ML20246P097
| ML20246P097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1989 |
| From: | Flynn H, Mcpheters L Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8616 OL, NUDOCS 8905220082 | |
| Download: ML20246P097 (19) | |
Text
_-_ _ _ _ _
.. ji. e '
r.,
May 12, 1989
'89 MAY.17 P6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..e-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- t.
JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Public_ Service Co. of New Hampshire,
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
)
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S MOTION TO REQUIRE SUPPLEMENTATION OF TESTIMONY OF'DR ROBERT R. GOBLE ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSET"S REGARDING CONTENTIONS MAG EX-11, MAG EX-19, SAPL EX-14, JI-13C, JI-18F, JI-20 and JI-23 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) respectfully requests the Board to require the Massachusetts Attorney General, for the sake of fairness and completeness of the record, to supplement the testimony submitted on April I
10, 1989 of Dr. Robert L. Goble Regarding Contentions MAG EX-ll, MAG EX-19, I'
SAPL EX-14, JI-13C, JI-18F, JI-20 and JI-23 (Exercise PARS, Training for PAR Decision-Makers, METPAC, PAR Decision Criteria, and Coordination of Mass /NH PARS), by the inclusion of pages 112 through 121 of the Deposition of Joseph H. Keller taken by the Massachusetts Attorney General on February 10, 1989.
Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing the use of depositions in court proceedings, provides that the deposition of a witness may be used at a later judicial proceeding against any party who was present 8905220002 890512 PDR ADOCK 050 3
a.,
_ se,
1 and' represented at the deposition.
Rule 32 further provides, at section 4:
If only.part of a deposition is offered in evidence
.by a party, an' adverse party may require the offerror to introduce any other part which ought in. fairness.to be considered with'the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.
At Question and Answer No. 12 of his prefiled testimony,
. (p. 17), Dr. Goble paraphrases and quotes from the testimony of Mr.
Keller in seeking to make the point that FEMA did not attempt to evaluate protective action decisions in the Seabrook qualifying
- exercise and therefore did not attempt to determine whether the exercise. revealed otherwise unidentified deficiencies in the Seabrook site offsite emergency plans.
In fact, however, Dr.
Goble's prefiled testimony distorts the thrust of Mr. Keller's testimony at his deposition and takes it out of context, as is plain from an examination of pages 112 through 121 of the deposition transcript, which are attached hereto for the Board's consideration.
The tenor of Mr. Keller's testimony on this point is that the 1
evaluation process examines whether the proctective action recommendation is an appropriate one (although not necessarily the single correct one) and if it is not appropriate (that is, does not do what is reasonable under the circumstances known at the time to maximize dose savings) FEMA might assign an exercise deficiency.
The Board's attention is invited to Mr. Flynn's objection on page FEMA's Motion to Require Supplementation of the Testimony of Dr. Robert L.
Goble filed on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General, p. 2.
~
'115, "[T]he question..._ assumes that'it'is the evaluator's job to;
. decide what the best decision was, not whether the decision was in accordance with the plan or within an acceptable range of
. decisions.
I think that is an :important distinction." Also worthy ef notice is Mr. Keller's discussion beginning on page-117 of how the process for generating protective action recommendations was evaluated.
Mr. Keller is a Fellow Scientist at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and a FEMA contractor with responsibilities in connection _with FEMA's evaluation of the'Seabrook qualifying exercise.
FEMA produced Mr. Keller as a deposition witness at the re" quest of the Massachusetts Attorney General, and FEMA counsel was present at.the deposition, so of course FEMA does not object to the introduction of Mr. Keller's deposition testimony at this proceeding.
However, for the accuracy and completeness of the record, FEMA urges that the full line of questioning at the deposition to which Dr. Goble refers in his testimony be included in the record.
For the purpose of this motion, it is appropriate to treat FEMA as if it were a party.
Since the Massachusetts Attorney General, by offering the testimony of Dr. Goble, is attacking the completeness and validity of FEMA's exercise findings, FEMA may be considered an adverse party within the terms of Rule 32.
FEMA may FEMA's Motion to Require Supplementation of the Testimony of Dr. Robert L.
Goble filed on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General, p. 3.
therefore properly, and hereby does, request the Board to require the Massachusetts Attorney General to introduce the entire context of Mr. Keller's deposition testimony in connection with the portion quoted and paraphrased by Dr. Goble.
Respectfully submitted, Y
H.L<f0SEPlVPLYNN (j/
Y 'd M
LINDA I p MCPHETER$
~
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 (202) 646-4102 FEMA's Motion to Require Supplementation of the Testimony of Dr. Robert L.
Goble filed on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General, p. 4.
- ELLC.T 11; 2I aoout the avallaallacy of the auses.
~
A Okay.
Q
- That was ene intent 04 tac decision, 5
i protactive dacision, in other words, waat was cae design 3
~.
of tne protective decision at 1405?
i A
I'm sorry, I don't understand your -iuostion.
3 0
.ihat was supposed to happen to tae.< ids in
- ne various towns, wnere ware they supposed c go?
I A
.ly reco1 Aection of tne plan is that if an evacuation ordor, decision is reached that says evacuate 2 !!
schools, the school children are taken to a school
- l
'13 !
reception conter.
,I
- a O
I am not forming my question very well.
5-I Look oack on page 52.
Assume for cne time being the I
'6 :1 control call had been, as cramped as it had been, and "i
permitted use of the buses sitting in the yard.
Was the 19 11 decision that was made to evacuate Aimsoury and Solsoury, 19 I and, therefore, evacuate and remove all the scnool 20 children and to sneiter the other three Massachusetts i
21 1 i
towns and, therefore, shelter the constituents in those
)
i 22 !
i towns?
23 !
A That's correct.
24 0
That is what had been decided at 14057 25 !
A Well, no.
In the decision process collegial i
ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804 L
- 2LLZ2 113 2 ;l discussion betwaen t.*.a C20 participants and caa control cell before ~ tae Jecisa:n wa;..aaa, Jefore it occame a a
done deed, it was clear tnat tac cuses were not going to l
i
~
Je avaiiaale.
I 6
0
'"here is a gliten taere.
I appreciate that.
7 A
Tne reconuendation, had tne controi cell 81 acon a ruccer Jeanp, whicn it was not, aad the control 9
cell aeen a ruaaer acamp, it is.ay aalief tnat tne c
recon =endation wnica caae up enrougn tne systen and was I
11 a prior to this tice, tne school cnildren in Aimsoury and 12 !l Solsbury would have oeen taken oy the auses that were at
,i 13 1 tne door, to tne scnool reception center and the populace j
of Ainssury and Jolsoury would have 'oeen evacuated and 15 i ene school children in the other three towns and the, the ts u other towns in the zone, there's six towns.
The school 17 1 children in the other four towns and the populace in the a
4 other four towns would have been sheltered.
19 Q
That is wnat I want you to focus on.
I am 20 I l
not interested in the deformations caused by the control 21 l cell variation right now, at least.
The decision you 22 l' Just described was taken, approximately, around 2:007 4
23 I l
A Yean.
24 l l
0 Was that the appro'priate decision for the i
25 i i
school children in the other four towns?
ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804
- LL C:'.
111 i
2' A
Yes.
3" O
- in/?
d 1
A At ena clae cae rick, aasea on calculations 5 ij
.' and plant scacus, eccetera, and tha plan says we'll treat s i; 3
cae school cnildren as a sua part or tno general
~ il jopuAation.
It was appropriate at :nat' time to evacuate 1
'y a
l
- o a certain radius, wnica then translates into planning l
3.i
- oaes, aaa 1
- ./as r:asoaaale and appropriate to shelter i
- o tne rest or une plan sones.
Q You understand that those school cnildren,
'2 in the other towns, the ones that are being sheltered i
l
3 1 would, within an hour, approximately, and I don't want to I
4i oe held to that number, aut in the near term, would have n
Jeen sent hooe from scnool?
'6' A
Under normal circumstances.
'7 Q
I did say that I was talking in tne 18 subjunctive.
What would have happened to the students in 19 the four other towns in the near term within, 2
approximately, an hour, had it not oeen for the 21 sheltering recommendation?
What I said, but for the 1
22 i
sneltering recommendation they would have been, in the l
2 normal course, cused home?
24 3
y,,,
25 0
What I am trying to elicit, or trying to put ADEPT COURT REPORTI!!G SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804
l
=
g.
o.
.:2LL22 115
]
I 1
L 2 Il l
as a question, did you forn tr.a judge.aont t.2a : 1: was
~
aetter, from a Joac savinJJ por:pectivo, in light of t'a a
4.1 laformation avaiAaale to cna Jacision.;a.cers ac che ti.2e, i
5, l
1 to enoicer those atudants at thac time in cnoso four 6
i owns instcaJ of paraitting taec o ce oused noue, as o
7.i caey ocnerwise would have been?
i a-
- 12. FL7:1;is I '. lave an ca]ection co l
9
- .le question, accauda c.m.;uestion you have asked assumes enac it is the evaluators job 11 to decide wnat eno oest Jacision was, not 1 2 '11 whether'the decision was in accordance with
\\
13 11 the plan or within an acceptacle range of 14.i decisions.
I think that is an 1.aportant 15 distinction.
16 :1 MR. TRAFICONTE:
All rignt.
Can you 17 ![
3 go ahead and let him answer the question,
't 18 ll i
and then we will come cact to that
'19 distinction?
20 MR. FLYNN:
Yes.
21 A
No, I didn't do, during the exercise i
22 !
evaluation, a dose calculation and, therefore, it was not 23 l part of my judgement that it was an adequate protective 24
.seasure at that time, cased on'best dose savings.
25 Q
The role of the exercise is to test the I
ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804
=___:_=___. __ --
4
.: LLI.'.
113 2J implementation oy caa appropriate Jersonnel 0: t..a jlan 3*
as a plan?
.: a A
Yes.
2 In tais instanca tais means that you were 6i evaluating tae appropriateness of tae jrotective action 7-against wnat the plan calls for, not against, lat'a Juat el for tne cera of arguaent, call it an external standara.
i
'3 f I
- s enat ene aest,arotactive action, in 1;gnt of all the circu=at anc es ?
3' {
A That's correct.
I would like to point out i
i 12 y that it is my understanding that the consission has ruled i
I 13 i that taere's no minimum dose savings required.by a plan 14h I
or, enererore,. an appropriate exercise.
I I
15 !I l
2 There is no question aoout that, out that is I
is q apples and oranges.
j 17 !!
A I think it is--
l
'O' MR. FLYNN:
Joe, let him finish.
19 Q
I am saying the commission has made equally 20 clear that it is important that in your making the 21 protective action decision that inaxialzes dose savings 22 i for identified populations.
23 I It is possible to make the wrong decision i
24 l
and, therefore, not maximize dose savings?
25 '
A That's correct.
And that would oe, i
i ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804 i
[
L
I; LLC.'.
117 2 Il hopefully, identified as a Jeliciancy.
t 3 :i Q
. iou cou2J 1:
.2 ave aaen.
s'au aave guat ad testified in the examp.e tnac we Just discussed, you did i
5.
I not run ene nuacers to Jetermine wnether, in fact, there l
6 il I
.JouAJ have acen, for taase school cn11dren in unose four l
towns, a acecar air.crnative in' terms of' dose savings.
You diJ not.aase a Judgacnt one way or tne otner.
A
' lou asked ca if I JiJ it. I aald no.
I had
'o an evaluator.
i i
t1 ll 2
I'm sorry?
I 12 li A
You asked the question, I answered honestly.
13 'l i
2 You did nct do it, all rignt.
Did !!r. Pocn 14 li or !!r. Smitn do it?
a 15 !!
A Mo.
You have to understand tne process, and 16 II I'm sorry.
We're not trying to be obtuse.
tir. 5almonson
.I WI coserved the ORO staff do these calculations.
Part of
' 8 I, tne decision making process, the part that I was looking 19 at involves a lot of people in ORO performing their 20 procedures and ultimately coming to the ORO director and 21 saying, we ought to do these things for the following 22 l reasons.
And part of the following reasons, or part of j
23 the things we should do is a dose calculation in 24 accordance with the plan.
25 That input was put into the decision maker.
i 1
ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804
...____.I
1 2:LLZ2 113
)
l 21 J
Did I do it, no.
I thinx 3 rad actually ran the 36 calculations at taa: polat in time.
-a ;i O
Uho is Brad?
5 A
3 rad Salmonson wno's working for.ne.
But it I
i O
was watening, that's the deputy team leader.
{
. i o
I was looking to cae if he.nad any Oajective ai 11 responsibilities.
a.,
A 2ut you sac, Co3ective 10 is tae calculation 3
033t Caose Calculations--
uy Q
Objective 11 is the appropriate action
.i 12 ll decision?
.4 3 )
A That's cased 'on, in part projected doses.
4.i That's vny this is--
5 i!
O Fine.
Let :ae put the question to you, so if s il you want' to play a numoer 10 and numoer 11 game, which
- 71l ' objective is designed to determine whether the particular 18d g
Jecision at issue is the maximum dose savings decision in 19 light of the circumstances?
20 l
l A
I have to think about that one.
I 21 understand.
Ten is projection of dose.
Clearly, to do 22 1 it accurately, and part of those dose projections 23 procedures in this plan, although not in all plans, is to 24 come up with the best recommendation of what ought to be 25 l done in a given case.
ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804
4 ECLL 2 lig 2y I pro]ect 35 22:1 you aught to evacuata, that 3*
kind of thing.
- pro]cce a aandred c11:1:22 ()honetic) aa prooadly doesn't need to do anything, t..a t type of tning.
Che jeople wno do the dose pro]ections are not tne 6
decision maxers.
They make a receo.monoation to the Jecision..aker assed on our tecnnical analysis of the I
8>
~
situation, wnica includes plan status and tnese Jose l
calcula:lans taa: we ougne to ao sometning and in tnis time frame in ene exercise cae 1:30, 2:00 time frame the, I
11 ';
for lacx of a better term, the protective action 12d recommendations cased on technical analysis, if it was i
dose calculation or plan status, I can't tell you at this 14 il time, in accordance with the plan said evacuate two 15 :
miles, shelter to five or shelter to ten.
I'm sorry.
It
'6 was a combination of an evacuation, shelter.
And it may 1
have oeen procaoly five and ten.
18 I Q
It was shelter from five to ten and evacuate 19 up to five.
The point is, that =eant at 2:00 what you 20 were doing was deciding to hold the students in the 21 sheltered towns past the point at which they would have 22 normally been sent home?
l 23 i i
A That's correct.
24 Q
tie are pressing on whether or not that was 25 the wise thing to do?
ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804
d ELL 3 100 2 :l A
Yes, seeause tr.a plan says--
i Q
20 Jo it.
~ '
A Tnat une scnool cn11dren ara part of tna general population.
You're focusing in on scnool l
enildren and you aave to focus on w' hat was it.
- t was 1
just as inappropriate to tell the general population in i
aa five to ten to sneater as it vaa if you take taa 9-assumption enat it's inappropriate.
It is just as inappropriate to tell tna general population as it is to
....j tell the scnool children to shelter, if it is i
12 '
inappropriate at all.
"is ll (i
My point is, it is not inappropriate.
The u\\
school population and general population was considered
- 5Pj as one entity.
And my best recommendation, not the sost n
' 6 11 1
conservative, was to snelter.
And is it was correct at i
)
that time.
My belief--
al 18 MR. FLYNN:
What is the concern, that 19 they would never get home?
2
- !R. TRAFICO!!TE:
The concern is, had 21 they simply been permitted to go homa 22 I simply, as being held after their nold time, 2
the subsequent dose that they did receive 24 wouldn't have been received.
That is the 25 logic of criticism.
I don't want to get I
ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)S26-7804
l fc-XSLL:n 121 into a discussion of c.Orits.
I ju3t Wanc 03 1
l 3!
nail joun what it is you dia Jo.
- a A
Part of your precise was eney would oe 5
i disuissed within an nour, approximately.
I re]ect taat.
I i
o, 2
Fine.
It's an empirical fact.
A
- lany schools nave activities beyond tne nor:s1 closing of the school day.
Children are on the Ocaool grounds ta%1ng parc ia soccer gaacs, it was June, o
mayce caseaali, pernaps five to six, seven nours.
- Well, i
several hours oeyond the normal closing of school.
So, 12 ll the premise they would have all been gone in an hour l.
13 0 anyway, may indeed de very wrong.
14 i 0
- 7hicn of the individuals tnat were 15 !!
evaluating implementation for school implementation of 16 il protective actions for scnools would have asen raonitoring si n conversations between the school coordinator and the 18 I school liaisons?
19 A
Probaoly Mr. Smith.
20 Q
Ara you f amiliar with an instance in which 21 there was a school in Aimsbury that was contacted by a 22 l l
scnool liaison and called to take students who were in 23 i j
the process of loading, being loaded on to buses and 24 oeing instructed to be taken off the buses and sheltered?
25 A
This is a real school or control cell?
ADEPT COURT REPORTING SERVICE TEL: (516)928-3596 (212)926-7804
0,' { I!'
May 15, 1989
'89 m 17 pg 33 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- t. 0t, s BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
' JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire,
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served copies of the foregoing AMENDED PREFILED TESTIMONY OF RICHARD W. DONOVAN ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON THE JUNE 28-29, 1988 SEABROOK EXERCISE (with Attachment B, but not Attachment A which had been served previously) and FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S MOTION TO REQUIRE SUPPLEMENTATION OF TESTIMONY OF DR.
ROBERT R. GOBLE ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS REGARDING CONTENTIONS MAG EX-ll, MAG EX-19, SAPL EX-14, JI-13C, JI-18F, JI-20 and JI-23, on the persons listed below by depositing said documents with the U.S. Postal Service on this 15th day of May, 1989.
Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 l
l l
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 i
Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Reea'atory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 Atomic Safety ano Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 T$omas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 John Traficonte, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dianne Curran, Esq.
Harmon, Curran & Tousley 2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03106 Paul McEachern, Esq.
Shaines & McEachern Post Office Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 l
l
)
O l
Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Kopelman & Paige 77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110
- R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton
& McGuire 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Town Counsel for Merrimac 376 Main Street Haverhil, MA 08130-Gary W. IIolmes, Esq.
Holmes & Ellis 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 J.P. Nadeau, Esq.
Selectmen's Representative Board of Selectmen 10 Central Road Rye, NH03870 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Murphy and Graham 33 Low Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Hampe and McNichols 35 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Philip Ahrens Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State House Station, #6 Augusta, ME 04333 Geoffrey Huntington l->
Assistant Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord NH 03301-6397 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
..e i
Jane Doughty Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Town Hall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Board of Selectmen RFD 1,~ Box 1154 Route 107 Kensington, NH 03827 Allen Lampert Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood 20 Franklin Street Exeter, NH 03833 Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen 25'High' Road I
Newbury, MA 01950 Jerard A. Croteau, Constable 82 Beach Road P.O. Box 5501 Salisbury, MA 01950 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH_01913 Calvin A. Canney, City Manager City Hall 126 Daniel Street l
Portsmouth, NH 03801 4
Mr. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Office Atlantic Avenue North Hampton, NH 03862 j
William Armstrong
. Civil Defense Director Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 i
i
Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen-13-15 Newmarket Road Durham, NH 03824 Brentwood Board of Selectmen RFD Dalton Road Brentwood, NH 03833 Richard R. Donovan Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W.
Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dated: May 15, 1989 1
n H.eJOSEPH fGYNN Assistant' General C6d. 9 nsel Federal Emergency Management Agency l
I l
_. _