ML20154F769
| ML20154F769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6409 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8805240067 | |
| Download: ML20154F769 (344) | |
Text
- - - - -
ORIGIM UNITED STATES
'O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL In the Matter of: )
)
EVIDENTIARY HEARING )
) DOCKET: bO-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMP'NY OF ) 50-444-OL
) OFFSITE EMERGENCY t NEW HAMPSHIRE. et s1 ) PLANNING
~ )
(SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) )
=
O Pages: 11541 throut;h 1178C Place: Concord. New Hampshire Date: May 18, 1988 g___.____________________________,__________,.___._.
e <
.h
. HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
. t _.-
1124 L htreet, N.W., Sehe 600 Waskaton, D.C. 20005 (292) 628-4888 880524006' 9 J000443 0518 PDR ADOCK T DCD
- - - - - . ~ . . . - - - - . - - . .
o l'
I 11541 ,
I ~
j -1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l l- 2 l j Tax 50Ttl i j 3 {'
In the Matter of: )
4- )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. ;
5 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-443-OL i l ) 50-444-OL 6 1 OFF-SITE EMERGENCY.
CSEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING l 7 ) !
l EVIDENTIARY HEARING i
- 8 !
! 9 !
Wednesday, l 10 May 18, 1988 l e
11 Room-210 l Legislative Office Building j 12 Concord, New Hampshire ,
I l 13 The above-entitled matter came on'for hearing, 14 pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m.
l-
! 15 DEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 16 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
I Washington, D. C. 20555 '
j 17 !
JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR,, MEMBER !
18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 19 Washington, D. C. 20555 :
l I
20 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board .
21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f We.shi ng t o n, D. C . 20555 !
22 i l
23 24 !
ES Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) G28-4868 ;
11542 0-_ 1- APPEARANCES:
2 For the Applicant:
l 3 . THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR. ESQ. '
KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ.
o GEORGE LEWALD, ESQ. ;
Ropes & Gray l 5 225 Franklin Street t Boston, Massachusetts 02110 l
'6 !
For the NRC Staff: !
7 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ. 'l!
8 Office of Gene:a1 Counsel U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
9 Washington, D. C. 20555 ;
10 For the Federcl Emernency Manaaement Anency: ;
11 H.' JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ !
Federal Emergency Management Agency l 12- 500 C Street, S . W.
Washinaton, D. C, 20472 l
! For the State of New Hampshire:
14' .
GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ESQ. ;
15 State of-New Hampshire (
, 25 Capitol Street ;
16 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 .;
17 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
18 JOHN TRAFICONTE. ASST. ATTY. GEN. l CAROL SNEIDER, ASST. ATTY. GEN. i
! 19 STEPHEN OLESXEY. ESQ. j i Commonwealth of Massachusetts
! 20 Cne Arhburton Place, 19th Floor l l Boston, Massachusetts 02108 ,
! 21 !
Eor the New Ennland Coalition enainst Nuclenr.
i l
I 22 Pollution: i l
! 23 ELLYN R. WEISS. ESQ. j i Harmon & Weiss k 24 2001 S Street, N. W. t l Washington, D.C. 20009 li 25 !
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l l (?O2) 628-4888 l t
l f I i
i
m..__..__ _ --- _ ____.-____. _ _ __..._ _ __ - _ . _ _ --
.- i
~f 11043l l
L
-ill l' APPEARANCES: (Continued) l 2 For the Seaconst Anti-Pollution Lencue_:
i l 3 ROBERT BACKUS. ESQ. i l Backus, Meyer & Solomon !
4 116 Lowell Street Manchest?r, New Hampshire 03105 l' S
! JANE DOUGHTY, DIRECTOR 6 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street t 7 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 ,
l' l
- l. 8 Egr the Town of Hampton: f 1 MATTHEW T. BROCK. ESQ. ;
l_
Shaines & McEachern I i 10 25 Maplewood Avenue {
! P. O. Box 360 t I il Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 !
12 Egr the Town of Kensington:
t 13 SANDRA FOWLER MITCHELL. EMERGENCY PLANNING DIR. !
i l
9 14 Town Hall Kensirgton, New Hampshire i
I 15 For'the Towns of Hamnton Falls and North
! Hamnton and South Hamnton:
I 16
! ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
! 17 Backus. Meyer & Solomon l 116 Lowell Street i 18 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 19 For the Town of_Amesbi,ry.: ,
t 20 (No Appearances) f
?
21 j 22 l I
I 23 ;
i
'2 ' h 25 Heritage w r.arting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, l 1
I i .
i I
11544!
III 1 INDEX i
l l
2 NITNESSES DIRECT _ CROSS __ REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM 3 Enn21:
ROBERT GOBLE 4 ROBERT ECKERT VICTOR EVDOXIMOFF !
5 by Mr. Turk 11550 l by Judge Linenberger 11559 i 6 by Judge Harbour 11576- l by Ms. Weiss. 11583 l 7 by Mr. Brock 11G17 i by Mr. Turk 11622 l 8 by Mr. Flynn 11627 .
by Ms. Sneider 11632 j 9 by Mr. Lewald 13671 j l 11680 j by Mr. Turk ;
f 10 ROBERT ECKERT (prefiled) 11689 l 11 by Ms. Sneider 11686 by Mr. Lewald 11691 !
12 by Mr. Turk 11699 l by Judge Linenberger 11700 I 13 by Mr. Lewald 11701 14
~
Punel: )
l ROBERT BORES 15 WILLIAM LAZARUS !
by Mr. Turk 11727 l 16 ;
l 17 18 ;
i 19 }
i 20 !
21 l t
22 23 24 25 i, O !
Heritage Reporting Corporation 4
(202) G28-4888 i
1
(-. I i.
i I'
1 11545 l 1 ;
1 M D. E X r 2 ,
3 MASS. AG: ,
4 !
20 11549 11549 Multipage Mass. AG ]
5 prefiled testimony of
- Sholly. Beyea, and l j' 6 Thompson, with !
attachments l 7 i 21 11690 11691 Videotape on sheltering l 8 by Robert Eckert j 9 URC STAFF: l 1
10 2 11739 11744 Multipage memo. Bores I i to Turk. 15 Oct. '87 l l 11 re: Seabrook Beach i Population Issues !
i 12 !
3 11746 11747 2 page memo. Lanarus j 13 to TurR. 15 Oct. ' 8'7 ;
, G 14 re: Background Concerning Recent i
j FEMA 1 RAC meetings ;
15 !
l 1G I
17 l 18 19 ;
I 20 ,
i l
21 22 23 >
24 25 i
L i
l Heritage Reporting Corocrat i on l' C202) 628-4800 l
l
. . . . . - - - . . - _ . ~ . - - _ . - - - - - - _ . . - - - - - . . . - - . . = . - - - - . - .
i I i l 115494
' l i
I h
1 ;
i l 11 D E X ;
i 2 i INSERTS: PAGE !
3 l j Applicants ' cross-examination 4 4 outline on Goble, Renn. Eckert. -
l and Evdokimoff 11682 ;
{ S l j NRC staf f cross-examination i 6 outline on Goble. Renn, Eckert, 3
and Evdokinof f 11682 ;
7 i Transcript excerpt of stricken
- 8 testimony 11683 l 9 Prefiled testimony of i Robert Eckert 11689 l
! 10 (
! Applicant s ' cross-examinat ion ;
i 11 outline on Eckert 11703 '
12 NRC Staff Exhibit 2 11744 l
l 13 NRC Staff Exhibit 3 11747 !
14 Professional qualifications l statement of !
10 Wil liam Lanarus 11720 !
16 ;
I 17 l I
18 r
19 l 20 t i
21 (
t 22 [
23 i i
24 [
i 25 .
i Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 622-4800 t t
i t
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ = - _ .
27 1 PROCEEDINGS i I
2 (9:03 a.m.)
3 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have a report. Mr. Oleskey?
4 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. Your Honar. Under the S circums t ance s, since the Intervenors do want Mr. Thomas and G feel his testimony is important. I should-think that we would !
7 need a subpoena. On that point, however. I do recall-looking 6 back at the transcript, particularly of the second Voir Dire of 9 Mr. Thomas on sheltering on, I believe. November 4th, that the 10 Board had said to all the Intervenors, you will have a later 11 time to do the examination. which Mr. Dignan has been allowed 12 to do now twice out of sequence to the sheltering issue.
13 In that respect, it seems to me it 's as much the l
[
14 Board 's subpoena as the Intervenors because you promised us, i I
-15 and properly so, that we could complete that line.
16'- JUDGE SMITH: The Board has not doubted for one 17 moment that you have a right to have Mr. Thomas here. That 's 18 entirely different than whether Mr. Thomas will appear as e 19 Board witness or not. That, you 've j ust pointed out an 20 additional reason --
21 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, that 's right.
22 JUDGE SMITH: -- why you can have Mr. Thomas '
23 appearance here. Is this microphone amplified?
24 (Paise) 25 JUDGE SMITH: The Board has had an opportunity to l O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l I
b l
I i
11547 1- reflect on the discussion last night off the -- after-we closed 2 the record on the scheduling of FEMA witnesses. Looking back j l 6
3 over the months preceding us, we simply think that FEMA has 1
. 4 taken a much too relaxed an attitude about its responsibility i l l 5 to fit into a hearing which requires that these issues be !
l 6 resolved with some type of reasonable dispatch, not only for i 7 Applicants but for all of the litigants. 1
[
0- You 've requested huge amounts of time. We recognize [
l l
9 that FEMA is not a regulatory agency, it 's an executive agency.
I.
10 but you haven't cooperated with this Board in allowing us to 11 discharge our duties under the Administrative Procedure Act to ;
j 12 give a fair and prompt hearing to all the parties.
13 This is particularly true when one realizes that this l 14 is a problem of FEMA 's own making. It presented testimony [
l 15 which was perishable, and it has not taken an aggressive 16 position in coming forward with a fresh record, f l
17 We want your people here next week. We 'll have the !
18 staf f witnesses on Tuesday and you can take Wednesday. Thursday 19 and Friday in any way that you want to, to bring your people 20 here. That 's not the panel; that 's McLaughlin, Peterson and i
21 Krimm.
22 Anything further?
23 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I don 't know what the l 24 reaction of my management will be --
25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we 're going to issue a subpoena ,
I
() f' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y._ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -
l :
l': !
! I I
$ I l 11548 I l lll if we have to, but you 've messed around with us too much and we
'! j 4 1 I
- 2 want.them here. We want to get this hearing going.
i l
l- 3 MR. FLYNN: That was going to be my request, Your 4 Honor, I'think a subpoena should be issued.
{
t I 5 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I
- 6 Anything further? r i
1 7 MR. DIGNAN: Do I understand, Your Honor, from the ;
s
- l. 8 colloquy between you and Mr. Oleskey, then, a subpoena vill l 9 issue for Mr. Thomas, also? !
s i I 10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. Right.
11 MR. DIGNAN: And the clock will start running on 12 that, too.
13 JUDGE SMITH: Now, as I understand it, if you went to G 14 consult with him, that 's one thing, you can do that soon, i
j l
15 otherwise we 'll pick the time and hour and place of their !
16 appearance.
17 MR. FLYNN: I will get back to you later today. Your i i
18 Honor. f r
19 JUDGE SMITH: All right. !
r And this is something that rarely do we ever have to i 20 :
5 21 do at a hearing, rarely. f I
22 All right. Let me see, we are now ready. I believe, i 23 for New Hampshire. Well, let me see, you still have -- you 're f 24 alnost done, right? (
25 MR. TURK: That 's right . Your Honor. {
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
r i
_ _.J
---.. _ - - =. - - - - -
i i i t
1 i '!
I 11549 I h 1 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, okay.
2 MR. OLESKEY: Your Honor. I have one procedural !
i ;
I. 3 matter, I understand that to have the Sholly-Beyea testimony I t -- ;
4 put in.rej ected testimony file. I have to officially offer it l t
S again and have the Board reiterate that it 's rej ected and then !
i 6 have it referred to that file; could we do that at this time? l
)
l 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well that 'd be fine, yrs.
8 MR. OLESKEY: May the record reflect that I have made ;
i 9 the offer. the Board has previously ruled that the testimony is j r
i 10 not accepted and I'd 13ke it put in the rej ected testimony 11 file.
12 JUDGE SMITH: All right, give it a exhibit number.
13 MR. OLESKEY: I think it will be exhibit -- Mass. AG !
I 14 Exhibit Identification 20, Your Honor, unless you 're running a 15 separate number for rej ected testimony.
16 JUDGE SMITH: No, it follows sequence. All right.
17 Massachusetts Exhibit 'O for identification is rej ected for the 18 reasons stated on May 10th.
19 (The document referred to was 20 marked for identification as 21 Mass. AG Exhibit 20, and was 22 rej ected. ) ;
23 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk.
24 MR. TURK: Thank you. Your Honor.
25 ?
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888
{
e !
- j. '
1 1
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF ECKERT - CROSS 11550 e 1 Whereupon,
- 2 ROBERT GOBLE I
' 3 ROBERT ECKERT j i
! 4 VICTOR EVDOKIMOFF 5 having been previously duly sworn, resuned the witness stand >
l 6 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows:
7 RESUME CROSS-EXtMINATION 8 BY MR. TURK: J 9 Q Dr. Eckert, let me see if my understanding of what l c !
10 you did with the survey is correct. Essentially what you did j
! 11 was, you mailed out these surveys to the respondents; correct? !
)
12 A CEckert) Correct. l f
13 Q And you made no attempt to try to incorporate the g
14 written comments on those forms into your tabulation of i 15 resulta?
16 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
l 1
17 Q And you also made no attempt to screen the survey 18 responses to determine if there may be some inherent bias in 19 the respondents ' answer; is that correct?
20 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
21 Q And you also made no attempt to screen those survey i 22 responses to determine whether the respondents ' understanding 23 of the concept of shelter as it was being discussed with 24 respect to their buildings was correct; is that right ? I I
25 (Eckert) That 's right .
A f
e Reporting Corporation Heritage (202) 628-4808 i
J.
i I
GOBLE. EV DOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11551 l
l
'- .h 1 Q And it 's also correct that you made no attempt to 2 determine whether the respondents understood that their I 3 buildings would be used only in the summer season?
4 A -(Eckert) That 's correct.
5 Q And you also made no attempt to determine whether the l 6 respondents ' answer to Question No. 4 may have been motivated .
7 by some factor other than their pure willingness to allow their l
8 building to be used as a shelter; is that correct?
9 A CEckert) ThLt 's correct.
10 Q And you also made no attempt to determine whether 11 your survey form itself may have prompted a negative response '
12 to Question No. 4; is that correct?
13 A (Eckert) It 's correct in the sense that we didn 't. .
O 14 you know, we tried to set it up in a nonbiased way but we I
l 15 don 't really have a way to check for that in the data.
16 Q And you also recognize that a possibility exists that 17 a respondent to the survey may well have had other factors 18 motivating his response other than his pure willingness to 19 allow his building to be used as shelter; is that correct? l
)
20 A (Eckert) I would say that my personal opinion is ,
21 that, that 's probably correct.
22 Q And have you made any attempt, now that you have 23 received the survey responses, to go through those written 24 comments of the respondents to see whether there has been some 25 negative feeling towards the plant or New Hampshire Yankee ,
6 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 l
8 r GOBLE. EV DOK IMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11552 I
' lk. 1 which may have motivated the response to Question 4?
2 A (Eckert) No, we 've not done that ; we just presented 3 the material as information which could be perused by the 4 panel, the hearing.
5 Q And that means --
6 A (Eckert) I mean this group.
7 Q -- pure mathematical tabulation of the responses?
8 A (Eckert) The only thing we dealt with was a 9 tabulation of the four questions.
10 Q Ooctor, in some cross-examination by Mr. Lewald there 11 is discussion about your testimony on page 56, in the middle of i 12 the page there is discussion of the, purported tenfold increase 13 in the square footahe of a particular building?
14 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
15 Q And as I recall Mr. Lewald asked you whether your 16 notes with respect to that particular building contained or 17 showed a total square footage for the building in question?
18 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
19 Q And my recollection is, you answered, no, that your 20 notes didn 't show a total square footage?
21 A (Eckert) That 's right, because there 's no tax 22 assessor 's card for that building.
23 Q Do your notes reflect any determination by your 24 people as to the approximate square footage for portions or all 25 of that building?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
1 i
i J
- GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11553 1
1 A (Eckert) We didn't measure that one because there
. I
- 2 wasn 't a tax assessor 's card, and because the -- in other ;
e
! 3 words, we didn't have that data, and the facility had a gate l 4 around it and it was locked, and it was not part of our j
5 original 26 where we really were taking the measurements; this i,
[ 6 was part of our checking of the 1987 survey. l l,
l 7 Q Do your notes reflect any numbers for square footage i
8 whatsoever with respect to that building?
t 9 A (Eckert) No. because we didn 't measure that. f I 10 However, if I can comment on the shelter survey form that Stone f 11 & Webster submitted where we talked about paced be. ore and Mr. l
)
12 Lewald suggested that pacing might be equivalent to three feet.
13 Our maj or complaint is that the multiplication error occurred. l O 14 and this was submitted as square foot or possibly square yards.
I l
15 And if you teke this square yard and bring it back to 16 square feet you get a motel that 's bigger than the Hampton 17 Beach Casino; and my point is that this is just inaccurate and j 18 inappropriate for submission in any kind of a survey which is f
. v 19 out trying to determine how much shelter space there might be l 20 in the sea coast area.
21 Q Can you refresh my recollection as to the name of 22 that particular building?
?
23 A (Eckert) It 's called the Seaside Motel.
24 Q And did you personally go to that location? j 25 A (Eckert) I did not personally, but my field E
(:) !
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
t
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11554 0 1 supervisor did.
2 Q Are you representing here today that you believe that 3 building contains only 700 -- excuse me. 780 square feet?
4 A CEckert) No, all I 'm saying is that that 5 multiplication as it appeared on the shelter survey form was an G incorrect multiplication.
7 Q Do you believe that the building is substantially 8 larger than 780 square feet?
9 A (Eckert) Yes, i do.
l 10 Q Do you have an estimate as to how large the building i
11 might be?
12 A CEckert) I don 't have en estimate. The only l
13 information I have is, on the size is that submitted, 15.600 14 square feet or yards submitted by Stone & Webster, because we
,i 15 did not measure the building and there 's no tax assessor 's form 16 available for it.
I 17 Q All right.
! 18 Mr. Evdokiroff, I 'd like to turn to your testimony 19 for a moment. In questioning on the 16th you indicated that 20 you went to the various realtors in the area of the Seabrook 21 and Hampton Beach -- beach locations, at a certain time in the 22 summer of 1987; do you recall your testimony?
23 A C Evdokino f f ) Yes. What -- Mr. Turk, what page are 24 you referring to in the test irony ?
20 Q Well, I don't have a transcript page I can give you O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11555 {
dl> !
i readily, but I ask if you can recall your testimony along those l
, 2 lines? l i
j 3 A (Evdokimoff) Yes, I do.
I j 4 Q Yes?
l 5 A (Evdokimoff) Yes, I do.
6 Q And as I recall, you indicated that you visited those 7 realtors during the week before Labor Day?
8 A (Evdokimoff) Right, which was --
9 Q In the summer of 1987? .
I f
10 A (Evdokinoff) -- September -- I started Septenber l 11 1st, which I believe was a Tuesday.
12 Q It is correct then that the realtors you met with ;
g 13 provided you with the keys to those locations which were still .
W L 14 available as of that date? !
15 A (Evdokimoff) Yes. }
16 Q For the Labor Day weekend?
?
17 A (Evdokimoff) Yes. L 18 Q Would you agree that other buildings or substantially 19 large numbers of other buildings had already been rented out 20 for that Labor Day week? l 1
l 21 A (Evdokimoff) What we were talking about was, that :
22 particular time what was available. They nay well have been ,
)
23 available for the next week, but they could well have been 24 unoccupied at the moment. I don 't really know what percent.
l 25 you know, because we gave an indefinite time period; we said Heritage Reporting Corporation [
(202) 626-4888 L i
s l
7___._.- _-
I i
1 i 1
I GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11556 h i Labor Day or perhaps a week after, it was indefinite.
2 So, you know, it wasn 't firm, as we were thinking of l
3 coming up the Labor Day weekend of the week after, is what I l
4 said.
i 5 Q- And as I recall your discussions with the realtors l 4
l l G included representation by you that you were interested in j 7 renting a place for yourself and your family; 1s that correct?
8 A (Evdokimoff) We were considering, and we just wanted 9 to get some idea of prices, yes.
i f 10 Q Would you agree that many of the better buildings l 11 would have already been rented out and were not among the ones 12 that were shown to you or made available to you for that --
13 MS. WEISS: Obj ect ion. j 14 BY MR. TURK:
15 Q ---interviewing? ;
16 MS. WEISS: Pure speculation, no foundation.
17 MR. TURK : I think the witness can answer based on 18 his own knowledge.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled.
20 THE WITNESS: (Evdokinoff) It 's tough to say. Mr.
21 TurR. because I have no idea of what -- what the average price f l
22 or what nost people would be paying for a room, you know, for a i
23 cottage in the area. ;
24 But I feel that what I saw was representative even f
25 though it was a small sample. As I said. I saw extremes. I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
t
- . _ _ _ - . .~ - - - - - - - _ _ = - - -- - - _ -_
! i i
i i GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11557 i saw Yor; .ur. down cottares. And on the other hand I saw what I i
2 would consider fairly nice cottages or apartments to stay in.
3 So I would dispute that. I think it, even though it 4 was a small sample I saw both extremes, and I tried to convey 5 to the realtors that, you know, I was -- I wanted to look at a 6 fairly wide range in terms of how much we were willing to pay. l l
7 BY MR. TURK: l l
- 8 Q You have rented buildings for yourself and your i i !
! 9 family in the past, haven't you?
10 A (Evdokimoff) Yes.
11 Q And have you gone through the same sort of a 12 procedure in those instarces where you look at several 13 locations before choosing the one that you wish to rent?
14 A CEvdokimoff) Yes.
I 15 Q And ir,doing that, in your own experience, would you 16 have -- have you accepted j ust any location to rent or would 17 you have tried to find the best location within your price !
18 range? j 19 A (Evdokinoff) We would try to find the best location i i
i l 20 within our price range. l W 21 Q And you would agree that that 's probably true for the '
I j 22 people who rent in the Seabrook beach area for the summer or 23 for portions of the summer; isn 't that right?
24 A (Evdokimoff) I would assume that 's correct, yes.
- 25 Q You 're not representing to the Board and the rest of i
llh Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i 4
I I
i i GOBLE, EV DOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11558 O 1 the parties in this case that the sampling you saw was 2 representative in a quantitative sense of the buildings 3 available? l 4 A (Evdokimoff) I think -- I think it 's -- in a 5 quantitative-sense, yes, but it is a small sample. So if you 6 were going to look at statistical inferences from a sma.' .
7 sample I think with that caveat, I think it is a quantitative l i
8 estimate.
9 Again I feel, you know, I looked at almost 000
, 10 cottages, and based on what I looked at and what I was able to il go into, I think it was fairly representative even though it 12 was a small number.
13 (Continued on next page.)
O'27 14 j i
15 16 l
17 18 19 l
20 1 21 l 22 23 24 26 O
Heritage F5 porting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i
i 11559 n
T2'8 i MR. TURK: Your Honor, in light of the Board 's l
{
2 inctruction or comment yesterday that the verbal comments I
3 written on the survey response forms are a matter of argument 4 and perhaps could be. explored that way through proposed 5 findings. I 'm not going to pursue that line today, and that 6 does conclude my examination. l 7 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Dr. Goble, at Pages 46 and 47 8 there is a discussion of the results of your analysis with ;
9 respect to the survey returns, and a discussion of the l C
statistical basis for making a comparison between the Salmon !
10 11 Falls results and the Stone & Webster study.
12 And on Page 46, the next to the last sentence of the 13 fArst answer appearing there, there is the sentence that says. ;
14 "In situations where randomization has been performed, as is 15 the case here." et cetera.
16 Now I should like to understand what you mean in that 17 context by the performance of randomization.
18 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Well, what we did was to, in 19 our initial survey of the shelter using the first Stone &
20 Webster report, we randomly chose 23 establishments to make our ;
l 21 comparison with. And this was done by assignin;; random numbers ,
22 from a computer algorithm to each establishment. And then we 23 vent through and chose -- we assigned al1 the numbers to al1 of 24 the establishments, and then we chose 20 percent of those in a 26 way that was proportional to the size of each town, the number O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 l
11560 l O 1 of establishments in each town, because we wanted to get a i
i i
2 sense, duplicate that size distribution, which is a reverse J-I 3 shape distribution, in our subsample.
l 4 And by doing the randomization, we assured that there j 5 was no relationship between any one shelter that we chose and f I the next shelter that we chose, so that it would be entirely 6
7 randomly chosen that way to remove any bias auch as we didn't l l
8 choose all-the green ones or the red ones. .
I 9 That 's the procedure we followed. ,
)
10 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Complete change of subj ect here, j 11 and I go into this with some hesitation, but I recognize that 12 you gentlemen make no claim to possessing an expertise in i 13 behavioral factors. I should like to inquire, and I ask this >
j
(:) 14 of the panel, anyone may respond who chooses to, if you recall j
i 15 a discussion sometime ago, not in this session, or if you are l 16 aware of a discussion sometime ago that the Board had with Dr.
17 Mileti in which it was suggested, and I believe I may have 18 suggested it, that responses to the Stone & Webster survey i
19 results with respect to the question of an owner / operator of i
20 some structure allowing the public to come in for purposes of 21 sheltering may have been enotionally biased by virtue of a --
22 well. I 'l l use my own words here for want of better ones -- a 23 feeling of enimonity between the proprietor and the f act of the
?4 existence of an as yet not operating nuclear plant. j l
25 In that discussion with Dr. Mileti, he offered his j Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l
_,e . . _ , , _ . .
. _ _ = _ _ __ -- ___ - __-_ _. -_ ____ __ -- _
l- -l I l
!- 1 l I 11561 !
I l 1 opinion that indeed that could be the case. He offered his j 2 observation that historically he has seen some basis for 3 believing that people predictively may say one thing, and when 4 a crisis arises, let 's say out altruistic motivations, do the ,
5 opposite.
I 6 Now this is a longwinded introduction to a question l 7 I 'm going to have trouble phrasing to you, phrasing to you in a 8 way that won ' t incur the wrath of certain counsel present. But ;
i I 9 has it occurred to you that indeed the results of your survey I
10 and the Stone & Webster may indeed suffer in the sense of nct f
I 11 being an accurate prediction of what might happen if a nuclear 12 event should occur should that plant go into operation?
13 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I 've grabbed the mike, but if 14 you want to add something.
15 Let me say, first, I don 't recall the discussion 16 between you and Professor Mileti, though I am quite familiar 17 with his views on the subject. (
18 Secondly. I want to disclaim expertise in this 19 subj ec t , but you ask did it occur to us. And, furthermore, I 20 think we 're trying to take -- in this testimony we 're trying to ,
21 present an integrated picture so that my judgment of the 22 importance of these results, whatever level of expertise I 23 bring to bear on it. I think is of interest to you.
24 And what I *hink is that, one, yes, it did occur to ;
t 25 us, and I think it introduces what I consider an unknown factor [
dl> .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
[
__ _ __-_ _ ._.-_. - - . - - - _.__ _ __ ~_ _ _ . . _ ,
i I
11562 I
O 1 in interpreting the results. I don't think you can go directly l
! 2 from those statements to a prediction for the number of people I
3 who will or will not make their facilities available.
4 I think that the best discussion of how to weigh this 5 evidence is, and I think some of this, at least we tried to put t 6 this into our testimony, is giver. by Professor Renn who is also 7 f amiliar with Professor Mileti 's view. and his judgment is i
8 that, yes, people 's responses are af fected by animosity, but 9 this can also af fect people 's behavior in the following sense.
\
i 10 Not the people -- I think he agrees with Professor Mileti that
! 11 in an emergency situation people try to be altruistic, they try I .
I
! 12 to do the best they can to help other people.
13 On the other hand, people also within their minds try 14 to contain scme consistency of understanding of a situation and 15 belief, and that if people had available a rationale which i
16 might have grown out of that animosity, or might have grown out ,
l i 17 of other information they had before, a rationale for believing i 18 that it was not the altruistic thing to do. It was not the 19 good thing to do to admit people to a shelter. that they might 20 then not do it, and that the results of the survey provides some information about the potential, about that potential, and l 21 1 22 it 's something that one has to worry about in making plans.
23 It's not that you know exactly what will happen. It's 24 another one of the planning problems for putting into place a 25 sheltering strateP,y at the site.
(:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
- b. -- .
l 11563
( '
1 THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) Judge Linenberger. I have !
i l 2 a few comments, and I, as a teacher and professor and as a l l
3 radiation safety officer. I 've talked with perhaps thousands of l
! 4 people about radioactivity and trying to communicate to them
, 5 the hazards. And it 's my f eeling that the perception of risks 1
l 6 of radiation is a very big component in dealing with people.
I
- 7 Again, I 'm not a sociologist, but I have a lot of 1
experience talking to people about radiation, both lay people.
i 8
I 9 For example, in our medical center we have construction workers f l 10 and union people who are very concerned about their health. So j 11 I have some sense of that.
12 I would like to share with you, if I could, just a 13 few observations I had when I talked to some of the renters, 14 and I talked to the police. I asked a couple of questions, and 15 I didn 't put this in my testimony because I don 't feel I 'm a 16 person with a background in social psychology. But I would 17 just like to add this if I might.
18 When I asked the renters what they thought about 19 these shelters -- I 'm sorry, what they thought about these 20 cottages as shelters to protect from a radiation accident, two 21 of the people said they are not lead-lined. And I said, oh.
22 Yes. Well, everybody knows that you need lead to shield these f 23 cottages from radiation. So I add that.
l 24 So, granted, two people are not -- two people art ot t
25 a valid sample, but you asked the question and I thought I l O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. _ . _ . . _ _ = _ _ _ -__ _. - _ _ _ _
1 i
! j 1
4-I 11564 l k 1 would just give you my comments.
- l t .
4 2 I also talked with the fire and police departments,
! 3 and they were -- I asked them if-the sirens went off at 4 Seabrook, what do you think your fire people would do. And the I
S deputy chief said to me, I think half of them would go home and I
6 try to get the$r families out of here, because there 's no way
- 7 that we 're going to stay here if there 's an accident.
l 8 And I talked with the police, and I sort of got the 9 same opinion. .
I 10 So, granted, these are just observations. They l 11 weren't put in my testimony, but it at leas; is a sense that I I
12 had in talking to som9 of the people, and some of the realtors j l
13 that perhaps people would not be cooperating. A. id , granted, r 9 14 people might well do something entirely different in an
\ emergency, but I think radiation, in my two years of
[
IS i i
16 experience, scare.* people. And we have a nuclear medicine ;
i 17 department in Universi'y Hospital, and we ave to talk to our j 18 nurses about radiation because we nave radioactive patients on 19 the Iloor and so forth, and it 's dif ficuit.
20 But I think that that 's very dif ficult think to deal 21 with in peop? e 's minds -- the perception of risk of 22 radioactivity. In fact, our health physics society has 23 u nde r t aken, you know, trying to wo-M with better methods to f 24 communicate to t%e public on educational efforts, you know, to l 25 inform people about what the real risks are from radioactivity.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
I
11565 0 1 So I don 't know if I 've answered your question, but 2 I just want to communicate some of my -- what was communicated 3 to me and perhaps they will be helpful; perhaps they won 't.
4 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, with all deference and 5 understand it was in response to the Board 's question. I move 6 to strike the remarks of Dr. Evdokimoff on the grounds that.
7 .Ca) not responsive to the question; (b) not competent to give 8 part of it; and (c) a lot of it was rank hearsay, particularly 9 that about that. I move for the record.
10 I understand the Board may want to overrule it 11 because it was in response to a Board question, but I have got 12 to move that go out, and ask for a ruling.
13 MS. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, we would simply observe 14 that when Dr. Linenberger asked the question he knew full well 15 that the witnesses would be offering their views as experts in 16 their fields and not as experts in human behavior, and they 17 gave answers that were as responsive as they could be for the 18 Board, and we would obj ect to striking it.
19 JUDGE SMITH: You 're speaking for what Judge 20 Linenberger knew?
21 MS. WEISS: Yes, that Judge Linenberger observed that 22 they were not experts and asked for their points of view.
23 MR. TURK. Your Honor, if I mty be heard for a 24 moment.
25 I recall Judge Linenberger 's q'iestion to relate to i
l Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888
. _ . . = _ _ . _.- - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
1156G .
1 the surveys that were conducted by this group, I believe Dr. i l
2 Eckert as I understand it, and Stone & Webster; nothing else.
3 So I dc.1't see that the answer of Mr. Evdokinof f was responsive 4 to the question.
t S (Board confer.)
E28 6 (Continued on next page.) f 7
8 i
9 l l 10
! I f 11 f 12 i
l 13 I
14 i -
15 16 17 ;
18 19 f 20 l
21 f 22 23 1 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4080 i
L i-I i
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11567 l.
4
! 1 JUDGE SMITH: Your obj ection 's overruled.
- i. I 2 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Permit me to --
3 MR, DIGNAN: Your Honor -- excuse me. Your Honor. I !
4 apologize. ,
i 5 Just so the record can be absolutely clear, as-I said l t i
! 6 I 'm making this for appellate purposes. It was not an 7 obj ec tion. It was a motion to strike, and I assume the ruling i' ,
I f 8 is my motion is denied. (
l 9 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, and I guess -- i
, i l l l 10 CBoard confer) j 4
j 11 JUDGE SMITH: The motion to strike is overruled.
I 12 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, Your Honor. .
1 13 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Complete change of subj ect. l 1
O 14 but -- oh, perhaps, Mr. Dignan, I should comment to you here l !
15 that I personally find the comments of the panel, with respect l r
16 to the question I asked, helpful. And I, in complete candor. l j
l l 17 cannot predict to what extent I will use them at 18 decisionwriting time, but I can say that I do not categorically 19 rej ect them. So I do find them helpful.
20 MR. DIGNAN: I assumed that was the case. Your Honor, 1
21 and that is why I made the notion. I assume that the Board had 22 a reason for the question and took the answers, and I j ust 23 wanted to be sure I was protected up the line if certain uses l 24 are made of it; let 's put it that way, i
i 25 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Certainly.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 i
i
_ _ _.______ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ = - . - =
l I i
i l
1 GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11568 ;
k 1 JUDGE SMITH: The Board has not -- this is Judge j 2 Linenberger 's posit ion. The Board has not arrived at a !
3 consensus itself. !
f ;
4 MR. DIGNAN: I understand. I hope the Board 5 appreciates that that motion is made with great respect for the
, 6 Judge asking the question, and with no intention to differ with l
7 the panel, but it 's simply to protect a legal position.
J
' 8 JUDGE LINENBERGER: A question was asked, I believe !
9 yesterday. of one of you gentlemen. My memory is not good l ,
l 10 enough to say which one answered it. But the question had to
! l l 11 do with what you gentlemen think might be an appropricte f
12 average dose reduction factor to assign to the structures in I
i 13 the beach area that were the subject of consideration here.
l 14 And if I heard correctly the question and the answer.
15 the question asked for an average. The answer came -back 0. 9.
16 Forgive me for nitpicking that, but if that is indeed an 17 average, then on the consideration that all structures are not 18 created equal, I would be inclined to assume that some 19 structures had a value of more than 0.9, and if 0.9 were the i 1 20 average, then I would infer that some structures had a value
- 21 higher than 0.9; lower dose reduction factor. higher number.
22 If they had a value higher than 0.9. I am led to.
23 naively perhaps, to a contradiction here that if any building 24 had a value greater than 0.9, it should not have been l
25 considered under the ground rules, as I understood them, of the I
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 620-4880 I
I
i I
. GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11569 l l
j.
9- 1 survey.
l 2 So I'm asking for clarification here of that answer I
i 3 of 0.9 as an average DRF for the survey structures. J 4 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes. I gave the answer, and so !
S let me try to clarify it. 3 6 There ws 5 a certain amount of discussion of what was 7 being averaged over. and as I understood the question when Mr. ?
[
8 Turk finally rephrased it, it was averaging over all of the ;
9 buildings in the beach area. l; 10 Now if one looks at all the buildings in the beach l
[
11 area, a very large -- a very substantial fraction of them are z l 12 cottages which have -- which are very light structures, and in ;
) "
13 fact one would expect dose reduction factors somewhat less -- l 14 less/more -- I always have this problem -- greater than .9.
l 15 less protection. l s
1 16 And it also includes large buildings and areas in ,
! 17 large buildings which also offer very little shielding where !
18 there are substantial expanses of windows and so forth. ;
19 So we 're not talking about tMS buildings within a 20 particular survey at that time. We 're talking about buildings
' 21 all -- the buildings all over the beach.
22 And, furthermore. I was doing some rounding 1.1 all 23 this. I said the range of .9. It 's customary and I think 24 appropriate in this business to give dose reduction factors f r
25 only to a single digit, because there are many unknowns in all
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 [
f Y-
--- = ~ _ . . - - - -
P t-
'l l
l l i
! GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11570 lll l
- 1 of this. So to say .9. if you care out with an average of . 85, I
- 2 you might still call that the range .9. ),
3 So we were talking about all-the buildings, not the !
j 4
4 buildings on a specific aurvey such as either of the Stone & j i
i 5 Webster surveys. l l
6 THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) Judge Linenberger, Mr. j l
7 Lewald handed me yesterday a document from Burson and Profio, j i 8 and in it were -- and I had not read it. And he was asking me j f
9 a question about 0.9. In it -- the assumptions that led Burson !
I 10 and Profio, which were referenced by Aldrich are in it, and it l l
11 saya that in order -- a construction, in order to receive 0.9 12 from cloud shine, would require, and I'm quoting from Page 32. l l
13 It says, "For attenuation, consider a wood-frame house with a l 14 roof." and the xeroxing is a little difficult to read, and I ,
f 15 can 't read the next word. "consisting of a quarter-inch of wood i
16 or asphalt shingles, three-quarters of an inch of sheathing and l l
I l 17 rafters, and a half an inch of gypsum board, for an average i
18 mean density of 3.2 grams per cubic centimeter. Hence, A l
t 19 equals 0.9 Assume the walls are wood shrathing, siding studs and gypsum board equivalent to a mean of 3.4 grams per cubic 20 1
21 centimeter, and A equals 0.9 approximately," l
}
22 Now, in eight of the 12 houses that I looked at, f 23 there was ny gypsum board, and aypsum board has a density close i
24 to concrete, about 2.3 grams per cubic centimeter. 1 25 So, you know, in answer to your question, many of the I
r ?
Heritage Reporting Corporation f
i (202) 628-4088 l ;
i !-
i
r__ - - _ _ - - -- _ _ _ ----- - ~ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - -
1 :
b V
f
!, I.
I GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11571 !
h i cottages, or at least it would be eight out of 12 that I saw l i
I
' was just wood and there was no gypsum board in there. So if j k
l l 3 you were to use the assumptions of Burson and Profio, they i
l ,
j 4 would be much higher than .9; probably_ approaching 1, because 5 it 's probably no more than -- let 's assume that there is in !
l
- G there the three quarters of an inch of wood, but there is no 7 gypsum board. And gypsum, according to Burson and Profio, is ;
8 what cuts the attenuation down because of the density.
i 9 ?; oecause many of them are unwinterized and don 't j
! I 10 have the paneling. So these in fact could be greater than .9, ,
t 11 approaching 1. So for cloud shine, there would be less t
8 12 protection, and that would also affect the ground shine which e a
t i 13 would -- hecause there 's less mass and there 's less density, ,
! 14 because wood as you know has a density of maybe .7 or .9 grams l So, therefore, you know, there is going 15 per cubic centimeter. l 16 to be less attenuation. so the exposures would be higher than I 17 .9 and .4. ;
i !
JUDGE LINENBERGER: Just so the record is not j
' 18 i l
l 19 confused, did you by any chance mean that the gypsum board i
20 would, compared with wood, increase the attenuation, not reduce 21 the attenuation?
i
' 22 THE WITNESS: (Evdokinoff) It would increase the 23 attenuation because it 's denser. {
24 JUDGE LINE lBERGER - All right, j 1
i
! 25 I have noted a frequent distinction being made O
lie r i t age Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4080 I
1 i l
i l
i
1
+ i i
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFP, ECKERT - CROSS 11572 i
0 1 between cloud shine and ground shine, and in certain instances j 2 that involve geometrical considerstions that distinction i
! 3 certainly can be important. I I 4 A distinction has also been made on occasion by you I l-5 gentlemen with respect to the nature of the plume and whether !
6 it contained -- whether it does or does not contain 7 particulates that could settle out and contaminate services at j l' i 8 ground level or structures or whatever. j
! 9 Leaving geometrical considerations out of it. I f I
l 10 should like to inquire what is your basis for, under certain l 11 conditions, seeming to exclude the possibility, and I may be 12 wrong here, this is a perception on my part that you have f i
13 excludeJ under certain conditions the possibility that a plant 14 release will contain particulates, and look at it solely as a [
i 15 strictly gaseous release, perhaps only noble cases.
16 I 'm a litt le confused about that, and also confused i
17 about the possibility that in reality a plume may not be h 18 exclusively gaseous in nature; may very well contribute to l 19 fallout and ground or building contamination, or people 20 contamination, whatever, and therefore this, in turn, leads to 1
5 i
l 21 confusion on my part about the application of .9 frequently l I
i
! 22 just to cloud shine.
I
^3 I confess that what I have said does not comprise a I 24 clean question to you, but I think it 's an area I would like to ;
i t
25 hear you talk about if you would, please.
[
llI lier i t age Reporting Corporation i (202; 628-4886 l b
l t
.- - - - - - - - - = _ - - - - _ _ .
1 l
i i
l- GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11573 l
l 1 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay, let me try to be 2 responsive, and you should interrupt if I 'm no t making it j 3 clear, please. l l 4 The accidents which I think are of most concern for ;
5 emergency planning are ones inv'olving substantial releases of l i
6 radioactivity relatively early on in the sequence of events. i
, 7 These accidents, exactly as you suggest. are very likely to j i :
8 contain, besides noble gases, they will contain iodines !
i i l 9 probably, though there 's controversy. -but particularly in the !
10 case of an early accident this is very important, they will i
11 contain iodine in gaseous form. and they may well contain j i 12 particulates which are radioactive as well, t
i .
13 And I 'll come back to those accidents in j ust a t 14 minute. I think they ere the most important thing. I would l l l 15 like to dispose of the other accidents I talked about s eco nd. ;
16 It is possible, though of less. I think, concern, and f 17 Mr. Turk was trying to get me to think of conditions beyond -- ,
f 18 or Mr. Flynn. excuse me -- Mr. Flynn was trying to get me to !
19 think of conditions beyond controlled venting when this might f
20 happen, i 21 It 's possible that you might have a release that j 22 essentially comprised noble gases. And that was the second f k
23 kind of accident that I did mention in my testimony, and I fear i
! 24 that it was confusing to get it mixed up with the other l
?
25 accidents. t Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4006 f
- s. . - _
' i l ),
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11574 {
1 The amount of iodine is very important, if I can-now J l
2 come back to it. In specifying that I want to say -- I don 't l 3 want to say just gaseous, because a gaseous release that 4 contains a substantial amount of iodine poses different !
1 5 problems. The iodine in gaseous form will also attach itself i 6 to surf aces and could produce ground shine as well.
So the release of iodine in substantial quantities I 7
8 poses a problem thst 's akin to the problem with particulates.
9 and there 's considerable debate about how much iodine is likely l l 10 to be released, and the default values -- there was testinony l l by the Applicant that people were surprised at amounts of l
11 l
I 12 iodine that might be released.
I i l 13 The evidence, well, there is considerable debate. In 14 my opinion, in an early accident it 's quite likely that
' 15 substantic' "1 mounts of iodine will be released, and that will I
! 16 pose a prrblem both for ground shine and inhalation. ,
' t 17 So the second type of accident I was talking about l 18 was really just noble gases. The serious early accident is 6 19 likely to result in the release of, besides noble gases, iodine 20 and various kinds of radioactive particles. [
21 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Okay. fine.
22 Now to go to the second part of my confusion, the j 23 famous 0.9 that we 've talked so much about. Does that somehow i f
24 take account of both ground and airborne radioactivity, or only l i
I 25 airborne, or what does it encompass?
O !
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
i
__.m.____.____ - - - . . - - - - -
l i- . I i- l
! GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11575 l
i
'O i THE WITNESS: (Goble) All right. The famous .9'that 2 wa 're talking about is for cloud shine, and that 's for airborne 3 radioactivity extending through the dimensions of the plume of f
i t 4 radioactivity. l 5 Now it 's an interesting historical question, why l
6 does -- which I think is at the basis of your question -- why r
7 is everybody focusing on the .9 for cloud shielding when we 've 8 had at least questions aid perhaps testimony implying that
! 9 ground shine is a very important component of the dose, perhaps l
' \
10 the most important component of the dose. So why do we keep ;
11 talking about the cloud shine shielding factors.
12 Now my interpretation of this is that this is a l t
13 historical curiosity that has to do with the kinds of dose !
14 proj ections that people were using back when they were talking 15 about design base accidents that were situations much more like 16 the second type of accident I was talking about; a release I
l 17 primarily of noble gases.
18 And where people were trying to do dose proj ections i
19 where an issue was might you or might you not exceed protective [
20 action guidelines rather than how big is the risk. And for the ;
l 21 case of noble gases, your concern is cloud shine. And 1
22 historically people have just used those kinds of dose l t
23 proj ection methods in things like, for example, the decision 24 chart that 's in the New Hampshire plans.
25 Implicitly assumes in lots of ways that you are only O !
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
l s
L i d l
! l 3 GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11576
- i dealing with cloud shine, because the duration of exposure is ;
2 only the duration -- in it is only the duration of the passage f n i
! 3 of the plume that uses a cloud shine shielding factor. That f I l 4 decision chart and the format used goes back to dose 5 proj ections that were designed really for design-based !
l
)
6 accidents rather than the more serious accidents that are the ] !
i j 7 primary concern of emergency planning, i 8 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank you, sir. I believe that 's
'(
9 all I have, t I
h 10 JUDGE HARBOUR: My first questions go to Dr. Eckert. f I
! 11 in your answers yesterday you were referring to the 12 survey instrument, and this was in response to questions that 13 had to do with whether Dr. Luloff had examined these j G 14 beforehand. ]
t 15 Just exactly when you responded that he had tooked at .
16 the survey instrument, what did you mean when you say survey 17 instrument?
18 ~'4E WITNESS : (Eckert) I meant the questionnaire l; j
i i 19 that we sent to the owners. !
j 20 JUDGE HARBOUR: Was that just the four questions, or 1
21 did it include all of the introductory material?
22 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) It included the introductory
! 23 material, the entire page as you see it.
I 24 JUDGE HARBOUR: All right. In your mailings to --
25 the four waves of mailings, was there anything sent with these O ;
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
- ---- - ' '- " " ' ' ~ - ' " ' - ' ' ' -- --
r ,
i i i t l !
?
GOBLE, EVDOr. IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11577 j I
)
h' 1 questionnaires other than just the single page? ,
j 2 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) It was just the single page.
l 3 JUDGE HARBOUR: And in going through the percent of
.L 4 responses yesterday. I have to confess that I got confused.
. 5 The numbers -- I 'll - read to you the numbers which I got on G percent responses that I thought that I understood here.
7 And on the first wave August 26, 27 percent response.
8 The second wave September 9th, two versions of it. 48 percent 9 response. The third wave October 9th, 15 percent response.
10 The fourth wave Novenber 3rd, 10 percent response. And i f 11 that 's correct, that cones to 100 percent.
12 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) That 's right.
i 13 JUDGE HARBOUR: And that 's 100 percent of all the l
i III 14 responses that you received; is that correct?
15 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes, and I can clarify a l
I I 16 little bit.
17 Yesterday, I was talking -- I got the number 233 in 18 my mi nd, and that 's how many we mailed out. ;
19 JUDGE HARBCUR Yes. I f
20 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Our responses are 152, which ;
21 is 72 percent of that. So the percentages are exactly the 22 same. We wound up get t ing 152 returns.
23 JUDGE HARBOUR: So those would be then -- those 24 percentages would be based on the population of 152.
25 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) That 's correct.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202. 020-4088 I
I I
.. -~
l
1.
l 1
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11578 1 JUDGE HARBOUR: All right. Thank you. l I 2 How many multiple responses are included? That is, 3 the same person or different. persons within the same l 4 establishment respo nding.
1 S THE WITNESS: (Eckert) They were screened out, to my 6 knowledge. We may have had like a father and son respond from 7 the same establishment.
6 JUDGE HARBOUR: New that 's on .any one mailing you 're 9 talking about; is that correct?
10 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes.
11 ' JUDGE HARBOUR : But what about on successive 12 mailings?
13 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Any repeats, you know, if l 14 there was a repeated -- a cross in the mail and the person I
15 answered the survey twice, we caught that and only used I think l l
16 the first response that came back.
' i l
17 JUDGE HARBOUR t But those multiple responses are l l
l 18 included in your Attachment 12.
I i 19 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I believe so. I don 't recall I
j 20 exactly.
21 JUDGE HARBOUR: I noted --
22 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes. I think a number of l 23 those --
24 JUDGE HARBOUR: -- some of those which is why I 'm 25 asking the question.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888
~._. ~ _ ~ . - - . - - - -
l I
i-GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11579 ,
I h Do you know how many -- well, does the existence of 1 [
i l 2 multiple responses affect your 152 total response that 3 you 're --
4- THE WITNESS: (Eckert) No, it doesn 't. ,
t 5 JUDGE HARBOUR: All riEht. thank you. )
l 6 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) That 's accurate.
l 7 JUDGE HARBOUR: Who is Salmen Falls Research 7
8 Associates. Incorporat ed? For example, when was it j 9 incorporated?
I 10 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) It was incorporated in June 11 of '87. And it 's a S chapter corporation.
, 12 JUDGE HARBOUR: And I understand that you are a vice 13 president? j 9 14 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) That 's right ,
j
[
15 JUDGE H ARBOUR : Are the other principals also at the l
i 16 university?
17 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes, we 're all at the l
\
l 18 university over there.
l l 1 19 JUDGE HARBOUR: How were you contacted by the 20 Massachuset ts Attorney General 's of fice, or did you contact the :
i'
, 21 Massachuset ts At torney General 's of fice in order to perform j 22 this work that you 've perf ormed?
23 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) The contact for Salnen Falls l 24 to get involved came through Dr. Luloff who is the president of 25 the firm, and he was doing former work. He was doing work 9 Reporting Corporation Heritage (202) 628-4080
,. __ _ ,._ =._____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l l
GOBLE. EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11580 0 1 earlier for the Attorney General, and they asked him to do some 2 work, and he turned around and asked the rest of us if we were l
i i 3 interested in doing it.
J 4 JUDGE HARBOUR: But was he doing work earlier as a 5 private person?
6 THE '1!TNESS: (Eckert) Yes.
7 JUDGE HARBOUR: Or was he doing it under Salmon l
l 8 Falls?
9 THE WITNESS: CEckert) He was not doing it under j
i j 10 Salacn Falls. He was a private person.
11 JUDGE HARBOUR: So for performing the work for the 12 Massachusetts Attorney General 's of fice, does Salmon Falls have 13 a contract?
14 THE WITNESS: CEckert) That 's correct.
15 JUDGE HARBOUR: And how nLany other contracts do you 16 have?
17 THE WITNESS: CEckert) You mean other than Saluon 18 Falls?
19 JUDGE HARBOUR: No, how many other contracts does 20 Salmon Falls have other than with the Massachusetts Attorney 21 General 's of fice?
22 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) It has approxinetely four 23 right now.
24 JUDGE HARBOUR: Four.
25 THE WITNESS: (Ecker.) Yes.
O Heritage Reporting Cor po r at ion (202) 628-4888 I l
L
' l l GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11581 l I -
I l 1 JUDGE HARBOUR: Now, the other two witnesses here, do i
j 2 you belong to the Salmon Falls Research Associates?
3 THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) No, I don 't ; no.
l 4 THE WITNESS: (Goble) No.
i S JUDGE HARBOUR: All right. So how many principals l l I
l 6 are there again? I 'm sorry.
i There are six principals.
l 7 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) 8 JUDGE HARBOUR: Six.
r E29 9 (Continued on next page.)
10
(
I 11 12 lh 14 i
15 {
16 17 l I
18 I i
19 20 21 7 22 l
23 l 24 25 l 0
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i I
GOBLE, EV DOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11582 I 1,JO 1 JUDGE HARBOUR: Did you make any effort to ascertcin l 2 if the respondents to the survey believed that by negative l l
3 responses that they could deny access and have an influence on ,
4 the hearings and licensing of the powerplant?
5 THE WITNESS: CEckert) No, we didn 't make that sort l l
- 6 of effort. We tried to stick faiely closely to mailing the 7 questionnaires out and we would j ust . base our responses on 1
8 that. We -- there really isn 't -- well, we didn 't ask, for l
f 9 example, possibly in the next survey, if we did it, we might 10 ask something about the attitudes of the person toward the 11 plant. I don 't know how we 'd phrase that question, but that 12 would be a way to answer that, and we didn't do that in this 13 survey.
14 JUDGE HARBOUR I know that there was media and 16 newspaper coverage of. either your survey or other persons '
16 surveys, but I don 't recall what the timing of this coverage 17 was. When or. first of all. do you recall newspaper coverage 18 associated with your survey?
l 19 THE WITNESS: CEckert) I don 't . Our survey was 20 alaost all back in, say, before the C-10 people started 21 working. So I suspect the :-10 activities may have been the 22 one that got the nost publicity.
23 JUDGE HARBOUR: And that was in October of 1987 I 24 believe?
25 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I think so, yes. Because l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4080 i
i
_. =_ - _ - _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - -
i l
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11503 0 1 we -- we had more than 7S percent of our response in on the 2 October 9th -- before the October 9th one when they were out 3 beginning to do their work.
4 JUDGE HARBOUR: Well, were you ever contacted by the j S media to --
6 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) No, I was never contacted and 7 Salmon Falls was never contacted.
8 JUDGE HARBOUR: That 's all I have, thank you.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Other Intervenors? l J
10 Ms. Weiss. t 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION !
12 BY MS. KEISS:
13 Q Good morning, gentlemen.
14 Just briefly with respect to the work - that you 're iS doing. Dr. Goble, for the TMI Public Health Fund, isn 't it true 16 that all the projects funded by the TMI Public Health Fund are f 17 approved by the Court af ter opportunity and connent to obj ect 18 by the utility company?
19 MR. FLYNN: Obj ect ion, the question is leading. The 20 panel -- even though Ms. Weiss is not associated with the 21 Attorney General 's Of fice, nevertheless, this should not be l 22 considered cross-examination, this should be considered in the l 23 nature of redirect.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Weiss. do you want to be heard? l 2S The question is clearly leading. On the other hand it does not j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ - . _ = _ _ _
. _ - = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l, GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11584 9 i strongly suggest an answer contrary to what she could develop l 2 on belabored cross-examination.
3 MS, WEISS: I t 's. you know. it 's true we could start 4 at this late date saying that we 're not really cross-examining.
5 but we*11 move a heck of a lot faster if we could get through j G it as we have in the past. !
l 7 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. Do you have any trouble with the 8 compound fact of the question? Overruled.
9 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes, ,
i 10 BY MS. WEISS:
11 Q With respect to the discussion yesterday that the 12 definition of entrapment in NUREG-1210. why in an entrapment l
13 situation an exception in NUREG-1210 to the assumption that 14 close-in evacuation is always a preferable option?
15 MR TURK: Your Honor. I 'm going to have to raise an i
[
16 obj ection at this point. The witness 's testimony yest erday 17 indicated that he had no knowledge of NUREG-1210 beyond what he 18 read in the document. The question asks for something that 19 really would be speculative on the part of the witness as to l
20 matters he has absolutely no knowledge of.
21 MS. WEISS: That 's --
22 MR. TURK : And the document, i n t e r.ns o f wha t N UREG -
l 23 1210 says, the document is available for all of us to cite and 24 leave argument --
25 MS. WEISS: Well, t hat 's not true. I t 's no t in (Il !
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4608 I
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFP. ECKERT - CROSS 11585 0 1 evidence, and it hasn 't been jut ally noticed, but you asked 2 this witness a half an hours worth of questions on his 3 interpretation of NUREG-1210. It 's t rue, he didn't consult 4 with the authors, but he read the five volumes, and he 5 understands it; and his testimony frequently cites it and I 'm 6 entitled to follow up on the line which you clearly opened.
7 You asked 15 minutes specifically on entrapment.
8 MR. TURK : Your Honor, the whole point of my 9 examination and the result was that the witness conceded that 10 he had no knowledge of it apart from his own reading and 11 interpretation of it.
12 The question asked by Ms. Weiss is, why does NUREG-13 1210 say something?
14 JUDGE SMITH: Why what?
15 MR. TURK : Why does NUREG-1210 contain certain 16 statements? The question, why. I don 't think is capable of 17 being answered by this witness.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Let 's find out , Maybe he does, maybe 19 it explains it within the docunent that he read.
20 MR. TURK: Well, within that context I wouldn 't 21 object. If the question was, what does NUREG-1210 say about 22 somethitta. I have no obj ect ion, 23 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled. But you can explore the 24 basis for his answer, of course.
25 MR. TURK : Of course, noting Ms. Weiss ' concern about O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4808
-__ = - _ _ _ = - _ _ _ ________ _ __- _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l GOBLE, EVDOK IMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11586 l O 1 moving the hearing along. I j ust as soon we didn't have to open l 2 an other door that requires closing later.
3 MS. WEISS: You can answer. Dr. Goble.
i l
4 MR. LEWALD: May I have the question. I think I 'm l ll l 5 lost at this point.
l 6 JUDGE SMITH: Could you restate, rather than going l i
7 back to rereading, could you state it again, i
8 MS. WEISS: Yes. ;
l 9 BY MS. WEISS:
10 Q With reference to the discussion of entrapment 1
11 yesterday the question is. why is an entrapment situation an 12 exception to the general principle that close-in evacuation is l
13 a preferable option?
14 MR. TURK : I have to note my obj ection again, Your 15 Honor. If the question was, what does the document state. I j 16 would have not obj ec t ion. If the question is, why, again, 17 that 's something the witness has no knowledge of and it 's pure l l
10 speculation. l 19 MS. WEISS: That 's the same obj ection you just I i 20 overruled.
1 21 JUDGE SMITH: You may answer.
22 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. I 'm a little bit ,
j
' l 23 baffled by this legal discussion. It seems --
24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, do you understand the question?
25 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Well, I think I understand the k
Heritage R epo r t i ng Corporation (202) C.2 8- 4 888
I 1
i GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11587 h 1 question. Let me ask you, perhaps --
2 JUDGE SMITH: Don 't ask me. i 1
3 THE WITNESS: (Goble) -- about my answer.
l l 4 JUDGE SMITH: Ask the -- you state your understanding 5 of the question --
l 6 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay.
7 JUDGE SMITH: -- and see if Ms. Weiss agrees with 8 you.
9 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I felt. especially the second 10 time the question was asked, that I was being asked to give my 1
11 judgment as to why entrapment -- a situation of entrapment 12 makes an exception to a general rule which is enunciated in 13 NUREG-1210 that evacuation is a preferred strategy in close.
14 So I felt that -- that 's how I interpreted the i 15 question, and I thought it was a question about my judgment as l 16 an emergency planner, 17 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
10 THE WI'fNESS: (Goble) And that I could ar,swer it 19 that way.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Do you agree with the premise of the l 21 question? Do you agree that t he --
l l
l 22 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I agree that NUREG-1210 does l
23 generally recommend early evacuation and notes that there are l 24 certain exceptions, and t ha t 's in the written document. And l
I 25 that's the basis; that 's my belief.
(
I llI Heritage Reporting Cor} oration (202) 620-4088 l
1 i
i GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11580 h 1 JUDGE SMITH: That 's the basis for your belief ?
2 THE WITNESS: (Goble) That 's right. Just what I 've I
3 read. 3 i
i 4 JUDGE SMITH: In NUREG-1210? I
- 5 THE WITNESS
- (Goble) That 's right.
! G JUDGE SMITH: You have not formed your own 7 independent view of whether the premise is correct or rather a O rule es you state -- as you explained. You stated that NUREG-9 1210 sets out a general rule which I would infer you. recognize 10 as being a general rule independent of 1210. now I 'm no t sure?
11 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes. I concur -- if NUREG-12 1210 is to be interpreted as I interpreted it from my reading 13 of it as saying, this is a general rule which has exceptions. I 14 concur with it as a general rule with exceptions, and it 's my 15 belief that situations involving entrapment represent 16 entrapment defined as immobility of the population for several 17 hours constitutes an exception.
18 JUDGE SMITH: And what is the reasoning behind that?
19 THE WITNESS: (Goble) And the reasoning behind 20 that --
21 JUDGE SMITH: And you can identify the reasoning that 22 you have taken from 1210 or the reasoning that you understand 23 from other source, but identify it? i 24 THE WITNESS: (Goble) All right. The reasoning 25 behind -- this is a rule -- this is a matter in which I forned Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat ion l (202) 628-4888
=- ___
l i
i l GOBLE. EV DOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11509 lh 1 my own j udgment before reading 1210. all right. Andit I
2 involves an analysis of accident conditions, potential accident i l
3 conditions and modeling consequences under a range of 4 co ndit inns. And it 's clear that the severity of consequences 5 in a serious accid 9nt is very sensitive to evacuation times.
G That 's -- I mean, we can model -- we model it 7 quantitatively to try to get a feeling f( ,
t are the 8 parameters involved, but it 's also connce -se. If you 9 believe people exposed for several hours in a radioactive aren 10 it 's connon sense that that 's potentially a serious problem.
11 So that 's the basis for it -- the basis as for as my 1
12 own studies of potential accident consequences and how you 13 might attempt to mitigate them, 14 Now, I then read NUREG -1210 and its j udgments in the j
i 15 main with some differences, agree with the judgments of my ,
16 colleagues who have been working on this problem. And si nce 17 it 's a document that has been cited in these proceedings, and 18 since i t 's al so -- I consider it an important document. l h
19 JUDGE SMITH: Well. I think your -- ;
20 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I was relating my answers to 21 that document. It was not the basis for my judgment. !
22 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
23 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Now, based on that -- I think 24 I 've answered your question, but I 'm not sure, have it? Your l
25 question was -- I mean, how much detail to you want about why k
Heritage Reportir.g Corporation (202) 628-4880
_ . _ _ . _ _ _ = . _ _ = _ _ _ _ - _ = . _ _ _ - . - -
I
' i I
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11690 1
1 it 's a bad idea to leave people exposed for hours in a 2 radioactive aren?
3 BY MS. WEISF:
4 Q Well. my interest is just to nake sure that you*ve S been able to give a full answer to the question of why i
G entrapment is an exception to the general principle of l
l 7 early -- of evacuation of the close-in areas?
8 A (Goble) All right. So the -- and the only thing .
9 then, perhaps. I haven 't said is that. in most of the 10 situations -- in most situations as described in NUREG- 1210 l 11 it*s anticipated that you can evacuate people quite quickly.
l 12 That there 's only hunareds of people in close und it 's assumed j i
13 there aren 't maj or impediment s to evacuation, so you can get '
14 people out quite quickly.
10 So, we 're comparing, really. quite short tine periods 16 with longer time periods.
17 Q Now, just with reference to your understanding of l l
NUREG-1210. 13 it your understanding that that document defines 10 19 entrapment as limited to situations where the impediment to 20 evacuation is a physical impediment or caused by bad weather?
21 A (Goble) That 's not my underst anding. This is the --
22 the occuannt lists -- gives a list of possible things that can 23 result in entrapment, and it includes in the list a high 24 population density.
2S Q Dr. Evdoki mo f f , or if -- I guess I prematurely give f
I dl>
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4880 t
l-- .
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11591 0 1 you your doctorate.
2 A (Evdokimoff) Okay, Whichever you like, Mr.
3 Q Mr. Evdokino f f , you didn 't seek out the worse 4 cottages to inspect from the inside, did you?
5 A (Evdokimoff) No; as I said, as I told Mr. Lewald 6 yesterday I was concerned about bias, if I had gone into a 7 realtor and said that I 'm representing the Attorney General 's 8 Office, you know, it could ec one way or the other. You know, 9 I think there could be a greater bias in there.
10 So I just went in with the, you know, saying that my 11 family and I were looking for a place to stay in a week or two 12 and, you know, j ust what do you have and, you know, try to get 13 a price range, after I found out what the price was.
14 Q Insofar as the degree to which these 12 cottages 15 which you inspected from the inside may or may not have been
' 16 representative of the larger number of cottages on the beach, 17 you have physically viewed from the outside close to 500 of 18 those cottages; is that correct?
19 A (Evdokimoff) Probably more, Ms. Weiss, because I 20 formerly, in my survey, talked about 459, but, you know, I 21 probably at one time or another covered every single street and 22 didn 't include it in the survey. So I would guess that 23 probably add another 100 to 200 that I didn 't take credit for.
24 Q And can you say then from your personal o'aservation 25 of these -- the large number of cottages from the outside O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4838
l l N ,
I l
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11592 ;
h 1 whether or not the 12 that you viewed from the inside are j s
2 fairly representative of the range of cottages in the beach j i
l 3 area? l f
4- A (Evdokinoff) Yes. I think that 's true, i 5 Q I guess it 's Dr. Eckert who was asked the question b
6 about whether you endeavored to find out whether auxiliary !
7 apartments attached to commercial establishments on the beach !
b 8 were actually occupied by owners and managers, that 's correct , j l
9 that was the question directed towards you?
10 A CEckert) Yes, I think so. I i
11 Q Is it your understanding of Stone & Webster second !
i 12 study that the definition of publicly accessible shelter _ space l
' i 13 was intended to include such auxiliary apartments? I l
14 A CEckert) That 's not my understanding of it. j i,
1 15 Q Regardless of who might occupy them?
i 16 A (Eckert) Yes. They were intending to avoid private }
17 space. I L
i 18 Q With regard to the Seaside Motel, which we had a j L 19 great deal of questioning about, this was not one of the 23 i I
l 20 selected by your rancom sample which you visited and measured; }
21 is that correct? !
\
- l. t l
22 A CEckert) That is correct. !
23 Q And you do not make a representation in your l I !
24 testimony that the Seaside Motel 's dimensions are 780 square j i
25 feet, do you? l l
i
! 4eritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4886 l l
t b;
s' l
' GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11593 1 A (Eckert) No, that referred only to the j 2 multiplication error.
d I
3 Q Your testimony simply points out that there 's an ,
4 obvious multiplication error on the face of the Stone & Webster l
5 sheet; is that correct? <
6 A (Eckert) That 's correct. I s t j
i 7 Q Can you look at page 58 of your testimony as l i :
8 criginally filed and before amended?
I 9 A (Eckert) Yes, I have that. l
)
1 10 Q in the eighth line down from the top, in fact the end f
I j 11- of that first full paragraph on page 58. j 12 A (Eckert) Right.
13 Q lt reads in the original version, quote: "This :
14 figure minus the documented erroneous square footage leaves j l t f 15 710,866 square feet and minus the speculated square footage j i
i 16 errors leaves 571,800 square feet;" is that correct? l i i j 17 A (Eckert) That is correct. t i
18 Q And then is it correct that in your corrected version ,
l r
19 you removed the last part of the sentence which subtracts the l 20 spec: lated square footage errors? l 6
I 21 A (Eckert) Right.
f 22 Q Could you explain to me why you did that, please?
l 23 MR. LEWALO: I 'm going to obj ect to this. Your Honor. !
l 24 He has stricken from his testimony, his filed testimony certain f 25 paragraphs and certain -- and elsewhere certain lines. It is l i
[
l
! Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 [
l f f
I
l-L GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11594 e
- 1 no longer part of his testimony, end now what Ms. Weiss is i
2 doing is introducing it now as part of his testimony and I 'm
- 3 going to obj ect to that. I think it 's putting this in by the 4 back door. And if the witness has not presented it as his T
- 5 direct testimony it shouldn 't come in via the back door in ,
a j 6 cross-examination, j l
j 7 JUDGE SMITH: The copy doesn 't --
8 MS. WEISS: I remember Mr. Lewald went into a long l 1
l 9 line of questioning with Mr. Evdokinoff about why he had l 4
! 10 excised certain material from his final draft. He accused him 11 of disguising addresses, if I recall correctly. l f, '
d 12 MR. TURK: I don 't recall accusation, Ms. Weiss. i i .
I
! 13 JUDGE SMITH: What -- specifically, what testimony !
l f 14 was stricken? ,
t i
l 15 MR. LEWALD: What was stricken is what Ms. Weiss is l i
t '
I 16 referring to is the first full paragraph on page 58. .
[
- 17 JUDGE SMITH
- My copy doesn 't show that.
18 MS. WEISS: It wasn 't --
I 19 MR. LEWALD: Well, the last phrase and minus 20 speculated square footage errors leaves 571.800 square feet. f I
I 21 Now, the speculated square foot errors is dealt with in a !
22 preceding paragraph in earlier testimony which is act part of 23 this testimony.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it wasn 't stricken, it was --
t MS, WEISS: Withdrawn. !
25 I llI !
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 {
i l
t
_ __ J
4 i
!~
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11595 JUDGE SMITH:
i 1 -- withdrawn.
i j'
2- MR. LEWALD: It 's withdrawn, yes.
l 4 3 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. All right. l
- a. i
!~ 4 MR. LEWALD: Well, stricken with honor. I didn 't !
1 :
-5 mean to imply that the Board had stricken it. l f
1 l 6 JUDGE SMITH: No, I thought that the witness on the j l
4 7 stand had disavowed it. I inferred from your remarks. I l
8 recall now. But the fact is, you did examine him on those l
l 9 matters. f 10 MR. LEWALD: It 's not part of the testimony. l t
11 JUDGE SMITH: I beg your pardon? !
12 MR. LEWALD: I say, that phrase is not part of his t
i 13 current testimony. l I ( However, you did l
14 JUDGE SMITH: That 's correct. :
l 15 examine him on that subj ect mat ter. ,
16 MR. LEWALD: I did not. i 17 MS. WEISS: Examined him on -- )
18 MR. LEWALD: I examined him on his -- on two matters !
19 where he had withdrawn the nuaibers of the places that he looked j 20 at on Ashworth -- I believe it 's Ashworth Street. He had 5
21 removed that 136 because the Attorney General apparently told I l
r 22 him there wasn 't any 136. j l
23 And I also examined him on why there was a difference 24 of 10 cottages that were representative in his earlier 25 testimony which now appeared as 12 cottages. And these were {
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
i l
1.
! GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11596 i
g 1 the areas that I inquired about.
t 2 JUDGE SMITH: Let 's take our morning break. Do you f
l 3 have anything further to say on it?
l l 4 MR. BACKUS: .Your Honor, before you take a break, if l.
- i 8
5 I could, back on May 10th when we filed our motion to recusal i
l 6 you said on the record that after we got the transcript we l l
7 could renew the motion in writing, and I 'd like to do that at i 8 this time and hand copies of the motion to the Board and the l i
9 parties. l o -i' We 'l l take a 15. minute break.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
l 11 Are you going to file it with the secretary?
! 12 MR. BACKUS: The service list has been served. =
! 13 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
tll et 14 (Continued on next page.) !
I f 15 l 16 !
I f l 17 r i t
!' 18 i
l 19 i
l 20 [
l 21 [
i ;
- f. 22 l 23 24 [
25 :
Heritage Reporting Corporation [
(202) G28-4888 f t
[
I i
1 i !
! GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11597 l
g.
t TQ'1 1 MS. MITCHELL: Your Honor, just for the record, the i
2 Town of Kensington j oins Mr. Backus 's renewed notion.
l 3 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. First, we want to take up Mr.
4 Dignan 's motion to strike the answer to Judge Linenbercs 's l
5 question to the panel, and we have revisited that motion, We
', 6 have had a discussion duriitg the break involving the legal j 7. aspects of it and the evidentiary aspects of it, i
j 8 And the Board is going to grant the motion and strike
! i l- 9 the answer -- the portion of the answer -- could you read the I l
! 10 answer back? No, no, just the answer? l 1
l 11 (Whereupon, the court reporter attempted to j 12 play back the answer to one of Judge Linenberger 's i 1
i 13 questions.)
l 14 JUDGE SMITH: Does anybody have any doubts in their l
l 15 mind what the answer was that was subj ect to the motion? i l
i i
l 16 It was the comments about the interviews with the ;
\
j 17 police department and the fire department, and their response I
\
18 that they would not stay on the job. Those are the comments, !
l.
19 it will be clear in the transcript, which the Board will j t
- 20 strike, and report that we will not consider those answers in !
t 21 our decision.
?
22 Now going to the motion for recusal. We had a chance }
23 to not really read it but j ust get the essence of it during the 24 break, and I do have a couple of questions on it, i 25 Orie is, I understand that the motion is limited to l O f Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i !
i GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11598 i i the testimony of Mr. Thomas, and if necessary,-the other FEMA b- 2 witnesses. You are not making a motion that we step down from l
! 3 the case. l 4 MP. BACKUS: That 's right.
e.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. And what did you have in mind i i
!. 6 about the mechanism of the other witnesses? !
) 7 MR. BACKUS: Well, it seems to us that the issue that i
I j 8 we are about to get into, which has been controversial
- 2 l 9 throughout this proceeding, is the issue of the FEMA position, i 10 and that is what, it seems to us, requires the Board 's decision >
1 11 on whether it can sit on the testimony that bears on that issue l
12 which is why I wanted to raise the issue, first of all, at the f i
j 13 earliest. possible time which I think is my obligation. j
, 14 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah. !
' l l 15 MR. BACKUS: And, secondly, before we started with '
i 16 the testimony of the NRC witnesses. l i
! 17 The motion is particularly directed toward this j
! 18 Board 's evaluation of the testimony of Mr. Thomas. But insofar !
19 as that is intertwined or involves the same subj ect r.at ter that i
! 20 may be involved, apparently will be involved with the NRC [
' t F
! 21 witnesses from Region 1 that we 're about to hear, we think the !
l l 22 Board should take that into consideration. j i
23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, maybe I misunderstand. l i
l l 24 Is this a motion to the Board to exercise its own
! 25 discretion and step down, or is this a motion that, if granted :
l I
llh ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
e i (202) 628-4888 i I
i i
. r
_e
L q L -
l l
GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11599 :
h k 1 and on appeal, would require the Board to step down? j 4
' 2 ' MR . BACKUS: I think, in the first instance, i t 's a l l
! 3 motion directed to the discretion of the Board. I have not t
' 1 i f 4 had, _as I said, time to do the legal research, to review the
- 5 cases.
1-6 JUDGE SMITH: All right, l
.c f
I 7 MR. BACKUS: We are not waiving our right to claim l i 8 that there is a legal requirement that the Board step down, We 9 j ust don 't have the legal -- !
}_
10 JUDGE SMITH: In this motion. f
[
i '
i 11 MR. BACKUS: Right.
i In any event. I wish to I 12 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
13 have representation from the lawyers involved, in addition to j 14 you, that they believe that there is a solid legal basis for L
l i 15 this motion. J l
l 16 And. Ms. Weiss, I'll call upon you. I know that you i ,
e 17 are familiar with the law of recusal in NRC and the court i 18 cases, and I want your representation that you believe that 19 this motion -- if you are joining in it, in fact -- that thiu )
i j 20 motion has the necessary and appropriate legal support. ;
\
l 21 MS. WEISS: I do j oin the motion, Your Honor, and I !
) .
I 22 do believe that it has merit.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Have you taken into account the j
[ 24 position that the Union of Concerned Scientists represented by I 25 you have taken in previous motions? ;
h Heritage Reporting Corporation [
i (202) 628-4888 j i
i
E 1
l 5
GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS ~ 11600 l-h I 'm talking about legal support.
i- 1 i
t 2 Do~you believe that this motion has legal support,
{. 3 case precedents? i I 4 MS. WEISS: I 'm not sure whether it has NRC case j I
s i.
- 5 precedents, Your Honor. I have not researched it. j i E
! 6 JUDGE SMITH: Do you think it has United States 7 Court, Federal Court precedents?
l- i 8 MS. WEISS: I haven't done legal research for this l f '
.i
! 9 motion, Your Honor. I do believe, however, that the record i
b L 10 suggests prej udgment. [
i ;
11 JUDGE SMITH: Do you support this motion without j b'
12 reservation? j l
13 Do you believe that it has legal support? l l 14 MS. WEISS: Yes, Your Honor. I i
k 15 JUDGE SMITH; Now I want the Massachusetts Attorney ,
?
I 16 General 's representation on it, too. ,
i I
17 MR. OLESKEY: I 'll make the same representation. Your la Honor.
19 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, for the Town of Hampton, we 20 would also make that representation. :
1 i 21 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, may I just note for the j
- i t '
22 record that at the direction of the Board I did prepare a j i-f 23 handwritten affidavit. I apologize for it being handwritten, fn 24 but I have distributed it to your desk up there - I trust you !
l ?
l 25 have it -- and to the parties. t
, l i
Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 l
r i !
l s !
. _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . .,.. _ _ _ _ - _. .. __.,.____ _ __ _.m. _- .
d GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11601 JUDGE SMITH: And you have -- Mr. Brock is here.
~
1 f'
2 MR. BACKUS: Mr. Brock has taken my acknowledgement. t i
3 I would also just note for the record that this i
- i.
! 4 motion has been served on the service list in a form that had a 5 few typos.in it, so'it will be reserved, but it has gone out on
) j l-6 the service list. ;
a ;
j 7 JUDGE SMITH: Ms.. Weiss, you may proceed. (
i ;
8 MS , WEISS: There 's a pending obj ection.
j t
i 9 JUDGE SMITH: Gentlemen, I want to revisit this, i
' I t
10 I want you to really think, you lawyers, your j
[ i 11 position that you believe that federal precedent supports this .;
l I
f- motion. I have put you on the spot. I have asked you, you have i 12
! i
! 13 had an opportunity to consider. I want your considered !
! 14 representation af ter you 've had a chance to think about it and iS reflect. !
16 MS. WEISS: Yes, Your Honor.
17 JUDGE SMITH: All right, proceed. f l
18 MS. WEISS: There 's a -- l 19 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I get into this to !
20 this extent? l 21 Could I respectfully suggest to my brothers and 22 sisters of the bar that they review carefully the decision of L i
( 23 Houston Lighting & Power Company, South Texas Proj ect. Units 1 24 and 2. CLI-82-9, 15 NRC 1363 (1982)? ,
25 MR. TIRK: Your Honor, for further reference. I 'd i
! Heritage Reporting Corporation f l (202) 628-4000 l
?
i i 6
I b
5 l
GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11602 t l
k mention some other cases not referenced by Mr. Dignan. And one j 1
2 would be Metropolitan Edison Company, Three Mile Island, Unit :
i I 3 1. CLI-85-5, 21 NRC 566 (1985) . Also, a Limerick decision. I l t
i j 4 believe that 's ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681 (1985). ;
I
! 5 In addition, there 's I believe two Seabrook j
' 6 decisions, ALAB-749, 18 NRC 1195 (1983); and ALAB-748, 18 NRC l i !
l 7 1313 (1983).
8 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Weiss. :
f l 9 MS. WEISS: There 's a pending question and a pending [
l 10 obj ect ion. [
l l 11 MR. 'JIGNAN: Excuse me. And to add to that. Your j
! 12 Honor, the federal doctrine which permits a federal t.ial j l
- 13 judge, a trial judge charging a jury to comment on the r
14 evidence.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan, I believe that the law is i 16 so clear on this point. That is why I was moved to ask the ;
i 17 lawyers if they really in good conscious think that there is v
18 legal support for it. I think that we 're entitled to that t 19 before we move along.
i 20 I mean i t 's one thing -- if I understood it to be a ;
t 21 motion calling upon the Board to exercise its discretion to l i
t 22 step aside on this, that 's one thing. !
23 But as a motion which would require the Board as a l 24 matter of law to step aside and refer it to the Appeal Board, f i ,
25 as we 're required to do, I want the representation that they I
f Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 i l
f 1 .
1 L
- L b GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11603 .l L
j
( )' 1 believe, professionally believe that'there is -- that it is I
j' !
i 2- well founded legally by precedents. l i-l 3' MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, I would just like to t.
! 4 re spo nd.
1 i 1- 5 I am aware of the federal doctrine that the federal i
! G trial practice allows judges to comment on the evidence. I l
! 7 don 't believe that al lows j udges to misstat e the evidence, and i
i 8 the gist of our notion is precisely that, i 9 And I have, of course, made that representation that i
) 10 you asked for on behalf of my client and for myself.
I i
- 11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, since you signed the motion I j j !
i 12 didn 't ask you to take it. The others did not sign it nor did i
l 13 their names, as far as I can see, appear.
l l t 14 MS. WEISS: There 's a pending question and an j f
I l 15 obj ec t ion, Your Honor.
d 16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. What was the -- do you recall 17 what -- i 18 MS. WEISS: Yes, it went to the testimony in the j 19 original deleted from the final version on Page 58, with regard 20 to speculated square footage errors.
21 JUDGE SMITH: We didn 't take that up at the break.
22 Sorry. We were more concerned about the other two matters.
23 Would you restate the question? l l
24 MS. WEISS: Well, the question was simply why that j 25 material was deleted from the final version.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l
. . - ~ - . - . . - ~ . - - . - . . . .-
i i- l E ,
GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11604 ;
i I 1 If you're on Page 58 of the testimony --
I~
1 2 JUDGE SMITH: Now there 's a dif f erence -- we 're on 3 Page 58 and the material that was deleted is what? j f
i !
4 MS. WEISS: It 's the material at the end of the last f
5 sentence of the first full paragraph on that page that reads, !'
i l i 6 "and minus the speculated square footage errors leaves 571,800 l 7 square feet."
8 JUDGF SMITH: And it 's your view, Mr. Lewald, that 9 you had not examined on that? >
10 MR. LEWALD: It 's my view that I had not examined on ;
11 that.
f I And further, what Ms. Weiss is trying to do pretty 12
?
.- 13 obviously is to now introduce as direct testimony what the '
i 14 witness himself had not included in the testimony currently 15 filed, but which was included in a prior version, i
16 The reference here on Page 58 that Ms. Weiss referred 17 to, the antecedent of that reference is on Page 54 of the old i
l i 18 testimony. And that embraces a paragraph that says as follows:
1 19 "Based on personal knowledge and information obtained 20 from longtime residents of Hampton and informed speculation on 21 the part of Salmon Falls," et cetera. 3 i 22 Now, that section -- the Salmon Falls witness, Dr. )
I l I i 23 Eckert, chose not to include it in his testimony as filed here.
24 And the effect of this question, Ms. Weiss is now trying to cut i
25 it in his direct testimony. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i 1 .
4 t
I
! I l- '
l I 4
l L I i GOBLE. EVDOMIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11605 .j
([] 1 MS. WEISS: It 's my understanding that what . you j ust i
I i 2 read on Page 54 -- '
l f ;
{ 3 MR. LEWALD: It 's not cross-examination -- l
, 4 MS. WEISS: -- still is in the testinony.
t b '
l 5 MR. LEWALD: -- of his direct testimony. ,
1 :
} .t
- 6 MS. WEISS
- It 's my understanding that the testimony {t 7 on Page 54 that Mr. Lewald refers to is still part of the f 1
8 direct testimony. It has not been deleted, unless my copy is l
4 9 wrong.
10 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm looking at the corrected testimony
! 11 dated May 3rd. Now what -- would you point to me from the {
I I
! 12 testimony on Page 54 which is in issue here?
The material that starts -- the second
! 13 MS. WEISS:
+
14 half of the first paragraph on that page. "Based on personal 15 knowledge and information obtained from longtime residents of 16 Hampton, and informed speculation on behalf of Salmon Falls, it f 17 is likely there are another 70 owner 's/ manager 's/ employee 's
- 18 apartments. If these apartments are of the same average size t
i 19 as those above, they would total over 99.000 square feet."
i 20 It 's my understanding that 's still in the testimony.
l i
4 21 MR. LEWALD: My understanding that this had been i ,
b 22 excised from the testimony.
23 JUDGE SMITH: My copy doesn 't show -- let 's see, we l
24 don 't have that transcript with us. My copy doesn 't show that. !
25 MR. LEWALD: I don 't have the errata with me that was
! (
Heritage Reporting Corporat ion 3 (202) 628-4808 l
}
}
. - _ _. ___. _ ... - . . _ _ - . . . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . - . . _ _ . _ _ _ _~ , _
7 1
i GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11606 Y l 1 filed in connection with the corrected testimony that was ,
- 2 introduced.
3 MR. TURK: Your Honor, if it helps, my reading of the [
4 errata compared to my earlier version of the testimony ;
5 indicates that the statements on Page 54 still are in the 6 testimony. But there are. I believe, two other instances where i f 7 references to speculat ion were withdrawn by the witness in the !
! 8 revised testimony, and both of those instances appear on Page ,
! I 9 58 of the old testimony, and are not in the new u atimony. l 1
, 10 (Board confer.) ,
i i
l 1.1 JUDGE SMITH: Two of us simply have lost -- I don 't i l
1 j 12 know. Two out of three Board members do not u nde rs t and. We !
)
i i :
i g 13 have lost the logic of the debate, and we don 't know what the i W Somebody is going to have to l 14 debate is, what the dispute is. f I I l 15 explain it again. ;
f 16 MS. WEISS: Well, my question was simply why has that ,
f I
! 17 material been deleted. And the burden is on my brothers to 1
l 18 explain the obj ection. l
' i 19 JUDGE SMITH: It 's j ust that we don 't understand; two t l
d I
i j 20 of us do not understand what 's happening, and you 're going to f I
I 21 have to explain. l 22 MR. LEWALD: I don 't understand what 's happening I
23 either, and that 's part of my problem. !
l >
24 We have a certain part of the testimony which was in 25 an earlier version which is no longer there. I assume it 's l l '
1 l
i Heritage Reporting Corporation 2 (202) 628-4808 4
GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF. ECT.ERT - CROSS 11607 i deleted and the witness isn't of f ering it as his testimony.
2 And now Ms. Weiss wants to know -- ask the witness, please 3 testify as to those matters in which you no longer are putting 4 in your testimony.
- l. 5 JUDCE SMITH: I thought I was with everybody until up 6 to that point, and I thought I was sti'.1 with everybody up to 7 the point where you said, well, we didn 't examine about that.
8 Where I lost the thread of the logic is how do we get to Page 9 54. How did we get to that?
10 Everybody else seems to have gone there, but I didn 't 11 go with them.
12 MR. LEWALD: What the witness had done in the 13 corrected testimony is to take the areas, I believe, where he 14 was referring to speculation, and removed it from his current 15 testimony. And I had included, maybe erroneously, I don 't 16 know, the paragraph on Page 54 which referenced informed 17 speculation on the part of Salmon Falls, and I had assumed ti" t 16 that was also deleted from the corrected version of the 19 testimony.
20 MS. WEISS: But i t 's no t .
21 MR. LEWALD: And what was being done now was to try 22 and -- through this question -- put back the informed 23 speculation of Salmon Falls, which I obj ected to.
24 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Overruled.
25 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Given the point. however, that O
e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l 1
I i
I GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11608 l l
1
- l. 1 Page 54 does -~ of the corrected testimony -- Page 54 does i I
2 contain the information that Mrs. Weiss is inquiring about, ;
3 does that alter your obj ection? :
i 4 MR. LEWALD: Well, it 's a matter that I did-not
?
l' 5 cross-examine on because I didn 't think it was part of the i 6 testimony. And I think in that that is left in the testimony I
- 7 where it 's stricken elsewhere, leaves me in general confusion 8 as to whether it 's in or out or J ust mistakenly left in or f 9 purposefully left in.
10 If it is purposefully left in, then I would not 11 obj ect to the question, but I -- ;
l i
12 MS. WEISS: I suggest we might clear up the confusion l
l 13 if the witness were permitted to answer. l l
l' 14 JUDGE SMITH: You may answer.
15 That 's good advise, Ms. Weiss. ;
16 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) What am I answering?
I (Laughter.) i 17
)
Anything? !
18 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) ,
BY MS. WEISS: !
19 t 20 Q Turn to Page 58.
i 21 JUDGE SMITH: I hope you strike gold with this f
i l 22 question.
23 (Laughter.) ,
t
?
l think so.
- 24 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I don 't
?
l 25 MS. NEISS: I make no such representation. !
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
f
, I GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11609 l 1 BY MS. WEISS:
l- 2 Q Turn to Page 58.
i
! 3 A (Eckert) Okay. ,
l 4 Q Why did you remove the language. "and minus the '
i 5 speculated square footage errors leaves 571,800 square feet"? !
l 6 A (Eckert) Okay. I removed that because on Page 54 I l
7 had stated those figures, and I didn 't think I needed to ,
8 restate them, and I felt it was more important to indicate that }
i 9 most of that space was in wood-frame structures. So I did not l
l 10- include it here because it 's included earlier. '
i i
! 11 Q So the 710,866 square feet includes those 70-odd j l
12 owner 's/ manager 's/ employee 's apartments that you believe exist? l i
13 MR. TURK: Could I hear that again?
14 BY MS. WEISS:
15 Q Does the 710,866 square foot figure on Page 58 16 include what you believe to be another 70 17 owner 's/ manager 's/ employee 's apartments?
i 18 A (Eckert) Yes, that is what I refer to as the 19 documented erroneous square footage.
20 Q Okay. Now, you discuss beginning on page 49 and for 21 a few pages thereafter the lack of accessibility of some of the 22 buildings contained in the Stone & Webster survey. f 23 Did you have some criteria in your own mind for 24 accessibility?
25- A (Eckert) Yes, I did. We 're referring now to the O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
( - - __._ - - - - - - - - . . - - . . -
- l. I L
t 7
i GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11610 L
i
(:) 1 work we did to review the original 90-some shelters indicated 2 in the first Stone & Webster where we went'in the field.
i And we defined accessibility for our purposes as once
[ 3 i
j 4 you 're on the site, the site either being in the yard of the 5 f acility or in the building because some don 't have yards, ;
6 first of all, the kind of doorway you find, and then whatever 7 the pathway would be to the basement, which at that time was j t
8 our consideration for shelter. That is the definition of l
9 accessibility that we used.
10 Q And do you have an estimate of how much the square i 11 footage in the Stone & Webster study is not accessible under i
12 these criteria?
13 A (Eckert) I don 't have a specific square footage 14 er ?. imat e. We do have. I think as the last page of the 15 attachment with all of the photographs, a summary that i
1 16 irJicates the places we found that had dif ferent accessibility 17 problems, and we broke them out according to that which we I 18 could refer to, and that then summarizes what we saw as l 19 accessibility problems and which establishment had those !
20 problems.
21 Q If you took a look at that. could you give me an 22 estimate of what percentage of the space was inaccessible?
23 A (Eckert) I could give you an estimate of the number 24 of places that we found that had different problems of 25 accessibility, and one could do the multiplications to see how g O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i GOBLE, EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11611 !
()
l l 1 much space was involved.
J 2 Q Would you do that, please?
3 A CEckert) Yes, hang on. .
I
! 4 Again. I 'm looking at a page called Summary of i
l 5 Access, and one category we had for difficult access-was access c
I i 6 through private residences. That is, someone would have to l l 7 enter the living quarters, and mostly in some of the smaller j i
8 motels go through, perhaps into the kitchen and find the
- 9 basement door. And in that case, we had 13 percent of the j 10 number that we looked at in the first survey, which was 23.
l l 11 Thirteen percent of those, roughly, had that kind of access 12 problem.
13 Another category is entry point difficult to locate ,
a O 14 f rom outdoors assuming owner 's permission. An example of that l
15 would be, for example, the Moulton Hotel on Route 1A, or maybe 16 the Surf Hotel where the hotel is part of a large wooden 17 structure continuous more or less with other buildings, and j 18 there are lots of shops along the front. l 19 The actual entrance to the motel is a single doorway l
I 20 that is hard to see. There is actually a photo in there. I 21 think, of that that indicates a doorway that 's hard to find. l i
22 So that if someone was told to go to the Moulton, or was trying !
l i
i 23 to access the basement they knew must exist below the building, !
24 the only way into that is through the small doorway. And in l
i 25 that specific case that 's the one we describe. I think. You Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l
t I I
, i;
i'
(
i' 4
I GOBLE. EVDOMIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11612
! h have to go upstairs, wind around across, over the back roof,
! 1 I
- 2 downstairs and into a hatchway in the back. Or you approach t
I j 3 the back of the building and climb over a chain link fence to i
4 go in. l i
! 5 And the Surf. I believe, is next door to that, and the l
6 only entrance to the basement of that is through a candy shop l l 7 which is not kind of identified with the Surf Hotel, but it 's m
! 8 in there, and you have to go back through the kitchen.
6 l Those are -- those kinds of problems we found in t i 9 ;
\
b j 10 about 30 percent if I count them up. j 11 There are other problems we found were seasonally open facilities, and there I think of the churches -- not !
12 13 seasonally, but weekly, weekendly. The churches are open i l
f j 14 certain hours on the weekends. Seasonally open, a lot of the 3
15 restaurants and so forth So I have it broken down that way.
16 but not a space estimate.
E31 17 (Continued on next page.) h 18 19 j t
I 20 !
I I
! 21 ;
i 1 22 i
l 23 i
l 24 !
25 i til .
t s
Heritage Reporting Corporation j f (202) 628-4088
' 5 t
i
l .
l GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11613 j l '
i l T732 1 Q So, I t ake i t , then, that your figure of 710 or- l i' I i 2 11,000 square feet on page 58, when you provide that you a f i
! 3 haven't subtracted the ineccessible space; correct? !
I
{
4 A CEckert) That 's correct. ;
i 5 Does the panel or anybody on it have an opinion as to i Q
6 tne appropriateness of the iO-square-foot-per-person criteria 7 for sheltering?
8 A (Goble) It 's pretty crowded. On the other hand it 's t l 9 a standard figure, and I think -- I think it 's pretty hard to
{ 10 know how tightly people will squeeze together in an emergency l 4 t j 11 situation. You might better have addressed that to Professor 12 Renn. But it 's a standard figure which, however, is considered 13 a minimal figure, that most people use a range that extends l
14 upward from 10 square feet.
i
- 15 Q Is there any empirical data you 're aware of which 16 suggests that people will crowd to that degree?
17 JUDGE SMITH: I think you 're slipping now f rom -- to 18 an adversarial type of cross-examination which I would not l
19 recognize you have a right to do at this time.
20 MS. WEISS: That 's stumps me.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, do you understand that different 22 parties depending upon the relationship with the witnesses have 23 different standards for permissible cross-examination, I think 24 you know about that.
25 MS, WEISS: Probably there was an observation in the Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat ior; (202) G2 8- 4888
, t i
i i- GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11614 l '
h 1 testimony that questioning the 10 square foot criteria, but I I 2 couldn 't lay my hands on it. !
l '
3 JUDGE SMITH: There is no obj ection, however. I 'm l
l 4 just pointing out that you seen to'be going in that direction, f j 5 and we won 't approve of it too much. l 1
6 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Should I answer the question?
7 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, you may. I 8 THE WITNESS: (Goble) The answer is. I 'm not aware 9 of the literature on that, it 's possible that Professor Renn
' 10 is.
11 BY MS. WEISS:
12 Q With regard to the questions posed by Mr. Flynn and ,
13 then by Mr. Turk seeking your agreement with the proposition j G 14 that it would always be preferable in the summertime to
)
j iS recomroend evacuation for the close-in areas, you responded.
! 16 it 's my recol lect ion, that that depended on how imminent the l
17 release might be and that the ETEs for Seabrook establish a l l
l 18 time scale with which you must measure imminence, is that !
19 correct? l 20 A (Goble) That is correct.
21 MR. TURK : Your Honor. I would note an obj ection to 22 the characterizatica, it may come to late, at least with 23 respect to my cross-examination. l 24 BY MS. WEISS:
25 Q And I believe you said that if a release would not l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l i
l 1
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11615 1 come for, my notes show an example of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, then it would !
l 2 be preferable --
3 MR. FLYNN: Obj ection, leading. i t
i 4 BY MS, WEISS: l j r I
?
j 5 Q -- to evacuate; is that correct? {
6 MR. FLYNN: Obj ec t ion, leading.
?
i L
i :
i 7 MS. WEISS: Just arXing for a characterization of.his l 8 old testimony, to see if my recollection is correct of the 9 testimony he gave yesterday, i
i 10 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the record speaks for itself. l l
! 11 If these questions are simply setting the context for some 12 additional questions that are not leading and I don 't have Ms.
13 Weiss testifying, I withdraw the obj ection. But as I l
14 understand what 's going on, Ms. Weiss is attempting to fi r
15 reenforce what is already in the record and that 's entirely {
16 unnecessary. j 17 MS. WEISS: No, this is laying the basis for further l ,
l 18 questioning.
i Then I 'll withdraw the obj ection.
l 19 MR. FLYNN:
l 20 MR. TURK: Could we have a transcript cite, Ms.
f l ?
21 Weiss?
22 MS. WEISS: I don 't have a transcript. ,
7 [
f t 23 MR. TURK : If I lent you mine would that help? !
I f No. The question is, does the witness I 24 MS. WEISS: l l
l
- 25 recollect that testimony. {
l
! llI l Heritage Reporting Corporation l I (202) 628-4888 l
I- i i' ,
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11616 !
i j
' e 1 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I recollect saying something i 2 like tnat. I would say something like that, and I think I j
j 3 remember saying it.
I 4 BY MS. WEISS: l i
j 5 Q My question to you is, what if the release is l l
j 6 imminent within a half an hour, would that change your answer? {
7 MR. TURX- Well, what 's the answer that we 're l i l l 8 changing? j j 9 MS. WEISS: With regard to the preferability of j 10 evacuation for the close-in population. f 11 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. I think I -- I think 12 also I testified as to this and said that, on the time scale it 1 13 was very short compared to the evacuation time, that I thought l
14 that sheltering provided could be implemented would be 15 preferable in the Seabrook case.
l 16 BY MS. WEISS:
17 Q And is it your testimony that the New Hampshire plan l
1 j 18 does not provide a reliable guide for the responder in the 19 midst of the accident to choose between those two options?
20 A (Goble) Yes. !
i 21 Q Dr. Eckert, you were asked to comment by Mr. Turk on !
22 the degree to which your questionnaire indicated the (
23 circumstances under which a building might be used for shelter; l i
24 and I believe you responded that the questionnaire does mention I
', 25 that it 's talking about a radiological emergency. Doesn 't the l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4868 l
i i j 1 4 r b
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11617 ]
i yj O 1 questionnaire also stinulate that it would be used for a short i
1 j 2 period of time such as three to six hours? l l
l 3 A (Eckert) Yes, it does. l 1 s 4 MS. WEISS: I have no further questions.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Sneider. Oh, Mr. Brock? ,
l I I
j 6 MR. BROCK: Yes. Your Honor, just a couple followup l l
j 7 on a line raised by Ms. Weiss. {
l 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION I
9 BY MR. BROCK:
10 Q Mr. or Dr. Eckert, if you could refer again to page i
11 58 of your testimony. And that figure of, if I understood your 12 answers to Ms. Weiss ' questions, that figure of 710,866 square 13 feet does not allow for any deduction for space which you i
i 9 14 believe would be inaccessible to beachgoers in the event of an
)
15 emergency; is that correct? l 16 A (Eckert) yes, that 's correct.
17 Q And further down the page reference is made to the 18 fact that assessor cards in your survey for the Town of :
19 Hampton, 50 percent of those cards were examined; is that i
i 20 correct?
21 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
22 Q And is it fair to say that the survey that you did of 23 those cards indicated there were some significant 24 overstatements of square footage in the asseasor cards?
25 A (Eckert) Yes, I would say so.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
{
\
i- !
1 !
i 1
! GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11618 1 Q And let me ask if the 710.866 square feet makes any 4
3 2 deduction for -- well, strike that. Assuming that the square
{
l 3 footage errors contained in the assessor cards which you ;
i i 4 examined continued into the other half, the other 50 percent of !
l l the assessnr cards for the Town of Hampton', would that result 4 5 6 in an additional deduction of square footage from the 710,000 l
i 7 figure? j t
l l 8 A (Eckert) Yes, it would. l l I l 9 Q Would that, in your opinion, be a significant i 10 reduction?
11 A (Eckert) I think so, based on what we had observed l
12 so far.
- 3
. Q And let me also ask, if the 50 percent of the G 14 residences examined through assessor cards included information t
{
15 which indicated that a number of these residences designated or 16 a number of these buildings designated by Stone & Webster as 17 public shelters in fact were private residences?
18 A (Eckert) Yes.
l 19 Q And is it fair to say that assuming that the private l l
20 residence error continued into the second half of the -- l l
21 continued into the other assessor cards which were not examined i l
, s 22 by Salnen Falls, wou ldn 't that result in an additional 23 deduction in square footage from the 710,000 figure?
24 A (Eckert) Yes, it would.
l 25 Q And is it fair to say that that would be a i ;
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11619 1 substantial reduction?
? MR. FLYNN: Your Honor. I obj ect, this is leading. I 3 apologize for not interj ecting the obj ection earlier, but l 4 clearly this entire line of questioning is inappropriately l-5 leading.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Not all of it, but you have 7 interspersed there. I think. to leading. You know, that -- for 8 example, that last question was --
9 MR. BROCK: All right. Your Honor.
10 JUDGE SMITH: -- but as you elicit the factual data.
11 that 's permissible.
12 JUDGE HARBOUR: Whose examination are you basing your 13 examination on?
O 14 MR. BROCK: I 'm sorry. I don 't understand the 15 question, Ycur Honor.
16 JUDGE HARBOUR: I mean, why isn 't this line of 17 questioning first time cross-examination on these points?
18 MR. BROCK: Well, I believe the issues were raised by 19 Attorney Weiss as to the 710,000 figure and what additional 20 deductions would be appropriate to reach a figure that would 21 actually be available to the public in the event of an 22 emergency; I 'm simply exploring that.
23 JUDGE HARBOUR: Go ahead.
14 JUDGE SMITH: That 's -- we 're not approving that.
25 there 's no obj ect ion.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ . . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ ~ .
I i i i- !
GOBLE.-EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11620 :
l-( ) 1 MR. BROCK: Thank you, Your Honor.
l, a
! 2 BY MR. BROCK:
f 3 Q Dr. Eckert, let me just restate what I believe was l j- 4 the last question. Is it fair to say that the additional i
l 5 private residences, assuming they 're proj ected into the other ,
6 50 percent of the Hampton assessor cards which you did not 7 examine, would that result in a substantial reduction, in your !
l 8 opinion, from -- of the available square footage from the j 9 710,000 figure? !
} i 10 A (Eckert). Yes. I believe it would provide a !
l i 1
11 substantial reduction from the 710.000 square foot figure. At l 12 the same time I want to indicate that the purpose of Salmon
! 13 Falls was not to make final space estimates. Der purpose was l l to do a verification-type study of the Stone & Webster work, so
- 14
)
i 15 that I don 't think any of these figures should be construed as 16 the final space estimates, merely resulting from the j l 17 repeatability kind of study that we did.
l 18 Q Stone & Webster nede no deductions for these assessor
! l 19 errors or private residences, as you 've j ust testified to; is i 20 that correct?
21 A (Eckert) That 's correct ; they didn 't detect them.
j 22 Q And is it also fair to say that this 710,000 figure l
! I
- 23 does not take into account any owners who may refuse to permit ;
I :
24 the public access to shelters in an emergency?
l l
25 A (Eckert) No, it doesn 't -- it 's independent of that. ;
l I
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
I (202) 628-4808 I
l l i i 1 !
l- l i GOBLE, EV DC" IMOFF , ECXERT - CROSS 11621 j J i Q So to the extent any owners would refuse access that 2 could further. reduce this figure?
1
- 3 A (Eckert) Certainly.
j 4 MR. BROCK: Thank you. Nothing further, j
, 5 MR. LEWALD: Point of clarification. I think the li 3
6 figure was potential space. Is the witness' testimony that l
7 somehow this would be no longer potential space? l
'i 8 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want to ask that question out of ]
. I 9 order? {
10 MR. LEWALD: I was just wondering if that was his I 11 answer.
l'i 12 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I guess I understand we 're ;
13 talking about potential space all the time.
! 14 JUDGE ddITH: Mr. Brock, do you have -- j i i 15 MR. BROCK: That 's all, Your Honor, thank you.
]
16 JUDGE SMITH: I meant Mr. Backus, do you have ,
l 17 following questions? j 18 MR. BACKUS: No, I don 't. Your Honor. j 19 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Sneider?
20 MR. TURK: Your Honor, just by way of clarification 21 of our procedure, if I have a few additional ciestions is it l l
22 appropriate for me to ask them now or wait for the redirect and l l
23 then get into anything further?
24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I guess normally we would not 25 have expected any additional questions. Probably it 's neater ,
1 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
i i
I i
1 l
t-GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11622 0 1 if you ask them now, so Ms. Sneider can take them all. But how
.. 2. many rounds are we going to have. Are you going to ask l
l 3 questions based upon -- these questions by Intervenors, this ,
1 !
l 4 most recent round was in the form of quasi-redirect, leaving i 1
5 the last person to address the witnesses and clean up any voids 6 in the record, the sponsor of the witness.
7 MR. TURK: My questioning, Your Honor, goes to Board !
l 8 questions. l l
9 JUDGE SMITH: All right. this is a good time for it. l 10 MR. FLYNN: I also have some questions. I have a l
11 short line which was opened by Ms. Weiss ' questioning; I don 't j 12 have to do it right now, but I would like to have the
]
i 13 opportunity before this panel is dismissed. l i
14 JUDGE SMITH: All right. f a !
15 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, just for the record, I do l l t
16 have a few questions, but I could wait for redirect. Some of j 17 the questions that I have may be canceled out on redirect. -
18 except we 've had a lot of redirect.
~
19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let 's find out. Let 's -- go 20 ahead with your questions. l l
21 MR. TURK: Thank you. Your Honor. l 22 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION i
[
j 23 BY MR. TURK:
24 Q I 'd like to address with Dr. Goble very briefly a l
' i j 25 line of questions raised by Judge Linenberger in which you were !
i i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888 l
' l i
e
~ - -- - . .. .. . . . ,_ _ .
I i
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11623 e i discussing the significance of iodine that might be released as l 2 part of a plume. And you indicated in your testimony that the 3 iodine presented a problem both for ground shine and cloud 4 shine. But I 'd like to ask you, isn 't it true that the l 5 greatest significance of the iodine release would be with j l I 6 respect to the inhalation does? j l
7 A (Goble) No, but perhaps I should explain that. The 8 -- it 's always a question, what 's the greatest significance.
9 The iodine is very readily taken up by the thyroid and l l
10 consequently if you inhale iodine you get -- you can get a 11 substantial dose to the body which you eccumulate right away 12 and can cause potential injury to the thyroid, either in the 13 short term or the long term. !
G 14 That the point at which, however, you are talking l
j 15 about really serious releases where there can be threats of 16 early inj uries, possibly early deaths. The critical of them, !
17 the critical doses that are received occur -- occur in any sort .
i l
18 of a mix from ground shine, cloud shine, and inhalation to the 19 whole body, to the lung; these are the areas that are the most, !
20 well, red marrow, the long, the gastrointestinal tract are the 21 areas nost sensitive for early injuries and possibly J
j 22 fatalities.
+
23 And iodine -- the mix of iodine contributes very l 24 importantly when there 's a large percentage of iodine released 25 in such accidents to the exposures, to those organs; and that 's
! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
t I
1_ . . . . . . . . . .J
,__ =_ _ ___, - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___________ _
y :
(
t GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11624 !
1 1 received as much from cloud shine. ground shine as from the 2 inhaled dose which goes into the thyroid. j i
3 Q In terms of the -- I 'm looking to see if I can avoid i
k 4 getting into too much of a digression on source term. Let me j t
5 pass on the iodine issue for now. j t
l 6 You had also indicated in response to Judge l l 7 Linenberger that it was a matter of historical curiosity. as l l
8 you phrased it, as to why the dose reduction factor for 9 structures was directed at savings associated with cloud shine; j
' t l
10 do you recall that testimony? l l
11 A (Goble) Yes. !
12 Q And I wanted to say, first of all, that 's your own 1
j 13 opinion on the matter; I mean, there 's no documentary support !
14 for your statement that there 's a historical --
15 A (Goble) That's a historical speculation, and I am l l t l
16 not really a historian L' --
l l 17 Q A speculation on your part? i l 18 A (Goble) It 's a speculation on my part. f I
19 Q And also I'd like to ask you a little bit about the :
I 20 use of shelter as it applies to the cloud shine dose. I t 's my j i
21 understanding that ground shine accumulates with time; would t 22 you agree with that?
l i 23 A (Goble) Well, the radionuclides which produce ground 24 shine accumulate with time for the duration of the passage of ,
25 the plume.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 620-4888 :
I
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11625 O 1 Q I 'm sorry, you did say ground shine, right?
2 A (Goble) Ground shine is radiation that you receive 3 in an instance, though you may receive it continuously, that 4 results from radionuclides, radioactive material which is 5 deposited on the ground. Now, the material $s accumulating 6 over time.
7 Q Yes.
8 A (Goble) You were continually exposed to the 9 radiation produced by this naterial.
10 Q And then it would be true, also, that the dose a 11 person would receive from ground shine increases over time?
12 A (Goble) That -- you would expect it to increase for 13 the duration of passage of the plume. There -- I 'm sorry.
14 Dose accumulates, that 's the definition of dose.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Are you talking about dose accumulation 16 simply or dose accumulation plus dose rate?
17 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes. He 's -- I was mixing --
18 MR. TURK: I 'll break it into two categories.
19 THE WITNESS: (Goble? I was mixing the two things.
20 Dose accumulates over time, that 's our definition of dose, i
21 Dose rates, whict is perhaps what Mr. Turk is asking me, you 22 stop me if I 'm wrong, ynu would expect to -- dose rates from 23 ground shine you would expect to increase over time for the 24 period in which the material is being deposited; you 're getting 25 more material, so the dose rate will increase. Once the plume
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i I
i I
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11626 l 1 is passed, then you 've got whatever material there is. You i I
i i 2 would expect to continue receiving doses, but the rate would be l 1 i j 3 approximately constant.
l 4 BY MR. TURK:
I 5 Q Let me see if I can clarify. As I understand it, if j i
6 there is a single particle of radioactive material on the j 7 ground and it 's a long lived radionuclide, that would be a !
l !
j 8 rather constant radiation --
J 1 9 A (Goble) That 's correct.
I 10 Q -- source. So that the rate of dose with respect to j l
11 that particle would be constant over time?
l 12 A CGoble) That 's correct. j However, as time continued you would be accumulating I 13 Q O 1A the dose received from that particle of radioactive material? i i
15 A (Goble) That 's correct.
16 Q And it 's also true that if the deposition continues l
17 over time, so that there are more radionuclides depositing in s
! 18 the same area with time, then each of those additional ['
j 19 particles would also produce a radiation dose; is that correct?
l 20 A (Goble) That 's correct.
I 21 Q So that the total dose over time would reflect both j i
i 22 the continuing exposure to the initial radioactive material as !
l 23 well as this increased dose resulting with the greater l
[
24 accumulation of radioactive particles over time; is that l 25 correct?
O '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l _ _ _ _ -
-1 l
j- !
l GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECf.ERT.- CROSS 11627 l l' ^Q i 1 A (Goble) Yes, that 's right, i t/33 2 MR. TURK: I have nothing. Your Honor. l 3 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn?
p I 4 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION .l l
l 0 BY MR. FLYNN: !
} G Q Dr. Goble. I'd like to follow up on a question that i
I
[
J 7 Ms. Weiss asked you. Nov. the question that I want to refer l
.i 8 you to had to do with sheltering being the preferred protective !
9 action, and the context of the question was -- 'I don't remember 10 the precise question but your answer was to the effect that, f 11 sheltering is the preferred protective action when there.is an 12 imminent release which is to be of short duration and 13 sheltering can be implemented; have I correctly paraphrased 14 what you 've said? l 15 A (Goble) I believe so, yes. I would like to have 16 said that.
17 Q In any case. that is your position?
18 A (Goble) That 's right.
Now, going back to the examination wnich I did 19 Q 20 yesterday. I would take it that part of your answer is that l 21 you 're talking about a serious early release and not a puff I
l 22 release?
t 23 A (Goble) That 's correct. Puff -- many people use f
24 puff in various ways. But not -- not the accident that I was i
25 discussing with Judge Linenberger, that 's j ust noble gases. ,
O Heritage Reporting Corporatinn (202) 628-4888 -
l l
i.
lI l-GOBLE. - EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - CROSS 11628 h I want to focus on the accident that you were j 1 Q
! ~- , !
ss, 2 discussing with Ms. Y j
3 A (Goble) That 's right.
- j. 4 Q It was a serious accident -- l 4 :
I 5 A: (Goble) A serious -- that 's right, a serious early l l
6 accident, j 7 Q And according to your definition that release would f
! 8 include particulates and airborne iodine?
t 9 A (Goble) That 's right.
10 Q Radioactive iodine?
11 A (Goble) That 's right. ,
12 Q Now, when you talk about sheltering being the l t
13 preferred protective action, what you mean is that, the people 14 close to the plant would go into shelter and then at an 15 appropriate later time would leave shelter and evacuate; is l
16 that correct? i
! 17 A (Goble) That 's correct. 1 i !
18 Q So, when you say, sheltering is the preferred option, j 19 to be more complete, what you mean is sheltering followed by i 20 evacuation? !
t (Goble) That 's correct. ;
- 21 A i
! 22 Q And if you will recall the discussion that we had i 23 yesterday. I think implicit in that was the idea that you would f
l 24 prefer such an approach where the evacuation -- where the 25 sheltering does not ultimately delay the evacuation; am I l
llI I i
Heritece Reporting Corporation (202) G20-4888 I
i i
I. i
- i i
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS 11629 i correct in that?
2 A (Goble) Yes.
3 Q Now, to clarify a bit what you meant by where the j i
4 sheltering could be implemented. I take it, that part of what l 5 you intended is that the mechanics of getting people to shelter- ;
5 6 and then getting them out of shelter again at the appropriate 7 time would not cause undue confusion; am I correct that that 's 8 implicit in what you said?
9 A (Goble) That 's -- I would -- and defining it as a 10 technical problem,.I would say, conf usion which causes undue 1
, 11 delay which would result in greeter exposures.
12 Q You do perceive that that is a potential problem?
13 A (Goble) Yes.
l ( 14 In fact, the planning would have to involve a clear
- Q 15 set of messages telling people where to go and a clear set of 16 messages telling them how to receive further information about l 17 when to leave, would it not?
18 A (Goble) Yes.
19 Q Now, I also take it that what you mean by your 20 observation that sheltering is a preferred protective action 21 when sheltering can be implemented, you mean that there is 22 suitable shelters for the people to go to?
23 A (Goble) That 's correct.
24 Q And the import of the testim ny of this panel is 25 that, on Hampton Beach and Seabrook Bea a there is not a large O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4088
l I
l ,
l 11630 i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - CROSS i enough pool of suitable shelter for people to go to? Is that j 2 not the sibstance of your testimony? !
i 3 A (Goble) I t 's -- wel1, the substance of our testimony i f
4 has two pieces. It 's essentially the substance. Let me state l
i 5 it -- f 6 Q I think the question is simple, f i I' 7 A (Goble) Let me try to answer it --
8 Q Could you give me --
9 A (Goble) -- in two pieces. l 10 Q Can you give me a, yes or no, and then elaborate if l 11 you need to? ,
i i
12 MS, WEISS: He already gave you an essential yes, i 13 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I said, essentially, yes. ;
O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Weiss. don 't interfere. ,
! 15 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I gave you a, yes, and now may i
16 I elaborate. l t
l 17 MR. FLYNN: You may.
l 18 THE WITNESS: (Goble) That 's what I tnought I was l 19 doing. The -- we have not done a comprehensive analysis of 20 shelter availability, nor have we made any sort of en effort to 21 identify what kind of upgrading of existing shelters .vou ld be 22 feasible, at whatever level of upgrading. All right. So we 23 have not done a comprehensive analysis of what 's ava11able.
I k 24 On the other hand, we've reviewed the documents that ;
I l 25 were provided to us about other analyses of availability.
O f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
.'l
i i
1 i
l' ;
1 i .
GOB!.E. EVDOKIMOFF..ECKERT - CROSS 11631 l k And we 've done --
i l
,- 1 We 've perfcrmed checks on these documents. l l
2 as we 've seen the testimony, pretty elaborate, though not l .
l 3 comprehensive survey done by Dr. Eckert of what 's there; and q l 4 based on that, we would certainly conclude that there does not I
j- 5 appear to be sufficient sheltering space -- sufficient suitable i
! 6 sheltering space at present.
l' 7 Eut I don 't want to give the impression that we have 8 done a comprehensive analysis, that 's everything there, nor do i
9 I want to give the impression that we have looked at what the l
10 possibilities are for changing the situation.
l l
l 11 MR, FLYNN: Thank you, I have no other questions. j 12 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Sneider? How much redirect do you 13 believe that you will have? l 9 14 MS. SNEIDER: I would say about half an hour.
l l
15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Well, let 's take it up 16 after lunch. Return at 1:00 please.
l 17 (Whereupon, at 11:49 a..m. the hearing was recessed to ,
18 reconvene at 1:00 p.m. this same day. Wednesday, May 18, 1988, i
I 19 at the same place.)
i 20 ,f 21 ,
i 22 23 l 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i I
3 i 1
)
- I i
1 11632
< GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT J4 1 AFTERNOON SESSION j 2 (1:02 p.m.)
l 3 Whereupon, f l
4 ROBERT GOBLE
]
/ 5 ROBERT ECKERT i
l 6 VICTOR EVDOKIMOFF 7 having been previously duly sworn, resumed the w tness stand 8 htrein, and was examined and further testified as follows:
9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. SNEIDER:
11 Q Good afternoon. I 'd like to start off with a few 12 questions for Dr. Eckert.
13 Dr. Eckert, yesterday Mr. Lewald asked, I believe, 14 asked you some questions regarding the survey form of the 15 Seaside Motel; do you recall that?
16 A (Eckert) Yes. I do.
17 Q And I believe your testimony was that the square 18 footage there was a reflection of square footage that was paced ,
l 19 off; is that right?
l 20 A (Eckert) That 's right, according to their form.
l-21 Q llave you reviewed any other survey forms of Stone &
22 Webster 's in which there was indication that the square footage ,
1 23 was paced off9 l 24 A (Eckert) Yes. We discovered here and there paced-25 off measurements. Two examples: one is the Purple Pickle Deli; e Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 620-4880 l
I t
f' GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11633 L
(Il i and Rocky's Real Estate are two other examples where --
2 MR. LEWALD: Could I ask where that appears in the j 3 test imony ? f i
4 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) What? l 5 MR. LEWALD: I said, could I ask where that appears l
) 6 in the testimony?
1 7 THE WITNESS: CEckert) I 'm not sure it 's in my i
8 testinony as presubmitted, but I 'm referring to the Stone &
I 9 Webster survey shelter forms. ;
10 BY MS, SNEIDER: {
11 Q And was there any indication on those survey forms 12 whether the square footage was to be rated as square yards or 13 square feet?
l 14 A (Eckert) The measurements were indicated as feet --
15 MR. LEWALD: I obj ect to this line of questioning, 16 Your Honor. We 're talking about documents that are not in 17 evidence, and no one has any idea, particularly I don 't have 18 any idea what documents he 's referring to, what he alleges are 19 mistakes. It 's something that 's now appearing for the first 20 time.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Was it covered on cross; I have no 22 memory of it ?
23 MS. SNEIDER: Well, it was covered on cross, and we 24 can produce the survey forms which are the Applicants' survey 25 forms. Was the square -- the square footage total on the O
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
r (202) 628-4888 I
f
~ . _ . ____m_ _ _ _ . . . ..
l l
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT '11634 0 1 shelter survey form for the Seaside Motel, and what Mr. Lewald ,
2 was alleging is that perhaps it was -- it was supposed to be 3 read as yards rather than square feet; and I 'm asking _ the 4 witness to look at these other survey forms to see if that 5 would be consistent with the way they treated paced off square 6 feet in other survey forms. q 7 There 's nothing on the original one that says yards 8 or feet; and the witness read it as feet and Mr. Lewald j t
9 suggested it should be read as yards. l l
10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. ;
i l 11 MS. SNEIDER: That 's al l . !
12 MR. LEWALD: That was not my purpose or my cross-13 examination. My cross-examination was the fact t hat the 14 testinony misrepresented what was on the Stone & Webster form.
1S And it solely related to that. And now we 're coming in with 16 some other instances in which Mr. Eckert is saying the Stone &
17 Webster forms were inaccurate, for the first time.
18 MS. SNEIDER: Excuse me. The testimony says there 19 are e nunber of inaccuracies, and then they gave certain 20 examples of inaccuracies. We never said that it was limited to l 21 that one inaccuracy in the testimony. Just that there were --
22 that they would say, oh. t here 's 12 of this type of inaccuracy.
23 and, for example, this is one of them-24 JUDGE SMITH: That 's not redirect following cross,
)
J
- 25 that 's my problem with it.
Heritage Re po r t i ng Correration (202) 628-4888 I
I l
L.
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11630 9 1 (Dourd conferring) 2 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled.
3 JUDGE HARBOUR: Do you have copies of those sheets 4 that you 're examining him, because we think we understand what 5 you 're doing, but we would like to see the sheet that the 6 witness is being asked to compare?
7 MS. SNEIDER: I have one copy now, at the break I can 8 or before the break I can have other copies made.
9 JUDGE HARBOUR: Could we just look at it --
10 US. SNEIDER: Sure.
11 JUDGE HARBOUR: -- a f3w seconds.
12 (Documents shown to Board and opposing counsel.)
13 MR. LEWALD: Hard to tell from that form which was on 14 the original form and which has been added to it.
15 DY MS. SNEICER:
16 Q Dr. Eckert, on those other survey forms where the 17 area was paced off, is there any indication as to whether the 18 paced off area was measured in feet or in yards?
19 A (Eckert) On the two in question they're indicated to 20 be measured in feet, although the notice, paced, is also on the 21 same page. Therefore, I continued my assumption for the third 22 one we talked about.
23 JUDGE HARBOUR: If you multiply the paces times the 24 paces, does the answer come up arithmetically consistent?
25 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Well, these are -- what I O
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888 l
l
i i
'l GOBLE. EV DOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11636 O 1 believe is meant is that they were paced off and then converted 2 to feet. because we don 't have any disagreement with the square ]
l 3 footage. it 's multiplied out as 750 square feet, say, in case )
I j 4 of the Purple Pickle Deli. And the same here, this is j i
i
! 5 indicated as 1.000 square feet per story, so --
6 JUDGE HARBOUR: Now, when you say, here, what are you 7 referring to there?
8 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) I 'm sorry, the Rocky 's Real j l
9 Estate form indicates 40 times 25 equals 1.000 square feet with l I
10 the notation "paced." So from that I assumed that all of them l, it wore, that were paced off, were actually the figures I read [
12 were feet and not yards. i la BY MS, SNEIDER:
i 14 Q So your assumption that the calculation of area for I 15 the Seaside Motel was calculated based on feet is in 16 conformence with the way the similar measurements were handled l
17 on those other sursey forms; is that right? !
18 A CEckert) Yes. that 's true.
19 Q Turning to page 53 of your testimony. I believe Mr.
20 Lewald asked you some questions yesterday about documentation i 21 for the 77 private residences?
22 A (Eckert) I believe he did. I couldn 't -- I can 't 23 remenber exactly, l 24 Q And I j ust want +o get this clear, do you have l 25 documentation that -- for the 77 private residences?
Reporting corporation :
l Heritare (202) 628-4888 [
i l.
l e .
I l GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11637 '
l llI 1 A (Eckert) Yes, we do. Since the apartments were l
2 indicated to exist on the tax assessor 's cards, and for 49 of i
l 3 those 77 the actual dimensions of the apartments were listed.
1 4 Q Now, turning to page 62 of your testimony, I believe
{
5 Mr. Lewald also asked you yesterday some questions regarding 6 the response rate to your survey from the various towns; do you 7 recall that?
8 A (Eckert) Yes.
l 9 Q Can you tell me, Dr. Eckert, how many shelters are 10 listed in Stone & Webster for the Town of North Hampton?
11 A (Eckert) There --
t 12 MR. TURK : May I inquire, are we talking about the !
?
l 13 second shelter study of Stone & Webster? Yes. I assume?
14 MS. SNEIDER: Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) There are four.
16 BY MS. SNEIDER: j 17 Q So a response rate from four shelter owners in the i
18 Town of North Hampton would be 100 percent response rate; is l
19 that right?
20 A (Eckert) Yes, that 's right.
21 Q And how many shelters does Stone & Webster list for 22 the Town of Seabrook?
23 A CEckert) Seabrook, 17 I believe.
24 Q And for the Town of Rye?
25 A (Eckert) 23.
O i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
I
l GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11630
' Well. just to complete it, and also how many shelters 1 Q l
2 in the Town of Hampton?
3 A (Eckert) 205 shelters.
4 Q So your response rate then was over 50 percent for I 5 all of the towns?
6 A (Eckert) That 's right ; it was over 50 percent for 7 all the towns.
8 Q Do you have any -- based on your work reviewing the 9 shelters in the New Hampshire beach area, do you have any
-10 opinion as to the average size of a motel room in the beach ,
11 area or if you could give me a range?
l 12 A (Eckert) I guess I would give the range of maybe 8 j 13 by 10 feet to 10 by 12 feet, something like that.
14 Q And would you say that an owner of one of these 15 motels would typically rent that room to two people?
16 A (Eckert) I would imagine two, two to three people.
17 Q And according to the Stone & Webster study how many 18 people do they intend would shelter in a room, in the range 19 that you 've given?
l 20 MR. LEWALD: I 'm going to obj ect to the --
21 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Ten or so 22 MR. LEWALD: -- preliminary -- this is a question 23 without any qualification. I 'm not sure that there is any 24 testi;rrony to this. If there i s. I don 't know where it is.
- 25 JUDGE SMITH
- I understood you were alluding to O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888 i l
.-_ _ - - - - - - = _ - - . _ _ . . .
l 1
l 4 GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11639 1 the -- referred to the standard of 10-square-feet-per-person.
l j 2 MR. LEWALD: 10-sovere-feet-per-person, but I think 3 this question is, how many people in a room. And I think it 's 4 quite different.
! 5 MS, SNEIDER: Well. based on the 10-square-feet-a- j 6 person assumption --
7 MR. LEWALD: If she 's asking for calculation. I don 't !
G obj ect to that.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that 's what I understood it to 10 be.
11 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Ten. I answered.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Friends ?
l 13 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes.
14 (Laughter) 15 MR. TURK: Your Honor. I don 't know -- I 'd like to 16 clarify the record for a moment. As f ar as I 'm aware Stone &
, 17 Webster dealt with buildings as a whole without looking at 18 whether the space available was in the motel room. in the .
f '
19 lobby, or in the restaurant or elsewhere. So if there 's a 10 l
20 square foot avereEe per person. it's for the entire building 21 space, as I u nders t and i t , and I assume counsel would agree to 2
22 that. I note Ms. Sneider is nodding her head.
l 23 MS , SNEIDER: Right. And part of that room is not in 24 motel rooms .
25
' Heritage Reporting Cor po rat ion '
(202) 628-4880 aswe
= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11640 1 BY MS. SNEIDER: l l
2 Q So this in followup to some of Mr. Turk 's questions e 3 to you yesterday. Do you think the fact that owners might be 4 willing to shelter only their own patrons means that they would 5 also be willing to shelter these additional nunbers of people 6 in the motel rooms?
7 MR. TURK: I have to obj ect to that; I don 't know 8 where that comes from. If that 's reference to my cross-9 examination, I don 't recall that.
10 MS. SNEIDER: Well, I think there was a whole line of 11 questions saying, people have indicated that they would be 12 willing to shelter patrons in their own hotel, :ow did you l
! g 13 consider that.
l W I think Ms. Sneider is referring to the 14 MR. TURK :
l 15 response on number page 10 of Massachusetts Exhibit 12 where l
16 the respondent indicated she had space enough for her own 17 patrons but not to take in other people.
18 MS. SNEIDER: Well, I think your line of questioning I
19 was leading to, people are sheltering their own patrons 20 anyways, you know, they 're not being asked to do anything more 21 than that, was the suggestion.
22 JUDGE SMITH: That 's to what it 's addressed. I do 23 recall your questioning going in that direction. I 'm not sure 24 it goes as far as Ms. Sneider said it does, but you did invite l 25 the inference that at least the patrons would be taken care of O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 I
._..___m.___.. _ - _ _ _ - - -- - .
._7 I
l l L
b i l
I I r
I GOBLE. EV DOK Ii.!OFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11641 O 1 and perhaps trore.
2 But I'm troubled by the logic of the question. I 3 wonder if -- could you restate the question. Do you want it 4 read back? i 5 MS. SNEIDER: Sure, why don 't we read it back.
- l 6 JUDGE SMITH: Would you read it back, please.
7 (Whereupon, the Court Reporter played back the ;
8 pending question.) l
)
et/34 9 (Continued on next page.)
r 10
! 22 i
! j 12 i i
h 14 I
! 15 16 l 17 l, 4
i 18 l
l 19 e
20 l l !
21 22 l 23 l 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 l
0
_. = _ _ - _ = _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ __
. = . .
l 1
I GOBLE. EV DOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11642 i
.s i JUDGE SMITH: I think there 's some flawed logic in l 2 there.
3 MS. SNEIDER: I 'm no t sure what the Board means.
)
i 4 JUDGE SMITH: What flawed logic neans? !
i i 5 MS. SNEIDER: Well, I know flawed logic. I guess I 6 don 't see the flawed logic.
!. 7 JUDGE SMITH: The word "only" -- describe more what 8 you mean by the question, Maybe it does --
9 MS. SNEIDER: Well, perhaps I can phrase it this way.
)
I 10 Do you see a distinction between the willingness to il shelter your own patrons and a willingness to shelter the 12 additional numbers of people that Stone & Webster alleges could 13 potentially be sheltered in these rooms.
14 JLDGE SMITH: All right. I think I understand that.
IS MR. TUR K - Your Honor, that 's not redirect, though.
16 My question was at Page 11523; actually it starts on 11522 It 17 did in particular with Page No. 10 of Massachusetts Exhibit 12.
l 18 and that was the Voyager Motel, and the questioning was 19 directed to the fact that Dr. Eckert took into consideration 20 only the tabulated result, only the response to Question No. 4 21 being a yes or no. and did not consider the information on the 1
22 back of that page as to the notel owner 's willingness to take ;
1 23 in their own patrons only.
24 MS. SNEIDER: Well, on Page 11523 I see a question 25 that says, "And then on the back side of that form the O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 i :
l \
GOBLE. EV DOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11643 0 1 respondent apparently wrote the following sentence. 'Our first l
2 responsibility is to our patrons, and we would be hard pressed j 3 to provide shelter for them. '" And then you went on.
4 JUDGE SMITH: There 's no part of that dialogue that I 5 can see that goes to -- that would invite the inference that 6 because they are presumably willing to take care of their own 7 patrons, that they are willing to take extra people. That 8 wasn 't the thrust of the examination.
9 MS. SNEIDER: Well, then it goes on to Page 11524, 10 "We know that those people do have space to use the facility in il normal circumstances; isn 't that right?"
12 JUDGE SMITH: That refers. I guess, to the patrons.
13 MS. SNEIDER: And then it goes. "And we know that as 14 the concept of shelter is being used, at least from the Stone &
15 Ylebs t e r study, it 's not that people be housed for a long period 16 of time or any extraordinary efforts be made to take care of 17 people. It's simply that they stay indoors; isn't that 1
18 correct?"
19 And I think the point of this is that this is I
20 something extraordinary in terms of what they do on a day-to-1 21 day basis, to shelter this additional nunber of people. There 22 is a distinction there that I thi nk is somewhat extraordinary.
23 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't read it there. I j ust don 't 24 see it. I t 's no t there.
25 Sustained.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4088 i
I --
_ -.- - - - - . - - - . _ _ = _ _ _ . _ = . - _ - . = _ _ . _ =
1 4
I i 11644 GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 1 BY MS. SNEIDERr 2 Q Dr. Eckert, what, in your opinion, is a normal level 3 of aampling that is acceptable to a statistician?
4 A (Eckert) That 's kind of a broad question.
i d
5 MR. LEWALD: Do you understand it?
6 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Certainly.
7 In nost studies statisticians use samples that are 8 smaller that you 'd expect to make predictions from. Many --
9 the purpose of a sample really is to get an estimate of what 's 10 there at not too great an expenditure and so forth. And many 11 times these samples run less than 10 percent say of the total 12 population; often 5. even down to as low as 1 percent 13 occasionally. l 14 If you recall the predictions on election night, they 15 cone in af ter less than 1 percent of the vote is in.
16 So I would say. in my experience, a sample sine runs 17 usually around 5 percent to 10 percent; most often 5. i 18 BY MS. SNEIDER:
19 Q And what would be considered a high level of j 20 sampling?
21 A (Eckert) I would consider a high level of sampling 22 anything over about 20 percent; higher than usual.
23 Q So a sample of 50 percent then would be considered 24 very hich?
25 A (Eckert) I would consider that unusually high. yes.
O Corporetion lie r i t age Reporting (202) 628-4888
1 I
i i
GOBLE. EV DOKIM0FF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11645 !
O 1 Q Professor Evdokinoff. I have a couple of questions ]
2 for you. I 3 First of all, to clear up some of the confusion about 4 the street addresses, do all the cottages in the beach aren 5 have street numbers?
6 A (Evdokinof f ) Well. I had some difficulty in locating 7 some of these places. The realtors would give out keys and it 8 would have on it 7 or 9. and in some instances I had a hard 9 time finding them. And some of them were not marked, and I had l
10 to go maybe to three or four cottages before I found the right l
11 one. It was j ust not apparent in sone instances where it was.
12 So, in answer to your question, some of them. in my l
13 recollection, were not marked and required a little searching 14 to find the right one; just going to dif ferent doors until the 15 key worked. And if it opened it up, that 's what I went into.
16 Q And I believe you testified yesterday that in 1 1
17 addition to the 12 cottages that you inspected the interior of, j 18 that you also looked inside the windows of perhaps 50 to 60?
19 A (Evdokinoff) Yes, that 's correct.
20 Q Were the 12 cottages that you inspected
! 21 representative of the cottages that you had looked into the 22 windows of?
23 A (Evdokimoff) I'm not sure what you mean by that.
24 Representative in terms of what shielding potential, or 25 deteriorating, or what do you menn by that ?
Heritage Repo r t ing Corporation l
(202) 620-4E00 l
+
_ =__ - _ _ _ .
l l
l GOBLE. EV DOK IM0FF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11646 O 1 Q Well, your description of the 12 cottages in your 2 testimony, would you say that they were in line, representative 3 of what you saw when you looked inside windows of the other 50 4 and 60?
5 MR. FLYNN: Obj ection; leading.
G JUDGE JMITH: She didn't lead the witness until the i 7 witness indicated that help was required on the question, and 8 that 's perfect ly appropriate. The problem is you look at the 9 weight you give such a question and answer.
10 MS. SNEIDER: You can answer the question.
11 THE WITNESS: (Evdokino f f ) Could you repeat the i
12 question, please. Ms Sneider?
13 BY MS. SNLIJER:
14 Q Were the interiors of the 12 cotteges you described 15 in your testinony representative of the types of interiors you 16 saw when you looked into the windows of the 50 to 60 other I
17 cottages in the beach area?
18 A (Evdokimoff) Yes. As I said. I looked at a -- my 12 19 represented a spectrum of the one-story cottages which are l
20 generally, in my opinion. in the worst shape. And then what I 21 call the apartments are generally in better shape.
22 A nd , you know, there were -- there were instances 23 where there were people not in these cottages because there 24 were for rent signs, and I could just walk around and j ust look i 25 in the windows. And, you know. I could pretty much. just by O
Heritage Reporting Corporation .
(202) 628-4888 !
. . . - - - . . - . . . ~ . - - - . - . - - - . . - . - . . - . - . . - . - . ~ . . - . . . - - -
f i~
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - PELIRECT 11647 ;
1 poking around and looking in the windows,'I could get a good "
i 2 idea of what was there, ,
l
! 3 And so I would say, you know, I didn 't see anything n
i 4 different in them. So the answer to your question would be i
5 yes.
S
'l 6 Ms, Sneider. I would like to add one thing yesterday l i 7 regarding what Mr. Lewald has asked me about a particular f i 8 cottage that I looked at. And upon reflection, the one cottage i
f j 9 I didn 't recognize, some of the cottages are in the beck of --
10 in other words, there may be a street number, but there are l
- l. 11 cottages that are lined up in the back.
i
]'
12 And in looking at that picture, it 's highly probable 13 that what I was referring to was the cottage in the back of the l
]
14 one I-could not recognize. So I would just like to clarify i
- i
! 15 that for the record. l t
16 Q Thank you.
17 Okay, Dr. Goble. I believe Mr. Turk asked you this j f 18 morning some questions, as well as yesterday, about the -- :
I i
! 19 about releases and the build up of ground shine over a period f i
l j 20 of time. ,
l I 21 A (Goble) Yes.
i 22 Q And Mr. Flynn also asked you a number of questions l 23 yesterday about NUREG-1210 and about puff releases. And I ,
1 l 24 think I 'd j ust like to get a little bit of clarification on
! 25 that whole line of questioning. t
?
f Heritage Reporting Corporation [
I' (202) 628-4888 ,
i i i !
[- .d
I i !
- l. -;
i :
1 i i
11648
! GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT s
To begin with, would you agree with a statement found 1
! l 2 on Page 22 of Volume. 4 of NUREG-1210 which states that all 1
3_ major life-threatening releases resulting f rom core melt j
- 4 accidents would be zero to two-hour puffs?
I 5 MR. FLYNN: Obj ection; leading and also the document 6 speaks for itself. ;
I .
e- 7 MS. SNEIDER: The document is not in evidence at this .j L
8 time. It 's to clarify certain questions that they asked about ;
l-4 f
! 9 NUREG-1210, particularly puff releases and natures of releases.
I
! 10 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor ~~ !
l l '
11 MR. TURK: I don 't see how this is redirect. -
e l 12 Whatever may be the point we made about NUREG-1210, no one 's :
- I 13 examined on this page, and i t 's no t in the testimony of the !
l e (Il 14 witness. It 's not redirect. It 's simply an ef rort to expand
! i l 15 the direct examination, f i I
( 16 JUDGE SMITH: What do you say as to Mr. Turk 's point? ;
I i
i 17 MS. SNEIDER: Well, you know, there 's a lot of l i
18 questions about releases and whether sheltering would be ;
19 preferred in certain situations versus evacuation. This is a j i
20 foundation for Dr. Goble to explain with a little bit more 21 clarity, especially in light of Dr. Linenberger 's questions 22 that he wished more clarify in this analysis, and that 's where 23 this is leading to; a little bit more clarity in the choice of 24 decision between evacuation and sheltering.
25 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
i I
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-48es i
l 5 I
- m i' ;
b i i
1 t
y.
! GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11649 <
- i. 1 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I don't share the belief that 2 this is going to present any clarity on the issue. The direct ;
t
)
i 3 testimony. says what it says about circumstances in which ,
. 4 sheltering may be a preferred response over evacuation. Mass.
5 AG had a chance to give that a good shot. They.put it in their l
e 6 direct testimony. There was cross-examination on the direct. j i
! 7 And this is an attempt to try to expand beyond what 's there. ,
i i' 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we take her representation for l^
! 9 her purposes.
I 10 MR. FLYNN: The other problem that I have is there 's E
I 11 a perfectly appropriate way to pose an opinion question to a l 12 witness on direct examination, and it 's not necessary to lead 13 the witness, nor is it for the question to put in evidence the O.
t 14 portion of the document that the examiner wishes to refer to. ;
l 15 JUDGE SMITH: Would you -- I missed it. l 16 MR. FLYNN: My original -- I had a twofold obj ect. l l
17 One was that the question was leading; and the second is that j j 18 the document speaks for itself, l 19 Now, Ms. Sneider is correct that the document is not f i
l 20 in evicence, but that 's part of my obj ection, and that is, 21 she 's attempting to put in part of the document by a leading 22 question.
23 JUDGE SMITH: She 's trying to -- ,
t
! f i 24 MR. FLYNN: She hasn 't -- I think what she 's '
25 attempting to do is ask the witness an opinion. But as I said ;
! i
.- t i C:) :
Heritage Reporting Corporation :
(202) 628-4880 r 4
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11650 i
- 1- a moment ago.'there is a nonleading way to do that. l 1
JUDGE SMITH: Well, let 's take it that way. Let 's
(
2 I 3 take it that she 's seeking the opinion of the witness, and 4 let 's get to the answer. !
}. 5 However, I think you are tending to lead more than ,
i :
I don 't think there is any-great need for
[ G you really have to. !
i 7 it'here. l i
4 1
8 MS. SNEIDER: Just seemed like an abbreviated way to j 9 get to the point. I i
10 JUDGE SMITH: Beg your pardon? j 11 MS. SNEIDER: Seemed like an abbreviated way to get )
12 to the point. l 13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I realize that that is what you p 14 are doing. You are not really trying to lead this panel. )
i l- 15 You 're not putting ideas in their minds that would not i
I 16 otherwise exist. I appreciate that.
),
j 17 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay, so I should answer the s
- 18 question if I remember it. i t
! 19 JUDGE SMITH: All right, what 's the matter? What 's f t
I ,
- l. 20 the matter now? !
4 !,
! 21 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I 'm sorry. I -- t i
- 22 MR. TURK
- I don 't know if the witness is familiar ,
1 23 with this statement in NUREG-1210 or whether it comes to his 24 mind, or he 's seen the context in which it appears and the kind ,
l i of dose it 's talking about. j l 25 l
t !
i Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
! I 1 1
l l
F l
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11651 D 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. j l 2 MR. TURK: I think an open question from Ms. Sneider ;
i' 3 could --
3- ,
! 4 MS. SNEIDER: I think he 's quite capable -- l 5 MR. TURK : -- eliminate all the problems. ;
i-
)
i 6 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute. l r
1-l 7 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Suppose I state my '
8 understanding of the question, and answer it? No?
9 MR. TURK: It 's accommodating, but I don 't know if it !
10 takes care of my problem. !
l l 11 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. ;
, i I
12 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Had you finished your j
- 13 remarks? !
l r i
14 MR. TURK: Yes. .
. 15 JUDGE SMITH: What 's your understanding of the _j 16 question?
i 17 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. My understanding of the l i
l 18 question is do I agree that the' duration of release for 1 l
i 19 serious, by serious we mean potentially life-threatening !
t i 20 accidents, whether the duration of release for all of them -- I !
h l- 21 think that 's what you said -- do I agree that all of them have j i !
22 a duration between zero and two hours. Do I agree with a !
i 23 statement in NUREG-1210 on some page that all of them have a :
! l
. 24 duration zero to two hours. !
, 25 And I guess my answer would be -- I guess my answer ;
e i k ?
! Heritage Reporting Corporation [
t l (202) 628-4888 i
i
, _ ___. _ __.. ._.___ _ _ _ ______. _ _.._... _ ._ _ __. ~ .__ _ _ _ ._. _ ...-. _ _ _._ _
3 l 1 j l 2 ;
i . $
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11652 ;
h '
- 1 is that I don 't agree that all of them necessarily would.
2 ~ That 's a strong statement. I think that 's by f ar the most 3 likely case. If you are going into an early accident which 4 releases enough radioactivity, usually the process is violent j f
j 5 enough you get the bulk of the radiation, although not all of i 6 the radiation, out pretty fast. [
i~
!' 7 I wouldn 't want to say -- I wouldn 't want to say that 8 that would be true in all cases. And, in fact, some of the i
- 9 accidents given in the reactor safety study which produced l t
10 potentially life-threatening doses do have proj ected durations i
j 11 of release somewhat longer than two hours. {
l- But most of the time it 's the ase, and I don 't want '
l 12 I
! 13 to quarrel too much with the NUREG-1210 people, that 's a
- 14 training manual, and when they say all they may oe intending I
! 15 that to mean effectively all. ;
i
! 16 BY MS. SNEIDER: .
1 i 17 Q Can you tell me what the average warning time would ,
i 18 be for that type of release? I
[
i l
i 19 MR. TURK: Your Honor, we 're really going of f into
}
20 the area of accident sequences and scenarios that has been j l l
, I i
21 excluded previously from testimony, l
1 l
22 CBoard confer.) !
i I
MR. TURK : And there 's nothing that -- there 's ;
i 23 24 nothing that was raised in cross-examination dealing -- as I 25 recall -- dealing with that, f I
i Heritage Reporting Corporation [
(202) G28-4008 '
I ;
i l _ _ _
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11653
.O 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it was offered as being a follow 2 on to Judge. Linenberger 's, and we don 't believe that it is.
3 And if you have an obj ection --
4 MR. TURK: I do.
5 JUDGE SMITH: -- it would be sustained.
6 MS. SNEIDER: This goes to the line of questioning ,
7 cbout suggesting that people should -- the determination should 8 always be evacuation rather'than sheltering. It goes to Mr.
9 Flynn 's line of questioning. I believe to Mr. Turk 's. My 10 follow-up questions was about the predictability of this type 11 of accident. It all goes to the sequence where the suggestion ,
12 was that you should always tell people to evacuate, and the 13 warning time seems to fit in directly to Dr. Goble 's analysis 14 of what the appropriate strategy is.
15 If it is 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> warning typically, then he would --
16 I assume he would agree that it would be in conformance with i 17 his testimony that people should evacuate. ,
18 MR. TURK : It;s a nice argument, You- Honor, but I >
19 don 't see that that 's the question that was posed to the 20 witness.
21 What I heard her say is how much warning time are you I
22 likely to have with core melt, or words to that effect.
23 MS. SNEIDER: This type of short-duration accident.
24 MR. TURK : Well, there 's nothing that we 're talking 25 about here about a short-duration accident.
O P Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,u- --
- e. r - -,, ,-,m.,r.. --,,----w- -
_.rwy ,,..-~cg,-r. p.,g.-w_,. mm,.., y,w,,,,.-y,y --,wy-,.--,-e,, . . - - - ,,e-,-
r l'
s i ,
! GOBLE,:EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11654 ,
' Ih 1 MS. SNEIDER: We were just talking about the zero to i
} 2 two-hour puff release. So it 's -
3 JUDGE SMITH: Was that -- that wasn 't Mr. F l y nn 's ,
i !
4 cross-examination to which you are following, though, is it? I l
, 5 don 't recall that, j i
{ 6 MS. SNEIDER: There was a line of questions, I !
7 believe, both from Mr. Turk and Mr. Flynn yesterday that went f t 8 to -- I don 't recall it exactly, but the insinuatior. was they I
' t J
j 9 were trying to get the witness to agree that you should always {
a 10 evacuate rather than shelter. j t
! 8 11 It also goes somewhat to Mr. Turk 's line of i
j 12 questioning today about the buildup of radiation, and I think ,
e ;
13 it helps explain Dr. Goble 's position a little bit clearer why f g W 14 he considers the sheltering option very essential.
t l
t 15 MR. FLYNN: I join in Mr. Turk 's obj ect ion, and I I
16 would like to suggest that my questions were not dependent upon !
l l 17 any assumptions about warning time, t i 10 JUDGE SMITH: They weren 't ?
19 MR. FLYNN: We did talk about a release being 20 imminent, but I don 't think that 's the line of questioning that 21 Ms. Sneider is referring to.
i 22 The questions that I posed to Dr. Goble about the i 23 serious early release I would submit were independent of i i
24 whether there was a -- excuse me, perhaps I -- no, I withdraw f 25 the remarks. t O :
Heritage Reporting Corporation t f
(202) 628-4888
?
I
t a COBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11655 >
4
~
lh 1 MR. TURK: Your Honor, the rabbit trail that we 're ,
i l j 2 being led down is going to require, or'possibly require one or ;
\
j 3 ariother party come in and say, no, the warning times for j
. i i !
4 different scenarios are going to be different, arx3 here 's what -
i
,- 5 we predict is going to be the probability of how much warning 1
! 6 time you 're going to have. All of it 's beyond the questioning 7 that we have done today and beyond the scope of an admissible i .
i
- 8 issue for litigation here. !
I 9 MS. SNEIDER: I asked the same questions about l^ i i 10 warning times of the Applicants ' witnesses, and I believe I got l l- 11 responses to that. So I don 't see where this is' going to i i l
! 12 require a great deal of rebuttal. There was plenty of time l 13 when the State of New Hampshire was up here and the Applicants.
14 We did get into this are.
l J
l 15 (Board confer.) j l
E35 16 (Continued on next page.)
l 1
I 17 l
18 I
i 19 i
l 20 l
l 21 !
l l 1 22 !
l l l
', 23 '
- j. 24 l
) 25 1
l i
- Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 f -. . . .
s' l l
< i i
i -
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 1165G j
!' 17J6 1 JUDGE SM.TH: Obj ection sustained. l 1 I
! 2 MS. SNEIDER: Your Honor, can I make an offer of .
i i I
i
- 3 proof at this time -- ,
4 i
! 4 JUDGE SMITH: Certainly. !
i i
l 5 MS. SNEIDER: -- and have the -- l i
6 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
7 MS. SNEIDER: -- I would like to be able to say what f f .
f I
~
8 the witness would answer. I 'd rather that the witness say it i
i 9 himself by way of an offer of proof. :
10 JUDGE SMITH: Do you know what the answer is you f
11 expect to get? i
> i
! 12 MS. SNEIDER: Since the answer is of such a technical
! g 13 nature. I would feel more comfortable if the witness said it.
i W i 14 JUDGE SMITH: All right. l h 15 Can you answer the question?
l 16 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I think the question was a ,
l l
i 17 question about - of warning time, that 's where we -- which -- l l t I '
i 18 I don 't know how technical --
i
! 19 MS. SNEIDER: Warning times for these -- ,
t i
20 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Oh. for these --
l 21 MS. SNEIDER: -- short-duration, life-threatening l
j 22 releases.
1
- 23 THE WITNESS: (Goble) That 's right. The -- one l
24 doesn 't -- the --
l f 25 MR. DIGNAN: May I observe this is the darnedest l
)
t Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l
,. l l
! I l- I i 1
_ . _ - - . - - _ . - - - . - _ . - _ . _ - . . . . . - . . . . . - - . - - . - - . - . - - _ . . - ~ ~ . - _ .
ll i
j GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11657
) 1 of fer of proof I 've ever seen. Your Honor. I understood the
- 2. latitude Your Honor likes, but I think the proper procedure is
! 3 counsel to say, quote. "I offer to prove A. B, C, " and that 's l 4 the way of an offer of proof -- t i i 1 5 MS. SNEIDER: Okay, I 'l l --
1 i 6 JUDGE SMITH: She 's really in essence asking for h 7 technical help at the same time she 's asking for the of fer of l 8 proof -- ,
i i
i 9 MS. SNEIDER: Your Honor -- j i
- I 10 JUDGE SMITH
- -- she can consult with the witness 1
11 then if she wants to. l l
12 MR. DIGNAN: I have no obj ection to her consulting f 13 with the witness, but this is a record matter and it ought to
. 14 go in --
l 15 MS. SNEIDER: Your Honor --
16 JUDGE SMa rH: Now, this is not going to be available ;
l 17 for -- i I
i 18 ' ' -
MR. DIGNAN: No. I know it isn 't --
1 1
1 19 JUDGE SMITH: -- proposed findings.
t i 20 MR. DIGNAN: -- but I believe it 's presumably being l
21 made for a right of appeal, you don 't make one otherwise. And l
l 22 I 'd like at least the offer of proof to be clear, so that the 23 Board hears it, I hear it, and the Board, for all I know, may l 1
I i 24 wish to reconsider its ruling once it hears a clear offer of !
l 25 proof. And what we 're get ting is a disj ointed thing that then f I
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(20e) G28-4008 1
i I .. . . _ . .. . .
_ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ~ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ _
i 4^
11658 4
1 .
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT l 1 goes up to the Appeal Board or higher and everybody looks at it d
2 and says, well, we 're not sure it might have meant this or it ,
\
3 might have meant that. )
4 i 4 And it seems to me the proper way an offer of proof.
l '
5 at least any time I 've ever seen it in a court of law, be an l.
j 6 administrative or j udicial, has always been for an attorney to l
l 7 stand up and say, Your Honor, I offer to prove, if allowed.I l
8 offer to prove A, B. C, D. l I !
! :9 JUDGE SMITH: Go talk to your witness, your advisor
! 10 or whatever he is. ;
i i
i 41 (Counsel and witness conferr.ing.) !
i 12 JUDGE SMITH: Let 's t ake a five minute break.
l
- 13 (Whareupon, a brief recess was taken.) {
l i i 14 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Sneider. I i
! 15 MS. SNEIDER: Your Honor, if the witness was allowed ,
I i
! 16 to respond to the question he would t estify, in essence, that i
17 according to the generic literature these early or these j f
f i 18 serious puff release accidents, there are warning times from j l 19 one half hour to two hours. He would add one qualification to l 20 that, that there is some research fndicating that there would 5 21 also be -- that there could be serious accidents with longer f
22 warning times -- some serious accidents that might have longer l 23 warning ti.nes.
24 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor. I wou d submit that the offer i i
25 of proof as stated by Ms. Sneider contradicts what the witness (It i i
Heritage Reporting Corporation j i (202) 628-4888 .
l
,' I
) I L. .. .. .. . . .. ... . . . .
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11659
- 1 has said in the past. He himself has made a dis inction a
2 between --
3 MR. DIGNAN: Well, wait a minute, she 's made the i L t 4 offer of proof, do we have to argue about it. -It 's her right.
! 5 It 's her inalienable right to make an offer of proof, do we i !
6 have to then argue about it. -j i:
l' 7 MR. FLYNN: May I finish my remark -- l i
!' 8 MR. DIGNAN: I mean it, Your Honor.
l l 9 (Laughter)
- 10 MS. WEISS
- You may want to reconsider this. ;
l !
k 11 JUDGE SMITH: Do you feel that the world is ganging l l-12- up e; gainst you this morning. Mr. Flynn.
s l
+
i 13 Claughter) 14 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor. I 'm used to that. [
l 15 The only point I wanted to make was that the witness i
! l
- j. 16 himself has made a distinction in his testimony between a puff ;
I 17 release and a serious release, f 18 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. l i
! 19 Ms. Sneider. When this gets done we get to see a i 20 videocassette.
I i 21 BY MS. SNEIDER: ,
l '
i i 22 Q I 'd j ust like to ask you, this is a followup to i f i, J
j 23 questions about the ability to predict what 's going to happen, ;
4 c
24 with respect to these fest, severe, early releases of short- t I
25 duration, can you predict such e release?
f I Heritage Repo rt ing Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 [
j t h
i i-
-. - -- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.a
i-i GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11660 l What kind of a release, short-duration
~ -
1 JUDGE SMITH:
l 2 and what? ]
1 3 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Severe.
4 MS. SNEIDER: Severe.
S JUDGE SMITH: There was another modifier in there? !
l 6 MR. TURK: ' Fast and early, i l 7 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, right. Fast, early, severe.
l i 8 short-duration. !
- i 9 MS. SNEIDER: Maybe I should rephrase it. ;
)
i 10 BY MS. SNEIDER: l r
11 Q Can you predict the scvere accident of short-f i
J j 12 duration, the severe, early accident of short-duration?. l l l l 13 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I -- -
1 14 JUDGE SMITH: Now, wait a minute. I 1 l
! iS All right, what 's your obj ection? -l 16 MR. TURK : It doesn 't make sense to me, first of all.
! l
{ 17 JUDGE SMITH: I think it does. l I
- - 18 MR. DIGNAN
- Can I respectfully inquire as to when j i i 19 the interrogator really meant the word "release" instead of the j l
] 20 word "accident." l 21 JUDGE SMITH: Oh. I missed that. l P
g 22 MS, SNEIDER: Release. Thank you.
I j 23 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
I 24 MR. DIGNAN: Any time, Ms. Sneider. f
- 25 MR. TURK
- And, Your Honor, I think it 's been asked t
i i,
i Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i !
i i.
I GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11661
~
h and answered in my cross-examination already. It 's trotting 1
! 2 over the same ground. I don 't see a dif ference f rom what we 've
! 3 already covered.
4 MS. SNEIDER: Well, I think I 'm defining, probably, i
2 5 nore than you did, this type of accident. And I believe it was i
! 6 after a series of your questions that we got an indication from i
l 7 the Board that some of the responses had been, perhaps, a bit- l i i
! 8 too general and we 're trying to just define some of those
[ 9 responses a little bit better.
4 l 10 JUDGE SMITH: Do you understand the question? i I
l I think so, but may I ask one i 11 THE WITtIESS: (Goble) v
)
12 question myself, which is, did I ever answer the question about l l
i 13 warning times? q i 14 MS. SNEIDER: No, you were instructed not to.
t 15 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. ;
16 (Laughter) l f
17 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay, I won 't.
t j 18 JUDGE SMITH: Do you understand this question? i 1
l i 19 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes. Yes, I understand it. i f 20 And my unswer to it is, that you cannot definitely predict a 21 release -- y 22 JUDGE SMITH: You mean, you cannot alwa'ls?
23 THE WITNESS: (Goble) That 's right ,
i 24 JUDGE SMITH: Always.
25 THE WITNESS: (Goble) That 's right. Yes. You could O
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 !
i
7 >_.
I i i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11662 !
1 make a definite confident prediction and be wrong, for example.
1 $
2 You cannot always -- you cannot correct or you cannot always
, 3 correctly predict that a release will occur. And the timing of !
1 i 4 this is perhaps of considerable importance in emergency !
5 planning. The timing of what 's happening. l f
i 6 And what you -- vhat makes you think a release might
! 7 be imminent is that you 've entered into a core melt, a serious l
l 8 release where puff is being used by NUREG-1210 in this context l l 9 j ust means short-duration; it was not limiting what was coming j 10 out, okay. l
\ 3
} 11 So for a serious accident you can fear that a release i
12 is imminent if you 've entered into core melt or severe core ;
4 i
l 13 degradation leading to melt. And then at issue. for whether or !
i
) 14 not you 're going to have a release, is whether or not the ;
1 i i . [
containment will hold the radioactivity that 's going to be
! 15 j 16 released by the degrading core.
17 And essentially, what happens is there 's a relatively l
18 early crisis point at which the -- in which the reactor vessel
, I l
19 melts through the core, slumps down is one of the poetic ways l
r 20 people describe that. And at that point, either -- at that l i
21 point you don 't know what will happen; containment might hold l
i I
! 22 or it might not. j
'3 If containment -- if 'here is containment it 's likely i
, i 24 that there will be a relatively long period of time -- l l
"5 JUDGE SMITH: L e t 's --
! l llI l 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628--4888 I
i
- I
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11663 0 1 THE WITNESS: CGoble) Okay. So what you don 't know 2 is, what you can predict -- let me -- I 'll j ust summarize and 3 try to make it quick, What you can predict is that there might 4 be a release relatively soon and you 'll know about it 5 relatively soon or there might be a substantial delay in 6 release and you won't know which of those things will happen 7 once you enter into core melt.
8 BY MS. SNEIDER:
9 Q In light of what you have just said, could you 10 explain to me why you believe a sheltering option would be 11 preferable strategy?
12 A (Goble) Yes. The --
13 MR. TURK : I think we 're trotting over the same 14 ground that 's been explored in cross already.
15 JUDGE SMITH: That 's exact ly the reason for redirect.
16 isn 't it? Going over the same ground that was explored on 17 cross. I mean, hoping to get maybe a dif ferent answer, but if 18 she were not doing that I 'd be hearing you obj ecting that is 19 not redirect.
20 MR. TURK : I 'l l withdraw the -
21 JUDGE SMITH: That 's your universal. generic 22 obj ec t ion.
23 (Laughter) 24 MR. TURK: I like the record that I 've got. Your Honor 25 JUDGE SMITH: Do you withdraw it?
O Haritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4388
t 1 4 !
f GOBLE. EV DOK IMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11664 l 1
ll)' 1 MR. TURK: Yes.
l 2 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I think it 's likely to be l
4
! 3 prudent to recommend sheltering because of the potential for an {
l' j 4 imminent release. If it turns out that the release-does not i
l 5 happen, the containment has held, then there 's likely to be a 1 (
6 substantial period of time, whereby substantial I mean at least j l
i e j 7 several hours, probably many hours when you would expect it to !
[
8 hold and when there would be ample time at that point to ,
t 9 evacuate the beach population. i
]
i
- 10 BY MS. SNEIDER
- !
l 11 Q I believe you responded to a question this morning to
, 12 Mr. Turk that you would recommend that people shelter for the ,
i !
! 13 duration of the release and then that they evacuate, it may
! i 14 have been to Mr. Flynn; is that rignt? j i
I 15 A (Goble) Yes. j b
Okay. And Dr. Linenberger indicated some questions j
! 16 Q i
17 yesterday about whether people would be better off remaining in (
18 their cars versus sheltering, and what I 'd like to ask you L
19 right now is why you believe it would be better for people to ;
i 20 shelter rather than -- to shelter for the duration of the j t
21 release rather than remain ir their cars, particularly with 22 respect to the particulate releases that we were talking about? l I
23 A (Goble) All right. A shelter provides some 24 protection against all three forms of exposure, and a suitable :
25 shelter will provide significantly more protection than will a I
Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat io n (202) 628-4888
k GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11665 l i
kh 1 car, which will provide very little protection, j 2 JUDGE SMITH: And this is all your answer is, as !
3 relates to particulate -- protection against-particulate l
1 4 deposits? .
1 [
! 5 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Well -- !
- f 1
j 6 MS. SNEIDER: Why don 't we first address 7 particulates.
I !
I 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that is suppose to be your [
9 question, wasn 't it?
10 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Yes. For particulates you do i I i
i 11 worry about inhalation of particulates as well as ground E
12 deposition. And you worry about -- and a building will provide j i
{ 13 some protection against inhalation more than you would expect a !
' i l 14 car.
15 Similarly you worry about ground shine. Furthermore, i
16 you might worry about materials deposited on the car and/or -- !
! 17 and also on the person in the car.
i }
i l 18 BY MS. SNEIDER:
! 19 Q And why would you worry about the ground shine 1
! 20 depositing or the particulates depositing on the person in the ,
I 1
( 21 car?
22 A (Goble) I want to say because it can happen. If you i
23 have a person sitting in a car for several -- there is a I
24 question about how much -- if the windows of the car are open i
25 you would certainly expect air flow through the car and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
j.
L GOBLE, EVDOKIM0FF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11666 !
k Now, I f
1 deposition on the people contained within the car. j 2 guess there 's a question, to what extent on a het summer day [
t
, 3 you could keep your windows closed, that would certainly reduce t i i 4 skin deposition quite a bit. I j I S Now, Mr. Turk asked you some auestions about !
l Q i t
1 j 6 deposition of particles increasing over time. In light of that I
! 7 do you have an opinion as to whether it would be better to i I l 8 evacuate quickly or to shelter and then evacuate? l 4 i
! 9 JUDGE SMITH: And that 's the only consideration he 's 10 to bring into his --
t I
- 11 MS. SNEIDER: Well, I 'm af raid if I ask much more :
i l 12 I 'll be accused of leaaing the witness, so I guess start off in j i
13 a general way. l G 14 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Let me guess where you 're l
15 going. The -- my discussion with Mr. Turk was -- f I
16 MR. DIGNAN: I obj ect. A queation goes out, the l i
17 witness ' answer starts with, let me guess where you 're going. l I
f
! 18 JUDGE SMITH: Well. thet was slow. l
{ I i 19 MR. DIGNAN: My cbj ection? [
l l !
l 20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
21 MR. DIGNAN: I can get lulled like everybody else.
i l 22 JUDGE SMITH: You would have done that 13 years ago. l t
23 (Laughter) [
t f
24 BY MS. SNEIDER: ',
i 25 Q Do you understand the question, Dr. Goble?
Heritage. Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4B88
[
r
, _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - . . - . . . ~ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I t t i
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - REDIRECT 11667 ,
l
! h 1 A (Gohle) I think I understand the question. I i
- l i 2 assume that -- let me try and answer the question. My i
! l 1 3 discussions with Mr. Turk concerned the buildup of deposited ;
4 radioactivity. And the -- what we 've -- the previous question, f.
t 5 about two or three, concerned the duration of the release that i 6 was to be expected for these sorts of accidents. And that i 7 duration to be expected is relatively short, typically two ;
4
! 8 hours or less. !
9 And I take it -- well, that time period, two hours, l l 10 is short compared with the time expected for evacuation of the j I
11 summer beach population. So that one will have a -- well j l
l 12 before the bulk of the people would be evacuated you might have I
l 4 13 accumulated nest of the ground deposited material that is l I
l i 14 producing a ground chine dose.
15 JUDGE SMITH: And that the buildup of particulates on j j 16 the shelter would not be sufficient to offset the other --
17 THE WITNESS: (Goble) The protection -- !
' -- the answer you started out with, how 18 JUDGE SMITH: l l
l 19 you take into account the buildup of particulates or the 20 degrading of a shelter, in your view, and you didn 't come back ;
21 to that.
i 22 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. Well, for ground shine 23 I wouldn 't call it degrading of the shelter. The shelter -- l
! 24 JUDGE SMITH: So you don 't understand the question to i
25 be that, the degrading cf the shelter?
i Heritage Reporting Corporation j i
(202) 628-4888 j l f i- l l >
--.- ___..___ _ _ _ . _ - _._--- _ . _ _ q l
l 1
i !
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11668 j i
j 1 THE WITNESS: (Goble) 1 don 't consider it to be a I
2 degrading of the shelter. The shelter works the way it works. t I
f 3 It interposes mass between the stuf f that 's . radiating and the I 1 !
4 person who might be irradiated; and it has' that mass and it l
l 5 interposes it. l
- e 6 The issue that I was discussing with Mr. Turk was an 7 accumulation of material, so there would be more radiation for I i 8 the shelter to be protecting against. And if it were the case i
9 that when we 're talking about a very sustained release where j l
l 10 this material would be continuing to be building up for hours j i
11 and hours and hours, that would provide more urgency for moving 12 people away from it than if you had accumulated what was going 13 to accumulate, and the dose that -- or exposure that one was g
i W receiving was going to be then thereafter relatively constant.
j 14 t l l et/36 15 (Continued on next page.) j i
l 16 i
! 17 l
l 18 I i l I
! 19 l
- )
! 20 l 21 l
22 l l
- 23 l 1 !
24 !
! I 25 f
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) G28-4030 l I
I l
i
i- f I
I i
GOBLE, EV DOK IMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11669 j al 1 BY MS. SNEIDER:
{' 2 Q In that type of situation where you 're sheltering j 3 people for the duration of the release, and these particulates l, j 4 have built up outside, how would you address Mr. Tu rk 's i l 5 concerns about people evacuating through this ground i !
l 6 deposition?
! 7 MR. TURK: And may I get clarification?
i
! 8 We are talking about shelters in the Seabrook beach i
j 9 area?
10 MS. SNEIDER: Yes. Right now the question'is f
, r 11 addressed to the evacuation af ter sheltering. i i
I l
12 MR. TURK: Given the shelter that exists in the 13 Seabrook beach area.
14 MS. SNEIDER: Right, but that 's not what the question 15 is addressed to.
16 MR. TURK: Oh.
j I 17 MS. SNEIDER: This could be any shelter. I 'm cr.ly 18 asking -- the question is going to evacuation after sheltering. l MR. TURK: Your Honor, I would like the record to be f 19 j 20 clear. Are we talking about shelter in some hypothetical i J
c 21 sense, or are we talking about the protective response for the i I
22 people in the Seabrook beach area. which is the focus of tnis l i 23 hearing?
i Well, your obj ection or your request i 24 JUDGE SMITH:
25 for clarification probably would have been appropriate to the l
til i 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation i i (202) 628-4888 !
l' !
l !
L 4
y% ,. wig-ww e w ww ww . _ -
b iD J
l i, l h GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - REDIRECT 11670 !
L 1 earlier question. But right now since she 'tr talk.ing solely !
! 2 about_ walking through or traveling through ground shine no
! 3 matter what the sheltering had been. I don 't understand your 1
4 concern. I mean, it 's not relevant. The sheltering is not l
! 5 relevant to her present question. i
{ l
! 6 Do you understand her question relates only to ;
t i
7 evacuating through -- having left the shelter and evacuating j 8 through the deposits on the ground? ;
I 9 MR. TURK: I misunderstood. I thought she was l
l 10 talking about this combined response of shelter first, then f
I a
j 11 evacuate versus evacuate immediately. l i
12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, serial. I mean sooner or later I l j
t i
' think she 's putting it all together.
13 14 THE WITNESS: (Goble) Okay. The -- we 're l i, f 15 hypothesizing that the ground-deposited material has l i
l 16 accumulated, and we 're talking about the doses that you expect !
1 17 just from the ground-deposited material for the moment. So f
18 we 're not considering any previous protection af forded by the i
19 shelter. l l
) 20 Then, at issue is really -- there are really two l I
21 questions in evacuating people f rom this area with ground l l
22 shine. !
I I
23 One, is whether it 's possible under these 24 circumstances to get them out, spending less time than in the k
i 25 traffic jam that gave rise to the original evacuation time t
i j Heritcae Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4883 l
l
\
l_ l
- g. > >
\
i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - RECROSS 11671 1 estimates.
2 And two, whether having had the benefit of knowing 3 what had happened, you could direct them away from the nost ;
t t
! 4 contaminated areas. !
! 5 And both of those seem to me possible, but they would i
f 6 require planning; that you don't need to have everybody waiting 7 in their cars to evacuate; you could have them waiting in the i
j 8 shelters. It would also be possible, it seems to me, to know 1
l 9 what areas are most contaminated and to get people out, but it i
10 would require a significant planning effort to be prepared to l i
11 do so. t i
12 MS. SNEIDER: Okay. I have just one more question. f l
13 BY MS. SNEIDER:
j' I believe Judge Harbour asked you yesterday whether i j 14 Q I
15 your population counts for the beach area included people in l
16 their cars. And I just wanted to ask you for clarification if 17 you know whether Dr. Adler included people driving in cars in l 18 the beach area when he produced his population figures.
i 19 A CGoble) I don 't know.
l 20 MS. SNEIDER: Okay. I 'm finished.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Anything f rther f rom this panel?
1 22 MR. LEWALD: I have ts :(ue s t ions.
23 RECROSS EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. LEWALD:
! 25 Q Dr. Eckert, is it your position as a statistician ,
O
.t Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 638-4880 l
2 e
. 8'
- l GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - RECROSS 11672 l l
5 h 1 that you can opine across the board what is an adequate
- 2 percentage of sampling without knowing something about the
(
I 3 population you want to sample, or without knowing something l
4 about the method of sampling that you intend to -employ? !
l 1 l 5 A (Eckert) No, my position is that -- well, it would [
}
! i
! 6 be -- [
l 1 7 Q That is not your position?
( 8 A (Eckert) That 's not my position.
r I
9 Q Isn 't that what, in essence, you have told Ms. i
! 10 Sneider? l l
11 A (Eckert) I seem to recall she asked for my l 12 impression of a usual kind of sample that a statistician might j i
13 encounter in terms of sample sizes. !
l' !
14 Q But you didn 't know what the population she was l 15 concerned with, or. indeed, the method of sampling to be l
i 16 employed, did you? l
! 17 A CEckert) She didn 't relate those to me, t
i f 18 Q Now in answer to. I think it was Judge Harbour 's 19 question with regard to the questionnaire or the survey 20 instrument, you made the statement, I believe, that no attempt 21 was made to inquire within the survey instrument into the 22 attitude of the respondents toward operation of the plant.
23 Am I misstating your answer?
I i 24 A CEckert) I believe that 's about correct. '
25 Q That would be about what you said? l fieritage Re po r t ing Corporation (202) 620-4888
[
l
y___,._.______.______._.__... _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . - . . - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
1
! I
! l i GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - RECROSS 11673 I
- 1 A CEckert) I 'll accept that 's about what I said, yes.
i 2 O Could we look at, for example, on Attachment 12 which 3 .is part of Exhibit 19. and on the page that we have indicated f
4 as 117 and the second paragraph of the questionnaire, and the 5 second sentence? I l
6 You sny. "It is important that your views on this 7 issue become known."
8 Now the issue you 're referring to is an evacuation
- l. 9 plan, isn 't it?
i 10 A (Eckert) That 's correct, and the use of the l
11 shelters.
12 Q And is it your position that the evacuation plan has 13 nothing to do with the operation of the plant?
l 9 14 A (Eckert) With the operation of the plant? ,
15 Q Of the plant; whether or not the plant is licensed.
16 A (Eckert) No. it has a lot to do with it.
17 Q It has everything to do with it, doesn 't it?
18 A (Eckert) Yes.
I
! 19 Q Now on Page SG. if I can go back to this point one i
20 more time, and if I could ask you to turn to Page 56, and if I 21 could also ask you to look at your copy, which I know you have. !
l
! 22 of Applicant 's Exhibit No. 37 which is the Stone & Webster 4 23 shelter survey form for the Seaside Motel which we heve been
! 24 discussing throughout.
i i
25 Now, in your testinony on Page SG you say in the i
Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 620-4008 i
GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - RECROSS 11674 O 1 third paragraph, the second sentence, "In one of these cases 2 they wrote," -- now the they is Stone and Webster - "they I
3 wrote that '65 times 12 equals 7800. '"
4 Now that is not a full quote of what appears on the i l i 5 structure description -- under the structure description in !
i 6 Applicants ' Exhibit No. 37, is it, Doctor? I
}
l l 7 A CEckert) No. 1 e i 8 MS. WEISS: I obj ect on the grounds that this is not 9 fair recross. He 's going over an issue which he hinself raised i 10 on cross, and this was not raised by the Board or raised by Ms.
I 11 Sneider. It 's j ust an effort to get the last shot in, Your 12 Honor, and these witnesses have been here for a long time.
13 MR. DIGNAN: Not based on Ms. Sneider?
O 14 MS. WEISS: Excuse me, not raised by the Board.
15 MR. DIGNAN: Were you out of the room?
{
i I 16 MS. WEISS: I withdraw that. I 17 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, this has come up several t
18 times. i 19 MR. DIGNAN: She 's wi thdrawing -- she 's withdrawing 20 it.
21 MS. WEISS: Well, I withdraw the ref erence to Ms.
22 Sneider. i i
23 You are certain you have e right to come back on I 24 everything that she redirects on?
I 25 MR. DIGNAN: That 's the usual rule.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4608
i p
l - -
GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - RECROSS 11675 I i 1A5. WEISS: That 's not my understanding, not when 2 it 's an issue that you raised.
j 3 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Come on. I 'm wondering 4 ~a bout your status of carrying the ball on these objections. I ,
S know that --
6 MS. WEISS: Well. Your Honor, that 's the first l l
7 obj ection I 've made this af ternoon. I 'm not carrying the ball j 8 on these obj ections. l l
9 JUDGE SMITH: Who counts.
i 10 MS. WEISS: Well, apparently somebody is, i
11 You know, we 've been getting -- !
l 12 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled.
! 13 MS. WEISS: -- obj ections f rom this side without l
14 reference to whose witness it is.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, any time that we can be helped l l
16 with our j udgments, we appreciate it. !
17 Overruled.
I 18 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, could I have the question l l
19 read again to the witness so I don 't lose the sequence of the r l
20 examination -- ,
!. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Please.
I i' l 22 MR. LEWALD: -- which I submit the obj ection was 1
23 designed to do.
24 CAccordingly, the pending question was read back E37 25 by the court reporter.)
Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat ion (202) 628-4888 l
l
I GOBLE.- EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - RECROSS 11676 1 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) The answer is no.
2 BY MR. LEWALD:
3 Q And in front of what you purport is the quote from 4 Stone & Webster is the word "paced"; is it not? i 5 A CEckert) That is correct.
6 Q And on your copy of this form you have indeed circled 7 "paced" in red crayon. have you not?
j- 8 A (Eckert) That 's right.
9 Q Now again in an answer. I think to Judge Harbour 's
)
10 question, you in essence assured Judge Harbour that you took 11 whatever steps you could, or that you did indeed take steps to l 12 make sure that the questions in your survey instrument did not ;
\
l 13 introduce any bias in the questions; was that your testimony. l l
14 in essence? l i
15 A (Eckert) Yes. i 16 Q What steps did you take? f 17 A (Eckert) We wrote the questionnaire and we were 18 approaching the questionnaire with independent questions in l 19 mind. And then when that was done, we had that reviewed by Dr. [
l 20 Luloff, who agreed that the questionnaire could go out. I I
21 There was no purposeful design of intermixing the questions so that we would perhaps try to influence the answer 1
22 1
23 .; question by the other.
i 24 Q What steps did you take to guard against the 25 introduction of bias or systematic error in the questionnaire?
Heritage Reporting Corporation j l (202) 620-4000 j
! GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - RECROSS 11677 L _e 1 A (Eckert) Do you mean relative to the questions j
l t i
I 2 themselves?
J l 3 Q ReletIve to the survey instrument.
4 A (Eckert) The step we took was to have it reviewed by I
1 I 5 Dr. Luloff.
1
) 6 Q And that 's the steps you took to make sure that there 7 was no systematic error in the document?
?
8 A (Eckert) Other than being careful ourselves not to I 9 introduce a known bias there, we then had that reviewed by Dr.
l; ,
10 Luloff, yes. 'I f i 11 Q And by yourselves, you 're ref erring to whom. Doctor? l 12 A CEckert) Myself and my chief assistant. j i
5 13 Q Doctc r. referring to the second survey, and I use the 14 term "second survey" in the manner that you have used it, and .
i 15 referring again, if I could, to Page 65 of your testimony, and 16 if I may repeat again, the reason as I understand it that you 17 say you wanted to do a second survey. 6 18 MS. SNEIDER: Obj ec t ion. There 's been no cross-1 19 examination since Mr. Lewald is on the second survey. .
l l
20 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor -- well, there has been (
i 21 considerable testimony as to the capacity of the private space f
22 and public space in public access buildings. And it is this l
23 subj ect that I am inquiring into. There has been testimony of f
[ f I criticism of Stone & Webster study for failing to allocate 24 !
i 25 sufficient space to the private residents, and I 'm coming at O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888 i k I
i
_ . . _ ~ , . _ _ _ _ . . _ = -
I i [
i 6 i
,A .
GOBLE, EV DOKIMOFF, ECKERT - RECROSS 11678 k '
llI 1 this on the other side of the point.
2 JUDGE SMITH: Sufficient space to the private? ,
- 3 MR. 1. EWALD
- The allegation is that Stone & Webster 1
l 4 improperly included in their survey of the so-called public [
5 access building those. areas. or those buildings that were l 6 either owner-occupied, employee-occupied. or occupied by 1
f
! 7 somebody.else, but nevertheless were in the nature of private 8 residents. And it is this matter that I would like to inquire i s ,
9 into. ] i 10- JUDGE SMITH: And the second survey that you 're j 11 referring to.
i 12 MR. LEWALD: The second survey was directed to this j 13 very question, I believe. j 14 MS. SNEIDER: I don 't see that. Your Honor. The i
15 second survey went to the use of motel rooms.
16 JUDGE SMITH: That 's the one -- the second survey j l
17 being the very, very last one, j 18 MR. LEWALD: The very last one inquiring as to those !
I 19 hotel owners or managers who answered yes to Question 4. l I
L 20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. I don 't see the relationship.
{
21 MR. LEWALD: My question is -- I want to ask Dr.
i 22 Eckert why he did not pose the reciprocal to that question to l l !
23 every owner that answered no, to find out whether that answer l
l l
24 pertained to his private quarters within the facility, the j i
25 public access building, or whether it appearea -- whether or l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
a
. , ~ . _ . _ . _ -
l i
! l i- !
d GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - RECROSS 11679 ;
l 1 not it intended to cover lobbies. hallways, basements, and et i l-cetera, of the building, the very matter that he was looking i 2
i I 3 for information from the people who answered yes. j 4 And it seems if we 're concerned with the areas of 5 lobbies, hallways, basements, et cetera.-and common public -
L 6 areas in public access buildings along with the private areas, j
. 7 that there is no less reason for asking those who answered no !
4 l 8 than there is for asking those who answered yes as to what i
j 9 their answer pertained to, i
10 JUDGE SMITH: I understand. Okay, I agree.
11 MR. LEWALD: -This is the purpose of my question.
f l 12 JUDGE SMITH: I understand now. What I don 't l k A 13 understand is whose cross-examination are you following on. I j l
i h
14 understand the purpose, aw; : think it would have been l
15 legitimate cross. but I don't know whose cross you are l
! 16 following on.
17 MR. LEWALD: Well. I believe the matter did come up.
18 Your Honor.
19 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
20 MR. LEWALD: But if -- I would ask the indulgence of i
21 .the Board if it did not on the basis that I forgot to ask it l
. 22 when I intended to.
23 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that 's adequate in itself.
24 BY MR . LEWALD:
25 Q Doctor, you have heard this colloquy. I think, and r
l I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f 4
- i
I I
i l
1 GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF, ECKERT - RECROSS 11680 i- ill i can I ask you did you consider at any point in time circulating i
2 those hotel or public access building owners who answered no to
- 3 Question 4 on your questionnaire as to what space they were a
i j 4 referring to? j
~
5 A CEckert) No, we didn 't consider asking that
, 6 question. ,
i i- !
j 7 Q And what was the basis of not doing it if indeed --
8 well, let me utrike that. Obviously, if you didn't consider 1
9 it, you had no basis, j i
I That concludes my examination.
- 10 MR. LEWALD
- i 11 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Anything further? !
12 MR. TURK : Your Honor, one brief line. I don 't mean )
l l
13 to prolong this. It gets at the redirect of Ms.-Sneider. I i 14 hope to-be three minutes.
15 JUDGE SMITH: That 's three minutes for you, and then 16 you open up the whole cascade. 6 17 Go ahead.
18 You 've already used some of it. ,
i l
l 19 Claughter.) {
! {
20 MR. DIGNAN: Seven seconds gone, Your Honor, i t
hm. TURK : Dr. Goble, real quickly if you can. I just !
21 22 want to see if I understand your testimony on one respect.
23 RECROSS EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. TURK: }
25 Q As I understand it, you agree that you do not know in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
)
l i l l l l
. . - _ _ _ = _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -
I e
1 !
b !
! GOBLE, EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT ~ RECHOSS 11601 ,
1 advance whether you 're going to have an early containment 2 failure or not; is that correct? l 3 A CEckert) Yes. 1 4 Q And also you would agree that you cannot predict ,
i .
l 5' reliably in advance of an occurrence whether or not other j i I
! G safety systems may fail which had not failed when you first l
l 7 enter a severe accident which might produce containment l I
~
8 failure. l 1 i 1 >
l 9 A (Eckert) That 's correct.
I e
10 Q So that even when you 're going into a core melt i
11 situation, and let 's hope it never happens anywhere, but if a 12 plant was to go into a core melt such as at Seabrook, you would 13 agree that you simply would not know at that point whether or i
j G 14 not your containment was going to hold; would you agree? j l 15 A (Eckert) Yes. i 1
l 16 MR. TURK: All right. I have nothing further.
l JUDGE SMITH: Anything further?
l 17 18 (No response.)
19 JUDGE SMITH: All right, you may step down.
20 gentlemen, and we 'll take a --
! 21 MS. SNEIDER: Excuse me. Your Honor.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Somebody speaking?
l i
23 MS. SNEIDER: Yes. I am.
24 It appeared that Dr. Goble wanted to add something
' l 2
25 there; and I was concerned that he may have been cut off. {
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800 ;
1 1
I
i.
i 4
l 11682 j GOBLE. EVDOKIMOFF. ECKERT - RECROSS i
G 1 THE WITNESS: (Goble) I don 't think I need to add I
~
2 it. I think I said what I was saying before. l 3 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Take our afternoon brenk.
l 4 and next we 're going to have Dr. Eckert, and he 's going to l
5 sponsor the videocassette and hi.9 short t es t imony.
6 Fifteen minutes.
i l 7 ( Whereupon. the witnesses were excused.)
8 (Whereupon. a recess was taken.)
9 ( Applicants ' Cross-Examination l
10 Outline on Testimony of Robert 11 L. Goble. Ortwin Renn. Robert T.
12 Eckert and Victor N. Evdokimoff; 13 and NRC Cross-Examination Plan of psnel follows:) !
14 15 16
. 17 i
18 l 19 20 21 f
22 23 24 25 ;
l 9
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
,4
- O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) 50-444-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. )
) (Offsite Emergency '
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) Planning Issues) and 2) )
) .
APPLICANTS' CROSS-EXAMINATION OUTLINE ON TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. GOBLE, ORTWIN RENN, ROBERT T. ECKERT AND VICTOR N. EVDOKIMOFF
{} Applicants' Cross-Examination intends to inquire into the following matters in challenge to the credibility of the j witnesses and their testimony.
The qualification of the panel members in the field of emergency planning.
The basis for the conclusion that the bulk of the buildings in the beach area are totally unsuitable for sheltering. (p. 7)
What is the NHRERP reference that summer beach I evacuation times will range from 5 to 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />? (pp. 14-15).
The characteristics of beach population ? (pp. 11, 12). l The concept of entrapment under NUREG-1210? (pp. 16-17).
The definition or concept of suitable shelters, better
() shelters? (pp. 16-17).
^i I
Whether it is possible to satisfy the so-called "general conditions" which the panel say must exist in order that sheltering can be successfully implemented. Can panel give examples of other sites where certain of their requirements have been implemented. Is it the panel's position that i
sheltering of the Beach population at Seabrook is impossible?
Egg Testimony at 19-20.
The nature and kind of buildings located on Hampton and Seabrook beaches. Any other beach studies? (p. 22)
How was representative sample of summer cottages in the beach area determined? (p. 24) Each beach area?
How were 12 representative cottages selected for
! inspection?
l Q Source for protective factor listing? (p. 24)
! Source for Aldrich tables? (p. 25) i j Derivation of caveat for use of protective factors.
i Whose caveat? (p. 25)
Method for typical cottage dimensions determination.
l Inquire into cottage floor plan. (p. 28) i Details of 17 Epping and 7 Boston and 136 Asworth and l
Asworth and J. Street.
What is minimal shielding for cloudshine, ground shine l
and protection from inhalation of radiological material? (p.
l 30)
What shielding protection must be afforded to render a Hampton beach building suitable for shelter? (p. 31)
O 2
?
Is Evdokimoff's caveat on use of Aldrich tables pertinent to all structures and locations in Aldrich tables 33?
Appropriateness of NHRERP air change figures? (p. 32)
Were High, Adler and Befort population numbers chosen solely on the basis of the time of date compilations? (pp.
35, 36)
What was purpose in your testimony in starting with l Stone & Webster's March 1986 study when you were aware of its l
l subsequent revision and reorientation in August 19877 (p.
l 37)
Check population numbers listed on p. 39.
How was panel's statistical random sample first selected? (p. 31) Second selection?
(])
What was the process for estimating dreduction factors"?
(p. 43)
What was the nature of the statistical analysis referred to on p. 447 Inquire into the alleged mistakes and inaccuracies in the Stone & Webster August 1987 study listed on pp. 54-57.
What is informed speculation? Basis?
Compare the shelter area remaining after panel's discounting for errors and speculation (p. 58) with population to be sheltered (p. 35). ,
O . .
_ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ __ ____________ -_ _ - a
i*
O Nature of the survey conducted by Salmon Falls reported
- as the full survey in attachment 12 to panel testimony? (p.
61)
Does attachment 12 contain all the survey material?
Procedures? (p. 61)
Examine the statement that "tht- protection provided by structures with .9 shielding is even less than Aldrich, et al i have assumed would be provided at ot her sites in the country even if no protective action was recommended" (Aldrich, et al. Feb. 1978). (p. 67)
Question panelist Renn's estimates for people to be l sheltered. (pp. 70 to 78)
Derivation of message reported on p. 72.
(])
Inquire into basis for the maximum numbers (p. 78) and i assumptions of Seabrook shelter implementation estimates.
(P. 79) l Determine whether witnesses havo made any comparison between the results of applying Salmon Falls reduction factor
- and Stone & Webster's August 1987 study availability factor to square footage totals of the 23 structures examined by Salmon Falls Research Associates.
() .
1 2 +
i i- !
O Examine the applicability of the Renn literature j
3 i
references for the counterbalancing the propositions advanced ,
l in the Renn testimony. (pp. 81-84). ;
! By their attorneys, p
l }
m, k , .
dcl Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. l George H. Lewald l Kathryn A. Selleck !
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street i Boston, MA 02110 ,
I
! (617) 423-6100 i i i !
o l i
?
l i
i :
i l
1 ,
i j '
! l l- .
l r
O ;
\\@Y a
a .
NRC Staff Cross-Examination Plan: Testimony of Ortwin Renn
(~)N
(_ (Included in Goble, et al. panel)
- 1. Does he agree that evacuation is a preferable protective response for the Seabrook and Hampton beach populations, as compared to sheltering (pp. 7,
- 2. Determine relative importance of factors listed on pp. 20-21 as necessary conditions for implementation of a sheltering response for a beach population.
- 3. Explain meaning of statement concerning the "most remote beach areas" (p. 73).
- 4. Determine basis for statement concerning advice of self-appointed leaders (p. 75-76).
- 5. Determine extent to which his estimate of the time required to implement a shelter response is duplicative and exxagerated (pp. 78 and 75-77).
- 6. Determine extent to which any such time estimate is representative of expected response time (p. 78). Should the Licensing Board require this time estimate to be utilized in any
()
7s protective action decison?
- 7. Determine whether he believes the opinion poll data provide a quantitatively reliable prediction of how people will behave in a radiological emergency (p. 80). Determine whether Quarantelli's work, if assumed to relate to the same type of disaster as this, would support that conclusion (p. 80).
- 8. Determine his ability to predict reliably how people will behave here (pp. 81).
O
()
l
() NRC Staff Crosss-Examination Plant Testimony of Goble, et al.
on Sheltering Contentions
- 1. Determine assumption inherent in statement concerning population having to remain outdoors or in automobiles for many
- hours while waiting to evacuate (p. 6).
- 2. Determine which protective response they believe is preferable for the beach population in these circumstances (p. 7).
- 3. Determine whether Goble agrees that even if evacuation cannot be completed before plume arrival, it is still the preferred response for areas within 2-3 miles of a plant, for other than a puff release where duration cna be known in advance (p.13).
- 4. Determine whether Goble contends the existing shelter i space will be "available" in an emergency so as to provide a better protective response than evacuation (p. 15). l
- 5. Determine shortcomings in this approach, considering :
I inability to provide more than a .9 DRP, and need to evacuate later through accumulated groundshine after having incurred a ,
considerable dose already (p. 15).
( 6. Determine Goble's familiarity with NUREG-1210; when t
/ he first saw it, how long he read it, when he used it, any dis- !
cussions with authors or users (pp.16-17). [
- 7. Determine limits on use of sheltering as a protective -
option, even if better structures existed here (p. 17). l
- 8. Determine relative importance of factors listed on pp. 20-21 re conditions necessary to implement shelter. l l
- 9. Determine whether Goble's estimate as to the number of l' people who would require shelter assumes that people would leave their own buildings to seek better shelter (p. 35). L
- 10. Determine how the "reduction factor" was estimated, in conjunction with stored objects and equipment (pp. 42-43).
- 11. Determine basis for assuming police station would be unavailable (p. 46). ,
- 12. Determine effect of each separate factor resulting !
in the difference between Eckert's and the S & W surveys (p. 47).
- 13. Determine effect ofredevelopment on quality of shelter space (p. 60).
)
Goble, et. al: NEC Staff Cross-Examination, page 2.
i,,,
/
- 14. Determine Eckert's familiarity with conditions under which survey was conducted, the potential for prior alerting by others opposed to the plant (particularly in Hampton) and potential for bias among the respondents (pp. 61-62).
- 15. Determine extent to which respondents understood the use to which their buildings would be put; the duraticn of such use, and the limited circumstances in which they might be used as shelters (pp. 61-66 and Appendix 12).
- 16. Determine possibility the respondents in Hampton may have participated as part of a campaign to influence this pro-ceeding or to stop Seabrook (pp. 62, 64). In this regard, deter-mine dates of each of the three mailings and response rates for each, particularly for Hampton.
- 17. Determine extent to which the survey results indicate (a) lack of understanding of the term "shelter" as used by NH; (b) belief that the shelter arrangement was equivalent to housing; (c) belief that the shelter would be for seasons other than just the summer season; (d) possible hostility toward the plant or its owners as the motive for providing negative responses; and 7_x te) that the survey itself, with its first information to the
( ) recipients, may have provoked an angry and negative response (Appendix).
J
11683 39 1 JUDGE SMITH: During the break the Reporter gave me 2 a typed version of the comments made by Dr. Evdokimoff to Judge 3 Linenberger, and we'see them and we believe in all of the 4 conments, exactly two pages, should be deleted. And we 're 5 coing to put them in the transcript showing that the motion was G granted and what was granted.
7 It begins with Dr. Evdokiroff saying: "Judge 8 Linenberger. I have a f ew comments, and I as a teacher and 9 professor, et cetera." And it ends: "In fact, our Health 10 Physics Society has undertaken, you know, trying to work with 11 better methods to communicate to the public on educational 12 efforts, you know, to inform people about what the real risks 12 are from radioactivity." And we 'l l bi nd i t into the 14 transcript.
15 (Transcript excerpts that 16 was stricken follows:)
17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S O
Heritage Report i ng Corporation (202) 628-4888
M(;'T/6O TC f T4i N 774uNM l
l THE WITNESS: (Evdokimoff) Judge Linenberger, I htve a f ew contr,e n t s , and I, an a teacher and professor and as a I
radiation safety officer. I 've talked with perhaps thousands of l people about radioactivity and trying to communicate to them )
i the hazards. And i t 's my feeling that the perception of risks of radiation is a very big component in dealing with people.
Again, I 'm not a sociologist, but I have a lot of experience talking to people about radiation, both lay people For example, in our medical center we have construction workers I and union people who are very concerneo about their health. So j I have some sense of that.
I I would like to share with you, if I could, just a few observations I had when I talked to some of the renters, and I talked to the police. I asked a couple of questions, and I
I didn 't put this in my testimony because I don 't feel I 'm a person with a background in social psychology. But I would just like to add this if I might.
When I asked the renters what they thought about these shelters -- I 'm sorry, what they thought about these I
cottages as shalters to protect from a radiat ion accident , two of the people said they are not Inad-lined. And I said, ch.
a Yes. Well, everybody knows that you need lead to shield these
( cottages from radiation. So I add that.
I J So, grented, two people are not -- two people are not a valid sa.cple, but you asked the question and I thought I O
. He r n ege we r o ne cerrreoon
( .' 0 2 ) G20-4SM l l
i i
f
i i i
i !
1 !
) \
I llI would just give you my comments.
I 1
l I also talked with the fire and police departments,
{
I and they were -- I asked them if the sirens went off at i
i Seabrook, what do you think your fire people would do. And the i i
deputy chief said to me, I think half of them would go home and j i i i try to get their families out of here, because there 's no way i that we 're going to stay here if there 's an accident.
! And I talked with the police, and I sort of got the {
i !
i
. same opinion. !
t
) So, granted, these are just observations. They t
r i
l weren 't put in my testimony, but it at least is a sense that I [
i t i had in talking to some of the people, and some of the realtors i
{
) A nd , granted, 4 that perhaps people would not be cooperating. j
) people might well do something entirely different in an i i
- emergency, but I think radiation, in my two years of l experience, scares people. And we have a nuclear medicine f i department in University Hospital, and we have to talk to our i
nurses about radiction because we have radioactive patient s on ,
l 1
the floor and so forth, and it's difficult.
I But I think that that 's very dif ficult think to deal :
l l with in people 's minds -- the perception of risk of t I
j radioactivity. In fact, our health physics society has ;
J l undertaken, you know, trying to work with better methods to ;
communicate to the public on educational efforts, you know, to j inform people about what the rael risks are from radioactivity.
l Eve Heritage Reporting Co rpor at io n (202) 620-4000 t l
+
i 11684 ,
! 1 JUDGE SMITH: I guess we 're ready to proceed.
! 2 MR. TURK: Your Honor, one brief procedural note. I 3 handed a copy of my cross-examination plan to the Reporter, I
4 both of Dr. Renn and this psst panel.
I
[ S MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor. I wanted to be sure I G understood the scope of that ruling. As I understand the 7 ruling as now articulated by the Chair, it is in essence a I 8 grant of the entire motion that was made; have I correctly 9 understood it?
10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, that is my memory. The entire i i
- 11 motion -- the entire comment is -- '
i l 12 MR. DIGNAN: Is ctricken.
13 JUDGE SMITH: --
is stricken. But there was more 14 than one answer.
15 MR. DIGNAN: That 's right. You --
16 JUDGE SMITH: You can look at --
17 MR. DIGNAN: No. I 'm not concerned. But the reason I 18 made the inquiry is that the sequence was, when you made your
! 19 initial ruling -- I should say the secund ruling, the first 20 ruling after you had reconsidered the matter. I had understood
' \
21 it to be limited to the remarks about the Sheriffs and the --
22 excuse me, the policemen and the firenen.
I, I 23 JUDGE SMITH: You 're right.
I I 24 MR. DIGNAN: And that was only a portion of my 25 motion. ;
II>
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j l l l
.. . . _ _ - -- ~ _ _ -.- ---- ------- ------ - -- --------_-
I i-t I
l
[
i l- ECKERT - DIRECT 11685
! l
[
i i JUDGE SMITH: Right.
l i
i 2 MR. DIGNAN: But now as I understand it the Board has )
I l 3 granted the entire motion which went to the entire speech. i l
i i 4 JUDGE SMITH: That 's correct. And that 's exactly why 5 I came back to it, because I recognized _there were other I
6 aspects of it that should have been stricken, too.
7 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
i
! 8 MS, WEISS: For clarification. Your Honor, it 's j ust 9 the answer of Dr. Evdokinof f to that question? I 10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
11 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, that 's all the motion went to.
12 JUDGE SMITH: It 's here, anybody can look at it and 13 see what it is that we 're st riking. It will be in the G 14 transcript.
l l
15 Proceed, please.
16 Whereupon.
17 ROBERT ECKERT l 18 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 19 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows:
l 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MS. SNEIDER:
l 22 Q Dr. Eckert. hava you submitted testimony in this 23 proceeding on behalf of the Attorney General for the 24 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated April 25th, 1968 with 25 Attachment 1 to that testimony which is a videot ape?
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i l
~_ _-- .- . _ - _ _ - - _
. _ __= __ _ _ _ -. - _ _____ _ _ _ __ . _ .
0 1
l i l t l l l l
ECKERT - DIRECT 11686 !
1 A (Eckert) Yes, that 's correct. j 2 Q And is this testimony true and accurate, to the best i
3 of your knowledge and belief ?
4 A (Eckert) Yes, it is.
S Q And at this time would you like to have the Board 6 admit this testimony and have it bound into the transcript and 7 to have the Attachment admitted as an exhibit?
8 A (Eckert) Yes, I would.
9 MS. SNEIDER: Your Honor. I nove to have the i 10 testimony of Dr. Eckert admitted.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Is this verbatim of the audio on the --
12 verbatim?
13 MS. SNEIDER: Yes.
14 JUDGE SMITH: Well, then that solves your problem, 15 Mr. Reporter, you won't have to transcribe it from the audio.
16 It is verbatim?
17 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes, it 's absolutely 10 verbatim.
19 JUDGE SMITH: My name is Robert Eckert ?
20 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Are there obj ect ions?
22 MR. LEWALD: Yes. Your Honor. The objection is that 23 this purports to be illustrative of problems that the 24 benchgoers in Hampton and Seatrook would have with regard to 20 sheltering-in-place, should they be instructed to shelter.
l Heritage Reporting Co r po rat io n l (202) 628-4888 ll
ECKERT - DIRECT 11687 O 1 And on the f ace of the testimony it would appear 2 that the video was shot in December of 1987 at a time in which, 3 obviously, there are not beachgoers.
4 And secondly, there 's no representation that this 5 would be -- this film, nor could there be, that this film is 6 representative of what beachgoers would find in the summer.
7 It 'a u -- these are pictures taken during the lay-down period, 8 if you will, in the beach area in which cottages are in various 9 chapes, forms of repair. j i
10 And we just would submit that i t 's no t a fair ;
il representation of what 's there in the summer.
12 (Board conferring) 13 MS. SNEIDER: Your Honor, may I address that ?
14 JUDGE SMITH: I beg your pardon?
15 MS. SNEIDER: May I address that?
16 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
17 MS. SNEIDER: Two things. Your Honor. First. I think 18 Mr. Lewald 's problems with the testimony would go to the weight 19 of the evidence, and I believe the witness is prepared to 20 testify he spent a great deal of time at the beach area in the 21 summer. That it is a fair and accurate representation with i
22 qualifications which are pointed out in the video. A nd I 23 believe Mr. Lewald can adequately cross the witness.
24 Another point I 't! like to make, Your Honor. is that
) l 25 sheltering was not introduced as a viable option in the New !
O I Heritage Repo r t ing Corporation
< (202) G2 8 - 4 888
._,,_.m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ - - - . . _ _ . _ _ _ _____ __.__ _
i :
ECKERT - 9IRECT 11688 9 i Hampshire plan until September, so it was a little difficult 2 for us to do a video in the summer when we weren't expecting l 3 that sheltering would be an option. l 4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you have captured exactly what 5 the Board 's own discussion was, and so you might predict that G you 're going to prevail. We do have some confusion here.
7 What is -- on the second paragraph of the first page. l l
8 it says, "The video was shot during December '87 when few 9 people are around and the towns virtually closed down. j 10 However, these are scenes of the beach area during Labor Day 11 weekend '87."
12 Will that be obvious to us, on the video, what you mean by that? i 13 l
9 14 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Yes, it will. There are cuts i
I 15 f rom those periods of times.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. So your obj ection -- your motion 17 to -- by your motion, I guess it is to strike, is overruled.
l 18 Okay, Go ahead.
19 MR. LEWALD: The obj ection was to it being 20 admissible.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, is that --
22 MR. LEWALD: But the effect of the ruling is the 23 same. Your Honor.
24 25 i
I Heritage Re po r t i ng Co rpo rat ion l
(202) 628-4888 l
l l
l
I i ECKERT - DIRECT 11609 1 (The prefiled testimony of e-2 Robert Eckert on behalf of j l i l 3 the Attorney General from i
4 the Commonwealth of ,
S Massachusetts on oheltering l
6 contentions follows:)
7 8
9 10 l
11 l I
12 '
h 14 15 16 17 18 i 19 l
I l 20 '
i 21 22 23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 [
P i
i
b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-444-OL NEW H AMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) (Off-site EP)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 25, 1988
)
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ECKERT ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GEnsRAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON SHELTERING CONTENTIONS I
1 i
Department of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2265
pkb O
-O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
() Dr. Jerry Harbour
.O
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) (Off-site EP)
!() (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 25, 1988
)
I
(
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ECKERT ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL i FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON SHELTERING CONTENTIONS
,0 t
,o l() .
Department of the Attorney General [
Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place (
Boston, MA 02108-1698
() (617) 727-2265 ,
($)
() i f
O UNITED STATES CC AMERICA
(')
x-NUCLEAR REGULATOR'i COMMISSION Before Adminiscrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour O
)
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.
) 50-443-444-OL
,)
( PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) (Off-site EP)
HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) April 25, 1988 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
)
O TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ECKERT ON BEHALP OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONNEALTH OF_MASSACliUSETIS ON SliELIERING_C0HIERIl0NS1/
() My name is Robert Eckert. I'm with Salmon Falls hesearch i Associates, Inc., and we have worked for the Massachusetts Department of the Attorney General evaluatit.; Stone and
() Webster's report on sheltering.
This video was shot during December 1907, when few pecple were around and the towns were virtually closed down. However O these are scenes of the beach area during Labor Day Weekend 1987.
() 1/
This testimony is the transcript of the narrative of the i
videotape attached hereto es Attachment 1.
1 i
'O
()
l lO
O O
() The purpose of this video is to illustrate problems beach-goers in Hampton and Seabrook would have with sheltering in place, should they be instructed to seek shelter in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station nuclear O
power plant.
Some of these problemr, are that the potential shelters are unmarked, the buildings do not look like shelters, and most are O
of light wood-frame construction which would afford little protection against radiation. These buildings are creaded on narrow strips of barrier beach, surrounded by roadless marshes, O
2 to 3 miles from the plant, and any movement away from the beaches would be toward the plant, which is often in full view.
During the video we will travel a route through Hampton and OO Seabrook Beaches, stopping at various locations to show that choices beach visitors would have in seeking shelter. We will indicate our locations on a topographic map.
As you view the scenes in this video, ask yourself, "Which places look safe and where would I seek shelter?
If there were an emergency at Seabrook Station, this is the
,0 message people would hear - "ATTENTION, ATTENTION -- Because i
of a problem at Seabrook Station, beaches are now closed.
please leave the beach and go indoors immediately. Listen to lO the radio for more informetion."
At Seabrook Beach, the only buildings between the beach and Route 1A are private residences. To find public shelter, o
[ people on the southern end of the beach would likely exit by O
D this cut through the dunes and go down Haverhill Street to O houte lA.
Once at Route 1A, there is little public shelter in sight
-- only Poore Steve's Ice Cream stand in the distance. People O moving toward Poore Steve's would be moving directly toward the plant.
This potential shelter (Poore Steve's) contains a small O crowded kitchen and a crawl space under part of the building.
The crawl space was wrongly listed as a full basement in Stone
& Webster's report. Most of the space in the building is O glassed-in or screened porch, which is now boarded up for the winter. The plant is in full view of Poore Steve's. Would
! people choose to come here, and, once here, to stay?
l i) () People at the Hooksett Street beach access would also be surrounded by small wood frame r'esidences and would likely exit down Hooksett Street, toward the plant, to Route 1A.
O Once at Route 1A, these are the potential shelters an alarmed beach-goer would see: Preston's Country Store, Ceal's Clam Stand, Arizona Turquoise jewelry store, Captain Don's Fish O Market, DiBurro's Market, Mac's Clam Bar, and the Seabrook Beach Police Station.
Ceal's Clam Stand is listed as a potential shelter by Stone
-() & Webster, as is the Arizona Turquoise jewelry shop next door.
These buildings would not provide even minimal protection from radiation.
O O
O
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - ----- --------- a
D rg In the distance is Captain Don's Fish Market, another V
O choice for shelter. The second story of Captain Don's is a private residence, as can be seen in these views of the upstairs windows. This residence was included as public Q shelter by Stone and Webster. This potential shelter is one of the closest to the plant, separated from it by only the harbor.
Even closer than Captain Don's are these private
() residences, which are supposed to provide shelter for those who live there.
Crossing over the bridge to Hampton Beach, we arrive at 1
0 Hampton Beach State Park, one of the most congested of the beach areas. This parking area is very full in the summer and often the exit is jammed for hours under normal conditions.
People on the beach here would likely exit down this O (])
walkway, directly toward the plant. The bathhouse, with vents open to the outside, and the storage building, which is usually O locked, are designated as potential shelters, and could hold only a small number of people at this beach, people following instructions to seek shelter in public O bu'1 dings would go toward the center of town by moving across this grassy area toward the cottages in the distance, about 250 yards away.
O This is the view a family seeking shelter would see if they ran toward town from the State Park.
These small cottages are not winterized and are in general O disrepair. Most are tented to summer vacationers, and, according to Stone and Webster, are supposed to provide shelter for those staying in them.
O -4 -
O G The "daytripper" who is instructed to seek shelter in a D
0 public building would likely head down this street, River Street, toward the main part of Hampton Beach.
Arriving at Ocean Boulevard, these are the potential O shelters one would see ... looking south ... looking north.
The Harris Realty building might look like shelter to some. It has a high proportion of glass in the front of the
.O building, and Stone & Webster overestimated the public space in this building by 2,600 square feet, by including the private apartments plainly in view on the second story, and by O overestimating the basement space. Next door, included as public shelters, are the Harris Cottages -- seven cottages of approximately 200 square feet each.
Beachgoers on Hampton State Beach would have to leave the beach by this kind of stairway, or climb the iron fence. The snow fencing is not present in the summer.
O once off the beach, their choices of potential shelters include these buildings. All have a high proportion of glass.
From another stairway further north, these are the potential shelters beachgoers would see. The east wall of the Playland Arcade is entirely open in the summer. Many of these buildings are also open to the outdoors in the summer, even
- O though their open areas are now covered with garage doors and boards. These buildings cannot be sealed off from air exchange, as exemplified by this fan which is blowing in the wind even in December when this was filmed.
- O
O People trying to get off the beach near the entrance to O Route 51 have these choices of wood-frame structures.
For those people who couldn't find shelter on Ocean Boulevard, or hoped to find better shelter, and decided to go O down some of the side streets, the Mai Kai Restaurant on Ashworth Avenue looks like a substantial building. This building is listed by Stone & Webster as having a full basement O as part of its shelter space. If people decided to go to the basement, the only exterior is through this hatch -- and unfortunately for them there is nothing here but a crawl sp6ce.
O Beachgoers moving off Ocean Boulevard in search of shelter might decide on a side street like J Street as we see here. On this street the selection of potential shelters consists of O (]) wood-frame buildings containing various businesses such as motels, rooming houses and small restaurants. Most of these buildings have a high proportion of glass in their walls.
O Moving down J Street and arriving at Ashworth Avenue, one block west of Ocean Boulevard, these are the choices -- some motels and a large number of small cottages.
O If the beachgoer did not like what he saw here and still chose to seek shelter, he could move down one of the side streets off Ashworth, but would only see small cottages, the O marsh, and finally Seabrook Station.
These cottages are small, in various states of disrepair, not insulated and have a high proportion of window area in O their walls. Often the windows can't be closed.
O
D The O'Neil Cottages here are listed by Stone & Webster as potential shelters. They are small, uninsulated and have windows that cannot be closed, like the louvered window you can see on this cottage.
g These final views show typical streets and the buildings on them in Hampton Beach. As you watch these buildings roll by, ask yourself if you would feel safe sheltering from radiation here.
D 1
I l
- O Q
'O
- o o
O
($)
O
I '- i J >
1 ,
e l
- . ECKERT - DIRECT 11690 f 1 (Whereupon, a videotape was shown.)
[
, 2 JUDGE SMITH: Were you the camera person? -
r 3 THE WITNESS: CEckert) No. only the voice.
l 4 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Sneider. j 4
5 MS. SNEIDER: I thought the testimony was already in l t
6 evidence. ;
L 7 JUDGE SMITH: I beg your perdon? !
8 MS. SNEIDER: The witness is available for cross- l
!~ ,
9 examination.
- 1 10 JUDGE SMITH: Don't you want to offer the cassette? -
I i
L 11 MS. SNEIDER: Yes. I thought I had alreaay offered j i
f 12 that. '
' 13 JUDGE SMITH: No, I only had the transcript -- I k mean, the written part. The cassette needs an exhibit number. ;
I 14 15 MS. SNEIDER: All right. I believe that 's Exhibit f
)
16 21.
! 17 (The videocassette referred 1
i 18 to was marked for
)
{ 19 identification as i l
l 20 Mass. AG Exhibit 21.) l l 21 MR. LEWALD: Our obj ection runs to the cassette as l l i i
f 22 well as to the testimony, and I assume that will be denied as
! 23_ well as the testimony. l r
l 24 JUDGE SMITH: The same basis.
L The Massachu' ,s Attorney General i 25 All right. {
i f
! Heritage Reporting Corporation *
(202) 628-4888 t
l !
l
l l
1 ECKERT - CROSS 11691 e
i 1
4- 1 Exhibit 21, videocassette described in the direct testimony is i
l 2 received.
i 3 (The videocassette referred to ,
l i
l 4 having been previously marked' l l 5 for identification as ;
i i 6 Mass. AG Exhibit 21 was !
i 7 received in evidence.) j 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right, he 's ready for cross-i 9 examination. ;
! 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION l i
i 11 BY MR. LEWALD: lr i
12 Q Dr. Eckert, I understand hearing your response to the l ._
! 13 Board that you were not the photographer of what we have seen? !
t j
i 14 A (Eckert) That is correct. j i
I j 15 Q Are you able to tell us, what percentage of the !
i l 16 frames shot in this video, in connection with this video we I
I 17 have seen? f i
l 18 A (Eckert) - I don 't think I understand your question.
19 Q Well, I don 't -- I assume that you took some_ pictures l .
I 1
20 of the area in Seabrook and in Hampton, and from these you have l 21 put together the video that we now have seen?
I i 22 A (Eckert) This was a specific proj ect where we made i
! 23 the video -- it wasn 't from a compilation of pictures we t
24 already had. In other words, we went out and shot the video on j
' f 25 specific streets. So if I understand you correctly -- maybe {
' I llI !
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l' (202) 628-4888 i t
a i t
i i.
~
i
. ECKERT - CROSS 11692 ,
I j i I 'm not answering your question.
2 Q Well. did you-go out and shoot the Labor Day scenes?
i b 3 A CEckert) No. The Labor Day scenes were provided by l 1
! 4 the subcontractor.who did the video work.
4 i 5 Q And who is that?
I !
6 A CEckert) Atlantic Media Services at Portsmouth. ;
q i
f 7 Q They supplied you with the Labor Day scenes? '
4 t 8 A (Eckert) That 's correct. l l i 9 Q Did you select them or did they select them?
.I 10 A CEckert) We selected them together. We viewed the ;
i 1 11 footage that he had and I sat there with him and we chose ones i 12 that were from random shots that he had during that period of l 13- time. ;
l !
14 Q Now, the December scenes, were they a selection of j i
[ 15 something the subcontractor did? :
)
l 16 A (Eckert) The subcontractor shot those and I was 17 present during the whole thing, so that they were a-selection ,
18 f rom ones that he had made in my presence.
19 Q So that you and the subcontractor edited the pictures j l 20 that were taken?
E 21 A (Eckert) Yes, that 's right ; we worked together on 22 that.
23 Do the whole set of videos appear anywhere?
Q l 24 A (Eckert) Do you mean the complete set of all the !
l 25 random shots? !
I I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 )
f i
1 ECKERT - CROSS 11693 i
- ll>
1 Q Yes? >
1 l 2 A CEckert) .. We used almost all of the ones that we j 3 have. There may be some that we didn't use, that don 't appear i !
l 4 in the compilation that we showed you. l l
- S Q Maybe you misunderstood my question. I was asking.
6 do these appear elsewhere? Are they obtainable elsewhere?
i j
7 A CEckert) I don 't think so. They're just, I guess, l l 8 suppose the property,of Atlantic Media Services and Salnen L9 Falls and the Attorney General 's Of fice right now. [
t 10 Q Well.-we could get them from Atlantic. then, is that i t
( 11 what you 're saying? r 12 A CEckert) Oh, I think so; yes.
13 Q Now, on page two of your testimony you use the l i
14 phrase, "Beachgoers," do you see that? "Beachgoers in Hampton j 15 and Seabrook?"
16 A (Eckert) Yes. {
17 Q What do you mean by beachgoers?
18 A (Eckert) Well, I meant beach visitors; anybody who 19 is on the beach at the time.
20 Q You are not trying to distinguish a beachgoer from j someone who might have hired a cottage or who might own a !
21 I t
22 cottage who is at the beach --
23 A CEckert) No. f f
24 Q -- from the transients, the day people who might walk [
f 25 in? l
! Heritage Reporting Corporation [
(202) 628-4880 T I
i-
4 F
ECKERT - CROSS 11694 i k
3 1 A (Eckert) Right. That 's correct. ,
2 Q And what do you mean by "beach visitors," same thing?
3 A (Eckert) Yes, I do.
4 Q Now, in reference to the southern end of the beach, 1
i 5 the Seabrook Beach, what people are referred to as being on the 6 southern end of the beach?
7 A (Eckert) Is there a specific place in the transcript r
t l 8 you 're referring to? l 9 Q On page two? ,
i 4
10 A (Eckert) Okay. I believe that I meant just the same ?
t 11 set of beachgoers or beach visitors who would be there on a I
12 summer day. [
I 13 Q Is there any public beach parking in that area? {
14 A (Eckert) I think most of it is private. I 'm trying i
15 to recall what I 've seen around there. j 16 Q Most of it is from the cottages that are along that- !
- I 17 stretch of beach, is that not correct? !
18 A (Eckert) I 'd say certainly a majority of that space ;
t 19 is for those people. l t
20 Q And that would still hold true if we move up to the j i !
! 21 next section which you showed exiting the beach at Hooksett, [
- I i 22 would it not? ,
, i 1
- 23 A (Eckert) That would be the same, they 're a !
24 continuous neighborhood more or less. {
i 25 Q And it would be expected that people on the beach in i .
I i
Heritage Reporting Corporation [
(202) G2 8- 4888 I l i
i
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ . - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
i
! l e .
- f. !
! ECKERT - CROSS 11695 i
i 1 that area, those two areas, pretty much all came from the '
i 2 cottages and the homes, whatever, along that area of beach?
L ,
l- 3 A (Eckert) I don 't have information on that, it might !
! 4 be an expectation, but I can 't testify one way or the other. ;
5 Q Would you say it wasn 't so? l I
6 A CEckert) I would not say it 's not so.
I !
7 Q Where would the people come from if they did not j i 8 either live there, rent there, or room there?
I ,
9 A (Eckert) They would be visitors from Massachusetts !
L j-t' l 10 and so forth. There are places to park further south right on I
11 the Massachusetts line, Massachusetts /New Hampshire line; and l' l
l l 12 there are some visitors that come there. I know I 'm not a l i .:
I 13 resident of that area so -- !
h 14 Q Further south we 're in Salisbury, are we not? j l
I 15 A (Eckert) Right. Right on the Salisbury line, j
I 16 between Salisbury and Seabrook. l i !
( 17 Q Now, assuming there were an incident at the plant l l
! 18 that called for closing of the beaches, am I to understand that l
~
19 you are indicating that I would go north towards Hampton, were
- 2. there an incident, rather than to go into Salisbury to look for 21 -- assuming I was looking for public access shelter?
i 22 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Lewald, can I interpose here. The l f
23 word "closing the beaches" has taken a special meaning in the 24 hearing and I wonder if you selected the word "closing," it was f i
25 a studied selection. I.
I I
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) G20-4888 i
. _i
! t i
I S
ECKERT - CROSS 11696 lh 1 MR. LEWALD: Well, I was using it. I thought, in the "
l l 2 sense that we had been -- {
i 3 JUDGE SMITH: All right, j i 4 MR. LEWALD: -- it had been used here, that is.
a 5 ~asking people to leave the beaches.
i G CBoard conferring) !
i 7 MR. LEWALD: I 'm not certain -- if you put a question ,
t 8 to me I have not -- I was -- ;
9 JUDGE SMITH: You answered the question, but I don 't 10 understand the logic of the question and the answer. I mean, I l 11 understand that you 're repeating the situation in the
- 12 testimony, but I don 't understand the logic of it.
f 13 MR. LEWALD: Well, I was referring to the question or j f
- 14 rather the sentence, "That the beaches are now-closed," as it i l
i 15 appears on page two of the testimony, which is, "Please leave t l t !
' 16 the beach and go indoors immediately. " !
j 17 And it was in this reference that I was asking the l I
l i
- l. 18 witness. i JUDGE SMITH: All right. j l 19
(
l MR. LEWALD: And the point of my question is, would :
l 20 i i 21 they not -- in that area, would they not go south into f:
! 22 Salisbury rather than north toward Hampton, if indeed, anybody l i
L 23 was seeking public access shelter. l*
THE WITNESS: (Eckert) The answer is, that once you i I
24
?
! 25 move out to Route 1-A, if a person is truly seeking public l
[
l llI <
j Heritage Reporting Corporation :
(202) 628-4888 1
i I i l :
l ECKERT - CROSS 11697 9- 1 shelter, the only public shelter that is within sight is Poor 2 Steve 's.
3 There was an expanse of marsh there that extends i 4 quite a' bit south, and I certainly wouldn 't say that people i 1
-5 wouldn 't go . south, you know, they may go in either direction.
6 But the only visible public kind of shelter is a i 7 little bit to the north, i i
! 8 BY MR. LEWALD: l l
) 9 Q You don 't serious think that people in that section. l i
I 10 the lower end of Seabrook Beach would go back to Hampton, do l I i i 11 you, in the event of an incident with this kind of a message ;
4 12 that you have set forth in your testimony? j
] )
13 A CEckert) I don 't know. I think personally I I i
j 14 wou ldn 't , but I can 't speak for those. There 's --
1 l 15 Q Do you have any reason to believe that anybody else 16 would think differently than you?
. If part of my family was up in Hampton 17 A (Eckert) j i
$- 18 across the bridge, I 'd go that way to -get them. There 's a
{ 19 problem of separation of families and things like that. that [
20 some of the people may be at the, you know, up in the Hampton 21 State Park and some down on the southern aspects of Seabrook. l l
! l l 22 Q Are you telling me if you went to the beach with your j
! 23 family you might drop some up at the Hampton Beach State Park 24 while you went down to the Seabrook Beach, Salisbury line? l 25 A CEckert) Well, I think if you have teenage kids, h i
i f
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 :
i t
t
- j. I l
il I ECKERT - CROSS 11698 !
I lll l
! I sometimes you don't have the control you want, and sometimes l
2 they do separate and go across the bridge and spend time apart.
l
!. 3 Q Doctor, you also say with regard to the Seabrook, 4 excuse me, the Hampton sections of your video that you have l
i 5 shown typical streets, am I saying that right?
6 A (Eckert) I think so; yes. }
l 7' Q How did you arrive at your conclusions that these ,
i 8 were typical streets?
f '
h
- 9 A (Eckert) Well, we arrived at that from having spent- ,
s I 1
l- 10 at that time. I think four months in that area taking photos j i
i i
l 11 and, you know. visiting the places and doing the early aspects i
- i. 1 I 12 of our field work and then followup work, so that is based on i f
j 13 my view of what that area is like. And so I do represent that j g '
i W 14 those are typical, in my opinirn, kinds of streets that people i i
i i 15 would run into. I 16 Q And if you were there four months was there any ('
17 reason why you waited until December to take a picture? (
t I 18 A (Eckert) Well, we didn 't make the decision to make [
t i i i
19 the video until later. ;
i i
! 20 Q But you did take some Septenber Labor Day shots or 4
21 these were taken --
t 22 A (Eckert) Yes, those were taken by Atlantic Media l-l 23 Services before they were subcontracted to us for this video. !
4 I
j 24 Q Well, they were all taken by Atlantic, were they not? }
t- ;
1 25 A (Eckert) That 's t rue.
i i h I Heritage Reporting Corporation j i
(202) 628-4888 j l
- l
l h l i.
, I f
! ECKERT - CROSS 11699 l I llh- !
j 1 MR. LEWALD: I have nothing further. j I
2 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have questions? j l
3 MR. HUNTINGTON: No questions, Your Honor. !
4 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn? f
'. I
! 5 MR. FLYNN: I have oc questions, Your Honor. l
- i. f I 6' JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk. l
' i I
i 7 MR. TURK: Very briefly. Your Honor. ;
I 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION l i
9 BY MR. TURK: i;
. I 10 Q I just want to get one clarification, Dr. Eckert, on l 11 the bottom of page three, the last sentence on the page 12 referring to Ceal 's Clam Stand and the Arizona Turquoise 13 Jewelry Shop, you indicate, quote: "These buildings will not I
~
9 14 provide even minimal protection from radiation," close quote. -
t i 15 Do you consider yourself qurlified to provide expert opinion on 16 that? )
17 A (Eckert) 'lachnically I do not. !
i i 18 Q I j ust want to get one other clarification with l
' i i
19 respect to the photographs that we see in the video. Is my l i
l
! 20 impression correct that the photographs of persons on the beach l 21 in the Labor Day period utilize telephoto lens?
\
i- 22 A (Eckert) Yes, I believe that 's true. l i
l' 23 Q And doesn 't that tend to have the effect of l
compressing obj ects or persons within the. scene -- within the 24 !
i $
25 field of vision so that -- well, isn 't that true? l
{
4 t
i j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
o i ~
i i l I
i i
i ECKERT - CROSS 11700 i i 1 A (Eckert) It may be. I don 't work with phoiography 1
2 that much, so.I would say it may do that.
l 3 Q But wouldn 't you agree that it would tend to make [
f I 4 people appear to be closer together spacially than they r
5 actually'might appear if you were using a regular-lens instead i f
i 6 of telephoto?
l 7 A (Eckert) I 'm not sure, it might -- well. it might l 8 depend on the magnification and so forth. I might generally be f a i
! 9 true. I 've taken a f ew pictures --
l 10 Q It is generally true, isn 't it, Doctor?
i i
!: 11 A (Eckert) I guess based on my personal experience I'd l 1 !
l 12 say I 've experienced that in my slides. So there is some i i
i 13 compression effect. I l MR. TURK : Thank you. I 1 14 l l
- 15 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Just one question. Dr. Eckert.
16 On page two you place in quotations a message that is j ll 17 represented here as what the beach people would hear. and I j f I 18 should j ust like to inquire the basis for your representation l l !
t 19 that this is the message people would hear? {
l s 20 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Let 's see, that message was i i
21 provided me, I think, as the version available -- it was I
l 22 supplied by the Massachusetts Attorney General 's Of fice co me !
I 23 as the current message at the time we made the video. So 24 that 's the source of that.
25 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank you, sir, i
l llI l Heritage Reporting Corporation l l
' (202) 028-4888 i
i l
l l-i
+
f-
, k
! ECKERT - CROSS 11701 ,
l 3
llI 1 JUDGE SMITH: .Are there Intervenors?
t
! l l 2 MS. WEISS: No questions.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
r 4 MR. LEWALD: I have one question based on what Mr. \
l !
j 5 Turk asked. .j i
i l 6 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION t I i 7 BY MR. LEWALD- !
I You were questioned as to the type of, I think it was i 8 Q 1 l
9 a photo telegraphic lens or something, I 'm no t a -- I know i' 10 nothing about photography, so please excuse me if I 'm using the i
i 1 -
i wrong term? f 11 ;
12 A (Eckert) I don 't either. ),.
13 Q Well, we had a process, apparently, to take pictures 9 14 of the beach that had a telescopic ef fect where we could bring j L l
! 15 in the people or the obj ects --
l E
16 A CEckert) Yes.
17 Q -- in close proximity?
I 18 A (Eckert) You 're ref erring to the zoom lens ef fect 19 where things move up?
20 Q Yes. And am I correct in assuming that the opposite l 21 kind of process was used or lens or -- was used to take l-
! 22 pictures of the typical streets and typical shelters?
l l 23 A CEckert) We - yes, I think so. We had a normal I.
24 lens, whatever that would be, on the video camera and it had I 25 the noom capability. So, I think both types of shots are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
I i I I
. . .. .l
F !
i i i i
. i I
o f ECKERT - CROSS 11702 i:_
.O 1 present.
2 MR. LEWALD: I have nothing further. j l i i et/39 3 (Continued on next page.) [
l 4 t t
l 5 i i i i
i 6 '
I I L i
( 7 i 8 9 ,
t 10 t i.
r 11 i
12 13 14 q l 15 l.
! 16 i
17 i-18 i
( 19 I 20 i
l i 21 l l i
22 i
I 23 24 l 25 l O l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
l I
11703 1 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Sneider?
2 All right, you 're excused.
3 THE WITNESS: (Eckert) Thank you.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
5 (The witness was thereupon excused.) '
l 6 ( Applicants ' Cross-Examination ;
i l 7 Outline of Testinony on Robert i
! 8 Eckert on Behalf of Mass. AG
} follows:)
9
- i. 10 1 -
. 11 l l 12 I 1 14 j d
f i
15 1 t E
j 16 [
i t
~; 17 ;
i 18 f I
i
- 19 i !
i 20 t i
21 ;
22 4
23 [
4 i
! 24 25 h !
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4808 1 e I
i l l 1
i
%,/
May 16, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site Emergency
) Planning Issues)
(~1 )
\_/
APPLICANTS' CROSS-EXAMINATION OUTLINE OF TESTIMONY ON ROBERT ECKERT ON BEIIALF OF MASS K; Applicants cross-examination intends to inquire into the following matters with recpect to the Litness's testimony:
Explain what is intended by "beach-goers" in Hampton, Seabrook? (p. 2.) By "beach visitors" (p. 2). Where is the topographical map referred to on (p. 2)? What "people" are referred to as being "on the southern end of the beach" (p.
2); at the Hooksett Street beach area? Inquire as to why these "people" would be seeking "public access shelter buildings"? (p. 2)
< What does witness believe a shelter looks like? (p. 2)
(3
\'l
{-Q
( j Were any video frames taken of houses on Atlantic Avenue i
and Ocean Avenue in Seabrook? Why not? !
What was the process by which typicality of streets and :
i buildings in Hampton was determined? (p. 7) -
The purpose of this testimony?
By their attorneys,
')
cp ~ as., d8- ,
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
George H. Lewald ,
Kathryn A. Selleck '
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street .
Boston, MA 02110 1 (617) 423-6100
() [
o u
I r
t n
I t
, - - , ,,-----....n--.- - _.-,..-,.~.. -- - - - - ..-.,-- - - - . . - -
11704 1' JUDGE SMITH: Will your witnesses be ready now?
2 MR. TURK: In a few minutes.
3 . JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Mr. Oleskey has some business.
4 MR. OLESKEY: Judge, I 've given you four subpoenas 5 following our discussion of last night and this morning. One 6 is for Mr. Krimm, one is for Mr. McLaughlin. I believe they 7 are both for 9:00 on the 25th, next Wednesday. Then for Mr.
8 Peterson at 2:00 the 25th, and Mr. Thomas at 9:00 on the 27th.
9 I picked those dates and times somewhat arbitrarily, j l
10 merely to establish an order of precedence and priority. l 11 understanding that we may or may not be ready to begin that l I
12 sequence on Wednesday, the 25th at 9:00, and feeling that it 's i 13 unlikely that we will be able to do Mr. Krimm and Mr.
s () 14 McLaughlin together between 9:00 and 12:00, and start Mr. !
15 Peterson at 2:00. i i
16 The point I want to make is I would like to do those i 17 people separately for various reasons, and we can discuss that 18 now or later. 1 19 JUDGE SMITH: We told counsel for FEMA that when we
- 20. directed the appearance of these witnesses they could decide 6
21 within that time frame when'they appeared. And we accepted the 22 subpoenas in that light; that these are just marker times.
23 MR. OLESKEY: I 've a.so indicated some document 24 production --
25 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868 I
l
i I
11705 MR.'OLESKEY:
~
1 -- for eacn of the witnesses.
i 2 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's complete this one thought. j 3 The actual timing of the arrival of witnesses will j
! I' p -4 be -- we will give deference to Mr. Flynn, but it is something t
i j 5 that should be, as we always have done, negotiated among the i
j 6 parties. j i
j 7 MR. OLESKEY: It may be from Mr. Flynn's comments of
- i 8 yesterday that there will be disagreement about the order of j r !
priority of appearance between the three Washington officials 9 j I
h 10 and Mr. Thomas, j I
1 I don 't i 11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, they may not even come. i 12 know if they decided to move to quash these or not. ;
i i Let us assume for the sake of this I 13 MR. FLYNN: t i !
j 14 discussion that they will appear. l 1
i' i 15 JUDGE SMITH: With that assumption, they appear at 5.
i
! 16 the times that you want them to appear, but with the obj ective ;
i ,
1 i 17 in mind that we will have their testimony all in within those ;
i 18 three days.
19 MR. FLYNN: Yes. that is my understanding that if l l t 20 they appear on Wednesday as a group, that we are committed they l h
j 21 will leave on Friday.
i i 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that is the obj ective, yes, and i i
b 23 we 're going to work hard to hold to that.
i l 24 MR. FLYNN: Yes, I appreciate that.
i 25 JUDGE SMITH: We can 't make that an ironclad j Heritage Reporting Corporation C202) 620-4088 ;
l I
I l
i i
, . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ~
t l 1 I I i
l i 11706 l l
til 1 guarantee, because it would depend upon responsiveness and i
l l I 2 things like that. Assuming they are responsive to questions '
l-3 and things move along, that is our schedul: obj ect ive. !
l 4 MR. FLYNN: I appreciate that. l l
5 I also assume, although I also recognize that it has 9 l
i 6 not been established by our conversation, that Mr. Thomas would i 7 not have been examined bettre Wednesday. I don 't see how that 8 can fit into the schedule. l 9 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, that 's right, that's right. I see !
}
10 there is a problem there, but somebody has got to go first. I 11 don 't know.
, 12 MR. FLYNN: I u'derstand that as well.
l i And I also -- l 13 f
14 JUDGE SMITH: This does not foreclose you from 5 15 bringing a witness or so back after Mr. Thomas testifies. ,
i 16 MR. FLYNN: Very good. :
17 JUDGE SMITH: Nor does it authorize it. It 's j ust 16 out for proposal, you know. We will go to our traditional l 19 needs.
20 MR. FLYNN: Yes, I think that 's clear.
t 21 JUDGE SMITH: But there is another problem here, and !
l 22 that is, to your Washington officials there is a rather lengthy l t
23 document request which I haven 't read. I just looked at it.
24 There is five categories of documents, and I wonder can we 25 characterize what they are. Mr. Oleskey?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 l
g _ ._ _ _ _ _. _ _ - -
. ~ . _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ .
i l
i !,
1 11707 1
i 1 MR. OLESKEY: It 's the same request that was attached !
i f 2 to the discovery motions earlier for the same officials. So it 6
3 is something that Mr. Flynn will have had for several weeks. l'
(
j- 4 And it may be, as I said to you earlier in a brief j 2
1 4 5 colloquy, that it would be Mr. Flynn 's view that those things i 4
6 have all essentially been produced already.
7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. And I also understand that l 8 you are authorized to accept service of the subpoenas for 9 Messrs. Krimm, Peterson and McLaughin.
- 10 MR. FLYNN
- Yes, Your Honor.
i l 11 JUDGE SMITH: I mean that 's accepting service of j
! I j 12 them, nothing else.
1 13 MR. FLYNN: Yes, and I -- and I will be happy to do l
14 that today, j 15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. ,
We 'd like to make copies after they l; 16 MR. OLESKEY:
l i,
17 have been executed by the Board, if we may.
f 18 JUDGE SMITH: Then you de that, and then you 're going l-19 to serve Mr. Thomas yourself.
20 MR. OLESKEY: Yes.
21 JUDGE SMITH: And I have one question. I informed l 22 Massachusetts Attorney General that it is not necessary tu j l
23 tender fees to federal witnesses, but I do assume that Mr. ;
24 Thomas is free to come as a part of his employment; you know, 25 he 's paid and --
t Heritage Reporting Corporation !
I; (202) 628-4808 i
. .]
i i e r l !
i 11708 I l'
i 1 MR. FLYNN: Yes. Your Honor. l 2 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Thomas is free as part of his 4
l 3 employment to come in response to the subpoena?
! 4 MR. FLYNN: Yes. l i
5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
l 6 MR. TURK: Your Honor, may I inquire of the Mass. ,
c l 7 AG's office if they have had any further communications with 8 Mr. Thomas as to whether or not he would appear? ;
l 9 MR. FLYNN: Yes, I called Mr. Thomas this afternoon 10 at our break and informed him that I believed the subpoena 1
11 would be issued today, and told him of the date I had asked for 12 in the subpoena, and told him that the bottom of the subpoena 13 indicates that a challenge has to be made on or before the date 9 14 that it 's due.
I l 15 He indicated that he would be likely to challenge the I i 16 subpoena, but did not now have counsel. It was unclear to me l 17 whether he would have retained counsel in time to make the 18 challenge through counsel or intended to do it himself.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
20 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Judge.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Do we need anything before we have Dr.
- 22 Bores?
l 23 MR. TURK: I 'd like to have a brief recess. Your 24 Honor; j ust five minutes.
25 JUDGE SMITH: DO we bring any papers with us, or are l
Reporting Co rpora t ion l
Heritage (202) 628-4888 !
6 t
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . ~ _ - __
_..m- . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _
i i:
! 11709- i k
i 1 you going to provide whatever we need?
i i
1 2 MR. TURK: I 'll be introducing document. I'll give j 3 you copies. ;
I 4 MR. OLESKEY: Before we take that recess, may I make 5 a point about the examination to follow, if it 's convenient?
6 JUDGE SMITH: The examination what? j 5
l j 7 MR. OLESKEY: To follow of Bores and Lazarus.
! 8 JUDGE SMITH: To follow. ,
9 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. I 'd like to request the. the 10 examination be severed with Dr. Bores going firrt.
11 As you will see f rom a cross-exami nation plan I 've .
I 12 planned in handwriting last night, the vast majority of the f i
questions, depending on his answers but I think will go this !
13 G 14 way, will be Dr. Bores.
l 15 We will come to a point of overlay in one area that I 1G think is in some ways the most impartant, and that would be j
17 their individual recollections of two important RAC meetings of 18 April 15 and July 30. 1987 Especially the latter meeting 19 Lppears to be the meeting which has engaged all of our 20 attention and especially the Board in connection with the Il 21 argument that their recollections individually, and in a sense f 2
i i 22 jointly, differ in some respect to Mr. Thomas.
l j 23 I would like, therefore, to examine Dr. Bores first t
i 24 and have Dr. Lazarus excused from the hearing, and also 1
25 understanding that no one on behalf of the NRC staff or i O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 l
l l d
l 11710 l
0 1 otherwise engage in the hearing will communicate to Dr. Lazarus 2 co-'erning Dr. Bores 's examinat ion.
3 I would believe, and if it would be helpful, I ' l '.
4 give she Board my cross-examination plan now so that you will 5 have it on your break, that the Lazarus examination will be 6 much shorter. And with the exception of the two RAC meetings 7 of April and July, would not be repetitive of the Bores 8 examination, so that we wouldn 't be losing a lot by honoring 9 the request that I 'm making.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
11 MR. DIGNAN: Can I inquire just so I understand 12 what 's being asked for?
13 Mr. Oleskey, perhaps I have a sense of delicacy of 14 it. You 're asking f or sequestration, are you not?
15 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. I am, counsel.
16 MR. DIGNAN: And in its purest form. That is to say, 17 no one is 'o -- all I want to know is what you 're asking for 18 because, believe me, I want to be sure we all abide by it.
19 MR. OLESKEY: I don 't know if that 's the purest form.
20 I 'm asking that no one, whether on the NRC staff or 21 otherwise --
22 MR. DIGNAN: That 's what I understand.
23 MR. OLESKEY: -- talk to Dr. szarus about the 24 examination of Dr. Bores before I begin Dr. Lazarus or, indeed.
25 any time until I complete him.
9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
l I
} l
) I
\ \
i 11711 :
h 1 JUDGE SMITH: And I assume. to complete your thought, j l 2' that you would have us direct Mr. Lazarus not to read the j 3 transcript, too.
i 4 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, thank you. !
5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Does anybody object to that? ,
i 6 MR. TURK: I certainly do. Your Honor. Let me go l l
7 through my reasons.
I 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's take the break so we can j, 9 look at the cross-examination plan. See, he hasn 't given much 10 of his reasons except a general reason that memories are being 11 probed and impressions --
12 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, that we 're talking in some sense f
13 about meaory and credibility on some matters that the Board has 14 felt very important, and that I would like to get each person 's 15 mexcry unaided by recollection of the other, other than as they 16 may have already been since they both have produced memoranda 17 that you have, 18 MR. BACKUS. Can I just say, Your Honor, that in i
19 regard to the motion that was filed this morning if the Board f r
20 is going to entertain argument on that, we 'll do it at anytime !
6 21 the Board desires. !
22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we have a problem there, and we j
23 haven 't really wrestled with it yet, what to do about it. We j i
24 j ust can 't t ake it up -- I don 't want to take it up now. I f
25 want to get going with these people.
I Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 '
I I
i
11712 1 MR. BACKUS: All right.
2 JUDGE SMITH: But just let me sum up that you have 3 not anticipated in your motion that anybody else would be heard 4 f rom on 'that motion, and it is void of any legal support. And S the Board does not have traveling with it all of the research 6 materials it might need. That 's exactly why I wanted other 7 counsel, especially Ms. Weiss. to affirm that they themselves 8 believe that there is legal support for it.
9 MR. BACKUS: We 're ready to address that whenever the 10 Board wants to.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
12 Let 's take our break.
13 Could we have the cross-examination plan?
O 14 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. Your Honor.
15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
E40 16 (Continued on next page.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4886
l 1
i l 11713 1 MR. TURK: Your Honor, let me say, first of all.
l 2 that approximately eight days ago. May 10th, we had a telephone l
3 conference call with the Board in which.the Board indicated it l 4 wanted Dr. Bores and Mr. Lazarus to appear.
! 5 At no time from the date of that telephone conference .l 6 call. in fact, no time prior to that until the moment Mr. I 7 Oleskey raiseo the point in this hearing room today, j 8 approximately 10 minutes ago, did he ever indicate that he f f
9 wished to proceed with the sequestration. and a separate l
10 examination of witnesses.
l 11 My preparation for presentation of our testimony l
l 12 before the Board, at the Board 's request, was not based upon an 13 assumption we would be presenting witnesses separately.
9 14 So, in the first instance. I would note that it 's j I
1S quite untimely, unfair surprise for Mr. Oleskey to now tell me {
16 before we go into presenting our testimony that he wants 17 separate witnesses. If that was his intention, he could have
( 18 raised that point much earlier.
I I l 19 Secondly, it 's my understanding that the Board wishes i 20 to have the staff present its understanding of the evolution of 21 FEMA 's position. And with respect to the NRC regional 22 employees, being Dr. Bores and Mr. Lanarus, their understanding primarily relates to the evolution of the FEMA position through 23 24 the RAC. or at least expressions within the RAC.
25 It had been my intention, and it continues to be my O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
11714 0 1 intention to present Dr. Bores and Mr. ' Lazarus as a panel. And 2 I intend to do nore than simply introduce their memoranda of 3 October 15, 1987. It 's my intention to conduct direct 4 examination of them. I believe that approach would help the 5 Board to get a complete, comprehensive, chronological 6 understanding of the evolution of FEMA 's position.
7 In any event, regardless of what you decide with 8 respect to sequestration of witnesses for cross-examination, 9 it 's my intention to conduct the direct examination.
10 I note Mr. Oleskey has already presented himself at 11 the cross-examination table, and I think that 's premature.
12 But I do note that I wish to proceed with direct 13 examination of the two witnesses jointly.
14 Now turning to the issue of sequestration itself.
15 there is not much case law in the NRC on sequestration, and I 16 don't have e copy of the only existing case that I 'm aware of, 17 but I 'll give you a reference to it. It's Consumers Power 18 Company --
19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, we Know that case. I think you 20 are correct, that 's -- go ahead.
21 MR. TURK' The Midland case.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, right.
23 MR. TURK: ALAB-379, and if I may briefly indicate 24 the substance of that decision, if you will permit me.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, yes, certainly. It 's your right.
9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
11715 O 1 That 's all you have.
2 MR. TURK: Unfortunately. I don 't have the case and I 3 haven 't read it in a long time, so I will read you from --
4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you are not at a disadvantage 5 vis-a-vis me.
6 MR. TURK: You 're f amiliar with it. I take it.
7 JUDGE SMITH: In the same way that you are. I read 8 it many years ago, and at the time I recall not understanding 9 the reason of the Appeal Board. That 's part of it. I mean an 10 uncertain memory of uncertainty, but go ahead with it.
11 MR. TURK: I 'm going to indicate my understanding of 12 that case which I received through the NRC Staf f 's Practice and 13 Procedure Digest.
14 The Applicants informed me that they have a LEXIS 15 terminal here in Concord, and I 've ask that the Applicants 's 16 paralegal provide me with a copy of the case if that 's 17 possible, at my expense, and we 'll see if that 's possible.
18 Otherwise, I'll have to rely on this brief digest of the case.
19 In the :idland -
20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, would you prefer -- the time left 21 this afternoon would be enough left for us to swear them in and 22 have you of f er whatever you wish to of f er as if it 's direct 21 testimony, and then conduct your oral direct. And then you 24 could have the case tomorrow --
25 MR. TURK: To argue on sequestration?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202.' 628-4888
l.
l.
t l 1171G l 9 1 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, because there 's nothing that will 2 happen today that will require sequestration.
3 MR. TURK: The only effect. Your Honor, will be that 4 in my preparation of witnesses for tomorrow I'll have to assume i 5 there is no sequestration yet, and I 'd have to prepare Mr. I 6 La J arus with the assumption that you might enter an order of
, 7 sequestration.
t 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, unless you can change our mind I
! 9 about our memory of the Midland decision, our discussion during 10 the break is that we have a rare, very unusual situation here. f l
11 not covered by Midland. But --
12 MR. TURK: I 'll hold of f argument until I can see the 13 case.
I '
14 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't see how we can unsort this out.
15 MR. TURK: I 'm not even sure I'll be able to see the 16 case.
17 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm only addressing now your assumption 18 that there will be no sequestration, which is not -- is not l
19 well founded enough for you to plan on that basis. l
]
20 MR. TURK : No, no.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Our inclination right now, unless you ,
i 22 convince us otherwise, that there would be some sequestration, j i
23 MR. TURK: All right. That had been the assumption 24 that I was going to proceed on tonight. I would have assumed 25 that you might enter a sequestration order, and therefore I 'd O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888
l l
11717 i better prepare Mr. Lazarus with that assumption in mind.
2 I don 't favor sequestration. I think, first of all, i
3 in terms of informing the Board and the parties of the j 4 evolution of FEMA 's position, we 're best of f having the 5 testimoriy presented jointly. l I G If there is a witness whose memory is not consistent l l
7 with that of the first witness, that can be explored through j l
l' 8 cross-examination at the time. There has been no indication l 9 of --
I 10 JUDGE SMITH: Are you talking now about your 11 affirmative case? I l 6 12 UR. TURK: No, the cross-examination.
13 JUDGE SMITH: Only the cross-examination, yes. j 9 14 MR. TURK: There has been no suggestion, there is p
}
15 absolutely no shred of any suggestion by Mass. AG which would j l 16 indicate that the Board has any reason to sequester Mr. Lazarus i I l f There has been no suggestion that his memory
[
17 from Dr. Bores.
18 is incorrect or incomplete. There has been no suggestion of j
! 19 any other reason which would have you examine him separately.
! and I don 't see a basis for taking the unusual step of 20 l
21 sequestration.
22 I note that my impression of the Midland case is 23 there is a recognition there that sequestration is not granted 24 as freely in NRC proceedings -- f 25 JUDGE SMITH: That 's true. l l
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
f i i i
i 11718 !
O 1 MR. TURK : -- as it is in federal court. And that l
l 2 particularly with respect to NRC Staff witnesses --
j 3 JUDGE SMITH: True.
4 MR. TURK: -- sequestration is disfavored.
5 JUDGE SMITH: True. !
i 6 MR. TURK: And I don 't know of any reason which has 7 been presented or which could be presented by Mr. Oleskey which-8 would overturn that precedent with respect to the general
, 9 principles of sequestration of Staff witnesses. !
I l
10 Further I think in terms of the full development of !
11 the record, we 're better of f having witnesses come together.
12 And if there is any cross-examination, I know Mr. Oleskey is 13 quite experienced and quite capable of making any points that O. 14 he feels he has to make. .
I 15 MR. OLESKEY: I appreciate the vote of confidence l
16 from my brother Turk. ;
17 I would only say one point that I think needs 18 addressing, that I intend to pursue vigorous cross-examination 19 of both witnesses as to these two key meetings as to the k l
20 history of what was said by whom, what was intended seems to be !
I 21 very much at issue and very much in doubt. I can 't help but ;
22 believe that the cross-examination will go differently if they 23 are together than if they had been sequestered.
24 I don 't have any obj ection to Mr. Turk putting on his 25 direct case. I think he 's entitled to do that as he wishes.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) G28-4888
i l i i i
l l 11719 O 1 It may be that something of what I wish to obtain will have 2 been lost by that approach in any event, and it already has, 3 but I think it 's a reasonable request. I don 't think it 4 imposes undue burden, and I think it ought to be honored here l l
5 in view of the importance that has been attached, fairly or i
f 6 not, to the proceedings at those two RAC meeting in 1987.
{
' 7 JUDGE SMITH: It 's my view that only the Staf f and ;
l l 8 Intervenors have standing to argue this point, but I 'lI hear +
I
! I l 9 your argument, Mr. Dignan. Do you want to be heard?
10 MR. DIGNAN: I have no desire to be heard, Your j 11 Honor. I 'l 1 use the old expression, I don 't have a dog in the l f
12 fight.
13 JUDGE SMITH: I think you have characteri::ed the 14 Midland Appeal Board decision correctly. The Licensing Board ;
i 15 had ordered sequestration for what they called the usual 16 reasons, and those usual reasons were stated by the Appeal 17 Board should not apply to staff witnesses appearing in 18 licensing cases.
l 19 That much I agree with you, and I have a very l l
20 comfortable feeling that that is accurate.
21 My area of uncertainty is that the nature of the !
22 testimony to be adduced was not the same kind of testimony 23 which we are dealing with here. Now, as I say, I 'm uncertain l
24 of this, I t
But here we have within my experience at the NRC one I 25 O
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62.8-4888 l
. . . [
1 1
i i i 11720 I j i of the relatively rare situations where who actually said what.
2 and when did they say it, and what happened is at issue. It is l l
! 3 exactly the type of situation that would require sequestration l
- 4 in the United States District Court. They would encounter that i i~
5 regularly. !
i t
i 6 Therefore, we believe that that aspect of the cross-l 7 examination should be covered by sequestration, i 8 Now we don 't go as f ar as you go. Mr. Oleskey. We l
l 9 don 't believe that we have to find that the cross-examination I
! 10 would go differently. nor do we have to find or do we find that 11 there is even any threshold showing that we see any need based 12 upon Dr. Bores and Mr. Lazarus themselves for sequestration. !
13 One of the important aspects of us calling the_ people here is !
14 to' develop a record that has a high degree of public confidence l t :
l 15 and confidence by the parties, if that 's going to be possible; j i
16 I don 't know. I am sure that we 're not going to satisfy the {
e 17 Intervenors no matter what we do on this, but we 're going to I i
18 give it a big shot. And I t hink that sequestration of parts of l
i 19 it are in order. ;
i 20 Now what I would like to see is if it can't be cut l 21 out, and the development of the NRC Staf f 's evolution of it is i f
22 one thing. I think that the dif ference in memories and l i
23 perceptions of what happened at two meetings are discrete }
24 enough that we could have a sapuration there. I don 't know. $
i 25 I did read your crcus-examination plan, and j ust my Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat ion I I
(202) G28-4888 t
[
l i
11721 1 general impression was that we could probably have separated -;
l i 2 parts out where sequestration would at least meet our view of l I !
l 3 what is required. if not all of it. j i
4 Do you agree that there is parts of it -- I mean 5 there is a policy at the NRC not to have sequestration, and we l
l 6 have to -- we should find a specific definite need, and our s
7 need would be limited not to the people involved. but to the 8 circumstances involved. l f ;
i j 9 MR. OLESKEY: It 's possible that that could be done j l
l 10 in part. !
l 11 JUDGE SMITH: It may not he neat.
t
( 12 MR. OLESKEY: But you may not necessarily conclude 13 this from the way I laid out the plan, but my own intent was j i !
j.
14 pretty much to take Dr. Bores right on through, and then to go 15 to Mr. Lazarus which fits into sequestration, and as you 'll see 16 if you look at, as I guess you have, Page 2 of the outline. l 17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, it 's Page 2 where I've identified l 18 the areas where traditionally that were you in court -- well, 19 traditionally you just automatically would have sequestration.
20 MR. OLESKEY: I think so.
21 So what I 'm saying is I don 't know that there 's a lot f f
22 of gain to the NRC or any of us to have Mr. Lazarus here for f 23 the Bores examination except as a matter of interest to him as f 24 to what I 'm asking Mr. Bores --
l 25 JUDGE SMITH: No. i t 's -- l l g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.m..-..
i i L ;
i' 1
2
!- 11722
! 1 MR. OLESKEY: -- until I get to the point where I l
l 2 start to deal with the joint meetings.
i
!. 3 Part of my problem is I 'm not entirely sure beyond I
i 4 those two meetings where their activities at the NRC region, or ,
i 5 where the meetings that took place in connection with the New j I
)
l 6 Hampshire plan review overlap for each of them.
7 So I suspect, just in reviewing some documents I got 8 yesterday from Mr. Dignan, that there is going to be more r 9 overlap than I thought when I began the plan, this cross- )
l 10 examination. on Mo nday . -l i
i 11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, can we revisit this whole thing f I !
12 tomorrow? i 13 MR. OLESKEY: Certainly. }
O 14 JUDGE SMITH: You can reconsider your cross- !
1 15 examination; see if it cannot be, if it is not already i
16 constructed, if it cannot be constructed to minimize the 17 sequestration. t I
l 18 MR. OLESKEY: Could we also have supplied a copy of l 19 whatever case it is that Mr. Dignan 's f acilities are going to [
l t t
I 20 rattle off for the Board and Mr. Turk? l 21 MR. TURK : If I can get that from Mr. Dignan. I 'll be 22 happy to make a copy for Mr. Oleskey, i
i 23 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor. I will make it available to i
i 4
l 24 anybody. I do wish to apprise everybody of our problem, f 25 Our problem is this. The computer that we have !
i Heritage Reporting Corporation [
l (202) 628-4888 l
l l l 4
e
l~
j 11723 '
l 1 hooked to LEXIS, which is where we 'l1 get this if we can, 2 unfortunately is not hooked to the printer. So we have got to ,
I i l- 3 find a way to take it off of LEXIS on to a disk, and get it .j I !
l 4 over, j 5 Now if anyone can do it, Ms. Wardlow can, and that 's f 6 what she 's trying to do. I 'm j ust not sure mechanically if we f 7 can reproduce it on paper, j i
8 If it gets to that point. I 'm also willing, on the j 9 basis that everybody 's got a f air shot, if Mr. Oleskey would
- 10 like to come up to our office with Mr. Turk and read it off the i
i i 11 screen, and Ms. Weiss or anybody else is welcome, too, we 'd be F
12 glad to make that available to everybody also.
13 MR. HUNTINGTON: If the Applicants have got a 14 problem, the Attorney General 's of fice has a LEXIS as well, and f 15 we can certainly access, and ours is connected to a printer the I
i 16 last time I saw it, i
f 17 MR. OLESKEY: Terrific. Thank you both. >
\
18 MR. MUNTINGTON: We will try to get a copy of the .
I i
19 case, i
{ 20 JUDGE SMITH: If it will break the log Jam, you can l
21 use my account number.
22 (Laughter.) l l 23 MR. TURK: I 'l1 use mine. Your Honor.
24 MR. HUNTINGTON: We'll provide everybody with a copy.
E41 LS (Continued on next page.) f l
Heritage Reporting Corporation .
(202) 628 4888 l l
l-i 11724 2 i MR. TURK: I hope that tonight we will be able to 2 see if we can get-a copy of the case for all parties to see and 3 for the Board to consider as well.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
5 One of the reasons why I think that the'NRC does not G favor sequestration is that difficult enforcement is also a 7 problem. There will be media accounts and everything like 8 that, which is -- it 's very dif ficult to enforce in this type 9 of hearing. And you might want to make that argument, too.
j 10 We do not have -- you might want to present that for 11 our consideration, we do not have any of the authority over l 12 anybody, over the media or anybody to control what is report l
l 13 about the affairs in this room.
\
O 14 MR. TURK: I understand. I also note that there are 15 quite a few reporters in the room. I recognize the Associate 16 Press reporter as well as three or four others.
17 JUDGE SMITH- So the practicality of enforcing 18 sequestration is a factor.
19 MR. OLESKEY: Well, I 'm sure that it is che Board 's 20 order that Mr. Lazarus would hear it and Mr. Turk would advise 21 him and that they would follow whatever proceeding was that we 22 established.
23 MR. TURK: I didn 't understand that.
24 MR. OLESKEY: If that meant not reading the papers, i 25 I 'm sure he wouldn 't read the paper.
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
i l i
i I h
11725 1 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm sure that I would expect them to I ~2 comply, but it 's j ust another dimension f rom the problem. 1 3 MR. HUNTINGTON: Your Honor. I 'm going to excuse f k 4 myself and see if we can get this here by S o ' clock.
r 1 5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. j l ;
6 MR. TURK: Your Honor, at this time -- j i
I 7 JUDGE SMITH: If you -- excuse me, if we could get !
i 8 that -- well, go ahead. If you can 't get it I have another 9 idea.
I 10 Mr. TurR? !
i 11 MR. TURK: Your Honor, at this time ir compliance l
12 with the Board 's request that the NRC staff produce witnesses l I 13 who can testify to the evolution of the FEMA position, based on !
O 14 our understanding of that sequence of events. -
I All we now is 15 MR. DIGNAN: Ms. Wardlow did it.
16 access to a photocopy machine and we can give everybody a copy.
t 17 JUDGE SMITH: Why in the world is she carrying that l ,
18 case around.
19 (Laughter) 20 MR. DIGNAN: She made the computer do what we wanted.
21 MR. TURK: Your Honor, it 's my pref erence that we do 22 our argument on sequestration before we adjourn tonight rather 23 than commence the direct examination.
24 Do you want us to start -- I 'd like to reserve some 25 time this afternoon to make the arguments on sequestration, so e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G20-4880
._- - _ . - . . . - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - -
i
- i. !
i- l 11726 .I i
O 1 that we may have the benefit of a Board decision before going l l
2 back to the motel tonight, if the Board feels that possible, j 3 MS. WEISS: If we could get the documents in, I think 4 it would facilitate preparation.
l Well, I understand, I 'm 5 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
i 6 sympathetic to Mr. Turk's desire to have some structure to his I
7 life coming up and re does have to plan, and so I think we l 8 should try to accommodate him. As he says, this motion is made 9 exactly at the time the witnesses appear. And it is.not-a 10 common thing. And he had -- he was not required to prepare for I
11 it.
Le+*s proceed, and I 12 Can we proceed until that point?
l 3
13 we will try to make our ruling tonight.
14 MR. TURK: All right. Thank you. Your Honor.
15 As I commenced a few minutes ago. I would note that l
l 16 in compliance with the Licensing Board 's request that the staff 4
17 make available witnesses who can provide some insight to the 18 evolution of the FEMA position.
, 19 The NRC staff at this time calls Dr. Robert Bores and i 20 Mr. William Lazarus.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Dr. Bores, you 're still under oath f rom 22 your last appearance here.
23 Mr. Lazarus, will you stand and be sworn, please.
24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11727 2 ROBERT BORES 3 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 4 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows:
5 Whereupon, 6 WILLIAM LAZARUS i
I 7 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein, 8 and was examined and testified as follows:
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. TURK:
11 Q Gentlemen, may I ask that you briefly identify.
12 yourselves by name, and your current position, and place of 13 employment, starting with Dr. Bores?
14 A CBores) My name is Robert Bores. I am the Technical 15 Assistant in the Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, 16 Region 1. U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
17 A CLanarus) My name is Mr. William Lazarus, I 'm the 18 Emergency Preparedness Section Chief in the Facility Radiation 19 Safety and Safeguards Branch. Division of Radiation Safety and 20 Safeguards, NRC Region 1.
21 MR. TURK : Your Honor. I note that the professional 22 qualification statement of Dr. Bores has already been put into 23 the transcript, it appears following transcript page 8775 24 A nd at this time I 'd like to distribute the 25 professional qualification statement for Mr. Lazarus.
O I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868
BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11728 I
i BY MR. TURK:
2 Q Mr. Lazarus, I note that we 've placed in f ront of you 3 a copy of a docurrent entitled, "William J. Lazarus, Chief I 4 Emergency Preparedness Section," and it goes on several more 5 lines, it 's dated May 1988 Can you identify this document? l l
6 A -(Lazarus) Yes. It 's a prof essional qualification 7 statement I prepared approximately three days ago.
8 Q And to the best of your ability to state so today, is 9 it true and correct?
10 A (Lazarus) Yes, it is. ,
i 11 MR. TURK: Your Honor, at this time I 'd like to ask !
12 that the professional qualification statement of Mr. Lazarus be 13 bound into the record.
O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Any obj ections?
15 MR. OLESKEY: No. Your Honor. l 16 JUDGE SMITH: The statement is received. l 17 (Professional qualifications l
18 statement of William J. Lazarus i 19 follows:) l 20 21 j 22 23 l i
24 25 i
I I
Heritage Reporti; (202) 62t i 1
, - - - - - .._n
f*
I O MAY 1988 f l
WILLIAM J. LAZARUS CillEP, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS SECTION, -
FACILITIES RADIATION SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS BRANCll, !
DIVISION OF RADIATION SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, REGION I ,
GRADE: GG-15 BIRTl! DATE: DECEMBER 1,1943 EDUCATION: B.S. - Engineering; Chemistry Major, U.S. Naval Academy, f Annapolls, Maryland - 1965 L U.S. Naval Officers' Submarine School, New London, Connecticut - 1965 U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School, Vallejo, California and !
Idaho Falls Idaho - 1966. Curriculum included nuclear engineering, reactor physics, water chemistry, radiation protection, and health physics, AFFILIATIONS: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers EXPERIENCE:
f 1966 - 1975: Served as a commissioned officer in USS WOODROW WILSON, i SSBN-624, USS llAMMERHEAD. SSN-663, and USS SPADEFISil, '
i SSN-668. Quallfled as Engineering Officer of the Watch, [
i Officer of the Deck, Chief Engineer, and Quallfled in .
Submarines. Duty assignments included various engineering !
- and operations division officer positions, Weapons Department '
11ead, Operations Department llead, and Navigator. Experience in all assignments involved extensive training in nuclear ,
reactor accident response, nuclear seapons accident response, !
and radiation health physics. ;
1975 - 1977: Joined the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1975 as a Specialist inspector in the Reactor Operations and Nuc! car Support Branch, assigned to inspect power reactors in the ,
areas of calibration and surveillance testing, maintenance of !
safety related equipment, and procedures. I 1977 - 1980: Assigned as Project inspector for several power reactors including Maine Yankee, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, and !
!!addam Neck Plant. Performed inspections of all aspects of I plant operations; observed and evaluated licensee performance i O during emergency exercises. During the accident [
r I
[
4 .
l I
l at Three Mlle Island, inspected and observed operations in the O Control Room for a two week period.
1980 - 1981: Assigned as Senior Resident inspector at Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Evaluated licenseo performance in all areas of plant operations; observed performance in two I emergency exercises.
1981 - 1986: Assigned as Project Engineer in the Division of Reactor Projects. . Trained several resident inspectors in their duties.
Other duties involved participating as an observer to evaluate '
licensee performance during emergency exercises.
i 1985 - 1986: Assigned as Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist. Duties !
included assignment as a member of the Regional Assistance l Committee to FEMA Region I, evaluating off-site emergency I plans; evaluated exerelse objectives and scenarlos and served
- as inspection team leader for the on-site portion of approximately 20 emergency exercises; evaluated readiness for licensing in the area of emergency preparedness for four l power reactor licensees.
1986 - Present: Assigned, as Chief. Emergency Preparedness Section.
1 Supervising 3 Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialists, and
, 3 - 6 Emergency Preparedness Specialists in the duties of evaluating emergency preparedness of power, research, and O test reactors. Continue to attend important RAC meetings and observe most of the emergency exercises conducted in NRC Region I. Responsible for overseeing NRC Region I incident response capabilities.
e 1
i i
l l
- O
l-I BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11729 0 1 BY MR. TURK :
2 Q Gentlemen. I'd like to introduce our discussion today 3 asking you to give us a brief description of your involvement 4 with the Seabrook Nuclear Plant, emergency planning issues.
5 from the earliest date of your involvement up to the current 6 date. starting with Dr. Bores?
7 A (Bores) My first introduction. I guess, to the 8 emergency planning issues at Seabrook occurred back in the
! 9 construction phrase through the environmental hearing process.
I
! 10 And I had attended the public meeting up here on behalf of the l.
11 NRC at the time. And several questions were asked about the f
I
! 12 emergency preparedness. The time frame is about 1981, 1982.
I '
! 13 Subsequent to that my involvement with the Seabrook O 14 emergency preparedness came through the efforts at the Region 1 i
r 15 Regional Assistance Committee of which-I was a member for the j l f t
16 NRC.
In that capacity I reviewed, at the request of FEMA i
17 18 Region 1. for technical review both versions of the plan 19 submitted by the State of New Hampshire for technical review.
20 And then each of the plans as submitted, formally submitted by l 21 the State and revisions thereof, for New Hampshire for the i 22 Seabrook site.
23 Q What was the time frame of that -- review of those 24 initial plans? l f
25 A (Bores) I believe the first one was submitted for i
f Heritage Repo rt ing Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l l
BORL . ^T 11730 0 1 technical review in 1982 , ame, 1982, 1983 time frame.
2 And the latest revision I guess is just received in my office, 3 that one I do not say I have et this point yet reviewed. I have 4 started it.
S Q Now. Dr. Bores. I understood you to say you were a 6 member of the RAC for the NRC, during what period were you the 7 NRC RAC member?
8 A (Bores) As my recollection serves me. I started as a 9 member of the RAC, Regions 1, 2 and 3 approximately September 10 1980; and I had all three of the federal regions that NRC 11 Region i encompasses, that are Regions 1, 2 and 3 l 12 I was a member of the RAC until approximately 1985, I 1
l 13 believe it was, with respect to Seabrook. And then coming back O 14 Seabrook in January of 1987, 15 Q You say, coming back, could you --
16 A (Bores) Well, in the interim there were several 17 other individuals assigned as the NRC representative for Region 18 1 of FEMA. So in January of 1987 I was reassigned as the RAC I
19 member for the Seabrook site.
20 Q So that there 's a period between sometime in 1985 to l 21 approximately January 1987 in which you were not the NRC RAC 22 member --
L 23 A (Bores) That is correct. l 24 Q --
for Seabrook?
25 A (Bores) That is correct.
O Heritage Reporting Corperation (202) 620-4888 I
i
- - _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ = = _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ = . . _ _ . - . _ _ = .
_ = _ _ _ _
e BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11731 i 1 Q And since January 1987 have you been the NRC RAC 2 member for Seabrook?
3 A (Bores) I have.
4 Q Could you explain how that assig nment , the current 5 assignment starting January 1987 -- pardon me, is that correct.
6 1987? ):
7 A (Bores) That is correct. January 16th, 1987. l f
8 Q And could you explain how that assignment corresponds j 9 to your other assignments and duties at the NRC Region 1 since 10 January of 1987?
11 A (Bores) I guess I don 't quite understand the context i 12 of the question.
13 Q Do you have other responsibilities apart from being O
14 the NRC RAC member for Seabrook?
l 15 A (Bores) Yes. As the Technical Assistant to the 16 Division Director I am asked to get involved in those issues, 17 technical issues that the Division Director feels he needs some 18 extra resources on. So that I can provide him an independent 19 essessment of particular problems or in fact to take charge of
! 20 areas where he feels special attention is needed.
l l 21 Q All right. Does that pretty much summarize your l
22 involvement with Seabrook emergency planning issues up to the 23 current date?
24 A (Bores) Well, and there 's a lot trore involved in i
25 terms of going through nunbers of meetings and correspondence.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 l
1 BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11732 4
0 1 of course, which is all part of the RAC process. l l 2 Q All right.
1 3 Mr. Lazarus, can you also provide for us a summary of l
4 your involvement of emergency planning issues for Seabrook?
5 A (Lazarus) Certainly.
6 Q From the earliest date of your involvement?
7 A (L azarus ) Certainly. I transferred under the 8 Emergency Preparedness Section from the Division of Reactor 9 Proj ects in April or May of 1985, and during that period of 10 time throughout the remainder of 198S 1 attended several RAC 11 meetings in FEMA Region 1; and at some point during that time.
12 I don't recall the exact date. I believe I was designated as 13 the RAC representative to FEMA Region i for all of the FEMA O 14 Region i facilities.
15 Q Can you give us the approximate date of that l 16 designation?
17 A (Lazarus) I would estimate that it was probably in 18 the early -- late summer, early fall. August. September time 19 frame.
20 Q 1965?
21 A (Lazarus) Yes. I 22 Q All right.
23 A (Lazarus) I remained in that position until, as the 1
24 RAC representative until sowr time in late 198G. I was 25 promoted to the position of Sectior. Chief in June of 1986 of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G2 0- 48e8 l
f
4
, I l
I BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11733 I 1 the Emergency Preparedness Section, and at that point j l 2 designated Mr. John Schumacher as a RAC representative of FEMA 3 Region 1 4 Q Now, is Mr. Schumacher designated the NRC RAC member j 5 for all plants in FEMA Region 1?
I 6 A (Lazarus) Yes. That 's my recollection. It was --
7 and that occurred some time, again, late 198G. mid to late 8 1986. And he remained in that position-until Dr. Bores was 9 appointed as the RAC representative for Seabrook, and Mr. i 10 Schumacher retained the RAC representation for the remaining 11 FEMA Region i facilities, and that was January 16th. 1987.
12 Q All right. Now, also, in your current position, I 13 understand your professional qualifications indicate that G 14 you 're currently Chief of the Emergency Preparedness Section?
l 15 A (Lazarus) Yes. I had some other direct contact as l
f 16 far as the Seabrook emergency planning goes in that time, that I
17 I should probably cover, too. During that time I was a Senior l
l 18 Emergency Preparedness Specialist. I was a team leader on the 19 emergency preparedness implementation appraisal that was done
! 20 as far as the onsite adequacy of emergency plans for Seabrock.
21 which occurred December '85 and a follovup inspection 22 approximately March of 1966.
23 I was also the team leader for the emergency 24 preparedness exercise that was conducted in February of 1986 .
l 25 for Seabrook.
O ,
Heritage Reporting Co r po rat ion (202) 628-4880 l
l BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11734 I h 1 Q And in your capacity as Chief of the Emergency !
1 2 Preparedness Section, do you supervise the NRC RAC member for 3 sites other than Seabrook?
4 A (Lazarus) Yes, I do.
l 5 Q Do you supervise Dr. Bores?
6 A (Lazarus) No, I do not.
7 Q In your duties as Chief of the Emergency Preparedness 8 Section of NRC Region 1. is it within the scope of your duties 9 to attend or participate in FEMA RAC meetings?
10 A CLazarus) Yes. I do that frequently, if there are 11 important issues to discuss as far as scheduling, planning, or i
! 12 technical issues, I have attended meetings.
l 13 Q And can you describe or inform us as to which plants 14 in particular these meetings have involved?
15 A (Lazarus) In FEMA Region 1 the plants are Seabrook 16 and Pilgrim. FEMA Region 2 Indian Point and Shoreham. FEVA i 17 Region 3 the visits have been infrequent. I have attended one 1
l 18 or two meetings and I don 't recall which plants were involved; 19 there aren 't any significant controversial plants in FEMA
{
20 Region 3 21 A (Dores) I 'd like to add something here. Even though l 22 Mr. Lazarus does not necessarily attend all to the RAC meetings t
23 which I attend. I do debrief fully with Mr. Lazarus and his i
24 boss as to the -- what haa occurred at the RAC meeting and what i
25 is necessary, so there is full communication on all sites back O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4000
i l
BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11735 !
h 1 to Mr. Lazarus and his out line of management. l 2 MR. TURK : At this time, having gone through the 3 background of the witnesses. I 'd like to move to the 4 identification of some documents that the parties and Board S have seen previously.
6 (Pause) 7 MR. TURK : Your Honor, at this time I 'd like to ask 8 Dr. Bores if he can identify the document which has been placed 9 before him, 10 THE WITNESS: CBores) Yes. ' can.
11 BY MR. TURK :
I l
l 12 Q Would you please describe it?
i l 13 A (Bores) It 's a memorandum f rom me to Mr. Sherwin O 14 Turk on the subj ect of Seabrook Beach population issues, and it 1
15 contains two -- three enclosures. I believe -- three enclosures 16 and a number of attachments to the enclosures. ,
17 And it describes my involvement, basically, with the l 18 Seabrook Beach population issues, and in par icular my 19 recollections of two particular RAC meetings that I at tended.
20 April and the July 1987 meetings.
21 MR. TURK: Your Honor, at this tina I 'm going to 22 offer the document into evidence. I would note that one of the 23 enclosures attached to the document. consists of the last two 24 pages of the document. I 'm goi ng t o introduce es a separate 25 exhibit. And I would ask that you simply detach those two O
Heritege Reporting Corporntion (202) 6?8-4888 l
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11736
.O 1 pages now, and I 'll have' identification of those two pages 2 subsequently.
3 JUDGE SMITH: What pages are those. Lazarus?
4 MR. TURK: Dr. Lazarus, yes.
l e b JUDGE SMITH: The last two pages?
f l 6 MR. TURK: Yes.
L 4
- 7 Your Honor, at this time I 'd like to of f er into 8 evidence the document which Dr. Bores has described which is a 9 memorandum to Sherwin Turk from Dr. Bores, dated October 15, i
j 10 1987 entitled "Seabrook Beach Population Issues." And I 'd like l 11 to offer the entire document into evidence along with all i
- 12 attachments other than those last two pages which are the l 13 separate memo from Lazarus to Turk of October 15, 1987.
O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Are there obj ections?
l l 15 MR. OLESKEY: I take it that this is being offered as l
16 kind of a historical chronology and not literally to the truth 17 of all the matters therein. In that spirit I don 't obj ect.
18 But secondly, and I believe that this is the way Mr.
19 Turk got the material, but I think for all our purposes 20 tomorrow it would be useful, there are about three documents 21 anyway, the first and second so-called Bores memos of February 22 and June '87, and the Christenberry-Perry memorandum of law of 23 1986 or '- 7, where only the front and back were included 24 because of a justified assumption by Dr. Bores that Mr. Turk 25 had those materials. There will be cross-exa.nination on those O.
Heritade Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11737 O 1 't?.ings,.and if we could, by the morning, have a package that 2 includes those, I th!".k it will go much more smoothly.
3 MR. TURK. I 'm ahead of you, Mr. Oleskey, I 'l l be 4 introducing those documents separately.
5 MR. OLESKEY: All right.
6 MR. DIGNAN: Well, wait a minute. What 's being 7 introduced first?
8 MR. TURK: My understanding is that Mr. Oleskey would i 9 like to have complete copies of Mr. Dignan 's memo and the l 10 Christenberry letter of, I believe, June 1987 -- June'1986. ]:
11 MR. OLESKEY: And the first and second memoranda from- ,
i 12 Dr. Bores.
13 MR. TURK: All of those documents will be introduced. l l
14 MR. OLESKEY: All right.
6 I 15 MR. TURK: At this time the document being introduced _j i
l 16 is the Bores meno to me of October 15. and as Mr. Oleskey l l
17 notes, it does not contain a full copy of the Christenberry l i
18 letter or, nor do I believe does it contain a copy of Mr. j l
t 19 Dignan 's memo. j i
20 MR. DIGNAN: I understand that. I just want to be !
I 21 sure of something, because of something Mr. Oleskey said. As I j t
22 understand what 's being introduced is the covering memo of E 23 October 15th, 1987; and then the first enclosure is included in 24 this package to which a memorandum headed. "The Seabrook NH l 25 Beach Population Issue." {,
t Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 ;
I
h l-
~
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11738 b '
1 MR. TURK: No, that 's not correct. We are offering U 2 into evidence at this time the one page cover letter from Dr.
l 3 Bores to me, enclosure 1 to that document which consists of 4 four pages as entitled "The Seabrook NH Beach Population
- 5 Issue." ,
t 6 MR. DIGNAN: That 's correct. !
j 7 MR. TURK: And all of the subsequent attaches, j 8 numbers-1 through 17 which follow. !
l 9 MR. DIGNAN: Right. And not enclosure 2. j l
10 MR. TURK: That 's correct. !
i MR. DIGNAN: Okay. Now, the obj ection as I ;
! 11 ,
It i
12 understand it was that he assumes this offer is not for the '
I '
I 13 truth of the matter as contained.
l j 14 MR. TURK: I 'll get to that. ,
15 The purpose of the offer, Your Honor, is for the !
' i 16 tr uth of the contents contained in the memorandum f rom Dr. !
t f
17 Bores to me as well as in the first enclosure, that four page- t l )
18 summary of events. We are offering that into evidence for all !
f i
19 purposes including truth of the contents.
! 20 As to the subsequent attachments those, at this point l
}
21 at least, represent historical documents referred to in the j t
22 first five pages of the exhibit. ;
7 23 A nd, Your Honor, I 'd like to identify this as Staff f 24 Exhibit No. 2. I 'd also ask for the sake of ease in finding i
25 the document and utili::ing it that it be bound into the Heritage Reporting Corporation #
C202) 628-4888 l l
' i i
, _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . . - ...__._m _
i-l l
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11739 ;
l
- k 1 transcript. i 2 MR. OLESKEY: Do I understand.that by enclosure 2, '
3 Your Honor, Mr. Turk doesn 't mean the document that_has the L 4 circled letter enclosure 2. but means Mr. Lazarus ' memorandum? !
l
- j. 5 MR. TURK : Yes, as I previously stated. !
I' i 6 (The document referred to was 7 marked for identification as j l.
l 8 NRC Staff Exhibit No. 2. ) ;
i MR. FLYNN: j
[
9 I have a question, this is not an i
j 10 obj ect ion, but I notice that several of the attachments, j j' .
l 11 Attachments 14, 15 and I think 17 have handwritten notes en !
- i. i
' them, and I'd like to establish whose notes they are.
12 !
i' 13 Attachment 14, for example, is the FEMA Prefiled f
14 Testimony of September 11, 1987. j
- 15 MR. OLESKEY: May I only suggest on that, that I (
16 intend to inquire a number of those documents that are only in ;
17 for the historical versicn at the moment, and that-we save that 18 kind of identification until we get to that point. l i !
! 19 MR. FLYNN: Then I will withdraw the question.
l l- 20 MR. TURK: I think that 's an appropriate procedure, ;
[ 21 Your Honor. l l 22 MS. WEISS: Your Honor, if you look at Attachment 12, !
i i 8
23 which is I would say maybe two-thirds of the way toward the i
- I b 24 back of the exhibit there 's a FAX message f rom Argonne to a Ms.
i
! 25 Chan at the NRC. And the second page of text is unreadable. I l
t l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 I
t i
i
I l 1 I, i i BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11740 ;
h
- 1 have talked to Mr. Turk about that, and he offered to see'if he ;
c .
l 2 could find a readable page. That is a critical page that we 'll i i !
i 3 be questioning on. One inquires to whether you 've located a i F l l 4 readable page. f; e
!. 5 MR. TURK: I 've looked through the documents that I
! s
' 6 have with me here in Concord, I do not have a better copy of !
l 'l that. The attachment to the memo is before us exactly the way f i
- 8 I received it when I received Dr. Bores memo of October 15th {
l 9 with its attachments. I will place a call to Washington to see !
, 5
' 10 if we can get a better copy of that.
t
! il MR. OLESKEY: I 'd also suggest -- l 1 12 MR. TtmK: I don 't think one exists because I would i
- 13 have known it at the time.
! Ii l 14 MS. WEISS: Well, I had asked you to call Argonne, i !
h 15 the source of the FAX and see if they have a copy of that page, j I 16 MR. TURK : Oh, I didn 't understand that. I don 't l 1
17 have a contractual relationship with Argonne. I think if you !
I 18 want that we should ask FEMA to request it.
19 MR. OLESKEY: I see Mr. Flynn smiling l t
20 acknowledgement, perhaps he can call Argonne and Fed-Ex a clean i 21 copy, be it at the f ront desk for tomorrow morning so we 'd have 22 it; I 'd appreciate that very much. ;
l 23 MR. FLYNN: I will attempt to do that. j I
24 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Joe.
And, Your Honor, before making the offer i 25 MR. TURK:
f (1) l Heritage Reporting Corporation {
(202) 628-4888 j
4 I
i I
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11741 !
l j 1 and seeking to have the document admitted,- I better start by I
l l
2 asking Dr. Bores if he has any changes that he feels he should {
l 1
3 make to the -- either to the cover memo, to me, or to the four 4 page enclosure, one which-immediately follows it. j et/42 5 (Continued on next page.) !
(
i 6
i 7
8 l
9 10 11 12 I 13 14 I i
15 i i
16 .,
17 l
t 18 I 19 i
20 t 21 22 23 24 25 i
e Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4088 i i
i f
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11742 T* 1 THE WITNESS: CBores) In reviewing the document, ,
2 this is my recollections and my statements as true as written 3 on October 15th.
4 Subsequent to October 15th, in discussions with a 5 couple of other RAC members, on Page 2 of my Enclosure 1, under G No. 5, the April 15th RAC meeting, Mr. Warren Church of the FDA 7 and Mr. Herb Fish of DOE separately informed me that they were 8 not at those meetings. So we made that correction.
9 BY MR. TURK:
10 Q So you would indicate that you would change this to 11 reflect that those individuals were not present at the April 12 meeting?
13 A (Bores) That 's correct.
( And that then stands as the best of my recollection.
14
! 15 MR. OLESKEY- I 'm sorry, I didn 't hear that last, Dr.
1 16 Bores.
l 17 THE WITNESS: (Bores) That then stands as my 18 recollections.
l l
19 JUDGE SMITH. Au today.
20 THE WITNESS: (Bores) As true.
l As today, your recollection today?
t 21 JUDGE SMITH:
22 THE WITNESS: CBores) That 's correct . ,
23 BY MR. TURK i
24 A And to the best of your recollection, Dr. Bores, does 25 the cover memo and the four-page Enclosure No. 1 which t
O
( Heritago Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4038
V
+
l i
i.
i l I
R 1 '
l -
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11743 ;
> 1 immediately follows the cover memo present an accurate and true l L L
! 2 accounting of the matters stated-therein?
3 A CBores) It does.
! 4 MR. TURK : Your Honor, at this time I do offer.into l 5 evidence Staff Exhibit 2 for identification as described '
, i 4
6 previously. !
- 7 JUDGE SMITH: I take it Lot .e are no obj ections af ter [
! 8 the discussion I 've heard. !
i
! 9 MR. OLESKEY: No, not from me.
i t
I J
10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Now, I think that 's a good idea j l- 11 to bind it in the transcript. Would it not be a better idea to I
! 12 bind it- in tomorrow. when it 's going to be cross-examined on?
i
- 13 MR. TURK
- It might be more convenient if it 's bound ;
i 14 in today so that everyone will have it in front of them in the [
t I
i 15 transcript tomorrow.
[
16 JUDGE SMITH: It 's your call. j
] -
17 MR. TURK: I 'm indif f erent. Whatever Your Honor l l
! 18 feels is the best way to proceed.
i '
! 19 JUDGE SMITH: It 's your call .
20 I don 't think it was a good idea anyway. [
f i i Well, we 'll withdraw that. I 'm quite
. 21 MR. TURK: i 22 amenable to --
l' 23 MR. DIGNAN: No, he 's saying his idea wasn 't a good i t i l 24 idea.
I 25 MR. TURK: Well. I 'l l take any good idea.
j !
l Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
j (202) 628-4888 l'
k i
d i
- u. !
. _ _ . . ~ . . . . - - - - . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _.. .. _ _ __ _ - . . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ .
i i
i j' BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11744
O. 1. MR. OLESKEY: Whose bad idea should we follow, i
- s. ,
2' MR. TURK: The horns are not so sharp in this case. ,
c 3 MS. WEISS: It 's sort of like sheltering versus 4 evacuation.
~
{ 5 MR. DIGNAN: I agree with Mr. Turk 's original idea !
- 6 for one simple reason. ;
! f
! 7 I had to give up my copy of the memorandum so that j 8 everybody else could have one, so I 'd love it bound in-today so -
{ 9 then I 'll have it tomorrow.
' I 4
! 10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Staff Exhibit 2 is received into l I
i 11 evidence, and it will be bound into the transcript at this -j 12 point. !
' i l- 13 (The document referred to. l l
l 14 having been previously marked
, 15 for identification as NRC Staff ;
r
! 16 Exhibit No. 2 was received.in !
! 17 evidence.) l i
18 (NRC Staff Exhibit No. 2 ,
l
! 19 follows:)
' i l- t 20 t
- 't
! 21 l
! I l 22 r r
l 23 I
1' j 24 l
! 25 [
' i Heritage Reporting Corporation !
i (202) 628-4888 i i
i i
' s
M I- / o g UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)- $
o g
, REGION I
- 63) PARK AVENUE KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 4, . . . . . ,&g (s) .
00T 151987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Sherwin E. Turk, Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney, OGC FROM: Robert J. Bores, Technical Assistant, DRSS, Region I
SUBJECT:
SEAER00K BEACH POPULATION ISSUES As you have requested I have prepared a summary of my involvement in the above issues and in particular the RAC meetings dealing with those issues. My summary entitled "The Seabrook NH Beach Population Issues" with its attach-ments is Enclosure 1 to this memo. Mr. William Lazarus has provided his sumary with respect to the RAC meetings as Enclosure 2. Mr. John Schumacher also attended those meetings and may be able to provide _his recollections on them sometime later. Enclosure 3 provides some excerpts from NRC testimony for the October 6, 1986 Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Hearing on Seabrook Licensing Issues (Questions 2, 14 and 15). This may also be of some use to you.
It should be noted that I have not provided you copies of my detailed comments as proviced to the RAC on the New Hampshire state and local plans. Those 3, comments probably constituted about 60 to 75% of the comments received from
) all the RAC members and the contractor and were adopted by RAC about 90 to 95%
of the time. 4 t
I ,
V M Robert J. Bores Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety
[
and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlsS10N D~'"'l'o$0M $N0ffe kiriL:jal Exh. No. _ L l' 1 rnnter of l i F - IDENT!FIED V
f RECEIVED V
mt
- r -- REJECTED Wr DATE.5fl W l
w . _6o rt t
__k _ _ _ _ . _ __ _
u
3 T R. BORES p TECH ASSISTANT V DRSS, REGION I THE SEABROOK NH BEACH POPULATION ISSUE
- 1. The Seabrook beach population issue was raised years ago during the construction phase of the Seabrook Station project. When the offsite plans for the site were first submitted to FEl% by New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for technical review in 1982, FEMA:I and the technical reviewers (several RAC members including me and the FEMA contractor) were sensitive to beach population concerns. In revisions to the New Hampshire state and local plans for the Seabrook site, New Hampshire addressed each identified concern and with very few, if any exceptions, those concerns were resolved.
- 2. On 12/31/85 in a memorandum to the RAC (Attachment 1), Edward Thomas of FEMA:I asked the RAC members to individually address the adequacy of the plans to protect the transient beach population and those persons who occupied unwinterized accommodations in the Seabrook beach areas.
Several RAC meabers responded to this memo. The NRC attempted to respond generically to the requirements of emergency planning and interpretations thereof in the letter of June 18, 1986 from Ed Christenbury, NRC, to Spence Perry, FEMA, confiming the NRC and FEMA positions relative to the
Dignan Memorandum" (Attachment 2). (See also letter from Edward Thomas to Pobert Boulay (Massachusetts) dated July 9, 1986 (Attachment 3) and O memo from Spence Perry to Edward Thomas dated June 25, 1986 (Attachment
\
- 4) confirming the FEfM position.)
- 3. Since the Christenbury letter was generic and did not address the specific beach issues in the Thomas memo of 12/31/85, FEMA:I felt it needed more specific information from the NRC RAC member. To satisfy this apparent need, I volunteered to address these issues. In addition I was again assigned as the NRC RAC representative for the Seabrook site.
(See memorandum from W. Lazarus, NRC:I to Edward Thomas, FEMA:1, dated 1/16/87, Attachment 5 and Attachment 6, RAC Membership for Region I). I generated a position paper addressing the issues raised in the 12/31/85 l Thomas memo, discussing the basic requirements, the guidance, the l submitted plans, RAC's ccaments on those plans, site features and general I conclusions on those issues. This position paper received limited NRC:I l review and underwent minor revisions as a result. FEMA:I asked for and l received an opportunity to review the document before submission. Minor l word changes were made in two paragraphs to accommodate the FEMA suggestions. The position paper was transmitted to FEMA in a letter dated 2/18/87 from me (R. Bores) to Edward Thomas (Attachment 7).
l ENCLOSURE 1 o
t O l
l
1 J '
2 R. BORES TECH ASSISTANT O .
oass aeoto" t
- 4. In a memorandum to the RAC dated March 2,1987, Mr. Thomas requested comments on my paper as well as on other submitted RAC positions on the beach issues. My respcnse (Attachment 8) and that of ANL (Attachment 9) were reviewed at the subsequent meeting on April 15, 1987.
- 5. On April 15, 1987, FEMA I convened a RAC meeting to discuss this paper and to address ar.y questions of the RAC members, FEMA I or the FEMA contractor en this paper. The meeting was attended by me, W. Lazarus and J. Schumacher of the NRC; several FEMA staff including Mr. Thomas, J.
Dolan, L. Robertson, B. Swiren and K. Horak; R. Rospenda, ANL-contractor; P. Lutz, DOT; B. Keene, EPA:I; W. Church, FDA; D. Nevitt, USDA; H. Fish, DOE; and two representatives of NOAA.
Mr. Thomas stated that it was his understanding that the position of my paper was that the NH Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NH RERP) was generally adequate, except for the beach population, but with the added features, such as the strong containnent, other safety systems, low probability of early radiological releases, etc., the NH RERP was also adequate for the beach population. I addressed this point by saying that Mr. Thomas's understanding was incorrect. My paper states that the NH RERP was adequate in general, including for the beach population. The specific ccr.tainment and plant features cited in my paper were ,in_
ac'dition to and not necessary for, the NH RERP provisions making the plan p/
-_ adequate. The RAC accepted the above position, as representing their views un the beach issues. Minor changes were suggested by NOAA to reflect the possibility of recirculating a portion of a radiological plume over the beach area as a result of some sea breeze situations.
They further indicated that such recirculation would result in huge dilutions of plume concentrations prior to the recirculation to the beach areas.
Because several representatives had some difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of one paragraph dealing with risk consequences, I suggested that I would revise the wording to clarify the intended meaning. With above suggasted changes and a slight modification to the l
ANL proposed RAC Review Spreadsheets (see memo 4/22/87, Rospenda to Ed Thomas (Attachment 10) and my letter to Ed Thomas dated 4/24/87 (Attachment 11), the RAC unanimously (including FEMA) adopted my position paper as their position paper relative to the beach issues. (See Draft
! FEMA testir.ony dated 5/6/87, citing the RAC position paper (undated) and l wording from my paper (Attachment 12).) Mr. Thomas stated that he felt very comfortable in supporting this position for the hearings.
1 0 i
~ 3 R. BORES TECH ASSISTANT
('l DRSS, REGION I v
- 6. Following the 4/15/87 RAC meeting, the ASLB issued its MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on April 22, 1987 relative to the denial of granting Public Service of New Hanpshire a one-mile plume EPZ for Seabrook site. In addition, since the BHL "containment studies" were still being reviewed by the NRC, the NRC staff recommended that I delete reference to the site specific plant and containment features in the paper which I had previously submitted to FEMA on 2/18/87. This recomnendation was made because the referenced information was not the basis of the adequate finding for the beach population (See discussion on 4/15/87 RAC meeting.) and could result in unnecessary litigation on probability issues. As a result, the suggesteo revisions were made, received NRC staff concurrence, and were submitted to FEMA I on June 4, 1987 (Attachment 13).
- 7. On June 5, 1987, FEMA pre-filed testimony in response to NECNP Contention
! RERP-8, in which, on pages 38 and 39 of that document, FEMA took the
! position that FEMA was unabic to conclude that the NH RERP and local i plans were adequate "to protect the public in the event of an accident at Seabrock Nuclear Pcwer" and to provide "reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency." (Attachment 14 is a revision of the June 5,1987 filing with minor revisions.)
l 8. In a letter to Richard Strome (New Hampshire), Mr. Thomas discusses the l
l O FEMA filia9. stetins that the "Curreat FEMA eositica is lersei> besed upon the FEMA and the Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC) reviews which
! Were previously provided to you. The position of the Current FEMA Position dealing with the beach population is based on a thorough analysis by FEMA and the RAC. (Attachment 15)
, 9. On July 30 FEMA:I convened the RAC to discuss a number of items (7/2/87 I meno from E. Thomas to RAC (Attachment 16) and agenda for 7/30/87 RAC l meeting (Attachment 17)). NRC attendees were R. Bores, W. Lazarus and J.
l Schumacher; FEMA attendees included E. Thomas, J. Dolan, B. Swiren; FEMA l contractor, R. Rospenda (ANL); DOE, H. Fish; DOT, P. Lutz; EPA, B. Keene; l FDA, W. Church; and Dept. of Agriculture, D. Nevitt. Dept. of Corcerce i (NOAA) was not represented.
Af ter discussing the other items on the agenda, E. Thomas apciogized for not consulting the RAC prior to pre-filing the testimony on June 5,1987, but said there wasn't tire to do so and still meet the filing deadline.
He further explained that FEMA, not FEMA:I had taken the position that the NH plans were not adequate to protect the beach population because l
the "NRC had changed their position" in revising their response to his 12/31/85 memorandum. He said the plant specific items removed from the position paper by the NRC in its 6/4/87 revision were crucial to a FEMA finding of adequacy. In the discussion that ensued, the DOT representa-tive stated to Mr. Thcmas, "You have a problem!" Then, "We have a problem that we need to come together on." He said that whether or not l
O V the paper discussed the specific plant features did not change the facts of the construction. He felt that the plans were adequate and the best he had reviewed. Similar responses were provided by DOE, EPA and
4 R. BORES TECH ASSISTANT O .
oRSS, Rest 0N i HHS. 00T aaso questioned the "high" numbers of beach goers that were supposed to use the beaches in the sumer. He stated that on three separate weekends he traveled the full length of the beaches and observed only a few hundred people on the beaches on each occasion. NRC represen-tathes reiterated that the basis of the positien paper rested on the features of the NH plans and not on the plant features. The hH plans were adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the beach population could be protected given a serious accident at Seabrook Station. In effect, renoving any probability discussions (or assuming the probability of a serious accident was 1), the plans still ret the regulations, HUREG 0654 criteria, and provided reasonable assurance. Mr. Thomas then state <i that FEMA's measure of "reasonable assurance" differed from that of the NRC and from that stated in the FEMA /NRC response to the Dignan tremo.
Mr. Lazcrus asked Mr. Thomas to take a RAC vote on the support of RAC for the previously adopted position paper. Mr. Thomas declined to do so.
Mr. Lazarus then polled the RAC membership. Each of the agencies represented, with the exception of FEMA and their contractor, indicated that they supported the previously adopted position as rrodified by my Jur.e 4, 1987 letter.
Mr. Thomas stated that the contractor (ANL) would provide some alterna-q tive wording propotals to the RAC merrbership for both the position paper V and the FCM pre-filed position. He said the RAC would then hcVe another opportunity to comment on them and reconvene for resolution of the beach issue. The freeting was then ended.
- 10. On M gust 12, 1987, at a meeting in Concord, NH, I asked the ANL contractor about the proposed wording changes which Mr. Thomas had directed the contractor to prepare. The contractor stated that those changes were prepared and sent to FEMA:I on 8/7/87. As of this date (10/14/A7) those changes have not been forwarded to the RAC.
Robert J. Bores 10/13/87 Attachnents: As stated O
. N
~
' g'f '
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY John W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse
-(l.
j d
Boston, Massechusetts 02109 dMCtlp
,':4 INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM DATE: December 31. 1985 NUMBER: Rl-TH-85-28 MEMORANDUM FOR: Regional Assistance Cornmittee (RAC)
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Task Force (REP)
FROM: Edward A. Thomas, Division Chief
' Natural & Technological Hazards '
SUBJECT:
Seabrook Emergency Plans -
We have all known for years that the state and local plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant must include special attention to several factors which are unique (at least in magnitude) to the Seabrook area. By now, all of you should have received i
the formal submittal from the State of New Hampshire of the off-site emer-gency plans for Seabrook. As we indicated in the transmittal memo, portions g of the plan have not yet been developed and, therefore, were not included in
() the package sent to you. Therefore, some of the special, quasi-unique factors which affect Seabrook, such as the impact of the road network on evacuation l
times, cannot be addressed by the RAC at this time. However, the state and local plans do indicate what steps the state proposes to take with respect to the vital area of sheltering and evacuating the beach population.
At the earliest possible time in the RAC review process, I propose that e I focus in on the beach population to determine if special technical assistan:e frcm the RAC may be needed to assist state and local governments refine their l plans to protect this group. It appears to us that when we discuss beach population, we are talking about two dif ferent groups: (a) the transient beach population, and (b), summer residents who inhabit unwinterized accom-modations on or near the beach A. The Transient Beach Population l
The transient beach population is that group who make day trips to the beaches near Seabrook by auto, bus, or other rneans of locomotion. This pop-ulation has no identified place of shelter other than any vehicle in which they may have arrived at the beach. The emergency plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire essentially indicate that this population will be i
protected in the event of an accident at Seabrook by closing the beaches at the earliest sign that a serious emergency is developing, and encouraging l
the transient beach population to leave the area. Those beachgoers who have n nearby shelter would be encouraged to seek the shelter or evacuate as con-U ditions at the plant dictated. The consulting firm of KLD Associates is in 1
- v. s the process of developing revised evacuation time estimates for all popula-I tion groups in the Seabrook EPZ. We do not now have an estimate for how long it wauld take to evacuate the beach population in an accident either when everyone else in the area was told to take shelter, or when the entire EPZ was ordered to evacuate, or any combination of evacuations in between these extremes. However, for the sake of discussion, we believe that it is reasonable to assume for the present that the beach population would be out in the open, or in vehicles close to the center of the EPZ for several hours after the earliest indication that an accident was in progress.
Issue Based on the RAC's knowledge of the accepted literature in the fields of accident sequences, source terms, and the health effects of radiation, is the current planning acceptable or nearly acceptable? Before you can answer, do you require more precise information on the times that the tran-sient beach population would be in the open, or in a vehicle? If we have advice for the state and local governments on this matter, I believe that we should make it known as soon as possible. if we need additional infor-mation to deal with the issue, we should let them know now.
B. _0ccupants of Unwinterized Accommodations A number of people associated with the Seabrook emergency plans process
- have suggested that special attention needed to be paid to occupants of the many unwinterized cottages, motel rooms, and camp grounds in the Seabrook EPZ. These people believe that the normal assumptions we make about the protective effects of sheltering are not valid for structures which are:
(a) not designed to resist air intrusion, and/or (b) which have a very small protective factor because of the slight mass of the structure.
Issue If the RAC believes that this is an issue which sould be covered in the emergency plans, we should raise it now to af ford the state / local governments time to quantify the problem and to plan to deal with it. Finally, if we have any other preliminary corrrnents on the emergency plans, we probably should l make them known to the state / local governments as soon as possible. We would be particularly interested in passing on any indication that you have as to whether the plans are in adequate shape for a full-scale exercise at the end ,
of February as is currently planned.
We request that you respond to this memorandum within fourteen days.
After the responses are in, we will call a meeting of the RAC to formulate a position on these matters.
HAPPY NEW YEARI O
l
l sci:LL * . D:S <'b ; /)
- }s op gp 78 ft oso yu / y
. **?pn'to.
.g UNITED STATE 5 Nt/CLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION Gg ,,.(, g t WASHINGT oN, D. C. toms e
'j/ c7 0 ""* O ' U *
- Ers asy/ut,JhWC a...* ), [
cc: J. Allan J. Gutierrez R. Starostecki Spence W. Perry, Acting General B. Kane Counsel r Federal Emergency Management Agency g f0 0n Room 840 T. M n 500 C Street, S.W. ea Washington, D.C. 20472 6/24/86-TEM in the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, e_t al,.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL and 50-444 OL
Dear Mr. Perry:
In response to a request made by Edward Thomas of FDtA Region I, we have evaluated, in conjunction with Joseph Flynn of your office , an
' undated memorandum prepared by Thomas Dignan of Ropes and Gray on of the appUcants for the Seabrook nuclear plknt ("Dignan i
pv behalf Memorandum", a copy of which is attached Attachment A). Our evaluation is set forth in the following discussion.gs The bignan Memorandum addresses what are described as "three misconcep-tion s" pertajning to offsite emergency planning for the Seabrook nuclear plant , and concludes that they are "false as matter of law" (~ignan _
1 Memorandum at 1). These purported "misconceptions" are as foUows:
A. That the plans must be shown to guarantee that no adverse effects on the public health and safety will occur no matter what kind of accident occurs at Seabrook. ,
B. That it must be demonstrated that the plans wiD assure that au persons located in the Emergency Planning Zone or some certain portion of it can be evacuated in some certain time.
l l - In particular, there have been assertions that the I plans must assure the sheltering or evacuation of persons from the beaches in approximately 1/2 hour.
O I should be noted, however, that under the Commission's regulations, lt 10 CFR I 50.3, only written regulatory interpretations provided by the General Counsel will be recognized as binding upon the Commission.
1
l . . . .s .
l l e
- Epence Pecry. Esq.
O 4. Accidents involvin g early releases are within the Commission's ' emergency planning basis, however, the regulations do not specify a time within which the recommended protec.tive actions are to be completed.
Sincerely, Edward S. Christenb6ry Director and Chief Hearing Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Taylor E. Jordan T. Alurley e
l;& s N a #<
eA aug,,,$ta DL l
l l
i l0 l
l
[
/
,, . AGld3 I Federal Emergency Management Agency '.
v 1
- k. ;
Region I J.W. McCormack Post Omce and Court House
/ k)l ~
,{} ' '. . Boston, Massachusetts 02109 July 9,1986 i
Mr. Pobert J. Boulay
~ State Dnergency Management Director Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency c ard Office of Dr.ergency Preparedness Fi P.O. Box 1496 5 400 Worcester Foad .
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 c:3 w.
Dear Mr. Boulay:
- n Last January, pu reamsted that IT.".A conment on a menorardem prepared tm6 Th:: .as Dignan, Counsel for the New Ha. pshire Yankee Division of the PublT Service Cc:pany of New Sc:pshire. A ccpy of that memorardum is enclosed.
The enclosed letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Ccr:nission analyzing the Dignan mero was developed in close coordination with IIMA ard represents
( the combined views of both NPC ard FD4A.
Please call if
(}
k Weyou apologize for the chlay in respardirg to your re;mst.
have questions.
l l
Sincerel , f i
C t Dhard A. Thccas l Chief Natural ard Tedinological Bazards Division F.nclosures cc: Richard Strar.e .
Terry Harpster E. $ 0 l
l Du a
w 0 -
/.rc=4.1, v
W MM"m* e
. ru -- -
. * ~' ' * % .
/ (Of ~' Federal Emergency Management Agency ,' l
- ,1 1 " '
Washington, D.C. 20472
'o b'-
AWf
..ny I 5 19c5 HEMORANDUM FOR: Edward A. Themas,-Chief ,
Natu I and T chnological Hazards Olvistan
. = on I ,
FRCH: ,.n H. ;
Acting Gene I Counsel
SUBJECT:
Offsite Emergency Planning at Seabrook Station InycurmeErandumofJanuary 23, 1986 to Joseon Flynn, you cccmunicated the request of Robert Boulay, Civil Ocfense Of rector for the Coc.onwealth of Massachusetts, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and comment upon a' memorandum of law prepare by Themas Olgnan, Counsel for Public Service Company of New
'(
- Hamoshire. In his memorandum, Mr -Olgnan addressed what he considered to be O t a r = ' s c ca c '= oa ' 'e c"
- o"' ' t ' '=' r i'"cr ' ac"' ' a ' * "" ' "S '
- r' ' * *'s to the Seabrock Station.
I recently received a letter frcm Et ard Christer. ury, Dir6ctor and Chief i! earing Counsel, Office of the Executive i.egal Of recto' (CELD) of NRC, which respcnds to your request. A ccpy of that letter is attached. The legal discussion in that letter reflects the combined views of our respective offices. ? concur in Mr. Christenbury's analysis of the Olgnan memorandum.
Attachment '
'M G H.L H .
Ib " "2 "
l
~
~..
} _ __ _
& 5
/*\
~
January to. 1997
! MEMORANDUM FOR: E: ars A. Thomas, Chatrean, Regional l Assistance Cossittee (RAC), FEMA Region 1 FROM: Wtiltam J. Lazarus, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Sectton, NRC Region !
SUBJECT:
ASS!3NMENT OF NRC RAC MEMBERS FOR SITES IN FEMA REGION !
l I Effective insediately, the following persons are assigned NRC RAC review responsibilities for nuclear power plants located within FEMA R6gion 1:
i Seabrook Mr. Robert Sores FTS 488-1213 or (215) 337-5213 All other sites Mr. John Schuracher FTS 488-1342 or (215) 337-5342 If you have any questions, or are at any t1ee unable to contact either Mr.
Bores or Mr. Schumacher, please feel free to contact se at FTS 488-1208 or (215) 337-5208.
O V
W: ru Eeergency Preparedness Section NRC Region 1 DCC:
T . .".a r t i n R. Bellary ,
R. Bores J. Schur.acher E. Fox P. Lohaus E. Jordan
- 5. Schwartz E. Podolak
/^N U
At1D 6 .
3 Federal Emergency Management Agency
, Region I J.W. McCormack Post Office and Coun House O . '. B st n, Massachusetti O2109 Janua ry 27, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: State Emergency Management Directors Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Task Force (REP) 0 FROM:
Edward A. Thomas #
' RAC Chairman
SUBJECT:
Assignment of NRC C Members Attached please find an updated Regional Assistance Comitte (RAC) listing. We have been advised by the NRC the following persons are assigned NRC RAC review responsibilities for nuclear power plants located within FEMA Region 1.
Seabrook Dr. Robert Bores FTS: 488-1213 or (215) 337-5213 All Other Sites Mr. John Schumacher FTS: 488-1342 or (215) 337-5342 If you have questions, please call Betty Dionne - FTS: 223-9562 Attachment e
1 l
I l
l O
Janua ry 27, 1987 FEMA REGION 1 Regional Assistance Committee Members Committee Member
- Supervisor / Director Mr. Paul Lutz Rear Admiral Robert Joharison Regional Emergency Transportation Rep Comander Capt. John Foster Williams Coast Guard Bldg. 1st Coast Guard District 408 Atlantic Ave. Capt. J.F. Williams Coast Guard Bldg.
Boston, MA. 02210-2209 408 Atlantic Ave.
FTS: 8-223-8451 Boston, MA 02210 COMM: 617/223-8451 24 HR: 617/223-8555 Coast Guard Outy Officer Mr. Byron Xeene Mr. Louis Gitto, Director U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Management Division 2312 JFK Federal Building U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Boston, MA 02203 (23rd Floor) 2203 JFK Federal Building FTS: 8-835-3234 Boston, MA 02203 COMM: 617/565-3234 Mr. Warren Churen Mr. David Field Regional Radiological Health Representative Director U.S. Food & Drug Administratien State Programs Branch 585 Comercial St. 585 Comercial St.
Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02109 FTS: 8-835-4718 Q COMM: 617/565-4718 John Stepp Mr. Edward J. Montminy U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services Regional Health Administrator Public Health Service Representative Public Health Division 1401 JFK Federal Bldg. (14th Floor) 1401 JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203 Soston, MA 02203 FTS: 8-835-1469 COMM: 617/565-1469 Jophn Schumacher Thomas Murley Nuclear Regulatory Comission Regional Administrator Region I '
Nuclear Regulatory Comission 631 Park Ave. 631 Park Ave.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 King of Prussia, PA 19406 FTS: 488-1342 24 HR: 215/337-5000 COMM: (215) 337-5342 Robert Bores (Seabrook) Thomas Murley Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Administrator 631 Park Ave. Nuclear Regulatory Commission King of Prussia, PA 19406 631 Park Ave.
FTS: 8-488-1213 FAX: 4B8-1135 (50 seconds) King of Prussia, PA 19406 488-1323 (Verification)
FTS: 8/488-1000 COMM: 215/337-5213 l
l l*
[ .
Committee Member, Supervisor / Director (Dorothy Nevitt/ Bob Conley/Cheryl Malina/ Mr. George E. Bickerton Anna Hart) Director Office of Emergency Planning Office of Emergency Planning USDA - FSIS-PP USDA - FSIS-PP 14th & Independence Ave., S.W. 14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
Room 2940 - South Bldg. Room 2940 - South Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20250 Washington, D.C. 20250 FTS: 8/475-3683 FTS: 8/447-2791 FAX: 8/447-2682 l USDA Washington Contact for REP l (USDA Plum Island, NY I
Contact:
R.T. Tornblom, Supvr. George E. Bickerton, Supvr/Dir.
! Safety Specialist Office of Emergency Planning Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Box 848) USDA - FSIS-PP Greenport, NY 11944 14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
FTS: 8-649-9204 Washington 0.C. 20250 24 Hr: 8-649-9248/9253) FTS: 8-475-3683 l
l l Mr. Herbert G. Fish
- U S. Department of Energy Ted Dobry l g Princeton Area Office Chief, Public Safety Section V P.0. Box 102 U.S. Dept. of Energy Princeton, NJ 08542 Office of Environment Tel
- FTS 8-340-3700 (3708) Routing Symbol EV 131 (Brookhaven: 8-666-3427) Washington, DC 20545 (NY Support Office 8-212-620-3608) FTS : 8-233-5434 (FAX: 8-340-2032) COM.M: 301-353-5434 (PREFERRED MAILING ADDRESS:
56 Mountainview Road Millburn, NJ 07041)
William P. Patterson Bruce Blanchard U.S. Department of the Interior Director Regional Environmental Office Office of Environmental Project 1500 Custom House Review 165 State St. Office of the Secretary Boston, MA 02109 Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 FTS: 223-5517 or 223-5104 COPJi: 202/343-3891 HOME: 617/527-4180 FTS: 343-3891 (See Other Side)
d Dept. of Commerce - NOAA/NWS Mr. Richard P. Augulis
() Mr. Stanley Wasserman Division Chief .
Director National Weather Service Meterological Services Division Eastern Region Headquarters NWS Eastern Region 585 Stewart Avenue 585 Stewart Avenue Garden City, NY 11530 Garden City, N.Y. 11530 COMti: 8-516/228-5401 i
i FTS: 8-649-5454 FTS: 8-649-5401 COMM: 8-516/228-5454 REP TASK FORCE Ken Horak - Public Relations - FEMA Don Connors - knerican Red Cross - FEMA Tom Baldwin - ANL Mr. Thomas E. Baldwin Argonne National Laboratory 277 Main St.
2nd Floor Port Washington, NY 11050 Comm: (516) 883-0030
() .
)
i i
a I
c l}
e
. L:i
() ' {i
/ nas UNITED STATES
- #*g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisst0N ,
j
[ EEQl0N I rn p 631 PARK AVENUE
$ KING OF PRUS$1 A, PtNNSYLVANI A 19404 FEB 181987 d [
Edward A. Thomas, Chainnan Regional Assistance Comittee Federal Emergency Management Agency John W. McConnack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02102
Dear Mr omas:
Reference:
Your remo of December 31, 1985 relative to the beach populations in the Seabrook area As requested, I am responding to your memo regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP relative to the protection of the beach population. My response is based on Revision 2 of the NH RERP; the RAC/ contractor coments on it, including the Seabrook Evacuation Time Study; the analyses of specific Seabrook Station features; and my professional knowledge and judgement related to emergency adequate contingent (preparedness. The bases on completion of my by of actions opinion that the plans New Hampshire are orRAC to resolve will be concerns) to protect the beach population (both the beach transient group and those who inhabit unwinterized accomodations) are provided in the Enclosure to this correspondence.
Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at FTS O 488-1213. I would be happy to reet with you and/or the RAC to discuss my response.
Robert Bores, Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ enc 1:
W. Lazarus, RI O
\
i 1
PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEACH POPULATIONS BACKGROUND The requirements for emergsncy preparedness stem from 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1) and (2), which state that except as provided in 10 CFR 50.47(d) (relative to licensing of a facility for operation up to 5% of rated power), no operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by the NRC that 'there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. The NRC will base its finding on a review of the FNA findings and detenninations as to whether state and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented and on the NRC assessment of The FEMA finding is primarily based on the review of the sta emergency plans.
in considering whether there is reasonable assurance that the pl implemented. Paragraph b of 10 CFR 50.47 requires that the onsite and offsite emergency respons(e) plans for nuclear power planning standards. reactors m NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" g wai, issued to provide a connon reference and guidance source for state and V local governments and licensees in the development of emergency response plans and preparedness for response to a radiological emergency and
. for FEMA, and preparedness. NRC and other federal agencies for use in the review of those plans The planning basis adopted by NRC and FEMA for emergency preparedness around nuclear power plants was taken from NUREG 0396/ EPA 520/1-78-016, "Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Evrgency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants". "The overall objective of the emergency response plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases, imediate life savings) for a spectrum of 6ccidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of the PAGs" (NUREG 0654).
NUREG 0396 intended it attempted to identify the boundarthat the planning basis range'from trivial of potential accident consequences, y timing parameters based on of releases, available and releaseknowledge charac-teristics (source term).
PAGs do not equate with loss of life or even a health hazard.It should be n The PAGs were intended'Tir use by protective action decision makers in arriving at a balance between radiation risk and that of taking a protective action in the absence of constraints to that action.
Enclosure
m y ~,,
y , .4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% REGION I
' , . ' P7 f 431 PARK AVENUE G' MIN 3 OF P AV5SI A. PENNSYLV ANI A 19:404
% . .Y. . g
- /A?,161987 g ,f Mr. Edward A. Thomas, Chairman Regional Assistance Conrnittee Federal Emergency Management Agency 442 John W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02109 6'
Dear ' . Thomas:
Reference:
R3C Coments on Transient Beach Population for Seabrook Station I have reviewed the individual RAC corrents distributed with your March 2, 1987 memorandam and provide the following general coments.
. There appear to be ne issues that have not been addressed in some detail. All issues raised appear to have been adequately addressed in subsequent revisions of the New Hampshire State and loce.1 plans.
. There appear to be adequate bases and infomation now available for RAC/ FEMA to make a finding or resolve the icsues kept open in this area.
t The scheduled meeting should provide the forum for any additional discussions O '" " '''' "^c" '"^ ' dd' '"' " ""d'"' ' "c'r"'-
l Sincerely, !
Robert . Bores Technical Assistant Division of Radiation safety '
and Safeguards cc: '
W. Lazarus, RI l
l O l
l
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY 9700 '"JTH CAss AVENUE, ARGO*NE, ILLINol$ 60439 TILEPHoNE 312/972-7643 0
/W?
April 14,1987 g[f7 Mr. Juk Dolan Fedaral Emergency Management Agency Room 462 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Boston, MA 02109
Dear Jack:
In response to Edward Thomas,3/2/87 memorandum, we have reviewed the RAC responses to Thomas 12/31/85 memorandum concerning the translent beach population and have the following comments:
- It appears that final resolution on t'he adequacy of planning for the beach population is dependent on the receipt and review of Information from the State of New Hampshire on the number of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation.
- Page 3 of enclosure to R. Bores'(NRC) letter dated 2/18/87. The comment that O.t element J.10.d has been lef t "open" by the RAC !s not consistent with the RAC review spreadsheets.
a Page 4 of enclosure to R. Bores' letter dated 2/18/87. The comment for
.pi-P[h element J.10 k that the RAC had "one additional recommendation" is not consistent with the RAC review spreadiheets, b b
- Page .4 of enclosure to R. Bores' letter dated 2/18/87. Item #4 Indicates that ...." resources have been provided .... for providing transportation for those k8'#) ( without vehicles ...." However, as indicated in comment #17 of the RAC review l
F A
'r/.p of the ETE, the estimates of persons requiring transit provided in the ETE represent only estimates of permanent residents who require transit and do not include the trans!cnt beach population.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
f* W Sincerely, f C& ,/w Robert E. Rospenda Snergy and Environmental Systems Div! sloe RER:may p cc E. Thomas (FEM A-Region I) v M. Lawless (FEMA-HQ)
T. Baldwin (ANL)
K. Bertram (ANL)
M. Singh (ANL)
M 9
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
/8
,. 970o SOUTH CAss AVENVE, AA00NNE, ILLINol! 60439 TELEPHONE 312/972-7643 April 17,1987 Mr. Edward A. Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency Room 462 J.W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Boston, MA 02109
Dear Ed:
In accordance with your request after the RAC meeting in Boston 4-15-87,I have prepared draft revisions to the RAC review of the New Hampshire State and local plans for Seabrook. These draft revisions are enclosed and reflect the RAC's conclusion that the plans (Rev. 2) adequately treat the beach population 'ssue.
In order to expedite final review, and to clearly show where changes are being proposed, I have purposely lef t the changes in hand-written form on marked-up copies of the original pages. The proposed changes are shown on the following two enclosures:
Enclosure 1. Revisions to RAC review of State plan elements J.9 and J.10.m s (Section I, pages 64, 86 and 87); and local EPZ plan element J.9 (Section 11 page 17).
Enclosure 2. Addition to page 8 of enclosure to R. Bores letter dated 2-18-87.
(Note: Although the RAC had discussed several possible additional changes to the wording of Individual conclusions on page 10, it is my understanding that these t would not be made pending additional review by R. Bores.)
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Robert E. Rospenda Energy and Environmental Systems Division s ', f RER:mav Enclosures (1 and 2) cc: R. Bores (NRC)
M. Lawless (FEMA-HQ)
K. Bertram (ANL)
T. Baldwin (ANL)
U.S. DEPARTMENT or ENERGY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 1
^
. - r, l
O .
6 1 ,
f i
4 l
x S, l
, s(
4 l
>b >
l O
i -. - - . . . . _ _ . . - _ , - . . _ - - - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ , _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.-m di pl .
tt v'H4'l l'il N, }%[\
4 E $i w '
I k
+44 D ryya tr..
m w3 my"
- r y isi 1 i u pd4QD $
o ~ RA3*s / t }*
)2b l w are * $ Q
- I4 ! Pav da ,e P q st (
lif f h { 4 j k l
> ddit THN4 d 4
su
<6 n r t !'I a
ye n- * -ti!! qS as' tE
> kf4,e b) f*wh %*a : '
k S(
j$4 ,14 t *4 %% SINh(O N(
C{1Q**.t%43ji!$<) e l r, m _
f
'O D
- 1 i
s 1
i t
~
i l .
i
.I .
) . SECTION I i
1 I e Review of Revisions to the State of New Hampshire l Radiological Emergency Response Flen for Seabrook
-l (Rev. 2 - 8/86) .
I i e 1 .
I J
O d
i l
i .
i l .
i O
w . . . . .
e
- s 9 . @
e
' 4 f
- e'
t 3: V8 -
N
]) .
f o 1
] sjis 4 y
[~
(i "j Y n1 !!!!1 t
g 114 s 5 11a n'
40 h [~i- i 21 Igl AI jl h gi2*f']Ibj w! i_ '
V ]
i4 Ilj5' ,il:l I 24f2 ~
8 3 -
'gil'.
Ii l
ti W -
]s ils p:hi in -
O r I }'I 1 ,;lnl IU{'I hi
! j. 1'1 y ;
'3
~
1'l!g!!]!gj!syl}!
Li 2il!!
I a .T l13 W l s E.
. . , . n o -, , .
n '
J
_l
. .iw .i=r.u l,s iI_E* '
'llitstG
'['yillt 8 I L\ I il' O =1 -
. I;rbla I
!8 3 1 '
il
- jjij.1 -
!!$ } -
f $]!bgi]jl 11 f 51~3 1 1
!g" 5
=
{ th}g,.
82 !! Q{4 3 e
1)
- a 8 pl . ,3
-El l!Lj!I a}ili3
. : .: l Jtimatis I i a
n) .,~.r , _
(v) .seWPy inn = 2" i l sdi
~ 8. i : [
Ii i: Ei 12D'1 1 ti siilm i:) ~i 3
! a ,j, : 5151 31;11 2- ;
j l ni n i 2 ,.5 i
3 2
i.Imi 1j =i.!3 1 1'f n.! li i u J 3': s.i l'"!! 11 i !
O y j c =y ",g-
~ gm aj p- 111 0 jj!!j e!"
si. t.;11:i i 1,tili i 212 siit:1 a 2 t 1 .* *8 12 e-9iM TI.NI k H H
. n .. .. .. . . - - - . - - - - .
e g ,g T . --
1 ].I,,"-
]l8 . ...
g . . -
o i
[q_. p-
- n. y%
% l
.I s s
. } '
k %*
!*5 !):. !l E P .
, t
'A
- . { /Hk1 'y'Ili 5g -
}5 .
5 i As e
t
. } .
1 y
- le. .. .
. n..t<m i=rm n 15 Ic:e 4 .
e O- wIa :
a J
- i : =
EE3 [ i sxt , i aE8 . t ]
E.t j ,
1 2
a vI5
- si 9a 1 -
I a
w .iem .x I m .irun i
(l i -! l 81$ 3 I -
- :i 3.-. :: :I!!!!4 -
2 'j ! !'*
-1.2'I3i - .j I! 2 - . : 1 - i s.
=.
g : 3 2 sig it.
i 1:: i - 2 O j -
],1,
- j.8!i1:]. 1 1 y
, j a 3 ti 5."
. _ _s .
-::{
- e:34
~
c.. . 1.:! 2 ,: .:. .r i s*== u $- I
- = :
.5 3,y 2 q==m-- - - - - : -
= . - -
- =-
g
}5fh -
Na - --
O i n'-
a1. nAM -
1= m m.t a.u n .
j j hi j, s )[
jt 8 ;ui s e 8 12 5 g R
- 8 y 7 I! g ~(q g n a 1 .
3 s ua lu.o- .
1.:
! u p l- '
I ei@,anP
.l ..
. , ,i .,.-r.~
o, - > > .
w
- a g
, t8 -
, a P!3 g
2 PI Pl: 87 jl88il) If I!!!i!!jji"U g"3 i ii,i'i?!'8{i!:]jj{=i]11111!i8211 O_ e1.2 .! d}31182fl[12i111)(!'n u al=
o> i 81 s
l-q i_p;)ll 'ir[i 13 i
!'<ti'1 .1 :
j l i 1,i an,~;3
,ll}
3 '
8 5 : lii!!: l ill 3
5
!! g'{g_7l 'j ! b ,4_li 3ji,f l,j! (i!d]Iijig.1;Il pi
[ d . i 43 r. , . i. > n. ie,it
!!!<1{w1 'Lij i I nu.1a .
a- s,pI1 :
81 b 2
-j 8 -23 8- = tin4 .
i ss 11 j[lj .'r}i ]it!,jIpi;jrii !' a
- - 8
+M;3}
3811 2
- e. . !!!
13 El l }!!1iin
!=illjis. <<!!alli"I
!ls _
I 111;il111,":,'/ulll!lli.l..l}lilielill!jat'j 111 !"
i i
- _dii!=
a s l . .(v)
. , .~, M. py
- rlliniv n
e 5121 1- .s 1, - } . * , l
- 2 ini 1 ir.. j $ $ !!-!
.i.n .
5 1 .u..pi: t O 3 Dil i :si_i i
- I dia!!!!!!i.
l s
""'.H.. $t3. . .
l -
. . 1 O O . .
O :
i a
I l ,
i . t 5
- L l
c I . $
t +
, 7 u
.l*! l 4
4 1
SECTION E I
't t Review of Rer!sions to the Munleipal(EPZ Communities) !
Radiolegleel En...aj Response Plans for seenweear -
(Rev. 2 - e/es) l !
! . . t I
i i
I e 4
i e *
- i ;
i f- g! j 1.L 6 .
- i. . '
I I, 0 4 !
i e !
- t 1 .
I s .
4 i I
[
i j - - - -
i 5
- - - . - - . . - - - , - - - , - - - ,- -,---- - n,----.- ,. , - . . - , . . , .n,.. ,. - -., ,. , , . . . -
. . , ~ _ - . - , , , + . . . - - - . . - - . . + - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
ol ml
.n
.s t s y- ----
- 4
~
l J ;
o i p. gT
,l3h. m 5 < i i
w ~
k, 9
sjjjf!j ' I g *~
f was I 1 t
a h[. ni 1 l
[f}>
ifp, :i' 38 3 ljlI 3
i e J J, J E
- l2;33 ,
. ' I:
l se r1 1 3
g 4 2 jasi! 'UI'!I $5 1 .i: )**
111 sBe 0
s ].1d,I .
j1{1 i,
f gi 4 i
3 1
d lai_'l ,
. 4,ihai i i 1 0 .lu
'- y r d'
'I;I ..n. f. .l j!, V e .i % r.t<
i >. r=. u3 n p%=ia l5 Ifn li E :3 lil )L a -
I' Ill'T i !111 i) b
.o
!.3 .! Iqs <?ti??
.<eg ge
.i l e:s 1
3 I r 3
i 3
siet ee s]i l
l y E .1 jj'j}jj "W} 5- }j-] "
- i;
tE- , as, l( if, .: 1 - 1 1 .:e set Ef *
'O figii "33 I I 1
5 vl i ,=>i{, ;iikikitikik r e .e .e .e .6 .e , 31 li
-i. ! !! i' i fifffifffi
-:-::-c = w !ia tsi
- i.3;i!, :n.a u n
1eliliti.;.iii ebli ' m .3 % ,..: _ ,
. m .im.n :
I l I
- !.*!i1J22 .i... .i ti!!
- i. 1' i*i l il 2 Y. 1*
i.it il-j 1 25!'I. ! l j ll,]:g'll ..ri,:
?:'I' 2 '
1
- Is512 je o pIpgi;l i j:iI,',
I gIgg2:.iss,, t i p:=:2 c.i s s i111 : 1g1.!!! 4
e l e 4 v . ; I e sse , UNittD 8tATil _
, .k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisS10N ;
i-1 . . . ,,', L ENdd/t)/tE 2 ' g <'
/j ..........,s...........
w 1stw , Ec=ard A. Thoras Chatrran Regional Assistance cornittet Federal Emergency Managerent Agency John W. McCorrack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02102
Dear Mr oras:
Reference:
Your rerno of Decer.ber 31,198$ relathe to the beach populations in the Seabrook area As requested. I am responding to your r4r4 regarding the adequacy of the New ; Harpshire RERP relative to the protection of the beach population. My response is based on Revision 2 of the NH RERP; the RAC/ contractor corrents on it, including the Seabrook Evacuation Time Study; the analyses of specific Seabrook Station features; and ry professional knowledge and judgerent related to er.ergency The bases of ry opinion that the plans are or will be ader;uate(preparedness. contingent on corpletion of actions by New Hampshire to resolve R , concerns) to protect the beach population (both the beach transient group and O those who inhabit unwinterized accorrodations) are provided in the Enclosure to this correspondence. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at FTS 488 1213. I would be happy to reet with you and/or the RAC to discuss ry response. m ! Robert Bores, Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety 3 and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As Stated .' CC w/ encl W. Lazarus, R1 O I l
.. O AM.
o O -
.. S 7fe. pg.y jp.yye ow// 2/Jo d'/vft 4 JbHY /*!w ,
p/me gyer lff. wr$ re ohev/r/d 6 Al& w/, pu/hn *{ lt is also noted that when large, seasonal beach crowds are likely to be present (on hot and sunny days), the typical wind pattern is from the offshore, I cooler surface to the onshore, wariner surfaces of the land rasses. Tpis evans ) s"i that any "sea breezes' wculd likely prevent the plume free traveling' to the j 1 nearby beach areas when the beaches are ecst heavily populated.p 015CUS$10N a// roe / The foregoing discussions have indicated that th'e current NH plans r4et or will reet the criteria of NUREG C654 in a generic sense. Specific and detailed procedures have been provided to assure early notification and evacuation of the beach population can be effected should the plant status appear to be threatening. The review of these plans and procedures do not indicate the presence of concerns or situations involving the beach populations which warrant unique solution or provisions beyond those already incorporated. The beaches therselves are nearly two kiles from the station at their closest approach. This distance provides for dispersion and dilution of the plume as
. well as additional plure travel tire for a plure to reach the beach area from the site. Additionally, because of the sea breeze situations norrally O associated with sea coast areas, the wind direction will be normally on shore, i.e., toward the plant, rather than off shore from the plant to the shore) during hot, sunny days when the beaches are likely to be rest populated.
The analyzed severe accident scenarios (core relt with early centainment failure) indicate that the rajor portion of the dose to the affected population from such an event is due to esposure to deposited radioactive raterials on the ground surfaces rather than from the passing plume. The rist/ consequence codes generally used (CRAC rnedels or MACCS) all assure that the population is exposed to this ground deposition for 24 hours af ter the arrival of the first portion of the plume and to any addittoral plumes over that area. In other words, the codes assue.e that no protective actions are implerented for 24. hours af ter the release reaches thThesch (or other areas of interest). In view of the NH plans for beach closure and access control as early as the Alert classification; the dited "negligible probability of proept containment failure" at Seabrook and icw consequence / low probability of serious containment bypass sequences; the plume travel tire to the beach areas and the relatively short (2 to 4 hours) tire esticated to clear the beaches, it appears that risks , to the beach population are a sr411 fraction of the cited risis in NUREG 0396 for this distance. Thus, even if there were a prorpt, severe, contaminating release and a portion of the beach population were caught in or under the plume for two hours during the evacuation process, their exposure to deposited radioactivity would only be approximately 2/24 or less than one. tenth of the code assured dose. In addition. they would be avoiding any additional exposure to the plume (s) af ter leaving this area. O
,v - , - - - m ,
- 4: s tro
+ jeg
- UNITED STATES g, o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
f REGION I
$31 PARK AVENUE
%, ,d KING OF PRU$$lA, PENN$YLVANIA 19406 APR!4 1997 Mr. Edward A. Thomas, Chainnan hite O Regional Assistance Connittee Federal Emergency Management Agency 442 John W. McCormack Post Office & Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Dear Thcmas:
Reference:
Corrents Related to RAC Meeting on Beach Issues On April 22 and 23,190?. I had telephone discussions with Jack Dolan of your staff regarding some clarifications. Bob Rospenda of ANL is providing some changes as discussed on April 22, 1987. Below is a suggested addition as discussed with Jack Dolan on April 23, 1987, which may help in understanding the tenninology related to risks. The following sentence should be inserted on p. 7 of the enclosure to my February 18, 1987 tremo on this subject, at the end of the second paragraph, following "Using the RSS assumptions, the New Hampshire Yankee and BNL studies indicated that a severe accident at Seabrook Station posed a public health risk at about two miles from the station that was essentially the same O- magnitude as considered in NUREG 0396 at 10 miles from a nuclear plant." Add:
"That is, since public health risk is inversely related to public safety, the level of safety for a person living two miles from Seabrook Station is essentially the same as the level of safety considered in NUREG 0396 for a person living 10 miles from a nuclear plant."
l Should you have any questions, please contact me at FTS 488-1213. l ., l ',?,{ p 3: Robert . Bores Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards l t t CC: W. Lazarus, RI R. Rospenda, ANL O 1
~
7, my-ev ev TTd'ELRe mit tas Tet >c:312-sv2-vet,' .177 ee
.i l} Y l
O ENERGY AND' ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION i TELECOMMUNICATION MESSAGE D _ TotalPages: FROM: g na W 4x4 df (5/a)97M6B e k~ ff O n jg,,api g, , _ _ _, _ _ _ _ , , _ _ , gg -
. . .; ; . .e- -
.a.., .-. .: - - ~- -
uo If$ lY ' ~kf9 sikr7,! ' COMMEm: eG O . . e
,,m. - . . . -. -
M Y-07 '87 14:38 1 DIME MTL LAB
. .. - TEL NO:312-94-7819 N177 P02
,. Draf t 3/6/87
, {
O - REvinzD ro** or aA=> ton CONTENTION YUI TO REVISION I FEMA Response FEMA has addressed the Town of Hampton Revised Contention VIII and its basis of inadequate protective actions for the beach population by applying Planning
- 8tandard J (Evaluation Criterla J.9, J.10.a, J.10.g and J.10.m)in FEMA-REP 1.
The December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State and municipal plans, the amended portions of the RAC review dated , and the RAC position paper on the beach population issue transmitted to the 8 tate of New Hampshire dated __ refleet FEMA's views on this !ssue. Speettically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire 81ste plan on this lasus an pmvided on pages 84,74, 88,87,88, and 91 of Section I. FEMA's review comments on the municipaJ plans on this O i u *r eravid a aa a*< 27 at 5 atiaa 12 rn"^' ravi+ ==== ata aa th =< e# tiaa Time Estimate (ETE) on this issue are pro Ided on page 4 of Seation VI.
": . m: .:.n :,,: r: !dp 3 FEMA.nlled upon,w..n the following:; udocuments. In;. f.ormlag its conclusions on this .
.---.~<c 525 3 -
,v
, : o s-r tasue Revision I to the Hampton plang Rev!alon I to the New Hampshire State plan; and
- the Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Town of Hampton Revised Contention Vill dated March 16,1987.
i As Indicated in the December 15, 1986 RAC nyiew (page 44, Section I), determination of the adequacy of protective responses for the beach population remained open pending final review by the RAC of planned protective meuuns, and pending l receipt of Information from the state on the number of transtents who would need transportation during an evacuation. The RAC has recently concluded (see RAC poeltlon I paper dated ) that the beach population can be appropelately protected by implementing provisions of the current (Rev. 2) New Hampdttre emergency plans and O that there appears to be no unique problem nlative to the beach population that has not been adequately addressed. I i l L . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
NY-07 '87 14:39 ID:(R30PfE mTL LCLB TEL NJ:312-pM19 ugn m
.. . Of ampta Vill) Dratt l/6/87 O rhe boa for the RAC s ooneiu. ion on the heech population i. sue are ,covid.d in the position paper transmitted from FEMA to the State of New Hampsh!re on May _,,
1987. Work on th!s poeltlen paper was initiated by a 12 31 85 memorandum from the RAC Chairman to the RAC members requesting tholt review and comments on the
~
adequacy of plans for protecting the beach population (i.e., the translent beach
~
population, and summer residents who !nhabit unwinterised sesommodations on or near the beach), and the possible need for special protective actions to protect the beach population. Weltten comments in response to the memorandam were received by the RAC Chairman during 1986 and 1987. A special meeting of the RAC wu convened in April 1987 to review all comments and, if possible, to arrive at a unified positio,n on whether the plans were adequate or inadequate to protect the beach population. On the basis of this review. the RAC resolvec tnat, contlngent un L1= vvmyl.t!4a af astion by tne state to resolve tii vtlin RAO 4encerna with the Now Harnpohfre enti ineAl plana.
._..u..a..;... . I lll ll l
. , m1!- - - %1L illusians inst tha.hnanh lM Igln[grlyd. 7 f I I - . Julitliel mill be ntninattli IM?thil thf1f OldM glll IHlQlMy mget the . .. . ..-
. .tl..f.. ..P I!UnDQ 00C t and na latnnt nf thakF rerulatinntln thh Arts, y Tne Iouowing coussuvrauvue e c. . . . . . . . . . . , . ..... _...II, I ll uvuvlualuu 4 1&tiva is the beuuli yvpulatlon?
l - .. Il l .I ll Ili Elli HilRF lllll Qlllllll l generleally i
- Special provistons for beach populations in place
- No identlfled problems requiring un!que or unaddromed solutions
- Provisions for early warning of beach populations
- Adequate transportation resources available for those needing l
O *
- ii ~ it -
i
, _ y _ , - _ _ _ . . _ . , .. ..__m _ . . _ ..my.,..,__..,,m , , , , , , , _ _ , _,
t%Y-07 ' 87 14 : 40 1D Fi] tee tMTL LAB TEL to: 312-972-7819- n171 PO4
- . Otampton VUI) Draft 5/4/87 ,;
O e senehas a,e nea,2y two miiss f,om station arfordin, deiay in ,iume arrival and d!!utton and disperston of plume
- 8ea breenes would tend to keep plume from traveling directly toward beach when beaches are moet populated
~
e ETEs for beaches are relatively small 7 Containment at Seabrook is very strong; probabulty of prompt contalnment failure is negilgible e Containment bypass is unlikely to cause severe offsite problems
- Bite spectfle studles for Seabrook Indicate risks at two m!!as are
,_ comparable to NUREO 0398 ans.lyzed risks at 10 miles e ' Reasonable assurance" does not equate with "absolute safety,"i.e.,
guarantee of no erposures or exposures above the FAQs. The above are described In further detallin the RAC poeltlon paper transmitted to the State of New Hamp:htte on May s 1987.
- Although the RAC has feaobed p-concludon.or; the beach.populatiotinuerthe.n v
- -
RAC still awalta rece!pt of Information from the State of New Hampshire on the number ' of translents who would need transportation during an evacuation. The State Plan (ETE, Volume 8, Table 11-6) presently provides estimates of permanent residents who would ! require transportatlon, but does not include estimates for translents requiring ( l transportation (RAC revlow, Beotion VI, comment 17, page 4). Although the number of translents without transportation is expeeted to be small and well within the availablz transportation resources (RAC review, Beetion I, page 74) Identitled in the plan, this i information has not yet been provided to FEMA. Because of the potentially large seasonal beach population, special precautionary protective settons for the beach population have been established by the State of New O n ,. wire (New Nameehire rian, NNCoA rrocedures, A,9endia 1-), inetudine ea>>r precautionary evacuation. The use of public buildings for sheltering of translents without l_ - . _. - __ . _ - _ - . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . . - _ . . .. .
^
N Y-07 '87 14:41 IDimGCriE FMTL LAB TEL PO:312-972-7919 N177 P05
,. . (Hacpton Vill) Draft 8/8/87 (
O i,ansportation mar be impiemented on an ad soc basis carc review, ciion i, page 64). As Indicated in the RAC position paper on the beach pgulation lasue, provisions have been made in the plans to consider closing the beaches or restricting publ!c acessa
~
to the beach at the Alert emergency cleastfloation. At th!s classification level, no l offette action would be ordinully warranted to3rotact the pub!!c, but its consideration C)cto6k or pwset oNthe n/ sve(& we61 JVQ l bere woulo provide additional time to clear thepach, just In case the situation X worsens. Even at the Site Area Emergency classification, one would ordinarily expect that offsite protective actions would not_ be necessary to protect the public. As noted in the State plan (page 2.1-13) precautionary protective actions for the beach population will be considered during the period of heavlest beach use, from May 18 through September 15. Detalls on the early precautionary proteethe actions for the beach population, including precautionary evacuation, are provided in the State plan procedures O (NHCDA Procedures, Append!x F). . . The use of -early precautionary protective actions such as beach closing.and..:== r. evacuation are not the sole meana for protection of the beach population. The beach d -' i population is, in effect, also protected by the unusually strong containment system at the Seabrook Station. As Indleated in the RAC position paper on the beach population issue, [ Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) reviewed analyses performed by the Applicant and performed additional analyses of the systems and features of Seabrook Station. BNL eoncluded that (t)here is negligible probability of prompt containment fallure (at ( 8eabrook). Fallure during the first few hours after core melt is also unlikely and the timing of overpressure failure (of containment)is very long compared to the R88. Most 1 eore melt accidents would be effectively mitigated by containment spray operation. ) ) BNL revlews of containment bypass accident scenarios also ind!cated that s!gnificant v r- ; O i. from uea ...io at r 1> not tik ir in ta fir't *our. ri r a accident. e , _... ._-. - . ~ . . . _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . - -
tih-07 '87 14: 1 1WMCti4 tkTL LAB TEL to: 312-972-7619 88177 P06 (Hacpton Vill) Draft 8/8/87
'"'^^
O "'"'""*"'''""""'"'""'**'ht plans for beach closure and acesas control as early as the Alerl classification, the cited - Segligible probability of prompt contsinment fallure" at Seabrook and low consequence / low probability of serious containment bypus negaences, the plume travel l time to the beach areas and the relatively short (2 to 4 hours) time estimated to clear the beaches, it appears that risks to the beach population are a small fraction of the elsed sistis in Milfiff' A108 fas illn dintonnn Thlin nirnn if ihnso Enna e nnnmnt seltena
- ll!lllll!Illll) 1111lll Ild l llIll11 ll 111 IIII) lllllllllll 18Ml llll3)l ll Alllnljil lhg plums fos tiso houm dusing tho ovaountlan omness. thals arposiira in dannelted radlonctivity would only be apprvaltngtelf 1/24 or less thaa one-tenth of the code AAAUm00 QQses in SQQltl0D tnty WQVlQ P9 SY9)QlDE Fly SQcitionaJ exposure to Ind plume (s) af ter leaving this area.
FEMA Response (Further Basts) O FEMA has addressed the Town of Hampton Rev! sed Contention Vill and its further basis of inadequat'e protective ntions for residentrof the:8enecast Realth ' Center by applying Plannirig 8tandards H and / (Eviluation Criteria H.4', H.11,'J.102,-' " J.10.g. J.10.m) in FEMA-REP-1. The December ll,1986 RAC review of the State and municipal plans reflects FEMA's v!ews on this lasue. Specifically, FEMA's rev!ew comments on the New < Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 87,74, and 18 of Section 1. FEMA's revlew comments on the munic! pal plans on this lasue are provided on page 19 of Beetion D. FEMA's review comments on the State Compensatory Plan on this laaue are provided on pages 8 and 8 of Beetton IV (Compensatory Plan subsection). FEMA relled on the following documents in forming its conclus!cna on this issue Revision 2 to the Hampton plaal Revision 1 to the New Hampsh!re State plan) and O sh AP9tie'nt'= xetioa for =====rv vi co'itioa at th' T a at n==9 ton a.vr>+4
; Contention Vill dated March 25,1887.
PMY-07 '87 14:42 IDimGCrf E mTL LAB TEL to:312- 72-7819 2177 P07
,. . Otampton ylti) Draf t s/s/s7 i O on the buis of sne a^c revie or aevistoa of the sat. aad =uaiciga1 9tan ,
FEMA hu not yet rece!ved sufficient Information to have uswance that the residents of the Seacout Health Center will be properly evacuated in a timely manner In the event of a radiolog! cal emergency if Hampton does not implement the emergency response plan.
~
81 nee Hampton hu ind!cated that it will not participate in the planning and response to an accident at the Seabrook Station, it la necessary to determine the State's ability to . implement compensatory meuures for the Town of Hampton and to, therefore, provide for evacuation for the residents of the Beacout Health Center. ne Hampton plan (page 11-30) Ir.dleates that in the event of the evacuation of special facilities (such u the Seneout Health Center), the Hampton Public Works Director will coordinate transportation services. However,if the Town of Hampton does not participate in the implementation of its response plan, the State will assume responsibility for coordinating the provlston of transportetton resources for the O evacuation of the residents of the Seacoast Health Center. De concept of operations for the State's compensatory meuures.ls provided in Appendiz O of the 5 tate Flan. As;,.a.. . indicated in this appendix and in the NiiCDA Procedures (Vohane 4.of Stata Plan), if a .... . , municipality is unable to respond to the en,ergency, an IFO !.ccal Llatoon will be ass! ped to coordinate the proylslon of transportation resources for erneuttlen. Although the RAC had no comments on the adequacy of this plan concept per se,'the RAC has questioned the adequacy of the numbers of Local Llatson persans to be ustped and the adequacy of available communications resources available to implement this upect of the compensatory plan. These items (NURZ0' elements H.4 and H.11, pages 4 and 5 of seetton IV RAC comments on Compensatory Plan) were left open by the RAC pending provlslon of additional supporting information by the State. Dis informatlon has not yet l been provided to FEMA. 9 ei2 t etiitie 92 a st =' 2v - (i - O a t tiv ta th the ta=>ua a l Appendir r of the muntelpal plans),6samidp' ;% rzwA concludes that the health x 1
m Y-07 '87 14:43 ID: ARGCitE mTL LAB TEL to: 312-972-?O19 N17? P90
,. . (Hampttn VIII) Draf t 5/6/87 1 care faellity speelal plans, including that for the 8eacoast Health Center, have been adequately revised and now contain adequtely detailed procedures for evacuation and relocation of patients (RAC review, Section I, page 87). Although there are still numerous incons!stencies in the plan in bus needs eettmates, aD estimates Ind!cate that overall the number of buses provided for in the letters of agreement are adequate and that additional transportation resources available from other organlaattons provide a large redundancy of resources (RAC revlaw, Beetion 1, page 74).
The bus boarding time of 10 minutes for residents of speelal faellitles la provided In the State Plan Evacuation Time Estimate study, page 11-11. The RAC had no l comment on this rey! sed estimated bus boarding time. In regard to sheltering residents of the Seacout Health Center, the State indicates that sheltering is the preferred protective setton. FEMA concludes that the i ! plans have been adequately revised to take into account the sheltering protection factors for speelal facilities, including the Seacout Health Center. A special tabulation of
~
speelfle protection fao' tors for each of the 'faellities,-Includng the Senecast ' Health- ' Center, is present in Table 1.6-3 of the State plan (RAC review,' 8ectled I, page 67). The"" ' " RAC revlew (Section I, page 88) Indicates that the flow diagram in the 8 tate plan (Fig. 2.6-7) now properly reflects the deelslon-making process for the sleetion between sheltering and evacuation, and that the treatment of Institutionall ed persons is now adequately detalled. O 1 l
_ -o t9Y-07 '87 14:44 IDI ARCOfE FATL LoS ' TEL to:312 cyrg-7sg9 at77 pg9
.. . bran 5+97 Q ,
SAPL CONTENTION 14 FEMA Rasponse FEMA has addressed SAPL Contention 18 and its basis that plans do not make adequate provlstons for the sheltering of various segments of the populace in the EPZ by applying Planning 8tandard J (Evaluatton Criterla J.9, J.10.a. J.10.d J 10.m) In FEMA- . REP-1. The December 15,1986 RAC revlaw of the State and local plans, the amended portlone of the RAC review dated . and the RAC position paper on the beach p
, opulation tasue transmitted to the State of New Hampshire dated refloot FEMA's views on th!s lasue. Speelfically, FEMA's revlaw comments on the New Hampsh!re State plan on this !ssue are provided on pages 84, 87, 87, 88, 89 and 91 of Beotion 1. FEMA's review comments on the muntelpal plans on th!s lasue are provided on page 17 of Section
^ ~
FEMA rolled on 't'he following '6ocuments in forming' its Welustone on' tSe - issuu Revision 2 io the New Hampshire State and local plar.aa and the Applicant's Motlo67* for Summary Dispoeltlen of SAPL Contention 18 dated March 25,1987. FEMA does not yet have all information to be provided by the state. As ladleated in the December .15,1986 RAC review (page 44, Section 0, determinatlon of the adequacy of proteettve responses for the beach populatico remained open pending final review by the RAC of planned protective meuures, rad pending receipt of information from the state on tha number of translents who would need transpomtlon during an evacuation. The RAC has recently concluded kee RAC position paper dated 1 that the beach population can be appropelately protected by implementing provistona of the current (Rev. 2) New Hampshire emergesey plans and that there appears to be no sn!que prob em relative to the beach popslation that has not been Q adequately addressed. The tg for the RAC's conclusion on the beach population tatue a
um ja r%Y-07 ' 87 g4 : 44 j p, g k D'312-9n-?e19 ($4 94. . jg k W o" 1 + t y T O are prov!ded in the position paper transmitted from FEMA to the State of New Hampshire on May ,1987. Detalls on how this positlon paper wu developed, and a discussion on the key cons!derations used by the RAC in arriving at its conclus!on are provided in the FEMA respofnse to Revised Town of Has[pton Contention Ylli. 4 Although the RAC has reached a conclusfon on the beach population Issue, the RAC still awatts recelpt of Information from the State of New Hampshire on the nuniber of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation. Although the number of translents without transportation is expected to be small, this Information has not yet been provided to FEMA. Th!s also app!!as to NUREG element J.10.m as Ind!cated by the RAC review comments on page 87 of RAC revlew Section !. State Plan Section 2.6.5 Indicates that New Hampshire rolles on two protective actions for limiting the direct exposure of the genera] pubtle within the Plume Exposure EP7.. These two protective actions are sheltering and evacuadon (State plan, page 2.4-4). The dactslon whether to shelter or evacuate la based on several varlables, including dose reduction factors due to sheltering'(State Plan, page 2.0 86 8theltering een apply- - to the permanent resident populationilostitut!oniilized persens,'an'dhnstants."' """ ' M-State Plan Section 2.6.5 (page 2.6 8) Indicates that New Hampshire employs the
' Shelter-in-Place" concept if sheltering is the chosen protective action. The plan indicates that "those at home are to shelter at home; those at work or school are to be sheltered in the workplace or school building"(State Plan page 2.8-4). As Indleated in the RAC review comments (Section I, page 64) on the 8 tate plan, the use of pubtle shelters is not proposed dur!ng a Seabrook Station emergency. The only exception is the poss!ble use of public buildings for shelters for translents without transportation.
Translents with transportatlon and 'wlthout access to an Intfoot location,"including those at beaches and at campgrounds, will be advised to evaeuste la their own vehicles. '!he use of public butidings for sheHering of transients withesut transportation is acceptable since the translents without transportatlon are expected to be a very small number. The 2,
f%Y-07 ' 87 14: 43 1D ARGCreE PATL LAB TEL to 312 cR2-7819 ' #177 P11 ($dn M) pnN TH7 plan (p. f.8 8) states that 'Pubtle bulldlgs may be set w and opened as shelters for
,O translents, on an ad boo basts".
Because of the potentially large seasonal beach population, special precautionary proteettve actions for the beach populat!on have been established by the State of New Hampshire (New Hampsh!re Plan, NHCDA Procedures, Append! F), including early precautionary evacuation. The use of public buildings for sheltering of transients without transportation may be implemented on an "ad hoc" buts (RAC review, Bection I, page 84). i As noted above, the use of public shelters le not proposed during a Seabrook f Station emergency. As noted in the State plan (/ age 2.1-13), precautionary protective g l A l action such as early closing and evacuatton of the beaches will be considered during the l period of heavlest beach use, from May 15 through September 15. The use of precautionary protective actions are not the sole means for protsetton of transients such
~
O vi itar to 6 eh.' aad =rerouaa n r r i ia tr+et at a erat l a or t*- unusually strong contalnment system at the Seabrook Station. This is desertbed in detall
~
in the RAC pos!tlon paper on the beach populat!cn lasue transmitted to the State on May .1987, and is also summarlzed in the FEMA response to Rey! sed Town of stampton contention vm. anvauuvu se a us vu lun vl m, u allelLt. y.vt.Lillt, .I y.w-yt containment f ailure at Weotwook. In ansnad in rhnitnsina sesidentt nf snanfel fanlliffat girh of hMallAlas Allmlbf 1,. w, ...J J.ll.,, (l Ot.t. l..J!..t. that ska!4 stag is the penf assed posteettiin matlan w m . , , ..., v . . . ., . ,. . o w.... .. - . J ., ,L. L . . L . L, t .1, . . . L .1 L . tare into account sna snettering protection factors for spes!.! f vt11tle. (RAC review, Em.tivu I, y.e. ef). A .y.vt.1 tat,Jatl6n af apaalfle pratsettan fastses feo each of the
. ni u .. v ...... m ..w.. ... . v. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . I i 1. . . Ill l 11 I il l II E Il . I 11 fil l IlliI (Fig. 3.6-7) now properly reflects the deelston maktng process for the election between
r%Y-07 '87 IDINGCrtE IMTL LAB TEL FCt 312-772-7819 mi p [ ppt.jp)14:46 Me?r h't? -
- aheltering and evacuation, and that the treatment of Instituttocallred ts now adequately O detailed.
The State Indicates that the tabulation of specific thehering peotection factors referenced above (Table 2.6-3 of State Plan) is only for special facilltles such as health
. eare facilities and Jalls for whlch independent determinations of appropetate protective actions are made during an emergency (see State response on page 91 of RAC rey!sw Section I). The State indicates that "other types of special factitles aveh as schools and day care centers will follow the protective action recommendations prescribed for the general population." The State continues that the
- protective setton recommendation process uttlltes conservative shelter!ng protection factors for general population decision-making." Section 2.8.5 of the State Plan now Includes a generle external sheltering factors table which shows the levels of protectlen that can be expected from various building types in the EPZ (Table 2.6 4, page 2.610 of the State Plan).
O . [ w e ir*!tt,'Y) II 4 't 'H f ; '
',e .
' y 3 i "g'g i '; .g g j i Ig' , , ,', ~ $ ; g*I O
t
ts-m '6. u t ae. I f,a *+Es s e im us . Yt6hF5-FifiF~ ~ ci rf Ph~-~ '-"" brW/ /*$4? ' AMENDED NECNP CONTENTION RERP-4 FEMA Response PEMA has addressed NECNP Contention RERP-8, and its buls that there le no
. reasonable assurance that sheltering is an adequate protective measure for all members of the public who may need it, by applying Planning 8tandard J (Evaluation Criteria J.9, J.10.a. J.10.d, J.10.m) 1n PEMA-REP-1.
The December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State plan, the amended porttons of the RAC rev!ew dated _ _ , and the RAC pesillen paper en the beach population issue transmitted to the 8 tate of New Hampsh!re with PEMA letter dated re-Ovvl M MA'~ *I-a. .. t),!J tsau t. Dy s tifically, I'Fil 6 fs eenlass es,viennta nn thn Unte Ti l' 01 ll 1111 II till 111111 Ill 11111llll lI Illlll ll II li ll ll lM l} Of Seotton I. O <==^ reliao aa 'a 'a>>a ia< aaau= at- >= > r - " - ""- lasue Revision,.2 to the New Hampshire. State plant and.the Applicant's Motion:for. ,_ . hiu m asil filesallt.lso af Nif nigfanifintinn If fist lilled Warnt11111$7... .. ._ 2.
. ; e, ,,
, ,.m a uv.. uv 6 3 6 . . . .u un v. = vi. iw v. v. v. lJ.J 1,, ,1. . t l.. L tli 1,.
l noted later In this reSMnu thla e mlutng informAtinD Conslits of the AUmbt? 9f %fth8ItDil l who would nood tsansportatinn dining en avannattnn l State Plan seetton 2.8.5 Indleates that New Hampshire rolles on two proteettve actions for limiting the direct exposure of the general public withlo the Plume Exposure EPZ. These two protective actions are sheltering and evneustion (8 tate Plan, page 3.5-4). The decision whether to shelter or evacuate is based on severs! variables, including dose reduction factors due to sheltering (State Plan, page 2.6-19). Sheltering aan apply to the permanent resident population, institutionallzed persons, and translents. State Plan section 1.4.$ (page 2.6 8) indicater that New Hampshire employs the Q "Shelter-in-Place" The plan concept if sheltering le the chosen proteellve action.
/-
r1AY-07 ' 87 14 : 47 ID ARGCreE tATL LAB TEL PC:312-972-7819 a177 pid
, (.NECN! =M*!'t Pr*H H+7 .,
i indicates that "those at home are to shelter at homes those at work or school are to be O sheltered in the workplace or school building" (State Plan page 2.6 8). As Indicated in , the RAC review comments (Section I, page 64) on the 8 tate plan, the use of pub!!c shelters is not proposed during a Beabrook Station emergency. The only exception la the
. possible use of public buildings for shelters for translents without transportation.
Transients with transportation and "without access to an Indoor location" will be advised to evacuate in the!r own vehicles. The use of public buildings for sheltering of trans! ants without transportation is acceptable since the transients without transportation are expected to be a very small number. The plan (p. 2.6 6) states that "Pub!!c buildings may be set up and opened u shelters for translents, on an ad hoc basts". As Indleated in the December 15, 1986 RAC review (page 64, Section 0, determination of the adequacy of protective responses for the bes:b population remalned open pend!r4 final review by the RAC cf planned protective measures, and pending I O receipt of Information from the state or, the number of treestents who would need transportation during an evacuation. The RAC has recently concluded that the beach . . population can be appropriately protected by implementing provislons.cf the current . .v. - (Rev. 2) New Hampshire emergency plans and that there appears to be no unique problem relative to the beach population that has not been adequately addressed. The bases for i the RAC's conclusion on the beach population tasue are provided in the pos!tton paper transmitted from FEMA to the State of New Hampshire on War _,1987. Detalls on how this position paper was developed, and a discussion on the key considerations used by the RAC in arriv!ng at its conclus!on are provided in the FEMA response to Revised Town of Hampton Contention Vill. Although the RAC has reached a concluston on the beach populationlasuh D b[e RAC still awalta recelpt of Information from the State of New Hampehlte on the number cf translants who would need transportation during an evacuation. Although the number of translents without transportation is expected to be small, th!# Information
~ _ _ -
m<-o7 sv 14:4 Tet naista-sta-vets 377 ntn
, . , - , [p(yh MtM)e loinnaec mit tas .brar9 >647
. tl C has not yet been provided to FEMA. This also applies to NUREO element J.10.m as indicated by the RAC revlew comments on page 87 of RAC revlew Section 7.
Because of the potentially large seasonal beach populatlen, special precautionary protective sections for the beach populat'en have been estabilded by the State of New Hampshire (New Hampshire Plan, N!!CDA Procedures, Appeadla F), including early precautionary evacuation. The use of public buildings for sheltering of translents without transportation may be implemented or an "ad hoe" basle (RAC review, Beetton 1, page 44). As noted above, the use of public shelters is not proposed aving a Beabrook Station emergency. As noted in the State plan (page 2.1-13), precautionary protective settons such as early closing and evacuation of the benches willbe cons!dered during the l period of heavlest beach use, from May 16 through September ll. The use cf ( l precautionary protective actions are not the sole means for proteetton of transtants such
~
as visitors to beaches and campgrounds. They are, in effect. also protected by the ' unusually strong contalnment system at the Seabrook Station. '!hls le desertbed in duell in the RAC poaltion paper on the beach population lasue transmitted to the State on May ,1987, and is also summerleed in the FEMA response to Revised Town of l Hampton Contention VI!!. Included !s a discussion of it.e riegligible probability of prompt contalnment fa!!ure at 5eabrook. In regard to sheltering entdents of speela! facilittee, the state Indleatet that i sheltertr4 ts the preferred proteettve action (State Plan pge 3.5 7). HMA concludes that the plans have been adequately revised to take into account the sh*Jtering proteetton factors for speelal fac!!!tles (RAC revlen, Settlon 1, page 87). A spoola? l tabulation of speelfic protection factors for each of the faellitles la present in Table 3.6-3 of the State plan (RAC review, Scotton I, page 87). The RAC review (Section I, pge ll) Ind! cates that th6 flow diagrv. In the State plan (71g. 3.0 7) now j l properly reflects the doulotwmakttw prvoems tur ttic elevtica tatwesa shelterlag and 3
,, , pfCMP-AndP=f) Y'N $'*$7 evacuation, and that the treatment of institutional! zed pensons Is now adequately O detailed. .
The State indicates that the tabulation of specific shattering proteetlon factors referenced above Crable 2.6-3 of State Plan) la only for specla) facilities such as health care facilities and Jalls for whleh independent determinations of appropriate protective actions are made during an emergency (see State response on page 91 of RAC review Section D. The State Indicates that "other types of special factiltles such as schools and day care centers will follow the protective action recommendatlons prescribed for the general population. The State contlnuts that the "protective action recommendation process utilizes conservative sheltering protection factors for general populat!on , decision-making." Section 2.6.5 of the State Plan now includes a generle external l l sheltering factors table which shows the levels of protection that can be expecttj from various building types in the EPZ (Table 2.6-4, page 2.8-10 of the State Plan). l l 1 l O l l l 9 9 8 O 4
g&* * * %
'I f, ,43 -
UNITED STATES 4 gj , . c ' ,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- l REGION l
$31 PARK AVENUE q % ,. . . . . ,o*g KING OF P AUS$1 A, PENNSYLVANIA 19406
[44 /^t' V . JUN 0 419g7 Edward A. Thomas, Chairman Regional Assistance Comittee Federal Emergency Management Agency John W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02102
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Reference:
RAC Cornents on Transient Beach Population for Seabrook Station Subsequent to our April 15, 1987 reeting of the Regional Assistance Committee on the above subject, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its HEHORANDUM AND ORDER on April 22, 1987 relative to tne Public Service Company of New Hampshire petition for a one-mile plume emergency planning zone. In that document, the Board concluded that the current studies provided by the applicant did not provide a Rrima facie showing to warrant the granting of the one-mile plume EPZ petition. The Board deliberately left open the possibility of granting the petition if convincing infomation'is subsequently provided. Even though the beach population issues differ substantially from the above litigation, because of it and because the NRC staff has not yet completed its review of all issues in the Seibrook and "BNL" studies I recorrend that the RAC not reference these studies or specific content * : our present consid-q v eration of the beach population issues. With that . "ind, I am proposing reviseo sections for *.he RAC report. These proposed revisions involve pages seven through ten. For your convenience, a clean, rewritten copy of the RAC position paper incorporating these revisions is enclosed. Should you have any questions concernin5 the above, please contact r.e at FTS 485-1213. I would be very happy to reet with yot, and/or the RAC to discuss my i response. Robert J. Bores A Technical Assistant Division of Radiation Safety l and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated bec w/ encl: l W. Russell J. Allan J. Gutierrez
]'- W. Kane W. Johnston T. Martin R. Bel. lamy R. 8 ores,
1 i O
>ROTECTioN or NEv sixPsa RE 8txCa roPutA11oxs
_BACXGROUND The requirenents for emergency preparedness stem from 10 CFR 50 (2), which state that except as provided in 10 CFR 50.47(d) (relative to licensing of a facility for operation up to Si of rated pcver), no oper license for a nuclear pcwer reactor will be issued unless a finding the NRC that 'there is reasonable assurance that adequate protec base its finding on a review of the FEMA Thefindings NRC will and whether state and local emergency plans are adequate and wtiether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implerented The emergencyFEMA plans. finding is prirarily based on the review of t . i ! in considering implecented. Paragraph whether b there is reasonable assurance that ! of 10 CFR 50.47 requires that the onsite and offsitestandards, planning erergency respons(e) plans for nuclear pcver react i NUREG 0654/FEFA-REP 1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of R Erergen:y Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Pcw was issued to provide a cornon reference and guidance source for state and O local governrents and If ansees in the developrent of etergency response plans and prepadness for response to a radiological emergency and for preparedness. and FEMA, NRC and other federal agencies for use in the review of those p nuclear pever plants was taken from NUREG 0396/ Basis for the Developeent of State and local Governcent Radiological E Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants". objective of the emergency response plans is to provide'The overall dose sayings (and in some cases, imediate life sayings) for a spectrw of accidents that could produce offsite doses in exces,$ of the PAGs" (NUREG 0654). it attempted to identify the boundarthat the planning basis range frce tri of potential accident consequences, y parareters based on available knowledge teristics (source ters). timing of releases, and release charac-PAGs do not equate with loss of life or even a health hazard.It should intendedT6r use by protective action decision rakersThe inPAGs were arriving at a balance between radiation constraints to that action. risk and that of taking a protective action in the absence o Uh O c,qu 41 ""} D y p ec"9.Agg Eaciosure
AW 11 " O LNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIXIORY COMMISSICN BEORE ' DIE A'IOMIC SAFETI AND LICD1 SING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
Public Service Co. of New Hanpshire, ) Docket No. 50-443-OL et al. ) 50-444-OL
) Offsite Drergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Planning Issues
)
FFA PRE-FILED TESTIM 24Y O The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby serves on the parties to this proceeding its prefiled testinony on contentions on the New Hanpshire Radiological Emegency Response Plan. FEMA notes, for the record, that its review of issues addressed therein is ongoing.
/ u . .,d [,,,
H. Joseph Flynn As51stant' General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. Septenter 11, 1987 I . I O . We -e, we g __
, we*- =*=-* wee e
- k
. l
. i Ut1ITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR RII3UIA70Rt COtetISSICN BEORE nlE ATOMIC SAFETI AND LICD4SDiG BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
Public Service Co. of New Ha@ shire, ) Docket No. 50-443-OL et al. ) 50-444-OL
) Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Planning Issues
)
DIRECT TESTIKNY CF EIXARD A. THOPAS, EDhAPD A. TM12 PAN, M1D BPUCE J. EdIRD1 CN HIE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGDiCY
.'U:SPONSE PIRI PRESDITED CN BDiAIF CF BIE FEDERAL DERGDiCY PANAGD1D4T AGDCI The witnesses Stem the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is sponsoring on the admitted contentions having to do with the New Hanpshitt Radiological Emergency Respnse Plan (NHRERP) in the Event of an Accident.
at Seabrook Station are Edward A. Thcmas, Chief Natural and hchnological Hazards Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I Boston, Massachusetts Edward A. Tanzman Energy and Envitonmental Programs Attorney Energy and Environmental Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois and Bruce J. Swiren Emergency Management Specialist Natural and Technological llazards Division Federal Emergency Managenent Agency Region I Boston, Massachusetts O m._m_me,_ u +m ----.ee--- em-a m
t
- Our Statements of Professional Qualifications are attached to this Direct Testimo"v e"a ere tacott retea hereta by refereace-O
/ In general, the purpose of our testirony is to address the admitted contentions and supporting bases. As explained below, our testinony is limited to certain contentions and bases. As noted in'the Statement of Position, the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission (NRC) is sponsoring the testhony of Dr. Thcxras Urbanik on certain contentions havirg to do with the validity of Evacuation Tine Estimates, and so FEMA is not sponsoring testinony on those contentions, namely:
Revised Ha:rpton Contention III to Revision 2 Revised Ha@ ton Contention VI to Revision 2, Basis A (Rev.1) SAPL Contention 18 SAPL Revised Contention 31 SAPL Contention 34 SAPL Contention 37 . FEMA considers its stateTent about the transient beach population largely to involve matters of policy. E&ard A. 'Ihcrus is the FEMA official in Region I who is responsible for explaining, applying, ard carrying out FEMA's policies as they apply to the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program. For this reason, Mr. Thcxras is the sirgle witness as to those contentions having to do with the lack of shelter for the transient teach population, na::ely: Revised Hanpton Contention VIII to nevision 2 SAPL Contention 16 NEQiP Contention RERP-8 During the pericd of time when Bruce Swiren was egloyed by HMM Associates, he worked on obtaining revised or renewed Letters of Agreement 4
=J
h I d/ frm hospitals, ambulance empanies, towing cmpanies, and bus companies. In order to avoid even the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interests, Mr. Swiren has renoved himself as a witness on contentions and bases having to do with these letters of agreerent and the determination of the number of Teamsters to be made available by their employers in the event of an emergency. For this reason, Edward A. Thcrnas and Edward A. Tanzman will testify on those contentions ard bases, namely: Revised Ha@ ton Contention IV South Hampton Contention 3; Bases 1, A, B, C, E, and Further Bases A.l. , A.2. , and B Town of Kensirgton Contention 6 NECIP Contention NHLP-2, Basis D NEENP Contention NHLP-6, Bases d and e and HP-1-e SAPL Contention 15 SAPL Contei. tion 25 All three of us will address the remaining admitted contentions and O a ses. Se attached document entitled "Current FEMA Position on Admitted Con-tentions on New Hanpshire Plans for Seabrook" (hereinafter referred to as the "Statement of Position"), dated June 4,1987, has previously ( been made a part of the record of this case. h at Statement of Position was attached as Apperdix A to the Response of the Federal Emergency ( Managenent Agency to Massdchusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon's Off-Site Emergency Preparedness Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to FF.A (Set No. 2) and is herein identified as Exhibit A. We larguage of the contentions and their bases is set forth in that Statement of Position and so is not repeated herein. j Exhibit B to this testinony, entitled "Current FEMA Position on South 1 1 Hanpton Contention 8 and NECIP Contention NHLP-4", and dated June 26, 1987, is a supplement to FENA's Statement of Position and is also a part of the record of this case.
r
- L l
/
/
Exhibit C is a. copy of a letter dated August 7,1987 frun H. Joseph Flynn to Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. It reflects FFA's position on the issues discussed i therein. We individually incorporate by reference those portions of Exhibit A, f
\.
B, and C which are pertinent to our respective testinony. We positions which FEMA has taken on the NHRERP, the exercise of the NHRERP, and the contentions which this Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board has admitted were arrived at throagh a collegial process of review by FWA's Regional Office in Boston, mnsultation with FFA's Regional Assistance
. V Ccmnittee (RAC) and Argonne National Laboratory, an3 review by FWA's
_. State and Iccal Programs and Support Directorate in Washington, D.C. We RAC is an interagency ecmnittee constituted in each of the 10 standard Federal regions pursuant to 44 C.F.R. @351. he ccrmittee is ccmposed of representatives of FEMA, the NRC, the Envitenmental Protection Agency, the Depart:nent of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Ccanerce and the Departrent of Interior. FD% and the RAC have prcnided ccm onts on New Hampshire draf t planning for Seabrook dating back to subnissions in 1982. However, the cuttent plan, which is under litigation, dates back to 1985. In December,1985, the State of New Hanpshire submitted the NHRERP (Revision 0) to FEMA. New Harpshire subnitted extensive changes to the NHRERP (Revision 0, Supplement 1) in February,1986, which included:
- 1. Volume 5 tmRERP, "Letters of Agreenent in Support of the NHRERP";
- 2. Volume 7 NHRERP, "Seabrook Station Alert and Notificatico System Design Report";
- 3. Evacuation Time Estimate (LTE) Study materials (Prcgress Q .
Reports Nos.1-6) frcm KLD Associates; O We w.e - _eewe am me e-- * *
.. .-.i......-.-.i
b:
- y. . .
I~ '
. 5 b
- 4. Revised procedures for the New Hanpshire Department of Pesources' and Econcmic Developtent;
- 5. Ccrpensatory Plan outlining the means used by the State to protect citizens in tcwns within the Seabrook EPZ wtien municipal govenments cannot or will not carry out tasks assigned by the local plan, and;
~
- 6. Draf t public inforTnation material.
The February,1986, revisions were served on the parties on March 11, 1986. Se State of New Ha.pshire filed additional plan changes in April,1986, (Pavision 0, Supplement 2 of the NHRERP) consisting of the following:
- 1. KLD Prcgress Report No. 7;
- 2. A revision to the Department of Public Health and Safety (DPHS)
Pttcedures, including replacement and new appendices to the DPHS Procedures;
- 3. Rockirgham County Ccmplex procedures, includirg those for the Rockingham County Nursing Home, Pockingham County Jail Facility and Rockirgham County Dispatch Center; ard u) 4. Procedures for the decontamination of personnel at the Manchester Decontamination Center, along with Apperdix F to those procedures.
! A full-scale exercise of the NHRERP was conducted on February 26, 1986. Durirg the firrit several nonths of 1986, FmA and the RAC were involved in extensive reviews of the December NHRERP (Revision 0), the February revisions (Supplements 1 and 2 to Revision 0), ard the February exercise. In April, 1 I 1986, FEMA sent the following documents to the State of New Ha, pshire:
- 1. FEMA's report of the deficiencies observed during the Febru-l ary 26, 1986, exercise of the state and 1ccal plans to protect l the public in the event of a radiolcgical emergency at Seabrook; 1
l 2. Final Draf t Report of the Exercise of the emergency plans for l Seabrtok held February 26, 1986;
- 3. Final review by the RAC of the state and local plans submitted by New Hanpshire in Decenber,1985; ard
- 4. Draf t RAC Review of the state and local plans surnitted by New l g Hanpshire in February,1986.
l G hese docunents have been served on the parties to this proceedirg. l l- -- - - - --- -.-.-
.. C'1 k./ On June 3,1986, the State filed another revision of the NHRERP (Re-vision 1) responding to the emments of the RAC concerning the plan and the exercise of the plan. he ETE Study prepared by KLD Associates, which had recently been released in a final draft, was incorporated into the NHRERP at that time. On June 23 aM 24,1986, the RAC met with representatives of the State of New Ha@ shire and the Applicant and explained in further detail the concerns identified in the documents described atxwe. On September 8,1986, the State of New Ha@ shire submitted another revision of the NHRERP (Revision 2, dated August, 1986) addressing the concerns identified by the RAC. F FA sutrnitted the FD%/RAC Review of Revis. ion 2 of the state and local plans to the State of New Haqshire on December 12, 1986. Bis decurent is the basis for nest of the positions taken by FDR in this licensing proceeding and has also been served on all the parties. On April 15 and July 2,1987, the NRC filed FDA's positions on the parties' various Motions for Su: mary Disposition of Contentions. On June 4,1987, FD% filed its Statement of Position as part of a response to Interrogatories frem the parties. nis reflects FD%'s current position, even though the State of New Harpshire submitted a Su:tmary of Personnel Pesource Assess: rent for the New Ha@ shire Radiological Emergency Response Plan in late August,1987, aM additional information in early Septerter. The review period for material which a state submits to FD% as part of a rMiological erergency response plan is normally at least 60 days. Rese materials are not reflected in this testinony principally because they were not received early encogh to have been reviewed by FD% and the RAC and because the State of New Ha@ shire has advised FD% that the material sutmitted in September is not part of the NHRERP.
- 38, {
t NECNP CONTENTION RERP-8 t
') The New hampshire RERP does not provide a "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency," as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1), in that the plan doe 1 not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an
, "adequate protective measure" for Seabrook. Nor does the plan provide adequate criteria for the choice between protective measures, as required i by I 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654, 5 !!.J 10.m.
[5 FD% PISIONSE to Revised Tcwn of Ha:mton Contentipr. VIII to Revision 2 (of the New Hamoshire rep.? for Seabrook) , SAPL Contention 16, and NECNP Centention
;-: PERP-8 ry These three contentions all deal with what is fundamentally the same t issue: protection frcn a radiological release for beach-going population at Seabrook who do not have ready access to any effective form of sheltering.
[ mis group includes both "day-trippers to the beach and those persons who only have access to unwinterized or other types of construction which will of fer a lesser degree of protection than that offered by standard residential or ccamercial buildings. Backcround - This issue has been of great concern to FEMA frcm our l p' v earliest detailed involvement with the preparation of plans and the achieve-ment of a level of emergency preparedness which would achieve our regulatory l standard set for that 44 CFR 350.5 of adequately protecting the public l health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate I protective measures can be taken of fsite in the event of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. l In December 1985 the State of New Hampshire cutmitted plans for protecting l the public in the event of an accident at Seabrcok to FEMA for review pur-suant to 44 CFR 350. Rose plans were forwarded for review by the Pegional Assistance Ccenittee (RAC), an interagency group established pursuant to 44 CFR 350 to both assist state and local government in the developnent of I radiolcgical emergency response plans and to evaluate the adequacy of such l plans. Ch December 31, 1985, FEMA, as chair of the PAC, requested that the rmmbers of the RAC (as well as the other FEMA staff who were reviewing the New Hampshire Plans) imediately focus on the issue of the protectico of beach population and the cccupants of unwinterized acecmodations. His memorandum is attached as Appendix C to this response to interrogatories. l EIMA Pcsition - Since the time of our December 31, 1985, memrandum on the subject of the protection of the public on and near the beaches around Seabrook, the State of tbw Hampshire has refined ard ir: proved its emergency plans and sutmitted a detailed ENacuation Time Estimate which sheds a considerable amunt of light on this issue. ne facts relevant to understanding this issue are that: O 4 g m ae-mme-= =e ,eg, e , n, ,.
** ' ^ - ,_
( . j*r > wV
,,s !p CotmICU uo-8 (Cont.)
4 lY 3't.
,gy {
1 e- t N'6 (1) he primary guidance document used by FD% and the PAC in reviewi'ng off-s ite emergency plans is NUREG-0654, FEMA REP-1, Pev.1, a ' (] V 2/ 3 C docunent . jointly developed by FDR and the NRC. Wat guidance 2,Lf g r f ,'f' document indicates on p.13 that "(t)he range of times between 6 " j j, i ;' f the onset of accident conditions and the start of a major release j ,q , 4 , .1 is of the order of one-half hour to several hours". n is statement] '; j 4 is further clarified on p.17, Table 2 to indicate that (a) the "' major portion of a release may occur in a time period ranging . K*y'Jr/ frcm as little as one-half hour to one day af ter the release nG
- d /,'e begins,and (b) that the travel time of the release to exposure . d. G A
/I ,
7' a point can range frcm one-half hour to two hours at five miles, js; g J
'\[ul,y/j- h and one hour to four hours at ten miles.
/. - ' Va.,-t ., u &n l f a W' y * , qQ (2) On peak stmner days there are thousands of beachgoers in the ff ~
g7r f 7 Seabrook EP2 in areas beginning approximately 1.7 miles frca
# )) ;Y/ J.!j
. the plant. We current New Hampshire plans contemplate evacuating th ' man housands of beachgoers who have access to no adequate
~
2
- #,p
'Q f g$.{,
she er as a protective action in the event of an accident at Seabrook.
/ y- We understand that the plans contain no consideration of sheltering M g' the "day trippers" because on su::mer days when there are a large '
number of these people, it is not possible to find reasonably W/P ,' accessible shelter for them. W ere are an additional number of persons who would be in or have access only to shelter in unwinter-ized cottages and motel rocms. D e protection afforded by N sheltering in these structures will definitely be less than that ,#7 afforded by a normal wood frame house. .- p Wr '
] (3) ne Evacuation Time Estimate for the Seabrook EPZ subnitted by the Qg p State of New Hampshire indicates at pp.10-1 et. seq. that in gocd 4 4 weather when the beaches are at 60 to 100 percent of capacity it will take three and one-half hours to clear the beaches, and a AJ M I
l total of frcm four hours and fifty minutes five hours and sp j ' ,f I fif ty minutes to evacuate all the population on the beaches from the EP2. In scme situations such as sudden d weather following a peak stmmer day, the total evacuation time or portions of the EP2 l range up to seven hours and fifty minutes. s J 2erefore, using the standard guidance for the initiation and ddration i ' of radiological releases, and the cofrent'Tew Hampshire RERP including ETE, ff., 7 it appears that thousands of people could be unable to leave during an # l accident at Seabrook involving a major release of radioactivity without ' adequate shelter for as much as the entire duration of that release. h erefore, until these issues are resolved even if all the other inadequacies and deficiencies cited in the RAC Peviews of the New Hampshire Plans, and the Review of the Exercise of these plans were to be corrected, FD% would I not be able to conclude that the New Hampshire State and local plans to I l protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook thaclear Ibwer Plant are adequate to meet our regulatory standard that such plans "adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the l event of a radiological emergency." (See, 44 CFR 350.5(b)). O
** 'i
s 19. g? m:40 PC-Ef6T4EST-W1 1 i NO.002 H.TeFRT EfMrgency Nianagement Agency ;.e2 002 P l.) - Region 1 J.W. McCormack Post Omn and coun Houw M Ag Boston, ManachWHill 02109 o Mr. Richard M. Strom as Director, New Hampshire Civil / i Defense Agency /
/ -
! 8 tate office Park South g j Concord, New Hampshire 03301 h- ' h ) . Dear Mr. Strome 4e(4 i/ { This is written as a fo11ow-up to our conversation on June 5, 1981, concerning the document "CURRENT FEMA POSITION ON ADMITTED CONTENT 10N8 ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS FOR SEABROCX.* (Hereinafter called Current FEMA Position.) This document was developed as a part of FEMA's responses to interrogatories in the Seabrook Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) proceedings, our discussion primarily related to that portion of the Current, FEMA Position dealing with the beach population which is found at pp. 38-39 and enclosed with this letter. Before further discussing that particular r zction, it might be worthwhile to quickly review the history of this filing. The Current FEMA Position was developed as the result of several actionsBoard Appeal including (ASLB)the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing made May 1, 1987, and the subsequent Memorandum and Order issued by the ASLB on May de 1987. These Q actions included a specific request that TEMA develop and file a position on the contentions admitted for litigation in the seabrook proceedings by June 5, 1987. The Current FEhA position is, therefore, provided pursuant to the FEMA / Nuclear Regulatory Commission Memorandum of Underatending cited in 44 CFR 350, Section 350.3te). However, the Current FEMA Position should not be viewed as a forstal "finding" by FEMA under 44 CFR 350. The current PEMA Position is largely based upon the FEMA and Regional to provided Assistance you. The Committee (RAC) reviews which were previously portion of the Current FEMA Position dealing with the beach population is based on a thorough analysis by FEMA and the RAC. The issue of protecting the beach population has been an item of discussion between FEMA, the State of New' Hampshire, and the applicant for several years. Our position is based on the guidance provided by NURIG-0654, FEMA = rep-i applied to the Seabrook site. We believe that our concern about the protection of the beach population revolves around some rather unusual circumstances which may be unique to Seabrook. Demographically, a substantial portion of the peak suarver population in the area travel to the beach each day. Unlike other sites we have reviewed, these daily visitors are not identified with a temporary residence or public facility. O
' P, V 2:
1
- In addition, many of the aumner residenc O. accident than that found ins.insulated circumstances dramatically i the event of anbu n These primary protective measures,mpact the acceptability of the specifically, the information evacuationprovided and to shelter. FEX More evacuation from the beaches would require A indicates a Evacuation standard. tide estinates are pproximately 3 that fast-breaking The scenarios availabilityisofconsidered shelter as an to optionot required ecific t some hard time objective for evacuation n inneed the more the sheltering opticn is also clouded britigate .
However the for for what is even in the more favorable s e tiy the absen,etin rst%s amounts toof sheltering several effective thousand shelter individuals and for many others the absenc apparently on evacuation and sheltering compo. individuals that might be involved unded one another in a ma I might add that these of but for a number of lesser scenariosnumbers . s -case accident, app may alter the case as we understand d$scussions on the subject, . ver the past years itA numb which a wide variety of sources haveIn addit of the plant, and alternative evacuatien sheltering is an alternative, we doubt utes.ng, mensonal operation roprop t Although ! A public or private f acilities would be accept a e. blif the use of e U to the complexity of the issue.The solution to the pr in the paragraphs numbered 1-3 of page if the39However,ety facts set of al position will be subject to review TEMA will, therefore, be willing to arr ed, then and ourmodifip modifications which might to the New Hampshire ange for emergencythe reviewcation as neces the beach population. impact uvacuation tire estimates ering of or assumptions ende about accidentAny modifications of the standard release times schedule for the plant come under . altered operational e NRC. the pu hearing for seabrook. FEMA will soon be developing its testi is this hearing board that Given willthe expected make t sequence of eventsy , it for evaluation of the New Hampshire plan. he first licensing related all parties to our to the sesbrook filing testironyt (a) proceeding if you could tit
- set forth in the current FEMA position are incif the facts we have i statefacts these of Newand (cHampshire is considering orrect;steps (b) if the which mi i
g t change to exercise, options)that would change acts. the fif you are se awar O h ===a- .
*Na C i .. y y '. , y , ,, ,, - , N " ? d 8 " S
'a
! i ,
"3" k We would, of course, be happy to meet with you as New Hampshire O. continues to explore its options. I hope that all of us can continue work togither to resolve this issue and achieve our mutual commitment to public safety.
Sincerely.
- i. M.-.S Edward A. Thomas Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division i
i O
~
1 l O
.n.,-,-- , . ,_ _ , . , _ _ __ ,_ _ _ _ _ ,_ , ,
301 492 7285 ,
.. "'RE . Ed1. .. ,!T3sssm t
ec. w2 ma
; g,e3 -
QEECHP CONTENTION RERP=( that adequate protective measures can and will be radiological emergenc7." as required by 10aCen easonable assurance the plan does not prodde in the event of a ca dequate protective measure"reasonable assura.F.R. nce that 40.4f f a)(1). in that i adeguate criteria for the chafce for Seabrook. between Nor does thesheltering is sa by s 80.47(b)(14) and NURIO-0884. I !!.protestive measures, plan provide as required I J.10.m. 1 the5Raw Repthire RERP _ for S3abrook)FOR RESPetSt t on v!!! to Revision 2 (of
,_MPL Contention 16. and Nd5FCon(9ntion issuei These three cententions all deal with what is f at Seabrook who do not have rst.4y access g population to any effprot Wis group includes both ' day-trfppers to the bea h c ective ahavelesseraccess degree of toprursinterised or other types of form of sheltering.
construction which will offeran$ thes careercial buildings.otection than that offered by standard resident O *-nd - ==i h.s - f ment of a level of emergency preparedness whic i standard health and safety set for bythat providing 44 CTR reasonable 350.5cschieve ofouradequately regulatory prote tir ngassura the public protective measures can be taken offsite in the eve tnce that approp energency at the seabrook Nclear Power Plant. n of a radiological the public in the event of an accident saant to 44 CFR 350. neee submitted plansat fors bin Decerter 19 prot ea rook to FD% for review purecting Assistance radiolo CFR 350 to both Cbmittee assist state (RAC), and local plans twerm wereonal forwarded l I ent in the 6evelopment of plane. the membersgical On Deosmber acergency of the AAC31, 1945, FDM reaperse plans and to evaluate th , i 4 as chair of the RAC, requested that - the 7tew Harpahlre cf beach populatico and the occu focus on the i Plans)(as imediately well as,the other FD% staff who v ewing ; we ssue of the protec sonorarAss un attached as Append: pts of unwinterized acc.:.u.dations. nis tion s FnMA Position - .x c to this response to interrogatories. on the subject otDe protection of the public on endSince the tim
, amorarArn around Seabrook, the state of hw Man; near shire has refi tk, beaches seergency t) plane and outnitted a 6statted Evacuation Tined and imprw ratandirg this inaus are thatsocnsiderable me ratimate whichareunt of light on this is The facts relevant ,
/ I V
e.- -- --
- - - - . - , _ . ,- -.-, - -_ _-____, ,c_ - - _. _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . . _ _
~ . .. )
I JUN 19 '87 08:49 P01 - ' f j.,3 37 n:09 FEr1A ' @ G G d .
, . gy, j, i;
@P CQ&.NPICU *L'.'19=8 (Cont.) '
(1) O. The prin.ary guidance doceent und by FD% and the RAC in nviewing ofI-s ite e orgency plans is WRZG-0654, run nzp-1, Rev.1, a occirnent jointly developed by FDR and the NRC. That guidance doctrent indicates on p.13 that *(t)ne rarge of tines between the onset of accident conditions and the start of a major release is of the orcer of one+alf hour to several houre'. This statement i is further clarifiod on p.17, Table 2 to indicate that (a) the major portion of a release may occur in a time period ranging frm as little as one-half hour to one day af ter the release begins and (b) that the travel time of the release to suposure point can rarge frcn one+alf hour to two hours at five miles, and one hour to four hours at ten miles. (2) 01 peak smrer days there are thousards of beechgoers in the Seabrook EP2 in anas beginning approxWtely 17 miles from the plant. The curnnt New Hagehare plans conte the many thecsanda of beachgoers who have access @to no adequatala W 2
'Wshelter as a protective action in the event of an accident at seabrook.
l udQths day trippers' because on sever days when there an a large_ e u g c,4 nmber of these people, it is not pesaible to find reanceably WM accessible shelter for them. There are an additional nacer of persons who w:uld be in or have access only to shelter in urwinter-ined cottages and motel rocrJ. The protection afforded by sheltering in these atmetuns will definitely be less than that O arrore o de a aam ooo tr'"* hou=*- - (3) The tvacuation iine tatimato for the seabrock EFI subnittad by the 42 State of New Hayshire irdicates at pp.10-1 et.aea, that in good 7 weather when the baaches an at 60 to 100 percent of espacity it #7 will take three and one-hau w* m 9e the haehen, and a total of frm four hours and fif ty minutes to five hours and - fitty minutes to evacuate all the population on the beaches frors the EPI. In acme sitbations such as sudden bad weather fol.lcwing a peak sumner day, the total evacuation time for portiene of the EFI range up to seven hours and fif ty minutes. Therefore, using the stardard auidance for_ the initiation and duration of radioicnical releases, and the current New Hagshire RI2tP including EN, it a; pears that thmaands of people could be unable tap =ve do ing an 5 accident at seabemk involving a sajoe nisase of radioactivity wig i adequate shelter for as auch as the entin duratteri of that release. _I t l 1EENtcre, unta thesa issues are resolved even if all the other inadegacios and deficiencies cited in the PAC rsviews of the New Neugehire Flans, and the neviw of the tuercise of these plans ware to be ooerected, rpm would not be able to cmelude that the New Harp 4 hire State and local plane to protect the public in the event of an accident at the 5sabrcok laAmar , Power Plant an adequate to meet our regulatoey standard that oudi p,lans "adequ.ately protect tJm public health and safety by providing reasonable , surance that appopriate protective seasures can be taken offaite in the vent of a radiological ersorgency.' (Age, 44 CFR 350.5(b)). g ' t q \ l w ..,r.-..r -m-, , - , - - - - - - --_ - .. . _ _ ,., _ _ . . _ _ . . , _ _ - . , _ _ , , . , . _ _ _ _ . - . _ - . - , . . - , . . - m . . - _ . - - , - _ - - - , , . - - - - . . . - - . - . - - - , . ~
Federal Emergency Management Agency Q Region I J.W. McCormack Po+: Omce and Coun House Boston, Manachusetts 02109 f xM /d July 2, 1987 MPGRW', FOR: Pegional Assistance Can-Jttee (PAC) P35iolcgical Emrgency Preparedness Task Force FROM: J Fdward A. Thcries J'PACChairman $( /[OF
SUBJECT:
RAC Review of F Se.f-Initiated Revie.' of Pilgrim NPS EP2 Please review the attached FEMA self-initiated review and submit your coments no later than July 10, 1987. There are four doctments attached
- a. Memo to Drve McLoughlin, PD4A Headquarters
- b. FEMA's Draf t Interim Findirg on Diergency Preparedness in the Pilgrim NPS EPZ s c. FEMA's Draf t Analysis on the July 15, 1986, Pilgrim Petition
- d. FEMA's Draf t Coments on the Report to the Governor Please plan on attendirg a RAC neetirg here at 10:00 A.M. on July 30,1987, to disaass the follcuirgt
- a. Massachusetts Proposal to Expand the Pilgrim NPS EPZ
- b. A Revised FAC Position on the Seabrook Beach Menorandtn As a Result of the Change in NRC's Position
- c. 'Ihe Final Version of FEMA's Self-Initiated Review of the Pilgrim NPS EP2.
Your cooperation is very much appreciated. Pleass call Ja:L Dylan at FT3 223-95f 2 if yx re-ei any assistance. O
o AGENDA For . o RAC HEETING JULY 30, 1987 - 10:00 A.M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: . 4
-vl . Status Reports W4 '}f .)y yz
- =D. -- ~ D
\ -
y
- 1. Up-date t RAC on status of "350" process for(Vermont, New Ham and Maine.
I 2. Status of "Annual Letters of Certification" from all New England GylYPR*l
,. 3.
States.
&QfmM.
Review of Maine-Y2tsiseg Ingestion Pathway Plan for Seabrook Station
..: ,9C
- a. Argonne Comments ,y 1 4.* Up-date on Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. M$#
L[
-911. Coming Workload LN gq g&~ d. .-
8 ~)
,,,W.
,a A Mj, y.s- ,
Q E. Seabrook Station Hearings Dates (see attached schedule). ,.vy4"
- 6. Possibility of necessity for RAC support during Seabrook Hearings.
- 7. If New Hampshire submits or up-dates their plans it will require RAC assistance.
- 8. If Utility submits Massachusetts plans for Seabrook Station it will require RAC assistance. (l60 2.43.*M )
- 9. Possibility of revised Massachusetts Plans for Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee and Rowe. _
'~~
p d v,. l/ ' j 10. Possibility of RAC Review of Utility submission for Pilgrim. l JOs. fw 2, .Bm friest
%:..o e. -.
I 4III. Issues for Meetings G fj, ~
- 11. Pilgrim EPZ Expansion. p r / d
.s-
- 12. Maine Yankee EPZ Expansion.
h q E h3 Maine @ Ingestion P1an Review f jg[N + Edb 14 Scabrook Beach Population. h. k + o a s s p k " ',h .
~,- .
. !y).' FD t
C (. gj :
\ p o'^ [A '
S f s
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11745 1 BY MR. TURK: 2 Q Mr. L azarus , in our previous discussion about this 3 exhibit you may recall that I asked that we all detach the last 4 two pages of the exhibit, and I 'd like to ask you to -- first 5 of all, if you have those two pages in front of you. 6 A CLazarus) Yes, I do. 7 Q Would you identify them for me, please? 8 A CLazarus) Yes, it 's a memorandum that I drafted to 9 yourself at your request that we document what our recollection 10 was at the RAC meetings that occurred in April and July of 11 1987, to the best of our ability. And that was in October 12 1987. The menorandum was dated October 15, 1987. 13 Q Are there any changes you wish to be made to this 14 dccument at this time? 15 A CLazarus) No, there is one minor typographical error 16 about 10 lines up from the bottom. The last three words of the 17 sentence says, "that we must assume that an accident" should be 18 "then we must assume that an accident", on the first-page. 19 Q That 's the sentence that reads, "Since emergency 20 plans must provide for protection from a spectrum of accidents 21 without regard to their probability," and then you would 22 continue it to say, "then we must"? 23 A CLazarus) Correct. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Would you actually mark that correction 25 on the copy that goes into -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ - . _ _ . _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . t I l i !* i BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11746 I i u(li 1 MR. TURK: Yes, I 'll do .that. ! i ! l, 2. BY MR. TURK: l b t l 3 Q And, Mr. Lazarus, to the best of your recollection. [ t i i 4 does this memorandum present an accurate and true accounting of I r y S the matters stated therein? [ I
- 6 A CLazarus) Yes, it does, j
' 7 MR. TURK : Your Honor, at this time I'd like to bind 1 I 8 into the transcript, and because it 's only a two-page document, j 9 I would offer it as a separate exhibit unless someone tells me . t l 10 that would be preferable. ! I think it would be preferable since 11 MR. OLESKEY: 12 he 'll be examined separately on it. j f i 13 MR. TURK: All right. I will mark it as Staff 1 ! 14 Exhibit 3 for identification and offer it into evidence. [ l 15 (The document referred to was ) 1 l 16 marked for identification as I ! ! 17 Staff Exhibit No. 3. ) l e , t 18 JUDGE SMITH: And bind it into the transcript. [ ! 19 MR. TURK: And bind it in, j s 20 JUDGE SMITH: All right. [ 21 Any obj ections? ,. 22 (No response.) ! l l 23 JUDGE SMITH: Staff Exhibit 3 is received and will be 24 bound. ! i
- 25 !
! r ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , i
.. . - . , _ - . ~ . . _ _ _ _
l l L 4 I l-1 1 BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11747 i ! I 1 (The document referred to, j
- . t 2 having been.previously marked i
)
- 3. for identification as Staff j t
j 4 Exhibit No. 3 was received l 5 in evidence.) } t i j 6 (Staff Exhibit No. 3 : c l a t 7 follows:) l 8 i
- I i
l 9 i 10 I l 11 i 12 l lll 14 i 15 t i l 16 i ' 17 1 18 t 4 i 19 ! l 1 20 l l ! 21 l ! 22 I l I i i 23 l l 24 ! I i 25 -l c Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l l t
341
- g S Gy GX H 3
, OCT 151507 g
MEMORANDUM FOR: St TURK, OGC i FROM: W. LAZARUS, EP SECTION CHIEF, NRC REGION I
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND CONCERNING RECENT FEMA I RAC MEETINGS CONCERNING SEABROOK BEACH POPULATION ISSUES I attended two RAC meetings in the pt.st few months in FEMA Region I that were called by Mr. Ed Thomas, the R AC Chairman to address the issue of the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP for the protection of the so-called "Seabrook beach population". The first meeting was held on April 15, 1987. To the best of my recollection all of the principal RAC members (DOE, EPA, DOT, DOA, and HHS) were present, plus two representatives from NOAA, as the discussions were to include meteorological aspects of plume dispersion and expected wind and weather patterns typical of the Seabrook beach areas during the summer months. (I am technically not the RAC meriber for the NRC, however I have been working closely with Bob Bares, (who is the offi ial NRC Region I RAC member for Seabrook) on this issue and felt it appropriate to attend the RAC meetings). During the April 15th meeting, Bob Bores' submittal regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire Plan for the beach population was the main subject for discussion. After a discussion of the various aspects of the NH Plan (early closure of the beaches, and the capability to make PA ennouncements from the plant control room on the beach sirens to provide protective action recoemendations for fast breaking accidents), the beach meteorology, and Bob ('s) Bores' submittal, it appeared that the RAC (greed that the Plan was adequate. Subsequent to that meeting Bob Bores' redrafted his submittal in consultation with NRR and OGC to remove any reference to Seabrook site specific design features (double containment, etc.). The second meeting was held on July 30, 1987 to discuss the issue in light of the changes to the NRC RAC comments. The same RAC members were in attendance less the NOAA representatives. At this meeting Mr. Thomas clearly pointed out that he was ignorant of any of the technical aspects of nuclear power, indicating that he depended upon the technical expertise of the RAC members. The elimination of reference to site specific design f eatures appeared to be particularly troublesome to Ed Thomas. During the meeting i pointed out that elimination of the site specific information regarding plant design features should have no bearing on a finding of adequacy for the Plan because those features only impacted the probability of an accident. Sinceemergencyplansmustprovidefoy)otection_,$h# from a spectrua of accidents without regard to their probability,Qhat~wi must assume that an accident happens and then determine whether the plans provide reasonable assurance of protection. On the issue of sheltering, which was discussed at length, I pointed out that sheltering only provides about a 10% reduction in dose for a fast breaking accident, and would not be depended upon for protection in a severe fast breaking accident, which was the scena-lo which appeared to be Ed Thomas' principle concern. I then asked Mr. Thomas to poll the RAC members to determine whether they felt that the New Hampshire RERP provide reasonable assurance that beach population would be protected. [~') He declined, so I asked for a show of hands for my own information. All those v ENCLOSURE 2 1 1
----- ___ ___________________________________________O
r :. 19 l OCT 15 1987 O present except FEMA
- indicated that they found the plans to be adequate with respect to the beach population (apparently agreeing that reliance on sheltering for the beach population in the case of a serious release was not appropriate). At that point Mr. Thomas indicated that he was tired and wanted to adjourn the meeting. He would take into account our discussions and have the FEMA contractor rework the RAC position on the issue and send it out for comment. With that i n mind the meeting was adjourned. He did not follow up on his commitment to provide a revised position to the RAC for review and comment and instead drafted his own input, largely ignoring the RAC comments from the meeting.
W. arus Em rgency P aredness Section Chief O O i f O . ENCLOSURE 2 s
-- . . . _ . - - - , . .,.._,,,_,m . _ _ . _ , _ , . . . . , , , , ~ , c.y..___., , , , , , - _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . _ , _ - - - ,
. _ . . _ . . . . . - . _ . ~ . ~ . _ . _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
! I b S l BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT. 11748 l lll . 1 MR. TURK: And j ust so the record is clear L on the i ! 2 procedure that we '.ve j ust followed with respect to marking .
- 3 these as separate exhibits. ]
i b 4 BY MR. TURK : l l } 5 Q Dr. Bores, if I 'm not mistaken, in your cover memo to } I i ' 6 me you indicate that "Mr. W3111am Lazarus has provided his ! I 7 summary with respect to the RAC meetings as Enclosure 2." i ! 8 And can you state at this time whether the document l !' 9 we have just marked as Steff Exhibit No. 3 is Enclosure 2 which ! 10 is referred to in your cover memo?
- 11 A (Bores) It is.
! 12 Q And that document was transmitted by you to me with l i 13 this memo of October 15, 1987? ! I j 14 A (Bores) That is correct. l' 15 JUDGE SMITH: If you have a breaking point and you l I j 16 want to be heard on the sequestration matter, we probably I - 17 should stop now. s 3 l 18 Were you able to get that ? Oh, that 's right, we do ! ( I 1 19 have the case. [ i f ' Your Honor, that 's fine. I 'm looking for 20 MR. TURK: f . 21 another document, but since I can 't find it I 'll hold of f on ) 1 22 that until tomorrow. 23 And the Applicants have provided us with a set of l 1 ! 24 copies of the Midland case. I believe. I guess we should all l 3 l I j 25 take a look at that for a moment. 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 1
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11749 O 1- JUDGE SMITH: Yes. let 's get those out here. 2 (Pause.) 3 MR. OLESKEY: Let me just briefly state that the case 4 is virtually dispositive of the issue in favor of our 5 application, particularly Footnote 1 and 16 which say, in 6 substance, as I read them, that the type of sequestration that 7 is requested here is the traditional type which had it been at 8 issue in Consumer Power would have resulted in a different 9 judgment by the Appeal Board, rather than the case presented 10 here where the credibility of a couple of staff witnesses about 11 historical events in the development of a process was at take. 12 There we have a very different situation where the 13 Staff was protesting apparently a series of order which had 14 permeated the proceedings where witnesses for all sides had 15 been excluded willy-nillj, including eventually Staff 16 witnesses, with no justification ultimately being offered by 17 the Intervenors or anyone else, and the Staff heavily attacking 18 the ruling for the reason that they needed the advice of the 19 excluded witnesses who apparently hadn't yet reached the point 20 of testimony in Staf f counsel 's cross-examination of adverse 21 witnesses. 22 Now the analogous situation here would be if during 23 the cross-examination of Goble. Evdokinoff and Eckert we had 24 asked to have excluded Dr. Bores from the room on the grounds 25 that we later wanted to examine him on technical matters which O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
g_ __._._,_ __ _ . _.._.. _.___~.._._- ___._. . .. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . . ._ I i BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11750
- ~g i W 1 are the subj ect of the cross-examination by Mr. Turk of our 2 witnesses, j i
i l 3 But that 's not what we 're asking, nor did we. We 're ! 4 asking that one of these witnesses on process and fact be ! l j 5 excluded so that we can develop a sound record, a value ! I f 6 repeated recognized in this opinion by that Appeal Board,
- 7 without the presence of the other. !
l l 8 So I think'it does rest as it did in that case in the i I ! . 9 sound discretion of this Board, assuming good reasons are i i 10 given, and I think they have. That Board would have been i 11 tipped over except for its continuing course of. conduct that , i 12 appears and for the overwhelming value that was seen in having [ l l 13 the Staff have the technical assistance, a value not served L ll> 14 here. l
.I j 15 In fact, it 's quite obvious that Mr. Lazarus couldn 't I t
i l 16 serve Mr. Turk as his expert advisor during my cross-F 17 examination of Dr. Bores. And on Mr. Turk's view since they 18 would be presented as a panel in any event, one of them could 19 hardly serve him and do anything during their joint cross-20 examination. 1 21 So I don 't think anything more has to be said ! 22 assuming you agree with us, as I trust you do, that we 've made l t l 27 out an important facial case to have the process observed. t 24 If that 's the case, and I think it is clearly, then ; l l i i { 25 this case cuts as cleanly against the Staf f 's position here, l til Reporting Corporatior. i Heritage i (202) 628-4888 l l t i
p__.-___._.--
~ . _ . _ _ . .- -
i ! i s t d I BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11751 ! h 1 because it 's so disparate as anything could. ) r j 2 JUDGE SMITH: I was hoping you might address Note 17 i i 3 which references Note 8; at least somebody do it. We could l ' i 4 read it for ourselves, of course. I U 5 MR. OLESKEY: To me, what the Board was saying was i 6 that the order would have, or the process which had been j l ' 7 followed by the Licensing Board would accomplish, in any event. 8 the obj ective which it, the Appeal Board recognized as a 3 9 legitimate obj ective in such hearings, and nothing more, i 10 because they say in Footnote 8 to which 17 refers us, nothing l l 11 in this decision should be taken as being in any way critical l 12 of that practice in those cir cumstances. That is, in barring j l l l 13 discussions among the witnesses and reading of the transcript ! 14 which is one of the procedures we had discussed here to l l l l 15 effectuate the goal that we ask you to implement. f f f , 16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, I read Note 17 and 8 in the t 17 context of all this discussion is to specifically exclude from 18 their order, their opinion, e situation where there is a l 19 concern that witnesses educate each other. 20 And I would want you to address that, Mr. Turk. I do i 21 think that I read it as pretty much excluding the situation we l I 22 are faced with here. 23 MR. TURK: Pretty much? 24 JUDGE SMITH: Excluding the situation we 're f aced 25 with here, j Heritage Reporting Corporation ] ' (202) 628-4888
li Y I !? l BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 117S2 Y; [ h- 1 MR. TURK: From the ruling of the Appeal-Board? l 2 JUDGE SMITH: -Yes. I e 3 !..~ . 'URK: At the outset, Your Honor, let me note 4 that it 's particularly ref reshing to be able to engage in pure
'S legal argument for the first time in the many exchanges the a
! 6 Massachusetts AG 's of fice and I have had in contrast to other l 7 mcre acerbic exchanges. i [ 8 However, I don 't agree with Mr. Oleskey has stated. ; y 9 He led off by saying that the Midland' ease is dispositive of i l (
- 10 the case here, and he would lead you to find that it should l l 11 induce you to sequester the witness.
12 I agree in one respect with Mr. Oleskey. I think i 13 Midland is dispositive, but my conclusion is that it should L G 14 lead you to the opposite approach, and let me give you my p 4 15 reasons. ; \ 16 Obviously, the Appeal Board in Midland indicated that { l 17 there may be situations such as where credibility is in issue 18 where sequestration er other approaches to preventing witnesses ' L 19 from collaborating on their testimony may be appropriate. 20 But there is a significant statement in the Appeal ) 21 Board 's decision which Mr. Oleskey totally ignores, and i t 's 22 one that I referred to when I ade my opening remarks before we i 23 had a copy of the case. 24 In Note 19, the Appea' Board indicates that while the 1 25 Intervenors sssert that. "The record below discloses multiple ! O Heritage Reperting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 !
1 i i l i 4 i BORES, LA7.ARUS - DIRECT 11753
~
i events of a lack of candor on behalf of" the Staff, "they made ! 2 no effort to point us to even one of those events. We are j i !
- 3 disinclined to credit an unsupported assertion of this nature. I i I l~ 4 In any event.-even if true, it would not support the Board 's l
' ) S rationale." l I i 6 I think that the concern for credibility of witnesses l l 7 may arise where the Board already has seen indications which i 1 8 would lead it to suspect that absent the order of sequestration 9 or other orders designed to prevent collaboration, the L 10 credibility of the witness may become an issue. i 11 These witnesses have never provided any indication to i ( the Board, and Mr. Oleskey cites none, which would lead you to 13 think that you have to sequester them in order to maintain ' l 4l> 14 those witnesses ' credibility, iS The sole issue of credibility that 's arisen in this 16 case relates to an individual other than these two. not to i 17 these witnesses. And any suggestion that there is a need to 18 preserve the credibility of these witnesses lest they 19 collaborate has no foundation in fact. l 20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let me put you at ease on that 21 point. There is no basis vis-a-vis these people. I mean as 22 they sit here upon which we believe that their particular ! I r 23 identities as people requires anything special. It is a 3 24 situational consideration. 2S MR. TURK : I understand that, Your Monor. O Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) G28-4888 ) I1
1 l l i i BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11754 ! 1 llI 1 I would also make a further point that on Page 6 of ! l 2 the Appeal Board 's decision as it 's printed out before us, l i i l 3 there is a paragraph in which the Appeal Board indicated the j j 4 following. l
- 5 "In short, the Board 's rulings could hamper the
- G Staf f 's ability to contribute to the development of a sound -
7 record. Those rulings can remain standing then only if there ! e } 8 is some countervailing purpose which they serve; i.e., if in ! l 9 some other way they might enhance full disclosure of all l l . l 10 relevant evidence." l l 11 Now, granted we 're not talking here about a situation l i 12 where I 'm asking that my expert be allowed to assist me in !
- i l 13 cross-examination of another party 's witness. Granted I don 't :
i 14 need Mr. Lazarus to sit next to me while Mr. Bores is being
- l. '
15 cross-examined, and I don 't need Dr. Bores to assist me while 16 Mr. Lazarus is being cross-examined. 17 What I do need and what I think the Board needs is a 18 complete understanding of events as they have unfolded with 19 respect to FEMA 's posit ion. 20 Now, there are two problems that I see. ;
?
21 First, the Board may recall that this past January l 22 two witnesses appeared together. They were Mr. Thomas of FEMA 23 and Dr. Bores of the NRC. And I think the Board will recall, 24 as I do, and I think as Mr. Oleskey does, that the presentation 25 of those two witnesses together serve to immediately resolve s i llh ! Heritage Reperting Corporation l i (202) 620-4888 t I
, . . _ _ __= . . _ _ _ _ . . - - .__ _
t !L I -! ii ! BORE 3, LAZARUS - DIRECT. 11755 l f . 1 any question'as to discrepancies between their testimony. l 1 2 The Board had no need after that testimony to.have to j 3 search the transcript to see where the differences lay. They 'l l 4 were laid out completely with a full understanding, and all l 5 parties had a chance at that time to examine for any l 6 discrepancies in testimony. 0 ! 7 And I think the same thing will apply here. These ; i 8 two individuals were present at the same RAC meetings. They { l 9 have their own recollection of it, and they are free to be l 10 cross-examined on their_ recollections. I trust in the l 11 credibility of these individuals, and there is no suggestion ! l 12 why I shouldn 't, that if asked a question on cross-examination. l 1 13 even if they disagree with their colleague, they will give it a l 14 complete honest sho'. . And absent sny indication that that 's 15 not true. I don 't see how the Board 's interest in developing a 1 16 full record is impeded by their appearing together. 17 There 's a recond point I want to addresc. The Staff j l I i I ' 18 has agreed to comply with the Board 's request that we present 19 other witnesses later in this proceeding, and I indicated that l i 20 Dr. Frank Congel and Mr. David Matthews will be appearing. Far 21 the same reasons as are present here, I 'd like those people to 22 go on as a panel, and I think that 's the way that we will get a i t l 23 complete exposition of fact. And I think the idea of 24 seques*. ration hinders that. f 25 It may serve Mr. Oleskey 's purpose, because he seeks i i I Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 028-4888 c , ?
BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11756 0 1 to resuscitate what he may perceive to be the impaired
-2 credibility, or which he may believe other people have 3 perceived as the impaired credibility of a witness whom he 4 would like to rely on. But as to these witnesses, there is no 5 reason to suggest that their credibility is in question.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further? 7 MR. OLESKEY: Just a couple of responses. 8 As to Congel and Matthews, maybe I should be taken to 9 task, but I really haven 't approached their cross-examination 10 yet, and I 'm not prepared to say whether or not we will request j il sequestration. I hardly think that what we may or may not l 12 request with respect to them sometime next week is an issue for 13 today, 14 With respect to the argument that Bores and Thomas i 15 struck it off as an ideal couple. I think that proves too much. 16 They were in some respects in their recollections, and possibly 17 in their positions adverse and hardly had any interest. l 18 consciously or unconsciously, which is what you 're concerned 1 19 about frequently in sequestration, te tailor testimony to fit 20 each other 's recollections. 21 With respect to the argument that the Appeal Board on 22 Page 6, in discussing hampering of the Board, then forced the 23 complaining parties there to overcome that burden, that 's a 24 good argument only if a convincing case has been made out for 25 hampering with respect to the Staff here. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868
I- I l lU BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11757 : Ih 1 Although I hear Mr. Turk laboring mightily, he 5 l l 2 hasn 't to my way . of thinking made out such-e case, l 3 Finally, although it's not before you on the record. i 4 it will be, there 's a memorandum f rom a ' third NRC staf f er
\ t l:
l 5 prepared at Mr. Turk 's request, Mr. Schumacher, who doesn 't l l 6 remember anything about the signal events of the July 30 1 . 7 meeting upon which Mr. Turk relies with respect to these j l- ' i t l 8 witnesses. : i I 9 So. although that may be a failure of recollection, l i 10 it 's a signal one under the circumstances. .And there is then j l 11 between three witnesses for the NRC -- two of them have been 12 proffered, one of whom was not, already with respect to the ! 13 matters that the Board and we wish to inquire into -- a very l O 14 great difference in recollection. 15 If any further suggestion were needed of the 16 significance of sequestration with respect to those events. I i 17 suggest it lies in that memo from Mr. Schumacher which I would 18 be happy to supply to the Board now if there is any dispute f i 19 about what it says. But I think it was supplied earlier by Mr. { 20 Turk to all of you as well as to us. 21 MR. BACKUS: Judge Smith, can I Juet add one thing t i 22 here? l { 1 l 23 It seems to me tnat the entire reason we have these i 24 witnesses here is because there was an issue in the Board 's t I 8 25 mind, and I understand in some other par ties ' mind, but l l [ Heritage Reporting Corr .c i (202) 628-4886 l
l i BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11758 l 1 certainly clearly in the Board mind about the credibility of a ; 4 5 2 prior witness whose version of certain events differed from ) i 3 these witnesses. l 4 Now, I suggest two things. i 5 First of all, I think if you would look at what 's now 6 been marked Staff Exhibit 3, which is the Lazarus meno. I think l 7 it is not entirely congruent with Staff Exhibit 2, which is the ] I 8 Bores memo. That 's something I don 't want to say more about, ! 6 9 because I know counsel is intending to explore it on cross- l 10 examination. ! 11 MR. OLESKEY: Right. l f 12 MR. BACKUS: But in our view, they have not in their' l l 13 own memoranda been entirely consistent with what they said. ; 9 14 The other point I 'd like to make is that Mr. Turk i 15 told me in a conference in the hallway that he had himself 16 asked to have these two memoranda separately prepared, because h \ l 17 I should think he was concerned about the possibility of I 18 tailoring the memoranda to be entirely consistent. And I take j 19 him at his word at that. 20 Now that seems to me entirely inconsistent with his 21 position here. He himself, if I understood him correctly, was 22 saying that he recognized a need, because of the importance 23 that 'a been at tached to these witnesses ' testimony, that they 24 be treated separately. 25 I think all we 're saying is that that should [ Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 f L
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11759 O 1 certainly continue into the hearing. -E43 2 (Continued on next page.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
- p. __
4 l h j BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11760 l l 4 1 MR. TURK: Your Honor, may I have a brief-reply to 1 2 comments by Mr. Oleskey and Mr. Backus?
- 3 First, addressing Mr. Backus 's remarks. It 's j 4 certainly true that I asked each of the individuals with the !
i ! 5 NRC staff prepare a separate accounting, and I have that 6 separate accounting, and two of those are before you already. 7 As the witnesses will indicate -- I don't want to testify for l 8 them, but I 'm sure they will indicate to you that they were i 9 prepared separately, so that there was no collaboration in the 10 development of those memos. 11 Now that we have those'before us, to the extent- 9 l 12 there 's any dif f erence, we can explore that through cross- j i 13 examination, G- 14 With respect to Mr. Schumacher, I should inform the f I In fact, at iS Board that he is no longer employed by the NRC. i 16 the time that his memorandum was written he had already left _ 17 the employ of the NRC, and that explains why Mr. Schumacher l 18 does not appear here before us. l l 19 But I certainly take issue with Mr. Oleskey 's comment f i 20 that there were signal differences, or that he failed to j i 21 remember the signal events as Mr. Lazarus and Mr. Bores has. l 22 We will introduce the Schumacher memo, and the Board will see 23 that it was Mr. Schumacher's clear recollection in the { 24 memorandum that he prepared separately that the maj ority of the 25 RAC supported the position of Dr. Bores at the July RAC O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l
i
- b l -I BORES. LAZARUS ~ DIRECT 11761 ;
t O- 1 meeting. And that, to my mindi is a central issue in this ! I l 2 entire presentation of Staff wi',nesses. t ( 3 (Board confer.) l 4 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan. 5 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, Your Honor. As I indicated to the 6 I 6 Board earlier, I have no dog in the fight, and I.hava no 7 intention of addressing the motion that is before you, but I { ! l 8 think -- [ ! [ j 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, of course, in part this is ruling l l F ! 10 upon your motion to subpoena these people. l i l' !- 11 MR. DIGNAN: Well, that 's true, too. . I But what I want to just advise the Court as an I 12 i 13 officer of.the Court is this, before you ruled. If the Board I ! h votes to sequester. it will be my view, and a motion will be l 14 15 made that you then enter an order precluding any counsel, or 16 the reporter from giving to Mr. Thomas a copy of the transcript i l 17 of these witnesses before he appears to testify, or in any way ' l 18 conversing with Mr. Thonas concerning the testimony these l j 19 witnesses might give, because I think only fairness dictates ] l 20 that. ( j 21 And I wish the Board to be advised of my intention to 22 make that motion, and not be accused later of mouse trapping 23 the Board into coming down with a legal reasoning for a 24 sequestration order and then using it to get my attitude. l
?
- 25 I have no intention of pressing such a notion if l 4
(Il Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888
1- , 4-i l ) ! BORES,-LAZARUS - DIRECT 11762 ! 1 there is no sequestration order, but if there is one, I will l 2 ask that the same order, in essence, apply to Mr. Thomas. I l [ 3 MR. OLESKEY: I 'm sure Mr. Dignan will do whatever is j i
- 4 appropriate to his client 's interest. }
i 5 I would point out that, one, Mr. Thomas has already . 6 testified at considerable length on the matters for which the l f 4 7 Board has felt, as do the Intervenors, it 's important to have ! j '. , i 8 these witnesses. \ l 9 And secondly. Mr. Thomas has been the subj ect of l ! t i 10 comments by the Board, which I need not review, which j 1 11 suggested, among other things, he could be subj ect to civil i 12 penalties for testimony already given or presumably testimony 13 to be given. So he 's in a very dif f erent position vis-a-vis l O 14 needing to understand what 's being said about his role in the l \ l 15 case than these two gentlemen. f 16 Thirdly, that 's an issue which when it 's raised ought ! I 17 to be addressed by his counsel as well as by the rest of us. i i 18 MR. TURK : Your Honor, there is one final comment I f 19 would like to make; again looking at the Midland decision. l i 20 The Appeal Board noted that there are various ! l 21 measures that the Licensing Board can utilize in order to ! i 22 ensure proper presentation of credible evidence. And I would 23 suggest that a less stringent measure than sequestration could be utilized by the Board. ; 24 25 Arid I would suggest that if the Board request that ; Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 L i'
i, ! I t BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11763 j l- ' lll 1 the witnesses not discuss the cross-examination apart from ! i l 2 their being in the room when the cross-examination goes on. 4 s i 4 3 That might be an appropriate way to ensure no joint ef fort to 4 deal with the cross-examination. ) S (Board confer.) l t 6 JUDGE SMITH: The Board is going to require 7 sequestration of the witnesses as to that part of the testimony 8 which tests their memory of the eventa which are relevant to l 9- this consideration. I don 't want to restate them because of 10 the sensitivity of them, and I don 't have the time to be all l l i 11 that careful. But whatever you recognize is relevant to this 12 thing as to their memory of them, and the two particular 13 meetings, we will require sequestration together with the other l ' i ! 14 relief that we have indicated, and that is, they don 't make any . j 15 effort to learn what has happened in the room, and in fact j 16 af firmatively rej ect any information that might come to your [ t 17 attention as to what the other of you had to say, But let me l 18 explain our reasoning again. j l 19 We think that you are putting too strong a test on i f 20 whether sequestration is appropriate when you ask us first to l 21 find that there is some reason to question the integrity or the 22 credibility of these people. That is not necessary. It is 23 only where the situation exists where the -- let me use the i n 24 words of the Appeal Board here which is always safe; not f i n 25 always, but -- ; i f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
i ! I l $ 11764
- i. BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT i
O 1 From preventing one prospective witness from being 2 taught by hearing another 's testimony. This does not suggest i- . 3 that we believe that either of the witnesses here would tailor l 4 their testimony based upon what they heard.their colleegues 5 say. That isn 't the issue. There are two other issues. i 6 One is, there is a natural tendency for people to do l 1 7 exactly that. It 's just natural. It 's not corrupt. It 's not 8 a question of integrity. People just naturally tend to agree, 9 particularly with coworkers. j 10 It would deny the opportunity to independently test 11 memory, and I imagine that is one of your purposes, to test 12 mencry. t I g 13 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. Your Honor. i ! W 14 JUDGE SMITH: And, of course, that would perhaps i 15 unfairly refresh accurate memory, but you may wish to test 16 mencry as it exists, whether it 's ref reshed or inaccurate. So 17 that 's involved. 18 And we see no prej udice to anyone. We do recognize ; 19 the value of having the witnesses fill in the gaps in the , i 20 record when one is unable to remember. We think that can be f l 21 accommodated after their basic testimony is received. But we i 22 don 't see any damage to be brought about by this, particularly 23 since you have forthrightly acknowledged that you 're not 24 claiming that you need them to advise you during the 25 examination. So we don 't see any great benefit for them to be l 0 Reportind Corporation Heritage . (202) G28-4888
i 1 i I BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11765 1 together- They cannot be substituted by another method. 2 A nd, further, this is an unusual situation. They are j 3 here at the Board 's invitation in part, and Mr. Dignan 's motion 1 4 in part, because there-is what we see at the threshold a l l 5 significant difference in the accounting of events between Mr. ! 6 Thomas and these witnesses. , 1 7 As to Mr. Dignan 's trction, piggyback motion -- l 8 MR. DIGNAN: Can I be heard if it 's in order to make l i', because I have not argued it fully to you? l 9 l l ! l 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, then it 's timely to make it. j l 11 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. j 12 JUDGE SMITH: I wonder if it could not be made 13 tomorrow though. , O 14 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, I would be glad to make it and 5 15 argue it t omo r row. Your Honor, just as long as it 's made and 16 argued before there is any further testimony by these 17 witnesses, that 's all . 18 MR. TURK- Your Honor, coming back to your order. I 19 want to be sure I 'm clear on what it is that the witnesses and 20 I myself are prohibited from doing. l 21 For instance, it 's my intention to review past events 22 with the witnesses this evening. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 24 MR. TURK : I t 's a l so my intention to present their i 25 testinony on direct -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 I I i l __.______._J
i I i BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11766 i h i JUDGE SMITH: Right, j 2 MR. TURK: -- as a panel. And I assume those things I l 3 may proceed without any effect. { 4 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 5 MR. TURK: Presumably we 'll . continue af ter tomorrow '! i 6 evening into Friday with cross-examination, and I then will be j i f 7 working with one or the other or both witnesses in preparing 8 for further cross-examination. That 's where I have a dilemma. : l 9 I presume that the Board 's order prevents me f rom j i 10 disclosing to Mr. Lazarus any events which transpired during l i 11 Dr. Borea 's cross-examination. i 12 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, on the specified aspects of it. !
}
All right, and those aspects will be I l 13 MR. TURK: 14 specified by Mr. Oleskey tonorrow, or -- l 15 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. l 16 MR. TURK: -- are those the aspects you referred to l 1 l 17 already? 18 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we 're going to try to cut out,
?
19 keep to a bare minimum those aspects of the testimony that {t l l 20 require sequestration. f 21 MR. TURK: So that the -- ! I I 22 JUDGE SMITH: For the reasons you said. We recognize f 23 there is a benefit of having both witnesses on the panel so ! 24 that we have the benefit of both of their memories and 25 j udgment . It 's only when -- it 's only when their memory itself i O Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 ; f i :
I i ! j i t 1 , i: I 1 BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11767 i - G- 1 is being tested vis-a-vis Mr. Thomas 's account of events that 2 we believe there should be no witting or unwitting , i ! I 3 reinforcement of their memories, no learning from one or { 4 another, and also very important is the aspect of public : X 5 confidence in-this proceeding. l ! 6 I want to emphasize that we 're trying to have as 7 highest quality evidence that we can get. I think that 's an f 8 important aspect of it. f l l 9 MR. TURK: Al1 right. I would ask that Mr. Oleskey 10 raake it a little easier for me in my working with my witnesses l l 11 that when he does wish a sequestration as part of his cross-12 examination, that he make known to me exactly what areas those l l 13 are that he wishes to have sequestration apply, so that in my : 9 14 working with witnesses I don't stray over a line.
)
15 MR. OLESKEY: I 'll be happy to do that. 1 16 Might I understand whether the direct is in substance i ' i 17 concluded now, or whether there 's going to be - i 18 JUDGE SMITH: The only sequestration that we were I 19 going to direct would be cross-examination, and I guess l l 20 redirect on that relevant cross-examination. { 1 l 21 MR. OLESKEY. I was only think this. Your Honor. If 22 there is more direct to come, or if Mr. Turk is going to be t , 23 working with the witnesses jointly tonight and reviewing their j \ l 24 proj ected cross-examination on the memoranda, a lot of the ! \ I j 25 benefit. in my view, of the sequestration will be gone because l I l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) G28-4800 , l l
4 , t b i - 1 l ! l l BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11768 l
@ 1 they will have reviewed their recollections today jointly.
2 JUDGE SMITH: They probably have. I mean, you know, ! 3 I would imagine that 's -- 4 MR. OLESKEY: What they-have done is history, but l f 5 they still face tonight and the next couple of days. G JUDGE SMITH: Right, that 's always the case you have 7 with witnesses. You know, he has competent counsel, and he 's 8 certainly going to prepare him to testify. 9 No, we don 't reach that. 10 MR. OLESKEY: May I inquire through you if the direct c i 11 is concluded or is there other substantial -- f f 12 JUDGE SMITH: He can talk to him about anything he ) 13 wishes tonight. f 14 MR. OLESKEY: I 'm only trying to find out whether he , ! I 15 plans to ask a number of questions on direct tomorrow. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Direct is not included. Redirect, or 17 let me say redirect on cross on the relevant parts would be 18 included. 19 MR. OLESKEY: I understand, Your Honor. I 'm j ust i 20 trying to find out whether Mr. Turk is about to turn the j 21 witnesses over in the morning for cross. I I 22 JUDGE SMITH: No, he has more direct. I I 23 MR. TURK: That 's correct. ! 24 MR. OLESKEY: A substantial amount, Sherwin? 25 MR. TURK: As I indicated before, I think for the f Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 028-4888 I
BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11769 O 1 purposes of getting a full accountind and chronological orderly 2 sequence it 's important that I conduct direct, and I would like 3 to do it once, and I would like to do it with two witnesses on 4 the' panel. 5 MR. BACKUS: How long? 6 MR. TURK : I can 't give you a good estimate, but you 7 know the sequence of events that I 'm going to be exploring with 0 them, and it does cover a time period of some length. So I 9 would expect that the direct will go on over the course of 10 tomorrow morning, or at least a good portion of tomorrow 11 morning. 12 MR. BACKUS: Tomorrow morning. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well. I don't know if this point came 14 across, and that is, recognizing that there would have been a 15 benefit for them being together on the testimony, we don 't 16 forsake that benefit. If there should be a need to call one or 17 the other back to address voids or whatever problete you have, 18 we are not foreclosing that. 19 We 're j ust saying the first shot out of their 20 testimony it should be insulated from influence or the 21 perception of influence by the other witness, and both are 22 obj ec t ives . 23 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, I j ust have to observe that 24 if there 's a morning 's worth of direct, I 'm a little aggrieved 25 that there was nothing prefiled for this panel. O Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat ion (202) 628-4088
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11770 0 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I note your aggrievement. 2 MR. BACKUS: Staff counsel has known for some time, 3 and when we don 't have discovery, we did not have these 4 witnesses offered on deposition, now for the first t ime we 're S going to get material that 's not been provided, I gather. We G Rnow ** hat the records are. What was marked today is fine. We 7 alI had that. We 're prepared to work with that. But a whole 8 morning of direct, I think t hat 's, frankly, abusing the process 9 that we 're suppose to have here of knowing in advance what the 10 direct testimony of the parties are going to be, 11 JUDGE SMITH: We note it. 12 Anything further? 13 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. Your Honor. O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Now. Mr. Dignan, I hope we don 't take IS up a lot of time tomorrow on Thomas. 16 MR. DIGNAN: No, you 've heard the essence of the l 17 motion but there are a few -- l 18 JUDGE SMITH: Just bear in mind that one of the 19 reasons why we 're having Mr. Thomas come here is to further 20 what the Intervenors wish. 'Jhey have a pending deposition. 21 MR. DIGNAN: I understand. 22 JUDGE SVITH: And, in addition, we recognine that Mr. 1 23 Thomas may have an interest in the testimony of these people, 24 and t hat 's important. 25 MR. DIGNAN: I underatand that, Your Honor, and I 'm O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) (,20-4000
BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11771 0 1 fully cognizant -- l 2 JUDGE SMITH: And we wanted to make it possible for 3 him to actually be present here. 4 MR. DIGNAN: I am fully cognizant of the concept of S confrontation. And why I said I wanted to be heard is to argue 6 respectfully to you that the right of confrontation is not 7 congruent with the right to be present in the courtroom. And I 8 would just like the opportunity to make the argument. 9 And I understand fully -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: That 's the direction we want to be 11 informed on. 12 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. The drif t of the way the ruling 's 13 going, but I would like to take my best shot in an argument. O 14 The other thing I would like to bring up at this time 15 is this. I understand there is pending out there this motion 16 for recusal. and there is some confusion in my mind-as to 17 precisely what is before the Board. 18 There was a colloquy between you and Mr. Backus as to 19 whether or not the motion, and in particular, you have called 20 for representations that there is legal merit to the motion -- 21 as to whether the motion is addressed to your discretion, as a 22 discretionary matter, or was being made as a notion for recusal
-23 as a matter of law.
24 It is my understanding that what is before you is a 25 motion for recusal as a matter of law, and that th O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. .~._ - = . _ l 1 i BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11772 I lll 1 representations that have been made to you in response to what I 2 I 'll call your Rule il question are on that basis. 3 And if my understanding is in error. I suggest the 4 record should be cleared up now. If all that 's before you is I i l S- the discretion notion, that 's a much dif ferent thing. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I thought it was cleared up. I 7 thought that Mr. Backus made it clear that -- see, there is a 8 basis for the confusion, because you recall that a renewal of l f 9 the motion, which notion which you made by telephone, was an l 10 appeal to our discretion to recuse ourselves on that subj ec t . 11 And so you called it a renewal, and I did ask you is this en ; f 12 appeal to our discretion, or is it something that you assert as i l 13 a matter of right. Clearly. I thought you answered that you 14 are asserting this -- the Intervenors are asserting this as a I 15 matter of legal right on the facts of the case to require us to l ! I 16 -- after we consider it, to require us to recuse ourself. 17 MR. BACKUS: That 's correct. 18 JUDGE SMITH: That 's right. 19 MR. BACKUS: Of course, subsumed in that is an appeal 20 to your discretion. But beyond that, you 're correct. 1 Okay. Yes, thut would be a -- 21 JUDGE SMITH: 22 MR. DIGNAN: And i t 's my understanding that the i 23 representations in response to the question, when I 24 gather you have left open the possibility of 25 reconsideration of those responses, has been Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 I (
L I f i l- . BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11773 1 made on the basis that the motion addressed to the Board is 2 recusal as a matter of law. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we 've been thinking about that a j I l 4 little bit further. I think you alluded to Rule 11 of the 1 [ 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which I think is the one that l 5 6 you sometimes have to assert that the pleading is submitted in- l 7 good faith. j l 8 MR. DIGNAN: It says in substance that any time you ! l 9 sign a pleading in the federal court it 's submitted in good l 10 faith, e 11 JUDGE SMITH: Right. I 1 { 12 MR. DIGNAN: And you believe there 's a legal and ) 13 factual basis for it. O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Right. That 's exactly what I have in L 15 mind. And before we will regard this as a joint motion, we , 16 will expect the other counsel to sign it, and with that 17 representation in it. 10 MR. TURK: Au I understand it then. Your Honor, we r i 19 are to proceed with the examination of Dr. Bores and Mr. ; t 20 Lazarus tomorrow. I 21 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 22 However, people are sort of missing another problem l 23 here. And that is, if events unfold the way the rules require, i 24 this whole thing will be moot. you know, the recusal motion. l 25 and there is no motion for expedition, no nothing; j ust here 's l 0 Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) G28-4888 I
BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11774 1 the motion. And by the time the 20 days have gone by before 2 the NRC Staff gets its answer in, and another 10 days for us to 3 study the law, it 's going to be 30 days before we rule on it. 4 MR. BACKUS: Well, I do feel a need for expedition, 5 and I have to apologize for the motion perhaps not being -- G laying out all those things in those words. 7 You see I recited in the motion that I -- first of ! 8 all, on May 10th we were invited to renew the motion in writing 9 as soon as we got the transcript. 10 The transcript of the May 10th telephone conversation 11 became available to me for the first time on Monday. The 12 motion was prepared that day and the next day j ust as faat as 13 we could. O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Since it 's clear that this is a motion 15 which we must grant if we find that the law and the facts would 16 require it, then the next step is -- and if we deny it -- then 17 we must refer it to the Appeal Board. 18 Now, see, you have put it into a rather fornal 19 context. We have no discretion but to address the motion, and 20 that is mandatory. If you touch the basis on it under 21 Commission law and under court precedent. it must be addressed. 22 It cannot be ignored. 23 MR. BACKUS: And I indicated that we were prepared to 24 address it as soon as the Board desire it further. 25 .!UDGE SMITH: Well, let me say that you have given O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[ t { 1 ! i I i I- ' BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11770 1 absolutely no law, and we can 't wing it, and we have no legal 2 resources here. I have a good memory of a brief signed by Ms. ) 5 3 Weiss several years ago whicn would not allow us to grant this l 1 4 motion, and that 's about the best-I can go on l'.. I 5 MR. BACKUS: Well, Attorney Turk cited a number of 6 cases, some of which we do think are appropriate and relevant 7 here: the Houston case, the Metropolitan Edison case. We are 8 prepared to address those. I have some other cases that I have 9 pulled together that I can have for you tomorrow morning. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I 'm going to leave it up to -- in 11 the first place, does the NRC Staff and the Applicant have a 12 position on the motion? 13 MR. TURK: I certainly do, Your Honor. O 14 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Do you support it? l l 1G I mean, we can cut this whole thing short quickly. f 17 MR. DIGNAN: No. p 18 JUDGE SMITH: You don 't. , 19 MR. TURK: Definitely oppose the motion, f 20 JUDGE SMITH: Are you prepared to argue it orally? 21 MR. TURK: On the basis of my digest, yes. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I mean are you prepared to do l 23 that? 24 MR. TURK: I think I 've -- a better argument would be ; 25 made once we have the cases to ci+.e and prepare a nice, full O Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat ion l C202) 626-4000 l
=
l BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11776 [
.e 1 exposition. I mean, the matter --
2 JUDGE SMITH: Then it 'll be moot. 3 MR. TURK: The matter raised by Mr. Backus is a 4 serious one. I mean, it 's not every day that we see motions S directed to administrative law judges to recuse themselves. I I 6 think if the matter is to be treated absolutely entirely 7 correctly, then we should be able to cite cases and do research l 8 and address the matter fully. 9 I am prepared, however, to argue it. And if the 10 Board can resolve it without having to go to briefs, we 'll do 11 it that way. ; i 12 MR. BACKUS: It 's perfectly acceptable to me. 13 JUDGE SMITH: See, we have our own responsibility. 14 Well. I don 't know what to do on it. I don 't want to 15 moot your motion. I mean I really don 't, and that 's the way it 16 would go if we didn 't take strong actions on our own. We do 17 want to give you an opportunity to have your grievance l l 18 addressed. I 19 MR. BACKUS: I appreciate that. 20 JUDGE SMITH: But that 's hard to do and. of course, 21 it is an important matter. l 22 MR. BACKUS: I 've got the Houston case. I 've got the 23 Metropolitan Edison case. We can -- I think probably the i 24 Board 's f amiliar with those cases. l l l 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well. I 'm f ami l i ar wi t h a lot of cases e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888 I _ _ _ _ . .. . . ... .. .
s BORES. LAZARUS - DIRECT 11777 1 thanks in part to Ms. Weiss. 2 (Laughter.) 3 JUDGE SMITH: And I can tell you right r r 7. mean 4 you go back and reed those cases and you lose. 5 MR. BACKUS: Well. I'd like an opportunity to arEue G that that 's not the result those cases should dictate. 7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 8 MR. BACKUS: And I 'm prepared to do that as soon as 9 possible, as soon as it 's convenient to the Board. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we 'll take it under consideration 11 to see if we think all of these things can be accommodated by 12 oral argument. 13 What was your view on it. Mr. DiEnan? 1 14 MR. DIGNAN' A recusal motion. Your Honor. I 'd rather 15 have a chance always to brief it. I 've been through this l 16 routine with these very people before. This seems to be the 17 pattern. When it gets rough, you try to recuse the Board. 18 MR. BACKUS: I would like to take exception to that 1 19 comment of counsel. 20 MR. DIGNAN: And that 's when you 're not attacking 21 counsel for the Applicant. 22 But, in any event. I have found that once you brief 23 these things, i t 's laid out pretty clearly. I want counsel 24 held to that representation under Rule 11 with the full 25 ur.derstanding that I want to brief it. O Heritage Re po r t ing Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11776 1 MR. BACKUS: You 've got it. 2 JUDGE SMITH: That we do on our own. I think you 3 should add to the tretion a Rule 11 representation, and I want l 4 ell counsel who join in the motion to sign it. 5 We 'l l take your request for expedited consideration I I 6 and oral argument in view of -- why don 't you talk to Mr. 7 Dignan about it, and see if he won 't -- I don 't know what to 9 say. This is difficult. 9 MR. BACKUS: We did forecast this on May 10th. We 10 raised the issue on May 10th. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 12 MR. BACKUS: I agree it was ambiguous about whether 13 it was appeal to discretion or more than that. I don 't think 14 this should come as a complete surprise that we 're concerned i 15 about the statements that were made on May loth in the j i' 16 telephone conference, 17 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Okay, we 'll think about it i 18 and see what we can do. I 19 MR, TURK: Is there any possibility that we can ask \ l ! 20 that the court motion be withdrawn until after the Bores-21 Lazarus testimony is presented and heard? l 22 And if the Intervenors feel at that time that they 23 still need to proceed with it, they can refile it. 24 MR, BACKUS: Let us confer about thut. 25 MR. DIGNAN: One of the practical problems I want l Heritage Repor t i ng Corporation (202) 628-4885 l l 1
~. ..
l l BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11779 l
. 1 understood here. I do want to brief. I can always argue l
l 2 orally, but I mean I 've got attorneys sit ting here saying we 'v e 3 reed alI thele cases, and I don 't know what they 're going to l , l t 4 argue. And until I see his brief, it's a little difficult for ! S me to be prepared to argue against 11. because I read the 6 Houston case and these other cases about the way you read them, b 7 and I gather Ms. Weiss read them once, but I 'm sure there is 8 going to be an artful interpretation and I would like to see 9 that before I have to brief it. 10 And as I understand it. I 've got no law now. I 've got f l 11 a dissertation of what 's in the record, an affidovit that says l 12 it 's in the record, and nothing else. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, can we possibly approach it this O 14 way, that you -- we will try to see 1: we can dispose of it in l 15 oral arguments. And if you think it 's to your disadvantage at E44 16 the end of that, well then we 'll look at it again. T45 17 I mean, if after they argue their law orally and you 18 think that you cannot meet it orally, well, we 'll give you l 19 time. I guess we have to. l 20 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. , i 21 JUDGE SMITH: But I would like to see this -- and 22 we 're not going to stop the hearing. I would like to see the 23 matter decided on some basis other than trootness if it can be, ! 24 and that 's the wer it 's going if we don 't do someth4 ng. 25 Okay, we 're ad.lourned until 9:00 a,m. l9 Heritage Reporiing Corporation (202) 628-4000 I i l l l
,--.--.~.-.- _-----... - ----- . . _ . - - - - - - - - - - -
- - ~ . - . . . ~ . . - . _ _ . . . . . .
- i. -
t t i
- i a' ,
J. 1 i I . i-BORES, LAZARUS - DIRECT 11780 l l
-e 1 (Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the hearing was recessed, f 2 to resume at 9: 00 o ' clock a. m. , Thursday, May 19, 1988.) I t
(
, 3 !
i. ! 4 i 1- . i
- . 5 l.
l 6 l a i i 7 '
- l. i 4
i 8 : l 9 f l ; l 10 : 1 I 11 i 12 i 33 O. 14 I 15 l 16- i 17 l l 18 l 19 i 20 , 21 l I 22 i t j 23 l 24 25 ! o Heritage Reporting Corporation i; (202) 628-4888 l i s I
.y . - p
1 1 CERTIFICATE ~ (:) 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: 5 Name: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 6 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 7 Docket Number: 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL 8 Place: CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 9 Date: May 18, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission t aken electronically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of th court reporting company, and that the recording is a 15 true and accurate r rd of theO oregoi @ proceedings. 16 /S/[ __ [ b 17 (Signature typed): KENT ANDREWS 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 I
<A ~
h O . J. y B g wQy s Y t {
\
fk \ 4 >
\r I
O % 4
\u
,x)
V 0 0 - 9 _ _ - - - - _ _,,,v _ , _ . - , - - - ' ^ ' ' ' ' " '
O 9 e O . 4 1 a 41 fy tabhfi Y lIs hh[ mph o $t
);w ju dj d!j$ug! 4Piihh4 ,4, m
( EN'4 o 9
#'j)$f[O
$da d'
>}'[t~:k'I"
)8(
{s~pl awaab l nt ki 8
!Nijf&g l
))sd y4 3f@) N. Ni, o 91 N > 14 kNdJi1Ts O A 9 ..y--+...- , - .%.-.--.-.,,m.-.e , , - , , - , . _ . . - - . . , - . . - , , - - - , - - , - - - - _ - - - - -
O
~
O O SECTION I
. Review of Revisions to the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Seabrook (Rev. 2 - 8/86) e 1
i l l l l l
O O . . . . O l I BAC REVIEW or iteE STATE OF IEEu IIA 8er581tRE RADict.DCICA4. EseESCOsCY RESP 0 erst Ft.AA FOR SEAma008C
. (sevielee noted II/s))
l ~ tese C4 et / 3 g ,, eac canoestetmecommendes see Se state a.cp m actie. 5 see, see 43
!3 ] 31 nac sweleettee of stete neepense ade,.ste seese M
se a 1Y (a) Ce=*8* A;!G . T1 g3 (Rev. 2 - s/se) 8"*de- (d 22 7'a . *=at* 8at'"= ,s. ga;; (8) i (83 39 rae deser$,4a P
'-n See sensente se sectle. 2.6 are **'***"*"***"**- ' " "
i J.it. for J.to.. end p
/ eies. win C e'," $ 7 ~**k: /
Prxeettw actsen docteten f FMA% December ases me. 4 makteg er$11 esse te be espedited pggy- '
*resolutten
* * * " * "o
" '"*3** 18'*eh j
j j
*Pe*1f88813F fee the beech popete- _-_
eusseer reendents R$eme. nha emewinterfatd I arece modet on or seer the be. (n '{ Inform free the State of New Heen g mentner of trenelents who emeld smeed
/j k ranspectation ehrtag en eemrustion.
$, A I
-g* The e-tee reiste **P ** P. 2.6-18 I
- dose met ytee8de auf f tcleet detett 2.s.m'*',e**8',*'.*.S**'s'"8*,,',*-
t., t. , ., to I '- '* e oewsti,eting ie nnedequate tsee ltee tta be eeefes. w"""ar.
,~~~.pe."r sm'.' s"'r " .*t.a n.e.
i" * * *'e. *i g em.m.. w vene. fel. mo e.re.e. to ta .e.ss ~e.
- 3. eddtesee.' eny shelters' mentch any be (Il Aceerding to the State response end th.
1 weed enneste elee .be adestttled se
*"8(** ',r*g* _ ', 8**-, ,8 **e
,, plan revisione, the wee of yeshtte shefters 1
i nope. em P 2.6-4 s tie ovat t eht 18 t y of .e+.c ta t'* m ***=- 3*=*1 i.. vns. erws.s.- sta m. eve.sa s le not proposed extrg e Saabroosi statlas ! pubtIC sheltete for t restelente le N "NS* entervency. h only esception le the possibie e of e.htte butadtags for eetdest recteettom stees to tetet- p. 2.e-12. no s ctl** mhetters for transtants without transpor- ! ,g, t a t ion. Trenelents with transportation and *without scetes to en IMoor Ceve searby pusht t e beat te t shte Ib oe locat!sn" will be adelsed to eveewate in c $deettfled med are t$tey tsett baense am their own vehletes. The ese of pubtle
. bwildings for sheltering of transients local emergeacy asesharef If each =Ithout transportetten le acceptable biettdiese era earteesty considered for einee the translents without *"nsporte.
r u. it.. e.. o.e - -t - *lon ere espected to be e .ece seals
. ";a ,,'d,,';m et,' e as ', '; ';;
~ t , t, e.t e. en e .e ed hoe besle*.
6 & . e . 4
$ 3: 9 I jijs}
i A - O })siis 9 i i w 3 E k
- i 2) i
{ ,E {e l. g E
.I I Hk r
} $ #
l I h
, s !" -
ul 5"
..,,.g
.. ... m.t.i.~
; k W 5=*
~
5 g If 3 -
}
r i a 3 d 3 3 1 XE3 [, i
=I3 s .
1,
!3 3 i
l 5 W E
=8 -1 -
51 E g . g 9s g (V ) .,mM PV I , ili il*!iii -
, 2.21 !!!,
i
~:.i - ,
f ,!
- 3-t,:5j 2 } 3, . .. . .. :...:; ". -
s . h . '. I1 2: 1- ta. . . s .. ( '-
~
g . ' -b :-
.31 =- 12 l n 2 i.3] g3 :l]3. -
1 II - I -ii
.j.
y
~ 38 I ll]-
t >
.1.1 9 i.re:3 .
Ei!: Alil}!!! . 1589 13 . vm. - 4 4 - i .
i Isi}5,jijs: ' g . . O .i. - si:p-
* ~
nk r 2'J iy [ $e, 3 I.., l
. 3; 5
al L};2i pe
! =
a
=, st- ,. .
.: w .- r
- s. Hsu
.! ~i it- si- g } ,' ,4
. js j[ 3 ,.
=
e n L~,1s, m . !;%, " % s 3 sTN.R E -
-l
.. n .
. m .umr.u =>3 lig33 F sli zl21:se!) ir inie! ij!ni) 11pi3 ,,i 2auszatz2 3.! j:a is ,
11 O l .,:l5 ! I "j iI I' l3*
~
i!'i 3 0)}ij}i$jilll$}111i81'!k}!!@ 3 j
!!}lighNil
})i !s ! ;j!'! y! h 3u21ig 3 83 ( !!iftbid{j!UI!L j#. 2 EI21, ' i'I l pelll'zi4
.f'. .ij ii%8l
*I!
m a 3,11lil']1,gl.'iz
.g 1.3- .j8a2
'i n .i lis.2,2 3 5 jr 8
3
-a j lj:idj'Il!
a 1 11 2
)l:l)3,Iln]li l
Eg 5 a 4 il
- . 33:!filin]t I!I y,i_jil .1 2
I/12 vl
]!i2];,15i n ! 2} til,Mr dill!1hi}..[olih,illI!} ,1
!! i[. ',
'VI'3pgj 1 biiI dii i (
'ii di L
i "g 111 rii . e .. , . .. .;;. . . . . - l m ., ,u ,..s -
. .8. .
m .iaw , e
. .....,~. . .
j3I3~
~ -
4 .-
, at -i;, 3
!s.w.......l
.m ::.
< 1. , s . . .. 3 ., l i d, j , , . hi9.n ' c.
,i y_ .
. ;w ,.u . ;
r: j a.l1 ] l .1. 1 *. a. . :.=.. . _ , . . 1.:. 2II: .t j! !!;] O '3i!>~vi! y i83s ,,s. : : l.:i 2i s !! . . i J f l t - . - . . . i ==s u (tI
' W
- M". h_ -_ , -. . - . . _-. - -_ ___-___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ .__ _ ____ . _ ._,m. _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . , , _ _ _ _ SECTION E .
. Review of Revisions to the Municipal (EFZ Commualties)
ReMonogleal Emergemey Response Pleas for Seabrook - (new. 2 - s/ss) e e I I e O G ao.e - - = '""
. [t S & g g $
* * ' d q' . 7e* *
- =
, . , . t . ,r*
% *.s %*.,,. * +*
4,
~
,.~e, * ,, *,'- ;., , ;' . , . .
~
. .p3 ,..
- e
# '4s %.
p., , . .8 -
.. *~
' . -.. .n. - . .(
, ..g_ e. 3 '., * *
. ./. . 7
- l '
- s.: s ', ' .
. .. .. . . s- -
Al .i t i 3-
. ,, ':se jaj p k tl -
@M) yV
.r :* .
O a431'13 $x y
%ji*I'
- I h ~ 2 l% T 422 a kl8 I'i'I I}}
i
} 52 li{1 J c y.6.
3 bl ig >E5 'l1 l' 2g 2 }; ~$ 2 e li2:
=
b ts
- h' ~ 5 t.
;. j er- =1 ilg
; /, I,h*3 i 'u 3-l;,!
; i ?}d '
at i; f1 I e .!G2lb1 a4 ,i 8 ' t I s 3!s 2 - . 2, iI~1{1
.l ! ! e.ar2 :i ,2 8,2 I
$ el11
<:!j l . i T E 2 3 4. E 1 = :.
- l g
gX settetimes je eseg petM[e4 P,;g$ g V jg;- p =31 I':- 8 ff'i. ,l iii
*25: !Wi i!ii! -}
{ t s 1.s,,s ,: n. n a:s . n.
.!lI 2"
j ji) 3
.i4 d2
( ) I .! iij !**g** e i]3
'I in!!!!!
~
Ei2 ~ I t liffi
- ,1 c .: .. . .: .: 13 I 31- s. }# #
Ef J
}} A l
l@iipii 1: sEl
~3*
! I fisihilikii II vi ,17.d
=I 4
r , .e e .e .e .e ,ris
! ! Ad E 35 I ** 1
!e 23fi!32324 t-e-a-c-= a !lts .i
!v Il5l T 333.:34.:
E 1741* I a>.:ssc7xan7as m 6
- wees: - _. -
. m si - w n. .
I .- 1 ..
- a rs rss' ul3322 u .
2 2pe '". 2.j ;~ .. i js j ;'f it t . gl y.:.....m.:::
. -ja . .! g s
.1.: : si
! r-1 . . .i . . .. ..g' l ! I.
1 .
.:!: j ,3ll j 2 'l - J,
- y ~ ,
g'.VI63:,_I2l i g l =* 1~ I l ....~....
-.321 13:1 - -
3 si I- II:!3 18 { g .!:tJi}
- r
- 32 I
lI:2.e.J.Jt.g I
; _l.J. i. .:r.1 r .
1 esso u l . 9590 3 FEM $
~ .
\ - m . _ - - . _ _ _ _ - . . _ _
OARGONNENATIONALLABORATORY 97oo SoVTH CA$$ AVENUE, ARGoNNE, ILLINol$ 60439 TELEPHONE 312/972-7643 April 22,1987 Mr. Edward A. Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency Room 462 J.W. McCorr . ok Post Office and Courthouse Boston, M A 02109 Dear Ed As requested by Jack Dolan on 4/22/87, we have prepared additional draft revisions to the RAC review of the New Hampshire State and local plans for Seabrook. These draft revisions are enclosed and reflect suggested changes by changes These Bob Boresdeal(NRC) to the revisions previously transmitted with our letter dated 4/17/87. with the beach population issue. In order to clearly show where changes are being proposed, we have again purposely lef t the changes in hand-written form. The most recent char.ges, suggested by Bob Bores, are indicated by brackets. I If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert E. Rospends
- Energy and Environmental Systems Division RER:may Enclosures (1 and 2) cc: R. Bores (NRC)
M. Lawless (FEM A-HQ) K. Bertram (ANL) T. Baldwin (ANL)
- 1. .
I O THE UNIVER$lTY OF CHICA0o U.S. DEPARTNENT OF ENERGY
UNITED STATES
+#gSE8 Coq #
0,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.,,PA??Al1N,, EAW6SO/CE 2 iftf,g) 4 ,UNG OF PRUSSI A. PENNSYLVANI A 19404
***** u s i 8 1987 O
Edward A. Thomas, Chaiman Regional Assistance Committee Federal Emergency Managerrent Agency John W. McCormack Post Office and Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02102
Dear Mr omas:
Reference:
Your memo of December 31, 1985 relative to the beach populations in the Seabrook area As requestod, I am responding to your memo regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP relative to the protection of the beach population. My response is based on Revision 2 of the NH RERP; the RAC/ contractor coments on it, including the Seabrook Evacuation Time Study; the analyses of specific Seabrook Station features; and my professional knowledge and judgement related to emergency preparedness. The bases of my opinion that the plans are or will be adequate (contingent on completion of actions by New Hampshire to resolve RAC concerns) to protect the beach population (both the beach transient group and those who inhabit unwinterized accomodations) are provided in the Enclosure to this correspondence. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at FTS Q 488-1213. I would be happy to meet with you and/or the RAC to discuss my response, i
/
l Robert Bores, Technical Assistant l Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As Stated . cc w/ encl: W. Lazarus, RI 1 l l O}}