ML20151B367
| ML20151B367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6787 OL-3, NUDOCS 8807200341 | |
| Download: ML20151B367 (116) | |
Text
-
a p.
~
- ' q' ~
UNITED STATES l O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
In the Matter of: I l
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) f (SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, ) No. 50-322-OL-3 UNIT 1) )
)
l l
(PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT)
O )
1 i
1 l
i
! Pages: 21721 through 21829 Flace: Bethesda, Maryland Date: July 14, 1988
................... ...........---------------------======
TR O !
l
' O I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION W R *F orterE 1220 L Street, N.W., Seite 600 O w ia sio , o.c. 2.**5
<2.u .25 8807200341 880714 PLIR ADOCK 05000322 i T PDC _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
21721 I
Il )-
'~'
2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSTON 3 . ATOMIC SAFETY AND L TCENS TNG BOARD <
4 in the Matter of': )
) Docket No. 'f
,l 6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) 50-322-OL-3 'i (Shoreham Nuclear Power '
) (Emergency Planning) 6 )
Station, Unit 1) )
7 8 Thursday,
.Tuly 14,1988 9
East-West Towers Building to 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland '
11 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing at 9: 30 a.m.
14 G' BEFORE:
Q 15 HON. JAMES GLEASON, Chairman of the Board 16 I7 JUDGE JERRY KLINE JUDGE FRED SHON 18
'9l a. P P E A R A N'C E S :
20 On behalf of Applicants:
21 DONALD P. IRWIN, ESQ.
22 JOSEPH M. SPIVEY, III, ESQ.
K. DENNIS SISK, ESQ.
23 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street, P.O. Box 2535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 (Continued on next page. )
i O
N
. '21.721A 4
^
+
1 2
-APPEARANCES: (Continued) 3 '
On behalf of the Intervenors: ,
4 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, Esq.
5 Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber, the Capi tol,' Room 22 9 Albany, New York 12224 7
KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESO,-
J . LYNN TAYLOR, ESQ.
8 LAWRENCE LANPHER, ESO.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 9
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 to on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
11 LISA CLARK 12 EDWIN REIS MITZI YOUNG 13 NRC Staf f Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555
' 14 On behalf of the Federal Emergency Management (T
v/ 15 Agency:
10 '
WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESO.
500 C Street Washington, D.C. 20472 18 19 4s-20 21 22 23 24 25 O
16: 21721B CgyIeyIS C1c50Ndx VOIR
('S, - WITNESSES: DIRECT . CROSS' REDIREGT RECROSS DIRE gjV a Norman Kelly.
(By Spivey) 21544 (By Letsche) 21559 (By Young) 21588 (By Cumming) 21596 David Axelrod (By Zahnleuter) 21603 (Sisk) 21624 Anthony J. Geramo (By Mr. Zahnleuter) 21729
'(By Mr. Sisk) 21735
.A.-
v I' .
n 1 i
(h Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation l
21721C-at EXH I BITS EXHIBITS:_ IDENTIFIED RECEIVED- DESCRIPTION-No. 8 Prev. 21696 LILCO's Interrogatories No. 34 21626 21635 Attachments to Axelrod Deposition e No. 35 21636 Article 2-B No. 36 21652 Axelrod Deposition No. 37 21702- NYS DPC Minutes No. 38 21704 Affidavit of Axelrod No. 39 21713 Government's answers to LILCO. Interrogatories No. 40 21716 Letter to LILCO dated 12?21784 No. 41 21717 21718 Memo from Axelrod FEMA Discovery
. e x h i b i t' # .1 21726 " A quide to Local
(_-) government Planning" No. 6 Prev. 21793 LILCO Disco,ery exhibit'# 42 21801 A Letter dated June 1, 1987 to the chairman of the
, Yates County legislature l from Donald Dovito. With pathway public awareness.
raeeting agenda attached.
LILCO Discovery exhibit # 43 21807 Document entitled "
Brookhaven National l Laboratory Emergency Response Plan, revised July-1987.
L lleritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
21721D
()
e 1 JUDGE GLEASON: I'd like to get Dr. Axelrod out of 2 here in a reasonable period of time.
3 MS. YOUNG: As has been the prae &d;; of the 4 proceeding thus far, our questions are very short. t 5 JUDGE GLEASON: We hope you continue that practice.
6 MS. YOUNG: Dr. Axelrod, could you just briefly 7 describe for us what the purpose is in the responsibilities 8 of --
9 MR. LANPHER: I object, irrelevant.
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object. I think this material 11 has been gone over so many times in this proceeding.
12 JUDGE GLEASON: I think it's pretty much in the 13 record.
14 MS. YOU'4G : Okay, I'll withdraw that question.
15 BY MS. '(;OUNG :
36 Q Dr. Axelrod, have you ever been personally asked to 17 produce any documents in respo.1se to diocovery requests made 18 by LILCO?
19 A Yes.
20 Q What documents were you asked to produce?
21 A Counsel has been responsible for all such requests 22 relating to various interrogatories and various requests.
23 Q Have you ever personally been asked to produce 24 documents?
i 25 A Personally, no.
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.I l
21722
()' 1 Q Has your counsel ever asked you produce any_
2 documents in response to LILCO discovery requests? a 3 A Yes.
4 Q What did you produce?
5 A I have no idea. My records would have been gone 6 through, all the files would have been gone through, and all 7 the documents would have been produced for counsel.
8 Q Did you do that personally or did you delegate that 9 to someone on your staff?
10 A I did not do it personally.
11 Q Who on your staff made the search for documentr 12 after receipt of request from your counsol?
13 A My executive assistant, 14 Q Who would that be?
15 A Ms. Martha Harvey.
16 Q Was a list of the documents that she found ever 17 compiled?
18 A No.
19 Q When they were turned over to Counsel for the State 20 of New York?
21 A I know of no such list.
22 Q Did you review the documents she found before 23 turning them over to Counsel for the State of New York?
24 A I did not.
25 Q Have you ever been asked to read or provide answers
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ Q ,. _a - % 1__ 5 s ,1e-,..a & k a r -- - + ~ __ $ .u .a --,;
2 4 3 4 ,f bsss 4.Ae n & - 9A- + 144w
. . *V.
.[,, #, -
t."
r 1
L-
. +
4 4
a-
'i I i -.
i
.i T
.k T'
s b
4 s,
h s
L I
a r
t i
0 I. -
h 0,'.
+ h- g et i
s 4
. y
).
i t
f v
M i
ll w.,. .,, . , - , , . .,--. , , , , , - en, , ,r-, r,wm e m , ,,, ,n e, ,, n, . m . m e -,. n , e r w n n-, . m e w-cwn -,- w,-.wv,~+w~---
21723
,n.
(_j 1 to written interrogatories by LILCO?
2 A I have no recollection of written interrogatories by 3 LILCO.
4 Q Are you familiar with the term interrogatories?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Have you ever been asked to review answers to 7 written interrogatories? In other words, written answers 8 prepared 9 A I have no recollection of having been asked to 10 review specific interrogatories.
11 Q I'm having a little difficulty hearing you. Could 12 you speak up?
13 In reviewing Article 2B with Mr. Sisk, you mentioned 14 that states voluntarily or at their own initiative prepare --
15 A Counties.
16 Q Counties, I'm sorry. Counties disaster preparedness 17 plans. Is that correct?
18 A The statute makes it clear. I can identify the 19 specific portion of the statute. It's number 23, page 28, 20 which reads, "Each county except those contained within the 21 city of New York and each city is authorized to prepare 22 disaster preparedness plans."
23 Q If you can just answer yes or no this will go just a 24 little bit quicker. Then explain your answer after that if 25 you think it's necessary.
j
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
21724 1 Would your answer to.that question be yes, the 2 states are authorized at their own initiative --
3 .
MR. LANPHER: I object. He's answered the question.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: Let's proceed. He's answered the 5 ~ question.
6 BY MS. YOUNG:
7 Q In those instances where a county does not prepare 8 such a plan, what does the state do?
9 A The state may urge that county to prepare such a 10 plan, but the state has no authority to compel.
11 Q Does the state ever do that planning on behalf of 12 the county itself?
13 A No.
14 Q I believe on page 28 of the exhibit that's been 15 marked for identification only, Exhibit #35, which is Article 16 2 (b) , and Section 23.6, there is a provision there requiring 17 that any disaster preparedness plans developed by local 18 governments or any revisions to those plans shall be submitted 19 to the Commission by December 31st of each year, is that 20 correct?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q To your knowledge has Suffolk County been submitting 23 revisions of their plans to the Disaster Preparedness ,
l Commission?
24 25 A Not to my knowledge.
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
o i 21725 p)
(_ 1 Q Are you aware of any agreement between the state of 2 New York and Suffolk County not to submit such revisicns?
3 A No.
4 Q I'm going to show you a document that has been 5 marked Exhibit #19, and just see if you can identify it.
6 MS. YOUNG: For the record, the exhibit is entitled 7 "A Guide to Local Government Planning."
8 BY MS. YOUNG:
9 Q Have you seen that document before?
10 A I don't have a specific recollection of having seen 11 the document.
12 Q Do you have any idea of the timing of when it was 13 prepared?
- 14 A No I don't.
15 Q Do you know who in the Disaster Preparedness 16 Commission would know?
17 A This would have been prepared by the State Emergency 18 Manacement Office, and information concerning the date of its 19 preparation would be obtained from the State Emergency l 20 Manaaement Office.
l 21 Q Do you mean the State Emergency Management Office or 22 its predecessor?
23 A There is no predecessor. The State Emergency l
1 24 Management Office had a previous director, but there is no
(
25 predecessor agency.
A Heritage Reporting Corporation
(_)
(202) 628-4888 I
c _.
I l
21726 i
/~'s
(_) 1 Q Thank you.
2 MS. YOUNG: No further questions.
3 MR. CUMMING: I have several brief questions, Judge 4 Gleason.
5 JUDGE GLEASON: Proceed, please.
6 MR. CUMMING: I want to mark this for 7 identification only.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: We'll mark this as FEMA Discovery 9 Exhibit (1.
10 (The document referred to was ,
11 marked for identification as 12 FEMA Discovery Exhibit #1.)
13 BY MR. CUMMING:
14 Q Dr. Axelrod, my name is William R. Cumming, and I am 15 counsel for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
16 I just passed out a document which is annotated in 17 tne upper right hand corner FEMA 9 May ' 88. It's a directory 18 of information of state officials involved with disaster
- 19 operations and emergency planning.
20 If you could turn to page 15 with respect to the 21 entry for New York State.
22 A Yes.
23 Q You have briefly described the relationships of the 24 DPC to SEMO and to REPIC. Could you explain the relationship 25 of the DPC, briefly explain the relationship of the DPC, SEMO,
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
E e 21727
(,) 1 and REPIC, if any, to the New York State Division of Military 2 and Naval Affairs?
3 A The State Emergency Management Office has been 4 housed in the facilities of the Division of Military and Naval 5 Affairs, and the Chief of Staff of the New York State Division 6 of Military and Naval Affairs is the person who is the 7 Deputy Director, I believe, of the State Emergency Management 8 Office. Because of the relationship to original civil defense 9 planning there has remained a strong coordination between 10 state emergency management activities and the Division of 11 Military and Naval Affairs.
12 Q Is there any independent development, review, or 13 technical assistance by the New York State Division of a
14 Military and Naval Affairs to other state agencies or to local 15 governments on emergency operations plans, disaster 16 preparedness plans? -
17 A No.
18 Q With respect to your personal knowledge, Dr.
19 Axelrod, are you aware of any studies or documentations that 20 have been prepared by the DPC, SEMO, ore REPIC which have 21 their purpose demonstrating that emergency planning is not 22 possible at Shoreham?
i 23 A The question was, you lost me in your question.
24 Q To the extent that you have personal knowledge, are i
25 you aware of any studies or analyses of the DPC, SEMO, or
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
m .
1-t 21728
("%
s_) 1 REPIC which demonstrate that emergency planning is not 2 possible at Shoreham?
3 MR. LANPHER: Object, irrelevant.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: Objection is denied.
5 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any specific studies 6 other than those which have been referred to in previous 7 testimony.
8 MR. CUMMING: I have no further questions.
9 MR. LANPHER: No questions.
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No questions.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you, Dr. Axelrod 12 Ne will take a recess. We'll be back at 3:00 13 o' clock.
14 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
15 JUDGE GLEASON: On the record at 3:09 p.m.
- 16 Is Mr. Geramo here?
17 MR. GERAMO: Yes.
18 Whereupon, 19 ANTHONY J. GERAMO 20 having been previously duly sworn, was called as a witness 21 herein, and was examined and testified as follows:
22 JUDGE GLEASON: Do you wish to make some opening 23 remarks, counselor?
24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Yes, Judge Gleason.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
S. .
E 21729
['i
() 1- DIRECT EXAMINATION
'2 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
3 Q Would you please state your name and currenc 4- position with the state of New York?
5 A My name is Anthony J. Geramo, and I am the Chief of 6 Staff of the State Emergency Management Office.
7 Q How long have you held that position?
8 A Since the fall of 1985.
9 Q What position did you hold prior to-that?
10 A I held a number of positions with the State 11 Emergency Management Office. Before that time I was the 12 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for the State 13 Emergency Management Office, and prior to that time I held a 14 number of positions in the Technical Resources Section.
15 Q Did there come a time when you attempted to search 16 for documents in connection with the Shoreham litigation?
17 A Yes I did.
16 Q What prompted you to conduct that search?
19 A Essentially it was a number of different vehicles 20 from you as counsel for the state, both verbal, I can recall 21 at least one memorandum, as well as numerous personal visits.
22 At that time based on your request we did provide an extensive 23 search of our files for docuLents.
24 Q What kind of documents were you asked to search for?
25 A Essentially we were asked to look for documents that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
o ;
f .
I 21730
() 1 from the emergency management perspective may affect Suffolk 2 County. In our search we did produce a number of documents 3 that were more or less guidance documents that were prepared 4 by cur. office under the auspices of the Disaster Preparedness 5 Commission, and they were turned over to you.
6 O Did you_ personally conduct a search for the Suffolk 7 County Emergency Operations Plan?
8 A No I did not.
9 Q Do you know who did?
10 A Yes, Don DeVito did. But I might add that I did 11 coordinate on behalf of Mr. DeVito the search for the other 12 documents that you did request.
13 Q Dfd you produce those documents to me?
- 14 A Yes we did.
15 Q I'd like to show you a document now which has been 16 marked as LILCO's Discovery Exhibit #5, and ask you to 17 identify it.
18 A Yes, I can identify this document as one that was 19 prepared under the auspices of the DPC by our office in 20 coordination with other state agencies.
21 Q Would you characterize that document as a state 22 plan or procedure?
23 A Absolutely not. The intent of the document, and I 24 think it's stated throughout the document, is it was intended 25 as a guidance document. At the time of its preparation we em C Heritage Reporting Corporatio'.
(202) 628-4888
d 4 e -
21731 1
/~N (j 1 - were very much involved with an exercise for the Ginna Nuclear 2 Power Plant site as a-radiological ingestion exposure pathway 3 exercise based on federal criteria and requirements. The 4 intent of preparing this document was to provide those 13 5 counties that approximate to the Ginna site, and only those 13 6 counties, with necessary generic information that hopefully 7 they could take the information that was provided and then 8 enhance their existing emergency operations plan. So it's not 9 a plan, it's a guidance document.
10 Q would you characterize LILCO's Discovery Exhibit #5 11 as a county plan or procedure?
12 A Again, absolutely not. As I said, the material 13 cvntained within and the references indicate in many locations 14 that the guidance material contained in this document should 15 be incorporated and expanded upon to meet the objectives of 16 the County Emergency Operation Plan.
17 Q I represent to you that on page 17 of a LILCO 18 pleading entitled "LILCO's Response to Intervenor's Motion to 19 vacate" which is dated June 23, 1988, that LILCO states that 20 this Exhibit #5, "presumptively was intended for distribution 21 to all counties in a 50 mile EPZ."
22 What is your opinion with regard to that LILCO 23 statement?
24 A It was never intended for distribution state-wide.
25 It was intended to again provide those 13 counties that were Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7 i
, +
21732 tc(_r^)s 1 involved directly in the exercise with guidance information.
i 2 So it was-never intended for state-wide distribution, nor was 3 it. This document:was handed out at a meeting in early August 4 of last year with the 13 counties 'seing represented at that 5 meeting and that was all of the distribution that was ever 6 done. It has never been reprinted, and as far as I'm 7 concerned it's still in draft form.
8 Q I represent to you that the same page of the same 9 LILCO pleading states that the exhibit, LILCO Discovery 10 Exhibit #5, "is generic." What is your opinion with regard to 11 that statement?
12 A I'd have to see what the connotation of generic 10.
13 I think you can characterize this document as being generic in 14 that it provides generic guidance information. That's 15 information that currently exists in the state Radiological 16 Emergency Preparedness Plan and has so since the early '80s.
17 But in terms of being generic for any county to use, no.
=
18 That's certainly not the case. So generic information, yes.
19 But in terms of a county's requirement for planning, that's 20 really the Chief Executive of that jurisdiction's call and 21 responsibility. This information was intended to provide each 22 county with guidance material so they in turn could prepare 23 plans as appropriate and as deemed necessary to sustain an 24 operation in support of an incident at the Ginna nuclear power 25 plant.
O g_j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 623-4888
~)
21733
() 1 Q Would you describe LILCO's Discovery Exhibit #5 as a 2 plan or procedure that New York state has and would use, 3 follow, or otherwise rely upon to make an ingestion pathway 4 and recovery and reentry response to a radiological energency 5 at Yankee Rowe, Millstone, Hanamneck, Vermont Yankee, or the 6 Oyster Creek nuclear power plants?
7 A No, this document was never intended for that 8 purpose. The information necessary for state-agencies in New 9 York State to provide a response is already contained in the 10 State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan. This does not 11 duplicate that information, nor is it a procedural document 12 for those agencies to operate in such an event.
13 If I could, I would like to say that in terms of O
'kl 14 this being a plan, I think it's ludicrous to assume that. A 15 plan is obviously a coordinated and, in terms of a method of 16 solving a problem by applying resources. This document does 17 not do that. There are no resources identified. There are no 18 people, no phone numbers, there are no procedures per se for 19 county agencies or state agencies to carry out their 20 responsibilities. It has to be done in a coordinated feshion.
21 For a member of the State Emergency Managemint Office or a 22 representative of the DPC in concerb with or.4er state agencies 23 to develop that type of a document or this d<cument isolated 24 in Albany certainly does taot constitute a pla 1. That has to 25 be done at the local level. This document we a intended solely Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4838
g m ,
21734 i-(3 _) 1 to provide guidance, to facilitate plan development at the 2 county level, and specificslly those .13 counties.
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Judge Gleason I vouch, as Mr. Sisk 4 has used the word currently today, that this document is not 5 responsive to LILCO's Discovery request, eJpecially 6 interrogatory 50 which Mr. Sisk identified. With that, Mr.
p 7 Geramo is available for the Board's questions.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Geramo, would you kindly cite 9 .what was your prior work experience prior to going to work 10 with SEMO?
11 THE WITNESS: I worked in the private sector, Your 12 Honor.
13 JUDGE GLEASON: Could you elaborate a bit on that?
14 THE WITNESS: It had nothing to do with emergency 15 management. It was a sales position.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: I don't really have a lot of 17 questions. Any that I have I may pose at a later time. I'm 18 going to let counsel for the Applicant proceed. Let me ask 19 the general question, have you consulted with anybody 20 regarding the testimony that's been given in this proceeding 21 so far?
22 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry sir, I couldn't hear you.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: I say have you consulted with anyone 24 including attorneys regarding testimony that's been given at 25 this proceeding by nny other witness so far?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,. . 4
- v. s 21735 r~
(_)T 1 THE WITNESS: No other witness, sir, but I did 2 consult with the state's attorney. That was just for 3 consultation. Mr. Zahnleuter.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: Regarding testimony in this 5 proceeding?
6 THE WITNESS: No sir.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: Who is going to proceed?
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. SISK:
10 Q Are you familiar with a document entitled the New 11 York State Disaster Preparedness Plan?
12 A Yes I am.
13 Q Is that document prepared and maintained by your 14 agency, the State Emergency Management Office?
15 A Yes it is.
16 Q Are you familiar with a document entitled the 17 "Suffolk County Emergency Operations Plan?"
18 A No I'm not.
19 Q Have you ever seen a document entitled the, I 20 believe I had it correct from Exhibits #9 and #10, "State of 21 New York, County of Suffolk, Emergency Operations Plan?"
22 A Not that I recall, no.
23 Q Can you describe for ne your duties at the State 24 Emergency Management Offie9?
25 A Yes. As the Chief of Staff of the State Emergency Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
21736 p)
(_ 1 Management Office I'm responsible for the coordination of 2 section activities on behalf of the Director. I suppose that 3 means that in issuing his direction, his guidance, I ensure 4 that the policies and staff work are not only assigned but 5 also carried out. And in the event that information needs to 6 be provided to the Director, I ensure there is an 7 informational flow. There are a host of other activities I'm 8 also responsible for in that direct role.
9 Q What rasponsibilities do you have with respect to 10 plannint- for radiological emergencies at nuclear plants?
11 A I really have no responsibilities for planning 12 specifically for nuclear power plant. I maintain liaison with 13 the radiological emergency preparedness group in that regard, N/ 14 and if there are needs to coordinate activities I will do so 15 with the radiological emergency preparedness group, but I have 16 no specific function as a planner in that regard.
17 Q You used the word liaison with the radiological 18 emergency preparedness group. Is that one of the functions 19 that you have as Chief of Staff?
20 A Essentially it's a function I carried wi$h me when I 21 was in that capacity as the so-called REP coordinator for the 22 State Emergency Management Office. Those have diminished over 23 the last couple of years in terms of my liaison with the REP l
24 group.
- 25 Q Will you tell me what you mean by your l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21737
() 1 responsibilities with the REP program?
2 A Sure. In terms of exercises that are scheduled, 3 conducted, and there is a need to coordinete SEMO staff 4 activities, in terms of briefing of staff and readying of the 5 state headquarters and other facilities, the management, day 6 to day management between REPIC and SEMO, and coordination 7 with other agencies as may be appropriate.
8 Q Are you the designated representative of the State 9 Emergency Management Office to receive on behalf of that 10 office a copy of the New York State Radiological Emergency 11 Preparedness Plan?
12 A I don't know how to answer that. I don't know if I 13 am or not. I do receive an update, but whether or not other 14 individuals on staff receive the updateo, I couldn't tell you.
15 Q You do routinely in the course of your duties 16 receive updates of the New York State Radiological Emergency 17 Preparedness plan?
18 A Yes.
19 Q You don't know whether other members of your agency 20 do, is that correct?
21 A Whether they receive them direct or not, I couldn't 22 say. We do receive a supply and that supply is not only 23 provided to representatives on our staff but also other state 24 agencies as indicated in the plan itself.
25 Q Does that supply come, for your agency, does that
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
U .
21738
( ,) 1 supply come to you and do you then distribute it to other 2 members of the staff?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Mr. Geramo, I'm going to ask that you be handed a 5 document that has been previously marked an LILCO Discovery 6 Exhibit #14. It is a three page document. It was 7 established, Mr. Geramo, on Monday, that this is a portion of 8 a document that lists certain personnel relating to the-state 9 warning point. Mr. DeVito told us that this is a State 10 Emergency Management Office document.
11 I will also tell you, Mr. Geramo, it's been 12 established that these few pages which do not constitute the 13 whole document were found in a document entitled "Resources O>
\- 14 Manual" in the files of Suffolk County.
15 Mr. Geramo, can you identify for me the document to 16 which this cover page refers, or are you familiar with the 17 document by that title?
18 A Ia the question am I familiar with the document I've 19 got in front of you?
20 Q Are you familiar with the document that goes by the 21 title, the cover page that you have in front of you?
22 A Yes I am.
23 Q Will yo'. turn to the third page of that document.
24 It bears a date 2n the lower left hand corner, 2/1/87. Is 25 that particular page of that document familiar to you?
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l - s V
21739 i
- 7.e l
h -1 A Yes it is.
2 Q What is'that?
3 A This is nothing more than the state headquarters 4 telephone listing for personnel that work in Building 22 in 5 Albany.
6 Q Is that divided into sections or groups _within the 7 State Emergency Management Office?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Can you tell me over on the right hand side what the 10 planning sections responsibilities are?
11 A Yes, they're responsible for the coordination and 12 the provision of assistance pursuant to the Federal Emergency 13 Management Agency's comprehensive cooperative agreement with 14 New York for the development of emergency operations plans.
15 They don't develop plans, they provide assistance.
16 Q They provide assistance then for the preparation of 17 emergency operations plans by local governments?
18 A In accordance with federal criteria, yes.
19 Q That includes counties?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Are you familiar with a gentleman named Jerry 22 Horton who is listed on that document?
23 A Yes I am.
- l. 24 Q What is his role within the planning group?
j 25 A He is a program administrator within the group and
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, - , , , - - . - . - t
21740 l ) 1 he, I think a good way to characterize it, acts as liaison 2 between the program itself, the Emergency Operations Plan, 3 federal program, and the counties for which are on the 4 schedule to have plans developed.
5 Q Does he develop the list of the counties who are on 6 the schedule from year to year to have programs developed?
7 A I don't know the details of who develops. I don't 8 know.
9 Q Do you know who decides from year to year which 10 counties will receive assistance from the planning section for 11 emergency operations plans?
12 A I don't think it's as cut and dried to say that one 13 individuals says yes, we will do this county or no we will not 14 do this county. I think it's --
15 Q That's why I asked. If you can identify an 16 organization please do so, or a process.
17 A It's really the input from the agency itself and 18 from other sections in terms of where counties are with 19 respect to the emergency management program and the counties 20 themselves, what does their schedule allow for and where are 21 they in the planning process and do on. So it's not as cut 22 and dried as one individual saying yes, we will do this county 23 or no we won't.
24 Q When you say input from the agency do you mean from 25 your agency, SEMO?
O aestaee - runec - rauen (202) 628-4888
,n 14i .
l "I
)
21'M 1'
() 1- A Yes. Again we rely on the~ planning shop to come up 2 with a list. Who in particular I don't know who has that 3 responsibility.
4 Q_ Do you know what their criteria are-for determining 5 which counties will be reviewed from year to year or will 6 receive assistance from year to year?
7 A I think it's the sama answer I just gave. It's 8 really a lot of factors. Is the county available in terms of 9 being at a point where they can identify the planning effort 10 that needs to be undertaken and the resources, etcetera.
11' Q Do those funds for the local emergency operations 12 plans flow in whole or in part from the Federal Emergency 13 Management Agency?
14 A Yes, they flow from FEMA.
15 Q Does your agency administer the distribution of 16 those funds to local governments for planning?
17 MR. LANPHER: I object, Judge Gleason. This line of 18 questioning is not relevant.- The funding by FEMA of monies 19 just is not pertinent to this proceeding.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: Objection denied. Answer the 21 question.
22 THE WITNESS: There is no direct flow of money to a 23 county for planning purposes. There is a cooperative 24 agreement, and in that agreement is an scergency management 25 assistance program. That's the program designed by the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s .
i
- 21742
() 1 federal government, administered by the state to provide 2 dollars to counties that participate in the program for an 3 overall emergency management program. There is no specific 4 money allocated to do planning.
5 BY MR. SISK:
6 Q Who determines the amount of money allocated to each 7 county within the state?
8 A That's really done by way of a formula and the 9 formula's been around for a number of years. It pre-dates, 10 certainly my existence at the State Emergency Management 11 Office, and it was one that from my limited experience did 12 involve a lot of parameters. What those parameters are, I just 13 couldn't say at this point.
O
\~ 14 JUDGE GLEASON: You do not know how the money is 15 allocated?
16 THE WITNESS: I know that there is a population
- 17 involved. I don't know what the specific parameters were.
18 The program has certainly been around for a number of years.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: Nobody asked how long ago the 20 program started. I just asked you whether you knew how the 21 money was allocated.
22 THE WITNESS: I don't specifically know what the 23 distribution formula is.
24 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you.
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
21743 1 BY MR. SISK:
2 Q Do you know who makes the docision as to how much 3 money given counties get within the state of New York?
4 A Again,that's a formula that's been around for a 5 number of years. It goes up. If the federal pot goes up then 6 the state pot will go up proportionally among the statec If 7 it goes down the state pot goes down proportionally. The 8 formula that's in place will decrease proportionally.
9 Q Let's try to break this down into parts. It's 10 correct 1:n't it that federal funds under the Emergency 11 Management Assistance Program, flow directly from the 12 Federal Emergency Management Agency to the state, is that 13 correct?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q First step. Your agency then is responsible for 16 receiving those funds in the first instance from the federal 17 government, is that correct?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q Your agency is then responsible for passing those 20 funds or a portion of those funds through to various local 21 governments within the state, is that correct?
22 A Those that choose to participate, yes.
23 Q And for those counties that choose to participate, 24 who makes the determination which county gets how much of that 25 money?
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
l- _'$i.
21744 1 MR. IANPHER: I object to the question. It's 2 already been asked and answered. The question assumes there's 3 a person. He's already said.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: He's trying to lead him step by step.
5 through this process to see whether there isn't more 6 information. The objection is denied. Answer the question.
7 BY MR. SISK:
8 Q Who determines, once the state has the money, who 9 determines which local jurisdictions will receive how much of 10 that money?
11 A I guess the best way I can answer it is how I 12 already have. There's a formula in place. How that formula 13 was derived, I couldn't give you the specifics. It pre-dates 14 me.
15 Q So that's part of the formula. That's not varied by 16 the state from year to year?
17 A Ho.
18 Q What happens if a new local government is added that 19 didn't exist the previous year?
20 A Then I believe based on federal criteria and formula 21 you would look at factors like pcpulation, yoit would look at 22 other such factors which I'm not familiar witn, and the total 23 pot that comes into New York state would be decreased 24 proportionally to cover that jurisdiction.
25 Q Mr. Geramo, is the size and population of the county Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
b e
21745
() 1 one of the criteria used to determine the amount of funding 2 that county gets?
3 MR. LANPHER: I object. The amount of funding is 4 just irrelevant, Judge Gleason.
5 JUDGE GLEASON: Objection denied.
6 THE WITNESS: This is really outside of my area of 7 expertise. I would assume it is, yes.
8 BY MR. SISK:
9 Q Do you know whether Suffolk County has been a 10 recipient of the emergency management assistance funds during 11 the past year?
12 A Yes I do.
13 Q Have they?
14 A Yes they have.
15 Q Do you know whether Suffolk County has received 16 those funds in previous years?
17 A Yes I do.
18 Q How long have you been at the State Emergency 19 Management Office?
20 A Since the fall of 1977.
21 Q So that would have been at the predecessor agency, 22 the Office of Disaster Preparednesc at that time?
23 A That's correct.
24 Q Do you know whether Suffolk County has been a 25 recipient of those emergency management assistance funds ever Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
.o 21746
). 1 since you've been with the agency? -
2 -A No I don't.
3 Q Can you recall when you first learned that Suffolk 4 County was a recipient of emergency management assistance 5 funds?
6 A I really can't recall. The past several years, but 7 a specific date I couldn't recall.
8 Q Can you recall a time --
9 A Again, you're outside of my area of expertise.
10 Q I-understand. I'm just asking for your knowledge.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Geramo, may we we're under a 12 misapprehension. I certainly have a misapprehension of what 13 your responsibilities are. Did you indicate you were the 14 Chief of Staff for SEMO?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes I am.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: Ordinarily a Chief of Staff has the 17 responsibility for the whole area of an agency or division.
18 So why do you keep saying you're outside your area of 19 responsibility?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't get involved, sir, in day to 21 day administrative activities. That's something that's really 22 beyond me. I'm not familiar with the details. I think some of 23 the questions you're asking are of a detailed nature. I'm
- i. 24 familiar that Suffolk County gets emergency management i
25 assistance funding. When I became aware of it, I couldn't
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21747
() 1 give you a date. In terms of formula and distribot3on, yes 2 there is a distribution system. Formulas,.that pre-dates me 3 in terms of how the formulas were evolved or when they 4 evolved.
5 JUDGE GLEASON: All right, proceed.
6 BY MR, SISK:
7 Q Can you recall at any time since you have been with 8 the State Emergency Management Office, can you recall a time 9 when Suffolk County did not receive emergency management 10 assistance funds?
11 A No. Since I've known about it, no I could not.
12 Q When did you first become Chief of Staff at SEMO?
13 A Fall of 1985.
14 Q What was your position prior to that?
15 A I was the Radiological Emergency Preparedness 16 Coordinator for the State Emergency Management Office.
17 Q How long were you in that position?
18 A From approximately 1982 to the fall of ' 85.
19 Q Looking at the document that has been placed in 20 front of you and the state headquarters staff, recognizing 21 that that must have changed somewhat over the years, can you 22 identify for me the department or division to which you were 23 assigned prior to becoming Chief of Staff?
j 24 A I was assigned to the Executive Section.
25 Q Was there a time when you were assigned to a Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888 l
l L
21748
( ) -1 different section of the State E.nergency Management Office?
-2 -A Yes.
3 Q When was that?
4 A Prior to 1982.
5 Q What section were you ass 19 ned to at that time?
6 A Technical Resources Section.
7 Q That's the section identified with Mr. Batis at the 8 head on this document?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q Did Mr. Batis take over the position as the head of 11 that section when you joined the Executive Section?
12 A No.
13 Q Was there someone else in that position then?
14 A No, he was in that position to my knowledge.
15 Q Were you ever with a different section of SEMO?
16 L No.
17 Q That's where you began in 1977?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q Does SEMO maintain listings of county personnel in 20 various counties within the state?
21 A What type of listings?
22 Q Telephone listings. Directories of their emergency 23 service personnel.
24 A Yes we do.
25 Q Do you keep those for all counties in the state?)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21749 1- A Yes we do.
2 Q Regardless of whether they're participating in the 3 emergency management assistance funding?
4 A Yes we do.
5 Q How do you obtain that information?
6 A It's information that's provided from the counties.
7 This document has been in existence and it's updated 8 periodically.
9 Q Do you maintain emergency service directories that 10 are prepared by the various counties?
11 A To my knowledge, no. In our Communications Section 12 they may have material relative to that, but at least from our 13 perspective, no we don't.
O 14 Q Would that be your Communication and Warning segment 15 as listed on this document?
16 A Yes.
17 Q That would be Mr. Bruce Houston who heads that 18 particular section?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Was Mr. Houston involved in gathering documents in 21 responso to Mr. Zahnleuter's request this year?
22 A Yes he was.
23 Q Did you say you acted as the person who was 24 responsible for gathering the various documents that Mr.
25 Zahnleuter requested?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21750
() 1 A I coordinated that effort, yes I did.
2 Q Does that mean that everyone within SEMO who was 3 requested to get documents brought them to you first, is that 4 correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Do you recall whether Mr. Houston brought you a 7 document that was entitled Suffolk County Emergency Services 8 Directory?
9 A I can't specifically recall, no.
10 MR. SISK: Let me ask that the witness be shown a 11 document that has been identified as LILCO Exhibit #12.
12 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, I'd like to ask a 13 question. Is there a specific discovery request to which this 14 would have been responsive this year? There were a lot of 15 discovery requests this year, but I think the question is 16 improper unless we establish --
17 JUDGE GLEASON: The emergency directory question?
18 MR. LANPHER: Yes sir.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: I certainly have no idea.
20 MR. LANPHER: Presumably Mr. Sisk, if he's pursuing 21 this line of questioning, can direct our attention to a 22 discovery request to which this would have been responsive.
23 If not, I object to the question. The question assumes there 24 was a discovery request to which this was responsive.
25 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, I will vouch that this was Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888
21751
() 1 produced by the state pursuant to LILCO's discovery request 2 approximately last Thursday.
3 MR. LANPHER: Then what is the point if it was 4 produced?
5 JUDGE GLEASON: Why don't you wait for the question 6 and find out.
7 MR. LANPHER: Then I object to the question. We're 8 supposed to be here on non-production of documents. This was 9 produced. He just admitted it.
10 JUDGE GIEASON: You can prove non-production by 11 looking at something that was produced. Isn't that answer 12 relatively simple?
13 MR. LANPHER: No, I don't understand that, sir.
14 JUDGE GLEASON: Just wait and let's see where it 15 goes. I don't know where these things are heading. I don't 16 believe you do.
17 MR. LANPHER: That's true. I don't know where it's 18 heading, but my client deserves the right to know where it's 19 heading.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: Let him ask the question, then 21 you'll know, and then you can make your objections.
22 BY MR. SISK:
23 Q Mr. Geramo, do you recognize that document at all?
24 A Not in any detail.
25 Q Do you remember seeing that at the time you brought
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6 21752
() 1 documents to Mr. Zahnleuter in response to a discovery request 2 recently?
3 A I think we received somewhere around 14 or 15 4 documents. I can't specifically recall that this was one of 5 them. I've got that material back in my office.
6 Q Would this be the type of document that Mr. Houston 7 would have brought to you?
8 MR. LANPHER: Object. That calls for speculation.
9 BY MR. SISK:
10 Q Do you know whether that is a document that Mr.
11 Houston brought you?
12 A I would have to answer yes.
13 Q that document bears a date on the inside cover, 14 revised March 1980, do you see that?
15 A Yes I do.
16 Q Do you know how long that document had been in the 17 possession of SEMO?
18 A I couldn't tell you that.
19 Q I'll ask that you be shown a document entitled 20 Suffolk County Emergency Operations Plan. It has been 21 admitted to the record as Exhibit #9.
22 (Pause) 23 MR. SISK: May I have a moment Judge Gleason?
24 (Pause) 25 MR. SISK: Sorry for the time, Mr. Geramo, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21753
) 1 BY MR. SISK:
2 Q If you can turn to Annex A, Appendix 7 of that 3 document which is approximately one-fourth of the way through.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: Do you want to give us a number?
5 MR. SISK: I'm trying to racertain that. I don't 6 have a number on my copy. I'm sorry, Judge Gleason. Let me 7 see if I can help with that.
8 (Pause) 9 BY MR. SISK:
10 Q Mr. Geramo, I apologize for the confusion, but that 11 document is copied on two sides of the page. Have you now 12 found Annex A, Appendix 77 It begins with the page Suffolk 13 County Department of Emergency Preparedness Emergency 14 Directory.
15 Have you found that document?
16 A I've got it.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: The number is marked on our copies.
18 Can't you just give us the number of the page you're on?
19 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, I believe Exhibit #9 does 20 not have a number on it. We can go to Exhibit #10. It will 21 serve the same purpose if that's easier. On Exhibit #10 the 22 page number is K02380.
23 (Pause) 24 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I have no document starting 25 out with 02.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I
+ 21754
() 1 MR.'SISK: I think you're being handed Exhibit #10. ,
2 THE WITNESS: Okay.
3 MR. SISK: I apologize Judge Gleason. This is 4 taking longer than I thought. This is Exhibit #10 that we're 5 not turning to.
6 THE WITNESS: I can cut aside the other exhibit?
7 MR. SISK: Yes.
8 BY MR. SISK:
9 Q Does that document appear to be the same document, 10 albeit a revised version, as the exhibit previously shown to 11 you, and that would be Exhibit (12, the document that came 12 from SEMO's files?
13 (Pause) 14 A Yes.
15 Q When Mr. Horton brought you the document identified 16 as Exhibit #12, was it a separate, free standing document, or 17 did it have any attachments?
18 A Mr. Horton or Mr. Houston?
19 Q I' m sorry, Mr. Houston. I apologize.
20 A Would you repeat the question?
21 Q Was the document that was identified as Exhibit (12 22 and brought to you by Mr. Houston a separate, free-standing 23 document, or did it have other attachments of appendices to 24 it?
25 MR. LANPHER: I object to that question because it
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
't 21755
(~)
(_/ 1 states that the document was brought to him by Mr. Houston. I 2 think his testimony was that be assumes that's where it might 3 have come from. I don't think he stated that he has a 4 specific recollection that it came from Mr. Houston.
5 MR. SISK: That's not my recollection of the 6 witness' testimony.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: Would you give us the facts, Mr.
8 Geramo. Did Mr. Houston bring the document to you?
9 THE WITNESS: Judge, I believe I said I would 10 believe that he would have brought the document. I don't know 11 for sure, sir.
12 JUDGE GLEASON: Restate your question, Mr. Sisk.
13 BY MR. SISK O 14 2 Do you know whether any document brought to you by 15 Mr. Eouston was a free-standing document or whether it had 16 other attachments or appendices? Can you answer the question?
17 A I don't believe I can, no.
18 Q Very well.
19 A If I could make one statement, I do recall receiving 20 something similar from other counties. I think it's just a 21 matter of them providing the State Emergency Management Office 22 with their telephone directories. We don't use them in the 23 course of business day to day, and my guess is that they're 24 probably just maintained in a file.
25 Q I now ask that you be shown a document that has been Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
wc ,
21756
) 1 marked for identification as LILCO Exhibit #15. It is a 2 letter dated May 1, 1981 from Jerry D. Horton, Director of 3 Programming and Planning to Mr. William L. Regan,, Director of 4 Suffolk County Department OL' Emergency Prepare,dnees. It bears 5 a heading, "State of New lork, Division of Military and Naval 6 Affairs."
7 First, Mr. Geramo, can you identify the letterhead 8 on this particular correspondence?
9 A Yes I can.
10 Q Can you tell me what it is?
11 A It's letterhead from the Division of Military and 12 Naval Affairs.
13 Q Is this the same letterboad that the Ofiice of 14 Disaster Preparedness'was using as of May 1, 19817 15 A I believe so.
16 Q Was Mr. Horton in the Planning Section of the Office 17 of Disaster Preparedness at that time?
18 A If memory serves me right, yes he was.
19 Q Was he Director of Programming and Planning at that 20 time?
21 ' A I believe so, yes.
22 Q If you look at the contents of that letter it refers 23 to a Suffolk County Disaster Preparedness Plan dated 1 January 24 1981. There are some statements in the letter that the plan 25 is compatible with the provisions of Article 2 (b), Section 23, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21757
/-
I)s _ 1 local: disaster preparedness plans.
2 Do ymt have any knowledge of this letter?
3 A No I do not.
4 Q Do you have any knowledge of any review by the 5 Office of Disaster Preparedness of a Suffolk County Disaster 6 Preparedness Plan in 19817 7 A Not that I recall, no.
8 Q Were you asked to review any portions of it? -
9 A Not that I recall, sto .
10 Q Referring to Item 5, it says "Purpose. If this plan 11 will include civil defense functions there will be a great 12 deal of additional information needed, i.e., RIDEF, crisis 13 relocation, etcetera."
.f' 14 Mr. Geramo, would those types of functions have 15 tallen within your area of responsibility in 1981?
16 MR. LANPHER: I object to this question. He's 17 asking this witness questions derived from this letter which' 18 he says he has no recollection of ever seeing'before.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: All he's asking him essentially is 20 whether those functions were in his areas of responsibility.
21 Objection denied.
22 Answer the question.
23 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?
24 MR. SISK: Yes.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L ,
s., ,
1 21758 a ..
kj 1 BY MR. SISK:
2 O Were those functions identified in paragraph five of 3 that letter within your area of' responsibility in 19817 4 A ' Civil defense functions?
5 Q Is that what those are?
6 A Are you referring specifically to civil defense?
7 Q I'm referring to the items listed in paragraph five.
8 It says, "Civil defense functions." Then it says, "i.e.,
9 RIDEF, crisis relocation, etcetera."
10 A Crisis relocation, no. But radiological defense, 11 yes.
12 Q So there was a separate crisis relocation section, 13 or a separate section that dealt with crisis relocation in 14 1981?
15 A No, that was the Planning Section.
16 Q And you dealt strictly with radiological defense?
17 A Technical resources, radiological defense, yes.
18 Q At any time since you have been at SEMO has-SEMO 19 over reviewed a Suffolk County Civil Defense Plan?
20 A To my knowledge, no.
21 Q Mr. Geramo, ignoring the question of reviews and 22 legal consistencies and so forth, how long have you personally 23 been aware of the existence of the Suffolk County Emergency 24 Operations Plan?
25 A Certainly I became very familiar with its existence Heritage Report 3ag Corporation (202) F28-4888
5 21759 i" .
'( 1 in the last couple of months. In terms of when I physically l 2 became aware of it, I really could not recall, l
3 Q' I'll ask that you be shown a document that has been 4 marked for identification as LILCO Exhibit (17. It is 6 5 document entitled "Government's Response to Board Order of 6 June 24, 1988."
7 (Pause) 8 Q This is what the lawyers call a pleading in this 9 particular litigation. It was filed on behalf of the 10 Government, the state of New York, and Suffolk County in this 11 proceeding by their counsel.
12 I'll ask you to turn to page 10, and refer 13 specifically to the paragraph entitled "Donald DeVito."
O 14 Let me ask you to review that briefly, and I'll ask 15 you if you have any knowledge of the facts stated there.
16 (Pause) 17 Q First, Mr. Geramo, does SEMO have authority to 18 review state and local emergency p1r ns for non-nuclear
-19 emergencies?
20 A Yes, under the auspices of Article 2 (b) , yes.
21 Q Does SEMO e.,o s have the authority to review such 22 plans in connection with the emergency management assistance 23 program that I referre1 uo earlier?
24 A Under tho --
25 Q For the FEMA money that we discussed earlier.
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I' 4g' 21760 pq T ,/ 1 A Define what you mean by the emergency management .
1 2 assistance program. Be a little clearer if you could, i l
3 0 Perhaps you can tell me. Does SEMO have authority 4 to review state and local government emergency plans for non-1 5 nuclear emergencies outside the context of Article 2 (b) ?- l 6 A Under the comprehensive cooperative agreement, yes.
7 We do review plans. The development of emergency operations -
8 plans by counties are submitted for review.
9 Q Referring to the next sentence, and ignore the words 10 "Mr. DeVito testified." Is it true that SEMO personnel have 11 known for many years that Suffolk County, like other counties 12 in New York, had a plan for dealing generally with 13 emergencies?
14 A I really couldn't answer that. I don't know. It 15 would be an assumption on my part.
16 Q Do you know if SEMO personnel have known for many 17 years that Suffolk County had a plan for dealing generally 18 with emergencies?
19 A Again, it would be an assumption to respond for 20 other individuals.
21 Q Ilad you known for many years that Suffolk County had 22 a plan for dealing generally with emergencies?
23 A I think my answer is one that the program has been 24 around for a number of years, starting back in the '50s, '60s.
l 25 I think one would have to assume that counties did have l
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
u- . - _ _ _ . _ - - . .-
l' 21761'
) i emergency, I don',t want to use the word operations plans, but 2 plans that pre-date the 1980's. Based on that yes,. again I 3 assume that they did have a plan.
4 Q The county has to have a plan to get into the 5 program to begin with, isn't that right? l l 6 A To get into what program?
I 7 Q Into the federally assisted emergency managemant 8 assistance program, to start receiving funds?
9 A The county has to make a commitment to develop a 10 plan. Whether or _.ot a county specifically needs an approved 11 emergency operations plan, no.
12 Q So they can start receiving funds as soon as they 13 make a commitment to develop a plan.
O, 14- A In a sense, yes.
15 Q What do you mean, in a sense?
16 A If you lOok at a schedule in the planning shop 17 itself there is a three e schedule that was negotiated with .e 18 the Federal Emergency tgement Agency. Because a county did 19 not start year one, that doesn't mean they could not receive 20 funding.
l 21 Q So they have to commit to begin the planning process 22 in order to get the funding, is that a fair statement?
23 A The cooperative agreement is designed as such to 24 provide work objectives by the Federal Emergency Management 25 Agency, required objectives to meet some of the goals of the
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
_--=---j
d.v 21762
() 1 emergency management program. It also includes some state ,
2 objectives. And to receive emergency management assistance 3 funding those jurisdictions that participate have to. complete 4 those work objectives.
5 Q How much time is prescribed for them to complete the 6 work objectives and complete a plan?
7 A I believe under the federal criteria there was a 4 8 three year plan to ensure that each county within the state 9 would have an emergency operations plan. I believe that comes 10 to a close this year.
11 Q That process began in 19857 12 A I believe so.
13 Q What about counties who had been receiving emergency l
14 management assistance funds prior to 1985?
15 A This was FEMA policy that was issued in l'385.
16 Q I understand.
17 Prior to 1985, in order to receive the federal funds li 18 through the emergency management assistance program, was there 19 any other federal funding mechanism? Did a local government l 20 have to have a plan or commit to produce a plan in order to 1
21 get that money?
- 22 A I don't believe so, no.
i l 23 Q They could get planning money from the federal 24 government without either having a local plan or committing to 25 produce a local plan?
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
~
i 21763
() 1 A There is no planning money for the Federal Emergency 1 l
2 Management Agency. It's emergency management assistance )
3 funding. Again, it's not dollars specific to do planning.
4 It's dollars that are made available to perform the particular 5 work objectives in accordance with the emergency management 6 program.
7 Q What are those work objectives?
8 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, I object. There is no 9 dispute that Suffolk County had an emergency operations plan.
10 this questioning is --
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Where is this heading, Mr. Sisk?
12 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, I'm simply trying to 13 establish.how long SEMO has known that there was.a Suffolk 14 County Emergency Operations Plan by virtue of the funding 15 mechanism.
16 ' JUDGE GLEASON: All right.
17 MR. LANPHER: Why doesn't he'just ask that question.
18 How long has SEMO known?
19 JUDGE GLEASON: I don't want to tell him what 20 question to ask.
21 MR. SISK: I thought I tried to ask that directly a 22 moment ago. Let me just ask it and then if we can't get it 23 directly we may have to go by circumstance.
24 BY MR. SISK:
25 Q How long as SEMO known that Suffolk County had an
( , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21764
) 1 emergency operations' plan?
2 A I thought I answered that. I said obviously in the 3 last couple of months I became aware of it personally, but 4 before that time I could not tell you. I could not give you a 5 specific date.
O Q That's the reason I asked you the other questions.
i 7 That is, --
l 8 JUDGE GLEASON: Excuse me just a minute so I can get' 9 this clear in my own mind. What you're saying, Mr. Geramo, 10 and what I really had understood you to say before, was that 11 up until two months ago you really had not known yourself, 12 personally, that there was a Suffolk County emergency plan.
13 THE WITNESS: Vaguely I did, Judge. I think it's
-O 14 like asking what I know particularly that Yates County has an 15 emergency operations plan. Again, that's not my area of 16 expertise. But I would assume, sir.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: But you are responsible for 18 reviewing county plans, your agency is.
19 THE WITNESS: The agency is, sir.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: So we would assume a Chief of Staff I
21 would know that. If you don't have a recollection that's your l
l 22 testimony. So what is your testimony again, please.
1 23 THE WITNESS: Specifically when I became aware that f 24 Suffolk County has an emergency operations plan, I don't 25 recall.
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21765
(],j 1 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you.
2 BY MR. SISK:
3 Q Mr. Geramo, you stated that you think you know that 4 Yates County has a plan, but you are not specifically aware 5 that they do, is that correct?
6 A The point I'm trying to make is that if you go back 7 in time, the Civil Defense Program gets its genesis from the 8 '50s. In terms of what was done, plans, procedures, certainly 9 things were accomplished at the county level and the state 10 level. Not being one to assume', you would have to realize 11 that counties have been participating for a number of years.
12 Back in the '70s emergency operation planning was something 13 that was done under the auspices of civil defense. Based on 14 that assumption, you would draw a conclusion that counties do 15 have emergency operations plans. That's all I'm saying.
?6 JUDGE GLEASON: So your knowledge is that you assume 17 they had a plan because everybody had plans, but you had no 18 distinct knowledge of the plan.
19 THE WITNESS: No sir, I didn't review them. I l
20 didn't provide assistance in preparing. I wasn't involved at i 21 that level sir.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: I think we ought to go on to 23 something else, Mr. Sisk.
24 BY MR. SISK:
25 Q Mr. Gernmo, are you aware that Mr. Horton recently Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i ,
y :
21766
(
A_h
) 1 obtained a copy of the Suffolk County Emergency Operations 2 Plan?
3 A Yes I am.
4 Q Do you know when he first obtained that copy?
5 A I believe it was back in early May of this year.
6 Q Were you aware that Suffolk County was on the list 7 of counties to be reviewed or assisted with emergency planning 8 during this fiscal year under the emergency management 9 assistance program?
10 A Under the comprehensive cooperative agreement?
11 Q Under the comprehensive cooperative agreement.
12 A Yes I was.
13 Q Were you aware that Suffolk County was on that list l 14 as of 1987? Isn't that when the agreement was negotiated?
15 A Yes. It became effective October of last year, 16 1987.
17 Q Was Suffolk County on a list of counties to receive 18 assistance or a review of its emergency planning in the 13 agreement negotiated in 1985? In other words, is there a 20 three year projection that Suffolk County was known, it was 21 known that they'd be coming up in 1988?
l 22 A All counties were listed at that time, 23 Q All counties in the state of New York?
24 A I don't know whether they were physically identified l 25 in a document, but that was one of the criteria in the l
) Heritage Repo ting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 21767 l) 1 comprehensive cooperative agreement.
2 Q In 19857 3 A I believe so, yes.
4 Q So as of 1985 the state of New York through your
- office basically had made the commitment in the agreement to 6 review and as necessary update plans for all counties in the 7 state of New York?
8 MR..LANPHER: I object. I think we're going back 9 and retreading over this stuff that I thought your questions 10 clarified and you said to move on.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Let's let him answer this. You can 12 answer that if you can, Mr. Geramo.
13 THE WITNESS: Essentially the CCA, comprehensive 14 cooperative agreement, was one that is really between the 15 federal government and the locality that's receiving the 16 dollars. So in terms of the policy and the guidance, yes, 17 they were aware as the rest of the state counties were aware, 18 that planning would have to be done. Emergency operation 19 planning would have to be done or they would not participate 20 in the program.
21 BY MR. SISK:
22 Q That was within three years?
23 A If memory serves me right three years, yes.
24 Q And SEMO was aware of that in 1985?
25 A Yes.
) Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888 i
_ . _ , , . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ e
~
L .
21768
() 1 Q' You said you were involved in coordinating the 2 document production on behalf of SEMO in 1988, and that is in 3 response to Mr. Zahnleuter's request, is that correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Did you say that Mr. DeVito looked' separately for
! 6 the Suffolk County Emergency Operations Plan?
7 A Yes.
8 0 You did not coordinate looking for the Suffolk 9 County Emergency Operations Plan?
10 A No.
11 Q Why was that distinction made in terms of who was 12 coordinating the search for documents?
13 A I really don't recall. It may have been that the 14 call came directly to Mr. DeVito to search for that document 15 as opposed to the call that counsel provided to me. That may 16 have been the rationale behind it. I may have not been in 17 that day. I don't recall.
18 Q So there may have been two separate requests?
19 A I don't recall.
20 Q Was the Suffolk County Emergency Operations Plan 21 the kind of document that you were asked to look for when you 22 were coordinating the document search?
23 A No. To my knowledge, no.
24 Q Were you asked to look for all documents pertaining 25 to emergency planning for Suffolk County?
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 21769
_/ 1 A We were asked specifically to look.for documents 2 that would affect Suffolk County. .That was the instructions 3 given to our staff. As I indicated, the documents, it also 4 went beyond that and asked that we provide documents of an 5 emergency management nature that could be generic and similar 6 to the local guide that was discussed early on in my 7 testimony.
8 Q When you were coordinating, looking for documents, 9 did anyone bring you a copy of the Suffolk County Emergency 10 Operations Plan?
11 A Not to my knowledge, no.
12 Q Did you ask Mr. Horton in the Planning Section to 13 gather documents when you were coordinating the search for 14 documents?
15 A I asked all section chiefs to gather information.
16 Q Mr. Horton is chief of the Planning Section?
17 A He's responsible --
18 Q I'm sorry, I misspoke. Mr. Herskewitz is the head 19 of the Planning Section, is he not?
20 A Yes he is.
21 Q Did you ask Mr. Herskewitz specifically to gather 22 documents relating to emergency planning for Suffolk County?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Did Mr. Herskewitz bring you a copy of the Suffolk 25 County Emergency Operations Plan?
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a 21770
( -
1 A No, I did not receive a copy of the Suffolk County 2 Emergency Operations Plan.
3 Q Did it go to Mr. DeVito at a later point in time?
4 A I don't recall.
5 Q Were you present when the document was given to Mr.
6 DeVito?
7 A No. I don't believe so.
8 Q Do you have any knowledge at all of how Mr. DeVito 9 received the copy of the Suffolk CJunty Emergency Operations 10 Plan that was discovered in SEMG's files in 19887 11 A Again sir, from ger.eral discussions, generalities, 12 but physically where it came from, when it was produced to 13 him, how it was produced to him, by whom, I don't know. I 14 wasn't involved in that.
15 Q What are the generalities you're referring to?
16 A I'm sorry?
17 Q You said something about generalities in -
18 conversation. What were you referring to?
19 A Just hearing about a search for documents, and a 20 follow up search for documents as directed by counsel.
21 Q So there was a follow up search for documents?
22 A Yes. Those were the documents that were provided to 23 Mr. Zahnleuter. The 13 or 14 documents that were provided 24 from our files.
25 Q Is that the one you coordinated?
( Heritage Raporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y E
~21771 1 A Yes.
2 Q Was there a follow up after that?
3 A Not to my knowledge, no.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: May I ask a question, Mr. Sisk?
5 MR. SISK: Yes.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: When you turn over documents like 7 this, Mr. Geramo, do you make a list of those documents for 8 your files?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe we did in this 10 instance, sir.
11- JUDGE GLEASON: how about in prior instances?
12 THE WITNESS: I really can't recall. We've been 13 involved in providing documents in other areas, not anything 14 relating to this hearing but I just can't recall.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: Earlier phases of the litigation?
16 THE WITNESS: No sir, a matter totally not related 17 at all.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you.
19 BY MR. SISK:
20 Q Mr. Geramo, did you make the list you just referred 21 to of documents that you initially gave to Mr. Zahnleuter?
22 A I didn't make it personally, no.
23 Q Do you have a copy of it?
24 A I believe we do.
25 Q Does that list include the Suffolk County Emergency
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
21772 1 Operations Plan?
2 A I would have to check the list. I don't recall.
3 MR. SISK: Judge, we may request the production of 4 that list, unless there is some privilege or something that 5 attaches to it. I think it might assist the record.
6 MS. YOUNG: The staff joins in that request.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: He said he may make that request.
8 MR. SISK: I would like to request its production by 9 the state at this time.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: Any response, Mr. Zahnleuter?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I don't see any basis for having
-12 the list. I made a list when I transferred the documents to 13 Mr. Sisk, and that letter is probably July 5th. This is a O 14 useless fishing expedition in my view.
15 MR. SISK: If Mr. Zahnleuter will represent that Mr.
16 Geramo's list is identical to the list that Mr. Zahnleuter 17 transmitted to me than I don't think we need to see the one 18 from Mr. Geramo. That may require some checking.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I have to state that I've never 20 seen the list. It was never provided to me. I just got 21 documents.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: He may not have the list. The list
! 23 was prepared by Mr. Geramo.
l 24 MR. SISK: Then let me make this request, that Mr.
l 25 Zahnleuter obtain the list and review it. If the list that 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
l l
l 21773 (O,/ 1 Mr. Geramo made is identical to the list contained in Mr. j l
2 Zahnleuter's letter to me, that's good enough, we don't need l 3 to see it. But if the list-is in any respect different, we 4 would like to request production of that list.
5 THE WITNESS: Let me just clarify. I don't believe 6 I said I made the list. I asked that a list be made before 7 the documents were --
8 MR. SISK: I apologize. You said you simply have a 9 copy.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: I believe that's a reasonable 11 request, Mr. Zahnleuter.
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I'll pursue it when I get back to t 13 the office.
l l
(}~^ 14 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, this may be a good time 15 for a short break. The next topic of inquiry will be the 16 memorandum from Mr. Geramo to the local government personnel.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: Let's take a break. Ten minutes.
18 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
19 JUDGE GLEASON: Let's proceed please.
20 BY MR. SISK:
l 21 Q Mr. Geramo, I will ask that a document be handed to 22 you which has been marked as LILCO Exhibit #5 and has been 23 admitted to the record. It is a memorandum dated August 27,
! 24 1987 from you to County Emergency Managers with an attachment, 25 New York State, Local Government Planning Guidance. Prepared
( Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
21774 1 by the State Emergency Management Office, August 1987.
2- This is the document that you discussed with Mr.
3 Zahnleuter on your Direct Examination, is that correct?
4 A Yes it is.
5 Q Did you prepare this document?
6 A This document was prepared by the State Emergency 7 Management Office, yes.
8 Q Was it prepared under your direction and control?
9 A That's correct.
10 MR. LANPHER: Objection. I'd like a clarification 11 there. It appears to me that there are really two documents.
12 It's been marked as one exhibit.
13 MR. SISK: I'm referring to the entire document, 14 including the guidance manual.
15 BY MR. SISK:
16 Q Was it prepared at your direction and control?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q Let me ask you to turn to page one of the 19 introduction of the guidance manual. It comes immediately 20 after the list of attachments.
21 I'll direct your attention to the bottom of the 22 page, the first sentence in the last paragraph. It states, 23 "This document can become an appendix to the county all hazard 24 comprehensive emergency operations plan." Have I quoted that 25 correctly?
( Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888 l
l L
21775
) 1 A Yes you have.
2 Q Mr. Geramo, can you explain to me the meaning of 3 that sentence?
4 A Yes, it refers to the fact that this specific 5 document is a guidance document only. It was intended to 6 facilitate for those 13 counties the production of their 7 documents, whether or not they had something existing or 8 needed to enhance that existing document or prepare something 9 new. The direct quote is really indicating that whatever the 10 county prepares, it's their responsibility that their document 11 in turn should become an annex to the overall county emergency 12 operations plan. That will give us continuity.
13 Q Why did you make reference to an all hazard 14 comprehensive emergency operations plan in this memorandum?
15 A We spent a great deal a couple of hours ago talking 16 about the emergency management assistance program, the Federal 17 Emergency Management Agency, and the comprehensive cooperative 18 agreement. That is with respect to what is done under those 19 programs, the emergency operations plan is prepared in that 20 fashion.
21 Q Correct me if I'm wrong, as of the end of this year 22 all counties in the state of New York will have received 23 assistance in connection with preparing all hazard 24 comprehensive emergency operations plans?
25 A No, that's not correct.
) Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888
21776
() 1 Q That's not correct?
2 A No.
3 Q There will still be some counties that have elected 4 not to participate?
5 A There will still be counties that are not within the 6 emergency asnagement assistance program that will not have 7 assistance from the state in developing comprehensive 8 emergency operations plans.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Geramo, this cooperative 10 agreement you referred to before which you said was an 11 agreement between FEMA and the counties, the government and 12 the counties --
13 THE WITNESS: FEMA, the state and the counties.
14 JUDGE GLEASON: The state was a signatory to the 15 agreement?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes sir.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you.
18 BY MR. SISK:
19 Q Let me take you to the top of page two of that 20 guidance document. It states that "The material and 21 operational data contained within this document reflect the 22 current policies and criteria associated with the radiological l 23 ingestion exposure pathway from the operating nuclear plants 24 located within as well as bordering the state. Attachment 1 25 depicts operating nuclear power plants for which this I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
m
21777
() 1 procedure has been developed."
2 If you turn to Attachment 1, Mr. Geramo, at the end 3 of the document, Attachment 1 is a map, is it not, out of the 4 state Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Isn't that map contained in, I believe it's either 7 Annex K or Procedure K to the state radiological plan?
8 A I believe so, yes.
9 Q That part of the state radiological plan relates to 10 ingestion pathway responses, is that correct?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q On page six of this guidance document near the 13 bottom of the page there's a statement that "For each of these 14 potential ingestion exposure pathways, appropriate otate 15 agencies have operational response and recovery procedures 16 which would be implemented under the direction of the Chairman 17 of the DPC.
18 DPC refers to Disaster Preparedness Commission, is 19 that correct?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q The potential ingestion exposure pathways refers to 22 the items listed further up on the page, that is milk, water, 23 foodstuffs, and animal feeds, is that correct?
24 A That's correct.
25 Q Can you tell me what you're referring to in this
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21778
() 1 passage, that is can you identify for .e the appropriate, the 2 operational response and recovery procedures of the various 3 state agencies that you're referring to in this passage?
4 A You referred to it earlier, and that would be the 5 annex to the state radiological emergency preparedness plan.
6 Q Maybe it would be easier for clarity of the record 7 if we go back to the state radiological plan. That I believe 8 has been marked for identification as LILCO Exhibit #6.
9 (Pause) 10 MR. SISK: I think the appropriate section is 11 Procedure K. Can you turn to that portion? It's about four-12 fifths of the way through the document. It's listed in the 13 table of contents.
O
\' 14 MR. LANPHER: Do you have a Bates number?
15 (Pause) 16 BY MR. SISK:
17 Q Mr. Geramo, that begins on page LO1418. Havo you 18 found that?
19 A Yes I have.
20 Q Procedure K has a number of attachments, does it 21 not?
22 A Yes it does.
23 Q Can you identify for me by flipping through there, 24 since I believe you' re a recipient of this plan, where 25 Procedure K ends? Is it at the end of those pages that had
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21779 fs
('_) 1 "K " at the bottom of them?
2 A It ends at K-23.
3 Q That is page LO1442, Attachment A is that correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Can you flip one page forward to LO1444, and can you 6 tell me what that specifically lists?
7 A LO1444 is part two, Section two of the plan. That-8 consists with a list of maps, resources. It's a table of 9 contents actually of the list.
10 Q Confining our attention then to the pages in 11 Procedure K that were identified as proceeding LO1418 through 12 LO1442, is that the state agency procedure which is referred 13 to at the bottom of page six of your guidance memorandum?
O 14 A Can you repeat the question for me?
15 Q We were speaking when we went to this document, to a 16 sentence at the bottom of page six and the guidance memorandumL 17 that has been admitted as Exhibit #5. That referred to 18 operational response and recovery procedures that apparently 19 are possessed by appropriate state agencies. Is this the 20 operational response and recovery procedures to which you 21 referred in that sentence?
22 A No , the operational response and recovery procedures 23 are contained within the state radiological emergency 24 preparedness plan itself. The plan contains those specific 25 responsibilities and activities of state agencies in the event l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21780
) 1 of an emergency associated with an operating commercial 2 nuclear power plant. The Procedure K merely defines in more 3 detail more or less specific procedures. But it is as an 4 appendix to the overall plan, and as such the material 5 contained in the plan would be utilized by state agencies.
6 So our reference was to the entire plan.
7 Q I see. Are you aware of ar.y, and I'll use your 8 terminology, operational response and recovery procedures that 9 are developed or maintained by various state agencies for an 10 ingestion pathway response other than those contained in the 11 state radiological plan, and I will include within that the 12 various county plans?
13 A I am generally aware that each agency that has a
'= 14 responsibility in the radiological emergency preparedness plan 15 does have, to varying degrees, their own specific operational 16 procedures to' implement what's in the plan.
17 Q Are thosc called standard operating procedures?
18- A They could be, sure.
19 Q Are they separate documents from the state plan l 20 then?
L 21 A They're agency-specific procedures.
22 Q And they would be developed and promulgated by each 23 of the specific agencies?
24 A Yes.
l 25 Q Do you know whether the Department of Health has any
( Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 1
l
. -- . =
-~ --
- t 21781
/~T
(_) 1 such procedures?
2 A I'm aware that they do, yes.
3 Q Do you know what form those documents take? Or did 4 they take the form of documents? Are the procedures set forth 5 in documents?
6 A I have been briefed, and in putting together this '
7 document, am aware that they have specific procedures.
8 Whether they're on paper, wh' ether they're on a blackboard, I 9 don't know the content. I have not reviewed them, if that's 10 what you're getting at.
11 Q Tell me everything you know about such operating 12 procedures by the Department of. Health.
13 A The State Health Department has the responsibility 14 for public safety in the event of an ingestion pathway 15 concern, and as such would be responsible for radiological 16 monitoring and coordination activities and the issuance of 17 protective measures as such, to protect the population. With 18 respect to the monitoring, they would also have 19 responsibilities in the sampling end. The coordination of the 20 taking of samples in the area believed to be concerned from an 21 ingestion pathway.
22 If they have detailed procedures I, to my knowledge, 23 have,not seen them. But in discussion with representatives 24 from the Health Department and the coordination of putting 25 together this document, certain information tras included in
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
U 21782
' ) 1 this document based on their operational procedures that were 2 developed.
3 Q Who are you referring to in the Health Department?
4 A I'm referring to the Bureau of Radiological Health.
5 Q- Is that Dr. Kareem Rimawi? ,
6 A Yes it is.
7 Q Has he assisted you in the preparation of this 8 guidance document?
9 A The Bureau of Radiological Health, yes, they did 10 provide assistance.
11 Q So that is the Bureau within the Department of 12 Health of which Dr. Rimawi is the director, I.believe, is that 13 correct?
O
\~ -
14 A That's correct.
15 Q Has he personally assisted you in preparing this 16 guidance document?
17 A To my knowledge, no. And of course in the plan 3
18 itself there are specific responsibility-oriented and 19 procedural-oriented references to what the Health Department 20 would do in the event of an ingestion pathway emergency.
21 Q In fact this document itself discusses a number of 22 the responsibilities of the Department of Health, specifically
- 23 on page 13 and 14 you've got a summary of that.
24 A Which document is that?
25 Q Your guidance memorandum.
/~h l (/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
- .e 21783
/~
(}/ 1 A Yes it does.
2 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, I have a few questions on 3 the state radiological plan as far as SEMO's role in it. I 4 think in the interest of time it may not be necessary because 5 that document speaks for itself. I believe the radiological 6 plan has been identified and verified by General Papio and by 7 Dr. Axelrod. I believe this witness has stated that he 8 receives a copy of it. I believe it would be appropriate at 9 this time to move the introduction of this document into the 10 record insofar as it mcy go to the question that was discussed 11 earlier, and that is a number of answers that we received in 12 discovery and in testimony and in deposition to the effect 13 that specific resources in fact in these hearings, to the O 14 effect that the state cannot identify resources that could be 15 used in responding to an emergency at Shoreham.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: This is Exhibit 16?
17 MR. SISK: This is Exhibit 46 and I'm moving its 18 introduction.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: Any objection?
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I'm unclear about the purpose for 21 this offer. This radiological emergency preparedness plan was 22 produced in 1984 and on other occasions, so it cannot possibly 23 be part of an allegation that it was not produced in response 24 to a discovery request. I just haven't seen any use of it for 25 the purposes of establishing any inconsistencies or anything.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
.~
4 J '
21784
. 1 I don't see what it's probative of or of what value it could 2 be to the record.
3 MR. LANPHER: Suffolk County joins in that 4 opposition. Further, Mr. Sisk's proffered statement that this 5 document will be used to show some sort of inconsistencies in 6 other answers is just A gross generalization. If there's an 7 allegation that New York State or Suffolk County has been less 8 than forthcoming in discovery, he ought to develop it 9 specifically. We shouldn't be led to guess or to find in 10 closed trial findings some allegation that has not been 11 confronted here before the judges.
12 As Mr. Zahnleuter says, an earlier version of this 13 document, or maybe this very document, was produced in 1984 in O 14 discovery. That was when the New York state government got 15 into this case. So there's no question but that it's been 16 produced.
17 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, the history is a little 18 bit checkered as to this document. I believe the state did 19 produce an earlier version of this plan in 1984, not this 20 specific version. LILCO made document requests again in this 21 proceeding for this particular document. LILCO obtained the 22 document separately, outside the discovery process before it 23 was produced by the state of New York, but after the Board 24 ordered that plans be produced, I believe on May 10. By the 25 time that order had been made we had used this document in
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
e r a 21785 s
/3
%./
5 1 various discovery depositions prior to that_ time. We did not 2 obtain until the Board ordered it late last week the 3 verification that this is in fact the current version of this ,
4 plan.
5 My point does not really go to whether the document 6 was or wasn' t produced, although there are some fuzzy 7 circumstances relating to this particular version of the 8 document. My point goes to the responses that we received in
- 9. discovery to the effect that v .ato personnel could not 10 identify resources that cau.a be used to respond to an 11 emergency at Shorehtm, and this document speaks for itself as 12 to resources identified therein. Lawyers can debate what the 13 significance of that p2.an is, but a number of witnesses have 14 now verified'it, it's been verified under oath by General 15 Papio, it is the state radiological plan, it does have 16 resources listed in it, and I believe it's material to the 17 discovery responses, particularly the answers in the 18 depositions which attempted to evade identifying state 19 resources.
20 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, I want to make a 21 statement because you might object because Mr. Geramo is here.
22 It has something to do with some of the testimony that went on 23 earlier today, and mindful of how you want to sequester 24 witnesses, maybe just briefly Mr. Geramo ought tc be asked to ,
25 leave the room, because there was testimony earlier today, and Heritage Reporting Corporatio (202) 628-4888
.y-s 21786
( 1 I think it's very germane to that very point.
l 8 l 2 JUDGE GLEASON: Do you want to step outside a minute l
L 3 Mr. Geramo, and close the door out there. Don't go too far l
4 away.
5 (Witness leaves room.)
6 MS, YOUNG: Is he being asked to step out of earshot 7 of the room?
8 MR. LANPHER: He's not going to stand by the door 9 and listen. Give the guy a break.
10 MS. YOUNG: Relax. The only reason I ask is on 11 Tuesday we had a report that some people could hear 12 proceedings going on outside the door. I'm not sure that Mr.
13 Geramo understood that, because he was seated outside the room f) k/ 14 this morning.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: I'm not going to have him sent 16 downstairs. Just step outside the room and close the door, 17 please.
18 I understand, but we don't have to do a James Bond 19 bit here.
20 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, the reason I asked him 21 to go out of the room, this morning Dr. Axelrod, or maybe it 22 was early this afternoon, was asked questions about his 23 testimony, about why resources couldn't be identified along 24 those lines. The record will speak for itself. If Mr. Sisk 25 wanted to allege that there was some inconsistency about what Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - --- .-- J
i.
B 21787
( 1 Dr. Axelrod was saying, he should have Frought this to his 2 attention and pursued questions, to try and'get it in now 3 after Dr. Axelrod has gotten back on a plane back to Albany, I
) 4 think is hiding the ball. It's just not the proper way to be i 5 doing Cross-Examination.
6 There is no inconsistency. Dr. Axelrod answered 7 forthrightly why New York State did not identify resources.
8 That testimony is in the record. There is no inconsistency.
9 They haven't been hiding something in discovery. This has 10 been presented in discovery. and then Dr. Axelrod testified in 11 deposition, he testified here before you.
12 Thess sort of generalized allegations of 13 inconsistencies, I think just carry no weight whatsoever, and O- 14 if they really thought there was an inconsistency it should 15 have been put before Dr. Axelrod.
16 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, if I may. I believe that 17 I walked Dr. Axelrod through the portion of his deposition in 18 which he was asked specifically about this radiological plan 19 in ite entirety and whether that document identified any 20 resources that could b. used to respond to an emergency at 21 Shoreham. The answer that he gave at his deposition was very 22 similar to the answer he gave beforo the Board, that is that 23 he could not identify specific resources end he could not say 24 whether any specific resource set forth in that plan could or 25 could not, might or might not be used in response to an
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
cw
' 21788 G(j 1 emergency at Shoreham, o
2 To bring the matter to a head, Judge Gleason, we 3 just don't believe that that statement is credible. We don't
. 4 believe it was credible at the time it was made in the 5 deposition. We don't believe it was credible when it was made 6 before the Board today. We belinve 6.he document disputes it.
7 I've asked the witness the questions and I have his answer and 8 I'm stuck with what's in the record, But I'm entitled to put 9 the document in that refutes those statements.
10 MR. LANPHER: Is he calling Dr. Axelrod a liar? I 11 think we ought to get that on the record, too. Is that what 12 he's saying?
13 JUDGE GLEASON: Everything's on the record.
14 MR. LANPHER: Is that what you're alleging?
15 MR. SISK: I said what I said.
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like to make a statement, 17 please, if I may. I think this raises an important question 18 of fairness and due process, because in a normal hearing there 19 are allegations, there are issues, and those things are cet 20 forth in the beginning, and in effect the NRC's rules and 21 regulations establish that same kind of system for licensing 22 proceedings. The purpose of that is to advise the parties 23 what the accusations are, to let the parties know what the 24 matters are in controversy, and to allow the parties to 25 present their cases on each point.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y r ,
t
~
217'89
.f'hi
's- 1 What's developing here in this proceeding, and this 2 is a very good example of it, is a system where documents are 3 being introduced into evidence and witnesses are making 4- statements on the witness stand, all out in the open with no 5 cohesion:at all, and then in post-hearing findings LILCO~will 6 match-this with that and come up with an allegation of wrong -
7 doing or misconduct. That's an improper way.to conduct the-8 proceeding because it denies the party who's accused of wrong-9 doing the opportunity to adequately defend itself against the.
10 charges, especially when the charges are placed together in' 11 the end of the proceeding after all of the witnesses have 12 testified and all of the evidence is in.
13 I think this is an improper use of the state plan, O 14 although the state plan does speak for itself and it has been 15 produced and there have been no fuzzy circumstances 16 surrounding its production. The material that's in it speaks 17 for itself, but it's an improper use of the plan to offer it 18 into evidence to make a future allegation of misconduct which 19 no one can later refute. s 20 MR. SISK: Judge Gleasori, if I may. I think all 21 parties can file legal briefs, findings, whatever it's 22 determined the Board wants after this proceeding, and I'm sure 23 the state will file one, and I think that affords it due 24 process.
25 MS. YOUNG: Judge Gleason, if the staff may be heard Heritage haporting Corporation (20%) 628-4888
c.-- o
- e. m.g U
21790
( 1 for just a moment.
2 JUDGE GLEASCN: Pru eed.
3 MS. YOUNG: Just a short response to some of Mr.
4 Zahnleuter's comments.
5 The nature of this proceeding, although in many 6 respects is like a formal hearing, is in some aspects a Board-7 conducted deposition. There was really no full-fledged 8 discovery period that preceded these proceedings, and to that 9 extent the Board has allowed certain liberalness and different 10 linos of questioning pursued by various counsel.
11 As a result, yes it's not always apparent what 12 direction the proceeding has taken, what allegations will be 13 made in post-hearing findings, but in terms of the order of l
14 the findings normally set forth, intervenors will have an 15 opportunity to reply to any allegations made by LILCO in its 16 findings, but also request at that time that the record be 17 reopened to consider any additional testimony of witnesses by 18 the state or the county.
19 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, the UCS decision on 20 exercises which admittedly was on some other topics, my clear
( 21 recollection in 735 F2nd, I believe that's the cite, said the l
22 method of reopening the record in that context was not 23 adequate. Everyone knows how hard it is to open an NRC 24 record.
i l 25 JUDGE GLEASON: Let's relax.
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l l
l
21791 A
(,) 1 (Pause) 2 JUDGE GLEASON: The Court concludes that we ought to 3 let the document in and deny the objection.
4 I might say that there is a basic point that has 5 been raised which is a point of fairness, and that is that, 6 and we're letting it in on the basis that there may be some 7 relevance to it. I think Ms. Young is right to a certain 8 extent on her comments, which I have attempted to point out 9 myself, unsuccessfully I might say, to some parties on 10 numerous occasions in these proceedings, that this is not, Mr.
11 Zahnleuter, a usual plaintiff proceeding that we're engaged in 12 here. In the ordinary rules you kind of assume there is going 13 to be a voluntary discovery worked between the parties and 14 that it's going to work. Generally in litigation the court 15 should not be involved in these discovery matters, and things 16 should have worked much more harmoniously than it certainly 17 has in this proceeding.
18 Nevertheless, we are where we are. There is, I 19 think, a fundamental point of fairness we have to be concerned 20 about and that is for people to be able to use something that 21 is in the record in a way that does not allow the other 22 parties to comment on it. I think we will address that at the 23 proper time to make sure there is protection for that.
24 So on that basis, we'll let, I'm not willing to 25 elaborate right now on just what way that will be carried out, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4" 21792
) 1 I'm going to wait until the end of the hearing.
2 MR. LANPHER: Judge, I'd like just a clarification.
3 I hear your ruling. I'm not asking for the post-trial i 4 procedures at this time. But I still don't understand the 5 relevance. Is LILCO disputing that it got the New York State 6 Radiological Emergency Response Plan in 1984?
7 JUDGE GLEASON: No , well we don't know, but they 8 probably dispute they got this version.
9 MS. YOUNG: This is 1987.
10 MR. LANPHER: This is the 1987 version. Of course 11 they didn't get this in '84.
12 MR. SISK: We got an earlier version in 1984.
13 MR. LANPHER: And you got this here, at least, in
\- 14 the 1988 document production, right?
15 JUDGE GLEASON: Just very recently. That's what 16 their point is.
17 MS. YOUNG: That's when the document production was.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: But there is still a question which 19 has not been really addressed here, and we don't want to get 20 into it because you can discuss this as to whether one should 21 have waated on a Board order to produce certain documents, I 22 think this tends to go to some of the controversy that's 23 existing here.
24 In any event, the document is admitted.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.__ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ .______-______A
q ri l
21793 1 (The document referred to, 2 having been previously marked 3 for identification as 4 Exhibit (6, was received in 5 evidence.)
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Does that finish your questions, Mr.
7 Sisk?
8 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, I have very, very few 9 other questions about three additional documents.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: Would you ask Mr. Geramo to come 11 back in please?
12 (Pause, witness returns to room.)
13 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Sisk assures me that he only has 14 a very few questions remaining, Mr. Geramo.
15 THE WITNESS: Judge, if I may sir. On Tuesday you 16 swore me in, you sequestered me. I understand what the term 17 sequester means. Let me assure you, as I did at the opening 18 of this testimony, I in no way, shape, manner, or form 19 discussed the case, sir.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you.
21 BY MR. SISK:
22 Q Mr. Geramo, I will ask that you be handed a document 23 that has been marked for identification as LILCO Exhibit #4.
24 It is a memorandum dated, or a presentation dated October 25, 25 1987 concerning the Ginna congestion pathway exercise, and
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L.
l 21794 p/
s_
1 while you are having a look at that document, Mr. Geramo, I 2 believe you stated that the guidance document we've been 3 referring to is one that related to the Ginpa exercise, is 4 that correct?
5 A It did more than relate. It was prepared 6 specifically for that exercise, sir.
7 Q Have you ever seen this particular document before?
8 That is presentation on R.E. Ginna ingestion pathway exercise?
9 A No, it's not familiar.
10 Q Let me ask you whether you know Mr. Lawrence A.
11 Check who is listed on the cover?
12 A Yes I do.
13 Q What is Mr. Check's position?
O 14 A He is with the Radiological Emergency Preparedness 15 Group.
16 Q Did Mr. Check assist you in any way in the 17 preparation of the guidance document that we referred to l
18 earlier that was prepared under your direction?
19 A Yes, he was involved in that preparation.
20 Q Let me ask you to turn to page six of Exhibit #4 21 that has just been placed before you. I'm going to quote a 22 passage and ask you whether you agree with that statement, and
- 23 if you do not, to clarify it.
l l 24 It states, "Although advised on recommended 25 protective actions, the surrounding counties were not required
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
21795 O(_/ 1 to take an active response role during the exercise. However, 2 during su actual large scale emergency the counties would have 3 been requested to provide the following types of support:
4 monitor public water supplies, e.g. open reservoirs; provide 5 information on local agricultural activities; guiding state 6 and federal responders; and support state ingestion pathway 7 response as required."
8 Is that a correct statement in the first sentence of 9 the county's participation in the Ginna exercise?
10 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, I object to the 11 question. The witness testified that he's never seen this 12 document. He's now been asked --
13 MR. SISK: I'm asking him about the facts, not the 14 document.
15 MR. LANPHER: Excuse me. Could I finish my 16 objection?
17 He's now been asked to testify whether this is a 18 correct statement, one isolated statement out of this entire 19 document. He hasn't been asked to read the entire document 20 which runs 14 pages single spaced. I don't think he should be 21 allowed to ask any questions about it since the witness is not 22 familiar with it, but if he's going to be asked questions he 23 ought to be given an opportunity to familiarize himself with 24 the whole document.
25 JUDGE GLEASON: I really think you ought to lay a
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
a
(:
i 21796
) 1 better foundation, Mr. Sisk, for that kind of a question.
2 BY MR. SISK:
3 Q Mr. Geramo, did you observe the Ginna exercise?
4 A No I did not.
5 Q Were you present in any respect at the Ginna 6 exercise?
7 A Yes I was.
8 Q Where were you during that exercise?
9 A I was in Building 22 in Albany.
10 Q What was your role in that exercise?
11 A I was part of the State Emergency Management 12 office's operation.
13 Q What is the State Emergency Management Office's 14 operation?
15 A We do a number of things. We' re responsible for the-16 coordination of the emergency operation center in Albany, 17 responsible for alert and notification, responsible for 18 provision of information, and also coordinate activities 19 within the command room for the decision makers.
20 Q Does the State Emergency Management Office also have 21 various responsibilities that are delineated in Procedure K of 22 the radiological plan?
23 A Of the state radiological plan?
24 Q Yes.
25 A Yes we do.
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l
l 21797 :
n
~
(_) 1 Q Do you know from the participation that you've 2 described in the Ginna exercise whether, what the role of the 3 counties was in the ingestion pathway response, and by that I 4 mean the counties outside the --
5 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, I object to that 6- question. What the counties did in the Ginna exercise of 7 October 1987 is totally irrelevant to whether there has been 8 compliance with the Board's discovery orders in the Shoreham 9 proceeding. I don't understand how this is possibly relevant'.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: As I've said so many times before, 11 Mr. Lanpher, you may be right, but you may be wrong, so the 12 objection is denied, and you will answer the question. ,
13 MR. LANPHER: If I'm right and you let him answer O 14 the question, then my client's rights are being --
15 JUDGE GLEASON: What I'm saying to you is that you 16 can't determine that at this particular time.
17 MR. LANPHER: Why can't you ask the counsel to 18 explain why this is relevant? He should have to answer my 19 objection.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: I'm going to deny your objection 21 because we're not going to proceed that way. We've not had 22 discovery before this proceeding. The witness will respond to 23 the question please.
24 BY MR. SISK:
25 Q Mr. Geramo, given the participation in the Ginna
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y 1
21798 O
\_/ 1 exercise, your own participation as you just described it, are 2 you aware of the level or degree of participation of counties 3 in the ingestion pathway portions of that exercise?
4 A No, I'm not aware of the specific level. As I 5 recall, there was no requirement for any of the counties to 6 specifically participate. That was the genesis from the 7 exercise objectives. The winds and who was going to be 8 affected, obviously, was not known. This was an unannounced 9 exercise.
10 With respect to what detail each county may or may 11 not have implemented their own procedure to support such an 12 operation, I'm not aware of it.
13 Q Mr. Geramo, as between the county government and the
\~# 14 state government in an ingestion pathway response, which level 15 of government takes the lead on the ingestion pathway 16 response?
17 A That's a difficult question to answer. Obviously 18 the first line of defense would be at the county level, and 19 that would be the County Chief Executive's responsibility.
20 However, when you talk about a radiological ingestion pathway 21 response there are certain activities, obviously, that the 22 state would take the lead on such as monitoring and sampling.
23 So with respect to answering the question yes or no, it's 24 difficult. It's a joint procedure.
25 Q Did you engage in lecturing certain county emergency A
(_) Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t.
21799-1 managers in preparation for the Ginna exercise?
2 A I provided awareness information, yes.
3 Q Did you also make oral presentations at certain 4 meetings?
5 A Yes I did.
6 Q At those meetings did you discuss the issue of 7 whether the state or the counties would take the lead or 8 primary role in the ingestion pathway response?
9 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, I object again. We've 10 had a bunch more questioning. Mr. Sisk has not tied it to any 11 issue in this proceeding. I think now you're in a position to 12 rule on my objection.
13 JUDGE GLEASON: I'm not in that position yet. Your 14 objection is denied.
15 Please proceed.
16 BY MR. SISK:
17 Q During the lectures that you gave in preparation for 18 the ingestion pathway response, did your lectures include any 19 statements concerning whether the state or the counties would 20 take the leading responsibility in the ingestion pathway 21 response?
22 A Yes, I believe we did discuss it.
23 Q Do you recall what you said at those lectures?
24 A Specifically no, only what I answered to you a 25 minute ago in terms of your last question. It would be a
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
?K 21800 s.) 1 shared responsibility. There are certain activities that the.
2 state would be better suited to implement, and that's the way 3 the procedure for the ingestion pathway and specifically for 4 Ginna was written. On the other hand, in terms of decision 5 making, coordination with public information, that is 6 something that would be shared. That is the way the procedure 7 is written, and I believe the way the state plan is written as 8 well.
9 Q When you say that you were lecturing various, I 10 assume this was various county emergency managers at this 11 time, is that correct?
12 A That's correct.
l 13 Q You were trying to brief them on what they were 7-l (_) 14 expected to do during the exercise, is that correct?
15 A Even more basic than that. What was the exercise, 16 what was the purpose of it, what would it evaluate, what was 17 the federal criteria, what was the state's responsibility, l
18 local government responsibilities, when was the window for the 19 exercise, what was the generic document, guidance document 20 that was prepared, what did that contain in it, relative 21 information with respect to the exercise.
22 Q I'm going to hand you a document that I will ask be 23 marked for identification as LILCO Exhibit (42.
l 24 JUDGE GLEASON: LILCO Discovery Exhibit #42.
b x/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
f
21801 f%.
v._) 1 (The document referred to was 2 marked for identification as 3 LILCO Discovery Exhibit (42.)
4 MR. SISK: It is a June 1, 1987 letter to the 5 Chairman of the Yates County legislature from Mr. Donald 6 DeVito and it has attached to it an ingestion pathway public 7 awareness meeting agenda. The letter is dated June 1, 1987.
8 The agenda appears to be for a meeting of June 18, 1987.
9 BY MR. SISK:
10 Q This was produced to LILCO in discovery within the 11 past few days by the state of New York. Is the letter from 12 Mr. DeVito a letter that's sent out to various county 13 representatives in order to announce this briefing meeting on O 14 June 18, 19877 15 MR. LANPHER: I object to the question. He hasn't 16 even established whether Mr. Geramo is familiar with this 17 letter. Mr. DeVito was here the other day, but he wasn't 18 asked questions about this for some reason.
19 MR. SISK: I'm sorry. I'm trying to save time.
20 BY MR. SISK:
21 Q Mr. Geramo, do you recognize the signature on this 22 letter?
23 A Yes I do.
24 Q Is that Mr. DeVito's signature?
25 A Yes it is.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
?:
21802
) 1 Q Are you the Chief of Staff of Mr. DeVito?
2 A Yes I am.
3 Q Have you ever seen this letter before?
4 A Yes I have.
5 Q Have you ever seen the attached agenda before?
6 A Yes I have.
7 Q Did you make a presentation in accordance with the 8 notation on that agenda?
9 A Yes.
10 Q If you'll look at line item under 10:30, overview of 11 REP program, Anthony Geramo. Was that the portien of the 12 program or a portion of the program that you presented?
13 A Yes.
14 Q What is the REP program?
15 A That's the state's radiological emergency 16 preparedness program. Actually it goes beyond that. It's the 17 REP, generally the REP program, radiological emergency 18 preparedness program.
19 Q So that would include elements both of SEMO's 20 responsibilities and REPIC's responsibilities, is that 21 correct?
22 A And federal responsibilities. Based on NUREG-0654 23 and other documents.
24 Q So when you say REP program, that would include 25 federal responsibilities, state responsibilities, both SEMO Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888 L
4 21803
) 1- and REPIC, is that correct?
2 A That's correct.
3 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, I object again. We've 4 been 15 minutes now on the Ginna exercise. He has not 5 connected this in any way to the Shoreham proceeding. This.
6 letter makes no reference to Shoreham or the Shoreham 7 proceedings whatsoever. I think it's time to rule on the 8 objection. This line of questioning is not in order.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: It's not time at this point.
10 Objection denied.
11 BY MR. SISK:
12 Q Mr. Geramo c look down in that outline where it says 13 to include, is that an outline of the components of the 14 presentation you covered?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Under the line that says "first line of response:"
17 can you interpret for me what that means over on the right, 18 "Plume, county ingestion, state?"
19 A What it's saying is that for, as identified in the 20 plan, as identified in the federal criteria with respect to 21 the differences between the exposure pathway and the ingestion 22 pathway, there are some different operational philosophies and 23 procedures that have been developed. With respect to the 24 plume exposure pathway, the county in the way the state plan, 25 local plans, county plans, and the utility plans have been Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l I
I 21804 l
I
(~') i T_/ 1 developed indicate that the county is the first line of~ '
2' defense for those situations. And although, as I said before, 3 it's not easy to give a yes/no answer in that regard, it is a 4 coordinated effort. It has to be a coordinated effort.
5 With respect to ingestion, predominantly because of 6 resources, because of the laboratory capability, sampling, the 7 state would assume and be responsible for those activities and 8 not rely on the counties for sampling and radiological 9 monitoring.
10 Q That is as you stated earlier, in accordance with 11 the state plan and more specifically Procedure K of that plan, 12 is that correct?
13 A Yes.
O 14 Q Do you know Mr. Richard Watts?
15 A I know of him, yes.
16 Q Do you know whether he was present at that meeting?
17 A I believe he was.
18 Q Richard Watts' name also appeared, did it not, on 19 Exhibit #4 which you were shown, the presentation on the 20 ingestion pathway exercise? On the front cover of that 21 document.
22 A Yes.
23 Q Do you know if Mr. Watts observed the exercise?
24 A I don't know.
25 Q r.n your 1Ane of responsibility at the State
() Het!tage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21805 1 Emergency Management Office, do you have any notification 2 responsibilities in connection with radiological accidents at 3 nuclear power plants?
4 A For the State Emergency Management Office? Yes.
5 Q Let me ask that you be shown a document that has 6 been identified as E'xhibit #7 and introduced into the record.
7 (Pause) 8 Q That is a procedure RAD-320 dated October 11, 1984 9 from the State Department of Health, Division of Environmental 10 Protection, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection.
11 Have you ever seen that document before?
12 A Yes I have.
13 Q Can you tell me what it is?
O 14 A As you stated, this is the Bureau of Environmental 15 Radiation Protection's document for radiological emergencies.
16 It's really their alert notification procedure.
17 Q Do you have a separate alert notification procedure 18 within the State Emergency Management Office?
19 A For radiological emergencies?
20 Q Yes.
21 A No.
22 O Is this the notification procedure, the one you have 23 before you, the one that has been used?
24 A Nithin our office we have an alert and notification 25 procedure for all emergencies. Essentially what you see Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
q 21806
) 1 listed on page four of six in this document for the State 2 Emergency Management Office is the essential procedure. But 3 this is not our procedure.
4 Q Let me ask you to turn to the last page of that 5 document. There is a listing for Suffolk County Health 6 Department, and there is a listing for Mr. Robert J. Shepherd.
7 Are you familiar with Mr. Shepherd?
8 A I know of him, yes.
9 Q Have you ever met him?
10 A I believe I have.
11 Q In what context have you met him?
12 A I don't recall.
13 Q Have you met him on multiple occasions or just one 14 time?
15 A I may have, but I just don't recall.
16 Q Do you recall whether he has ever attended any 17 exercises for nuclear plants inside or outside the state of 18 New York? Do you know?
19 A Not to my knowledge. No, I don't know.
! 20 Q The last document I want to show you is entitled l
21 Brookhaven National Laboratory Emergency Response Plan, 22 revised July 1987. It's a very thick piece of paper.
l 23 MR. SISK: I'll ask that that be marked as LILCO 24 Exhibit #43.
25 JUDGE GLEASON: That will be designated as LILCO
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21807-
_) 1 Discovery Exhibit #43.
2 (The document referred to was 3 marked for identification as 4 LILCO Discovery Exhibit #43) 5 BY MR. SISK:
6 Q Mr. Geramo, I will state for the record that LILCO 7 has been informed that Dr. Kareem Rimawi of the State 8 Department of Health r'.iceived a copy of this document at some 9 point in time from the United States Department of Energy. Let 10 me ask you whether you have ever seen a copy of this document 11 before?
12 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, I'm not sure what 13 evidentiary status this sort of information being provided by 14 counsel that Mr. Rimawi stated --
15 MR. SISK: None.
16 MR. LANPHER: I'd like to inquire how he knows that 17 to be a fact.
18 MR. SISK: My statement is not evidence. I'm trying 19 to help the witness.
20 MR. LANPHER: It's supposed to help the witness, and 21 if it's supposed to help the witness, I think we' re all 22 entitled to know how he allegedly knows this.
23 MR. SISK: I will simply say that a representative 24 of the Department of Energy informed LILCO that this document 25 was distributed to a number of individuals, and one of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
h 21808 ki A people who was listed as a recipient is Dr. Kareem Rimawi of 2 the New York State Bureau of Environmental Radiation 3 Protection, Department of Health.
4 MR. LANPHER: Can you tell us who from the 5- Department of Energy?-
6 MR. SISK: No.
7 MR. LANPHER: Why not?
8 JUDGE GLEASON: Why not?
9 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, I'm sorry, is the Board 10 .asking us to identify the source within the Department of 11 Energy?
12 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes.
13 MR. SISK: I believe Mr. Irwin got that informat$ ni.
O 14 i R. IRWIN: The information was provided to me from 15 sources whom I do not know located in the national laboratory 16 via a contact in the DOE Office of Nuclear in Washington named 17 Marian Novak.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: Is this a document you recognize, 19 Mr. Geramo? Have you ever seen this before?
20 THE WITNESS: No sir, I have not.
21 BY MR. SISK:
22 Q Have you ever seen any version of any plan for 23 responding to emergencies at the Brookhaven National 24 Laboratory?
25 A I may have, but I don't recall. I'm familiar with
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
cc p
I a
b L ,
21809 1 their procedure for responding to radiological emergencies, 2 but in terms of.whether I specifically recall seeing any one 3 of their publications,'I don't.
4 Q What procedure are you referring to?
5 A What's contained in the- state radiological plan in 6 terms of federal assistance in'the event of an emergency.
7 Q So you're referring to assistance by DOE personnel 8 from Brookhaven for a response to a radiological emergency at 9 some other location, is that what you're referring to?
10 A Any type of radiological emergency, really.
11 Q That's the so-called DOE RAP program?
12 A Yes.
13 MR. SISK: That's all I have.
O 14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I think this might be an 15 appropriate time for me to make another motion to strike, 16 because there are questions relating to LILCO Exhibit #4 and 17 (42 that were allegedly related to this proceeding, and they 18 were supposed to be tied into the issues, and I never saw 19 anything develop out of them except I think Mr. Sisk's line of 20 questioning concluded with some correlation between the
~
21 presence of Mr. Watts at one of Mr. Geramo's conferences and 22 his name on tha cover of one of the documents. I don't think 23 that line of questioning generated any relevant information.
24 So at this time at the conclusion of Mr. Sisk's 25 questioning, I ask that testimony he elicited be stricken.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
..,- -- , .-,--n--, , - - - - - . - . , -
- .n. --- . . - >
21810 1 ,
MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, I don't think I can 2 respond to that in the presence of the witness.
2 JUDGE GLEASON: I didn't hear you, Mr. Sisk.
4 MR. SISK: If the Board wants a response to that, I 5 don't believe I can respond in the presence of the witness.
6 MR. LANPHER: He's finished with the witness, I 7 thought.
8 MR. SISK: I'm finished with the witness. Other 9 parties are not.
10 JJDGE GLEASON: I really think, I'm going to deny 11 the objs Y. ion and move this proceeding on. Let's proceed.
12 MR. ZARNLEUTER: May I have a rationale for the 13 deniaA; O 14 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes, time is getting late. That's 15 enough rationale for the moment. I also might say that 16 because a lot of these things have to be connected with other 17 statements, other documents, it's an unusual proceeding and I 18 just don't think we can be that precise at this time of the 19 day to make those kind of judgments.
20 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, I will say that the line 21 of questioning I believe does relate directly to other 22 statements and documents that are in the record.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: I understand.
24 MR. LANPHER: I join Mr. Zahnleuter's motion on 25 behalf of Suffolk County. And I don't know to what Mr. Sisk
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
, Ul 21811 p) s_ 1 is referring to, we're entitled to know, I don't know if I 2 should do questions of Mr. Geramo because there is some 3 allegation against Suffolk County. I'm at a total loss to 4 understand what relevance any of that has. So unless he 5 connects it I think you ought to grant Mr. Zahnleuter's S motion.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: Well I'm not going to grant it.
8 I've denied it and I want to move on please.
9 Do you have questions of the staff?
10 MS. YOUNG: Yes.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Proceed, please.
12 BY MS. YOUNG:
13 Q Mr. Geramo, let's go back to the time that Mr.
O 14 Zahnleuter asked you to provide documents responsive to LILCO 15 discovery requests. Do you remember when he first made that 16 request of you?
17 A The specific date I don't, but it was some time 18 within a month and a half ago. Between that time and 19 yesterday. I just don't have a specific date.
20 Q Briefly again, what was the scope of the search you 21 were to do in terms of the documents?
22 A If you're asking me to narrow it down, it had to be 23 some time June, sometime in that time frame. The specific 24 date I don't know.
25 0 You believe he first asked you in June?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
21812
() 1 A Some time in that time frame, yes.
2 Q Do you remember his specific words to you? I think 3 I heard you testify that you received a phone call asking you 4 to find documents.
5 A Yes. Specifically he asked for documents that we 6 would have in our files that may affect Suffolk County.
7 Q On how many different occasions did you meet with 8 him concerning that search for documents?
9 A It had to be at least three or four meetings and I 10 would say a similar number of phone calls, so probably six, 11 eight, nine times in terms of discussion.
12 O When was your last meeting regarding production of 13 documents?
14 A I'm trying to recall. It had to be approximately 15 two weeks ago.
16 Q During those occasions were you ever asked to review 17 written interrogatories?
18 MR. LANPRER: I can't hear you.
19 MS. YOUNG: I'm sorry.
20 BY MS. YOUNG:
21 Q Were you ever asked to review written 22 interrogatories?
23 A I was provided with some information, and in 24 particular reviewed statements that were made by Dr. Axelrod 25 in direct testimony and also a statement by the Governor.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
21813
^- f'%
_/ - 1 Aside from that I really was given nothing special to review.
2 Q You weren't given any documents with a list of 3 questions for you to answer, to respond to?
4 A No.
5 Q When you say you were asked to search for docuuonts 6 that could be applied to Suffolk County I think .' heard y,7u 7 eay.
8 A That would affect Suffolk County.
9 Q Did you understand that to mean you were supposed 10 to look for Suffolk County specific documents, or documents 11 that were more of a generic 7ature?
12 A I assumed that to mean both, and we looked and 13 searched diligently for documents that were either provided by f, _\
~
14 Suffolk County that contained the word Suffolk County in them, 15 or generic application that could be made to Suffolk County.
16 Q Uow were the documents transmitted to counsel?
17 A I belie - they were transmitted by inter-agency mail 18 under the state syst n.
19 Q Was there any time that counsel for the state of New 20 York came to your offices te review documents that you had 21 collected?
22 A I don't recall.
23 Q Did the request for docuaonts, to your 24 understanding, also have relevancy to planning documents that 25 could be used in radiological emergencies in general?
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
21814
/7)
(/ 1 A Yes.
2 Q I believe you said at one time your duties for the 3 State Emergency Management Office included being a 4 radiological defense officer?
5 A No, I didn't say that.
6 0 I withdraw that question.
7 If you could turn for a moment to Exhibit #5, that's 8 the August 27, 1987 memo from you to the 13 county managers I 9 think you said.
10 A That's correct.
11 Q Turn to page 33 as indicated by the telecopied page.
12 It's Attachment 7 near the end of that document.
_ 13 (Pause) 14 Q I believe I heard you say in testimony that you 15 didn't believe this guidance document was pertinent to 16 anything in relationship to Suffolk County, is that correct?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q I see Suffolk County is listed as part of the alert 19' notification procedure for Indian Point for this Attachment 7 20 that I've directed your attention to.
21 A It's part of the ingestion exposure pathway alert 22 notification procedure, yes.
23 Q Is it your testimony that the document attached to 24 your memo is so specific that it could never have any 25 application for Suffolk County?
Il
\s_/ Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
21815 rm
(_) 1 A You're asking me to speculate, but the document, as 2 I said, was prepared for the 13 counties. I won't suppoae, 3 but you're asking me to speculate.
4 Q I think I understood your testimony to indicate the L initial purpose for the preparation of the document. My G question is a different one.
7 Is it your belief this document could not be used by 8 Suffolk County for the purpose of disaster preparedness 9 planning?
10 A Again, you're asking me to speculate.
11 MR. LANPHER: I object to the question. Cannot be 12 used by Suffolk County? Is that your question?
13 MS. YOUNG: This document, he indicated I believo, G
J 14 Judge Gleason, in earlier testimony today that this was the 15 guidance document that contained some generic guidance, but it 16 was prepared specifically for 13 counties. My question is, is 17 it his belief that this document is not so generic in nature 18 that Suffolk County would neve - have c.gr use of it in terms of 19 disaster preparedness plans.
20 MR. LANPHER: I object. That calls for speculation 21 about what Suffolk County could do. Mr. Geramo can't 22 speculate on that.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: He's an expert. Let him speculate.
24 MR. LANPHER: Even experts aren't allowed to 25 speculate, Judge.
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1
21816 s- l k_y1 1 JUDGE GLEASON: Let him give his opinion, please.
2 Answer the question in terms of what your best 3 judgment is.
4 THE WITNESS: Again, Judge, I would not want.to 5 speculate. It is up to the county to determine what in 6 particular they would like to see included in any plan.
7 That's the way this was developed, as a guidance document.
8 That's all I can say.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: You've got an answer.
10 BY MS. YOUNG:
11 Q Do you believe that the guidance in this document is 12 so specific that Suffolk County would not be able to use this l 13 document for emergency planning purposes?
O 14 MR. LANPHER: Objection. That was asked and ,
15 answered, Judge.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: Objection denied. Let him answer 17 it.
18 THE WITNESS: One more time I'll say it. The 19 document was prepared specifically as a guidance document for 20 13 counties for the Ginna ingestion pathway exercise. It was 21 not prepared for any other response in any other portion of 22 the state, nor any other operating nuclear reactor.
23 In terms of whether or not any other county in the 24 state other than the 13 could take this document and utilize 25 it, there is no mandate for it. It was never designed with
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l:
21817 1 that in mind, nor is there any statutory authority for that.
2 Whether or not another county _could use it, it's purely 3 speculation. The planning for that type of an incident is 4 site specific and has to be done so. The federal criteria 5 states that, NUREG-0654, as well as I believe the state plan.
6 So I can' t speculate and prov' an answer.
7 BY MS. YOUNG:
8 Q So your testimony is that the generic guidance in 9 this document is so specific to Ginna that no other county in 10 New York State could use it for emergency planning purposes.
11 MR. LANPHER: I object. That mischaracterizes ---
12 JUDGE GLEASON: That is a mischaracterization of his 13 testimony.
14 MS. YOUNG: Maybe I'm misunderstanding something 15 you're saying.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: Let's move on because we don't 17 really want to go over it again.
18 MS. YOUNG: All right, I'll withdraw the question.
I 19 BY MS. YOUNG:
20 Q I that same document could you turn to, I believe 21 it's Attachment 11. The telecopied page 37^. That's a table 22 that reads Task / Responsibilities for Ingestion Pathway 23 Planning.
24 A Yes.
25 Q The left column hrs a listing of departments. The
( Hnritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
1 4
l
.i 21818 1- first is Department of Health. I think in response to 2 questions from Mr. Sisk you indicated that Department of 3 Health had procedures for disaster preparedness, is that 4 correct?
5 A I believe they have procedures for what's contained 6 in this document, yes.
7 Q Is it your understanding that LILCO Discovery 8 Exhibit #7 may be one of the procedures of the Department of ,
9 Health?
10 A This is the #7, for all radiological emergencies by 11 the Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection.-
12 Q That's correct.
13 A Yes.
t }
'V 14 Q Dated 10/11/84.
15 A Yes.
16 Q Are you aware of whether the other agencies listed 17 on the table have procedures that are written?
18 A Again, I'll give the same answer. It's the agency's
~' 19 responsibility. How they determine what form tlie procedures 20 take, that's entirely up to them. Whether or not they have 21 specific procedures, I'm sure they have. I don't recall 22 seeing any.
l 23 Q So you don't have specific knowledge of whether any l
24 of these agencies have written procedures?
25 A No.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
i-21819
( 1 Q Along that same line I believe you said the state 2 disaster preparedness plan has procedures that govern SEMO's 3 activities in emergencies, is that correct?
4 A I believe the question was within the ingestion 5 exposure pathway porti'on of the REP plan,.not the state 6 ' disaster preparedness plan. My answer was yes in that regard.
7 Q Are there any written procedures that cover SEMO's 8 activity? Any other written procedures that govern SEMO's 9 activities during an emergency or say an emergency planning 10 exercise for a nuclear plant?
11 MR. LANPRER: I object. That question is already 12 answered.
, 13- THE WITNESS: We have checklists, yes.
I 14 BY MS. YOUNG:
15 Q Do you know if they were turned over to Mr.
16 Zahnleuter in response to the discovery requests made this 17 year?
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Let me say in response to that, do 19 you know if there are any discovery requests that call for l
20 those kind of documents? Why don't you tell me what that is.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: I think you ought to address your 22 comments to the bench.
(
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I'm sorry. I admit that I made a 24 mistake there. I object because the question is improper 25 because it assumes a discovery request, and I haven't seen any Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
i 21820 s,) 1 such evidence of a discovery request.
2 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there such a discovery request.
3 MS. YOUNG: The staff doesn't have knowledge of 4 discovery requests. My question was more general in nature.
5 Does he know whether any such procedure was turned over with a 6 group of documents that he handed to Mr. Zahnleuter or 7 transmitted to Mr. Zahnleuter over the last couple of months 8 responding to LILCO discovery.
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: The question assumes there is a 10 response to a LILCO discovery request, and I'm saying that to 11 my knowledge there is no such discovery request.
12 MS. YOUNG: Judge Gleason, this is my last area of 13 questioning. It shouldn't be so hard.
O 14 JUDGE GLEASON: I don't like the word area, but the 15 last question --
16 MS. YOUNG: There have been three witnesses today 17 and I get easily confused, but I thought I heard him say when 18 we were talking about the list of documents turned over that 19 there were 13 or 14 documents turned over to Mr. Zahnleuter.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: He did state that.
21 MS. YOUNG: My only question is whether any SEMO 22 procedures were included among those documents that were 23 turned over.
24 JUDGE GLEASON: That's a perfectly valid question.
25 THE WITNESS: The state disaster preparedness plan I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.1 21821 !
l
("%
Td s 1 believe was provided, and that contains all the 2 responsibilities for which SEMO has in the event of an 3 emergency. I don't believe specific operating procedures of 4 the agency were provided. I think the request was for those 5 materials which we have in our files that may affect Suffolk 6 County, and that's what was provided, whether they be generic 7 guidance documents or specific referenced items.
8 MS. YOUNG: That concludes the staff's questioning.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Cumming?
10 MR. CUMMING: Hopefully I have just one question, 11 Judge Gleason.
12 JUDGE GLEASON: I've heard that before.
13 BY MR. CUMMING:
({~7
# 14 Q I've placed before you a copy of a document that's 15 marked in the upper right hand corner, FEMA 9, May ' 8 8. It's 16 been previously marked as FEMA Discovery Exhibit #1 I believe.
17 My name is William R. Cumming, and I'm counsel for 18 FEMA.
19 Would you refer to page 15 of that document, and the 20 entry for New York State?
21 (Pause) 22 Q You have described your title in your organization 23 as Chief of Staff of SEMO, and Major General Flynn is also 24 listed as Chief of Staff for the department. Would you 25 explain the distinction between your two positions and the
( Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888
l l
l 21822
() 1 relationships between your organizations?
(_/
2 A Sure. Major General Flynn is the Chief of Staff to 3 the Governor for the, and also the head of the New York State 4 Division of Military and Naval Affairs. He is the 5 Commissioner of the agency, if you will. With respect to our 6 office, we are housed within the Division of Military and 7 Naval Affairs, and receive our administrative support from 8 that organization.
9 My title is not the same, obviously, as his title.
10 I am the Chief of Staff for a directorate, if you will, within 11 his organization.
12 MR. CU:1 MING : I have no further questions.
13 MR. LANPHER: No questions from Suffolk County.
E.l
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I have nothing to add except that 15 the phrase "affecting Suffolk County" has come up numerous 16 times today, and I point out to the Board and the parties that 17 that is the phrase, quote / unquote, that appears in LILCO 18 interrogatory 120.
19 I have no questions.
l 20 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Geramo, could you elaborate just l 21 a bit about your relationships with Dr. Axelrod, how those l
L 22 relationships are carried out? When I say you I mean SEMO.
I 23 THE WITNESS: As Chairman of the Disaster 24 Preparedness Commission?
25 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21823
' r~)
(_/ 1 THE WITNESS: In his role as Chairman, he is 2 responsible to the Governor for the emergency management 3 policy and the attendant responsibilities of the commission.
4 With respect to how we do business as the State Emergency 5 Management Office, as I said, with respect to DMNA, the 6 Division of Military and Naval Affairs, we receive our 7 administrative support from that organization.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: I understand that.
9 THE WITNESS: With respect to Dr. Axelrod as 10 Chairman of the DPC, in the event of an emergency we receive 11 operational guidance and direction from him as Chairman of 12 that commission.
13 JUDGE GLEASON: How often do you interact with the C_v.1 14 Commission?
15 THE WITNESS: The Commission as a body established 16 by law meets twice a year. Of course there is interaction 17 before those meetings and after those meetings following up 18 on items that need to be addressed.
19 Indirectly, we also interact with the Commission 20 through the series of liaisons that are assigned for each 21 agency. SEMO more or less meets with those liaisons to go 22 over emergency management activities.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: So there is a liaison officer in 24 each of the departments or represented on the Disaster 25 Preparedness Commission?
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
21824
(_J 1 THE WITNESS: Yes sir.
2 JUDGE GLEASON: And you would interact with those 3 liaison officers as you're carrying out the instructions of 4 the Commission and as you're preparing plans?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes sir.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Those plans will be modified?
7 THE WITNESS: Not so much in the readiness phase, 8 but more in the response recovery phase in the event of an 9 emergency, hazardous materials incident, or a natural 10 disaster.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: What are the kinds of things that go 12 before, when the Preparedness Commission meets are you in
,q 13 attendance? You personally?
14 THE WITNESS: Sometimes I am, but more times I'm not 15 sir.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: Who would be in attendance?
17 T!1E WITNESS: Mr. DeVito.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: Who else, would you say?
19 THE WITNESS: General Flynn and the 17 commissioners 20 of the agencies.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: Would you be a participant in the 22 drafting of the agenda for that commission?
23 THE WITNESS: Sometimes I am, yes.
24 JUDGE GLEASON: Does that commission review county 25 disaster preparedness plans or county emergency operating t
(~'/
\- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Jd
21825 I
Li 1 plans?
2 THE WITNESS: Directly, no sir.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Were you involved in, and I realize 4 this is going to be objected to, and I assure you that your 5 objections have been noted on a longstanding basis to save 6 time, I just want to throw that out for whatever it'e worth.
7 Were you involved in the controversy that ensued 8 over Rockland County not participating in an emergency 9 operating plan with respect to the Indian Point facility?
10 MR. LANPHER: I object.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection.
12 JUDGE GLEASON: Objection overruled.
~ 13 Were you involved in that controversy at all?
(
\- 14 THE WITNESS: Yes I was, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE GLLASON: Would you describe the extent of 16 your involvement?
17 THE WITNESS: I was involved essentially working 18 with the state agency representatives and representing the 19 emergency management structure for Rockland County.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: Were you involved in the development 21 and preparation, if you will, of the Rockland or, I forgot 22 what they call that plan. I think they call it a provisional l 23 plan, provisional emergency operating plan for Rockland 1
24 County.
25 THE WITNESS: I'll have to answer two ways, sir. I 1
r~v l \_) Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 4
21826-(&
\m) 1 was not involved in the preparation of the plan.
~
I was 2 involved in providing information and in coordinating specific 3 responsibilities of state agencies. So more or less the 4 procedural end of it, not the plan itself.
5 JUDGE GLEASON: Do you recall what was used as far 6 as the plan is concerned with respect to Rockland County?
7 THE WITNESS: I don't sir.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: You don't recall that?
9 THE WITNESS: No I don't, sir.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: I don't have any other questions.
11 MR. SISK: Judge Gleason, may I ask just one follow 12 up question?
l 3 13 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes, go ahead.
14 MR. SISK: I'd just like to know, Mr. Geramo, what 15 you meant when you said that the Disaster Preparedness 16 Commission is not directly involved in the review of LILCO 17 disaster plans or emergency operations plans. What did you 18 mean by directly?
19 THE WITNESS: The state emergency management I
l 20 provides staff services for the Disaster Preparedness 21 Commission. The Commission itself, the Commissioners, do not 22 review themselves plans. That's done by the respective staffs 23 of the State Emergency Management Office and if deemed 24 appropriate, any other state agency that's a member of the 25 Commission. So the Commissioners or the Commission itself is
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 l
I-21827
/"1
\~) 1 not directly responsible for the review of plans.
2 MR. SISK: Are they responsible for any approval of 3 those plans?
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 MR. SISK: Mr. Irwin has one correction to make for 6 the record.
7 MR. IRWIN: Judge Gleason, when the Board asked who 8 the person was in the Department of Energy who informed us 9 that a copy of the Brookhaven plan had been sent to Dr.
10 Rimawi, I answered that it had been Marian Novak in the 11 Department of Nuclear. As I sit here thinking about it, I'm 12 not so sure of that. I believe it may have been an attorney 13 in the Gencral Counsel's Office of DOE, Mao Lee. I'm not O 14 positive of either one, but I am more nearly sure that it was 15 Mr. Lee than that it was Ms. Novak.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you, Mr. Geramo. Your 17 testimony was very helpful. That concludes our session for the 18 day. We come back on Tuesday for I believe the final two 19 witnesses, and we do intend to close this phase of the hearing 20 at the end of that testimony. So we'll proceed at 9:30 21 Tuesday morning.
22 (Hearing was concluded at 5:52 p.m., but immediately 23 reopened. )
i 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Do we have further comment?
25 MS. LETSCHE: We have not reached Mr. Shepherd. We Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
i- -
c t
21828
_l 1 have left a message. He is supposed to call us as soon as he 2 gets our message to call us. I have not been able to speak to 3 him so I can't say for certain what his availability is.
4 I will say based on conversations that we had at the 5 Board's direction last week with Mr. Shepherd that he has no 6 information relevant to the document productions that took 7 place in '82, '83, or '88 which is the announced subject of 8 this proceeding. But in any event, as I said we haven't 9 reached him so I can't confirm whether he in fact would be 10 available in any event on Tuesday, and I don't know when I 11 will hear from him to be able to find out.
12 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, if I could just add, I 13 spoke with his secretary, and asked at your direction if he U, 1.: was reachable by land or sea. He was not. They thought there 15 might be a possibility that he would phone in or come back to 16 his home or something, and they put a message on his answering 17 service directing that he call me if he did come back, and I 18 have not heard from him. We've done everything we know to 19 attempt to reach him.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: We are at a loss in this thing 21 because Mr. Shepherd's name has come up a number of times 22 related to documents. He should be produced. We don't want 23 to go beyond Tuesday. So --
24 MR. LANPHER: Judge, I thought it was an open 25 question whether he was to be produced or not, and you had d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
l l
21829
. -6 ,
(J s 1 made.no decision whether he was to be produced.
1 2 JUDGE GLEASON: That is true, but I based this on 3 the filings I received. Based on my urging counsel to find 4 Mr. Shepherd or to locate him, I assumed you would have 5 implied from that that we were anxious to-have him before the 6 Board, and I would like to have him here. The Board would 7 like to have him here.
8 MR. REIS: It's my understanding that perhaps Dr.
9 Harris would do.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: No one knows where Dr. Harris is.
11 MS. LETSCHE: Dr. Harris is unavailable until some 12 time in August.
m 13 MR. SISK: Our records indicate that Mr. Frank 14 Jones, Mr. William Regan, and Mr. Donald Davidhoff were 15 scheduled for July 19. Mr. Shepherd would be the only 16 additional person. I think the Board can sense that we have 17 fairly limited but potentially important questions of Mr.
18 Shepherd.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: I would ask the counsel for the 20 governments to continue to pursue reaching Mr. Shepherd. We 21 would like to have him produced on Tuesday.
22 (Whereupon, at 5:59 p.m. the hearing was adjourned, 23 to reconvene on Tuesday, July 19, 1988.)
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
v REPORTER ' S CERTTFICATE I
2 DOCKET NUMBER : 50-322-OL-3 3 CASE TITLE: Long Island Lighting Company 4 HEADING DATE: July 14, 1988 5 LOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland 6
7 I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence 8 herein are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and 9 notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before 10 the Uni ted States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety 11 and Licensing Board, Judge James Gleason, and that this is a 12 true and correct transcript of the same.
~13 14 15 Date: July 14,1988 02 h%
18 Daniel W. Skidmore q Of ficial Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Company, Inc.
1220 L Street, N.W.
20 Wa shington , D .C . 20005 21 22 23 24 l
25 l
7,
(
Li, -
\
x.s