ML20154L464
| ML20154L464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6453 OL, NUDOCS 8805310305 | |
| Download: ML20154L464 (298) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l v J \ /-\ _. O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
EVIDENTIARY HEARING )
) DOCKET: 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL
) 0FFSITE EMERGENCY' NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al ) PLANNING
)
(SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 and 2) ) I r PAGES: 12487 through 12782 PLACE: Concord, New Hampshire DATE: May 25, 1988
. m m e.w...... m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mmm m e = = = =
b, C 6 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION O WRW 1220 L Street, N.W., Seite 600 WasMagton, D.C. 20005 i E805310305 000525 (232) M PDR ADOCK ObOOO443 T PDR
( h () 12487 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS T.ON , ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ; 2 ' Tax 50Ttl f 3 In the Matter of: ) 4 ) l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. j 5 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-443-OL i i
) 50-444-OL !
i 6 ) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING > l 7 ) EVIDENTIARY HEARING l . 8 l I l
- 9 Wednesday, j l
10 May 25, 1988 ! ! 11 Room 302 i l Legislative Office Building l l 12 Concord, New Hampshire : r () 13 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing. l 14 pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m. ; I l 15 BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN i j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l 16 U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission : Washington, D. C . 20555 l 17 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., MEMBER 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board J j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l ., 19 Washington, D.C. 20555 '
, 20 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
! 21 U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
- Washington, D. C. 20555 !
) 22 f i ;
- 23 !
i i
- 24 i i
25 1 ! l Heritage Reporting Corporation [
. (202) 628-4888 i
i i i
12488 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For the Anolicant: 3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR. ESQ. KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ. 4 GEORGE LEWALD. ESQ. Ropes & Gray 5 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 6 For the NRC Staff: 7 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ. 8 Office of General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 Washington, D. C . 20555 10 For the Federal Emernency Mananen ?nt Anency: 11 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ. GEORGE WATSON, ESQ. 12 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S. W. 20472 {} 13 14 Washington, D. C. For the State of New Hampshire: 15 GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTCN, ESQ. State of New Hampshire 16 25 Capitol Street Concord, New Hatopshire 03301 17 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 18 CAROL SNEIDER, ASST. ATTY. GEN. 19 STEPHEN OLESKEY. ESQ. ALLEN FIERCE, ESQ. 20 Commonwealth of Masaachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 21 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 22 For the New Ennland Coalition anainst Nuclear Pollution: 23 ELLYN R. WEISS. ESQ. 24 Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N. W. 25 Washington, D. C. 20009 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . _ - . . - . . - - - - . _ , - ~. . - . - _ - . - - - . - . . - - . - . . . ,
I i l I 12489, fl (./ l 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League: 3 ROBERT BACKUS, ESQ. : Backus, Meyer & Solomon , 4 116 Lowell Street l Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 ! 5 l JANE DOUGHTY, DIRECTOR l 6 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League i 5 Market Street 7 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 8 For the Town of Hamnton: ! i 9 MATTHEW T. BROCK. ESQ. ; Shaines & McEachern l 10 25 Maplewood Avenue ! P. O. Box 360 11 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 i . 12 For the Town of Kensineton: 1 I j . 13 SANDRA FOWLER MITCHELL. EMERGENCY PLANNING DIR. i i Town Hall i 14 Kensington, New Hampshire l 15 For the Towns of Hampton Falls and North BDmnton and South Haimpton: f 16 ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ. I 17 Backus, Meyer & Solomon , l 116 Lowell Street l 18 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 l l 19 For the Town of Amesbury: 20 CNo Appearances) l 21 ! 22 : 23 l 24 25 !i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , t i
- _ . . - _ . - .. _ . _ _ . , _ . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ = _ _ _ ._ -_-. _-.___ _ _____ _ .__ _ __ . . _.
i. 12490 j {ll ! 1 INDEX 2 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM j ! 3 Panel'
! ROBERT BORES l 1 4 WILLIAM LAZARUS i i by Mr. Oleskey. 12499 !
5 by Mr. Backus 12562 i l by Mr. Brock 12578 !
- 6 by Ms. Weiss 12594 ,
by Mr. Turk 12610 i 7 by Mr. Dignan 12636 l by Mr. Oleskey 12637 l l 8 by Mr. Turk 12642 j i I l 9 Panel: l RICHARD KRIMM ! I ' 10 GRANT PETERSON DAVID MCLOUGHLIN l 11 by Mr. Flynn 12649 j l i i 12 , i I I i
- 14 ,
i ! 15 , l t 16 i i 17 f 10 I 7 19 20 , t 21 22 l 23 \ i 24 ; 25 lll ! I Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4880 . l t
-- ww m . , _. . _ -.-__ . -- _ -
.__-________..__.y_....__......__....____... _ _
,4 .
5 I f I l r 12491 i l 1 i ! INREX i i 2 EXHIBITS: IEEMI REC 'D red DESCRIPTION ' 3. MASS. AG-
- 4 . !
l ' 6
- 5 26 prev. 12493 2 pages, memo, 9 Jan.
l '86, Lut: to Thomas ! l 6 l l 27 prev. 12493 2 pages, letter, 14 " l 7 / Jan, '86, Bickerton . to Thomas ! l 8 l i 28 prev. 12493 2 pages, memo, 13 Jan. ; j 9 '86, Oleson to Thomas ! ! l 29 12493 10 prev. 2 pages, memo, 15 Jan. ,
'86, Church to Thomas j j 11 j 4
32 12496 12496 Multipage, 7 May, '87 i j 12 Rospenda to Swiren. l l Chan, Flynn; FEMA l l 3 13 responses to j W contentions , 14 !
- i 15 '
i 4 l 16 l
- I i 17 I i
18 < ! 19 ! l' ! 20 3 21 1
- 22 i !
! 23 l 1 ' i I {- 24 !
. l 1
i
- 25
. l
. I
- Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
4 (202) 628-4888 l I i i . b t
.-- .-. ~ -. . !
i 12491 A .i hhh b i 1 Igggg 2 INSERTS: PAGE: l 3 Mussachusetts Attorney General i l Exhibits 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, j 4 and 31 12494 I J ! 5 Massachusetts Attorney General l l Exhibit 32 12497 l 6 " Massachusetts cross-examination
- 7 plan on Bores and Lazarus 12644 l 8 9 l t
10 11 12 , () 13 i 14 ; 15 16 i 17 ! 18 P I 19 . t i 20 f 21 22 23 i r s 24 , 25 i Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
! (202) 628-4888 ,
k f i v/ - - - ---_./ ,_, _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ , , _ __
~
12492
?
f- . t/s i PROCEEDINGS 2 (9: 04 a. m. ) 3 JUDGE SMITH: Good morning. 4 Is there any preliminary business? 6 MR. OLESKEY: Just a couple of matters, Judge. We 3 6 have provided the reporter with three cople:s of Massachusetts 7 Attorney General identification Exhibits 26,'-7, - 8, and -9 8 which were the other responses from non-NRC RAC members to Mr.
\
9 Thomas 's memo of De: ember 31, 1985. So I 'd like to move at 10 this time that those be entered as formal exhibits pursuant to 11 our discussion of yesterday. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Are there obj ections? 13 MR. TURK: Your Honor, what 's the purpose of the r'N U 14 offer? 1S MR. OLESKEY: The same purpose as the purpose stated 16 repeatedly in colloquy between Mr. Turk and myself and myself 17 and the bench, to show the historical evolution o. the RAC 18 position as it represanted the only responses which these 19 witnesces are aware of to the Thomas inquiry of December 31, 20 'E5 in writing up until Dr. Bores 's work a year later. 21 s MR. TURK: Your Honor. I con 't ,obj ect for the 22 historical purpose offer. I don 't aster e with the 23 characterization thet these witnesses were aware of these 24 rasponses or if in fact they know of other responses that were 25 pr3vided to Mr. Thomas, wl? ph they 've not yet seen. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
T l l i l I 12493 lll n 1 -But for historical purposes I don 't obj ect to the
- 2 offer. l i- 3 MR. 0LESKEY: I didn 't represent anything about these
, \ 4 4 witnesses 's state of knowledge. If counsel will listen ;
-1 l 5 carefully we 'll save a lot of time today, f
- 6 JUDGE-SMITH
- So there is no obj ection for the f
! l l 7 purpose offered. And the exhibits are received. \ l 8 (The documents referred to, [ ! 9 having been previously 10 marked for identification as 11 Mass. AG Exhibits 26, 3, 12 29, were received in evauence.) f lll 13 JUDGE - SMITH : Do you want these bound into the 14 transcript? l 15 MR. OLESKEY: I think -- 16 JUDGE SMITH: They don 't automatically go there > l 17 unless you request it. { 18 MR. OLESKEY: No, I recognize that. Now, why don 't 19 we do that. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Do your want your Exhibit 30 and 31 21 bound in, too? ; 22 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. 23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. So, we 've already received ( r 24 30 and 31, and so we will ask that the reporter bind in l l 25 Exhibits 26 through 31 into the transcript. l 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
i -: : i l' 12494 5 i (Mass. AG Exhibits 26, 27, 28, l F j i 2 29, 30. and 31 follows:)
- l' 3 i i
j 4 i
- l. 5 i ,
1 i f 6 : I i
- 7 !
l, . l 8 , > 9 ! ! l 10 l l 11 I 12 1 13 14 15 i i 16 ; I 17 18 i 19 l 20 I 21 ! 22 I J 23 24 25 9 Heritage Reporting Corporation : (202) 628-4888 ;
f
. ~ ........e.:w.w >..W ^
~
w.r.-e e ........ . - ...-...- .- -. . . . . . ATTACHMENT 1 b y,$ '
'T e DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Edd[t hi
- REGIONAL. EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR F6AST COAST GUAAO DtSTRICT
, g~ ,
e l ISO CAUSEWAY STREET d.e.f ' Boston. WASSACHUSETTS C2118 gQ
.?h IBGION11 and H 9 JAN 1986
~
. Y,'*
MEMORA NDUM N From: Regional Emergency T ransportation Representative, q Regions 1 & 2
,. 4 To: Chairman, Regional Assistance Committee, Region 1
,W .
Subj: SEABROOK EMERGENCY PLANS
,/
'.' Ref: (a) Your memo Dec 31, 19 85 numbe r R1-TH- 85-fre , same subject f.T
..s
- ~, 1. My comments on the issues raised by reference (a) are as W} ,
follows:
*N a. The Transient Beach Pooulation gyz I think the State has done a pretty good job of attacking this problem in Appendix F of Volume 4 regarding decision making. As I read it, they will close the beaches
-7 U. when the plant is unstable or under certain wind conditions at sj.3 ALERT and they will evacuate at SITE AREA EMERGENCY under degrading plant condition. I like this precautionaryHowever, action to I
handle the special proolen of the beach population. would recommend a few changes to simplify and expedite the
decision process.
As an old meteorologist I am very uncomfortable with J-
,y; their use of wind direction to decide safety precautions in the
'if.! summer time along the shore. Along the coast in summer time we C have many days of light winds which are inherently variable in W.: direction. He have thunder storms which can cause winds from any direction and we have land effects and day and night 9 effects which cause changes in wind direction, especially in the summer time. With the sensitive issue they are facing at it$ Seabrook, I recommend that the precautionary actions directed T"
between May 15 through September 15 not be dependent on the
%"yf;. frequently uncertain wind direction. Since time will be of the 9:7, essence, the precautionary actions should be as automatic as 7.5 possible. The State should avoid the delays caused by waiting
'.,J 2 for meteorologists and plant engineers to get their acts together and to make uncertain forecasts.
yp
,,g.j Accordingly, I suggest that at "ALERT" the State
'p"
- automatically act to restrict access to the beaches and at "SITE A REA EMERGENCY" they automatically evacuate the beaches for all weather conditions ano even if the plant is considered stable.
k$ I h 1b
, . . n e s nu an u.s . . g # s
- b. Occupants of Unwinterized Accommodations
{} I cannot fully judge this RAD health problem. However, I feel that the precautionary actions discussed in "A" above will also help to lessen the danger f rom unwinterized accommodations since that will reduce the population on the road system and allow the people in unwinterized accommodations to move to more substantial structures or to voluntarily evacuate the area.
- 2. Are the plans in adecuate shape for a full scale exercise?
Overall, I believe the plan did a good job for most of cy assigned criteria. However, it seems inherently very unwise for a full scale exercise to be conducted when the RAC has not seen the missing parts of the State plan. 0I h
}#" [a r ul utt V _. _..
O i O
'95
" a. - n~ . e:
p
~fa V r ,= = %
- . w Q QT T
pt O m wm (Ed) Mr. Edward A. Thomas 01 vision Chief. Natural and Technological Hazards Federal Emergency Management Ag e nc y , Region ! John W. McCormack post Office and Courthouse Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Dear Mr. Thoma s :
This is in reply to your memorandum of December 31, 1985,
concerning the Seabrook emergency plans. Upon completion of o ir review of the New Hasoshire plans, we reviewed the California, Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia State plans for information that any have been included regarding beach populations, and we have incorporated any appropriate data in our response.
A. The Vransient Beach Population issue. Is *.he current planning acceptabl: or nearly acceptablef () USDA Response. Evacuation time estimates should be completed and reviewed by the RAC before the New Hampshire plans are considered acceptable. In developing evacuation time estimates, special consideration should be made for weekends and holidays. As a precautionary measure, the Virgin 1A p'l a n prov ide s for evacuation of their beach population at an earlier phase than for the residents. The New Jersey plan provides three dif ferent scenarios for evacuation. They have also considered time for mobilization, time on feecer roads and time on highways to the edge of the EPZ. For your information, procedures for determinin: E .e z 7 : : e g : y c ; p a c i t y were based on the Highway Cacacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Joaco of the a c t ion a l Rs:carch Cour.ctl and the Tra f fic Eneineering Handbook, publisned by the Institute of' Transportation Engineers. The Delaware State plan considers the use of ferry boats with assistance from the Coast Guard. This may not be possible for New ' Hampshire. Evacuation seems to be the enly tet':n ic ta taken, since the Mew Hangsntre plan states on page 2. 6-8 that "Sheltering may not be considered as a protective action on the seacoast benches dur}ng the summer.' O
, n *
~; '
3 ._ 3; l T Mr? Tauerd A. Thecas 2 (
, Regarding the use of cars for sheltering for several hours, we feel it i s not a viable consideration. Several reasons such as the heat (no air conditioning could be turned on), l need for watere, and other human needs make this an 1 unrealistic solution. The New Hampshire $ tate laplementing Procedures state that an El$ message will be developed. The section of the plan that includes Cl3 messages does not include one for transient population during the height of )
the susaar season. A message should be included with the other messages in the plan.
- 8. Occupants of Unwinterited Acc ommod a t io n s
!ssues. If this is a problem, we should raise it now to afforo state / local governments time to quanti fy the problem and deal with it.
USDA Response. We did not find this problem addressed in any of the other $ tate plans we reviewed. However, we feel it is a probles that should be addressed. Occupants of unwinterized cottages, motel rocas, or 8 campsites may not be aware that the structures are not - designed to resist penetration of radiological meterials. A survey could be made and the owners I notified. Another concern would be what is the most cost effective way to winterite these dwellings, or , O would it be more expedient to evacuate these shelters at the same time as th( day trippers are evacuated? These are a few concerns that should be addressed. In regard to your concern as to the desirability of a full-scale ' exercise as planned at the end of February, we feel that if the scenario provides for a summertime exercise, the plans would have to be upgraded to include the
- stated concerns before the exercise. Ms. Dorothy hevitt of
, my staff attended the drill in December and apprised me cf l the froblem areas that were discussed at the post. meeting. If the major problems have not been resolved, then it is , doubtfri that they are ready for an exercise. 1 We hope these omments will be of assistance to you ano if we can be of further assistance, pinase let us know.
$lacerely.
George E. Bickerter, Cirector Of fice of taergency Planning (]) FSIS:PP:EP:0RNevitt:l 14-86 l l
.-----ww----------
t s fh w .hi f'go o (/ January 13, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward A. Thomas, Division Chief Natural & Technological Hazarcs FROM: Fred B. Oleson, Health Physicist Emergency itanagement & National Prepareoness Programs Divis1on
SUBJECT:
Seabroon Emergency Plans Regarcing the issue of probable exposure or contamination which would produce health effects on the "bedCn population" during an acc1 dental release from Seabrook Station: ISSUE s1 Assume transient Deacn population could be evacuated by car or bus in a 7-8 hour period. (Preliminary est1 mates are that the entire beacn population including sumer residents could be evacuated in that time period). Since all crea1ble accident scenarios would not result in loss of all containment ano since over 18-20 hours of warning could be expected before any major leakage would occur (again conservative), evacuation of the "transient beacn" population would be feasible before significant releases (affecting health or producing surf ace contamination) 'would occur. This is
]v to be sure a personal opinion but it is shared by many of my health physics colleagues.
. The population most at risk would be the individuals or f ami'f groups who would have travelled to the beaches on a hot summer day by automobile.
This segment of the risk population could be evacuated first at tne Site Emergency level or deniea access at early as an Alert condition. All of these people would not be expected to nave been exposea or contaminated at all. Iney could return to their homes without having to go through reception centers. We need to know wnat number of the "transient populat1on" is in relation to the maximum sumer beach population. The next important segment to be evacuated would be residents (year round plus sumcr) in the area from 0 .5 mile. This segment should be < accorcea the same priority as the first group, re preventative evacuation. All residents fecm .5 to 2 n11es should be shelterea during the prevent-ative evacuation time frame. No release has occurrred containment is intact. What ~.:rter is involvac 's n1s op:1cn not counting emergency workers recuired to implement evacuation? Further evacuation should only be cons 1dered based on serious deter-ioration of plant conditions or breach of containment. This would be recom-mended based on the met conottions, estimated source terms, etc., downwind Os distance of EPZ towns, capacity of road network, constraints (weather con-i ditions, time of day, etc.).
t - o e F. Oleson/Seabrook Emergency Plans ,2] O If this sequence of evacuation and sheltering is applied to the pre-ventive action guidance, the 1ssue importance will be minimized. If maximum off-site dose rates of 1 rem /hr are predicted downwind at 0.5 mile for a duration of 3-5 hours the beach population (now reduced) could be evacuated out to 3 or 5 miles (or even 5 to 10 miles) depenaing on the lodine and part1culate components of tne plume and wind stability. If people in these zones evacuate before the plume has been detected or any dosimeter readings observec there will be minimal requirements for decon-tamination at recept 1on centers. For the majority of persons evacuating by car or bus f rom a plume affected area serious exposure, contamination or ingestion will not occur during evacuation or continued sneltering since the vehicle or house / cottage af f orcs a degree oT~ protection against contamination, moderate protection against ingestion and minimizes requirements for personal decontaminat1on at a future time such as transit to recept 1on centers. Since the unimpeaec transit times are of the order of 2 hours and in view of the intern 1ttent nature of the plume exposure, no serious health effects are expected even if these levels of predicted exposure occur and require evacuation. ISSUE #2 O waetaer or "ot tae aie"s ere "4" eoeavete sa ae" is "ot es i=aarte"t > whether the communications and warning systems are in place, whether the people assigned to execute or operate the plans ve trained, available and wi'. ling to be exercised (especially at local level), and whether all three States are going to be able to coordinate in the matter of public advisories. The drill did not demonstrate that these requirements for a successful exercise could be in place by February. Radiological teams, laboratory equipnent/procecures, decontamination capability at local ECCs or reception centers, equipment or instruments for local and state emergency worker exposure control, etc., are not yet in place or understood. The New Hampshire Emergency Broadcast System is not useable for the emergency programing neecec to implement the SeabrooK Station REP. Arrangements are being nace with an fit Station in Dover for emergency warnings to the public la the Seacoast Area. However, this should not be confused with the Emergency Broaccast System plan in existence wnich can only be changed with FCC and FEMA approval. O
% $Xh'})h, ;
~
/ -
UNITED STATES GOVERNM January 15, 1986 ITle111orcnc111 unv ,o Warren Church, FDA, RAC Marnber ATTM OF8 Seabrook Bnergency Plans Edward A. Thcnas, Division C11ef f Division of Technological Hazards, TD% , C ' ' .' .
, j..-ju.o/* c i .,
In response to your December 31, 1985 request, I wuld like to offer the followirn etr:ments regardire the state of New Hapshire's emergency plans f their beach population. A. Transient Beach Population
- 1. The concept of closire the beaches durire the early stages of a radiological energency at Seabrook has merit. Certainly it is realist to asstrne a minimum of several hours between the initial recognition o a potential problern (alert stage) and the need to escalate to a higher energency level where protective actions are normally indicated. (The probability of a fast brenirg event where there would be little or no warnire is much too low t plan for) .
There would be very little cost in autcrratically closing the beaches a the "alert" level because this is a relatively rare event (approximate every 10 reactor years) . Also there is approximately only one chance 50 that it would occur when the beaches were populated.
- 2. The procedures for closing the beaches would have to be simple and the:
would have to be impimented within a short period of time in order to be effective in the "worst case" scerurio where the energerry is rapid: escalatire. This may mean that the beaches would have to be autcr::stically closed at the "alert" stage.
- 3. Refere the offe tivenas: of *his concept can be fully ecaluated two questions need to be ansared.
- a. If the beaches are full, and the closure takes place, hcw long wil it take to mpty the beaches?
- b. What percentage of beach evacuees would actually leave the seacoas-arc 2?
- 4. If the beaches can be evacuated within a 2 - 3 hour pericx3 and a good percentage of the evacuees leave the seacoast area, then I believe thi:
concept to W sound and acceptable. -
l 5 B. Occupants of Unwinterized AWations O, 1he protection afforded by sheltering in unwinterized cottage aM matel roonts will definitely be less then nocsal single floor woodfraud houses. The exact protection factor will of course be dependent on many parameters incitding the radionuclide conposition of the plune ard the length of the shelterirg period. The li:nited sheltering protection offered by this type of housirs should definitely be factored into New Havnire's plans ard energercy decision makirg process. Campgrourds should be assmmed to of fer no shelterir>g protection. Public shelterire should be identified for this popalation. I hope the above emments concernirs protection of beach popolations will be helpful in New Hampshire's emergency planning process for Seabrcok. My carments on the other radiological health aspects of this plan are beirg sutrnitted urder separate cover. ONM Warren W. Church l l l l O l l l l i
Ob fn)Vjy
- s - 04 Federal Emergency Management Agency
- ' Washinpon, D.C. 20472 May 1, 1987 Mr. Edain Beis of fice of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulator,y Ca mission mehington, D.C. 20555 Ibar Mr . Reis: Re: Of fsite Ewrgency Planning Hearin;s, Seabrcok Nuclear Station h'
'Ihis will' confim our telephone conversation today in which I requested that Dr. Robert J,. Bores, Technical, Apsistant, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Conrission (NRC), Pegion I, be ra6a available as a witness in the of fsite opergency planning hearings for the Nuclear Po.er Station. These hearings are scheduled to begin June 1,1987, in Concord, Nea Hampshire, although the schedule ray have teen changed by the tire you receive this letter.
'me Regional Assistance Cc=ittee (RAC), chaired by Mr. Edeard A. Tha-as, Chief ,
Natural and Techno1cgical Hacards Division, Fe63ral Enero2ncy Kinage ent A32ncy ~3 i (FE'iA), Region I, has recently examired in 62pth the issue of the safety of the transient beach pcpulation within the LTrmncy Planning 2cne (E?2) fcr Seabrook. It was the sense of the FAC that certain f actors specific to the Seabrcok E?2 might preclude a finding that reasonable assurance that adeqtate protective reasures can te taken to protect the public in the event of an acci6ent at Seabrook. 'Ihe rost in;ortant of those f actors are the virtual unavailability of shelterirg for the transient beach population and evacuation tire esti.vates ranging up to rore than f our hwes. On the cther hand, Dr. Bores, who serves as NRC's RAC Fapresentat'ive for the Sea-brook Station, has provided inforretion that resolved rany of the RAC's reservatiens about the safety of the b2ach population. A particularly irgertant part of this infor ation is that the probabilistic risk assess-ents for the Seabrook Station justify an asstrption that it is highly unlikely that there will ever be an accident at the plant involving a serious release of radiation within ene half hour of the onset of the mergency condition. As you can see, the te6nical raterial prcvided Because by Dr. of the Bores is f a?.iliarity essential and exp?rtiseto in the RAC's delib? ration on this. issue. it is this area which no one else on the RAC has, the RAC has detemined that essential t.o the ef fective presentation of FE'iA's testinony on this isste that Dr. Bores be available to explain the basis for the RAC's conclusions. Thank yoJ for your coop 2 ration. Sina? rely, ,
..m. .
H. Joseph Flynn Assistant General Counsel
.LT '87 10833 NRC MILLSTONE i P02 >
,, .444<4 **. J '
.m . 2.
'/ff/
M / M 7 [CA "-~ 4 gAC M ' O J FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY b
-f John W. MCCormack Post Office and Courthouse 00ston, Massechusetts 02109 ,
Aff I M l
.M INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM OATE: June 17,_1987 NUM B_ER: Rl-TH-87-14 MEMORANDUM FOR: Regiona,1 Assistance Comittee (RAC)
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Task Force (REP) FROM: j Edward A. Thomas c t J
, e- RAC C,ha i rma n j
SUBJECT:
FEMA's Seabroot A Submission Attached are two sets of materials. The first is the package which FEMA submitted June to the Seabrook Off-Site Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on 4, 1987. This represents FEMA's response to the interrogatories directeo at this Agency, including FEMA's position on the admitted con-tentions to this ASt.B proceeding O o" t*e coate=tio=s rov"a 4a ^aoe"c(Appendix 4 A of package). FEMA's posit',on
^ is aesea arimer'ir om tae a^c re 4e-perfomeo on Rev. 2 of the New Hampshire plans submitted to FEMA and the RAC in August of 1986.
One area in particular which requires discussion here is FEMA's response to the contentions dealing with the issue of protective actions for the beacn populations around Seabrooc, The response to those contentions are founo on pages 38 and 39 of Appendix A. As you will remember, a special RAC meeting was held in Boston on April 15 of this year to deal with the adequacy of the New Hampshire State planning for the beach population. The end result was basically the adoption of the February 18, 1987 Bores position paper on the Protection of New Hampshire Beach Populations (with very minor modifications) by FEt% and the RAC to support a finoing of adequacy for New Hampshire planning in this area (Appendix D of attach-ment). A crucial component of this position paper was the inclusion of expert technical opinion, and by assumption future testimony by NRC, on the exceptional nature of Seabrook's containment system which would result in a planning base for Seabrook way in excess of the current 1/2 hour
- mimimum described in NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1. Subsequent to the April 15 RAC meeting, it was decided in Washington by NRC that it did not think it wise to include any references to the utility's PRA study and Brookhaven National 1.aboratory's review of that study. Therefore, all references to those two issues were dropped from the February 18 position paper which the RAC reviewed and adopted on April 15.
,. '87 10834 HRC MILLSTONE 1 P03 i )
Infomation a Guidance Memo R1-TH-67-14 O ~ 2/ i issue (pages 38-39 of Appendix A), eFEMA to make a ther negative finding finding which with respect was originally to this issue, instead of the positive anticipated. { A copy of the revised Beach Population paper, dated June 4 which
, 1987, contains no reference to enhanc,ed containment, review an'd .infomation. is included for your Should staff you at FTS have any 2239561.'g questions, please contact me or Bruce S
. /
r Attachments P.S. WE't.L BE HAVING A RAC REETING ON BEACH ISS O
12495 () 1 MR. TURK : Your Honor, just for clarification, this 2 is 26, 27 28 and 29 that the offer is now -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: Right. Yesterday -- 30 and 31 were 4 dealt with yesterday; today we 're j ust binding them into the 5 transcript. ! 6 MR. OLESKEY: Secondly, Your Honor, through the 7 courtesy and assistance of Mr. Flynn, I now have given them 8 better copies of the attachment to Dr. Bores 's memorandum, 9 Exhibit 2, and this is Attachment.12 which was the telex from 10 Mr. Rospenda to Ms. Chan containing some draft testimony that 11 we went over yesterday. You will recall the copy in the record 12 is very poor. 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right. () 14 MR. OLESKEY: The only difference that I can 15 determine between what I 'm providing now and what is part of 16 Exhibit 2 is that there are two additional transmittal pages in 17 the front of this: one to Mr. Swirin at Region 1. FEMA; and a 18 second to Mr. Flynn at FEMA headquarters. The other page 19 you've already seen as the transmittal to Elaine Chan, because 20 the original document that came from Dr. Bores 's files 21 apparently was provided to him by her after it was telexed to 22 her from Mr. Rospenda at Argonne. 23 I would suggest that this be separately marked 24 because for any resort anyone wishes to make of this material. 25 this is by far the clearest version. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12496 () i And I would therefore offer it as a separate exhibit-2 at this time, namely, Massachusetts Attorney General Exhibit 3 32, with the record to recognize that with the exception of the 4 two additional telex pages, as far as I can determine, it is a 5 clearer version since it appears to be from Mr. Rospenda 's 6 files of what was otherwise Attachment 12 to Exhibit 2 and 2-A. 7 And in fact. it appears in Exhibit 2-A beginning at global page 8 43. j 9 (The document referred to was i 10 marked for identification as 11 Mass. AG Exhibit 32.) 12 JUDGE SMITH: Are there any obj ections? 13 (No response) 14 JUDGE SMITH: Massachusetts Attorney General Exhibit 15- 32 is received. 16 (The document referred to having 17 been previously marked for 18 identification as Mass. AG 19 Exhibit 32 was received in 20 evidence.) 21 MR. OLESKEY: And may that be bound in as well, Your 22 Honor. 23 MR. TURK: Your Honor, just one notation, we 24 obviously have not done a line by line comparison or even page 25 by page comparison, Well. I 'll accept counsel 's representation C) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4080
L !
- ~ l S-12497
(') i that it 's the same document as attached to. l j 2 MR. OLCSKEY: I haven't done a line by line either; F i l 3 I 've j ust taken a quick look at it, and that 's why I said it l f 4 appears to be a copy. And since I believe Mr. Flynn got it > l l 5 from Mr. Rospenda, that was an additional basis for my i i l 6 judgment. j l 7 MR. FLYNN: I will confirm what Mr. Oleskey just i i f
~
i 8 said, that I provided that document to Mr. Oleskey, and it came 9 to me from Mr. Rospenda. 10 MR. TURK : Your Honor, I do note there are some l 11 additional markings on the attachment to Staff 2 and 2-A. For
- 12 instance, on global page 57 there 's a bracketing which
13 apparently was done by some reader of the document. But in l () 14 general the document appears to be similar. 15 JUDGE SMITH: We 've already received the exhibit and 16 we will direct that it be bound into the treascript. 17 (Mass. AG Exhibit 32 follows:) . 18 j 19 f; 20 ! i 21 22 23 L f 24 ; 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 (
. I l 4 O ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION ( l TELECOMMUNICATION MESSAGE OUhtLWA Date: 5 '/-f Total Pages: FROM:
'hb4Y $Cf1$b (2ifnno Mahaxte Wa) M.zme
&teuA6l1/
Ab/qc: Mie)9% 47/9 TO: -. O diaec <<u:acea,
&mn A f ej a I x BuW du
- 1-an mz 9a9 COMMENTS:
NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ :-fmWWuut Official xh. No. 3 k_.
et _ _ fC b7tC ' __- IDE NTF IED ___ __ _ n,. ___ ___ - .) .
. spyd G re,,Lp?prvt
/SiAlY((inhh,k'
O ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION TELECOMMUNICATION MESSAGE YNihd/LL Date: 1 T '7 Total Pages: FROM: *g,gg g gf (lrom M axd Qaim bs% (5/R)')23 ']d161 0 dt'y'y.(ba)h4-9m
" p<lan a u o"
Me - &ous&v,hp 066Lv : 1-49aown/ COMMENTS: i O
O ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION TELECOMMUNICATION MESSAGE tDate: Nthtalvf [-7 TotalPages: FROM: [k[ d 56 lb 3 6'h'll b [L d b O E Y)db8 O/2) VM -7gf9 bb/Ly: UN) 9'?2 '??/f TO: n b 7L1L.- k'- (} -- 4>&f JEnu? J/Q - [HiaizgtrL dskn-
/ 8-202 -6% - 2% y'
~S05 ~ b & - S&l COMMENTS:
i l
Draft 5/6/87 REVISED 'M)WN OF HAMPTON CONTENTION VIII TO REVISION 2 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 Standard 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 State of New Hampshire dated reflect FEMA's views on this issue. Specifically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issae are provMet on pages 64, 74, 86,87, 88, and 91 of Section 1. FEMA's review comments on the municipal plans on this issue are provided on page 17 of Section !!. FEMA's review comments on the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) on this issue are provided on page 4 of Section VI. FEMA relled upon the following documents in forming its conclusions on this issue Revision 2 to the Hampton plan; Revision 2 to the New Hampshire State plan; and the Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Town of Hampton Revised Contention Vl!! dated March 25,1987. As indicated in the December 15, 1986 RAC review (page 64, Section 1), determination of the adequacy of protective responses for the beach population remained open pending final review by the RAC of planned protective measures, and pencing receipt of Information from the state on the number of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation. The RAC has recently concluded (see RAC position paper dated ) that the beach population can be appropriately protected by implementing provisions of the current (Rev. 2) New Hampshire emergency plans and that there appears to be no unique problem relative to the beach population that has not J been adequately addressed.
/
(Hampt:n Vill) Dr:f t 5/6/87 The bases for the RAC's conclusion on the beach population issue are provided in O the position paper transmitted from FEMA to the State of New Hampshire on May _, 1987. Work on this position paper was initiated by a 12-31-85 memorandum from the RAC Chairman to the RAC members requesting their review and comments on the adequacy of plans for protecting the beach population (i.e., the transient beach population, and summer residents who inhabit unwinterized accommodations on or near l the beach), and the possible need for special protective actions to protect the beach population. Written comments in response to the memorandum were received by the RAC Chairman during 1986 and 1987. A special meeting of the RAC was convened in April 1987 to review all comments and, if possible, to arrive at a unified position on whether the plans were adequate or inadequate to protect the beach population. On the basis of this review, the RAC resolved that, contingent on the completion of action by the State to resolve the other RAC concerns with the New Hampshire and local plans, those plans appropriately provide for dose savings for the spectrum of possible accidents O and are adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the beach and unwinterized housing populations will be protected and that these plans will essentially meet the criteria of NUREG 0654 and the Intent of the regulations in this area. x The following considerations were utilIzed by the RAC in arriving at its conclusion relative to the beach population:
- NH state and local plans essentially meet NUREG 0654 criteria generically i
e Special provisions for beach populations in place
- No identified problems requiring unique or unaddressed solutions
- Provisions for early warning of beach populations
- Adequate transportation resources available for those needing public transit O
2 __________g
(H:mpt:n Vill) Dr:f t 5/6/87
- Beaches are nearly two miles from station affording delay in plume O arrivai and diiution and dispersion of piume
- Sea breezes would tend to keep plume from traveling directly toward beach when beaches are most populated
- ETEs for beaches are relatively small
- Containment at Seabrook is very strong; probability of prompt containment failure is negligible
- Containment bypus is unlikely to cause severe offsite problems
- Site speelfic studies for Seabrook Indicate risks at two miles are comparable to NUREG 0396 analyzed risks at 10 miles
* "Reasonable assurance" does not equate with "absolute safety," 1.e.,
guarantee of no exposures or exposures above the PAGs. The above are described in further detall in the RAC position paper transmitted to the State of New Hampshire on May _,1987. Although the RAC has reached a conclusion on the beach population issue, the F.AC still awaits recelpt of Information from the State of New Hampshire on the number of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation. The State Plan (ETE, Volume 6, Table 11-6) presently provides est! mates of permanent residents who would require transportation, but does not include estimates for transients requiring transportation (RAC review, Section VI, comment 17, page 4). Although the number of transients without transportat'on is expected to be small and well within the availab'e transportation resources (RAC review, Section I, page 74) identified in the plan, this information has not yet been provided to FEMA. ' Because of the potentially large seasonal beach population, special precautionary protective actions for the beach population have been established by the State of New Hampshire (New Hampshire Plan, NHCDA Procedures, Appendix F), including early I precautionary evacuation. The use of public buildings for sheltering of transients without 3
(Harpt:n Vill) Draf t 5/6/87 transportation may be imple.mented on an "ad hoc" basis (RAC review, Section I, O page 64). As indicated in the RAC position paper on the beach population issue, provisions i have been made in the plans to consider closing the beaches or restricting public accesa to the beach at the Alert emergency classification. At this classification level, no l offsite action would be ordinarily warranted to protect the public, but its consideration C} e ec h o o r ymswt s//iN*w s/ s vH**e- caref /* 0r3 here woula provide additional time to clear thefbeach, just in case the situation X worsens. Even at the Site Area Emergency classification, one would ordinarily expect < that offsite protective actions would n_oto 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 heaviest beach use, from May 15 through 1 l September 15. Details on the early precautionary protective actions for the beach population, including precautionary evacuation, are provided in the State plan procedures (NHCDA Procedures, Appendix F). O The use of early precautionary protective actions such as beach closing and evacuetion are not the sole means for protection of the beach population. The beach population is, in effect, also protected by the unusually strong containment system at the Seabrook Station. As indicated 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 concluded that (t)here is negligible probability of prompt containment failure (at Seabrook). Failure during the first few hours af ter core melt is also unlikely and tne timing of overpressure failure (of containment) is very long compared to the RSS. Most core melt accidents would be effectively mitigated by containment spray operation. BNL reviews of containment bypass accident scenarlos also indicated that significant releases from such accidents were also not likely in the first hours after a severe accident. 4
(Hampt:n Vill) Draft 5/6/87 1 The RAC position paper further indicates that, in view of the New Hampshire ' O ,lans for beach ciosure and access contrei as eativ as the tiert elassification, the cited "negilgible probability of prompt containment failure" at Seabrook and low consequer.ce/ low probability of serious containment bypass sequences, the plume travel 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 cited risks in NUREG 0396 for this distance. Thus, even if there were a prompt, 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 assumed dose. In addition, they would be avoiding any additional exposure to the plume (s) af ter leaving this area. FEMA Response (Further Basts) - FEMA has addressed the Town of Hampton Revised Contention Vill and its further basis of inadequate protective actions for residents of the Seacoast Health Center by applying Planning Standards H and J (Evaluation Criteria H.4, H.11, J.10.d, J.10.g. J.10.m) in FEM A-REP-1. The December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State and municipal plans reflects FEMA's views on this issue. Speelfically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 67, 74, and 88 of Section 1. l FEMA's review comments on the municipal plans on this issue are provided on page 19 of Section II. FEMA's review comments on the State Compensatory Plan on this issue are provided on pages 6 and 8 of Section IV (Compensatory Plan subsection).
- FEMA relled on the following documents in forming its conclusions on this i
L Issue Revision 2 to the Hampton plan Revision 2 to the New Hampshire State plan; and the Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Town of Hampton Revised Contention Vi!! dated March 25,1987. . i O I I
\
5
. (H mpt:n Yll!) Draft 5/6/87 l On the basis of the RAC review of Revision 2 of the Sete and municipal plans, l l FEMA has not yet received sufficient information to have usurance that the residents of the Seacoast Health Center will be properly evacuated in a timely manner in the event of a radiological emerfency if Hampton does not implement the emergency response plan. Since Hampton has indicated that it will not participate in the planning and response to an accident at the Seabrook Station, it is necessary to determine the State's ability to implement compensatory measures for the Town of Hampton and to, therefore, provide for evacuation for the residents of the Seacoast Health Center. The Hampton plan (page 11-30) indicates that in the event of the evacuation of special facilities (such as the Seacoast 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 provlslon of transportation resources for the evacuation of the residents of the Seacoast Health Center. The concept of operations O roria stt ea=9 #=torx =e ur i arevie ai=^99#ai ooria stt eia ^= Indicated in this appendir and in the NHCDA Procedures (Volume 4 of State Plan), if a municipality is unable to respond to the emergency, an IFO Local Llatson will be assigned to coordinate the provision of transportation resources for evacuation. 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 persons to be assigned and the adequacy of available communications resources available to implement this aspect of the compensatory plan. These items (NUREG elements H.4 and H.11, pages 6 and 8 of Section IV RAC comments on Compensatory Plan) were lef t open by the RAC pending provision of additional supporting information by the State. This information has not yet been provided to FEM A. Relative to the special facilities plans themselves (i.e., those included as Appendix F of the municipal plans),6=i !p! ;'- FEMA concludes that the health y 4
(Hampt:n VIII) Draft 5/6/87 ; care facility speclal plans, including that for the Seacoast Health Center, have been O adeausteir revised aad now eentain adeausteiv eetatied proceeures for evacuation and relocation of patients (RAC rev%w. Section I, page 67). Although there are still numerous inconsistencies in the p> t !n bus needs estimates, all estimates indicate that overall the number of buses provided for in the letters of agreement are adequate and that additional transportation resources available from other organizations provide a large redundancy of resources (RAC review, Section I, page 74). The bus boarding time of !!) minutes for residents of special facilities is p*ovided in the State Plan Evacuation Time Estimate study, page 11-21. The RAC had no comment on this revised estimated bus boarding time. In regard to sheltering residents of the Seacoast Health Center, the State Indicates that sheltering is the preferred protective action. FEMA concludes that the plans have been adequately revised to take into account the sheltering protection factors for special facilities, including the Seacoast Health Center. A special tabulation of speelfic protection factors 'or each of the facilltles, including the Seacoast Health; ; ! Center, is present in Table 2.6-3 of the State plan (RAC review, Section I, page 67). The RAC review (Section I, page 88) indicates that the flow diagram in the State plan (Fig. 2.6-7) now properly reflects the deelslon-making process for the election between
- sheltering and evacuation, and that the treatment of institutionalized persons is now i adequately detailed.
) 1 1 7
e br N 5 4 f 7 SAPL CONTENTION 16 O FEMA Response FEMA has addressed SAPL Contention 16 and its hasis that plans do not make adequate provisions for the sheltering of various segments of the populace in the EPZ by applying Planning Standard J (Evaluation Criteria J.9, J.10.a. J.10,d, J.10.m) in FEMA-R E P-1. The December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State and local plans, the amended porttons of the RAC review dated , and the RAC position paper on the beach populstion issue transmitted to the State of New Hampshire dated reflect FEM A's views on this !ssue. Speelfically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 64, 67, 87, 88, 89 and 91 of Section 1. FEMA's review comments on the municipal plans on this issue are provided on page 17 of Section 11. FEMA relled on the following documents in forming its conclusions on this issue Revision 2 to the New Hamrahlre State and local plans; and the Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of SAPL Contentlen 16 dated March 25,1987. FEMA does not yet have all IMormation to be. provided by the state. As indicated in the December 15, 1986 RAC review (page a4, Section 1), determination of the adequacy of protective responses for the beach population remaired s,ien pending final review by the P AC of planned protective n.sasures, and pending receipt of information from the state on the r. amber of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation. The RAC has recently concluded (see RAC position paper d.sted ) that the beach population can be appropriately protected by implementing provisions of the current (Rev. 2) New Hampshire emergency plans and that there . I appears to be no unique problem relative to the beath population that has not been e x adequately addressed. The bap for the RAC's conclusion on the beach population issue
?
/
a (SA Pt.~ /6) besM T-4-f 7 are provided in the position paper transmitted from FEMA to the State of New O V Hampshire on May ,1987. Details on how this position paper was developed, and a i discussion on the key considerations used by the RAC in arriving at its conclusion are provided in the FEMA respo nse to Revised Town of Hamfpton Contention VIII. x Although the RAC has reached a conclusion on the beach population issue, the RAC still awaits receipt of information from the State of New Hampshire on the number of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation. Although the number of transients without transportation is expected to be small, this information has not yet been provided to FEMA. This also applies to NUREG element J.10.m as indicated by the RAC review comments on page 87 of RAC review Section I. State Plan Section 2.6.5 indicates that New Hampshire relles on two protective actions for limiting the direct exposure of the general public within the Plume Exposure EPZ. These two protective actions are sheltering and evacuation (State plan, page 2.6-4). The decision whether to shelter or evacuate is based on several variables, including O dose reduction factors due to sheltering (State Plan, page 2.6-29). Sheltering can apply to the permanent resident population, institutionalized persons, and transients. State Plan N) tion 2.6.5 (page 2.6-6) 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 l sheltered in the workplace or school building" (State Plan page 2.6-6). As indicated in the RAC revle.i comments (Section I, page 64) on the State plan, the use of public shelters is not proposed during a Seabrook Station emergency. The only exception is the possible use of public buildings for shelters for transients without transportation. Transients with transportation and "without access to an Indoor location,"including those at beaches ad at campgrounds, will be advised to evacuate in their own vehicles. The use of public buildings for sheltering of transients without transportation is acceptable since de transients without transportation are expected to be a very small number. The 2 i
(SAPL/6) DrrH Sd+7 plan (p. 2.6-6) states that "Public buildings may be set up and opened as shelters for i transients, on an ad hoc basis". Because of the potentially large seasonal beach population, special precautionary protective actions for the beach population have been established by the State of New 1 Hampshire (New Hampshire Plan, NHCDA Procedures, Appendix F), including early 1 l precautionary evacuation. The use of public buildings for sheltering of transients without transportation may be implemented on an "ad hoc" basis (RAC review, Section I, page 64). As noted above, the use of public shelters is not proposed during a Seabrook f Station emergency. As noted in the State plan (/ age 2.1-13), precautionary protective y e action such as early closing and evacuation of the beaches will be considered during the period of heaviest beach use, from May 15 through September 15. The use of precaut!onary protective actions are not the sole means for protection of transients such as visitors to beaches and campgrounds. They are, in effect, also protected by the unusually strong containment system at the Seabrook Station. This is described in detall , in the RAC position paper on the beach population issue transmitted to the State on May ,1987, and is also summarized in the FEMA response to Revised Tcwn of Hampton Contention Vill. Included is a discussion of the negligible probability of prompt containment failure at Seabrook. In regard to sheltering residents of special facilities such of hospitals, nursing homes, and jails, the State indicates that sheltering is the preferred protecti.e action (State Plan, page 2.6-7). FEMA concludes that the plans have been adequately revised to take into account the sheltering protection factors for special facilities (RAC review, l Section I, page 67). A special tabulation of speelfic protection factors for each of the ! facilities is present in Table 2.6-3 of the State Plan (RAC review, Section I, page 67). The RAC review (Section I, page 88) indicates that the flow diagram in the State Plan l (Fig. 2.6-7) now properly reflects the decision-making process for the election between
< =<< - - -
(fgk /6,) 1 l sheltering and evacuation, and that the treatment of institutionalized is now adequately detailed. The State 'ndicates that the tabulation of specific sheltering protection factors referenced above (Table 2.6-3 of State Plan) is only for special facilities such as health care facilities and jails for which independent determinations of appropriate protective actions are made during an emergency (see State response on page 91 of RAC review Section 1). The State indicates that "other types of special facilities such as schools and day care centers will follow the protective action recommendations prescribed for the general population." The State continues that the "protective action recommendation process utilizes conservative sheltering protection factors for general population decision-making." Section 2.6.5 of the State Plan now includes a generic external sheltering factors table which shows the levels of protection that can be expected from various building types in the EPZ (Table 2.6-4, page 2.6-10 of the State Plan). O l l l l l l l l l O l 1 l E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _
Dr W/ 5-6-lr~? AMENDED NECNP CONTENTION RERP-8 FEMA Response FEMA has ridressed NECNP Contention RERP-8, and its basis that there is no reasonable assurance that sheltering is an adequate protective measure for all members of the public who may need it, by applying Planning Standard J (Evaluation Criteria J.9, J.10.a, J.10.d, J.10.m) in FEM A-REP-1. The December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State plan, the amended portions of the RAC review dated , and the RAC position paper on the beach population issue transmitted to the State of New Hampshire with FEMA letter dated re-flect FEMA's views on this issue. Specifically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 64, 67, 87, 88, 89, and 91 of Section I. FEMA relied on the following documents in forming its conclusions on this issue Revision 2 to the New Hampshire State plan; and the Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of NECNP Contention RERP-8 dated March 25,1987. FEMA does not yet have all information to be provided by tl.e state. As will be noted later in this response, this missing information consists of the number of transients l who would need transportation during an evacuation. State Plan section 2.6.5 indicates that New Hcmpshire relles on two protective actions for limiting the direct exposure of the general public within the Plume Exposure EPZ. These two protective actions are sheltering ana evacuation (State Plan, page 2.6-4). The decision whether to shelter or evacuate is based on severa] variables, including dose reduction factors due to sheltering (State Plan, paga 2.6-29). Sheltering can apply to the permanent resident population, instiNionalized persons, and transients. State Plan section 2.6.5 (page 2.6-6) indicates that New Hampshire employs the ' O J
"Shelter-in-Place" concept if sheltering is the chosen protective action, The plan 1
l !
Dr's f t H T / (DECNP -462 P4 Indicates that "those at home are to shelter at home; those at work or school are to be O aeitereo io tae wor *9 ie or caooi a#iiei#s" (St te gian page 2.6-6). As indicated in the RAC review comments (Section I, page 64) on the State plan, the use of public shelters is not proposed during a Seabrook Station emergency. The only exception is the possible use of public buildings for shelters for transients without transportation. Transients with transportation and "without access to an Indoor location" will be advised to evacuate in their own vehicles. The use of public buildings for sheltering of transients 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 "Public buildings may be set up and opened as shelters for transients, on an ad hoc basis". As indicated in the December 15, 1986 RAC review (page 64, Section I), determination of the adequacy of protective responses for the beach population remained open pending final review by the RAC of planned protective measures, and pending receipt of information. from the state on the number of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation. The. RAC has recently concluded that the beach population can be appropriately protected by implementing provisions of the current (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 the RAC's conclusion on the beach population issue are provided in the position paper transmitted from FEMA to the State of New Hampshire on May , 1987. Details on how this position paper was developed, and a discussion on the key considerations used by the RAC in arriving at its conclusion are provided in the FEMA response to Revised Town of Hampton Contention Vill. Although the RAC has reached a conclusion on the beach population issuh he RAC still awaits receipt of information from the State of New Hampshire on the number of transients who would need transportation during an evacuation. Although the number of transients without tran:portation is expected to be small, this information g O 2.
[ ySCA/P M t/-9) .D r a ft' > -W 7 has not yet been provided to FEMA. This also applies to NUREG element J.10.m as indicated by the RAC review comments on page 87 of RAC review Section I. Because of the potentially late seasonal beach population, special precautionary protective sections for the beach population have been established by the State of New Hampshire (New Hampshire Plan, NHCDA Procedures, Appendix F), including early precautionary evacuation. The use of public buildings for sheltering of transients without transportation may be implemented on an "ad hoc" basis (RAC review, Sutton I, page 64). As noted above, the use of public shelters is not proposed during a Seabrook Station emergency. As noted in the State plan (page 2.1-13), precautionary protective actions such as early closing and evacuation of the beaches will be considered during the period of heaviest beach use, from May 15 through September 15. The use of precautionary protective actions are not the sole means for protection of transients such as visitors to beaches and campgrounds. They are, in effect, also protected by the O unusually strong containment system at the Seabrook Station. This is described in detail in the RAC position paper on the beach population issue transmitted to the State on May ,1987, and is also summarized in the FEMA response to Revised Town of Hampton Contention VIII. Included is a discussion of the negligible probability of prwpt containment failure at Seabrook. In regard to sheltering residents of special facilities, the State indicates that sheltering is the preferred protective action (State Plan page 2.6-7). FEMA concludes l that the plans have been adequately revised to take into account the sheltering protection factors for special facilities (RAC review, Section I, page 67). A special tabulation of specific protection factors for each of the facilities is present in Table 2.6-3 of the State plan (RAC review, Section I, page 67). The RAC review (Section I, page 88) indicates that the flow diagram in the State plan (Fig. 2.6-7) now properly reflects the decision-making process for the election between sheltering and r l l 3 l ..- -- . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D W ' ' ' (NECNP-kodP~t) evacuation, and that the treatment of institutionalized persons is now adequately detailed. The State Indicates that the tabulation of specific sheltering protection factors referenced above (fable 2.6-3 of State !!an) is only for special facilities such as health care facilities and Jalls for which ino os ndent determinations of appropriate protective actions are made during an emergency (see State response on page 91 of RAC review Section 1). The State indicates that "other types of special facilities such as schools and day care centers will follow the protective action recommendations prescribed for the general population." The State continues that the "protective action recommendation process utilizes conservative sheltering protection factors for general population decision-making." Section 2.6.5 of the State Plan now includes a generic external sheltering factors table which shows the levels of protection that can be expected from various building types in the EPZ (Table 2.6-4, page 2.6-10 of the State Plan). O l O l Y
12498 ,q
# One other matter. Your Honor, 1 MR. OLESKEY:
2 preliminarily, we had had some discussion, I think yesterday, 3 off the record about the January so-called deposition testimony 4 of Messrs. Thomas and Bores, and I had said that I thought it 5 was important in terms of the evidence that is now being 6 adduced that what was said then be in the record. 7 I don 't want to take the time this morning in view of 8 the schedule we have to go back with Dr. Bores and bring out 9 all the things that were said at that point in January, to 10 which he either assented or, because of the way the deposition 11 went with he and Thomas sitting side by side, concurred by his 12 silence, which would be my reading of what happened. 13 I would suggest therefore, if it 's agreeable to all, O 14 that assuming Mr. Thomas is going to testify we deal with it at 15 that time, and if he doesn 't testify or if there 's any other 16 eventuality we 'll come back as Intervenors to the issue of . 17 whether and to what extent it 's appropriate to of fer some or 18 all of that testimony as evidence rather than his deposition 19 material. 20 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 21 MR. TURK: May I ask a favor. If Mr. Oleckey has an 22 amplifying mike could he bring it closer to him. 23 Thank you. 24 MR. OLESKEY: May I begin? , 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I l BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12499
) 1 Whereupon, 2 ROBERT BORES 3 WILLIAM LAZARUS 4 having been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand 5 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows:
6 RESUME CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. OLESKEY: 8 Q Gentlemen, in attempt to speed things ap and also to 9 clarify, I have redone my cross-examination for you today, we 10 will touch on some matters that we touched on yesterday by way 11 of clarification, which I want to make with you after some 12 reflection last night; and I think we can move along very 13 rapidly.
) 14 Dr. Bores, do you have Exhibit 2-A there, which is 15 the master copy of your memo with the attachments?
16 A (Bores) Yes. 17 Q All right. I 'm going to ask you a few more questions 18 about this issue of your position as a RAC member and the 19 position of Mr. Thomas and his egency regarding the discussion 20 of the containment and risk factors, which your memo of 21 February had put before the RAC. l 22 At global page 17 which is your Attachment 17 there 's 23 a copy of your letter to Mr. Thomas of February 18, '87 which 24 conveyed your paper or memo to him for the RAC; correct? That 25 was your transmittal letter? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12500 ( 1 A (Bores) Yes, it is. 2 Q And you list there in the second sentence starting 3 with the words, "My response is based on Revision 2 of the 4 plan." a series of references which I understand to be the 5 material which was the beeis for the paper, which was your 6 letter, sent to Mr. Thomas; 1s that an accurate interpretation? 7 A (Bores) Yes. 8 Q And the third item or so in that line, "My response 9 is based on" is the analyses of specific Seabrook Station 10 features; correct? 11 A (Bores) That is correct. 12 Q And by that, I take it, you meant the references to 13 the containment, the risk factors, and possibly other things, 14 but at least those two matters; is that right? 15 A (Bores) Yes. 16 Q Was there anything else that you incluced in that 17 reference or intended to include in that reference? 18 A (Bores) I would tend to include. I think, the 19 distance of the beaches, perhaps the meteorosogical 20 considerations. 21 Q All right. So you thought when you sent along the 22 letter to Mr. Thomas that those elements of your paper were 23 important enough to be singled out and drawn to his attention 24 in your transmittal letter as aspects of your process which you 25 had included in your paper; correct? O Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4808
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12501
- 1 A (Bores) That 's correct.
2 Q Okay. Now, I 'd like to direct you to page global 59 3 in the same exhibit which is the transmittal letter that was 4 sent on June 4th with the later revision of your paper. 5 A (Bores) I have it. 6 Q All right. Now that 's signed by Dr. Martin on your 7 behalf; correct? 8 A (Bores) It 's Mr. Martin, ves. 9 Q All right. Mr. Martin. And that 's because you were 10 on vacation at that time? 11 A (Bores) That 's correct. 12 Q Did you draft this letter before you went? 13 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 14 Q Okay. So he simply signed your name to something you 15 had already done? 16 A (Bores) Yes. 17 Q Now, ir this came - #his letter went to Mr. Thomas 18 for the RAC after these discussions in April and May with your 19 headquarters people at NRR and the Office of General Counsel 20 and the work that you, yourself, had done in an effort to 21 revise the original paper following the RAC meeting of April 22 15th; correct? I 23 MR. TURK: Clarification, please. You 're asking l 24 whether thic letter, the cover letter went to headquarters or 25 the attachment?
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
73 BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12502 b 1 BY MR. OLESKEY: 2 Q No. I prefaced the question by saying, this letter 3 to Mr. Thomas on behalf of the RAC went after all these things 4 had happened in April and May with your headquarters, and with 5 your own earlier revisions to the first draft to which you 6 testified to yesterday; correct? 7 A (Bores) Okay. In light of Mr. Turk 's question 8 there, I am not sure whether the letter itself went. Certainly 9 the enclosure did. 10 Q You 're not sure that the letter was sent? 11 A (Bores) To headquarters? 12 Q My question didn 't have anything -- 7, 13 A (Bores) I thought you were referring to the letter. b 14 Q No , that 's Mr. Turk 's understanding. 15 A (Bores) Okay. 16 Q I say, the letter went to Mr. Thomas as it appeurs on 17 its face; isn 't that right? 18 A (Bores) Yes. 19 Q Yes. 20 A (Bores) Okay, I 'm sorry. 21 Q The only reference to headquarters is, the letter was 22 sent to Mr. Thomas after all these discussions in April and May 23 with your headquarters and your General Counsel 's Of fice and , 24 with Mr. Rospenda and Mr. Thomas, everything you testified to 25 yesterday between April 15th and early June; correct? l Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12503
/"'N '() 1 'A (Bores) Yes.
2 Q It 's just a linking question -- 3 A (Bores) Okay. 4 Q -- nothing tricky about it. Okay. 5 A (Bores) I 'm j ust trying to understand where -- 6 Q I appreciate it. 7 A (Bores) -- what it is. Okay. 8 Q And in it -- in this letter at page 59 you 're -- it 's 9 your effort to tell Mr. Thomas why it is, for the record of the 10 RAC, that what you 're now submitting is dif ferent than what you 11 submitted in February; isn 't that rit St? 12 A (Bores) Yas. 13 Q All right. And the first thing you say that -- you
'/ 14 concluded was important enough to put in the letter was that 15 after the RAC meeting, seven days later, the Licensing --
16 Safety and Licensing Board issued its memorandum of April 22nd 17 on the public service petition for a one-mile EPZ; right? 18 A (Bores) That 's correct. 19 Q And you give your own summary of what you feel the 20 Board said in that st atement, in that memorandum and order; 21 right? 22 A (Bores) Yes. 23 Q And this is -- this whole first paragraph is in there 24 because you want Mr. Thones and the RAC to understand that 25 there 's something about what the Licensing Board did on April O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12504 ( 1 22nd which, in your judgment at least, made it appropriate to 2 revise your paper from the form it originally presented to the 3 RAC in February; isn 't that right? 4 A (Bores) That was one of the factors, yes. 5 Q All right. 6 A (Bores) It wasn 't the only factor. 7 Q All right. Was this point you 're making here about 8 the Board 's order of April 22nd of last year something that you 9 would discuss with your headquarters in Washington as an 10 important reason why the paper should be revised? 11 A (Bores) It was one of the factors that we had 12 discussed; yes. 13 Q And what was it about the order of this Board of 14 April 22nd that required your paper to be revised from the form 15 in which it had been previously sent to the RAC ? 16 A (Bores) There was nothing about the order that 17 required the paper to be revised. 18 Q Was it something about what you and your headquarters 19 concluded the order meant that required the paper to be 20 revised? 21 A (Bores) Not specifically, no. 22 Q Then what was it, in your understanding, that led you 23 to tell Mr. Thomas and the RAC that the paper needed to be 24 revised because of something this Board had done in denying the 25 petition to reduce the EPZ to one mile? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4388
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12505
.sf} 1 A (Bores) Discussions had occurred between NRR and me 2 relative to the response to contentions, as I had said, and 3 part of that discussion did include the fact that we now had 4 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 's memoranda and order of 5 April 22nd.
6 But in addition, NRR was -- had indicated to me that 7 since the containment features were not essential to the 8 position, that in fact, these features were really outside of 9 the considerations fo- emergency planning; we really shouldn't 10 be including them in terms of the considerations and 11 evaluations of the plans itself. 12 Q But this letter is your only written effort in the 13 spring of 1987 to explain to the RAC why this paper which had j 14 brought everybody into concurrence in April was going to be 15 filed in a different form; isn 't that right? 16 A (Bores) That 's the only written memoranda; yes. 17 Q And there 's nothing in here that says anything about 18 a conclusion that you have or anybody else has on the staf f 19 that the containment or risk matters are extraneous to the 20 deliberations of the RAC or not necessary to reaching a 21 determination of adequacy or reasonable assurance; is there? 22 A (Bores) Not in my letter; no. 23 Q No. The only thing in here that you rely upon. other 24 than discussion with the staff in reference to its review of 25 all the issues in some studies, is this decision by the Board; 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12506 1 isn 't that right? 2 A (Bores) It 's the only one that 's point out; yes. 3 Q Is there a link between what the Board did on April 4 22nd and these studies which you discuss in your letter in 5 paragraph two? 6 A (Bores) There is a link in that the BNL studies as 7 well as the Public Service, New Hampshire studies on 8 containment issues were utilized in the petition for the one-9 mile EPZ; yes. 10 Q All right. So what you were saying. I take it, was 11 since the Board on April 22nd had not found the bNL study or at 12 least the utility 's own studies dealing A th risk probability 13 sufficient to convince it to reduce the zone, you didn 't think 14 the same material should be in your paper and used as a basis 15 for the RAC judgment; is that right, in substance? 16 A (Bores) In substance; yes. 17 Q And that 's why this paragraph is in the letter; isn 't 18 it, the first paragraph? 19 A (Bores) Essentially, yes, et/99 20 (Continued on next page.) 21 22 23 24 , 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12507 TioO 1 Q In fact, you were aware at the time you sent the 2 letter, weren 't you, that the Brookhaven study had come out and 3 said that it couldn't substantiate in technical respects that 4 it considered important all the Seabrook risk estimates that 5 had been provided to the NRC and to this Board by the utility; 6 isn 't that right? 7 A (Bores) Okay. Would you repeat that question again, 8 please? 9 Q Yes. At the time you wrote the letter you were 10 aware, were you not, that the BNL study had said it couldn't 11 substantiate in significant technical respects all the material 12 that the utility had supplied to the NRC ard to this Board in 13 support of its position to redu:e the EPZ. ( 14 A (Bores) It could not. 15 Q Yes. 16 A (Bores) Yes. 17 Q All right. 18 I 'd like you to turn back to, global Page 42 of the 19 same 9xhibit, which is your letter to Mr. Thomas of April 24, 20 which is Attachment 11. 21 This letter went out about nine days after the RAC 22 meeting; isn 't that right? 23 A (Bores) From my calculation.t that 's correct. 24 Q All right. And you sent it because you had promised 25 at the RAC meeting to deal with an issue of risk relating to (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12508 O
\_/ 1 the two-mile, 10-mile-from-the-station issue that you felt 2 people were confused about at the meeting; isn 't that right?
3 A (Bores) Yes. 4 Q And this letter comes, as we 've j ust said, about a S week and a half after the RAC meeting at which, it 's your 6 testimony, that you tried to make it clear that the RAC 7 members, includira but not limited to Mr. Thomas, should 8 understand that the risk issue and containment issue was 9 extraneous to a determination that the plans were adequate 10 under the regulations and guidance; isn 't that right? 11 A (Bores) Yes, it is. 12 Q But there 's nothing in this letter that emphasizes or 13 says anythir.g about those issues being extraneous or not being 14 critical, in your view, to a determination of the plan's 15 adequacy, is there? 16 A (Bores) There isn 't, and the reason is because this 17 was specifically dealing with a single sentence within the 18 context of the paper, and this was to provide a clarification 19 of that single sentence. t 20 Q Well, isn 't it a fact that the first time in any 21 writing that 's at least in evidence before this Board, or that 22 I 've seen, if that helps you, the first time you said anything 23 in writing to anybody about the containment and the risk issues 24 being extraneous to a determination of the plan's adequacy or 25 to any other determination, for example, reasonable assurance, i l Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) G28-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12509 k_ 1 was in your memo to Sherwin Turk of Octeber 15, 1987? 2 And I direct you, if it helps, to Paragraphs 5 and 6 3 of that memo, which are on Page 2 of the memo, but global Page 4 3 of Exhibit 2-A. 5 A (Bores) You 're asking if this is the first time in G writing I 've conveyed that the containment issues are 7 extraneous -- 8 Q Yes. 9 A (Bores) -- to the finding? 10 Q Yes. 11 A (Bores) It 's perhaps the first time it says that 12 directly. However, if you go back to the two letters that I 13 had written, certainly we had in there, and you can -- I can O 14 point to some paragraphs where we talk abc , an accident 15 happening. So, in fact, you know, we 're not using the 16 containment features, or was not using the containment features 17 to say an accident of this sort cannot happen. You don 't have 18 to plan for it. 19 So the letter itself in both instances certainly talk 20 about the possibility of a fast-breaking, you know, severe 21 accident impacting the beach. So those things are not
^2 exclusive. --
23 Q When you talk --
- 24 A (Bores) -- mutually exclusive of this.
l 25 Q I 'm sorry. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 l ?
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12510 1 MR. TURK: Could we ask the witness before you go n? 2 MR. OLESKEY: I beg your pardon, counsel. 3 BY MR. OLESKEY: 4 Q Were you finished, Dr. Bores? 5 A (Bores) I am now. G Q By the two letters, do you mean the papers or 7 memoranda of February and June? 8 A (Bores) That 's correct. 9 Q Okay. And those are the documents which we reviewed 10 yesterday. 11 A (Bores) That is correct. 12 Q All right. I 'm asking you if outside the scope of 13 those two documents, the interpretation of which is in dispute () 14 in this issue, there is anything else from April 15th to 15 October 15th that says in substance what you said in your memo 16 of October 15th. The RAC doesn 't understand that the 17 containment and risk features, the site-specific features are 18 extraneous to its determinations and to FEMA 's; that they 're 19 enhancements, ti ey 're not necessities to the plan. 20 MR. DIGNAN: Obj ect to the form of the question. 21 including the editorials as to what is in dispute. 22 Could we have a direct question to the witness? 23 MR. OLESKEY: I think that 's a direct question. 24 MR. DIGNAN: Sure got there by way of going around 25 the barn. O V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES,' LAZARUS - CROSS 12511
' 1 MR. TURK: It 's argumentative.
2 MR. DIGNAN: Obj ect ion. Argumentative, bad form, and 3 includes editorials. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, how do you want me to proceed? 5 Do you want me to have the question read back -- 6 MR. OLESKEY: No. 7 JUDGE SMITH: -- and take it apart or do you want -- c MR. OLESKEY: No. I always like to think that I can 9 phrase a question that gets an answer that alao gets 10 concurrence from my brothers, so let me try that way. 11 BY MR. OLESKEY: 12 Q Is there anything else from April the 15th to October 13 15th, other than your memo to Sherwin Turk in October, that 14 states in writing that in the view of yourself at least as the 15 RAC representative these site-specific features are extraneous 16 to any determination of plan adequacy, or reasonable assurance, 17 either by the RAC or by FEMA? 18 A (Bores) Okay, I 'm not aware of any. However, one of 19 the things that we had indicated in previous testimony is that 20 we had been awaiting a revision by FEMA and the RAC of wording 21 t3 their prefiled responses to contentions as well as to the 22 RAC position. 23 So while we were waiting for this, we would have 24 anticipated that those sorts of things could have been cleared 25 up in that correspondence, but that never did occur. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12512 () 1 So as a result of that, this is the first written as 2 f ar as I 'm aware of. 3 Q Well, are you saying that you hoped that FEMA would 4 recede from its June position by September in the testimony. 5 and you 'd never have to address the issue of whether or not the 6 site-specific features were extraneous to a determination of 7 adequacy or reasonable assurance? 8 MR. TURK : Could I have that again? 9 BY MR. OLESKEY: 10 Q Are you saying that you were waiting to see whether 11 the FEMA testimony in September made it unnecessary for you to 12 deal with the question of whether the site-specific features 13 were extraneous to a determination of, plan adequacy or of 14 reasonable assurance? 15 MR. TURK: I 'm going to obj ect. I haven 't heard 16 anything about waiting for a September filing of testimony. 17 What we 've heard is that the witnesses were not aware of the 18 scheduling deadlines. 19 MR. DLESKEY: No, this -- 20 MR. TURK : His testimony yesterday was they were 21 expecting Mr. Thomas to send in a revision to the paper. 22 MR. OLESKEY: With all due respect. I sometimes 23 wonder if we 're in the same courtroom. He has just given a 24 nomewhat long answer about waiting for some changea from FEMA 25 in filings. I took it he was referring to the testimony. I O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , I
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12513
/~T
(/ 1 asked the follow-up question to clarify it, and I think Dr. 2 Bores understand exactly what I 'm talking about. 3 JUDGE SMITH: He may answer. 4 THE WITNESS: (Bores) We were not waiting for FEMA 's 5 prefiled testimony, because we weren 't aware of what, or when 6 they were going to file. 7 What we were awaiting is the promised revisions to go 8 out to the RAC relative to the RAC position as well as to the 9 prefiled contentions. response to the prefiled contentions. 10 That did not occur. 11 I would have anticipated, as expected from the words 12 of Mr. Thomas, that we would have another RAC meeting to go 13 over this again. 14 BY MR. OLESKEY: 15 Q When was it that you first became aware personally 16 that FEMA was busy in August and September and October dealing 17 with these hearings and testimony they had to file in these 18 hearings? 19 A (Bores) We all were busy. l 20 Q I understand that. That 's not my question. 21 You didn 't learn. I take it, until sometime like l 22 October that FEMA had actually filed testimony here on the
- 23 beach population issue; is that right?
24 A (Bores) I knew they had prefiled testimony, but I 25 did not see the final version, no, l l l () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12514
's' 1 Q Did you know in September that they had prefiled 2 testimony on the beach population issue?
3 A (Bores) I can't tell you that. I mean, I really , 4 4 don 't know. 5 Q Did it occur to you at some time as a RAC member G who 's sitting there waiting to see a revised FEMA position that 7 maybe, just maybe what had happened was that the position that 8 FEMA was taking was the position it took in testimony before 9 this Board? 10 A (Bores) Well, it occurred to me that it had occurred 11 some time down the road, obviously, yes. 12 Q Sure. And therefore -- 13 A (Bores) Because they provided the testimony. O 14 Q Therefore, that maybe there would never be a RAC, at 15 least in the short run a revised RAC position because FEMA was 16 embroiled in these hearings and had taken a position in these 17 hearings. 18 Did you understand that? 19 A (Bores) Yes, sir, but that 's beyond the window when 20 we had hoped to get a response and have another meetings. 21 Q Yes, which was July or August. 22 A (Bores) Well, August. 23 Q August or September, okay. 24 A (Bores) August probably. 25 Q Fine. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
3 ORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12515 () 1 All right, now I want to turn you to a related topic, 2 and that's the topic of reasonable assurance, because I want to 3 clerify something that I think is important that we understand, 4 and let me see if you can I can do that. 5 You understand that FEMA, in its review of plan, 6 makes a distinction between a finding of adequacy, or a 7 determination of adequacy using these NUREG-0654 guidelines, 8 and a finding of reasonable assurance? 9 A CBores) The finding of a reasonable assurance, to 10 me, is the overall bottom line relative to plans as transmitted 11 to the NRC. 12 Q Overall -- I 'm sorry. 13 A (Bores) Overall, yes. O(_/ 14 Q By, by FEMA? 15 A (Bores) By FEMA. , 16 Q All right. i 17 A (Bores) Based normally on some finding of adequacy 18 for each of the NUREG elements that it does a review on. 19 Q Well, is it your understanding from your involvement 20 in these various RACs over these years that f rom FEMA 's 21 perspective to get to an ultimate finding of reasonable 22 assurance as the plan goes through FEMA to the NRC, what it i 23 does is tn sit down with these hundred or so NUREG-0654 24 elements in one hand and the plan in the other, and match them 25 up? And when there 's congruence or determination of adequacy,
) '
Heritege Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
, . ... .~
BORES, LAZARUS - cross 12516
) 1 FEMA cays that 's it ; now there 's reasonable assurance?
2 A (Bores) I have no knowledge how they do that, 3 because this is unique, particularly in this region. 4 Q By the way, to remind me, have you been on any RAC 5 other than Seabrook? 6 A (Bores) Yes, I was the RAC member for all of Region 7 1 at one time. I was the RAC member for Regions 2 and 3. 8 Q Okay. And in your own memo of February 18, which is 9 Exhibit 5. Staff Exhibit 5, you mention both reasonable 10 assurance and the concept of adequacy right there in the first 11 paragraph of the memo on Page 1; ist. 't that right? 12 hGL TURK: Page 1 of the enclosure? 13 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. I don 't think that has a global ( 14 number, does it. Sherwin? 1 15 MR. TURK : No, as far as I know. 16 THE WITNESS: (Bores) Okay, in the first paragraph 17 you 're talking about ? 18 BY MR. OLESKEY: 19 Q Yes, that first paragraph, I take it, was your effort
- 20 to summarize in a general fashion some of your understanding i 21 about pertinent regulations and guidance leading to 22 determinations of adequacy and ultimately to findings by FEMA I
23 and the NRC that there 's reasonable assurance that a plan will 24 protect the public health and safety; isn 't that right? 25 MR. FLYNN: I 'd like to ask for a clarification of i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888
.y
, d
/. p P
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12517 ( 1 the question and the line of questioning. 2 I take it that the line is intended to probe what 3 FEMA 's interpretation of the regulations is, but I 'm not 4 hearing anything from the witness or anything in the quest, ions 5 that would draw f rom the witness how he knows what FEMA 's i 6 interpretation is. The question seemed designed to be askind 7 the witness what his interpretation is, and I submit that 's 8 irrelevant. 9 MR. OLESKEY: I 'm sorry if I 've mislead my brother to 10 that extent. The question is designed to probe the witness 's 11 understanding as a pivotal RAC member for his agency, at least. 12 of how FEMA understood these criteria, because I suggest his l 13 understanding of FEMA 's perspective was important for him to 14 function competently as a RAC member, the RAC being an advisory 15 to FEMA which to make the ultimate finding of reasonable 16 assurance, and pass that on to the NRC. 17 So I don 't think he could function effectively as a 18 RAC member unless he had some notion of what FEMA was all about ; 19 as it went through this consultative process on to making its 20 own determination of reasonable assurance. i 21 MR. FLYNN: Thank you. I will accept that
- 22 clarification. '
j 23 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, counsel. l 24 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I 'm going to ir erpose an } 25 obj ec t ion. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t 1 1
~
i 1 1 r BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12518 f3
\-) i If the point of'this is to determine what the a
2 regulations require, then I don 't think this witness is the 3 proper on9 We 'll addr ess that in legal brief s. 4 [ MR. OLESKEY: Well, the -- 5 JUDGE SMITH: I think he explained it adequately what 6 pne purpose 19. 7 BY MR. OLESKEY: 8 Q The pending question was. I take it that the first 9 paragraph here of your paper was an effort to summarize in a 10 general fashion your understanding of some of the regulations 11 and guidance both at FEMA and the NRC that related to a 12 determination of plan adequacy and also of this determinations 1 13 finding of reasonable assurance. 14 A (Bores) That 's about half correct. 15 Q All right, why don 't -- give me both the correct half i 16 and the incorrect half so we have 100 percent correct, if you 17 would. 18 A (Bores) Okay. This is a summarization of the NRC 19 regulations as I understand 'them, and how the NRC views the 20 findings from FEMA and what the regulations require are ! 21 relative to taking that finding of reasonable assurance. 22 Q Okay. Then I 'd like to direct you to Page 10 which 23 is the last page of the same memo, the last paragraph. 24 Is it fair to say that that last paragraph beginning 25 with, "B.aad on the above it appears contingent upon the
- C:) -
Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888 r
. . . - - _ . _ - . . - =_ ..
BORES, LAZARUF - CROSS 12519 1 completion of action by the state,' and so forth, that 's an 2 attempt to say that the RAC, in its function a collegiat.- 3 body to advise FEMA, should find, based on your paper, or 4 should determine, based on your paper, that the plans are
- 5 adequate for the reasons stated, and that they provide 6 reasonable assurance that the beach population will be 7 protected?
8 A (Bores) This is my statement, yes, to RAC, and 9 hopefully it woiId be persuaded. 10 Again, it 's an individual input to RAC to provide, if f 11 nothing more, points of discussion so that we enn eventually 12 resolve the issue. 13 Q I understand that. 14 And then in the last clau.~e of that summary, you 15 says, "and that these plana will essentially meet the criteria 16 of PUREG-0654 and the intent of the NRC regulations in this 17 ares." 18 That 's a big, general summary of what you hoped your 19 paper would dc. It woulo wind up the ir te of compliance with 20 0654, and lead the RAC to recommend to FEMA that a reasonable 21 assurance finding be made based on whatever FEMA takes into l .7 secount when it makes such a finding, right? A (Bores) That 's correct. Q Okay. And you were saying to the RAC, everything i before this in my paper, the dot points on Page 10 for emphasis O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.. ._. - . ~
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12520 0 1 ar.d discussion can and ought to be taken into account in making 2 these two determinations: The match-up of the elements of 0654 t 3 with the plan, and the ultimate determination that there 's 4 reasonable assurance; isn 't that right? 5 A (Bores) I'm not sura I read that much into it. What G I 'm trying to point out is that these tre the things that I 7 looked at certainly. 8 Q And what you were saying to the RAC is everything in 9 my memo ought to be taken into account in making these 10 determinations as recommendations to FEMA. 11 A (Bores > Again. I guess I would say that that 's l 12 probably reading an awful lot into it, taking everything. I 'm 13 just pointing - ycu know, providing my point of view to RAC. O 14 They can pick and choose, or saying I 'm dead wrong on some of 15 it, but this is my input to them, okay ? 16 Q Oh , I think that couldn't be clearer, but the import i 17 is everything that 's in your paper. I 18 A (Bores) Is what I had -- 19 Q Sure. 20 A (BoreJ) -- looked dt. 21 Q All right. And is it fair to say that when you wrote i 22 the paper you understood that whatever the RAC 's view or your 23 own might be, FEMA would look, in reaching the reasonaale 24 assurance determination, beyond simply matching up the elements i 25 of 0654 to the aspects of a plen that were relevant? O Heritage Reporting Corporatiot. (202) 628-4888 wm ve y- y,y,-- %r--*-y y y9-r'r -vD- N-- W -*i--*-",=--w7- t-T*-v-w74P m
-'N -
=t=--+'-7,v-N-~ 'Mrtw--'N=--"--
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12521 1 A (Bores) That 's correct. When we go back to the 2 first paragraph of my enclosure, the FEMA finding is primarily 3 based on a review of state and local-emergency plans, any other 4 information already available to FEMA may be used in 5 considering whether there is reasonable assurance that plans 6 can be implemented. 7 Q All right. 8 A (Lores) Okay. 9 Q And that would include, as you understood it, if FEMA , 10 thought it important such aspects as the containment and these 11 risk analyses studies; isn 't that right; that would be up to 12 FEMA ? 13 A (Bores) FEMA provides, you know, the reasonable 14 assurance finding so. 15 Q With whatever it wants to take into account. 16 A (Bores) Presumably that 's true. 17 Q All tight. And isn 't that why you put the 18 containment and risk materials in your February memo in the 19 first place, Dr. Bores?
- E100 20 (Continued on next page.)
21 i 22 23 24 < 25 l
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12522 Ti( ) 1 A (Bores) Not specifically. 2 Q But you knew when you did it, or you certainly knew 3 at the April 15th RAC meeting that FEMA thought those things 4 were important in moving beyond the mere match-up of the NUREG 5 criteria with the plan tc the added level of responsibility it 6 had to make a finding of reasonable assurance; isn 't that 7 right? 8 MR. TURK: The question is FEMA. 9 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. 10 THE WITNESS: (Bores) I can 't say that, because the 11 paper -- let me go back to that -- tried to take a look at 12 where we were with each of the NUREG elements. 13 When we get into the containment features that only () 14 deals with probability and perhaps reducing the probability of 15 having that se<ere accident type thing. It doesn 't mean that 16 you can 't have an accident like that. In fact, the plans do 17 discuss, in my opinion, adequately the provisions for those 18 severc accidents which do impact the beach population and which 19 in fact could occur in the short-term time frame. 20 Therefore, relative to the adequecy of the plans, and 21 this is the message I was trying to get across, it appears that 22 the plans em they exist were adequate. 23 How~ver, relative to the probabilities, what it was 24 trying to say is that if you look at these features rs'ative to 25 some other plants, you would expect, or perhaps could expect O Heritage Repo: Ling Corporation (202) 628-4888
t BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12523 () 1 that the probabilities of such severe accidents might be less 2 here because of those features than at another site. It 3' doesn't mean that the plants -- plans as they exist are not 4 adequate. 5 MR. OLESKEY: I understand. 6 THE WITNESS: CBores) And that is the whole gist of 7 this particular aspect when I did include the probability. 8 That 's what I was trying to show. 9 BY MR. OLESKEY: 10 Q But plan adequacy is a term of art as you used that 11 phrase there. It means a determination that the NUREG elements 12 are met by a plan; isn 't that right? 13 A (Borea) Yes. O (_/ 14 Q All right. And this probability material in fact, at 15 least as you understood FEMA 's j udgment by the time of the , 16 April 15, 1987 neeting, goes to this added level of 17 responsibility that 's FEMA 's of making a determination of 18 reasonable assurance which goes beyor,d mere adequacy. 19 MR. TURK : Your Honor. I 'm going to obj ect. I think , 20 we 've been through it. It 's bordering on argumentative 21 already. We 've had test imony on direct already about Mr. 1 22 Thomas 's early expressed interest in these mat ters. Dr. Bores 23 has given an explanation of why these things were in the paper. l 24 I think we 're really harassing the witness already. [ 25 JUDGE SMITH: Sounds f ami liar. { i Heritage Peporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; t
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12524 i MR. OLESKEY: I 'm sure 4 qat harassment doesn 't sound 2 familiar. 3 JUDGE SMITH: No. I don 't mean -- I mean the line of 4 questioning. 5 MR. OLESKEY. Yes, because as we 'll all see when we 6 look at the transcript. haven't always had direct answers to 7 my questions, and I m a tidy and orderly person. I like to 8 loop things up, and I'm trying to get an answer to this - 9 question, and then I can move beyond this topic. 10 MR. TURK: I think the witness has been very direct. 11 Your Ponor. 12 MR. FLYNN: I have an additional obj ection. 13 The question assumes that Dr. Bores had some 14 understanding, had some communications from FEMA about how it 15 interpreted the reasonable asourance question and what things , 16 it took into account, and that has not been established 17 that -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: I understand the question to be probing 19 solely Dr. Bores 's purpose, and nothing else as I understood , 20 it. l 21 MR. FLYNN: Well, it seems to me quite clear that the 22 point of the question is to get Dr. Bores to say that this is 23 what FEMA does. This is what FEMA has in mind when it makes a 2A reasonable assurance finding. This is what FEMA takes into 25 account. And I don 't want Dr. Bores announcing FEMA policy. l ( . Heritag? Reporting Corporation (2v2) 628-4888 ,
~
y BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12525 () 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that 's -- nobody understanding 2 him doing that. Everybody understand that he 's testifying 3 concerning his, or he 's being asked to testify concerning his 4 perception of FEMA 's policy and practices. 5 MR. FLYNN: But what troubles me is that there 's 6 no -- we don 't know what the basis is fer thet perception. 7 MR. OLESKEY: The basis, counsel, is his involvement 8 with the Seabrook-RAC and a number of other RACs, and 9 particularly his involvement on this issue in his papers and in 10 his discussions with the RAC with Mr. Thomas, especially the 11 April 15 RAC where, as he 's testified, this issue was very much 12 a topic of discussion. 13 MR. FLYNN: I submit that the narrow issue that () 14 you 're addressing now has not been, and I 'd be more comfortable 15 hearing that from the witness. , i 16 MR. OLESKEY: Shall I try to rephrase my question. 17 Judge? f 18 JUDGE SMITH: If you wish, a 19 MR. OLESKEY: Sure. 20 BY MR. OLESKEY: - 21 Q Dr. Bores, didn't you know at least by the time the 22 April 15, 1987 RAC meeting was over that for PEMA. particularly , 23 for Mr. Thones as the chair of the R/0, the issue of making a 24 finding of reasonable assurance as distinguished from t 25 determining plan adequacy was involved especially with such Her$tage Reporting Corooration ; (202) 628-4888 t o e* e ,r -
,e.m., _._y . - , , . - . , , , . . - . , . , . - _ . , .,, . _ _ , , . _ , _ . _ , _ , , _ . _ . _ , , _ _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ _ , , . _ . , _ _ _ _ , _
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12526 1 issues as the Seabrook containment, its strengths, the 2 likelihood of a bypass accident and these risk studies, all of 3 which you had laid out in your paper? 4 A (Bores) I don 't know that I woiild say that I knew 5 t t .at this is where they were going, because I had indicated at 6 the RAC meeting, as I stated in my memo of the 15th of October, 7 that in fact when Mr. Thomas started to indicate that because 8 of these features the plan was ad?quate. I stopped him, and 9 indicated the position that I had taken, to mean that the plans 10 were adequate and the containment features were additional, in 11 addition to meeting the adeauacy that dealt with the 12 probabilities. They were not necessary for adequacy. 13 Q So in your mind, in a way. Mr. Thomas confused the 14 issue by linking these plan features with adequacy rather than 15 with reasonable assurance? , 16 A (Bores) I think he confused it by linking it to 17 either of those, both to adequacy and reasonable assurance. . 18 Q That would be based on your understanding of where 19 the RAC had to go as a matter of performing its duties; is that 20 r)ght? l 21 A (Bores) No. it 's a matter of understanding what Mr. 22 Thomas had stated, and then seeing the prefiled testimony and 23 the prefiled response to contentions. 24 Q All right. 25 So taking into account all those things, what he said C:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS CROSS 12527 () 1 in April, the June filing and the FEMA testimony filed in 2 September, you thought there was some confusion about the 3 application of the standards by FEMA and reliance on these 4 site-specific features; is that right? 5 A (Bores) I thought after the April 15th RAC meeting 6 because I had made the correction and I thought that Mr. Thomas 7 understood what I was saying, it was my belief that the other 8 RAC members understood what I was saying; that in fact we did 9 not have a continued problem in terms of reliance on 10 containment or containment features -- 11 Q To determine plan adequacy, 12 A (Bores) That is correct. 13 Q Okay. () 14 A (Bores) And as f ar as making the overall proj ection 15 of reasonable assurance, that was not really discussed at that 16 time. 17 Q At least as to your recollection now. 18 A (Bores) As to my recollection now, that is correct. . 19 Q Okay. Let me turn to a different topic. I want to i 20 clarify something that came up yesterday I think with Mr. l 21 Lazarus while you were absent. 22 The question was the agencies who were present at the 23 April 15, 1987 RAC meeting. And to help you, I had understood 24 that you had said last week that some time after the April 25 meeting two of the RAC members who you had thought were there O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12528 1 in April said to you separately that they were not; e 2 specifically, Mr. Fish of Energy, and Mr. Church of FDA. 3 Do you recall that testimony here on direct? 4 A (Bores) Yes. 5 Q What was the context in which they gave you this 6 information? : 7 A (Bores) The context of this was at the January RAC 8 meeting, I believe, following Mr. Thomas 's circulation of this 9 October 15th memo. 10 Q Yours? 11 A CBores) Yes. 12 Q Not Mr. Lazarus 's, just yours? 13 A (Bores) I 'm no t sure exactly how much he had O 14 circulated, whether he had included Mr. Lazarus 's, or just my 15 memo without attachments. I can't be certain at this point. 16 But Mr. Church and Mr. Fish had indicated that they . 17 were not present there. And so at that point I asked if there 18 were any other discrepancies that tr.ey had recognized or 19 thought might be pertinent to the rest of the memo. And -- 20 Q Well, let 's hold that because -- l 21 MR. TURL: Could we have the answer -- i 22 MR. CLESKEY: No. 23 MR. TURK: -- finished, please? , 24 MR. OLESKEY: No, it 's my quest ion, and I have got an 25 answer to the question I asked. And if I choose not to elicit 1 Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat ion ' (202) 628-4888 ! i
~ . , _ _ _ . _ _ , . _ _ . . . . . , . _ _ . . . . _ _ -
i I 12529
," ( } BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 1 hearsay beyond that, I 'm entitled to restrict the answer .
2 MR. TURK : The question -- [ 3 MR. OLESKEY: And I -- - 4 MR. DIGNAN: Come on. 5 MR.. TURK: The question was what was the context. r 6 MR. DIGNAN: Let 's get it in. 7 MR. TURK: The question was what was the context. ! 8 - He 's giving you the context. 9 MR. OLESKEY: Mr. Dignan can shout all he wants and ! 10 Mr. Turk can interj ect all he wants. If we 're going to go into 4 11 the other RAC members ' recollections of both meetings other [ 12 than to clarify the correction the witness himself offered on l () 13 direct, then I 'd like to have them brought in. 14 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. -- I 'm sorry. 15 MR. OLESKEY: Which is a subj ect we 've discussed t
- ' 16 before that I understand the Board is thinking about.
17 MR. DIGNAN: I believe the question that was put to 18 the witness is what context did you learn that in, and that 's I , r 19 broad enough to include what he 's getting now. i 20 Now, if he wanted a sharp question, he should have 21 asked a sharp question. He asked the witness in what context. ! . 22 It 's a wide question. He 's f ree to answer it. ! I 23 MR. OLESKEY: I t 's my -- 24 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Oleskey, although we give deference t i l 25 to your order of cross-examination. I think that you must Heri+. age Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888
h l BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12530 t () 1 concede that would be much more efficient if you allow the full ; 1 2 answer rather than heving it tomorrow or later this morning. 3 MR. OLESKEY: Well. I would obj ect to it later, but 4 if you 're saying it 's going to come in some time today, they 're S going to offer it. let 's have it in now over my obj ection. I G understand. 7 BY MR. OLESXEY: , 8 Q Continue. Dr. Bores. 9 A (Bores) Okay. So at that point when these 10 individuals had indicated that they had not been present at the 11 April meeting. I then asked the RAC members who were present if 4 12 they had any other concerns or differences relative to my 13 October 15th memorandum, and no one had any other discrepancies .; () 14 that they had identified for me. 15 Q Was this is open session of the RAC or -- l 16 A (Bores) Yes, it was. 17 Q -- in colloquy ? , 18 A (Bores) No. it was open session. 19 Q Okay. Do I understand that based upon what Fish and 20 Church told you, you corrected here your memorandum by 21 eliminating them as people who you now believe were not at that i , 22 April 15th meeting? 23 A (Bores) That 's correct. 24 Q Okay. 20 MR. OLESKEY: I think that clears up the issue that i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12531 () 1 was raised yesterday, Judge, on that point. 2 BY MR. OLESKEY: 3 Q Was -- and the Interior Department was also not 4 present at the April 15th meeting, correct, Mr. Patterson? 5 A (Bores) Mr. Patterson was not present. 6 Q Turning you -- directing you to a question relative 7 to the people who were at the July 30th RAC meeting. 8 You irdicated in your memorandum that the NOAA. the 9 weather people were not there either. l 10 A CBores) They were not at the July 30th meeting. 11 Q Right. And the Interior Department was not there. 12 A (Bores) That is correct. 13 Q But every other RAC member was there. () 14 A (Bores) Well, those that I had indicated here were 15 there. We sometimes have a representative from the Red Cross 16 present. i 17 Q They 're not an of ficial member of the RAC, are they?
- 18 A (Bores) They provide, I guess, consultant services, 19 if you would, to the RAC on specific aspects, yes.
3 20 Q They're not an official federal agency member by t 21 definition, are they? 22 A CBores) The Red Cross, no, but there is an HHS 23 member who -- Health and Human Services member who does provide 24 medical evaluation as well. He was not there either. So -- 25 Q Then let me ask you this, because this came up i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12532 () 1 yesterday while you were out of the room too. : 2 Is there an HHS representative on the RAC who is , 3 different than the FDA representative? l 4 A (Bores) He comes and attends the meeting. We do not , 5 really distinguish between them. He has not been present at 6 the last number of RAC meetings, but his area is primarily the 7 medical treatment, medical expertise area. 8 Q He being the HHS representative? - 9 A (Bores) He, Mr. Stepp, who attended in that fashion, i 10 yes. I 11 Q All right. So if you 're counting agencies, both HHS
- i 12 and FDA have separate representation on the RAC.
13 MR. TORK: As official RAC members? l () 14 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. 15 THE WITNESS: CBores) I 'm not sure if it 's of ficial i 16 representation. I guess you might say each -- Health and Human I I 17 Services sometimes sends two representatives; one with more of 18 a radiological background; one with a medical expertise. 19 BY MR. OLESKEY: ; i 20 Q And Mr. Church is the radiological person, and he 's f l' 21 from the FDA. Mr. Stepp is the health background person, and 22 he 's f rom Public Health. HHS; is that right? 23 A (Bores) That is my understanding. l 24 Q All right, and it was pursuant to that understanding - i 25 that you attached this list of RAC committee members to your i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 4 l
- ..__ __ _ ,__ _ _ .._-_ __ _ _ f
t BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12533 O 1 memo to Mr. Turk, being Attachment 6; isn 't that right? l 2 A (Bores) Yes. L 3 I assume it 's Attachment 6 if you tell me it is. 4 Q I believe it is. 5 A- Yes. t G Q All right. Had you talked to any of the RAC members 7 between -- after the April meeting up to the July 30 meeting. 8 other than Ed Thomas? j 9 CPause.) l 10 A (Bores) I did not pick up the phone and call anyone. 11 I can 't recall whether I may have met thum at another meeting i 12 or another event at which they may have been present. 13 Q All right, I appreciate your careful answer. O 14 Let me ask then, did you have any discussion with any l 15 of the RAC members other than Mr. Thomas after April but before 16 the July 30 meeting about the subj ect matters that had been 17 discussed in April, however the conversation came up? 18 A (Bores) I don't recall any specific conversations. j 19 Q Or any meetings where you might have had such 4 20 conversations, other RACs or any other functions? 21 A (Bores) Not other RACs. I can 't recall whether [ \ L 22 there was any exercise where I may have been present or 23 something in between. I 'm not sure. 24 Q Did you and Mr. Lazarus talk in advance of the July 25 30 meeting about any obj ectives that you had as the NRC Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 r
,,, + , _ - - _ ~ - , , - , , . . 3 - - . . y .- .r,. -- w. . . . - . ... .,__,w,e
k BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12534 () 1 representatives for.that meeting? 2 He 's already answered yesterday, so I would like to 3 get your answer today. 4 A (Bores) Oh. I can't recall any conference on that 5 point. 6 Q Did you discuss that it might be desirable to take a 7 poll or a vote? 8 A (Bores) No. 9 Q Did you know that he was going to suggest a poll or a 10 vote before he did it? 11 A (Bores) No. 12 Q At the July 30 meeti:e. 13 A (Bores) No, I did not. () 14 Q Okay. I would like you to look at Attachment'17 to 15 your Exhibit 2 and 2-A. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Page, please. 17 MR. OLESKEY: Global Page 76, Your Honor. 18 BY MR. OLESKEY: 19 Q Now, as I understand your joint testimony to this 20 point, any kind of vote or poll involving a formal showing of 21 hands or an nye and nay type of thing was unprecedented in your 22 experience in Region 1 RACs. right? 23 MR TURK: Obj ect to the for e of the question if the 24 word "formal" stays in. That 's my prr blem. 25 MR. OLESKEY: Well. I ther. gave several examples. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4800
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12535 Your Honor. so there wouldn't be any confusion. (]) 1 2 MR. TURK : I distinguish between a formal vote and -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: Does he understand? 4 Do you understand the question? S THE WITNESS: CBores) Let me restate what I 6 understand. 7 MR. OLESKEY: Sure. 8 THE WITNESS: CBores) And see if the response to 9 that is satisfactory. 10 You 're asking whether it 's anusual to get a polling 11 of members relative to their positions on any particular topic. 12 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. 13 THE WITNESS: CBores) In the Region 1 RAC. () 14 BY MR. OLESKEY: 1S Q In the form of hands up, or aye and nay vote, that 16 kind of formal statement as distinguished from people 's 17 discussion of their positions around the table. 18 JUDGE SMITH: When you use that word, if you saw Mr. 19 Turk, as I did, he gets very nervous. And I used it before. 20 and he got particularly nervous, and I try to use specific now. 21 Is that better? Do you like that, specific? 22 MR. TURK: As opposed to formal. t 23 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. i 24 MR. TURK: Sure. l 25 MR. OLESKEY: One advantage of sitting here is 1 O Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
i f f BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12536 : O' i don 't have to watch Mr. Turk get nervous, and it helps the flow i i i 2 of my questions. ! 3 All right. I 'll be happy to use specific. 4 BY MR. OLESKEY: 5 Q Do you understand the distinction that the judge is 6 helping me to make between a. specific position called for by 7 the chair on a hands up, or an nye or nay basis, and simply a 8 statement of position? 9 A CBores) I understand your distinction. 10 Q All right. 11 And as I understand your testimony, such a specific .i 12 statement of position of that type was extremely unusual in RAC 13 meetings in Region 1. in your experience. O 14 A CBores) There were times when we 'd go around the ; 15 table to find out if an individual had a particular problem l i 16 with an area as we planned to resolve it, or did not. And so r 17 essentially we had a polling of members that way. You know, do 18 you have a problem with that, by assent -- 19 Q Sure. 20 A (Bores) -- or by negative statements. 21 Q You can 't remember a time when Ed Thomas as chair [ 22 ever said, all right, let 's put it to a vote. Ayes, in favori i 23 nays, opposed; let me see your hands on this one? i 24 A (Bores) I can 't recall that at all, no. [ 25 Q Is it fair to say that Mr. Thomas, perhaps to an ( Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-48ti8 !
l l l BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12537 () i excessive Jegree in a sense, ecphasizes consensus in running 2 RAC meetings? l i i 3 A (Bores) We 've not had a problem, you know, in l 4 reaching consensus, I believe, on any -- [ 5 Q It 's something he obviously values an a method of l 6 using the RAC to reach positions to help FEMA; isn 't that fair 7 to say? , l i 8 A (Bores) I think it 's f air to say, but I 'm not sure ; i 9 it 's unusual -~ , i 10 Q All right. 11 A (Bores) -- in the RACs that I 've been on. f 12 Q All right. I 'll accept that. I 13 Now, this Attachment 7 at global Page 76 is the l 14 agenda for that RAC meeting on July 30, together with notes I 15 that you made during the course of the meeting. } 16 A (Bores) Yes, sir.
}
j 17 Q All right, and you 've indicated that the pluses and [
- 10 minuses alongside the agency and individual names at the bottom i
19 right represent, as your handwritten note says, position noted l 20 by statements at the meeting. j r 21 A (Bores) That is correct. I 22 Q By which, as I understand it, you mean this is the l 23 conclusion that you drew about where people were with respect ] 1 I 24 to plan adequacy at least because of what they said, or in the ! I 25 case of Ms. Nevitt, didn't say during the course of the { O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
-- .=_ ==_- _ _ . .-.
i BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12530 t 4 g 1 meeting? 2 A (Bores) Yes. I l l E101 3 (Continued on next page.) 4 5 6 . 7 i 8 l a ! 9 10 , i 11 12 i i l 13 l h 14 15 i 16 17 r 18 i 19 20 21 22 1 23 6 1 l 24 ; l > I 26 ( h Heritage Reporting Corporation I I i (202) 628-4888 i k t
. .. t
i BORES, l.iZARUS - CROSS 12539 j T/ns ,2 1 Q And when the meeting was concluded this Attachment j r 2 17 constituted the whole of your notes, such as they are, for j t 3 th61 meeting from 10iOO or 11100 in the morning until 2:00 or j 2:30 on July 301 ien't that right? i 4
- S A (Bores) I can't give a definite yes to it; I may j i
I 6 have had-some other notes somewhere else. l [ i 7 Q Well, you don't have them today, I take it?. ; 8 A (Bores) I don't have them today. I 9 Q And you don't have any recollection of them? 10 A (Bores) I would typically, you know, certainly have f 11 a pad of paper there where I may jot things down. But I do not 12 know, in this particular instance, whether I had other notes or 1 i l 13 not. 7 () 14 Q All right. But whether you had them or not, this is t 15 what survives? I i 16 A (Bores) Yes. ; 17 Q And the most unusual, and to you, unexpected 18 development that day was this poll near the end of the meeting; ; l l ! 19 isn 't that right? t i 20 A (Bores) Would you restate that? [ l ! 21 Q Yes. The nost unusual thing that happened at the f 22 meeting, and it was certainly unexpected to you, was this poll 1 23 that your colleague. Mr. Lazarus, called for at the end of the } l i 24 meeting; isrs't that right? i 25 A (Bores) I 'm not sure I 'd say that was the cost ) \ t
) Heritage Reporting Corporation !
- (202) 628-4888 {
l i i
'l BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12540
() i unusual type of situation. I mean, we 're dealing with a single 2 issue here. I think, at this whole meeting, that in itself is 3 rather unusual. 4 Q Well. the issue had been around since at least, in a 5 formal sense. December 31, 1985; isn 't that right ? 6 A (Bores) Yes, but not discussed in its entirety O 7 throughout the meeting. 8 Q All right. And the concluding event. as you see it. 9 to this long meeting was this poll that your colleague called - 10 for. to put people -- 11 A (Bores) Yes. ; 12 Q -- on the record as to where they stood? !'
! 13 A (Bores) Yes; very near the end. ;
() 14 Q And there 's absolutely nothing on this Attachment 17 ! i 15 which are your notes, that reflects that vote; isn 't that ; 16 right? [ i 17 A (Bores) That 's correct. e i i 18 Q Now, the same day there was discussion about the I I r j 19 RAC 's position in connection with the review that FEMA had i 20 undertaken of the emergency evacuation plans for Pilgrim j i ~ 21 Station in Massachusetts; isn 't that right? l 22 A (Bores) There was discussion of the status of the l 23 FEMA review. I 24 Q It 's item 10 on your agenda. Attachment 17; isn 't it? , 1 I ! 25 And also item 97 l i l (:) ! , Heritage Reporting Corporation ! ! (202) 628-4888 [ t ! 1 ;
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12541 ( i A CBores) I don 't recall any detailed discussion here 2 of this review. I think at this point we were still looking 3 for information and status of this review. I think it was just 4 a status report really of it, and the f act that RAC may get 5 involved in the review of the FEMA self-initiated review. 6 Q Do you recall any discussion that day about the 7 status of the FEMA self-initiated review -- 8 MR. TURK: Obj ec t ion. Your Honor, we 're straying r 9 into Pilgrim here. It may be of interest to Masse tusetts, but ; 10 it 's not relevant to this hearing. 11 MR. OLESKEY: It is relevant. We discussed it 12 briefly yesterday. I held it until Dr. Bores came back, and if 13 I 'm allowed to finish my question, and Mr. Turk still obj ects. 14 you can make a ruling. It goes to the issue of consistency of , 15 position of this agency and of the RAC as we discussed : 16 yesterday. Let me now restate the question, if I ney. ! 17 BY MR. OLESKEY: 18 Q Do you have any recollection of discussion at this ,
- 19 meeting by the RAC of the status of FEMA self-initiated review l
20 of the emergency evacuation plans for Pilgrim Station in i l 21 Massachusetts, and specifically of discussions about provisions l 22 of the existing plans to make adequate provision for the j 23 protection of the beach population in that area? 24 MR. TURK : Obj ec' ion, Your Honor, same reason and I 'm i 25 going to add to it. One, it 's irrelevant. Two. it 's going to l~ i O Heritage Reporting Corporation r (202) 628-4888 l l f
l P r BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12542 l () I the merits of what the position is or should be from either NRC f
- 2 or FEMA with respect to the beach population. The witnesses 3 are proffered to discuss what happened at these meetings, with ,
i i
; 4 respect to Seabrook, that 's the issue and nothing further, j 5 MR. OLESKEY: I 'm entitled to determine f a 6 consistent position has been taken by both agencies, which we 7 have here, now the NRC and shortly FEMA.
l 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we 've always come up to tilis 9 point and never get it resolved. Are you or are you not I 10 claiming that you can litigate the merits of the RAC review t t 11 now? i 12 MR. OLESKEY: I 'm only saying that I 'm entitled to l 4 I 13 show where similar or dissimilar positions are taken on () 14 substantially similar facts, and where here, it 's the same 1 15 time, the same RAC, and the same representatives f rom the NRC , ' i 16 and FEMA; it 's particularly clear that I ought to be able to do 17 that. I 18 JUDGE SMITH: Well, yes, i f it is explain it? , 19 MR. OLESKEY: Because the two situations are 20 essentially similar. You have two plants on the sea coast as [
- l I 21 to which review is going on of emergency evacuation plans at I 22 the same time, and the issues were almost essentially the same; !
i ! 23 was there adequate protection in the plans for transient beach 24 population, in the case of ?ilgrim on the Massachusetts and the l ! 25 case of Southeastern Maasachusetts and the case of Seabrook on (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 ! I I
-- , ..,_._.-..f ,,,_.,,___.-..%-,..p _ , , . , , _ , _p _ _ , . . ,.% ~pm,,,,.3-.,.,_.p%. ,,,y,,,.-,yw,-yy..,,_y,m,,,,97,, g,
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12543 f() i the coast of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 2 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor -- 3 MR. OLESKEY: You happen to have the coincidence of 4 both items being on for discussion the same day by the same RAC , 5 with the same' agencies. 6 MR. FLYNN: That introduces a very large factual 7 issue and that is whether the Seabrook site is comparable to 8 the Pilgrim site, and I submit if we get into the merits of 9 that the hearing is expanded beyond anything we 've seen so f ar. 10 (Board conferring) 11 JUDGE SMITH: The Board does not, of its own 12 knowledge, know that the situations are similar, and we don 't 13 authorize en inquiry into whether they are similar. Even if we () 14 did know there 's doubt as to whether we would allow you to 15 inquire into it am av But we don 't reach that point. 16 MR. OLE ., r.dY : All right. What you are saying in 17 part, that I can 't inquire of these witnesses in a prefatory 18 fashion to establish the similarities, because even if I did 19 you wouldn 't let ma then pursue the questions that I 've 20 indicated I want to ask. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Didn 't get that far. 22 MR. OLESP.EY: I 'm j ust trying to understand -- 23 JUDGE SMITH: We don 't have to go that far, although 24 prooably if you got that f ar we wouldn 't let you go into the 20 merits of the RAC review, in any event. which is the only O Heritage Report i ng Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12544 () i reason I can see that you 're of fering it. 2 MR. OLESKEY: I just -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: But we 're not going to digress into a 4 litigation for the small amount of value it could possibly 5 have, as to the similaritica between Pilgrim and Seabrook. 6 MR. OLESKEY: Just so that -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: We understand that they're both on 8 water, and that 's about it. 9 MR. OLESKEY: And j ust so that my position is clear, 10 for the record, I want to do it to show that the same criteria, 11 the NUREG criteria, the reasonable assurance standard, such as 12 you may conclude it is, as applied by FEMA and the NRC, may 13 have been applied inconsistency -- inconsistently at the same () 14 period of time to two, in this respect, comparable locations. 15 And I just want to make sure that position was clear. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. But my problem is, after you 17 make that position you never go any place with it; we always 18 stop at that point. end therefore, I do understand your 19 position as far as it goes. 20 MR. OLESKEY: Well, I 'm ready to go forward, but I 21 think you 're telling me not to, and that 's the clarification 22 I 'm seeking. That is. I would ask some questions to -- 23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. That 's the clarificativa 24 that you are -- put in the recol there you intend to go, and 25 I 'm clarifying that I don 't know where that goes. ( Heritage Repo r t i ng Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12545 () 1 MR, OLESKEY: And therefore I shouldn't take it? 2 JUDGE SMITH: Among other reasons. 3 MR. OLESKEY: Okay. That 's what I wanted to ! 4 understand. , 5 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 6 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, I 'd j ust like to say that I 7 think the merits of the RAC position should be relevant and 8 admissible here, because I believe we 're going to hear from the 9 FEMA witnesces that to some extent the present testimony 10 they 're goir , to give is going to be based upon the RAC 11 positions at various points along the way. And therefore, I , 12 think that the merits of the RAC positions are indeed relevant 13 and should be subj ect to questioning. , ( 14 JUDGE SMITH: Our ruling may be different when it l 15 comes to the FEMA position on the merits. 16 MR. BACKUS: Well, this witness has input to the RAC. , 17 JUDGE SMITH: The FEMA testimony on the merits. I t/lO3 18 mean. ! i 19 MR. FLYNN: Well, I think we 'd have to explore that i 20 with these witnesses now; I don 't anticipate we 're going to get 21 them back again. 22 MR. TURK: Let me just note. Your Honor, Dr. Bores is 23 not the P.AC member for Pilgrim. 24 THE WITNESS: (Bores) That is correct. 25 MR. TURK : On behalf of NRC. He is the RAC member L s Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888 t t i
. . _ =. -
1 for Seabrook. 2 THE WITNESS: CBores: In addition, the Pilgrim 3 review was a FEMA review; it was not a RAC review. 4 BY MR. OLESKEY: 5 Q Yes, but it was on the agenda for discussion -- 6 A (Bores) Status was on -- 7 Q Yes. 8 A (Bores) -- for discussion. 9 Q On July 30? 10 A (Bores) Yes. 11 Q All right. 12 Mr. Lazarus, there was this individual. John 13 Schumacher. who reported to you who attended, as I understand h 14 your testimony, both the April 15 and July 30 RAC meetings in i i 15 1987; is that right? 1 16 A CLazarus) That 's right. 17 Q As I further understand your testimony, when Mr. Turk , 18 contacted Dr. Bores for these memos summarizing recollections i 19 of NRC regional attendees at these meetings, you then called in 20 Schumacher and said that you 'd like a memo from him? , 21 A (Lazarus) Yes, that 's correct; to the same extent, j 22 the separately developed memo of his recollections of what 23 transpired at the April 30th and July -- April 15th and July 24 30th meetings. [ t ! 25 Q Did you ask him if he had any notes? 1 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; t L
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12547 ( 1 A (Lazarus) No, I did not. l 2 Q You do not know whether, in fact, he had notes even 3 today as you sit here; is that right? 4 A (Lazarus) No, I don 't, 5 Q Okay. And the memo that he produced in its entirety 6 is the memo that was marked Staff Exhibit 4 for identification; 7 isn 't that right? 8 A (Lazarus) I believe so; I don 't have a copy in front 9 of me right now, but I believe that 's the Staf f Exhibit No. 10 MR. OLESKEY: Mr. Turk, can you help me, was that 11 finally admitted for a limited purpose as a full exhibit or 12 not? 13 THE WITNESS: I have a copy now; that 's correct. 14 MR. TURK : It was admitted, and the purpose was not 15 as limited as other papers that had been admitted. 16 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Judge, I l 17 BY MR. OLESKEY: l 18 Q Was Schumacher there throughout both meetings, April 19 15th and July 30? 20 A (Lazarus) Yes, he wes. 21 Q Did he stay to the end of the July 30 meeting? 22 A CLazarus) Yes, he did. 23 Q And you all left together? 24 A CLazarus) Yes. l l 25 Q Okay. l Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 ;
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12548 () 1 MR. OLESKEY: Judge, I want to expand the offer of 2 this document in a limited fashion beyond the basis on which it 3 was originally offered which was to show the historical record. 4 I want to offer it for the additional limited purpose 5 on behalf of the Intervenors of impeaching or contradicting the G testimony of these two witnesses, to the extent it may do that, 7 because it says nothing about any vote or poll of members on 8 the issue or the adequacy of the plans, and for no other 9 purpose. 10 MR. DIGNAN: I obj ect to the offer for impeachment 11 purposes. Impeachment must be by an inconsistent statement by 12 the same witness in nornal course of events; and this is the 13 problem with the hearsay. The memo is written independently,
) .t. 4 we don 't know what went through, and we don 't know what 15 Schumacher would say on the witness stand were his recollection 16 refreshed by appropriate suggestion as to what he did or did 17 not hear. That 's why it cannot be offered for impeachment 18 purposes.
19 MR. OLESKEY: I think you can impeach testimony by an 20 agency which has to come through people, after all, not through 21 agencies themselves, by -- 22 MR. DIGNAN: Witnesses -- I 'm sorry, Mr. Oleskey. 23 MR. OLESKEY: -- by a statement from someone else 24 equally situated to the witnesses whose recollection differs in 25 the material respect; and it 's for that reason I offer it and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12549 () 1 for that reason only. I 2 MR. DIGNAN: The witnesses are not here speaking for 3 the agency in terms of testifying as to the actual events of 4 that meeting; the witnesses were brought here as attendees of 5 the meeting to contradict prior testimony given by another 6 attendee at that meeting. That is not the same as testifying 7 as an agency. 8 And this Schumacher memorandum cannot cc:.w in for r 9 impeachment, it is not a statement by e$.ther of these 10 gentlemen, and Schumacher is apparently not beind made 11 available so that his recollection could be refreshed and so 12 forth and so on, to see whether he would in fact contradict the 13 testimony. ! 14 If all he is saying in the memorandum or would say on 15 the stand is he has not recall one way or another, that does 16 not impeach. 17 JUDGE SMITH: If it goes $n. it will go in for , 18 whatever purpose the Board thinks it 's probative of. 19 MR. TURK: Do I understand then that there 's no 20 further expansion beyond -- 21 JUDGE SMITH: Unless it comes in for general That if he -- in general, that if he -- if he i 22 purposes. 23 testified he would testify to that purpose -- to that -- 1 24 MR. CLESKEY: I only have -- f 25 JUDGE SMITH: So you don 't want to offer it fer that f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 [
i != l i. - l { l BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12550 1 purpose? F 2 MR. OLESKEY: I 'm sorry, I may have -- i S JUDGE SMITH: Well, I 'm saying that if you -- we ! I j 4 won't accept your offer which mandates the inference that we ! S would have to draw from it. If it is offered -- the only way 6' we would receive it -- well. I'm not even sure we would receive 7 it then because I think Mr. Dignan might obj ect to it on 8 hearsay. 9 MR. FLYNN: And so wi11 I. j 10 JUDGE SMITH: So will you. But the only way we would ! 11 receive it along the lines that you're suggesting is for 12 whatever inference we would give it ourselves, our own reading 13 of it; not one dictated by your offer. 14 But the hearsay obj ections obtain. f t 15 MR. OLESKEY: I'm wi11ing to have it come in on that ; i 16 basis. 17 JUDGE SMITH: However, the general hearsay obj ection 18 is still there. I 19 MR. OLESKEY: Wel1. that's true, but then we go -- 1 20 MR . DIGNAN: Are you changing your offer to an offer 21 of the document for the truth of the matters contained? i 1 22 Because on that basis I 'll have no obj ection. l 23 JUDGE SMITH: We l 1, Mr. Flynn does. l I have no obj ection if it 's put in for ! 24 MR. DIGNAN: I i 25 the truth of the matters contained. O l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- ~ , . - .
t
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12551 () 1 JUDGE SMITH: I wasn't sure what your position was, , 2 but -- 3 MR. FLYNN: I 'm -- now I 'm conf used about where we [ 4 stand. It is already in evidence for the limited purpose -- 5 JUDGE SMITH: It 's only in evidence to demonstrate 6 that one of the persons attending the meeting did in fact make 7 a report; that 's all. , 8 MR. FLYNN: I don 't understand what the additional 9 offer is? 10 JUDGE SMITH: The offer is -- 1; MR. DIGNAN: It 's now of fered for the general trutb f . 12 of the matters contained. 13 MR. FLYNN: Then I have the original problem that I () 14 had when I first objected and that is hearsay. 15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. On that basis then, it ' 16 cannot be received 'or the truth of the matters contained in , 17 there. [ 18 MR. OLESKEY: May I proceed? ! 19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, please. 20 MR. OLESKEY: I have two other sho*.t areas and then 21 I'm through, gentlemen. a j 22 BY MR. OLESKEY: I 23 Q Is either one of you familiar with the document . 24 entitled "Proposed Rebuttal Testimony of NRC Staff Concerning , t 25 New Hampshire, RERP Protective Actions for Seaorook Area, ! i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation I t (202) 628-4888 l 4 i
r- - l ! li l t ! I BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12552 ! 1 Seasonal Beach Populations." that was submitted at least to ,- 2 counsel in this proceeding in early October of '877 : ! 3 MR. TURK: May I ask for a clarification. Is that 4 the staf f 's proposed rebuttal outline? ! j S MR. OLESKEY: It is, counsel. l f . !- 6 THE WITNESS: CBores.' I would have to see it in ' i 7 order to comment on it. l 8 BY MR. OLESKEY: ! 9 Q Let me show you a transmittal letter to the Court
- 10 together with a two page document bearing the title I indicated i
l 11 and ask you if it 's something you 've ever seen? 12 (Pause) 13 THE WITNESS: (l'o rea ) I believe I have seen it. 14 BY MR. OLESKEY: { l 15 Q My question is, did you -- either one of you have any 16 part in consulting with Mr. Turk or anybody else -- 17 MR. TURK: Obj ect ion. Your Honor. 18 RY MR. OLESKEY: 19 Q -- on the preparation of that document? , 20 MR. TURK : Obj ec t ion. Your Honor. I . I 21 MR. DIGNAN: Is that confined to a yes or no answer? l 22 You 're not looking for communications?
, 23 MR. OLESKEY: It is, counsel, yes.
L l 24 MR. DIGNAN: No obj ection. ) 25 JUDGE SMITH: What 's the document ? i l Heritage Reporting Corporation < (202) 626-4888 i I
i BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12553 ! () 1 MR. OLESKEY: -It 's that proposed staf f rebuttal 2 outlite of two pages. Your Honor, that, as I recall. Mr. Turk ; 3 has said was inadvertently distributed to the parties but never . 1 ? 4 sent to the Board or at least not sent in October, perhaps it !P 5 was later. Is that -- t 6 MR. TURK: No. The document was sent to the Board in 7 October, and in addition I transmitted a duplicate of it te the ! 8 Board menbers following our May 10th conference call. It 's the 9 staf f 's aroposed rebut tal testimony outline, Your Honor. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. I know. ! 11 MR. TURK : With a cover letter from me to the Board ! 12 ar.d service on the parties. [ 13 JUDGE SMITH: What 's the question? ( 14 BY MR. OLESKEY: 15 Q The question was, did either one of you consult with ! 16 Mr. Turk or anybody else in connection with preparing that , i 17 material? 18 MR. TURK: Your Honor. I 'm going to obj ect. I 'm not , 19 getting into attorney / client privilege on this, but I think 20 it 's way beyond the scope of what these witnesses are here to i 21 testify abeut. It really gets, again, to the merits. It has
- 22 nothing to do with why the witnesses are here.
23 JUDGE SMITH: As a matter of fact, it goes to l 24 questions, as a matter of fact. I even asked of the Board and 25 that is to the panel, and that is what they did on this issue I i !
- Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 !
i ! L ! l l i
l BORES, LAZARL'S - CROSS 12554
- i i before the October 15th memorandum; and I think that this is a,
- s. !
2 at the very least, it could be a memory ref resher or I don't ! 3 know, It 's overruled. 4 Well, first of all, what is your purpose? i 5 MR. OLESKEY: I wanted to find out the extent to G which, in connection with this particular work these two 7 gentlemen had been drawn into working on the litigation team, 8 because I think that raight bear on the Board 's assessment of I 9 their bias not in a corrupt sense, but just in their interest 10 in having a particular version of history accepted here by the 11 Board.
- 12- JUDGE SMITH: And their spontaneity and the -- ,
, 13 MR. OLESKEY: Sure. i () 14 JUDGE SMITH: -- October .15th -- ; i 15 MR. OLESKEY: Sure. 16 JUDGE SMITH: -- memorandum. 17 BY MR. OLESKEY: r 18 Q Mr. Lazarus? 19 A (Lazarus) I have no recollection of this memo, and I l ] { 4 20 did not participate in any development of it. 21 Q All right. 22 Dr. Bores? 23 A (Bores) I had had some discussions with, at least. }
- 24 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. some of the [
1 25 individuals down there, and I may have had some discussions ( Heritage Reporting Corporation !
'202) 628 4888 }
- i i
-ih J -__
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12505 1 with Mr. Turk as well. 2 Q In connection with what turned out to be this 3 document? 4 A (Bores) Of some version of it. 5 Q Okay. Did you come to the hearings. Dr. Bores. 6 physically to play some role, as soon as they began early 7 October? 8 A (Bores) No. 9 Q When was the first time you were here? 10 A (Bores) The first time I was here. I believe. was in 11 January, the -- following the January 8th and 9th RAC meeting. 12 Q Mr. Lazarus, when were you first here? 13 A CLazarus) Last week. 14 MR. OLESKEY: Okay. I don 't think that document is 15 in the record, and I would like to mark it as an exhibi'. and 16 offer it only to show that it was examined upon to the limited 17 extent it was, and the witnesses 's involvement in this 18 preparation, for the reasons I previously stated. In other ] 19 words, it 's a historical document; I 'm no t offering it because i 20 I know Mr. Turk is offering that evidence only to show that ! 21 some litigation preparation was done in early October just ; 22 before the memorandum of October 15th, and this witness has . 23 acknowledged participating in it. 24 MR. TURK: I 'm going to obj ect to this. Your Honor. [ 25 MR. DIGNAN: Before I decided whether I want to i ! Heritage Reporting Corporation p (202) G28-4888 4
- .m . . _
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12556 : () i obj ect to it. I have a concise statement of what the -- if 2 there is an offer into evidence, nore than marking for 3 identification; is there. Mr. Oleskey? ! t 4 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, there is, counsel. 5 MR. DIGNAN: All right. What is the purpose of the 6 offer, then, so 1 can decide whether I want to obj ect? 7 MR. OLESKEY: To show that in late September or early 6 October the NRC staff was engaged in developing a position 9 described as rebuttal, which has been previously testified and [ 10 remarked upon as being in contradiction or opposition to that 11 of FEMA; and that this witness who has now offered for certain ; 12 historical recollections about the entire period, was to that 13 extent, drawn into the litigation preparation by his agency. , ( 14 JUDGE SMITH: Well, my problem with the document is 15 that it may be satisfactory for your first purpose, that the l 16 NRC was preparing a position, but it does nothing -- it has no 17 probative value with respect to Dr. Bores 's testimony which 18 was -- have you ever seen that document before? 19 THE WITNESS: CBores) I 'm not sure I saw it in this [ l 20 form. I saw some of the areas, certainly. 21 JUDGE SMITH: The subj ect matter you 're f amiliar 22 with? l 23 THE WITNESS: CBores) Yes, generally. 24 JUDGE SMITH: That 's the best evidence you 're going 25 to have on it. ; (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i I 4 Y
= _ ____ ___ _ . __ -__
i 1 1 1 - BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12557 1 l 1 MR. OLESKEY: I think I agree. Let me withdraw the 2 offer. ! 3 The last series of questions principally to you. Mr. 4 Lazarus.
- 5 BY MR. OLESKEY
1 I 6 Q As I understand your testimony last week here. Mr. 7 Harpster who is now the Director of Emergency Preparedness for 8 New Hampshire Yankee was until approximately May of '86 your 9 direct supervisor at NRC. Region 1? I l 10 A CLazarus) That 's correct; approximately May '86. 11 April or May I believe. 12 Q All right. And he is also, stemming back to those 13 days, a personal friend of yours; is he not? I l I (:) 14 A (Lazarus) We were on a friendly basis, yes. I did 15 not know him prior to entering the Emergency Preparedness , i 16 Section. l l 17 Q All right. And it 's correct, is it not, that on i i 18 occasion when you 've come to New Hampshire you 've stayed at his l l 19 home? 20 A CLazarus) No, that 's not correct. 21 Q Is it not correct that when you come to New Hampshire 22 you've had meals with him? l 23 A (Lazarus) No, that is not correct. 24 Q You 've never socialized with him outside -- you 've 25 never socialized with him since he left the NRC. is that right? C:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
; __ . . .. . . _ _ ._ _ _ _. _ . ........ ... -=- -- ._ ._
- - _ - - - _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - - - - = -- - - - -!
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12558 1 A (Lazarus) No, I have not.
- 2. Q Okay. Have you ever been cautioned by your 3 supervisors against socializing with him?
4 A (Lazarus) Yes. I have. 5 Q All right. And what was the reason -- strike that. 6 In what context were you cautioned by your supervisors not to 7 associate with Mr. Harpster? 8 A (Lazarus) On a -- we 're not to associate on a social 9 basis, just for the appearances of conflict of interest. 10 Q All right. When was that, at the time he left or 11 after that? 12 A (Lazarus) It was discussed before he left and 13 subsequent to that. O. 14 Q All right. From July 30 to October 7th of 1987, did 15 you discuss anything about the July 30 RAC with Mr. Harpster? 16 A (Lazarus) Yes. I believe I did. 17 Q What was that, sir. and when was it? 18 A (Lazarus) I believe I was on site in August of 1987, 19 following the July 30th RAC meeting, for inspection involving 20 another issue. I believe it was the East Kingston siren 21 followup. During the discussion of Mr. Harpster I discussed 22 scheduling and indicated that we 'd probably have to have 23 another RAC meeting to discuss the beach population issue, the 24 issues had not been resolved and that there was disagreement 25 with the RAC, and that the position was supposed to be O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6' r i BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12559 { O- 1 redrafted and submitted for further review, f 2 Q Is it fair to say, f rom what you j ust said, that you l 3 gave him a quick cummary of what happened at the July 30 RAC
, t 4 meeting? f 5 A (Lazarus) Yes. I think that 's f air. -
6 Q Is he the only person outside Dr. Bores. Mr. i 7 Schumacher. and your superiors to whom you disclosed anything i 8 that occurred at the July 30 RAC meeting until you prepared 9 your memorandum for Sherwin Turk on October 15th. 10 A (Lazarus) I believe he 's the only person outside my 11 agency and. you know, my immediate family and people around the 9 12 Nuclear Regulatory Conmission. > l 13 Q And when you had that conversation with him you knew (:) 14 that he was the senior person in charge of pin 9ning for New iS Hampshire Yankee? 16 A (Lazarus) Yes, I believe so. l
! 17 Q And that the -- that the RAC considered its l 18 deliberations to be confidential?
4 l 19 A (Lazarus) No, I did not believe that to be the case r i ; i 20 at this point. especially since we were at a point where I j l i 21 thought the question was mooted by the fact the position was l l 22 going to be redrafted. , t i i 23 Q So you felt free to talk to anyone, if the occasion
- 24 arose, about the deliberations of the RAC on July 30 or any l l l
- 25 other time; is that right? [
- I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 626-4888 !
- 4. i l !
i [
m_ __ - ~. _ -- - -_ _ _ - - ---- - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ . - - - . - - - . - ! I BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12560 1 A (Lazarus) It did not enter my mind at the time that l 2 there was anything incorrect about it. 3 Q But the only person to whom you made the disclosures ! 4 about what went on, and that in August shortly after the l 5 meeting, outside of your family or your agency was Mr. ! ! [ 6 Harpater; is that right? -l 7 MR. TURY. : Asked and answered. ! 8 THE WITNESS: (Lazarus) Yes, I indicated that 's ! l 9 correct. 10 MR. OLESKEY: That concludes my examination. Your l 11 Honor. f l 12 JUDGE SMITH: Other Intervenors? . I 13 MR. BACKUS: Yes. i O 14 VR. TURK: How are we dealing with the morning break, I 15 Your Honor? 16 MR. BACKUS: I need to get a couple of documents, i ) l l 17 JUDGE SMITH: All right, ten minutes. ! 18 MR. T:.'RK : And may I also ask how much cross- l 19 examination other Intervenors feel they have? ! 20 MS. WEISS: Ten minutes. 1 21 MR. TURK: Oh, incidentally, Your Honor, are we done l , i ! 22 with sequestration? l I l 23 JUDGE SMITH: As far as I know, yes. t 24 MR. OLESKEY: I would think so. 25 MR. TURK: Thank you. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
i i-
; ?
l 3 BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12561 l e 3 1 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. 2 (Continued on next page.) } ' ! 3 ! i 4 l l 4 5 ; } l } 6 : i 7 l , i
- I 8
1 ! 9 , 10 1 1 11 i i P 12 i i f 13 t i 14 i i ! 15 i i ! l 16 ! I i . i , 17 i t i ! 18 ! i i I i 19 i l 20 t i 1 ; 21 i. l ! 22 i i l 23 l l 24 25 , l !G Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4088 I i 6 i w- -. . . , . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -
l I 12562 , Ti 1 JUDGE SMITH: YOu may proceed when you have 2 witnesses. [ 3 MR. BACKUS: Gentlemen. I'm just going to follow up 4 with some brief questioning on the basis of wnat Attorney 5 Oleskey has done on his cross. ! 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. BACKUS: l l 8 Q Dr. Bores, you said you came here in January and.. of
~
9 course, you testified on January 12th and 13th as a part of a 10 panel on a Board-supervised deposition of Mr. Thomas. 11 Do you recalI that? 12 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 13 Q And the subject of that testimony was the RAC meeting 14 that was held on January 7th and 8th, by and large, was it not? 15 A (Bores) Yes. , 16 Q And in the course of that discussion of that RAC 17 meeting. Mr. Thomas stated that of the agencies represented on 18 the 7th and 8th. I believe two agencies did not express 19 agreement that the plans were adequate. One being Mr. 20 Patterson from Interior, and the other a Mr. Wasserman from the 21 National Oceanographic and Attrospheric Administration. 22 Do you recall t ha t '? 23 A (Bores) Did you say they did or did not? 24 Q Did not express agreement with the plans as they 25 stood were adequate. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I; l - 12563 () 1 A (Bores) That is correct. 2 Q And is that your recollection of '; heir positions at 3 that January 7th and 8th meeting? 4 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE HARBOUR: Mr. Backus, excuse me. Put a year on 6 this meeting. 7 MR. BACKUS: 1988. Thank you, Judge Harbour. 8 January 7 and 8. 1988. J 9 BY MR. BACKUS: 10 Q Now. Mr. Bores, have I heard you correctly testify. 11 and I don't have a particular reference, but I have a l l, 12 recollection that you testified in terms of evaluating 13 emergency plana you have to assume an accident probability of 14 1; is that right? i 15 A (Bores) Essentially that 's what we 're doing. In 16 other words, you assume that a particular accident or scenario I 17 or a sequence or a spectrum of accidents occurs, and we 18 evaluate the plan in that fashion. I 19 Q And in assuming that an accident probability is 1. i ! 20 for emergency planning purposes you're assuming that you will ! f i 21 have to deal with an accident, correct? ) I i 22 A (Bores) That 's correct. 23 Q And the accident that we 're dealing with is those 24 that are within the planning spectrum; is that right? 25 A (Bores) Yes, sir l l
.O Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 4
l i
i 12564 l () 1 Q And that would certainly include what we called here 2 the fast-breaking type of accident as well as other accidents. i f i 3 or within that spectrum; is that your understanding? ! l 4 A (Borea) Yes, sir. >
$ Q Okay. Now, sir, at the meeting on April 15th, the i t
6 RAC meeting of April 15, 1987. did you make that statement that I i 7 the accident probabilities had to be assumed to be 1? 8 JUDGE SMITH: In those words, is that what your 9 question -- l 10 MR. BACKUS: In those words or in substance. [ 11 THE WITNESS: (Bores) I don 't think I expressed tt l i l 12 in those words. However, some of the discussions did in fact l r ,~ 13 get around to the fact that, you know, we 're looking at an 14 accident as having occurred certainly if we're considering l 15 plume coming over the beaches and things like that. We 're not 16 talking about a probability. We 're talking about an accident 17 of that sort occurring. ] { ! 18 BY MR. BACKUS: ! . t 19 Q Did you say in substance to the other members of the f 20 RAC. regardless of what 's in my memo, gentlemen -- ladies and f i 21 gentlemen. I guess -- we have to assess these plans on the [ 22 assumption that an accident which could include a fast-breaking i 23 accident will occur? Did you say that in substance? 4 24 A (Bores) Not in those words. but I believe in ( I I 25 substance. yes. l I i l (:) Heritace Reporting Corporation ! 'i (202) 628-4888 l L t
_~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . d l' 12565 i ) 1 Q All right. And Mr. Lutz from the Transportation 2 Department was one of those in attendance on April 15. 1987? l 3 A (Bores) Yes, sir. , j 4 Q And he was also one of those in attendance on July ( j 5 30. 1987; is that correct? l 6 A (Bores) Yes. sir. i 7 Q And in your memo, which is Staff Exhibit 2. or the 8 attachment to Staff Exhibit 2. you describe the DOT 9 representative making certain statements, end that 's Mr. Lut: 1 10 as I understand; is that correct? 11 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 12 Q On global Page 4. the last paragraph. 13 In fact, you have him with a direct quote ao saying. 14 "You have a problem." Then. "We have a problem that we need to 15 come together on." He said that whether or not the paper ! t 16 discussed the plant features did not change the facts of the 17 construction. 18 Now is the he there Mr. Lut=? l 19 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 20 MR. TURK: Could we also just continue that quotation 21 from the memo where it says. "He felt that the plans were 22 adequate and the best he had reviewed. Similar responses were : I 23 provided by DOE, EPA and HHS."? 24 MR. BACKUSt I guess you 've done it. Could save that 25 for redirect if you prefer. O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 j
l I I I I 1266G O i BY MR. BACKUS: i [ 2 Q Dr. Bores, you have him down for two specific quotes 3 of all the members in the RAC in your memo recalling this of 4 October 15th, right? 5 A (Bores) Yes, sir. l 6 Q Now, would I correctly interpret his comments that he ! 7 still thought the containment was a factor that should be 8 considered here in the RAC 's deliberations? 9 A (Bores) It certainly was in his mind. 10 Q Okay. Now when he made these statements that so 11 stuck out in your mind that you could remember exactly what he l 12 said, did you respond in any way? l l 13 A (Bores) I don 't think I had the opportunity at that l O 14 point because there was a colloquy between he and Mr. Thomas. 15 Q Well -- 16 A (Bores) And other menbers of the RAC jumped in, so I 17 don 't believe that I had the opportunity to respond at that 18 time. 19 Q Well, did anybody from NRC who was in attendance 20 during the course of that meeting say anything to the effect l i j 21 of. now, wait a minute, Mr. Lu t::. You 've got to assume an j ! 22 accident could happen. We've ruled out the containment. What 2 I 23 you 've said is j ust wrong. You 've got to get it out of your
- 24 mind. l 25 Did anybody say anything like that to him?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 c_. _____- ._
b ) L 12$67 () 1 A CLazarus) Yes, I did. At this point was 2 approximately the time that I interj ected the f act that we 3 should not be talking about probabilities of an accident. We 4 had to assume that an accident existed and look at the plans to 5 see whether they were adequate. That an accident had occurred, 6 ignoring the probabilities, cnd pursue whether or not the plans 7 were adequate. 8 Q Okay, and is that discussed in your memorandum which 9 is Staff Exhibit 37 l I 10 A (Lazarus) Yes, it is. l l 11 Q And was that something you said in direct response to 12 Mr. Lutz? 13 A (Lazarus) It maybe may not have been in direct 14 response to Mr. Lutz. But hearing those continued arguments. I 15 wanted to make that clear. 16 Q Now, Mr. Lut went on to say apparently, and this is 17 going over to Page 4 that he also questioned the high numbers 18 of beachgoers that were suppoaed to use the beaches in the 19 summer. He stated it.et on three se,nt; ate weekends he had j 20 traveled the full length of the beaches and observed only a few 21 hundred people on the beaches on each occasion. 22 Dr. Bores, did you say anything to Mr. Lut to 23 indicate that the beaches did contain on peak summer weekends 24 more than a f ew hundred people? ! 25 A (Bores) No, sir, I did not, because I had no -- I O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o . . .
I l 12568 1 had no direct knowledge of that. I have seen other studies of 2 it as I believe all of us have. 3 Q Did anybody suggest to Mr. Lut: that the beaches did 4 contain more than a few hundred people on peak summer weekends? 5 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 6 Q Who did that? 7 A (Bores) Well, certainly the RAC chairman did, and we ; 8 had all seen the studies. 9 I think he was just pointing out -- Mr. Lut: was just l l 10 pointing o.>t his own personal observations here. 11 Q Well. Dr. Bores. in light of the fact that Mr. Lut: j i l i 12 was still talking about the containment as a factor to be l 13 considered in measuring plans in July, were you taken aback 14 that he still held that opinion after you say you had 15 specificaily indicated that that was not your position back on 16 April 15th? 17 A (Bores) Yes, sir. Now we 've been f urnisheo here with a new exhibit 18 Q 19 today, which has been marked Massachusetts Attorney General No. 20 32, which I take it is a clean copy of what was Attachment 12 21 to Staff Exhibit 2 and 2-A; is that correct? 22 A (Bores) We have not seen it. 23 Q Okay. Would you just take a look and if you can 24 cor. firm that what we 've got here with Mass. AG No. 32 is l 25 indeed -- well. I used the term "clean copy" -- a fully legible
- Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4000 i~ - - - . . _ _ _ _ .
l. I 12569 i . copy or' what was part of Staff Exhibit 2-A as Attachment 1G. ! 2 MR. TURK: Your Honor. I-- l 3 THE WITNESS: (Bores) I do not have a copy. j 4 MR. TURK: I would also like to note that we have 5 done a line-by-line comparison. When the document was 6 introduced, it was with the understanding from Mr. Flynn that 7 this was the same document. Mr. Oleskey said it appeared to be 8 the same, but we 've never compared. 9 MR. BACKUS: Well, all right. Then subj ect to your 10 right to compare to see if it 's dif f erent, can we agree, so I 11 can just go on with this examination, that what is here as far 12 as we know a copy of Attachment 127 13 JULGE SMITH: Yes. O- 14 MR. BACKUS: All right. Then if we can do that -- 15 JUDGE SMITH: Well. I said yes. Is it in fact 16 Attachment 127 17 JUDGE HARBOUR Yes. 18 MR. BACT,US : Yes. 19 JUDGE SMITH: All rigin . 20 BY Mx. BACKUS: 21 Q And i t would seem to me what we have on Page 2 of the 22 new exhibit is the same thing that is global Page 45 on Staff 23 Exhibit 2 and 2-A. except that there, due to apparently a 24 photocopy problem, some of the text was not clear whereas we 25 have a clear page on the new exhibit; is that right? O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
!- l 4 I i
I i 12570 j 1 () 1 MR. TURK : It appears to be a problem in the j 2 telecopy transmission rather than a photocopy problem. i 3 MR. BACKUS: Okay. i 4 BY MR. BACKUS: 5 Q But if I 'm correct. Page 2 on the exhibit is supposed l j 6 to be the s<v document as global Page 45. then let me ask you, 1 ' 7 Dr. Boren. - it in fact true that this statement. which I i i
! 8 take it is Argonne National Lab transmiseion of the summary 9 of the RAC meeting of April 15th, the conclusions of the RAC i
10 meeting, on Page 2 and 3 adopt v*-Satim the bulleted items you i 11 had on Page 2 of your memorandum i obruary 18th? l 12 MR. TURK: Can we have a moment to compare documents? j 13 MR. BACKUS: Yes, you may. 14 THE WITNESS: (Bores) I can 't really make that 15 comparison because I don't have a copy of the clean copy. 16 MR. BACXUS: Can the witness be furnished a copy of 17 Mass. Exhibit 32? l 18 (Document proffered to witness.) 19 THE WITNESS: (Bores) This appears to be an l 20 identical enclosed portion. l 21 MR. BACKUS: Okay. 22 BY MR. BACKUS: { 23 Q And it took everyone of the 10 or so items that you 24 nad put forth on Page 10 of your memorandum of February 18th, i 25 which is Staff Exhibit 5. and incorporate them in this draf t i O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12571 ('T (/ 1 RAC response to the issues discussed, correct? 2 A (Bores) Again, it 's a draf t FEMA response. The RAC 3 does not file a response to contentions. 4 Q All right. And it 's all following a heading which 5 says, "The following considerations were utilized by the RAC in 6 arriving at its conclusion relative to the beach population."; 7 correct? 8 MR. TURK: That 's in the Rospenda paper. 9 MR. BACKUS: That 's in the Rospenda paper, Mass. AG 10 Exhibit 2 -- 11 THE WITNESS: (Bores.) Yes, sir. 12 MR. BACKUS: -- Page 2. 13 THE WITNESS: (Bores) Yes, sir. O_ 14 MR. BACKUS: Okay. 15 BY MR. BACKUS: 16 Q Now the cover letter would indicate that this was 17 transmitted by Mr. Rospenda from Argonne to Elaine Chan on 18 Thursday, May 7th nf 1987 I believe, correct? 19 A (Bores) That 's what it says. 20 Q When did this come to your attention? 21 A (Bores) I think I already indicated yesterday I 22 don 't believe I had seen this until mid to end of the May-23 Q All right. And that 's my recollection, too. 24 So you did see this before you went on leave last 25 summer, 1987? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12572 (q/ 1 A (Bores) Yes. I did not read it closely, out I had 2 seen it. 3 Q And what response, if any, did you make upon seeing 4 this document? 5 MR. TURK: Well, we 've been througre this already, Mr. 6 Backus. Mr. Oleskey went through a line of questions about 7 whether he called anyone about this or -- 8 MR. BACKUS: All right. I 'll withdraw it. That 's P 9 been covered. 10 BY MR. BACKUS: 11 Q Dr. Bores, the memoranda that you prepared, and 12 particular the one that 's Staf f Exhibit 5. the February 18th 13 memoranda, was in response, as I understand it, to Mr. Thomas 's 14 memorandum of December 31, 1985, asking for input to the RAC on 15 the beach issue; correct? 16 A CBores) My letter to Mr. Thomas, yes. 17 Q And isn 't it true, in fact, that Mr. Thomas 's 18 memorandum of 12-31-85 was reviewed by personnel at NRC before 19 it was sent out? 20 A (Bores) I 'm sorry, would you repeat that, please? 21 Q Was there any review, to your knowledge, by anyone at 22 NRC, either at Region 1 or elsewhere, of the 12-31-85 23 memorandum from Mr. Thomas when it was in draft before it was 24 sent out to the RAC? 25 A (Bores) I had never seen it, and I 'm not aware of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12573 1 anyone else within our agency who had seen this memo in draft. 2 Q So there was no consultation about Mr. Thomas 's 3 memorandum between Mr. Thomas and anybody at NRC before it was 4 sent out, to your knowledge? 5 A (Bores) Not to my knowledge. 6 Q All right. How about you, Mr. Lazarus? 7 A CLazarus) No. there was not; not to my knowledge. 8 Q I guess the on.1y other thing is to go back again to 9 the reference in your paper, that 's your memoranda of February-10 18th and June 4th, that the ETEs for Seabrook are relatively 11 short. That 's a statement you made in both memoranda as I , 12 understand it; is that correct? 13 A (Bores) Yes, sir. tO \- 14 Okay. And the "relatively short" you 've explained by Q 15 referring to the text at Page 8 and 6 of the June 4th 16 memoranda; is that right? 17 MR. TURK : I 'm sorry. Could you ask that again? 18 BY MR. BACKUS: 19 Q The "relatively short" is further explained by 20 further references to the text at Page 6 and 8 of the 21 memoranda. 22 MR. TURK: For clarification, the exact wording on 23 Page 10 is, "ETEs for beaches are relatively small". 24 MR. BACKUS: Okay, relatively small. 25 MR. TURK : And you 're asking where in the paper is O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62 8- 48 f,8
.., 12574 () 1 that addressed. 2 MR. BACKUS: Right. 3 BY MR. BACKUS: 4 Q And that 's addressed at the tsp of Page 8 where the 5 "relatively short" is defined in brackets, or in parenthesis, 6 two to four hours, and further discussed on Page 6, where a 7 broader range is discuased?; correct? 8 MR. TURK: I 'm having trouble finding that. 9 Mr. Backus, you 're looking at the June paper, not the 10 February paper. 11 MR. BACKUS: Right. I believe the same material is 12 in both papers but not perhaps in the same places. 13 THE WITNESS: (Bores) Okay, I have the two places. () 14 Was there a question? 15 BY MR. BACKUS: 16 Q The question was, is that where you attempted to 17 elucidate what you meant by relatively small ETEs? 18 A (Bores) That 's the only reference I made to the 19 ETEs, yes. 20 Q And when you used the words "relatively small ETEs", 21 that was relative to what? 22 A (Bores) I guess relative to the entire EPZ in 23 general. We 're looking at -- well, you know, relatively short 24 compared to the overall EPZ clearance certainly. 25 Q Okay. In other words, relatively short means the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12575 () 1 beach clearance times by evacuation or relatively short 2 compared to the time to clear the entire Seabrook EPZ? Is that 3 what you mean? 4 A (Bores) Yes. What I was looking at was the Appendix 5 6 of the New Hampshire plan. 6 Q All right. So it was not relative in terms of 7 comparing it to other sites? 8 A (Bores) No, sir. 9 Q And not relative in comparison to the planning 10 guidance for plume travel times in NUREG-0654? 11 A (Bores) No, sir. 12 Q Okay. Now, you also attended a RAC meeting for which 13 a transcript was prepared on February 29, 1988, did you not? ( 14 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 15 Q And do you recall the discussion at that RAC meeting 16 about how to characterize people who might be stuck in cars for 17 several hours in the event of an accident at Seabrook? 18 A (Bores) Perhaps you could -- 19 MR. TURK: Could we have a moment, please? 20 MR. DIGNAN: Well, before we pursue this too far. 21 could I note a relevancy obj ection given the purpose these 22 witnesses are offered for? 23 I haven 't heard one question about that February 29th 24 meeting until now. So I obj ect on grounds of relevancy. 25 MR. BACKUS: Well, I 've indicated that I do believes , b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 P
,._, .m., ,_.,_-__.._y_m_,. .,,.,.y_._,,,_,,_.,_,.m,,___._- _m._ ,
.,'r--" ** --"'-ev t--'- m- *N-~-'-~---*r-- - " ' * - ' - - - ' - - - ~
12576 (
\ 1 that in light of the testimony that I anticipate from the FEMA 2 witnesses that the merits of the RAC position indeed are going 3 to have to be dealt with in their testimony. And I think the 4 only time I can deal with it through these witnesses is now 5 while they are here.
6 So I agree it 's something that I 'm doing in 7 anticipation to what I expect to have come before us with the 8 FEMA witnesses. 9 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I have -- 10 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I -- 11 MR. TURK : -- a problem. 12 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me. It 's my obj ection, at least 13 at this j uncture. O 14 Counsel, having stated quite candidly that he is 15 trying to explore the merits of the RAC position, I obj ect to 16 the question based on the prior ruling of the Board. 17 MR. FLYNN: And I j oin in that obj ection. 18 MR. TURK : I have a different sort of problem, Your 19 Honor. The RAC meeting of February was transcribed and we all 20 have copies of it, or at least we should, the parties at least. 21 MR. BACKUS: Well, I 'll be glad to withdraw that if 22 we could agree that, or I 'd like to offer the RAC transcript 23 from February 29th as a part of this proceeding. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, not now. . 25 MR. TURK : For what purpose? j O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12577 p) ( 1 JUDGE SMITH: Not now. 2 The obj ection is sustained. You can come back to 3 that when it 's appropriate. 4 MR. BACKUS: Well, I can only say that I was going to 5 discuss this witness 's statements for which there is a 6 transcript, and it 's going to be a little hard to come back to 7 that. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, for your purpose -- that 's the 9 problem. For your purpose, they 're not here testifying for the 10 purpose that you intend to examine them. 11 MR. BACKUS: Well. 12 BY MR. BACKUS: 13 Q Well, then let me go back to the question I was O 14 pursuing before, in iight of the Board 's ruling. 15 You say that the relatively small ETEs are relative 16 to the entire EPZ as compared with the clearance time for the 17 beach population, Dr. Bores. 18 What did you understand the clearance time for the 19 entire EPZ was? 20 A (Bores) Well, it depends on the scenario that you 're 21 looking at. And what I have captured here is the clearance 22 times for individual beaches as a function of, you know. 23 weather conditions, other conditions. 24 So when you apply the same sort of constraints on it, E104 25 the EPZ times are somewhat longer. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12578
~%
t e(ss5 1 Q Well, as I understand it, you 've explained that when ; 2 said ETEs for beaches are relatively small, you meant 3 relatively small compared to the evacuation times for the 4 entire Seabrook EPZ; correct? 5 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 6 Q And I 'm j ust asking you, what was the range of times 7 for clearing the entire EPZ through evacuation? 8 A (Bores) I don 't have that in my memory right now, 9 looking at it before, but I don 't have the numbers now. 10 MR. BACKUS: Okay. I have nothing further in view of 11 the Board 's ruling. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Brock? 13 MR. BROCK: Thank you. Your Honor. 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION ; 15 BY MR. BROCK: 16 Q Mr. Lazarus, I j ust first wanted to followup on a 17 point raised by Mr. Backus. As I understand, at the July 30 18 meeting you were concerned that Mr. Lutz had again raised the 19 issue of containment as a basis for his op.nion that the plans ; 20 could be adequate, is that right, you were concerned about 21 that? 22 MR. TURK: Excuse me, the question was to Dr. Bores 23 initially. , 24 MR. BROCK: The question 's to Mr. L azarus. I believe t 25 he answered a question to Mr. Backus along those lines. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 [ I l r
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12579
~[ 1 THE WITNESS: CLazarus) I indicated that I had -- I 2 heard that response still included -- I don 't know if it 's 3 directly attributable to Mr. Lutz, but I clearly heard that 4 response that the containment is there, the containment is 5 still there; and that 's when I, approximately at that time.
6 that I inj ected that we should not be talking about things that 7 effect probability or riuk. But, you Know, assuming -- > 8 eliminating those things, assume that an accident occurs and 9 address the plans for that accident. 10 BY MR. BROCK: li Q Okay. And so you endesvored to explain to Mr. Lutz 12 that he should not be considering containment and risk in 13 evaluating the adequacy of the plant; is that fair? 14 A CLazarus) I was explaining that to the group; I 15 don't know that it was directed specifically at Mr. Lutz. 16 Q Okay. Following your discussion was it your 17 understanding that the RAC, with the exception of Mr. Thomas, 18 accepted that view? 19 A (Lazarus) Yes, it is. 20 Q Now, Dr. Bores, is your recollection the same as Mr. 21 Lazarus 's as f ar as that discussion he had with the RAC? 22 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 23 Q So in your cpinion, after Mr. Lazarus again advised i 24 the RAC they should not be considering containment and risk, in 25 your view, the RAC did accept that position? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. my- -- - ,. .-_-,,.%,o_,-.v--, . . . . , - , , . _ _ ~ - - ._.,_-_,,_~w,~ . - , , - ...,-m., .----m,..,.-.v .,.,.r,,,,,-m -, _m-. , _ , ,
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12580 (_, 1 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 2 Q All right. I want to refer you to the transcript of 3 January 12, 1988 at page 8687, and I don't know if you have a 4 copy of that available to you. Let me read a portion in, and 5 you 're welcome to look at this, if you 'd like. 6 "The Department of Transportation representative, Mr. 7 Paul Lutz indicated as follows:" and this is Thomas speaking: 8 "Answer: That we may not have the testinnony of the NRC on the 9 containment, but the containment was enormous. There never was 10 going to be an accident at Seabrook, that we should realize 11 that New Hampshire has the best plans he 's ever seen, and that 12 we should quit the legalisms," he indicated, " with all respect 13 to the chairman." 14 I 'm sorry, if you want to get that page that 's 8687. 15 Do you have that? 16 A (Bores) I have thet, yes. 17 Q I.et me just continue with the quote: "Indicated that 18 there were worse sites from an emergency planning perspective. 19 that we had done our job. The state had done its job, and that , 20 no one should wear a black hat. The plans were adequate in 21 this respect." 22 "Question: Okay. I 'm going to ask you to stop for a 23 moment and I 'll ask Dr. Bores if that agrees with his 24 recollection of what Paul Lutz said." 25 "Answer," on to the next page, "I believe that 's O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , = _ - - _ . _ - - - - - _ . , _ - - _ _ . . . _ . _ . - _-._-__ . -. . .__ -. . - _ _ - _ _ -
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12581 1 pretty accurate, yes." 2 Now, isn 't it fair, Dr. Bores, that even as of 3 January 12, 1988 that Mr. Lutz was still sticking to his 4 position that the reason, principally, these plans were 5 adequate was because of containment and risk factors? 6 MR. TURK: Could we have a moment, please. 7 JUDGE SMITH: While he 's doing that, think about the 8 date. 9 MR. BROCK: I take your hint, Your Honor, as I 10 understand the RAC meeting was actually on the 7th and 8th of 11 January rather than the 12th. 12 BY MR. BROCK: t 13 Q Do you understand the question. Dr. Bores? O- 14 A (Bores) I understand the question. I want to get 15 back to where we 're talking here in context. Are we talking 16 what occurred at the January meeting or are we talking what 17 happened in July? 18 Q At the January meeting, January RAC meeting, isn 't it i 19 fair to say that Mr. Lutz was etill of the view that a 20 principal reason that ha would support these plans as adequate 21 was due to the containment and to risk factors? 22 A (Bores) I had indicated that that is fairly 23 accurate; yes. I don't know that he said an accident at 24 Seabrook can never happen; I think those are Mr. Thomas 's 25 words. But I don 't know if Mr. Lutz said that. O Heritage Reportind Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
BORES, LAZARUS CROSS 12582 1 Q All right. But he was still speaking containment and 2 risk as of January 1988? 3 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 41 MR. BROCK: Could I j ust have a moment, Your Honor. 5 JUDGE SMITH: Sure. , 6 Mr. Dignan, will you be having examination? 7 MR. DIGNAN: At this juncture, no, Your Honor. 8 BY MR. BROCK: 9 Q Dr. Bores, I 'd like to refer you to Staff Exhibit 10 2-A, global page three, and j ust following up and I'll quote a 11 sentence from the middle of the third paragraph to read: "The 12 specific containment and plant features cited in my paper were 13 in addition to and not n=cessary for the NH, RERP provisions O 14 making the plan adequate. The RAC accepted the above position 15 as representing their views on the beach issues." [ 16 Now, you would agree that based on our conversation 17 we j ust had about Mr. Lutz, that statement is not accurate; is 18 that fair? 19 A (Bores) This was my understanding of this situation 20 at the time. 21 Q Let me refer you to global page four of the same 22 exhibit. 23 MR. TURK: May I ask for a clarification. Dr. Bores l 24 said, this was my understanding, what -- I 'd like to ask, just 25 so it 's right here, what was his understanding at the time? C:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12583 1 MR. BROCK: Well, why don 't you ask that on 2 redirect, Mr. Turk. 3 BY MR. BROCK: 4 Q Dr. Bores, I 'm ref erring you to page four of Staf f 5 Exhibit 2-A at the bottom, and I believe Mr. Backus referenced 6 this quote, but just for clarity: "He. " and I believe that 's 7 Mr. Lutz said. "that whether or not the paper discusses these 8 specific plant features, did not change the facts of the 9 construction. He felt that the plans were adequate and the 10 best he had reviewed. Similar responses were provided by DOE, c 11 EPA, and HHS." 12 Now, when you say, similar responses, following just 13 after the discussions of containment and construction, is it 14 fair to say that other agencies on the RAC were voicing their 15 support that containment and risk factors were going into their 16 mix in detenaining whether or not these plans were adequate? P 17 A (Bores) That was not the intent of my sentence. My 18 sentence was more to the similar responses was to capture the 19 adequacy of the plans as they had reviewed them, that they 20 thought they were good plans. for the best plans that they had 21 reviewed. 22 But it 's your testimony that those similar responses ' Q 23 don 't refer to Mr. Lutz 's comments on the construction 24 features? 25 A (Bores) They were not intended to respond -- to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1 l BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12584 l I) 1 correspond to those. 2 Q Now, Dr. Bores, if I understand correctly, at the 3 April 15 RAC meeting NOAA expressed some concerns about your 4 paper on meteorological issues you had raised in what we 've 5 described as Bores 1; is that correct? 6 A (Bores) I 'm not sure that they raised any, you know, 7 strong concerns. There was a number of discussions relative to 8 what their understanding was of the sea breeze situation, the 9 location of the plant relative to the shore land, or inland 10 areas, and what might be expected in terms of sea breezes. 11 So, as a result of those discussions there were some 12 relatively minor word changes, and I think you 'll see those 13 reflected if you go between what 's called Bores 1 and Bores 2 14 in the same area. I 15 Q So as a result of NOAA 's comments concerning 16 meteorology, wind direction, those kinds of issues, you amended 17 Bores 1 when you were drafting Bores 2; is thct right? 18 A (Bores) That is correct. And it took, you know, i 19 those relatively minor word changes which were agreed on at the j 20 RAC meeting, and simply incorporated them. 21 Q And some of those concerns involved a recirculation 22 of the plume or potential recirculation of the nlume over the 23 beach areas; is that right? 24 A (Bores) That 's correct. And discussion as to how 25 much would come back or what sort of concentration problems one O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12585-0 1 might have, and relatively large volumes of dilution; yes. 2 Q So in response to those comments in Bores 2 you made 3 some change in the language; is that my understanding? 4 A (Bores) Yes. 5 MR. TURK: Bores 1. 6 BY MR. BROCK: ! 7 Q You changed Bores 1 to address those concerns? 8 A CBores) Yes, sir. 9 Q Thank you. 10 Did NOAA prior to the July 30 RAC meeting, to your 11 knowledge, approve the changes you had made as adequate to 1 12 address the concerns they had expressed on April 15? 13 A (Bores) The wording changes were written down at the 14 RAC meeting on the 30th -- on April 15th, so that everybody ; 15 pretty much knew what the wording changes were. And the NOAA l 16 representatives had agreed that that was what we would have. 9 17 I may have inserted one additional word which says, i 18 "directly" into the thing, which indicated that if the winds 19 -- if there were sea breezes they would not -- the plume would 20 not directly come over the beach areas, but allowing the fact . 21 that there nay be recirculation. 22 Q But it 's your testimony that NOAA essentially 23 approved the exact language appearing in Bores 2 relative to ( 24 the meteorological issues at the April 15 meeting? 25 A (Bores) I don 't want to say they approved the exact Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 f
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12586 () 1 wording; they approved the essence of the word. 2 JUDGE SMITH: How much do you have to go on NOAA? 3 You seem to be going into the merits. There was some marginal 4 relevance to NOAA absence. 5 MR. BROCK: If I could just -- actually. I think I 6 have only one more question on this point, Your Honor. 7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 8 BY MR. BROCK: 9 Q Whatever NOAA may have agreed to on April 15. first 10 of all, you will agree they were not present ori July 30 when ; 11 the vote was taken, which you 've testified to; is that correct? 12 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 13 Q Okay. And it 's also f air to say that, et the January 14 '88 RAC meeting NOAA did not approve the plans as adequate; did 15 they? 16 A (Bores) They did not. However, we had a different 17 representative. 18 JUDGE SMITH: How much do you have all together? 19 MR. BROCK: Y ar Honor, I have one more line; a few 20 minutes. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 22 BY MR. BROCK: f 23 Q Dr. Bores, I 'd j ust like to refer you tn Staff ,- 24 Exhibit 6. I believe that 's Bores 2. if I 'm correct. And on [ ] 25 page seven of that exhibit, again, let me j ust read a short [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ _ . . - . _ _ . _ _ . _ - -
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12587 () 1 paragraph here and I want to ask a couple of questions about 2 it. "It is also noted that when large seasonal beach crowds 3 are likely.to be present (on hot sunny days) the typical wind 4 4 -pattern is from the offshore, cooler surface to the onshore. l l l 5 warmer surfaces of the lend masses. This mean:s that any sea 6 breezes would likely prevent the plume from traveling directly i ! l l 4 7 to the nearby beach areas when the De3ches are most heavily l i 8 populated. The sea breeze would also dilute a short-term l 9 plume, even b a portio: of it was recirculated to beach f 10 areas." 11 Now, is that, in substance, the basis for your 12 conclusion on page nine following one of the bullets which I l i 13 says, "Sea breezes would tend to keep plume from traveling { 14 directly toward beach when beaches are most populated?" 15 A (Bores) Yes, sir. This is the language that was } 16 essentially approved at the April meeting. i I 17 Q By NOAA? ! l 18 A (Bores) Yes, sir. , 19 Q I believe you previously testified that you had seen l '85, and
- 20 the Lutz response to Mr. Thomas 's memo of December 31. j I
l I j 21 I believe that 's been marked as Mass. AG Exhibit 26, do you l i 22 have a copy of that? 23 Do you have that in front of you, Dr. Bores? 24 A (Bores) Yes, sir. l i i 25 Q Now, can you tell me, first of all, you have Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4600 g l 6 1 l 1
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12588 () 1 previously seen this document; is that correct? 2 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 3 Q Okay. Can you tell me when was the first time that 4 you received this document or when -- yes, when did you first 5 receive the document? 6 A (Bores) I really don 't know. 7 Q Was it before you drafted Bores 1? 8 A (Bores) I believe so. 9 Q Is it fair to say then, that this information was 10 available to you when you were composing that paper? 11 A (Bores) If I had the paper before that, then it 12 would have been available for me; yes. 13 Q Now, I 'm ref erring to the second paragraph on the O 14 first page there, let me quote that: "As an old 15 meteorologist," and this is Mr. Lutz, "I an very uncomfortable i 16 with their use of wind direction to decide safety precautions 17 in the summertime along the shore. Along the coast in , 18 summertime we have many days of light winds which are 19 inherently variable in direction. We have thunderstorms which 1 20 can cause winds from any direction. And we have land ef fects, i , 21 and day and night effects which cause changes in wind direction 22 especially in the summertine. 23 With the sensitive issue they are facing at Seabrook, l 24 I recommend that the precautionary actions directed between May , l 25 15 through Septen2ber 15 not be dependent on the frequently ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.. - .- .-_-- - = . - . . _. - _ = _ _ - - .- - _ . _ . . . - . _
v i I i BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12589 I h 1 uncertain wind direction. Since time will be of the essence. I ! 2 the precautionary action should be as automatic as possible.
- i
. 3 The state should avoid the delays caused by waiting for ; i 4 meteorologists and plant engineers to get their acts together ! 5 and to make uncertain forecasts." ! 6 MR. TURK : Could we have the last paragraph from that - I 7 page read as well. ! 8 MR. BROCK: You 're welcome to read it when you i 9 redirect. f i [ j 10 MR. TURK: For context. { l l et/105 11 (Continued on next page.) l l ! 12 ! i l 13 : 14 i 15 l 1 l 16 ! 3 i r s 17 L i l } 18 r F l 19 ) 20 i 4 21 22 23 )
- I
! 24 l 25 j 4h Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 ! 1 i 5 I I l
4 < BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12590 (_3 Tibd 1 BY MR. BROCK: 2 Q Dr. Bores, is it fair to say that paragioph --
-3 JUDGE SMITH: Now, if it 's something in addition you 4 went ini read it on redirect: If he 1 3 taking it out of 5 context, let 's find it and see if he has.
t 6 MR. BROCK: I 'm not aware of that. Your Honor. 7 JUDGE SMITH: I didn 't think it was. 8 MR. TURK : The conte t. Your Honor, is Mr. Lutz 9 therefore recommends that the state do exactly what they have 10 done, which is to consider beach closing at :tur alert stage. 11 MR. BACKUS: That 's not what they 've done. It says t 12 automatically close the beach at the alert stage. That 's not 13 the plan. O 14 JUDGE SMITH: All right. We 're getting into the 15 merits again. 16 BY MR. BROCK: 17 Q I would j ust like to ask Dr. Bores, the paragraph 18 which I have j ust read f rom, the Lutz response, isn 't it fair 19 to say, Dr. Bores, that you disregarded this information in j 20 preparing both Bores 1 and Bores 2? : 1 21 MR. DIGNAN: Obj ec t ion. As I understand it, the , 22 witness testified he doesn't remember when he had it, and he 23 said it two or three times. 24 MR. BROCK: He 's testified his best recollection is 25 he had it prior to Bores 1, as I understand his testimony. ( ; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888 . 1
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12591 ( 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, at least he had it prior to 2 Bores 2, in any event. 3 But what is your testimony on that? 4 THE WITNESS: CBores) I believe I had it before 5 Bores 1 also. 6 Let me put in context of what he 's addressing. He 's 7 not addressing the meteorological conditions per se. What he 8 is addressing is the statement that was carried over in the New 9 Hampshire plan that would indicate that precautionary closing 10 of the beach, beaches or beach evacuation actions would be 11 taken when the wind was blowing toward the beach areas. That 12 is what he was addressing. ~ 13 MR. BROCK: Okay. 14 THE WITNESS: CBores) And so the wind variability I 15 aspects came into the fact that he wanted the beaches to be 16 closed regardless of what the wind direction was if the plant 17 indications indicated we had a serious accident, or had a a 18 potentially serious accident there. 19 So it was really not directing here -- I mean 20 addressing the variability per se, but only the fact that he 21 did not prescribe to only closing it when the wind was from a ! 22 certaire direction. And that I think has been addressed. , 23 BY MR. BROCK: i 24 Q Is that your answer? 2 25 A (Bores) Yes, sir. Reporting Co rpc rat ion g Heritage L (202) 628-4888 ,
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12592 1 Q Isn 't it f air to say that you did no', discuss, 2 address or include the issue of the variabili'.y of the winds in 3 the beach areas when you were composing Bores 1 and 2? 4 MR. TURK : Well, is the question whether he 5 considered it or whether he discussed it expressly in his 6 paper? 7 MR. BROCK: The question was the question, Mr. Turk. , 8 BY MR. BROCK: 9 Q Can you answer the question? 10 JUDGE SMITH: You 're asking him to comment as to what a 11 is actually in his papers. 1 12 MR. BROCK: I 'm asking -- he ' already testified that 13 this information was available to him. e 4 O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 15 MR. BROCK: As I read this, this is at variance with t 16 his own opinion, and now what I 'm trying to first establish is i 17 that he will agree with ne that he did not, you know, utilize 18 this information. In fact, put in information which 19 contradicted it. And the second point would be why he did , 20 that. . 1 21 JUDGE SMITH: Would you agree with his 22 characterization of what you did? 7 23 THE WITNESS: (Bores) No, sir. 24 BY MR. BROCK: , 25 Q Dr. Bores, tell me why you do not agree with the : () Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 ;
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12593 () 1 characterization I provided. 2 MR. TURK: Well, we 're several minutes down the road a here. If' you 're gaing to ask Dr. Bores to take apart your 4 characterization. I 'm going to have it reread and have each 5 element discussed. 6 Could we just move to another question, or rephrase 7 it? 8 MR. BROCK: I 'll withdraw that quest ion, and I'll try - 9 one more time. Dr. Bores. 1 l 10 BY MR. BROCK: 11 Q Your statements contained on Page 7 of Staff Exhibit ; i 12 6, which discusses a typica) wind pattern. which would likely ;
, 13 prevent the plu.ne f rom traveling directly to nearby beach areas O 14 is at variance with Mr. Lutz 's statements that you can 't f
15 predict how the winds are going to be blowing over the beach i 16 sreas, and that that should not be used as a basis for 17 emergency planning; isn 't that true? i 18 A (Bores) We 're talking about two different wind areas [ 19 here, in general. One is talking -- mine is talking about the 20 sea breeze situation. And Mr. Lutz is talking about the I 21 variability of the wind as measured in-land coming out toward, . 22 or as indicated at the plant where the wind is blowing to. And 23 in fact what he is discussing here is, as I had mentioned i i 24 before, don 't use the indicated on-land, if you will, P 25 i,W. cation as saying the wind is going to hold f rom that t O Heritage Reporting Corporation t (202) 628-4888 I
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12594 O 1 direction for a number of hours, and therefore take no - 2 protective action if it is. let 's say, not coming toward the - 3 beach area. i 4 Q It 's your testimony that Bores 2 is consistent with 5 the Lutz statement I 've read here? [ 6 A (Bores) It can be read that way, yes. l 7 MR. BROCK: I have nothing further. Your Honor. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Weiss. I expressed surprise that ! 9 you had examination. The reason I was surprised is that I had 10 seen you working with Mr. Oleskey. I had overlooked the fact 11 that you had not had your own questions, i 12 MS. WEISS: I just have two lines of follow up. I 'm i 13 not going to open up any new areas. , 14 MR. TURK: I do note. Your Honor, I 'm making a lot 15 more marginal notes today than I had in the prior two days, so P 16 my direct is going to be more than six questions I anticipated ; s 17 yesterday. i 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION : 19 BY MS. WEISS: i 20 Q You don 't dispute, Dr. Bores, do you, that the [ I , 21 aspects of Bores 1 dealing with the Seabrook containment and 22 the probebility and timing of releases were very important to . 23 FEMA Region 1 in its consideration of whether the plans provide 24 reasonable assurance of protection to the beach population? 25 MR. TURK : We 've been through that line extensively, , C:) { Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 l
- i i
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12595 () 1 Your Honor, by Mr. Oleskey. 2 MS. WEISS: If you 'll bear with me. Your Honor, I 3 have a few questions. I need to lay a foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: (Bores) Based on the responses of FEMA 5 to the contentions and in the early prefiled testimony, I would 6 have to agree with that. 7 BY MS. WEISS: 8 Q And in fact Mr. Thomas had had several conversations 9 with you, hadn 't he, in the time period before Bores 1 was 10 completed and given to FEMA where he said in substence, if not 11 in words, we, meaning FEMA Region 1, don 't see how we can make 12 the reasonable assurance findings with regard to the beach 13 population considering the assumptions that we 're required to 14 make regarding quickly developing accidents and the long times 15 required to evacuate people from the beaches, didn t he? 16 A (Bores) I don 't recall any conversations in that 17 particular context, no. 18 Q You don 't recall Mr. Thoraas or other members of FEMA 19 Region i staff making comments to you of that substance? 20 A (Bores) That we cannot make a reasonable assurance 1 21 finding -- 22 Q We are having difficulty making the reasonable 23 assurance finding, or making the finding that the plans are 24 adequate because of the assumptions we 're required to make that 25 an accident nay develop quickly and the long time required to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12596 1 evacuate people f rom the beach. 2 A (Bores) What sort of time frame are we ta.' king about 3 here? 4 Q Well. I 'm not specifying any time frame or 5 representing that he specified a time flame .f rom you. 6 But don 't you recall conversations along those - 7 general lines? 8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, we had an extensive line of 9 questions already about the conversations with Mr. Thomas. I 10 got into it. Mr. Oleskey got into it. There has been some 11 testimony along this line. I don 't see that letting Ms. Weiss 12 do it a third time is going to get us somewhere, and I don 't i 13 want 'he record anymore clouded by our attempt to rush through 0 1 1 14 now and conclude without careful consideration be given to each 15 question. 16 MS. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, I sat here for Mr Turk 's I 17 well over a day 's direct, everybody else 's cross. We have : i 18 coordinated, and I have a small amount of follow up, and I t f k 19 press the question and ask that he be allowed -- 20 JUDGE SMITH: The question -- his obj ection is that i 21 it 's been asked and answered, and I -- 4-22 MS. WEISS: No. my recollection -- 23 JUDGE SMITH: So many questions have been asked and j 24 answered, I don 't have any independent mencry. ; 25 MS. WEISS: You may be sure that if I believe that { (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888 f;
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12597 1 question was asked and answered. I wouldn 't be pursuing it. 2 JUDGE SMITH: I believe you. 3 MR. OLESKEY: I 'l l represent that I don 't recall 4 asking that question, much less having an answer. ; 5 MR. TURK: Well, there certainly were questions by 6 Mr. Oleskey about conversations held between Dr. Bores and Mr. 7 Thomas, and he was very careful to lay out the time sequence; 8 after Bores 1, before the July meeting. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled. 10 THE WITNESS: CBores) Okay, would you repeat the > 11 question, please? 12 BY MS. WEISS: 13 Q The question is whether you didn't have conversations 14 with -- 15 A (Bores) Whether I did or dir l't? 1C Q Did, did you. l 17 A (Bores) Did, did have. 18 Q Did you -- 19 A (Bores) Okay. ; i 20 Q -- have conversations with Mr. Thomas, recognizing i 21 that I don 't have the exact words, but where in substance he 22 represented that FEMA Region 1 was having a dif ficult time 23 making the finding of plan adequacy given the assumptions they 24 had to make about a quickly developing accident and the times 25 required to get people off the beaches? Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888 i
Xi BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12598
-' You remember conversations with that substance, don 't !
1 2 you? 3 A (Bores) Never came out in terms of the context that 4 FEMA was, you know, on the hot seat making a finding at that 5 point. 6 Mr. Thomas had expressed his interest in getting our 7 opinion certainly in terms of the probability and risk along 8 that line. It never came about that, you know, this was needed 9 for a finding. 10 Q And, in fact, you responded, also in substance, I am 11 writing the paper to address your concerns, your concerns PEMA 12 1. to demonstrate that the assumptions about accident. timing 13 and probability that are generically made don't apply to 14 Seabrook because it has special features. L 15 Didn't you respono along those lines? j 16 A (Bores) No. sir. No, ma 'am. I 17 Q You didn 't? - 18 A (Bores) Not then. 19 Q There 's testimony -- along those lines, in substance, 20 not exact words. ! 21 JUDGE SMITH: When? When? j
! 22 MS. WEISS: While he was preparing Bores 1. I 23 MR. TURK : And this is along the lines that you don 't 24 have --
25 THE WITNESS: (Bores) No, I don 't recall. ( l Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 620-4088 t t
_ _ . . _ _ ~ BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12599 l I) 1 MR. TURK: You don 't have to use NUREG-0654 because 2 you 've got these special features? 3 MS. WEISS: No, that 's not what I said at all. 4 MR. TURK: That 's the quest ion. 5 MS. WEISS: . That 's not the question. 6 MR. TURK: That 's the question. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk, let her ask her question. 8 The problem was only when. 9 THE WITNESS: CBores) You ask me for a response 10 before I prepared my beach memorandum? 11 BY MS. WEISS: 12 Q When you were in the process of preparing Bores 1, 13 didn 't you say to Mr. Thomas. I am preparing Bores 1 I 'm 14 preparing a paper. Of course, you didn 't know it was going to 15 have a number at that time. But I 'm preparing a paper, the f i 16 purpose of which is to address those concerns, and I will lay ; 17 out for you why those assumptions regarding accident, timing 18 and probability that concern you with regard to the beach 19 population don 't apply to Seabrook because of its special 20 containment? 21 A (Bores) No. I did not. 1 22 Q So if there 's testimony to that ef fect by another 23 witness, that would be incorrect? . C 24 MR. TURK : If tnere is. 25 MS. WEISS: If there is. I P Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 i
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12600 , 1 THE WITNESS: CBores) That was not the substance of r 2 the discussion. I never had indicated that Seabrook ought to 3 have any special consideration because of plant features. 4 The purpose of any discussions I had with Mr. Thomas S along this line in terms of preparing the memorandum, or the 6 letter with its enclosure, was basically to outline where we 1 7 were et this point in time j n terms of considering those items 8 that were still open relative to the protection of the beach ! 9 effort. 10 There had not been any gathering in any one place of 11 the information that we had available to us and the current [ t 12 status. So as part of that content. format, areas that I would i 13 be looking at. I discussed with Mr. Thomas, but I never i 14 indicated that we ought to have special considerations. That 15 was never an intent on my part, nor as far as I know from ) 16 anyone on the NRC staff. ! 17 BY MS. WEISS: 7 18 Q Didn't you prepare Bores i for the precise purpose of 19 responding to FEMA Region l's concerns? 20 A (Bores) I prepared it in response to the December 21 31, 1985 memoranda. 22 Q Right. And at the April 15th meeting, when you said 23 that you believed that the plans were adequata even without 24 consideration of those materials on accident probability and i 25 timing, you indicated that that was your view as the NRC RAC i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation r (202) 628-4888 3 I
?
l
i BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12601 () 1 member, correct? 2 A (Bores) Yes, ma 'am. i 3 Q And the other RAC members at that point in time did 4 not express views one way or another on whether they agreed 5 with you, did they? 6 MR. TURK: About what? 7 MS. WEISS: Press the question. 8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, this is a rehash. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, even if the witness understands. , 10 Mr. Turk has a right to understand too. 11 MS. WEISS: Well, you know, that 's, of course, true, l 12 Your Honor. It 's j ust that Mr. Turk has a propensity for 13 making argument and doing his redirect when somebody else is , O 1 14 trying to do their cross. J 15 MR. TURK : Your Honor. Ms. Weiss is saying no one I 16 agreed with your position. We 've had extensive discussion 17 about what the RAC did at that meeting. 18 MS, WEISS: I asked a careful question. Now try and , 19 listen. 20 BY MS. WEISS: ; 21 Q The question was, at the time you expressed your view t 22 at the outset of the April 15th RAC meeting, you said, I, as . 23 the NRC member of the RAC. believe the plans are adequate even - 24 without considering any of this material that I 've written down , i 25 regarding accident timing and probability, correct? p ( Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 ! I I
BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12602 . O 1 A (Bores) Yes. g 2 Q Now at that time, in response to that precise 3 statement, did any of the RAC members speak up and say, yes, I 4 agree, just at that moment in time? 5 A (Bores) I do not recall any doing that. . 6 Q And, 'in f act, the great bulk of the meeting on the 7 14th that followed after the introductory statements was 8 devoted to discussion of those aspects of Bores 1 dealing with I 9 the Seabrook containment and accident timing and probability; l 10 isn 't that correct? 11 MR. DIGNAN: Obj ection as to form. 12 THE WITNESS: (Bores) No. 13 MR. DIGNAN: I believes you inadvertently said 14th. O 14 and I assume you meant the 15th. 15 MS. WEISS: Yes. With that correction. 16 THE WITNESS: (Bores) No. 17 BY MS. WEISS: ( 18 Q You would disagree that most of the RAC meeting was 19 spent discussing the back half of Bores 2 -- Bores 1? 20 A (Bores) Yes, I would. < I 21 Q You would? 22 Can you give me some estimate of what proportion of
- 23 time it 's your recollection was devoted to that part of the ,
D 24 discussion? 25 A (Bores) There really wasn 't that much devoted to L e i C) Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
l l ^ I l - BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12603 l O i 1 those aspects. the containment aspects at all. The discussion l j i l 2 that we had along that line was primarily along the way of l 1 , l' 3 understanding a particular sentence or two relative to the way l l 4 I had expressed the risk aspect. j I 5 Q Right. 7 6 A (Bores) But it was an understanding problem in terms }
- j. 7 of the RAC. We did not spend a lot of time devoted to the i i i 8 containment issues per se, or anything along that line. l l l 9 We also epent a good bit of time in listening to the l
10 NOAA representatives and the meteorological indications. l 11 Q Well. that was another aspect of risk, correct? I ! 12 MR. TURK: Obj ect ion.
- 13 JUDGE SMITH
- Overruled.
} CBores) Meteorological conditions 14 THE WITNESS:
l l 15 could enter into the risk considerations, yes. l l 16 MS. WEISS: All right. 17 BY MS. WEISS: 10 Q And at any rate it was only after all of that 19 discussion on April the 15th that consensus was reacned in the ! 20 RAC; is that correct? < l 21 A (Bores) I believe consensus was -- probably could 22 have been gotten in the first two minutes of the RAC meeting. 23 Q But you don 't know that. I mean, no vote was taken l 24 in the first two minutes. 25 A (Bores) No, but there was no -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i
l i BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12604 t i Q And there was lots of discussion. , 2 A (Bores) But there was no -- no one said, hey. I 3 think it 's wrong. There was nothing along that line. We were 4 looking at refinements as we were going through the papers. 5 Everybody had had copies of the memoranda. Everybody came to 6 the meeting generally knowing. I think where we were going. We 7 had copies of several other memorenda with us, and thought we J 8 were going to the meeting to try and close it out. 9 So I don't think there was any disagreement with l 10 where we were heading. f i 11 Q Well. I think we can agree, can 't we. Dr. Bores, that ! I 12 the people -- that the members of the RAC were never asked the [ ! 13 question, because it hadn 't erisen at that time and it wasn 't !
! 14- in anybody's mind, do you think that the plans are adequate l
- 15 with the special containment features, or do you think that the !
16 plans require -- I mean, the plans are adequate without special ; i' 17 containment features? That wasn 't an issue that was before the le RAC. correct? ; 19 A (Bores) That 's correct. ; i I a 20 Q Now one more line of questioning briefly about 21 Massachusetts Exhibit 31 -- 32, the telefax transmission from ] ! 22 Mr. Rospenda at Argonne, which I think is global 43 but I 'm 23 looking at the cleaner copy. This is the -- ; l 24 A (Bores) It 's Attachment 12 of my memoranda. i 25 Q Correct, correct. [ L C:)
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l
r
BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12605 r O- 1 A (Bores) Yes. ; 2 Q The draft FEMA response to contentions, and if you 'll l r 3 look at global -- I guess global 47, but it 's Page 4 of Mass. - 4 AG 32. 9 b
-5 MR.-DIGNAN: Ms. Weiss. there 's more than one Page 4.
6 VS. WEISS: Oh-oh. 7 MR. TURK : There are three contentions. Each one has 1 8 a separate write up. 9 MS. WEISS: Okay. ;
- 10 MR. DIGNAN
- If you go up on the left-hand corner, j 11 you 'll get the contention numbers, so if you can give us that. ,
12 MS, WEISS: It 's Hampton VIII. ; i 13 MR. DIGNAN: Hampton VIII. Page 4.
- O 14 MS. WEISS: Page 4.
! iS MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. . 1 i i 16 MS , WEISS: Which I guess is the first Page 4. l l 17 THE WITNESS: (Bores) Page 4-1. l 1 18 MS. WEISS: Page -- we can have miniglobals and ; 19 maxiglobals. ( 20 (Laughter.) 21 BY MS. WEISS: j 22 Q Let me just focus on the first sentence of the second 23 full paragraph, and I'll read it. I 24 "The use of early precautionary protective actions i 25 such as beach closing and evacuation are not the sole means for i (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation , , (202) 628-4808 l
r i t i BORES, LAZARUS - CROSS 12606 O 1 protection of the beach population. The beach population is in I 2 effect also protected by the unusually strong containment [ t 3 system at the Seabrook Station." ! 4 I 've read that accurately? f i 5 A (Bores) Yes. ! 6 Q Now, you say that you didn't read this material , i ! 7 closely when you received it from Mr. Rospenda? ; 8 A (Bores) No, I didn 't. l } 9 Q Can you tell me if you made written comments to Mr. 10 Rospenda on any aspects at all -- 11 MR. TURK: Asked and answered, i 12 MS. WEISS: -- of this paper? ; 13 MR. TURK: Asked and answered very clearly. Your . 14 Honor. p 4 15 MS. WEISS: No, he was asked -- my recollection he i !
- 16 was asked did he make comments or express his disagreement with !
17 this kind of material, t j 18 Now I 'm asking did he make comments on any other $ 19 aspects, just to complete the record. l 20 VR. TURK : Your Honor. I 'm going to have to ask Ms. ! i I 21 Weiss to listen closer to answers. It 's clearly been ; j ' I 22 addressed. ; 23 MS. WEISS: I don 't remember that that question was l 24 asked. - 25 JUDGE SMITH: If we are strictly to go by l I
^
(:) ! Heritage Reporting Corporation ( C202) 628-4888 j r k f
I BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12607 () 1 probabilities, it has probably been asked and answered many 2 times. But I just have no mencry of that flavor of it. , 3 MR. TURK: The response, as I recall it, was he did ; l 4 not give any written comments to Mr. Rospenda with respect to l 5 this. l 6 M! WEISS: Well. then -- i I 7 MR. TURK : If I have to go back to my notes each time l 8 Ms. Weiss asks a duplicative question. I will. It 's only going j 9 to tie us up more. l 1 10 MS. WEISS: If you let the witness -- 11 MR. DIGNAN: Let 's let him say it twice and get out 12 of here. l l 13 MS. WEISS: If you would let the witness answer -- l () 14 MR. BACKUS: How about that. Judge. 15 MS. WEISS: -- I think you could probably trust him I 16 to give the same answer twice. 17 MR. TURK: I trust Dr. Bores to tell the truth as he 18 has done consistently. 19 MS. WEISS: Right. Well, let 's get a -- I 20 BY MS. WEISS: l t 21 Q I see you nodding your head. Dr. Bores. I take it l l 22 then that you made no written comments on any aspect of this 23 paper to Mr. Rospenda. 24 A (Bores) As 1 had discussed yesterday in response to I l 25 a question, which was if not the sane one, one very similar to o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l l ' l
l-
- j. l l
l BORES. LAZARUS - CROSS 12608 1
- - 1 it, that by the time I became aware of this paper I was
! l { 2 already. or I already had discussions with NRR relative to j l t j- 3 revisions in the paper. l 1 > l 4 Q Okay. And I take it also then that you made no phone l ! i j 5 calls to Mr. Rospenda on this subj ect taking issue with any } f 6 parts of this paper. l } !
- 7 A (Bores) No. I didn't because of the same -- i 8 MS. WEISS: Okay. I have no further questions. Your l l !
9 Honor. i ! 10 JUDGE SMITH: All right, anything further with the { 11 exception of Mr. Turk? l 1 12 (No response.) l
\
13 JUDGE SMITH: All right, Mr. Turk, the timing is in f l 1 () 14 your hands, Now would you tell Mr. Flynn or Mr. Watson when l l l 15 they could have their witnesses here? l 16 MR. TURK: Your Honor. I 'll need about a half an hour l l 17 with the witnesses. l t 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right. ! r ( 19 MR. TURK : Personally I would prefer simply to break j i j 20 for lunch. It is five minutes to 12. I ' j 21 JUDGE SMITH: Right. J ' 22 MR. TURK: And come back, do it, or.d then have FEMA 's 23 witnesses appeer next. I I l 24 JUDGE SMITH: Can we get by with 45 minutes today? i 25 Now I promised you some time, (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation l I (202) 628-4888 . 4 !
i __. l 1 i 12609 a 1 MK.' OLESKEY: I don 't -- I won 't need the time until l l i 2 af ter they 're through their direct -- l ' i i 3- JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 1 4 MR. OLESKEY: -- which I understand may take hours. I a s 5 If we could tuck it in at the end. 1 j 6 JUDGE SMITH: All right, let 's return at 12:45. , l 1 7 That 's 50 minutes f rom now. l i 8 (Whereupon, at 11 : 54 o ' clock a. m. , the hearing was l > i 9 recessed, to reconvene at 12:45 p.m., this same day, Wednesday. I 10 May 25. 1988.) 11 l 12 ! 13 14
! 15 !
16 17 ; i 18 ; h 19 , k 20
- 21 i
22 23 l 24 ; i 25 j i llI Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l t l.
l i O BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12610 t/108 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (12:52 p.m.) 3 Whereupon, 4 ROBERT BORES 5 WILLIAM LAZARUS 6 having been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand 7 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows:. - 8 JUDGE SMITH: You may proceed, Mr. Turk. i r 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
- r 4
10 BY MR. TURK: 11 Q Dr. Bores, I 'd like to ref er first to a series of 12 questions and answers on May 19th in my direct examination of 13 you. Do you recall the discussion about Mr. Keene, the 14 Environmental Protection Agency 's representative with respect 15 to the protective action guides? 16 A (Bores) Yes. If this is a line that goes back to i 17 MR. OLESKEY: 18 counsel 's direct I thir.A there 's a misapprehension about the 19 purpose of redirect. [ i 20 (Laughter)
- 21 JUDGE SMITH: So much for a half hour. Is this f
22 retribution 'r is this - 23 (La ghter) ; 24 MR. OLESKEY: I just wanted to flag that up front. [ t () 25 MR. TURK : Ye"- Honor, this is a clarification; I { Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
---_--,.--e . .- . , , , , . - - , . - - , . , . , - - . - - , , n .- n.,,.,+m- .,-,n..-, e . -, - - ,,--- -,.ne,.,,.. - ,,, e ,v- , - < , , , , -
,=
l BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12611 1
-() 1 f rankly don 't recall if it was a subj ect of Mr. Oleskey 's cross 2 as well. I started it in my direct examination.
3 MR. BACKUS: I thought you would perfectly follow the 4 cross. 5 JUDGE SMITH: I didn't understand your last comment. 6 MR. TURK : I picked up the clarification as being 7 necessary as part of my direct. I don 't recall if Mr. Oleskey 8 covered the same matter in his cross. 9 MR. TURK: So you 're saying that -- you 're conceding 10 that it is direct, but for some reason you didn 't cover it on l 11 direct? 12 MR. TURK: No, Your Honor, it 's a clarification that 13 Dr. Bores has brought to my attention. 14 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, I see. All right. 15 BY MR. TURK: 16 Q Dr. Bores, could you indicate whether your testimony 17 with respect to Mr. Keene 's discussion of PAGs requires i l 18 correction or clarification? I l 19 A (Bores) It 's -- there is a clarification I wish to 1 l 20 make, and it is not directly to Mr. Keene. but it 's more in 21 relation to a question or a statement made by Mr. Church. I 22 had indicated that I thought Mr. Church had raised a discussion 23 in terms of evaluating plans to the effect that the plans were 24 adequate if doses would not exceed the EPA protective action 25 guides. And I had indicated that I thought this had occurred O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l " ( BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12612 l 1 at the July meeting. I F 2 In reviewing some of the transcripts it is now my , t 3 recollection that that particular statement raised by Mr. L 4 Keene -- raised by Mr. Church had occurred at the January 7th 5 and 8th RAC meeting and not at the July 30th RAC meeting. 6 So -- 7 Q So you 're correcting the date upon which the comments 8 were made? l f 9 A (Bores) That is correct. Mr. Keene had made -- 10 certainly made other statements relative to the EPA. PAGs at [ l , 11 both of those meetings, but the particular reference raised to 3 ~ 12 Mr. Church had. I now believe, occurred in January. This is so 13 that I don 't mislead anyone. ( 14 Q All right. i i 15 Mr. L azarus, with respect to your testimony in l
- 16 sequestration I 'd like to raise a question which I don't know ,
~ r 17 has been covered, and that is simply, is it customary for an 18 NRC region to take a position on an issue before the RAC? i ) 19 A (Lazarus) No. it is not. 20 Q And has NRC. Region 1 taken a position with respect t 21 to the beach shelter issues for Seabrook? 22 A (Lazarus) To my knowledge, there is no NRC. Region 1 l 23 position on the beach sheltering issue. } 24 Q Also. Mr. Lazarus, do you know whether anyone at NRC 4 l 25 headquarters in Washington customarily reviews offsite ({) ! Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4898 : i
(:) BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12613 I i emergency plans for adequacy? i l 2 A (Lazarus) No. they do not. 3 -Q Where is such a review conducted? 4 A (Lazarus) In the Regional Assistance Committee and S through our support and other agency support to that committee. G Q Now, when you say, our support. do you mean -- 7 A (l.azarus) NRC, 8 Q Regional RAC members? 9 A (Lazarus) Yes. 10 Q Also. Mr. Lazarus and Dr. Bores, there was some 11 discussion on direct and crocs-examination about Mr. Thonas 's 12 indication that he would have his position or the position 13 revised as a result of the July RAC meeting. And. Mr. Lazarus. 14 you had indicated that the position, as you understood it, was 15 the prefiled FEMA response to contentions; do you recall that? l 16 A (Lazarus) Yes. I do. 17 Q Gentlemen. I 'd like to ask you, was there any other 18 position extant at that time which would be subj ect to revision 19 based on the RAC comments? l 20 A CLazarus) I don't believe so. 21 A (Bores) I think Mr. Thomas 's comments could be 22 related to two separate aspects. One was the FEMA 's prefiled 23 response to contentions. And the second one was a revised j 24 position. if you would, for RAC. () 25 I had asked Mr. Thomas specifically whether in terms i I Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 1 2
l O BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12614 1 of producing some revisions he was referring to either or both. l { 2 and he was somewhat vague, but let the impression that ! 3 revisions could occur in either-l 4 Q He was just not specific? 5 A (Bores) He was not specific. 6 Q Moving up to this week 's examination, yesterday, Mr. 7 Lazarus, there is some questioning of you with respect to 8 discussions in the RAC in April, and as I recall there was a 9 question asked as to whether there was a discussion, if the l 10 population or beach population could be evacuated in time, do ; 11 you recall whether there was a discussion in April as to 12 whether the beach population could be evacuated prior to O 13 arrival of the plume? j 14 A (Lazarus) No , I don't believe that it was ever 1 l 15 discussed in that context. 16 Q Also, Mr. Lazarus, at one point Mr. Oleskey indicated 17 and you concurred that you had seized Mr. Thomas 's prerogative 18 as the chair of the hAC in asking for your show of hands. ; 19 Having considered that testimony, do you believe it's correct 20 as stated? 21 A (Lazarus) I think that the action was probably l l 22 extraordinary based on what my familiarity with RAC process has i 23 been, but I believe that -- I believe that it was a collegial 24 discussion, we were all free to state our positions and try to 25 clarify the issues at any point during the meeting. So from Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) G28-4868
l 1 - i ()- BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12610 [ 1 that standpoint I don 't think that that_was really seizing his l ^ i 2 prerogative. j t-3 Q Dr. Bores. I 'm going to turn to Massachusetts ! I 4 Attorney General Exhibit 30 which is the letter from Joseph ; l 5 Flynn to Edwin Reis; do you have a copy of that? j 4 6 A (Bores) les. ! i i i 7 Q And I'd like to ask you whether certain portions of j 8 this letter are consistent with your understanding of the RAC 's 9 position, at least as of May 1. 1987 , i 10 First of all, in the second full paragraph Mr. Flynn 11 states that, quote: "It was the sense of the RAC that certain 1 12 factors specific to the Seabrook EPZ might preclude a finding (:) 13 that reasonable assurance, that adequate protective measures J I 3 14 can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident l 1 : 15 at Seabrook. The most important of those factors are the i a i 16 virtual unavailability of sheltering for the transient beach , l I 17 population, and evacuation time estimates ranging up to more l l ! than four hours." close quote. i 18 i 19 My first question is, do you believe that this i 20 statement, these two sentences accurately depict the sense of I t ! 21 the RAC7 I j 22 A (Bores) It certainly doesn't depict the sense of the I i 23 RAC at the -- as of the April meeting. in that, we didn't see f , 24 certain factors specific to -- well, there was not really any 1 i (} 25 discussion as to what factors might preclude the finding of i 1 Heritage Report ing Corporation j (202) 628-4888
l l 1 ! o BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12616 1 reasonable assurance. We were working toward resolving the 2 issues as we moved along. 3 So -- and as to the second sentence there which j 4 talked about the virtual unavailability of shelter for the I l 5 transient beach population, we really didn't get into a review l 6 of the studies of the shelters that hadn't been made available l
- 7 even at this time, that is, the preliminary indication.
1 O So, we really didn 't look at shelter availability at 9 all. l 1 10 MS. WEISS: At the April 15th meeting? l l 11 THE WITNESS: (Bores) At the April 15th meeting; j 12 yes. 13 87 MR. TURY. 14 Q Would you then conclude that these two sentences do 15 not accurately portray the sense of the RAC as of May 1. 19877 16 A (Bores) I would draw that conclusion; yes. 17 Q Turning to the next paragraph in this exhibit, the ! 18 paragraph reads as follows, quote: "On the other hand Dr. 19 Bores who serves as NRC 's RAC representative for the Seabrook i I 20 Station has provided information that resolved many of the i 21 RAC*s reservations about the safety of the beach population," l 22 close quote. 23 Do you believe that this sentence accurately states 24 that the reservations were those of the RAC? , 25 MR. OLEST.EY : Obj ect ion. It 's not at all clear from Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l lv_ _ - - - . _ _ _ _
~
t 4 BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12G17 l 1 the context as to whether or not that 's a statement by Flynn, a ; 2 position of FEMA. or of the RAC; and therefore, the question l 3 isn 't a f air one because it doesn't track the sentence. 1 1 MR. TURK: 4 I certainly don't understand that S obj ect ion. Your Honor. ; 6 MR. OLESKEY: Well. I 'm not surprised, but I press 7 it. You have to ask a question that fairly summarizes the 8 sentence. You didn't fairly summari=e the sentence, so you ! i $ 9 can't have the question. ! i 10 MR. TURK: I read the sentence. ! i : JUDGE SMITH: Well, no, you read the sentence and ' 1 11 12 then you posed a question based upon the sentence. 13 MR. TURK : Yes, t 14 JUDGE SMITH: And I had trouble with the logic of it ) 7 i l 15 when you read it. j l l ! 16 MR. TURK: All right. i 2 17 JUDGE SMITH: And I was pondering it when the t
- 18 obj ection came.
i 19 MR. TURK: Let me try it again. i s 20 BY MR. TURK :
. 21 Q Looking at that same sentence. Dr. Bores, which j
22 indicates that, information provided by you resolved many of ; 23 the RAC 's reservations about the safety of the beach ; i 24 population. Do you believe that there were reservations by the l 25 RAC about the safety of the beach pepulation? [} J >
)
I Heritage Reporting Corporation F 4 (202) 628-4888 i
l' f h () BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12618 l 2 , 1 A (Bores? I wouldn 't use the word "reservations " we l l 2 still had some areas that we needed to come to closure on. And [ 4 3 as to providing information, I think what I tried to do is , 4 gather the information that most of us had available in some i t i 5 form or other with some new perspective, perhaps, 6 Q All r ;ht. I 7 A (Bores) But it was basically the information that we 8 had to look at. J 9 Q The next sentence reads, quote: "A particularly F I 10 important part of this information la that the probabilistic { ! 11 assessments for the Seabrook Station justify an assumption that l 12 it is highly unlikely that there will ever be an accident at ; 13 the plant involving a serious release of radiation within one I 14 half hour of the onset of the emergency condition," close ; 15 quote. i 16 Now, my question with respect to this sentence is, do : ) 17 you believe that anything in your first paper of February 18th. t 18 1987 was, with respect to containment or risk or specific plant , 19 features was a particularly important part of your j 20 presentation? ; 21 MR. OLESKEY: Isn 't that highly impressionistic and ! i l 22 subj ective to the writer? And isn 't t hi .S the kind of j ! 23 examination that drives lay people cracy with lawyers for . t , 24 trying to count engels on the head of a pin. , 4 , () 25 MS. WEISS: I have another obj ection to that one. l ! Heritage Reporting Corporation j . (202) 628-4888 t i h
} BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12619 1 Your Honor. It 's clear that this sentence is referring to the 2 writers or FEMA 's view of what was important. We went over and 3 over this; there 's really nothing probative to be gained by the 1 4 witnesses 's further views about whether FEMA -- it was really 5 important to FEMA or not. I 6 MR. BACKUS: Let me add also -- t 7 MS. WEISS: This is clearly referring to FEMA -- what 8 FEMA felt was important. t 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well -- i 10 MR. T URK . Your Honor, I didn't of fer the exhibit. ! 11 I 'm content if Mass. AG wants to withdraw it, f 12 MS. WEISS: I t 's -- - O 13 MR. TURK: For the first time we have a witness whc , 14 can comment on the letter. It was admitted into evidence ; 15 without any sponsor, without any cross-examination of Mr. Flynn l l 16 as to its accuracy or its probative value, i 17 JUDGE SMITH: The -- you 're asking Dr. Bores to t 18 comment on what he believed his February '87 memorandum implied 19 about the importance of PRAs. You 're not asking what the RAC 20 -- the parallel question, what he thought that the RAC thought 21 about it. f' 22 MR. TURK : All right, 23 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't see any probative value to your , ( I 24 question at all. We can read the memorandum, j i 25 MR. TURK: I will revise the question as stated. l Heritage Repo rt ing Corporation l (202) 628-4888 : i I
t' l 1 i BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12620 { 1 What I 'm getting at is, whether the RAC considered the ! 2 _ discussion of containment to be a particularly important aspect 3 of his presentation.- t
- 4 MS. WEISS
- Well, that 's even worse because this f 1
f 5 sentence clearly is not saying anything about the RAC; this 6 sentence is talking about FEMA 's view of what was important. I 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, no, it follows on f rom the 8 preceding question. Ms. Weiss, as.I read it; RAC had . t I 9 reservations, information resolved the reservations, and now a l l l 10 particular part of that information which resolved -- I read ! f 11 it, maybe its interpretation, we should have this question and i 12 answer anyway, that the RAC thought a particularly important 13 part of the information was a probable PRA. 14 MS. WEISS: I don 't think it says that. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it doesn 't say that, I agree. f 16 It 's an interpretation, and since we 're sitting over here. i 17 that 's our ruling. 18 Claughter) I 19 MS. WEISS: You can 't quarrel with that. I 20 MR. BACKUS: My obj ection. Your Honor, is, I don 't 21 see how he can say what was in the minds of the RAC members and 22 interpret this for them. l 23 MR. TURK : Well, how can -- l 24 MR. BACKUS: And 1 also obj ect that it was leading. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, overruled. And that goes for the O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
l i 4 BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12621 ! i 1 angels on the head of the pin, too. [ 2 MR. OLESKEY: I assume that was swept into your l i 3 ruling.
, 4 BY MR. TURK:
r 5 Q Dr. Bores, do you need me to restate the question? l 6 A CBores) Please. ; 7 Q If you look at this paragraph as a whole, its first ! i i 8 sentence and its second sentence -- [ < 9 MS. WEISS: Now we get another question. : I !' 10 BY MR. TURK : t i 11 Q -- the first sentence discussing RAC 's reservations; l i 12 the second sentence discussing what is ascribed as a ( O 13 particularly important part of information you provided as to
?
[ 14 PRAs; do you believe that following the April RAC meeting. that F 15 the RAC believed that the PRA discussions was a particularly 16 important part of the material which resolved their , t l 17 reservations, if any, about the Seabrook beach issues? ; j 18 MR. OLESKEY: Same obj ection. notwithstanding your 19 ruling. Judge. I l
. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you agree that the same ruling .
f 21 would apply it 's j ust that you 'd reserved -- l l 22 MR. OLESKEY: I think it would, it 's j ust that he !
, 23 rephrased it and I wanted to protect my rights, that 's all.
24 THE WITNESS: (Bores) It would be my assessment that l 2 r 4 () 25 the RAC did not lay particularly heavy importance on the PRA. i I Heritals Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 ,
(--._---.___. .-_ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ . - .-_ __ _ . _ - - - _ _ _. . p-i {} i MR. LEWALD: BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT That prooably needed some 12622 2 help. 3 BY MR. TURK: 4 Q And qt the end of the April RAC meeting. is it your 5 -- do you believe that the RAC understood that the plans or had-6 agreed that the plans were adequate without regard to 7 containment or risk? 8 MR. BACKUS: Obj ec t ion. leading. Calling for ) 9 hearsay. 10 MS. WEISS: And the witness already testified that 11 the question was never put and was never discussed in those ! 12 terms on April 15th. He agreed with me. J ust wasn 't an issue () 13 at that point. because we didn't know this was all going to 14 blow up. 15 JUDGE SMITH: That 's my memory. Sustained. ! 16 BY MR. TURK: 17 Q Turning to the third paragraph of this exhibit, could I 18 you, first of all, read that paragraph to yourself. I 19 MR. OLESKEY: Do you mean the fourth paragraph. 20 counsel? 21 MR. TURK: The paragraph which begins. "As you can j l 22 see." the fourth paragraph on the page, j 23 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you. 24 BY MR. TURK . j 25 Q My first question is. was the material you presented ( l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
BORES. LAZARUS - RED: RECT 12623 1 with respect to containment and risk essential to the RAC 's 2 deliberations with' respect to the beach population issues? 3 MR. OLESKEY: Obj ect ion. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Would you repeat your question? The 5 first few words of your question were not clear. et/100 6 (Continued on next page.) 7 8 9 10 11
-12 0 13 14 15 16 l 17 18 ;
i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 til i HeritaEe Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l i
- 1. _ . - - -.. -
_ = _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - - - . ._ __ _ _ _ - 1 DORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12624 T i BY MR. TURK: 2 Q The question is, was the material that Dr. Bores 3 presented with respect to risk containment essential to the l 4 RAC 's deliberat'on with respect to the Seabrook beach l 5 population issues. 6 MR. OLESKEY: Obj ection. His subj ective j udgnent 7 about whether their judgment or FEMA 's is right on that 8 question 10 of no value. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, he 's been testif ying for several 10 days now as to his impressions of the RAC process, and how does 11 this different? You know. that 's not a bad obj ection, but we , 12 could have saved a heck of a lot of time if it had been made 13 last week. O 14 MR. OLESKEY: This noves largely from the realm of l what did folks say, what did the do, to what do you think about 15 I 16 Joe Flynn says about whether -- l 17 JUDGE SMITH: No. 10 MR. OLESKEY: -- something 's essential to the RAC. 19 JUDGE SMITH: No. I disagree. l 20 MR. OLESKEY: It 's much more attenuated. 21 JUDGE SMITH: I disagree. It 's overruled. 22 THE WITNESS: (Bores) Would you restate the question 23 again. Mr. Turk, please? ! 24 MR. TURK: Certainly. l 25 i O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
. . . . . . _ ~ . . . e- . . .e . . . , _ . . .. . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . -
( _- .._- - .- - ___ - _.. - _ _ _ - _ -- . - _ - - -- - . _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ . _ I l LORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12625 i BY MR TURK : 2 Q Was the material that you presented with respect to j 3 containment and risk essential to the RAC 's ' deliberation with l 4 respect to the adequacy of plan provisions -- strike that. 5 With respect to the adequacy of the New Hampshire plan on l 6 Seabrook beach population issues? I l 7 A (Bores) Do not deal with the plan. 8 Q So this staterant in the letter then would be 9 incorrect, in your view? 10 A (Dores's Yes. 11 Q In the next sentence in the letter states. "The RAC 12 has determir.ed that it is essential to the effective () 13 presentation of FEMA 's testimony on this issue that Dr. Dores be available to 4xplain the basis for the RAC 's conclusions," 14 15 Was there any discussion along that line in the RAC7 ! 16 A (Bores) The RAC certainly did not determine that. i 17 There was no discussion at this point by the RAC itself. Mr. l i 18 Thomas had alluded to the fact that FEMA had not yet determined i 19 who their witnesses would be, or had indicated. i l 20 Q So this statement in the letter then is incorrect? \ i ! 21 A (Lores) Yes. sir. 22 KR. TURK I 'd like to see if we can ge t some sort of I 23 an understanding f rom counsel as to the genesis of this letter. 24 JUDGE SWITH: Well, you see. remember this letter was 25 the subject of some debate yesterday, a nd we poi nt ed out that O Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888 ,
i i BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12026 O i the ruling that we made on it was messy. This letter -- this 2 letter is of slight probative value, and maybe we should have 3 Rept it-out for that reason alone. It was -- but it met all of 4 the tests we saw of a letter generated in the regular course of S business, and -- l t 6 MR. TURK: I understand. Your Honor. I would ask Mr. 7 Flynn one question, and let me pose that question and see if 8 the Board will permit it be answered. 9 And that is, was this letter written at the request 10 of, and based upon information provided by Mr. Thomas? ; 11 MR. OLESKEY: If Mr. Flynn is going to answer 12 questions. I want some to put to Mr. Turk later. ! t 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, now, just a moment here. { O 14 No one disputes the fact that Mr. Flynn was not at 15 meeting. You were not at that meeting? 16 MR, FLYNN: I certainly was not. 17 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Why was the person that you 18 usually do business with with respect to RAC business? i 19 MR. FLYNN: Well, that would normally be the RAC l 20 chairman. In this case. Mr. Thomas. l I 21 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Let 's don't kill this, you know. { 22 MR. TURK: I 'l l move on. Your Honor. 1 23 JUDGE SMITH: Did you said you had nothing further? 24 MR. TURK: No. I 'm ready to move on. 25 O Heritage Reporting Co rpo rat ion (202) G28-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12627 ( - 1 BY MR. TURK -
~2 0 Dr. Bores, =arlier today Mr. Oleskey had nsked you 3 about your knowledge of FEMA being' busy in the Septer.iber and 4 October time frame getting ready for hearings.
5 When did you first be ome aware that FSMA was - 6 involved iii preparing f or hea9ags :n that time freme?_ 7 MR. OLESLIY: I 'm sorry, was the time f rcrae 8 Septenbet"~ October, coun9 1- - 9 MR. TURK : FFMA 's busyness was in that time frane. 10 The' question is when was Dr. Bores first aware of FEMA ld 11 activities in that +'me frame. 12 THE WITNES : CBores) Well, I was aware that FEki 13 had to respond to contentiorc,. but they had already pref led
' 14 responses in that area.;
15 I was not awar? of, you know, what specifically FEMA 16 had to do in this area and under what sor,t of tine frame' , 17 There were a lot of other things a lot of u4 were,doing, so ,
?
j 18 wasinoG you know, kept aways on a daily basis as to whet theV 19 were doing anu what their high prioritte were. l 20 BY MR. TURK: ) i 21 A And when you say that they hed to prefile response to i 22 contentions, and they had alread/ d ne so, are you rrierring f;
- 23 now to the June filing? )
/
24 A (Bores) To the June fil.ing. I 'm re f erring, yes, i 25 i Q In your -- in discussing the acequacy of ' lev i! O ) Heritage
- Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888 f
, I' ' /
! , \ ,
,.'. >k , , . - ,. - - - - - - - - -
,m -.,e-
\
I
'oORES , LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12628 Hampshire plans and NUREG-0654, and your discussion of the
~
1 2 reasonable assurance finding which FEMA is to make, did you 3 intend to state, or did you -- did you state that the 4 containment features for Seabrook should provide part of the 5 basis for any finding by FEMA in this regard? 6 A (Bores) No, I did not. 7 Q And did you mean for them to take containment or risk 8 into consideration with respect to either plan adequacy, 9 NUREG-0654, or a reasonable assurance finding? 10 A (Bores) I guess I would have to say I really didn 't 11 think down the road to what they would do on that. I certainly 12 didn 't intend that this was the road they ought to follow. 13 Q Also, there was some discussion about two individuals O, who in January indicated to you that they had not been at the 14 s i 15 earlier 1987 RAC meeting. These were the individuals from DOE 16 and HHS; is that correct?
- 17J A (Bores) That 's correct.
4
) -
! 18 Q Do you have an independent recollection as to whether 19 or not they w
- present in April as you sit here at this time?
s 20 A (Bores) Not different than that, no. No, I don 't 51 have an independent recollection. This was my sense at the
- 22 time I had prepared the memo, that they were there.
23 Q In October of '87, you believed that they had been L 24 present? 25 A '(Bores) That 's correct.
.' Reporting Corporation Heritage S, (202) 620-4888
. !Y
.1
BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12629 1 Q And that in January, they told you they had not been? 2 A (Sores) That.is correct. 3 Q Now I understand that you accept their statements to 4 you as true. 5 A (Bores) I do. 6 Q Is that based upon your own recollection or simply 7 your willingness to accept their recollections in lieu of your 8 own? 9 A (Bores) I will take their recollections here. 10 That 's what I have done. 11 Q Mr. Lazarus, there was a discussion at the close of 12 Mr. Oleskey 's cross-examination with respect to a conversation 13 you had with Mr. Harpster. O 14 Can you tell us approximately or more specifically 15 when that conversation took place? 16 A CLazarus) Yes, I checked my travel records, and I 17 believe that was the 18th, or the 19th, 20th, 21st of August, 18 some time during an onsite inspection that I was involved in at 19 Seabrook. 20 Q And that 's approximately three weeks af ter the RAC 21 meeting of July 1987? 22 A (L azarus) Yes. 23 Q When you went out to the Seabrook site in August, did 24 you have any intention of discussing the RAC meeting with Mr. 25 Harpster or anyone else for the utility or state? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12630 U-s 1 A (Lazerus) No, I did not. 2 Q Is it fair to say-that the conversation simply arose 3 spontaneously' without any intention on your part? 4 MR. OLESKEY: Obj ect ion. 5 MS. WEISS: Leading. 6 MR. OLESKEY: Grossly leading. 7 MR. TURK: I 'll ask it in the proper form. Your 8 Honor. 9 MR. OLESKEY: Good. 10 BY MR. TURK: 11 Q Did you have any intention of raising that matter 12 before the subj ect arose in your August discussion with Mr.
- 13 Harpster? , '"' No, I did not.
14 A CLazarus) 15 Q And approximately how long did that whole 16 conversation take place with respect to your quick summary of 17 the RAC meeting? > 18 A CLazarus) I 'd estimate two to three minutes. 19 Q And, Dr. Bores, there was some discussion also in 20 question 4ng by Mr. Brock today about an encounter with Mr. Lutz 21 in the January RAC meeting. Well, I guess it was not really an 22 encounter. It was his comments on the January meeting with 23 respect to containment and risk. 24 What was the context in which he expressed his views 25 with respect to containment and risk? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12631 () 1 A (Bores) Mr. Lutz. I think, was becoming impatient 2 at not being able to resolve the issue that he felt was laying 3 before the RAC; that is, the adequacy of protection for the 4 beach population. He saw the members of the RAC essentially 5 split with a majority on one side, which he was a member, and 6 FEMA and two other members on the other direction. 7 And I think what he was trying to do is saying, hey, 8 we 've got to get on and resolve this, and then said, you know, 9 we 've looked at the plans. We 've looked at precautionary 10 actions that are incorporated there. We 've looked at these 11 issues, you know, from all different angles. We believe the 12 plans are the best. And, in fact, while we aren 't talking 13 directly about the containment, we kr.ow the containment is 14 there. It is strong, so that the risk ought to be lower, 15 something along that line. 16 Q You indicated that there was a majority and a 17 minority view. Had the other individuals in the minority 18 position agreed with Mr. Thomas with respect to the -- well, in 19 what way -- what vere the minority views as you have now
- 20. referred to them?
21 A (Bores) Well, the NOAA representative had indicated 22 that he believed that the plans would be adequate if in fact 23 there were a provision for sheltering. 24 As regard to Mr. Patterson of the Department of 25 Interior, I have no idea what his views were since he did not O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12632
'O 1 say anything at the RAC meeting.
2 Q And j ust so I ur.derstand one thing about the 3 statement in your memo to me of October, and this is Staff 4 Exhibit 2-A, global Page 4. At the bottom of the page where 5 you say, "Similar responses were provided by DOE, EPA, and 6 HHS " just to clarify something that arose in Mr. Brock 's 7 cross-examination, when you refer to similar responses, are you 8 referring to responses concerning the plan provisions? 9 A (Bores) That 's correct. 10 Q So that those individuals were saying the plan 11 provisions were adequate? 12 A (Bores) Yes. 13 Q Also, there was some questioning about Mr. Lutz 's l ( 14 January 1986 comments. This is Massachusetts Exhibit 26. And l 15 Mr. Brock asked you some questions about the meteorological 16 statements contained in this document. 17 Is it your testimony that these statements referred 18 to an earlier version of the New Hampshire plans than is before 19 the Board at this time; i.e., something other than New 20 Hampshire RERP. Revision 2? 21 A (Bores) The earlier -- yes, the earlier plans had 22 discussed precautionary evacuations or precautionary closings 23 of beaches when the plant came to an alert or site area 24 emergency and the wind was such that it would impact the beach 25 areas. That is the way the plan had been written. O : Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
. . . . . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . ~ . - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ._ _ _ -.-..,.,_._ -_ _-._,
BORES. LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12633 0 1 And what Mr. Lutz was pointing out is I had several 2 other RAC members had indicated that because the wind is likely 3 to change in a time frame much shorter than it would take to 4 take precautionary actions, simply because the wind is not 5 directed toward the beaches at a particular time should not 6 preclude taking those precautionary actions. That 's what Mr. 7 Lutz is getting at with this. 8 Q Has New Hampshire plan been revised in this respect 9 to no longer contain that kind of provision? 10 A (Bores) Without checking the plan, I do not know. 11 but I thought it hed been. 12 Q We l l. , as you understand New Mampshire's plan, 13 Revision 2, do you believe that the provisions for protection 14 of the beach population are dependent upon prevailing wind . 15 directions? 16 A (Bores) No, sir. { 17 MR. DIGNAN: Could I have that question and answer 18 back, please? 19 JUDGE SMITH: Would you read it? 20 CAccordingly, the record was read by the court 21 reporter.) E109 22 (Continued on next page.) 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
12634 {} T/110 1 BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT MR. DIGNAN: I guess what I 'd like for clarification 2 is Revision 2 which we 've thrown around in this hearing room, 3 which is 2/86, I believe, the revision that was placed in at 4 the start. There is Revision 2, 2/88, and which Revision 2 is 5 being referred to in the quest'an? 6 MR. TURK: My question pertains to the Revision which 7 had been litigated all along in this hearing. 8 MR. DIGNAN: The 2/86. 9 MR. TURK: August 1986. 10 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me, 8/86. 11 MR. TURK: August -- 12 MR. DIGNAN- The 1986 versions. () 13 MR. TURK: August 1986 14 BY MR. TUPK: 15 Q And I would esk Dr. Bores, if his answer meant to 16 refer to that revision as well? 17 A (Bores) Yes. , 18 Q Dr. Bores, there is a short series of questions with 19 Ms. Weiss pertaining to the containment aspects of your paper r ! 20 of February 1987, and you indicated that there was not much 21 discussion of the containment aspects in the April 1987 22 meeting, but that the discussion really focused on a couple of 23 sentences in your paper dealing with risk. Could you identify 24 what that discussed entailed or what was the subj ect of that 25 discussion, more specifically? ( , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
. f ~,
- BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12635 \w 1 A (Bores) Let me try and find the paragraph.
2 Q Maybe I could ask a leading question to speed things
~3 along. Was that the discussion of the relative safety of 4 persons within the two mile boundary f rom Seabrook when 5 compared to the 10 mile boundary to other plants?
6 A (Bores) Yes. And as I had it worded, it was the 7 relative risk and it was a problem or perception in RAC as to 8 understanding the importance Of risk which is the inverse of 9 safety in this particular context. 10 Q So it was just those -- that sentence or those 11 particular sentences which were discussed, in order to get a 12 clarification of what was meant by them?
/} 13 14 A (Borea) Yes. This is not to say that, you know, In geraral the paper we.sn 't gone over, but the particular context 15 we aper.t a bit of time on there trying to explain what I meant.
16 Q And just one concluding question, Dr. Bores, based on 17 what you now know about the RAC 's treatment of the Seabrook 18 beach population issues, is it fair to say that the RAC 19 currently -- that the maj ority of the RAC believes the New 20 Hampshire plans are adequate in that regard? 21 A (Bores) Yes, sir. 22 MR. TURK : That does it, 23 JUDGE SMITH: Any recross? 24 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, may I have a question, since 25 usually it 's viewed that I 'm on the direct side, may I have a O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - RECROSS 12636 . u 1 question? 2 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 3 MR. DIGNAN: And then -- because then you want to 4 cross further, right. 5 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DIGNAN: 7 Q Dr. Bores, you answered a question just nov 8 indicating that it was your understanding that the wind 9 direction was no longer included as one of the factors to be 10 considered in ordering the beach closure with respect to the 11 volume of the plan -- excuse me, the issuarce of the plan. Rev. 12 2. of August '86; did I hear you correctly? i () 13 A (Bores) I 'm not sure I said that it was no longer. I said. I believed that it was no longer th6re. but I couldn't 14 15 verify that. 16 Q I 'd j ust like to show you what I represent to you as 17 Applicants ' Exhibit 5 in this proceeding is Rev. 2. 8/86; and 18 I'm directing your attention in particular to Appendix F of 19 Volume 4 and pages F-3 and F-4 in particular, and anything else 20 you 'd like to look at. I wonder if that refreshes your 21 recollection as to whether or not in that particular version of 22 the plan wind direction is still playing a part? 23 A (Bores) In this particular version wind direction is 24 still in, in the precautionary actions. 25 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - RECROSS 12637 1 That 's all I had, Your Honor. 2 JUDGE SMITH: The Board is very impatient with the 3 wind direction aspects of this; we could have deleted the whole 4 thing, it would not have af f ected anybody 's position in the 5 litigation. 6 MR. DIGNAN: hell, I apologize if I treaded on the 7 patience of the Board, Your Honor, the problem was that -- 8 JU'DGE SMITH: I saw it coming. 9 MR. DIGNAN: -- the witness had given a wrong answer, 10 and I thought you -- 11 JUDGE SMITH: We should have entered into it very 12 e arly and cut it out, but we wasted hours on it. , 13 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I apologize, Your Honor. If I did 14 I - it wes crear to me the witness had -- , 15 JUDGE SMITH: There 's no apology necessary. You got 16 caught up in a chain of events that none of us seemed to be ; 17 able to escape from. 18 Do you have recross? 19 MR. OLESKEY: One brief line. 20 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. OI.ESKEY : 22 Q Mr. L azarus , you j ust told Mr. Turk that your 23 conversation with Terry Harpster took place between the 19th , 24 and the 21st of August in New Hampshire; ia that right? 25 A (Lazarus) Yes, that 's correct. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - RECROSS 12638 1 Q And it wasn't a preplanned conversation, it was just 2 one where you seized the opportunity being with your former 3 boss to pass on this information; correct? 4 MR. TURK: Obj ect ion. 5 THE WITNESS: CLazarus) No, that 's not correct. 6 That 's not a correct characterization of the conversation. 7 BY MR. OLESKEY: 8 Q You 're having a conversation -- 9 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I'd like to ask the witness to 10 wait if there 's an obj ection pending. 11 JUDGE SMITH: The answer is out. , 12 MR. TURK: Yes, it is. (} 13 JUDGE SMITH: Forget it. All right. Go ahead. 14 BY MR. OLESKEY: 15 Q You were having a general conversation with him ar,d I 16 you used the opportunity to tell him about some events at the
- 17 RAC meeting three weeks earlier; isn 't that right? .
18 A (Lazarus) I did tell him about it; yes. 19 Q At a time when you were angry at Mr. Thomas and FEMA 20 personally for destroying the consensus in the RAC that existed 21 about the beach population in April; isn 't that right? 22 A CLazarus) No, that 's not correct. 23 Q You were upset about that, you 've testified to that ; 24 isn 't that right? 25 A CLazarus) At this time -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
BORES. LAZARUS - RECROSS 12639 (^} 1 Q In August after the July meeting -- 2 JUDGE SMITH: Let him answer. 3 MR. OLESKEY: Excuse me. 4 THE WITNESS: CLazarus) In August, at this time we 5 were still waiting for the revised position, and at that point G I believed that we had -- we arrived at a consensus of the RAC. 7 BY MR. OLESKEY: 8 Q Now, haven 't you testified that you were -- and your 9 memo says it, you couldn 't understand why you didn 't get the 10 revised position, even promised right after the RAC meeting? 11 MR. TURK: Well, wait a minute, you 're talking about 12 the October memo? () 13 MR. OLESKEY: No, sir. I 'm not talking -- 14 MR. TURK : You 're asking his state of mind in Tugur,t ; 15 make :sure he understands what you 're asking him. 16 MR. OLESKEY: I can 't possibly unde :: stand what , 17 you 're -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: You can do better, because I don 't 19 know, I didn't have the time reference of your question either. 20 BY MR. OLESKEY: 21 Q You 've testified, it 's in your memo, it 's in your 22 direct testimony that you expected a revised position out of 23 the RAC immediately after the July meeting because Mr. Thones, 24 according to you, promised such a position; isn 't that right? 25 A CLazarus) That is not correct. I 'd never, to my O Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
BORES, LAZARUS - RECROSS 12640 (J)
\
i recollection, said I expected it immediately after the meeting. 2 Q You expected it at some point after the meeting, and 3 your October memo says that you still don't understand why you 4 didn 't get it; isn 't that right? 5 MR. TURK: In October. 6 THE WITNESS: CLazarus) I -- 7 BY MR. OLESKEY: 8 Q You still didn't understand in October why it had 9 never been forthcoming; isn 't that right? 10 A CLazarus) That 's correct. 11 Q And you knew that the issue of the beach population 12 and where your agency and FEMA stcod was a very important one 13 in the determination of the adequacy of the plan; isn 't that (]) 14 right? 15 A (Lazarus) Yes, I knew that. 16 Q And you knew that Mr. Harpster was the principal 17 planning official for Public Service of New Hampshire, which is 18 a party to this case? 19 A CLazarus) Yes.
?.0 Q And you knew these hearings were about to begin in 21 September or October; isn 't that right?
22 A (Lazarus) I don 't -- I did not know at that time 23 when the hearings were going to begin. 24 Q You knew they were coming on in the fall of ' 8'7 ; 25 isn 't that right, sir? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~T BORES, LAZARUS - RECROSS 12641 (J
N A CLazarus) Yes. 1 2 Q And you had been cautioned by your superiors not to 3 have this kind of contact; isn 't that right? 4 MR. TURK: What kind of contact? 5 BY MR. OLESKEY: 6 Q This kind of socializing or conversation about agency 7 matters with former employees including Mr. Harpster? 8 A CLazarus) I do not consider this conversation to 9 fall into that cateaory. 10 Q You thou ,t this was okay? 11 A CLazarus) Yes, I did. 12 MR. OLESKEY: Okay. Nothing else. () 13 JUDGE SMITH: Gentlemen, you may step down. Thank 14 you. 15 MR. TURK: Your Honor. I take it the sequestration 16 order is lifted, the witnesses are free to talk about their 17 testimony. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 19 MR. TURK: I am going to allow them to leave the 20 hearing now, if they wish, they 're welcome to stay, but I see 21 no further need for them to remain unless -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: It 's all right to read the transcript. 23 if they want to, it 's all over. 24 MR. TURK : Your Honor, before they leave, may I ask 25 one -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
12642 {} 1 BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT JUDGE SMITH: Oh, if_you open up a new line. 2 MR. TURK: It 's Mr. Oleskey 's .last line, Your Honor. 3 JUDGE SMITH: It 's not necessary. It 's up to you. 4 it 's your discretion. 5 MR. TURK: One quick question. 6 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm telling you, if you open up another 7 line of inquiry. 8 Claughter) 9 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 10 MR. DIGNAN: I 'll obj ect. I don 't care what the 11 question is. I 'l l obj ect. , 12 Claughter) , 3 () 13 MR. DIGNAN: And I 'm going to give a speech. ; 14 MR. TURK: Here 's the question. 15 MR. BACKUS: I think I'll ask for clarification. : 16 MR. TURK : Mr. Lazarus -- 17 MR. BACKUS: No matter what the question is. 18 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. TURK: 20 Q In August 1987 when you had that brief discussion 21 with Mr. Harpster, did you have any anger or resentment towards
- 22 Mr. Thomas?
4 23 MR. DIGNAN: I obj ect. I obj ect for a simple reason. 24 MR. TURK: I withdraw. l 25 MR. DIGNAN: Who cares why he told it to Harpster. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 i
BORES, LAZARUS - REDIRECT 12643 1 Who cares whether they were social friends. It 's not relevant 2 to anything in this case. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Well, the question is withdrawn, unless 4 you want an answer to your question. Who cares. 5 MR. DIGNAN: Well, if the Judges would like to advise 6 me , I 'm all ears. 7 JUDGE SMITH: You 're excused, gentlemen. . 8 (The witnesses were excused.) 9 MR. OLESKEY: Your Honor, I would suggest that Ms. , 10 Weiss and I move back in view of the fact that we 're starting 11 with new witnesses. 12 JUDGE SMITH: You 've got -- don ' t fcreet your cross- ! (} 13 examinaclon plan. i 14 MR. OLESKEY: I've given it to the reporter. 15 JUDGE SMITH: All right . In addition to that, do you ' I 16 still have your handwritten one? l' 17 MR. OLESKEY: No, I tore it up when I was redoing J. i 18 this one. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, just circulate it among -- the 20 handwritten one circulate it among the parties, because the 21 purpose of publishing the cross-examination plan is to relieve r 22 any ex-parte considerations. 23 MR. OLESKEY: Do you want me to circulate both? 24 JUDGE SMITH: No, you will accomplish notice on the ] 25 other one by having it bound in the transcript. Just let them Heritage Reporting Corporat ion l-(202) 628-4088 i
I' I i .f i 1' 12644 1 see it, you know, that there 's no poison barbs in there or ! 2 anything. l 3 MR. OLESKEY: I think Ms. Keough should have a copy. ) 4 I did tailor up -- l i- .l l 5 JUDGE SMITH: We11, there 's one right there. I i , ! 6 MR. OLESKEY: Oh, okay. j l 7 (Mass. AG cross-examination plars l 8 on Bores and Lazarus follows:) 9 l i i i
- 10 l e
i i 1- ! 5 !' 1? l i G 23 i i 14 ! t 15 ! i ! i 16 : l i- ) i 17 l i 18 i 19 e 20 r i
- 21 i
! l 22 j i i 23 I l' 24 ! s ! 25 e L l l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 t i h N
. s o - J. ,
~
' Ustd a teLMa ss a chu se t t s _A t t o r ney Jene r a l_ / -
Cross-Examination Plan ; j Robert Bores, William Lazatus, NRC ' Beginning May 20, 1988 I. Robert-Bores Detailed examination on his October 15, 1987'"historical" memo to S. Turk, NRC OGC, its 17 attachments, and his direct testimony May 18-19, 1988 to ALSB. I
- i. Establish Bores
- pertinent experience; 5 11. positions and roles at NRC; iii. NRC reporting structure; iv. RAC consideration beach population issue 1985 - 1988
)
and NRC involvement in this RAC process and related f e : s proceedings (e.g., EPZ Coordination meetings); [ 1 v. knowledge historical "NRC position" on, and evaluation j j of beach population issue; ; vi. NRC relationship / involvement with FEMA outside RAC f . meetings on this issue; sequestered examination on April 15 and July 30, 1987 RAC meetings. 3
- II. William Lazarus
- 1. Examination same as Bores, above, to extent relevant, including sequestered examination on April 15 and July 30, 1987 RAC meetings;
- C:) !
I [ i
( O 11. explore his relationship after May 1986 to his former boss, NRC Region I official Terry Harpster (after that b date, Harpster becomes Director of Emergency Planning at Seabrook Station, immediate superior of Anthony-Collendrello); 111. explore role former NRC Region I official J. Schumacher, 3rd NRC staffer at 7/30/87 RAC meeting and Seabrook RAC member 6/86 to 1/87. III. Cross-Examination Objectives To show, inter alia: (1) NRC-FEMA cooperated in RAC process until June, 1987, f 1 to resolve long-standing, difficult, beach population , protection issues at Seabrook; context generally was
- intimidating RAC review cf various drafts of NHRERP
- Robert Bores was main player for NRC Region I. .
(2) FEMA, through RAC Chairman Edward Thomas, pressed NRC through RAC process to provide an "NRC position" on beach populaticn issue that would let RAC find NHRERP adequate on . . beach population issue when tracked against NUREG-0654 elements, especially J-9 and J-10-M, and applicable Regs. (and ultimately FEMA on reasonable assurance finding). (3) NRC Region I, especially Bores, at least from early 1986 on had few meaningful reservations about adequacy of NHRERP measures to protect beach population; NRC pushed this position strongly at RAC meetings and in memos, especially , ! () ! . t I ____ J
O Bores I (2/18/87) and Bores II (6/4/87). This effort enhanced greatly as Bores was most active, prolific and, on technical 3 issues regarding nuclear plant operations and accident consequences. By far most knowledgeable RAC member. Hence, other agencies on RAC, including FEMA, gave considerable deference to NRC views. 1 (4) Bores I, although in NRC view not an "NRC position", is crafted to look like one and was reasonably taken by RAC members, including Thomas, to be just that. This paper, which t came 14 months after Thomas's 12/31/85 memo request for just cuch assistance for RAC on beach population issue, was intended to provide basis for RAC to find NHRERP adequate on beach () population issue given, inter Elia, facially authoritative treatment and emphasis on superior centainment and risk probability assessments. (5) Bores I was not officially "cleared" or "concurred in" , i by NRC headquarters. This allowed headquarters to order its < withdrawal as any type of "NRC position", including Bores' own, in late spring 1986 following: (a) concerns by NRC CGC (Turk), who was not in original review "loop", that paper was not , a , consistent with evolving NRC position on contentions on NHRERP; (b) concerns from Attorney Turk that paper would lead to : protracted technical litigation over containment and risk probability (concerns previously voiced by NHY attorneys); (c) l 1 decision by ASLB in 1987, denying NHY petition to contract EPZ O l I t
I G
\/ from 10 miles to one mile, for failing to meet its burden of proof (petition rested in part on risk assessment studies also d
cited in Bores I). (6) Proposed revision of Bores' paper did not provide FEMA sufficient comfort on beach population issue, given stricken discussion of containment and risk possibility issues, to allow it to make a reasonable assurance finding. FEMA and NRC part i company for moment June 2, 1987, at high level interagency ' meeting in DC (EEMA: Wilkerson, Krimm, Wingo, Cumming, Thomas, i Lawless; NRC: Congel, Matthews, Nerses, Attorney Turk)(Bores and probably Lazarus, although not present, must have known of j meeting, both before and after. lioweve r , any mention of it, or gg its significance, is absent from their October 15, 1987 memos J to Turk and tneir May 18-19, 1988 direct examination). (7) Bores mails Dores II to ?EMA 6/4/87, very day NRC knows FEMA answers to contentions must be filed with ASLB, and , with obvious knowledge by NRC headquarters that FEMA headquarters has already rejected, or is likely to reject, revised decision (6/8/87 discussions) as not satisfactory for FEMA's purposes in reading reasonable assurance finding. . f (8) NRC is frustrated and angry in summer-fall of 1987 at [ FEMA position on beach population expressed 6/4/87 (and in ] t parallel testimony 9/11/87 wih ASLB). NRC uses 7/30/87 RAC ; meeting to "position" Edward Thomas on beach population issue and isolate FEMA from other RAC agencies on NHRERP adequacy on , 4 (:) ; i I l
t' i O beach population. NRC developed strategy of portraying Thomas as isolated and out of touch with RAC, and own agency, a ( strategy which results in omission or minimization of important facts and issues from process overview presented in Bores and Lazarus materials filed with ASLB on May 18, 1988 (10/15/87 memos), and in their direct testimony, and in argument that FEMA's ultimate position lacks merit if it does not follow a contrary RAC position, however expressed. i (9) Someone at NRC, possibly William Lazarus, "leaks" NRC 'l version of July 30, 1987 RAC meeting to NHY and it is obvious ' basis for Attorney Dignan's unscheduled and unexpected "voir dires" of Thomas October 7 and November 4, 1987 (October 7 is 8 { () days before Bores and Lazarus finish their historical review memos for Attorney Turk). i l . (10) NRC and FEMA "agree to disagree" over diminishing ;
~
issues regarding beach population protection in RAC meetings January 8-9 and February 29, 1988. 1 0722n i I l j
1 12645 _O V 1 JUDGE SMITH: Ladies and gentlemen, we 're ready to 2 proceed. We 'll go of f the record for j ust a moment while Mr. 3 Flynn acquaints the members of -- his witnesses with the 4 participants in the hearing. 5 MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 JUDGE SMITH: Would you rise and be sworn, please. 8 Whereupon, RICHARD KRIMM 9 GRANT PETERSON 10 DAVID MCLOUGHLIN 11 having been first duly sworn, was called as witnesses herein, 12 and was examined and testified as follows: 13 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, before I begin my direct O 14 examination I have sone documents to distribute and I want to . 15 identify the documents. 16 In the response to the request for production from 17 the Massachusetts Attorney General I claimed privilege as to , 18 two documents, the claim of privilege was later overruled and I ; 19 distributed those documents in response to the Board 's ruling. ! 20 However, it turns out that there was a second page to i 21 one of the documents which I was not aware of at that time. I 2 22 have reproduced the document in its entirety and will : 23 distribute it at this time. ; 24 The other document or the second document which I 'm : 25 about to distribute is a photocopy of Mr. Peterson 's notes of ( I I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ! I (
i L i i l l ! i ( 12646 Ii ! 1 the meeting of March 4, 1988. l i i 2 JUDGE SMITH: This -- we don 't need this; this has l. l l i j 3 not been -- j 4 MR. FLYNN: Well, it 's not in evidence. l 5 JUDGE SMITH: Right. We don't particularly want it l l 6 unless it is. , j 7 MR. FLYNN: Okay. But I will distribute that then to j 1 l i 8 the attorneys, i 9 JUDGE SMITH: All right. l 10 MR. FLYNN: I have gone over the subpoenas with each l l 11 of the witnesses and we have determined that the only documents j I ! 12 which respond to the subpoena duces tecum which have not 13 already been served on the parties is this set of notes, ar.d it l 14 is for thic reason that I em distributing tnem at this time. ; I I 15 The third document that I have is something which I { 16 undertook to obtain at the request of the parties. it is the 17 sign in log for the area of FEMA where the meeting of January j 18 19th was held. It arrived by courier service this afternoon, I 19 have not had an opportunity to make copies. I can do one of 20 two things. I can either hold it until tomorrow morning and
- 21 distribute copies then, or I can give it to the Intervenors and 22 let them make the copies with the understanding that I get the 23 original back tomorrow morning.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Is it going to be a possible exhibit in 25 the case? Heritage Reporting Corporation 9 (202) 628-4888
12647 { 1 MR. BACKUS: How do we know, we haven 't seen it. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Well, circulate it, and if it 's going 3 to be then they can -- we can arrange for copies, if not, they 4 can give it back to you. The contents possibly can be 5 stipulated to. 6 MR. FLYNN: Whatever, I 'm open to any suggestion. 7 I would like to outline for the Board the structure 8 of the examination which I intend to conduct. I will begin by 9 asking the names and titles of the witnesses; then I will go on 10 to ask them what their backgrounds are and the experience that 11 they bring to the positions that they hold, 12 I will then go into the subetance of our testimony. () 13 and I will ask the witnesces to focus on four dates, the four 14 events. The first being the filing of the statement of 15 position on June 4, 1987. 16 The next being the statement of the filing of FEMA 's i 17 prefiled testi.nony on September 11, 1907. i 18 The third event is the filing of FEMA 's supplemental I 19 testimony on January 25th, 1988. 20 And the fourth of these events is the filing of 21 prefiled testimony by FEMA on March 14th, 1938. 22 And then I will go back and ask the witnesses in turn 23 what events were significant in the development of the 24 positions that were taken at those various times. What 25 opinions, information, events, and so on, were influential. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSO!!, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12648 1 I will begin with Mr. McLoughlin because his 2 involvement predates that of Mr. Peterson. And after I have. 3 had Mr. McLoughlin take us through the period of time up 4 through the middle of March, I will go back and ask Mr. 5 Peterson to relate his involvement in the development of those 6 positions beginning in late 1987 or early 19C8. 7 The questions that I intend to put to Mr. Krimm 8 concern primarily the meeting of the January 19th, 1980, 9 because I understand that was the reason *hy he was -- his 10 presence was requested. 11 MR. OLESKEY: May I j ust inquire preliminarily 12 if -- of Mr. Flynn through Your Honor, if the general thrust of ( 13 the presentation is to get a historical view of the evolution 14 of the FEMA position? 15 MR. FLYNN: It is that, but it is something else in 16 addition. The Board has expressed concern or a desire to 17 understand what it is that -- what FEMA 's position is; why FEMA 10 has taken the position is; and what the relationship is between 19 the earlier position and the current pouition. 20 And it is my intention to develop that -- to develop 21 the reasons for t'ne dif f erent positions in this direct 22 testimony. 23 JUDGE SMITH: That 's right. That 's correct. 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4080
7 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12649 (3'^) 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. FLYNN: 3 Q Mr. McLoughlin, I 'll start with you. Will you state s' / 4 your name and title? i S A (McLoughlin) My name is Dave McLoughlin. I 'm the I 6 Deputy Associate Director for State and Local Prograne and 7 Support for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 8 Q Mr. Peterson, your name and title? 9 A (Peterson) My name is Grant Peterson. I 'm the '
- 10 Associate Director for State and Local Support Programs for the '
11 Federal Energency Management Agency. 12 Q Hr. Krimm? ; I /'} 13 A (Krimm) My name is Richard Krimm, I 'm the Assistant ,
~J !
14 Associate Director for the Office of Natural and Technological ; 15 Hazards. State and Local Programs and Support. Federal , i 16 Emergency Management Agency. 17 Q Mr. McLoughlin. - - i no , excuse me, I 'm -- I nay 18 address this question to Mr. Peterson. Can you summarize for 4 19 us what your principal responsibilities are within FEMA? 20 A (Peterson) I have a number of responsibilities as 4 , a 21 Associate Director, over a broad spectrum of programmatic 22 areas. There are approximat,ely eight areas that I believe 23 would be interested in thie Board that I deal with as the ! 24 Associate Director. l 25 The first area that I deal with is the Civil Defense I () I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 E [
7
\ j ,'t I
,) ,1 i )y ,
N .
; /+ -
,,j r fn \
< I, ,
* ' .Y"sIMW PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT '
>[.12650
- O- A 7/ for' thelOnited Stritms which is a'.1 cf the United States and
\ .) li ,
fi ffj) '
. 2, American ptr./p/ orties.' I can givy you, budget tledr'es and 5 j ) > - -
[t'3 personnel,(/f you want, but I 'l'1 nove on socia l;' ou want more , 4 I 'll give you that. , q 5 So. ivil Defense for the United Stators is the first
'l
),.
6 area. . -
. i' ,
/ -
, i .
i7 The second,, area is the Food and Shelter program for /
, 8 the United States. ,
9 The tnird is the Disaster Relief h ogram f3r the ' h
# 4 s s 10 United States which is the President 's R* Jaat'er Relief which is
' > , i 11 a response f rom the Governor 's in catastrophic events that .
,2 exceed the ability of the state and local. governments tu
/q,i '.
Q ]['\ provide resources to mitigate that disas]r. f l I have the Earthquake program for the earthquakes in 3% 1 - t 15 tye United States and American propertier , f 6 o 1E.),$ j I have the program'that is before es today, which is l'7 R iological Emergency Preparedness. t / 18 Ihave'.hefurricaneprogramsfortheUnitedStates. ; 19 The Dam Safety progreAs for the United States. The Hazardous , 20 38aterials program ls f,cr tho United States. And the Superfund in Fr
. 21 relationship to the relocation for structures and victims.
, e i,,
22 Q I 'd like ycu'to tell us what background you have that P 23 you bring to th!.s pfogram that bears on your qualifications.or 24" your familiarity with'the programs that you administer? 25 A (?eterson) I think that I would go back to probably O : i Heritage Reporting Corporation . t (202) 628-4888 [ t /
m a J i 5 KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12651 p\_/ . 1 my career in the Air Force where I served five years in the 2 United Sta+es Air Force, four years with a straight enlistment, d 3 the additional nine months was volunteered because my career 4 field was about 500 percent undermanned. 5 Q Excuse me, what period of time are you talking about? 6 A (Peterson) This is 1962 through 1966. very nearly 7 through 1966. I. served four of thoFe years in NATO in Europe.
./ 8 And my role there was a nuclear weapon specialist. I worked on L
L 9 a NATO base dealing with nuclear weapon systems in the area of 10 jnaintenance, in the area of fusing capsule insertions. those 11 type of things, training of the NATO forces, general oversight Lg 12 of the handling of those systems in NATO aircraft. [} 13 14 background. And so I have that degroe of nuclear weapons 15 Q Did any of that -- did any of the training that you
- j. 16, received in that position deal with the nature and effects of
', is 17 radiation?
18 A (Peterson) Obviously, if you 're putting your hands 19 on and in weapons you have training along those lines. , 20 Q Okay. Will you go on from that period of time, then? L 21 A CPeterson) I returned in late October -- late 1966 22 to my hometown area of Spokane, Washington, where I entered 23 into college and shortly thereafter began my own businesses. I ,, a 24 was married at the time with one small child, while the GI Bill I 25 was greatly welcomed, it was not sufficient to put me through [ A V Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
i 1 I KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12652 ) i college so I began to work in my own businesses as a Vice i l, .2 President.of a company at that time in electronics field. j l 3 I worked in the electronics field in that business l 4 for about three years at which time I sold it, which ! f l 5 capitalized me sufficiently to go to the university where I was 1 6 working on my degree. , 7 I opened my own business in 1971. l l 8 Q Excuse me. which university?
- l i
t 9 A (Peterson) Eastern Washington University. And ran a L 10 business there for 13 years, and acquired my degree at Eastern i 11 Washington University in psychology and minors in business, ! et/110 12 (Continued on next page.) l ! 3 (Il l 14 l l I i 15 l
)
I- ' l \ 17 , 18 i 19 20 , 21 22 23 [ t 24 f 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
?
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12653 T11'1 1 In 19 -- I sold that business, a part of it in 1981; 2 the remainder in 1986. I was nominated to fill a vacated 3 position at the Spokane County Commissioner level, which I was 4 nominated and went through the search process, and was 5 selected. And then ran for elected office the following year, 6 and served a four-year term as an elected official in Spokane 7 County as one of the three-men of the county commission. 8 That ran through December 31st of 1986, 1 January 9 '77. 10 Q What were the responsibilities that you executed as 11 county commissioner? 12 A CPeterson) Substantially I had been interested in 13 some of the structure in the eastern portion of the United 14 States, and the structure in the West is considerably 15 different. 16 We 're full-time county commissioners. We have the 17 responsibility of all the budgetary .spects of the county. We 18 have administration responsibilities for the county. We have 19 legislative responsibilities for the county, and some judicial 20 responsibilities, if I can put it in that term. We had the 21 responsibility of hearing all de novo hearings on all land use 22 issues that were appealed. 23 The county I resided in. 1700 square miles, 1700 , 24 square miles. Our general budget was around $100 million. We 25 had around 2200 employees, and set the budget for the county as Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
e KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12654 [ 1 well as all elected officials. 2 Q You 've ' mentioned an elective position that you held. 3 During the period of time when you lived in Spokane, what civic 4 activities did you engage in which have some bearing on the 5 work that you do now? 6 A CPeterson) Possibly in environmental issues. I 7 served on the city 's land use planning commission for six years 8 where I was chairman for two years, where all land use issues. 9 environmental impact statements, et cetera, were dealt with at 10 that level, and served in many other civic capacities such as 11 reserve police officers and presidents of chambers and those 12 types of things that you do as a businessman when you 're 13 involved with your community. l (]) 14 Q You may have already told us this, but it escaped me.
- 15 During what period of time were you county commissioner?
16 A CPeterson) From 1981 through 1986. 17 Q Have you brought us up to the point when you were 18 nominated to be associate director of FEMA? 19 A CPeterson) That 's a process that I think is often 20 misunderstood. If I could take a moment to elaoorate on that 21 precess. I would do so because it 's not something that happens 22 overnight. 23 I came to Washington, D. C. in late January. , 24 Q Of what year? . 25 A (Peterson) Of 1987, for the purpose of looking to
) ;
Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 i
i 4 KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12655 1 work at the federal level which is an area that had always , 2 intrigued me having had a lot of local experience in dealing 3 with the state legislature and county legislature. And talked 4 to many of my friends that I knew back here; had about six or 5 seven interviews. 6 After having those interviews. I went to the White 7 House and indicated that I had a desire to come to Washington, ; 8 D. C. to support the administration and have a federal position 9 in the federal government in support of that administration. 10 Went back home. Received a phone call in February 11 saying that they had been looking at my resume and they felt 12 that my resume was compatible, hand in glove, they said, wit h 13 the position of associate director for state and local programs
)
14 for FEMA, and would I be interested. 15 Q Now there has been testinony earlier in this hearing 16 about the time when you were nominated when your nomination was f 17 confirmed by the Senate and when you were sworn in. And 18 there 's an interval in there that I would like you to walk us [ 19 through. What was your relationship to FEMA between the time ! 20 (' 21 of your nomination and your confirmation? 22 A (Peterson) The formal nomination did not come until i 23 late in September, and there 's a very good reason for that.
- 24 Two reasons are that the administration wants to do a very f
l 25 extensive background check through the FBI on their Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888 , I l
l KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12656 1 presidential nominees. i l 2 Secondly, the position I hold here has significant ; a . t 3 classified roles. especially in the area of civil defense and 4 national preparedness which would require clearances of a : I 5 fairly high degree in the. departmentalization. l 6 Therefoto, the President would not nominate until all ! 7 of those FBI checks had been completed, and that took well into 8 September before those were completed and before I was 9 nominated by the President to the Senate on September 17th.
; 10 During that period of time, as you might expect, it 's .
11 very few people who can wait a year for a job to materialize, i 12 they offered a consulting position for FEMA. And the role that ; i 13 you have in that position is knowing, first off, you 're not an 14 official; secondly, you may or may not one day in time be 15 official. That depends on the President 's nominstion, the 16 hearings of the Senate, and the confirmation of the Senate. I i i 17 Therefore, you are to familiarize yourself as best > t 4 18 you can with the scope, general scope of the position that you
- 19 may hold.
! 20 I would like to make it very clear at that period of
- 21 time that I was very sensitive to the fact that I had no formal 22 authority, and that Mr. McLoughlin had all of the authorities ;
r 23 that were rightly his as the acting associate director through I f 24 that period of time. [ 25 Q Can you elaborate a little bit on that? l o Corporation l Heritage Reporting i (202) 628-4088 i
?
i
i h l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12657 1 What steps did you take to preserve that distinction , 2 that you 've j ust explained to us? 3 A (Peterson) First, I made it very pointedly clear to i 4 Mr. McLoughlin that he was in charge, and that I would never 5 place him in any position where he had to be concerned about 6 who was making the-calls; that that would be disruptive, and ; 7 that was not my style. 8 And he concurred that that was appropriate, and even i 9 to the extent when we had meetings that I would attend, he ! 10 would always assume the chair position which is a physical 4 11 position in the conference rooms, et cetera. 12 Q And when were you confirmed? 13 A (Peterson) I was sent -- my name was sent forward on (~} 14 September the 17th. I had my hearing before the Senate on 15 December the ist. Then there is a several week waiting period i 16 while all the members of that committee reflect upon the t i I 17 hearing and the hearing process. 18 Then they nominate, or rej ect to nominate the name to i 19 the Senate. full Senate. I believe that happened -- it went i 20 forward on December the 17th, and I think I was the only person 21 that went forward with unaninous subcommittee vote at that [ 22 time. and the confirmation was on December the 19th, of l 23 December. 1 24 There is another process that you have to go through 25 before you are formally in the position, and that is, you have f ([) l Heritage Reporting Corporation ! 3 r (202) 628-4888
I KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12658 O 1 to go through a swearing-in ceremony. You have to have that 2 documented and notarized, and that process was not completed 3 until January the 5th of this year, and that was my official 4 day in FEMA. S Q I will now turn to Mr. McLoughlin. 6 How long have you held the position that you now 7 hold? ' 6 A CMcLoughlin) I became the deputy in state and local 9 programs in August of 1982 10 Q How long have you worked for the United States j , 11 Government? 12 A (McLoughlin) Joe. next week I will finish 31 years {} 13 14 with Uncle Sam. Q I 'd like you to walk us through the experience that i 15 you 've had with the government, and I 'm not asking you for - 16 intimate details of 31 years of service, but I want you to 17 concentrate on those positions that you 've held that have some J j 18 bearing on the work that you do now. ; 19 A CMcLoughlin) I started -- the first half of my l 20 career was in the Civil Defense Staff College and associated ; 21 training activities, essentially in Battle Creek. Michigan. So f 22 I spent 14 years there. Most of that time was spent with 23 respect to the technical aspects of weapons, weapons effects. 24 particularly radioactive fallout. 25 JUDGE SMITH: May I intarrupt for just a moment. l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 j t
12659 {} 1 THE WITNESS: KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT (McLoughlin) Sure. 2 JUDGE SMITH: I know that time is precious to these 3 gentlemen and I also know that he's prepared a professional 4 background which is attached to the supplement to the FEMA 5 testimony. I assume everybody's read it and you can simply 6 offer it into evidence if you wish, t 7 It 's your call. I 'm j ust thinking about your own l 8 desire to save time. 9 MR. FLYNN: I 'm not prepared at this moment to offer 10 it. 11 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 12 MR. FLYNN: I have it. I think this will be more () 13 expeditious. 14 BY MR. FLYNN: 15 Q You may continue. r 16 A (McLoughlin) With that admonition, let me simply be 17 brief. 18 I spent also five years as the deputy regional
- r 19 director in one of our regions.
4 20 Q Excuse me. What period of time are we talking about? : 21 A (McLoughlin) Up until 19 -- the first half of my 22 career was up through 1971. That was about 14 years, and I 23 spent that in the training business, principally on weapons 24 effect and emergency management activities. L 25 My whole career has been in emergency management. l Heritage Reporting Corporation ! f (202) 628-4888
12660 (} KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 1 I then apent five years as the deputy, or as the 2 deputy regional director in one of the regions, and then came 3 to Washington to work for a second of the agencies that , 4 ultimately became FEMA. But during that three-year period, I 5 spent two years of that on the President 's Reorganization Task- i 6 Force that brought FEMA into existence, that created FEMA. 7 When FEMA was then created in '79, I became the 8 director of training for FEMA for about 18 months, until a 9 change in the administration, 10 I then worked -- ran one of the offices in state and , il local programs and support. And in '82, was asked to be, by ! , 12 the then political appointee, the deputy director for state and () 13 local, to keep -- 14 Q Who was the political appointee? 15 A (McLoughlin) It was Lee Thomas. , 16 I have worked for three political appointees in this 17 administration: Lee Thomas, who is now at EPA; Sam Speck, who 18 is now the president of Muskingum College in Ohio; and Grant 19 Peterson. ; 20 In between those three people, I served in between i 21 Lee Thomas and Sam Speck. I served for a year as the acting f 22 associate director. Between Sam Speck and Grant Pederson, I j 23 served for about a year and a quarter as the acting associate [
! I I 24 director.
2 : i 25 The importance of that part is it occurred -- Sam [ () !
; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G2 8- 4888 l
t 1
, _ _ _ _ . _ . - . . _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ , . . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ ,_,.____.m. ,,,,,m._, , , _ , . . _ _ , , , - - . _ _ _ , _ _ _ .
h . f l 12661 4 {} 1 KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT left in about December of '86, and Grant, as just pointed out. 2 was sworn in in January of '88, and I served in that interim 3 period of time -- I 'm sorry. Sam left in September, not 4 December. September of '86. 5 And it was during much of that time that our early t 6 formation of positions on the Seabrook issue were being formed 7 within FEMA. 8 And so I now occupy the normal position I have, which 9 is deputy associate director. 10 Q We have referred to the program within FEMA that 4 11 deala with Seabrook as the Radiological Emergency Preparedness ; i 12 Program. ) () 13 A (McLoughlin) Right. And within FEMA. we call it the REP program so 14 Q 15 everyone will understand what I mean by the REP program. t 16 What other responsibilities besides the REP program [ 17 do you currently exerciss? , 18 A (McLoughlin) Well, essentially, in being Grant 's : 19 deputy, or deputy to any one of the associate directors, it is, , 20 in effect, to deal with the entire range of activities the same 4 1 i 21 as he does. I don 't direct. We have individual assistant 22 associate directors like Mr. Krimm who deal with the day-to-day $ 23 direction of the individual program elements. Dick is l 24 responsible for the REP program. 25 My job is to assist Grant in what he aska me to do. [ O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
?
I
~
KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12662 1 and also I have a whole series of day-to-day kinds of things 2 that we have shared the responsibilities for in order to free ; 3 his time to deal with policy-level issues, which is what a L 4 presidential appointee is expected to do. 5 Q I'll now turn to Mr. Krimm. 6 How long have you held the position that you now 7 hold? 8 A (Krimm) Since September 1981. i 9 Q And can you describe for us briefly what your current 10 responsibilities are? 11 A (Krimm) Certainly. I am responsible for five 12 programs: the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, () 13 the National Hurricane Preparedness Program, the National Dam 14 Safety Program, a Hazardous Materials Program, and the 15 Radiologiual Emergency Preparedness Program. 16 In addition for FEMA. I chair several inter-agency 17 committeen; one of them being the Federal Radiological
) 18 Preparedness Coordinating Committee which is composed of nine 19 other federal agencies which make recommendations to FEMA on radiological emergency preparedness and planning relating to l
20 21 state and local governments. 22 I also am the FEMA co-chair of the FEMA-Nuclear ! 23 Regulatory Commission Steering Committee. 24 Q How long have you worked for the United States l 25 Government? i
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
12663 {} 1 A KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT (Krimm) Including two years in the Army. 19 years. 2 Q When did you first become involved with radiological 3 emergency preparedness? 4 A (Krimm) September 1981. Prior to that time. I was 4 i 5 involved with the National Flood Insurance Program. I was the 6 assistant administrator for the National Flood Insurance 7 Program which is a program designed to provide flaor insurance 8 to people living in flood-prone areas. In return, the local 9 governments adopt land use measures to guide people out of the 10 flood plains. i il So, I 've been really -- and part of that time I was a 12 involved in insurance. So for 23 years I've been involved in 4 () 13 risk n.anagement. I 'll now turn back to Mr. McLoughlin. 14 Q 15 You heard my statement earlier about the four focal 16 points of the testimony which I wish to develop. I will ask 17 you to focus first on the statement of position which FEMA 18 filed on June 4, 1987. 19 My question is, what events and opinions and other 20 influences were significant in the development of that 21 position? 22 A (McLoughlin) The thing that I understand my mission 23 to be here is to -- is to lay out basically the things tnat 24 impacted me as having to be accountable for the decisions that 25 FEMA was making at that point. O Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
h KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12664 l O 1 I want to make a couple of early statements about 2 that. Joe, but I want to be sure that that is accurate, and I ! 3 state that so that if it 's not accurate on the part of the 4 judges. that I can focus my comments as precisely as I can. , i 5 Q Well, that was my intention in asking the question. 6 yes. 7 A (McLoughlin) Okay. The first point I want to make , 8 as a background statement has to do with our -- my view of our : 9 process as it relates to the regional vice -- yes, regional 10 assistance committee, or RAC activity. t 11 My view is that the RAC is indeed advisory to FEMA. 12 Its role is advisory tu FEMA. That the FEMA chair in each of , 4 our regions is intended to make the decision, and that (} 13 decision, in effect, will stand for FEMA unless it is 14 15 overridden with cause, or with reason by the regional director. 16 In the headquarters -- those decisions in the region 17 are all submitted to the headquarters. The headquarters can f i 18 and has overruled regional decisions. RAC chair, but again it 19 is with reason or with cause. I 20 It is important in my mind to state that because it { 21 will impact the decisionmaking process that we used. 22 The second point that I want to make, and I am going 3 not be -- try, in order to be sure that I weave a thread that ; 23 24 has a logic to it and a rationale to it, in my mind at least. l r 25 I will try to hit only the high points as I go through. l Heritage Report i ng Corporation
'202) 628-4888 t
i.
I i KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12665 i I don't intend to try very much in the way of i 2 explaining these in detail. I 'm sure within the next couple of ; 3 days I'll have adequate opportunity' to describe those in I 4 sufficient detail, but at the moment I want to hit the high + 5 points so that there are some stepping stones that we can -- i 6 that I can trace. - 7 The second point I want to call to your attention is 8 the Christenbury memo to Spence Perry, our general counsel at I 9 the time, in June of '86. The Christenbury memo had four l 10 conclusions to it that dealt with dose savings, and no minimum , 11 evacuation time estimates, the full range of accidents, and no j t 12 particular times for completion of protective actions. But ; (} 13 14 those are not necessarily the key elements that impacted me in the early decisionmaking process, t 15 Earlier in that menn there is a statement that says 16 something to the effect, without quoting it precisely, that the l t < 17 overall objective of emergency planning from the NRC standpoint i 18 is to provide maximum dose savings. l 19 Now, that is going to play a role in my later [ 20 decisions. That 's the reason I want to call attention to it t 21 now. 22 The next point that I would like to make is that I 23 was aware in July of the July '86 CLI-86-13 decision on the j 24 part of the Commission itself, the Nuclear Regulatory ; 25 Commission. which says in effect that their regulations do not i t Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 t i [
p._._.__- . . _ . - - - - - - U 12666 ! l KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN --DIRECT O 1 require preset minimum dose and minimum ETE. I will use ETE if 2 that 's acceptable with everybody, meaning evacuation time i 3 estimates. ; l I 4 Q It is acceptable so long as it 's clear. l 4 . l i [ 5 A (McLoughlin) Okay. l 9 i !. 6 But I have another question for you, and that is, you j Q 7 just said that you were aware of the Commission decision i 8 CLI-86-13. 9 hhen did you become aware of it? 10 A (McLoughlin) Joe. ! wish I had an answer to that. ! i 11 The only honest answer I can give you is I am not sure. There l l > l 12 are -- in the course of events in our decisionmaking process. 13 there are new -- thcr: $s always new information that I become 14 aware of at each meeting, undoubtedly. I simply do not know i l 15 when I became aware of that, and I would be less than candid if l 16 I suggest anything else. j 17 But I was sufficiently aware of it early in the f I 18 process f rom our staf f people that my belief is that it was a 19 key decision element. I l Elli 20 (Continued on next page.) 21 i 22 1 i 23 s 24 25 i O l Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) G28-4088
, c
,Y~
i i I 12667 {} t/112 1 KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT Now, I want to -- I certainly was aware in '86 and f 2 early '87 of Seabrook and the plans being submitted, and the 3 fact that the RAC is normally operating. 4 4 Typically what would happen is that I would not be 5 normally aware of any specific issues in the RAC -- in the G program until it became a problem. You know, as long as 7 everything is moving along satisfactorily. Dick is doing that 8 job on a day-to-day basis with his people; and my task across l 9 the board, at that time, deals with all of the programs that ! 10 Grant has mentioned. 11 Therefore. I nornelly would not get involved until en , 12 issue began to get surfaceo that it became apparent that I 13 needed to get involved with.
)
14 So that the RAC meetings would normally happen, and a ! , 15 lot of RAC meetings have happened that I never know anything 1G about. 17 My earliest recollection of how the Seabrook beach l 18 population issue, which I understand to be the focus of this. 19 these deliberations was probably -- it was after a meeting that 20 cur headquarter staff. Dick and his people had, with the NRC on I 21 May 19th of '87. 22 And the issue that was being brought to me at that 23 time is that, the NRC was withdrawing the Borea 's memo of f 24 February 18th. Known I assume by everybody here, as it is to ; 25 me, by Bores 1. I will refer to that and if that 's not Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886 f i i L
i i i I i KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12668 l 1 appropriate, then you help me. 2 Q We understand what you 're ref erring to. 1 3 A (McLoughlin) Okay. Now. I did not -- I was not l F 4 aware of Bores 1 memo before that. I want to make that clear. j 5 I was not even aware before May of the April 15th RAC neeting ; ) 6 when it happened, because subsequent to this, if I in 7 hindsight, what I know now about the April 15th meeting is f 8 that, f rom the RAC chairman 's standpoint in the region, that ! I a 9 the -- there was agreement on the part of the RAC and Ed Thomas , t 10 to the position that FEMA would hold relative to the beach l 4 11 population. And it was a positive issue. Obviously. I don 't ' i 12 want to say positive finding. because we don 't make findings on 13 the basis of individual criteria elements like J-9 and J-10-M. (]) 14 which I'll get to in a few minutes. 7 15 But the -- so in May I was brought the issue of, that , 16 NRC was withdrawing the Bores 1 memo and was going to replace 17 it with a new memo. a significant and salient feature which was , 18 to withdraw the containment. ! 19 Q Did you attend that meeting? l 20 A (McLoughlin) No. I did not attend the May 19th ! l l 21 meeting. I did not. It was subsequent meetings that Dick and [ 22 his people brought to ma after that, which is typically the way ! 23 it would have happened. I normally would not have attended l l that meeting. ; 24 I So, you're relating your understanding of what took 1 25 Q ! ( l l ! Heritage Reporting Corporation ; i (202) 628-4868 l J
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12669 1 place at the meeting? l 2 -A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. 3 Q Go ahead. . 4 A (McLoughlin) What was reported to me from that 5 meeting. Now, at that point. which was, you know, a few weeks 6 -- a couple of. weeks. actually, before we filed on June 4th. 7 the -- Ed Thomas ultimately came to a meeting-that we had on 8 the 2nd of June. And we had some meetings before that time. 9 And as I understood the issues at that point, that Ed 's 10 position had been that as long as the containment was there he 11 was quite satisfied with the beach population protection issue 12 because there was, in the memo, a low probability of failure of 13 the containment, and a very unlikely bypass of that 14 containment. I understood that, 15 In our meeting of January -- I 'm sorry, June 2. which 16 was the meeting that we had in a relatively short period of 17 time after I became aware of the problem, that we tried to 18 bring to resolution then what cur statement of position was 19 going to be. That I understand the Board had asked for at that 20 point. The -- 21 Q I 'd like to focus on that 22 A (McLoughlin) Sure. 23 Q -- meeting because -- obviously, because it was just 24 a couple of days before the position was filed -- 25 A (McLoughlin) Right. ! O l l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
r KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12670 I O i Q -- it was instrumental in the development of the 2 position. Who was there? 3 A (McLoughlin) Dick Krimm. Bob Wilkerson, who is no 1 4 longer with us but who was the Division Chief for the RERP 5 program. Craig Wingo, who was a Branch Chief for Field , 6 Operations in the RERP program. Ed Thomas, myself, and to be 7 honest about it. I don 't know if Bill Cumming was there of f our 8 legal counsel staff or not. I failed to check that with Bill. 9 and I should have but I didn 't ; so I don't know if Bill was 10 there. But he was instrumental ultinately, and I will tell you l t 11 how in a moment. l 12 Q Okay. And how long did the meeting last? i [} 13 14 A suppose. (McLoughlin) Oh, it was couple three hours. I Dick, you were there. As far as I know, it was a l 15 couple three hours in duration. 1G Q And can you summarize the dif ferent views that were ! 17 expressed? ! 18 A (McLoughlin) Yes. Ed Thones clearly took the view [ 19 that J-9 and J-lO-M had not been met. Significant in his 20 consideration was the containment factor, as I understood it. ! 1 i j 21 He was concerned that with the withdrawal, which we -- I want 22 to make sure it 's clear that we had not received the withdrawal 23 memo yet. in fact we did not receive that withdrawal memo until j i 24 the 4th of June. But we did know it was coming, and it was j f 25 inst runent al in our decision, knowing the fact that it was l ( Heritage Repo rt ing Corporation (202) G20-4880 i
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12671 1 going to be -- the containment feature was going to be removed. 2 And I also am well aware, as I'll tell you later, the 3 fact that the NRC continues to argue that that was not 4 instrumental, the cont ainment. in their decision, but I will S deal with that in a few minutes. 6 Now, the advice that I was getting, particularly from 7 Bob Wilkerson and Craig Wingo is that all options -- all 8 options had not been fully explored for maximum dose savings. 9 The reason I mentioned the Christenbury before is 10 that Bob and Craig were clearly using -- I don't know if they 11 made reference a lot to the Christenbury memo, but I do know 12 that they were dealing with the issue of maximum dose savings. () 13 and whether or not we had dealt with the issue of maximum dose 14 savings. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Excuse me, can I interrupt. 16 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Yes. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Would you please try to remember to use 18 last names, 19 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Okay, excuse me. Yes. 20 sir. 21 MR. FLYNN: I was about to ask him -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: It 's going to be more consistent with 23 the rest of the record and we 're not always clear who the -- 24 who all of the first namec are. 25 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) All righty. O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
f 12672 {} i KRIMM. PETdRSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT BY MR. FLYNN-2 Q I also wanted to interrupt you and ask you what ] 3 positions Bob Wilkerson and Craig Wingo held? i I I 4 A (McLoughlin) Okay. Bob Wilkerson was a Divisian ;
$ Chief reporting directly to Dick Krimm and responsible ! 6 specifically for our Technological Hazards Program. He had l I
7 rerponsibility for RERP. and responsibility for hazardous 8 materials. l t 9 Craig Wingo worked directly for Bob Wilkerson, and he ! 10 was one of two branch chiefs. Craig Wingo runs the Field ; 11 Operations Branch in the Division. 12 Q Okay. Now, I interrupted you, go back to the
- f 13 expression of views in the meeting?
.( }
14 A (McLoughlin) Okay. I 've out lined what Ed 's views - 16 were. I began to outline what Bob Wilkerson and Craig Wingo 's 16 views, because they were essentially the same as I interpreted l 17 them. So I have lumped those together as they impacted on what 18 decision I had to make; that all options were not fully : 1 19 explored. And they kept -- I remember that explicitly because I 4 20 that 's a dif ferent issue than whether or not the containment I ; j 21 protected people out there. j I 22 And it ultimately becomes later on, in the sequence j ^ 23 of events, an important issue that I think has been an j i 24 important element throughout our decisionmaking process. [ ! 25 The second thing that I was well aware of at that j f i Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l I
12673 {} i KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT time, because I had heard this long before we ever went into 2 this and the beach population became an issue, there were a j 3 number of alternatives that had been expressed. And I don 't 4 know for sure who all was expressing them, but I was certainly 5 aware of the issues of the potential for seasonal closing of 6 the Seabrook facility from May 15th to September 15th as one 7 possible way of dealing with the beach issue. 8 I was aware of sheltering, additional sheltering 9 aspects. I even recall discussions of skating rinks at one [ 10 point in time being t,uilt as a pctential way to deal with this. I 11 There were issues of alternate evacuation routes that 12 were considered. And I may be in error on this. I may -- and I 13 acknowledge that up front, but my belief is that I also had (]) 14 heard that the state might litigate the special containment 15 features at Seabrook even if the NRC decided not to do that. 16 Now, I am not as clear on the other one as I am on 17 the first three. But I am well aware of the first three that 18 were definitely issues that were being considered. 19 Q In that meeting? l
- 20 A (McLoughlin) In -- well. they were brought up in 21 that meeting. yes. They were clearly brought up in that 22 meeting.. But even before that meeting, and before May 19th. I 23 was aware of Seabrook. I mean, that 's my j ob to be partially 24 aware of these things, even -- and the problems had not been 4
25 brought to me, and I don 't think I necessarily focused on them. C:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ~_ -
i l KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12674 i but I certainly was aware of these other things being 2 discussed, because I 'd had discussions with both Henry Vickers 3 and discussions with Ed Thomas on these issues. And I don 't l 4 -- and I can 't remember when. 5 The third point that I would make out of -- that I 6 think was instrumental at that point, and the thing that really 7 was of concern to ne was the consistency of our decision at 8 this point. 9 One of the questions had asked is whether or not we
- 10 had ever made a positive finding with respect to any facility 1
11 other than Seabrook. Ed generally took a position that 12 Seabrook was unique, and therefore, we ought to treat it () 13 uniquely. 14 Craig Wingo and Bob Wilkerson, generally speaking. 1 15 viewed this as a more -- much more generic kind of issue. 16 because in San Onofre. in particular, that they brought up at 17 the meeting we had made a positive finding and shelters were 18 not required for the beach population. 19 Now, clearly the beach population was a much less 20 number than my understanding is, and I know there 's some 21 divergence of views on the number of beach population -- the 22 amount of beach population at Seabrook, but still at San Onofre 23 they were less. 24 The concern I had, though. is what is the dif f erence 25 between these two? And what I remember being pointed out to me O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t f , KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12675 l
) i is that, in the cats of San Onofre there were no shelters; we i
p 2 didn't have the option. In the case of Seabrook, there are , 3 shelters out there. Certainly, there are facilities out there ! r 4 that potentially could offer shelter. And therefore, the thing i- 5 in my mind was that, that we needed to be sure that we were l 6 treating as much as we can generically the issues as t 7 consistently as we can. ; j 8 Our job is to deal with the adequacy of offsite j 9 preparedness of public health and safety. That 's why maximum j 3 10 dose sticks in my mind as a Key feature. 11 Now. Bill Cumming. I don 't want to characterine this 12 that he gave me this at the meeting, but if he was not at that : I .i 13 meeting. which I should have asked him, clearly he was giving [ i 14 this advice very, very early. His legal advice said, your i
' t I 15 position, ultimately turned out the position that we took on 1
- 16 June 4th, was legally supp.rtable and defendable. !
I 17 What he said, as I recall, was that this may very [ t ; ! 18 well turn on a legal issue, and the one strategy that we have i 1 I i 19 is to deal with this essentially as a legal matter or as a l i 20 legal issue. [ Programmatically, to be honest about it, that -- f, 21 i 22 because I come f rom a program and not the legal side -- that is j 23 not something that I would automatically aump at. because it 24 seems to me that we ought to be more substantive in the way in , t ! 25 which we deal with this issue. A nd I 'm no t , you know, in j l Heritage Reporting Corporation f' (202) 628-4888
- t
- _ . _ _ _ _ - = _ _ _ _
f KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12676 i hindsight I may change my views given all of the issues that i 2 are associated with this, but at that time. I thought that the 3 programmatic thrust was the proper way to go. 4 Now, the key to me -- there were several keys, and f-S I'm going to wrap up June 4th, first of all, there was no time 6 pressure on us, in my judgment. Other than what the Board asked 7 in the way_of giving this on a certain time frame. There was 8 no pressure. by that I mean, there was no pressure on FEMA 9 dealing with the New Hampshire plan, principally because we had r 10 SS exercise deficiencies, which I was well aware of at that 11 time. We had over 30 plan inadequacies. And it vas -- I 12 . ouldn't understand why this one issue was so much more than 13 al1 the other SS and the 30 such that al1 of them had to be l 14 corrected before we dealt with any kind of positive finding, 15 because we don't make positive findings on the basis of 16 individual decisions. 17 I subsequently have learned that this is a much 18 bigger issue, and it has expanded into a much bigger issue than 19 I might have recognized at that point. 20 Q In what sense is it a bigger issue? 21 A (McLoughlin) Well, much more focus on the beech 22 population as a single inadequacy in the plan. I have not 23 taken the time to look at all the- other 30 inodequecies, but my 24 guess would be, and clearly labeled a guess, that if' I did that 25 there would be other things in there that I would think may be O l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4880 l l l mI iF'1 i . . g . i.L.I.dE.
....--_-l.-.l.E...6 l
l l KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGitLIN - DIRECT '2677 1 even as important as this one, to be sure that we 're cleared up 2 as well as the shelter beach population. 3 Please believe me. I am not in any way, shape or form 4 suggesting that this is not a crucial issue, and that over 5 100.000 people on the beach is not a crucial issue with respect 6 to public health and safety; it clearly is. 7 But it did surprice me that this issue got noved into 8 the arens of -- probably treads onto dangerous grounds -- but 9 as the principal area of focus for FEMA 's consideration. 10 Q- Before I interrupted you, you were telling us how the 11 issues that you identified in that meeting of June 2nd were 12 brought to some resolution? (} 13 14 A (McLoughlin) Okay. The first thing that was in my mind was that there -- I didn 't aee any time pressure with 15 respect to this issue, you know, other than getting the Board 16 what it had asked for. It seemed to me that tio Board was not 17 meeting, that there was still planty of time for us to resolve 18 this issue, and for us to begin to -- well. to resolve the 19 issue, let me .1ust leave it at that. 20 The other thing that was in my mind is that I was 21 convinced at that point that we had not, based on the questions i i 22 I had asked, we were -- we had not looked at the shelter option l 23 fully. because it simply was not explored, as I understand it. 24 in the plan. 25 Now, if our -- it 's why the Christenbury issue in ( ' l l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l I:
~ - - - - - __ _ _
,a b
T 4 g3 i
l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CIRECT , 12678
%-)
i that, memo was important to me, and it remains important to rue,
- j. ! v l- 'ard I hope I stay consistent with that isste clear up to th9 3 thil end meetings that I'll describe in a moment, that it 1$
<f' s 4 important to us to look at the'- ,whether or not we have dealt 5 with options that will provide maximum dose savings. ;
6 S Now, we cannot specify what those maximum dose -
) 4 i
7 savligs are, but we can look at the options that will pcovide . 8 obse savings. y ,
! t
',4 l I agreed that we would go ahead :
9 ' Now -, so we filed. 10 and file the statement of position which said that/ until thd 11 beach populition issue is resolved FEMA could qut make a
! L' 4
4
, 12 finding of reasonable assurance. .
13 I ssw absolutely no reason at that point in time to (J~) 14 overrule the RAC chairman. I had pointed out in the beginning i j - :15 that it is important in my j udgment that if I was going to 6 ,
. 16 overrule our RAC chairman I needed a reason to do that', hndI
", so 17' 'didn 't have a reelon at that point.
18
# It seemed to me that while my views were son >ev h t 19 dif f erent than Ed Thomas 's views. Ed relied heavily, as I 20 recall, on the containment feature. My concern was more 21 directed towards the fact that the shelter option had not been I
1 22 completely explored. 23 Now, so that we -- while we had like views, I think. 24 at that time, we may have had different reasone for those 25 views. That 's not to suggest that I didn 't think containment
,]- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, . _ . - ._ _ . _ _ _ . _ , , _ _ _ , _ . . . . _ _ _ - , - - _ ~ _ _ . _ . , . - _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - ~ _ , _
\ /~') ,
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12679
-\_/
1 was a decent issue, because I think it was, in his case. 2 Now, I want to -- 3 Q Well, I think we were at the point where we can go on s 4 and talk about the September position, but I sense that you 5 have something more to tell us? 6 A (McLoughlin) Yes. I want to say one more thing and 7 then I 'll, then, move to where you want me to. 8 I want to acknowledge the fact, because it 's relevant 9 to this period in time, on the 5th of June Governor Sununu 10 called. It was not the first time we had talked with Governor 11 Sununu, he had been in to meet with the director before. He 12 had called us before. In fact, I had talked with him, with Sam () 13 Speck at some earlier periods of time. Governor Sununu was 14 concerned about the fact that he j ust became aware of FEMA 's
-15 filing and FEMA 's position; and he became aware of thmt through 16 the press.
17 One of the commitments that we had made to him in the 18 previous meetings when he was explaining his views and which 19 he 's entitled to, certainly, and we would always support that. 20 that we would not try to deal with issues in the press. From 21 the headquarters 's standpoint we have clearly not tried to deal 22 with this issue in the press until after this hearing. And 23 that 's come at some great expense to us, by the way. 24 But it seems important that if we 're in a litigation 25 process that we make our sworn statements first and then deal O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12680 1 with this as a press issue. 2 Q Can I get you back to the call f rom Governor Sununu? 3 A (McLoughlin) Yes, okay. The -- Governor Sununu was 4 concerned about his not having known about this ahead of time 5 and his having found out in the press. He reminded me of our 6 commitment that he would not find out significant issues in the 7 press. And so I committed to him at that time that we would 8 send him a letter outlining our position, which we subsequently 9 did on the 11th of June, in a letter from Ed Thomas to Dick 10 Strome. 11 Now, I want to make one point about that letter, too, 12 because it 's crucial in my mind later. That letter said a 13 couple of things. First of all it said, if any decisions that (~) U ' 14 are included -- any of the information that you find, however 15 you find it, you believe that we have used inconsistently or in 16 the wrong way, please let us know, so we have a chance to deal 17 with that. 18 Secondly, it asked him specifically what New 19 Hampshire had in mind with respect to seasonal closing, 20 shelters, and alternate evacuation routes. We asked for that
-21 information on the lith of June, 22 Now, to the best of my ability, that 's what I 23 remember were the significant salient features up through that 24 point in time.
Would this be a good time to take a ' 25 JUDGE SMITH: ( C) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
__m. _ _ __ _.. ._ . KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12681 1 short afternoon break? 2 MR. FLYNN: Yec. Your Honor. 3 JUDGE SMITH: You 're going to change subj ect matter? 4 MR. FLYNN: Yes. 5 JUDGE SMITH: Ten minutes, please. 6 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) et/112 7 (Continued on next page.) 8 4 9 10 11 12 , 13 14 15
- 16 f
17 1 18 ; 19 ! l 20 j 21 22 23 > 24 l 25 l 0 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _. ____ _ _ , , _ , _
/~s KRIMM,-PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12682 U
.T113 1 JUDGE SMITH: Proceed. 2 MR. FLYNN: Thank you. Your Honor. 3 BY MR. FLYNN: 4 Q Mr. McLoughlin, I now want to go into the subj ect of 5 the testimony which FEMA filed on September 11, 1987, and I 'd 6 like you to explain for us what significant events occurred and 7 what the influences were that shaped that testimony. 8 A (McLoughlin) Joe, let me just make -- I was 9 admonished a couple of times by a couple of people in the break 10 that I speak quite rapidly. I don 't want to be discourteous to 11 anyone here, but I must be able to move at the rate that I feel 12 comfortable with, and my thought processes go. Go -- (} 13 JUDGE SMITH: I think you 're doing all right. Okay. 14 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) 15 Claughter.) 16 MR. FLYNN: Let the record reflect that you were not 17 admonished by the Board. 18 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) All right. 19 MR. DIGNAN: And those are the only admonishments 20 that count. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, as a matter of fact, Judge 22 Harbour had a conversation with the reporter. And as I 23 understand, you 're not having any trouble, are you? 24 THE REPORTER: No , sir. 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . - - - . , _ - - _ . . . - = _ , _ - - . - . . - - - - . . _ - . . .. - . . - . .-
(') v KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12683 1 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlird Okay, thank you. 2 The first point I would make about the period between 3 June and September is that as an agency at the headquarters, 4 and I believe also at the region, we did not focus on this 5 issue nearly as much as maybe we should have, but we were 6 clearly overtaken by other events, particularly in the REP 7 area. We were also overtaken by events on disasters and a lot 8 of other things in time. So I didn 't focus on this a great 9 deal until the tail end of that time period. 10 But also our REP staff did not focus on it. We hed 11 two ASLB hearings at Shoreham, the OL-3 Board and the OL-5 12 Board dealing with the exercise and the planning aspects were () 13 consuming the great bulk of our time at that point at the 14 headquarters, plus the other events that we have to carry on in 15 the REP program because of the operating sites. 16 In addition, in Region 1 we had initiated on our own 17 a review of the Massachusetts plan with respect to the Pilgrim 18 site. And the reason for that is that New Hampnhire had -- I 19 mean, sorry, excuse me -- Massachusetts had also advised us of 20 certain things relative to their plan, and we felt it important 21 for us to do that. And the Region 1 staff was essentially 22 spending a great deal of time on the Pilgrim one. 23 So as an agency, we did not spend a great deal of 24 time on the New Hampshire beach population issue. 25 Now, significant events -- well, there were three [D v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12684 1 things that were happening at that point that related to this 2 -though that I think it 's important for the Board to understand. 3 We were relooking at FEMA 's role, we were looking at 4 the issu? of reasonable assurance and its definition, and we 5 were relooking and reexamining the shelter issue. And let me 6 just say a couple of words about each of those if I can. 7 The issue on FEMA role had to do with some differing 8 discussions that we having with both Ed Thomas and Dick 's 9 staff, and others, on what our role was relative to assuring 10 maximum dose savings, and it had to do with the issue of the 11 NRC, if you remember, talks about in that CLI-86-13 issue, it 12 talks about reasonable and feasible dose savings under the 13 circumstances which were in there.
)
14 Now, what -- we were having some discussions about 15 what that meant, because, clearly. Ed had some views about what 16 it meant, and in understanding his views, I had to understand a , 17 little bit more about what our technical position was with 18 respect to the maximum versus minimum dose savings, because 19 that was important to me in terms of looking at that shelter 20 option that New Hampshire had not included. 21 We ultimately decided that it is important for us, in 22 a conclusionary way, important for us to look at a full range 23 of protective actions. Even if they are not going to be used 24 in the plan, we clearly want to see them addressed. 25 The second issue had to do with reasonable assurance. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12685 1 And Ed Thomas had sent to us a memo in October of '86 raising 2 some fundamental issues on reasonable assurance. We owed Ed an 3 answer. And so we were having discussions with your shop, with 4 our general counsel 's shop and our program people and others on 5 this issue. And it essentially boiled down to this, if I can 6 streamline it, to 350.5(a) and (b) parts. 7 350.5Ca) says -- 8 BY MR. FLYNN: 9 Q Excuse me. Just for the sake of the record, you 're 10 referring to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 11 Section 350.5(a) and 350. 5(b) ? 12 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. () 13 Q Okay. 14 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. 15 Q You may continue. 16 A (McLoughlin) Those discussions, in my mind, boiled 17 down to this, because we had long, lengthy discussions on 18 these, and it clearly continued for some time. 19 350.5(a), there wasn 't much discrepancy on. That is. 20 we look at NUREG-0654, we go down the 212 criterion elements. 21 and make judgments on those. 22 The second part of this is 350. 5(b), and that 's where 23 the -- where the differing views were coming in. Ed 's 24 position, Ed *~1omas 's posit ion, as I understood it, was that if 25 all criterion elements in 350 -- in the NUREG-0654 were met, ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
. - KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12686 1 that (b) enabled you to make some judgments using your 2 professional background as an emergency manager on the final 3 reasonable assurance finding.
4 The staff view essentially was, and one that I became 5 persuaded by ultimately, is that 's not accurate. That the way 6 in which we interpret 350.5Cb) is that if all itene in (a), in 7 that NUREG-0654 are positive, which seldom is ever the case, 8 but if they are, then we would be required to make a positive 9 finding under (b). 10 What (b) really addresses is rcost all plans do not 11 have positive -- I mean, all plans have some inadequacies. The 12 real question in (b) is what is the j udgment, in FEMA 's 13 viewpoint, prof essional j udgment of the inadequacies that we 14 have found in the plan. Are those inadequacies of such 15 substance that we ought to make a finding, a negative finding 16 versus a positive finding. 17 That 's where I ultimately became persuaded that that 18 was the most appropriate legally defendable position in that 19 discussion. 20 Q But I want you to relate this to the filing on 21 September 11, 1987. 22 Had you come to that conclusion by the time that 23 prefiled testimony was submitted? 24 A (McLoughlin) The direct answer to that question is 25 yes. ! () Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
l KRIMM,.PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT .12687 (0T I want to also acknowledge, though, that subsequent 1 2 events, as we 'sne continued to discuss this over time, -- wait a 3 minute, did you ask me September 11th because that 's -- 4 Q Yes. 5 A (McLoughlin) Okay. By that time I had reached that 6 conclusion, but it has only been reinforced more in my mind 7 subsequent to that time by continuing discussions. But I had 8 reached it. 9 Q Okay, but you understand the question is, why did you 10 file -- why did FEMA file -- 11 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 12 Q -- the testimony that it did on September 11, '87 -- () 13 A (McLoughlin) I 'm going to get to that. 14 Q -- which repeated verbatim the -- 15 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 16 Q -- statement of position of June 4th. 17 A (McLoughlin) Exactly right. At least in my mind, 18 whether or not it 's acceptable to anybody else, there is a 19 rationale in my mind which I will get to, and I take that that 20 you want me to get there quickly. 21 But it 's important for me, if I 'm going to share with 22 people what my thought processes are, I -- there are certain 23 things that I have to be able to get on the record. 24 Q Take as much time as you need. 25 A (McLoughlin) Okay. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
N- KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12688 . J .. 1 Q We want this to be complete. 2 A (McLoughlin) Okay. 3 The third issue had to do with sheltering, and we 4 were -- it wee clear in my mind at that point, and I -- we can 5 document this, I 'm confident, that there was building in our 6 technical staff an uncertainty about our knowledge of the 7 shelter issue, not as it related to Seabrook particularly, but 8 generically, in providing guidance to our regions in the 9 shelter area. 10 Dick and his people, Dick Krimm and his people had, 11 in our normal day-to-day business, we have our own management 12 information system in which we track 300 and some odd proj ects {} 13 14 that are ongoing in slips at all times. One of those proj ectc that we put in there in August of this year was e guidance 15 memorandum on sheltering. ( 16 Q August of '87? 17 A (McLoughlin) August of '87. Yes. August of '87. 18 I make that point because I want to acknowledge 19 freely that there were some issues that were troubling with 20 respect to shelter. There is no question that that was the 21 case on the part of our technical staff as well. 22 Now, I 'm well aware of the RAC meeting that occurred 23 on 7/30. July 30th of '87. I am also well aware of the fact. 24 and was well aware of the fact before the September -- the 25 September 11 filing, that the majority of the RAC was in O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12689 1 cpposition to FEMA 's position. 2 Q What was your understanding of why? 3 A (McLoughlin) It was my understanding of why, and to 4 be honest about it, I 'm not all that sure whether or not that 5 clarity was in my mind at that time. 6 When I read the Bores memo of October 15th, which we 7 didn 't get until December, and I know I 'm moving over into the 8 next period of time, and it 's hard for me always, to be honest 9 about it, to define exactly when I knew what, et cetera, and 10 I 've done the best I can to making my recollections, but I have 11 to accept the fact that my knowledge of things grows each time, 12 and it 's always hard to make sure exactly what you knew. () 13 But I was aware of the RAC meeting. I was aware that 14 the RAC was essentially saying, as I understood it, that it 15 didn't make any dif ference whether or not containment was or 16 wasn 't included in the Bores 1 memo. 17 Rather, it was that their view of the New Hampshire 18 plans at that time did indeed meet J-9 and J-10-M. 19 JUDGE HARBOUR: Their views being who? 20 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Their being the RAC, the 21 majority of the RAC, and that being everybody except three. As 22 I understand and I 'll get to later, tne opposition was 23 essentially six to three. And Department of Interior, and 24 NOAA, and FEMA were the three that took the minority view. 25 Now I want to give the RAC credit later, but I don 't O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- _ - _ _ _ - - . , - , - _. . _ _ . - - -.. - , - - - -- . , ~ - - .
(~T KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12690 \.) 1 want to give them credit at this point for really helping us 2 drive this issue, because they have done us a very real service 3 in FEMA in doing our job, but I want to comment on that later. 4 At this point in time the RAC was saying that it 5 didn 't make any dif ference whether or no+, containment was there 6 or not; that the plan itself was the issue, and not things at 7 the plant -- kind of as I understood what was going on. 8 But in my mind that was not one of the crucial 9 issues. In my mind what continued to be crucial is that the 10 shelter plan had not been fully identified and dealt with in 11 the New Hampshire planning process. 12 We had asked New Hampshire on June 11th to tell us () 13 where they were going with these three options. I outlined that 14 earlier. New Hampshire, in effect, and believes me, I 'm not 15 critical of this. I simply am not critical of anybody, and I 16 don 't want to be interpr.sted that way, I simply want to say 17 what the facts were that were available to us at that point. 18 We did not have new information from New Hampshire, 19 to my knowledge, at that point, prior to September lith, except 20 for we ultimately got submitted to us on the 4th of September, 21 not received until the 9th of September, the shelter survey. 22 Now, the fact that we received that did -- go ahead. 23 BY MR. FLYNN: 24 Q You're referring to the Stone & Webster report of 25 August -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12691 1 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 2 Q -- 1987? 3 A (McLoughlin) I wanted to come to that. I 'm 4 acknowledging that the fact that it was submitted late did not 5 influence my decision. But I was aware, had been aware, made 6 aware of this by.the staff that New Hampshire was clearly doing 7 things with the Stone & Webster shelter survey. 8 And subsequent to that, you know. I had flipped 9 through it and looked at it, but the thing that was in my mind 10 was that if New Hampshire is doing something with the shelter 11 survey, why is it not logical then that they are going to do 12 something with that with respect to dealing with the shelter 13 issue in their plans. {~} 14 So, what I was'left with -- my view of what I was 15 left with was that we began to have some troubling aspects of 16 our own analysis in this case. We came to our filing date late 17 with issues -- af ter Shoreham and Seabrook -- I 'm sorry -- 18 after Shoreham ASLBs, and after the Pilgrim issues, and we 19 began to refocus on this for our filing. 20 We had a meeting on September 1st. Ed Thomas was at 21 that meeting, essentially Dick Krimm and his staff, the same 22 people that had been at previous meetings. We agreed in that 23 meeting, we finalized a memoranda to the NRC on that date, 24 which is documentable, and if we haven 't provided it, we 25 certainly will, of September 2 that Dick Krimm sent to Frank O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 i
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12692 1 Congel at the NRC. It clearly said, please tell us what your 2 view is of how we ought to be treating the containment issue 3 and the -- ah, I need to go -- the containment issue, oh, and t 4 he seasonal closing, the seasonal closing, as the -- as a way 5 of resolving the beach population issue. We asked them for 6 that on September 2 7 As an aside, we don 't have an answer to that memo. 8 So we decided we needed that information. We did not 9 have, and I 'm concluding right now with these points. We did 10 not have an answer to that by the time we filed. 11 Two, we did not -- I did not know for sure whether 12 the NRC -- what they would tell us. We did not hpve any change 13 in the New Hampshire plans that dealt with this issue, to my ('} 14 knowledge. So we had no change from that parspective. 15 And, thirdly, we were in this bt.siness of being 16 troubled about our own position. 17 Because of all of that, we asked you, the two of you 18 right there, and you will, I 'm sure, acknowledge this, we did 19 ask you to postpone our filing on the lith of November from a 20 programmatic standpoint, the 11th of September. 21 Q When you say you, you 're ref erring to me and -- 22 A (McLoughlin) Joe Flynn. 23 Q -- Ge rge Watson? 24 A (McLoughlin) Yes. To our own general counsel staff. 25 We wanted to delay our filing to the Board, because O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4088
- KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12693 1 we were uncomfortable with -- a growing uncomfortableness with 2 our position. The problem I had was that we did not have any 3 new information; simply did not have any new information, and 4 did not have new information by which I would overrule the RAC 5 chairman. Regardless of whether or not we reached all these 6 conclusions in the same way, there was no reason to overrule 7 the RAC chairman. I did not have it at that point, and I will 8 clearly go into more depth if we need to.
9 So, you then -- our general counsel 's of fice told us 10 that they did not want to delay the hearing; did not want FEMA 11 to be responsible for delaying the hearings, and argued 12 strongly that we needed to file on September 11th. {} 13 We acquiesced to that, which is appropriate that we do that, because your view of how to deal with the Board is 14 15 better than our view is, and so we filed. 16 Clearly, we had no basis for making a different 17 judgment. And in my mind, I would have made a different 18 judgment if I 'd had a reason to do it. But I did not have a 19 sufficient set of reasons that I believe I could have overruled 20 Ed Thomas 's view at that point. 21 Q You have mentioned in the answer to my previous 22 question some technical concerns that you had. And this might 23 be an appropriate time to do it. or are we ready to go on to 24 the next event which was the supplemental testimony in January 25 of '88? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~ ~ , - . , , - . - - , . - , - - , ,
,,._.,y . , , - . . . , , - - - , , , - , , . - , , - - , , - . , , . - - - - , . , , .---p.en,.,
1 l l 8 i I [ KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12694 gg l 1 A (McLoughlin) I want to get to the technical part in i ! 2 the next sequence. ! i i 3 Q I assume it 's also relevant to that. !- i 4 A (McLoughlin) Yes, that 's correct. ; i 5 Q Then this sounds like a good time to go on to that ! j l 6 next phase, is it? 7 A (McLoughlin) Yes, Joe. I want to make one l 8 intervening statement if I can in that transition. j l i 9 I want to make my comments about Grant 's role at that i l 10 point, because it 's important, I think, for the Board to l l ! 11 understand this. i l i i l E113 12 (Continued on next page.) i 3 (1) i 14 I h
- 15 I
I l l 16 ; I I
- 1. 17 l l 18 I !
j 19 l 20 1 3 21' j l l ! 22 i ! l 4 l 23 , t 24 ; i
- f. 25 j
l- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i t c
KRIMM. PETER SOF', MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12695 {} t/114 1 My j ob -- this j ob that I was assigned by the 2 Director of the Agency was to run state.and local programs 3 daring this period of time, between the time when Sam Speck 4 'left and Grant Peterson came aboard in January of '88 5 Grant 's job at that time, as I understood it, was 6 to -- as he 's already explained it, was to come aboard, become 7 familiar with the programs including going to the regions and 8 essentially get himself prepared so he can hit the road running 9 when he was confirmed and sworn in. 10 My counsel to him at this point was, Grant, there are 11 certain discussions that you ought to sit in on; and he did 12 periodically sit in on some of the REP meetings that we had. () 13 My further counsel was, you ought to stay away from 14 certain decisionmaking meetings that we have, like, meetings 15 that we have with disaster relief program. We have to make 16 recommendations to the President on whether or not we go up or ( t 17 down with certain disasters. The President makes a decision. I 18 want that clearly understood, we make a recommendation. But he 19 ought not to have to deal in his confirmation process with any 20 perception at all that he was involved in those decisionmaking 21 processes. 22 My view to him was, you ought not to be there. 23 Likewise in this area. In the REP area I -- you know, it 24 doesn 't -- didn 't take much at that point in time to know that 25 this a pretty sensitive issue. And my counsel was, you ought Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12696
}
1 not to be involved at any of the decisionmaking naetings that 2 we have relative to this. Not so much that I was afraid that 3 he would somehow try to influence it, but rather the perception 4 of his involvement in that process, and that perception being 5 difficult to deal with in his confirmation process was 6 important plus simply the legal aspects. He was not expected, 7 as a consultant, to have any role. Therefore, I want to be 8 sure that it is clear that I take full responsibility for those 9 decisions and do not feel that Grant influenced my decisions in , 10 any way, shape, or form at that point and subcequent to this 11 right now. 12 There was a shift in our relationship in January of () 13 '88, and that 's when the shif t occurred. Now, let 's address that. You gave Grant Peterson 14 Q 15 some counsel about which meetings he should attend -- 16 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 17 Q -- which meetings he should not attend, and how he 18 should act in those meetings? 19 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 20 Q How did he deal with your advice, what did he do? 21 A (McLoughlin) My view is, he asked me why, you know. 22 when I would make a statement, and that seems to be quite < 23 normal. He 'd ask me why. I would relate to him. He 'd ask a J 24 few questions about it, and then we would reach agreement. If 25 he had a different view, then we consciously came to a O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 J KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12697 {'} conclusion of those rather than hopefully letting them hang. ' 1 2 Q I 'm sorry, my question wasn 't c' lear. I don 't mean, 3 how did he receive your advice, what I meant was, after you had 4 that conversation how did he carry it out? Did he attend 5 meetings? Did -- if -- , 6 A (McLoughlin) Yes. He attended some meetings. But 7 if he was attending meetings that I thought were difficult 8 meetings, either we simply went ahead with him. Some of them 9 we didn't have to do anything because he might have been on 10 travel, for example. 11 But I would indicate that, you know. -- if yo.. 're 12 going to ask me when I did this, I don 't know. But the 13 impression I have and I 'm le" wi th is. I would have trit to (]) 14 explain to him what we were trying to deal with in a given i 15 meeting and -- and I don 't know even that I said very often, 16 this isn 't a meeting you ought to come to; I think he just knew 17 that there were certain meetings he ought not to come to. I s 18 Q Since we 're having trouble with the dates I won't ask 19 you to be specific. But during the period of time between when , 20 he started as a consultant from FEMA until he was confirmed and l 21 sworn in -- 22 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 23 Q -- when he did attend meetings, to what extent did he 24 participate? 25 A (McLoughlin) Well, there was a growing participation (:) ; Heritage Reporting Corporation ] (202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12698 ; 1 on his part from March through December, which seems to me to i 2 be quite logical. Early. I would characterize -- for the first 3 three or four months. I would characterize him as listening. 4 you know. He 's brand new to the programs. He knows something f 5 about national security. He doesn 't know much about the REP 6 program. He doesn 't know much about disaster relief, as I 7 interpreted in our discussions, and so he listened to most of 8 that. 9 As time went on, I would characterize his 10 participation essentially by asking questions. He began to be 11 more involved in asking questions, and I would characterize , 12 those as information kind of questions. . 13 Q Okay. ( 14 A (McLoughlin) But I was alert to the f act that my j ob 15 was to be responsible for making the decisions, and I -- and 16 the reason this is important to me is because I had already had 17 one session like this; it wasn't as if I didn 't have some 18 experience in this arena. I had spent a year, as I , 4 19 acknowledged earlier, in between Lee Thomas and Sam Speck. Sam [
- 20 Speck had come before, also, and our working relationship I 21 learned from, and knew more precisely how to structure that 22 relationship probably than I did the first time around.
23 Q Let 's come back now to the question which I started i f i 24 to ask you and that is, walk us through the process that led to 25 the -- i ! C:) ; 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 , I 1
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12699 1 A (McLoughlin) Okay. 2 Q -- to the January 25th supplemental testimony ? 3 A (McLoughlin) Okay. The -- I have already 4 acknowledge which was in the beginning of September, after our 5 September 1st meeting which tends -- simply crystallized this, 6 there was -- we had some continuing meetings after that and I 7 began to be more increasingly more troubled with the position 8 that we were having, from a legal standpoint, a technical 9 standpoint, and a programmatic standpoint. And I 'll get to 10 each of these in turn in j ust a moment, if I can. 11 But the -- it -- we had the RAC on the one hand 12 clearly differing with us. We cannot ignore that advice. I () 13 acknowledged already on September 11th we went ahead with that 14 because we didn 't have and did not -- the advice was troubling, , 15 but my view was still that we -- that shelter option had not 36 beer explored. i 17 So, we did receive then on the 9th of September the 18 shelter survey from Massachusetts -- I 'm sorry, New Hampshire. 19 When we did, though, it was not included in the plan. New 20 Hampshire sent us the Stone & Webster, the survey, and they 21 indicated that it was provided, I believe the words were for ! i 22 technical assistance. 23 Now, we 're glad to provide that technical assistance. ; 24 They have a right to expect that, and we will provide it. But 25 it was unclear then, I think, about how they intended to use ( Heritage Reporting Corporation t (202) 628-4888 l
n- , KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12700 O- 1 this in the plan. 2 And again, make sure that -- I want everybody to 3 understand that I am not critical of New Hampshire when I say 4 that. It 's a f actual statement of when the issue came in. 5 The -- in Septemoer, though, driven by our 6 uncertainty in the areas, particularly technical area. our 7 technical people. Dick Krimm and his people, asked Joe Keller 8 at Idaho Nuclear Engineering Lab that we have a contract with, 9 to do a technical analysis for ui of shelters relate -- I'm 10 sorry, the technical aspects of fast breakers, and the il relationship of those accident sequences to the use of shelter 12 and it 's impact on the use of shelter. I hope I 've articulated 13 that clearly. Because that --
)
14 JUDGE SMITH: When was this? 15 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) This was in September. 16 Your Honor. I don 't know exactly when in -- 17 JUDGE SMITH: That 's fine. 18 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) -- September, but it was 19 in the neighborhood of right after our filing. I believe, at 20 that point. 21 The point is, that we knew that we did not have a 22 solid technical base. Clearly, we hed evidence of others that 23 were opposed to our position. 24 So, in October, then, the consequence of that effort. 25 on the part of Joe Keller. he came in to meet with our i ( Heritage Relorting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(~ KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12701 V) technical staff and subsequent to that I got thoroughly briefed 1-2 on those issues. And his points -- I want to make clear that L 3 that discussion, as I understand it, dealt not only with that 4 technical analysis that he did with us, but also dealt with 5 NUREG-1210, which I want to clearly acknowledge that I am not 6 thoroughly familiar with; I just, you know, I don't get 7 thoroughly familiar with every document. But I am aware enough 8 of it, of the discussion, that to know that that was a factor ! 9 in this as well. 10 And he gave us four conclusions, which I think are 11 important, and they relate to the technical, then I 'll get to 12 the other issues, the legal aspects. (} 13 Well, the technical aspects, what he said were these And I want to tell you what that means to me, l 14 four things. , 15 because I think that 's what you 're looking for. P 16 First of all, he said, that the major contribution to ! 17 the dose to the beach population is from ground shine in 18 relation to major releases in severe core melts. And that they i 19 can indeed have early health effects. , 20 Now, what he -- his conclusion out of that issue was, 21 it is best to evacuate these structures. And, Joe, here 's 22 where I want to digress j ust a moment, if it makes sense. 23 because I want to be sure that the Board knows that I have some 24 reasonable background by which to make some interpretations in I 25 that area. t . Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888
F KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12702 1 My undergraduate work is in technical area, 2 chemistry, and physics, and math, et cetera. And I spent, as I 3 acknowledge earlier, the first halt of my career in dealing 4 with -- in the civil defense arena. But the very early part of l 5 it I was thoroughly familiar with weapons effects, radioactive 6 fallout. the decay process from that, and the effects of i 7 nuclear weapons, and nuclear detonations. 8 Now, I want to also acknowledge so that it 'r clear 9 that I am not in any way, shape, or form suggesting that the t 10 releases from nuclear -- from powerplant releases, potential 11 releases are in any way, shape, or form the same as nuclear j 12 detonations because -- and radioactive f allout because that 's () 13 not the case. But the point that I want to make is that, I believe 14 , 1 i 15 my background was sufficient to be able to, I would say, haul 16 that aboard and understand what it was that he was telling me. ; 17 Subsequent to that, in later meetings that we had that Grant ' - i 18 will tell you about. I drew some graphs which I know has been j 19 included in the testimony, to make sure that I understood what ; 20 Joe Keller was saying. I want to reconfirm what I knew at this I 21 time that he was -- that there are people reporting to us. 22 And the point is, that if the major contribution 1 . 23 comes from ground shine, what that means is that, if the shape { ! 24 of the curve is increasing and then decreasing after the cloud t 25 passes, and as decay is the principal reduction in the rate, () Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 i
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12703 [} 1 that if you shelter people and if it 's a 10 percent reduction 2 in dose, that'~ essentially what you get, you get a 10 percent 3 reduction in that curve on the delivery of the dose. Now, the 4 dose curve is different than that, it 's a cumulative curve. 5 All right. 6 BY MR. FLYNN: 7 Q Let me stop you. 8 A (McLoughlin) Am I getting too technical? 9 Q No, it 's not that, it 's that what you 're saying isn 't 10 as clear as it needs to be. You described two different shape 11 curves, one of them has to do with dose rate and the other has 12 to do with cumulative dose -- () 13 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 14- Q -- and I would ask you to go through that carefully 15 and make it clear which you 're talking about at which time. 16 A (McLoughlin) Okay. Let me stick, first of all, with 17 the dose rate curve then. If the ground shine is, you know, 18 increases and then decreases in the decay -- 19 Q You 're talking about dose rate? 20 A (McLoughlin) I 'm talking about dose rate. I 'm l 21 talking about, basically, a curve that I have in my mind that
- 22 deals with dose rate versus time. And that if you then look at
, 23 the impact of shelter on that curve what you simply get is, ! 24 essentially, the same shape curve whenever shelter is applied i 25 as a protective measure, but reduced in this case by roughly a
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12704 O-1 10 percent reduction because that 's what I'm taking for granted 2 that the Stone & Webster 10 percent reduction on their shelters 3 is accurate; that 's where my 10 percent comes f rom. Now, 4 that 's for the. dose part of it. For the, excuse me, the 5 inhalation part of it. - 6 A normal home would normadiy reduce that by about 50 7 percent. So there 's a dif ference between a home and the , 8 inhalation dose. 9 Q I'm sorry, I did not understand that. There 's a 10 difference -- say that again, there 's a dif f erence between what 11 and what? l 12 A (McLoughlin) I have obviously -- I 'm getting in more {) 13 14 technical than I really wanted to, but since I 'm in there I guess I 'm going to have to deal with it. i 15 The inhalation dose is reduced by a structure, 16 essentially, by 10 percent until it comes to equilibrium in [ l 1 ; 17 some way, and even then -- let me just leave it at that. And j 18 I 'll 19 try to -- 1 20 Q All right. - 21 A (McLoughlin) -- substantiate this later when I 'm ! 22 questioned on it. < 23 JUDGE SMITH: At this point, the purpose of the L 2 i 24 witnesses here is to trace the evolution of FEMA 's position, < 25 and they were not offered, as everyone understood, as merits or ; ( ! t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a t
12705 {} 1 KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT merits witnesses, as technical witnesses.
- 2 MR. FLYNN: That 's correct.
3 BY MR. FLYNN: 4 Q Let 's go back to the point where -- before you
, S arted to explain --
6 A (McLoughlin) 3ure. 7 Q -- the curves and the explanation that Mr. Keller l 8 gave you? A. " 9 A (McLoughlin) Let me try to get myself out of this. 10 if I can, and I 'm there at that later -- the key point that I 11 was trying to make with that discussion, and I obviously got i 12 too wound up with it, the key point that I was ttying to make !
- () 13 is that. 1 believe, I could understand what Joe Keller was 14 saying )n us about, because the major contribution is from '
15 ground shine. I could understand the fact that evacuation was ; 16 the primary option. Now, I 'm simply going to 1s ave it at that, r i 17 and I will come back to that if somebody asks me questions. >
' l but that 's the first point. ;
18 19 Q Right. ; I 20 A (McLoughlin) The second point that he nede. Joe 21 Keller did not make those points, and I need to make sure ! 22 because I haven 't said this, Joe Keller did not make those l 23 points directly to me. These points got made to me through , i 24 Dick Krimm and his staff people. That 's how I essentially have l 25 these. [ I l ' 11eri t age Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 j l i
! l
,e r
s , li r 3 KRIMM, PETERSON, MC JUGHLIN - DTRECT 12706 I 1 The evacuation provides significant dose savings in
? fast breakers; that was the second key point. That'it.does 3 provide. Now, intuitively gjven the other one, I think'I would 4 have arrived at'that psint, but his conclusions, and what I 5 understand came out hpW t. hose October discussions clearly made 6 that point. y )
7 The third point that was made that seemed to me to be 8 a very significant poipt is that, be car 11 of your use of 1 9 shelter since usually precuakion 10 tl arinary -- the , y 10 preferred option or the appropriate option in accidental 11 sequer.ces that have early releases. i 12 Now, that 's crucial, I believe, because he 's saying (} 13 what I have said all along up to this time, that I wanted to be sure that the New Hampshire plen looked at the shelter option. 14 15 That was the key because there was potential there, up until I 16 began to get these kinds of issues, there was potential there, 17 in my mind, of additional dose savings. 18 Now, given that l let me -- Do this was important, 19 what he was saying about shelter. . . 20 The fourth point thA,t I would make out of this is 21 that, why I was told is that because of the' uncertainties j 22 related to release proj ections that it was more important than 23 ever to evacuate as the appropriate countermeasure. That if 24 indeed you were uncertain of what the dose is, going to be , s 25 delivered to people, the best you 're able to U? Ah to get out i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12707 fs_ u> of there; that 's the fundamental, in my vernacular, what I was 1 2 picking up from those discussions. 3 So, I felt comfortable at that point that I was 4 getting significant information and auditional evolution, in my 5 thinking, of what the technical aspects of that were. G Now, the second thing I want to deal with is the 7 legal aspects. And there were three events that occurred that 5 8 I -- in this period of time that began to be important, not 9 began, were important. 10 On the 5th of October Mr. Turk filed before this 11 Board the NRC rebuttal outline to FEMA 's position. Now, here 's 12 an agency that we are advisory to, that 's going to essentially 1 i {} 13 14 rebut our testimony. That means to me that we better be on solid grounds with respect to what it is that we 're doing in 15 that. So that 's a caution to begin with. ( 16 That filing included the statement that shelter does > 17 not contravene, the lack of shelter does not contravene the NRC 18 regulations. That was the issue, i 19 The second thing that happened on the 3rd of November 20 was that the NRC issued the utility plan -- that their rule i 21 relating to utility plan -- to utility plans in the absence of 22 state and local government plans. 23 Q You re talking about evacuate -- not evacuation, but t 24 radiological eniergency response plans sponsored by utilities as 25 opposed to those sponsored by state and local governments? [ Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 t
._m._ _ , . - , -- _c. - . , . . , . _ , .- ,.m,_m._ _ _ - , , _ _ _ _ -. . _ . - - - =-.- __ _- -. . -
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12700 1 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. l l 2 Now, that was important because they reiterate, once . 3 again, in their preamble to that rule that no minimum dose > 4 savings was required. Now, as an aside, and I know I shouldn't do this, but I -- I guess maybe I j ust need to, ana that is, ; 5 6 there are many people who believe we succumb to pressure from 7 the NRC. For those people, they should read our response, our ; i 8 memorandum that I call the choke memorandum that I signed to l 9 the NRC on this rule. We clearly took an opposite view 10 publicly stated, we had several -- two hearings before the 11 Congress on our views on that rule. And we clearly did not 12 agree with its issuance. , () 13 But our job is to serve in an advisory role to the It is their decision, not FEMA 's, just like we would want 14 NRC. 15 to be sure that we preserve the right to deal with our ; 16 regulations without their interference. They completely have l 17 their right to issue their rules and interpret their 18 regulations and their statutes the way they feel is 19 appropriate. It was our responsibility to comment on it, which We have followed it since that I 20 we did. They decided to do it. 21 time. And the key point is that that included a discussion 22 about no minimum dose required, i 23 The third thing that happened was with respect to t , 24 this Board. On the 6th of November this Board ruled the Sholly , 25 testimony inadmissible. And my view, as I -- as it has been i Heritage Report ing Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 ) i
-- , _ . . . , . _ - . . - - - - - _ _ . _ - . . , ~ - - --,, _ . . _ - , _ _ _ . - - - _ _ _ _ . . - _ - - - - - -
XRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12709 1 explained to me is that, what that does is indicate once again 2 'that there is no preset minimum dose or minimum -- minimum dose 3 and minimum ETE. obviously, are not the same thing. But in my 4 mind, they -- one leads to the other. 5 No minimum dose means, in effect, no minimum ETE. 6 Because as soon as you establish a minimum ETE you 've got to 7 define the dose that's associated with that; and that you can 't , 8 do. That 's the only way you can get there from here, as I l 9 envision it. j 10 So, those are the three legal issues that were 11 involved. I would continue to be concerned from a programmatic 12 standpoint about our application of shelter to. generically to O 13 these decisions. We revisited. once again, the San Onofre j 14 decision, because I wanted to be sure that my understanding of f I 15 that, which I 've already related to the group and I 'll not go 16 through again, that my understanding of that was accurate; and 17 that there were truly differences in that -- in the San Onofre ! 18 decision that we made versus the beach population in New l i 19 Hampshire. Whereas. I 'm sure that there are technical people l l 20 on our staff that will be able to do a better job than I am. I t i 21 was persuaded by the arguments that it was different, and I l 22 remain so today. ; et/114 23 (Continued on next page.) i 24 Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888 !=
KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12710 O f115 1 Now.-I am now at the December time frame right 2- before our filing. Grant was sworn in. I think you said on the 3 Sth of January. 4 A (Peterson) That 's when all the paperwork was done. 5 A (McLoughlin) Okay. 6 A (Peterson) And when the notarization took place of-7 the oath, and that 's the first of f'4cial day. 8 A (McLoughlin) Okay. Given that, we had discussions 9 about how to make this transition. You knos, we 've got clearly 10 a transition. On the 5th of January he 's the boss and I'm his i 11 deputy. We have -- but I had been working at this for 15 12 months, all the programs, and I have full responsibility to (} 13 14 make an orderly transfer of this. Now, obviously, we had talked about this before. It 15 wasn't the first time we had talked about it on January 5th. } 16 But we had major issues in civil defense that were occurring in 17 one state on a civil defense issue. And Grant said that 18 required his attention, and we agreed to that. 19 What we agreed to with respect to this issue was that 20 because I had been involved, and my reasoning processes were 21 included in this, that I should continue to try to bring this 4 22 issue to closure for any supplemental filings that we were 23 doing. 24 I was, in December, fast approaching a decision that 25 we had to do something with the filings that we had on. We had l Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 , f
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12711 [} 1 no basis to change in September, but it was becoming 2 increasingly clear to me that we had to make a change in our 3 subsequent filings, whenever those were going to be. 4 Now, the next thing that occurred was the RAC 5 meeting, and the RAC meeting on January 7th and 8th essentially 6 said the same thing, as I understand it, that the July 30th RAC . 7 meeting said. The positions were reaffirmed six to three that 8 the' position that FEMA was holding was a minority view, and I 9 believe increasingly an issue that we -- that we were not t 10 understanding it -- by the way, there 's an issue that I want to t 11 refer to that occurred earlier than this and acknowledge, 12 We were having discussions from the NRC staff to Dick () 13 Krimm's staf f at the technical level. discussions that were occurring in September that we 're There were those 14 p 1 15 acknowledging f rom the NRC 's perspective, that we were not 16 understanding the technical issues of shelter, as it related to 17 this, properly, p 18 Now, I view that clearly in my mind not as pressure. 19 I believes that they not only had a right but a responsibility 20 to do that, and I would encourage them to do that. The last j 21 thing that I want to be responsible for is a position that I i 22 put FEMA in of not being a sound lagal, technical and 4 1 23 programmatic decision. So, I think that 's appropriate. 24 So I was getting that in these meetings as well. I , think I was getting that in some of the debriefs that we were i I 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12712 O.- 1 getting from the Keller testimony in October, i 2 So, we are now at -- ~ 3 Q Excuse me, you said Keller testimony.- 4 A (McLoughlin) I 'm sorry. Excuse me. The briefings' ; 5 that I was getting from our staff on the results of the work f 6 that we had asked Joe Keller to do for us. 7 Q Okay. 8 A (McLoughlin) Okay. 9 Q To bring you back to the January 7th and 8th RAC 10 meeting in 1988, what was the source of your information about , i 11 that meeting? 12 A (McLoughlin) Mostly from the staff. There was a -- You were giving me some information about what (} 13 14 you were there. was happening there. We had a meeting -- don 't remember the l r 15 dates so I'd better not say it. 16 Joe, essentially I was getting that information from 17 the staff who, including yourself, who was there, and the rest 18 of the staff was essentially getting it from Ed Thomas. 19 Q Okay. And what was your understanding of the 1 20 discussion that took place in that RAC meeting and the outcome . 21 of the meeting? 22 A (McLoughlin) Well, I sensed there may be something ; 23 there that I 'm not adding to this, but my -- 24 Q No. just wanted to resume the narrative. [ 25 A (McLoughlin) -- inclination -- my memory is that, t O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l t
-,,.-, - -. , , - m vv- ,,--,-n n-,--- ,,,e,--,--~mm 7--,-----.-----,-,e - ,..--n.
,,:m- -wm .w, -,-----,-e -g- . .
t i l r 1
- KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12713 1 and I was dealing with bottom line issues at-this point. The l
' t 2 RAC said, ami reaf firmed once again that they disagreed, the l 3 same position that they had in July. And by that time we had ) i 4' access to the Bores memo that we didn 't get until Decenber some f r 5 time. I believe. ! 6 Q His memo of -- 7 A (McLoughlin) Of October 15th that said that their t i
- 8 position was that -- by the way, there may be something that 's i i 9 helpful on that, i l
10 It 's my understanding that the -- that those who were il in opposition to the FEMA position were in agreement with the 12 position of the Bores memorandum. That 's what I understood was i 13 true. And that the intent of the Bores memorandum, Bores 2 in (]) 14 effect was -- this may be a little bit too much, but it was the >
! r j '15 containment was certainly not the heart of their issue. ,
16 It was that the -- that the plan in itself dealt ! 17 adequately, from their perspective, with the shelter issue. 1 i 18 Now, I want to be as straightforward as I can with l t 19 respect to the RAC. We differed with the RAC in some ways I r 3 20 wish we had taken aboard more rapidly some of the views of the 21 RAC, but I give them high marks for the consistency of the ; i 22 position that they took. That was helpful to us even though it l , r 23 was -- that I wasn 't in the meetings. It was helpful to me ! l j 24 because here were a number of agencies that we asked to give us ! 25 advice, and that we cannot ignore that advice. } ( Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4808 : a i
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12714 1 The question where I feel most vulnerable on is why 2 didn 't you take that advice in July. And I have already tried 3 to explain why I didn 't. And I know I 'm going to get asked - 4 that question again, so I simply will ocknowledge the fact that 5 whenever, belatedly or whenever, it did make sense to me, after 6 the Keller input through the staff, that that issue was 7 important, and we could no longer begin to not modify our 8 position. 9 I felt a growing comfort with rationale and reasons 10 for having a different view than our RAC chairman. i 11 Go ahead. I 'm sorry. 12 Q Let me call-your attention to the beginning of the (} 13 14 hearings in Concord in January of 1988, and you are undoubtedly aware of the events at that time and reports that I first 15 announced to the Board and the people assembled that FEMA was 16 reconsidering a position. 17 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 18 Q And then a few days -- two days later announced 19 that -- c 20 A (McLoughlin) We did. 21 Q -- you were not changing your position. 22 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 23 Q And I want you to -- [ 24 A (McLoughlin) Comment on that? , 25 Q -- explain what your understanding was of those ! Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 l s
L r KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12715 ( 1 events and what the reasons behind all of'that were. 2 A (McLoughlin) It was my understanding'that the Board ; 3 asked you where FEMA was going, kind of; you know, in my 4 language. And my counsel to you at that time, which I take , 5 whatever responsibility I have to take, for the garble in that 6 message, and I will clearly accept my responsibility for that 7 garble. Is that my counsel was don't suggest anything at all 8 about changing our position now, because I am not yet 9 comfortable -- Grant had asked me to try to reach closure. I am 10 not yet comfortable that we -- that I have synthesized all that 11 I was learning at that point in order to be able to overrule , 12 our RAC chief. That 's a -- it 's important, particularly in () 13 this issue if we 're going to overrule the RAC chief, that we 14 indeed do have sound reason for it. 15 I have explained some technical reasons already. I 16 have explained some legal reasons why, in my view, there was a i i 17 growing awareness. So what my counsel. I thought, was don 't 18 tell the Board yet that we are changing our position until we ! 19 get it changed. Otherwise, what we 're likely to do is haves a , I 20 third position out there that we 'r'e going to have to defend. l 21 and it doesn't make any sense to me to have to do that. We 've ' 22 got enough trouble right now filing our supplemental testimony. 1 4 23 Now, somehow in the course of that deliberations and r 24 the word that you passed on, it came out a little different ! 25 than that. I know. And I say I accept whatever responsibility ] (:) ;
- Heritage Reporting Corporat ion ;
(202) 628-4888 ' ) 1
. . _ , - _ , - - - - - , , _ . . , . - ,--__---_--_.m._,----__.-.,_.-,--_-,~..r_____ _ , _ . - . , .~.
12716 {} KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT r 1 I had for that. But at least that 's what my counsel was 2 intended to do, because on the 25th, which is a shade two weeks 3 later than this, we were obviously changing our position. 4 The next thing that happened that I think was , 5 influential was we were in a meeting on Seabrook in Grant 's 6 office on the 15th of July. 7 Q I 'm sorry. Are we talking about January? 7 8 A (McLoughlin) I 'm sorry, excuse me. Fifteenth of 9 January, and Vic Stello called. and he called for Grant. Grant i 10 left the meeting, took the call in my office, and came back, 11 had a few comments to me that I 'll let him share with you at 12 that point. But the bottom line was that we needed to call Vic () 13 Stello back, because he had some concerns about what was l 14 happening in the testimony, or at the hearings. 15 And so we called him back. We were on a conference i 16 call. And the upshot of that call was that we needed to meet. 17 and we agreed to meet on the 19th of January. And Mr. Stello. 4 18 Vic Stello had some agenda items that he wanted to do. One of 19 the reasons that we agreed to that meeting is because we had 20 some additional items that we wanted to talk about: To include , 21 Shoreham, and Pilgrim, and exercise date, and redacted 22 information on the Massachusetts side of the Seabrook plan, and 23 some other things that I 'l l let Grant talk about because he t 24 was -- took the call. 25 But the bottom -- we had the meeting then on the i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
j i ?, I 12717 KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT l 1 19th, senior level meeting. I'll let the description of that 1 2 because I wilI be prepared to answer any additional questions j 3 on the meeting, but I want to just get to the heart of it for $ 4 this deliberation. I 5 The thing that happened in that meeting that I 6 believe was important to this issue is we questioned Vic Stello ! 7 on whether or not shelter was really' required. We had 8 discussions on that issue. And Bill Olmstead -- , 9 Q Excuse me. I -- 10 A CMcLoughlin) I 'm sorry. 11 Q I think most of us are aware of who Mr. Stello in. I 12 but I don 't want to assume that. Can you explain his position? 13 A (McLoughlin) He 's executive director for operations f I ' 14 for the NRC. 15 Q Okay. 16 A CMcLoughlin) And he had some additional staff people 17 over there, and I can go through the list of people if you want 18 to, but I 'l1 leave that issue aside. 19 Q No, I 'm not asking ycu to do that. 20 But as you mention different names, I will ask you to 21 tell us who they ere. 22 A (McLoughlin) Okay. What happened to this decision 23 in our January 25th filing that was central, in my view, of 24 trying to do what Grant had asked to do, bring this to closure, 25 was that the NRC regulations did not require shelter, and did O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
4 1 E t KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12718 f 1 not contravene -- the lack of shelter did not contravene. 2 That 's the way we were phrasing it at the time, and that 's i 3 important because I want to get to Mr. Turk 's memo in j ust a - 4 moment. 5 But the -- but Vic said to us -- Grant asked him 6 clearly, would you put that in writing to us, and he said, yes, 7 I will. And I know him to be straight when he says things he 8 will do. 9 Subsequently we got the February 18th memo from Mr. p 1 4 10 Turk dealing with this issue. I want to make a comment about i 11 that, because included in that memo is a reason why we had such l 12 difficulty in this area sometimes, and I 'm not being crit ical . (} 13 I 'm simply trying to point out to the Board that an issue of 14 whet her or not shelter does or does not contravene the NRC f I 15 regulations is not an issue that you come by lightly as I i 16 understand the whole litigation process and dealing with the 17 rules. I 18 The -- and I want to make a statement out of that and f 19 then I 'll come back, Joe. But it 's important to me to make s , 20 this statement, because Mr. Turk 's memorandum to us in f t 1 21 February, which Mr. Stello had told us we would get outlining ! I ! 22 this, clearly makes the statement that the NRC -- that the only 23 ones who could interpret the NRC regulations are the Commission l 24 and the Commission's general counsel. That 's what I remember l t 25 out of that memo. ; a Heritage Reporting Corporation .L (202) 628-4888 . 4 s
12719 {} 1 KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT He further went on to say that the NRC staff views 1 2 the regulations as not requiring that there be a range of 3 protective actions that include both sheltering and evacuations
'4 for all accidents, at all times, and at all locations within 5 the EPZ.
6 Now, we interpret that to mean -- now we 're 7 interpreting on top of interpretation at the moment. We 8 interpret that to mean that the lack of shelter does not
, 9 contravene the NRC regulations. That 's not the words that were 10 there. But it.is important to understand in this process the i 11 difficulty that program peopl' like myself. who are not ,
t r 12 lawyers. I am not trainer' as a lawyer, but I have to deal with 13 the litigation process and being sure that our decisions will (]) 14 stand up in this kind of an arena. And they may or may not 15 stand up in this arena, our decision on this one, and I 'm ful ly - 16 aware of that. t . 17 I 'm going to do my darnedest to be sure that our , 18 position does indeed stand up from our perspective. 19 The issue is that Mr. Turk 's memo even to us clearly 20 says that the NRC staf f can 't interpret those regs. That 's one i , 21~ of the reasons, in my view, why there is difficulty that we 4 22 have and why it takes so inordinately long cometimes to deal 23 with the issues. 24 JUDGE HARBOUR: Excuse me. I think you said the NRC 25 staff cannot interpret the NRC regs? ( Heritage Reporting Corporation . 6 (202) 626-4888
? - -,--,.-,-a _ . . , - - ~ --e.-.~. . . -,m-,._-, , , . _ - -
w,.n -nm v..w,,.m,, ,--,.n,,-,,,_,~,-,e-,.--.--.---------.,---e.-,--n-
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12720 ; 1 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Well, I know enough not 2 to be the authority to answer on that question. But it'is my 3 understanding -- 4 JUDGE HARBOUR: I thought I heard you say that. 5 THE WITNESS: CMcLoughlin) That's right. It is my 6 understanding that the NRC staff, and it says so in that memo, 7 that the NRC staff cannot interpret NRC regs; only the 8 Commission and the general counsel of the Commission can do I 9 that. 10 Now, that 's no criticism. That 's no implied 11 criticism. It is an explanation of why it sometimes takes us 12 longer than I would like to see it take us sometimes to make 13 decisions on these issues. That 's the only point I wanted to
.(])
14 make about that. 15 BY MR. FLYNN: 1G Q I 'm not ready to leave the meeting of January 19th 17 yet . l 18 A (McLoughlin) Okay. 19 Q I want to go into some detail. 20 A (McLoughlin) All right. 21 Q How long did the meeting take? 22 A (McLoughlin) The meeting took -- we started about 23 1:30 and went until about fivish, 5:30. that order of 24 magnitude. 25 Q Was there an agenda that was circulated among --
-~s, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
k KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12721
-{ }
j 1 A (McLoughlin) No. > 2 Q -- the participants? 3 A (McLoughlin) NRC -- what I think we agreed to, we 4 had no prepared agenda that I was aware of for that meeting. 5 The NRC came. We knew that they were coming to talk about the 6 Seabrook issues that they wanted to talk about that came from 7 the hearings, and we wanted to talk about the other things. 8 Now, we went in there with a mindset that say we want 9 to talk about these things. We collectively kind of agreed to 10 that upfront but there was no structured agenda. 11 Q How much of the time, or what percentage of the entire meeting time was spent on this sheltering issue? ! 12 (} 13 A major issues: (McLoughlin) Roughly a quarter of it. Talk about exercises, and Shoreham, and -- you We had some j 14 15 know, thas -e 're still involved with in exercises week after 16 next and that sort of thing. So we had major staf f resource 17 issues. We only have 27 people in the headquarters, of which 18 right now nine of those are vacant. So we have a limitation on 19 our staffs to be able to deal with this. ; 20 Q Okay, let 's focus on the sheltering issue. 21 A (McLoughlin) Okay. 22 Q What was it that the NRC wanted f rom you? 23 A (McLoughlin) Well, ultimately the way in which I 24 would interpret it is that they wanted to be sure that we , 1 ' 25 weren 't in the businers of interpreting their regulations. l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 l 1
-- .._..L . - .. ... ,.---_-,.,,,.- ___._ _.__..-.__..__,---. _.._ _,.,---._ _ _ _ .,,__.,- .
- - l 8
I 4 1 i
- I KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12722 i 1 That was clear in my mind. That they interpret their l l- '
- 2 regulations, and that 's right.
). ! 3 You know. I have no problem with that. FEMA has no l 4 business of interpreting the NRC regulations. And I understood 5 that Vic Stello asked us some questions about where we were 6 heading in this area. And I can't remember all the lengthy j 7 discussion that we had on it, but the issue essentially was ! 8 that we need to interpret our regulations, and you need to j $ l 9 understand that. FEMA, that we 're going to interpret our l i i l 10 regulations. And we have no question about that, in my mind at j l ! 11 least. t i 12 Q Were you talking about any other regulation other j , i () 13 than what you 've already told us about? Well, the specific that we were dealing 14 A (McLoughlin) ! I 15 with was the shelter part of this reg. The generic issue was ! ! 16 we were just misinterpreting their regulations anyway, in any ! ! 17 area. l 18 Q Was anybody on the NRC side of the room advocating a l 19 particular conclusion as to the -- to FEMA 's testimony? f I 20 A (McLoughlin) Well. I recall Bill Olmstead, their 21 legal person that they brought with them, saying that clearly ' 1 22 the lack of shelter did not contravene their regulations. 23 That 's what his advice was to Vic Stello. l 24 I 'm not with you, am I. 25 Q No, that wasn 't the point of my question. ; i ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- i l !
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12723 1 Did anyone on the NRC side of the room advocate that i 2 FEMA reach a concern conclusion, whatever it was -- l l ! 3 A (McLoughlin) Oh , absolutely not. l l ! !- 4 Q -- as to adequacy or reasonable assurance? i i ; l 5 A (McLoughlin) Absolutely not. l j G The NRC people asked us to explain our view, which we j i 7 did. The NRC clearly would have been upset if we had somehow 8 suggested we were going to interpret their regulations. But at i I 9 no time do I recal1 their trying to suggest to us that we ought l i 10 to change our position. I l ! 11 They were -- I have already acknowledge that as far 12 back as September they had suggested to us that we were l 13 interpreting shelter technically incorrectly. And I think ! 14 ultimately they were right. We had some homework to do which I ! l l l 15 think we did responsibly. But they did not ask us to change i 16 our position in that meeting. l E115 17 (Continued on next page.) l 18 l 6 i 19 l l 1 20 l l 21 22 23 24 , l l i 25 i l O l l I Heritage Reporting Corporetion ! I (202) 628-4888 I l i
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12724 O t/116 1 And -- let me j ust add this. the view that I was ! 2 holding at that meeting and-continue to hold today is that, the ; 3 need to examine the_ shelter option in the New Hampshire plan 4 continued to be important. There was nothing that came out of f 5 that meeting that shifted in my mind, though, from suggesting l 6 that FEMA still should not deal with the issue of looking at i
' I 7 the opportunities that shelter could provide in the New 8 Hampshire plan.
9 Now. -- F 10 Q Okay. There 's been a suggestion that you went into j I 11 the meeting with one view and came out with another one. 12 A (McLoughlin) Oh. ; i () 13 Q In what -- (McLoughlin) Yes, 14 A t 1 ! 15 Q -- in what sense, if any, did your position change as 16 a result of that meeting? ! l a 17 A (McLoughlin) The -- I went into the meeting with a 18 position that I kind of described to you just then, and came ; . 19 out of the meeting with a firmer held conviction, because here ! i 20 were the senior level people from the NRC telling us that we f i 21 are right and that they would give it to us in writing, that [ 22 the lack of shelter did not contravene their regulations. l t 23 And I came out of that meeting with the same thing. ) r 24 essentially, that I went into the meeting with, but with a { 1 25 reaffirmed understanding that the NRC regulations could be O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 : f t
b I' i KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12725 O t 1 interpreted the way we were now beginning to understand it, j i 2 Q There 's also been a suggestion that NRC declared war i j ! 3 on FEMA in that meeting? I l 4 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 5 Q What does that relate to? 6 A (McLoughlin) Well, there was a statement and the 7 word "war" was used, but it was -- the issue was, if FEMA is 8 going to be in a position. Vic Stello said this, if FEMA is 9 going to be in a position to contravene -- I 'm sorry, to 10 interpret the NRC regulations, we would go to war. 11 And I tell you, if I had his style. that is not an l 12 unreasonable statement at all to have made. It is simply a 13 recognition straight out that it 's none of our business -- it (]) 14 is none of our business in FEMA to interpret their regulations. t l 15 And that 's the way I interpreted it. 16 Q And what was FEMA 's -- what was the response f rom the , 17 FEMA side of the room? 18 A (McLoughlin) Well. Grant said something like, let 's 19 see. rough and tough and hard to bluff, and, you know, we can i 20 no on with this but it won 't be very productive; something to 21 that effect. I don 't know if I characterized it quite right. 22 but that 's -- 23 A (Peternon) I 'l! cove ; it later. 24 A tu coughlin) -- a lose c scterization. l 25 Q guind :o ask Mr. T uon the same question. O l
- Reporting 'Trporation
~20?) 628 m l,
i I KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12726 1 A (McLoughlin) I 'm sure you will. { f 2 Q What was the -- what was your interpretation of that f 3 interaction?
-4 A (McLoughlin) Well. Joe. I don 't know that I can do S anymore than say what I 've said which is, having been in a 6 number of meetings with Vic Stello. I have a great deal of 7 respect for him and the way in which he comes directly at an 8 issue. And I like that in someone in the meetings. because it l
9 is -- you don 't ' have to worry about where you stand. And I : i 10 interpreted that statement essentially in that way. j 11 He was saying. I stand here and I want you to know ,. 12 clearly that you guys don't interpret our regulations; we do ! r And as I said. I didn't take any offense of that. ! 13 that. I (]) 14 clearly wouldn 't. It wasn't intended in any way to be 15 pressured. I don't feel any pressure out of that. It wasn 't ! 16 intended. I don 't believe. to be disrespectful. It is simply j 17 the way he talks in meetings. I i Now, that -- I 'm going to get in trouble. I suspect, f 18 t 19 for that last statement. because I didn 't mean that -- to say j 20 that he says, we 're going to go to war in every meeting. I l 21 simply mean to acknowledge the fact that he talku very ! 22 straight. 23 Q He 's a very direct -- [; 24 A (McLoughlin) He 's very di rect. [ 2S Q -- his language is very direct? l CE) i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4880
u i F i 12727 {} 1 A KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT (McLoughlin) That 's right. l 2 Q I want to go on to the next event leading up to the , t 3 testimony which was filed on January 25th and I will direct j i 4 your attention to January 22nd. 1988 and ask you to explain the 5 significance of that date? l 6 A (McLoughlin) Okay. That was kind of the concluding j j 7 event that I was -- that was the concluding event that I had to ; 8 bring as much closure as I could. (or Grant, this issue.
.9 Ar.d we refer to it internally as our "would-could f 10 meeting" on January 22nd. And we had -- I 'm going to explain !
11 what I mean by, would-could. [ j 12 The -- it was a meeting in which we had all of our () 13 key personnel there except for Grant. He had asked me to bring it to closure. That was a conscious And only 14 decision. 15 come to him at that point if indeed there were some unresolved ; 4
- 16 issues, and because he was dealing with other issues. It j
~ 17 wasn't because he was separating himself f rom this, .but it was [ 4 i, ' because I had a certa!a continuity, and he had other items on 18 . i j 19 his plate that he needed to deal with, that I 'll let him tell j
- 20 you about. .
21 Now, we had all of our key people there except ! i 22 Grant 's, and we discussed all of these issues at l e ngth. ; 23 Q '50 was there? 4 i 24 A (McLoughlin) Dick Krimm. Craig Wingo. Margaret t ' 25 Lawless. Bill Cumming, you, Joe Flynn. I think Marshall Sanders Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12728 1 was there. 2 Q Was Ed Thomas there? 3 A (McLoughlin) Sure. Ed Thomas was. Who did I leave l I 4 out? Did I say. Bill Cumming? S Q Yes. 6 A (McLoughlin) That 's essentially it, as I recall. 7 Q Okay. And how long did the meeting last? 8 A (McLoughlin) Sometimes it seems interminable in some t 9 of those meetings that we 've been in. But. Joe. I j ust don 't 10 know. I don 't know. It was -- it was a lengthy meeting. 11 Whatever it was, it was a leng'hy meeting. You know, it was , 12 -- by that I mean, couple, three hours sort of thing, as I () 13 recall. Now, before I interrupted you, you were starting to 14 Q 15 explain your reference to "would or could. " can you go on with 16 that? 17 A (McLoughlin) Yes. By the 22nd, after the NRC . 18 meeting, you know, they clearly said how they interpret their . ( 19 regs. I was, you know, at a certain point in that meeting. So 20 I did go into the meeting of January 22nd with a tentative 21 position. The people in FEMA will tell you that that 's l 22 something that I normally will do. I 23 I will say, here 's my tentative position and I want 24 you to drive me off of this position, because what I want to do is to find the weaknesses in my own arguments. And the best ! 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 < l r I I
'I, KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12729 1 way to hold those up is to get somebody who holds a different 2 vicw.
1 3 We clearly had in that meeting some people who had 4 different views. Ed Thomas certainly being one of them. S Q Can you summarize the discussion? 6 A (McLoughlin) Yes. The discussion boiled down -- we
- 7 had draft testimony. We had the draft testimony of the 25th in 8 front of us, and we were working through the issues, as we j 9 understood them, on that draft testimony and trying to find out 10 whether or not everybody could buy off on -- that it was agreed 11 to our testimony.
12 The conclusion of that meeting was this, all of the 13 staff. Dick and his technical staff, were arguing at that point [} 14 that the New Hampshire plan as submitted, and we had it at that 1 15 time, would meet the requirements of J-9 and J-10-M. l 16 I held an alternative position to that. Ed Thomas l 17 and Bill Cumming agreed to the position that I was holding. I 18 And it was that. I was still uncomfortable with the same thing 19 that I was uncomfortable with back in January -- June 4th l 20 filing, that I had tried to suggest runs a thread through all 21 of this, is that the New Hampshire plan still did not deal with 22 the shelter option. 23 And regardless of that time, whether or not they were 24 going to use them, my view continued to be that I am now a 25 decisionmaker, and an emergency has occurred at New ilampshire ! (:) Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) G28-4888
i ! \ KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12730 0 1 -- at Seabrook, if that occurred. I am the decisionmaker. I am 2 an emergency manager and what I have to do -- I have a plan in 1 3 front of me. I want that plan to tell me up f ront what it is 4 that I ought to be doing with respect to shelter, so that it is l 5 thoroughly technically considered, even if it 's not going to be 6 used, because as a decisionmaker I would not necessarily know 7 whether or not it had adequately been used, and shelter is 8 clearly a viable protective measure. And if it is not 9 explained in the plan that it may have limited use. there was 10 an uncertainty in my mind that the decisionmaker in that 11 emergency may use that wrongly. 12 Now, people will argue with me. I suspect, that that l 13 tends to be self-serving, and it may very well be; and I accept 14 that. But it is a position that I held -- I know you want to , 15 interrupt me, but I want to finish this statement -- I know 16 that -- I have tried to say that that 's been an important i 17 element in my decision all the way throughout this testimony. j 18 And I believe -- my own belief is, and this is where it may ! 19 very well be self-serving. I acknowledge that up front. that 20 the Massachusetts plan ultimately as it will -- I 'm sorry. j 21 Q New Hampshire. ! 22 A (McLoughlin) The New Hampshire ultimately, as I 23 believe it will finally get revised. Will be a better plan, 24 because it will point out how the limitations of shelter in l 25 this -- in event of an accident for the beach population. And O Heritage Reportirm Corporation . (202) 626-4888 ! 1
, - ~ - - - _ _. . - _ . . .. .
b l l j j KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12731 i i O 1 it will also include the fact that shelter has some utility for 2 those transportation dependent transients. I The question was. how -- what 's the "would-could" 3 Q ; i l 4 controversy? 8 5 A (McLough!in) Okay. very good. That's good. Dick 6 and his staff said. Dick Krimm and his staff said, the plan as 7 it stands today would meet that -- those criteria. J-9 and 8 J-10-M. 1 1 9 My view. Ed Thomas's view, which may have been held ' 10 for differing reasons, but his view was, as expressed in that 11 meeting as i understood it, and Bill Cumming 's viev' was, it 12 could meet it if indeed they dealt with the shelter issue. 13 That was essentially the "would-could" shorthand that we were j 14 using. 15 Q And how was that particular issue resolved? 16 A (McLoughlin) Well, at that point in time I was 17 comfortable in my mind. I was holding a position of could, and it was clear in my mind and still is today that that 's the j 18 f 19 right position. The -- but I have enough respect for the other ! 20 people in that group. Craig Wingo. Dick Krimm. Margaret 21 Lawless, you, others, that I thought that was an important i 22 enough decision that I ought to ask Grant to make that one. l 23 Make the decision on "would-could." 24 I left the room, went out, talked to him, briefed him 25 quickly on what happened. Asked him to come into the n.eeting. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 028-4868 I j
l t i-1 I i i i 1 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12732- - l O 1 af ter we 'd been there for three hours. The point that I tried 2 to make is. I think it brought this to resoluti T. I come out ! l 3 of that meeting with a strong position, but you ne6_1 to
)
-4 understand what the other position is that is there, j 5 It also in my mind made sense to go at this a step at- i 6 a time rather than all the way until we understood -- because 7 they had the shelter survey out there, it simply wasn 't I 8 incorporated.
l 9 So. Grant came into the meeting, asked some questions I 10 that he wanted to ask in that group, and ultimately made the , l 11 decision to go with could, that is, if certain things happened 12 in the Massachusetts plan to deal with the shelter rationale -- 13 Q The New Hampshire plan.
)
14 A (McLoughlin) Excuse me. New Hampshire plan. J-9 and 15 J-10-M could be met. Now, in the actual testimony when it was l 16 drafted, that word "could" got changed to "nay or nay not" and 17 got underlined. So the may or may not, in my vernacular 18 relates to the "could" as we came out of our would-could c 19 meeting. 20 Q Was there any further discussions? 21 A (McLoughlin> No. 22 Q That was the end of the meeting? 23 A (McLoughlin) We prepared the testimony. That was 24 the end of the meeting. We had agreed on a position. We filed 25 our supplemental testinony on the 25th. O Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4808 (
i 4 t KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12733 i i ' () 1 MR. FLYNN: May we go off the record for a moment? I 1 2 need a break. i 3 JUDGE SMITH: All right. l 4 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) } 5 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead, l i G BY MR. FLYNN: ; 7 Q Mr. McLoughlin, the next phase of the questioning 8 that I am conducting deals with the testimony which was filed 9 on March 14th, 1988. We left on January 25th, can you resume i 10 at that point? 11 A (McLoughlin) Well, at this point it was clear, after !. 12 that filing, that Grant was acing to take the responsibility l t 13 for going to the next step, and making the next decision with 14 respect to whatever happened, and cane as a result of our {> 15 September -- I mean, our January 25th filing. 16 So what I will relate to you, not is -- is only my 17 own personal participation in that. And we gct the plans from 18 New Hampshire on the ilth or 19th of -- I shouldn 't -- I 'm 19 sorry. We didn 't get plans, we got a statement from New 20 Hampshire on February 11th and February 19th that was 21 essentially their rationale for the use of shelter in this 22 situation with respect to the beach population. 23 Our technical people reviewed that and their advice 24 was, they 're totally regional people, their advice was that 25 this does indeed meet the standards. In soy mind it also met. O Heritage Report i ng Corporat ion , (202) 628-4888 i
i-I gy KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12734 1 shile not required by the RAC members who differed with our 2 position, they had consistently said from the outset that there 3 was an enhancement that might of value to the plan. They were 4 clear -- at least it 'd clear in m mind that they thought they 5 were ready to go at that point approving a ple.n, but even they 6 ackn:wledged the fact that the plans could be enhanced with a 7 description of shelter. 8 So we got the plans from New Hampshire, the rationale 9 statement from New Hampshire, felt it was acceptable. Grant 10 then called and chaired a meeting on the 4th of March. The 11 meeting'was an all day meeting. 12 Every -- we went around the table. Who -- /~T 13 Q Who was there? (_/ 14 A (McLcuchlin) Who was there? Grant, me , Ed Thomas, 15 Henry Vickers, Dick Krimm. Craig Wingo, Margaret Lawless. 16 Marshall Sanders, Joe Flynn, Bill Cumming -- 17 A CPeterson) Joan Hock. 9 18 A (McLoughlin) -- Joan Hock. I think that was it. 19 Oh, I forgot Joe Keller. I thinx I said Thones -- Ed Thomas q 20 was there and Henry Vickers were there and Joe Keller was 21 there. We had asked him to come because we wanted to be sure 22 that we got all of -- everything straight with respect to what 23 he had told us, so that we were -- ao that it was indelibly 24 clear in our mind that we were understanding the technical 25 issues clearly.
^
t ) U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i
/
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12735 1 Grant conducted the meeting, and in essence, we went 2 around the table in erder. Everybody had the opportunity to
< 3 bring up an issue, and then we talked about the issue. And we 4 continued all day long until everybody in effect passed. By that I mean, everybody said, I don't have anything new to bring
/ 6 up or to add.
7 And I 'l l let Grant talk about that meeting because he 8 chaired it and is much firmer on that. At the tail end of it, 3 9 he simply asked a couple of questions, whether or not we could
,y.
10 support it and whether or not we could -- were professionally 11 in tune with it. And everybody said, yes, to the first one, 12 and there were two people that said, no, to the second one; and 13 I 'll let him explain that unless you want me to do that. 14 JUDGE SMITH: What is the "it" that you referred to? 15 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) The -- I 'm sorry. Excuse 16 me , I -- the conclusion of the meeting. And the conclusion of 17 the meeting was that the rationale us submitted by the State of 18 New Hampshire was that it did indeed meet the -- if it was 19 incorporated into the plan, and if there were some procedural 20 aspects included in there to support that rationale, that the 21 plan was adequate and would meet J-9 and J-10-M. 22 BY MR. FLYNN: 1" 23 Q There 's a little bit of further explanation that 's 24 required. You said, everyone agreed to the first, but not 25 everyone agreed to the second, and I believe you 're ref erring , O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12736
),
1 to two separate questions -- 2 A (McLoughlin) Yes. 3 Q -- but you haven 't told us what those separate 4 questions were? 5 A (McLoughlin) Well, the -- I really prefer to let 6 Grant do it, because they were his questions, but I will tell 7 you what my recollection was of the questions. 8 The first question was, can you support this 9 testimony? Because we were working from draft testimony, and 10 he focused our attention early on to the concluding paragraph, 11 which is what. Your Honor, you just asked me about, which is. 12 it does meet J-9 and J-10-M. () 13 His first question was, can you support that 14 position? And everybody said, yes. 15 The second question, essentially, was, can you 16 support it professionally and personally, I believe? And 17 everybody except Ed Thomas and Bill Cumming said, yes, to that. 18 And Ed felt that there was, and we had had long discussions 19 with it which I will only go into if you ask me to, Ed fait 20 that there was, quote, "still too much risk." I believe those 21 were his words, "too much risk." 22 Bill felt on a different issue. Bill continued -- 23 Bill Cumming continued to maintain that the issue -- that this 24 is likely to turn on a matter of law rather than on technical 25 and programmatic issues. I acknowledged up front, back before O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _~
/^ KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12737 t,
1 we ever went into this whole process in June that that was 2 Bill 's essential position and he didn 't change that. And 3 that 's the reason, I understand, he gave a, no , to Grant. 4 Q And were there any other significant events between 5 the 4th of March and the 14th of March when the testimony was 6 filed? 7 A (McLoughlin) Well, we got Mr. Turk 's memorandum that 8 I made reference to earlier on the 18th, which they had 9 committed to the meeting on the 19th. On the 18th of February 10 we did get his memo that -- I won 't go into i t again -- and 11 talked about their interpretation of their regs. , 12 No, none that I know of, Joe, that 's the end of it. 13 Q Okay. Thank you. ({} 14 I will now address a series of questions to Mr. 15 Peterson. 16 Mr. Peterson, at what point did you first become 17 involved in discussions about the beach population, the 18 sheltering issues that are the subj ect of this hearing? 19 A (Peterson) I think when I formally became involved 20 was after the confirmation, and more specifically, after the 21 ist of January. I did attend some meetings, most of which I 27 did not attend for the total length of the meetfngs that I was 23 attending. 4 24 I had gained considerable confidence in Mr. 25 McLoughlin's abilities as an administrator; his understanding Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
---,- ~m nr-v - -~--<n+~~,cm-c -- - - -
,,,,,,s~.--~e- --,--ee--,-m- - - , - - - - - r -
4 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12738
-O 1 of this issue; and the continuity that I knew he possessed.
2 I had a lot of other things on my plate, not to say 3 that this was not a very important issue, but I had a lot of 4 other things on my plate, and I quite frankly, after a number 5 of discussions that Mr. McLoughlin has relayed to you 6 previously on how we were going to handle the fact that I was 7 there and he was in the formal position. 8 I finally said, Dave, I want you to feel comfortable 9 to move forward on this and you tell me what meetings prior to 10 my confirmation that I need to attend. So there was very few 11 meetings that I was in prior to my confirmation. 12 Q Do you recall when those meetings were? 13 A CPeterson) I do not recall specifically when they 14 were. I think there was a meeting in September around the 9th 15 or so that I was in for five or ten minutes. I can remember 16 being involved in a meeting or a discussion around December i 17 13th or 14th relative to management issues in Region 1, it was 18 with the Regional Director there, and that was prior -- that 19 was not prior to my hearings, but I think it was prior to my 20 formal confirmation, right in between the two. 21 But when you get to the point where you have been 22 confirmed by the Senate things start looking a little more real 23 and you can take a real breath, the first one in nine months. 24 But I think where it 's appropriate really to start is 25 around the 1st of January time frame. () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1 ( a KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12739 e-1 Q Is that when you first took an active role in this? l et/116 2 (Continued on next page.) l' l 3 4 4 . S
'i 1
! I
- 6 :
i , ! 7-i' 8 ! i ; ? 9 ! 10 i 1 i 11
; 12 li 1
13 14 15 i 16 l P 17
)
18 ! l i 19 l 20 . 21 , i 22 23 f 24 7
)
25 3 t O t Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 i I
., KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12740
)
(il7 T 1 A (Peterson) Around that time I had said, okay; you 2 know, we 're confirmed. We have the process in place, Dave, and 3 I_need a lot of briefings on a lot of things. However, I want 4 to get a heads up on the Seabrook issue. 5 And so in the first week of January, and again on 6 January the 15th, we were in briefings relative to the Seabrook 7 issue. 8 And I would just like to take a moment to let you 9 know a few of the things that were on the plate besides that. 10 I was dealing with trying to make myself availeble to all the 11 congressional hearings that had anything to do with any of my 12 programmatic areas. I thought that was important because I 13 have to testify before Congress as I did this year and justify 14 all of our budget positions. 15 Secondly, I was preparing the budget for the head-on-16 head with OMB, which gives us our mark for all of cur 17 programmatic areac, ana it 's around $600 million worth. So I 18 was working in those areas. 19 Additionally, I have 10 regional offices. I was 20 trying to get into the field and find out what a regional 21 office Icoked like. And additionally, I was trying to make 22 conferences such as the Hurricane Conference in Florida, and 23 the Hazardous Materials, or the Natural Hazards Conference in 24 Boulder. 25 So those were the type of things we were doing up O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
g KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12741 v 1 until the confirmation. 2 1 'd like to cover, if I may, around the 1st of 3 January, a few of the things that may be a little repetitious, 4 but I think you need to know what was flagged to me around that 5 period of time when Mr. McLoughlin and the staff, and I would 6 say for the most part the staff that was included in my 7 briefing was, of course, Mr. McLoughlin, Mr. Krimm as the 8 assistant associate director in charge of the day-to-day 9 operations down there, Mr. Craig Wingo was in a number of those 10 meetings, Mr. Cumming, and you attend some of those meetings, 11 Mr. Flynn. 12 But a few of the things that were flaggeo to me, and 13 I don 't want to be repetitious, but I think you have to 14 understand my thought process, too, and I 'l l list four or five 15 of them because I think they 're important, that transpired 16 between the September filing and by the time we got to the 17 January time frame. 18 And the first thing that popped up in October was the 19 NRC filing of the proposed rebuttal plan for the staff 20 concerning the New Hampshire radiological emergency 21 preparedness protective actions for Seabrook for the seasonal 22 beach population. 23 And what was key there to me was that this included a 24 statement that NRC regulations were not contravened by the 25 absence of shelter for the beach population. O Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
em KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12742 U 1 Now, I understand that was never made a part of the 2 record, and I want to bring that up because it became an issue 3 in the January 19th meeting, and was one of the issues that I 4 wanted to resolve although at that time, the 1st of January, I 5 did not know we were going to have a January meeting with Mr. 6 Stello, but it was a flagged issue. 7 Additionally, there was the influence of the.ASLB 6 determination of the admissibility of the Sholly testimony, and 9 there was basically two things that I understood about that. 10 One, that it was very compatible and supportive to 11 the context of CLI-86-13. And basically what that meant to me 12 is that emergency planning requirements do not require that an 13 adequate plan achieve a preset minimum in dose savings, or a 14 minimum evacuation time for the plume EPZ in the event of a 15 serious accident. It says that very clearly. 16 And the other thing that needed to be thrown up that 17 they were giving to me as a flag was the requirement -- a 18 specific requirement statement that the requirement is that the 19 plans attempt to achieve reasonable and feasible dose savings 20 under the circumstances. And these -- these things transpired 21 after the September filing time frame. 22 In November again -- 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well. what flagged tnat latter concept 24 to you? 25 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) In the briefings, the () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12743 1 decision on Sholly -- 1 2 JUDGE SMITH: I see. 3 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) -- on the dose figures, 4 when you rej ected that it supported, in my mind, CLI-86-13, and
- 5. the discussion in there as something that was a specific 6 direction to us.
7 BY MR. FLYNN: 8 Q How did that come to your attention? 9 A (Peterson) There was five or six items that in the 10 meetings I said I need to know -- I know you 've got a 11 discomfort feeling, because I 've had a number of you tell me 12 you have a discomfort feeling in the position that we filed on 13 September 17th, and I was also aware, after the fact, that
-./
14 there had been a request for an extension because of some 15 of -- of the filing date, because of some of the concerns that 16 were coming up. It wasn 't brought to conclusion by any means, 17 but there was this concern that was beginning to raise, okay? 18 So I asked specifically of the staff, flag some 19 things to me that you think are pertinent at this point in time 20 that need to be considered overall that has raised some of your 21 levels of concern as to where you were in September, and where 22 we may be going. It was a confidence issue. 23 At that point in time there was a serious question in 24 my mind that our headquarters staff had confidence in the 25 September position. So I wanted to know what are some of the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12744 1 things, not, you know, don 't give me a two-year scenario, but 2 give me some of the things. 3 And so I was given five or six items. 4 Q Have you mentioned all of them? 5 A (Peterson) I just want to touch a couple more that I 6 think would be appropriate, if I might. 7 NRC finalized their role in the utility plan, and 8 their assumptions that no minimum dose savings were -- and no 9 minimum ETEs. 10 Now, why I bring that up is because I think that il prevails now and is underlying for not only utilities but also 12 for state plans. But it was the state, or the utility plan 13 that reemphasized that point, and that happened in November.
-{ )
14 Technically, from a technical positien if I may. 15 INEL, which is Mr. Keller 's company, Iasho National l 16 Laboratories, I believe it is, he had worked through the . 17 technical analysis that Mr. McLoughlin had talked to you about 18 before, specifically rblating to fast-breaking core melt 19 situations. 20 And what was coming out of that loud and clear, to me 21 in these briefings, and I did not get this from Mr. Keller at 22 that time, but I did get it through the staff during that first 23 couple of weeks in January, was that it was Mr. Kel l er 's < 24 opinion that during fast-breaking accidents, that evacuation 25 has the very best potential for dose savings, and that, in my ( ieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,- , , , , - , , - ,-------e-v-----,.-,,--n,-,,---,,--v, er- - - - , - - . , - m-,-,-ny~, -
---n- rm s - - - -
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12745 1 lay language, I would say what he 's telling us that in a fast-2 breaking situation core melt your best possible action for your 3 citizens is to get them out of there over sheltering, and that 4 was raised to me, 5 The other thing that really weighed fairly heavily 6 with me, and I think I need to emphasize that, is that we . 7 seemed to consistently have a regional advisory council within 8 the region of Region 1 who disagreed with FEMA 's position. 9 In July 30th, they felt that the New Hampshire plan 10 was adequate relative to the beach population. I had no longer 11 signed my form and had it notarized on January 5th, and they 12 had another RAC meeting on January 7th and the 8th, and again 13 went through the New Hampshire plan and focused on the beach 14 population issue. 15 And once again we ended up, as relayed to me through 16 staff, that we had the Department of the Interior, und that we 17 had NOAA again, and our FEMA representative who disagreed -- 18 who were the minority position, and that the two-third maj ority 19 reconfirmed that previous majority position; that the New 20 Hampshire plan was adequate with respect to the beach 21 population. 22 They threw a little caveat on the end of that though 1 23 that said although additional shelter information would be an i 24 enhancement, and I 'd like to throw that up because it had some 25 impact on me, quite frankly, in the would/could meeting that ( i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12746 -(]
V 1 Mr. McLoughlin talked about. 2 And, so, those were things that nappened right 3 almost immediately upon the time that I arrived, was the 4 briefings, the positions of the RAC, and again another review 5 by the RAC January 7th and 8th, and we were consistently, FEMA, 6 coming out in the minority position, and that concerned me 7 greatly. 8 And the other thing that it did, not to be 9 repetitive, but it showed to me and had the cumulative effect 10 at that point in time af ter the January 7th and 8th RAC 11 meeting, quite frankly, that our staff, in my opinion, did not 12 have confidence; that at this time frame in January, that the {} 13 September filing would for that matter, or could for that matter star,d, and I really feel there was that concern 14 15 throughout the headquarters staff. 1G Q I want to focus your testimony for a moment on your 17 role in the testimony which was file on January 25th. Can you 18 tell us what that was? 19 A (Peterson) Okay, I'm going to skip over the January 20 15th and 19th to go to the 25th, if you would like. Is that 21 what you 're asking me to do, sir? 22 Q Well, no, if those things are important, tell us 23 about those too. 24 A CPeterson) Okay. 25 Q Did you say January 15th? I 'm sorry. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12747 1 A (Peterson) Right, yes, because I --- 2 Q Yes, I 'm getting ahead of myself. 3 A CPeterson) -- think it 's appropriate here for me to 4 get into the January 19th meeting, because we formulated the 5 final draft of the January 24th after that meeting, and I want I 6 to cover that. I'm glad to have the opportunity to here to do 7 that, quite frankly. 8 On January 15th, in the afternoon. I said previously 9 that that was one of the dates that I remember where I was 10 having a briefing on these Seabrook issues, because I was 11 tryir.g to get up to speed on this. And it, to me, was a ! 12 considerably complex issue, quite frankly, to be very candid in {} 13 14 saying that. And in that meeting, which war held in my office. I 15 got -- my secretary came in and said you have a phone call from 16 Mr. Stello, and I said, fine. You carry on if you would and 17 get the next agenda item set, and I 'll go and take it in Dave 's 18 office. 19 I took that call in Dave 's of fice. And Mr. Stello 20 indicated to me that his call was generated because of reports 21 that he had been ge: ting out of these hearings, and was 22 somewhat surprised and concerned that we had this much of a 23 problem with the New Hampshire beach is ue. 24 And then, as my memory recollects, he framed 25 something else that me being new rin the job gave me pause to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12748 O 1 think for a moment. He said, why haven 't we been made aware of 2 this, or something to that effect. 3- And so I said, well, I don 't know why you haven 't 4 been made aware of it. I would assume that you would have 5 been, but let me check that out. 6 So I hung up and went back in the meeting, and that 's 7 when I turned to Dave and I saic. Dave, why aren 't you keeping 8 NRC up to spece on this stuff. At which time Dave said, I 9 don 't know why NRC isn 't up to speed on this, but we 're 10 assuming they knew this issue. We filed our testimony and they 11 have representative in the RAC, and quite f rankly, I think I 12 overreacted a little bit there with Dave, because I didn 't 13 totally have a full grasp of the process. 14 I then called Mr. Stello back, and he indicated that 15 he -- you know, he wanted to get together at a headquarters 16 level to discuss some issues of concern; that he had a number 17 of issues that he felt we needed to talk about, and let 's get 18 these things discussed. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with 19 that. It appears to me that 's a very appropriate process. And 20 so we set up a meeting. I cleared my calendar, set up a 21 meeting for January 19th that we concurred on, and I had what I 22 thought was some basic parameters for that meeting, and one was 23 that it was going to be limited to headquarters, high-level 24 people. 25 And when I say that, I considered that myself, I O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l (T, KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12749 s_/ i considered that Mr. McLoughlin, and I considered that Mr. 2 Krimm, and that I assumed that Mr. Stello would come over and 3 bring a couple of his people, and we wanted to keep it at that 4 level. You know, this was the first, I believe the first tiro 5 I 'd ever been in a meeting with Mr. Stello, you know, where I 6 was a real live entity, and I felt that it was very appropriate 7 for the headquarters people to talk back and forth and discuss 8 what was going on and if there was any issues that we needed to 9 discuss. So we set that meeting up. 10 It was agreed that he would come over to FEMA, and he 11 did so. But when NRC did arrive, the cast had expanded a , 12 little bit to not beyond the headquarters people, bat it had () 13 expanded slightly. And so at the very last minute we expartded 14 our people as well, and brought in Mr. Craig Wir.go, who is 15 certainly a very technically qualified person with an 16 engineering degree; and we brought in Margaret Lawless; and we 17 had intended to bring our legal people with us as we had. So 18 we had, as I recall, Mr. Cumming, and we had Mr. Watson. 19 And you did not come, Mr. Flynn, to that meeting, as 20 I reflect, until NRC was done and was leaving, because you had 21 other business you were taking care of. 22 So that brings us to the January 19th meeting, if I 23 may. 24 Q Was there an agenda for that meeting agreed on in 25 advance? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
.:..-,-,em.--.,,_e. ._, , , _ _ ,,
fg KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12750 V 1 A (Peterson) There was no agenda that I am aware of 2' that was agreed upon by our agency whatsoever. 3 Q Well, what did you understand to be the topics to be 4 discussed? 5 A (Peterson) Okay. I had a couple of things that I 6 had triggered myself, and I alluded to one of them, and that 7 was, you know, where are we on the lack of shelter not 8 contravening NRC regs. 9 No one in headquarters could point to anything that 10 said, or gave a conclusive statement to that issue. So I was il going to bring that up. That was one of my personal agenda 12 items. 13 Also, because Mr. Stello showed in my phora 14 conversation some surprise that we had this kind of concerns . 15 about the beach issue. I thought it was extremely appropriate 16 for me to have another agenda item, and that was to make sure i 17 before we left that meeting that he was aware that there was 18 also 30 planning inadequacies, and over 50 exercise 19 deficiencies in the New Hampshire plan. E117 20 (Continued on next page.) 21 22 23 24 25 l
) '
L Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 r
g KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12751 s 71)18 1 And so we were a long ways from being able to deal 2 with the decisionmaking process of what is bottom line 3 reasonable assurance or not. We had this many deficiencies out 4 there, and I wanted to make sure he understood that. 5 And we went into the meeting. Those were basically 6 the two items that I had that I wanted to discuss. However, I 7 knew that there was a lot of things going on in the REP program 8 relative to not only Seabrook, but Shoreham and Pilgrim, and I 9 had talked to Mr. Krimm and said, you need to visit and take 10 the leed on the issues of Seabrook, Shoreham and Pilgrim if we 11 get into such things as scheduling and those kind of events. 12 So you work out some things that you want to talk and discuss 13 with Mr. Stello, but let 's let him lead, but we need -- if 'O 14 those issues come about, you 're the program manager there, and i 15 you take the lead on that. 16 And as I recollect in the meeting, he certainly did 17 do that. 18 Q Well, we know that there were a number of topics 19 discussed at the meeting, and I want you to summarize for me 20 the discussion on the sheltering issue. 21 A (Peterson) Well. I wanted to find out specifically 22 from NRC, as I said before, if the lack of shelter would 23 contravene the NRC 's regs. And we talked about that for a 24 time, and I've been trying to remember how I led into this, but , 25 I know we had been talking about the issue, and I said ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4808
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12752
~}
1 something along this line, but it 's going to be a paraphrase. 2 I said, Mr. Stello, what if we demanded that 3 sheltering be required at the beach population, and we said the 4 reason we 're demanding it is because NRC 's regs require it. 5 Then what would you say to that. 6 And he said basically, if you did that and said that 7 and you 're trying to interpret our regulations to say that, 8 then we would go to war over that issue. And he -- excuse me. 9 Q And you said? 10 A (Peterson) And he said it relatively forcefully, 11 ~ which there 's nothing out of line or not responsible for doing 12 that in a meeting between people. (} 13 And I said back to him, I said, Mr. Stello, you know, we can assume this rough, tough, and hard to bluff stature if 14 15 you wish, but it isn 't going to get you or me or anyone else 16 anything. 17 And at that time I grinned at him, and he grinned 18 back, and a few people giggled a little, and he said, well, you 19 know, where do you want to go from here. And I said, I want to 20 take a caucus for a couple of minutes. 21 And so we did. I got my people off to the side and I 22 said, well, we 've got the issue on the floor, and how do you 23 think we ought to bring it to fruition. And they said, the 24 only way we can deal with this is NRC has to provide us that 25 information in writing. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. J
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12753 1 So we came back, and we put that to NRC. And we 2 said, what you 're telling me then is that the lack of shelter 3 will not contravene your regulations; is that right. And they. 4 said, yes, that 's right. 5 Then I said, all right, we want it in writing. Now I - 6 can 't remember if I said we want it in writing, or if I put 7 that in the lead of someone else, but the question was very : 8 specifically stated to NRC that we wanted it in writing. And 9 they said, you 'll .have it. And as far as I was concerned, I 10 felt that that was a word of statement, and I expected to 11 receive it in writing, and later we did receive a piece of , 12 information on that. 13 There was from there a fair amount of excnange on 14 when can you do exercises, and Mr. Kriaria handled most of those r i 15 issues, and I can try to relay those discussions, but I think
- 16 they would be much more correctly relayed to this body if Mr.
17 Krimm did it. 18 Q I'll ask you the same questions I asked Mr. ; 19 McLoughlin earlier. 20 Did anyone in the NRC side of the room advocate a 21 certain conclusion as to adequacy of the plans or reasonable , 22 assurance? 23 A (Peterson) No. 24 Q In what sense, if any, did you come out of the room j 25 with a different position tran you went into the room? ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12754 gg G I didn 't have any position leaving that 1 A (Peterson) 2 room that was any different than when I went into the room 3 other than the fact that I anticipated getting a written 4 statement f rom NRC. 5 In fact, I 've thought about this extensively, and was 6 concerned in that -- prior to that meeting and in that meeting 7 that I left an opinion -- a statement with NRC, and we said a 8 statement before I left that I think speaks to the issue. And 9 I basically explained towards the end of that meeting that I 10 still wanted to see that the sheltering option had received 11 full consideration by New Hampshire, and that I intended to ask 12 them to do that. , i 13 Q And you said that in the meeting? 14 A CPeterson) We said that in the neeting. Now that 's 15 a paraphrase, but it got out. 16 Q And how did the NRC people react to that? 17 A (Peterson) There was really no reaction one way or k 18 the other. They understand that was the course we were going f 19 to be on. 20 Q There 's a report circulating that you negotiated away < t 21 a reasonable assurance finding. How do you react to that? 22 A (Peterson) That is an absolutely incorrect report or a { 23 assumption. 24 Q Okay, is there anything else you found significant 25 about the meeting of January 19th? Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 i
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12755 O 1 A (Peterson) No, I think that pretty well terminated 2 it. It ran from about -- it was supposed to start about 1:00; 3 didn't really get started until 1:30 or so, and somewhere 4 eround 5: 00 we adj ourned.
'S I would like to say overall, you know, it was a 6 discussion of headquarters people, and I felt absolutely no 7 duress by what was said in that meeting, and it was an exchange 8 amongst executives, and there was no -- I perceived no threat 9 or duress there whatsoever, and I think that needs to go on the 10 record.
11 Q Even the supposed declaration of war, you didn 't 12 consider that duress? 13 A CPeterson) No, that really didn't bother me. I 've
)
14 been in a lot of meetings in five years as an elected official, 15 and. you know, that statement really is much milder than a lot 16 of them I 've heard, and I didn 't take it that way, and I felt 4 17 that he basically was saying, look, if you 're going to try to 18 interpret our regulations, then, you know, we cannot tolerate 19 that, and we would go to war was the word, and I assumed that 20 meant that we would legally address it. That 's what I assumed ! 21 it meant. 22 Q Okay. From Mr. McLoughlin 's account , the next 23 significant event occurred on January 22nd. Would you -- 24 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Mr. Flynn, before we leave 25 January 19th. I 'd kind of like to get Mr. Peterson to close the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12756 1 loop on something he said was in his mind before he went into 2 that meeting; namely, he thought it was important to get an 3 understanding of whether Mr. Stello realized there had been 4 inadequacies and discrepancies in the plan. 5 Did you come away with a feeling that he did 6 understand that? 7 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) I think when it was put to 8 him very forthrightly, that I recognized a certain degree of 9 surprise in his reaction. 10 JUDGE LINENBERGER: As though he were hearing it for 11 the first time, perhaps? 12 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Well, I don 't know that he 13 was hearing it for the first time, sir, but I would say that, i 14 in observing his reaction to it, that I don 't think he had 15 an -- he may not have an understanding at that time of the 16 severity of 30-some planning problems and 50-some exercise 17 problems. 18 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank you. 19 Sorry, Mr. Flynn. 20 MR. FLYNN: Quite all right, Your Honor. 21 BY MR . FLYNN: 22 Q Well, in that line, Mr. Peterson, do you -- was it 23 your impression that he had an appreciation of those thing when f 24 he left the meeting? 25 A (Peterson) I think he had an appreciation of those Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 i
i KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12757 ! O 1 when he left, and I got the feeling that he would probably be 2 quite well briefed from that point on. 3 Q I want to turn now to January 22nd, unless you feel , 4 there is something in between the 19th and the 22nd that we 5 need to talk about. 6 A (Peterson) I don 't have anything in my memory. Mr. 7 Flynn, that, you know, is a trigger between the 19th and the 8 22nd. 9 Q I 'd like to hear your account of your involvement in , 10 the meeting at -- in the would-could meeting. 11 A (Peterson) I would first like to say that the F 12 January 19th meeting did not trigger the January 22nd meeting , 13 in any way. I 14 We 've talked at some length about the concerns and 15 considerations that Mr. McLoughlin has put on the record here. 16 I was receiving similar support for those concerns from Mr. 17 Krimm, from Mr. Wingo, and certainly from Mr. Cumming on a , 18 repeated basis. : I l 19 And so my thrust was, at that time. that all of the 20 concerns that had been -- has been voiced here and any other ' J 21 that might raise should be put on a table and should be 22 discussed. And if there was merit in filing a modified 23 position, that it should be addressed sooner rather than later. 24 I felt that there was one indivirJal who was the very , 25 best qualified to continue to do this, and that was Mr. l l Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
- - - - - . - _ - - - . . . - . - _ , _ - _ ~ . - . - . . , . - . _ . - - , . . -
~ - - . .
l l 1 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12758 1 1 McLoughlin. He had absolute -- I think he had very good 2 knowledge of this issue. It had been raised to a substantially 3 ' higher level over the last number of months, by his own 4 testimony, and he had continuity, and I asked him if he would 5 chair that issue, because I had a number of things coming down 6 at that time, and one of those was the fact that I had a 7 serious problem with the civil defense program in the State of 8 Oregon, and I had 49 states signed on the Comprehensive 9 Cooperative Agreement for civil defense, and I did not have the 1 10 State of Oregon on, and it was a difficult issue. It had ! 11 gotten into the press, and it was very obvious to me that I was 12 going to have to go to Oregon personally and discuss the issue > {} 13 14 with the governor. time. And so that was a driving factor at that i 15 But even if that had not been there. I very well may : 16 havt made the choice to let Mr. McLoughlin carry through on i 17 that. 18 So he called the meeting together, and he has 19 expressed who was there. And I asked him to bring this thing , e 20 to closure, this issue to closure if it was possible. And if
- 21 it was not possible to bring it to closure, and there was some 22 issues that needed to be visited by me, to feel free to have my 23 assistant look me up where I was and get me down there, and I 24 would entertain those discussions.
25 And it was later in the day when Mr. McLoughlin came , r O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 t h
9 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12759 O 1 out and he said, we do have one issue that I think you need to 2 come in and hear about. He gave me a real quick update, and I 3 said, okay, but I want to get in there and hear what everybody 4 has to say. 5 I think my memory is very parallel to what Mr. 6 McLoughlin said, and it was the would/could issue that was a 7 disagreement, and I viewed it this way. That New Hampshire ' 8 presented, you know, an adequate explanation for not requiring 9 sheltering in their plan then that could meet the range of . 10 protective actions, or would it. 11 And to me, that 's very pivotal, because if I would 12 have said "would" meet the ranges of protective actions, this ; 13 issue would have been determined by FEMA at that point in time.
} And if you look at the filing, you 'll find that that would-14 15 could on Page 2 turned into "may or may not", and reads, if I 4
16 may read it for a moment to bring some continuity into my 17 thought process, let me get it in the context. 18 It says, "Briefly put, FEMA 's position is t (a) that 19 it is appropriate to consider further the adequacy of emergency 20 response plan for the transient population at the beach within - the Seabrook emergency planning zone during the summer; that J 21 , 22 is, from May 15 to September 15 as indicated in the New l 23 Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response plan that is required . 24 under NUREG-0654 for a range of protective actions may or may E118 25 not be satisfied by evacuation alone." , j Heritage Reporting Corporation ! > (202) 628-4888
. - _ . ..- _ _ -_ _-_ _ _ , , _ ,,_ _ _ .- _ ,_- _ ._.. _ _ . _ . _ _ , , - - _ _ - _ . _ ~ _ __ --
12760 {} 1 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT And it goes down further at the bottom, and this is t/119 2 what I alluded to earlier in the RAC meeting'when they said, 3 sheltering could be further viewed. It says. "If the State of 4 New Hampshire intends not to employ sheltering for the tran-5 sient beach population, which is not presently clear from the 6 NH RERP, then FEMA expects the state to develop the rationale 7 for such choice and to provide it to FEMA for review." 8 Q Just for the clarity of the record, you used an 9 acronym NH RERP, and you 're referring to the NH RERP, the New 10 Hampshire. Radiological Emergency Response Plan? 11 A (Peterson) That 's correct. But I wanted t.- leave it 12 in "could" context, and the "may" context; and be in support of {} 13 the RAC 's position. I should give that probably to you A nd no t put us in a position that we were going to 14 verbatim. 10 say, it would or that it will. 16 It was responsible. I felt at that p31nt in time, to ; 17 request that New Hampshire further address the issue. To 18 present to us their rationale for exclusion of sheltering in . 19 mobt cases. And then, we as a policy people and as a technical 20 people could sit down and look at that and see if we felt that 21 it was lational and that it met the criteria. 22 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I 'm about to go on to another i 23 subj ec t, I have about another half hour of questions for the , 24 panel, we can either break here or I can continue until I 'm 25 finished. Continue? . t O Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 : i 6
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12761 1 JUDGE SMITH: It 's our pref erence to go unless 2 there 's a strong obj ection? 3 (No response) 4 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Then that way it will all 5 be in the transcript for tomorrow, too. 6 MR. FLYNN: Yes. 7 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) I just think it 's important 8 to reemphasize that, even at that point in time we were still 9 saying, we 're going to take a look at New Hampshire response to 10 our request for their rationale on their sheltering issue. I 11 would -- go ahead, excuse me. 12 B1 MR. FLYNN: r- 13 Q There 'n been a suggestion that FEMA had already made C 14 up its mind that the plans were adequate, but simply was not 15 prepared to say so at that time; how would you respond to that? 16 A (Peterson) I had not made my mind up, and I think 17 just by the very fact that we cam? into a room and discuesed 18 the issue and chose the "could" aspect of it, certainly 19 verified, you know; that we were searching for the correct and 20 absolute position on this. And I had not made my mind up. And 21 I don 't believe that Mr. VcLoughlin had made his mind up, at 22 that point in time, and he can certainly speak to that. But 23 specifically, I had not made my mird up at that point in time. 24 Q in i l , now we 're noving on to the testimony which was 25 filed in March, at which point FEMA did make up its mind. Can g3 L) Heritage Reporting Corporatien (202) G28-4080
KRIMM, PETERSON. . MCLOUGHLIN - DIREC r 127c^ 7g
'v 1 you tell us what persuaded you that the position that has been 2 set forth in the prefiled testimony of March 14th. -1988 was 3 correct?
4 A CPeterson) Do you want me to go to March 4th? S Q Yes? ( ; 6 A (Peterson) Okay. Can I give.you three bullets that
'7 I think are important that happened between --
8 Q Yes. ) 1< 9 A (Peterson) -- January 25th. I think it 's important 10 to note .that on -- in February that New Hampshire respondeo to 11 FEMA 's supplemental testimony by submitting additional 12 information on their rationale for using shelter option, only 13 for the transient beach population, so that came in. ! 14 February 18th NRC counsel, Mr. Turk, yrote to FEVA 15 counsel, Mr. Flynn, that 's you, on NRC 's undakstanding of 16 FEMA 's supplemental testimony of January the 25th of '88. And 17 the letter confirmed NRC staff interpretation of NRC 's reas, 18 not requiring that there be a range of protective actions that 19 include both sheltering and evacuation options for all 20 accidents at all times and at all locations in the EPZ. So, we 3 21 r eceived NRC 's response. 1 ! 22 Q You understood that to be the letter that Mr. Stello 23 had promised? 24 A CPeterson) Absolutely. And in February 29th meeting l of Region 1, RAC, that occurred as I understand it on the 29th 25 Heritage Reporting Corpo: . ion : (202) 628-4888
\
?
. _ . _,r. . , - , . - - , , . - _ , , . . . - - . . . - , , , , , . . - - , . - . . , , , . - . , _ . _ _ _ . . , , - - . -
.o
- 1.-
t h KRIMM, PETERSON, VOLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12763 (5) 1 of. February, isn 't that correct? And again, the majority of ' 2 the RAC supported the New Hampshire plan for the beach l 3 population, specifically addressed the J-9 and J-10-M issue and 4 the Treponderance of that Advisory Committee supported the > a 5 position that J-9 and J-10-M had been met. 6 So I think those are three things that need to be 1 7 flagged as happening between January the 25th filing and Maren 8 4th. 9 And I 'll go to March 4th, if you 'd like, sir. , 10 Q Yes. 11 A (Peterson) I asked that we put together a meeting. I 12 did it through Mr. McLoughlin and my assistant to get some 13 players together, if I can use that terminology, for March 4th. 14 And prior to the meeting beginning on March 4th, several days 15 before that I asked that we bring together general counsel : 16 people, our legal people; that we bring together our technical 1 f- 17 people; and we bring together some policy people. We have some t people in FEMA who, you know, were involved in the very 18 19 beginnings of the writing of 0654, 44 CFR 350, 351, in fact the + 20 name of Marshall Sanders is in there that says, if you have any , t 21 information of what these regs say call him, and he 's one of i 22 our people, So certainly, I wanted him in on these meetings, l t 23 so he could check off on what oiar regs say and what our 24 guidance is. 25 And I asked them t - sring together a document that l [ 5 () Heritage Reporting Corporation - (202) 628-4888 , J i
KRIMM. PETF sN. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12764 O 1 would contain a concl) aion that we could use as a information 2 piece to work off of in the March 4th meeting. 3 And so that group of people got together and put I
'4 together this basic structure, and a conclusion with supporting 5 information to the conc?usion. Because I wanted to have a i 6 piece to work from when we walked into a room and sat down.
7 And they put that together. and I think the-first [ 8 time we saw it was March the 3rd, if I 'm not mistaken. I : 1 9 believe that 's the correct date. And on March (th I had asked 10 for some specific people to be there and I would like to go I 11 through those people because I had a rationale for asking them i 12 to be there. ; 13 And I was there because I felt that I was probably ( 14 going to have to make the final call. But I had a lot of other 15 people there, because I knew that it was imperative that I rely 16 on the advice of my staff, and my technical people, and the , 17 attorneys in formulating this policy position. And I expected 18 that I would make that decision on their advice. 19 So I asked Mr. McLoughlin to be there because of his 20 programmatic knowledge and his continuity. I asked Mr. Krimm 21 to be there because he 's the Assistant Associate Director of i 22 NTH. has been involved in this all along. I asked Joan Hock to l 23 be there who is the Division Chief for the Radiological 24 Emergency Preparedness Program. I asked Mr. Wingo to be there 25 because he was the Headquarter Branch Chief for Field ! O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, JCLOUGHLIN DIRECT 12765 O. i 1 Operations. I asked Margaret Lawless to be there because she 's - 2 the Headquarter Team Leader for Field Operations. I asked , 3 Marshall Sanders to be there because he was the Branch Chief - 4 Program and Policy Development person, and I talked to his i S credential before. I wanted Henry Vickers there because he 's G Region 1 Director of the Region. I wanted Mr. Thomas there 7 because he 's the Region 1 Division Chief for NTH. Natural and - 8 ' Technological Hazards. I wanted you there. Mr. Flynn, because , I 9 your f rom our General Counsel 's Of fice and had been working 10 here. Mr. Cumming f rom the General Counsel Of fice. I wanted 11 him to be there for sure. And I wanted Joe Keller to be there, 12 from Idaho Nuclear Engineering Labs. 13 And I wanted to bring the best people and the best i [} 14 minds we had together from the headquarters and in Region 1 to 15 address this issue, and work it, and work it, and work it until I 16 we had all the issues on the table. 17 Q You didn 't mean to leave Mr. Watson off your list of I 18 the best minds, did you? 19 A (Peterson) I think Mr. Watson had his hands full at [ i 20 that time. I don't believe you were there, but I-- 21 Q No. oh. , 4 , 22 MR. WATSON: Yes, in fact, California. ! 23 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Oh, I don 't know -- I i ! 24 didn 't know how that came about, but I certainly would not have I 25 excluded him. ( l l
- Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 , [ t )
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12766
) ( 1 But I needed to have that group of people with their 2 historical knowledge, their technical ability, their legal 3 advice, and their policy knowledge in that meeting to discuss 4 this. And so we brought them together.
5 And I felt very sincerely that I needed these people 6 to bring this conclusion, and I knew I would rely on my staf f 's 7 recommendations. And I want to say that again, and I felt this 8 group of individuals had the knowledge, and they had the 9 ability to bring this issue to consensus, based upon legal 10 merit, technical merit, and to make sure that it was compatible 11 with our guidance and regulations. And that was my rationale 12 for that meeting. 13 This meeting started about 9 o ' clock in the morning. O 14 It was a marathon meeting. It lasted six and one half hours. 15 Everybody in attendance at that meeting without exception spoke , i 16 to the issues, some more than others, but everyone repeatedly. t 17 To show you the extent that we went through in that 18 meeting, there was 60 responses, as we went around the room. l 19 People talked 60 different times on these issues. 20 The discussion was centered on the beach issues. j 21 There was a full review of the conclusion statement that was 22 put before everyone. Staff indicated the conclusions comported 23 to NRC regulations. In other words, we weren 't crossways with j i 24 NRC. 25 And there was primarily three areas of contention f Heritage Reporting Corporation l i (202) 628-4080 i l ,
KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGMLIN - DIRECT 12767 ; 1 raised, that I think I need to point to. And they were raised 2- by Mr. Thomas. Basically the issues were, there is not 3 adequate range of protective actions, in his mind. So, J-9 and 4 J-10-M, in his opinion, were not met. 5 The two percent issue, and it was referred to in that 6 meeting as two percent population, that 's the transit-dependent 7 transient beach population, as I understood it, was as he said, 8 a mild concern for him or a mild problem; and that stemmed out 9 of a lack of sufficient detail in the New Hampshire plan. 10 BY MR. FLYNN: , i 11 Q Excuse me, the reference to two percent was that, l 12 those people were approximately two percent of the total beach I 13 population? [ Yes. 14 A (Peterson) Thank you. 15 And the other thi.ig that came out, which was the 16 third issue. I think fairly loud and clear was that. Ed was not i 17 sure, and I have this in my notes, that this was a technical i 18 matter so much, out was a professional or judgmental call as 19 what is an acceptable risk. { 20 And also was said underneath that, that there was no , 21 absolute right or wrong, but a judgment call on this risk 22 issue. 23 That 's really the three issues that it finally i 24 focused on and that we spent a lot of time on. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Incidentally, Judge Harbour has left Heritage Report i ng Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12768 (-x 4' i the room, but he can hear the testimony. 2 THE WIfNESS: (Peterson) Okay. 3 JUDGE SMITH: He 's with us. t 4 THE WITNESS: CPeterson) Thank you, sir. ; 5 BY MR. FLYNN: G Q I won't ask you to go through line by line and tell 7 us what all happened, but I will ask you to tell us what you 8 found significant about the discussion? 9 A (Peterson) Well, there was considerable discutsion 10 relative to J-9 and J-10 on the technical matter relevant, 11 frankly, to rather there had been a range of protective actions 12 that hao been met. 13 And the preponderance of conclusion, in fact -- the 14 preponderance of discussion, in fact I think everyone besides 15 Mr. Thomas felt that the range of protective actions had indeed , 16 been met, and there was justification for that. And I 'm not a 17 technical person, but some of the things that were discussed 18 was the beach closure. There was the access control. And it 19 was the consideration of these under J-9. 20 The evacuation aspect that we were dealing with, The ' 21 sheltering issue relative to a small portion of the population, ; 22 that was addressed. And there 's another one that is escaping
'L 23 me at the moment. I 'll get it in a bit, if I can come back to 24 it.
25 Q If you remember feel free, remind us. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12769 1 A (Peterson) And there definitely was, you know, a 2 very clear preponderance of support in that room from these 3 technical people and that J-9 and J-10 had been met. l 4 And I think what is important to say here is that, l 5 towards the end of this meeting Ed Thomas himself recanted his 6 concerns relative to J-9 and J-10-M and said, he had been 7 convinced. 8 Q -Were those his words? i l J A (Peterson) I can give them to you out of my notes, i 10 but that 's very closa. The word 'I recant my position on this j i 11 issue and the two percent," he certainly used the word l 12 "recant." l
- " 119 13 (Continued on next page.)
14 ; i I I 15 i 5 1 l 16 l i l 17 l l l 18 ! i i 19 i i t l 20 ! i l l l 21 22 l i i t i 23 i i i !' 24 i i ! I , + Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888
I 1 KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12770 T120 1 And that was after considerable discussion. So he 2 recanted the issue that there not be an adequate range of 3 protection. and he also recanted the issue that the 4 insufficient or lack of extended detail relative to the 2 S percent transit-dependent transients could be mitigated in the 4 6 plan. And so he recanted those two concerns, which really left 4 7 us down to a bottom line position. 8 One of the three, and that concerned voice was that f l 9 there was j ust too much risk, and that he felt that that risk i 10 issue was a j udgment or a professional call. 11 Q I want you to elaborate on that a little bit, because 12 not only was that a central topic for discussion in that 13 meeting, but it also perhaps is perhaps the central issue in [} 14 this case, or this phase of the case. , 15 I want you to summarize the discussion in the meeting 16 of March 4th on the subj ect of risk. 17 A (Peterson) Well, I don't think that there was a 18 great deal of consensus, if any, with the position that, first , 19 off, the definition of risk was within FEMA 's ballpark; that 20 the definition of the risk primarily was within the scope of - 21 NRC; and that we were not, because of the previous statement of 22 no minimum dose, pre-minimum dose, no minimum, pre-ETEs; that j 23 that was more so in the purview of NRC. 24 Q And I 'd like to suggest to you that you mean [ r 1 - 25 determination of risk rather than definition of risk. ! 1 > (:) . I Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 t I e
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12771 {} 1 A (Peterson) Yes. I 'm sorry. 2 Q Okay. 5 3 A CPeterson) Was certainly one issue. And I'll try to 4 walk through this other one, because it does get fairly 5 technical in relationship to the interpretations of the reg. I 6 believe, and I think it speaks to 350.5(b) in 44 CFR 350, where 7 you have the reasonable assurance statement. 8 And I 'd like to -- can I read that to try to get some 9 continuity here and what they say. I want to -- it says, "In 10 order for the state or local plans and preparedness to be 11 approved, such plans and preparedness must be determined to be 12 adequate protection for the public health and safety by I 13 providing reasonable assurance." And then it goes on to say
}
14 what reasonable assurance is. A nd it says, "reasonable 15 assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken 16 offsite in the event of a radiological emergency. 17 And you look at appropriate protective measures, and a 18 I think that drives you back to 44 CFR 350.5Ca), and NUREG-0654 i 19 where you have 16 planning standards there, and 212 evacuation 20 criteria to deal with in the evaluation of your plans within 21 the scope of your regulations. 22 And once the discussion went to the fact once you ; 23 have done that, you give that to the NRC, and the NRC rolls 24 that into their onsite issues, and they determine what our MOU 25 says. O > Heritage Reporting Corporation - (202) 628-4888 l
l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12772
- l ( 1 Basically. I 'd like to kind of look at a statement !
i 2 here on our MOU if I might. And it says, "The general i 3 principles agreed to in previous MOUs-and reaffirmed in this l 4 MOU are as follows. FEMA coordinates all federal planning for - i 5 offsite impact to radiological emergency and takes the lead for
~6 assessing offsite radiological emergency response plans and ,
7 preparedness; makes findings and determinations as to the 8 adequacy and the capability of implementing offsite plans; and ! 9 communicates these findings," FEMA communicates these findings, t 10 "and determinations to the NRC. The NRC reviews those FEMA [ L 11 findings and determinations in conjunction with the NRC 's j 12 onsite findings for the purpose of making determinations on the 13 overall state of emergency preparedness. These overall 14 findings and determinations are used by NRC to make l 15 radiological health and safety decisions in the issuance of 16 licenses." < i
! 17 So I may not have the total context. you know. l 5 L
- 18 totally locked as to the discussion that went on for several !
19 hours, but there was a basic consensus in the room that we had I r i 20 a job to do in relationship to our regulations, and that we had 21 to have a proper procedure in place, and that we had to provide ; 22 information on the plans and evacuation exercise of that. And 23 that once everything was adequately met, and I 'm not saying it 24 always is, but once everything is adequately met and you have 4 25 done all of this, then you have reasonable assurance. And the
?
Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (20',9 628-4888 9
.-e -
.- ~ . . -m-. -mv..c --, y cm,_--,,,,,,,_m-.7 em.,. ,- -._-,,,vm_,,,,.,-c- ,,,--,,,,.,,c-, -_ ,,,1.--t,
L i KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12773 O 1 question is can you go beyond that and say, we 've done 2 everything but I'm going to reflect on the degree of risk. 3 Q Done all of what? 4 A (Peterson) Pardon? l 5 Q In your response you made repeated references just 6 now to once you have done all of this, but you didn 't explain I 7 what this was. l 8 A CPeterson) Well, once you have met all the 9 requirements of 44 CFR 350.5(a) and NUREG-0654, and those have l 10 all been adequately and satisfactorily met are you then capable l 11 and able to make a reasonable assurance finding. And I think 12 350.5Cb) alludes to that, if it doesn 't say that; that the l 13 process must be in place. j 14 And I think the MOU that I read to you delineates the 15 dif ference between FEMA and the NRC 's role, clearly, and that , i 16 is some of the discussion that went on. l 17 I 'm not saying that out of that discussion that Mr. 18 Thomas changed his position at all. He did not in fact, and I 19 hope I have correctly relayed the comments that were made in 20 that meeting by very technical people, and, you know. I 21 wouldn 't want to stand totally on concrete that everything I ; 22 have said is totally concurrent with all of the technical and 23 policy people 's positions, but the issue was, the only thing , l 24 unresolved in that meeting out of the three major issues that ' 25 was brought forward was the statement that. I think it 's a O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
~ _ _____ _ _ _ __ _I
I r KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12774 ; 1 personal judgment and I personally feel there is too much risk. 2 Q Okay, I want to clear something up. You 've actually 3 identified two different issues. One is the role of FEMA l 4 vis-a-vis the NRC. and the other is the relationship between , 5 the assessment of plans against NUREG-0654 vis-a-vis the 6 reasonable assurance finding. Let 's take them one at a time. , 7 In the question of assessment of risk, or the 8 determinant of risk. I want you to relate the understanding L 9 that you came away from that meeting with as to the respective 10 roles of the two agencies, t 4 11 A (Peterson) Well, I am going to try to answer your question, but I 'm trying to focus on the standpoint that in the i 12 f 13 meeting there was one issue that was unresolved in Ed Thomas 's 14 mind, and that was that he felt it was a professional call to 15 still say there was too much risk on this issue. And the rest 16 of the group did not concur with that position, but Mr. Thones 17 did not recant it. 18 Q Was the rest of the group saying the risk was fine. t 19 or were they saying something different? 20 A (Peterson) I think they were saying that we have to r 21 meet the requirements of our regs, and that the ultimate . r 22 determination of risk is in NRC 's ballpark. Now that 's what I I 23 thought I heard in that meeting. , I i l 24 Q Okay. And then that leads you to the other issue which is once all the requirements, or once all the planning I 25 i () I Heritage Reporting Corporation . (202) 628-4888 l Y
l l
! KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12775 0 1 standards in NUREG-0654 have been satisfied in FEMA 's 2 judgement, what does that imply about the reasonable assurance 3 finding, and what was the substance of that discussion?
4 A (Peterson) Well, I think once you 've reached a point S where you have met those requirements, and they are all met, l I i i G then by your own regs, and as I -- you know, by your own I i 7 regulations you have a reasonable assurance finding. 8 Q Okay, want to ave ahead now to the conclusion of 9 that meeting. l 10 A (Peterson) Okay. l 11 Q And Mr. McLoughlin gave us a little detail about the { 12 questions that you asked at the end of the meeting, but perhaps L 13 we can get a more complete picture if you tell us about that I 14 discussion. , i 15 A (Peterson) When we reached the point in time where 16 the two issues, the J-9 and J-10 issue had been recanted, and l I 17 the 2 percent population issue had been recanted, and the risk . I 18 statement was left, I continued to go around the room until no 19 one had anything more to say. 20 Well, when no one has anything more to say, it 's time 1 21 to decide where you 're going to go. And so I developed a ; i' 22 process that I felt was fair, and I started to my left. and I 23 asked the first person there. I said, can you support this l 24 conclusion that we 've been working of f of as the policy for 25 this agency. O Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 1 1
t 1 p- KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12776 { U l 1 And we went all the way around the room, and 2 everybody that was in that room said, yes. I can support that 3 position as policy for this agency.
) 4 And because of the discussion, and the personal 5 feeling of too much risk. I felt that it was responsible on my 6 part to ask a second question. And I said, can you support ;
7 this conclusion as policy personally and professionally. And
, 8 we started going around the room again.
9 And when we got to Mr. Thomas. he said. I can support 10 this policy as an agency position. However. I differ with it i 11 from a personal and professional level. l 12 Mr. Cumming said. I do not agree with it () 13 14 professionally, because I think we should be arguing this on its legal merit, not its technical merit. However. I believe ! 15 this is legally supportable, and I would support it. J 16 So out of everyone in the room we really had two 17 people who said that they could not support it personally and fP 18 professionally for two different reasons, but that everyone 19 could support it as an agency policy. And I think that 's a { 20 pretty strong consensus. I ! 21 Q At that point in the meeting when Mr. Thones said [ 22 that he had personal and professional reservations. what I i 23 reservations did he articulate? j 24 A CPeterson) That there was too much risk.
- 25 Q Was there any further discussion in that meeting?
(:) i Heritage Reporting Corporation [' ! (202) 628-4888 t
t KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN -- DIRECT 12777 1 A (Peterson) Yes, there was. 2 Q What happened then? 3 A (Peterson) I think you know fairly well Mr. Flynn, 4 because I believe you 're the one that asked the question to Mr. ] 5 Thomas about how would you feel about not giving testinony. 4 6 Q Of course. I know, but the other people may not. l 7 A (Peterson) Okay. And you asked that question, and 8 he said that he felt he could give the testimony. He could i 9 support the agency's position, but he personally could not l 10 support the_ conclusion. I 11 And I believe you said that at that point in time you l j 12 did not feel that it was proper or appropriate for Mr. Thomas i t 13 to give the testimony because he didn't personally and 14 professionally agree with that aspect, and that it was unfair ! ' i 15 to place that burden upon him. And quite frankly. I think that 16 that was a responsible and a caring thing to do. ; 17 I would have -- and your recommendation to me was t 18 that he not give testimony. Your recommendation was that, and 19 I further believe that your recommendation was to use Mr. 20 Keller, and Dr. Joan Hock and Bill Cumming, but you kind of , 21 left that as a recommendation at that point. if I remember ] , 22 correctly. 23 But I would have -- you know, and I concurred with , 24 that, and I thought that it was a proper thing to do and a
- 25 caring thing to do at that point in time, f
[ Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
7._ _ _. _ _ _ _ _._. , i i l- l 2 I p KRIMM, PEYERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12778 U i 1 Q I 'm about to move on und ask Mr. Krimm some , 4 ! 2 questions, but before I do that, Mr. Peterson, I want to ask { l 3 you if.there is c.nything else that I may have left out of my j 4 questions, i t j S Is there anything else in this process of developing , I 6 the position that FEMA has now filed that you feel is ! 7 significant? ; 1 8 A (Peterson) No, I don 't think so. We did file the ! l l j 9 conclusion and the supporting documentation with some l i 10 modification, I understand, on the supporting documentation on ! I I j 11 the 14th with the witnesses that you recommended, j i 12 And I think the only way I would bottom line that 13 was -- the meeting -- is. I think, everyone came out of that 14 meeting feeling that it was a pretty, although a very grueling [ ! 15 meeting, that it was a pretty responsible way to go about ! 16 coming to conclusion on an issue, and an issue. you know, that l 17 needed to be brought to some form of consensus if it was 18 possible, and I think there was a preponderance of support, and i t 19 I know there 's a preponderance of support technically, 1egally i 20 and in reference to our guidance for this position. ! i E120 21 (Continued on next page.) l l 22 ;
)
23 l l 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l l 1- KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN DIRECT 12779 f ([) t/121. 1 I hope I have not misrepresented anyone 's technical 3 2 analysis of the risk issue. I would like to put that caveat on 3 there. I 'm not a technical person, j 4 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Mr. Flynn? 5 MR. FLYNN: Yes. 6 JUDGE LINENBERGER: I think perhaps a very short 7 comment here for the benefit of some of the people attending 8 this meeting, an acronym that Mr. Peterson used twice, MOU, 9 might perhaps be explained. Would you do that, please, sir? , 10 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Well, it 's a memorandum of : i understanding between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
*1
.' r 12 Federal Emergency Management Agency that was dated here as ; 13 Thursday, April 18th, 1985. 14 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank you. ; 15 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Yes, sir. . 16 BY MR. FLYNN: ; 4 17 Q Mr. Krimm, as I stated at the outset of the direct l 18 examination, I intended to ask you about the meeting of January i
- 19 19th, and rather than pose a long series of questions I'll
$ 20 simply ask you, what happened at that meeting? i 4 21 A (Krimm) Okay. There was a discussion of many items, i 22 and you 've heard both Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Peterson talk about the discussion on the sheltering of the beach population. ; 1 23 l 24 From my standpoint the major items of the discussion : 25 were the scheduling of the Shoreham exercise, when we could do { Heritage Reporting Corporation ! j (202) 628-4888 ; r
. . - , . - . . - - . . . . , , . , , , .-_.. -,-. , - . - -_.-.-- - . . _ . ~.-,-,..--- - - - - ., - - -
i s i KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12780
. ( l' 1 it, I
j 2 The question of whether or not there would be an 3 exercise around the Pilgrim Nuclear Powerplant prior to June 4 30th, and the reason I was particularly interested in that is 5 because we would not have the resources to do it. I i
- 6 We also discusced the question of receiving the }
7 redacted information from the New Hampshire plan, these were i 8 the names of people who would be carrying out things for the 9 utility in an exercise or in an emergency. And the utility was i , 10 reluctant to. as I understand it, was reluctant to divulge 11 these names because of possible repercussions against them by r 12 people who were opposed to the opening of the Seabrook plant. l 13 And we did have to have these names for our review of the plan l O 14 and they were -- f' 15 JUDGE SMITH: You 're ref erring to the Massachusetts 16 plan? 17 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) I 'm sorry, the Massachusetts I
- 18 plan, excuse me; I 'm sorry.
19 The other issues we discussed related to the i ! 20 Massachusetts part of the Seabrook plan, the alert notification a 21 issue because in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts some of the , 22 communities had chopped down the sirens that had been erected. [ 23 And there was a lawsuit that took place and the Court upheld l 24 the right of those communities to take down the sirens. And . L 25 again, this dealt with the Massachusetts plan. l Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4868 l [
i i KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12701 j
-O 1 I'm trying to think if there was anything else that I i
2 may have missed that we discussed. That 's to my recollection. 3 BY MR. FLYNN: , 4 Q I'd like to focus your attention on the discussion of S the sheltering issue and can you recount that for us? ) 6 A (Krimm) Well. basically, as Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. ; 7 Peterson said, the issue dwelt around the NRC 's regulations and I 8 their right to interpret those regulations. , 9 Q Would you have anything to add to the accounts that 10 Mr. McLoughlin and Mr. Peterson had given about the so-called ! 11 declaration of var? ! t 12 A (Krimm) Well. I 'll make a personal observation. I { 13 come from a town in Pennsylvania, small town called 14 Williamsport which is in a lumbering area, and Vic Stello comes 3 15 from a town called Shamokin which is in the coal regions. And 16 every year Shamokin beats Williamsport High School in football. ; t j 17 And so I've known Vic Stello since 1981 and I've always found l l 18 him to be a very fair, very honest man, very forceful. And he : i 19 certainly did play football, he was a very good tackle. I 7 20 believe, for the Shamokin High School. 21 So I really took his statement as in somewhat jest. I 1 22 you know. it didn't bother me at all. And maybe it's because 23 I 've known him through the years and have dealt with him long [
- 24 before he was the Executive Officer at the Nuclear Regulatory l 25 Commission. And I really didn 't take the statement very [
l (} Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 j i s S
, ,, n , ,,,.,p. --.-r-..nm ---,n.-_-- --_w,----,,----,,-.v . - . . . . , - - - , , , , , - - ,,----r_,,. n. .e-n---._,
6 .I ! i i-l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - DIRECT 12782 ) O i seriously, and 1 don 't think anybody else -- anybody else did. 6 2 MR. FLYNN: Thank you. l i 3 Your Honor, this is a convenient breaking point. I l i l 4 may not have anymore questions, but I would like to have the j i : i 5 opportunity overnight to go over my notes. If I do. it won 't I 6 be anymore than 15 minutes. ' l 1 7 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that 's fine. j t 8 We 'll adj ourn then until tomorrow at 9:00. et/121 9 (Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m. the hearing was adjourned to l 10 reconvene tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m., Thursday. May 26. 11 1988, at the same place.) 1 12 i til 2 14 15 16 17 l 18 19 20 21 l 1 22 23 24 23 i Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 , I l
j i ; i 1 CERTIFICATE r ~ Y_, l 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the , 1 i
- 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of
- ;
I { 5 Name: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF l i 6 NEW HAMPSHIRE. et al. i j 7 Docket Number: 50-443-OL. 50-444-OL [
- 8 Place: CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE l 4 .
j 9 Date: May 25, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original ; i I 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken electronically by me and, f i 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction l
- 14 of the court reporting company, and that the recording is a f 15 true and accurate re ord o I thr oreg ig proceedings.
! 16 /_S/_ NL - ,.r i 17 (Signature typed): KENT ANDREWS i 18 Official Reporter
- 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation p i ;
20 1 l 21 l i l i ! 22 i l t
- 23 i i l
! 24 ! t 25 [ l O D Heritage Reporting Corporation l ( (202) 628-4888 ( i ! l i _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}