ML20244C966
| ML20244C966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8785 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8906160002 | |
| Download: ML20244C966 (127) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ --_____ -__ - - - _ - UNITED STATES O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DDip\A_ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
) Docket.Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL
) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND Ej ) PLANNING EVIDENTIARY HEARING O .
Pages: 24965 through 25064 Place: Boston, Massachusetts 4 Date: June 9, 1989 e
.g...........................................
3 . k\
%q\ '
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION O yg. gf j i j o s k
- t a , ors =
1229 L Street, N.W., Suite 640 Washington, D.C. 20065 8906160002 890600 PDR ADOCK 05000443 T FOC
t
-24965-UNITED. STATES' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-V); ATOMIC SAFETY'AND LICENSING' BOARD-
.In the Matter'of: ).
) DocketlNos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF- :) 50-443-OLi ,
... "NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.,' ) c50-444-OL-
- .) ' -OFF-SITE EMERGENCY.- q (SEABROOK STATION, ' UNITS 1 AND 2) -)- : PLANNING ^:
l l
' EVIDENTIARY' HEARING .
Friday,. 4 June 9,j l989- ]j
- Auditorium-Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. 3~
Federal-Building;
- 10. Causeway Street Boston,' Massachusetts-1 The above-entitled matter came;on,for hearing,.
pursuant to notice, at 8:35 a.m.- BEFORE:- JUDGE IVAN W.: SMITH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C. t20555 ;
JUDGE KENNETH A.tMcCdLLOM,', Member-Atomic. Safety and. Licensing; Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. , s Washington, D.C. 20555: j JUDGE RICHARD.F.~ COLE,: MEMBER j Atomic Safety and.' Licensing Boardi ; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C.. 20555 ' 4 l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
-i
-- - - _ - _ - - - . - - - - -_- i
24966 APPEARANCES: ' For the Applicant: THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ. GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESQ. KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ. JAY BRADFORD SMITH, ESQ. JEFFREY P. TROUT, ESQ. . GEOFFREY C. COOK, ESQ. Ropes & Gray One International Place - Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 For the NRC Staff: SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ. ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ. EDWIN J. REIS, ESQ. RICHARD BACHMANN, ESQ. Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 For the Federal Emeroency M&nacement Agencvr . H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ. LINDA HUBER McPHETERS, ESQ. Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTY. GEN. JOHN C. TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEF, ! ALLAN R. FIERCE, ASST. ATTY. GEN. PAMELA'TALBOT, ASST. ATTY. GEN. MATTHEW BROCK, ESQ.
- LESLIE B. GREER, ESQ.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts j One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor , Boston, Massachusetts 02108 t I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l i e
24967: APPEARANCES: (Continued)~ r p ~ For the State of~New H==nshire:- - f GEOFFREY M'.' HUNTINGTON/ ASST. . ATTY. GEN.'
. State of New Hampshire L. 25: Capitol' Street' ,
Concord,'New: Hampshire 033016 l For the ' Seacoast' Anti- Pollution Leacue:'
~*
. ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
~ Backus, Heyer.& Solomon 1 116 Lowell-Street !
P.O.; Box 516-Manchester,.New Hampshire ~03105 JANE. DOUGHTY,-' Director' () Seacoast Anti-Pollution League j 5 Market' Street- 1' Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 For the Town of Amesburv ' ;
- t.
BARBARA J. SAINT. ANDRE, ESQ. Kopelman and-Paige, P.C'
., l 77 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts WILLIAM. LORD Town Hall Amesbury, Massachusetts 10913-For the City of Haverhill and Town of Merr4 =ac':
ASHOD N. AMIRIAN, ESQ. P. O. Box 38 Bradford, Massachusetts-l01835~ l4 4
. For the City of Newburvoort:
;]
hb
~
BARBARA J.. SAINT ANDRE, ESQ. JANE O'MALLEY, ESQ. Kopelman and Paige, P.C. j 77 Franklin' Street i Boston, Massachusetts 02110 I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 '
\
. i
24968 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 3 For the Town of Newburv: R. SCOTT HILL-WHILTON, ESQ. Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton & McGuire 79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Town of Salisburv: CHARLES P. GRAHAM, ESQ. ., Murphy and Graham 33 Low Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Town of West Newburv: JUDITH H. MIZNER, ESQ. Second Floor 79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board: , ROBERT R. PIERCE, ESQUIRE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
24969 1ERAX
, VOIR I
WITIESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT DIRE EXAM Witness: Carol Sneider Glick (Prefiled) 24974 by Mr. Fierce 24971 by Mr. Trout 24977 by Mr. Bachmann~ 25031 - 24989 by Judge McCollom' 25036
, by Mr. Fierce' 25037-l l
-l 1
J l w-f . Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888
24970 1 H H E K' INSERTS: ' FAGE Corrected testimony of 24974 Carol Sneider Glick on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General regarding JI-56 (monitoring rates.) ,. Resume of Carol Sneider Glick 24976
~
Applicants' cross-examination 25064 outline plan of the testimony of Carol Sneider Glick O i l l I i l I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
q
-l .
.SNEIDER - DIRECT 24971 1 'EE QQ RR R1HQ E-l 2 3 0NOGE SMITH: Good morning. i 3%~/ j 3 Is there any preliminary business? I 4 -
(No response) 5 JUDGE SMITH: All right'. I 4 6 What's'your pleasure? 'What do we want to start 7 with? 8 MR. FIERCE: We're ready.to start' with Ms.' . 9 Sneider. j 10 JUDGE SMITH: ' -All right. 11 Welcome back, Ms. Sneider. 12 Nothing has changed. Not one thing. y 13 (Laughter) 14 MS. SNRIDER:. I believe it. 15 Whereupon,. 16 CAROL SNEIDER GLICK a 17 having been first duly sworn, was' called as a witness 18 herein, and was examined and testified as follows. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION l 1 20 BY MR. FIERCE:
. 21 Q Good morning. I 22 Since you have been married, since we have'all 23 last seen you at these' proceedings, can you state'for us 1
24 your full current name? 1 25 A (Sneider) Carol Sneider Glick. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l i
. _ _ ___ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ l j
SNEIDER - DIRECT 24972 1 Q And your current address? 2 A y (Sneider) 294 Walnut Street, Brookline, 3 Massachusetts. 4 Q How would you like to be referred to in these 5 proceedings today? 6 A .(Sneider) I don't care. 7 JUDGE SMITH: With courtesy and gentleness. , 8 BY MR. FIERCE: 9 Q As Ms. Sneider? 10 Ms. Sneider Glick? 11 A (Sneider) Ms. Sneider is fine. 12 Q All right. 13 Ms. Sneider, I have placed before you a document 14 which is entitled " Testimony of Carol Sneider on behalf of 15 James M. Shannon, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of 16 Massachusetts regarding JI-56 (monitoring rate) . " 17 Do you have that document before you? 18 A (Sneider) Yes, I do. 19 Q Do you recognize it? 20 A (Sneider) Yes, I do. 21 Q Can you tell us what it is?
- 22 A (Sneider) It's testimony that I submitted -- that 23 you submitted on behalf of -- I submitted on behalf of the 24 Attorney General -- it's testimony on the monitoring 25 exercise that I observed.
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - fl .
SNEIDER - DIRECT 24973 1 Q Since it was submitted'have you had an opportunity
,~
( 2 to read it over and note any corrections that you would want 3 to make? 4 A - (Sneider). Yes, I have.
~
5 0 Are there such corrections? a. 6 A (Sneider) There-are four minor corrections on. 7 pages -- 8 JUDGE. SMITH: Let's go off the record and'she can 9 tell what they are and mark them in on the copy that's' going. 10 to be received. 11 (Discussion off the record.) 12 BY MR. FIERCE: 13 Q Already, Ms. Sneider, the Board has considered -- 14 on page 15, the language in the last full paragraph has. 15 stricken the last sentence which reads: "I understand that 16 another witness for the Massachusetts Attorney Genaral has' 17 submitted testimony that the total' Massachusetts population l 18 is actually significantly higher than this." 19 You understand that sentence has been stricken? 20 A (Sneider) Yes, I do. l 21 Q With those corrections and that striking, is the l 22 testbmonyasitnowstandstrueandcorrect'tothebestof 23 your' knowledge and belief? 24 A (Sneider) Yes, it is. 25 MR. FIERCE: At this time, Your Honor, we would Heritage Reporting Corporation f'~' (202) 628-4888 t, 1 l
----__----__-_A
SNEIDER - DIRECT 24974 1 like to offer this testimony and ask that it be bound into 2 the record. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Other than the earlier objections, 4 do you have any objections this morning? 5 MR. TROUT: No, Your Honor. 6 JUDGE SMITH: The testimony is received and shall 7 be bound into the transcript. . 8 (The testimony of Carol 9 Sneider regarding JI-56 10 monitoring rates follows:) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22
~
23 1 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l(. ,t. E I
c UNITEDoSTATES:OFLAMERICA' l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: ! 7; ~ (ATOMIC SAFETY-AND' LICENSING BOARD , , , BeforeuthofAdministrative'Judgesi. , j
- 1Ivan1W. Smith, Chairman !
Dr.? Richard F. Cole ->- ' KennethLA.=McCollom , ;i
+ ,i 1
):
In the Matter of )- Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)- . 50-555-OLi 'll PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-SiteLEP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL'. )
)'
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)--) April.10,-1989
-)
COfffC/ec/ TESTIMONY OF CAROL' SNEIDER_ ON BEHALF OF , JAMES-M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF. MASSACHUSETTS,. REGARDINGiJI-56 (Monit'oring Rate) l I w ll
. E' Department.of the Attorney' General Nuclear Safety Unit
-- Public-Protection Bureau '
. One Ashburton' Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617)~727-2200 1
l 1
\ ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges:
+ .Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
')
.In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 30-443-OL
) 50-555-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and.2) ) April 10, 1989
)
TESTIMONY OF CAROL SNEIDER ON BEHALF OF .. JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, IO REGARDING JI-56 (Monitorina Rate)
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMONY In this testimony Carol Sneider, an observer of the monitoring drills at the North Andover Reception Center during the Exercise, describes the drills and the monitoring rates she j observed. She then sets forth her reasons, based on her
, observations, shy the monitoring drills were not a fair tesF of i d at t$e canability of the ORO would likely be in a real . W emergency. She concludes with a calculation of what a j
reasonable monitoring rate over 12 hours would be. It is a rate'which, for two monitoring trailers'with 14 monit'oring l j o
stations each, does not permit 20% of the total population to be monitored within 12 hours. Q.l. Would you please state your name and current position? A.I. My name is Carol Sneider, and I am currently an attorney in private practice with the firm of Becker & Glick in i Boston. Q.2. Were you previously an Assistant Attorney General in - the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, and did you work on the Seabrook case? A.2. Yes. I left the Attorney General's office at the end of January 1989. Q.3. Did you have an opportunity to observe any part of the June 1988 FEMA /NRC Graded Exercise for Seabrook? A.3. Yes, I did. I was one of the observers the Massachusetts Attorney General's office sent to observe the Exercise on June 28 and 29, 1988. The Applicants had agreed to permit the Attorney General to have a limited number of observers present to observe portions of the Exercise'. On Day 1 of the Exercise (June 28), I was at the North Andover, Massachusetts, reception center along with another Mass AG j observer, Phoebe McKinnel, a law student from Columbia
- Oniversity who was working in the Attorney General's office last summer.
Q.4. While you were there, did you have an opportunity to I observe the activity at the Monitoring Trailer? l l 1 l l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ 0I
'1 j
A.4. Yes. There was a single-Monitoring Trailer parked j 73 just outside the Reception Center. We observed the' trailer-being readied for evacuees.in the morning. In the afternoon we observed two-20-minute monitoring drills, one'for the.First' Shift workers and then later, after a' shift-change occurred, one for the Second Shift workers. Late in the day we were
, allowed inside the trailer to inspect.it.
Q.5. Would you. describe the monitoring drills you observed? A.S. .Certainly. While the Monitoring Trailer has fourteen l (14) monitoring stations,'I believe only seven(7) were staffed. i
'l and used to conduct monitoring activities for the drills. .j Outside the trailer a group' of about twenty NHY-ORO n. embers were assembled. They acted as the " evacuees" for the drill. I j
.1 was able to hear their " briefing" before the drill, and they j were told that the objective was to demonstrate a flow rate through the trailer of 55 people per hour. per monitoring station. Controllers and evaluators were present to observe i
each drill. My intention was to count the flow'of people- : j through the trailer myself to see if the 55/hr. rate.was met. j Unfortunately when the first drill started at 2:45, I was not !
, in a position to start counting;-but I did start my count 5- l minutes-later at 2:50. I counted the simulated evacuees as ~
they entered the trailer for the remaining 15 minutes of'the ! drill. (Once they had been monitored,.they left the. trailer through the rear door, came around the trailer, and got in line 1 g - ___ _ _ ____-_-__-___-_-_ _ -_ _ - _ _ _ _--_L
by the front door again.) Altogether, I counted 86 evacuees entering the trailer in that 15-minute span. It was apparent, however, that the last few of the 86 had not been completely monitored before the drill ended. Probably 83-84 had been completed during the 15 minutes period I observed. This means that each of the seven monitoring stations monitored (8 7
- 84) about 12 people in 15 minutes. This -
translates to a rate of about 48 people / hour, or about 1 person every 75 seconds. Later that afternoon a shift-change occurred, and at 5:02 1 p.m. the second shift monitoring personnel were also given the 20-minute drill to test thei: rate of monitoring individuals. This time I was able to count every individual who entered the trailer for monitoring during the 20-minute test period. There j were 91 people who entered, although again the last people to enter could not have been monitored before time expired. Probably 88-89 were completed. For this second-shift group, which again consisted of 7 monitors, I believe, the monitoring rate was slower than the first shift group. Each of the seven monitoring personnel was ! able to monitor (88-89) about 12.7 people in 20 minutes. - T'histhaslatectoarateof about 38 people / hour per station, 3 . or abo'ut 1 person every 94.7 seconds. Q.6. Are you sure that seven of the monitoring stations were in operation for each drills I
4 A.6. While we were not allowed to be inside the trailer I ( _, / during the: drill, we were able to look'into the trailer from the outside. It appeared to me that-there was a monitor standing by each of the hand rails in.the trailer. The trailer has seven such rails. See SPMC, IP 3.4, Attachment 4. So I a believe there were seven monitoring station 3'which were
. operating for each drill.
Q.7. Were these drills fairly' administered in order to l demonstrate the monitoring rate that is likely to be achieved in a real emergency?
~
A.7. No, I do not believe they were. I have two kinds of observations on this point: (1) specific criticisms about the fairness of these drills and (2) a general observation that drills of this nature are not useful.in. determining whether any j particular monitoring' rate can be maintained hour after hour over a 12-hour period. As to my first point, there were a number of criticisms I had about the way the tests were run. First, it was not' fair 1 to test monitoring rates using only 7 of the 14 monitoring stations in the trailer. When I toured the trailer later in I I the day I observed how cramped the trailer was. There is an {
~
extressly narrow aisle which evacuees must use as they enter
, m.c the trailer and walk to a monitoring station. This same aisle ,
is used by evacuees who are monitored-and found contaminated; they use it to walk to the decontamination area at-the-end of-
-s-()
O L L' . - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - . I fl
the trailer. In the height of an emergency when the trailer is fully staffed and evacuees are lined up to be monitored, there will be congestion along this walk-way that will impede evacuee ingress into the monitoring rtations. Eveeeees uhe-are-not -, M sure--t.4 my--a re-eentaminated-will- likely--s top- and not enter the -t.
$r t-r+i-les.-u n t i l co n t a minate d pe r s on -we4 ks-bynnd i s-wel l p a s t . gk'p/[
?
This will occur-bara"sejl[t would be almost impossible to have - two people walk past each other in opposite directions in this aisle without some brushing or touching occurring. If those awaiting decon grow to more than 2-3, back-ups will occur out into the monitoring area, causing further congestion. For this f reason alone, a test of only 7 monitoring stations is likely to 1 produce a much faster flow rate per station than would be obtained if all stations were tested at once. Second, the simulated evacuees were very compliant and easily monitored. They were all adults; there were no f children, elder), individuals, persons who were sick, or persons with physical or emotional disabilities. No one asked questions of the monitors. During a real emergency, the " mix" of evacuees would be much broader, many questions would likely be asked, and & slower monitoring rate will likely result. - Third, the contamination " source" used for the drill,
,, Coleman mantles, had to be hidden in evacuees pockets or in a fold of clothing; so the monitors did not need to be so careful in their monitoring of many parts of the body in order to 1
l \. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l identify individuals who were " contaminated." (For the drill a (v f Coleman mantle was placed on about every 5th simulated evacuee.) Fourth, the simulated evacuees were carrying no suitcases or overnight bags; so they were able to be monitored at a faster per person rate than if they had been carrying these personal items as well. The procedures for those who were monitoring individuals indicate that these hand carried items are to be monitored as well. See IP 2.9, S S.4.3(c). I would imagine that in a real emergency, many of the female evacuees would have their purses with them and that almost all of those who arrived on the transit-dependent buses would have a bag of clothes or a suitcase. It will take extra time to monitor these personal items, and this time needs to be factored into the monitoring rate. (v) Fifth, during the 20-minute drills the monitors did not take any breaks or even take time to check their dosimetry, let alone to occasionally monitor themselves. Yet, the SPMC provides that the monitoring team leader in each trailer is to set up a system whereby each monitor is to get a 10 minute break every hour. IP 2.9, $5.2.9. I see no provision in the plans to have substitute 7 nitors step in for those who are on break;zso this break time needs to be factored into the hourly
. , :~ '
monitoring rate. Sixth, the ORO personnel are instructed to check trieir (asimetry every 15 minutes, and FEMA has recommended that f-~3 l s w/
monitors take the time to monitor themselves for contamination a t " f r e q u e n't intervals." See FEMA Exercise Report at 233. < These activities did not occur during the 20-minute drills, and i 1 they, too, need to be factored into the monitoring rate. Seventh, during the drill, the monitors did not hand out i the " clean" tags called for in their procedures when a person is monitored and-found to be free of contamination. This step - would add at least a few seconds to the monitoring rate per person. Eighth, in the event that contaminated individuals are identified by the monitors, the monitors will have to spend time, as their procedures require (see IP 2.9, $5.2.14), wiping down the monitoring area (hand rail and floor in particular) to keep the area " clean" for those who arrive subsequently. This was not done during the 20-minute drills, but it should be factored into any 12-hour monitoring rate. 1
-Ninth, the drill u:s 50 shsrt thst-the fatigue fecter did ]
no t p 107 a r+1e- 'ut in en emergency rhich required the h CP'
,iec ul i.vr t0-;catinecu:17 monitor p ;pl: f: 50 minuter Of eveii C
k
-hour fer up t IF huars, f:M ;uc would et ip =d M em; & /j pp ( :
=fecte n- -Ocme icnitar; might beccme its; Eficicnt, and their i m0 nit-fe;_r:teu -c u ld s icw-down . -Fe r O t hm, f e li g u c might 3 -
4 :d t: leppy but more rapid marcmcat of- the prebe ever-the body, Even during the short 20-minute drills I observed,-the monitors had to be continually reminded to keep the probe 1/2
-{
i 1 inch from the evacuee's body. Oszely-e5 fati;u: set: in, i t-(~% ( would L. m@re-red ~cre difficult to hc;p the proba caly 1/2
& '~ -
Q 'Cp inch f cm the Lcdy whi10 == int:ini..; r Of ficien-t -flow-rate. h5 Sp.
"cresver, if a shif t-chenge Mere to occur--dur4ng .a-per-iod when evacuces were-acriving, the monitor 4ng-r-ate--durinty-that-hour wculd- dIcp vif ovmewhat-- as the . f ati;ued fi r s t-shif t- worker / took . ti=0 te dc ; little "on-the-feb" trai ning eith the-second-shif t werker: arrifin; frer Y:nkea A&nmic.
Q.8. What is'the general. observation you have about the usefullness of drills of this kind? A.8. I do not believe that drills of the type I observed are particularly useful in determining whether any particular monitoring rate can be maintained hour after hour over a
,, 12-hour period. The reasons for this view are as follows:
( By far, the largest component of time initue' process'of monitoring individuals is the time it takes to " frisk" each L person, i.e., to run the probe over and-around the person,- front and back. The other time components are small by q comparison: time to walk in and out of the monitoring-station, time to monitor handbags, etc. As I understand it, a I
. monitoring probe must be moved somewhat slowly over and around the body in order to respond to relat'ively small areas.of-contamination. Thus, it makes littic sense to make judgments about an organization's monitoring rate by timing monitoring drills. Since those being drilled can move the probe at will l
p k s-
faster or slower over the evacuees' bodies, with a little practice they;can probably achieve any monitoring rate they desire (45 seconds per person, 60 seconds, or 75 seconds). This is especially so when the contaminated packets they are looking for can be hidden in only one or two obvious spots in a person's clothing. The point is, however, that some rates may be too fast for the instrumentation to achieve effective - monitoring. Realizing this, FEMA has taken the sensible " Agency position" that it will not judge monitoring capability on what is demonstrated at drills. Instead it applies a standard monitoring rate of 90 seconds per person. See Memorandum from Richard Donovan, dated February 18, 1988, regarding " Registration and Radiological Monitoring of Evacuees" (attached hereto as Attachment "A"). In this memorandum, the following is described as the " Agency's position that all FEMA Regions will use as policy, guidance, and review criteria to determine the adequacy of offsite preparedness for radiological monitoring": Productivity of Monitors: FEMA assumes that an individual monitor will require 90 seconds (1.5 minutes) for monitoring each evacuee. FEMA will not consider any lower time estimate for monitoring with hand-held instruments to be - appropriates i.e., 90 seconds (1.5 minutes) is
- the lowest acceptable time than an organization
~lrcan specify for the monitoring process of an -
' -l individual (general public or Emergency Worker) !
with hand-held instruments. This 90-second standard does not include the time required to perform the documentation process. Therefore, FEMA assumes the minimum productivity to be 33 evacuees per hour, per monitor, at a monitoring _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ - A-
7 i l l station. It is assumed that one' individual'could
/~5 work a 12-hour shift (maximum number of hours per ,
)
! shift is 12), and the above productivity figure assumes a 10-minute break every hour. The-10-minute break period is.for meals and for ,
personal convenience.. FEMA will; allow an organization to assume'a rate of maximum , production of 40 persons'per hour; e.g., remove .j the 10-minute-break from the calculations and the
, standard of 90 seconds'per person does not change. However, if this maximum productivity ;
figure is used by an organization,-the !
. organization should provide for supplemental 1 staffing;'i.e., a higher number of staffEthan monitoring stations to allow meal and personal' 1 convenience breaks. If the monitor is .
.l responsible for the documentation:(completion of forms, etc.) of the monitoring process, then.a.
] '
figure higher than 90 seconds asLa productivity standard must be used (see discussion on documentation). Based on the' drills I observed, in which two different shifts of people exhibited two significantly-different
,, monitoring rates (75 seconds-and 94 seconds), FEMA's approach
( ,)! to evaluating the effective monitoring capability makes good sense. What mskes no sense is to use theLaverage.of the monitoring rates observed in the two drills or, alternatively, to use one or the other of those two observed rates as "the" rate to use to judge an organization's monitoring. capability. Human variability was the reason those two rates differed. In
. my opinion, based on what I saw during the Exercise, if a third q 20 drill had been conducted using a third'gruup'of ORO 10' _
i workers, a third and different rate'would have been achieved. ; In fact, that is just what happened at the. Emergency Worker Facility, where FEMA conducted a monitoring drill and'found j
- 11'- 1
- l. ,
s !
- i j
. _ _ -_A
Y that the average time to monitor the emergency workers was 79 seconds. Egg FEMA Exercisc Report at 232. While FEMA requires 90 seconds for monitoring each evacuee, I understand that the Applicants have sought to persuade FEMA to apply a lower rate for the ORO. I have seen a document labeled " Technical Justification" which was produced by the Applicants during discovery which indicates that the monitoring - l equipment used in the SpMC's monitoring trailers are effective for a 60 second frisk (3 inches per second) of an individual. 1 1 Clearly, an ORO member engaged in frisking with this equipment j l could move the probe around evacuees' bodies much faster than i this. But to do so much faster than 60 seconds apparently I would not provide assurance that small areas of contamination could be identified. I do not know whether FEMA has agreed to modify its 90-second standard for the ORO based upon this Gi j
" technical justification." I do note, however, that the 60 second rate mentioned in the " technical justification" is l simply the frisk rate, i.e., the time taken to move the probe around the body. It does not include the time it takes to have a person walk in and out of the frisking station, to hand out clean tags, and answer evacuees questions, to monitor personal -
belongings, to take hourly breaks, etc. Thus, if FEMA were in fact willing to waive its standard 90-se:ond monitoring rate here and sought to engage in a Seabrook-specific re-calculation of the ORO's capability to 1 _ -_-__ __ _ O
i monitor 20%.(or any %) of-the population within 12 hours, it rs $ lq_,) would haverto. engage in a fair and honest. calculation of the-
;]
following sort:-'First, you would start with'the average per. person frisking time (which may be 60 seconds here),'and then l to that you would add such addition time, averaged overfl2: hours, as would likely be consumed by all those other thinas
. that happen at the monitoring stations which consume time. I have listed many of them above. Tne first one is the. time 1to move evacuees in and out of.a monitoring station.- Five: seconds in and five_ seconds out would appear.to be a good estimate of this time, and its is the. time the Applicants used in their own.
~
" Technical Justification." This time.would. permit a " clean tag" to be handed out as.well as a few quick questions to-be s answered. A couple more seconds per person (on average) need
(, to be built in to monitor personal items. 60 seconds ave. frisk of person 10 seconds ave. in/out time plus clean tag 3 seconds ave. time to frisk personal items 73 seconds per person (average) These times alone (and there would be others) add up to an ayerage of abodt 73 seconds per person. For purposes of Determining monitoring caoability in 12 hours, one should
. w simply' assume that monitors can be trained to monitor at this.
]
rate, i g 'N . 1 1
.l
Each monitor in the SPMC monitoring trailers, however, is given a 10 2minute break per hour. Since no back-up staff appear to be available to step in ard cover for the monitors who are on bresk, the time available each hour to monitor individuals needs to be reduced by 10 minutes. In addition, , since the monitors must check their docimetry and monitor themselves " frequently," additional time is dohdto each monitor each hour. If each monitor takes time only twice during each 50-minute shift (after 15 minutes and efter 30 minuts)A to check his/her dosimetry and to monitor himself/herself, then the time available each hour to monitor people needs to be reduced by at least 2 more minutes. In addition, over a 12 hour period during which contaminated individuals, among others, were processed through the monitoring stations, it is reasonable to expect that each monitoring station will collect some residual cor.tamination and will have to be decontaminated or taped in the manner described in IP 2.9, $5.2.14. Sam also IP 2.9, . SS.4.3(D). Some time should be deducted from the available l monitoring time each hour for these decontamination efforts. One minute per hour does not seem unreasonable.
~
Altogether, then, the 60 minutes in each hour reduces to 47 minufgh.ofavailablemonitoringtime: , 60 minutes minus: i 10 min. for break l 2 min. for dosimetry check and self-frisk _1 min. for decon of monitoring station 13 minutes / hour
=11 47 minutes / hour available to monitor individuals at each station.
-i This leads to' an effective monitoring rate at each station of 38.6 peopl6/ hour:
73 sec./ person for 47 min./hr. = 38.6 people / hour At the rate of 38.6 people per hour, 14 monitoring stations- ) l could monitor 540 people per hour, or 6480 people in 12Lhours. Two such: trailers could monitor (6480 x 2) - 12',960 people in
. 12 hours, a number which is significantly less than 20%'of what-even the SpMC states is the total resident and transient population (82,994) .in the Massachusetts portion of the'EpZ.
SpMC, Table 3.6.1. I ;n'cr:tand that envihes witn;;s for the sq5 Massachusetts .'.tterney Ceneral hes subm1 Lied testi7acny ththe Sb. t+Eml Messechuset h population is actuelly signin cently higher g
' -- thLa.
R n Q. Does this conclude.your testimony?- ( A. Yes, it does.
~
. 5- ;
i 1 I
\. s 1
h' >
- - - _- )
1 ATTACHMENT A i l /% j ss i FEMA RX/ NTH /RWD/876-?39#2/3/7. 88 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S ! CiPIENT REP OPERATIVE GUIDANCE MEMORANDL'MS (Of f-site Activities ) I GM 20, 10/83 Foreigt 'anguage Translation of Public Education
~(
Brochu**' and Safety Messages, j GM 21', 2/84 Acceptance Criteria for Evacuation Plans. GM 22, 10/83 Recordkeeping Requirements for Public Meetings. '! GM 24. 4/84 Radiological Esergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons. EX-1. 7/85 Remedial Exercises. I i PR-1, 10/85 Policy on NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and 44 CFR 350 Periodic. Requirements. GM EX-3** 2/26/88 Managing Pre-Exercise Activities and Post-Exercise Meetings.
)
N PI-1, 10/85 FEMA Action to Pilot Test Guidance on Public Information Materials and Provide Technical Assistance on Its Use. MS-1, 11/86 Medical Sarvices. EV-2. 11/88 Protective Actions for School Children. GM AN-1, 4/87 FEMA Action to Qualify Alert and Notification Systess Against NUREG 0854/ FEMA-REP-1 REV 1 AND FEMA-REP-10. . GM IN,1. 2/26/88 The Ingestion Exposure Pathsay GM-21 will be retitled GM EV-1 when it is revised to confors to new nomenclature. GM EX-3 replaces GN 17. 1 ............................................................................... Menos Clarifying Policy Issues (Copies Attached)
- 1. FEMA RX (2/48/88) - Registration and Radiological Monitoring of Evacuees.
[ 2. FEKA (2/16/88) - Unannounced and Off-Hours REP Exercises.
\
- 3. FEKA (2/9/861 - Clarification of Selected Provisions of Guidance Memorandua (GM) MS-1. Medical Services.
- e p ...
g j h g.
~ Federal Emergency Management Agency ReponX Federal Regionaj Centar Bothen, Washington 980219796 February 28,108tr MEMORANDUM FOR: Selected Distribution * @ M v_L N m FROM: Richard W. Donovan REP Program Officer
SUBJECT:
Registration and Radiological Monitoring of Evacuees (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. J.12) At the Hood River meeting last f all. there was a presentation by Washington DSHS on their assessment of the needs for radiological sonitors for the sonitoring of evacuees at Assistance / Relocation and Emergency Worker Centers. Discussions were held on the appropriate standard to be used for the productivity of a radiological. nonitor. In order to assure consistency with other FEMA Regions. this subject was discussed between the Regions and FEMA Headquarters. and among the Regions. Followfng is the Agency's position that all FEMA Regions will use as policy. guidance and review criteria to determine the adequacy of offsite preparedness for radiological sonitoring and registration of avacuess: Level of Preparedness: Offsite plans should include provisions for sonitoring a sinimum of 20 percent of the public (persanent and transient populations of the plume exposure EPZ) in approximately 12 hours. The monitoring should be done at Relocation Centers, which are called Assistance Centers in most Region X Plans. Preparedness should include trained personnel and equipment. Productivity of Monitors: FEMA assumes that an individual sonitor will require 90 seconds (1.5 minutes) for monitoring each evacuse. FEMA will not consider any lower time estimate for monitoring with hand-held Instruments to be appropriate: 1.e. 90 seconds (1.5 minutes) is the lowest acceptable time that an organization can epecify for the sonitoring process of as individual (general public or Emergency Worker) with hand-held , instruments. This t0-second standard does not include the time required to l perform the documentation process. Therefore. FEMA assumes the minimum productivity to be 33 evacuees per hour, per monitor, at a monitorlag station. It is assusH that one individual could work r G-bour shift j (maximum number of hours per shift is'It), and the above productivity ! figure assumes a 10-sinute break every hour. The 10-minute break period is j for meals and for personal convenience. FEMA will allow an organization to , assume a rate of maximum production of 40 persons per hours e.g., remove i the 10-sinute break from the calculations and the standard of 90 seconds per person does not change. However. If this saximum productivity figure 9 is used by an organization, the organization should provide for, supple-mental staffing: 1.e., a higher number of staff than monitorins stations to
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^
1 2'
.allowshalandpersonalconveniencebreaks. If the sonitor is responsible or
~
the documentation (completion of forms. etc.) of the monitoring process. then J a figure higher than 90 seconds as a productivity standard must be'used (see discussion on documentation). ' Documentation of Monitoring Results: Please see the attsched paper. " Ability to Manage and Control Dose Commitment." Although the subject of this paper it-Emergency Worker dose commitment. It does address the administrative require-sents regarding record keeping and documentation that the monitoring function aust address. The above referenced FEMA standard acsumes that the monitor does not perfore the documentation function. If an organization's approach to personnel sonitoring is for the monitor to perfore the documentation of the monitoring process, then a higher time factor than pc seconds per person must be used. Note. Ideally, the County's registration process would incorporate the documentation needs of the monitoring and decontamination process, thus eliminating redundancy between the two functions. Cenonstration of Capabilities: Activation of the Relocation / Assistance Center (s), and Emergency Worker Center (s) are required at.each biennial-exercise evaluated by FEMA. Registration capabilities for the general public.- sust be demonstrated as well as radiological monitoring capabilities for the general public and Energency Workers. FEMA will use the 30 percent of population.(permanent and transient) as the planning base-litse figure for registration planning purposes. FEMA currently does not have a productivity standaM to review and evaluate arrangements (staff and process).for registration. The American Red Crose (ARC) has found that it takes betwe minute and 5 minutes for a family to complete the ARC shelter registration form with the assistance of a registrar. Assuming the county uses a stallar form and approach (register staticus), the ARC experience should provide an adequate productivity standard to develop preparedness capabilities for the registration of avacuees. Organlaations should provide sufficient staff to activate the Relocation / Assistance Center. ' Documentation should be provided that indicates adequate staffing arrangements for two shifts of' personnel and evidence of adequate registration forms for 20 percent of the population. The organizations sust staff at least one monitoring station at each appropriate center. Documentation aust be provided that indicates, through a roster of trained personnel and an inventory of available survey instruseats, the {' capability of the organization to monitor at least to percent of the population (permanent and transient).. Once every six years, the organizations east demonstrate a shift change. Note an actual physical shift change whereby the esisting staff will be relieved by incoming staff. Supplenostal Assistance: State sad local governments should incorporate, via' l letters of agreement /senorandues of understanding, arrangements for expanding registration and radiological monitoring capabilities. Federal assistance via the FP.ERp is one mechanism for radiological sonitoring arrangements. As specified in FEMA Rgp-1. Rev. 1. adequate non-federal resources should be -
, idwtified in organization's Plans for a period of it hcars: e.g.. the organization should plan for. designate, train, and equip sufficient personnel for two shifts. Note. radiological sonitoring eqelpaent is only required for-one shift.
O 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - __-____-_-_J
3 '( ( -
\ Adequate' Monitoring Instruments: FEMA's REP 2. Rev. 1. identifies the types of acceptable gassa exposure rate sensuring instrumentation for personnel sonitoring; i.e., low-range gamma survey instrument (approximately 0.1 to 50 ar/hr).
Congregate Care Centers for Evacuees: Most organizations have made arrange-
, sents for the ARC or other volunteer organizations to staff and operate Congregate Care Centers (a mass shelter which is adequate to provide tesperary shelter for groups of persons unable to continue their living arrangements in their normal accessodations). The ARC criteria for shelters calls for safe and healthful facilities with space for sleeping, office, nursing and health.
Infirmary and storage. There sust be an adequate supply of drinking water, toJ?et and bath facilities. Provisions for cooking, serving and storing food are required. The appropriate governments should provide fire and police protection. The_ Shelter Operators aust prr.ide for 24-hour shelter super-vision, nursing service and police protection. Other necessary $ arrangements should include consunications to the risk governments and Relocation Center (s). fire protection, and transportation / parking arrangements. Special' allocations call for 40 square feet per bed and a maximus size of approximately 1.000 persons per Congregate Care Center. FEMA will not require the activation of Congregate Care Centers. FEMA will expect documentation provided to indicate ' that 20 percent of the population can be provided space in Congregate Care Centers. This documentation aust specify that sufficient staff is identified to manage and initially staff these centers for the first 24 hours of. operation g before supplemental assistance is provided. The documentation aust include A evidence that the appropriate letters of agreement with the facility owners and food service providers have been completed and that these agreements are current. If you have any questions, please let se know. Attachment Selected Distribution List Attached cc RAC RX J. Keller. INEL B. Salmonson. !NEL
- R. Balaicky.- ARC I
. FEMA RX/RrD/834-D200-501/2-8-se.
A3f t17Y to stANAct AND C0 mot Dost C080rmtEJrt prepared by Alchard W. Donovan. FEMA RK _ _ tacKCROWD. After the energency phases of a suelear incident are ever, there u!!! be saay studies and investigations diret;ted towards assessing the tapact of the facident and sessuring the effectiveness of the state's redfelegical esorgency plans and preparedness for see . la improving future plans and g'uldance. Seth these efforts will tavelve reconstruct-- 1 rig the incident based upea the avaliable data, and both efforts will also involve the calculations of the dose received and the dose saved by proper management of Energency worker (EN) does control and esposure. Centequently. It is fopettant that data be documented with the fellering aspects la sindt date. time locaties, weather conditions asasurement readings. directions for dose contral and espesure guidance. signatures of personnel regarding decentaminaties process and results, and other pertinent infersaties. All State and lect! plans should provide proprinted foras with spucific directions for documenting appropriate instructlens. sositoring Protective t.ctiona (i.e.. take 31. record Jose esposures, etc.) and results. , DOSt CCMMIT1st.NT MANACDt'AT gYSTM Federal criteria requires that response organizations provide desleetry (permaneet and self-reading) and 31 to all toergencJ Werkers. gWs shesad be trataed to anderstand the principles of redistica, esposure control, and espesure lisite. Response organisa-tiens should provide for the screening. detecties, and quantificatica (sessuressat) of the presence of beta ped gemas contamination es all emergency personnel (tus) and equipment leaving areas where protective Actions are laplemented (i.e., shelter er evacuation) after their aisales. previelene shall be made to effect decentaalaaties of personnel and equipseat who are found to have contaminates levels higher than defined levels (i.e.. nesteus permisethle contastaatica limit is as spes sindes reading of 0.1 mR/hr aheve the preaccident background mR/h' scale reading). The screenlag levels eetkhlished by the State shall lacinde as apper trigger level that < would cause espesure the tu and sptake to W (see beMscheduled 1). for sedical eaastsattes and evaluaties of radia ' - The ensite and offsite dose verificeties syster, should provide informaties to the offsite pub!!c and officials that w!!! assist thea la sanar sg and teatre111ag esposure to the to gWs. Attention should be locatione et the plume serial coverage (given plumeto identifying lecetten and the forecasted locatismlocatiess) and arpacted and any depeettiga that any be deposited (plume feetprint er ground ehtae). The offsite 1 authoritise aheeld stillas this informaties to develop a management strategy. laterm and instreet gW em 6ese empoeste condittene and assagement strategy. and keep gW ' apprised of the radiological teWittees encountered la the field. l The gaersency Werker coster (EWC) should doesment the doses received by EWs and for-werd this !aformation to the opgepriate oatherities, she thea should use this interas- j ties to determine future serk assignments mad sissions for Eve. (i.e.. take necessary i steps to effectively manage future itse espesure). If the GWC detects gross conteeina- ] ties. appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the person (s) are directed to appropriate hospitals for sedical essainaties and evaluaties of radiation espesure and uptake.
- - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - A:
SNEIDER - DIRECT 24975 1 MR FIERCE: Your Honor, Applicants had requested 2 a copy of Ms. Sneider's resume. It had not been our 3 intention to submit it unless Your Ecnors feel that it ought 4 to be included.as part of the record. 5 MR. TROUT: Applicants were going to ask that it 6 be submitted and bound into the transcript immediately 7 following the testimony. 8 MR. FIERCE: I had no objection to that. 9 So maybe we should just do that now. 10 BY MR. FIERCE: 11 Q Do you have a copy of your resume, Ms. Sneider? 12 MR. TROUT: I brought copies. 13 MR. FIERCE: You did. 14 (Document proffered to all parties.) 15 BY MR. FIERCE: 16 Q Ms. Sneider, this is another document, single page 17 document has been placed before you at the top of which 18 appears your name, Carol Sneider Glick. 19 Do you recognize this document? 20 A (Sneider) Yes, I do.
. 21 Q Did you prepare this document?
22 A (Sneider) Yes, I did. 23 Q Is this a summary of your education and 24 professior4al experience? 25 A (Sneider) Yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation. (202) 628-4888 l - ____-___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ 1
j l SNEIDER - DIRECT 24976 j i 1 My professional experience since law school or 2 including law school. 3 Q And this information listed here is true and i 4 correct, to the best of your knowledge and belief? ! l 5 A (Sneider) Yes, it is. I
. )
6 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I would like to offer I l 7 this document as well and ask that it be bound into the . 8 record. j l 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 10 The resume is received. 11 (The resume of Carol ' 12 Sneider Glick follows:) 13
~
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
- 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y 1 i i CAROL SNEIDER GLICK I 294 Walnut Street Broo41ine, MA 02146 (617).232-2404 EDUCATION i Boston College Law School, Newton, Massachusetts. J.D. 1982, Maana Cum Laude Honors and Activities: Order of the Coif Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Articles Editor, 1981-1982 - Staff, 1980-1981 Article: "The Constitutionality of Warrantless l Inspections under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act" Equal Justice Foundation, Governing Board,. Boston College Chapter, 1980-1981 Certificate in Recognition.of Distinguished' Service as Counsel with Boston Collegs Legal Assistance Bureau, 1981 University of Rochester, Rochester, New York A.B. 1972 l Major: South Asian Studies and Comparative Religion PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE - ( Attorney i
\- Becker & Glick, 197 Portland Street, Boston, MA I
February, 198s to present Assistant Attorney General Massachusetts Department of the Attorney General April, 1983 to January, 1989: l Nuclear Safety Unit, May, 1987 to February,-1989. Environmental Protection Division, April, 1983 to May, 1987. Attorney, Law Office of Frank Gaynor, Boston, Ma, Fall, 1982, part-time . Legal Intern, Boston College Legal Assistance Bureau, l Waltham, MA; Summer, 1981 and, part-time, second and l third years of law school. l Legal Intern, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Boston, MA; Summer, 1980. l l l l
._. _-- __ _ A
l
- l SNEIDER - CROSS 24977 ;l
.l 1 MR.0 FIERCE: We'would turn the-witnessLove'r fori .
j' . .I j 2 cross-examination now,.Your, Honor., j 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION a 4- BY MR. TROUT: 5 Q Good morning,-Ms..Sneider. 6 A (Sneider) Good morning. .) 7 Q I'would like you to refer to your resume, if you . 8 would. And I-believe your resume states that you graduated 9 from the University of Rochester'in 1972 with a B.A. in 1 10 South Asian Studies and Comparative Religion. 11 Would we be correct in assuming that during:the< l 12 course of your undergraduate studies you.did not'take any ! i 13 courses that dealt with radiological monitoring?. 14 A (Sneider) That's correct. 4 15 Q The' period 1972 to.1979 is not represented on the ' 16 resume. Could you very briefly tell us what you were doing. 17 during that period?
.)
18 A (Sneider) Okay. l h 19 I was a veterinary nurse for one. year. I went to 1 20 photography school for two years. I-worked as a freelance I j
. 21 photographer. I also worked in my brother's business as a 22 credit manager. And I also worked part-time in a law firm j 23 right before I went to law school, doing research. j 24 Q Would it be fair to say'that during that seven' .j 25 year period you had no education or training in the subject. j I
Heritage Reporting Corporation .I (202) 628-4888
\
o l ! l l E _ --_ -____-- ______ _ _ -_ _ _ - - J
SNEIDER - CROSS 24978 1 of radiological monitoring? 2 A - (Sneider) That's correct. 3 Q In 1979 you entered Boston College School of Law 4 from which you received your J.D. in 1982; is that correct? 5 A (Sneider) That's right. 6 Q Would it be fair to say that during that period 7 you had no education or training in the subject of . 8 radiological monitoring? 9 A (Sneider) That's correct. l 10 Q Subsequent to your graduation from law. school you 11 were briefly in private practice and then you joined the 12 Attorney General's office in the environmental protection 13 division; is that correct? 14 A (Sneider) That's correct. 15 Q During that period in private practice, would it 16 be fair to say, you again had no education or training in 17 radiological monitoring? 18 A (Sneider) That's correct. 19 Q Now, you were in the environmental protection 20 division of the Attorney General's office for four years, 21 from April 1983 to May 1987; is that correct? - 22 A (Sneider) That's right. 23 Q And would it be fair to say that during that four 24 year period you again had no education or training in the 25 subject of radiological monitoring? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER . CROSS 24979' 1- A (Sneider) I had no formal. training at.that' time.- . . 2 I did meet'with experts who explained to me the 3 process of monitoring for radiation. 4 Q When did you meet with those experts? 5 A (Sneider) I couldn't honestly even b6 gin to tell-6 you when except that ther.e was more than one occasion.during 7 the time that I worked in the Attorney-General's office [that 8 I met with experts and I would talk to them and say, explain-9 to me the process that you'go through to monitor a person.. 10 This was done in the course of reviewing emergency plans. 1 11 Q Now you say this was during your period in the 12 Attorney General's office. You're including your' period in 13 the Nuclear Safety Unit? 14 A (Sneider) Right. q 15 But I believe I probably met - .that I met with 16 experts and discussed this when I was in the environmental 17 prote,ction division. 18 Q So it would have been prior to May of 1987? ) 19 A (Sneider) Right. j 20 Q All right. l
. 21 Do you remember the names of any of the experts j i
22 with whom you met? l 23 A (Sneider) I met with Rob Goble. I' met with Dr. 24 Gordon Thompson. I met with Dr. Jan Beyea. I also met with > i 25 some people from the Mass Department of Public Health and l I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - CROSS 24980 1 civil defense. 2 O I gathat that there was more than one such 3 meeting? 4 A (Sneider) I had lots of meetings with those 5 people. 6 Q Well, I'm sorry, I'm focusing now on the subject 7 of radiological monitoring, , 8 Was there more than one meeting in which the 9 subject of radiological monitoring was discussed? 10 A (Sneider) I don't think there was ever a meeting 11 that was focused on radiological monitoring. 12 I never received any formal training. I have 13 asked experts who have showed me, this is what you do. Thie 14 is how long, in their opinion, it should take. 15 That's the only type of background I have. 16 Q Now, when you had your meeting or meetings with 17 these individuals, would it be fair to say that those 18 individuals were employees of the Commonwealth of 19 Massachusetts or consultants to the gcVernment of the 20 Commonwealth of Massachusetts? ! 21 A (Sneider) Yes, that's fair to say. + l 22 Q All right. 23 You left the Attorney General's office in February 24 of 1989; is that correct? 25 A (Sneider) February 1st, 1989. Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 ! i
. _ _ - - _ - _ - - - - - - - A
I SNEIDER - CROSS 24981 1 Q And you now are in private practice? ! 2 A. ..($neider) Yes, I am. 3 Q And during the period between your leaving the 4 Attorney General's. office and the present, would it be fair i 5 to say, you had no training or education in. radiological q
. 1 6 monitoring? {
7 A (Sneider) That's fair to say. l 8 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, at this time the l 9 Applicants would like to move to strike the portion of Ms. j 10 Sneider's testimony, questions 7 and 8 and the responses 11 thereto in which Ms. Sneider offers expert opinion as to how 12 the process of radiological monitoring should be conducted. 13 MR. FIERCE: Mr. Trout -- 14 JUDGE S,MITH: 7 and 8? C 15 MR. TROUT: Yes, Your Honor, it begins on page 5. 16 As grounds for Applicants' motion, Your Honor, I 17 would state that, in order to offer expert testimony the )1 18 offeror, here the Attorney General, must demonstrate the 1 19 expertise and qualifications of the expert being offered. 20 And to the contrary I believe the examination ! . 21 which has just occurred demonstrates that the witness does I l 22 not have the requisite knowledge, experience, skill, 23 training, and education to provide expert opinions in the ! 1 24 subject matter which is the subject of her testimony. I 25 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, our response is that, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (
\
i SNEIDER - CROSS 24982 , i 1 obviously, she has explained to you what her background and j 2 experience is in the area of monitoring. This is not an 1 3 unknowledgeable person. ! 4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, in addition to that I did have 1 5 another question for her on Voir Dire. ; 6 And that is, in the course of your employment with 7 the environmental protection division and the Nuclear Safety , 8 Unit did you have occasion to read information about 9 monitoring to regulatory guidance and other matters? l 10 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Yes, I did. 11 JUDGE SMITH: The difficulty with your objection 12 is, if she's not an expert in this type of monitoring: 13 monitoring trailers, and nuclear emergency, who is. Just 14 who is. 15 No one is an expert; maybe everybody is an expert. l 16 MR. DIGNAN: May I address that point very briefly l l 17 and that is this: the most startling thing about the 18 Commonwealth's case in this proceeding to me is, I have 19 never seen a Commonwealth official on the stand. 20 Now the fact of the matter is, the Commonwealth of l 21 Massachusetts, there is the Department of Public Health and - 22 various other agencies has any number of experts. Real l I j 23 experts in such matters as monitoring. 1 24 This is not a real expert in monitoring. This is l 25 an attorney who essentially went down and watched monitoring Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4898 l _-______________-__--______:_-_____--____2
1 SNEIDER - CROSS 24983 1 for a day, rx ; I ) 2 -And the Commonwealth has no shortage in its stable 1 3 of people who know monitoring. Indeed, some of the people 4 she named who she consulted with. If there is to be any 1 5 threshold for expertise in an NRC proceeding, this witness i 6 simply cannot make it as an expert, giving opinions as to l
. 7 how long it should or should not take to monitor people, j 8 And it should be understood that we are not 9 dealing here with an Intervenor and the problem of, you-10 know, maybe not having a stable of experts available and so 11 forth. This is the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth has i
12 some extremely capable people that work for it in this area, 13 who know the subject "A" to "Z."
~ 14 They regulate the nuclear power plants. They deal t
( _ 15 with the power plants that are already operating. They deal 16 with such matters -- ' 17 JUDGE SMITH: As you pointed out, Mr. Dignan, I
)
18 they're not here and Ms. Sneider is. 19 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. But the point is, the i i 20 Commonwealth should bring one of those in and not Ms. 21 Sneider on the question of expert. 22 JUDGE SMITH: I never heard an argument made as to 23 expert qualifications based upon the fact that somebody else 24 has greater qualifications. 25 MR. DIGNAN: No , Your Honor. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ~
i i SNEIDER - CROSS 24984 , l 1 The argument was addressed to your question to Mr. j 2 Trout which was, if she is not an expert, who is. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 4 MR. DIGNAN: The Commonwealth has a stable of 5 them. l I 6 JUDGE SMITH: You mean the Commonwealth has a 1 1 7 stable of people who have witnessed monitoring and drills , l 8 and who have educated themselves as to monitoring and . l l 9 exercises? ; l 1 l 10 MR. TROUT: Yes, Your Honor. l l 1 11 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. I 12 MR. TROUT: There is the Radiation Control Unit of 13 the Department of Public Health, which deals with monitoring l 14 at three nuclear power plants currently licensed and 15 operating; in addition, radiation in its other applications 16 and in other reactors, university reactors. l 17 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 18 MR. TROUT: It is a subject in which there is well l i 19 developed expertise. There is well developed expertise 20 that's available to the Commonwealth. 21 In response to your inquiry as to who would be a - 22 qualified expert in this subject, I would say almost any of 23 those. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Would you remind me again, who does 25 this actual monitoring? l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 l 1
d
;j SNEIDER --CROSS- 24985' 1 MR. TROUT: The actual monitoring?
2 ~ JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 3 MR. TROUT: Health physicists, Your. Honor. 4 JUDGE SMITH: -And then who does the second shift. ] 5 MR. FIERCE: Not:for the ORO,.Your Honor.. 1 6 They have got a whole group of people out there I 7 doing monitoring who they have offered some' degree of 8 training, too. But they are surely not health physicists, 9 all of them. ) 10 JUDGE SMITH:' At the monitoring stations. 11 MR.. FIERCE: At the monitoring stations, yes. 12 The crucial point here is, Your Honor, it happens- ) 13 to be Ms. Sneider who was the observer of the FEMA graded 14 exercise monitoring drills. l 1 15 Much of what she is saying to you'here in terms of 16 her criticism doesn't require expert testimony. 17 JUDGE SMITH: I know, it's factual. 18 MR. FIERCE: It doesn't require expert. testimony. 19 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, we are not objecting to 20 that portion of her testimony which offers her factual 21 observations. 1
.)
22 JUDGE SMITH: Well 7 and 8 -- really I regarded 23 her testimony as being essentially factual and not expert. 24 She was an observer testifying to -- she can count, no.one 25 quarrels with that. She can observe. Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 1 l l _ _ _ _ . ._ .b
(
)
SEEIDER - CROSS 24986 1 You may be having some troubles when she gets into 2 the area r .but you've got to hold it exactly one-half inch 3 away and you might get fatigue. 1 1 4 And also, she expresses some opinions about human 5 behavior that she may not be qualified to do. )
. 1 6 But generally speaking, I regard her testimony in 7 the area that you seek to be stricken as heavy on facts and ,
l 8 sufficient with expertise. If it takes a lot more expertise , 1 1 9 than she has to do what she did, I don't know how I'm going 10 to handle the problems in the decision, i 11 ; i 12 l 1 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 1 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l ______ _ ---- .n
SNEIDER ~ CROSS 24987
~
l 1 JUDGE SMITH: Let's hear what=Mr. Fierce has to 2 say and then I'll' consult.with the technical members. ; 3 MR. BACEMANN: 'Your Honor, may the-Staff make some 4 comments on this-subject? 5 JUDGE SMITH: All right. j
. l 6 MR. BACHMANN: The concern the Staff has is that l 7 starting with Q&A 7 and to the end of the testimony, there j
8 are very, very little factual statements.if you parse out, j l 9 which I have done, and I can point them out to you in a
]
10 moment, very, very few factual statements. Most of it is 3 11 opinion i' 12 Unchallenged, it goes into the record and may be 13 cited in findings. And we want to ensure that opinions, and i 14 many of Ms. Sneider's statements are prefaced with "I 15 believe", "In my opinion", et cetera, are not given the 16 credence that would go to an " expert" witness. 17 Rule '/01 of the Federal Rules.of Evidence, 18 regarding opinion testimony by lay witnesses says, "If the 19 witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the 20 form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions
- 21 or inferences which are, (a) rationally based on the 22 perception of the witness; and (b) helpful to a clear 23 understanding of his testimony, or the determination of a 24 fact in issue."
25 JUDGE SMITH: That's very good. Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 ( I 1 1
l SNEIDER - CROSS 24988 1 MR. BACHMANN: Without that sort of screen, we are 2 going to -clutter the record with a number of statements, 3 which you yourself just mentioned about the fatigue factor, 4 et cetera, which this witness does not have the expertise. 5 And it's not just radiological monitoring. There is a lot 6 of human behavioral type of stuff in there. There is 7 technical opinion as to what a radiological monitoring , l 8 device can or cannot do, which has not yet been probed. l 9 I would say that there is -- the second to the 10 last sentence on page 5, the first sentence of the first 11 full paragraph on page 6, the first sentence of the last 12 paragraph on page 6, the first sentence of the second 13 paragraph on page 7. 14 JUDGE SMIT 3: I'm not getting these. 15 MR. BACHMANN: I can go slower, if you wish. 16 There is about four -- no, I would say 17 approximately seven or eight sentences that are direct 18 factual observation. All the rest of them are opinions. 19 And whether or not the testimony -- 20 JUDGE SMITH: But are they rationally-based upon 21 her observations as you very helpfully pointed out from one - 22 of the standards? 23 MR. BACHMANN: That's a screen I'm sure that the 24 Board would apply. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - VOIR DIRE '24989' 1 MR. BACHMANN:- I believe, though, that:probably 2 there should be more_ probing as to other aspects'of her 3 expertise, not only just. radiological monitoring to-4 determine, if indeed the testimony is not struck, to get a 5 feeling for the weight to which it should be given.
- 6. That is all I have to say.
7 I am prepared to further voir dire if we are going 8 to go into a different topic. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I just really wonder if it's 10 necessary, because we know'what her background is. 11 I. don't know if additional'voir dire,'except voir 12 dire as to the circumstances of her factual observations. 13 MR. BACHMANN: Well, I'take it that - - 14 JUDGE SMITH: Well, go ahead, if you want to. 15 MR. BACHMANN: May I? 16 JUDGE SMITH: Why speculate. Yes, why. don't you-17 go ahead. 18 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. BACHMANN* 20 Q Ms. Sneider, have you ever had any formal training j l 1
. 21 or experience in the field of time notion studies? i 22 A (Sneider) No, I haven't.
23 Q Have you ever had any formal training or 9 24 experience in the area of queuing theory? ) 25 A (Sneider) No, I haven't. 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation U (202) 628-4888 i l l 1 - _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
SNEIDER - VOIR DIRE 24990 1 Q Have you had any formal training or experience 2 above the undergraduate level in psychology, human 3 behavioral studies? l l 4 A (Sneider) No. 5 Q Have you ever had any formal training or ! 6 experience in the general field of health physics with the ! 7 exception of the discussions you have had with your experts? , 8 A (Sneider) No. I've had considerable discussions 9 with my experts in the field of health of physics, however. l I 10 Q Did those discussions entail the technical i l 11 characteristics of radiation monitoring devices? I l 12 A (Sneider) No , they didn't. 13 Q Do you know how a radiation monitoring device l 14 works? j 15 A (Sneider) No. 1 16 Q Other than your meetings and discussions with l 17 these experts, can you think of any other relevant 18 experience you have had that would help you to form these 19 opinions that you have, other than just say your common 20 sense? 21 A (Sneider) Well, except that I have also done a - 22 lot of reviewing of emergency plans and read a lot in the 23 area of emergency planning. I've read a lot of documents 24 over my six years in the Attorney General's office. 25 But beyond that, there is nothing else. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
L l L 1 I i SNEIDER - VOIR DIRE 24991 J 1 O And that was in your capacity as a lawyer in the l
<x j
( 2 'ttorney General's office? l 3 A (Sneider) That's right. J 4 Q When you had these discussions with the experts, 5 you indicated they showed you how to monitor. I think that
. I 6 was your statement.
7 Is that correct? 8 A (Sneider) That's right. , l 9 Q Did you actually use a monitoring device 10 physically? 11 A (Sneider) No. I l 12 Q How did they show you how to monitor? ) 13 A (Sneider) I guess by holding an imaginary probe
. I 14 and explaining that it has to go over the body at a certain i \
( 15 rate and demonstrating that. l 16 I Q Did they indicate what specific brand, make or ' 17 model of probe? l l 18 A (Sneider) To the best of my knowledge, we would l 19 have been discussing whatever probes that were supposed to 20 be in the various towns in Massachusetts. It was in that 21 context that we were discussing these probes. 22 MR. BACHMANN: Your Honor, to the extent that this ) 23 witness' opinion testimony is not stricken, I submit that 24 she has indicated that she has really no expertise to give 25 opinion, and I repeat, opinion testimony, and therefore no Heritage Reporting Corporation ( r~' (202) 628-4888 x k
i 24992 j 1 weight or very little weight should be attached to her I 2 opinion testimony. 3 JUDGE SMITH: In those areas: the techniques of q 4 monitoring and the human behavior aspects -- 5 MR. BACHMANN: As I indicated, queuing theory, the 6 technical -- ) 7 JUDGE SMITH: Queuing theory? _ ; 8 MR. BACHMANN: How people-line up. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, wait. You didn't ask her, 10 have you ever stood in lines, i l 11 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Yes, I have many times. 12 MR. BACHMANN: Well, there is a field of study in . I 13 this. 14 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 15 MR. BACHMANN: That's the reason that bank tellers 16 now have the one line and they all to go different ones 17 instead of waiting. 1 18 There is a field, there is a whole field of j l 19 studies in that. We're talking about the technical aspects j 20 of it. 21 And when I asked the witness did she understand - 22 how these probes worked, she indicated she had no idea.
. 1 23 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
24 MR. BACHMANN: So in all of those areas, I'm just 25 stating for the record, she has indicated she has no Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i l E_________________________________ _ __ _ ._. .l .
24993 1 background or experience.- And would just.like.to get'that 2 on the record for the weight which is to be given her 3 testimony. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 5 Mr. Fierce? 6 MR.' FIERCE:' Yes, Your Honor. 7 What we have here is Ms. Sneider's observations 8 and her, we believe, rationally-based inferences about what 9 she saw and how it applies to a monitoring drill.- 10 There may be some of those inferences thatego to-11 such things as human behavior.- I mean,.I'm not-sure what is 12 they are pointing to. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, there is some in there. 14 MR. FIERCE: Her. inference that many of the women 15 who might arrive at a reception center rouJ d be carrying 16 handbags. 17 I suppose they can probe that rationale inference 18 and see -- 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, she's an expert woman, too.. 20 (Laughter)
. 21 JUDGE SMITH: She has. expertise that comes in 22 handy here.
23 MR. FIERCE: So I have no trouble with them 24 probing with respect to those rationally-based inferences in H 25 an attempt in the cross-examination to prove to you that you Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 - (202) 528-4888
,,) i
. -__- _ _ _ _ _ -_ - _ _ _ _ _ - A
i 24994 1 should give greater or lesser weight to it. f 2 - I would object to striking the testimony. 3 JUDGE SMITH: I think the Board's problem now is 4 to go back through the testimony that is being challenged 5 and go through it a part at a time and look at the parts f 6 which we think can be opinions rationally based upon the 7 observations of a rather well informed but not expert person . 8 in the subject matter, and those which traditionally would 9 depend upon expertise and view it that way. Decide what's 10 in and what's out. That would be the standard we would use. 11 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, may I just advise the 12 Board of something as they decide how to handle this matter? 13 I don't know when the Board was planning to 14 address that question. But as I've indicated to the Board, 15 and I'm sure the Board fully understood probably before we 16 started today, this decision will have a bearing on the 17 length of this hearing. l l 18 And this is the decision which will decide whether 1 19 or not 17 goes on. And, of course, there's that other 20 problem aside for 17. l l 21 And so we have not come in here during this case, - { 22 throughout the entire New Hampshire proceeding and other, 23 and made a lot of challenges to qualifications. 24 I wish the Board to understand we thought ) 25 carefully before we did it, and we're doing it simply Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s l
i 1 24995 1 exactly as Mr. Bachmann pointed out. Even though we can sit (x_-) 2 here and rationally say, well, gee, they shouldn't give it j q 3 any weight, if that testimony remains in, Panel 17 has got 4 to go and be cross-examined for three days by Mr. Fierce, I 5 and it has to go -- i 6 JUDGE SMITH: That's not fair to ask us to make a 1 7 judgment on the admissibility of this testimony based upon f 8 those considerations. 9 MR. DIGNAN: No, no. I 10 I'm saying this is the reason we are pressing for 11 a decision on what's in and what's out. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. , 1 13 MR. DIGNAN: In short order, l 14 JUDGE SMITH: You're going to get it right now. l (, 15 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. It is not -- I'm sorry. I 4 16 detected when Your Honor spoke that perhaps you were going 17 to not decide the motion for --
)
18 JUDGE SMITH: No , I realize that. And for cross-19 examination, you've got to have a ruling now. 20 MR. DIGNAN: Oh. I apologize, Your Honor. 21 I misheard your statement. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. Right, okay. ! 23 I just don't see any wholesale, clean sweep type 24 of approach that is possible on it. I think we are just 25 going to have to -- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
\m
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . R
l I 24996 1 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I think, if I gather from I 2 your gestures, it looks like you want to read through. 3 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. { 4 MR. FIERCE: And make a ruling on portions. f 5 I would ask an opportunity for you to identify a
~
6 sentence or a section of the testimony where you believe she ! l 7 may not have -- _ 8 JUDGE SMITH: No, no. 9 MR. FIERCE: That you may call it, and we can do a l l 10 little further voir dire. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Do it now. Make all your voir dire 12 now. You knew the test we were going to apply. We will i 13 apply the test, she's established her ability to observe. \ . 14 She's a reasonably well informed layman. We know she has no 15 expert knowledge of the monitoring science, nor anything 16 more than a reasonably well informed layman's knowledge of i I 17 human behavior. j 18 If you want to add some more considerations you j i 19 think we should look at. I, myself, am not particularly 20 impressed by the argument about queuing behavior, but I 21 haven't consulted with my colleagues yet. - 22 We note by the very presence of her handbag today 23 that she has some experience along that lino and could offer 24 an opinion. 25 (Laughter) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62 8-t.8 8 8 E___---------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -E
24997 1 JUDGE SMITH: So that's'the kind.of in'and.out
.n 1 2 we're going toLdo.
3 And it's an attractive' handbag, too. 4 (Laughter) 5~ JUDGE ~ SMITH: So, go ahead. Make your arguments 6 and then we are going to rule.
~7 MR. FIERCE: I can't-make any. You know, there 8 may be some on a particular point. I have no idea what'it 9' might'be. Transit-dependent people carrying. suitcases,.the 10 way --
11 JUDGE SMITH: See, that's why you and I very ofteni 12 have tension. Because you like to debate'with the Board, 13 and very often I just fall into that trap. And I'm going.to-14 once and for all try to get out of-it if I can. And'maybe' 4 15 this morning I might get lucky. 16 MR. FIERCE: Do you want to take a break?' 17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. That's what I'm going to do 18 unless you want to make more arguments as to the standards 19 we should apply. 20 MR. FIERCE: No. The standards.are there. The
. 21 standards are there.
22 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 23 We might as well take a 15-minute break. 24 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.). 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ___ - __ - _ A -
24998 1 JUDGE SMITH: It took us almost en hour to go 2 through the testimony applying the standards that we 3 announced. 4 At the outset, going through the testimony 5 beginning on page 5 at Question 7, we noted some factual
- j 6 uncertainties, or perhaps even improbabilities which we 1 7 trust will be addressed. But that wasn't the purpose of the .
8 exercise and the screening. 9 The purpose of the exercise we just went through 10 was to determine to what extent the testimony depended upon 11 the two expert skills that we alluded to; that is, radiation 12 monitoring and human factors expertise. 13 And we've come out with most of the testimony does 14 survive as opinions rationally arrived at, at a rather well 1 15 informed layman based upon observations, scrutable logic, 16 arithmetic and other sources as we will explain as we 1 1 17 proceed. i l l 18 The first item we come to -- everything is in 1 1 19 unless we throw it out. On page 6, beginning the fourth 20 line down, " Evacuees who are not sure they are contaminated 21 will likely stop and not enter the trailer until a - 22 contaminated person walks by and is well past." That's out. l 23 Necessarily then, the following phrase is out, 24 "This will occur because". That is out. 25 JUDGE McCOLLOM: That's just the phrase. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
24999 1 -JUDGE SMITH: Just the phrase. 2 7 JUDGE McCOLLOM: You start the s,entence-then ias, 3 "It would be". 4 JUDGE SMITH: And the rest of that page depends 1 l 5 upon her ability to observe. j 6 'Some of her factual premises'are based'upon l l
. 7 procedures. Whether she's right or wrong about her reading' j
i 8 of the procedures can be attacked on cross-examination. It 9 does not depend upon the expertise.we alluded to. 10 Also outDis on page 8 where she talks about ! 11 fatigue factors. Beginning at her ninth point, the 12 paragraph beginning at the bottom of the page, " Ninth", the l 13 paragraph is out. 'l 14 There is one part of the paragraph that survives 1 15 but it has little meaning. And that is, "During the short 16 20 minute drills, I observed the monitors had to be 1 17 continually reminded to keep the probe one-half inch from 18 the evacuee's body." - 19 That's strictly a factual observation, but the 20 rest of that paragraph is out. l 21 We had already ruled about the handbag part of it. 1 22 Now, when we get to page 10, we begin to have some j
. i 23 difficulties in the interpretation in our ruling. On page 24 10 of her testimony she begins -- six lines down it says, 25 "The point is, however, that some rates may be too fast for Heritage Reporting Corporation .
(202) 628-4888 ' l (s_ : l l _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
1 j 25000 1 1 1 the instrumentation to achieve effective raonitoring. " j 2 - Now, here's where we have difficulty, because it's 3 a point that the Attorney General has a right to make. And 4 it is a point that is, if correct, and it's a point that 5 would be material, I believe. 6 Now, we read in the best light to Ms. Sneider's 7 testimony is that she is not there offering any expert . 8 opinion on her own. She concedes she doesn't know, I ! 9 believe, what rates are too fast or too slow for monitoring. 10 (Witness nods affirmatively) i 11 JUDGE SMITH: And you are nodding agreement. ! 12 Your statement there depends entirely, as I l l 13 understand it, upon the FEMA requirement; is that correct? j l 14 THE W1TNESS: (Sneider) That's right. 15 JUDGE SMITH: So cited below. , r 16 So with that understanding snd that limitation, we 17 will allow the Attorney General in this fashion to advance 18 the point. 19 You have made the correction on the record and in i 20 your copy to be bound, the bottom of page 11, changing "20 1 21 second" to "20 minute". - 22 Then we have the same problem. It comes up on 23 page 12. At approximately the middle of the page Ms. 24 Sneider states that, "But to do so much faster than 60 25 seconds apparently would not provide assurance that small Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
4 l 25001 g ~'g 1 areas of contamination could be identified." z N 2 Again, that is not based upon any expert opinion 3 that you hold. It is a conclusion you draw based upon 4 FEMA's guidance. 1 i
. 5 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Based upon FEMA's 6 guidance and reading that you are supposed to pass the probe .]
7 over a body at two to three inches per second. 1 8 JUDGE SMITH: Where did you get that? 9 Is that apparent in your testimony? l 10 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Implementing procedures. l
\
11 JUDGE SMITH: -Implementing procedures. 12 All right, but all you are doing is bringing the-13 Roard's attention to the implementing procedures and FEMA's J 14 guidance.
'~'
15 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Right. 16 JUDGE SMITH: And this is your way of doing it. 17 You are not' expressing any opinion. ] 18 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Right. i 19 JUDGE SMITH: So with that understanding, we will 20 leave it in in that context. 21 MR. FIERCE: Could I ask one question as to
. 22 whether that sentence -- ask the witness whether that 23 sentence has any reliance on the technical justification 24 which she noted above that she had seen?
25 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) I believe it did. I Heritage Reporting Corporation (s (202) 628-4888
J 25002
)
1 would have to verify that. 2 . JUDGE SMITH: Continuing, we believe that the 3 balance through page 13 is scrutable arithmetic, can be 4 challenged. 5 Now page 14 brings a problem which applies to all 6 of our rulings. And that is, we won't really know for sure 7 if all of this is dependent upon factual observation or . 8 taking upon hercelf some expertise until she is cross-9 examined on it. We are going to leave it in. 10 But in this instance and in all instances, we will 11 reentertain a motion that we overlooked areas where 12 expertise was improperly taken by her, assumed by her. I 13 We already have eliminated the last sentence in 14 the middle paragraph on page 15 alluding to the population. I 15 That's our ruling. 16 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, if it's the Board's 17 pleasure, I'm ready to resume cross examination. 1 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 19 Now, it will be your responsibility, Mr. Fierce, 20 to conform the testimony to our rulings just now and 21 whatever else might happen. . l 22 MR. FIERCE: I will be submitting a clean copy 23 with these lines stricken and noting the date that they were 1 24 stricken next to them. There will be two dates. There will 25 be today's date next to the ones you have just done. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ n
25003 1 JUDGE SMITH:. Oh, all right. k 2 MR. FIERCE: And yesterday's date so that people 3 can refer back to the record where it was stricken. 4 JUDGE SMITH: That'u a good idea. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 1 .l 14 l ( 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
. 22 23 24 25 f Heritage Reporting Corporation
( (202) 628-4888
i SNEIDER - CROSS 25004 i 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 2 BY MR. TROUT: 3 Q Ms. Sneider, when you were in the environmental 4 protection division of the department of the Attorney 5 General you worked on the Seabrook licensing proceedings, . 6 did you not? 7 A (Sneider) Yes, I did. 8 Q When did you begin working on the Seabrook case, i 9 approximately? 10 A (Sneider) Probably my first day in the office, at j I ! l 11 the Attorney General's office, April 1983. I 12 Q Did you know when you joined the Attorney 13 General's office that you would be working on that case? , l 14 A (Sneider) Yes, I did. 15 Q Did you express an interest in working on that i 16 case? 17 A (Sneider) When I was informed that I would be 18 working on the case I said that that sounded fine to me. 19 That sounded like an interesting case to work on. 20 0 Were you recruited specifically to work on that 21 case? 22 A (Sneider) No, I wasn't. - 23 0 You were just assigned it as your first assignment 24 in the door? 25 A (Sneider) I was also assigned other work when I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
ShEIDER - CROSS 25005 1 first started, too. It was not the only case I worked on. 2 Q During that period from 1983 to 1987 was there 3 ever time when the majority of your working time was spent 4 on the Seabrook proceedings? 5 A (Sneider) Yes, there was. 6 Q Just very roughly, how much of that four year
. 7 period would a majority of your time --
8 A (Sneider) Probably starting in January of 1986 9 the majority of my time was spent on Seabrook. 10 0 Was there ever a time when you worked almost 11 exclusively on this case? 12 A (Sneider) Well, certainly when I was in the -- 13 are you talking only about when I was in environmental 14 protection? 15 Q Yes. 16 For the moment, yes? 17 A (Sneider) Probably, at least, most of the time 18 starting from around February or March of 1986 I worked 19 almost exclusively on Seabrook. 20 I also worked somewhat on the Pilgrim nuclear 21 power case. And I did have sosce other environmental cases 22 that I worked on. But the vast miljority of my time then was 23 spent on Seabrook. 24 Q And that's beginning in early 19867 25 A (Sneider) Right. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i SNEIDER - CROSS 25006 l 1 Q And you had worked on the case from 1983 on? 2 A (Sneider) That's right. ! I 3 Q In early 1987 the Nuclear Safety Unit was formed j 4 in the Attorney General's office; is that correct? 5 A (Sneider) That's right.
- 6 Q And you joined the Nuclear Safety Unit as soon as 7 it was formed?
8 A (Sneider) That's right. 9 0 Oh, excuse me, let me go back, if I may, to the 10 period when you were in the environmental protection 11 division. 12 During that period the position of the Attorney 13 General was to oppose licensing of the Seabrook Station, was 14 it not? 15 A (Sneider) That's right. 16 Q And you advocated that position, did you not? 17 A (Sneider) Yes, I did. 18 Q You advocated that position before this Board, 19 this agency, and other fora , did you not? 20 A (Sneider) Well, before this agency. 21 Q And the predecessor to this Board? 22 A (Sneider) That's right. - 23 0 When you were working with the Assistant Attorney j 24 General Joann Shotwell on this case, you also communicated 25 that position, opposition to the licensing of Seabrook, to l 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9] l
SNEIDER'- CROSS 25007 1 certain town officials in the Massachusetts EPZ, did you ] I 2 not? i 3 A (Sneider) We communicated what the Attorney 4 General's position was on the case. Which is a' position 5 that unless there was a demonstration that the beach 6 populations could be protected, I believe that was the'
- 7 position at the time, that the Attorney General was opposed 8 to licensing the plant.
9 Q And you and Ms. Shotwell communicated that 10 position to town officials? 11 A (Sneider) Yes. 12 It was the Attorney General's position. 13 O In October of 1985, in fact, did not'the two'of I 14 you have a meeting with town officials in the Town of > 15 Newbury in which you told thoPe officials that, even if the - 16 town has completed and approved radiological emergency, plans 17 for Seabrook Station the Attorney General was going to 18 oppose those plans as being inadequate? i 19 A (Sneider) I don't recall saying that. 20 I will say that the plans that were being reviewed 21 at the time, we had reviewed and said that we did not 22 believe the plans were adequate, and that we could have 23 communicated that to the towns. 24 I don't remember making -- I don't remember saying 25 it in the way that you're suggesting. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l I L - ___ _ __-___ - _ ._ . _ _ _ ._. _ _ _-__
SNEIDER - CROSS 2500E 1 Q I would like to show you a document, Ms. Sneider, 2 and we'll see if this refreshes your recollection. 3 (Documant proffered to witness.) 4 BY MR. TROUT: 5 Q I would, in particular, draw your attention to the 6 bottom paragraph on the first page of the document I just 7 handed you. 8 A (Sneider) Excuse me, which paragraph? 9 Q The bottom paragraph on the first page. 10 A (Sneider) Okay, I've read it. 11 O You've read it. 12 Does that refresh your recollection as to what you 13 said to these Newbury officials in October of 19857 - 14 A (Sneider) First of all, that sentence refers to 15 what Ms. Shotwell said; it doesn't refer to what I said. 16 0 I'm sorry. I was using you to refer to both you 17 and Ms. Shotwell. 18 I believe you were both -- 19 A (Sneider) I'm sorry, it's possible that we said 20 it. It doesn't refresh my recollection. , 21 Q You joined the Nuclear Safety Unit in early 1987 22 when the unit was formed, i.s that not correct?
- 23 A (Sneider) Right.
24 The unit was formed in May 1987. 25 0 And you joined it when it was formed? Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 _j
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SNEIDER - CROSS 25009 1 A (Sneider) . - That's right.
') 2 Q ; 7md in the Nuclear Safety Unit 'you worked on the 3 Seabrook licensing proceedings, did you.not? ;;.
4 A (Sneider) Yes, I did. 5 0 And during that period of time, would it be fair 6 to say that a-majority of your work was on the'Seabrook.
~ . 7 licensing proceeding?
8 A -(Sneider). All my work was on the Seabrook 9 licensing proceeding. 10 Q From May of 1987 to the time you left the Attorney-11 General's office, February 1, 1989 you worked exclusively on 12 the Seabrook licensing proceedings? 13 A (Sneider) That's right. 14 Q And the position of the Attorney General during O 15 that period was to oppose the licensing of.Seabrook Station? 16 A (Sneider) That's right. 17 Q And you advocated that position before this Board? l 18 A (Sneider) That's right. 19 Q And in other fora?- 20 A (Sneider) Before this Board. 21 Q All right. 22 Were you involved -- excuse me -- before this 23 Board and how about before other Boards of this agency? 24 A (Sneider)- I have argued before the Appeal Board. 25 I've also submitted briefs to the Commission. Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
SNEIDER - CROSS .25010 1 Q You were involved in drafting the contentions that 2 the Attorney General submitted in the spring of 1988 on the 3 Seabrook plan for Massachusetts communities, were you not? 4 A (Sneider) No, I wasn't. 1 5 I was engaged in the hearings in New Hampshire and 6 I didn't have time to be involved in the drafting of the 7 contentions. - 8 Q When you say that you did not have time to be 9 involved, did you consult with your colleagues who were 10 drafting the contentions as to what should be in and not in 11 the contentions? 12 A (Sneider) I honestly don't remember consulting 13 with them. It's possible that I did in the area of 14 protective action decision-making. 15 I just remember being so busy and being up in New 16 Hampshire and a document being submitted that said, you 17 know, contentions. I just don't recall reading it, but I 18 may have been involved in it to that extent. 19 Q Who did draft the contentions, primarily? l I 20 A (Sneider) I believe Mr. Fierce and Mr. Traficonte " 21 drafted the contentions.
- 22 Q I noticed in reviewing the ' 83 contentions the 23 Attorney General submitted in the spring of 1988 that there 24 is no contention on radiological monitoring.
25 Since you were not involved in that process, I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l L____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
i SNEIDER - CROSS 25011' j l' gather then, you would not'have any insight to offer as to ()
<~~x g 2 why there was no such contention?
3 A (Sneider) Contentions in '83? l 4 Q I'm sorry, I meant in 1988? 5 I believe they were filed in April. 6 A (Sneider) That's right, I don't have any insight-7 into it. 8 Q And you would not have been consulting with SAPL, 9 for example, in the framing of their contentions during that l 10 period, would you? i 11 A (Snoider) No, I didn't. I 12 That I can tell you I didn't. h 13 Q Were you involved in the drafting of the 1 14 contentions on the exercise that were submitted, I believe, i 0 15 September of 1988 by the Attorney General?
)
16 A (Sneider) It may sound strange, but I honestly l 17 don't recall. If I was involved it was very minimal because 18 I submitted my proposed findings in August. -I took off a 19 good deal of the month of September, that's when I got j 1 20 married. If I was involved it was just on a few
, 21 contentions.
22 I honestly don't remember, I'm sorry. ; e ! 23 Q Let me -- j l 24 A (Sneider) I could talk to someone and have my i 25 memory refreshed. Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1 _.__________ _ _ _ _ 1_U
SNEIDER - CROSS 25012 1 Q Let me see if perhaps I can refresh your 2 recollection as to at least one contention. , 3 Massachusetts Attorney General Exercise Contention l l 4 18 dealt with radiological monitoring in reception centers. l l 5 Do you recall whether you were involved in 6 drafting that contention? 7 A (Sneider) Yes, I was. And I believe that may - 8 have been the only contention I was involved in drafting. 9 Q Did you take the lead in drafting that contention 10 or at least parts of it? 11 A (Sneider) The exercise contention on the 12 reception centers, yes, I did. 13 Q Very well. 14 During the six years that you were in the Attorney 15 General's office working on the Seabrook case, did you ever 16 take a role in formulating the policy of the Attorney 17 General's office as opposed to advocating it to other 18 agencies? 19 MR. FIERCE: I'm going to object, Your Honor. 20 There's a lawyer / client objection here that I have 21 been withholding. And when you're asking her whether she ' 22 drafted, you know, a contention or something. 23 But when you get into the area of policy I'm going 24 to ask that the question be stricken because it's invading 25 the province of lawyer / client relationship that I think need Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I SNEIDER - CROSS 25013 I 1 not be explored here. s-2 ' MR . TROUT: Your Honor, it's the Attorney 3 General's choice to put one of their own attorneys on the 4 witness stand. And having done that I believe I have the ; i 5 right to explore bias. 6 JUDGE SMITH: That's right.
- 7 As you know, traditional rules of litigation do 8 not favor having attorneys appearing in a case also serve as 9 witnesses. And there are several reasons for it, and the )i 10 problems presented by this.are one of them. But it is your 11 choice. l 12 The objection is overruled.
i 13 BY MR. TROUT: , l,.-- 14 Q Would you like me to repeat the question? ! I 15 A (Sneider) Yes, I would. 16 Q During your six years you acted as an advocate of 17 the Attorney General's position in opposition to licensing 18 of Seabrook Station. 19 During that time did you ever play a role in 20 formulating that policy as opposed to just advocating it? 21 A (Sneider) Yes, I did. i . 22 Q And when did you play that role? i l l 23 A (Sneider) In 1986. 24 Q And was your role in 1986 in formulating-the 25 policy to urge that a particular policy toward Seabrook
,_s Heritage Reporting Corporation
[ \ (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - CROSS 25014 1 Station be adopted? 2 A (Sneider) No, I don't believe it was my role to 3 urge that a particular policy to be adopted. 4 It was my role to inform other people of our 5 assessment of the legal issues, and our assessment of 6 proposed plans for Massachusetts. And it wasn't my role to 7 urge the adoption of a particular policy. - 8 Q Was a decision being made in 1986 concerning the j 9 position that the Attorney General would adopt or maintain 10 concerning the licensing of Seabrook Station? 11 A (Sneider) I think the Attorney General already 12 had a position. That position was always evolving, you q 13 know, there's a continual assessment as the situation 14 changed, so that I should change that position. 15 But the Attorney General has had the position 16 since the early 1970s. 17 18 i i 19 20 21 - 22 ; 23 24 25 Heritage Repoi-ting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2
1 6 l L j
]
SNEIDER . CROSS- ' '
'25015' e- I f
1 Q You said you were involved insformulating policy, j
~
2 in 1986 ahd I'm wondering now, was there a policy 3 . formulation process going on within.the Attorney General's1
.]
4 office, between the Attorney General and'other state. q
' ~1 5 .- ' officials or both?- 3 )
I 6 A (Sneider) ,There was. policy; going.on between the i l '7 Attorney General an other state officials. And then, as'I' 8 said, there's always a continual reassessment of the' 9 Attorney General's policy based'on the facts as they are.now 10 the assessment of new plans'as they come in, et cetera. .The 11 evaluation of experts; evaluation of. the law. 12 O The policy of the Attorney General up until 1986, l 13 was to oppose the licensing of Seabrook Station? . 14 l A (Sneider) That's right. 15 Q This is a difficult question to'ask a fellow -- l 1 16 A (Sneider) I should also say, ILdon't think it was 17 a clear cut policy to oppose the licensing of Seabrook. .It j 18 was a policy to oppose the licensing of-Seabrook in the 1 19 absence of emergency plans that we considered adequate. > 20 Q I understand. I 21 A (Sneider) I think there's a distinction.there. I
, 22 Q I understand. ,
23 This is a difficult' question to ask a fellow 24 member of the bar. l 25 Did you agree or disagree, personally, with.the l l Heritage Reporting-Corporation , (202) 628-4888 j. 1 __ -___- :-_-- _ _ __ a
I SNEIDER - CROSS 25016 1 position of the Attorney General in 1986? 2 A , (Sneider) I agreed with the position. 3 Q During the policy formulation process that you 4 discussed, that you have testified occurred during 1986, did ) l 5 you make arguments or present reasons why that policy should j
. 1 6 remain -- l 7 JUDGE. SMITH: I'm going to take your ,
8 representation that you're asking these questions now solely 9 for the purpose of determining whether there is bias or not l 10 on the part of this witness. 11 MR. TROUT: Yes, Your Honor. 12 JUDGE SMITH: And not for any other purpose in the 13 litigation.
~
14 MR. TROUT: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. ! 15 That is my purpose. l 16 JUDGE SMITH: I think you have pretty well run out 17 the needed string on this, since we have observed the 18 Attorney General and Ms. Sneider in this very hearing. 19 I just wonder how much of it is necessary. 20 But you may answer. l j 21 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Could you repeat the - 22 question. 23 BY MR. TROUT: 24 Q My question was whether in 1986 you were in one 25 way or another urging that the policy be continued as Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 0
j SNEIDER - CROSS 25017
, 1 opposed to changed?
I 2 A . I don't think I was ever'in a situation with the I 3 Attorney General that I had to urge that the. policy be ] 4 continued. I was continually informing the Attorney General ] 5- of what was going on. .But I-don't think'I ever was in a 6 position that I had to urge a certain policy.- l l
. 7 0 I would like to turn now to the specifics of your
, 8 testimony, if I may. i 9 First of all, you drafted the answer. portion of' 10 the question and answer format of your testimony,-did you' ! 11 not? 12 A (Sneider) I guess a lot of the testimony is 13 written that I had extensive discussions with Mr.~ Fierce. rs 14 He drafted testimony based on our discussions, and they were f 15 extensive, and I reviewed the testimony and made changes and 16 corrections with Mr. Fierce. 17 Q Uo, for example, when a question is asked and then i 18 an answer is given, there was never a session where you sat' ! 19 down with Mr. Fierce or another member of the office and 20 that exact question was asked and that exact answer was - l 21 given. l l 22 Rather, you had extensive discussions. Mr. Fierce e i 23 distilled those into a text which you then reviewed and ! 24 edited with him? i 25 A (Sneider) That's right. l Heritage Reporting Corporation
/ (202) 628-4888 \
i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ ' b.
i i SNEIDER - CROSS 25018 i 1 It could be that he asked a question and I did j 2 answer it in the course of our extensive discussions. And l 3 that a summary of that or the essence of my response is now 4 in writing here. t 5 Q But it would be more of a coincidence that the - I 6 exact words would have been captured? The exact words of j i 7 the question; the exact words of the answer? l
)
8 A (Sneider) Well, he did take extensive notes in ! l 9 the course of our discussions, so I don't know how much of a
]
10 coincidence it is. l 11 But we didn't go through each question and I gave j l 12 an answer and then it was taken down verbatim; it wasn't I 13 written like that. , 14 Q All right. 15 You worked with Mr. Fierce in preparing this { l 16 testimony. Did you consult with any other persons or did 17 you review any other documents in preparing your testimony? 18 A (Sneider) The documents that I reviewed are in 19 the testimony. Or I consulted my notes from my observations 20 of the exercise. 21 Q Did you, in the course of preparing your 22 testimony, ever have any reason to review or to discuss with - 23 anyone the deposition of Joseph Keller that was take- an 24 February 10th, 19897 25 A (Sneider) No , I didn't. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ' l l l l
]
.i i
SNEIDER - CROSS 25019 (~h 1 Q Did you, in the course of preparing your testimony ;
\'~'}
2 for presentation here, have any occasion to consult with Ms. i 3 Phoebe McKinnel who is - you will agree with me -- was the 4 other observer at North Andover with you the day of the 1 5 exercise? )1 6 A (Sneider) No, I didn't. 7 I will say I reviewed Ms. McKinnel's notes of the i 1 8 exercise. 9 Q Did Ms. McKinnel's notes -- 10 A (Sneider) They were difficult to read. 11 Q I had that problem, too. ! 12 Did Ms. McKinnel's notes contain any indication as 13 to how many monitoring stations were used during the two 20 1 7-_ v)
! 14 15 minutes drills?
A (Sneider) I don't recall seeing that. I could be 16 there; I don't recall it. It has been a while since I 17 reviewed her notes. 18 Q Did you base your testimony, as to the number of 19 monitoring crations used during the 20 minute drills, to any 20 extent, on Ms. McKinnel's notes? 21 A (Sneider) I don't believe so. 22 I believe that was based entirely on my notes. 23 I'm sure if there was any inconsistency -- I looked at Ms. l 24 McKinnel's notes mainly to see if there was inconsistencies l 25 or consistencies, and I'm sure there wasn't any
/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (v}/ (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - CROSS 25020 1 inconsistency in her notes. 2 O . But_her notes may have been silent on the subject? 3 A (Sneider) That's very possible. 4 Q Did you review documents produced by the 5 Applicants in discovery in the course of preparing your 6 testimony? 7 A (Sneider) I believe so. . 8 I'm not sure which documents were produced in l 9 discovery. Some documents I reviewed after my testimony. l 10 I'm not sure which ones were produced in discovery, is the 11 main point, though. I did review some documents produced by 12 the Applicants or some documents. 13 Q Did you have occasion, at eny time prior to the 14 submitting of your testimony, to review the Extent of Play 1 15 for the exercise or any portion of the Extent of Play? I I' 16 A (Sneider) No, I didn't. 17 Q Now, I would like to take you back in time, if I 18 may, to June 28, 1988, early efternoon. l 19 A (Sneider) Yes. l 20 Q You're standing outside the monitoring trailer? l 21 A (Sneider) That's right. - 22 Q A drill commences to test the flow rate and 23 monitoring rate of the trailer. I guess rather, the 24 monitoring rate of the trailer. 25 The first drill, I believe you testified, you were Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - CROSS 25021 1 caught a little bit unawares by and so you didn't start
,m
( 2 counting.until several minutes into the drill?
~
\_.
3 I'm sorry, counting the number of persons going 4 through? 5 A (Sneider) That's right. 6 I started the count at five minutes into the 7 drill. 8 Q Okay. 9 How sure are you that it was five minutes into the 10 drill? 11 A (Sneider) I'm very sure because I looked at my 12 watch when the time started and -- 13 Q When the drill started or when you started 14 counting? l ,s lE 15 A (Sneider) l
%.) No. I looked at my watch when the 16 drill started. I realized I made an error in my counting at 17 the beginning and so I said to myself, well, I will start 18 counting at exactly five minutes. That's the way I decided 19 to handle my missing something that happened right at the 20 beginning was to start the count exactly five minutes into
. 21 the drill.
22 Q So you did start counting at the beginning of the B 23 first drill but you made some sort of error and so you l 24 restarted? 25 A (Sneider) I don't know if -- I don't recall now j l 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation l f-"s (202) 628-4888 ! l (x_-) ) _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . .01
SNEIDER - CROSS 25022 I 1 if that's my attention got distracted or I knew I made some 2 error and that I wasn't going to get an accurate 20 minute { l 3 count. 4 And so I decided I will start counting and get an 5 accurate count of 15 minutes, and then I can extrapolate a . 6 number or a monitoring rate based on that.
. l 7 Q Did you record any of the counting that you did !
8 during that first five minutes? 9 A (Sneider) I think there may be something in my 10 notes where I wrote down a few hash marks and crossed them 11 out. 12 If you like, I would look at my notes. 13 Q Do you have your notes here? . i 14 A (Sneider) Yes, I do. 15 Q Could you look at them and tell me whether there l 16 is any written reflection of that first five minutes. 17 (Witness reviews notes.) 18 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) No, the only thing I have 19 is that the drill starts at 2:45, I wrote down. And then I 20 wrote down, "2:50 start count." 21 BY MR. TROUT: 22 O So you didn't make little hash marks right at the . 23 beginning of the drill, the first drill? 24 A (Sneider) No, I was wrong on that, I didn't. 25 Q And you decided that you would start making little Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4988
SNEIDER - CROSS 25023 f- 1 hash marks five minutes into the drill? i (, - 2 A ' (Sneider) That's right. 3 Q And you did that for the rest of the drill? 4 A (Sneider) Right. 5 Q And you did that for the entire second drill? 6 A (Sneider) That's right. 7 Q Now, people were in a line in front of you, mock 8 evacuees. They would go up the steps and'go into the 9 trailer and be monitored; is that correct? 10 A (Sneider) That's right. 11 Q And you were concentrating on counting them -- did 12 you count them as they went up the steps or as they went 13 through the portal? , 14 A Gineider) As they went into the trailer. 15 Q So you counted them as they went through the 16 portal? 17 A (Sneider) That's right. 18 Q And you were concentrating on-that because you 19 wanted to get an accurate count? 20 A (Sneider) That's right. 21 Q You wanted neither too many nor too few? 22 A (Sneider) That's right. 23 Q From where you were standing it was not possible 24 to see all of the monitoring stations simultaneously, was 25 it? Heritage Reporting Corporation t (202) 628-4888 \ l _ _ _ _ _ . _ - ___________A
SNEIDER - CROSS 25024 1 A (Sneider) No, it wasn't. 2 Q So, in fact, you did not see seven stations being 3 used simultaneously, did yeu? ;{ 4 A (Sneider) No. I wasn't able to see all stations i 5 inside the trailer. - 6 Q Well, my question is a little more focused than 3 7 that. 8 You were not able to see all seven stations being 9 used simultaneously for monitoring during that drill, were 10 you? 11 A (Sneider) You mean see seven stations at the same 12 time? 13 Q Being used; that's correct? - 14 A (Sneider) No. That would have been impossible. 15 Q Do you know what -- 16 JUDGE SMITH: Now there's confusion here I think 17 or potential for confusion. i 18 Are you saying seven stations at an instant in 19 time in that, perhaps, from har vantage point outside the 20 trailer you can't see those or seven stations at any , i 21 relatively short period of time indicating simultaneous use. 1 ( 22 What is your purpose?
- I 23 MR. TROUT: Let me close that out, Your Honor, 24 that's a good point.
25 l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - CROSS 25025 l 1 BY MR. TROUT: ( 2. Q - Did you we.1k around while you were counting or did 3 you stay more.or less in one place? 4- A (Sneider) I stayed in ene place. 5 0 .So your perspective of the trailer never changed?.- q 6 A. (Sneider) l' hat ' s ' right . -
) , 7 No, my perspective:never changed -- l 8 Q 'During the 20 minute drills?
9 A (Sneider) That's right. d 10 Q So there was never a time during the 20 minute 11 drills when you saw seven monitoring stations being used to-
'l 12 monitor mock evacuees? ,
l 13 A (Sneider) If you' re talking about. during . -- 14 Q- The 20 minute drills? 15 A (Sneider) No. 16 Q Do you know what type of monitoring probe was used 17 and is used by the Applicants at the reception-center? By 18 the ORO at the reception center? l 19 A (Sneider) I know it has in the plans or in'the ! 20 testimony that was submitted by the Applicants what kind of 21 monitoring probe, but I have not retained that. l 22 Q Do you know whether it's the same sort of 1 , 23 monitoring probe that's referenced in the FEMA guidance
'l L
i 24 document that you have attached to your testimony? 25 A (Sneider) I don't know. Heritage Reporting. Corporation
/ (202) 628-4888 l '\ j l
1 I
}
l SNEIDER - CROSS 25026 j 1 Q Do you know whether it's the same type of probe 2 that's used -- 3 MR. FIERCE: I'm going to object to that question. 4 MR. TROUT: Asked and answered. 5 MR. FIERCE: The foundation of the question hasn't
* -l 6 bee,n established that there is a particular kind of probe j 7 that's referenced in the FEMA guidance document, if that's ,
8 what it is, a guidance document. 9 BY MR. TROUT: 1 10 Q Do you know whether the monitoring instrument i 11 that's used by the ORO is the same monitoring instrument 12 that's used by civil defense officials in the Commonwealth i 13 of Massachusetts, generally? j 14 MR. FIERCE: Objection, irrelevant. 15 (The Board confers.) 16 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled. 1 17 'That means you may answer, Ms. Sneider. l l i 18 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) I have no personal 19 knowledge of that. I can surmise whether it's the same or 20 not, based on documents, but it's not based on my own 21 personal observations of drills of monitors. . 22 BY MR. TROUT: 23 Q Ms. Sneider, I would like you to refer to page 10 24 of your testimony, if you would. 25 A (Sneider) All right. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ - - - - - -- Jl
'a f
1 SNEIDER - CROSS 25027 ') i
. . 1 Q I'm looking at the first full sentence on the page i r
(j 2 which begins on the fourth line: "This is'especially so?"~ 3 A (Sneider) Okay. d 4 Q Your criticism there, if I understand it is:'"That- d i 5 contaminated' packets can'only~be hidden'ir'one or twc- j
~
l l' 6 obvious spots on a person's clothing." Is that correct'?. l
. 7 A (Sneider) That's right. j i l 8 Q During the exercise were not lthe: Coleman ' Mantle's j 9 placed in as many as seven different locations on the mock-i 10 evacuees-who were going through? i i
11 A (Sneider) I didn't observe them being placed~in' j i 12 seven different locations. l l 13 Q What locations did you observe them'being'placed ! 14 in? .! l 15 A (Sneider) I observed.them being placed'in' 16 pockets. 17 Q Pant legs, did.you observe them beingLplaced in -l l 18 the cuff of pant legs? j 19 A (Sneider)l I would say, I may have seen a cuff of 20 a pant leg, and that's about it except for pockets. ; 21 Q Did you see them being placed behind belts? ] 1 22 A (Sneider) I don't recall seeing that. :l
. I 23 Q Did you see them being placed in folds in person's '
24 shirts or blouses? l 25 A (Sneider) No, definitely not. ! Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (g (202) 628-4888 N--] ,
- _- _ __A
SNEIDER - CROSS 25028 1 People were also wearing very minimal clothing 2 that day because it was very hot. 3 Q Well, they were all wearing shirts and pants and 4 shoes and socks? 5 A (Sneider) Well, I don't know if everybody was - 6 vsaring -- 7 Q Perhaps some weren't wearing socks. 8 A (Sneider) -- socks. But it wasn't like people 9 were wearing layers of clothes. They were wearing summer 10 clothing. 11 Q Yes. 12 A (Sneider) It was a hot day. 13 Q Were some wearing hats? - 14 A (Sneider) I don't recall any hats. 15 Q During the mock drill? 16 A (Sneider) I can't say that I recall a hat. 17 Q All right. l 18 Ms. Sneider, all of the things being held equal, 19 would it take longer to monitor a large person or a small 20 person? 21 A (Sneider) Kell, based on the rate of certain 22 inches of body per second I would say it would take longer
- 23 to monitor a large person. They have more inches on their 24 body.
25 Q Now, if one were not to use Coleman Mantles or Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - CROSS 25029 l 1 similar contaminated packets, is it that you propose that in rN i ( ) 2 order to. simulate a contaminated evacuee we would actually ] v 3 have to contaminate someone? 4 A (Sneider) I'm not proposing how you do this. I'm i 5 just saying that if you were -- it's very easy to look at a 1 6 person and say, they've got the mantle hid in there. j I 7 I'm not suggesting how you do this. I'm just 8 saying that I'm not sure if it's realistic in terms of -- I i 9 think it might be a lot mora difficult in a real situation i 1 10 where a person might be contaminated. j 1 11 You're not going to be able to just look at the 12 pocket and say, that's the only place it could be hidden on 13 that person's body. 14 Q How would you simulate contamination if you didn't ( 15 use a contamination packet? 16 A (Sneider) The way you did it may be the best way 17 to simulate it. I'm not sure if a simulation is an accurate 18 way of assessing whether a probe is effective. That's all 19 I'm saying. I'm not trying to suggest that there is a 20 better way to do it.
. 21 Q Going back to page 10 of your testimony.
22 The sentence immediately following the sentence we 23 have already looked at. This sentence begins: "The point 24 is, however, that some rates may be too fast for the l 25 instruments to achieve effective monitoring." l Heritage Reporting Corporation
-"x (202) 628-4888 I b v
\ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ - . _ _ _ __
SNEIDER - CROSS 25030 , 1 Are you talking there about instruments in general 2 or are yqu talking about the particular instrument used by 3 the ORO? 4 A (Sneider) I'm talking about instruments in 5 general. It has been my understanding that a certain rate 1 6 per second is what should be used. And that's niso based on 7 rating the implementing proceduros and the technical , 8 justifications submitted to FEMA by the Applicants. That's 9 at least something I assumed from there that there vere 10 certain rates that should be used. 11 That there is a certain minimum rate in terms of 12 effectiveness. 15 Q So your testimony concerning the relationship 14 between rate and effectiveness is based entirely upon FEMA l 15 documents and upon Applicants' technical justification? 16 A (Sneider) It's also based generally on 17 consultations which I referred to before with experts who 18 say, when you're probing a body you, you know, pass the 19 monitor over a body at a certain rate per second in ordor to 20 be effective, which is consistent'with these other 21 documents. . 22 I'm not saying what the effective rate is. I'm f I 23 just saying that there are limits. 24 Q Well, is two inches a second too fast? 25 A (Sneider) I can't tell you that. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ i
n-
~
-SNEIDER - CROSS- 25031
[~ 1 JUDGE SMITH: .What's happening here?- 2 We had ruled that her' expertise -- she had no 3 expertise on'this point.- The only. basis for the statement 4 in question is the technical documents that she alluded to. 5 And we give no weight to anyfindependent expert-6 . judgment on her part, even though she had consulted with 7 other experts. . For purpose of this testimony we gave-no. 8 weight to that. 9 Is there something I don't understand about what's 10 happening? 11 MR. TROUT: No, Your Honor. 12 I have reached the end of my cross-examination. I I 13 have no further questions. . l 14 JUDGE SMITH: Staff? l 15 MR. BACHMANN: One moment. 16 (Pause to review notes.) 17 (The Board confers.) ; 18 MR. BACHMANN: .Your Honor, I'just have a few-19 questions based on Mr. Trout'e' cross-examination ~that I' 20 would like to follow up on.
, )
21 JUDGE SMITH: All right.- l
. 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION l 23 BY MR. BACHMANN:
l 24 Q It was discussed earlier about the drafting of ~!
.i 25 your testimony. Did you, at any time, discuss with Mr..
l Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l i
SNEIDER - CROSS 25032 1 Traficonte as to where your testimony fit into the scheme of 2 things, as far as what it was trying to address? 3 Just if you discussed how it fitted? 4 A (Sneider) I didn't have any discussions with Mr. 5 Traficonte. 6 Q The reason I say this is because on April lith Mr. 7 Traficonte in exchange with Mr. Dignan indicated that he was , 8 filing evidence on the new type of probe that they are using 9 at. the Seabrook site. l 10 And I wanted to know whether it was your 11 understanding that your testimony constituted that evidence? 12 A (Sneider) No, it isn't. 13 Q He indicated it was filed on the same date that's 14 the date on your testimony. 15 So you have no way of knowing that? 16 A (Sneider) No. 17 Q You were asked some questions about civil defense 3 18 probes. I would like to follow up on that. 19 MR. BACHMANN: The letter that's attached to your 20 testimony, the FEMA letter. l 21 And for the record this was introduced as MAG - l 22 Exhibit 63 on April lith, 1989. It was marked for ID and 23 accepted as evidence. 24 BY MR. BACHMANN: 25 Q Did you, in the course of preparing your Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - CROSS 25033 1 testimony, review the transcript of when this was introduced 2 into evidence? 3 A (Sneider) No, I didn't. 4 Q In your discussions with Mr. Fierce did you --
. 5 when you were preparing your testimony or at any time 6 subsequent to that, were you informed as to the testimony 7 that Mr. Donovan, who wrote this letter, gave about the 8 letter?
9 A (Sneider) No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
SNEIDER - CROSS 25034 1 Q Therefore, you were not aware that Mr. Donovan 2 testified that the statements he made were to a certain type 3 of probe not at use at .Seabrook? 4 MR. FIERCE: Objection. 5 He's characterizing the testimony that speaks for , 6 itself. She's not aware of his testimony. 7 MR. BACHMANN: Well, I just wanted to make certain 8 whether there were some words some place during the witness l 9 preparation where she might have become aware that Donovan 10 testified that this was not the probe referred to -- the Il probe at Seabrook was not the probe -- 12 MR. FIERCE: She said she's not aware of his I l 13 testimony, Your Honor. j 14 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) I'm not aware of Mr. 15 Donovan's testimony. l l 16 MR. BACHMANN: Anything he said in that area. I 17 (Pause . ) 18 BY MR. BACHMAlm: 19 Q Mr. Trout asked you about how else during a drill 20 you could test the efficacy of monitoring devices to detect 21 contamination other than using the Coleman mantle. l 22 Do you recall that? . 23 A (Sneider) Yes, I do. 24 Q And given the fact that the question, which 25 elicited your response that the you did not think the , l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ) l l l
SNEIDER - CROSS 25035 1 Coleman mantles were proper, was do you think the test was 2 fair, and you criticized the use of these. 3 I don't think we quite got to the point, and it 4 was-suggested -- if I recall your testimony, you had no
. 5 other idea on how you could possibly test the efficacy of. )
6 the monitoring system. 7 Is that correct? 8 A (Sneider) Although since I've been asked it, I've 9 been thinking about it, and I could think of other ways that 10 might be fairer. 11 Q Would you -- 12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, see, we accepted her testimony 13 on the use of the Coleman mantles solely on a layman's . 14 observation that the process was to hide them into layman- l 15 observable clothing. And with the experience that shelhas 16 with layman's clothing, that there are problems connected 17 with it. 18 Her view as to better methods of radiation l 19 monitoring is irrelevant and will not be accepted by the 20 Board. ' 21 MR. BACHMANN: I withdraw the question.
, 22 BY MR. BACHMA104:
23 Q Do you know or have any information about how this j 24 would have been done at the other plants in Massachusetts 25 where the Commonwealth is cooperating and has its own Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
25036 1 emergency plans, how they do things like this? 2 MR. FIERCE: Objection. 3 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) I don't have any idea. 4 MR. FIERCE: Irrelevant. 5 JUDGE SMITH: She answered. 2 (A) . . 6 MR. BACIFJEN: I have no further cross-i 7 examination. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Sneider, in our hearings 9 witnesses wait until -- 10 (Laughter) 11 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce. 12 Well, wait a minute. 13 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE McCOLLOM , 14 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Ms. Sneider, the only thing I 15 would like to know is about your seeing into or knowing 16 anything about the monitors themselves. 17 I would like for you to describe what view, if 18 any, you ever had of the monitors. 19 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Are you talking about the 20 trailer or -- 21 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Monitoring stations in the
]
i 22 trailer. . l 23 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) The monitoring station. 24 I stayed outside the monitoring station before the 25 preparation of the exercise when everybody was in place, but l Heritage Reporting Corporation (292) 628-4888 l L__._-. _ _ _ _ J
l
.SNEIDER _ REDIRECT 25037 i i
1 before it actually started. {; i 2 I looked in.. I tried to get the best view as I ll 1 3' could inside.. There appeared.to be a person at every 4 station.- 5 And at the end of the day, I went inside the j 6 trailer and I started - I was put through the procedure l
, 7 that a person would be.put through, an evacuee would be put i 1
8 through, where'at least they commenced the procedure with - 9 me. It was interrupted before it was completed.' ; l 10 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Okay.
)
11 But actually during the 20-minute test period, you j J 12 were not able to see the monitors in' operation? l i 13 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) I could see some of the ) 14 monitors in operation. 1 i 15 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Some but not -- 16 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) But I couldn't see all of 17 it because of where I had to stand. 18 JUDGE McCOLLOM: All right. 19 Thank you. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce?
- 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. FIERCE:
I 23 Q You just mentioned where you'had to stand. 24 Were you directed to stand in.a particular 25 location? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888 x _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._ _ .l _
l i 1 SNEIDER - REDIRECT 25038 c i 1 A (Sneider) Yes, I was. 2 Q And who directed you to do that? ; 3 A (Sneider) Mr. Trout directed'me. 4 (Laughter.) 1 5 MR. DIGNAN: With Dignan's full authority and . i I 6 blessing. 7 (Laughter) 8 MR. FIERCE: l ' k 9 Q Why do you believe that there were seven stations j 1 10 in use during the drill? 11 A (Sneider) Well, I wrote it in my notes, so I know
]
12 I didn't get it out of thin air. I know there was only one l 13 person at a station based on my observations. . I 14 0 When you say "at a station", there are seven 15 handrails, and according to the plans a station on each side 1 16 of each handrail, for 14 total stations. l 17 Do you mean there was a person -- 18 A (Sneider) One person at each handrail based on my 19 looking into the trailer. 20 And there appeared to be a person at every 1 l 21 handrail I could see. 22 I also believe that I was told there were seven, , 23 but I don't - you know, it may have been from Mr. Trout. I l l 24 can't tell you that. I just know that I wrote it down and I 25 didn't get it from thin air, and it's consistent with my Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25039 1 observations.. 7 g .. 12 MR. FIERCE: I have no-further questions? 3 JUDGE SMITH: .Anything:further? 4 MR. TROUT: No, Your Honor.
. 5 JUDGE SMITH: You are excused, Ms. Sneidar..
6 Thank you for. coming. 7 THE WITNESS: (Sneider) Thank you. B (The witness was thereupon excused.) 9 JUDGE. SMITH: Where are we with respect to the 10 supplement to Rebuttal Testimony 17? 11 MR. DIGNAN: Seventeen will be presented in its' 12 entirety, Your Honor. Therefore, the supplement will be 13 presented, too. ,
}
14 MR. FIERCE: The Panels are not_quite identical, 15 but we will cross both? 16 MR. TROUT: Why don't you cross both at the same 17 time. 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 19 MR. FIERCE: I'm just. wondering-just procedurally 20 how we will go. 21 Will it be assumed that when'we initiate the cross
., 22 next week, we'll be crossing on both pieces at once,. or will 23
~
we have a phase with one Panel and then some folks will 24 leave and then we will continue -- 25 MR. DIGNAN: We'll probably put them all up there l l Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
25040 1 together and you can cross. 2 MR. FIERCE: That's probably fine with me. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 4 MR. DIGNAN: In other words, what the supplemental 5 piece will be do is essentially expand the Panel.
- 6 MR. FIERCE: Okay.
7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 8 MR. DIGNAN: As it would be if that piece had been 9 in there originally. 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, in terms of schedule, ! 4 11 we can go off the record for this. l i 12 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 13 (Discussion off the record.) - 14 JUDGE SMITH: Back on the record. 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'll make the offer again. We I 16 had three exhibits marked during the cross-examination of 17 the Staff's panel yesterday. And I would offer Mass AG 18 Exhibit 112, 113 and 114 into evidence at this time. 19 MR. DIGNAN: And I assume from the way it's been 20 offered, it's an unrestricted offer. 21 MK. TRAFICONTE: Unrestricted offer, yes. 22 MR. DIGNAN: And on that basis I'll object and ask - 23 to be heard. 24 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 25 Well, let's regroup here. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l i
25041 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: 112 is the emergency response
/
2 procedure in the onsite plan, ER 5.4. 113~is the request 3- for information letter from Mr. Nerses to the Applicants.- l 4 And 114'is the August 9, _I believe, 1988 response. 5 (Pause.) ! 6 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan? 7 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, Your Honor, and I will make this 'g I l 8 argument extremely short. j l 9 It's a relevance objection. And it might assist l 10 the Board in following my argument if the Board'could get 1 11 before it the full text of MAG EX-19, and it's reproduced in- j
'(
12 the February 23rd document commencing at page 112, Your 'j 13 Honor. 'l 14 Proceed, Your Honor? k 15 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 16 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. 17 Your Honor, if one takes a look at this 18 contention, and it's a relevancy objection and-based on the ) I 19 language of the contention. ; 20 One starts at the beginning with the contention
. 21 itself, which appears on page 112. And as my brother 22 Traficonte has pointed out, that's pretty broadly based 23 language and I probably wouldn't have much to stand on if -
24 that's all there was. , 25 But the problem is one then comes to the basis, I Heritage Reporting Corporation-(202) 628-4888 l l E__________________-_____ _ _ 1
i l 25042 j 1 which under the rules we have been operating in, in this l j 2 proceeding, sets the parameter of the contention. And A and 3 B set out, as I indicated earlier. ;
'l 4 A is simply a contention, or if you will, a basis 5 that the PARS issued to NHY's ORO were not appropriate in
- l 6 numerous respects. And then they say they were exactly
{ 7 those being recommended by the licensee. l 8 Now, what I would point the Board out to is we're 9 told that they were inappropriate in numerous respects and l 10 came from the licensee. But we're given no specificity at 11 that point in this set of bases as to why they were 12 inappropriate for ORO to use or why they were inappropriate 13 from the point of view of whatever ERO did to generate them. 14 Then we go to B, and then its says that the PARS 15 issued by the State of New Hampshire were also inappropriate 16 in many respects, including the following. And they go on 17 to talk about saying that the PARS were wrong for various 18 hindsight reasons. But they still do not articulate at that 19 point what they think the flaw in the plan or Oe procedure 20 was that led to the issuance of what they say in hindsight 21 were improper PARS. 22 They make the statement there below that as a - l i 23 result of these, the chances are of people receiving 24 increased dose. 25 Basis C is out. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25043-1 And then we come to Basis D which is the only g 2~ specific,alleghtion basis in connection with thie. And it 3 says, "In all of the instances described above, the 'j 4 licensee's inappropriate PARS were derived from its METPAC 5 computer model." 6 Then they go on to articulate what they think is . 7 wrong with the computer model. l-8 And my point is that it is a'-- although it's a
.I 9 long contention with a lot.of bases still surviving, the !
10 only specific allegation that had anything to do with the 11 plan or the onsite portion of this whole thing is the 12 allegation that there is problems with the METPAC model. 13 Now, if and to the extent my brother offers these 14 three exhibits strictly in the context of what he I l t 15 interrogated the witnesses about, I haven't got a problem 16 with it. But he wants them in generally and for all- i 17 purposes. 18 That sounds to me like he's -- if they go for in 19 for that p't: pose, perhaps they can be used as the basis cf a 20 finding with respect to the inadequacies of the plan, which
. 21 I say is not before this Board and so forth.
22 And this is the reason for my objection. It'i.s to 23 get a restriction on these documents which are, one, a piece 24 of the onsite plan;'two, a set of letters in which 25 explanations were made with respect to the plan. That by Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
25044 l 1 allowing these in without objection, I'm not placing myself 2 in the po'sition of having somehow agreed that this 3 Contention 19 is any broader than the very narrow scope it' 4 presently has. And it is an extremely, indeed, a narrow 5 scope. . 6 And what it comes down to is the only contention 7 that is litigable in this case, with respect to the onsite l 8 exercise, the onsite portion of this exercise, is this l 9 problem with METPAC. That's all they have got. They 10 haven't got anything else in this case, Your Honor. 11 That's the whole argument and I tried to brief 1 12 because I understand we' re up against the time limit. But ' 13 it comes right out of the language of the contention. I
~
i 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: I will respond. Parhaps we could j 15 have Mr. Turk first. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk.
]
17 MR. TURK: Your Honor, let me address 112 18 separately from 113 and 114. l 19 I have no problems with 112 coming in for the 20 limited purpose of being in the record to help explain what l 21 it is that Dr. Bores and Mr. Fox were testify 3ng to. 22 I agree with Mr. Dignan that the procedures , 23 themselves and the onsite plan itself are simply not an 24 issue before the Board. l 25 In light of the Appeal Board's recent decision Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 25045 !
~1 kicking an issue back to you, I'm not quite sure what the.
A 2
} jurisdictional limits are anymore. But I do agree that the- !
3 procedure that has now been offered into evidence is not 4 before you as an issue for you to decide. l 1 5 So I think it should be admitted'for the limited ) 6 purpose of explaining the testimony. ) l , 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, what scrapes itfoff? 8 I mean, is it you are agreeing'with Mr..Dignan? 9 MR. TURK: I agree with him up to a.certain point. 10 And beyond that, I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. 11 I agree that the only onsite planning issue before 12 you -- the only onsite plan issue before you'is METPAC. 13 I am not quite sure how far.your-jurisdiction
- ! 4 extends to consider testimony as to how the onsite
( 15 organization performed. l 16 As you know, our testimony addresses that in # l 17 considerable detail. And I am just not sure at this. point 1 l 18 what the jurisdictional limit is. 19 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, Mr. Turk said something i 20 that if I said something that misled him or the Board, I~ { l
. 21 apologize.
22 What I said was the only onsite -- there is no 1 . 23 onsite plan issue before you because of jurisdictional- , 24 reasons. And the only onsite exercise issue before-you is ; 25 the one that arises out of METPAC. Heritage Reporting Corporation
/ (202) 628-4888 l \
l l
25046 1 It's not just the plan I'm saying is narrowed to 2 METPAC. .It's the whole onsite exercise. The only issue 3 they have got to litigate before you comes out of this 4 METPAC allegation. ! 5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Well, I think what has 6 confused the Board, at least, is your statement about 7 jurisdictional matters which I think is very much up in the , 8 air. 9 MR. DIGNAN: The jurisdictional statement I'm 10 making is con:!ined to the question of the plan. I am 11 confident, whatever the Appeal Board did -- if somebody 12 filed a late-filed contention on the plan now, it's clear 13 the Appeal Board has said the jurisdiction lies with this 14 Board to decide whether it should be in or out, for example'. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, are you confusing jurisdiction 16 with res judicata? 17 MR. DIGNAN: Fair enough, Your Honor. 18 Exactly. The jurisdictional argument I am making 19 to you is a jurisdictional argument based on the concept of I 20 res judicata. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. . 22 MR. DIGNAN: You are quite correct. 23 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. That the plan has been 24 litigated and has long gone up the chain. 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - L
25047 1 MR. TURK: Let me also indicated, Your Honor, that ( (v )) 2 if Mass AG has the intent of putting a proposed finding 3 before you to say that this particular procedure is 4 inadequate, that's not an issue within the scope of the 5 contention, in any event. l 6 And for that reason I'm opposing the admission of
. 7 this No. 112 for all purposes.
8 Now let me address the other two items which are 9 113 and 114, which --- 10 JUDGE SMITH: Wait, we're not on that. 11 MR. TURK: Leave that off for now? 12 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 13 MR. TURK: That's fine. _ 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay. 112. t (_,, 15 First, a quick point on res judicata. It would be 16 res judicata if the onsite plan, in the particular ways in 17 which we have challenged it, had been litigated and a 18 determination made that the procedures were adequate, just 19 to clarify. That would be res judicata. 20 The fact that the onsite plan could have been 21 litigated at an earlier point and was not would not 22 constitute res judicata. 23 In any event, let me come back to the basic point j 24 which is that Mr. Dignan, and I take it, to an extent, Mr. 25 Turk, want you to believe that the onsite plan is not at Heritage Reporting Corporation , r (202) 628-4888 kN) s
- a
i 25048 j 1 issue in the proceeding. The only thing that's at issue in ) 2 the proceeding is the METPAC dose assessment, dose 3 projection mechanism that in some sense is connected to the 4 onsite plan. I think that's a fair statement of their view. j 5 I would point out, again, the language of the l 6 contention. The contention was admitted and we're bound by I 7 the language of the contention, and this time we'll try to - 8 take full advantage of that. t 9 First, a general point. We are free, in my view, 10 once the exercise was held and it included the exercise of 11 the onsite plan, we were free to file a contention that 1 12 argued that the exercise revealed a fundamental flaw in the 13 onsite plan. I 14 So to that extent, Mr. Dignan simply is wrong if 3 15 he says that the plan could not be litigated before you. i 16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, no, I think he would probably 17 agree with you on that in view of the Appeal Board's remand. l 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right. l l 19 MR. TURK: I'm not sure that I do, Your Honor. 1 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm not sure that Mr. Turk does. 21 MR. DIGNAN: I do, but the flaw, I'm saying, has 22 to arise out of METPAC. That's the only -- j 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's different. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's a different point. 25 JUDGE SMITH: That's different. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l 25049 I 1 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. l ( 2 . MR.'TRAFICONTE: But just laying the logical . 3 framework here, the point is the onsite plan was subject to 4 a contention once it was exercised. And'if there is a. l i 5 contention that says the exercise reveals a fundamental flaw ] i 6 'in the onsite plan and procedures, for example, then that-7 plan is before this Board in this litigation. 8 I just want to lay that out as to at least I think 1
~
9 Mr. Dignan and I agree on that. Mr. Turk, I don't believe 10 agrees with that, j 11 MR. TURK: I can state.my position.very clearly, ') i 12 Your Honor. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let me just finish because I just 14 I want to get -- we are running up against a time limit here. j 15 And I think Mr. Turk thinks there is a 16 jurisdictional issue that might surround that. And I don't 17 think Mr. Dignan and I think there is a jurisdictional issue 18 there. 19 So it really comes down to what the contention 20 that was admitted says. And I would just direct your
. 21 attention to two things.
22 The language of MAG EX-19, the contention 23 statement and Basis A. And then I would ask the' Board to 24 consider a very simple fact that this Contention 19 was 25 filed in addition to MAG Exercise Contention 11. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 V
.)
j 3
25050 1 And, in fact, in Basis A, MAG Exercise 19 ' 2 incorporates by reference the specific allegations and 3 defects in t:2e protective action recommendations that we 4 challenge an MAG EX-11. 5 The point is that we were attempting here to do -- - i 6 it seems to me quite transparent. In MAG Exercise 11, we 7 were challenging the protective action recommendations made 8 by the offsite organization. In MAG Exercise 19, we were 9 challenging the protective action recommendations made by i i 10 the onsite organization, pursuant to the onsite plan. f i 11 JUDGE SMITH: You are going too fast. j i i 12 MR. TRAFICONTE: There is a division of labor ! 13 between our contentions. . 14 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, but I'm not up with you. ' 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let's go back to -- 16 JUDGE SMITH: You have gone beyond faster than I 17 can stay up with you. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right, let's go back to MAG 19 Exercise 11. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I'm looking at it. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Let me look at it a second. - 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right. 24 (Pause.) 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25051' 1 JUDGE SMITH: Thisnis the ORO.offsite [ 2 organization?
\-
3 MR. TRAFICONTE: For Massachusetts.. 4 JUDGE SMITH: And that's'the.way we' looked at it. 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: And we were. challenging the PARS 6 made by them. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.. 8 And then we picked that.up.into Basis A. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: What's happening in'.19 is --~part 10 of the problem here is logically. . We have the'same 11 protective action recommendations. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, right. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: Right.' 14 So in 19, we set out to challenge -the protective ' ( 15 action recommendation, the same ones, but as they, originated 16 pursuant to the onsite plan. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Right. Exactly. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: So instead of repeating all of 1 19 what was set forth in Exercise 11 - 20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, we've been-all through this
, 21 once, this process.
22 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think that's right. 23 JUDGE SMITH:- Yes. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: And I think that -- 25 JUDGE SMITH: So now we have~in Basis A, 19 (A) , we i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ( _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .-- _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ __ _ - _ -______ _ = __- _-__ L
25052 1 have the offsite logic of 11. 2 . MR . TRAFICONTE: Applied to the same PARS -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 4 MR. TRAFICONTE: -- when they were generated at 5 the onsite point of the process. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Right. So far you are right. So 7 far you have said nothing that contradicts Mr. Dignan. . 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: Oh, I think I have. Because if 9 that's the case, then the protective action recommendations 10 made by the onsite staff pursuant to the onsite plan and, 11 for example, the procedures like Exhibit 112, is at issue 12 before the Board. 13 JUDGE SMITH: But Mr. Dignan's point is, be that 14 as it may, you have the first sentence of D, which wraps it' 15 all up, all of the issues -- 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Different issues. 17 JUDGE SMITH: -- flowing from the onsite staff is 18 wrapped up in -- attributed to METPAC. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: We didn't say in D. We went two 20 different ways here. We didn't say in D that all of the 21 defects or inadequacies in the protective action . 22 recommendation decisionmaking in the onsite plan, we didn't 23 say in D that they are all due to METPAC. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, see, that's where the issue 25 is, right here. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25053
/"'N 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: The language just doesn't say i
N'
) -
1 2 that. That's' why we have to -- i 3 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's see if it does. l 4 But so far I think that Mr. Dignan would agree ;
, 5 with everything you said up to right now. !
6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay. l . l 7 JUDGE SMITH: Is that right? 1 1 1 8 MR. DIGNAN: That's right, Your Honor. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: And then Mr. Dignan would say ) I 10 that the critique we're making is all wrapped up in D, and j 11 that's the limit of the critique, in other words.
]
! 12 JUDGE SMITH: Right. i 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: I don't think the language will. l l [ 'N 14 support that. I think we're making two different -- they I l (
~
)
15 are identified as two different bases. ' 16 JUDGE SMITH: That's where we are.right now. 1 17 Let's look at the language. I don't want to control your 18 argument but -- 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's fine. 20 JUDGE SMITH: -- so far after all this, there is 21 nothing in dispute except the language of D. 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, and the language of A to 23 the extent that A and B indicate, in A's case by 24 incorporating the specific complaints we made in EX-11 that 25 we're --
/N Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(+-) (202) 628-4888 L
25054 1 JUDGE SMITH: D, "In all the instances described , 2 above", does that include A? 3 MR. TRAFICONTE: It describes all the protective 4 action recommendations made by the onsite personnel. 5 Yes, it would include the ORO recommendations. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Everything. 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. . 8 JUDGE SMITH: Everything is laid to the feet of 9 METPAC? 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: No. But I don't think the 11 language supports the proposition that we think that 12 everything we're complaining about is due to METPAC. It's 13 just another complaint we're making about the onsite. 14 JUDGE SMITH: In addition. 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: Exactly. 16 The onsite plan and procedures, just like the ! l 17 offsite plan and procedures, don't -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. l 19 So you are saying that all of these things had i 1 20 their own faults. And in addition to that --
];
21 MR. TRAFICONTE: There was METPAC. - 22 JUDGE SMITH: -- they were compounded, overlayed i j 23 with all of METPAC's problems. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: In many cases, NETPAC reinforced I i 25 procedural inadequacies, or procedural defects. That's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ' i
, y P
.j
,1 25055' f-~ l exactly the' point. ,;j
{ .. 2 That it's not as,if.D is, explaining what we:are j 1 3 saying Is wrong. D is something:in addition (that we thinkl ] 4 is. wrong. , 5 l JUDGE SMITH:e ' All 'right, . that's { where you j 6 ' disagree. I think that's part'of the sharp; focus.
'7 MR. .TRAFICONTE: I' think that's ;where we ' disagree.:
8 JUDGE SMITH: ;Yes.- ) i l 9 HR. TRAFICONTE: I mean the language-speaks:for? 10 -itself.
;1 11 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
12 HR. TRAFICONTE: And we'll live by the language.- -{ 13 JUDGE SMITH: -Okay. , _ 14 MR. TURK: Your Honor, this is, as I'see it, the~ l l N l 15 first time the contention has ever been stated to say what 16 Mr. Traficonte says it says. 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, Mr. Turk, I think I said 18 that the language speaks for itself. 19 MR. TURK: Well, let's lay it at the language { l 20 then.
)
21 MR. TRAFICONTE: I am prepared to live with the
, 22 language.
23 It's sitting there. 24 JUDGE SMITH: All right. ) 25 Where else would we find the specificity of the ! r Heritage Reporting Corporation f f
\
(202) 628-4888 i i
t 25056' '! I challenge to the onsite staff's PAR process were it not in; 2 D7 . 3 Where else in this series of' issues would we find ! 1 4 thct, the needed specificity? I 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: The specificity would be in here. l 6 Let's just take A. 7 The specificity of the defective or inadequate . 8 PARS issued by the onsite staff in A, by the statements and , 9 the claims defects that we set forth with regard to the 10 particular PARS that.are contained in EX-11. I l 11 JUDGE SMITH: But that's circular,.because all you i I 12 are doing in 11 is saying they've got the wrong PARS from 13 onsite, I believe. 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, but it's the same -- 15 JUDGE SMITH: Let mo see. Let me see. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay. I 17 JUDGE SMITH: I'm trying to see if I can find in 18 11, carried through to the offsite people a specified reason 19 why the onsite people arrived at the wrong PAR, not that 20 they wer e incorrect after the fact. 21 But I'm looking for a specified reason for what . 22 the onsite people did in arriving at the PAR. l 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, the assertion we're making 24 in 19 is that the incorrect PARS were made during the 25 exercise. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4B88 1 i
y 25057 1 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. Why?- O 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Why? 3 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 4 Not why are you making it, but what are the 1 i
.,- 5 specifics of that --
6 MR. TRAFICONTE: They didn't-maximize dose 7 savings.. In other words, th'e complaint is -- 8 JUDGE SMITH: No. 9 - MR . TRAFICONTE: -- they weren't the right -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: That is why that was the consequence l 11 of the wrong PAR, not the failure of -- l[ mean, that's the 12 consequence of incorrect PARS. 13 But where did you specify how they used incorrect i 14 procedures in arriving at PARS? Where did you specify 15 that? 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: I will take you back to -- 2 17 JUDGE SMITH: You had better come up with it. l 1 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: I will. Look at.page 108,-for ) 19 example. I 20 JUDGE SMITH: 108. ' l . 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm going to have to refer you
. 22 out of the language with regard to A, because we l
-j 23 incorporated the details -- j 24 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. !
1 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. Heritage Reporting' Corporation s. (202) 628-4888 ; I ___._____---_a_-_--
25058 1 JUDGE SMITH: That's what I'm looking at. 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay. Look at the bottom of 108, 3 for example. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: And here we have a specific -- J 6 and I'm rushing through this. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, maybe you had better not. . 8 Maybe we had better road it and come back to it Monday. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: This is an important issue. 10 JUDGE SMITH: I know it is. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think we should. 12 JUDGE SMITH: And I don't want to read all of this 13 too fast. 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right. ; 15 JUDGE SMITH: As I sit here right now, I can't 16 find any other specificity to the PAR process other than the 17 METPAC. And other things you pointed me to are the ) ' l 18 consequences of PAR errors. l 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: I understand what you are saying, 20 Your Honor. 21 I would just for the sake of -- I think we should + 22 take it up -- a 23 JUDGE SMITH: But we'll read it. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: We should take it up on Monday. 25 JUDGE SMITH: I think we should. l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 fL
25059 yN 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: But just for the sake of closure ( -
\
2 today, I'would point you to the last sentence on 108, 3 carrying over to 109. 4 JUDGE SMITH: All right. We'll do that.
, 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: There is a statement --
6 JUDGE SMITH: We'll do it. 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right. 8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, may we go off the record. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want to add your 10 jurisdictional flavor to it? l 11 Because the way I read it so far, we won't need 12 your jurisdictional argument. But in the event that he's 13 persuasive, then we will have to go to your jurisdictional. 14 argument which so far I don't agree with, but I want to hear
'~
35 it. 16 MR. TURK: Well, my concept of the jurisdiction 17 until the Appeal Board's recent decision was that -- j f 18 JUDGE SMITH: Until. 19 MR. TURK: Until. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. That's mine, t oo.
- l 21 (Laughter)
- 22 MR. TURK: But I'm not done yet.
23 MR. DIGNAN: A lot of people had a different view l 24 before Roe v. Wade, too. , 25 JUDGE SMITH: You're going to have a very easy y'~N Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
25060 1 person to convince. 2 . FE . TURK: In a sentence. In a sentence, until 3 that decision came down, I had a clear concept of 4 jurisdiction. That a defect in the onsite plan was to have 5 been submitted before the onsite board. J 6 Now I'm not sure what the Appeal Board is saying. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, what the Appeal Board said, , 8 and this is where I had difficulty. They said even though l 9 jurisdiction was clarified to you whenever it was, January 1 10 or February, even though it wasn't until then, you had 11 jurisdiction at the time you accepted the contention. 12 That's what they said. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: Because the January-February 14 ' notice was itself clarifying. ' 15 JUDGE SMITH: It was clarifying rather than ! 16 bestowing. 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: Bestowing. 18 MR. DIGNAN: That's right. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's the Appeal Board's view. 20 MR. TURK: I surmise -- I surmise that if the Mass l 21 AG had not been an extremist when they filed their motion on . 22 an emergency basis because they were trying to block low-23 power license, we would have had a more careful and reasoned l 24 Appeal Board decision. l l 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, all right. l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
._-____ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ I
i i i 25061 1 MR. TURK: And I'm not sure -- l 2 JUDGE SMITH: But let's'say that -- ( 3 MR. TRAFICONTE:. 'I don't think the Appeal Board i 1 4 was an extremist. 5 JUDGE SMITH: Let's say'you disagree with the s' 6 Appeal Board. I know you disagree with the Appeal Board. 7 MR._ TURK: Right. 8 JUDGE SMITH: There is another aspect of it that i 9 leads to the conclusion that the Appeal Board may have been- < t 10 right nevertheless. 11 And that is, having accepted the contention and. 12 allowed it to go to this day, or until we rejected 13 Applicants' motion, then the Attorney General was-foreclosed l 14 their opportunity in all practice to go to the onsite board ) 15 with their contentions. l \. l 1 16 So all in all, the boards together had to come up 17 with -- I , 18 MR. TURK: The flaw, you see, there is -- ) l ' 1 19 JUDGE SMITH: We' re accepting the Appeal Board. ) 20 MR. TURK: I understand that you are bound by the )
. 21 Appeal Board rule, Your Honor, unless that's set aside by 22 themselves or by the Commission.
s . 23 My problem with that part of the Appeal Board's l l 24 decision is it failed to recognize that jurisdiction rested i 25 with the Commission to accept at this time an onsite issue, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1 _________________________._____a
25062 1 or, alternatively, it was with the onsite exercise board 2 which rejected Mass AG's other exercise contention. 3 But I can't raise that to you because I recognize 4 you are bound by higher authority. l 5 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 6 Are you going up to the Commission? 7 MR. TURK: I don't know, Your Honor. , l 8 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: We're going to have to revisit l 10 the jurisdictional argument here, I'm sure, when we turn to 11 the motion we have for litigation of the next onsite 12 exercise, because the issue is going to be there. 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 14 MR. DIGNAN: That's not a jurisdictional. I mea $ 15 you're getting into law now. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Let's return to jurisdiction if we 17 need to, l 18 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think anything you have told 19 me is going to help. I 20 MR. TURK: I don't think this argument depends on i 21 jurisdiction. I think there are other reasons within the - 22 contention why the offer should be rejected, or at least { J l 23 limited. l 24 JUDGE SMITH: All right, if there's nothing 25 further, we will adjourn until -- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ._ ._. .1 .
'l 1 l L !
l
'l 25063- 'l 1 MR. TURK:. I have one personal request off the
~
l. 2 record. 3 Since we haven't concluded this issue yet, and l l' 4- since I am-the one who has been involved, I imagine I.will S 5 have to fly up for Monday's argument of these' issues. And I 6 would like to askLon a personal basis that we resolve 112, 7 113 and 114 as well as the Perrotti' deposition questions on 8 Monday so that I can stay just the one day and then return. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, that was our intention. We 10 would have done it this morning had it not been for the 11 time. 12 So you are returning just for that purpose? 13 MR. TURK: , I imagine so. - 14 MR. FIERCE: So those motions will be argued first 15 along with the Mitchell motion? 16 MR. DIGNAN: What motions? 17 MS. DOUGHTY: And also the fire fighters motion. 18 MR. DIGNAN: No. If I heard him correctly, he 19 wants to argue the admission into evidence these' exhibit 20 first. 21 MR. FIERCE: Right. . 4 9 22 MR. DIGNAN: And then you are going-to offer the 23 Perrotti deposition or portions thereof? 24 MR. TURK: Yes. I am intending at this point to' 25 offer portions of the Perrotti deposition. ! i Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 l
. _ _ . . . ._.____---_-_.--__.-..-__.a--,--.--_--_---
25064 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you will have to come back 2 Monday f r that anyway. 3 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 4 MR. TURK: That's right.
]
5 And I'm asking that we do that on Monday rather / 6 than later in the week. I 7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I was concerned to save . t 8 a half hour today we're bringing you back up. But that's 9 not the case. l I 10 MR. DIGNAN: It's good for him. i l 31 MR. TURK: It looks that way. l 12 JUDGE SMITH: All right. So we are adjourned 13 until Monday. . 14 (Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was 15 recessed, to resume at 1:00 p.m., 21onday, June 12, 16 1989.) l 17 ! 18 19 20 21 l 22 , 23 l 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 -
June 9, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the D ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos.-50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. )- 50-444-OL-
) Off-site Emergency.
(Seabrook Station, Units'I and 2) ) . Planning Issues-
)
)
APPLICANTS' CROSS-EXAMINATION OUTLINE PIAN OF THE TESTIMONY OF CAROL SNEIDER Ap.plicants, through their cross-examination, intend to-question whether (i) the witness has the expertise necessary to render the opinions contained in her testimony, and (ii) whether the witness is sufficiently able to distinguish her j present role as witness from her longstanding role as an. attorney advocating the denial of Seabrook's application. Applicants will also inquire into the factual accuracy of 1 I
. assertions contained in the testimony.
The cross-examination is intended to proceed as follows:
- 1. Inquiry into Expertise a review witness's resume with her, to determine whether she has ever had any education or training in radiological monitoring.
N.B. If the witness's answers demonstrate that 6he is not qualified as an expert in radiological monitoring, Applicants contemplate moving to strike Question and Answer 7 and 8 (page 5 through 15) of the testimony for lack of expertise.
- 2. Inquiry into Bias J
a) witness's role as legal advocate opposing Seabrook while in Environmental Protection Div. of Mass AG's office. b) witness's role as legal advocate opposing'Seabrook while in Nuclear Safety Unit of AG's office. c) witness's role in drafting contention at issue here. , i d) witness's role in formulating AG's position to { i oppose Seabrook.
- 3. Inquiry into Number of Monitoring Stations Used During i 1
Twenty-Minute Drills at Exercise (testimony pages 3-5, Answers 5 and 6) ! i a) sources, other than personal observation, consulted j by witness in preparing testimony. (possibly ask witness to identify document) b) accuracy / certainty of observations. B i i l 7-~ 4. Validity of Expert Opinions (if found to have requisite ' (- expertise) a) rate for monitoring children, older people (testinony page 6) b) lack of alternatives to Coleman mantle for drill (testimony pages 6-7) c) technical source for observations on relationship between rate and effectiveness (testimony page 10) Respectfully submitted, b Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. George H. Lewald , Kathryn A. Selleck I Jeffrey P. Trout , Jay Bradford Smith l Geoffrey C. Cook William L. Parker Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 1
< l i
l l
; l \g l
l i _ __________:___________________I
l l CERTIFICATE l This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the i g United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in'the matter i of l
)
Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. l (Seabrook Station,. Units 1 and 2) 4 Docket No: 50-443-OL 50-444-OL (Off-site Emergency Planning) 'l Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: June 9, 1989 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear i Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 1 J < thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the ) transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing ! proceedings. I t
/S/ l s
(Signature typed) : Donna L. Cook Official Reporter. Heritage Reporting Corporation . HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION (202)628-4888 L_ - - - - - - - - - - -}}