ML20127M844
| ML20127M844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#385-665 OL-3, NUDOCS 8507010367 | |
| Download: ML20127M844 (51) | |
Text
0.1GINAL O
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
(Emergency Planning Proceeding)
Evidentiary Hearing O
LOCATION: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES:
15987-16050 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1985
' SU O
,y ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
\\
Qfficial ?rporters 444 North CapitolStreet 05070 gig gj{j{!jpp Washington, D.C. 20001 f]DR PDR (202) 347 3700 maa
m fl 15987
/ -
1 BEFORE THE
\\ -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 4
UNIT 1 (Emergency Planning Proceeding) 5 EVIDENTIARY HEARING 7
County Center Building 20 g
Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 9
June 26, 1985 g
The above-entitled matter came on for 33 hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.
12 BEFORE:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman 13 Jerry R. Kline, Member Frederick J. Shon, Member APPEARANCES :
15 On Behalf of LILCO:
16 JAMES CHRISTMAN 17 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 18 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 On Behalf of State of New York:
21 RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER e
Assistant S3ecial Counsel to the Governor 22 Executive Ciamber The capitol, Room 224 23 Albany, N.Y.
1224 24 TANKOOS REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
25 150 Nassau Street 223 Jericho Turnpike New York, N.Y. 10038 Mineola, N.Y.
11501 (212)349-9692 (516)741-5235 O'
COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION / keyword index
15988 C^'T 2
1
'/
APPEARANCES, (Cont'd.)
On Behalf of Suffolk County MICHAEL S. MILLER d
KARLA J.
LETSCHE Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher &
5 Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
6 Washington, D.C.
20036 7
EUGENE R.
- KELLEY, Chief Deputy County Attorney 8
Suffolk County Department of Law H.
Lee Dennison Building 9
Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 10 II On Behalf of F.E.M.A.
12 STUART M. GLASS, Regional Counsel 26 Federal Plaza 17 New York, N.Y.
10278 r
,,-)
Id On Behalf of the NRC Staff:
15 BERNARD M. BORDENICK MALINDA L. MCDONALD 16 Office of the executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 37 Washington, D.C.
20555 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TANKOOS REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
150 Nassau Street 223 Jericho Turnpike New York, N.Y. 10038 Mineola, N.Y.
11501 (212)349-9692 (516)741-5235 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION / keyword index
m 15988A j,_
y-)8 C O N T E N T'S
'i3, 2
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS 3
Panel of Witnesses:
4 Thomas E.
Baldwin 3
Joseph H. Keller 6
Roger B. Kowieski Philip,H. McIntire 7
By Mr. Miller 15991 8
By Mr. Zahnleuter 16030 By Mr. Miller 16043 9
LAY-IN TESTIMONY OF PANEL MEMBERS BALDWIN, KELLER, 10 KOWIESKI and McINTIRE, follows Page 15992 11 12 13 i
[$
'\\,,,l.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
24 l
25 l
i
l 15983 3
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Please come to order.
2 We will Proceed this morning with the testimony of the 3
FEMA witnesses.
You may proceed.
4 MR. GLASS:
We have today the FEMA 5
6' Panel.
Starting with Mr. Keller, will the FEMA panel 7
please--
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Let mc swear the 8
witnesses.
9 MR. GLASS:
They are already sworn, your 10 Honor.
This is a reappearance for them.
n JUDGE MARGULIES:
I will swear them 12 i3 anyway.
THOMAS E.
BALDWIN y
JOSEPH H. KELLER 15 ROGER B.
KOWIESKI 16 PHILIP H. McINTIRE j7 Having'been duly sworn by Judge Margulies, were ig examined and testified as follows:
39 EXAMINATION BY MR. GLASS:
20 Q
Starting with Mr. Keller, will each 21 member of the panel state their full name, occupation, 22 business address and current employer?
2:4 WITNESS KELLER:
Joseph H. Keller. I 24 am a staff scientist with the West Idaho Nuclear 25 company at the Idaho National Engineering Lab, Idaho 0,
15950 b
4 Falls, Idaho.
WITNESS McINTIRE:
I am Philip McIntire, 3
chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division a
f the Federal Emergency Management agency, 26 Federal 5
6 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
My name is Roger B.
7 Kowieski.
I am the chairman of Regional Assistance g
Committee, FEMA, New York Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New 9
York, New York.
io WITNESS BALDWIN:
I am Thomas Baldwin.
11 I am an environmental analyst with Argon National 32 Laboratory in A,rgon, Illinois.
My office is in Garden 33 h,~
City, Long Island,'New York.
~
y 0
Gentlemen, do you have before you the 33 l
affidavit of Thomas E. Baldwin, Joseph H. Keller, Roger l
16 i
B. Kowieski and Philip H.
McIntire?
17 THE WITNESSES:
Yes, we do.
18 Q
Do you have any corrections to make to 3,
that particular affidavit?
20 WITNESS McINTIRE:
No, we do not.
21 MR. GLASS:
I move the affidavit of 22 Thomas E. Baldwin, Joseph H. Keller, Roger B.
Kowieski 23
& Philip H. McIntire, and ask this material be bound in 24 the record as if read.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Any objection?
m
,y
15991
/
$u 5
MR. MILLER:
No objection.
2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Request granted.
4 MR. GLASS:
Ready for cross examination.
5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. MILLER:
7 Q
Gentlemen, if you look at the second g
paragraph of your affidavit in which you list the 9
materials reviewed by you to prepare your affidavit, 10 does that paragraph include and set forth the material 33 y u did review in preparation of this affidavit?
12 WITNESS KELLER:
I think-in terms of 33 V
specific material we looked at, yes, that is a correct y
characterization.
We obviously used our experience.
is These are the documents that we used.
16 Q
Among other things, you reviewed the 37 affidavit of Mrs. Robinson and the attachments to her 3g affidavit, correct?
39 WITNESS KELLER:
That is correct.
g Q
Is it fair to say that for purposes of 21 your review you assumed that the representations and 22 statements made in Mrs. Robinson's affidavit and in the 23 attachments to that affidavit were true and correct?
24 WITNESS McINTIRE:
That's correct.
25 Q
Is it fair to say that you attempted no
~. ' '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ItX2 EAR REGULATORY CX2HISSIGI Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board lO zn e. Hattet of
)
)
IItG ISIMD LIQfrI!G CQ4PANY )
Docket No 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power
)
Proceeding)
Station, Unit 1)
)
AFFIMVIT OF THCMAS E. 3AIEWIN, JOSEPH H. KELLER ROGER B. XDW1ESKI and PHILIP H. McINTIRE 1.
Our names are homas E. Baldwin, Joseph H. Kaller, Roger B.
Kowieski and Philip H. McIntire. We have appeared before the Atomic Safety ~ ~ -
and Licensing Board in the above captioned proceeding.
Our professional ~
qualifications and affilations appear in our pre-filed testimony following page 12,174 of the transcript of that proceeding.
f 2.
Our affidavit is based on a review of the Affidavit of Elaine D. Robinson and the attactynents thereto; NUREG 0654, FEMA REP-1, Rev.1; on our arevious coscimony in this proceeding, and the review of cha l
applicaile sections of the long Island Lighting Company, local Offsita l_
Radiological Basegency Response Plan, Transition Plan, Revision 4.
>O 3.
It shouw be notec eat nuaEs 0634, Fa w.aEP-1,.Rav. t = = tns two citations with regard to relocation centers, J.10.h and J.12.
In energency response plans the functions to be performed in a relocation center can be divided into two (2) principal functions:
reception center functions including the registration, monitoring and decontamination of evacuses, if required congregate care functions including the temporary housing, feeding and provisions for first aid of proven uncontaminated evacuses
%e above two (2) functions can be co-located er may be conducted in separate facilities.
Ravision 4 of the LIIID Transition Plan states that these two functions are to be performed in the same facility (see page 4.2-1 lines 37-44).
It is our understanding that during the hearing before the ASLB LILCD stated that chase two functice.s were to be conducted at separate facilities.
(Tr. ff 14, 707 at p.15-16, Tr.14, 779,14, 801-802, 14, 612-14, 813).
4.
The Nassau Veeerans Memortal Colissus is being offered as tne sole reception center for use by IERO in the event of a radiological smergency at the Shorenam Nuclear Power Station.
O
--$. IL. distance-from-t.a ShurutasrWelear:4'ower< cation-does-not'-
u-preclude -utilisation of the Nassau_ Veterans Mamorial Coliseus-as a
-receptica c;.ntur.
O
6.
Based upon an emanination of the material suhaitted to Tau the Nassau Veterans Hemorial Coliseus appears to be a suitable facility for LI1CO to use as a reception center.
It has parking areas, showers and I
cther amenities normally needed at receptian concers.
O 7.
rtn 1 per= val =f the n ssau vecerans s morial c=11.eu= as a reception center would ne contingene upon sw (.*.) wnshhuwh,- -. ---
details of the separation of the. reception and congregnee care functions must be incorporated within the LIIID Transition Plan and be reviewed and approved by the Regional Assistance Comnittee an exercise must be held in which a demonstration of the reception center function can be evaluated, untec:
February
, 1985 ebbdu
,-- s. mom i
l Subscribed and sworn to before me a Notary Public by Thomas E. Baldwin.
I This Mtb day of February,1985.
l 10k hANf?Dr
' ca.y Puniic LuuLur-uptree. -
Micurt aVANUSA wyyd M/M
"*YNT*f 3.u"":#" T""
4' 8
c
""J U $ $ ifn"e T s3 b Josepn H. Kelier Subscribed and sworn to before me a Notary Public by Joseph H. Kellet.
.This 257 day of February, 1985.
Y f,8 Rotary Pueric d
My Cetmiission expires: gonErfirg WS od.77d;f$/
Roger 3. i4Wieski Subscribed r.d sworn to before me a Notary Public by Roger 3. Kowieski.
This
($ih day of February, 1985.
YY Nnrary Mnj t c ttr Conrnission oxoires:
uscHat svAnusA; Notary Pues, suw W New Yse
/-
n O e-
~
eouann$.t..-M.wsnsa Pn1114 H McInt2,te.
~
[Jhis..ibkh_Subscrijpe and sworn to Defore ins a Notary Public ey YSilip H. McIn O
of February, 1985
, \\he {II?
g"DE*.44 in New v rs cog-MicHEL IVANUsA 6
{
j
% PuMc. Stato of New Yeft
~
ry NDL.c
,T
"*. as aum
- - = -
e p
- R,
co.7sst:n w ires:
'* EmoPum m m
s e.
s
15992 C'
6 i
1 independent verification of the matters set forth in 2
Mrs. Robinson's affidavit and the attachments to that 3
4 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's also correct.
S 6
Q You say in paragraph 2 that you reviewed Revision 4 of the LILCO Plan in preparing your 7
Is that correct?
e WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
9 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's correct.
ig 0
Down in paragraph 3 you mention that 33 Revision 4 of the LILCO Plan states the the function of 12 monitoring and decontamination evacuees and sheltering 33 evacuees are to be performed at the--sorry--are ja performed at the same facility.
Is that correct?
15 WITNESS KELLER:
That is correct.
16 Q
Has LILCO at this time presented a l
17 la revision 5 to its emergency plan to FEMA for its review?
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
No, they did not.
j9 20 0
Do you know whether LILCO is at this 21 time preparing a revision 5 to its plan?
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
We have no knowledge 22 r
f f ID*
23 Q
Is it fair to say--
24 MR. GLASS:
Please give the witnesses a 25 chance to confer.
15993 b
7 t()
1 (Witnesses confer.)
2 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
We should clarify or 3
add that we have reviewed a document that proposed resolution to resolve inadequacies identified in 5
Revision 4.
So, we have reviewed and provided our 6
feedback to LILCO.
7 So far, we have not received or reviewed g
Revision 5.
9 0
Is it fair to say that LILCO will have 10 to submit a Revision 5 of its emergency plan to FEMA ij and RAC for its review before FEMA can decide whether 12 LILCO's proposal regarding use of the Nassau Coliseum 33 is adequate?
j, MR. GLASS:
I have to object as to form, 15 ust a point of clarification, if Mr. Miller will not 16 mind.
37 The documents that we received that all 18 of these revisions come to us through the NRC.
It is a 19 submission to-the NRC, and then, by the NRC to FEMA.
20 There is no direct submission to FEMA.
21 MR. MILLER:
I think with that 22 understanding my question can stand.
23 WITNESS KELLER:
I think if you'll look 24 at the second page, Mr. Miller, we did state that we 25 feel that these details must be included in the plan, i
~
1599'i h
8 j
h under paragraph 7.
2 Q
Let me follow up with that, Mr. Keller.
3 My question, though, is, is it fair to 4
say that the details regarding the separation of the 5
monitoring and decontamination facility and the 6
congregate car-e centers must be not only included in 7
the LILCO Plan but then submitted through the NRC to 8
FEMA and RAC for its review and approval?
9 WITNESS KELLER:
As it states, it must 10 be submitted, reviewed and approved.
ij 0
At this time that has not occurred?
12 WITNESS KELLER:
That is correct.
13 O
Gentlemen, would you agree with me that j,
in the event of a radioactive release at the Shoreham 15 Plant, LILCO would have to have the capability of 16 monitoring and, if necessary, decontaminating all 37 evacuees?
jg MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
We are now 39 into the issue of the planning basis, the number of 20 expected, anticipated evacuees, and that is outside the 21 scope of this hearing.
22 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, my 23 question is very relevant to this hearing.
The hearing 24 is to decide the adequacy of the Nassau Coliseum.
To 25 my knowledge, the Nassau Coliseum is the sole facility (U
n
- )
15995
\\
m 9
L) 1 being relied upon by LILCO to monitor and decontaminate 2
evacuees.
3 My question to these gentlemen is, is it 4
fair to say LILCO must demonstrate a capability to be 5
able to monitor and decontaminate all evacuees in the 6
event of a radioactive release at Shoreham?
7 anel confers.)
8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Objection overruled.
9 WITNESS KELLER:
The guidance, the 10 criteria upon which we evaluate the plan for n
acceptability is J12N0654.
That guidance says that the 12 entities'--in this case, it would be LILCO--must--should 13
(
be able to monitor all the evacuees who arrive at a j,
relocation center within about a 12-hour period.
That 15 may not be exactly what you asked, but that's the 16 guidance.
i7 0
And in t,his case, Mr. Keller, you 18 construe the guidance of NUREG 0654 to require LILCO to j9 have the capability of monitoring all evacuees who 20 w uld report to the Nassau Coliseum for monitoring and 21 decontamination.
Is that correct?
22 WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
23 Q
Under the guidance of NUREG 0654, there 24 is no definition as to the number of evacuees that may 25 have to be monitored.
It's simply those evacuees who gV
15996 h) 10 j
i report for monitoring and decontamination.
2 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
Same as 3
before.
He is delving into the issue already litigated, the planning basis of the number of evacuees.
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Objection overruled.
6 WITNESS KELLER:
Your statement is 7
correct.
g Q
Looking at paragraph 4 of your 9
affidavit, gentlemen, at this time, to your 10 knowledge--for the record, it's clear, isn't it, that 33 t'he Nassau Coliseum is the only f acility being relied 12 upon by LILCO to monitor and decontaminate evacuees?
13 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Based-on information y
Provided to us, available to us, it is our 15 understanding that Nassau Coliseum is designed--is the 16 only facility to process evacuees.
37 Q
In paragraph 5 of your affidavit, you ig state that the distance from the Shoreham Plant to the 39 Nassau Coliseum does not preclude utilization of the 20 Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a reception center.
21 Do you see that statement?
22 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Yes, we do.
23 Q
Could you tell me the distance of the 24 Coliseum from the Shoreham Plant?
25 WITNESS BALDWIN:
We understand, from
,pd
T" 15997 Fi 11 3
V-the' testimony of Elaine Robinson, that it's 2
3 approximately 43 miles from the Shoreham Plant, 33 miles from the boundary of the ten-mile EPZ.
4 5
Q Thirty-three miles from the western boundary of the ten-mile EPZ?
6 WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's correct.
7 Q
Approximately 53 miles from the eastern g
boundary of the EPZ?
9 WITNESS BALDWIN:
It says approximately jo 43 miles from the site, 33 miles,from the ten-mile EPZ 3i boundary.
That would be the west,ern boundary.
12 Q
And 53 miles from the eastern boundary-33 of the EPZ?
y WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's correct.
The 15 eastern boundary would be 53.
16 Q
Could you tell me, gentlemen, what you 37 mean when you say that the distance does not preclude 18 utilization of the Coliseum as a reception center?
3, MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
The distance 20 f the Coliseum from the EPZ or from the plant is not 21 at issue in this hearing.
22 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, there is a 23 statement directly in their affidavit which has been 24 offered and accepted by this Board with respect to the 25 issues that we are litigating today.
I 15990 h_1 12 i
N')
I MR. CHRISTMAN:
It may be the statement 2
is in the hearing.
No one moved to strike it and I 3
have no objection to that statement being in the record.
I do object to cross examination on the issue 5
that has been expressly excluded from this hearing.
6 (Panel confers.)
7 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The distance issue is 8
not subject to review in this re-opened proceeding.
9 The Board will sustain the objection.
10 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, 1 must ask n
the Board for a re-organization or clarification 12 because I am confused.
13
].
When the Board re-opened the hearings to g
discuss the--I believe the words are the functional is adequacy of the Nassau Coliseum, it would appear to me 16
-as a logical matter that such matters would include the n
location of the Coliseum with respect to where evacuees 18 must come from to reach that facility.
j, We have here a statement by the FEMA 20 witnesses which I think is confusing.
It says that the 21 distance of the Coliseum does not preclude its 22 utilization.
23 My question goes directly to that 24 statement in the FEMA affidavit.
The Board--just for 25 clarification--is the Board's ruling that I am not
,.Dv
15999 l N 13 1
Permitted to ask a question regarding this direct 2
statement in the FEMA affidavit?
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Miller, as you are 4
aware, we precluded the distance issue from this 5
Proceeding and we had refused to admit such testimony 6
from the proffered testimony of a number of witnesses 7
of the intervenor.
We are not making new rules for 3
FEMA.
The same rules apply to FEMA as were applied to 9
y ur witnesses.
10 MR. MILLER:
I understand that, Judge 33 Margulies.
But here we have a statement that.was 12 accepted by the Board.
13 JUDGE MARGULISS:
The fact that you did 34 not object to it and the statement was admitted into 15 evidence doesn't make that sentence any more relevant 3
to the proceeding.
It isn't a method to provide you--a 37 method to introduce this matter into the record.
It's
~18 a matter beyond the record in this proceeding and we 39 will n t permit cross examination on it.
20 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, the matter 21 is in the record because it's in this affidavit.
In 22 light of the Board's ruling, I have no choice but to 23 m ve t strike paragraph 5 of the FEMA affidavit.
24 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
The motion 25 is untimely.
O
n 16000 f"4 14 f
3
(
i (Panel confers.)
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The Board will grant 3
the motion to strike the paragraph.
4 Q
Gentlemen, if you will look at page 2 of 5
your affidavit, paragraph 6 makes a number of 6
statements, comments, which I have some questions about.
7 It says, in essence, that the material 8
that's been submitted to FEMA appears to demonstrate 9
that the Coliseum is a suitable facility for LILCO to 10 ii use as a reception center.
Then you go on and you say the Coliseum has parking areas, showers and other 12 i
amenities normally needed at reception centers.
33
)
Do you see that?
ja WITNESS McINTIRE:
Yes, we do.
15 Q
Can you tell me, first of all, or define 16 for me, if you will, the other amenities which are 37 mentioned in paragraph 6 of your affidavit?
is WITNESS McINTIRE:
Basically, it would 39 be toilets and facilities to feed people, 20 (Witnesses confer.)
21 WITNESS-McINTIRE:
Excuse me.
I 22 misspoke.
23 WITNESS KELLER:
You need toilet 24 facilities, you need an area in which registration can 25 be held after the monitoring has been completed.
You
,_)
16001
- (q 15 j
i need an area to process people, you need an area'to g
wait for--have people wait in, in case of inclement
-3 weather, if there are waits for processing.
Those kinds of amenities.
5 Q
Let me ask you, gentlemen, have any of e
you ever been to the Nassau Coliseum?
7 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Yes.
8 9
Q Mr. Baldwin, are you the only person who has been to the Coliseum on this panel?
10 ji WITNESS McINTIRE:
I have been there 12 once, inside.
WITNESS KELLER:
The four of us toured j3
$R C
the exterior area of the Coliseum yesterday.
14 Q
Let me back up, then.
is Yesterday the four of you toured the 16 outside of the Nassau Coliseum.
Was that the first 37 la time, Mr. Keller, for you and Mr. Kowieski, that you had been to the Coliseum?
j9 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That is correct.
20 WITNESS KELLER:
That is correct.
21 0
Why did,you tour the outside of the 22 Nassau Coliseum yesterday?
23 WITNESS KELLER:
Because we thought 24 you'd ask today.
25 Q
A truthful answer.
k
16002
($
16 U
What did you look at when you were at 2
the Coliseum yesterday?
3 WITNESS BALDWIN:
We looked at the 4
s Parking areas, the access roads around the Coliseum.
We looked at the width of the number of lanes in the 6
area and, basically,'saw the exterior of the facility.
7 Q
Mr. Baldwin, you say you looked at the g
number of lanes.
Are you talking about on the public 9
highways, roadways leading into the Coliseum parking in lot?
11 WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's correct.
In 12 the immediate vicinity.
In the front that would be to 13 b
V the north, to the south, and we looked at the i,
Meadowbrook Highway, which is to the west, immediately 15 west.
And then drove back into the parking lot and 16 again drove around the exterior of the building.
i7 (Witnesses confer.)
18 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Meadowbrook is east of i9 the facility.
That's right.
20 Q
Could you tell me the approximate 21 distance from the Coliseum as far out as your tour 22 encompassed?
23 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Well, we actually 24 started from my office in Garden City, so that's not 25 germane to it.
We then drove to the area.
The road to
,--e-
16003 N) 17 K
the north.of the Coliseum is about, I-would say'500 2
yards.
3 WITNESS KELLER:
We drove a couple of-4 miles.
5 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Yes.
A couple miles 6
around it.
In terms of total distance around it, we 7
drovemaybetwomikes.
g Q
What time of the day'was this?
9 WITNESS BALDWIN:
This was approximately 10 between 10:30 and noon.
33 Q
So, you were making your tour of the 12 j3-Nassau Coliseum well after the morning rush hour had ended?
3, WITNESS McINTIRE:
Yes.
15 Q
Generally, how were traffic conditions 16 in the area that you toured yesterday?
37 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection, unless the 18 question is limited to the immediate environs, as the 39 Board defined it yesterday, of the Coliseum.
The 20 question is objectionable.
21 MR. MILLER:
Well, it's obviously 22 limited to the immediate environs.
These gentlemen 23 said they went to the Coliseum and the immediate 24 r adways around.
I asked them to define those roadways.
25 My question is, could you describe the
16004
(
18 j
traffic conditions on the roadways that you toured?
2 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I just want to make sure 3
the witnesses don't assume that the area they happened 4
to cover yesterday is the same as the area the Board 5
had in mind.
6 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I believe the 7
witnesses understand the question, a
WITNESS BALDWIN:
The traffic conditions 9
at the time--I was driving--was--there was very little in congestion on the roads.
On the highway to the north ii there was some road construction going on.
There was 12 some highway equipment there that we had to go around.
33 (L
But other than that, very little traffic.
f
')
u x_/
On the Meadowbrook, there was what I 15 would call normal *.raffic during a non-peak period of i3 noon time on a sunny time in June.
u Q
How do you--sorry.
Go ahead.
ie WITNESS BALDWIN:
On the Hempstead 39 Turnpike, which is the road to the south of the 20 facility, the same traffic conditions that you would 21 expect for that period or time of day.
22 0
Normal traffic conditions on the 23 Meadowbrook for this time of the year, Mr. Baldwin, is 24 it fair to say that's fairly heavy traffic?
25 WITNESS BALDWIN:
I've seen it heavier.
w/
16006 (R
19
]
1 WITNESS KELLER:
I would characterize 2
the traffic as light at the time we were there.
3 Q
Can you tell me why you did not go inside the Coliseum yesterday?
5 WITNESS KELLER:
We felt that it would 6
not be any useful purpose served.
In order for us, as 7
we said later in our affidavit, to evaluate the g
Coliseum for its purpose of acting as reception center, 9
we really have to see it set up the way it is intended 10 to be set up to be used as a reception center.
It ji would not have been in that condition yesterday and 12 therefore there was really no real purpose in going i<1 33 b
and looking at a building.
3, Q
If that's the case, Mr. Keller, if there 15 was no purpose in going inside the Coliseum, I have to trouble understanding why there was a purpose for going 37 to the Coliseum at all?
18 WITNESS KELLER:
The only purpose was, 39 as we told you, we expected you would ask had we been 20 there.
21 Q
Let me back up.
22 Mr. McIntire, you said you had been to 23 the Coliseum before yesterday.
Correct?
24 WITNESS McINTIRE:
Yes.
25 Q
Roughly how many times?
1 16006 A
20 U
WITNESS McINTIRE:
Once.
2 3
Q Was it with respect to the LILCO Plan?
WITNESS McINTIRE:
No.
It was a 4
sporting event.
5 Q
Mr. Baldwin, you've been to the Coliseum 6
also before?
7 WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's correct.
g Q
Again, was that with respect to the 9
LILCO Plan?
10 WITNESS BALDWIN:
No.
That, again, was ii 12 a sporting event.
i3
. Was there any event in progress at the Q
Coliseum yesterday when you yere there, to your p
knowledge?
15 WITNESS BALDWIN:
There were a number of 16 cars parked in the-lot to the north of the building.
17 It appeared that those were either workers or some is small exhibition at the exhibition hall.
39 WITNESS McINTIRE:
I also believe there 20 is some construction going on.
21 Q
I gather you don't really know whether 22 there was an event in progress?
23 WITNESS BALDWIN:
I don't.
24 Q
Mr. Baldwin, the previous time you've 25 been at the Coliseum, how would you describe the
1600'7 O) 21 1
{#
'~
traffic conditions in the.immediate area of the Nassau 2
Coliseum on that occasion?
3 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Upon entry, heavy..
But we got into the area quickly.
And when it--it was 5
for a hockey game.
When the hockey game dismissed, it 6
was heavy.
7 Q
Mr. McIntire, the same question to you.
g At your previous occasion being at the Coliseum, how 9
would you describe the traffic conditions at the 10 immediate area of the Coliseum?
11 WITNESS McINTIRE:
Moderate.
12 Q
What was the occasion?
33 Q
WITNESS McINTIRE:
It was a tennis match.
ja Q
Middle of the day?
15 WITNESS McINTIRE:
No.
Evening.
16 Q
Looking again at paragraph 6 of your p
affidavit, you state that the Coliseum, from the jg material you reviewed, appears to be a suitable 39 facility for use as a reception center.
20 Is it fair to say, gentlemen, that at 21 this time FEMA has not yet determined whether the 22 Coliseum is, in fact, suitable as a monitoring and 23 decontamination facility?
24 WITNESS KELLER:
If you will look at 25 paragraph 7, that's exactly what we said.
We don't
-. - _ _ - -, - - - - - - -.. -.. ~... -, - -. _.., -.. - - -, - -. -., - - -
16008 P
22 h
I have paragraph 7, however.
2 0
- In paragraph 7, Mr. Keller, you 3
reference two--I guess let's call them outstanding 4
items.
Is that fair?
5 WITNESS KELLER:
That's fair.
6 Q
Two outstanding items that FEMA still 7
needs to look at before they are going to make a final a
determination.
9 Let's take the second first.
"An 10 exercise must be held in which a demonstration of the 33 reception center function can be evaluated."
12 At this time an exercise has not 13 occurred.
Correct?
u WITNESS KELLER:
That is correct.
15 Q
And the first point, " Details of the 16 separation of the reception and congregate care 37 functions must be incorporated within the LILCO ig Transition Plan and be reviewed and approved by the 39 Regional Assistance Committee."
20 This has not occurred either, correct?
21 WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
22 Q
Has FEMA attempted to determine whether 23 other facilities closer to the LILCO EPZ are available 24 and more suitable than the Nassau Coliseum for 25 monitoring and decontaminating evacuees?
16009 I
~
23 3
tv-MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
2-MR. GLASS:
Objection.
I think it's 3
beyond the scope of the contention.
MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, the issue 5
here is the adequacy of the Nassau Coliseum.
It seems 6
clear that in determining the adequacy of one facility, 7
it is relevant to see whether there are other 8
facilities perhaps more adequate.
That is relevant to this inquiry.
That is the basis of my question.
in MR. GLASS:
I disagree with that 33 Particular analysis.
The question is very limited, 12 whether this particular facility is adequate or not.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The objection is 34 sustained.
is Q
Let me explore with you, gentlamen, 16 paragraph 6, again, of your affidavit, where you state 37 that based on your examination of the materials to is date, it would appear that the Coliseum is suitable as 39 a m nit ring and decontamination facility.
20 Would you say that, based upon your trip 21 t
the Coliseum yesterday, FEMA has now analyzed 22 traffic conditions in and around the immediate area of 23 the Nassau Coliseum?
24 WITNESS BALDWIN:
No.
I would 25 characterize it as we have examined the Coliseum area
16010 24 and ascertained that it has parking areas and that it 2
has a building where it's probable that they have the 3
showers and the other amenities that are described in our affidavit.
5 Q
At this time, gentlemen, has FEMA in any 6
way analyzed the possible c5nsequences to the Nassau 7
County water supply from the release of or possible 8
release of radioactive contaminants into the Coliseum's 9
sewer system?
ig MR. GLASS:
Objection, requesting the ij same clarification given yesterday.
I think there was 12 a distinction drawn by the Board whether it was the j3 system on site or whether it was going off-site.
34 MR. MILLER:
I will limit my question to 15 the system on-site.
16 MR. MILLER:
You may respond.
37 WITNESS KELLER:
We have not done a ig detailed analysis of this issue.
You are aware, I 39 believe, we testified last year that the Environmental 20 Protection Agency has written a letter to the State of 21 New York which said the decontamination of contaminated 22 individuals, it was perfectly acceptable as far as the 23 Environmental Protection Agency was concerned, to allow 24 this water to enter the normal sewer system.
25 Q
What sewer system was the Environmental
16011 h -(
25 V
Protection Agency talking about?
2 WITNESS KELLER:
Sanitary sources in 3
. buildings.
A generic kind of statement, and the Nassau Coliseum, being a building with sanitary sources, fits.
5
'6 0
But, Mr. Keller, to clarify, that statement by the Environmental Protection Agency was 7
not specific to the Nassau Coliseum area?
g WITNESS KELLER:
That is correct.
My 9
recollection is that the statement was made in in connection with the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power 11 Station, which is--since all power stations must meet 12 the requirements of J12, you have the same issue at 33 q
V each and every power station.
And the letter was y
i written to be a generic-type letter.
15 Q
Well, Mr. Keller, you may have the same 16 generic issue, but different localities have different i7 problems, perhaps, with water supply and sewer ig systems.
Is that correct?
3, MR. GLASS:
Objection, your Honor.
Now g
we're going beyond the scope of this particular 21 contention as was ruled by the Board yesterday.
22 JUDGE MARGULIE'S:
I think we should have 23 the clarification on the record.
24 WITNESS KELLER:
I would assume that 25 different areas could have different problems with
,,u
i 16012 k
26 1
v water and sewer systems.
I don't know that this is 2
any--this problem is any different than the problem 3
someplace else.
But I would assume that's a reasonable 4
thing, that there could be a different problem.
r5 Q
Now, Mr. Keller, do you know if--let me 6
make a clarification for the Board and the sake of the 7
record.
8 Sometimes I have addressed my questions 9
to individual members of the panel.
I assume that when jo I do that the person who answers is speaking for the ji
~
Panel.
If there is any indication otherwise, I would 12 appreciate.the panel making that cle,ar.
33 (o.
For the sake of the reco'd, to this Q
ja r
Point in my examination, when one person has spoken, I 15 assume that has been for the panel.
Is that correct?
16 WITNESS McINTIRE:
That's correct.
37 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Just one minute.
18 (Witnesses confer.)
j, WITNESS McINTIRE:
Thank you.
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The parties did 21 confer.
Is that correct?
22 WITNESS KELLER:
Oh, yes.
That is 23 correct.
Yes.
24 Q
Mr. Keller, one of the possibilitites 25 during an emergency at the Shoreham Plant would be that
16013 9
27
- tj 1
vehicles could become contaminated.
Is that correct?
2 WITNESS KELLER:
That is a possibility.
3 Yes.
4 Q
If so, those vehicles, with their 5
drivers, would report to the Nassau Coliseum under this 6
present scenario by LILCO.
Correct?
7 8
Q I assume one of the possibilities is 9
that vehicles would then, upon detection of the 10 contamination, hosed off, washed off in the Coliseum n
area.
Is that your understanding?
12 WITNESS KELLER:
They would be 13 decontaminated.
Yes.
34 Q
One of the methods for decontaminating 15 vehicles is hosing off or spraying off the vehicles.
i3 Is that true?
37 WITNESS KELLER:
That is one potential ip method.
That's correct.
i, Q
If that method were utilized by LILCO in 20 the parking areas of the Nassau Coliseum, Mr. Keller, 21 there would be the possibility of some run-off 22 from--run-off into the ground water supply from washing 23 those vehicles.
Is that right?
24 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
25 WITNESS KELLER:
I do not know that.
O
4
~
16011 I
l MR. CHRISTMAN:
The issue of ground j
2 water contamination has been expressly piecluded from 3
this proceeding.
MR. MILLER:
We are limiting the 5
question, Judge Margulies, to the immediate environs of 6
the Nassau Coliseum, in fact, to the parking areas of 7
the Coliseum.
a JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will permit it as 9
an introductory question, jo WITNESS KELLER:
Could you restate your ji question, please?
12 Q
My question, in essence, Mr. Keller, is, 33
- if vehicles were found to be contaminated and if LILCO y
attempted to remove that contamination by spraying or J
15 j
washing off the automobiles or vehicles, there could be 16 some run-off into the ground water supply system in the j7 area of the Nassau Coliseum.
Correct?
18 WITNESS KELLER:
I don't know that the j,
Parking lot drains or drains -in the areas of the l
20 parking lot run to the ground water supply system.
If 21 I make that assumption--and that's only an 22 assumption--then I would say that your question, your 23 l
hypothesis, is a potential--a potential.
I don't know
{
24 I
that that parking lot goes to the ground water supply 25 j
system.
And my own experience tells me that surface
!O J
t
16015 29 i
v drains do not normally enter the water supply system, 2
whether they are from the parking lot or from 3
anyplace.
But I don't know that.
a Q
Mr. Keller, if you would make the 5
assumption with me that run-off from the parking lots 6
of the Nassau Coliseum would, in fact, flow into the 7
ground water supply around the Nassau Coliseum, has g
FEMA attempted any analysis or study of any kind 9
regarding the possible consequences to that ground io water supply system in the area of the Nassau Coliseum 33 from a run-off involving radioactive contaminants?
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
Beyond the 33 scope of this hearihg.
i, JUDGE MARGULIES:
Objection is sustained.
15 Q
Has FEMA attempted to determine whether i3 any run-off from the parking area of the Nassau 37 Coliseum would, in fact, flow into the ground water 18 supply?
i, WITNESS KELLER:
Are you asking me have 20 we tried to validate your assumption?
21 Q
Yes, sir.
Have you tried to validate 22 the assumption that we just made?
23 WITNESS KELLER:
We have not.
24 Q
Has FEMA attempted to determine whether 25 the Nassau Coliseum can legally be made available for
f.
16016
- :;2p 3o 1
g LILCO's use?
2 WITNESS McINTIRE:
We have made no 3
. independent analysis.
We have received some material 4
fr m the County Executive of Nassau County making that 5
available and enclosing letters of agreement.
6 l
Q Those are the attachments to Mrs.
7 Robinson's affidavit?
8 WITNESS McINTIRE:
Correct.
9 10 Q
Has FEMA received any materials from the n
Nassau County Board of-Supervisors on this subject?
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
Beyond the 12 scope of this proceeding.
The same ground that the 1
j3 I
objections were sustained yesterday.
y MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, there are l
15 two governing entities of the Nassau' County 16
]
Government.
One is the County Executive and one is the 37 Nassau County Board of Supervisors.
The witnesses have 18 stated they have received some materials from the 3,
e 1
county Executive.
j 20 i
My question is a logical follow-up, have 21 they received anything from the Nassau County Board of 22 Supervisors on the subject.
i 23 MR. CHRISTMAN:
This is a transparent 24 attempt to re-open the dispute between various entities 25 of that county government and should not be allowed for i
- O i
i
16017
.b 31 i
V the same reason it wasn't allowed yesterday.
2 (Panel confers.)
3 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, I might point out it is a preliminary question.
I asked if 5
they received any materials from the Nassau County 6
Board of Supervisors.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES:
As a preliminary 8
question, you may ask the question.
9 WITNESS McINTIRE:
We have received, I ig believe it's two pieces of correspondence from n
legislators in Nassau County.
I am not sure whether it 12 was se'nt directly to u,s or came through a third party.
33
(
O Could you describe the contents of that i,
material you've received from those legislators?
15 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
This is not 16 a preliminary question and I object as it being beyond 37 the scope of this proceeding.
is MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, in 39 fairness to the record, the witnesses have stated they 20 received material from the County Executive which was l
21 attached to Mrs. Robinson's affidavit, which, of 22 course, is in the record.
23 They have made reference to material 24 from the Nassau County Board of Supervisors.
25 The record, obviously, is incomplete at
]
16010 h
32.
V this time because we have not yet even identified what 2
that material is.
3_
MR. CHRISTMAN:
The difference is no one 4
objected to the first question because it was a 5
different type of question and someone is objecting to 6
this question.
7 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Christman, you just g
9 objected
,my first question.
Now you're objecting to this question also.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It is still a 33 Preliminary matter.
It just fleshes out that initial 12 question.
j3 O.
- 1rness Mozarras:
My reco11eceion is m
that the correspondence questioned the county is Executive's legal authority to make the Coliseum 16 available.
1 37 Q
Has FEMA attempted to resolve for itself la the issue of the authority of the County Executive of 3,
Nassau County to make the Coliseum available for 20 LILCO's use?
21 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
22 MR. GLASS:
Objection.
Beyond the scope.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Objection sustained.
24 25 Q
Have any members of this panel reviewed the present lease agreement between Nassau County and O
~
~
'~
f 7
n.
n,
, ') q s
y A
~
J 16019
' h5;c 33 r
- s L?
2 4the' Hydfit ;Managbment Corporation?-
{
d WITNESS KELLER:
Would you clarify, 3
please?
s Q
Maybe I should just back up and 5
'e$tablish the foundation for the question.
6 Is FEMA aware of the fact that the l
7
%gg-Q Nassau Coliseum is owned by Nassau County and leased to h
g s
the Hyatt Management Corporation?
.e 9
,py c '
-n y *[
WITNESS KELLER:
Based on the affidavits jo y p
.sm which were attached to Elaine Robinson's testimony,
,, 33 5
that discussion is there.
Yes.
14
,x <
i S(
Q Now*, has FEMA seen or reviewed the lease 33
.f)%-
l agreement between Nassau County and the Hyatt
(
i,
. ~ -
Management Corporation?
15 L.
l WITNESS KELLER:
We tried, in paragraph J
16 p.,
2 of our affidavit, to delineate those documents that i.N N ve had reviewed.
And those are the documents that we 10-4 ;we U
$g
'lhave reviewed.
No others.
Q So, the short answer, Mr. Keller, is 20 that FEMA has not reviewed this lease?
21 WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
y-22 L
'J Q
Has FEMA met with or had any discussions 23 f any kind with personnel of the Hyatt Management 24 25 Corporation?
,?
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
We have not.
w) ',,v,,.
i c,-
0 kl+
~
1602u
- @0 34 Q
Has FEMA met with or had discussions of 2
any kind with the Red Cross personnel relied upon by 3
LILCO in its plan?
4 MR. GLASS:
Objection.
I think the 3
question is rather broad.
Any discussions with Red 6
Cross?
7 I think that's a rather broad question.
8 9
If you could limit it, I would appreciate it.
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Let's move on.
That 10 33 is an introductory question.
WITNES5 KOWIESKI:
Not to my knowledge.
12 Q
Has FEMA attempted to detern}ine the i3 Coliseum's availability to LILCO in the event of an i,
emergency at the Shoreham Plant?
15 WITNESS McINTIRE:
As we have stated, we 16 reviewed the material attached to Mrs. Robinson's 37 affidavit.
18 Q
Yes, sir.
That does not quite answer my 39 question.
20 l
Has FEMA attempted to determine the 21 availability f the Coliseum to LILCO in the event of 22 an emergency at the Shoreham Plant?
23 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
We have not.
24 25 However, as I stated before, FEMA and RAC would have reviewed the proposed resolutions to address any
16021 f
-35 rw 1
0 inadequacies and identify in LILCO Revision 4 of the 2
LILCO Plan.
And one of the questions that we raised in 3
our review was that the LILCO Plan should address 4
how--if you will allow me, I will cite.
5 "The issue of having to evacuste the 6
Coliseum during periods of contracted use--example, 7
hockey, circus--while there is an emergency at 8
Shoreham, should also be addressed by LILCO in the 9
plan."
10 Q
To your knowledge, Mr. Kowieski, at this g
time, through Revision 4 of the T.ILCO Plan, which you 12 have reviewed, this issue is not addressed by LILCO.
33 Correct?
In its plan?
3, WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Ne have not--Revision 15 4, to my knowledge, my recollection, did not identify 16 the Coliseum as a reception center.
Only in response 37 to LILCO's response to our comments--our, RAC, FEMA 18 comments, Revision 4, they identified Nassau Coliseum 39 as a reception center.
In connection with this, RAC 20 made a comment.
21 Q
And the RAC comment was that LILCO 22 should address the issue of the availability of the 23 Coliseum--
24 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Not exactly.
That's 25 not the way we phrased it.
If you would like me, I g,
O
16022 36 i
will restate--
2 0
You've read it into the record already.
3 So I understand and the record is clear, the statement 4
you read into the record is the statement of the RAC 5
Committee to LILCO's response to the previous criticism 6
of Revision 4 of the LILCO Plan submitted by FEMA.
Is 7
that correct?
8 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's correct.
9 0
At this time, Mr. Kowieski, FEMA has not 10 received a response from LILCO to the criticism read ij into the record, is that correct?
12 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
We have not.
33
[f')
- O Mr. Keller, it's fair to say, isn't it, i,
v that, all things being equal, if someone, if evacuees is are contaminated, the quicker such contamination, to radioactive contamination, can be removed from that 37 Person, the better it is?
18 MR. GLASS:
Objection.
Beyond the scope 39 of this contention.
20 MR. MILLER:
It's basically a 21 Preliminary question, Judge Margulies.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will consider it a 23 Preliminary question.
24 WITNESS KELLER:
Could you restate it, 25 please?
?~}
16023
. (-~
37 -
1 v
Q It's a general proposition, Mr. Keller.
2 Is it' fair to say that should one be radioactively 3
contaminated, it is generally better for that person's 4
health if such contamination is removed as quickly as 5
possible?
3 WITNESS KELLER:
It is a general 7
Principle that if contamination is detected, it is best 8
9 to remove the contamination as quickly as is feasible.
Yes.
10 Q
Now, has FEMA attempted to analyze.the 11 L
possible adverse health. consequences to evacuees from 12 LILCO's proposal to use the Nassau Coliseum as the 33 facility to monitor and, if necessary, decontaminate g
- evacuees, WITNESS KELLER:
The use of a reception, j,
monitoring center and decontamination, if necessary, is 37 a precept in the planning basis.
18 As you are all aware, there have been a 39 series of reception centers offered and then withdrawn.
20 As we testified last year, it would be 21 better l'f you had a facility that were somewhat 22 closer.
If you don't have a facility available to do a 23 job, you can't do the job.
Based on our understanding, 24 this is the only facility which is available at this 25 point in time and, therefore, it's the only place you 7
.--,...,,-.._,,,-----L,...-----...,,,,---_..-_-_...----.
16024 j
38 b
can do the job.
2 Is it ideal?
Procably not.
3 0
Let me go back to some of those points, 4
Mr. Keller.
Based on your understanding, the Nassau 5
Coliseum is the only facility available.
Is that what 6
you said?
7 WITNESS KELLER:
That is an assumption 8
on my part.
The fact that LILCO has proposed other 9
facilities and then have withdrawn those proposals, we 3g assume that'they were not available to them.
i3 0
But FEMA has not established whether 12 there are other, closer facilities than the Nassau i3 Coliseum.
Correct?
')
3, MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
We are now 15 into the comparison with other facilities and that is to beyond the ccope of the proceeding.
37 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Objection sustained.
18 0
Mr. Keller, from your comments to me a 39 few m ments ago, you are relying on the fact that LILCO 20 has previously offered and then withdrawn the proposed 21 use of facilities as relocation centers to draw your 22 assumption that the Nassau Coliseum is the only 23 facility available for LILCO's use.
7, Is that a fair assessment of your 25 statement?
p 1,
/
16025
('
39 i
(
)
'/
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
2 MR. GLASS:
Objection, your Honor.
I 3
think we're beyond the point of preliminary questions.
4 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, I am 5
simply trying to clarify what Mr. Keller said on the 6
record.
7 MR. GLASS:
In this particular instance, g
we have a situation where a preliminary question is 9
being used to open the door, go beyond the scope, and 10 under that guise, being asked to be able to clarify the ii record.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The record is clear.
13 r-The witness testified that there is only one facility 3,
and, as far as he knows or the panel knows, it is the 15 Nassau Coliseum.
That's been established early on and 33 we're well beyond that.
37 Q
Let me ask you this, Mr. Keller.
Maybe jg just for purposes of my understanding.
39 Could you tell me the basis for your 20 assumption that the Nassau Coliseum is the only 21 facility available to LILCO?
22 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I believe it's clear 24 in the record as to how he arrived at that conclusion.
25 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, you r,m
/
16026 (h
40 3
U sustain the objection?
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
That is correct.
3 Q
Mr. Keller, let me ask you, if you look 4
again at paragraph 7 of your affidavit, the first 5
point, one of the considerations which still must be 6
considered by FEMA is, " details of the separation of 7
the reception and congregate care functions."
a Do you see that statement?
9 WITNESS KELLER:
Yes, I do.
10 Q
Could you tell me, generally, the 33 details which FEMA believes still must be incorporated 12 within the LILCO Plan?
g WITNESS KELLER:
I think--In a review of j,
the preparedness, off-site preparedness, we go through 15 16 a process.
A plan is submitted, it is reviewed and evaluated against the criteria in 0654.
37 After that has been done, an exercise is 18 held to demonstrate the implementability of that plan.
39 What we're saying here is that LILCO has 20 proposed to change their plan sometime in the future 21 and to separate what was previously, in Revision 4, the 22 coalition of these two functions in a single facility.
23 When they separated the function--these 24 two functions into separate facilities, there are no 25 details in the plan, none whatsoever, as the plan
,3)
16027 C
41 3
currently stands.
2 If you look at the plan that we have, it 3
says that reception center function and the congregate 4
care center function will occur at the same location.
5 This is not the current position of LILCO as we 6
understand it.
7 What we're saying here is that the plan e
has to be revised, and we expect plans to be revised periodically.
in And in that revision there are certain 33 things that must be added.
After we see how LILCO 12 proposes to carry out these functions, we could then 13 have an exercise to evaluate whether or not it was u
implementable.
15 There are numerous things, numerous 16 details which need to be in the plan.
How the 37 reception center will be physically set up.
We have a ig floor plan of the Coliseum with a few sketchy flow 39 patterna.
But that's certainly not sufficient to say 20 at this point that that's all right.
How the 21 registration will be handled.
Those kinds of details 22 need to be included in revision of the plan.
(
23 And as of yet, we have not seen those 24 things.
25 O
The two examples you gave me, Mr.
i 16028 k-f 42 C/
Keller, both go to the function of the reception 2
center, the examples you gave were the reception 3
center, how it would be set up and then how a
registration will be handled.
5 Can you give me examples of the details 6
of congregate care functions which you would expect to 7
see in the LILCO Plan?
8 MR. GLASS:
Objection.
Beyond the scope 9
of the contention.
10 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I second that ij ob ection.
This is, as we e pected, another attempt to 12 pen up the congregate care issues, predictable but 13 (G) still objectionable.
i, JUDGE MARGULIES:
Objection sustained.
15 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, let me ask j3 again for a point of clarification.
The statement is 37 that details of the separation of the reception and is congregate care functions must be incorporated within i,
the LILCO Plan and I have asked the witnesses to give 20 me some examples of the sort of details of the 21 functions to be provided at the congregate care centers 22 that FEMA expects to see in the LILCO Plan.
23 That question is being objected to and 24 the objection is sustained by the Board?
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
That is correct.
n t
16029 k
43 3
L)
MR. MILLER:
Can I ask the basis of the 2
Board's ruling?
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It is beyond the scope of the contention that we are hearing today, contention 5
24(o).
6 Q
Let me ask the panel, if, in fact, it 7
turns out that there are not a sufficient number of e
facilities available to LILCO to shelter evacuees, would that be considered by FEMA to be a plan 10 deficiency?
33 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
Beyond the 12 scope of the hearing.
33 C
l]L JUDGE MARGULIES:
Objection sustained.
34 15 Q
Has PEMA attempted to determine whether LILCO, in fact, has available to it sufficient 16 facilities for sheltering evacuees?
37 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
Beyond the 3g scope.
3, JUDGE MARGULIES:
Objection sustained.
20 This whole line of questioning is out of order at this 21 Point, counsel.
You've asked questions three times in 22 the same order.
We've sustained the objection three 23 times.
And the line of questioning is out of order.
24 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, not to 25 take any more of the Board's time than necessary, I l
16030 f2 44
)
i v
assume from the Board's rulings that any question I ask 2
which at all mentions congregate care centers or 3
sheltering evacuees will be not permitted by the 4
Board.
Is that correct?
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The line of 6
questioning, as you are asking the questions, is out of 7
order.
That is correct.
8 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, with that 9
ruling, County would have no further questions.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Zahnleuter?
ii CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
13 (j,..,
~
Q Gentlemen, what does the term "regeption
)
g center" mean to you?
15 WITNESS KELLER:
As we tried to--well, 16 let's step back.
37 NUREG 0654, amendment J12, discusses 18 relocation center.
In last year's hearing, relocation 3,
center, reception center, congregate care shelter, were 20 kind of used in somewhat a sloppy way, really.
They 21 were n t defined.
We tried in paragraph 3 of our 22 affidavit to define what we meant by these two terms.
23 The summation of the two terms would be 24 the colocation function.
25 Q
In paragraph 3, you've said that a
16031 h
45 1
\\'~'/
reception center function includes registration, 2
monitoring and decontamination.
Does it include 3
anything else?
WITNESS KELLER:
Depending on how it is 3
6 set up.
That would be a minimal kind of reception center.
Many reception centers that we have seen have 7
a minimal first aid service available.
But these are e
the things that are necessary at a reception center.
jo O
Are they the only things that you can think of now that are necessary?
g WITNESS McINTIRE:
I think there are 12 other things that possibly could be performed there.
33 C
There might be an information exchange to something y
like reunite family members, provide information and 33 briefings of the news' events for the people there.
16 Q
Are those things optional or necessary, 37 in your view?
is WITNESS McINTIRC It all depends--it 3,
depends on the circumstances.
You know, as a general 20 proposition in a reception center you should 21 provide--you know, ideally, the most services possible 22 23 to the people there to make them feel more comfortable.
24 0
With your understanding of the LILCO 25 Plan or the LILCO proposal as you have now, are those things optional or necessary?
16032
[b 46 i
V WITNESS KELLER:
We have basically a 2
few pieces of paper that say they propose to use the 3
Nassau Coliseum as the reception center.
There are no details currently of how they are going to do it --
s that we have, that we are aware of.
Somebody else may 6
have things that we don't have.
But things that we are 7
aware of, there are no details.
e 9
Q Is the lack of those details an 10 inadequacy?
WITNESS KELLER:
Yes.
ii Q
What does the term " radiation 12 monitoring" mean to you?
33 WITNESS KELLER:
Are you reading our 34 affidavit?
Or is this a generic question?
33 Q
It is generic, but I do wish to limit it ia to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and the LILCO 37 proposals.
is WITNESS KELLER:
The evacuees should be 3,
scanned with, typically, hand-held instrumentation, 20 which would detect the presence of contamination on the 21 body or clothing of the evacuee.
22 (Witnesses confer.)
23 t
WITNESS KELLER:
As Mr. Baldwin pointed l
24 25 out, monitoring also involves monitoring for the l
l presence of the plume.
But that's not what we're l
l
16033 47 1
talking about.
We're talking about, I presume, the 2
potential evacuee and those things which would occur at 3
a reception center.
4 0
Your presumption is correct.
5 What would radiation decontamination 6
mean to you?
7 WITNESS KELLER:
The removal of the g
contamination from the person's body or clothing.
9 Q
By what methods would that removal occur?
10 WITNESS KELLER:
The typical method is n
by showering or washing.
There are a successive series 12 of things.
Mild soap, lather, et cetera, a soft i3 ja brush.
And if the contamination is not removable under 9
those conditions, my recollection of the plan is that 33 medical -- further medical assistance would be 33 requested.
37 Q
Would such a shower be a normal type of le shower, or would there be any other kind of precautions i,
that you would take?
20 WIT!!ESS KELLER:
A normal type of shower.
21 0
could you also give me the same answer 22 but with respect to vehicles?
23 WIT!1ESS KELLER:
Vehicle decontamination t
24 can be accomplished in several ways.
You can take the 73 paint off.
That's one way to do it.
You can wash the s
16034 h
48 3
vehicle.
That's another way to do it.
2 3
0 Would you monitor the outside and inside of the vehicle?
4 WITNESS KELLER:
One would anticipate 3
that you would, yes.
6 0
Would that be through the same method, a 7
hand-held device?
e WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
9 10 0
When you washed the vehicle, would that include the inside and the outside?
33 WIT!1ESS KELLER:
Generally speaking, the 12 inside is -- of most vehicles, is primarily by 33 V
vacuuming and that type of thing.
If the upholstery is 34 of a material which can be wetted without severe damage 33 to the upholstery, you might wet it, yes.
i, Q
How about the outside of the vehicle?
17 WIT!!ESS KELLER:
You can wet it, you can is rub it, you can wax it.
39 0
Would that include also the bottom part 20 of the vehicle?
21 WITNESS KELLER:
The undercarriage?
22 0
Right.
23 WITNESS KELLER:
That's a potential, yes.
24 25 0
Do you have any idea how long it would take to go through this process with one vehicle?
?
)
16035
\\
F5 49 V
WITNESS KELLER:
It would depend upon 2
the nature of tht, contamination, whether or not the 3
vehicle had been, for example, parked in an area and a 4
plume had passed over the vehicle and deposition had 5
occurred on the outside surface of the vehicle, the 6
pl.me passed on and the car drove away.
Or perhaps the 7
car drove through a plume.
The areas which would a
become contaminated are potentially different in those io
- cases, The car could be contaminated on the si interior.
The car is in a garage, somebody is outside 12 in the plume, gets contaminated, gets into the car.
33 Now, the inside is contaminated, the outside is clean.
i, There are so many different scenarios that I don't 33 think I can give you a time.
16 Q
Could you give me a minimum time?
37 WITNESS KELLER:
Would you define for gg me, the " minimum time" to do what?
i, 0
That is a good question.
20 I really don't want to explore the whole 2,
range of possibilities, but is my understanding correct 22 that if there is contamination inside a vehicle and if 23 you cannot precisely locate the source of that 24 contamination, you would have to vacuum the entire 25 inside of the vehicle?
nU I
16036
[
50 j
WITNESS KELLER:
No.
That is not 2
3 correct.
Generally speaking, you should be able to localize the area of contamination, either inside the 4
vehicle or outside the vehicle.
And then, if you 5
localize the area, you clean up the spot.
You don't 6
clean the whole rug, you just clean the spot.
7 O
could decontamination of a vehicle be e
accomplished without the use of a hose or a water Source?
10 WITNESS KELLER:
It could be, 3,
0 would you recommend "that?
12 WITNESS KELLER:. All things being equal, 33 i _/
i, no.
0 I take it that you mean that for
,3 planning purposes, you would not recommend that?
to WITNESS KELLER:
I have.to see what was 37 proposed to evaluate whether what was proposed was is better or worse.
0 How about if what was proposed was the 20 une of a hand-held washing bottle and a rag?
73 WITNESS KELLER:
That might be -- that 22 might be adequate.
It might not be.
23 O
Could you recommend that an a solo method?
25 WITNESS McINTIRE:
I think, for
)
i f
~
16037 i
/"
51 i
[
clarification, FEMA is not in the position of making i
2 recommendations always.
What we do is review plans and 3
occasionally, we provide technical assistance on these L
4 review of plans.
3 0
If, hypothetically, that were the plan, 6
what would you do with that?
7 WITNESS McINTIRE:
I think we'd need a j
a little more information before we could make a 9
determination.
l 10 t
0 So that information alone would not be 33 sufficient?
12 WITNESS KELLER:
What information alone?
13 f
Q The method of decontaminating a vehicle 3,
by using a hand-held washer and a rag without a water 15 source.
33 WITNESS McINTIRE:
Again, we need more f
37 specific information.
How many people were going to be is involved in this process.
That type of thing.
How
(
i, much material is available.
Replacement material.
l 20 Those types of things.
We need more detail.
21 Q
Is that information available to you now j
22 with respect to LILCO plan or proposals?
[
23 WITNESS KELLER:
It is not.
r 24 WITNESS K0WIESKI It is not.
25 t
Q Mr. Baldwin, you stated before that you O
16033 I
52 3
were incide the Coliseum.
When was that, approximately?
2 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Approximately, six 3
months ago.
4 0
Mr. McIntire,7 5
6 WITNESS McINTIRE:
Ten years ago.
0 Do you have before you Mrs. Robinson's 7
e WITNESS McINTIRE:
We do.
9 0
would you look at attachment 5, which in 10 the diagram of the Coliseum.
33 Mr. McIntire and Mr. Baldwin, in your 12 13 visits to the Coliseum, did you have an occasio,n to vis,it the areas shown on this diagram?
34 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Well, which specific i3 parts of the diagram?
I have seen the arena floor --
to 0
Let me limit the question to one of, 37 have you been in the corridor which goes from the is circ 1c G-13, past the home team locker rooms, past the i,
viJitor's locker rooms, et cetera?
20 WITNPSS McINTIRE:
I can't remember.
21 WITNESS BALDWIN:
I can't even tell from 22 this diagram what floor this is of.
23 0
Do you have any idea how wide the 74 corridor in?
25 WITNESS KELLER:
I think we've already
16039 b
53 i
. C~
stated that we have very limited information and that 2
before we say, you know, it looks like it's all right, 3
we need more detail.
There is nothing -- there is no 4
scale on this map I can find.
So, there is no way to s
6 know, looking at this, the width of that corridor.
7 Q
Is the lack of scale an insufficiency?
WITNESS KELLER:
There is a general 8
insufficiency of detail.
Q Are you aware of the amount of floor in space available in the arena floor and exhibition floor?
33 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Well, in Elaine 12 Robinson's testimony, it says that there is 15,000
- )
P t]
square feet of area for a receiving area, an arena, 3,
which is 17,000 feet, an exhibition hall of 59,000 is square feet and an arena lobby of,5,750 square feet, 3,
and attached is a diagram of the Coliseum.
37 Q
Is it your understanding that LILCO 1e relies on the space in the arena floor and the exhibit i,
hall?
20 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Again, it is unclear 21 from this diagram and the other information we have 22 here.
This is very sketchy information.
There are i
23 virtually no details except what I just read into the 24 record.
2s
t 16040 b..s 54
. Q.)
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Zahnleuter, I 2
i think it would help if you would establish whether 3
these witnesses were in the hearing room yesterday when 7
Mrs. Robinson testified.
It doesn't appear in the l
3 l
6 record and I think it would be helpful if that were established.
7 I will do it if you don't.
e O
Gentlemen, would you tell us if you were here in the hearing room yesterday?
jo WITNESS BALDWIN:
No.
gi WITNESS KELLER:
We were not.
12 Q
Mr. Keller, previously this morning, you 33 mentioned the Environmental Protection Agency.
Is that the United States Environmental Protection Agency?
33 WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
16 37 Q
Do you remember who it was that authored the materials you spoke of?
WITNESS KELLER:
My recollection is it g,
was the member of the RAC at that time, the Regional 20 Assistance Committee, which is a committee which has 21 representation from the various federal agencies.
And 22 at that time, EPA was going through some shifting and 23 it was either Joyce Feldman or Linda Holman.
24 WITNESS K0WIESKI It is my recollection 25 the letter was signed by Joyce Feldman.
16041 55 i
v Q
Do you know what position she holds 2
within the United States EPA?
3 WITNESS KOWIESKI Since the time she 4
left this particular branch, she was with -- right now, 3
it is my understanding, she is a supervisor.
I don't 6
know exactly the title of her position or her 7
responsibility at this point.
O Returning for a second to the attachment 5 diagram, do you have any idea how many showers are in jo the visitor's locker rooms?
it WITNESS KELLER:
There is nothing on 12 attachment 5 which would indicate the number of showers.
33 However, on page 2 of Elaine Robinson's 34 testimony, affidavit, it says that "The Coliseum has 33 locker rooms and dressing rooms, at least 30 showers.'
0 Do you know if those 30 showers are in iy the visitor's locker rooms only?
,g WITNESS KELLER:
I Itould presume that g,
they are scattered through the visitor's locker rooma 20 and the home team locker rooms.
21 Q
Do you know how many people LILc0 would intend to use to monitor evacuees as they arrive at the
,3 Coliseum?
24 WITNESS KELLER:
My recollection is that 23 there is a number in the plan, the cterent version of l O
l 16042 56
(
l the plan, which may be changed because of a change in l
2 the situation.
My recollection is the number is 105.
3 WITNESS BALDWIN:
My recollection is the 4
same, but the 105 is for total personnel there.
It is 3
81 monitoring Persons.
6 Q
Since the current plan that you speak of*
7 doesn't mention the coliseum, how would you relate that g
number to the number of people that will be at the Coliseum?
10 WITNESS KELLER:
The number of people is n
12 the same whether you go to the coliseum or whether you go to central Islip, BOCE8 or one of the other i3 reception centers proposed in previous versions of the e
i4 plans.
,3 There is no difference in the number of 16 37 people.
Now, rather than going to three buildings somewhat scattered, you now go to one building.
3, Q
Thank you, gentlemen.
I have no other 3,
questions.
20 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I have no questions.
21 I'd rather go home.
22 MR. GLA88:
No questions.
23 JUDGE MAR 00 LIE 8:
Is there anything 24 further of these witnesses?
25 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, I have one
r 16043
[
')
57 i
v very quick follow-up to Mr Zahnleuter's questions.
2 CROSS EXAMINATION 3
BY MR. MILLER:
4 Q
Gentlemen, just to make sure the record 3
is clear, is it your understanding that under revision 6
4 of the LILCO plan, LILCO intended to have 81 7
personnel assigned to the job of monitoring evacuees'as e
they arrived at the three separate centers that were to be used for monitoring and decontaminating ovacuees?
10 WITNESS K0WIESKI:
That's correct.
11 As a matter of fact, the plan, on page 12 3.9-5, it states, "Of the 105 personnel assigned to the 13
((,)
relocation contorn, to perform monitoring and i,
decontamination, 81 will perform personnel monitoring."
i3 Q
I take it from your comments to Mr.
16 Zahnleuter's quantion that you draw the assumption that i7 under this change in the LILc0 plan -- that in, to use is the Hansau colineum rather than theco throo facilities i,
-- you m ko the annumptions that tho 01 monitoring 20 personnel will still be employed by LILc0 at the Nannau 21 colineums in that correct?
7, WITNESS K0WICDK!:
That'n correct.
That 23 24 la an assumption.
Obvioitsly, we havn, again, to wait and noo the different version, when revision 5 will 25 arrive.
We'll have to soo the details.
They may 7,x
(
)
v
16044 C
58 i
increase the number of people or decrease the number of 2
personnel that will be responsible for monitoring.
3 O
They may increase or may decrease that number?
5 WITNESS McINTIRE:
It's possible.
6 WITNESS KOWIESKI It depends on the set 7
up of the location conter.
e MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
JUDGE MARGULIES:
The panel is excused.
10 Thank you.
ii Is there anything further that the 37 parties have to offer at this hearing?
33 MR. CllRISTMAN:
No, sir, i4 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We should como up with i3 a briefing schedule.
It would appear that a shertonod i3 briefing schedule would be in order, considering that 37 there has only been, cumulatively, a day of tactimony.
i, MR. Cl!RISTMAN:
The applicant would i,
agree with that.
20 MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulien, one 21 consideration which I think the board should at least 22 take into account, it acomo to me there in two ways for 23 the briefing to procood.
2, One way lo, obviously, to limit any 25 proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law to the
\\q'
,be i
matters we've heard over the last two days.
One 2
alternative to that is to resubmit to the board and 3
^
actually for the board's convenience, but I guess also for the convenience of the parties, all the relocation 3
center issues which have been previously submitted, as
,6 well as the testimony we've heard over the last two 7
days, just to have relocation center matters discussed e
in one place.
I am not sure if the board thought about in that second alternative.
it JUDGE MARGULIES:
Do the parties wish to i3 be heard on the second alternative?
i3 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I believe we have already filed all the findings that we need to have i3 filed on all the other issues.
I think a very short i,
set of findings on just the issues heard during these ir two days of hearing is appropriate, just the reopened is 24-0.
That'would make it easier on everyone, I would i,
think.
20 MR. 80RDENICKt I would agree.
I $cn't 21 see what purpose Mr. Miller's suggestion would serve.
22 MR. MILLER:
My purpose -- and I will 23 request the board, on behalf of the County -- my 24 purpose is that we've had the last two days, we've had 33 testimony from various witnesses for LILCO and for FEMA
16046 C-60 3
testify abouc relocation center issues, albeit under 2
3 the board's definition, contention 24-0.
AS the board knows, contention 24-0 was one of five or six 4
contentions which formed what was characterized as the 5
relocation center issues in this proceeding.
o I
It seems to me that more pertinent, 7
relevant, efficient findings for the board's sake and e
for the sake of the parties, can be provided if to findings are integrated no that we just don't have it findings submitted last year and now wo submit another 12 set of findings over the last two days.
I would think it makes more conne to treat the relocation conter 33 l
I J
innuen as,ono issue, as we have in the pant and to
,34 combine the findings from the last two days with the 33 f
findings that would have resulted and, in fact, havo 33 resulted from the litigation last August.
i7 I
is HR. CHRISTMAN:
I don't think the 3,
relocation contor,innues have boon treated as ono issue.
Contention 77 is about a particular 20 instrument.
There are difforont innuen.
We generated 21 far too much paper in this procooding already.
I think 22 we can nave our client's como money if wo just address 23 24 What we talked about for the last two days, the 25 reoponed 24-0, which in a very narrow innue.
That maken the most nonno to me.
I)
l 16047 7
(*
~ 61
~ " '
r s
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Zahnleuter, we 2
u-q.
sort of left you out on several occasions yesterday.
3
~~
We want to make up for it today.
I will ask you the 4
question once and you will give your answer and I will 5
s V
ask you again, to make up for yesterday.
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I would agree with the 7
position taken by Suffolk County.
I think-that it 8
would be kind of difficult to just talk about the 9
materials-that we had today because they do interrelate 10 f
witih the materials we had discussed in the last
, ij
. hearings, last year in August.
i 12 I don't know if it's necessary to repeat 33 all'of what we did in August, but it's hard to'just 34 speak of today's hearings in isolation to what we had
,i 15
, 'i 6 9 ing on last August.
There should be integration to s
v
.some extent.
_ j7
- __,;=
n JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you.
.: - ig MR. BORDENICK:
Judge Margulies, may I 0
j9
'be heard?
20 y.
c.[
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes.
21
,f 1
MR. BORDENICK:
It's clear that the l
22 board only reopened the record on 24-0.
It's also 23 M
clear that in the partial initial decision, the board 24
[
reserved a decision on all the relocation center l
25 4
'i conteritions.
( C' os y
'% f-
16048 k]-
62.
1 r
However, I am at a loss to understand 2
what it is Mr. Miller wants to do.
His proposed 3
findings on the other contentions where the record has not been reopened stand.
If he wants to refer to those 5
in his findings, that's fine.
I may refer back to 6
previous findings.
I can simply cite a previous 7
finding.
I don't have to rewrite it.
I don't know g
what purpose would be served in putting it all together 9
in one package.
Whatever is there is there.
jo MR. CHRISTMAN:
And the parties should ij not be given an opportunity to redo findings that have 12 already been filed in a timely way.
13 V
MR. MILLER:
Judge Margulies, let me ja briefly respond.
15 We've had two days of reopened 16 hearings.
As a theoretical matter, I would assume i7 every one in this room would have to admit that some is things have been said over the last two days that 39 possibly could bear upon matters in the record from 20 last year and that could bear upon proposed findings of 21 fact that have been previously submitted to the board.
22 The board has reserved judgment on the 23 rel cation center issues.
All I am proposing is that 24 the parties certainly should not be precluded from 25 going back, looking at the record, looking at the
.Q l
~
16049 b
63
. g\\
1 record from last year in the context of what's been 2
said in the last two days to see if there is some need 3
to incorporate, interrelate things that happened 4
Previously and things that happened over the last two 5
days.
To me, that just makes good sense.
6 And I bring the matter to the board's 7
attention because it seems to me there needs to be a 8
little consideration for that process in terms of the 9
timing of a briefing schedule.
I don't think it adds a 10 lot of time to the briefing schedule, but I think it n
ust makes more sense to go the route of not trying to 12
- 3 piecemeal proposed findings and to segregate entirely pd the last two days from the issues that have gone before.
34 (Panel confers.)
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The board has decided 16 that we would want proposed findings of fact and 17 conclusions of law solely on contention 24-0, but if is the parties want to refer back to their prior findings, 39 they can do so and make reference to it in their 20 current submission.
21 We will now look to a briefing schedule.
22 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Perhaps we could cut the 23 scheduling in the rules in half.
That's my opening 24 bid.
I guess it would be 15, 20, 25 and I'd leave the 25 final five alone.
gU
16050
(-
64 j
(
)
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is that satisfactory to the intervenors?
3 MR. MILLER:
Let me make sure of Mr.
4 Christman's proposal.
That LILCO would file 15 days 5
from today, the County would file 20 days from today, 6
the NRC staff 25 days from today?
7 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Right.
And the party 8
with the burden of proof, us, would have five days to 9
- reply, 10 MR. MILLER:
For purposes of --
11 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It would be 15, 20, 12 fiV8 ""d fiV**
13 MR. MILLER:
Could someone tell me when j,
20 days from today falls?
is JUDGE MARGULIES:
I think we ought to 16 look at a calendar and come up with specific dates so 37 there will be no question.
le off the record.
39 (Discussion off the record.)
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The dates for filing 21 are July 11, 1985; July 16th; July 22nd and July 26th.
22 Is there anything further?
23 The hearing is closed.
Thank you very 24 much.
25 (Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m.,
the hearing n()
in the above-entitled matter was closed.)
l c:
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:
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT I (EMERGENCY PLANNING PROCEEDING)
EVIDENTIARY HEARING DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-3 PLACE:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK D
V DATE:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
3,!4v-LLat4. - -
(sigt)
(TYPED)
DEBRA STEVENS Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation O
- O
-