ML20245A283
| ML20245A283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#389-8825 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8906210186 | |
| Download: ML20245A283 (179) | |
Text
r ,
rq' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. OR\GMA_
- ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
) Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL
) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING EVIDENTIARY HEARING
( -
i Pages: 26137 through 26281 Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: June 19, 1989 l
6 -
O \
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION 6 opwata w k [kt 0, Ngoup(C S 1220 L Seest, N.W., Suke 400
,,,,,,,,, o ,c, ,,,
, (2e2) 6m
'8'.;06210186 890619
")
PDR ALOCK 05000443 LT_ FDC <
l 26137 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l g{/
l )
l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (
l I
In the Matter of: )
. ) Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL i i . )- OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING EVIDENTIARY HEARING Monday, l
June 19, 1989 Auditorium i Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Federal Building 10 Causeway Street Boston, Massachusetts i The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 1:01 p.m.
BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN :
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash 1.ngton, D.C. 20555 r
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I l
26138 1 i
i s
I.. APPEARANCES:
For the Apolicant: 1 I
THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ.
GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESQ.
KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ. ,
JAY BRADFORD SMITH, ESQ.
JEFFREY P. TROUT, ESQ.
GEOFFREY C. COOK, ESQ. . !
WILLIAM L. PARKER, ESQ.
Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 For the NRC Staff:
SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.
ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
l EDWIN J. REIS, ESQ. J RICHARD BACHMANN, ESQ.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
(' Eor the Federal Emercencv_Mynacement Acencv:
H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ.
_ LINDA HUBER McPHETERS, ESQ.
Federal Emergency Management Agency l 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
~
JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTY. GEN.
JOHN C. TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
ALLAN R. FIERCE, ASST. ATTY. GEN. ,
PAMELA TALBOT, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
MATTHEW BROCK, ESQ.
LESLIE B. GREER, ESQ.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts l
One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 L
l (' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26139 f
APPEARANCES: (Continued)
For the State of New H=mnshire:
GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ASST. ATTY. GEN. '
I State of New Hampshi: e
. 25 Capitol Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301
. For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leacue:
ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
Backus, Meysr & Solomon 116 Lowell Street 4 P.O. Box 516 {
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 ;
JANE DOUGHTY, Director Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leaaue i 5 Market Street i Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 1
For the Town of Amesbury; I I
BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE, ESQ. j
. Kopelman an.d Paige, P.C, '
gj 77 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts
~
WILLIAM LORD Town Hall Amesbury, Massachusetts 10913 For the City of Haverhill and Town of Merrimac:
ASHOD N. AMIRIAN, ESQ.
P. O. Box 38 Bradford, Massachusetts 01835 )
For the City of Newburvoqrj;_;_ j BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE, ESQ.
JANE O'MALLEY, ESQ.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
77 Franklin Street '
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 =
d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
2-
I 26140 APPEARANCES: (Continued)
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 1 ,
CHARLES P. GRAHAM, ESQ.
Murphy and Graham 33 Low Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Town of West Newburv:
CiUDITH H. MIZNER, ESQ.
Second Floor 79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board:
ROBERT R. P'IERCE, ESQUIRE-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 m
s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26141 r 1 H P_ 3 K WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS EgDIRECT BECROSS EXAM -l Witntag:
l Howard Harris
. (Prefiled) 26156 by Mr. Fier;ce 26154 26221 by Mr. Smith 26157 .!
. by Mr. LBr.chmann 26205 26228 by Judge McCollom 26208 by Mr. Fierce 26230 )
ThomaJ J. Adler (Profiled) 26265 by Mr. Fierce 26263 by Mr. Parker 26266 EXHIBITS: IDENT. REC. REJ. DESCRIPTION:
i Anolicants' )
89
- 26166 Formulating public policy in emergency l
management instructor guide #51,_May 1984
~
90 26169 National Emergency Training Center, Emergency Management I,4titute, l ci;.ss schedule 91 26196 Seabrook training ;
group emergency i planning E-plan )
, instructor guide W
Heritage Reporting -Corporation (202) 628-4888
26142
( .I. H D. E. X INSERIE: PACE:
Testimony of Howard Harris 26156 on behalf of Massachusetts Attorn6y General, concerning
- JI-13 and MAG EX-11 (training) and attachment 1 (resume) ,
Testimony of Thomas J. Adler 26265 on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General Applicants' cross-examination 26281 plan for testimony of Howard Harris Applicants' crosc-examination 26281 plan for testimony of Thomas J. Adler i
~i l
s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
c X
-a
. 26143 )
, 1 E B Q C E'E E 1 H G S.
2 JUDGE SMITH: Is there any preliminary business?
3 MR. FIERCE: Yes, Your Honor.
4 The Mass AG has distributed three' documents to the-5 parties ti is. afternoon.
. The first is a piece of testimony
- 6 from.Dr. Adler on the parking lot issue. It's a four-page 7 document entitled " Testimony of Dr. Thomas-Adler on behalf 8 of James M. Shannon, Attorney General for the Commonwealth l
9 of Massachusetts, concerning Contention JI-56 (Reception-10 Center Parking) ",. And it's labeled " Testimony.
11 I'n not sure what we call this now. It's !
, 12- cbviously rebuttal to a piece of supplementary testimony to 1
13 the Applicants' rebuttal testimony. And.Dr. Adler will be b 14 coming in this afternoon. He'is scheduled to. testify on his .
1 hu! I I 15 traffic guide training piece, and will be here for a few 1
1 16 more days this week to testify on the evacuation time 17 estinate issue and returning commuters issues. And we would 18 also make him available at any point in the next few days,
. 19 or even thereafter, for the Applicants to cross-examine him-20 on this issue.
21 The second is a motion in'limine with respect to ,
l 22 Dr. Urbanik's prefiled testimony.
l 23 And the third is a motion in limine with respact '
24 to something labeled the " Supplement to the Applicants' 25 Rebuttal Testimony No. 16." That was distributed to us last' l l
l
~s ,
'~~j Beritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888
26144
,- 1 week and is a 30-some page document running to the returning 2 commuters issue, and really does not bear directly on 3 Applicants Rebuttal Testimony No. 16, which is an ETE piece 4 specifically.
5 And I am happy to argue either or both of these 6 motions today, or at any point when the appropriate parties .
7 would like to argue them. But obviously we would need to 8 argue them before the witnesses proceed.
9 JUDGE SMITH: I guess I missed your peint about 10 rebuttal testimony 16.
11 Would you restate it again?
{
12 101. FIERCE: Well, it is labeled " Supplement to s
1 13 Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 16".
14 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
, 15 MR. FIERCE: Rebuttal Testimony No. 16 is the 16 Applicants' ETE piece.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
18 MR. FIERCE: This supplement is really a returning 19 commuters piece. ,
20 JUDGE SMITH: Exactly.
21 MR. FIERCE: And in fact, Your Honor, as it is 22 argued in the motion, really is an effort to bolster the
, 23 January 25th filing that the Applicants made on returning i I
24 commuters.
3 6 25 JUDGE SMITH: That's what I would think it did. ;
'l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 l y
26145
/,.
1 MR. FIERCE: And, moreover, it is not the piece 2 that we discussed here at tne hearing back on May 15th, the ,
3 piece which the Applicants said tney would do for the 4 Commonwealth, using the Commonwealth's data, the Cole survey 5 data which perhaps might have resolved our concerns. It is
. 6 not that either.
7 It is a new piece and it is coming in here right 8 on the e p) of the time I was prepared to cross-examine Mr.
( 9 Lieberman on his returning commuters piece from January.
10 And two parts to the motion. The first part asks 11 you to strike it entirely as being an inappropriate filing, 12 and the second part is asking that certain portions of it be 13 stricken if the document is to be received at all.
14 And that if it is to be received, we be given.some 15 additional time. The problem is that Dr. Adler, having 16 fooked at that information and now actually having gotten 17 the ETE runs, the sensitivity runs that are described in 18 that piece of testimony, realizes that the model that was 19 used to generate those runs, the version of the I-DYNEV
', , 20 model that was used is a completely different model then the ;
21 one he was provided by KLD Associates back in 1987.
22 It has incorporated into it Mr. Lieberman's TRAD oi 1 23 model. And in addition, has a whole series of additional j 24 new links and nodes which are numbers in the hard copy of 25 the runs, numbers which have no association for Dr. Adler.
g .,
S Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 m_ _ _ - _ -._____m__m_ _ _ _ _ _
)
26146 1 He has no new link, now map to associate those with. j i
2 And until he can get the new version of I-DYNEV j 1
3 and a link / node map to go with it, he isn't even able to j
)
4 begin to assess what those new runs are doing. j i
5- And if that piece is going to come in, we are 6 going to insist on our right to have some additional time in .
i 7 order, first of all, to conduct a meaningful cross-l i
8 examination on it. Because until I have gotten-some 9 feedback from my expert, I can't even do that. I l 10 And secondly, if Dr. Adler, having done that 11 assessment findu there are some issues that need to be i 12 rebutted, we would like the opportunity quickly to be able i
1 13 to do that.
l -
l 14 But before yes get into those issues,.Your Honor, i l 15 we think you should seriously take a look at this piece, ,
1 16 because we think it's inappropriate. This is not what we ;
17 think you were asking for when we had this discussion back 18 on May 15th.
19 This is a brand new effort to merely supplement ,
20 and bolster the January 25th filing.
21 JUDGE SMITH: That's exactly what I was expecting.
22 That's what I thought we were going to get. So I guess we 23 will have to read your uotion to see where our expectations 24 are not fulfilled.
25 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, just possibly of Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1
l 26147 ),
q'~'g 1 assistance to you when.you review it, I would like to review I
'd 2 the bidding on one aspect of this.
3 What occurred here is that the Board --
4 JUDGE-SMITH: Could you bring your microphone
. 1 5 closer?
- 6 MR. DIGMAN: I'm sorry.
7 You know, if the hearing goes another six months, 8 I will get the message and start pulling'this mike up. )
9 I would just like to review with the Board the 10 bidding on thic as to why this piece of testimony is before 11 you, because I'm certainly not forcing it upon you. 1 12 The Board indicated in the New Hampshire ~ phase of 13 the case that it was reserving jurisdiction over a' portion
[ ) 14 of the commuter issue.- We tried to resolve this with ;
\s / 15 affidavits. And without trying to characterize anybody's i
l 16 case, basically our case was this is not worth doing. It's 17 not been done before. It's an awfully troublesome and hard 18 thing to do, et cetera, et cetera.
. 19 And I understand that rule that it was unable to 20 resolve the question on the affidavits as such.
21 What we did then and what is the result.that you l
22 see in front of you, and perhaps more verbose than it has to j 23 be, but nevertheless is we worked with the model to try to 24 do what the Board had indicated. You know, model this 25 thing.
-~s ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
~
(202) 628-4888 )
26148 1 I don't know why anybody is surprised that they 2 aren't getting I-DYNEV as such back again, because that was 3 the problem they generated. They said I-DYNEV does not 4 model these commuters and that's a problem.
5 So Lieberman has done the best he can to tailor 6 I-DYNEV, to do things that he thinks will correctly'model .
7 the commuters. And the bottom line of this piece of 8 testimony is it adds five minutes to the ETE or something 9 like that. It's no problem. I thought this is what the 10 Board desired to have done.
11 What I didn't expect was that, having done all 12 this, we're now faced with the position of the Attorney 13 General, which is, now we've got to have a lot of time to 14 look over what was done to the model in order to accommodate 15 this, and we can't do anything before July 7th, so I guess 16 we are into hearings in the middle of July on this subject l i
17 for cross-examination and so forth. )
i 18 If the Attorney General is right that the Board 19 didn't want this piece of testimony, please so advise me. I ,
20 will pull it post haste. I am certainly not trying to force 21 it on anybody.
22 My understanding is that the Board was unable to 23 accept the affidavits as such and we --
24 JUDGE SMITH: We had flat out factual disputes 25 that I didn't think we could resolve --
Heritage . Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 '
26149 yS 1 MR. DIGNAN: Right, right.
( )
N' 2 JUDGE SMITH: -- on the affidavits.
3 MR. DIGNAN: And the only thing I could add to our 4 position, at least in my intuitive mind, was to ask 5 Lieberman to do what he could with I-DYNEV, to model the
. 6 thing and come up with some sensitivity runs which would in 1
7 effect do the best he could at modeling the commuters.
8 The Applicants' position has remained consistent.
9 It's true I-DYNEV did not have it. We don't believe it's .
10 necessary. We don't believe it's cost-efficient to do it. j t
I 11 But on the other hand, this is what it was.
12 So it seems to me responded --
13 JUDGE SMITH: But has it been done now?
[\_s/'} 14 MR. DIGNAN:_ Yes. In other words, what he has j 15 done is he has nos made some changes in I-DYNEV in order to 16 a'ccomplish what the Board was wondering if he could.
17 I mean when you read the whole piece, you will say 18 he still sticks to the position that this is probably not an
. 19 effort that pays back for itself very well. But he's 20 taken --
21 JUDGE SMITH: But it's been done now.
22 MR. FIERCE: It's a sensitivity run.
23 MR. DIGNAN: Sensitivity runs have been made. In 24 other words, it's not a model of the whole thing.
25 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m l
26150 l 1 MR. DIGNAN: He's taken certain of the choke 2 points, run them to demonstrate to you that if this -- and 3 the argument basically, obviously, if this didn't have any 4 major effect, a full modeling would not. It's that 5 approach.
6 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think we said anything -- .
7 well, you may have offered the full modeling, but I don't 8 think --
9 JUDGE COLE: I believe as I recall the 10 questioning, I asked Mr. Lieberman if he could do a 11 sensitivity run and not model the whole thing.
12 MR. DIGNAN: That's right.
13 JUDGE COLE: And I think he says that's what I 14 would do. , l
.I 15 MR. DIGNAN: That's right.
~
16 JUDGE COLE: So I think that's what we expected, I 17 I think. .
i 18 MR. DIGNAN: And that's what has been done. l 19 MR. FIERCE: Well, I have reviewed the transcript ,
i 20 and if that's what you expected. j
~
21 Again, it looked to me like Judge Smith anyway was 22 anticipating that the two witnesses would be put on the 23 witness stand with their affidavits and be cross-examined in 24 an attempt to resolve it in the nonmal course.
25 I know there were various questions: could this be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9l' I
d i
, .i
- 26151
, .1 done, could that be done. The only thing that I saw'from 2' that discussion in the transcript that in fact would be done-3 was that the Applicants made ta commitment to take the Cole j 4 data and to try to do a run which they said theyjwould do
. . 1 5 and they didn't believe it would satisfy the Mass AG. But j
. 6 we went to the trouble of getting some of the: Cole data to 7 them, and we thought that they were going t'> be doing some i 8 runs.
9 But other than that, we were prepared to go ahead 10 with the cross-examination this week based on those.
11 affidavits. Now I'm presented with what my expert called a 12 " brick" was dropped on us last week. q l'
13 .I said throughout that discussion on May 15th that 14 whatever was done,r I. wanted to have an. opportunity to review 15 and to perhaps rebut. And what I recall being told at that 16 point is that what the Applicants were doing at that point 17 wasn't going to affect the hearing schedule. So I subsided.
18 I thought we were prepared to go ahead and cross-
. 19 examine on the two pieces that had been filed in January.
20 This is a very last minute effort to try to bolster that 21 position that they had at that point in time, and I'm 22 screaming prejudice.
23 I cannot meaningfully crose-examine that piece of 24 testimony this week. I'need some time to have my oxpert 25 assess it. And my expert needs the model that was used to I
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) '628-4888
- - - - - . - _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _z__--... - . _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ . - -
i 1
26152 i
- 1 run it. He's looking right now at a series of numbers, l 2 link / nodes 302 to 407, and they have no meaning to him. He 3 doesn't even know what they are associated with.
4 We have got to see how it was modeled. As I )
~
5 indicated before, the issue is, is it going to be modeled in l 1
6 a fair-minded way. Dr. Adler already has suspicions & bout . j i
7 that and he wants to.be able to explore them. I can't even i I
\
\
8 cross-examine the panel. j l
l 9 So if there is going to be a delay, this is not my )
i 10 fault. I l
11 This is all testimony, by the way, which didn't l 12 need to be filed last week. It could have been filed in l 13 January, on January 25th. Virtually nothing in there is a 14 direct rebuttal to what Dr. Adler is anying. It's a 15 sensitivity study.
~
16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, if it could have been filed on l l
17 January 25th, then why are you saying that -- I don't 18 understand your point.
19 How do you know it could have been filed on .
20 January 25th?
21 MR. FIERCE: Because all of the information i
22 contained in there was certainly available to them back I
23 then.
24 JUDGE SMITH: So then you shouldn't be surprised l
25 either then.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888-1
26153 It was available to you?
9 1 2 MR. FIERCE: Am I surprised that they put -- I 3 don't know what it is yet. I don't know how they put the 4 data together to come to this conclusion. And that's all I 3 want to know.
. 6 JUDGE SMITH: We will just have to read your 7 motion, understand it better.
8 Anything further?
9 MR.' FIERCE: I think we should just briefly review 10 the schedule for today.
11 We have Dr. Harris who is here now, and we are 12 prepared to proceed with him.
13 We have a motion in limine pending on Dr. Adler's 14 traffic guide training piece which will need to be argued 15 before Dr. Adler this afternoon, later this afternoon
~
16 testifies on that piece.
17 So I guess my suggestion would be let's proceed 18 with Dr. Harris, finish him up, and then get him out of here j
. 19 so we don't have to force him to listen to our Adler 1
20 arguments, and then have that argument and then present Dr.
21 Adler.
22 Is that satisfactory? I 23 MR. SMITH: That's fine.
24 MR. FIERCE: Okay.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i HARRIS - DIRECT 26154 1 Whereupon, l 1
2 HOWARD HARRIS j l
3 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein 4 and was examined and testified as follows:
. i 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. FIERCE: .
7 Q Would you please state your full name and address 8 for the record?
9 A (Harris) My full name is Howard Lee Harris. And l
10 my address is 2951 Espana Court, Fairfax, Virginia.
11 Q Dr. Harris, I have placed before you a document 12 which is entitled " Testimony of Dr. Howard Harris on behalf 13 of James M. Shannon, Attorney General for the commonwealth ;
14 of Massachusetts conc.erning J1-13 and MAG EX-11 (Training).
15 Do you have that document before you?
~
16 A (Harris) Yes, I do.
17 Q Do you recognize that document?
18 A (Harris) Yes, I do.
19 Q Is that the testimony which you have prepared for 20 this proceeding and wish to offer today?
b .
21 A (Harris) It is.
22 Q Have you had an opportunity to review that 23 testimony to see if there are any corrections you would wish 24 to make to it?
25 A (Harris) Yes, I'have.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i
l l
HARRIS - DIRECT 26155 1 Q Are there any corrections?
1 2 A (Harris) The only correction, which is a typing 3 mistake that I found, was on page 6, I believe. The next to !
l 4 the last line, "However, in doing this evalucation". That 5 is the only error that I --
. 6 Q The word " evaluation" is misspelled.
7 A (Harris) Correct.
8 Q Apart from that correction, is this the testimony 9 that you would like to offer at this time?
10 A (Harris) It is.
11 Q And the testimony is true and correct today to the 12 best of your knowledge and belieft 13 A (Harris) It is.
14 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, at this time I would like 15 to offer into evidence and ask that it be bound into the 16 r'ecord, the testimony of Dr. Howard Enrris on behalf of 17 James M. Shannon, and the attachment to that document which 18 is Dr. Harris' resume, Attachment 1. I i
. 19 MR. SMITH: No objection, Your Honor.
20 JUDGE SMITH: The testimony and the' attachment is 21 received.
l 22 MR. FIERCE: Is there anybody who needs a copy of 23 the testimony?
24 (No response.)
25 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
HARRIS - DIRECT 26156 1 (The Testimony of Dr. Howard 2 Harrison on Behalf of James 3 M. Shannon, Attornay General 4 For the Commonwealth of
~
5 Massachusetts, concerning 6 JI-13 and MAG EX-11 .
7 (Training) and Attachment 8 1 (resume) follows:)
9 10 11 12 13 15
~
16 17 18 19 ,
4 20 21 22 i 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
l
4 i
\
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
Before the Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F.-Cole Kenneth A. McCollom I )
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 10, 1989
)
l[ TESTIMONY OF DR. HOWARD HARRIS ON
\ BEHALF OF JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING
_ JI-13 AND MAG EI-11 (TRAINING)
Department of the Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Public Protection Bureau
- One A,shburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2200
,'(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges: .
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole -
Kenneth A. McCollom l
)
l In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 10, 1989
)
TESTIMONY,OF DR. HOWARD HARRIS ON BEHALF OF JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING JI-13 AND MAG EX-ll (TRAINING)
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMOfW In this testimony, Dr. Howard Harris, an expert in the l field of curricular and instructional design, development, and implemer.tation, as well as the evaluation of training, offers his assessment of the overall design of the SPMC's training for protective action decision-making, traffic and access control, j
and EBS message drafting. In his opinion, the design of this training is fragmented structurally. The available training *l design documents which pertain to these tasks do not provide reasonable assurance of linkages between the needs of trainees, '
4 the information transmitted in the classroom, the drill and
exercise activities, and the tasks to be performed in a real emergency. In addition, the classroom testing program is not adequate to provide reasonable assurance of actual learning.
He concludes that the SPMC's training for these three tasks is
. inadequate and needs to be redesigned and that, after that redesign occurs and further training is conducted, the extent -
of learning needs to be tested through another exercise which requires those performing these tasks to demonstrate and apply the knowledge learned.
TESTIMONY Q.l. What is your name and current position?
A.l. My name is Howard Harris and I am the Executive Vice President of the Corporate Response Group, 1146 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500; Washington, DC 20036.
~
Q.2. Is a copy of'your resume attached to your testimony as Attachment "A"?
A.2. Yes.
Q.3. Would you please summarize your relevant professional qualifications and background?
A.3. Certainly. I have more than 22 years experience in management, training, and education. I completed my doctoral program in education at the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at Teachers College, Columbia University (1974). In the last 22 years, I have acquired extensive theoretical and practical experience in curricular and instructional design, .
development, and implementation, as well as the evaluation of training and educational programs at all levels.
6 have spent a significant amount of time working in the emergency Since 1982, I management training field. Presently, I am responsible for the
l design, development, delivery, and evaluation of all training i
and education programs at the Corporate Response Group '
j
("CRG"). CRG specializes in worlwide crisis management services that include: risk management, contingency planning, plant and personal security, employee' relocation and -
1 evacuation, crisis communications, facility recovery and l relocation, anu training and exercising.
In 1982, I became the project director for the l 1 l Federal Emergency Management Agency's professional development l \
curriculum project at the National Emertr7cy Training Center
("NETC") in Emmitsburg, Maryland. While there, my activities included line responsibility for the design, development, pilot testing, and evaluation of NETC's core curriculums This contract covered a four-year period and included numerous 1
course presentations and emergency planning conferences throughout the United States. These experiences provided me I
with an extensive knowledge of the training needs of emergency service personnel.
Over the years, I have served as a consultant on many projects and have worked in a variety of adult training and education settings. For example, I was Deputy Director of -
the National Academy in the public Service at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. In addition, I conducted teacher 1
education programs at pace University, Fordham University, and Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. Finally,
- I have worked in the Ohio and New York'public school systems as an administrator, supervisor, and teacher.
i Q.4. What is the purpose of this testimony?
(~
s A.4. In this testimony I will address aspects of JI Contention 13, which asserts that the prerequisite experience for and the training provided to the NHY-ORO Traffic Guides,
. the EBS message drafters, protective action decision-makers, i and bus drivers are inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that the ORO can and will implement adequate protective l
measures in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook l
Station. Specifically, I have assessed the overall design of
)
the SpMC's training for Traffic Guides, the EBS message drafters, and protective action decision-makers. (I have not l examined the bus driver training.) To the extent that MAG Ex-ll also raises a challenge to the adequacy of training for protective actidn decision-makers, this testimony is relevant I
~
to that Exercise Content' ion as well. I want to emphasize that ;
my t,estimony addresses the overall training design and not training content. I understand that the Massachusetts Attorney General is presenting three other witnesses, each of whom has substantive expertise in one of these three fields, who are critical of the content of the training for thess ORO positions
, and claim generully that the content is inadequate given the minimal prerequisite experience that those recruited for these i
positions must have.
Q.5. What materials have your reviewed in order to assess j the overall design of the SpMC's training for the three ORO
- functions you mentioned? l l
g -
1 j
i i
I
\
A.S. Specifically, I focused on the training design of I three sets of training materials that were prepared for those l who are to implement the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts l l Communities ("SPMC"). The materials reviewed were: Traffic- j and Access Control, Eublic Information, and Protective Action . j Decisions. I also reviewed a number of other documents that were made available to me through the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. They included regulatory items, the SPMC, i other SPMC instructional materials, and the deposition of Donald R. Tailleart. He was the Manager of Specialty Training at liew Hampshire Yankee and has signed off as Training Manager on many of the SPMC's training modules. I was told that he was the person the Applicants offered when the Massachusetts Attorney General cought to depose the person most knowledgeable (
about the SPMC's trai~ning program.
Q.6. What did you do next, after reviewing these materials?
l j A.6. After completing an initial review of these I
documents, I concluded that the SPMC training requirements established the need for meaningful verbal learning situations-- ~
which means the basic method of instruction is lecture and discussion. To have meaningful verbal learning situations, a training program needs to be designed from start to finish to reflect the intent of the training and what is known about how we learn. Learning is the desired outcome c any training and .
education program. I then sought to determine if the training ,
for these positions met this requirement.
p-~ Q.7. How did you conduct this evaluation?'
k A.7. Three SPMC-related documents were used as the basis for evaluating the training packages referenced above.
Together they describe the SPMC's training intent and methodology. They were: SPMC, Part 6; SPMC, Appendix K; and
~
Mr. Tailleart's deposition of November.10, 1988. SPMC, Part 6 includes the NHY-ORO training matrix, which describes the training modules provided to each of the NHY ORO positions.
SPMC, Appendix K, outlines the requirements for materials development, classroom instruction, tabletops, walkthroughs, drills, and testing. Mr. Tailleart's deposition (p.68) identifies the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
- Training System Development process ("TSD") as the design criteria.for the development'of the SPMC training materials. SPMC, Appendix
'O K, also identifies TSD as'the development methodology (p.
K-9).. It is my opinion that Appendiz K establishes a training program that is based on verbal learning. A training methodology like the TSD approach still needs to take into consideration the trainees' experience to determine the best way to facilitate the learning and evaluation process.
l- Therefore, using these documents as my guide to what the training intent and desian criteria were, I evaluated the three SPMC- training modules--Traf fic E Access Control, Public Information, and Protective, Action Decisions-- from the TSD perspective as described by Mr. Tai 11eart (pp.69-78) to see if the training which was prepared met those intentions and design criteria. However, in doing this evalucation, I have placed TSD within a broader conceptual framework based on the i _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Learning is the mental act of understanding new material in the context of how it relates to or modifies the trainees' pre-training knowledge and experience Q.8. Do you know which positions in the NHY-ORO take the ,
three modules you have just mentioned, and are you familiar with the prerequisite experience tad qualifications the SPMC requies for each of these positions?
A.8. Yes. According to the SPMC, there is no prerequisite experience required for training and qualification as a Traffic Guide. SPMC, S2.1.1, p.2.1-28. The Public Notification Coordinator, who is responsible for the development of EBS messages and the timely and coordinated activation of the public alert and notification system, is required to have only " experience in public information." Id.
at 2.1-13.
There are about six ORO positions which comprise the group which engages in protective action decision-making.
There is, first, the ORO Director. The prerequisite experience for this position is " experience as a Vice President or Director." Id at 2.1-3. Next, there are the two Assistant Directors (one for Response Implementation and one for Support ,
Liaison). The prerequisite experience for these positions is
" experience as a Director or Manager." Id at 2.1-5. Then there is the Radiological Health Advisor, the person in the ORO who is responsible for providing direction and control to the .
ORO radiological assessment staff and exposure control l
personnel. The prerequisite experience for this position are U_-____-___-__-_-_ . .
i i
" experience as a Radiological Department Manager." Id at i
i 2.1-6. Next is the Technical Advisor, the person in the ORO who is responsible for interpreting plant operational
)
conditions during an emergency. The prerequisite experience for this position is "[k]nowledge of piant operations and ;
systems." Idm at 2.1-5. Finally, there is the Public Notification Coordinator, whose prerequisite experienced I noted above.
Q.9. Should those designing a training program for these three task's take the prerequisite experience into account and, I if so, ho*? j A.9. Yes. The focus of any trairing needs to be on the difference between what the trainea knows and what the task requires. Obviously, with this kind of generally described
/ -s j km ,/ prerequisite experie5ce, one cannot assume that all trainees bring significant relevant experience to-the training for these three specific tasks.
While attendance pre-supposes a desire on the part of trainees to relate new knowledge to what they already know, i the training materials need to be designed in a way that !
facilitates this mental process through verbal interchange and 1
various activities. I believe the TSD approach is compatible
{
with the role that learning theory plays in any training design.
Q.10. Is there a psychological learning theory or model I that you applied in doing your assessment? "'
A.10. Yes. It is a theoretical model called the psycology of meaningful verbal learning. It is a model which is based on
\
learning research. The basis for the psychology of meaningful
-82
verbal learning is as follows: The more complex and extensive a body of knowledge, the more difficult it will be to learn.
But, with careful design of the scope and sequence of material, moving from general information (i.e., facts and concepts) to specific issues (i.e., problems and conclusions) difficult -
learning tasks can be made manageable. This approach recognizes at each step that potentially meaningful material is always learned in relation to the relevant concepts, principles and information presented earlier in the training. Thus new l
l information is acquired through presentation, repetition, review, reinforcement and directness. During the course of repeated exposure--with feedback--to new concepts and ideas and information, trainees will learn new concepts and skills and relate them to their background by seeing, hearing, writing,
~
and actually practicing the new concepts and skills. As a result, training evaluation procedures can be designed that l will aid in refining the training materials, as well as provide feedback that identifies the trainees' strengths and weaknesses. These learning related concerns are consistent with the TSD concepts that were used in the SpMC training requirements as, outlined in Appendix K. -
Q.ll. What is the Training Systems Design, or TSD, process?
A.ll. As described by Mr. Tailleart, TSD is a five-step I training design process. The steps are: analysks, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The process is a
- 1 straightforward and systematic approach to designing training that emphasizes learning from the standpoint of terminal and enabling objectives. This approach was, apparently, used by l
the SpMC training groups in designing the materials for the (D three training modules that I reviewed--Traffic & Access
\ j/
Control, Public Information, and Protective Action Decisions.
l Q.12. Have you assessed the SpMC's training for the three
- tasks you described with respect to this TSD process?
A.12. Yes. I would like to explain my findings by taking -
the TSD steps one at a time. j ANALYSIS l
Analysis is the first TSD phase. One needs to take the jobs which you seek to have the trainees perform and break them down into their component parts. Although Mr. Tailleart referred to a " paper" job analysis in his deposition, I found j no other references to a NHY-ORO job analysis in the materials
,, that I reviewed; nor did I find any references to needs or task
( ,) analysis. More importan'tly, I found no references to any analysis of the trainees' experience or their training needs.
In other words, I found no indication that the trainees' pre-training knowledge about the job requirements were ever determined. This is an important fact when you consider that the trainees were not professional public safety personnel.
Unless a thorough and complete job analysis has been conducted l
for each of these three SpMC tasks, and the trainees' experience and needs have been analyzed, there can be no reasonable assurance that the training is adequate.
DESIGN =>
In this phase, an overall instructional plan is to .
7 be developed. However,,I found no references to any overall i
instructional plan in any of the SpMC-related training l l
l l
l
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _a
i documents that I reviewed. This could mean that no overall instructional plan existed to describe how the modules will be
{
developed, implemented, or evaluated, or how all key information presented in the classroom will be specifically reinforced through walkthroughs, drills, and exercises. It .
l should be noted that SpMC, part 6, and Appendix K, explain the
]
training requirements, not the specifics of how they will be completed. A training design document of this type is j l
considered to be standard procedure in the training and i education field. TSD seems to reinforce this position by i emphasizing design after analysis. If the analysis reflects the trainees' needs, the training design should reflect how the needs will be met. As a result, learning theory is critical to 1
meeting the trainees' needs. Since there is, apparently, no i l
overall instructional' pl'an, there is no way to determine if, and no reasonable assurance that, both the the training requirements and learning requirement are being taken into j consideration at each step in the SpMC training for these three tasks.
1
~
DEVELOPMENT I concluded from Mr. Tailleart's deposition that the .
SpMC's lesson plans developed during this phase were developed to address certain terminal and enabling objectives which were derived from the " paper" job analysis that Mr. Tailleart ;
described. In the instructor guides, the objectives are stated '
first, followed by references, then a list of .
materials / equi,pment, and finally a content presentation outline that explains what teaching points to make with each of the
-11'-
transparencies that comprise the student handout. This is f\
( ,/ clearly a verbal learning situation. However, I did not find l
any information that addressed the trainees' needs in a verbal learning environment. The student handouts contain the objectives and paper copies of the overhead transparencies, indicating clearly that the training approach being used here *I is strictly short term recall. Neither the instructor guides nor the student handouts are designed to facilitate meaningful l
verbal learning within the context described above. There is no design that moves from general to specific, nor is there I
consistent repetition, review, reinforcement, or concept j consolidation outlined in the instructor guides.
IMPLEMENTATION
/-~
Except for the training matrices in SPMC, part 6,
{
k _)N
~
s and the description of the overall training components in Appe,,ndix K, I found no information describing the instructional 4
linkages that take the information presented during classroom instruction and apply the information in tabletops, walkthroughs, drills, or exercises. There is no reasonable assurance, therefore, that such linkages exist. In addition,
. Appendix K does mention instructor skills development, but the emphasis is on guidelines and policies, not learning theory or specific instructional methodology. Verbal learning depends on the instructor. Consequently, instructor training is a critical part of any training program. I found no information
- that woulG 1ead me to believe that an adequate
[) train-the-trainer program exists. .
(_,/ __ - - ____ - _
EVALUATION This phase is critical to ensure that learning has occurred and that feedback can be incorporated into the instructional planning process. Appendix K describes the testing requirements. As to the SPMC's testing procedures, -
remedial training is supposed to be scheduled for trainees who receive less than 80% on a test. The test cover sheets present the general examination instructions. However, Mr. Tailleart states in his deposition that the tests at the end of the training sessions are open book. An open book test distorts the value of the test data. No o.ther follow-up testing progam appears to exist to determine the retention rate for the recall materials presented during the training sessions. Such a testing program offers no way to determine if, and no reasonable assurance 'tha't, the new information was actually lear,ned or just copied from the handout and other reference material.
Q.13. What are your overall conclusions about the design of the SpMC's training for these positions?
A.13. My overall conclusion is that the training program related to the three modules that I reviewed is fragmented and .
therefore offers no reasonable assurance that it is adequate.
There is no reasonable assurance that the three modules were designed and developed from the standpoint of the trainees
- needs. There is also no reasonable assurance that there are
- exact instructional linkages between classroom instruction, drills, walkthroughs, tabletops, and'exerc.ises for the three tasks I have reviewed.
l l
,-m A training design document is critical to the I
(, success of any training program, and one doesn't seem to exist for this program.
The testing program does not provide an accurate representation of what is being learned. There is no reasonable assurance that the psychology of meaningful verbal learning was ever taken into consideration in the development l of these modules. Nor is there reasonable assurance of any instructional link between classroom instruction and specific drill and exercise activities. All of these items are critical l
to an evaluation program.
Learning theory has to be a critical element of a training program if trainee learning is to be taken seriously.
In my judgment,*the three training modules are fragmented 7-s
( ~
\ structurally. There are no linkages between information and application. The most critical question to ask is whether this information was in any way applied during the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) exercise? There is no reasonable -
assurance that it was. In my opinion, the SpMC's training for these three tasks is inadequate and needs to be redesigned.
Then, after the, training is redesigned, and it is provided to-the relevant ORO members, the extent of their learning needs to be tested through another exercise which requires those who perform these tasks to demonstrate and apply the knowledge learned. '
/~' 1420n 1 s_ .
j ATTACH GHT 1 i
nowARD RARRIS CORPORATE RESPONSE GROUP ]
1146 19th 8t., N.W., Suite 500 i Washington, D.C. 20036 ,
(202) 775-0177 ]
EIIICATION I i
Ed.D., Supervision and Leadership, columbia University,'1975 -
Ed.M., Supervision and Leadership, Columbia University, 1974 M.A., Educational Administration, University of Akron, 1969 A.B., History and speech, West Liberty State College, 1964 i
I AREAS OF EXPEltrISE l o Administration o Training o Project management o Marketing o Emergency management o Media relations o curr:.culum development o Policy analysis )
o Instructional design a Research '
o Organizational development o Applied learning technology EXPERIENCE BrEGEARY -
More than 22 years of experience in management, training and education, community relations, development of public policy, and local government. Adept at working with elected and appointed officials, executives, managers, and content and technical experts in diverse situations. Extensive experience.in public speaking settings.
and facilitating large and small groups in a variety of SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE Executive Vice President, Corporate Response Group. Executive !
responsibility for administration, marketing, and training and education programs. Corporate activities include assisting private and public sector organizations in preventing, preparing fer, managing, and recovering from crisis situations. Areas of expertise includes risk analysis, contingency planning governmentaffairs,mediarelations,plantandpersona$. security, employee relocation and evacuation, emergency medical evacuation, .I crisis communications, facility recovery and relocation, negotiation and litigation support, and, training and exercising.
client projects have included: emergency preparedness audit for a '
major oil company, internal and external communications audit for the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and design and development of training and course materials for the U.S. Department of State's Senior Crisis Management course.
l Howard Harris Page 2 i SPECIFIC EXHRIEMcE fcontinued)
. Division Vice President; IME systems Corporatient Communication, l Management and Training Division. Executive responsibility for l directing all division activities within a $6 million ,
. corporation. Corporate activities included: marketing, contracting, budgeting, recruiting, wage and salary, and employee ,
i relations. Client activities included such projects as dynamic simulation for the U.s. Air Force, crisis management for the l American Public Works Association, and leadership training for l the Division of Transit services, Montgomery County, Maryland.
I Participated in development and delivery of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Effective Management.
Training Program. Conducted a series of Public Policy in Emergency Management seminars in cooperation with numerous institutions and organizations, including o School of Administration, University of Southern California; o School of Justice, University of Alaska; O o Carl Vinson Institute og Government, University of Georgia; o John F. Kennedy school of Government, Harvard University;
- o L.P. Cookingham Institute of Public Affairs, University of Missouri; o Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas; o National Association of Counties; l o and the International City Management Association.
l' Managed and conducted amergency management courses and conferences in all 10 federal regions and Puerto Rico. Managed
. the delivery of supervisory and emergency management training programs in numerous states including: Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota and Cregon, and the District of Columbia. Served as 1 projectdirectorfortheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency's professional development curriculum project at the National Emergency Training Center (NETC). Served as senior associate faculty member at NETC's Senior Executive Policy Center.
-- N Designed, devoleped, pilot tested, and conducted NETC's
_ . - Formulating Public policy in numwwanev Manar t course. ='
Designed, developed, and conducted portions of NETC's Intag3ated Emercancy Mannaement course dealing with public policy and media )
relations. Conducted Public Policy in Emergency Management presentations for senior-level cabinet ministers from Costa Rica O and senior staff' members of the Egyptian Army. '
e Howard Harris (Page 3)
SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE fcontinued)
Deputy Director, National Academy in The Public Service,
- Georgetown University Graduate school. Designed, developed, conducted, svaluated, and marketed a nationwide training and-l consulting program to improve state and local government by -
responding to the needs of citizen politicians--those holding ,
i 41ective or appointive office while still maintaining full-time I private careers independent of their community leadership roles. ]
Materials and services increased citizen awareness of the i importance of citizen politics as a critical part of the !
democratic process within the federal system and encouraged I greater citisen participation in community decisionsaking. 1 served as managing editor of a series of publications on state- 1 and local government that included: Education for community j Madarahin, Financing 1 meal Gavarnment. Improvine Mananarial l Skilla in Leem1 Gevau =-mt, Indiana state Government. M Eeena=4e Diannine and Manma*= ant, T^aml Gavare==nt Ramannti ner, Local Government Budget Preparation. f^a=1 Gavarn= ant Productivity, Dublie and Media maintiene in faa=1 cavare= ant, and Understanding Fadaral lasistanem Prearm==.
~
~
Consulting Experience. Designed, developed, and conducted l management- and economic-related training seminars for The j communications Workers of America. Served as a staff member of The Communications Workers of America Annual Leadership School at Pennsylvania State University. Completed a personal and family financial planning project in teacher education for the American Council of Life Insurance. Designed a series of energy l assistance training seminars for minority elected officials at the center for Urban Environmental studies. Designed and -
developed career education programs for the New York State Department of Education. Designed and developed a career education performance-based teacher education program for -
Marymount Manhattan College. Completed a nationwide survey of nonprofit management training programs for the United Way of America.
Additional Higher Education Experianos: Paes University, Fordham University, and Brooklyn College of the city University of New York. Served as administrative assistant to the dean. Taught courses related to history, philosophy, sociology, research, -
supervision, leadership, curriculum development, and instructional desi Designed a competency-based teacher education program.gn. Supervised teacher education programs in the New York City public schools.
q l
Novard Harris (Page 4)
Public Education Experiences chio and New York. Served as administrative assistant to the superintendent. Directed ,
. activities related to all aspects of school system management. j served as media relations director. Hosted a monthly educational !
television program. Managed campaigns to obtain voter approval -!
. of operating levies and' bond issues. served as a program i director and department chairman. Served as supervisor of curriculum and in truction. Participated in adult and community education programs. Taught American Government and American History.
Other Experience. Served on numerous community boards and committees over a 22-year period. Served in the U.S. Navy.
Member of Phi Delta Kappa, Columbia University chapter, and the American Defense Preparedness Association.
=
W 9
0 e
I -
HARRIS - CROSS 26157 1 MR. FIERCE: At this time we would turn the !
I 2 witness over for cross-examination, Your Honor.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. SMITH: ;
5 Q Good afternoon, Dr. Harris.
6 My name is Jay Smith, and I am one of the .
l 7 attorneys for the Applicants in this proceeding.
8 Dr. Harris, I notice on your resume, which is i
9 attached to your testimony, that there are no dates 10 indicating what time period that you held the various 11 positions listed under specific experience.
l 12 What I would like to do is just go through from )
13 the time you graduated from Teacher's College in 1975.
14 A (Harris).
~
Certainly.
15 0 And just fill in those dates.
16 After 1975, what was your first job, if you will?
{
17 A (Harris) Well, I worked in 1975, 1976, both, I 18 worked at City University of New York. Also, during 1976, I 19 worked at the Rockland County Board of Cooperation .
l 20 Educational Services in West Nyack, New York, as part of a 21 project in career education for the New York State l 22 Department of Education.
l 23 At that point did you then become deputy director 24 of the National Academy in the public service at Georgetown 25 University?
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26158
[ 1 A (Harris) Right. In 1977, I moved from New York And from 1977 until actually the 2 City to Washington, D.C.
3 early spring of '82, actually up until the last day of March 4 1982, I was still at the academy, yes.
5 Q And at that point, in 1982, is when you first 6 joined IMR?
7 A (Harris) That is correct.
8 Q
- What was your first position at IMR?
9 A (Harris) My first position at IMR was to develop 10 a course in public policy for public officials.
11 Q Did that job have a title?
12 A (Harris) I suppose. I don't exactly recall what i
13 the titles were other than course developer.
14 Q When did you become division vice president?
15 A (Harris) That became effective in the summer of 16 1984.
l 17 Q What were your responsibilities in that position? J 18 A (Harris) I had responsibilities for marketing and 19 continuing to manage some of the projects that the division 20 had.
21 And then in the summer of 1985, I became 22 responsible for the division.
23 Q Excuse me. I didn't hear that last.
24 A (Harris) In the summer of 1985, I became 25 responsible for the division.
Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4688 I
s l
HARRIS - CROSS 26159 1 Q In your position as divisional vice president, did :
1 1
2 you have anything to do with the submission of vouchers or i 3 billing to FEMA?
4 A (Harris) I hand-carried them to FEMA, yes.
5 Q Excuse me. I didn't hear the last -- 1 6 A (Harris) Well, I would deliver them if they were .
7 prepared by the administrative group at the division. Then i
8 I would deliver them to the appropriate officials at FEMA, )
l I
9 yes. I 10 0 Did you review them at all?
11 A (Harris) I always did.
12 O Your resume states that you conducted a series of 13 public policy and emergency seminars in cooperation with 14 numerous instituti.ons. and organizations.
15 Is that correct?
~
16 A (Harris) That is correct.
17 Q One of those organizations was the John F. Kennedy 18 School of Government at Harvard University.
19 Is that correct? .)
20 A (Harris) Right. 1 21 Q When was that seminar offerad? ,
i 22 A (Harris) It would have been in the summer of 23 1983.
24 Q And that was the only time the seminar was offered
- l
! 25 at Harvard?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l HARRIS - CROSS 26160 1 A (Harris) Yes.
l 2 Q You didn't actually conduct that course did you?
3 A (Harris) I did not participate in that one. I 4 arranged it, There were several on that list. Possibly 5 maybe one other I did not participate in directly. I would
. 6 have to go down the list. But I was responsible for 7 arranging them.
8 Q Right.
l 9 Your resume also states that you managed and l l
10 conducted emergency management courses and conferences in j 11 all 10 federal regions and Puerto Rico.
12 Is that correct?
13 A (Harris) Involved in the management of it, yes, j
[
\
14 Q Managing and conducted I guess is what --
l 15 A (Harris) Participation in many of them, yes, l 16 direct participation.
17 Q You didn't do any training when you went to Puerto 18 Rico, did you?
. 19 A (Harris'y Me r I did not.
20 Q Your position at that point was you introduced the 21 speakers would be --
02 A (Harris) I possibly did. I don't remember.
23 Q Your resume states that you managed the delivery 24 of supervisory and emergency management training programs ir 25 numerous states, including Delaware, Iowa, Maryland,
('- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l HARRIS - CROSS 26161 1 Minnesota, Oregon and the District of Columbia. l 2 Is that correct? I 3 A (Harris) That's correct.
4 Q In Delaware, you taught a one-hour block of a 5 program which lasted about four and a half days.
I 6 Is that correct? .
7 A (Harris) Oh, an hour or so probably. I was there 8 the entire four and a half days, but, yes.
9 Q That was the portion that you conducted - you !
I 10 taught? ]
11 A (Harris)' Yes.
12 Q In the District of Columbia, you also taught a 13 one-hour segment as well? l 1
14 A (Harris). Or more.
15 There were several courses that were offered that l 16 dummer.
17 Q In the District of Columbia?
18 A (Harris) Yes.
19 Q But each time the course was offered you had a .
20 one-hour segment of that course, more or less?
21 A (Harris) Could have been more. Could have been 22 less.
23 Q Your resume also states that you served as a 24 project director for the Federal Emergency Management 25 Agency's Professional Development Curriculum Project at the Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l .
HARRIS - CROSS 26162 1 National Emergency Training Center.
2 Is that correct?
3 ,
A (Harris) That's correct.
4 Q That project resulted in a series of course known 5 as the Professional Development Series.
. 6 Is that correct?
7 A (Harris) That's correct.
8 Q And we understand there is an introductory course, 9 there's a basic skills course which has several components 10 to it. I guess one is leadership and team building, 11 communications, decisionmaking, and there is a third course 12 called -- it's an emergency planning course.
13 A (Harris) That's correct.
14 Q Does the emergency planning course of this 15 Professional Development Series have any prerequisites?.
~
16 A (Harris) There were a series of prerequisites set 17 up or preferences as to what one should take before they 18 take the emergency planning course, yes.
. 19 Q They were preferences? They weren't actually 20 requirements that you had to take? For example, the 21 introductory course before you took the --
22 A (Harris) As I recall, they were recommendations.
23 FEMA may have at that point moved on to require them. I 24 don't recall.
25 The idea behind it was to take the introduction Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26163 1 course first, and then you would move into some of the other 2 areas.
3 The issue came up, however, what about individuals 4 who are more experienced: do they need to take the 5 introduction course, can they skip that, can they move to 6 another one. And they were constantly being asked those .
7 questions. And as best I recall, they tried to resolve it 8 by making certain recommendations about the curriculum and 9 when it should be taken, who should take it and at what l
10 time.
l 11 Q Right. But they never actually said that you must 12 take the introductory course, as far as you know?
13 A (Harris) A blanket "you take it", no, I don't --
14 Q We 1.1, in order to take this course, in order to 15 take the more advanced course.
16 A (Harris) For some people, I would say yes.
17 0 ,
That there was actually a requirement or --
18 A (Harris) They suggested it.
19 Q Okay, but -- ,
20 A (Harris) At some point they may have made it a 21 requirement.
22 Q Your resume states that you designed, developed, 23 pilot tested and conducted NETC's " Formulating Public Policy 24 in Emergency Management Course".
25 Is that correct?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26164 1 A (Harris) That's correct.
2 Q In preparing -- excuse me.
3 A (Harris) I was just going to say that was the 4 original project that I worked on when I first came to IMR.
5 Q Then that would have been in 19827 .
. 6 A (Harris) Beginning the last day _of March 1982, 7 correct?
8 Q More or less.
9 A (Harris) Correct.
10 Q In~ preparing to develop that course, you did not 11 perform a task analysis, did you?
12 A (Harris) I did not perform a task analysis 13 similar to the ones that they used in the other courses. I 14 did.not do that. .It.was not part of the Professional 15 Development Series.
~
16 Later on, FEMA lumped it into that particular 17 category for purposes of delivery.
18 Q 7.nto what category?
. 19 A (Harris) The Professional Development Series 20 category.
21 Q Oh, I see. I understand.
22 A (Harris) Initially, in the summer of 1982, that 23 course was not part of it. The course was an awareness 24 course. The course was developed at the direction of the 25 assistant associate director for FEMA who had particular Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26165 l
- 1 points that he wished to make with the course. And we 1
2 proceeded to focus on several target audiences which 3 included city managers, directors of public works, police 1
4 chiefs, fire chiefs, county board supervisors, emergency 5 program managers and others.
6 The entire purpose of that course was to bring .
7 individuals to a one day seminar on the discussion of 8 formulating public policy. The ultimate goal was to raise 9 the awareness and increase the interest in a broader based ,
1 1
10 community in emergency management. i 1
11 As a result of that, it was hoped that the 12 participants would be encouraged to do two things.
1 i 13 One, participate and see to wl.at extent they and l 1
14 the individuals that they supervised and were responsible 15 for to participate in the Professional Development Series.
16 Secondly, the goal was ultimately to encourage i
17 them at that level to participate in the five-day integrated !
l 18 emergency management course which basically was considered 19 to be, I guess you could say, the most senior course that .
20 had been developed by FEMA at that time.
\ .
21 So there is a clear distinction between public 22 policy and the other courses.
23 Q There were not tests given in connection with that 24 course, is that correct?
25 A (Harris) There were not tests with that course.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a HARRIS - CROSS 26166 1 The answer to that question is no. In fact, there were no 2 tests given in conjunction with other courses from the 3 standpoint of using the tests as requirement *.
4 There was a debate and a controvo_uy within FEMA 5 to determine to what extent they wanted to use tests. We in
. 6 fact did develop tests. To what extent they were ultimately 7 used, I don't know.
8 The " Formulating Public Policy" course does not 9 have a test. It was never intended to. It was an awareness 10 course strictly. That was the~ design of it.
11 MR. SMITH:' At this time I would like to mark for 12 identification a document. Unfortunately, I do not have 13 copies for everyone, so I will come up first to counsel and 14 then to the witness. And this would be Applicants' Exhibit s
15 No. 89.
~
16 The document is entitled " Formulating Public 17 Policy in Emergency Management". And it's entitled 18 " Instructor Guide 51, May 1984".
.. 19 (The document referred to was 20 marked for identification as 21 Applicants' Exhibit No. 89.)
22 (Document shown to all parties. )
23 BY MR. SMITH:
24 Q Are you familiar with that document, sir?
25 A (Harris) I certainly am.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
HARRIS - CROSS 26167 1 Q That is the instruction manual, I assume, for the 2 course that we're referring to?
3 A (Harris) That is correct.
4 0 If you could turn to -- in the introductory 5 section, it's page viii. It's designated in Roman Numerals, 6 Roman Numeral viii. And if you could read the section .
.7 entitled " Course Goal", please.
8 A (Harris) It had one basic goal: "to increase the l
9 public official's ability to establish and execute public l
10 policy in emergency management."
11 Q So the goal, it appears from that statement, was 12 actually so that they could execute, and it did not seem --
13 from the face of that document, it does not demonstrate that 14 the course was intended as one to increase the participants' 15 interest to. seek more information.
~
16 By the face of that document, does it not say that 17 the goal was whether they could actually go out and execute, l
18 establish and execute public policy?
19 A (Harris) You are right. It does say that. .
20 However, the document, in other sections of this 21 document and the study manual, it refers to the awareness 22 aspects of the course and its purpose. That particular goal 23 and that purpose was one that was put in by the associate 24 director for training and education at FEMA, and he wanted l
- 25 to include those words.
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ --- _ - 1
HARRIS - CROSS 26168 1 Q In the section you just read?
2 A (Harris) Yes. He wanted to clarify the course 3 goal that way even though it was an awareness course.
4 Q Dr. Harris, your resume also states that you 5 designed, developed and conducted portions of NETC's 6 Integrated Emergency Management course dealing with public 7 policy and media relations.
8 Is that correct?
9 A (Harris) Yes.
10 Q Did you manage that course?
11 A (Harris) At one time I did. Initially, I did 12 not.
13 O Did you manage that course in 19847 s- m 14 A (Harris). Possibly.
(V) 15 Yes. Beginning probably in September - October 16 1984.
17 Q September or October.
18 MR. SMITH: I would like to mark again for 19 identification Applicants' Exhibit No. 90. That document 20 is entitled " National Emergency Training Center, Emergency 21 Management Institute," and it's a class schedule for the 22 Integrated Emergency Management course given in Prince 23 William County, Virginia, in November of 1984, November 26th 24 to 29th.
1 25 t'
/
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
HARRIS - CROSS 26160 1 (The document referred to was 2 marked for identification as 3 Applicants' Exhibit No. 90.)
4 BY MR. SMITH:
. i 5 Q Do you recognize this document, Dr. Harris?
6 A (Harris) Well, I recognize the agenda. I had .
7 forgotten about Prince William County. But the time frame i
8 would have been right.
9 Q This document in the beginning states that the l
10 training activity manager was a Mr. Phil Mcdonald?
]
1" A (Harris) Yes. l 42 Q Would that be the person who managed this 13 particular course?
14 A (Harris). T. hat was the individual from FEMA that 15 managed the course.
~
16 My responsibility was to manage the courses that l 17 we were responsible for and to providing the services to 18 FEMA. Every FEMA course had a * 'ining activity manager to 19 it.
20 In this particular instance, if I may finish.
21 Q Sure.
22 A (Harris) IMR had contractual responsibility with 23 FEMA to provide certain services. One of the services that 24 we provided for the EMCs that we were responsible for was 25 hiring adjunct faculty. At times we were responsible for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t__--- -_m_________m__- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
HARRIS - CROSS 26170
[
v} 1 2
seeing that certain materials were printed, instructor guides, student manuals.
3 In some communities when we did they on the road, 4 we would get the emergency plans from those communities and 5 have them printed and make all logistical arrangements.
- 6 So from the standpoint of the IMR Systems 7 Corporation and the project and the contractual 8 responsibilities that they had, I managed that.
9 I did not in any way manage FEMA's 10 responsibilities.
11 Q I understand.
I 12 What parts of this course did you teach and 13 develop?
[V 14 A (Harris). There are two things.
15 First, there are two specific sections that were 16 part of the original formulating public policy course that 17 were incorporated into the EMC: The section on public .
18 policy and the media relations workshop.
19 Secondly, when the course was being developed in 20 1982, there were several of us who were responsible in one 21 way or another for providing support the development of that 22 course. At that particular time I did not manage the 23 course. It was managed by another individual. And at the 24 direction of the division president at that time, I was very 25 much involved in providing technical advice and consultation
[\
'( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 1
~
1 i
EARRIS - CROSS 26171 1 on the development of the course, as were others.
2 Others were involved in developing the model 3 community, putting together scenarios, providing other 4 services. ,
So as I understand it, you taught and developed 5 Q 6 approximately two modules out of the 30 or so, whatever the .
7 number is that were taught during that course? )
l 8 A (Harris) I personally? i 9 Q Yes, sir. 1 l
l 10 A (Harris) I participated in those two modules and l l
11 provided technical advice, support, review for the entire 12 course.
l 13 Q And the portions that you taught, those were 14 developed or derived,,if you will, from your public 15 policy -- {
_ i 16 A (Harris) Adapted. '
17 Q Adapted.
18 A (Harris) Right.
19 Q From your public policy course. .
20 That's correct?
-i 21 A (Harris) That's correct. ;
22 Q So in preparing to develop those portions of the 23 course, I take it then you did not perform a task analysis.
24 Is that correct?
25 A (Harris) That was not my responsibility to do I
Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
l
- l 1
l HARRIS - CROSS 26172
(' '} 1 that. I was not the project manager of that one at that 2 time. )
3 Q Okay. l i
4 There were not tests in connection with the 5 integrated management course, were there?
. 6 A (Harris) Never.
7 Q When did you leave IMR Systems Corp? l 8 A (Harris) November 1988. l 1
9 Q And what were the circumstances surrounding your ]
l 10 leaving IMR7 11 A (Harris) To accept a job with a corporate 1
12 response group in Washington, D.C. l 13 Q It had nothing to do with the indictment of IMR l
s
( ) 14 Systems for fraud?.
1 \~ /
l 15 A (Harris) Absolutely nothing.
~
16 Q That indictment alleged that IMR fraudulently 17 double-billed FEMA for work performed by IHR.
l 18 Is that correct?
. 19 A (Harris) As I recall, the indictment alleged that 20 one individual who worked for IMR.
21 Q The president was indicted --
22 A .(Harris) That is correct.
23 Q -- for that?
l 24 A (Harris) That is correct.
25 Q And the court found that IMR had in fact doubled
,g
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l I
i 0
HARRIS - CROSS 26173 1 -- billed but did not find fraudulent intent.
2 Is that correct?
3 MR. FIERCE: Objection as to what the court found. ]
4 MR. SMITH: Well, if he knows.
- i 5 MR. FIERCE: He was not a party to that i 6 litigation. It's not relevant to this proceeding. .
i 7 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, he was a member of the )
8 corporation. I would think that it would be within his 9 knowledge as to what the court found regarding the l
10 corporation and in respect to the indictment.
11 I think it is something that could be within his 12 knowledge. 1 13 I may have misspoke. I'm not sure if he was 14 actually an officer. I'm not sure if that was the right 15 terminology. But he was a division vice president,
~
i 16 THE WITNESS: (Harris) At that time, yes.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Would you describe your position in l 18 the corporate hierarchy at IMR? .
19 THE WITNESS: (Harris) At which time, Your Honor? .
20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, at the time of the indictment.
i 21 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Okay.
22 It was really two different kinds of positions 23 during that period of time. In the summer of 1984, which is 24 approximately the time that I became a vice president --
25 JUDGE SMITH: This is corporate vice president?
l j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
HARRIS - CROSS 26174 1 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Right. Division vice 2 president. .I was never --
3 JUDGE SMITH: Vice president in charge of the 1 4 division, or did the division have a president?
5 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Yes, it did at that time.
. 6 Yes, Your Honor.
7 The corporation itself had several divisions. The 8 one which I worked in was called Energy Management and i l
9 Marketing Division. It was headed by a division president i 10 whose name was William H. Elsey.
11 In the summer of 1984, there was an investigation 12 that began with a committee of the United States Congress as 13 well as an investigation by the Justice Department into 14 alleged misuse of_the procurement system at FEMA as well as
\
15 the role of certain contractors. This continued throughout 16 t'he summer and fall of 1984.
17 The Justice Department conducted an investigation, 18 subpoenaed documents. And in turn, in the spring or early
. 19 summer of 1985, the U.S. District Court in the District of 20 Columbia returned a ten-count indictment against William H.
21 Elsey for fraud against the United States government. i 22 The trial was conducted in the winter and spring, 23 winter of 1985; February, I believe, 1986.
24 Elsey had pleaded not guilty.
25 I had been interviewed by the Justice Department !
(b / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
I
HARRIS - CROSS 26175 1 as well as the FBI. I was responsible for a majority of the 2 activities during the latter part of that contract at the 3 National Emergency Training Center.
4 The activities which I was responsible for were in 5 no way at any time of interest to the Despartment of Justice 6 or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at any time. ,
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,
24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9I
i k
l i
HARRIS - CROSS -26176
/ 1 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Elsey's trial was in l
\
2 February 1986. A few months after that the Judge rendered 3 her opinion; it was Judge Green. I have read the opinion.
4 I don't recall -- the verdict rather.
5 I don't recall everything that was in the
. 6 decision, but I do recall clearly that she stated that Mr.
7 Elsey had used poor judgment, was a poor manager. In fact, 8 had made accounting mistakes-that resulted in double 9 billing.
10 But at the same time the Judge said, although he 11 had been indicted, he was not solely -- I've forgotten the 12 word she used, but she was very critical of the Federal 13 Emergency Management Agency and the contracting officers 14 that they, in fact, -- that this kind of situation could 15 arise without their knowledge. And she in turn admonished 16 t' hem and named at least two contracting officers in that*
17 verdict.
18 And she ruled Mr. Elsey was not guilty.
. 19 And at no time were any of the activities or '
20 responsibilities that I had under any -- in any way '
21 whatsoever came under question or target of investigation ;
22 with the Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of 23 Investigation.
24 Mr. Elsey was removed from IMR Systems Corporation ~
25 in February 1985. _After a short period of time the 1[
l
(, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26177 1 president of IMR asked me to assume responsibilities for the 2 division, as division vice president.
3 The position of division president was never 4 filled, it was eliminated. And the division itself under 5 recommendation of auditors who reviewed the books had 6 recommended that there be a closer corporate structure than .
7 had been in effect during Mr. Elsey's term at IMR. And I 8 that's basically it.
l 9 MR. SMITH: I think the question has been 10 answered. I 11 JUDGE SMITH: I guess the answer subsumes the 12 answer you expected by the question.
13 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
14 BY MR. SMITH:
15 Q Isn't it fair to say, Dr. Harris, that as a result
~
16 of the indictment IHR received little business shortly after 17 that? j 18 A (Harris) A little business?
19 Q Yes. .
20 A (Harris) It just about ended the business and 21 probably cost 34, 35 people their jobs as a result of that.
22 Q Correct. As a result many people left or some 23 were actually fired?
24 A Absolutely.
25 0 And isn't that really the reason why you left IMR?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L_____________
HARRIS - CROSS 26178 1 A (Harris) Why I left?
/~'}
~/ \
2 Q Yes, because the business. essentially evaporated? i I
3 A (Harris) Not for me, particularly.
4 There were several of us who stayed much longer 5 than that. It was eventually incorporated with another j
J 6 group in 1986, 1887.
7 Q I see.
8 A (Harris) That was in 1985 and I did not leave 9 until November 1989. In '88, I'm sorry.
10 Q And I guess you just said that you were currently 11 employed with the Corporate Response Group?
12 A (Harris) That's correct.
13 Q That's where you went from there?
Oj 14 A (Harris ). Y.es.
15 d
0 You state in your resume that among your areas of
~
16 expertise that you did risk analysis, contingency planning, 17 government affairs, media relations, plant and personal 18 security, et cetera.
19 What methodology did you use --
20 A (Harris) I believe that refers to what the 21 company does.
l 22 Q Oh, I see. Okay.
23 Those are not your areas of expertise, 24 necessarily? :
=!
25 A (Harris) Not necessarily, no. !
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26179 1 My major responsibility is in administration of 2 the corporation on a daily basis and also the training 3 programs, training involvement.
4 Q If we could turn now to your testimony, sir. On 5 page 5 of your testimony you state that you have reviewed 6 the SPMC. .
l 7 What parts of the SPMC have you reviewed?
8 A (Harris) Section 6, it contains all the 9 requirements.
10 Q It contains --
11 A (Harris) It contains requirements.
12 O I'm sorry, I still didn't hear?
13 A (Harris) Contains requirements.
14 Q Oh, contain.s requirements?
15 A (Harris) Yes.
~
16 Q Did you review section 27 17 A (Harris) I did not.
18 Q Have you reviewed any of the procedures to the 19 SPMC7 _
20 A (Harris) Any of the what?
21 Q The procedures?
22 A (Harris) I have looked at them, yes, at one time 23 or another.
24 Q Which procedures did you look at?
25 Have you looked at all of them? Have you looked Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26180 1 at all the procedures?
2 A (Harris) Which procedures are you referring to?
3 Q Just the procedures in general?
4 A (Harris) I primarily -- I focused on section 6 5 period.
. 6 0 of the procedures?
7 A (Harris) And at one point looked through the plan 8 at the various other areas.
9 Q Okay.
10 A (Harris) I felt that -- I looked for things that 11 would be relevant to what I was asked to look at.
12 Q Now, section 6 of the plan or of the procedures?
13 A (Harris) Of the plan.
14 Q Now you.say,you did not or you did road any of the 15 procedures?
~
16 A (Harris) I reviewed through them. I don't recall 17 exactly what they were.
18 Q Are you aware, sir, that there are two sections?
19 There's actually a section called the " plan" and a section 20 called the " procedures?"
21 A (Harris) Yes.
22 Q And you say you skimmed through the procedures?
~
23 A (Harris) Yes.
24 Q And have read section 6 of the plan?
25 A (Harris) It's right here.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l HARRIS - CROSS 26181 1 Q Yes, that's the plan.
2 A (Harris) Right, section 6. )
l 3 0 on page 5 of your testimony you say that you i 4 reviewed regulatory items, what were these?
1
)
5 A (Harris) NUREG-06S4 and those sections that !
6 pertain to the requirements for training. Very .
7 straightforward, very direct; no surprises.
8 Q And you had available the entire NUREG document or 9 were you given excerpts from that document?
10 A (Harris) I just looked for excerpts. Those 11 sections that pertain to training.
)
12 Q But you actually reviewed the entire document?
13 A (Harris) Those areas I looked through, and I )
i 14 concentrated on those areas that pertain to training.
15 Q Also, on page 5 you state that you reviewed other 16 5PMC instruction materials. What were those?
I 17 A (Harris) The three modules. l 18 Q Also, on page 5 of your testimony you say that you 19 reviewed three sets of training materials that were prepared
.1 20 for those who are to implement the SPMC.
- \
21 Are those the modules as well, that you're 1 22 referring to?
23 A (Harris) Those modules, yes.
24 Q So those two statements are referring to the same I 25 thing, the other SPMC instruction materials and the training Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i
/
i i
I HARRIS - CROSS 26182
["'N 1 materials that were prepared for those?
\'~') {
2 A (Harris) Right.
1 l
3 Q You also state that you reviewed the deposition of j 4 Donald R. Tailleart; is that correct?
5 A (Harris) That's correct.
- 6 Q Did you review the entire deposition?
I 7 A (Harris) I read through it once and focused on 8 those areas that related to training.
9 0 Isn't that substantially the whole document 10 besides some earlier background questions?
11 A (Harris) There are certain areas within the 12 document that seem to be more relevant than others.
13 Q More relevant to your testimony?
14 A (Harris). Exactly.
}
l 15 Q Did you participate in a decision as to who would 1
l 16 b'e the best person to depose? '
17 A (Harris) Did I participate in it?
18 Q Yes? )
19 A (Harris) Well, I don't think there was much of a 20 discussion. i
\
21 Would you be a little more specific? Are you l l
22 talking about in discussions with the Massachusetts Attorney 23 General?
l 24 0 Yes, sir.
25 A (Harris) Or discussions with our corporation? I l
( ,) _
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J
HARRIS - CROSS 26183 1 Q Well, either actually?
2 Were there any discussions as to who should be l 3 deposed in either context?
4 A (Harris) Only within the context of who had the 5 strongest training background.
6 Q And you had those discussions with whom, please? .
l 7 A (Harris) I discussed those with the president of l 8 Corporate Response Group and others. Resumes, as such, were 9 offered to the Massachusetts Attorney General and they 10 reviewed them and they accepted our recommendations.
11 Q I think you may have misunderstood my question.
12 You're testifying as to how it was decided which 13 person from the Corporate Response Group would be coming to 14 testify?
l 15 A (Harris) No. Which member of the Corporate l 16 Response Group would work with the Attorn'ey General's 17 office.
18 Q I see.
19 No , my question, sir, was whether you had .
20 participated in a decision as to who would be the best 21 person to depose by the Mass AG from the Applicants.
22 The Mass AG requested that we offer a person to be 23 deposed from the Applicants who would be most knowledgeable 24 about training.
25 And I was just asking if you had any advice or if Heritage Peporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
-- y i
HARRIS - CROSS 26184 1 you participated in that decision?
\
2 A (Harris) No.
3 If you're talking about the one from Mr.
4 Tailleart? l 5 Q Yes, sir? j l
l - 6 A (Harris) Oh, I had nothing to do with that. That j i
7 was done long before I was ever -- !
8 Q Before you were involved?
9 A (Harris) Correct.
10 Q Do you believe you' re generally familiar with the -
11 SPMC or at least --
i 12 A (Harris) The training areas.
13 Q - ,in the training areas? !
l 14 A (Harris), F. rom the standpoint of design.
15 Q From the standpoint of design?
~
(Harris) 16 A Right.
17 Not content.
l 18 Q Right )
1 19 And how about Donald Tailleart's deposition, are 20 you generally familiar with that?
21 A (Harris) Familiar, yes. With the areas related 22 to training design in which he describes how the program was 23 developed.
24 Q You have not observed any drills or exercises of 25 the SPMC, have you?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 1
HARRIS - CROSS 26185 1 A (Harris) No.
2 Q And you have not observed the delivery of any of 3 the training, have you?
4 A (Harris) I have not.
5 Q Have you read the FEMA exercise report of the June 6 28 and 29th, 1988 graded exercise for the Seabrook Station? . ;
i 7 A (Harris) I've reviewed it, yes. '
8 Q Have you reviewed the entire document?
9 A (Harris) At one point, yes. It's been several i 10 months ago.
11 Q Several months ago.
12 Did you talk to any of the participants of drills 13 and exercises?
14 A (Harris). No , I did not.
15 Q Have you spoke with any of the trainees?
i
~
16 A (Harris) I did not.
17 Q Have you reviewed any other material than we have l
18 just discussed and that's in your testimony?
19 A (Harris) Have I what? .
20 Q Reviewed any other material?
21 A (Harris) Only what is mentioned in the testimony.
22 Q How much time did you spend reviewing these 23 documents?
24 A (Harris) I suppose over about a period of a 25 month, probably a week or so.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
HARRIS - CROSS 26186
(' N 1 Q So are you saying about 40-hours?
\ h 2 A (Harris) Around that, maybe a little more than 3 that. There aren't very many documents.
4 Q How much time did you spend looking at the plan 5 itself?
. 6 A (Harris) I looked at sections -- I spent time 7 looking at section 6 which provides certain requirements to l
8 be met.
9 Q I'm sorry, I asked how long?
10 A (Harris) How long? ;
11 Q Yes. Not what section you had?
12 A (Harris) Probably a couple of hours: three hours; ;
13 four hours; somewhere in there. Went back to it several
[ 14 times. l
'}
'~. s/ l l 15 Q And that would be the total time looking at it? l
~
16 I knok it's hard to say exactly how you 17 distributed it. ,
1 18 A (Harris) I suppose, all totaled over that period
. 19 of that month, maybe five or six hours. I guess that meant ;
20 I said yes. ;
21 Q Would you consider yourself familiar with the 22 various tasks to be performed by personn',' for training?
23 A (Harris) I didn't look at tho task to be 24 performed. What I looked at was the training design.
25 0 I see.
fm Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26187 1 When vere you first contacted by anyone from the 2 Massachusetts Attorney General's office?
3 A (Harris) I was initially not contacted by the 4 Massachusetts Attorney General's office.
5 Q You were not initially contacted?
6 A (Harris) No, I was not. .
7 I was contacted by Impact Assessments who is our 8 client. Impact Assessments has a contract with the 9 Massachusetts Attorney General's office.
10 Q I understand.
11 A (Harris) And it was Impact Assessments who sought l
l 12 our services and made recommendations to the Massachusetts 13 Attorney General's office that we cou7d help provide 14 assistance to Impact. Assessments.
15 Q I,see.
~
16 So you are testifying -- you agreed to testify as 17 a result of that effort?
18 A (Harris) Yes.
19 20 f .
21 22 l
23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26188 l
1 Q Dr. Harris, did you search for the various 2 documents that you reviewed or did you rely on the documents 3 provided to you by the Massachusetts Attorney General's l
4 office?
i 5 A (Harris) I guess the answer to that question is, .
- 5 both. There were documents that the Attorney General's 7 office had acquired. And I did spend some time looking l
8 through the documents in the boxes of which there were many.
9 And it seemed for the purposes of design, based on the 10 requirements, that the key documents to take a look at 11 happened to be section 6 of the plan and Appendix K.
12 Q You referred to boxes, sir; what were those?
13 Were those boxes sent to you by Mass AG?
14 A (Harris). They never left -- no. They were in 15 MAG's office.
~
16 Q Massachusetts Attorney General's office?
17 A (Harris) That is correct.
]
18 And I reviewed them there.
1 19 Q So are you testifying then that you went up to the i l;
20 office and just had free rein to see whatever documents you 21 might need?
22 A (Harris) Well, it was structured in a sense that 23 these documents were received, these are training dccuments, ,
i 24 you need to look through them to see what appears to be
- el l 25 relevant to the issue of design.
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26189 1 If they didn't appear to be relevant to the design 2 I didn't spend any time with them.
3 Q Did you make inquiry for other documents that 4 might be helpful?
5 A (Harris) I asked from time to time, I don't 6 exactly remember. But if I asked if there were any other .
l 7 documents, if there were any newer modules, had any changes 8 been made, that kind of thing, yes.
9 In fact, as those changes came through on some of 10 the modules they were eventually passed on to me. Some of 11 the ones I have are dated as recently as February and March 12 1989.
(
13 Q Sir, you -- I forget the name, sir, of the company {
~
14 that contacted you on. behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney 15 General's office?
~
16 A (Harris) It's called Impact Assessments.
17 Q What tire s were you contacted by Impact 18 Assessments? j l
19 A (Harris) We had done work for Impact Assessment .l l
1 20 since probably a year ago.
21 Q But specifically in reference to testifying or j 22 preparing testimony for the Massachusetts Attorney General's 23 office?
P4 A (Harris) Well, there are two things involved 25 there. One was an initial review of the materials. And Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 HARRIS - CROSS 26190
' then there was a decision made following -- I suppose I have 1
2 the right terms -- the motions for Joint Interveners made by 3 the Massachusetts Attorney General's office to determine 4 which contentions would remain.
5 Once that was clarified there was still the 6 training issue contentions that remained. And I was asked 7 if I would look at the materials from that particular 8 standpoint and design.
9 Q Are you referring to the Admitting order of the 10 contentions?
11 A (Harris) I'm not familiar with that. It was just 12 a two-step process. I reviewed documents and at some other l l
13 point it became clear as to what was to be considered in 14 these proceedings.. And design was still one of them.
15 Q What time was that, when you first -- for the 16 first contact?
17 A (Harris) I suppose I first became involved in 1
18 early December. ;
19 Q Early December.
i 20 A (Harris) The decision to prepare testimony was 21 probably maybe a month before the date that it was 22 submitted, I suppose.
23 Q And I take it from your answer that you did not 24 agree to testify at that point? It was initially for advice 25 or consulting services or whatever, I'm not sure what the O
k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26191 1 correct term would be?
2 A (Harris) Well, if you're referring to the time in 3 December when I first became involved in it, I certainly was 4 aware that there was a chance ultimately that testimony 5 would be required.
6 But when I walked in the door it wasn't one of, .
l 7 are you ready to testify.
8 Q Who was your first contact with Massachusetts l 9 Attorney General's office?
10 A (Harris) From that office itself?
11 Q Yes, sir.
12 A (Harris) Actually, there were four or five.
13 Q At various times?
14 A (Harris). No, the very first day I was there, 15 there were four or five.
~
16' Q Oh, so you came up to the office?
17 A (Harris) That's correct. I 18 Q And who was your primary contact after that? )
19 A (Harris) Mr. Fierce. .i 20 Q And at some point'was there an agreement that you
~
l 21 would actually testify?
l j 22 A (Harris) An agreement?
2? Q Or understanding?
l 24 It doesn't necessarily have to be something formal 25 like a contract.
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26192
.t 1 A (Harris) Well, in the process of reviewing the
't
'~ documents and looking at some of the concerns that the 2
3 Attorney General's office had I certainly stated that I 4 thought there was some things-that related to the design of 5 the program that needed to be taken into consideration. .
- 6 Mr. Fierce made the decision as to whether or not 7 I would testify or provide testimony.
E Q Do you know when that -- I'm not asking you when 9 Mr. Fierce decided, but when were you informed of that 10 decision?
11 A (Harris) Probably a month and a half before the 12 testimony was filed.
13 Q How much time did you spend drafting your prefiled 14 testimony?
( q 15 A (Harris) Over a two-week period. 4
~
16 Q And now much time did you spend doing that?
17 Were you busy the whole time, for the whole two
]
18 weeks? )
19 A (Harris) Well, off and on, it certainly was not 20 the only thing that I'm involved in.
21 But I would speculate on possibly 40-hours. .
1 22 Q Excuse me, how many?
23 A (Harris) Possibly 40.
24 0 40-hours.
=4 25 Now, this is in addition to the time you spent
( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26193 1 reviewing the documents?
2 A (Harris) Yes.
3 Q How much additional time did you spend coming in 4 to prepare to testify today?
5 A (Harris) Additional time?
6 Q Yes. .
7 (Pause . )
l 8 A (Harris) Not a lot. I am aware of -- what do 9 they refer to it -- testimony No. 20. I glanced at that. I 10 glanced at the attachments.
l 11 On page 4 of your testimony, Dr. Harris, you O
12 state: "I understand that the Massachusetts Attorney 13 General is presenting three other witnesses, each of whom 14 has substantive expertise in one of these three fields who 15 are critical of the content of the training for these ORO 16 positions and claim generally that the content is inadequate 17 given the minimum prerequisite experience that those I
18 recruited for these positions must have." >
19 Do you see that portion of your testimony? .
20 A (Harris) Yes 21 Q That's on page 4, sir?
22 A (Harris) Yes, I see it.
23 Q Have you read the testimony of the witnesses to 24 whom you are referring in that passage?
- \
l 25 A (Harris) No, I have not. I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
l l
1 HARRIS - CROSS 26194 1 I wanted to point out very clearly that: one, I'm j f() '
\'"'/ 2 not a nuclear expert.
3 And two, my sole focus was on training design.
4 And in no way was I going to concentrate on content. And it 5 was my understanding that there were others that were
. 6 working with the Attorney General's office to deal with 7 content related issues. And it is nothing more than a 8 statement to set myself apart from that.
9 Q I understand.
I 10 Where did you get the understanding that these I 11 witnesses were critical of the content of the training for 12 these ORO positions?
13 A (Harris) In a discussion I had with Mr. Fierce.
[ 14 Q And is your, testimony based in any part on the (s - i 15 testimony of these witnesses?
~
16 A (Harris) No.
l l
17 Q And your testimony was not influenced by the 18 testimony of these witnesses? l 4 19 A (Harris) Not at all. I haven't read it. I' m not 20 interested in reading it. I'm only interested in design.
21 Q On page 5, sir, of your testimony you state that:
22 "The basic method of instruction is lecture and discussion."
23 Is that correct?
24 A (Harris) I think that is a reasonable - yes.
25 0 And you also state on, I believe on page 6 that:
O
(, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ ___-________._______-_--____.__________O
i i
l HARRIS - CROSS 26195 1 "It is your opinion that Appendix K establishes a training ;
2 program that is based on verbal learning."
3 Is that correct? .
I 4 A (Harris) Well, I think it does.
5 Q You do acknowledge that Appendix K also outlines l 6 the requirements for materials, development, classroom ,
l 7 instruction, tabletops, walk-through, drills, and testing; l 8 is that. correct? ,
l 9 A (Harris) I certainly do. l l
10 0 On page 10 of your testimony you state that you !
11 did not find any reference to a needs or task analysis; is i
12 that correct? l l
13 A (Harris) That's correct. j i
14 Q So what.you're saying is that you did not find and l 15 therefore did not review any' documentation of a task 16 analysis?
17 A (Harris) That's correct.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Documentation of what?
19 MR. SMITH: Of a task analysis. .
> 20 JUDGE SMITH: Task analysis.
21 BY MR. SMITH:
l 22 Q Did you ask Mr. Fierce about this, whether he had l
l 23 found a task analysis?
l 24 And in your review did you see anything?
l .
l 25 A (Harris) I did ask if there were any documents l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 h_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
r HARRIS-- CROSS 26196 1 related to that task analysis as such. I was going on Mr.
(
2 Tailleart's testimony strictly in which I accepted the fact 3 that there was a task analysis.
4 Q I see.
5 A (Harris) I didn't assume anything else.
i . 6 MR. SMITH: I would like to, at this time, mark 7 for identification Applicants' Exhibit No. 91.
8 (The document referred 9 to was marked for 10 identification as I 11 Applicants Exhibit 12 No. 91.)
13 MR. SMITH: This is a document with the Seabrook-14 logo on the front , cover and it's called "Seabrook Training 15 Group, Emergency Planning Mass E-Plan." And has a subtitle 16 'I EM4002I Tabletop Exercise No. 2."
17 And under that it says: " Instructor Guide."
18 (Document proffered to all parties.)
. 19 BY MR. SMITH:
20 Q Dr. Harris, are you familiar with this. document?
21 A (Harris) Only within the context that I remember j 22 seeing it along with many other documents related to 23 instructor guides, student handouts, tests, and so on. j l
24 Q Okay. j 25 A (Harris) If it's dated 10-1988, at some point I
\
G Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
l l
i HARRIS - CROSS 26197 1 probably saw it, yes. I 2 Q If you could turn to the second page.
3 It's apparent from the top that this is a lesson 4 for a tabletop exercise No. 2 for traffic guides; is that I
5 correct? l 6 It's up in the right hand corner? .
7 A (Harris) Yes. It saye: " Tabletop exercise 2." I I
8 Q And if you could look towards the bottom of that 9 page there are several statements and proceeded by a number.
i 10 And one says, " Acknowledge MELITA notification; I 11 report to the staging area; report to the ACP or TCP; set up 1
12 a TCP, et cetera."
13 Those are tasks, are they not?
14 A (Harris). Of course.
15 Q So this would be an indication that a task ;
I 16 a'nalysis has been completed; correct? l I
17 A summary that they have gone through and 18 developed and analyzed these tasks? ]
1 19 A (Harris) I don't know, I haven't seen the task .l 20 analysis. But I have accepted -- I don't have any reason 21 not to -- the deposition of Mr. Tailleart that a task 22 analysis was completed. ,
23 Q Was completed.
24 A (Harris) The only thing I pointed out is that I 25 had not seen one. I don't dispute that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26198
, 1 Q So basically, -- you did an audit of the training 2 documentation that was provided to you and not an analysis 3 of that program development as it refers to task analysis; 4 is that correct?
5 A (Harris) An audit?
6 Q Yes?
7 A (Harris) Will you explain what you mean by 8 " audit"?
l l
9 Q Yes.
10 What I mean by that is, you've seen the 11 documentation didn't exist, but you are noting that there's 12 no documentation. But what you're saying is, you never 13 actually did an analysis of the material.
, 14 You said that you never actually saw the material?
15 A (Harris)- A task analysis.
~
16 Q A task analysis?
17 A (Harris) No. I didn't need to do an analysis of 18 the material.
19 Q Dr. Harris, did you review -- I believe you said 20 you reviewed three training modules. Was one of those for 21 PAR decision-makers; is that correct? ,
22 A (Harris) That's correct. ,
23 Q How many modules for PAR decision-making did you 24 review?
25 A (Harris) As I recall there were, certainly there l O. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26199 I was more than one or two depending upon the dates that were 2 on them.
3 Q Did you review all of them?
4 A (Harris) I looked at them, yes.
5 Q And they generally go from the general to the 6 specific? Some are more general than others? .
7 A (Harris) Well, there are series of items. I'm 8 assuming that in some instances it's general and in some l
9 instances it gets very specific. I i
10 If you look at the three different areas, j 11 certainly, I would consider the protective action decision- l l
12 making to be a more difficult area than say, perhaps, j 13 traffic guidos and that kind of thing, j 14 So I think.it's a level of content there. I don't 15 dispute the content either.
l 16 O Correct.
17 Dr. Harris, would you say that in any training the 18 proof is in the pudding if the results of the training --
19 people learn what they're supposed to learn and are able to -
20 perform the task that they're suppose to perform, that that 21 indicates that the training program was adequate?
22 A (Harris) It depends on how it's measured.
l 23 Q Okay.
1 24 You conclude that there's no reasonable assurance 25 that the FEMA graded exercise demonstrated that; is that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26200 1 correct?
2 A (Harris) I made that statement and concluded that 3 because I could not find any linkages beginning with the-4 modules through other activities to the exercise.
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
~
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - CROSS 26201 1 A (Harris) (Continued) It's one of the key 2 elements of design.
1 3 It's one thing to design a course. It's one thing I
4 to design a module. It's one thing to design an exercise or 5 a drill or a walk-through. j 6 The hard part is showing the relationship between .
f 7 all of those from top to bottom. That's the difficult part )
8 of training design and development.
9 What I looked at were linkages to determine in 10 what way the instructional modules were then applied in i
11 walk-throughs, drills, tabletops and exercises. This is j l
12 done principally through a training design document.
13 Of the steps that are involved in TSD, once you 14 complete the task. analysis to determine the needs, you then 15 construct a design. The design is more than a development j
~ l 16 of objectives, terminal or enabling. It's more than putting !
i 17 together an outline. It's more than putting together the 18 visuals. It's more than putting together a matrix with dots 19 on it to indicate that you would take this one, this one and .
20 this one.
21 If you intend to measure to determine the 22 effectiveness of your program, there is a need to have a 23 clear understanding of how that program progresses, what the 24 links are, and in fact what is to be evaluated.
25 Q But is the bottom line, though, if a job is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l l
l
4 HARRIS - CROSS 26202 1 performed and performed properly, that that's the ultimate 2 gosi of training?
3 Isn't that correct?
4 A (Harris) I would like to know exactly what's 5 being measured before I would agree with that.
6 If you are pointing to a particular activity or 7 incident within an exercise, whether it be a tabletop or 8 whether it happened to be the large FEMA exercise that was 9 conducted, then the incident you are measuring or the tasks 10 that you are measuring ought to be clear. As part of that 11 exercise, a clear link to where it came from and what the 12 application.happens to be.
13 If they perform the task, then it is adequate. If 14 they don't perform th.e task, it is not adequate. And there 15 is always the issue, unless you have those linkages there,
~
16 there is always the issue that that task was overlooked in l
17 the exercise.
18 And if it was overlooked in the-exercise, there is i*
19 no way of knowing whether the proof is in the pudding, 20 because it wasn't perhaps covered. And the only way if you 1.
21 know if it's covered is if you have the linkages that go 22 back to the source of the instructional design and its 23 application throughout the entire program.
24 Q Now FEMA reviewed this exercise, did they not?
t 25 A (Harris) Pardon me?
l k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4388 l
l
HARRIS - CROSS 26203 j 1
1 Q FEMA reviewed this exercise, did they not?
2 A (Harris) Oh, I'm sure they did.
3 Q And you are familiar with their exercise report as 4 you said?
5 A (Harris) I've looked at exercise reports from 6 FEMA, yes. -
7 Q And could you point to any portion of the exercise 8 report which would demonstrate that training was not 9 adequate?
10 A (Harris) Well, as I recall, they made a number of 11 recommendations for improvement in training.
12 Q Yes. Those are ARCAs though.
I 13 Those are not deficiencies, is that not correct?
14 A (Harris). Y.e s , they are.
15 Q And are you aware of Richard Donovan's testimony 16 in these hearings? l l
17 A (Harris) I am not. )
18 Q In fact, if you had been aware of those 19 testimonies, he had stated that it is very unlikely to see -
20 any exercise without any ARCAs. In fact, he's never seen i 21 one.
l 22 Is that --
l 23 A (Harris) I don't know. I mean, I would assume if 24 he said it, that that's reasonable. I wouldn't dispute 25 that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. I
-I HARRIS --CROSS 26204 )
1 That seems reasonable to you? j 1 Q 2 A (Harris) It certainly'does.
3 Q So wouldn't you say that a few ARCAm, isn't that a 1 4 pretty good job that the Applicants did in the, training?- j 5 MR. FIERCE: Objection.
< 6 JUDGE SMITH: What's wrong with the question?
7 MR. FIERCE: A few ARCAs demonstrates a pretty 8 good job. He doesn't know how many ARCAs equals a. pretty 9 good job. .)
10 It's a confusing question. .It calls.for.--
11 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think so,: not in the context l 12 of the-whole line of questioning.. -IfLhe' finds it confusing, 13 he can say so.
)
14 THE WITNESS: (Harris) I would want to know --
i 15 before I respond affirmatively to that, I would want to know )
16 what aspects of the training program specifically were 17 exercised.
18 I can't make a judgment like that.
19 BY MR. SMITH:
20 Q And you don't know? l 21 A (Harris) I don't know?-
22 I don't know what would constitute that, no. j 23 Q You have never participated in a FEMA exercise, is I
24 that correct? l
-l 25 A (Harris) No, I never have, not a major exercise.
I l -
Beritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 l
RARRIS - CROSS 26205 1 Q Or a drill?
2 A (Harris) No , I have not.
3 IS, SMITH: That's all I have, Your Honor.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have questions, Mr. Bachmann?
5 MR. BACHMANN: Just a couple based on the previous 6 cross-examination. . 4 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION ,
I 8 BY MR. BACHMANN:
i 9 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Harris. I am Richard Bachmann I l
10 from the NRC Staff. I just have a couple of questions. ;
1 11 Earlier in the cross-examination you were asked on 12 page five of your testimony of the regulatory items you had l 13 reviewed. And my notes indicate that you mentioned 0654.
14 A (Harris). And supplements as well, more recent 15 ones. I
~
16 Q All right.
17 So it's the NUREG-0654 with the supplement that 18 applies to --
19 A (Harris) Solely, right. Just solely looking at .
20 what is required.
21 Q Right.
l l 22 Any other " regulatory" items that you can recall?
l 23 A (Harris) No.
l 24 Q In those particular documents, could you show me 25 how there would be an inference that FEMA would go in and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
RARRIS - CROSS 26206
[T 1 look at the design of training plans to the extent that you 2 have to determine whether they are adequate or not?
3 Do you understand my question?
4 (Pause . )
5 I'm trying to tie in whether or not you can s 6 somehow infer from these documents that a level of detail of 7 examination of training programs that FEMA intends to carry 8 out, that sort of a detailed examination.
9 A (Harris) Well, I don't know if they do or not. I 10 think it's in the intent of the way they enforce the 11 regulations.
12 Q Can you explain to me what you mean by that 13 statement?
7 ~si 14 A (Harris) I think simply that document like the
- d _
15 plan as well as Appendix K states the requirements that are 16 t'o be followed.
17 The concern that I addressed was one related to 18 training design. I think those aspects of that are part of
. 19 the training systems development approach that was used in 20 the development of training programs.
1, 21 I've never disputed that any of those particular l 22 documents were not in the spirit of what the regulations l 23 are. It's how you apply it and how you design the programs.
24 Q In your relationship with FEMA when you were 25 designing programs for them, did you ever get into A
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
l E_________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
HARRIS - CROSS 26207 1 discussions with FEMA formally, informally or ever, on what 2 they should be looking for when they are reviewing other 3 organizations' training programs?
4 A (Harris) My involvement with FEMA was strictly in 5 the development of the core curriculum at the National 6 Emergency Training Center, and not involved other s ,
7 organizations.
8 Q Just let me go back to the question before last.
l 9 The idea that FEMA, for instance, and I think this is what 10 you are saying, FEMA should look at how a training program i 11 is designed is your inference from the NUREG-0654 documents !
12 and a further inference to perhaps the regulations.
13 Is that correct?
l 14 A (Harris). The regulatory documents require certain 15 things. They are not training design documents. TSD is the l 16 b' asis for developing the training program that is required 17 in those regulatory documents.
18 Regulatory documents are not the design. It 19 states forward that certain things will be done, and that .,
1 20 was done through the application of TSD. ,
.1 21 Q So it's sort of a two-step process is what you are 22 saying. i 23 A (Harris) Yes.
1 24 Q It's not a direct --
25 A (Harris) It is a two-step process.
Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 I
\
l 26208 1 Then there are the j
[~'N 1 There are regulations.
I 2 implementation of those regulations through the design and )
3 development process, yes.
1 4 MR. BACHMANN: That's all I have. .,]
5 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE McCOLLOM
. 6 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Dr. Harris, you did indicate that I
you were concerned because there didn't seem to be any 7
8 previous experience specified for these different tasks that 9 had to be done. In other words, I think you are concerned 10 because if you don't know where you start, you feel like ,
11 that you can't train your program well.
12 I did notice that there were some experience and 13 capability forms somewhere. Did you see those where the n
14 person fills it out?
( }
15 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Yes, I did. They were 16 attached to testimony No. 20.
17 JUDGE McCOLLOM: I gather that you are concerned 18 because there wasn't any record of how they look at those to )
19 say, well, this is where they start because here are the i
20 kind of people that we will put in there.
21 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Yes, sir.
O 22 JUDGE McCOLLOM: So it's a specificity that you l 23 feel is missing?
i 24 THE WITNESS: (Harris) One of the most critical 25 aspects of developing a training program is to have a clear l -s ;
s
(~ ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
________-________-__-_____D
I 26209 1 understanding of what the backgrounds are of those 2 individuals that you want to train. And that's one of the f 3 hardest things to do. f 4 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Well, my position and point here i i
5 is that apparently they know something about what these j l
~
6 people are able to do. In fact, they may make decisions ,
7 about it. We don't know. At least you are indicating that 8 you don't know.
9 THE WITNESS: (Harris) I'm indicating I don't Yes, Your Honor. l 10 know what basis they were selected on.
11 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Okay.
12 One of the things you said is that -- I believe it 13 was Mr. Tailleart indicated that there were paper task 14 objectives. .
15 Is that what I remember you stated in here?
16 THE WITNESS: (Harris) As I recall --
17 JUDGE McCOLLOM: And you had " paper" in quotes.
18 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Yes, the deposition stated 19 that it was a " paper" exercise. .
20 JUDGE McCOLLOM: What do you recall on that?
21 What did that mean to you?
22 THE WITNESS: (Harris) It meant to me that 23 perhaps there were not very many people involved in 24 conducting the task analysis. That it was done from 25 previous job requirements, job descriptions, that kind of O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l t
i a
l 26210 i
.O\(
1 thing.
2 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Is that something that you heard 3 Mr. Tailleart say?
4 THE WITNESS: (Harris) No , it was not.
- 1' 5 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Was this your word or was this
. 6 his word?
7 THE WITNESS: (Harris) No, that was his word. ;
8 JUDGE McCOLLOM: His word.
9 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Yes.
I 10 I don't recall exactly what page it is on the 11 deposition, but that left me a little confused.
12 JUDGE McCOLLOM: We don't have the depositions so 13 we can't refer to them.
14 Again, I, guess it's your concern that there isn't
(
15 a task analysis record that you have seen that says what i'
16 these objectives and enabling objectives were derived from 17 in some organized manner.
1 18 Is that a fair statement?
. 19 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Well, that's one concern. ;
20 There are several other concerns that I have, ending with a
21 the evaluation process and the open book approach. I'm not
/2 sure that that accomplishes much.
23 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Well, I would like to find out 24 did you see anywhere, other than in the deposition, that the 25 examination was an open book examination in all cases?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26211 1 THE WITNESS: (Harris) No , I did not, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE McCOLLOM: So the only place you heard that 3 was in Mr. Tailleart's deposition.
4 Is that correct?
5 THE WITNESS: (Harris) That is correct, that that 6 was the approach to evaluation, yes. ,
7 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Do you find overall that that's 8 not an acceptable evaluation method?
9 THE WITNESS: (Harris) It depends on what you are 10 trying to accomplish.
11 Training programs are very individual and they are 12 designed for specific purposes. If one wishes to determine 13 the skill level of an individual after completing the 14 course, then they. nee,d to measure that on the basis of what 15 was learned. And I think it's reasonable to raise concerns l .
16 about the possibility of using an open book and the material i 17 that is in front of you, because it provides you with the 18 answers.
19 And if that's the case, what does it measure? .
20 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Have you ever used open book l 21 technique for evaluation?
22 THE WITNESS: (Harris) I have used open book 23 technique for essay questions and over the years from time i 24 to time. But I always developed the essay questions in such 1
25 a way that it was not dependent upon a particular book.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
I
1 26212-Have~you seen'any. examinations ]
O 1 2
JUDGE McCOLLOM:
for any of these modules that-you have reviewed here?'
')
3 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Yes, I have. Yes. j 4' JUDGE McCOLLOM: Except for'the fact'that you said 5 that you didn't think that open' book was a good way of l
.. 6 evaluation, I didn't see any other comment about it. ]
7 Do you -- -l 8 THE WITNESS: (Harris) They-were forced choice ,
9 for the most part, forced choice questions with a few short 10 answers. I would not dispute the content of them or what 11 they were asking. j 12 JUDGE-McCOLLOM: Did'it say-in there "open book"? !
13 THE WITNESS: (Harris). No, it didn't.
14 In the directions that are given, it says, I l
~
15 believe, that you can have the resource materials that'are 16 dvailable or words to that effect.
17 18
. 19 l 20 21 22 23 24 l .e 25 l
t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1
26213 1 JUDGE McCOLLOM: I'm not real knowledgeable about 2 the terminology you have been using which you refer to as i
3 " verbal learning."
4 You do have on the top of page 12 some addressing 5 of this, but I gather it's an interaction between the 6 lecture system and the lecturer interacting with the ,
7 students?
8 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Well, yes, Your Honor. !
9 Whenever-you start to design a training program 10 there are several things that you take into consideration.
I 11 You look at the content that you want to present. You look j 12 at your audience. You look at the methodology. And the l 13 methodology is one of the key areas.
1 14 In some_ instances, the term verbal learning refers 15 to the fact that a lecture and discussion approach is the 16 major emphasis. You could have self-directed learning. You l
17 could have discovery learning. You could have interactive )
18 video learning. They're all just different methodologies, j 19 Most education, the vast majority of programs are -l 1
20 certainly structured in'such a way that it requires verbal I 21 presentations and interaction between the instructor and the 22 participants.
23 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Now here you're concerned because 24 you don't see that that has been organized into the material 25 that you reviewed?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 1
26214 i l
1 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Well, one of the things- l 2 that concerned me was the fact that it seemed to be a series ;
l 3 of points being made in an outline contained in the student l 4 manuals. Student handouts appear to be paper copies of 1 .
5 overhead transparencies with a series of points on them.
. 6 One of the things that's critical in the learning 7 process is,to start by providing an overview and throughout 8 that get more specific. But at the same time provide 1
9 feedback and reinforcement and constantly referring to the j l'
10 various aspects of the lesson that relate to each other.
11 And in looking at the design of the student ,
l 12 handouts, and also in looking at the instructor handouts 13 what I saw was a series of topics that were presented 14 sequentially.
N 15 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Were they tied back to enabling l i
16 objectives? )
l 17 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Well, the enabling l l
18 objectives in that were -- each one, as you know, each one 1
19 of those modules has many enabling objectives. And they 20 were referenced back. But it was unclear how they would be i o
21 referred to and referenced throughout the lesson. l 22 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Materials like transparencies are !
23 often used by teachers to give the student more time to 24 think as he is presented material and to make notes?
25 THE WITNESS: (Harris) That's correct.
f\
G Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26215 1 JUDGE McCOLLOM: That would tend to be some of 2 what you're talking about?
3 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Yes, it would make it a 4 very, very verbal situation. Where it was very dependent 5 upon the instructor to make the points and to make sure that 6 the participants clearly understand the material that's .
7 being presented.
8 JUDGE McCOLLOM: What about the material that was 9 presented which they referred to as: tabletops, walk-10 throughs, and drills, I won't say exercises because you did 11 not participate in that part.
12 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Right.
13 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Did you look at the instruction 14 materials and guidance in these areas?
15 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Just strictly related to 16 what was included in the requirements in Appendix K as well 17 as section 6.
18 My main focus was on the design of the programs, 19 the second step of the training development system. At that 20 point based on the task analysis the second step is' design.
21 Design is the aspect of the training program that describes 22 everything that will follow, not only in those individual 23 modules, but how it will be linked to the overall training 24 program.
25 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Did you detect any verbal l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
l l
i 26216 l
-("
1 learning aspects of those activities:'the tabletops, the 2 wa3k-throughs? !
l 3 THE WITNESS: (Harris) By design it's verbal 1
4 . learning, yes. That's why I felt that it was so compatible ]
5 with the training as an overall psychological approach to i .
6 it. It was very compatible with training. systems 7 development. -
8 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Another aspect that you commented 9 about -- and I guess I took it under evaluation on page 13 10 to be a criticism of the evaluation. I guess criticism of 11 instructors not being kept up-to-date or some such aspect. l 12 Did you have a concern about that?
13 THE WITNESS: (Harris) On page 13, Your Honor?
14 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Well, that's where I wrote my 15 note, I'm trying to figure it out now.
~
16 THE WITNESS: (Harris) I think I made reference 17 to the need to train the trainer. How were the trainers and 18 instructors prepared to teach these particular modules; that
. 19 was unclear.
20 JUDGE McCOLLOM: They did have training, again, 21 forms that a trainer had to fill out.
22 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Right.
J 23 JUDGE McCOLLOM: And wasn' t there a periodic 24 evaluation of those; do I remember tne correctly?
25 Those instructors periodically were reevaluated?
s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
i l
26217 l 1 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Right. j 2 There are forms, as I recall, where the 3 participants will comment on the performance of the 4 instructor, yes.
. 1 5 But that follows the notion behind selecting j l
6 instructors and train the trainer as part of the program. .
7 Those responsible review the methodology and make sure that l 8 the instructors are well prepared to present the material.
l 9 I'm certainly not suggesting that the instructors 10 were not prepared. All I'm suggesting is that I did not i
11 find out how they were prepared, l
12 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Again, related to the tabletop, ;
13 walk-through and drill as well as on to exercise, you
)
i 14 indicate on page 14: "There are no linkages between 15 information and application." l
~ !
16 I'm not sure I appreciate that considering that j j 17 they do have the lecture room and then the follow-on of 18 those others. I 19 Would you want to elaborate?
20 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Well, my comments 21 regarding the linkages in the TES approach, as I mentioned j 22 the second step is design. In the design step of a training 23 program you demonstrate how the skills learned and 24 information obtained at the module level will be applied in 25 drills, walk-throughs and exercises.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26218 1 And in the material that I looked through and not l
2 finding a specific design document as such, it was unclear 3 to me as to how the information would be applied. That's 4 what I meant by it.
. 5 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Let me make a comment that 6 concerna me about the materials that you reviewed. -
7 I read in your testimony that you reviewed section 8 6 of the plan and Appendix K. My observation there is that 9 is not very much detail. And that I'm concerned that you 10 would come up with the conclusions that so much was, quote, 11 " missing" because surely there are more materials that were 12 used to construct any module, I'll just put it that way, 13 than are shown in these two little packages here that are no 14 more than a quarter of an inch thick.
15 And therefore I'm concerned that your testimony 16 might be a result of superficial, not superficial from the 17 viewpoint of what you did with what you had, but the fact 18 that there may be other materials that might have been us'ed.
19 And, in fact, in looking at it as an educator I feel like i 20 surely there wers.
1
- 21 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Yes, I would certainly 22 share your concern.
23 I looked at section 6 and Appendix K, as I stated 24 previously, as strictly the requirements for training. The 25 actual training itself is in the program.
- Heritage Reporting Corporation ls (202) 628-4898
26219 1 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Now what do you mean by program?
2 THE WITNESS: (Harris) The modules.
3 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Okay.
4 THE WITNESS: (Harris) The tabletops, walk-5 throughs and so on.
6 And what I suggested was and testified to was that ,
7 in the matorials that I looked at I did not find the 8 relationship between -- the direct relationship between 9 modules, walk-throughs, exercises, and the modules.
10 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Actually put down on paper where 11 you can read it and say, this is the structure of it? l 12 THE WITNESS: (Harris) That's correct.
13 What I did discover, it's very clear that with 1 i
- 14 taking certain job positions you take certain units and i
15 modules and you're required to participate in a walk- 1 16 through, a drill, tabletop, and an exercise; that's very, 17 very clear and appropriate.
18 What is not clear is how the skills and 19 information acquired at one will be applied in the other. ,
20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26220
-r x 1 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Wouldn't you conclude that it's K 2 a little difficult to tell unless you really know what the 3 task analysis is and the results of having created the 4 modules and as to whether they matched if you don't look at 5 that?
6 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Well, to me the central 7 issue is whether or not in that five-step process of TSD is 8 there a training design document.
9 If the answer to that question is yes, then that 10 answers all the concerns, or should one way or the other.
11 I've assumed that there is a task analysis. You 12 know, there must be somewhere.
13 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Some form of it. -
/'"N 14 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Correct.
15 It's also recognized that the third step of 16 development that modules'and tabletops and walk-throughs l 1 l 17' were developed. That in the fourth step, they were in fact i 1 .
18 implemented. And in the fifth step, they were evaluated. !
l, 19 Even though I may disagree with the way they were 20 evaluated. I mean those steps and those procedures of that 21 design, five-step process are there.
22 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Now the evaluation here that you 23 say you may disagree is the open book examination?
24 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Correct.
25 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Yes.
/'
,( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
HARRIS - REDIRECT 26221 1 THE WITNESS: (Harris) What is not ther 3 that I 2 found was the second step of the design itself beyond saying 3 that there will be modules, the requirements of Appendix K 4 to form development teams or groups and what they would do.
5 Those are requirements.
6 What my concern would be in it is that the purpose .
7 of a training design document is to lay forth the road map 8 for ithat it is, what you are going to do, when you are going 9 to do it, how you are going to do it and what the intended 10 outcome is for the entire program.-
11 And I think over the years in not only emergency 12 management-related programs in the experience I've had in 13 designing training and education programs, that's one of the 14 areas that causes the biggest problem in any kind of 15 training or educational p.rogram, is the lack of clarity on 16 the design.
1 l
17 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce?
18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. FIERCE: ,
20 Q Dr. Harris, th.oughout your testimony you have 21 referred to what you call training modules.
22 Can you tell us what these training modules l 23 consist of? j l
24 A (Harris) Well, the training modules, there is 25 basically two parts I suppose you can say if you wanted to 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
! (202) 628-4888 I
HARRIS - REDIRECT 26222 ys 1 throw in the evaluation aspect of it and the tests that go
( I
\/ ~ 2 with it. It's basically in two parts. 4 3 There is a student handout with a series of l
4 objectives and so on, and attached to that is a series of 5 paper copies of what obviously are transparencies.
6 The instructor guide is put together in an outline 7 form which lists the objectives in one column. As you move 8 through it, it makes certain points regarding those 9 transparencies and what should be said in regard to them. I l
1 10 Q Do the modules also contain tests or sample tests? I 11 A (Harris) Yes, they apparently do. They were l
12 marked that way.
i 13 Q And have you looked at more than a single training 14 module for each of these three positions?
{'~Nb _
15 A (Harris) Yes.
~
l 16 Q Have you looked at modules as they have progressed l 17 over time?
1 18 A (Harris) Yes, and obviously there were some
, 19 changes made which were probably in response to concerns and 20 issues that have been raised. But the basic design remains 21 the same.
22 And once again, it's not that - you know, I would 23 have concerns professionally about the way they are 24 designed. But to me the central issue is the training 25 design document, how all this is to be applied throughout r\
! I Heritage Reporting Corporation V (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - REDIRECT 26223 1 the entire program.
2 Q I'm interested in the relationship between 3 reviewing job tasks and your review of training design. You 4 said that you didn't review the tasks.
5 Is it necessary to review job tasks in order to 6 review a training design? ,
7 A (Harris) It's necessary to review the task 8 analysis and the data that's provided from that task 9 analysis to proceed with a design, yes, because only then do 10 you know what audience you are teaching to, t
11 Q And if the tasks that have been identified in that 12 job analysis are carried through, that's what you are 13 looking for in a training design review.
14 A (Harris), That's correct.
15 In other words, based on what you know about the 16 participants in relationship to the job that's to be 17 performed, you then proceed with a comprehensive training 18 program which is what this is. It's not just modules. It 19 includes a variety of other elements that are strictly .
20 appropriate for a training program.
21 But what you do, as I believe I stated earlier, 22 you make sure that in that design document if you indicate 23 for a particular topical area that these are the needs, this 24 is the content that we are going to provide to meet these 25 needs, that once you satisfactorily complete the module, 1
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
_J
HARRIS - REDIRECT 26224 where is the next step. Do you participate in a drill? Do g~ 1
'w e 2 you participate in a walk-through? Do you participate in an 3 exercise?
4 And when you have three, four, five, six or more 5 different units of instruction, at some point all of these 6 are integrated and come together in the application of it 7 through drills and exercises.
8 Then what you have to do at that level have a 9 clear understanding of which pieces you are in fact going to 10 test through the exercise. Clearly, you can't test 11 everything that's in those modules. But at some point in an 12 exercise, full-scale or in a tabletop or in a drill, what 13 you have to do is to select the most important task to be 14 accomplished and see that they are addressed and measure it
('~
15 accordingly.
~
16 Q Is it possible to have a training design that you 17 would find to be adequate because it in fact carried _through 18 from the task analysis at each step of the training all the 19 way to lhe exercises, but yet a training which overall was
. 20 inadequate because the content was lacking?
~
21 A (Harris) Certainly. I mean that's why you have 22 the content experts.
23 Whenever you design a training program, there are 24 several members of a training and an instructional design 25 team. You have the instructional designer and you have the i
/^g
[' ) Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
HARRIS - REDIRECT 26225 1 content specialist.
2 Someone like myself who has a background in 3 developing and designing training programs, the first thing 4 I would do is make sure, if it's in an area that I'm not 5 personally familiar with, would be to make sure that I have 6 technical specialists, content and subject matter experts ,
7 who would advise me and provide and develop the content, so 8 that it then can be turned over to the writers and so on to 9 put it in the format that is finally decided upon for 10 presentation.
11 Q Now you indicated that you were looking at boxes 12 of documents in the Mass AG's office in your direct 13 testimony.
14 Did the documents that were in those boxes appear
, 15 to come from the ORO or from the New Hampshire Yankee l 1 16 o7 organization?
17 A (Harris) I don't remember. I mean it seems to me 18 that they were both at some point. I mean there were 19 documents that I looked at that had New Hampshire Yankee .
20 name on it as well as referring to ORO.
21 Q And did a large number of these documents pertain 22 to training?
23 A (Harris) There were quite a few documents that 24 pertained to training, yes, beyand the ones that were 25 considered here.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
HARRIS - REDIRECT 26226 1 Q Did you see feedback forms from students who took 92 training courses?
< 3 A (Harris) Yes.
4 Q Does the fact that an instructor receives
~
5 uniformly positive feedb.ack from a group of students 6 necessarily indicate that the students are learning the 7 objectives for the course?
8 A (Harris) Not necessarily. They may think he's a 9 nice guy.
10 Q The word you used when you~ described how you 11 reviewed Applicants' No. 20 was " glanced at".
12 MR. SMITH: Objection, Your Honor. I think we are 13 going beyond the scope of cross at this point. I never 14 asked about the fe_edback, student feedback.
15 MR. FIERCE: I ce.rtainly heard it discussed 16 perhaps from quest' ions from Judge-McCollom.
h 17 JUDGE SMITH: Did you?
,w IT'
.r ;
8 18 JUDGE McCOLLOM: I talked about evaluation. I
' 1, . ,
19 didn't talk about --
,T./- 20 MR. FIERCE: Evaluation.
4 A b~ 21 JUDGE McCOLLOM: It is the examination evaluation.
?:$l 22 I
g a't>
,(/ MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm well beyond that now.
23 BY MR. FIERCE:
24 0 With respect to testimony No. 20, when you say you 25 " glanced at" it, did you glance at it for a few seconds or Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
..m._ m.___m_m .
HARRIS -- REDIRECT 26227 1 how long did you spend looking at it? j 2 A (Harris) Well, I read it when I came up on the 1
3 plane yesterday.
]
4 Q And did you reach the attachments that are 5 contained with.it?
6 A (Harris) I did not read them word for word. I 7 reviewed them to see what was there. That was basically it.
8 Q Did you find any training design document attached 9 there?
l 10 A (Harris) What I found was one module on training 11 design and which was very much the same -- as I recall --
12 the same kind of requirements that are listed in Appendix K, 13 forming certain training groups and development groups and 14 what they would do.
15 There again the emphasis is on the requirements 16 rather than the product.
17 Q You say you did review some of the tests that 18 pertained to these three modules.
19 A (Harris) Yes. And others. .
20 Q And did the answers that were sought on those
~
l 21 tests appear to be the kinds of answers that one could 22 easily ascertain by looking back to the open materials?
23 A (Harris) Yes.
24 MR. FIERCE: I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further?
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
l L___-__-_.___
HARRIS - RECROSS 26228 1 MR. SMITH: I have nothing further, Your Honor.
9 2 MR. BACHMANN: I have just one brief question 3 brought on by redirect.
4 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
~
5 BY MR. BACHMANN:
6 Q I understand you to say that one of the things 7 that the design document would so -- correct me if I'm 8 wrong. I thought I heard you say this, that the ultimate 9 evaluation, whether it was through a drill or walk-through 10 or an exercise, that should be somehow brought bach into the 11 design document.
12 Did I get that correct?
13 In other words, that should be put in ahead so you 14 know where you are going?
15 A (Harris) Well, it's put in throughout the entire 16 program. The hard part, admittedly, in developing a program 17 that is as broad-based as this, is if you start -- it's a 18 hierarchy. You obviously start at the lowest denominator
. 19 which is classroom instruction of individual topics.
20 Then you work your way up to the application of 21 that information until you get to a major exercise.
22 In conducting the major exercise, the training ;
23 design document should indicate at that level even what is l 24 to be included or tested within the exercise if -- I 25 Q All right, now you -- excuse me. I'm sorry.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-~
HARRIS - RECROSS 26229 1 A (Harris) If such a document does not exist and if l
2 there is some confusion or whatever over what is to be 3 exercised throughout the system of the training system )
1 4 itself, then you may miss something, and in fact not )
5 exercise a particular component that in fact might be very 4
6 critical.
7 Q All right. ]
l 8 Now are you aware that the major FEMA graded l
9 exercise is dictated by a document entitled Extent of Play? j l
10 A (Harris) Yes.
11 Q Since that document is generally laid down by ,
l l
12 FEMA, how could in this case the Applicant dictate what's l
13 going into the exercises which I think is the word you used? l 1
14 A (Harris). Well, I don't think one dictates.
I 15 think if you know what is evident in a design throughout the
~
16 entire program is you make your suggestions in the 17 development of the exercise. There are certainly ways to 18 work things in, incidents in.
19 Q So you don't see any conflict between what FEMA . .
20 might want them to do and what they would put into the 21 design document as to what they think they should do?
22 A (Harris) I would think that you would be able to 23 accommodate both if they are interested in the end results 24 being the same in an excellent exercise.
25 MR. BACHMANN: I have no other questions.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, I HARRIS - REDIRECT 26230 1 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further?
- 2 MR. FIERCE: Just one question.
3 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
4 BY MR. FIERCE:
5 Q Dr. Harris, do you know who is the author'of the l
6 Extent of Plan: the Applicants or FEMA?
7 A (Harris) No, I do not.
8 MR. FIERCE: That's all.
9 JUDGE SMITH: You are excused, sir.
10 THE WITNESS: (Harris) Thank you.
l l
11 JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
i 12 (The witness was thereupon excused.)
13 JUDGE SMITH: After the break do you want to take 14 up the objections,to the Adler testimony on traffic guide 15- training? First thing.
l '
l 16 All right, 15 minutes.
1 l
17 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
l 18
, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Og Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26231 l
1 JUDGE SMITH: Back on the record.
2 MR. COOK: Your Honor, before deferring to the 3 Attorney General, his response to Applicants' motion in the 4 nature of a motion in l' imine to portions of the prefiled 5 testinony of Thomas J. Adler on traffic guide training, I
1 6 Applicants would like to and seek leave of the Board to .
]
7 raise one additional point with respect to a further portion 1
8 of the testimony. And that would be the full paragraph on 9 page 4 of the testimony which begins: "The U.S. Department 1
10 of Transportation's publication," and ends at the bottom of i 11 the page.
l 12 And Applicants would move to exclude this 13 paragraph on the ground that its concentration is the 14 subject of recalcitrant drivers, and in particular the need 15 for traffic guides to have experience in coordinating and 16 directing drivers who are variously described as anxious 17 distraught and recalcitrant.
18 This is an issue Applicants believe has been 19 covered by the Board's preliminary initial decision. In .
20 particular Applicants would refer the parties and the Board 21 to paragraphs 7.87 and 7.89 in which the Board agreed with 22 the Applicants'that the great weight of authority in the 23 field of social sciences hold that declarations and 24 statements in advance have little, if anything, to du with 25 actual behavior cf drivers.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26232 rN 1 But then went further to say that unstable or
( l
\' aberrant driver behavior is not expected to be a significant I 2
f i
3 factor in the event of an emergency at Seabrook.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce?
5 MR. FIERCE: Well, it was going to be my 6 suggestion that we take the items up one by one and perhaps 7 this is the one we should start with since we have now just !
8 heard what the Applicants' position is on it.
9 This is in a preliminary section of Dr. Adler's 10 testimony. We believe that the citation referenced is l 11 relevant to setting the stage for Dr. Adler's testimony. l 12 As I recall the ruling that we are to abide by I 13 with respect to the drivers, the Board has made a careful l[~'}
14 and calculated decision to exclude testimony about drivers j 15 that would disobey and drive in directions not intended.
16 Has clearly ruled out panic-type driver behavior as well. l l
l 17 But that the anxiety levels and the stress levels l ,
18 of those drivers would certainly be expected to be a ;
. 19 heightened. And that with respect to stress and anxiety 20 that kind of behavior that would be associated with that 21 would certainly be expected.
22 And I believe this particular quote clearly falls 23 on the stress and anxiety side of the line that you have 24 carefully drawn, Your Honor, and is not really suggesting 25 nor did we intend to in. ply that it suggests that drivers are A
i ,k)
f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
1 26233 1 1 going to be disobedient.
2 It's a piece of testimony that is here to set the 3 stage for the argument that the job is a difficult one and 4 no more than that.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Our problem is, as it often is, 6 drawing the line where stress leaves off and the drivers .
(
7 behavior takes over, unstable driver behavior.
8 MR. COOK: Your Honor.
j 1
4 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
l 10 MR. COOK: I was just going to add by way of 11 clarification, an additional reference, perhaps, to 7.82 12 would be useful in that the important point about the j 13 problem of disobedience here is that it is an argument about 14 consequences, not.an. argument about the nature of the 15 drivers themselves.
~
16 In 7.82 Chief Olivera and Dr. Ceder previously 17 testified that the consequence of the aberrant driver 1 ,
l 18 behavior would be a need to have police, they particularly l I
19 testified, with reference to the problem of disobeying .l l
20 passing restrictions.
21 It is that same argument based upon the i
22 consequences of the driver's character that sums up the 23 quote from the guide for highway traffic regulation about 24 the need for police action against recalcitrant drivers.
25 (The Board confers.) !
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
26234
/N 1 JUDGE SMITH: We think, in this instance, the t
)
2 Board is being called upon to make judgments that really 3 simply can't be made in the context here.
4 We're very much aware. We spent a lot of time on 5 the issue of aberrant driver behavior in the last session. .
. 6 We found that aberrant driver behavior will not be an 7 important factor in evacuation. That there will be a 8 community of people who will, as a group, behave well and 9 the traffic guides will be obeyed. And that the assumption l - 10 that traffic will flow is a realistic one.
11 We also, as part of our own human experiences, 12 acknowledge in portions of this that drivers in an 13 evacuation situation may, however, experience a level of
,[ 14 stress that they may not under returning home from a picnic,
]
I(/ '
15 for example.
l l
~ l 16 Here, we're being called upon to draw the line. !
l l 17 It's not possible to draw the line the way that the parties j l
18 are asking us to do this time. I think we'll just stand on
]
1
. 19 what we said in our initial decision. And if we could 20 finesse this, avoid making this ruling we would. It has to 21 go in or out. It's a toss-up. We'll leave it in. j j 22 Nevertheless, our previous standard set forth in 1
23 the earlier decision stands. And this in no way is going to 24 affect that decision. We believe that the community of 25 drivers will function responsibly in an emergency, and we're O
,k', Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26235 j 1 not doing anytning to back away from that finding.
2 I would go through here myself personally and pick ,
3 out some words and perhaps throw them out or might leave
=
4 them in; I don't know; it's subjective. But with that 5 observation we're going to leave the language in.
6 MR. FIERCE: I would like to take up the remaining .
7 items in the sequence that they're presented in the motion.
8 The first item is that there is some testimony l 1
9 which is beyond the scope of the contention. Specifically, 10 there's a reference to some words on page 5 at line 7. And j i
11 also, on page 8 the paragraph at the top of the page which 12 is related to the issue of traffic guides not being i 13 specifically instructed on what to do about breaks when they 14 are in the middle of.a very congested traffic situation and 25 how to respond to their needs for a lunch break, to go to l 16 t'he bathroom, et cetera.
17 And all I can say in response to that is that the 18 contention itself clearly does challenge the ability of the 19 training program to infuse a knowledge in the trainees on -
20 how to deal with extremely congested traffic situations.
21 That's the focus.
22 And just as we are presenting evidence -- and it 23 is evidence -- of the inability of these guides to direct 24 the traffic using proper hand movements, as leading to an 25 inefficiency in their ability to more the traffic, just as Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26236 f
\
I we would describe some of the confusing traffic control 2 diagrams as leading the traffic guides to direct traffic i 3 inefficiently, so are we pointing to this as a matter of 4 evidence as a way of showing that the guides may not be as 5 efficient in this process as they could be, because they
. 6 really haven't been given a method or a system or trained in 7 any way on how to take a break when the congested traffic is 8 still flowing heavily.
9 Are they to merely leave their post? Are they to 10 call in a substitute traffic guids, who we believe the ORO 11 does have available back in the staging area? Are they to 12 look to come assistance from the transfer point, perhaps, l
13 for somebody to step in for a few moments for them?
[~'N 14 It's an. evidentiary point. It's going to the same us Y b 15 issue that we're addressing with other aspects of the 16 t'estimony. And really, that is my point, Your Honor. We've 17 identified the focus as being efficiency in directing j 18 traffic under extremely congested conditions.
I
. 19 And clearl1, this is a problem, if there has been 1
20 no instruction in this area on how to take these breaks, and 21 yet, maintain efficiency --
22 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce, I think you're over-l 23 arguing. But continue. I mean, it just seems to be the 24 same thought restated over and over again.
25 MR. FIERCE: The only thought is, it's a matter of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26237 1 evidence that goes to this issue.
2 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
3 (The Board confers.)
4 JUDGE SMITH: The Board is of the view that the 5 challenged language here does not allege a training 6 deficiency, but alleges a planned deficiency. The subject .
7 matter, the physical needs are not what we would view to be 8 a content of training in the skills involved, but merely a 9 problem that the plan should provide for.
10 I can't imagine any training which would explain 11 to a guide how to get along without food or bathroom 12 facilities or to locate the same.
13 So,it's an allegation of a plan deficiency and we 14 sustain the objection.
15 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I guess I would take an
~
16 opportunity, if you would give it to me, to offer a co'uple 17 of arguments in the hopes that you might reconsider that.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Well, did we make a mistake?
19 MR. FIERCE: Well, it seems to me that it's not -
20 inconsistent, that it could be both a planned defect and a 21 training defect at the same time.
22 Perhaps, the plan could have been more --
l 23 JUDGE SMITH: That's an argument that you were 24 fully free and expected to make before.
25 MR. FIERCE: All I can say is that JI-13 is a (202) 628-4888
26238-1 plan --
k' JUDGE SMITH: You just disagree with us, is that i 2
l 3 it? You simply disagree with us.
4 What are the standards we have set up for 5 reconsideration? Not that we've made the wrong decision,. J 6 But the decision has been based upon some fundamental error, 1
7 the state of perception. !
i 8 MR. FIERCE: That's what I thirk may have 1
9 happened.
10 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think so.
11 MR. FIERCE: It's not an exercise --
12 JUDGE SMITH: Now are you in good faith going to 13 make this argument, Mr. Fierce, because I have little 14 patience for rearguing a motion after I have repeatedly 15 explained what the standards for reconsideration are. l
~
16 Are you making a motion for reconsideration which 17 must be founded upon the Board making a mistake: we read 18 something incorrectly; we read the wrong words;.I mean, a l- 19 factual error.
20 MR. FIERCE: Just that it seems to me that this is 1
. l 21 a plan-based contention. It's not an exercise contention, 22 JI-13. Training defects are plan defects.
23 JUDGE SMITH: You' re saying we made a mistake.
24 You're saying we arrived at the wrong conclusion; that's all 25 you're saying. And we're not entertaining that argument.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26239 j i
1 Error is one thing. Mistake is something else.
2 Do you understand that? Have I repeatedly ;
3 explained to you what the basis for motions for 1
4 reconsideration would be? !
. I 5 MR. FIERCE: Oh, yes. Yes. I really honestly 6 thought this was a mistake to equate something that was a .
7 plan defect, could not be a training defect. That's the sum 8 and substance of my point, Your Honor.
9 JUDGE SMITH: I think we explained our ruling well 10 enough. And your argument is not well made.
11 Now you make your argument as complete as you can ;
12 wit'heut repeating. !
13 14 15
~
16 17 l
18 19 .
20 21 22 l
23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 26240 MR. FIERCE: Well,. Item No. 2 in the motion points f 1 2 to a sentence on pages'8 and 9.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want a break? .]
4 Do you need a break?
5 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. q
-t
. 6 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)'
- j. 7 MR.-FIERCE: The first'part of the Argument No. 2 8 concerns a portion of the testimony in which Dr. Adler is 9 discussing materials that would need to be provided in the' 10 training to traffic guides. And cne of the functions 11 clearly that the traffic guides need to perform, Your' Honor, 12 is to instruct and in fact train their replacements.
13 And we have a section of the testimony that.
14 challenges the ability of the traffic guides to train their 15 replacements, first, whether.they are going to be police'who
~
16 would be taking over for them, or second shift personnel 17 from the Yankee Atomic group.
18 And the point is that these traffic guides need to
. 19 be instructed on how to provide training.to their second 20 shift replacements. And it's Dr. Adler's view that that 21 training that they are given now is inadequate and he points 22 out what he thinks it ought to be in order'to be adequate.
23 He thinks it ought to include written materials 24 that would enable the second shift replacements to get l
'l' 25 information specifically rather than has it might be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26241 1 rehashed by a second shift guide.
2 But I submit that the real focus here is on the 3 fact that they are not provided the training, the guides 4 themselves are not provided the training in order to carry 5 out the tasks they are assigned, to brief and train their 6 second shift replacements. .
7 So the point would be not to focus too narrowly on 8 a single sentence in this Answer No. 8 that might refer to 9 local police or to second shift guides. The overall focus l
10 of that section goes to the issue of training these traffic 11 guides in order to be able to train their replacements.
12 And he then suggests how to do it better. It 13 would be the provision of written materials to them.
1 14 So as to the first item there, it's the sentence 15 on the bottom of page 8 and carries over to page 9 that we
~
16 are focusing on right now. I think it's a sentence that is 17 properly included within that larger discussion.
l 18 MR. COOK:
Your Honor, I would respond if the 19 Board would permit it. .
20 JUDGE SMITH: I was wondering if you cared at all 21 to address the point made by Mr. Cook in the motion that you 22 haven't. That is, one of the reasons he believes it's 23 beyond this contention is that it was specifically provided 24 for in JI-14 which has been withdrawn.
25 MR. FIERCE: Well, JI-14 had a different focus.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
26242
, 1 We're not talking --
t 2 JUDGE SMITH: Training of state and local people 3 responding on an ad hoc --
4 MR. FIERCE: It mentioned training of state and 4
5 local people. ,
. 6 This contention that we are discussing here, Your 7 Honor, is the training of the traffic guides. And the 8 training of the traffic guides has to include, as at least 9 an element, how they are going to be training their 10 replacements, or the traffic guides are not properly 11 trained.
12 JUDGE SMITH: But you withdrew the contention 13 which alleged that the replacements will not be trained.
14 MR. FIERCE:,. Well, remember what we did, Your 15 Honor, and this is repeating what we discussed last week.
~
16 With JI-13 and JI-14, they were both withdrawn',
17 and JI-13 was submitted as a substitute. But I don't want 18 to argue that we are raising the contention here that the
. 19 second shift guides or the ORO -- the policemen who may come 20 to replace the ORO themselves won't be adequately trained.
21 We're talking about the training that needs to be 22 provided to the ORO traffic guides. And to the extent that 23
~
we knew we were focusing on that point, Your Honor, we felt 24 we didn't need to get into directly the issue of what other 25 aspects of the training might be provided to the second Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886
26243 1 shift guides.
2 We also have a contention regarding inadequate 3 staffing for second shift traffic guides. I personally 4 believe, Your Honor, that that second shift staffing 5 contention, plus this ORO training contention, covers 6 everything that we alleged in JI-14 about second shift .
7 traffic guides and their training. So I don't feel that the 8 issue has gone away or disappeared.
l 9 We're getting at the issue through two other 10 contentions.
11 MR. COOK: Of course, the testimony would be late 12 if it goes to 11 and 12.
13 (The Board confers. )
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Cook.
15 MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor.
~
16 The portion that we wish to exclude,'first of all, 17 we would like to point out is limited within Answer 8. It i 18 is not, as Mr. Fierce has suggested, the entire section 19 which describes a need for printed training materials and
-l 20 manuals, a need for instructors to cover details.
.)
21 It is only the last sentence, the last full j 22 sentence that begins on page 8 that involves the 1
23 distribution of these materials to the state and local 24 police.
25 So the first concern that we have is that the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
'l 26244 i 1 objection is a narrow one.
2 The second one is-that because it is narrow, it at 3 the same timeJgoes to a specific subject. And the-subject 4 is the withdrawal from what used to be Contention 14 with 5 reference directly to the second line of the main contention
. 6 in JI-14.
7 And I'm looking at the list of contentions dated 8 10-28-88 in which the assertion went specifically to the-9 SPMC's failure to provide adequate training, not only to 10 members of the ORO, which is the first line, but then the 11 state and local government employees and other 12 organizations. And then it goes on to say who may have to 13 respond in an ad hoc fashion.
14 That ass.ert. ion was dropped, and unlike the 15 argument of last --
~
' 1 16 JUDGE SMITH: You already said that in your 17 motion.
18 MR. COOK: Right.
. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
20 MR. COOK: Unlike the argument of last. Thursday, 21 is all I would point out, that there is no corresponding j 22 remaining phrase in the new JI-13 such as the. general phrase ]
1 23 like training to refer to. j 24 The final point would be that.the sentence indicts l 25 a whole different field of inquirv, because it indicts a 1
Beritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 j l
I i
26245 1 process. It indicts the connection, a liaison function, and 2 we believe that was not covered.
3 (The Board confers.)
4 JUDGE SMITH: We agree with the Applicants. The 5 section is precisely what was alleged in Contention JI-14.
6 It wasn't alleged in 13. It goes to the training for the .
7 state and local police, and in particular, policies and 8 protocols, and it doesn't really go to shift change-over 9 briefing or anything of that nature.
10 Therefore, the carryover sentence on page 8 to 9, 11 it will be deleted.
12 MR. FIERCE: The next one is a second part of 13 Argument No. 2. ,
It refers to a single clause of the 14 sentence on page 5. about six lines from the bottom. "Nor 15 were the guides equipped with time pieces to monitor flows." )
i
~
16 This is a sentence in a section again discussing 17 the inability of the traffic guides to know how to control l 18 green time in the way that would most efficiently direct the l
l 19 traffic through a given intersection. And to some extent, -
20 this sentence probably could have been rewritten to state, 21 "nor are the guides instructed to look at their watches in 22 order to facilitate the appropriate green time for each 23 traffic stream."
24 But the argument here presented in the motion is 25 that somehow this should be excluded because it's an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o__
26246
( l' equipment allegation and the evacuation equipment contention 2
JI-60 was withdrawn.
3 Frankly, Your Honor, I don't think that's a 4 credible argument at all.
5 In JI-60, if you take a look at it, the focus is
. 6 on barricades and traffic cones.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I guess I really didn't have l 8 to look at that one. I could look at the sentence under 9 " Attack" and look at JI-13, and see if I could find it 10 there. I didn't even have to go to anything else really.
11 MR. FIERCE: You think that it needed to be 12 specifically alleged as watches? The attack goes to green 13 time, Your Honor, one of the issues that's directly 14 addressed in the contention; the efficiency of the traffic l 15 flow and the training that's provided to ensure that that
~
16 efficiency is going to be accomplished.
17 Now if this isn't a matter of evidence, then I 18 don't --
. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Show me. Just show me where that 20 would be covered on 13.
21 MR. FIERCE: In the contention?
22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
23 MR. FIERCE: The traffic guides may.be required to 24 direct extremely congested traffic under adverse weather 25 conditions and deal with the drivers.
, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26247 1 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, and they have to be trained.
2 MR. FIERCE: They have to be trained in order to 3 deal with that very congested level of traffic.
4 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
5 MR. FIERCE: And one of the issues, it's an 6 evidentiary one again, is the green time issue. .
7 JUDGE SMITH: I understand that.
8 MR. FIERCE: And the green time issue is a matter 9 of allocating 60 seconds to one line of traffic, and then 10 perhaps 40 to the other line of traffic, depending on which 11 way the heavier traffic is lined up. And there isn't any l
12 instruction provided to the traffic guides on how to do that 13 green time allocation. And there is a sentence that 14 concludes, "Nor were.the guides equipped with time pieces to 15 monitor flows."
~
16 I mean there could have been a reference to the 17 watches. It certainly has nothing to do with JI-60, 18 equipment, traffic cones and barricades.
l 19 If we had tried to raise the time pieces issues in -
20 a JI-60 discussion, the Applicants most certainly would have 1 21 been in here with a motion in limine saying time pieces 22 doesn't have anything to do with JI-60. I think I would 23 agree with that. Time pieces doesn't have anything to do 24 with JI-60. That's hardly the focus.
25 But green time allocation and efficiently Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
26248 1 directing very congested traffic is the issue with respect 2 to this training contention. And this goes directly to !
3 that.
4 Now, if you would like, w2 could have said 5 " watches". He says " time pieces".
. 6 JUDGE SMITH: That's not it. We're not going to 7 quibble on the watches.
8 This is en equipment allegation not under JI-ia. !
9 It's deleted.
10 11 12 13 .
14 .
15 16 17 18
- 19 20 21 22 l 23 1
24 25 I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t 26249 1 JUDGE SMITH: Next category.
i 2 The Board will need more help on this because the 3 dividing line was worked out pretty much by the parties.
4 MR. FIERCE: Well, the argument here is that 3 l
5 somehow we missed a filing deadline because some of the i
I 6 facts alleged here are traffic management issues. .
7 The first sentence is on page 6 in the middle of 8 the page: " Guides are not provided written information on j 9 how long it is expected to take before traffic clears at the !
l 10 post and whether the post is a bottleneck." 1 l
11 I submit that this is both a traffic management !
1 12 issue and a training issue. In fact, the training for 13 traffic guides is a traffic management issue. The issues 14 are so intertwined by their very nature that you can't come 15 up with a neat dividing line here.
~ I 16 Do the guides need to be provided information l 17 about their posts in the training program? Dr. Adler says, 18 yes, they do.
19 Is that also going to have an impact on the ;
i 20 traffic management plan if they're not given that 21 information and not so trained?
1 22 Yes, it is.
23 Yes, these were in two filing categories. This 24 sentence goes to the training aspect of that issue, but I l
l 25 can't deny that it's also a traffic management issue. But Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26250 it seems within the scope of this testimony which goes to t
01 2 training, that sentence is the proper sentence.
3 JUDGE SMITH: If it were a traffic management 4 issue would you agree that it should have been filed earlier 5 then?
, 6 MR. FIERCE: I'm saying it's both, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE SMITH: I know, but if it were solely. I'm 8 trying to figure out what the actual dispute is.
9 MR. FIERCE: If it were solely a traffic 10 management issue and did not relate to training at all, I 11 suppose it should have been filed earlier. But we did 12 mention this earlier; and we' re mentioning it here, too.
13 It's a training issue. It certainly is.
14 Now, there'.s a second sentence which is on page 7.
15 JUDGE SMITH: You're suggesting that guides should
~
16 be trained and training we would assume is something that 17 happens before an accident.
18 MR. FIERCE: Right.
. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Before the emergency as compared 20 with being provided with information to be~used during an 21 accident, during an emergency?
22 MR. FIERCE: I think in this case they need to go 23 hand in glove.
l 24 They need to be trained about how to use 25 information available about those intersections in a way Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26251 3 1 that will be effective for their job performance when they 2 get to a particular post. !
3 (The Board confers.)
I 4 JUDGE SMITH: We can't infer a training allegation 5 here. We see a traffic management statement.
6 Objection sustained with respect to the sentence .
7 on page 6 beginning: " Guides are not provided."
8 MR. FIERCE: The next sentence on the next !
9 page, it's the second sentence of the first full paragraph.
10 This is a descriptive sentence about the diagrams which is 11 followed by another sentence that says: "There's no written 1
12 instructions on how to space the cones." )
l 13 That is followed by another sentence that says: {
j 14 "Nowhere in the training or the procedures are these 15 specifications detailed."
~
16 If they had bcen specified in the training there 17 wouldn't be a problem here. But it's not in the training.
l 18 Because it's not in the plans or the procedures of the 19 diagrams, it would need to be in the training.
-l 20 (The Board confers.)
21 JUDGE SMITH: It's our understanding that the 22 sentence means that deficiency of the diagrams indicates a 23 need to coser the point in training and that's all it means.
24 We'll leave the sentence in.
25 MR. FIERCE: Is that all of them?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 26252 1
1 JUDGE SMITH: There's one on page 9. l 2 MR. FIERCE: Now, this is a reference to the 3 second shift personnel and their training. And the 4 distinction that you need to keep in mind here is the'one 5 between the state.and local police, the' sentence prior to
. 6 that and this group.-
7 This group is actually a group of ORO traffic 8 guides. They may be in a second shift category but, because 9 of their status as Yankee Atomic. workers, their training.
10 needs to be of a particular kind.
11 But this is ORO traffic guide training, i
12 nevertheless, and statements about what that training needs 13 to include in order to be adequate with respect to printed
} 14 handout materials._ l 15 And again, I still think the focus is on the first
~
16 shift guides providing training to.these second shift ORO 17 workers, but either way you want to.look at it it's training 18 for ORO traffic guides.
. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want to be heard?
20 MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor.
21 Applicants would only stress the importance of 22 categorization and the difference between JI-11 and 12 which 23 specifically in their first sentence is: "Each indict, 24 second shift manpower capability and second shift staffing 25 and in particular in their bases go into a questioning of
(- Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26253 1 the Yankee Atomic workers," and point out that that is an 2 important distinction and a different categorization than 3 JI-13 which is a discussion of ORO training.
4 And despite Mr. Fierce's repetition of the term 5 ORO, there is an important distinction between ORO and 6 second shift staffing that comes from Yankee Atomic and .
7 other sources as well as the ORO. And that there was an 8 important distinction made in terms of filing deadlines for 9 the sake of order in this litigation.
10 And the testimony enclosed in this section is late 1 11 and should be excluded.
(
12 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I just want to go back to j 13 the JI-13, JI-14 issue for a moment. I mean, one of the
~
14 reasons we withdrew JI-14 is because we thought it was )
15 covered in many respects by other contentions that we had.
~
16 Now, this got us into the argument that we thought 17 we weren't going to get into over what was the meaning of 18 the withdrawal of a particular contention. And I still 19 thought that the Board had earlier ruled that we don't look -
20 to those older contentions, we look to the language of the 21 contentions we have now. That was what we were told to do.
22 That's why we entered into certain stipulations.
23 , JUDGE SMITH: Did you ever make that argument 24 before in this context?
25 MR. FIERCE: We made this argument last week.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 26254 1 JUDGE SMITH: What was our ruling?
2 MR. FIERCE: I believe you struck the testimony at 3 that point, Your Honor.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, when you make the same 5 argument in the face of a negative ruling, adverse ruling,
. 6 you better explain what is different about the argument.
l l 7 All you do is just confuse us.
8 MR. FIERCE: Ir for the record, just want to make 9 that argument one more time. But the key argument I'm 10 making here is, this is ORO traffic guide training. There's 11 no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
12 JUDGE SMITH: It does seem to be traffic guide 13 training. And it was particularly covered by 12-B.
L 14 How did.you handle that? What was the division?
15 What was the criteria for dividing the --
~
16 MR. COOK: The criteria, Your Honor, was the 17 Board's order setting the hearing schedule.
18 JUDGE SMITH: No, I mean, what was the substantive
. 19 thought?
20 MR. COOK: The substantive thought was the 21 distinction between shifts and personnel on staffing.
22 Staffing of personnel and shifts, on the one hand. And 23 between training of personnel, on the other hand.
24 The process of education being different from 25 whether there are sufficient number of people on the job.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26255 1 JUDGE SMITH: I can see where 11 and 12 generally 2 address the adequacy of the second shift.
3 MR. COOK: Right.
4 JUDGE SMITH: But this aspect of 12-B is a 5 training aspect. So would that have been --
6 MR. COOK: It most certainly would have been ,
7 relevant and appropriate testimony. The Applicants' 8 argument here is that it's late because of the joint 9 stipulation of February 7th, 1989, in which the parties l
10 agreed to file the testimony on 11 and 12 by February --
l JUDGE SMITH:
11 Oh, 11 and 12?
12 MR. COOK: Right. By February 21st and testimony 13 on 13 by April 3rd and then the 10th.
14 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
15 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, it just doesn't fall into 16 n' eat categories; that's the problem here. This is a piece l 17 of testimony that probably could have been filed in either l 18 place.
19 We did this for the convenience of the parties. -i 20 And I'll tell you, the training contention -- these were 21 plan contentions but they got kicked into the second phase l 22 of filing because all the parties realized that the exercise 1 ,
l 23 and the evidence from the exercise might very well be 24 relevant to the training contentions; and that's true.
25 But just because a piece of testimony comes in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26256
/ 1 under one contention or another -- if it's relevant to the f
2 contention that it's coming'in under, it doesn't necessarily ,
i 3 mean it's not. relevant to another contention. It may'be.
4 But this division of contentions between the first round and l J
5 the second round was somewhat arbitrary.
. 6 JUDGE SMITH: That challenged part of that 7 paragraph is just absolutely straight on of 12-B. It looks 8 like it was designed for 12-B. ]
9 MR. FIERCE: And it is also relevant to 13-A.
10 It's relevant either place.
11 MR. BACHMANN: Your Honor, may I --
12 MR. FIERCE: It could have come in either place. )
13 MR. BACHMANN: Your Honor, may I comment just one 1
14 thing?
15 The point to be made from the paragraph on Dr.
16 Idler's testimony on page 9, the bottom line, is that the 17 second shift people will not do their job well, not whether 18 the first shift people are going to be trained to teach the
. 19 second shift people. That's just one step along the way.
20 The bottom line is the second shift people will 21 not do their job well. And that's what it says in 12-B; the 22 bottom line is the same.
23 MR. FIERCE: Well, the bottom line in this piece 24 of testimony that's sought to be stricken is: " Absent such 25 materials, as is the case now, there is no assurance that Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
26257 1 the second shift guides will be adequately trained by the 2 first shift guides."
3 JUDGE SMITH: Would you point specifically to what 4 part of 13 that would be covered by failure of training of 5 the second shift?
6 MR. FIERCE: Well, it's 13-A and it says: "The .
7 training provided by the SPMC is not adequate to compensate 1 8 for this deficiency."
I 9 In this case the deficiency is compounded, because 10 not only is there no prerequisite for the job of traffic l 11 guide, the second shift people are coming in with no prior 12 classroom training.
13 JUDGE SMITH: Did we leave in all of 13-A?
14 (Parties reviewing document. )
l 15 JUDGE SMITH: So here we are.
~
16 The argument as I understand it is -- well, in 17 answer to your point, Mr. Bachmann, isn't all of training 18 allegation that performance will be bad?
19 MR. BACHMANN: No , my thing was that the bottom 20 line - you've got a two step process in Dr. Adler's 21 testimony which says that the first shift can't train second 22 shift. But what's the problem, you will have an untrained 23 second shift. And that's simply the same allegation as you 24 had in JI-12, you'll have an untrained second shift. It's 25 just a two step process to get there.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 26258 1 MR. COOK: By way of clarification, once again it 2 might be useful to point out that the -- just to narrow the 3 boundaries of what the Applicants seek, and that is on page 4 9 to exclude the sentence beginning with "Similarly," and ,
l .
l 5 ending four lines before the start of question 9 with the ;
. 6 words "First shift guides." Allowing'thereby the last 7 sentence which does concern the training of first shift 8 guides on training second shift guides, allowing that in and 1
9 therefore recognizing in part Mr. Fierce's point.
10 But still, making the important distinction 11 between the training of second shift guides by first shift j i
l 12 guides and the adequacy of second shift personnel and their~ l i
13 training which is within what I have as the bracketed area
/ 14 and which is covered.by 12-B.
(
15 JUDGE SMITH: We're not sure we got your point.
16 Would you just state it again.
17 MR. COOK: Yes.
l l 18 By distinguishing between the three sentences that
- . 19 we seek to delete beginning "Similarly," and ending l
l 20 approximately eight lines later with "First shift guides."
21 We are seeking to uphold the distinction in order created by 22 the stipulation, which in turn was following the Board's 23 scheduling order.
24 That distinguished between JI-11 and 12, on the 25 one' hand, as issues of the adequacy of staffing and how many A
- i. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1 26259 j 1 people would be present. And when I say " adequacy of ;
i 2 staffing," adequacy as it includes training -- as Your Honor 3 has recognized in 12-B -- and the adequacy of the ORO's j
4 training, and in particular the first shift guides which we i 5 have not sought to strike in the last sentenca.
6 So the distinction is one between capacity and .
7 between the process of training. We believe the first three 8 centences go to the capacity of the second shift personnel 9 as indicted by JI-11 and 12, and which should have been 10 contained in earlier testimony.
11 The last sentence is unobjectionable because it i 12 attacks the training of first shift personnel and the 13 process of training in general and, as that, is legitimately 14 included under Basis.13-A.
15 (The Board confers.)
~
16 17 18 19 .
l 20 21 l
22 l 23 1
24
.q 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
1 I
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
J 26260 l 1 JUDGE SMITH: Do you agree, Mr. Fierce? l 2 MR. FIERCE: I frankly don't follow that argument 3 at all.
4 He's arguing something different, it sounds like J
5 to me, than he argued with respect to the preceding sentence i
. 6 with respect to state and local police, that somehow this is i 7 different. I just don't follow the argument.
8 I'm looking at the sentences -- (
9 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want him to explain it again? l 10 MR. FIERCE: I've heard it twice and I just don't 11 see the distinction here, I guess.
]
12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I understood it the second 13 time. I had to.have it again.
14 MR. FIERCE:, Well, I'm looking at the sentence now 15 one by one. The first sentence here, "Similarly, second
~
16 shift personnel from Yankee Atomic who do not have the 17 benefit of either ORO or standard police training must be 18 trained on the spot by ORO staff and/or guides."
. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
20 MR. FIERCE: Is that a sentence that goes to ORO t . ,
21 traffic guide training? l l
22 Absolutely yes. i l 23 Does the next sentence go to ORO traffic guide 24 training?
25 " Formal printed procedures and handout materials Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l
26261 1 will be especially important in providing such training to 2 those Yankee Atomic staff assigned to relieve traffic 3 guides."
4 That's certainly relevant to ORO second shift 5 traffic guide training.
6 And so is the third sentence, " Absent such ,
7 materials, as is the case now, there is no assurance that 8 the second shift guides will be adequately trained by the 9 first shift guides."
10 (The Board confers.)
11 MR. FIERCE: Mr. Cook wants to read out of this --
12 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute.
13 MR. FIERCE: Okay.
14 (The Board confers.)
15 JUDGE SMITH: We are going to leave this in. We 16 recognize that the training of second shift personnel was 17 alleged in 12 (b) quite specifically. But we view this 18 language here as the causal logical connection between 12 (b) 19 and 13, with the reason being that the first shift ORO ..
20 personnel need training to address that problem.
21 We might say -- Mr. Dignan, we might get your 22 attention on this -- that these motions made by your 23 colleagues are for the most part you have prevailed quite a
{
i 24 few times. And I can't say that the motions were not well 25 made and shouldn't be made.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I i
.i I
26262
]
1 But you certainly must recognize they take up a I
^
2 tremendous amount of time, an awful large amount of time 3 given the gravity of the situation that you are seeing here. f l
4 And I just wonder if they all have to be made, j
. i 5 MR. DIGNAN: In candor, Your Honor --
. 6 JUDGE SMITH: You know, they just take up such a ,
7 huge amount of time.
8 MR. DIGNAN: In candor, Your Honor, I was going.to l 9 say the thought has crossed my mind, too, and your 10 aduconition is recorded.
11 JUDGE SMITH: It's not an admonition. You have an 12 interest in having the hearing move along. But we just 13 wondered, not only do'es it take up a lot of time, but it 14 takes up some of the, energy reserves of the Board, too, by 15 the end of a day of this type of thing, and they are not 16 really watershed issues. We just wonder if it was all worth 17 it.
18 MR. DIGNAN: The message is received. I l
19 JUDGE SMITH: So that's it. We are ready for Dr.
20 Adler. l 21 Whereupon, 22 THOMAS J. ADLER 23 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 24 herein and was examined and testified further as follows:
25
(
( Beritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
i l
i i
ADLER - DIRECT 26263 .l 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION
]
2 BY MR. FIERCE:
1 3 Q Dr. Adler, you have been previously sworn as a 4 witness, so we don't need to do that again. But I need to
]
5 present this testimony. i 6 Do you have before you a document which is , ,
7 entitled " Testimony of Dr. Thomas Adler on Behalf of James 1
8 M. Shannon, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of l 9 Massachusetts, concerning Contentions JI-13 (Traffic Guide 10 Training) ?
11 A (Adler) Yes, I do. !
l 12 Q Do you recognize that document?
I 13 A (Adler) Yes, I do.
14 Q Is this,the testimony that you have prepared for 15 this proceeding with respect to the training of traffic ;
1 16 guides?
I 17 A (Adler) Yes, it is. )
18 Q Now you have been here through the afternoon 19 discussion of the portions of your testimony which have been -
20 stricken, have you not?
21 A (Adler) Yes, I have.
22 Q And does the copy of the testimony before you have 23 those portions in fact stricken with a line through them?
24 JUDGE SMITH: You mean he anticipated it or he was 25 --
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CIRECT 26264
/" 1 MR. FIERCE: No. The copy I've handed him, I 2 believe, has a certain number of strikings on it.
3 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
4 BY MR. FIERCE:
5 Q Do you see-that?
. 6 A (Adler) Yes, I do.
7 Q You understand that the Board has stricken those t 8 portions of your testimony? -
9 A (Adler) Yes, I understand that.
i 10 Q Now with respect to the remainder of your i i
11 testimony, is that testimony true and correct to the best of !
12 your knowledge and belief?
13 A (Adler) Yes, it is. i 14 Q Are there any corrections or comments you would l 15 wish to make with respect to the remainder of the testimony?
~
16 A (Adler) No, there aren't.
17 At this time, Your Honor, I would MR. FIERCE:
18 like offer into evidence the Testimony of Dr. Thomas J.
. 19 Adler on Behalf of James M. Shannon, Attorney General for 20 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Concerning Contentions 21 JI-13 (Traffic Guide Training), with the strikings that have 22 occurred as a result of the Board's rulings this afternoon.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Objections?
24 MR. PARKER: All right, the testimony is received.
25 y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{
ADLER - DIRECT 26265 J
1 (The Testimony of Dr. Thomas 2 J. Adler, on Behalf of James 3 M. Shannon, Attorney General
< \
4 for the Commonwealth of l 5 Massachusetts, concerning 6 Contentions JI-13 (Traffic ,
7 Guide Training) fol. lows:)
8 9
10 11 12 13 15 l l
~
16 l
17 18 19 .
4 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 g'~N !
T A.. )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i Before the Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom i
l I i
1 I l
) i In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL j
) 50-444-OL 1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP) i OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, _E _T _A _L . ) I
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 10, 1989
[
,I TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS J. ADLER ON BEHALF OF Yx _- JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING CONTENTIONS JI-13 (TRAFFIC GUIDE TRAINING) l Department of the Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Public Protection Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2200 v
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges: -
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole .
Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP) 1 OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )
l )
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 10, 1989
)
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS J. ADLER ON BEHALF OF JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
_ THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING CONTENTIONS JI-13 (TRAFFIC GUIDE TRAINING) l l I.
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMONY In this testimony, Dr. Adler explains his opinion, in agreement with JI-13, that the SPMC's prerequisite experience (none) and training for Traffic Guides do not provide -
reasonable assurance that the SPMC's traffic and access control functions can be adequately implement 1d by the Traffic Guides.
He describes three critical areas in which the content of the SPMC's training for Traffic Guides is deficient:~ (1) the
l absence of instruction on methods for efficiently directing l
l traffic, (2) the lack of detail in describing es'sential aspects of the traffic control function, and (3) the insufficient :
guidance on how to deal with routine physical needs. l
1 i
l I
'~
II. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS Q.1, What is your name and current occupation?
A.l. My name is Thomas J. Adler, and I am President of l Resource Systems Group of Norwich, Vermont.
O.2. Are your professional qualifications as set forth in i
,l
. the testimony and attachments filed for this case on
{
l Septemoer 14, 1987 and summarized in testimony submitted on '
February 21, 19897 A.2. Yes, they are.
III. TESTIMONY Q.3. Have your reviewed training material prepared for traffic and access control guides under the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC")?
.I
/~'N A.3. Yes, I have. I reviewed several versions of a
)
l training module titled, " Emergency Planning Mass E - Plan, l Traffic and Access Control, Lesson Plan No. EM1011C. The l module comes with both an " Instructor Guide" and a " Student Handout." The most recent revision that I was provided is
. dated 3/8/88. I also reviewed a series of three exams accompanying EM01011C. Finally, I reviewed answers provided by the Applicants to the Massachusetts Attorney General's (" Mass AG") First Get of Interrogatories and the Mass AG's deposition of the NHY ORO's Evacuation Support Coordinator, Gil Cahill.
l Q.4. Have you also reviewed Joint Interveners' Contention l .-
1 JI-13?
A.4. Yes, I have. The contention states in part that the
(\
(
v
) prerequisite experience required for and the training provided to ORO Traffic Guides "are inadequ. ate to provide reasonable
assurance that the ORO can and will implement adequate protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station."
Q.5. Do you agree with that contention?
A.5. Yes, I do. With the prerequisite experience required (none) and what appears to me to be a training program .
lacking adequate content, in my opinion there is no reasonable assurance that the NHY-ORO can implement effective traffic and access control in the manner contemplated by the SPMC. I am l also in agreement with Basis A of JI-13 (as stipulated), which I l
l states as follows:
A.
l The SPMC states that no prerequisite
! experience is required for the position of Traffic Guide. Traffic Guides will be dispatched '
to key intersections to set up traffic cones and i
direct traffi~c in a manner that produces the most efficient evacuation possible. They may be i recuired to direct extremely congested traffic under adverse weather conditions and deal with j
thousands of disorderly, frustrated, and frightened drivers, many of whom may have been in traffic queues for six or more hours seeking to distance themselves from Seabrook Station. Many !
of the drivers will recognize that these Traffic Guides are not state / local police, but agents of .!
the owners of Seabrook. It is inconceivable that Traffic Guides would not be required to have some substantial prior experience directing congested .,
traffic. The training provided by the SPMC (see Plan, Table 6.3-1) is not adequate to compensate for this deficiency.
Q.6. Would you please describe why you believe that the l prerequisite experience and training for Traffic Guides are inadequate?
A.6. In the SPMC, Traffic Guides perform a pivotal function in translating a protective action decision to h
evacuate into the actual routing of vehicles out of the EPZ.
1 l
Q The Evacuation Time Estimates ("ETEs") included in the SPMC IP-2.5 Attachment 4 assume that Traffic Guides facilitate traffic flow with high levels of efficiency. To the extent that the guides are unable to operate at this high level of efficiency, the evacuation will be. impeded and the evacuation 1
. times will be lengthened. The SPMC training provided to i
)
Traffic Guides does not address important issues related to the efficiency of the task nor does it recognize the overall complexity of the task.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's publication, A_ l
, Guide for Highway Traffic Regulation in an Emergencl , contains i
general guidance for emergency highway traffic regulation
("EHTR"). While the publication deals primarily with traffic regulation following a nuclear attack, it does discuss.in some detail the complexities of establishing and maintaining traffic / access control posts. Characterizing access control functions, the publication states:
l Even in peacetime, and even then if all drivers were amiable and docile, the job would still be ,
complicated; witness the traffic jams before and after !
big athletic and entertainment events. In an '
emergency, and dealing with anxious and distraught dr.ivers, it is going to be perhaps the most taxing, both in planning and execution, of the EHTR !
operations. In addition to managing and directing traffic, there may occasionally be need for police action against recalcitrant drivers.
Traffic Guides are, in effect, on the front line and must j perform their functions in a way that both commands respect of *;
evacuees and promotes an efficient movement of traffic.
Adequate training and experience are necessary pre-requisites to acceptable performance.
l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ __.
Q.7. Would you describe specifically the areas in which ;
1 the SPMC training for Traffic Guides is deficient? j i
A.7. There are three critical areas in which I believe l1 the training is deficient: 1) absence of instruction on methods for efficiently directing traffic, 2) lack of detail in describing essential aspects of the traffic control function, .
gg and 3) ic.; '#4c4 ant cuidance nn "~ *^ de ' :: .;_: .m_
H r..,__ -. -_ _ m m. As mentioned earlier, the SPMC assumes that Traffic Guides operate control posts with a high degree of efficiency. The ETE analyses assume, for example, that Traffic Guides at locations where two or more streams of evacuating traffic merge or cross will interrupt conflicting streams on a l 75 second intervs1 (" cycle"), with the time allocated so as to allow competing streams to clear at approximately the same time. Longer cycle lengths would be acceptable, assuming driv 6r impatience in the interrupted stream did not lead to disruption of the evacuating flow. Cycles shorter than 75 i l
seconds, however, would reduce the efficiency of the evacuation i l
flow. The allocation of time among conflicting streams has a .
direct effect on the amount of time taken to evacuate certain ERPAs. Nowhere in the printed material that I reviewed, however, are the assumed cycle length allocations revealed to gg the Traffic Guides, dus ms 3m. 3 erme -. a c.mceicum. . ;-
U n; . . . v s - ;; m . m. Similarly, except for a brief drill in which guides set up mock intersections and direct some traffic through them ( an exercise which does not include the realism of actual intersections and heavily congested traffic flows),
the guides are provided no real-life hands-on experience with
1
- 1 i
I l
1 traffic control. There is no apparent formal instruction in now to use hand motions, the whistle provided, and other movements and gestures to stop, hold, expedite or maintain traffic flows. Given that there is no prerequisite experience required to be an ORO Traffic Guide, this is a major failing. .
In my opinion, both classroom instruction and hands -on experience directing traffic at real intersections are r.neded to build the necessary understanding of how the function can be accomplished and to develop a physical sense for how to j l
implement it. l The second-listed concern, that Traffic Guides are not provided with appropriate information regarding details of the function of their, assigned control post, is also related to ef ficiency of operations.- vum ue avw svud itten g/tfM information on how long i eeted to take before traffic clears th . and whether their post is a " bottleneck" to the
... _;'i?r. At some locations, efficiency of control post operation will be directly related to ovecall evacuation times. At other locations which are not bottlenecks the speed with which vehicles are processed is less important, and it may be appropriate for the guides to serve a guide-type function, '
answering questions where possible of those who do not have car radios, who need simple routing instructions, or wi.. have special needs. Even though Traffic Guides will be the first SPMC personnel encountered and thus constitute the first opportunity for evacuees to obtain " live" information, guides O
I are not told specifically how to respond to such questions, l
i other than to instruct evacuees to listen to EBs messages. 9!
Guides are not advised as to the effect, at their particular i i
location, of allowing a driver to hold up traffic while seeking an answer to a question. . ~
l Two other important details that are somewhat specific to l l
each control post include procedures for placing traffic cones !
and for reporting impediments. While the ACP/TCP diagrams show the general configuration of traffic conec, they do not contain sufficient l detail on the spacing of the cones, particularly at l taper sections where traffic is channeled toward one side of the roadway.
There is no written instruction on how to space the cones and/or handle a line of cones in order to direct vehicles moving at particular speeds nor on what spacing is
' j required to avoid interruption of buses (the required spacing is greater at locations that serve turning vehicles).
Nowhere in the training or the procedures are these specifications detailed. Only one radio which can be used to report road impediments is provided for each ACP/TCP location. There is no i
,l direction given in the training for communicating the details necessary to constitute an accident report sufficient for
- decisions to be made on what, if any, equipment to dispatch to the scene. At several TCPs and ACPs, guides are located outside hearing range from each other. Should a guide observing an impediment vacate the assigned post to carry the *I information to the guide holding a radio? Proper guide training should cover these and all reasonably foreseeable circumstances so that the evacuation's efficiency is not compromised by inappropriate guide ~ responses to such circumstances.
________a
f F L..l 2 , m.J av a t.. c e 2 a c e'o co cae oveta.2 c.;.._..., ;f' ;
\
' traffic control function, guides are not specifically instructed as to whether and how they can take break during their shift to eat, rest or accommodate other ph ical needs.
An uninterrupted shift longer than four hours ould not be i ,
expected for this type of task, even in ac mmodating weather conditions. There are seven traffic co rol posts ("TCPs") in p$
the SPMC which are designated as Pr city 1 for which only one guide is assigned. Are the guid at these locations free to vacate tneir posts to get fo , water, rest and/or to locate a ;
bathroom and, if so, for w long and how should they secure the TCP/ACP which the vacate? There is little, if any, redundancy in the taffing of other Priority 1 TCPs and access control post ("ACPS"). Guides at these locations are not instruct as to which positions are most essential to the l l
evac tion and as to how they might rotate breaks to preserve
]
post's mv=v ....r e; t ; ..
f; :t i;..;. !
Q.8. Is it important that these details be specifically I incorporated into written materials discussed with and provided to Traffic Guides as part of their training?
A.8. Yes. Any detail which could be described as a policy should certainly be in writing. Unless they appear in printed training materials and/or manuals, there is no assurance that instructors will cover those details and, even I
if they do, that trainees will retain the information.
state and local police become involved in t uation, they I
(~ too will require printed .. .s and/or detailed briefings kf0(iN
(%
j#
,y,. _. _- .- .. _. ._ __ _
,__.__.,-,,,,,r. .. .u.
cw L - i t, -
..a.c m e m .;_; '^' ' - * " ':r :-. MQ s m.....,. Similarly, second-shift personnel from Yankee Atomic who do not have the benefit of either ORO or standard police training must be trained on-the-spot by ORO staff and/or guides. Formal printed procedures and hancout materials will l
be especially important in providing such training to those -
Yankee Atomic staff assigned to relieve Traffic Guides. Absent such materials, as is the case now, there is no assurance that the second-shift guides will be adequately trained by the l first-shift guides. Even with these materials, the first-shift j I'
guides must be given specific training on how to train the second-shift guides under the conditions which could I
i exist--heavy traffic congestion, adverse weather, nighttime, j etc.
0.9. Do you believe that classroom instruction combined with~ mock intersection exercises directing traffic constitute I
sufficient or adequate training for evacuation traffic guides? l A.9. No. I Delive that the task is one which requires at l least some practice directing traffic flows at real congested
- intersections, in addition to the classroom instruction, l drills, and exercises. I Q.10. Does that conclude your testimony?
A.10. Yes, it does.
O
ADLER - CROSS 26266
/ 1 MR. FIERCE: I turn the. witness over for cross-('
2 examination at this time, Your Honor.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. PARKER:
5 Q Good afternoon, Dr. Adler.
6 My name is Bill Parker, and I'm going to ask you a l 7 few questions about your testimony.
8 The first question E would like to ask relates to 9 your resume. And in looking at your. resume, the question 10 arose: When did you receive traffic hand signal training?
11 A (Adler) I have not personally received traffic 12 hand signal training.
l 13 Q Are you a trainer?
I 14 A (Adler) , I have conducted training sessions, yes.
15 Q Training sessions on traffic management?
~
16 A (Adler) Indirectly, yes.
17 One part of our business is collecting data on 18 traffic movements. And as part of the operations that are 19 required to collect data on traffic movements is the need to 20 train individuals to collect those data and to guide traffic 21 in situations where, for example, we set up traffic counters 22 on the road.
23 Q Have you personally done this work?
24 A (Adler) I have personally both directed traffic j 25 and trained individuals to direct traffic under those
("%
f, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26267 1 circumstances, yes.
2 Q How much of your time is devoted to computer 3 modeling of traffic?
4 A (Adler) You would have to be a bit more specific.
5 Do you mean --
6 Q How much of your time is devoted to computer ,
7 modeling as opposed to other traffic-related activity?
8 A (Adler) Oh, it's difficult to estimate. Over 9 different periods of the year and different years of my 10 career, it's been radically different percentages.
11 I would say it ranges from 100 percent over 12 periods of a month or two, to at the current time probably 5 13 or 10 percent.
14 0 When were you contacted by Mass AG to testify 15 regarding training of traffic guides?
16 A (Adler) I don't recall exactly. I recall at the 17 time the contentions were filed that there was an indication 18 that there were some contentions dealing with training. I 19 was present at a meeting involvir.g Dr. Harris and others .
20 regarding training, oh, I don't recall the exact time. It 21 would have been late in 1988, I believe.
22 And I was asked specifically to prepare this 23 testimony I believe in February or March.
24 O By whom were you contacted?
i 25 A (Adler) Mr. Fierce.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
ADLER - CROSS 26268 l l
I 1 Q And how much time did you spend preparing your 2 testimony?
3 A (Adler) .I don't have the exact numbers in front 4 of me. I've kept time records and I'could access those'.
~
5 My estimate is that I spent a. day or two in
.i
.I 6 meetings with Mr. Fierce and with the other individuals 7 involved in training, particularly Dr. Harris.- I.-spent-at 8 least a couple of days reviewing materials that were 9 provided by Mr. Fierce regarding the training modules and l 10 depositions taken regarding training. And then I' spent one 11 or two days preparing testimony, revising the testimony.
12 And in addition, probably one rar two days .
13 researching specific issues related to this testimony.
14 Q What sections in the procedures did you review?
15 A (Adler) In the implementing procedures?
~
16 Q Yes.
l 17 A (Adler) I believe they are' indicated here.
18 Section 2.5.. I reviewed Appendix J. 'I reviewed the -- I.
- l. 19 don't recall the section numbers -- the lesson plans, 20 instructor guides and student handouts. And there were 21 other materials that I reviewed at different other times in 22 the matter of these proceedings. ;
I 23 -Q Looking at your testimony on page 4. ]
24 A (Adler) Yes.
25 Q You state that -- that you refer to IP-2.5?
r( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
ADLER - CROSS 26269 1 A (Adler) That's correct, yes. Attachment 4.
2 Q Does it state that traffic guides are to 3 facilitate traffic with "high levels of efficiency"?
4 A (Adler) That --
5 Q Can you find that in IP-2.57 6 .h (Adler) As I indicate by my writing here, that is ,
1 not a direct quote. It's a reference to the evacuation time 8 estimates which are included by reference in the SPMC.
l 9 Q Does IP-2.5 include a statement that traffic 10 guides are to perform their dut..es with "high levels of 11 efficiency"?
12 A (Adler) No, it does not conPain those words.
13 O Also on page 4 of your testimony, you have a quote 14 from a Guide for Highway Traffic Regulation in an Emergency.
15 Do you have that document with you?
~
16 A (Adler) Yes, I do. Not at the table here, but I 17 have it in my briefcase.
18 Q I read that document and I would like to ask you, 19 is this -- .
20 MR. PARKER: Excuse me, Your Honor.
21 BY MR. PARKER:
22 O Is this the full text of the quote of the l
23 paragraph?
- 24 A (Adler) I believe it is. It's contained within a 25 paragraph, but I believe it's full.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l,
1 l ADLER - CROSS 26270 l
l 1 Q I would like to show you that document.
2 (Document shown to all parties.
I l 3 l
4 5
-l 6
f l
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 ,
15 .
~
16 17 18 l . 19 20 j 21 ,
l 22 i
23 i
24
=,
25 l
1 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i
I
l ADLER - CROSS 26271 1 BY MR. PARKER: -
2 Q Is this the sama page and same document that you i
3 used to prepare this testimony?
4 A (Adler) This is a different document than the one 5 that I referred to here. And if you like I would get a copy l
6 of my document. , j 7 Q What year is the document that you have?
8 A (Adler) I don't recall.
9 I believe it's --
10 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Parker, I suggest if you're 11 going to pursue this line very much that you let him get the ,
12 document that he's referring to, it might go better.
13 MR. PARKER: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 (Witness reviewing document.)
15 THE WITNSSS: (Adler) The copy I have, Mr.
16 Parker, is dated 1974. I 17 MR. PARKER: May I take a look at it?
18 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Certainly. I l
19 JUDGE SMITH: Why don't you just go straight to .l 20 it, see if you can point to the place where that quote is.
21 Go ahead, Mr. Parker. I'm just suggesting we save l l 22 time and you work it out with him so that you get that same l 23 quote or the quote in question identified physically.
1 24 (Witness reviewing document.) i
- i 25 THE WITNESS: (Adler) It may be helpful to have ]
l Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 l 1
1 l
I ADLER - CROSS 26272 i l
('S 1 the other copy just for cross-reference. I believe it's the l k- s 2 same basic publication, just a different year.
3 JUDGE SMITH: May I make another suggestion and ,
4 that is, clearly we're not going to finish Dr. Adler l
j 5 tonight, why don't we just allow overnight for you and he to 1
. 6 agree upon where, if it exists, and then go on to your next 7 point.
8 I might point out, Dr. Adler, I guess normally I 9 think you, yourself, would have had a page reference in 10 there. l l
11 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Yes, I apologize for not l 12 having that in there. I found it quite easily the first 13 time.
14 BY MR. PARKER:
\_/
15 Q Dr. Adler, we can drop that for now, looking for 16 t'he reference in the document.
17 You reviewed training materials in preparation for.
)
18 this?
l
- l. 19 A (Adler) Yes, I did.
20 Q Do you recall anything in the training materials 21 that you reviewed that called on traffic guides to 22 physically prevent returning residents from entering the 23 area?
24 A (Adler) No.
25 Q Do you recall traffic guides are not using a
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l ----- ________
ADLER - CROSS 26273 1 police office, are they?
2 A (Adler) Excuse me.
3 Q Traffic guides are not using a police office, an 4 official police office for their job, are they?
~
5 A (Adler) In one of the ORO modes that's correct, I 6 believe. And in the SPMC, that's correct. ,
7 Q That they are not?
8 A (Adler) They are not; that's correct.
9 Q Do you recall reading 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the 10 training module?
11 A (Adler) I don't recall, no.
12 Q Do you have the training module? q 13 A (Adler) I have various sections of the training 14 module, yes. I 15 Q Could you refer to -- j
~
16 A (Adler) I don't have them up here with me, 17 though. l 18 Q I have a copy of them.
19 (Document shown to witness.) ,
1 20 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Thank you.
21 BY MR. PARKER:
22 Q Is this a copy of the same document that you used 23 in preparing for this testimony?
I 24 A (Adler) Yes, I was recently provided a copy of 25 this Attachment L.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26274' l 1 Q And what is the name of that document?
i 2 A (Adler) The section that you gave me is titled, ]
3 " Module 11 Traffic and Access Control." This is Lesson Plan 4 number EM1011C, the instructor guide.
5 .Q Would you turn to 2.3.1 and 2.3.27
/
l . 6 A (Adler) Yes.
l 7 Q What do those provisions describe?'
8 A (Adler) They provide the operation of the access 9 control -- peripheral access control posts.
10 Q What do those specific provisions provide?
11 A (Adler) They describe how personnel at these j i
12 peripheral access controls should respond to attempted entry 13 at the peripheral access control posts. And what types of 14 information should be provided.
15 Q What does it state, specifically?
~
16 A (Adler) Would you like me to read?
17 Q Yes, I would. i 18 A (Adler) Section 2.3.1: " Personnel located at I 1
. 19 peripheral access control points should discourage entry l
20 except for," first listed, " persons" -- I' assume should read D
. 1 21 " returning to pick up family."
22 Second listed item: " Federal, state or local j I
23 authorities (with ID badges) . "
l 24 Third listed item: " Emergency response personnel ;
25 (with ID badges) . " That's 3.2,1.
I g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l
1
ADLER - CROSS 26275 1 Q And 2.3.2?
2 A 2.3.2: "These personnel should also provide the 3 following information if requested." First listed item:
4 " Advise public of EBS stations for emergency updates."
5 Second listed item: " Advise public of locations 6 for reception centers." .
7 Q Thank you.
8 In your testimony you -- I have to find the 9 provision. You make a statement regarding what traffic 10 control personnel should state to people entering or leaving 11 the EPZ.
12 Can you find that in your testimony?
13 A (Adler) Is this on page 47 14 Excuse me, is this on page 4 of my testimony?
15 0 I'm trying to find it in your testimony, I know 16 you make the statement.
17 Could you help me find it.
18 A (Adler) There is information on pages -- the 19 bottom of page'6, continuing on pages 7 regarding the .
20 traffic guides, specifically, and the type of information 21 that they might or should provide.
22 Q Did you review NUREG-0654 in preparation of your 23 testimony?
24 A (Adler) Not specifically in preparation'for this 25 testimony.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
ADLER - CROSS 26276 g 1 Q Are you familiar with that document?
2 A (Adler) Generally, yes.
3 Q And the supplements thereto?
4 A (Adler) I don't know if I've read all of the 5 supplements thereto.
. 6 Q In your review of NUREG-0654 did you find any-7 standard for the provision of public information by traffic 8 guides?
9 A (Adler) I don't recall anything specifically.
10 11 12 13 -$
14 ,
15 l 16 17 18 l
. 19 l
)
20 21 22 23 24 25 i l
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l
1 I
ADLER - CROSS 26277 j 1
1 Q Do you know or have you determined why traffic 2 guides are told not to respond other than in a way O l 3 designated at 2.3.1 and 2.3.2'of the training procedure?
4 A (Adler) First of all, those two portions of the 5 training procedures deal specifically with peripheral access 6 control and not with traffic guides in the interior of the 1 i
7 zone.
8 At the peripheral access control points in .
i 1
9 particular, my understanding was that the intent was to 10 avoid the formation of long lines of traffic waiting at one 11 of these points to be cleared through the access controls. )
{'
12 Q To be cleared to leave or to be cleared to enter?
13 A (Adler) To be cleared to enter.
14 Q To reenter the EPZ?
I 15 A (Adler) That's correct. ;
16 Q to reenter the contaminated area? !
1 l 17 A (Adler) Yes.
l 18 Q And we're going to look for that quote tomorrow in 19 the book and then we can come back to that issue and revisit .
20 it.
^
21 Is there anything in your understanding of the job 22 of the traffic control personnel that requires them to 23 adjust traffic lights?
24 A (Adler) My understanding was that they 25 specifically would not be called on to change traffic Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l ADLER - CROSS 26278 7N 1 lights, operating traffic signals.
(N' )
2 Q And the scenario that you have here is that the 3 roads are congested?
4 A (Adler) Excuse me.
l 5 Q The scenario in your testimony indicates that the
. 6 roads are congested.
7 A (Adler) Yes, during a portion of the evacuation, l 8 they certainly would be congested.
9 Q And if the roads are congested, can I assume that 10 traffic will be slower?
11 A (Adler) Generally. There are parts of the l 12 evacuation routings which would be carrying traffic at very 1
13 low speeds. Others that would be carrying traffic at )
l 14 relatively high speeds.
l
[]
\- ~
15 The interstates, for example, would be carrying traffic l l
l 16 at fairly high speeds. Other roads during different parts 17 of the evacuation will be carrying traffic at other than 18 congested flow conditions and at speeds up to the posted
. 19 speed limit, presumably.
1 20 Q You weren't at the two training sessions prior to 21 the exercise to observe the actual level of traffic the 22 traffic guides directed, were you?
23 A (Adler) I was not.
24 Q And did you know that there were two drills with 25 mock intersections prior to the exercise?
/n \ >
Heritage Reporting Corporation
\'~') (202) 628-4888
l l
ADLER - CROSS 26279 l 1 A (Adler) I understood from the deposition, I ;
2 believe, of Gil Cahill that there had been mock exercises, !
l 3 yes.
4 Q And have you seen traffic control diagrams in 5 Appendix J?
6 A (Adler) Yes, I have. ,
7 O Have you seen the Salisbury 06 diagram?
8 A (Adler) Yes.
9 Q You don't know which intersections or diagrams q 10 were tised for the trainings, do you?
11 A (Adler) There is, in I believe it's the student 12 handout or the instructor guide, at least one such diagram 13 included. I don't know precisely if that was the one that 14 was used in the mock exercise or whether there were others 15 in fact. l
~
16 Q Would it matter to you if the intersection were a i 17 congested intersection, mock intersection?
. l 18 A (Adler) If it's a mock intersection, then by l
19 definition it's not -- 1 guess it's not congested. I .,
20 understood that it was a mock exercise which meant that it 21 didn't involve actual traffic flows at that particular 22 intersection.
23 Q I repeat the question.
24 If it were a mock intersection that was a 25 congested intersection, would that make a difference to you?
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l .
(202) 628-4888 l
ADLER - CROSS 26280
(N 1 A (Adler) If it were an intersection through which
\
\) 2 vehicles were actually moving during the exercise under 3 congested flow conditions, then, yes, that would be more 4 useful than one in which there were only a limited number of 4
5 vehicles moving through the intersection.
. 6 Q But you don't know the level of difficulty of the 7 arrangement during the mock exercise?
8 A (Adler) I don't know specifically which 9 intersection was set up. . I understand that it was set up in 10 some large paved area and there were stripes drawn on the 11 pavement in order to designate lanes and so forth. But I 12 don't know which one specifically was chosen, no.
13 Q And if it were conducted in adverse weather
[)
\s /
14 conditions, would that matter to you?
15 A (Adler) Depending on how long the traffic guides 16 were subjected to these adverse weather conditions, it may 17 be useful, yes.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Parker, we would like to adjourn
. 19 this evening at a. bout 5:00, if you could pick a convenient
, 20 place to break.
1 .
21 (Counsel confer. )
22 MR. PARKER: I have no more questions.
23 JUDGE SMITH: You have completed your cross-24 examination?
25 MR. PARKER: Yes.
m HGL' tage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26281 1 JUDGE SMITH: Oh --
2 MR. PARKER: For now. For now.
3 JUDGE SMITH: For now. Okay.
4 (Laughter) 5 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
6 MR. FIERCE: Just a word about tomorrow's ,
I 7 schedule. i 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right, we can adjourn and have 9 the schedule discussion off the record.
10 We will meet tomorrow at nine.
11 (Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the hearing was 12 recessed, to resume at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 20, f I
13 1989.) .
15 !
16 I
17 18 l 19 ,
20 9
21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation '
(202) 628-4888 .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSSION 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) i )
O APPLICANTS' CROSS-EXAMINATION FIAN FOR TESTIMONY OF HOWARD HARRIS Applicants intend to inquire into the veracity and accuracy of the witness's claims regarding his work experience. .
Applicants intend to inquire into the extent of the witness's preparation and knowledge of the relevant plans,
, procedures, training and the Graded Exercise.
Applicants also intend to inquire into the basis for his testimony that the training program is inadequate.
1 e
O .Dt5HBCKP.NE
\
Applicants intend to inquire into the basis for the witness's statement that there is no reasonable assurance that information received in training was applied during the FEMA Graded Exercise.
Respectfully submitted, M
Thomas' G. Dign'an, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey C. Cook William L. Parker Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110"2624 (617) 951-7000
~
O
~
I A
k a
- .N ""
June 19,.1989 O 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, Unites 1 and 2) ) (Off-site Emergency
) Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS
- CROSS-EXAMINATION PLAN FOR TESTIMONY OF TilOMAS J. ADLER s
Applicants intend.to inquire into the extent of the witness's preparation and knowledge of the relevant plans, l l ~ 1 l procedures and the Graded Exercise as they relate to Traffic Guide training. , l Applicants also intend to inquire into the merits of the 1
'a witness's testimony on prerequisites for Traffic Guide l training. In particular, that inquiry will focus on:
(1) the witness's statement that " methods for-efficiently directing traffic" is a requirement. Test. pp. 1, 4, 5.
(2) the witness's statement that the content of training
" lacks detail in describing essential aspects of the .,
traffic control function." Test. p. 1.
(3) the witness's knowledge of the Traffic Guides' training l received, its frequency and duration.
___.___._..________.________.__________m
- 4) the context of the Emergency Highway Traffic Regulations quote. Test. p. 4.
(5) the witness's specific knowledge of how the SPMC's Traffic Guides will be employed.
(6) the witness's statement that " guides are not told ,
specifically how to respond to questions." Test. p. 6.
(7) The witness's statement that "second-shift personnel must be trained on-the-spot . "
from Yankee Atomic . . . . .
Test. p. 9.
Respectfully submitted, N'&.9 6 W. S 1
~
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
. George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout
. Jay Bradford Smith
, Geoffrey C. Cook I
William L. Parker Ropes & Gray One Intern'ational Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 el e
e l
I i CERTIFICATE I ;
(
l 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 19, 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 foregoing proceedings. -
/S/ (
(Signature typed) : Donna L. Cook Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION (202)628-4888