ML20006D318

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Revised Brief on Appeal of Partial Initial Decision on Spmc & 1988 FEMA-graded Exercise (LBP-89-32).* W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc

ML20006D318
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/26/1990
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20006D314	List: ML20006D313 ML20006D318
References
LBP-89-32, OL, NUDOCS 9002120360
Download: ML20006D318 (200)

Text

www - -. -- - - .- - - - - -.-

u .: ,  ;

~

q 1

-r

<. I r

h"g- .

January 26, 1990 ,

1

.(Revised) i l

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-y NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION- 'l

((h j Before Administrative Judges: I G.' Paul Bollwerk, Chairman y Alan S. Rosenthal .t p: Howard A.'Wilber R e t

y: ..

) 'l

'In the Matter ofL )

) Docket No. 50-443-OL >

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY .

) -J

OF'NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (Offsite Emergency L ) Planning Issues) l(Seabrook Station, Unit 1)

I;: ~!

.. t

g. SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S-BRIEF ON=

M -

APPEAL'OF THE-' PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION-ON THE.SEABROOK PLAN.FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES I

, ,7

l. ' '

'AND 1988~ FEMA GRADED EXERCISE (LBP-89-32)

)f i  !

Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League .

L By its Attorney, y

Robert A. Backus, Esquire -

BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON y' 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 i (603) 668-7272 b .

u. 9002120360 900129 L? PDR ADOCK 05000443

]l_ < Q PDR p -t'

& _ - . _ .- ... . - . - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n l,

.,y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING-APPEAL BOARD s 1 Before Adminirtrative Judges: j l:l ,

i -G.-Paul Bollwerk, Chairman

'n Alan S. Rosenthal  ;

h Howard A. Wilber  !

In the Matter of )  ;

)

b PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ). Docket No. 50-443-OL

[k OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (Offsite EP)  ;

)  !

(Seabrook Station,? Unit 1). ) January 24, 1990

)- ,

SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S BRIEF ON APPEAL OF THE

' PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR L1 MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES AND 1988 FEMA GRADED EXERCISE LBP-89-32 r

I. THE ASLB-ERRED IN VARIOUS RULINGS IN THE LITIGATION OF, AND IN'ITS OVERALL DECISION IN REGARD TO=THE ADEQUACY OF THE .

[ DEMONSTRATION-OF RECEPTION / DECONTAMINATION CENTERS DURING THE NH PORTION OF THE FEMA GRADED EXERCISE FOR SEABROOK STATION "

A. Backaround.

L, One of the FEMA objectives to be demonstrated in a-full participation exerciNe of an emergency response plan is FEMA ObjectiveLf21, which states:

Demonstrate the adequacy of. procedures,

) facilities, equipment and personnel for the registration, radiological monitoring and

' decontamination of evacuees.

Th'e September-1, 1988 FEMA Final' Exercise Report for the June O 28-29, 1988 graded- Se? brook exercise evaluated this objective as

" Met." FEMA'did however identify two issues as "ARCA's" or " Areas Requiring Correctiva Action", one identifying the need for y

.o h

1

1

-adequate. monitoring equipment'and the'other identifying.the need- ,

for more training of DPHS staff at the State EOC as regards the

)

Radiological Screening Program'for provision of recommende.tions to Reception Center Staff for the handling of contaminated individu'ala and vehicles.

~

(See App. Exh. 43F at 183-185 [ global CL

• 191-193)) 'On September 20, 1988, SAPL filed SAPL EX-12, a contention which etated as follows:

)

, The adequacy-of procedures, facilities, ',

TJ equipment and personnel for the registration, radiological' monitoring and decontamination of ,

evacuees-was not demonstrated during the l

. exercise.. Facilities were not well. organized "

and not run in an adequately effective manner.

Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 450-O, 47 (a) (1) ., 5 50. 47 (b) (10) , 5 50. 47 (b) (14 ) and NUREG-0654 J.12 have not been met.  ;

In the statement of-basis for this contention, SAPL challenged the scope of the exercise in that only two-of the host communities in New Hampshire opened Reception Centers during the exercise, Dover and Salem. The other host communities of .

Rochester and Manchester, the latter being the community which CP i will receive the. largest number of evacuees, did not exercise  ;

their Reception Centers. SAPL further challenged the excessive length of time mock evacuees were kept waiting outdoors for O

services at the Reception Centers exercised, the problems in -

setting up and organizing the facilities, problems of their being too few personnel and personnel being called away, and certain 0

' equipment problems. Additionally, SAPL challenged the fact that ,

the DPHS staff at the NH Stata EOC, who are to be the information and referral resource for the personnel at the Reception Centers,

.u i

s .

g T-l q

A)J ' .i vere unfamiliar with their responsibilities and. duties under the Radiological-HealthIScreening Program.

The' Licensing _ Board ruled on this contention in its Memorandum and Order of December 15, 1988. Before the Board ruled, it afforded the parties the opportunity to comment on the Qj 3 effect of the guidance provided by the Appeal Board in ALAB-903 on

• the meaning-of the term " fundamental flaw," which comment SAPL made on November 22, 1988.

In its ruling, the Board admitted the contention with respect {

to the portion of the basis dealing with " implementation ,

difficulties." The Board rejected the challenge to the adequacy of performance of the DPHS staff at the State EOC and the " scope aspect of the contention" which challenged the opening of only two reception centers.

O SAPL prefiled " Testimony of Captain Daniel Breton and John Van Gelder, Firefighters for the Town of Salem, New Hampshire on Behalf of the Seccoast Anti-Pollution League, Regarding SAPL 10 -

Contention EX-12 (Reception / Decontamination Centers)" (see Attachment A) on April 3, 1989, along with-its Trial Brict.

Applicants filed a Motion in Limine on June 8, 1989 seeking to O

exclude portions of.this-testimony. Following oral argument on June 13, 1989 (Tr. 25233-87), all portions of the Applicants'

' motion were granted, resulting in the elimination of significant Oi

portions of the testimony. The firefighters appeared.at the hearing to testify as to the remaining _ portions of their direct on June 14, 1988. SAPL filed proposed findings on these issues on

.0:

O-

iK .

ety,c s ,

4 fAugust 11, 1989.. The-Partial Initial Decision of the Board, LBP-

_e 89-32, dated November 9, 1989, (hereinafter "PID II")1 addressed ,

J If these issues at'pp. 518-522. >

B.~ -The Board Erred in Reiectina Sianificant Portions of the Basis-of SAPL EX-12. ,

{}U 'The Board, in its ruling of December 15, 1988, improperly eliminated important portions of the basis of SAPL's contention regarding Reception / Decontamination Center adequacy as '

(T demonstrated in'the-graded exercise.

First,<the Board rejected that portion of SAPL's contention which challenged the scope of the exercise for not including the

(} exercise'of the= Reception /Decon*. amination' Centers in the host communities of Rochecter and Manchester. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix ,

. E.IV.F.1 states, however, that:

??> ; A full participation exercise which tests as-much of the licensee,-State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be conducted for each site'at which a power reactor is located for which the first O_ operating license for that site is issued

-after July 13, 1982. l It was certainly " reasonably achievable without mandatory

. public participation" to test those other two centers. Further, LO the exercise of facilities in Dover and Salem, even.had those demonstrations been adequate, would in no way have assured the ,

adequate performance in wholly different communities with wholly

-O-different facilities and personnel. Thus the Board's reasoning <

c

(), 1

/The earlier Partial Initial Decision on the New Hampshire

. Radiological Emergency Response Plan will be referred to hereinafter as "PID I."

i 10i e 11 .  !

I v.y f n.)

(that the number of reception centers exercised was a "very good t

< representation" is inapt.  !

y The Board's ruling betrays a failure to understand the

. complexities of running an adequate monitoring and decontamination

.,O

~ facility. There'is little margin for error if the facility is to be maintained in a condition where contamination is kept in

delimitad areas, as is absolutely essential if the facility is to have its intended mitigative effect on public radiation exposure. 1 Large numbers of evacuees will be routed to the host communities t of Mancheste.r.and Rochester. Indeed, Manchester is the community .i designated to receive the largest number of evacuees, including the transient .Deach population from Hampton. The FEMA graded exercise did nothing to provide reasonable assurance of the capabilities-of those communities to respond adequately to the challenges which the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan anticipates they should be able to meet.

Indeed, PID II at 11.11 endorses the idea that: ,

It is more important to perform an extensive evaluation of emergency-specific response ,

functions, which involve procedures and duties with which the responders would not be ,

familiar on a normal daily basis and which

'O' would not be performed if it were not for the emergency or exercise. (Emphasis added.)

-It is obviously true that the functions of monitoring and -

decontaminating evacuees fall among those emergency-specific functions which are not familiar to responders on a normal daily basis and which would only be performed in the anomalous situations of an emergency or exercise. By the logic adopted by the Licensing Board, therefore, the functions performed at the OJ L

)

h.

Reception / Decontamination Centers were among those meriting

" extensive evaluation." The Licensing Board obviously did not hc' ,

apply the logic. articulated in PID II to its prior ruling ~on the

]

admissibility of this? portion of SAPL's contention.

A second erroneous ruling by the Board in its December 15,

);i 1988 Memorandum and Order was the rejection of that portion of' SAPL's contention which dealt with the performance of the DPHS

~

staff at the NH State EOC. (The Board agreed'with the NRC staff's f claim of lack of. basis for this part of the contention.) SAPL had cited as basis for this claim the FEMA Report's identification of the performance of the DPHS staff as a problem. However, the Board stated, "The' Board does not find the unspecified reference s

to the FEMA Report a proper remedy to the insufficient basis."

SAPL would argue that its reference to the FEMA determination with regard to-the: exercise performance of the DPHS staff at the State EOC'was clear enough. Anyone at all familiar with the structure of FEMA's Exercise Report would immediately recognize that this FEMA ~ evaluation would be in the New Hampshire section of the l'

L report (since it deals with the NH portion of the exercise) and l

-would appear at Objective 21 (since it deals with radiological D- i I monitoring and decontamination),

L i The FEMA Report dealt with this matter as Issue #2 at i

! Objective 21. The FEMA Report states as follows:

p i Evaluation: The DPHS staff at the State EOC were not familiar with knowledge of the Radiological Screening Program and who has specific duties and responsibilities for implementation of the program. . Further

@, training appears warranted for the State EOC DPHS personnel relative to providing 1

$m 4

r, e . g f+ -

recommendations-to Reception Center Staff pertaining to the handling of contaminated 1 individuals and vehicles.

7 Recommendation: -Revise / review procedure, if appropriate. Train staff. The Radiological-Screening Program needs to be more 1 specifically defined, and responsibilities ,

assigned-to individuals. -

SAPL holds that'its contention met the reasonable specificity I l

requirement of tho' Commission's regulations. Further, SAPL holds-1 that the very fact lthat FEMA raised the matter of preparedness of l

]

, the DPHS staff as an issue provided a-reasonable basis for SAPL's contention,.particularly in view of the fact that-Intervenors were

.- given only a severely limited opportunity to observe the exercise-firsthand at the NH State EOC and other locations.

Had this portion of SAPL's contention been admitted, SAPL .

t E- ' believes that, through the discovery process, evidence could have

}~

been adduced which would have shown this defect in the DPHS p

p staff's knowledge and performance during the exercise to be a fundamental flaw in the New Hampshire plan. The " integrated capability" of the Reception Center personnel to seek recommendations from and function in conjunction with the DPHS ,

personnel at the State EOC was not shown to be adequate. 10 CFR l Part'50,-Appendix E.IV.F.1 n.4 requires that State and local l- authorities should test and verify an integrated capability to respond.

C.- The Board Erred In Its Rulinos On The ADolicants' Motion in Limine, o

On June 8, 1989, Applicants filed " Applicants' Objection in the Nature of a Motion ID Limine to Portions of the Prefiled o

K. . ,

i

() .

I J

n i Testimony of Captain Daniel-Breton and John Van. Gelder, j)L .FirefightersLFor the Town of Salem, New Hampshire on Behalf of the, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, Regarding'SAPL Contention EX-12 j

(Reception / Decontamination Centers) ."  ;

jy The Applicants argued that-portions of the referenced

. testimony were beyond the scope of contention SAPL EX-12, specifically those portions having to do with a) training and b) _

0: numbers and scope,;and that portions of the testimony were

+

foreclosed by. commission Rule and rag iudicata.

As to training, the Applicants argued that "SAPL Contention 0: EX-12 contains no allegation that reception center personnel, t

including firefighters, are insufficiently or inadequately trained."2 Applicants did concede that SAPL raised issues of

); timing, administrative efficiency,-and general confusion. SAPL responded during oral argument that implicit in its claims that' people were confused and did not kncy what they were'doing was a L claim that the training was inadequate. SAPL also pointed out

C; that the Applicants made no effort to file discovery to attempt to I

learn what SAPL intended to litigate and that further-SAPL did I

\O o ' apprise the Applicants of the intent to litigate training issues in its Trial Brief filed on April 3, 1989. SAPL argued that, by

~

the very structure of the Commission's regulations, a challenge to M

n. the adequacy of exercise performance is perforce a challenge to 2 /The Applicants' argument in its Motion in Limine is in s

!I). contrast with that in the Applicants' September 28, 1988 reply to SAPL's exercise contentions. There the Applicants argued that L exercise problems SAPL' identified at the Reception Centers would be readily correctable with additional training.

L i6 1

t Wx q.

~ training since the. exercise requirement falls under Section "F. C Training" of "IV. Content of Emergency; Plans" of Appendix E to j

}'--

Part'50.- The-exercise is not simply to provide training, it is to a.

verify the efficacy of training. ,

i SAPL believes that in ruling that the firefighters' testimony -

).

, on training issues.should be excluded, the Board engaged in hairsplitting that was deleterious-to the completeness of the Board's' understanding of' issues underlying the poor performance at Cl .

i p

.~the reception centers. While it is true that there were problems ,

that arose as a. result of factors quite apart from lack of training, the failure of the utility to train emergency responders Y adequately is a significant and serious issue that led to a significant: portion of the confusion apparent during the exercise.

That issue was sidestepped by the erroneous ruling by the Board; 3

-Questions 10, 14, 19'and 20 and their= answers in the firefighters' testimony were stricken as a consequence ofuthe Board's ruling l l

. _ that inadequate training was not encompassed within the contention p-

.and basis. ((Tr. 25251-52), Appendix p. 58a-b]

The next area the Applicants attacked in their Motion in-f Limine was question 42 and its answer, in which the firefighters ,

{} -

testified that they do not even know how many evacuees they are expected to deal with at the Reception Center. The Applicants argue in their motion that "the issue of how large a number of g;

people.might appear at a reception center in an actual radiological emergency is irrelevant to a demonstration during an

-exercise-. . .

" The Licensing Board in its Partial Initial Decision on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan OJ p.,

?J 4

- (NHRERP)! supported the findings that an emergency worker's understanding of his or her role (i.e. " role certainty") is

- important (see PID.I at 7.46, 7.48, 7.49, 7.53). Certainly, to allocate manpower and resources effectively, emergency workers do

, need an understanding of the magnitude of the task they are expected to perform. However, the Board upheld the Applicants' reasoning that whether or not emergency responders understand the magnitude of their job is irrelevant to exercise performance.

SAPL holds that exercises are, among other things intended to

". . . ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties." 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.IV.F. SAPL holds

that emergency workers being familiar with their duties includes the necessity of their being familiar with the extent of those duties.

The Applicants.further moved that question 24 and its answer be stricken because in it, witness Breton commented on the scope of the. exercise that was carried out at the Salem Reception Center. The Applicants cited the Board's ruling of December.15, 1988 eliminating "the scope aspect of'the contention." Looking at the Board's December 15 Memorandum and Order, it is clear the Board was referring in its ruling to SAPL's claim of insufficient scope because "only two" reception centers had been exercised.

The Applicants were in effect asking the Board to extend the ruling on scope to eliminate any challenge to the amount of activity that went on within each of the exercised reception

$)Y W

centers. At Tr. 25261 (Appendix p. 58c), Judge Smith ruled that questions and answers 12 and 24 were stricken "because they are

I)f

!beyond the-scope of the contentions in that the contentions did not fairly allege a flaw in the scope of the exercise." SAPL's- j

)

l- . position is that the language of the contention itself-stated that the' adequacy of facilities, equipment and personnel was not demonstrated during the exercise. The scope of the exercise was L 'what it was, and SAPL adduced evidence that even what was i l- I L attempted was not adequately carried out. Captain Breton's 1

. testimony that what was attempted was not even of a reasonable scope is highly relevant to that point.

Applicants next asked that questions and answers 8, 13 and 25 of the firefighters' testimony be thrown out. The Applicants lO:

L l cited the direction of the commission in the emergency planning 1'

L rule that claims by local officials that they would refuse to>act 1

in the event of an actual radiological emergency should be-

.o rejected (Notice of Final Rule,. Evaluation of the Adequacy of Off-site' Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants at the Operating E License Review Stage Where State and/or Local Governments Decline ]

'O: H to Participate in Off-site Emergency Planning, 52 Egd. Bas.

~

42,078 (Nov. 3, 1987)) and they further cited two of the Commission's decisions in the Shoreham litigation. Additionally, lO'

{ . Applicants claimed that these sections of the firefighters' L

testimony were foreclosed by the doctrine of Igg iudicata since the issue of human behavior in emergencies was litigated in the 10^

l; New Hampshire portion of the case.

l

! SAPL holds that a different fact structure underlies the l

. . . Sclem firefighters' testimony than the issues that have been ruled '

CV ,

l upon by the Board in its earlier findings on Seabrook emergency I

(} ,

1 l

V j

i a l planning. First,-Salem is a host community,.not a community

'within the zone to'be evacuated. It is a community to'which evacuees go which is to provide sarvices for those non-residents. -

Secondly,.as is set out in'the firefightsrs' testimony in answer to question 8, a Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Salem  !

jQ,-

and the Salem firefighters provides as follows:

The Town agrees.that it will not require local 2892 members to participate in

. radiological / decontamination training, O- exercises and operations after aune 28, 1988 until an agreement has been reached between the parties.

This raises the novel situation of certain local officials,

.O' who are agreeing to participate in the emergency response plans, having reached an agreement with other officials of the same ,

municipality (the firefighters) which absolves them of the (O . responsibility to participate. Though the commission's emergency response rule and its Shoreham rulings instruct that local

-officials in non-participating communities-are not to be credited O- when they say they will not participate in an actual radiological

. emergency! response, this is not the situation addressed by the

'firefighters' testimony. Some Salem officials are participating l'

LO and the community as a whole considers itself a participating community. It is the allocation of responsibility within a i, participating non-EPZ municipality which is at issue here. The On NHRERP identifies the firefighters as those to staff the Reception / Decontamination centers. The NHRERP is not in j conformance with the agreement in force within the municipality.

lO, For the above-stated reasons, prior Commission rulings and l

0.

l e

0:  ;

i the doctrine of Ita iudicata do not reach the facts in dispute, j J . -?

The anr.w r to question is further raises the issue that Salem O.

firefighters have responsibilities to protect the rest of the L community which would be in conflict with Seablook emergency re8ponse responsibilities and which cannot be neglected. Because

~

O(

this is a non-evacuating community other emergency I responsibilities cannot be abandoned, e.g. houses cannot be left

. to burn down.- Indeed, the Board's prior rulings on human behavior in emergencies militate against the Applicants' arguments that the  ;

1

firefighters will place priority on service at the Reception / Decontamination centers over other emergency response functions. (See also pp. 15-16, infra)

L For these-reasons, the Board was in error when it struck the H

I above-mentioned portions of the firefighters' testimony.

D. The Board Erred In Failina To Find a Fundamental Flaw In the NHRERP Based on the Performance at the Salem Reception Center Durino-the Graded FEMA Exercise.  ;

SAPL presented a panel of two witnesses from the Salem Fire Department, Salem, New Hampshire, with respect to the issues in l contention SAPL EX-12, Fire Captain Daniel Lewis Breton and i

Firefighter John William Van Gelder. Breton Dir., ff. Tr. 25535, lO L

l~ passim. .Under the:NHRERP, Salem firefighters are designated as responsible for setting up the primary and secondary 1

! Reception / Decontamination Centers in the town and for monitoring 10 and decontaminating evacuees arriving there. App. Exh. 5, Vol.

1^

j -38, Appendix B.

L- On the day of the graded FEMA exercise, only the primary 10.

Reception / Decontamination Center, which is located at the Salem L lo

t  !

High School, was exercised. App. Exh. 43 F at 184 [ global 192)

I 9 'According to the NHRERP and prior findings of the Board, the [

o

' number'of firefighters required to staff the primary Reception / Decontamination Center in Salem is 66 and for the secondary' center the number is 20, a total of 86 firefighters.

Appo Exh'. 5,'Vol. 38, Appendix B and PID I at 5.28, 5.34, 5.35.

When Captain Breton and Firefighter Van Gelder testified in the -

. hearing, the Salem Fire Department had'43 firefighters and 20 officers with no reserves ((Tr. 25539) Appendix, p. 63), not enough to staff fully the primary center alone, Captain Breton was the shift commander on the day of the FEMA

,O-L L graded exercise and Firefighter Van Gelder, the President of the Brotherhood of Salem Firefighters, was present as the union advisor. Breton Dir., ff. Tr. 25535 at 2 (Appendix, p. 60). Both LO L men have 17-18 years of experience as firefighters and Captain

. Breton, who has been in a command position for 9 years, has had extensive experience in judging the adequacy of response to emergency. situations. ((Breton Dir. ff. Tr. 25535 at 2, Tr.

25536, 25538-39, 25548-49) Appendix'at pp. 60, 61,63, 68,

,respectively)

.O On the day of the graded FEMA exercise, only 15 on-duty

~

firefighters participated in the radiological emergency response, 12 of whom reported to the Reception / Decontamination Center.

O Breton Dir. ff. Tr. 25533 at 3 and 9 (Appendix at p. 60). Though a tone went out to page them and they knew they would have been paid time and a half for responding, no off-duty firefighters g-

-O.

k responded.-[(Tr.'25563-64) Appendix at pp._76-77)_Firefighter Van

(): Gelder testified that the consensus among the firefighters is that they have been lied to by Seabrook Station representatives. [(Tr.

25562) Appendix, p. 75)

During the exercise, a fire at 15 Henry Street in Salem (f.

called away 9 of the 12 Salem firefighters from the Reception Center just 2 minutes after the Center was set up. .[(Breton Dir.-

,7p ff. Tr._25535 at-9-10, Tr. 25557-58). Appendix at pp. 60, 71, 72, respectively) Prior fire calls had taken personnel out and had impaired set up of the facility. [(Tr. 25557) Appendix, p. 71)

Captain Breton testified that if there had been a house fire in

)

L Salem, he might necessarily have had to have sent his entire crew of firefighters to respond if that were the response recommendation. [(Tr. 25545-47) Appendix, pp. 64-66) Captain

)

Breton further testified that, had the Henry Street fire been larger,-they might have had to pull the mutual aid firefighters out of the Reception Center to deal with it as well. [(Tr.-25579-80). Appendix, pp. 81-82) Captain Breton testified that the Salem j p Fire Department averages 10 emergency calls per day. (Breton Dir.

l

) ff. Tr. 25535-at 9)

Captain Breton testified additionally that the Salem Fire Department cannot compromise the safety of the rest of the town to perform Seabrook emergency response functions; firefighters must maintain fire protection, do EMS rescues and the other emergency response functions they perform every day. [(Tr. 25547, 25580)

Appendix, pp. 66, 82, respectively)

}

1 O.

The evidence fromLthe exercise indicates that firefighters would place-a higher priority'on responding to other emergencies in Salem that are of the nature of the kinds of emergencies to which they-regularly respond than they would on performing functions at'the Reception Centers. The evidence _during the exercise demonstrates that other conflicting emergencies can be expected to arise. Both Captain Breton and Firefighter Van Gelder unreservedly-expressed that-the Salem firefighters do not have the manpower to carry out the tasks assigned under the NHRERP.

-[(Breton Dir ff. Tr. 25535 at 5, Tr. 25555, 25557) Appendix, pp.

60, 69, 71, respectively]

Clearly, there is a fundamental flaw in the NHRERP; the NHRERP relies on host community firefighters for the important function of monitoring and decontaminating evacuees, functions

which under the Commission's regulations must be completed in a timely fashion. 10 CFR l'50.47 (b) (10) and NUREG-0654, J.12. Those personnel cannot reasonably be expected to be there. The problem of conflictina emeraency roles is not rgg iudicata. Further, the idea that firefighters would first respond to emergencies of a type with which they are more familiar, for which they are more

_1 fully trained, and for which they have greater role certainty is indeed consistent with the Licensing Board's prior human behavior l findings (PID I at 7.48, 7.49) and the theories of Applicants' I

human behavior witness Dennis Mileti, whose testimony has been credited by the Board as "very persuasive" as to its human

_ behavior findings in this area. (PID I at 7.53)

-)

, )

.. . - . . - - ~~ . -

s

'k 7f The' Appeal: Board has explicated the Commission's decision in CLI-86-11, 23 NRC 577,'581-(1986) restricting-hearings on the results of emerger.cy planning exercises to those issues revealing

" deficiencies which preclude a finding of reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will-be taken, i.e., fundamental  !

!- flaws in the plan." Lena Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear

< Power Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-903, 28 NRC 499 (1988). The Appeal l

Board stated as follows.

In our view, a fundamental flaw in an emergency plan, as revealed in an exercise, has two principal components. First, it reflects a failure of an essential element of the plan, and, second, it can be remedied only through a

) -

significant revision of the plan.

q With respect to the first component, the failure of the NHRERP revealed by the exercise was the failure to meet the requirements of planning standard 10 CFR 550.47 (b) (10) , substantial and

-interrelated (as opposed-to " minor and isolated") problems were

- ' encountered on the day of the exercise-and the delay in setting up p- the Reception. Center was so extreme that, had there been an actual ,

j emergency, the emergency response would have been ineffective. l

, l

[ The Salem firefighters testified that the lack of I

[ '

coordination and people not knowing what they were doing during the exercise contributed to an overall state of confusion..

i

((Breton Dir. ff. Tr. 25535 at 7) Appendix, p. 60) Captain Breton k _ averred that the plan is not clear enough. [(Tr. 25576) Appendix, l

p. _80) ~ Firefighter Van Gelder testified that, though the estimated time of opening of the Reception Center was to have been 1:00 p.m. under the scenario, in reality the Reception Center was

l

ff .

not' set up until~4:32 p.m. Exercise evacuees were' forced to stand r

outside for a couple of hours waiting to get inside.. ((Breton

\)

,Dir. ff. Tr. 25535 at 8, Tr. 25556-57) Appendix, pp. 60, 70-71, i

respectively) Buses carrying evacuees did not show up until about the time the exercise was to be terminated and they were just "O .. i turned around and sent back. ((Id. and Tr. 25559) Appendix, p. 72] l 1

The witnesses rebutted the FEMA evaluation of the exercise and l stated that what appeared in the FEMA Report was not an accurate k) i j reflection of what actually went on at the exercise. (Breton Dir. i ff. Tr. 25535 at 7, Appendix, p. 60) .Their overall evaluat.4.on of the exercise was that confusion reigned. Id. In PID II at 12.9

O the Board fixed upon the improper loading of the truck noted-by f

the witnesses as the cause of most of the confusion at the exercise and then brushed the matter aside as an easily ,

l(3: '

correctable problem. Though the witnesses did state that time was wasted in emptying the misloaded truck, they did not testify that-that was the major source of confusion. The firefighters pointed )

O to lack of manpower, conflicting responsibilities and lack of coordination (and, had their testimony not been limited, they-would also have pointed to lack of training) as the main causes l.

lO for the inadequacies in performance. Indeed, it is interesting to i note that, though the Board fixed upon the truck problem, it failed to address the astounding fact mentioned by Captain Breton I

,OL L

that the truck with the emergency response equipment, which is supposed to remain parked in back of the Salem Fire Department, had not been seen since the graded exercise, i.e., for almost a lO-L full year. ((Tr. 25572) Appendix, p. 79]

l l

l

a ~ .r a - ~a 4

Q ,

h With-respect to the second factor articulated by the Appeal'

n. Board in ALAB-903, it is plain that the deficiencies revealed at vo the host community Reception Centers can be remedied only through a significant revision of.the NHRERP. The plan first and foremost must be revised to remedy the root problem of conflicting emergency roles. This can only be accomplished by identifying and planning for'another pool of emergency response personnel to staff the monitoring and. decontamination functions at the Reception.

v:

Centers.

The Board's finding atLPID II 12.7 that "available firefighter manpower is ' unlimited' in an emergency when mutual aid from surrounding communities is considered" contradicts the testimony that was adduced. The New Hampshire towns with which Salem has mutual aid agreements are mostly volunteer fire

. departments. (Tr. 25560) The Town of Windham, as an example, has I

only two permanent men on duty. (Tr. 25561) The Massachusetts

- towns Salem normally relies on for mutual aid are Methuen and 33- -

Lawrence. (Tr. 25560) Assuming those towns would respond to a '

Seabrook incident despite their having indicated that they would not, they would respond to aid calls from the Massachusetts towns 10 in the EPZ and not be available to Salem. (Id. and Tr. 25581)

Captain Breton further testified that it is very difficult to work l with firefighters from other communities because they do not O

normally function as a team.- Further, the mutual aid firefighters y have unknown levels of training and may have different ways of doing things. (Tr. 25567) He further testified as to a " domino lO

1 O

effect" with mutual aid.- When mutual aid' towns are called out of

,()- one town to help =in another, it'can impair the mutual' aid town's ability to handle its own emergency situations to such an extent that that town _also must call in mutual aid. (Tr. 25579) Captain Breton's testimony was to'the effect that mutual aid was not a realistic way to remedy the. serious manpower shortages revealed by_ l the exercise. Id. <

Additionally, had the Board not eliminated portions of the firefighters' testimony related to training as discussed supra at pp. 7-9, Firefighter Van Gelder would have offered testimony that the firefighters in the New Hampshire mutual aid towns of Pelham

,O-l and Windham had not received any training for a radiological emergency at Seabrook as of the date of the exercise, June 28, 1988. (Breton Dir. ff. Tr. 25535 at 4. Appendix, p. 60) l0

(' In addition to the significant revision to the NHRERP L required to provide reasonable assurance that the planning i

i standard at 10 CFR $50.47 (b) (10) can be met, the plan needs

,0 -

( further revision to clarify the parts that are-"very confusing."

((Tr. 25576) Appendix, p. 80]

L Therefore, it is manifest that the results of the exercise of.

O the Reception / Decontamination Centers during the FEMA graded

exercise on June 28-29, 1988 revealed a fundamental flaw in the NHRERP.

p i,

F l

l O.

lL I 3;

i II. THE ASLB ERRED IN ITS RULINGS ON CONTENTIONS REGARDING HEALTH-RELATED ASSISTANCE TO-EVACUEES UNDER THE SPMC AT

~ . RECEPTION / DECONTAMINATION CENTERS AND MS-1 HOSPITALS AND  !

d IN ITS FAILURE TO ADMIT THE TESTIMONIES OF DR. BELTON A.

BURROWS AND DR. JENNIFER LEANING A. Backaround On April 11, 1988, SAPL filed " Seacoast Anti-Pollution ,

League's Contentions on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts.

Communities", contentions on the Applicants' plan for the six municipalities within the Seabrook EPZ located in the Commonwealth r D

of Massachusetts.

Among the contentions SAPL filed were two which dealt with the assistance evacuees potentially exposed to contamination would ,

+

get under the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities

. (hereinafter "SPMC"), Contention 3 and Contention 5. SAPL Contention 3 stated:

(O

! The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate personnel, equipment and facilities for radiological monitoring and L decontamination of general public evacuees,

l. emergency workers and special facility .

JO - evacuees-(e.g. nursing.home residents) have i . been established. Furthermore, the definition of " contamination" is 600 cpm above normal ll ' .

background radiation in the SPMC, which allows a greater level of contamination of Massachusetts residents to remain unaddressed O' while New Hampshire residents are decontaminated at 100 cpm under the NHRERP.

Therefore the requirements of 10 CFR L $ 50. 47 (a) (1) , 550. 47 (b) (8) , $ 50. 47 (b) (10) ,

$ 50. 47 (b) (11) and NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1 II.H.4, II.J. 10.d, II'J.12, II.K.5.a..and (1 K.5.b. have not been met.

SAPL Contention 5 stated:

The SPMC fails to meet the requirements of 10

l. CFR 5 50.47 (a) (1) , 5 50. 47 (b) (12) and NUREG-

O . 0654, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.L.1, 3 and 4 because hospitals identified in the SPMC are not

.O

fJ.

sufficient to-evaluate radiation exposure and ,

uptake, are-not adequately prepared to handle  !

contaminated individuals and are-not i jd.

adequately prepared to handle contaminated injured persons. Further, there are not adequate arrangements in the SPMC for transporting victims of radiological accidents to medical support facilities.

(): By order of the Board, Intervenors consolidated admitted f q

contentions and the above two SAPL contentions were folded into j Joint Intervenor ("JI") contentions; SAPL 3 into JI'56 and SAPL 5

(( into JI 46. As consolidated, JI 46 stated:

The SPMC fails to provide reasonable assurance i that adequate protective measures can and will  ;

be implemented for all those persons who are '

patients in the two hospitals within the

{3- Massachusetts EPZ and for those who become injured during the emergency, from radiation contamination / exposure. The SPMC therefore

fails to comply with 10 CFR 550.47 (a) (1), i i 5 50. 47 (b) (10) , 5 50. 47 (b) (12) and NUREG-0654, ,

.Rev. 1, Supp. 1, II.J.10.d,.10.e, 10.g; and i

3-( II.L.

J.I. 56 stated: e

-The SPMC fails-to provide reasonable assurance ,

that adequate procedures, personnel, equipment '

(3- and facilities for radiological monitoring and decontamination of general public evacuees, ,

L emergency workers and special facility  ;

evacuees (e.g. nursing home residents) have been established. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47 (a) (1) , S 50. 47 (b) (8) ,

CL 550. 4 7 (b) (10) , $ 50. 4 7 (b) (11) and NUREG-0654, l

Rev. 1, Supp. 1 II.H.4, II.J.10.d, II.J.12, II.K.5.a. and K.S.b have not been met.

t Under an agreement among the intervenors who were under Board l( instruction to work a " lead intervenor" concept, the Massachusetts-

-Attorney General took the lead on litigation of the adequacy of L _the medical resources challenged by JI 46. The " Commonwealth of O Massachusetts Testimony of Dr. Jennifer Leaning on the Resource I

lo:

1 Needs of the~ Radiologically Injured" was filed on February 21, 1989. .The. testimony was offered to establish'that the SPMC fails to provide adequate support and assistance to the radiologically  ;

' injured. On April 19, 1989, the testimony was excluded by the ,

Board and on April 20, 1989, the Board ruled against SAPL's motion l Ik  ;

for reconsideration of that ruling. The Massachusetts Attorney General also offered the testimony of Dr. Kenneth Peele, Sister i Paula Bradley and Sister Doris Brouillette, all of whom are associated with the St. Joseph's Hospital in Lowell, Massachusetts, which is the primary MS-1 hospital identified by -

'. the Applicants. .Their testimony was heard. Cross-examination of this panel by intervenors was limited by Board rulings. (e.g. Tr. ,

l 23366-71)

Applicants offered " Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 6 (Protective Actions for Particular Populations)" and " Applicants Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 (Radiolngical Monitoring Process)" on.

-the issues contested by the above-described intervenor- a

h. contentions.

On June 26, 1989, SAPL offered "Surrebuttal Testimony of a

Belton A. Burrows, M.D. on Issues Re: MS-1 Hospitals, R Reception / Decontamination Centers and FEMA (GM) MS-1 Guidance":and ,

Dr. Burrows' curriculum vita. The Applicants moved that the entire piece of testimony be excluded. On June 27, 1989, following oral argument (Tr. 27647-27724), the testimony was excluded in its entirety. (See " Attachment B").

O~

I If  !

B. The Board Erred In Reiectina the Portion of contention JI-56 as to The Adeauacy of the

- SPMC Relatina to Decontamination Showers J

As part of the basis for'SAPL Contention 3, which was y consolidated into Contention JI-56, the following concern about +

the adequacy of the two monitoring trailerc provided for monitoring and decontaminating Massachusetts evacuees under the l

SPMC was raised:

Though a diagram is provided, the plan does f3: not describe the total size of the trailers,

,~ so it is impossible to get a true picture of '

the practicability of monitoring a claimed 8,300 evacuees within a 12-hour period at each L trailer. There are 14 monitoring stations and '

two showers in each trailer. That would work

[3L out to approximately 1.2 minutes-to get each evacuee passed through a monitoring station, which is not possible in the real world. At 10 minutes per shower, (the time given by Applicants for the NHRERP decontamination procedures), only.6 people could be

,)

L. decontaminated per shower per hour, which would mean that there would only be the capability of decontaminating 144 people in a

12-hour period in each of the trailers, or a '

total of 288 people from the entire s Massachusetts portion of the EPZ (which is (3- less than .4% of'the population).

On January 26, 1989, the Board' barred intervenors from i

litigating the adequacy of the decontamination showers. (See PID O- II at 9.46 fn. 63). SAPL is not in possession of the transcript of the teleconference during which this ruling was made and was not a party to it since the Board had stated that intervenors C) would be represented in teleconferences by the Massachusetts Attorney General to alleviate the difficulty of establishing such 4

a large number of teleconference connections. It is SAPL's i

C) understanding, based on consultation with counsel for the

'O

i f

Massachusetts Attorney General, that the Board's ruling is bated i

g -

on the interpretation of regulatory guidance that there is no set time frame within which decontamination of evacuees need be accomplished in contrast to the "within about a 12-hour period" l limit established by NUREG-0654 Rev. 1. Supp. 1., II.J.12 for O

completion of radiological monitoring. (See also PID II at l 8.103) i g SAPL believes that any logic interpreting the Commission's J

regulations that could cause the Board to determine that the question of the timeliness of decontamination can be disregarded g-,_

is fundamentally wrong. There is a logical nexus between the time +

l. requirement that monitoring must be done within about a 12-hour ,

' time frame and the idea that decontaminations must be carried out within a similarly reasonable time frame. The purpose of lO radiological monitoring is to determine whether or not contamination is present so that if it is, it can be removed.

There-would be no point at all in requiring timely monitoring if decontaminations, the need therefor having been identified by the monitoring, were not carried out in timely fashion.

The fact stated in SAPL's contention above, that less than

.4% of the Massachusetts EPZ population could be decontaminated.if the decontamination rate assumed under the New' Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan was maintained with the L facilities provided under the SPMC, identifies a serious deficiency in the level of public protection afforded under the SPMC. Until external radiological contamination is removed, lO contaminated evacuees will be subjected to continuous exposure i.

'O-

4 4 o .t (b) from the radiation-emitting contaminants on skin and/or hair and/or clothing. This is exposure that could be mitigated by an

)

adequate plan and adequate facilities. The SPMC's failure to make provisions for aGequate facilities will result in unnecessary, preventable exposures to the population.

, Further, the fact that there are only two showers impacts on the Board's findings as to monitoring. The Board found the ,

Applicants use-of a 60-second frisk rate to be reasonable (PID II

,C _

at 9.84). The Board further found that there should be 10 monitoring stations capable of processing 20 evacuees at a time.

(PID II at 9.98) There is the potential, therefore, that every 70 seconds 20 evacuees could, if found contaminated, be routed :o the 2 showers. It takes very little analytical capability to realize that there cou3d soon be a very lengthy back up of evacuees awaiting the use of the showering facilities. This bottle neck in the process could, despite the FEMA witnesses' testimony that people awaiting showers could be put in a holding area outside the

O

'f trailers (Tr. 19081-83), be disruptive to the timeliness-and

[

quality of even the. monitoring services.

1 Quite apart from even the potential effect on monitoring lO rates, the failure to allow litigation of the adequacy of the decontamination capability provided for under the SPMC, decontamination being the primary treatment to be afforded to O

mitigate potential ill health effects of evacuees suffering'from i

[ contamination, is beyond the range of understanding and reason and ,

is clearly contrary to the Commission's regulation at 10 CFR O

l lO-1 l

l'

y

[

n N

c- .  ;  ;

l 'l50.47 (a) (1) that there be " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken."

C. -The Board Erred In Failino-to Admit the Surrabuttal Testimony of Belton A. Burrows. M.D. +

On June 27, the ASLB rejected in its entirety the surrebuttal

testimony of Belton A. Burrows, M.D. based upon the argument of l Applicants' counsel that the testimony should have been filed p earlier as direct testimony. (The intent to file surrebuttal ij N testimony was announced timely following upon the presentation.of the direct testimony it was intended to rebut and SAPL prefiled

the testimony on June 16, 1989). The Applicants further argued that there was nothing within the scope of Contention JI-56 to which the second part of Dr. Burrowe ' testimony on Reception Center adequacy related.

In_the oral-argument before the Board on the admissibility of

'the testimony (Tr. 27647-27725), SAPL pointed out that the plan  ;

' indicated that all evacuees who could not be decontaminated after -

the three attempts specified in the plan would be sent to an MS-1 hospital. Section 3.8 of the SPMC, " Medical and Public Health Support", under 3.8.1 " Hospital Services" states:

y> Emergency care for contaminated injured individuals includes the general public as well as emergency workers and covers those members of the general public who are suspected to have been overexposed or who cannot be decontaminated at desianated g Recention Centers. The list designating primary and back-up hospitals is available at the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response EOC and at reception Centers operated by the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization. (Emphasis added)

D1 D

g J;

y Because'the plan stated that the emergency care provisions at the hospitals covered those people who could not be decontaminated

~

at the designated reception centers, SAPL focused on the lack of preparedness of hospitals as set forth in contention 5, which became part of10: 46. Under the lead intervenor arrangement, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed Dr. Jennifer Lennings' testimony on the resource needs of the radiologically injured, which addressed the capabilities and arrangements-that would be required by responding hospitals to provide needed services, which testimony was not admitted. On May 17, 1989, SAPL cross-examined Applicants' witness Anthony callendrello, who was a part of Applicants' Rebuttal Panel No. 6 on Protective Actions for Particular Populations. (This opportunity to cross examine came

, after the second date, April 3, for the filing of direct testimony 1

.E in the case.) SAPL's-representative asked Mr. Callendrello: j

)

The plan provides for sending people on to l MS-1 hospitals for further processing if they I

. . . can't be decontaminated at the reception l

) center;'is that correct? 1 1

Mr. Callendrello responded

• I 1

L .Yes. With the exception of some individuals I who may have internal contamination. They may i be entered into the radiological screening '

program in accordance with IP 2.9."

(Tr. 21, 557)

Therefore, SAPL did not have adequate notice prior to this

). testimony by Mr. Callendrello that people who were internally contaminated and not decontaminated at the reception centers could, under the SPMC, simply be put into a so-called

-. T t NU

~

i i

"rediological screening program" with no medical evaluation  ;

_ whatsoever..

)

After a considerable amount of exegesis of the text of the

SPMC and the accompanying procedures manual during oral argument,  ;

the Board ruled that the plan provided only that traumatically injured people would automatically go to the hospitals for ,

treatment. (Tr.-27690)- The Board stated: '!

i Well, there is no question that it takes care hh to read it, and it took, in our case, help to read it. I mean you are correct on that score.

But once it is understood, it is, in our view, very clear. Once the scheme, once the whole scheme falls into place the Board has been ,

consulting while we have been talking, and it is clear to us what the scheme is,_and not that we're saying that you read it carelessly or didn't act promptly or anything else.

That's not the point.

k'

You have done a lot of work on it, and you have acted within your concept of it well and

promptly.

But, nevertheless, that isn't the standard we

[);

can apply. We have to apply the clear meaning of the plan, and we do believe that the

meaning is clear, although difficult.

' Unfortunately, that's the way of the world sometimes. (Tr. 27691-27692)

)- .

SAPL holds that the Board erred in its ruling. One, the fact

that the plan is unclear and subject to varying interpretations is a problem that ought to be addressed, even apart from the question

[I of SAPL's litigative rights. That it took hours of ortl argument i

to make clear the Applicants' scheme of operations should be a I"

matter of concern, since this is a plan provision that emergency 31 responders at the reception centers such as the firefighters j ,

t I,

t

I discussed at'Section I suora, must understand. Secondly, SAPL 4 u

( believes the Board erred in abridging'SAPL's litigative' rights on )

/ 1 P this matter. SAPL should not be penalized because the plan was ]

I unclear.- What happened.was akin to a shell game. SAPL believed R i' J

! the potentially large pool of undecontaminated evacuees would be ]

}l sent to hospitals without adequate provisions, when, lo and.

i

. behold, they are back at the reception centers, to be sent off  ;

from there without any medical evaluation. Not only did the lack h,2 of clarity of the plan make it difficult for SAPL to understand i the Applicants' scheme of operations, but it would have been virtually impossible for SAPL to think, without. explicit 1

information to said effect, that the Applicants could actually be planing to send undecontaminated evacuees off on their own, a scheme that SAPLl believes is incredibly irresponsible and contrary I

to the Commission's regulations as articulated in the " Statement-of. Policy on Emergency Standard 10 CFR 550.47 (b) (12) ,,51 End. Ess.

32904, September 17, 1986. (See also Footnote 3 infra)

The Applicants' interpretation of the language of their plan raises the concern as to who at the reception center determines which people are referred to medical facilities and which are'not,

) what qualifications those persons have for making those

' determinations and the quality of information at their disposal for use in making those determinations. Under cross-examination y

by SAPL's representative in May, Mr. Callendrello referred to the

. procedures for the Monitoring / Decontamination Leaders at IP-2.9 when asked what the criteria are for determining who goes into a hospital and who just goes to the tracking program. Those

)J

.t .. 1

-j(,

w ,

~

9pa procedures atJIP-2.9,,Section 5.2s16 of'the SPMC state as follows:'

When individuals have contamination which

~ cannot be removed after three decontamination y a

attempts or are suspected of having internal

^.

contamination (e.g., individuals with facial' skinLcontamination.) 1 Y . l

A) Notify.the; Radiological Health Advisor.  !

B) Obtain the individual's name, social- '

security-number,-address, and telephone number, and provide the information to the

~- Radiological Health Advisor-for entrance into

)J the Radiological Screening Program.)3

' Examination of the Radiological Health Advisor's (RHA's) j l

4 procedures at.IP-1.2 reveals that there are no adequate criteria I

)] .for the RHA:to employ in determining which contaminated evacuees g ;get referred to hospitals and which do not. There is, therefore, no reasonable assurance that referrals'will be made I) ~ appropriately.4 3/In preparing this brief, SAPL came across an earlier version-of procedure IP-2.9, Section 5.2.16 (Amendment 2 to the SPMC)

-which-has different instructions at A and B and a step C as follows:-

-A.- Arrange for the individual to be transported to one of

, the hospitals listed in Appendix M, NHY Offsite Response Emergency Resource ~ Manual.

B. Notify the' Radiological Health Advisor. ,

[Z): C. Ensure that individuals take Copy A of Attachment 1 with i them to the hospital.

i -This earlier. draft of the SPMC contributed to SAPL's perception that the. plan intended that all unsuccessfully decontaminated persons would go to MS-1 hospitals. (See Attachment C.)

,O ' '

Applicants' counsel was wrong, therefore, when he argued that sthere was no change in the plan. (Tr. 27660) p 4/It is worth noting that the DPHS Staff (which includes the

-RHA) at the State EOC in New Hampshire were found lacking in their

. understanding of the Radiological Health Screening Program. See 9- p. 6 supra. The FEMA report provides no indication as to whether the RHA function was exercised on the Massachusetts side of the continued on following page I

(

'O - ,

.,2 r 1  :

The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 550.47 (b) (12) require

. that: " Arrangements are made for medical services for-contaminated injured individuals." In November 1986, detailed

~

guidance was developed by FEMA in consultation with the NRC Staff pursuant to the Commission's September 17, 1986 Statement of Policy on.this matter. FEMA Guidance Memorandum, MS-1 defined  ;

" contaminated injured", as it is used in the cited regulation, as t

encompassing categories of. individuals: (1) contaminated and otherwise physical:y injured; (2) contaminated and exposed to dangerous levels of radiation; or (3) exposed to dangerous levels '

!' . of radiation. ~The Board's ruling that the SPMC could provide for y hospital treatment of just those in category 1 is plainly contrary

to the regulation that medical services should be provided for all 4-

of those categories of individuals.

Dr. Burrows' testimony on reception centers at Questions #7

~

L. through 11 was both in conformance with the regulatory requirements and would have been appropriate and timely rebuttal to Mr. Callendrello's testimony ((Tr. 21557-21563) Appendix, pp.

Sb-5h] had it been admitted. Applicants' counsel complained that l

the portable pulse height analyzer would have been raised earlier y

I t

by SAPL. However, as SAPL's representative argued (Tr. 27657) Dr.

e Burrows offered that testimony to be helpful; there was no burden on SAPL to provide testimony to suggest part of the solution to O-the problems Dr. Burrows identified in the reception center operation.

3 Continued from previous page border as regards advising reception center personnel on referrals.

i

.h

I o

1 1

J. ,

Dr. Burrows' testimony at Question #12 was' offered to respond. .

1

.- to the Applicants' announcement on April 13, 19L9 during the  ;

hearings that 4 more monitoring stations would be added at each l

reception center and to rebut the notion that that would be an adoquate solution.

-; The Board did consider taking up ang sconte the issue of the 4: capability of the RHA and the plan to assure that evacuees at 4

- reception centers who could be benefitted by medical treatments b' '

would get them [(Tr. 27692-27702) Appendix, pp.91-101), but decided not to and instead asked the Applicants for a commitment to review Dr. Burrows' suggestions.

' Question #3 through #6 of Dr. Burrows' testimony challenged j

,.. the adequacy of FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1 as reflected by 1

Applicants' witnesses' ctatements through their direct-testimony.

The Applicants objected to that portion of Dr. Burrows' testimony l

-l solely on grounds of lack of timeliness. [(Tr. 27707) Appendix,

]

i- p. 102) Applicants argued that this portion of Dr. Burrows' l-7 testimony should have been triggered by the filing of the Report. .;

i This testimony was within the ambit of Content JI 6. 1

)

SAPL directly challenged the number of hospitals der agreement, the failure to specify the services hospitals under agreement could provide, and'the-failure to estimate the number of evacuees they could treat in the basis to SAPL Contention 5, which became a I part of JI-46. SAPL holds that this testimony was offered timely l

because it was filed to rebut statements made under cross-

) examination by Applicants' witnesses Anthony callendrello and Michael Sinclair, and Massachusetts Attorney General's witness Dr.

pL Kenneth Peele.

Mr. Callendrello indicated that the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) accreditation suffices to essure g --- that medical-facilities can handle contaminated injured patients-because FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1 supports the idea that JCAH accreditation suffices for such assurance. (Tr. 21437) Dr.

g Burrows. disputes this idea for the reasons stated in his testimony at Question #3. (See Attachment B) .

Dr. Burrows' testimony at Questions #6 was to rebut testimony g- of Mr. Callendrello that the Applicants felt no further assessment other than compliance with FEMA's guidance was necessary to provide an adequate level of medical service emergency response g for the Seabrook EPZ. ((Tr. 21595-21598) Appendix, pp.~51-51)

In responding to Mr. Callendrello's assertion, Dr. Burrows' testimony does admittedly assail the efficacy of'the FEMA g guidance.

Dr. Burrows' testimony at Question #5 rebuts the testimony of Dr. Kenneth Peele that he thought board certified radiologists g- would be qualified to supervise a hospital response to a radiological emergency. ((Tr. 23372) Appendix, p. 58)

-Dr. Burrows' testimony at Question #4 was to rebut-testimony g in Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 6 at p. 56, Mr. Sinclair's testimony at Tr. 21570, and the portion of Dr. Peele's testimony that initial treatment of contaminated injured evacuees can be g- handled by St. Joseph's Hospital. [(Tr. 23322-23342) Appendix, p.

27-46) l 0 l

5 4 q

Boards may exercise discretion as to the admissibility of .

1

. rebuttal testimony.5 Given the public safety implication of Dr.

Burrows' testimony, whose credentials were, as the Board noted,:

i

" impressive" (Tr. 27701) the failure to admit his testimony was an i abuse of discretion, and represents another use of a procedural

~

technicality to sweep away a serious safety concern. l D. 'The Board Erred in Failina to Admit the Testimony of Dr. Jennifer Leanino SAPL adopts the arguments' advanced by the Massachusetts Attorney General in its brief ac to this matter.

s e

H J^

s I

i l

T .

1 i

l) i k

l.

5 /In this instance, the testimony is styled "surrebuttal O testimony" because the Applicants filed their case as rebuttal testimony, relying on the FEMA finding to rebut the Intervenors' 1 direct case. '

O

-- a

t C)/ ,

[

2

- III. THE BOARD ERRED IN. UPHOLDING THE FEMA REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE SPMC AND

'O THE EXERCISE ON THE BASIS OF THE DONOVAN TESTIMONY Under ~ .10 CFR 5 50. 47 (a) (2) , a FEMA " finding will constitute a.

rebuttable presumption on questions of adequacy and implementation (y . capability." In PID II, the Board upheld the FEMA finding against - >

all challenges, relying on testimony of the sole FEMA witness, Mr.

Richard Donovan. The Board erred in upholding the FEMA j (p presumption on the basis of Mr. Donovan's testimony. Indeed, the entire issue of the credibility of FEMA's handling of the review of both the SPMC and the graded exercise was not properly dealt g; with by the Board.

1

! SAPL will not here rehearse the extraordinary, and we believe-l y unsavory, circumstances that led Mr. Donovan to be the sole FEMA l^

gy witness in this proceeding. The fact is that, as SAPL has argued

. in its Brief on Appeal of PID I (March 21, 1989, p. 6-22), Mr.

Donovan replaced Mr. Thomas as chairman of the Seabrook Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) because Mr. Thomas refused to accept l

the FFMA about-face.on the adequacy of the NHRERP. Although E

FEMA's attorney conceded that FEMA's about-face was not based upon  ;

any new facts, it decided, following a meeting between top level

)

FEMA officials, including associate director Grant Peterson, and top NRC officials, including former EDO Victor Stello, to find the

) NMRERP adequate. Having made a determination that the agency's positic- would change 180 , FEMA then removed Mr. Thomas from further responsibility for Seabrook reviews, and brought in a FEMA Region X official, Mr. Richard Donovan, to supervise all further

)

Seabrook radiological planning reviews, and the graded exercise.

,O

1

-In.tho' course of undertaking his responsibilities, Mr.

Donovan did two extraordinary things which were never properly .

. dealt'with by the Board. First, he destroyed all exercise Second, he made '

evaluators' records on the June 1988 exercise.

major alterations in'the FEMA final exercise report, deleting or minimizing the the disclosure of problems that appeared in the L draft report. The Board never dealt with the second matter, and ,

dealt improperly with the first.

As to the first item, the Board simply states:

We were satisfied with Mr. Donovan's

! .., explanation that discarding such notes was his y ~! normal practice and that it was not inappropriate to do so. (PID II 1.68, Slip ,

opinion p. 34).

, This is an extraordinary and cavalier resolution of a major issue.

Here we have a FEMA official, whose very role in the Seabrook case rose under controversial (and we believe highly suspicious) circumstances, destroying or discarding basic documentation which could test the adequacy of the Seabrook Graded Emergency Exercise.

Moreover, this was done against a suggestion of agency counsel  :

that it would be better to maintain the materials, and against-the

' express: request of an intervenor attorney. (See Attachment D, a l

' letter from Diane Curran, counsel for NECNP to FEMA counsel H.

Joseph Flynn, June 16, 1988.) It was done in a case in which Mr.

Donovan certainly knew that emergency planning was extraordinarily controversial, and where Mr. Donovan clearly-knew the results of -

the graded exercise were going to be vigorously contested in an

) adjudicatory hearing. Nonetheless, having this knowledge, Mr.

Donovan unilaterally decided to make unavailable any documents j

i S

that could be used to probe either the integrity or the accuracy (1 of the FEMA review of the exercise. The idea that, in these circumstances, destruction of the underlying documents can be ignored as being " normal practice" will simply not wash. A

() negative inference from this amazing act, which was solely due to Mr. Donovan's own decision, was required. Neither FEMA or NRC, should have the benefit of a FEMA rebuttable presumption in the

() circumstances of this case. (In other portions of PID II, the Board broadly insinuates that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' position should be undermined because it did not produce its own

() emergency planning officials as witnesses, but rather relied extensively on consultants. In so doing, the Board reveals once again its bias and hostility toward the parties opposing the j) license, since no such adverse inference was brought against FEMA for the extraordinary act of destroying or discarding the underlying documents that would permit a test of the validity of FEMA's conclusions regarding the graded exercise.)

()

Second, due to the decision to " expedite" the proceeding, the Applicants arranged to send out a draft FEMA exercise report to j). the Seabrook parties. The draft report was sent out under date of August 2, 1988. [(Tr. 22084) Appendix, p. 6a) At the hearing, it became apparent that Mr. Donovan had.not intended this draft g report to be made available to the Seabrook parties. ((Tr. 22151)

Appendix, p. 11)

Interestingly, the final report, which Mr. Donovan always O. intended t be made available '.o all the parties, and which pursuant to a commitment made to the NRC, was sent out under date O'

F O.

of August 1, 1988, revealed numerous deletions and changes which

'O appear to minimize problems that had appeared in the draft report.

There were substantial differences between the draft report O, and the final report. (Applicants' Exhibit 43F) The draft included the times to complete bus routes and revealed that some bus routes took very long times to complete, including one transit-dependent route that took 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 11 minutes.

Completion times were entirely deleted in the final report. [(Tr.

22112) Appendix, p. 7) The reference to a bus driver being in an g accident, forcing another vehicle off the road, which is found in the draft report, was deleted in the final report. [(Tr. 22134) .

Appendix, p. 9) The draft report describes a certain run as g " completed with controller intervention (on second attempt).

i Returned once to Rockingham TSA (transportation staging area) >

after getting lost and calling TSA." In the final report the only l g description of this bus run is " complete 0 with controller intervention." [(Tr. 22121) Appendix, p. 8) A draft report j l description of a run as " completed (much confusion over maps--

"i""** **"Y *"#"")" I" *"*" ""*d' in the final report, into  :

lO simply " completed." [(Tr. 22140) Appendix, p. 10]

There are also certain routes listed in the draft reported as "une spleted", but which appear in the final report as completed.

lO .

(Tr. 22152) Since all the evaluator documents dealing with the exercise were discarded, and hence unavailable, or were withheld n a claim f eXe utive privilege, there was no way for SAPL, or O

i anyone else, to know if the final report, on which FEMA based its O.

l

l' l

finding-that the graded exercise dsmonstrated adequate capability 3 to implement the plan, had been " cooked", or whether the draft was actually in error, as Mr. Donovan claimed. [(See Tr. 22152, and Mr. Donovan's explanation at Tr. 22154-62, in which the witness j

) first claims that the documents existed, but were subject to I executive privilege, then appears uncertain as to whether the documents are available.) Appendix, pp. 23, 14-22)

In conclusion,'SAPL believes that the Licensing Board erred

)

in crediting the testimony of Mr. Donovan, as providing a basis l for accepting the rebuttable presumption of TEMA's " reasonable

) . assurance" finding. )

1 I

i C) l c) l l

0 1

1 O

i l

l

'() ,

c1

g IV. THE BOARD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE USE OF A 20 PERCENT PLANNING STANDARD FOR THE SPMC a RECEPTION CENTERS WAS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF BER JUDICATA In PID I, the Licensing Board upheld the use of a 20 percent planning standard for the Reception Centers, based on the so-O called "Krimm Memorandum". This decision was upheld in ALAB-924 because, this Appeal Board reasoned, there were deficiencies in SAPL's advocacy regarding the issue. Specifically, the Appeal 3 Board found that SAPL's expert witness had not sufficiently challenged the 20 percent standard, and SAPL's cross-examinattin was insufficiently probing, notwithstanding the Appeal Board's 3 decision in ALAB-905 that the FEMA guidance set forth in the Krn_s Memorandum was inadequate on a generic basis.

However, in PID II, the Licensing Board held that the 20 C) percent guidance it had found acceptable in PID I would be Iga iudicata for the entire EPZ, and applied its earlier decision to bar litigation of the adequacy of the 20 percent utandard by any O party to the SPMC litigation. (PID II, 9.49, Slip Opinion, p.

384)

This was clear error. Not only was the use of the 20 percent O standard challenged in the NHRERP proceeding, as the Licensing Board conceded, its use as a generic basis was held in invalid in e

ALAB-905. Thus, this guidance was certainly subject to challenge O L in the SPMC litigation. Even if one were to assume that SAPL could be prevented from prevailing in its challenge to the 20 percent standard because of the claimed inadequate direct I) testimony or cross-examination in the NHRERP proceeding (a matter

.O

S- I i

SAPL disputes) it could not thereby be precluded from raising such f g a challenge in the SPMC proceeding. The SPMC proceeding was a different hearing, initiated by the filing of new contentions, and  !

on which SAPL should have had an opportunity to again present '

v 3 evidence, and conduct cross-examination, on the adequacy of utilizing the Krima Memorandum to determine the appropriate h planning standard for the Reception Centers. Because of the g Board's rga iudicata ruling, SAPL was precluded from any such

{

opportunity, and hence denied a fair hearing, and an opportunity to establish a material inadequacy in the SPMC.

3 This was clear as to SAPL. It is even more clearly error as to the other parties to the proceeding. Even if SAPL's advocacy was correctly held by the Appeal Board to be sufficiently i deficient to eliminate its challenge to the 20 percent planning

)  ;

standard as to the NHRERP, notwithstanding the decision in ALAB-095, there is no basis on which other parties, such as the Massachusetts Attorney General or the New England Coalition on

)

Nuclear Pollution, could be precluded from challenging _the 20 percent standard as to the SPMC, since it was not their claimed advocacy deficiencies that had led the Board to uphold the use of

[O the 20 percent standard in PID I.

i In short, there is absolutely no basis for the Licensing  !

Board's ruling that the decision on the appropriate use of the 20  ;

,0 percent planning standard would be raa iudicata, and could bar a litigation challenge to that guidance in the SPMC litigation. +

4 t

2 O

CONCLUSION The Licensing Board's November 9 decision continues to betray the bias and hostility, indeed outright dishonesty, of the Licensing Board chaired by Administrative Judge Ivan Smith.

Serious safety issues are swept away on the theory that those 3

parties urging their resolution deserve to lose because they have the " bad" motive of wanting to defeat the licensing of Seabrook.

The procedural complexity of the case has reached a point where only a medieval scholar could possibly discern any underlying rationality.

_ The Seabrook licensing is a travesty and an injustice. No matter how bizarre and complicated the procedures the Licensing Board creates, and no matter how hard it tries to defeat

. intervenor hearing rights, the fact remains that the problems at seabrook are not caused by the intervenors, but are the result of ineluctable facts concerning the site, the road network and the at-risk population.

The fact remains that no adequate evacuation plan for Seabrook's 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone has ever existed, and no amount of factual obfuscation or procedural manipulation can

_)

I change the facts.

SAPL entered this proceeding hoping to prevail. It is evident that SAPL cannot prevail, not because the facts do not justify prevailing, but because justice is simply not available in the NRC, which is far more determined to license the plant than it

==

is to ensure that it actually treats safety as its "first, last

=3 D

.),

I and permanent consideration." Power Reactor DeveloDment Coro. v. i;

[) Electrical Union, 367 U.S. 396 (1961).

?

f i

C) Respectfully submitted, i Seacoast Anti-Pollution League '

By their Attorneys, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON i By:*'foWert A. Backus, Esquire l 116 Lowell Street '

P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 '

C) (603) 668-7272 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .

DATED: January'24, 1990 (j' I hereby certify that copies'of the within brief have been' '

forwarded this date by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the parties on the attached service list.

1,f i g' e /[ #hhN Robert A. Bachus, Esquire O

CY C)'

I i ATTACBMENT A '

i

>- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• ATOMIC SATETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges +

) Ivan V. Smith, Chairman t

Dr. Richard T. Cole '

Renne th A. McCollom

);. ,

)

the Matter of

)

)

/,8C SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW 45 HIRE, IT AL. ) Docket No.

) 50-443-OL sbrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

) )

)

(Of f-site IP)

April 3, 1969

• TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN DANIEL BRETON AND JOHN VAN GELDER, FIRETICHTERS FOR THE TOWN OT

) SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE ON BEHALF OF THE SEACOAST i

ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, REGARDING SAPL CONTENTION '

EX-12 (RECEPTION / DECONTAMINATION CENTERS)

)

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League  :

By its attorney, .

BACKUS, HEYER AND SOLOMON

)' 116 Lowell Stree t P.O. Box 516 Manches ter, N.H. 03105 l >

D

)

I Ib I l

4

SUMMARY

OF TESTIMONY g .-

In their testfeeny, Captain Daniel Breton and Tirefighter John Van , i der testify on issues raised by SAPL Contention EX-12 as to the lack of l

equacy of the reception and decontamination center emergency response  ;

J-

=ctions in the host community of Salem, N.H., as revealed by the June 1988 aded TEMA exercise. Captain Breton and Firefighter Van Gelder testify that e to inadequate manpower, inf requent training, lack of coordination, l

flicting duties and overall confusion, the exercise in no way indicated the

.; ability to rer:end to a real radiological emergency at Seabrook Statien, i

Captain Breton and Firefighter Van Gelder further state that because 0

ere was training immediately prior to the exercise, prior notice of the . l l

.:eral timing of events, and only a few evacuees" run through the f acility

.1stive to the numbers that might need to be served, the exercise, confused

()

d inadequate as it was, did not provide a true picture of events as they l 11d occur in a real emergency situation. They conclude that the exercise as

.tranrpired on June 28, 1988 did not indicate an adequate emergency respense C) '

pability in the host community of Salem in the event of a radiological

)

targency at Seabrook.

i 1

l LO ,

t b

i

(

5 O -

E

)

i i

1

~2-TESTIMONY l

. 1

) , Vould you cach please state your full name and occupation?

.:. ' John V1111am Van Gelder. Tirefighter, Salem Ng Heepshire Tire ,

Department. ]

)- o Daniel Louis Bre ton, Captain, Salen New Hampshire Fire Department.

l

• - Hov'long have each of you been in your positions with the Salen Tire i

De par tment? i 4

[^ u (Van Gelder) I started with the Salem Tire Department in January 1975,.

I lef t in January 1982, and was rehired on July 5,1983. I have served on the department from July 1983 to the present. *

)

I y (Bre ton) I started in July 1972 and have almost 17 years with the j department.

1 0: Vould you please describt your job responsibilitiest i A: (Van Gelder) My job lesponsibilities are primarily EMS verk and firefighting.  ;

l (Breton) I am responsible for supervising a shif t of the Tire  ;

i j Department which consists of 15 men at 2 substations and the central s ta tion. I- am the incident commander vhile I am on duty and would be a f

charge of the response to a fire or EMS type of incident.

) Q: How many firemen are there in the Salem Tire Department?

A (Van Gelder) 40 firefighters,16 lieutenants and 4 captains. .

Q: 'Did both of you participate in the graded Tederal Emergency Management

} Agency (TEMA) exercise of the emergency response plans for Seabrook Station conducted in June 198B7 t A: (Breton) Yes. I was the shif t commander that day.

3 (Van Gelder) Yes I was there as the union advisor to work along with-Chief Donald Bliss.

l ,

j 2___-_._-

n . :

fm , t:

) i 1

)

i

What is your understanding of the functions that the Salem Tirefighters are supposed to perf erm during a radiological energency at Seabrcek?

l

(Ireton) My understanding is that the Salem ytre Department and the s

J firefighters on duty are supposed to be responsible for setting up and  !

i operating a reception and decontamination center for people posribly l l

exposed to by products of a nuclear accident at Seabrook that would

,. include the rerpensibility fer decontaminating anybody who was J  !

contaminated. ,

1

Hev many Salem firefighters actually participated in the June 1928 graded exercise?  !

9 .

u (Yan Celder) A total of 15 Salem firefighters. They were all on-duty ,

firefighters; no off-duty firefighters responded.

4: d of f-duty firefighters respond to a Seabrook emergency in your

~7 epinic 4 1: (Van Gel Currently no Salem on-duty or off-duty firefight .s are obliga ted to res, nd. Ve have a Memorandum of Agreemen wated June 21, O

2986, which states at aragraph 2 as follows:

The Town agrees th

• it will not te ire local 2892 members to particip in radio ical/decon tamina tion training, exercises an per ons after June 28, 1968 O- until an agreement has b reached between the parties.

Even bef ore the Nemorandu Agreemen was in effec t, no of f-duty firefighters respo d to the two prior dri a even though they would D have been p time and a half. We will have to egotiate with the town and town in turn has to reach an agreement with t state.

1:

Vere any eutual aid firefighters present f rom other communities at the O exercise?

O

D' At (Van Gelder) Yes, there were approximately i$ firefighters f rom out of I town. Including Salem and the mutual aid personnel, there were a tetal of approximately 30 firefighters.

. Q: vour knowledge, have mutual aid firefighters r eived training to respond t radiological emergency at Se ook Station?

A: (Van Gelder) The

• we had the e cise, June 28, 1988, I contacted the Deputy Chief from the V am Tire Department and as of that date D they were not traine 1 also talke o someone in Pelham and Felham firefighters a o were not trained as of tha ate. As far as the other m' aal aid towns are concerned I am not sure the answer to

) quettion.

1. Q: Vhere is the Reception / Decontamination Center located in Salem? '

A: (Breton and Van Gelder) At Salem High School on Cerementy Drive.

-) 2. Q: Ho many evacuees have you been told you shoul e prepared to expect at the f at'lity?

A: (Van Gelder) ave been told 3 .

1 (Breton) At meetings 'e e had I have heard anywhere from 3500 to 10,000. Vhat fi .re is aurate I don't know. I have heard all different fi res at different sta s. 1 don't know today how many O we_ar supposed to be able to receive.

3. Q: How ny-firefighters would you expect would re rt if there were an emergency a eabrook at any point in th u ture t 9 A (Breton) The resp se would cons of 15 on-duty firefighters.

(Van Gelder) The 15 on- t irefighters may be requested to respond but would not be obl ted to spend at the present time. Further, G those'15 firef ters could not all tied up at the reception center since t would be responsible for protee the rest of the D

.M

J cot. unity. Some of the tre h rs have told ne that even if they g: vere on duty, they would g are sick and take care of their families.

/

personnel given training just prior to the exe tret

/

Ve.  :

(Van Gel r) On June 9,1988 ve had a practic exercise, which we I

videotaped, an things vent roughly the me on June 28, 1988. The

) 8 exercise had a class.tvo days group that was on du for the Jun beforehand and were traine .

what they were supposed to be doing. In

\

t likeIy that there would have been training a real situation it is

,) ,

just two days bet re and I do not thin that things would even go as well as thev id on June 28. The June 28 p ormance was totally ,

i inedey te f or a real evacuation.

. Vhat pertions of the exercise were you there for?

(Ereton) I was there at the beginning to set things up but I was not there f or the conitoring and decontamination.  :

,3' ,

.(Van Gelder) I was there f or the whole exercise.

I Vas this an adequate exercise f or what Salem firefighters are expected to handle?.

O-(Ereton) No. I just feel it was terribly inadequate, grossly inadequate for what we are expected to handle. In the first place, e

there is not enough manpower. There is also not enough coordination.

O'-

( our scope is extremely limited. I did the best I could with the 15 people that I had. Ve have to take our time because we don't do this ,

every day. Ve have to unload the truck and everybody has to be ,

Q

. refreshed as to where to go. There were a lot of people observing and looking around, but not a lot of people responsible for carrying out the exercise. In essence, we just don't have the manpower to pull O

4 it of f the way it should be pulled off.

L (Van Gelder) I agree totally.

O-

- ~ _ m s.

i k

u .

n t

6-  :

L

) Os Vere you able to ge t all the equipment in place? ',

I i.

A: (Ereton) When 1 lef t ell the equipment was not in place. All the r

equipment was not off the truck. There was a lot of confusien about  ;

the materials coming off the truck with respect to the different hits. {

Any particular station tight have 3 to 4 hits and some ci the hits l needed at the station might be in the front of the truck end others in  !

the back of the truck. It takes an enormous amount of time to coordinate the ma terial. There was a lot of confusion. '

t: Did anybody seem to have a command of the central coordination of '

the f acility and how it was supposed to be set up?

A (Breton) No. There seemed to be as much confusion among the peeple supposed to be "in charge" as with us. A lot of time I spent there ,

dealt vith juat emptying the truck. It was just ridiculous, materials b

reattered til over the place, even though the truck was supposed to

• have been reloaded and better organited than it was at the non-graded exereire that was supposed.to prepare us for this graded one. Wha t we y .

had requested be done in loading the truck evidently was not done.

Q \ en the training that Salem firefighters hav had in monitoring and

, deconth ination, and given the frequency that training, do ycu think the firefigh a vill be able adequat y to recall and use t. hat information in a Se rook Station me rgency ?

A (Breton) The training va ad unte f or me at the time, but we don't get the training of ten en sh t e efficient over a period of time.

In other words, I can e tain the inf or tion from classes for a short period of time, t after a week or two veek or a few months, I can't remember the .iner points or specifics about the m itoring procedures.

Even th th I have some background in this area I do have fficulties,

) '

J

so I am concerned that ..y men a t able to pick up this material as -

1' quickly due to lack of b round training.

2: Most the firefighters have not he ny other training backgrcund in this arest 4:- (Ireton) h'o, they ve

. Some of the people have come to me and expressed that t do n . understand and are not sure about wha t they are doin Ot. k' hat was your overall impression of the exercise?

A (Breton)

• Confusion" was the word of the day at the exercise.

1: It is being represented to you that the following quotation appears

) in the Final TEMA Exercise Report on the graded exercise that occurred in June 1988 in paragraph 5 on p. 184:

The Salem facility was activated in a timely and effective manner. The assigned personnel performed ,

)~ as a team and demonstrated their knowledge of Emergency Plan Procedures for the necessary stations to be established throughout the f acility. All necessary equipment and supplies were available and adequately demons trated by the s taff. The staff was knowledgeable in the proceedures to establish and operate each function

) of the facility.

• Do you think these statements accurately reflect what went on at the Salem High School on the day of the exercise?

Lt (Yan Gelder) I do not feel it accurately reflects what went on. .5 (Breton) I'do not feel it's even close to an accurate description of what went on.

[ 'h For what reasons do you think the statement is ineccurate? '

At (treton) 1 saw confusion and lack of coordination and people who did not know what they were doing.

) ): Did you think the op of the exercise was reasonable?

l U i

9 DI

.g.

. s: .(treten) The scope of e ex se did not approach the number of 2-D 1 people we're supposed ce apable of processing.

J

Voul ou report if there were an actual radiologica mettency a t ,

Seabrook St

• ton? ,

9 e on duty I'd go home sick and a (Van Gelder) No. vouldn't and if I get ry family out of tov (Pre ton) I would serve e i

• vere on duty at the time. I veuld

')

tell ey f amily to 1 e town and go v at the emergency .

classificatie evel before the one at whic le are told to evacua .

\

Vere you given prior notification of the time the Seabrook exercise was l

going to occur so you knew the teneral time frame to expect the beginning of events?

{,

~J ,: (P re ton) Ve were told the exercise was going to take place and we *

i were inf orted of approximate times certain things might happen. Ve had an idea of the time the EOC was going to be activated and we also knew i 3

> the approximate time when the reception / decontamination center vould ,

be activated. It was no secret.

r

Did this prior notification help your response be more efficient than a I) - '

it might otherwise have been? '!

(Breton) Sure it did. But I wouldn't term the performance

• efficient".

) Q: Hov long did it take them to set up for evacuees to come through the facility?

(: (Van Gelder) A lot of the evacuees were standing outside the doorway _j for a couple of hours waiting to get inside. A lot of the buses that showed up later in the day were just turned around and sent back.

• x

' * (

. ~

M .

.p.

)'  :: During the exercise, were there any other impediments to pr.oceeding smoothly along?

st' (Ere ton) Yes. Ve still had to take care of the emergency calls for our j own town. That's real lif e. There were a combination of various ambulance or EMS calls and fire calls. We responded to those as we normally would. Our department averages about 10 emergency calls per day.

1: Of the 15 Salem fire persennel on duty on the day of the exercise, how many reported to the reception /decentemin. tion center?

a (Van Gelder) Twelve people.

. What was the titre the reception / decontamination facility was supposed to be opened?

(Van Gelder) According to the Daily Comnunicatiens 1,og for June 28, 1926 (attached to our testimony), at 12:58 there vos a telephone call to our dispatch center. It was the Assistant Chief requesting that the Fire Chief have the reception center ready for 1500 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.7075e-4 months <br />, which is 3:00 pH. '

What time was the reception / decontamination operatten open to adelt evacuees?

(Van' Gelder) ' According to the log, at 16:32, the Chief requested that '

- the- EOC be notified of the opening of the decontamination and reception areas, and at that time the. E0C was advised of that. At 16:34, we had

. a report of a fire at 15 Henry Street.

• i How many firefighters did the fire call at 16:34 call away from the reception / decontamination center?

(Van Gelder) hine of the twelve Salem firefighters thet Vere at the Salem High School left to report to the fire call, leaving only three i

D;

J.

7 .

-lo-Salem firefighters and the mutual aid personnel there to carry on the operation.

If it had been a call for the south end of the town, everyone at the high school f rom Salem Tire Department would have had to leave to report to the fire call.

, Does this conclude your testimony?

(Van Gelder) Yes.

(Breten) Yes, it does.

}. ,

I e

0 1 -

w e

3 .

p

p; N ,

l..

ATTAC8 MENT B UNITED STATES OT AMILICA NUCLEAR T.ECULATORY COMMISSION y ATOMIC SATETY AND LICENSING LOARD 2

Ecf ore the Administrative Judger:

Ivan V. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard T. Cole fenneth A. McCoIIom In the Matter of ) Docke t Ect. $C-443-CL

)

I TV!LIC SIRVICE COMPANY ) (Of f-Site IP) 0F NEV EAMFSKIEE,.ET AL. )

)

(Sestreek S ta tien, Uni t 3) ) June 26, 25!9

__ )

3 SURLEBUT!AL TISTIMONY Of IELTON A. EUEROVS, MD ON ISSUES RE: MS-1 HOSPITALS, RECEPTION /

DICONTAMINATION CENTERS AND TEMA (GM) MS-1 GUIDANCE D

D Seacottt Anti-PoIIution League Ey its attorney, BACKUS, MEYER 6 SOLOMON 136 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516

) Manchester N.H. 03205 0

9

}. Q. Veuld yeu please state your nare, current poritions and relevant experience?

A. My nate is Ic1;cn A. Eutrows, MD. I am currently Chiti cf Suelcar Medicine at the Boston YA Hospital and Research Professor of Medicine at Ecston University School of Medicine. I have verked with bcth research and clinical applicatiens of radienuclides f or 40 years.

2. G. Have ycu reviewed caterials related to the radiological energency response plans fer Seabrook Station?

A.- Yes, I have. I have reviewed sections of the Seatrook Plan f er I

Massachuse ts Cor.nunities (SPHC) related to Ecceptien/Decentatinatien Centers, SPMC Itplecenting Procedure 2.9 " Radiological Ment cring/recentati:stien", SPMC Irplerenting Procedure 3.4

" knitoring Trailer Activation and Deactivation", and TEMA Guidance Meterandu: (GM) MS-1, Medical Servicas, dated Novetter 23, ICE 6. I have also rev!eved pages 52-64 of the Applicants' Retuttal Testir.cty No. 6 3 (Protective Actions for Particular Populations) and Applicants' Retuttal

=

Tes titeny Ne.17 (Radiclogical Monitering Process ).

3. Q. Taking up first the subject of the PEMA Guidance Memorandum (GM) MS-1 Medical Services, do you agree with the statement that Joint Com !ssion on Accreditatien of Hospitals (JCAH) accreditation suffices to assure that tedical f acilities have adequate technical inf ormation, professional support and treatment capabilities for handling "contatinated injured" individuals?

A. No. JCAN accreditation in. and of itself does not suf fice to provide assurance that a hospital vill be prepared to of fer such services. T he

=

!O

s? < w~

o -. , -

0-3

, reason f or that ,is that a hospital can obtain JCAH accreditation even if it deer'not have its own Nuclear Medicine Service as acng at that hospitt.1 has an _ agreement with another hortital. that does have a

[

Nuclear Medicine Service which is accredited to provide such services.

+

t. h Q. Is having one physician and one nurse on call within about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at both an MS-1 hospital and back-up hospital, who can supervise the evaluation and treattent of radiologically " contaminated in,'.ured" retbers of ' the general public, a strict enuugh planning requiretttt f er asturing tetical treatment preparedness f er nucle.ar plant accidents?

A. No; I do not think it is sufficient. I believe that that is a level of preparadriess that does not approach what is reasonably attainstle. -

)

Turther, 1-think that the_expertike of the redical staff netds tere definitien.

5. Q. Does the fact that a physician is a teard certified radiolegist que.lify hic-er her to supervise a hospital response to a radiological:entrtency?

A. That cannet necessarily be assumed. It could be that.a particultr-

) individual with such certification eight be sufficiently knowledgeable, but the title " board certified radiologist" _does not assure that the person holding such title is equipped with specific enough knowledge of k - radiobiology and radionuclides f or handling radiological energencies.

'6. Q. Do you believe.that. tvo MS-1 hospitals provide a suf ficient level of planning on the Massachusetts side of the border f or a site like the Seabr ock ' site ? '

-A.- N o. - Even if only 10% of. the' estimated number of evacuees were ref erred h r t9

L4

S B

l> f rom the T.eception Centers to the two designated US-1 hostitals, it vov2d evertax there f acilities as they are described in the 1.tr2icants' t testiteny. Tron the population esticates it is clear that two hespitals would not be suf ficient.

I The TEKA docutent (CM) MS-1 does not provide suf ficient guidelines fer the netber and ca;atilities of hospitals. Sieply requiring an

)

). agreetent with two hospitals does not alone provide a meaningful  !

planning standard, i

7. Q. Mcving en to the issues regarding the Ecception/Decentatinatten Centers, do ycu have specific concerns about then?

A. 1 am cencerned that the plan does not have trained medical pers ennel there to take referrals for further treattent when needed. I believe 7

that ecch individ1a1 who has suspected centamination needs nedical

, f eliev-ep services since ote cannot rule out the possibility cf

q. .

significant body burdens with only a surface scan. The surface scan 9

serves the itportant function of indicating that an individual has been expesed to excess envirennental radioactivity, but further cheching ef an individual is called f or if there has been a contaminating release.

B. Q. Does the Applicants' plan to register the evacuees at the Receptien/Decontatination Centers for inclusion in a tracking program j . alleviate your concerns in that regard?

A. No. It does not. It vill require medical judgment based upon sufficient inf orma tion to de tertine whether or not there, is the necessity f or gg immediate nedical referral for individual evacuees. The possibility of interr.a1 body burdens cust be addressed.

-b-

?. Q. What could be done to irgrove the Reception /Decottatinction Ocnttrs to add ess the concerts ycu have rtised?

A. Each Reception /Decentatination Center should have a portable pulse

) height analy:er with t sensitive sodium lodide detector so that the radienuclides taking up the contaminatien can be identified and treatnent p2anned accertingly. Using spectral analysis, one een I determine which radionuclides are taking up the contaminants'

" fingerprints". If chelation er other therapies are advisatic given the results cf the analysis, they theuld be instituted within as little es D en hcur er so.

10. Q. Veeld you expect body 1urdens in a radiological crerfency where centr.tinants escape from the plant in a plume?

l A. Yes, I veuld. Even reling out the inges tion of contatinated wa ter and f oods tuf f s, cne vould still expect internal body burdens due to inhaittien and skin etserptien.

D

'l.

Q. What if cnly noble gases were released in an accident? Vou',d tht; net relieve your concerns about internal body burdens ?

D A. No. Certain of the decay products of noble gases can pose a biological hazard. Certain radionuclides of Xenon, f or exeeple, decay to Cesium, en element which is a biological analogue of potassturn. Cesive 337, D- with a 30 year half-life, constitutes 38% of the long-lived !!ssion

- products and because of its biological and phys,1 cal properties may present a radiation hazard significantly greater than conventional D dosf ee try would suggest.

e 9 ..

4 0

II - 12. Q. putting aside your cencern about internal body burdens, do ycu belitve that the f.eception/Decentatitetion Centers as they are presently set up under the plan could meniter approximately 8300 evacuees in a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> GD tire f rame even if 4 tere nonitoring stations were added?

A. Eastd en ey experience, I cannot imagine hev the legistical ;rcilets presented by an unstlected mixed population of this site arriving at one cf the Decentaninstion f acilities described in the Applicants' testirety could be dealt with in this kind of a time f rame. It seets highly unlikely that sur.h a large group could te successful'y tenitered

, within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> in the f acilities descrited by the Applicants in their plan and tes timony.

13. C. Does that cenclude yeur testineny?

A. 'ies, it dece.

i s

.)

(')

af ,

62 l ,

CURRICULUM Y17AE O-see: felten Allyn Eurrows ern: ':Ar:h 3, 191S arried: Dorinda M:Len:ie Burross sildren: Si.s

-ddress: 50 Edgehill Road, Brookline, Mass. 02146 0,

egrees: A.E. Yale, 1939; M.D. Columbia, 1943

• embership in Scientific and Professional Organi:ations:

American Association of University Professors American Board of Internal Medicine O e.erican Clinical and Climatological Associatien A erican College of Physicians American Federation for Clinical Research herican Society for Clinical Investigation A erican Society of Nephrology A trican Thyroid Association O tndocrine society Massachusetts Medical Society New York Academy of Science Nerfolk District Medical Society bor.iety of Nuclear Medicine American Board of Nuclear Medicire O.  : spital Appeintments:

Intera, New Haven Hospital, July 1943 - April 1944 Asst. Resident in Medicine, New Haven Hospital, -

July 1946 - June 1947 Asst. Resident, Evans Memorial - July 1947 - June 1948 Life insurance Medical Research Fund Fellow, O Evans Memorial, July 1948 .1une 1950 ,

Asst. in Medicine, Boston City Hospital, August 1948 - ,

Assoc. Visiting Physician, University Hospital (Mass. Memorial) June 1950.- -

Member, Evans, Memorial, June'1950 - .

Senior Physician, Radioisotope Unit, Cushing VA Hospital 0- Framinghah, Mass. , June 1950 - Sept. 1952 -

Senior Physician, Radioisotope Unit, Boston VA Hospital October 1952 - November 1953 Chief, Radioisotope Service, Boston VA Hospital November 1953 -

Acting Director, Nuclear Medicine Service, Veterans OL Administration Central Office, Sept. 1967 - 1973 O:

l 0

j 1

gr '

t 9-riculum Vitae B.A. Burrows, M.D. i 9 '

.itery Service:

Ist Li eut enant - April 1944 - June 1945 Captcin - July 1945 - June 1946, Finney General Hospital; ,

Thottsville, Georgia; Hoff General Hospital, .

. Santa Barbara, California; 252nd General Hospital; -

'(p ',

1st General Hospital; 1261st Engineer Combat  ;,

Battalion; 1173 Engineer Combat Group; Post

~

J ,

Surteen, Engineer School, European Theatre, e i

.demic Appointments:

Asst. in Medicine, Yale Medical School GD July 1943 - April 1944 l Asst. in Medicine, Yale Medical School  :

July 1946 - June 1947 Asst. in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine i l July 1947 - February 1950 ,

Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine

) February 1950 - June 1950 Asst. Professor of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, June 1950 - June 1957 Assoc. Professor of Medicine, Boston University Scheol '

of Medicine, June 1957 - June 1965 Research Professor of Medicine, Boston University School -

of Medicine, July 1965 . ,

Consultant, Lemuel Shattuck Hospital, Jamaica Plain, Mass.  !

June 1955 -  ;

Consultant, Framingham Unien Hospital, Framingham, Mass. .

1960 -

O er: Member, Scientific Advisory Conmittee, New England Primate Center, 1965 - 1973 Member, Seientific Medical Founda' tion, Boston, 1966 - 1973 -

Trustee Society of Nuclear Medicine, 1964 - 1972 '

Editor, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, June, 1970 -;1975 '

Consultant, Eu, clear Regulatory Con =iss' ion, 1977 -

9 4

e 0

.ibliography - Delton A. Burrows, M.D.

ne 1974

. Grossman, C.M., Sappit.gton, T.S., Burrows, B.A., l,avietes, P.M.

and Peters, J.P. Nitrogen metabolism in acute infections. J. Clin.

Invest. E: 523-531, July 1945.

Danowski, T.S. , Elkinton, J.R. , Burrows , B. A. and Winkler, A.W.

- Exchanges of sodium and potassium in familial periodic paralysis.

J. Clin. Invest. E:65-74, January 1948.

Burnett, C.H. , Burrows, B. A. and Commons, R.R. Kidney function in osteomalacia'resulting from renal acidosis.

527, July 1946. J. Clin. Invest. E: -

. Burnett, C.H. and Burrows, B.A. Repair solutions in the treatment of acidosis and alkalosis. Med. Clin. N. A. pp.1293-1307, Sept. 1948, i

Bu nett , C.H. , Burrows, B. A. and Commons , R.R. The lack of corelation between glomerular filtration rate, and serum electrolyte concentration

' chtnges, urinary electrolyte excretion or edema formation, following

- sedium loads in subjects with no mal kidneys, glomerulonephritis, and the nephrotic syndrome. J. Clin. Invest. 28,:773, July 1949.

~( , Eherson, C.P., Jr. and Burrows, B.A.

The mechanism of anemia and its influence on renal function in chronic uremia. J. Clin. 'nvest.

2E:6, 779, July 1949.

Wilkins, R.W. , Culbertson, J.W. , Burrows , B. A. , Tinsley, C.M. ,

Judson, W.E., and Burnett, C.H.

Antidiuresis and renal vasoconstriction following venous congestion of the limbs in normal hypertensive and splanchnicettomi:ed subjects. J. Clin. Invest. [8,:819, 8 1949.

Burrows, B. A. , Commons, R.R. and Burnett, C.H. Sodium and potassium excretion in patients with renal insufficiency, Am. J. Hed.

7:423, 1949. -

Burnett, C.H., Burrows, B.A. and Commons, R.R.' Studies of alkalesis.

1.

Senal function during and following alkalosis resulting from pyloric obstruction. J. Clin. Invest 29:169, 1950.

g Burnett, C.H., Burrows, B.A., Commons, R.R. and Towery, B.T.

• Studies of alkalosis. II. Electrolyte abnormalities in alkalosis resulting from pyloric obstruction. J.. Clin. Invest. 29:175, 1950.

-' .* McKay, D.G., Burnett, G.H. and Burrows, B.A. Panhypopituitarism:

Case report correlating clinical and pathologic findings. J. Clin.

Endocrin. 10,:540, 0 1950.

Burrows, B.A. and Sisson, J.H. The measurement of total body potassium by

) the radioisotope dilution technique. J. Clin. Invest. 29:801-802, 1950.

1 "4 . .

5ibliography - B. A. Burrows , M.D.

tage 2 June '1974

13. Judson, K.E., Epstein, F.J., Tinsely, C.M., Burrows, B.A. and 2

Wilkins, R.W. The hemedynamic and renal functional effects of venous congestion of the limbs in patients with diabetes insipidus. J. Clin.

Invest. Ee: 52 C- 527, 1.2 5 0.

14. Ingbar, S.H., Relman, A.S., Burrows, B.A., Mass E.H., Sisson, J.H.

and Eurnett, C.H. Changes in normal renal function resulting from ACTH and cortisone. J. Clin. Invest. 29:524, 1950.

15. Burnett , C.H. , Greer, M. A. , Burrows , B. A. , Sisson, J.H. , Reintn, A.S. , ,

Keinstein, L. A. , and Colburne, C.G. The effects of cortisone en the course of acute glomerulonephritis. H.E.J. Med. 243:1028-1032, 1950.

16. Ingbar, S.H. , Kass, E.H. , Burnett, C.H. , Relman, A.S. , Burrows, B. A.

and Sisson, J.H. The effects of ACTH and cortisone on the renal tubular transport of uric acid, phosphorus, and electrolytes in patients with normal renti and adrenal function. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 3E: 533 541, 1951.

17. turne t t , C.H., Relman, A.S., Burrows, B.A., Sisson, J.H. and Ingbar, S.H.

F.enal excretion of hypertonic sodium solutiens in Addison's Disease with observations on the effects of cortisone. Am. J . Me d. 11,:238-239, IPSI.

15. Ingbar, S.H. , Mass , E.H. , Burnett, C.H. , Relman, A.S. , Burrows , B. A. and Sisson, J.H. The effects of ACTH and cortisone on the renal tubular

_ transport of uric acid, phosphorus, electrolytes in patients with normal renal and adrenal function. Proc. Second Clin. ACTH Conf. , pp. 130-133 1951.

19. Burrows, B.A. and Ross, J.F. The managenent of hyperthyroidism. Med.

Clin. N.A., pp. 1305-1321, Sept. 1951.

Burrows, B. A. . . Ashley, M.M. and Sisson, J.H. Radioactive potassium 20.

distribution in metabolic disorders. J. Clin. Invest. 31,:620, 1952.

21. 'Papper, S., Burrows,'B.A., Ingbar, S.H., Sisson, J.H. and Ross, J.F.

' Die effects of 1-thyroxine sodium on non-toxic goitre, on myxcedema.

and on the thyroid uptake'of radioactive iodine. N.E.J. Med. 247:E97-899, 1952. ..

22. Burrows B. A. , Dell, E.S. , and Ross, J.F. Radioactive iodine" conversion ratio in thyroid diagnosis. Am. J. Med. 14:498, 1953.

, 13. Burrows, B. A. and Ross, J.F. The uptake of stable iodine compared with the serum protein-bound iodine concentration in normal subjects and patients with thyroid disease. J. Clin. Endocrin. 6 Metab.15:1358-1365,

~~~

i 1953.

24 . Burrows, B.A. lodine metabolism in thyrold diagnosis. Boston Medical i Q.iarterly 4: November 3,1953.

e.

CF l, .

iibliography - 5.A. Burrows, M.D.

Tage 5, June 1974 O' :5. - Burrows , B A. , Dell , B. . . craham, D. . ane Ross , J .p. The radioiceine uptake and the protein round iodine in treated hyperthyroidism. Clin.

. Res. Proc. )_: 20, 1953.

6. . Burrows , B. A. , Dent on, J. , Ferguson, B. and Ros s , J. F. Changes in body

. potassium'in hepatic decompensation. Clin. Res. Proc. )_:111, 1955.

'O.

7. Hine, G.J., Burrows, B.A. and Ross, J.F. Performance of scintillation counters in measurement of 1131 uptake by the thyroid gland. Tracerlog Sj:2,1955.- *

$. Burrows, B. A. , Ashley, M.M. and Sisson, J.H. Exchangeable potassium O: content.in metabolic disorders. Clin. Res. Proc. )_:31, 1953.

9. . Burrows, B.A. The relationship of thyroid hermene utilization to its serum level. J. Clin. Invest. 3~:556, 1953.

10. Burrows, B.A., Peters. f. and Ross, J.F. Tne tissue utilication of 0.- endogenous thyroid hom ane in human subjects. J. Clin. Invest. 33_:921, 1954.

'1. Burrows, B.A., Hine, G.J. and Ross, J.F. The simultcneous determination of radiesodium, radiopotassium and radiosulphate spaces. Clin. Res. Proc.

2:El, 1954 O-T. Hine , G. J . , Burrows , B. A. , Apt, L. , Pollycover, M. , Ross , J.F. and Sarkes, L.A. Scintillation counting for multiple tracer studies.

Nucleonics J_3_: 2 3,1955.

3. Hine, G.J. and Burrows, B. A. The application of scintillation counter O' spe:- scepy to radioactive tracer techniques. Abstract, Psoc. Int.

Cor. m the Peaceful Uses of1 Atomic Energy, Geneva, Swit:erland, Aupst . 1955. < .

4 Burrows, B.A. and Ross, J.F. The use o' f radiosodium'and radiopoTiissium tracer studies in man. Proc. Int. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic O- Energy, Geneva, Swit:erland, August, 1955.

5. Him, G.J. , Burrows, - B. A. , Apt, L. , Pollycove. M. , Ross , J.F. ' and Sarkes, L. A. Scintillation counting for multiple-tracer studies.

Pt uconics 13/2, 23, 1955. ,

d. s. Bun ows , B. A. , Davis , D.J. , Kelly, J.F. , Lewis , A. A.G. , Ros s , J.p .

he' effects of surgical procedures on simultaneously determined radio-rodium, radiosulphate, and radiopotassium spaces in' human subjects.

J. Clin. Invest. E:924-925, 1955, 7 Mitchell, M. , Burrows, B. A. and Ross, J.F. The relationship between O .

clinical and laboratory findings in hyperthyroidism and the response to radiciodine therapy. Clin. Res. Proc. 3,:121, 1955.

v.

O~

k t-sibliography - B. A. Burrows, M.D.

Page 4, _ June 1974-g :- 35. Peters, T., Burrowsi-B.A. and Lowell, F.C. Physical binding of insulin by gamma globulin from insulin resistant subjects. Fed. Proc. M: 605, 1955.

39. . Hollander, W., Reilly, P., and Burrows, B.A.

subjects as indicated by the disappearance of 1 Lghaticflowinhuman labelled albumin from the subcutaneous tissues. J. Clin. Invest. 35,:713, 5 1956, 4 0. - Lambie, A.T. , Roy, A.M. , Relman, A.S. , Burrows, B. A. and Schwart e, W. B.

On the mechanism of rubidium-induced acidosis. Clin. Res. Proc 4: 126, 1956. .

41. Kunin, A.S., Roy, A.M.,

Dearbonn,

E.H., Burrows,.B.A. and Relman, A.S.

D A c mparis n f the renal transport of rubidium and potassium. Clin.

Res. Proc. 4_: 136, 1956.

~42. Relman, A.S., Lambie, A.T., Roy, A.M., and Burrows, B.A. The nature of cation accumulation of muscle cells: Displacement of potassium by rubidium and cesium. Clin. Res. Proc. ,4,,:150, 1956.

B 4 3. Mit chell , M. L. , Burrows, B. A. , Dell, E. S. , Graham, D.E. The effect of thyroid stimulating hormone on the thyroidal iodine turriover. J._ Clin.

Endocrincl. & Metab. H: 976, July 1956.

44. _ Hine, G.J. and Burrows , B. A. Plastic well scintillation counters for g_ 6- and p ray measurements. Abstract, Radiation Res. 5,:4S2, 1956.

45. Hine, G.J., Burrows, B.A. and Ross, J.F. Thyroid uptake measurements.

Nucleonics 15/1:54, 1957.

46. Burrows, B. A. , Peters, T. , Lowell, F.C. , Trakas, A.N. and Reilly, P.

g'- Physical binding of insulin by gamma globulins of insulin-resistant subjects. J. Clin. Invest. 3_6,:393-397, 6 1957. ,

4 7. . -lambie, A.T., Burrows, B.A. and Sommers,.S.C. Clinopathologic conference. -

' Refractory anemia, agammaglobulinemia and mediastinal tumo,r. A.T. . J. Clin, Path.'27:444-452, April 1957.. . ,

9' .

4 8.~ ' Relman, A. S. , Lambie, A.T. , Burrows , B. A. , and Roy , A.M. . Cation accumula-tion by muscle tissue; the displacement of potassium by rubidium and cesium in the living animal. J. Clin. Invest. 36,:1249-1256, August 1957.

49. Burrows,.B.A. Tracer studies in medical diagnosis. Med. Clin. N. A.

9. p. 1181, Sept. 1957.

50. Hollander, W., Chobanian, C. and Burrows, B.A. Electrolyte and water metabolism essential, renal or steroid-induced hypertension. Circulation 1_5_:893, 5 Oct. 1957.

Sl 51. Chobanian, A., Burrows, B.A. and Hollander, W. Electrolyte and water metabolism in early congestive heart failure. Circulation 1,5:B66, Oct. 1957.

9;

m W

)

E ibliography -B.A. Burrows, M.D.

sge: 5, June 1974; F i.- Englert ,< E. , Ingelfinger, F.J. and Burrows B. A. Duodenal collections:

Quantitative unreliabiiity and a method of correction. Clin. Res. 6:32 jJanuary 1955;

3. TheB.A.

use of carrier Diodrast.

- Block,131-viodrast.J.B.,

with 1 ClinHine, G.J.

Res. andJanuary 6: 38, Burrows, 1958.

~

W .

.: . Chebanian, A., Burrows, B.A. and Hollander, W. The relationship of blood pressure to changes in body fi- !s and electrolytes'in steroid hypertension.- -

Clin. Res.-6:227, April, 195E

5 '. , Block, J.B. and Burrows, B.A. Renal clearance of Il31-Diodrast at low-D- .

plasma concentrations. . Clin. Res. 6_:284, April, 1958.

c6. . Clifton, J. A. , Ingelfinger, F.J. and Burrows, B. A. The effect of certisone'and hydrocortisone on hepatic excretory function. J. Lab. 6 Clin. Med. 52: 701-705, May 1956.

BI 7. Slingerland, D.W.,. Dell, E.S., Graham, D.E., Trakas, A.P. and Burrows, B.A.

. Thyroid secretion of nonthyroxine iodine. J. Clin. Invest. 37:932, June 1958.

2. Burrows, B.A. Goiter diagnosis and treatment. Med. Clin. N. A. pp.1291-1303, S e'pt . 1958. ,

D 9. Block, J.B.,-Hine, G.J. and Burrows, B.A. The use of carrier diodrast with I l31-Diodrast. Abstract, Clin. Res. 6_:38, 1958.

cE Hine,LG.J. 'and Burrows, B.A. Total and partial body radioactivity measure-ments for metabolic tracer studies. Proc. Second United Nations Int. Conf.

on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,.Vol. 26:213, 1958.

D -

1. Hine, G.J. and Burrows, B.A. External body counting for radio' isotope

.- distribution studies. Abstract, Radiation Res. 9:129, 1958. ,

9 ~

m ,

'2. Jagger, ' P. I. , Hine, G.J. , . Cardarelli, J. A. and Burrows , B. A. Effects of

.-dietary sodium on "exachangeable" sodium. Abstract, Clin. Res. 7_:283, 1959.

3. Jagger, P.I., Block, J.B. an'd Burrows, B.A. Hepatic transport of Il31-Diodrast.

Clin. Res..,7,:34, January, 1959'.

o 4.: Block J.B. , Graham, D.E. and Burrows, B. A. The influenceof protein bind,ing on Il 1-Diodrast excretion. ,J. Clin. Invest. 36,:988, 6 June, 1959.

o5. - Hine, G.J. , JaEger, P. I. and Burrows, B. A. External body counting for radio-isotope distribution studies. Abstract, 9th Int. Congress Radiology, Munich, July 1959.

D 6 .' Block, J.B., Burrows, B.A. Diagnostic use of Il31-Diodrast in hypertension due to unilateral renal disease. Circulation 18:696, October,1959.

J7. ~ Hine, G.J., Cardarelli, J. and Burrows, B.A. External body counting for radioisojopedistributionstudies. J. Lab. 6 Clin. Med. 5_5,:476-485, 5 March 1960.

9:

,.-.3.

y>

, ibliography - B.A. Burrows,4!.D.

sge 6,- June ~1971 y 5; l Jagger, P. I. , Hine, G.J. , Cardarelli, J. A. - and Burrows, B. A. Sodium 22 ec,uilibrium and exchange:ble sodium determinations in ederatous patientn

-Clin. Res. 5,:229, April.1960.

2 Mine, G.J. , Jagger, P.I. , Burrows, B. A. and Cardarelli, J. A.

.teasurement of body. radioactivity for studies of sodium metabolism, g 'J. Lab' G Clin. Med.;55,:5 476', May 1960

-?. Burrows, -B. A. , Slingerland, D.W. , Lie:i, A. , Dell, E.S. .and Graham, D.E.

Tnyroidal iodide secretion. J. Clin Invest. 31 : 975 June, 1960. ,

Block, J.B., Hine .J. c.nd Burrows, B.A. Effects of carrier Diodrast on excretion of I y3g-labelledDiodrast. J. Lab. 6 Clin. Med ,56:110, 9:

July 1960.

'. Englert, E. , Jr. , Burrows , B. A. and Ingelfinger, F.J. ' Differential analysis of the stages of hepatic excretory function with gamma emitting isotopes; I. Methods and validation. J. Lab. 6 Clin Med. 56:181-192, Au gus t , 1960.

8

i. Englert, E. , Jr. , Burrows , B. A. and Ingelfinger, F.J. Differential analysis of the stages of hepatic excretory function with gamma emitting isotopes; 111. Clinical results. J. Lab. 6 Clin. Med. 56:193, August, 1960.

.z Block,-J.B., and Burrows, B.A. Influence of serum protein binding on renal 9 clearance of Il31-Labelled Diodrast. J. Lab. 6 Clin. Med. 5,6,:463 Sept. 1960.

i. Block;J.B., Hine,G.J..andBurrows,B.A. Il31-Diodrast studies in unilateral renal disease. Circulation 22:913, November 1960.

). B.A. Lymphatic flow in human subjects S- Hollander,'W.

as indicated by , Reilly, P. and Burrows,l31-labelled the disappearance of I albumin from the suacutaneous tissues. J. Clin. Invest. Feb. 1961. .

'. ~ Hollander, W., Chobanian, A.V., and Burrows, B.A. Body fluid and electro 1>te

' Studies in essential, renal and composition 'in arterial hypertensi. ,n. I.

E malignant hypertension. J. Clin. Invest g:408-415, Feb. 1961. , ,

3 Body fluid and electrolyte

i. Chobanian, A. Burrows, B.A. and Hollander, W.

t composition it. ,.rterial hypertension. II. Studies in mineral-corticoid.

hypertension. J. Clin. Invest g:416-422, Feb. 1961.

- k LFarmelant, M.H. and Burrows, B.A. Urine flow response to mannitol loading g~

-in unilateral renai tlisease. J. Clin. Invest. 40,:1037, June 1961.

' I. Chobanian,.A.V., Buricws, B.A. and Hollander, W. Body fluid and electrolyte composition in cardiac patients with severe heart disease but without peripheral edema. Circulation ,24:748-753, 1961.

O"'

e l '. . Fordtran, J.S., Levitan, R., Bickerman, V. and Burrows, B.A. Kinetics of water absorption in the human intestine. Trans. Assoc. Amer. Phycns. ,74 : 1961.

OL

i i L' .u.

j liography - B. A. Burrows, M.D.

e 7, June 1971

- Hine, G.J. , Jagger, P. I. and Burrows , B. A. Use of clinien1 body counter for

'long-term exchangeable sodium studies, "Whole-Body Counting". Int. Atomic h- . Energy. Agency,_ Yienna, P.113 426,1962.

Four- ch ar.ne l

' Hine, G.J. , Farmelant, M.H. , Burrows, B. A. and Cardarelli, J. A.

- magnetic tape recording and digital integration analysis of radiohippuran renal function tests. J. Nuclear Med. 3:219, 1962 (Abstr.)

O . Chobanian, A.V. , Burrows, B. A. , Hollander, W. Body cholesterol metabolism Measurement of body cholesterol miscible pool and turnover rate.

in man,. II.

J. Clin. Invest. 41_:1783, 1962. ,

l.evitan, R. , Fordtran, J.S. , Burrows, B. A. and Ingelfinger, F.J. Wa'ter and-salt absorption in the human colon, J. Clin. Invest. 41,:1754, 1962.

Slingerland, D.W. and Burrows, B.A. Inhibition by propylthiouracil of the peripheral metabolism of radiothyroxine. J. Clin. Endocrinel. 6 Metab. E:

'511, 1962.

g . Slingerland, D.W. and Burrows, B.A. A J. probabic abnormality in interthyroidal Clin. Endocrincl. 6 Metab. 21: 365,

' iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism.

1962.

Hine, G.J. , Farmelant, M.H. , Cardarelli, J. A. , and Burrows , B. A. Four channel magnetic tape recording and digital analysis of radio-hippuran renal functicn N"Cl'*' M'd 4:- 371, 1963.

O' "55 i" " 7 *1 5"b3'*t5- J Burrows, B.A. Aldosterone, in 7he Practioner 190:272, 1963.

Jagger, P.I., Hine, G.J., Cardarelli, J.A. and Burrows, B.A. Influence of sodium intake on exchangeable sodium in nomal human subjects. J. Clin.

Innst. d2:1459,1963.

O-Farmelant, M.H. , Lipet:, C. A. ,' Bikerman, V. , and Burrows , B. A. Radioisotopic renal function studies and surgical findings in 102 hypertensive. patients, kn. J . Sur g . . 107:50, 1964. ,

Farmelant, M.H., Sachs, C., Genna, S. and Burrows, B.A. Physiological basis O .

of radioisotopic renal function studies. Clin. Res. 12:251, 1964.

Farmelant, ' M.H. , Sachs, C.E. , Hine , G.J. and Burrows , B. A. Use of radio-isotopic renal function studies to select patients fo' surgery in renal arterial stenosis. J. Clin. Invest. 43:1308, 1964.

O- Bickerman, V., and' Burrows, B.A. Potassium deficit in hyper-

. Tyson, I.,

tensive patients. Clin. Res. ,1_2_198, 2 1964.

Genna, S. , Dukstein, h'. , Jones , R. and Burrows. B. A. Whole body counting of.non-uniformly distributed radioisotopes. J. Nuclear Med. 5_:364, 1964.

4 4

O

' ' 'UII _ . .

6 ;iography - B. A. Lurrous, M.D.

s 1 5, June 1974

• Cardarelli ~,. J. A. . Mulvey, P.F. , Jr. , Murphy, C;, Cooper, R. and Burrows, B. A.

Sensitivity of Bremsstrahlung activation analysis for iodine determination.

.JcNuclear Mee, g:344, 1965.

On M.H. , Dakst ein. ' W.G. and Burrows , B. A. An effect of mannitol on

.Farmela{g-hippuran

. renal ~I excretion independent of urine flow rate. J. Clin. Invest.

4_4,: 1045,'1965.

Burrows,.B.A., Tyson, I., Dukstein, W.G. and Genna, S. Clinical measurements 0 of body radioactivity. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, Yol. ,77,:25, 1965.

Hine, Gerald J. , Genna, Sebastian and Burrows, B. A. Geometrical and attenua-

. tion corre:tions for a two crystal whole body counter: Body scanning with an Q  : 8' x _4 in. Na1 crystal . Radioactivity in Man, G.V. Meneely, Ed., C.C. Thomas,

Springfield, 111. , p. 135, .1965.

Burrows . , B. A. and Farmelc.nt, M.H. 'Ihe use of radioactive isotopes in the diagnosis of hypertension. Progress in Cardiovascular Disease, B_:159-169, 1915.

Burrows , B. A. , Mulvey, . P.F. , Jr. , Cardarelli, J . A. and Cooper, R. Bremsstrah-Q lung Activation Analysis of Iodine and Mercury. Radioactive Isotope in Klinik und Forschung, 7:365, 1967.

Burrows, B.A., Farmelant, M.H. , Ingelfinger, F.J. , Relman, A.S. , and Finland, M.

Controversies in Internal Medicine, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, p. 379, 1966.

O:

Mulvey, - P. , Cardarelli, J. A. , Zoukis , M. , Cooper, R.D. and Burrows, B. A.

Sensitivity of Bremsstrahlung activation analysis for iodine determination.

J. Nuclear Med. ,7,,:603,-1966.

Burrows, B.A. (Critical Review) From Radiation Lab to. Clinic. Medical Opinion O' and Review, 1: 40, 1966.

Tyson, ' B. h , Genna, S.', Jones , R.L. , Bikerman, V. , ' Graham, R. , and Abrrows, B. A.

Electrolyte studies.with a' total body co6nter.

• Physics in'Medi4-im and -

Biology 1),:168,1966. ,.

O" _ Tyson, . I. , Genna, S. , Jones, R.L. , Bikerman, v. and Burrows , B. A. Stueies of potassium depletion using measurements of total body potassium and body fluid compartments. J. Clin. Invest. 45_:1061, 1966.

Farmelant, M.H. , Bakos, C. and Burrows , B. A. Evaluation of nephron disparity in the dog and the influence of hypotension and osmotic loads. J. Clin. Invest.

O' 46:1954, 1967.

Farmelant, M.H., Genna, S., Sachs, C. and Burrows, B.A. Physiological verifica-

. tion of a model for interpretation of the renogram. J. Nucl. Med. 9:314, 1968.  !

Genna, S. and Burrows, B.A. Design and performance of " constant-resolution" O focussing collimator. J. Nucl. Med. 9,:318, 1968.

e 1

0.

4c  ;;

, - 7 .

}

Y f{

t i dibliography - ' B'. A. Burrows , M.D. ..

p ge;9, June 1974.

i  ;

Response of renal transit J. Clin.  ! ,

. Farmelant, M.H. , Bakos, C. cnd Burrows, B. A.' time to variations of L '

.s l o.

fi s

Invest. 4,J,: 32S, 196S. E A physielegical .

Farmelant ,. M.H. ,

' W. model'for renal' excretion of labelled compounds.Sachs, C.E. , Genna, S. and Burrows , B. A.J. Nucl. Med. 10,:664, 1969. ,

Physiological determinants I

~

M.H., Bakos, K. and Burrows, B.A.

[112.:Farmelant,of renal' tubular passage times.

' ~

J. Nucl. Med. 10,:641, 1969.- ,

The influence of tissue ,

i3.-lTarmelant, M.H.', Sachs, C.E. and Burrows, B.A. f l accumulation'of l ,

background radioactivityJ.onNucl. the apparent role'o Med. H

112, 1970. - rena ,

radioactive compounds.

l' l Prognostic values of radioisotopic renal Farmelant , - M.H. = and Burrows , B. A. ,

[ .14.

l function- studies for prediction of cure in renovascular hypertension. s J.-Nucl. Med. H: 743, 1970.' l b 15. =Tyson, B. I . , Genna, S. , Jones, R.L. , Bikerman,- V.J.and Body potassium measurements with a total body counter.

Nucl.Burrows, Med. H: B. A.

): 255-259, 1970. -

116.'

Tf son, B. I . , Genna, S. , Jones , R. L. , Bikerman, V.f and toth1Burrows body , . B. A. . '

. Studies of potassium depletion using direct measurements o i potassium. J. Nucl. Med. 11:426, -

1970.

Computer auto:ated

> Genna, S., Teager, H.M., Hunkar, D.B. and Burrows, B.A.

17.

scintiscanning system. Phs. Med.- Biol. 15,:214, 1970.

1Si Gtnna, - S. , Fa=elant , M.H. and Burrows , B. A. - Improved scintiscan resolutio Medical Radio-without . sensitivity loss; " Constant-resolution collimator.

Jisotope Scintigraphy. IAEA, Vienna, 561-574, 1969.

(

c . -

' Influence of water and

- 19.-

Farmelant, M.H., bukstein, W., and Burrows', B.A. J. Nucl. Med. 11:

mannitol loads -o'n radiohippuran renal function curves. ' . .

-166,' 1970. . N Neutron activatiqn analysis 120.- Cardarelli, J. A. , Podolsky,' S, and Burrows , B. A.J. Nuclear2Medicine ,1,2_:422, 1971.

of ' nonradioactive iodinated in'sulin, Decreased growth hormone Podolsky, S., Zimmerman, H.J., an'd Burrows, B.A. depletion,

21. -

.and-insulin response in normokalemic cirrhosis with potassium ks >

J. Nucl. Med. 12:386,

~

1971. '

{ Application of Genna, S. , Teager, H. . Shore, H.H. , and Burrows , B. A.

22. .

multi-window: spectral analysis to dual radionuclide scintiscanning. -

~J. Nucl. Med. 13:431, 1972. t 2

Shore, H.H., Zimmerman, S., Pang, S.C. and Burrows,

'23. Genna, S., Teager, H.,

y' B.A.

Four-view scintiscanning; image structuring through multi-window I. A.E. A. Symposium on Medical Radioisotope Scinti-pulse height analysis.

graphy, Vienna, Austria, 1973, pp.133-154 L

I~

t .V,

~

j ,

!bliography -_ i.\. Burrows, M.D.

sge 10, June IP4

) :4.- Pedsisky, F. , ;imerman, H.J. , Burrows, B. A. , Cardarelli, J. A. and Pattavina, c,0.: Potassium depiction in hepatic cirrhosis: A re-versible cause of impaired growth hormone end insulin respense to stimulation. New Eng. J. Med. 26S:644, 1973.

5. Slingerland p,t:ard, Hershman, Jarome M., Dell, Elisabeth S. and Eurrows,

p. Belton-A. Dyrotropin and PB1 in radiciodine-treated hyperthyroid patients.

The J. C1:n. 1:ndocrin. 6 Metab. E: No. 6, pp.912-917, Dec.1972.

6. Slingerland. D.W., Dell, E.S., and Burrows, B.A. The spectrum of thyroid l; function cit er radiciodine treatment. Further advances in thyroid resea'rch.

Editors: K.IV11inger and R. Hofer, Publ. Verlag der Wiener Medi:inischen p Akademie, 1P 1, l7.. Farrelant,M tl., Genna, S., Burrows, B.A. Renal function studies with a scintillat:en camera, in Medical Radioisotope Scintigraphy, Vol. 2, Vienna, Int ernational Atomic Energy Agency,1969, pp. 229-240.

D. :S. Burrows, F.\. and Podolsky, S. Studies of Potassium depletion in hepatic carrhesis using a whole body counter program. Annual Meeting of European Socacty of Nuclear Medicine, Athens, Greece, Sept. 1973.

9. Farmelant, M.ll., and Burrows, B.A. The Renogram: Physiologic basis and current clinical use. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 4_:61-73, 1974.

O. Cardarelli, .1. A. , Podolsky, S. and Burrows, B. A. Analysis of stable iodinated in: ulin by neutron-activation techniques. ,

Int. J. o: Applied Radiation and isotopes,1970, Vol. 21, pp.513-517.

1. Podolsky, S. ,- Burrows, E. A. , Zimmerman, H.J. and Pattavina, C.G. Effect D- of chron c- potassium derletion on growth homone release in man.

~

Excerpta Medica International Congress Series No. 244.- Proceedings of the Second International Symposium, Milan, Italy, May S-7, 1971.

2. Gennn, S. , Pang, S. ,Ni=eman, S. , Burrows, B. Dual Window Spatial '

Filtering. .1. Nucl. Med. 1S_: 493, 1974. ~

D

3. McNeil, B.J. , Varady, P. D. , Burrows, B. A. and Adelstein, S.J. Cost / Benefit analysis in renovascular dise'ase. J. Nucl. Med. 15:516, 1974 4

Podolsky, S. and-Burrows, B.A. Clinical applications of whole body counting

.to. determine body potassium in cirrhosis and diabetes mellitus. First I-World Congrer.., of Nuclear Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 1974.

1 Burrows, B.A.. Cardarelli, J.A., Slingerland, D.W., Pattavina, C.G., Dell, E.S.

Electrolyte Patterns in Acute Heart Failure. Annual Meeting of the Gese11 shaft Fur Nuclearnedizin, Munich, Ge many, Sept. 1974.

D:

si

D' Jibliepraphy - F.A. Burrows, M.D.

Page 11, June 1976 136. Podelsky, S. and Burrows, B. A. Development of impaired glucese telerance D -- ar.d insulin and growth hormone secretion with hepatic decompensation and de creased body potas sium. Clin. Res. 2 h 960, 1973.

137. 5:.in;criand, D.W., sullivan, J., Dell, E., and Burrows, B.A. Effects of

'"PJi in hyperthyroid patients treated with antithyroid drugs. Excerpta Medica 361:76, 1975 (Abstr.)

D-13S. Slinge rland. D. Ward, Sullivan , - J.J. , Dell, E.E. , Burrows . B. A. Tnyroid Suppression Tests During Drug Treatnent of Hyperthyroidism. Clinical Ende. 5:415-418, 1976. .

139. Genna, S. , Pang, S.C. , and Burrows, B. A. Application of fan reconstructicn D geometries to transmission and emission systems. (in) TerPogossian MM, Phelps .ME, Bro. nell CL, e d. Workshop on Reconstruction Tomography in Diagnestic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 17-19 Apr.

'1975, New York, University Park Press (to be published).

14J. Burrows, B.A. and Slingerland D.W. Prolonged Drug Treatment of Hyper-O t'..y r oi dis c . Clin. Res. 24:: No. 3 April 1976.

141. McNeil, E.J. , Varady, P.D. , Burrows , B. A. , et al. Measures of clinical efficacy. Cost effectiveness calculations in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertensive renalvascular disease. -N.E.J.M. 293:216-221, 1975.

D- 142. Genna , S . and Burrows , B. A. Analysis of an Arcuate Gr.=a Canera Design f or Transaxial Reconstruction. Proc. IAEA Meeting on Medical Radionuclide Imaging, Los Angeles, Calif., October 25-29, 1976.

143. Burrows B.A. and Slingerland, D.W. Prolonged Drug Treatment of Hyperthyreidism.

g.' A:. Clin. & Climatological Assoc. Meeting, Ponte Verda Beach, Florida, October- 24 27, 1976, 144 Burrows, Belton ~

A'. and Slingerland, D. Ward Prolonged Drug Trect ent of ,

Hyperthyroidism. Transactions of the American Clinical & Cli stological ,

Association, Vol. 88, pg. 219-226,1976.

9 145. Podolsky, S., Melissinos' C. and Burrows, B.A. Potassium depletion in fatal diabetic ketoacidosis: High serum potassium with low body potassium and similar skeletal muscle and myocardial potassium values. Diabetes 23:381 (Suppl 1) 1974.

g 146. Podolsky, S. and Burrows, B.A. Co=parison of "L-Sparing" and K-Losing" diuretic Regimens in Antihypertensive Therapy. Clin. Res. 25:50BA, 1977 (Abstr.)

147. Burrows , B. A. and Podolsky, S. , Burney, S.W. , Cardarelli, J. A. and Genna, S. .

Ef fects of Long-tern Antihypsrtensive Diuretic Therapy on Serum and Body D' Potassium. Clin. Res. 25:525A,.1977 (Abstr.)

148. Surrows , B. A. , Podolsky , S. , Burney , S.W. , Morley , D.P. , Cardarelli, J . A. ,

and Genna, S. Body Potassium Changes with Antihypertensive Diuretic Therapy.

J. of nucl. Med. 19: 721, 19 78 ( Ab s t r . ) '

)

l e  ;

graphy. - B. A. ~ Burrows, M.D.

j N , ;2 t-0 'Pedelsky, S., Berrows,.B.A~. Developnent of Inpaired Clucose Tolerance and Decreased Insulin-and Crowth Hormene. Secretion with Hepatic Decompensation and Reduced Body Potassium.-' Diabetes 26:411, 1977 (Abstr.)

t) -Cenna, S., Fang, S.C., Burrows, B.A. Analysis of an Arcuate Gamma Camera Design for Transaxic1 Reconstruction. !;cdical Radionuclide Imaging, Vol.1, ps.;323-33C, IAEA, Vienna, 1077.

Cenna , . S . , Pang , S .C. and Burrows , B. A. Application of fan reconst uction

' geometries to transmission and c=ission systems. (2n) TerPogossian,10!,

Phelps, M.E., Brownell, C.L., eds. Reconstruction Tomography in Diaenestic, gg7

,J

~

L Radio? ocy and Muclent Medicine. University Park Press, Baltimore, Md., 1917,

.pp. 139-154. ,

Podolsky, S. and Burrows, B.A. Severity of potassium depletion in hyper-gp!

osmolar non-ketotic diabetic coma. Gerontologist 17:106, 1977 (Abstr.)

Podolsky, S. and Burrows, B.A.: Does long-term diuretic therapy of hyper-tension cause petassium depletien? Effects of "K-Losing" and "K-Sparing" diuretic reginens on serud and body potassium in' essential hypertenstien.

. Prevent . !!ed. 7 : 123, 1978 (Abstr.)

ED . '

Podelsky, S. and Burrows, B.A.: Total body and serum potassium changes in "K-losing" and "K-sparing" antihypertensive reginens. Clin. Res. 26: 592A, 1978 (Abstr.)

Burrows, B.A., and Podolsky, S.: Does long Term Diuretic Therapy of g) Hypertension cause Potassium Depletion? Effects of "K-Losing" and "K-Sparing"

Diuretic Regimens on Serum and Body Potassium in Essential Hypertensien.

National Conf. on High Blood-Pressure, Los Angeles, Calif. 4/2-4/4/7S.

Podolsky, Stephen and Burrows, Belton A.: Total Body and Serum Potassium Changes in "K-Lesing" and "K-Sparing" Antihypertensive regimens. Seventh ID  ? Annual Meeting of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology, San _Prancisco, Calif. 4/27-5/2/7S. .

Burrows ,' B. A. , Podolsky', S . , Cardar elli .J . A. , Burney , S.W. , Morley , D.P.

and'Genna, S.: Body Pot'ssium a Changes Gith Antihypertensive Diuretic Therapy.

25th Annual' Meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Anaheita, Calif.

GD" '6/25-30/78. -

Podolsky, S., and Burrows, B.A.: Comparison of "K-Sparing" and "K-Losing" Diuretic Regimens in Antihypertensive Therapy. XIth International Congress of Gerontology, Tokyo,' Japan, 8/20-25/78.

GD > ~ Burrows , B. A. , Podolsky , S. , Cardarelli, J. A. , Burney , S.W. , Morley, D.P.

and Cenna, S.: Body potassium changes with antihyperte.nsive diuretics.

World' Fed. of Nucl~ Ked, and Biology Meeting, t'ashington, D.C. , Sept. 1978.

Burrows, B.A., Podolsky, S., Cardarelli, J.A., Burney, S.U., Morley, D.P.

and Cenna, S. Body potassium changes with antihypertensive diuretic therapy.

II ' J. of.Nucl. Med. 19:721, 1978.

t

)

$4 7

,J L t.

Bibliography'- B. A. Burrows , !!.D.

.Page V S.U. , Mora cy , D.P. ,

161.- Burrews, D. A. , Podolshy, S. , Carderelli, J. A. , Burney and Genna, S. Body Totassium Changes with antihypertensive diuretics.

terld Ted. of Huel. Med. and Eiology, 1978, pg.137.

E Effects of once daily diuretic therapy en

'162. Podolsky, S.,'and Burrows, B.A.

body K and scrum K IcVels in' essential hypertension. Gerontelects: 16:

-112, 1978.

163. Slingerland, D. Ward, Burrows, Belton A. 1.ong-term antithyreid treatment '

in hyperthyroidism. J A'1A Vol . 24 2, No. 22, 2408-2410,1979.

g-A cause of

.164 Podolsky, Stephen and Burrows, Belton A. Potassium Depletion:

impaired carbohydrate tolerance in hepatic cirrhosis and other disease states. In Secondary Diabetes: The Spectrum of the Diabetic Syndromes, S. Podolsky and W. Viswanathan, eds, Paven Press, New York,1950, pp.437-44E.

S~ Boling, Eldon A., and Sinex, T. Marott.

165. Burrows, B.A., Cardarelli, John C., role of stable end-products?

The medical effects of radioactive fall-out:

Trans..Am. Clin 6 Clim Assoc., 1981, 92:227-33.

Burrows, B.A. Comparison of 166. Borkan, G.A., Hults, D.E., Cardarelli, J.A.,

g: Ultrasound and Shinfold measurements in assessment' of subcutaneous and total fatness. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 58:307-313, 1982, 167. .Borkan, C.A'., llults, D.E., Ger:of, S.G., Burrows, B.A. and Enbbins, A.L Relationships between computed tomography tissue areas, thicknesses and total body composition. Ann, of Human Biology (in press).

9 163. Burrows, Belton A. , Cardarelli, John A. , Sinex, F. Marott, Lefkin, Ucward L.

and Teager, Herbert M. The Variability Trans.

in Fallout Radionuclide Distributien:

Am. Clin & Clim Asso:, 94 : 154-160, Po tential Radiochemical Damage.

1982. ,

Cardarelli, John A., Burrows, Belton A.,

Miller, Aaron, S1interland , D. Uard O- 169.

Correction of at tenuation in whole-hody determination of Co-57 B12 absorp-tien. J. Nucl. Med. 24: 949-951, 1983.

A., Burrows, Belton A , Miller, Aaron 170. Slingerland, D. Ward, Cardarelli, John The utility of serum gastrin levels in assessing the significance of low 4 se rum B12 levels. Arch.' Int;Med. 1984;144:116751168.

'171. Konstantin N Paviou, William P Stef f ee, Robert H lerman and Belton A Burrows Ef f ects of dieting and exercise on Ican body mass, oxygen up'take, Feb.and 1985.

strength. Med. and Sci. in' Sports and Ey.ercise Vol.17, No.4, O Cardarelli, John A, Slingerland, D. Ucrd , Burrows , Belt on A. and Miller , Aaron 172.

Measureinent of Total-Body Cobalt-57 Vitamin B12 Absorntion with a Gamma Camera. J. of Nucl.Med. Vol. 26, No. 8, Aug.1985, 941-943. l t

O'-

n' i Bibliobraphy'-1B' A. Burrows, M.D.

1 Page 1 :

L

~:173. Miller, A., Slingerland, D.W., Burrows, B.A.. Cardarelli, J.A.

The diagnostic evaluation of low serum vitamin B N'kl* rr* i*i' Supp'.24:79S 12' 1956.

174 Cardarelli, J. A. , Slingerland, D.W. , P. iller, A. , Burrows, B. A.

Specially shielded gamma camera for measurement of B12 absorption.

European Nuclear Medicine Congress, Milano,1988 ( Abstr.)

I! - 175 Miller, A. , Slingerland. D.W. , Cardarelli, J . and Burrows, B. A.

Further studies on the use of-cerum r,astrin levcis in assessing the- -

significance of Iow serum B12 levels. Am. J. of Hematology,19S9 *

(In press) p :176. Burrows, Belton A. , Chalmers, Thomas C. , and Cardarelli, John A.

Global Fallout Distribution in Fireplace Ashes. Trans. Am. Clin &

Clim. Assoc, 1989 (In press)

D-D' B

B B

D-v.

D' M - - - .

y .

a -

s .

4 b ATTACBMENT C

c bi Amenoment 2 3P 2.9 'Page *I Rev. O gf C. Notify the Radiological Health Advisor.

D. Contact the MS-1' hospital and inform them of the injury and status of contamination.

E. Arrange for the transport of the contaminated, injured gi individual, through the use of the ambulance on stancey.

Send copy A of' Attachment 1, Personnel Contamination

' Report, with the injured individual.

< 5.2.16 When individuals have contamination which cannot be removec.

after. three decontamination attempts or are suspected of g: having internal contamination (e.g., . individuals with f acial skin contamination).

Ai Arrange for'the individual to be transported to one of the hospitals 1isted in Appendix M, NHY Offsite Response

~

Eniergency Resource Hanual . l

.B. Notify the Radiological Health Advisor.

C. Ensure'that-individuals take Copy A of Attachment 1 with l'

'them to-the hospital, 5.2.17 -Inform the Radiological Health Advisor when evacuees have D' stopped arriving at~the Monitoring Trailers.

5.2.16 'When: directed by the Radiological Health Advisor to cesc-tivate the facility. do the following.

A. Direct Monitoring / Decontamination personnel to survey all D equipment for contamination and to return clean equiptrent to its proper-location.

B. Attempt to decontaminate equipment as necessary.

C. Bag and tag equipment with fixed contamination, and set D' aside in a controlled area.

D. Perform self' monitoring.

E. Ensure that all battery-operated equipment is set up for.

recharging, or batteries are removed.

D' F. Ensure that all contaminated material other than waste water is begged, tagged, and placed in a controlled area.

l l

el e

meer .

~~ . . . . . . , ,,

%= . .

3 '

O Wp -

ATTACHMENT D- ,

r -

V HARMON & WEISS aooi e statet, w.w.

40tTC 430

' gj WASHINOToN. D.C. eooo9 ll25 Tttgenowe 6Att weentCvy wAmmow tacti 328 3300

' ; ' 8LLyst 4, wrise D'AN C Cutha*4  ; -+Q'

' otANa.toostty BY OVERNIGHT MAIL ANoacac.remsven .L' June 16, 1988 y H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.

' Office'of General' Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency pic 3

500 C Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472 Sulk 7ECT: Seabrook Emeraehev Plannine Exercise a

Dear Joe:

O'~ I am writing to remind you of my' outstanding requests for xinformati on regar ding the. upcoming emergency planning exercise.

I'would like to get-the requested information and resolve any differences between us by Monday, so that'there is time to seek -

. assistance fromlthe-Licensing Board if.that becomes necessary.

O' First,.I asked you to confirm the dates of the exercise.

Last week, I got the_ date:of-June = 27th Who from is you, and June 28th correct?

and:29th.from-one of the~intervenors. .

E Second',.I asked if FEMA would provide us with free play mes-sages,-by. telephone lor'otherwise, concurtently to the as EOC. they Without are trans-Of -

-mitted from FEMA.contro11ers'in the fieldtthese messages, .it will be imp tell what field conditions FEMA i's injecting i i into the thenumberaccident.

of

< 1As.you may know, PSNH is severely restr ct ng and we

_p eople that we can have observing the actions at the EOC; 0~;

.cann t expect to be able to figure out what is going on by over-hearing snippets:of telephone conversations.

While I' understand-that the messages will be injected from o 'the: field, I presume that they-come from a preconceived script that:will be' held by n FEMA official at some. central location.

LPerhaps you could-have.that person call a designated Intervenor 01~

,' at:the-appropriate times.

Y'. In addition, I have asked you to retain all charts, notes, drafts of: reports and comments prepared in connection with the exercise. While I understa d that you may ultimately dispute' the discoverability of these docu ents, I nevertheless continue to g;i seek their preservation until the time that their discoverability

t is resolved.

A,

-l Oj >

xe ,a

" ,, :.. u w .u.n .. rs:

.. .. s. . .,.

LOMox 8:W'stss M. Joseph Flynn June 16, 1988 Page 2 I hope ve.$:an reach agreement on these remaining issues carly in the week. If we are unable to resolve our differences,

, I plan to seek' reconsideration of our motion by the Licensing Board. The Board's ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to enter- ,

tein the motion was apparently based on its view that discovery ,

was being sought solely for the purpose of preparing contentions.

As I discussed in the motion, however, the exercise has a bearing -

On several of the contentions on the New Hampshire RERP that are 4

' Otill pending. In the likely event that the record is reopened 4 L

t@ take FEKA's additional testimony on the effect of the exercise en its findings regarding personnel adquacy, special needs trans- y portation, and reception centers, it will be vety important for 3'

=

the Intervenors to have conducted a meaningful observation of the exercise, w

Finally, I understand that FEMA plans to hold the public ,

. post-exercise meeting on Saturday, July 1. Since that day falls E smack in the middle of the 4th of July holiday weekend, the meet- 1" ing is not likely to get the kind of attendance or attention it deserves. There does not appear to be any good reason for FEMA's .

=

, haste. While Guidance Memorandum EX-3, at section II.C.4, sug- t gssts that the public meeting be held "soon" after the exercise, it also appears to contemplate that enough time will have passed 5

= to allow FEHA to make an initial evaluation of the exercise. It  ;

is hard to believe that on the second day after the exercise,

• FEMA will have had the opportunity to digest to any degree the observations of over 160 observers! I urge you to reschedule the

" meeting to a non-vacation time when local residents are more likely to be able to attend. The meeting should be held soon efter the exercise, but not so soon that FEMA is unable to pro- '

e vide the public with a meaningful evaluation of the exercise. .

I will be calling you on Monday to discuss these matters.

i !'

t sincerely, ",

Diane Curran 5}.

cca Allan Fierce

21.

e t

)?

L

[

J# '

January 26, 1990 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION 9" Before Administrative Judges:

G. Paul Bollwerk, Chairman Alan S. Rosenthal Howard A. Wilber S

)

In the Matter-of- )

g_ ) Docket No. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )

OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (offaite Emergency

) Planning Issues)

-(Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )

)

e.

APPENDIX'TO SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S BRIEF ON APPEAL OF:THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON '

g THE-SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES AND 1988 FEMA GRADED EXERCISE (LBP-89-32) eg Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League g# By its Attorney, I' Robert A. Backus, Esquire N BACKUS, MEYER & SOIDMON 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 g Manchester, NH 03105

.i (603) 668-7272 e- ..

l

P.!:

s @EL 19052 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

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

[* Thursday,

, April 13, 1989 Bankruptcy Courtroom No. 2 Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

Federal Building 10 Causeway Street Boston, Massachusetts.

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursua.nt to notice, at 9:02 a.m.

BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN

.. Atomic Safety and Licensitig Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D.C.. 20555' JUDGE KENNETH A.-McCOLLOM, Hamber 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 Washington, D.C. 20555

- i Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 M.-..,..

., , J

~.',; ... . . . . . .

gr

$ f% Pl TfAMLtipI p.2 19068~

DONOVAN - CROSS-They .would remonitor them after they 1 .A (Donovan) if a person needed assistance to

-2 come out of-the showers.

shower themselves, I would expect they would provide that 3

4 assistance, but I would believe they would also expect.the 5 person to be.able to perform a shower themselves.

6 Again, . rnost of the contamination that you would

'7 expect to see en the public from this type of incident is It would not require' full.

going to be spot contamination.

~

B showering for decontamination.

It's going to be on either 9

a.n article of clothing or an extremity such as the hand or a.

10 11 foot, and most of that will be used with sanitary wipes and 12 what everyone would recognize as plain soap and water.

That's what is used day to day.in the-13 That's what we use.

-14 radiation industry to clean up articles and to clean - i 15 persons.

Right. Now you are aware that there is a large 16 Q 4

beach population in the Seabrook EPZ1 is that not correct? .

1*1 There's a potential for a large beach 18 A (Donovan) population, depending on the season and the time of day,

!! . '19 l*

t 20 yes.

v 21 Q And within the spectrum of accidents, it could be

(. ,

22 possible that there could be plume passage while people are

[

23 still on the beaches trying to get to their cars; is that l 24 not correct?

4 I

A (Donovan)

As a hypothetical, yes, that's correct,

'25 l

Beritage Reporting Corporation h (202) 628-4888 i

b y.

E <

s

. n

-- -; P.3 DONOVAN - CROSS 19081 l' JUDGE SMITH: All right.

2 Go ahead.

3. BY HS. DOUGHTY:

4, Q pct. Donovan, again, .is it not possible or is it-5' not relatively likely that at certain times during the day 6 in an evacuation given the fact that-people are going to 7 arrive at variable rates that there could be a back up-in

~

- . B that area of the trailer, because the throughput from the l 9 monitoring stations is faster than the throughput from the 10 other activities at the end that have two' individuals, both 11 assigned the responsibility of remonitoring people after 12 they come out of the showers, and dealing with a11'their 13 personnel articles?

14~ HR. DIGNAN: Ms. Doughty, is the hypothetical that l 15 everyone who comes through that thing turns out to be 16 contaminated?

, 17 MS, DOUGHTY: Not.everyone. But I was

~

18 bypothesizing a fair percentage before.

19 JUDGE SMITH: As I understand the --

- T 20 MS. DOUGHTY: I should have restated that part of

-3 21 the hypothetical.

22 Thank you.

23 JUDGE SMITH: The hypothesis stream is that these 7 24 people were at the beach, they have a lot of oil on their 25 skin'and they got caught in the plume. They all decide to Beritage Reporting corporation (202) 628-4888 b

=

• E

)

Q ~' .

'- p.4 DONOVAN , CROSS 19082 1- go there and they arrive there with a great deal of

-2 contamination and the monitor says you got it and go to the 3 and of the trailer and there they are.

4 Is that right? That's all part of the 5 hypothetical stream?

g, 6- MS. DOUGHTY: Right.

7 THE WITNESS: (Donovan) I will accept your

,-- B hypothetical basis that there could be more than two people 9 at that station.

10 BY PJ. DOUGHTY:

11 Q Well, that wasn't quite the question.

12 A (Donovan) Well, what was the question? -

13- Q Couldn't the two people be overwhelmed if there 14 were just two people at the station?

15 A (Donovan) It's a possibility.

16 But again, you're ignoring the fact that there.is

. .- 17 .a' person in the trailer as a designated leader. One'of his O '-

18 jobs is to monitor the rate of people-coming in. To monitor 19 the rate of people who are being determined as

-20 decontaminated need.

'O .

21- If the persons who, quote, "are being moved down 22 to this decontamination station," because they are 23 contaminated and either need spot decontamination or total 24 decontamination by-a shower; then it would be his job to 25 adjust the resources. And if necessary, to make 0: Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O

i, a - ,

p.5

- DONOVAN - CROSS .19083 1- arrangement s .

2 RIf you consult the diagrams that'are found in 3_

'Section 3.5. of -the plan you will note that there is a back 4 door outside that area. And I would expect -- again in your 5 hypothetical', for some reason they had 20 people or 30 people who were-contaminated for whatever -- whether all or

~

6 7 ' portions of their body or their clothing, therefore 8 requiring processing through this work station. And if I 9 can use the term work station.

10 .I would expect as any reasonable manager would do, 11 he would open the back door and he would create a hot area which is part of radiation control. He could create a hot 12-13 . area and he could create a holding area. And he would 14- probably arrange for chairs or whatever or some other means 15 that these people. wait comfortably until they could be-16 processed-through the decontamination station.

.. 17 I think that's just common sense that the people 18 there are not going to let a line back up; they're going to

~19 deal with it.

, 20 Q But if you pull people off of dealing with 21 monitoring and directing the vehicles as they. come in, 22 conidn't that situation become snarled?

23 I don't understand where extra people would come 24 to direct these evacuees and maintain them in line?

25 A (Donovan) There's four people outside that are 5

I Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

)

+

- p.5a-(} '

J l'

REBUTTAL PANEL No. 6 - CROSS. 21437 1 simply pointing out that anyone who has a radiology

(); 2 department, whether in fact they have any information or 3 training relative to treating the contaminated injured, they 4 can get this kind of accreditation. It has nothing to do

() 5 .with their ability to in fact treat contaminated injured or Anyone with a

~

6 the radiologically injured.- Nothing to do.

7 nuclear medicine department, anyone with a radiology 8 department gets this kind of accreditation.

()-

9 Mr. Sinclair has just stated that.in fact he knows 10 of no operating hospital with a radiology department or a 11 nuclear medicine department that doesn't have this kind of g) 12 accreditation.

13 I'm simply pointing out that what they rely upon 14- as a. FEMA indicator is in fact worthless. Any hospital has ,

15 it.

16 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) We did not say.that 17 JCAM accreditation is an acceptable indicator of the g 18 hospital's ability. That's FEMA's language in their 19 guidance. --

.20

MS. GREER: I understand that, r

-O -.

21 BY MS. GREER:

22 Q But you would have this Board cead into that, I 23 assume, that in fact -- buttressing that in fact this is an C1 24 okay functioning hospital because to do this kind of work 25 because-it's a FEMA indicator. And I think the Board should Heritage Reporting Corporation g)

(202) 628-4888 l

C) -

P' 21557 e- RE9UTTAL PANEL NO. 6 - CROSS' l' A:  : (Callendrello) Yes, it says that.

2 -Q Would you agree that the kinds of decontamination

=

.3- that could be done when someone_is sitting in a vehicle are 4- fairly limited.-- For example, you can't shower somebody when 5- they're in the vehicle, if they had whole body 6 . contamination?

! 7 A (Callendrello) That's right.

8 You could do local decontamination using a variety 9L of techniquest wash cloths; other types of cloth. You 10 couldn't, obviously, shower somebody inside a vehicle.

11 Q Have you derived any time estimates per person?

9 12 A' (Callendrello) We have derived an estimate for ./

13- the monitoring of individuals of 70 seconds per individual.

14 Q. The plan provides for. sending people on to H3-1 15 hospitals for further processing if they can't be

-16 decontaminated at the reception center; is that correct?

17 A (Callendrello) Yes. 'With the exception of some

~

18 ' individuals who may have internal contamination,-they may be 19 . entered into_the radiological screening program in 20- accordance with-IP-2.9.

21 Q- Okay. Maybe I'll get back to that point in a .

22 minute.

23- But say someone that needs to be -- you don' t know E

24 -- you have someone drive in, in a special needs vehicle, 2 51 .and you monitor them. You determine that they are seritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 g

3

s jji ' ' ..'"

RE3UTTAL PANEL NO. 6 - CROSS 21550 p.Sc 1 contaminated. Before you'would know whether you were going 2 to need to send them on for further processing you are going De 3 to have made an attempt to decontaminating them there, in 4 some instances, is that not correct?

5 Or how will'you determine that someone is so DD -- 6~ contaminated that you're just going to need to send them on?

7- A (Callendrello) When we perform monitoring and:

8- decontamination functions there is a feedback mechanism.

D' 9 You monitor an individual and you determine whether somebody ,

10 has been contaminated. Usually it's spot contamination: ,

11 feet; hands; head; something like that.

g 12 And you perform local'd,econtamination. If after 13 repeated attempts you are unable to decontaminate somebody 14- because they have got internal contamination -- if it's 15 internal contamination there is not much you are going to-be

g. _ _ - -_

~ '

16 able to do to decontaminate somebody; so you would onter 17 them in a screening program to make sure you do follow-up or

.18 do a whole body. analysis.

19 If it is contamination -- widespread contamination 9

' 20- that'can't be removed by local decontamination techniques, 21 you would make whatever arrangements are appropriate and 9.

22- . that may mean sending them to an MS-1 hospital.

23 Q where do you draw the line between determining 24 that someone just needs to be put into a screening program 8 25 versus someone that needs to be sent on to a hospital? How Beritage Baporting Corporation g (202) 628-4888

N ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ - - - ~ * - -

s% ,

I

'p;5d 21559

• .. # ~ 7tEIUTTAL PANEL NO. 6' - CROS3

, ) '

.do.you make that determination?.'What guidelines?..

~

1[ '

,2 -A- (Callendrello) It's, again, in IF.2.9.

We'll take our mid-morning. break'.-

', 1

'3' JUDGE SMITH: -

I

% :4 Ten minutes.

.5-' (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)- ,

y

' $. .. ~ 7 ,

K 8 p ,;

9 i

.gt 10,.

I:

11: ,

a. '

12. e 13' 1'4 .?

'15 c.

.16~

V 17 6 18 19 .

'- 20~ *

); , '21' c 22  ;

.23-i'--

24-

25' Beritage- Reporting Corporation j-. (202) 628-4888 r, l[ '

i bie .h..w , -

i lb, p.5e 21560

1. ' REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 6 - CROSS

[-

1 JUDGE SMITH: Proceed, Ms. Doughty.

1 H3. DOUGHTY: .Thank you.

2 D- BY MS. DOUGHTY:

3 4 Q Mr. Callendrello, I think when we left off we were

5 trying to determine how you make a decision when it's been f OI 6. determined that somebody is contaminated and a' ~I 7

decontamination attempt has failed and they are-in a special 8 needs vehicle.

I 9 How do you determine whether to put them in a 10 tracking program or to forward them on to a MS-1 hospital?

11 What are your criteria for making that choice?

A (Callendrello)

There are general criteria for the l l

B- 12 '

13 - monitoring decontamination leader, and it's IP 2.9, Section - i' 5.2.16, which says when individuals- have contamination which 14 15 cannot.be removed after three decontamination attempts or g

16 are suspected of having internal contamination, e.g.,

17 individuals with contamination around the nose and mouth, (a) Notify the ,

18- there is two steps that are indicatedt _l g-19 radiological health advisors (b) - obtain the contaminated 20 individual's name, social security number, addresar o 21 telephone number and provide the information to the 9-22 radiological health advisor for entrance into the  :

radiological screening program.

i 23 So it's likely that for -- and that covers anybody 24

}

B 25 in the general public. Now, somebody in a special vehicle Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 p

1 9

}/

..j A1/AUTTAL PANEL NO. ' 6 - CROSS P2 b1 1 where - you can' t- perform a full- body decontamination, there 2 may be another consideration, although that's not explicitly 7

3 addressed in the procedure.

-4 Q Okay. But does this procedure help someone 5 determine how to make the choice between just putting them-3 E6 ' into a radiological screening program or sending them to_ an

.7 H3 facility for further medical treatment?

8 A (Callendrello) It does in that if it's an [

- 9 individual -- the person gets into the screening program if 10 the contamination can't be removed after three attempts.

=

H11 If it's a type of contamination that can't be

_ 12 removed because of, as I said, because it would require a

.13 full body shrswer or something, you are not able to make

-14' three 4ttempts, obviously, so that would be the kind of 15 trigger that would trigger the monitoring and

=

16 decontamination -leader to send this individual to another 17- ' facility, an MS-1 hospital for decontamination.

=

18 Q Okay. To digress to a general public evacuee for

= 19 a moment. Say there has been three attempts for a general 20 public evacuee, nonhandicapped.

21 Has any medical authority confirmed for the ORO 22 that that's an acceptable procedure, to just put them in a 23 screening program without having them first go-to a medical 24 facility?

- ,25 A (Callendrello) I don't know if any medical Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

^$

p.5g c.

SEBUTTAL PANEL NO. 6 - CROSS 21562 lf . authority was consulted.

2 Certainly persons who are experts in health 3 physics and radiological health effects were involved in the 4 development of these procedures and the implementation of 5 .these procedures. So I am sure that these are standard 1

6 health physics practices.

7 Q Could you identify for me who said that it's okay 8 not to have the person'be checked in a medical facility 9 after they are still contaminated before putting them into a-screening program?.

10

• 11 A (Callendrello) I know that at least one of the 3

.12 implementors of this procedure is Peter Littlefield from . ,

~13 Yankee Atomic,'who is highly experienced in health physics, il4 And I'know that' Yankee Atomic has been involved in the

'15 re.v'iew of these procedures. Other than that, I don't know

-16 of any specific individuals.

17 Again, tho' preparers of these procedures are 18 persons.who.are experienced in health physics practices.

19 Q okay; But no medical people were consulted. I

.20 think that was your answer just to make the record clear.

[ 21 A (Callendrello) That's right. Mell, I don't know 22 if there were any medical people consulted. And again, I' 23 don't know what medical people FEMA may rely on in its RAC 24 review of these procedures.

25 JUDGE SMITH: When you refer to medical people, Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7

- - ' = - - - - - - - - - - . . . , . . ,. ,

r 3: p.Sh 21563

• - RESUTTAL PANEL No. 6 - CROSS I 1 you are excluding health physicists, and you're talking D 2 about medical doctors? I 3 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes.

l 4 JUDGE SMITH: Medical doctors? I MS. DOUGHTY: Right.

5

() l 4 6 SY MS. DOUGHTY:  !

l 7 Q Now earlier, Mr. Callendrello, I heard you say 8

something to the effect of if people are spot-contaminated z) that e 9 like just something on their hands or on their feet, 10 .they could be washed off.

11 Isn't the expectation that people would just have i

12 spot-contamination sort of generated out of what generally

'= 13. happens in the nuclear industry when somebody is working in q

14 a nuclear power plant and they are touching things or  ;

'O walking over surf aces with deposited contaminants?

15 16 But that's not the kind of situation that prevails )

in a radiological amargency when, for example, someone .

17

) 18 sitting in a wheelchair waiting to be loaded onto a bus to be transported somewhere, and a plume passes overhead.  ;

19 You wouldn't expect that same pattern of

/ 20 i

'O 21 con,tamination, would you?

A (Cal 2 endre11o)

For that specific scenario where 22

• you have got somebody sitting outside while a plume is

~

23

,(3 24 passing over containing contaminants, there would be more 25 than just spot-contamination.  ?

Baritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4ses

.O

1

>* 21593 p.51 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 6 - CROSS "

' 1 Commission annual requirement of Yankee and the utilities.

I mean 2

But we don't have a letter for the last --

l So I didn't know what we were to 3 this last letter is ' 86. f 4 draw from that as an inference.

Could you explain why there is no more recent 4 5

)

6 letter?

As far as I know, we have not 7 A (Callendrello) asked for any more recent letter.

That letter is in force. l 8 l Again, as I explained --

) 9 A (Sinclair) l 10 0 Even under the terms of this contract? i (Sinclair) -- for lack of a better tera -- I'm 11 A

\

12 sorry? t 23 Q Even under the terms of this contract?

14 A (Sinclair) The contract is between Yankee Atomic J 15 and'Feter Bent Brigham Mospital.

We have, for lack of a better term, piggy-backed 16 onto that contract through our agreements with Yankee 17 18 Atomic.

[f All right.

19 Q Mr. Callendrello, would you agree that sound 20 i 21 emergency planning considers site-specific factors l ke ,

n.

22 population density in terms of making decisions about the l

23 numbers of resources that you will need?

Quite honestly, population density 24 A (Callendrello) p.

25 could enter into many dif ferent areas.

1 1

8eritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

)

1

) .

^ ..- '- - - . . - . . _. ' - - .

9 21396 P.5j RICUTTAL PANEL No. 6 - CROSS l It's just too .

1 I can't answer that question.  !

2 broad for me. l isn't it true, when you  !

3 Q But generally in planning, l 4

are dealing with a population that you need to evacuate that l 5

the more people you have, the more need you have for f O facilities and resources to provide services? i 6

JUDGE SMITH: Yes.

7 (Callendrello) I think that that ,

8 THE WITNESS:

O 9 would be only logical. f JUDGE SMITH: Yes.

10 Obviously it's going 11 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello)

O 12- to de dep.ndent on that.

13 JUDGE SMITH: Official notice.

MS. DOUGHTY: Okay. All right, thank you.

14 15 nY Ms. DOUGHTY:

l0 Now I am going to ask you, do you think it is l

16 0 17 reasonable to require the same number of hospitals at a low- ,

t is density site a. at a very high-density site for .mergency O

19 planning response purposes?

I object.

This is argumentation.

20- MR. FLYNN:

Ms 00cGHTY:

well, this is an attempt to 21 O

22 challenge the --

On that JUDGE SMITH: Overruled on'that basis. .

23 on those grounds.

.24 basis, it's overruled. I mean, O

You may answer.

25 Beritage Reporting Corporation (2o2) sas-4ses i O 10 1 .

< .. - --...---..-l

/

21597 P.5k RE;UTTAL PANEL NO. 6 - CROSS 1 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) Yes, I do.

2 MS. DOUGHTY: I'm afraid I don't clearly enough 3 remember the question I asked, so this "Yes, I do" s

4 answer -- 9 5 A (Callendrello) You asked me if it was appropriate

) 6 to require the same number of hospitals for a low population 7 density site as for a high population density site.

8 And I said, "Yes, it is."

9 Q Even though --

JUDGE COLE: Wouldn't it be dependent on the size 10 .

11 of the hospital?

(Callendrello) Exactly, exactly.

12 THE WITNESS:

-13 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay.

I 14 BY MS. DOUGHTYt

'15 Q Let us say you have a given medical treatment 16 facility size, and as the population of people that you need 17 to deal with escalates, wouldn't you reach a point at which 18 you might need more than that size of a facility to deal ,

19 with the needs?

20 A (Callendrello) I'm afraid I don't understand the i 21 question. *

'22 If you are asking me to comment on whether Feta's f

Guidance Hemorandum MS-1 is appropriate, I don't think I am 23 in any position to do that. The guidance memorandum is a 24 25 guidance memorandum, and we comply with the intent of that i

maritage Reporting corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 t

2 l

1- . _ _ , .. , . - _ - - _ , _ , . - . . . - . . - , _ . . . ..

p.51

2) -

REBUTTAL PANEL N; 6-- CROSS 21598

< 1 guidance memorandum and the provisions of that guidance 2 memorandum.

r 3 Q So as a planner you feel that that's the only j

4 st an d - you have to meet. You don't need to make your own 5 determina:. as to whether that's a reasonable level of 3 6 planning?

! 7 A (Callendrello) I think it is a reasonable level 1 l

8 of planning, especially in light of the fact that there are j l

9 other hospitals accessible in the Commonwealth that have got 10 capability to treat radiologically contaminated and injured 11 individuals.

'3 12 Q To the extent that you haven't dealt with those f

13 hospitals or work with them in advance, that's an ad hoc 14 kind of measure, is it not, to rely on them?

i3 15 A (Callendrello) No. It's more than ad hoc. In as

)

16 recently as 1986, Mr. Hallissey, from the Massachusetts L 17 Department of Public Health, contacted a large number of ,

I l(> 18 hospitals and asked for their capabilities in treating )

, 19 contaminated injured individuals.

20 And there are a number that wrote back that are 1

21 close to the Seabrook EPE that indicated they had the ]

()

22 capability to respond and treat contaminated injured l 23 individuals. And those are hospitals that we don't rely on.

24 JUDGE SMITH: I think we might revisit Mr. Flynn's

. 25 ~ objection.

Beritage Reporting Corporation

() (202) 628-4888

o

g

) p.6 22064

) UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

}. In the Matter of: )

) Docket Nos.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL r NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL l

) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY '

(SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING I

EVIDENTIARY MEARING ,

t Friday, May, 19, 1989 g .

Yidiforfum - +

Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. i Federal Building A 10 Causeway Street  !

Doston, Massachusetts g

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m.

O- BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

Washington, D.C. 20555 ].

JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM,.Hamber 1 3 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Mashington, D.C. 20555 1

JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, HEMBER l

, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ,

lO . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  :

Washington, D.C. 20555 t

(

O Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 0- .

l j p.6s ,

DONOVAN - CROSS 22084 l

[

1 draft report or one of them at least was sent to, if not all l

)- 2 the FEMA evaluators, at least team leaders and group l 3 leaders?

4 4 4 A (Donovan) Yes. l 5 The August 2nd draft was mailed to all team  ;

6 leaders and group leaders, which is approximately 44 7 individuals. l i

8 The August 12th draft was mailed only to those .

9 persons who were involved with the New Hampshire evaluation l-10 because, again, the only purpose for producing the second l 11 draft was to try to reflect a more complete summary of the j 12 routes.  !

I p 13 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus, I assume that Ms.  ;

14 Doughty has already informed you that this subject matter 15 was covered yesterday and you're just laying the foundation i i- .

j 16 for continuing the line. ,

L 17 MR. BACKUS: I wasn't informed that this exact I i

18 area was covered. I have reviewed the transcript of the day 19 before yesterday and Ms. Doughty did tell me what her notes ,

20' indicated about yesterday. ,

j' 21 I didn't understand that the distribution of the i 5'

p 22 draft and the process by which the draft was made into a P

l 23 final was covered, i

24 '

JUDGE SMITH: Well, it was addressed and it 25- doesn't necessarily foreclose you from addressing it again i Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 D

) ., P.7 s  !

DOHOVAN - CROSS 22112 I I from and top is that right? l 2 A (Donovan) Well, not all of these routes were run 3 by buses, but a large number of these routes were run by j 4 buses. I

$ Q I understand that of the vehicles that ran routes ,

6 in'this exercise, some 20 were actually buses; is that 7 right?

j 8 A (Donovan) That's correct.

g 9 Q And the rest were private vehicles, pickup trucks, {

10 cars, whatever; right?

)

11 A (Donovan) That's correct.

• 12 Q Okay.

i 13 Now in the draft report, as you look at these '

14 routes, you frequently put down the time it took to complete  !

1 15 the routes, did you not? *

16. A (Donovan) Yes, I did.

17 Q And in the final report you did not include any 18 times for completion of routes? .

19 A (Donovan) That's correct.

20 Q And was that due to the comments you got on the 21 review that you deleted the times to complete the routes?

22 A (Donovan) No.  !

1 23 Q That was a decision you made as the person in 24 cverall charge of preparing the reporti is that right?

25 A (Doncvan) This is a decision I made.

)

Earitage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 y .

}

P8 f

). .

I DONOVAN - CROSS 22121 l

. i 1 Play called for, four were cancelled, leaving a total of 94 I

) 2 route demonstrations. Sixteen routes were run with I

3 controller intervention and/or local population assistance.  ;

J 4 Seven routes were not completed and 71 routes were  !

$ successfully completed.

6 Again, we created a separate category and'it  !

i 7 obviously, to me, would be deduced by most readers that i 8 completed with controller intervention does not equate to 9 being successfully completed. l 10 BY HR. BACKUS: f 11 Q In the draft report that run is described with a 12 bit more. text, is it not, Mr. Donovan?

13 It says, and I ask you to read this along with me

[ 14 to see if I'm reading it correctly. " Completed with {

15 controller intervention (on second attempt) . Returned once 16 to Rockingham TSA after getting lost and calling TSA.- Time

) 17 to complete 131 minutes."

18 A (Donovan) Tdat's correct.  ;

! 19 Q And all of that text, except for " completed with j 20 r,ontroller intervention" was left out of the final report.

21 Is that right?

22 A (Donovan) That's right.  ;

), - 23 Q Eow far is it from the Rockingha:n transportation j 24 staging area to the South Hampton staging area? ,

25 A (Donovan) Well, as the crow flies I would guess 4

Beritage Reporti.ng Corporation .

(202) 628-4888 l y -

' I

- p.9 j l

.4 DONOVAN - CROSS 22134 1 MR. RACKUS: That's one practical problem, if

)

2 somebody wants to furnish copies, if FEMA has got them, we 3 would be happy to. j

l 11 4 The other thing is, I think I need to explore the  ;

)1 1 5 reasons for the changes and not just the existence of these j 6 changes.  !

7 MR. DIGNAN: Forget my suggestion, Mr. Backus, 8 roll on. Obviously, you want to do it that way. I l

9 MR. RACKUS: All right.

10 BY MR. BACKUS:  :

11 Q I'm sorry. That did give me a chance to correct ,

12 myself. I wanted to talk about Southampton Route 1, which  !

+

13 in the final report says: " Completed with controller f

F 14- intervention," that's No. 6. #

, ,. 15 And on the draft report the text says: " Completed -

i 16 with controller intervention (general confusion, driver I 17 causes accident forcing private vehicle off road) time to 18 complete 78 minutes."

19 Correct?

20

~

A (Donovan) That's what the draft report says; yes.

21 Q And as. obvious, all the text describing.the -

22 accident is left out of the final report; is that correct?

di 23 A (Donovan) That's correct. .

24 Q How, as you previously heard, you were present 25 when Mr. Creamer testified in his deposition earlier this D

Eeritage Reporting corporation 4

(202) 628-4888 '

1:Y

. . _ . - . - . . - . . -. .. .~. . -- - . - . .

p.10  :

I a

DONOVAN - CROSS 22140 t

h 1 JUDGE SMITH: How this is a good point. He is 2 going to quote it and we are going to -- that will be 3 available for proposed findings as evidence.

l 4 MR. DIGNAN: Of what?

5 JUDGE SMITH: Of what the draft says.  !

6 MR. DIGNAN: I agree. i 7 MR. BACKUS: Okay.

8 MR. DIGNAN: I was .just trying to shorten things b 9 up and put the whole thing in. Then the whole thing is 10 available for findings. ,

11 JUDGE SMITH: I think this works out pretty well.-

12 It will be right here in context.

13 MR. BACKUS: If somebody can make it available, I

'I 14 have no objection.

15 BY MR. RACKUS:

16 Q Going back to the draft again. " Completed (much

17 confusion over maps -- missed many turns) Time to complete, i' 18 61 mirutos."

19 Is that what the draft says, Mr. Donovan?

20 A (Donovan) That's what the draft says, yes.

21 Q And, of course, as we have just pointed out, all i

22 of the tert'other than the word " completed" is omitted from 23 the final report; is that correct?

24 A (Donovan) That's correct.

25 0 -And again, is that due to your editorial choice  !

) l Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 y -

C l 1 P ll ;

i DONOVAN - CROSS 22151 j~

1 A (Donovan) There was three efforts. First of all, 2 again to repeat, it was not my intention that this draft

'3 would have been received by anyone other than the persons to y' 4 whom I addressed the letters.

5 If I had envisioned that this draft would have '

6 been turned over to the Intervenors, I would not have '

y' 7 released it at the time I released it.  !

8 I have stated before that I knew there were U

9 certain issues, and this was a working draft. In this case .

10 I received three sets of comments. And as.I acknowledged, I ,

11 was aware when I mailed the draft'and when I mailed the 12 second draft cn August 12th that I was not satisfied with l 13 the completeness of the routes described in objectives 18 14 and 19 for the State of New Hampshire, i 15 I received comments from the State of New 16 Eampshire. I received comments from basically the 17 evaluators who were assigned to this function where FEMA 1 >

j. 18 employees, which we have already discussed earlier thia 19 morning, and I took the Extent of Play documents which i D.

l

'20 describe t.bese routes, und I took the logs of the players l . 21 which were generated at the staging aregs- to reconstruct to -

! 22 the best of my ability the routes.

D ,

23 Even when we mailed the report out en August; 31st, 24 I knew there were still some errors in this section, and 25 that was one of the reasons for producing the errata.

, Beritage Reporting Corporation .

l. (202) 628-4888

_ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ . . . ~ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _

7

()7 p.12 DONOVAN - CROSS 22152 l

() 1 THE WITNESS: (Donovan) 'But the answer to your 1

2 question: I received comments through my request for 3 comments from two parties who indicated that the routes as k

() , 4 they're contained in the August 12th draft were not "

5 correctly described as being completed versus not completed. ,

6 And I reconstructed on my own effort and I used all three to l

() 7 try to correct the final version.

8 BY MR. BACKUS: '

L 9 Q So, Mr. Donovan, I gather from that, you say there

' (j ' ' , 10 wao se,mebody who told you.the draft was wrong?

11 A (Donovan) I knew the draft was wrong. I was not -

L 12 catisfied with the work product.

,g [ 13 Q I don't mean the draft generally. I 14 I mean, with regard to these two routes I'm l

\

15 speaking of? i

. 16 A (Donovan) Yea, L 17 Q I'm not asking an overall question.

18 I'm asking about these two routes?

19 A (Donovan) Well, that wasn't your question.

L 20 If your question ist did someone point out that i-21 these routes were incorrectly described. in the draft report? ]

22 .The answer is, yes.

23 Q Who was that? '

i L 24 A (Donovan) I believe I got both com=ents from the 25 State of New Hampshire and from FEMA Region 1, as well as my 0

l Baritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 l I

l

'O l l

p.13 DONOVAN - CROSS 22153 b 1 construction of the events.

2 Q Are there any documents that indicate that a 3 reviewer from FEMA 1 or a participant-from the State of New Ol' 4 Hampshire said, that's incorrect data?

5 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Backus, could I inquire?

6 Are you on page 2307 Ob - 7 MR. RACKUS: Of the draft, yes.

8 MR. DIGNAN: And that's Portsmouth LSA to New 9 Franklin Elcmentary School?

GD 10 MR. EACKUS: No. Jones School and to Portsmouth 11 High School. Five up from the bottom and two up from the 12 bottom.

O' 13 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you.

I 14 THE WITNESS: (Donovan) Your question?

, 15 BY MR. BACKUS:

() ". 16 Q Well, maybe I should go back to the draft.

17 Let me withdraw that. Let me go back to the 18 draft.

() 19 Somabody must have provided information for you to 20 create this dreft report that these two routes had not been 21 completed due to vehicle problem?

() 22 A (Donovan) That's correct.

23 Q And would that have come up through this 24 management structure, I understand you have described --

g 25 A (Donovan) Yes.

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I

(> ,

l t

p.14 i

I I'

. < . DONOVAN ~ CROSS 22154 1 Q

-- from a Tr.In evaluator that was on the bus or a -

2 controller to a team leader to the group leader, or maybe I .

3 got those backwards, up to you? ,

4 A (Donovan) With the exception of the controller.

l 5 The order is not important. i 6 Yes. A summary was provided to me describing the f

)- 7 routes, i

8 Q Now if somebody then comes in and says, hey, 1

9 that's not right, we actually did very well there, there was

. 10 no vehicle problem; would you undertake some investigation 11 to verify what the fact was?

12 'A (Donovan) FrJa's exercise report writing process

), 13 allows an opportunity for the participants to contest the 14 facts and produce evidence from their perspective.

', 15 And until such opportunities are afforded and h 16 comments received and reviewed, our report is not and should 17 not be interpreted as a factual statement.

13 I received comments from the State of New J 19 Eampshire. I received comunents from TTJR Region 1 on a lot 20 of the routes. Some of the comments wars received in i 21 writing. And I changed the report, to the best of my ,

22 ability, to reflect the comments that were received, as well i

}--

23 as my own individual investigations of what routes were ,

24 ccepleted. .

25

) Q Where you were doing whst happened here, in deing maritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3- .

k------. , , , - ,

e , , . , - . , - , - - , . , , , y e , -- , v..,, .,,,-,e- , . - . _ , , , -

O'  ;, P.15 j

i O. DONOVAN - CROSS 22155 i 1 a complete change on the evaluation from "not complete" to  ;

2 " complete," is that somethiny for which you would require i l

3 d *""*"t****"?

0  !

4 A (Donovan) Normally.

f 5 Q Did you in this case?

O

' * (" " "*") * *****"** "'****" ~~ * ******Y  !

7 acknowledged I received written comments indicating to me i B that the routes were successfully completed.

' O ^"# d Y " h*"* "h '*7 iO i 10 A (Donovan) I believe I do. i 11 MR. BACKUS: And I take it, those are among the i 12 things for which executive privilege is asserted; is that ,

, 13 right, Mr. Flynn?

14 HR. FLYNN: I believe that'a the case.

15 MR. BACKUS: All right.

16 MR. FLYNN: I'm not familiar at this moment with .

17 the documents.

18 JUDGE SMI"'H: What's the area?

O ,

it What's the question?

l 20 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, I had asked Mr. Donovan 1

21 if when the evaluation was being changed from incomplete and io' 22 to complete, if there was normally documentation to support '

23 that change.

24 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, the general practice.

10 25 MR. BACKUS: And he said, yes.

,.- Beritage Reporting corporation l0 (202) s2s-4sse

b Ph16

. DONCVAN - CROSS 22156

1 And then I asked him if there was documents 2 supporting this change?

ir '

3 And I think he said, I believe so.

4 And then I asked Mr. Flynn if this was, again, S within the documents for which the agency was asserting 6 executive privilege.

7 JUDGE SMITH: What change was that?

8 MR. RACKUS: The change of these two routes from 9 Portsmouth LSA to Jones Schools; and Portsmouth LSA to 10 Portsmouth High School, from not complete to complete.

11 on page- 230 of the draft and the routes are 12 described as No. 78 and No. 81 on page 178 of the final.

13 JUDGE SMITH: Can you point that out to us?

E I

14 MR. FLYNN: My difficulty is, I'm not sure which l 15 documents Mr. Donovan is referring to, i ,1 16 Mith the Board's permission I would like to

.l-2 17 consult with the witness.

, 18 JUDGE SMITH: I just want you to ramamber now, 19 whan we looked at documents for executive privilege we do 20 not intend to protect purely factual submissions and

=

21 exchanges.

22 MR. FLYNN: I understand that, Your Honor.

23 JUDGE SMITH: Only editing. Purely factual 24 communications were not intended to be protected.

25 MR. FLYNN: Yes. The Board has made that clear on

-4 Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 .

4

e ,

I ~!

Lt-

.- DONOVAN - CROSS 22157 l'

g; neveral occasions.

2 (Pause while counsel and witness confer.)

3 MR, FLYNN: Mr. Donovan informs me that the 4 documentation to which he was just referring was the written 5 comment from the State of New Hampshire.

5 We did not assert executive privilege on 7 communications from parties outside the federal government 8 or its group of contractors.

9 MR. BACKUS: Has that been produced?

10 MR. (LYNN: I believe it has.

D 11 BY MR. BACKUS:

, 12 Q Mr. Donovan, do you have the document that you say 13 led you to change the evaluation of the two runs in 14 question?

[ 15 A (Donovan) I said there was two approaches to l 16 producing the final version of this text. One was to self-Bi '

17 construct the runs mynolf on the player generated material.

18 The other was to respond to comments I re:eived 19 frem parties.

9-20 And I used both to produce the final version. And 21 the arrata that-we produced was basically to eliminate the 1

22 duplicate runs that are contained in the final exercise D'

23 report. And it doesn't change the structure of the , final 24 draft or the final report versus the draft.

25. Q Well, you have told me --

D Baritage Reporting Corporation .

(202) 628-4888 l l

)

p.18

). '

l l $

.. DONOVAN - CROSS 22158 p 1 A (Denovan) I do not have my comments and my notes l

• l 2 that I used to reconstruct. I do have comments from the  ;

3 State of New Hampshire.  !

j 4 MR. BACKUS: Your Menor, I suggest this would be a  ;

5 factual matter, not involving any policy or any issue of 6 executive privilege. And if there is documentation which I  !

7 thought Mr. Donovan said there was that supports the

). j 8 completely different appraisal of these-runs between the  !

9 final and the draft, I would like to have it produced. -

10 MR. FLYNN: We have not asserted the privilege as 11 to that. And my understanding is that we have produced it.

12 MR. BACKUS: I'm not aware of it.

13 MR. TLYNN: Is it here?

14 MR. DIGNAN The comments, Mr. Backus, among 7 15 ether, I don't know what TT.MA did with you, but its been 16 sitting up in the documant room for you people, that we run, 17 along with all our comments and everything else. You've had 18 it for a long time. Since like September.

19 MR. BACKUS: Well, you don't have than here *

) 20 anyhow, right?

21 MR. FLYNN That's correct.

22 MR. BACKUS: All right. We'll have to look.

~

23 BY MR. BACKUS:

24 Q In any event, Mr. Donovan, it's your testimeny 25 that the New Hampshire comments on the draft report, would b '

Baritage Report;ng Corporation (202) 628-4888

p.19 DONOVAN - Cross 22159 1 have indicated that these particular runs were erreneously 2 described by whoever provided the reports that led to the 3 draft?

4 A (Donovan) That is not my testimony. I have 5 answered that question.

6 I used three processes. I got comments from the 7 State of New Hampshire. I got comments from FEMA Region 1.

8 And I reconstructed, to the beat of my ability, these routes 9 on my own using the logs of the dispatchers at the staging 10 areas to indicate what vehicles were dispatched and what 11 vehicles returned.

12 JUDGE McCOLLOM Mr. Donovan, do you know how it 13 got to be designated anot completed" in the first place?

14 THE WITNESS: (Donovan) Well, the draft contains, i 15 Your Menor, it says there was a vehicle problem and my only 4 16 censansus to resolve the issue is that a second vehicle was i.

17 dispatched because the first vehicle obviously didn't run.

18 A vehicle problem to me conveys that the vehicle 19 could not make it. For example, in the final exercise 20 report on page 178, Route 72 through 76 were not completed 21 because the rental car that was used didn't work at all.

22 In this case I can only conclude that we had other 23 evidance that the routes were rerun or run ccmpleted as 24 well. And I can only assume that maybe someone in a 25 different vehicle was taking it. I don't know. I just --

Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4

4

_ _ _m_,mim._ . m.---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - " ^ " - - " ^ ^ - - - - - - ~ ' - ^ - ~ - - - - ' ' ~ - ^ ^ - -

E . .

1 cc R

), p.20 l

\

DONOVAN - CROSS 22160

)'

i 1 that's how, you know, again, when we produce a draft we go  !

2 . out and give participants, in this case, the people who did e

, 3 the work -- the exercise an opportunity to review.

)' s 4 We also capture the player material.

And I I

5 reviewed the logs and found from the dispatcher's log that  !

)

6 they had these routes indicated as being completed. And J

) 7 there was a disconnect immediately from my evaluator's j 1

6 comments, the player's log. And I also received l

collaboration through other comments that these routes  !

[ 9 10 should be completed.

11 I can't specifically answer his question what l

12 cau.s_e.d_me_to,, change it?

I had several pieces of evidence to j 13 indicate to me the draft was incorrect with respect to these .

14 two routes.  !

l- 15 HR. BACKUS: Well, I'm unclear and I would just 16 like to know if you can tell me.

l 17 BY MR. BACKUS:

18 Q Is there documentation that's available to us? ,

19 A (Donovan) The State of New Hampshire --

20 Q Well, wait a minute, let me finish.

21 Is there documentation --

22 A (Donovan) I thought you were finished.

23 Q -- that supports the conclusion that the draft 24 report was incorrect as to these two runs?

25 A. (Donovan) To the best of my knowledge, there is. '

Baritage Reporting Corporation -

(202) 628-4888 3

m

.---pw. -

+-y~,

p.21 I

DONOVAN - CROSS 22161 1 Q And that would be in the New Hampshire comments on 2 the draft report, to the best of. your knowledge?

3 A (Donovan) I don't remember where all of it is, so 4 1 don't want to make a statement that that's the only 5 source.

~~

6 Q Well, if it was in the FEMA evaluators records, I 7 understand those are no longer available, those have been 8 discarded; right?

9 A (Donovan) That's correct.

10 Q What FEMA evaluator would have provided input 11 regarding the correctness or lack of it as to the draft on i 12 these two runs?

13 JUDGE SMITH: Now, I think there is room for 14 confusion there.

15 Are you asking about evaluator input for the first 16 conclusion that the run was not complete or some type of 17' evaluator input which may have- justified the change or both?

18 MR. BACKUS: Well, that's a very good point.

19 I was asking the second question.

20 , TEE WITNESS: (Donovan) The comments came in from 21 the region as a collective set of comments where Region 1 22 amployees who were group leaders, et cetera, team leaders, 23 deputy team leaders, whatever assignment they had as part of 24 the managament staff of the evaluation team put all of thei:

.25 comments together.

l Berit..Tye Reporting Corporation {

(202) 628-4888 )

C) e

= p.22 1

DONOVAN - CROSS 22162 1 _

1 And I can't answer you an individual by name, 2 because they weren't provided to me from a source by name.

3 They were provided to me as, here is the region's comments e 4 on the draft.

5 BY MR. BACKUS:

6 Q Would you have the same problem if we asked you, g 7 who provided the information that led the draft to say 8 " incomplete?"

9 A (Donovan) That's correct.

. 10 Q Now, I wanted to go on to another area which is 11 the final objective in regard to the New Hampshire portion

- 'e 12 of the exercise, which is objective 34: "The ability to 13 demonstrate the ability to maintain staffing on continuous 14 24-hour basis by an actual shift change," and the evaluation 15 to that-is "mett" correct?

16 A (Donovaa) That's correct.

OL 17 Q And yet, over en page 200 under " issues," I see 18 under issue 1 is

" Arrangement for 24-hour continuous 19 cperation at staging area / reception centers."

O 20 ,

And the evaluation is: " Adequate arrangements do 21 not exist for 20-hour continuous operation at staging areas 22 and, reception centers." Correct?

O 23 A (Donovan) Are you reading issue 17 24 Q Yes. Page 200, evaluation.

25 A (Donovan) That's correct.

o Baritage Reporti.ng Corporation (202) 628-4888 1

_ _ _ _ . ~ _ . , . _ _ _ . _ _ . _

c>

u g > ls umv,,c REBUTTAI, PANEL NO. 6 - CROSS 21431 1 (Laughter) 4 2 BY MS. GREER:

3 Q And also, you know, you have made no provision f:r 4 that, have you, right?

5 A (Callendrello) I would have to look at the 6 protocol of St. Joseph's.

7 Q Okay. Moving on to the top of page 55, you say, 8 "The two designated MS-1 hospitals also =eet the Joint 9 Commission on Hospital Accreditation, the National Standards 10 for Radiology or Nuclear Medicine." /

/

11 And you go on to say that, "rEMA has indicated '

12 that's an acceptable indicator of the hospital's ability to 13 treat contaminated injured individuals."

14 Did you ever ask the hospital personnel at St.

15 Joseph's Hospital whether they could in fact treat the

16 radiologically injured?

D 17 Did you ever ask them that directly?

18 A (Sinclair) They were trained to do it. The 19 personnel at the hospital who perform. the MS-1 services are 3 20 trained to do so.

21 Q To treat the radiologically injured or to only 22 treat the contaminated injured; people who are traumatically

) 23 injured and happen to be contaminated?

24 Which do they receive training for?

25 A (Callendrello) I believe they receive training Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 629-4888

S i._.. i

. q; p.24

): .

REBUTTAL PANEL No. 6 - CROSS 21432 l 1 for both of them. I would have to again look at the 1e::,-

i 2 of agreement to see the specific language. But I'm sure  ;

3 that our agreement with them is in compliance with MS-1 4 which deals with three categories of contaminated injured 5 l individuals. It includes radiologically injured  ;

) i 6 individuals. I l

7 Q Okay. My question to you is, did you ever ask St.

8 Joseph's personnel whether in fact they could treat the

-9 radiologically injured.

10 Did you ever ask them that?  ;

11 Did you, Mr. Callendrello, personally ever ask l 12 them that?

~

13 A (Callendrello) I never personally asked vhem.  ;

p 14 Q Did you, Mr. Sinclair, ever ask them that?  !

13 A (Sinclair) No.

,- 16 Q okay. To be upfront, my information is in fact 17 they can't, and my .information is from the only radiologist 18 at'the facility who has in fact gone through the training.

19 He says they can't treat the radiologically injured.

I 20 A (Sinclair) Is that Dr. Pelle? .

12 1 ' .

Q Yes.

22- A (Sinclair)~ ror the record, Your Honor, that's not 23 what Dr. Pelle told me.

) _24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, now you are the only one 25 that's testifying.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

); (202) 628-4888 i.

LA

G

(/ ..

p.25 PIBUTTAL PANEL No. 6 - CROSS 21424 1 capability to deal and perform and function as an MS-1

> 2' facility. I was assured by Dr. Pelle that it was, and that 3 they felt they were in compliance, and that they would 4_ centinue to work to stay in compliance.

>; 5 I believe there was a misunderst anding at se=e 6 point with regard to the hospital's capability, and their 7 capabilities was misstated by a representative of the g 8 hospital. We sought to clarify that as did you. We 9 apparently got a different explanation than you did.

10 MS. GREER: Apparently so.

g 11 BY MS. GREEA:

• 2 Q De ycu know what crateria are used to receive JCAM 13 accreditation?

14 A (Sinclair) Sorry, do I know what criteria?

15 Q Do you know what criteria are used to receive JCAM 16 accreditation?

17 A (Sinclair) I've seen the document. It's 18 subst antial . I'm not familiar with it in any detail.

19 Q Do you know whether merely having a radiology 20 department will qualify, an accredited radiology department 21 will in fact qualify a hespital to receive such 22 accreditation?

23 A (Sinclair) Not on its own. The accreditation D

24 covers the entire range of services that the hospital 25 provides. And the hospital is usually accredited by g

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1

1 B

p.26 ca. . -

REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 6 - CRtss 2:437 1 simply pointing out that anyone who has a radiology l

) 2 department, whether in fact they have any information er l

3 training relative to treating the contaminated injured, they j 4 can get this kind of accreditation. i It has nothing to to l

() 1 5

with their ability to in fact treat conta=inated injured :: i 6 the radiologically injured. Nothing to do. Anyone with a 7

nuclear medicine department, anyone with ' a radiology I C) 8 department gets this kind of accreditation.

9 Mr. Sinclair has just stated that in f act ha kn:ws 1 10 of no operating hospital with a radiology department or a X3: 11 nuclear medicine department that decan' t have this kinc c.

12 accreditation.

f 13 I'm simply pointing cut that what they rely upon  !

14  !

(). as a FEMA indicator is in fact worthless. Any hospital has '

15 it.

16 TME WITNESS (Callendrello) We did not say that

()- 17 JCAM accreditation is an acceptable indicator of the g4 18 hospital's ability. That's TEMA's language in their 19 guidance. - --

l 20 MS. GREER

() I understand that.

21 -

BY MS. GREER: ,

22 Q But you would have this Board read into that, I ,

23 assume, that in fact -- buttressing that in fact this is an

)

24 okay functioning hospital because to do this kind of work 25 because it's a FEMA indicator. And I think the Board should f

() - Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1 p.27 i

).

j

.. b M h' TbkM$ I l l

, LCNIRGAN, et al., PANEL - D: RIOT 23322

) 1 that the radioactive material that is brought in on a 1 i

1 2 contaminated patient is not spread through other areas of 3 the hospital. ,

i

[ 4 Q Okay, i I

5 A (Peelle) So that that is distinguished from an 6 exposed patient who would not be a threau to the other areas -

7 of the hospital. I 9 Q Assume for a moment then that we are dealing with  ;

9 so.teene who is contaminated sad injured, and the inyury is  :

10 caussd by exposure. ,

'11 New focusing for a noment on ths injur;, wou2d St.. l 3-12 Joseph's Hospital have the ability, personnel, rr.so'tr:es to 13 treat that kind of injury? i 14 A (Poello) Wull, expcsure injury is very dependent 15 upon tha level of exposure. I mean, a few rads versus a few

); 16 thousand rads makes a lot of difference in the treatment of 17 a patient who is exposed. ,

18 Q Well, let's say somebody who has an exposure let's y 19 say in the range of five to six hundred. I 20 A (Peelle) I would say that St. Joseph's Hospital 21 is prepared to do the initial treatment of exposed patients.

22 As the radiation syndrome develops over a period of time, 23 first of all, I mean we may have an estimate of dose to a ,

24 patient, but we may not have an accurate dose.

25 The extent of the injury has to be determined by

) _

r Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

~

x p.25 h (pu A-

- u .

5 ..: 4l 232b3

.K LcNERGAN, et al., PANIL - D RIOT C

kk 1 follcwing a patient's clinical course.

2 Q Ok ay .' .

A (Peelle) If it became apparent that they had 3

} ~

(1 ~4 received a large dose and were likely to be bene =arrew 5 suppressed, St. Joseph's would probably not b,e_, prepared to

$$ 6 take care of tha_t. _

7 Q Let's go back two steps.

() - or

! 8 You said that you would have the ability to, 9

did I understand you correctly to say that you have the 10 ability to **timata th* do8*?

CT Il Does St. Joseph's have<that ability?

A- (Peelle) No.

j 12 13 Q No?

y I would say not. We would rely on ,

14 A (Pee'

• or from 15 estimated'or- a from the site of=the accident

16. pecple on - sit.. .n the initial treatment.

) I mean, as a few days go by, you can make an

.17 18 estimate of dose based on the response of the patient's 19 white cell count.

20 Q Essentially you would'be saying that as a result that would be~

21 of the symptoms-demonstrated by the patient,

'22' the source of your dose estimate?

But in many cases, d[ .23 A (reelle) Well, it would help.

u 24 a patient isn't wearing a dosimeter, so that we can never be 25 accurately sure about the dose. But the levels of radiation KU l

Beritage Reporting Corporation )

(202) 628-4888 O e

. -"--'w--.m. .___

4 p.29

'f, '

a

't-LONERGAN, et al., PANIL - D P.IO: 23324 11 sickness depend on the dose, and can be judged by the

.i response of the patient.

~

' 3 Q Let's say that the patient presented is an 4 individual who is suffering immediate symptoms of radiation S 5. exposure,-including nausea, vomiting, ether --

6 A (Peelle) By "immediate", you mean within a few

-.7 hours of the exposure?

3 8 Q Let's say by the time they arrive at St. Joseph's 9 Hospital they are e.shibiting these sy=ptoms.

10 How 'would St. Joseph's Hospital go about treating

=11 that individual?

-12 A (Peelle) Is the patient --

)

- 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you didn't answer his 14 question. Now he wanted to know when.-

15 BY MS. GREER:

16 Q said when they were immediately presented to St.

~'

17 Joseph's Hospital, upon entry at St. Joseph's.

18 A (Peelle)- We are saying within a few hours of Ab 19' ' expo sure '.

20 Q Right.

21 A (Peelle) And is the patient' contaminated or not

[' ,

-22 cont aminated?

23. Q I'm assuming that they are. contaminated as well.

J 24 A (Peelle) If the patient is contaminated, they

'25 would be taken to the area of the hospital that is set aside 3 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I4 IIll' I.'ilu ll

r; - . -, u-.

p;30

[

4 23325 LONERGAN, et al., PANEL - DIRIOT

. - l' for ' contaminated patients to be decontaminated.-

I.

2 The treatment of the acute radiation illness would

'3 be. symptomatic at this point. It. might involve trans fusion e if they have already suffered a'iow white cell count.

d' 4.

~5-

+ But if a patient is showing sy=ptoms of radiation 6

illness within a few hours, that means that they have k 7-received a massive dose of radia' tion, and would probably die

.8 or be seriously ill from it.

we 9

And as soon as the patient was decontaminated, facility. /

10 would be arranging transfer to a tertiary care l11 12 13 15 j 16.

'17 .

18' 19 l

); I 20 s

21

... 22

)5

'23 i

24

>R 25 ,

)

t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 y

w f.

i ,, .

/*

P,33 23325 LONERGAN, et al., PANEL - DIRICT

>= Q Essentially, St. Jo s eph' s , after decentaminating 1-2 that individual, would not continue to care for that 3 -individual, correct?

> A (Peelle)

I would say that a patient that's 4

5 exhibiting sy=ptoms within a few hours is highly irradiated of and would require, I would say, a fairly 'assive orcent 6

b 7 medical care in order to survive.

Q And I take it that is something that St. Jo s eph' s 8

9 is net' set up or prepared to do?

We are not prepared to do bone marrow

>- L10= A (Peelle) 11 transplants or supportive care for people with severe bone 12 marrow injury.

You've added bone marrow transplant 13 JUDGE SMITH:

Si now to the acute care, which is the first tima you've done N 14  !

15 it.

(Peelle) Well, my point is that the 16- THE WITNESS:

g-17 acute care in a matter of the first few hourn'can be handled  !

The long-term care of an

18. by St. Joseph's Hospital.

irradiated patient, in terms of days or weeks, we may or may.

19 gy depending upon the level 20- not be able to take care of that, t

21 of the exposure.

i i

MS. GREER: Okay.

22 D:

23 BY MS. GREER:

Q Other than bone marrow transplants, how would one 24 25 typically go about treating the radiologically injured or i

D.

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 D

-t..

P 32

. .e

. 23327 LONERGAN, et.al., PANEL - DIMC;

'l.

exposed individual?.

It depends on the level of exposure and 2- A. (Peelle) 3' on the findings-that.are derived-from the patient.

I mean,'if the white cell count --

<; 4 MR. COOK:

Objection, Your Honor.

Is this really relevant to the rescur:es of the 6

7 'nospital, the manner of' treatment?

The manner of long-term trea.=ent, JUDGE SMITH:

8 9 you mean? if they need sc=e I mean, Well, I guess it is.

10 for, I guess 11 treatment that it doesn't have any resources 12 it's relevant.

I'm wondering what the relevance is of the

.13 14 . treatment weeks ahead.

MR. COOK The treatment weeks ahead?

15 JUDGE COLE: Weeks after.

16 Yes, weeks down the road from the JUDGE SMITH:

17 18 exposure.

MR. COOK: Right. I don' t think that's relevant 19-Joseph's is- to establish --

20 given that the function of St.

Perhaps we can help this by --

MS. GREER:

21 MR. COOK: -- the immediate care.

22 JUDGE SMITH:

Well, let's neither sustain nor --

23 24 let's just begin afresh --

MR. COOK: 7.' 11 withdraw that .

25 Heritage Paporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 41 ,

-.A.2 '- .+ ~---'w-.-._ _

m . - . .

p.33

%s]

~

y a ,

23323 LONERGAN, et al . , P ANEL - DIP.E0:

o MS. GREER: Okay.

1 JUDGE SMITH: -- with the distinctidn in mind.

2 3

BY MS.-GPIER: ,

Q Dr. Peelle, in responding to thesrs questions, 4

e an exposed 5 let's exclude for the moment treatment'~ that 6

patient may require let's say a year or two years down the And let's have you limit your 7 road, long-term treatment.

two. days, 8

responses to the time frame of let's say a day, three dnys, a week, relatively short< term care.

9 *

(Peelle)

I think by week, you are getting too 10 A 11 long .-

But I would say one or two days.

12 Q okay.

to you, would You are saying anything over a week, 13 14- count for long-term care?

JUDGE SMITH:

No, that's not what he said.

15' (Pedle) No, I think that other 16 THE WITNESS:

17 arrangements can be made for a patient in the matter of a few days, and that we are not being called on to take care 18 19 -of the patient for months at a time.

MS. GREER: All right.

20 21 BY MSa GREER:

22. Q Why don't you simply tell me what you view to be 23 the cutoff line or the boundary-line and maybe a_ range of 24 time between long-term and short-term care?

A (Peelle) Well, I think in terms of a radiation 25 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 J l

q ,

)

.}

-- -- -_ _ _ . . __ . -- i,.

i P 34 2332?

LONERGAN, et al . , PANEL - DIRECT je

1-exposure accident or injury, that a' matter of one toand two

2 days will determine the future course of the patient, l of care.

3 .can-then allow the appropriate leve Q'

So beyond 'one or two days for an exposed patient-4 5' would fall into long-term care?

6 A (Peelle) I think that's reasonable.

Joseph's -- scrike that .

With respect to what St.

Q 7'

Joseph's is not set You have already said that St. '

9 8

9 up to do bone marrow transplants, correct?

(Peelle) Correct.

'10' A What other kind of treatment would normally be 11 Q  ?

12 called for by a radiologically exposed or injured person JUDGE SMITH: In the?

13

-14 BY MS. GREER:

3 Q

In the one or two-day period; in the short-term 15-16- period.-

I would say that falls in terms of 17 A (Peelle) 18 general supportive measures which would include intravenous 19 fluids,-replace body fluid loss,-blood transfusions to 20 replace blood elements, antibiotic treatment to cover I think all of those 21 infectious processes that might arise.

Joseph's Hospital.

22 things are available at St.

How would you be the physician in charge of such 23 Q 24 patients at St. Joseph's?

Not directly, no.

25 A (Peelle) 4 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O~

1

..m -,

- _ ~ _ _

p.35

- 23330 LCNERGAN, et al . , PANEL - DIRECT When a contaminated injured person was presented 1- Q and they again posed classic 2 at St. Joseph's Hospital, be the 3'

symptoms of radiation exposure injury, would.you 4

physician at-that time who would be assigned to do the 5 immediate care of those individuals?

Now we have a complicated situation 6

JUCGE SMITH: d?

DL, We have a persen who is contaminated and injure 7 here.

MS. GREER: Right.

8 Traumatically injured?

9 JUDGE SMITH:

No, radiologically injured.

D 10 MS. GREER:

Radiologically centaminated and JUDGE SMITH:

.11 12 radiologically injured.

MS. GREERi Right.

I 13 "no". The I.would say THE WITNESS: (Peelle)

.14 15~

primary responsibility for the care of the patientician. upon h

16 arrival at the hospital is the emergency room p ys is I

My function, as the radiation safety officer, 17 18 to deal with the contamination part of it and to- some But the care of the extent, advise on the radiation injury.

91 19 I don't take 20~ patient -- I am not a. primary care physician.

21 care of patients.

22 BY MS. GREER:

3: Are the emergency room physicians -- strike that.

23 Q Are you familiar with the emergency room 24 Joseph's emergency 25 physicians that normally staff the St.

g Beritage Reporting Corporation ,

(202) 628-4888 B

-- - N

x

. p.36 h-q s ..

.i

-, 23322' LONERGAN, et al . , P ANEL - DIPIOT k - l' ahead.

MR. COOK: Objection, Your Honor.

2 3

(Laughter)

JUDGE SMITH:

Just tell us very briefly_just what.

9- 4 5 your experience is, what you have observed aheuz. the

-6 treatnent of radiologically injured patients, (Peelle) Well, I would say other 7-~ THE WITNESS:

g?

8~

than cancer patients who are treated with radiation therapy, 9- that is not a common injury that's seen in the amergency g_ 10 room.

JUDGE SMITH:

But with respect to those that do 11' 112 receive radiation therapy, does it happen from time to time 13 that they need emergency room treatment?

g Yes, I would say that's 14' THE WITNESS:. (Peelle) quite likely.

I don't recall-specific physicians.

15 MS. GREER: Okay.

'16 ,

17 BY MS. GREER:

Q

-Now you have said that you would be responsible 18 19 for monitoring the contamination of the patients who are 20' brought in, correct?

A (Peelle) Co'rrect.

21 t

Q Within the area at St. Joseph's that has been set 22 how many patients 8- 23 aside to receive contaminated patients, 24 can that space accommodate?

A (Peelle) Okay. Again, let's be specific.

25.

9-t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-eaB8

. - ____ _ _ _. _. ._ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ = _ -

f P.37 9

_-, t L. ,

l3d LONERGAN, et al . ,- PANEL - DIPJECT 23333

1L Contaminated injured patients we are talking about?

2 -Q Right.

-3 A (Peelle) Because we also have a contaminaced '

Bi 4f noninjured area.

5 Q Cont aminated > injured?

y;:n 16 A (Peelle) Contaminated injured areas, a portion of p 7. the emergency room, which has been designed, on paper 8- anyway, to handle the patients, and we've been through 9' various disaster drills to do it. It involves two rooms g '10 which are adjoining and separated by a folding door.

Lil- And we feel that in most circumstances we would-be

12 able to handle two patients at'a time through that set up, '/

13 and would have to then triage patients as to which;ones were 9, 1 er 141 going to go in first.

15- Q Okay. So essentially St. Joseph's is set up to

=16 handle two contaminated injured individuals at once.

17 Is that true?

18 A (Peelle) Well, yes, that's on'the-disaster plan.

19 Yes.

9:

20 Okay.

-Q And you would be the person responsible for

{

21 essentially overseeing and providing advice to hospital ,

,22 personnel who were actually doing the treatment of those two g '.:

23 ' individuals; is that correct?

24 A (Peelle) Yes, in terms of advice on the radiation

'25 procedures and decontamination procedures, yes.

O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

O: l 1

S

(.

7 s

'V . , _

' p.36 23334 LCNERGAN, et al . , PANEL - DIRECT Q_

Would you be able to oversee and advise advice to 1

2-more than let's1say two teams of hospital persennel treating 3

contaminat'ed individuals at any given time?

- 4' A (Peelle) 'I .think that's' possible, but I' m not I'm g

sureLwhat -- I mean, I couldn't oversee 50 patients'.

5-it depends on how S

not sure,_you know, possibly three,

~. , but i

" 7 many areas of the emergency room and how many physi = ans 8' there are to.take care of the patients.

Joseph's has Q

But would it be f air to way that St.

9 10 the capacity to --

D. MR. COOK: Objection to form then, Your Honor.

~'

11 Would the counsel for the Attorney General phrase 12 h t they 13 -the_ questions since it is a direct examination so t a p: are not leading?

14 But JUDGE SMITH:

That was only mildly leading.

15 16 be sensitive to his -- '

MS. GREER: Concerns.

17 JUDGE SMITH: Right, yes.

<= 18-HS. GREER:

Your Honor, I realize that these 19 and their testimony is I 20 witnesses are being presented here, 21 being of fered. frem' the Attorney General's --

JUDGE SMITH: They are-really third-party 22 I understand that. But just proceed.

Just D' 23- witnesses.

That's all right.

~24 don' t argue with him and you haven' t.

25 Go ahead.

D.

Eeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 r

I I e: lr. - . .

L. . . ,

p.39

~

/j{~ 23335 LONERGAN, et al . , P ANEL - DIRECT MS. GREER: Okay.

That's all right.

Di JUDGE SMITH:- And you haven' t.

2-

-3 Go ahead.

MS. GREER: Okay.

4 d

.5 BY MS. GREER:

in understanding,.from what you have 6 Q Am'I correct that the capacity at sc . . Joseph's Hospital,

-7 just said here, aside for treating the g2 -8' in terms of the area set 9 radiologically injured and --

A (Peelle) Contaminated.

10

~

Sorry.

The. contaminated injured.

k- >11- Q These are contaminated injured ,

JUDGE. SMITH:

12 13- people who could be traumatically injured, too.

14 MS. GREER: That's correct .

D:

And your premise is, as-you examine-15 JUDGE SMITH:

16 him, as I' understand ~it, is that his attention is needed.

-MS. GREER: Yes.

D l17 Where did you'get that information?

JUDGE SMITH:

18' MS. GREER:

In his statement, Dr. Peelle --

19 20 actually I believe that it may have been in the statements p

21 of Sister Paula and Sister Doris.

I believe that Dr. Peelle was the only physician, 22 radiologist, at St.

Joseph's Hospital who took the training 23 gi 24 course.

25 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l

c 9

l

.I

(? a si ,

(b  ?

p .' 4 0 f

g 23336 LONERGAN, et al., PANEL - DIRICT-

' l-

- BY MS, GPIER: ,

l 2 Q Is that true, Dr. Feelle? '

The training course that was provided by

'3. A (Peelle)

O 4 s 4. Seabrook Station.

v .Yes.

5'. Q.

But the radiologists are 6 A (Peelle) Yes.-

f C)! 7

^

experienced in radiation effects and in' decontamination  !

s

> St procedures through'other avenues.

Okay. Let me ask you this directly.

9. Q l

How many radiologists are there on the staff at l 10 1 l() K l 11 St. Jo s eph' s ? ' j (Peelle) Three. J 12 A. l Q

And is there a physician either on site at St.

fy 13 Joseph's on - . I' m sorry, strike 14 ' Joseph's or on call for St.

1 15' that.

Is one of those three radiologists always on site 16 gg; 17 or on call for St. Joseph's on a 24-hour basis?

A, (Peelle) Yes.

-18 Q

Are you the only radiologist who took:the training 19-ncy drills?

"' 20 , provided~ by Seabrook with respect to the emerge A (Peelle) on the first tiaining program, yes.

'21 Q

And have either of the other two radiologists 22 G. .s, participated as of this date in any of the drills or 23 l  ?

24 exercises in connection with the Seabrook emergency p an No. We've only had one exercise. Well, t: -

j<

i-25 A (Peelle) p

-Q Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O

u

N-

n. .

l6l~ p.41

)

l I

A.

23337 LONERGAN, et al., PANEL - DIRECT rcise. But neither of we had a walk-through and a formal exe 1 i t d in those.

2 the other radiologists directly partic pa e And the other radiologists didn't take any h radiological 3 Q

~4 training provided in connection with t e 5

emergency plan, did they?

Not with this plan.

(Peelle)

~

6 A invo1ved I mean, we've had training, because we' re

.7 had.

B in a. plan - for : another reactor, that they have '

,Is St.

Joseph's Hospital designated as an MS-1 9 Q 0 10 hospital for any other nuclear reactor?

Yes. I believe.

11 A (Peelle)

Q Is that Yankee?

12 The University of Lowell has a O 13 A' (P eelle) - No.

from the hospital.

14 reactor across the street Okay.

It's a. research reactor, I believe.

15 Q 16 .A- (Peelle)-

O ---

Okay.

And the training that was provided --

17 Q +

MR. DIGNAN:

There's- another one over in 18 Maybe you hae better get thae cambriege, right nexe door.

0: 19 20 one, too.

BY MS. GREER: ion 21 And the training that was provided in connect 22 Q include the same with the University of Lowell, did that 23 gency room

] kind of training of the segmenting off of the emer 24 h protective coverings the same way and the setting up of t e 1

25 O[

Reporting Corporation Heritage (202) 628-4888 l

O:

4 3d'-- = _ __ ~ ~ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ ' - - - - ~ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ ^ "'w _ _ , _

,,, y

' . 'f

-p42 Ku' f-A in 23333'

.' LONERGAN, ; et al . , P ANEL -~ DIRECT

. [it

? 1 andlso forth?

the plan originally

'2 AL (Peelle)2 No. I mean, for

'W 3 Linstituted was-approximately 10 years.ago,1I believe,

^

II 4  : the University of ' Lovsll, and that_was on a amaller scale and did'not involve as detailed a disaster plan; as we

.S(

6 currently have.

t gp 7-

,8 9

g) 10 11' 12'

-13 g,7

14' 15 16l g

.

17 18

, 19 D;

20-21 22 D

^23 24 l

25-D;

' Heritage Reporti.ng Corporation

, (202) 628-4888 a:

i r j

\ .

e J

6; '

p 43 w 23333 LCNERGAN, et al., PANEL.- DI?.ECT Q

- Do you know when the last time those two d di' '-

1" participated in an emergency

'2 radiologists, in fact, 1

3 connection with that Lowell reactor? lly, but I (P eelle)

_I cannot recall.specifica 4~ A (K- would, say it's probably five to six years.

5 can !

With the Board's permission, MS. GREER:

6

"* ** "d?'

7 $"** C "'"lt h*"* * "

O! Yes, certainly .

JUDGE SMITH:

8 9

(Counsel confers.)

10; BY MS. GREER:-

Q Dr. Peelle, if, let's say, six contaminated "11 Joseph's 12 injured individuals were either presented at St.

Let's say, six or more

^13 Hospital - strike that. St.

14 contaminated injured individuals were presented at Joseph's 15

' Joseph's Hospital at the same time, would St. ithin an l

16 Hospital be able to treat all six of those peop e w 17 hour?

I mean, the extent of the injuries A (Psells) ~ Well, 18 19 I has a lot to do .with how quickly a patient can be treated.

in general.in this plan we are in 20=

And I think, you know, to some extent, d know,

'21 contact with the dispatch center an And I would have to 22 the extent of injuries in advance.

defer to the emergency room physicians to a certain extent OI 23 d to treat the 24 as to an estimate for the amount of time neede

'25 patients. ,

O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 OL 1

[

+

s()A '!' s p,44 E; o 4 LONERGAN, ' et al . , PANEL - DIRECT 23340

() 11: I can't say whether we could or could not do it in 2 an hour.

=3 Q Let me perhaps pose it this way.

4- Let's say, six severely injured individuals,

) '

5 contaminated-individuals, if they were presented could you 6 treat them all within an hour?

7 MR. COOK Objection, the same question. The sa=e

)

8' complications are involved, Your Honor. It's i=possible to 9' answer.

!10 MR. BACHMANN: I would object as asked and

-11 answered.

12, JUDGE SMITH: I agree. It seems that you drew a 13 negative and I don't know how this is going to help you.

14 MS. GREER: Okay.

15 BY MS. GREER:

16 Q. Let me ask it perhaps in a more precise way.

O 17 Let's pose as a hypothetical that you are 18 - presented with six individuals who are contaminated and are 19 experiencing obvious signs of severe radiological exposure.

OL 20 That-is, they are all immediately exhihiting symptoms

-21 ' including nausea, et cetera.

22 Can St. Joseph's treat those six individuals

()? 23 within an hour?

24- A (Peelle) Well, I would say --

25 JUDGE SMITH: Wait'a minute.

OI Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O--

c'"y Oi  ; yd 4, p.45-LONERGM1, et al . , PMIEL - DIRECT 23341

^ ?.

Os'

~

- 11 ,

See, I don't have any trouhle understanding y:ur

.2: hypothetical-scenario there. What treatnent are you talking 3 about? The decontamination? What are you talking abo.::?

4- MS. CREER: . All right.

Q?

5' Let's go back and let me ask -- perhaps what  !

6. will do is' lay a foundation.

7 8Y MS GREER:

OL St.

8 Q If a patient came in -- you already said that 9 Joseph's cannot do bone marrow, what can St. Joseph's do for 10' someone who is exhibiting immediate sy=pte=s of severe

-11 exposure?

12 ~ _ JUDGE SMITH:

No, we' rr. : tot going to go through 13 that again.

14 MS. GREER: Okay.

JUDGE SMITH: You're not asking questions that are 15-16' likely to produce a useful answer without expert explanation 17 by the witness, 18- BY MS, GREER:

.19 Q If after St. Joseph's has done an external OL decontaminaticn procedure and has attempted to decontaminate 20 21 a patient, it is determined that a patient is --

22 JUDGE SMITH: Now, this patient does not have any 0 23- particular contamination on him or her, and does not create 24 a risk to_other people.

MS. GREER: There is no external contamination, 25.

O-Eeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

-O

~ " - - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ , __ _ _ _ _ - - .

--g

• lg J, g EY' P.46

,N 4 p

C' 23342

((

. jf -

'y- .LONERGAN, et'al., PANEL - DIRIOT

.r o . e.

' ,j[g. s $,'} 1 : yes.

y JUDGE SMITH: Okay.

.I P 2

~$,, :

MS. GREER:

But St. Joseph's at that point 0[ 3.

4' dete= nines that the person is still internally conta.:ninated.

5 BY MS. GREER:

6 Q Can St. Joseph's deal with that patient?

7 A (Peelle) Yes.

8 Q What does St. Joseph's do to deal with that 9 patient?

A (Peelle) Well, I mean, we deal with internally 10 11 contaminated patients on a daily basis and we inject 12 radioisotopes into patients.

JUDGE SMITH:

He has already answered this 13 14 qaestion two times; this is the third time.

MS. GREER: Okay.

15 16- BY MS. GREER:

17 Q Do you at St. Joseph's administer decorporation 18 agents?

19~ A (Peelle) No.

If somebody was internally contaminated, is that a 20 Q 21 form of treatment that they might normally expect to receive?

JUDGE SMITH: Now, this was not a substitute for 23 You are 24 your direct examination which was stricken.

25 quarreling with this statement now'that the course of Esritage Reporting Corporation

' (202) 628-4888 I

D

s. a .

a .

()" <b

. p - p.47-LONEP.GAN , et al., P ANT,1, - CP.O S S 23361' 1

Is it physical space that limits the n"~her of

)-

-/- 2 -individuals?

3. A (Peelle) I think it's -- with reference to the 4 contaminated injured patient, which is ' the mose diffiruit 5 one to deal with, that is a cembination of physical spa:e 6- and available personnel.

7 Patients that are contaminated but nec injured, we S

-have a separate area in the hospital where they can be sent 9 to be decontaminated.

10 So I think the limitation depends upon which O. 11 categories those patients would fall in.

12 Q And after the individuals who were being treated 13 in the emergency room had been decontaminated or treated.for O 14 their physical injuries, and would it be possible at that 15 point to first transfer those individuals either to beds in 16 your own hospital or to other facilities; and then accept a CT 17' new group of individuals and treat those individuals?

18 A (Peelle) Yes.

19 I think the decontaminated area is an area where That's not the end point of CE 20 you process patients through.

21 the process.

22 Q So there is a continuous capability to treat, but

() 23 it would depend.in terms of its speed on the extent of the 24' injuries and the problems encountered by the emergency room 25 and emergency medical staff?

O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

l O

-' m

s - , .

0  ;' 1'

-)

01 '

• ~

p.48 4

, LogggGAN, et ; al . , P ANEL - CROS S - 23302

! O. 1 -l A (reelle)- res.

2 I think a lot depends on the-level of injury-a.d

' < 3 .the-level,-of' exposure to the patients.-

4 OL 5.

6 ;-c

.7,

-o; 81

.9' ,

Q;

-11' ,

12 13.

.14 E- .15:

l1b '

17 18;

o <' -

20-l 21 ' -

22~

23

_,=

24' 25 10 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O: '

m,

T n 'o p.49 LONERGAN, et al., PANEL - CROSS 23363

() ; 1 Q_

Is it your understanding, also, that if a much

[^ larger number than two or three individuals arrived ac St.-

3' ' Joseph's F.ospital, or'perhaps more accurately, you received (E 4 notice in advance that a large number of individuals wculd 5

arrive, additional rooms would be' set aside, walled off.and 6 discinguished as f acilities for which decontamination could (1 7 take place?

A (Peelle) Yes. I think that the plan is set up as 8

9 a guideline, and you have to adapt the plan to And I think the general principles of

()j 10 circumstances.

fil containment of radiation and the surveying of materials and 12 so forth could be applied to other areas of the hospital 13 just by expansion and.not by a change in the ' basic

()

14 operation.

Dr. Peelle, do you know if the upcoming training

< 15 .Q ill-16 , sessions referred to by Sister Paula and Sister Doris w

)

17 involve either yourself or either of the other two 18 radiologists-at the hospital?

19 .A (Peelle) Yes. I will be involved-in the general 20 supervision, and the other radiologists, I expect, will 21 participate if their work load allows in parts of the 22 training. They may not be involved in the entire walk-23- through exercise and the entire graded exercise.

24 Q Would you be likely, if you were the only one to 25 participate in that training, to communicate to the other O

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 O.

' ' ~ - - .. . . . . . . .. . , .

_j ;~

? Y

[i;., ,

4'.

P.50

[ ff; 23364

• LONERGAN, et al., PANEL ~- CROSS (y  :

1! radiologists any information that you viewed as crucial to ,

. 2- the operation of the hospital as a deconta=ination f acility?

MS. GRIER:- Objection. He's really asking him to 3_

I me an g) 4 speculate at-this point, "would he be likely if".

5' there- doesn' t appear to be any either duty or responsibility I think he's asking for a

\u 6 on this individual to do so.

7 totally speculative response.

().

JUDGE SMITH: I think he could ask the question 8

9 differently and still get the answer he's seeking.

10 In the normal course of your practice, would you 11 advise the other radiologists as to nuances in the training 12- that you felt that they should know about?

(Peelle) Yes. I mean, I've 13 THE WITNESS:

O. already--- I mean the initial plan was re' viewed with shem in 14 15 terms of where the patient entrance sites are, where P.he

- 16 decontamination areas are. I expect that they are all g 17 basically f amiliar with the procedures you go through to 18 - decontaminate a patient.

19 But the details of where they come into the I) 20 hospital, where materials are stored and so forth has-been 21 reviewed with them, and would be reviewed on a regular basis 22 if there were any changes in that.

() 23 BY MR. COOK:

24- Q And, Dr. Peelle, perhaps as a last question, how 25 would you rank or evaluate St. Joseph's Hospital in terms of O

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O.

-.___is- . , _ _ , , _

f D _ > .>' f, , : ,

P SI ,

.v ,

LONEEGAN, et al . , PANE 1, - CROS o 43365

,/-

1 its' resources for the treatment of the contar.inated injured

2. in the State of Massachusetts?

3 MS. GREER: Objection. No foundation. It's no:

0;c 4- clear at all that this witness has any knowleege of any s"^ d-* viduals 5 other hospitals or points of treatment for 6- in the State of Massachusetts.

7 JUDGE SMITH: Play the question back.

Oc B

'(Accordinglyr the court reporter played back 9 the pending question.)

JUDGE SMITH: What's the relevance of it anyway?

6 10 11 Foundation aside, what's the relevance of it?

12 MR. COCK: The relevance would be to establish la .that St. Joseph's Hospital not only has the necessary 0

14 resources to' treat people who are coming from a radiological

~ 15 plume, but also to show, since the Mass AG has questioned 16 the adequacy of those resources and adequacy is by its 17 nature a comparative evaluation, to examine whether those 18 resources-are'above a.certain norm,~or-below, or one of the 19 best, or one of the worst.

MS. GREER: If I may respond?

20 21 Adequacy, under our challenge, is not set up in 22 light of any'other emergency plan or any other comparative 23 point. It is adequacy in terms of providing reasonable 24 assurance in the event of a radiological emergency at 25 Seabrook. That is the level of adequacy and the standard of O'

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O'

s

- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ __ __ _ ' ~ - ' " ~ ~ - - ~ - _ - _ _ . _ , _ , _ _ ____ _

_.____._.__......____........=.....

7W p.52

- LCNERGAN, . et al . , P ANEL - CP.OS S 23366 1- 'adequacyfthat we are looking at.

2._ (The Board confers.)

JUDGE SMITH: Sustained. That was your last.

-3 4

~

. MR. ' COOK : Perhaps that was a bit --

5 JUDGE SMITH: That was prophetic.

6: MR. COOK: A bit too far.

7 Thank you.

l 8- JUDGE SMITH: Do you'have any redirect?

9 MS. GPIER: I do, and I believe also SAPL has sone 10 redirect.

11 JUDGE SMITH: Have you made any effor. to 12 consolidata=the cross-examination?

13 Now this is not something that is unique to SAPL's-S '14 intervention.-

l 151- MR. COOK: SAPL has.no-interest as far as we 16' understood,-at least it's net the sponsor of this testimony.

D 17 MS, DOUG'HTY: Well, we have-an interest in the

-18 general capability of host hospitals,as raised.in Contention 19 JI-46, and this testimony is going to affect.the. status of D 20 the litigation.of that contention, and therefore, that's our

.21' interest.

f 22 HR. COOK: But that was not. expressed in any of

=L

) 23 the previous discussions preceding MS-1 hospitals, and 24 especially when subpoenas were requested as far as examining 5

25 these three individuals.

.!W Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6281-4888

^

e; }7 .

, Li. t

()c s l'

p .~ 5 3 LONERGAN, et al., PANEL - CRCSS 2336"

. /f .

Well, these were not our witnesses-

.~

MS. DOUGHTY:

/ 1:

2 certainly, but we have cross-examined on the MS-1 hospitals. ,

3 JUDGE SMITH: Let me see your cross-exasination 4 plan.

(lai .MS. DOUGHTY: I didn' t have a cross-examination 5

and I I was going to ask some questions on recross, 6 plan.

b ~7 worked with Ms. Greer.

CF

-8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, what do you want to cover?

o 9 What has-to be covered?

10- MS, DOUGHTY: Well, Mr. Cook brought up the D' 11- question of the categories of patients that would be .

12 appearing for treatment at MS-1. hospitals. And I wanted to 13 ask Dr. Peelle a question about another distinction that I e C. 14' think is important.

15 JUDGE SMITH: And you couldn't have worked that 16 out with Ms. Greer.

E) 17-MS. DOUGHTY:. Well, maybe.we could if --

JUDGE SMITH: All right, go ahead.

Ask him.

18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION O' 20- sY Ms. DOUGHTY:

21 Q Dr. Peelle, isn't it also an important ,

22 distinction, in viewing contaminated patients, as to whether

-s

(3f 23 the contamination is internal or external?

24 A (Peelle) Yes.

25 Q And that has a significant impact on the types of O

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

.O

' I I!' " ' ' "i-p.54

. E/ : 23363

/

4 'LONERGAN, et al., PANEL - CROSS-are undertaken with respect to that patient?

1 . treatment that 2 A (Peelle) Yes.

. . in ---

Q' Now, assuming a. patient were brought 3-Well, that' just did not add one

.4 JUDGE SMITH:

5 thing to.the knowledge that this Board needs.

MR. C00K: 'In addition, Your Honor, the SAPL 6~

unlike the A::orney 7

cross-examination on MS-1-hospitals, I believe it is, a B

General's, which took-place on May 17th, 9 transcript 21568 and following, was limited only to the 10' nurters of contaminated individuals that could be 11 accommodated at St. Joseph's. And I believe that issue has 12 been discussed.

this will have to do with the

~

Well, 13 MS. DOUGHTY:

14-

' numbers, because I need to inquire of Dr. Peelle --

JUDGE SMITH: How, here. I'm going to give you 15 Just go-another chance, but get straight to the point.

16 17 straight to the witness and tell him what your concern is and ask the question.

Don't try to lay groundwork on this.

18 Just.go straight to it.

~

19 HS. DOUGHTY: Okay.

20 21 BY MS. DOUGHTY:

Dr. Peelle, if you were to receive an-influx of 22 Q that would pose

.23 ' patients who were internally contaminated, 24-more of a drain on the resources of the hospital and --

JUDGE SMITH: No external contamination.

25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

t.

\

t 4I

-_f.

3 c/

r p.55 j' . '

'[ .LONERGAN, et al., PANEL - CRCSS 23369

[;

1, MS. DCUGHTY: Well, perhaps external contamination 2 .was removed, but then they find out that there is 3 additionally internal contamination.

7 4- -

JUDGE' SMITH: And how does that person dif fer fro:-

1 5 the person that he's talked'about all morning?

l

.c 6l You know, the radiologically exposed person.

7 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, I just --

. , 8 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could-I assist everybody?

.9 JUDGE SMITH: No. That's enough cross-i 10' examination.

11 . MS . DOUGHTY:

Your Honor, he answered --

'12 MR. DIGNAN: Could I assist _-everybody by offering 13 to stipulate as follows, which I think is what we are

_m

? 14 'getting at here.

2 15 I Ln perfectly prepared to stipulate that I can 16 conceive of an accident'in'which the number of 3 17 radiologically contaminated people, who also were injured by 10 whatever source, I can. concede, will overwhelm the 19 capability of St. Joseph's, plus Brigham & Women's, plus the 23 20 two MS-1 hospitals. I concede of such an accident.

21 And I am wondering, does that end the need for any ,

22 more cross-examination?

3 23 MS. DOUGHTY: Dr. Peelle just answered that i,t 24 does affect the course of treatment as to whether --

25- MR. DIGNAN: Yes.

1

=

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

G

'9;'-

se/*

5 v.

,) -

' p.56 LONERGA1, et al., PANEL - CRCSS 233 I 1 MS. DOUGHTY: -- and the capacity --

(Nv }!

~

2 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, I'm saying, I'm saying, y:u na=e {

,i 3 it. I'll agree it's conceivable and it can overwhelm the 4 capacity. {

b) $ JUDGE SMITH: Let's don't do that. That's going l to take us de'<n a digression that is not necessary. l 6

7 Your cross-examination is, not adding anything that n

> 8 I can see to the general information that we have been  ;

9 provided today.

10 M3 DOUGHTY: I just asked --

O. 11 crDGE SMITH: And if you een't have semething 12 specific in mind, we are not going to waste their time.  ;

13 They are busy people. They have important things to do.

14 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, let me ask Dr. Peelle if he

(}

15 thinks that's an important distinction, as whether a patient ,

16 is internally or externally contaminated.

ni

. .w 17 MR. BACHMANN: That's been asked and answered v

18 about four times.

! 19 JUDGE SMITH: And he doesn't have to tell us. We L, 20 know that's an important distinction. We know that.

.Q-21 Isn' t that an important distinction, isn't it?

22 TEE WITNESS: (Peelle)- I agree. (

23 JUDGE SMITH: That's enough.

n.

lv' 24 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, I just also wanted to pursue 25 that with, does it affect the numbers of patients that could

?O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O-

[

f . p.57

• /,

A7f A LCNERGAN, et al., PANEL - CROSS 233 1

/ 1 be treated.

2 JUDGE SMITH: No more questions. No more.

3 MR. BACEMANN Your Honor, the Staff has one 4 question.

5 JUDGE SMITM All right.

6 MR. RACEMANNt Based on the prior examina-ion.

CROSS-EXAMINATICN

- 7 8 BY-MR. BACHMANN:

9 Q Dr. Peelle, I don't think this has specifically 10 been answered, and I hope I am not repeating myself.

11 But you talked about critically injured people, 12 and you defined that as people who needed L= mediate 13' attention or they would die.

14 Is thae correct?

15 A (Peelle, Yes.

16 Q Now, if such a person comes in and is also 17 cont aminat ed, do you have procedures to take care of that?

18 A (Peelle) Yes.

19 MR. BACEMANN: I have no further questions.

20 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE -

21 JUDGE COLE: Just one question, Dr. Peelle.

22 With respect to your colleagues in radiology, they

_ 23 are all physicians?

24 THE WITNESS (Peelle) Yes.

25 JUDGE COLE: There is board certification in 3

TE Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

)

+ '

p.58 23372 i

1 radiology?

m. , 2 TRE WITNESS: (Peelle) Yes.

, 3 JUDGE COLE: Are each of the radiologists with 4 whom you work at the hospital board certified?

5 THE WITNESS: (Peelle) Yes.

6 JUDGE COLE: How much training is involved in 7 getting to the stage of board certification in radiol:gy?

8 Mgw many years?

9 TEE WITNESS: (Peelle) Well, I'm not involved in

! 10 the current training. But when I did my training 11 approximately 15 years ago, it involved approximately three 12 months of full-time training during your residency to 13 satisfy the requirements.

14 JUDGE COLEt Is there any question in your mind 15, that a board certified radiologist physician would be' able 16 to handle contaminated injured or supervise the handling of 17 contaminated injured -- radiation contaminated injured is 18 the term we've used?

19 THE WITNESS: (Peelle) I think they should be.

20 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.

21 EXAMINATICN BY JUDGE MCCOLLOM 4

22 JUDGE MCCOLLOMt As a point of procedure, you have 23 one radiologist usually on duty at any one time.

24 Is that not correct?

25 THE WITNESS: (Peelle) Correct.

5 Beritage Reporting Corporation

, (202) 628-4888

Os p.38a  !

I 25251 j 1 And we thought we had made the point clear enough. It is l O 2 very difficult to -- in fact, to de quite frank with you, we l 3 didn't really -- the day of the exercise we had observers 4 out there and they observed that there was confusion and

'O 5 things of that nature going on. But it was hard for us to 6 figure out what the cause of that was until we actually 7 conferred with the participants in the exercise. )

O e s we were alleging that the observable results of 9 the problem, that there became a pot.nt at which we actually 1

10 discovered what the rouece of the problem was. And we made

]

n 11 off rt t keep that,from the Applicants.

O 12 And had they sought discovery we would certainly i l

13 have apprised them of what our concerns are.

14 JUDGE SMITH: Does Staff wish to be heard */ I 15 MS. CHAN: No, Your Honor, I think Mr. Cook has 16 covered the field.

l 17 (The Board confers.) l O-18 JUDGE SMITH: With respect to the training 1 19 questions and answers, the objection is sustained. The fair /lb s 20 reading of the SAPL EX-12 does not permit the inference that O 21 inadequate training is alleged.

22 Indeed, as a part of the Board's order accepting 23 the contention which throws some light as to our O' 24 understanding of the contention -- which wasn't picked up in t 25 the recapitulation of contentions -- on page 61 of our O' seritage m porting corporation .

(202) 628-4888

O

- _ --. -. . . - - . - - - ~ .- .. .. -- - . . _ _ -

u.  !

p.58 b 25252 l 1 memorandum and order of December 15th, on ruling on the

• j O 2 general exercise contentions, we did, as alleged, deny the l 3 scope aspects of the contention pointing out that there was 4 a very good representation of the center. j O s out as to the information aspects of sAPL xxercise 6 Contention 12 we stated thatt *SAPL argues that the flaws 7 in the execution of the plan were so pervasive and extreme l O s that a redraft of the respective plans for specificity and  ;

9 clarity is neMed."

10 It ted based up3n that clarification and comment g 11 that we fo.md that a fundamental flaw is being alleged. And l

12 there was no allegation that the flaws were attributable to 13 training; it was specificity and clarity in the plan that O

• • ***"**"* **"* ** """*' ****~' '

15 So for two reasons: one is the expressed ,

16 description of the contention by SAPL in its comments; and 17 the language of the contention itself. Two independent 18 reasons we grant the motion with respect to training.

19 Now what's the next argument?

20 MS, DOUGHTY: The next arguma'+ t , Your Honor, had O

21 to do with numbers and scope. The next particular complaint i 22 the Applicants have is with question 12 and its answer, 23 which is on page 4.

O-24 The Applicants argue that it's irrelevant that the j 25 fire fighters have an understanding of how many people are O seritage m. porting corporation (202) 628-48s8 W

O-

,.,,n., _ . , - - . , , , , , . , . _ , , y-.

4 ,-,.._,-....,,.,--_,w, . , . , ,, , , , . , .

O. ,

p.sse  ;

25261 [

1 contentions.

O 2 xn. coox: ze that 12 and 24, Your Honor?  ;

3 JUDGE SMITH: Twelve and 24, because they are 4 beyond the scope of the contentions in that the contentions O s did not fairly allege a flaw in the scope of the exercise.  :

t 6 2n addition, Question and Answer 12 is an '

7 allegation not related to flaws revealed by the exercise, I

O 8 but an allegation of other deficiencies.

So for those reasons, Question and Answers 12 and '

9 ,

10 Question and Answer 24 will not be received.

11 w w we , t the human behavior aspects, f O '

l 12 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes, Your Honor.

i 13 The first has to do with Question No. 8 which is 14 on page 3.

,0, 15 Now, we feel that this raises a situation and an l .

16 issue that is different from what has been litigated before 17 that. This is a situation in which certain local officials

+

'O 18 have agreed with and told other local officials that they l 19 are not responsible for participating in training exercises 20 and operations after the 28th of June.

!O-21 So this raises a novel issue of whether local 22 officials, who have been told by other local officials, or 23 have had it agreed with other local officials that they i O~

24 aren't even responsible for this function any longer, could 25 be counted on to respond.

O seritage m porting corporation (202) 628-4888

.O-

p.59 25527 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

ATOMIC SATETY AND LICENSING BOARJ In the Matter oft )

) Docket Nos.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL

~

NEW RAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL i ) OTT-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING EVIDENTIARY MEARING >

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 Auditorium 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 9

00 a.m.

BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

~

M GE RICHARD T. COLE, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

_7 Washington, D.C. 20555 1

4 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3

e

(}'

p.60 q BRETON, VAN GELDER - DIRECT 25535 1 (The Testimony of Captain (y 2 Daniel Breton and John Van 3 Gelder, Firefighters for the

~ 4 Town of Salem, New Hampshire 5 on Behalf of the Seacoast

()'

6- Anti-Pollution League, 7 Regarding SAPL' Contention

()_

8 EX-12 (Reception /

/ 9" Decontamination Centers) 10- followst)

() , 11 12 13 0

15 16 17

()

16 19 j- 20 21 22

().

24 25

'O '

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 C)L  :

p.61 BRETON, VAN CELDER - CROSS 25536 1 MS. DOUGHTY: The witnesses are available for l 2 examination.

3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. COOK 5 0 Good morning, gentlemen.

6 My name is Geoffrey Cook. I am one of the 7 attorneys for the Applicants in this prscoeding.

8 I would like to begin by asking just a few brief 9 questions about your prior experience as firefighters.

10 Mr. Breton, you have worked with the Salem Tire 11 Department for 17 years, is that right?

12 A (Breton) That's correct.

13 Q When were you made captain?

14 A (Breton)

I was made captain in -- I can't think 15 of the date. Approximately six years ago.

16 Q That would be about 19837 17 A (Breton) Correct.

18 Q Did you ever work as a firefighter for any other 19 town?

20 A (Breton) No, I didn't.

21 Q Who was the individual who first contacted you 22 about giving testimony in these proceedings?

3 23- A (Breton) I was contacted by Mr. Van Gelder 24 relative to Jane Doughty asking questions concerning the 25 proceedings . And he asked me if I could answer some

)

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9

[' . p.62 i

BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25538 f 1 A (Breton) I didn't agree to provide any testimony  !

2 until I was questioned. ,

3 Q Until you were questioned.

4 A (Breton) Until I was questioned.  :

} f 5 Q Okay. -

6 Mr. Van Gelder, you've worked with the Salem Fire  !

• J Department for 13 years, approximately, is that right?  ;

).

8 A (Van Gelder) That's correct.

9 Q But you testified that you left the department for 10 approximately 18 months,-from January 1982 to_ July 1983.

) 11 Is that also correct?

12 A (Van Gelder) That's correct.

13 Q For what reason did you leave the department at 14 that time?

P 15 A (Van Gelder) I had bought a business.

16 Q You operated your own business during the ,

17 intervening months?

^

18 A (Van Gelder) That's correct.

1 19 Q What was the nature of that business?

20 A (Van Gelder)

It was a grocery store and a gas 21 station.

22 Q ,Why did you return to the Salem Fire Department in 23 July of 19837 ,

'24 A (Van Gelder) There were a couple of reasons.

25 First of all, the long hours that I was putting in

)'

i Beritage Reporting Corporation l

(202) 628-4888 o

'!. ( {

y  :

p.63  ;

BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25539 i s ,_

1 at the grocery store.  !

2 And second of all, I've been a firefighter in-3 Salem for seven years, and previous to that I was a 4 firefighter in Lynnfield, Mass, for five years.- And after  !

) 5 getting out of the service for 18 months, I realized that 6 this is the profession I want to be in, that I really .

7 enjoyed it and that I missed it. j k 6 Q Mr. Van Gelder, you say that there are 40 f 9 firefighters and 20 officers in the Salem Tire Department. l i

10 Is that correct?

)- 11 A (Van Gelder) That's correct. 'i 12 Q Mr. Breton, would you know, does Salem have any 13 reserve firefighters? ,

) 14. A (Breton) No, they don't.

15 Q They don't.

16 A (Breton) However, the number you have has

17. increased recently, and there are now 43 firefighters.

18 Q And are the officers available in time of  ;

19 emergency to provide assistance for actual firefighting as j

) 20 well? l 21 A (Breton) Yes.  ;

22 Q Yes.

)' 23 Mr. Breton, you have the ability under state ,

24 statute to conscript the services of persons during an [

25 emergency, is that right?

DL Beritage Reporting Corporation *

(202) 628-4888 O- r m . ~ - - . , - . ,,

J p.64 BPETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25545 1 center.

2 Is that correct?

3 A (Breton) Sir, I don't know who was assigned 4 responsibilities for management.

5 0 You don't know. Okay.

6 Do you recall, perhaps from speaking with 7 individuals, how many DPMS supervisors were present at the B exercise?

9 A (Breton) No.

10 Q You wouldn't know, then, the precise 11 responsibilities assigned to the DPMS supervisors?

12 A (Breton) No, sir.

13- Q Mr. Breton, did you attend while you were there a 14 DPHS monitoring supervisors briefing?

15 A (Breton) No.

16. To my recollection, what we did when we arrived we D'

17 had a --

IB Q Right. I just wanted to ask did you attend the 19 briefing.

D 20 A (Breton) No. No.

21 Q - okay.

22 Mr. Breton, if I can ask you for a moment to D

23 assume that you and your men were performing monitoring and 1

24 decontamination operations in a real radiological emergency, 25 and that you receive notice of a house fire in Salem while p .-

Beritage Reporting corporation (202) 628-4888 D'

___..___.______.___m._______.______.______.m___._______._._____________m___.___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _. _ __ _

i

) <

1 p.65 ,

BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25346  !

1 you were at the Salem High School. .

2 You would not send all of the firefighters that '!

3 you had.with you at the Salem High School to save the 4 burning house, would you?  !

5 A (Breton) I would send whatever the response  !

, 6 recommendation was. And if my entire crew was at that i 7 location and my entire crew was supposed to be on that '

8 response recommendation, I would see to it that that 9 response recommendation was carried out.

l 10 t 11 12 i 13  ;

) 14 15 '

16 O

17  !

18  ;

19 .

O-20 .

21 l

22 -

.v

./'

I23

• 24 -

l 25 9

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 D: -

2_4---- , - - . . .

U - p.66 BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25547 1 Q Now, if you were in charge of the entire 2 complement of personnel including Hutual Aid Firefighters 3 from other towns at the high school, though, would it be 4 necessary to send the entire complement to answer a single 5 alarm fire?

6 A (Breton) It would depend on where -- if our 7 vehicler and manpower are at the scene of the reception

! 8 center, then whatever the response is -- if that's where all 9 of our manpower and equipment is, and whatever the response 10 would call for, for this particular house fire, would be 11 what we would have to send.

12 And the response is, if it calls for two engines 13 and a truck company, then that would be the response we

=

14 s3nd. And whatever the crews -- we set our people up as 15 part'of a crew -- wherever they were assigned -- if they 16 were assigned to, let's say Engine 1, they would respond to m

17 Engine 1 and go to the house fire.

18 We can't compromise the safety of the rest of our 19- town to this particular incident.

o 20 Q Right.

21 A (Breton) We still have to manage other incidents.

22 MR. COOKt Your 2:enor, may I have just a moment to J 23 consult, please.

24 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.

25 (Counsel conferring. )

3 Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088

p.67 BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25548 1 HR. COOK We have no further questions, Your D

2 Monor.

3 JUDGE SMITH: Does the Staff have questions?

4 MS. CRAN: Yes, Your Honor.

D 5 I believe you have the Staff's cross-examination 6 plan before you.

7 CROSS-EXAMINATION D

8 BY MS. CRAN:

9 0 Good morning.

10 My name is Elaine Chan, I'm counsel for the NRC D

11 Staff.

12 Captain Breton, do you have any experience or 13 specialized training for the judging of the adequacy of the D'

14 radiological emergency response exercise?

15 A (Breton) Yes. I feel I have enough training.

16 First of all, 17 years of experience on the fire D

17 department. At least nine of those years in command 18 position.

19 I have a folder here with my schooling and that B

20 type of stuff, if you would like that.

21 What I'm trained to do is, and what my schooling 22 teaches me is, I'm trained to evaluate a situation, an B

23 amergency situation and try to determine the manning 24 requirement for it; the equipment; mitigate the incident, 25 hopefully, with as little property loss and little life loss D.

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9-

! p.68 BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25549 1 as possible. Essentially, that is what my job is.

2 O I see.

3 Have you ever evaluated a FEMA graded radiological

.., 4 emergency exercise?

D 5 A (Breton) Officially?

6 Q Yes?

? A (Breton) No, I haven't.

8 Q And you, Mr. Van Gelder, do you have any 9 specialized experience regarding -- judging the adequacy of 10 a FEMA graded exercise response?

D' 11 A (Van Gelder) No, I don't.

12 Q Captain Breton, you said that you were the shift H13 ' commander the day of the exercise; is that correct?

D' 14 A (Breton) That's correct.

15 . Q. And according to page 5 of your testimony the 16 response to question-15 which was: "What portions of the D'

17 exercise were you there for?"

18 You responded: "I was there at the beginning to 19' set' things up, but I was not there for the monitoring and D'

20- decontamination."

21 A (Breton) Yes, that's right.

22 Q Also on page 6 of your testimony, your response to-23: question 17 which was: "Were you able to get all the 24 equipment in place?"

25 You responded: "When I left all the equipment was D;

Beritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 9:

p.69 BP.ETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25555 1 which is a more general question.

2 If she is withdrawinti the earlier question.

3 JUDGE SMITH: It's a new question and she can ask 4 it the way she wants to. That was all right. She asked it 5 fine.

6 THE WITNESS: (Breton) I was referring to

[ 7 manpower. I was referring to other things, also.

8 BY MS. CHAN:

9 Q so later in the question in the last sentence you 10 state: "In essence, we just don't have the manpower to pull 11 it off the way it should be pulled off."

12 You were referring again to: "Our scope is 13 extremely limited." And it was a question of lack of 3

14 manpower to do what you thought was necessary?

= 15 A (Breton) Lack of manpower and lack of training.

16 Q Mr. Van Gelder, on page 8 of the testimony your 3 17 response to question 28.

18 The question was: "How long did it take them to 19 set up for evacuees to come through the facility?"

20 Do you recall how long it took you to set up?

=

~

21 A (Van Gelder) I can look back on the log and tell

<a 22 you.

23 (Witness reviewing document.)

24 Q Would it assist you, I understand on page 9 of 25 your testimony the response to question 32: "According to 9

N Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i

h

. - ~ _ .

h I

, t k  !

p.70 BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25556 f

1 the log at 1632 the chief requested that the EOC be notified L

2' of the opening of the decontamination and reception 4

3' centers."

4 4 So 1 assume it must have been set up sometime '

5 prior to that time?  !

6 A (Van Gelder) That's correct.

7 I was looking in the log for the estimated time of 8 the opening. I believe it was supposed to be around 1300 i

9 hours; it did not open up until 1632. '

i 10 Q I see. I 11 But was it set up before you notified the EOC that I 12 it was ready? i 13 A (Van Gelder) In it's entirety?

?- t 14 Q Yes?

15 A CVan Gelder) No.

16 Q Was it set up some time before you notified the ,

17 EOC that it was ready?

18 A (Van Gelder) At approximately 1632 the equipment 19 was in place and that's when the notification was made, h 20' Q On your response to that same question on page 8, 21 question 28, you state: "That a lot of evacuees were ,

22 standing outside the doorway for a couple of hours waiting i 23 to get inside."

24 Can you explain the reason for the line?

25 Was it because there were processing delays due to Reritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

Y

p  !

p.71 l

BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25557  !

I 1 the shortage of personnel that were called away to the fire?

2 A (Van Gelder) The people were standing outside 3 waiting to be processed through, but the evacuation center i i

y 4 wasn't set up yet. I 1

5 Q- So this was prior to 16327  ;

i 6 A (Van Gelder) This is correct.  ;

-7 We didn't have the manpower to operate this. In 8 the meantime we received a couple of fire calls that we had  :

9 to respond to, which we left the center empty. )

10 Q Oh, 1 see. I

)

11 This was prior to 1632, also? ,

12 A (Van Gelder) That's correct.

13 Q So that sometime prior to the completion of set up 14 all the firefighters had to leave on various fire calls?  !

15 A (Van Gelder) That's correct. '

't 16 All the Salem firefighters; all except for three 17 that remained at the center because that wasn't -- they 18 weren't on the running cards as a response to the incident.

19 Q Are you referring to the Henry Street fire when 20 you say, all but three firefighters had to leave? j 21 A (Van Gelder) Henry Street would be one of them; 22 yes.

23 Q But there were other fires that called people away 24 before the setup of the center was complete?

25 A (van Gelder) That's correct.

Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

}  !

L. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . - . - _ _ . . . _ , . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . . _ . , . _ _ . . _ , _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _

_ _ _ . _ __ .~ , _ __.

l

.: i

p.72 l l

BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25559 l 1 Going back to your response to question 28, the C) t 2 last sentence of your response you say: "A lot of buses ,

3 that showed up later in the day were just turned around and [

4 sent back."  ;

-() I 5 A (Van Gelder) That's correct.  !

6 0 What was your understanding of the reason why that [

['

7 occurred?

'O 8 A (Van Gelder) Why that occurred was, at 6:00 p.m.  !

9 at night we had change of shifts. At 6 o' clock the night l 10 crew came on and the buses were waiting outside. By the 11 time we had the new shifts in place and they were told what 12 they were supposed to be doing, by the time that process .-

13 took place they felt that it would have been taking too O 14 long, so they just sent everybody home.

15 Q I see.

i 16 Were you aware that the exercise was terminated at '

17 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br />? -

18 A (Van Gelder) Yes, I am.

L 19 That decision was made when all firefighters had .

O' 20 to leave the scene at 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br /> and swapping crews, t 21 22 g.

23 24 [

25 O

Beritage Reporting Corporation  ;

(202) 628-4888 O --

=__

p.73 BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25560 1 Q Can you tell us approximately how many O 2 firefighters would be available from the other six towns 3 involved in their mutual aid agreements?

4 A (Van Gelder) I couldn't give you an exact count.

5 2 did some research at the time to find out who woold be 6 responding from the surrounding communities. And we're 7 right on the Mass border, and our normal mutual aid 8 companies would be coming from the southern part of New 9 Hampshire. And in Mass, it would be Methuen and Lawrence.

10 They will not respond to anything that has to do with the 11 Seabrook incident.

12- The towns that are north of us are mostly call 13 tiepartment s .

14 Q Excuse me.

15 They are mostly?

16 A (Van Gelder) Call department, volunteer.

'() 17 Q Oh.

18 A (Van Gelder) And there is no way of telling how 19 many you would get.

Ci 20 JUDGE SMITH: Do the Hass departments respond in 21 the event of a fire?

22 THE WITNESS: (Van Gelder) Yes, they will.

-o-j 23 After checking with the locals down in Mass, they 24 have been told they won't respond to any evacuation plans in 25 Seabrook. This came from the union officials in Methuen, d

Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

O

~

o ~

p.74 BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25561 1 BY HS, CHAN:

2 Q And in case of a fire, how many could you count on 3 from Massachusetts if you needed additional help?

4 A (Van Gelder) Unlimited.

5 0 Unlimited?

6 A (Van Gelder) Yes, we can keep on calling all the 7 way to Boston.

8 To finish the statement about the towns north of 9 us, well, Windham has two perraanent men on duty. We may 10 receive -- you know, they would send a vehicle over.

11 Beyond that, you couldn't have a guarantee on how 12 many people you are going to receive.

13 Q On page 7 of your testimony, Answer 22, you were 14 presented with some information from the finsi FEMA exercise 15 report ?

16 A (Van Gelder) That's correct.

D 17 Q And your response was, "I do not feel it 18 accurately reflects what went on."

19 Was your opinion on the effectiveness of the D-20 exercise related to the shortage of firefighting personnel 21 available to do the things that you understood were assigned 22 to be done?

D.

23 A (Van Gelder) Well, as far as the firefighter 24 personnel, there were only 15 of us that aren't going to be 25 there during -- we have an agreement with the town that we D-Baritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 B.

L . .

)-

p.75 BRETON, VAN GELDER - CROSS 25562 y 1 don't have to respond until we receive further training and 2 make an agreement with Seabrook on this.

3 Right now the firefighters feel that the way they 4 came into town and started giving us our training, we asked 5 a bunch of questions to the people that were giving us our 6 training, and asked where they were from. We asked is this 7 directly related to Seabrook.

8 The general consensus is we were lied to by the 9 trainers that came in and trained us during this process.

10 They were there under the pretence that it was going to be a 11 hazardous material exercise not directly related to 12 Se abrook .

13 The training was inadequate for what they were 14 expecting us to do at the scene. And as of right now, if 15 there is an incident that takes place, we are under no 16 obligation as the Brotherhood of Salem Firefighters to 17 respond to that high school End do any kind of 18 decontamination whatsoever.

. 19 Q Is this based on --

O.

20 A (Van Ge'ider) This is based on a memorandum of 21 agreement that's between the Brotherhood of Salam 22 Firefighters and management.

O 23 MS. CHAN: I have no further questions at this 24 time. Thank you.

25 O

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O

O p.76 25563 0 1 ExxxzNAT2 N av JUDGE COLE 2 JUDGE COLE: Gentlemen, on page 3 of your 3 testimony, Question and Answer 7, you were asked, "How many 4 Salem firefi9 ht*r8 8 tu&lly Participated in the June 1988 0

5 graded exercise?"

6 And you stated, "A total of 15 Salem

' *Sht*"

O 8 And you further state that they were all on-duty 9 firefighters and no off-duty fizefighters responded.

O

• U **** th' "~d"*Y '*****'ht*** * "t****di 11 THE WITNESS: (Van Gelder) Yes, Your Honor.

12 JUDGE COLE: Did they refuse to participate?

O

• • *** *******' ("*" ****") * "" " " "' * "Y 14 knowledge, it was dispatch who called every on-duty 15 firefighter. Also, what we call a box was sent, which is a 16 tone that's put out over the radios. Most of the 17 firefighters have pagers, and a tone would go off, and the 18 announcement would be made.

19 I don't know -- I didn't speak to the dispatcher 20 about it. I don't know if there were actual refusals to 21 come in or if they were just, gee, I have other things to do 22 type thing. Nobody responded.

23 (Witnesses confer.)

24 THE WITNESSt (Breton) Did anybody show up?

25 THE WITNESS: (Van Gelder) Nobody responded.

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

CY- p.77 25564 1 JUDGE COLE: Did they know what the nature of the Q,,

2 request was?

3 Did they know it was a Seabrook drill?

4 THE WITNESSt (Van Gelder) Yes, they did.

5 JUDGE COLEt All right, thank you.

6 THE WITNESS: (Van Gelder) They were also paying 7 firefighters time and half to come in off duty to respond, O.~

8 and they still received absolutely nobody.

9 They knew this drill was coming down a few days 10 thead of time, and the firefighters discussed it. And even 11 at time and a half, they wouldn't show up for these things.

'12 JUDGE COLEt All right. Thank you.

13 Captain Breton, in answer to Question 16, 14 indicating that in your opinion there wasn't enough manpower 15 to do the task that was assigned to you, you said you did 16 the best with the 15 people you had.

() 17 Now, there were 30 firefighters, is that correct?

18 Tifteen from your group and 15 from outside; is that 19 corre ct?

() 20 THE WITNESS: (Breton) No, Your Honor. We didn't 21 have -- -

22 (Witnesses confer.)

( 23 THE WITNESS: (Breton) Your Honor, when I was 24 there, I didn't have the other 15 people yet. I left early 25 from the exercise.

.O.

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O'

maw..... .m.m...w..-

O p.70

{

25567 1 incident you are working with. And you have to kind of take l C,

2 it from there. So you don't know what to expect from these i 3 people, i 4 So as these out-of-town people are coming into the  !

C)- '

5 reception center, we don't know what level they are, what 6 they understand they are supposed to do. j 7 so now if I'm responsible for setting these things C) -

8 up and I don't know what they are capable of, it's just i

9 going to take that much longer because you have to explain [

10 it to them and, you know. It's difficult to explain because

.O l 11 I have to know where this person is at to be able to assign i 12 him to a particular function; you know, what he knows.

l 13 JUDGE COLE: I think I understand you. -

O~

14 THE WITNESS: (Van Gelder) May I say something?

15 JUDGE COLE: Sure.

16 THE WITNESS: (Van Gelder) After contacting a 4 10 l

i 17 couple of the' individuals in the Pelham and Windham Fire 18 Departments, they had received no training whatsoever in 19 radiological decontamination. '

'O 20 So these are individuals who were responding to 21 our town that had no idea what was even going on. And for l 22 the Captain to have them perform a service or a duty,

!O 23 basically he would have to train them at the time that they 24 are there.

25 JUDGE COLE: Okay. ,

'O Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 lO r

p.79 i

25572 1 JUDGE COLE: So in another exercise or emergency, 2 how would that equipment be transported? How would it be 3 loaded and transported? Would that be your responsibility, 4 your group?

5 THE WITNESS: (Breton) No. Nobody had ever

.6 mentioned anything to us about transportation.

7 The last I knew there was supposed to be a truck 8

8 parked in the back of the fire station, and this truck is a 9 vehicle that had all the equipment that we needed to open 10 and maintain the reception center decontamination center.

9 11 But I haven't seen that truck or the equipment since the 12 graded drill.

13 JUDGE COLE: Thiu concern you had or request you 9

14 made about how the truck was to be loaded for convenience 15 and unpacking, did you arciculate your request in writing or 16 was it verbally?

9-17 THE WITNESS: (Breton) We verbally -- what we 18 would do its critique the situation. After the nongraded 19 and everything, we critique these, bring our request and let O

20 eur fire chief know about the problems we had had. And he 21 had assured -- excuse me, please.

22 (Witnesses conferring.)

9-23 THE WITNESS: (Breton) Excuse me, Your Honor.

24 I lost my train. I forgot what you had asked me.

25 JUDGE COLE: Well, about the coordination of the O

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 C)

4 3- p.80 BRETON, VAN GELDER - RrDIRECT 25576

^

1 despite Ms. Chan's -- I mean, it's not in the contention, so

~_

2 even if you get the answer it's not going to de you any 3 good. It simply is not in the contention.

4 BY MS. DOUGHTY:

Captain Breton, in response to a question from 5 Q 6 Judge Cole you mentioned that you were not able to ascertain 7 who is in. charge or how things were to be set up. And this 8 is even after you have looked at the plan, the plan has not 9 made that clear to you?

10 A (Breton) No, the plan isn't that clear and we

~

11 don't go over it constantly.

s 12. I guess you have to know the players. When we're 13 working with procedures we know all the players, and to all 14 of a sudden be put into an unfamiliar area we don't know any 15 of the players.

16 So if the plan says that so and so from or that C) 17 this particular title is supposed to be in charge of the 18 operation or certain portions of it, we don't know where to 19 find them or who they are, that type of thing. It's

! C) . 20 confusing.

21 And I'm not saying that the whole plan is terrible 22 and everything else. I'm just saying there are parts to I) - 23 that plan that are just very confusing for the people who 24 are trying to work with it.

q 25 Q So improvements could be made?

$)-

9 '

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 0:

39' ,

,t -

p.81~

BRETON, VAN GELDER - REDIRECT 25579 4

-1 h~ fire scene, we respond. I mean, we've responded to-Lowell 2+ before; we have responded all over the place. And it's the 3 same thing with other towns. You don't necessarily have to 4 be'in;an agreement, but if you call to enlist their help 5 5 they will send apparatus. We have never.gotten turned down.

6 And this type of a-thing where this equipment just 7 responds, our dispatch has a list of towns and cities that 8 ,w normally use-and it's kind of a domino effect.

9 What everybody has to realize is that because of 10 this domino effect, when you call and enlist a town for 7

11 help,. okay, let's say we're having a large fire over here.

12 It's. kind of like the spokest of the wheel. If you enlist 13 town help out here, that affects-their ability to take care 14~ of their own situations. So they may have to enlist

?

j 15' somebody's help out here.-

16 And depending on the sizeLof the emergency and how 17 critical it is, how many people are involved, how large the 18 fire is, if it's a mass casualty incident or what not, 10 that's going to determine how far that mutual aid affects --

7 r

20 the cal 1~for that mutual aid affects -- the area that it 21 ' af fects .

i 22 What's real important to know is that, somebody 3

23 had brought up the fact that we had left the scene of the 24 reception. center to go to a fire call, but there were mutual

~25 aid people who were still there.

Beritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888

_3

2 A_ p.82 BRETON, VAN GELDER - REDIRECT 25580 1 Had we had a larger fire or had they had to n ;

2 respond to a fire in their own town, things may have been.

3 different. If we had a larger fire, we would have had to 4 ' enlist their help and their equipment to come over to our 5 fire.

6 I was informed that they didn't bring equipment 7 with them. In f act, . they didn't;' they came in their own a

I 8 cars from out-of-town, which may have affected -- if that's 9 the case it may have affected what equipment could be 10 brought to us for our particular fire.

11- What everybody has to realize is, because if 12 Seabrook has an incident and we're required to open up our i 13 decontamination center, the Seabrook incident to us is not a 14 major incident. He're not_seeing what's happening in 15 Seabrook.- We're getting the people out of Seabrook.

16 They're evacuating and they're brought into our town. We 4D*

17 still have to maintain and take care of our people, our 18 residents. We still have fire protection to maintain, EMS

. 19 rescue, all those things that we do every day.

y' 20 JUDGE SMITH: Captain,'I think you're going a 21 little bit beyond Mr. Fierce's question now.

22 His question: the domino effect I think did intend 1F 23 to answer his question. I wish you would return'to the

1. 24 subject matter.

25 9

Beritage Baporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

=.

p.83 BRETON, VAN GELDER - REDIRECT 25581

_ 1 BY MR. FIERCE:

2- Q Well, -the focus- of my question would be, if you 3- ' contacted a. mutual aid community in Massachusetts, say 4 Lawrence, and.they had already been called by Salisbury, you 5 wouldn't be expecting them to come across the state line and 6 help you in Salem first, would you?

f 7 A (Breton) No, not if Salisbury had their manpower.

8 I mean, I can't answer that because I don't know 9 how --

10 JUDGE SMITH: The idea he is getting across, 11 Captain, is: assuming that the Massachusetts Fire 12 Departments would respond in a radiological emergency, 13 although you said that they would not, but assuming that-14' they would, wouldn't it be the fact that if the other towns 15 in the EPZ in Massachusetts had already requested mutual aid 16' from these towns, it would not be available to you?

17 I think that's the idea, isn't it?

18 THE WITNESS: (Breton) And that is correct.

'19 MR. FIERCE: Thank you.

_)

20= JUDGE SMITH: Anything-further?

21 (No response) 22 JUDGE SMITH: All right.

3 23 Thank you very much for coming. You're excused.

=

q 24 (The witnesses were excused.)

25

)

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

-)

hQnk :&h7 Q[ 'llb;,'?,$('g

)

j ~

p.84 27647 l' JUDGE SMITH: Dr Burrows?

2 Mr. Trout, we'll take up,.if you don't mind, Dr.

3. Burrows.

.4 4 -MR. TROUT Th{t would be fine, Your Honor.

5 HR. TROUT Your Honor, Applictate would move that D, 4 6 the entire piece of testimony be exclud'ed. The testimony 7 divides itself into two portions, 8 . Applicants would argue that tr.e entire testimony, D

9 both the first -

4et me just characterize the portions.

10 The first portion running from page 2 through the top of 11 page 4, ending at the end of answer 6 is generally a EI 12 criticism of the TEMA MS-1 guidance and just saye that it's 13' not good.enough. It doesn't really explain why, but just 14 says it's not good enough.

I 15. The second portion of the testimony beginning -

'16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it does say some of why.

17 It says, you can get it even if it does not have D. 18 its own nuclear medicine service; is there reason.

19- But go ahead. Is that your point?

20 MR. TROUT No, Your Honor, that wasn't my point.

p 21 JUDGE SMITH: All right.

22 HR. TROUT: The second: portion of the testimony at 23 pages 4 through 6 addresses the reception canter g- 24 decontamination and post-decontamination process; and is 25 centered on the argument that a portable pulse height D Beritage Itaporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

l D

et s

p.85' 27660 1 So that's the first problem I have, that the 2 distinction that shes trying to draw in order to turn this 3 .into rebuttal testimony is not a valid distinction on the 4 f ace of the testimony itself.

5 The second problem that I have is, as Ma. Doughty 6 has herself pointed out, the procedure for putting people an 7 the tracking program, if there have been three B decontamination anu it's failed, is'right in the

-O:

9 implementing procedures. It's been in there since 1988.

=

10 There has been no change in the plan, let alone a late 11 change of the plan.

O' 12 All Mr. Callendrello did on cross-examination was 13 answer a question and refer the person who is questioning

14 him, I presume it-was Ms. Doughty, refer her to the existing

-( 15 procedures. ,

16 And so, again, I just think this is testimony that

_ 17 could have and should have been filed originally.

C" 1B ' JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's break it up into --

19 MR. TROUT: Assuming that it goes to the s 20 contention.

33 21. JUDGE SMITH: Let's break it up into smaller

[ 22' thought bites.

23 MR. TROUT: Okay.

O' .' 24 JUDGE SMITH: You disagree with Ms. Doughty that 25 it was not until Mr. Callendrello was cross-examined that 0: seriteg. m porting corporation (202) 628-4888 iO M

- . .m.-------- - . - - - - -

p.86-

)! .

1

• Injured individuals who may be contaminated or 2 ' overexposed," those two phrases define the injured i

}'

3 individual.

4 MR. TROUT Your Honor --

5 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, it's always injured. They.all 6 have to be traumatically injured.

7 MR. TROUT It's the distinction, Your Honor. If 8 there is some ambiguity in the plan at 3.8.1, I respectfully 9 suggest that that ambiguity is clarified by the Implementing

-10 Procedures where you have that distinction sharply drawn 11 between the traumatically injured and the rest of the r ,

12 radiologically injured, and that's in Implementing Procedure 13 . 2. 9, the' difference between 5.2.15 where we send them to the 14 RRA and then to the MS-1 hospital.

15 And 5.2.16, these are the nontraumatically 16- injured, radiologically injured. people, who -we send to the 17 RHA and enroll in the screening program.

18- And then if you look at the RHA's procedures you 19' ~see he may prescribe follow-up treatment.

20 JUDGE SMITH: We're dealing here with, when you J 21 stop to think about it, four classes subsets of people..

22 Under 5.2.15, anybody who arrives at the 23 monitoring station injured.

p 24 MR. TROUT: Yes, traumatically injured.

25 JUDGE SMITH: Traumatically injured. Physically

) Beritage 30 sporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

.s ..-

5 g87 l' hospitalisation, yes.

3 2 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.

MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor?

3 4 JUDGE SMITH: That does seem to be what ' it says.

4 5 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay.

6 JUDGE SMITH: And see if you can road'us anything 7 which does not fit into that logical, that scheme of --

g -8 MS DOUGHTY: Right.

9 There may be some inconsistency between the plan 10 and procedures, because the second paragraph says,-

11 " Emergency care ~~-

12 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, I hate to interrupt.

13 But even if there is an inconsistency-between the 14- plan and the procedures, that inconsistency existed a year 15 ago, too.

16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it may be. I don't know. But

-s.

17 if the plan --

_g -

=

18 MS. DOUGHTY: I agree that it's inconsistent.

-3 19- MR. TROUT And it's not as though that Mr.

-t

-L +

~20 Callendrello -- again, it's not something that came up'on

-O[' 1.-

21- April 2*1th.

--[f 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, now we've got-pretty much O

jf ,

~23 agreement on the part of the Board members and most of the 24 people in the room, not all of them, that the scheme calls 25 for only traumatically injured people to go the MS-1 Baritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

p.88 2766*

1 hospital.

2 , MR. TROUT Automatically.

3 JUDGE SMITH: Automatically.

4 MS. DOUGHTY: Your Honor, could I just argue one 5 last point here?

6- Because it says emergency --

• / JUDGE SMITH: No, wait a minute. Wait a minute, f.( 8 Just-give me a minute..

O? ' s MS. DOUcHTY: sure.

-10 (The Board confers.)

11 JUDGE SMITH: That seems to be the consensus of 12 the Board and the people across the room from you.

13 MS. DOUGHTY: I guess I'm not --

JUDGE SMITH:

14- By virtue of the operation of the 0 1s plan, hefore they go to the Ms-1 hospital, they have to have 16 a traumatic injury.

17 Now it's -your opportunity to show why that isn't-O .18 the case-and point to things that do not fit into that 19- scheme of. logic.

20 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay.

O 21 Again, I fail back mainly on the second paragraph 22 at 3.8.1, which refers to emergency care, and that couldn't 23 be talking about just being put in a screening program.

y 24 To me, it implies medical care, because it falls 25 under whole rubric of hospital services. And I read the

"*****'* ** Porting Corporat. ion O' (202) 628-4888 1

Of

4 , ,

p.89 276S6-

~1 . language as consistent with the Commission's regulations in 2 .the FEMA guidance when it goes on and says,= " Emergency. care

3. ,

for contaminated individuals includes the general public as 4 well as amergency workers, and covers those members of the 5 general public who are suspected to have been overerposed or 6 who cannot be decontaminated at designated reception-

.7 centers."

B- Now those people who cannot be decontaminated, I 9 assumed, because they fell under this rubric of medical 10 hospital services, would get emergency care, which again 11 implied " hospital", to me .

~

12 MR. TPh"T: Your Honor, all that that paragraph 13 says is that the medical services are available for those 14 persons. It doesn't say that they are automatically going 15 to be sent there.

16 And, in fact, the plan, when you look at the 17 implementing procedure, says for one subset of the whole 18- class of contaminated injured, the big umbrella group, one 19 class, the traumatically injured are going to get sent

( 20 automatically to.the MS-1 hospitals.

.1

21. The rest are going to be sent to the RHA, and the 22 RHA decide what kind of follow-up treatment they receive.

23 And that could include --

_I 24' JUDGE SMITH: Mould you address her point about

.25 emergency care?

=

) Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

g

': !- 276WD90 "1 or overexposed- will. be transporteef from reception; centers."

2- And as a chorustof people lead by Mr. Turk pointed i

g 3 out, injured modifies both contaminated and overexposed in 4; that sentence,.and we agreed with it.

5 Injured as a modifier, injured-individuals are:

-6 those who may be injured individuals and contaminated, and 7 ' injured individuals who are_ overexposed.

8 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay.

9 JUDGE SMITH: So there is where the procedure 10 differs from the paragraph above.

11 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay.

12 It could be read that way, or you could read the 13 words " injured individuals" to just be a. continuation of the 14 definition of contaminated injured individuals as it flows 15 from above --

16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, that's your reading of it.

17 IG . DOUGHTY: -- which is how I read it.-

16 JUDGE SMITH: I think we-are coming down to,where

~

19 -we have the decision point now, I think.

20 And so far, tho' entire scheme- of events that we

21 have read is consistent with only traumatically injured 1

22- people, traumatically injured people go, by-virtue of 23 procedures, to the hospital automatically, by procedure.

24- (The Board confers.)

25 MS. DOUGHTY: I guess, Your Honor, I would just Beritage Reporting Corporation

) (202) 628-4888 or

T' 2

+J M ( W 50htC I p.91 27692 1- But, nevertheless, that isn't the standard we can 2- apply. No have to apply the clear meaning of the plan, andi 3- -we do believe that the meaning is clear, although difficult.

4 Unfortunately, that's the way of-the world 5 sometimes.

6 MS. DOUGHTY: And I guess I would also ask the

w 7 Board to take into consideration whether that this plan is a i_ 8 good plan.

9 JUDGE SMITH: Now let's move to that. I don't 10 know if_we can get to that.

11 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay.

12 JUDGE SMITH: But now we have to decide the 13 timeliness issue and, of course, I think that we have 14 necessarily arrived at the conclusion that you are out of 15 time and we also were not giving you credit for good cause i

_ a 16' for being out of time, because although in good faith and 17 with intelligent reading, no question about that, you 18 arrived at a conclusion to the contrary, understandably.

19 Nevertheless, the language being clear, _ when 20 understood, when studied, does not afford us a reason to N 21 -find good cause for your late understanding.

=_ 22 Okay, you understand where we are now?

23 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes.

3 24 JUDGE SMITH: Now we have to address whether other 25 reasons prevail for accepting this-testimony. Otherwise, it

) Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

, 4

_ . p.92' 3; 27693

1. will be:very late and we can't accept it.

1 s 2- All right?

j

3. MS. DOUGHTY: I'would say that --

4 JUDGE SMITH: It's a good idea, i 5 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, we_couldn't find, I don't 11 , 6 think,_a muchxmore distinguished or knowledgeable witness-7 than Dr. Burrows and with greater expertise in these 8- matters. He has over 40 years of experience in

-9 radionuclides and the practice of nuclear = medicine.

j 10 And I can tell you that he feels that this is not 11 adequate for the reasons set forth in his testimony. And in g _12 the spirit of trying to offer a suggestion as to what could 13 help' address, at least in part, this problem, he's made a l

] 14 concrete suggestion. And I have misplaced my copy of his

'15 testimony.

16 Excuse me a minute while I search.

-17 (Pause . )

\ 18- MS. DOUGHTY: Oh, here it.is.

_]

19 It appears from Mr. Ca11endre11o's' testimony that-j4 20* the Applicants are operating under the assumption that there

= 21 isn't anything much that can be done if there is internal 3

22 contamination, and that happens not to be the case.

'23 Dr. Burrows pointed out to me the National Council 24 on Radiation Protection --

3 25' JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's not -- we also had

o Saritage Reporting Corporation

,h (202) 628-4888

'O 1.'

,ew .

[ _ ,, p.93 p, .c 27694 e 1 testimony that, although nothing can be done on an. emergency.

~

2, -basis, that the long-term -- except for what ant 1 biotics and 3, blood' transfusion or whatever --

4 MS. DOUGHTY: There,actually are.

5- ~ JUDGE SMITH: But it is a long-term problem.

I '* 6 MS._ DOUGHTY: Well,-the first immediate medical --

7- JUDGE SMITH: I think what you are reallyfsaying 8' is somewhere in_that long-term stream, and long term can' be 9' shorter or longer, the tracking system needs something

10 better.

11 MS. DOUGHTY: No.

s 12 I'm actually saying that there-are.certain

=p 131 therapies that can provide a great deal of help, and Dr.-

14 Burrows says it in his testimony at Question No. 9. -

~

15 He -said in the last sentence in his answer _that, 16- "If chelation-_or other therapies are advisable given the

'1T 'results of the analysis of the," this refers up to the 18 internal contamination. "They should be instituted-within 19 as little-as an' hour or so."

20- There are certain1 kinds of drugs!that can be 3 2 11 administered. One of them is diethylene trimine pantocedic 22 acid, DTPA, and it.can be administered. If it could be-

23 administered within an hour or two, it can help flush-

) 24! certain. contaminants out of the system.

25 Furthermore, there are other means such as D Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1

se .

][ p.94 L; 27695 1 pulmonary lavage.

2 ~ MR. TROUT: Is that within an hour of N,

y 3 contamination?

. 4 MS. DOUGHTY:. Pardon?

5 HR. TROUT Within an hour or two hours of S.

'6 contamination?

7 H3. DOUGHTY: Well, that would be.-- that's the a, _

.8 optimum. To get the-best. result, you institute them that B

9 quickly.

10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, all of this assumes that'the 11 RHA~does not have - well, of course, under these II 12 circumstances he could not possibly have access to this type H13 of treatment or diagnostic capability. -

14 We don't know really what the RHA does, do we?

O -15 (The Board confers.)

16 17 9: 18-19 20 Q :21 22 23' gf 24 25 g:' Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Ch

,, p.95 27696

~

-1 OUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk, what is our responsibility 2 under these circumstances?

3 HR, TURK: With respect to amending the plan?

4 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.

5 We found it this late and there's no good cause.

6 We see here that there's an issue that perhaps requires 7 further atteration.

8 VA. TURK: If Your Honor had decided that you.

1 wore O 9 convinced further attention is required, then you could 10 raise a significant safety issue of your own, a, sui sponte.

11 = issue.

12' HR. TRAFICONTE: I don't believe it's that

'13 strAngent a standard to allow rebuttal testimony. This is 14 no necessarily the admission of a new contention.

= b) 15 JUDGE SMITH: No, I don't think it's rabuttal 16- testimony. I think we sort of ruled that out.

17 HR. TRAFICONTE: So you're applying ' a standard 2)E 16 that would approach to reopen the record. I mean, Mr.

19 Turk's comment --

E 20 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Or a late filed contention.

3o OL 21 MR. TRarICONTE: A late filed contention.

22 JUDGE SMITH: Late filed contention.

23 HR. TRAFICONTE: All right.

(( 24. The late filed contention does require a safety J

25 significance is what I heard Mr.. Turk just mention.

g. Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s

4 LO -

I

, .P.96 27697 1- JUDGE SMITH

What if-it has safety issues?

2' MR. TROUT This is sui sponte, though.

3 MR..TRAFICONTE: Pardon me?

4 JUDGE SMITH: You're excluding the safety

5. significance from consideration of late filed contention.

'6 MR. TRAF3 CONTE: Yes.

7 HR. TURK: No, my point was that the Board could:

_ 8 raise an issue sui sponte without'even requiring

, 9 contentions. But to do that they have to make a finding of 10 significant safety.

-11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes.

12 MR. TURK: But, Your Honor, what is the issue that 13 you believe.

14 JUDGE SMITH: The issue that the Board hasn't 3 15 discussed yet and we want to discuss, because the procedure

16- is that we have become aware through the cross-examination

~17 of Mr. Callendrello through Ms. Doughty's proffer of this 3 >

18 witness that there is available, according to him, a 19 diagnostic process and treatment which would improve the 20 short-term and long-term care of radiologically exposed

-@ , 21 people.

22 The way it stands right now the RHA by telephone 23 makes certain judgments based upon gross information and

-g 24 this witness says, well, it can be improved. And we found 25 that it's untimely.

g Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

U '

'(y~; P.97 27498

1. MR; TURK: I'm going to hatard a guess, Your f

2 Honor, I guess there's a danger in doing that.

() .3 Answer to question 9 ends by stating that: "If 4 chelation or other therapies are advisable given the results

'5 of the analysis, they should be instituted within as-little

$li 6; as an hour or so."

7 If I read that testimony on its face correctly, 8 then that would indicate that there is no purpose in having (11 9 this device at hand, because people will have passed through 10 the radiation, who have gone to the parking lots, will have 11 been standing in line, will be monitored, will then come in,.

(). 12 I don't see the basis for suspecting that there will be an 13 hour's time to get to the people after their exposure.

14 H3. DOUGHTY: That again, Mr. Turk, is the

() 15 optimum. I'm not sure that it becomes a useless procedure 16 afterwards.

n 17 And I just realized that --

18 HR. TURK: But it's your testimony.

)

19' H3. DOUGHTY: I'm afraid I didn't ask the witness, 20 I just realized that in answer to some 21 interr 98t riS8 fr 2 the Applicants said, additionally, the 01 22 plans do not account for the amount of time it would needed 23 to be expended-for remonitoring individuals.

24 And I stated our. understanding at that point that 25 evacuees who had not been successfully decontaminated will Enritage Reporting Corporation C) (202) 628-4888 O

e. <

_ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ L _ _ _1

p.98 27699 1: he referred out. And no one ever told me we were wrong.

2: This was in answer to interrogatory number 255, 3 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Referred out?

4 MS. DOUGHTY: Will be referred out.

5 MR. TROUT: Wait a minute.

6 JUDGE SMITH: Now you're reopening the point of 7L timeliness.

6 MS. DOUGHTY: Sure.

9 JUDGE SMITH: And that's got to come to an end

. 10- sooner or later.

11 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay.

o, 12 JUDGE SMITH: We gave you a very full opportunity 13- to argue that.

14 MS. DOUGHTY: Sure. I won't get into that again.

15- But then further down in answer to another 16 interrogatory we said that there is no demonstration in the

, 17 plan that the personnel to be employed have the requisite-

) 18 qualification to be perfoming these- functions.

19' Well, I guess I should read, we allege that: "The 20' SPHO fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate 21

) procedures, personnel, equipment, and facilities for radiological sonitoring and decontamination of general 22 23_ public evacuees, emergency workers, special facility 24 evacuees have been established."

25 And,the Applicants asked us to please state all

?f Beritage Reporting Corporatice D (202) 628-4888 9 '

q

=a P.99 27700 1L the f acts underlying this - assertion. And we stated that,3we 2 referred to the facts in the contention. and then said 3' - 'Ohere is no-demonstration in the plan that the personnel to-4- be employed 3had. the requisite qualifications to be 5 performing these functions or that they have been adequately 6~ trained.. Tho' rad advisor is a particularly key position-for-7 which adequate background and experience are critical."

8 (Board confers.)

9 HR. TROUT Your Honor.

10 JUDGE SMITH: Just a second.

6

11 MR. TROUT I'm sorry.

12 (Board confers.)

13' JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Trout?

14 MR. TROUT: Your Honor, do I understand that the

. 15 question before the house now is whether we-have so I, 16- significant a safety issue that the Board would consider 17 taking up the issue sui sponte?

3 ,

18 JUDGE SMITH: Let me ask, if you don't dissuade us

~

19 to the contrary here's where we would have announced, if you

~

20 didn't have any further argument, we would.have already 21 ruled that it is not timely and if it's geing to come up 2 L22 it's going to be the Board's own sui sponte' initiative.

23 And as Mr. Turk pointed out that requires that

] 24 there be a significant safety circumstance. And I think

)

25 it's even bigger than that. It's more severe than that. I, Beritage Reporting Corporation

, (202) 628-4888

3 ,l-p.100

^

{

27701 1 don' t'. know,- but it's strong language. ,

2- And'then we've got to go to the Commission and let (

)."* l .

i 3 them know we're doing it. And the Commission has  !

.4 discouraged that. And we don't think it raises to that 5? . point because the whole debate assumes that the RMA is not 6 equipped to his job or her job. That it simply makes a l 7 gross judgment over gross evidence over the telephone and 8 let's it go at that; we don't know, the record is silent. .l 9- Left to our own devices: we would say that the 10 best we-can do with the concerns raised by Ms. Doughty would. _ i 11 be to ask the Applicants for a commitment that your i 12 cognizable health' physic officers will view the concepts

(' 13 expressed by Dr. Burrows and see if they have merit, and 7 14 that's all we can do.

r= 15 .As we sit here right now we cannot keep =thie

[' 16- record open with the idea we're going to have an M.D. in i a

i -

l17 every reception center and one of these machines in every 18 reception center and everything-else._ That's a big deal, as -

d

, 19 we well understand.

[. 20 And we don't;have a record which supports, at this 7

p - 21 very, very late date, our intervention on what could be a

{

[*

a 22 very, very lopsided situation. Lopsided in your favor, i: 23 We're aware of all the circumstances.

24 At the same time Dr. Burrows has impressive

' 25 credantials. And we would feel personally more comfortable f

i Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Y

. =_ i __ _ _____-___ _____ ____ _.-.- . . - . - - - . -

jy p.101 27702 *

1 if we hadLa commitment from the Applicants.

y- 2 MR. TROUT To review the issues raised?

3 JUDGE SMITH: To review the issue.

4 With a commitment you will rev'iew the issue and 5 assess its merits.

L4 6 MR. TROUT May I consult with my client, Your 7 Honor?

8 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.

9 (Counsel conferring.)

10 MR. TROUT Your Honor, I have consulted with my 11 client and as I suspected from what has already occurred in-12 this proceeding, as Your Honor knows with respect to the 13 testimony, of Dr. Leaning and Mr. Dillman, ' my client is quite 14' ready to commit.to review the suggestions that Dr. Burrows 15 makes. Give them a thorough analysis.

16 And more than that my client'is.willing to commit, 17 having undertaken that review, to the extent that_they-find 18 that there are suggestions in Dr. Burrows testimony that do

-19 have merit and that are reasonably implementable my client

.20 will commit to implement them.

-21' JUDGE SMITH - Now, Ms. Doughty, that was at the 22 Board's own initiative. Your appeal rights are perfectly 23 preserved. You just lost on that one. And you don't have 24 to agree to that or anything; that was the Board's own 25 initiative.

O Beritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l O

M_=_ e

3 . .

p.102 27707 1- JUDGE SMITH: Now-it's timeliness.

> 2 You're only talking about timeliness. We're not 3 talking about competence. You're talking about the.

4 timeliness of the testimony. There's no other infirmity to 5 the testimony except its substantive merits maybe.

6 MR. TROUT: That's right.

7 JUDGE SMITH: But there's no other threshold 8 infirmity to this testimony.

9 MR. TROUT: That's right.

e 10 I am not arguing that they cannot challenge the 11 guidance. I'm not making that argument.

12 JUDGE SMITH: All right.

_ 13 14

.O~

~15 16

-. 17 O-18

'19 20 O

21 22

~

-- . 23 Q.

24

~

25 O

- Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O

L

__ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - --_ ._