ML20236H654
| ML20236H654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4191 OL-3, NUDOCS 8708050282 | |
| Download: ML20236H654 (77) | |
Text
-
[
OR G NKa io UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
1.
).
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) l I
)
0 LOCATION: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES:
19173 - 19249 DATE:
THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1987
((GO \\
0\\\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 87080502B2 870730 (202) 347-3700 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T
PDR NATIONWIDE COVERAGE L
U
l 9030 00 00 19173 marysimons'1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
X
{
5 In the. Matter of:
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 7
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, t
8 Unit 1) 9
X l
10 Court of Claims 11-State of New York
(
12 State Office Building 13 Third Floor Courtroom 14.,
Veterans Memorial. Highway 15 Hauppauge, New York 11788 l
16 Thursday, July 30, 1987
(
17 The. hearing in the above-entitled matter 18 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m.
I 19 BEFORE:
20 MORTON B. MARGULIES, Chairman 1
21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1
(
22 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
I 23 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 24 f
25 j
O l
l i
. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(KL33MM6
)
i
\\.
i L
19030-00 00-19174 i
'.mcrysimons 1 JERRY R.
KLINE, Member I
2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
~-
s 3
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
4 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 5
FREDERICK J. SHON, Member 6
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
Bethesda, Maryland 20555
~
9 APPEARANCES:
10 On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company:
11 JAMES N. CHRISTMAN, ESO.
i 12 STEPHEN W.
MILLER, ESO.
13 Hunton & Williams 14 707 East Main Street i
15 P. O. Box 1535 j
16 Richmond, Virginia 23212 17 On Behalf of Suffolk County:
18 CHRISTOPER M. McMURRAY, ESO.
19 DAVID T. CASE, ESO.
20 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 21 South Lobby, 9th Floor 22 1800 M Street, N. W.
23 Washington, D.
C. 20036-5891 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37W Nationwide Cmerage 8(0-336-6646
9030 00 00 19175
/m
.arysimons 1 On Behalf of.the State of New York:
2 RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESO.
\\
i r
3 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber 4
5 Room 229
}
6 State Capitol 7
Albany,.New York 12224 8
On Behalf of the NRC:
9 RICHARD G. BACHMANN, ESO.
10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 7735 Old Georgetown Road 12 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 13
(
(
14
(
15 1
16 17 18 1
19
)
(
20 21
- 2
{
23 j
24
.O i
25
(
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(K)
Nationwide Coverage 8(K) 336M26
I l
i i
/
k JO 00 00 19176
.1 marysimons 1 CONTENTS i
2
.Voir 3
Direct Cross Redirect decross Dire Board 1
4 FALK KANTOR 19180 19185 19226 19227 l
19204 19232 i
5 and 19210 19234 l
1 L
6 LEWIS G.HULMAN 1
l 7
EXHIBITS
)
.8 Identified Admitted 9
Suffolk County Exhibits l
10 Exhibit No. 22 19179 j
11 (Paragraphs 2&3) gV 12 (Paragraphs 1&4) 13 Exhibit 33 19190 19209 14 LILCO Exhibits 15 Exhibit 52-19215 19238 i
16 Morning Recess...................................
19235 17 18 l
19 i
20 21 22 j
23 I
24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 j
[~
L.-,0 01-01 19177 suewalsh 1.
PROCEEDINGS 2
(9:00 a.m.)
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Please come to order.
The 4
. Board has considered Suffolk County's motion for 5
reconsideration of its ruling denying the admission of 6
Suffolk County Exhibit Number 22 for identification, along 7
with the oral arguments of all other parties.
8 After careful consideration, the Board concludes 9
that Suffolk County Exhibit Number 22 should be admitted
)
i 10 into evidence insofar as to its Paragraphs 2 and 3, with the 11 denial as to Paragraphs 1 and 4.
es
(_)
12 The Board rules that the Nassau County Board of l
\\
13 Supervisors' resolution of June 16th, 1986, that no County 14 facilities are to be made available for use by LILCO as part 15 of its emergency plan unless prior approval by resolution is 16 first obtained from the Nassau County Board of Supervisors, 17 is relevant to this proceeding.
All party traffic witnesses 18 testified to one extent or another as to their impressions i
19 and expectations as to whether Nassau County policemen will l
20 take part in the operation.
i 21 The resolution of June 16th, 1986 touches on l
22 whether the policemen can be expected to participate.
l 23 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the letter of July 1st, 1987 very i (:)
24 generally contain that type of evidence pertaining to public l
(
25 records that can be admitted into evidence in a hearing ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(K)
Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
(
l l 9030 01 01 19178
)
.(
)
- wewalsh I
record without benefit of the supporting witness as long as 2
it carries the necessary attestation.
That matter of i
3 authenticity is not at issue here.
4 To the extent that Paragraphs 2 and 3 are 5
admitted into evidence, Paragraph 2 pertains to the 6
resolution that was passed by the Board of Supervisors 7
which it states very generally, and Paragraph 3 in effect 8
recites that the County records do not reflect that LILCO 9
has been given permission by the Nassau County Board of 10 Supervisors to include County facilities within the plan or 11 thati permission was requested.
i 12 We recognize this is the bottom line in o
13 Paragraphs 2 and 3, which can be admitted, although not set 14 forth in the traditional manner.
The administrative process 15 has the flexibility for this to be done.
We need not 16 consider form over substance.
17 As to the remainder of the letter, Paragraphs 1
(
18 and 4, they contain the Board of Supervisors' observations, j
I 19 comments and action requested to be taken by this Board in 20 the specific matter litigated here today.
Assuming the 21 relevance and materiality of those matters, they are not 22 that type of information that can be introduced into this 23 record without a supporting witness who can be cross-I 24 cxamined by the parties as to the truth and validity of O
25 those assertions.
The right to cross-examination cannot be ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80)-33M416 l
_______________________A
q I
9030 01 01 19179
( tcwalsh u.
1 abrogated.
j 2
Paragraphs 1 and 4 do not fall within Rule 902 j
i 3
of'the Federal Rules of Practice.
Our prior ruling stands
{
l 4
in regard to Paragraphs 1 and 4, and they are not admitted 1
5 into evidence as part of Exhibit Number 22 which is admitted i
6 into evidence insofar as Paragraphs 2 and 3.
The weight to 7
be afforded Paragraphs 2 and 3 is to be determined by the 8
-Board.
i 9
That is the Board's ruling on the motion.
10 (The document previously marked as 11 Suffolk County Exhibit Number 22 f
12-for identification is admitted i
13 into evidence insofar as Para-l 14 graphs 2 and 3 of that document.)
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is Staff ready to proceed with 16 their witnesses?
l 17 MR. BACHMANN:
Yes, Your Honor.
Would you swear i
l 18 the witnesses please, Your Honor?
l l
i 19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Are they going to testify as a 20 panel?
l 21 MR. BACHMANN:
As a panel, yes, sir.
j 22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Will the panel please stand?
)
l 23 (The witnesses are sworn by Judge Margulies.)
{
l 24 Whereupon, l
25 FALK KANTOR l
l f
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(X)
Nationwide Coverage MK)-3%6646
9030 01 01 19180 O
'LJcwalsh 1
and 2
LEWIS G.
HULMAN i
3 are called as witnesses by and on behalf of the NRC Staff 4
and, having first been duly sworn, were examined and 5
testified'as follows:
I 6
DIRECT EXAMINATION 7
BY MR. BACHMANN:
'8 0
Gentlemen, you have before you a document, a two-9 part document, which contains the testimony of Falk Kantor 10 on monitoring of evacuees; the second document is the 1
11 testimony of Lewis G. Hulman on monitoring of evacuees.
12 MR. BACHMANN:
I would like these documents-g 13 collectively to be marked as Staff Exhibit Number 5 for I
I 14 identification.
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
a 16 (The document referred to is marked 17 as NRC Staff Exhibit Number 5 for 18 identification.)
19 BY MR. BACHMANN:
(Continuing) 20 0
Gentlemen, do you have any changes or 21 corrections to be made in this -- excuse me.
Before I go on 22 to that, I got ahead.
Were these documents individually, the ones with g
23 24 each of your names on them, prepared either by you or under
.O l
25 your direct supervision?
I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(Ki Nationwide rowrape NXL3% 6646
9030 01 01 19181
]
%Jcwalsh 1
A (Witness Kantor)
Yes, they were.
j 2
(Witness Hulman)
Yes.
(
3 0
Do either of you have any changes or corrections 4
to be made to your respective testimony?
5 A
(Witness Kantor)
I have a correction to make.
6 0
Would you please identify yourself for the 7
record?
8 A
(Witness Kantor)
My name is Falk Kantor.
9 (Witness Hulman)
And, my name is Lewis Hulman.
10 (Witness Kantor)
I have a correction to make on 11 Page 3 under Answer 6.
I believe it's the eighth line down.
12 I would like to strike the words " gaseous and volatile."
j 13 (Witness Hulman)
On my testimony on Pages 3, 14 Line 13, the words " considered are" should be struck.
15 0
Mr. Hulman, are you referring to the corrected 16 version that we have distributed to the Board and parties,
}
17 or are you referring to your previous version?
18 A
I am referring to the April 13th filing.
If you i
19 have distributed --
20 0
I have distributed the one that incorporated the i
21 corrections.
22 A
I have no other corrections.
23 0
Mr. Kantor, Mr. Hulman, are your respective 24 testimonies true and correct to the best of your knowledge O
25 and belief?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage fun 3%#46
9030'01 01 19182
.r3Iwalsh 1
A (Witness Kantor)
Yes.
s 2
(Witness Hulman)
Yes.
3 MR. BACHMANN:
Judge Margulies, the Staff would 4
like to make a brief opening statement prior to making the 5
witnesses available for cross-examination.
l 6
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any objection?
7 MR. CHRISTMAN:
No, sir.
8 MR. CASE:
If we could have a clarification.
Is 9
this by counsel or by the witnesses?
10 MR. BACHMANN:
By counsel.
I 11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
12 MR. CASE:
Judge Margulies, we would merely note 13 that no other counsel has had an opportunity for an opening 14 statement.
And, we would object to the Staff having that 15 opportunity.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
No other counsel requested the 17 opportunity.
You may give your opening statement.
18 MR. BACHMANN:
This is in the nature of a 19 clarification so that we might proceed perhaps more 20 expeditiously in the cross-examination.
21 It has come to my attention that perhaps it is 22 i not clear as to the respective roles played by these two 23 witnesses.
Mr. Hulman has performed calculations and j
l testimony reflects those calculations.
His testimony is f -
24 l
25 intended to provide the Board with certain numbers to put ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn336-6M6
\\
i
(
9030 01 01 19183
(~y.
h.dcwalsh-1 into context and perhaps to give the Board an idea of the 2
reasonableness of the FEMA guidance insofar as percentages 3
and numbers are concerned.
4 On the other hand, Mr. Hulman is the Staff, 5
designated Staff witness, who is responsible for stating.the
)
6 l Staf f's position insof ar as the FEMA guidance is concerned.
7 In other words, Mr. Hulman -- excuse me.
Mr. Kantor is the 8
interface that the Staff has with FEMA and is the only 9
person here who has the authority to speak as to what the 10 Staff's opinion is of the FEMA guidance.
11 Mr. Hulman's e,ik is background material.
It is 12 a piece of input data much as other witnesses are.
{
-s
-(_)
{
13 Therefore, any questions as to the Staff's opinion of the
'l 14 validity of the FEMA guidance and its use should be directed 15 to Mr. Kantor.
Mr. Hulman may give his personal opinion if
(
16 the Board feels it is necessary, but Mr. Kantor is here to 17 give the Staff's position.
18 That's all I have, sir.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Were you going to move the 20 admission --
21 MR. BACHMANN:
Yes, sir.
At this point, I would 22 like to move that Staff Ex'nibit 5 be admitted into evidence.
j I
l 23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any objection?
24 MR. CASE:
No objection.
{
l 25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
k ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage M4336-6646
9030 01 01 19184 lt'tsswalsh 1
MR. CHRISTMAN:
'To objection.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Staff's Number 5 for 3
identification is admitted into evidence as Staff Exhibit 4
Number'5.
I 5
(The document previously marked as 6
.NRC Staff Exhibit Number 5 for 7
identification is admitted into 8
evidence.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 f:
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1
23 24 I
O 25 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37to Nationwide Coserage Mx)-336446
______-_____-__--A L
l J
00202 19185 marysimons 1 MR. BACHMANN:
The panel is now available for 2
cross-examination by the parties.
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
You may cross-examine.
l l
4 MR. CASE:
Thank you.
l l
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 1
l 6
BY MR. CASE:
l 7
0 Mr. Kantor, I missed that correction you read l
8 into the record earlier.
Could you read that in acain for 9
me.
10 A
(Witness Kantor)
It's on page 3 of my testimony 11 under Answer 6, the 8th line down.
Strike the words 12
" gaseous and volatile."
13 0
Thank you.
14 Now, Mr. Kantor, if you could turn to page 6 of 15 your testimony.
16 (Witness complies.)
17 You indicate at page 6 in Answer 8, the first 18 sentence, that the NRC supports the guidance in the FEMA, 19 December 24, 1985 memorcndum as being an appropriate 20 interpretation of evaluation criteria J-12.
Do you see that 21 part of your testimony?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 0
I would like to show you what has previously 9
24 been marked as FEMA Exhibit No. 1 in this proceeding.
25 (A document was distributed by Counsel McMurray ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 % 4 46
} 9030 02 02 19186 n\\_/rysimons 1 to the parties and the Board.)
2 Do you recognize this document, Mr. Kantor?
l 3
A Yes, sir.
4 Q
And is this the December, at least the first two 5
pages of the December 24, 1985 memorandum you referred to in 6
your testimony?
7 A
Yes, it is.
8 0
Is it all right if I refer to this as the Krimm 9
Memorandum, and do you understand what I'm talking about?
10 A
Yes.
}
11 0
Did you have any role in preparing the Krimm 12 Memorandum?
c 13 A
No, I did not.
14 0
So your knowledge of the Krimm Memorandum comes 15 l from your reading of the text of the Krimm Memorandum?
.{
16 A
Yes, that's correct, plus some conversations j
17 that I've had with members of the FEMA staff.
18 0
Now you referenced conversations with the FEMA
)
19 staff.
Is that conversations with Mr. Bill McNutt?
I 20 A
Yes, that is one individual I have talked to.
)
1 21
'O What other individuals have you talked to?
22 A
Well, during the course of my activities in our 23 office we communicate or interact almost on a daily basis 24 with members of the FEMA staff, at least their headquarters O
25 staff in Washington.
So I've had occasion to talk to l
ACE. FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage M n 336-6646 1
1
9030 02 02 19187
'{Jrysimons 1 several members of their staff.
I've also talked to Mr.
2 Keller, who is a consultant to FEMA on these matters.
3 0
Who prepared the Krimm Memorandum?
l 4
A I believe it was drafted by Mr. McNuP,t under the 5'
direction of his office management.
I 6
Q Did you have any input into the draf ting of the 7
Krimm Memorandum?
A No, I did not.
8 l
9 O
Now Mr. McNutt has not testified in this case;
{
i 10 is that true?
{
l 11 A
To the best of my knowledge, that's true.
l 12-0 Now reception centers as referred to in J-12 ms 13 have two purposes.
One is a congregate care function and 14 the other is a function for monitoring; is that correct?
15 A
I believe J-12 refers to relocation centers 16 rat'ter than reception centers, and relocation centers can l
17 have functions to' register, monitor and also they could be 18 used to shelter, although in the case of the LILCO they have 19 divided their. centers into reception centers and congregate 20 care centers, and that is also done at other sites in the 21 country.
22 O
So reception centers as under the LILCO plan are
)
23 for monitoring, decontamination and registration; is t'nat 24 your understanding?
25 A
Yes.
As I understand their plan it's for l
1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347 3m0 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336 # 46 i
I l
9030 02 02 19188 l
Lirysimons 1 registering, monitoring and, if necessary, to decontaminate.
l 2
0 Now if you would look at the Kri'am Memorandum in i
I 3
the paragraph underneath the quote f rom Cri terion J-12, the I
4 second sentence there states, " Previous eyperience gathered I
l 5
on evacuation responses for a variety of natural and I
l 6
technological emergencies is not conclusive."
7 Do you see that sentence?
8 A
Yes, sir.
1 9
Q Do you understand that sentence to mean that
{
I 10 previous experience is not conclusive as to the percentage
{
{
11 of evacuees who could reasonably be expected to arrive at a l
l 12 relocation center?
{
q
'u_)
k 13 A
I understand it to mean that there is a range of
(
I 14 responrm to different aclcidents and emergencies.
That's my
(
(
15 under= at. ding of it.
i
{
16 0
So what's not conclusive?
i 17 A
well, there is no black and white number that 18 easily be arrived at or pointed to as the correct or only j
f 19 number.
As indicated in the memo, there is a range based on i
20 PEMA's knowledge,of responses to various emergencies, and a
21 there is quite a aide range depending on the scenario of the l
g 22 event.
l I
2:
22 O
My qu'estion is in the second sentence when it
)
i 24 refers to "is nc/t conclusive," doesn't that refer to the
,s L) 25 i
l l
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 2c.m-37m Nationwide cmerage vo-336.6un j
l
l 9030 02 02 19189 O
imons 1
)
b rys first sentence as to the question of the percentage of I
2 evacuees that could reasonably be expected to arrive at a l
3 relocation center?
4 A
Well, I think you have to read the sentence in I
5 the context of the entire memo.
I think, as the memo 6
indicates, there is this range of responses and it becomes a 7
matter of judgment as to how you evaluate this information
{
8 and utilize it.
9 0
Well now you keep referring to a range of I
10 responses.
The second sentence we've been talking about i
11 refers to a variety of natural and technological
-12 emergencies.
Do you what natural and technological 5O 13 emergencies Mr. McNutt considered in drafting this 14 memorandum?
~15 A
I believe Mr. McNutt referred to a series of 16 events.
He did provide me a listing which at the time of 17 the deposition I believe I also provided to you, and they 18 listed the events that were considered by FEMA in arriving 19 at this response.
20 0
Do you recall what those events were?
21 A
I believe I have a copy of the memo here.
22 MR. CASE:
We can pass a copy out and have it 23 marked as ---
l 24 WITNESS KANTOR:
In fact, it's my understanding l.O 25 that it was response to an interrogatory, a FEMA response l
l
\\
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage MO-33Mi646 L
9030 02 02 19190 1
r~)
ulrysimons 1 to an interrogatory, Interrogatory 9, 2
In addition, as I also brought forth at the 3
deposition, there are two other listings of a little bit 4
more detailed information on some events that Mr. McNutt 5
provided to me which I do believe were part of the response 6
to Interrogatory 9.
7 MR. CASE:
If we can have marked as suffolk 8
County Exhibit 33 I believe it is the document Mr. Kantor is 9
referring to.
10 (The document referred to was distributed by 11 Counsel McMurray to the parties and the Board.)
12 JUDGE MARGULIES.
The document bearing the 13 heading " Response to Interrogatory 9" will be marked as 14 Suffolk County 33 for identification.
)
15 (The document referred to was 16 marked Suffolk County Exhibit 17 No. 33 for identification.)
18 BY MR. CASE:
19 Q
Do you recognize Suffolk County 33, Mr. Kantor?
20 A
(Witness Kantor)
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And is this the document that was provided to 22 you by Mr. McNutt?
23 A
Yes, it is.
24 Q
And this document, as I understand it, purports l
(
25 to list materials he considered in drafting the Krimm ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 N ttionwide Coverape 800-336-(646
l 9030 02 02 19191
{drysimons1 T
Memorandum?
j i
i 2
A That is correct.
These are the events that were 3
considered by Mr. McNutt and I would say others in his 1
l 4
. office.
I don't think Mr. McNutt was solely responsible for l
5 developing the Krimm Memo, and I have no reason to doubt l
6 that other events might also have been considered'in FEMA's i
l 7
development of its position.
8 9
l l-l 10 11 O
13 14
-15 16 17
)
a 18 19 20 21 22 l-23 24 i
0 t
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide "oserage l# 4 336-6646
1 i
l l
l l
f~')
sE#s0 03 03 19192 G.joewalsh 1-O Did Mr. McNutt tell you that?
2 A
(Witness Kantor)
It was just sort of a general 3
indication in our conversation that, as I understand it, 4
. FEMA keeps records on responses to most or all hazards or 5
emergencies that occur in the country in which they are 6
involved.
And, that data base was available to them also.
7 O
Did Mr. McNutt tell you he considered that data 8
base in drafting this memorandum?
9 A
Not in so many words, no.
10 Q
Did anyone else tell you taat they used that 11 data base in preparing this memorandum?
7q V
12
?
A Not directly.
I just say that was an inference 13 I got from some conversation and from some information I-14 have Faceledge of concerning FEMA and its operations.
15 0
Now, in none of these events listed in 16 interrogatory or in Suffolk County Number 3 for 17 identification were people directed to report to reception 18 or relocation centers for monitoring; is that correct?
19 A
Well, the Three Mile Island event is 20 referenced.
I'm not sure at the time of the event there if l
i 21 directions were given explicitly to members of the public to 22 report to any reception center or relocation center.
l l
23 A center I think -- in fact, two centers were f
24 set up at the time of the Three Mile Island event, and it 25 was made known to the public that they were available.
So --
)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(4336-M46 l
l b
9030 03 03 19193
.joewalsh 1 0
Well, you were part of the response at Three 2
Mile Island; isn't that correct?
3 A
I was part of the NRC support team that was at 4
the Buthesda Headquarters.
During the time of the event, I 5
was not on the Island.
I subsequently became part of the i
6 NRC on-site support staff on the Island, and I was involved 7
in that activity for approximately six months in late 1980 8
and early 1981.
9 0
Well, now isn't it true that Governor Thornburgh i
10 ordered pregnant women and pre-school children within five 11 miles of the plant to evacuate?
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
The characterization 13 of what Governor Thornburgh did is incorrect.
l-14 BY MR. CASE:
(Continuing)
(
15 0
All right.
Well, let's take a look.
Have you 16 reviewed any other testimony in this proceeding?
17 A
Yes, I have reviewed some testimony.
18 0
Let me show you what has previously been 19 marked.
The testimony is Suffolk County Exhibit 15, the i
}
20 direct testimony of James Johnson and Susan Saegert,
{
l 21 Footnote Number 11 which has been admitted in this case.
I
(
22 (Mr. Kantor is provided the document.)
I 23 A
Yes.
I see the footnote you are referring to, f
24 and I also see that it says that Governor Thornburgh advised O
25 the pregnant women and pre-school children.
I don't believe j
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-3c.37m Nationwide cmerage 800-336-6M6
_-__-_______--_o
7 1
}
)
9030 03'03 19194 ID
(/joewalsh I he ordered it, ordered pregnant women and pre-school q
l 2
children to evacuate as you characterized it.
j l
3 I think it was more in the nature of an j
i 4
advisory.
{
l I
5 MR. CHRISTMAN:
That was my point.
I don't have 6
any objection now that that has been clarified.
7 BY MR. CASE:
(Continuing) l 8
0 I thank you for that clarification.
Is there --
9-now, does this refresh your recollection as to what Governor 10 Thornburgh advised?
}
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 O
Did Governor Thornburgh advise anyone to report 13 to reception centers for monitoring?
14 A
I can't say if he did or didn't, or if somebody
{
15 on the State staff other than the Governor advised members i
)
16 of the public.
I believe there was a lot of information on 17 the event being disseminated.
So, I can't say if an 18 advisory was given or not given to report to a relocation 19
- center,
}:
20 I do know that I believe two centers were set up I
21 specifically to handle people that were evacuating.
And, I 22 am pretty confident that that information in some fashion 23 was disseminated to the public.
I can't say I know by who, 24 but I would surmise somebody in authority in the State O
25 offices.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage W L330-M46
i l
l l 9030'03 03 19195 l
')
! [LIjoewalsh 1 0
Do you Know if those reception centers offered 2
monitoring?
3 A
I do not believe they offered monitoring, no.
l l
4 0
Do you know how many people evacuated in 5
response to Governor Thornburgh's advisory?
6 A
I don't know exactly in response to the 7
Governor's advisory.
I have seen information that indicates 8
that something on the order of about 144,000 people I 9
believe over a period of time after the event did evacuate.
10 That's 144,000 out of about a 15 to 20 mile 11 radius around the plant.
So, that would include the people 12 within the five miles, but I don't know exactly how many f-kJ 13 pregnant women and pre-school children did evacuate.
14 0
Now, to the extent that we have some data on 15 Three Mile Island, that's an indication of how people would 16 react in the event of a radiological emergency; isn't that 17 correct?
18 A
I believe so, yes.
19 0
Do you have any data or studies that indicate 20 people would react any dif ferently than they did at Three 21 Mile Island in a radiological emergency?
22 A
No.
I can't say I have any data or studies that 23 would indicate that people would react differently than they 24 did at TMI.
Of course, TMI -- you know, the whole emergency 25 concept has changed quite a bit, partly directly as a result ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coseraye MX -3% 6646
9030 03 03 19196 joewalsh 1 of TMI.
So, any similar event that would happen today would 2
be handled in I think a very different manner based on 3
today's emergency plans.
4 0
Now, if you could turn your attention back to 5
the Krimm memorandum, the third sentence in the second 6
paragraph indicates that -- states that:
Research into this 7
matter, however, has revealed that anywhere from 30 to 20 8
percent of the evacuees arrived at relocation centers or 9
shelters.
10 Do you know what constitutes the -- what 11 accidents constitute the high end of that range?
12 A
I believe you said 30 to 20 percent.
The memo 13 says --
14 0
I'm sorry.
15 A
-- 3 to 20 percent.
I believe if you look at 16 this listing of information provided by Mr. McNutt, there is i
17 some indication of the various percentages of some of the 18 events, not all of them.
l 19 l
l 20 l
l 21 l
22 23 l
l 24
()
25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide coserage koo-3Msu6
. _ - ~
I l
4 i
I
,9030 04.04 19197 1
W,
- 5. uewalsh 1'
0-Now, the information provided in Suffolk County i
.2.
. Number' 33, that data refers to the use of relocation centers j
31 for sheltering;.is that. correct?
j
~4
'A (Witness Kantor) ' Basically, I would say the.use 5
'of the' centers for sheltering or, in one case, it was i
6-
' indicated'they are used as staging areas before moving on to 7
permanent accommodations.
So, mostly sheltering but for
{
l 8.
other purposes also~.
9 0
Okay.
So, in'other words, they were all used 10 for sheltering except the one' event where they were used for
.11' staging before; people went to shelters; is that correct?
12 A
Excuse me.
Could you repeat that question?
O 13 0
I'm merely trying to understand your testimony.
14 All of the events described or listed in Suffolk County 15 Exhibit Number 33 for identification were instances where
[;
16 relocation centers were used for sheltering except for the 17 one instance where it was also used as a staging area before 18 people left for shelters.
19 A
I would say it was primarily used for 20 sheltering, al though there might have been some other uses.
21 The information here, as you can see, is very brief.
It 22.
doesn't-go into much detail, but I would say essentially my 23 understanding is that these events -- the evacuees that 24 reported to these facilities were primarily for the purpose O
25 of sheltering.
ACE-FEDEftAL REPORTERS, INC.
.,e 202 347-3700 N.tionwide Coverage 8(xb3%#46
L
(
9030.04 04 19198 A
M uewalsh. 1 0
Now, if you would turn back to the Krimla 2
memorandum again, it indicates there in the fourth sentence f
3 in the second paragraph:
For radiological emergencies, it
.(
4 is reasonable to assume that additional evacuees, to allay 5
their concerns and fear over radiation, will go to 6
relocation centers whether or not they have been exposed to 7
radiation.
8' Do you agree with that sentence?
j 9
A-Yes.
I believe, as indicated in our testimony, 10 that there is reason to believe that people, whether they --
11 people who might not have been exposed or contaminated i'
12 might, for various reasons, report to a center to be
/~T V
13 monitored.
l 1
14 0
Have you done any analysis of the number of j
l 15 people within the EPZ who might be concerned about 16 contamination even though they were not contaminated?
l l
17 A
No, I have not.
I 18 Q
Has the NRC done any analysis of the number of 19 people within the EPZ who might be concerned about i
20 contamination even though they were not contaminated?
21 A
Not to my knowledge.
j l
22 O
Have you done any analysis of the number of
)
i 23 people outside the EPZ who might be concerned about l
l 24 contamination even though they were not contaminated?
25 A
No, I have not.
I l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
9030 04 04 19199 uewalsh 1
Q.
Has the NRC done any analysis of the number of
.2 people outside the EPZ who might be concerned about 1
3 contamination even though.they were not contaminated?
4 A
Not that I'm aware of.
5 O
Now, Mr. Hulman, your analysis, is it fair to
}
6 call it a footprint analysis?
7 A
(Witness Hulman)
That was my characterization.
q i
8 Q
Okay.
C.:.n we use that here?
9 A
Yes.
q 10 0
All right.
Does your footprint analysis account 11 for those people who are not exposed to radiation outside 12 the ?PZ but nevertheless might want to go to a reception O
13 center?
I i
14 A
It does not.
I 15 0
And, does your footprint analysis account for 16 people even inside the EPZ who are not exposed to radiation 17 but nevertheless decided to go to a reception center?
j l
18 A
In part.
{
i 19 0
In part?
Now, does your -- let me back up on
{
j 20 that question.
{
1 l
21 Your footprint analysis does not account for 22 wind shifts; is that correct?
l i
23 A
Not directly.
24 0
Well, if we could turn to your testimony, if you i
l}
25 would turn to Page 8 of your testimony, Question 11, the i
I l
ACE FEDERAL REPOllTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserag 8(Xb 33MM6
l l
I 9030 04 04 19200 l'~s l
G uewalsh 1
Answer to Question 11 indicates in the first sentence, "My 2
assessment does not account for either wind direction i
3 changes during an accident, nor does it account for the 4
effects of precipitation."
5 Is that a true statement?
6 A
I said it.
I still believe it.
7 0
Okay.
Now, there are computer codes that do 8
account for wind direction changes during an accident; is 9
that correct?
10 A
Yes 11 0
Now, Mr. Kantor, on Page 4 of your testimony you q
12 discuss the intent behind J.12 in NUREG 0654; is that C
{
13 correct?
14 A
(Witness Kantor)
Yes, sir.
15 0
Were you on the Committee for NUREG 06' the 16 Advisory Committee?
[
(
17 A
If you are referring to the NRC FEMA Steering
{
i 18 Committee, no, I was not.
{
l 19 0
Did you draf t J.127 l
1 20 A
No, I did not.
I 21 0
Did you have any input into tne drafting of 22 J.127
(
23 A
No, I did not.
24 0
Now, on Page 4, the next to the last sentence in l
25 the first full paragraph states the following:
"The intent
]
l ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerag 8(4336-6M6 o
9030 04 04 19201 O-s duewalsh 1
was for off-site organizations to have sufficient capability m
2 to monitor a reasonable number of evacuees to determine the 3
existence and extent of a contamination situation and to 4
allay public concerns."
5 Do you see that sentence?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 0
Now, was evaluation criteria J.12 accurately 8
reproduced on Page 2 of your testimony?
9 A
Yes, it is.
10 0
And, Planning Standard J.12 states, in the l
11 second sentence, "The personnel and quipment available 12 should be capable of monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 13 period all residents and transients in the plume exposure i
14 EPZ arriving at relocation centers."
15 Is that correct?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
The language, a reasonable number, does not 18 appear in evaluation criterion J.12, does it?
19 A
Not as such, no.
20 Q
Now, if you would turn to Page 5 of your 21 testimony, it indicates there the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period -- let me 22 refer you to the exact sentence.
It's the last sentence in l
J l
23 the first paragraph on Page 5 where it states, "The 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> j
l 24 period in evaluation criterion J.12 is not considered to be l
l 25 applicable in this extraordinary situation as these other i
1 i
L ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
)
f 4
I
__________________A
9030 04 04 19202 O.
(.juewalsh 1
industry and governmental resources would be expected to 2
respond on a best effort basis."
3 Do you see that sentence?
{
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 0
If you would turn to criterion J.12, do you see 6
any exemptions stated there for the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period?
{'
7 A
Not in J.12, but if you look at the concept 8
embodied in NUREG 0654 you will see the concept being 9
referred.to in the sentence on Page 5.
10 0
Is there any language, specific language, in 11 NUREG 0654 which makes an exemption for this 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period 12 stated in criteria J.12?
i (2)-
13 A
Well, as I indicated, there is a concept 14 embodied in 0654 that in the event of worst case type 15 accidents it may be necessary to expand your response
)
16 efforts beyond the established areas within the plan.
It 17 recognizes that there are some low probability worst case 18 accidents with the potential for consequences beyond the 19 planning base.
20 And, the concept is that the planning base l
21 should be sufficient to support an expanded response.
In 1
22 this case, in J.12 it's understood that in certoin types of 23 situations it might be necessary for off-site authorities, l
l 24 primarily in most cases state and local governments, to be 25 augmented or supplemented by other government and other i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nation aide Cmerage 8% 3M-M46 i
i 9030 04 04 19203 p(_juewalsh 1
industry and other resources including the federal response k
2 capability.
)
3 0
I understand that.
My question was, is there 4
any specific language at all in NUREG 0654 which exempts 5
compliance with the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> criterion set forth in J.127 6
A Well, I don't think you will find specific 7
language.
NUREG 0654 is not written in that fashion.
8 N.UREG 0654 is basically a document for emergency I
9 planners, a guidance on the development of emergency plans.
10 And, this concept I just referred to is included in 0654.
i 11 0
So, there is no language in 0654 providing for 12 an exemption from the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> time period?
O 13 A
That's correct.
I don't think you will see the 14 word " exemption" at all in 0654.
15 Q
There is certainly no language in J.12 which 16 indicates that the 1.2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> time period will be relaxed in 17 any situation; is that correct?
18 A
It's not a matter of relaxing.
It's a matter of 19 establishing a response capability with the understanding
{
20 that it might be necessary in some unlikely or remote 21-situations to expand that response capability.
22 O
Now, you refer in your testimony to Mr. Hulman's l
23 work as being specific to the potential number of people who I
24 might be exposed to a plume at Shoreham.
Is that how you o
25 reference Mr. Hulman's work?
It's Page 7.
l l
}.
ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(O Nationwide Coserage M0-3364M6 a
1 9030'04 04 19204 uewalsh 1-
-A Yes,-sir.
I 2-0-
Are you familiar with the training exercise that q
l 3
was conducted concerning the Shoreham plant?
1 4
A Somewhat.
I was i~nvolved more on the on-site 5
response than the off-site response.
But, I am.somewhat.
1 6
familiar with the exercise.
7-0 Okay.
It's true, is it not, that.during that
{
8 exercise approximately 95,000 pecple were directed to report I
9 to the reception centers for monitoring?
10 A
Yes. I believe I have seen that number in some f
I 11 documents.
12~
MR. CASE:
Judge Margulies, if'I could have a 4
'O.
13
. minute to review my notes?
14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes.
15 (Pause.)
(
16 MR. CASE:
I have no further questions.
i 17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Does New York State have any 18 questions?
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes, sir.
i l
20 CROSS EXAMINATION
/
22 0-Mr. Kantor, could you please identify for me the l
23 people at FEMA besides Mr. McNutt and Mr. Keller that you.
24 had conversations with regarding the subject of your p
O' l_
25 testimony?
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37'O Nationwide Coverage 8( 4 336-6646 o
k 9030 04 04 19205
/9
'u uewalsh 1
A (Witness Kantor)
Well, as I indicated, I have f
2 frequent interaction with FEMA on various emergency planning i
3 matters.
It's hard to dif f erentiate where one subject
{
4 matter begins and another one ends.
l 5
But, in particular I would say I've had 6
discussions with Mr. Craig Wingo and Ms. Margaret Lawless, 7
also Mr. Marshall Sanders.
And, that's all in addition to I
8 Mr. McNutt.
As I've also indicated, I've talked to Mr.
f 9
Keller.
10 0
Did you talk to Mr. Keller Just once or were i
11 there other occasions?
12 A
I've talked to Mr. Keller several times.
I've s
13 been involved in observing exercises where I was a member of 14 the NRC inspection team and Mr. Keller was a member of the i
15 FEMA inspection team.
So, I've had occasions to converse 16 with him in that situation.
17 0
Well, I'm really speaking about the subject of 18 your testimony.
How many times were there that you 19 discussed this matter with Mr. Keller?
i 20 A
I believe only once directly.
j 21 0
Okay.
When was that?
22 A
I'm not quite sure.
It was several months ago.
I 23 0
Was it prior to the drafting of your testimony?
j 1
24 A
I'm not sure.
c,
\\')
25 0
Can you tell me what the subject of your ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 02-3 0 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
9030 04 04 19206
/3 G uewalsh 1
conversation was?
2 A
We talked about the guidance memo, the FEMA 3
guidance memo, and Mr. Keller's original memo, and discussed 4
the appropriateness or the interpretation of the guidance, 5-conversation generally along that sort of line.
6 0
Did you initiate that conversation?
7 A
Yes, I believe I did.
J O
O What information did you seek to obtain from 9
him?
10 A
Well, since Mr. Keller was going to be 11 testifying on related issues and-we were involved in the I
12 same proceeding I just wanted to discuss with him our O
13 understanding of the criteria to sort of make sure we were f
14 on the same wavelength or if there were any differences what 15 they were and perhaps, you know, resolve them.
16 0
Did you want to insure that your testimony would i
17 be compatible or coordinated witn his?
{
18 A
No, I don't think that was the obj ective.
It 19 was more of a professional discussion of the appropriateness q
(
20 or the interpretation of the criterion J.12.
{
I 21 0
Do you know if there is anything in your 22 testimony that is based on your conversation with Mr.
l 23 Keller?
24 A
No.
I can't point to anything directly and say l
25 that was based on my conversation.
l I
{
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, Ib'C.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MG336-(M6
{
i
.l 9030 04 04 19207 i
l
<x
(_juewalsh 1
O Do you recall when your conversations were with 2
Mr. McNutt?
3 A
Let me sec.
There is a date at the top of this 4
response to Interrogatory 9, a date of March 5th, 1987, I l
5 received the information.
So, I talked to Mr. McNutt 6
earlier, probably about March 1st I would say.
7 Q
So, it was prior to the drafting of your 8
testimony?
9 A
Yes, it was.
10 0
Are you able to offer an explanation as to why 11 the Krimm memorandum appears in the list which is on --
12 which is in County Exhibit 33?
13 A
No.
I can't say exactly why.
I can surmise
~ ~
14 that the list was put together in response to 15 interrogatories after the memo was published.
A nd, I'm not 16
.sure exactly how the interrogatory was phrased but I take it 17 it was an attempt to be responsive to the interrogatory.
18 Q
In your conversations with Mr. McNutt, Mr.
19 Wingo, Ms. Lawless, Mr. Sanders or Mr. Keller, did anyone 20 express an opinion or a view which is dif f erent f rom that 21 expressed in your testimony?
22 A
No.
We had discussions as, you know, co-equals 23 involved in the same profession.
And, I don't recall 24 exactly all the conversation but the essence was that we k
25 were in agreement with the interpretation of J.12.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700
%tionwide Coserage Mn33MM6 l
'9030 04 04 19208 y-(;uewalsh 1
And, I might point out that it's not surprising, 2
since the NRC and FEMA were both involved in the drafting of 3
NUREG 0654 and, as I indicated, there have been almost daily 4
interactions between NRC and FEMA in addition to formal 5
Steering Committee meetings discussing various aspects of 6
emergency planning, and it's not surprising that we do share 7
similar views.
8 O
And, it's your testimony that all of these 9
conversations occurred prior to the drafting of your 10 testimony?
11 A
Not all of them, no.
Some of them continued 12 during the time I guess I was preparing the testimony until o
13 probably -
probably some took place after the preparation l
14 '
of the testimony.
15 16 17 f
18 f
19
)
i 20 21 22
{
i 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-__-__-_____-_____Y
I 0
0 00 00 19209 marysimons 1 O
And it's testimony that all of these
(
2 conversations occurred prior to the drafting of your
(
(
3 testimony?
4 A
(Witness Kantor)
Not all of them.
Some of them 5
continued during the time I guess I was preparing the i
6 testimony and probably some took place after the preparation j
7 of the testimony.
(
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you.
l f
i 9
I have no other questions.
)
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Christman.
)
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Suffolk County Exhibit 33 was
(^)
12 not offered into evidence.
Is that an oversight or not?
f v
13 MR. CASE:
Judge, that was an oversight, and I I
14 would Suffolk County No. 33 into evidence.
15 JUDGE MARGULTES:
Any objection?
16 MR. CHRISTMAN:
None from the applicant.
)
17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No object.{on.
18 MR. BACHMANN:
No objection.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be admitted as Suffolk 20 County Exhibit No. 33.
21 (Suffolk County Exhibit No. 33 22 previously marked for identifi-23 cation was admitted into
.ri 24 evidence.)
i V
25 j
{
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
202.ya.37(O Nationwide Coserage M0 3364M6 L__
j
.7 w
'0000100 00; 19210 rysimonsLl CROSS-EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
m 3
0 Mr. Hulman, would-you help explain for me the 6
- 4 sigma sub Y term that you use on pages 4 and 5 of your 5
. testimony. Just tell:us what that means.
%l._,
IO' 6
A
.(Witness Hulman)
Sigma sub Y is the measure of
~7 the horizontal dispersion of a plume from the centerline.
8 Plus or-minus means about the centerline.
So the use of 9
plus.or.minus'three sigma lis an attempt to describe the 10 width of,the plume at,a specific distance from the release-11i source.
q l
12
'O
'Now I think you say in your testimony.that.the i
I' 13
. sigma sub:Y varies as a function both of distance from the 14 release and as a function of stability class; is that right?
~
15 A
That's correct.
16 0
So the sigma sub Y would be larger at 10 miles q
17 from the' plant than from five miles, say ---
18 A
Correct.
19 0
--- reflecting the fact that a plume spreads i
20 out?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
And how about stability class.
Would that mean 1
23 that for each of.the stability classes you would have a 24
,different given distance, sat at 10 miles you would have a 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 46
Y l
^ ^ ~
,s0000100.00:
19211
[ ;da;rysimons 1 q:.
different sigma sub Y for each'of'those?
~
2 A
Yes.-
3=
-0 So asking a question like what degree of arc 4
does.the plume cov7-would have to be given a different 5:
answer for each of the stability classes I-guess?
g 6
A-Yes.
7:
0 So when you talk about the 3,000 meters.on page
.8 7 of the testimony, under what'conditionsLdo you get that 9-3,000 meters?
10 A
What I was attempting.to state on page.7 with 11 respect to 3,000 meters is'that for case one the assumption.
12:
was made that'the plume would not grow to'more than 3,000-13 meters of cross-wind direction, not arc length,.but' cross-
)
i 14-wind direction.
That was an assumption that was made for 1
~
15 that_ case and it'sLexplained.
It's the fact that it would 16 not grow beyond that.
17 0
Now on the top of page 5 of your. testimony you 18 say that your calculation does not take into effect 19 protective actions.
So let me ask you hypothetically if.you 20
'had taken into account protective actions, either~ sheltering 21 or evacuating people, what effect would that likely have on l
22 the number of people exposed to a footprint?
23 A
It would reduce the number.
j i
24 0
Now that reduction in number I take it would be 25-expected as a general matter even if there were
- ]
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage im33M646
1 l
l- 0000 00 00 19212 l
. k'ma)rysimons 1 precipitation or wind shift taken into account, wouldn't it?
2 A
With respect to precipitation, yes.
With L
l 3
respect to wind shifts, it would more than likely reduce the 4-nuiaber.
i 5
Q Now let me take an example.
In your case No. 2 l
6 it looks to me from the graph that greater than 20 percent 7-of the population you're using, that is about 46,000 people l
8 being the 20 percent, would be exposed to the footprint less 9
than about 10 or 12 percent of the time; is that roughly 10 correct given case 2?
11 A
That is roughly the interpretation, correct.
i 12 O
So if you took into account protective actions,
\\"
13 wouldn't you expect the number of people exposed to be even 14 less than that?
15 A
Yes.
16 O
Now you say on page 5 of your testimony that
(
17 your. limiting of the horizontal growth of the plume, and I I
l 18 believe this was in probably case one was a conservatism.
l i
19 If you let the plume widen as opposed to keeping it limiting I
I 20 the horizontal growth, more people potentially would be in 21 the footprint I take it?
q 22 A
I'm having trouble with your statement of 23 conservatism.
I can't find that in my testimony.
24 0
Okay.
Let me see if I can fino it.
I 25 i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
__m-J a
0000 00 00 19213
()rysimons1 A
I tnink your question was out of context with 2
respect to the answer to A-6, second paragraph, the last 3
sentence that says "This is a conservative one when used to 4
estimate doses to people. "
5 0
Right.
6 A
But it's not a conservatism when one estimates 7
the number of people.
8 0
Right, but if you let the plume spread out more, 9
more people would be exposed I take it.
For a given 10 accident the doses and exposure would be at a lower level, 11 other things being equal.
12 A
Yes.
O 13 0
And that is a conservatism because while more 14 people might be contaminated, the health risk would be 15 correspondingly less, would it not?
l 16 A
Yes, but the question I was addressing was not l
l 17 health risks and dose levels, but simply the numbers of 1
18 people that would be exposed.
i l
19 So the context in which I answered the question 20 on page 5 was with respect to the numbers of people and not l
21 the dose level.
l l
22 0
With respect to the conservatism the way you l
l 23 meant it, you would have a similar effect if you had a lot l
24 of shifting winds, would you not?
That is, for a given O
25 accident, the more the wind shifts around, the lower the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(0-3364646
l l
l 0000 00 00 19214
/~T:
\\ jrysimons 1 doses that people would tend to suffer; isn't that correct?
2 That is, while a shifting wind would likely expose more 1
3 people, the health risk would be correspondingly lower given 4
an accident?
5 A
In some cases yes, and in other cases no.
In 6
the case where the wind were to shift one or two sectors, 7
the answer to your question would likely be yes, but if the 1
8 wind were to reverse course and blow the plume back over l
l 9
people that had already been exposed, they would get higher l
10 doses.
l l
11 0
Mr. Kantor, on pages 3 to 4 of your testimony 12 you give some insights into the considerations underlying nU 13 Criterion J-12.
I think we established this morning that l
14 you weren't on the FEMA NRC Steering Committee.
So my L
15 question for you is how did you go about determining what 16 these considerations were when you went to write your 17 testimony?
That is, what process did you go through to 18 determine the thinking underlying J-12?
19 A
(Witness Kantor)
Well, I had discussions with 20 some members of the staf f primarily who were involved in the 21 development of 0654 and also a member of FEMA that was on 22 the original steering committee and I also had a I
23 conversation with Mr. Dale Donaldson who formerly was a 24 member of the staff and involved in the drafting of C:)
l 25 Criterion J-12 and other discussions with other members of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
u l
'0000 00 00 19215
- - q
. C rysimons 1 che staff involved in emergency planning who weren't l-L 2
necessarily involved in the drafting of. Criterion J-12, but 3
had been involved in reviewing and evalucting emergency 4
plans for the last couple of yeare.
5 O
So some of the people you talked to were present 6
when NURI;G 0654 was created?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 MR. CHRISTMAN:
You mention on page 4, Mr.
9 Kantor, or your testimony the keyhole concept, and I'll show 10 you an excerpt from the LILCO plan.
11 Judge Margulies, I'll hand this out and let me 12 ask that it be marked for identification as LILCO Exhibit 52 0
13 for identification.
14 (The document was distributed by Counsel 15 Christman to the Board and parties.)
16 What I've asked to be marked LILCO Exhibit 52 is 17 four pages from OPIP 3.6.1, pages 1 of 44, 3 of 44 and then i
18, page 1 of 1 and Attachment 6, page 1 of 1.
I 19 And if you'll look at the third page I've described, that is
{
20 21 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Let's mark it.
It will be so 22 marked.
23 (The document referred to was 4
24 marked LILCO Exhibit No. 52 0
25 for identification.)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n336-6646
l l'
l l-l l 0000 00 00 19216 O
o rysimons 1 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
2 0
If you'll look at the third page, which is
'3 Attachrant 5 in toto and.look at those pictures, is that 4
what we mean by the..eyhole concept where the protective 5
actions are taken in a circle close in by the plant and then 6
in a down-wind wedge shaped section?
7 A
(Witness Kantor)
Yes, that's generally in 8
conformance to what is ref erred to as the keyhole concept 9
for taking protective actions.
10 0
And you talk also in your testimony about the 11 concept of making protective action recommendations based on 12 plant conditions.
Does that refer to what are called EALs i
13 in emergency plans?
14 A
EALs are part of it.
I might say the whole 15 thrust of our emergency planning regulations and guidance is 16 for early detection and prompt notification of serious plant 17 events based on conditions in the plant rather than release 18 of radioactivity.
19 We hope that in the event of a serious emergency 20 that protective action recommendations will be made and 21 given to the public before any release of radioactivity 22 takes place so that members of the public, especially those 23 close in within the first couple of miles can, if need be, 24 evacuate and not be exposed to any radiation.
l O
i 25 0
When did this concept of using plant conditions ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage fun 336-6M6
.0000'00 00 19217 tO G rysimons 1 to make the protective action recommendations gain 2
currency?
Is that a new idea or has that changed at some 3
point or is that something that has always been the 4
philosophy?
5 A
Well, I would say it's embodied in NUREG 0396 6
and stated more directly in NUREG 0654, the basic guidance 7
documents that were used to develop the emergency planning 8
regulations, and that goes back to the time frame of about
(
9 1980 and 1981, you might say pos t-TMI.
{
10 There were some members, individuals of the 11 staff that held that view'even earlier, but by and large
.12 before the development and issuance of these documents the O
13 thinking was that protective actions would be based on 14 measurements of radioactivity both in the plant and in the f
15 environs.
16 But the staff and almost all plans now have the 17 concept of protective actions based on plant conditions, 18 these EALs which are measurable and observable conditions in 19 the plant itself which are utilized to determine the i
1 20 severity of an emergency condition e 4 are used to activate 21 an emergency plan and to make a notification to offsite i
22 authorities all before there is any release of radiation in 23 the plant.
I 1
24 0
And for the record, EAL stands for emergency O
25 action levels?
j i
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrape MO-336346
b L
L00000000-
-19218 ysimons 1 A
That is correct.
-2 0
Now there was.some talk a few minutes ago about l'
3 relaxing - this 12-hour - period in Criterion J-12, and you j
4' tried to clarify that a--little bit.
Let me try to get at-l-
L 5
that question'of relaxing or not' relaxing the 12-hour 6
period.
7 It seems to me that that roughly 12-hour period
. 8; in J-12 is a planning standard 'rather than something - you 9
would.be-likely to enforce against af ter an emergency had 10~
occurred.
Is that right.and does the question.make sense?
11 A
Well', the 12-hour is a part of NUREG 0654 12' evaluation criteria which is a guidance for development of-
)
O 13 an emergency. plan as 'used by emergency plan reviewers 'to 14.
. evaluate the adequacy of emergency plans.
15 It is not a rule and it's_not a regulatory 16 requirement.
It's a planning standard to be.used in the 17 development of plans and would not necessarily be used for 18 any kind of enforcement action following the occurrence of i
1 19 an accident.
20 0
That's what I thought.
You can look at that and j
1 21 that gives you a benchmark when you're evaluating a plan l
22 before an accident ever occurs to see that enough resources I
23 and people have been made available to have an adequate l
24 planning basis; is that roughly correct?
O-I 25 A
Well, it's utilized both in the development of i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 1H4336-6646 j
0000 00 00 19219
., ~
\\ arysimons 1 plans and by in this case primarily FEMA plan reviewers to m
2 evaluate the adequacy of the personnel and resources 3
identified to perform this function.
I don't think it's 4
looked at in terms of an accident or protective actions 5
before or after a release has occurred.
6 The word "about" occurs before 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> in J-7 12.
Do you have any feeling for how much leeway that gives 8
reviewers?
9 A
Generally most of our emergency planning 10 guidance is given in terms of about, and there there is 11 quite a bit of judgment involved, and in this case it's 12 probably on the order of plus or minus 30 minutes, something.
O
' 13 like that, you know, it's a judgment.
It's not a type of 14 criteria where one would stand with a stop watch and measure 15 the beginning and end of it.
16 0
Mr. Hulman, you said this morning that your l
17 analysis didn't account for wind shift directly.
Did you 18 want to explain that, your use of the word "directly"?
l 19 A
(Witness Hulman)
The testimony on page -- let 20 me find it -- the testimony on page 5 in answer to question 21 6 -- let's see if that's the right one.
l l
22 I'm sorry, it's on page 8 in answer to question l
23 11.
It's clear on that subject.
I did not account f or wind l
l 24 shifts directly.
I did consider them as part of my
\\')
l 25 response, and I think my answer speaks to that.
L 1
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M646 3
i l
l 0000.00 00 19220.
eg C rysimons 1 O
okay.
So you're happy with your answer 11 that 2
that is an adeqtiat.: ---
3 A
I'm still happy with my testimony.
/
4 0
Okay.
One last question for Mr. Kantor I think
(
5 this time since you speak for the staff on interpreting J-6 12.
(
7 I don't endorse this view, but I think the 8
argument will be made that the Krimm Memorandum comes up 9
with a 20 percent upper bound based on congregate care or 10 sheltering.
I think the argument will then be made that Mr.
11 Hulman's analysis comes up with a 20 percent. figure based 12 solely on being exposed to a footprint, and the argument I 13 think will be made, so why don't we add up the two numbers 14 to get your planning guidance rather than just take 20 15 percent, in other words, why don't we make it 30 or 40 16 percent rather than 20 because you need to add up two I
17 independent sets of people.
I 18 What's your reaction to that argument?
19 A
(Witness Kantor)
I don't see where there are 20 two independent sets of people here.
Mr. Hulman's 21 calculations were an indication or a perspective, if you 22 will, on the 20 percent number, and it's not a different 23 population set.
24 Q
So even taking into account let's say the l'
25 arguably different bases for the Krimm Memorandum and for ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
(
0000 00 00 19221 I b)rysimons 1
/*
Mr. Hulman's analyses the staf f still believes that 20
-2 percent is the appropriate guidance with the qualification
(
3 that it has to be able to be expanded?
4 A
Yes, sir.
Our position is that for emergency 5
planning purposes that planning for the monitoring of 20 6.
percent of the EPZ population is an appropriate and 7
reasonable planning basis.
f 8
9 10 11 12 0
13
{
14 15 16 l
17 18 19 1
20 j
l 21
(
22 23
)
I I
24 25
(
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mx)-3364646 l
i t
f*b,0 06.06 19222
)
G.joewalsh 1 0
Is part of that Judgment based on -- is part of 2
that conclusion based on a judgment-that 20 percent is a 3
substantial planning base that could be expanded in an 4
emergency?
5 A
(Witness Kantor)
Yes, it is.
I 6
MR. CHRISTMAN:
I have no further questions.
7 JUDGE KLINE:
Mr. Hulman, I understand now that 8
you are happy with your answer to Question 11.
My problem 9
is that I don't fully understand it, and I wonder if you 10 could explain more fully how your assumptions sort of
)
11 balance the limitations of not specifically accounting for 12 wind direction and precipitation?
13 WITNESS HULMAN:
Let's see if I can start at the 14 point where I don't believe that models can be readily used 15 to account for wind shifts for this particular situation.
I 16 think the kind of modeling I did is a reasonable estimate of 17 the number of people that might be under a plume.
18 But, it is true that wind shifts can influence 19 this estimate as well as precipitation.
Now, what I did was 20 to assume the wind did not shift and that it did not rain.
21 When I look at the data that has been collected 22 in the region near and at Shoreham specifically, I find that 23 wind shifts are not unlikely.
They do occur, but there are 24 a relatively large number of periods in which the wind does 1
25 not shift, that it blows pretty much in the same direction ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
y 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 % 336 6646
q i
l i
9030 06 06 19223 I
e ksjoewalsh 1 for long periods of time.
So, while it's true on the one
)
l 2
hand that the wind can shift, it's also true that an j
l 3
accident, if it were to occur at Shoreham, could encounter a j
4 situation where the wind did not shift.
l 5
Now, with respect to how can I conclude that two j
l 6
effects are offeet by an assumption of no emergency
(
7 response, if I look at the numbers of people in the EPZ that l
8 might be under a plume if there were no evacuation and I 9
look at the relative amount of time between a release and
(
l 10 when a plume could reach them, I conclude that it would be l
1 11 reasonable to assume that should an accident occur at 12 Shoreham people would evacuate, a bad accident in
.O t
13 particular.
14 And, if they evacuated they wouldn't encounter 1
15 the plume at all if they were further away from the plant.
l 16 The closer they were to the plant, depending upon the I
17 release conditions, they might see the plume.
But, the 18 further away they are, the less likely they would be to see 19 the plume at all.
The area under the plume grows with 20 distance; therefore, the numbers of people that might be 21 evacuated in the event of an accident would grow with 22 distance.
23 It was a Judgment that the number of people that 24 might evacuate more than offset the non-assumption of wind
/*d 25 shift and precipitation.
ACE-FEoERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mkb3%-6646
l 9030 06 06 19224 joewalsh 1 JUDGE KLINE:
Okay.
Let's go to your diagrams l
2 in the back, say, Case 1, just as an example.
Perhaps you l
l 3
could lead me through an interpretation of this diagram with 4
the understanding that 20 percent of the EPZ population is 5
around, I understand, 30,000.
6 WITNESS HULMAN:
No, sir.
The numbers that I 7
used were the estimated 20/20 population.
And, I think on 8
the previous page --
9 JUDGE KLINE:
Oh, I see.
Okay.
10 WITNESS HULMAN:
-- the 20 percent number would 11 be 46,000.
12 JUDGE KLINE:
Okay.
But, whatever the number I O
13 need help in interpreting the diagram.
If you use 46,000 as 14 the population on the Y-axis and read over to the graph --
15 or the line and then down to the X-axis, what interpretation 16 am I to give to the X-axis?
17 WITNESS HULMAN:
It's the percent of the time 18 that that number if people would be expected to be under a 19 plume or less, given an accident.
Given an accident at 20 Shoreham, less than 10 percent of the people -- I'm sorry, 21 less than 10 percent of the time would 46,000 people or more 22 be expected to see the plume.
23 JUDGE KLINE:
Yeah.
My confusion, it really 24 revolves around the word " time."
Is it real time during an O
25 accident or time in the sense of probability?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MN b336-6646
j I
l 1
1 l
9030 06.06 19225
<n l
( /joewalsh 1 WITNESS HULMAN:
Time in the sense of
,j 2
probability.
3 JUDGE KLINE:
Okay.
Okay.
That's all I need.
4 For Mr. Kantor, we have had some questions here on your l
5 interpretation of the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> requirement.- And, I 6
understand from your answer that it's a planning 7
requirement.
8 Do you also attribute health and safety 9
significance to the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> requirement directly?
That is, 10 is it important f rom a health and saf ety standpoint to 11 observe 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> as opposed to some other time?
i 12 WITNESS KANTOR:
No.
I don't believe 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 13 was arrived at as a health and safety, not directly.
During.
14 the development of the guidance, there were a lot of 15 discussions and comments with State officials.
16 And, it was a means of indicating to State 17 planners that the capabilities, the resources, they would 18 have to devote to this plan area; and, it was also an 19 understanding or a signal, if you will, to the of f-site 20 planners that they should devote sufficient resources so l
l 21 that people reporting to be monitoring would not be expected l
l 22 to remain at the relocation for an extraordinary amount of 23 time or have to be sheltered and provided for if they are l
24 only reporting to be wonitored.
(
l 25 It's sort of a benchmark to be used in l
l l
l
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coterage mL 33MM6 L
L a:
-9030'06 06 19226 hoewalshLl?
evaluating.the resources.
'2 JUDGE KLINE:
Thank you.. I have no other
~
13.
l questions.
.4-
' JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Bachmann.
- 5 MR. BACHMANN:
Prior'to redirect, could.we have 6
'a morning.. break now?
It's just about that time.
~
7
' JUDGE MARGULIES:
Let's take a 15 minute' recess.
.8 (Whereupon, a recess is taken'at 10:20'a.m., to.
9' reconvene at 10i35 a.m.,
this same day.)
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Back on the record.
Mr. -
' l l' Bachmann.
12 REDIRECT. EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. BACHMANN : --
'14 O
This is addressedto Mr. Hulman.
Earlier'in I
15
' response to a-question posed to you, you stated that there
(
'16 -
were codes that would take into account wind shifts;'is that.
17 correct?
18 A
(Witness Hulman)
That's correct.
19 0
Why didn't you use one of those codes?
I 20 A
There are several reasons.
One, they require a 21 great deal of meteorological data from more than one 22 location.
They interpolate that data to fill in those areas 23 bet zeen meteorological stations, and there is a residual q
24 uncertainty associated with that methodology.
- o 25 They are also very expensive to use in terms of
(
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cowrape M)-336-6646
l I
l 9030 06 06 19227 l
nV joewalsh 1 the time required to prepare input to the computer and r
I l
2 computer time themselves.
Furthermore, the analysis that I t
1 I
(
3 did do I felt was a reasonable one that did not require 4
consideration of wind shifts.
5 0
This is addressed to Mr. Kantor.
Could you
(
6 clarify and explain briefly how the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> guidance in J.12 7
is put into practice?
8 A
'(Witness Kantor)
As I indicated in my 9
testimony, this is an area of emergency preparedness that is i
10 reviewed and evaluated by PEMA.
And, it's my understanding 11 that FEMA uses the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period by evaluating the number j
12 of people to be monitored in the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period to determine o
13 if the identified resources, personnel and equipment are 14 adequate to accomplish the monitoring of the, if you will, 15 design basis number of people within che 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period.
i l
16 MR. BACHMANN:
I have no further questions.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there anything further of I
i l
18 the witnesses?
I 19 MR. CASE:
Yes, just some brief recross, Judge l
l 20 Margulies.
I 21 RECROSS EXAMINATION l
l 22 BY MR. CASE:
1 23 0
Mr. Hulman, I believe in response to questions 24 by Mr. Christman you indicated that an evacuation more than l
l 25 likely would reduce the number of people exposed if there l
I 1
ACE FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MKb336 fM6 l
9030 06 06 19228 m
1_)joewalsh I were wind shif ts.
2 Do you recall giving an answer to that ef f ect?
3 A
(Witness Hulman)
I don't think that was the 4
' question that I was -- that I answered.
I was asked to 5
compare the number of people exposed with and without a wind 6
shift.
7 0
All right.
8 A
Not to estimate the number of people that might 9
be exposed with the wind shift.
It was a comparison 10 question, rather than an absolute question.
11 0
All right.
I see what you are saying.
And, it 12 was comparing what two situations?
13 A
It was comparing the numbers of people exposed 14 with the wind shift to the calculation that I did without a 15 wind shift.
16 0
Now, evacuation may reduce the number of people 17 exposed if there is a wind shif t; is that correct?
l 18 A
It may, and in my judgment it's more than likely 19 to.
]
20 0
But, evacuation could increase the number of L
21 people exposed in a wind shift?
)
1 1
22 A
It could, but again I think it's unlikely.
l.
H 23 0
Now, the situations in which an evacuation could l
l 24 increase the number of people who would be exposed in a 25 situation of a wind shift is a situation where the wind
)
l I
/\\CE.FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coterage Mn3364646
{
I
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ ____- ___ a
9030 06 06 19229 Joewalsh 1 shifted over the evacuation route; is that correct?
I 2
A That's one case.
l
.(
3 0
Are there other cases?
4 A
Yes.
There are cases where the wind is erratic 5
and shifts first in one direction and then into another 6
direction and back and forth.
l 7
Those situations, from my analysis of a year's 8
meteorological data at Shoreham, do not occur too often.
9 The wind has shifted historically but does not shift as
(
l 10 erratically as I've described that often.
{
11 0
Okay.
So, this erratic wind shifting that you O.
12 are describing which does occur but not that often would 13 address the second scenario where wind shifts would increase I
14 the number of people exposed during an evacuation?
15 A
It's possible.
16 Q
Now, if there is a sheltering'as a protective 17 action there still may be the need for monitoring; is that l
18 correct?
j i
19 A
Yes, potentially, f
20 0
Now, if you would turn to Case Number 2 in the
\\
21 chart of the Shoreham Footprint of your testimony.
22 (The witness is complying.)
23 Now, in each one of these little squares is a 24 data point; is that correct?
l 25 A
No, sir.
It's a calculation.
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(0 Nationwide Coverage Mn336 6646 I
_ -_. _ ___________ - - _ - Q
9030 06 06 19230 (V 3oewalsh 1 0
A calculation?
7 2'
A It's not data; it's an estimate.
3 0
Okay, an estimate.
So, for instance, at Case 4
' Number '2, there is an estimation, one estimation -- well, 5
let me rephrase that.
In Case Number 2, Full Plume, there's 6
three estimations between 50 and 60,000; is that correct?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
Okay.
And, there's three more --
i 9
A I'm sorry.
There are four.
10 0'
Four?
And, there's three estimations between 60 11 and 70,000 ---
b 12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
This doesn't seem to
- t 13 be witnin the scope of the cross but rather a second attempt 14 at an initial cross-examination.
i 15 MR. BACHMANN:
The Staff would support that i
16 obj ection.
I don't recall any of this being covered in 17 cross-examination.
We are on recross.
I 18 MR. CASE:
Judge, I believe it is responsive to 19 Judge Kline's questions concerning the interpretation of j
i 20 these diagrams and exactly what it is that these diagrams 21' show percentage time.
22 I'm trying to get an idea of the probability in 23 this diagram of the number of calculations concerning 24 population exposure between 50 and 80,000.
O 25 MR. BACHMANN:
I suggest that Mr. Case could ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(4336-6M6
i
.1 9030 06 06 19231 rs i
_()]oewalshI have asked that on cross examination.
I don't really see 2.
that it's proper for him to bring this up and characterize 3
it as recross.
4 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, I agree with that.
It 5
doesn't seem like it's focused on Judge Kline's question at 6
all.
7 (The Board members are conferring.)
8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The question goes beyond the 9
scope of recross and doesn't relate at all to what Judge 10 Kline asked.
11 The objection is sustained.
12 BY MR. CASE:
(Continuing) 13 Q
Mr. Kantor, you responded to Judge Kline's 14 question about the health effects in the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> time 15 period.
Do you recall that response?
16 A
(Witness Kantor)
Yes, sir.
17 0
Were you -- did you -- let me back up on that.
18 Did you draft the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> time guidance?
19 A
As I indicated earlier, no, I was not involved 20 in the drafting of the guidance.
21 Q
Did you discuss with anybody why the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 22 time period was inserted?
l l
23 A
Yes, I did.
24 MR. CASE:
I have no further questions.
('
l 25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I have one or two questions.
l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 m-33 M 636
7'
.9030'06 06-19232 joewa'lsh 11
. RECROSS EXAMINATION l
2 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
{
l 3
O
'Mr.-Kantor, in response to a question by Mr.
]
1 44 Christman about your testimony ~ on. Page. 4,.you L stated' that-l l
~
5-you discussed that subject with a person on the' FEMA /NRC.
6
. Steering Committee.
7 Who'was that person?
'8 A
(Witness Kantor)
I was referring to Mr.:-
9' Marshall-Sanders who-I believe was a-member of the: Steering q
- 10 Committee at that time.
-11 0
. You also said that you ' discussed the subject o'f '
- 12 that testimony on-Page>4 with Mr.'Donaldson..DoJyou recall
- A.
' Q'./
l 13
.that?
1 14 A
Yes, sir.
15:.
L O' Is that the same Mr. Donaldson who appeared in
. f 16
_this' proceeding as a witness for LILCO?
q 17 A-Yes, it is.
l 18" O
And, did you initiate that conversation?
19 A
I believe I did.
20 0
And, it must have occurred prior to the drafting 21 of your testimony, correct?
22' A
Yes, sir.
l i
23 O
And, why did you wish to speak to Mr. Donaldson?
i l
I 24 A
Well, Mr. Donaldson was a former member of the 25 NRC Staff who was very much involved in the response to the t-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336W,46
9030 06 06 19233 l
iQ
't/joewalsh 1 Three Mile Island accident and was very much involved in the i
l-2 initial drafting and development of NUREG 0654 document, the l
l 3
precursor document I,might add.
4 l
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 OV 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O
25 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(x)-33MM6
07S0"07 07 19234
{
i,)
{
s suswalsh 1
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you.
No other questions.
2 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I have one question that was 3
prompted by something that Mr. Kantor said in response to a 4
question by Judge Kline.
5 RECROSS EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
7 0
You mentioned -- this is aoout the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> i
8 period in criterion J.12, and you said that -- something to j
9 the effect that the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period was to tell the State's i
10 what resources they need to devote to this.
11 Was one of the purposes of the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period to
(
lV f~N 12 reassure the State that they need not devote an. inordinate i
13 amount of resources for a long period of time, that they I
14 might expect relief, say, from the federal response?
1 l
15 A
(Witness Kantor)
I believe that concept is-i 16 included in the development of the J.12 criterion.
But, as 17 I indicated FEMA -- how the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period is now being used d
18 by PEMA to evaluate the adequacy of criterion J 12 in off-i 19 site emergency plans.
l 20 0
Were there reservations or concerns expressed by i
21 State authorities when this guidance was being developed j
22 about -- that they were being burdened unduly?
i 23 A
There were a lot of discussions, a lot of 24 comments that I wasn't involved in.
And, this goes back
}
25 seven or eight years ago.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(K)
Nationwide Coserage 8(4336W46
.________-__a
9 0 07 07 19235 eunwalsh 1
I don't know if I can characterize it any more 2
than I have.
3 MR. CHRISTMAN:
That's fine.
I have no more
{
k 4
questions.
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Bachmann.
6 MR. BACHMANN:
The Staff has no further 1
7 questions.
8
. JUDGE MARGULIES:
The panel is excused.
Thank 9
you.
J 10 (The witnesses stood aside.)
j l
11 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The Board will require
{
{
(';
12 proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
It might
{
v
(
13 be an appropriate time now to take 10 minutes or so and see 14 if the parties can come up with a consensus on filing dates.
15 We will take that 10 minute recess now and you 16 can tell us what your proposals will be.
3 i
17 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at 10:47 a.m.,
to i
18 reconvene at 11:10 a.m.,
this same day.)
q I
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Back on the record.
Have the j
l 20 parties come up with a proposed schedule for findings of 21 fact and conclusions of law?
l 22 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I think so.
Let me state it and 23 see if anybody disagrees.
j I
(N, 24 The proposed schedule would add a few days to l
v l
l 25 the time periods offered by the regulations, that is 10 CFR 1
1 I
l l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
)
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage M N t 3 36-6646
9 0 07 07 19236 suewalsh 1
2.754 I think is the regulation.
The following schedule is 2
proposed to the Board.
3 The Applicant, LILCO's proposed findings would 4
be due in hand on September 3rd.
The Interveners' findings 5
would be due on September 14.
The NRC Staff's would be due 6
in hand on September 24.
And, then the Applicant would have 7
until September 21 to respond to the Interveners' findings, 8
to reply; until October 1 to reply to the Staff's findings.
9 That's the basic scheme with a slignt variation 10 to add five days to the 30, 40 and 50 days in the regulation
)
11 and then to add two days to the Applicant's five days to
'}
12 respond at the end.
13 JUDGE SHON:
Would New York and the State file 14 joint proposed findings or separate?
1 i
15 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes.
The governments 16 contemplate a joint filing.
I 17 MR. McMURRAY:
The proposed schedule that Mr.
(
18 Christman has read is acceptable to Suffolk County.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
And, it's acceptable to the 20 State of New York.
21 MR. BACHMANN:
One quick question.
Since you l
22 are filing jointly, would the Staff's filing in hand to 23 counsel for Suffolk County constitute service on New York l
24 State?
p>
x.
25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No, it wouldn't.
But, it's not
{
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Emerage hm 336-6646
___________A
N l
f 9
0 07 07 19237 l
suewalsh 1
necessary to serve the State in hand on the same day.
I 2
think we could make some arrangement later on.
j
(
l 3
MR. CHRISTMAN:
We would appreciate that, too, i
l 4
if we could put it in hand to the County and Fedecal Express 5
to you in Albany.
You would get it the next morning, and l
l 6
that would be preferable.
l l
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
That would be fine if you could j
8 Federal Express it to me in Albany.
9 MR. BACHMANN:
Fine.
l 10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The Board would find it useful 11 to have an index of witnesses and exhibits.
I don't know if
'^')
12 it's necessary for all the parties to submit it.
It could a
13 be assigned to one of the parties.
{
14 MR. McMURRAY:
I think that can be worked out by
{
(
15 the parties.
Judge Margulies, I have another matter to i
16 raise before we close the proceedings.
{
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The proposed schedule as to i
18 the filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 19 law are acceptable to the Board, and they adopt those dates.
/
20 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Thank you.
Before we get into 1
21 what Mr. McMurray wants to talk about, I forgot to move into 22 evidence LILCO Exhibit 52.
I would like to do that at this 23 point.
That's the picture of the key hole.
(~'i 24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any objection?
(
w) 25 MR. McMURRAY:
No objection.
I 1
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{
sc.3n37oo Nanonwide coserure w 33sua6
{
K p; L
1 1
j-e L
1 19 0 07,072 19238 L
suowalsh.
~1:'
' MR... Z AHNLEUTER:
No objection.
-2?
MR..BACHMANN:. No objection.
3 MR.1 CHRISTMAN:
Thank you..
That's all we have.
4-JUDGE MARGULIES:. It will be admitted as LILCO'sj 5
Exhibit Number 52.-
(
6 6
(The document previously marked as
r 7
LILCO Exhibit Number 52 for.
k 8
identificaWon~is admitted.into-9 evidence.)
s 10'
.MR.'McMURRAY:
Two matters, Judge Margulies.
3 11 One..is just-to alert the parties and the Board -- I told Mr..
1 12 Christman and other.councel during our break,'one of'the.
'13-issues that was raised early in this proceeding regarded the j
~
1 14-legality of the use of the reception centers because they-
'l 15-
~ violate various zoning ordinances of the towns.
-16 Since the Board's ruling on that matter, there
'17 have been certain events that have taken place.
We have 18 prepared or are in the process of preparing a pleading 19 regarding those issues, the issues regarding the legality of 1
'20 the use of the reception centers, which we intend to file t
21.
either shortly or with our brief.
A decision hasn't been 22 made yet.
i 23 And, this schedule was -- strike that.
Mr.
k
'24 Christman was on notice of that as we set out this 25 schedule.
All parties I believe were on notice of that.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
I l
19239 9g00707 W
I suewalsh 1
JUDGE MARGULIES:
How does that affect the 2
closing of the record on reception centers today?
3 MR. McMURRAY:
Well, it will not involve the l
4 introduction of new pieces of evidence.
It will be I
5 basically legal argument.
6 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Let me say, I was, in fact, on 7
notice of that but we haven't yet seen this pleading.
- And, 8
if this pleading is long or if it is complicated or whatever 9
we may very well ask for more time than the findings time to 10 respond to it.
I just don't know what it's going to say.
11 MR. McMURRAY:
The other issue I want to raise 12 right now deals with the Board's ruling on Suffolk County ggg 13 Exhibit 22.
14 Let me go back to the question you raised, Judge 15 Margulies, regarding our pleading and the effect of closing 16 the record.
Since the time that the Board ruled on this 17 issue and asked the parties to seek determinations of the 18 legality of the use of reception centers, there have been 19 resolutions issued by the various town boards.
Our pleading 20 would include these attachments, these resolutions as 21 attachments.
22 Now, I would assume that if these were attached 23 to the suffolk County pleading on this matter that the Board 24 would accept them as what they are, resolutions of the town ggg 25 boards.
If, by closing the record now, the Board would not ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370(1 Nationuide Coserage 800-3 E6646 3
L l'
L PA30 07 07 19240 l
N-]
p
.cuewalsh I
review those resolutions, then we do have a problem.
2 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I would object to a ruling from 3
the Board that you are going to accept something that you
(
4 haven't seen attached to a pleading that none of us knows
}'
l 5
what it's going to say right now.
It may be untimely.
It l
l 6
may be -- there may be other objections.
There may be all i
L 7
sorts of problems.
8 I don't think the Board can accept something 9
that it hasn't seen before the fact.
I 10 MR. McMURRAY:
All I'm saying is the fact that 1
11 the record is closed I don't think should preclude the 12 Board's review of the significance of'these resolutions.
(}
13 MR. BACHMANN:
Judge Margulies, what I am 14 hearing is that it appears that the County may be 15 considering in essence a request to reopen the record but 16 calling it something else and then saying we are not trying 17 to reopen the record and not having to go through the 18 various requirements for doing so and is attempting to get 19 the Board to rule in advance on that.
20 If the record is closed, the record is closed 21 and they should follow the regulatory procedural 22 requirements for requesting the Board to reopen the record.
23 I don't think the Board should rule in advance 24 that they will look at something after the record is closed.
25 MR. McMURRAY:
I believe the resolutions at ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage M O-334 6646
{
{
{
1 9
0 07 07 19241 suewalsh 1
issue have been sent to the Board by the parties involved, l
l 2
thus this would not be new information in the record, l
3 Also, I think that either judicial notice could 1
4 be taken of them or they could be treated as decisions which j
l 5
are essentially like court decisions.
Frankly, I don't I
i 6
think this is a problem.
There have been motions such as l
l 7
summary disposition motions filed after a case is closed and i
l 8
you don't need to reopen the record to consider a summary 9
disposition motion.
10 So, I really don't think this is a problem.
11 But, the Board seemed to have a question in its mind and I 12 juFt Wanted to explore it if there is going to be a problem.
ggg 13 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, I think there may be a 14 problem.
15 MR. McMURRAY:
Well, then I ask that the record 16 be kept open for the purpose of receiving Suffolk County's 17 pleading.
18 MR. CHRISTMAN:
And, I object to that on the 19 grounds that this is untimely.
It comes five minutes before 20 the close of the hearing, and it's a surprise and there is 21 no adequate reason to keep the record open.
22 MR. McMURRAY:
Well, the Board said it was going 23 to consider this issue after evidence was taken in the 24 case.
So, that's -- this is essentially answering that part ggg 25 of the Board's prior Order.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide cmerage un336a46 i
1 I
l f.
1 9
0 07 07 19242 i
suewalsh 1
MR. CHRISTMAN:
We have seen copies of a number i
2 of letters, resolutions, all sorts of things.
They are 3
probably in the docket in this case, but they are not in 4
evidence.
5 MR. McMURRAY:
I think we are really arguing in 6
the abstract here.
)
7 MR. CHRISTMAN:
That's exactly my point, but Mr.
8 McMurray is trying to get a ruling from the Board in the 9
abstract I think, and that's improper.
10 MR. McMURRAY:
No, I was really concerned about 11 a question that the Board seemed to raise about the Q
12 propriety of filing a pleading in a summary disposition v
13 context after the evidentiary hearing has been closed, and 14 the rules say you can file it any time during the 15 proceeding, before the findings or before a decision is 16 issued.
17 So, I really don't see what the problem is.
I J
18 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, there is no problem if you I
f 19 are not asking for a ruling that this all comes in before I
20 anyone has seen it.
21 It seems to me that it's obvious that the
)
22 Interveners have to file what they are going to file and 23 make the best case they can for the Board considering it, l
(7 24 but that it can't ask the Board to rule on that question C/
25 now.
l t
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
[
202-347-3Ho Nationwide Coserage M O-336 a 46
\\
l l
l 9
0 07 07 19243 l
l suewalsh 1
JUDGE MARGULIES:
These are strictly in the l
2 nature of resolutions?
3 MR. McMURRAY:
Yes, sir.
We are not asking for 4
any ruling from the Board other than that we are not 5
precluded from filing our pleading.
6 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, I don't think anybody is 7
ever precluded from filing a pleading; but, of course, the 8
pleading has to make the case for reconsideration.
We are 9
talking in the abstract.
10 I'm not sure what this pleading is going to say, 11 so it's hard to argue about it.
I'm sorry, I interrupted.
g 12 Go ahead.
13 MR. BACHMANN:
No.
After what you said, I have 14 nothing more to say.
15 (The Board members are conferring.)
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The Board, of course, will be 17 bound by its previous Order.
We will close the record at 18 this point and take up the matter of the motion and any of 19 the problems it presents at the time it's received.
20 MR. McMURRAY:
Fine.
We are not asking the 21 Board to do anything inconsistent with its previous order.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
There being nothing further --
23 MR. McMURRAY:
There is something further.
And 24 that, Judge Margulies, deals with the Board's decision on g
25 Suffolk County Exhibit 22.
Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'02-347 37(K)
Nationwide Coserage WK) 336 u46
l l
9 0 07 07 19244 i
suewalsh 1
As I understand the Board's ruling, Paragraphs 2 2
and 3 are admitted into the record and Paragraphs 1 and 4 i
1 3
are denied.
I want to move for reconsideration of that 4
decision.
k i
5 Specifically, over the last several days there 6
has been much discussion about the Nassau County Police 7
Department, the need for police control, Nassau County 8
Police Department control at various intersections, whether 9
they would be there, whether things would work in the 10 absence of Nassau County Police Department control.
11
()
12
%J 13 14 15 16 i
17 18 19 20 i
21 l
l 22 1
23 25 l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 37(X)
Nationwide Coserage
!# 0 336-6646 t
I l
l l
I l
h 0000 00 00 19245 l
l marysimons 1 MR. McMURRAY:
The letter that we moved into 2
evidence or asked to be admitted into the record as Suffolk 3
County Exhibit 22 we moved in because it was relevant to the 4
question of whether or not the Nassau County Police 5
Department would be available or if they were available 6
whether they would have a sufficient preplanning in order to 7
carry out the plan.
8 What the Board has done is admitted paragraphs 2 9
and 3 which clearly are relevant to that question, but it 10 has eliminated the reference to the Nassau County Police 11 Department, which is included in paragraph 4.
ggg 12 Now it's very important for this letter to be 13 understood in the context of the purpose that we are 14 introducing it for to understand that the Nassau County 15 Police Department is one of the facilities which Nassau 16 County is saying cannot be relied on at this moment absent a 17 resolution in the future to the contrary.
18 Therefore, in order for the letter to be read in 19 context and for the purpose that we have asked that it be I admitted, paragraph 4 should be admitted for that contextual 20 21 purpose.
Otherwise what the Board has done is rendered the 22 letter vague by deleting the reference to the organization 23 that was the focus of all the testimony and all the ggg 24 questioning over the last two or three days and last week.
25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Mio 33MM6
\\
l
\\
0 0 00 00 19246 marysimons 1 In order to put the letter into context, we need 2
paragraph 4 in the record, and that's why I move that it be 3
admitted into the record along with paragraph 1 for 4
contextual purposes.
Therefore, I move that the Board 5
reconsider its decision.
1 6
JUDGE MARGULIES:
The State of New York.
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Briefly,, Judge, the State 1
8 supports the motion since it is just for the purpose of 9
contextual purposes.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Christman.
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I think the Board should
(~3 12 reconsider it's decision and I think it should exclude the x_/
13 whole thing.
{
i 14 What happens when a document like this 15 unsponsored by any witness and unavailable for cross-
{
l 16 examination is admitted on the last morning of the hearing
{
{
17 is it essentially deprives the other parties of the chance 1
18 to present any evidence on it.
Certainly it deprives us of j
i 19 the chance to do that without asking for a delay which as 20 everyone knows is very expensive for the applicant.
i 21 For that reason the Board should exclude the 1
l 22 entire document.
23 Moreover, all this talk about context I think l
()~'T heightens or highlights the fact that this particular 24
\\.
25 document without a sponsoring witness is simply not ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage MO-336-M46 l
l
I l
\\
l
)
0 0 00 00 19247 marysimons 1 probative of the issues to be decided here.
By depriving 2
anyone of any sponsoring witness and anyone to ask questions 3
about this, it makes that document inherently unreliable and 4
oven if it were admitted it couldn't be relied on for any 5
kind of a finding and, hence, I think the whole thing should 6
be tossed out.
7 I certainly object in a narrower sense to this 8
constant reclamoring of the same issue over and over and 9
over again.
I mean there was one motion made and then the 10 interveners asked for reconsideration and got it.
A third 11 chance is just too much.
(~T 12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Bachmann.
\\_/
13 MR. BACHMANN:
The contextual argument goes to 14 paragraph 4 and, as the Board so properly characterized that 15 this morning, paragraph 4 does contain essentially opinions 16 or comments and interpretations which are the particular 17 type of statements that really do require a sponsoring 18 witness.
19 So I agree with the exclusion of paragraphs 1 20 and 4 for the reasons stated by the Board this morning.
21 MR. McMURRAY:
Just to clarify the contextual 22 argument, it is clear from reading paragraph 4 that the 23 Nassau County Police Department is one of the county 24 facilities Mr. Gulotta is referencing in paragraph 2.
("}
v 25 And yet by cutting out paragraph 4, then you've ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l3 202-347-37(0 Nationwide Coserage MO-336-6646
0 0 00 00 19248 marysimons 1 basically made it very vague as to what County facilities 1
2 are going to be available or not goir..J to be available.
So l
I 3
the context of paragraph 4 is necassary in order to 4
understand that the Police Department falls within the scope 5
of this letter.
6 That's what I want to make clear, and I would 7
like a ruling from the Board that that contextual inference 8
can be made.
9 MR. CHRISTMAN:
There is vagueness in this 10 document no matter which part of it is put in.
That's why 11 you need a sponsoring witness.
We've got a lot of testimony 12 from counsel, but that's not appropriate.
g 13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
If Suffolk County wanted to 14 eliminate the vagueness they could have put it in the 15 resolution.
The resolution is as stated and that's what we 16 have admitted.
17 MR. McMURRAY:
But the letter explains that, 18 Judge Margulies.
19 (Board conferring.)
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The Board has considered all 21 the arguments and denies the request for reconsideration.
22 FROM THE AUDIENCE:
It's highly relevant, 23 Judge.
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there anything further?
g 25 MR. McMURRAY:
We have nothing further.
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 2 336-6M6
l 1
l l
0 0 00 00 19249 l
marysimons 1 MR. CHRISTMAN:
No, sir.
j
)
2 MR. BACHMANN:
No, sir.
l l
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
There being nothing further, l
4 the record is closed on the reception center issue.
l 5
(Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m.,
the record in the 6
above-entitled matter was closed.)
l I
1 7
1 8
I I
9 10 11 g
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 g
25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700, Nationwide Coserage 800-3 % 4 446
t CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
,+
This. is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning).
PLACE:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK DATE:
were held as-herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(
(sigt)
V (TYPED)
[
MARY C.
SIMONS Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
/
l
/p p
GARRETT J.
WALSH /
O e
MYRTLE SUE WALSH
_ - - _ _