE SMITH: You provide those to the other parties i l
) 24 so they can examine them overnight, because we 're not going to l
1 2S be done with this panel tonight, obviously. And then after all -
) i j Heritage Reporting Corporation !
~
(202) 628-4888 i e
J i !
l >
i i
i GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11517 I 1 that is done and if there is no particular problems with the 2 new sheets, then we will have a new Exhibit 19 including them, 3 and nn > red, and everything. Okay.
4 Well, the new will necessarily have to be put at the 5 end even though they may be out of sequence because of the 6 cross-examination on the nuaibers earlier.
7 We also noted that during the examination the copies 8 with numbers on them provided by counsel for the Applicant did 9 not have all of the information that the original --
10 MR. LEWALD: That --
11 JUDGE SMITH: -- Exhibit 19. However -- let me 12 finish -- none of the missing information was the subj ect of 13 any cross-examination. So we see no significance to it.
l, }
\' -
14 MR. DIGNAN: What happened, Your Honor, when the 1
15 copying instructions were given, the people were instructed, l
16 for our purposes, to copy the front and those backs where 17 comment s were writ t en, t
18 But, in addition, as I understand it, on the backs 19 were some additional information giving I think the name of the 20 establishments is what I think it is, and we didn 't ask them to 21 bother copying for that for our purposes.
22 JUDGE LINENBERGER: That 's another category of l 23 mistaatch in that, for exemple, checking the bound copy I count 24 in two pages, including the cover page, and I read some 25 information at the very bottom here on the front side that is f :
.< ~x (
(w_/ ! i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-48H8
}
l
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11518 f
} 1 not reproduced at the very bottom of the numbered pages, i
2 In other words, not only were the backs of some pages j i'
3 not copied, but the bottoms of some pages of the front side I
4 were not copied. t 5 MR. DIGNAN: Is this the one that 's numbered Page 2, !
I' 6 Doctor, and it came up short on the last line -- !
l 7 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Yes, sir. 1 I
8 MR. DIGNAN: -- of the handwriting? {
9 I see that, i
10 JUDGE LINENBERGER: And I don 't know if it 's the only ;
i 11 one, I just happened to spot that one.
12 JUDGE SMITH: But as it turns out, it doesn 't matter; 13 it doesn't matter.
{
( 14 So if we just get the new ones in and we have them i
15 nunbered, we 'll be all right. l 16 MR. DIGNAN: I think it was short in the original I
17 copy was what our problem was. ;
I 18 JUDGE SMITH: No, he 's observing situations where the j
! 19 original copy contained information that your copy did not.
\
I
- 20 But in any event, it never was covered, it was not the subj ect 21 of cross-examination, so it doesn 't matter.
22 MR. TURK: Your Honor, while we are noting procedural e
)
23 matters. I want to note that I would like to raise a scheduling i 24 issue before we leave today, and I would like to reserve about 25 five or 10 minutes to talk about the rest of the schedule for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
?
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11519
( 1 the week.
2 JUDGE SMITH: That would be fine. That would be J
3 helpful. !
l 4 MR. TURK: Would this be a good place to break, or do I
5 you want me to continue at.ather 15 minutes?
- I 6 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think you ought to continue, j 7 MR. TURK : All right.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Then we 'll take a few minutes about 9 five o ' clock to let the reporter go, and then we 'll talk about 10 scheduling.
11 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, 1 -- part of that scheduling 12 discussion may spill into something that I would like at least 13 to have on the record.
([]) 14 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
i 15 BY MR. TURK:
i 16 Q Dr. Eckert. I'm going to direct these questions to l 17 you, and would start off by asking you whether the whole point I 18 of this, and some questioning did go on about this earlier by 19 Mr. Lewald.
20 As I understand the purpose of this survey, it was to f 21 determine whether the respondents were agreeable to having 22 their businesses, their buildings used as shelter in the event 23 of an emergency; is that correct?
24 A CEckert) I would say that the major reason for doing 25 the survey was to find out the attitudes of those owners, yes.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation >
(202) 628-4888 I
i i ,
7 j
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11520 1 Q Now, if a respondent believed that his building was L
j 2 not suitable as a shelter, might that not affect his response y
! 3 to whether or not he 'd be willing to have his building used as
- 4 a shelter?
i 5 A (Eckert) I don 't know that. I would assume so on a 1
6 personal level. But professionally, I really can 't comment on l 7 what a person 's view of a shelter -- how that might af fec.t how j j a 8 he would answer the survey.
l {
l
! 9 Q But wouldn 't you ' st as a matter of common sense 10 that if there 's a hypothetical person who believed is building i
i 11 was inappropriate for shelter, that he would indicate, no, I 'm
{
12 not going to make this available for shelter; isn 't that true? l i
13 A CEckerti An a matter of common sense. I can see that j 14 happening.
15 Q And nowhere in this survey questionnaire that went i 16 out to the respondents was it indicated what the definition of 17 shelter was, or the circumstances in which the building might j 18 be used as shelter. f i
19 That 's cor ect. isn 't it?
20 A (Eckert) Well, we indicated in terms of the 21 circumstances that it would be a radiological emergency. We l t
22 did ask in Question 2 about the masonry walls and so forth 23 which gives a perception of she1ter that was de1ivered by Stone l i
24 & Webster. >
25 So there is at least. I think, an image in there of O Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 g
[
l i'
I' i l I- -
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11521 l l.
1 shelter.
I 2 Q And do you believe that the respondents understood 3 correctly the use to wnich it had been proposed that their
, t 4 buildings be used as a shelter? l I
5 MS, WEISS: Obj ec t ion. He 's asking for pure j 6 speculation. And beyond that, this witness has said many times i l
7 that human behavior is not his area of expertise. ;
I 8 MR. TURK: I think the question can be answered by i i
e 9 the witness. l t
10 MS. WEISS: I 'm sure that he could answer it. I 7 i
don 't think that it would be meaningful or probative. !
11 l I
12 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled.
13 You ney answer. ,
i 14 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I 'm sorry. I can answer the i t
I 15 question. Okay. >
l l 16 Probably you 'd better restate the question. t i
17 MR. TURK : To make it easier, let me ask for a j 18 reading. Your Honor.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Would you read it back, please? -
L 20 (Accordingly, the pending question was read [
l 21 back by the court reporter.) j E24 22 (Continued on next page.)
t I 23 g 24 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation [
(202) 628-4888 i f
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11522 5 1 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I guess the answer to that 2 would be, and this is more of a personal opinion, that the !
3 person who read this would get the understanding that their 4 space had been proposed for use as a sheltering, you know. In a i- S radiological emergency and that people would be coming to their 6 place potentially and seeking shelter. And I think that 's the 7 image that we really wanted to convey, was one that people 8 might come and they might want to shelter during a radiological 9 release-of some kind.
10 I believe that 's the image they got; that 's as f ar as 11 I can go with that. .
i 12 BY MR. TURK:
13 Q That 's the extent of the image that 's presented in O 14 the survey form, isn 't that right?
, 15 A (Eckert) I believe so, yes.
l
- 16 Q Now, if you turn to number page 10 which is the 17 Voyager Motor Lodge, Hampton Beach, thst 's the current ;
i 18 numbering system, I recognize that tomorrow we 'll have a different set of numbers, possibly. !
19 20 Do you see that response?
1 l 21 A (Eckert) Yes, I do, a
1 22 Q And in answer to Question No. 4 the respondent said, 23 no, they would not let people into their building in the event 24 of a radiation release at Seabrook, do you see that? ^
i 25 A (Eckert) Yes, I do. :
i Heritage Reporting Corporation '
(202) 628-4888 I
9
-e =- -_e-- --,,-r-gwm, ww r -,-+-c-----m-wc. rw-.m,w--w,--,c,--ry - ,w,v- -------w,-w,,,r-,, -
-,TY-----v'--we - ' ' ' 'vf-
1 GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11523 ,
} 1 Q And then on the back side of that form the respondent 2 apperently wrote the following sentence, quote: "Our first 3 responsibility is to our patrons, and we would be hard pressed 4 to provide shelter for them. We would have no extra space for 5 any other people." close quote. Did I read that correctly?
6 A CEckert) Yes, you did.
7 Q Now, as I read that statement I get a feeling that 8 the respondent didn 't really understand the use to which his 9 building had been proposed to be used as shelter. Do you have
, t 10 an impression on that?
11 A (Eckert) Well, I really -- I can 't comment on the ,
l 12 person 's understanding, number one.
13 Number two, a written in response was not counted in O 14 our survey results. We intended and did only use answers to !
10 our questions. And I guess I 'd have to read this and think 16 about it a little bit to see if I really did come to an ,
17 understanding of what the person was talking about here.
i 18 Q Well, we know it 's a motel, it 's the Voyager Motor 19 Lodge? ,
l 20 A CEckert) Right. ,
i 21 Q We know that the patrons of that motor lodge are i
22 people who use the facility either for -- as a motel room or if ;
j 23 there 's a restaurant, possibly in the restaurant; isn 't that j 24 right?
25 A (Eckert) Yes. [
t Heritage Reporting Corporation t (202) 628-4888
--n e - .,. ,--y, n.,-m.e,.._-,,_-_.,r,,,_qy_m.-_,,__,-w_,,_,.ne__.,_,__,_--n _
,,-,-, _ - _ ,_v, ,,,,-m , ~ ~ , _ , -, _ , _ . , . , , . , .
4
! GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11524
- j. 1 Q We know that those people do have space to use'the i
2 facility in normal circumstances; isn 't that right?
1 3 A (Eckert) Yes.
- 4 Q And we know that as the concept of shelter is being h
j 5 used, at least from the Stone & Webster study, it 's not that
- 1 6 people be housed for long period of time or any extraordinary !
l 7 efforts be made to take ca7e of people, it 's simply that they i
j 8 stay indoors; isn't that correct?
9 A (Eckert) That 's my impression, yes.
10 Q But this respondent doesn 't have that same 11 understanding -- l l
l 12 MS. WEISS: Obj ect ion.
I i 13 BY MR. TURK: l
)
-- wouldn 't you agree? !
14 Q 15 MS. WEISS: Obj ec t ion. I don 't think that that is I
16 apparent at all on the f ace of that response.
17 MR. TURK: Well, let 's see if the witness can answer I
18 it.
l 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, if that 's the basis of your i i
20 obj ect ion, your obj ection is as obj ectionable as -- !
21 MS. WEISS: There 's no foundation for the question. l 22 The question assumes that that responder had a particular thing 23 in their head and it 's ceriainly not clear that that 's what l l
24 they had. In fact, I would say it 's the opposite. i 2b JUDGE SMITH: I think that, unless you can l
0 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
I i
i i
?
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11525 l
} 1 demonstrate what relevance his interpretation is of this, the 2 obj ection should be sustained. It does not preclude you from i
! 3 arguing that inference in your proposed findings. But unless f 4 you can link it to something that lua did and transfer that into
[ 5 his testimony, the obj ection should be sustained.
6 MR. TURK : Well, Your Honor, the point of the I
1 l 7 testimony is an assertion before you that the business owners l 8 and managers in the beach area will not permit their ,
1 9 buildings -- ;
10 JUDGE SMITH: I understand that. !
l 11 MR. TURK: -- to be used as shelter.. And that --
I j l
l 12 believe that presumes that the respondents to this survey 13 understood what it was that they 're being asked to do.
14 JUDGE SMITH: No question.
15 MR. TURK: And I believe it would be important if the j 16 proponent of the survey and the testimony could give us his f 6
17 best opinion on whether or not there was a good understanding !
18 by the respondents sufficient to support the assertion of his 19 testimony, t
20 JUDGE SMITH: But when you get him -- no matter how j 21 his answer comes out here, what are you going to do with it?
22 How does that enhance his testimony or detract from it or l
[
23 anything else? Unless you can translate that -- unless you can !
24 carry that over to some -- how would it -- would it change his (
t i
25 decision; are you arguing that, would it change his testimony? j i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u,,.- .. . . , , , , , , . . , , , . . , , _ . .. . . . . .
i GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - CRCSS 11526
} 1 MR. TURK: I need to ask him that question.
2 MS, SNEIDER: Your Honor, I have another problem with 3 Mr. Turk 's question and that is. Mr. Turk isn 't . clarifying in :
4 what way the sheltering response that would be recommended ;
.5 differs from what is proposed here in the survey. So when he 's 6 talking about an understanding of sheltering I don't think 7 we 're clear at all what Mr. Turk is referring to.
-l Mr. Turk, I -- ;
8 JUDGE SMITH:
9 MR. TURK: I didn 't understand that last comment from 10 the Mass. AG 's of fice, Your Honor. I understand the Board 's ,
11 indication that argument can be made when proposeo findings are 12 filed on this matter. ,
13 JUDGE SMITH: She 's questioning what is the basis of ;
O 14 your assumptions that the nature -- assumptions as to the 15 nature of the shelter anticipated in your question. Your ;
i 16 question, as I understand it, would have us infer from this ;
i 17 response that the Voyager Motor Lodge is anticipating a long-18 term sheltering such as a registered guest might have as 19 compared to shorter-term sheltering as envisioned elsewhere, 20 even in their testimony. Is that --
21 MR. TURK: Which they understood previously to be !
22 shelter for a period of several hours.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Right. Now, Ms. Sneider wants to know.
24 where did you get that several hours?
25 MS. SNEIDER: Well, I would j ust like to point out l Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 626-4888 ,
I GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11527 1
) 1 that the top of-the survey form says, "Sheltering would be for 2 a short period of time, possibly three to six hours."
3 MS. WEISS: There are many possible interpretations 4 of that person 's response. At least two which I could think of 5 that are perfectly consistent, and I think are most plausibly 6 consistent with correct understanding of shelter; and that 's !
i 7 why I obj ect to this question. It assumes some inconsistency .[
i 8 that hasn 't been established, and to which this witness i 9 certainly can't testify.
10 JUDGE SMITH: I think it 's -- I think it 's all 11 argument from this unless -- you still have not yet 12 demonstrated how this witness has used this information in his ,
i 13 testimony, in his opinion, and how, if you convince him, that l 14 that information was interpreted incorrectly, it changes 15 anything as compared to arguing to us.
16 MR. TURK : All right.
I 17 JUDGE SMITH: Based upon what we know generally about ,
18 life in motels.
19 MR. TURK: Let me see if I can ask a clarifying --
20 Claughter) l I
21 MR. TURK: Ms. Weiss --
22 JUDGE SMITH: We 've become very expert at checking in 23 with no luggage. We have honest faces, they believe us.
24 (Laughter) .
25 MR. TURK: Your Honor, let me see if I can ask a ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11528 y (m I
\s-) 1 clarifying question. !
-l BY MR. TURK: ;
2 t
3 Q Dr. Eckert, I believe you indicated a few minutes ago 4 that you did not consider the information written on to these k t
5 response forne in your survey results, other than the responses j 6 to the questions themselves, the check marks? l l
7 A (Eckert) That 's correct. .
8 Q So that, for instance, on this document you didn't l 9 take into consideration the quotation which I read previously i i
10 about. "Our first responsibility is to our patrons, et cetera?" j 11 A CEckert) No, because we 're using tabulated data from 12 these answers.
- 13 Q So, it 's correct then that you did not consider this 14 information?
15 A CEckert) That 's correct. It 's available --
16 Q How did you treat the response to this Question No. 4 ,
i 17 for the Voyager? j 18 A (Eckert) I treated it by entering it as one of many 19 observations to come up with some overall inferences about the 20 data set. So it 's only one of 152 observations that we used. ,
i 21 Q And you accepted the check mark to the -- in the l 22 space marked "no" next to Question No. 4 -- you treated it as a 23 "no?" !
24 A (Eckert) That 's correct. f i
25 Q On the back of this sheet, wouldn 't you agree that {
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) G28-4888 l
---__---_\
f
-l l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11529 1 the Voyager Motel is indicating that they have space to shelter 2 their own patrons?
3 A (Eckert) They 're indicating that on the back of the -
I 4 sheet.
5 Q So aren 't they, in effect, telling you that they will 6 she'. ter the people whom they 're already providing lodging for?
7 A (Eckert) They may be, but that wasn 't part of, you 8 know, the interpretation of our actual data analysis. l 9 Q You didn 't consider that statement then in your 1
10 results?
11 A CEckert) That 's correct.
l 12 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I need to consider whether I'm 13 going to pursue the line of questions about these different
- j. 14 responses in light of the Board 's instruction. Since it's --
! l 15 and that 's the instruction concerning this really being 5 l
16 argument. l 17 JUDGE SMITH: Well, if you can convince him that he 18 scored that incorrect 1y, that 's ant ther matter. I 'm j ust 19 saying -- but unless that is your obj ective, unless that is 20 something to -- .
I 21 MR. TURK: I think I 've taken enough time today l l
22 without dragging this out further, I 'd like to think about it 1 23 tonight and come back -- j 24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think that considering the quantity of the record and the value of an individual possible
~
25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11530 1 change in answer. I hope you 'll take that into account.
2 MR. TURK: Yes, I will. I also note that it 's 10 to 3 5:00 and I did want to get into some scheduling discussions.
4 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
5 MR. TURK: So if we could break for the evening.
6 JUDGE SMITH: No, we want the scheduling discussion 7 on the record. j 8 MR. TURK: Yes. '
9 MR. DIGNAN: I don 't care about the whole scheduling 10 discussion being on the record, let me tell you what I 'd like 11 on the record. Your Honor, and we can get that out of the way, 12 maybe, and then -- or at the Board 's pleasure.
13 As I understand we left things this morning vis-a-vis g-
~'
14 Mr. Thomas. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth was to 15 inform the Board as to whether or not the Commonwealth wanted a
- 16 subpoena to issue for Mr. Thomas. Now, I don 't know whether 17 they made their mind up on that or not. j e 18 I also heard the Chairman indicated that the Board 19 had said that it may want Mr. Thomas for its own reasons, which 20 would, I assumed perhaps incorrectly, meant that the Board ,
21 might be thinking if there is no request for a subpoena the l 22 Board may issue one.
4 23 All I 'm asking the Board to do is, let 's quickly
. 24 settle it. If the Commonwealth doesn 't want him. fine. Then 25 let 's find out, does the Board want him. Let 's get the I
(:) Reporting Corporation s
Heritage 3 (202) G28-4888 i
j 1 .
I i
I j GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKtRT - CROSS 11531 1 subpoena out and get it rolling. Because what I don 't want to 2 have happen is the thing to just delay while people decide j 3 whether or not they 're going to subpoena Mr. Thomas.
4 I have no intention of asking for o subpoena for Mr. l 5 Thomas. I don 't believe Mr. Flynn does. I don 't believe Mr.
};
6 Turk does. I don 't know what Mr. Brock is thinking about, i 7 But why don 't -- if anybody wants the subpoena 8 including the Board let 's kick it out tonight and get the ball i
9 rolling otherwise it might intrigue the Board that I was f f '
i
! 10 interested that the Board was not going to definitely work next i i
' l 11 Monday, there 's a reason for that. It happens to be my .
12 birthday. It is also to the day, the 14th anniversary of the 13 first time I walked into en AEC hearing room on behalf of l O 14 Seabrook. And it is my fervent hope there will be no 15th i
15 anniversary.
16 MS. WEISS: Tom, you 've used that --
17 JUDGE SMITH: Or 28th. I 18 MS. WEISS: Tom, you 've used that same line 13 cf 19 those 14 --
20 MR. DIGNAN: And as a result I would just like to see 21 that Thoaas thing come to sone conclusion. If Mr. Thomas is .
I 22 not going to appear voluntarily or that should be the running l l
23 assumption, let 's get the subpoena out and let whatever action j 24 any counsel is going to represent is going to take. And that j 25 was my only purpose in requesting that to be moved along rather }
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4088 I
I
. . .. i
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11532 O(s / 1 than to leave it in limbo.
2 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we stated that the party, and I 3 might say, party and entity with the greatest interest in 4 having Mr. Thomas appear is the Intervenors. The Board 5 indicated in our telephone hearing conference that we required 6 the attendance of quite a few people including Mr. Thomas, but ;
7 that was as a package to resolve all pending cotions before us, 8 and what we believe to be a fair approach to it for all 9 parties.
10 In addition, we did believe that there was the 11 Board 's own direct interest in the quality of the record or let 12 me say, the integrity of the -- the integrity of the record, 1
13 and our responsibility to protect it. That we believed would 14 require the appearance of additional witnesses other than Mr.
15 Thomas.
16 We get back to Mr. Thomas because we think that if 17 that 's going to heppen it 's only f air that he be . informed that 18 these things are happening and be here. So that 's how the 19 Board 's interest gets here. The Board does not know whether we
- 20 would, on our own, require Mr. Thomas without the urging of the 21 Intervenors.
r 22 MR. DIGNAN: Well, could we --
23 JUDGE SMITH: Perhaps not. Probably not.
24 MR. DIGNAN: Could we get a deadline set for when the i
25 Intervenors are to inform you as to whether they want that j r t Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
f (202) 628-4888 :
l i
I l I i
1 - _ .
4 I
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS .11533
- j. 2 JUDGE SMITH: I can 't imagine you don 't want Mr.
I 3 Thomas. I mean. -don 't you --
4 MR. OLESKEY: I had said this morning that we wanted a
5 to talk to Mr. Thomas' attorney to see what he was advising Mr.
6 Thomas. I don 't yet know if Mr. Thomas has an attorney. .
l 7 MR. DIGNAN: That 's my problem. I have reason to 8 believe he doesn 't yet have an attorney, that he 's still j i
j 9 thinking about it, and it may be in his interest to think about !
1 And I just want a deadline for I 10 it a long time, for all I know.
l i
11 when a subpoena is going to be demanded and let 's get it out if ;
12 we 're going to have one rather than two weeks f rom now Thomas f i
13 picks his lawyer, a week after that the Attorney General makes :
O 14 his decision, and then we get a subpoena, we get an argument i
15 about a subpoena and before you know it we 're in the month of l 16 July dealing with Mr. Thomas.
17 MR. OLESKEY: The Intervenors have not -- never put c
18 Mr. Thomas under the gun in this hearing; I 'm not going to put l
19 him under the gun now. j t 1 20 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I 'll put him under the gun.
21 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, I think you 're trying to do that, !
i 22 counsel, very ably.
23 MR. DIGNAN: I want to put him under the gun on.at 24 least getting it settled whether a subpoena is going to be f 25 asked for it on him, and issued, and get the ball rolling.
! O Heritage Reporting Corporation C202) 628-4888
[
l
l !e i
! GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11534 {
() 11 MR. OLESKEY: In addition, .Your Honor. I want to see t
{ 2 personally. I don't know how the other Intervenors f eel, what
(
l 3 my j udgment is when we finish the cross-examination of Mr. t, F
4 Bores and Mr. Lazarus. There may not'be material differences t i
i 5 between the positions when that happens. !
6 MR. TURK: Would you like an attorney comment on f
{
7 that? !
8 MS. WEISS: No.
9 MR. OLESKEY: No. Frankly, no. {
t 10 JUDGE SMITH: The subpoena of Mr. Thomas should be l t
il looked at f rom the point of view of scheduling, not from the {
t 12 point of view of Mr. Thomas ' problems and that type of thing, i 13 but strictly scheduling. Any subpoena we 'd issue I 'm sure is [
O- 14 not going to hurt anybody 's f eelings; that 's j ust the way I
j i
15 hearings and trials are run, we try to assure that the schedule j t
16 will remain intact and that Mr. Thones may even prefer a l t
17 . subpoena so it is clear that he is not appearing here as an !
{
18 interloper in another matter, I don 't know. !
l 19 It is neutral. A subpoena is neutral as far any i 20 indication. All it does is allow us to schedule the hearing.
21 If you think that there 's a substantial possibility that you 're 22 going to want Mr. Thones ' views on these matters, as Mr. Backus 23 did -- no. I 'm sorry, Mr. -- who moved -- Mr. Brock moved to -- l 24 do you still have a motion pending to depose Mr. Thomas? That 25 motion is denied because it is subsumed by our other order that l
t I
Heritage Reporting Corporation {
(202) 628-4888 :
l r
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11535 1 we would have him come to the hearing. So you don 't have I 2 anything unless you get Thones to this hearing. l 3 I think you 're in a situation where you should have a 4 subpoena for him, so that he has enough time. So the rules l
} 5 provide that he has to have a subpoena and enough time to move 6 to quash. And so that clock should start running.
7 MR. OLESKEY: I 'm not prepared to make that decision j 8 tonight. Judge, personally.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, would you make it soon. I mean, !
10 tomorrow morning.
11 MR. OLESKEY: Soon as --
12 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm missing something, what are the l
13 factors? r O 14 MR. OLESKEY: I 've given you the two f actors in my 15 mind. I can 't --
i i
16 JUDGE SMITH: Tell me again.
17 MR. OLESKEY: I said this morning and I say again, ,
4 18 that now that FEMA has agreed to pay for a lawyer for Mr.
19 Thomas I wan' to do Mr. Thones and his lawyer the courtesy of .
20 consulting with him to see what advice the lawyer is going to l
2 .
j.
21 give Mr. Thomas about appearance here. ,
22 Secondly. I want to see what my judgment is when Mr. ;
i i 23 Bores and Lazarus are through testifying on cross-examination, ;
24 because when the motion was filed for further deposition j 25 testimony it wasn 't apparent to me that we 'd have the f 1
i Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
i (202) 628-4888 l l
i :
- l 1
i GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11536 j O l
- V 1 opportunity to interrogate those two gentlemen here, which we i l 2 now have.
i 3 MR. DIGNAN: Could I comment on that, thase two ;
4 reasons. The first reason is, if Mr. Thomas is going to have a l 5 lawyer who will tell Mr. Oleskey what his advice to his client 6 is going to be in this matter before he executes it, he better t
7 think about another lawyer. But wholly apart from that, it l 8 seems to me this question of Mr. Bores and Mr. Lazarus is easy.
9 you put the subpoena out and if at the end of the Bores and j 10 Lazarus they don 't want him, you j ust say to the Court. I don 't 11 wish to 9xecute on the subpoena and he doesn't have to come.
12 I'm interested in one thing, getting a clock running 13 because -- }
O 14 JUDGE SMITH: That 's right --
l 15 MR. DIGNAN: -- as Your Honor has pointed out.
l 16 there 's a due process provision that is going to take some time !
l 17 anyway in this subpoena and I want to get that clock moving. l 18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. As far as courtesy to the lawyer j and Mr. Thomas is concerned I appreciate that, that 's a good l 19 l
20 thing to do. But if you were under the gun to issue a j 21 subpoena, and he 's certainly going to understand that for 22 scheduling purposes we have required you to act. and that you j i
23 don 't -- for that reason you really don't have much choice if 24 you 're going to be conservative in protecting your litigation 25 down the roao.
o Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888
{
i
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11537 1 I mean. I don't really think that you, practically 2 speaking, have a choice, and certainly nothing to apologize to 3 Mr. Thomas about, you are under the gun on that.
4 MR. OLESKEY: I 'm sure that we will -- the 5 Intervenors will discuss this, this evening, Your Honor, and 6 we 'l l t ake it up --
7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we 'll have a report first order 8 of business tomorrow morning, please.
9 MR. OLESKEY: Certainly.
10 MR. TURK : Your Honor, the larger scheduling matter 11 that I wanted to address was to see if I could get some feel 12 for how much examination there may be of Dr. Bores and Mr.
13 Lazarus, so that I can then report back to Washington to the 14 other two NRC staff employees as to when they might expect to 15 have to appear here. And I 'm assuming now that Mr. Thomas will 16 not be appearing this week, and that the next order of business 17 after the Bores and La arus testimony --
18 JUDGE SMITH: That Thones will not appear this week?
19 MR. TURK: I 'm assuming that they --
20 JUDGE SMITH: I think that 's a pretty good 21 assumption.
22 MR. TURK: -- by Mr. Flynn 's and Mr. Oleskey 's 23 remarks. Apparently, a lawyer is going to be retained and 24 there will be some decision as to whether or not he would 25 appear.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
I i
- i i.
GOBLE, EV DOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11538 i MR. OLESKEY: I 'm basing my remarks on what Mr. Flynn 2 has reported, counsel. l' t/26 3 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Thomas is not going to be here this l l
1 i 4 week, we know that. ;
l i
l 5 MR. TURK: Let me -- l 6 JUDGE SMITH: At least, if he comes it won 't be, you i i
7 know, I would imagine it would not be for the purpose of i t
. 8 testifying, although one of the things we had in mind is that 9 he would be here to hear those people testify or his counsel. I 10 So for scheduling purposes -- f 11 MR. TURK: Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE SMITH: For scheduling purposes I think that we j 13 will not have any testimony from Thomas. We will count on the ,
i 14 cross-examination here and possibly Mr. Thomas may decide to I i
15 come here or his counsel may decide to come here and join in j 16 the cross-examiration of this panel. I mean of Bores and 17 Lazarus, I don 't know, i
18 You know what my guess is, that we 'll have no more 19 witnesses this week.
20 MS. WEISSt Mr. Chairman?
21 JUDGE SMITH: Other than Bores and Lazarus.
22 MS. WEISS: It seems to me that we would get to 23 Matthews and Congel by Friday.
I 24 JUDGE SMITH: The answer to that lies right there in l
?
25 your hands.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 j l
i
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ __ _ _ - _ - - = _ ._-
i l l
?
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11539
( 1 MS, WEISS: I mean, assuming that you 're almost done 2 with this panel.
- i l 3 MR. TURK: I am. Assuming that I drop my examination l
4 on the survey responses. .
j
- 5 MS. WEISS
- And then Mr. Eckert 's got his tape to 6 show, but that would give us the better part of two days for
! 7 Bores and Lazarus. I would think Matthews and Congel should be 1 I
I 8 ready to go by Friday, we 're going to be here.
9 MR. TURK: Well. I would like not to have to bring i 10 them for a half day session. If I 'm going to have to wait till 11 Friday, then I might as well wait until next week.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Friday is -- we can make that a full 13 day session, if you want.
14 MR. TURK : Well, what I 'm concerned about, .Your 15 Honor, is that they would have to make two trips, and they do 16 have other responsibilities. Mr. Matthews --
17 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we 're moving a large operation 18 back and forth every week, too, and that 's -- but I don 't -- I ,
I 19 guess it 's not all that important whetner we take Friday off or 20 not; I guess everybody could use the time. I don 't know, i t 's l
l 21 up to the parties.
22 MR. OLESKEY: We 're reedy to examine on Friday, if 23 that 's the Board 's pleasure, and assuming that we 're at a point l 24 with .Rores end La 2n as.
25 J"'SE St . fH : De - think it would be possible thet O Heritage Repc Ting Corporation
'5023 628-4888
- _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ =
l l
)
f' GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11540 1 you get to them earlier? Are they here now, by the way?
2 MR. TURK : No.
3 MS. WEISS: Given that -- l 4 MR. TURK: I assume you 're talking about Congel and l i
)
5 Matthews.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Well. do we have to be on the record i 7 now?
8 MR. DIGNAN: No. l i
j 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right, we 're adjourned until 9:00 t i
10 a. m. tomorrow.
I 11 (Whereupon, at 5:03 p.m. the hearing was adjourned to l 12 reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 18.
- 13 1988, at the same place.)
I l 14 15 16
! 17 l
18 19 l
I 20 21 22 23 24 25 i 1
O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l l
_____. _ l
I 1 CERTIFICATE
\
-) 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedinds before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF G NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
7 Docket Number: 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL 0 Place: CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 9 Date: May 17, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken electronically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 73 14 of the court reporting company, and that the recording is a 15 true and accurate recc cd of khe /Torego y proceedings.
I 16 /_S / p__
17 (Signature typed):r.ENT ANDREWS i 16 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation l
20
) 21 22 l 23 24 2b
. t x f
(x> l I Heritage Reportine Co rpo rat io n (202) 628-4888