ML20214A471
| ML20214A471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3518 OL-5, NUDOCS 8705190467 | |
| Download: ML20214A471 (182) | |
Text
.
+
4 Uh1TED STATES O. 0@NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u ':S ,, . .:; :p' ^ ' .. QL,4b%? l -
-, c., T yu ,,':,. + 39 , u .-g-3;6:..yj :~- ;.S i <' -+ _ ; '-
w,,
~,;t. .
1 . .n : n;
.p_;e p -- , . p. r,;.9 3. ,
, _2
,-f,.
,a ,
$ f 4-IN THE MATTER OF: '
"3' i n, 's.a'. '
~
- DOCKET NO: 50-322-oL-5
~ .(EP Exercise)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY', ~
~ '
ye
. s . , , . ...
.m .~
(Shoreham Nuclear Power ^ ' "
[ '
Station, Unit 1) ,.
.c 4 -
s .
' _ ~.
l _. g., , >
ig . - .. -e , -
,i ' ,
,,~
- f' ~
-- 3 _; - . . ,
' y_ ' g . ?- , n. ,-
, _; l c.. .
- i. ;
t *
- t.
q.
f LOCATION: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 6064 - 6 2 45 a.-
.a. - . . .
DATE: THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1987
- * , w w
~
,po .' -
\ .
O s p
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,'INC.
t :
OfficialReporters -
~ ~
.; ' 444 North CapitolStzvet
.. ..~. %. 1 Washington, D.C. 20001
, .- a .
(202) 347-3700 -
8705190467 870514
- PDR ADOCK 05000322 I .. ,s ,
T PDR f , NATIONWIDE COVERACE
, , . .., a.-. ,.
-- j"
,,e,
- I -' 4 h DhA . - _. 2 _.
A-- ~--..un _ . _
9140 01 01 6064 I
.arysimons 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD J
4 -______________x 5 In the Matter of: :
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power : (EP Exercise)
~
8 Station, Unit 1) :
9 ---------------X l
10 Court of Claims 11 State of New York 12 State Office Building 13 Third Floor Courtroom 14 Veterans Memorial Highway 15 Hauppauge, New York 11788 16 Thursday May 14, 1987 17 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 18 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m.
19 BEFORE:
20 JOHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 1
23 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 l 24 }
t 25 !
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. !
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336W46
.= .- . - . _ . - . - - - -. - . . .
i 9140.00 00 6065 l l l
.arysimons 1 OSCAR H. PARIS, Member 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 Bethesda, Maryland 20555- l 5 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member ,
c 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-7 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E
8 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 9 APPEARANCES:
10 On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company:
11 DONALD P. IRWIN, ESQ.
i 12 KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESO.
13 LEE B. ZEUGIN, ESO.
14 MARCIA R. GELMAN, ESO.
15 Hunton & Williams 16 707 East Main Street
- 17 P. O. Box 1535 i 18 Richmond, Virginia 23212 19 On Behalf of Suffolk County
20 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, ESO.
21 SUSAN M. CASEY, ESQ.
22 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 23 South Lobby, 9th Floor 24 1800 M Street, N.W.
I 25 Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 r !
I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS,-INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
/
---r- -,,e , , - - - - - - _ , - - , , w r m-<- ,n- 4 e ,--- -, e- .wew. ,, -- w,, -
d 9140 00 00 6066 f .arysimons 1 On Behalf of the State of New York:
2 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESO.
3 Special Counsel to-the Governor
.4 Executive Chamber 5 Room 229 ,
6 State Capitol 7 Albany, New York 12224 8 On Behalf of the NRC:
9 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, ESO.
10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 7735 Old Georgetown Road l 12 ' Bethesda, Maryland 20814 l
l 13 On Behalf of FEMA: l 1
j 14 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESO.
15 Federal EmergencyManagement Agency 16 500 C Street, S.W.
17 Washington, D.C. 20472 18 * * ****
19 20 21 22 23 j 24 i'
25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800-3 4 6646
4 9140 00 00 6067 arysimons 1 C O N T E N T S l 2 VOIR 3 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE BOARD 4 (Further) 5 (Resumed Panel) 6070 6077 6095 l
6 DENNIS M BEHR 6173 i
7 CHARLES A. DAVERIO I
8 JOHN W. HOCKERT 9 EXHIBITS 10 EXHIBIT NO. IDENTIFIED ADMITED 11 Suffolk County Exercise 12 Exhibit No. 94 6159 13 LILCO Exercise 14 Exhibits 13, 14 & 15 6069 15 RECESSES
} 16 Morning Recess ............................. 6095
- Noon Recess ................................ 6158 17 Afternoon Recess ........................... 6180 Afternoon Recess ........................... 6206 7
18 1
] 19 20 21 22 4
, 23 4
24 25 ,
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage M*H4 N46
. .- . . - . -- . . . . = _ . . - . . -
l 9140 01 01 6068 i
l- .oewalsh 1 PROCEEDINGS i
2 (9:02 a.m.)
i 1
3 JUDGE FRYE: Good morning.
4 MR. PIRFO: Good morning.
5 JUDGE FRYE: Are we ready to proceed?
6 MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, if'I might. Following 7 the early dismissal last evening, the witnesses had a chance 8 to review not only the notes of Mr..Millioti but also a much 9 more thorough review of some of the underlying 10 documentation.
11 As a result of that review, there are some
' 12 changes the witnesses would like to make in their testimony 13 as it relates to the Attachment O which is a tabulation of 1
14 the other exercise reports, Attachment R, as well also some I
{ 15 changes on Pages -- conforming changes on Pages 45 through 1
16 50 of their testimony.
17 What I would propose to do is give copies of 18 those changes to everyone here and simply ask a few brief 19 questions so that the witnesses can simply explain the work j 20 they did last night and the changes themselves.
j 21 JUDGE FRYE: Well, let's distribute the changes, i 22 then.
I 23 (Documents are being distributed.)
24 MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, so that the record is f
25 clear I guess I would like to have.each of these-marked as a
]
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
t a
9140 01 01 6069 uewalsh 1 separate LILCO exercise exhibit.
2 I would propose to have the document that begins 3 Page 45, it is actually_a copy with some revisions to -
t i 4 LILCO's direct testimony and runs through Page 50, marked as i 5 LILCO Exercise Exhibit 13.
6 JUDGE'FRYE: 137 7 MR. ZEUGIN: 13, yes.
8 (The document referred to is marked j
- 9 as LILCO Exercise Exhibit Number l 10 13 for identification.)
i' 11 MR. ZEUGIN: The next document I would like to i
l 12 have marked LILCO Exercise Exhibit 14 is a document whose 13 first page has in the upper right-hand corner Attachment Q, 14 underlined, that consists of three pages.
15 That would be LILCO Exercise Exhibit 14.
I 16 (The document referred to is marked
- 17 as LILCO Exercise' Exhibit Number
, 18 14 for identification.)
19 !!R. ZEUGIN: And,-I would like to have marked as i
20 LILCO Exercise Exhibit 15 a one-page document that in the 21 upper right-hand corner bears the words Attachment R.
22 (The document referred to is marked
- 23 as LILCO Exercise Exhibit Number
- 24 15 for identification.)
4 25 Whereupon,
! /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
l' i 9140 01 01 6070
.oswalsh 1 CHARLES A. DAVERIO, 2- DENNIS M. BEHR
'3 and 4 JOHN W. HOCKERT 5 resumed the witness table and, having previously been duly 6 sworn, were further examined and testified as follows:
7 FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. 2EUGIN:
9 0 Gentlemen, do you have before you these three 10 documents that I have just marked as LILCO Exhibits 13, 14 11 and 15?
12 A (Witness Daverio) Yes, we do.
13 0 Do you recognize those documents?
- 14 A Yes, we do.
15 0 What are they, Mr. Daverio?
16 A They are modifications that we would like to 17 make to the testimony.
18 0 Would you please describe the process that you 19 went through to develop those modifications?
4 20 A Yes. When we had a chance to review the 21 testimony yesterday, in discussions we decided to start with 22 Mr. Millioti's notes and the base document, the FEMA report, 23 for each exercise contained in the table and reconfirm each 1
24 entry in the table.
25 We did this based on our experience with the
! 14CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(n346646
9140 01 01 6071 dewalsh 1 training testimony and general knowledge that judgments have 2 to be made in interpreting _the FEMA reports to get the 3 answers yes or no. We also felt after questioning that 4 possibly the way we presented this gave the impression of 5 more precision than was meant by this analysis.
6 This analysis was meant to look at the FEMA 7 reports, make judgments and try to get the best data, 8 because each region is different, each report is different, 9 and based on whet).or it was done in '81 or '86 it could be 10 different.
11 What we were trying to show here is that no one 12 FEMA exercise had done everything, rather than any one 13 precise number, 14, is' exactly right. But, .because we had 14 time last night we went back and redid them all.
15 And, I can give you an example of one I found in 16 doing the review myself, where Mr. Millioti would put down 17 radio station did not broadcast EBS message. In my review 18 of the report, I found a statement that said that the EOC l 19 monitored the radio for broadcast of EBS. I interpret that ,
i 20 to say that they were broadcasting EBS. I've changed that l
21 one.
22 MR. LANPHER: Judge, could I please have that 23 answer read back?
24 WITNESS DAVERIO: I could repeat it.
25 JUDGE FRYE: Could you read it back, please?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M686 ,
- . ~_ . . . - - .
9140 01 01 6072
, uswalsh 1 MR. LANPHER: Well, my only problem is, I'm 2 trying to take notes and understand the methodology.
3 JUDGE FRYE: I understand. Had you completed j 4 your answer, Mr. Daverio?
5 WITNESS DAVERIO: No. I --
6 JUDGE FRYE: Do you want her to read it back at
- 7 this point, or do you want to get the whole answer and then 8 read it back?
9 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 10 0 or, if you think you can repeat it, Mr. Daverio?
11 A (Witness Daverio) Yeah. What I was giving was 12 an example of one that I found'to show what types of 13 problems you run into in this kind of review.
14 Mr. Millioti, in one report, checked or said EBS' l 15 stations did not broadcast. In my review of that report I
! 16 fcand a sentence that said EBS stations were monitored for 17 broadcast. I've changed that, because I felt that that was 18 an indication to me that it was a broadcast.
19 There was no specific statement. That's the
. 20 kind of judgments that had to be made. So, what I was i
21 trying to get at is, when we presented this testimony we 22 weren't trying to say that the 15 could not be 13 if someone 23 else read the report, in that they could make different l 24 judgments than we could when reading a FEMA report and these 25 general type statements that you have to draw conclusions ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
i-i 5
9140 01 01 6073 E
.uewalsh 1 from, but that the number in general bounded the problem of
! 2 how many types of -- these types of activities were done at l '
3 3 different exercises.
4 MR. LANPHER: Judge, I object to that latest ,
5 statement, and I move to strike it.
6 That goes -- that's additional direct 7 testimony. That's improper. I thought we were .only going 8 to have an explanation of what they did last night to
- 9 correct the table.
10 I don't think that's proper.
11 JUDGE FRYE: Well, it may not be technically
- 12 proper but it's in. And, it --
l' 13 MR. LANPHER: Well, I move to strike it.
i j 14 JUDGE FRYE: -- comes in at the redirect stage.
15 But, in the future would you -- we will overrule that, but 16 in the future would you confine yourself to an expl'anation !
17 of what you did?
18 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, okay. We, therefore, a
- 19 then changed the ones and zeros for all the -- well, for the i i
20 reports that we found that based on our review last night, 21 different yes or no criteria would have been done and 22 changed the table. Based on that table then, Pages 45-23 through 50 and Attachment R get modified.
i j 24 JUDGE FRYE: Let me ask you a question, Mr.
j 25 Daverio. On the copy that I have, I don't see a change on i .
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700- Nationwide Coscrage mK3.16 6M6 f
-- - - , = _ . - . , - - - . . - . . . . . - . - _ - . - . - - - - - - . - . - -
9140 01 01 6074
,dewalsh 1 Page 48.
2 Is that an error or not?
3 (The witness is looking at the document.)
4 WITNESS DAVERIO: I don't believe we found any i 5 change on Page 48.
i 6 JUDGE FRYE: So, Page 48 did not need to be 7 included in this exhibit?
8 WITNESS DAVERIO: That's correct.
9 WITNESS BEHR: One additional thing that I think j
i 10 we should mention. If you were to take a look at Exhibit I 11 14, you will notice that we did leave in the Hope Creck 12 exercise. The reason for that was, when we went back in and 4
13 looked at the report, although the report does specifically
{
14 say that New Jersey and its local jurisdictions did not 15 participate in that exercise they did -- FEMA did classify f 16 that exercise, and the words are in the report that it was i
I 17 full participation.
18 JUDGE FRYE: Does that complete your 19 explanation, Mr. Zeugin? ,
20 MR. ZEUGIN: I think I only have one more f
21 question.
j 22 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
i 23 BY MR. ZEUGIN: (Continuing) 24 0 Either Mr. Daverio or Mr. Bohr, I notice also 25 that there are some changes in Attachment 14 to the entries i
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 '02 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(n 336 6M6 i
9140 01 01 6075
( ,uswalsh 1 for the Shoreham exercise.
2 Could you explain why those changes were made?
3 A (Witness Daverio) Yes. In reviewing the table 4 for consistency we only -- we changed the three that were 5 changed there because while we had knowledge that something 6 may have been done the FEMA report didn't specifically call 7 it out.
{
8 And, for consistency we wanted the table to all i
9 be relied on FEMA reports.
10 0 Does that change any other aspect of your 1
11 testimony on Contentions 15 and 16?
) 12 A No, it does not.
i 13 MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, that's the extent of my 14 questions. I guess at this point I would like to move into l 15 evidence LILCO Exercise Exhibits 13, 14 and 15.
1 1
16
.i
! 17 f
18 19 20 t
~
21 j 22 23 I 24 i
25 t
i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! ! 202 347 37(X) Nationwide Cmerage Hm 3.46M6
.n..._.-.
1 9140 02 02 6076
' .arysimons 1 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, I would like the Board 2 to defer ruling on that. I haven't had a chance to review 3 these with care. I would like to review them. I'm sure l
! 4 I'm going to want to pursue questioning before this panel
! 5 is dismissed.
6 JUDGE FRYE: All right. We will withhold our 7 rulings for now.
i 8 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, I'm not going to make 9 a speech, but obviously this is going to take at least some 10 time to review things. I can see just on the surface I 11 already that it changes some of the areas of examination 1 12 that I spent time last night preparing.
4 13 I don't know just where it's going to go to and 14 it comes as something of a surprise.
15 JUDGE FRYE: We'll just have to find out.
i j 16 MR. LANPHER: I just don't know when I'm going 1
! 17 to be able to review this with enough care to be able to l
l 18 pursue some of the things. For instance, as I had informed 19 the Board and the parties this morning, one of the things l
! 20 that I was going to pursue this morning was Exhibit 74 I
J 21 which happens to be for the Board's information Exercise l 22 No. 5 on the first page of LILCO Exhibit 14.
23 You can see that they have changed a number of i
I 24 things on that. That is just to highlight some of the l
f 25 difficulties, but I'll do my best to go forward with what I
i
! ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l i 202 347 37(o Nationwide Cmcrage Nn.14tMt.
9140 02 02 6077 marysimons 1 we're doing.
2 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) 3 BY MR. LANPHER:
4 0 Mr. Daverio and Mr. Behr -- and for the Board's 5 information, I'm going to follow up on some of this stuff 6 from yesterday first. I'm not going to probably complete 7 it all because consistent with something the Board said
[ 8 yesterday, I'm going to try to get to Mr. Hockert then 9 before too long to make sure that we're able to finish him 10 today.
11 JUDGE FRYE: All right. I think that would be 12 helpful if we could.
13 MR. LANPHER: No, I'm going to do it. So I may 14 have to break this up.
15 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
16 BY MR. LANPHER:
17 0 Gentlemen, you stated in response to Mr. Zeugin 18 that you started with Mr. Millioti's notes and the FE!!A 19 report for each exercise.
20 Am I to take it from that testimony that you 21 reviewed all of Mr. Millioti's notes last night, the two of l 22 you?
r 23 A (Witness Daverio) No, we had help.
24 0 Who helped you?
25 A Both people from LILCO and counsel to review 1
ACE. FEDERAL. REi>onTEas, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserare 8(We336-(M6 l
_ _ = - - _
1 9140 02 02 6078 l
.arysimons 1 reports last night.
- 2 0 So you yourselves have not reviewed all these 3 reports?
4 A No, we have not.
I i 5 0 And you haven't reviewed all the notes? '
l 6 A I've reviewed all the notes in the past, but not 1
i 7 last night. I did not look at them, not all of them, only 8 the ones that I was doing.
i j 9 0 Which ones did you do last night, Mr. Daverio?
10 A I did Hadem Neck, which is 13 on the first page.
11 0 I thought that was Hope Creek.
i
! 12 A I'm sorry. Sorry. I did Hadem Neck. It's on 13 the third page, sorry, the 10th column. I did Sharon 5
, 14 Harris, the 8th column on the second page. I did Fermi, i
i 15 the 4th column on the second page. ;
)
I And those are the exercise reports that you 16 0 i
j 17 reviewed last night?
18 A And Mr. Millioti's notes on those reports.
19 0 And the corresponding notes. .
20 A Yes.
I
- 21 0 Mr. Bohr, which reports did you review last
. 22 night?
23 A (Witness Behr) I reviewed Point Beach which is 24 Item 7 on the seco.d page of Exhibit 14. I reviewed both l
25 Pilgrim 82 and 85 which are Items 8 and 9 on the third i Acc. FEDERAL RnronTuns, INC.
j 202 347 37m Nationwide Cmcrage RxO.1MM6 I
l l
9140 02 02 6079 I
.arysimons 1 page, and that's it.
j 2 O And did you review the corresponding notes of 1
l 3 Mr. Millioti?
4 A Yes, I did.
! 5 0 And was that the extent of your personal review 6 last night, gentlemen?
a 7 A (Witness Daverio) Yes.
1 i
8 0 Who was it from LILCO that assisted in the
! 9 review. I don't know if you ured. the word " assisted," but I
j 10 performed the review last night?
11 A There were three LILCO -- well, one LILCO j
12 employee and two LILCO contractors who worked on it last j
13 night.
14 O And who were they? '
i i 15 A Miss Vickie Palmiotto, Brant Aidikoff and Jeff i
- 16 Sobotka were the three LILCO people.
l 17 0 Which are the contractors?
l l 18 A Mr. Aidikoff and Mr. Sobotka are the
. 19 contractors.
I 20 0 From? [
f i 21 A Aidikoff and Associates I believe is the name of
! 22 the firm.
i 23 0 What is Ms. Palmiotto's position?
{ 24 A She works within the Emergency Preparedr.ess i
25 Division of LILCO.
l I
l
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage lok 33W46
i
- 9140 02 02 6080
..arysimons 1 0 And which reports did they review?
i 4
2 A Jeff Sobotka reviewed No. 9 on the first page, 3 Ginna. Vickie Palmiotto did on the second page Diablo 4 Canyon, column one, Zion 2 ---
5 0 Excuse me. The second page column one is not l 6 Diablo.
7 A Sorry, I'm in a different order. I'll go 1 8 through what I have here. Vickie Palmiotto did the Diablo 9 Canyon, Zion ---
10 0 Wait. You need to tell us where they are.
11 A That's on the third page, sorry, and Calvert
} 12 Cliffs, i
i 13 0 That was Palmiotto?
I i 14 A Right.
15 0 Diablo Canyon, Zion ---
16 A And Calvert Cliffs.
2
! 17 0 The first three on page 3.
I 18 A That's correct.
} 19 0 That's page 3 of Exhibit 14 for the record.
i '
20 A That's correct.
21 On page 2, for some reason I don't have the t
) 22 list, but I believe that whole page was done by Brant 23 Aidikoff and Jeff Sobotka splitting it up, except the ones l
j 24 I've already told you I did two of them, and Dennis Bohr 1
l 25 did Peach Bottom, or Point Beach, sorry. I don't have I /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS INC I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage En336-6M6
- i
.~----,_--.,.._....~_-.m -_. --- _ ,.,,,...-,__ .-- - ._._ .,...__..,_.,_ _.-._ ... ,,-....__ .._
.,,m___ . - _ , , , . , _ . . _ _ _ ,
t i
1
! 9140 02 02 6081 k .arysimons 1 those notes here, but I believe that's what I recall. Oh, 2 and Brant Aidikoff did Nine Mile, 983 on column 6, page 1.
- 3 0 You said 98 ---
i
! 4 A 983, column 6.
I 5 0 Is it fair to state then that all the rest of 4
6 the reviews that were performed were performed by counsel?
I 7 A Except we forgot one, just to point out that we 8 did not re-review Beaver Valley because we do not have that 9 report in our possession on page 3, column 5. That was not 10 re-reviewed last night.
11 O And if I understand your testimony, the portions
}j
! 12 that were reviewed by Ms. Palmiotto, Mr. Aidikoff and Mr.
1 13 Sobotka and counsel were not subsequently reviewed by you?
j 14 A That's correct.
15 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, we continue to have 16 testimony that I question whether it was prepared by these
{ 17 witnesses. The review now has been performed by other 18 people. They have not reviewed the review that was done.
19 I move to strike the discussion of the other I
20 exercises starting at page 43 of their report and deny the l 21 admission of LILCO Exhibits 13, 14 and 15.
22 23 l 24 25 3
.i 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage mn336-6M6 1
,n .r -- - ,,- - , , - , , - - - , - - - - - . . . . .--,
l l
i 9140 03 03 6082 i
f ' ,oewalsh 1 JUDGE FRYE: Do you wish to respond?
2 MR. ZEUGIN: Yes, I do, Judge Frye. I think the 3 witnesses, in their description of what was done last night, 4 clearly pointed out that this work was done under their-5 supervision and direction.
6 I think Mr. Lanpher has mischaracterized his 7 question and subsequent responses that the witnesses have 8 given, which is that they did not physically go back and re-9 review Mr. Millioti's work and the underlying 10 documentation. That does not suggest that the witnesses are 11 not vouching for the correctness of the entirety of these 12 changes. ,
13 MR. LANPHER: Judge, if I could --
14 MR. ZEUGIN: And, for that reason --
15 MR. LANPHER: Excuse me.
16 MR. ZEUGIN: -- if that is not yet-clear I think l
17 that can clearly be brought out with more questioning. But, 18 I think there is no basis to suggest that this should be 19 stricken.
20 The witnesses are ready to vouch for the truth 21 of this -- these --
22 JUDGE FRYE I'm having trouble hearing you.
23 MR. ZEUGIN: I'm sorry. These witnesses are 24 ready to vouch for the correctness of these corrections and 25 are willing to defend them.
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage Holb3.46M6 l
-. - _ - = - . . . . . . - . - - - -. _ - . . - -.
I iT 9140 03 03 6083 .
,oewalsh 1 MR. LANPHER: Judge, yesterday --
l 2 JUDGE FRYE: Just one moment. I will get back 1
3 to you.
4 MR. LANPHER: Yes, sir, i
5 JUDGE FRYE: Does the Staff have a view on this?
6 MR. PIRFO: My view thus far is that they have .
7 not -- yesterday, this was categorized as bean counting, to l 8 some extent, going through and counting the number of
}
j 9 exercises. I have not heard the witnesses say as yet that j 10 they reviewed the review that was done by other people.
l 11 Until I get an answer to that question, I really 4
)
12 don't have a position at this point.
13 JUDGE FRYE I haven't heard it either. And, I 14 would like to know whether you -- to what extent you l
) 15 exercised control and reviewed the work of the others?
i 16 MR. LANPHER: I hate to interrupt the Judges, i I
17 but I believe I brought out this morning that they -- well, t l 18 yesterday's testimony brought out that they~had not reviewed l 19 the underlying reports either prior to April 6th or after I
20 April 6th. And if you want me to go to -- find it in the 21 transcript, I will try.
l 22 JUDGE FRYE That's all right.
l 23 MR. LANPHER: They had looked at Mr. Millioti's
)
i 24 notes. Last night, they reviewed a couple of the reports I
i 25 but the vast majority they did not. The vast majority of
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8M336#46 i
- - --____ . . . _ . ~ - _ . . - - , - - - _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ - - . - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - -
i l 9140 03 03 6084 4
f i ,oewalsh 1 the material was reviewed by other persons, and they didn't l 2 review the review of the other persons.
3 JUDGE FRYE: Well, that's what I want to find I
4 out for sure.
1 j 5 MR. LANPHER: Well, I thought they said that.
A
$ 6 Let me follow up and ask the question. May I?
7 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
i 8 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 9 0 Isn't it correct that the review performed, for 10 instance, by Mr. Aidikoff you did not review his review? ,
4 i 11 A (Witness Davorio) We did not review his i '
12 review. We had agreed upon the criteria he would use in
, 13 that review prior to it, but we did not review his review.
i 14 0 You didn't question what he was doing?
15 A No, I did not.
! 16 JUDGE FRYE: Did you set the criteria?
17 WITNESS DAVERIO: We set the criteria based on 18 what was the definitions that we used on the pages as to l 19 whether a siren test would be a yes or a no. We all agreed i .
- 20 on that criteria and then each performed the reviews.
21 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 22 0 But, gentlemen, you stated earlier when I i 23 objected and was overruled -- maybe I should thank the i
j 24 Board, no. When I objected, you said that there is i
25 inherently judgment that goes into reviewing these
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! I 202 4 47 3700 Nationwide Coserage RC-346M6
4 i
9140 03 03 6085
,oewalsh 1 materials, right?
j 2 A (Witness Daverio) That's correct.
i 3 0 You did not -- once Mr. Aidikoff and the others .
l 4 went through the reports and exercised judgments, you did i 1
5 not go and query them and ask them about how they had
} 6 exercised that judgment; isn't that correct?
l 7 A That's correct.
8 MR. LANPHER: I have nothing further, Judge. I
! 9 would move to strike all that testimony.
i MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, I would merely note 10 11 that we have done the best we can given the time available
! 12 between last evening and this morning to conduct this work.
13 -
If Mr. Lanpher feels that it's absolutely 14 important that these witnesses review every last document, 4 15 they can do that over the week-end. I see no reason to not i
16 admit this testimony based on the representations of Mr.
- 17 Daverio, and the fact that the common set of criteria that
} f j 18 were used were agreed to in advance. j i
19 JUDGE FRYE: So I understand it and am clear, j
20 the testimony you are moving to strike begins on Page 43 and 3 21 goes to the end; is that correct?
- 22 MR. LANPHER
- Yes, Judge Frye. It's the l
\ l
] 23 discussion of the other exercise testimony and it's I
i 24 Attachments 0 and R.
25 JUDGE FRYE: Right.
I
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserag mWF336W 46 i
_._ _._._. _ - _ . . ~ , _ _ _ . _ . _ - . . - . , _ _ . _ . , _ _ . ~ , _ . _ - . _ _ , - . - _ . , . . _ - . - - . . _ . _ . _ _
9140 03 03 6086 s onwalsh 1 MR. LANPHER: And, if the motion is granted 2 there are some references earlier in the testimony that 3 references back --
4 JUDGE FRYE: Which would no longer --
5 MR. LANPHER: I think you understand the thrust 6 of what I'm going after.
7 JUDGE FRYE: I do.
8 MR. LANPHER: And, the suggestion that, well, 9 let them try again over the week-end, I'm not going to 10 reargue the schedule or anything at this point. It was set, 11 and they were supposed to be ready. I'm sorry they are not 12 ready, but I don't think they are proper sponsors for this 13 testimony.
14 MR. ZEUGIN: I strongly object to Mr. Lanpher's 15 characterization as giving the witnesses an attempt to try 16 again. I think what he is asking is whether they have 17 physically reviewed themselves each last one of these 18 reports and each last notes of Mr. Millioti and compared the 19 two. The witnesses have clearly stated that they did not, 20 given the amount of time that was available. The witnesses 21 clearly stated that the critoria that were used were uniform 22 criteria for all of these.
23 There are basically not that many changes if one ;
24 looks at the tables. The end result is really no different 25 in terms of conclusions one would draw from these tables.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(W) Nationwide Cmcrape m)-34M46
, 9140 03 03 6087 j , oewalsh 1 I just don't see what purpose is served by 2 making the witnesses -- and they would be willing to do that i ,
! 3 if the Board feels it is necessary -- to go back and
)
j 4 personally look at every last report and look at the table I
5 to see that, in fact, they agree with every notation in the 6 table.
i l; 7 JUDGE FRYE: You have now an answer to your i
8 question, Mr. Pirfo. How do you stand on this?
l 9 MR. PIRFO: Well, the answer I heard clearly 10 falls under the rubric of prepared under the direction and 11 supervision. I think Mr. Lanpher -- and, so I don't think j 12 there are grounds to strike.
I
} 13 I think Mr. Lanpher has succeeded in 14 undercutting a certain amount of the weight to be accorded
, 15 the testimony on it. I don't know where Mr. Lanpher's cross
{
16 examination is going with this, and it may present a problem i 17 for him as to detail, i 18 But, I don't think I -- as much of the other l 19 testimony, or virtually all of it, it's prepared under the l
) 20 direction and supervision of the witnesses. They have 21 supervised it, they set the criteria, they did some of the 22 reviews themselves. I have the same concerns Mr. Lanpher i 23 has, they said they have not reviewed each of them.
24 MR. LANPHER: Judge, I --
25 MR. PIRFO: If I may finish? So, I don't think i
l s4CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m336W46 4
1
i i
- 9140 03 03 6088 i
s oswalsh I a motion to strike at this point is improper. I think to 2 the extent they have not done a report by report review l l
3 themselves personally, then certainly the weight is undercut 4 somewhat.
j 5 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. We will go back to you and
! 6 then we will need to confer.
7 MR. LANPHER: Just briefly. I want it to be 8 understood, I don't object, because I think everyone does 9 it, to witnesses having stuff donc under their control.
10 This is a complicated case and a lot of people are busy.
11 That's not the point here.
- 12 I know our witnesses, and I think most LILCO
! 13 witnesses, get back to making sure that everything is done I 14 right and review the stuff that is relied upon. That's what 15 hasn't been done. That's what is improper here.
16 Mr. Zahnleuter said that he has --
17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: The State of New York supports I 18 that motion to strike. And, I think that it's one thing to l 19 swear to the truth and veracity of information that is in l 20 the testimony, and it's another thing to be very willing to 21 defend it, but it's quite another question to know what you l
i 22 are talking about.
I 23 And, that's the issue that we are coming down to 24 here. These witnesses just don't know what it is that i
j 25 underlies this information in the testimony and how it was
- /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(o Nationwide Cmcrape tuo 336-6M6
.v -,,,-,.,,.,vw- .e--,.,--enn----,--,, --,,.--a,,,,_,.._,,--,.p,n--
,,,,-,,~,.,..,,.,,-yy,,,,.w., ,,,---..,--,.n,.. ,-,.--n,--u,.,..,..,.-,wrwe
l
?
i 9140 03 03 6089
,onwalsh 1- prepared.
2 MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, I would just merely 3 note that the latter part of Mr. Zahnleuter's argument, none i 4 of that has yet been brought out one way or the other on i
5 cross-examination.
6 I think a lot of that was --
1 i 7 MR. PIRFO: Well, I think --
8 MR. ZEUGIN: -- an assumption by Mr. Zahnleuter t 9 about what the witnesses may or may not know.
1 i 10 MR. PIRFO: That's the problem I'm having at
! )
l 11 this point. As I said earlier, I don't know where Mr.
i
! 12 Lanpher's cross is going.
l 13 JUDGE FRYE We understand. Let us confer for a a
- 14 moment.
j 15 (The Board is conferring.)
i
! 16 1
1 j 17 1
} 18 1
19 21 i 4
f j 22
! 23 i i 24 j
- 25
- ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 m 336 W 46 l
_m . _. _ . - _ ____ _ _ _ _ _-_. . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _. . . _ .
i i
- 9140 04 04 6090 l5 .cewalsh 1 JUDGE FRYE
- We have conferred and have decided !
2 to grant your motion, Mr. Lanpher.
3 MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, could I get an 4 explanation of what it is that you are granting?
5 JUDGE FRYE: The striking of the testimony that 6 Mr. Lanpher identified before we conferred. t s
I
- 7 MR. ZEUGIN
- Is that the exhibits or the !
8 testimony itself that was admitted yesterday, because I l 9 think --
l 10 JUDGE FRYE: The testimony and the exhibits.
f 11 Well, wait a minute, you moved to strike not only the 12 exhibits but the testimony beginning at Page 43 --
13 MR. LANPHER: Question 52 on Page 43 --
14 JUDGE FRYE: And the attachments?
)
! 15 MR. LANPHER: -- and Attachments O and R. Yes,
) 16 sir.
i 17 JUDGE FRYE: That's what I thought.
18 MR. LANPHER: And I will, at an appropriate 19 time, identify -- there are just a couple of snippets --
20 JUDGE FRYE: I don't think we need to go through :
, t j 21 and edit out the snippets. We understand what has been !
1 j 22 done.
1 23 MR. ZEUGIN: Could I ask the Board for the 24 reasons why it decided to strike all of that material?
25 JUDGE FRYE: We are concerned about -- I can't 4
Acn FEDERAL REPonTERs INC.
202 347 37tx) Nationwide Cmcrage mus-33MM6 1
_ _ _ , _ _ , _ , _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - - . . _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ . - _ - - ~ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ , - . _
t 9140 04 04 6091
.uowalsh 1 say reliability so much as we are about how useful it would !
2 be, given the involvement of these witnesses in its i 3, preparation. They have themselves testified that it 4 involved judgment calls.
5 They have a number of people who have, using 6 their criteria, gone through these exercise reports and 7 exercised their judgment. Those people are not here, and we 8 have to rely on Mr. Daverio and Mr. Behr to indicate how 9 they used that judgment.
10 So, in our view the reliability of it, in the 11 sense of how useful it would be in preparing a decision, was
- 12 pretty slim.
13 JUDGE PARIS: There were six people identified, i 14 including these gentlemen, as being involved in the review, i
15 each of whom, according to their testimony, reviewed three.
16 And, that leaves 15, according to my figures, reviewed by a 17 person or persons unknown. I don't think counsel did 15 18 last night, did you?
19 MR. IRWIN: Judge Paris, I hesitate to get into 20 the middle of this but I am one of the people who did not 21 review any, so I am to some extent a disinterested 22 observer.
23 JUDGE PARIS: So, you are innocent.
24 (Laughter.)
25 MR. IRWIN: However, I'm going to tell you what
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336-6M6
1 9140 04 04 6092
.uowalsh 1 I saw in that room, which was a bunch of people sitting 2 around a table in a very collegial process. And, if it 3 would assist the Board's ultimate determination on this
! 4 important issue, which is the only testimony on the 5 comparative nature of this for the scope of exercise you l 6 have in this proceeding, I would be happy to do it.
7 There was a collegial review process. The Board 8 cut off Mr. Daverio in his description'of that process, and 9 Mr. Daverio had more to say, and would have said it if 10 offered the chance. If the Board wishes to reconsider its 11 motion on the basis of further questioning, we would be 12 happy to provide that basis.
13 Mr. Daverio is unquestionably an expert on 14 emergency planning and on emergency planning exercises and 15 han experience at exercises boycnd Shoreham. The same is 16 true of Mr. Behr.
17 The point that they were making, and Mr. Daverio 18 was making in terms of the exercise judgment, is that the i 19 FEMA reports themselves are not encyclopedic. The 20 methodology they used is inherently not reduceable to total J
l 21 exactitude. There is inherently some judgment in it.
22 Mr. Daverio did say though that he was confident 23 of the overall results of the review. If you look at the 24 number of entries which were changed, even exercising 1
25 judgment, it's somewhere on the order of 10 to 15 percent of
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
I Nationwide Cmerage 800-334fM6 202-347 3700
9140 04 04 6093 t It doesn't swing the results
,ueualsh 1 the entries at most.
2 substantially.
3 The basic testimony was already in. What we are 4 talking about is a refinement of testimony which is already 5 in which modifies the detail and exact level of comparison 6 of Shoreham but doesn't significantly swing the results.
l 7 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we are not going to reverse i
j 8 our ruling. You will have an offer of proof essentially.
i 9 If at some point down the road we decide that we i
10 really need to know more about this, then we may be in a 11 position of having to reopen the record.
1 12 But, we are not going to reverse our ruling. ;
13 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, may I ask for a 14 clarification for the record?
l 15 Stricken then is the Question and Answer 52,
- 16 starting on Page 43 over through to the top of Page 49, 17 where Question 56 begins?
18 MR. LANPHER: My understanding, Judge, is that 19 it goes down to the last three lines on Page 50. Question 20 57 and Answer 57 can remain in.
21 JUDGE FRYE: I would think so, yes.
22 Essentially, it's to the end. Question 57 is: Does that 23 conclude your testimony.
24 MR. CUMMING: With leave of the Court to educata 25 the FEMA counsel, my understanding is that the Board does, ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l d
9140 04 04 6094
.uewalsh 1 in fact, have the right to take judicial notice of documents 2 that are filings if, in fact, they were filed in the Public 3 Document Room. ,
4 If they are not sponsored,'that would raise the 5 issue. But, it's also my understanding that a sponsor of 6 testimony does not have to be the author of the specific 7 document. This could be important to the way that FEMA 8 presents its testimony in the future, since we did cite some 9 --
10 JUDGE FRYE: That's true as a general 11 proposition.
! 12 MR. IRWIN: LILCO -- just so the record is i
I 13 clear, LILCO would make an offer of proof at this time or, 14 if the Board considered it material, to the reconsideration 15 of its motion. The nature of the collegial process that was 16 followed in the course of the review --
17 JUDGE FRYE: Let me suggest, to cut this short 18 so we can get on with i t for the witnesses, why don't you 19 make your offer in writing or if you want to make a motion-20 for reconsideration in writing, whatever, but I would like 21 to move on with the testimony.
I 22 MR. IRWIN: Yes, sir. We will do that, j
- 23 MR. LANPHER
- Judge, with the Board's 24 indulgence, I know it's early for a break but if I could 25 have maybe three or five minutes just to reorganize a l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 -
9140 04 04 6095 suewalsh I couple of things, it won't take long and I don't need a full 2 break or anything. But, then I'm going to proceed with Mr.
3 Hockert.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I'm wondering whether we 5 ought to just take an early break.
6 MR. LANPHER: Well, it's up to the Board.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Why don't we take an early break at 8 this point and that will give you time to reorganize?
9 MR. LANPHER: Okay. Thank you.
10 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 9:42 a.m., to 11 reconvene at 10:00 a.m., this same day.)
12 JUDGE FRYE: Shall we go back on the record, 13 please? Mr. Lanpher.
14 MR. LANPHER: Yes, Your Honor.
15 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. LANPHER:
17 O Mr. Hockert, what do you understand the 35 so-18 called standard objectives of PR-1 to represent?
19 A (Witness Hockert) The observable portions of an 20 off-site preparedness exercise.
21 0 Do they represent all of the observable 22 portions?
23 A Basically, the means taken to implement-those 24 objectives represent all of the observable portions.
25 0 Let's take an example. The distribution of a 26 public information brochure in the public information ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
i 9140 04 04- 6096
, t
,uewalsh 1 program and the checking of whether people in the population 2 understand that brochure.
i 3 Doesn't that constitute a portion of an 4 emergency plan?
l 5 A Yes, sir.
6 0 And, isn't it true that at some exercises the 7 adequacy of those brochures and the understanding of the 8 population about what the brochures mean and what the sirens 9 mean is evaluated?
10 A Yes, sir.
ll 0 So, that would be another observable portion of.
1 7
12 an emergency plan?
l 13 A I believe that that is taken up under one of the f 14 objectives. If I may look at the objectives, I will try to 15 find it for you, i
16 0 Which objective do you understand that to be 4
17 taken up under?
18 (The witness is looking through a document.)
i 19 JUDGE PARIS: Dr. Hockert, give us your page 1
20 when you get there, please. -
l j 21 WITNESS HOCKERT: Certainly, sir.
- 22 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 23 0 Are you referring to your reports, then, Mr.
24 Hockert? i l
l 25 A I can either look at it on my report or-in PR- '
> /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
l l __ . _ . . . _ _ _ .. ._. . . . - _ . __. _ _ . - . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _. _ _ - .
9140 04 04 6097
,uewalsh 1 1. They are the same.
2 Objection 14, Page C-2 of my report.
3 JUDGE PARIS: Which is attachment what?
4 WITNESS HOCKERT: I'm sorry, which is Attachment 5 L I believe.
6 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
7 MR. LANPHER: Or, Judges, if you don't want to 8 go through the whole report, it's part of Attachment F to 9 LILCO's testimony. It's a smaller attachment. What he is 10 referring to, the PR-1 objective.
11 JUDGE PARIS: Well, we have Attachment F or 12 Attachment L?
13 JUDGE FRYE: The report is Attachment L?
~
14 WITNESS HOCKERT: Tne report is Attachment L.
15 JUDGE FRYE: And, the page number is ?
16 WITNESS HOCKERT: C-2 in the report.
17 JUDGE FRYE: C-2?
18 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 19 0 And, what --
20 MR. LANPHER: Are you there, Judge Paris?
21 JUDGE PARIS: Yes.
22 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 23 0 Okay. So, what you are referring to is the l 24 objective to demonstrate ability, to formulate and l~
25 distribute appropriate instructions to the public in a ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3346M6
9140 04 04 6098 uewalsh 1 timely fashion?
2 A (Witness Hockert) Yes, sir.
3 0 And, your understanding is that the distribution i 4 of a brochure, public information brochure, is reviewed 5 under that objective?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 0 What do you base that understanding on, sir?
8 A The fact that that objective covers the 9 distribution of information and instructions to the public.
10 0 You have no personal knowle'dge whether, in fact, 11 when FEMA analyzes public information brochures they utilize 3
12 that objective?
13 A Not to my personal knowledge. The individuals 14 who contributed to the report have personal knowledge in 15 that area.
16 0 Well, did the individuals who contributed to the 17 report -- first of all, you are referring to the IEAL 18 report?
19 A The IEAL report.
20 0 I'm going to call that probably the Hockert 21 report, for shorthand, so that it's clear on the record.
22 Now, did the individual who contributed'to the Hc *rt 23 report inform you that they thought public information 24 brochures got evaluated under Objective 14?
25 A Not directly, no, sir.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 82334M>*f
9140 04 04 6099 suewalsh 1 O Indirectly?
2 A No, sir. To be honest, that issue was not 3 specifically addressed.
4 O So, what is the basis for your statement, if
[ 5 any, that public information brochures when they are 6 evaluated are evaluated under objective 147 .
i 7 A Primarily, my reading of the statement of the 8 Objective 14.
9 0 Isn't it true, sir, that there is nothing beyond 10 that? You construe that statement, but you don't have any 11 knowledge, personal, direct, indirect, about that precise 12 question?
]
13 A Only with regard to how it's done for the FEMA 14 Rev 10 reviews.
15 0 I'm not talking about FEMA Rev 10 reviews, sir.
16 A You are talking about how it's reviewed during 17 the exercise?
18 O During an exercise.
- 19. A As opposed to FEMA Rev 10 qualification of alert 20 notification?
21 0 That's right. I -- leave Rev 10 aside. ,
22 A Then, no, sir, I do not have personal knowledge.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Hockert, I'm having difficulty 24 hearing you.
25 WITNESS HOCKERT: I'm sorry. I will try to
/4CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage mn-336 6646 I
i
-. - ~ .
i 9140 04 04 6100
.uewalsh 1 speak more closely into the microphone.
- 2. BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 3 0 Do you know whether the adequacy of a public 4 information brochure for Shoreham was evaluated by FEMA in 5 the Shoreham exercise? .
6 A No, sir I do not.
7 0 You don't know whether --
8 A I do not have personal knowledge. Based on the 9 testimony that Mr. Daverio and Mr. Behr have presented, I 10 gather that it was not.
11 0 Okay. So, let's assume that you are correct, 12 that objective 14 is the objective under which that would be 13 tested, if it were, okay?
14 A Okay.
15 0 Then, it's fair to say at least that portion of 16 Objective 14 was not tested at Shoreham, correct?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 0 Okay. Just so it's clear, Mr. Hockert, then 19 it's your understanding that the 35 standard objectives 20 cover all the possible observable elements of an emergency 21 plan?
22 A They cover all of those that FEMA felt.important 23 enough to provide guidance to its regions.
I 24 0 That doesn't answer my question precisely. Is 25 it your understanding that the 35'PR-1 standard objectives ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MXL336fM 6 l
. . _ . - . _ ._ . , ,,. -~ ._ - -- -_ .-- , ,_ __ _ _ . . _ . _ . ,
9140 04 04 6101
. ..uewalsh I represent all of the observable elements of an emergency 2 plan?
3 A There may be other elements of an emergency plan 4 which are observable which were not considered sufficiently
. 5 important by FEMA to provide guidance to the regions.
6 0 Well, you just don't know?
7 A No. I'm saying that I doubt that they are all --
8 there may be some other portions which was not sufficiently 9 important for FEMA to provide guidance to its regions to 4~
10 observe, 11 O Okay. Was the Hockert report prepared at the l 12 request of FEMA?
13 A No, sir. It was prepared at the request of the 14 Edison Institute Electric Institute with cooperation from 15 FEMA.
16 0 Has FEMA relied upon the Hockert-report?
17 A Not to my direct knowledge, no, sir. I do not 18 know whether they have or have not.
i 19 0 Has the NRC relied upon the Hockert report?
20 A I --
21 MR. PIRFO: Objection. This witness is not 22 qualified to answer that.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Sustained.
24 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 25 0 Do you have any knowledge of whether the NRC has ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
f 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage M(n336-6M6
- -.- . . - - - - - _ - . . ~ _ . - . -- -- . .- - . . ..
I i
l 9140 04 04 6102
, uewalsh ~1 relied upon it or not?
i 2 MR. PIRFO: Objection.
3 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we will let him answer that.
j 4 Do you know?
5 WITNESS HOCKERT: I do not know whether the NRC l
6 has or has not relied on it.
7 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 8 O Do you know whether anyone has relied upon it?
- 9 MR. ZEUGIN
- I guess I will object to that 10 question as vague. I'm not sure what Mr. Lanpher means by 11 "has anyone relied on it." I'm not sure what relied on it 12 means.
13 JUDGE FRYE: Sustained.
14 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 15 0 Does anyone use the Hockert report to your 16 knowledge?
] 17 A I'm not certain as- to what use the NRC, FEMA or 18 the Edison Electric Institute have made of the report.
l 19 JUDGE FRYE: So, you really don't know.
j
, 20 WITNESS HOCKERT: I don't know.-
i 21 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 22 O Mr. Hockert, at Page 28 of your testimony, in I i
, 23 answer to Question 30, you state that the vast majority of l
24 respondents agreed upon what were considered to be the "very
! 25 important" exercise objectives.
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tu.16-6646 l t
1
. - , . . , - - - . . . - , . - - - . - . . - , _ , . _ . . . - . - - - - - . . - - - . . ,- ---- ._,-.~. --
9140 04 04 6103
.uswalsh 1 Do you see that testimony?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 0 Now, what was the largest category of 4 respondents that there were? Was it NRC, FEMA, the state 5 and local governments?
6 A I think they are fairly evenly distributed among 4 7 those. I did not actually go through and make a count.
t 8 If you would like, I will at this time.
9 0 Well, that's reflected in the final attachment 1
i 10 to your report, isn't it?
i l 11 A Yes, sir, Appendix D-1.
4 12 0 And, doesn't it indicate there that 14 -- you 13 state in your testimony that there were 35 respondents; is 14 that correct?
15 A Yes, sir, there were 35 respondents. But, I j 16 recognize the fact that there are only 32 listed there.
17 0 Can you explain that discrepancy?
18 A Yes, sir. What happened was that when the 19 questionnaire was sent by FEMA to several of the RAC i 20 Chairmen they distributed it to RAC members. They did not 21 always identify the RAC members by name who responded. )
, 1 22 So, we got several packages of responses frorc
! 23 FEMA RAC Chairmen that were only identified by the name of 24 the RAC Chairman.
! 25 0 Well, does that mean that on this list we ought i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-fM6
9140 04 04: 6104 uewalsh 1 to add to the number of FEMA respondents by three?
2 A Not all RAC Committee members are FEMA Staff.
3 So, I do not know whether the RAC Committee members whose 4 responses were included were FEMA Staff or state and local 5 government members of RAC or NRC members.
6 O So, three of the respondents, you just don't 7 know the identity of?
8 A That's correct. Other than to say --
9 0 Did you want to supplement?
10 A Other than to say they apparently were members 11 of the RAC Committees.
12 O Well, how would you know, Mr. Hockert, if you 13 didn't know the identity of a respondent whether they really 14 had expertise on these emergency planning matters or not?
I 15 A The respondents were requested to indicate an l 16 area of expertise on their response, and the FEMA RAC 17 Committee Chairmen were requested to provide input from i
18 members of their RAC Committee with responses in particular 19 areas.
20 Therefore, my reliance in that area is basically 21 reliance on the judgment of the FEMA RAC Committee Chairmen.
] 22 i
23 24 I
25 i
i /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC,
! 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-346M6 i
--.n,. . .. ----,n - , . _ _ , , , , _ , , . . . . . - - . _ _ _ , , ~ , , . . . , ,
_ -- , . - . , n.
l 9140 05 05 6105
.arysimons 1 0 Is it your testimony that for every respondent 2 that came through a FEMA region there was a separate-3 document from the RAC Chairman confirming that that person 4 had expertise in these matters?
5 A No, sir. That was not provided in a document, i
6 in a specific document by the RAC Chairman.
7 0 Well, then I'm confused. I thought you 8 testified that the RAC Chairman in essence vouched for the 9 expertise of the people to whom he or she gave the j 10 questionnaires to be completed.
! 11 A The vouching, if it was implicit rather than 12 explicit, they were given instructions to send to those-13 people. They responded generally with a cover from them e
14 say here are your responses back. They did not in all 15 cases or indeed in the majority of cases provide l 16 credentials for the individuals responding.
17 0 Did they in any cases?
18 A I think there may have been one or two. To be i 19 honest with you, sir, it has been long enough since I i
l 20 looked at the questionnaire that I do not recall in that l 21 level of detail.
22 0 Did you have people who assisted you on this
) 23 project?
l 24 A I had one research assistant within IAEL who 25 assisted me, yes, sir.
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS lNC , .
202 347 3700 Nationwide CoseraFe mt336-6M6 3.,.m - ,----c..9_- .m-.__y----=, .--, -
y-wm _- -- s.._.s .- y y -,m -, , , , , . y-, g
i j_ ~9140 00 00 6106
{ .arysimons 1 0 Did you supervise his or her work such ---
i i 2 A Yes, sir.
^
3 0 Let me finish -- such that.you feel as if you 4 knew what he or she was doing?
j 5 A Yes, sir. I reviewed the questionnaires. I i 6 looked over the mathematical calculations that she did. I i
7 wrote a couple of the' computer programs that she used in 8 doing those calculations in places where the data did not
]
) 9 feel right, if you know what I mean. I looked back and 1
j 10 rechecked the mathematics and that sort of thing and found 11 one or two minor math errors and corrected that, i
12 In addition in that particular method of i
f 13 analysis, I also did a separate comparative analysis for 1
14 the overall reasonableness of the process and reviewed that 15 to be sure that things checked well between the results of 16 the two.
17 0 Okay. But my basic question was that if I direct j 18 questions to what you did, I don't have to ask separately l 19 about what she was doing because you really reviewed her i
j 20 work?
i 21 A Yes, sir.
i j
j 22 0 okay, fine.
} 23 Did you do anything, and when I say you, that 24 obviously applies to your assistant, did you do anything to f
l 25 check upon the expertise of the respondents, or did you I
! ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
j 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrape Mn336-6M6 i .- - . - - . - - . - . - _ - . --_
9140 00 00 6107
.arysimons 1 rely on the pieces of paper you received back from them?
l 2 A We relied on the pieces of paper that we 3 received from the individuals and the judgment of FEMA in 4 selecting the respondents in the first place.
5 0 Now turning your attention to the final 6 attachment of the Hockert report, isn't it true that out of 7 the 32 identified respondents 14 were from FEMA?
! 8 (Pause while the witness reviews his document.)
~
9 A I can't draw that conclusion from my review of
, 10 it, no, sir.
f 11 0 Why not?
I 12 A I suspect, and I may be wrong, when you're 13 saying from FEMA, are you looking at the thing that says J
14 FEMA Region so and so and interpreting that that's someone 15 from FEMA?
16 0 Yes, I am, sir.
17 A That's not what that means. I'm sorry if that's 5
I 18 confusing to you. The FEMA region is generally a locator.
) 19 It does not necessarily mean the individual is a FEMA 20 employee.
4 21 Mr. Zinnard, for instance down there at the 22 bottom of page D-1 is obviously from the FEMA Region 3 i
23 regional office.
24 0 Let me see if I can shorten this.
I 25 A All right.
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tL336-( M 6
1 9140 00 00 6108
.arysimons 1 0 I want to get you on that plane today.
2 A Thank you.
3 0 would it be fair to state then that 14 of the 4 respondents were either from FEMA headquarters, the 5 regional office of RAC members, whether they are FEMA l 6 employees or not on RAC?
7 A I believe that that is correct, subject to the 8 possibility that some of the other individuals who are not 9 identified as RAC members may be also be RAC members.
10 0 So it's fair to conclude that broad FEMA 11 category, whether it be actual FEMA employees or people who 12 worked with FEMA through the RAC, was the largest 13 respondent category to your survey?
14 A Yes, sir, I believe that's fair.
j 15 0 So do you conclude from your survey that in all i
q 16 likelihood the FEMA respondents to your survey were pretty 17 much in agreement with your categorization of what was the l 18 very important, the moderately important and the less 19 important?
l 20 A Since that data was derived from their 21 responses, and I've heard nothing otherwise, I have no 22 reason to conclude otherwise.
23 0 Well, didn't you get some comments from some 24 FEMA employees after this report was prepared in draft?
25 A Yes, I did get several comments from FEMA ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336W46
6109 9140 00 00
- .arysimons 1 headquarters employees.
2 Q And didn't those comments questions whether some 3 of'the objectives which were of lesser important should 4 have been at a higher level of importance?
5 A Yes, sir.
1 l 6 Q And that included dealing with the media, isn't 7 that correct?
i 8 A That included and was limited to dealing with 9 the media.
10 0 Have you had an opportunity to review Draft 11 Guidance Memorandum Ex-3?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q Do the categorizations in Draft Guidance 14 Memorandum Ex-3, are they consistent with the groupings 15 that you derived in the Hockert report?
16 A It is a little bit difficult to make a direct i
17 consistency link there because they have two groups and I 18 have three groups.
19 0 Okay, let's talk about that. That's is a 20 difference, isn't it? They've got three groups and they've 21 got 13 core and the rest are other objectives, correct?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 0 You categorized in the Hockert rep 6rt objective 24 11 of PR-1 as being very important; isn't that correct?
25 And if you look at page 28 of your testimony I believe that' J
l 14CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tk3364M6 l
l 9140 00 00 6110
.arysimons 1 you'll find it there in the middle of the page.
I 2 JUDGE FRYE: Excuse me, what page?
3 MR. LANPHER: Page 28, answer to 31, sir.
I 4 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes, sir.
5 BY MR. LANPHER:
6 0 That is one of the Hockert report very 7 important.
8 A (Witness Hockert) Yes, sir.
9 0 Is that one of the core objectives of Draft 10 Guidance Memorandum Ex-37 i
11 A No, sir. That is the only very important 12 Hockert objective which is not a core objective of Ex-3.
13 0 Okay. So they disagree?
14 A They disagree.
15 0 You said that's the only one. You've got 16 another very important objective, ability to evacuate 17 onsite personnel. That's very important in the Hockert 18 report, but that's been deleted entirely from Draft 19 Guidance Memorandum Ex-3, hasn't it?
20 A I'm sorry, that is correct. That's been deleted 21 in its entirety.
22 0 Thank you. So that's another difference, 23 correct?
l 24 A Yes, sir. l 25 0 Now you also categorized in the Hockert report ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
9140 00 00 6111
.arysimons 1 the ability to deal with impediments, which is objective 16 2 of the standard PR-1 objectives, as one of the "less 3 important"?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 In fact, the less important objectives I believe
, 6 stated in the Hockert report as a collective group, those 7 10 objectives account for only six percent of the 8 weighting, isn't that correct?
9 (Pause while the witness reviews his document.)
, 10 A I'm not certain of the percentage, but 11 Attachment L. If the Board wants to follow, I'm on page 4-12 3, Figure 4-1.
13 0 I'm apologize, Mr. Hockert, it's somewhere I 14 believe in the text of your report that you said 15 collectively it was six percent and I omitted to write down 16 that page number. I don't mean to make you search.
i 17 Just eyeballing on page 4-3 you can figure out 18 it's about five percent, right, all of the less important -
19 objectives?
- 20 (Pause while the witness reviews his document.)-
21 Doctor, why_ don't we come back to it. I don't 22 want to spend the time searching.
23 A Any any rate, if you want to, certainly it 24 appears to be less than 10, but as to a specific percent ---
i i 25 0 Mr. Hockert, we'll come back it it. Let's not
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 - Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 v.-. , .,,e r,,- .-.e- , -,. w-- -
,-,,w n .-- ,e-+ ---,r, ,1-- ---p- m--, , -., -
9140 00 00 6112 marysimons 1 waste the time searching.
2 So dealing with impediments was one of your less f 3 important. objectives. What did the FEMA personnel in Draft
! 4 Guidance Memorandum Ex-3 think of dealing with impediments?
5 A They lumped that along with evacuation in 6 general into core objectives.
7 0 And that's one of their most important, right?.
8 A That's one of their core objectives.
4 4
9 0 So that's a disagreement with the Hockert i
10 report, isn't it?
11 A Yes, sir.
12 0 Now going back to the last question we were 13 talking about, and I apologize, I misspoke.
14 If ycu look at page 4-5 of the Hockert report, 1 15 isn't it true t'iat all of the less important objectives, i
16 all 10 of those total ~about six percent of the overall i
j 17 importance of weighting? Do you see right in the middle of 18 the page, the first sentence of that paragraph on page 4-5.
19 A Yes, sir.
20 0 I think I said said five percent before, but 21 it's six, right?
22 A I don't remember, but it's close enough.
23 0 Okay. Thank you.
24 Now, Mr. Hockert, in addition, one of your less 25 important ones, one of the group of the-10 which ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336 6M6
l l
9140 00 00 6113 marysimons 1 cumulatively amount to six percent weighting, according to 2 your analysis, was PR-1, Objective 24 deal with briefing 3 immediate, correct?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 And isn't it true that in Draft Guidance 6 Memorandum Ex-3 that that's one of the core objectives 7 again?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 0 So that's another disagreement, correct?
10 A Yes, sir.
1 11 0 So isn't it fair to state that if one were to 1 12 assume that Draft Guidance Memorandum Ex-3 represents FEMA 13 thinking now, that FEMA's thinking on some of these 14 objectives does not agree with what you produced in the 15 Hockert report?
i 16 A FEMA's categorization does not agree with what I 17 produced.
18 0 Do you distinguish that from FEMA's thinking? j 19 A Yes, sir.
20 0 How?
21 A One might categorize an objective to be 22 demonstrated more frequently on the basis of things other 23 than importance.
24 JUDGE FRYE: I didn't follow your answer.
25 WITNESS HOCKERT: The core objectives in FEMA Ex-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
9140 00 00 6114
.arysimons 1 3 are those which are to be demonstrated more frequently.
(
2 JUDGE FRYE: I see. Thank you.
3 WITNESS HOCKERT: I do not make a direct tie 4 between frequency of demonstration and importance, although 5 that's certainly something that is a major consideration.
6 BY MR. LANPHER:
- 7. O Well, in your testimony with respect to the 8 "most important" or "very important," excuse me, objectives t
9 of the Hockert report, those that you say are very 10 important are the ones that should be exercised most 11 frequently; isn't that correct?
12 A (Witness Hockert) I would expect the most 13 important objectives to be exercised most frequently in 14 general.
15 0 What do you mean in general?
16 A I mean there are specific reasons why one might 17 exercise less important objectives frequently also.
18 0 Well, are there any reasons, and this will be a 19 tongue twister, are there any reasons why you wouldn't 20 exercise the ver, important most frequently. Forget about 21 what you do most frequently and forget about what you do 22 with the other ones, but those very important ones you do 23 most frequently, correct?
24 A There may be reasons why you would not do a 25 particular very important one such as. ingestion exposure
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 !
i
. . _- .- - . _~ - - .-. .
4 9140 00 00 6115
.arysimons 1 pathway dose calculation and PAG most frequently.
2 O Well give me the reason. l 3 A All right. Much of the dose calculation 4 exercise is similar to plume exposure, dose calculation and i
l 5 you may want to do that piece of it integrated with the j 6 other ingestion exposure pathway activities such as an
- 7 entire integrated exercise of the capability to implement i 8 ingestion exposure pathway protective action.
9 In my report that is one of the moderately i 10 important objectives. So there is kind of a natural tie to 11 doing those things together. The objectives are not 4
12 obviously exercised in a vacuum. They are exercised in the 13 context of a scenario.
1 1
14 0 I'm sorry. I just didn't understand that answer 15 and I'm going to have to follow up. Ingestion pathway, to i 16 use your example, was one of the very important portions of i
17 the ---
18 A Yes, the ability to calculate ingestion pathway 19 dose and recommend appropriate protective actions was one
! 20 of the very important.
21 0 And you understand that objective to cover the
- 22 entire ingestion pathway of approximately 50 miles, l
- 23 correct?
24 A For dose calculation and recommendation of i
. 25 protective actions as opposed to implementation of l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 4 46
,- - .,. . , _ _ - - . -. . . , . ~ - , -
9140 00 00 6116 i .arysimons 1 protective measures in that which is a separate objective. l 2 0 And that would be then, since it's one of the 3 very important in the Hockert report, that would be one of 4 the major observable portions of the emergency plan, l 5 correct?
6 A Not necessarily.
7 0 Well, you testified earlier that the 35 standard l
8 objectives represented certainly the large majority of the 9 observable portions. You didn't use the word " major,"
10 correct?
11 A That's correct.
12 0 And then your Hockert report breaks down these 13 objectives into three categories, correct?
14 A That's correct.
15 0 Isn't it fair to assume that those objectives 16 that are listed as most important correspond to major, not 4
17 just observable portions, but major observable portions of
. 18 the plan?
1 1
19 A I'm reluctant to use that term because it is l 20 regulatory language and I think that's part of what the 21 Board is deciding here. They are certainly the most 22 important aspects of the observable portions.
23 0 I didn't ask whether they were more important 24 aspects. I asked whether this was a major observable 25 portion. Are you testifying you can't answer that 14CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. ,
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 i
9140 00 00 6117
.arysimons 1 question? That's fine if you can't.
2 MR. ZEUGIN: Objection. He's asking the witness 3 to draw a legal conclusion and I think the witness 4 thoroughly explained his reluctance to ---
5 JUDGE FRYE: I think the witness has indicated 6 that he's afraid that he's drawing a legal conclusion, but 7 I think there ought to be a way to get at this perhaps.
8 MR. LANPHER: What's your ruling on the 9 objection, Judge?
10 JUDGE FRYE: Let's pursue your line a bit here.
11 Well, let me try it.
12 Mr. Hockert, I may be just confused a bit.
13 You're concerned I gather that you're drawing a legal 14 conclusion which you don't want to do, am I correct?
15 WITNESS HOCKERT: That's correct.
16 JUDGE FRYE: Can you characterize in your own 17 terms in a way that you would be comfortable with, can you 18 characterize the importance?
j 19 WITNESS HOCKERT: Well, certainly these j
20 activities, the seven very important objectives, subsume 21 about, based on the analysis we've done in the Hockert 22 report, about 57 percent of the overall universe of total 23 importance, if you would like, sir. The individual 24 objectives in there subsume that portion that's in the 25 table in 4-1.
Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
3:
9140 00 00 6118
' So it would seem to me, based on this objective, arysimons'1 2 that any set of -- I'm sorry, on this analysis, that any 3 set of objectives which subsumed a comparable amount of 5
4 importance would be in that regard comparable.
5 I don't know whether that in a sense clarifies i
i 6 or further confuses the issue. ;
7 (Laughter.)
i-8 9
f 10 i
4 11 12 l
l 13 c
I 14 15 16 i
17 18 1
19 i
20 l
l 21 22 i
i 23 ,
i 1
- 24 l l
l 25 l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS,'INC. I ll 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m336-6M6 1
~ -w w - - - - - - . w -. -+ ,--4v- - - - . - . +-- - + - - - - - . - *- ,- --:- - r
9140 06 06- 6119 i _oswalsh 1 MR. LANPHER: You are welcome to continue, 2 Judge.
3 (Laughter.).
4 JUDGE FRYE: I pass the ball back to you.
5 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) i 6 0 All right. I will take it back. Mr. Hockert, 7 before you felt that you could not provide an answer to the 4
8 question of whether this corresponded to a major observable 9 portion, correct?
! 10 A (Witness Hockert) That is correct.
11 O Okay. And the reason for that is because you 12 feel that forces you to draw a conclusion about Appendix E, 13 the regulatory requirement, correct?
l 14 A Yes, sir.
15 0 You don't feel qualified to draw a conclusion 16 about what is necessary or not necessary in order to satisfy 17 that particular regulatory requirement, - correct?
18 A No.
19 0 I am incorrect?
20 A You are incorrect. I believe that a statement 21 can be made that is reasonable, but I would not, again, draw 22 a legal conclusion. I would draw a technical sort of 23 conclusion of what my opinion would be in that area.
24 O Mr. Hockert, do you feel capable to draw a 25 conclusion of whether particular elements of an emergency ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[ - 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
9140 06 06 6120 s oewalsh 1 plan are so important, that they must be exercised in order 2 to constitute a full participation exercise?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 0 Okay. Does the ingestion pathway constitute a 5 major observable portion of the emergency plan?
6 A Do you mean is it something that must be 7 exercised, in my judgement, in order to have a full 8 participation exercise?
9 0 Is it a major observable portion of the 10 emergency plan?
11 MR. ZEUGIN: Objection. I think he is taking 12 the witness right back into the question of asking the 13 witness to draw a legal conclusion.
14 I think the witness is trying to be helpful and 15 explain, in his own, terms --
16 JUDGE FRYE: Yeah, I think you are. You are 17 going back to the major observable portion, and that is 18 where he has difficulty.
19' MR. LANPHER: Judge, he says he is capable of a
20 drawing these conclusions --
21 JUDGE FRYE: Technical matter.
22 MR. LANPHER: My lead up questions did go to the 4
23 technical matter.
24 JUDGE FRYE: But that was his answer.
25 MR. LANPHER: No. And I followed up on it, and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[ 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage SM1%6M6
l l
l 9140 06 06 6121 s oewalsh I he said that he was capable of doing it.
2 MR. ZEUGIN: He said he was capable of answering 3 somethings must be exercised. He did not say --
i 4 JUDGE FRYE: Let's ask the witness so we 5 understand your position clearly.
6 WITNESS HOCKERT: I do not feel that I can draw 7 a legal judgment. I can draw some ideas out of my analysis 8 as to what would appear to be a reasonable basis for a set 9 of objectives that must be exercised every time, or a total 10 amount -- I should actually say a total amount of this 11 importance, weighting that should go into a full 12 participation exercise.
4 13 JUDGE FRYE: In order for an exercise, in your 14 opinion, to qualify as a full participation exercise.
15 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE FRYE Now, then I guess the question is:
17 Should the ingestion pathway --
18 MR. LANPHER: This is only an example.
19 JUDGE FRYE: An example. Should that be 20 included in order for you to draw the conclusion that a full 21 participation exercise had taken place?
j 22 WITNESS HOCKERT: My judgment in that, as 23 expressed in one of the answers also in the testimony here, 24 is that there is probably no single objective that is an 4
25 absolute must.
- /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
- ' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-f6
- 6
~ . .
l 9140 06 06 6122
,oewalsh 1 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
2 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 3 0 Well, is it your testimony then -- are you
- 4 through, Judge?
5 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, go ahead.
6 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 7 0 Is it your testimony, Mr. Hockert, that you I 8 could have an exercise in which no communications 9 capabilities whatsoever were demonstrated. In other words, 10 Objective 5 was not -- I am referring to Page 28, Objective 11 5 of PR-1, the ability to communicate with all appropriate i
12 locations, organizations and field personnel, no telephone 13 calls were done, not even simulated, you don't have any 14 communication whatsoever, it is still a full participation 15 exercise. Is that your testimony?
16 A (Witness Hockert) I would imagine that would 17 could hypothetically do that. I doubt that it would be 18 possible to demonstrate many of the other objectives without 19 communication, however.
20 0 But it is your -- is it your testimony that in
. 21 theory you could eliminate that objective, and still have a 22 full participation exercise?
23 A In theory. <
24 JUDGE FRYE: But not as a practical matter.
25 WITNESS HOCKERT: Not as a practical matter, no,
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage fm33MM6
9140 06 06 6123
,onwalsh 1 sir.
2 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 3 0 And this all goes back to your weightingLsystem, 4 is that correct?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 JUDGE PARIS: When you say, 'in theory,' what'do 7 you mean?
8 WITNESS HOCKERT: Well, it goes back again to 9 the idea that these objectives realistically are not 10 exercised in isolation.
11 They come together'in scenarios, and therefore, 12 there are certain linkages that are in existence. For 13 instance, it is hard to believe that without-communications, 14 Objective 5, you would have a situation in which you could j
15 coordinate activities, Objective 3.
16 JUDGE PARIS: I agree.
17 MR. LANPHER: Judge Paris, can I follow up on 18 that?
19 JUDGE PARIS: Sure. Go ahead.
I 20 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 21 0 Let's not take this hypothetical to the absurd, 22 Mr. Hockert. You certainly could have communications in an 23 exercise and still not have that something that is an i
24 objective of the exercise. People telephoning, and that 3 25 kind of thing.
! /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 86 l
_ , , . . - - - - , . ~ . -- .. _ . . , . . . , _ _ . . . . - _ . - , - , _ . . ._ . - - - . . . , . - . . - - - _ , _ - .
9140 06 06 6124 s oowalsh 1 But FEMA is just not evaluating or observing 2 those communications. That is not an objective, okay?
3 A (Witness Hockert) I suppose one could structure 4 an exercise in that fashion if one wanted to.
5 0 Well, don't you -- do you have any understanding 6 how the objectives for a nuclear power plant exercise are 7 decided upon?
8 A I understand that they are worked out between 9 the licensee and FEMA and NRC, with the lead road, by far,
, 10 with FEMA and the NRC.
11 0 So, they decide, under current FEMA practice, 12 unless we get this Board to change something, who knows, 13 they decide what objectives are to be part of the test, 14 correct?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 Now, I want you to assume that FEMA and the 17 utilities and everyone else agrees, we are not going to look 18 at communications. It is not something that we are 19 interested in in this exercise for some reason.
20 A Okay.
21 0 All right? You can go and phone if you have to 22 phone people, but we are not going to check whether you do 23 it well or not, whether you have cheated or anything.
24 Is it your testimony that even though no one 25 looks at what is your second most important objective, that
! /\CE FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(o 336-fM6
- - - . .~ , _ --
~,- _ . . . . _ . . . . - _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . . . . ,
l l
l 9140 06,06 6125
- m oewalsh 1 that would still constitute a full participation exercise?
2 MR. ZEUGIN: I guess I will object to the 3 question, because it is a hypothetical. I don't think'Mr.
4 Lanpher laid out enough facts.
., 5 He hasn't laid out what other objectives would 6 be tested in this hypothetical exercise. I.think that is a 7 very important part of what Dr. Hockert has been saying in 4
8 all his answers.
9 I think he would need all those facts to be able 10 to answer Mr. Lanpher's question.
11 MR. LANPHER: Judge, I am trying to find out i
12 what --
13 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled. If you have difficulty 14 let me know.
15 WITNESS HOCKERT: May I just assume that all 16 other objectives are being exercised?
17 JUDGE FRYE: State your assumptions.
18 WITNESS HOCKERT: Okay. If I assume that all-19 other objectives are being exercised, yes, I would consider 20 that to be full participation.
- 21 There may be in that an implicit assumption that 22 FEMA and NRC were wise in choosing that, and for some reason 23 had sufficient confidence in the communications that they 24 didn't want to -- did not see a need to exercise it.
25 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 247 370fs Nationwide Courage *n-Ufw>M
--=<r+ps-+ +g-,n -, --~ ~vm4 -
--,-r-,- -- -- ,
,w~.--.+. -se-r-----: ,--s- - ,, ~-en,, - - - -c---,---a,e g--- y- -<---e--~~,n - - - - -
l R
- 9140 06 06 6126 1
,oewalsh 1 0 Do you consider the communications portions ~of a i
2 plant to be a major -- leave out, ' major,' to -- for now,
, . 3 and I will come back to it, don' t worry -- to be an 4 observable portion of the Plan?'
5 A (Witness Hockert) Yes, sir.
6 0 Then the only thing that you have difficulty 7 with is whether that is a major observable portion, isn't 8 it?
9 A Again, I have the difficulty of characterizing i 10 specific aspects of the plan within -- in isolation as major 11 observable portions.
12 0 Mr. Hockert, when was the first time you read 13 Appendix E to Part 50?
14 JUDGE FRYE: Before you get --
15 MR. LANPHER: I am coming back.
16 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
17 MR. LANPHER: I am going to be here for a while, 18 I think.
19 JUDGE FRYE: The reason I interrupted, I got the 1
20 impression, Mr. Hockert, that in that last answer you were i
not raising your concern about giving a legal conclusion, 21 j 22 Was I correct in that, or was I incorrect?
23 WITNESS HOCKERT: That was part of it.
24 JUDGE FRYE: Part of it.
25 WITNESS HOCKERT: Part of it, but not the total a
ACE FEDERAt. REPORTERS, }NC.
3 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m336 fM6
. _ - . ___ . ~ ,, , . . _ _ _ _ . . , - , _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - , _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ .__ _ _ - . - . _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ -
- 9140 06 06 6127
- oewalsh I concern.
2 JUDGE FRYE: If you left out the problems that 4
i 3 you have with giving a legal conclusion, and just took the 4 words in their ordinary meaning, what would your answer be?
5 MR. LANPHER: Judge, so the record is straight, 6 would you state the question? I don't know what he is 7 really supposed to respond to.
i j 8 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I was coming back to your i 9 question, which was major observable --
1 i 10 MR. LANPHER: I left out, ' major.'
] 11 JUDGE FRYE: I thought you had included it.
J J 12 MR. LANPHER: I thought I left it out.
- 13 JUDGE FRYE
- All right. Let me get out, then.
14 I am just messing you up.
I 15 (Laughter.)
~
16 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) i
- 17 0 When was the first timo you road Appendix E, the a
I 18 portion relating to full participation exercises, if you 19 recall?
i i
20 A (Witness Hockert) I am not sure that I can 21 remember that. I can remember that it has boon at least 22 four or five years ago.
23 0 This Hockert Study was not designed to defino 24 what had to be tested in order to satisfy the Appendix C i 25 definition of a full participation exorciso, was it?
! Acn FnonnAt. RneonTnns, INC.
l 202 347 3700 saiion.ia, cme, ,e m336 uan
~ ,
I l
.9140 06 06 6128 i
,oswalsh 1 A Not specifically. However, there was a good 2 deal of discussion between myself and members of the NRC i 3 Staff and the FEHA Staff about what objectives were to be j 4 tested in all exercises, what would be a reasonable way to 5 put that sort of information together, but I do not recall i
l 6 that the words, ' full participation exercise' and the
{ 7 specific regulatory definition ever came up in those 8 discussions.
9 0 I think you agreed before that the l
l 10 communications portion -- the ability to communicate, the
- 11 Objective 5 that we are talking about beforo, that is an 1
12 observable portion?
i
- 13 A Yes, sir.
- 14 0 You also -- would you agree also, given the 15 study that you performed, that that is a very important i
16 observable portion?
17 A Absolutely.
j 18 0 And that ingestion pathway testing is a very j 19 important observable portion?
l 20 MR. ZEUGIN: I will object to the form of that l i
! 21 question. I think it is vague. I don't know that ingostion 22 pathway testing deals with --
1
} 23 MR. LANPHEP: Objective 11.
24 JUDGE FRYE: Objectivo 11. ;
i 25 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes, sir. The ono for making !
! ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC, i 202 347 3'(o Nationwide Cmerage lunO3M686 1
i 9140 06 06 6129 j ' ,oswalsh 1 'the calculation, dose calculation, and recommending l 2 protective actions. ;
3 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) i 4 0 That is a very important observable element of a
, u
, S Plan. f f
6 A (Witness Hockert) Yes, sir. l
(
7 0 And the only difficulty that you have is saying
- 8 whether that is a major observable element, is that i
j 9 correct? That is what you have difficulty in answering? -
l 10 A I believe the term you used before was,
- major '
i
]
11 observable portion,' or, ' major portion observable.' -
} 12 0 Well, you had difficulty calling either of t
}
13 those, the ability to communicate or the ability to project l 14 dosage to the public by ingostion exposure, you had l
) 15 difficulty calling either of those a major observable l t
16 portion, is that correct?
1 i i 17 A That is correct.
i 18 0 You have no problem finding it a very important 19 one? ;
)
i l 20 A That is correct. !
! l t 21 0 Now, would you agree if that is a major i r l 22 observable portion, please assumo for a moment that it is a
! 23 major one, that it would have to be exercised in order to j 24 qualify as a full participation exerciso?
25 A I think, sir, wo are talking at cross-purposes. ,
Ace FEDERAL, RcroRTuus, INC.
? 202 347 37m Nation *kle coserage m ).w wan s
9140 06 06 6130 s oswalsh 1 0 Answer my question please. If you can't answer 2 my question, just say so.
3 A I can't answor your question, then.
4 0 What is the difficulty you are having, sir?
5 A The difficulty that I am having is that there 6 seems to be a paradigm on your part that there are cortain 7 objectives which get the title, ' major observable portion' 8 attached besido them.
9 0 Well --
10 A And the view that I have, based on the analysis 11 in the Report, is that one can take a set of objectivos, sum 12 up the importance of them, find out how much of the total 13 importance of all the off-sito preparodnoss objectivos they 14 subsumo, and thereby based upon that sum, say a major 15 observable portion of tho omorgency preparodnoss was 16 oxercisod.
17 0 You said, *a major portion,' correct?
18 A Yes.
19 0 But doesn' t the regulation -- do you have a copy
, 20 of Appendix E there, sir?
21 A I think I havo ono.
22 (Witnoss llockort obtains document.)
23 0 I direct your attention to Part 4.F, if you have 24 it. Do you have that, Mr. Ilockort?
25 A Yos, sir.
Act.Fniwnri. Riti>ouTtins, INC.
- 02 347 37m Nationwide Emerare NH .416-(M6 l
9140 06 06 6131
,oswalsh 1 0 The regulation in Footnote 4 doesn't talk about 2 a major observable portion. It says the major observablo 3 portions, doesn't it?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 one second. Mr. flockert, turning your attention 6 to Page 29 of your testimony, we touched on this question 7 briefly yesterday morning, I think, or afternoon, Question 8 33, 9 A Yes, sir.
10 0 You state that the very important category only 11 contemplate that those objectivos would be demonstrated most 12 frequently, not necessarily in overy full participation 13 oxerciso.
14 A Yes, sir.
15 0 When you uso the term, ' full participation 16 exerciso' in your testimony, are you using it in the manner 17 specified in Appendix E?
18 A Yos, sir, in my judgment, not to draw a legal 19 conclusion.
20 0 Well, Mr. flockort , how do you avoid drawing a ,
21 legal conclusion if you are using this torm in the manner it 22 is used in Appondix E7 i
23 A I am giving my judgmont as to what sooms to mo 1
24 to bo an appropriato definition of a full participation 25 oxorciso.
Acti Fili >iinai. Riti>onTiins, INC. '
20:4 47 3700 Nation.nle nnerav mai .n6 ta6 ;
L P
i 9140 06 06 6132 ,
' ,,oswalsh 1 Q It is an interpretation of what Appendix E I
2 means?
J
! 3 A I can't give a legal interpretation on Appendi"
! 4 E.
} 5 0 So this is your separate definition of what a 0
l 6 full participation exercise means, is that correct?
i 7 A This is my judgment of what a reasonable l
l 8 definition for a full participation exercise would be, and i
i 9 in that sense it is a separate definition.
j i
10 0 so, your use of full participation exerciso here 3 t
11 does not relato to Appondix E?
l 12 A Cortainly it relates to Appendix E. l i
l 13 0 Okay. Lot's got back to it. You can't have it i
14 both ways, Mr. Ilockert. You say you don't n'ood all of the j
! 15 very important in every full participation exorcise. [
i
) 16 A That is my judgment, yes, sir. .
1 17 0 Okay. Then, do you draw the judgment that i 18 ingostion pathway testing is not a major observable portion l
19 of the omorgoney plan?
) l l No, sir.
[
20 A !
l .
l, 21 0 Do you draw any judgment on that? -
l 22 A Tho judgment that I draw in this area is best I 23 think expressod by my answer to Quostion 33, and that in :
24 that one cannot take those individual objectivos and put 1
25 major observable portion on one ploco; and not major ;
i Actt FilDl!RAl, RitronTitRs, INC.
202 M .D W Nahonwide Omerarc Nn Uf, (Mi I
9140 06 06 6133 s oswalsh 1 observable portion on another picco.
2 That that the exorciso has to be looked at in 3 toto, and determine whether or not the major observable 4 portions of the plan are exorcised.
l 5 0 So, this Board has to make a decision whether 6 the major observable portions woro exorcised, correct?
7 A That is correct.
8 0 Can you help us decide whether ingestion pathway 9 testing is a major observable portion? '
10 A Not in isolation from the rest of the exorciso.
11 0 But doesn't the Ilockert report at least 12 implicitly support the view that ingostion pathway testing 13 is very important?
! 14 A It is very important, and it should be dono most 15 frequently, but it doos not necessarily support the view 16 that its omission constitutos a failure to test the major l 17 observable portion.
10 JUDGE Siloth Mr. Lanphor, it scoms to mo that wo 19 are hanging up horo on somothing that looks fairly clear. I 20 think Dr. Ilockort is telling us that ho thinks he has l
21 developed a group of weighting factors such that if you add l 22 up all the woighting factors of the objectivos that woro l
23 tostod, you can toll whethor the exerciso as a whole tested 24 the major observablo portions of the plan. Is that correct?
l 25 WITNESS Il0CKERT: Exactly, sir. l Acit.17 intinAi. Riti>oittiins, INC, l l 202. m & m NationnWe Omet. ore km 14 (M6
9140 06 06 6134
,oswalsh 1 JUDGE SHON: But he can't toll you about any ono 2 objective, because there is none of them, not any one of 3 them, that sums up to a major observable portion of the 4 Plan.
5 Is this not correct?
6 WITNESS tlOCKERT: Exactly, sir.
7 JUDGE SHON: And thoro just is no answer to your 8 question, is Number 15 a major observable portion. The only
, 9 thing that is a major observable portion is a sum of 10 weighting factors that excoods a given amount, is that 11 right.
12 WITNESS !!OCKERT: Precisely.
13 BY MR. LANPilER: (Continuing) 1 14 0 Well, Mr. Ilockert, I* Sught you testifiod 15 carlier that the objectivos reprosent the observable
- 16 portions?
1 17 A Yes, sir.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Act!.Fiiutinal. Ri!Pon riins, INC.
1 l 202 147 1700 Nationnie Gnerage km 11t> fMt>
. ._ m _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ ~ ._-___. - . _ _ _ - _ __ _ _ ._ . _ _
{
9140 0' 07 6135 l .uswalsh' 1 0 Now, I understand the comparisons that were 1
] 2 developed in your study, POc. Hockert --
4 j 3 JUDGE PARIS: Excuse me, Mr. Lanpher. Can you i
1 4 identify the page again?
i
- 5 WITNESS HOCKERT: The weighting factors are on 6 Pago 43 of the study.
7 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) l 8 0 As I understand your study, you asked a series i
j 9 of comparative questions in order to derive the relative
! 10 importance of particular objectives versus each other; is 11 that correct?
j 12 A (Witness Hockert) That is correct. ,
13 0 Now, is it correct that from that process one j 14 can discern the relative rank or order of objectives i
15 according to your testimony?
j 16 A Yes, sir.
t j 17 0 And, you relied upon the sort of underlying ,
18 outhority or methodology of a Dr. Saaty. Is that how you j 19 pronounce it?
i 20 A Yos, sir.
l
, 21 0 S-a-a-t-y. Now, does anything in Dr. Saaty's :
l 22 work -- is it Dr. Saaty?
4
! 23 A Yos.
i 24 0 -- speak to the question of whether the weights
- 25 themsolvos correspond to physical amounts?
l
} !
I /\CE. FEDERAL REvonTuns, INC. i
! 3 202 347 3700 Nadonwkle cmcrare lun3.wrai i
1
9140 07 07 6136
- , uswalsh 1 A It depends upon the problem. Dr. Saaty has done 2 a -- and in one of the references in there, there is a I
3 demonstration of circumstances in which the weights do 4 correspond to physical processes.
i 5 For example, he did a comparison by this method j 6 of relative intensities of light at different directions 7 based on individual judgment which matches quite nicely with i
8 the invert square. law. ,
9 He did another set of comparisons of relative 10 distances among major cities which again with the hierarchal 11 structure and the judgment of individuals who had, you know, J
12 travelled and were reasonably knowledgeable about geography i 13 correlated quite nicely with the exact distances.
- 14 So, when there is a good correlation with a 15 physical measure that can be independently measured, this j 16 methodology appears to compare quite nicely.
17 0 So, you in fact need to have some pretty precise 18 corresponding factors in order to verify the methodology; is 19 that correct, in order to ascribe precise physical weights?
20 A No, sir. I believe that what it amounts to is
! 21 that the methodology works and gives quite precise answers
) 22 in those cases where there are physical cross-checks.
2 23 Therefore, we can have a fair degree of confidence that it 24 will work in other areas also.
i l 25 I f i
4 ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-(M6
9140 07 07 6137
.uewalsh 1 O Let me ask you this question, then. If you look 2 at - going back to Page 28 of your testimony, the most 3 important objective according to your study is PR-1 4 Objective 10, the ability to project dosage to the public 5 via plume exposure.
6 And, according to Attachment L this has a weight 7 of .134; is that correct?
8 A That is correct.
9 0 What is the confidence interval for this weight?
10 A Roughly plus or minus about 10 percent on an 11 individual weight.
12 O How do you calculate that?
13 A Basically by looking at, among other things, the 14 historical information about confidence of these values when 15 the consistency is reasonable. This methodology involves a 16 large number of redundant comparisons.
17 In other words, since the weights are compared 18 pair-wise, there are many more comparisons made than would 19 be required to actually come up with the individual weights 20 and rankings. These additional comparisons provide a good 21 measure of the consistency with individual judgments or a 22 group's judgments and provide a method for flagging those 23 areas which are, you know, in which inconsistent judgments 24 have been made or judgments whose consistency are suspect.
25 Now, since they are individual judgments this ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-(M6
9140 07 07 6138
,uswalsh 1 .does not rely necessarily on their correctness, because I
2 obviously if you have someone who is not knowledgeable about 3 the subject he may make consistent and incorrect judgments.
4 When the consistency is reasonably good, the 5 overall uncertainty in the weight -- and I would not exactly 6 characterize that as a standard deviation, and in that sense
! 7 if I'm not answering your specific question, I'm sorry.
8 But, it's around 10 percent, the overall fuzziness.
i j 9 0 Well, that's the overall fuzziness, to use your
- 10 term, in terms of the relative ranking; is that correct?
! 11 A In terms of the weights. In.other words, I 12 would not draw a strong distinction between the weight given 4
13 to Number 5, Objective 5 and Objective 3. The method is 14 simply not that precise.
) 15 0 Well, how -- that's more than a 10 percent i
! 16 difference between those two that you just mentioned, I i
17 believe that the weight that you attributed to Objective 5 18 was .0977 1 19 A That's right. And, the weight I attributed to 20 Objective 3 is .096. ;
21 JUDGE SHON: I believe Dr. Hockert means 10 i 22 percent of the value shown, not 10 absolute percent.
- 23 WITNESS HOCKERT
- Thank you, sir. That is 24 correct. ;
i l 25 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) )
A.CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MK33MM6
__ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . )
1
.9140 07 07 6139 oowalsh I thought you were comparing Numbers 1 and 2 on 1 O 2 Page 28.
3 A No. I'm sorry. I was comparing --
4 0 Oh, you were comparing 2 and 3?
i 5 A -- 5 and 3. Objective Number 5 and Objective 6 Number 3 on 4-3.
7 0 We were talking about different things. I'm 8 sorry.
! 9 A Yes.
10 0 Okay.
j 11 A It gets to be confusing with all the different 12 objective numbers that are flying around between PR-1 and EX-3 13 3.
14 0 Now, Mr. Hockert, going again to your Answer 33 15 on Page 29, I won't repeat that question and answer. We 16 have got it in the record. We were focusing before on what 17 were the major observable portion of whatever.
18 Let's move on to another part of the regulatory 19 standard, and that -- strike that.
20 Before we do that, it's your testimony that i
21 these very important ought to be demonstrated the most 22 frequently, correct?
- 23 A Yes, sir. That would seem logical.
24 O And, isn't it true that under Appendix E that if l 25 demonstration is reasonably achievable, it is supposed to be i
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i '
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage mL33MM6
t 9140 07 07 6140
,uewalsh I done for a full participation exercise?
2 A For the first full participation exercise, I 3 believe that is correct.
4 0 Okay. So, if the demonstration of an objective 5 is -- of a major portion of the plan is reasonably I 6 achievable or -- excuse me. If a demonstration of a portion 1
i 7 of the plan is reasonably achievable it should be done for f 8 the first full participation exercise, correct?
! 9 A Understanding that you mean reasonably
! 10 achievable without mandatory public participation.
j 11 0 That's right. And --
4 12 A Yes, sir.
I j 13 0 -- would ingestion pathway testing, to your ,
i 14 knowledge, require mandatory public participation? When I 15 say ingestion testing, again we are talking about Objective 16 11.
17 A No, sir.
18 0 It would not? Now, earlier, Mr. Ilockert -- if i
19 you will indulge me one moment and let me look at my notes.
20 (Pause.)
21 Mr. Hockert, directing your attention to Page 4-
! 22 1 of the Hockert report, you acknowledge really what you 1
- 23 just acknowledged in your testimony that there could be 24 differences, relatively small differences, in the rankings 25 that individual respondents might give.
i l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 373) Nationwide Coverage 8(uk 31MM6
- . . _ _ . _ . . . ~ . _ _ _ , . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . . ~ . _ . _ - . . . . . _ , . _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ , , . . _ _ _ . _ . - _ . ~ . . , . - . _ , -
1 9140 07 07 6141
.uewalsh 1 An item which was ranked Number 5 could
- 2 objectively be ranked Number 4 or Number 6 as well.
3 A It could be ranked that way by a different 4 individual or individuals, yes, sir.
J j 5 0 But, your report also indicates that you 6 wouldn' t expect larger dif ferences than that, correct?
7 A That is correct so long as the individuals were 1
8 experts in the area. Again, it is not magic. It relies on 9 the expertise of the individuals making the judgments.
10 0 Well, isn't it true that in the comparisons we 11 went through earlier with respect to Draft Guidance 12 Memorandum EX-3 there were at least three instances where 13 either your very important were not core objectives for EX-3 j 14 or vice-versa, some of your less important -- in other 15 words, your very bottom category -- became core objectives i
16 under EX-3?
17 A Yes, sir.
I 18 0 That's more than a change of just one or two 19 places, isn't it?
20 A Yes, sir.
I t 21 0 So, that judgment at Pac,e 4-1 of your report has 22 not been borne out, has it? i 23 A I would disagree with that conclusion from the 24 data.
l 25 0 Well, certainly the Draft Guidance Memorandum EX-
- Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
) 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrape 8m-33M6th
9140 07 07 6142
.uowalsh 1 3 has a number of instances where that judgment has not been 2 borne out, correct?
3 A To my knowledge, the Draft Guidance Memorandum 4 EX-3 does not rank the importance of the objectives.
5 0 Well, doesn't it rank the importance at least to 6 the extent of putting them into two categories, those that 7 are core which are supposed to be exercised very, very 8 frequently versus those that are the other ones?
9 A As I testified previously, there are reasons 10 other than importance for making that division.
11 0 Do you know whether reasons other than 12 importance played any role in Draft Guidance Memorandum EX-13 37 14 A No, sir. I do not know what FEMA's decision 15 process in that guidance memorandum was.
16 0 Now, at the top of Page 30 of your testimony you 17 state that the objectives in your so-called moderate 18 importance category would on average receive moderate 19 emphasis.
20 Do you see that testimony at the top of Page 30 21 of your profiled testimony?
22 (The witness is looking at the document.)
23 A That's correct.
24 0 Now, isn't it true that PR-1 Objective Number 4 l
25 is one of the moderate category objectives in your study? !
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrape Nut).htM6
9140 07 07 6143
,unwalsh 1 MR. LANPHER: And, for the Board's information,
~
! 2 PR-4 is to demonstrate adequacy of facilities and displays 3 to support emergency operation.
4 WITNESS HOCKERT: That's correct.
j 5 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing)
I 6 Q And, that's one of the EX-3 very -- not very 7 important, core objectives, isn't it?
8 A Yes, sir.
I 9 0 So, it would seem, would it not, that a 10 difference in importance is being drawn by FEMA from your 11 IEAL report there; isn't that correct?
12 A I would be a little bit hesitant to draw that 1
j 13 conclusion again due to the fact that we have three i
14 categories and they have two categories.
j 15 I considered those inconsistent where we had i
16 them in the third and they placed them in the first, or we
- 17 had them in the first and they placed them in the last.
i But, where you draw the line among the moderates 18 19 is a judgment call. And FEMA made a different judgment to 20 draw than where we saw the breaks in the respondent data, j 21 0 Well, was it a judgment call in your study whero
! 22 to draw the line?
) 23 A Yes, sir. As you can see, there is no
] 24 tremendously sharp distinction here. It goes back to what l 25 the Judges and the panel mentioned earlier about considering 1
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(X) Nationwide Coserage mt)StAl6
l 9140 07 07 6144 uewalsh 1 the weights in toto. If you look again on 4-3, you will see 1
2 that there is a sizeable jump in weight between the first 3 group of objectives and the second group, a smaller jump 4 between the second group and the third group.
5 It looks to me like these were reasonable places 6 to draw the lines based on the data that we received, and 7 that it would be a useful thing to do, to be able to draw 8 lines and put things in groups rather than just have them 9 all together there as a table.
10 But, there is nothing magic. In fact, if you 11 look at Figure 4-1, one of the things that you might 12 conclude from that, which might again be appropriate, is 13 that Objective 10 is a very, very important objective. And, 14 there should be one class of a category of very, very 15 important objectives that contains only objective 10, 16 another category of very important and so forth.
17 So, the lines drawn were admittedly a judgment 18 on my part to facilitate the reader's understanding of the 19 table. There is nothing inherent in the process.
20 JUDGE PARIS: You said that you separated the 21 groups on the basis of -- did you say large differences in 22 the weighting values? i 23 WITNESS Il0CKERT: Reasonably large differenc9s 24 in the weighted values, yes, sir.
25 JUDGE PARIS: Do you call going from .012 to Acn. FEDERAL. Rni>onTuns, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide cmerage Mn).twa6
f 9140 07 07 6145
.uewalsh 1 .009 a large value?
2 WITNESS HOCKERT: Not an exceptionally large, 3 no, sir. It was a place to draw a line.
- 4 And, as I said before, that was an arbitrary 5 judgment call. Certainly, drawing the line at -- above the 6 ones that are .014 could have been, you know, as equally l
7 justified.
k j 8 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
?
9 WITNESS HOCKERT: So, basically, as we've said i 10 before, the key utility of this from my perspective is the '
4 11 sum of the total of the weights and not the individual 12 categories --
13 JUDGE PARIS: In that case, couldn't we just
\
14 treat it as a continuum?
l i 15 WITNESS HOCKERT: It could indeed, sir. As I l
.l 16 say, the only reason that I did this was to sort of be able 1
j 17 to make things clear to the readers.
1 i 18 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
1 19 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) I l
l 20 0 Mr. Hockert, if one were to utilize your study ,
! l ;
- 21 to try to assess whether something was a full participation li 4
1
- 22 exercise -- you have not tried to do that, correct? ,
23 You have not -- l l
l 24 A I have -- this is primarily the support for my i
l 25 testimony and the jointly sponsored testimony, that the i
i
/\CE. FEDERAL REvonTEns, INC.
);
202 347 3700 Nationwide cmerage mn 336 tu6
l i
9140 07.07 6146 j suswalsh I correct Shoreham exercise was, in fact, a full participation' 2 exercise based upon the objectives tested and the sum of the 1
3 weights --
4 0 ~Now, you've said --
5 'A -- of'those objectives tested. ,
6 0 -- the objectives tested and the sum of the i -7 weights, right?
8 A Yes. ,
! 9 Q So, it's key that the objectives actually bo i
j 10 tested, correct?
11 A That is correct. '
L 12 0 We woro talking earlior about an examplo -- I j i
( 13 guess we were talking about PR-1, Objectivo 14. Do you !
1 !
j 14 recall that, about public information? l i
l l 15 A Yes, sir. ;
I i 16 0 And, you recited thet public information -- not l 1
17 public -- the brochures, to be procino, tho brochuron aro !
- 18 somothing that would como under that catogory, all right?
2 19 That was your undoratanding?
i i 20 A Yes, sir.
3 l 21 0 And, thoso woro not tentod at Shoreham, correct? !
l 22 A That is correct. l I
j 23 0 Now, that's Objectivo 14. I'm looking at your 24 Figuro 4-1 and the total woight given to objectivo 14 in l i 1
! 25 .017: is that correct?
26 A Yon, sir.
ACl!.1711Dl'.RAl. Riti'oritius, INC.
M W.Um N dotm MeOmrtge Nn )4 (Mfi 4
l l
9140 00 00 6147
.arysimons 1 O Now let's assume then that some part of what 2 could be tested for that objective wasn't tested, right?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 0 flow much weight would you give, or how will you 5 decide how much weight to give in the Shoreham exercise or 6 any particular exercise, and I understand you haven't i 7 studied the Shoreham exercise specifically, but how weight 8 will you give to that objective?
9 A It might be appropriate to do as I did in 10 analyzing the Shoreham exercise to do a sensitivity analysis 11 to see what happens, what the weights sum up to if we go 12 with all those that we've basically agreed were fully tested 13 and give no partial credit or look into the option of giving 14 partial credit.
! 15 0 Well, your report doesn't address that, does it, 16 whether you give partial credit or full credit?
4 17 A No, sir, that's not specifically addressed in 18 the report.
19 0 Is that something that would have to be analyzed s
20 in a follow-up report of how you give weights where there 21 was a question of whether there was a complete testing of an 22 objective?
23 A That certainly could be addressed in a follow-up 24 report, but again it depends to a large degree on, you know, 25 the overall precision of the method is such that I am ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
9140 00 00 6148 aarysimons.1 somewhat reluctant to split hairs in terms of partial credit 2 unless there is a need to, and even when you get to the 3 stage where it's a borderline case where you need to, you're 4 probably best to really look back in the details of what 5 went on and think perhaps a little bit more deeply, but 6 certainly it could be addressed in a follow-up report.
7 0 That's not something that you've been able to do 8 yourself for Shoreham?
9 A No. For Shoreham, in my judgement, there was no 10 need to.
11 O Well, Mr. Hockert, you testified before that you 12 had not reviewed the Shoreham exercise documents; isn't' 13 that correct?
14 A That is correct.
15 Q And you haven't reviewed the Shoreham emergency 16 plan?
17 A That is correct.
18 0 So how do you know that there was no need to?
19 A All right, may I explain what I did do to get 20 this testimony?
21 0 I would like you to answer my question.
22 A Okay. I did a sensitivity analysis to get the 23 testimony. I started out and I took what Mr. Behr and Mr.
24 Daverio indicated were the objectives that were fully 25 tested. I analyzed those, summed up the weights for those, ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202 347-3700 Nr.:ionwide CoseraFe 800-3.46M6
9140 00 00 6149 arysimons 1 and came to the conclusion that over the whole universe of 2 weights that about 87 percent of the total importance of 3 objectives had been tested. This, in my judgment, was 4 major.
5 However, I recognized that there were 1
6 contentions as to what was or was not tested. So I went 7 through and looked at the intervenor's contentions, assuming 8 that they had been diligent in identifying those which were 9 either not tested in toto or not tested in part. I assumed 10 conservatively that they were not tested at all and removed l
11 those weights from the overall analysis and came to the l
12 conclusion that approximately 79 percent of the total 13 importance weighting was tested under those circumstances.
14 My judgment in that case was that it was also full 15 participation.
16 Q Do you have a copy of that sensitivity analysis?
17 A I have some notes in my briefcase, but it's 18 certainly something that anybody can do adding up the i 19 numbers, l i
20 0 Well, you performed this analysis. Is it an l 21 analysis? Is it a piece of paper or several sheets of paper 22 or what?
23 A It's several sheets of paper that I did in the 24 motel room in the last couple of nights.
25 MR. LANPHER: I would like to see a copy of this-
/\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage Mn336-6M6 I
4 9140 00 00 6150 t analysis.
arysimons 1 2 WITNESS HOCKERT: Okay. I'm sorry. It's not 3 mine to give I guess.
4 (Laughter.)
5 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye ---
6 JUDGE FRYE: Do you have any objection, Mr.
7 Zeugin?
8 MR. ZEUGIN: No. We'll endeavor to make a copy 9 over lunch.
10 JUDGE FRYE: I'm sorry?
11 MR. ZEUGIN: I've not seen the particular piece 12 of paper that Dr. Hockert may have scribbled on, but we'll 13 make a copy of it over lunch for Mr. Lanpher.
14 JUDGE FRYE: My understanding, Dr. Hockert, is 15 that even I, who is certainly not trained the way you are, 16 could do what you have done I gather simply adding up 17 numbers.
18 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we'll get a copy of whatever 20 there is.
21 MR. LANPHER: I would like to see that over 22 a lunch.
[
23 BY MR. LANPHER:
24 0 Let me ask you a question even in-advance of 25 seeing this analysis, Mr. Hockert, if you can recall. Did
/4CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m336-6M6
9140 00 00 6151 I .crysimons 1 you attribute any weight to any item which was not the 2 nabject of a Shoreham exercise objective?
3 A (Witness Hockert) No, sir.
4 0 So for ingestion pathway objective 11 you had no 5 weights?
6 A That's correct. Mr. Behr and Mr. Daverio's 7 testimony indicated that that was not demonstrated. So that 8 was not included.
9 0 Mr. Hockert, so that I will be able to 10 understand the sensitivity analysis also, am I to understand 11 that you accepted as true the allegations in Contentions Ex-12 15 and 16?
13 A Yes, sir, for the lower sensitivity bound, and 14 I, as summarized on pages 4 and 5 of our testimony ---
15 0 You said for the lower sensitivity bounds?
16 A Yes, sir, for the one which the upper 17 sensitivity bound so-called was the one in which we assumed 18 that Mr. Behr and Mr. Daverio's statements about what was 19 demonstrated were correct.
20 In the lower bound, which was the one, as I 21 said, at 79 percent of the overall importance, I presumed 22 that objectives related to Items A through M on pages 4 and 23 5 of our testimony were in fact not tested and threw out all 24 the objectives which they supported, including those which 25 may in fact have been partially tested, or at least ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
9140 00 00 6152 arysimons 1 that there was no allegation that there was a full failuro 2 to demonstrate.
3 For example, "H" in procedures relating to 4 radiological monitoring and decontamination of evacuees in 5 special facilities.
6 0 Where are you referring to?
7 A On page 5 of my testimony. I'm sorry. Based on.
8 that, I basically threw out objective 27, which was
]
9 radiological monitoring of evacuees, and not just because I 10 didn't want to mess around with the partial credit issue 11 that you mentioned.
12 JUDGE FRYE: So you subtracted that value from 13 your earlier figure that you had arrived at based on what 14 Mr. Behr and Mr. Daverio had done.
15 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes. The only thing that is a 16 slight complication to that was because the relocation of 17 the EOF /EOC was not a relevant objective here because the 18 EOC is outside the EPZ, there was a renormalization done to 19 get a set of weights which summed to one that did not 20 include those.
21 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
22 BY MR. LANPHER:
23 0 Well, can you tell me, looking at pages.4 and 5, 24 Mr. Behr -- and I guess you used this as sort of your 25 benchmark, the summary of pages of 4 and 57 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
9140 00 00 6153
.arysimons 1 A (Witness Hockert) Yes, sir, and I think you 2 mean Mr. Hockert, but go ahead.
ll 3 0 I'm sorry, I do. Do you recall what you related 4 No. A on page 4, the procedures for public notification?
5 A Actually, if I may, my notes are not as clear on 6 that as I would like. I subsumed A, B, C, D and J into 7 objectives 13 and 14.
8 0 A, B, C, D and J?
9 A And J for objectives 13 and 14.
10 0 What did you do with E?
11 A E, K and L were objective 18.
12 0 E, K and L?
13 A E, K and L.
14 0 Were objective which?
15 A 18.
16 0 How about F?
17 A F was objective 19.
18 0 G?
19 A G was one in which Mr. Behr and Daverio did not 20 testify that the objective was met anyway. So it wasn't 21 counted in either of them. That's the ingestion pathway.
22 0 Did you relate that just to otjective 11?
23 A No. It was related both to objective 11 and the 24 other ingestion pathway objective, but that didn't affect 25 the sensitivity analysis since those were not in in the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
6154 9140 00 00
' ones that Mr. Behr and Daverio said were done.
arysimons 1 2 0 I understand that, but do you have a listing of 3 which ones besides ll?
4 A I would have to check on that. I wrote down only the things that affected the sensitivity analysis, and
~
5 i 6 that one wasn't in either.
7 0 So it's 11 plus?
8 A Yes, 11 plus the other one whose number I can 9 look up for you if you want.
10 0 Then am I correct that "I" is objective 35?
11 A I believe so. Again, that was one that was a 12 wash. That was in one that Mr. Behr and Daverio did not 13 agree, or did not indicated was tested.
I 14 0 And "M" was which?
15 A Let me see. "M" was involved in the same one as 16 the one tied to care of evacuees, which I believe was also 17 tied to the same one as "H", objective 27 also. I had a i
18 little bit of trouble tying that one down.
=
19 0 Mr. Hockert, with respect to the other 20 objectives, which are not the subject of this contention, 15 21 and 16, did you make the assumption that they were fully 22 tested, each of those objectives?
23 A If Mr. Behr and Daverio said they were, yes, 24 sir. l 25 0 And how do you define fully tested? l l
l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m 3.16-6M6 1
9140 00 00 6155
.arysimons 1 A Tested adequately for FEMA to make an j 2 appropriate determination.
3 0 That the objective was satisfied? l 7
4 A That the objective was either satisfied or not 5 satisfied.
6 Q. Are you familiar with the modular format?
7 A Yes, sir.
I 8 0 You're familiar, are you not, then that in that 9 modular format FEMA has, and check list may be the wrong l 10 term, but they go through a number of things for each module i
! 11 of what gets observed or looked for, correct?
12 A Yes, sir.
- 13 0 I want to understand your methodology, Mr.
14 Hockert. Just using as an example the modular format under l
j 15 public alerting and instruction, it lists as some of the i
16 check things that would be looked at under the topic " Action i
i 17 Taken" sirens activated, tone alert radios activated, EBS i 18 activated, vehicle dispatched (if so, indicate route time) i 19 and calls put to schools. If these things.were not in fact 20 done, would that constitute a full test and be entitled to 21 full weight under your methodology?
22 A Again, to some degree we're splitting hairs in
! 23 terms of the partial credit aspect. I would say probably 24 that that is within the limits of the sensitivity analysis 25 that I did. Those that were not done, you know, that there i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
. _ . , - . _ . _ - _ , . _ . - _ _. . ~ . . _ _ _ . ._ _ _ . . _ , - ~ . _ _ . . . _. __
9140 00 00' 6156 i was any indication that I had that things were not done
.arysimons 1 2 appropriately, were counted as not done at all.
3 Again, my assumption here, because I did not go a
4 back and review the individual exercise reports and all the 4
5 detail sheets and all that, is that the LILCO witnesses were 1
-6 diligent and that the intervenors were diligent in doing 7 so. To the extent that they were not, then my analysis 8 suffers.
9 0 All right. Let me ask you the question a
- 10 different way. We talked for a while earlier this morning 11 about objective 5, the ability to communicate with all 12 appropriate locations, organizations and field personnel, 13 correct?
]
14 A Yes, sir.
15 0 Mr. Daverio, FEMA found that objective to be 16 demonstrated or tested; is that correct?
17 MR. ZEUGIN: Jucge Frye, I guess I would ask for 18 a clarification to.his question, whether it was demonstrated i 19 or whether it was tested. I'm not sure that the two words 20 mean the same thing.
21 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I take it he means tested.
22 Am I correct?
23 MR. LANPHER: Yes.
24 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes. If you look at our 1
1 25 Attachment J, FEMA had findings and we list them there on I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
9140 00 00 6157
.arysimons 1 communications.
2 BY MR. LANPHER:
3 0 And you're referring to approximately five pages 4 into Attachment J; is that correct?
5 A (Witness Daverio) That's correct.
6 0 The page corresponding to GM Ex-3, objective, 7 right?
8 A That's correct.
9 0 Now, Mr. Hockert, in the modular format -- I'm 10 not sure. I've got copies of the modular format and maybe I 11 should distribute copies of that if we are going to be 12 referring to it.
13 JUDGE FRYE: If you do that, I suppose what we l
14 have consistently been doing is marking it as an exhibit.
15 So it would probably be best to do that.
16 MR. LANPHER: Yes. She'll get it.
17 JUDGE FRYE: Also let me say when you get to a 18 convenient breaking spot for lunch we would like to break.
19 MR. LANPHER: Well, since she has to go get 20 those, maybe this is the right time.
l 21 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
I 22 MR. IRWIN: If we can get that after lunch and 23 get the copies of the format.
4 l 24 MR. LANPHER: We'll distribute the copies of the 25 format, and I'm going to -- well, I don't know exactly
! /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 i
~9140 00 00 615u arysimons 1 where I'm going to go at this point.
2 JUDGE FRYE: We'll take our hour and a half 3 lunch break at this point.
I 4 (Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the hearing recessed, 5 to reconvene at 1:05 p.m. the same day.)
6 I
7 8
9 i
10
, 11
- 12 i
13 14 15 t
t 16 i 17 .
)
18 19 l
20 21 22 23 f
l 24 I 25 i
- ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC
- 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
- l 9140 09 09 6159 i
- oswalsh 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (1
- 10 p.m.)
3 JUDGE FRYE: Shall we go back on the record, 4 please?
5 MR. LANPHER: Judge Margulies, I would like to 6 have marked as --
I 7 JUDGE FRYE: Judge Frye, I think you mean.
8 (Laughter.)
I 9 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye. I'm sorry. See, you 10 are rushing me. Whatever your name is, I would like to have 11 marked as Suffolk County Exhibit 94 a two-page document f 12 which I am going to ask Dr. Hockert to identify for us.
i 13 JUDGE FRYE: 94.
14 MR. LANPHER: I.believe that's the next number,
, 15 sir.
16 (The document referred to is marked j 17 as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit ;
i' l 18 Number 94 for identification.) i 19 Whereupon, 20 CHARLES A. DAVERIO, 21 DENNIS M. BEHR 22 and i
23 JOFN W. HOCKERT !
24 resume the witness table and, having been previously duly 25 sworn, were further examined and testified as follows:.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3346M6
l 9140 09 09 6160 t
joswalsh 1 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing)-
3 0 Dr. Hockert, is the document that has been 4 marked as Suffolk County Exhibit 94 for identification a 5 copy of the study that you were referring to just prior to i
! 6 the break?
l 7 A (Witness Hockert) I believe so. I have not 8 seen one of your copies that are marked, so I can't totally
! 9 verify that.
I 10 (The witness is provided a document.)
11 O Okay.
J 12 A Yes, sir.
13 O And, so I can understand this document, you said I
< 14 that before you subtracted out values for items that were in 15 dispute, so to speak, you came up with a normalized value of 16 .866; is that correct?
1 17 A That is correct.
18 O And, that's reflected on the first page, lower t
19 right? l
- 1. l 20 A Yes, sir. ,
l 21 O And, when you subtracted out the matters which l I
22 are indicated on Page 2 of this exhibit, your normalized ,
l
, 23 value went to .7877 24 A That's correct, sir.
I i 25 0 At the bottom of the first page of the exhibit, i
j
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
, - ~ - _ . . _ . - - , - . , --,. , -_. . _ - . - . . - . _ -_ ..-- -. - . , , . . . - = , - -
9140 09 09 6161 joswalsh 1 there is a subtraction of .014 from 1. Is that your 2 normalization calculation or part of it?
3 A That is part of it, sir.
4 0 And, does .014 represent the value of PR-1 5 Objective 33?
6 A Let me check to see which objective that is.
7 (The witness is looking at a document.)
8 Yes, sir.
9 MR. LANPHER: And, for the record, that 10 objective is, demonstrate the ability to relocate and 11 operate the alternate EOF /EOC, correct?
12 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes, sir.
13 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 14 0 And, the reason you -- please explain why you 15 deleted that objective?
16 A Because that objective was not applicable to 17 this exercise. . . ,
18 0 Is that because of the location of those 19 facilities?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE PARIS: Dr. Hockert, would you identify 22 this so it will be very clear in the record what it is?
23 WITNESS HOCKERT: Okay.
24 ,
JUDGE PARIS: You had been talking before lunch 25 about two things. One is summing the values and the other ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-34 f686
-i 9140 09 09 6162
- onwalsh I was a sensitivity analysis.
2 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes. This is one part of the 1
3 summing of the values portion. This is the portion in which
{ 4 I took the objectives which the testimony indicated that we l
5 had -- that Mr. Daverio's and Mr. Behr's testimony indicated 6 were observed and summed the weights for those pieces.
7 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. Thank you.
{
8 MR. 2EUGIN: Just for the record --
J, 9 WITNESS HOCKERT: The first sheet.
10 MR. ZEUGIN: Okay. He said "this" and I just 11 wanted to make sure it was noted that that was the first 12 page he was referring to. ,
{ 13 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing)
- 14 0 Now, Mr. Hockert, I'm looking at the first page 15 of Exhibit 94 and about two-thirds of the way down -- well, 16 let's understand this exhibit a little more clearly.
l I 17 The second column from the left are the PR-1 l
j 18 exhibit numbers, objective numbers?
19 A Yes, sir.
l I 20 0 And, then the third column are the weights from i
l 21 your Hockert report?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 0 And, the first column is just 1 through 29.
l 24 Those are the objectives that you felt were tested?
l 25 A Yes. That's just a count.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6
l 9140 09 09 6163 l
- oswalsh 1 O Okay. Now, part way down -- two-thirds of the
~
2 way down Column 2, you will see Objective 9 I believe.
, 3 A Yes, sir.
4 O And, that's with a weight of .014, correct?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 O And, I look at Page 2 and I don't see that 7 deleted, correct?
8 A That's correct.
9 0 Now, have you reviewed the FEMA testimony?
10 A Yes. I have looked at the FEMA testimony.
t 11 O Well, the FEMA testimony -- do you have a copy 12 of that handy, sir?
13 (The witness is provided a copy of the 14 document.)
15 WITNESS HOCKERT: Thank you.
16 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing)
! 17 0 Objective 9 for PR-1 is, demonstrate appropriate l
l 18 equipment and procedures for collection, transport and 19 analysis of samples of soil, vegetation, snow, water and 20 milk, correct?
21 A Correct.
22 O And, at Page 96 of the FEMA testimony, it states 23 that that objective was not evaluated during the exercise.
24 A Yes, sir.
25 O So, shouldn't Number 9 on your Exhibit 94 be ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 80lk3346M6
i 9140 09'09 6164
- oswalsh I deleted from --
2 A Yes, sir.
4 3 0 -- both calculations?
4 A Yes, sir. And, I apologize for that. When we
- 5 were rechecking it over lunch I found that same error.
6 0 Oh, okay. Are there any other errors so I don't i
7 go through that exercise?
8 A Not that I know of.
9 0 Okay. Fine. All right.
10 JUDGE PARIS: So, that would subtract the value 11 of .01 from .866 and also from .787?
12 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes, sir.
) 13 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
14 WITNESS HOCKERT: Approximately. That doesn't 15 account for the normalization, but it's trivial in that 16 case.
4
] 17 MR. LANPHER: Judge Paris, you said .01. I
! 18 think it's .014.
19 JUDGE PARIS: Excuse me. . 014, yes. j 20 MR. LANPHER: Okay.
21 JUDGE SHON: It wouldn't quite subtract .014 22 from the two final numbers. It would subtract it from the 23 number before you made the correction, wouldn't it?
24 WITNESS HOCKERT: That is correct, sir.
1 25 JUDGE SHON: But, that only amounts to a couple ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6 i
-- r . -- ~- , - . , , - - - - -, . . , , - . - - - , - - - , - , , - . .,..n, _ . . - , , - - - - - - ,,
9140 09 09 6165
- onwalsh 1 of percent or something. Or, that only amounts to about one 2 and a half percent or so.
3 It wouldn't make any real difference I think.
4 WITNESS HOCKERT: No.
5 JUDGE PARIS: So, to get an accurate figure, you 6 would subtract from the .854 and then make a multiplication?
7 WITNESS HOCKERT: That is correct, sir. Yes.
8 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 9 0 Next, Mr. Hockert, I don't see anywhere on this 10 sheet discussion of standard objective 34 which is, 11 demonstrate ability to estimate totbl population exposure.
I 12 A That is correct.
13 0 Was that just an oversight?
14 A No. I don't believe that anyone has contended 15 that was done.
16 0 Well, turning your attention to Page 103 of the
- 17 FEMA testimony, it says with respect to that objective, 18 " Recovery and reentry considerations were not evaluated 19 during the exercise."
20 So, should that not be subtracted from both 21 sides?
t 22 A No, sir, because it was never added in in the 23 first place.
24 0 Well, shouldn't that go into your normalization 25 calculation, then?
i
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
l l
l 9140 09 09 6166 t
- onwalsh 1 A No, sir, because it was an applicable objective.
2 0 Why was it inapplicable?
3 A It was an applicable objective. It could have 4 been done.
5 0 okay. It was an applicable --
6 A Yes, it was an applicable. objective.
7 0 okay.
8 A So, it doesn't go in the normalization
- 9 calculation. The only thing that goes in the normalization 10 calculation are inapplicables.
11 O Okay. So, it already was not added in?
12 A That's correct.
13 0 Okay. Thank you. Next, Mr. Hockert, you have 14 included the last -- the last cne on Exhibit 94, you have 15 included PR-1, Exhibit (sic) 23, which is to demonstrate 16 ability to effect an orderly evacuation of on-site 17 personnel.
18 That was not a FEMA objective, was it?
19 (The witness is looking at a document.)
l l
20 If you would like to look at Page 101 of the 21 testimony.
22 A (Witness Daverio) Mr. Lanpher, maybe I can 23 short-circuit --
24 0 No. Let me just get an answer to the question, .
I l
j 25 Mr. Daverio, and then you certainly can answer.
1 ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-334646 I
9140 09 09 .6167 1
- oswalsh 1 A (Witness Hockert) That is correct. It was not l i
2 evaluated by FEMA. l 3 (Witness Daverio) And, what I was just going to 4 add, if you look at Page 21 of our testimony, it was 5 evaluated by the NRC.
'6 0 But we are talking about FEMA objectives here, 7 correct?
e 8 A Yes. But, what we said in our testimony was, it 9 was evaluated by the NRC.
10 0 Well, I'm trying to understand Mr. Hockert's ,
11 chart. So, Mr. Hockert, to be consistent with your FEMA 12 objectives, shouldn't Number 23 come off this chart?
13 A (Witness Hockert) It was an objective that was 14 evaluated during the exercise.
I 15 0 Not by FEMA?
16 A Not by FEMA. I would certainly be willing to 17 take it off of the sensitivity analysis, the one on your 18 contention for the lower sensitivity bound. I would be 19 happy to take it off there.
20 0 Okay. Well, in terms of -- strike that.
21 My understanding of this sensitivity analysis 22 was to determine how much FEMA -- how much was tested and 23 observed by FEMA during the exercise; is that correct?
24 A No. The basis of the sensitivity analysis was 25 to try to determine whether or not it seemed reasonable to ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
19140 09 09 6168
- o2walsh I count this as a full participation exercise, assuming that 2 anything that was reasonably subject to question was not j
3 observed.
4 O But, this was in terms of the standard FEMA 5 objectives. l 6 A That's true.
7 0 Okay.
8 A The FEMA objective, however -- as Mr. Behr and 9 Mr. Daverio have indicated, the FEMA objective was observed, t
10 was tested by NRC. But, still the same objective was 11 tested. It just was not tested by FEMA.
12 They are only referred to as FEMA objectives 13 because they are in the FEMA documentation.
4 14 O Is it your testimony that it's consistent with 15 your methodology to include something that was not part of 16 FEMA's objectives in the Shoreham exercise, if it was not a l
17 FEMA objective in the Shoreham exercise, to include it in
'l 18 your sensitivity analysis?
19 A I think it's fair to include it in the 20 sensitivity analysis, yes.
21 0 I thought just before you said you would be 22 happy to take it out of the sensitivity --
4 23 A No. I said I would be happy to take it out for 24 the lower sensitivity bound.
25 0 Okay. I understand what you are saying. .Okay 1
24CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 !
9140 09 09 6169
- onwalsh 1 Now, Dr. Hockert, you indicated I think before lunch in sort 2 of an explanation that you went through the governments' 3 contentions to try to match up particular allegations with 4 particular objectives, correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 O And, where an allegation touched on an objective 7 you decided no partials, you were going to delete for 8 purposes of the lower bound sensitivity analysis?
1 9 A That's correct.
10 0 Now, isn't it -- you have reviewed all of 11 Contentions 15/16, those two contentions?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 0 And, isn't it true that those contentions 14 contain allegations of -- strike that.
15 Standard Objective 5 concerns the ability to 16 communicate with all appropriate locations; isn't that l
17 correct, sir?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 0 And, isn't it true that in this litigation it is 20 a disputed question whether there was appropriate
, 21 communication with a variety of entities, whether there was 22 any, staying away from the demonstrated but, for instance, 23 whether there was any communication with hospitals, any 24 communication with nursing homes, any commu'nication with 1
25 schools aside from Wading-River School District, that sort ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage FG-336-6646 I
9140 09 09 6170 f
- onwalsh 1 of allegatior
- ; isn't that true?
2 A Yes, sir, there are allegations of that nature.
l 3 O So, doesn't that put into dispute whether there 4 was, in fact, full testing of standard objective 5?
5 A I do not believe so. In those cases, specific 6 cases, where there were allegations of failure to 7 communicate they were allegations of failure to communicate . , ,
8 to take specific actions such as dismiss schools early or 9 evacuate school children.
10 0 What is the basis of that? That's your memory 11 of what the contentions are about?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 0 Isn't it true that the allegation is made that i 14 there was no communication at all with all except one 15 school?
16 A yes, sir.
17 O So, it goes to the complete absence of 18 ,
communication, doesn't it?
19 A But, the purpose I assume -- I assume the 20 purpose for communicating with the schools was so that the 21 appropriate protective actions could be taken in the i
22 schools. And, I've struck that objective about l 23 demonstrating the ability of the schools to take appropriate l 24 protective action.
25 0 Which objective are you referring to there, sir?
Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coverare 800-336W46
._ , ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _
9140 09 09 6171 t
joswalsh 1 (The witness is looking through a document.)
2 A If you will excuse me a minute while I --
3 0 Would that have been Number 19? I'm trying to 4 help.
5 A Yes, sir.
6 0 Well, if you had reached a different judgment 7 that a-different objective was implicated, for instance, 8 Objective 5 having to do with communication -- you exercised 9 a judgment as to which was the most appropriate objective to 10 link a contention portion to, correct?
11 A Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier, it is very 12 difficult to treat these objectives as totally independent.
13 0 I understand that. And, so you exercised your 14 judgment?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 And, if you had exercised your judgment 17 differently the lower bound sensitivity would come to 18 different numbers, wouldn't it?
19 A Yes, sir.
I 20 0 In fact, the weighting for Objective 19 to which j
21 you have related at least some portion of this was .018 22 while the weighting for Objective 5 is .097, correct?
23 A That is correct.
24 O So, how you -- so, it makes a big difference in 25 terms of your final number depending -- in terms of your ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tk336-6M6
_ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ~
l -9140-09 09 6172
- ;oewalsh 1 lower bound sensitivity we are only talking about now where 2 you . link t.hese objectives to?
i Yes, sir, it can make a fair difference.
3 A
! 4 I 5
- 6 7
8 i
9 10 4
,I 11 i
i 12 1
2 1 13 14 15
- 16 i
17 1
l 18 i
19
- 20 21 3
]
j 22 1 :
23 24 >
{ 25 i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i
- 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage lun336 fM6 l
l
! 9140 10 10 6173 ouowalsh 1 MR. LANPHER: If I could have just one moment.
2 I think I'm just about done with my questions of Mr.
3 Hockert, so let me just check my notes.
4 (Pause.)
5 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, that completes my 6 questions for Mr. Hockert. I think maybe --
7 JUDGE FRYE Let's pick up with any other i
I 8 questions of Mr. Hockert at this point.
9 MR. LANPHER: Okay.
10 JUDGE SHON: I would like to ask him one 1 11 question concerning the line of questioning that Mr. Lanpher 12 just closed, and that is if you had left out Objective 5 and 13 said that because they hadn't communicated with all schools j 14 they hadn't demonstrated communication, for example, in your i 15 sensitivity study, would it have dropped your lower 16 sensitivity down, as I think it would about 10 percent, to
! 17 something around 70 percent instead of around 80 percent?
18 WITNESS HOCKERT: Yes, sir.
I.
19 JUDGE SHON: Thank you.
20 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Zahnleuter.
l 21 CROSS EXAMINATION 1
j 22 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I 23 0 Dr. Hockert, I would like to refer you to.the 24 portion of your report that concerns the application of your 25 study. It's on Page 4-8 of Attachment L.
I i
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6 i
9140 10 10 6174 ouswalsh 1 Under the heading " Applications" it says: "The 2 potential utility of this ranking scheme in exercise 3 planning and evaluation is readily apparent. The exercise 4 objectiven should be accorded attention commensurate with 5 their relative importance. This would mean, for example, 6 planning exercises so that the seven most important exercise 7 objectives were demonstrated most frequently and given the 8 most evaluation attention."
9 You refer there to the frequency of the Did you intend to apply your !
10 demonstrated objectives.
11 objective ranking scheme to a continuum or a series of 12 exercises?
13 A (Witness Hockert) I was -- again, since I was 14 only doing a technical study, I was recommending that FEMA 15 consider that. It would be FEMA and NRC, of course, who 16 would apply any ranking scheme.
1 17 0 So, your objective ranking scheme contemplated ;
18 its application toward a continuum or a series of exercises? j 19 A Yes. It's equally applicable to a single 20 exercise or a series of exercises.
21 O In the preparation, conduct or evaluation of j 22 your study, did you ever consider whether certain objectives 23 would be more important than others if the objectives 24 related to the first exercise at a nuclear power plant?
25 A No, sir. We did not give any specific attention l
i Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
. . . ~ . - - . . - ~ . . - . . . - .. . . . ..
- 9140 10 10 6175 J
I oanwalsh. I to first exercises.
2 0 And, in the preparation, conduct and evaluation 3 of your study, did you ever consider whether all objectives 4' would be important in the first exercise at a nuclear power 5 plant?
6 A Not specifically in the discussion of the first I
7 exercise.- As I said, we had a number of discussions with
- 8 both NRC and FEMA Staff, and the general tenor of those 9 discussions, if I may characterize them, was that it-was 10 neither necessary nor appropriate to evaluate all objectives 11 at a given exercise.
12 But, we did not specifically discuss first 13 exercises.
14 0 Did these discussions with the NRC and FEMA 15 Staff occur with the same people who were the respondents to 16 your questionnaire?
17 A No, sir. I l
! 18 0' In fact, none of the interview questions l 19 contemplate the importance of objectives:in.the first i
20 exercise, do they?
21 A No, sir.
22 0 And, did any of the--respondents answer.any of l 23 the. questions by stating that their answer on the importance
< 24 of objectives would depend on what. objectives had been 25 previously demonstrated?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6M6
.~ ---.i
_ =.
9140 10 10 6176 occwalsh 1 A No, sir. At least, not that I recall. It has 2 been a long time since I looked at the questionnaires. But, 3 -I do not remember any marginal notes to that effect.
4 0 In the preparation, conduct and evaluation of
.5 your study, did you ever consider whether certain objectives 6 would be more important than others if those objectives 7 related to the first exercise at a nuclear. power plant 8 involving just the utility?
9 A No, sir.
10 0 On Page 27 of your testimony you state that the 11 purpose of your study was to rank in an objective fashion 12 the standard FEMA emergency preparedness objectives 13 according to categories of relative importance.
14 Now, isn't it true that your report's purpose 15 was not to determine what objectives were important in the 16 first exercise at a nuclear power plant?
17 A That is correct. The purpose of my report was 18 to determine what objectives are important in any exercise !
l 19 at a nuclear power plant. l
{
20 0 Oh, so now you are saying that the purpose was )
21 to also include the first exercise?
22 A Yes. There was no exclusion of the first 23 exercise. There was merely no specific discussion of it.
24 0 It just wasn't specifically contemplated?
25 A That is correct, but it was not specifically ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Sm336-6M6
9140 10 10 6177
.anwalsh 'l excluded either.
2 O On Page 29 of the testimony, you state that your 3 report anticipates that these exercise objectives -- and you 4 are referring to the very important ones -- would be 5 demonstrated most frequently, evaluated most thoroughly and 6 if not demonstrated satisfactorily could be the basis of a 7 deficiency or negative finding.
8 Does this mean that if a relatively unimportant 9 objective were demonstrated unsatisfactorily that something 10 less than a deficiency would be given?
11 A Yes, sir. I believe you can see that discussion 12 either in my testimony or in the report itself. 'The 13 specific citation --
14 0 Well, if I could refer you back to the 15 Application section of your report, the last sentence says:
16 " Finally, the 10 relative unimportant exercise objectives 17 would be demonstrated least frequently, evaluated only to 18 the extent resources permitted. And, weaknesses in these 19 areas would not, except in extraordinary circumstances, be 20 considered a Category A deficiency or be a cause for 21 negative findings."
22 Is that --
23 A Thank you. That was exactly what I was looking 24 for.
25 JUDGE PARIS: What's the page number, gentlemen?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage . 8%346M6
I J
9140 10 10 6178 outwalsh 1 WITNESS HOCKERT: Page 4-8.
2 JUDGE PARIS:. Thank you.
3 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER: (Continuing) 4 0 Now, your report also lists unimportant 5 objectives on Page 1-4, and one of them is ability to deal 6 with impediments to evacuation such as inclement weather.
7 Are you aware that in the Shoreham exercise FEMA 8 assigned a deficiency to LERO for not being able to deal 9 with impediments to evacuation?
10 A No, sir. I was not-aware of that.
11 0 It is an unimportant objective in your list, 12 isn't it?
13 A Yes, sir.
- 14 0 Now, your methodology assigns goals to 15 objectives; isn't that correct?
16 A Yes, sir.
s 17 0 Would you agree with me that the basic goal of 18 any exercise would be to demonstrate the ability to tell the 19 public about an emergency and to tell them what to do about 20 it?
21 A No, sir. !
l 22 0 You don't think that that's a basic goal of any 1
23 exercise? j 24 A I do not think that is the basic goal.
25 0 Is it one of the basic goals?
- /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage En336-6M6 2
9140 10 10 6179 ocowalsh 1 A Not according to the analysis that we have done 2 here. And, I don't_think it is. It is a way of meeting a 3 basic goal, but it is not the basic goal.
4 0 So, on Page 28 you list seven of the very 5 important objectives. Is it your testimony that these very 6 important objectives are more important than demonstrating-7 the ability to tell the public about an emergency and what 8 to do about it?
9 A In sum, yes. You can sum the weights related to 10 that and you can sum the weights relating to what you are 11 discussing, and that's the answer you get.
12 0 So, for example, the ability to monitor and 13 control emergency worker exposure is more important than the 14 ability to tell the public about an emergency and what to do 15 about it?
16 A' That is not clear. I assumed when you referred 17 to the seven most important objectives you referred to them I
18 in toto.
19 0 In toto are they more important than the ability i
- 20 to tell the public about an emergency and what to do about 21 it?
22 A Yes, sir. I would base -- on the -- based on 23 the report, I would come to that conclusion.
24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Thank you. I have no other 1
25 questions.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MO-336-6M6
9140 10 10 6180 t I outwalsh 1 JUDGE FRYE: Does the Staff have questions?
2 MR. PIRFO: No, sir.
3 . ' JUDGE FRYE: Does FEMA have questions?
4 MR. CUMMING: FEMA has no questions.
5 JUDGE FRYE: Redirect?
6 MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, if I could just have a 7 couple of minutes with Dr. Hockert. I don't think I have 8 many questions, but I just want to ask him if he has 9 anything he would like to add.
10 JUDGE FRYE: All right. If it's only a couple 11 of minutes, let's just stay put.
12 Okay. Five minutes.
13 (Whereupon, the hearing is recessed at 1:40 14 p.m., to reconvene at 1:45 p.m., this same day.)
15 JUDGE FRYE: Redirect?
16 MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, I have no redirect for 17 Dr. Hockert.
I 18 JUDGE FRYE: No redirect, all right. Dr.
19 Hockert, thank you very much. We appreciate you coming and 20 giving us your testimony.
21 WITNESS HOCKERT: Thank you, sir. I appreciate 22 the opportunity to give it.
23 JUDGE PARIS: Have a good trip home.
24 WITNESS HOCKERT: Thank you, sir.
25 (The witness, John W. Hockert, stood aside.)
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage Hoo-346M6
_ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ - _ - . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ -_.. _ - . .
9140 10 10 6181 ouawalsh 1 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 2 O Gentlemen, I would like to. direct your attention 3 to Page 5 of your testimony, the bottom of the page, and 4 continuing on to the top of Page 6.
5 At the sentence at the top of Page 6, you state, 6 "As FEMA witnesses have stressed, the issue here is not 7 whether the exercise objectives were met during the Shoreham-8 exercise, but rather whether the number and types of 9 objectives included in the exercise and observed by FEMA 10 make it a full participation exercise."
11 Now, I take it you agree with that statement.
12 A (Witness Daverio) I think the other day we went 13 through this and we said we agreed, and I explained why we 14 agreed.
15 O The question is, do you agree with it?
16 A Yes.
17 0 Gentlemen, I am going to want to direct a number 18 of questions over a series of pages of your testimony having 19 to do with some of what -- I guess really it's the FEMA 20 guidance or the regulatory guidance. Not all of it is FEMA.
21 First, the guidance that I believe you rely upon 1 22 are 0654, GM-17, GM-17 Rev 1, PR-1 along with the other 23 document that you attach after your testimony, and then 24 Draft EX-3, okay.
25 Did either of you have anything to do with the
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. !
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33&6M6 i
9140 10 10 6182 ouswalsh I development of any of those documents?
2 A (Witness Daverio) The regulatory documents you 3 just referenced?
4 -O Yeah.
- 5 A No, I did not.
6 (Witness Behr) No, I didn't.
J 7 0 I was just lumping them all together to try to 4
8 go a little faster here.
9 I take it that means that during the development 10 of any of those documents you haven't had any occasion to i
11 provide input to FEMA or the NRC regarding your views on 12 what those documents should say or specify; is that correct?
13 A (Witness Daverio) That's correct.
. 14 0 And, is it your understanding or your testimony t 15 that those documents, 0654 through Draft EX-3, constitutes a 16 full universe of guidance memoranda and similar documents 17 which you believe are relevant to defining full i 18 participation exercises?
i 19 Did you leave out something for some reason?
i 20 A No. FEMA has many guidance memorandum that I underlying a full participation exercise one could say if 21 j 22 they wanted that to be an objective they might look at 23 another underlying guidance memorandum. That was the only 24 question I was trying to think about in my own mind.
25 0 These are the ones that you think are the most i
4 /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Nx03MM6
9140 10 10 6183 ouswalsh 1 important?
l 2 A That's correct.
3 0 Now, you state at Page 9, the first sentence of 4 the answer to Question 7, sir -- this is to either of you.
5 You say, " FEMA's position on what constitutes a full 6 participation exercise has evolved over the past several 7 years."
I 8 Now, please define what you mean by position?
9 A In that answer, we were trying to lay out the 10 historical track from PEMA guidance memorandum 817 in '81 up 11 through EX-3 today. And that we were saying that it was our
] 12 understanding it was FEMA's position on how to run exercises 13 that evolved through those documents.
j 14 0 Okay. Looking at -- going back just a page to 15 your discussion of 0654 which is Attachment C to your 1
16 testimony, you state at the bottom of Page 8, starting three l
17 lines from the bottom, "NUREG 0654, which provides guidance I
18 as to the interpretation of these regulatory standards, says 19 that a full participation exercise should test 'a major 20 portion of the basic elements existing within...'" and then l
21 it continues and end up "...within a five year period."
1 22 Looking at your statement, which regulatory 23 standards are you referring to, where you say "these 24 regulatory standards" at the bottom of Page 8?
I 25 It's my assumption you are referring to Appendix i !
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage M10-3.16-ua6
9140 10 10 6184 oo: welsh 1 E which is cited about five lines above?
2 (The witnesses are looking at the document.)
3 A Yes. My understanding of how guidance is given 4 through the NRC and FEMA is that they have either reg guides 5 or NUREGs or guidance memorandum which state the agency's 6 position on one way of meeting the intent of the regulation.
7 0 okay. So, the regulation you are referring to 8 though is Appendix E?
9 A That's correct.
10 0 The portion about full participation exercise?
11 A Correct.
12 O I would like you to turn to Attachment C and 13 show me where that says anything about a full participation 14 exercise. First, show me where that term is used.
15 You use it in your text. Show me where that is 16 used in the 0654 abstract that you have attached to your 17 testimony.
18 You say that 0654 says that a full participation 19 exercise should and you quote. Is that found anywhere in 20 Attachment C to your testimony, sir?
21 (The witnesses are looking at a document.)
22 A It was our interpretation that these sections of 23 0654, talking about annual exercises that are critiqued and 24 having to do them, are tied to Footnote 4 and the section 25 under Training F in general in Appendix E.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage mn336tM(i
I i
l 9140 10 10 6185 ooswalsh 1 0 That was your interpretation?
2 A That's correct.
J 3 0 And, your testimony is not quite accurate when 4 it says that 0654 says that a full participation is - .0654 i
l 5 doesn't say that, does it?
l j 6 A I have a -- the reason I say that it does, 7 because when I use the word " exercise" and as most emergency 8 planners use the word " exercise" you are usually talking 9 about a graded exercise. And, if you look at 1.A, it says, j 10 "An exercise is an event that tests the integrated 11 capability and a major portion of the basic elements..." and I 12 they go on to use a lot of the same words that are in i
13 Appendix E.
14 I think you could -- I felt I could draw that i 15 conclusion from it.
16 0 But, it was a conclusion or an interpretation 17 you drew. Those words are just not found in there, are 18 they?
- 19 A It was my interpretation, that's correct.
20 0 Okay. All right, fine. And, that extract from I 21 0654 is providing guidance for an evaluation criteria for l
22 Planning Standard N of 0654; isn't that correct?
23 A That's correct.
24 ,0 And that Planning Standard N is identical -- is 25 not identical to anything in Appendix E, is it?
l l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
$ 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336 6M6 1
9140 10 10 6186
.anwalsh 1 A No. I just agreed that it wasn't identical.
2 That's correct 3 0 In fact, it's identical to 10 CFR, Section 50-4 47.B.14; isn't that correct?
5 A I don't know. I haven't gone back and looked at 6 that.
7 0 Now, this evaluation criteria that you cite in 8 Attachment C to your testimony talks in Evaluation Criterion 9 B about a five year exercise cycle, correct?
10 A That's correct.
11 0 Does Appendix E to Part 50 contain a five year 12 exercise cycle?
13 A No. I believe that's probably been changed to 14 six based on, if I recall, where they went from the one year 15 to the two year rule when FEMA does on a bi-annual basis, 16 not an annual basis.
17 I think that's -- I could be wrong, but I 18 thought that was what it was. It went to six years. I 19 don't see the word "six."
20 If you give me a second, I will read the 21 Appendix E.
22 (The witness is looking at a document.)
23 0 Do you have a copy of Appendix E up there, Mr.
24 Daverio?
25 A Yes, I do. I don't find the six year cycle ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6
,_- . _ - . - . - . ~ _ - . . , - . . .. - . -. .
I
! 9140 10 10 6187
.ounwalsh 1 either. Five year doesn't appear in it, that's correct.
l 2 O Thank you. I'm not focusing on the difference.
- 3 between five and six, Mr. Daverio.
l 4 A But, that was what the change was. There was a 5 change there.
6
, 7
- 8 4
9 i 10 s
i 11 l 12 1
13 i 14 i
l i 15 i 16 4
1 ;
i 17 I'
18 19
+
j 20 i 1 21 4
4
! 22 I
j 23 1
3 24 i
i 25 i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33M646 f.
i
- - , , , . , - , . - , . . , , - - , -----~r---- - - - - - - - - - , - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - ~-~~~-~-r -- ~ ' ' - - ' - " * * - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ' ' " ' ' " ' ~ ' " ' ~ '
l 9140 11 11 6188 marysimons 1 0 Do that dates from right after the time ---
2 A It was published on that day.
1 3 0 so it was around the time that the emergency 4 planning regulations were adopted in the first place, 5 correct?
6 A Yes.
7 0 And at the time those regulations were adopted, j 8 did Appendix E even use the term full participation 9 exercise? Do you know.
f 10 A I'm stretching my memory, but I think NUREG~0654 11 came out and then Appendix E came out, if I recall 12 correctly.
The sequence isn't important. As of
) 13 0 Fine.
I 14 November 1980 Appendix E had been published and adopted as j 15 a final rule, correct?
i l 16 A I don't know. I don't have that information j
l 17 with me. I don't believe, but let me just check.
18 0 Let's assume that it is. I think that the i
j 19 record will show that it was published in the Federal i
20 Register on August 19, 1980.
i
) 21 A That's correct. I just looked at the same page i
22 you did.
] 23 MR. LANPHER: It's turned into a lot of minds j
j 24 around here.
t l 25 BY MR. LANPHER:
1
- /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage Hm-346M6
. - . . . ~ . _ . - -- _ . . _ _ . - . . - - - .
l 9140 11 11 6189 F
' marysimons 1 0 Do you have any recollection, either of you, 2 whether as of November 1980 Appendix E even used the term 3 full participation exercise?
l 4 A (Witness Daverio) No, I don't recall.
i I 5 O Turning your attention to page 9 of your 6 testimony, gentlemen, you state in answer to Question 7 7 that FEMA's initial position on what constitutes a full 8 participation exercise has evolved over the past years and
{
9 you continue to say that GM-17, which is Attachment D, 10 " contained a general discussion of full participation 11 exercises without enumerating specific exercise 12 objectives."
i 13 Please refer to Attachment D and show me where l 14 that attachment, which is GM-17 says anything, generally or 15 otherwise, about full participation exercises.
16 (Witness complies.)
17 A I think, as we discussed earlier, when you look 18 at Guidance Memorandum 17 it was FEMA's objective to j 19 establish, as they say, more uniform ways of using their 44 i 20 CFR 350, which is how they draw conclusions as to whether 21 performance is adequate or not, and as I interpret the 22 regulations or my understanding of them is that one of the
{
23 things FEMA looks at in full participation is drawing a 24 conclusion of being able to protect the health and safety 25 of the public.
i
/\CE. FEDERAL REponTEns, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage mi-3%fM6 3.__.._..___,_ . . - _ _ _ _
. ~ . _ , . . _- ._ , _._ -... - _. __
r
. 9140 11 11 6190
- ...arysimons 1 So I think this was their first document that 2 laid out a uniform way of following their regulatory l
i 3 requirements of 44 CFR 350, their guidance to their I
) 4 regions.
l l 5 0 So you understand this to be their initial l
6 guidance for interpreting 44 CFR 350; is that correct?
7 A It was their initial attempt to put a document 4
8 out to their regions, in my understanding, to get a more 9 uniform exercise regime throughout the country, and this i
j 10 was their first attempt at it, so that they could draw i
. 11 these conclusions on health and safety that they are 1
12 required to.
) 13 0 But your previous answer and my follow-up 14 question pertained to it's your understanding that this was
} 15 attempted initial guidance on how to pursue FEMA's at that 16 time proposed rule 350 process, correct?
l 17 A That's correct.
i 1 18 0 In fact, this guidance memorandum doesn't even 19 mention NRC regulations, does it?
f 20 A I don't believe it does.
l 21 0 Much less Appendix E, correct?
l 22 A That's correct.
I j 23 0 Have you talked to any FEMA person to confirm 24 that this constitutes a general discussion of full 3 25 participation exercises?
- ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- l 202 347 37(10 Nationwide Cmcrape 800-3346M6 I
- 9140 11 11 6191
- marysimons 1 A No. As I just stated, it was my reading of 2 their cover letter and making an interpretation.
l
. 3 0' It was your reading of their what?
l 4 A The cover letter that is on the front of that 5 guidance memorandum.
6 0 In fact, doesn't the cover letter, or cover 1
I 7 memorandum more accurately reflect what the real purpose of 8 this was. It wasn't to give guidance on full participation
! 9 exercise, but was to establish more uniformity in I 10 exercises. It doesn't say what kind of exercises, but more 11 unif o rmity . It was a go for uniformity, wasn't it?
- 12 A That's correct, but in this time frame, as I 13 recall, this was when people were starting to run their j 14 first exercises to maintain their licenses, and I believe i 15 that this was FEMA's initial document to provide national 1
16 uniformity in how they were going to perform exercises.
i 17 0 You said you believe that it was an initial 18 effort. You have no personal knowledge of whether that's 19 in fact true or not, do you?
20 A I have not asked anyone at FEMA; that's correct.
21 0 Have you, Mr. Behr?
22 A (Witness Behr) No, I can't recall speaking to 23 anyone.
f 24 Q Or anyone else other than counsel?
4 <
25 A (Witness Daverio) I have not talked to anyone 4
j /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8M336-6M6 i
~. . _ _ . _ _ _ . _
9140 11 11 6192
!! ...arysimons 1 in a regulatory agency about it, either the NRC or FEMA. I J
2 think those are the two you probably want to know about. I 3 may have discussed it with Mr. Behr.
4 0 To use your words, you think maybe this was 5 FEMA's guidance on a full participation exercise?
- 6 A It's my opinion, based on reading that guidance 7 memorandum, that that was their initial attempt at giving j
8 guidance to their regions on how to run exercises that
! 9 would draw conclusions under 350 which then would have the
- 10 finding of health and safety. I think I've already been 11 through that.
- 12 0 This talks about establishing more uniformity I 13 under the proposed FEMA rule 44 CFR 350. Do you see that
, 14 statement on the first page of Attachment D?
! 15 A Yes, I do.
l 16 0 And this r.tatement was made as of January 8,
, 17 1981; is that correct?
18 A That's the date on top of it; that's correct.
19 0 Well, you supplied this document and you assume 20 that's the correct date, right?? ;
- i j 21 A That's right.
l 1
22 0 Do you have any idea of what the proposed FEMA l 23 rule 350 as of that time said?
! 24 A I don't recall sitting here, no.
25 0 Have you ever looked at it?
l l
+
l
, /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-346M6
.- .. _._ _._ _ _ . _ _ . . _ __ --- _ _ __ _ _- _. ~ . _ .
t 9140 11 11 6193
' Back in that time frame I would have, but I
.iarysimons 1 A ,
I don't have any recollection of it sitting here.
2 .
l I 4 3 0 Do you know whether it even mentioned full !
i 4 participation exercises?
5 A I have no way of saying one way or the other.
1 i
6 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, I move to strike this '
i
! 7 Attachment D from the testimony and their testimony about I
8 it. These gentlemen are not the proper sponsors for this
! 9 testimony. They are basically guess what this document .
- 10 refers to.
i' 11 If LILCO wants to pursue this document as an l 12 exhibit with FEMA witnesses who perhaps had knowledge about
- 13 what it was and how it was used and why it was proffered, 14 that's proper, but they are not proper sponsors. 'They i 15 don't have personal knowledge about it and they haven't j 16 talked with anyone to attempt to gain personal knowledge.
I 17 MR. ZEUGIN: Judge Frye, we would note that 18 these witnesses have extensive backgrounds in emergency 19 planning and emergency planning work. I think Mr. Daverio 20 has described his own background and how in the time frame 21 that this document was published, which was basically at i 22 the time that first exercises were being run that that is 23 the basis for his statement of how he interpreted that 24 particular guidance.
25 I think this whole testimony in this respect is
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
L 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3%6M6
..__ --.... _ _ _.,__._, _ _, . - _ . . . _ . . _ - . _ . _ , - _ . . - ~ ~ _ . ~ _ - . _ _ . _ . . - - , _ , _ . - _ . . . - , . . _ . _ . . - . , ,
l 9140 11 11 6194
..arysimons 1 there as background to lay out what Mr. Daverio and Mr.
2 Behr believe to be the progression of documents through 3 FEMA.
4 JUDGE FRYE: I'm sorry, believe to be?
5 MR. ZEUGIN: The progression of documents 6 through FEMA and their understanding of those documents.
7 MR. LANPHER: That's what he believes, but he 8 has no basis.
9 JUDGE FRYE: You're moving to strike "D", right?
10 MR. LANPHER: I'm moving to strike "D"and the 11 testimony related to "D".
12 JUDGE FRYE: Which is?
13 MR. LANPHER: Let's go back. Please don't take 14 this as critical of the testimony, but it repeats itself in 15 a couple of places. GM-17 comes up in a number of places.
16 I think the main portion would be -- excuse me.
17 JUDGE PARIS: This is the memorandum from Dennis 18 Kwiatkowski?
19 MR. LANPHER: From Dickie, but I can't pronounce 20 the other name. It's Attachment D and it's the testimony 21 on page 9 and I believe there is testimony on another 22 page. I think the main testimony though is on page 9.
23 JUDCS FRYE: So really what you're concerned 24 about is FEMA's guidance, the statement that FEMA's initial 25 guidance, FEMA GM-17 contained a general discussion of full ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(n 336 f646
e,,, - a n e +, a _a l
l 1
9140 11 11 6195
' " m arysimons 1 participation exercises.without enumerating specific
' 2 exercise objectives in that sentence.?
3 MR. LANPHER: That's correct, and that may be
- 4 the only reference.
5 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, may I note something 6 for the record, and this may not be relevant, but in fact 7 44 CFR 350 was published proposed twice by FEMA. My 8 understanding is there was such a long lapse of time after 9 its initial publication that they decided that prior to 10 going final, and I'm not sure exactly what the time frame 11 was, to re-propose it for comment.
12 I just want to note that for the record in case 13 it becomes important later on to track what happened to the f 14 original Federal Register proposed rule.
1 15 MR. PIRFO: Judge Frye, may I be heard on the 16 motion, unless you're going to follow up, and I assume the 17 motion is submitted as of now.
18 JUDGE FRYE: Yes.
i 19 MR. PIRFO: The staff position quickly is this 20 isn't being sponsored in the customary sense of the word by i 21 these witnesses. They've referred to this document and 22 they have given their interpretation of it in their l 23 testimony and it's here for that. So for whatever that's 24 worth, I don't see any basis for striking it.
25 (Board conferring.)
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(1336-f646
i I
9140 11 11 6196 l
, .arysimons 1 JUDGE FRYE: We will deny the motion. I think 2 Mr. Pirfo summed it up very well. This was a document that 3 was put in I think more as a reference than anything else.
4 4 Mr. Daverio has clearly stated his opinions with regard to
, 5 it, and you've cross-examined him pretty thoroughly on 6 this.
t 7 MR. LANPHER: I would just like to point out for 1 8 the record that as of that time proposed rule 350 had been 9 published and was in 45 Federal Register starting -- the 10 notice appeared at 42,341, and to my reading there is no 11 mention whatsoever of full participation exercises.
12 JUDGE FRYE: In Part 350.
13 MR. LANPHER: In proposed Part 350. As of the j 14 time frame they're talking about this document that they 1
15 have here, Attachment D, talks about under proposed FEMA 16 rule 350.
17 JUDGE FRYE: I think you've made your point very 18 eloquently and we can certainly read proposed PEMA 350.
19 MR. LANPHER: You denied my motion though.
! 20 (Laughter.)
21 JUDGE FRYE: That's right.
22 MR. LANPHER: I'm not satisfied.
23 (Laughter.)
24 JUDGE FRYE: Well, you have to win a few and l
25 lose a few I guess.
l ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC, l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage so-34 %46 l
9140 11 11- 6197 arysimons 1 MR. LANPHER: All right. I hear your ruling.
2 BY MR. LANPHER:
3 0 Gentlemen, looking at the bottom of page 9, 4 you've got a reference to GM-17, Revision 1. We moved to 5 strike that and it was denied, as you'll recall.
6 Do you rely on GM-17, Revision 1 in this 7 testimony for any substantive matter?
8 A (Witness Daverio) It was as I said, it was just 9 an historical tracking of the development, and GM-17, Rev.
10 1 was just the next document. It's only a one-sentence 11 statement and we don't use it anywhere else that I recall.
12 0 Isn't it true that that document does not even 13 mention Appendix E?
14 (Witnesses conferring.)
15 You have a copy of that document, Mr. Daverio.
16 You've got it in your testimony. Do you have a copy.
17 A I don't know if I have one with me.
18 (Pause while the witness looks for the document i 19 referred to.) {
20 I don't have one with me. Mr. Bohr is looking 21 through the pile we brought with us. I'm not sure it's in 22 there.
23 0 I don't have enough copies to hand out. I'll 24 come back to this on Monday if necessary.
25 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. I frankly got lost as to l Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8 m )36-tA46
I
- 9140 11 11 6198 t
! .arysimons 1 what we were discussing.at that point. I was distracted.
4 2 MR. LANPHER: We were talking GM-17,' Revision 1.
I 3 JUDGE FRYE: I got that much.
, 4 MR. LANPHER: I asked the witnesses whether that l 5 document even mentions Appendix E to Part 50, and they l
l '6 couldn't recall and they don't have a copy of the document.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
1
! 8 MR. LANPHER: Given their answer that they cite I ,
! 9 it here basically for historical stuff, I'll look at the i I i 10 transcript and maybe we can avoid having to go into that in- .
i 11 detail. l l
i l 12 JUDGE PARIS: I just noted in your testimony 3
13 that you gave on page 10 the date for GM'PR-1 as October 4, 14 1985. That's the date-of the covering memorandum. The 15 memorandum itself is dated October 1. I just thought I l 16 would point that out.
17 MR. LANPHER: Okay. ,
]
j 18 BY MR. LANPHER:
19 0 Is it your position, gentlemen, that PR-1 20 specifies FEMA's position on what the requirements are for l.
21 full participation exercises?
22 A (Witness Daverio) It's our position that GM PR-I 23 1 sets forth FEMA's thinking on what standard exercise i
j 24 objectives they would have as their general classification 25 of objectives which they would use as they see fit in l
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- 202 347 3700 Nationwide cmcrage mt33Mua
' _ . ~ . _ _ _ . - -_ . - _ . , _ _ _ . _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ , _ , , . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ -__ , __,. _ ,_. ,,_ _ ,-
9140 11 11- 6199
' ...arysimons 1 designing exercises to be held in response to their 2 requirements under 44 CFR 350, 3 0 So this is a guidance memorandum again issued 4 under 44 CFR 350; is that correct?
5 A That's my understanding; that's correct.
6 O Does this guidance memorandum attempt to 7 interpret full participation exercise requirements of the 8 NRC's regulations?
9 A The'y don't reference NRC regulations that I can 10 find other than it's how they ---
11 (Witnesses confer.)
12 As Mr. Behr just pointed out to me, they 13 actually do reference 10 CPR on page 1 of the guidance 14 memorandum.
15 0 Well, let's talk about that for a momont, Mr.
16 Bohr, that's the second full paragraph on pago 2 of 17 Attachmont E; is that correct?
18 A (Witness Bohr) That's correct.
19 0 And the first page of Attachment E, just so the 20 record is clear, is a memorandum from Samual W. Spock to 21 Regional Directors concerning this guidanco memorandum?
22 A That's correct.
23 24 25 ace FEDERAL. RuPonTens, INC.
202 347 37(x) Nationwide Cmcrape IHuk34N46
9140 12 01 6200 GW/gw 1 0 And in that second paragraph that you referred 2 to, Mr. Bohr, they refer to the NRC final regulation, 10 CFR 3 50, on July 6, 1984, and they say that due to that final 4 regulation and the publication of the FEMA final rule, it 5 was nocesss.y to clarify some requirements contained in 6 those rules, correct?
7 A (Witness Bohr) That is what it says, yes.
8 0 Do you have any idea what the final NRC 9 regulation of July 6, 1984 refers to?
10 Before you refer to a document, do you know, or 11 do you, Mr. Davorio?
12 A (Witness Davorio) No, I do not.
13 0 Do you, Mr. Bohr?
14 A (Witness Bohr) I know I have looked at it. I 15 just don't recall the work.
16 0 When did you look at it? Approximately, 17 Mr. Bohr.
18 A I have looked at it several times over the 19 years.
20 0 Did you look at it in connection with preparing 21 your testimony for this proceeding?
22 A Yes, I did.
23 0 But you can't recall what that was about?
24 A No, I can't.
25 0 Isn't it correct that what that was about was Ace FEDERAL Repoe.TERs, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage fun 346M6
9140 12 02 6201.
1 4 .
- ' GW/gw I changing the frequency for State participation by annual l'
]
2 exercises? Does that refresh your recollection at all? .
- 3 MR. ZEUGIN
- Judge Frye, I am not sure this is a 4 very productive line of questioning. I think the only way
}
4
- 5 the witnesses could answer which particular change in the i l 6 regulation changed something, they would have to look at
! ~
I 7 Federal Register notices, not simply the published code of i
i 8 Federal Regulations.
1 j 9 JUDGE FRYE He is trying to refresh their 10 recollection. Overruled.
! 11 MR. LANPHER: Judge, I also have a right to 1
I 12 probe, as I tried to earlier in this proceeding what these j
13 --
l 14 JUDGE FRYE: I overruled the. objection.
15 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) i 16 0 Does that assist you, Mr. Behr?
4
} 17 A (Witness Behr) I have read a number of documents j 18 that refer to that, and I believe that that'was one of i
{ 19 them.
j 20 0 Do you recall what documents you have read in I
21 regards to that?
22 A Well, PR-1 also refers to the biannual l
=
l 23 exercises.
1 l 24 0 We are in PR-1 right now.
l l 25 A Right.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrape mio-336W46
f f 9140 12 03 6202 I
GW/gw 1 .O I am getting some copies.of some notices. Let me 2 see 'if I can move on for a moment until we get them back in 3 ' here',
-4 JUDGE FRYE: Why don't we, since you are at that d
5 point, why don't we take a fifteen minute break at this
! 6 point while you are getting your copies, or is that going to 7 interfere with your --
8 MR. LANPHER: No, I don't mind. Judge Frye, at 4
9 some point a topic that I understand from my colleagues you
, 10 hate to discuss is going to come up; scheduling.
} 11 JUDGE FRYE: I think it is going to come up at I,
12 the end of the day, but I wanted to see how we were doing i
13 before we brought it up.
l 14 MR. LANPHER: I can give you a prediction on 15 where I think things are, and maybe I should do it right 5
16 now, and then we can take our break and people can even be i
j 17 thinking about it.
j 18 JUDGE FRYE: All right, fine.
1 '
] 19 MR. LANPHER: Not to hide anything. With your 20 action earlier today striking some testimony, obviously that 21 shortens my cross examination mat'erially.
l 22 If we were to start up on Monday morning with l
23 this panel, I can't promise that I would finish by noon on 24 Monday, but I would como pretty close, I think. That is my l
i 25 best estimate. Maybe a little aftor; maybe before, but l
/4CE.lFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336a46
9140 12 04 6203 GW/gw 1 certainly some time on Monday. I will have less than a day 2 to go, and having the time over the weekend to focus things 3 always helps somewhat.
4 I think there is -- so, I don't think there is a 5 difficulty in terms of the actual quantity of the time left 1 6 that is needed.
7 I think there is an issue that ought to be raised 8 chough about what is the best way of sequencing some of what 9 is coming up. My understanding of LILCO's examination on 10 our 50 panel is approximately a day and a half. ,
11 JUDGE FRYE: They asked for a day and a quarter, 12 and I gave a day and a half to allot time for us.
13 MR. LANPHER: So, we are into some 1 a frame 14 like one to two days. No more than two days for the whole 15 of it.
16 As we advised you a week ago yesterday, or 17 whenever, Mr. Perrow, one of our Contention 50 witnesses has 18 difficulties with his schedule. He is flying to Long 19 Island. He is on the west coast on a lecture tour. He is 20 flying to Long Island this weekend. He will be here Monday, 21 okay?
22- He can't be here Tuesday. He has got to fly back 23 out Monday, and his schedule is crazy. It is just 24 unfortunate, but it is. We have been trying to get in 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(Kk336-6646
9140 12 05 6204
'. GW/gw 1 touch with him, and been unable to since some of this 2 scheduling stuff got turned around. We know he is going to 3 be here this weekend.
4 I am not sure -- as of now, I think he is 5 unavailable on 15 and 16 matters at the end of next week, 6 but I would like to -- and I haven't had a chance to talk 7 with Mr. Zeugin or others on this, but if it were possible 8 it would seem logical to try to keep everything together, 9 and maybe since he has a fairly discreet portion of 15 and 10 16, it makes sense for his portion of 15 and 16, which is 11 so-called organizational, and relates to his 50 testimony, 12 because that is basically organizational, if that is not too 13 disruptive to the LILCO attorneys, maybe that could be 14 crossed on Monday as well, the 15 and 16, when Mr. Perrow l 15 -- Dr. Perrow -- is here, otherwise we are going to have 16 difficulty getting him back.
17 All this is a long way of saying that especially 18 if that were done, it might make the most sense to start 50 19 Monday morning. When ever it is over on Tuesday, we can 20 call these two gentlemen back.
21 JUDGE FRYE: Let me ask a question. Your office 22 address is in Commack, I believe.
23 WITNESS BEHR: Yes, it is.
24 JUDGE FRYE: And is that in the area or not?
25 MR. BEHR: It is right down the street.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336W46
4 9140 12 06 6205 E GW/gw 1 JUDGE FRYE: Right down the street.
2 MR. LANPHER: We don't have a Hockert situation.
3 The training people, frankly, are coming from different 4 places, and it is essential that we get them done as 5 efficiently as possible. Rather than starting them-at noon 6 on Monday, this examination is obviously broken up by the 7 weekend anyway, maybe do the training starting Monday 8 morning and then take them up again whenever training is 9 over, and then continue with our panel on 15 and 16, 10 obviously, right after them.
11 JUDGE FRYE: Let me say this. I think we can 12 certainly be flexible along those lines to accommodate 13 whatever the parties think is the best way to handle it, and 14 I would suggest you talk with LILCO over the break or --
15 well, I think we should do it this afternoon so we know what 16 we are coming back to Monday morning.
I 17 If you talk with them over the break, and see 18 whether you all can come to any agreement on that or not.
19 MR. PIRFO: I can state for the Staff right now 20 we are going to have a problem with that Monday morning. We 21 won't be able to accommodate that schedule.
22 Monday afternoon Mr. Johnson will be here.
23 Mr. Johnson has been handling 50 along with Ms. Mcdonald, 24 and they will be here Monday afternoon, but they won't be e
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 6M6
9140 12 07 6206
. GW/gw I able to be here Monday morning. You want to start with 50 2 the first thing Monday morning.
3 MR. LANPHER: The entire 50 panel will be here 4 Monday -- I may have mis-spoke. I think we previously 5 advised you that Mr. Evans wouldn't be here on Monday, but 6 he will be here Tuesday.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Confer. It is fairly complicated.
8 Maybe you all at least if you can't agree on what it ought 9 to be, then you can at least say what the problems are.
10 We will take our fifteen minute break at this 11 point.
12 (Whereupon, the afternoon recess was taken 13 at 2:30 p.m, to reconvene at 2:45 p.m., this 14 same day.)
15 JUDGE FRYE: Do you want to take up the 16 scheduling matters now, or do you want to continue with l
17 cross examination.
18 MR. LANPHER: Given the vagaries of trying to 19 estimate how long it is going to take, I am not sure -- I ;
20 guess Mr. Irwin just indicated that we probably don't have !
21 an agreement, so maybe we ought to take it up now so that we 22 can judge our time today a little better. l l
23 Whatever you prefer. I will just repeat, very. j 24 briefly, in a synopsis form, what I would propose, and that 1
25 is as we advised before, Mr. Perrow's availability next .l l
/\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage E)-336-6M6
9140 12 08 6207 GW/gw 1 week is Monday. We would propose to have 50 start Monday 2 morning. He gets in late Sunday night, and we ask for a 3 slight accommodation to start at 10:00 a.m., Monday, instead 4 of 9:00, to give him a little more chance to prepare.
5 It turns out that the Staff attorney who will be 6 handling that matter would need that accommodation. If we 7 started before the afternoon, so he could --
8 JUDGE FRYE: Well, he could get that morning 9 flight from Washington.
10 MR. LANPHER: He could get that morning flight.
11 A 10:00 start would be acceptable from our perspective. Go 12 training Monday, and whatever time is necessary on Tuesday, 13 as soon as training is completed return to these gentlemen 14 for whatever needs to be completed there, and whenever they 15 were done we would proceed with the Government's panel on 15 16 and 16 next week.
17 The Government's witnesses on 15 and 16 will all 18 be here next week, except for Mr. Perrow, who can only be 19 here on Monday, and what I proposed just before the break 20 was to attempt to work out some sort of an accommodation so 21 that his portion of the 15 and 16, which pertains to the 22 organizational stuff, be cross examined on Monday.
23 I understand from LILCO counsel that that 24 presents a difficulty because it is intertwined with some 25 other stuff. If, at the conclusion of the entire ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3 % % 86
9140 12 09 6208 f
GW/gw 1 examination on 15 and 16 they feel a need to bring 2 Mr. Perrow back, we will have to find a time to schedule him 3 in like when FEHA is here, or something else. We will 4 bring him back specially for that.
5 That would be my proposal. We tried to work it 6 out for everyone. I just will state for the record that 7 Mr. Perrow's difficulty next week results from an obligation 8 that he has had for, I understand, a full year lecturing.
9 He has got to be back on the West Coast on Tueday. He is 10 flying back here specially for this this weekend, and will 11 be here Monday.
12 We beat him up to do that a little bit. And I 13 wish we could beat him up to stay here longer, but it is 14 just not possible. That is our proposal.
15 JUDGE FRYE: So, your proposal, just to make sure 16 I understand it, that we would begin Monday morning at 10:00 17 a.m., on the Suffolk County training panel, and continue 18 with ther. until we are finished with them on Tuesday, and 19 then we would finish this panel on 15 and 16, and then we 20 would go to the suffolk County panel on 15 and 16.
21 MR. LANPHER: The other thing I should have 22 pointed out, to take these gentlemen up again on Monday, and 23 I am available to do it Monday morning, I am afraid would 24 lead to a disruptive record. A more disruptive record if we 25 take them up Monday morning, and I am not confident that ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MU-336-6M6
i l
9140 12 10 6209
. GW/gw 1 I will finish by noon, and under your schedule you want to 2 take training up right after that on Monday afternoon. That 3 was the previous schedule. So, there is a distinct 4 possibility of doing 15, 16 --
5 JUDGE FRYE: A break, and then come back.
i 6 MR. LANPHER: And then come back yet again,'and 7 that was one of the factor.*.
8 MR. PIRFO: If the problem is an hour or so, 9 maybe an 8:00 start on Monday morning with these witnesses, 10 and would Mr. Lanpher be sure he would finish by noon if we 11 started at 8:00.
12 MR. LANPHER: That is awful early to get up and 13 get ready.
14 JUDGE FRYE: Let me get LILCO's reaction.
15 MR. IRWIN: Our reaction is, first of all, that I 16 am no happier to find myself in disagreement on scheduling
-17 matters than anybody else is, but what is happening once 18 again is that at the last minute a schedule which has been 19 put in place is being torn apart to LILCO's prejudice _
20 because of the inconvenience of one of Suffolk County's 21 witnesses.
22 JUDGE FRYE: Wait one minute here. Wait one 23 minute. Your proposal, as I understood it, we will still 24 finish up with -- we will be finished by the end of next 25 A.CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
l 9140 12 11 6210 GW/gw I week with both the training testimony and the 15 and_16 2 testimony.
3 MR. LANPHER: I am not asking for any delay in 4 schedule.
5 JUDGE FRYE: I just want to be sure I understood 6 that.
7 MR. LANPHER: Before Mr. Irwin continues, I just 8 can't let the allegation of a last minute thing.
j 9 Mr. Miller's letter, which he'got slammed around for I 10 understand earlier this week, but we will leave that aside, 4
11 laid out what Mr. Perrow's schedule was. Everyone knows 12 that he is only available next Monday. So, it is not a last 13 minute thing. We are not springing something on people 14 here. Let's not get personal.
15 MR. IRWIN: That was part of my point, Judge 16 Frye. The Board overruled that matter when it set thic 17 schedule on Monday.
18 These gentlemen were called in on 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> notico 19 or less, the predominant part of which was spent under oath 20 testifying on an issue other than the one they are now 21 testifing on, asked to put cn1 testimony which they have beec 22 staying up all night two nights to prepare for,-and now what 23 we are finding is a reclamoring of a Board order which came 24 out Monday morning.
25 JUDGE FRYE: But your problem is really with ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage N(434-6M6 4
l l
9140 12 12 6211
(
GW/gw 1 Mr. Perrow's availability, isn't it?
I
.2 MR. IRWIN: Yes, sir.
3 JUDGE FRYE: You don't have any probl~m with 4 taking up the training testimony on Monday morning, or do 5 you?
6 MR. IRWIN: I think it would be better for the k
7 record to finish these gentlemen up and let them go before ,
8 taking the training testimony up.
9 JUDGE FRYE: But that is no real prejudice to 10 you, is it?
11 MR. IRWIN: No, that is not the prejudice. The 12 difficulty comes in, first of all, I have not had a chance 13 to talk to Ms. Monaghan. She was not in the office. I 14 presume that she could start examination on Monday morning,-
15 although I frankly would rather start it as Mr. Pirfo 1
16 suggests at 8:00 or 9:00 rather than 10:00.
j 17 Secondly, Mr. Perrow sponsors a number of
- 18 answers, at least on 15 and 16, jointly with other 19 witnesses. I don't know the training testimony'that well. I 20 don't know whether he is the sole witness on most of his 21 answers, but when I raised this problem with-Mr. Lanpher, he 22 said, and I am sure it is analytically correct that-while 4
4 23 Mr. Perrow's portion of the answer goes only to it's 24 organizational theme, and not to other aspects-of it, I am 25 not sure until I see a panel of witnesses setting up there ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC-l 202-347-3700 Nationwide coserage 800-336-6M6
9140 12 13 6212 GW/gw 1 who is going to say what is organizational, and what is
.2 else. And if I am going to be told that when I.ask 3 questions of other witnesses that that is organizational, 4 and you should have asked Mr. Perrow when he'was here, my 5 ability to question those witnesses is impaired.
6 If it is true on 50 also,~and I just don't know 7 whether it is the same problem in here as there. I have at 8 some point a concern with -- we do have to try and tell our 9 people what to expect, and they have different expectations 10 every week now, but being very practical about it, I am not 11 sure whether, first of all, we can get through with 12 Mr. Perrow on Monday, and then question him specially on 15 13 and 16 as well on Monday.
14 I just see a very slim tail wagging a very large 15 dog around once again, and I don't like having to disrupt 16 Mr. Perrow's schedule. I know he is busy and a much sought 17 after man, but there are a lot of busy people here too, and 18 we are all putting our lives into pretty tight slots to try 19 to get this hearing done, and I just think maybe it is time 20 to say: Mr. Perrow, please come here.
21 JUDGE FRYE: Here is what we are going to do. We 22 are going to rule, and people aren' t going to like it.
23 (Laughter.)
24 We are going to start Monday morning and I would 25 say we ought to all be here by 9:30. I know that flight ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
9140 12 14 6213
!. GW/gw 1 you are speaking of and -- why can't Mr. Johnson take the 2 Sunday evening flight?
3 MR. PIRFO: Can we go off the record for a 4 moment?
5 JUDGE FRYE: Sure.
6 (Off the record.)
7 JUDGE FRYE: Let's start on Monday and I would 8 say.at 9:30, and we will await Mr. Johnson's arrival, but-if 9 the plane is on time, I would expect that he would be able 10 to get here comfortably by about 9:30.
11 We will take up the training testimony and finish 12 that, then we will go to the 15 and 16 testimony. That will 13 give these gentlemen a break, which I think they -- whether 14 they need it or not, they certainly deserve it.
15 Now, the problem with regard to Mr. Perrow, let's 16 review -- I want to review the testimony that he sponsors on 17 15 and 16 again, and I would like to address that more 18 specifically Monday morning after I have had a chance to 19 review that particular testimony. If you will recall, when 20 we ruled on the motion to strike, we did not strike that 21 testimony, but we indicated that we wanted -- early related 22 to something having to do with the scope of the exercise, ;
23 and I would like to review that again.
24 MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, you do understand 25 that what the County is suggesting is that we cross
/\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
.. ~ -_ - . -
9140 12-15 6214 i GW/gw 1 examine Mr. Perrow on Monday on both 15 and 16 and 50?
2 JUDGE FRYE: I understand that.
3 MS. McCLESKEY: Okay. So, we are to come, and 4 you are going to tell us on Monday whether we are going to 5 cross examine him on 15 and 16 as well, or how is that going 6 to work?
7 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. I would like to just hold 8 that.
9 MS. McCLESKEY: Okay.
10 JUDGE FRYE: Does that create big problems?
11 MS. McCLESKEY: I will have to ask Mr. Irwin. He 12 is doing the cross examination.
13 MR. IRWIN: I can be ready. Just as I said, it 14 is potentially difficult to cross examine Mr. Perrow --
15 JUDGE FRYE: I am concerned about that problem, 16 and I just wanted more time --
1 17 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, as I offered before, 18 and again, I think we just all have to be reasonable,.if at 19 the end of Mr. Irwin's examination not only of Mr. Perrow 20 but the rest of our panel, he believes there are some 21 questions or whatever that has to be asked, we are not going 22 to be tough on something like that,-because we are all 23 trying to accommodate.
l 24 MR. PIRFO: I hate like the devil to say this 25 after the ruling, but I guess I am still perplexed as to l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-tM6
9140 12 16 6215 GW/gw I why my suggestion of an 8:00 start with this panel on 15 and 2 16 doesn't feed the bulldog, as it were. As we would get 3 them done, presumably by noon, Mr. Perrow would be here by 4 that time, and be able to be taken on Testimony of 15 and 16 5 in the afternoon.
6 Unless I am missing something, I don't understand 7 why that is a problem.
8 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes. The piece you are missing 9 is that he has to go up with the training panel on 50 first, 10 and then he has to, or conceivably should, be going up with 11 the 15 and 16 panel, and he can't do all of that in ona 12 afternoon I don't think.
13 JUDGE FRYE: That is the problem. All right.
14 Having made that ruling, we have about one hour left.
15 MR. PIRFO: May I bring up one other scheduling 16 matter since that is the order of the day at the moment?
17 Very quickly. On the Suffolk County motion to 18 strike the FEMA testimony was filed on May 8th. There is 19 some confusion at least for the Staff personnel as to when 20 our response is due and in what form. We are working on the 21 assumption that it would come in orally on the day FEMA 22 takes the stand. If that is incorrect ---
23 JUDGE FRYE: Well, that is certainly the rule 24 that had been followed. Now, of course, this motion has 25 come in a good deal in advance, and I frankly haven't l
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46 l
p L
'9140 12'17 6216
'. GW/gw I' looked at that motion yet. Does-it raise complicated issues 2
2 more.s'o' than usual?
I 3 4
5 6
7 4 8 9-10 11
!- 12 13 14 15 16 1
17-i 18
- 19 20 21 l I 22 i a
23 l l
24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.- 1
, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
3 9140 13 01 6217 SUE /sw 1 MR. LANPHER: We think it's compelling, Judge.
2 (Laughter.)
3 JUDGE FRYE: I know you think all of your motions 4 are compelling or you wouldn't make them, I'm sure.
5 MR. LANPHER: I don't care frankly when they 6 respond. The truth is that in terms of planning cross-7 examination --
8 JUDGE FRYE: It would be helpful to have an 9 earlier ruling.
10 MR. LANPHER: Of course, it always is. You 11 haven't tended to strike too much stuff,-frankly. I think 12 people are learning to be ready on everything, but who 13 knows, maybe you will strike some of this stuff. We think 14 you should.
15 And it certainly would assist us in our 4
16 cross-examination preparation to know in advance what's 17 going to be there --
18 JUDGE FRYE: Is there very much material in terms 19 of volume that --
20 MR. LANPHER: You know, I wrote parts of the 21 motion. I can't even remember the length of the motion.
22 MR. PIRFO: The motion is seven pages long. But 23 that --
24 JUDGE FRYE: The material that they seek to 25 strike is not very lengthy I gather.
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.9140 13 02 6218
- SUE /sw 1 MR. CUMMING: It's not extensive. It's, as I 2 recall, portions of about 10 page max plus maybe two 3 complete pages, so maybe a total of 12 pages of 160 pages of 4 FEMA testimony.
5 MR. LANPHER: It's up to the Board. We are not 6 pressing one way or the other.
7 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
8 MR. LANPHER: Maybe if written responses could 9 come in, you could ask questions on the record before we 10 adjourn for that June time and you could just issue a 11 ruling. I'm not sure how much oral argument has to --
12 JUDGE FRYE: Why don't you do that? Why_ don't 13 you -- no, let's see, that's not good.
14 Why don't you respond by -- could you have a 15 response in my office by next Friday?
16 MR. PIRFO: We have until -- under the Rules, we 17 have until the 26th, under the. Rules. I mean, I was asking 18 for a longer time and you have made me a little bit unhappy 19 that I brought it up.
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. LANPHER: You have until the 26th? I thought 22 we filed it the 8th.
23 MR. PIRFO: Yes, and we have until the 26th.
24 MR. LANPHER: Didn't we serve it by hand?
25 MR. PIRFO: All I know is what I read in the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
- ._ .__ _ .~ -.
i
)
l 9140 13 03 6219 SUE /sw 1 papers. My mail room puts down that it's due the 26th, but 2 I'm not going to quarrel with that.
3 MR. LANPHER: All right. I don't care.
4 MR. PIRFO: I haven't counted the days, but there 5 is a holiday in there as well. I believe that probably our 6 15 days falls on the Saturday of Memorial Day week-end.
7 That's why our response is pushed to Tuesday.
8 Let me suggest this. Would a written response 9 on, say, Wednesday, June -- well --
10 JUDGE FRYE: No.
11 MR. PIRFO: The FEMA panel isn't due on until 12 Monday, June the 8th.
13 JUDGE FRYE: No. It's going to have to be an 14 oral response.
I 15 MR. PIRFO: An oral response?
I 16 JUDGE FRYE: When they are presented --
17 MR. PIRFO: Okay.
18 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, because I won't have a chance 19 to get to it under that schedule until that time.anyway.-
20 MR. PIRFO: Okay. Thank you.
21 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 22 O Gentlemen, before we took the break, I was asking 23 you I believe, Mr. Behr, whether you recalled what the 24 purpose of the Rule change of July 6th, 1984 was. Do you 25 recall that questioning?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-346M6
~ .. - -
9140 13 04 6220 (Witness Behr)
SUE /sw 1 A Yes, I do.
2 Q Did you have any opportunity to attempt to 3 refresh.your recollection?
4 A Yes, I have.
5 0 And, was I correct that the basic purpose of that 6 Rule change concerned the changing of the time -- the 7 frequency for state participation in bi-annual exercises?
8 A I believe that was one of the purposes. There 9 was also I think for the first time a definition of the term 10 " full participation."
4 11 JUDGE PARIS: Speak into the mike, please.
J 12 WITNESS BEHR: I'm sorry. I think for the first 3 '
13 time a definition of " full participation" appeared in the 14 Federal Register, Appendix E.
15 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 16 O Prior to that time, the NRC regulations did not 17 have a definition of a " full participation" exercise, 18 correct?
19 A I-don't recall one.
20 0 Now, Mr. Behr, looking at the first page of
~
21 Attachment E to your testimony, am I correct that PR-1 was 22 designed to provide guidance under 44 CFR 350 and also NUREG 23 0654?
24 A That's correct.
25 0 That was FEMA's intention, correct?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1 9140 13 05 6221 1
l SUE /sw 1 A Excuse me?
i 2 O That it was FEMA's intention?
- 3 A Yes, I believe that's correct.
4 0 You say I believe that was correct. Do you have 5 any knowledge other than what you read in this piece.of i 6 paper?
7 A No, I don't.
8 Q Do you, Mr. Daverio?
9 A (Witness Daverio) No, I don't.
I 10 Q And, isn't it, in fact, true according to this 11 piece of paper that "The policy, procedures and requirements 12 contained in this GM were developed'to synchronize them with 13 the bi-annual exercise frequency, highlight periodic 14 requirements and formally set forth the reporting 15 requirements in the annual letter of certification which is i
l 16 due by January 31 for the preceeding year's activities."
17 That was the purpose, right?
l 18 (The witnesses are looking at documents.)
19 That's what it says, isn't it? '
J 20 A (Witness Behr) That's what it says, yes.
21 0 You have no reason to disagree with that, do you, 22 either of you?
23 A (Witness Daverio) I do not.
24 (Witness Behr). No.
i 25 0 Gentlemen, in this series of questions I will ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(M6
9140 13 06 6222 SUE /sw 1 just ask one of you the questions. I will assume that if 2 either of you disagree you will let me know, okay?
3 Now, gentlemen, does this guidance memorandum 4 anywhere specify that it is attempting to provide 5 definitional clarification of the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 6 E, full participation requirements?
7 (The witnesses are conferring and looking at 8 documents.)
9 A (Witness Behr) Yes, it does add some 10 definitional clarification on the subject of ingestion 11 pathway.
12 O Would you direct the Board's and my attention to 13 what you are referring to, sir?
14 A Referring to Page 3, Items 4 and 5.
15 0 Now, let's be clear what you are referring to.
16 Page 3 -- it's really Page 4 of this attachment; is that 17 correct, because you've got the cover page.
18 A Yes.
19 0 So, it's the one with --
20 A It's the fourth page of the attachment.
21 0 Okay. And, what portion of that page are you 22 referring to, sir?
23 A Items Number 4 and 5.
24 0 And, that is the only portion of this guidance i
25 memorandum that you are relying on as providing data l
l
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. f 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(0-3346M6 '
. , ~ . . - _ -
9140 13 07 6223 SUE /sw I concerning NRC full participation exercise requirements?
2 (The witnesses are looking through documents.)
.3 A There is also a definition of -- it's not a 4 definition but Planning Standard N on the sixth page of the 5 attachment --
6 0 You mean, starting on --
7 A At the very bottom of the page, the last 8 paragraph of the page.
9 0 The bottom of Page 6?
10 A The sixth page. It's Page Number 5.
11 0 Okay. Thank you. And, what are you directing i 12 our attention to?
13 A Just that periodic exercises are conducted to 14 evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities.
15 They seem to be defining an exercise and a drill here.
16 0 Well, what you just highlighted for us, which is 17 at the bottom of numbered Page 5, and --
18 A Right.
19 0 -- that really is Page 5 of the guidance 20 memorandum, correct?
21 A That's correct.
22 0 And, that's simply a quotation of the 0654 23 planning standard which is Attachment D to your testimony, 24 right?
25 A That's correct.
l /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
9140 13 08 6224
. SUE /sw 1 Q So, that doesn't add anything concerning full 2 participation exercises. It's just a quotation of the 3 standard.
4 A That's correct.
5 O Okay. So, in fact, the stuff at the bottom of 6 Page 5 doesn't -- it is not pertinent to what is a full 7 participation exercise, is it?
8 A Well, I wouldn't say that it isn't. I think 9 in our interpretation of the regulations and the guidance 10 that would fit in with the definition.
11 O But, what we have on Page 5 doesn't even have 12 those evaluation criteria that were in your earlier 13 attachment, Attachment -- what was that, D? Attachment C of 14 your testimony.
15 It doesn't even have those evaluation criteria, 16 right? The mere quotatior of the planning standard isn't 17 pertinent, is it?
18 A My interpretation of that statement is that it's i
19 pertinent, yes. I I
20 0 It's your testimony, Mr. Bohr, that those four {
21 lines at the bottom of Page 5 which were issued some time 22 around October 1 or October 4, 1985 provided new information 23 and guidance to emergency planners regarding what j 24 constituted a full participation exercise under the NRC l
25 regulations?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
l 1
l 9140 13 09 6225 l
. SUE /sw 1 A I can't say that, you know, people were even 2 thinking in terms of those words at that point in time.
3 And, I don't think we are trying to infer here that they 4 were.
5 0 Well, let me --
6 A There was a lack of guidance back at that point 7 in time, and our interpretation of what the regs and the 8 guidance required, especially in terms of first time J
9 exercises, was full participation. We may not have called 10 it that back then.
11 I think typically we very often called them full 12 scale exercises.
l j 13 0 Mr. Behr --
14 MR. LANPHER: I hate to do this. I would like to 15 have that answer read back, Judge Frye. Could I, please?
16 JUDGE FRYE: Yes.
17 (The Court Reporter read the answer back as 18 requested.)
f 19 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 20 0 Mr. Behr, you said you didn't think that people 21 were even thinking in terms of those words. The words you 22 were referring to were " full participation exercises,"
23 correct?
24 A That's correct, back in the time frame that this 25 planning standard was published.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 800-336-6M6
l l
9140 13 10 6226 .
SUE /sw 1 O October 1985.
2 A No. I'm going back to NUREG -- this planning 3 standard refers --
4 0 Oh, okay.
5 A -- to the NUREG 0654.
i 6 0 Okay.
i' 7 A I'm talking about the very early phases.
8 0 All right. So, that was the reference. So, as 9 of the time that 0654 was adopted, you have no reason to 10 believe that people even were thinking about full 11 participation exercises then?
12 A Thinking in terms of the words " full 13 participation exercises." I think that they were thinking 14 in terms of an exercise as defined by this planning standard 15 which tests a major portion of- the observable elements of 16 0654.
17 0 But, you've never talked with any FEMA person 18 about what they intended by those 0654 words back then, have 19 you?
20 A I don't recall any conversations at the time.
21 MR. LANPHER: Is it fruitless to renew my motion 1
22 to strike Attachment C7 I think this confirms that it 23 should have been struck, Judge Frye.
24 But, I will continue and maybe you can consider 25 it over the week-end.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6M6
, 9140 13 11 6227
. SUE /sw 1 JUDGE FRYE: All right. Why don't you continue?
2 MR. LANPHER: All right.
3 JUDGE FRYE: Attachment E or C?
4 MR. LANPHER: C. This goes back again to the 5 0654 material that I moved to strike and you declined.
6 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 7 0 Now, you went on in that earlier answer that the 8 Reporter read back, Mr. Behr, to talk about -- in the 9 context of this guidance memorandum first time exercises. I 10 couldn't get exactly your words down, but I know you talked 11 about especially in the context of first time exercises.
f 12 Do you recall some statement to that ef fect?
13 A Yes, I do.
14 0 Now, is there any discussion in this guidance 15 memorandum anywhere about what requirements apply for first 1
16 time full participation exercises?
17 A -I don't believe there are any.words to that 18 effect, no.
19 0 Well, then where did you -- where did you --
20 A I said the -- l 21 0 Let me finish the question, all right?
22 A All right.
23 0 Where do you derive that concern from?
24 A It's not really a concern. It's just that in the 25 time frame that I was speaking to, most of the exercises, if ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS,'INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 l
9140 13 12 6228 SUE /sw 1 not all of the exercises, that we were talking about were 2 first time exercises.
3 0' What time frame were you just referring to in 4 your answer, sir?
5 A The time which this planning standard 0654 was 6 published.
7 0 okay. So, we've got a little confusion here.
8 This guidance memorandum,.as Judge Paris pointed out 9 earlier, was October 1, 1985.
10 A That's right.
F 11 0 Now, this standard is quoted in this October 1985 12 guidance memorandum. So, in this context does it have 13 anything to do with first time exercises?
14 A No, I doesn't.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MU-3.46M6
9140 14 14 6229 arysimons 1 0 You've drawn our attention to paragraphs 4 and 5 2 on page 3 and that bottom paragraph on page 5. Is there 3 anything else in this guidance memorandum that you believe 4 pertains to full participation exercises at all, and I ask 5 that question because I believe that a lot of this is just 6 irrelevant to your testimony here and I guess you included 7 it to have the whole GM in one place, but most of it 8 doesn't pertain to your testimony; isn't that correct?
9 A (Witness Daverio) The other place I would draw 10 some facts about full participation or exercises in general 11 is on page 2 of the guidance memorandum and page 3 of the 12 attachment where they talk about periodic exercises. It's 13 paragraph 2 under the third section there, attendant 14 criteria.
15 0 Okay, it's the bottom three-quarters of the page 16 sort of, right?
17 A Right, Item No. 2 there.
18 0 So other than that Item No. 2, Items 4 and 5 on 19 page 3 and the four lines on page 5, the rest of this 20 guidance memorandum is not pertinent to your testimony; is 21 that correct?
22 A (Witness Behr) That's correct.
23 MR. LANPHER: Thank you.
24 JUDGE SHON: Just out of curiosity, how does the 25 statement at the bottom of page 5 differ from the statement ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 147 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8m 336W46
9140 14 14 6230 arysimons 1 at the bottom of page 1 in the same memorandum?
2 MR. LANPHER: Is that a question to me? You 3 were looking at me.
4 JUDGE SHON: To anybody that knows.
5 (Laughter.)
6 JUDGE FRYE: It's the witnesses' cttachment and 7 let's get their answer.
8 JUDGE SHON: It's the witnesses attachment, 9 that's true.
< 10 WITNESS DAVERIO: There is no difference. We 11 just found it in a later page.
J
- 12 JUDGE SHON
- Okay. So it's sort of repeated 13 twice, or repeated once.
14 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, I don't know what the 15 Boarzi's rules are in this, but I'm not going to move to 16 strike these portions of the guidance memorandum that 17 aren't relied upon, but I'm not going to pursue questior.ing 18 about them also.
19 JUDGE FRYE Oh, no. I don' t see any point in 20 that. You put the whole thing in there, and I think it 21 would be a total waste of time to question them on matters j 22 that they are not relying on.
i 23 MR. LANPHER: No, but js there an understanding 24 then'that LILCO doesn't then come back and make findings on 25 those portions. Isn't that correct? I don't want to get i
}
r t\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
9140 14 14 6231 i arysimons 1 surprised.
2 JUDGE FRYE: I'm sure that I'll get a very 3 strong objection if they should do that.
4 MR. LANPHER: All right. Thank you.
5 BY MR. LANPHER:
6 0 Now, Mr. Daverio, I believe you are the one that 7 called our-attention to paragraph 2 on page 2 of the 8 guidance memorandum, and if you could turn your attention
, 9 back to there.
l 10 Is it your testimony that thac paragraph 11 provides interpretation as to, or guidance as to Part 50 of 12 Appendix E full participatiop requirements?
13 A (Witness Daverio) If you look at ---
14 0 This is Attachment E.
15 A Right, but if you look at Attachment F which is 16 referenced in that paragraph that I pointed you to, you see 17 that FEMA has agreed to furnish on the bottom of page 1 of 18 that its inte. rim finding exercise reports. We are back to 19 where it is-my interpretation that TEMA's findings are 20 related to Appendix E.
1 21 Under the Memorandua. af Understanding in their ;
22 regulations I believe that's part of the whole process of 23 making a determination of whether the health and safety of i 24 the public can be protected.
25 0 Does-the Memorandum of Understanding between NRC l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
9140 14 14 6232 I and FEMA talk at all about the full participation exercises
.arysimons 1 2 or us that term?
3 A No. As I just stated I believe it's just to
, 4 provide their findings on the offsite exercises. As I 5 recall, FEMA has the responsibility to provide those 6 findings to the NRC.
7 0 My question was whether to your recollection the 8 MOU specifically talks of full participation exercises?
9 A I don't believe it does.
10 0 Now am I correct that paragraph 2 on page 2, 11 you're not relying on it specifically except insofar as it 12 makes a cross-reference to your Attachment F and that 13 paragraph at the bottom of page 1 of Attachment F?
14 A No, I'm relying on paragraph 2 and its reference 15 because it talks about periodic exercises -- I mean the 16 whole paragraph is about the exercise process I believe.
17 Q Okay. I misunderstood you, Mr. Daverio.
18 Then what is it in paragraph 2 that you construe 19 to constitute guidance as to what Appendix E requires for 20 full participation exercises?
21 A Give me a second. I want to read Appendix E one 22 more time.
23 (Pause while the witness reads the document 24 referred to.)
25 It is just its reference to the exercise process ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
9140 14 14 6233 i arysimons 1 and my understanding of how FEMA does business in drawing 2 its findings, which then is an input into NRC's 3 determination of continued operation of a reactor or 4 operation of an initial reactor.
5 0 This is not based on personal knowledge though m
6 in terms of talking with FEMA people. Why did you put this 7 paragraph in?
8 A No, it's again my opinion that that's what they 9 meant by doing it based on my expertise in emergency 10 planning.
11 O Well what expertise in emergency planning allows 12 you to draw that conclusion? Is it just your general 13 expertise or something specific?
14 A Just my general expertise of having been 15 involved in emergency planning since 1980. I've lived 16 through most of this process and seen exercises over the 17 years and have talked to many other people about exercises 18 and how FEMA does their business and draws findings and how 19 NRC issues 120-day letters or they get a finding that's 20 good and they issue the license. I mean those are all 21 historical facts that occur.
22 O It says here that the major elements of plans 23 and preparedness are incorporated in those 35 standard 24 objectives, right?
25 A You've read that correctly, yes. l, i
l I
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
9140 14 14 6234
..sarysimons 1 0 Do you agree with that, that statement that I 2 just read to you?
, 3 A I have no reason to dispute that FEMA wrote 4 that, and I have no problem that the major elements of 5 plans and procedures are incorporated.
6 0 And isn't it true that that under FEMA's 7 guidance they plan to test all of the 35 objectives for any 8 particular plant over a six-year cycle? Isn't that_their 1
9 sort of rule as you understand it?
10 A As they applied to.that site. There may be a 11 site like we talked earlier where an EOC doesn't have to 12 have a backup EOC because it's not located there, but as 13 they apply that's my understanding.
14 0 Unless there is some special reason that an 15 objective doesn't apply, FEMA interprets its objectives as i
16 requiring that they all be Tested, maybe not in one 17 exercise, but over a period of six years, correct?
18 Isn't that in fact what this says?
19 A Yes, I agree.
20 0 Doesn't that indicate to you that FEMA considers 21 those 35 objectives to constitute the major elements of the 22 plans?
23 A I think I stated that already, that I agreed 24 with FEMA's statement.
25 0 Now looking at page 3 of that guidance ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(XL336-6M6
~_
-9140 14L14 6235
.arysimons 1 memorandum, gentlemen, I guess, Mr. Behr, you were the one 2 that drew our attention to paragraphs 4 and 5. Isn't it 3 true that each of those paragraphs expressly references 4 full participation under 44 CFR 3507 5 A (Witness Behr) Yes, that's true.
6 O So how does this constitute guidance or 7 interpretation of what is required under Appendix E to Part 8 507 4
9 I would like to have Mr. Behr answer this
- 10 question if he can. If you can't, say so, and then i
l 11 certainly consult with Mr. Daverio.
12 A Well, I go back to the background paragraph on i 13 the first page, or actually the second page of the 14 attachment that says that "The purpose of the memo is to 15 add clarification. With the publication of the final FEMA 16 rule and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC final 17 regulation, 10 CFR 50 on July 6th, 1984 it ha3 become 18 necessary to clarify some of the requirements."
19 0 But paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 on page 3 are 20 very express in their reference to 44 CFR, the FEMA rule 21 and not any NRC rule; isn't that correct? ;
22 A That's what the paragraphs say, yes.
i 23 0 You have no reason to disagre> with tr.em, do i
24 you?
25 A No, I don't.
l l
t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202 347-37(n Nationwide Cmcrape No 33M646
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . . _ ~ _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ __ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ , . - . _ , _ - . _ . . _ ,
i
- 9140 14~14 _6236 i arysimons 1 O But it's your testimony that that single general 2 reference to an NRC rule change-somehow modifies these two 3 paragraphs to make them interpretative of Appendix E to 4 Part 50?
5 (Witnessos confer.)
'6 ' A As I stated earlier, it's my testimony that.this 7 meno provides clarification ~of the situation.
8 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, I would like to strike 9 that answer and ask for a direction that he answer my 10 question.
11 JUDGE FRYE: Can you answer the question, Mr.
12 Behr?
13 WITNESS BEHR: Could you repeat the question.
14 MR. LANPHER:- Could the reporter please read it 15 back.
16 (The question was repeated by.the reporter.)
17 BY MR. LANPHER:
18 0 Can you answer that question, Mr. Behr? Is that 19 your testimony?
20 A (Witness Schr) I don't know if I would use the 21 word " interpretative." It provides clarification.
22 O So it's your testimony that that general 23 reference in paragraph two of GM PR-1 provides 24 clarification of the two paragraphs back on'page 37 25 A No. It's my testimony that the general i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-tM6 i ,
') '
4 9140 14 14 6237 k arysimons 1 reference on page one intends.that this guidance memo 2 provides clarification of the new rules that were passed.
3 0 Aside from that one reference to the new rule on 4 page one of the guidance memorandum, is there any other 5 reference to the NRC rules in here?
6 A In these two paragraphs?
7 0 Anywhere in this guidance memorandum or the 8 cover sheet.
9 (Pause.)
I 10 I'll take it from your silence that there 11 isn't. If you find it over. the weekend, you can point it 12 out. We won't take time now.
13 A There is a reference.
14 0 All right, where?
15 A On page 2 under " Acceptance Criteria."
16 0 Okay. That's the other reference. Do you rely 17 on that reference?
18 A Not from what we were just talking about, no.
19 MR. LANPHER: Okay. Thank you.
20 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Behr, so I understand, do I l
21 understand your testimony correctly that you believe this 22 guidance memorandum was intended to convey FEMA's 23 interpretation of the NRC rule; is that correct or not at'
, 24 least in part?
25 WITNESS BEHR: I think in part. I think they
! /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(U-3364M6
l 9140 14 14 6238 arysimons 1 provided this to the regions to give them guidance on how i
2 to apply that rule in their design of exercises.
3 JUDGE FRYC: Thank you.
4 BY MR. LANPHER:
j 5 0 And you base that' belief on your reading of this 6 piece of paper, correct?
7 A (Witness Behr) That's basically correct, yes.
8 0 I don't mean to repeat, but you've had no 9 discussions with FEMA personnel who were involved with the 10 guidance memorandum when it was draf ted or subsequently to 11 tell you, yes, that's exactly what this was about, Mr.
12 Behr?
13 A No discussions with FEMA personnel, no, j 14 discussions with colleagues.
] 15 0 Colleagues who were involved in drafting this?
16 A Not necessarily involved in drafting that, but
. 17 colleagues who are involved in design of exercises and I
18 emergency preparedness in general.
i 19 0 Tell me about these conversations. How did that 20 clarify the meaning of this guidance memorandum? You don't l 21 really rely on those conversations, do you?
22 MR. 2EUGIN: Judge Frye, I don't which is a 23 pending questions any more. Mr. Lanpher continues to ask 24 one question and then continues to ask questions while the 3
25 witness is trying to answer the first question.
Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336-6M6
r--- - , , , , - - - , , , , - , - ,- ----.,,-r--,- - - - , - -
9140'14 14 6239
'- .arysimons 1 MR. LANPHER: It's a fair objection.
2 JUDGE FRYE: I think we've been through this 3 thoroughly, and I think we understand his testimony. I i
4 think he's being overly cautious when answering your 5 questions. He didn't talk to any at FEMA, but he did talk 6 to his colleagues.
7 Let's move on.
8 MR. LANPHER:- Yes, sir.
9 BY MR. LANPHER:
10 0 I apologize if I asked this before, gentlemen, 11 but this guidance memorandum provides no data regarding any 12 particular requirements for the first exercise at a site 13 before it exceeds five percent power; is that correct?
14 A (Witness Daverio) There is nothing in it 15 concerning that.
56 17 18 19-20 21 4
22 l
23 24 25 l l
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage "Ot>346M6
9140 15 01 6240 I. GJW/jw 1 O And in fact there -- gentlemen, you are familiar 2 with the requirement of Appendix E that that first ever 3 exercise before five percent power tests as much of t.
4 plans as is " reasonably achievable;" you are familiar with 5 that requirement, correct?
6 A (Witness Daverio) Yes.
7 0 There is nothing about that requirement in this 8 guidance memorandum, is there?
9 A No.
10 0 And, jumping back for a moment to Attachment C to 11 your testimony, the NUREG 0654 extract, there is nothing in 12 that extract about either the f .rst exercise at a site 13 before five percent power or the as much as reasonably 14 achievable requirement, correct?
15 A (Witness Behr) That's correct.
16 JUDGE FRYE: The answer was? We couldn't hear 17 your answer.
18 WITNESS BEHR: That's correct, yes.
19 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 20 0 And, pertaining to Guidance Memorandum 17 that 21 we've already discussed, which is Attachment D to your 1
22 testimony, the same question. Do you recall the question?
23 Either the reasonably achievable or before five percent 24 power.
25 A (Witness Daverio) I don't think there are any ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800-336 4 46
9140'15 02 6241 I GJW/jw 1 specific words in there, but-I think all of these documents-2 have been used to license plants who ran first time 3 exercises under their. guidance.
4 O My_ question was, were there any such.words. The 5 answer is no, right?
6 A As I said, there are no specific words but I know 4
7 of places that were run under these guidance that got 8 . licenses as first time exercises.
9 0 Gentlemen, turning your attention to Attachment F 10 to your testimony, first of all, this document is not 11 complete, is it?
i 12 (The witnesses are conferring and looking at the 4
13 document.)
14 A- No, it's not. There's the FEMA module document 15 that goes behind it that you gave out earlier today, or I-16 don't remember-if you gave it -- you were going to give it 17 out earlier today.
18 0 I was going to give it out. I thought better of i
19 it. For what purpose is the text of-this document, in other i
20 words, the f!rst three pages of this attachment, included in 1 21 your teswimony?
22 A I could go through and give you the paragraphs or 4
23 I can give you a general statement. This first three pages j 24 talk about the FEMA process of reviewing and observing i
25 radiological emergency preparedness. FEMA has agreed to ACE-FEDERAL REponTEns,-INC.
! 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6M6 l
9140 15 03 6242 I
GJW/jw 1 provide NRC in connection with licensing and actions. It's 2 those kind of words, Mr. Lanpher, throughout this that set 3 the context of why I spoke earlier about how FEMA does their 4 business.
5 0 Does this mention the words " full participation" i
6 anywhere? Or, Appendix E?
7 A Those specific words are not mentioned.
8 0 You weren't involved in the development of this 9 document, were you?
10 A No, I was not.
11 0 Do you know whether this is viewed by FEMA as 12 constituting interpretation of Appendix E requirements?
13 A I don't want to repeat my answer, but only to the 14 extent that I've previously testified, that FEMA uses these 15 guidance memorandums as they even say in this memo to make-16 findings to the NRC which then get used, in my opinion, to 17 make 10 CFR Appendix E findings by NRC.
18 Q Is it your testimony that FEMA attempts to make 19 findings of whether its exercises comply with the 20 requirements of Appendix E of Part 50?
21 A It's my understanding FEMA makes findings to NRC
- 22 on protecting the health and safety and then NRC makes the 23 findings according.to Appendix E.
i 24 0 So, it's your understanding that FEMA makes no I
25 determination whether Appendix E's full participation 1
I J
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
9140 15 04 6243 GJW/jw 1 exercise requirements are satisfied; is that correct?
2 A No. I didn't say that. I said the final 3 determination is NRC.
4 What I was trying to say is FEMA makes findings 5 to NRC under their regulations. I believe they are trying 6 to do a good job. They know what NRC has to find, and they 7 are trying to give NRC a report that will allow NRC to draw 8 findings.
9 0 You said they know -- they, FEMA, knows what NRC 10 needs to find. How do you know that?
11 A Under the memorandum of understanding, I assume 12 that FEMA is providing NRC what NRC would like from them.
13 0 Well, that's another assumption, isn't it?
14 A Yes, it is.
15 O Mr. Daverio, it's late on Thursday. If you know 16 the answer to something, give it to me. If you don't know, 17 just say it. That would be better.
18 Isn't it fair to state that this document insofar 19 as you know was a document that was prepared by FEMA so that 20 they could run exercises under their rules the way they 21 thought it was best to run them under their rules, the 350 22 rules?
23 (The witness is looking at a document.)
24 A The only sentence in here that tends me to think 25 that they also had more in mind is it says FEMA has agreed i i ACE FEDERAL REPORTLRS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide CoseraFe 800-336-6M6
l 9140 15.05 6244-l GJW/jw 1. to furnish to NRC for their use in connection with-licensing 2 and regulatory actions ~ interim findings and exercise ,
3' reports.
4 So, that sentence leads me to think at least FEMA 5 had something in mind to help NRC when they-wrote these up.
6 0 Well, what do you mean by helping NRC?
7 A As you are aware, FEMA runs the off-site portion 8 of the exercise, and they write a report to NRC and which 9 NRC then issues a license under their regulations.
l 10 0 So, that's what you mean?
I
, 11 A Yes, that's what I mean.
12 MR. LANPHER: Judge Frye, I'm going to be heading 1
13 into EX-3. I can go ahead now. It's going to take me more I
14 than 10 or 15 minutes to cover Draft EX-3.
, 15 Whatever you want me to do?
16 JUDGE FRYE: No, let's quit I think.
17 MR. LANPHER: It's up to the Board.
18 JUDGE FRYE: If you can't complete it --
a i 19 MR. LANPHER: I don't think.so. That's going to 20 tie into some other portions of the testimony as well.
21 JUDGE FRYE: All right. It sounds like a good 22 place to stop for the day.
- 23 We will be adjourned then until 9
- 30 on Monday 24 morning.
25 MR. LANPHER: Thank you.
i /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage ~ 8(wh336W46
M --A& i.- 4 w- .>M-+M .*Or J n w- +a-i 9140.15 06 6245
$ i- GJW/jw 1 (Whereupon, the hearing is adjourned at 3:45 p.m.,
2 Thursday, May 14, 1987, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Monday, .
3 May 18, 1987.)
4 I
- 5 6
i
- 7 8
l 9
- 10 11 12 4
I 13 4
}'
14 t
15 -
l 16 j 17 i
18 i
19 4
20 21
) 22 23
, 24 i
25 .
f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage ' 800-336-6M6 i
i
-._------.,_.__~_.-_-.,.--m-_. -- _._-.,-_ . .- ... ,_ . - - , - - - - _ . _ - - _ - _ _ . ~ . , . . , . - _ - , , - - , - . - . - . , - , _ . . . _ _ .
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER i
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
DOCKET NO.: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
PLACE: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK DATE: THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/ ,.
(sigt)
(TYPED) [ [
GARRETT J. WALSH Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Beporter's Affiliation MY LE S. HALSH //
&0 MARYp.SIliONS /
__