ML20204F387
| ML20204F387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1983 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8305020077 | |
| Download: ML20204F387 (210) | |
Text
- -
i 14419 n, ,
rg -
p 'IS 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 -------------------------------------:
5 IN THE MATTER OF: : Docket Nos.
6 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF : 50-247 SP 7 NEW YORK (Indian Point Unit 2) :
8 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF : 50-786 SP 9 NEW YORK) Indian Point Unit 3) :
10 -------------------------------------:
11 Westchester County Courthouse 12 111 Grove Street
~ ~
13 White Plains, N.Y.
14 Tuesday, April 26, 1983 15 The hearing in the above-entitled 16 matter convened, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m.
17 BEFORE:~
18 JAMES GLEASON, Chairman 19 Administrative Judge 20' 21 OSCAR H. PARIS 408 Administrative Judge 22 ggt oo 23 OS o
5 24 bs o FREDERICK J. S'H O N 00 r0 25 g< Administrative Judge OZ OQ GLM TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
. .]
l 14420 1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2 On Behalf of Licensee, Consolidated Edison Company 3 of New York 4 BRENT L. BRANDENBURG, ESQ.
5 Assistant General Counsel 6 THOMAS L. FARRELLY, ESQ.
7 Consolidated Edison Company of New York 8 4 Irving Place 9 New York, N.Y. 10003 10 11 On Behalf of Licensee, The Power Authority of the 12 State of New York 13 JOSEPH J. LEVIN, ESQ.
14 PAUL F. COLARULLI, ESO.
15 Morgan Associates, Chartered 16 1899 L Street 17 Washington, D.C. 20036 18 19 RICHARD F. CZAJA, ESQ.
20 Shea & Gould 21 22 23 O
kJ 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 4,i i
14421 L f~l LJ 1 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 Staff 3 DONALD HASSELL, ESQ. and JANICE MOORE, ESQ.
4 5 Office of General Counsel, Federal Emergency 6 Management Agency 7 SPENCE W. PERRY 8
9 On Behalf of the Intervenors 10 11 rr 12 New York Public Interest Research Group i
L2 13 AMANDA POTTERFIELD, ESQ.
14 15 On behalf of the Parents Concerned About Indian 16 Point 17 MS. POSNER 18 19 LAURIE VETERE, ESQ.
20 21 22 23 T'~
kc 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14422
(' 1 C O N T E N T S
(_)
2 3 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD 4 COHEN 5 (Mr. Col a r ull i) 6 14425 7 (Potterfield) 14428 8
9 NORTHRUP 10 (Potterfield) 11 14451 12 13 ROBOCK, PORITZKY 14 (Potterfield) 14485 14504 15 (Brandenburg) 14500 16 17 POWELL i 18 (Fleisher) 14505 t
19 (Czaja) 14512 20 21 HICKERNELL, PLAGE, INDUSI, SANCHEZ 22 (Potterfield) 14514 14542 23 (Brandenburg) 14533 O 24 <czese) 14sav 25
14423 l
l 1 C 0 N T E N T S (Cont'd)
! L-F~J l
2 3 GENDRON, MILLS 4 (Potterficid) 14544 5 (Czaj a) 14561
( 6 (Brandenburg) 14566
, 7 1 8 LEBID 9 (Pottarfield) 14571 l
j 10 (Brandenburg) 14581 11 i 12 WEXLER
> m I b~" 13 (Potterfield) 14582 i
! 14 l
- 15 l 16 l
17 l
18 19 20 21 22-i
} 23
}] 24 25
14424 )
i 1 EXilIBITS 2 NUMBER IDENTIFIED RECEIVED t
3 Con Ex 15, 16, 17 14594 i
4 5
6 7
i 8
9 10 I 11 l
12
- G 13 ,
1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 i
21 22 23 1
h 24 25
., , - - - ---.-._ , _ .. _ . ~ .._ _ __,,. _ _,._- _ __ -- . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ . - . . _ - - . _ . . - _ _ -- . . - - - - , _ . - -
14425
{j 1 JUDGE GLEASON: Shall we proceed, 2 please.
3 I gather by prearrangement of the 4 parties that we are going to have Mr. Cohen's 5 testimony first; is that correct?
6 MR. COLARULLI: Yes.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. Would you 8 go ahead.
9 MR. COLARULLI: Your li o n o r , the Power 10 Authority and Con Edison call Dr. Bernard Cohen to 11 the stand.
- 12 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Cohen, please 13 raise your right hand.
14 DR. BERNARD C Oll E N 15 16 Ila v i n g been sworn in by the Aministrative Law 17 Judge 18 DIRECT EXAMINATION:
19 BY MR. COLARULLI:
20 Q. Dr. Cohen, could you please state 21 your full name and business address.
22 A. Bernard L. Cohen. I'm in the Physics 23 Department, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
' 24 Pennsylvania, 15260.
25 0. What is your present position?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14426
() 1 A. I'm a professor of physics and of
- 2 chemical and petroleum engineering at the l
l 3 University of Pittsburgh.
l 4 Q. Do you have in front of you Licensees' 5 testimony of Bernard L. Cohen on Commission G Question I?
l 7 A. I do.
8 Q. And was this testimony prepared by 9 you under your direct supervision?
10 A. Yes.
11 0 Do you have any corrections or 12 amendments to this testimony?
13 A. Yes. On the cover page, where it 14 says " Commission Question 1," should be changed to 15 " Commission Question 5."
16 On page 5, the 6th entry from the 17 bottom where it says "All electric power and US 18 Nuclear (UCS)" that should be 1.5 rather than 1.
19 on page 12, five lines from the 20 bottom where it says 0.6, it should be 0.06, and 21 then on page 17, 9 lines from the bottom where it 22 says "15 days," it should read "50 days,"
23 five-zero.
C'\,
L/ 24 MR. BRANDENBURG: Would you repeat 25 that last one, please, Dr. Cohen.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES L
)
}
14427
{} l THE WITNESS: On page 17, 9 lines 2 from the bottom where it says "15 days," it should 3 read five-zero, 50 days.
4 Q. Dr. Cohen, do you have any other 5 changes or corrections to this testimony?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Is this testimony true and accurate 8 to the best of your information, knowledge and 9 belief?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 MR. COLARULLI: Your Honor, Power r- 12 Authority and Con Edison would move Licensees' U 13 testimony of Bernard L. Cohen on Commission 14 Question 5 be admitted into evidence and bound 15 into the record as if read.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there objection?
17 Hearing none, the testimony of the 18 witness will be received into evidence and bound 19 into the record as if read.
20 (The bound testimony is as follows:)
11 22 23 p-li 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14428 MS. POTTERFIELD: For the record,
(]) 1 2 Judge Gleason, I should make it clear that the 3 objections of the Intervenors to this man's 4 testimony were heard by the Board and his 5 testimony was first stricken as a result of those 6 objections, I understand.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: That issue was argued 8 about three weeks ago, and the Board decided to 9 hear his testimony.
10 MS. POTTERFIELD: I wanted to make 11 clear that the objections that we previously posed 12 were still --
that we still stand on our O-13 previous objections.
14 JUDGE GLEASON: Those points were 15 made three weeks ago, Ms. Potterfield.
16 Do you want to proceed with the 17 cross-examination?
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION:
19 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
20 Q. Is it Dr. Cohen?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Dr. Cohen, the thrust of your 23 testimony is to the comparison of risk or other O)'
% 24 dangers in life as to the risk of nuclear power; 25 am I right?
r TAYLOE ASSOCIATES m_. . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .
14429 f~
L 1 A. That's part of it, certainly.
2 0 Isn't that the major thrust of it?
3 A. The major thrust of it is to try to 4 explain to people how to save lives; and in order 5 to save lives, it's important to worry about the 6 more important risks, spend money on the more 7 important risks, rather than paying all your 8 attention to trivial risks.
9 0. The thrust of your testimony is not 10 how to save lives from nuclear power, is it, Dr.
11 Cohen?
12 A. It could be interpreted that way, 1
13 yes.
14 Q. Is that the way you interpret it?
- 15 A. I should say this testimony is based 16 on three papers published in the Journal of Health l
17 Physics. The purpose of those papers --
18 Q. Dr. Cohen, I don't mean to cut you j 19 off, but what I'm trying to get at is your i 20 understanding of the thrust of your testimony, i
- 21 I told what you my understanding is, t
l 22 which is that it is a comparison of risks or other
! 23 ' dangers in life to the risk of nuclear power. Is l
24 that right?
, 25 A. I said that's part of the thrust.
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
i 14430
() 1 Q. Your testimony is not about saving 2 lives that might be lost through nuclear power, is 3 it, Dr. Cohen?
4 A. The testimony is to show that nuclear
, 5 power saves lives rather than loses lives. ,
I 6 Q. Now, Dr. Cohen, the figures and the 7 conclusions that you ' reach in the testimony that t
[ 8 you have just entered here today are also the i
! 9 figures and conclusions that you reached in your 1
10 writings that you list in your testimony under 11 " Popular Writings"; isn't that right?
12 A. Yes, I believe so.
13 Q. In your article, "Living Can Be 14 Hazardous To Your Health," you include in your 15 table of risks that exist in everyday life the 16 risk of being single, of staying single.
17 I have been waiting to ask you about 18 that because you didn't include it in your 19 testimony here, and I wonder if that's because you
, 20 no longer consider that to be a risky aspect of 21 life.
22 A. No, I still consider it to be. -
23 Q. And the risk of saying single has to 24 do with eating alone or sleeping alone, or what 25 are those risks?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14431 l
{}
1 A. That's not my business. My business 2 is to determine what the risks are, not to try to 3 understand the basis for the risks.
4 I'm interested and try to explain 5 them, but it's not within my realm of expertise to 6 understand the cause of these risks. It's only to 7 determine what these risks are.
8 Q. Now, your risk estimates about the 9 dangers of life apart from nuclear power, they are 10 based on actuarial figures, are they?
11 A. Everyone is slightly different. The
, 12 basis is in the papers that are given in the 13 reference. If you'll ask about any specific one, 14 I'd be glad -- a lot of them are actuarial.
15 Q. A lot of them are based on the 16 studies that have been done over past experience, 17 cumulative data; isn't that right?
18 A. Right, a lot of them are.
19 0. But the risk of nuclear power is 20 based on theoretical risk assessments, isn't that 21 also true, Dr. Cohen?
22 A. That's right. Of course, I also give 23 all the theoretical risk assessments including r'
'z L 24 those by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
I 25 0 But there is a difference, is there TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14432 I not, particularly from a scientist's point of view
(])
2 about a risk that be be quantified on the basis of 3 experience and actuarial data and a risk that's 4 based on theoretical assessments of risk?
5 A. Of course, there is a lot of' '
6 actuarial data on nuclear power. The fact is that 7 there have been no deaths so far and this gives 8 quite a good number.
9 In fact, the Union of Concerned 10 Scientists' estimate essentially says we are lucky 11 not to have had a bad accident so far.
C 12 0 When you talk about the Union of 13 Concerned Scientists, you are referring to their 14 publication, are you not, "The Risk Of Nuclear 15 Power Reactors." That's cited in your paper, 16 correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 0 You have read that, haven't you?
19 A. Yes.
20 0 Isn't it true that the major 21 conclusion is that you can't quantify the risks 22 that are posed by nuclear power plants?
23 A. Well, the major conclusion, as far as
- 24 I'm concerned, is that they predict 2.4 deaths per 25 gigawatt electric year of nuclear power.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14433
{] 1 Q. But I'm asking you about the thrust 2 of that publication. Is it not devoted to a 3 demonstration that exact precise estimates of the 4 risk of nuclear power are really not possible?
5 A. I didn't read that into it, but I 6 would certainly agree that is a valid point of 7 view, other than the fact that we haven't had any 8 accidents so far and nobody has been killed so far.
9 This does give a very important data 10 point which the Union of Concerned Scientists' 11 estimate strains very badly.
e n 12 Q. Over how many years does that give a 13 cumulative data point?
14 A. Well, the Union of Concerned 15 Scientists predicts one meltdown every 2,000 --
16 Q. That's not my question, Dr. Cohen.
17 Over how many years are you basing 18 your figures on the risk of nuclear power? What 19 is your actuarial data? Over how many years?
20 A. It isn't the number of years; it's 21 the number of reactor years.
22 There's been about 1,500 reactor 23 years of operation of commercial plants and about F1 d' 24 3,000 reactor years of operation in the nuclear 25 Navy.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14434 Q. Nonetheless
(])
1 2 A. Let me --
3 MR. COLARULLI: Your Honor, I object.
4 Could the witness be allowed to answer at least 5 one question fully?
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Let him complete his 7 answer.
8 A. As a result of all these, this 9 experience, there have been no meltdowns and only 10 one loss of coolant accident; whereas the Union 11 estimates one meltdown every 2,000 reactor years 12 and many more loss of coolant accidents.
13 Q. But, again, you are referring to the 14 publication of the risks of nuclear power reactors; 15 is that right?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Dr. Cohen, you are basically a 18 propagandist for the safety of nuclear power, are 19 you not?
20 A. I certainly don't agree with that.
21 I'm a scientist. All my work is 22 published and referenced in scientific journals.
23 In the scientist literature, if you say something 24 that isn't right, the scientific community has an 25 opportunity to reply to it, offer rebuttals. No TAYLOE ASSOCIATES h
14435 f~l LJ 1 such rebuttals have been offered to any material 2 that's presented here, and I should say it's very 3 --
it's not only do they have the opportunity, 4 but it's almost always if you say something wrong 5 in a scientific journal, there are rebuttals and 6 it hurts your scientific reputation.
7 I live by my scientific reputation as 8 does overy practicing scientist, and, therefore, I 9 value that very highly, and I would certainly not 10 say anything that isn't correct.
11 0. Well, propaganda doesn't mean it's
,- 12 not true, does it?
ks.,
13 A. Well, I don't know --
I don't 14 understand your definition of propaganda.
15 When you publish articles in 16 ccientific journals, I have never heard that 17 called propaganda before.
18 MS. POTTERPIELD: I have no further 19 questions.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. Any 21 redirect?
22 MR. COLARULLI: No, your lio n o r .
23 MR. BRANDENBURG: None for Con Edison.
R L2 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Any questions?
25 JUDGE SHON: No.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14436 i
() 1 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. Thank you, 2 Dr. Cohen. I appreciate your giving us your 3 3 testimony.
4 MS. POTTERFIELD: Judge Gleason, on
[
5 behalf of the Intervenors, we have a few 6 announcements before we call our witnesses 7 regarding the March 9 exercise.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: What kind of l
9 announcements?
l 10 MS. POTTERFIELD: About availability 11 of witnesses for the parties.
12 JUDGE GLEASON: All right.
13 MS. POTTERFIELD: Mr. Brodsky has 14 asked me to inform the Board and other parties 15 that Mr. Seasonwein will be in Massachusetts this 16 week and won't be able to appear.
17 I had informed representatives of 18 each of the Licensees of this during the past few 19 days during depositions and asked if they would be 20 willing to stipulate to the testimony of Mr.
21 Seasonwein, and we have submitted -- as one will 22 remember, Mr. Seasonwein testified once before on 23 the basis of a partial report of the survey he had 24 done.
25 We asked for permission to present TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14437
{} 1 his complete report and have submitted that 2 complete report to the parties.
3 Since he wouldn't be available, 4 unfortunately, during this week, we have asked for 5 a stipulation.
6 Our request has been denied and so we 7 are now asking the Board to consider giving us 8 some help in this matter in one of two ways:
9 Either to accept his complete survey into the 10 record as testimony, or else to reconsider its 11 decision on our request to be able to present Dr.
12 Robert 11o l t on the issue of sample surveys.
7q Li 13 JUDGE GLEASON: What's your next 14 announcement?
15 MS. POTTERFIELD: Well, I wanted to 16 go through the list of drill witnesses to let 17 people know the order and who will not be able to 18 be here.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: Let's get them out on 20 the table.
21 MS. POTTERFIELD: If you have before 22 you the Intervenors testimony on the Emergency 23 Planning Exercise of March 9, this is the schedule 24 that's dated April 12, 1983. I'll go down 25 beginning at-the left-hand column. 1 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14438 Nathaniel Mills will appear today.
(]) 1 2 Mr. Richard Duffee won't be able to 3 appear until tomorrow.
4 Ms. Enid Linden will appear tomorrou 5 and the other two members of her panel are not
, 6 going to be available to testify.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: Excuse me. Who did 4
8 you say?
9 MS. POTTERFIELD: Enid Linden, the 10 third one down, will appear tomorrow and the other 11 members of her panel will not be able to appear 12 this week.
13 Miss Enid Lebin --
14 JUDGE GLEASON: Which includes who?
15 MS. POTTERFIELD: Flo Layefsky and 16 Mike Wa t e r s . - Do you need another copy of the i
17 schedule, Judge Gleason?
l 18 JUDGE GLEASON: No. You are not
,19 reading from the schedule. You are reading from 20 something you submitted to the Board.
21 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes. The schedule 22 didn't specify --
the schedule that I have
. 23 didn't specify the names of the witnesses.
24 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. You are 25 . reading from what your proposed line-up of TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14439 s
{} l' witnesses was. I just want to make it clear.
2 MS. POTTERFIELD: I meant to make 3 that clear when I announced the caption of the 4 page I was reading from. I'm reading from 5 ~Intervenors testimony on Emergency Planning 6 Exercise of March s, 1983, and the date of our 7 document is April 12.
8 JUDGE PARIS: The date of my document 9 is April 11.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: The document I have 11 is April '. l .
rm 12 MR. POSNER: It must have been served YA 13 by hand.
14 MS. POTTERFIELD: It may be that you 15 were served by hand and April 12 was the mailing 16 date.
17 So far, Judge Paris, does it sound 18 like my document is the same as yours?
19 JUDGE PARIS: Yes, it does 20 MS. POTTERFIELD: All right. Let me 21 start over again for anybody that I have managed 22 to-confuse.
23 Nathaniel Mills will appear today and v
24 with'him will be Richard Gendron, whose testimony 25 was hand-delivered to almost everybody, although I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14440
() l' understand a few parties missed out and we have 2 since corrected that.
3 The second name is Richard Duffee who 4 will appear tomorrow.
5 Third is a panel headed by Enid 6 Linden, who will appear tomorrow. Her panel 7 members.are Flo Payefsky and Mike Waters, who will 8 will not be able to appear.
9 Fourth is Enid Lebin, who will appear 10 today.
11 Fifth is a panel. Mr. Saltzman won't 12 be able to appear. Stephanie Wexler will be here 13 today.
14 6th is Walter Conklin, who will be 15 here tomorrow.
16 7th is a panel headed by Barbara 17 Hickernell, and they will all-be here today.
18 Beginning on the next column, a panel 19 headed by Pat Hochman. Miss Hochman won't be here.
20 Miss Northrup will be here today.
21 Martin Larkin will not be able to 22 appear nor will the panel of Mary Larkin and 23 Barbara Lubell.
O 24 The panel of Hal Poritzky will appear 25 with Mr. Poritzky and Jerry Robock, i
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14441 fL_J'l 1 Barbara Lane won't be here.
2 JUDGE PARIS: Is that today?
3 MS. POTTERFIELD: That's today, yes.
4 The panel headed by Kathy Toscani 5 will appear tomorrow, although Miss Toscani is out 6 of town and won't be able to appear this week. So 7 that panel will be Kathy Feit and Lee Culpepper.
8 Ellen Spilka is ill today and 9 although we hope she will be here tomorrow, we 10 don't know for sure.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Well, you have one, p~q 12 two, three, four, five witnesses scheduled for LU 13 tomorrow, which is the time that has been 14 allocated for the witnesses.
15 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes, that's why I 16 announced that Mr. Seasonwein wouldn't be here, 17 and I don't know --
it's my understanding that 18 there won't be a time problem tomorrow; but if the 19 other parties feel there will be, they can discuss 20 it.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: You said " tomorrow."
22 Are you going to have them available in the 23 morning?
F]6 L- 24 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes.
25 JUDGE GLEASON: Any comment from the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14442
() 1 parties, the Licen.'ces?
2 MR. CZiJA: The only thing that I 3 would comment on, Judgs, would be the first 4 subject that Mi ' Potterfield raised, the 5 possibility --
6 JUDGE GLEASON: I was going to ask 7 for your comments on that next.
8 Any comments on the schedule changes?
9 MR. CZAJA: I have no comments on the 10 schedule changes, 11 MR. BRANDENBURG: Well, we have two 12 witnesses, Mr. Chairman, whose testimony was not 13 served according to the Board's requirements.
14 Indeed, the testimony of two of the 15 witnesses, Gendron and Spilka, were just received 16 by Con Edison yesterday while I was out of the 17 office at a prearranged deposition at which Miss 18 Potterfield was also in attendance in Rockland 19 County. So I have barely had a chance to scan 20 that ra a t e r i a l .
21 With respect to the other witnesses, 22 I would only request through the Board that some 23 sequence for both today and tomorrow be proposed 24 by the parties for the witnesses that they have 25 identified.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
I 14443
{] 1 JUDGE GLEASON: Do you have any 2 information with respect to DBCAs witnesses?
3 MS. POTTERFIELD: I understand they 4 will be here at 4:00, Judge Gleason.
5 I did want to say that I was asked to 6 deliver and did deliver to Judge Gleason yesterday 7 an invitation from the pastors' panel who are 8 holding a hearing today over in the White Plains 9 Library in the community room.
10 This is the panel that was presented 11 as witnesses by the Intervenors and whose 7- 12 testimony was largely rejected, and they have b
13 sponsored a hearing for other witnesses whose 14 testimony has been rejected by the Board or who 15 were unable to appear at the time that we were 16 given to present our case, so that time could --
17 I urge all the parties and particularly the Board, 18 of course, to walk over, if there does happen to 19 be a break in the testimony, to hear those 20 witnesses.
21 MR. LEVIN: Is this propaganda, your 22 Ilo n o r , or is this something else?
23 JUDGE GLEASON: I don't know whether r
b/ 24 --
is it ex parte information or what is it?
25 MS, POTTERFIELD: That's why I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1
14444 wanted to make the announcement.
(]) I 2 As I said, I was asked by Reverand 3 Johnson to deliver to you, and I did yesterday, 4 although I didn't see you, I delivered it to your 5 hotel, an invitation to this hearing, and I wanted 6 to make it clear to the other parties that I had 7 done that and that the hearing was going to take 8 place.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: I thought you urged 10 the Board to attend it.
11 MS. POTTERFIELD: I am urging the 12 Board to attend it.
13 JUDGE GLEASON: That's not ex parte?
- 14 MS. POTTERFIELD: Well, we are right 15 here on the record, Judge.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: I know we are on the 17 record, but the information we presumably would 18 recieve, at whatever that is that is going to take 19 place, bearing on the subject would not be ex 20 parte?
21 MS. POTTERFIELD: It's a public 22 hearing, Judge Gleason.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: Well, maybe our 24 definitions of ex parte'information is different.
25 All 'r ig h t . Let me hear your TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14445
{} l arguments on the first request, please.
2 MR. CZAJA: Judge, essentially, Ms.
3 Potterfield is asking for reargument of two prior 4 rulings of the Board, and the only reason for reargueing 5 is that she cannot produce a witness this week.
6 Both of these issues were argued at length.
7 The fact that for whatever reason, 8 Mr. Brodsky did not produce Mr. See Seasonwein's 9 complete poll on his first appearance, we had no 10 opportunity to cross-examine on the remainder of 11 that poll.
x 12 After we had finished cross-examining, 13 Mr. Brodsky was given the opportunity to bring Mr.
14 Seasonwein back for a second appearance, and now 15 Mr. Seasonwein cannot appear. So we still have 16 had no opportunity to cross-examine on this new 17 material.
18 Mr. Holt's testimony, again that was 19 argued last week. The Board ruled against hearing 20 that testimony. It's totally dissimilar testimony 21 from Mr. Seasonwein. It was untimely filed in the 22 first place. It's expert testimony. We are not 23 prepared to proceed with the cross-examination of 24 Mr. Holt.
25 MR. BRANDENBURG: Mr. Chairman, I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14446 join in Mr. Czaja's remarks and might just add
(]) 1 2 that the principal portion of the Seasonwein pole, 3 at least that which the sponsoring party, Mr 4 Brodsky, thought would be of relevance to the 5 Board is indeed in the record and it has been 6 subject to cross-examination.
7 The part that I believe is the 8 subject of Ms. Potterfield's most recent reargument 9 motion only relates to a small portion of the 10 testimony but an important part in the sense that 11 the Licensees have had an opportunity to 12 cross-examine.
13 I think whatever fruits are available 14 from Mr. Seasonwein's efforts are already in the 15 record; and those that are not, it would be a 16 deprivation of our rights of cross-examination if 17 those were to be admitted as Mr. Potterfield has 18 requested.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: Are you saying that 20 you have had an adequate opportunity to 21 cross-examine Dr. Seasonwein with respect to the
.22 testimony he previously submitted?
23 MR. BRANDENBURG: That is correct,
' 24 Mr. Chairman.
25 MR. CZAJA: That is correct, Judge.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 4 .. . . . . . .. . . .
14447
(] 1 That previous testimony, I'm content with that but 2 not the new testimony.
3 MR. BRANDENBURG: That part of the 4 testimony, it is my understanding, has been bound 5 into the record.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Pardon?
7 MR. BRANDENBURG: It is my 8 understanding that that portion of the testimony 9 that was originally sponsored by Mr. Brodsky has 10 been bound into the record and is now part of the 11 record of this proceeding.
7q 12 JUDGE GLEASON: I understand that, L but it was also a part of the stipulation that he 13 14 would be subject to cross-examination when he came 15 back.
16 Part of the understanding that was 17 accomplished at the bench conference is that it 18 would not.only be --
in my understanding, at 19 least, in connection with new testimony, is.that 20 it was going to be submitted, which would, in 21 effect, reconsile some of the material that he had 22 previously submitted and may be subject to 23 cross-examination with respect to the material he 24 had previously submitted; but if you are satisfied 25 with what is there, why, then, you know that's a TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
l ..
14448 different situation.
(]) 1 2 MR. BRANDENBURG: I think, Mr.
.3 Chairman, you are making a finer distinction. If 4 the additional portion of Mr. Seasonwein's 5 testimony, which is on the subject of Ms.
6 Potterfield's motion, were to be entertained by 7 the Board, it would be necessary in 8 cross-examining that material to inquire into the 9 passages, the interrelationship, between that part 10 of the testimony and --
11 JUDGE GLEASON: I'm not making that 12 point, Mr Brandenburg, if you would just stay on 13 .m y point. If you don't understand my point, all 14 right.
15 MR. BRANDENBURG: I don't understand 16 your point.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. I will 18 repeat it.
19 I t- was my understanding that because 20 of the incompleteness of the data that was 21 available and was presented in Mr. Seasonwein's 22 . original submission, which was only determined 23 after cross-examination developed on that with 24 respect to it, that as a result of the bench 25 conference, which his attorney asked for, and TAYLOS ASSOCIATES
14449 during that bench conference admitted inadequacy
{ 1 2 of that material, that he was going to be given 3 another opportunity to present additional material, 1
4 at which time he'd be subject to cross-examining, 5 examination with respect to not only to the new r
j 6 material but to the original material, which you 7 are telling me something different now. You are 8 telling me that is not your understanding.
! 9 What was your understanding Miss 10 Potterfield?
11 MS. POTTERFIELD: My understanding 12 was fairly characterized by you just now, Judge
- 13 Gleason, t 14 JUDGE SHON
- We t ho ug h t- that you were i 15 dissatisfied with the amount of cross-examination i 16 you had had on previously existing material and
. 17 needed this submission also. That's what --
18 MR. CZAJA: I think there was two i
19 aspects that were supposed to be resubmitted. One 20 was sort of a reconciliation of his tables with 21 the questions, which was not in the additional 22 testimony anyway, and which we apparently were not 23 going to get.
.m 1 k$ 24 The second thing that was, there was 25 some tables presenting the data with regard to TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14450 l
() 1 additional questions.
2 That I would want to cross-examine on, 3 but the tables that-are already in the previous 4 testimony that's been bound in the record, I have 5 no further cross-examination on that.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: But there was also 7 information with respect to whether those tables 0 ~ adequately projected the information they were 9 designed to project.
10 So let's not argue the point any more 11 and let's let the Board decide the thing.
12 (Off-the-record discussion of the 13 Board) 14 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. The Board's 15 ruling is that we do not want to change our ruling 16 with respect to Mr. Holt, and so we deny the 17 motion again to have his testimony in, and we do 18 not -- we also do not want to accept any 19 additional testimony unless it were subject to 20 cross-examination and, of course, the time period 21 will-have run out, and so we will not accept it in 22 the record without that kind of a screening, if 23 you will.
g-
\ 24 So let's proceed with your other 25 witnesses. I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
. . . _ . .. m
l 14451 l MS. POTTERFIELD: Intervenors call
}
j 2 Christine Northrup.
l-3 JUDGE GLEASON: Miss Northrup, would 4 you please raise your right hand.
5 CHRISTINE NORTHRUP, G Having been sworn in by the Administrative Law 7 Judge 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION:
9 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
10 Q. Would you state your name and home 11 address for the record, please.
pq 12 A. Christine Northrup, RD#3, Peekskill, L2 13 New York.
14 Q. Do you have before you, Miss Nottbrup, 15 a copy of the testimony that you wish to submit 16 before the Atomic Safety And Licensing Board?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: You have to respond 19 because the reporter can't pick it up.
~20 A. I'm sorry. Yes.
21 JUDGE PARIS: Is this the testimony 22 of Pat Hochman?
23 MS. POTTERFIELD: It is the testimony 3 p..q LJ 24 of Christine Northrup that's stapled with the 25 testimony of Pat Hochman.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14452
(%s) 1 JUDGE PARIS: Stapled with it.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE SHON: It is, however, labeled 4 " Statement of Christine Northrup"; is it not?
5 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes, it is.
6 Q. The document you have before you, 7 Miss Northrup, is called " Statement of Christine 8 Northrup, RN , " - e t cetera, is it not?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. Is that statement the testimony that 11 you wish to submit before the. Atomic Safety And 12 Licensing Board?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Do you have any additions or 15 corrections to your testimony?
-16 A. No.
17 Q. Is it true and accurate to the best 18- of your information and belief?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 MS. POTTERFIELD: I move the 21 admission into evidence of the testimony of 22 Christine Northrup as if read.
-23 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there objection?
[/)
s 24 MR. CZAJA: Yes, Judge. We object as 25 set forth in our motion to strike parts of the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
l l
14453 l
a_a.
1 Intervenors' testimony to be presented this week.
l 2 We object to all of Miss Northrup's l 3 testimony for the simple reason that it is not l~
l 4 within the parameters the Board has set for this 5 week's testimony. It does not deal with the 6 March 9, 1983, exercise.
7 The subject of the testimony is a 8 training session given in November of 1982.
9 The Intervenors have already had an 10 opportunity and have presented testimony on the 11 subject of training.
12 The testimony this week is to deal 13 with the subject of the March 9, 1983 exercise, 14 not training given in November of 1982.
15 MR. BRANDENBURG: Mr. Chairman, Con 16 Edison has a line-by-line motion against the 17 testimony of Miss Northrup starting at page 11 of 18 our motion dated April 22. However, I join in Mr.
19 Czaja's umbrella remark, if I can characterize it 20 that way, in the sense that it is not a portion of 21 this testimony that deals with the subject of the 22 March 9 exercise.
23 So on that ground alone, we submit 24 that basis for the Board not permiting this.
25 MS. POTTERPIELD: It is my opinion of I
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES j O
.. ~ - -
14454
() 1 .the testimony of this witness that she was trained 2 and she's an RN and she was trained with the 3 understanding that she might be called upon with 4 this March 9, 1983 drill, to simulate some aspect 5 of the drill in accordance with the training that 6 she had received.
7 It's true that she wasn't ever called 8 upon, but that in itself says something about the 9 March 9 drill.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: I think, Ms.
11 Potterfield, it's quite clear that this whole 12 period today was granted partly in response to 13 your request to give testimony on the exercise 14 that occurred.
15 This testimony does not deal with 16 that subject, so I don't see how, in any stretch l
l 17 of the imagination, we could accept it at this 18 time.
19 MS. POTTERFIELD: The only argument I 20 have is the one I have made.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: I'm sorry. We will 22 not be able to accept this testimony.
23 Miss Northrup, you are excused.
O
'J
- 24 MS. POTTERFIELD: All of the 25 remaining witnesses for Intervenors on the drill, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14455 fl 1 Judge Gleason, are not able to appear until 1:30 kJ 2 this afternoon.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: All right.
4 Would you want to consider the motion 5 for subpoena of Mr. Krimm now?
6 MR. HASSELL: That's fine.
7 MS. MOORE: Your Honor, before we 8 start a rg umen t on that, may I just raise one very 9 brief matter?
10 JUDGE GLEASON: Depends on what the 11 matter is.
12 MS. MOORE: It's just a notification 13 of the parties of something that came up last 14 Friday.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: Is this going to 16 cause us pain?
17 MS. MOORE: No, not an ounce.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: Let us know.
19 MS. MOORE: On Friday last week the
-20 contingent 6.2 was interpreted to include genetic 21 effects, and I wanted to notify the Board that the 22 Staff does intend to present a witness with very 23 brief testimony on that subject, and they'd li,.e P to do it either Th.ursday afternoon after 3:00 or L2 24 I
25 Friday morning. l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14456
- 1. JUDGE GLEASON: That will be fine.
(])
2 We hope it's brief. The other testimony was 3 fairly brief.
4 MS. MOORE: It's brief. Do you have-5 a preference as to Thursday afternoon or Friday 6 . morning?
7 JUDGE GLEASON: No. We'd be glad to 8 hear him now if he's available.
9 MS. MOORE: I don't think I could get 10 him here that quickly, your Honor.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: I think you ought to f- 12 just work it out, you know, have him avail'able in U) Let's 13 the best time as soon as we can fit him in.
14 work him in.
15 JUDGE PARIS: Miss Moore?
-16 MS. MOORE: Yes.
17 JUDGE PARIS: When that witness 18 appears, do you think he could give us some 19 testimony with respect to the Peer 3 Committee's 20 . conclusion about a threshold of radiation effects?
21 MS. MOORE: I could ask him.
22 JUDGE PARIS: Why don't ask you him.
23 MS. MOORE: Okay, conclusion 24 regarding --
25 JUDGE PARIS: With regard to the l TAYLOE-ASSOCIATES
l 14456 1 JUDGE GLEASON: That will be fine.
(}
2 We hope it's brief. The other testimony was 3 fairly brief.
4 MS. MOORE: It's brief. Do you have 5 a preference as to Thursday afternoon or Friday 6 morning?
7 JUDGE GLEASON: No. We'd be glad to 8 hear him now if he's available.
9 MS. MOORE: I don't think I could get 10 him here that quickly, your Honor.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: I think you ought to 12 just work it out, you know, have him available in 13 the best time as soon as we can fit him in. Let's 14 work him in.
15 JUDGE PARIS: Miss Moore?
16 MS. MOORE: Yes.
17 JUDGE PARIS: When that witness 18 appears, do you think he could give us some 19 testimony with respect to the Peer 3 Committee's 20 conclusion about a threshold of radiation effects?
21 M S' . MOORE: I could ask him.
22 JUDGE PARIS: Why don't ask you him.
23 MS. MOORE: Okay, conclusion
'M s/ 24 regarding --
25 JUDGE PARIS: With regard to the
..urne .cennemmec
14457 '
1 threshold, you know, threshold controversy with
]
2 respect to low level radiation health defects.
3 MS. MOORE: Certainly.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: Are you prepared to 5 argue the motion?
6 MR. CZAJA: Yes, I'm prepared, Judge.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: Go ahead.
8 MR. CZAJA: Essentially, Judge, the 9 situation has' arisen since April 15.
10 On April 15, we received the 11 post-exercise assessment from the March, 1983 m 12 drill.
t L2 13 When we received that, we discovered 14 that by our likes, FEMA had changed the rule of 15 the game.
16 For example, they had previously 17 looked with some favor on the State Compensating 18 Plan for-Rockland County. In their post-exercise 19 assessment, they take the position that no 20 judgment can be made as to the adequacy of 21 emergency planning in Rockland County until the 22 Rockland County Plan is approved and exercised.
23 Similarly, they had previously looked 24 somewhat favorably on the compensating measures in 25 Westchester County, for example, County Executive 1
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l
14458 1 O'Rourke's plans and the State Compensating Plan
(]) _
2 involving National Guard, albeit they did have 3 some reservations; but they, by no means, rejected 4 them.
5 Ilo w e v e r , when we get the 6 post-exercise assessment for the March, 1983 drill, 7 FEMA's position is that they can make no judgment 8 as to the adequacy of emergency planning in 9 Westchester County until an entire new 10 transportation study is done.
11 So finding ourselves in that position 12 on April 15, the question was what do we do about 13 it.
14 We first try to address the problem 15 through discovery. We have had a deposition last 16 Friday of two regional FEMA people who are the 17 people that will be presented by FEMA before the 18 Board.
19 However, with regard to this issue of 20 FEMA changing the rules of the game, as we see it, 21 their knowledge is sadly lacking. Their focus is 22 limited to their region; and while they say that 23 they have kept FEMA's national office advised of b - 24 the situation, we don't see in their testimony 25 anything as to what FEMA's national position is on TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i
14459 1 these issues.
f]
2 For example, I asked these witnesses 3 whether they were aware of any situations anywhere 4 in the country where FEMA had found emergency 5 planning adequate absent commitments from bus 6 drivers. This they acknowledge was a very serious 7 concern of theirs in Westchester County, the 8 absence of commitments from bus drivers, yet 9 essentially, they don't know what FEMA is doing in 10 other parts of the country.
11 It's not a difficult task to find out.
pm 12 On the basis of our inquiries, we have reason to imz 13 believe that FEMA has indeed found emergency i
14 planning adequate at other plant sites absent 15 commitments from bus drivers.
16 We feel this type of evidence would l
l -17 be extremely useful to the Board in reaching a 18 judgment as to the seriousness of the deficiencies 19 that FEMA found in the March, 1983 exercise.
20 We discussed this with FEMA, and in L 21 an attempt to resolve the problem, FEMA suggested 22 interrogatories. We agreed to try it that way.
23 We gave FEMA a set of interrogatories. They are I
L' 24 endeavoring to answer them.
25 Ilo w e v e r , I have no reason to doubt TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14460 their good faith, but their position is that they
(]) 1 2 may be able to give us some limited answers this 3 week, some limited information, and other 4 information in the indefinite future, which is not 5 going to be very helpful to the Board.
6 So the only way we can see to protect 7 our rights and to present our case to the Board 8 that FEMA is changing the rules of the game in the l 9 case of Indian Point at this very late date is for 1 l
10 a subpoena issued to Mr. Krimm who we have reason 11 to believe can give this information on the 12 national picture.
13 He has also been involved somewhat in 14 the Indian Point situation in annexed exhibits to 15 our motion showing that, and we would ask that Mr.
16 Krimm be subpoenaed.
17 The CFR criterion know is that we i 18 make a showing as to the general relevance of Mr.
l l
19 Krimm's testimony.
i l 20 We are not required to show that it's 21- admissible and material. That we will await the l 22 appearance of Mr. Krimm, and we certainly think we r
i l 23 have made that showing in our papers.
k 24 MS. POTTERFIELD: May we be heard, 25 Judge Gleason?
l l
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14461
(} l JUDGE GLEASON: In a minute.
2 MS. POTTERFIELD: Thank you.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: I guess one of the 4 things that I'm having a little difficulty in 5 understanding is why Mr. Krimm stands at any 6 different position than any other official in a 7 position of superior authority that just has, as 8 part of his responsibilities, forwarding documents 9 and forwarding reports from subordinates, and, of 10 course, you are going to have those subordinates 11 here testifying on Thursday.
s 12 MR. CZAJA: Judge, the subordinates
.13 that we have deposed, ,they do not have the 14 knowledge regarding the national picture.
15 What we are looking for is 16 essentially a witness with knowledge of the 17 national picture. I'm not saying that Mr. Krimm 18 is the only person. FEMA will represent that 19 somebody else can come in, but the witnesses 20 coming in on Thursday do not have that knowledge.
21 For example, Mr. Krimm --
last week 22 when FEMA made its presentation to the Commission 23 on the March 9 exercise, Mr. Krimm was there, and fl was sort of the lead person for FEMA, along with L2 24 25 the regional people that will be appearing before TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14462 you.
(~)
] 1 2 So based on our factual input, we 3 believe that Mr. Krimm is the person with the 4 knowledge. I'm not saying that he's the only 5 person. The regional 1 people certainly do not 6 have the knowledge.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: Once again, how does 8 the national picture get involved in these 9 hearings?
10 MR. CZAJA: Judge, essentially, we 11 a rg ue that FEMA has changed the rules of the game.
12 JUDGE GLEASON: They are applying gm V
13 stricter standards to Indian Point than they are 14 applying at other plants in our parts of the 15 country, and that for this Board to determine the 16 significance of the deficiencies that FEMA says it 17 has found, it has to have some knowledge as to 18 what is going on in FEMA's evaluation of other-19 plants.
20 In other words, FEMA comes in and 21 says "The bus driver problem in Westchester is a 22 very serious one." We think the Board needs to 23 know, first, as a matter of independent knowledge, 24 ind, second, in evaluating the credibility of the 25 FEMA-regional witnesses who will appear before you TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l
. . 1
14463
(} l if FEMA is, in fact, finding emergency planning 2 adequate elsewhere in the country absent commitments 3 from bus drivers.
4 We think that goes to the heart of 5 this case.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Well, you may think 7 so, and what we have to determine is whether it 8 does or not to determine its relevance.
9 You are in essence a rg ue i ng or 10 placing your request for the subpoena on the basis 11 that FEMA has handled its regulatory 7- 12 responsibilities in a different manner in its
'L 1 13 emergency planning reviews on other nuclear sites 14 than it has at Indian Point; is that correct?
15 MR. CZAJA: That's correct and we say 16 that bears on the credibility and also on the 17 Board's judgment. I mean this Board cannot ra a k e 18 the point on --
19 JUDGE GLEASON: You interrogated the 20 witnesses, FEMA witnesses, that you did depose on 21 that question?
22 MR. CZAJA: Yes, we did.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: What was the response r- e L_c 24 that you received?
25 MR. CZAJA: Judge, essentially, for TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14464 example, on the question of bus drivers, they said
({} 1 2 they had no specific knowledge on whether bus 3 driver commitments existed in other situations 4 where emergency planning was adequate. That's 5 annexed to our motion paper.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: That was somebody 7 else's problem.
8 MR. CZAJA: That was somebody else's 9 problem.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: If it were the case.
11 I guess I'm still having a little difficulty right 12 at the moment anyhow in understanding how this is 13 within the questions that has been asked by this 14 Board, has been asked by the Commission to make 15 recommendations onto this Board.
16 I'm not saying, you understand, that 17 that is not a valid interest that the Licensees 18 should not have with respect to FEMA. All I'm 19 trying to say is in relationship to our 20 relationship, our status, our jurisdiction, if you 21 will, whether that is a question that is within it.
22 We are not here to resolve all 23 the problems that the commission has to resolve.
O wJ 24 We are here to resolve exactly or to try to 25 resolve exactly what the Commission requested us TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
{
14465
. 1 to do.
2 MR. CZAJA: I r. Commission Question 3, 3 the Board is required to,-in effect, determine the 4 performance of present planning emergency 5 preparedness at Indian Point with the regulatons.
6 As I understand FEMA's position from 7 reading their post-exercise assessment, that 8 conformance will not exist in the case of Rockland 9 County, or they will not be able to make a 10 -judgment as to the adequacy of emergency 11 preparedness in Rockland County until Rockland 12 County has a plan and until that plan is exercised, t _z 13 and presumably, the implication is that the Board 1
14 should make the same finding.
15 Similarly in the Westchester 16 situation, they say they can not make a judgment 17 until this new transportation study is completed.
18 We say that in order for the Board to 19: decide whether PEMA's arguments on these points 20 should be accepted, we should look at what FEMA 21 has dont . . . other situations.
22 If, in other nuclear plants, 23 emergency preparedness has been found adequate U
L2 24 ' absent commitments from bus drivers, we say that's i 25 probative relevant evidence on commission Question 1
I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14466 3 as to what this Board should find about the bus
(]) 1 2 driver situation in Westchester County.
3 I might also add, Judge, we think 4 this argument rises to the status of an equal 5 protection argument.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Well, let's not go 7 back to the Constitution at this stage of the 8 hearings.
9 MR. LEVIN: I think we should, Judge.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: We started out like 11 'that.
12 MR. LEVIN: I think we should.
13 That's an important issue we are entitled to. We 14 can't go back to the Constitution.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: I'm not saying you 16 are not entitled to it. I think you can't throw
-17 the whole kitchen sink at this Board.
18 MR. LEVIN: Equal protection is not 19 the whole kitchen sink, your Honor.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: Well, it is a part of 21 it because you have raised this in the past, and i 22 other people have raised it, and it makes us feel 23 very important at times that we have these very r3 kJ 24 -weighty constitutional questions; but in reality, 25 we don't really have them as far as what we are TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14467
- 1. designed-to project to the' Commission.
]
2~ Anyway, let us hear from Miss 3 Potterfield.
j- 4 MS. POTTERFIELD: The interesting 5 thing about this a rg ument , Judge Gleason, is that
, 6 we. haven't heard any of the screams of, Oh, my
- 7 gosh, you.are too late. We are at the end of the
'8 proceeding and we. don't have time, and'what do you 9 mean' rebuttal and what do you mean surprised?"
10 They are surprised because FEMA came 4 11 out with an unfavorable ruling. That's what P
12 surprised them, and what .they are now-attempting 13 'to do is what they have fought us on from the 14 beginning.
2 15 This is generic-v'ersus site specific.
- 16. Every time we tried to get an issue into this
! 17 . hearing that we thought might be important for i
i 18 Indian. Point that might also apply to another site, 19 we were precluded from doing it. "That's generic.
This is site specific." !
.20 .You can't do that.
'21 They say that the rules have been i
22 changed on them and that's because something for 23 the first time has come down against them.
-pm Lod 24 We are in a double bind here because j
25 our basic premise has been that we want the Board
, TAYLOE' ASSOCIATES
. - . , . - - , . . . . . . . . . . - . . - ~ - , - . - - . . . - . , . . - - - - . - - - - . . - - . . . . - - .
14458 to hear everything and we really don't care very
(]) I 2 much about striking testimony and we are not 3 worried about keeping our record so clean because 4 we think that the record in the end is going to 5 come down to show the Board the facts.
6 We try to present a rebuttal 7 testimony of Dr. Holt and we: hear about how they 8 can't possibly prepare, and then the Staff 9 presents a witness on genetic effects and we think 10 that's important and we are not complaining about 11 it, but nobody else complains either.
12 What it looks like to me and what the
-1 3 Board should be aware of is that we are talking 14 about here what's good for the utilities and 15 what's not good for the utilities.
-16 We are not talking about the Rules of 17 Evidence. We are not talking about fairness; but 18 -when it comes to a complete record, what's 19 important is to get in what's good for the s 20 utilities.
21 The only surprise that has happened 22 here is the surprise that PEMA has come down in a 23 way that's not favorable to the utilities.
24 JUDGE GLEASON: Ms. Potterfield, 25 there.have been many times in the past that you TAYLOE ASSOCIATES L..--........ . . . . . . . _ _ . ,
14469
[} 1 have characterized the testimony that's gone in 2 the record and I would not want you to conclude by 3 the absence of my not commenting on them that your
.4 version of that testimony is correct.
5 We will here from you.
6 MR. PERRY: Judge Gleason, we have 7 several concerns this morning about this motion.
8 First of all, I think that the Board 9 should understand that we did have an 10 understanding with counsel for the applicant or
. 11 the Licensees, and we have done our best to meet
-y 12 our commitments ~under that agreement.
I wl 13 We have agreed to appropriate 14 treatment fo r the verification report. We 15 permitted deposition of our technical staff which ,
16 I might add is the first time a FEMA technical 17 staff has been deposed in the over dozen and and a 18 half cases we have had about the SALBs and we are 19 responding as best we can to interrogatories which 20 are extensive, detailed and very germane.
21 When we got the interrogatories, I 22 was immediately in touch with counsel for the 23 Licensee and explained our situation and asked T- them to prioritize their interrogatories if they Le 24 25 could.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14470 They indicated to me that their
(]) 1 2 priorities were Interrogatories Numbers 1, 2, 9, 3 4, 5 and 19.
4 It is our hope that by close of 5 business today, we will have answers to 6 interrogatories 1 and 2 and most of 9.
7 By tomorrow,-we will have Answers to 8 Interrogatories 4 and 5 and we hope to have 9 answers to 19 by the end of the week depending on 10 the performance of our regions.
11 So I want to make it clear that we 12 have acted in good faith to meet the terms of that 13 agreement.
14 The reason we made the agreement was
- 15. because of a very real concern that FEMA has about 16 the deposition of senior of agency officials.
17 Mr. Krimm, for example, is head of 18 the Office of National And Technological Hazards.
19 The REP program, the Radiological Eme rg ency 20 Preparedness Program, is but one of his concerns.
21 He is concerned with chemical hazards 22 such as Times Peak and he is concerned with flood 23 plain management: and as you know, we are having 24 extensive flooding across the United States even 25 as we sit here.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
Y 14471 F~l i To take the time of an individual at J
LJ 2 that level to undergo depositions in these matters 3 would'be a real interruption of the agency's 4 -availability to function, because we are in a case 5 of this kind about once a month.
6 Now, we recognize that the 7 protections extended to senior agency staff in the 8 case of the NRC, strictly speaking, are not 9 applicable to FEMA as senior people as a matter of 10 law, but we certainly think that as a matter of 11 equity, the Board should give heavy consideration r 12 to the appropriateness of using senior official's t
L2 13 time in this way when there are other ways to go 14 about it; namely, the Interrogatories.
15 Secondly, I think that there is a 16 real problem of delay and dilatoriness here on the 17 part of the Licensees, and I don't mean this as a 18 criticism but just as an observation.
19 FEMA's regulatory approach in this 20 matter and the issues that are now before this 21 Board is raised in our exercise report and have 22 been a source of concern for in excess of a year, 23 beginning with the FEMA interim findings of last 7,
tc 24 spring, the further FEMA findings of last August, 25 the period of the 120-day clock in which we TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14472 .
() I reported periodically to the full commission on 2 progress with state and local governments and
'3 planning and preparedness measures and e nd i ng with 4 our December update of status to the full 5 commission, then continuing through the winter in 6 preparation for the exercise.
7 The company has been intimately 8 involved with all of this. They have been aware 9 of the approach we have taken, and it seems to me 10 that if they had real questions about bias or 11 unfairness in FEMA's interpretation of its own
- - 12 regulatons and those of the NRC, this could have J
13 well been raised very early in the game.
14 We can understand, for' example, the 15 need for delay in terms of deposition our 16 technical staff. They fairly cannot be deposed 17 until the exercise report was available and formed 18 a basis for cross-examination under deposition.
~ 19 But the broad issue of regulatory 20 fairness and consistency is one that has fairly 21 been available to the applicants for exploration 22 for in excess of a year.
23 To spring this on us just literally O-51 24 hours before we are going into hearing seems to me 25 to be something that should be foreclosed because TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14473
{] 1 of the delay.
2 . Finally, I think we have to consider 3 the fact that through this approach, the licensee l 4 is, in fact, injecting a new major issue into this 5 case, that is the whole operation of FEMA's 6 approach to regulation.
7 Our u nd e r s t a nd i ng of our role here is 8 as expert consultants to the Commission's staff on 9 offsite safety. Our report is factually based.
10 It's specific to the situation, interpreted in 11 light of our National Regulation 0644.
7q 12 So it seems to me that to get into LJ the broad issue of how the agency operates in its 13 14 regulatory mode or quasi-regulatory mode is 15 injecting a major new arena of activity in this 16 case, one which certainly we had no cause to feel 17 would be raised.
18 It's like if at the end of the 19 hearing on onsite matters there.was a feeling that 20 the NRC Staff had been unduly harsh on toggle 21 bolts and concrete pouring and 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before we 22 were going to go to hearing wanted to subpoena Mr.
23 Derk, Mr. D' Young and Mr. Denton to talk about how L1 24 well the NRC functioned.
25 As to some specific matters raised by TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14474 counsel for the Licensee, I would suggest that
(]) 1 2 whether or not matters have been found in this
'3 situation and have been found in others is not 4 particularly relevant. We approach each site and 5 look at it in terms of its uniqueness.
6 What is required for offsite safety 7 in light _of 0654 at a place like Palo Verde in 8 Arizona which is in the middle of a desert is 9 different from what is required or may be required 10 in Westchester County or in Rockland County across 11 the river.
12 Finally, I suggest that ironically,
(_s) 13 the approach most likely to produce the kind of 14 information that counsel is seeking is precisely 15 the interrogatories, because Mr. Krimm'is 16 obviously not aware of the day-to-day workings of 17 this program in a way that staff are, and we are 18 using them, a large amount of staff, including an 19 outside contractor, to put together the answers to 20 these interrogatories in good faith.
21 I think, finally, the matters filed
. 22 in the motion accompanying the motion this morning, 23 to me, don't seem to indicate anything other than
~
24 an agency going about the regular course of its 25 business, communications back and forth and TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14475
(} 1 certainly no evidence of attempting to influence 2 the regional staff which made the finding and 3 whose finding and whose evidence this is.
4 Thank you, sir.
5 MR. CZAJA: May I respond to Mr.
6 Perry's points, Judge?
7 JUDGE GLEASON: I was going to ask 8 the Staff if they would like to comment.
9 MR. HASSELL: The Staff has nothing
'10 to add to what Mr. Perry has i n d i c a t e d ~.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Does the Staff concur 12 with Mr. Ferry?
7-v L2 13 MR. HASSELL: Yes.
14 MR. CZAJA: Judge, first of all, in 15 the interrogatory point, I tas willing to go e. l o n g 16 with interrogatories at the beginning with some 17 trepidation.. I mean even assuming we get these 18 priority interrogatories by the end of the week, 19 where-am I then? I mean they are not in the 20 record yet. I would havc obstacles to overcome to 21 get them before tne Board.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: I was going to ask 23 Mr. Perry how he intended to get over that em-La 24 obstacle.
25 You mentioned the last Interrogatory, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
i 14476 I believe 19, would be available at the end of the
(]) 1 2 week. How does that get into evidence in this 3 proceeding?
4 MR. PERRY: Well, I think, you know, 5 as I say, I have given you the best-representation 6 that I can. It may be that you could hold the 7 record open and we could supply it to you.
8 MR. CZAJA: Suffice it to say, it's 9 difficult to have the interrogatory approach, even 10 if FEMA is able to meet the schedule.
11 With regard to Mr. Krimm's schedule, 12 I haven't heard a specific statement that he is b~3 13 unable to appear this week. If he does have 14 specific committments that are a problem, there 15 are solutions: One, if there's somebody else who 16 has knowledge of what's going on at the national 17 level; two, we could have a deposition in 18 Washington of Mr. Krimm, which interested parties
- 19. could attend, with a stipulation that that 20 deposition would be made part of the record.
21 So there are solutions if a 22 legitimate scheduling conflict exists with regard 23 to '? r . Krimm.
O-N 24 Finally, on the point that we have 25 been dilatory, again, all I can say is that any TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14477
(] 1 fair _ reading of the report that was released to us 2 on April 15 shows that there was a reversal of 3 FEMA's position with regard to Rockland County and 4 Westchester County, which was --
we had no 5 reason-to believe was going to happen. And 6 suddenly as of April 15, the rules of'the game 7 were changed. Since then, we have been working 8 diligently. We have been trying to work this out 9 amicably with FEMA, and we are.just now in a 10 position where we are going to be unable to 11 present evidence to the Board on this issue.
7q 12 MR. PERRY: If I may, your lio no r , one b
13 point on the Rockland and Westchester bus issue.
14 FEMA did not change its position. We said that we 15 would have to have the exercise to verify whether 16 the various proposals that had been made would
- 17. work.
18 We did indicate we would look at them.
19 We did indicate they were possibilities.
20 Unfortunately, the report of the 21 exercise indicates that they were not successful, 22 but it was not a reversal of agency position.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: Well, this Board has 24 got to rule upon something like this with 25 discussion among themselves in a conference with TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14478
() I the Board. So we will now stand in recess until 2 1:30.
3 MS. VETERE: Your Honor, if I may, 4 Westchester County would like to notify the 5 ~ parties and the Board that we will not be ,
6 presenting a witness this week on the March 9 7 exercise. I believe you are aware you have not 8 received any testimony, and this is based upon the 9 already extensive testimony of Westchester County 10 officials and their supplemental testimony which 11 did touch upon the exercise and based upon our 12 review of the FEMA report.
13 I'm sorry for any confusion that that 14 might have caused.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. I did 16 want to mention one other thing before we conclude.
17 The Board has prepared for your 18 proposed findings and recommendations an order 19 which outlines a format that we would like you to 20 follow, and that format is designed to hopefully 21 make your efforts uniform and also to make sure 22 that the findings are comprehensive. Mr. Lewis 23 has copies of those available with him. We are g.
's 24 circulating them to the service list, and I would 25 urge you to get copies of it and look it over.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14479 If you have any questions that you
'f ]. 1 2 want to ask either now or in the future, just talk 3 to Mr. Lewis about it and he will be helpful to 4 you.
5 All right, we will stand adjourned.
6 MR. BRANDENBURG: Mr. Chairman, one 7 very brief housekeeping matter. We do have a 8 little time, if I may. I thought it might be good 9 to raise it. It relates to the Indian Point 10 Onsite Emergency Plan for Unit 2.
11 Perhaps, the Board will recall when
. 12 our onsite panel appeared, we had not at that time 13 intended to introduce our Onsite Emergency Plan l 14 into the record. At that time, the Board 15 expressed some interest in having that part of the 16' record.
17 I brought copies here today, and I i 18 would like to move the admission of an exhibit to t-i 19 the Con Edison's testimony in regard to our Onsite 20 Emergency Plan dated June 7, copies of the 21 Emergency Plan pursuant to the Board's request.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: This is Onsite 23 Emergency Plan?
I BRANDENBURG:
Li 24 MR. Yes, pursuant to 25 the' Board's request.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14480 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there objection to as
(]', 1 2 incorporating that in the record?
3 Ilearing none --
what it will be 4 marked? Is it marked as an exhibit?
5 MR. BRANDENBURG: I propose that it 6 be marked as an exhibit to our onsite testimony 7 which I believe is the matter in which the PASNY 8 onsite plan was identified.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: All r ig ht. Fine. If 10 you would mail that to us, we would appreciate it.
11 Thank you.
s 12 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. We will
,.)
13 stand in recess until 1:30.
14 (The hearing recessed at 10:00 a.m.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7
x- 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES m._._._ .
~.. . . _ _
14481 <
1 (Whereupon the proceedings resumed at 2 1:30 p.m.)
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Shall we proceed?
4 Are your witnesses available, Ms. ,
$ 5 Potterfield?
6 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes, they are.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: I was just asking if 8 .they are ready.
9 The board has considered the motion 10- for a subpoena requested by the licensee and we 11 have also asked during the interim period for an 12 opportunity to review the in te r rog a to r ie s that 13 have been sent to FEMA people, which we have
, 14 reviewed.
15 It seems to us that we do not have to l 16 reach the question of subpoenaing one of the top l
i 17 officials of FCMA for the following reasons:
l 18 Essentially, the licensees are asking i
19 three questions: Has FEMA treated off site
- 20 planning differently at Indian Point than at other-
, 21 ' facilities?
22 Secondly, where has it treated it
- 23 differently?
() 24 Thirdly, why has it treated it 25 di f f erently?
~
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES L .. - -- - . . . . - . - - - . - . . .
14482
- 1 Those are really the essence of the 2 interrogatories that are in question here. I just
-3 really concentrated on the ones that related to 4 that subject.
5 We believe that the licensees are 6 entitled to get answers to those questions. We do 7 not believe that it is necessary to have a person 8 like Mr. Crimm be subpoenaed to appear before this 4
9 board in order to get answers to those questions.
10 We, therefore, would direct FEMA, 11 through the witnesses it has coming before this 12 board, to answer --
to be ready to answer those
'- 13 questions.
14 Secondly, that when the 15 interrogatories are completed, that those 16 interrogatories that bear on those questions 17 should be served on all the parties. The parties 18 can make whatever use of those interrogatories
- 19 that they care to in their proposed findings, l
20 recognizing, of course, that they have not been 21 subjected to being put in the torm of testimony by i
22 witnesses that have not been subjected to 23 cross-examination. So that their probative value
[) 24 has to be looked at in that kind of light.
25 We are not concerned with respect to TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
,, g -
14483 1 getting answers the witnesses FEMA has coming 2 before the board on hearsay grounds because we 3 believe there are enough safeguards surrounding 4 those answers that we can accept that kind of 5 testimony.
6 So that is the ruling of the board 7 and we think it is a method for the licensees to 8 receive the information, perhaps not in as full a
, 9 detail, but, in any event, when the 10 interrogatories are supplied that sho uld be in its 11 full detail, and then they can take_whatever flows 12 from the statements made by the witnesses when O 13 they come before the board and see where it goes 14 from there.
15 Unless I hear somebody screaming out 16 loud, we will now proceed to the witnesses from 17 the intervenors.
18 MS. POTTERFIELD: We do object to the 19 receipt by the board of those interrogatories 20 because we won't have a chance to cross-examine.
21 Particularly in l ig h t of the board's ruling on our 22 request for witnesses who are not perhaps, in the
- 23. mind of the board, as important as top o f ficials
() 24 of FEMA but who are people with their own 25 businesses and who have not been able to come TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
, _ _ , _ _,, .__ _ ~
14484 e1 1 before the board this week.
b 2 I am referring to Mr. Cesawine who 3 has been before the board for some 4 cross-examination. We asked simply that the 5 remainder of his survey be placed into evidence 6 and our request was denied. We feel like the 7 board's ruling on FEMA is not consistent with the 8 ruling on Mr. Cesawine, i
9 JUDGE GLEASON: Are you ready to call 10 your witness?
11 MS. POTTERFIELD: I do have to say 12 also that we now have to object to Con Ed's o 13 introduction into evidence as an exhibit the on j 14 site plan for Con Edison since Mr. Brandenburg
! 15 doesn't see fit to provide a copy to the 16 intervenors, not even one copy for all of us.
i 17 MR. BRANDENBURG: I would like to 18 respond briefly to that, Mr. Chairman. I don't L
l 19 think we need to belabor it. There are a number i
20 of instances where certain documents have been, on 21 motion of the parties, granted waiver from the l
22 rules that would otherwise apply with respect to l -23 service on all parties.
) 24 I have in mind the Indian Point
- 25. probabilistic safety study as well as the state 1
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14485
/^ l emergency plan. The latter perhaps being a very
(
2 close parallel to the Con Edison on site plan.
3 Those motions were made. I don't 4 have copies with me here today. I cannot report 5 to t h <a board whether the motions a s g ran ted would 6 cover the Con Edison on site plan or not. If it 7 is important, we can do so.
8 I don't think any pr ej ud ice would 9 fall to the intervenors by not being provided with 10 a copy of this document. As with the state plan 11 and other documents, there are copies available in 12 the public document room less than a block from 13 where we sit. I see no reason why this very 14 leng thy doc umen t shouldn't be accorded the same 15 treatment these other similarly lengthy documents 16 have been. Specifically on other facets of 17 emergency planning.
18_ MS. POTTERFIELD: All we are asking 19 for is the same treatment. We were given a copy 20 to share among the intervenors of those other 21 copies he has mentioned. There was a waiver of 22 the requirement that each of the intervenor 23 parties get a copy, but we were served with a copy
() 24 of all their documents. I understand they were 25 also made available a copy of the risk assessments.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
_. - _. . . ~
14486 3 1 MS. FLEISHER: Yes, we have a copy of Nsl 2 that.
3 MR. BRANDENBURG: I think we can 4 resolve this. If Ms. Potterfield is willing to l 5 accept a single copy on behalf o f all the 6 intervenors, we will provide one to her and I 7 think that obviates and moots her objection.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: Let's move on.
9 I presume you are willing to accept 10 that?
11 MS. POTTERFIELD: Tha t's all I ever 12 asked for, Judge.
O 13 JUDGE GLEASON: I realize that.
14 MS. POTTERFIELD: Intervenors call Hal 15 Poritzky and Jerry Robock.
16 WHEREUPON 17 JERRY ROBOCK and HAROLD PORITZKY, 18 being duly sworn by the administrative judge, 19 testified as follows:
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4
21 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
22 Q. Mr. Poritzky, would you state your 23 name an address for the record?
) 24 A. (Witness Po r i t zk y) Harold Poritzky, 25 1737 Hanover Road, Yorktown Heights, New York.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14487 1 Q. Mr. Poritzky, do you have before you 2 a two-page document which comprises the testimony 3 that you wish to submit to the Atomic Safety and 4 Licensing Board?
5 A. (Witness Poritzky) o.
6 Q. Do you have any additions or 7 corrections to that testimony?
8 A. (Witness Poritzky) No.
9 Q. Is it true and accurate to the best 10 of your information and belief?
11 A. (Witness Poritzky) Yes.
12 Q. Mr. Robock, would you state your name O 13 and address for the record?
14 A. (Witness Ro boc k) Jerry Robock, 2553 15 Dunning Drive, Yorktown Heights.
16 Q. Mr. Robock, do you have before you a 17 five-page document that comprises the testimony 18 that you wish to submit to the Atomic Safety and 19 Licensing Board?
20 A. (Witness Ro boc k) Yes, I do.
i 21 Q. Do you have any co r rec tions or 22 additions to your testimony?
23 A. (Witness Robock) No, I don't.
() 24 Q. Is it true and accurate to the best 25 of your information and belief?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14488 kN 1 A. (Witness Robock) Yes, it is.
ld 2 MS. POTTERFIELD: I move the admission 3 into evidence of the testimony of Harold Poritzky 4 and Jerry Robock as if read.
5 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there objection?
6 MR. CZAJA: We object, as stated in 7 our written motion, in the case of Mr. Poritzky's 8 testimony, we object to the portion starting on 9 page 2 of the testimony under the heading, 10 " Comments." We believe --
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Excuse me just a 12 minute.
13 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
14 JUDGE GLEASON: Start over again. You 15 are talking about Poritzky?
16 MR. CZAJA: Yes, Mr. Poritzky's 17 testimony, page 2, under the heading, " Comments,"
18 the last portion of the testimony, to the end of I
l l 19 the testimony, we object on the grounds of hearsay, l
20 it lacks foundation, it is irrelevant, and 21 conclusory.
i 22 JUDGE PARIS: You are including the 23 first sentence?
24 MR. CZAJA: For consistency, Judge, f
25 yes. I am not going to pick and choose.
l l
l TA.LOE ASSOCIATES
14489
/~ 1 THE WITNESS: (Witness Poritzky)
\_)'
2 Thank you very much.
3 MR. CZAJA: I am not going to pick and 4 choose among the objectionable testimony.
5 JUDGE GLEASON: Let him do the 6 speaking.
7 THE WITNESS: (Witness Po r i t zk y) I am 8 sorry, sir, 9 MR. CZAJA: In the case of Mr.
10 Robock's testimony, the first page, we object to 11 the second full paragraph starting with "the 12 overall feeling." We obj ec t to the first sentence
(' 13 of the next paragraph, starting with, "Many l 14 commer ts ," and continuing th ro ug h the word 15 " contamination," in the fourth line of that j 16 paragraph.
17 Again, it is hearsay, irrelevant, l
18 speculative, and conclusory l 19 Continuing down on that page, the 20 fourth paragraph, the paragraph starts with, 21 " Th r o ug ho u t the day." We don't object to that l
22 sentence. But starting with the next sentence, 23 "They were unable to plan for expected events,"
f( ') 24 we object to that, to the and to the remainder of 25 that paragraph and to the first sentence in the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
d 14490 1 next paragraph, "As it turned out."
2 Again we say this is all hearsay 3 testimony and there is no foundation for it.
4 The following paragraph, " Evidently 5 the Yorktown police," we object to that first 6 sentence, again on the grounds that it lacks
) 7 foundation and is hearsay.
8 And finally -- I am sorry, finally on 9 that page, we object to the last paragraph l,
10 beginning with the words, "My feeling." It is 11 conclusory, s pec ula tive , hearsay and lacks 12 foundation.
0 13 Turning to page 2, third paragraph on 14 that page, starting with the words " Sergeant 15 Arruda," we object to that entire paragraph on the 16 grounds of hearsay.
17 Then the pa r ag ra ph next to the time 18 entry 10:48, which starts, " Highway worker," we 19 object on the grounds of hearsay and relevance.
t 20 The remaining objections I will 21 indicate where they are, but they are all on the l
22 grounds of hearsay. Starting on page 3, under the l 23 heading "10:54," we don't object to the first t-I f7 j L,J 24 three sentences, but starting with the words, "He i 25 stated that if this was a real accident," we TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
. - _ . .- ~, -_ ._ _ . . _ ._ -
14491 r' 1 object to the rest of that entry on 10:54.
b}
2 We object to the entire entry under 3 11:03.
4 Turning to the next page, under the 5 entry 11:27, we object to that entry starting with 6 the second sentence, "One sergeant stated."
7 Under the entry 11:37 we object to 8 the second sentence, "liawthorne replied."
9 Under the 11:45 entry we object to 10 the second sentence, "They were not called."
11 Under the 11:50 entry we object to 12 the second sentence, Hawthorne replied."
O 13 Turning to the next page, the second 14 entry that says 12:11, the entry begins with 15 " request," we don't object to that sentence or the l 16 following sen tence but we do object to the 17 remainder of'the entry starting with " ambulances 18 were not available."
19 We object to the second entry under 20 12:19 where it says " responses to command 21 center."
22- We object to the next 12:20 entry.
23 We object to the first entry under
() 24 12:32, where it says, "
Sergeant comments."
25 JUDGE PARIS: Excuse me, which one was TAYLOE ASSOCIATES a
14492 e
3 1 that?
V 2 MR. CZAJA: The second entry -- the 3 first entry under 12:32, " Sergeant comments if 4 this was the real thing, forget it."
5 Turning to the last page, we object 6 to the entry next to 12:33, and finally the entry 7 next to 12:37.
8 MR. BRANDENBURG: Mr. Chairman, I will 9 try and be brief. Our objections to the testimony 10 of these witnesses are set forth on page 13 of our 11 written motion dated April 22, and I need not 12 repeat them here.
O 13 As I followed Mr. Czaja's summary of 14 the Power Authority's objections, I found that
, 15 every passage we found objectionable was similarly 16 objected to by the Power Authority, so I won't 17 restate ours.
- 18 JUDGE GLEASON
- Ms. 1%tterfield.
l 19 MS. POTTERFIELD: Judge Gleason, we 20 are requesting the board to make a ruling that 21 applies not only to Mr. Poritzky and Mr. Robock i
22 but to all of the intervenor observer witnesses 23' that we have presented here today.
Fm L,J 24 The objections go, of course, to 25 almost every aspect of their testimony because TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
v 14493
~
1 they were there to observe and to hear. They 2 covered the areas of the drill that were not 3 covered by FEMA or by the members of the Oregon 4 people. They covered the local EOCs, the 5 municipal police departments that were not covered 6 by the other federal official observers who were 7 looking at the county participation.
8 We asked them to observe; they went 9 there to perform that function; they kept notes; 10 they were acting in an official capacity as an 11 intervenor can act in order to see and report back 1
12 to the board.
13 Of course it is hearsay. Th a t ' s the 14 point. If we had thought when we were requested 15 and were granted permission to present observers 16 from the drill that would supplement and, in some 17 cases, possibly rebut the testimony o f the FEMA 18 observers, it naively didn't occur to us that they 19 would be subject to hearsay obj ec tions to their 20 testimony simply because in their testimony they 21 had been specific. Instead of the FEMA and the 22 Oregon observers who say somebody performed 23 competently, these observers tell you what they
' xj
/~'\ 24 saw and heard and then they tell their conclusions 25 that are based on what they saw and heard.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i
14494
{} 2 1 If there is not suff'.cient indicia of reliability in the hearsay and the observations 3 made by those observers, then there won't be for 4 any observer witnesses and their testimony won't 5 be acceptable at all.
6 We are asking the board not to 7 consider it line by line, but to consider the 8 function of the observers on March 9, the reason 9 the board let us present evidence about these 10 local problems and local areas of emergency 11 response that were not otherwise covered.
. 12 MR. BRANDENBURG: If I could respond 0 13 very briefly to just one point that Ms.
14 Potterfield raised, and that is with respect to 15 the conclusions occupied by these witnesses.
l 16 There is an important distinction in 17 the conclusory statements made by these witness t
l 18 and the statements that will be offered later this 19 week by the FEMA witnesses. FEMA witnesses are 20 professionals in the area ~ of evaluating emergency 21 response, where there is no showing of expertise 22 on the parts of the witnesses that are being l 23 offered today and tomorrow by the intervenors.
m l L,J 24 So as to that distinction I think
- 25. much significance can be attached with respect to TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
i 14495 1- the comments portions of all of this testimony.
)
2 MR. CZAJA: Also I didn't object to 3 every hearsay statement. Where there was some 4 indicia of reliability we did not object. It was 5 situations where a person was entirely 6 unidentified, a voice on a phone or a speaker. It 7 was that type of thing we are objecting to here.
8 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
9 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Robock, let me ask 10 you a question. Under your listing of 12:33, you 11 have on the last line that no call was ever made.
12 How do you know that?
O 13 THE WITNESS: (Witness Robock) For 14 the time that I was there no call was made.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: No call was ever made 16 while you were there?
17 THE WITNESS: (Witness Robock) Yes.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: On 10:48 in your 19 testimony, d id you hear the workers state this?
20 Did you listen to the radio interview?
21 THE WITNESS: (Witness Robock) This 22 was not the radio interview. This was the 23 newspaper.
() 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Did you hear the 25 workers say what you have indicated?
.TAYLOE ASSOCIATES j
14496 VM 1 Tile WITNESS: (Witness Robock) Yes, I L_J 2 did.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: First of all, Ms.
4 Po t te r f ield , we cannot make a ruling that applies 5 to everyone because we have to look at these 6 things as they come.
7 We can accept a degree of hearsay, if 8 you will, on the basis that these people are 9 observers, as long as they are reporting what they 10 saw and what they heard. What they heard somebody 11 else say they heard, tha t's too unreliable for 12 admission in this proceeding.
D LJ 13 So if they get too conclusory with 14 their statements, it is.also not going to helpful.
15 On page 2, using that kind of a 16 standard, or that standard, the first sentence of 17 the comments can stay in on the bottom of the page.
18 The rest of it goes out.
19 JUDGE PARIS: Tha t's Poritzky page 2.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: I am sorry, Mr.
21 Poritzky, tha t's right.
22- MS. POTTERFIELD: Do I understand that 23 you are throwing out the sentence that says, "During m
- ,,) 24 the exercise an actual accident occurred on the 25 Taconic Parkway that d rew ambulances"?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14497 1 Also "When I was trained in teaching 2 I was trained in dosimetry as part of the civil 3 defense program and I know that one brief 4 instruction on the subject would not brief a 5 person to use the equipment;" do I understand that 6 all of that is thrown out as hearsay?
t 7 J ', D G E GLEASON: Most of it is going ,
8 out because it is irrelevant. A statement about 9 town employees receive no previous training-in 10 dosimetry," I don't know what foundation there is 11 for that s ta tement .
12 MS. POTTERFIELD: We are up against
)
13 the expert-nonexpert business again because FEMA 14 has said in its report that bus drivers --
15 JUDGE GLEASON: I am not a rg u ing FEMA's 16 report now. We are discussing the statements l
i 17 before us from these witnesses. At the time FEMA's 18 report comes before the board yo u can make the 19 objections you are entitled to make, if you care 20 to make them.
21 JUDGE PARIS: We are leaving the 22 ambulance statement by Robock in.
23 MS. POTTERFIELD: With all due respect, es
(,) 24 you don't know that a town employee did not tell l
l 25 Mr. Poritzky that he had received no training.
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14498
( j 1 You are assuming without requiring the licensees, LJ 2 with all of their lawyers, to go through the usual 3 cross-examination technique to test of the 4 reliability of it. You are throwing it out ahead 5 of time.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: We are throwing it ont 7 on the basis of the testimony that is prefiled in 8 this case as testimony. If you wanted to change 9 it, you should have changed it before it was filed.
10 We cannot look behind the testimony that is filed.
11 MS. POTTERFIELD: And you don't look 12 behind the testimony that's filed by the FEMA i'
'" 13 people who also come to conclusions about people 14 not having reached training on the basis of 15 conversations with those people or with the 16 representative of those people.
l
, 17 JUDGE GLEASON: As I indicated to you, l
18 you can make any objections you want to make at 19 the time the FEMA testimony is presented.
l 20 We will proceed with the ruling of 21 the board.
22 On the first page, " Comments on 23 evacuation and observation by Jerry Robock," the l
() 24 sentence that is in the third last paragraph, 25 about an accident on the state parkway stays in.
l
! TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14499 The rest of the material comes out.
b'
/ 1 2 On the next page the material under 3 10:25 comes out.
4 At 10:48 -- I am sorry, I have my 5- things reversed here. On 10:25 that paragraph 6 stays in as acceptable hearsay. Also the sentence 7 or the paragraph that starts at 10:48. Also the 8 paragraph that starts at 10:54, or the last 9 sentence of that paragraph in 10:54.
4 10 11:03 comes out as hearsay. 11:27 11 comes out as hearsay. The last sentence under 11:37 12 comes out. The last sentence in 11:45 comes out.
13 The last sentence in 11:50 comes out.
14 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
15 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Robock, under 11:37 16 and 11:50 what is your basis for those statements?
! 17 THE WITNESS: (Witness Robock) I was 18 in a position where I heard the radio l 19 announcements that came from lla w t ho r n e center.
20 And all of those which were attributed I heard 21 myself. They weren't told to me. I was four feet 22 away from the radio at the time that the requests 23 were made.
() 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Then under 11:37 that 25 hearsay is acceptable. 11:45 is out. 11:50 is TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14500 79 1 acceptable.
C 2 I would presume the same answer is 3 applicable there, that you heard that yourself?
4 THE WITNESS: (Witness Ro boc k) Yes, I j 5 d id .
6 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. 12:11 7 stays in. 12:19 stays in. 12:20 comes out. 12:32 8 comes out.
9 The next page, 12:33, that stays in.
10 With the addition to that testimony that no call 11 was ever made while you were there. And 12:37 12 stays in. '
b_ 13 with those changes and deletions the 14 statement is received into evidence and bound into 15 the record as if read.
16 (The bound testimony follows) 17 18 19 20 ,:
21 22
- 23
[] 24 i
25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
ObO:rvar Hal Poritzky s~ e Location Yorktown Polica Department s
7:55 Arrived at police station. 4 5 officers were
(} 8: 00 on duty, including 2 sergeants.
Sergeant:
"We received a call. which said the sirens sounded." Officer: "We never hear the sirens."
8:15 Sergeant: "Anything you hear about Indian Point, give me a holler."
8:24 Via radio: "This is a drill. Alert is on. Station 29 Ten mile zone alert officials. 38 inform Suprr-visor of Ossining. Contact Supervisor."
8: 28 " Hello Supervisor, we are on Alert." " Call all cars alert has commenced."
8:32 Acknowledgements from cars. Calls to highway department, water department and parks department to inform of Alert.
8: 43 Civil Defense Communication equipment brought in.
8:47 WVIP reporter approaches desk. "Will the Chief be in for comeents during the morning?" Ans: "I Don' t know."
"How about the sergeant?" Ans: "No problem." "Can you
' tell me where the Yorktown Diren is?" Ans: "All over."
Person from water department entered seeking information.
p Officer: "We'll call you when you are needed." Person
\_/ left. Reporter from North County News arrived: "I'm here to cover the Ham Radio. Are they here yet?"
8: 55 Two radio persions admitted to- back room.
9: 04 Civil Defense radio man arrives.
9: 06 Two radic persons (see 8: 55) leave. Civil defense radio man admitted to rear.
9: 09- "At 8: 50 the County Executive made the following announce-9: 20 ment. This is a drill. All school children within the 10 mile EPZ are to be sent home. Contact the Lakeland and Yorktown schools and tell them to simulate drill."
Officer on phone: "It is a drill. If it wasn' t you would follow procedures. . .We are going through the j motions. . .We are calling two school districts." ,
Sergeant: "Were you able to reach schools?"
Phoner: "Yes, but they. were unaware. I had to explain."
9: 22 Town Supervisor arrives. Admitted to rear offices.
9: 29 Incoming officer:
l
() "We had to call all o2f-duty personnel ."
"E J you call my home?" Sergeant:
I
-- - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - , ---,--,,--,--,e - , - - - - ~
I
--t Hal Poritzky Pags 2 9:45 Sirens sounded. Heard by observer Poritzky.
9:55 - Sergeant gives instructions to three Town employees, 10:25 one each from departments of parks, highways, water, about kits to be carried in vehicle. Kits were legal size envelopes containing
- dosimeter, to be worn on clothing
- tablets for thyroid (KI) with instructions from county health department
+
- dose cards to be filled out instructions:
- read dosimeter
- record zwading on card
- have weather gear
- return kit when drill is over
- Park Department to clear parks i - all to serve as traffic congrol officers
- allow people to leave but check contamination with dosimeter
- do not allow people to enter 10:25 Observer Poritzky departed.
Comments:
Police Department did a professionally competent job.
They were inforced about their role but there was an i
O ir er *eP*ici reaai s o=rias ** rei actual accident occured on the Taconic Parkway which a
drew ambulances. When I was working as a teacher I
' was trained in dosimetry as part of the civil defense program, and I remember that one brief introduction to the subject would not have been enough to prepare a person to use the equipment. The Town employees had received no previous training in dosimetry.
l O <
!' {
() COMMENTS ON EVACAUTION OBSERVATION BY JERRY ROBOCK YORKTOWN POLICE HEADQUARTERS, YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, NY. MARCH 9, 1983 I spent two and a half hours in the front lobby of the Yorktown police Headquarters standing by the front desk window observing the activity and reactions of the police and other persons in relation to the evacuation drill. I found the police very cooperative and concerned about their responsibilities regarding a possible accident at Indian point.
The over-all feeling of the police personnel involved was that j they were not given adequate training to deal with a real emergency and that they would be unprepared to cope with a real evacuation. They felt uncertain of the terminology used, of the sequence of events and of their specific responsibilities regarding an evacuation.
Many comments were made that if a real emergency occurred they would be unsure that many municipal workers won't simply flez themselves rather than expose themselves to the possible radiation contamination. The municipal workers called to represent the Parks, Sanitiation and Highway departments were instructed in their expected responsibilities but they joked and questioned what they would or could really do. The parks worker was to go through the parks and clear people out. The Highway worker was to help the police set up and man barricades.
Throughout the day the Sergeants responsible for directing local
/~h directed by the Hawthorne command center. participation were only able to respond to the events kl expected events because they didn't have They were unable to plan sufficient information on for possible contingencies plans. There were many attempts to anticipate circumstances that might occur, such as requests for weather information that went unanswered, but lacking clear information they simply waited for direction.
As it turned out, there was an accident on the Taconic State Parkway that required an ambulance and the other vehicle in Yorktown was also in use during the drill. If there was a need to evacuate non-ambulatory people within their jurisdiction, they would have had to rely on surrounding ambulance services.
Evidently the Yorktown police are responsible for dispatching the Somers fire department during the day. Repeated calls to them in response to the drill went unanswered. They were never reached during the time I was observing, although they were directed by Hawthorne to instuct them to participate and have barricades available. ,
My feeling from the police personnel was that there was no simple way, even in the best possible case, to evacuate the 10 mile evacuation zone, that there would be no way to keep order in the event of an evacuation, that their personnel were untrained, and that those currently directing the evacuation drill were also unprepared.
O
1 1
O Observations of Jerry Robock on Wednesday, March 9, 1983 Yorktown police Station, Yorktown Heights, N. Y.
19:20 Arrived in lobby of police station. Met Hal poritsky, previous observer. Informed of events in progress.
10:25 Highway worker enters. Sgt. Arruda gave worker a kit with a docimeter and thyroid pills and instructed the worker how the docimeter worked, what it was, and how to read it. Sgt. Arruda also explained what the thyroid pills were suppose to do and instructed the worker not to take the pills unless instructed by the Health department. The worker was told to return the kit after the drill.
Sgt Arruda told the worker that if this was a real emergency he would be asked to meet a policeman at a designated location and bring barricades. His responsibility would be to prevent people from entering the evacuation zone and assist people in leaving the zone. He was told to remain in his truck after setting up the barricades and that if he had to leave the truck he should wear protective clothing.
He chuckled and said he hadn't been given any.
10:29 Highway worker left.
19:32 Sgt. Massi responded to a call on the emergency radio system from the Hawthorne command center to report on traffic and congestion on the entire length of Route 202.
10:45 Two other city workers (one from the parks dept. and the other from the sanitation dept. ) enter with the previous highway worker arid hang out in lobby.
10:45 Desk officer asked to monitor Emergency Broadcast System.
Officer turned on radio set on WABC who stated that the volume control was set at too loud a position. Sgt Massi replied that "we' ll have to make some arrangements to fix this". The radio was turned off.
10:48 Highway worker was interviewed by reporter from North County News. Worker stated that " Con Ed should provide everyone with radiation suits. It would be cheaper..." than evacuating. "Look at (Route) 202 at 5:00!". (Laugh) 10:50 Request over local police radio for a check back on the road conditions. No response yet.
10:51 Town Supervisor Nancy Elliot enter evacuation center, a small room two rooms behind the front desk. Sgt. Massi reports to her that no manpower had been deployed at that point.
O
i i
10:54 Reporter from WVIP radio station interviews Sgt Massi for a
()ctatement.Sgt Massi replied that things were progressing nicely and that they were participating in the drill. He said that the event at Indian point had been upgraded to an on-site emergency. He stated that if this was a real accident it would be difficult to determine what they would be able to do. Sgt Massi mentioned that due to the bus ctrike it was questionable about evacuating people. He stated that "nobody knows what the real thing would be like" and suggested calling ,
e snow emergency.
l 10:56 A second request was made from Hawthorne to check traffic.
Yorktown reported no problems.
Yorktown was reminded by Hawthorne that at 10:51 the on-site cmergency was upgraded to stage 3. They were told that the county was cimulating specific points to deploy police personnel to. Yorktown was not being asked to deploy any personnel at this time. Yorktown was informed that there would be two point in Yorktown where police would I
ba deployed.
10:59 Test of hot line radio.
11:00 Yorktown informed that they were not being received well on I
the radio test.
11:01 Yorktown asked by Hawthorn command to check the general Octatus. Sgt Arruda commented that "now it should get worse."
i
(
l 11:03 Sgts Arruda and Massi discussing notification of emergency status with Nancy Elliot. Statement that "they' ve got it backwards" in reference to sequence of stage 2 and stage 3 events as to which stage an on-site emergency was.
11:08 Radio check with command center. Communication now " loud and clear".
11:08 Municipal workers told they would not be needed and that they should resume their normal duties. After returning their emergency kits they left.
11:17 Sgt Massi commented to Sgt Arruda that they had received no training for an evacuation, that they' d only been trained about what radiation is.
11:22 peekskill police called for a radio check. They were received c
" loud and clear".
11:24 Both sargents are discussing with Nancy Elliot the problems that they were aware of that had plagued Indian point in the past few years.
O <
l l .
l
~ 11:27 Discussion continues trying to figure out what stage cmergency it presently was. One sgt stated that the Fire Center was confused about the sequence of alerts. He admitted that he " honestly" didn' t know himself.
i 11:29 Hawthorne command called for an ambulance to report to Dregon Corners to simulate something.
11:31 Yorktown police tried to reach the Somers police station by radio. They couldn' t be reached.
l 11:32 Sgt. Massi states that at 10:13 they declared a general emergency and that at 10:51 they declared an on-site emergency. He stated that "they' ve got it backwards".
11:33 Call from Hawthorne command to Croton to simulate moving barricades to Green secctions A1, A2 and A3.
11:34 Both sargents check map for Green section in evacuation room.
11:36 Croton call to Hawthorne command stating that Green sections I
A 1, A2 and A3 were not in their Jurisdiction.
11:37 Sgt. Massi calls Hawthorne command for weather information.
()Hawthornerepliedthattherewasnoinformationavailable.
11:45 Hawthorne request Yorktown to check with Somers to see if there were any barricades available. They were not called because they couldn' t be reached before.
11:50 Yorktown called Hawthorne command for weather information about wind direction. Hawthorne replied that there was no wind or weather information available and that there wouldn't be any that day.
11:54 Hawthorne called Yorktown to request two cars to be dispatched, one to Route 6 and the Taconic State Parkway and the other to Routes 35 and 202 and Pinesbridge Road.
11:57 Patrol cars told to proceed to above locations and to l ntandby. They were to simulate blocking traffic.
! 11:59 Yorktown told to notify Hawthorne when the cars were in position. e 12:00 Yorktown told by Fire Control Center to notify Somers Fire Department to be on standby and that everyone was to remain indoors at the fire house.
12:04 All fire departments put on notice from Fire Control via the fire phone. Somers fire department still not reachable.
g errw-- rvy-wpev- c- e y-- o Tr w p pqr y--w w e m gw-e
t . .
0: 12 06 All personnel told to standby by the hot line. "This is a drill." Radio message that at 11:50 Governor Cuomo took control and 1
' declared a State of Emergency. Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 were to be i cvacuated. Zones 18, 11 and 14 were to be sheltered. '
12:07 Second car reported back that he was in position.
12:88 Yorktown police turn on WABC. Only the regular news was being broadcast. Radio turned off. Sgts Arruda and Massi check wall map for cpecified areas.
12:09 Check Dy Hawthorne command to see if hotline messages were received. They were.
12:11 Desk officer checks WABC to see if any relevant news was on.
There wasn' t. Radio turned off.
- 12
- 11 Request from command center as to availability of local
- cmbulances. Yorktown police call Yorktown Volunteer Ambulance Corp.
Told both ambulances were not available. Ambulance Corp would notify police when an ambulance was available.
12:12 Mohegan Ambulance Corp called. Responded that both vehicles were in the building.
( )12:19 Sgt Arruda phones a Mr Kesnan (?) at ext. 284 to clarify term " emergency" at Indian Point 3. Previous discussion with others in office questioned the term.
l t
12:19 Responses to command center on status of ambulances; 2 out j cnd 2 available.
1 12:28 Discussion in office of events. Sgt Arruda remarks that they
" don' t tell us a hill of beans".
12:22 Call from command center to check radio communications. They were received well.
12:23 Command center radioed that the wind was south-easternly.
12:24 A civil defense person left with badges and radiation pills.
12:26. Yorktown officers checking evasuation booklet for evacuation routes. <
l 12:32 Sgt comments that "if this was the real thing, forget it."
- 12
- 32 Command center radioed that they were going to simulate avacuating 2 persons from the Cortland nursing home. They were to be i
transported to Kent by ambulance.
.I.
Sgt. Arruda replies that both Yorktown ambulances were still
( L 12:33 busy. He would call Mohegan Lake. Sgt. Arruda commented to Officer Juliano (who was recording the day's events) that they would simulate calling Mohegan. No call was ever made.
12:36 Sgt Massi tests the emergency radio backup transmitter. It worked.
12:37 Patrolman enters desk area and asks if the " reactor (blew) up yet". Desk officer replied "no, not yet".
12:50 Sgt Arruda calls person at Ext 284. No answer.
12:52 Yorktown ambulance calls to clarify the need of an ambulance in reference to the previous request. Ambulance told that police had not received any different instructions and that they should call if their status changed.
12:56 Official emergency evacuation manuals brought into evacuation room. At least two very thick volumes. Sgts studying them.
1:00 Hawthorne command on radio requesting check of traffic on routes 9 and 9A and on Croton Ave.
1:20 Official observer call for comment. Speaker to Sgts.
1:26 Cortland police department radios saying they were ovacuating. Could they come to the Yorktown headquarters and bring 10 persons and their radio equipment. Nancy Elliot gives permission.
1:32 Sgt Arruda requests traffic status from his patrols.
1:42 Sgt Arruda replies to Sgt Massi that there has been "no change" in reference to on-going situation.
1:46 Hawthorne command radios that all special assignments should be recalled. County patrols told to resume normal patrols.
1:49 Yorktown notifies its patrols to resume normal duty.
1
, e
)
i l
I
. - - . - - - - ,.-,-r -,..m_e -%,,,,_ .,,,_m__.._
14501 i
1 MR. HASSEL: Can you help me on that
)
2 first page of Robock? I d id n' t get the first page.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes, the sentence 4 dealing with the accident on the Taconic State 5 Parkway stays in. The rest of it comes out.
6 MR. HASSEL: Thank you.
7 JUDGE PARIS: The whole page doesn't 8 come out, just those things that were moved to be 9 stricken.
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. BRANDENBURG:
12 Q. Mr. Poritzky, you tell us how-you
~'
- 13 came to be a witness here today? ,
14 A. (Witness Po r i t zk y) Here today?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. ( W i t n e s 's Po r i t zk y) Because I was an 17 intervenor at the time-of the drill.
18 Q. Did someone ask you to serve as a 19 witness?
20 A. (Witness Po r i tzk y) I took it for 21 granted I would serve as a witness. Last year I 22 served also but I wasn't invited. I heard there 23 was no invitation given there was there. And
() 24 since there was an invitation think year I figured 25 I could get it.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14502
~-
1 Q. Can you tell us what intervenor group v
2 you are affiliated it?
3 A. (Witness Poritzky) I am a private 4 citizens living in this area for 65 years.
5 Q. What intervenor group are you 6 associated with?
7 MS. POTTERFIELD: I object. Let the 8 witness answer.
! 9 JUDGE GLEASON: Let him respond, 10 please.
11 A. (Witness Po r i t zky) I am involved with-
! 12 the Parents Concerned from Yorktown, I am involved l P I L" 13 with other groups also. I figured I could come as 14 a citizen who has lived here for 65 years.
15 Q. Mr. Robock, would you tell us how you 16 came to be a witness hear today?
17 A. (Witness Ro boc k) Since moving into l 18 Yorktown I have participated in many different
[
19 groups, whose sole point is to close down Indian 20 Point.
21 As such, volunteered to, living in 22 Yorktown, to go to Yorktown and observe.
I 23 Q. Mr. Poritzky, d id you receive any
) 24 guidance prior to the drill as to what you should l
l 25 do, the types of notations you should make, the t
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14503 1 types of things you should observe? Anything of (Vq 2 that the sort?
3 A. (Witness Poritzky) Just go and 4 observe, similar to what I observed the year 5 before. I was given a lot of information the year 6 before but they d idn' t accept my testimony at that 7 time. I figured I would do about the same thing 8 this time, and I think it was done pretty well.
9 Q. Who was it that decided that you 10 should go to the Yorktown police department rather 11 than some other facility?
12 A. (Witness Poritzky) I volunteered to 13 go. I don't know who decided.
i 14 Q. Mr. Robock, how was it that you came l
15 to go to the Yorktown police headquarters on March 16 9 rather than some other facility?
l l 17 A. (Witness Ro boc k) I live in Yorktown 18 and I volunteered to go. I knew that was one of 1 19 the sites that was important to cover and I 20 offered my services.
21 Q. Did you have a discussion with anyone 22 as to the types of things you should observe, 23 things you should look for, things you shouldn't
() 24 look for, anything of that sort?
i 25 A. (Witness Ro b o c k) I met with other TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14504
?"] 1 people who were intervenors and talked what it was xJ 2 we were there to accomplish, which was to write 3 down, observe and document what we saw. But 4 specifically being instructed in a way o f doing it, 5 no.
6 Q. Well, did you understand that your 7 purpose was to document those manners in which the 8 functioning of the exercise in your opinion did 9 not go smoothly?
10 A. (Witness Ro boc k) No, I was there 11 there as nonpartially as possible to observe and 12 doc umen t what ac tually occur red at that point in U -13 time, which I believe is what I did.
14 Q. Mr. Robock, let's look at your entry 15 under 10:45. Do you have any knowledge as to 16 whether or not the Yorktown police station has a l 17 responsibility to monitor the emergency broadcast I
18 system under the emergency plan?
19 A. (Witness Robock) No, I do not.
20 MR. BRANDENBURG: Mr. Chairman, I have i
21 no further questions.
22 MR. CZAJA: I have no questions of 23 these witnesses, Judge.
] 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Does the staff have l 25 any questions?
l I
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14505 "N, 1 MR. HASSEL: No, we do not.
(G 2 JUDGE GLEASON: Any r ed i r ec t?
3 MS. POTTERFIELD: Only to ask whether 4 or not the board is familiar with the area to know 5 where Yorktown is or whether I mig h t ask these 6 witnesses to show it on the map?
7 JUDGE GLEASON: We are always glad to 8 get further information. We toured the area. We 9 went through a lot of hills.
10 JUDGE PARIS: Are we going to be 11 looking at Con Ed 87 12 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes.
13 JUDGE SHON: We held one limited 14 appearance session in Yorktown Heights.
15 MS. POTTERFIELD: I only asked in case 16 the board might n o t- have a recollection?
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
19 Q. Where is Yorktown with relation to 20 the EPZ?
21 A. (Witness Robock) In fact this whole 22 area here.
23 Q. Can you be any more precise? You are
.() 24 indicating where these dotted red lines are, is 25 that right?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 4
14506 1 A. (Witness Robock) Yes.
2 Q. Can you indicate any more precisely ,
i 3 where the police department is in Yorktown?
4 A. (Witness Roboc k) The police ctation j 5 .i s located r ig ht there, Ro u te 202 and Ro u te 35.
- 6. MS. POTTERFIELD: I have no further i 7 redirect.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you, gentlemen, 9 for your testimony.
10 MS. FLEISHER: Your Honor, as our i
11 witness, West Branch offers Mrs. Neva Powell.
12 Whereupon M
13 NEVA POWELL, being d uly swo rn by the 14 ' administrative judge, testified as followed.
l l 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION l 16 BY MS. FLEISHER:
17 Q. Mrs. Powell, you have before you a 18 document with pages one and two, entitled "The 19 testimony of Neva Powell"?
I
.20 Q. Yes, I do.
21 Q. If you were to state what you have on 22 pages one and two today, would it be the same as 23 when - yo u wrote it?
24 A. Yes, it would.
25 .Q. And d id you write this by yourself TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14507 s'% 1 and with no outside help?
\m) 2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Have you any corrections or changes 4 to make?
I 5 A. I have an addition to make, yes.
6 0 Well, let's hear the nature of it.
7 A. I felt strongly that I should finish 8 this report, so I talked to Chief Grant who was 9 responsible for the drill held at the hospital 10 where I was the observer.
11 I asked him questions and he replied.
12 They d id not extend or put a liner in the bathing h 13 facility that I referred to there, nor d id they 14 get out towels, gowns or other equipment. The 15 public did in no way participate.
16 They did define the shower area --
17 JUDGE GLEASON: Are you adding to your 18 testimony?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am..
20 JUDGE GLEASON: She is entitled to at 21 least offer it --
22 MS. FLEISHER: I can't hear you, 23 Judge.
(). 24 JUDGE GLEASON: I say she is entitled 25 to offer additions to her testimony as long as it TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14508
. [F} l is brief.
LJ 2 THE WITNESS: They are very brief.
3 Just another two sentences.
4 MS. FLEISHER: Your Honor, she didn't 5 stay the whole day and I asked her how she knew 6 that nothing had happened after she left, and so 7 she said she would call Chief Grant.
8 Now she is telling you what she found 9 out from him.
10 It is really not necessary unless 11 someone asks her whether or not anything took 12 place after she left. Would you rather wait and L' "')
13 see if someone crosses her on that?
14 JUDGE GLEASON: Is that necessary?
15 MS. FLEISHER: She felt it was 16 necessary.
17 THE WITNESS: I am trying to give you 18 honest testimony here.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: I understand that. I 20 am not saying that you can't. It is just that 21 ordinarily if there are corrections to testimony, 22 they are submitted so we can make them in the 23 testimony and other people have a right to object
) 24 to it based on whatever g ro und s they want to, or 25 if it is accepted it is hard to follow it on the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14509 l basis of where it fits because you are just
{
2 reading.
3 Sometimes somebody comes in and_wants 4 to read a le ng th y statement, but we deal here with 5 prefiled testimony.
6 THE WITNESS: It is very brief. It i 7 was a conclusion to what I had experienced during 8 the day and it will be on the record.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: Read your final two 10 sentence'.
11 THE WITNESS: Two groups of people 12 came through on inspection tours later, one group
(") 13 of federal inspectors, one group from the state.
14 They were shown some equipment and records. There 15 was no actual drill.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: There was no actual i 17 what?
18 THE WITNESS: Actual drill.
i 19 MS. FLEISHER: Your Honor, I would i
i l 20 like to offer into the record as if read the l
21 testimony of Neva Powell, pages 1 and 2, and'the 22 addition she has just made.
l l 23 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there objection?
i-~
l (m) 24 MR. CZAJA: Yes, Judge. I object to 25 the additional testimony. There is no reason that l
l-TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
r 14510 1 couldn't be prefiled. We haven't seen it and had 2 no opportunity to study it or prepare 3 cross-examination on this hearsay additional 4 testimony.
5 On page 2 of the prefiled testimony, 6 at the top o f the page, the run-on paragraph, we
.7 object to the last sentence in the paragraph, "He 8 told me," and in the second full paragraph --
9 MS. FLEISHER: Mr. Czaja, isn't only 10 ene objection filed?
11 MR. CZAJA: No, two objections were 12 filed on page 2.
~
13 MS. FLEISHER: I am sorry.
14 JUDGE GLEASON: In lig h t of the ruling 15 the board made on previous objections, are you 16 still going to make those objections?
17 MR. CZAJA: I will withdraw those two 18 objections.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: It seems we are going 20 to trip over each other if we are going to go line 21 by line instead o f mee ting the criteria.
22 MR. CZAJA: I will withdraw those two 23 objections and stand on the objection to the
) 24 additional testimony?
25 MR. BRANDENBURG: We had one brief TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
N 14511
?'] _1 passage in this witness' prefiled testimony. Over Ll 2 the long lunch hour I have decided to withdraw the 3 objection. I am also guided by your Honor's 4 ruling that these witnesses should state what they 5 saw and heard.
6 I would object only to the last 7 phrase of her additional testimony as she read it, 8 the words, "There was no actual drill."
9 I would confine my motion to that.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: Can I read what you 11 have written? I hope it is not like my 12 handwriting, but is it readable?
b 13 THE WITNESS: More or less (handing).
14 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
15 JUDGE GLEASON: Ms. Powell, what did 16 you mean by the words, "There was no actual drill"?
r '17 THE WITNESS: I asked Chief Grant if 18 they had ac tually done anything. His reply was 19 "there was no drill."
20 JUDGE GLEASON: By that yo u concl ud ed 21 that if you had asked him if there was an exercise, l
! 22 he would have also said there was no exercise?
23 Those are used interchangably?
] 24 THE WITNESS: He used the word drill, 25 "There was no drill."
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
l 14512 l
a l JUDGE GLEASON: Does that mean
}
2 exercise?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: I think she is 5 reporting what she saw. It meets the test and we 6 are going to let her statements come in.
7 I think they are very simple things 8 which she has written. If you want to take a 9 minute and look at it before you cross-examine.
10 MS. FLEISHER: The witness is ready, 11 sir, for cross-examination.
12 JUDGE GLEASON: The statement of the C) 13- witness, with the addition, will be received into 14 evidence and bound into the record as if read.
15 (The bound testimony follows) i 16 f
l 17
(
18 19 20 21 22 23
() 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
UNITED STATi'.S CF .MIERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSON ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSNG BOARD Administrative Judges:
James Gleason, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris In the Marter of Frederick 3. Shon CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK Docket Nos. 30-247-SP (Indian Point, Unit 2) 30-236-SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK April 11, 1983 (Indian Point, Unit 3)
.WEST BRANCH CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION'S TESTIMONY OF O
NEVA POWELL March 9 Exercise 443 Buena Vista Road New City, N.Y. 10956 ,
914/634-2327 0
(/- My name is Neva Powell, I have lived on Christian Herald Road in Valley Cottage, N.Y. for 31 years. I am married to Eugene Powell, am the mother of three children now grown and the grandmother of two.
I have a Bachelors degree in Fine Arts and lack but one point for a Masters. I have taught thousands of child-ren when I was a teacher at the Board of Cooperative Exten-sion Services and in the Nanuet School District. I now teach at the Rockland Center For The Arts and at The Rock-land County Center For The Physically Handicapped.
On March 9, 1983, I went to the Rockland Psychiatric Center in Orangeburg, N.Y. to observe the decontamination center. I arrived at 9:05 A.M. to find there were no signs
(} placed to direct people to such a unit. The building, made of concrete, was the Security and Fire station, probably 80' I 100'. It gave the appearance of being old, dingy and cluttered. On one side was a big door and placed near it were a fire engine and a truck. On the other side there was a boat approximately 20' long and scattered lockers.
On the entrance door there was a sign directing people stating that those who were contaminated should go to the right of the rope and those who were not, to the left of the rope but when I got inside I saw no rope.
At the back of the station there was an office room with radio communications and 2 men in security uniforms.
Next to it was a smaller and quite cluttered office which O
was that of the Chief of Security, On his desk were 3 old geiger counters and three new counters. He told me that someone had visited him the day before the drill to test the counters and show him how to operate them as well as 6 dosimeters.
In the middle of the large room, or space, was a folding metal frame that was a tank, or pool, but did not have a lining. It wasn't set up and there were no hoses anywhere in sught.
i At about 9:30 Chief Grant arrived. Two people also arrived and said they were from social services and they proceeded to go into the building and upstairs. However, I was asked for identification and when I said I had per-(} mission via telephone from Mr. Don Hatings he told me I would have to have identification papers with a photograph. We called to the Fire Training Center which had given us per-mission and they said they could not supply identification that complicated on the spot. The Chief then~ asked me to l leave. About this time Mrs. Galdone arrived and he asked l
us both to leave. I asked the reason and he said because we l
had not identification with photographs. As we left we saw l
no further signs of preparation. Outside the building there were no hoses,. tanks, etc. or anything else that looked as
} if they could hose down a bus or truck. We had seen no towels, clothing. Inside they had placed some paper mats in front of the small entrance door. We left at 10:10 AM.
A
()
O ATTESTATION -
This is to certify that I, Neva Powell, do affirm that the attached testimony is true to the best of my knowledre and belief.
l AA sh Valley Cottage,N.Y. NEAPCWELL April 8, 1983 i
i O
1 s
I e
- , . - - --,- s.,ww-....--,-----wn-, s,-_n,-w~n--.----_..,, , . , _- - , _, ,... . e.., ,_.,.,r---,-,,,_.a,..,r-- ,,-----eve- , , m .- , - - , - - - - - - - - - , , - , . ,
- 14513
{} l CROSS-EXAMINATION v
2 BY MR. CZAJA:
3 Q. Mrs. Powell, prior to March 9 had you 4 formed any opinion regarding the adequacy of 5 emergency planning in Rockland County?
6 A. It is hard to live in any area and 7 not have some opinions.
8 Q. You d id have --
9 A. To be honest. But I have an open 10 mind also. I am willing to be impressed by either 11 side.
12 Q. I question simply whether prior to L^" 13' March 9 you did have an opinion or yo u d idn' t have.
14 an opinion. There is nothing sinister about 15 having an opinion but I would just like to put it 16 on the record.-
17 A. I think everybody has opinions and I, 18 like other people, have opinions.
19 Q. Prior to March 9 what was your 20 opinion regarding the adequacy of emergency 21 preparedness of Rockland County?
22 A. This is very difficult for me to 23 respond to. Rockland County, as you know, is not m So I was ij 24 participating the way Westchester does.
25 very anxious to see what was happening, how the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14514 l state would run whatever it was they were going to q
2 run. I was looking forward to this to see what 3 was happening.
4 Q. My question is simply whether you had 5 formed an opinion prior to March 9 based on what 6 you knew about what the state was doing, whether 7 that was adequate in terms of emergency planning 8 for Rockland County?
9 A. I had no way of knowing until I saw 10 this.
11 Q. You had no opinion?
12 A. No.
(~y x !
13 Q. How did it come that you were an 14 observer on March 9?
15 A. I have people who know that I am 16 rather well trained in being observant and I was 17 asked by that g roup o f people to go.
18 Q. Who was that g roup of people?
19 A. West Branch Conservation Association.
20 Q. Are you a member of West Branch 21 Conservation Association?
22 A. No, I am not.
23 Q. But you know people in that group?
! 24 A. Yes. I am a private citizen.
25 MR. CZAJA: I have no further TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14515
- R 1 questions.
LJ 2 MR. BRANDENBURG: No questions.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Does the staff have 4 any questions?
5 MR. HASSEL: No.
6 MS. FLEISHER: Any redirect, Ms.
7 Fleisher?
8 MS. FLEISHER: I don't think so, thank 9 you.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you, Ms. Powell.
11 We appreciate your testimony.
12 THE WITNESS: As I go to my seat, I
'J know I am not supposed to really talk to you but --
13 14 JUDGE GLEASON: Off the record.
15 (There was a discussion off the i
16 record.)
17 MS. POTTERFIELD: Intervenors call
, 18 ' Barbara Hickernell, Carolyn Plage, Agnes Sanchez l
19 and Joan Indusi.
, '20 Whereupon-l 21 BARBARA HiCKERNELL, CAROLYN PLAGE, 22 JOAN INDUSI and AGNES S A N C ll E Z , being duly sworn by 23 the administrative judge, testified 'a s follows:
(] 24 DIRECT EXAMINATION 25 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
> 14516 1 Q. Ms. Ili c k e r n e l l , would you sta te your
(~S
%)
2 .name and address for the record?
3 A. (Witness Hickernell) Barbara 4 Hickernell, 12 Terrich Court, Ossining New York.
5 Q. Is it Ms. Page or Plage?
6 A. (Witness Plage) Plage.
7 Q. Would you state your name and address 8 for the record?
9 A. (Witness Plage) Carolyn Plage, 11 10 Courtland Place, Ossining, New York.
11 Q. Miss Sanchez, would you state your 12 name and address for the record?
13 A. (Witness Sa nc he z) Agnes Sanchez, 112 14 Glendale Road, Ossining, New York.
15 Q. If you will speak up, Ms. Sanchez.
16 A. (Witness Sanche z) 10562.
17 Q. Miss Indusi, would you state your 18 name and address for the record?
19 A. 38 and a half Walton Road in Ossining; 20 Joan Indusi.
21 Q. Do the four of you have before you 22 five pages that comprise your joint -testimony that 23 you wish to submit before the Atomic Safety and
() 24' Licensing Board?
25 (All answer yes).
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14517 1 Q. Do any of you have additions or
)
2 corrections to that testimony?
. 3 A. (Witness Indusi) I have an addition-I 4 would like to make. While I was at police 5 headquarters, one of the policemen --
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Just so we keep the 7 record s t r a ig h t , is this an addition to your 8 sta temen t?
9 THE WITNESS: (Witness Ind us i) To my 10 testimony, yes. If I am permitted to say it, I 11 don't know.
t i 12 JUDGE GLEASON: You are permitted to f~l
'd 13 add to your testimony to be offered, but it has to 14 be done in such a way that people can understand 15 it so they know whether they can cross-examine 16 with respect to it. If you just go on with a lot
! 17 of statements, it is hard for anybody to l'
18 comprehend that, you see? Th a t ' s the problem.
19 So if you are going to add, you are L
.20 . going to have to go slowly.
[
21 THE WITNESS: (Witness Indusi) I see.
22 While I was at police headquarters,-one of the 23 officers showed me the monitoring device that they f 24 had. It looked like a fat pin that he was 25 carrying on his person, and he showed it to me and TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1
14518 he showed me how to take the readings. And I
<]s 1 2 found that I could get any reading I wanted on 3 that thing.
4 I thought that would be valuable 5 information.
6 Q. With that additional information from 7 Ms. Ind us i , is the testimony true and accurate to 8 the best of all of your information and belief 9 (All answer yes) 10 MS. POTTERFIELD: I move the admission 11- into evidence of the testimony of Barbara 12 Hickernell, Carolyn Plage, Agnes Sanchez, and Joan I rQ-1 V 13 Indusi as if read.
14 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there objection?
15 MR. BRANDENBURG: There is some, Mr.
16 Chairman, as set forth in pages 9 and 10 of our 17 written motion. I will recount them very briefly.
18 On page 3 of Ms. Hickernell's l
l 19 testimony, the last sentence in the next to last
! 20 paragraph, referring to construction on route 9 A, I
, 21. we. object to on the grounds of hearsay.
l-
! 22 Turning to page 4 of Ms. Hickernell's 23 testimony, the last eight lines saying, "I would
%lh 24 hope that," and continuing --
l 25 JUDGE GLEASON: Which page, excuse me?
l L TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l~
14519 79 1 MR. BRANDENBURG: Page 4 of Ms.
L_J 2 Hickernell, stating, "I would hope that," and 3 continuing to the end of the page, Con Edison 4 objects to that. It is speculative, no foundation 5 laid for it in terms of the witness' expertise on 6 the subject matter, and also that it is conclusory.
7 Turning the page to the joint 8 testimony of Ms. Plage and others, we object to 9 the last phrase in the first sentence starting on 10 line 2, "When actually they were supposed to ask 11 them to cover the intersections of 9 and 9A," as 12 1. a v i n g no foundation.
F1 LJ 13 We object to the second full 14 paragraph --
15 JUDGE PARIS: Where was that first one?
16 MR. BRANDENBURG: Second line of the i
17 Plage testimony, a clause started, "When actually,"
18 to the end of the sentence, on the grounds there-19 is no foundation.
20 We object to the full second 21 paragraph in its entirety quoting unidentified 22 local officials and the like, as hearsay and 23 unreliable at that.
) 24 Lastly, we object to the last 25 sentence in the Plage, et al. Testimony, starting, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
4 14520 l "Mrs. Indusi's notes reflect," on the grounds 2 that's unreliable hearsay.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Do you have anything 4 to add?
5 MR. CZAJA: Yes, Judge. First of all, 6 I object to the additional testimony. Again there 7 is no reason why it co uld n' t have been included in 8 the prefiled testimony.
9 MR. BRANDENBURG: I would like to note, 10 and I should have said it, Mr. Chairman, our 11 similar objection to the addition.
j 12 MR. CZAJA: Turning to Ms. Hickernell's O 13 testimony, the first page, the first full 14 paragraph, the last sentence, the sentence in a 15 parenthesis, that starts three lines from the 16 bottom of of the paragraph, "We wondered aloud,"
17 lacks foundation, is irrelevant.
18 The last paragraph on that page l
19 starting with, " Shortly after this," we object to 20 on the grounds of hearsay and relevance.
l 21 Page 2, the very last line on the i
22 page, "One officer commented," we object on the 23 grounds of hearsay.
() 24 Page 3, the second line on the page, l
l 25 the phrase starting with, " Lieutenant Burton," and l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i
5 >
i 14521
- 1. continuing to the end of that line, we object to 2 on the grounds of hearsay.
3 JUDGE PARIS: The first paragraph?
4 MR. CZAJA: Yes. " Lieutenant Burns 5 said we don't know how to work them." That's on 6- the second line of the first paragraph on page 3.
7 The bottom of page 3, the last 8 paragraph, we object to on the grounds of hearsay 9 and relevance.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: "Someone came in,"
11 that whole paragraph?
12 MR. CZAJA: Yes. "Some unidentified P
k <
13 person came in."
14 Page 4, the second full paragraph 15 starting with the fourth line of that paragraph, 16 " Officer Gross, who said," through the remainder 17 of that paragraph, we object on the grounds of 18 hearsay.
19 At the conclusion of that page, the 20 last paragraph starting with the sixth line, 21 "Since they were told," we object to on the 22 grounds of hearsay, lacks foundation, is 23 irrelevant and speculative.
() 24 Turning to the next page of the three 25 observers' testimony, from the beginning of the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14522 I testimony, Ms. Plage's notes, continuing down
~)
2 eight lines through and i ncl ud ing "who was 3 supposed to be .where." We object to that on the 4 grounds of hearsay and it contains some conclusory 5 statements. .
6 I would join in Con Ed's objection to 7 the material at the beginning of the next 8 paragraph, starting with "Mrs. Sanchez's notes,"
l 9 and I would similarly join in Con Ed's objection 10 with reregard to the very last sentence on the 11 page.
12 MS. POTTERFIELD: Judge, we stand on n 13 our previous objections, except I can't resist to
, 14 express some amusement at the idea of the fact 15 that there is construction on 9A is hearsay to 1
16 someone who lives in Ossining.
17 Similarly, the idea that a wonder 18 wondering a loud needs some kind of foundation to l 19 it.
20 The objections to the final page,
- 21 obviously the testimony was typed from the notes i
22 of Ms. Plage, Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Indusi, all 23 three of whom are here to testify, and their i
() 24 testimony is not hearsay. They are here to tell 25 you what they saw and heard.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14523 1
f V'i 1 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you.
U 2 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
3 JUDGE GLEASON: I think we have come 1
4 to a conclusion.
5 Starting at page 1, the sentence, "We 6 wondered a loud" comes out.
7 I am sorry, the sentence stays in.
8 That sentence stays in.
9 The sentence at the bottom of the 10 page comes out, "The unidentified village employee" 11 doesn't get by any test of reliability that I know 12 of.
13 The same for the bottom of page 2, 14 "One officer commented," same reasons.
1 15 The to p o f page 3 is all right.
16 On the bottom of page 3 the statement 17 of Mr. Wish knee is all right, that stays in.
18 The statement on the bottom of the 19 page that "someone came in" comes out. That whole 20 paragraph comes out.
21 Page 4, Ms. Hickernell, of the 22 reference to quote he spoke with an officer Gross, 23 who said," was Officer Gross in the room at the 7%J (J 24 time? Did you hear him say that?
i 25 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell)
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
T 14524 Officer Gross was on the other end of the radio.
{N
.,)
1 2 When Mr. Wishnie reported back to everybody else, 3 he said, " Officer Gross at the EOC said" such and 4 such.
5 How about this "Mr. Wishnie was told,"
6 what is that based on?
7 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell) 8 The same conversation.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: That has to come out.
10 JUDGE PARIS: Were you hearing both 11 ends of this r ad io transmission?
12 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell) I CD
'\# 13 was hearing what Mr. Wishnie was reporting to the 14 police chief.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: You were getting your I
16 information from Mr. Wishnie?
i l 17 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell) 18 Yes. Mr. Wishnie said he was going to make the 19 telephone call and Chie f Gold f arb came in and they 20 made the call, and this is what he reported to the 21 police chief.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: So that has to come 23 out.
I) 24 On the bottom of page 4 there is a 25 word missing --
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14525 rM 1 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell)
O 2 Initiative.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: I was trying to play 4 cross word puzzle and I was having trouble.
5 The phrase in that paragraph, "One 6 would assume people would evacuate east or south, 4 7 the latter coming through Ossining's main roads 9 8 and 9 A" will have to come out. The rest of the 9 sentence stays in.
l 10 However, I have to ask you a question.
11 Do you know as a matter of fact, in your own i 12 personal knowledge, that there was a three-mile 13 backup that morning?
14 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell) 15 The police reported it there at the station. It 16 was, I believe, in the paper also.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: We have to know what j 18 you heard or knew yourself as a fact.
i 19 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell) I 20 was not caught up in it.
i 21 JUDGE GLEASON: You heard the 22 policeman say that?
23 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell) 7mx
( ,) 24 Yes.
25 JUDGE GLEASON: Which policeman?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14526 1 T ilE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell) I
("Jg w
2 am afraid I took down no badge numbers and only 3 the policemen I knew personally, like Goldfarb --
4 JUDGE GLEASON: It is really beyond 5 the test but we will leave it stay in.
6 The bottom part of that paragraph 7 that starts, "I would hope that" has to come out 8 as being conclusionary.
9 on the next page, Mrs. Plage what war 10 the nature of this information about the calling ,
11 from the county police, how did you know that?
12 THE WITNESS: (Witness Plage) I could 13 hear a radio getting calls in, but Chief Goldfarb 14 came over and explained to me when we were hearing 15 that, they were trying to tell them they were to l
16 go someplace else. He explained that one car had 17 been sent to 9 and 9A and now he was being told 18 that he was supposed to go to Croton Point instead.
19 There ensued about three or four l
20 phone calls trying to straighten out who was 21 supposed to be where.
22 Then he mentioned that there had been 23 a plan to --
() 24 JUDGE GLEASON: I just wondered how 25 you got it.
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14527 P"} l That sentence will have to come out l k_; ;
2 about the call coming to Ossining Police by the 1
3- county police asking the Ossining police to cover 4 Croton Point. That doesn't meet the test of l 5 reliability.
6 As well as covering the intersections 7 of Routes 9 and 9A, did you hear Chief Goldfarb 8 call the county back?
9 THE WITNESS: (Witness Plage) Yes.
10 And he came and told us.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: I know that, but did 1
12 you hear him call the county police?
"" - 13 Tile WITNESS: (Witness Plage) Yes, I 14 heard him making the call.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. How about I
l 16 the call back from the county police to switch the 17 orders to 9, 9A -- Oh, that was what came back 18 from Chief Goldfarb.
19 THE WITNESS: (Witness Plage) It was 20 all the same problem.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: That sentence will 22 have to come out.
23 Also the statement about confusion 7mq
(_) 24 ensued about who was to be where.
25 This pa r ag ra ph about Mrs. Sanchez TAYLUE ASSOCIATES i
14528
~p v
1 notes, how far-do they go in covering that 2 paragraph?
3 THE WITNESS: (Witness Hickernell) 4 That entire paragraph is what I transcribed from 5 the notebook as to her notes. The originals are 6 here.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: That entire paragraph 8 will have to come out.
9 MS. POTT'INGER: You realize Ms.
10 Sanchez is before you, sworn.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: I understand that but 12 I am trying to find out what these statements are
(~ 13 based on.
14 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
15 JUDGE GLEASON: Those statements are 16 either based on an unidentified local official or 17 they are conclusory type statements and cannot be 18 admitted.
19 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sanche z) May I 20 say that was supervisor Wishnie. I just couldn't 21 recall his name.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: He was the 23 unidentified local official?
() 24 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sanchez) Yes.
25 JUDGE GLEASON: With that charge, and TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
}
14529 y^j 1 we will mark it in as Wishnie --
how much of that LJ 2 paragraph is he responsible for?
3 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sa nc he z) That 4 was a conversation between himself and Chief 5 Goldfarb and, well, the other policemen that were 6 there.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: You see, we can't deal 8 with that kind of thing. You have to know who 9 said what. We have to know that you heard someone 10 say what. That's our problem.
11 So did you hear wishnie saying, 12 "There is still room for improve," et cetera?
13 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sa nc he z) Yes.
i 14 JUDGE GLEASON: llo w much of that did 15 you hear him say? Tha t's what I am asking.
16 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sanchez) I l 17 heard him say that specifically.
l l 18 JUDGE GLEASON: How about the rest of l
19 the paragraph?
20 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sa nc he z) More 21 funds were needed.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: How about "more l
23 activity between the county," and so forth?
, 24 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sa nc he z) Yes.
( 25 JUDGE GLEASON: Is everything down to TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14530 1 the quote. is that what you heard? ,
2 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sa nc he z) This
.i 3 was cenversation.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: I don't care whether 5 it was conversation. Did you hear him say it?
6 .Th a t ' s what I am trying to get from you.
7 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sa nc he z) Yes.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: You heard everything 9 within those quotation marks?
10 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sa nc he z) Yes.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: You are certain of
- j. 12 that?
(
13 THE WITNESS: (Witness Sa nche z) Yes.
2 14 JUDGE GLEASON: Then that will stay in.
15 Then the last two sentences will have 16 to come out because this does not go in any 17 quotation marks.
18 Now, to the last, if you heard him 19 say that, that stays in.
i 20 Judge Paris has a question to ask l
21 about your additional testimony on the reliability j 22 of a monitoring device.
23 JUDGE PARIS: Was this a little I
e
(_mj 24 pencil-type dosimeter that you read by holding it
[ 25 up to the l ig h t and looking throughout it?
TAYLOC ASSOCIATES
14531 1 THE WITNESS: (Witness Indusi) Yes.
2 JUDGE PARIS: When you were able to 3 get the needle to move, did you do that by 4 rotating it?
5 THE WITNESS: (Witness Ind usi) Yes.
6 JUDGE PARIS: That's characteristic of 7 those dosimeters.
8 THE WITNESS: (Witness Indusi) I was 9 astounded because if I moved it just ever so 10 slightly it changed the reading. How would 11 someone know which was the proper reading? I was 12 shocked, n
13 JUDGE PARIS: You have to know how to 14 hold it.
15 THE WITNESS: (Witness Ind usi) 16 Obviously the police officer who showed it to me 17 did not know how to hold it because he was 18 suprised also.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: Our interpretation of 20 that testimony is that neither you nor the police i
21 officer really knew how to handle the dosimeter.
22 So, really, it doesn't make any difference whether 23 it stays in or out. We will leave it in with that m
(_J 24 comment from the board.
25 With those changes the testimony of TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
4-
?- )
i i
f' 14532 ;
i I
! I i
1 the - witnesses is received.into evidence, bound .
I
! 2 into the record as if read.
1 l.
3 (The bound testimony f ollows) t 4 .
, 5
! 6 :
? 7 i 8 ,
4 I.
I 9 4
i !
10 3
l 11 !
l 12 '
i> O 13 ,
14 l 15
+
.i j
} 16 i
! i i 17 !
t
- 18 ;
i i 19 l
20 >
I i I f 21 ,
22 >
I 23 t
i O. 24
, 25 i i
f I
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES b.. _-_--_._.___I
f ,)
? -
LJ My name is Barbara K. Hickernell. I reside at 12 Terrich Court, Ossining, New York. I observed the March 9, 1983 Indian Point Drill activities at the Ossining Municipal Building. I arrived at 7:40 AM and at 8:00 AM, Lt. Joseph Burton, who was reported to duty, ushered me into the police communications room, offering me a choice of seats fromuwhich to observe Ossining's participation in the Drill. Upon his arrival, Ossining Village Police Chief, Ronald Goldfarb, offered me coffee. At 8:10 AM, a reporter (Ed Tragleveri) from the Gannett papers arrived, stating that the only Drill news his office knew up by that time was a mock personnel accidentt - a worker with a broken leg was taken by the Verplanck Ambulance to Northern Westchester Medical Center in Mount Kisco. (We wondered aloud why that hospital was chosen and not one of the closer ones - Phelps in North Tarrytown or Community in Peakskillr- which are easier to reach via main roads.)
At 8:25, an announcement (with lots of static) was heard: " Emergency rill. underway at Indian Point" i "An alert situation exists - notify elected officials on the alert status on emergency plans." Because of the static and poor reception, an Ossining police officer requested the officer at the radio to " call him back, tell him to speak a little clearer."
Within 5 minutes the Ossining town officials were notified.
During this time there was a conversation about the safety of the Indian Point plants with one officer stating that Indian Point I ran for 23 years with no problems and questioning if the new ones were less safe.
At 8:40 Police Chief Goldfarb came by and told Ed and me that his only duties right then were to be sure that the local officials were notified - and that he had done this.
Shortly after this, an unidentified village employee came in, was and commented "What am I supposed to do?" Another unidentified Wriefed, one answered "We all stay here and fry while the others get away."
Hicktrnell - Pege 2
( !
v At about 8:45 AM, Town of Ossining Supervisor Wishnie came in, was briefed, and then asked "What's the scenerio?" He was told "There is nona so far."
At about 9:09 an announcement came on the radio: " Stand by for a m:ssage." The nessage was: "This is a drill. The County Executive ordered all schools closed in the 10 mile area and the children sent homa as of 8:58." At 9 :12 the Mayor of Ossining was called. The conversation was "The reason I called you is that we are in the middle of a drill. ... This is c drill."
Right after that the Chief said to call all cars in. A radio announcement said "All cars 10-6." He then said to find out if there is e special number we should call.
The next phase began at about 9:19 when we were invited to move to 9nother room where Burton Lt. gave out radiation dosimeters to two officers who immediately left with them. He passed out to the remaining l
officers preprinted 3x5 card forms for the officers to record their l radiation readings. (A card is attached.) His instructions were "Dosi-meter readings should be taken every hour on the hour, record them. Wear the unit on the outside of the jacket."
l l
I noted that the batteries were purchased fresh for the occasion, coming from sealed containers all in a paper bag, that there were problems in placing some of the batteries in the units, and that one officer put his dosimeter on the inside of his jacket pocket.
Lt. Burton explained that the dosimeters were the same kind as X-ray technicians wear and they will be taken back and sent away for readings.
Lt. Burton also passed out what appeared to be circular radiation badges and KI tablets (14 tablets per each sealed bottle) to each officer. The tter were to be left in their pockets and taken only under direct orders
. rom the Westchester County Health Commissioner. He told them to stay in radio contact.
One officer commented that the K1 tablets expired in June 1981.
1
H'ckernell i - Page 3
[D v
There were also three geiger counters in the box of equipment for th: Drill and Lt. Burton said that "we don't know how to work them."
Hs also commented that the following communities are on the same radio frequency: Croton, Ossining, Briarcliff Manor, and North Tarrytown.
We returned to the main communications room.
At 9:45 the sierens were activated. Since I was sitting next to an open window, the siren was clearly audible in the background. About 24 calls questioning the sirens were received by the police who responded "This is just a test."
An automatic Emergency Broadcast System message came on over the radio in an adjoining room and we were brought in to listen to it.
At 9:50 the " situation escalated." There was a conversation between a police and town officials in which one told the other (not sure who toldrwhom) that they were not notified that the sierens were going off before they actually did. (Later Mr. Wishnie told me that they did get a call stating that the sirens were going off but there was no notification of the escalation of the situation.)
l At 9 :53, the police and town officials were looking through their Emergency Manr3ement Response books and after reading some portions said "we now wait for instructions."
l l
A tow tuck company was notified (mock) so that a Route 9A breakdown l (in particular) could be cleared. Mr. Wishnie said this was particularly important since 9A will be tied up by construction for the next few months.
Someone came in and asked if certain radios were in place and was told l
at these radios were delivered by the County Police the previous evening.
a previous Thursday or Friday, we were told, the KI, dosimeters, and I
TLDs were delivered.
1
- .D 0:sining Observation - Plage/Sanchez /Indusi
(~\
Q ,)
Ms. Plage's notes recorded that at 12:15 a call came to the Ossining police from the county police asking them to cover Croton Point, when cctually they were supposed to ask them to cover the intersection of Routes 9 and QA. Chief Goldfarb called the county back to ask them to varify this. At 12:50 a call came back from the county police to switch ths orders, i.e. , Ossining police to 9/9A and county police to Croton Point. Ms. Plage wrote in her notebook that " confusion ensued as to who was supposed to be where." At 1 PM Chief Goldfarb ordered resumption of Croton Point obarvation. The county car was to go up to Montrose exit on Route 9. She pointed out that a countywide radio-frequency would avoid such confusion, according to Chief Goldfarb. From 12:45 to 1:30, no evsnts or information relating to the exercise occured.
Ms. Sanchez's notes quote an unidentified local official saying that there is "still room for improvement between the local people and municipalities. More funds are needed. More activity between the county d s tate level. Locally, we had less to do than last year. Attitudes
(7
' dan be affected if further drills take place. The State legislature should provide more funds for each participating group. All information has been coming in one half hour late." She commented that "everyone admits that they are not set up for the situation." Again, the cbservation is made that nothing has happened relating to the drill since the last communication at 12:05.
Ms. Induci begad obs~erving' tat 2:45. At 3:00, Ms. Indusi noted again that nothing had'been heard since 12:05. At 3':40, Ms, Indusi reported a comment by the police officer, "I don't know. We haven't heard anything since a little after noon." At 4:08, Chief Goldfarb announced, "I just talked to Nordella. He sdid by 4:30 it'll be all over." At 4:33 Patrolman DiLoreto said, "Now it won't be over until 5:00." At 4:50 a call came through, " Police involvement in the Indian Point drill is no longer needed," and calls were made to notify others I of the announcement. Ms. Indusi's notes reflect that Town Supervisor Wishnie commented, " Communications are late, coming in approximately l gg5minutesafterthehappening."
4 14533 I
1 JUDGE GLEASON: Gentlemen, do your 2 cross-examination.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. BRANDENBURG: ,
5 Q. Ms. Hickernell, can you tell us how I
j 6 you came to be a witness here today?
7 A. I believe it was Ms. Posner from the 8 Croton Parents asked for volunteers to be j 9 witnesses on the March 9 drill, and I volunteered.
10 Q. Are you a member of Croton Parents?
11 A. (Witness Hickernell) I don't know 12 whether sending them a donation makes me a member 13 or not. I have given them a financial donation.
14 Q. And would the testimony of the other 15 three witnesses be substantially the same as Mrs.
16 Hickernell's with respect to how you came to be 4 17 witnesses here today?
1 18 (All answer yes).
19 Q. That is, you volunteered to observe 20 the exercise on behalf of the intervenor group in 2
21 this proceeding?
22 (All answer yes).
i 23 Q. Now, d id any o f you receive any
() 24 guidance before the exercise as to the types of 25 things you should look for, the types of things i
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14534 l you should take notes about, anything of that sort?
2 Mrs. Hickernell, why don't we start 3 with you.
4 A. (Witness Hickernell) To observe 5 carefully and write down what you see and write 6 down the truth.
7 Q. The rest of you, were you told abort 8 any things you should look for?
9 A. (Witness Sa nc he z) Just observe.
4 10 Q. Now, I take it that none of you have 11 any specialized training in assessing responses to 12 merge cease?
t'~
\ 13 A. (Witness Indusi) I am a teacher. I 14 don't know if that would be training.
15 Q. Have you ever attended a course in 16 disaster response given by the federal government 17 or by the state government, anything like that?
! 18 A. (Witness Ind us i) No.
l 19 A. (Witness Sa nche z) No.
20 Q. Now, Mrs. Hickernell, turning to the 21 first paragraph in your testimony, the wonderment 22 sentence that I understand remains in your i
23 testimony, this is the parenthetical sentence at
() 24 the end of the first paragraph.
25 What was the origin of your .
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
m 14535 I 1 information that this worker had a broken leg?
2 A. (Witness Hickernell) This was the 3 reporter who came in and said he had just called 4 the newspaper.to find out what had happened so far, 5 and this is what he was told as the scenario so 6 far.
7 Q. Were you also advised by anyone that 8 that worker had also received a burn injury?
9 A. (Witness Hickernell) I don't believe 10 so.
11 Q. Are you familiar with the facilities 12 of the North Westchester Medical Center?
I'l b- 13 A. (Witness Hickernell) I have done a l 14 survey of the obstetrical facilities in i
15 Westchester. So to that extent I am familiar with 16 the facilities at Northern Westchester Hospital.
I 17 Q. Le t me save some time and get to the l 18 point. Do you know which of the following i
19 facilities have burn treatment facilities, the 20 Northern Westchester Medical Center, Phelps 21 Hospital or Community Hospital?
i
! 22 A. (Witness Hickernell) No. The only j 23 one that I do know has a burn center would be the 71
,) 24 medical center in Valhalla.
25 Q. How about the North Westchester TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
4 14536 (S 1 Medical Center?
(t 2 A. (Witness Hickernell) No, I don't.
3 Q. You have no knowledge as to their i
4 facilities?
5 A. (Witness Hickernell) I have no 6 knowledge.
7 Q. Turning to the top o f page 2 of your i
8 testimony, the first sentence there where you 9 relate Supervisor Wishnie's comments about the i 10 scenario, do you have a point of view as to 11 whether or not a scenario that was unknown to the 12 persons who would be responding to it would be a 13 more effective training technique for response to 14 an actual emergency than a situation where the 15 scenario that was being played out was known 16 previously to the players?
t 17 A. (Witness Hickernell) When supervisor l
18 Wishnie came in I think he wanted to know what i
19 happened so far.
20 Q. Well, in terms of your assessment of 21 the exercise -- if you haven't finished your 22 answer, please continue.
23 A. (Witness Hickernell) He came in and
() 24 was briefed as to what's the scenario, told there 25 is none so far. No, I am finished.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14537
^'
i 1 Q. So you make no value judgment in your V
2 testimony, then, as to the desirability or lack of 3 desir ability o f not having Mr. Wishnie know the 4 scenario prior to the exercise?
5 A. (Witness Hickernell) No value c.
6 judgment, no.
7 MR. BRANDENBURG: No further questions.
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. CZAJA:
10 Q. Ms. Plage, do you have any knowledge 11 as to how it came that Parents asked you whether 12 you wanted to volunteer to observe the exercise?
O 13 A. (Witness Plage) Parents didn't ask me, 14 Barbara Hickernell did.
15 Q. Do you know what led Mrs. Hickernell 16 asked you to observe the exercise?
17 A. (Witness Plage) I understood they 18 were interested in having local citizens sit in 19 police offices and see what was going on.
20 Q. Had you had any connection with 21 Parents concerned prior to Mrs. Hickernell asking 22 you to observe the exercise?
23 A. (Witness Plage) Not with Parents, no.
h ] 24 Q. Had you had any connection with any 25 other group active with regard to the Indian Point TAYLOE ASSOCIATES E l
i 14538
(')
y/
1 issue?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Which group?
4 A. (Witness fli c k e r n e l l ) The Greater 5 Ossining Neighborhood Action Group.
4 6 Q. Did they have a position with regard 7 to the Indian Point plants?
8 A. (Witness Pl ag e) A position regarding ,
9 the plans?
10 Q. Indian Point plants. As I understand 11 your testimony, the citizens group has been active 12 with regard to the Indian Point issue, is that O 13 correct?
14 A. (Witness Pl ag e) Yes.
15 Q. Generally what is their position on 16 that issue?
17 A. (Witness Plag e) We are concerned that i
18 it be found out fully whether or not they are safe 19 and whether the evacuation plans are safe, whether 20 the plant should continue.
21 Q. Does that group have a position as to 22 whether or not the plant should continue?
23 A. (Witness Plage) I don't think we have
() 24 formalized a position.
25 Q. Do you have an informal position?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14539 1 JUDGE GLEASON: Who, this witness or 2 the organization?
3 MR. CZAJA: The group.
4 A. (Witness Plage) I cannot speak for 5 the group.
6 Q. Do you have a position?
i 7 A. (Witness Plage) My own feeling is t
8 from what I have read, that I would like to see
- 9 Indian Point closed.
10 Q. Miss Sanchez, how did it come that 11 you were asked to volunteer, if you know?
12 A. (Witness Sanche z) Oh, you mean 13 through the group? Barbara.
14 Q. Ms. Hickernell asked you?
15 A. (Witness Sanchez) Yes.
16 Q. Do you know what led her to ask you 17 to volunteer?
18 Q. (Witness Sanche z) We all belong to 19 the same organization.
20 Q. Do you have a position personally as 21 to whether the plants should remaybe open or be 22 closed?
23 A. (Witness Sa nc he z) I just want to see
) 24 a very thorough inve stiga tion of it, to see the 25 pros and cons as to whether or not it should be TAYLGE ASSOCIATES
.. . . . .. . . ~
i 14540 l
1 closed.
)
2 .Q. And prior to March 9 did you have a 3 position on the issue of whether emergency 4 preparedness in Westchester, in case of an 5 accident at one of those plants, was adequate or 6 inadequate? (Witness Sanc he z) Inadequate.
7 Q. Ms. Sanchez, in response to Judge 8 Gleason's questions, you told us that the 9 quotations that appear in the second paragraph of 10 your joint testimony come from a conversation 11 between Mr. Wishnie and Mr. Goldfarb, is that 12 correct?
13 A. (Witness Sa nc he z) Yes.
14 Q. Are all the q uo ta t io ns , statements 15 made by Mr. Wishnie or were some of them made by
, 16 Chief Goldfarb?
17 A. (Witness Sa n c he z) Well, up.to "more 18 funds are needed" was Supervisor wishnie. And 19 then there was dialogue between the two.
20 Q. Can you attribute the following 21 statements to either Mr. Wishnie or Chief Gold f a rb?
l 22 A. (Witness Sanche z) I think Chief 23 Gold f a rb thought there should be more activity l
() 24 between the county and state level.
l 25 Q. Can you attribute any of the other l
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14541 1 statements to either Mr. Wishnie or Chief Goldfarb?
2 A. (Witness Sa nche z) No. I say from
- 3 .that point that it was dialogue between them.
4 Q. Did you hear the entire conversation i
5 between Mr. Wishnie and Chief Goldfarb?
6 A. (Witness Sa nche z) Yes, because I was 7 there when the Supervisor Wishnie came in.
8 Q. Ita v e you included the entire 9 conversation in your notes as reproduced in your 10 testimony here today?
11 A. (Witness Sanchez) Well, what I 12 tho ug h t was pertinent.
~~
13 Q. Ms. Indusi, do you know how it came 14 about that you were asked to be a volunteer?
15 A. (Witness Indusi) I don't remember who 16 asked me. I knew that volunteers were needed and 17 I volunteered.
18 Q. And do you have a position as to 19 whether the Indian Point plants should remain open 20 or sho uld be closed?
21 A. (Witness Ind us i) I think they should 22 be shut down immediately.
23 MR. CZAJA: I have no further (nj 24 questions.
25 JUDGE GLEASON: Any questions from the
]
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14542 1 staff?
(~)S 2 MR. HASSEL: The staff has no 3 questions.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: Any redirect 5 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes.
6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
8 Q. Mr. Hickernell, on page 2 of your 9 testimony you describe the bottles of potassium 4
10 lodides that you saw. Were you able to see the 11 expiration dates on those bottles?
12 A. (Witness Hickernell) Yes.
13 MR. CZAJA: I object and ask it be 14 stricken.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: That testimony was 16 deleted.
17 MS. POTTERFIELD: The line above that 18 has not been deleted, as I understand it.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: That's right. You are 20 absolutely correct. I was referring to the last
! 21 sentence. You are right.
I 22 Go ahead with your question.
23 Q. What was the date on the bottles that l
()
r%
! 24 you saw?
l 25 MR. CZAJA: I object. Beyond the i
i
- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i
4 14543 t
I scope of redirect. There was no cross on that l 2 subject.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Well, the board is 4 interested in hearing it, go ahead.
5 A. (Witness fli c k e r n el l ) June 1981.
6- MS. POTTERFIELD: I have no further 7 redirect.
- I j 8 JUDGE GLEASON
- Ladies, thank you very 9 much for your testimony. We appreciate it. You 10 are excused.
11 MS. F L E I S ilE R : Your lio no r , if I may, 12 Mr. Bauer is unable to be here today. Mrs. Bauer 13 was in the hospital all last week and he got her
, 14 home and this morning he called me at 7 o' clock 15 and said she is going to have to go back and he ]
16 couldn't come today.
17 We feel really badly about it because 18 he is such a valuable witness. I suppose that I I 19 am blowing in the wind if I ask that his testimony 20 can be entered by stipulation.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: You have to ask the 22 other parties, not the board.
23 MS. F L E I S ilE R : I hereby ask them.
- s
( 24 Any objection to entering Mr. Ba u r 's 25 testimony by stipulation into the record?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
. _ . = . . - .
14544 1 MR. CZAJA: I will have to look at the 7 2 testimony. At the next break I will look at the 3 testimony and get back to you.
4 MR. BRANDENBURG: We will do likewise.
5 MS. POTTERFIELD: Intervenors call 6 Nathanial Mills and Richard Gendron.
7 WHEREUPON 8 Nathanial Mills and Richard Gendron, 9 being sworn by the administrative judge, testified 10 as follows:
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
(:) 13 Q. Mr. Mills, will you state yo u r name 14 and address for the record?
l 15 A. (Witness Mills) My name is Nathanial -
1 16 Mills. I live at 66 Coachlight Square, Montrose, 17 New York.
18 Q. Mr. Mills, do you have before you a 19 three-page document that comprises the testimony i
i 20 that you wish to present to the Atomic Safety and 21 Licensing Board today?
22 A. (Witness Mills) I do.
23 Q. Do you have any additions or i
() 24 corrections to your testimony?
-25 A. (Witness Mills) One correction. I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14545 79 1 seem to have under counted the decontamination LJ 2 team by one. It should be seven.
3 Q. Which page are you on?
4 A. (Witness Mills) On the last page. I 5 think it is the second paragraph, third line.
6 Q. Where it says, And with a staff of 7 only six in all," it should say with a staff of 8 only seven?
9 A. (Witness Mills) Yes.
10 MS. POTTERFIELD: Was the board able 11 to follow his correction?
12 JUDGE GLEASON: I would like to get it
(""4) 13 again.
14 Q. Tell us again, Mr. Mills.
15 A. (Witness Mills) on the third page, i
16 second paragraph, third line, there is an l
17 i nd ica t io n of the number of persons in the 18 decontamination staff. My count indicates six; 19 there were seven.
l l
20 Q. Do you have any odd additions or 21 corrections?
l 22 A. (Witness Mills) No. Everything else l 23 seems to be as it was.
24 Q. And with that correction is your 25 testimony true and accurate to the best of your TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- 14546 i
J information and belief?
1 O 1 l 2 A. (Witness Mills) Absolutely.
3 Q. Mr. Gendron, would you state your 4 name and address for the record?
4 5 A. (Witness Gendron) My name is Richard 6 E. Gendron. I reside at 10 Agget Avenue, Ossining, 7 New York.
}
8 Q. Do you have before you, Mr. Gendron, 9 a four-page document that comprises the testimony 10 that you wish to submit today before the Atomic '
11 Safety and Licensing Board?
4 12 A. I do.
O 13 Q. Do you have any additions or 14 corrections to your testimony?
15 A. No, not at this time.
l
- 16 Q. Is it true and accurate to the best 17 of your information and belief?
18 A. (Witness Gend ro n) It is.
19 MS. POTTERFIELD: I move the admission 20 into evidence of the testimony of Nathanial Mills 21 and Richard Gendron as if read.
! 22 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there objection?
i 23 MR. CZAJA: Yes, Judge. I will start
() 24 with Mr. Mills' testimony. On the first page, l 25 under the neading " Thinness of resources," the 1
5 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l
14547 1 first sentence, starting with the words, "The 2 major impression," we object to that sentence on 3 the grounds that it is conclusory.
4 Then starting with the next sentence, 5 "This was overtly evidenced," and continuing 6 through the conclusion of the next paragraph, 7 which end with the words "make believe is all 8 else," we object to on the grounds of hearsay.
9 The first sentence in the next 10 paragraph, "Within the fire departments at each 11 level," that centence we object to on the grounds 12 that it is conclusory.
JUDGE GLEASON: The whole sentence?
13 14 MR. CZAJA: The whole sentence. The 15 next sentence we don't object to, but the final 16 sentence in that paragraph, "The Verplanck Fire 17 laddies," et cetera, we object to on the grounds 18 it is irrelevant, speculative and hearsay.
19 The next paragraph, the last sentence, i
l 20 "This, of necessity, ran into all kinds of l 21 nonsimulated reluctance and disbelief," we object l
22 to on the grounds that it is irrelevant and it is l 23 conclusory.
() 24 Turning to the next page, under the 25 heading, " Casualness of effort," we don't object TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
l 14548 1 to the first sentence, but starting with the
)
l 2 second sentence at the end of the third line of 3 that section, "By comparison," we object to the i
r 4 remainder of that paragraph on the grounds that it 5 is irrelevant.
i 6 Continuing on in that section, the 7 last paragraph under that heading, " Ca s ua l 8 necessary of effort," where it starts, "Many
]
j 9 overheard comments," that we object to on the i
10 grounds of hearsay.
11 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) Is any 12 comment in order to clarify?
O 13 JUDGE GLEASON: No, sir.
14 MR. CZAJA: Under the next heading, "A i
15 less than tolerable level of equipment failure,"
16 the second paragraph under that heading, starting 17 at the end of the third line in the paragraph, "As 18 one outburst had it" and continuing through to the 19 remainder of that paragraph, we object to on the 20 grounds that it is hearsay and lacks foundation.
21 Under the heading, "The 22 decontamination simulation, we object to the first 23 sentence, first three lines under that heading on
() 24 the grcunds that it is speculative, conclusory, 25 and irre evant.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
_- . _- _ . -. ~. --. _ _ . _
14549 1 On of the last page of Mr. Mills' 4
2 testimony, the run-on paragraph, the last sentence, 3 "The arrival of the three trial victims," it is 4 speculative, conclusory and hearsay, i
5 The next sentence, the first sentence
- 6 in the next paragraph, "The doctor in charge," is 7 hearsay. And the last sentence in the paragraph i
8 is irrelevant.
9 JUDGE PARIS: What was last, please?
4 10 MR. CZAJA: The last sentence in the
} 11 paragraph as to Mr. Mills' hopes, as irrelevant.
I 12 On Mr. Gendron's testimony, my only 13 objection is, again, to the portion of the 14 testimony starting on page 3, under the heading, I 15 " Conclusion," where he discusses his experience as 16 a jet mechanic and his own speculation.
17 I would object to that entire section i
18 of the testimony through the end of the testimony, l
l 19 on the grounds that it is irrelevant, conclusory 20 and speculative.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: All of the conclusion?
i I 22 MR. CZAJA: All of the conclusion.
23 MR. BRANDENBURG: All but a few of our i
77 (j 24 objections are encompassed by those of the Power i
25 Authority. The exceptions are, page one of Mr.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14550 1 Mills' testimony, the last phrase in the first
)
2 paragraph saying "and it is surprisingly
(
3 inappropriate," the remainder of that sentence Con 4 Ed objects to on the grounds of lack of foundation.
5 At page 2 of Mr. Mills' testimony, j 6 the next to the last paragraph starting, "The 1
7 worst spot," the balance of that paragraph is the i
8 subject of a motion by the Power Authority, but I 9 might just point out --
10 JUDGE GLEASON: What is that?
11 MR. BRANDENBURG: Page 2 of Mr. Mills 12 page, the next to last paragraph, starting, "The O 13 worst spot," that was the subject of a motion by 14 the Power Authority. I would like to add a 15 further independent ground; that is, that the 16 witness states he was at Valhalla, not Peakskill, 17 and the events referred to happened in Peakskill.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: I am not following you.
19 What is the objection to that?
20 MR. BRANDENBURG: Based upon hearsay, 21 Mr. Chairman.
22 Tile WITNESS: (Witness Mills) Not 23 true.
() 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Please don't comment.
25 This is not your time to comment.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
. .- _- . - -. ~ .=
14551 l MR. BRANDENBURG: Now, unless I have f~"sJ 2 missed Mr. Czaja's motion, he did not cover the 3 sentence starting with the last three words on 4 page 2, " Vital protective equipment," continuing 5 over to the first line of page 3. If that was
{ 6 included in the Power's Authority motion, we join
}
7 in it. If not, we object to that sentence on the 8 grounds that it lacks pr o pe r foundation, no showing this witness has any expertise on the
~
9 10 necessity o f that equipment and the like.
11 With respect to the testimony of Mr.
12 Gendron on page one we obligation to the last 13 sentence starting four lines up from the bottom of 14 the page, "It seems like the hoods, "To the end of 15 that sentence, as hearsay, s pec ul a t ive and lacking 16 foundation.
17 On pag e 2 of Mr. Gendron's testimony, 18 the last sentence of the carryover paragraph i
19 stating, "I was told that coveralls were also back 20 ordered," we object to as hearsay, and unreliable 21 hearsay.
22 The balance of our objections are 23 encompassed by those set forth by the Power Q 24 Authority.
25 THE WITNESS: (Witness Gend ron) I am i
! TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14552 1 scrry, Judge Gleason, the second, about the 2 coveralls?
3 JUDGE GLEASON: The last sentence on 4 the top running over to the paragraph, "I was told 5 that coveralls were also back ordereC," objected 6 to on the basis of hearsay. t 7 I think it is time to take a break.
- 8 Let's take a ten-minute break, please.
l 9 (There was a short recess.)
10 MS. POTTERFIELD: With regard to the 11 objections made to the first page of Mr. Gendron's 12 testimony, I understand that Mr. Gendron received O 13 his information, although it is not explicit in 14 his report, it is implicit, he received all of his f 15 information from Dr. Gallutso, who is a leader of 16 a particular team.
17 So even though the sentence is object
- 18 the to, that that's the basis for his information.
19 With regard to Mr. Mills' testimony I
l 20 it is objected to largely on the basis that it is 21 conclusory. I submit that it stands for the l
l j 22 conclusions of Mr. Mills and nothing else; that he l
! 23 has provided the board with detailed bases for his
() 24 conclusions; that he has been a computer 25 specialist for 25 years and he is fully qualified TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14553 l to make these observations and draw these
{-}
2 conclusions, and I request the board allow both of 3 these pieces of testimony to be admitted in their 4 entirety.
5 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
6 JUDGE GLEASON: All right, we are 7 ready.
8 Let's take Mr. Mills first because 9 his are the most extensive comments.
10 The last phrase of the last sentence 11 of the first paragraph, starting with the words "and 12' it is surprisingly inappropriate" comes out as a II k5 l 13 conclusory s ta temen t . Let me say everything on l 14 that pag e that was objected to comes out with the
- 15 exception of the sentence that refers to the 16 rescue team having a serious automobile accident f 17 on Taconic Parkway, down to " call us back at 2 18 p.m.," that stays in. The rest of it comes out 19 because it is either irrelevant or speculative or 20 hearsay.
21 On page 2, everything on that page 22 comes out with the exception of the sentence about 23 no one researched the matter, so this observer was
() 24 able to fill the gap with a r eg ul a r road map in 25 his possession," that stays in.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14554 1 MS. POTTERFIELD: I am only concerned 2 about the second paragraph under the topic "a less 3 than tolerable level of equipment failure." I 4 didn't think it was necessary to say but --
5 JUDGE GLEASON: Excuse me, which?
6 MS. POTTERFIELD: "The worse spot for l 7 communication trouble."
8 JUDGE GLEASON: I didn't have that as 9 objected to. It started "as one outburst had it."
10 MR. BRANDENBURG: I objected to that ,
t 11 paragraph, Mr. Chairman. That entire paragraph, 12 on the grounds that it was hearsay, speculative.
O 13 JUDGE GLEASON: Le t me ask the witness 14 how he knew that.
15 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) I was 16 at the fire control center who were endeavoring to f 17 reach Peakskill. They commented that the radio 18 was dead at Peakskill and when they tried through
- ~
19 the phone system, they were unable to get the Fire 20 Department and, therefore, that was their comment 21 at that time, that they had to go through ten guys, I
I 22 and I am just quoting. Maybe it was three men, l
l l
23 but they called it " ten guys to get the
() 24 responsible person they wanted to talk to."
i
( 25 So Peakskill, and the results through l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i
14555 I
1 the hole day, was the worst spot. They had the v]
L_-
i 2 most trouble with that.
l 3 MS. POTTERFIELD: My comment was that 4 it was obvious from the testimony that he was in 5 every position to know of it of his own personal 6 knowledge since it was the place where he was that 7 was trying to get hold of Peakskill by radio and i 8 by telephone.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: The problem is we 10 can't deal with things like something saying "as i 11 one outburst had it." It doesn't identify who 12 said it.
13 MS. POTTERFIELD: The first part of 14 that sentence.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: The first part I think 16 can stay in because it is kind of a specific thing, 17 but the balance of it comes out.
I 18 T iiE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) The 19 outbursts were by control men. Think were only 20 two. All of these quotes are from them.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: I understand.
f 22 Everything else comes out on that page except the 23 bottom of the page, starting with the wo rd s , " Vital
) 24 protective equipment," and going over "where the 25 staff was not available, the four geiger counters i
i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14556 1 brought to the site only two could be made to work."
2 What was that based on?
3 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) This
- 4 decontamination effort was adjacent to the control 5 room. I spent some of my time also watching the 6 decontamination preparations. I spent less time 7 when Mr. Gendron arrived there but I was present 8 when Dr. Gallutso explained, and this is not in 9 quotes but it is a direct report of what he said.
10 And the geiger counters were 11 struggled with and the result was that they had 12 only two that could be used.
O 13 JUDGE GLEASON: What was the statement 14 that " vital protective equipment for the staff, a 15 boots, masks, hoods, was not available" based on?
16 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) They 17 were walking around there without the full gear.
18 They told me that they did the not have any I
19 shipment of boots, hoods or masks.
f l
20 JUDGE GLEASON: Who told you?
21 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) ---
22 Tile WITNESS: Dr. Gallutso, the team i 23 member.
i
() 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Who told you?
25 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) Dr.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14557 P1 1 Gallutso.
L_]
2 JUDGE GLEASON: That will stay in with 3 that kind of a statement.
4 THE WITNESS: (Witness Gend ro n) If I 5 may, Judge Gleason.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Only if I ask a 7 question. I don't want you to volunteer on 8 testimony.
9 Your statement on the geiger counters, 10 what is that based on?
11 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) Direct 12 observation. They brought out four geiger D
LJ 13 counters and put them on the table and then they 14 started to try to see whether they would get any 15 reading on them. One they found they couldn't 16 match with a what happened, or whatever.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: Who is "they"?
{
l 18 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) A whole l
19 team, seven people.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: "A whole team" doesn't 21 help.
22 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) I am 23 extracting from a report.
] 24 JUDGE GLEASON: You are summarizing 25 but people are supposed to have an opportunity to TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
l 14558 cross-examine you on jour statements and they
{) I 2 can't cross examine you on summaries. That is the l 3 problem. It is unfortunate that perhaps you 4 weren't advised of this earlier, but we are only 5 dealing with what we have in front of us.
6 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) I was i
7 dealing with almost eight hours of observations.
l 8 MS. POTTERFIELD: If the board please --
9 JUDGE GLEASON: Please, Ms.
10 Potterfield.
11 MS. POTTERFIELD: The witness is 12 confused and I would just like to explain to him
/
O 13 the board's ruling.
14 JUDGE GLEASON: All r ig h t .
i 15 MS. POTTERFIELD: As I understand what 16 the board is trying to say to you is if you have l 17 in your notes in those eight hours the names or 18 other identifying characteristics of the people l
19 that you were observing that are involved in your l 20 summary statements, that it would make a I
~
21 difference to them if you can tell them which of 22 the seven or who they were.
23 THE WITNESS: (Witness Mills) If I am
() 24 describing what a group of people is doing and the 25 results of their group efforts are certain obvious i
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
4 ,
3 14559 1
l 1 l observable facts, I don't believe that I can
{
2 identify single persons as being responsible for 3 that total failure to get two geiger counters l 4 working.
f l 5 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
6 JUDGE GLEASON: We will allow this i
j 7 statement on geiger counters to be admitted l i
! 8 without any further comment. .
i :
9 The next statement about three child
- 10 victims comes out. It is conclusory about not j
11 finding the place.
12 The first sentence in the next !
- 13 pa r ag r a ph stays in, and the last sentence in that
- 14 paragraph comes out as being conclusory and 1
j 15 irrelevant.
{ 16 t's get on to Mr. Gendron's j 17 testimony.
18 The problem we have with your l
19 statementst in your conclusion which has to come 20 out, Mr. Gendron, but the other objections are 21 denied.
22 So with those changes the statements 23 of the witnesses are received into evidence and
) 24 bound into the record as if read.
25 (The bound testimony f ollo ws)
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
. . _ - _ - . . . -.. _ .. . _ _ _ . _ . . _ - _ _ _ - . - ~ _ . __. ._ ____ .___ _ ._, . , _ . - ___ _-.__.
Aah a -4. -
4- . _- _ _._--_ m 4 a_ -
. - _ _m., _ _ m_ mwg a m_2 p- -+m4 _;-- _. . .__A __.__.n a-+- _
! 14560 9 2 3
4 5
6 7
- 8 9
10 I 11 f 12 O 13 14 15 16 l
17 l
18 19 20 21 l
22 I
l 23 e
l h 24 l 25 I
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
, .,, tsu . <. . '.
l S Intervenor Observer Observation Post Nathaniel Hills
- ~
Fire Control Center Valhalla, New York Timie of Observation 7:30 am to 2:30 pm a
The following is my summarization and evaluation of the experi-for the County's network of civilian emergency support services --e all the fire departments, ambulance and rescue crews -- while hand-ling a away. day of simulated crisis at Indian Point, less than 18 miles Within the same center, the simulation of a Decontamination Center on thatwas observable process and itsinsur part and therefore I append some comments Control Center operations. prisingly inappropriate interaction with
/3 THINNESS of RESOURCES
%J '
y-The major impression that surfaced throughout the day was the thinness of the resources being called upon for the tasks expected.
This was overtly evidenced on several occasions by the reaction of the local resource to the simulated directive it was being given.
The most uninhibited response was the off-handed rejoinder by one town's fire dispatcher at 1:06 p.m. "I wouldn't be here anyway"!
s At about 12: 30 p.m., Mohegan's Rescue Team had a serious auto-mobile accident on the Taconic Parkway to attend to, so their re-sponse back at 2to p.m.".
an evacuation directive at 12:38 p.m. became: " Call us It seemed that this order was intended 'for real' to test the movement of 2 elderly immobile persons from each of 2 nursing homes, but confronted with this ' conflict of duties', this fp special test was aborted back to the same make-believe as all else.
Within the fire departments at each level, the same kind of co-incedences revealed evacuation the woeful inadequacies of resources for any crisis. The Control Center itself sent 2 of its experi-cnced staff (clairvoyantly, in advance) to help man the E.O.C. The Verplanck fire laddies simply let a brush fire behind a local fac-i tory burn itself out because they were busy with simulated duties around 11:10 a.m.
The most extreme disparity between simulation and reality opened up when an attempt was simulated to direct 15 ambulances from as far y away as Brooklyn to proceed to the VA Hospital in Montrose to evacu-y j ate 62 (!) stretcher cases to places such as the Bronx.
This of ne- d cessity ran into all kinds of non-simulated reluctance and disbelief.
All this contacting required struggling with the ordinary public dial lines since the order for the day was to 1.imit the use of all emergency lines to traffic with the E.O.C. Thu- in tha nnemal 14fa
1/ . . . .,,-
. h .< -
answered, or were out of order -- an inadvertent simulation of norm-ality perhaps, but quite significant nonetheless.
CASUALNESS of the EFFORT The other overall impression that struck this observor (who lives 1 1/4 miles from the Point) was the inappropriateness of an cll-pervading casualness at this Center throughout the~ day. By comparison, a fire drill in just one small school would be followed through with extreme care by all concerned and the goal would have been to inculcate an almost instinctive response to any emergency.
Most of this casualness did seem to be an adjustment to the actual neaninglessness and inconsequence of the effort, some to apparently
' laid-back' everyday style, but much of it reflected the tools and style of the process itself -- that is, ordinary dial phones, only verbal messages down the chain, and imprecise knowledge of the area being dealt with.
The Control Center's disptchers were off-handedly informed of the E.O.C.'s phone number at 8:45 a.m. that day and at 9: 15 a.m. they were given the new Indian Point information number. Similarly the pace of the slerting of the affected towns and cities fell almost an hour behind the actual time of the Gove'rnor's declaration of each cmergency levels ggy.s declarat. Notific of towns Site Emergency: 11:35 a.m. 11:58 a.m. to 12:14 p.m.
General Emergency: 11:54 a.m. 1:04 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. ,
Many overheard comments reflect this casualness clearly. "Is OMillwood there someplace?" 'Did I get hold of Yorktown? Iguess I'll do it again to make sure" At 10:20 a.m.: "Is it a site emergency yet?" At 11:34 a.m.: " Sounds like everything's screwed up". At 1:02 p.m. to ' Scotty's "What zones are within the evacuation area?"
With need to send an ambulance to Holmes: " Wonder where that is, the ambulance will have to figure that out". When no one researched the matter, this observor was able fill the gap with a regular road map in his possession.
A LESS THAN TOLERABLE LEVEL of EQUIPMENT FAILURE The third aspect that needs to be spotlighted about this loca-tions experiences was that several pieces of vital equipment turned up mal- or non-functioning. At the start of the day a repair call had to be placed to Motorola about the lack of volume from the radio.
At 12:20 p.m. some questions arose about the functioning of the
" Channel 3 switch", and a few minutes later it was decided to call in the phone company to solve the inability to reach the E.O.C. on the hot line.
The worse spot for communication trouble turned out te be Peek-skill where the Fire Department had a dead radio all day and the phone calls to them had to be routed through some other switchboard; as one outburst had it - "I had to go through about 10 guys to get the responsible person", this at 11: 58 a.m. These situations existed Owithout might be having any by injected special a realstress oror crisis inexperienced bungling, just by off-hour as conditions.
The DECONTAMINATION SIMULATION If nothing else, this run through of the decontamination process demonstrated that the effects of an actual nuclear release on March
.. 4,- _y, for the ctaff (boots, macks, hocde) was not cvailable. Of the 4 Golger counters brought to the site, only 2 could be made to work. The arri-val of the 3 trial Victims' was much delayed because they apparently could not find the place.
The doctor in charge, Dr. Domenick K. Galluzzo, explained that at best only 4 or so victims per. hour could be properly handled at that cramped location and with a staff of only 6 in all. Then the doctor's and the assisting County policeman's efforts to communicate with the E.O.C. led into a string of problems: first, the pay phone in the lounge (used as the screening area) couldn't handle it. So next, both men, in their " contaminated' garb, entered the Control Cen-ter to place their calls, but the hot line still wasn't up to it, and they finally got through via the ordinary dial line on the console.
Let's hope there is no early need for actual decontamination of real victims.
Submitted by %
Nathaniel Mills O
l I
l l
, _ _ _ __-_y .m__-_ __
n Intervenor-(haner Richard E. Gerdren charvation Point Decontmination Center Fire Training Center Hawthorn, New York 1:00 p.m. 'Ihe damntanination center in Hawthorn, New York is located in a .
snall lobby and, foyer of the Fire Training Center. 'Ihe floor in the cen-ter is divided down the middle by a strip of white tape; the area on the right side of the line serves as the contaminated area, the area to the left is uncontaminated. D=2.udauination team ment)ers are stationed at the entrance to each of the two bauuucas and the bathroans are also divided by strips of tape.
'Ihere are seven team gudxm and two alternates, all of whan are either doctors or nurses and work for the Board of Health. Dr. Gallutso n
Q is 'the leader of this partir'ilar team. ('Ihis partir'ilar training does not necessarily require a tralical background.)
'Ihe first victim arrives at the door and is met by a team ruember.
'Ibe person is then scanned with a geiger counter, declared safe, and proceeds on to the registration table and out the cbor. 'Ihere are also two state troopers stationed in the rodu. 'Ihis decontanination center is not meant for the general public, it is for energency workers.
It is explained that, in accordance with the accident scenario, these partir'ilar people (victims) are arrivmg fran the Buchannan area.
I ask Dr. Gallutso a ntrnber of questions:
- 1. Would the team mertbers be wearing hoods in an actual emergency? 'Ihe team are dressed in what looks like cotton overalls that are taped at the wrist and ankles. It seens that the hoods are part of Civil Defense Pre-O V paredness and are back ordered.
- 2. How many people are processed per hour? Approximately 4-8.
- 3. What happens if a person is found to be contaminated? 'Ilm person is first
1
)
Gendron O taken down the right side of the tape, into the lavatory, his clothing is shaka off, and another reading is taken. If the reading is positive, tte victim's clothing is taken off and plama into two plastic bagt. 'Ihe vic-tim is then taken down the right side of the tape line. to the th= where he washes with plenty of soap and water. Arother raading is taken. lie is then issued a new pair of diwhle coveralls and sent on to a safe zone where the Red Cross will provide him with food and shelter. I was told that coveralls were also back ordered.
- 4. mat is the limit of safety as far as the contmination is ucmcmn.,mid?
1.0 millirens to 3.0 millirens.
1:55 Another victim arrives and enters through the southern door (which is the only (bor which is being used for an entrance), is given a scan with the.
Ca geiger counter, found to be clean, and passes on to the registration table.
6 After the person's partimlars are registered, she passes down the hall on the left of the taped line and exits.
'Ihe next victim is a federal observer. It is determined that he has a contaminated sleeve and is told to go to the lavatory with one of the tean members, stand on a brown piece of paper, and to shake. For the sake of the simulation, he is found to still be contaninated. He is taken along the right side of the taped line to the showers. After showering the victint is checked again, found to still be at an unsafe radiation level, and taken to a holding area. Dr. Gallutso calls Dr. Williams, the supervisor at the EOC, to arrange to have the victim renoved. I ask where such victims will be taken and am told by Dr. Gallutso that he is unsure and to ask Dr. Williame.
A state trooper enters the control rocm area again. (Is this decon-tanination area too close to the control roan?)
A call for fifteen ambulances to evacuate the V.A. Ibspital canes in over the radio.
Aun I ask how nany teams omaprise the energency am of the Civil Defense Preparedness. It is explained that there are 7 taan=r, each With 7 menbers and two alternates, in Westchester County. <
M11 aim In the final analysis, I feel that emergency workers, people who are puttting their own lives on the lines to s i.=et c the safety of others, aust be given the proper equipment to smwafully carry out their re- c spapaihili ties. In all dianater situations, scene people Will ISSCt With <
fear while others take up the banner. We cannot expect ==u.pcy workers to sacrifice their own health and safety because of a lack of training or equipnent.
As a jet mechanic, I have had sane basic training concerning radio-active enviroments. One of the first precautions is to prevent breathing in the contaminants. Certainly if we are going to be in contact with sus .
pected carriers of radioactive dust, we should be breathing through respira-tors in order to avoid Wing contaminated as well. Will we be satisfied with a strip of tape on the floor to protect the uncontaminated frun the con-taminated?
'Ihe United States Air Force uses operating rocm procedures when deal-ing with radioactive materials. Isolation is the key. Should the decontamina-tion center be located in the same building as the comunication center for the whole county? When we contaminate the control roon who will take over?
'Ibe equipnent in this roan is very nedern and technical and will require a trained person to operate it. How are we going to transport the people that are contaminated without. contaminating the drivers as well as others people working in the decontamination center?
I must also question whether or not the decontamination centers are
- Wately staffed and if we can be certain that such workers would even fulfill their responsibilities in the event of a nuclear accident.
It is my view that, if the exercise had been an actual erergcy, the msnbers of t:e h-cumuination tem as well as the workers in the control rocxn, would have been sacrificed regardless of the efforts of Dr. Gallutso or any of his team msnbers.
I would also like to state that at this time we must begin a high priority progran Wtich aims to clean up the radimetive materials that are bnildirg tp thm:ghout our land. We must enploy the finest minds that our great country can deliver and give them the freeds that they need to deal with this dilemna. We must put away the greed and the ego and bring for-ward the blessings that cane with following conscience. We must trade the fear and ura.u.i.ainty right now for a united effort to solve this probim. WE l msr m ms ww rm rr my umor se no Im.
l l
O
. - . . _- . . _ ~ _ . . _ - - . _ - _ . _ _ . - - . _
14561 I'
U"9 1 JUDGE GLEASON: Proceed with your U
2 cross-examination.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. CZAJA:
5 Q. Mr. Mills, have you ever operated a 6 geiger counter? .
7 A. (Witness Mills) I have one at home.
8 I live one and a quarter miles from Indian Point 9 and I feel somebody has to keep a watch on what is I
10 going on there.
11 Q. How do you keep a watch on Indian
, 12 Point with your geiger counter?
, F~]
"2 13 A. I hold it up my (Witness Mills) 14 living room window and I can see your tower and I 15 get a reading for whatever it is worth. I paid 70 16 bucks for the best geiger counter I can afford. I 17 wish it were being done. officially but I have to 18 do what I can.
19 Q. And your geiger counter works, as far
! 20 as you know?
) 21 A. (Witness Mills) It is cer ta inly does.
22 It gives me the background level. I read the 23 manual. I am doing, as an amateur, the best I can
- ) 24 for my family and the neighbors.
25 Q. Do you have a view as to whether the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
4 4
14562 1 Indian Point plants should be closed
)
4 2 A. (Witness Mills) I cer tainly do.
I 3 Q. What is that?
4 A. (Witness Mills) I have been keeping 5 clippings since 1974 when I moved to that 6 beautiful spot on the lake, and if you people can 7 read the newspaper every day you would find out 8 what has gone wrong with that plant; I cannot. I 9 am absolutely shaken by what is happening there.
10 Mismanagement, below average performance, 4
11 misfunctioning controls, Ray Miller's pipes that h
12 yo u don' t know what pressure they will take.
O 13 The whole gamut of things is a 14 disgrace, and I have to live there and I don't 15 want to move out. You know what's going on, I 16 know what's going on; anybody who has the audacity 17 to defend wha t's go ing on in that plant -- the 18 time has come to shut it down. It is a danger, a 4 19 clear and present danger.
20 I don't know whether you have the 21 control rods that go down even. That was the one 22 last I ho pe that there was something automatic 23 there. But I have been dealing with automatic
() 24 equipment for a long time. I have seen the 25 problems of keeping alert, understanding operation TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l
14563 1 involved in such a situation, and the problem is
{~}
2 that as the problems are resolved and retrofitted ,
1 3 with more automatic equipment, you build an 4 increasingly complex network, interacting i
5 components. The operators, when something goes 6 wrong, have to either be thoroughly aware of every 7 interacting element in that, or they are unable to 8 copy. '
.i 9 What you get, as happened at the time 10 the the containment vessel was flooded, was people 11 who turned switches, the power up instead of down, 12 you get people who hear alarm bells and say that, n
LJ 13 well, that is nothing.
14 This is the record. I have got the 1S clippings. You have read them, you know what's
- 16 going on. I am saying it is unconscionable and 17 that plant should be closed, both, number 3 and 2.
l 18 0 Mr. Gendron, do you have an opinion 19 as to whether the plants should be closed?
20 A. (Witness Gendron) Yes, I do.
L 21 Q. What is your opinion?
22 A. (Witness Gend ro n) As a life-long 23 resident of Ossining where I grew up and my family 9 24 grew up, I have to say that I must concur that the (j
l i
25 things that I have read in the n ews pa pe r and the TAYLGE ASSOCIATES
14564 1 things that I see going on lead me to believe that
.2 everything that is being stated isn't exactly 3 accurate.
4 I will tell you, I see this thing as 5 not only a problem with Con Ed but I see this 6 thing as a country-wide problem. I would also 7 like to state at this time that we should b eg i n 8 with the highest priority a program to clean up 4
9 the r 'a d i o a c t i v e materials that we have generated 10 thus far. They are building up t h ro ug ho ut our 11 land and we must employ the finest minds that our 12 _ great country can deliver and give-them the
' . '~
- 0) 13 freedom they need to deal with this dilemma. We 14 must put away the agreed, ego and bring forward 15 the blessing that comes from following conscience.
16 MR. HASSEL: The staff removes to the 17 last part of the witness. He was reading material 18 the board ruled was inn admits I believe.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: It is.
20 THE WITNESS: (Witness Gend ro n) You 21 are asking me what I feel.
22 JUDGE GLEASOd: I am not asking you 23 anything. The attorney is.
4
() 24 MR. CZAJA: I only asked whether he 25 had an opinion whether the plant should be open or l
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l'..-,._
1 14565 t
73 1 closed. The first sentence of his answer answered O
2 that.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Any other questions?
4 MR. CZAJA: No.
4 5 JUDGE GLEASON: I want you to 6 understand we are not trying to cut out ---
7 THE WITNESS: (Witness Gend ro n) Well, 8 you d id .
9 JUDGE GLEASON: This is not an 10 opportunity for you to make speeches about or your
- 11 feelings on nuclear power.
12 MS. POTTERFIELD: The question was
, F~1 13 asked.
14 JUDGE GLEASON: I am saying that that 15 kind of information is much beyond what we are 16 trying to get on this particular question at this
'17 time. We are talking about the exercises and 18 tha t's what this week is limited to.
19 You know that, Ms. Potterfield.
20 MS. POTTERFIELD: I ask you to censure 21 Mr. Czaja and not the witness.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: I tried to do that.
] 23 You shouldn't ask questions which f
) 24 open up these doors. It is not appropriate.
25 MR. CZAJA: I am entitled to ask TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14566
~
1 somebody what their bias when they go into this
)
2 exercise and present themselves as unbiased 3 observers.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: I understand that.
- 5 There comes a point when we are just loading this 6 record with irrelevant material on the particular 7 question we are considering. We are beyond that I
8 point.
9 Mr. Brandenburg, do you have any 10 questions 11 MR. BRANDENBURG: Very few.
12 CROSS-EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. BRANDENBURG:
14 Q. Mr. Mills, the question for you at 15 page 2 of your testimony you seem to attach 16 substantial significance to the fact or to your i
17 surmise of some delay between the' declaration of 18 initially a site emergency and then after that a 19 general emergency and the lapse of time that 20 occurred after that declaration to the l
l 21 notification of towns. I am not sure which towns I
l 22 you are speaking of.
l 23 My question, t ho ug h , is whether in
() 24' the event of an actual site emergency and then L
l 25 subsequently a general emergency, whether you know i
i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
________o
14567 1 D"9 1 that the Emergency Broadcast System would be
!d 2 telling everyone, not only towns but other 3 surrounding residents, of the situation in the 4 pl an t?
5 Do you have any knowledge of that 6 subject?
7 A. Witness (Witness Mills) The one item 8 I got was the general release didn't come out of
, 9 the fire center, on the site emergency. Not until 4
10 12:14 p.m. d id they say put it out on the radio as 11 a general broadcast.
12 So I don't know the procedure, but O 13 certainly time is of the essence in this case and 14 to delay that until the governor has made a
- 15 declaration and then back down to the county and 16 have it take that long, seems a little bit of a, 17 what would you call it, leaving us stranded.
18 Q. Do you have an understanding as to 19 whether or not the Emergency Broadcast System 20 messages were in fact aired during the exercise, 21 put over the airways?
2'2 A. Witness (Witness Mill s) . No, I was 23 at the fire control center and that's what I heard om C;
l l
24 it.
25 Q. Did you turn to a commercial TAYLOE ASSOCIATES ,
. . ~ . .. _ _ _ - . __
I 14568 1 broadcast station on March 9 and hear an 2 announcement about the --
3 A. (Witness Mills) If you think that was '
4 adequate, that's your opinion. Query the people 5 who heard it. I am not testifying. I didn't hear 6 it. -
7 You know it wasn't adequatr.
8 Q. Mr. Gendron, did you observe other 9 facilities on March 9 other than the 10 decontamination center in lla wt ho r n e , New York?
11 A. (Witness Gend ro n) I did, yes.
i 12 Q. Where else were you?
13 A. (Witness Ge nd ro n) Ossining police 14 headquarters.
15 Q. You were in the Ossining municipal 16 center, is that correct?
i i 17 A. (Witness Gend ro n) Ossining police l
18 headquarters, in the dispatch room.
, 19 Q. And what were the hours that you were l
20 at that facility on March 9?
21 A. (Witness Gend ro n) I believe it was,
(
- 22 and this is off the top of n. y head, I don't have i
23 my notes in front of of me, I believe-9:30 to 11.
() 24 I could be wrong there.
25 Q. What did you do from 11 until l?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14569 P79 1 A. (Witness Gendron) Ate my lunch.
i L >:
2 Q. Have you had occasion to review the 3 testimony of Mrs. Hickernell that was heard 4 earlier this morning or this afternoon?
5 A. (Witness Gendron) Briefly, just 6 before I came here.
7 Q. Would you be surprised to learn that 8 Mrs. Hickernell testified at page 4 of her 9 testimony that "at 10:55 I left," and she is 10 referring to the Ossining police headquarters, 11 " Rick Gendron to observe"?
12 A. Yes, M
t i
13 That wo ul d surprise you?
Q.
14 A. (Witness Gendron) No, that doesn't 15 surprise me at all.
16 Q. I thought you said you were eating 17 lunch from 11 to 1?
18 A. (Witness Gendron) I think I stated as 19 clear as I could that I wasn't sure of the times 20 that I was there. It could have been different.
21 If I have my notes in front of me I will tell you 22 exactly what time it was.
23 Q. Is there any reason why the subject n 24 of your testimony was confined to your
,)
25 observations at the Hawthorne fire training center TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14570-1 rather than at the other facilities that you 2 visited on March 9?
3 A. (Witness Gend ro n) I think I ought to let Pat explain that.
4 5 MS. POSNER: Would you like an 6 explanation?
7 MR. BRANDENBURG: I would like it from 8 the witness.
9 A. (Witness Gend ron) My testimony was 10 from a notebook that was a joint notebook with 11 other people and it got lost, and I didn't have f
12 any notes to type up my testimony with. As I came i
(GJ 13 here'to speak the truth, I couldn't do'it in time.
, 14 If you would like me to do that, fine, 15 I will do that.
16 MR. BRANDENBURG: No further questions..
17 JUDGE GLEASON: Any questions from the
[
l 18- staff?
19 MR. HASSEL: No.
i
{
20 MS. POTTERFIELD: No redirect.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: Gentlemen, you are
- 22 excused. Thank you for your testimony.
23 MS. POTTTERFIELD: Intervenors called
() 24 Enid Lebid.
25 WHEREUPON TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
4 14571 1 ENID LEBID, being duly sworn by the
{'Jj
~
2 administrative law judge, testified as follows:
3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
5 Q. Would you state your name and address
, 6 for the record?
+ 7- A. Enid Lebid, 2401 Ridge Street, t
8 Yorktown Heights 10598.
9 Q. Ms. Lebid do you have before you a 10 two-page document that comprises the testimony you 11 wish to submit to the Atomic Safety and Licensing I
12 Board?
j 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you have any additions or i
15 corrections to your testimony?
16 A. Yes.
l 17 Q. What are they?
18 A. On page one, lines 32 to 34, the the 19 worker could easily be identified. Unfortunately
- 20 I don't have his name but I know he could be l 21 identified having been the only male personnel l
22 working in the scan area.
l 23 JUDGE GLEASON: This is what you are l
24 referring to as the health department worker?
t 25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
l l
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES I
v- -
,-,,n-,,,,, - , . . , - - - , , - , , - , , , + - , . - - - - - - . .-- -
-.-n--, -r ----n--n ~ . - - - --,n,.-~ -. , - - , -
14572
/^) 1 Q. So you wish to add to your testimony
\)
2 that the only male health department worker 3 working there that day?
4 A. I wish to say his name could be 5 obtained in order to keep this piece of testimony 6 in, if that is possible, because he it was the 7 only male in that scan area. There were several 8 women and I am sure -- in other words, I feel he 9 could be easily identified.
10 Q. Do you have any other additions or 11 corrections?
12 A. Yes. That school was not in session O '
13 on the Fox Lane Campus the day of the drill. I 14 feel this addition is relevant because it seems 15 logical that if students and staff were there, the 16 procedure would be even more complicated. Since 17 their dismissal would be necessary to cvoid their 18 contamination and to make room for our children, 19 further delays could be expected due to the 20 process of emptying the building and clearing the 21 roadways.
22 Q. Is that a clarification to the third 23 line of your testimony where you put in e-(., ,), 24 parentheses " school was not in session," or does 25 it go somewhere else?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l
14573 1 A. That is the clarification.
2 JUDGE GLEASON: I would term that an 3 addition to her testimony.
4- Q. Do you have any0other additions or 5 corrections?
6 A. I have I guess what would be 7 classified as a comment, I am not sure, but I 8 would love to have the opportunity to say two more 9 sentences. I am not sure where they would go.
. 10 Whether they would be additions or corrections.
1-1 Q. Go ahead and state those two 12 sentences and then we will deal with it.
.^O 13 A. I am grateful to have had the 14 opportunity to observe the school reception center 15 aspect of emergency planning since it allowed me 16 to see to what extent preparedness exists in that 17 area, if the all, for providing emergency care for t
18 my children.
l 19 I feel it is my right as a parent and 20 a citizen to see what would be done with my 4
21 children.
- 22 What I observed was that the minimum 23 of equipment, which hardly functioned at all, 73 (j 24 clearly demonstrated that the health and safety 25 needs of our children would not be met and would TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14574 (3 1 c o ra po u nd any problems already incurred by adding
\_/
2 the factor of delay and augmenting emotional 3 stress.
4 Q. With those additions and corrections 5 is your testimony true and correct to the best of 6 your information and belief?
7 A. Yes.
8 MS. POTTERFIELD: I move the admission 9 into evidence of the testimony of Enid Lebid as if 10 read.
11 JUDGE GLEASGN: Is there objection?
12 MR. BRANDENBURG: There is, Mr.
f]
'~'
13 Chairman. The witness evidently an tic ipa ted our 14 first objection, which is the next to the last 15 paragraph on page 1, starting with " health 16 department worker." I object to that on the 17 grounds of hearsay. I might point out that it is 18 not merely the lack of identification but the 19 competency of the reader in being able to make 20 begin the accurate conclusion that five seconds 21 were required to get a reading, something of that 22 the sort.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: We are going to let
() 24 that in. So pass on to your next objection.
25 MR. BRANDENBURG: The next objection TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
t 14575
- 1. is the last paragraph on page 2, which Con Edison 2 objects to as speculative and as hearsay.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Where is that?
4 MR. BRANDENBURG: The last paragraph 5 on page 2, starting, "The health department 6 people."
f 7 Now, with respect to the so-called 8 addition added by the witness just a moment ago, I 9 tried to follow it as best I could, and the first 10 passage, first part of the passage, Con Ed i s o n 4
11 does not object to.
i 12 However, the part of the statement 13 starting with the words "what I observed" to the 14 conclusion of the statement, we similarly object 15 to as speculative and as conclusory and as lacking l 16 an. adequate f o und a t io n .
I
- 17 MR. CZAJA
- I join in Mr. Brandenburg's i
18 objections and have the additional objection on i
19 page 2, third paragraph under the heading "2:40 20 p.m.," which starts with the words, "following 21 this a ud i bl e excha ng e of information," we object 22 to on the grounds that it is hearsay and i
23 irrelevant.
( ] 24 MS. POTTERFIELD: I do understand Mr.
25 Czaja's objection to be to the phrase that says "the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
)
I 14576
}
1 -health department worker was taken aside"?
(
2 JUDGE GLEASON: I am not certain 3 myself.
4 Do you object to the whole paragraph?
- 5 MR. CZAJA
- Yes, to the whole G paragraph.
i 7 MS. POTTERFIELD: It is certainly not l 5
8 hearsay. It is what she saw and what she didn't i
9 hear.
10 What was the other ground?
11 MR. CZAJA: Irrelevant. lie a r sa y , and 12 I am using hearsay as we use it in our
) In this case let me expand. In 13 identifications.
14 this case it is lack of personal knowledge on the i- 15 part of this witness as to what the paragraph f 16 states.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: I am not sure I am 18 following that. It is a lack of personal 19 knowledge on the part of the witness as to what 20 this paragraph states?
21 MR. CZAJA: Yes.
22 JUDGE GLEASON: What does that mean?
23 MR. CZAJA: As I read the paragraph, 1
( 24 the point of it is that there was going to be 25 something said about faulty equipment but they I
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14577 1 stopped d i sc u; s i ng that because they discovered I{}
2 that she was z member of the alliance to close 3 Indian Point.
4 My objection is simply that there is 5 nothing in this testimony to support that 6 statement in the paragraph.
7 MS. POTTERFIELD: The conclusion is 8 Mr. Czaja's. Che witness d id n' t draw that 9 conclusion. She simply reported what she observed i
10 and she didn't hear any comments after that and 11 when it took place.
12 JUDGE GLEASON: Tha t 's the way I
'" interpret that paragraph. What you are doing is 13 14 you are reading a conclusion from it or the 15 implication of it. You are drawing that on your 16 own but that's not in the paragraph.
I
! 17 MR. CZAJA: It won't be the first time t 18 the board has denied my objection, Judge.
j 19 JUDGE GLEASON: I hadn't reached that 20 point, yes. We hadn't reached that point yet.
21 MR. CZAJA: I made the objection. My 22 point is I made the objection as clear as I can.
23 Why prolong it.
77
(,j 24 JUDGE GLEASON: That's a different 25 point.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i _ _
14578 1 Anything else, Mr. Czaja?
)
j 2 MR. CZAJA: No, your Honor.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Ms. Po t te r f i eld , do 4
4 you want to say anything?
5 MS. POTTERFIELD: Nothing further, 6 thank you, Judge.
l 7 (There was a pause in the proceeding.)
8 JUDGE GLEASON: We feel there is 9 eno ug h reliability on the additional testimony 10 that there was only one male health department
- 11 worker, so it couldn't be confused with anyone 12 else.
I 13 I don't think you really made a point i
j 14 on that five seconds, but Dr. Paris points out 15 that you have to really hold a geiger counter that :
16 lo ng to get any kind of a r e ad i r.g . So we can ta ke 17 judicial notice of that.
l 18 JUDGE PARIS: Not to get any kind of a
! l l 19 reading, but they are looking for low levels,
! 20 one-tenth MR per hour and you have to scan very, 21 very slowly or you won't pick up that low a level 1 22 of activity.
23- THE WITNESS: Regardless of the
() 24 quality of the equipment?
- 25 JUDGE PARIS: Yes.
i '
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14579 1 THE WITNESS: Ba t ter y opera ted or 2 whatever?
3 JUDGE SHON: Let's say for the kind of 4 equipment, the range that's usually used in a case 5 where you expect contamination.
6 THE WITNESS: Is it not significant 7 that it therefore takes approximately 16 minutes 8 per person for a scanning?
9 JUDGE PARIS: Th a t ' s another question.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: That is something else.
11 Nobody has objected to that.
12 THE WITNESS: We have thousands of r")
L_J 13 Yorktown students.
14 JUDGE GLEASON: Ma'am, please. Nobody 15 has objected to that testimony. Unless you want 16 to give them a reason for objecting, why you had 17 better cease.
18 on page 2, I think that takes care of 19 page 1, on page 2 I see nothing wrong with that 20 middle paragraph. The fact is one health 21 department worker was taken aside and she has 22 testified no further comments were heard and this 23 occurred after disclosure of her identification as R 24 a member of the alliance. There is enough j ,_j l
l 25 reliability.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14580 1 The last paragraph comes out as
(-))
2 conclusory, as well as the second part of het 3 added statements. The first part stays in but the 4 second part about the problems with the children 5 she is convinced cannot be resolved, is conclusory.
6 with those changes the testimony o f 7 the witness is received into evidence and bound 8 into the record as if read.
9 (The bound testimony follows) 10 11 12
/~T 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
(/ )j 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- g. . . .
. kv
[t .
Observer Enid Lebid
{^})
us Site School Reception Center Fox Lane High School, Mt. Kisco, N.Y.
(School was:not in session.)
Date: March 9, 1983 Times 1: 30 - 4:30 p.m.
Purpose:
To observe scanning area at entrance to school, where children would be checked for radiation upon arrival.
Observations of site Sign outside front entrance: PET Containment Area Signs inside front lobby: Stop -- Scan Area Above 0.1 MR/HR --
Go to Decon Area Clean Area Only!.
Do Not Pass Unless Scanned & Clean!
Sign in inner room: Rapid Resolve Services Red Cross symbol
() Visitors Observed:
Member N.Y. State Disaster Preparedness Commission Member Division of Military / Naval Affairs (Disaster Preparedness Com. under that)
Many personnel of Dept. of Social Services--Peekskil.1, Ossining, Mt. Kisco offices Federal Observer, FEMA--Tom Baldwin, Pt. Washington Observations of Procedure Procedure began approx. 2:00 p.m.
It took an average of 16 minutes to scan each person. Example:
Scanning of one woman 3 min. scanning portfolio 10 min. scanning front of woman i 3 min scanning back l 16 min. total l Health Department worker, commenting to police officers . "I l had to hold the scanner in one place for at least five seconds l to get a reading."
l Part of the procedure was the scanning of soles of shoes.
Each person was asked to lift one foot at a time to be scanned.
After a clean reading of one foot, the person was asked to step with that foot only into the clean area, over the tape on the l
l l
3,
(-
floor, while keeping the other foot back, and then asked to raise the other foot for scanning. One woman held onto the wall for balance, and then had to have that hand re-scanned, since she touched the wall.
2:40 p.m.-- Out of a total of three Geiger counters, two went dead in less than one hour. A worker noted that they were stamped, "Date checked, Feb. 1983." (Four batteries each.)
Replacement batteries evidently did not work either, since an entire box of them, labeled, " Extra Batteries," were not used.
These batteries were not dated, the worker observed. Scanning was continued, with one Geiger counter instead of three.
Following this audible exchange of information, the Health Department worker was taken aside by the worker in tharge.
It was obvious that no further comments were heard after that, regarding faulty equipment. This occurred after the disclosure of my identification as a member of the Alliance to Close Indian Point.
A worker announced that there would be "more equipment shortly."
{T s_) One worker said that there were a couple of other scanners somewhere else in the building, but they were in use. After close to an hour of scanning with one Geiger counter only, one more was added.
3:50 p.m.-- When more than 10 people were waiting on line to be scanned, the scanning time was reduced from approximately 16.. minutes to 5 minutes per person.
When FEMA observer's turn came to be scanned, Health Department worker asked, "Do you know your exposure dose today?" He replied negatively, and she proceeded to scan. Registered a higher reading for one lower leg. Responded negatively to question, was he carrying anything. Said he came from Peekskill, and had been on a bus, when asked where he had been.
The Health Department people seemed Lo perform their jobs with faulty and inadequate equipment as if nothing were wrong.
One visitor commented, "I think these people are hypnotized."
Another visitor said, "Can you just picture if there really was a disaster--everybody getting into their cars?"
pm mm WW WM MM I
Enid J. I bid 4/8/83
14581 JUDGE GLEASON: Any cross-examination, f"]
V 1 ,
2 g en tl emen?
3 MR. BRANDENBURG: Very briefly, Mr.
4 Chairman.
i 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. BRANDENBURG:
7 Q. Mrs. Lebid, if I understand your 8 testimony correctly on page 2, you are a member of 9 the a lines to-oppose Indian Po i re t , is that
- 10 correct?
11 A. .
Tha t 's correct.
-12 Q. Did you receive any g uidance before i 13 you were an observer during the March 9 drill as 14 to the types of things you should look for?
15 A. No, I did not. I was told to observe 16 quietly and to take notes.
17 Q. Do you attend any o rg an iza tional 18 meetings for observers or things of that sort, 19 prior to .the March 9 drill?
20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. Who communicatea to you your 22 directions about how to act as an observer on the 23 March 9 occasion?
i l PR
- a 24 A. When I requested to observe the Fox
\
! 25 Lane School and reception center because of my l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- i. _ _ _ _
c 14582 1 personal interest in that aspect of emergency 2 planning, and when I did so I was told what I just 3 related to you.
4 MR. BRANDENBURG: No further questions.
5 MR. CZAJA: I have nothing, Judge.
- - 5 MR. HASSEL
- The staff has nothing.
7 MS. POTTERFIELD: No redirect.
, 8 JGDGE GLEASON: Thank you, Ms. Lebid-9' for your testimony. We appreciate it.
1 10 MS. POTTERF1 ELD: Intervenors call 11 Stephanie Wexler.
12 Wile R E U P O N 13 STEPHANIE WEXLER, being duly sworn by
- 14 the administrative judge, testified as follows
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION i
16 BY MS. POTTERFIELD:
17 Q. Would you state your name and address l
18 for the record?
19 A. Stephanie Wexler, 2553 Dunning Drive, 20 Yorktown lle ig h t s , New York 10598.
21 Q. Do you have before you, Ms. Wexler, 22 e ig h t pages that, together, comprise the testimony 23 that you wish to submit to the Atomic Safety and
() 24 Licensing Board?
25 A. Yes.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
______________.__a
. _ __ _ _ ~. - . . . _
14583 1 Q. Do you have any additions or 2 corrections to your testimony?
l 3 A. No.
- 4 Q. Is it true and correct to the best of i
5 your information and belief?
6 A. Yes.
i 7 MS. POTTERFIELD: I move the admission i~
- 8 into evidence of testimony ofthe Stephanie Wexler 9 as if read.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: Any objections?
11 MR. CZAJA: Yes, Judge. On page one, 12 the second paragraph, starting at the end of of L~' 13 the second line and going on to the third line, 14 "The chief," starting there --
i 15 JUDGE GLEASON: Wait a minute. The 16 end of the second line?
17 MR. CZAJA: Right, in the second full I' 18' paragraph, the word "the" appears, continuing on i i
( 19 the third line " chief had told me."
l
! 20 This is the textual portion of the i
J 21 testimony that precedes the minute-by-minute 22 accounting.
23 The bottom of the second page of the
) 24 testimony which ends the textual discussion, that 25 I would object to on the grounds of hearsay.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES >
F 14584 1 Then turning to the second page of 2 the minute-by-minute discussion, the entries for 3 11:50, 11:56, both on the grounds of hearsay.
4 Also on the grounds of relevance.
e 5 The entry for 12:06 on the grounds of t-6 relevance, lack of foundation as to what is going 7 on at this point, and hearsay.
1
- 8 Skipping to the next page, and going i
, 9 to the entry for 1:11 on the following page, I i
10 object to that entry on the grounds of hearsay and i
11 relevance.
I 12 JUDGE GLEASON: I presume she heard l 13 them doing that.
I 14 MR. CZAJA: I don't think the fact 15 that we can identify the two speakers is 16 definitive.
17 JUDGE GLEASON: We have already made a 18 ruling on that. I don't know why you keep r
19 throwing those in.
r 20 MR. CZAJA: Here she is taking one l 2 1' word out of a conversation and I don't understand's i
22 the board's rule that one word out of a i
4 23 conversation --
24 JUDGE GLEASON: You are right.
. 25 MR. CZAJA: The same objection to the 4
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14585 1 1:14 entry, at the bottom of the page.
2 JUDGE PARIS: That's a whole sentence.
3 MR. CZAJA: It might be helpful to the 4 board to know what the whole thing is referring to.
i 5 Absent that, the sentence is somewhat meaningless 6 in my opinion.
7 At the top o f of the next page the 8 same objection.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: Is this a hearsay T
10 objection?
11 MR. CZAJA: Yes. Tha t's all I have.
12 MR. BRANDENBURG: Our objections are 0 13 encompass the by those set forth by the Power '
14 Authority. I would an add as an independent 4 15 ground for the striking of the passage he referred 16 to in Ms. Wexler's textual portion, that this i
17 material is objected to on the grounds it does not 18 relate to the March 9 exercise. It is just i
19 general discussion about emergency planning in 20 general. This is only the textual passage that I 21 am referring to now.
22 MS. POTTERFIELD: We stand on our i
23 previous response, al tho ug h to the extent I i ) 24 understand Mr. Brandenburg's objection about the 25 second full paragraph on the first page. It seems
- i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i
- - - . , , ~ ,-.-. . ,- .~. - . , _ . . . , . . , , , . _ .- - - _ _ _ , _ , - - - . _ ~ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . - , , . -
14586 r 1 clear'to me from reading the testimony that she is L]J 2 describing a conversation that she had with the 3 chief of police on the day of the drill. That was 4 the day she was there and that was something he 5 had told her when she first arrived.
6 It may be that I don't understand Mr.
7 Brandenburg.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: I think I understand 9 it.
10 JUDGE GLEASON: All right, the board 11 concludes that the objections are well-founded in 12 relation to Ms. Wexler's introductory comments, t
13 that it is either hearsay or not comments that 14 relate to this exercise, therefore not relevant.
15 We then go to the individual comments, 16 and we ask you on your notation at 11:50 was there 17 a scenario that involved moving 80,000 people in
- 18 this exercise?
i 19 Tile WITNESS: No, the chief and one l 20 of his officers were talking about how difficult l
- 21 it was. They had developed their own plan because l
l 22 they felt it was difficult. They were talking 1
i 23 about Lebanon.
() 24 JUDGE GLEASON: I think that the same 25 objection that is before us is sustained, that it TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
145C7 Pi 1 has to come out because it is not relevant to this LJ 2 exercise.
3 The same thing holds true for the 4 objection under 11:56, 5 The statements under 12:06 and 1:11 6 and 1:14 and 1:15 come out because they are the 7 kind of hearsay and, really, irrelevancy, that 8 doesn't help the board at all.
9 With those changes the testimony of 10 the witness is received into evidence, bound into 11 the record as if read.
12 (The boond testimony f ollows) b" 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-3 24 x_J 25 TAYLCE ASSOCIATES
1 l
Intervenor Observer Stephanic Wexler Ov Observation Poet Putnam Valley Police Station 1 Oscavana Lake Road Time of Observation Town of Putnam Valley, NY 10:55 am to 3:10 pm I cpent approximately four hours at the Putnam Valley Police ctation on Wednesday, March 9,1983, as an intervenor observer.
~
The Putnam Valley Police seem very sincere and dedicated to keeping .
the citizens of their community protected and safe. Thy are a small group. The Chief had told Le from the outset that while a portion of their population lives within th 30 mile evacuation area, another protion lives outside the ten mile limit.
They cannot put all their manpower into the 10 mile population. They have to have police service available to the people who will not be evacuating as weli..
_They are very concerned about 1:eing able to evacuate their citizens
/ ? . :: ' 'M . 3 (n;thesventofanemergency.
3 . ~
They expressed a concern about whether the Con l Edison / County evacuation plan will allow them to do so. They do feel that there
- ians not enoughw local input which was reflected by a lack of information about 1
I local roadsnand$
_ M,3U_ jYM : ?
crossroads
" in thet evacuation plans. They had requested that. p w s ,
J someose"from F _ come and' talk to them regarding their thoughts but no ~,
clie' State 4.. .
one had. 43ecause the Putnam Valley Pglice did not believe that the official plan was workable, they developed their own more localized plan.
Their plan begins with an introduction advising that in a time of .;
- i panic and fear, it would be impossible to know whether or not personnel would remakatNheirmstat' ions or would leave.
' 'g D ah'During the course of the day there ea were sev r l .
, consnents by police P:rsonnel that the plan was ridiculous. They' indicated that serious attention had 2t been given to the complexity and logistics of having to evacuate, in actuality, not just in simulation, thousands of people. They expressed dissatisfaction s , , . . .
O O O .
l i
I Wexler Page 2 with the duplication of services that occured on the day of the exercise, with the fact that orders were coming from too many sources, and the fact that one hand did not seem to know what the other hand was doing.
For the entire time that I was there, until 3:00 pm, they were confused in thinking that the sirens sounding at 9:47 had been a mistake.
They were waiting for the sirens to go off after a general emergency had been declared.
Being a small force, they wondered how long each man could be asked to work in the event of an emergency, considering factors such as fatigue and exposure to radiation. They wondered why the State officials had not responded to their requests for a meeting about the plan, and the lack of response by the State left the Putnam Valley Police Department feeling " expendable."
g '.x
_.~
N n
4 m _
e e
~.
j 1
OBSERVATIONS OF STEPHANIE WEXLER ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1983 PUTNAM COUNTY POLICE STATION, PUTNAM COUNTY, N. Y.
10:55 Arrived at Putnam County Police Station. Doors to the police station were locked. Rang bell and annmounced myself through intercom. Allowed in. Took over observing from Dale Saltzman.
11:00 Call from Capt. Connelly requesting that a patrol car be cant to patrol at Gregon Corners.
t .
11:02 Chief Jacobs s'ays "We're running out of patrol cars. We' ll l cand John. Send a utility car down to Oregon Corners. Next man is
- i Sargorsky (sp.) to Oregon Corners. Take portable 473."
Gary Murray, Traffic Control Evacuation Coordinator says, "The only car left is the chief's. "
11:05 Converstion continues about the use of manpower and the logistics involved. Officer Murray tells me about the Putnam Valley Town Evacuation Plan. ,
i 11:10 Wind, pressure announcement come over in the radio room.
11:12 Chief says, "Do you know the town of Cortland has our frequency?"
i 11:28- Officer asks for change' of;a quarter so that he can make some phone calls. No one has change but me. ' Officer gets change from me.
l 11:25 Officer Murray tells me that the only thing real on the cpecial evacuation day blotter is the Chief and himself. Everything
. oise is simulated. -
- t 11:27.. :Westchester County. Control Center calls requesting a car be l sent to1 Oregon Corners. ' Officer Murray tellsithe W.C.C.C. that "they l ~hcve'docimeters and post orders and everything. I' ll have a car down there momentarily."
Officer Murray says off radio "Actually send a car to Oregon f; Corners to be checked by an observer."
g Chief says "Make sure the people checking have I.D.s."
N 11:28 Call goes out by Debbie over the police radio, "228 to 4053-R:spond to Dregon Corners. You have your post orders and docimeter. -
p That's what they want to go over. " .
l l 11:28 Chief would like offickBabnik' to flet them know who evaluator .
l in and where they' re from when tfie ' evaluation is over,
- n. %.
Chief makes a second statement wanting to know "Who's down
~
11:32 t
there doing the observing. I'want his name, rank and serial number."
()11:35 Telephone call - Debbie says there's a call on se for the Chief.* There's an intervener on the phone. Chief tells the caller that "We were put on alert at 7:58."
$ A.
b
d l
11:50 Chief Jacobs and Officer Murray discuss the Icgistics, the comlexity and the time involved in moving an army of 80,000. They discuss the logistics including medics, transportation, a quarter-master and food. They comment that to deploy men to Labanon it took two weeks.
The discussion continues on the logistics of moving thousands of people and how complex and long it takes. Chief ocys, " They' re not going to be able to move 80,000 here. Taking close to 80,000 people on this side of the river."
11:56 Officer Murray talks to me about Putnam Valley's own ovacuation plan. He says that there was no local input in the county plan. They've taken the Con Ed County plan and localized it. The county plan, he continues, doesn' t take into account difficult roads. He says that they'll be responding to panic which is why they have tow trucks in various places in their plan. The Putnam Valley police Dept. wants to react to an emergency rather then to a disaster which is also how they feel that their pt,an is different from. the County's.
12:01 Officer Murray says that there was a girl here yesterday from Chicago.who had a giant book relating to the evacuation.
l -
-12:82 453 call to SO Unit - Officer Babnik says that Inspector Just \
2 poke with him and left. Chief tells Officer Babnik to go on regular patrol and to take lunch.
12 82 Officer Murray types up Officer Babnik's activities on the cp;cial evac day log.
12:05 Debbie is listening and talking on the control room radio.
Sha says, "We have them on standby. Standby to evacuate Continental Village Fire. Dept." She says that the call came through from C.E.D.C.,
Westchester C.C.C. There is confusion as to who Just called. Officer Murray says that they seem to be working with 2 different guys, and 2 different countie's.
12:05 Capt. Connelly wants to know why West. County isn't contacting him first before issuing orders to Put. Valley.
12:06 Chief comments, "This is going down the tubes. This is the -
4 cnd of this. " -
12:87 Debbie says that a Con Ed car Just pulled away from in front of the police station. -
12:11 Chief and Officer Murray talk about the importance of a '
gnneral disaster plah and talk about making peace with the fire dspartment. They talk about how hard it is to coordinate volunteers.
N ~y soft, quiet discussion on how to evacuate in case of a disaster the i
ClArrectway. Discussion on the chain of command that would be octchlished. '
12:12 Debbie takes phone call and announces that the call is from a
. . =-- , ==w - ,:- . - - . . , . = - _ - - . ._._ _. = -
_ .. _- _ . - - . - _ - _ _ _ = _ . - - - _ . - - . _
2(
Keating from Peekskill Community Hospital. She wants to know how ccny vehicles the dept. has to spare to transport patients to St.
Mrs.
Lukes. "We have only 2 Chief talks to Officer Murray and says that How can we send 2 cnd we' re commited. This is a great time to find out.he's on life support system. -
cmbulances to St. Lukes?
p Wa need a vehicle for him."
12:14 453 call asking who's at Tompkins and who's at Adams.
Response is no man. Man who's supposed to be at Tompkins is in police ctation using the bathroom. Officer is getting his docimeter checked.
i l
b Officer Murray reads it. He says it's 9.1 and that A 0.1 reading on a docimeter is like a sun tan. I 12:16 Officer leaves to return to Tompkins Corner.
12:19 Call to Peekskill hospital to find out where St. Lukes Hospital is. Finds out it's in Newburgh. ^
12:21 Officer and Chief comment, " Great, send the patients up along he same route as the refugees."
12:27 Officer Murray says that they are going to switch the men at
-(}theposts. He says that every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> they like to switch the men.
12:29 Phone call on 84 announced by Debbie. Capt Connelly has called on the wrong number. He calls again on the correct number.
4 Officer murray says, "We' ll do what we can sir. "
- Officer Murray reports that they have 1 man and no cars left.
He reports that it is now escalation into general emergency and general ovacuation.
h3 12:30 Order by chief not to switch men as previously decided.. Chief
- L, says, "So now we have to restructure everything.""He said Con Ed has Just Officer Murray says, is melted an l
- - laying in a puddle."
1 12:31 Officer Murray says, "Now we should hear some sirens."
Chief says, " Dragon and Adams corners are covered."
Reference to Table 1 - General Evacuation; Chief says, l ]k "Get rid of man at Christians Corners. We're goingPark we read to go police by their plan, or State
, ]% right. Cross Corners and Konopi's Hollow,
" police. We' re not going to man it."
w 12:35 Reassigments are decided:
[ 3 at Adams. .
l No. 6 Officer murray says, at Oregon and No."we have one man left over and one car."
- 12:37 Officer Murray reports, "We established traffic priorities 12:48 last year. We' re in good shape. "
a man can !
l 12:41 Chief says, " We don' t need a car at Adam's Corner, I walk there."
12:41 Phone call from Capt. Connelly. Connelly calls on the wrong
O line.
12:42 Capt. Connelly calls on the correct line.
Co"t. Connelly has called to report a p1 Auto Accident at Cross Point fc: simulation purposes. Officer Murray tells Capt. Connelly that ,"we have a man there."
The Sheriff, State Police and Putnam Vall.ey Police have all rcsponded to the simulated accident.
Officer Murray tells the Chief that Cross Point is Kevin's l
post and that Kevin is on his meal. The Chief says to send Babnik.
Officer Babnik is contacted and told to go over to 837 and to 1
etay there until an observer arrives.
12:44 Chief and Officer Murray discuss duplication of servies in t esgard to the simulated auto accident call from Capt. Connelly.
Chief says, "Why are there two additional services coming in when we can handle it. We need them in outlying areas."
12:47 Officer Murray says, "see how different it is when,you have local control? We're the only department that has developed our own l cvacuation plan. I don' t mean to sound negative but we' re really !
concerned and try very hard."
12 Call from Officer Babnik. He's told to just stand by as there
)()cre:51supposed to be inspectors coming by.
12:52 We' re playing war games, Pete," says the Chief in regard to the evacuation drill.
12:53 Sandwiches arrive.
1:03 Charley Schneider of the Putnam Valley Civil Defense comes into the station. He comments about the locked doors.
l Schneider says that the Co-ordinator from WCCC never called him with information about events of the evacuation drill. .
1:06 Officers, the Chief and Mr. Schneider are calibrationg j
docimeters. They're not sure that the device is working.They're having come trouble finding a reading. Discussion that maybe the docimeter machine is caput.
1:08 Chief comments that the " Radio has been very quiet." -
1:09 Call from WCCC picked up by Officer Murray. The phone order is to evacuate Continental Village Fire Lepartment. Officer Murray says,"They told us that hours ago." -
1:11 The Chief:and Charley Schneider are talking about how -
' ridiculous' the pla'n is.
1:11 Officer Babnik reports that Just the S.O. showed at he simulated accident. Nobody else.
1:14 Schneider says, "This whole thing is a joke."
l .
d 1:15 Of ficer Murray says, "Get the feeling one hand doesn' t know what the other hand is doing?"
1:29 Chief comments, "How come Yorktown is so quiet?"
1:34 Chief says that he wants to make sure that he knows how to reach Charley (Schneider) if he's not home.
1:38 Charley Schneider leaves the station.
1:41 Service man from cable T.V. company comes into the station to 1 use the phone because he can' t find the house he's looking for.
1:44 Officer Murray explains to me that the Putnam Valley Police Dnpt. had requested that someone from the county office come to their, j station to see the difference between using their (Put. Valley's) plan and
- the county's plan. ,
i .
l 1:46 Phone call from Capt. Connelly in regard to the simulated i eccident. Officer Murray tells him that "our patrol and your patrol wnre there".
Officer Murray is discussing the evac plan; holding pattern; regroup and figure out what's happening.
1:46 Officer Babnik returns to the station. He says that no troopers showed up at Oregon Corners. He continues that a woman, about 36 years old, showed up. She asked a whole bunch of questions, got back in her car, and left.
1:53 Chief Jacobs says, "If they would. cover the outer perimeter, we could cover the inside. Why have more people at all roads leaving and entering West-chester? Why do we have to be there too?"
1:55 School alarm keeps going off. It is being fixed.
2:10 Discussion between Chief and Officer Murray regarding amount of time an officer can be committed to work shift.
p They discussed the problem of on-duty personnel being held over.
Chief: "We'd have to put them to bed in the back." '
Officer Murray: "What about the dosage they've been exposed te***
Chief: "What are.we still doing here? We're expendable." '
Officer Murray: "That's why they don't come and talk to us."
Chief: "We're still responsible for property even'if no one is there."
i 2:15 Officer Murray' tells me about Putnam Valley's ca. localized evacuation plan. He shows me the large envelopes they have developed with specific instructicas and priorities for each post, and a dosimeter for each police officer.
l 2:35 The typewriter isn't working correctly. Someone is coming to pick up
! the typewriter momentarily.
l
I l
. l l
2:40 . Officer Murray gets phone call from Reporter Dispatch. He tells the reporter that the sirens went off at 9:47. They re'ceived only one phone call about it. They are utilizing the county plan. As of 12:29 they were in a state of General Emergency. As of 2:26 ECC.at the Sheriff's Department-still in that same condition.
The police have a special phone n::mber that the county calls them on, and the police have a special number to call the county back. There are things that ce don't know about what is going on. So far it has been quickly remedied. Communications are better this year than last.
Officer Murray also reports that two intervenors from Yorktown Parents Group have been observing what's going on.
2:47 officer Murray reports to the Chief that Manpower Status is still the same.
3:10 I left.
IO I
l l
?
l v
14588 1 JUDGE GLEASON: Cross-examination, 2 please.
3 MR. CZAJA: I have nothing.
4 MR. BRANDENBURG: No questions.
5 JUDGE GLEASON: I am certain, you 6 haven't looked that over. I am sure you can find 7 something.
8 I take that back.
9 Any thank you very much for your 10 testimony. We appreciate it.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Does that conclude 12 your list of witnesses?
\'
13 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes, Judge. We have 14 another five witnesses who are drill observers for 15 tomorrow morning. They will be here first thing 16 in the morning.
17, JUDGE GLEASON: All right. Is there 18 anything else that has to be b ro ug h t up before the 19 board before we recess?
20 MR. BRANDENBURG: I do have one brief 21 housekeeping matter. This relates to a carryover 22 from last week's question 6 portion of the case.
23 As I understand it, and I regret I could not be
() 24 here the entire week, but the board did consent 25 under certain conditions to the admission into TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14589 1 r eco rd of Con Edison 15, 16 and 17 which, as I 2 understand it, was shown to a witness who was 3 testifying on the effects of low level radiation.
4 The condition that the board attached
- 5 to its ruling was that the portions of each of 6 those exhibits that were shown to the witness 7 d ur i ng his appearance on the stand be identified 8 with brackets.
t 9 I have given to Mr. Le w i s and 10 distributed to the parties here today copies of
- 11 Con Edison's 15, 16 and 17, each of them do show 12 the brackets requested by the board and I, 1
O 13 therefore, request that those exhibits be admitted 14 into the record in accordance with the board's 15 ruling last week.
j 16 JUDGE GLEASON: Where is the bracket 17 with respect to con Ed 15?
18 MR. BRANDENBURG: Page 2. We had to 19 include page one to identify the periodical.
20 JUDGE GLEASON: With that 21 understanding that it is only those bracketed 22 portions that are the exhibits, without objection 23 those exhibits will be admitted not record.
l ) 24 MS. POSNER: These are being admitted 25 as evidence?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
. ~ _ _ _ _ - _ ~ _
14590 7
I 1 JUDGE GLEASON: That's r ig h t , you were
)
$ 2 there. I am sorry, it was going through my mind 3 that Mr. Blum was involved but he wasn't.
4 Do you have any objection?
i 5 MS. POSNER: If this is to be j 6 presented as evidence, that means that it can be 7 used as the basis of a finding of fact, that's my .
I 8 understanding, and I object to that because the l
I 9 author of this article was not here, the licensees 9
10 could have put on a witness of their own- to make t
- 11 whatever kind of case they wanted to about 12 radiological effects of Indian Point.
)
13 Since there have been so many i 14 instances of extremely relevant site specific i 15 information being cxcluded from the record as
- 16 hearsay; for example, the example that springs to f 17 mind in the Stone and Webster observation sheets 18 that were appended to the testimony of Mr.
19 Gerkowski of the Westchester County transportation 20 Department, for the exercise of March 2, 3, 1982, 21 those were not allowed into the record as evidence, 22 and I see absolutely no basis to allow a couple of 23 paragraphs from an article to be used as a basis
() 24 for a finding of fact in this hearing.
25 JUDGE GLEASON: The only thing that
- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i
- . - , - - . . , , . . - . . . , . . . ._- . , _ - . _ _ . . _ _ . - _ . - , _ _ . . _ . , _ - . _ - . . , . - , - , . _ . . . , _ - - , - - _ . . . _ . _ _ - - . . . ~ . . , . . . - -
14591 1 this does, the only purpose, Ms. Posner, as is my
, P")'
L_
2 understanding that these exhibits are included in 3 the record, is, first of all, I tho ug h t you had 4 asked for them.
5 MS. POSNER: I asked to be allowed to 6 see a copy of them while they were being shown to 7 my witnesses.
8 JUDGE GLEASON: Leaving that aside, a 9 question was asked from these reports of the 10 witnesses, and the question was after reading the 11 excerpted parts of these exhibits, whether they 12 agreed with the statements there and they I
13 indicated no.
14 If I understood correctly, they were 15 asked if they had any comment with respect to it 16 and they said no, this just happens to represent 17 the opinions of the particular authors of those 18 publications.
19 So I don't know why having exactly in 20 the record what that was gives any probative value 21 beyond stating what that information already 22 states. I don't see any problem with it personally.
23 MS. POSNER: I maintain my objection.
7m1 Lj 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Do you have any 25 response?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
. . = . _. . _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ - . _ - . - -_
14592 ,
1 MR. BRANDENBURG: It is my 2 understanding of the circumstances, and I have t
3 consulted with others who were here last week, l 4 that it was not offered for the truth of the 5 matter stated in these excerpts but rather to G establish that there was a point of view that i
7 differed from those of the witnesses on the stand.
t 8 JUDGE PARIS: You understand this is I
9 not offered for the truth of the matter stated 10 therein.
i 11 MS. POSNER: I understand but once it l
- 12 is in evidence, it can be used as a basis for a
() 13 finding of the fact of the truth of the matter.
j 14 MR. II A S S E L : No, it cannot.
l 15 JUDGE GLEASON: The whole problem that
- 16. we faced is we really didn't know what the 17 witnesses were being asked and there was some hope !
l 18 to have some kind of reference point as to what 19 they were being asked as to'why this information 20 was requested.
21 MS. POSNER: I can't see why it can't 22 be an exhibit as others have been, not in evidence.
I 23 The point is, Judge, it is fine to
- () 24 have copies distributed an have it marked as an
- .25 exhibit, but that if the board only wanted to see TAYLOE ASSOCIATES !
14593 l what the basis was for the questions, although it
{
2 isn't here, that doesn't seem to be a good enough 3 reason to put. in evidence.
i 4 It was an exhibit used in aid of l
5 cross-examination. It was used to show that ;
1 l
6 somebody else had a different opinion than these o
7 witnesses, but you can't get it in. It doesn't go 2
8 into evidence just for that reason. You can use [
- 9 it to cross-examine, you can have it marked as an 10 exhibit but it doesn't get admitted into evidence 11 the way testimony does.
12 MR. LEVIN: If I might, I was there, 13 Judge, and that is exactly what Mr. Farrelly said i
14 when he offered it. Ile said it is offered only to 15 demonstrate that there is a different view out l
16 there, not for the truth o f the matter stated 17 therein.
18 As Ms. Potterfield knows, that l 19 happens in all trials all the time. It can be
.I 20 evidence for that purpose, that purpose alone.
21 I am sure in this case it has 22 happened.
23 JUDGE GLEASON: I know it has happened 1
() 24 in this case-before.
25 It has a very limited value in this i
- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i
-..., ....- - ,..,-....-,-.-_ ._..-,, ,..- ..,_,... -- ~, - _ - -. _ - , , - , , - , . - , _ , , . . . . . . . , - , . _ . , . . - - - - . . . . . ~ ~ . .
14594 l
I case, Ms. Posner. We will admit it for that
)
e 2 purpose and that purpose alone because we think 3 the record would be i ncompl e te without it.
4 (Con Ed i so n ' s exhibits 15, 16 and 17 -
5 were received in evidence.)
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Ms. Moore, were you 7 about to say something?
i 8 MS. MOORE: Very briefly just to l 9 notify the board, there is no action to be taken 1
] 10 on it, but upon review o f the record the staff has i
11 determined that the testimony of one of its risk 1 12 witnesses needed some clarification.
O 13 Therefore, today an affidavit of Mr.
14 Dennis Kobicki has been served on the board and 15 all the parties to provide that clarification 16 concerning a chronology of events surrounding an 1
17 alternate shut-down capability in the area of fire 18 protection of Indian Point unit 2. Co pi e s of the 19 affidavit will be arriving here hopefully tomorrow 20 afternoon so they will be distributed on Thursday.
i 21 I may not be here at that time, and,
! 22 therefore, I wanted to notify the board as soon as 23 I know it had been served.
() 24 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you. Maybe we 25 could just take another moment. We understand now i
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14595 l that the five witnesses, remaining witnesses for
}
2 the intervenors will be available tomorrow morning.
3 Westchester County has already advised us they 4 will not have their witness. Does anyone know 5 when Mr. McGuire from Rockland County will be 6 available?
7 Could the staff tell me when their 8 witnesses are going to be available?
9 MR. HASSEL: Mr. Sears is ex pec ted to 10 arrive this evening, so it is conceivable he could 11 be ready tomorrow.
,n 12 JUDGE GLEASON: Will he be available b 13 tomorrow if he is here tonight?
14 MR. HASSEL: Yes, he could be 15 available tomorrow.
16 JUDGE GLEASON: Thank you very much.
17 We will stand in recess until 18 tomorrow and we will be back in the other 19 courtroom tomorrow.
20 (Hearing recessed at 5 p.m.)
21 22 23 7m w'
t 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
14596
~g 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (J
2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 4 before 5 THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6 in the matter of: CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF 7 NEW YORK ( Indian Point Unit 2) -
8 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF 9 NEW YORK (Indian Point Unit 3) i 10 Date of Proceeding: Tuesday, April 26, 1983 11 Docket Number: 50-247 SP and 50-286 SP 12 Place of Proceeding: White Plains, New York O 13 were held as herein appears, and that this is the 14 o r ig in al transcript thereof for the file of the 15 Commission.
16 Raymond DeSimone 17 Official Re po r te r 18 19 RYTA RONCHER 20 Official Re po r te r 21 22 23
('N
\ ,) 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- _ _a