ML20244D613
| ML20244D613 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8789 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8906190166 | |
| Download: ML20244D613 (749) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__ - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . OZG%A_ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
) Docket.Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRC, et al., ) 50-444-OL
) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING EVIDENTIARY HEARING e
Pages: 25227 through 25526 Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: June 13, 1989 m am m an = = am m me = = = = am mm m mm me = = sm e m a mm mm m m m m m m m as s am m mm m mm mm m 6 \. pl - r /gERITAGE N REPORTING NEW CORPORATION
'{% D[' g8plA 122e L serest, N.W., Sake 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (2 2)s2s.ess f*96190166 890613 k-yDN ADOCK 05000443 PDC ..
25227-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: -)~
) Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY'OF 1) .50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., -) .50-444-OL.'
) .OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK-STATION, UNITS ~1 AND 2) ) PLANNING' EVIDENTIARY HEARING l
l l Tuesday, l June 13, 1989 1 Auditorium Thomas P.3O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Stz;eet
-Boston,' Massachusetts.
( The above-entitled matter'came on-for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m. BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555
]
JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM,. Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555- , JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, MEMBER - Atomic 3afety-and Licensing' Board. ] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 !
- 1. '
l Heritage Reporting ' Corporation ( (202) 628-(688
25228 APPEARANCES: For the Applicant: THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ. GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESQ. KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESO. JAY BRADFORD SMITH, ESQ. JEFFREY P. TROUT, E30, 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. l Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 For the Federal Emergency Manacement Acencv: H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ. LINDA HUBER McPHETERS, ESQ. Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W. 1 Washington, D.C. 20472 j l For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTY. GEN. JOHN C. TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN. j ALLAN R. FIERCE, ASST. ATTY. GEN. I PAMELA TALBOT, ASST. ATTY. GEN. MATTHEW BROCK, ESQ. j LESLIE B. GREER, ESQ. Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 j 1 I i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25229 79 APPEARANCES: (Continued)
- \ i
/
N/ For the State of New Hampshire: i GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ASST. ATTY. GEN. State of New Hampshire 25 Capitol Street 1 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League:
\
ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ. I Backus, Meyer & Solomon i 116 Lowell Street ] P.O. Box 516 l Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 JANE DOUGHTY, Director Seacoast Anti-Pollution League j 5 Market Street l Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 l For the Town of Amesburvi BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE, ESQ. (~~'j Kopelman and Paige, P.C. ( / 77 Franklin Street 4 Boston, Massachusetts l WILLIAM LORD Town Hall Amesbury, Massachusetts 10913 For the City of Haverhill an,d Town of Merrimac: ASHOD N. AMIRIAN, ESQ. P. O. Box 38 Bradford, Massachusetts 01835 For the City of Newburvoort: BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE, ESQ. JANE O' MALLEY, ESQ. f ' i Kopelman and Paige, P.C. ! 77 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 I 1 ( ' ' ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25230 (Continued) APPEARANCES: i 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 Salisbury: j CHARLES P. GRARAM, ESQ. j Murphy and Graham 33 Low Street l Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 { For the Town of West Newburv: l JUDITH H. MIZNER, ESQ. I Second Floor 1 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 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-- 1 y
_25231, 1HDE%
\j WITNESSES: . DIRECT CBQSf REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM Panel: ,.
Joseph Bisson y Anthony M. Callendrello L Robert Cotter-l Peter Littlefield-(Prefiled) 25423-
-by Mr. Trout 25417 by Mr. Fierce 25426-i EXHIBITS: IDENT. REC. REJ. DESCRIPTION: q Mass AG 112 prev. 25331 ER 5.4 & 5.4.A i
-Rev. 08 -I 116 25462 25464 ORO news release .
r t
'i ,s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 25232 1 E P_ E K INSER_T_S: PAGE Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony 25423 No. 17 (Radiological Monitoring Process) ; Resume of Joseph W. Bisson; 25423 I Robert Cotter; Peter S. Littlefield Supplement to Applicants' 25424 Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 (Reception Center Parking) 1 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
I 'i 252339 l .. 1 F_ B Q C E E 2-1-E G E- ;
;2 JUDGE SMITH: ' Good-morning.
3 Is.there any preliminary business?: , ., 4 (Ik): response.); 5
-~
JUDGE SMITH: All~right. 'l L 6 .The first item we.-- oh,'there is?; , l 7 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes, Your; Honor .'. 1 8 MR,! COOK: Just the motion'on.the'SAPL fire 9 fighters, an far:as I know. I 'i-10 MS, DOUGHTY: Right.
.11 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, except'for-that. :That.was- -
12' already scheduled... 13 Nothing except~for that?-
~
14 MR. COOK: 'No, Your' Honor. 15 JUDGE SMITH: All'right. 16 Our understanding.is we.will take up first the 17 fire fighters and then Harris. 18 Well, then, let's proceed with-the motion with
~
19 respect to Captain Daniel Breton and John-Van Galder.. 20 MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor, the' Applicants have 21 filed a motion saying that certain sections of the testimony
.]
1 22 are not material or relevant'to any issue presently before. i
)
23 the Board. The first general area-of concern that they 24 express in their written argument is that certain parts of 25
~
the testimony are beyond the scope of the contention. i, (' Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4883 l
25234 1 Specifically, certain parts of the testimony 2 having to do, first of all, with training. And as to their 3 argument that training is not relevant, I would simply point 4 to the structure of the regulations themselves, in Part 50, 5 Appendix E. 6 Do you have a copy of that available to you? 7 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Four? 9 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes. 10 JUDGE SMITH: E-IV? 11 MS. DOUGHTY: This is Part 50, Appendix E, at 12 Roman Numeral IV, or rather Appendix E which is styled 13 " Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and 3 14 Utilization of Facilities", Subpart IV, Content out of 15 Emergency Plans. 16 A.'d under that, there is a Subpart F. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 18 MS. DOUGHTY: Which is training. 19 Now, the whole requirement for an emergency 20 preparedness exercise falls under the rubric of training. 21 And so we would argue that by the very structure of the 22 regulation and implicit in any contention filed contesting 23 the adequacy of the exercise, you are therefore contesting 24 the adequacy of training. 25 And in certain parts of the language of the Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _. .\
a 1 i 25235 1 regulation,' it says, for example, under Part F, Training, at f- " i 2 No. V it says, "All training, including exercises." j i 3 So very clearly, by the very structure of the , regulations, exercises are considered a part of training and 4 5 an evaluation of training, and they.are inseparable as far 6 as we are concerned. . And a challenge to the ability to l 7 bring up training and exercise contentions is, we believe, 8 an attack on the structure of the regulations. 9 JUDGE SMITH: But aren't you reversing the 10 concept? 11 As'I understand, the logic of Subsection F, 12 Training, which includes exercises, is that the exercise. 13 itself is a form of training as compared'to the way you.are 14 using it; and that is, you have to'be pretrained for the j 15 exercise. 16 MS. DOUGHTY: I think it's a form of an evaluation , 17 of the training.as well. Not just a training in and of 18 itself, but it's an evaluation of prior training. l 19 JUDGE SMITH: I see. 20 MS. DOUGHTY: And so, therefore, carrying.out an 21 exercise is to evaluate the adequacy of the prior training 22 that's gone on and to, additionally,. provide some further' ) 23 training. I i 24 JUDGE SMITH: Do you think that there is no 25 provision in there for the exercise offskills which require. i Beritage Reporting Corporation
'- (202) 628-4888 i
1 1 I
25236 1 no specialized training? 2 MS. DOUGHTY: No, I wouldn't go so far as to argue 3 that. I think that that's probably part of it, too. But. 4 arguing that we have not raised the issue of training when 5 we challenged the exercise, I just think is not appropriate. 6 JUDGE SMITH: So in general, you say that, to the 7 extent that exercises fall under training and exercises are 8 a form of training and also exercise training -- 9 MS. DOUGHTY: Evaluate. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Evaluate training. 71 MS. DOUGHTY: Right. 12 JUDGE SMITH: By implication then, any exercise 13 contention sort of raises the training issue. 1 14 MS. DOUGHTY: Raise the issue of training. 15 And furthermore, in our contention, we pointed out l I 16 some problems. And though we didn't use the magic word ) 17 " training", we pointed to things like confusion and the fact 18 chat people didn't know what they were doing. And because 19 of the way the regulations are structured, we thought it 20 would be understood that that was challenging the adequacy 21 of training. 22 But I think it's pretty clear that we were i 23 contesting the knowledgeability and organizational 24 capabilities of the people that were at the reception center 25 to carry out their functions. And it probably wasn't all Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
- 25237 )
1 due just to lack of training, but that was certainly part of' f
-( -
'L 2 the problem. ,1 3 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Doughty,yisn't'it true, howev9r, i 4 that some Intervenor contentions, when'they. allege that ;
5 problems.seen on the day of'the exercise are so pervasive 6 that they just don't represent situations that happen'to: l l 7 occur on' exercise day but that they reflect.an underlying. . 1 8 failure in training, I've seen that alleged'several times in 9 the various contentions. l 10 It seems to me that that-is an allegation that 11 could readily have been made if'that~is the thrust of the 12 contention. 13 MS. DOUGHTY:- .I guess this may be inartful' 14 drafting not having -- 15 JUDGE SMITH: See, there are several. things that 16 could cause confusion on an exercise day. 'And:that is, they 17 follow the plan. They are well trained, but they followed 18 the plan and the plan is bad. 19 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Or the plan is good, but they 21 weren't training to the plan. Or there.could be just a 22 series of unlucky events, or whatever. 23 And we have looked at the contention, and 24 sometimes we have read into it. If multiple failures have 25 occurred, on one or two occasions we have inferred that the Heritage Reporting Corporation l- (202) 628-4888 i
.~
I 25238 1 allegation is lack of training. Training being the common 2 cause. But it's either been specifically asserted or 3 inferred by the Board. In this instance, neither of those i ! 4 situations occurred. 5 And I don't know if your argument that all of the 6 activities that occur during an. exercise require training, 7 and the exercise is an evaluation of the training holds 8 water. I don't know that it's true that all, all activities 9 by all persons requires pretraining in the sense that you 10 are using training here, in the formal sense that the fire 11 fighters are using it. I 12 Let's see what Mr. Cook has to say. 13 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I have some additional 14 arguments, s
^
15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. l 16 MR. FIERCE: This is a contention-that Mass AG is 17 also interested in and perhaps we would like to get all the l 18 arguments on our side out first, and then have Mr. Cook l 19 respond. ] i 20 I think, first of all, Your Honor, with respect to 21 the training items, there are four sections, and really one 1 22 needs to go through them one by one because I think there 23 are some that are lumped in here that really don't belong. 24 I would like to do that, but before I do that, but 25 before I do that the other general point I want to make is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25239 1 that in this piece of' testimony particularly, and obviously 2 in other pieces, we'are rebutting _ FEMA as well. .And-the 3 FEMA statement that we are rebutting is actually quoted in I
.4 the-testimony itself.
g5 Land I had it here just a second ago. 6 It's on page 7 of their testimony. . And with' 7 respect to this particular~ facility, which is obviously the 8~ topic of this; contention,.the Salem facility, FEMA found -- 9- and.I'm reading from page 7-of the testimony -- but.it's-10 citing to Paragraph'5 on page,184 of the final FEMA exercise. 11 report. 12 And it says, "The Salem facility was-activated in 13 a timely and effective. manner.< The assigned personnel 14 performed as a team and demonstrated their knowledge of 15 emergency plan procedures for the necessary stations to be 16 established throughout the facility. All necessary 17 equipment and supplies were available and adequately 18 demonstrated by the staff. The staff was knowledgeable in 19 the procedures to establish and operate each function of-the 20 facility." 21 Every time they use the word " knowledge" here, 22 Your Ilonor, this piece of testimony is rebutting that by 23 showing they didn't haveLthe knowledge..L They'didn't i 24 demonstrate that they had the' knowledge as it was exhibited: 25 by the confusion and what not. g Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
25240 1 And in addition, the testimony points out at least 2 some of the people were not trained. 3 So in that sense, Your Honor, this is a perfectly 4 acceptable response to the FEMA generalized statements that 5 people were knowledgeable. Specific people are identified 1 6 here as not having training and not being knowledgeable. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Are you aware of whether the Board 8 has made rulings on arguments of that nature before? 9 MR. FIERCE: Rebutting FEMA's generalized ! 10 statements? 1 f 11 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. l 12 MR. FIERCE: With specific references to -- 13 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 14 MR. FIERCE: It seems to me, Your Honor, that 15 that's the kind of rebuttal that is permitted. 16' JUDGE SMITH: But that's not my question. 17 Are you aware of Board rulings on that type of 18 argument? 19 MR. FIERCE: Type of argument? 1 20 I'm losing you, Your Honor. I'm sorry. 21 JUDGE SMITH: I guess the answer is -- 22 MR. FIERCE: Type of argument or with that 23 argument? 24 JUDGE SMITH: The answer that this particular 25 piece of testimony rebuts a FEMA finding as its own l Heritage Reporting corporation (202) 628-4888 lk
25241 1 justification for that piece of testimony in addition to it 2 being within the scope of a contention. 3 MR. FIERCE: That's right. , 4 JUDGE SMITH: Have we ruled on that before? 5 MR. FIERCE: If it's outside the scope -- 6 JUDGE SMITH: Have we -- 7 MR. FIERCE: You have ruled on the issue if it's 3 8 outside the scope of a contention. 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 10 MR. FIERCE: This, I believe, overlaps. This l , 11 clearly overlaps. 12 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 13 To the extent that you are asking us to accept a 14 rebuttal to FEMA's finding bevond the scope of a contention, 15 have we ruled on that before? 16 MR. FIERCE: Here's the logic, Your Honor. 17 A contention says -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right. If you are not able to 19 answer me, say so and then we will go on. 20 MR. FIERCE: Oh, yes. If it's outside the scope 21 of a contention, you have ruled on that clearly many times. 22 But let me show you how I believe this -- , 23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 24 What was our ruling? 9 25 MR. FIERCE: That that's not going to carry the ' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( i 25242 ; f 1 day, that argument. l 2 JUDGE SMITH: Right. Even though it rebuts a 3 specific FEMA finding. , ) i 4 MR. FIERCE: Here is the sequence of events. l 5 JUDGE SMITH: Well, is that right? i 6 Even though it_ rebuts a specific FEMA finding, 7 which is in evidence -- 1 8 MR. FIERCE: FEMA has found -- made' findings as ] 9 it -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: I want to follow all the way to the i 1 , ' l 11 end your understanding of the rulings of this case. l 12 Now, would you explain to me your understanding of 13 our rulings?
, 14 MR. FIERCE: I understand that FEMA has --
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, would you explain it to me, l 16 your understanding? j 17 MR. FIERCE: I understand that FEMA has made l 18 rulings on every criteria in NUREG-0654, the supplement. l 1 19 Everyone of those criteria are obviously not being 20 challenged here. 21 So to the extent that they have made findings on l 22 things that are not being challenged, they are not going to 23 be relevant. 24 But let me tell you why this one is relevant. 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right, now, that's your (202) 628-4888 '
^
25243 1 understanding of our ruling? 9 2 MR. FIERCE: That's my understanding of it, Your 3 Honor. , 4 JUDGE SMITH: I'm going to explain our ruling to e 5 you again and I hope that you might remember it. 6 That even though FEMA may have made specific 7 findings, unless the rebuttal to the finding is raised by a-8 contention, it may not be made. 9 MR. FIERCE: I think I'm saying the same thing, 10 maybe in different words. 11 JUDGE SMITH: No, you haven't, not yet. You 12 haven't said that yet. 13 MR. FIERCE: Let me tell you how the sequence of 14 events is likely to proceed here, Your Honor. 15 A contention alleging confusion, lack of 16 knowledge, poor performance in the Salem facility has been 17 admitted. The contention is in. Whatever it is that the 18 Interveners propose as a finding, the Applicants propose as 19 a finding, Your Honor, that FEMA has found that the people 20 in that facility performed well and that the proof is in the 21 pudding that they had been adequately prepared, that they 22 had knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. 23 Now, if Your Honor wants to rule that a finding 24 like that is out of bounds here, then perhaps we are in a 25 different situation. But I believe that kind of a finding 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 25244 1 would be relevant to this contention, and I also believe 2 this testimony is relevant -- G); 3 JUDGE SMITH: If it's relevant to the contention, 1 4 you don't have to go through the process of rebutting FEMA. j i 5 All you have to do is say that the testimony is within the 6 scope of the contention. That's where you have taken me off 7 on an angle. 1 i 8 So you do understand the ruling that a rebuttal to ) 9 a FEMA finding must also be within the scope of a i 10 contention. l l 11 Do you understand me? 12 Now whether you agree with that, you understand l 13 that we have ruled that? l l 14 MR. FIERCE: I understand that you have ruled 15 that. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. l 17 MR. FIERCE: I also would just want to state my l 18 position for the record, Your Honor. 19 I believe that a defense can be raised in an area 20 that is not mentioned by a contention. l 21 JUDGE SMITH: I know. All right. 22 MR. FIERCE: And that testimony -- 23 JUDGE SMITH: I know you have. Go ahead. 24 We've made the ruling many times. You have made 25 your position known many times. I want to get on with the i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25245-1 argument. t
-N 2 ' MR . FIERCE:' Okay.
3- It's just that testimony can"also, rebut defenseg_ 4 JUDGE SMITH: .Right. 5 MR. FIERCE: Even though~it's not mentioned byfthe L l-6 scope of the' contention. l- 7. But this is clearly lwithin.theLacope:of the 8 ' contention. W14en.there isfan allegation.of confusion-,- 9- you're talking about, disorder, bewilderment, perplexity. 10 The people didn't know what they'were doing. The testimony 11 explains that. . 12 Now let me just point out=the.first of these items 13 on page 4, Question 10. That's'a statement about mutual aid
/' 14 fire fighters. That's a factual-statement. They were not' 15 trained. Not everybody. The mutual aid fire fighters:were 16 not trained.
17 On page 5, Question 14, again this is'not a 18 challenge to the lack of training. This: says training 19 occurred two days beforehand. The. fact;that. training 20 occurred two days beforehand, Your Honor ,~ is'very telling 21 with respect to the amount of confusion that existed on the 22 day of the exercise. That sentence shouldn't be stricken, 23 that paragraph. 24 Now pages 6 and 17, Question 19, say training is 25 not often enough. I suppose that's a' direct challenge to l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
25246 1 the training that's provided. That's a statement clearly 2 that the training was not adequate because it wasn't 3 provided often enough. That's the one, it seems to me, that 4 might be on point with respect to the challenge that's being 5 made here. 6 And page 7, Question 20, that's not a training 7 statement at all. That says most fire fighters have no 8 background in this particular area that they are being 9 called upon for during this exercise and would be called on 10 for during a real emergency. l 11 That is not a training statement. That says they i 12 have no background. 13 JUDGE SMITH: What does it say? 14 Read it again. i 15 1 16-i 17 ! 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 t 25 l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~______
l
'l 25247 1 1
l'
- 1 JUDGE SMITH: I think you are mistaken.
2 (Pause to read document.) 3 'MR. FIERCE: Well, the question says: "Most of 4 'the fire fighters have not had any other training background 5 in this areas." 6 Answer: "No, they haven't. Some people have come-7 to me and expressed that they do not understand or.they're 8 not sure what they are doing." 9 That sentence clearly doesn't have anything -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: You made a flat-out' mistake. 11 Normally you would admit, well, I. misread it, you know, 12 normally. But this just doesn't.seem to be a part of your 13 makeup that you would concede a mistake. 14 Did you make a mistake? O\ 15 MR. FIERCE: I'm saying the word." training" is 16 there, Your Honor. Can I explain to you what I meant. 17 Training background, what does that mean? 18 Training background, to me -- 19 JUDGE SMITH: So you're going to try to save the 20 previous statement, right? l 21 MR. FIERCE: I am going to try to save the-22 previous statement. I think you're. jumping on the word 'l 23 " training background" as two separate words. J 24 Training background: do fire fighters _have a ! 1 25 background in the area of monitoring and decontamination? ! p~~ i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation
\ (202) 628-4888 1
. . _ _ . _ _ __.__..____________2__m
l i I 25248 1 No, they don't. It is not something that comes 2 with the job of being a fire fighter in Salem. It is really f 3 a statement about background. , 4 So, Your Honor, I think the only one that's really 5 relevant here, these are statements of fact. The one that-6 challenges training is the third one, number C, that . 7 training isn't often enough. The rest are just factual l 8 statements that go to the issue of the confusion, that go to j 9 the issue of performance during the exercise. 10 There is training and there is background, as ) 1 11 we're going to get into in the Harris motion. And FEMA is 12 going to be up there with their statements that the people 13 were knowledgeable. That's the defense that the Applicants ;I I 14 are likely to be relying on. And we have an opportunity, we 15 believe, to rebut the defense as well. 16 (The Board Confers.) 17 MR. i'OCX : .four Honor, I would like to address the 18 Board, if I may. I 19 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 20 MR. COOK: In response to the arguments of. counsel 21 for SAPL I would like to point out that even if the issue is 22 discussed in the regulations as it is, that it must also be 23 raised in the contention that it cannot be, as she used the 24 word, implicitly read into the contentions. 25 Yes, an exercise is an evaluation. But as far as Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a____ _
r 25249: je 1 litigation of the ' results ' of that' evaluation, thatiscope of t 2 the litigation should be controlled by:the contention. 3 As'far as the discussion of personnel.and' reading 4 in the issue of training through' implication of the text of. 5 SAPL EX-12, tho word " personnel":is associated'with-the' 6 . problem of numbers. 7 In the first paragraph-of the basis " personnel" is 8 preceded by the allegation that.there were too few: 9 personnel. 10 " Personnel" in-theEnext' sentence is followed'by 11 the. allegation that, again, there were.too few personnel 12 because fire personnel were called away.. 13 It is not the training and the preparation of the 14 personnel; it is the number of the personnel-that is. raised. 15 With respect to Mr. Fierce I have~two points.. 16 First of all, I am not moving to strike question-22,.the 17 question from which he quotes which' involves-the FEMA 18 finding. 19 The second point is, as the-Court has noted, a 20 rebuttal for the FEMA finding must be within'the scope of 21 the contention because the FEMA finding has no. efficacy 22 without being addressed to.that contention. 23 On the argument that Mr. Fierce has made 24 concerning generalized confusion there- are several . factors 25 that confusion could result from. It could result from l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888-
- - - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ m
'I
25250 1 problems concerning procedures, facilities, equipment, and 2 the number of personnel. Factors which are alleged in the 3 contention. , 4 Once again, the argument is one of implication. 5 And in response the Applicants want to emphasize the value 6 of defining the scope of the litigation in advance: the 7 fairness in terms of the timing, and the fairness in terms 8 of the order for the parties and for the judicial Board 9 deciding the issue. 10 And with regard to Mr. Fierce's reference to 11 particular contentions -- particular questions in the 12 testimony I would like to point out that in the four 13 questions the Applicants highlight it is the question that
- 14 raises the issue of training. And the response is defined 15 in terms of the amount of training.
16 JUDGE SMITH: We see that those are clearly 17 training questions and answers. 18 MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor, I also wanted to point 19 out that the Applicants filed no discovery, formal or 20 otherwise, on SAPL to try to figure out what it was we were 21 alleging. And we did in our trial brief apprise them of the 22 fact that we were going to be raising concerns about 23 trak ag insufficiencies and difficulties encountered in 24 following procedures as demonstrated by the exercise. 25 So it wasn't like we were trying to hide anything. Heritage Reportiug Corporation (202) 628-4888
25251 1 And we thought we had made the point clear enough. It'is 2 very difficult to -- in fact, to be quite frank with you, we 3 didn't really -- the day of the exercise we had observers, 4 out there and they observed that there was confusion and 5 things of that nature going on. But it was hard for us to 6 figure out what the cause of that was until we actually 7 conferred with the participants in the exercise. 8 So we were alleging that the observable results of 9 the problem, that there became a point at which we actually l 10 discovered what the source of the problem was. And we made 11 no effort to keep that from the Applicants. 12 And had they sought discovery we would certainly 13 have apprised them of what our concerns are. 14 JUDGE SMITH: Does Staff wish to be heard? 15 MS. CHAN: No, Your Honor, I think Mr. Cook has 16 covered the field. 17 (The Board confers.) 18 JUDGE SMITH: With respect to the training 19 questions and answers, the objection is sustained. The fair 20 reading of the SAPL EX-12 does not permit the inference that 21 inadequate training is alleged. 22 Indeed, as a part of the Board's order accepting 23 the contention which throws some light as to our 24 understanding of the contention -- which wasn't picked up in 25 the recapitulation of contentions -- on page 61 of our Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25252 1 memorandum and order of December 15th, on_ ruling on the 2 general exercise contentions, we did, as alleged, deny the 3 scope aspects of the contention pointing out that there was 4 a very good representation of the center. 5 But as to the information aspects of SAPL Exercise 6 Contention 12 we stated that: "SAPL argues that the flaws 7 in the execution of the plan were so pervasive and extreme 8 that a redraft of the respective plans for specificity and 9 clarity is needed." l 10 It was based upon that clarification and comment 1 11 that we found that a fundamental flaw is being alleged. And 12 there was no allegation that the flaws were attributable to 13 training; it was specificity and clarity in the plan that 14 was used to save it under ALAB-903. 15 So for two reasons: one is the expressed 16 description of the contention by SAPL in its comments; and 17 the language of the contention itself. Two independent 18 reasons we grant the motion with respect to training. i 19 Now what's the next argument? 20 MS. DOUGHTY: The next argument, Your Honor, had l 21 to do with numbers and scope. The next particular complaint l , l 22 the Applicants have is with question 12 and ita answer, 1 23 which is on page 4. i 24
~
l The Applicants argue that it's irrelevant that the 25 fire fighters have an understanding of how many people are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
p 25253 g i e?q'ected to arrive at the reception center.s. ( 2 I would just simply say that it is not irrelevant. 3 Indeed, in prior findings of this Board in the New Hampshire 4 partial initial decision you, I believe, supported the idea 5 that an emergency worker's understanding of their role is.an 6 impcctant part of planning. 7 And we believe that this is a part of their 8 knowledge base and understanding of what they are expected 9 to do, that they ought to have. And that they're just 10 stating that this is their understanding. And-they're, I
- 11. obviously, unclear as to what it is they're expected to do 12 in a real emergency.
13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, but doesn't the testimony go on 14 to suggest that those numbers would be more than they could ( '
' 15 handle as compared to being prepared to handle them?
16 That's the way I would read it. 17 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, I do believe that the fire - 18 fichters do support -- 19 JUDGE SMITH: Take 12 and 13 together. ; 20 MS. DOUG11TY: Yes. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Isn't that the story that they're 22 given? 23 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, certainly they are alleging ( l l 24 personnel insufficiencies as well. And those are matters- , 25 that are linked. i Heritage Reporting Corporation. C (202) 628-4888
'l I
l 25254 1 But apart from that I think this just demonstrates l 2 a basic lack of understanding of what it even is that 3 they're supposed to do. I think that was the point -- thqt 4 was my understanding listening to these gentlemen make these 5 statements. I understood them as saying, we don't really ) 1 6 have a clear understanding of what we're even expecting. ;
)
7 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. ] 1 8 Was this demonstrated, their lack of understanding. { 9 demonstrated at the exercise? i 10 or is this a direct attack upon the plan? 11 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, I believe -- I'm afraid I'm 12 not quite clear on the point that I'm supposed to be making. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, this testimony is being 14 offered in support of SAPL contention EX-12. And it was i 15 accepted with the understanding that flaws, as you called l 16 them on the day of the exercise, are attributable to lack of 17 clarity and specificity of the plan. 18 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes. 19 JUDGE SMITH: I don't see how this fits into that. 20 Moreover, it seems to me that this question and answer on 12 21 and 13 go straight to the plan and not to any exercise flaws 22 revealing deficiencies in the plan. I don't know, that's 23 just what we would like for you to clarify. 24 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, again, at the time when this 25 testimony was drafted I must confess that we still thought Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i i 25255~
'l f-~ 1 training was something that we were alleging, too. And this.
s- 2 is a part of their knowledge base in prior training to carry l 3 out what they were expected to do on the day of the , 4 exercise. ) 5 So in a way it's -- Mr.' Fierce might-have l 6 something to add. ) 1 7 MR. FIERCE: No , I think -- they're.not 8 challenging the 20 percent role here, which;I think is i 9 suggested by the motion. . 1 l 10 MS. DOUGHTY: No, that was not, j J 11 MR. FIERCE: This is a' demonstration by this 12 witness' answer that there is a lack of personnel
]
1 13 preparedness for the Salem facility. And that particular j ("'} 14 person doesn't have a knowledge base that would be a 15 knowledge base that a capable performer in-that position 16 would have. 17 So to the extent that this is a contention 18 challenging the personnel preparedness in that facility, l l 19 this seems to be a very relevant fact. 20 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 21 Are you asking that we read this -- if we read 12 I 1 and 13 together wa have to come to the conclusion that it is ' 23 challenging their capacity to handle numbers of that amount. t 24 If we read 12 separately we could come to the 25 conclusion that either -- without being sure -- vither l Heritage- Reporting Corporation (s (202) 628-4888 - = - - _ _ _ _ _ - _
25256 1 they're complaining about training to the plan or that the 2 plan is so specific and unclear that they don' t know. 3 If it's the latter, then I would be inclined to, 4 agree that the motion should be denied. 5 All of this is assuming that they're not 6 challenging capacities as such. 7 Let hear what Mr. Cook has to say. 8 9 10 e I 11 12 l 13
- e 16 l 17 l
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l i
1 l
.25257
1 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I'would agree'that it is 2 not relevant in the general. scope of the entire proceeding q 3 that the firemen know how many people'are going to be, ,.
4 arriving at the reception center. That's common sense. 5 But it'is' relevant,to this contention because it 6 is an exercise contention, because the' exercise tests a-7 capacity to perform a task within'a defined limited scope. 8 And it is an attack on the plan, not an attack on the 9 exercise that this comment is' raising, 10 JUDGE SMITH: All right, an attack.up,1on the plan 1 1 11 directly, not revealed by the exercise. , l f 12 MR. COOK: That's correct. j 13 The confusion is not-related or tied to;any of the
/ 14 following questions and answers to the issue of~ potential i i l 15 capacity which this question raises, potential capacity as )
l 16 tied to the plan. 17 JUDGE SMITH: You didn't make that argument-ilt 18 your written brief. You just picked that up this~ morning, .s 5 19 is that fair to say? 20 That's all right. j l l 21 MR. COOK: No, I would definitely agree that I 22 made it more clear, and I will concede that it is not 23 expressed. 24 The only thina that -- 1 25 JUDGE SMITH: You are saying you are going to-
-s g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25258 1 abide by a high standard of clarity even if it applies to 2 yourself in the spirit of your -- l 3 MR. COOK: I will concede that that statement was 4 not made. But in my own preparation for this argument, the ; i 5 statement, as these motions in limine have been designed to 6 be short, that is contained in the last sentence of the 7 first paragraph on page 3, the issue of how large a number ) 8 of people might appear. The "might appear" is the potential ) l 9 capacity in relation to the plan, the distinction between ] i 10 the exercise. 11 (P ause . ) 12 JUDGE SMITH: You are saying, in an exercise set-13 up, sort of a sampling to demonstrate monitoring, the number i 14 of people who might appear over the sample is irrelevant. ; I 15 Is that -- 16- MR. COOK: Who might appear in an actual i 17 emergency. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Is irrelevant, i 19 MR. COOK: Right. Because the scope of the 20 exercise has been defined by the parties, the federal 21 agencies controlling the exercise, and there is a 22 distinction between a set definition and scope. There are l 23 really two arguments here. 24 One is, the distinction in scope between the l 25 exercise and an actual radiological emergency. And the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25259 1 second argument is the corresponding distinction between the \
's 2 exercise.and an issue of' plan' capacity. ,
3 JUDGE SMITH:' Do you want'to respond?~
- 4. MS. DOUGHTY: . ,Well, Your Honor, we may.need to get' 5 a ruling on'the next part'to.actually. reach lthe dispositive 6 answer on this one.
7 The'next L issue 1has to do with Question-24;where s 8 the scope of the exercise is. discussed. And'veryLclearly. 9 the Applicants have pointed out that the' Board ruled that we 10 couldn't challenge scope. 11 Now, I looked at the Board's ruling. And in'your 12 ruling you said that we could not raise the issue of scope 13 in regard to should they.have opened and tested more-14 reception centers. But I guess we're going to need to' seek 15 clarification on your ruling as to whether we could 16 challenge the scope of what went on in one of the reception. 17 centers-that were actually exercised, because that would 18 deal with -- 19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 20 MS. DOUGHTY: .Get back to the question of whe t.er 21' the sample size they used relative to the whole:is-22 sufficient. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we admitted the contention. 24 And if ycu will recall, SAPL was given the opportunity to, 25 not as it has been thought by some of the parties arguing (
- Heritage Reporting Corporation s (202) 628-4888.
1
25260 1 here, amend the contention, but to amend the contention 2 pleading. 3 You were permitted to amend the contention , 4 pleading to say just what aspects under ALAB-903 you believe 5 that the contention fits. And we even permitted inferences 6 and implications. 7 But at no cime did you say nor did wa read that 8 the scope of the monitoring within the sampling of 9 monitoring was inadequate. I just don't think that you 10 alleged that. At least, we didn't find that as a basis. 11 MS. DCUGHTY: No. Basically what we were trying 12 to say -- J 13 JUDGE SMITH: I think it's late now to do that. 14 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes. And again, to be quite candid 15 with you, the reason we put this question and answer in here 16 was that it was just very clear that they'didn't understand 17 what they were expected to do in a real emergency. And it 18 was a mauter of training and prior information. That was 19 the intent of the answer in No. 12. I'll be quite frank 20 with you, that's what it was. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I appreciate that. 22 (The Board confers.) 23 JUDGE SMITH: We agree with the arguments by Mr. 24 Cook that Questions 12 and 13 and their answers should be 25 excluded because they are beyond the scope of the admitted I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
R
- i '
25261 f-sg 1 contentions..
\s- - 2 MR. COOK: 'Is that 12 and 24,'Your Honor?
3 JUDGE SMITH: . Twelve and 24, because they'are , 4 beyond the scope of'the contentions'in that'the. contentions 1 5 did not fairly allege a flaw.in.the scopelof the exercise.- 1 6 I n ' a dd' i t i o n ,' Question and Answer.12'is an 3 7 allegation not related to flaws revealed by the: exercise, i 8 but an allegation of other' deficiencies.. ]
~
9 So for those reasons, Question and Answers 12 and 10 Question and Answer 24 will not.be received. I 11 Now we go to the human behavior aspects. 12 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes, Your Honor.- 13 The first.has to do with Question No. 8 which is (g 14 on page 3. 15 Now, we feel that this raises a situation and an 16 issue that is different from.what has been lit'igated before 17 that. This is a situation in which certain local officials 18 have agreed with and told other local ~ officials that they 19 are not responsible for participating in-training exercises 20 and operations after the 28th of June. 21 So this-raises a novel issue of whether local 22 officials, who have been told by other local officials, or 23 have had it agreed with other local officials that they 24 aren't even responsible for this function any longer, could 25 be counted on to respond. I 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation
\s - (202) 628-4888 3
i l l 1 i
.I
_ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ________U
25262 1 And also, the Applicants' behavioral expert in the 2 New Hampshire side of the case did point out the importance 3 of the responders understanding that they have a role and, 4 having a clear understanding of what that role was. 5 JUDGE SMITH: I'm not going to call upon you 6 unless you ask to be heard, Mr. Fierce. 7 Mr. Cook. 8 MR. COOK: With regard, as I understand it, just 9 to Question 8, I have two points that I would like to i' 10 emphasize. And that is, first of all, that the question 11 asks and seeks a response as to whether they would respond. 12 Now the answer does not answer the question. The 13 answer is instead qualified by presenting evidence of a 14 labor or contractual dispute that is designed to suggest or 15 imply that there will be no response, or that there will be ' 16 difficulties with the response. 17 So the question raises the general issue of the 18 response of local officials, which Applicants believe is 19 covered by the preliminary. initial decision and by the 20 Commission's rule. 21 And the second point is that response has been 22 treated by the Board independently of whether individuals 23 would be on duty or off duty. I am particularly thinking of 24 the section in the PID where the Board dealt with Chief 25 Christie in the New Hampshire hearings, and said that this Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25263 g 1 testimony was not consistent because he would serve when his t
'ss. . .2 family was known to be safe. That is,.when.he was on; duty, 3 but he would.not serve,-- or he would serve if he were ,
4 already working without regard to his family's safety,'but 5 he would not serve'if his family was known'to be. safe. 6 'So the distinction that this answer-raises by 7 developing a contractualfdifficulty should not be relevant 8 to the issue-of response,'because the Board:has already 9 treated the issue of response as one that is inherently. 10 related to local officials -- and the Commission has -- 11 local officials and their duties to function by way of 12 protecting life in the event of an emergency. 13 MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor, there.is another i N 14 distinction I would just like to point out.
'- 15 In the New Hampshire litigation the people were 16 alleging -- the towns that were dealt with were alleging l
17 that they weren't going to respond on duty or off duty.- i 18 Everybody was not going to respond. 1 19 These officials are saying that by agreement with ' 20 other officials in the town, it's only the on-duty people , 21 that are expected to perform, and this is a different issue 22 in that it involves agreements as to the emergency role 23 responsibilities between officials within a participating 1 24 municipality. ' 25 JUDGE-SMITH: How was this' question and answer i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25264 1 related to the contention anyway? 2 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, it went to the prior question. 3 JUDGE SMITH: How does it show a fundamental' flaw. 4 in the plan? 5 MS. DOUGHTY: It shows a fundamental flaw 6 because -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: No, exercised; revealed by the , l 8 exercise. 9 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, back on Question 7, it went 10 back to the question on 7 about -- 11 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, I se 3. 12 MS. DOUGHTY: -- how many actually participated in 13 the exercise. And it was only the on-duty people that even 14 showed up. And the plan assumes that everybody is showing i 15 up whether they are on or off duty. 16 JUDGE SMITH: So you say the exercise revealed 17 that no off-duty fire fighters responded. 18 I see. 19 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes. The plan didn't account for 20 this understanding within the town of the roles of the 21 officials. 22 JUDGE SMITH: I got you. 23 MS. DOUGHTY: The plan took no accounting of the 24 in-town situation. 25 JUDGE SMITH: I understand. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I l
- _ _ _ _ i
25265 7 1 (The Board confers.)
's -
2 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want to be heard? 3 MR. COOK: The only thing that I would point out 4 as a response is that, as Your Honor has just pointed out, 5 that assertion is not raised by the contention. And I do 6 concede that that's a new argument. 7 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, the issue of personnel 8 problems was raised, and again, we didn't get to the actual 9 specification of what caused the personnel problems until 10 the exercise was more thoroughly analyzed. And no one asked 11 us any questions for further specification of what was in 12 the contention. We certainly alleged personnel problems. 13 MR. COOK: Well, there were two things specified 14 in the contentions. There was the problem specified of fire
\(N]
15 personnel being called away; anc there was the general 16 adequacy of the number of fire fighters. 17 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes, that's it. 18 MR. COOK: And like the student who feels at a 19 loss to read the graduate student's intention when he is 20 submitting a paper, the parties should not be forced to read 21 into contentions that do not specify what the problems are. 22 JUDGE SMITH: When we ruled out the scope aspects 23 of the contention wouldn't we have ruled out any implicit 24 requirement that there would be an all out response by all l 25 of the Salem fire fighters?
/~'s'
! Heritage Reporting Corporation l
\
(202) 628-4888 1
25266 1 Would there be an exercise requirement that the 2 whole town's fire fighting corp turn out? , 3 As a matter of fact -- , 4 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, Your Honor, the exercise is 5 suppose to provide a test of the major observable portions 6 of the offsite emergency response plan and the ability -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: And you think they have to exercise l 8 the response -- 9 MS. DOUGHTY: -- to mobilize -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: Do you think the exercise has to 11 specifically exercise the response of the off-duty fire 12 fighters? ! 13 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, Footnote 4 on page -- I have 14 the purple copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, it's 15 page 559. In Footnote 4 it says: " Full participation 16 includes testing the major observable portions of the onsite l l 17 and offsite emergency response plans, mobilization of state, I 18 local and licensee personnel and other resources in 19 sufficient numbers to verify the capubility to respond to I 20 the accident scenario." i 21 JUDGE SMITH: And you're saying 15 is not enough? 22 MS. DOUGHTY: Right. l 23 They would say that 15 is not enough. They l 24 couldn't mobilize enough people to verify that they could 25 respond to a real accident scenario; that's what the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25267.
.- 1 exercise is supposed to verify. /
k 2 -JUDGE SMITH: And 15 is not.enough, but in j 3 particular the shortage is laid to the feet'of the off-duty l 4 fire fighters. 5 How many do they have in Salem;anyway?. 6 MS. DOUGHTY:' They talk about the total numbers 7 they have on the force back on page:2 on number 4.. They 8 have 40 fire fighters; 16 lieutenants; four captains; and I 9 believe there is a chief, too, although that's not mentioned 10 here. 11 JUDGE SMITH: And they have 15 turn out.
-12 Well, in any event,.you did'not allege a scope. I 13 guess.this is the first time this particular problem has
( 14 come up - you're testing the response and you're testing -- 15 that's a scope. That is a scope' allegation that not enough 16 fire fighters were exercised. That 15 did not demonstrate a 17 mobilization. 18 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I think the contention is 19 being distorted here in a way that it really shouldn't be. 20 I understood that the Board just ruled that the 21 allegation in the basic contention here with respect to the 22 adequacy of personnel was not training._ I heard Mr. Cook 23 argue that it was numbers that seemed to be the issue with 4 1 24 respect to the adequacy of personnel, j 25 Now here is the very issue:-the testimony j i i Heritage Reporting Corporation i i
.\b. (202) 628-4888 i
1
25268 1 indicates that there aren't adequate numbers because of this 2 local agreement in the town. This isn't a scope contention. 3 JUDGE SMITH: The Board accepts the contention , 4 based upon SAPL's representation in the comments that the 5 flaws revealed in the exercise were a consequence of a 6 failure of specificity and clarity in the plan. 7 And it was on that representation that we accepted 8 the contention. 9 Now it seems to me it has gone to scope. 10 MR. FIERCE: No, I think we're talking specificity 11 about the personnel assignments in Salem. There wasn't 12 specificity because they just generally relied on~the police 13 departments or the fire departments. The fire department 14 because of these local agreements doesn't have the 15 personnel. 16 It's not that the scope wasn't broad enough; it's 17 that there aren't ensugh people. 18 MS, DOUGHTY: Your Honor. 19 MR. FIERCE: It's not that the full organization 20 that could have responded didn't; that's the scope 21 contention. Here, the allegation is that the organization 22 that'is capable of' responding is not large enough. That is 23 a defect in the plan because the plan just generally assumes 24 that it is capable of responding. l 25 JUDGE SMITH: Was that revealed on the exercise Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i 25269 1 1
,-~
, 1 day? j
_s 2 MR. FIERCE: Yes. Yes. Exactly. 3 JUDGE SMITH: How? . 4 MR. FIERCE: Because of the fact that they 5 couldn't monitor the people from 3:14 until 5:09 when the 6 firs' evacuee was monitored. They had all these 7 difficulties. Personnel problems were compounded when some 8 fire personnel got called away. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Now, wait a minute. 10 They have a fire department, but I lost count when 11 she started with the lieutenants and everything. But they l t 12 have a fire department that looks like it is more than 50 13 people. 15 turned out. (~'s 14 And you're saying that that demonstrates that 50 15 tre not enough. l 16 MR. FIERCE: No. No. 17 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, it demonstrates that the plan l 18 didn't take account for the fact that there is the situation 19 in the town where only the on-duty people respond. 20 MR. FIERCE: That's it. 21 MS. DOUGHTY: The plan didn't account for that. 22 MR. FIERCE: The plan is assuming all 50 are going 23 to respond. 24 JUDGE SMITH: So with tha limited thing that the 25 failure of the off-duty to respond at the exercise reveals a 1 , ( N' ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25270 1 flaw in the plan which assumes that they will respond. 2 MR. FIERCE: That's right. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. , 4 That's the limited nature of your argument now, as 5 I understand it. 6 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes. 7 Though, that is the argument we are making now. 8 I do have to say that when the Board made its 9 ruling lim ~ ting to scope, the scope that we had argued was 10 that they needed more reception centers tested. We didn't 11 understand your scope ruling to be limiting anything having 12 to do with scope by the fact of saying, not enough reception 13 centers. 14 JUDGE SMITH: We just went over that. We just 15 ruled on that argument. 16- MR. COOK: Your Honor, if I may address the Board? 17 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Cook. 18 MR. COOK: I just wanted to emphasize, once again, 19 that the Applicants' concern on this particular question we.s 20 that it was one of human behavior. I would like to draw a 21 contrast between question 16 and its answer, for' example, 22 and particularly the answer which towards the end says: "In 23 essence, we just don't have the manpower to pull it off the 24 way it should be pulled off," the question that we are not 25 moving to strike, because that does go to numbers which are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l~ 25271 l' included in the basis for the. contention. w- 2 We were moving to' strike this.one because it goes ] 3 to human behavior. Jmd it goes to' human behavior because, i 4 the question is phrased: would they respond in the event of 5 an emergency. And the Commission has' ruled -- has directed q . 6 Licensing Boards not to hesitate.to reject any claim by. 7 local officials that they would refuse to act in the event-8 of an actual radiological emergency. 9 So 6 talks about human behavior to which.the i 10 Commission's rule applies. It is phrased in the subjunctive- , 11 16, which discusses the actual numerical problems which is { 12 covered by the contention. i 13 (The Board confers.) -!
'I l
14 JUDGE SMITH: The Board is going to apply.the 15 conclusive presumption of the. emergency planning rule that 16 local emergency officials will respond in an. emergency. ! 17 There is no question that responding to a radiological-18 emergency is within the regular planned duties of Salem fire 19 fighters. We know that from the fact of their responsefin 20 the exercise. And we know that from the fact that they 21 previously were under agreement 4. 22 The fact that there is no. agreement covering itL 23 now is of no moment. Substitute fire fightere, all fire 24 fighters will respond to a radiological emergency exactly as 25 they respond to a fire.
.t Heritage Reporting Corporation
'- (202),628-4888
l I 25272 1 In any event, in addition to that, our reasoning 2 before that Salem will not tolerate in the event of needing 3 to operate side-by-side with Seabrook up the beach, they , 4 will not allow a void in their organization to exist by 5 virtue of no agreement. 6 We have not given our credence to agreements such 7 as this nature that seems to be designed to blocking the 8 licensing of the plant rather than normal agreements that ] 9 are developed in the course of the town's normal business. 10 All those are all related to the same conclusive l 11 presumption that fire fighters will respond in a 12 radiological emergency. , i 13 MR. COOK: Your Honor, could I inquire whether j 14 that ruling applies to 13 and 25 ac well as 8, since they 15 more directly go to the issue of human behavior as well? 16 (Pause ;o peruse document.) l 3~ MS. DOUGHTY: As far as question 13 is concerned, l 18 there was a very real problem that was demonstrated by the 19 exercise and that is, that people do get called away for 20 real emergencies. l l 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's not human behavior; 1 22 that's resources. 1 i 23 MS. DOUGHTY: The exercise revealed that this is a I l 24 real problem. And it's not unlike an EPZ town where 25 everybody is evacuating. In a host community they can't let Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25273 s 1 the building burn.down, they've got to'goLrespond to the bs / 2 emergency. ] 3 . JUDGE SMITH: That's right. 4 Do you agree, Mr. Cook,1that-that aspect ^of-the:
- l l- 5 statement, conflicting duties and notta refusal -- not'a 6 human factors disinclination to respond;to radiological 7 emergency, but conflicting dutics might impede a full 1
8 response. 9 MR. COOK: I do, Your Honor. j 10 I'm concerned primarily:with the'last sentence in 11 'which there is a discussion to the effect that fire fighters' 12 have told people that they would go home sick during.an i 13 emergency. j 14 JUDGE SMITH: Well, would you be more precise of . I 15 what your motion covers? 16 MR. COOK: Yes. 17 The written motion, Your Honor,.went to the entire: ) 1 18 question, once again, because the question' asks: how-many. ! i 19 fire fighters would you expect who would report if there l 20 were an emergency? 21 And I. drew a c.ezinction between, in this case, 22 the parallel between question 13 which solicits.a response; 23 in terms of the number of people as affected by the 24 conflicts that Dr. Mileti discussed in terms of human 25 behavior, and the later questions on.page 9 of the testimony. t Beritage -Reporting. Corporation
-\/. (202) 628-4888
25274 4 d 1 which we have not moved to strike. 2 I'm looking particularly at question 29 when the 3 witness Breton says: "Yes, we did have those conflicting, 4 duties, we had to take care of the emergency calls for our 5 town and that's real life." 6 JUDGE SMITH: Well, since question and answer 13, 7 in its general overall purposes brings into question the ! l 8 response of the fire department as a whole as compared to 9 having to cover other emergencies during the radiological 10 emergency, it does raise a human factors emergency worker 2 11 response issue which was right on point with our earlier
)
12 decision on this matter. In our December initial decision. 1 13 So question and answer 13 is out. j i 14 What was the next one? ! l 15 JUDGE COLE: 25. l 16 JUDGE SMITH: 25. 1 17 (The Board reviews document and confers.) 18 MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor, could I just raise a 19 point. 20 Your ruling in the initial decision found that 21 number 5 on page 173 --
, 22 JUDGE SMITH: Give me the finding number, would 23 you please?
24 MS. DOUGHTY: It's the conclusions on human i 25 behavior in emergencies. It's number 5 on page 173 of the Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
25275-1- . Slip Opinion. \~- 2 JUDGE SMITH: I need the finding, the paragraph; 3 number? , 4 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay. 5 It comes after.the'last..: finding, 7.96-I believe;it 6 is. Yes, 7.96 and it's number-5Lunderneath that. 7 .You found.there that:'" Fear'of' radiation will not 8 cause trained emergency workers with' emergency role. 9 certainty to abandon those roles." j c 10 These statements are made afterithe people'have, j 11 through an exercise,'found out-_that they don't have what, 12 they consider an adequate level 'f o training. .They don't , i 13 feel comfortable with their tra3ning. Theyfdon't feel'like 14 they have a certainty as to what it.is they're~ supposed to 15 be doing. . l 16 And so then, they arrive at this conclusion.- So. l 17 it's not really contrary to your prior holding. BecauseLyou 18 held that trained people with emergency role certainty would 19 not abandon their roles. 20 JUDGE SMITH: They know. Fire fighters know that 21
~
they have a position in a radiological emergency. That has 22 already been demonstrated. And it is also demonstrated by 23 the very expressed terms of the agreement that you cite in 24 your testimony. 25 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay. Beritage Reporting Corporation \ (202) 628-4888
25276 1 Well, I guess this goes to interpretation and what 2 you meant in your decision. 3 JUDGE SMITH: We're talking about role certainty. 4 If they know that they have a role in a radiological 5 emergency they will respond by and large. 6 We also recognize that some of them would look 7 temporarily to the needs of their family first, but also 8 they would respond. 9 We are authorized to reject, out of hand, Captain l 10 Van Gelder -- is he a captain? He's an officer? 11 MS. DOUGHTY: No. Captain Breton is an officer. 12 JUDGE SMITH: He's a sworn fire fighter? 13 MS. DOUGHTY: Captain Breton is. l , 14 JUDGE SMITH: That he would lie and abandon his 15 post in a radiological emergency. 16' We're authorized under the training rule to reject-17 testimony of that nature. 18 MS. DOUGHTY: He didn't say that; he said he would 19 serve if he were on duty at the time. 20 MR. DIGNAN: No, Van Gelder did not. l l 21 MS. DOUGHTY: Oh, Van Gelder is not a captain. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it doesn't matter. He's a 23 sworn officer and he is telling us here he would lie and 24 desert his post. 25 MS. DOUGHTY: 'Well, Your Honor, I don't -- 6
^
Jeritage Reporting Corporation-(202) 628-4888 l 1 L_ ____ _ _ _
25277 1 JUDGE SMITH: Answer: Van Gelder, question: 9 2 "Would you report if there were an actual radiological 3 emergency?" , 4 Answer: "No, I wouldn't. And if I were on duty I 5 would go home sick." 6 MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor, I just -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: It's a lie, see. "And get my family 8 out of town." 9 He said he would lie and desert his post. 10 MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor, I object to the 11 characterization of it being a lie. 12 JUDGE SMITH: I know what a lie is. 13 MS. DOUGHTY: There's an agreement with the town 14 that he's not expected. 15 JUDGE SMITH: He says, hey, boss, I'm sick. 16 MS DOUGHTY: The town has already told him he is j 17 not expected. 18 JUDGE SMITH: The testimony will not be received. 19 20 21 22 23 24 j 25 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
25278 1 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, for the record, the Mass 2 AG wanted to note there were a couple of additional 3 arguments. And since I didn't get a chance to get them in, 4 I would like to make them quickly. 5 JUDGE SMITH: Too late. 6 However, Breton's testimony, less the testimony of 7 Van Gelder, nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly 8 consistent with our finding. Now, not to relevance. I'm 9 not talking about relevance. As to the response and how it 10 fits into the contention. 11 MS. DOUGHTY: So is only Mr. Van Gelder's 12 testimony stricken there or is the whole question and 13 answer? 14 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, Captain Breton's 15 testimony parallels Chief Christie's. Precisely, Captain 16 Breton responds, "I would serve only if I were on duty at 17 the time." 18 Paragraph 7.30 from the PID, Chief Christie says 19 he would - you say he would not serve when his family is l 20 known to be safe, i.e., when he's off duty at home. He i 21 would serve if he were already working apparently without 22 regard to his family's safety. 23 Chief Breton says the same thing. "I would serve 24 only if I were on duty." 25 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, I see. Yes, I missed that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-]
q 1 25279 - 1 point.
\ 2 (The Board confers.) ;
- 3. JUDGE SMITH:' Mr. Fierce, the Board' members- ,
4 reminded me that you did not actually have a chance in that 5 last exchange to make your point if you have a role in that' { l 6 question and answer. l 7 MR. FIERCE: . Well, the pointlI want to make,'it's 1 8 a small one. It's that.this is a community.outside.the EPZ. 1 u j 9 And 'we believe that, with respect to the appli ation of the. 1 10 presumption that Your Honor applied, there is.'.a distinction 11 between communities inside and.outside the EPZ,.wherelthose' 12 communities might be facing conflicting interests. 13 ,
-JUDGE SMITH: But that's not a part of the tenor 14 of the testimony.
15 MR. FIERCE:. Well, it has to de with participation j 16 by fire fighters in a community outside the EPZ, i 17 particularly when they have an agreement with the town that j J 18 they need not participate. And when they are also facing 19 conflicts to preserve the health and well being of.their own 20 citizens through fires, that they would respond to those 21 fires and therefore the application of the presumption 22 without something more here, Your-Honor --- 23 JUDGE SMITH: These people do not allege that the ; i 24 response expected of them-in a radiological emergency-is.
)
25 beyond the scope of their duties. f Beritage Reporting CG @ ration i
\ (202) 628-4888 a
i 25280 1 MS. DOUGHTY: That's what's under negotiation with . 2 the town. They do believe it's beyand the scope of their 3 duties. And there is an agreement with the town at this , 4 point that it's not within the scope of their duties. 5 JUDGE SMITH: They responded in the exercise. i 6 MR. FIERCE: Some. 7 MS. DOUGHTY: The agreement is dated as of June 8 28th. No, let me refer you to the proper page. 9 Fage 3. "The town agrees that it will not require l 10 Local 2892 members to participate in radiological ! l 11 decontamination training exercices and operations after June 1 l 12 28, 1988." ; l 13 So these men are making a very good faith i i 14 representation, and Mr. Van Gelder has a sincere belief that l l 15 he is not obligated by the town to participate. 1 16 JUDGE SMITH: What you are saying is that ' l 17 responding to the host community in Salem is not an 18 emergency response, is not a fireman's normal duty. 19 MS. DOUGHTY: They don't believe it is. And this 20 situation arose before I even was aware of it. This has 21 been -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: That's not the tenor of it. The 23 tenor of it is because it's a radiological emergency and for 24 that reason nlone they won't do what.otherwise, if it was 25 another kind of emergency, they would do. It's directed to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I :
25281-radiological response. 4 l' (_ 2 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, this isia-' distinction I'm 3 trying to make. , 4 This is not an emergency.in their community. I-5 mean all over in New England right.we've'gotitowns that are 6 facing budoet cuts and are chopping some-employees. And 7 -what is happening.is that in many towns, including the one I 8 1.ve in, the fire: fighters are being' asked to pick'up
~
9 municipal services. In my' town they are being asked to take.
~
10 over certain custodial duties in school. buildings. 11 There is a contractual. dispute over whether that-12 fits within the fire fighter's job description, and'they are 13 negotiating in contract negotiations over whether this is 14 something the fire fighters should do.
\
15 Here we have a situation lin Salem, New Hampshire, 16 it's outside the EPZ. And the fire fighters are'saying we: 17 don't think that's part of our function, staffing reception-l 18 centers. You can perhaps get othJ" employees of-the town to 1.0 do that. 20 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that's enough. 21 MR. FIERCE: It's not a fire fighter's. response. 22 JUDGE SMITH: That's enough. Yes, I understand. 23 Mr. Cook, what do you say to that argument that 24 serving at a host center is-not in. emergency responsefwithin 25 the normal scope of the activities of the Salem fire
-g Heritage Reporting Corporation.
N./ (202) 628-4888
. _ _ _ - - - - - -. m - --- _
l 25282 I fighters. Therefore, the presumption that they would ) 2 respond should not apply. 3 What do you say to that? , 4 Is that the argument? l 5 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Anymore than they should be expected ) l 7 to sweep the hallways of the schools. i 8 We could not have any presumption that fire 9 fighters will direct traffic perhaps. I don't know. But 10 sweep schools, drive school buses. 11 MR. COOK: Your Honor, my response is to point out l 12 that there is an important distinction between response in i i 13 an emergency and every day responses. 1 l 14 The Commission has focused, in its rule involving ; 1 l 15 human behavior -- 16- JUDGE SMITH: No, I'm talking about in an l 17 emergency. 18 MR. COOK: Right. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Could we assume that fire fighters 1 20 would drive school buses in an emergency? l 21 MR. COOK: If asked to, if directed by their 22 superiors and the chief, under New Hampshire law they can be 23 asked to, just as New Hampshire law provides for the 1 24 conscription of people off the street by any fire officer to 25 help out in the event of 'na emergency. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
+ ;
1 25283' 1 1 In.particular,Jan example of the-purpose that the i ( l As/ f -() 2 fire fighters of New Hampshire are held.to, and their 4 l' l function is contained in a New Hampshire law provision that l 3
]
-s 4 involves mutual aid. ]
i . 4 l 5 The purpose for fire departments-in New Hampshire. 6 Law 154:30-C -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: I'll'tell you, this;is.' interesting. ,
)
8 MR. COOK Right. 9 JUDGE SMITH: I would have thought that a1 complete 10 argument on your part about the Salem fire. fighters should 11 have at least had a reference to the mutual aid agreement. 12 You know, just at least'a reference'to it so'we might have 13 some feeling for it. 14 Go ahead, Mr. Cook. 15 MR. COOK: I was just going to point out that the 16 District Mutual Aid System's function is to coordinate'the 17 services of all fire departmentstbelonging to it so as to 18 provide better and more efficient cooperation in the ! 19 protection of life and property. 20 And that a function that is defined so broadly, in 21 terms of the protection of life and property, is consistent . 1 22 with the Commission's rule about not ignoring community- l 23 obligations during an. emergency if you are a: local official. J 24 And despite the labor or contractual dispute, that during an 25 . actual emergency the rule on human behavior applies ] Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
25284 1 independent of practical difficulties during every day 2 experience. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Anything further? , 4 MR. FIERCE: Well, just to respond to your 5 comment, Your Honor. 6 We are not challenging the intent of the fire 7 fighters in one community in New Hampshire to respond to j 8 fires in other communities and to do the things that fire 9 fighters do in various emergencies. 10 This is an intra-community issue vis-a-vis the 11 town and the Salem fire fighters, whether the # ire fighters 12 will take up positions in a reception center. Some sitting 13 at tables registering people. Some engaging in monitoring I 14 and decontamination activities which if, you know, portions , I 15 of their testimony indicate that they don't have any j 16 backgrour.d in. 17 The Town of Salem could call on other workers in 18 the town to perform these roles as well as the fire 19 fighters, and perhaps others could even do it better. It's 20 a squabble as to which portion of the town should perform 21 reception center functions. 22 And I don't see that the fire fighters, now that 23 they have an agreement with the town, can know that they are 24 even being expected to respond. 25 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could we inject one note l Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25285
.n 1 of realism into this argument?
2 You know,.I had an' experience recently where one 3 of my.little girls, she.was three at the time,. locked , 4 herself in the bathroom. My wife was terribly upset and had S no idea how-to get her out. It was an upstairs bathroom. 6 She couldn't go through a window. 7 She picked up the phone. She called our fire 6 depaz? ment. In nothing flat there was a fireman down there 9 to pop the lock. 10 Now that's what firemen do.for a living. That's-11 how they serve their community.- They perform all -- I:will. 12 bet any amount of money anybody want's to bet me'there is 13 nothing in the fire fighter's union contract in our town'
/" N 14 that says you will go and pop the lock when a little girl 15 locks herself in a bathroom.
16 The breadth.of the Commission ruling is that 17 people who are engaged in the protection of the public 18 safety of the public are going to perform when called upon 19 in a radiological emergency. That's the breadth of the 20 Commission's ruling. And you are to reject any notion that j-21 they will not. 22 And the question that is before you right'now is 23 -the statement of one fire fighter who, as'Your Honor says, 24 will apparently mislead, at least, his superior'by 25 announcing he's sick and go home, and a statement by another Heritage Reporting Corporation A (202) 628-4888 % I
+
25286 1 fire captain that he will perform when called upon only if 2 he happens to be on the duty shift. 3 And that runs counter, I am told, by every fire, 4 fighter I have ever talked to, to every obligation they feel 5 they have. These are people who get in their trucks and go 6 out and get your cat out of a tree if you've got a problem. 7 JUDGE SMITH: But they don't go to the next town 8 and get the cat out of the tree. 9 MR. DIGNAN: They will cross a town line if they 10 are closer to a situation in an emergency where a child is 11 in trouble or something like that. Of course, they will. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, in this instance you are 13 arguing that the fact is that people will be in trouble. 14 MR. DIGNAN: Exactly. 15 JUDGE SMITH: In Salem, and they will respond. 16 MR. DIGNAN: And the mutual aid agreement will 17 kick in, and these people will do their duty. That's our 18 basic position in this case. 19 (The Board confers.) 20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we ap ee. We believe that the 21 presumption of the emergency plannir.g rule that official l 22 will respond applies in this instance. 1 23 So that also includes Breton. Now, when I said 24 that it wouldn't, I just looked at the sentence. I didn't 25 read the sentence as being as restrictive as it is. So that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l
.i 25287 N 1 applies to both Van Gsider's answer and Breton's answer.
2 Is that all?' 3 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Is that:ril,-Mr'. Cook?f 4 MR. COOK: Yes, yes,(Your Honor, that's it. i 5 We would entertain-or ask the Board's pleasure as 'l i 6 to whether we should proceed either with the-argument that 7 we left off yesterday afternoon or with the Harris motion.
~
8 JUDGE SMITH: Well,.we leave it_up to the parties. 9 We noped we would have the' Harris motion out of'the way 10 before we got to protective action.. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's fine, Your Honor. 12 I would just like to ask -- 13 (The Board confers.) i ./} 14 JUDGE SMITH: Is there.any doubt that we.are not I 15 accepting Questions and Answers B, 13 and 257 16 MR. COOK: No, Your' Honor. _ 17 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I think that's clear. 18 We are not. ; 19 Your motion in that respect is. sustained. i 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, that's fine'if we 21 want to argue Harris next. 22 If I could just ask the Applicants for their 23 present intent as to 17. 24 MR. DIGNAN: Seventeen and the supplement ~will be' 'i 25 offered in their entirety.
! Heritage Reporting ' Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1 25288 l l 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right. j 3 2 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. ( 3 Now it's up to you. Do you want to go to the PARS ; l 4 or do you want to go to Harris? j i 5 How about you, Mr. Turk, do you want to get ] 6 another shot at getting out of town today? l 7 MR. TURK: Well, Your Honor -- l 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: If that's an issue, let's go to f 9 Mr. Harris. 1 10 (Laughter) j 11 MR. TURK: I assume that even if we do Harris i 12 first, I will still be able to leave town today. So I , i 13 really leave it to you, Your Honor. However you would like i 14 this one addressed. 15 JUDGE SMITH: We don't care. i 16- MR. TURK: I understand you are not taking 17 testimony, but we will be arguing on Harris. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Correct. 19 MR. TURK: I'm at your pleasure. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Let's go to the PARS. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, I would just like to 22 make a -- we had lengthy argument on this yesterday. And as 23 I'm stre everyone will recall, we got a second wind, so to 24 speak, when Mr. Turk, on behalf of the Staff, offered the 25 Perrotti deposition for the reasons that he did. Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888
25289 1 At which point I stated that if the_Perrotti 2 deposition would come in,'I would'make another proffer of 3 our Exhibit 112, which of course is the portion of the- , 4 onsite plan that I cross-examined Dr. Bores'and.Mr. Fox-5 about. 6 In thinking about the' issue over night.and 7 preparing this morning, I just want to make some preliminary-8 comments in the form of an argument as to how to approach 1' 9 the procedural situation that we are in. .And I hope I do-l 10 not take more than two or three minutes. 11 First of all, we had lengthy argument yesterday 12 over the scope of the contentions. And I am not intending 13 and don't wish or desire to reargue in any fashion the Jcope [ 14 of Exercise 19, the scope of Exercise 11. I think the Board
15 has ruled, har indicated how it reads the contention. .
-I 16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let me say one thing. -I 17 I think that we still have to have a Board 4 18 consensus on whether we draw the line between the scope of j i
19 the contention, which is drawn as to onsite/offsite, where l 20 we accept the quality of the protective action 21 recommendation as sound or we can challenge the quality of 22 the protective action recommendation,.but we have to accept 23 all of the plant status-type of information as accurate. 24 And I don't think that we as a Board have made l 25 that announcement as to where the -- I don't think it can be i
/
! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25290 1 in the middle. The line has to be drawn either that we 2 assume that the PAR generated onsite is correct, or that we 3 can permit challenges to the quality of it, but we cannot , 4 challenge the plant parameters and the technical information 5 which led to the emergency action levels and the effluent 6 monitoring and all that type of thing. 7 It's my view, as I sit here right now, that we 8 have to and we have allowed a challenge to the quality of 9 the PARS, but not to the technical data going into it. 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, I don't disagree with that 11 except for perhape being more precise as to what the 12 technical data going into it refers to. 13 I think METPAC -- 14 JUDGE SMITH: Well, METPAC is an exception, of 15 course. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Oh, okay. 17 I was going to say METPAC, in 19 (d) we challenged l 18 the PAR formulation process as it is the output of METPAC, 19 for example, and METPAC has various inputs which we've 20 challenged, including weather, for example. 1 21 My own view on this is that you.did permit and you 22 have permitted a challenge to the onsite plan's decision 23 criteria at least as to METPAC, and I believe even further. 24 That the critique as to the decision criteria onsite extends l l 25 up to the line where you are assessing in plant conditions. f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
25291 1-For example, we did not challenge nor is it before 2 the Board the appropriateness of the declaration of various 3 ECLs. 4 But the other side of that line, that's to say 5 what happens after the ECL is declared as that ECL leads to 6 a protective action recommendation was challenged by the 7 contention. And again, I don't want to reopen the issue of 8 whether it was challenged in (a), (b) or not. I just leave 9 it challenged in (d) certainly through the challenge to 10 METPAC. I believe that is open and was part of the scope. 11 But I just want to spend two minutes on a 12 different matter. I really don't want to reargue the scope 13 of the. contention. I would like to argue instead that if 14 the Board has ruled that the cross-examination that I did of 15 Dr. Bores and Mr. Fox is to some extent beyond the literal 16 scope of the contention, then I would indicate that I 17 believe the parties, by express or implied consent, pursuant 18 to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Procedure, have 19 essentially agreed to enlarge the contention, the issues 20 raised by the contention, to cover the precise areas that 21 Dr. Bores and Mr. Fox both testified to and then were cross- ! 22 examined about without objection. l l 23 l { 24 l 25 l l l Heritaga Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 25292 ! i 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: But I want to make a series of f 2 points. l 3 First of all, I just want to remind the Board that 4 contentions are a form of notice pleading. They are 5 designed under Commission law to put the parties on notice 6 as to what the issues are that are in dispute. 7 Matters can be put into controversy in various 8 ways. In this instance, I believe, assuming that the Board 9 has ruled on the scope of the contention, I believe that 10 matters concerning the onsite plan were put into controversy 11 when the Staff's own witnesses testified as to the 12 appropriateness of the protective action recommendations 13 issued by the ERO. 14 The testimony that I elicited on cross-examination 15 included the testimony that they were prompt and appropriate 16 and timely because in part they were in accordance with the 17 onsite plan. That's the position the Staff took, 18 Assuming it wasn't within the scope, the Staff i 19 witnesses put the issue of the onsite plan decision criteria i 20 into controversy through their testimony. 21 Once that occurs it is fairly black letter law. 22 that in cross-examination I can chase the evidence. I can 23 chase the evidence presented by the Staff, as I did, and 24 challenge whether or not those witnesses' representations 25 about the appropriateness of the PARS and their harmony with l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
25293
, -i ' 1 the plan was--accurate.
)
\m/ 2 And that's in part, I believe, what the cross-3 examination was doing. ,
4 In essence, at this juncture if need.be I would 5 file or orally move t, hat the Board permit _the pleadings in-6 this case, exercise contention 19,-to'be formally, amended to 7 bring them into harmony, essentially, with the evidence that 8 has been.put into-the case or put into the record. And to l 9 bring the pleadings into conformance to the issues as.those 10 issues have been raised by the' expressed or implied consent 11 of the parties. And in-this instance, obviously,.the Staff, 12 I don't think it's appropriate. And, in fact, I-13 think.it sort of opens a procedura1' abyss if at this 1 14 juncture, after we have had the contention, we've had 15 testimony filed by the Staff, we have-had cross-examination, , I 16 if at this juncture the Board is prepared to go back 17 retrospectively using the contention as a cookie cutter to 18 impress on the record and exclude issues and matters and 19 evidence that as it was coming in was not objected to and in 20 fact, was being used as support for the Staff's position on i ; l 21 this particular issue, I believe that just is -- { 1 i 22 First of all, I believe it contradicts.the rules ! 1 23 of the procedure. I don't think that's the way evidence is j 1 24 to be treated once it's in and in without objection.. j l 25 Secondly, I think it's an abyss in the sense that. . l ( Beritage Reporting Corporation ! N-- (202) 628-4888 ! 1
- - . - - -----_-_-_-2. D
25294 1 it would be an endless task to go back, at this juncture, as 2 to any issue and look at the evidence that's been submitted 3 and determine in a cookie. cutter fashion what evidence is . 4 outside the narrow confines of the filed contention. 5 That isn't the purpose of the contention. The 6 contention is a notice pleading to get the ball in place, so 7 to speak. And I'm not arguing that it's unlimited in any 8 fashion. Clearly, there are limits to the issue. But once 9 a party strategically has determined, as the Staff did, that 10 its response to that contention is to put two witnesses on 11 who will defend the adequacy of the PARS generated by the l 12 ERO pursuant to the onsite plan; then that ball has rolled 13 in that direction. That's a live issue. 14 And either by expressed -- I think it's actually ; 15 expressed or certainly implied consent, it's a live issue. 16 My cross-examination on this point was -- there 17 was no objection. Nobody raised objection that I was 18 outside the scope of the contention. I clearly was not 19 outside the scope of the direct testimony, because that was 20 their direct testimony. 21 So I just think that for no other reason the 22 procedural difficulties here of going back now and 23 retrospectively cutting the record to match the contention 24 at the time it was filed is frankly an impossibility. 25 And for that reason, and I understar.d the posture Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l 4
i 25295
'TN. 1 in which this has come up. I appreciate that Mr. Turk has ew )
\ v) 2 submitted or has offered the Perrotti deposition. However 3 the Perrotti deposition gets handled, I would again ask the 4 Board to reconsider the admissibility of our Exhibit 112. 5 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, can I have a shot at this 6 because I was absentee, I think. 7 And it is my understanding that what occurred 8 after I left yesterday and from reading the record is that 9 during the course of the offer of the Perrotti deposition an 10 effort was made to resurrect 112. 11 In order to get this in perspective, if'I might 12 respectfully request the Board to get before it the 13 transcript of June 8th, and in particular page 24,868 of O 14 that transcript which is where upon a question from the 15 Chairman, I gave the views I had as to why the Staff 16 testimony was relevant to the case as it stands. 17 I'm not all that proud of the English because I i 18 must have been excited and I pitched and halted. 19 But the point I made is that, there was a
)
l 20 contention in the case, MAG Exercise 11, that took the 21 position that one of the difficulties here wac that the 22 offsite organizations, both New Hampshire and the ORO 23 working the Massachusetts side, had unquestionably accepted 24 PARS generated by the ERO. 25 And in this piece I indicated to Your Honor that O !, Beritage Reporting Corporation N-(202) 628-4888 l
25296 1 the reason I still thought the Staff was relevant, even 2 under my reading of the contentions which I have argued to 3 you is this: we hope and expect the Board to find that, in 4 fact, that did not occur. That is to say, there wasn't 5 simply unquestioning obedience to the ERO. 6 But the point I made was if the Board should 7 disagree with that, if the Board should feel the evidence 8 before it indicated there was unquestioning acceptance of 9 the ERO, I made the point that still doesn't get the 10 Attorney General to where he wants to be. Because if it be 11 a fact that, although, they unhesitatingly accepted those 12 PARS, if it also be a fact that the PARS were good PARS, 13 it's a -- and the term I-used, it was rendered no mark /no j 14 foul -- I probably did say it in excitement -- what I meant 15 was no harm /no foul. 16 In other words, the concept being, there was a 17 second line of defense. And that the Staff testimony was to i 18 that second line of defense. Now, I start with that 19 perspective. 20 Then I would respectfully ask the Board if they 21 would join me in looking at transcript 25,040, which is in 22 the transcript of June 9. And precisely the objection -- 23 you see, one of the problems that happened is this all l 24 played out, if Your Honor will recall, over three days. And 25 what happens when arguments play out over three days is, all 1 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l 1 l
,j
-)
i
~25297_ I 1 .of us forget what took place on day 1.
\ 2 And there you-will see the' objection I actually 3 made to 112. Mr. Traficonte offered it and I'said: "I-i 4 assume from.the way it has been offered." Naturally, it was_- 5 the second time of offering. "It's an unrestricted offer." 6 Mr. Traficonte: " Unrest!ricted offer, yes. "
\
7 Mr. Dignan: "On that basis I'll object and ask to 8 be heard." And then I went into the argument-that led to 9 the Board's ruling the day after that. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Would you remind us now, on what' 11 basis you are willing to accept it? 12 MR. DIGNAN: I will. If I may be indulged because 13 I think this will bring it-clearly before the Board. 14 When you sustained the objection'as made,,which 15 occurred later, I fully expected at that point to hear Mr. 16 Traficonte offer it for the limited-purpose . The same -) i 17 purpose which he offered 113 and 114 for, although he ! 18 eventually withdrew them after fighting with Mr. Turk for a. ! 1 19 while. ! 20 That is to say, that he wished to offer it so that 21 the context of his questioning of those Staff witnesses ; 22 would be clear. Or to put it another way, and lawyers had 23 to do this because it sounds more pejorative than it is,-if' 24 he offered it for such impeachment purposes as he believed 25 he had established by virtue-of the document of those Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25296 l 1 witnesses. 2 Had he done that I would not have objected. And 3 indeed, you will recall on 113 and 114 when he made the , i 4 offer that way, that he wanted the context of his ; 5 questioning, I said I had no objection. Mr. Turk continued l 6 to have an objection, but I had none. 7 So this is the point: the relevance of the 8 testimony of the Staff and for that matter of Mr. Perrotti 9 given the way the cross went, lies in its activity as a f i 10 second line of defense to the basic contention that there 11 was unquestioning obedience to the ERO. ( 12 I have never argued to the Board, that I'm aware 13 of, and I certainly never intended to. And it wouldn't be 14 the first time somebody gave me words that I didn't intend, i 15 but I have never argued to this Board that the relevance of ' 16 the Staff testimony was to defend a whole bunch of onsite I 17 contentions. i 18 Because as I say, to me they have only one onsite 19 contention and that is, the exercise revealed the flaw -- a 20 fundamental flaw in the plan by virtue of the fact that 21 METPAC either was improperly used or didn't get the job 22 done. 23 And because I heard Dr. Goble happily say that 24 METPAC was the best thing around, as far as he knew or at 25 least -- once we used the word " cutting edge," if you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l 25299 s 1 recall, then later other terms.- That's why my ' panel 26 left 2 the case at that point. And.because I said, that being the 3 case, first, he can't make it on the first ladder in'this. 4 contention. That is to.say, his'own witness is saying.that 5 METPAC is-as good as you're going to do. 'And obviously,- 6 that doesn't mean I, win at that point, I'm going to have^to 7 also convince you that my legal logic.is right, which is 8 that the Applicants are not required to' demonstrate that 9 they have gone beyond the cutting edgeLof technology and 10 modeling in order to have their plan survive. 11 Finally, with respect to the argument I have' heard 12 for the first time this morning, with all due deference to 13 my brother who represents the Attorney-General, contentions 14 are not simply notice pleading in NRC practice. The 15 contentions, once admitted, set the limits of the Board's 16 jurisdiction. 17 It is, if you will, a self-setting of 18 jurisdiction. The Board admits something, they take 19 jurisdiction of the issues that come out of it. If they
)
20 exclude it, they relinquish, if you will, jurisdiction of 21 it. 22 And the only way that I am aware of under the 23 rules of practice of this agency that you can expand after 24 that has happened is to bring to the Board an admittedly 25 late filed contention in an attempt to convince the Board ; l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 25300 l 1 that it should be in and the Board should thereby expand, if 2 you will, its jurisdiction over the issues it has taken. 9 l)2 3 It is not so that the only function of contentions ; 4 is to serve as notice pleading. 9 l 5 JUDGE SMITH: We know that. 6 MR. DIGNAN: All right. 7 And now finally -- 1 I B JUDGE SMITH: In fact, frequently the distinction I i 9 between the federal system and NRC system is made -- the I I 10 contrast between them is made. l 11 MR. DIGNAN: So that is, if you will, my response ) I 12 to this latest argument. I J 13 I think what -- I have read the transcript once of 14 yesterday and I'm not sure I've read it with the 15 thoroughness I would like to normally. i 16' But I think what got awry here is that there was a 17 loss of perspective as to precisely what objection had ber3 18 made and ruled upon and what occurred after that. Because 19 Mr. Traficonte never brought the exhibit back. And I 20 suppose he is free to do it now. 21 And at least from my point of view, if he stands 22 up and says, what I want 112 for is to -- and to put it in 23 its pure legal term without pejorative is, in my view, 24 impeaches the testimony of the two Staff witnesses; he's not 25 going to get an objection from me. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
- 2530l=
1 It was his insistence that it was an..unrestrictive 2 offer, wh'ch i to me led to the view that now he was'saying he. 3 had a right to proposed findings.in the plan, proposed , 4 findings all over the onsite-exercise and that's why I made 5 the objection was to protect that aspects of the case. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Putting.aside for a moment the 7 argument that the only issue that was before us was METPAC, 8 I know you didn't agree with our rulings, but did you agree 9 that our rulings as to admitted PARS as issues into the 10 hearing permitted, if pleaded correctly, a challenge to the-11 quality of the PARS? 12 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 13 JUDGE SMITH: I believe that's correct. 14 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
\%
15 JUDGE SMITH: If you read-our language. l 16 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 17 And that is why when I argued this originally to 18 you I argued it out of the language of the contention. And 19 I said -- and to put it in the terms you just put it, yes, 20 the Board indicated that they had the jurisdiction, if you 21 will. And let's get that word out of here, too, because it i 22 gets mixed up with subject matter-jurisdiction and 23 jurisdiction of the case as it lies. But that all they pled 24 to you with specificity was METPAC. They didn't plead 25 anything else to you. [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25302 . i 1 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 2 MR. DIGNAN: And that's the reason I made the l 3 argument I did to you. , 4 JUDGE SMITH: Now, if I try to recreate the courss j l 5 of events we got here: we ruled sometime yesterday that all ; i 6 of 19 depends upon 19-D for specificity. We bought your 7 argument. We rejected Mr. Traficonte's. , i 8 And we also stated that exercise contention 11 I I l 9 does not help because that does net have any q.-ecific onsite 10 deficits. l 11 I thought that pretty much put an end to it until
]
l 12 we began to realize that the Bores / Fox testimony was not j 1 13 limited to METPAC and was intended to address the entire 14 conclusionary basis. 15 MR. DIGNAN: Right. 16 JUDGE SMITH: That's where we are. That's our ) i 17 dilemma. If they had it to do over again, perhaps, the only j 1 18 testimony which would have been received would have beer, 19 testimony on METPAC and that would have been the end of it. 20 But the NRC Staff had a right to anticipate that 21 they better come in here with some generalized testimony 22 defending the quality of the PARS. 23 Now, how do we reconcile this? What do we do? 24 Having received evidence that the later rulings -- l 25 if the later rulings had been made earlier we may have Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 w______-___
25303 jq 1 excluded it. What do we do, it's there? I h V 2 MR. DIGNAN: I'm saying it's there. l 3 JUDGE SMITH: Do you think that -- , 4 MR. DIGNAN: If I might, Your Honor, I would like { 5 to come back to the opening remarks.I made as I went down l 6 this line. 7 8 l 9 i 10 11 j 12 13
/N 14 15 16 l
l 17 l i 18 19 20 21 22 23 ! I q 24 i i i 25 i l , t 5 g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I E
25304 1 JUDGE SMITH: See, I'm going to have to read what 2 your argument is, because I didn't pick that up. 1 3 MR. DIGNAN: Oh, I'm sorry. , 4 Well, if you give me permission to recite it 5 again, I would because as I read it, it was not one of my l 1 6 better articulation days. But it appears as made the first 7 time at 24868-69, in which you asked me what's the relevance 8 of Bores and Fox. I 9 JUDGE SMITH: Let me catch up with that. 10 MR. DIGNAN: It would commence, Your Honor, at 11 line 16 on page 24868 with your question, i 12 (The Board reviews document. ) i 13 JUDGE SMITH: That doesn't do an awful lot for me. j i 14 Are you saying this? Are you saying assuming that 15 Contention 19 is limited to IETPAC, the testimony is I I 16 relevant because since the PARS were good, therefore, METPAC ] l 17 empirically is demonstrated to be sound? Is that it? l l 18 MR. DIGNAN: No. It's a little different than 19 that, although that is an argument I could have made, but I 20 deliberately did not. 21 The point I am making is, what I'm saying is I 22 view the relevance of the Staff testimony to be as a 23 backstopping measure. 24 If this Board makes a finding - you see, the 25 problem a lawyer has, I'm sure the Board appreciates as well Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
'25305 1 as anybody, is when_you elect whether to go or not go with 4 2 testimony or object or not to object is.you have to in your 3 own mind say,'well, how far down this road are we going to.
4 get. 5 If I could sit here with total confidence.-- 6 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, I know. 7 MR. DIGNAN: -- that the. Board was going to rule 8 METPAC, by the admission of Dr. Goble, is state of the art 9 and that's the end of that issue as far as we are concerned, 10 then my reaction to this direct testimony, the cross of it 11 and everything else is out. .Take it out. Or it's , 12 irrelevant. You' don't have to do_anything with it having 13 hit that. 14 My point is we can't know in advance that the 15 Board will agree with that analysis.. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 17 MR. DIGNAN: The Board may say, Mr. Dignan, we 18 heard that admission, but there is other factors in the 19 record, or we're not sure it was an admission. And, 20 therefore, we look at METPAC. And now having looked at it, 21 we agree with Dr. Goble. It should have had this, it should 22 have had that. 23 Or we disagree with your basic philosophy, Mr.. 24 Dignan, that if the Applicant demonstrates they are out on i 25 the cutting edge, we can't ask them to do more, and we think 3 3 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25306 1 you should have done more. 2 Okay. If you made that ruling, then all this j i 3 other stuff then becomes relevant, because then you move to 4 Step 2 and say, okay, does this demonstrate a flaw in the ! 5 plan. And if the PARS were good and were excellent, then 6 the answer is no, no flaw in the plan has been demonstrated. 7 It may be demonstrated that more ought to be done with , 8 METPAC, but no fundamental flaw in the plan has been 9 demonstrated. And it's only then that you get to this ! i 10 testimony. l 11 So the relevancy, I don't know of a better word I 12 can use, is a secondary relevancy to a backup argument. And 13 that is why I had Mr. Traficonte confine his offer the way l , 14 he did with the second two exhibits, or put it in terms of 15 impeachment of these witnesses. At least from me you would 16- have heard no objection. I 17 Because certainly if I go to that secondary 1 18 argument, that is, start relying on the Staff witnesses as 19 the reason why things are okay because METPAC didn't make 20 it, he of course has a right to have in evidence that thing 21 and make the argument if he deems that furthers his case and l 22 that he gets it out of that document. This document 23 demonstrates that the Staff was wrong. The PARS were not 24 adequate. 25 And so there is the thing. In other words, the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
25307 1 objection was made because it was a general offer. The 9 2 exclusion took place, and there was no reoffer. And there 3 can be. I'm not trying to cut him off and say he can't , 4 reoffer now. 5 But had the reoffer come, in it would have gone 6 and that would have been the end of it. 7 Now as to Perrotti, Perrotti is relevant on the 8 same basis. During the cross-examination of these 9 witnesses, at least I heard the suggestion, people obviously 10 can read records differently, but I heard the suggestion 11 being made through the questioning that the two witnesses 12 that were put up by the Staff didn't really know what took 13 place or whether the procedures were followed. They were, 14 indeed, relying on their subordinates. 15 And where Perrotti becomes relavant at that point 16 is Perrotti, it seems to me, nails in the question that they 17 had looked at the procedures, how they followed the 18 procedures and everything else. It was all right. 19 So I guess I have done the best I can in 20 explaining it to you, Your Honor. In other words, I think 21 if we all knew in this room today how the Board would rule 22 on the METPAC issue, if I can use that phrase, and we knew 23 that the Board's ruling would be there is no flaw in METPAC 24 and it was used perfectly all right, then I quite agree with 25 you. That's the end. You don't need to address anything Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 25308 l 1 you heard that afternoon. I 2 But the problem is.none of us know how the final 3 ruling on the METPAC issue will be. And if Mr. Traficonte l 4 wants to reoffer 112 with the same restrictions he put or 5 some similar restrictions that he put on his offer of 113 3 i 6 and 114, at least the Applicant has absolutely no objection. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I don't understand how a { 8 ruling on METPAC would either way. In the first place, l 9 we're not going to find today or until we write a decision j i 10 as to whether METPAC was good or bad. j s 11 MR. DIGNAN: That's right. 12 JUDGE SMITH: But I don't understand your i 13 statement. 14 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. 15 JUDGE SMITH: I simply don't understand. 16 MR. DIGNAN: Because, and this goes back to the 17 first argument. Because the only plea, the specific 18 contention that was made as to why there was difficulty on 19 the onsite PARS, by my reading of the contention. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. j 21 MR. DIGNAN: And that I, at least, think was 22 sustained. ( j 23 JUDGE SMITH: Right. l 24 MR. DIGNAN: Is that METPAC caused the problem. 25 JUDGE SMIT!!: That's absolutely a given now. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a 25309
- 1 MR. DIGNAN: That's right.
2 JUDGE SMITH: We have been through that and we 3 begin with that. , 4 MR. DIGNAN: All right. 5 And I say to you -- all right, now,-taking that,as 6 the given. The contention and the only contention.in the 7 case, we will assume for now, is METPAC caused ~the problem, 8 If the Board rules,-no, METPAC didn't'cause any 9 problems, we find METPAC to beLan excellent computer 10 program, that it's on the cutting edge of: technology by the 11 Attorney General's own witnesses, everything we have seen, 12 it has been properly utilized, right, down goes the 19.- 13 That's. it. It's all over. It's finished. And we don't1 14 need what we heard. \ 15 If, on the other hand, the Board's decision should 16 be , for whatever reason, and I'am telegraphing the fact that 17 I think I have a pretty strong case in METPAC. But let's 18 say for whatever reason -- in other words, the engineers say 19 for a non-mechanistic reason the Board concludes, no, METPAC 20 was flawed or is flawed or it wasn't used properly, then the 21 Applicants would be arguing off the. Staff evidence that 22 still no flaw had been demonstrated because the Staff told 23 you that whatever was wrong with METPAC, the PARS simply 24 were excellent. And therefore, if METPAC be flawed, there 25 are other factors that overcame that flaw. ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.)
1 i l 25310 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 2 This is the same problem then. It comes up in 3 other respects. It's the reintroduction of the issue. , 4 MR. DIGNAN: It's the reintroduction. The issue 5 has been " reintroduced", if you will, clearly as a secondary 6 defense. 7 JUDGE SMITH: I know. 8 MR. DIGNAN: And all he has to do to get it in is l 9 say, I'm restricting it to that. )1 10 If Mr. Traf'iconte wants to say to me, I want this 11 in only if, as and when the Board feels it needs to address 12 what these fellows say, I've got no problem. But he has 13 refused to do that, and I know why. 14 Because he sees it as a vehicle to get a ruling 15 that all of a sudden the plan and the whole exercise is up 16 for grabs. 17 And that's why I made the objection I did. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 19 Let's go back -- 20 MR. DIGNAN: The objection has become a vehicle, 21 if you will, for settling a bigger issue. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Let's go back to our old thing about 23 the valve and the pump. l 24 Intervenor says, bad valve. Applicants say, too 25 late. Interveners also say, bad pump. Applicants say, good Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 1
.l 25311: -l l' contention. And they come in with a' bunch'of witnesses'that 2 say the pump is good, but even if it's no good,.we've_got_a. l 1
3 good valve. , i
)
4 All right. Then the ' Interveners - -- ; 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: Interveners say,. bad valve. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Interveners say, bad valve. i 7 MR. DIGNAN: Right. 1 8 JUDGE SMITH: 1 The issue,is_ reintroduced. 9 MR. DIGNAN: No. And:they cross that^ bad valve 10 witness, and then the-offer the testimony of another. witness l 11 to say,' bad valve.
- 12 And at that point, unless the Applicant is 13 prepared to foreswear the good valve defense, that testimony i 14 comes in. But it comes in only'inithe setting,that it.will 15 be relevant, if'you will, when, as-and if the Board 16 disbelieves good pump. I 17 MR. TRAFICONTE
- But it comes --
18 MR. DIGNAN: It will come in as.a secondary thing. 19 Now I can't speak for the Staff. As I read'it, 20 they may have a different lay on this land. But'until and 21 unless the restriction of that offer is to the fact-that it - l 22 is related to the testimony'of those witnesses, I will have 23 oto insist on my objection. , [ ! j 24 And for some reason, as I say, I was-amazed after 25 you made the ruling that the limited offer wasn't made. And j l h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 : i
~1
25312 1 it may have been as simple as it was a long day, or it may 1 2 have been a tactical decision. I don't know. But there was 3 never a reoffer to you, at least in my presence. And as } 4 understand it, not even yesterday afternoon, a reoffer on a 5 limited basis that 113 and 114 were offered. 6 In which case, I think there is no problem. l 7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. ) J l 8 Would you agree that Exhibit 112 would be j i 9 relevant, could be relevant to a contention which was 10 properly accepted under our interpretation of'what the , 11 onsite/offsite demarcation is? ; 12 MR. DIGNAN: Could I Jet 112 in front of me, Your 13 Honor? 14 (Pause to obtain documents.) 15 MR. TURK: Are you asking is 112 relevant under 16' your ruling? 17 JUDGE SMITH: No, I'm not asking whether it's 18 relevant within the scope of any of the admitted 19 contentions. But where we began, or at least I began to 20 drift off was looking at 112 as a fact in itself within the 21 scope of our jurisdiction as we saw it as delineated between 22 onsite/offsite. 23 I mean, I think that they could have come in with 24 a contention and say, 112 demonstrates a -- 25 MR. DIGNAN: I see here. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 25313' I i
'- 1 The answer is "yes".
2 JUDGE SMITH: See, that's where I started -- a f 3 MR. DIGNAN: And here is their.' problem, and it , 1 1 4 goes back to -- j 5 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute. 6 All right, go ahead' . 7 MR. DIGNAN: .I ' m ' s orry . 8 MR. TURK: I don't'know if I agree ~with~that
~
9 because I'm not sure if the question is whether your prior- -i 10 ruling admitting the contention e'mbraces.this 112. 11 JUDGE SMITH: No. Absolutely.not. That is 12 not the hypothetical. 13 MR. DIGNAN: No. That's not his point.- l 14 MR. TURK: All right'. 15 JUDGE SMITH: he have already decided that there 16 is no contention as to which 112 directly pertained. 17 But where we got off the track of the logic is, 18 well, 112 goes to matters which we had deemed were properly l 19 and offsite consideration if a contention had been raised 20 encompassing it. 21 ] 22 23 24 1 25 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 25314 1 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, it's precisely -- I'm 2 sorry, Mr. Turk. I apologize. 3 MR. TURK: I would like to respond. I don't want 4 to put off Mr. Dignan. But I want to address the broader 5 question of what the contention has for litigation in front i 6 of you. 7 But my understanding of where your authority lay , 8 initially was there was a Board which was supposed to l l 9 address onsite planning matters. There was an exercise 10 which covered both the onsite and the offsite plan. 1 i 11 The Mass AG raised a contention challenging onsite ] I 12 exercise performance, j i l 13 I think a question as to whether the PARS were ! 14 appropriate as demonstrated by the onsite organization's 1 15 performance should have been brought before that other Board 16 at the same time they brought their contention. 17 JUDGE SMITH: You lost on that, though. 18 MR. TURK: I know I did. 19 JUDGE SMITH: I know. I don't want to go back to 20 that because we're stuck with that. 21 MR. DIGNAN: Well, no, wait a minute. 22 MR. TURK: So now you are asking accepting the -- 23 JUDGE SMITH: Given the ruling of the Board that 24 PARS -- 25 MR. TURK: Given the ruling that PARS belong here. l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
sj
- )
25315
.. l 1 JUDGE SMITH: -- and.the quality. 'It's'not just l 7
I 2 the PARS, but, here,.if you'look at,-- 3 MR. DIGNAN: The answer-is, Your Honorf-- , 4 JUDGE SMITH: 'NUREG-0654 -- l 5 MR. DIGNAN: - is they could have brought'you-a 1 i 6 contention-challenging the'onsite performance in the 7 exercise back then and they didn't do it. ] 8 Now let me stay on this a minute,.because this I 9 know I'm in disagreement with the Staff, because they.never
'O argued it this way to the Appeal Board.
I 11 To the Appeal Board,. to the Commission in the_ stay j 12 motion and to the Court of Appeals, I have argued that the I 13 Mass AG made a tactical decision at the time it filed'that- l 14 late-filed contention arising out of the exercise, l what the - 15 called the late-filed, with the onsite board. l 16 And what I pointed out was they went to that 17 board, and I don't think they seriously contest this. They 18 went to that board for tactical reasons', because they saw ) 19 that board ar having the ability to stop the low-power . 1 20 license. They didn't come to this Board with it as the 21 Board that had jurisdiction over the exercise. And they 22 elected to do that. l 23 In addition, when they_ filed. contentions with this 24 Board, insofar as they got to something that would deal with- i 25 the onsite portion of the exercise, they restricted'it to I / l t, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
25316 1 that No. 19. 2 Now, for whatever reasons of draftsmanship or 3 otherwine, everybody's agreed that if you read that -- , 4 excuse me -- not everybody has agreed. 5 The Board has ruled that if you read that 6 contention, the only specificity they put in it was the 7 METPAC issue, so-called. 8 I do not question that a contention could have 9 been brought to this' Board which questioned the execution of 10 the onsite portion of the exercise. And, indeed, I argued 11 that they went to the wrong board when they went to the so-12 called onsite board with that, because I've argued 13 consistently throughout the exercise has nothing to do with 14 whether or not low power authority is issued, because the 15 Commission decision to issue that comes out of the plan, not 16 out of the exercise. 17 And so I am happy with giving you an affirmative 18 answer to your original question: could they have brought 19 one that this document would have been relevant to? 20 Yes. 21 Did they? 22 No. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Could they have brought one that 24 alleged that that document in their hands demonstrates that 25 the onsite plan is inadequate? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
25317 1 MP. DIGNAN: No, not without getting you to take a 9 2 late-filed contention But they could have brought -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: No , right. , 4 But if they had timely done it. 5 MR. DIGNAN: If they had timely done it with you, 6 and assuming -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: As a part of -- 8 MR. DIGNAN: -- the Appeal Board has blessed you 9 with plenary jurisdiction as of that day -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: No , no. Forget that. 11 As to the understanding we had at that time. 12 I just can't work the Appeal Board logic into it. I mean, 13 somebody clse is going to have to do it. 14 MR. DIGNAN: Let's put it aside for a minute. 15 My distinction on things, and I don't think this 16 is inconsistent with the anything the Appeal Board has said, 17 it came by the Appeal Board, at least of my reading of that 18 decision, and believe me, let's obey the Appeal Board. I 19 mean I don't want to find out that we went in error. 20 The Appeal Board has not done anything to expand 21 or detract the scope of any contention before you. All the 22 Appeal Board, as I understand it, has said, this licensing 23 board should understand it now stands -- and it's telling us 24 for the first time -- has stood for some time as the plenary 25 board with subject matter jurisdiction over these matters. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s i 25318 1 I don't underetand the Appeal Board decision to 2 have expanded 19 or detracted it or done anything. Rather, 1 3 what it did, it focused upon whether or not this Board now 4 -- and they read the prior order, which I confess I did not, 5 but they did -- as clarifying rather than bestowing. And 6 they said for some time has had subject matter jurisdiction 7 in this area. 8 But the thing I certainly don't think they have ! 9 done is -- to come back to your question. If the allegation 10 had been at the time so-called exercise contentions came in j i 11 this document alone demonstrates a flaw in the plan, no. 12 The plan was fully litigated and was res judicata. So it i 13 had to be a late-filed contention to you, to start with. 14 The plan as auch was res judicata and only a late- l 15 filed contention could have been brought to you of this 16' nature. l 17 What they could have alleged -- l 18 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute. 19 MR. DIGNAN: What they could have alleged is, 20 though -- 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we struggled with 56. We 22 struggled with 56. That was MAG Contention 56, 23 You simply said it's an onsite issue and not 24 within the jurisdiction of this Board. 25 MR. DIGNAN: This is MAG 56.
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25319 1 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 2 And the Staff says, oh, look at NUREG-0654, 3 Section 2 (D) (3) . And we looked at that, and that didn't 4 really tell us what we needed. 5 But then as much as anything in NUREG-0654 -- 6 MR. DIGNAN: This is in the SPMC. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 8 See, nobody argued to us that the onsite plan was 9 res judicata as I recall. 10 MR. DIGNAN: Certainly we did not. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 12 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 13 JUDGE SMITH: You said, you know, you've got an 14 onsite board and you've got an offsite board. 15 MR. DIGNAN: Right. 16 JUDGE SMITH: And how they are raising issues as 17 to the adequacy of the plan on the onsite protective action 18 process. 19 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I think that, first of all, 20 there is no doubt res judicata per se was not mentioned in 21 my brief, which I now nave in front of me. 22 Secondly, you did criticize our response on this 23 on a couple of occasions, probably deservedly so. The only j 24 excuse I offer is you've got to write so many answers to so l i 25 many contentions you start shorthanding things. 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I l i 25320 i 1 But the point, I think, that was trying to be made ' 2 was, because it said are not within the jurisdiction of this < 3 Board. And Your Honor pointed out to me the other day in
- 4 colloquy, "Mr. Dignan, do you mean we don't have !
5 jurisdiction, or do you mean that res judicata has set in?" 1 6 And I said to you, "Quite correct. It's 7 jurisdiction in the nature of res judicata." { l 8 And so to come back-to the question that you had ) 1 I 9 put to me about this. If the only allegation to you had ' 10 been, at the time we were setting the exercise and SPMC 11 contentions, was this onsite procedure demonstrates a flaw 12 all by itself, I would have argued to you, no, that is not 13 before you because of the onsite plan. 14 What they could have alleged, however, is the 15 Applicants followed this particular procedure. This is what i 16 resulted from following this procedure. This is wrong, and 17 that demonstrates a ilaw in the plan arising out of the 18 exercise. That they always had the right to do, but they 19 never pled it to you. 20 JUDGE SMITH: And that's a part of the plan. 21 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. But they never pled it that 1 22 way. 23 What they argued to you was the plan contains 24 METPAC, if you will. They use METPAC and its procedures. l 25 METPAC is flawed, and we point to you the following things , 1 ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 '
25321 1 we , at least, feel were wrong in the exercise. You know, 2 this PAR was done, and this arises out of METPAC. And 3 that's the way they pied it to you. , 4 It is not a question of what they could have pied 5 to you. It's a question of what they did plead to you. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 7 MR. DIGNAN: And that's where I come out with the B argument I made to you originally as to relevancy of the 9 Staff. 10 If Mr. Traficonte should stand up today and 11 announce, I've reviewed Dr. Goble's cross-examination and I 12 concede the correctness of Mr. Dignan's view that METPAC is 13 on the cutting edge and that's all he has to show, if he 14 would stand up and make that concession, I would sit here 15 and move that you throw out the Staff testimony and all the 16 cross-examination and everything having to do with it. 17 My problem is I don't think he's going to make 18 that concession here before us today. And while I'm -- to 19 be perfectly candid -- BB, 99 percent confident I will 20 persuade you that that should be your ruling, I can't be 100 21 percent confident. So I'm not about to deliberately ash can 22 my second line of defense. And that's, candidly, where I am 23 in terms of relevance. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 25 MR. DIGNAN: And if he restricts the offer of 112 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25322 1 to be -- again not to use a pejorative term -- to be for 2 purposes of impeaching or demonstrating the incorrectness of 3 those witnesses' testimony, at least on my part he gets np 4 squawk from me. 5 Now whether Mr. Turk still has an argument. 6 At the same time, I think Perrotti is relevant for 7 all those same reasons. Again, restricted to an offer to 8 demonstrate that these witnesses were correct in their 9 analysis that procedures were followed and so forth even 10 though their testimony had to by nature be hearsay. 11 As I look at Perrotti, it's curing not a hearsay 12 objection, because we don't have it, but a hearsay problem. 13 And it's satisfying the Board that "the guy" who was there 14 saw it done and was satisfied, j 15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I know why that is. l 16 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 17 JUDGE SMITH: That's a subissue. 18 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 19 JUDGE SMITH: When we were looking at the 20 contention on the SPMO, before we went to the contentions, 21 the specifics of the contentions, having received from the 22 Staff and the Applicants the rather sparso arguments that it 23 is simply onsite and leave it alone, we went through 24 NUREG-0654 to determine for ourselves what you might say the 25 contention acceptance criteria would be. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25323: y 1 And we focused,.and this is important to :i 2 understand why we believs the Staff correctly came in with 3 their testimony, and I think you. agree with this. We ., 4 focused on Part 2 of NUREG-0654 under J, the protect'ive. 5 responses, M, M, and that'sEcited in our memorandum and i 6 order accepting contentions on the SPMC on page 83. l 7 And if-you look at M, At says that responsibility. t 8 rests with both the licensee and the state-with_ respect to-9 the bases for the choice of recommended protective-actions. 10 And then it goes on to emphasize offsite circumstances. 11 All right. So based upon that as'much as anything' j 12 else, we concluded that the quality and the bases, the 13 reasoning behind.the onsite generation of protective action 14 recommendations as they are passed offsite and shared with '{
.j 15 the offsite officials, state officials, could be challenged, i 16 And you agree with me that that can be done.
i 17 MR. DIGNAN: It could be challenged. l 18 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk did not ever seem to agree 19 with me that that was-the case, j 20 So they come in then-with broad' testimony j 21 defending the quality of the PARS and the reasoning i 22 underlying those PARS correctly within the scope of what we i l 23 believed was jurisdiction. That was in response to 19(a) or 24 (b). I-forget which one it is. l l 25 Then we say that the only aspect of 19 is 19(d). l Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , l
25324 1 And then you say, well, that's fine. We're going to use the 2 testimony of the Staff of Fox and Bores, not in response to 3 a specific contention, but as a response to, even if METPAC 4 is no good, well, we still have a good fallback position. 5 That's where we are. 6 MR. DIGNAN: That's correct. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Does anybody want to quarrel with 8 where we are and how we've arrived at this point? 9 MR. TURK: I would like to add something 10 additienal for your consideration, Your Honor, rather than 11 quarrel. And this goes back to the first thing that the 12 Mass AG said to you this morning when he said he doesn't 13 want to reopen your consideration of what the contention is 14 all about. 15 That's exactly the wrong approach. And what we 16- have to focus on is what is within the scope of this 17 contention as admitted. In essence, the Mass AG's argument 18 is, well, hell, we're down here -- excuse me, Your Honor -- 19 Heck, we're down the rabbit hole already, we are following 20 all these different fingers of trails wherever they lead. 21 Let's keep doing it, because that's where we are. 22 Well, if y>u are looking for a rabbit, fine. But 23 if the quarry is a bird, you should get out of that rabbit 24 hole and go back to square one and start your search and , i 25 follow the evidence where it should lead. j i s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
s 25325 1- JUDGE SMITH: But we are already down the trail. l
\ '
2 Now we're looking back toisee whero did we come, where are 3 . we. , 4 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think Mr. Turk cug the holes, 5 too, if I remember. 6 MR. TURK: I have to note on the record, Your 7 Honor, I'm going to try to refrain from responding to all of 8 the jokes coming from the Mass AG's office. I think'the 9 litigation has gone on long enough for us to tire of that 10 kind of thing. I certainly am. 11 The fix is simple. Once you identify what the 12 proper scope of the contention is, then any testimony that's 13 been admitted which goes beyond that scope simply won't be 14 useful to you in reaching your decision on whether or not-15 the contention succeeds as Mass AG has attempted to 16 demonstrate. 17 And if there is testimony here before that you i 18 don't need to consider for reaching a decision on the 19 contention, then you just ignore. 20 JUDGE SMITH: That for sure makes a gambler out of 21 the Attorney General. I 22 MR. TURK: Well, no. I 23 I think the proper thing to do now is to have a j i 24 clear definition of what the contention embraces. And then j 25 the testimony that you consider in reaching your decision i
'( ) Beritage Reporting Corporation \d (202) 628-4888
25326 1 will be that testimony which is relevant. 2 JUDGE SMITH: What is your view of the relevance l 3 of the Bores / Fox testimony? , J 4 5 6 7 J 8 l 9 i i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 i 1 1
'I
25327 1 JUDGE SMITH: Did you overshoot the mark?. k ~ 2 MR. TURK: We put it in to meet:what we considered 3 to be your ruling on the contention. , 4 JUDGE SMITH: Right. ' Exactly. 5 MR. TURK: I don't think it overshoots that 6 ruling. 7 I think, however, that the scope of'the contention 8 was never that broad. The only'onsite issue that I see 9 having been raised in this contention is the METPAC issue. l 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, does Fox and Bores do more-11 than address METPAC7 12 MR. TURK: They certainly-do. Most of their 13 testimony addresses the adequacy of the PARS without i 14 discussing the sufficiency of METPAC.
\
15 JUDGE SMITH: Right. l 16 So if your view is correct, Applicants win and the 17 Attorney General can't win. Because what if we go'down the 18 route that Mr. Dignan suggests, if we find METPAC is a great 19 little device there we can ignore everything else. But if 20 we don't, we better look to Bores and Fox and all the other 21 things and find out that the PARS are sound anyway. 22 MR. TURK: I think the way to deal with.that.is by 23 ruling today on what the proper scope of the contention is,. 24 and then there is no surprise. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Do you think that Applicants have a Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
25328 1 right to rely upon testimony of that nature. That 2 everything is fine as demonstrated by the exercise with or 3 without METPAC? . 4 MR. TURK: If the only issue is METPAC? 5 JUDGE SMITH: Well, they're covering their bets. 6 Do you agree that they can do that? 7 MR. TURK: Yes. 8 JUDGE SMITH: If they can do that, then what is 9 the defense that Mr. Traficonte has against that tactic? 10 MR. DIGNAN: None. 11 JUDGE SMITH: None? 12 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 13 MR. TURK: His defense was to show through Goble 14 that the PARS were wrong. 15 JUDGE SMITH: But also, didn't he appropriately 16 cross-examine your panel with 1127 I 17 MR. DIGNAN: Exactly. 18 That's his defense. His Hfense is, he's got it 19 in. In other words, the fact of the matter is, Your Honor, 20 to use your analogy, it is not that I'm covering my bets. 21 My bet is covered. Do you know how well it's covered? 22 Let's assume that this Board rules against me on 23 METPAC, and even went so far as to say, having ruled against 24 you on METPAC, Mr. Dignan, we have also reconsidered various ( 25 other rulings and now what we're going to do is throw out Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4808 Corporation G 1 l I l
-25329 f-s. 1 all of that testimony; let's. suppose.you went down that i
V 2 line. 3 And therefore, you're in default, you lose. I go 4 to the Appeal Board and say, Appeal Board, evidence is in-5 there under oath, it's cross-examined, it's everything else 6 and now would you kindly overrule.them and take that 7 testimony out of this limbo, look at it and follow my theory 8 to its logical conclusion. The bet is covered. 9 There is nothing Mr. Traficonte can do to uncover 10 the bet, even if he persuaded you to make a formal ruling 11 right down here, we are now going back and excluding the-12 testimony. Because the testimony is in the record, it l 13 becomes -- not in the sandbag file, it's in the excluded
/ 14 testimony file.
15 JUDGE SMITH: If we lived in a nice neat world the l l 16 Appeal Board might remand it-to us. 17 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, they might. l 18 JUDGE SMITH: They might not, too. 19 MR. DIGNAN: What they might do is remand it to 20 you and say, we overrule your subsequent exclusion of this 21 testimony and direct the Licensing Board to take up that 22 testimony and see whether they agree or disagree with the 23 theory I put before you. But the record, if you will, is 24 complete. 25 And as I said, what took place here and there's r l (N Heritage Reporting Corporation l l (202) 628-4888 l 1 l 1
25330 1 nothing wrong with this, my brother defends himself at all 4 2 times well, is where an evidentiary objection has become a i 3 device to argue whether or not the contention can be , 4 expanded. ; I 5 And as I say, had the evidence been reoffered, l 1 6 confined to that so that it was clearly in this package of ;
)
7 what I -- for lack of a better term we'll use the secondary { 8 position of the Applicant, I at least would not object. 9 And so I don't think the Board has fallen into any 10 error here. I don't think there's any problem here. And in 11 any event, to the extent that I have the advantage of having 12 the bet covered, it's covered. Nobody can undo the fact 13 that I've got the bet covered. 14 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further? j 15 (No response) 16' (The Board confers.) , i 17 JUDGE SMITH: We're aware that you have not ) 18 actually reoffered 112 based upon discussion. Obviously, ) I 19 it's your intent otherwise you wouldn't have been here l 20 arguing it. 21 So we will deem it -- offer it. 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 23 I would offer it now. Reoffer it now. 24 JUDGE SMITH: And then our ruling will be that it 25 will be received for the limited purpose recommended by Mr. Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l 1 l 25331 i e 1 Dignan and that is,'to explain and confront the testimony of ; { 1
\
2 Fox and Bores. You have other unexplained purposes in mind, 3 but because of our rulings on the scope of the contentions 4 'and because of our acceptance of the logic of the 5 relationship of Bores and Fox's testimony.to the surviving 6 issue of METPAC, we're going to receive it.as it relates to 7 that. 6 I don't know, looking down the road, what 9 practical difference that makes in your proposed findings. 10 Because you haven't pointed to any'other purpose. You have 11 kept your purposes to yourself. And the only purpose that 12 we can see that it would be relevant to would be to its use 13 in the examination of Bores and Fox. 14 (The document referred 15 to, having been previously 16 marked for identification as l 17 Mass AG Exhibit 112 and l l 18 rejected, is now hereby 1 19 received in evidence.) 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm not going to-say that's-fine. 21 As to the comment that I kept my purposes to myself, I 22 wanted it unrestricted acceptance because I believe it is 23 the onsite plan, and I had' argued. ;
)
24 JUDGE SMITH: See, we have to find a contention, l i 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, I understand. 1 ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25332 1 JUDGE SMITH: And we couldn't. 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: I understand the basis for the 3 Board's ruling. My only point is that, to the extent that 4 the ruling is based on my failing to disclose the purpose of 5 the proffer, I wanted it fully usable or usable in any way 6 that I could so devise, because it is the onsite plan and it 7 is the protective action decision-making criteria in that 8 plan. 9 And we believed that aspect of the onsite plan was 10 put in issue by the contentions and challenged. So that was 11 the purpose. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 13 Well, that's fine, Mr. Traficonte. 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: You are ruling against us. 15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: I know that. 17 JUDGE SMITH: But is our ruling now on 112 18 consistent with our earlier rulings? 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Do I believe it is consistent 20 with your earlier rulings? 21 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: Both of which I don't agree with; 23 yes. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 25 (Laughter) , I Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation O'
25333
,, -~s 1 MR. DIGNAN: That's it.
2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Is Mr. Turk now, is he going to 3 subside on the Perrotti deposition? , 4 JUDGE SMITH: I don't know. 5 That's one of the things the Board discussed, we 6 don't see any direct relevance between Perrotti and ll2. I 7 mean, they both-may be related to the Fox-and Bores panel, 8 but we don't see any relationship -- as far as we know 9 Perrotti doesn't even know anything about those matters, I 10 don't know. 11 That's not why you're offering Perrotti in any 12 event. 13 MR. TURK: Well, my offer of Perrotti had several 14 components, Your Honor. One was because there had been a f
\
15 challenge to whether these witnesses-that were before_you 16 were familiar with the onsite procedures and whether the l 17 Applicant followed onsite procedures. 18 So as to that first part Et. Perrotti in his 19 deposition says, I knew what the procedures were.- I saw 20 them in the EOF, and I know that they followed their 21 procedures and the procedures were good. That's one part of 22 my offer. 23 MR. DIGNAN: Could I respectfully inquire of Staff 24 counsel: do I understand the offer of Perrotti, though, is 25 offered with the same limitation that the Board has put on Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25334 1 112. That is to say, its offer is only to the extent the 2 Board deems it necessary to deal with the direct testimony 3 of your witnesses. , 4 MR. TURK: Yes. 5 MR. DIGNAN: In other words, as I understand it G this offer is limited in the same manner that the MAG offer 7 has now been ruled to be. 8 JUDGE SMITH: That is where I believe -- there are i 9 no objections. There were no objections to you offering ] 10 Perrotti. But if you're using Perrotti for the independent ! 11 or corroboration that the procedures were followed as 1 12 compared to Mr. Fox's opportunity to know the basis of his j
)
13 testimony, that may be a different matter; I don't know. 14 Is that a valid distinction? l 15 MR. TURK: My only reason for offering Perrotti, ) 16 Your Honor, is to back up the testimony of the witnesses who 17 are in front of you. 18 JUDGE SMITH: To add to it? 19 MR. TURK: No. 20 If there is a hole -- if there is and I'm not 21 conceding there is -- but if there was a hole in these 22 witnesses' bases for their conclusions. The fact that Mr. 23 Fox relied upon his inspection team which included Mr. 24 Perrotti would then be -- the adequacy of that reliance 25 would be demonstrated through the Perrotti deposition. [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25335 l s 1 JUDGE SMITH: I guess we will have to--- 2 MR. TURK: I may be missing the' fine point,.Your l 1 3 Honor. ,. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Without having all Mr. Fox's l t 5 testimony before us in one mental flash, I'm'not sure { 6 whether he testified, my testimony is based upon a report to: 7 me by Perrotti that everything was fine. Or, that my 8 testimony was arrived.at through'various sources of 9 information and Mr. Perrotti will testify that he gave 10 accurate information. 11 But if you're going to offer.Perrotti for the 12 independent purpose of establishing, even with our without 13 Fox, that he was there and he saw the procedures-being 14 followed and they were good procedures; well, that's another 15 matter, I don't know. 16 Your offer should be clear on it, I'm not saying 17 it's right or wrong, but it should be clear. 18 MR. TURK: Your Honor may recall that you raised a 19 series of questions yourself to Mr. Fox with regard to j i 20 whether in his inspection team meeting he would have heard 21 from other people. l
)
22 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. l l 23 MR. TURK: Whether or not the procedures were ) l 24 followed. 25' JUDGE SMITH: That's right. j g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4889 i
25336 1 MR. TURK: And he said, yes, I would have. 2 JUDGE SMITH: In the normal course of business he ; 3 would have. , 4 MR. TURK: That's right. 5 JUDGE SMITH: That was the purpose of the meeting, ! 6 and that's one of the normal ways they go about it, right. 7 MR. TURK: That's right. 8 JUDGE SMITH: And now you want to augment that. 9 MR. TURK: This portion of the Perrotti deposition 10 would be useful to say that, in fact, Mr. Fox was correct in 11 i relying upon his inspection team meeting. j ( 12 JUDGE SMITH: Why do we need Fox to tell us -- all 13 right. That is, it will go to Fox's opportunity to know as i , 14 compared to Fox's judgment that things are great. ! 15 Give me an example of'wnar Perrotti will say? 16- MR. TURK: Perrotti in his deposition says, that 17 he was aware of the emergency response procedures, before 18 the exercise. He saw those procedures in place at the EOF. 19 He verified that the Applicants followed their procedures. I 20 And because those procedures had been preapproved by the l l 21 NRC, that would automatically lead them to appropriate PARS. ] i 22 That's part of hic testimony. 23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 24 If that goes in we would not have needed Fox to 25 tell us that, would we? Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 l
25337 1 MR. TURK: That's right.
\s,/ 2 JUDGE SMITH: All'right.
3 I just_want to understand that. Solto that- , 4 ' respect-there's corroboration with Fox? 5 MR. TURK: Yes. 6 JUDGE SMITH: kad there's another aspect of_it and 7 that is, Fox correctly testified as to wh'at happened there 8 because we were at a meeting and we reviewed'everything in 9 normal course. 10 One is, the subject mr.tter of what Fox testified 11 to and Perrotti would testify to. 12 And the other is, the opportunity of Fox to know 13 what he testified to. l 14 One is the substance of the testimony; and the f
\
15 other is how he got the information. 16 MR. TURK: All right. 17 JUDGE SMITH: You can offer it for both purposes. l 18 MR. TURK: Yes. 1 19 However, maybe I need to consult on.that, because 20 1 don't see why that's not permitted in light of your prior-21 ruling. 22 JUDGE SMITH: I didn't say it's not permitted. 23 I just want to know why you're offering it. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, as to the first prong of 25 the offer, that's to say, as I understood what Mr. Turk just
/ Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25338 1 said, that Mr. Perrotti was aware of the procedures and that 2 includes 112. He was aware that the Staff had found those 3 procedures in the plan adequate. He witnessed and observed 4 during the exercise that the onsite personnel followed the 5 procedures. And he formed the judgment that the PARS that 6 came out the other end were appropriate. 7 JUDGE SMITH: For those reasons. 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: If that's the subject matter 9 prong. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Then I would come back and again l l 12 say for the now umpteenth time, I believe that Mr. Turk is ( 13 defending this contention by the claim that the onsite plan 14 and procedures are adequate and they were followed in 15 detail, in every important detail. And that the outcome of 16 the application of the plan and procedures was adequate 17 PARS. That's his defense to our contention. 18 And again, we're over the same ground: if that's 19 the defense then we're permitted -- it seems to us we should 20 be permitted to cross-examine that and then seek proposed ! 21 findings as to that defense. 22 JUDGE SMITH: No. What he's saying, as I 23 understand it, is that the Staff had already established the 24 criteria by which it would deem the exercise adequate. 25 And having met those criteria they found -- it.was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L-_-
25339 y-~s 1 a predecision. ( )
\_ / 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, that may be. It may be just 3 running to the weight of the Staff review. ,
4 If Mr. Turk understands that Mr. Perrotti is 5 simply saying, we had already found the plan adequate. 6 JUDGE SMI'iH: Right. 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: We looked at the exercise to see 8 if they just followed the plan, they did so. So therefore, 9 we found no problem during the exercise. 10 JUDGE SMITH: That's what I think is prong one. l 11 He said the procedures were fine because they're l l 12 NRC procedures. l l 13 MR. TURK: What I indicated, Your Honor, is that
/"'N 14 part of Mr. Perrotti's deposition indicates that. He goes 15 further. He says that he formed an independent judgment 16 that these were appropriate and timely PARS. And he went 17 further under Mr. Fierce's cross-examination and said, these 18 are the best PARS that could have been issued. Not because 19 they were following procedures, but because it was 20 appropriate to issue those recommendations when they did.
21 JUDGE SMITH: So this would be independent 22 corroboration of Fox? 23 MR. TURK: Yes. 24 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that's prong one. 25
/O Heritage Reporting Corporation
\'d]
t (202) 628-4888 I
) - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -.----____--___--_u
25340 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we're not done. 2 That's prong 1 now. What do you want -- , 3 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. Prong 1 itself has two , 4 parts, I guess. And the one part, I don't have a problem 5 with. And the other part of the Prong 1, I do have a 6 problem with. 7 The part I have a problem with is when Mr. 8 Perrotti is offered for the proposition that the onsite plan 9 itself, when applied, produces adequate PARS. And again, I 1 10 think Mr. Turk will acknowledge that this is a defense. . I 11 JUDGE SMITH: That Prong 1(a) and Prong 1(b) are. l l 12 MR. TRAFICONTE: Is that otherwise, regardless of 13 what the plan -- , l 14 JUDGE SMITH: Maybe they didn't even follow the 15 plan. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, maybe they didn't, but they 17 still came out with good output. ; 1 18 JUDGE SMITH: They had great PARS. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Right, right. 20 So that's the overarching Prong 1 with those two 21 parts. I don't have a problem with the second part. I mean 22 Mr. Perrotti can say that if he so believes. And Mr. Fierce l 23 cross-examined him and the record will speak for itself in 24 that regard. 25 But the first part of Prong 1, which is that Mr. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
'25341
]
s g 1 Perrotti is in.here, or he will be apparently, in here- ] 2 testifying that the plan and. procedures the onsite staff- < 1 3 used were adequate. That was something that the Staff had J 4 determined. They were applied. J 5 JUDGE SMITH: The 112 proced.tres? 6 MR. TRAFICONTE:- The 112 proc edure, yes. 3 l 7 MR. TURK: It's not clear on the record,.but'I 8 would accept Mr.'Traficonte's: stipulation to that. He 9 doesn't identify which procedures they were in the l 10 deposition. f l 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, that may just go to weight. , 12 But the point is that, if I understand the offer, Prong 1 13 has two parts, and I would object to the first part, which 14 is a defense of the plan as a defense to the contention. 15 Because I thought the thrust of this morning's discussion 16 and ruling was that because of the scope of theEcontention, 17 the adequacy of the onsite plan and procedures is not before i 18 the Board. 9 19 And therefore what Mr. Turk is offering Mr. 20 Perrotti for is irrelevant. Part of what he's offering it l 1 l 21 for is irrelevant. 22 MR. DIGNAN: Again, I'm having a problem. l 23 Mr Turk said he would accept the same limitation ! l 24 that the Board -- i, 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, he said that, but he is [\d } Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
25342 1 clearly not willing to do that. 2 MR. DIGNAN: Can I finish? 3 He sairi he was offering with the same limitation 4 the Board put on yours. And as I understand it, the Mass 5 Attorney General doesn't agree with the Board's ruling, but 6 understand it. 7 I guess my problem is I don't care what Mr. Turk 8 said after that. I didn't hear him the same way you did. 9 But I don't care. If he makes the offer for this limited 10 purpose, in other words, the same limitation that's on your l 11 exhibit, I guess respectfully I would like the Board to 12 inquire, do you have an objection if that's the only way 13 it's admitted. 14 Forget what Mr. Turk glosses around with or you do 15 or I do. If he offers it for that limited purpose and it's 16' accepted for that limited purpose -- i.e., the same l 17 limitation that's been put on yours, does the Attorney 1 18 General have an objection separate and apart from, which I 19 fully understand -- they preserve their rights that the 20 original Board ruling was in error. And it seems to me as a 21 matter of logic there should be no objection at that point. 22 MR. TURK: Let me indicate one thing, Your Honor. l 23 I understand that you have admitted or you are about to 24 admit 112 with a limitation. 25 JUDGE COLE: We have. (202) 628-4888
25343 1 12. TURK: And that is, to explain and confront 2 Bores and Fox. 3 My sense of Ferrotti's deposition is that it is to 4 be used in the same way. It explains the basis for Fox's 5 views and it can be used with respect to the confrontation, 6 which I assume by that you mean impeachment. 7 If this procedure somehow impeaches Bores and Fox, 8 well, Perrotti's deposition has a bearing on that same 9 question. 10 JUDGE SMITH: That was our understanding. 11 MR. TURK: Well, that's my offer also now. 12 JUDGE SMITH: But that is a very broad description 13 of the offer. 14 MR. DIGNAN: Don't say "also". That's what gets 15 him upset. 16- MR. TRAFICONTE: He said, "that's my offer also". 1 17 MR. TURK: No , no. 18 I am agreeing with you, Your Honor. I am not 19 adding to what you have said. 20 JUDGE SMITH: However, the manner in which you tie 21 Perrotti to the panel you presented is a very strong manner. 22 It is corroboration on two counts. 23 MR. TURK: Yes. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Independent corroboration on two 25 counts, and an enhancement of Fox's opportunity to know Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 25344 1 whereof he testifies. Three points. 2 MR. TURK: Okay. 3 Now I see that as being permitted by your ruling, . I 4 'because -- 5 JUDGE SMITH: It may be. We've just got to 6 identify what it is. I don't know. Maybe it is. 7 MR. TURK: Let me see if I can -- 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: I am going to withdraw my 9 objection if -- 10 MR. DIGNAN: He's withdrawing his objection. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm withdrawing my objection if, 12 or I'm abiding by Mr. Dignan's suggestion that the Perrotti 13 deposition be offered with the same limitation, whatever Mr. 14 Turk says or has said or will say in the future, 15 disregarding what he has said and will say, a proposition 16 that I can entertain. 17 Disregarding that, I would not object to the 18 proffer if limited in the same fashion that you have i 19 admitted 112. 20 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I don't let my children l l 21 disregard what I say. I am not going to start letting other 22 lawyers disregard me.
]
23 Let me see if I can approach this in a sort of a 24 teleological sense. 25 If Mass AG proposed its finding -- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25345 j I MR. DIGNAN: You know,'I have a horrible feeling O 2 this is deja vu even though I wasn't here yesterday. i 3 MR. TURK: Deja vu'all over again. 1 4 MR. DIGNAN: If you are prepared to offer with the. l 5 same limitation and he's prepared.to not object on this 6 basis, why do we have to discuss it further? ! l 7 MR. TURK: Well, let me see if I have an H 8 understanding of what we have' agreed to. 9 JUDGE SMITH: I think you stated almost exactly l 10 what Traficonte -- 11 (Laughter) 12 JUDGE SMITH: But go ahead. See what you l 1 13 understand and whether you agree. 14 MR. DIGNAN: Trust me. It's a good deal. 15 (Laughter) 16 MR. DIGNAN: You said you were prepared to have it 17 limited the same way his was, whatever that is. Okay? 18 And he's prepared to not object if it's so 19 limited. 20 And I guess my question is why are we still 21 arguing. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Is that a limited time offer, too? 23 (Laughter) 24 MR. DIGNAN: It's a " time is of the essence." 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's right. I will put the Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25346 ; 1 1 objection back if he hasn't acceded to it in about 35 2 seconds. 3 JUDGE SMITH: I think it's appropriate for Mr. 4 Turk to state what he understands he's agreeing to. 1 l 5 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I do egree to limit my ) 6 offer of that portion of his deposition to the limitation in 7 your ruling on 112, 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right, now, is there agreement 9 as to what portions do that? 10 MR. TURK: Well, that would be the portions of the i 11 deposition where Mr. Perrotti discusses the procedures that 12 were in place, or the fact that procedures were in place and 13 that the Applicants followed their procedures. And that by 14 following a procedure, you come to an appropriate PAR . 15 JUDGE SMITH: That's all right with you, Mr. 16 Traficonte? 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: I really would want to review -- 18 he has not provided me with the pages of this deposition 19 that's offered. l 00 JUDGE SMITH: I thought you had agreed to that. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: No. 22 JUDGE SMITH: With the limitation that whatever he 23 says on that score has to be filtered through this panel. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Fell, the problem is I would want 25 to read the deposition excerpts to see if they could be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l u_______.____ __ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
25347 filtered. I mean, it might be such that'what he's offering-7-~ 'l (\ 2 will not fit through the filter at all. 3 JUDGE SMITH: That may very well be. And that's. 4 why I don't understand'it either. 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: I mean, as long as_we'are in 6 agreement that whatever the limitation is'would apply-to 7 whatever he offers, I don't' care what he offers. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Does corroboration fit into the 9 limitation? 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: It depends on what it'in that's. 11 being corroborated. 12 JUDGE SMITH: The corroboration is that the 13 appropriate PARS were arrived at and -- g 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: In accordance_with the. plan and 15 that the plan was a good plan and would generate good PARS? 16 JUDGE SMITH: It was in accordance with the plan. 17 The plan had been approved by NRC. They had already set out 18 criteria as to which they.would approve the exercise of the j 19 plan. Those criteria were met. Therefore,.the exercise was 20 satisfactory. And in addition, Perrotti believes that the-21 PARS were appropriate. 22 You guys read the deposition. 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 24 JUDGE SMITH: I don't want to tell you abo',e it. 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, I'm in an odd l (' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25348 1 position. There is a limitation. I appreciate the 2 limitation. I've already stated I won't object if his offer 3 is subject to the same limitation. 4 If Mr. Turk wants to fight and offer more, he will 5 be expanding the boundary of the limitation. And I will 6 take full credit for that, and in my proposed findings take 7 advantage of that. 8 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think that you can accept 9 the offer when Mr. Turk is -- I mean in the context of our 10 ruling when Mr. Turk is standing there offering Perrotti as 11 independent corroboration of Fox's conclusion that the PARS 12 were well made. I think you can accept it in the context of l 13 this discussion that the procedures were followed according l l 14 to NRC expectations. Therefore, the result was that the 15 PARS followed the plan, and the plan has already been l 16 approved. 17 Out as an independent opinion on the part of 18 Perrotti that the PARS were good ones, that doesn't fit 19 neatly through that panel. Even though it's called 20 corroboration, it still would be, it seems to me, an 21 independent source for a finding. 22 A and B testify to a set of facts. They 23 corroborate each other. And they are both available 1 24 for -- corroboration is really not a good concept to be used < i 25 here, because there is no evidentiary requirement that there )
+
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i L i
25349
-w 1 be corroboration, or does it really in this instance enhance 2 the credibility of either one of them. So corroboration is 3 not a really good point..
4 He's offering Perrotti for the independent opinion 5 that they were good PARS, and I don't think that fits into 6 the. limitation we're talking about. 7 MR. TURK: Two different things, Your Honor.' You' 8 are right. 9 JUDGE SMITH: I would throw that out if you want l 10 to make him happy. 11 MR. TURK: You are right on both. 12 With respect.to the following of procedures,. 13 that's the part that's not the independent corroboration.
/"A 14 JUDGE SMITH: That's right.
15 MR. TURK: But that's the -- it goes through the l 16- sieve of Fox and Bores testimony. .
=
17 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. That's fine. 18 MR. TURK: Okay. 19 JUDGE SMITH: I would agree that that would do 20 that. 21 MR. TURK: Okay. That's one part of the 22 deposition that I'm offering. That's with that limitation. l l 23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 24 MR. TURK: With respect to following of procedures - I 25 and whether they were good procedures or not, that's just ! 1 I I Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 I i
25350 1 limited by the Fox and Bores testimony. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Now that should get to where you are 3 going now. 4 MR. TURK: Okay. 5 Then there is the second issue if we can agree 6 that far. There is a limitation that Perrotti's discussion 7 of following procedures and those procedures leading to a j 8 good PAR. That is only to be used to explain or deal with 9 any attempted impeachment of the Fox and Bores testimony. 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: So that portion is subject to the 11 limitation. 12 MR. TURK: Yes. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, I understand. 14 And you are offering other things in addition? 15 MR. TURK: Yes. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: That are not subject. 17 MR. TURK: That is the first part. But if we 18 could just agree to that, and then move forward. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Go to the next one. 20 MR. TURK: Thcre are two other parts of the 21 Perrotti deposition that I'm offering, Your Honor. 22 One portion is where he says these were good PARS 23 and the best that could have been formulated. Not tied to 24 procedures, but going beyond the procedures he agreed that 25 they were good ones. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9 i
, v',
25351 j i 1 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. -You are going.to offer thati- l 0- 2 and that's where you are going to1run into difficulty, 3 because it stands independent'of Fox and Bores. 4 MR. TURK: That's right. I 5 ~But'why is that a problem?
~
6 : JUDGE SMITH:- Well,'let's see if-he' accepts it. 7 MR. TURK: !There is no reason for that to be 8 contested. 9 The only thing.that could have been' contested 10 really is to what extent is his discussion of -- 11 JUDGE SMITH: All right, there's no use-arguing 12 that. But the fact is that it does not pertain to any 13 limitation. 14 MR. TURK: That's right. l tO 15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 16 Now what do you say about that? 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: If I could just have a minute to 18 consult. 19 (Counsel confer. ) 20 21 22 23 24 25 1
- t Heritage Reporting Corporation l ' \-
(202) 628-4888 - l 1
25352 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: I was just discussing what the 2 nature of this limitation is. Put it this way: if Mr. Turk 3 is making this offer because he intends to propose findings 4 that the ERO's FARs were appropriate, regardless of the 5 plan, setting the plan aside, they were good and appropriate 6 and excellent in every regard, we would thereby expect to be 7 able to propose findings, contrary-wise, based on -- 8 JUDGE SMITH: That would be your right. Or you 9 can object -- excuse me, go ahead. 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: I either object on the grounds . 11 that that offer is outside, in light of the discussion this 12 morning, outside the -- out-of-bounds or I cannot object. 13 And if the purpose is to provido a basis for findings in 14 that regard, I would just state that therefore the record l 15 that exists to date would be available for findings by us 16 contrary-wise. 17 This is why a minute ago I said, he continues to 18 try to force or push out the limitations or go outside the 19 limitations. That, in a sense, it's in my interest. He can l l 20 go ahead and do that. I 21 JUDGE SMITH: You can object to having any 22 Perrotti interrogatory introduced. And you can pick and 23 choose what you want. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: I can do that. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Right. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)'628-4888
4 4 l 25353 f 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: I understand. I guess my (
\s 2 point --
3 JUDGE SMITH: Except for other aspects of it. fBut 4 generally speaking, you don't have to' agree. 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: I guess my' point'is, I'm 6 conditionally' agreeing, if it's . understood that if he is 7 putting that in for.that purpose and is thereby going to 8 propose findings-in.that regard, we will take advantage 9 -- just so the record is clear now -- we will be taking 10 advantage in our proposed findings. contrary-wise. We-will 11 be seeking findings that the PARS proposed by the-ERO were 12 not adequate. 13 MR. TURK: On what basis? 1 i 14 JUDGE $MITH: How can you -- 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: Based on the record. Based on 16 Dr. Goble's testimony. Based on my cross-examine of Bores. l l 17 Based on the record. 18 MR. TURK: That's right. 19 I assume that's within the scope of the contention 20 as the Board has let it in. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Is PARA -- 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: How is that inside the scope of I 1 23 the contention? We fought for three and a half hours j i 24 yesterday and two hours this morning on the question of 25 whether it was in the scope of the contention. ] Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1
25354 1 But if your view is, it's within the scope of the 2 contention. 3 MR. TURK: I won't express a view other than what 4 I hear from the Licensing Board. 5 If I understand Mr. Traficonte's last point it's 6 that until this moment he didn't anticipate that he was 7 going to be offering findings on whether the ERO's PARS were B appropriate ones. 9 I had not understood that to be something the 10 Board had ruled, that you're not admitting or that you will 11 not consider testimony on the appropriateness of the PARS. 12 JUDGE SMITH: We put the appropriateness of the 13 FARs -- survive into this hearing only as a backup to the 14 METPAC. 15 As the Applicants, are going to use it as saying 16 that METPAC is fine, but even if it's not fine the PARS are 17 all right anyway. 18 It does not stand as an independent issue. Having 19 ruled that the only issue presented by 19 is METPAC. 20 Now, I'm not particularly happy about this 21 arrangement at all. That makes it very complicated. This 22 is a very complicated situation, what will be made on 23 findings. It's going to be hard to remember this chain of 24 logic. 25 MR. DIGNAN: Well, the complication right now is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
q 25355
-1 because --.I hesitate to~do this -- l t ~ . Ns ,/ 2 JUDGE SMITH: But we accepted it.
3 MR. DIGNAN: -- my brother Turk ~and my brother-4 Traficonte, one says I'll offer it with a limitation;and' 5 the other says,.I'll take it with a limitation. And-.then 6 the other guy says,-oh, well, if he's taking it-maybe that's 7 not the way I want.to. offer'it. 8 If he just put aL1 imitation on this entire offer, 9 as I heard Mr. Traficonte, if he puts the same limitation 10 I've got I have no objection.. 11 And as the guy with the real stake here, I 12 couldn't be happier. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. Right. You don't have any. 14 objection because, apparently, Perrotti says these are great
\ 15 PARS.
I 16- MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Well, obviously. 18 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 19 Mr. Traficonte is willing to let it in with that 20 limitation. 21 JUDGE SMITH: He's not. 22 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, he is. He just said, as long as 23 Mr. Turk will limit his entire offer to the same limitation, 24 I have no objection. 25 Didn't I hear you say that? Beritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888
25356 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: I said that and will say it - 2 again MR. DIGNAN: 3 But that's not what Mr. Turk said. 4 And all Mr. Turk has to do is say, I offer -- he could offer 5 the whole Perrotti deposition as far as Mr. Traficonte is , 1
/
6 concerned. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Traficonte, let's put the 8 question to you specifically. He's going to offer an aspect 9 of Perrotti's testimony which says, the PARS for whatever 10 reason are excellent PARS. 11 Now, are you willing to accept that? { 12 And what is your understanding of the limitation 13 of the use of that? 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: My understanding -- and I'm going 15 back to my understanding of the use of 112 -- my 16 understanding of the use of 112 is as impeachment to the 17 testimony of Dr. Bores and Mr. Fox. 1 18 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 19 But this is the other side. 1 l 20 MR. DIGNAN: That's right. 21 JUDGE SMITH: This is corroboration. It doesn't, 22 as I discussed, does not fit to be stated through the filter 23 of -- if it does, tell me what you think you're accepting. 24 Just tell me what it is, the limitation you think you
- 25 accept?
l l l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6LC-4888
-.j
.i J
25357-1 (All parties conferring.); t' l 2- MR.'TRAFICONTE: Let'sitry'to sortlit'out. b4 ' .I 3 One way or'the other it doesn't fit within our l 1 4 understanding of the limitation. The limitation'on 112:is 5 based on the document'1mpeaching a sitting panel.- ] 6 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: We understand that a portion.of-B this proffer here is for the purpose of rehabilitatingithat 9 panel in certain regards. .And that's subject to=the 10 limitation. 11 JUDGE SMITH: In certain regards, yes. 12 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes.- 13 JUDGE SMITH: And that'is, they'followed 1 14 procedure.
\
15 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 16 In those regards we think that proffer -- 17 JUDGE SMITH: Now I'm asking you to focus on the 18 one that there still is no meeting of the minds. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think there is no meet!.ng of 20 the minds. And our analysis is that that. aspect of.the 21 proffer is not subject to the limitation.- And for that' 22 reason -- that's to say, it's an independent' judgment 23 offered by Perrotti. 24 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Not connected to the. limitation, f 4 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l j l __-_ --_-___ L
i 25358 1 and we would object to it on those grounds. l 2 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 3 He objects. 4 MR. DIGNAN: What if he does put a limitation on 5 it. i 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: You can't. You can't say to a 7 square -- you know, it's like there's an opening that's a ! 1 8 size or the shape of a circle and you're trying to bring a i 9 circle -- 10 MR. DIGNAN: I'm going under the table. I'm out 11 of it. I i l 12 JUDGE SMITH: If it is inherently impossible to ' 13 put a. limitation on it, it is impossible, i 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Right. 15 JUDGE SMITH: And by the nature of it, it does not 16 fit as -- impeachment does not establish that the facts used 17 to impeach are indeed the facts, but the fact impeached is i 18 not the fact, as compared to an independent piece of 19 evidence that will be parallel with that panel's testimony. 20 It's parallel; it is not limited by the testimony. How 21 would it be limited? 22 What did they say that would limit-- 23 MR. DIGNAN: It is limited the same way that the 24 other is, to the limitation laid out. 25 JUDGE SMITH: To the use. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
25359
~~
1 MR. DIGNAN: It is.not something -- to the use. 2 It is not something the Board needs to. address unless and 3 until the Board rules with the MAG on METPAC. 4 Then, just as if Perrotti came up here and 5 testified in person, I would have made the same argument on 6 relevance for him that I made to you -- 7 JUDGE' SMITH: All right. 8' But your limitation is different than the 9 limitation he is looking at because it is not limited 10 through Perrotti. 11 It's limited independently in'the same way that 12 Perrotti and Fox are limited. 13 MR. DIGNAN: Correct. 14 JUDGE SMITH: That's what you're saying. l 15 MR. DIGNAN: That's the limitation. l 16 JUDGE SMITH: That's a separate idea. .That's the f 17 first time that has been laid out. 18 MR. DIGNAN: And if Mr. Traficonte didn't mean 19 when he said, he would accept it with the same limitation, 20 that aspect of the limitation, then you still do have a non-21 meeting of the minds, I quite agree. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 23 MR. DIGNAN: I thought he was saying he agreed 24 with that definition of the limitation, but maybe he didn't. 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: I was going to say, it must be l ;
.1
-j
(' Heritage Reporting Corporation 3 l (202) 628-4888 I i I L__ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._.m._.________.__-___
25360 1 getting late in the day but I know it's not late in the day. 2 I did not follow what Mr. Dignan just said, 3 although I sensed enough to know that what he said was 4 significant. I did not follow him. 5 MR. DIGNAN: It is not every day I'm told that 6 whatever I say, whether you understood it or not is 7 significant. That's a warm fuzzy feeling. 8 (Laughter) 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: I had the suspicion that you said l 10 something, I did not follow what you said. ) i 11 JUDGE SMITH: You what? ! i 12 MR. TRAFICONTE: I confess to that. 13 JUDGE SMITH: You did not follow. 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: I did not understand what he 15 said. 16 JUDGE SMITH: I understand. We got to a very 17 tortuous route to having Fox and Bores, to having a 18 limitation to the relevance of their testimony. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Having ruled that the only surviving 21 part of 19 is METPAC, we are in the same position as the 22 valve and the pump. 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. I 24 JUDGE SMITH: You don't have any independent issue j 25 as to protective action recommendations and the quality of l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
l l 25361 ! i 1 them other than METPAC. You don't have any non-METPAC' i i I 2 independent issues. l 3 But you may follow Mr. Dignan when he says -- Mr. I 4 Dignan reintroduces the issue when he says, even if'METPAC q 5 is no good protective action procedures are satisfactory; 6- therefore, METPAC is moot. Which is a common way to' meet-7 the health and safety thing, thereby reintroducing the 8 issue. 9 But the issue does not have any independent life l 10 except the way it's introduced. 11 Now it's easy to say -- that's not so easy to say, 12 but it can be said. But the trick is, proposing findings 13 and writing decisions with that convoluted type of l'ogic, 14 there is where you get.into trouble. 15 Eut nevertheless, it's appropriate. If you guys 16 understand it, that's fine. q 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: I certainly understood what you 18 just said, Your Honor. And I understood'the limitation -- 1 1 19 JUDGE SMITH: Now, you got that.. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: -- on 112 tracks what you said. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Exactly. That-tracks Fox and Bores. 22 Now, the confusion on.Perrotti is, we have come 23 down to this: Perrotti is offered not only as a 24 corroboration of procedures, but also independent for his 25 opinion that the PARS were appropriate, Heritage Reporting Corporation
' (202) 628-4888 I I
25362 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: Is it like the Staff now ! 2 announcing that there is another valve? In other words, 3 it's another -- 4 JUDGE SMITH: That's right, exactly. 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: -- instance of identifying 6 another valve. 7 JUDGE SMITH: It is a piece of evidence parallel 1 8 to Fox and Bores to be used in the same manner. In { I 9 addition, it corroborates it. ! l 10 MR. DIGNAN: It's not a new valve. It is the same 11 valve. There's three witnesses sitting there instead of two l i 12 and the third witness is giving additional reasons to what I j 13 the other two, as to why the valve is good. i 14 JUDGE SMITH: You know the DNA, double helix, it 15 is sort of like that. h 16 (Laughter) 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: In an important respect. 18 MR. TURK: Actually, Mr. Dignan summed it up 19 pretty well, Your Honor. Mr. Perrotti is here as a third l 20 invisible witness. He wasn't before you but his testimony 21 relates to the same points. 22 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. 23 MR. TURK: And his testimony would be used only to 24 the same -- in the same manner that the Fox and Bores 25 testimony was. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25363 1 JUDGE SMITH: However, there's a dual application. (%
~ 2 He has independent testimony to' offer ~and he has 3 corroboration testimony to offer.
4 MR. TURK: Yes. 5 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.: Independent and reinforcing.- 6 MR. TURK: Yes. l-7 MR. TRAFICONTE: Now, we come to a different -- I 8 understand. I certainly do understand. 9 But now I'm puzzled, why is Mr. Turk offering.that 10 portion that we are now focusing on which is like theithird 11 witness, why is he offering it now? He didn't' offer it -- 12 JUDGE SMITH: I don't know. l 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: Why isn't he -- 14 JUDGE SMITH: To tell-you the truth, I wish he 15 hadn't. But here it is. We have been talking about this 3 i 16 now for about three hours, Perrotti. j l 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: In the sense, I'm saying that it j j 18 sounds to me like part of his direct case. It doesn't arise 19 out of the cross -- I mean, if I understood the' flow, it 20 doesn't arise out of the cross-examination of Bores and Fox. i 21 JUDGE SMITH: The independent decision of Perrotti 22 does not arise out of that. 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Right, j 24 JUDGE SMITH: That's a now thing. ! 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: So why is it offered now, I mean, i C Heritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888
25364 1 it's late. 2 JUDGE SMITH: There are other aspects of it that 3 do , howerer. 4 ER. TRAFICONTE: Are those other aspects subject 5 to the limitation? 6 JUDGE SMITH: You can object. 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: And I'm going to stick by my 8 objection. And I don't think it's a retraction of my 9 agreement. 10 JUDGE SMITH: You don't have to accept Perrotti as 11 an invisible nonpresent witness offering testimony that the 12 PARS were correct. 13 I think you can appropriately accept his 14 testimony, if you choose, that Fox's testimony was a part of 15 a continuum, a regularity both as to procedures being 16 followed and Fox's opportunity to know that they Were 17 follow 9d. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 19 JUDGE SMITH: You can accept that. And I think 20 you would do little damage to your case if those were, 21 indeed, the facts. And exclude his independent judgment 22 that the PARS were good ones. Because that is parallel and 1 23 independent. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 25 If I understand it and I think I do, I will object l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25365 g~ 1 on those grounds. To that portion of the. offer.
\s- 2 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
3 What do you say to that? I think he has a right 4 to object. 5 MR. TURK: On the grounds that it's an untimely 6 offer of direct testimony? 7 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 8 (Pause) 9 MR. DIGNAN: Why is it untimely? 10 JUDGE SMITH: Because it was not -- 11 MR. TURK: Wasn' t prefiled. 12 JUDGE SMITH: What? 13 MR. TURK: Because it wasn't prefiled. ( ( 14 MR. DIGNAN: It wasn't prefiled and was taken by
\- 15 them. It's a deposition. I don't see how it's untimely.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we had a due date for filing 17 testimony. 18 MR. DIGNAN: In other words, it's because the 19 Perrotti deposition wasn't specifically referenced and 20 included in the Staff prefilings. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Exactly right. The Staff brief or 22 whatever. l 23 MR. DIGNAN: I get the thrust of Your Honor's 24 point. 25 JUDGE SMITH: And there is no good cause for I (h. ( Heritage Reporting Co7poration A (202) 628-4888 l
25366 1 bringing it up now. I mean, in the first place, I don't i 2 think it's necessary. 3 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I fully -- 4 JUDGE SMITH: It's not rebuttal. 5 MR. TURK: I agree, it's not necessary. 6 I also would note that the deposition followed by 7 approximately 11 days the filing of the Staff brief and 8 Staff's direct testimony. 9 MR. DIGNAN: That's the problem, you took the 10 deposition after that. 11 MR. TURK: We filed our direct -- l 12 JUDGE SMITH: To what? 13 If you wanted Perrotti and you're late, you should 14 have said something. 15 MR. TURK: I accept that. 16 With respect to these independent opinions of his 17 that don't reinforce or fill holes of the Bores and Fox 18 testimony -- 19 JUDGE SMITH: The first time you had an 20 opportunity to be concerned about that was in their cross-21 examination. 22 MR. TURK: That's right. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 24 Now, are we all right. 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: And you' re going to sustain the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25367' l'- objection as to those parts?
~ \ 2, JUDGE SMITH: I'm going.to sustain'the' objection.;
3 As a matter:of fact, I think he has withdrawn it with 4 respect to the independent judgment as.to'the quality of the-5 PARS. 6 7 8 9 l 10 i 11 12 13 14 . 15 16-17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25358 1 MR. TURK: I'll accept the ruling, Your Honor. 2 JUDGE SMITH: The ruling is objection sustained. 3 MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor. 4 Then there is a third portion of the Perrotti 5 deposition which again~goes into the corroboration and 6 reinforcing of the Fox and Bores testimony. And that's the 7 portion that dealt with the provisions and plans for 8 protection of the beach population. 9 You may recall when the two witnesses were before 10 you, part of the cross-examination went to those two letters 11 which Mass AG has not withdrawn. But the cross-examination 12 is still in the record as to whether there was reason to be 13 concerned about different provisions in the beach protection 14 strategy of the three plans. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that is narrow enough. You 16 mean Perrotti's concerns? l 17 MR. TURK: Yes. 18 JUDGE SMITH: That is a narrow enough issue that I 19 think -- I have no confidence that we could go through Fox 20 and Bores and excise all aspects which were not relevant. 21 But I think that narrowing it down to saying, Perrotti's 22 concerns and whether or not they were resolved is out of the 23 case. The fact that he was concerned to begin with and the 24 fact, if it be true, that his concerns were resolved, they 25 are both opposite sides of the same coin. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-j 25369- i 1 Throw them both out_and we're all right.
I
\ 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: The fact that he was concerned 3 and that --
4 JUDGE SMITH: That goes'out~with the. fact that his. 1 f I 5 concern was -- 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: -- at a certain point was no
-l 7 longer concerned.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. It's out. In fact, that is l 1 9 the state of the evidence right now, I guess. 10 MR. TURK: Not an issue. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Not an issue. 12- JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 13 As a matter of fact, it's not very important
- 14. really, because we're deciding the same issues --
15 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 16 JUDGE SMITH: -- as to which his concern was made 17 and satisfied. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE:- No presumption attaches one way l 19 or the other to whatever the Staff's findings are.- l 20 It's not a FEMA situation. No presumption j 21 attaches to what the Staff -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: We don't even have.a finding. I 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: You have the expression-of a. I 24 concern. At which point the individual indicated he did not ; 25 have that concern. l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25370 1 JUDGE SMITH: Can the parties agree that 2 Perrotti's initial concern and the resolution of it, if 3 indeed he was initially concerned and if indeed he wa j 4 resolved, are nonicsues? I 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: We can certainly agree that the 1 6 concern on the part of Perrotti and the Staff is a nonissue. 7 I'm not sure -- I'm not being asked to agree that he was e concerned about is not an issue, right? j i 9 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, no, right. I 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. i i 11 JUDGE SMITH: The fact that Perrotti was f l 12 concerned. l 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: No, that's not an issue. 14 MR. TURK: All right. l 15 Now there is something left hanging, Your Honor. 16 Apparently Mr. Traficonte still wants to have an 1 17 issue in the case as to whether or not the fact that the 18 plans are inconsistent or somewhat different in the I l 19 treatment of beach populations, whether that's good. And he 20 wants to be able to propose findings on that. 21 Now if that's true -- l 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: In other words, you really were 23 offering Perrotti not for the reason you just indicated, but 24 for that reason. You wanted Perrotti to come in for the 25 substance that in fact there is no inconsistency, or if l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
]
i 25371 L! t
-- 1 there is one, it's a good one.: 1 1 \
2 So when you just_said a minute ago that you are : I 3 offering it because.you wanted to establish that Perrotti. j j 4 hadfa concern .snd it was resolved at-n later point, which 5 I've already-stipulated to is'not an issue, now you want to 6 put it in for a different reason. ! 1 l 7 MR. TURK: It depends on'what use of the Bores and 8 Fox testimony is going to be made by the Mass AG in.its 9 proposed findings. 10 If he wants to come back -- 11 JUDGE SMITH: Let's narrow'it down. I thought we 12 had ruled on this. 13 Beres and Fox.were cross-examined to the.effect, l ( 14 didn't Mr. Perrotti express a concern, and doesn't this 15 letter manifest his concern. 16 Is that the cross-examination you are concerned 1 17 about? I
.I 18 or are you concerned about the substance of it, J 19 the substance of it?
20 MR. TURK: I'm going to need a minute to take a 1 i 21 look at the cross-examination. j 22 ; i 23 j j 24 - l 25 l i Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 l
j 25372 1 JUDGE SMITH: Let's come back to it after lunch. 2 MR. TURK: All right. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Ret.In at 1:15. 4 ~(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was l 5 recessed, to resume at 1:15 p.m., this same day, Tuesday, 6 June 13, 1989.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 , 14 15 16 17 i 1 18 19 i I 20 21 22 23 24 25 l ; Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
I 25373 j 7s 1 AEIEBHQQH EEEE1QH ; 2 (1:15 p.m. ) l 3 JUDGE SMITH: Are you prepared to proceed, Mr. 4 Turk? ! 5 MR. TURK: Yes, I am. 6 As I understand the Mass AG's position on the 7 issue, he has essentially stipulated, in fact the last time 8 we argued the motion he did stipulate that the NRC has no f 9 further concerns on the issue of consistency between plans 10 for beach populations. I l 11 I understand also today that he agrees that there f 12 is no outstanding issue as to whether Staff concerns or Mr. l l 13 Perrotti's concerns have been resolved. He agrees, that's 1 fN 14 been resolved.
\'
15 But what he wants to leave open for argument and l 16- findings is are the plans inconsistent and is that bad. l l 17 Now, with respect to that question, I think the 18 Perrotti deposition is relevant. 19 JUDGE SMITH: We're not questioning relevance. 20 That's independent relevance. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: And if I understand the flow, I 22 think we are back at a situation where, since it doesn't 23 appear to arise out of the cross-examination, does not 24 appear to be subject to the limitation that we've discussed, 25 it then appears that Mr. Turk is now offering another piece i [ ! (N Beritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
j l 25374 i 3 to his direct case. It's late. And for the same reason 2 that the other independent piece was offered and we 3 objection, and the objection was sustained, we would object 4 to the Perrotti deposition in this regard as being just 5 another piece of his direct case which he didn't file on 6 time. 7 I guess is our view is one or the other. It 8 either arises out of the cross, is therefore subject to the 9 limitation. Or if it doesn't arise out of the cross, is 10 being offered for independent reasons, and the standing 11 objection would be why is it offered now, why wasn't it a 12 part of his direct case. 13 We would object. 14 MR. TURK: I'll limit my offer to the same 15 purposes as the question of the procedures, Your Honor, with 16 the understanding that it's there to explain and possibly to 17 help withstand an attack on the Bores and Fox testimony. i 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: How he seems to want to go in the 19 middle and say that, although the issue and the piece he's 1 20 wanting to proffer is independent, independent standing by 21 itself as to inconsistency between the plans, he wants it 22 subject to the limitation which is again, as we discussed 23 before lunch, there are certain things that by their very 24 nature would not be subject to this limitation, and this is 25 one of them, because it doesn't arise out of the cross-I Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9i
25375
,/-' 1 examination.
2 I mean he's between a rock and a hard place. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Did Fox and Bores depend upon 4 Perrotti's analysis on'this' subject matter for their 5 testimony? 6 MR. TURK: Part of the cross-examination did' 7 explore that. And I wouldn't say all of their views are 8 dependent on Perrotti. But they did indicate that, back 9 when 113 and 114 were used in cross-examination by Mass AG,- 10 they indicated that they were aware of those letters and 11 that the Staff concerns had been resolved. And Mr. Fox 12 specifically indicated that he had talked to Mr. Perrotti 13 and was satisfied that those concerns were resolved. 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, here we go ahead. 15 If I follow the thrust of the proffer, I'm going 16 to make the same move I made how many hours ago. I_will 17 reoffer or reproffer 113 and 114, the request'for { l 18 information latter and the response, to the extent that Mr. J 19 Turk is offering the Perrotti deposition as to the 20 substantive aspects -- 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, if you are going to object, 22 object. l 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Pardon me? 24 JUDGE SMITH: You don't have to accept any of. l 9 l 25 this, you know. l
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l
l 25376 I MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, I'm going to do exactly 2 what I did before with 112. I've stated the objection. I 3 think the objection should be sustained. 4 To the extent that it is not and the Ferrotti 5 deposition comes in in the way Mr. Turk just described, I 6 would then reoffer 113 and 114 for the truths of the -- I j 7 mean, without restriction, because they indicate that the 1 8 Staff had a concern about a substantive issue. 9 MR. DIGNAN: Before you go too quickly, they also 10 indicate that it's not a problem. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: No. 12 MR. DIGNAN: If you are offering them both for the 13 truth,of the matters asserted. 14 MR. TURK: Well, Mr. Traficonte -- l 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: One letter is the request for 16 information. The other one is the reply back. 17 MR. TURK: Mr. Traficonto has -- 18 MR. DIGNAN: Well, if you are offering the letter 19 for the truth of the matters asserted, and the matter 20 asserted in the letter is it's no problem. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well. 22 MR. DIGNAN: So I don't think you really meant 23 that. 24 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 25 Mr. Turk. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25377 l 1 MR. TURK: Mr. Traficonte'has already stipulated 2 that the Staff has no concerns'and.he isn't' going to
'It 3 challenge that. . He's satisfied that, yes, Staff' concerns 4 have been resolved.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Then what do you need any more from 6 Perrotti for? 7 Mr. Turk, would you explain again given that, why B you need Mr. Perrotti's testimony? 9 MR. TURK: I'dsn't really'need it, Your Honor. 10 (Laughter) 11 MR. TURK: If'it'was'there, it would be-useful. 12 It would help to explain. the Bores auxi Fox testimony, but 13 it's not necessary. 14 JUDGE SMITH: I think that's the answer, isn't it?' 15 JUDGE COLE: We do have a-lot of paper. 16 MR. TURK: I'm being encouraged to withdraw that 17 part of my offer. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, I.think you are being-19 encouraged. 20 MR. DIGNAN:- I'd read that as more than 21 encouragement. 22 (Laughter) 23 MR. TURK: I will subside ~and accept the 24 encouragement. 25 JUDGE SMITH: So what's'left now? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25378 1 MR. TURK: All that's left is what we had 2 discussed earlier today, and that wss the testimony 3 concerning following procedures. 4 JUDGE SMIT 11: And that's -- 5 MR. DIGNAN: That's in with a limitation. 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: With that limitation, it's in. 7 And all I would request of Mr. Turk is that at some point 8 fairly soon he would identify the pages for me and I would 9 look at that. 10 JUDGE SMITH: You don't need us for that. 11 MR. DIGNAN: No. 12 MR. TURK: No. 13 I have a list and I will give that to Mr. 14 Traficonte now. He can review it and maybe in the next 10 15 minutes look at it. 16 MR. DIGNAN: Could I suggest also, Your Honor, 17 assuming resolution between the Attorney General and Mr. l 18 Turk as to what pages are involved, at some point we bind 19 them right into the transcript. I don't think there are 20 going to be that many, and it would make it more easily 21 available to all of us, I think, rather than to try to keep 22 a copy of the Perrotti deposition in hand. l 23 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. If that can be done today 1 24 even, it probably would be better. 25 MR. TURK: I would like to do it right away. I Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1 25379 assume that Mr. 9 2 the table. Traficonte is not arguing the next motion on 3 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm going to be present during 4 the next motion. I'm not going to argue it unless -- 5 JUDGE SMITH: So we can get it in at any time 6 today and mark this place for it. _ . 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's fine. I just want to, and 8 it just seems obvious. _ I want to see what those pages are. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 10 - MR. TRAFICONTE: 11 And then I want to review the deposition. 12 And if there is another portion that is caught by the same description that I believe should be offered , we 13 would retain the right and I think the rules provide for the 14 right to supplement or suggest that more go in with it for 15 the same purpose. 16 I obviously want to defend myself against the 17 selective choice of the deposition. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Exactly, right. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay. 20 JUDGE SMITH: 21 So maybe it can't be done today. MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, I will try. 22 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'll try. ( 24 be bound in, too. And I think it should
- I agree with that.
25 JUDGE SMITH: All right. O Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 E
a 25380 MR. TRAFICONTE: If not today, then first thing in 1 2 the morning. I will definitely try to review it. I do want 3 to do that. JUDGE SMITH: Well, as we speak now in the 4 5 transcript we don't know if it's going to appear at this 6 point. But if everything works out all right, it is at this 7 point where you will find it. 8 And if you read the transcript and you don't find 9 it -- 10 (Laughter.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
25381 1 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I think Mr. Traficonte does 9 2 not need to review the whole deposition transcript before he 3 can agree to what I'm about to offer. He can agree to that, 4 go home tonight, look at the transcript. If he has some 5 more pages he wants to offer tomorrow, he can do that 6 tomorrow. 7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: Except then we would have -- 9 JUDGE SMITH: Then disregard what I said. 10 MR. TURK: And that would be very beneficial to me 11 so I could go back to Washington, Your Honor. 12 MR. DIGNAN: Well, you are going to go back to 13 Washington and let him offer whatever he wants tomorrow? 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: You will have no objection to 15 anything that I would offer. 16 MR. TURK: We have Staff counsel here who will 17 address it. 18 MR. DIGNAN: He looks thrilled. 19 MR. TURK: All he is going to be doing tomorrow is 20 offering additional pieces that may discuss procedures. I'm 21 satisfied I've got a complete list right now that I'm about 22 to put in. 23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Go. . 1 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: So if I accept this list, you 25 will leave? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ _ _ - _ - --__-- - - J
l 25382 1 (Laughter) l l 2 MR. DIGNAN: And then if you'll leave, I'll leave. j 1 3 (Laughter) I 4 MR. TRAFICONTE: Oh, we need the Harris. 5 We are going to get Mr. Fierce who is going to 6 argue the Harris motion. 7 I would just like to point out that by agreement 8 of the parties, Your Honor, tomorrow morning the SAPL 9 firemen are ready to go at 9:00, 10 MS. DOUGHTY: Right. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: By prior arrangement. 12 We would at that point immediately after SAPL 13 firemen like to have the motion in limine that runs to the 14 Cohn testimony heard. Because as the schedule is presently 15 set, Cohn is flying in on Thursday evening, and would be 16 here to be cross-examined on Friday morning in the event 17 that -- obviously if the motion were successful. 18 JUDGE SMITH: I think we have some difficulty with 19 that testimony. I don't think we received it, alth'ough this 20 has come up before and I thought it was resolved, 21 l MR. TRAFICONTE: I believe it was refashioned i 22 because -- ! I 23 JUDGE COLE: I couldn't find my copy, if I ever ! 24 did receive it. 1 25 (Document proffered to all parties.) i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 25383 1
-s 1 JUDGE SMITH: A housekeeping matter, we will be:
\ 2 out of this room permanently at the end'of next week. 3' (The. Board confers.) 4 JUDGE SMITH: We will be here Monday of the
'5 'following week, but after that we will be out.. And 6 everything goes out.
7 MR.'TRAFICONTE: Out of this room. meaning,;not any. 8 longer having -- 9 JUDGE SMITH: We're going up in Tax Court. 10 MR. DIGNAN: So everybody is under an. obligation 11 to remove all their materials from this room by Monday 12 evening of the 26th. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. i I 14 MR. DIGNAN: The so-called " blank day," as it 15 were. ') l 16 JUDGE SMITH: Are you ready, Mr. Fierce? l 1 17 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 18 This is a motion in limine to strike all of the 19 testih.ony of a Mass AG witness Dr. Howard Harris who is i i 20 testifying on two contentions. JI-13 and MAG EX-11. j 1 21 Dr.. Harris has presented in his testimony a j i 22 critique of the training provided to three of the ORO 23 personnel: the traffic guides; the person who derives the ! 24 EBS messages which is called the public notification ! 25 coordinator; and a third group of people, the people who Beritage Reporting- Corporation (202) 628-4888
25384 1 make the protective action recommendations. 2 JI-13, I think it's important to note, is a 3 rewrite of two contentions. I think this, perhaps, may be 1 4 where the motion misses a critical point. j 5 l JI-13 and JI-14 were withdrawn together in the ' 6 stipulation of February 7th, I believe. And in their place 7 the Mass AG substituted the new language. In fact, the 8 stipulation itself reads: " Mass AG and Town of Amesbury , 9 hereby withdraw JI Contention 13 and 14 and in their place 10 substitute the following contention." 11 And then we have a contention which alleges that 12 the training provided to traffic guides, public notification 13 coordinator, PAR decision-makers, and bus drivers is 14 inadequate along with the prerequisite experience. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Tell me this: did the original 13 16 not have that -- that phrase follows three of your bases and 17 the concept is in the fourth. Was that concept not in the 18 original J1-13? 19 MR. FIERCE: The original JI-13 I believe had that 20 concept in it, yes. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 22 MR. FIERCE: If we're talking about the same l l 23 concept: "That the training provided is not adequate to i l 24 compensate for the deficiency that appeared in the 25 prerequisite experience." Yes. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25385 1 That was clearly within what was in originally 2 JI-13. There is no question that JI-14 also alleged 3 inadequacies in training. And it's a consolidation process 4 that was undertaken here, Your Honor. There were two 5 contentions: JI-14 used some general language about the 6 training being entirely too general in nature. In 7 describing why it was inadequate: "Too general in nature. 8 Much too brief. Not well done." 9 That's not to say that JI-13 as it was originally 10 drafted didn't include similar concepts in the fact that 11 they were alleging that the training was inadequate to 12 compensate for the prerequisite experience. 13 We thought that is the real issue in terms of 14 training. There are people who are performing job tasks who 15 bring to those tasks certain background and experience 16- coupled with the training they receive, produces whatever 17 the result is. 18 Now, if the background is not terribly 19 substantial, the training has to be a substantial piece of 20 training. And we had alleged that the training was 21 inadequate to provide the necessary skills and learning for 22 that person in order to provide proper job performance. 23 So it was a challenge to the training as well as 24 being inadequate to the task at hand. I 25 Now, it was a consolidation. It could be argued 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - - - - 1
i 25386 1 concepts from both got merged into the new JI-13, but it , l 2 says what it says. And I think there is no question that ] i 3 it's a challenge to the training program given the 4 prerequisite experience that the people we're focusing on 5 now, brought to their jobs. 6 With Dr. Harris, what we did is provide him with 7 the training modules for the three positions that we wanted 8 him to focus on. We didn't have him focus on bus drivers. 9 We had him focus on traffic guides, PAR decision-makers, and 10 the public notification coordinator. 11 One of his critical points in his testimony is 12 that that training does have some similarities in that it 13 doesn't provide meaningful verbal learning. 14 Now Dr. Harris is an expert in the' field of 15 training. And his assessment provides that level of 16 critique to the training. If you don't have an adequate 17 background for the job, the training would have to provide 18 meaningful verbal learning in order to produce at the end 19 result a player who can perform properly. 20 Now, we also have other individuals who are 21 testifying about training content and that would be Dr. 22 Adler who is testifying about traffic guide training 23 content. 24 We have Dr. Carter who is going to be testifying, 25 to some extent, about the content of the training for the i Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25387 1 public notification coordinator. 9 2 And with respect to PAR decision-makers Dr. Goble 3 had some comments on PAR training. 4 The training attack is a generic attack. It was 5 alleged that the training was not adequate to the task. 6 It's not adequate because it doesn't provide adequate and 7 meaningful verbal learning. It's not adequate because it 8 doesn't have content. 9 The Applicants in their motion attempts -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: That's what Dr. Harris says, it 11 doesn't have the correct content? 12 MR. FIERCE: His focus was with respect to the 13 kind of training it was -- 14 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, it's the other witnesses that 15 say that. 16 MR. FIERCE: W9 have three other witnesses who are 17 focusing on content specifically. 18 JUDGE SMITH-. All right. 19 MR. FIERCE: Dr. Harris is not an expert in 20 content of training for traffic guides or public 21 notification coordinators or PAR decision-makers, but he is 22 an expert in training in general and he was asked to take a 23 look at it and came to the conclusion that that training 24 isn't going to provide meaningful verbal learning. l 25 He explains the theory, it is scrutable. And we l 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
25388 1 believe it's perfectly proper to support the contention that 2 it is. 3 Now, what you've got in this motion is the 4 Applicants apparently trying to constrict the contention in 5 a way that doesn't hold water. They try to argue that JI-14 6 focused on some sort of general attack on training design. 7 There is no specific language in the old JI-14 that makes 8 that challenge. Nor was that challenge specifically_ alleged 9 in JI-13, the old one. It was an attack on training. 10 And it seems to me that it's relevant testimony to 11 that attack. If the training doesn't provide meaningful 12 verbal learning the content is irrelevant. 13 If it does and we fail to persuade you through Dr. 14 Harris' testimony that meaningful verbal learning is 15 provided, we would still have a second prong of our attack 16 which is that the content is inadequate. 17 So it is a general attack on the training. And 18 ultimately, the proposition that the -- given the 19 prerequisite experience these people have not received 20 adequate training in order to allow them to perform properly 21 is what this contention is about. And therefore, this 22 testimony is proper. 23 So I would just be aware of some of the language I 24 you see in the Applicants' motion which, essentially, 25 distorts and rewrites using different words for both Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25389 contentions JI-13 and JI-14 than were either in the
~
-- I
'- 2 originals or in the present combined version..
3 The second part of my_ argument would be that there 4 is a second contention here, it's MAG EX-11. This'is a 5 contention which had originally alleged,.I guess:still does, 6 a series of deficiencies in the PAR-decision-making. 7 'Your Honor is~ familiar with'this contention. We 8 have discussed it at length-in the past few-days. 9 Training for - excuse me -- decision-making by 10 the ORO was alleged to be inadequate for PAR decision-11 making. And in admitting that contention Your Honor 12 indicated that it appeared that it might reveal significant 13 defect in the training program. It was read.as a training l 14 contention. 15 Again, Dr. Harris' testimony supports that 16 contention. That the PAR decision-makers'-- the mistakes 17 that they evidenced during the exercise resulted from 18 improper training, because Dr. Harris' -analysis of thefPAR 19 decision-making training module, again, shows that.there is 20 not adequate meaningful verbal learning'that it will
~
21 provide; and therefore, it's deficient. So it directly goes 22 to MAG EX-11 as well. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Cook?' 24 MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor. 25 The Applicants argument for the exclusion of Mr. Beritage P' sporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l 4
25390 1 Harris' testimony rests not upon a distortion or rewriting 2 of terminology that the parties are familiar with in this 3 proceeding, but upon the terms as they have been used. And q 4 in particular the Applicants are concerned that the terms be 5 clear and that fair notice of the extent of what is'being 6 litigated be provided by those terms. 7 Because of that concern the argument proceeds by 8 pointing out that there is a distinction between content and 9 design. It is the distinction that most students would 10 recognize if they really wanted to become familiar with a l 11 subject, an instructor's manual in a proceeding. 12 And one can distinguish between the subject matter 13 that the student learns and the suggestions in the margin to 1 14 the instructor about how that subject matter is to be ; 1 15 conveyed. That's what is problematic about a reference to a 16 general theory like the psychology of meaningful verbal 1 17 learring. It obscures the crucial difference between the 18 subject matter and a method of conveyance of that subject 19 matter. 20 So point one is that there was a division made 21 between content and design. 22 And the second and following point is that this 1 23 division was reflected in the distinction between the two 24 contentions, primarily at issue he.re: JI-13 and JI-14. 25 The motion in particular points out that JI-14 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
25391; f
,, - ~ 1 examined the training in general. It's criticism, and I' m i 2 looking at the basis, was that the training:was too general .g 3 in nature and not well done.
4 Whereas, JI-13's focus, although it has always' , i 5 incorporated -- and when I nodded earlier I meant to' agree 6 that the old JI-13 has always had that final sentence that ; 1 1 l 7 says, "And the training is not adequate to compensate for_ I 8 this deficiency." l 9 Nevertheless, the focus of JI-13'has always been t i l 10 on inadequate prerequisite experience. And in particular, ] l 11 prerequisite experience-goes to what have people done in the-l 12 past and what information are they actually familiar with i 13 because of that experience. J 14 The perfunctory statement in each of Bases A,-B, l 15 and D in the new JI-13 which does not alter in any way or j i 16- was not altered or changed from the old JI-13, when Mr.- 17 Fierce argues that there was a consolidation. -And l ; 18 especially by using the word " compensate" goes to the j 19 subject matter that prerequisite experience is alleged to be ; 20 insufficient. l 21 And the Staff, the third point -- the second being 22 that there is division between 13 and 14 -- the third point i ~ 23 is that the Staff and the AG both in the early examination l 24 of these contentions also distinguished between them. 25 In the motion on pages 4 and 5 Applicants point [
, Beritage Reporting Corporation \ (202) 628-4888
i 25392 1 out that the Staff raised no objection to what was JI-13 i 2 because it was specific. And in particular they said, i 3 provided it was limited to the examples set out in the bases 4 for the contention. 5 On the other hand, and I'm looking at page 4, the 6 Staff objected to the broad generalizations about the 7 inadequacy of the utility training program in JI-14, 1 8 And the Attorney General when he responded, also { f 9 said that the issue in JI-14 was the adequacy of the 10 training modules. ;- l 11 Now, JI-14 was removed from this litigation in ] 12 that stipulation of February 7th. It is a stipulation where 13 an exchange was involved in terms of allowing the Attorney 1 14 General to present testimony in the second phase of the 15 proceeding in order that JI-14 be removed. I 16 Now, if there was a consolidation, then why wasn't 17 the language and concern for generality of the training j i l 18 program and the method with which it was done, why wasn't 19 that also added in and supplemented in JI-13. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
25393 l s .1 MR. COOK: (Continued)- The important point to-p 2 keep in mind again is that the process.of learning'I think l 3 involves at least three considerations. One is the l 4 difficulty of-the subject matter. Another'is the 1 l 5 attentiveness of the student. And the third is how well the i i 6 teacher performs, how clearly he or she speaks, and whether l l 7 they can be understood. 1 1 8 Now if the teacher doesn't do a good job, the 9 student can still learn the subject by studying the 10 materials at issue. And that is precisely the distinction 11 between JI-13 and 14 here. 12 It is the selection of the material for the 13 students' final' examination that remains at issue in the 14 case which is encompassed by JI-13 and which.the other three 15 pieces of testimony referred to by the AG do go to, and not 16 the faculty's peer evaluation of how well the instructor 17 performs. 18 That is what Mr. Harris' general theoretical 19 attack goes to, and that was removed with JI-14. 20 As Mr. Fierce used the term " level of critique", 21 will the critique be specific and focused-on the subject 22 matter or will it be theoretical and focused on way in which 23 the training was performed. , 24 The ultimate point is how can Dr. Harris testify 25 to the adequacy of the training on eight specific positions 1 O ) \ ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1 l
. .. . l
l 25394 1 when the contention that goes to those eight ORO positions 2 covers the subject matter and the experience that they l 3 should have to perform a good job when he knows nothing i 4 about that subject matter and refers on page 4 to the other 5 people offering testimony in this proceeding, and says that < 6 my testimony is going to the overall design and not the 7 content. j 8 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, may I respond? I 9 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. l 10 (Counsel confer. ) ; i 11 (The Board confers.) 1 12 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, a couple of points. l I 13 First, we have a certain track record here in this j
\
14 proceeding on how we deal with these stipulations. And what l 15 we have understood the process to be and what it's been in i i 16 the past with respect to past rulings is that when a new 1 17 contention gets drafted in a stipulation, that contention 1 18 stands or falls on its own merits. 19 The history of the prior contentions is not going 20 to be a relevant factor. You look at the language in the l 21 fore corners of the contention that's on the table. l 22 Now if you want to break that rule, you get into 23 this problem that we've got here right now, because we have 1 24 a completely different interpretation of the history of that i 25 contention than they do. Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _____=__-_.
~
, ni L l l
25395 1 And I don't think my brother, Mr. Cook,'was 1 7s i kss 2 directly involved in those negotiations over.-- ! i 3 JUDGE' SMITH: Would you. explain'the actual j
-i 4 l difference as you' call' consolidation, what is the actual- '
i 5 difference between the previous -- j# 6 MR . t FIERCE: Well, obviously what'we'did was we 7 wanted to make sure that it didn't.look like we were just 8 withdrawing 14 and going'with.13. I 9 JUDGE SMITH: That's what you wanted to do. 10 Now how did you do it? 11 MR. FIERCE: We stated right in,the stipulation 12 that both contentions are being withdrawn, and a new 13 contention was created out of them. 2 14 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, but how does the new Contention 15 13 differ from the old Contention 13? 1 16 MR. FIERCE: Well, first, my point.was that-that's 17 not a relevant question, but I'll tell you. I'll tell you. 18 Our intent was that it.be more specific. We had 19 concerns from the Staff that JI-14 was overly broad. . We 20 look, we see it's got allegations like " general.in nature". 21 General in nature could go to content. it'could go to 22 design. It could go to the overall structure. That's not a i 23 terribly important concept. I 24 We wanted to be specific. . -j 25 JUDGE SMITH: What did you do?- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888. J l
25396 i 1 MR. FIERCE: We presented a single contention 2 focusing on these four positions, on the real issue in the 3 case which is that given the very limited background, which 4 is -- 5 JUDGE SMITH: Either you tell me the difference 6 between old Contention JI-13 and the new one, or I stop and 7 read for myself. 8 MR. FIERCE: It's much more narrow and specific -- 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 10 MR. FIERCE: -- in focusing on a limited number of 11 players. 12 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 13 MR. FIERCE: But the language, I submit, should 14 not be interpreted by looking at another contention that 1 15 was -- ' l l l 16 JUDGE SMITH: Stop. I'll do it myself. 17 (Board reviews document.) 18 JUDGE SMITH: So far, the only thing we can see is ; 19 that it's condensed. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, let me just respond, 21 because I was one of the attorneys -- well, I was the 22 attorney from the Mass AG that negotiated the February 7 23 stipulation, and I would state it this way. 24 The present JI-13 has the contention statement 25 that I believe is verbatim from the old JI-13. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a, ' 25397 l
- f-~s 1 JUDGE COLE: Almost.
k
\_/ 2 JUDGE SMITH: It seems to be.
3 MR. TRAFICONTE: Almost, almost verbatim. 4 JUDGE McCOLLOM: In content,!it is. 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: The paragraph A of the new basis 6 is -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: (Q) . 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: -- identical, I believe, in every 9 particular to the old (q) , the' old 13 (q) . 10 The (b) is identical to the old (j) , . I believe'- ! 11 verbatim. '(C) was a completely rewritten concoction Mr. 12 Trout and I put'together. And the language there'is new in j 13 the sense that it originates with the stipulation of j 14 February 7. And (d) is essentially verbatim from old 13 (p) . , ( 15 JUDGE SMITH: So the basic concept -- l l 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Basically we consolidated, and 14 17 was withdrawn in its entirety. , 1 18 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 1 i 19 But is it true that the basic concept of the 1 20 original JI-13 that with respect to certain individuals and . 21 maybe even -- yes, with respect to certain individuals,. 22 prerequisite experience is inadequate. Therefore, more 23 training is needed, but the training provided it inadequate 24 to make up for the experience. 25 That's the same idea that ran -- g~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888' l 1
25398 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 2 JUDGE SMITH: -- through the original 13 and the 3 present 13. 4 MR. TRAF1 CONTE: I think it did, and I think it 5 runs through -- 6 JUDGE SMITH: So how does that reflect a 7 consolidation from 14? 1 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: What we have here is -- I mean to 9 be perfectly candid with you, 13 had many, many parts. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: And it said the same thing about 12 the many, many parts. And I think it said what Your Honor 13 just said. 14 Fourteen did not have many, many parts. It was a 15 generic critique of the training program, and I believe it 16 was repetitious. 17 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think it said exactly what 13 19 said but it just said it in very broad language. I think it 20 could have been rejected, for example, on the basis of lack-21 of basis specificity. 22 As part of the consolidation process, we 23 reformulated and focused our attention on the particular 24 bases in 13 that we were actually going to present evidence l 25 on. We dropped the rest, so we didn't challenge the l Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9i
J 25399 1 training as to certain groups of personnel, i f-2 .And we' dropped 14 in its entirety because it was-3 broad and a generalized critique of the training program. , i 4 And we were intending to present a more focused critique of 1 5- the program, training program, as per the newly formulated 6 JI-13. 7 I don't think there really is.very much' dispute d 8 about that except the Applicants are attempting to make some 9 hay of that by arguing that we intended thereby to withdraw 10 a critique of the training program in general as represented 11 by JI-14, and that certainly was net our intent. 12 I don't think the language is there, the. history 13 is not there. 14 JUDGE SMITH: Well, sometimes the withdrawal or 15 dismissal of a contention which particularly alleges a 16 specific state of affairs is indicative that -- 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes. 18 JUDGE SMITH: -- the other contention did not. i 19 You know, otherwise it would have been. 20 See, you assume, you assume that contentions are q 21 not duplicative. In this instance, however, you are asking 22 us to put that assumption aside, and that there was-a J I 23 realization by you that they were, q 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think that if the -- ) J 25 JUDGE SMITH: Or maybe it's not duplicative, but ! i i 1 f Beritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation !
)
i I 1
i 25400 J 1 subsumed, 14 may be subsumed in 13. ; l 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Fourteen was, in essence, l l 3 surplusage. And when we consolidated and focused in on 4 which of bases in 13 we were going to present evidence on, 5 we dropped 14 because it basically was repetitive. 6 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: I mean that's what we intended. 8 That's what I think the language would support, that 9 interpretation supported by the language. 10 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 11 If we buy that argument, then we are left with the I 12 issue of does the Contention 13 fairly allege design flaws 1 13 in the. training, or does it fairly allege substantive j i 14 subject matter flaws. 15 MR. FIERCE: Well', it alleges training
]
l 16 inadequacies. ! 17 JUDGE SMITH: In any respect. 18 MR. FIERCE: Training inadequacies. 19 And I'm telling you we are coming at it with a 20 full-blown challenge to training adequacies. ! 1 21 JUDGE SMITH: And does the testimony that you have 22 prepared by the other witnesses, does it specifically by 23 specific statement address JI-13? 24 MR. FIERCE: Yes, it does. 25 JUDGE SMITH: So you view it as a package. The l Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.l i
25401
<- 1- subject matter and design package.
( ' 2 MR. FIERCE: Right. 3 And with respect to Dr. Goble's testimony,'he 4 specifically references MAG EX-11 as well, which is'the PAR' 5 decisionmaking piece. 6 But we've alleged, I mean, and that's the simple 7 question: Is Dr. Harris' testimony that the training 8 provided to these three individuals, these three positions 9 does not provide an opportunity for meaningful verbal 10 learning, is that relevant to a contention that says that 11 the training provided to those individuals isn't adequate to 12 compensate them for the lack of background and experience. 13 And it's clearly relevant, Your Honor. 14 JUDGE SMITH: I guess in this case we didn't have 15 any assistance from the interrogatories, if you call it 16 that. 17 MR. COOK: No assistance, to my knowledge, one way 18 or the other. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, one way or the other, or 20 just no assistance from your perspective? 21 MR. DIGNAN: One way or the other. That's what he i 22 said. i l 23 JUDGE SMITH: No guidance from us. l i 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: I would note that the answers to. j l 25 the interrogatories did get filed prior-to the l
= Beritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 l l' l
25402 1 consolidation. That may not be a relevant fact. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we sort of have a routine we 3 like to follow here. It makes us feel good. 4 We look at the contention and then we look at the 5 interrogatories, and then we reread it and then rule. But 6 if you can't put your hand on anything that helps your 7 position in response to interrogatories, well, that's all l 8 right. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: No. The only point I was making l 10 is that the contention at issue that we are discussing, the 11 newly configured 13 post-dates the filing of the answers to-l 12 the interrogatories. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. But it could very well you 14 pick out an interrogatory and they say, would you explain 15 why under JI-13 all these people don't have enough training 16 to compensate for their inadequate experience. And you 17 could very well have said, the design of the training course l 18 is bad and the subject matter is bad. 19 But I don't know. I guess you didn't. I suppose 20 if you had, I'm sure that you would be waving it at us right 21 now. 22 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Dr. Harris does refer to the i 23 deposition of Mr. Donald R. Tailleart. 24 MR. FIERCE: Tailleart. Yes. 25 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Tailleart? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L__________
a 25403-1 1 MR. FIERCE: Yes, l 5 2 Yes, we did take the deposition of.the training-R 3 coordinator, ,or-the person who was offered up to us at that l l 4 time as the one'more knowledgeable'about training at the_ _ 1 5 ORO. I don't think he was a training coordinator'at'ths.t j 6 moment. 7 JUDGE SMITH: And he talks about INPO standards. l L 8 Is'he the one? 9 MR. FIERCE: That's right. 10 MR. COOK: Your Honor, I would like to respond 11 when the Board is ready, if I may. 12 JUDGE SMITH:. All right. 13 Now is the time, yes.
~~ I 14 MR. COOK: I just wanted to respond to the points 15 directly raised by the Attorney Generals and not repeat 16- myself.
17 As to the assertion that the Attorney General 1 18 wanted to be more specific, all'that is said in those four 19 bases is that the training is inadequate. There is no 20 further-specificity. In other words, there is no 21 reformation of the contention.. i 22 The second point is.that the suggestion that the 1 l l 23 contentions are not duplicative, or that they are 24 duplicative -- sorry -- is disingenuous at this point after 25 the second contention has been withdrawn. [\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i __.__ 1 _ _ _j
25404 1 And if the Mass AG views the training -- the 2 criticism of the training as a package between Dr. Harris 3 and Messrs. Carter, Adler and Goble, the three witnesses 4 who testified as to substance of training, then Dr. Harris 5 should have applied his criticisms of design of the training 6 program and shown how they presented weaknesses in the 7 substance of the training. I 8 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, that's fine. That's an 9 argument you can make when Harris testifies, if he does. 10 But right now the Board -- it's the very natural , 11 thing to do. We started lapsing into a critique of the 12 quality of his testimony and that's not before us now. 13 The question is, is it fairly within the ambit of 14 13, JI-13. 15 MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor. 16 And with regard to that point, Applicants rely on 17 the assertion that the focus on 13 is prerequisite 18 experience and that each of the bases refer to training in 19 the final sentence only as a way to compensate for 20 inadequate experience. That there is no reference to theory 21 or design. 22 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm not sure what that means, 23 Your Honor. 24 The focus is on prerequisite experience. I would 25 put it differently. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i 25405
,-s , 1 I would say the focus is not on prerequisite t \s ,) 2 experience. The prerequisite experience is set forth in the i 3 SPMC as it's set forth in these contentions, and it's not in i
4 dispute. It is what it is. They provide that. That's not { 5 the focus. I 1 I 6 The focus is whether the training that's provided, 7 given that very, very limited or no prerequisite experience, 8 is going to be adequate to bring these people up to speed to 9 perform appropriately. 10 And if the question put to Dr. Harris is, is the 11 training provided by the SPMC adequate to compensate for the 12 lack of any prerequisite experience or the requirement of 13 very little, he would say, no. Because having looked at the
,/s 14 training modules, he can't see how that training would k
15 provide any meaningful verbal learning. It would leave them 16 virtually where they are. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Don't tell us the quality of his 18 testimony. Just remind us how his testimony fits into the 19 contention. 20 Anything further? 21 MR. FIERCE: That's what I was just trying to do. 22 It does provide an answer to that question which is a i 23 relevant answer. 24 And the most of the rest of what I have heard Mr. l l 25 Cook arguing, it sounds to me like proposed findings he [()') Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
25406 1 might want to make at the end after having cross-examined 2 Dr. Harris. 3 But clearly, the focus of this contention is the 4 training, and we're not litigating whether the prerequisite 5 experience is nothing or something. It is what it is. It's 6 what it says in the plan. 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: There is one point further, Your 8 Honor, and I'm sorry we are tag-teaming on this. l 9 But Your Honor had made reference to the 10 interrogatories, and I have them here in front of me. And 11 just so the record is clear, this is from the December 19 12 answers and responses of the Mass AG to the Applicants' l l 13 interrogatories running to JI Contentions 1 through 26. 14 There were a large number of interrogatories l 1 15 running to JI Contention No. 13, beginning with 16 Interrogatory No. 100 and running up to and including l 17 Interrogatory No. 121. And I have those answers and l l 18 interrogatories in my hand. I 19 There then begins, with Interrogatory No. 122, a 20 set of interrogatories for JI Contention No. 14. This is 21 back obviously before they were reduced to one. I 22 In response to Interrogatory No. 122 running to 23 JI-14, our response was, "See the facts set forth in 24' response to Interrogatories 1 through 121," which were the 25 interrogatories running to JI-13,. 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Ol'
I 25'407 l
- l
-1 JUDGE SMITH: What did.you say on 137 .j ll 2 -MR. .TRAFICONTE: They are lengthy, but..the first- ,
1 one, for example, . in' answer to Interrogatory No. 100, goes; 3 4 on for approximately two, two;and half /pages,'an'd identifies 1 5 the facts underlying our assertion, and then there is.a j li 6 quote from the contention, including.the language "The:
- 7. training provided by the SPMC is not adequate to compensate.
8 for this deficiency." j 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888- i I 1
.1 2
25408 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: Then there are a series of 2 statements that we make. 3 I will be glad to provide a copy of this. 4 JUDGE SMITH: No , it's up to you. It's up to you 5 right now. Mr. Cook cannot point to any interrogatory which 6 would have misled the Applicants. l 7 If you war.t to point to any interrogatory which 8 you think put him on further notice beyond the contention 9 it's your opportunity. l 10 (Counsel confers.) 11 MR. FIERCE: Well, one comment I would make is 12 that, we identified as items that are references to our l 13 contention, not just the training modules which seems to be 14 the focus of Mr. Cook's concern and the content of those 15 modules. We did identify, for example, Appendix K which 16 sets forth the training program and to some extent the 17 design of that program. 18 We also refer to a series of the plans, the 19 procedures for each of those positions to see what it is 20 that a person needs to be able to accomplish. And refer to 21 documents from drills and exercises. 22 Dr. Harris' concern is a comprehensive one from 23 start to finish. It doesn't focus just on what happens in 24 the classroom, which is where content is transmitted. 25 He is very much concerned about the way learning Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25409 1 gets carried from one step to the other and whether learning 2 gets reinforced through drills -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: The analysis, design, development, 4 implementation, and evaluation. 5 MR. FIERCE: So to the extent that we point out 6 all of these documents, not just focusing on the training 7 module content, we think we did put them on some notice that 8 we were focusing on something much broader than just the 9 content of the training module. 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: And my point war that we answered 11 -- my only point in raising the interrogatory issue is that 12 there is quite a bit of detail here, but was to indicate 13 that we answered 14 -- the interrogatories running to 14 by 14 referencing the answers that we provided in response to 13. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 16 < That's another argument. 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: That runs to the fact that we l l 18 have viewed these contentions back in -- Mr. Cock stated 19 this was disingenuous. 20 JUDGE SMITH: That's a good point. Right. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: He was stating we were being 22 disingenuous. I don't believe we were being disingenuous. 23 I think the answers indicate that we thought the contentions 24 overlapped from the beginning. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l 25410 I i 1 How, would you repeat again where you believe in f 2 interrogatories you may have put them on some notice that 3 you were not only talking about the subject matter but the 4 -- there should be a shorthand term: the analysis, design, 5 development, implementation, and evaluation. 6 MR. FIERCE: Well, we're listing here, in response 7 to a question: "Please state all facts underlying a series 8 of the facts," and also, references as I called it earlier. 1 9 We mention the SPMC plans, procedures, and l l 10 responsibilities for this position. This is -- each of the 11 questions run to a given position. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Now you're talking about something l 13 else. You're really talking about subject matter. You're j 14 talking about experience versus subject matter. 15 MR. FIERCE: Well, the plans, procedures, 1 16 responsibilities outline what it is that the goal -- what is 17 it that you want this person to be able to achieve and do. 18 JUDGE SMITH: That's the analysis, i 19 MR. FIERCE: The content is not set forth, 20 necessarily, in the procedures. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 22 MR. FIERCE: But we also mention Appendix K of the 23 SPMC. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, how does that help? 2S MR. FIERCE: Well, if you take a look at Appendix l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
,1 25411 1
1 K you will see that that's not a content related appendix. 2 That talks about the overall training program which includes-3 classroom instruction, drills, tabletop exercises. And is 4 the focus really of Dr. Harris' critique,-the overall. 5 JUDGE SMITH: kad you refer to Appendix K. 6 MR. . FIERCE: Right here. Appendix K of.the'SPMC. 7 (The Board confers.) i 8 MR. FIERCE: We do mention the training modules. 9 We mention the description of and comments.regarding 10 training, which has'been and will be provided to ORO members 11 contained in an ORO deposition. 12 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 13 MR. FIERCE: Referring back to the Tailleart e~N 14 deposition. Description of and comments regarding drills f 15 which have been and will be provided. j t l 16 JUDGE SMITH: .Are you reading now from your-17 interrogatory responses? 18 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 19 JUDGE SMITH: And you referred back to whose-20 deposition? 21 MR. FIERCE: Well, it reads -- I will be specific 22 and read it, quote: "The description of and comments l 23 regarding training which has been and.will be provided to l 24 ORO members contained in an ORO deposition." i 25 MR. TRAFICONF3: We couldn't disclose the name, Beritage Reporting Corporation
\
(202) 628-4888
i 25412 1 Your Honor. At the time the name -- l 2 JUDGE SMITH: But it's a reference to -- 3 MR. FIERCE: The only ORO deposition that we took j l 4 pertaining to training was Mr. Tailleart's. j 5 JUDGE SMITH: And he explained the INPO standards? ! l 6 MR. FIERCE: " Description of and comments ; 7 regarding training, which has been or will be provided to j 8 ORO members that were contained in an ORO deposition," is 9 the way we put it. I 10 JUDGE SMITH: What is this man's name again? 1 11 MR. FIERCE: The man's name? 12 JUDGE SMITH: Tailleart. I 13 MR. FIERCE: Tailleart, T-A-I-L-L-E-A-R-T. 14 JUDGE SMITH: And isn't he cited by Harris -- i 15 MR. FIERCE: Yes, he is. l 16 JUDGE SMITH: -- as being the authority on the 17 five steps of the INPO training? 18 MR. FIERCE: Right. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, here is a guy in ORO and he 20 criticizes his own training program as not meeting those 21 standards? 22 MR. FIERCE: No, he did not. 23 The question in the discovery deposition was: was l 24 there a methodology that was followed in the design of the 25 training program. And he describes this particular l Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
25413 1 methodology. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, okay. 3 MR. FIERCE: What Dr. Harris does is recognize 4 that methodology and then critique the training that he sees 5 to see whether, in fact, that methodology has been followed 6 and satisfied. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 8 So he took ORO's own statement of methodology and 9 evaluated against that. 10 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Which happens to be also INFO's? 12 MR. FIERCE: That's right. 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 14 So I think we got it. 15 Anything further? 16 MR. COOK: Only one comment and that is, that the l 17 Applicants believe that the Attorney General's responses to l
- 18 their interrogatories, in particular interrogatory 122 does 19 not prove that the Mass AG did include a design critique in l
1 20 JI-14 or its reference to JI-13. And that they did drop the 21 design all together. 22 JUDGE SMITH: They did? 23 MR. COOK: When JI-14 was negotiated away. 24 But that is something that the Board has to decide 25 based on its examination. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25414 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 2 (The Board confers.) , 3 JUDGE SMITH: The Board believes that Harris' 4 testimony is within the four corners of JI-13. That it is 5 within the scope of that contention. 6 First, we have not accepted the argument that we 7 have to look at 14 to understand 13. We think 13 from the 8 very beginning made clear that training was a material l 9 aspect to each of the bases. So we look then to see what l 10 can be inferred from the expression " training." Rather it's 11 fair to infer that it was limited to a subject matter. I 12 Our particular expertise on the Board on this 1 13 subject matter is Judge McCollom who has widespread j 1 14 experience and has received recognition on curriculum ( 15 development. And he informs us, and enhances our j i 16 information that when you look at the word " training" you're j j 17 talking about more than just the modules; you're talking l 18 about generally the very steps that are involved: the 19 design, the objectives of it, the design of it, the analysis 20 of what is required, the development of it, and the l 21 implementation, and the evaluation. I i 22 The allegation was sufficient for a contention. 23 Whether you got on notice as to the expertise brought to it 24 by Dr. Harris or not is a matter of your undertaking. The ; 25 interrogatory, at least, was not misleading. And we think Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l L____ _
25415 1 that the whole process from contention all the way through, 2 maybe you would have had to have been more perceptive than 3 you normally would be to expect to have this testimony come 4 up. 5 Nevertheless, there was no withholding of it and 6 it was fairly, at least seen by the Board, to be included in 7 the allegation that training is required. 8 So your motion is denied. 9 We also observe the fact that there is a package 10 here, too, that the subject matters also addressed. 11 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, based on -- 12 JUDGE SMITH: Now, are we going to have some 13 actual live testimony in this hearing anymore? 14 MR. FIERCE: I hope so in just a minute from 15 Applicant panel. 16- JUDGE SMITH: It gives us a greater opportunity to 17 be inattentive. 18 (Laughter) 19 JUDGE SMITH: It has been a long two days. 20 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I just want to confirm, 21 we're going to be contacting Dr. Harris shortly, but the 22 understanding is that he will be scheduled as the first 23 witness next Monday morning -- Monday afternoon, excuse me. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Cook, it was well argued, but 25 you walked into a close one from the 'rery beginning. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25416 1 JUDGE SMITH: Who hasn't been sworn? 2 Three of you. 3 I remember you, Mr. Callendrello. I think you 4 have been sworn enough to last you the rest of your life. 5 Whereupen, 6 JOSEPH BISS3N 7 ROBERT COTTElR 8 PETER LITTLEFIELD 9 having been first duly sworn, were called as witnesses 10 herein, and were examined and testified as follows: l 11 Whereupon, l 12 ANTHONY M. CALLENDRELLO 13 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 14 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows: 15 MS. SELLECK: Your Honor, just before we start 16 with this next panel we have a motion in limine regarding 17 the testimony of Stanley Cohn that will be argued tomorrow 18 and we're just distributing now. 19 (Document proffered to all parties.) 20 MR. TROUT: Your Honor r on the subject of the 21 radiological monitoring process, Applicants are presenting a 22 panel composed of four individuals who are from left to the 23 right: Mr. Robert Cotter; Mr. Joseph Bisson; Mr. Anthony 24 Callendrello; and Mr. Peter Littlefield. 25 In addition, the supplemental piece of testimony Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l 1 _ _ _ _ _
1. _ .c ' j 1 REBUTTAL PANEL NO..17 -' DIRECT. ~25417' i
- 1 on parking capacity at reception' centers isLbeing sponsored!
k 2 by Mr. Bisson and Mr. Callendrello.
, 'l 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION.
4 BY MR. TROUT: 5 Q Panel,.I have caused to be.placed'before you a' 6 document in some 62 pages1which is entitled " Applicants' l 7 -Rebuttal Testimony No. 17, Radiological Monitoring Process." 8 Do each of you have that before~you? -i 1 9 A (Littlefield) Lyes, i 10 A (Callendrello) Yes. l l 11 A (Bisson) Yes. 12 A (Cotter) Yes. l 13 Q I would like each of you to. examine that document,- 14 if you would, and identify it.. 15 First, Mr. Cotter,'can you identify that document 16 and can you tell us what it is? 17 A (Cotter) Yes. This would be the rebuttal
~
18 testimony dealing with radiological monitoring. . It 19 represents my testimony towards monitoring. . l 20 Q And is that testimony as representative. in tlutt i 21 document before you true and accurate, to the best of your' V , 1 22 knowledge and belief?
')
23 A (Cotter) Yes, it is. i 24 Q Mr. Bisson, could you identify the, document as-i 25 well? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - DIRECT 25418 1 A (Bisson) This represents my testimony regarding 2 radiological monitoring process. 3 0 And is that true and accurate, to the best of your 4 information and belief? 5 A (Bisson) Yes, it is. I 6 0 Mr. Callendrello? 7 A (Callendrello) Yes. This is a document, as the 8 other gentlemen have described, that incorporates my 9 testimony regarding radiological monitoring process. 10 Q Can you state whether that testimony is true and 11 accurate, to the best of your knowledge and belief? 12 A (Callendrello) Yes, it is. 13 Q Mr. Littlefield, can you identify the document? 14 A (Littlefield) Yes. This is my testimony on 15 radiological monitoring. 16 0 Can you state whether it's true and accurate, to j 17 the best of your information and belief? 18 A (Littlefield) Yes, it is. j 1 19 Q Mr. Bisson and Mr. Callendrello, I would ask you , 20 to look at a second document which has been placed before 21 each of you. A document of, I believe, three pages of text 22 and then seven pages of an attachment which the document is 23 entitled, " Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 24 17, Reception Center Parking." 1 25 I ask whether you can identify that document, 1 i t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9I l
i l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - DIRECT 25419 - gs 1 Mr. Callendrello? j i )
\/ 2 A (Callendrello) Yes. This is a document which i
3 incorporates my testimony regarding the subject of reception f i 4 center parking. 5 0 And is that document true and accurate, to the 6 best of your information and belief? 1 l 7 A (Callendrello) Yes, it is. j l 8 Q Mr. Bisson, do you have the same document before i 9 you? i i 10 A (Bisson) Yes, I do. ] a 11 Q And can you identify it, please?- ! i i' 12 A (Bisson) Thic is a document that incorporates my i 13 testimony regarding reception center parking. j
14 O And is that document true and accurate, to the 15 best of your information and belief? ll l 16 A (Bisson) Yes, it is.
17 Q Finally, Panel, I have caused to be placed before 1 18 each of you a copy of your professional qualifications. 19 Mr. Bisson, I have caused to be placed before you 20 a document in four pages, the top of which is entitled, 21 " Joseph W. Bisson." And I ask whether you can identify that 22 document. l 23 A (Bisson) This is statement of my qualification 24 and experience. 25 0 And is that statement true and accurate, to the
![n)
~~-
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - DIRECT 25420 1 best of your information and belief? 2 A (Bisson) On the first page, my current position 3 with Impell Corporation is incorrectly stated. 4 Q What is your correct present title? 5 A (Bisson) Technical specialist. 6 O With that exception, does this document represent 7 an accurate account of your experience and professional 8 qualifications? I i l 9 A (Bisson) Yes, it does. i 10 MR. FIERCE: That's instead of " Supervising 11 Engineer?" 12 THE WITNESS: (Bisson) That's correct. 13 MR. FIERCE: " Technical Specialist." 14 - MR. TROUT: I believe it's " Technical Expert." 15 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute, that's not what I 16 have. 17 THE WITNESS: (Bisson) My copy has " Technical 18 Expert," correct. 19 MR. FIERCE: Okay. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Now, are you correcting your copy? 21 MR. TROUT: He will give the reporter an updated 22 copy; yes, Your Honor. 1 23 BY MR. TROUT: 24 0 Mr. Cotter, do you have before you your-25 professional qualifications? 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ! I f J
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - DIRECT 25421' 8 1 A (Cotter) Yes,-I do.
\ 2 Does that document accurately reflect your Q
l 3 education and experience, professional qualifications? 4 A (Cotter) Yes, it does. ' 5 Q Mr. Littlefield, do you have'before you a ccpy of 6 -your professional qualifications as they have been served on 7 the parties and the Board?' 8- A (Littlefield) Yes, I do. 9 Q Does that document accurately reflect your 10 professional qualifications and experience? 11 A (Littlefield) Yes, it does. 12 MR. TROUT: Your Honor,'I would at this time offer 13 the testimony and the qualifications of the panel into 14 evidence. O' 15 JUDGE SMITH: The testimony and the' 16' qualifications? 17 MR. TROUT: Yes, Your Honor. 18 Both pieces of testimony. 19 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 20 Let's receive at this page the-testimony -- you i 21 will offer the supplemental testimony later, right? j 22 MR. TROUT: I'm offering it now as well, Your 23 Honor. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Here is what we got: we have at this )
.i 25 page Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No- 17 goes in following Heritage Reporting Corporation \* '
(202) 628-4888 ! I
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - DIRECT 25422 1 this page. 2 Following the next page of transcript will be l 3 Supplemental to Applicant's Rebuttal Testimony No. 17. 4 And following the next page of transcript will be 5 the Professional Experiences and Qualifications of 6 Messrs. Bisson, Cotter, and Littlefield. 7 Thereby, having three different page numbers for j l 1 8 citation for those. 9 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, would it be all right to l i 10 have the Professional Qualifications directly follow the l 11 first piece of testimony in the transcript, so that we have ; W 12 one page which has -- ) 13 . JUDGE SMITH: All right, if you want to do that. 14 We're going to have two transcript citations. 15 We're going to have the one in which the main testimony was 16 received. 17 And immediately following that without further 18 transcript pages will be the Professional Qualifications. 19 And then following a transcript page will be the 20 Supplemental Testimony. 21 22 23 l 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25423
' REB'UTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - DIRECT 1 (Applicants' ' Rebuttall 2 Testimony.No.f17 and errata 1 13 .regarding radiological 4 monitoring process-5 .follows:)
6 7 (The. professional and. 8 experienceLqualifications. l l 9 of. Messrs. Bisson,1 Cotter,- . 10' and Littlefield follows:)- 11
.i 12 13 l J
14
\O 15 l
16 17 i. 18 1 19 20 , I 21 l i 22 i 23 : 24
.l 25' i l
ll Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l. June _12,'1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" '1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the 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-
')
. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ). (Off-site Emergency. I ). Planning. Issues). q
)
ERRATA TO APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NO. 17 ,O \ (RADIOIDGICAL MONITORING PROCESS) The following changes have been made~to the testimony filed on April 18, 1989: -l l Pace (Line) Errata j I iii (13) Replace "2.18" with "3.2.15" 4 24 (13) Replace "10 minutes" with "16 minutes", and replace."55- J
. minutes" with "58 mintites" l
24 (15) Replace "10,611" with "10,712",- I and replace "12.16" with ;
"12.27" 24 (16) Replace "10' minutes" with "16 minutes" .
l 24 (17) Replace "8,655" with "8,698",
~
and replace "9.91" with "9.96"' 24 (18) Replace "55 minutes" with "58
.O minutes" k
l 1 I Eage (Line) Errata I Attachment B Replace attachment l l l l 1 i i 1 0\ O 1
9 June 12, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the 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
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site Emergency
) Planning Issues)
G APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NO. 17 (RADIOIDGICAL MONITORING PROCESS) Panel Members: Joseph Bisson, Emergency Planner, Impell Corporation Anthony M. Callendrello, Manager, Emergency Preparedness Licensing, New Hampshire Yankee Robert Cotter, Emergency Planning Specialist, Aidikoff Associates 4 Peter Littlefield, Manager, Radiological Engineering Group, Yankee Atomic Electric Company 9
O TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SPMC FACILITIES AND PROCESS FOR RADIATION MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . 1
- 1. Monitoring Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . 1
- a. Design Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
- 1) Anticipated Number of Evacuees 2
- 2) Evaluation of Monitoring Stations in Trailers . . . . . 6
- 3) Anticipated Number of Private Vehicles, School Buses And Vehicles From Special Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 6 1
- 4) Evacuee Registration . . . . . 10
- b. Physical Description of the Monitoring Trailers . . . . . . . . 11
- c. Equipment Used at Monitoring Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
- 2. Emergency Worker Facility . . . . . . . . 14
- a. Design Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 l b. Physical Description of the i Emergency Worker Facility . . . . . 15
- c. Equipment Used at the Emergency Worker Facility . . . . . . . . . . 16
- 3. Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 I
- a. Monitoring Trailers . . . . . . . . 17 O
l i
1 r~ i ( b. Emergency Worker Facility
. . . . . 18 B. Radiation Monitoring-Process . . ... . .: 19
- 1. General _Public . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 19 L 2. Emergency. Workers . . . .. .. . . . . - . 25
- 3. Special Needs Evacuees . . . . . . . .. 26 Attachment A: Memorandum From S.L. Dodge to P.J.~ Stroup, April 6, 1988, re Test Evaluating the Performance of the Aptec Probe Conducted by the.NHY Health Physics Department,-and Attachments Thereto i
Attachment B: Seabrook Station-1988 FEMA /NRC Graded Exercise, Evaluation Worksheet for Extent of Play,.Section. Number 3.2.15'(Reception' Center Monitoring Trailer) Attachment C: ORO Reception Cent'er Monitoring Record Sheets, a r'~' Exercise Tests Results-For Beverly And North Lt Andover I i l i o
-lii-
( I. INTRODUCTION This testimony was developed in response to Joint Intervenor (JI) Contention 56 regarding the procedures, personnel, equipment and facilities for radiation. monitoring l of general public evacuees,'and for radiation monitoring and' l l decontamination of emergency workers and special facility populations. Radiation monitoring'and decontamination of special facility populations is also described lin Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony ~No. 6 (Protective Actions for Particular Populations). II. SPMC FACILITIES AND PROCESS FOR RADIATION MONITORING ~ A. Facilities and Equipment
- 1. Monitoring Trailers
- a. Design Basis The two Monitoring Trailers were initially designed with a capacity to accommodate 20% of the peak population in the Massachusetts portion of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) which is 0.2 x 82,944 (SPMC. Table.1.3-1) or 16,589 individuals.
Subsequently, a more detailed evaluation which focused on the expected number of evacuees, or " load," arriving at each Reception Center was performed. The approach taken for this evaluation used logic similar to that detailed in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's December 30, 1988,
Partial Initial Decision on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (LBP-88-32). The facility, equipment and personnel additions that resulted from thic analysis will be reflected in a future revision of the SPMC Implementing Procedures (IP) 2.9, 3.4 and 3.5. The evaluation examined the evacuee loads expected during summer months and off-season months for each Reception l Center. The results are detailed below. The largest value for the anticipated evacuee loads was selected as the I planning basis for each Reception Center.
- 1) Anticipated Number of Evacuees l
In determining the evacuee loads for the Reception Centers and Monitoring Trailers, the numbers for special f acility and special needs individuals (Applicants' Rebuttal l Testimony No. 6), school and day care populations l (Applicants' Rebuttal Testinony No. 6), and transit-dependent individuals (NHRERP, Vol. 6, Table 11-7) were subtracted from the resident population (or peak summer population) of the Massachusetts communities (SPMC, Tabl e 1. 3-1) . The numbers f for off-season transient population (NHRERP, Volume 6) were added to the resident population. The remaining population i was then multiplied by 20%. As a final step, 100% of the l subtracted populations were added back to the total because all of these people are transported to the Reception Centers, j not just 20%. The Massachusetts EPZ communities that have beaches are informed that monitoring and decontamination services are _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ J
q
. ,r i
available at the Beverly Reception Center. l In the. ( determination of-the summer evacuee load for the Beverly Reception Center, it was assumed that 50 percent of the transient beach population were day-trippers (NHRERP, Vol. 6, , l page 2-12). This value was then subtracted from the. summer i 1 peak population because if the day trippers' live in the EPZ, { they were already accounted for and if they live outside the-
- )
EPZ their evacuation destination would be outside the EPZ. J This also holds true for individuals.who work in the EPZ or i l individuals traveling through the EPZ at the time of the'
)
evacuation order. The determination'of the summer evacuee load for the i y Beverly Reception Center also accounted for' persons-in. j vehicles traveling on the roads in the beach areas. The total number of " vehicles in transit" for Salisbury, h Newburyport e.nd Newbury is 245 (Applicants' Rebuttal l 1 Testimony No. 16, Evacuation Time Estimatos). .Using 2.4 persons per vehicle as the occupancy rate (NHRERP, Vol. 6 at page 2-12), the 245 vehicles would carry a total of.588 persons. As was done for the transient beach population, it l was assumed that 50 percent of these pA,ple were day-trippers. Therefore, 294 additional-people were added to the value for the peak summer population in the calculation of the Beverly evacuee load. i ___._m___- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I The mathematical model used for determining the total O i evacuee load is: Total Evacuee Load = 0.2 [RP-TD-S-DC-SF-BP + VP) + TD + S + DC + SF, where: RP = the resident population (or peak summer f population) of the Massachusetts communities I assigned to the Reception Centers, j TD = the transit-dependent population, i S = the school population (not considered for calculation of summer total evacuee load), i DC = the day care population, SF = the special facility, special'needs and hospital populations ("In-Vehicle" Load), ' BP = 50 percent of the transient beach population !
= 10,121 persons. (Applies only to Beverly -
Reception Center for calculation of summer total evacuee load), and , j VP = 50 percent of the vehicle-in-transit population = 294 persons. (Applies only to l i Beverly Reception Center for calculation of summer total evacuee load.) Using this formula, the largest total evacuee loads for the Beverly and North Andover Reception Centers are expected to occur during the off-season months and are 12,830 and 9,793 persons, respectively. The planning for staffing, facility size and amount of equipment for both Reception Centers is based on the Beverly evacuee load, which is the larger of the two values. Based on the population figures given in SPMC, Table 1.3-1, the combined capacity of the 4_
1 O (
-{
Reception Centers can provide' monitoring for approximately 4 j 30% of the summer population and approximately 50% of the resident population in the Massachusetts portion of.the EPZ. in a 12-hour period. i The Monitoring Trailer load is' defined as the. l anticipated number of evacuees passing through the' Monitoring i Trailer (i.e., general public evacuees, transit-dependent general public evacuees, school and day care populations). - 4 The numbers for special facility, special needs and, hospital. I i f populations are not included in the determination of the evacuee load for the Monitoring Trailer because these population' groups are monitored in their vehicles'(SPMC, IP. 2.9, Step 5.4.4). Thus, Monitoring Trailer Load = 0.2 [RP-TD-S-DC-SF-BP + VP] + ._ TD + S + DC, and '
"In-Vehicle" Load = SF, H where the terms RP, TD, S, DC, SF, BP and VP are as defined previously.
A summary of the evacuee loads for each Reception Center is as follows: l i Beverly N. Andover l Off-Season Summer Off-Season Summer Monitoring Trailer 10,712 9,360 8,698- 6,981 ; Load "In-Vehicle" Load 2.118 2.118 1,095 1,095 Total Evacuee 12,830 11,478 9,793 '8,076 Load
i i i
- 2) Evaluation of Monitoring Stations in ;
Trailers 3 The Monitoring Trailer load for Beverly, 10,712, was used to establish the required number of monitoring locations ; in each trailer. Assuming a 70-second monitoring time, which i is comprised of a 60-second frisk plus 10 seconds for the individuals to step up to and away from the monitoring i location, 51 persons per hour can be monitored at each i location yielding a total of 612 individuals per monitoring I i location over a 12-hour period. See Section B.1, infra, for a detailed. description of personnel monitoring rate. The Monitoring Trailer load of 10,712 evacuees divided by 612 evacuees / monitoring location equals 17.5 locations or, l rounding up, 18 locations. This number of monitoring locations at each Reception Center would ensure that the anticipated number of evacuees are monitored in approximately 12 hours. Currently, the SPMC provides 14 locations in each Monitoring Trailer. However, four additional locations and associated personnel and equipment will be added at each Reception Center.
- 3) Anticipated Number of Private Vehicles, School Buses And Vehicles From Special Facilities The number of evacuees arriving at the Reception Centers in private vehicles was determined using the same formula as
used for total evacuee load. However, the population segments transported by bus or special vehicle were not added after 20% of the resident population was taken, and the school pcpulation was assumed to be zero (i.e., S = 0) for the summer months since schools are not in session. In addition, the anticipated number of day care evacuees arriving at the Beverly Reception Center during summer months was assumed to be zero (i.e., DC = 0) because the total peak summer population for the EPZ communities served by this facility occurs on the weekend when day cares are assumed not to be in session. The formula used for this calculation is: Anticipated Number of Evacuees l Arriving in Private Vehicles = 0.2 [RP-TD-S-DC-SF-BP + VP) A summary of the anticipated number of evacuees arriving in private vehicles for each Reception Center is as follows: Number of Evacuees Arrivina in Private Vehicles Off-Season Summer l Beverly 4,074 8,606 North Andover 3,099 5,498 The anticipated private vehicle loads for each Reception Center (summarized below) were obtained by dividing the numbers for evacuees arriving in private vehicles by vehicle occupancies of 2.5 persons per vehicle for the resident
k population (NHRERP, Vol. 6 at page 2-5) and 2.4 persons per. e\ j vehicle for transient populations. Number of Private Vehicles Off-Season Summer j i Beverly 1,570 3,377 8 North Andover 1,193 2,115 The anticipated numbers of school buses and vehicles from special facilities (e.g., wheelchair vans, ambulances, passenger vans, evacuation bed buses) were obtained from Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 6 (Protective Actions for l Particular Populations). For Beverly, which serves the k larger number of these vehicles, the number of school buses is 127 and the number of vehicles from special facilities is 205. The 205 vehicles from special facilities would carry a total of 2,118 evacuees who are to be monitored in their l vehicles. The monitoring time for each private vehicle, wheelchair van, ambulance and passenger van was assumed to be one minute while that for buses was assumed to be two minutes, and the monitoring time for each passenger on a vehicle was assitmed to be 70 seconds. The latter consists of a 60-second frisk and 10 seconds for the Monitoring / Decontamination person to move from one passenger to the next. The Monitoring / Decontamination person monitors each passenger on special 9
facility vehicles by placing the emphasis of the scan on head, shoulders, hands and feet (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.4.4). The one-minute time for private vehicles, wheelchair vans, ambulances and passenger vans is adequate to meet the procedural requirement for the vehicle to drive up to the monitoring area and to monitor the vehicle's front grill area and door handles of private vehicles (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.6.2). The two-minute monitoring time is estimated to be adequate to meet the procedural requirement to conduct gross contamination surveys on the front grill and back of buses and on seats, floor and entryways of buses (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.6.2). The number of monitoring personnel required to meet the monitoring need for vehicles and special facility evacuees was determined from the sum of anticipated private vehicles, wheelchair vans, ambulances, and passenger vans divided by l 720 (which is the number of vehicles that can be frisked by one monitor during a 12-hour period based on a 60-second monitoring time) plus the sum of buses from special facilities and schools divided by 360 (which is the number of buses that can be frisked by one monitor during a 12-hout-period based on a two-minute monitoring time) plus the sum of special facility evacuees divided by 612 (which is the number of evacuees that can be frisked by one monitor during a 12-hour period based on a 70-second monitoring time). This
calculation was performed using the numbers associated with O the Beverly Reception Center for off-season and summer months. The results indicate that 6.4 monitors are needed during the off-season months and 8.5 monitors are needed during the summer months. Currently, the SPMC provides thirteen Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel to perform emergency-related activities outside the Monitoring Trailers. Eight of these personnel are assigned specifically to monitor private vehicles, buses, school buses and vehicles from special facilities (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.2.9.B). This Distribution of personnel provides adequate coverage for these activities during the off-season months. The SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.2.9, will be revised to include a statement indicating that Monitoring / Decontamination Leader may reassign personnel to assure adequate coverage for monitoring activities as needs arise.
- 4) Evacuee Registration All general public evacuees (except special populations) are registered at the entrance of the Monitoring Trailer (SPMC, IP 3.5, Step 5.2.7.G). Multiple copies of the Monitoring Trailer Registration Form (SPMC, IP 3.5, Attachment 12) are provided by Reception Center staff for evacuees to register themselves. The information obtained-O
)
i
from evacuees at this particular registration point is name and address. l Registration of special needs populations and school and-l l day care populations is achieved through rosters of the-passengers in special vehicles and school buses'(SPMC,. l IP 2.9, Steps 5.4.4 and 5.4.5, and IP-3.5, Step 5.2.7.D). 1
- b. Physical Description of the Monitoring Trailers The outside of the trailers.used for monitoring of evacuees measure approximately 45 feet in. length, 8 feet in width, and 13 feet in height. The inner dimensions of the trailers are approximately 44 feet.3 inches in length, 7 feet l / 8 inches in width, and 8 feet 7 inches in height. The layouts of the Monitoring Trailers are provided in the SPMC as Figures 5.2-9 and 5.1.10 and Attachments 2, 3, and 4 of IP 3.4. Each trailer is equipped with exterior hook-ups'for water and power.
The monitoring area in these trailers is approximately 34.5 feet long and provides 14 monitoring locations. There are two monitoring locations at each of the seven frisking j stations, thus allowing 14 persons to be monitored i simultaneously. A frisking station consists of a. platform, j j which supports two Bicron Frisk-Tech meters and Aptec probes, ; permanently mounted on a waist-high railing. The railings of J the frisking stations are approximately 2 feet long and l r i
establish monitoring lanes. Two individuals can be monitored O i simultaneously at each frisking station by standing to the f i i left and right of the railing. The distance between the ] railings of two frisking stations is approximately 53 inches. l Climate control in the trailers is achieved through the use of an air conditioner and three thermostat-controlled overhead quartz heaters. Lighting is provided by twelve overhead fluorescent light fixtures. l The Monitoring Trailers are in position at the Reception 1 Centers, which eliminates the necessity to dispatch them in l the event of an emergency. The trailers are simply unlocked and set up by the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization (NHY ORO) personnel at a SITE AREA EMERGENCY (SPMC, IP 3.4). The " pre-positioning" of the Monitoring Trailers and its associated equipment at the Reception Centers is a planning philosophy incorporated into the SPMC. Therefore, in an actual omergency, the Reception Centers and Monitoring Trailers will be activated in a timely fashion as demonstrated during the Exercise (FEMA Exercise Report, Applicants' Exhibit No. 43F, page 235 of 428). As stated previously, four additional monitoring locations will be added to each Reception Center to bring the total number of locations to 18. The design of these additional locations will be similar to the ones presently in the Monitoring Trailers, but will be contained in a separate
trailer. The trailer will be limited solely to monitoring activities and will have comparable lighting and climate
\
control features to those in the larger Monitoring Trailers. , ,
- c. Equipment Used at Monitoring Trailers SPMC, Appendix I, shows the typical numbers and types of equipment available to the NHY ORO during an emergency. The numbers of radiation detection instruments and quantities of k_,
supplies are sufficient to support the monitoring activities in accordance with SPMC, IP 2.9. The numbers of radiation detection instruments will be increased appropriately to meet the requirements of four additional monitoring locations at each Reception Center. NHY has developed a policy of having surplus radiation detection instruments used for monitoring at the trailers to allow expansion of monitoring capabilities. This surplus equipment is in the process of being procured and deployed and Appendix I will be revised to reflect the additional equipment. The primary radiation detection instrument used in the SPMC for monitoring evacuees and emergency workers is the Bicron Frisk-Tech meter with an Aptec FT-126B probe (SPMC, Section 3.5.3). This combination of equipment couples a count rate meter with a range of 0 to 500,000 counts per minute (cpm) with a large area (126cm 2) probe.
There are 26 Bicron meters with Aptec probes (not O including spare instruments) available at each Monitoring Trailer (SPMC, Appendix I), which is the number required to perform vehicle and personnel monitoring activities at the Monitoring Trailers in accordance with SPMC, IP 2.9.
- 2. Emergency Worker Facility The SPMC provisions for the setup and operation of the Emergency Worker Facility (EWF) are described in detail in implementing procedures IP 2.9 and IP 3.3.
- a. Design Basis The EWF was designed to accommodate NHY ORO field personnel returning to the EWF for monitoring upon the completion of a full evacuation of the six Massachusetts communities. NHY ORO field personnel returning to the EWF on a single shift are Field Monitoring Team members, Sample l Collection Team members, Dosimetry Recordkeepers, Road Crew members, Transfer Point Dispatchers, Special Vehicle Drivers, Route Guides, Traffic Guides, VANS Operators and Local Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Liaisons.
The assumed monitoring time for emergency workers is the same as that for the general public evacuees, 70 seconds. This rate allows the monitoring of 51 emergency workers per hour per monitoring location. Thus, an overall total of 306 emergency workers can be monitored per hour at the EWF (51 emergency workers per hour per location x 6 locations = 306
r ( emergency workers per hour) . - However,.there is no required time frame for the completion of emergency' worker. monitoring or decontamination. This capacity also allows for the monitoring and decontamination of State or local personnel.-
- b. Physical Description of the Emergency Worker Facility The EWF has the same outer dimensions, interior area, air conditioning and overhead lighting and heaters as the Monitoring Trailers. However, the interior layout is different in that there are three frisking. stations (SPMC, Section 5.2.3, Figure 5.2-10 and IP 3.3), which allow six emergency workers to be monitored simultaneously. The-decontamination area of the EWF is equipped with two showers, O each with its own privacy booth, two' double stainless-steel 1
l sinks, counter space, and storage cabinets for I decontamination supplies. ] I I The resources available in the SPMC are sufficient to- j i implement emergency response efforts for the entire Massachusetts portion of the EPZ without' reentry of emergency ) workers (other than field monitoring and sample collection teams) or reuse of their equipment once outside the EPZ. This planning approach eliminates the need to plan'for-extensive capability for decontamination.of emergency worker ! equipment, vehicles, and supplies during the initial. response phase of an emergency. s I
The EWF will be in position at the Staging Area, which O eliminates thc necessity to dispatch it in the event of an emergency. The trailer is simply unlocked and used by the NHY Offsite Response Organization personnel at a SITE AREA . EMERGENCY (SPMC, IP 3.3).
- c. Equipment Used at the Emergency Worker Facility The primary radiation detection instrument used at the EWF to monitor emergency workers is the Bicron Frisk-Tech 1 meter with an Aptec FT-126B probe (SPMC, Section 3.5.2).
There are 12 Bicron meters with Aptec probes (not including spares) at the EWF (SPMC, Appendix I).
, Emergency workers who are found contaminated at the monitoring stations will be re-monitored with the RM-14 meter and HP-210 probe in the decontamination area of the EWF. The EWF has two RM-14 meters and four HP-210 probes on hand for l monitoring and decontamination activities (SPMC, Appendix I).
This combination of equipment couples a count rate meter with a range of 0 to 50,000 cpm with a 15.5 cm2 probe. The decontamination supplies at the EWF consist of mild hand soaps, wipes, shampoo, waterless hand cleaner, tape, l paper clothing, sponges, towels, cotton swabs, gloves, foam cleanser, cotton glove liners, disposable shoe covers, plastic bags for waste material, and cotton overalls (SPMC, Section 3.5.2, IP 2.9 at Step 5.5 and Appendix I). O
il I
-a
-f\ ,)h ;
>t
- 3. Staffing
- a. ' Monitoring. Trailers '
1 Each Monitoring Trailer for the Reception CentersLis- .; staffed with a Monitoring /DecontaminationLLeader and 30 f i Monitoring / Decontamination' Personnel (SPMC, Figure 2.1-1)., j The' Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel numberLwill"be. l increased by 8, . to allow staffing-of theffour monitoring .i ( stations.to be added to each Reception Center plus additional. personnel for rotation-(see supra Section A.1.a.2~and infra Section B.1). The Monitoring / Decontamination' Leaders and Dosimetry Recordkeepers are notified at the ALERT classification and a report to the Staging Area-(SPMC, Section 2.1'and Table 3.2- ! 1). Upon the' declaration of-a SITE AREA EMERGENCY, the. a Monitoring / Decontamination Leaders along with Dosimetry j Recordkeepers proceed to their assigned trailer.' , 1 Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel are notified-at a SITE AREA EMERGENCY and report directly to:their assigned trailer i (SPMC, Section 2.1 and Table 3.2-1). j The Monitoring / Decontamination Leaders are' responsible- 'I for the overall operation of the Monitoring Trailers and:for ; keeping the Radiological Health Advisor at the NHY EOC i apprised of the activities at the trailers (SPMC, IP 2.9). The Monitoring / Decontamination Leader is assisted by two Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel who are assigned to act l l l
i as lead individuals, one overseeing activities inside the O1 trailer and the other overseeing activities outside the trailers (SPMC, IP 2.9'at Step 5.2.9). I The following table details the personnel assignments ! 1 made by the Monitoring / Decontamination Leader (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.2.9): Number of i Location Assianment Personnel Assioned l Inside Trailer Trailer Lead 1 Evacuee Monitoring 14* Evacuee Decontamination 2 Outside Trailer Lead 1 Automobile Monitoring 4 Special Vehicle / School Bus Monitoring 4 i Vehicle / Article Decontamination 4 (* This number will increase to 22 to include the 4 additional personnel described in Section A.1.a.2 suora and the 4 additional personnel described in Section B.1 infra.)
- b. Emergency Worker Facility 1
The EWF is staffed with a Monitoring / Decontamination Leader and 13 Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel (SPMC, Figure 2.1-1). The Monitoring / Decontamination Leader is responsible for the overall operation of the EWF and for keeping the Radiological Health Advisor at the NHY EOC 1 apprised of the activities at the EWF (SPMC, IP 2.9). The Monitoring / Decontamination Leader assigns 8 Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel to activities inside the EWF (one
1 l,
.)
l per monitoring station.and two at the decontamination' area),
'and 5 personnel to monitor and decontaminate;returningL
.t vehicles (SPMC, IP 2.9 at Step.5.3.7). 'l l
B. Radiation Monitoring Process
- 1. General Public' The monitoring process involves evacuees stepping.up'tc a station inside the Monitoring Trailer-where they are scanned by NHY ORO personnel using the Bicron meter.and.Aptec probe previously described. The monitoring process itself j entails a frisking which focuses on the areas ofEthe body that are most likely to be contaminated such as head,~ face, :
shoulders, buttocks, hands and feet. The? process starts withe
~~
4 a frisk of the individual's head, face and shoulders, followed by a scan of the remaining front of the. body from top to bottom using a single sweep. The individualLis asked to turn in place for a similar; frisking of1the back of the body. (SPMC,-IP 2.9, Step-5.4.3) _This type of personnel l survey takes about 1 minute to complete. The 1-minute monitoring time is-achievable-because of ; the radiation detection instrument' selected for use in the. SPMC. 'The large area of the Aptec probe allows movement'of~ 1 the probe at a faster rate while still retaining a detection ! i efficiency equal to a standard pancake probe moved at a slower rate. The performance of the Aptec. probe was. evaluated in tests conducted by the NHY Health Physics
. _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ - _ _ ~
Department under the direct observation of Dr. Joseph Ring of O Harvard University Radiation Protection Office. A memorandum i from S. L. Dodge to P. J. Stroup regarding these tests is Attachment A hereto. Dr. Ring provided a review of the data, I which is included in Attachment A. The tests indicated that the performance of the Aptec probe, even at a frisking rate three times the standard frisking rate of 2 inches per i second, exceeds the performance of the HP-210 pancake probe at 2 inches per second. i The actual monitoring rate experienced during the Exercise was compared to the planning basis monitoring time. Two 20-minute tests employing 5 monitoring locations (not 7 as asserted by Interveners) were conducted at each Monitoring 4 Trailer to demonstrate the monitoring process for evacuees. A description of the tests was included in the FEMA-approved i extent of play section of the Exercise Scenario (Applicants' " i Exhibit 61), Attachment B hereto. The average monitoring rate was 54.7 evacuees per hour per monitoring location, I which compares favorably with the 51 evacuees per hour per monitoring location used as a planning basis. Moreover, during the Exercise some of the mock evacuees who passed through the trailers had hidden radioactive sources (i.e., Coleman lantern mantles). Seventy-eight out of seventy-nine sources were found during the monitoring process (ORO O
s
.5 Reception Center Monitoring Record Sheets, Exercise Test- ')
Results For Beverly and North Andover, Attachment C hereto). The evacuee flow path for'the Monitoring Trailers is. l shown in Attachment 4 of IP 3.4. The lead Monitoring /
)
Decontamination person in the trailer holds evacuees-at the ') trailer's entrance when all 14 monitoring locations are occupied. Evacuees awaiting. monitoring are directed'to monitoring locations as the locations become available. j Evacuees are able to walk from the trailer's entrance to any. monitoring location within the 5 seconds allocated for this I' action. In the event that contamination is found on an evacuee at a monitoring location, the lead Monitoring / 1 l [
- Decontamination person holds incoming evacueesfat the trailer's entrance. Therefore, a contaminated evacuee has an 1 unobstructed path to the trailer's decontamination. area and-there is little chance of cross-contaminating evacuees R 4
waiting to be monitored. The Monitoring / Decontamination Leader establishes a I i rotation of staff to ensure that Monitoring / Decontamination ! Personnel assigned to monitor evacuees inside the trailer l receive a 10-minute break after fifty minutes of monitoring (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.2.9). Initially, this was to be f I accomplished through the use of excess personnel outside the ' trailer. However, because the four monitoring. locations which-are to be added to each trailer place new demands on
personnel available to establish a rotation, four personnel O (in excess of the four to staff the additional monitoring locations) will be assigned to each trailer to ensure that the Monitoring / Decontamination Leader can establish a rotation without compromising activities outside the trailer. The monitoring process for evacuees will not be significantly delayed by personnel breaks, dosimetry checks or decontaminating a monitoring location as asserted by Interveners. Additional staff will be available to establish a rotation for Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel assigned to monitoring locations inside the trailer. Therefore, it is unnecessary to shut down a monitoring location as assumed by Interveners, or to subtract the time for a 10-minute break from the time available for monitoring evacuees as done by Interveners in their calculations. The personal dosimeters (i.e., direct reading pocket dosimeters) used by Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel can be read within the time allowed for evacuees to walk up to or away from a monitoring location. Therefore no additional time need be allocated for dosimetry checks. Contrary to Interveners' testimony, it is not necessary to allocate time for Monitoring / Decontamination staff assigned to monitoring locations in the trailers to perform self monitoring. " Controlled" and "noncontrolled" areas are , identified for the monitoring areas of the trailers (SPMC,
IP 3.4, Attachment 2.). Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel stand in the "noncontrolled" area facing evacuees at the monitoring locations, which are part of the " controlled" area. Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel are not in physical contact with evacuees in the " controlled" area. Therefore, they are unlikely to become contaminated while performing monitoring. Moreover, only clean evacuees are allowed to step into the "noncontrolled" area and so, if by chance they brush against Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel, there will not be a transfer of contamination. It is also not necessary to allocate time'for Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel to hand out clean tags (SPMC, IP 7.9, Step 5.4.3 and Attachment 3) as asserted by Interveners. The clean tags can be handed to evacuees during the time allocated for them to walk away from the monitoring station. The use of the 1 minute per hour time estimate provided by Interveners to decontaminate a monitoring location still leaves 59 minutes of each hour as effective monitoring time at each monitoring location. This leads to an effective monitoring rate at each location of 50.6 person per hour per location which, when rounded, equals the SPMC planning basis of 51 persons per hour per monitoring location. 70 seconds per person for 59 minutes per hour = 50.6 persons per hour.
Additionally, adding 3 seconds to the monitoring time O for the monitoring of personal items such as purses, as suggested by Interveners, still allows the monitoring of 20% of the Massachusetts population inside the EPZ "within about 12 hours" (NUREG-0654, J.12 at page 65). 73 seconds per person for 59 minutes per hour = 48.5 persons per hour. This 48.5 persons per hour yields an overall monitoring rate of 873 persons per hour based on 18 monitoring locations. Applying this overall hourly rate to the anticipated numbers of evacuees expected at the Beverly and North Andover trailers (see Section A.1.a(i) suora) yields total monitoring i times of 12 hours 16 minutes and 9 hours 58 minutes, respectively. Beverly: 10,712 persons + 873 persons per hour = 12.27 hours (or 12 hours 16 minutes) l North Andover: 8,698 persons + 873 persons per hour = 9.96 hours (or 9 hours 58 minutes). The adequacy of the monitoring process for evacuees was evaluated by FEMA during the Exercise. FEMA concluded that "the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization demonstrated adequate procedures, facilities, and equipment for registration, radiological monitoring, and decontamination of evacuees." (FEMA Exercise Report, Applicants' Exhibit No. 43F, page 235 of 428.) O
i. I md
- 2. Emergency Workers j The monitoring process for emergency workers is 1 the same as that described for the general public described l j
in Section D.1, suora. 1 Emergency workers returning to the EWF are monitored for external contamination with the Aptec FT-126B probe and Bicron meter. Emergency workers who are found contaminated , at the monitoring locations are remonitored with the RM-14 meter and HP-210 probe in the decontamination area of the EWF and the contamination is removed by one of several methods. Wipes and washing with mild soap and water are used if the 1
,m extent of contamination is limited to a localized area of the !
i ,- body (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.5,5). If the contamination is I limited to outer clothing, the individual is instructed to l remove the clothing and is provided temporary paper clothing (SPMC, IP 2.9, Step 5.5.4). Showering is used only if the easier, less disruptive decontamination methods fail. Decontamination supplies at the~EWF consist of mild hand soaps, wipes, shampoo, waterless hand cleaner, tape, paper clothing, sponges, towels, cotton swabs and plastic bags for waste material. (SPMC, Appendix I, and IP 2.9 at Step 5.5). Monitoring / Decontamination personnel at the EWF have gloves, cotton glove liners, disposable shoe covers and cotton coveralls for use in decontamination activities (SPMC, O Appendix I).
The SPMC makes provisions to enter emergency workers who O cannot be decontaminated below acceptable limits in a Radiological Screening Program which will provide additional services such as whole body or thyroid counts, bioassays and follow-up monitoring to these individuals (SPMC at page 3.5-6). The Radiological Screening Program provides services similar to those provided by the Radiological Screening Program used by the State of New Hampshire in the NHRERP. The processing of emergency workers through the EWF was evaluated by FEMA during the Exercise. FEMA concluded that the NHY ORO demonstrated adequate facilities, equipment, supplies, procedures and personnel for monitoring emergency workers (FEMA Exescise Report, Applicants' Exhibit No. 43F, at page 240 of 428).
- 3. Special Needs Evacuees Evacuees from special facilities are monitored in their vehicles. NHY ORO Monitoring / Decontamination Personnel place the emphasis of a 1-minute scan on head, shoulders, hands and l
feet (SPMC, IP 2.9 at Step 5.4.4). If contamination is found on special needs evacuees, decontamination is performed in the special vehicle by Monitoring / Decontamination personnel under the direction of the Monitoring / Decontamination Leader at the Reception Center. (SPMC, IP 2.9 at Step 5.4.4.) If a determination is made that a special needs evacuee may require decontamination which cannot be performed by the
Monitoring / Decontamination personnel at the Reception Center facilities, they would be diverted to an MS-1 Hospital for further processing (SPMC, IP 2.9, Section 5.4.4, and Attachment 1). Those individuals evacuated from hospitals or other special facilities by ambulance are transported directly to an MS-1 Hospital (Section 3.2.1.C) where monitoring, and decontamination if necessary, is performed by trained hospital personnel. These special facility evacuees either remain at the MS-1 Hospital or are then transported to a host' hospital or facility.
1 j O 1 i l 1 I ATTACHMENT A .) I (Memorandum From S.L. Dodge to P.J. Stroup, j April 6, 1988, re Test Evaluating the Performance of the Aptec Probe Conducted by the NHY Health ] i Physics Department, and Attachments Thereto) { i l l I t l 5 4
- l 1
1
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ i
Attachmgtggage1of24) 734 % t IF.S V.02.06.04 O New Ham;: shire Yankee Division O INTRA. COMPANY BUSINESS MEMO P.eae sena cnaw Homcess Subject ;?IEC C126 FFOEE FEFJCP.WCE From s, L, padge District ,, Date April 6,1988 To P. J. Stroup "C" Tests were conducted to establish the effectiveness of using the Aptec Frl26 larce trea G-M detector with the Bicron Frisk-Tech rateceter as the
~
principle contar.inatien monitoring equipment at the Reception Centers associated with the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Canarities. These tests, ccndured under direct observation by Dr. Joseph Ring of the Harvard University Radiatica Protection Office, clearly indicate that this ronitering ecuip:en: exceeds the perforI:ence of the EF-210 pancake probe even at three ti.es the " standard" frisking rate of two (2) inches per second. Attac. h t (1) is the test procedure developed for and used in the evaluation. Attach:ent (2) includes a su: mary of the observed data and the 4 individual data sheets fer each test conducted. Attach.ent (3) is an independent review cf the test process and data provided by Dr. Joseph Ring. l The use of a sixty (60) second per person frisking pace is satisfactory and ray be conse:vative. I Flease conta= re with any cuestiens.
. R. , /
S. L. Dodge 7 Health Physics Supervisor SLD:lsp cc: R. Sherwin T. Cotter ." H. M. Eawkins *
- J. A. MacDonald ,
J. J. Rafalo. ski E. L. Darois W. B. Ielani D. E. Mxxiy R. M. Tc.urlow
- 2 ci --
Attachmsnt A (Page 2 of 24)
. \
l l Ol l l I i 4
.. l 1
l 1 1 I i. ATTAOMNr (1) TEST PRO _t.uGRE PDER.9C TESTDn OF G4 PROBES I AT w.arous rarsrmn MATES O I s O M e O l i O
~ ';
. Attachmsnt. A f(Piga 3..off24).-.
l q i.
'~
O itle Perferrance Testin: of GM Prebes at Various Friskinc kates J
- Originate: E. N. Thurics- )
.l s
Health Physics Review:
' Title Signature :Date a
ff Sasa.sv 9 - - L1
- A&* i.
Hu m er,;, G. S' L h J , Y/c/21 g
.g l
Independent Review: Title Signature Date rm NNZYWb */ n h. 7/r/jf. 1 & xw s s-4 / u l ;! l e ; 1 l
.i 5
i
. i
~
. l q
i s o 1 1 1
- ')
i.
I Attachm:nt A (Pnga 4 of 24) I i l b l 1 Page 1 of a 1 I 1.0 Obiective To cc pare the response of the Aptec FT-126 frisker probe used with the Eicron Frisk-Tech A769K count rate meter to that of the Eberline EP-210 4 frisker prece used with the Eberline RM-14 count rate rater at various 1 frisking rates. 2.0 References i 2.1 Apte 126 Prol:e Efficiency and LLD Analysis IMS# V02.06.01 trr!Y Memorandczn SS! 41180 7-27-87. 2.2 EP-210 Efficiency Dete mination IMSi V02.06.04 tEY Mrnarandan SS! 44130 4-1-88. 2.3 Aptec IT126EH E.ffeciency Determination IMS# V:2.06.0410iY Mr:crandan SSi 42344 11-5-88. 2.4 "Caidelines Fcr Radiological Protection at Raclear Pcwer Stations", INPo G;;delines v85-004, February 1988. 2.5 Registration and Radiological Monitoring cf Evacuees (tUS.E".r-0654/FE.%-REP-1, J.12 ) . 2.6 Procedre ED0963.31 Calibration of the Eberline RM-14 and RM-20 Radiatien Monitors. 2.7 Procedure ED0963.32 Efficiency Determination of Pancake C-eiger Mueller ?;bes. 2.8 Procedre ED0963.10 Calibration cf the Eicron Prisk-Tech Fatereter. 2.9 Proced=e IP 2.9 Radiological Manitcring/Decon*eination. 2.10 Reccrd cf telephone conversation dated March 21, 1988 between Gay Taibi representing IEY and Richard Donovan of FE!%. 2.11 Certificate of Radioactivity Calibration Chlorine-36, !EY Source I Number E-81-2.
~
3.0 Discussion Guidance found in Paference 2. . fadicates that a standard frisk for per-sonnel conta=ination should be perfor:ned using a mrv-=ke GM detector and a count rate reter at a frisk rate of less than 2 inches per second, or, an egaivalently sensitive technigae. Reference 2.10 acknowledges that the 1.75" diameter pancake GM detector is the ac::epted device which applies to the rate of 2 inenes per second. The test described in this procedure is used to measure rate specific efficiencies. The purpose of this test is to deterrine the frisk rate at which the larger Gi probe vill have a egaivalent sensitivity (i.e. similar efficiency ) as the s:: aller GM probe, at a frisk rate of 2 inenes per second. The adii-tional difference between the two systems is the response time of the scalers (RM-14 a versus Frisk-Tech). For normal use the RM-14 is used in the "slos response code which corresponds to a response time of 20 seconds. Faference 2.9 specifies the use of the Eicron Prisk-ht, at a respcr.se tire cf approximately 7 seconds which is significantly
-----_c .n - -
3 Attochmtnt A (Pagn 5 of 24) 1 Page 2 of 5 i 1 4.0 Acceccance Criteria 4 N N/A i 5.0 Precautions N/A
.i j
.,6.0 -Prerequisites j
i To perfc= this test procedure the follcwing egaipment is required and crast be calibrated in accordance to E procedures. System 1 Eberline HP-210 Flat GM probe and a Eberline RM-14 ratameter Syste. 2 Aptec IT-126 Flat GM Probe and a 1 Eicren Frisk-Tech A769K ratemeter i Sc=ce Cl-36 (Reference 2.11) 7.0 Initial Ccnditicns I i l The abree egaip ent is calibrated in accordance with applicable M pro-ced=es (Feferences 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8). 1 I
\ 8.0 Procedre $
i 8.1 Frisk P. ate Centrol ' l 8.1.1 Attach tape rarked in 2 inch increments across the testing area. 8.1.2 Use a variable audible timing device to establish an incremental i I sound such th2t for each " click" the probe is coved past one cark en the tape at the desired frisk rate. 4 For ev.mple: To nove the probe consistently at 2 inches per i secens the variable timing device would be set to click once per second and the probe would cross a nark on the tape each click. - ; 8.1.2 The person noving the probe.should ret be able to see or haar the frisker being tested. - 1 I 8.1.4 Arcther person should verify the frisk rate by' observing the retien and timing, it with a stop watch. 6.2 Measurements 8.2.1 Attach spacers to the probes such that the distm frczn the socce to the probe housing is the same fer the PS210 and the Aptec !T126 a:vi the deter surfaces are not shielded. 8.2.2 Set the RM-14 response switch to slow (i.e., nornal use pcsitica).
Attachment A (Page 6 of 24) Page 3 of 5 E.2.3 Eecord the detecter codel and serial number on the data sheet. 8.2.4 Once stable, cbserve and record the background count rate. Repeat this process to collect ten background masure.ents. S.2.5 Place the test sources face up cn the table. 8.2.6 Fass the detec cr over the source at the desired testing rate. 8.2.7 Observe and record the peak count rate. 8.2.8 Repeat steps E.2.6-6.2.7 nine core times. 6.2.9 Set the Frisk-Tech response at 1/4 turn to left frcm fast. This is apprcxicately a 7 second response tire. 8.2.10 Perfer= steps E.2.3 to 8.2.8 for frisking rates cf 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 inches per second. 5.3 Calculations E.3.1 Calculate the Average Peak Net Count Rate using: Average Peak Net Count Fate = (Average Peak Grcss Count Fate - Average Eackground Coua.t Rate). 8.3.2 Calculate the rate-specific efficiency for each Data Sheet using: Rate Specific efficiency = Averace Peak Net Count Rate Source Activity (dpm) 8.3.3 Eecord these values on the data su:=a:7 sheet. 8.3.4 The raxi=ur, frisk rate for the large area Aptec probe is the highest rate at which the average rate specific efficiency is creater than the average rate specific efficiency cf the EP-210 at 2 inches per second. 9.0 Final Conditions - N/A ' 10.0 Ficares
- N/A 11.0 Forr.s Test Data Term Data Su:ra:y Sheet
Attachment.A (Page 7 of 24) Page 4 of 5 TIST C;3 FORM O Dete::Or Model Serial Nrter Bad.greurd (CPM) Fricker Rate (inches /sec) Fes;cr.se Settings Trial Peak Gross Count Rate CPM O Analysis: -
. 1
~. l J
O O Performed by:
i Attachm:nt A (P2g3 8 of 24) P:ge 5 ci 5 Su:rary Data Sheet 1.0 G210/F.914 Evaluation Ol Frisk Pate Gross Ccunt Fate 14t Count Fate Q unting Efficiency (in/sec) i 1SD (cpm) + ISD (c;rn) c/d 1 1 i 2.0 AFTC/Triskte:n Evaluation Frisk Fate Gres's Count Fate Net Count Fate Countine Efficiency' (in/sec) i 1SD (cpm) i 1SD (c;xn) c/d l 1
)
3.0 Conclusion j 2in/sec (D210/R914) = -
. in/se (APIT/BICRN) l Prepared by:
1 1 Reviewed by: )
Attachment'A (Page 9 of 24) 9 ATTACEME27T (?) 7EFJOP.WCE TESTIIG OF GM PROSES AT VARIOUS FRISKDC FATTS DATA SUWARY A!O ' TP_ST DATA SIErrS
. i O , i
Attcchm:nt A (27g10of24) I I Sumary Data Sheet f./g/ )
.{
1.0 FJ210/FA-14 Dialuation Frisk Pate Gross Count Fate Net Count Rate Countine Efficiency , (in/sec) i 1SD (cpm) i 1SD (cpm) c/d l A /d90 C //0 /A t/A C /to.V . ant
.5 ?!C163 752 263.7 .0/70 V /,25 t 58 N21 r d'7.1 .o/VA
.C 3/f t: 7 A 47 t AE.s .colo b 282 *- A 8 240 t svi.y . soCU 2.0 72TEC/Triskteen Dealuatica i j Frisk Pate Gross Ccunt Fate Net Count Rate Counting Efficien: f (in/sec) i 1SD fcpm) i 1SD (cpm) c/d ,
i 2 3700 t.221 3 9 s' f r 2 3 3 ,07ga l AFlo C 369 ; b/.r.t3 7 1, , OS 9.2 1 4 d%T t 2 cs" A205% 2 Ss' .0499 ( A/80t /93 /91.72 204 < 0'f30 h / 9d o .C 20Y /87Ct Alb . 0179 h.bf ') a 0ff/ 1 ! 3.0 Conclusion ' - 2in/sec (EP210/BM-14) = 5.d8
- in/sec (APTEC/BICPM)
{/) T b1 h <; irscorM4'Y I , b a! t art A $ bN' f *42 SlC Prepared by: I 8 Eeviewed by: u-. ;,, . > c ' ..
)
_ _ - -_--_ _ -- .- u
1 Attachm:nt A (Paga 11 of 24-) ..
- i Page 4 of 4: )
'1TST DATA FORM / 2._
Dete ::: Paiel L .. . ' /> ' -
')
Serial N :her ,r. .. '.. :: ?:.l 5. . r*4 r i 1 Ba$kgrcun:i(CPM) 4/-'n '/.9 ' Prisker Rate (in:$es/sec) .- * 'd t d Paspense Settings re . .- . ' ff ' r. .'T C ' '-! ' ' Trial Peak Gross C, f,*,. .. ' . . ; r, Count Rate CPM p ,c .7# '
/ t.-
? 't o 1 en
. 4e .
- ve r
$r.
4e p, o y, 3 }
- c. ,
T :o '
, ye _g t .1L .p L :.h * *? s o r 1.y e*~ o
- co
)
Analysis: - q 9 '
/ .- .,'
a' Performed by: es .- ","- a a_ - - - k /N ' - /2-
Attachm:nt A (P:gs 12 of 24) I i P 92 4 of 4 TEST DATA FORM 1 2. i Detecter Mcdel .v. ; . - r
,s Serial Dr.ber !. ' ,1 e > a- >-9*' M ;,.* ,v,. ;< f !
Backgret:nd (GM) '
-* s 1 ." 1
.1 Frisker Pate (inches /sec) _
i I Response Settings >.- .:/. - i l Trial Peak Grcss Cot:nt Pate l GM
/ /Ve v l
E /"Ieo l l 3 / ~ .s . ' 9 /304
# l 4 ner l
1 G i,. 7 o' c, o Wa
- c.
.i z i:, e .-
r 2:e l y ,u, s22;.ScJ Qu : :: c . -ur
'o s2co Analysis: emibf) ~ d se, f, Y/was .s .
l . O
/ .*,r' ' '
Perfcmed by: -
..,y__ *,
Paviewed bys _ a e -
/ w _@ I@@
Attachment A (Page 13 of 34)* Page 4 of 4 TEST DATA EDPfi _ 3 . e-Dete:::: ttxiel l' P hta L / th ou Serial N cher ilk tu rat.a i S%4 c.sa I. > *p ut et Eackgroun:i (CPM) 4 P r cl . i ( t F:Lske: Pate (inches /se:) 1 Pasp::nse Settings b ._ t /,. m Trial Peak Gross Count Pate CPM t Pc t. 2 foa T 70 c. N ND r en 6 :. c. o Ws * '
~
2-t 3 .w. E 9b o c tJu a tA.1A1Tw: c, x .rra r
/t QCC aus
- Analysis: ,
N e e i Performa:1 by:I, M)hf, 4,\?fy' wi e dy:8 M A <4 /g
Attachment A (Page 14 of 24) Page 4 of 4 TEST DATA IVRM .d Dete:::: Mcxiel /- '
</*- .
Seria.1 n ebcr s w . .. .
. ,~ ~ ~ ' * * '
2.l ~, . 'e .3 Badgretmd }CFM) C? J' i - Prisker Rate (inches /see) Eesponse Settings ..5:v Trial Peak Gross Cotat Rate CFM i P.s. o 2 7ee 1 ( e -- 4 _ v % ?. r ~)s o
& pe o 7' .h c p, o c,
g y_q g l' Leo e, ,, M D..* h
- 3 ,r. , ~5-to h e,
~
Analysis:
- 4 l
1 01 Perfonned by: o,C. - ______._2______ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - Reviewed by: g ,Ms y[.fhf f
. Attachment'A (Pcg2 15.of 24 i' j
- Page 4 of 4.. '-
l
.)
I TEST DATA EOFJi- 2
- , 1 1
i tetecter Mcxiel H + .1': L ' F. A '" - i Serial N =ber p. + ' ~ .4 - ~ "r ?% c' \ >l.',~' Eackgroun:i (6M) 4 i i Ci . t 't hisker FJ.te (inches /see)' - b~ Easponse Settings Ir sAw-Trial Peak Gross Count Bate CPM 3 i "11o x .. 1 1 2.s e u 'l u o i~ 31 b (, 1 o c. O 7/c Ws ', - 31y i e P 3YC q 3xe a'h' l' > Al %! % 3 , y c <_ -
,o 33o Analysis:
M e* e I i aw
/
/ ,
Perfcrmed p . / [. [ 9r /
~-
6 E K e u d, e
, v -
Attachment A-(Page 16 of 2'4) Paga 4 of 4 TEST DATA IDFJi 6 L_ Dete:::: ftriel PF..>i '/d.~'M Serial R:r.ber t! m - > v ra.= i 5~" c>' 3/~'I*' Back'gr:und (CFM) S 8 i 'f ' 'i Prisker Pate (inches /see) L Pasponse Settings /x - /, . ., Trial Peak Gross Count Fate CPM t ioe 1 3eu
, 3ie 4 le e i~ uc b 1 t- e _
3'* W,
- o 3 s.:
E 7Ce g gf g e M- '[ ^ ( U , J JT I ec % 'I o Analysis: 4
,/ .,
O' Perfomed by: ,x , .c.( . - - Faviewed by: m V "[g[ J
. 1
-Attachm2nt'A (Paga.17 of 24) . )
Page 4 of 4 j i i TEST DATA FORM
<A. \ i i
Detecter ftdel A o1es [ ~t h e, / /3 *. t. es 9 b . - I*~' L*
/ 1 Serial Nr.ber 4 +c,
- 148l' TI :
- c c.. . r* 1% 4 Backereund (CPM) O9i : 71 f .
Frisker Rate (inches /se ) c (A- at ~ 3 Fe.sponse Settines
~
>r i ~ ~
~t- ' s a. c e a's .. .e '
j * \ l.
*} Q ( .{ .~. . * :
' ~
Trial Peak Gross ' c ! C ' ~.' ~-
~ Count Rate 'T) g. . ~.. ;
-CPM -
l ::.e o i i 1 'te o i t > 3' c . Li %e s . y 5 ~ a 13 o
~
t 3e e q I 'l c u j, , .. l c. l 3 3'D q 4 e c, -
# 1L 4 D 1% ' p e h r L 10 40 0
>1
)
Analysis: J
\
9 4' I 1 j l e
! ^
- d'
-4s- -e " B L +dr
I Attcchmtnt A (PagD 18 of 24) P192 4 of 4 j i TEST DATA FORM E <L i f l Detecter thiel $e 4m It 8-'
/ d.u - . f e 's L ' 1 b serial n= er 4 s e, _
- 3 H n . 8: ~.. m.ylW.
! 4 Backgret:nd (CPM) 14i f D IN Frisker Rate (inches /see) 1 I Response Settings x.: ie ., le s7 5n. .epwc Trial Peak Gross Count Rate CPM i 1 J c 'o 1 T veo l 1 3 ~1 5 o e,
,, y 3feo e#
(. 3700 7 4bcc I Ws
- c, 3wo a
) ) bo O q 3kc -
#-A JJA ! >x;
/0 3T6o l
l s l JJML1) Tis: M e D
/
O Perfcr:uld by: . 9'7,.M
/ } /
Reviewed by:
),. -
y::o (//(/Ff
, ? Attachment A'. (Pagn"19 - of 24')/
Page 4 of 4 x 'Y-TEST DATA FDPJi A ( tetec :: .ue:iel Ae % F T ' ' '- /6'<-- 9 a.s ' "*-
/
Seriel thrber At te F 7 HIL . 8 t e -.. ? Y' 'T s Ead'gror.d (CPM) 7 't E I H-Frisker Rate (inches /see) 3 Response Settings k<c st' .i
.9 a nc .
~
Trial Peak Gross Cotmt Rate CPM i 't o c o
% 3te c -
t 7 6 c c; D > ?Q c ( ) ~10 0 c l i-c 0 "r 1L c t, WA
- y'ys O c.
? 1 TG o 4 *1 t c L
-,t L.D 222 s
y eg '.
/0 1.Vch
~
Analysis: l . t [ Performed by: /sp.// * I 4[ - ,,
+'d8f
~4 ~
Reviewed *
'M M S~ ,
+. _-
Attachm:nt A (Paga20of2d) Pag] 4 of 4 ; TTST DATA EDPE <: y,t i L) ~~ ~ j Eetecter M: del A ,4 a r7 *- c / 8,4 e .. It L* h * - Serial NL M / ,4,, .:::- 3 M ' e c .9. 6 r 6 8: I'I' b 4 i 1 Background (CFM) 1 'l f : 't 3 f 9 ' 4 Frisker Rate (inches /sec) 5' Response Set. tings y,e ~v 5 et . <,ye.iti.
~
Trial Peak Gross Count Eate CPM I )' %0C i 1 1 fo c. s ~ l e 4 a. 2 e c f >Seo . , h (* ~
~~~' 19 e. c.
W
- _o %H Sc P 1 AC C C 11 o c '
^"'b ^#6 '
ic % '< :. e
~
Analysis: og l l
- 1 O
rerie.w y ..b d d:.5 n y/r Reviewedby p,/ . g e i . ._ - --
- lAttachm3nt A (Page 21 of 24)
Page.4 of 4- l p TEST DATA ICRM n _a
\
1 1 Detecter Mcdel A + es F I'U L
/Rh 6:. 4 - t<sb. '! ;
'l Serial Ntrber A ,,,, c a 'sr*i!L O o / r., N 7'/b lt '
i Badigretmd (GM) 1'IIi. W SV l Prisker Rate (indhes/see) $~ 1 Pasponse Settings ) , e- Ni s -c . 1
.l 1
Trial Peak Gross i Cotmt Rate I GM i l %)c o
& Vfff _
\ 1 vce l 3 'A 7 r.,u q U % %c O
\
~~
> ") 'I c c L. /4Co 1
"f" 1% O (*
Ws * . . c., sgie h 13C, O 9 jfgs ci:~ h )N *Nn { (q ,t, p g
,e 2 700 !
.g e I s.t Anad.ysis: .
*n o
O 0 O
- g. . .
Peaer a sy, z.Z,.%s - , w/ :/ Reviewed b'y
. , 9
Attachment A (Page 22 of 24) Page 4 of 4 TEST DATA FORM _ffd, /L Detec:.cr Pedel An iet R at / 8 .i . 6.. f ' '* h ' f c i. .
/
SeriP.L1 Nu: der /. I et ma 2 et i i c . 0 .( < s + 7 % if Background (CPM) h f r M f 'l ' Prisker Rate (inches /sec) C Response Settings _ v. o N '+ t -c . , c.pc .w . . Trial Peak Gross Count Rate CPM i ilee 1 / LOO 1 110c 4 10 0 c. b~ /90c l /PCC S / '4-6 o y, s i / VC O
- c. / r/ A o c, 1%co M # ~ ~ I Acq , 'i t q to /9CC*
e O p: .- retto a e l 4 4 X ' e. e + .
-so-8 1 - G A @ i - , e k ,/ ,
Attachment A (Page 33 og 34) O Ju"TAOPENT (3) DOEPEDEhT REVIEW FROM DR. JOSEPH RIht SR. IEALTH PHYSICIST FARVARD UNIVERSITY e k e O
Attachment A.(Page 24 of 24) Eric Darcis and Stephen Dcdge O
Dear Gentlemen:
9 I have reviewed the data collected d' ing our meting on April 5,1988 at Seabrcck Statien ard the nethods used for the experiment. I believe this experiment is valid to determine the ability of the APIIC probe to detect spot contamination at varying scan rates. The data was collected using a chlorine-36 source stich is considered a stardard contamination reference source and the rethois cf verifying the scan rate were reasonable and independent which ensured tne proper scan rate. By establishing this test criteria I believe we conducted an unbiased test cf the t,co detectors and were able to verify that the API'EC 3 probe can be used to survey for contamination at a higher scan rate than the HP-210 probe. If, in fact, one were to choose the same rate specific efficiency for the APITO probe, cne would have to scan at a rate greater than six inches per second. Based en this experimental data it is reasonable that you scan at a rate cf three inches per second eventho'.gh the APIIC probe can yield the same results es the reference EP-210 at 2 inches per second at a scan rate in excess of 6 inches per second. Sincerely,
~
- /
2 I
. Joseph R. , Ph.D.
O
;i
..I j
l i . ;i 1 i;!
)
r .j l I
. ij lj r
ATTACHMENT B-
-(Seabrook Station 1988' FEMA /NRC Graded Exercise,- y Evaluation Worksheet-for Extent ~of Play,.'Section1 Number.,'3.2.15 (Reception Center MonitorincJ _ Trailer)' /i ..
1
'T 4
I ' 4 4 l l I 1
-53 ' j 1
1
httachment B (Page 1 of 2) Objective T1 EVALUATION WORKSHEET FOR EXTENT OF PLAY Section NumDer: 3.2.15
Title:
Reception Center Monitorino Trailer, Vehicle Monitorino/Decont3mination State Involved: Commonwealth of Massachusetts (NHY ORO)
- Monitorino Facility, Reception Center, Monitorino/
Resources To Be Evaluated: Decontamination Personnel FEMA EVALUATORS, NHY CONTROLLING Total Resources Required / Involved: ORGANIZATION Sub-category: Monitorino/ Decontamination Personnel - ) EXTENT OF PLAY 1 of 2 per Aeception FEMA Proposed Number Of Evaluators For This Resource: Center.
- Comments: N/A Summary: Personnel will be available to simulate evacuees to demonstrate the rate of personnel monitored. Mini-scenarios will be iniected by a NHY a response by the Controller en a random basis to the evacuees to illicit players.
Mini scenarios will be iniected by a NHY Controller for the Monitorino/ Decontamination of vehicles process, as well. 1 E/3.2.54 Page 1 of 2
O ATTACHMENT B (Seabrook Station 1988 FEMA /NRC Grad 64 Exercise, Evaluation Worksheet for Extent of Play, Section Number 3.2.15 (Reception Center Monitoring Trailer) \ O I I O
Attcchrcnt B (Paga 2 of 2)
- ag? 2 -f :
Section Numoer: ".5
/~ N stra,nts T:, Reasonaoly Achievaole:
i 1 1 /
\~/ a' ::wA Evaivators.
*e numeer the Receotion Center s cepen-
; *e -umoer et eersonnel/venicles arriv,no at ent en tne ouses sent cut anc route cu ces.
Mstnocology Description /Secuence Of Events:
- :ee lity 3s du11v activateo.
jensele monitorsno will "n,tiate. Personnel will demonstrate at ' east 10 . 2. cer 8acility, cer sni'*. ven,cle surveys are cerformeo oer monitor. Oecentam, nation
, One out of +en ven,eles will ee classifieo as contaminated.
4,11 ee cemenstrateo ev ciscussion oniv. Nine are then
- 2. all 4 cersonnel monster,no stations are anstially activated.
he ,# snut down leavino five coerating to demonstrate an soprooriate rete. NHY Controller will interiect on a random basis that one out of five eer- /, ~1 - sonnel will be contaminated. Contamination to be simulated by use of ,__ I i
~'
Coleman mantles both in and out of the packsoe. Decontamination of those I l
'cuno contaminated will te demonstrated throuoh discussion oniv.
- 5. Eacn station will maintain this rate for approximately 20 minutes.
- 5. At tee snift chance, 'd ve VAEC mutual assistance eersonnel will eerferm the chance at each Reception Center Monitorino Trailer.
The approcriste monitorino rate will be re-demonstrated by each second shift {# 7. monster *or scoreximately 20 minutes.
- 8. Clean or decontaminated vehicles after processino may return and be con-sidered a new vehicle for survey. This process may continue until recuired e aumoer of venicles ,s demonstrated for Monitorino/ Decontamination technicues.
- 9. Once these rates and caeaci14 ties are eerformed facility can be deactivated.
/%
f '-- ) e#Revtsed June 1, 1988 Errata, Rev. 1, July 1988. E/3.2.55-ER 1
O ATTACHMENT C (ORO Reception Center Monitoring Record Sheets, Exercise Tests Results For Beverly And North Andover) e i O
^
Attachmant C (Pagn 1 of 6) NHY CRO RECEPTION CENTER MONITORING Trailer Flow Rate Test 9 - ~4*[f TACILITY: Beverly N. Andover . MONITORING TRAILER EXIT CONTROLLER EVACUEES PROCE~cerp ~~ CONTAMINATED EVACUEE NOT ID'd'
~
i I hl N
- : ll- .
.-(
'l j ~l , ,
s .
~lI
~/ ,.k s
} .
, I -
~. c cs
/
NO Castr.e-wu m GQtanLu mus >s j{ pf" [g&lUY / i
- s. ... ._
tenttoring Trailer Exit Cesntroller
- t. O Signature 9 cw ' ' pgo ***h c 6
e w 4 1 p*" C# ' j . ee
- - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . ~ _ _
4 Attcchin;nt C (Pr.g3 2 of 6) NRY CRO RECEPTION CENTER MONITORINQ l TACILITY: Beverly! Trailer Flow Rate N. Andover Test i _ J s* 9; l d
)
i MONITORING TRAILER EXIT CONTROLLER EVACUEES PROCESSED
' CONTAMINATED EVACUEE NOT ID'd
, ,h h lllf M g'
~
'M(/ W/ M/
+(l l u
.hl l. i)); N{.s w !
g VA"DLb R.11NMT L ! gu,uo g'
, ve c,--,,x .
.l'
% 7CT'A b .
Tionatoring Tratier Exit Controller Signature t 1~. p. i b w c.- \ k
)
l l
Attachment.C (Page 3 of'6)
)
_ REY ORD T4CETTIDN CENTER MDNITDEIEC [*- Trailer Flow Rate Test i 1 TACILITY: Beverly N. Ando r j MONITORIWC TRA7LTR EXIT CONTROLLER IVACCEIS TROCEEEED -+ CLIAM CAf LV CONTANYWATED TVACUEE 1RFT TD'd arc W a f } L- < ! d
&l p
<l
/p- A,I/
.f
\l i ,
I . E A, l p- I - '} Xjl f; j ld d L ) f', Monitoring Ifailkr Exit Controller Signature l I
~
l 7
~ ;
. l l
i i
.-5E-
.soes t .
Attachm:nt C (Pags 4 of 6) j i WHY ORD RECEPTION CENTER MONITORING ' I Trailer Flow Rate Test i / TACILITY: Eeverly N. Andover CONTAMINATED EVACUEE IDENTITIED j W ist ; Nu i l n
, dea @/ 7 b 6 J )P r '
Nonitoring Trailer Lead Controller l i;g.- i i l per pr/996-
Attachm:nt C (Paga 5 of 6)' i
.'i NHT,ORO RECEPTION CENTER .ONITORING j
Trailer Flow Ra.e Test i 1 1 TACILITY: Eeverly Andoverf MONITORING TRAILER EXIT CONTROLLER EVACUEES PROCESSED CONTAMINATED EVACUEE NOT ID'd I a , , y$y~ 1 u, ,x /o 1 /' l,' (\ , k i' / 8~.
\)' s
' i d' '
/I l i
u
~
1 YJ AV G1 A , 6m 1 [ , . .. . . . . E , r . . , . E, ,. . . . . I . , i Sign.ture l i 1 i l O i
.e... .
a
Attachment C (Paga 6 of 6) ) i NHY ORO RECEPTION CENTER HONITORING Trailer Flow Rate Test i 1 l TACILITY: Beverly J CONTAMINATED EVACUEE IDENTITIED
-FF l
)
\
714 //// # e - I l Monitoring Trailer Lead Controller 1 e 1 l l 7 1 ~. l pr/996-1
ksjwbpg.nh Joseph W. Bisson Education: M.S. in Radiological Sciences and Protection
- 1984 / University of Lowell M.S. in Microbiology - 1978 University of Rhode Island B.S. in Microbiology - 1974 University of Rhode Island l
Experience: 9/83 - Present IMPELL CORPORATION 225 Broadhollow Road, Malville, New York Current Position: TECHNICAL EXPERT SPLL i A L i S T Providing licensing support to New Hampshire Yankee in preparation for the litigation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC). Responsibilities include the development of technical affidavits and direct testimony for the applicants. Specific areas of responsibility are PAR generation, monitoring and decontamination, and radioactive waste confinement and disposal. As Senior Radiological Planner, assured that all health physics related activities for emergency response were properly apf adequately addressed in the SPMC anu implementing procedures. Also, overs ' the revision-of three amendments to the SPMC, and interfaced with FEMA and NRC representatives to resolve comments on the plan. Interfaced and worked with Massachusetts agency representatives and members from Massachusetts utilities in the development-of an ingestion pathway. emergency response plan for Massachusetts. Supported a team of New Hampshire Department of Public Health and consultant personnel in an effort to resolve FEMA comments on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan by re-writing the recovery /re-
1 1 ksjwbpg.nh l entry section of the plan and developing i associated. implementing procedures. Conducted several studies to compare and l evaluate atmospheric dispersion and dose ! assessment models used by various utilities in the northeast. 1 Conducted training for accident assessment, PAR development, ingestion pathway assessment, radiological monitoring and decontamination, field survey and sampling, exposure control, radiation biology, and general health physics. Prepared training lesson plans and scripts , for emergency response training films. Retained by Long Island Lighting Company as Radiation Health Coordinator for its Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO). l Participated as such in several emergency i response drills. Actively contributed in a team effort to l develop a manual emergency dose calculation procedure and associated isopleths for a utility in the northeast. ; Participated as member of several independent review teams assigned to conduct routine health physics audits at operating i nuclear power plans. l 4 Developed radiological portions (onsite and I offsite) for numerous emergency preparedness scenarios, including scenarios for FEMA and i NRC graded exercises. f I Served as controller / observer in numerous J emergency response drills. 6/83 - 9/83 Technical Collaborator at Brookhaven National Laboratory (10 week health physics l training course) j Training included: e l l
ks$wbp' g.nh.l O establishment.of a tritium environmental' sampling program. respiratory protection emergency response and; health physics: , planning
~
9/81 -.5/83 Te'ching Assistant!f0r general physicsLwhile' icompleting-graduate work at'the University?
.of Lowell '
6/82 9/82 Summer position at Pilgrim Nuclear' Power: Station, Plymouth,. Massachusetts Responsibilities-included:' evaluation'of.soilLsampling/ monitoring program. evaluation of an in-plant radiation monitor calibration procedure 9/79 - 9/81 Quality Assurance Technologist, Miriami Hospital,-Providence, Rhode Island" Conducted'and supervised, laboratory. research=to. identify and characterize-plasmid-determined enzymes.. Responsibilities = included experimental design, supervision.and training of: laboratory technicians, quality control and program maintenance. Performed specialized tests to support-the hospital's clinical'microbiolo'y.g laboratory. k Portions of the research were presented' I at the 81st annual meeting of:the; ! American Society for Microbiology', 1981. 9/74 - 9/78 -Microbiologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency l- HERL / West Kingston, Rhode Island Developed and evaluated analytical l methods for enumeration of l d H 3 i
ksjwbpg.nh bacteriological indicators of pollution in environmental waters. Assisted in data collection for several epidemiological studies to determine the health effects of water pollution. Responsibilities and duties included procedural development, water sampling and analyses, technician and peer training, quality control and program development. Research has been published in scientific journals and was presented at the 78th meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, 1978. Professional Affiliations: Health Physics Society American Nuclear Society O O ^
f ROBERT COTTER ( 939 OCEAN BOULEVARD,'#7 . HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03842 (603) 474-9521 Ext. 3829 EDUCATION B.S. in Radiological-Sciences - 1984 University of Lowell, Lowell, MA M.S. Candidate in Radiological Health Physics University of Lowell, Lowell,.MA~ EXPERIENCE 1987-1989 'Impell Corporation, Melville, N.Y. Principal ~ Engineer - Health Physics, Emergency Planning and-Related Training Iowa Electric, Duane Arnold Energy Center Supervised Development of all HP.rtlated' EP Procedures. Designed Monitoring / Decontamination and Relocation Facilities for DAEC Developed a Training Program and Administered Training, Walk-Thrus'and-Drills for Monitoring / Decontamination Technicians New Hampshire Yankee; Seabrook Station Radiological Emergency Plan and Procedures Development, Audits and-Revisions. Lesson Plan Development and Emergency Worker / Command and Control Training Drills and Exercise Scenario Development Drill Controller Organization Strategy Development and Briefing Presentations Reception Centers / Monitoring' Facilities. Lead Controller Radiological Assessment and Offsite Monitoring Team Controller i
O' 1985-1987 Nuclear Support Service, Hersey, PA Radiological Engineer General Public Utilities, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station > RERP Offsite Radiological Assessment Computer Program QA Audit and program documentation Developed Internal Dose Assessment j Computer Program presented at 1986 Health 1 Physics Society Meeting ! Radiation Worker Skin Dose Calculations Wrote ALARA Reviews / Conducted Pre-Job Briefings for work in Controlled Areas Point Kernel shielding Calculations utilizing QAD-MOD computer code l 1983-1984 Boston Edison Company, Plymouth, MA 4 Health Physics Intern Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 1984 Graded Exercise Controller / Evaluator Radiological Procedures QA* Audit INPO Recommended Program Development O 1 4 I
I l PETER S. LITILEFIELD l SIM ERY QUALIFICATIONS: Mr. Litticfield supervises an engineering group performing radiological analyses for nuclear power stations. These analyses include design basis accidents, probabilistic consequence analysis, radiological effects of normal operation, shielding studies, and low level waste processing. He has also had experience in environmental monitoring of radioactive materials and in applied health physics supervision at a nuclear shipyard. Mr. Littlefield is active on industry ecmmittees dealing with low level waste and radiation protection records. He has prepared and given testimony before numerous regulatory bodies. EDUCATION: University of Rochester - M.S., Radiation Biology (1963) Northeastern University - B.S., Chemical Engineering (1962)
~
Brookhaveri Natienal Laboratory - AEC, Health Physics Training Program ( ExrzuzucE: Yankee Atomic Electric Company (1968 - Present) Manarer. Radiological Engineerior Group (1973 - Present) - Responsible for the radiological assessment of accidents and normal station , operation, environmental surveillance, radioactive' waste processing, and meteorological monitoring for.four nuclear plant sites including both pressurized and boiling water reactors. Develops accident dose assessment models-for emergency planning. Participates as a member of the emergency technical support staffs for four nuclear plants and as a member of the Nuclear Safety and Audit Review Committees for two nuclear , plants. Safety Analysis Engineer. Nuclear Services Division (1968-73) - Performed analyses of engineered safety systems designed to mitigate fission product release, primary coolant leak detection systems, and post-accident hydrogen control systems. Prepared safety analysis-report and environmental report sections dealing with process radiation monitoring, waste processing, accident s.salysis, and environmental monitoring. ( 0035a
Patar S. Littlafield - Pcge 2 General Dynamica Corporation, Quincy Shipyard (1967-68) Health Phvaf es Supervisor - Provided health physics coverage for a nuclear shipyard. Supervised instrument calibration, personnel dosimetry, industrial radiography coverage and emergency planning. Performed the acceptability testing of the nuclear shielding en two new construction submarines. Brookheven National Laboratory (1963-67) Health Phvales Assoelate - Performed applied research in mixed field dosimetry, linear energy transfer analysis, and low-level radioactive gas monitoring. On-site emergency health physicist responsible for back shift coverage of reactors, accelerators and critical facilities. This period included two years active duty in the US Army. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Academy _of Health Physics - Certified in Health Physics (1977) Amerier.n Nuclear Society, Member Health Physics Society, New England Chapter, Member and past President AIF Task Force on DeMinimus Radioactive Waste, Chairman (1983-86) AIF Ad Hoc Group on Radiation Tort Litigation (1983-87) /CRPTaskGroup5,SC-46,"MaintainingRadiationProtectionRecords" (1984 - Present) EPRI Below Regulatory Concem Technical Advisory Committee (1987 - Present) NUMARC telow Regulatory Contern Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (1988 - Present) PATINTS: , - " Environmental Gas Monitor for Radioactivity," U.S. Pateit No. 3,531,639, September 29, 1970. BELECTED PUBLICATIONS 1.
" Prediction of Population Doses From Reactor Accidents," presented at a seminar on Esalth Aspects of Radiation Accidents, Seabrook, New Hampshire, March 1987.
0035a i 1
Peter S. Littlefield - Page 3 N 2. l
" Utility View of the Source Term and Air Cleaning," 18th DOE Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference Proceedings, August 1984.
- 3. " Low Level Radioactive Waste Management in Massachusetts," Report. to the Governor of Massachusetts by the Massachusetts Advisory Council on i Radiation Protection, co-authors, November 1980.
4
" Utility On-Site Management of Low level' Waste," AIF Workshop on the Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Wastes, September 1979.
- 5. "An Evaluation of Loss-of-Coolant Accident Doses for Seabrook Station,"
prepared for the Atomic Safety 'and Licensing Board, co-author R. J. Merlino, 1975. '
- 6. "7ermont Yankee Advanced Off-Gas System," 13th AEC Air Cleaning Conference Proceedings, co-authors S. R. Miller, M. DerHagopian, August 1974.
7.
" Continuous Lew level Environmental Measurement of Ar4 1 and Other Radioactive Noble Gases," ENL 12154, 1966.
k f k 0035a '
-i l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - DIRECT
.25424 1 (Supplement to Applicants' 2 Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 3 regarding reception center 4 parking follows:) !
5-6 7 i 8
]
l 9 ; l 10 11 l 12 i 13 14 ., 15 16 I 17 18 19 20 I 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t
, ' June 1, .1989 UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY'. COMMISSION before the-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD,
)'
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
.) 50-444-OL-NEW HAMPSHIRE,-et al. )
-) (Off-site-Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues)
)
.) ,
( SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NO. 17 (RECEPTION CENTER PARKING) Pm19.1 Members: Joseph Bisson, Emergency Planner, Impell-Corporation Anthony M. Callendrello, Manager, Emergency.- Preparedness Licensing, New Hampshire, 3 Yankee 9
)
l l l i
']
l
.TITCn ? .NH 1
This supplemental testimony addresses the issue of parking at the ORO Reception Centers, as requested by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on May 23, 1989. As is detailed in Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 17, the monitoring load at the ORO Reception Centers was recalculated in accordance with the methodology described in this Board's Partial Initial Decision (New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan) dated December 30, 1988. The revised evacuee numbers resulting from that recalculation have formed the basis for the calculation of the number of parking spaces needed at the ORO Reception Centers. Egg Memorandum of D. Bovino, S. Hertel, J.- McArdle and J. Bisson to D. R. Tailleart, May 31, 1989, Attachment A hereto. METHOD OF CALCULATION A. General Pooulation Vehicles In order to calculate the parking space needed at each facility it was necessary to determine the flow rate of evacuees througn the facility, total stay time of evacuees at the facility, and number of evacuees per car. The number of parking spaces required to maintain the flow of evacuees through the monitoring trailers could then be calculated by the following formula: (evacuees) stay time (hour) Number of = flow rate of evacuees (hour) X at facility Parked Cars number of people in each car (evacuees) (car)
This calculation assumes everyone monitored in the trailer arrives by car. In fact, at certain times a substantial portion of the evacuees, specifically school children and transit dependent persons, arrive by bus (which require less parking space than a car on a per person basis). Therefore this calculation significantly overestimates the parking space needed. A tour and measurement of the parking areas at the two reception centers determined the available parking space at the North Andover and at Beverly Reception Centers. The approximate dimensions and corresponding estimate of parking spaces at each reception center are indicated on the diagrams in Attachment A hereto. The following table compares the parking space needed, as
. calculated in Attachment A, with the available parking space at each Reception Center.
North Andover Beverly Number of Parking Spaces 88 81 Needed (Cars) Number of 182 180 Parking Spcces Available (Cars) Thus there is adequate general population parking available at both ORO Reception Centers. B. Buses The evacuees who arrive by bus will proceed through the monitoring trailer and return to the bus. As is detailed in Attachment A, using a similar calculation to the one above, the
number of parking spaces needed:forl buses!is.five. Th'e-accompanying faciliry layout. diagrams:show the locations for bus'- parking. . As shown'on.these diagrams, the. bus parking is separate: from that provided for cars. ' Visual, inspection and measurement-verified the adequacy;of the assigned space. C. 'Soecial Facility' Vehicles
' Evacuees from' health care-related facilities ~ arriving 1atithe reception center will be monitored inside their vehicle.- This monitoring will be done while the. vehicle is in the initial vehicle-monitoring lane. 'Upon' completion of thel monitoring,.the vehicle will exit the facility.and therefore doesinot require allotted parking space.
?" ~ i i N l i 1
SEP892124 EP6.0.00.28 Now Hampshire d % MEMORANDUM Sub,ect Evolustien of Reception Center Parking i May 31, 1989 From D. , vinot Hertel/J. McArdle/J.~Bisson Date D. Tailleart Reference This memo documents the completed evaluation of parking at the ORO Reception Centers. Please find attached the calculations and conclusions used to analyze this area of review. If you have any questions concerning this-matter. please contact D. Bovino at extension 3810. O) f C cci P. Stroup T. Callendrello i 4 l l l 4 i
%a New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire P.O. Box 300 = Seabrook, NH 03874
- Telephone (603) 474-9521
I. CALCULATION BASIS A. The total number of evacuees that can be processed through one monitoring station in one hour is equal to
- 51. This is based on a monitoring rate of 70 seconds per person.
B. The number of monitoring locations per trailer at each Reception Center is 18. Therefore, the number of evacuees per hour through each trailer is 918. ($1 evacuees / hour / station x 18 stations) C. The average number of vehicle occupants for Resident population is-2.6 persons per vehicle. (Ref. NHRERP Vol. 6, ETE page 2-5.) II. REFERENCES A. NHY Memo of D. Bovino to D. Taillenrt, January 13, 1989 SEP I 890141 B. NHY Memo of J. Ellis to P. Stroup, May 26, 1989 SEP i 892072 C. NHY Memo of D. Bovino/S. Hertel/J. McArdle/J. Bisson to D. Tailleart, May 31, 1989, SEP i 8921.19 III. CALCULATIONAL MODEL OF NUMBER OF VEHICLE PARKIN0 SPACES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN FLOW THROUGH THE MONITORING TRAILERS. No. parked vehicles = evacuees / hour x facility nemy time thours) vehicle occupants (evacuees) (vehicle) IV. DETERMINATION OF FACILITY STAY TIME A valkthrough of the facilities was conducted to establish the time needed for each activity (other than monitoring and evacuee registration) necessary for evacuee processing (Refer to SEP i 982072). The time to complete monitoring and evacuee registration activities are either indicated in SEP f 890141 or are indicated in the following table. The times were then combined to determine the facility stay time. LRY1515 2 O __ _ _ - _ _ . - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~
- 1. For General Population:
Beverly North Andover vehicle to initial monitoring 22 sec. 29 sec. vehicle frisk 60 sec. 60 sec. park and walk to monitoring trailer 228 sec. 203 sec. processing through monitoring trailer 70 sec. 70 sec. valk into Reception Center 17 sec. 48 sec. register at Reception Center 300 sec.* 300 sec. (registrar area) __ return to parked vehicle 92 sec. 132 sec. drive to exit 34 sec. 51 sec. TOTALS 823 sec. 893 sec. (.229 hrs.) (.248 hrs.) For School or Transit Dependent Populations (populations that arrive by bus and go through
=cnitoring trailer) vr.hicle to initial monitoring 22 sec. 29 sec.
*ehicle frisk 120 sec. 120 sec.
park, off-load and walk to 237 sec.** 236 sec. monitoring trailer perform monitoring 180 sec.*** 180 sec. l return to vehicle lead bus and exit 264 sec. 289 sec. 1 TOTALS 823 sec. 854 sec. (.229 hrs.) (.237 hrs.) For the purpose of this calculation, a registration time of 5 minutes is used since it tends to overstate the registration time and hence, the parking space needed. Time to load and off-load buses is based on an average of 45 passengers per bus at a 4 second headway per person or 45 x 4 sec. - 180 sec. (See Volume 6 of the NERERP, page 11-21.)
*** Average bus load is 45 45/18 monitors equals 2.5 person / monitor ( 1.2 min. - 3.0 min. (180 sec)
LRY1515 3
V. CALCULATION OF NUMBER OF PRIVATE VEHICLE PAPJING SPACES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN FLOV THROUGH THE MONITORING TRAILERS. No. parked cars = tevacuee/ hour) x facility stay time (hour) vehicle occupants (evacuees) (car) Where the evacuee flow = 918 evacuees / hour, facility stay time = 0.229 hour for the Beverly (general population) Receptica Center and 0.248 hour for the North Andover Reception Center, and vehicle occupants = 2.6 evacuees / car
- 1. Beverly No. parked cars =
918 evacuees / hour x 0.229 hour 2.6 evacuees / car
=
80.85 cars or rounding up, 81 Cars.
- 2. North Andover No. parked cars =
918 evacuees / hour x 0.248 hour 2.6 evacueew/ car
=
87.56 cars or rounding up, 88 tars. I VI. CALCULATION OF NUMBER OF BUS PARKING SPACES NEEDED TO KAINTAIN FLOV THROUGH THE MONITORING TRAILERS. No. parked buses = (evacuees / hour) x facility stay time (hr.) vehicle occupants (evacuees / bus) Where the evacuee flow = 918 evacuees / hour, facilitly stay time = 0.229 hours for Beverly Reception (school or transit Center and 0.237 hour for North dep.) Andover Rf ception Center, and vehicle occupants = 45 evactees/ bus LRY1515 4
ti N. i i
- 1. Severly i
No. parked buses =1 (918' evacuees /hourbx(O229 hour)-
., i ~
45 evacuees / bus' ,
,1 .
'4.65 buses or rodnding up 5 buses
- 2. North Andover'
-]'
No. parked buses - -(918 evacuees / hour) x'(0.237 hour) 45 evacuees / bus
- '4.83 buses or rounding up,
]
5 buses-VII. CONCLUSION- , i Actual measurements of the' reception center facility parking areas are shown on the attached facility.. l diagrams. The available_ space at-the two facilities i is:
.C.AI.S. 19.f.e_!L Beverly 18C 9. , North Andover 182 6 Based upon the space needed as calculated above, there is adequate parking space available at these facilities.
l l LRY1515. 5' l _ - _ _ -_____-___O
0 % l . l N, % i i e , g ' s
/
' \
/
i llg$
.g
%,( y e f
/ s, 4 '
\.
[ s' ) v' N. { Ir N. . m
,/ /e s P.
!5 I+A air's. -
s e'/
\ *
' w) [Eu N. '
= N : .
~v 's/,I . y %,
N Z #
'./ M . % +
c T / s, 4 1 Y t; f r f' ,.
/ '%- f w
l H ** - l? . h* l E et * ,/ 4 C
/
l Z / . / W / N e C j N, 2 , e Z m { } e / w l hi: I
/ .. s w 1 ib 6;'
l 11 "h - -
/ !!
/
'll~\ $l j ,
~ __
- a p
s r -s
/
/ /g o
/
my( I s, / [j -
/ ts
.y '
,i Bb 5 #
s s
's /
t i i 2
/e (/
i \
- u. .
4 ' %p e
- =
'. ' J.9, k;
m g
's. 1 ' . , \
s i
,'=-
s g
% 8
.,"m, 1
~
~ l ~~~.
s s% g 5 l * % g
~
% /
's #
's I
_ __ 's o
i,= L u s sx:ve O -
, -.-.-.-._., 3-a,9 .
{ t n......-.._..-..-.._..-.. i si 2 f,/ e U// / e ,
- i. Byg th .
- e2f5 i Q egg .c omiw l-i2 cWs Qite En t :
/
l-i - b. e i, '
/-.r_t.u. <. .Alf i
N e"s ' - 4 - i ,. : fh 89 i
' .. 4 iN i m lig 2
- WS te
' 3-
'1 _-
, -, \ hou=; r $
gi i i i wg
; 'a km E
~"~"~"'.y.g.
p ._. J 3g g , e . ..
.. e m
w es o zu / c --- r s ek w tv i i I cd 1 sg - (s % 1 Og u 5 = 4 4 F'j
! g R
!;1 i
i
- r= i e
.i-b w s . 's } I I! $
=
u " " - h *I 5 ir ^- 7 / e !- h
>h E i M
~
n (l'~ - t i l r'l 5' t u V ! ~ ! w % ! i a 5 e i E g i. Wg i. - I a ! \ pE t.-._.._. 4 i . W###MM \ li! tN e4 x -' _\ . i 5 - 5 ' =
\
~
. ~l -
8 , T- * .ll g
* \
l g
/1 s i N,/
d<-
\/ !c!7 s N ,/ 9
's \/ O
% 'k s. -
\'
N,/.sp 8 x
- s. x/ .
REBUTTAL.' PANEL NO. 17' . DIRECT .25425 1- JUDGE.McCOLLOM:,. Mr. Trout? O- 2 MR. TROUT:. Y e s ,: Your-Honor.
~
3 JUDGE-McCOLLOM: I'm afraid.that.I;got a little 4 eager.and thought that'the.new version had;the Sepplement'in 5 it. IIt does not?
-6 .MR. . TROUT: It does'not.
7 JUDGE McCOLLOM: .Could I.havez another copy? 8 MR. TROUT: 'We have extras,'Your Honor.'
.9 (Documer.t proffered -to Judge.)
10 11 1:2 j j 1 13 14 1 J 15 16 17 j 18 19 L . 20 1 21 l 1 22 1 23 24 ! 1 25 .i i
.l ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25426 1 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, has the testimony been 2 received? l 3 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 4 MR. TROUT: Oh. Sorry. 5 JUDGE SMITH: The testimony is received as 6 indicated. 7 MR. TROUT: The Panel is now available for cross- ! 8 examination, j 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right, Mr. Fierce. 10 MR. FIERCE: Thank you, Your Honor. , I 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION 1 l 12 BY MR. FIERCE: 13 Q Good afternoon, Panel. 14 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have a cross-examination { 15 plan? 16- MR. FIERCE: Oh, excuse me. 17 (Document proffered to the Board.) 18 BY MR. FIERCE: 19 Q Panel, may name is Allan Fierce. I know I have i 20 met some of you before. Mr. Callendrello, I know, and I l 21 believe Mr. Littlefield. I believe I had an opportunity to l 22 take a small portion, I think, of your deposition. I don't 23 know the two other gentlemen, Mr. Cotter and Mr. Bisson, i 24 I'm glad to meet you. 25 Let me start by exploring a little bit about the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
a REBUTTAL PANEL-NO. 17 - CROSS-
- 25427-
, 1 qualifications of some-of the people on the Panel who are 2 less familiar to'us than Mr. Callendrello.
3 Mr. Littlefield, I believe you are a member of the 4 ORO; is that correct? 5 A (Littlefield) That's correct. 6 O Can you state for me your. position and which shift 7 'you are on? 8 A (Littlefield) I'm the radiological health advisor 9 for the red team. 10 Q That's the first shift? l 11 A (Littlefield) . Yes. l l 12 Q Now let me just quickly verify a couple of things. 13 .I see from your resume what_your background and
/ 14 experience is.
(' 15 You are not holding yourself out to be an expert 16 in the area of traffic planning _or traffic engineering -- i 17 MR. TROUT: Objection. 18 Expertise is for the Board'to determine, l 19 JUDGE SMITH: Would you repeat that?
]
20 MR. TROUT: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 21 Expertise is for the Board to determine, not the i 22 witness to express a legal opinion as to their expertise. j 23 MR. FIERCE: Well, I think we've asked that kind i l 24 of question before. I'll rephrase it if you would like.- l l 25 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. I'm certain you can address j 1 i Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j i
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25428 1 the issue one way or the other. l 2 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, I have no problem with Mr. 91l 3 Fierce asking questions as to the background or experience 4 of these witnesses. I just do think it's objectionable for l 5 him to ask the witness to offer a legal conclusion as to l 6 whether they are experts or not within the legal meaning of 7 that term, i 8 With the exception of that very narrow kind of - l l 9 question, I don't -- I l 10 JUDGE SMITH: What if he says, do you believe you 11 are qualif.ied to testify on matters of traffic. You know, I I 12 understand your point, and it's a subtle point. But, j l 13 frankly, that's the first time I ever heard it raised. ! I 14 But he certainly can inquire as to whether these 15 witnesses believe that their own qualifications entitles I i 16 them to address a particular subject matter. 17 MR. TROUT: Yes, that's right. l l 18 JUDGE SMITH: If they don't believe it -- ) 19 MR. TROUT: I just choked on the word " expert", 20 Your Honor. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 22 But beside that, Mr. Littlefield is not going to 23 sponsor the supplemental testimony. You know that? 24 MR. FIERCE: I know that. 25 JUDGE SMITH: You are asking the question anyway-. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
x. M REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 ' CROSS l25429 1 All right. I h, 2 MR. FIERCE: I just'want'to make sure he's not -- 3 my question, was, are you holding yourself out as an expert 4 in the area of traffic; planning or traffic engineering. I 5 can put it other. ways. 6 BY MR. FIERCE: 7 Q Do you have any background or expertise in the 6 area of traffic planning or traffic engineering? 9 A (Littlefield) .No. 10 Q or the areas of any field of human behavior? 11 A (Littlefield) No. 12 O How about -- well, strike that. 13 During the June 1988 graded' exercise, were you 14 operating as the red team ORO radiological = health advisor? tO 15 A (Littlefield) Yes. 16 Q And you were in the ORO EOC during~that exercise? I 17 A (Littlefield) Yes. 18 Q Okay. 19 Oh, one I overlooked. . Statistical analysis, do l 20 you have any particular expertise or background in that 1 21 field, statistical analysis? l 22 Some? l 23 A (Littlefield) Some. Limited.
.l 24 Q Were you a participant-in developing any parts of i 25 the SPMC plan or procedures or training modules?
O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
._. - - - _ - . - . -- __ . _-__-___--L..__-_--_._.-.---.--
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25430 1 A (Littlefield) No. 2 Q Can you tell me what it is, if anything, then that 3 you have brought to this particular piece of testimony since 4 I'm asking what the relevance of having you on this panel 5 is? 6 It's not clear to me. 7 A (Littlefield) General considerations of health 8 physics as regarding the monitoring process, and l 9 specifically as regarding the instrumentation that's used in l 10 the monitoring trailers. 11 O You are familiar with that instrumentation? 12 A (Littlefield) Yes. i 13 Q Any particular instrumentation, or all of the j I 14 instrumentation that is used by the ORO? I i 15 A (Littlefield) Well, specifically the 16 instrumentation that is used for frisking by the ORO. j 1 17 Q There are at least two kinds of systems that I am l 18 aware of. The system that combines the APTEC probe with the 19 Bircon count rate meter. 20 That's the system you are familiar with? 21 A (Littlefield) Yss. l 22 Q And also, the HP-210 GM probe and the RM-14 count l 23 rate meter? l 24 A (Littlefield) Yes. l E 25 O How did you obtain familiarity with these systems? Herit. age Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. _ ____w
REBUTTAL FANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25431 fx 1 A (Littlefield) By observing these systems in the I _, 2 trailers and by reviewing the testing materials that has 3 been done, the tests and the documentation of those tests on i 4 those instruments. 5 Q But you did not observe the graded exercise of the 6 monitoring drills on June 28, 19887 { l 7 A (Littlefield) I was not at the trailers during B that exercise. 9 O Now, Mr. Cotter, are you a member'of the ORO? 10 A (Cotter) No. 11 Q Let me ask you the same questions I asked Mr. , i 12 Littlefield. 13 Do you have any background or expertise in the , I
,/ ^ 14 areas of traffic planning or traffic engineering? d \~ 15 A (Cotter) No, I do not.
16 0 In any field of human behavior? ! i 17 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, I'm going to object to 19 that one as being a little too broad. I'm not sure that the i 19 witnesses' necessarily understand what you mean by "any 20 field of human behavior". 21 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm talking about the social 22 scientific disciplines of psychology, social psychology, 23 sociology, the study of human groups as some social 24 anthropologists might. 25 m (x- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25432 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q Anything like that through experience or 3 education? 4 MR. TROUT: It's the "anything like that". I was 5 following you up until you got to the "anything like that". ] 6 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm trying to distinguish that 7 from the kinds of human behavior knowledge that human beings 8 would normally have living in a society like ours. 9 Talking about training or education that is 10 specialized in those fields. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Do you understand the question? I 12 You are aware of the general field of science 13 involved, aren't you, sir? I 14 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) I believe the question is i l 15 asking do I have any formal education? j 16- JUDGE SMITH: Or experience. 17 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) Or experience. 18 And the answer is, no. 19 BY MR. FIERCE: 20 Q How about in the field of statistical analysis? 21 A (Cotter) I've taken courses in statistics, yes. 22 O That would be undergraduate courses? 23 A (Cotter) Yes. 24 0 Were you a participant, an observer, or controller 25 in the June 1988 graded exercise in any fashion?
; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.REBUTTALLPANEL NO. 171-'CROSSL .25433:
'l A - (Cott'er) Lyes.
'2' Q What were you?'
3 A- (Cotter)- I wasia lead controller at the. reception-4' ' center monitoring decon. facilities.. 5 0 Which one? 6 A (Cotter) I worked:out of thetNorthLAndover-
-7 facility.
~8 -Q -You were the' lead. controller.
9 Can you: tell. me what; that means,' : briefly?: 10- A (Cotter). Well,- actually duringl the' preparation l 11 process, I was the.one.who was directing the other l l 12 controllers as to how we wo111d operate during the graded l-13 exercise.
~
'14 0 .And where were you'actually during the graded
\ 15 exercise?
(Cotter)
~
l 16 A I was in and about>the monitoring decon 17 trailer at the North Andover facility.- 18 Q Mr. Bisson, can I ask you the same questions.: 19 Do you have any particular background or. expertise 20 in the area of traffic planning or traffic engineering?' 1 21 A (Bisson) No, I don't.' l 22 Q Or in any of the fields of human' behavior that I 23 mentioned to Mr. Cotter? 24 A (Bisson) No, I don't.- l 25 Q Or any other field of human behavior that'I may J i l Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
^
'__-__L
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS. 25434 1 not have mentioned? 2 MR. TROUT: Objection. 3 Was that a serious question? 4 MR. FIERCE: Well, there may have been others 5 besides the -- there are various disciplines of human 6 behavior that are studied at the graduate school level that 7 I may not have mentioned. 8 BY MR. FIERCE: 9 O And I'm not trying to be tricky here. I just 10 wanted to know if there is any other field. 11 A (Bisson) No. 12 Q Okay. 13 How about statistical analysis? 14 A (Bisson) I've had a course at the graduate level 15 and I have used statistics off and on. i 16 Q You've had a single course at the graduate level? 17 A (Bisson) Yes, sir. j 18 0 Okay. i 19 Actually I forgot to ask Mr. Cotter this question, 20 and I'll put it to both of you and have you answer one at a 21 time. 22 Did you play any particular role in the 23 development of the SPMC, the plans, the procedures or the l 24 training modules? 25 A (Bisson) I was involved in writing the plan and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25435 1 some of the procedures. 2 Q In writing the plan. 3 A (Bisson) Some sections of the plan. 4 Q What sections? 5 A (Bisson) Section 3.3 and 3.4, 3.5 and 3.9. 6 Q Do you recall the topics that those sections 7 address? 8 A (Bisson) Yes, I believe it.was accident 9 assessment, PAR, exposure control and recovery. 10 0 Mr. Cotter? 11 A (Cotter) Yes. I had some involvement in the 12 development of both the plan and some of the procedures. 13 Q. What aspects of the plans? 14 A (Cotter) I can't recall specific sections as Mr. 9 15 Bisson has done for you. This was back about two years ago 16 in the early development of that plan. 17 Specific procedures mainly dealing with the 18 radiological monitoring and field monitoring survey l 19 procedures, Implementing Procedure 2.9. 20 Q I just notice from the first page of the testimony 21 that, with respect to Mr. Cotter, he's listed as with 22 Aidikoff Associates. . l 23 Is that correct? 24 A (Cotter) Yes. 25 Q Mr. Bisson is with Impell. l 9 Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25436 i 1 A (Bisson) That's correct. 2 Q Now these are consultants to New Hampshire Yankee, i 3 both organizations; is that correct? I I 4 A (Cotter) Yes. l 5 Q Did I ask you yet, Mr. Cotter, what you were doing j
?
6 during the June 1988 graded exercise? l l 7 A (Cotter) Yes, you did, i 8 Q Yes, I got you. 9 Mr. Bisson? 10 A (Bisson) I was a controller in the offsite 11 response EOC. j 12 Q In the New Hampshire Yankee ORO EOC? { I I 13 A (Bisson) That is correct. 1 l 14 Q And just to pick that up with you, Mr. 15 Callendrello. l j 16 Where were you during the graded exercise? i I 17 A (Callendrello) I was also in the New Hampshire l 18 Yankee ORO emergency operation center. l 19 Q And as I recall, you have had at least oversight ! 20 responsibility for the development of the SPMC plan and i 21 procedures. 22 Did you directly participate in the development of 23 the plans and procedures for reception centers or monitoring 1 24 trailers? 25 A (Callendrello) No, I did not. Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i I _ _ _ - _ _
. REBUTTAL-PANEL ~NO.'17 - CROSS. -25437
~
.1 Q 'Do you have any'particular expertise, as Mr.
k/ ms 2 Littlefield does,.in-the instrumentation'or'any particular 3 knowledge of: the : instrumentation f that . is used for
~4 monitoring?:
5 A' (Callendrello)- Just general knowledge that I.have 6 seen the. instruments and that I have-used.them at:one" time;
- 7. . or another, :but noj theoretical: knowledge.
8' O Panel,.because.there has-been;some hesitation here
^
9 in filing your full testimony, I just want_to' confirm now 10 that in presenting the full testimonylthat;has'been filedi 11 .today the panel is acknowledging or announcing formally that 12 -the ORO will'be' adding:four more monitoring stations at each' 13 of.its monitoring traiJers; isLthat1 correct? 14 A (Callendrello) That is correct. 15 It may be a separate trailer,.but four more L 16 monitoring stations at the reception centers. l 17 Q You say it may-be a separate trailer, i 18 Earlier documents that we were shown indicated it
~
19 was going to be a separate trailer or.part of a trailer? ] 20 A (Callendrello) Yes. 21 It will be'a separate trailer. 22 As I understood your question as:lare we-getting 23' four more stations to the trailer'that is'there- . 24 0 Oh, okay. 25 It will'be a separate trailer? i 1 t Beritage Reporting Corporation , -(202) 628-4888 l l _ - - -_____________2_---____
I J REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25438 1 A (Callendrello) Yes. 2 Q And have these trailers been ordered yet? 9 l 3 A (Callendrello) I don't know. 4 Q Do you know where in this process of adding four 5 more monitoring stations you are? 6 A (Callendrello) No, I don't. Beyond the 7 commitment that we have made to add those stations I do not 8 know where we stand in procuring and equipping them. 9 Q Is there a commitment to have them installed by 10 any particular date? 11 A (Callendrello) I don't know what the date is. 4 i 12 I'm sure there is a date and.there's a schedule, _] I 13 but I don't know offhand what that date is. L 14 Q Do the trailers, when they come, come equipped j 15 with the particular monitoring equipment that you will be I 16 using or does that then have to be added as a feature when 17 you get the trailers?
]
]
18 A (Callendrello) I don't know, I'm just checking i l 19 with some of the other panel members. j i 20 (Witnesses conferring.) 21 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) _ I'm sorry, nobody j i 22 knows about the new trailers. 23 The old trailers did come as a package fully i 24 equipped, but I don't know about the new trailer. 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
n REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25439 9 1 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q So it may be that even after getting the trailer 3 there will be an additional period'of time equipping the 4 trailer with the appropriate' equipment? 5 A (Callendrello)- There may be, yes. 6 O Do:you have in mind a specific-layout-of both 7 where this new trailer will sit at each facility ~and what 8 the flow path will be from one trailer to the other? 9: (Witnesses conferring.) 10 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) -I'm not aware. 11 I have 'seen a. proposed location for.the second. 12 trailer, and I just can't recall anymore than seeing'a' box 13 on a diagram. I think it is just'a tentative plan at this 14 point. 15 I have not.seen any finalized version of the 16 plans. 17 BY MR. FIERCE: 18 Q Would it be fair to say, the plan is to park this 19 additional trailer next to or adjacent to the other trailer? l 20 A (Callendrello) I don't recall whether!it was 21 directly next to it or within'50 feet. .I just don't recall j l 22 what the exact layout was. i 23 0 The new trailer will not have a decontamination' 24 section; correct?- l l 25 A (Callendrello) That's' correct. l k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25440 1 Q And so the expectation would be that anyone found 2 -- who is found contaminated in the new trailer would then 3 go to the other trailer for decontamination services; 4 correct? 5 A (Callendrello) That's correct. 6 Q But as far as you know the flow path from one. l l 7 trailer to the next has not been worked out? 8 A (Callendrello) I don' t know if it hss been worked 9 out or not. I have not seen any flow path. 10 Q Now, you're going to be adding -- l 11 A (Callendrello) I just want to check with some of 12 the other members of the panel to see if they know. 13 Q Sure. 14 (Witnesses conferring.) 15 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) I don't have 16' anything to add to that. 17 BY MR. FIERCE: 18 Q Now, in addition to announcing the commitment to 19 add the additional four monitoring stations in this 20 additional trailer, you're also announcing - query: are you 21 announcing that there is a commitment to add personnel at 22 the reception center site? 23 A (Callendrello) Yes. 24 Q Can you briefly recap what those additions are 25 over and above what the plan now says? Heritage Reporting Corporation 3 (202) 628-4888 i i l 1
REBUTTAL' PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25441-
, 1 A .Callendrello)
( If you just give me a moment I'll ( 2 get.the commitment out of the testimony. 3 (Witness reviewing document.) 4 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) If youLturn'to page 5 18 of the testimony we indicate for the~ location inside the 6 trailer and the assignment of evacuee monitoring.- But 7 presently there.are 14 personnel assigned.to that position. 8 We are increasing that number by eight to account.for the 9 four.new monitoring l locations,'and also, ~to add:four. 10- personnel to provide relief and rotation of other personnel. 11 Q For the monitoring stations.in the trailers? 12 A (Callendrello) Yes. 13 0 I see that there is a trailer lead person who is 14 assigned for the trailer. 15 There will not be an additional trailer lead l 16 assigned to the new trailer? 17 A (Callendrello) That's correct. 18 Now I understand that there is to be a monitoring Q 19 registration table outside the monitoring trailer. 20 Will there be any additional staff assigned for 21 monitoring registration? 22 (Witnesses conferring.) 23 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) No, there will not. 24 BY MR. FIERCE: 25 Q How many staff are now assigned for monitoring Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25442 1 registration in the plan? I 2 (Witness reviewing document.) f 3 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) I'm looking at 4 Implementing Procedure IP-3.5 and Attachment 2 to that; it i 5 assigns three people to -- no, I'm sorry. ! l 6 Are you talking about the outside registration or 7 the inside registration? i 8 BY MR. FIERCE: 9 0 I believe this is what is described as " monitoring 10 registration" before evacuees enter the monitoring. trailers? 11 A (Callendrello) Looking at procedure IP-3.5 it 12 appears that there is one person assigned to that function. 23 Q Where does it show me that? l 14 A (Callendrello) On page 9, step -- it's actually l 15 step 5.2.7 (g) (1) . l l 16 Q I see where it says: " Establish a monitoring l 17 trailer reception post," but I don't see the number of staff 18 that would be assigned to that? 19 A (Callendrello) I don't see a number either. I 20 That's what I said, it appears that there is one i 21 person assigned there. 1 22 Q It appears that there ought to be somebody J 23 assigned there, but I'm not sure that there is someone 24 assigned there. 25 I would ask the panel to show me where, anywhere
. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL HO. 17.~ CROSS 25443 1 in the plan, staff persons get assigned to staff that 9 2 function, because it does not appear to me to be there? 3 A (callendrello) There may be some misunderstanding 4 of what the post is. 5 The post is a set of clipboards where. people write 6 their name and address. And it can be handled by any one of 7 the people that are outside in that area doing either 8 vehicle monitoring or handling the materials that people are 9 bringing. 10 There are a number of people outside, directly 11 outside the monitoring trailer. There's a lead individual; 12 there are four people that monitor vehicles; there's four 13 people to decontaminate vehicles and articles; and there's 14 four people to monitor special vehicles. 15 Certainly, either the lead or one of the four 16 people for decontamination could be assigned to establish 17 that post. The post doesn't require much in the way of an 18 individual's time in that it's a self-registration. An 19 evacuee writes their name on a clipboard -- name and address 20 on a clipboard. 21 Q So you were acknowledging that there is not a 22 specific assignment of personnel to this function in the 23 SPMC, but would be staffed through reassignment of other 24 personnel who have other functions? 25 A (Callendrello) Looking at the procedures I don't l l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25444 1 see any dedicated individual to that position. 2 O And you're not adding any additional people to 3 this position because of the addition of the four more 4 monitoring stations; correct? 5 A (Callendrello) That's correct. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Would this be a decent time to 7 break? 8 MR. FIERCE: Sure. 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right, return at 3:15. 10 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 '
, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ ,l l i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25445 l (
\s 1 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce?
g 2 .THE WITNESS:. (Callendrello) Mr. Fierce, I hadfa. 3 chance during the break to. review the procedure for 4 -reception center activation. . I gave you some' incorrect ! 5 information as.to who establishes the' registration posts. 'l l' 6 That is.actually established by the reception. 7 center staff. It is'under their duties and they would'be' 8 the one who would establish that post, and in fact.were the: 9 ones who established it during the exercise. 10 'BY MR. FIERCE: 11 0 And where is the assignment of personnel toLthatL 12 post? 13 A (Callendrello) That's one.of the duties that is [ 14 indicated under reception center staff, which-is.Section 5.2
\
15 of IP-3.5. o 16 Q Are you referring.me back to the same section you 17 referred me to before? 18 A (Callendrello) There is a step that's numbered' 19 5.2.3, which says, " Set up reception center as shown in'the 20 reception center. facility layout, Attachment 5, and site . 21 traffic control at the reception center, Attachment'6, as ; 22 directed by the reception. center leader." ] l 23 So there is the generic direction to establish the. ( 24 reception center. And this is one of the functions that is l 25 to be established in accordance with Attachment 5. Heritage Reporting Corporation
~
'(202) 628-4888
.7 l
1 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25446 1 Q My only problem with that, Mr. Callendrello, is j 2 when I turn to Attachment 5, I just don't see the monitoring i 3 registration table outside the monitoring trailer. j 4 (Witnesses review document.) l 1 5 A (Callendrello) That's right. It does not show i l 6 that on there. i 7 O The addition of the four more monitoring stations j i 8 at each reception center, will that necessitate additional { 9 staff being added out in the parking lot area monitoring 10 vehicles or doing anything else out there? j i 11 A (Callendrello) No, it will not. 12 O Have you done an analysis to determine that you 13 don't need additional people out there even though you are i 14 adding four more stations, or are you just making the 15 assertion that you are not adding any more staff? ' 16- A (Callendrello) We do do an analysis which is on 17 pages 6 through 10 of our testimony. And that analysis 18 indicates that there are no additional personnel needed for 19 the number of vehicles that would be arriving-at the 20 reception center. ! 21 O I see on page 10 that the result of this analysis 22 is that 6.4 monitors are needed during the off-season i 23 months, and 8.5 monitors are needed during the summer 24 months. 25 Is that what you are referring me to? Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25447 1 A (Callendrello) Yes, that's the result of the 2 analysis. 3 Q And you also indicate that you have eight monitors 4 out in the parking lots: four monitoring the private 5 vehicles and four monitoring the buses and special vehicles, 6 correct? 7 A (Callendrello) That's cor. rect. 8 Q So you are .5 monitors chort, is that correct? 9' A (Callendrello) Of those monitors that are 10 specifically assigned to that function, that would be 11 correct. 12 As we indicate in that paragraph, there are 13 13 personnel that are outside to perform duties outside the 14 monitoring trailers. Eight of them are specifically 15 assigned to provide monitoring for vehicles and special 16 vehicles. 17 As we further indicate in the testimony, the SPMC 18 Procedure IP-2.9, which is the monitoring procedure, will be 19 revised to indicate that. 20 The monitoring decon leader can reassign 21 individuals if the need arises. 22 Q So here is another place where a reassignment . 23 needs to be made from somewhere else for at least half a ' 24 vehicle, or excuse me, half a person, more likely a full 25 person for about half the time, correct?
]
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25448 1 A (Callendrello) For the design basis, that's 2 correct. Yes. . I 3 0 Don't you really need to have additional people 4 monitoring vehicles now? 5 A (Callendrello) No. 6 0 Well, you have got four personnel assigned to 7 monitor vehicles, correct, private vehicles? 8 A (Callendrello) Private vehicles, that's correct. 9 Q And you say in your testimony that a vehicle can 10 be monitored. Is that the word you used with a vehicle? 11 We talk about frisking a person, but I'm not sure 12 one frisks a vehicle. 13 Monitor a vehicle? 14 A (Collandrello) That's fine. 15 Q At a one minute rate. 16 A (Callendrello) Yes. ; 17 Q Takes about 60 seconds. 18 So if four people are out there' monitoring I 19 vehicles, you can monitor four vehicles in a minute, 20 correct? l 21 A (Callendrello) Yes. 22 Q Now I also know from your testimony that people 23 will be arriving that you group into two categories: 24 permanent residents, who you say will be arriving with 25 approximately 2.6 people per vehicle, and transients from Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25449 the beach areas arriving with approximately 2.4 persons per 9 1 2 vehicle. 3 Is that correct? 4 A (Callendrello) That is correct. 5 Q Let me just take that larger number. 6 If you take 2.6 people per vehicle and you are 7 monitoring.four cars a minute. If my math is correct, isn't 8 that 10.4 people per minute? \ 9 A (Callendrello) Yes. 10 Q Now you've got 18 monitoring stations, and they 11 are monitoring at a rate, you say, of one person -- each 12 station -- one person every 70 seconds, correct? 13 A. (Callendrello) Correct. 14 Q Every 70 seconds there will be 18 people that all 15 of your stations can process, correct? 16 A (Callendrello) Correct. 17 Q Again, if my math is correct, that means every 60 18 seconds you can process about 15.4 people. ; 13 Would the Panel agree with me that that's either 20 the correct number or approximately correct? 21 A (Callendrello) Subject to checking. 22 Q Subject to check? ; 23 A (Callendrello) That sounds about right. 4 24 0 15.4 people per minute. 25 In other words, to keep busy, the trailers need Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25450 i 1 15.4 people per minute flowing through them. But your cars l 2 are being monitored at a rate of only 10.4 people per j i 3 minute. i 4 Isn't that what you have just told me? l 5 A (Callendrello) Yes. But what you missed is what ' 6 I had said earlier. And that is, we need 8.5 people to 7 monitor vehicles that are arriving. We've got eight people
)
8 that monitor vehicles, i i 9 Whether somebody has the label " private vehicle 10 monitor" or "special vehicle monitor", doesn't matter. That I 11 person is available to monitor vehicles that arrive. l 12 They show up in one of the four lanes that are 13 established for vehicle monitoring, and there are monitors. 14 In your analysis you have ignored people that 15 arrive on buses, in other -- well, you've ignored people ) 1 16 that arrive in buses as well as the capability of those { 17 other monitoring personnel to monitor people in private i 18 vehicles. 19 So it's your position that the buses will 20 supplement the 10.4 people per minute that the car monitors 21 are producing for the trailers and produce enough people to 22 keep all of the 18 stations busy? 23 A (Callendrello) No. There is two reasons why they 24 will be busy. 25 One is, if there is somebody who is labeled a l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 CROSS 25451
'l special vehicle' monitor but there:are noispecial vehicles to
\- - 2 monitor, that person will'not stand around waiting for a 3 special vehicle to arrive. They will'helpLin.the' monitoring 4 of private vehicles.
5 So that will-be one additional source for feed for:
- 6. the-monitoring' trailer.
7 .The other is,.those buses that do arrive will be 8 another source'of persons to be monitored. 9- Q Is it your1 position that you could be monitoring 10 five, six, seven or eight vehicles simultaneously at the. Il reception centers? 12 A (Callendrello) Just give me one'second. I'll i 13 check the number of lanesLat the reception center. 14 (Witnesses review document.). 15 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) .There are four 16 lanes, but you can monitor more than one vehicle at a time. 17 BY MR. FIERCE: 18 Q How are these lanes demarcated during -- how were 19 they demarcated during the exercise? 20 A~ (Cotter) They would be labeled with cones, or 21 marked with cones. 22 O And there would be four lanes established. 23 Is that correct? 24 A- (Cotter) Ideally, yes. 25 Q Panel, what I want to do, and in fact it might Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25452 1 take us the rest of the day today, is to take you through 2 the steps in the monitoring process for individuals in the 3 trailers, and see if we can determine how long it takes at 4 each of these steps to complete the process, and in that 5 fashion determine whether your 70-second estimate is a 6 reasonable one. 7 Let me, in order to get that ball rolling, 8 however, take you back to what it that the people who are 9 evacuating are told about the reception centers in advance 10 so we might learn a little bit about their expectations when 11 they are arriving at these reception centers. 12 As I understand it, there is a public information ! 13 calendar that has been issued. g 14 Isn't that correct? 15 A (Callendrello) Yes. 16- O And in that calendar -- do you have it hand, 17 gentlemen? 18 A (Callendrello) Yes, I do. 19 O Do you have a calendar, Mr. Callendrello, that's 20 like this one labeled "1988-89 Emergency Plan Information 21 Calendar"? 22 A (Callendrello) No, I do not. 23 Q What do you have? 24 A (Callendrello) Mine is labeled " Applicants' 25 Exhibit No. 40", and it's entitled "1989 Emergency Plan i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17.- CROSS .25453' ) J 1 Information Calendar".
- 2. Q I have handed you a section from the '88-89 .
- \
3 calendar, and I'm sorry,-I don't-have the copy you have. 4 But let's .see if-there are any differences. 5 On page 2 -- 6 MR. TROUT: I'm going to object.- 1 l
.7 The witness has just testified thet there.is a 8 more recent' document and that that document is inLfact 9 already admitted into the record in these proceedings..
10 MR. FIERCE: 'I understand, Jeffrey. If there is a 11 difference -- all I want to do now, Your Honor, is mark for-12 identification the document that has been distributed. 13 We' re noting for the record that it's pages 2 and 14 3 from what purports to be the 1988-89 Emergency Plan 15 Information Calendar, and I'm asking Mr. Callendrello now 16 whether a paragraph that is on this document is the same or 17 is different than the one that's in your more recent . 18 calendar. 19 MR. TROUT: And I object to that question as ,4 l 20 irrelevant. ; 21 MR. FIERCE: Well, it's only because I don't have i 22 copies of the more recent document. If it's the same ; 1 23 paragraph, I would like to simplify things, and we can use. .; 24 this language here. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, certainly you gentlemen can g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w___________. _. - _.
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25454 I 1 reconcile your difference here. We've got to get on with 4
- 2. it.
3 If the line of questioning is otherwise.-- i 4 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, we have copies of 5 Applicants' Exhibit 40 if Mr. Fierce would like to cross-6 examine from that. 7 1 8 9 10 11 , j 12 I i 13 l 14 15 , I
\
l 16 ' 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
L, 1 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 --CROSS .;25455-
-)
1 BY MR. FIERCE :'-
\-s 2 Q Mr. Callendrello, on.- LI'm-trying to get'a page 3 number.
.4L JUDGE SMITH: 'Page 3.
5 MR. FIERCE: . It's not page 3 on the document'I 6 have. 7 JUDGE COLE: Page 2, I guess.
.8 MR. FIERCE: I think,it.may be1the[ top of page'2 9 because there's-a tear'out in the original-here. -But.there. ,
10 is a section 5, how t'o evacuate. 11 BY MR. FIERCE: ' 12 Q Do you see that section? 13 A (Callendrello) Yes, I do. 14
~
Q And it says: "You may be told to evacuate.- This 15 means to leave the area. You should follow the instructions 16 given on the EBS stations. . If you were at. work outside the
~
'l 17 evacuation area but. live inside it you-could go home first !
18 to get things you would need." 19 And then there's a section below that which is 20 under a dark heading, "What to take with.you." 21 And as I compare the items listed there with.the 22 items listed on the earlier version I'm-looking-for anything 23 that might be different. 1 24- Do you see any differences, Mr. Callendrello? 1 25 A (Callendrello) I'm still checking it. 1 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 c - - - - l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25456 1 (Witness reviewing document.) 2 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) I don't see any 3 differences. 4 JUDGE COLE: Well, there are some differences 5 there, if we're looking at the same thing. l 6 MR. FIERCE: I'm not trying to be cagey here, Your l 7 Honor. 8 JUDGE COLE: Oh, well. 9 MR. FIERCE: I think the best thing to do, 10 perhaps, is just read the section that I'm looking at in the 11 current version which says: "Do not try to take all of your I 12 belongings with you, Take what you will need. You could be l 13 away from home for a few hours to a few days. Take these 14 things if you can." 15 JUDGE COLE: Let me retract my statement. ! 16 MR. FIERCE: "This calendar, extra clothing, 17 personal items (eye glasses, dentures), toilet articles 18 (soap, toothbrush and toothpaste), medical supplies (first 19 aid hit, medicine and prescriptions), medical equipment 20 (life support equipment or any other special equipment that f 21 you use), baby supplies, blanket and pillows (if you will ! 22 stay at a public congregate care center), checkbook, credit ( 23 card, and cash, driver's license or identification." 24 With a note " alcoholic drinks are not allowed at 25 reception centers or congregate care centers." [ Beritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25457. 1 BY MR.' FIERCE: 2 Q Did I read.that' correctly,,Mr. Callendrello? 3 A (caliendrello) Yes,.you did. 4 O And does it appear to'be the same as'in'the older. 5 version? 6 MR. TROUT: Objection. 7 I just do not understand, Your Honor.- I just B don't understand ~the relevance of.that.- l 9 MR. FIERCE: I'll withdraw that. question, I don't 10 think I need that, Your Honor. 11 Let me move on. 12 BY MR. FIERCE: 13 0~ The calendar also indicates where to go.
/ 14 I guess I'111have to readthatisection, maybe I ]
\
15 won't. l 16 MR. TROUT: Mr. Fierce, Applicants' Exhibit 40.is 1 1 A; 17 in the record. 18 (Pause) 19 MR. TROUT: Oh,.I'm sorry, I stand corrected. l 20 MR. FIERCE: It's not in the record? 21 MR. TROUT: It has not yet been offered, I'm i i 22 sorry. It has been prefiled but not. offered.. ! 23 BY.MR. FIERCE: J 24 Q Well, that section of where to go, Mr. ; 25 Callendrello, maybe I can just do thisLquickly says: ( ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25458 1 "There's a reception center for each city and tcwn in the { 2 emergency planning zone. The reception centers are listed i 3 on page 4. You would go to your reception center for these 4 services: registration and information; a place to meet 1 5 adult family members who had evacuated separately; referral 6 to a public congregate care center where you could stay; f 7 monitoring for radiation exposure and decontamination, if I 8 desired, (listen to an EBS station for instructions." < 9 And then it goes on to say: "Most people would 10 stay with friends or relatives. If you did not have a place q 11 to stay people at the reception center would refer you to a
)
12 nearby public congrege.te care center. You could eat and j 13 sleep at the center until you could go home. The Red Cross 14 would be at the center to help you." 15 Now, I read that correctly, Mr. Callendrello? 16- A (Callendrello) Yes, you have. ; 17 Q And that is the plan -- is it true that the , j 18 information being provided to people through this calendar 19 about the reception centers is accurate? These services 20 would be available at the reception centers? l 21 A (Callendrello) Yes, that's correct. 22 The calendar is consistent with the plan. 1 23 Q With respect to school children the calendar 24 indicates in the second paragraph as follows: "It woulc' be 25 recommended that school officials first take children to the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
q REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17.- CROSS 25459' (N 1. reception center from their school:for radiation monitoring , N~,Y 2 (the reception center: for each school' is- the same as the j 3 reception center for-the town.where.the school is located, 4- see the list on page'4). The children would then be- taken 5 to a special. congregate. care. center just for. school children 6 at Holy' Cross College in Worcester. They.would stay there. 7 until you picked them up. Adults would care for them at all-
-8 times."
9 Is that section correct with respect to the 10 information it would provide? ! 11 A (Callendrello) hit'is correct. 12 There is an option, however,.in the SPMC for 13 evacuation buses to be routed around the reception center in [ 14 the event that there has not been a release.of radiation.
\
15 Q The plan for school children is now to.take them 16 to a center at Holy Cross College in Worcester; is that' 17 correct? 18 A (Callendrello) Yes. 19 That's the host facility for schools. Congregate 1 20 care center for schools, if you like. I 21 Q The sentence'goes on another paragraph down and-1 22 the calendar states as follows: "If you need referral to a 23 public congregate care center where you and your family 24 could stay, radiation exposure monitoring or other help you 25 would first go to your reception center. You would then j
/ %
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ____-_x____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ._ i
l i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25460 1 meet your children at the congregate care center for school ! 2 children. To help the evacuation effort please do not go'to 3 the school to pick up your children." i 4 Did I read that correctly, Mr. Callendrello? 5 A (Callendrello) Yes, you did. 6 Q Now, there would be other information that would 7 be provided to evacuees about reception centers that comes 8 from the EBS messages they hear, isn't that correct,.Mr. 9 Callendrello? 10 A (Callendrello) Yes, it is. 1 11 Q Are there other sources than that besides the 12 calendar and what might be heard on an EBS message? , I l 13 A (Callendrello) I'm sure there are other sources 14 of information, but the official sources of information are 15 the calendar and the broadcast system. ! l 16 Let me just add one thing: there is also a 17 telephone number that is available, an 800 number indicated 18 on the first page of the calendar. That is available for i 19 individuals to call for information.
)
20 Q And would that provide them any additional 21 information about reception centers that is not provided in 22 the calendar, to your knowledge? 23 A (Ca11endre11o) It could, if that question was 24 asked. The individual would answer to the best of their 25 ability or get the information.
'f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25461 r~x 1 Q Are there additional services that are available (\-) 2 at reception centers other than these that are provided 3 here? 4 -(Witness reviewing document.) 5 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) Those are the 6 general services. There are other functions such as a 7 message center, rendezvous, and registration. But those are I B the major functions that an evacuee would be concerned 9 about. ( 10 BY MR. FIERCE: )
-I 11 Q Panel, are you familiar with the EBS messages that
]
i 12 were issued by the ORO during the exercise? 13 A. (Callendrello) I am. 3 ( 14 MR. FIERCE: Perhaps, the Applicants could help me 0 15 by letting me know whether this document has already been ; l 16 offered as an exhibit to something else. l 1 i l 17 (Document proffered to all parties.) ) 18 MR. FIERCE: I think we withdraw that other 19 exhibit. I don't know, did it get a number. 20 (Reporter indicates negatively.) 21 Mark this for identification as Mass AG Exhibit 22 116. l l 23 24 25 l l
,n
( Heritage Reporting Corporation
\- (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25462 1 (The document referred 2 to was marked for 3 identification as-4 Mass AG Exhibit 116.) 5 BY MR. FIERCE: 6 Q I have put a document before you, Mr. 7 Callendrello, which has a heading "ORO news release." 8 Do you recognize this document? 9 A (Callendrello) Yes, I do. 10 Q Can you tell me what it is? 11 A (Callendrello) This is the news release version 12 of an EBS message that was released by the offsite response 13 organization. EBS messages also get released as priority 1 14 news releases out of the media center. This is the format 15 that they get released and when they are issued out of the 16 media center. 17 So this is a priority news release that would i 18 repeat an EBS message. i 19 Q And at the top it's labeled, " General emergency 20 message (evacuation and sheltering: seasonal closure of 21 beaches and wildlife refuge)." 22 Below that in "(Release of radioactive material) ." ! 23 Does that indicate to you, Mr. Callendrello, that 24 this is a message, at least as a form, was prewritten prior 25 to the exercise or is substantially prewritten? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
d 1 i
-REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS- 25463 <- 1 A (Callendrello) Yes. \~ 2 O Is it the latter, substantially:prewritten?-
3 A (Callendrello) Yes. It'stsubstantially' j 4 prewritten. , l 5 There are some blanks that are to'be filled in at 6 the time of the' emergency. But'the bulk of this.is 7 prewritten. B Q Now, the language of the message, after a sentence = 9 which reads: "The following emergency broadcast system. 10 message was released by the Massachusetts offsite response: 11 organization of New. Hampshire Yankee under. authority granted 12 -by the governor of Massachusetts," does what follows, in 13 fact, constitute word for word the EBS message.that wenticut-l [ 14 or was simulated to have gone out during the' exercise? 15 A (Callendrello) It should. 16 If you would like I can -- we can get a copy and 17 compare it. But it should be the same with-the exception of-18 the fact that on the last.page of the news release there are 19 signatures for the media center individuals. And that would 20 not have been on the EBS message. 21 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, at this-time before 22 asking the witnesses any further questions about the 23 document I would like to. offer it into evidence. I 24 MR. TROUT: For what purpose?- l 1 25 MR. FIERCE: To show what it is that during the Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 i i
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25464 II 1 exercise the people were' told. 2 MR. TROUT: About what? ) 3 MR. FIERCE: About the reception center and what l 1 4 their expectations might have been about what to take there )
.I 5 and why to go there.
]
6 MR. TROUT: With that explanation of the offer I l 7 have no objection. l 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 9 The exhibit is received. l l 10 (The document referred
)
11 to previously marked for i 12 identification as 13 Mass AG Exhibit 116, was 14 received in evidence.) 15 16-17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l 24 i 25 t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e i 4' m__
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25465 [~} 1 BY MR. FIERCE: ( )
\' ' 2 Q Now Panel, in the very first paragraph of the 1
i 3 message itself, ic says that there was a general emergency 1 4 which was declared, and it describes the general emergency 5 this way. 6 It says, "A general emergency means that events 7 are in progress that could result in some significant 8 release of radioactive materials with releases expected to I 9 go beyond levels set by the United States Environmental 10 Protection Agency outside the Seabrook Station site 11 boundary." 12 Do you see that language? 13 A (Callendrello) Yes, I do.
; 14 Q Is that language typical language for EBS messages 15 the CRO would use at a general emergency in describing what 16 a general emergency is?
17 MR. TROUT: Objection. 18 I thought we just established that the purpose of 19 this document being admitted was to discuss what persons 20 were told about reception centers. 21 MR. FIERCE: Right. And the first thing they are 22 told is that there is a release of radiation, or could be. 23 And the next thing is, and I'm going to turn to this now, in 24 the box on page 2. "A good possibility for this emergency 25 to produce a contaminating accident". l ('~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25466 1 I want to just establish that the people are told 2 about the possibility of significant releases of radiation 3 before they are told about what's available at reception 4 centers. 5 JUDGE SMITH: That sequence is important? 6 MR. FIERCE: Not so much the sequence, Your Honor. 7 It's the fact that they are told that there is -- 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 9 JUDGE SMITH: -- to be possibly some significant 10 release of radioactive materials. 11 BY MR. FIERCE: 12 O The question to the Panel was, I just don't want 13 it to be thought that this might be a unique EBS message. 14 This would be generally the kind of language used in any EBS 15 message at a general emergency in which you were describing 16 what the general emergency was; isn't that correct? 17 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, my only problem is that ( 18 this is not a Panel on EBS messages. This is a Panel on the 1 ! 19 radiological monitoring process. 20 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm asking Mr. Callendrello, 21 because he said he was familiar with the EBS messages. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Why is it so important? 23 I understand that you want to pick up the steps 24 from the time they are informed to go and what to bring and 25 things like that and where to go. ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25467 1 But why are we dwelling on this particular point? 2 I mean, what does it add? 3 MR. FIERCE: This is a small point. I'm going to 4 move on very quickly. My next point, Your Honor, is what ) 5 they are bringing.
; JUDGE SMITH: It's a place to begin, I guess.
7 MR. FIERCE: I did want to establish that people 8 are told that there is a possibility of a significant -- 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 10 MR. FIERCE: -- release of radiation. 11 JUDGE SMITH: I guess that's pretty much -- that's 12 the whole idea anyway of getting out of there. 13 MR. TROUT: I think Applicants would stipulate to 14 that. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Sure. All right. 16 Well, let's just do it, you know. 17 MR. FIERCE: All right. 18 BY MR. FIERCE: 19 Q In the box on page 2 of this document, it says, 20 "There is a good possibility for this emergency to produce a 21 contaminating accident. It is strongly recommended that as 22 a precaution persons leaving the towns told to evacuate go 23 to their designated reception centers for monitoring." 24 Do you see that language, Panel? 25 A (Callendrello) Yes, I do. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO.'17 - CROSS 25468 1 Q Now again, is that language unique that was 2 drafted for this particular drill or exercise? 3 A (Callendrello) That language is an optional piece j 4 of language for an EBS message that for this particular i 5 scenario was utilized.
]
i 6 There is a note, because you see the big white j 7 space above the text in that box. There is a note that 8 says, "The following is to be read only if advised by the 9 New Hampshire Yankee offsite response director that this 10 incident may or will produce a contaminating accident." q 11 For this scenario, that language was included. l l 12 Q So that language is read where there is that 13 likelihood of a contaminating accident, correct? ! , 14 A (Callendrello) Yes. 15 Q Now in the next section of the EBS message people 16 are told what the services offered at reception centers'are, 17 correct? 18 A (Callendrello) Correct. 19 Q It says, " Services offered at the reception 20 centers and recommended for all evacuees include: j 1 21 monitoring for contamination, decontamination if necessary, j 22 information and message centers, and referral to congregate 23 care centers." 1 24 That's correct? 25 A (Callendrello) You've read that correctly, yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l i
-I
. REBUTTAL PANEL NO. - 17_ ' CROSS 25469
/ 1 Q And in the next paragraph . further cn2 down,: it does t ?
\' 4 2 indicate that. children'are being taken safely by bus ]
.q 3 directly to their reception center. School children will: l
(' 4 'then be sent to the host facility in,. and if I read that 5 correctly, "in a", is that -- 1 6 A (Callendrello) .Yes. At the time the-location of. 7 the school host facility was. proprietary'information. 8 Q Okay. So'it would now read, ...the host. facility 9 at Holy Cross College in. Worcester, Mass, where they.may be 10 picked up." 11 Is that correct?. { 12 A (Callendrello) Yes. 13 Q Now in the next page of the document,.the message [ 14 does instruct people what to do before they leave their home
'~'
15 or work place. 16 Does it not, Panel? 17 The middle of that --- 18 A (Callendrello) Are you referring to the fourth 19 paragraph? , 3 q 20 Q Yes. f l 21 A (Callendrello) Yes,'it does. 22 Q And it tells them to, "Take blankets.and pillows 23 with you for your own use, and.any medicines which-you 1 24 regularly take. Pack enough clothing for sevr4ral days. If 25 you are at work outside the evacuation area but live inside ; ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i lq l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25470 J l' 1 it, you may return home to accomplish these chores and 2 collect family members or necessary belongings." 3 Is that correct? 4 A (Callendrello) Yes, it is. t 5 Q Again, is that a standard instruction that would 1 6 be given in EBS messages where there is either a 7 contaminating accident or a significant likelihood of one? f i 8 A (Callendrello) No. j 1 9 Q That sentence is not? 1 10 A (Callendrello) That language has to do with the I l 11 fact that we are informing people to evacuate. 12 Q So that sentence might be given even in situations i 13 where there weren't contaminating accidents. - ( 14 A (Callendrello) That's correct. l 15 or no release of radioactive material, in fact. ! l 16' O But it would be given as well in contaminating ] 17 accidents? l l 18 A (Callendrello) Yes. 19 Considering that the contaminating accident would 20 result in an order to evacuate, yes. 21 It's key to evacuation, not contamination. 22 Q I also note in the plan itself, Panel, on page 23 3.5-9 of the plan the following sentences just below the 24 middle of the page or about two-thirds of the way done. 25 " Prior to evacuation, the general public will be directed in 7{ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l L___---_-----
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25471 1 EBS messages to take a change of clothing with them to 'the 2 reception center. In addition, these instructions are 3 included in the public information brochure that is 4 distributed to residents within the plume exposure EPZ." 5 That is the plan, correct, gentlemen? 6 A (Callendrello) That is the plan, yes. 7 Q And the public information calendar and the EBS 8 messages carry out that element of the plan, correct? 9 A (Callendrello) Yes, they do. 10 Q Now let's assume we've got evacuees arriving at a 11 reception center in their private vehicles. 12 Is the first thing that happens in driving into 13 the reception center that their car is monitored? 14 JUDGE SMITH: Is this the first? 15 This is where your cross-examination actually 16 beings right now? This is No. 2, beginning of No. 27 17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 18 JUDGE SMITH: First step. 19 MR. FIERCE: Right. 20 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) The first step that they 21 would actually encounter would probably be a traffic person 22 before they got to the monitoring location, the vehicle 23 monitoring location. 24 BY MR. FIERCE: 25 Q And what would happen at that step? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25472 1 A (Cotter) They would just be given direction 2 towards the vehicle monitoring area. 3 Q Oh, just told pull up over here to have your 4 vehicle monitored, that sort of thing? j i 5 A (Cotter) Yes. They are actually in cones, . cones j 6 are directing their path of travel anyway. I 7 Q Okay. l 8 I also see in the procedures, whether or not the 9 vehicle is found to be contaminated, that the people who are 10 doing the monitoring are told to instruct the people to 1 11 bring nothing larger than an overnight bag to the monitoring 12 trailer. 13 I think, in Implementing Procedure 2.9, that's in 14 two places. At Section 5.5.4 (a) -- well, excuse me. it's 15 not in that section. 16 It's in the section for monitoring vehicles. 17 Section 5. 6.4 (e) , which says, "If a vehicle is contaminated, 18 do the following: Direct passengers of the vehicle to 19 report to the monitoring trailers, inform the passengers to 20 bring nothing larger than an overnight bag to the monitoring 21 trailer." 22 And also if the vehicle is not contaminated, the 23 next page, Section 5.6.5, we see a similar instruction in 24 Section (c). 25 Is that correct, Panel? f Heritage Reporting Ccqporation ' (202) 628-4888
- ly 1
REBUTTAL' PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25473
/ 1 A' (Callendrello) Yes. \'" ~
t 2- Q When.the car pulls'up for monitoring,.then there j! 3 is. some discussion between: the occupants and the vehicle. '. l 4 . monitor. 4" 5 Is.that correct? 6 A -(Cotter) Yes. 7 Q Andlis this the first~ opportunity that't'he 8- evacuees have to ask someLquestions about what's going;to 9 happen at the. reception' center and where to go and.what to 10 do, or would that happen back with.the traffic guide? 11 A (Callendrello) Well, there:are opportunities.when-12 they are still at their home.- And thatfis, they can call i 13 the information number.
, 14 Q No. Specifically you are driving in or you see j \ E 15 the reception center. There.aren't big signs with- '
16 instructions that say, park your carLover here and line up. 17 for monitoring over there. Somebody needs to tell them , i 18 those just basic things when they.get there, correct? l 19 A (Callendrello) Yes. The basic instructions on 20 what to do at the reception center would-be given by the- ! l 21 individuals that -- 22 Q The vehicle monitors? 23 A (Callendrello) -- that are staffing the reception' 4 24 center. 25 Q By the vehicle monitors, is that where that -- i 1o .er1t.g. --t n. co_.h1_ (202)'628-4888 l l
l 4 l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25474 1 A (Cotter) Well, they could actually get ) 2 information from any one of the ORO perConnel that they 3 encountered, whether it be a traffic personnel out front. i 4 They are all aware of the functions at the reception center. < i 1 5 Q The traffic guide basically is saying, come on up i i 6 over here, pull up over here for vehicle monitoring. And 1 7 then when they get there, the vehicle monitors are saying, i I 8 we're going to monitor your vehicle. And now having done 9 that, we'd like you to pull your care over to the parking 10 lot. 11 Is that the way it's envisioned?
)
12 MR. TROUT: I don't think the witness had finished 4 13 his previous answer, Mr. Fierce. l 14 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) The question, as I 15 understood it, was is this the first opportunity they have 16 to get information about what will happen at the facility. 17 And the answer to that is they would first i 18 encounter an ORO personnel out in front of the facility, and ) 19 that would certainly be an opportunity. 1 20 BY MR. FIERCE: 21 Q Now, this point about the clothing being taken j 22 into the monitoring trailers, into the reception centers. 23 The reason for doing that is so that the persons will have a 24 change of clothing in the event that they are found j 25 contaminated, correct? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO.-'17 - CROSS 25475
. (' 1 A (Cotter) ~ That'could be~one reason,'yes.
1 2 Q There are other reasons to;take a. change of. 3 clothing into the reception center,.or with them into'the 4 monitoring trailer? 5 A (Cotter)~ Excuse me. 6- Q I was prepared if you were just going to say -- 7 that's the reason,'isn't it? 8 If the person ~is.found contaminated,~they havento-9 go into-the contamination section of the trailer..'And if 10 their clothing is contaminated, they have got a change of. 11 clothes with them. 12 A (Cotter) Yes. And without the change of 13 clothing, also they would have clothing provided for them. 14 A (Callendrello) Mr. Fierce, also the section of 15 the plan that you read, 3.5-9 does not indicate.that the' 16 person has to bring their clothing'into the monitoring 17 trailer. It just recognizes the' fact that evacuees will be 18 bringing additional clothing.with them, and that they will 19 have clothing to change into should they need to. 20 Q Well, your monitors, the car monitors,-the vehicle 21 monitors aren't going to be discouraging people from 22 bringing.clcthes into the trailers, are they? 23 A (Callendrello) They will'be discouraging people 24 from bringing -- 25 Q Only something larger -- Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1 u_________.___.____
l l 4 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25476 j j 1 A (Callendrello) -- something larger than an 1 2 overnight bag. 3 Q Right. 4 Are there going to be any instructions given about ) l 5 handbags, purses, by the people who are monitoring the 6 vehicles? { h 7 A (Cotter) No. As long as they are smaller than an j 8 overnight bag. 9 Q Does the ORO assume then that many women, perhaps 10 not all, but many women would be bringing their handbags and 11 purses with them from their cars in the parking lot to the 12 monitoring trailers? 13 A (Callendrello) I would think that's reasonable to 14 expect. 15 Again, unless they were so large that in the 16- opinion of the ORO monitor person they shouldn't be brought 17 in. 18 Q I'm going to come back a little bit later, perhaps 19 tomorrow, and talk about the parking issue and how cars will i I 20 be parked. 21 But after their vehicle is monitored, whether it's ! 22 a clean or a dirty vehicle, they will park their vehicle and 23 walk to the monitoring trailer. And I see from documents 24 that have been provided to us that I think at each of the 25 facilities the walk from the parking lot to the monitoring
; Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
i i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25477.
/'N 1 trailers is about three minutes.
(
)
2 Isn't that correct? i 3 A (Bisson) That's correct. j 4 Q I say to the monitoring trailers. ) 9 1 5 Their.first stop would be to the registration j i 6 table, the monitoring registration table, correct? i 7 A (Bisson) I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I 8 Did you say inside the reception center or to the 9 trailer itself? 10 Q Well, to the trailers. 11 I saw some documents that were provided to us in i 12 which the Applicants measured the time of the walk from the 13 parking lots in both Beverly and North Andover, for a person
,. m ! \. 14 to walk from the parking lots to the trailers.
N] 15 A (Bisson) To the trailers. 16 Q And in each case, I believe it was about three 17 minutes. 18 Is that correct? 19 A (Bisson) Approximately. 20 Q on average. 21 Now if it were bad weather and were raining, 22 wouldn't it be reasonable for the ORO to expect a number of 23 the evacuees to be wearing raincoats or carrying umbrellas 24 or perhaps both? 25 A (Callendrello) I would think that would be l Oi l ('~") Heritage Reporting Corporation l l (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25478 1 reasonable to expect. 2 Q Some might even have on boots? 3 A (Callendrello) Right. 4 0 Or if it were cold out, wintertime, people in 5 getting out of their cars might put on coats, hats, gloves 6 to make this three minute walk across the parking lot? 7 A (Callendrello) Yes. 8 Q Now their first stop is at the registration table, 9 correct? 10 A (Callendrello) Yes. 11 Q Mr. Cotter, did you have something to add? 12 A (Cotter) No. I was going to say the same thing. 13 Q And in the exercise, can you describe how this 14 table was established? What kind of table was it and how 15 did the monitoring registration work? 16 A (Cotter) The table was probably similar to the ; l 17 tables that I'm sitting right now. And the registration 18 forms were put on clipboard as you have it, and a number of 19 clipboard were put out on the table with one of the 20 reception center personnel directing evacuees as they 21 approach to indicate name and signature on the form as 22 required. 23 Q You had one person staffing that table during the 24 exercise? 25 A ,( Cotter) I believe there was one person at the l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25479 1 table. 2 Q Now the people stop at this table and I believe 3 the attachment in Implementing Procedure 3.5 is Attachment 4 12; is that correct? <- 5 That's the monitoring trailer registration form? ! 6 A That's correct. ' I. (Cotter) 7 Q I didn't see on the study I got of facility stay-8 time any estimate of time to go through the monitoring 9 registration process and fill out this form. 10 Is that correct? 11 A (Bisson) The time to fill out the registration 12 form outside the trailer is included in the estimate from 13 the parking lot to the trailer. That approximately three l 14 minute estimate includes evacuees filling out this form. 15 16 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25480 1 Q During the exercise the trailer was not coverad 2 in any way, was it? Excuse me, the table -- the monitoring 3 registration table was not covered? . 4 A (Cotter) During the exercise, that's correct. 5 0 And there are no plans to have it under any cover 6 in the current set of plans or procedures; correct? 7 A (Cotter) There are awnings on both sides of the 8 trailers which would provide weather. protection, if needed. 9 It just happened that during the graded exercise there was 10 no need for weather protection. 11 Q It would be under these awnings? 12 A (Cotter) It could be under those awnings if 13 weather protection was required. The awnings extend out to 14 each side of the trailer. 15 O Now, if evacuees get to the monitoring trailer 16 during any kind of a busy period there may be lines at the 17 trailer entrance; correct? Trailers entrances? 18 A (Cotter) There certainly may be. 19 Q And these lines would be outside the trailers; 20 correct? 21 A (Cotter) That's correct. 22 Q Now I understand that the trailers are elevated 23 off the ground approximately, what is it about three and o 24 half, four feet? 25 A (Cotter) That would be a good approximation, yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
- .1
'j l
REBUTTAL' PANEL NO. :17 - CROSS.' 25481 .) 1 Q- And there are steps up to the entrance?
- (% .]
.j 2 A (Cotter) Yes,'there'are.. 1 l
3 Q. .So people may be standing in line on these' steps; 4 is that right?- 5 A- (Cotter) It's only'a portion of the l'ine. 1 6 It'all depends where they'stop.the line, They'may. 7 stop them at the bottom of the stair for a hand and foot ,
\
l 8 monitor which is sometines'done as a contamination' control 9 situation. Or they may-come right to the top of the'Latep; 10 with the monitoring trailer lead person holding'them up at 11 that point.
- 12. Q Now, there's nothing in the plans or procedures 13 now for hand and foot monitoring outside the trailer,.is 14 there?
15 A (Cotter) No, there is-not. 16 Q At the top of the stairs is there any kind'of a , 17 landing or does it enter right into the trailers? 18 A (Cotter) No , it goes right into the trailer. 19 Q Now, there's no roof over those steps, is there? 20 A (Cotter) I believe that awning also covers the 21- stairs on both entrance and exit side. 22 Q Are you certain about that? 23 A (Cotter) I believe it does, excluding the decon 24 area stairs. Decon area. There are three stairways into , 25 each.of the monitoring trailers.- The decon area stairs I. ; l Eeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ' I
I REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25482 j 1 know are not covered by the awning; those are towards the l 2 front portion of the trailer. 3 The other two stairs leading into the trailer, I 4 believe, are both under those awnings. 5 Q Is the intention to keep the trailer door open 6 during cold weather in the wintertime or bad weather with 7 rain? 8 A (Cotter) In most cases we have kept the doors 9 open. 10 0 Let's assume you have a cold day, say, 40 degrees, 11 it might be raining, you could well have people in line 12 wearing winter coats, boots, hats, mittens, gloves, perhaps 13 carrying umbrellas; isn't that correct? 14 A (Cotter) Sure, that's possible. 15 Q And they might also have an overnight bag? l 16' A (Cotter) They may. l 17 Q And some of the women may have purses or handbags? 18 A (Cotter) Sure. l 19 Q Now, as I looked at the procedures recently I 20 didn't see anything in there regarding how to handle crowd l l 21 control at the trailers, correct, there is nothing in there? 22 A (Cotter) Let me refer to the procedure for one 23 second. , 24 (Witness reviewing document.) 25 [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ______._m.m ___m
I REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 -. CROSS 25483 l 1 (
\
1 BY MR.-FIERCE: 1 2 O I heard you.say a little while ago that the .l l 3 monitoring lead person would be at the entrance door. y i 4 Did you say that, Mr. Cotter?- 5 A (Cotter) I did.- 6 Q That's not.in-the procedures,.is.it? 7 A (Cotter) Could you repeat the question now? i 8 O' That's not in the procedures, is it?. 9 A' (Cotter) What.are you referring to? 10 Q That the monitoring decon person designated as the 11 lead for that trailer would be stationed at the doorway 12 regulating entrance? 13 A (Cotter) I don't believe that's in the procedure, 14 no. [v} 15 Q There are other functions that.the lead would play 16 at the trailer, aren't there? 17 A (Cotter) There may very well be, yes. 18 0 It's the lead person at the trailer who would be 19 regulating the four additional 1 people and the shifts each 20 would be taking 10 minutes every' hour? 21 A (Cotter) If there.was a monitoring person in the 22 trailer who required a shift, yes, it would be the lead 23 person in the trailer who would arrange to have that person 24 switched out. 25 Q Does the lead operate as a troubleshooter if
-~
Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 ' E_____----_------ - . - - - - 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25484 1 problems are encountered with equipment? 2 A (Cotter) He would certainly take the lead role in 3 some kind of situations like that rather than having a 4 monitoring decon personnel doing that. That's the concept 5 of assigning a lead person in a trailer. 6 Q So that person's role is flexible? 7 A (Cotter) Sure. 8 Q Are you aware of anything in the monitoring or 9 decon training which addresses this issue of how to handle 10 the crowds and regulate entrance to the trailers? 11 MR. TROUT: Objection. It's unclear from the 12 question what the issue is that Mr. Fierce is talking about. 13 He says, regulating entrance and that's pretty clear. But 14 in the issue of crowd control, what issue is that, Mr. 15 Fierce? Where is it in your contention? 16 MR. FIERCE: It's only what happens when people 17 arrive in some number together at the monitoring trailer and ! 18 seek together to go up the stairs and reach the door. ; 1 19 That's all I'm talking about. ! 20 Do they all go into the trailer at once and look i 21 for a monitoring station? 22 Do they go in one-by-one? 23 Is there someone there who is asking -- 24 JUDGE SMITH: Or stuck in the door. 25 MR. FIERCE: Is there someone there asking them to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL'NO. 17 CROSS i25485 1 form lines? And I'm asking ifftheftraining addressesithis. 2 JUDGE SMITH: There'sJan' objection. 3- Do you persist'in your objection?' L 4- 1Gl. TROUT: .If;the question is just, how dofyou 5 regulate:entryLinto hhe trailer, I' don't have an objection. 6 JUEGE SMITH: That seems:toibe it. ,
- 7. THE WITNESS: . (Cotter) - I. understand;theLquestion-8' then as to be, how do'we regulate entrance of f flowiinto the 9 trailer.
10 BY MR. FIERCE: 11 Q Is-there anything in the training?1 12 A (Cotter) Yes. 13 The monitoring decon lead person who is the.
, 14 assigned lead person in the trailer typically stands at the 15 entrance of the trailer, keeping.an eye:on the stations.
16 And as an individual station would become open or.available; 17 the individual usually puts-their hand up~and the. lead 18 person would then take the next evacuee and direct him to-19- that particular station; 20 JUDGE SMITH: But_the question =is: is he trained'
'21 to do that?
22 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) Dur'ing-walk-through - 'if-23 we're including in training-the. walk-through and drills 24 leading up to, in addition to classroom, yes, during the-25 walk-through they demonstrated that many times. Beritage Reporting. Corporation (202) 628-4888
~l
.l
-f
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25486 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q Is it in the training modules? 3 A (Cotter) I don't have the training modules with 4 me.
!; JUDGE SMITH: Your question is postulating a 6 situation with lead monitor right at the door. People come 7 up to the door and he doesn't know what to do because he's-8 not trained.
9 MR. FIERCE: I'm exploring with the panel if 10 they're aware of some training, I would like to know it. 11 They have just established for me.that the plans and 12 procedures themselves don't have guidance for this person. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Maybe you can wing it. j 14 You were talking about people arriving at the 15 trailer, going up the steps, and it's his job to say, hello, 1 16 how are you, station number I; that's it. 17 MR. FIERCE: Well, they have also indicated it's 18 his job to do other things. And I'm curious to know what 19 happens when he is not at the doorway. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that wasn't your question. 21 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm about to explore that. l 22 If there is any training on this it might explain 23 how that could happen. 24 BY MR. FIERCE: 25 Q You're just not aware of what's in the training, l j neritage Reporting corporation (202) 628-4888 lh
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17-- CROSS 25487 f 1 is that right,. Panel? 2 A (Cotter) That's not correct. l 3 0 That's not correct. 4 A- '(Cotter) :I don't'know if there's a question 5 that's on thetfloor here. 6 Q Does the training' address'the issueLof'how to. 7' regulate. entry into the. trailers? 8 A (Cotter) As part of -- actually, as a. person who 9- has conducted many training sessions;at both'of the 10 reception centers, I have dealt'with the lead person and 11 they have adequately demonstrated to me that they can direct l 12 an individual to stop at the top of the stairs and direct i 13 them to an open' station when a station comes:open. 14 Q As part of that. training,' you were instructing the 15 leads to be there at the doorway? 16 A (Cotter) That's-where they would.normally be 17 standing, yes. 18 Q And when they have to leave that position to 19 troubleshoot some problem in the trailer.or do.something, 20 what happens then? 21 A (Cotter) They typically don't get involved in-22 actually doing work in the trailer as you're referring to 23 when you say troubleshoot. They are close enough to all of 24 the monitoring people to call out orders. And typically, he 25 is the one who would call out any kind of orders,'whether Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
]
I I REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25488 1 there was a need to as identified in the procedure, conduct f 2 gross contamination surveys in the trailer and things of 3 that nature. 4 Q Now, at what step in the process can people ask 5 about the monitoring and what it is and how it works and 6 what they're supposed to do? 7 Can they do that at the registration table? i I 8 A (Cotter) The people, I guess evacuees would be 9 free to say anything they want at any point as they travel 10 through the facility. 11 Q They could say that at the monitoring registration l j 12 table? i i 13 A (Cotter) They could certainly ask questions. { 14 Q And could ask some questions of the' monitoring ! 15 lead person as they wait in line up the stairs? 16' A (Cotter) It's possible that they ask questions at 17 any point of their travel through the facility, sure. 18 Q Is it clear, Panel, that if the evacuees did_not j 19 have someone at the door they would enter the monitoring 20 trailer and, as in a supermarket checkout line, stand in 21 line behind the person in the station in front of them? ! { 22 MR. TROUT: I'm going to object to the form of the i 23 question. Is it clear? Clear to whom and on what basis? l 24 MR. FIERCE: Let me withdraw it. 25 Let me put it this way. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17.- CROSS 25489 <
/ 1 BY MR. FIERCE.
t N- - 2- Q If.the. person weren't there, there would be 3 nothing to stop the people from entering the trailer, 4 ' correct?. If the monitoring lead person were not there.at he 5 doorway? 6 A '(Cotter) There would be no physical stops, sure. 7 (Witnesses' conferring.) 8 'BY MR. FIERCE: i 9 0 I'm sorry,. Mr..Callen o ello?' l
'10 It would be a problem'for the flow path in'the 11 monitoring-trailer'if evacuees were standing in line in the 12 trailer behind each of the stations,-- behind persons who 13 were standing in each of the stations; correct?-
14 A (Cotter) Yes. The trailer was not. designed to (
\
15 function that way. 16 Q A person who is found contaminated needs to walk
\,
, 17 along that aisle to the decontamination ses >n of the l 18 trailer; correct? 19 A (Cotter) That's correct. 20 Q So you can't have people standing'in there waiting 21 in line; correct? 22 A (Cotter) That's correct. ; 23 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Does that mean that there are no 24 people standing in line at all inside the monitoring station ] < 25 -- trailer? j l
-%g I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ _ - - ~
1 I REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25490 1 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) No, the lines forms at the 2 stairway, the entrance stairway to the monitoring trailer. 3 As a station becomes open then an evacuee is directed to 4 that station. 5 JUDGE McCOLLOM: They step in from outside then? 1 6 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) Yes. They're standing i l I 7 usually at the top stair of the trailer. 8 BY MR. FIERCE: 9 Q Now, in the testimony at page 21 you say that the 10 evacuees are able to walk from the trailer's entrance to any 11 monitoring location within five seconds. How was that 12 determined? 13 (Witness reviewing document.) , j. 14 THE WITNESS: (Bisson) The entrance into the 15 monitoring area is just about dead center of the entire area 16 which is about 34 feet or 35 feet, which means that the 17 furthest an evacuee would have to walk would be about 15 to 18 17 feet, I believe. 19 And it was just based on the distance. 20 BY MR. FIERCE: 21 Q So it was not based on tests or drills or stop 22 watches, timing people walking? 23 A (Bisson) We don't have any kind of documentation 24 of that. 25 (Pause) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- . _ = _ _ _ .- - - _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .
. 1 l l 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. CROSS 25491 f' 1 THE_ WITNESS: (Bisson)'. Well, it:was. demonstrated-l \' . l 2 during the exercise..
.1 3 BY MR.' FIERCE: {
l 4 Q Okay. l 5 Other than what happened during the exercise, ] 6 though, there were not specific drills to test that it's 7 five seconds to walk from the' entrance to the farther 8 station? 9 A (Bisson). I don't believe there's specific' drills 10 for that. I 11 Q And that would be.from the top step; is that where l 1 12 the starting point would be? 13 A (Bisson) Right at the entrance to the trailer.
,[ 14 0 Is there another step then you would have to-step \s_, . .
15 up to enter the trailer or would you be up; level with the 16 trailer at that point? q 17 A (Bisson) I believe the top step is right even. 18 with the floor of the trailer. 19 Q Let's' assume there is somebody at the door ; 1 i 20 regulating the ingress, the monitoring lead person is there. 21 How does that person know when to send someone waiting to a a 22 station? 23 I saw Mr. Cotter indicate earlier something about i 24 he would look for a hand wave or something. Is that how it l 25 is done?
)
l- /N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i j
7 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25492 i 1 A (Cotter) He typically is paying attention to 2 what's going on in the trailer and he's never -- as Mr. ] i 3 Bisson has just stated -- never more than 15 or 17 feet away 4 from all of the stations. So when a person exits the 5 station it is very easy for him to say. l 6 But in addition to that the monitoring personnel l 7 have -- and they're all on a first name basis, Nill usually ! 8 call out the person's name or raise their hand to indicate. l l \' 9 O So having gotten that signal, he then turns to the 10 individual and says what? 11 Does he say anything? I i 12 A (Cotter) Typically, he is holding the person at ' 13 that point and he has indicated to them, I'm going to hold
, 14 you until there is a station open. When he gets that l
15 signal, typically, there's an opening. 16 Q Okay. 17 But the person who is standing in the door may not 18 be watching as intently as the lead person as to where that 19 opening is, so he may have to say, " Third one on the left" 20 or -- 21 A (Cotter) "Open station right there." 22 O So he will direct them either to the right or to 23 the left or straight ahead? 24 A (Cotter) Towards the opening monitoring station, 25 yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
Lj
- < i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17.-' CROSS 25493 'l 1 Q .Just~.that process of getting the signal.from the-.
[ 2 open station and turning t'o'the' individual;and giving them
~
3 the' signal to move out will takejat.least a couple of-
- 4. seconds, won't it, Mr. Cotter? y 5 A .(Cotter) Sure, .that'.s.probably a. safe assumption.
J 6 7- .
.8 l 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)-628-4888 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25494 1 Q If he says anything at all, it will take at least 2 two seconds to say it, correct? 3 MR. TROUT: Are you asking the witness to make any 4 assumptions about how fast or slow the trailer lead speaks? 5 MR. FIERCE: Well, he's been there at the drills. 6 I'm asking him based on his experience. 7 BY MR. FIERCE: 8 Q If he says anything at all, it would take at least 9 two seconds, wouldn't it? 10 JUDGE SMITH: No. You can express about eight 11 syllables in two seconds, I would say. "Next", you could 12 say that in a split second. 13 But even so, what are you adding up here? 14 You are making an assumption that you haven't 15 established yet, that the person at the monitoring station 16- waits until the monitored person clears the area at the end 17 of his time before there is any indication whatever to the 18 guy at the door to send the next one down. 19 So all of these things are going to be cumulative, 20 I bet, aren't they? 21 They are going to not allow anything to overlap, 22 any simultaneous acts. 23 MR. FIERCE: Well, I can ask the Panel that 24 question. I'm trying to find out here. i 1 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25495 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q At what point does the person who is completing a 3 frisk turn and give the signal to the monitoring lead at the 4 door, at what point? 5 JUDGE SMITH: Well, and combine with that 6 question, at what point do you stop counting the time for 7 the person already being monitored. 8 MR. FIERCE: Well. 9 JUDGE SMITH: If you are going to add up these 10 times cumulatively, you've got to have a dependable 11 reference point. 12 MR. FIERCE: Well, I think that's a point I'm 13 going to get to. I mean, we're starting at the beginning 14 here and I'm going to take it through to that point. Then 15 we can -- 16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 17 MR. FIERCE: At some point you can draw the -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 19 MR. FIERCE: You can measure from any of the same 20 points to the same point in the next one, it seems to me. 21 JUDGE SMITH: I understand. I 22 BY MR. FIERCE: 23 Q But with respect to the monitoring, the person 24 will complete the frisk. And if it's a clean person, will 25 say something like, you're clean, and hand them a clean tag? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I - _ - _ - _ _- _ _ _ _ J
I i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25496 1 A (Cotter) That's correct. 2 They will be brought across.the controlled line, 3 the line that separates uncontrolled from controlled, hand l 4 the clean tag. And during that five second egress of that j I 5 first evacuee towards the exit door, that second or the next i 6 evacuee in line would be called for and brought towards that 1
)
7 station. I l 8 Q Finishes the frisk, does say something like, 9 you' re clean, and hands them -- as they walk forwards hands j l 10 them the green tag? 11 A (Cotter) Yes, as he brings them across the line, i 12 Typically what they have done in the past is put l 13 groups of clean tags in a pocket or taped a bag to the front J 14 of their clothing where they can have it readily available 15 and handed to them as they come across the line. 1 1 16 Q And as they come across the line, he hands them l 17 the green tag and then signals? 18 A (Cotter) Yes. 19 Q Now at that point our evacuee, with the coats, I 20 perhaps an overnight bag, perhaps a purse, walks down the 21 aisle. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Boots. 23 MR. FIERCE: I didn't say boots. We can add 24 boots. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTALLPANEL NO.-17 --CROSS 25497-1 BY MR. FIERCE:
%- 2 Q But it's aLbad weather situation. -They get t6 the 3 station as they' walk in it.
4 What'does.the monitor do then? 5 Does'he say something?. Give them an instruction? 6 A (Cotter) Typically he would demonstrate the-7: position as that person approached him and indicate, please 8 stand like this, and that would be the position identified 9, in the procedure. 10 O' Please stand like? 11 A. (Cotter)- Hands facing forward,' feet close 12 together but'not touching. And as that person approached 13 the~st.ation,-he would demonstrate that stance and' indicate,-
/~'\ 14 please stand like this at the:line.
15 0 Is there any room at the top of the steps for an 16 evacuee to put down an overnight bag? 17 A (Cotter) Certainly that would depend on the size 18 of the overnight bag. 19 Q Small overnight bag,fno more than 24-inches. 20 A (Cotter) I'm sure that that bag. could be pinced 21 if someone wanted to put down their belongings, yes. 22 O Would their umbrella up or down at'that point? l 23 HR. TROUT: Objection. Is it raining or not' 24 raining? 25 (m\
Beritage Reporting' Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25498 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q If it were raining. 3 A (Cotter) I don't think the umbrella would fit 4 through the door, first. But if it was a small enough 5 umbrella, they probably would have put it down because the 6 awning would be up at that point. 7 Q Now when they walk this distance, there is no 8 procedure directing your people to tell them to hurry, 9 correct? 10 A (Cotter) That's correct. 11 Q And your assumption is a normal adult can do this 12 in five seconds, correct? 13 A (Cotter) That's correct. 14 Q You haven't made any assumptions about small 15 children and how long they could walk it, have you? 16 A (Cotter) They would fall into the same five 17 seconds. 1 1 18 0 You think day care children would do the same? 19 (Witnesses confer.) s 20 A (Bisson) I think on an average day care children 21 probably would be able to reach the stations within five J 22 seconds. 23 Obviously, a very small child may take smaller l 24 steps and would take longer to get to the outside. But 25 since they go through as a group, the ones that would go l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886 l 1 i i 1
. _ _ _ _ - - - a
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25499 from the entrance of the trailer to the stations right 9 1 2 immediately in front would take less time. 3 Q If the trailer is busy and a group of day care 4 children arrived and advance to the front of the line and 5 are standing. Let's assume you've got six day care children
, 6 ages two to three, and a day care worker with them.
7 I'm unclear what you just said. Do they all go in 8 at once? 9 A (Bisson) Day care and school populations are put 10 through as a group just to keep everyone together. 11 Q So they would wait for six openings in the 12 monitoring stations and then all six would go in as a group. 13 Is that what you are saying? 14 A (Bisson) No, I don't mean that. 15 I mean they wouldn't have adults interspersed in T 16 between the children themselves. 17 Q Right, they would go in --
~
18 A (Biason) That is, when they start with a child, 19 they would keep feeding the children through the trailer 20 until that particular group is dor.9, and then they would 21 resume with the adults again. 22 O If the children are in the age range of two to l 23 three and are up there at the front'of the line, they may i 24 need that teacher to walk them one by one to that station, 25 correct? l t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25500 1 A (Cotter) They may need an individual, true. 2 Q And wculd the teacher then stay with them for the 3 monitoring process or go back and leave the small child 4 there alone? 5 A (Cotter) They could certainly -- there's plenty 6 of room for a small child that we're talking about and that 7 person to walk to a specific station, and then that would 8 assume that teacher would go back to get another small 9 student. 10 We have had an opportunity to bring small children 11 through. Some of the monitoring personnel brought in three-12 year old children. And the monitoring personnel, from what 13 I saw, handled them very well in dealing with them. 14 Q The teacher went and took the small children? 15 A (Cotter) Well, there were no teachers involved. 16' this was one of the monitoring personnel, because never have > 17 real evacuees, as you know, in our drills and what not. We 18 bring in mock evacuees. 19 Q Is there a plan for how a group of small children 20 like this would enter the trailer if there is one teacher in 21 a group of small children? ; 22 A (Cotter) No more than they will be monitored as a 1 23 group. 24 Q So you might allow the teacher to go in with one, 25 stand there while the one was monitored, go back for the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , i
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25501
<' ~3 1 next, bring the next in?
i i i / N-/ 2 A (Cotter) To the extent that that would hold up 3 monitoring trailer efficiency, we certainly wouldn't go one 4 student at a time through and leave 13 other stations open. 5 I don't think that would be allowed by the monitoring 6 trailer lead. 7 Q I'm just wondering if there is a plan for dealing-8 with this kind of a situation. i 9 A (Cotter) As I said, other than they will be 10 monitored as a group. 11 Q You say as a group. 12 But to the extent that they do feel somewhat 13 anxious and feel comfortable only if the teacher is by their ; ('^'} 14 side --
\'~) 15 MR. TROUT: Are you asking the witnesses to make 16 that assumption in your question which I believe before 17 whether they had expertise in human behavior?
18 BY MR. FIERCE: 19 Q Well, is there any expectation by the Panel or by 20 the ORO regarding small children perhaps being anxious about 21 going through the monitoring process alone? 22 A (Cotter) I believe the question is, is there any 23 expectation. 24 And was demonstrated in drills or walk-throughs, i 25 the monitoring personnel handled the children who came ! i rs ('- ') Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25502 1 through the facility quite well in that they too are human 2 beings. 3 For instance, the women monitors would typically 4 take the children and would do quite well with comforting 5 the child as they went through the monitoring process and 6 talk to them as much as you would talk to your own child or 7 a child and they comforted them. And I had no problems with 8 the way they -- 9 Q How old were those children? l 10 A (Cotter) Again, I saw one of the monitor 11 personnel brought in, or his wife showed up at the facility 12 and brought their, I believe, three-year old child was -- 13 Q You had one three year old, and the other children 14 were older? l 15 A (Cotter) There were no other children in the 16 family that showed up other than this one child. 17 Q So you are only talking about one child? 18 A (Cotter) Yes, we ran one child through the-19 trailer. 20 Q So you don't have an expectation then of children l l 21 being somewhat anxious about walking into the trailer and 22 going into a monitoring station alone without the teacher l 23 walking with them and staying with them? 24 A (Cotter) Maybe I don't understand the question. l 1 25 Could you maybe restate it? ; 1 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ~ _ _ _ _ _
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25503
/~~N s 1 Q So you don't expect that the children will be - i 2 anxious about that process and perhaps want to have the 3 teacher walk with them into the trailer and into the station 4 and stay with them whi30 they go through the monitoring 5 process 7 6 A (Cotter) To the best of my knowledge, the child 7 that I witnessed outside who was kind of rambunctious and 8 moving around became kind of quist and docile when we 9 brought him into the trailer atmosphere and stood quite 10 quietly during the monitoring process.,
l 11 Other than that, I don't know if that answers your l 12 question. 13 0 Well, if a teacher turns to the lead at the (n L.-
\ 14 entrance to the monitoring trailer and says, well, how do 15 you want me to handle these small children, what will she be 16 told?
17 JUDGE SMITH: She? 18 BY MR. FIERCE: 19 0 Could be a "he". 20 A (Bisson) Since the children would be going 21 through as a group, that might alleviate some of their 22 anxiety having their peers, their playmates right in the i 23 adjacent locations. l i 24 And I cauld also see the teacher calming her class 25 the way she wou3d in a fire drill or something like that. l i'~N \
! )
(j/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25504 1 Q What about a mother coming in carrying a baby, how i 2 will that be handled? 3 A (Bisson) I believe the infant would be monitored i 4 in her arms, i I 5 MR. TROUT: That's a mother or a father, right, i 1 6 Allan? 7 BY MR. FIERCE: 8 Q So they would both be in the monitoring-station at j i 9 that point, correct? 1 5 10 A (Cotter) That's correct. ! i 11 Q And the mother would be holding the baby out and l f l 12 the monitoring process would occur in that fashion? I 13 A (Bisson) When you say holding the baby out, you 14 mean extended? 15 0 Or is the baby placed on the floor for monitoring. 16 purposes? I 17 A (Bisson) No. I believe she would just hold the i i 18 baby as she would hold a baby. And the probe would be just l l 19 passed around the area of the baby that was exposed to the 20 probe. 21 Q And the part that wasn't exposed because the baby 22 was being held? 23 A (Bisson) Well, if it was -- l 24 JUDGE SMITH: Are you making this up as you go 4 25 along? Ara you? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.)
u; i 7 .
;j 1
REBUTTAL PANELNO. 17 - CROSS- :25505 MR,. FIERCE:- l
'l - No,'.I've got questions here'.about;the' 2 lack of procedures for handling day. care children and 3 babies, Your Honor, in my!. expanded notes here.
l 1 5 7' 8-9 10 'l l 11' ,
]
12 j 13 i 14 l
)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L Heritage Reporting- Corporation (202) 628-4888-1' 1
q REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25506 i j 1 JUDGE SMITH: Can I look at your expanded notes? fl 2 I mean, I don't want to see the actual notes, I i 3 just want to see what we' re in for here, q i 4 MR. FIERCE: I'm right here, Your Honor. 5 JUDGE SMITH: How many pages do you have? 6 MR. FIERCE: If I could approach the bench and 7 show you that, I would rather not say. i 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, are we going to have a 4 l I 9 realistic time frame for your cross-examination? 10 MR. FIERCE: Well, I haven't even been asked to 11 offer one. If you like, I can tell you that given when I l 12 started today, if I had uninterrupted -- ! 13 JUDGE SMITH: You have a schedule. l 14 MR. FIERCE: -- uninterrupted time I expected it 4 15 to take a little over a day. 16- However, tomorrow morning we have SAPL fire 17 fighters coming in. 18 JUDGE SMITH: I know that. I 19 MR. FIERCE: And then the Cohn motion. l l 20 So that suggests to me that I am going to carry ! 21 into Thursday. And that's when I do expect to end, Thursday ! 22 morning. 23 MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor, SAPL may have a little 24 cross-examination, too. But to the extent that Mr. Fierce 25 covers ground it will probably chop down the s!.ze of my Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-488f
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25507 9 1 2 cross-examination. MR. FIERCE: I would also note -- 3 MS. DOUGHTY: Probably quite considerably. 4 MR. FIERCE: Note for the record that in making 5 one of the various arguments on the Sneider testimony Mr. 6 Dignan made reference to the fact that Mr. Fierce would 7 cross-examine this panel for three days. And my intention 8 is to cut that estimate by at least half. 9 MR. TROUT: If that's a stipulation the Applicants 10 will subscribe to it. 11 MS. SELLECK: As long as we have paused, Your 12 Honor, I was wondering if it isn't an interruption, if I 13 might just distribute the Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal 14 Testimony No. 16. This is on the returning commuters. 15 (Document proffered to all parties.) 16 MR, FIERCE: Your Honor, I do note that this is a 17 substantial piece of testimony, of some 36 pages with at 18 least seven attachments. It's more than 36; 39 pages with 19 some seven attachments. 20 I also understand -- 21 MR. TROUT: You have seen most of it before 22 though, Mr. Fierce, in the form of the affidavits that are 23 already in the filed, 24 MR. FIERCE: I also understand from what Mr. I 25 Dignan said the other day and also in looking at this, that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
q l I 4 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25508 1 there apparently are additional I-DYNEV runs that have been
]
i 2 done, which would support this testimony. ] 1 3 I would like an opportunity and would make a ' 4 request that we be given the tapes of those runs so that I i 5 can have Dr. Adler review them. And would make the request ] 6 that that be done as quickly as possible. 7 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, we have no objection to 8 producing the most recent computer runs to Mass AG as 9 voluntary discovery. 10 I think it's important, though, that we remember ; 11 that we discussed sometime ago or the record and Mr. 12 Traficonte agreed that we were not going to hold up the 13 litigation of ETEs or the conclusion litigation of these
, 14 hearings in order to conduct those new runs and then go over 15 the results.
16 We did the runs because the Attorney General for 17 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts asked us to do them, so I i 18 that they could use the information for whatever purposes 19 they wanted to use the information. 20 But Mr. Traficonte expressly agreed, we were not 21 going to hold up the litigation for computer runs that took 22 weeks to do. 23 MR. FIERCE: Let me just clarify here. I 24 understood that there were two things that were going on. 25 One is that the Board, after the PID had requested input
'$ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l,
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO.'17 - CROSS 25509 ; I ('^ 1 from the parties regarding the outstanding issues, the I k !
' 2 issues that were still before the Board and live. l 3 And that there were affidavits that the Applicants 4 and the Mass AG had submitted. There were inquiries of NRC i
5 Staff and of the State of New Hampshire'whether they wanted 6 to throw anything into the hopper with regard to those ' 7 issues. 8 And that was a matter.for further litigation 9 before the Board, f 10 In addition, there was the matter of additional' 1
~
11 runs-provided to the AG or to the Commonwealth of. 12 Massachusetts to'be used for whatever they were worth. 13 And we had some discussion about that aspect of [ \} 14 it, and it was clear that we weren't going to be using those ;
\J 1 15 runs and problems that we had with them to hold up the 16 litigation.
I 17 What's being filed here is a supplement to-that i
~
18 earlier affidavit. I can't remember the date that we were 19 requested to file responses to the Board regarding the j 20 returning commuters issue, but it was many months ago. 21 And now here on the eve of the ETE portion of the 22 case where returning commuters will be discussed with i 23 respect to the live issues.that are still.in dispute-before 24 the. Board, we are presented with a whole supplementary piece 25 that's to bolster their position on the contested issues. I Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25510 1 And it's in that regard that I would like to see 2 the runs. I'm not making any references to an expectation 3 that I'm going to take longer than the hearings are now I 4 scheduled to respond. But I certainly want to see what has 5 been done. I would like to have my expert take a look at 6 what's been done. And if there needs to be a rebuttal to 7 this, which'is now being filed on June 13th, I think we 8 should be given a reasonable opportunity to make that , I 9 comment. 10 JUDGE SMITH: We have nothing to decide now, he is 11 going to give you the runs. l 12 MR. FIERCE: That's all I'm asking for at this 1 13 point. 14 BY MR. FIERCE: 15 Q Panel, let me just wrap up this section. 16 There is nothing in the plans, in the procedures 17 regarding how the monitoring personnel in the trailers are 18 to deal with day care children coming in groups or mothers i 19 with babies -- or other small children, I should add, not 20 just babies. You may have a mother with two or three very 21 small children who would also fall in that category, j 22 There is nothing in the plans or procedures 23 instructing.your people on how to deal with that; correct? L 24 A (Bisson) Well, there are instructions for 25 monitoring. i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25511 l
,r"~3 1 Q Yes.
! / j
\' 2 But in terms of how to deal with the different 3 kinds of groups that might come through the trailer, l 4 particularly small children, day care children, or mothers
)
5 with a group of small children, there is nothing in the j 6 plans and procedures; correct? j j 7 A (Bisson) There is the statement which states that ] 8 the students and day care populations go through as a group. { 9 In that regard -- j j 10 0 Other than that? j 1 1 11 A (Bisson) Are you referring to how to control the 12 children, behavior? I i 13 Q Whether the mothers are to take -- the day care j tN 14 worker, he or she, the mother or father, he or she, with a (
'~'
)
15 group of his small children, whether they are to take the I 16 children one-by-one through the monitoring stations, l 17 completing the monitoring process and coming back for the 18 next or whether they are to send each small child on their 19 own way alone or just to drop them off in a station and come 20 back for the next before the monitoring occurs? 21 MR. TROUT: Mr. Fierce, is your question limited 22 just to the plans, the SPMC, and the procedures, the 23 implementing procedure? 24 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 25 MR. TROUT: Okay.
'q j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25512 1 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) Other than just the 2 monitoring process which would remain the same for the 3 individuals as they come through, there is no specific 4 direction or procedure steps as to how to march a group 5 through the trailer. 6 BY MR. FIERCE: 7 Q Now, it is also true, is it not, that with respect 8 to second shift staffing of the monitoring trailers there 9 will be some people who will need to be called on from 10 Yankee Atomic to fill the second shift staffing roster; 11 correct? 12 A (Callendrello) Yes. l l 13 Yankee Atomic would be the organization that the 7 14 ORO would turn to, to provide second shift staffing for 15 those positions. l 16' Q And those people coming from Yankee Atomic have 17 not had ORO training modules provided to them; correct? 18 A (Callendrello) Yes, that's correct. 19 But they are trained in the use of monitoring 20 instruments. 21 O Not necessarily these instruments, but some 22 monitoring instruments; is that correct? 23 A (Callendrello) That's correct. 24 Q Now, there will be also elderly people who are 25 going through the monitoring station; correct? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-t
;\
q REBUTTAL-' PANEL'NO. 17 - CROSS 25513-
'i 11 A (Bisson) That's correct.. J 2 Q I'm not. talking'about the' people who are.on 3 specih1Lfacility vehicles from the nursing homes, but if f 1
4 they arrive in private. vehicles-or perhaps in the' transit-5 buses there could be' elderly people:who walk,_ac,my-6 mother-in-law does, with some difficulty and with a cane;-
. ]
7 correct?
<j 8' A. .(Bisson) That's correct. I 9 O Those people are going to take longer'to. walk to .
10 their monitoring stations;icorrect?- - 11 MR. TROUT:. Objection. - 12 Longer than what? 13 MR. FIERCE: Five seconds. 1 i 14 (Witnesses conferring.) 15 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) I'm sorry,.the l l ' 1 16 question that's pending is: those -- .j. 17 BY MR. FIERCE: 18 Q Such people would take longer than.five seconds to ) l 19 walk to any of the monitoring stations? 20 Perhaps they could get to the'one directly across i 21 the door within five seconds, isLthat whe_t.you're thinking? ); 22 A (Callendrello) I'm thinking that they can get to ; 23 some of them within five seconds. .l l 24 Again, we're talking about an average rate. There i 25 are other people who will get to monitoring stations quicker , Heritage Reporting Corporation 4 (202) 628-4888 ! 1
t i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25514 1 than five seconds. And there are some monitoring stations, 2 the close monitoring stations that will be approached i 3 quicker than five seconds. But we're talking about an 4 average. j 5 0 So it's an average rate of five seconds? 6 A (Callendrello) An average of five seconds to 7 approach a monitoring station. 8 Q The distance between the two rails'at a monitoring 9 station is 53 inches I see on page 12 of your testimony. l l 10 Is there a marker or a line on the floor in any ! l 11 way to -- down the middle showing where people are to stand? j l 12 A (Cotter) There in a line which goes down the 13 center of the trailer which signifies the boundary between (' 14 the controlled and the noncontrolled areas in the trsiler. 15 Noncontrolled being individuals walking into the trailer. O 16 The controlled side being those identified as being clean. I 17 Q But between two rails in the trailer you're going I 18 to have two people; correct? i 19 A (Cotter) That's correct. 20 0 In the 53 inchec each of those people will have l l 21 roughly 26 and a half inches of floor space for them in the l l 22 monitoring station; correct? l 23 A (Cotter) That's correct. 24 Q And how wide is that aisle outside the railing? l 25 The space that's available between the rails and f' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ .a
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS' 25515-l . 1 the wall to tralk up and-down?
-2 A (Cotter). Are you asking'how wide is the 3- noncontrolled' area'or the distance between the'end of~the 4 rail and.the wall?
5- Q Well, the entire distance between the end of.the 6 rails and the wall is a: space'available for travel.up and-7 down the trailer; correct? 8 Or is less than all of-that available for walking? 9 A- (Cotter') No, you're! correct, it is a' space 10 available for walking. 11 0 And how wide is that distance? 12 A (Bisson) From the inside wall as they enter the 13 trailer to the railing. 14 Q Yes. - 15 A (Bisson) I believe it's 36 inches. 16 Q Three feet is the pathway? 17 A (Bisson) Right. 18 Q I'm looking at a flow path diagram that is in-19 Implementing Procedure 3.4, Attachment 4. 20 Does the panel have that? 21 A (Cotter) Yes. 22 Q Which shows a dotted line.or a dashed line to the-23 right of which is labeled " controlled area." 24 Am I to assume that's just a pathway line? That 25 is not a line on the floor. The area for walking, as you
,-~y kj Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25516 1 have just indicated, goes from the end of the rails all the 2 way to the wall; correct? 3 A (Cotter) That's correct. 4 Q And that's the controlled area? 5 A (Cotter) No, that's not correct. 6 O The controlled area includes the places where the i l 7 people would stand at the rails? { 8 A (Cotter) That's right. 9 The controlled and noncontrolled area are bounded 10 by an actual line that's on the floor. We put that line on 11 the floor or put a roll of tape or a line of tape right down 12 the center of the trailer. ) 1 13 Q Is that the dashed line that we see in this 14 diagram right behind the frisking stations? 15 A (Cotter) With an arrow marked " boundary" marked l I 16 on the floor with Radcon tape, yes. : 17 Q Okay. j j 18 MR. FIERCE: What's the Board's pleasure here, I'm 19 going to move into the next step or two. l 20 JUDGE SMITH: If you want to break, that's fine. l 21 MR. FIERCE: I'11 break. I'11 keep going for a 22 little while, it's up to you. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Why don't you go for another 10 l 24 minutes. 25 MR. FIERCE: All right.
! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL.NO. 17= . CROSS 25517'. A l '. BY MR. FIERCE: I - '2; Q Now, upon' arrival at;the monitoring-station, let's l- 3 assume we have this evacuee with the umbrella,.the overnight. l 4- bag, the purse, the hat, the boots, the whole works. 5 MR. TROUT: Excuse me, they've got an umbrella,.an 6 overnight. bag,'and a' purse. ,
'7- .MR. FIERCE: Right.
8 JUDGE SMITH: And boots., 9 MR. TROUT: And boots. And'a' hat. .And an 10 overcoat. 11 MR. FIERCE: We'got the works. . 12 13
,o l "15 i
l 16 17 18 19 20
- 1. '21 1
22 23 1 24 25 l l . Heritage- Reporting Corporation-(202)- 628-4888
I l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25518 j i 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q Let's assume they fit down the aisle, and they get 3 into the monitoring station. And your person says -- I 4 forget the language. I think Mr. Cotter said something { t 5 like, please stand like this. 6 A (Cotter) Yes. That was, I believe, what I said. ~ 7 Q And at that point let's assume this person says, 8 well, what do you want me to -- what are you going to do to 9 me. 10 And what does the person say? <i i 11 A (Cotter) And when the monitor begins the 1 t 12 monitoring process he will just softly indicate that, I'm 13 going to pass this probe over your body and monitor you for j 14 contamination, and continue the monitoring process. 15 Q Now, if according to Implementing Procedure 2.9,
- 16' Section 5.4.3.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Excuse me. 18 These people get the feeling they are being 19 irradiated by the monitor? 20 Does that ever come up, do you know? Or is it l l 21 beyond your experience? 22 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) I've never had any of the 23 individuals come through ask that. And even the mock 24 ev6cuees that we've had come through generally have very 25 little knowledge of monitoring process or monitoring l l (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO.-17 -' CROSS 25519 j
/ 1 instrumentation. And I haven't heard.any of them ask .if.
I v s I
.2 they were -- they are certainly curious. But in'that 3 explanation, the instrument that I'm using is going to 4 monitor you.for contamination.
5 BY MR. FIERCE: 6 0 Well, who else have you had come through besides 7 people who'would be either ORO personnel.from the reception 8 center who could.be used as simulated evacuees, or. Yankee 9 Atomic workers who had shown up? 10 Who else have you used?
.l 11 (Witnesses confer.)
12 A (Cotter) Just off-the top of my head, we've had I 13 actual workers from the Mass Electric facility at both of j 14 the locations come out as they left workEfor the day. And 15 we asked them to process through the monitoring trailer as 16 part of the process. 17 We've also had other ORO players, traffic guides, l 1 18
~
route guides come through and process'through the 'l
)
19 facilities, groups of people from the other utilities, the ; 20 Yankee Atomic and what not. l l 21 Q Haven't done any tests or studies of randomly ! t i 22 selected members of the general public, correct? 23 JUDGE SMITH: I'm willing to withdraw the i 24 question. 25 (Laughter) l C ( ~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PAMEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25520 1 JUDGE SMITH: Better move it along. I think it 2 was a dumb question. 3 MR. FIERCE: Well, I think it's not a dumb 4 question, Your Honor. I wouldn't ever attribute one of your 5 questions with the word " dumb". 6 BY MR. FIERCE: 7 Q In terms of the reaction to people in the 8 monitoring station as the worker begins the process, there 9 could be some anxiety on the part of the people who are 10 members of the general public and not utility workers. 11 Isn't that true? 12 A (Cotter) As I said, we did have Mass Electric 13 personnel come through the facility who had no connection 14 with the offsite response organization, nor have they had 15 any, to my knowledge, any work in the utility, meaning 16 nuclear utility, or had any experience in the nuclear 3 i l 1 17 utility where they have had monitoring done to them before. l 4 18 They were just personnel who parked their vehicles i 19 in the area where we happened to set up for our reception 20 centers. And in working a drill on an afternoon, we 21 directed them to process through the monitoring trailers. 22 So if they are not a randomly selected group, that 23 may be -- 24 JUDGE McCOLLOM: And they d.idn't show anxieties? 25 THE WITNESS: (Cotter) Anxieties or questions? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L_.
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25521 1 The..i were certainly questions asked as they came 2 through. Most of them would be curious as they come through 3 saying, geeze, what's going on here. And that's where the 4 monitoring personnel would indicate after they begin the 5 monitoring process, I'm going to pass this probe over your 6 body'and monitor you for contamination and continue on with 7 the process. 8 MR. FIERCE: This is actually a point to later, 9 Your Honor, but if you want me to drop the line and pick it 10 up later. 11 I get to it at the point when the probe goes off 12 and the alarm sounds, and people in a real life situation 13 are no.w told, either by just hearing the sound or by the 14 monitoring workers, that this indicates that you may be 15 contaminated. 16 BY MR. FIERCE: 17 Q And .*c't it likely at that point in time there 18 could be a great dea. J2 anxiety on the part of members of 19 the general public? 20 MR. TROUT: Objection. 21 Where is their human behavior contention? 22 MR. FIERCE: This is just I'm adding up the time 23 that it would likely take to monitor the general public 24 using a realistic situation that perhaps some people are 25 going to -- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25522 1 JUDGE SMITH: When the alarm goes off, don't you 2 stop measuring? . 3 I mean, that person has been monitored. l 4 .MR. FIERCE: That's right. 5 But then there is -- I 6 JUDGE SMITH: Does the clock still run? j 7 MR. FIERCE: Pardon? ] l 8 JUDGE SMITH: Does the clock still run? j l 9 MR. FIERCE: I understand that that person is ) ( 10 immediately directed to the -- 11 JUDGE SMITH: Shower. 12 MR. FIERCE: To the decontamination area. 13 BY MR. FIERCE: f i 14 Q Is that correct, Panel? l l 15 As soon as the alarm goes off you don't continue ; 16 monitoring, but you send the person to the decontamination 17 area? 18 A (Cotter) That is correct. 19 Q But I'm asking now about the anxiety issue. And 20 when the person -- l 21 MR. TROUT: And, Your Honor, 1 -- 22 BY MR. FIERCE: 23 0 -- hears the alarm, and is there any expectation 24 that there could be some behavioral issues that the monitors l 25 may have to deal with at that point?
^
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. CROSS' 25523' ( 1 D
.1 MR. TROUT: Your Honor.
v. l 12 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I'm going.to object on two. 3 grounds.
~4 One, I thought 'that the licensing board's PID on l 5 New Hampshire issues already found.that.
l l 6 ' JUDGE' SMITH: That's-his point. 7 .Mr. Trout's - - you are. stealing his objection, I B believe. 9 MR. . TROUT: Actually I was going to object that'it 10 wasn't in these contentions. And.Mr. Turk is, I think, 11 stealing a march on me and' suggesting'that it was. litigated 12 in New Hampshire. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, that's right. 14 MR. TROUT: I think they are both good objections. 15 JUDGE SMITH: We found that there would not be 16 panic on the part of evacuating public. The public would 17 act rationally. There would not be.an impact upon the 18 times So just generally, I don't --Lwell, obviously we 19 didn't pick up the monitoring. 20 We also, however, allowed for the fact that there k 21 would be some stress. 22 But yours is suggesting a panic situation. 23 MR. FIERCE: Ne.
)
24 As I understand the word " panic" as it's been-
-i 25 described by Dr. Mileti, it is a situation where people are _.
(M)
\' Heritage Reporting Corporation ';
(202) 628-4888 ' 1 4 - m - m - m _ _ ___________ ___ _ _ _ .
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25524 1 literally trampling each other to death to get out of an 2 area. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 4 But here you've got a person who has gone through 5 fine, has come to the end of the monitoring because, by 6 definition, you might even save some time on this one, 7 because the first 10 seconds you get at this person. The 8 alarm goes off, to the showers. Your time stops. 1 9 Now you are not suggesting that that anxiety 10 atterdant to having the alarm go off is going to slow the 11 person down, do you? 12 MR. FIERCE: I am suggesting that, I think, Your 13 Honor. That there could be some anxiety that at that point j s 14 becomes an issue, that it will take a little more coaxing,
- 1. 5 perhaps a little more tender loving care, a little more TLC 16' --
l 17 JUDGE SMITH: But you don't have a -- that's 1 18 exactly -- 19 MR. FIERCE: -- to get the person out. 20 JUDGE SMITH: That's exactly why we are not going 21 to have human factor testimony from this Panel. They are 22 not human factor people, and we generally addressed that 23 point, that people will continue to act rationally. 24 And I guess as a finder of the fact, I would guess l 25 that a monitoring alarm going off is going to, if anything, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1 I l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25525
/"'% 1 it's going to' assure prompt movement.z \ \ ') 2 But even so, your time ends. The time I'm ]
i 3 following-you adding up now ends at the positive finding. ] l 4 MR._ FIERCE: When the person is out of the 5 monitoring station. I believe'that's right. 1 6 JUDGE SMITH: So is that what you are' going to do. !
.i 7 You're going to leap now from~beyond. Then you are going to 8 go to the showers?
9 MR. FIERCE: No. j 1 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, all right now. 11 MR. FIERCE: I'm not going there now. 12 JUDGE SMITH: For the purpose of your line right 13 now -- 14 MR.. FIERCE: I had some questions about this. issue 15 that you raised at this stage when the person'is first 16 approached with a -- 17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. But I'm sorry I raised it.. 18 MR. FIERCE: It was just an issue that I.was going 19 to get to later on when I thought the anxiety level would be 20 at its highest, which is when the alarm would go off. 21 Let me move on then. 22 Again, I'm at your pleasure, Your Honor.- 23 24 25
' m) .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1
s l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 17 - CROSS 25526 1 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want to adjourn? 2 It's a good time. Let's adjourn. Nine o' clock. ] 3 (Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing was j 4 recessed, to resume at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 14, ) 5 1989.) 6 7 8 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/\ CERTIFICATE I
V) This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States' Nuclear Regulatory Commission in'the. matter of: Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and'2) Docket No: 50-443-OL 50-444-OL (Off-site Emergency Planning) Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: June 13, 1989 /\ were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear
-)
Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 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 foregoir.g proceedings. ;
/S/ 1 , .
(Signature typed): Donna L. Cook ' Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation ! {' HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION (202)628-4888 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _}}