Text

Transcript of 870407 Hearing in Hauppauge,Ny Re Util Emergency Planning Exercise.Pp 2,856-2,986
	ML20206D649
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/07/1987
From:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	;
References
	CON-#287-3118 OL-5, NUDOCS 8704130390
	Download: ML20206D649 (132)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:; l UN11EU STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l i IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-322-oL-5 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 (EP EXERCISE) O LOCATION: HAUPPAUGE, NY PAGES: 2856-2986 DATE: TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 t 6 \\ 6 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. { Official Reporters 9 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 $[h'Ilkb0h !UO$0b2_? NATIONWIDE COVERAGE P Dfi r

q.

44900000 2856 I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR 1;EGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

X 5

In the Matter of: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 6

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (EP Exercise) Unit 1) 7

X 8

Court of Claims State of New York 9 State Office Building Third Floor Courtroom 10 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Tuesday, April 7, 1987 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 13 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m. BEFORE: 3 JOHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman 15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16

Bethesda, Maryland 20555 17 OSCAR H. PARIS, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 22 23 24 25

'44900000 2857 suewalsh 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Companyt { 3 KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESQUIRE DONALD P. IRWIN, ESQUIRE-4 KAREN DONAGEN, ESQUIE SCOTT D. MATCHETT, ESQUIRE 5 Hunton & Williams i 707 East Main Street .6 P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 I On Behalf of Suffolk Countyt i 8 i KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQUIRE 9 P. MATTHEW SUTKO, ESQUIRE Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 10 South Lobby, 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N. W. 11 Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 12 On Behalf of the State of New Yorkt 13 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQUIRE () Special Counsel to the Governor j 14 Executive Chamber Room 229 15 State Capitol i Albany, New York 12224 l 16 On Behalf of the NRCr b. 'l MYRON KARMAN, ESQUIRE 18 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQUIRE j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 7735 Old Georgetown Road 4 j Bethesda, Maryland 20814 20 i On Behalf of FEMAr l 21 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESQUIRE j 22 Federal Emergency Management Agency i 500 C Street, S. W. ) 23 Washington, D. C. 20472 t l 24 i j 25 4 i

i .44900000 2858 cuewalsh I C.O N T E N T S 2 Direct Cross Redirect Recross Voir Dire CHARLES A. DAVERIO 3 RICHARD J. WATTS 2876 2880 2930 2956 2962 5 EXHIBITS 6 Identified Admittgd 7 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 44 2899 8 9 10 LAY-IN TESTIMONY-II Following Page 1 12 Testimony of Charles A. Daverio and Richard J. Watts on Contention EX-47 2879 13 14 15 A. M. RECESS Page 2909 16 LUNCHEON RECESS Page 2957 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 s 25 4 I

44900101 2859 marysimons i PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE FRYE:- Good morning. 3 We conferred last evening with regard to.the 4 schedule and we have concluded'that'the schedule suggested 5 by Mr. Irwin makes sense. 6 So we wish to adopt that and take a recess next 7 week and come back the following week. I would suggest we a begin Monday afternoon. I-don't know what flights are like 9 and people would not have to travel on Sunday. We would-io begin Monday after lunch at 1 o' clock on April 20, and that 11 would be the LILCO testimony on the emergency notification 12 center followed by on April 27 to 28 the Suffolk County i3 testimony on that subject. We would follow that with the 4 14 LILCO testimony on trailing beginning April 29 and 15 concluding May 5 followed by the Suffolk County testimony on 16 training on May 6 and 7. 17 Then we would have LILCO on the scope of the t is exercise from May 11 to 14 and Suffolk County on the same issue from May 18 to 21. At that point we would have to 19 1 20 think about scheduling FEMA. 21 How much advance notice, Mr. Cumming, do you 22 need to have for your planning purposes? 23 MR. CUMMING: The only real conflict was what I 24 mentioned yesterday, the week of June 23rd. We l 25 i _, _.., _.. _, _,. _ _. _ - _, _ _.. _,.. _, _ _ _. _., _.. -...,. ~ .m

44900101 2860 marysimons i unfortunately couldn't make either OL-3 or OL-5 with our 2 panel. Otherwise, the only question in our mind is whether 3 there is a conflict with 0L-3. That's not a question of 4 notification. Our people, one comes in from Idaho, but 5 we'll meet the Board's availability. 6 JUDGE FRYE: So about a weeks' notice would be 7 adequate for you? 8 MR. CUMMING: Absolutely. 9 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Well, we'll follow that. I to think that gives us, what, about eight weeks. So as we get -11 into that you can give us some indication and some firm 12 dates. 13 MR. CUMMING: Thank you very much. s 14 JUDGE FRYE: Now we do want to adopt the four is pages per hour guideline. That is what we will hope will be 16 met. So far this week that's exactly what we've been doing, 17 just about four pages per hour, and that is Ms..Letsche's 18 prediction for this next testimony coming up. We do not 19 think that ought to include attachment pages. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye, if I could just 21 address that. With respect to the near-term schedule, which 22 is through the panels on Contention 38, both LILCO's and the 23 Suffolk County panel, I think everything is fine and I don't 24 have any problems with that. With respect to the training panel, g'iven your 25

1 44900101 2861 i marysimons h i adoption of Mr. Irwin's calculation which has, and I'm just 2 trying to look at the calendar, which has four days for 3 cross-examination of that panel, I think that that testimony, however many pages it has, and frankly I can't 4 5 remember, I think it.was roughly a hundred pages or so, 6 maybe a little less, it has in it one or two pages on a 7 couple of topics which then one is referred to in an 8 attachment. 9 The attachment in several cases goes on for 10 several pages. In order to understand and to c ross-examine 11 the testimony, which is extraordinarily conclusory and very 12 short in the body of the testimony itself, one has to get into the attachment. Therefore, it is very, very important i3 O 14 with respect to that testimony and for you to understand is what the situation is with respect to contentions 15 and 16 16 concerning attachments. 17 JUDGE FRYE: Which attachments are you referring 18 to in the training testimony? 19 MS. LETSCHE: In the training testimony there 20 are, and I don't have them up here with me, there are --- 21 JUDGE FRYE: Well, give them to ne and we'll 22 look at them. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Basically pieces of them are the 24 ones that were discussed in the motion to strike. You have 25 this content analysis and you have Dr. Milett's analysis and

i -44900101 2862 marysimons GTG (_)- 1 there is another attachment which deals with other 2 exercises. i 3 The body of the testimony basically says.very, 4 very little in terms of even enabling a person to understand 5 what the analysis was that resulted in the attachments. The 6 attachments are tabled and supposedly reflecting this 7 analysis, and to make any sense out of what the witnesses 8 are saying those tables are going to have to be discussed. 9 JUDGE FRYE: Well, let's us look at them. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Okay, that's fine. Let me just 11 also put you on dotice in terms of looking. The testimony 12 on Contentions 15 and 16 which was filed yesterday I assume 13 was served on your offices in Washington. 14 While Mr. Irwin stated yesterday that that is testimony was approximately 50 pages, plus I think another 16 25 on Contention 21, my understanding is that the 17 attachments on that testimony are at least four inches 18 thick. Now it's one thing --- 19 JUDGE FRYE: We'll look at that, too. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Thank you very much. I think it's 21 very important to keep that in mind. 22 JUDGE FRYE: As I said yesterday, this four 23 Pages per hour we have intended as a guideline and we 24 realize there may have to be exceptions to it, but overall l 25 we'll be able to stick within some sort of an average that's i ~ _. _ _. _. _ _, _

44900101 2863 marysimons q(,) i close to that. Obviously we've got to get through with this 2 Proceeding at some point. This has gone on too long on the issues we've covered and I don't think it's suffolk County's 3 4 fault entirely. I think the Board has chimed in on a lot of issues that has linked them to things, but overall there has 5 6 got to be an end to it and we have got to come to a 7 conclusion. MS. LETSCHE: I don't think anyone would s 9 disagree with that. It's just when you're talking about to cross-examining you have to have a full picture of what it 11 is they are to be cross-examined on. In these instances, given what the parties file, unfortunately it has to include 12 those attachments. 13 ' O 14 MR. IRWIN: Judge Frye, I have one suggestion in is that regard. It might be useful if Suffolk County believes that attachments for either the contention 50 training 16 17 testimony or the scope testimony, 15, 16 and 21, would in la their view require any kind of a material departure from the 19 guideline on four pages an hour for the main body of the 20 testimony that they submit written advance notice of their 21 basic for believing that such a departure is necessary 22 because it my first belief, first of all, that our testimony is not as conclusory as was asserted, but equally important 23 is that those attachments are largely comprised of materials 24 of which people are either on actual notice long since or 25 l

1 44900101 2864 marysimons I constructive notice in pretty good detail. 2 So it may be that additional probing is 3 necessary, but whatever the merits, they can probably be 4 better determined if the Board has time to reflect on them 5 before the actual eve of the moment. 6 Secondly, it will enable witnesses and lawyers 7 and the Board all to plan better so that their witnesses' d schedules don't find them in England on the day they would 9 otherwise be testifying and other things like that. 10 So my motion in that regard is that if Suffolk 11 County believes that attachments to either contention 50 12 testimony or the Contentions 15, 16 and 21 testimony would 13 require a material departure from four pages an hour as a 14 guideline, that they submit their basis for it in tiriting to is the Board in the form of a motion, say within the next week 16 to 10 days so that we can respond in a timely way and the 17 Board can have it before it well before the issue comes on. 18 JUDGE FRYE: When is Mr. Miller going to be back 19 here? 20 MS. LETSCHE: He could be back here whenever you i 21 want him to be. 22 JUDGE FRYE: When is he planning to be here? 23 MS. LETSCHE: He would be planning to be up here 24 when training begins. I can certainly transmit to you all 25 an estimate though if that's what you're looking for, an

44900101 2865 carysimons () i estimate of cross-examination time. 2 JUDGE FRYE I think it would be helpful if he 3 could, since this is his particular segment that he's working on, if he could give us a little bit more specifics 4 5 than you've been able to give us of which particular 6 attachments and how much time he things would be necessary. 7 1 8 i i 10 n 12 O 14 15 i 4 i II 18 i 19 20 21 22 23 i 24 j '2$ ! lh I d c. __,.-_,,,n,_ ,_-r-c._ y-,

44900202 2866 SueWalsh g.. l 1 MS. LETSCHE: All right. I-will talk to him 1 2 during one of our breaks and pass that on and see when he 3 can get that to you. And, I'm sure he will be glad to do 4 that. 4 5 JUDGE FRYE: Good. 6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Excuse me. Judge Frye.-- 7 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. 8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: -- do I understand correctly 9 that we have an agreement that the OL-3 proceeding will to commence at the end of the OL-5 proceeding? I l 11 JUDGE FRYE Well, I think you've got to move 12 the OL-3 Board if that's what you want. 13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Well, I would like to inquire i 14 if LILCO has that same understanding that I do? j 15 MR. IRWIN: Our understanding is that this i 16 proceeding is going to continue continuously until 17 concluded, and that if the OL-3 Board in its wisdom, knowing 18 this proceeding's schedule, believes that it cannot conduct 19 proceedings simultaneously this proceeding, at least in 20 LILCO's view, ought to take precedence. 21 And, we would -- 22 JUDGE FRYE: Let me suggest, Mr. Zahnleuter, 23 that you file a motion with the OL-3 Board and LILCO can 24 respond. I think that's the way to handle it. i 25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Well, we have part of the OL-3 I A

44900202 2867 SueWalsh f) 1 Board here. 2 JUDGE FRYE: I know, but nonetheless you've only .3 got one-third of it. 4 JUDGE PARIS: I'm looking at a February 20 Order 5 from the OL-3 Board about the schedule, and it appears 6 rather unyielding. I would suggest you get together and 7 file something. 8 MR. KARMAN: I was wondering if there' had been 9 any statemenE'from the OL-3 Board to that effect. 10 JUDGE SHON: No, there has been no statement. 11 MR. KARMAN: Thank you, sir. 12 JUDGE FRYE: There has been no statement from i3 them, and I don't think that you can expect that there will O 14 be until somebody files a motion. 15 JUDGE SHON: I also -- let me represent here, 16 although I am clearly a minority of the OL-3 Board also, 17 that the OL-3 Board is unlikely to do anything sua sponte, is okay. 19 (Laugh.cr.) 20 I think you should file a motion with the OL-3 21 Board or at your option with both Boards outlining precisely u l 22 this schedule. It suits this Board, as of now. I can't 23 guarantee it will suit the OL-3 Board, because I am only one 24 of three members. 25 JUDGE PARIS: Like Zahnleuter, Shon won't clone. i i

44900202 2868 SueWalsh 1 (Laughter.) 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Well, I would like to state 3 then for the record that there may be a problem with 4 conflicting appearances by witnesses and lawyers unless we 5 move the OL-3 proceeding to coincide with this proceeding. 6 JUDGE FRYE: I think you should make that motion 7 to the OL-3 Board, and if you don't get relief from them 8 then we will have to face whatever problems come up. 9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Okay. 10 JUDGE SHON: I might also say that up until, 11 say, last night or so -- up until yesterday when we first 12 talked about this particular schedule of Mr. Irwin's, most i3 of us I think were hoping that OL-5 and OL-3 were not, so to 7_s b' speak, on a collision course. We were rather hoping against 14 is hope, but I think we thought this proceeding might well 16 finish before the OL-3 proceeding began. 17 And, as of last night it looks as if that's is impossible; is that not correct? 19 MR. IRWIN: I believe that's our view 20 generally. But, I want to keep the collision as short as 21 possible. 22 I have one other suggestion in terms of long-23 term scheduling, speaking of long-term scheduling. This O 24 proceeding is going to be a long one regardless of what kind 25 of a guideline we schedule. And, it seems to me that it lll

44900202 2869 SueWalsh O i would be useful if the Board were to give the parties some 2 kind of direction as to what kind of filing times it 3 expected for findings of fact and proposed conclusions 4 afterwards, because I can expect that there will be 5 suggestions made with a five-digit record and hundreds of 6 exhibits that the parties need several months to prepare 7 their findings. 8 It seems to me that it would be useful if the 9 Board were to put parties on notice now that it did riot to expect to exceed the normr1 time prescribed in the 11 regulation for submission of findings. 12 JUDGE FRYE: My own personal -- that's something 13 we will talk about. But, one thing about these contentions O i4 which are very detailed, it seems to me, is that they should 4 15 make the job of preparing findings much easier. 16 You can go through and say, was it established so and so as it says in the contention, and with your i7 is references to the transcript. So, I would hope that there 19 would not be a great length of time taken in filing proposed 20 findings, and I would hope that perhaps we might have 21 simultaneous filings and simultaneous responses. 22 MS. LETSCHE: You are going to take that up at 23 some point though, I assume, when you will get -- I mean, 24 you don't want that discussed now, do you? i 25 JUDGE FRYE No, I don't think so. .g

44900202 2870 i SueWalsh ( l MS. LETSCHE: Okay. 2 JUDGE FRYE: I think we should get on with the 3 witnesses now. But, I think everyone should be thinking in 4 terms of findings as we go through these contentions, you 5 know. 6 MS. LETSCHE: I think that certainly there would 7 be no justification for not at least following the time a period set forth in the regulations for findings. And the 1 9 existence of contentions, detailed or not, really doesn't 10 impact very much the findings process which requires you to 11 go through the hearing record, including the profiled 12 testimony which, as you all know, is quite lengthy plus 13 whatever the transcript record is going to be, which at the la very least it's going to be several weeks. 15 JUDGE FRYE: Do you have the record on a 16 computer? 17 MS. LETSCHE: Excuse me? 18 JUDGE FRYE: Do you have the record on a 19 computer? 20 MS. LETSCHE: No, we do not. 21 JUDGE FRYE: Do you? 22 MR. IRWIN: We are getting it from the reporter, 23 yes, sir. 24 JUDGE FRYE You are getting it from the j 25 reporter? l

44900202 2871 SueWalsh () i MR. IRWIN: Yes, sir. 2 JUDGE FRYE: So, it will be available to you on 3 computer? 4 MR. IRWIN: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE FRYE: And, you will be able to -- 6 MR. IRWIN: It's available to anybody. 7 MS. LETSCHE: Well, if one has the capacity to a do that. 9 MR. IRWIN: Well, I'm sure Kirkpatrick & 10 Lockhart has the capacity to do it. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Well, I can tell you that we 12 don't. At any rate, this is not very productive, i3 The fact of the matter is that you have to go O 14 through the testimony and the record, and that takes time. 15 And, as a practical matter I can be sitting up here thinking 16 about findings but I can't be working on them when I am in 17 trial. 18 JUDGE FRYE: No. But, when you finish an issue i, you can be. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Well, I have other issues that I 21 have to turn to when I finish this one, not to mention other 22 Proceedings that are out there and other things that all of 23 the lawyers in our office are required to do. 24 So, just whenever you decide to discuss this we 25 have some fairly strong views on it. And, I would also say O

44900202 2872 SueWalsh ()t that we would definitely opp 6se a proposal that there be I 2 simultaneous filings of findings. It's not the rules 3 suggest; it's not whatever has been done in this proceeding. 4 And, frankly, it's not the least bit productive 5 because then you do not -- you have literally two ships 6 passing in the night. And, in this case your proposed 7 findings are going to be very large. You have seen the a volumes of things that people have filed just on one 9 contention. You are going to get big piles of paper from 10 all sides. II And, if you have them done at the same time l l 12 without any opportunity to respond or to address what the 13 other side says, they are going to be not very useful to you-("-) 14 all. So, I think that the idea of simultaneous filings of l 15 findings would really not make very much sense. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we will take that up at a 17 later time. Right now, I want to move on with the I 18 testimony. l l 19 Also, I thought when we are finished with this l 20 particular testimony which my recollection is, we are going 21 to finish thin tomorrow. Was that the projection? 22 MS. LETSCllEs LILCO's panel we will finish 1 23 today, in fact not even late today I wouldn't think. In l 24 light of your ruling on the motion to atrike, my cross will l 25 be substantially shorter since a substantial portion of the l P^T V

44900202 2873 SueWalsh O i e et oar i ao 1aas r th r - 2 And, then we will take up the County witness 3 panel tomorrow. 4 JUDGE FRYE: Tomorrow? 5 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. 6 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. 7 MS. LETECHE: I have determined that Drs. Harris e and Mayer -- unfortunately the earliest -- Dr. Mayer has to 9 Chair a Board of Health meeting tomorrow morning at 10 to o' clock which he cannot get out of. It's a -- ll JUDGE FRYE: Well, we will see what we will do. 12 MY Point that I was getting to was that when we finish with 33 that, then we will take up the pending motions to strike O 14 that we presently have. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Okay. 16 JUDGE FRYE And, we could get those out of the it way. is MS. LETSCHE: So, that would be tomorrow or 19 Thursday, whichever? 20 JUDGE FRYE: Or Thursday, yes, when we have got 21 some time available. Rather than putting that off, I think 22 we should take that up. 23 MR. CflMMING: Judge Frye, one minor point. A 24 portion of the FEMA review of LILCO Revision 7 and 8 was l 25 marked and entered as an exhibit yesterday. I don't know if )

44900202 2874 I the intention is to move that full package in. 2 Clearly, Revision 7 and 8 are at issue in 3 certain contentions. Would it be helpful to have FEMA 4 authenticate that and enter it ultimately as FEMA Exhibit 3, 5 our transmission to NRC and our review of Revision 7 and 8? 6 JUDGE FRYE: Which exhibits were these? 7 MR. CUMMING: I believe that was marked as -- a MS. LETSCHE: Let me see, I will have to tell 9 you, 43 I believe. 10 MR. CUMMING: Exhibit 42, Suffolk Exhibit 42 was l 11 an extract from our report. And, if everybcdy is going to 12 refer to it -- l 13 JUDGE FRYE: 42 was admitted. 4 a 14 MR. CUMMING: It was, in fact, admitted. 15 JUDGE SHON: Were you proposing to offer for 16 admission the entire report to NRC? 17 JUDGE SHON: FEMA has no objection to marking as 18 FEMA Exercise Exhibit 3 the entire report and transmittal to 19 NRC. The FEMA post-exercise assessment is FEMA Exercise i I 20 Exhibit 1, and the Draft AN-1 was FEMA Exercise Exhibit 2. 21 And, we would offer as -- authenticate and enter I 22 into evidence as PEMA Exercise Exhibit 3 the RAC review of 7 l 23 and 8 and the transmittal to NRC so that the Board would be i

l 24 sure to have the entire --

25 JUDGE FRYE: Yeah. I think the Board would like

o

44900202 2875 SueWalsh (]) i that. Do we need to do that now or -- why don't we do that 2 when -- 3 MR. CUMMING: Well, we will do it when we have a 4 witness here to authenticate it. 5 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Fine. 6 MR. CUMMING: But, if they want to refer to it, 7 they can just refer to it as FEMA Exercise Exhibit 3 which a has been marked. 9 JUDGE FRYE: Tha,t has previously been marked? 10 Il I2 i (:) i. l$ i 16 l 1 I 18 I 20 21 22 23 i 24 2$ i e n. y n,-.... n

4490303 2876 joewalsh j{ ) 1 JUDGE FRYE: That has previously been marked. 2 MR. CUMMING: It has not-yet been marked, but we 3 will mark it as Exercise Exhibit -- I 4 JUDGE FRYE: If it comes up, let's do it at that i 5 point, okay? 6 MR. CUMMING: That is' fine. 7 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you very muc. No,w, are we 4 8 ready for your witnesses, Ms. McCleskey? 9 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes, sir. 10 Whereupon, '4-- \\ l 11 CHARLES A. DAVERIO, 12 and 13 RICHARD A. WATTS, 14 were called as witnesses by and on behalf of the Applicant, is the Long Island Lighting company and, having first been duly 16 sworn, were examined and testified as follows: 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION I 18 BY MS. McCLESKEY: i 19 Q Gentlemen, will you please identify yourselves 20 for the record? 21 A (Witness Watts) Richard J. Watts. 22 (Witness Daverio) Charles A. Daverio. j 23 Q Do you have before you a document consisting of 24 13 pages plus six attachments entitled "LILCO's Testimony on 25 Contention EX-47, Registration, Monitoring and O i l

4490303 2877 joewalsh O i oecoat ta ei a or svec=ee tro 89 ci 1 rect 11eie " a tea 2 February 27, 1987? 3 A (Witness Watts) Yes. 4 (Witness Daverio) Yes. 5 Q Is this your testimony? 6 A (Witness Watts) Yes. 7 (Witness Daverio) Yes, it is. e 0 Was it prepared by you or under your-9 supervision? 10 A (Witness Watts) Yes. ii (Witness Daverio) Yes, it was. 12 Q Do you have any additions or corrections to the 13 testimony? g 4 14 A (Witness Daverio) Yes, we do. On Page 6, the l 15 fourth line from the bottom, before the numerical expression 16 45, there should be an "and," a-n-d. The 45 becomes 40 and 17 the words "and eight vans" is deleted. is We have a second correction on Page 7. It's 19 Question 9, the second paragraph, third line. The word "I" 20 should be "we." 21 Q With these changes, is this testimony true and 22 correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? 23 A Yes, it is. 24 MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, I move that this 25 testimony be put into evidence and ask that it be bound into O l M --y wr wg -9 w wy w. m-+- 7-n-- evy- -.- ew --- -+-

4490303 2878 joewalsh I the record as if read. I 2 JUDGE FRYE: Any objection? 3 MS. LETSCHE: No. I just want a clarification. 4 I assume that the stricken portions have been stricken on .,j '5 the copies that have been submitted to the court reporter. l 4 6 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes. The copies of the 7 testimony that have been given to the reporter have the 8 changes that the witnesses just made and the portions 5 Y' 9 struck', lined through. f 10 MS. LETSCHE: Okay. And, the only other point I 11 would make is with respect to the Attachment E, which is j 12 pages of a deposition transcript in this case,-Mr. Papile, 13 who is a New York State witness who will be appearing live in this proceeding -- again, my comment is the same as 14 l 15 yesterdays. I don't object to a reference to the deposition 16 in the text of the testimony or to the attachment as a point 17 of reference to indicate what the witnesses were referring j 18 to, but I do object to its admission in terms of its 19 substantive use for the same reasons I said yesterday. a 20 MS. McCLESKEY: As long as it's true, Mr. l 21 Zahnleuter, that Mr. Papile will still be a witness in the-i 22 proceeding. 23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Well, it's true. -We filed 24 Contentien 15 and 16 testimony, and he is listed as one of 25 the witnesses. e

4490303 2879 - joewalsh () i MS. McCLESKEY: Okay. I haven't seen that 2 testimony. Then, LILCO has no objection. 3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: And the State of New York has 1 no objection with that underst&nding about the Papile 4 5 transcript. 6 JUDGE FRYE All right. The testimony is 7 admitted. (The testimony of Charles A. Daverio and Richard s 9 J. Watts on Contention EX-47 follows.) 10 11 12 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O

I 9 ~ . O 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Lidrw Board ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 ) (EP Exercise) (Shoreham Nuclear Pomer Station, ) Unit 1) ) LILCO'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION EX 47 O (= E tr tiaa. =oaitariaE. aa o coat -ia tiaa i of Evacuees from Special Facilities) Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 February 27,1987 4 O .l

4 - LILCO, Fcbruary 27,1987. I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensint Board In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 ) (EP Exercise) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) Unit 1) ') l LILCO'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION EX 47 (Registration, Monitoring, and Decontamination of Evacuees from Snnelmi Facilities) 1. Q. Please state your name and business address. A. [Daverio] My name is Charles A. Daverio; my business address is Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, P.O. Box 628, Wading River, New York 11792. [ Watts] My name is Richard J. Watts; my business address is 404 Bluhm Road, Fairport, New York,14450. 2. Q. What are your professional qualifications related to Contention EX 47? A. [Daverio] My full professional qualifications have been provided sepa-rately in the bound volume titled " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses on Exercise Contentions." I am employed by Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") as Assistant Department Manager, Nuclear h Operations Support Department. I have supervised various aspects of LILCO's emergency planning efforts at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station since January,1980. During the February 13 1986 Exercise I was the Lead Controller for the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO).

,.O ~ [ Watts) My full professional qualifications have been provided separately in the bound volume titled " Professional Qualifications of'LILCO Witness-es on Exercise Contentions." I am employed by LILCO as a radiological consultant on emergency planning matters. During the February 13,1986 Exercise I was the Radiation Health Coordinator for LERO. Introduction 3. Q. Please summarize the issues raised in Contention EX 47. A. [Daverio, Watts) Contention EX 47 alleges that on the day of the Exer-i cise, LILCO did not demonstrate the ability to register, monitor, and decontaminate evacuees from special f acilities or that this activity could be accomplished in a timely fashion; that the LILCO Plan does not include provisions for reception centers for evacuees from special facilities; and that Revision 7 (Rev. 7) changes to the LILCO Plan are inadequate to. remedy these deficiencies. A complete text of Contention EX 47 is At-tachment A to this testimony. i 4. Q. Please summarize your testimony on these issues. A. [Daverio, Watts) On the day of the Exercise, LERO workers demon-strated the organizational capability to protect special f acility popula-tions during an emergency. They demonstrated the ability to evacuate special f acility populations by gathering and transmitting essential infor-mation, dispatching vehicles to special f acilities, and directing the dis-patch of monitors to special facility reception centers designated in the LILCO Plan. Although LERO workers did not sim~ulate or actually per-form the registration, monitoring, and decontamination of any special f a-O cility residents, that does not mean they are incapable of performing l ~,

l O these functions. The process of registering, monitoring, and decon-taminating is similar, regardless of the population being processed. The same LERO workers who would have registered, monitored, and decontaminated special f acility evacuees monitored several hundred indi-viduals accurately and efficiently at the Emergency Worker Decon- ,tamination Faculty (EWDF) at Brentwood. Therefore, we conclude that on the day of the Exercise LERO demonstrated the organizational capabil-ity and resources, and the technical competence to protect special f acili-l ty populations during an emergency. Finally, Revision 7, which was responsive to comments by the Re-gional Assistance Committee and not, as Intervenors auege, to supposed flaws shown by the February 13,1986 Exercise, adequately addressed the O needs of special fac111ty gogulations. - tii.CO Phn p ; cit.e :C-tica:1 et-"e +h=+ c:P;; th; 'r r' : by 'ha he. 7 N: tic;; of Con;enilen C.i ?7. 5. Q What are the legal standards for the contention? A. (Daverio, Watts] The applicable legal standards are: 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 (b)(1): Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility licensee and by State and local organizations within the Emer-gency Planning Zones have been assigned, the emer-gency responsibuities of the various supporting orga-nizations have been specifically established, and each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis. i 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(8): Adequate emergency f acili-ties and equipment to support the emergency are pro-vided and maintained. O 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(10): A range of protective ac-tions have been developed for the plume exposure j pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. l 1

. i OV Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place, and protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to the locale have been developed. NUREG-0654.II.J.9: Each State and local organiza-tion shall establish a capability for implementing pro-tective measures based upon protective action guides and other criteria. This shall be consistent with the recommendations of EPA regarding exposure resulting from passage of radioactive airborne plumes. (EPA- -520/1-75-001) and with those of DHEW(DHHS)/FDA regarding radioactive contamination of human food and animal feeds as published in the Federal Register of December 15,1978 (43 FR 58790). NUREG-0654II.J.10.d: The organization's plans to im-plement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include:... Means for protecting those people whose mobility may be impaired due to such f actors as institutional or other confinement; N UREG-0654 II.J.12.: Each organization shall de-O scribe the m e as ror reEisteriae ao = oaitoriae or evacuees at relocation centers in host areas. The per-sonnel and equipment available should be capable of monitoring within about a 12 hour period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation cente,rs. February 13,1986 Exercise 6. Q. What procedures for registering, monitoring, and decontamination of evacuees from special f acilities were in effect on the day of the Exercise? A. [Daverio, Watts] The procedures in effect on the day of the Exercise that are specific to special facility residents were SS 3.2 and 5.1.5 of OPIP 3.9.2, which provide for dispatching monitoring personnel to special f acility reception centers. Many of the monitoring procedures for the general population in OPIP 3.9.2, however, also apply to monitoring the special f acility population. The basic directions for using the monitoring instrument, an RM-14 with an HP-270 or HP-210 probe, are the same

regardless of the population being monitored. Obviously there will be some variation because of the medical condition of individual special pop-ulation evacuees. Certain areas of the body which would normally be monitored may be inaccessible; but areas of the body that cannot be i reached by the monitoring instrument are highly unlikely to be reached by contamination. In addition, the RM-14 is a highly sensitive instrument ca-pable of detecting even slight traces of contamination. Thus, LERO's abil-~ ity to assess whether these individuals are contaminated and require more detailed evaluation at a hospital is not impaired by their medical condi-tion. 7. Q. Was the ability to register, monitor, and decontaminate evacuees from special f acilities demonstrated in the February 13,1986 Exercise? O i. c o verio. wattsi m. on the day of the Exercise 1.ERo workers dem-onstrated several aspects of the ability to register, monitor, and decontaminate evacuees from special f acilities. By demonstrating the preparatory step, evacuation, and by demonstrating the generic process of l monitoring, we are confident that LERO demonstrated its ability to pro-tect the special f acility population in the event of a Shoreham emergen-j cy. To place these events in perspective, it is important to bear in mind what would happen during a real emergency. Because special f acili-ty populations will be indoors, they are less likely to become contaminated initially. In addition, when an evacuation is recommended, the resulting dose savings will outweigh the dose from contamination which might be retained on the body. In cases of minor contamination,- decontamination O may require no more than removing blankets or outer clothing. Thus, a

. =. _ _ _. ' O ~ sound emergency planning dictates that I.ERO workers place primary em-phasis on evacuation procedures rather than on registration, monitoring, and decontamination procedures. 8. Q. What was FEMA Field Objective 13 on the day of the Exercise and how was it demonstrated? A. (Daverio] On the day of the Exercise, FEMA Field Objective 13 was " Demonstrate a sample of the resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of the institutionalized mobility-impaired individuals within the 10-mile EPZ." FEMA Post Exercise Assessment at 14. During the Ex-ercise, LERO workers demonstrated that expertise in several ways. At 9:58, in accordance with OPIP 3.6.5 55 5.2.3.b. and 5.9.2, the Health Fa-cilities Coordinator notified the Special Facilities Evacuation Coordinator that health care facilities in the EPZ had been contacted to verify trans-portation requirements, relocation / reception centers, and other assis-tance. See Attachment B at B-1. Within half an hour the Special Facili-ties Coordinator notified the Evacuation Coordinator that the Home and Health Coordinators had begun contacting the health facilities in Zones A-M, Q, and R, advising them to evacuate, and had contacted the hospi-tals in those zones advising them,to shelter, in accordance with OPIP 3.6.5 55 5.2.3. and 5.9.2. See Attachment B at B-2. LERO's organizational ability to effect an evacuation of special fa-cilities was further demonstrated when LERO workers dispatched six am-bulances, six ambulettes, 45 buses, and eight vans to special facilities. See Attachment C. (The buses and vans were simulated by having drivers drive their own cars.) FEMA observed two of these vehicles, which were. O dispatched in response to FEMA free play messages, an ambulance 4 l

' O dispatched to Our Lady of Perpetual Help Convent to transport a resident to the Suffolk Developmental Center (see Attachment B at B-3), and an ambulette dispatched to the United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) residence 'to transport a resident to the appropriate UCP residence outside the EPZ. See Attachment B at B-4. As documented in a letter written to me by Roger Kowieski on December 13, 1985, dispatching the ambulance and ambulette was all that was required to meet this objective. See Deposi-tion Transcript of Charles A. Daverio, January 5,1987. Exhibit 5, at 4-(Attachment D). 9. Q. What steps did LERO take to prepare for registering, monitoring, and decontaminating the special facility population 7 l l A. [Daverio. Watts] LERO's organizational ability to dispatch monitoring teams to special facilities in accordance with OPIP 3.9.2 S 5.1.5 was dem-onstrated shortly before the Exercise ended. At 15:45, the Decon-tamination Coordinator ordered the Decontamination Leader to send mon-o itoring teams to the reception centers to which the special facilities t would have been evacuated. This demonstration goes beyond what FEMA has considered neces-sary at other nuclear plants in New York State to demonstrate proficiency in this area. I have read the deposition transcript of Mr. James Papile. Director of the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group, a deposition at which a member of my staff was present, in which Mr. Papile stated that the extent' of participation by special facilities is normally no more than the receipt of a phone call. See Papile Dep. Tr. at 69-70 Attachment E. No demonstration of the ability to register, monitor, and decon-O j taminate special f acility residents is ever made with actual residents or at actual facilities in the State of New York. Nor is that ability simulated. 1 _ ____~._-_--__

~ O The issue of which objectives must be included in FEMA graded ex-ercises is the subject of Contentions EX 15 and 16. Therefore, it will be addressed in the testimony on those contentions. 10. Q. On the day of the Exercise, did LERO workers demonstrate monitoring techniques on individuals other than the special f acility population? A. (Daverio, Watts) On the day of the Exercise, LERO workers demon-strated the ability to monitor several hundred emergency workers accu-rately and efficiently at the EWDF and in so doing demonstrated their knowledge of how to use the monitoring equipment. See FEMA Post-Exercise Attaetment at 78. These are the same individuals who would monitor the special f acility evacuees, using the same equipment, an RM-14 with the HP-210 or HP-270 probe, and the same method. LERO is composed of competent personnel who are capable of transferring their monitoring skills from one population to another. LERO workers are also considerate of the impaired mobility of special f a-cility residents. These and other special needs are continually being iac-tored into LILCO's emergency planning process. During the Exercise LILCO demonstrated both the organizational capabilities and the technical competence to protect the special f acility population in an emergency. Given the detailed planning LILCO has un-i dertaken for evacuation and monitoring of the special facility population and the actual demonstrations made on the day of the Exercise, we are confident of LERO's ability to do all that is necessary to protect these in-dividuals in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. O ,w,-

~. ~ 11. Q. What was FEMA Field Objective 21 on the day of the Exe:?cise and how was it demonstrated? A. [Daverio) On the day of the Exercise, FEMA Fleid Objective 21 was " Demonstrate the adequacy of procedures for registration, radiological monitoring, and decontamination of evacuees and vehicles including ade-quate provisions for handling contaminated waste at the Reception Cen-ter." FEMA Post-Exercise Assessment at 15. The procesi of registering,- monitoring, and decontaminating different groups, the general population at the Nassau Coliseum and the emergency workers at tr.e EWDF, was ad-- equately demonstrated during the Exercise. Since the same organiza-tional capabilities and technical skills apply to processing special iacility populations, we do not believe this objective required more than LERO did on the day of the Exercise. O 12. Q. What is your response to that portion of the contention which argues that an additional 850 individuals would need to be registered, monitored, and decontaminated if hospitals were evacuated? A. [Daverio, Watts] Our response is that the subject of tids litigation is events that occurred during the February 13,1986 Exercise and that hos-pital patients were not evacuated on that day. The Exorcise scenario called for sheltering of hospital patients, a first-choice protective action that was approved by the Licensing Board in the litigation of the LILCO Plan. PID at 829. Therefore, no demonstration of hospital evacuation was sought during the Exercise and the number of patients that might be evacuated is not relevant to this contention. j O

I l o CONTENTION EX 47.A - E 13. Q. Please summarize the issues in the various subsections of Contention EX 47.A - E. A. [Daverio, Watts) All of these contention subsections take issue with the proposals for registering, monitoring, and decontaminating evacuees from special facilities that are set out in Revision 7 to the Plan, rather than with events that occurred on the day of the Exercise. Contention EX 47.A argues that the number of monitors assigned to each reception cen-ter is insufficient. Contention EX 47.B argues that evacuees should not be monitored as they are leaving their buses, ambulances, or ambulettes. i Contention EX 47.C alleges that bus drivers are not capable of keeping monitoring records. Contention EX 47.D argues that contaminated evacuees should not be sent to the Nassau Coliseum for decontamination. Contention EX 47.E argues that school children must be monitored at re-ception centers in order to comply with NUREG-0654 S II.J.12. 14. Q. Please summarize your testimony on these issues. A. (Daverio, Watts] Revision 7 has been superseded by the February 20,1987 draf t proposal which is Attachment F to this testimony. This proposal clarifies procedures for registering, monitoring, and decontaminating evacuees from special f acilities, taking account of the special needs of these individuals. Two of the issues raised by the contention subsections are not affected by the draf t proposal: recordkeeping by busdrivers, and monitors for school reception centers. Contrary to the contention, drivers of emergency vehicles are competent to record the names of special f a-l cility evacuees, and LILCO's decision not to send monitors to school re- ) O ception centers is sound. l

i O Deshmated Reception Center 15. Q. What is e new proposal for registering, monitoring, and ntaminating individu evacuated from special facilities? A. [ Daverio, tts) This proposal responds to the comm t in the February 12,1986 RAC view that there was no way to de rmine whether the number of moni rs allotted to special facility e acuees was sufficient since the total num r of reception centers had ot yet been determined. The February 20 d proposal routes all 16 special facility evacuees identified in the LILC Plan through th Emergency Worker Decon-tamination Center (EWDF at Brentwood. 11 special facility evacuees will be registered and monito the ve eles in which they arrive at the EWDF. Uncontaminated evac then be driven to relocation cen-ters without having to exit the a ances, ambulettes, or buses in which 1 O they arrive. Of the approximately 100 s ial facility evacuees identified,in the LILCO Plan, about half e non-am atory and half are ambulatory. Contaminated non-ambula ry evacuees be sent to local hospitals for decontamination. E ch of these hospi als, identified in OPIP 3.7.1 Rev. 4, is accredited b the Joint Committ on Accreditation of Hospi-tals. Contaminat ambulatory evacuees will decontaminated in a separate area in he EWDF set aside for that pur An elevator at the EWDF will tr port ambulatory special f acility evacu who have diffi-i culty going p and down stairs. O

i. Number of Monitors - 16. Q. Under th February 20,1987 draf t proposal how many onitors will be available t assist in the registering and monitoring of special f acility - evacuees? A. ( Daverio, Wat ] Under the February 20,1987 dr t proposal, at least 30 monitors will be a allable for the sole purpose of tering and moni-toring special f acili evacuees. Thus, one mo tor will be available for approximately 55 spec facility evacuees, til emergency workers begin arriving at the EWDF. G ven this ratio, ev if all special facility 4 evacuees arrived at the EW F at the time, they could be processed in less than two hours. l j Monitorint and Deconta i tion Procedures 17. Q. How will special facility evacuees monitored and decontaminated ac-l cording to LILCO's draf t pro ? l A. [ Daverio, Watts] Under this spesel special facility evacuees will be j 1 monitored while in their vehl es, instea of being monitored as they exit i j the vehicles. This way, LE O need not mo e non-ambulatory people l unnecessarily. Special fa ty evacuees who re not contaminated are immediately driven to location centers with t being exposed to ad-i verse weather conditi ns. Contaminated evac would only be exposed to the weather for t e moments between exiting t e vehicles and enter-ing the facility, nee only ambulatory evacuees w be decontaminated at Brentwood, t e amount of time required to move i m vehicles to the facility shoul be brief. r---,-,-w-ve-e-,r----- r n-, , -,m-- n-er, -,a-- -n -- - e

1 O Reristratico 18. Q. Do you agree that rivers of emergen vehicles are not capable of regis-tering special f acili evacuees? A. [Daverio, Watts) No, tratio of evacuees requires only that drivers of emergency vehicles reco e name of each evacuee. This task re-quires no special training or ment. LERO monitors are trained to su-pervise drivers in this eepi function. The necessary materials, paper and pencils, are su plied to LERO onitors at the EWDF. This divi-sion of labor works es ially well because th LERO monitor has only one function to perform accurate monitoring of s facility evacuees. It also makes~ effici t use of the driver's time, which d otherwise be spent waiting y for monitoring to be completed before driving the evacuees to eir relocation centers. School ReceDtioD Centers i 19. Q. What provisions are made in the LILCO Plan for registering, monitoring, and decontamination of school children? A. (Daverio, Watts] Under the LILCO Plan, if early dismissal of schools is ordered, as it was during the February 13,1986 Exercise, children will be returned h'ome so that they can travel to reception centers with their parents. If an evacuation is ordered but early dismissal is not, school chil-dren from schools in the EPZ will be transported to schools outside the EPZ. In this situation, children will also be picked up by the parents. The l children are then monitored at reception centers, in accordance with the procedures for monitoring the general population. O ^

w ,4. a_. e.a. e e ATTACHMENT A O 1 ] e l l l i O f f ..m, ....,7y,,,..,

i ~ Attachment A O Contention EX 47. The exercise revealed a fundamental flaw in the LILCO Plan in that LILCO failed to demonstrate the ability to register, monitor and decontaminate evacuees from special facilities who are transported to reception centers other than i the Nassau Coliseum, or that such activities could be accomplished within 12 hours as required by NUREG 0654 S II.J.12. Thus, LILCO has not satisfied objectives FIELD 13., l and 21, and the exercise predudes a finding that the LILCO Plan complies with 10 CFR 5 50.47(bX1), (bX8). (b)(10) and NUREG 0654 S II.J.9,10, and 12. According to the estimates in the Plan, if there were an evacuation of the entire j EPZ, there could be as many as 1600 residents of nursing and adult homes, health care and other special f acilities, all with special needs, requiring that they be sent to special j J reception facilities (OPIP 3.6.5, Att. 2), plus tens of thousands of school children. This number could be increased by approximately 850 persons if the hospitals in the EPZ and j the Suffolk Infirmary also were evacuated. Id. The LILCO Plan, Rev. 6, which was the subject of the exercise, has no provision for the registration, radiological monitoring or decontamination of such individuals; nor does it include provisions for reception centers for the vast majority of such individuals, or agreements indicating that any such recep-i tion centers are in fact available or adequate to serve that purpose. Rather,it includes registration, radiological monitoring and decontamination procedures to be imple-mented, and ~ equipment and personnel to be present, only at the Nassau Coliseum and the Emergency Worker Decontamination Center. OPIP 4.2.3: OPIP 4.3.1. This is a defi-ciency in the Plan which violates NUREG 0654 5 II.A.3, J.10.d and 12, and 10 CFR S 50.47(M(8) and (bX10). It precludes a finding that the LILCO Plan is adequate, or that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham emergency as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Furthermore, the proposal in the new Revision 7 version of OPIP 4.3.1, purport-O edly to address this deficiency (s_ee letter dated June 20,1986, from John D. Leonard to l l l

i ( i Harold Denton, (SNRC-1270), and Att. I at 4), fails to correct this deficiency for the' ~ following reasons: EX 47.A. The proposal to send only one monitor to each special facility recep-tion center - assuming arruendo reception centers existed - is unworkable. Sgg OPIP 4.3.15 5.1.6 (Rev. 7). For example, one of the few special facility reception centers designated by LILCO is expected to receive up to 465 evacuees. OPIP 3.6.5 Att. 2. One person could not adequately or effectively perform the necessary monitoring, reccrdkeeping, and related activities that would be required at such a center. EX 47.B. The proposal to have monitoring done as evacuees leave their buses, ambulances or ambulettes (sge OPIP 4.3.15 5.4.9.c (Rev. 7)) is unworkable. It could not be done in inclement weather, there is no assurance that reception centers - assuming arruendo they existed - would be laid out to permit such activities at unloading points, and the evacuees, who by definition have special needs, cannot be subjected to waits in buses or ambulances while lines of others arriving ahead of them are monitored by one LERO worker. EX 47.C. The proposal to have bus drivers keep necessary monitoring records (s_ee OPIP 4.3.15 5.4.9.c (Rev. 7)) is unworkable. Such personnel have not been trained for such a function, nor have they been properly equipped, to fulfill it. It is also im-practical to expect a bus' driver to be able to perform such a function. EX 47.D. The proposal to have persons found to be contaminated "get back on the bus" and eventuauy driven to the Nassau Coliseum (sgg OPIP 4.3.1. S 5.4.9.d (Rev. 7)) is unworkable, impractical and dangerous. The evacuees at special facility recep-tion centers are, by definition, in need of special care that cannot be provided at the l Nassau Coliseum. To refuse to decontaminate them, and instead to send them to a fa-L cility that is not equippped to handle their special needs, and in the process delay their h decontamination and also expose them to other contaminated people on the bus, thus potentially increasing their exposure, is without justification. l

__ = . O EX 47.E. The provision that it is not necessary to provide monitoring personnel at reception centers for schools (gee OPIP 4.3.1. S 5.1.5 (Rev. 7)) is wholly inadequate. Assuming arguendo that such reception centers exist - and they do not - there is no basis for LILCO's refusal to provide radiological monitoring and decontamination ser-Vices to the school children evacuees who would be taken there. This refusal is a clear violation of NUREG 0654 5 II.J.12. Furthermore, the LILCO explanation that such ser-Vices are not necessary "if the parents are going to be picking up the children," makes no sense, and f alls to correct the deficiency. Finally, during the exercise, messages apparently were transmitted among cer-tain LILCO players referring to requests that monitoring personnel be sent to certain hospitals and f acilities outside the EPZ. The exercise failed to demonstrate, however, that LILCO is capable of providing registration and monitoring at actual reception cen-terr, for actual evacuees with special needs during a real emergency, since: (a) such personnel were not actually sent to any special reception center f acilities during the exercise (all the referenced facilities were only " simulated" reception centers in any event since none of them participated in the exercise); and (b) there was no demonstra-tion that the LILCO personnel were capable of (1) performing the necessary registration ) and monitoring of the number of evacuees with special needs likely to be taken to such i f acilities, or (ii) otherwise properly implementing necessary procedures for registering, monitoring and decontaminating evacuees at such f acilities, even assuming arruendo that facilities for use as special f acility reception centers exist. Accordingly, the exer-cise precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). l O - ~,,,,.. ~ . ~,. .e

4,.s -a, 4.--.- - -- A g a1 "r-a--, s-- O 9 I l l i 1 I I I 1 ATTACHMENT B i i O f a 4 i l 4 l i l I i 1 a i l I i O I i I l 1 l

..;..'.,. ~, **...,3.. Abtachment B ~ OPIP 4.1.2 Page 6 of 7 1 Page 1 of 1 l f///$ lf k M0M MEFORN }9 i i t./6 7d i ' 17 r...... ] ~ ~ No. c2 L.rnu 1tcJe i cocation I same l l /cc From: < 'e.? - r i.- r 4 c To: rat r rye r, N < <.'.. f*C C Date/ Time: 0957 0//f/~/.- Massage: $7~0TAL CC 4 /d*/1' 7/ / $ sir */- O'f /t <* F/r3 euren f-nrv A r..ru G M. se a v d. o e,.,- n n n s &= pwc9 si e s > p.. s sy r r -s,, e r- -) ~ c' s !- n ;= y as r,.,.. p e.,. c...,,,v u,., y _ O / ' i) e. .-a j.9 -.

i,.e.r ps;--

7 'P /. n i o,. ~,D ~ .r.. . :r s /?'i' M~ ?/4~25- /dFRA~ /?0 /)DD/?"/0HM 7~2/1.#15A412rs/??O/, PJ'Ot/ 2rst?t"W 7"Z. I Routing for: ((l Action l$lInformation ) Response Required: l[l In Response to Massage No.

O 75'igi)ature).

White copy - Addressee Rev. 5 Yellow copy - originator i Fink copy - Lead Conununicator i

~

.e .r. i O o,1,4.1.2 // // / // rage 6 of 7 Page 1 of 1 y ~ b8 t _4 LERO NESSAGE FORN No.' 3 L. EAU 11Cle i L,oc a tion i Name I r/sC.Af.^.i*?/.G'.I* (t/ i -) j~f[ y,,,. To: l'.X/C !"/' f 2 a'~V [ Date/ Time: J ' /' 'l' 4 P.// f :-i A.e. f's/o: A..s.H ??'?w.i.<.oa / % s f Massage: ANm ./-sNA /s +."l m Y. h/s h o w f. i' !.' [ ? ..s. //0' /*' >.e.4ie u! /f W.///S>$si.l hip O ,e .s., x.5., $6$W d"*l hDE -{hk$/p /* tt../?un.hv/))l /.,,,,.s 6 : / A'$ 6 d41W:-)/s*Yhr. es. f, - e r '. t. 4 -ry l Routing for: (([ Action Information Response Required: l[l In Response to Massage No. O '(Sig(n.ature) White copy - Addressee Rev. 5 Yellow copy - Originator Pink copy - Lead Conusunicator O e -

~ ~ 4 OPIP 4.1.2 [4 ( Fue 6 of 7 Fage 1 of 1 1~ .. //,8 /,,f g 2g& LE10 MESSAGE M No.' r/ . f-Q.., ~) Name 1ocation l t.rnu attie l i d? w :-9e A.,-, r.C Trom: ? To: <..'er D <- & G. e /~C C Date/ Time: /36d e"/ 2 ;,4 Message: Pre mv n'r ni Id 4 //d d - n 3 i.1 f & bmMt99n?f=' !*'se ht" ne' T

st~ h Ts

~. r -' r

1 '. Y 0

.~ c-kr'~~rh o t.1 ? Ih.r. ( n w er %.- e ~ n e n N.~ , Y N% DB r e e t,.-N T.) I be-r..r c r UA /'r i.r:- ry Routing for: l[lAction l {'Information Response Required: l[l In Response to Massage No. (Signature) White copy - Addressee Rev. 5 Yellow copy - Originator Fink copy - Lead Consnunicator .,,,__._.y..

O 0F1F 4.1.2 Pge 6 of 7 /( Pge l of t } /.f /f h ]E/4 4-LIRO MESSAGE FQBM j no.

C e

name l 6.o c a t s.o n mv utte l J prom: . ',s,- n.y f ty fGC To: W'.A*iN!fmn D.( De~e/ Time: >3!$ t'/ 30& bc,- n. v n..-n v. N </* Maseage: i 1114 - m2 r A P 6-llivaturrre-top.-

n. ~!. Tit,~#drn r3 /he rr n ' % P - ?r~n t

~Thi w N n in ~ive r P' w.s > A' r -

ars %

- '~ ~ i To UCP 2s-< f n w!vr ' 4 nien e n / A Tr as u EP e r 5 i l B I . Routing for: ((lAction lIlInformation l I Response Required: l[l l In Response to Massage No. j l __ (Signature) / White copy - Addressee Rev. 5 l Yellow copy - Originator Pink copy - Lead Conusunicator j ,,..,.-__-.e ,,,._,-m. _...,--.....,..-r , _. -. ~...

~_ an._, n a e au-. a e+_ 4 9 e l s I ATTACHMENT C

O I

- O

t g-i e Attachment C / QPI? 3.6.5 f., Page 59 of 60 O Attachmen: 16 Page 1 of 2 3 EOC/SPECIAL POPULATIONS BUS DISPATCEER PATCHOGUE STAGING ARIA i DATE: /7 /# 6 TIME: O 9 Y.') i FROM: Transportation Support Coordinator To: Special Populations Bus Dispatcher i / Prestage l Xl Evacuate l l Zones evacuated: M Mb h Send /u Bus Drivers to us,Na /uAm3us Co./ Yard to get buses jr Bus Drivers to Bus Co./ Yard to get buses Send O{ S.=d >=s Drivers to ius Co./rard to se= >=ses r -Van Drivers to th,fa /4/L,a Bus Co./Tard to get vans Sand f Send Van Drivers to Bus Co./ Yard to get vans Send Van Drivers to Bus Co./ Yard to see vans 3 CUR 3 SIDE PICEUP - Assign drivers to the following route groups: Buses Vans l l 1. 8 d C. 1. 8 5. 4 ~' I 2. C 2. 4, 6. i 3. 3.

2.

7. I 4. 4.

3 8.

5. O( A}.39g l + isycs,- n.v. s r ,,m_,, _. - -, _ --m

l OPIP 3.6.5 Page 60 of 60 6 Page 2 of 2 EOC/SPECIAL POPULATIONS BUS DISPATCEDL PATCBOGUE STAGING ARIA (continued)

SPECIAL FACILITIES - Assign bus driver to the facilities checked off on the + following list. U No. of Buses Reception i Zone Req'd l Ce nte r Name naalen care tactitties A* 1 Suffolk Dev. l l Association for Help of Retarded Child Center i F 1 T , Our Lady of Perpetual Help Convent G 2 / Ridge Rest Home K 3 Woodhaven Nursing / Adult Home K 2 LaSalle Mili-- ~ Oak Hollow / Crest Hall tary Academy L 1 Millcrest Adult Home P 2 laSalle Mili- [ Riverhead Nursing Home tary Academy Q 2 Q: ]' Maryhaven Center of Hope Q 1 -l Suurest Health Facilities Nursery Schools " F 1 7 Alphabecland Child Enrichment Center R 2 Central Brookhaven Head Start K 1 Coram Child Care Center M 2 Kid-R-Us Day Care M 1 Middle Island Nursery School F 1 7 St. Anselm's Nursery School E 1- , St. John's Pre-School F 1 Sound Beach Pre-School G 1 ~ Step by Step Early Learning G 1 I /,,,, Trinity Lutheran Nursery SchoolWading River Cooperative Play C 1 Parochial Schools *

Infant Jesue School Q

9 ~ S 4 St. Isidore School Activated Transfer Points / 7 Brkhyn MultiplaqCir / 7 Brookhaven Lab 7 Miller Place Norwood Ave. , Shirley Mall O ~ y Corsa Plaza '~ ~ ~ c

- d 1 ookha'res Substation i_l Docurs Path

~ l ~ .ia:atisu l_ i n. ~ ~ 5 i Rev. 6 t

.. _ ~ . -}- + oPIP.3. 6.5 O( Page 59 of 60 6 Page 1 of 2 3 ) EOC/SPECIAL POPUT.ATIONS BUS DISPATCHER PATCHOGUE STAGING ARZA DATE: TIME: I[ i FROM: Transportation Support Coordinucor To: Special Populations Bus Dispatcher \\ J Prestage l,_ l Evacuate l l ) Zones evacuated: k TNE.0 b N,b.M o Send M Bus Drivers to U pn-EN Mn1JY3us Co./ Yard to get buses Send l Bus Drivers to Dun eo Do h Bus Co./ Yard to get buses lO{ A mus Driv-s to Se=e =s Co./r-d to== buses Send _1 Van Drivers to O MitEh (D%M Bus Co./ Yard to get vans-Send _ Van Drivers to Bus Co./ Yard to get vans Send _ Van Drivers to Bus Co./Tard to get vans i CUR 3 SIDE PICEUP - Assign drivers t'o the following route groups : Buses Vans 1. O.-

1. (k,

5 kD \\ 1. rn o'i 1. PG '

s. W 3.

M.. rl 3. WAM ec. s u. N

7. @

l \\; 4. 4. r-a s s. s. u T A E O M 0:1 f-C 0 C 5 PlC b P ', $ p (-<.

AC_,

NCM-{[p. 5 T W N5' bw ~%Cb 'il. roQ t! il - *^ . ' _ ' ' _ ' ~, ' '. <, ~ -%t0sM \\ TIC 4 ' ~

O Page 60 of 60 OPIP 3.6.5 < 6 Page 2 of 2 EOC/SPECIAL POPULATIONS BUS DISPATCHER PATCBOGUE STAGING AREA (continued) ) l SPECIAL FACILITIES - Assign bus d$iver to the facilities checked off on the following list. I I No. of Buses Reception r Zone l Rec'd Cancer l Name I naalen care recute!.es t I l Association for Help of Retarded Child A* 1 Suffolk Dev. Center J, l Our Lady of Perpetual Halo Convec { G Ridge Rest Home E Woodhaven Nursing / Adult Home LaSalle Mili-i 1 K oak Hollow / Crest Hall tary Academy L 1 Millcrest Adult Home P LaSalle Mili-Riverhead Nursing Home tary Academy l y Maryhaven Center of Hop l Q Q Sunrest Health Facilities Nursar,f Schools "" fF Alphabetland Child Enrichment Center ' ~~~ A Central Brookhaven Head Start y Coram Child Care Center K N M Kid-R-Us Day Care x M ~7 Middle Island Nursery School F i St. Anselm's Nursery School E 7 St. John's Pre-School F a 4,. Sound Beach Pre-School G Step by Step Early Learning G V Ti Trinity Lutheran Nursery School .i C j L'~ Wading River Cooperative Play Schcol i Parochial Schools ** Q T Infant Jesus School / S F__, - S t. Isidore School i Activated Transfer Points ' T arxav= "=t=tet ~ct= 2 "Norvoed Ave.ttt r rt e-7 j Shirley Mall O ' r >===*x v = t 6 1<t 7.::-- ?t-- j Coram Plaza T h- 't. cru hbs-l \\ Middle *.a'.t-J ?, -1 \\ _,1 I::- e t v : - i s.g. '~ e:,.sj only g,,,

..a oPIP/3.6.5 y Page 59 of 60 ( 6 Page 1 of 2 O, EDC/SPECI.AL POPULATIONS BUS DISPATGER PATCHOGUE STAGING AREA DATE: /3[h TIME: 1 2. FROM: Transportation Support Coordinator To: Special Populations Bus Dispatcher Prestage l l Evacuate l l Zones evacuated: // [ [ d/, U, k, 5 - a Send 7 Bus Drivers to lioM Bus Co./ Yard to get buses Send Bus Drivers to Bus Co./ Yard to'get buses { Send Bus Drivers to Bus Co./ Yard to get buses 0 Unikbh) Bus Co./ Yard to get vans Send / Van Drivers to ra w Send Van Drivers to Bus Co./ Yard to get vans Sand Van Drivers to Bus Co./ Yard to get vans CUR 3 SIDE PICKUP - Assign. drivers t's the following route groups: Buses' [ Vans o ?2 s. 2. 6. 3. 3. 7. 4. 4. 8. 5. ( w u -Is $ w QJ, d 7i 7'n 7 /20 5 Ob O[ %c M Rev. 5 t ' 00+ p.~ q . -rbc M iyut_u. ~ o,~- ,,n. 2 .__.._,_l

p-. r o OPIP 3.6.5 Page 60 of 60 6 Page 2 of 2 EOC/SPECIAL P0FU1ATIONS BUS DISPATCHER, PATCB0GUE STAGING ARIA (continued) SPECIAL FACILITIES - Assign bus driver to the facilities checked off on the following list. No. of Buses Re~ception Reo'd 1 Center l Zone l Name 1 i nesten are factitetes A* 1 Suffolk Dev. l l Association for Help of Retarded Child Center F 1 l Our Lady of Perpetual Help Convent G 2 Ridge Rest Home E 3 Woodhaven Nursing / Adult Home K 2 LaSalle Mili-Oak Hollow / Crest Hall tary Academy L Millcrest Adult Home P 2 LaSalle Mili-T Riverhead Nursing Home /f tary Academy p Q 2 l Maryhaven Center of Hope Q 1 ~1 Suurest Health Facilities l ,y Nursery Schools " f F 1 Alphabet 1and Child Enrichment Center 1 2 Central Brookhaven Head Start E 1 Coran Child Care Center M 2 Kid-R-Us Day Care M 1 Middle Island Nursery School F 1 St. Anselm's Nursery School E 1 St. John's Pre-School F 1 Sound Beach Pre-School G 1 Step by Step Early Learning G 1 Trinity Lutheran Nursery School C 1 l I Wading River Cooperative Play School Parochial Schools " Q Infant Jesus School '~ S St. Isidore School jf Activated Trans fer Points 2 Brkhyn Multiple q Cinl A Miller Place s-i Shirley Mall O O Brookhaven Lab C Coran Plaza N" Norwood Ave. .E ?*.fdla Island Z Brookhaven Substation 3"DoctorsFath }c! Iajtjon iisstati:s . _, I=pressvsy p'.

s s

..,;y,11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Note: r-Rev. 6 .~.

T 1 i i i e 1 j ATTACHMENT D l O 1 4 i l l I l { O

1 i , ef'/4 84 p# Attachment D O Federal Emergency Management Agency Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 1* - -m Mr. Charles A. Deverio Manager, I.wsaf Preparedness Division Inng Island Lighting LW./ 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801 4

Subject:

Revised Objectives for Shorehan Dcarcise and Proposed List of Demcnstrations l

Dear Mr. Deverio:

The Regional Assistance Ccenittee has zwiewed the proposed exercise objectives and your suggestad redifications f - M at the bottom of each page and those contas.ned in your letter to me dated D=-R -2 5,1985. Our cxzments are as follcus: Pace 1 O Sixth objective - the C . w ation of this objective is acm affected by the legal authority issue and,therefore the asterisk has been deleted. Che new exercise objec~.ive was added which reads:

"Derrcmstrate the ability to coordinate the energency

. w with county and State officials. (Rale of State and/or asunty officials will be sinulated by a designated i .s.s 1". Footneta was rodified and new reads: "':he dammstration of this objective is affected by the legal aut.'erity issue". ':his change is applicable to eve f page of the exercise objectives. m Paes 2 l First exercise objective was nodified by deleting "and ability". 1 Sixth m.xi seventh objectives were W4*4ed by adding reference to the water portien cf the 10 mile EPZ. With respect to y7.:r crrmant regarding the p ct:pt noti.ication O system, N, Pagion 2 evaluates the 15 minutes " rule" fcr alert and ne:ifica ica of the public in all fdJ. scale exercises. '?31300

.2- . O Page 3. In roep:nse to your a:mment w=,idng the noeifiraticri of schools during the exercs.se via tone alare radios and telephone calls from the Public and Private School Coordinators,it is IDWs position that if the 4T1 - tation of the plan is to be evaluated, the decision-maker mast be allowed to make any h4=4rwi he demns appropriata, and the follow-up acticns called for in the plan aust be . perfo:nnd. The plan calls for the notification by tone alert radicsand tal nust be demonstratad',.b-s therefore, these P414 ties We would we receiving a clear guidance as to what denenstraticrown should be prepared to observe during the exe.h. Pace 4 Second, third and fourth objectives were nodified by referencing BAD W i.el. Ninth objective was nodified by adding reference to the h affic Guides.

O Pa.e s 4

Fetrth exercise objective nedified,by adding reference to the h affic 01.idas. Pace 6 We did not accept your roccanendation to oelste the first exercise objective. Although we agree that in any given accident only case optien will be used (early d4 =i===1 of school or evacuation), we have in past exercises used both options. Depending en the decision made during the exarcise, the second dancnstration can be run out of sequence (free play nessage). With resp. to the dem::nstratice of *le=1 drill (objectives ninth and tenth) IDS agrees to evaluate a weekend drill pe:rvided a prior.a.w is made. Iha two objectives m M,;iut should be reinstated.. It is IDWs position that W,. ion Center must be evaluated in seg.aence with the exercise scenario. 1

O 731301 l

_=. 4 3 i Fifth and sixth objectives were nodified by _deletirr; "by shift change". Pace 7 Eighth objective was nodified by deleting "an overall accident" and substituting with " dose ". In addition, reference to BAO was added. Tenth objective was undified by dalating "deemmiw" with "r====r 1". Page 8 Sixth objective'- asterisk indicating that this objective is affected by the legal authority issue was deleted. Pace 9 No ccrments Page 10 1 Second objective was nodified by deleting "by shift change". o P_ u Second objective was nodified by deleting "through shift change or". Sixth objective should be rainstate4 but noved to page 1. i Pace 12 First and second objectives were deleted. l Third objective was nedified by adding: "and in'taraction with IZ!C ECC". j New objective was added to readt

"Denonstrata the ability to coordinate the dose projecticns based on plant data and field nessurenants with ccunty a xt/er state officials (Role of State and/or county efficials will be si.-ulated by IDE designated -W-.

1). "

O 73130.

-LIST OF JC"IVITIES TO E DDCNST1tA'3D BY mO MC DTAN - te BY FDR Per my letter of Docater 2,1985 and discussions at the hw 12 meeting, I raccumand that the following activities / facilities be defenstrated during the-February 13, 1986 exercise. Act.tvities to be C.. L. W w ip*M rree In out oz No. Plav h c= Secuence Warning Point x JDC x x 1 EP x 1 DC x x x 1 Receptien Contar x 1 x Sw x ecy hbrker Docen. 1 x Steging Areas x 1 x Cong. Care Centers x 3-x Ikas Rautas (Gen. pop.) .x 2 x School Evacuation x 8 (Schools requesting assistance x P**i H ty Ir paired 2 at hcr:a x 6 Pt:2ility Impaired at add..es O e1 5-== x x 2 "ransfer Points in sequence with bus routa$ x x Boat Alerti.N (Coast Gaard) - x hata Alerting x 1 (Siren Failure TCPs x x 3 IWi== qts to x x 3x3 Evacuation Medical Drill x x 2 x Radiological x tt:rdtoring x x 2 Accident Assessment x x 2 address,and talephone nu2ers) by DocurtarI request that you indicat 20, 1985. In additlen, you shculd (time w2ndew). e an accror.imate tirra when FD% can evaluate each activity O Any free play activities will be selected by FEMA. 731303 .-.-...-..-,.--,.-_..,...-.c,. n ..w. ,v ,n.,, m,. .,.n..

a ? i O~ d At the December 12, 1985 nesting with y:m, the folicwing agreements j were reached: 4 Luco will confirm the February 13, 1986 exarcise j i date in writing. e Luco win advzse mm why sirens cannot be scunded in secpence with the exercise scenario. 4 Luco will provide FDR with a ficer plan and traffic flow for each staging area. Luco win provide mm with infomation on a i'4 inpaired at hcum and ty en buses, antmlances,W.=1 facilities that depend (by tyee of vehicle required). etc i LUID will advise mm about a drill which could be inferrally aboarved and evaluated in.7anuary 1986. In addition to the abcmt, telephones for Federal Obse.I recpest that Lu4D arrange for desks and s 7 at the following facilities: E i n Stagim Areas V News Center IDF BAO LuiD also shcr. tid arrange for desks and telephones for sfrulators (State a:xi local representatives) at: l i E IDF

Staging Areas (actual neef to be W later)

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please let ne knew at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, h h f. 2076 9 l Poger B. *cwieski, P.E. Chairman Regional Assistance Comittee O 731304

i-t ~ O PROPOSED EXERCISE 083ECTZYES for the 1986 5HORENAM EXERCISE Revised December 13, 1985 I I I e f I

O i

73.1305

i Page 1 of 12- ' December 13, 1985 i . PROPOSED EEERCISE OBJECTIVES POR TEE 1986 SBORERAN EEERCISE . Emergency Operations Center (EOC) i Demons trate ' the ability to receive initial and. follow-up emergency notifications. Demonstrate the ability to mobilize staff and activate the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) EOC in a timely manner. Demons tra te' through rosters, the ability -to maintain staffing in the LERO EOC on a 24-hcur basis. Demonstrate that the LERO EOC has adequate space, equipment, and supplies to support emergency operations. Demonstrate that the LERO can establish appropriate communication links, both primary and backup systems O ( communication with the State and county via RECS to be simulated). 3 Demonstrate that the LEhO EOC has adequate access control and that security can be maintained. i D emo n s t rate that messages a r 's transmitted in an accurate and timely manner, massages are properly logged, that status boards are accurately maintained and updated, that that incoming personnel are briefed. appropriate briefings are held, and Demonstrate that the appropriate official is in charge and in control of an overall coordinated response including decisions on protective action recommendations. Demonstrate the ability to coordinate the emergency response with county and State officials. (Role of State and/or county officials will be simulated by FEMA designated personnel.) .l O ' Note: h denenstratix. cf this objective is affected by t!w legal authority issue. ?338

i Page 2 of 12 l December 13, 1985 0 PROPOSED EXERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR TEE 1986 SEORERAM EZFJtCISE i Emergency operations Center - Continued I 1 Demonstrate the ability of the designated official to determine the need to obtain State assistance. 4 Demonstrate the abilit appropriate locations,y to communicate with all organisations, and field personnel. 4 Demonstrate the ability to receive and interpret r adia t io n dosage projection information and to determine appropriate p r o t e c t ive measures,, based on PAGs and i nf ormation received from the Brookhaven 7. sa Office (BAO). Demons trate the ability to provide advance coordination of public alerting and instructional messages with the State and county (State and Q simula ted ). county participat ion Demonstrate the soility: to activate the prompt' t notification siren sys tem in coordination with State and county (Stace and county participation simulated). Demonstrate the capability for providing both an alert signal and an informational or instructional message to the population on an area-wide basis throughout the 10 mile EPZ, includine the water oortion. within 15 minutes (45 minutes for water nortion). Demonstrate the orderly evacuation of all or partorganizational ability to manage an ncluding the water portion. of the 10-mile,EP Z i

Notet The der:cn.stration, of this objective is affected by' the legal authority issue.

O a 7313C? -v--r-. -. y -wwwww w,-w---ww--- - - - - - - - -.----g-wn- -w-,--------r,--,... -, - -. -.. -,,,. -. - - - - - - - - - - -, -.,-----.ar--,, ... - - - + - -

l Page 3 of 12 t December 13, 1985 O PROPOSED EXERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR TER 1986 SBOREEAM EXERCISE Emergency operations Center - Continued 4 Demonstrate the organizational ability to deal with impediments to evacuation, such as inclement traffic onstructions. weather or Demonstrate the organizational ability necessary to offeet an early dismissal of schools within the lo-mile EP 2. Demonstrate the control access to an evacuated area. organizational ability necessary Demonstrate the organi za tional ability necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of schools within the 10-mile EP2. If this protective action is not recommended by the decision-makers, e.g. schools were dismis sed early, a free play controllers message may be inserted to demonstrate this activity. , O i Demonstrate the ability to prepare and implement EBS in a timely manner (i.e., within 15 minutes after command and control decision for implemen-tation of prbtective action recomme'ndations). i

Hota1 h dam 3nstration of this objactive is affacted by the legal autterity issue.

i l i \\ i O 731308

1 Page 5 of 12 l December 13, 1985 PROPOSEO EXERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR TEE 1986 550REIAM EXERCISE Pield Activities - Continued Demonstrate that emergency workers understand who can authorize excess exposure under the Protective Action Guidelines. Demonstrate a sample of resources necessary to implement an orderly evacuation of all or part of the 10-mile EPI. Demonstrate a sample of resources necessary to deal with impediments to evacuation, such as inclement weather or traffic obstructions. Demonstrate a sample of resources necessary to control access to an evacuated area (Traffie Guides). Demonstrate the adequacy of evacuation bus transfer points including access and parking / transfer areas. Demonstrate a sample of resources necessary to effect an orderly avacuation of the institutionalized mobility-impaired individuals within the 10-mile EPZ. Demonstrate a sample of resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of the n o n-ins titutionali zed mobility-impaired individuals within the 10-mile EPZ. l l 'Notet 'Ihe denonstration of this objective is affected by \\ the legal authority issue. J \\ l 731303

Page 6 of 12 O . December 13, 1985 4 PROPOSED EXERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR TEE 1986 SSOEEBAN EXERCISE t l .) Field Activities - Continued i Demonstrate 4 a a imple of resources necessary to effect an early dismissa L of schools within the 10-alle EP Z. l Demonstrate a sample of resources necessary to 'effect an orderly evacuation of EP Z. schools withiri the 10-mile Demonstrate the ability _to mobilize staff and activate Reception Center in a timely manner. Demonstrate the ability to mobilize staff and activate Congregate Care Center in a timely manner. 3 Demonstrate through rosters the ability to maintain staffing at the Reception Center on a 24-hour basis. i Demonstrate through rosters the ability to maintain staffing at the Congregate Care Center on a 24-hour basis. ) Demonstrate the adequacy of procedures for registration, radiological monitoring, and i decontamination of evacuees and adequate provisions for handling contaminated waste. vehicles including i L 1 i Demons trate the adequacy of facilities for mass care of evacuees. Demonstrate adequacy,for ambulance f acilities and procedures for handling injured and contaminated individuals. (Medical drill involves an on-site / off-site injury). D e mo n s t ra te adequacy of hospital facilities and p rocedures for handling injured and contaminated individuals. (Medical drill involves an on-site / i off-site injury). { 'Notet The dar:cnstration of this objective is affected by the legal authority issue. i 731310

Page 7 of 12 j December 13, 1985 O 1 PROPOSED EXERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR 3 TEE 1986 SIOREEAM EXERCISE' Brookhaven Area Office (BAO) Demonstrate the ability to receive initial and follow up emergency notifications. Demonstrate the ability to mobilize staff and activate the BAO in a timely manner. ~ Demonstrate through rosters, the ability to amintain staffing in the BAO on a 24-hour basis. Demonstrate that the BAO has adequate space, equipment, and supplies to support emergency operations. 4 Demonstrate that the BAO can es tablish appropriate communication links, using both primary and backup systems. Demonstrate that the BAO has adequate access control O and that s curity can be maintained.- D e mo n s t ra te that messages tre transmitted in an i accurate and timely manner, messages are properly logged, that status boards are accurately maintained and updated, that appropr.iate briefings are held, and that incoming personnel are briefed. Demonstrate that the appropriate official is in charge t and in control of ' dose assessment function assioned to the BAO. l D emo n s t rate the ability' to communicate with all appropriate locations, organizations, and field personnel. Demonstrate the ability to project radiation dosage to the public via plume exposure, based on plant data and field measurements, and to recommend appropriate pro-i i tactive measures, based on PAGs and effectively com=ur.icate them to the LERO EOC. O '731311 1 -- - - ' - - - - ~-~~ ~ - - ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Page 8 of 12 O December 13, 1985 PROPOSED EZERCISE OBJECTIVES POR j , TEE 1986 SBOREEAM EXERCISE Staging Areas-Demonstrate the ability to rvesive emergency notifications. Demonstrate the ability to mobilise staff and activate the staging areas in a timely manner. Demonstrate through rosters the ability to maintain staffing at the staging areas on, a 24-hour basis. J Demons trate that the staging areas have adequate space, parking area, equipment, and supplies to support emergency operations. Demonstrate that the staging areas can establish appropriate communication links with the LERO EOC and O field personnel using both primary and backup systems. Demons trate that the sta,ing areas have adeguate,ccess control and enat security can be maintained. I D e mo n s t ra te that messages are transmitted in an accurate ano timely manner, messages are properly logged, that status boards are accurately maintained and updated, that that incoming personnel are briefed. appropriate briefings are held, and Demonstrate that the appropriate official is in charge and in control of 'an overall response assigned to the staging area. Demonstrate the ability to dispatch to and direct emergency workers in the field.

Note:

The denenstration of this objective is affec'M by the legal authority issue. l

O

\\ ?31312 l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ " ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ _ _,,. _. -. - - - - - - -.. - - - - - ' - ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ~ ' ' ^ ~ ~~

Page 9 of 12, December 13, 1985 PROPOSED EXERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR TEE 1986 SHOREEAM EXERCISE Staging Areas - Continued Demon s t rate the abilit appropriate locations,y to communicate with all organizations, and field personnel. l O e O 721313

Page 10 of 12 O December 13, 1985 PROPOSED EXERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR THE 1986 SEOREBAN EEERCISE Emergency Workers Decontamination Facility Demonstrate Emergency Worker Decontamination Facility.the ability t Demonstrate through rosters, the ability to maintain staffing of Emergenc on a 24-hour basis. y Worker Decontamination Facility Demonstrate adequate equipment and procedures for decontamination of emergency workers, equipment and vehicles including adequate provisions for handling contaminated waste. O l

Notea

'Ihe dem:nsat. ration of this objective is affacted by the legal auttenty issue. 731311 - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Page 11 of 12 December 13. 1985, PROPOSED EEERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR TEE 1986 SBOREEAM EXERCISE l Emergency News Center (ENC) Demonstrate the ability to mobilize staff and activate { LERO functions at the ENC in a timely manner. Demonstrate through rosters the ability to maintain staffing of LERO tunctions at the ENC on a 24-hour basis. I l Demonstrate the ability to brief the media in a clear l accurate, and timely manner. Demonstrate the ability to share information with other agencies at the ENC prior to its release. Demonstrate the ability to establish and operate rumor j control in a coordinated manner. I \\ Dem nstr a the bility o pre re an impi at in \\ ti ely a n ner (i.e., ' thin minu es aft co nd nd nero dec ion fo imple antati n of p oter*. ve a tion reco ndati ns). i D emo n s t. ate that the ENC has adequate space, equipment, and supplies to support emergency operations. Demonstrate that the ENC has adequate access control and that security can be maintained. i 1 1 i i I l " Note Be dar.r.stration of this objective is affected by j the legal authority issue. \\ Q l 731315 l l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ " ^ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ '

Page 12 of 12 December 13, 1985 PROPOSED EXERCISE OBJECTIVES FOR TEE 1986 SBORERAM EXERCISE Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) I D onst ate e abil ty to ao line a ff a acti att fun tions at the F in a imely ner. natr te b shif cha e th ugh as es, he a i ity t mai tain taffi of LERO func ion in e E a 24 hour is. ( Demonstrate that the Emergency Operations Facility has adequate space, equipment', and supplies to su emergency operations and interaction with trao roc.pport Demonstrate that the Emergency Operations Facilities I have adequate access control and that security can be maintained. i O o mo==tr t-ta attity to coordt t-ta a= er=s ett=== based on plant data and field measurements with county and/or State officials (Role of State and/or county officials will be simulated by TEMA designated personnel). s i i h da e.stration cf this objective is'affacted by

Nosa i

the local autnenty issue. e: O 73131C 1 i e ____.,__._.__, _ _ __ _____ __-._,..___ _..,__ _ __,.,___,_.___._.._____ _ m__

a k i \\ ATTACHMENT E O i e i I I O ,---w-n,--,,,-_-

r----

-.,aw, e,-,- ,-r w

'11MN5CluP1 -- = OF PRDCw::. GS o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .- - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of: Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL) Unit 1) -X DEPOSITION OF JAMES CONRAD BARANSKI, JAMES DOMINIC PAPILE and LAWRENCE BRUNO CZECH l Albany, New York Tuesday, February 3, 1987 ACE-FEDER.-\\L REPORTERS, [NC. itcuto:yn Anne s a Nor:h Cettolirree O i " " a t'. :r,;,E c = ' e-wuo Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ~

69 000 01 01. marysimons 1 by tone alert -- mainly by tone alert at all our 2 installations. 3 LNo. 2 is we do exercise some schools by sending 4 school buses to the school with a FEMA observer selected by 5 FEMA again and then showing where those buses would go after; 6 they received their instructions. i 7 Q With the exception of those schools to which j 8 buses are sent, the participation you are referring to is 9 notification either by phone or by tone alert? i, 10 A True. ( With respect to nursing homes,-can you tell you 11 Q 12 what you mean by participation? i 13 A The same way. Nursing homes are called by either I 14 the hospital coordinator or the MSC coordinator at the EOC 15 and given the information about the incident or the exercise. i 16 incident at that time. I I 17 Q And once again it is telephone notification --- i 18 A Telephone notification or tone alert also in i 19 nursing homes. I 1 20 0 And that's the extent of participation? 21 ' A T..at's right. {) 22 { Q Haw about adult homes? l ACE-:?EDERAL lEPORTERS,INC. 202 3 4 3700 Nasenwule Coverage 90M364646 . -. =

70 {}0000101. marysimons 1 A Adult homes would probably be the same way, 2 depending again upon each county. Each county has either 3 the Commissioner for the Aged or someone from his office, if 4 they have such an office, in the county EOC and they would 1 5 notify the county adult homes. Some of the adult homes have 6 tone alerts also. I can't tell you for each county. 7 0 But, again, the participation is notification 4 i 8 either by telephone or tone alert? 9 A Right. 10 0 Mr. Baranski, do you have anything to add to that () 11 answer? 12 A (Witnest Baranski) No, sir, I do not. 13 O Mr. Czech? 14 A (Witness Czech) No, I do not. 1 15 0 General Papile, are' school districts in New York b 16 State separate political entities from the State government?l 17 I A (Witness Papile) As described to me, yes, they l 1 18 are. 19 0 Is planning for them not necessarily the i 20 responsibility of local governments? l 21 A Festate that question, please. [} 22 l Q Is emergency planning for school districts not 4 I ACE-FEDERAL 3 PORTERS, NC. ant.w.t-m SanonmWoverage 900 136 4646

9 O ~ ATTAC ENT F O f b l O l l

Attachmsnt F L / Special populat'on evacuees will be routed t rough the () LILCO Brentwood acilipy on their way to/the designated relocation center These evacuees will arrive be ambulance, ambulette and bus. They will be moni46 red while ',n their vehicle by the moni rs assigned to de EWDF. Monitoring of 0 second Since there are kelessthan[ evacuees,s. each evacuee should population, the 30 EWDF less than 2,000~speci monitors will be able t monitor hose evacuees in less than two hours or else as fas as th arrive. It is expected that this monitoring vill be c mpleptd prior to the arrival of the returning LERO emergency f elf personnel. Decontamination of special po lation evacuees will'be handled at the Brentwood EWDF for/ambul tory evacuees. Contamination on non-ambulatory evacups will e removed to the extent possible without distu bing the p tient. If detailed decontamination of no -ambulatory vacuees is necessary, they will be sent to the ospitals havin accredited radiology or nuclear medicine de artments. l l \\ 4 () l i 4 4 i l Q 3.9-5B Draft 2/20/87 S .-_...-____,_,,,y.

4490303 2880 joewalsh I' MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, these witnesses are 2 ready for cross-examination. 3 CROSS EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. LETSCHE: 5 Q Mr. Daverio, where were you during the exercise? 6 A (Witness Daverio) The LERO EOC. 7 Q You weren't at any other locations during the 8 day? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q And, as the Lead Controller on the day of the 11 exercise, you did not -- you were not serving in a LERO j 12 position; is that correct? ,;L 13 A That's correct. b_) 14 Q And, you do not hold a position in LERO; is that is right? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q I take it that in the position as Lead 18 Controller, you also were not responsible for making 19 observations or evaluations of LERO performance during the 20 day; is that right? 21 A That's correct. I did not perform an evaluation 22 function. 23 Q Basically, your job was to make sure the 24 exercise was running smoothly in terms of getting messages 25 in and out and things like that; is-that right? I~ u

_ _. = 4490303 2881 joewalsh '( ) 1 A I was the interface between FEMA, Suffolk 2 County, yourself at the EOC, and making sure everyone had 3 the information they needed. 4 Q Right. Gentlemen, I would like to direct your 5 attention to Page 3 of your testimony, please. At the top 6 of that page is a continuation of your summary of your 7 testimony. 8 And, you say in the second sentence, the second 9 full sentence, beginning on that page: "The same LERO 10 workers who would have registered, monitored and 11 decontaminated special facility evacuees monitored several 12 hundred individuals accurately and efficiently at the i3 Emergency Worker Decontamination Facility at Brentwood." () 14 I am correct, aren't I, that the individuals you i is are referring to here who would have registered and 16 monitored the special facility evacuees are not the 17 monitoring personnel at the Nassau Coliseum whom we ia discussed yesterday; is that right? 19 A That sentence doesn't refer to them, but if you 20 look at Revision 6 to the plan which was the revision 21 exercised during the day, they had the option of either 22 sending people from the EWDF or the Nassau Coliseum to the 23 special facilities. 24 So, while this sentence doesn't reference to 25 them, the day of the exercise they'did have that option. i O 7 N. '

4490303 2882 joewalsh I Q All right. So, in fact, the people who under 2 Revision 6 could have been sent to perform the monitoring 3 functions on special facility evacuees could have been sent 4 either from the Nassau Coliseum or from the ENDF; is that 5 what you are saying? 6 A That's correct. 7 (Witness Watts) That's correct. 8 (Witness Daverio) As a matter of fact, on the 9 day of the exercise, the message that was sent out was for to people from the Nassau Coliseum to be dispatched to the il special facilities. 12 Under that revision, they had that option. 13 Q Okay. Now, I would like to direct your LJ 14 attention to Page 4 of your testimony, please. And, I'm is going to be using what was marked yesterday, or what was 16 admitted yesterday, as suffolk County Exercise Exhibit, I 17 believe, 41-A, which is the portions of OPIP 3.9.2. 18 Do you-all have a copy of that? 19 MS. McCLESKEY: It's -- witnesses, it's OPIP 20 3.9.2 in Rev 6 which is right behind you.\\ 21 WITNESS DAVERIO: Oh, it's the entire procedure? 22 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 23 Q No. It's the first nine pages. 24 A (Witness Daverio) We have the entire procedure, 25 so we can use that. We have that in front of us. E

4490303 2883 joewalsh () Q Okay. Now, you state in the Answer to Question 2 Number 6 on Page 4 that the procedures in effect on the day 3 of the exercise that are specific to special facility 4 residents -- and I assume you are talking about the 5 procedures relative to registration, monitoring and 6 decontaminating those residents -- 7 A (Witness Watts) Could you wait one moment? 8 Q Sure, I'm sorry. 9 A We are trying to get the right revision. 10 (The witnesses are going through the document.) 11 Q Maybe we could just get another copy of the 12 exhibit. It might make it easier, i3 A Okay. We have it. (} 14 Q Okay. Now, in the Answer to Question 6 you refer to the procedures in effect on the day of the exercise is 16 that are specific to special facility residents, and you 17 refer to two sections of OPIP 3.9.2. I assume that in that is sentence you are talking about the procedures specific to 19 the registration, monitoring and decontamination of special 20 facility residents; is that right? (The witnesses are looking at the document.) 21 22 A (Witness Daverio) As it says here, those two 23 paragraphs specifically reference special facilities. The 24 monitoring technique laid out in 3.9.2, as we explain, in 25 the next procedure also applies. O

l 4490303 2884 joewalsh I Q I know. All I was saying is that there are 2 other procedures in the plan that have to do.with special 3 facilities. These are the ones that talk about monitoring 4 and registration and decontamination. 5 A That's right, 3.6.5. There are many other -- 6 Q Right. 7 A -- procedures that talk about special e facilities. 9 Q Okay. That was the only point of my question. 10 A

Okay, i

11 Q All right. Now, the two sections that you refer 12 to, I take it on the day of the exercise, were the only 13 provisions specific to the special facility residents, .,y 14 monitoring and decontaminating them, that were in effect 4 1 is other than the additional discussion you have of the general 16 provisions in 3.9.2 in your answer; is that right? 17 (The witnesses are conferring.) 1 18 A 3.9.2, the two sections that you refer to give 19 you the general. There are other provisions in OPIP 3.6.5 20 which talk about ambulances and how they would get to places-21 and where they would go after. So, there are some other i 22 words. 23 But, the essence is probably, yeah. 24 PU 1 e ,-,w-- .,-.m -r -v -es ~+- -w w--- se-

- + -

44900404 -2885 marysimons () i Q Right.- This is where you talk about 2 registering, monitoring and decontaminating. What's.in 4 3 3.6.5 is how you evacuate them, right? 4 A (Witness Daverio) Yes, that's correct. 5 Q Would you turn to page 5 of your testimony, 6 please. In the answer to Question 7 on.that page you say 7 "On the day of the exercise LERO workers demonstrated a several aspects of the ability to register, monitor and 9 decontaminate evacuees from special facilities." j 10 And then you go on and you say, you mention two i 11 things, demonstrating the preparatory step, evacuation and i2 demonstrating and demonstrating the generic process of 13 monitoring. Are those two demonstrations the two aspects of O i4 the ability to register, monitor.and decontaminate evacuees t 15 from special facilities to which you refer in the prior i 16 sentence? 5 17 A In general, yes. The only thing I would la Probably add in the discussion of the generic process of i9 monitoring is we also decontaminated people at the EWDF and 20 at the reception centers. So we also would have had decon i 21 in that generic process of monitoring. 22 Q Now I take it from this paragraph that it's your 23 testimony that by_means of these two demonstrations, i 24 Preparatory step of evacuation and the generic process of l 25 monitoring and decontaminating, that you demonstrated the O

44900404 2886 marysimons j(w_) 1 I ability to regiater, monitor and decontaminate evacuees from 2 special facilities; is that right? 3 A Yes. In general it's our testimony that on the day of the exercise, given the events and the things we did, 4 5 that we demonstrated several of the aspects as we say. 6 It's also important to point out that FEMA 7 didn't expect us to do a lot of these aspects and didn't 8 look for it in their objectives and weren't grading us on 9 it. 10 Q All right. In the next paragraph of your 11 testimony in the second sentence you say "Because special -12 facility populations will be indoors, they are less likely i3 to become contaminated initially." 14 It's not necessarily true during an accident, is is it, Mr. Daverio, that school children would be indoors? 16 A I think there may be some at recess, but it's 17 easy to get them inside, and I think also that the great is bulk of the schools kids would be inside. 19 Q And, Mr. Watts, it's true, isn't'it that, 20 according to your testimony, what happened during the 21 accident was that after about an hour being indoors wouldn't 22 provide you much protection, would it, about an hour after 23 the release? 24 A (Witness Watts) Well, I think what you're 25 referring to is a comment that I made with regard to a t

44900404 -2887 marysimons (f i thyroid dose infiltration of iodine. In terms of gross 2 particulate contamination, however, there is some benefit of 3 the structure. In terms of covering a person from gross 4 particulate contamination, I was referring to the child 5 thyroid dose in my previous testimony. 6 Q And that was the dominant release pathway during 7 the exercise, wasn't it? 8 A Yes, it was, on the-day of the exercise; that's 9 correct. But we shouldn't mix these two concepts about 4 to contamination being deposited on the skin versus the dose to 11 the thyroid. 12 0 Is your monitoring and decontamination process i3 that was provided for in your plan for all evacuees intended () 14 to cover both the inhalation thyroid dose and a surface. dose 15 from particulate? 16 A When you're decontaminating a person, it's aimed 17 at removing the surface contamination, the surface is particulates and no decontaminating a thyroid. 19 Q My question' included monitoring as well as i 20 decontaminating, Mr. Watts. 2i A I didn't understand that to be your question. 22 0 !!;hitoring11s intended to cover-both. potential 23 thyroid dese as well as potential surface contamination; 24 isn't ?t> We had discussed that, yes. 25 O L ..y -.r,y.--, ,--mm

44900404 2888 marysimons ,() 1 -Q~ I'm n'ot talking about what you discussed. 2 That's-intent of your monitoring and decontamination-3 procedure, isn't it? i l 4 A We do have provisions for tnyroid monitoring 'in- .1 5 our monitoring procedures, yes. I'm a little concerned 6 about your mixing the thyroid dose with the surface j 7 contamination, however, and I would like to make those l 1-8 distinct. 9 Q Now you go on to say that "When an evacuation is j 10 recommended.the resulting dose savings will outweigh the l 11 dose from contamination which'might be retained on the ) i 12 body." 13 Now there you are talking just-about surface Ff 1 14 contamination; is that right? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Now you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that 17 this assumption that dose savings from evacuation would 18 outweigh the dose from non-evacuation-is one of the bases 19 upon which you as a radiation health coordinator would make 20 an evacuation recommendation; isn't that right? 21 A I wasn't really talking about-evacuation versus 22 non-evacuation. I was talking about contamination that may 23 result in the process of evacuating. I 24 Q I understand what you were talking about here, 25 Mr. Watts. Try to listen to my question and' answer the

'44900404 12889 marysimons ~() 1 question. 2 A I'm confused by the intent of your question. 3 Q Don't try to figure out the intent of my 4 question. Listen to the question and' answer it. 5 A I have to understand the intent of your 6 question, Ms. Letsche so I can answer properly. 7 Q Listen to my question. 8 A Okay. 9 Q It is true, isn't it, Mr. Watts, that when you io as radiation health coordinator make an evacuation n recommendation, it is at least in part based on your 12 assumption or calculation that-the dose savings from an 13 evacuation would outweigh the dose from contamination if one 14 did not evacuate? 15 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. The question is 16 outside the scope of the contention. It discusses 17 evacuation recommendations. is JUDGE FRYE: I think it's a fairly simple 19 question. Let's get the answer to it. 20 WITNESS-WATTS: The way it's stated, Judge Frye, 21 it's not a simple question. Ms. Letsche continues to ~ 22 confuse surface contamination with thyroid dose. We do not 23 do a comparison of' evacuation dose to the dose that would be. 24 received from surface contamination. 25 JUDGE FRYE: But you'have some sort of a O

44900404 2890 marysimons .( ) I determination, don't you --- 2 WITNESS WATTS: That's correct.- 3 JUDGE FRYE: --- that it's worthwhile to 4 evacuate? 5 WITNESS WATTS: That is correct. What we are 6 looking at is whole body dose received as part of direct 7 exposure during CVacuation or sheltering and we also compare a thyroid inhalation dose received during evacuation or 9 exposure. We don't do a specific calculation to determine 10 surface contamination in the process. Surface contamination 11 is addressed by our follow-up provisions to provide 12 monitoring and to direct people who we believe should be 13 monitored who are evacuating from a contaminated area. O 14 I'm just simply trying to explain our basis is here, and I'm a little concerned about the way the question 16 was phrased. 17 JUDGE SHON: I'm a little concerned about the is entire exchange. In point of fact, if.I understood your 19 procedures correctly, you simply look at projected dose and l 20 make a recommendation to evacuate if either the projected 21 whole body dose or the protected dose to the thyroid or both 22 exceeds certain numbers; is that not correct? 23 WITNESS WATTS: Yes, that is correct. 24 JUDGE SHCN: You don't sit down and calculate 25 how much does of various kinds and how much contamination of l ,.-y..

44900404 2891 marysimons () i various kinds people would receive if they stayed put and if 2 they left and then pick the least dosing path. Y.m ion't go 3 through that sort of thing, do you? 4 (Witnesses conferring.) 5 WITNESS WATTS: Are are comparing about the dose 6 received from sheltering versus the' dose received from 7 evacuation. 8 WITNESS DAVERIO: And then that's compared to 9 the PAG manual. 10 WITNESS WATTS: That's correct. 11 JUDGE PARIS: Compared to what? 12 WITNESS DAVERIO: The protective action i3 guidelines of EPA. O 14 WITNESS WATTS: So we are not taking the is additional factor of surface contamination on the skin 16 received in route or received while a person is sheltering. 17 JUDGE SHON: Exactly. You count only whole body is does and thyroid dose. 19 WITNESS WATTS: Inhalation dose. 20 JUDGE SHON: Inhalation dose. 21 WITNESS WATTS: Yes. 22 JUDGE SHON: And you don't attempt then to look 23 at surface contamination in any way; is that right? 24 WITNESS WATTS: The way we address surface 25 contamination is in fact precisely the way we addressed it O

44900404 2892 l marysimons ,a _() I the day of the exercise. If we believed based on our 2 projections or environmental data that there was 3 contamination on the ground that would result from the 4 plume, we would issue additional directives to the general 5 population to report to the reception-center for monitoring, 6 but that's based on the general consideration for surface 7 contamination. 8 JUDGE SHON: Thank you. 9 WITNESS WATTS: But that doesn't affect the 10 evacuation. 11 JUDGE SHON: No, it doesn't affect the 12 evacuation decision. 13 WITNESS WATTS: That decision is made despite 14 the surface contamination issue. 15 JUDGE SHON: I see what you mean. 16 Is this at all clearer now, Ms. Letsche? 17 MS. LETSCHE: If it's clearer to you, that's all 18 I want to establish. You're the ones who need to understand 19 this. 20 JUDGE SHON: I think that it is. I think that 21 you are at least implying that they compared surface 22 contamination and a few other things and made the decision 23 on the basis of what would result in the least something or 24 other, and it's a bit comparing apples and oranges, is it 25 not? I

44900404 2893 marysimons () i WITNESS WATTS: Well, that was the reason for my 2 being a little reluctant to proceed with the answer. I 3 wanted to make sure that I was clear in what I was 4 answering. 5 JUDGE SHON: At least now I think we know what-gets compared with what when you make a decision. 6 7 JUDGE PARIS: I think it's clear to us. Let's a go ahead. 9 BY MS. LETSCHE: io 0 In fact, whether the resulting dose savings from 11 evacuation would outweigh a dose from contamination, which 12 you don't take into account when you make your i3 recommendation, is something that cannot be determined until O 14 after the evacuation is over; is that right? 15 A (Witness Watts) The point of this particular 16 Portion of our testimony is simply to place in perspective 17 the ordering of actions that were taken the day of the is exercise and the reason for the language that was in the 19 procedure. 20 Certainly we are concerned about whole body dose 21 and thyroid dose, and we are also concerned about surface 22 contamination. 23 The point is we make our evaluations and take 24 our actions to determine whether people should shelter or 25 evacuate and do the appropriate protective action O

i 44900404 2894 marysimons _( ) I recommendation first.. 2 We then follow up when we can on a timely basis 3 to address the surface contamination issue, with monitoring 4 that we feel needs to be done and also any possible 5 decontamination. Both are important, but we believe that 6 the initial decision to determine whether evacuation is 7 warranted or not needs to take a higher priority. That's 8 the reasoning for the statement in our testimony. It's not 9 based on a specific dose savings type of consideration up 10 front. It's simply to explain in perspective why we do what 11 we do and the sequence of those actions. 12 Q My question, Mr. Watts, is with respect to the 13 statement in your testimony that when an evacuation is D u recommended the resulting dose savings will outweigh the is dose from contamination which might be retained on the 16 body. That fact, whether or not that dose savings will 17 outweigh the contamination from retained particulate cannot is be made until after the evacuation is over; isn't that 19 right? 20 That's a yes or no question. 21 A The specific number is not calculated until 22 afterwards. However, the consideration is still there. If 23 you're considering evacuation and you're at the point where 24 you're exceeding the EPA protective action guidelines, that 25 implies that you are faced with either very high whole body I i I l

44900404 2895 marysimons (]) i does rates or very high child thyroid doses. 2 What I'm saying is you're talking about people 3 encountering some very significant doses from the plume, and 4 that is the reason that we take our initial actions and make 5 our initial recommendations. 6 Our experience in our training is factored into 7 this where we recognize that, yes, contamination can be an a issue that has to be addressed, but it can be done later and 9 after the initial protective action recommendation is made. ~ 10 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Watts, I think one of the 11 difficulties that has arisen here is that this particular 12 statement in your testimony, in your prefiled testimony i3 makes use of a very great deal of experience and expertise u that you have locked in your subconscious to the extent is where you don't even think it necessary to explain it. 16 I believe what you said, that is, that when an 17 evacuation is recommended, the resulting dose savings will is outweigh the dose from contamination. implies in itself that 19 you've compared dose due to contamination with dose due to 20 staying in a cloud and elected to pull the person out and 2i get them contaminated as they went. 22 I think what you were using there is.your own 23 wide experience which tells you that the dose, for-example, 24 from the cloud or the dose due to inhaling contaminated air 25 is almost always far, far larger than the dose that a person O

44900404 -2896 marysimons () ~ 1 once out of the cloud would would get from the contamination 2 on his clothing or skin; is that right? I 3 WITNESS WATTS: That's exactly right. 4 JUDGE SHON: That point that these two doses are 5 quite disparate and they are very different in size is not 6 immediately obvious to the layman,.and I think you said it 7 in your testimony because it was obvious to you. 8 WITNESS WATTS: I thank you for that explanation 9 and clarification. I might mention that I~think in general 10 and for the situation that was present the day of the 11 exercise if we look at the dose that would have been 12 received to the whole body or to the thyroid from 13 contamination that was present on the skin, if we tried to b_) 14 equate whole body does and thyroid dose that way, the skin-15 contamination would have resulted in equivalent whole body 16 or thyroid doses that were only a few percent of doses received by people in the plume itself. 17 18 JUDGE SHON: Yes. I think that's the point. 19 WITNESS WATTS: That's the point that needs to 20 be said, yes. '21 JUDGE SHON: You recognized that immediately. 22 WITNESS WATTS:' Thank you. 23 JUDGE SHON: Probably your chief concern with 24 the contamination is that it might get in someone's soup as 25 a matter of fact. 1

44900404 2897 marysimons ) () 1 WITNESS WATTS: And for special facility 2 Populations, in general they are inside to begin with and 3 not exposed to a great deal of gross particulate 4 contamination. That was the other point that we were trying 5 to say. But even the few person that I was mentioning.to you before that I took a look at afterwards based on just 6 7 the ground contamination levels and didn't assume that anybody was covered with clothing and still the numbers came a 9 out a few percent. 10 JUDGE SHON: Does that clear things up, Ms. 11 Letsche? It certainly does for me. 12 MS. LETSCHE: Well, that's good. Like I said, you all are the ones who need to understand this. i3 . () 14 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Watts, meteorological conditions can influence the amount of surface contamination is 16 and clothing contamination; is that not correct? 17 WITNESS WATTS: That's correct. 18 JUDGE PARIS: So if it were raining through the 19 plume that might bring down more surface contamination? 20 WITNESS WATTS: It may, yes. In fact, the evaluation that I looked at assumed some relatively gross 21 22 levels of contamination anyway. 23 WITNESS DAVERIO: The other thing with the rain-24 out, it depends, too, if you've got ran-out you don't have 25 as large a problem because it rains out closer to the site, l C:) d

44900404 2898 marysimons _) 1 So there are a whole lot of factors you have to weigh in 2 when you look at that meteorology. You just can assume the 3 same distance plume if you have a ran-out. 4 JUDGE PARIS: If you have an accident, ideally 5 you would have a hard squall right over the plant, right? 6 WITNESS WATTS: Well, in fact, when I was at the 7 Ginna accident it was a snowing day and we did'have releases a from the plant and it brought down the deposition largely 9 within the boundary of the plant site. Some when off site, 10 but the vast majority of it came right down within the 11 security fence of the plant. 12 JUDGE PARIS: What did you do with the hot snow? 13 WITNESS WATTS: Well, we got bulldozers out and j 14 shovels and in the space of two days we plowed or. shoveled 15 about 15,000 cubic feet of snow and stored it in a rad waste 16 building for several months. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 1

44900505 2899 SueWalsh JUDGE PARIS: Okay. Well, let's get on with the testimony. MS. LETSCHE: I would like to have marked as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 44 Attachment 2 of OPIP 5 3.6.5 from the LILCO plan. 6 (The document referred to is marked as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit-8 Number 44 for identificat. ion.) BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 0 Mr. Daverio, you would agree with me that this is Attachment 2 from OPIP 3.6.5, and it is the version'that 12 was in effect on the day of the exercise; is that correct? '3 A (Witness Daverio) Yes, it is. Q And, this is a listing of the special facilities 15 other than school that are located in the ten mile EPZ; is 16 that right? I A That's correct.- '8 Q And, I take it that your testimony on Page 6 of your prefiled testimony, which refers to activities on the 20 day of the exercise related to contacting various special 21 facilities, would have used the data that is contained in 22 this Attachment 2 of OPIP 3.6.5; is that right? 23 A Just as a point of clarification, we would have 24 used the data, though not all of the phone numbers that are -25 in here would have been used. We have'been using simulated l l

\\ 44900505 2900 SueWalsh phone numbers for some of these. 2 Q Right. So that when you say in your testimony 3 that at 9:58 the Health Facilities Coordinator notified the Special Facilities Evacuation Coordinator that health care 5 facilities in the EPZ had'been contacted, in fact they 6 hadn't been contacted; there had been simulated phone calls 7 made, right? 8 A Some phone calls during the day were made to 9 real facilities. I can't say at 9:58 whether it was a real 10 facility or not. 11 But, in general that's a correct statement. 12 Q Now, just so we can understand the procedure 13 that was followed, you refer to Attachment B, the first page Id of Attachment B, B-1, to explain this contacting procedure 15 that went on. 16 Now, Page B-1 in Attachment B is a LERO message 17 form which is difficult to read. But, is this a message 18 that was sent frem the Special Facilities Evacuation 19 Coordinator to the Health Facilities Coordinator? 20 Is that what that says? 21 A The other way. It went from the Health 22 Facilities Coordinator to the Special Facilities Evacuation 23 Coordinator. 24 Q Okay. You are right. Now, it says a total of 25 six health care facilities within Zones A through G have O I

m 44900505 2901 'SueWalsh-g- been contacted. And, if we went through Attachment 2,.we 2 could identify those six facilities, couldn't we? 3 A Yes, we should be able to. ~ Q Okay. Now, it also says that verification of 5 transportation requirements -- and then I think it says 6 relocation reception centers. Is that what this form says? 7 And, I can't' read the rest of it. Can you' read 8 the rest of the message for me? A It's basically saying that verification of. IU transportation requirements, relocation reception centers j and other assistance, a request for other assistance have 12 been made. Essentially, that's what it says. '3 And, there were no additional tranr,portation requirements is what the last sentence says. IS Q Cixay. And, this fact that there were no-16 ado;tional transportation requirements was something which 'I the people on the other end of the simulated phone calls is were instructed to say; is that right? A In this particular case, that's correct. 20 l Q Okay. And, I take it that the transportation 21 requirements that were assumed for purposes of the exercise 22 to be out there for these special facilities are the ones 23-that are set forth in your procedures; is that right? 24 A That's correct. It's not on this sheet, \\ 25 though. It's identified on ---you can see there are some

'44900505 2902 SueWalsh I things here. But, what's happening-at this point in time,- 2 this Special' Facilities Coordinator is trying to talk to:the 3 facilities, see if there is additional re' quests required. d At the same time, the bus people are out there getting buses 5 based on they won't need any so~that we don't'. waste any 6 time. 7 Q Right. 8 A So, simultaneously those two things are going-9 on. So, as long as there is no additional transportation 'O requirements, it.would have happened automatically. Q Okay. Now, when you say that there was 12 verification of -- or, when this message says that there was 33 verification of relocation reception centers, focusing on 'd the reception center portion here, according to the plan is there are no reception centers identified for most of these 16 special facilities except the Association for' Help.of 37 Retarded Children and the United Cerebral Palsy, and those '8 for which -- the LaSalle Military Academy-is identified; '9 isn't that right? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q Now, in your testimony you go on to say_that l 22 within a half an hour there was another notification that 23 { somebody had begun contacting the; health facilities..in Zones 24 A through M, Q and R and advising them to evacuate. 25 I take it that -- let's see, and you refer to O

P 4 '44900505 2903 SueWalsh f--J b Attachment B-2 which I-truly can't read. 2' A Well, I have another copy of that. 3 Q Well, maybe to just make everyone's life easier you could just read what it says..Th'is is Page B-2 of your Attachment B.to your testimony.f 6 A Notification -- it'sifrom the Special-Facilities 7 Evacuation Coordinator to'the Evacuation Coordinator. 4 8 ' Notification has begun by the.Home and Health Facilities Coordinators. They are in Zones A through M, Q and R. 160 'O home-bound, 19 health facilities, two hospitals. Home-boun'd and health facilities are beginning to -- are being advised 12 to evacuate and hospitals to shelter. '3 Q. It'looks like there is additional writing down 14 at the bottom. Is there, or is that just a xeroxing? 15 A Hold on. I didn't look. It's copy to 16 Evacuation Coordinator and copy to Transportation '7 Coordinator. '8 Q Okay. Now, again I assume that if we went through this Attachment 2 we could identify the 19 health 20 facilities and two hospitals that were in those zones that 21 this message refers to; is that right? 22 A And the home-bound. Well, in this attachment 23 only the health facilities and hospitals, not the home-24 bound. 25 0 Right. That's a separate listing.

44900505 2904 SueWalsh-I A That's Attachment 1 to OPIP 3.6.5. 2 Q Right. And,'I.take it that'in terms of the 3 ~ contacts that are referenced on this message that again like the others.they were simulated contacts? 5 A No. In this bulk, I know we called at least a 6 few facilities. I actually know one of them actually input 7 a free-play message we didn't expect, and LERO handled that 8 also that day. 9 But, we did contact some facilities. I think 10 Oak Crest. Let me give you the names. Oak Crest and Crest 'I Hall which are two health facilities. It's on Page 4 of 9. 12 I believe they were contacted. And I believe the Riverhead 13 Nursing Home also was contacted when they~had to during the ld day. It might not have been at this time. 15 There may have been others. But, the bulk still 16 was simulated. But, there were real contacts. 17 0 Okay. Those are the two. facilities that have 18 the LaSalle Military Academy identified as a reception 19 center; is that right? 20 A That's correct. Also, let me clarify, when I'm-21 talking about simulation I'm not talking about them getting 22 j a message handed to them. They had to -- this sheet, for 23 the exercise, had different phone numbers on it with the 24 real person on the other side giving the information out -25 that we wanted as part of the scenario. i O l

44900505 2905 SueWalsh f-1b So, it wasn't that they just sat there and 2 simulated. They had to make the phone call; they had to get 3 the information; read all the messages. So, it was done just as if there were a real 5 person on the other side. 6 Q Right. And, I take it that you did not actually 7 contact either of the two hospitals? 8 A I can't recall, Ms. Letsche, if we did or not. They may have been real contacts or not. I don't recall. 'O Q Now, you go on in your testimony to say that -- and I'm still on Page 6 where you are talking about 12 evacuation -- LERO's organizational ability to effect an 13 q( / evacuation of special facilities was demonstrated by the 'd dispatch of certain vehicles. And, then you talk about the 15 two that FEMA observed. 16 And, the first one was an ambulance to Our Lady I of Perpetual Help Convent to transport a resident to the '8 Suffolk Developmental Center. Now, Attachment B-3, which I' you reference here in your testimony, says, doesn't it, that 20 the ambulance dispatched to our Lady of Perpetual Help 21 Convent picked up a patient and proceeded to the Northport 22 VA Center? 23 Is that right? 24 l JUDGE PARIS: Which attachment are you on? 25 MS. LETSCHE: This is the third page of

d i 44900505 2906 Attachment B-to the testimony. I think iE's referred to as. I 2 B-3. And, it's referenced at the top of.Page 7 of the 3 prefiled testimony. (The witness is looking through a 0acument.) d 5 WITNESS DAVERIO: I see that, but I'm just 6 looking something else up for a second. 7 JUDGE.FRYE: Since our copies are bad, if you 8 could verify that-that is what it says it would be helpful. 9 WITNESS DAVERIO: What I see is that which Ms. 18 Letsche read in the message. (The witness is looking through a document.) 12 y can't explain that difference, Ms. Letsche. 13 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) Q Well, according to Attachment 2 of.OPIP 3.6.5, is the listing for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Convent has no 16 reception center identified at all,-right? '7 A Yeah. That's what I was trying to look at, '8 whether FEMA input a message or not to change this.

And, from what I've got here.I can't tell how -- one message has 19 20 Northport.

I can't figure out where we got this other one 21 from unless it was a FEMA message-which I can't find in my 22 book right now. 23 Q Well, the FEMA message you are referring to i 24 would be the free-play message injected to have this happen l 25 during the exercise; is that right? !O i

r 44900505 2907 . GueWalsh r f. ~ A' Either the free-play message or some other message that I might have.a record of.. But, I don't have any. records of anything. . Q Okay. But, what that would'have done=---that-3- would relate to what is.in the. message, the LERO-message <- 0 that-is in Attachment B; that is', what it was that LERO did '7-during the. exercise,-right?- 8 .A Yes.- It should. I was just'seeing if there was an inconsistency. :I can't find one.- [ Q Right. Let me just make sure we have the process downy What happened with these free-play messages 12 was that FEMA said: Send a real ambulance to Our Lady of '3 i Perpetual Help Convent and pick up a patient and take them 14 to the Northport VA Hospital, right? 15 A No. It does not. That's what I looked at. 16 Their message says, at least tho'one that I have: When l-simulated pickup of injured have been complete at the 'I '8 address the vehicle is to go to the reception center assigned by the appropriate LERO official, since the plan ~ 20 ,pfcifies reception center to be arranged for Our Lady of 21 Perpetual Help Convent. 22 .So,.they didn't specify Northport VA either. 23 So, I'm just'trying to find where that came from and I 24 can't. 25 Q Okay. Now, you -- was the same kind of' message

n (I'9 2908 44900505 Suewalsh 'I given, as far as you know, with respect to the United 2 Cerebral Palsy free-play message? Il A No. I thought looking through here quickly -- 4 let me just see. 5 (The witness is looking through a document.) 6 No. The United Cerebral Palsy residents, the 7 message for that specified a United Cerebral Palsy Center in 8 Stonybrook for'it to be taken to, which is consistent with the one that's in Message 4. 18 Q Right. But, that's also identified in the plan on Attachment 2, right? 12 A That's right. The one that -- the one to be / 13 arranged seems to have gotten arranged somehow in the id exercise. 15 Q Okay. You say in the end of this paragraph we 16 have been discussing, which I'm now at the top of Page 7, 17 that as documented in a letter written to you by Mr. 18 Kowieski, dispatching an ambulance and ambulette was all 19 that was required to meet this objective. And, you are 20 referring to Field Objective 13. 21 And, then you reference another attachment to 22 your testimony, Attachment D. 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Can you point me, Mr.-Daverio, to where in this 25 attachment -- you refer to Page 4 of it I believe -- O ,e-- ,a--

44900505 2909 SueWalsh d 3 \\_) A If you look at Page 4, halfway in that' table, 2 it's Activities.to be Demonstrated, Mobility' Impaired at j 3 Special Facilities, two.- That told us and the people dealing with the scenario development with FEMA that-they i 5 wanted to see two demonstrations of mobility impaired at 6 special facilities.- 7 And, that's where the ambulance and-the i .8 ambulette esme in. Q Okay. 'And, it's your conclusion from this chart 'U which appears on Page 4 of the letter:from Mr. Kowieski that dispatching an ambulance and an ambulette was all that FEMA 12 required to find Objective Field 13 satisfied; is.that '3 S right? 'd A Not only from that but many discussions with Mr. 15 Kowieski on how and what he wanted demonstrated. 16 Q Now -- JUDGE FRYE: Are you moving to the next question 18 now or -- 19 MS. LETSCHE: I'm getting ready to. 20 JUDGE FRYE: If you are, this is probably a good 21 time to take a 15 minute break. 22 MS. LETSCHE: All right. 23 (Whereupon, a recess.is-taken at 10:10 a.m., to 24 reconvene at 10:28 a.m., this same day.) 25 1

1 4490606 2910 joewalsh j .h 1 BY MS..LETSCHE: (Continuing) 2 Q We are still on page 7 of your testimony, and 3 moving down to the answer to Question No. 9, you talk there 4 'about the steps that LERO took during the exercise:to 5 prepare for the registering, monitoring, and decontamination l 6 of the special facility population, and you say that at 1545 7 the decontamination coordinator ordered the decontamination 8 leader to send monitoring teams to the~ reception centers, to 9 which the special facilities'would have-been evacuated. 10 Now, am I correct, gentlemen, that that is the 11 full extent of the demonstration on the day of the exercise, 12 of preparing for the registering, monitoring, and 13 decontamination of special facility residents? 14 A (Witness Daverio) Yes, in addition to all'our 15 previous testimony on this also. 16 Q Right. Now, is this. order that you reference 17 here at 3:45 documented? 18 A Yes, it is. 19 Q It is not an attachment to your testimony, is 20 it? 21 A No, it is not. 22 Q What were the reception centers -- let me ~ 23 rephrase that. Were there any reception centers identified i 24 in this order that was made during the exercise? 25 A Yes, there were. D .,,.n-, e,,,,, ~

4490606 .2911 joewalsh () 1 Q And what were they? 2 A It was from the decon coordinator at the'EOC to a the decon leader at the Nassau Coliseum, and it was to arrange for special monitoring of people in the EPZ to two-4 5 man teams to go to, and then it-lists a bunch of places. 6 Q Okay. Now, those bunch of places are not -- how 7 many of the places in that bunch are places that-are a identified in your plan as special facility reception 9 Centers? io (Witnesses peruse documents.) ii A I see all except one. There are additions 12 above that also, but one of the United Cerebral Palsy i3 residents on Page 4 of 9, at 9. Acorn Road in St. James was O 14 not listed on the message -- oh, it is, I am sorry. All of i is them that are in this attachment are on the message to send 16 monitoring teams to, plus additional ones. 17 Q Okay. The additional ones on there are -- were is simulated names that somebody came up with during the 19 exercise, is that right? 20 A Yes. One of them is consistent though with the 21 message, Northport VA Hospital was on this list. 22 Q Right. 23 JUDGE PARIS: Does the United Cerebral Palsy of 24 Greater Suffolk, at 9 Smith Lane,.have two residences for 25 handicapped people; one in Ridge and one in Mt. Sinai? It () 1 ) i l l

4490606 2912 joewalsh-1 is listed twice, with two different residences indications. 2 And two different reception centers. United Cerebral Palsy, l '3 page 3 of 9 and page 4 of 9. 4 WITNESS DAVERIO: There are many small United 5 Cerebral Palsy facilities. I think that is just listing a 6 couple of different ones. They are in different zones, as 7 you see. One is in Zone G,'and one is in Zone K. 8 ~ JUDGE PARIS: So, the 9 Smith Lane is the head 9 office, or something like that, is that right? 10 WITNESS DAVERIO: That is right. 11 JUDGE PARIS: Why do so many of these have.the 12 reception centers indicated, 'to be. arranged?'- i 13 WITNESS DAVERIO: Because as we previously-14 testified in the other case, we are working with the i i is facilities to try to arrange agreements. The way that we 16 are working this is that the facility and the receiving 17 facility have the agreement. They agree mutually, and-we 18 are just a person to use to help expedite the process, 19 mediate the process, get the two together. 20 Given some of the unique conditions here, it is 21 just a matter of going out and trying to work the 22 arrangements out. The ones listed here are the only ones we i 23 have signed agreements for. 24 JUDGE PARIS: Okay, so as of the February 13th 25 exercise, they had not -- they had made no arrangements for O ,.--..e,- .,_--,.m-., ---,---m.. ,.,.--.e- ~ - ,a.., - -,., - -. - -., ~..

~4490606 2913 .joewalsh () i places to serve as reception centers? 2 WITNESS DAVERIO: That is correct. 3 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 4 Q And, in fact, Mr. Daverio, subsequent to the 5 exercise one of the agreements which is referenced in this 6, that is the decision of Oak _ Hollow Nursing 7 Center and Crest Hall health related facilities to use the a LaSalle Military Academy as a reception center -- that's ~cn1 9 Page 4 of Attachment 2 -- that agreement was rescinded by io those health facilities, wasn't it? ii A It was rescinded saying that if Shoreham was 12 operating, of course, we would probably re-enter the-i3 agreement. But, that's correct. O 14 Q Now, in response to the order that you reference is in your testimony at 3:45 to send monitoring teams-to the 16 reception centers that are identified on Attachment 2, I 17 take it that the teams were not, in fact, sent? 18 A Yeah. Given the time of the day and the end of 19 the exercise, I doubt that they were sent out. 20 Q Do you know whether they were sent out? 21 A

Yeah, I don't believe they were.

22 Q Okay. Now, in the next paragraph of your 23 testimony you refer to some testimony by Mr. Papile. Do you 24 know whether during his deposition Mr. Papile was asked 25 about the extent of demonstrations of radiological O

i 4490606 2914 joewalsh 7) 1 monitoring and decontamination that has been conducted with 2 2 respect to other nuclear plants? 3 MS. McCLESKEY: I am going to object to the 4 question, since we have allowed the transcript for 5 information and Mr. Papile is going to be here. I don't 6 think Mr. Daverio is competent or necessary to answer 7 further questions about the deposition. 8 And, Ms. Letsche can direct her questions to Mr. 9 Papile. 10 JUDGE FRYE: 1 thir.k you are generally correct; 11 but on the other hand, in his testimony he is talking about 12 the deposition, what he read there. So, that if that's 13 going to come in, I think we have to give her an opportunity i 14 to question about it. 15 WITNESS DAVERIO: Could you repeat your 16 question, please? 17 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 18 Q Do you know whether Mr. Papile was asked about 19 the extent of demonstrations of radiological monitoring and 20 decontamination capabilities -- 21 A During the exercises? 22 O Or during anything? 23 A Yes, he was. 24 Q Are you aware, Mr. Daverio, of any other nuclear 25 plants in New York State which have no identified places to i

a i 4490606 2915 joewalsh () i send special facility evacuees? 2 (The witnesses are conferring.) 3 A Sitting here right now, Ms. Letsche, no, we 4 can't answer that question. l 5 JUDGE FRYE: I'm sorry. I didn't catch your 6 answer. WITNESS DAVERIO: We can't answer that 7 a question. We don't have-any knowledge of -- f 9 JULGE FRYE: You don't know? io WITNESS DAVERIO: -- whether it is or is not. 11 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continulng) 12 Q Okay. Would you turn to Page 8 of your i3 testimony, please? O 14 (The witnesses are complying) 15 Now, in the answer to Question 10 where you are 16 talking again about the people who you say would monitor the 17 special facility evacuees pursuant to Revision 6 of the is plan, which was in effect on the day of the exercise, now 19 are any of these -- have any of these people, these LERO 20 workers, received any training in monitoring or 21 decontaminating handicapped individuals? 22 A (Witness Watts) It's my understanding that - 23 training that has been conducted on the monitoring 24 techniques to be used did address general considerations for 25 the handling of handicapped people during monitoring. ()

4490606 2916' joewalsh .1 There was discussion about that possibility, and ~ 2 that people could be dispatched to special' facility 3 reception centers to perform that function. 4 Q Now, when did that training take place, Mr. 5 Watts? 6 A Those discussions have'been going on for I 7 believe well over a year in table-top training sessions that 4 8 have occurred. 9 Q Okay. So, that's'all subsequent to the 10 exercise,.right? 11 A No, not necessarily subsequent. 12 Q All right. It's your testimony that LILCO's 13 training materials prior to the exercise included _U 14 information about monitoring and decontaminating handicapped is individuals? 16 A My understanding in talking with the training 17 people at LERO is that when they trained the monitoring and 18 decontamination people against OPIP 3.9.2 that that' 19 provision in 3.9.2 was addressed and discussed. l 20 Q Now, did that -- the provision in 3.9.2 that you 21 are talking about are those two sections that you reference j 22 in your testimony; is that right? 23 A Yes. 1 24 Q Were those provisions in any prior version of 25 the plan prior to Revision 67 0 .. -. ~

i 4490606 2917 joewalsh ( ).- 1 A I will have-to check. Just one moment. 2 (The witnesses are looking at a document.) 3 (Witness Daverio) If you look at the copy.you-gave us, the way our plan is marked if a revision occurs, is 4 5 that it's barred. And in the Rev 6 copy, Section 5.1.5, -if 6 you send people to the special facilities it's not barred. 7 And, my recollection is that was in Revision 5. 8 If you go back to Paragraph 3.2 there were some 4 9 changes in Rev 6, but-the basic concept I believe was also 10 included-in Rev 5. ii (Witness Watts) That's my understanding.also, that in Revision 5 that monitors would have been dispatched 12 13 to special facility reception centers if there had been a 14 particulate release. 15 Q Aside from the potential discussion during a t training session, whatever may-have been in Revision 5 of 16 17 the plan preceding these two provisions in Revision 6 that is we have been talking about, were the LERO workers to whom 19 you refer on Page 8 of your testimony otherwise trained on 20 monitoring or decontaminating handicapped individuals? 21 A (Witness Watts) Well, there was also a 22 discussion in the training of some of the spec!al conditions 23 that may be present in the handling of specL.1 facility 24 Populations. There was a discussion -- there were questions 25 raised by the monitoring people on special facility people O

4490606 2918 joewalsh I who may.have apprehensions.about being monitored. There may 1 2 be some people who are hostile, others that are confused. 3 You know, the basic theme was: Be very 4 considerate of them.. Understand that some of them are. going-5 to have special concerns and special problems, and treat 6 them as if they were any member of your family. 7 Q Right. 8 A So, there were those types of discussions, and I 9 'did discuss that from the -- with some of the LERO. training 10 instructors, with one of the LERO training instructors. 11 Q All right. Let me just find out what~it is you 12 are talking about here. You are referring to some -- your 13 testimony just now was that there was a discussion. ~J I take it your knowledge about this discussion 14 is is a result of your discussion with one training person; is 16 that correct? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q And, I take it that this training person with 19 whom you had your discussion in turn told you about a 20 discussion which took place during some training session 21 that he attended; is that right? 22 A I think it was a composite of the training i. 23 sessions that were held and the types of questions that that 24 training instructor was getting from the participants in the 25 training class. .s.

~4490606 -2919 joewalsh () 1 Q Right. Now, what is your understanding of when l-2 the -- 3 A. Excuse me. May I finish. 'When they were in the training class and the OPIP 3.9.2 was being reviewed and 4 5 they got to those sections of OPIP 3.9.2 regarding the 6 dispatch of monitors out-to special facility reception 7 centers, that -- that prompted those questions to be raised. 8 Q Okay. 4 9 A And, discussions ensued. 10 Q Okay. And, that's your understanding of what it 11 was he was talking about when he was telling you about this; 4 12 is that right? 13 A Yes. Well, that is specifically what was C:) 14 mentioned. 15 Q Okay. And, when was this discussion that you 16 had with this training person who in turn had these other 17 discussions? 18 A I've had that discussion on more than one-19 occasion. I don't remember exactly when, but over the last 20 several months I've had the discussion with that' training 21 Person at least once. And, very recently within the last h 22 few days have also confirmed that again. 23 Q Right. And sitting here today, you can't say, 24 can you, Mr. Watts, that the discussions to which this 25 training person was referring in his discussions with you, O ._ _.-..~. _.

4490606 2920 joewalsh [) 1 in fact, took place at any training that happened before the 2 exercise; isn't that right? 3 A Could you repeat that, please? 4 Q Yes. Sitting here today, you cannot say that 5 the discussions that the training person you talked to told 6 you about took place at training that happened prior to the 7 exercise? 8 A I think that's what I am saying, that those 9 discussions were raised even before the exercise, since the 10 OPIP did have that provision in it, the OPIP in Revision 6. 11 Q And, it's your testimony that this conversation I 12 you had with the training person about discussions he had at 13 training was related to training which took place prior to D 14 February 13, 1986; is that right? 15 A Prior to and subsequent to. 16 Q It's correct, isn't it, Mr. Daverio, that in 17 drills, LERO drills, or exercises that have been conducted 18 subsequent to the February 13 exercise there has not been 19 demonstration -- there has not been the dispatch of 20 monitoring teams, or the simulated dispatch of monitoring 21 teams, to special facility reception centers; is that right; 22 'The witnesses are conferring.) j 23 A (Witness Daverio) It's our understanding that ^ 24 we did not go as far as we did in the exercise. We had 25 discussions about sending people out, but the messages

4490606 2921 joewalsh () i weren't transmitted. 2 Q Right. And, I take it it's also true that in 3 any of the post-exercise drills or exercises that the monitoring personnel who would monitor special facility 4 5 evacuees did not perform or simulate the performance of 6 monitoring or decontamination on handicapped or elderly or 7 ill individuals; is that right? 8 (The witnesses are conferring.) 9 A The people'at the EWDF did exactly what.they to would do at the drill. It would be emergency. workers that l. 11 they would have been monitoring, just as we have explained 12 here. 13 Q Right. And, those are the LERO emergency ( 14 workers; is that right? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Ok e.y. And, these are the ones who regularly 17 participate in these drills and go through the EWDF and get 1 is themselves monitored, right? 19 A And deconned. Some are declared contaminated 20 and have to go through -- 21 Q Right. 22 A -- the decon process. 23 Q Right. Now, in the last paragraph on Page 8 of 24 your testimony you say that during the exercise LILCO i 25 demonstrated both the organizationa1 capabilities and the 1 l l f

4490606 2922 joewalsh I technical competence to protect the special facility 2 population in an emergency. 3 Can you tell me, Mr. Daverio, what the organizational capabilities are that you' refer to there? 4 5 A Yes. It's what we explained.in our answer where-6 we talk about what was done on the day. We went through a 7 whole decisional process, getting buses, getting people 8 briefed, getting dosimetry, getting people to the facility. 9 The whole decisional-making process and the organizational 10 ability to perform the function required to provide the 11 assistance required for special facilities. 12 Q Okay. So, basically it's the other things you la reference in your testimony. It's not anything in addition 14 to that; is that right? 15 A No. I think our testimony speaks for itself. i 16 Q Okay. Would you turn to Page 9 of your ] l 17 testimony, please? 18 (The witnesses are complying.) 1 19 Now, in the answer to Question 12-you talk about l j 20 the exercise scenario and in connection with hospitals. You i 21 don't dispute the fact, do you, that if there were an 22 evacuation of hospitals ordered in response to a Shoreham 23 accident that that could result in up to 850 people 24 requiring monitoring or decontamination? 1 25 (The witnesses are conferring.) I

.s. 4490606 2923 joewalsh () A' (Witness Daverio) You could come up with a set i 2 of hypotheticals that could get that kind of protective 3 action to have to'be recommended for the hospital. We think that's highly unlikely, and on the day of the exercise-it 4 .i .5 wasn't required. 6 Q Right. The two hospitals, St. Charles and I Mather Hospital are located in Zone Q I believe; is that 7 a right? 9 A They are in Port Jefferson, 10 (Witness Watts). Yes, I believe that's correct, 11 Q Would you turn please to Page 13 of your d 12 testimony? (The witnesses are complying.) i3 14 Now, the answer to Question 19 talks about i is school children. You say there that if an evacuation is 16 ordered but early dismissal is not school children from l 17 schools in the EPZ-will be transported to schools outside I is the EPZ. 19 Can you tell me, Mr. Daverio, where in the LILCO 20 plan schools to which school children in the'EPZ would be 21 transported are identified? i 22 A (Witness Daverio) As with~special facilities, j h. we have not identified those reception centers yet. 23 1 24 Q All right. And, it is true, isn't it, that i there is, as a result of that, no monitoring or registration 25 ()

i ~4490606 2924 .joewalsh 1 or decontamination planned for children'at the places to 2 which they would be transported following an evacuation from 3 their schools?' j 4 A That has nothing -- one has nothing to do with 5 the other. 6 Q Well, but what's the answer to my question? 7 Isn't it'true that there is no plan for registration, 8 monitoring or decontamination of children at whatever places t 9 they would be transported to if they were evacuated from ) 10 their schools? 11 A Ms. Letsche, we are in the oranges and apples 12 again, in that our plan, even if we had identified reception 13 centers, would not contemplate monitoring in there. The '(- l i 14 plan is written around for the parents to pick them up as r 15 soon as possible and then be monitored with their children 16 at the Nassau Coliseum or the reception center for the 17 general public. is That's what this answer says. 19 Q So, basically you don't intend to have that kind 1 20 of provision ever in your plan; is that right? Is that what j 21 you just said? l 22 A That's what the answer says, because we want f 23 them to reunite with their parents as soon as possible and 24 be monitored together rather than the parents wanting their 25 children re-monitored. 1 i I ~ i i 4 -... ~ ---__.~m._---.-_.,_-_...-___. -__---.,_.,s,--.,..

-4490606 2925 joewalsh I( ) i So, we figured the best thing to do was to get 2 them together as quick as possible and then go to the public 3 reception center for monitoring. 4 Q Right. -So, you would have the parents first go 5 to whatever reception center you eventually came up with to 6 send the kids to, pick up the kids and then drive all of 7 them back-to whatever your central reception center is for l 8 the general public and have the kids monitored when they got 9 back to that center; is that right? 10 A Yes, that's correct. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Okay. I have no further questions 12 of this panel. 13 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Zahnleuter? C:) i 14 CROSS EXAMINATION i 15 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER: 16 Q Could you turn to Page 7 of your testimony, 17 please? 18 (The witnesses are complying.) 19 And, I will be referring to the sentence at the bottom of the page, "No demonstration of the ability to 20 21 register, monitor and decontaminate special facility 22 residents is ever made with actual residents or at actual 23 facilities in the State of New York." 24 You use the term " actual facilities." Does that 25 mean reception centers or the special facilities? (:)

4490606 2926 joewalsh ,s ..(,_). I A (Witness Daverio) That whole sentence talks 2 about special facilities. 3 Q So, it'has no reference to reception centers? 4 A It has no reference to general public reception 5 centers; that's correct. 6 Q And, does it have reference to reception centers 7 for special facility populations including schools? 8 9 10 11 12 13 L ja 15 16 i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 i

44800707' 2927 marysimons (') i A (Witness Daverio) We were talking about health 2 facilities. Schools were not included when we wrote this i 3 answer. 4 JUDGE PARIS: Could-you repeat-that? I-didn't-5 understand it. 6 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes. When we wrote this 7 sentence we were talking about -- we should have been more a precise. The sentence is really to reflect nursing homes, 9 adult homes, hospitals and-handicap facilities. We were J to talking about schools when we wrote this sentence and we 11 should have been a little more precise in the sentence. 12 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER: i3 0 Is there a reason why you didn't discuss schools O 14 in this answer? j 15 A (Witness Daverio) I don't believe it's true for 16 schools. I think there may have'been demonstrations in the 17 New York State school reception centers. That's why we is didn't include. 19 Q Do you recall which ones? 20 A I can at least off the top of my head, and this 21 is stretching my memory, but I remember some at Indian 22 Point, but I don't remember specifics. 23 Q Does a Ginna exercise in 1985 refresh your 24 memory, Mr. Watts? i 25 A (Witness Watts) I'm not sure of the year, but O

44800707 .2928 marysimons [) 1 I'm aware of a school reception center in Monroe County that 2 may have been exercised or will be exercised. 3 Q And wer> you aware that at that exercise'a 4 monitoring team was present at the school reception center? 5 A Not specifically, no. I'm aware that they do 6 have that capability. 7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No-further' questions. 8 JUDGE FRYE: Staff, any questions. 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 MR. CARMAN: There was just one question I had, 11 Your Honor. 12 BY MR. CARMAN: 4 13 Q Gentlemen, Ms. Letsche asked you a question with 14 respect to certain agreements or lack of agreements as to 4 15 whether or not there were any other facilities in the State 16 of New York that had such agreements or lack of agreements 17 on this, and I believe with respect to special facilities. 18 My only question is are you aware of any other 19 plants or nuclear facilities in the State of New York other 20 than possibly the licensing of second units that are in the 21 same position that Shoreham is in of awaiting an operating 22 license? 23 A (Witness Daverio) To my knowledge, there are no 24 other units in New York State that aren't follow-on units at 25 this time.

4 44800707 2929 marysimons () i MR.-CARMAN: That's all I have, Your Honor. 2 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Cumming. 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. CUMMING: 5 Q Mr. Watts, are any specific dose savings either 6 whole body or thyroid required to be achieved by emergency 7 planning under NUREG 0654? -8 MS. LETSCHE: I'll object to that_ question, 9 JUDGE FRYE: I think the NUREG speaks for 10 itself. We can read that document. 11 MR. CUMMING: Could Mr. Watts answer.the 12 question. Is he aware of any specific dose savings --- 13 JUDGE FRYE: No. It's sustained. O 14 BY MR. CUMMING: 15 Q This is also for Mr. Watts. Are you aware of 16 any draft changes by EPA to its protective. action 17 guidelines? 18 MS. LETSCHE: I object. I don't see the i9 relevance of that to this testimony. Maybe last week when 20 we were talking about protective action guidelines and 21 things like that and protective action recommendations, but 22 I don't see anything related to that in this testimony. 23 MS. McCLESKEY: We spoke this morning at length 24 about protective action recommendations over my objection, 25 and I think the question is allowable based on the cross-()

44800707 2930 marysimons 1 examination, and what's good for.the goose is good for the 2 gander. 3 MR. CUMMING: That's correct, Judge Frye.- In 4 fact, she did question with respect to the protective 5 actions. 6 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled. I think'you're going to 7 need to repeat your question. 8 BY MR. CUMMING: 9 Q Are you familiar, Mr. Watts, with any draft changes by_ EPA to its protective action guidelines? 10 11 A (Witness. Watts) If your question is in regard 12 to plume exposure, whole body or thyroid protective action 13 guidelines, I'm not aware of any. ,_,U 14 Q So your answers this morning were premised on is the 1975 or 1980 revisions by EPA to its protective action 16 guidelines? 17 A Yes, that's correct. 18 MR. CUMMING: I have no further questions. 19 JUDGE FRYE: Redirect? 20 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes, sir. 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MS. McCLESKEY: 23 Q Mr. Daverio, will you turn to page 7 of your 24 testimony, please. 25 Do you see the first line there were you talk C

-.=. l ) i 44800707 2931 marysimons () i about dispatching to Our Lady _of Perpetual Help Convent to 2 transport a resident to the Suffolk Development Center? 3 A (Witness Daverio) Yes, I do. 4 Q And do you see the reference to_ Attachment B at 5 B-3? .6 A Yes, I do. l 7 Q Do you recall Ms. Letsche questioning you about ^ s the Northport being the transportation center-that Our Lady 9 of Perpetual Help residents were actually simulated to be to sent to? 11 A That's correct. I 12 Q Is your testimony on page 7 accurate? i3 A No, it is not. The Suffolk Development Center () t i. 14 is one of the centers which we had agreements to, but that 4 is specific sentence should have read Northport VA. 16 JUDGE PARIS: Should have read what? 1 17 WITNESS DAVERIO: Northport Veterans 18 Administration Hospital to be consistent with our Attachment 19 B-4. 20 BY MS. McCLESKEY: 21 Q Mr. Daverio, do you mean B-3? 22 A (Witness Daverio) Sorry. I didn't count the l 23 pages. Yes, it is B-3, sorry. 1 j 24 MS. McCLESKEY: That's all the redirect I have, 2s Judge Frye. !(:)

.~ i i 44800707-2932 marysimons 7:1 g_) 1 At this time LILCO moves that the Board allow 2 supplemental testimony on Contention 47 from these i 3 witnesses. The substance of the testimony would be four l 4 questions talking about sending monitors, monitoring and-keeping records and decontaminating the special' facility 5 F 6 evacuees, particularly adult nursing homes-under' Revisions 7 j l 7 and 8 of the plan which is the subject of the contention, 8 and the basis of my motion.is this. 1 9 The contention is addressing two' separate' issues j 10 in LILCO's view. One is what happened the day of the }( 11 exercise, which we have discussed at length here and which jl 12 was developed in our testimony, and the second part, which i 13 is 47A through D, criticizes Revisions 7 and 8 of the plan, 14 actually it's Revision 7 in the contention text itself, as ) 15 to what LILCO was planning to do after the exercise about 16 special facility monitoring and decontamination. 1 { 17 LILCO objected to the admittance of'that portion l 18 of the contention and that objection was overruled. And as i 19 far as we're concerned, that's a planning question that is 20 now in this proceeding. l 21 Because it was a planning question, we followed ) 22 the routine that we had always had discussing planning 23 questions before, which was to put in the testimony what the 1 l 24 latest version of the plan or proposed plan would be about i j 25 this particular issue, and that is the subject of Attachment i i i ) i- --.~--w,- ,a a,,.. ,,wr,-,-e+-,,r-,--w ,,,---w--- r --.,,-e-w-v

~,,-w-,,,,,,,en,,

,., - - -,,, - - ~, ~ ,-n-,-- --,-n-n--m-- g ,w,----

44800707 2933 marysimons .( ) 1 F and.the questions'that were struck from the testimony. ~ l. ~ 2 We are left here with several sentences that say ) 3 Revision-7-was appropriate, but.no explanation whatsoever q 4 about what Revision 7 said. And I thinkt it's appropriate at. s this time to put into evidence what Revision 7 said since } 6 the latest version of the plan is not going to be discussed 7 here. I In addition to the four questions discussing 1the 8 9 subjects that I just' listed in response to 47A through D, 10 LILCO would also move into evidence Revisions 7 and 8, OPIP-11 4.3.1 and OPIP 3.9.2. Revisions 7 and 8 of the plan are not 12 in this record. { i3 JUDGE FRYE: Any objections to this? ( I 14 MS. LETSCHE: Well, I do, I think. I guess I'm is a little confused. It's certainly true that Revision is 16 mentioned in the contention. On the other hand, I gather 17 that LILCO no longer wants to have Revision 7 as part of is their plan, and if that's true, then I'm'not sure why we 19 should burden this record with talking about something which 20 they have already decided is no good and they have thrown it i 21 out. 22 So I'm a little confused as to why we would go 23 through this exercise if they have discarded that procedure. 24 MS. McCLESKEY: Well, that's my point exactly, i 25 and the problem is that the second part of the contention is () i _._.- _ __.~__ _--...,

~~ 44800707. 2934 4 marysimons 1 a plant.ing issue and not an exercise' issue. 2 If Ms.'Letsche will withdraw the contention ~ 3 beginning at "Furthermore, the proposal in the new Revision-1 4 7 version of OPIP 4.3.1" going to the end of 47E, I'll be 5 happy to withdraw my motion to put in supplemental testimony ~ 6 or if the Board wishes to reconsider it's rulings on the 7 admission of the contentions. 8 My understanding from your rulings on-the 9 motions to strike, particularly on the NRC's motion to 10 strike on 47 is that you did wish-to hear testimony as to ) 11 post-exercise provisions in the plan, andLif that's the i 12 case, then I think LILCO is entitled to put in Revisions 7 13 and 8 since the revision that is likely to be ultimately 4 14 used has been struck from the testimony. 15 JUDGE FRYE: Does staff have any views on this? 16 MR CARMAN: The staff would agree with LILCO 17 that in light of what has transpired and what has gone into 18 the Board's thinking in admitting the contention as it is { 19 presently standing, and as a result of the Board's rulings i 20 on the various motions with respect to that, we feel that it f 21 should be in the record at this time. l 22 JUDGE FRYE: Revisions 7 and 8. 23 MR. CARMAN: Yes. 24 MS. McCLESKEY: Let me just add, in case this is 25 being factored into calculus, that we are still of the view i!C l

b. -44800707 2935 marysimons () i that the post-exercise planning process is not a part of-2 this litigation. It's outside the cope and that'47A through 3' E should have been denied. 4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: May I add something, Judge 5 Frye? Oa JUDGE FRYE: Yes. 7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like to clarify first a whether it is Revision in its entirety that's being admitted 9 Or offered, or is it just the two OPIPs, 3.9.2 and 4.3.l? 4 10 MS. McCLESKEY: It's the two OPIPs that we would 11 put into the record as part of our supplemental testimony. 12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Thank you, i3 I would like to state for the record that the O 14 State opposes the motion for the reasons specified by the is County. Also, I think the motion is untimely. It seems 16 like in this case LILCO misinterpreted the contention or 17 misapplied its strategy to this case. is If you rule in LILCO's favor, you will establish i9 a precedent where other parties may wish to submit 20 supplemental testimony based on a misinterpretation of a 21 contention. 22 MS. McCLESKEY: Well, just to respond briefly to 23 Mr. Zahnleuter, there is already a strong precedent in this 24 case, and it is that LILCO witnesses testify about what the 25 plan is doing at the time they are on the stand and that is ( i

. ~ ~ -. i 44800707 2936 carysimons -( I what we put into our testimony. i'. This isn't a slip and fall case and I think that. 2 3 the point is that we're trying to make sure that everybody d understands what the plan does. 5 JUDGE FRYE: And this is really prompted by the 6 fact that the motion to strike was granted? 7 MS. McCLESKEY: That's right, and quite frankly i 8 we did not expect that it would be based on three years of 9 past experience in the planning litigation. j f 10 JUDGE SHON: Could you clarify for me, Ms. 11 McCleskey, the exact distinction between what you're asking 12 now and a simply motion for reconsideration of the motion to 13 strike? What would the net result be different? 14 MS. McCLESKEY: Well, if we were moving to j is reconsider and you included the testimony that has been 4 16 struck, then these witnesses can' talk -- well, in the record 17 there would be discussion of what.the current planning basis is is for the special facilities. i 19 If you exclude that, which.so far you have, then i 20 what I'm asking is -- and your basis was that you don't want I' 21 to include planning information that has not been reviewed i 22 by FEMA. Now that is somewhat problematic since FEMA has ~ 23 indicated in a letter that it doesn't want to review any 24 more planning information until this Board and the O-3 Board l 25 have finished making whatever ru]ings they might make on the A

44800707 2937 marysimons () i current status of the plan. 2 But leaving that problem aside, my assumption is 3 if you do not want to hear anything more on plans that have 4 not been reviewed by FEMA, then we are at least entitled to 5 go back to what the current planning basis is, which is 6 Revisions 7 and 8 which have been reviewed by FEMA. 7 So the testimony that would be elicited on a supplemental direct here, if you allow it, discusses 9 Revisions 7 and 8 rather than Revision 9 -- well, it's not to Revision 9. It's the draft proposal that is the current 11 planning basis among LILCO. 12 JUDGE FRYE: Let us confer. i3 MR. CUMMING: May I make a brief comment, Judge i O 14 Frye? 15 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. 16 MR. CUMMING: I think there is a distinction 17 between what happened with respect to the motion to strike. is FEMA would support the LILCO motion because without the 19 admission of the testimony with respect to Revision 7 it 20 seems to make meaningless the admission of the contention 21 originally which did in fact specifically refer to in fact 22 Revision 7. 23 So unless the Board would be prepared to revisit 24 striking the entire contention, it seems to me that there is 25 no way that you can avoid logically admitting this. Now l (

l 44800707 2938 marysimons I admittedly there are occasions in which logic-doesn't 2 control. 3 JUDGE FRYE: Let us confer for a moment. l 4 JUDGE SHON: I wanted to ask one question. l 5 Would you clarify one more thing for me, Ms. i j 6 McCleskey. The things outlined in Revision 7 and the 7 matters that would be discussed in your testimony, are they 8 matters which are in some way directed toward correcting a 9 flaw or a criticism that arose on the day of.the exercise? 3 i j 10 MS. McCLESKEY: Well, sir, that is the entire. j 11 problem with Contention 47. The Revision 7 provisions that 12 are referenced in Contention 47 were not made as a result of 13 anything that happened during the exercise. They were made , D 14 as a result of the RAC review of the plan of Revision 6. 1 15 There is no connection between the exercise and 16 Revision 7 provisions that are cited in this contention, and-17 it's on that basis that LILCO continues to assert that that 18 part of the contention should not have been admitted. 19 JUDGE PARIS: Is that also true for Revision 87 20 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes, sir. There is no 21 connection between what happened the day of the exercise and any subsequent plan changes on this issue. 22 23 . JUDGE PARIS: LILCO hasn't made any changes in 24 its plan as a result of what it learned during the exercise; 25 is that what you're telling me? .,,~..,n, .--,..,-e. n~- -..-,,-.-m,

44800707 2939 L - marysimons () i MS. McCLESKEY: No, sir. Judge Paris,1we made 2 2 many changes to the plan as a result -- well, not many, but 3 some changes to the plan as a result of exercise 4 activities. In the area of special facilities we did not. 5 JUDGE SHON: And I understand then that you take 6 issue with this statement in Contention 47 that says 7 "Furthermore, the proposal in the new Revision 7 version of 4 8 OPIP 4.3.1 purportedly to address this deficiency (See 9 letter dated June 20th from John D. Leonard.to Harold-10 Denton, SNRC-1270) fails to correct this' deficiency for the 11 following reasons." 12 In fact, that statement is not true, that this i3 proponal in Revision 7 was not purportedly to address a (:) 14 deficiency. 15 MS. McCLESKEY: It was to address a deficiency 16 of the RAC review of Revision 6 and not anything identified 17 about the exercise activities on the day of the exercise, I is and I see Mr. Cumming is nodding in agreement with me. 19 MR. CUMMING: Ms. McCleskey is correct. In 20 fact, there was not a deficiency in this area on the day of 21 the exercise and, as FEMA has cautioned the Board before, it 3 22 hopes that through its evidentiary rulings that it will not 23 discourage improvements even in areas that were not rated as a 24 deficiencies in emergency planning. 25 With respect t'o yesterday's discussion as to why !( 4 ,-.-m-, ., - -. = - ~ -. - - - n---

v

,-ms., ,w--- n-a e

44800707 2940 i marysimons _() 1 FEMA was hoping that there would be not piecemealing of plan 2 changes, I think that is not really relevant to the 3 discussion this morning. 4 MS. LEISCHE: If I could respond because an. 5 awful lot has been said here. 6 I think that it's unfortunate. The fact that 7 there is a factual inaccuracy in contention 47 has only been 8 brought out very recently. It was the understanding of the 9 governments that the purpose of Revision 7 was to address 10 the various things that had been noted during the exercise I 11 which is why the contention was drafted with that assumption 12 about Revis$on 7 in it. 13 What I would like to think about frankly, and I 14 would like to have five minutes or so to think about it, is 15 whether or not -- I mean as a general matter I object to the 16 whole question of rearguing at this point the admissibility 17 of a contention and whether or not portions of this 18 contention should not be in this litigation because they are 19 factually incorrect. 20 What I would like to have five minutes to think 21 about is whether or not that might not be one solution here 22 to this whole problem and to rest with what happened during 23 the exercise and Revision 6, and if this is in fact 24 factually incorrect in the contention, then maybe we don't 25 need to get to it. D J _r. ,,...,.,,_,..-.,,m. r

,44800707 2941 marysimons l () i What I would request is about a five or ten- ~ 2 minute recess so I can think about it and look at the 1 3 testimony we have submitted and figure out what our position 4 is. l 5 JUDGE SHON: That would be fine with me, but I 6 would'also like, if anyone has it, to review again a copy of 7 this letter that you referenced in your contention. 8 MS. LETSCHE: I have a copy of that. 9 MS. McCLESKEY: We have it. l 10 JUDGE SHON: Fine. 11 JUDGE FRYE: Ms. McCleskey, LILCO never. moved 12 for reconsideration of the order admitting contentions, did l i3 they? () 14 MS. McCLESKEY: No, sir, we didn't, but I just is have to add that I was pretty such this was the case and 16 I've just double checked your October 3rd, 1986 ruling on 17 the contentions, and it states right in the beginning in 18 admitting the contention that LILCO's objection is that the l i 19 contention is in part not based on the exercise. 20 MS. LETSCHE: What I was saying is --- 21 MS. McCLESKEY: But this isn't-a problem that's 22 being identified for the first time here. 23 JUDGE FRYE: We'll recess and let you all look l 24 at it, but before we do Judge Paris has a question.- 25 JUDGE PARIS: Gentlemen, other than the case, O 1

44800707 2942 marysimons I.O e a 1' rererri e te o 1> 3 e s, serre1x ce er' exwiele 2 44, other than the case of our Our Lady of Perpetual Help 3 Convent listed on page 2 of 9, which on this chart it says 4 " reception center to be arranged," but in your testimony you 5 did send somebody from that convent to some other place. 6 During the exercise were reception centers 7 designated for any of the other facilities marked "to be 8 arranged" on this document? 9 (Pause while the witnesses review documents.) 10 WITNESS DAVERIO: If you would like and everyone 11 wanted a 10-minute break, if they want to do that now while 12 I look for the answer, that would be fine. I've got a bunch 13 of documents I have to go through to make sure I give you D 14 the right answer. 15 JUDGE PARIS: All right. And while you' re doing 16 that, Would you also when you come back tell me whether 17 reception centers or reception schools were designated for 18 any of the schools during the exercise -- oh, the children 19 were sent home. Well, assume for the moment that they 20 weren't sent home. 21 During the exercise I guess you didn't have to 22 designate that. So maybe tihat's not a ifair question. 23 JUDGE FRYE: So you're withdrawing the second 24 one? 25 JUDGE PARIS: I will withdraw the second

2.a s --s C 44800707 2943 marysimons ( i questions, yes. 2 JUDGE FRYE: Ms. Letsche, after you've had a 3 chance to think about it and confer, if you would let us 4 know. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Okay. 6 (Short recess taken.)- 7 8 9 10 11 12 C) 14 15 16 17 19 20 - 21 22 23 24 25 j

44900808 2944 SueWalsh

/

1 JUDGE FRYE: Any conclusions, Ms. Letsche? s 2 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. Upon reflection of this 3 entire situation, this is the position of Suffolk County, 4 and Mr. Zahnleuter can speak for himself on behalf of the 5 State. 6 The situation here is that we have an admitted 7 contention which addresses what it addresses. In this case, 8 it includes discussing Revision 7 of LILCO's plan as well as 9 Revision 6 which was exercised during the February 13 10 exercise, and it alleges that the exercise demonstrated that 11 Revision 6 was inadequate and that the change which was 12 intended to address that inadequacy in Revision 6, that is 13 Revision 7, is also inadequate. i .( 14 We then have the situation where one of the a is parties made a tactical strategic decision as to what it was 16 going to address in its testimony on that admitted 17 contention, and that decision was not to address Revision 7. 18 That's a decision that that party has to' live with. 19 It turns out that was a bad' decision based on 20 this Board's ruling. They didn't want to hear about-other 21 proposals that were not mentioned in the contention and are 22 not, in fact, a part cf the plan. 23 And, so we end up with testimony by that party 24 which doesn't address something that's-in the contention. 25 The result is that we have a record based on the decision of O

44900808 2945 SueWalsh (). I that party as to what they wanted to submit on a contention .2 that the party doesn't like. 3 The bottom line though is that that's the record 4 that we have in this proceeding. Everyone was on notice 5 ahead of time of what that contention was-and could address 6 it in their prefiled testimony._ The County 1did, and LILCO 7 made its choice as.to what it was going to address. ~ 8 I think coming in after testimony is over and 9 saying: Oh, dear, we nowcwant to do our testimony 10 differently because we didn't expect a particular ruling is 11 not the way this proceeding should be conducted. If you are 12 worried about it ever ending, that's not a precedent you are i3 going to want to set. O 14 I think that what needs to happen here is that 15 we take the record we have and you rule on the contention 16 which you admitted and we move on to the next issue. 17 JUDGE FRYE: Do you disagree that this statement 18 that the proposal in the Revision 7 version.of OPIP 4.3.1 19 purporting to address this deficiency is'not in error, 20 then? You think that is accurate? 21 MS. LETSCHE: Let me tell you what.the facts 22 are. The fact is that Revision 6, which is'the one that was 23 exercised and which we have been discussing this morning so 24 everyone knows what that is, was what was demonstrated at 25 the exercise. ()- 4 g +* en y-- + ,-.ev ,9.- -g e-- w.-gw g.--

44900808 2946 SueWalsh ( l And, as we'say in our contention,-given what 2 happened at the exercise it was demonstrated that that 3 Revision 6 provision of the plan is ina'dequate. The 4 fundamental flaw that we are talking about there is that 5 that plan provision is inadequate. 6 FEMA told LILCO the same thing. That Revision 6 7 provision is no good. LILCO said: We will fix it. Here is 8 Revision 7. We will fix what you said was wrong with 9 Revision 6. And, here it is, Revision'7. 10 What we say in the contention is: Your fix to 11 the flaw in Rev 6, which is Rev 7, is no good either. And 12 then we go on and explain why that's no good. 13 The substance of the contention is absolutely 14 accurate. The fact that the FEMA comment that Rev 6 was is inadequate was made in something called a Plan Review is 16 absolutely immaterial. 17 The point of these contentions in this 18 proceeding is for you to determine whether or not there are 19 flaws in LILCO's plan as demonstrated in the exercise. Rev 20 6 was demonstrated during the exercise. It was flawed. 21 LILCO's way of dealing with that flaw was-Rev 7. We 22 addressed Rev 7 in the contention and said that isn't any 23 good either. 24 And, that's what you admitted for litigation 25 here. And I think, as I said, the rules of the game -- and O ---n..

44900808 2947 SueWalsh () i this is a game in some ways that we are playing, in that 2 there are rules that apply equally to everyone -- are that 3 that contention has been out there for a long time. 4 Everyone knew what it was. Everyone should have addressed 5 that in their testimony. 6 And, people make strategic decisions which 7 sometimes turn out to be the wrong ones, Land here it was for 8 LILCO. And, that's just the way it is. 9 But, to suggest that after the testimony is over io and after they have seen that they have made an 11 inappropriate or improper -- what turns out to be a bad 12 decision in light of your ruling, that they should now be i3 able without notice to come in here and say: We now want to , O ia put on some more testimony, that will be a surprise to us, is in order to fix up the record is just not the way this 16 Proceeding should go. 17 And, if you are going to adopt a precedence is which says on any issue after strategic decisions have been 19 made, maybe you decide to strike some of the County's 20 testimony or some of the State's testimony or some of FEMA's 21 testimony, for people to say after cross-examination: Oh, 22 dear, now I really want to put in some more, and you are 23 going to allow that to happen, this proceeding won't ever 24 end. 25 I think everyone has some due process rights O

44900808 2948 SueWalsh _( ) I here and a right to expect that we are-going to be dealing 2 with the contentions that are admitted and that people have 3 to live with the strategic judgments-they make. And, in 4 this case the record is what it is, and I think that's the 5 one that you-all have to rule on. 6 JUDGE SHON: Ms. Letsche, I'm very interested in 7 one statement that you made, which was that the fact that a the material covered herein was meant to address a flaw or a 9 deficiency that was discovered in a RAC review rather than 10 in the exercise was, you said, immaterial. 11 But, our charter in this hearing is to 12 investigate whether or not a fundamental flaw was discovered 13 during the exercise, not during the RAC review. So, it __O 14 seems to me that that would be very material as to which of is the two mechanisms we will use to bring the flaw to light. 16 MS. LETSCHE: Well, with due respect, Judge 17 Shon, I disagree with you. 18 The contention that you-all admitted alleges 19 that what happened during the exercise demonstrated a 20 fundamental flaw in the plan in existence then, which was 21 Revision 6. What happened during the exercise was that-they 22 made a phone call saying: Hey, send people to reception 23 centers, but they didn't have any reception centers. They. 24 didn't have any procedures telling these people if they had 25 been, in fact, sent what it was they were supposed to do.

.m 44900808 2949 i SueWalsh O i And, there weren't any geog 1e who were e gress1r erained to 2 deal with the handicapped people or whatever who would be at 3 those reception centers. 4 Therefore,-given what happened during the 5 exercise, as we say in the contention, you have, in our 6 opinion, a demonstration of the flaw in Rev 6, that they 7 didn't have provisions to deal with registering, monitoring a and decontaminating'special facility evacuees, and as a. 9 result that should be your ruling, that the plan is flawed d 10 in that respect. 11 Now, the fact that FEMA also identified the same 12 flaw in Revision 6 is an additional piece of evidence which 13 merely supports our position that.there is a flaw in Rev 6 O 14 and that the exercise demonstrated it to you.- This is contention is not FEMA identified a flaw; it is, the-16 exercise demonstrated that there was that flaw, which is why 17 I am saying that how FEMA talks about this, in what piece of is paper FEMA talks about it, is, in fact, not material. 19 The contention says what it says, which is the 20 exercise demonstrated a flaw. What they proposed as the 21 remedy for that flaw, which was Rev 7, is also mentioned in 22 the contention. And, that's what should have been discussed 23 in testimony. 24 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Zahnleuter, do you have_any 25 different thoughts? !l F I \\

44900808 2950 SueWalsh ) 1 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Well, what Ms. Letsche has just 2 .said is similar to what I said before, although she said it 3 more eloquently. 4 And, the State's position _is unchanged. 5 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Does the Staff have a view? 6 MR. KARMAN: I think our position is as I 7 indicated before. I'm inclined to agree with Judge Shon as a to the basis for the distinction between the RAC review and 9 Rev 6 and any deficiency at that time. I think that Ms. 10 Letsche's reasoning is somewhat torturous and a boot-11 strapping position that it was'the exercise itself which 12 showed that Rev 6 was inadequate. 13 JUDGE FRYE: It was the contention or that 14 portion of the contention should not have been admitted. 15 MR. KARMAN: Right. And, in addition I have~to 16 take exception to this bit about this being a game. I never 17 considered these hearings a game. It's a search of the 18 truth so that this Board can make a proper decision. I 1 19 never considered it a game. 20 JUDGE SHON: If I understand Ms. Letsche's 21 position, it's a little more subtle than that, Mr. Karman. 22 I think what she said, in effect, was that in her view the 23 first portion of this contention pointed out a flaw which 24 might arguably be correctable by Rev 7 and 8, that FEMA-j 25 apparently missed that flaw when looking at the exercise but ] l

A \\ 44900808 2951 SueWalsh () discovered it later in the RAC review, in effect, bearing-1 2 out what suffolk County.would have said all along. 3 Is this not your position, Ms. Letsche? 4 MS. LETSCHE:' That's exactly right. 5 JUDGE SHON: So that although these. things might-6 arguably be a correction to the flaw which Suffolk County 7 discovered in the exercise but FEMA discovered in the:RAC t review, although they might arguably be so, the. contention i 9 says they are not so and then goes.on to say why. ~ 10 What do you say to that view of it? 11 MR. KARMAN: I don't agree with it. j 12 ' MS. LETSCHE: If I could just respond, I-think it's not correct to talk about my position as being some i3 O 14 kind of boot-strapping. The contention is there and has i is been there for a long time for-all to see. 16 And, let me just also respond to the concept j 17 that at this stage of the game -- and I don't mean game in ta the way that Mr. Karman is referring to it -- now, at this 19 point in this proceeding, it is not the right time to be 20 rearguing the admissibility of contentions. 21 Those contentions were admitted, and-all parties 22 have relied upon that in submitting their testimony.

And, 23 this is not the time to start trying to second-guess those 24 decisions which were made a very long time ago.

25 And, let me also clarify in terms of my O i .. ~

44900808 2952 SueWalsh I statement about a game. The governments view this as the 2 most serious proceeding going on up here. The point I made 3 about calling it a game was that there are rules that govern 4 the conduct of this proceeding, and those rules need to be 5 applied equally. 6 And, this Board needs to be aware that making a 7 decision here permitting those rules to be-changed and used 8 when a party makes-a strategic decision that turns out not 9 to be in their favor, if that kind of decision is made,.it's-10 going to have to be made for both sides. And, lots of-11 parties can reconsider their testimony after they file it in 12 a proceeding of this length. 13 And, you just need to be aware of what kind of b 14 precedent you would be setting here if you make that is decision. 16 MS. McCLESKEY: I would just like to respond 17 briefly. I spoke at length before the break, and I won't 18 repeat what I've said. But, I have two observations. 19 And, the first is that what is before you, and 20 what started all of the discussion, is-a motion to 21 supplement our testimony. And that is within the rules of-22 the game, however you want to define game. And, we've had 23 supplemental testimony in this proceeding before. 24 And, I articulated the basis for my motion. d 25 And, it's up to the Board to decide whether they see good

44900808 2953 SueWalsh () i cause or not. So, I don't think we are going outside the 2 rules. 3 My second observation is that during the course of our discussion we have identified a difficulty, and that 4 5 is that -- the way I would characterize the difficulty is 6 that, in fact, a portion of the contention probably should 7 never have been. admitted in the first place. And, there have been several creative suggestions to deal with that a 9 fact, so that the record is clear. 10 My initial one was, let me supplement the 11 testimony with Revision 7 information which Suffolk County 12 cites extensively in the part of the contention that shouldn't have been admitted and which they have been i3 O 14 familiar with for a year. So, I don't think that there is is any notice problem about the supplemental testimony that I 16 would like to put in. 17 A second suggestion has been, perhaps we should is reconsider and allow the testimony on the draft proposal. 19 And a third is, perhaps we should reconsider our decision to 20 Put the contention into the proceeding in the first place. 21 I think any of those suggestions "e a "ery nice 22 solution to the difficulty. But, I don't think we can 23 ignore the difficulty. 24 JUDGE FRYE: All right. Let me -- I think 25 Perhaps we should confer over the lunch break in-light of O

44900808 2954 SueWalsh 1 these new arguments. 2 Let me ask the witnesses before we do, do you j i 3 have an answer for Dr. Paris? 4 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes. Based on putting 5 together the documents I have with me, I can't tell which 6 populations, special populations, went to what facilities. 7 But, it looks like there were seven of them, four of which 8 are identified in the plan. 9 That's the Developmental Center, the two United 10 Cerebral Palsy residents, and the LaSalle Military Academy. 11 We have messages about the Good Samaritan 12 Hospital, Northport Hospital and Huntington Hospital. 13 Whether the Attachment 2 people went there or Attachment 1 14 people went there, I can't tell. Our best guess is that "~ is people from Attachment 2 all were sent to the Nassau 16 Coliseum as part of the drill. 17 That was the made-up reception center for the 18 drill purposes. But, we have no documentation here that can 19 give me an answer one way or the other. 20 As to your second question, there was a second 21 free-play message by FEMA related to school children.

They, 22 in this drill, had us both send them home early and evacuate 23 them later.

The Ridge Elementary School I believe later on 24 asked for assistance, and one bus was sent to them and part 25 of the FEMA free-play message sent that bus to the Nassau l

1 44900808-2955 SueWalsh () i Coliseum. 2 So, there was one school message in there also. 3 Based on the documents I have in front of me, that's about 4 the best I can put together on the day. 5 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. 6 JUDGE FRYE: Ms. Letsche, how much notice do you 7 need for your witness panel? 8 MS. LETSCHE: You mean, to get my witnesses over 9 here? 10 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. 11 MS. LETSCHE: My witnesses, as I think we have 12 mentioned yesterday and perhaps did not -- maybe it didn't i3 come across in light of everything else we were talking () 14 about yesterday, Drs. Harris and Mayer are available at 15 12:30 tomorrow. JUDGE FRYE: 12:30 tomorrow?- 16 17 MS. LETSCHE: And that's just because of a Board is of Health meeting that they cannot get out of. ~ 19 JUDGE FRYE: Actually, you did mention that. 20 You did mention that. 21 MS. LETSCHE: So, that is when they are 22 available. I have two points. 23 Ncmber one, I want to respond to one thing Ms. 24 McCleskey said. I also would like to follow up very briefly 25 on Judge Paris' questionsoso we can just finish'up. I had O

44900808 2956 SueWalsh (_$ r' j not had a chance to do any redirect before we got Ms. 1 2 McCleskey's motion. 1 3 Let me do this first. RECROSS EXAMINATION 4 5 BY MS. LETSCHE: 6 Q Mr. Daverio, the Northport VA Hospital and Good 7 Samaritan Hospital.that you mentioned in response to Judge 8 Paris,'LILCO does not have agreements with those facilities 9 that they would act.aus reception centers; is that correct? 10 A (Witness Daverio) We have.no written agreement. d 11 MS. LETSCHE:.That's all I have for you. I 12 Ms. McCleskey mentioned something about there i3 would be no surp rise if her motion.to supplement the 14 testimony submitted by LILCO on Contention 47 were granted. 15 Let me just say that certainly Revision 7. has been out there 16 and in the contention, and that's something I'm real' 17 familiar with. 18 I have no idea what these' witnesses, however, 19 would have to say about Revision 7. And, that's where you 20 have a surprise problem of sitting here and this is what is 21 avoided by having prefiled testimony. So, there is a 22 definite element of surprise and potential prejudice 23 involved in granting that kind of a motion. 24 JUDGE SHON: One thing before we leave. Does 25 anyone have a copy of the complete previous partial initial C .w ..e, .-,,--..-a

,-----.~,+..-------.,-.~r

44900808 2957 SueWalsh () 1 -decision in this case? 2 MS. McCLESKEY: I do. 3 JUDGE SHON: Thank you. I-would like to borrow 4 it over the noon hour. 5 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes. 6 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we will take our hour and a 7 half break at this point. 8 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess is taken at 12:05 p.m., to reconvene at 1:45 p.m., this same day.) 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4490909 2958 joewalsh 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 JUDGE FRYE: I take it we are all here. We have 3 conferred about this dilemma that is presented. I think it 4 is fair to say that we agree with Ms.~Letsche's 5 characterization of the contention as raising -- failing to 6 demonstrate monitoring, et cetera, as a fundamental flaw 7 demonstrated by the exercise. 8 We feel that in light of that, that we ought to 9 have the record complete from all sides. At this point we 10 have got suffolk County's testimony addressed toward 11 Revision 6, but we had granted the motion to strike LILCO's 12 testimony on Appendix F, and the fix that is now planned. 13 So, in order to get the thing up to date as it LJ 14 stands now, we decided to reverse our earlier ruling 15 striking the LILCO testimony and admit that testimony, so 16 the case would then come in as it was originally submitted. 17 MS. LETSCHE: Presumably then, you would -- 18 there would be an opportunity for following cross 19 examination or whatever to find out what this draft proposal 20 is. 21 JUDGE FRYE: I think in light of that, we will i 22 have to give you some liberties on your cross examination of 23 these witnesses. 24 MS. LETSCHE: I assume, then, we would also be 25 permitted to put in additional testimony addressing that

4490909 2959 joewalsh O 1 gregosa12 2 JUDGE FRYE: Let's don't jump ahead of the thing 3 at this point. Let's see.what we can come up with first. Unless you know something that I don't. 4 5 MS. LETSCHE: Well, all I.know is that they are addressing something which we didn't know existed, and.which 6 7 is not addressed in our testimony. Some'new draft proposal. 8 9 JUDGE FRYE:. Okay. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Our testimony addresses Rev. 6 and 11 Rev. 7. 12 JUDGE FRYE: That is right; that is right. And i3 if you get some surprises as a result of this testimony, 14 then I think we will have to address that issue as to how we 15 are going to deal with it. 16 MS. LETSCHE: Well, the-testimony already is a 17 surprise. It talks about a draft proposal that we didn't is know existed until after we did our testimony. 19 JUDGE FRYE: But you can cross examine, right? 20 MS. LETSCHE: I will attempt to do that, 21 assuming I have some -- okay. l 22 JUDGE FRYE: And we will see what develops. MS. McCLESKEY: So, would you like the witness 23 24 panel back. 25 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, we should have the witness 4 O

4490909 ~ 2960 joewalsh I panel back. 2 Whereupon, 3 CHARLES A. DAVERIO 4 and 5 RICHARD J. WATTS,. 6 resumed the witness stand, and_after having previously been 7 sworn, further testify as follows: 8 MS. LETSCHE: Are you expecting me just to begin 9 right now the cross examination of the unstricken 10 testimony? Is that what you had in mind. 11 JUDGE FRYE: Do you need a few minutes. 12 MS. LETSCHE: I would like a few minutes. Since 13 it was stricken, I didn't spend any time last night worrying .s 14 about how I was going to cross examine. 15 JUDGE FRYE: I am sure you didn't, and that l's 16 the reason why I say I think we have to give you a good deal 17 of leeway in how you proceed with this, but I would like to is get started on it as soon as possible, and so I would. 19 suggest if you want to take five or ten minutes to get 20 organized. 21 MS LETSCHE: I think that would be most 22 helpful, so I can at least read through it, and_ recall what 23 it is about. 24 JUDGE FRYE: And then hopefully it will be a 25 little bit better organized doing it that way. 1

4490909 2961 joewalsh ( )- . ) MS. LETSCHE: If I could have -- could you give 2 me just twenty minutes, say until roughly 2:15, and then I will probably be prepared.to go_right through. 3 4 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Let's do that. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Perhaps one of the things we can 6 do, I will go off to my office. We have an exhibit here that is left over from a couple of weeks ago, which needed-7 to be reproduced, and maybe Mr. Sutko can take ' care of a getting that into the record for you all, and get that 9 io housecleaning done. 11 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, that is a good idea. 12 (Ms. Letsche departs the courtroom.) MR. SUTKO: Judge Frye? 13 O 14 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, Mr. Sutko. is MR. SUTKO : As I think everyone recalls, during the cross examination of LILCO's panel on Contention Ex. 40, 16 17 a document was produced which was a graph or'a chart,.and it is was identified as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit No. 30, i9 and this is the original. 20 At that time, it was agreed, as I recall, no 21 Party had an objection to the admission of this-document-22 into evidence. However, it was agreed that Suffolk County 23 would have a photograph made of the chart,~and then we would 24 formally move it into evidence. We have made the requisite number of copies.of. 25 O

4490909 2962 joewalsh d) i I the chart, which I will provide to all counsel, and I-will 2 at this time like to move Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 30 3 into evidence. 4 JUDGE FRYE: Why don't you provide it, and-we 5 will see if there is any objections from counsel. Are there 6 objections? 7 MS. McCLESKEY: LILCO.has-no objections to 8 this. 9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No objection.. 10 JUDGE FRYE: This is No. 30? 11 MR. SUTKO: Yes,' sir. 12 JUDGE FRYE: The Exhibit is admitted. 13 MR. SUTKO: Thank you, Judge Frye. 14 (Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit No. 15 30,which was previously marked for 16 identification, is admitted into 17 evidence.) 18 JUDGE FRYE: We can go off the record now, I 19 think. 20 (Off the record.) 21 JUDGE FRYE: Let's go back on the record, j 22 please. Ms. Letsche? 23 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. 24 CROSS EXAMINATION 25 BY MS. LETSCHE: i

1 ~ 4490909-2963-joewalsh () i_ WITNESS DAVERIO: Before we start, since.this 't 2 now is being put in evidence,'there is just one correction 3 on these pages that we didn't speak'to you about this 4 morning that we need to get in. 5 It is on Page 11. It-is in the second 6 paragraph.. The third line in that paragraph, the-OPIP .7 reference there, it should be Plan Page.3.7-1. 'It is not an ! OPIP, s 9 JUDGE FRYE: ' Where was that'again? 10 WITNESS DAVERIO: Second paragraph, fourth line, 11 is an OPIP 3.7.1. It should be Plan Page 3.7-1. 12 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 1 13 Q Gentlemen, I want to ask you some questions , O 14 about the draft proposal, dated February.20, 1987, which is is Attachment F to your prefiled testimony. 16 That draft proposal is not part of'a Revision 9. 4 17 to the LILCO plan, is it? 18 A (Witness Daverio) There is no Revision 9uat 19 this time, that is correct.- 2a Q That draft proposal is not part of any formal 21 revisior,of the LILCO~ Plan, correct? I 22 A It has been only proposed as a draft, that is 23 correct. 24 Q And in fact, you say in'your testimony' submitted-25 in the OL-3 proceeding, which'also discussions portions.of-() k l t

i 4490909 2964 joewalsh ..(_) I' this draft proposal, that you may change those proposals-i~ 2 depending on the outcome'of that litigation, is that i 3 correct? 4 -MS. McCLESKEY: I am going to object to'the j 5 question. I don't'have any. problem if Ms.-Letsche wants to - 6 ask if this proposal will be changed,_but we don't have the M. testimonybeforeushere,and.Ithinkitisjustgoingto{ 7 8 muddle things to start referring'to the OL-3' proceeding. 9 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 10 Q I just have-one question,.and both'of these ~ 11 gentlemen are on that testimony. 12 A (Witness Daverio) Could you~ repeat that' 1 13 question, Ms. Letsche?, 4 'O 14 Q In fact, you state in your testimonys submitted 15 in the OL-3 proceeding, which also relates to portions of j 16 this draft proposal, that you may change provisions of such 17 a proposal pending the outcome of that litigation? la A Yes, we do. l j 19 Q ~Now, directing your attention to Page 1-well, J - 20 let me just refer your attention to Attachment F, which is 21 your draft proposal. You mention there that special ~ 22 population evacuees would be routed through the LILCO l 23 Brentwood facility. Now,thatistheemergenef;. worker 24 25 decontamination facility under the LILCO plan, is that l i w e-wm w v-7 w- - - ^,Tf 'W W t v'r&" = r---r-" -= v +Y fg"C'* T 1--9e

4490909 2965 joewalsh-O i cor:ece2 2 A That is correct. 3 Q That also is the. exact same facility which 4 serves as the EOC, or the Emergency Operations Center, is 5 -that correct. ~ 6 A (Witness Watts) They are located at Brentwood. 7 A (Wn :. ass Daverio) ' They are different parts of 8 the building. 9 Q But it is all one building, is that right? 10 A Yes, it is. 11 Q And those two facilities that are in one 12 building all share the same parking facilities, is that i3 right? O 14 A Actually there are two parking facilities.

One, 15 which the workers would use, which is to the south of the 16 facility, and one which is set up for monitoring cars, which 17 is north of the facility, I believe.

18 Q Now, you state in this proposal that is 19 Attachment F, that the special population evacuees would be 20 routed through the EOC and EWDF on their way to designated 21 relocation centers. 22 It is true, is it not, gentlemen, that -- 23 A (Witness Watts) I don't believe it references j 24 the routing through the EOC anywhere. 25 Q Well, the Brentwood facility which you are () i l

4490909 2966 joewalsh ' U( ) I referring to is both the EWDF and the-EOC, is it not?~ 2 A The EWDF and the EOC are located at the 3 Brentwood facility. 4 Q Thank you. Now, my question is,.it is_true is 5 it not, gentlemen, that despite the_ existence of this draft 6 proposal in Attachment-F, the number of designated 7 relocation centers for special population evacuees has not changed from the number that was in existence at'the time of-a i 9 the February 13th exercise? i 10 A (Witness Daverio) Yes, that is correct.. Il Q In fact, there is one less, because of the ~ 12 recision of the agreement by the Oak Crest Nursing Home that 13 we discussed today, is that right? 14 A As I said, I think Oak Crest could still_use is LaSalle if they wanted. They have just said they would not 16 at this time, that is correct. 17 Q Now, you state in your proposal which is 18 Attachment F, that monitoring of each special facility i 19 evacuee should take less than 90 seconds. I take it that is 20 your opinion, regardless of whether the evacuees are being 21 monitored while they are in buses, ambulances, or 22 ambulettes, is that correct? l 23 A (Witness Watts) That is correct. 24 Q Now, it is true isn't it, Mr. Daverio, that the y 25 ambulances which are intended to evacuate special facility f~v) ~

4490909 2967 joewalsh 1() i residents under the LILCO plan are dispatched from the EWDF 2 under that plan, is that right? 3 A (Witness Daverio) Would you repeat that 4 question? 5 Q Yes. Under the LILCO plan, isn't it true that 6 ambulances which are intended to evacuate special facility 7 residents, are dispatched from the EWDF? 8 A Ambulance or ambulettes, that is correct. 9 Q Okay. So, all of those vehicles before they are io assigned a special facility to report to the pick up_and 11 evacuee, first drive from their home station, wherever it 12 may be, to the EWDF to receive their assignment, correct? i3 A All except one ambulance company. They get u their briefing and dosimetry at the Company. That is the-15 Commack Ambulance Company out of Riverhead. 16 Q Okay. Now, I assume from the date of this draft 17 proposal that there has been no LERO training concerning the is implementation of this proposal, is that right? 19 A The overall handling process of these procedures 20 have been discussed at the last drill-we ran, but as we 21 discussed this morning, that didn't include bringing any 22 sPecial facility people to the location, or simulating that. 23 l ~ Q So, this procedure in fact has not been drilled 24 25 or implemented in any drills, right? (:)

4490909 2968. joewalsh .() 1 A-Well, actually as Mr. -- 2 Q Let me just clarify my question. The proposal-3 being that which is contained in Attachment F, which-4 involves the monitoring of these people inside-their 5 vehicles. That has not been drilled has it, Mr. Watts? 6 A (Witness Watts) That has been discussed in the 7 last drill. 8 Q-My question was has it been drilled in -- 9 meaning.has it been implemented in the field? 10 A Let me explain what I meant by my answer.. March 11 25th drill, I participated in as the radiation health 12 coordinator. I did discuss the implementation, as described 13 in Attachment F, with the health services coordinator, and 14 with the decontamination coordinator that were present at is that drill, and we did discuss the actions that would be 16 taken. 17 We did not set up specifically at that drill to 18 handle special facility people, but we did discuss the types 19 of preparations that would have to be done. 20 Q Are all emergency workers. expected to_ report -- l 2i all emergency workers assigned to functions inside the EPZ 4 l 22 expected to report to the EWDF for monitoring and i 23 decontamination following an emergency? 24 A (Witness Daverio) After they have completed l 25 their field activities, they would report to ENDF, that is

4490909 2969 joewalsh h i correct. 2 Q On page 13 of your testimony, you referred to 3 the registration of evacuees. Under your draft proposal, 4 which is set forth in Attachment F, I take it that you.would 5 have ambulance drivers,. bus drivers, and ambulette drivers-6 Perform this function that you describe here, is that right? 7 A (Witness Watts) That is correct, and in 8 addition if we deem it desirable, we can delegate _that job 9 to personnel working outside at the EWDF. But I take.t that under the proposal which we i 10 Q 11 are now discussing, which is Attachment F, and based on your 12 testimony which is here, your present proposal is that the i3 drivers of emergency vehicles perform that function, isn't O u that right? 15 A That is correct. With the caveat that if we 16 decide that we can delegate that, or should delegate it, we 17 can do it. la Q So, that would be a change you might make later, 19 right? 20 A That is an option that we can exercise at any 21 time. 22 MS. LETSCHE: That is fine. I have no further 23 questions 24 WITNESS DAVERIO: Judge, while I made that one 25 correction, it still doesn't make it clear, and I think it ()

4490909 2970 joewalsh ia(,) 1 may be confusing. 2 If you like, I can just clarify the sentence. 3 JUDGE PARIS: Which page are we on?. 4 WITNESS DAVERIO: We are back to the change I 5 just made on Page 11. You have to put two references 6 together to make the sentence make sense. Neither one did-7 it on their own, and I.should have done it the first time. 8 But it should read: Each of these hospitals identified in-i 9 OPIP 3.6.5. 2 10 JUDGE PARIS: 3.6.5? 11 WITNESS DAVERIO: That is correct. Is- ] 12 accredited by the joint -- and then it just says: That part' 13 of it as stated on page 3.7-1 of the plan. 14 The plan explains the accreditation. The list is is in 3.6.5. Neither one of the references would have done 16 it on their own. i 17 JUDGE PARIS: Is the Rev. 4 deleted?. 18 WITNESS DAVERIO: Let me just check the page 19 number. I believe it is still -- it is Revision 5. 20 JUDGE FRYE: How should the sentence now read? 21 WITNESS DAVERIO: It should read: Each of these 22 hospitals identified in OPIP 3.6.5, Revision 5, is 23 accredited by the Joint Committee on Accreditstion of 24 Hospitals, as stated on page 3.7-1 of the p1tr.. 25 1 i a 4 l u

-l i 44901010 2971 .l carysimons O JUDGE FRYE: Ms. Letsche,'does that raise i 2 anything that you need to question on? MS. LETSCHE: Let me just ask one_ question. 3 4 It is true, isn't'it, Mr. Daverio, that LILCO 5 does not have agreements with any of those hospitals.to 6 serve as reception Centers? WITNESS DAVERIO: That is correct. 7 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Zahnleuter. 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER: 10 ii Q With respect to contaminated ambulatory evacuees, will all evacuees who are contaminated and 12 ambulatory be decontaminated at the EWDF? 13 A (Witness Watts) Yes. i4 Q Will a contaminated ambulatory evacuee who has a 15 Contagious disease be decontaminated at the EWDF? 16 A I think we would have to assume that those type i7 is of people would be going out in ambulances and therefore 2 39 they might be monitored, but they would be sent on to a 20 hospital for decontamination. Q Is that in your procedure in Attachment F? 21 A In Attachment F, the description? No, it's not. 22 l Q Will a contaminated ambulatory evacuee who is a 23 retarded child be decontaminated at the EWDF? 24 A Ambulatory? 25 [

J 4 4 44901010 2972 marysimons t. Q -- Yes. 2 A Yes. - 3 Q How about a contaminated ambulatory evacuee-who= 4 is pregnant? 5 A Yes, I would expect so. 1 6 Q How about a contaminated ambulatory evacuee who 2 7 is an adult but not of sound mind? A Yes, I would expect so if they were ambulatory. 8 9 Q And who will perform these decontaminating to activities? n A The radiation monitoring and decontamination 12 Personnel from LERO. 13 Q And that involves showering, correct?' 14 A Well, not necessarily. Showering-is one option, is but one of the first things that would be done if the 16 decontamination can be done readily without disturbing the 17 person and if it's on outer clothing, it would be handled 18 that way. In fact, it could be handled out in the parking lot if it's minor contamination on outer clothing. If it's 19 20 not, that person would be assisted into the building into the decontamination area. 21 We have available sinks so that if_there are 22 i 23 limited areas of the body that are contaminated, we could 24 handle it that way by simple washing techniques. i l Both of the methods that I just described are 75 0 1 L

+ w.s ,u _ a m, a s. 1 ^ 44901010-2973 marysimons (]) i likely to handle-the vast majority of any contamination 2 cases anyway. We do have showers available, however, should 3 they be necessary. We don't expect in most of the cases 4 they would be. 5 Q LERO workers haven't been trained,-have they, to. 6 wash or shower contaminated ambulatory' evacuees such as 7 retarded children, pregnant people and adults not of sound mind; that's correct, isn't it? Has that'been part of the g 9 training regiment? A The general techniques of monitoring and in in decontamination have been trained up upon and exercised. 1 12 The specifics about handling the special needs that you just mentioned have been discussed, but they have not been i3 i, specifically drilled with handling actual people. Considerations have been discussed in some of the tabletop 15 traiaing that I'm aware of. g i7 Q You mean handling special facility populations? 1 ie A Yes, the typesoof problems that one might 39 encounter have been discussed on a general basis, but not to 20 a great deal of detail. 21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No further questions. 22 MR. CUMMING: No questions. MR. KARMAN: No questions. 23 JUDGE FRYE: Redirect? 24 MS. McCLESKEY: None. 25

,r w

-w w----r + r -,---,---w--v-x-----v r--- -r--------e-ew w av w -- -=*

44901010 2974 faarysimons ff - i JUDGE SHON: I have a minor thing. It's just a 2 syntactic matter I guess on page 7 of your testimony.. It's 3 six lines from the bottom. You had changed the "I".that' 4 started that sentence to a "We." Do you want to. change the 5 word "my" to "our"? WITNESS DAVERIO: It probably has to,be changed 6 7 to Mr. Daverio's staff. The person who was there was not on a Mr. Watts' staff. 9 JUDGE SHON: Okay. It just didn't quite make io sense the way it is. 11 JUDGE PARIS: I'm looking at this map which is i 12 to Suffolk's Ex-40 testimony. Where is the i3 Brentwood facility? Can you describe it to me on the map? l Od i4 WITNESS DAVERIO: The'Brentwood facility, if I i 15 remember that map correctly, is not even shown on that map. ^ It's about two miles south of where we are sitting. So 4 16 17 you're not on the map. la JUDGE PARIS: It's two miles south and we're r at 19 sitting on the map. l 20 (Laughter.) WITNESS DAVERIO: If you know where Route 11 is, 21 22 and you've seen the signs probably on the expressway, it's Exhibit 56. So it's a little bit further, and I'm just 23 24 trying to rememSer' exactly where, but it's on Route ll which i 25 is Exit 56 on the Expressway about two miles south on 111. ,e - - -.e<- .w ar---- e,m,e-_,.m cryn,6,-p,,,,,,.,-,,_y.,_,,,.,-y,_+,,pg,,sr,,y,y.,.m..n..,,y%-,~,-.-.,.r, ,u,

44901010 2975 marysimons .h i So-it's not located on that map'at all. It's probably.-- WITNESS WATTS: It's'well'to the west. 2 2 WITNESS DAVERIO: It's well to the west of that 3 4 map. WITNESS WATTS: Of the left side of that map, 5 JUDGE PARIS: So it's many miles-from.the EPZ? i 6 WITNESS DAVERIO: It's probably just under 20 7 miles from the plant, 10 miles outside'of the EPZ. 8 l JUDGE PARIS: Okay, thank you. 9 JUDGE FRYE: - Gentlemen, thank you very much. We io n appreciate your testimony. (Witness panel excused.) 12 Do we have anything else we can accomplish this 33 O afternoon? 9 MS. LETSCHE: I understand-that in my' absence 15 there was some question about the motions to strike the a u County's testimony on Contentions 38 and 39 and the argument of those. ig I'm not prepared to argue those as of yet. The i, 20 testimony that they go to is obviously 300 pages long and I frankly need to review that and I assume the Board needs to 21 review it, too, in order to make sense out of the motions. 22 JUDGE FRYE: The Board does, too, and I don't 23 want to argue it right now. But I would like to get that in 24 tomorrow before we take up your witnesses if at all 25 (:) -l i l ) i

44901010 2976 marysimons ) i possible. 2 MS. LETSCHE: I think that could probably be 3 arranged. Are you proposing to begin at 9 tomorrow morning? 4 Maybe since my witnesses aren't available until 12:30 we-5 could start a little alter if all we are doing is arguing 6 that motion. 7 JUDGE FRYE: Is there anything we can accomplish in this time, other than motions to strike, in the time e 9 between now and the witnesses availability tomorrow io afternoon? ii MS. McCLESKEY: There is nothing else on the P ate as far as I know except those motions to strike and l 12 i3 her witnesses. i4 My recommendation would be that we figure out is how much time we want to spend arguing and get here that amount of time before 12:30, do the witnesses which won't 16 17 t.ake more than an hour or two and adjourn, unless you want is to do the arguments after the witnesses. i9 JUDGE FRYE: Well, that would probably be easier 20 if You Project your cross will only take an your or two. 2i MS. McCLESKEY: Oh, yes. 22 JUDGE FRYE: That would leave us an opportunity 23 to argue it after we are finished with the witnesses. 24 MS. McCLESKEY: All right. 25 JUDGE FRYE: Ms. Letsche, that would give you

i 44901010 2977 marysimons i the morning to prepare. 2 MS. LETSCHE: Right. That sounds fine. MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye? 3 MS. LETSCHE: Did you have something on that or 4 5 are you starting a new subject? JUDGE FRYE: New subject? 6 MR. CUMMING: With respect to the motions to 7 strike, since I won't be here tomorrow to argue it, I would a 9 like to state that FEMA supports both the staff motion and LILCO's motion. And I did suggest while we were off the 10 it record that with respect to FEMA's prefiled testimony it would be helpful if the Board could require all the parties 12 to file any motions to strike with respect to FEMA's i3 prefiled testimony by May 8th. i4 JUDGE FRYE Right, and we indicated that we 15 would incorporate that into the scheduling. 16 MR. CUMMING: Ms. Letsche wasn't here. So I 37 wanted to make sure she was familiar with that. 18 MS. LETSCHE: I had heard about that. 39 JUDGE FRYE: I'm sure Ms. Letsche heard about 20 that. 21 22 (Laughter.) MS. LETSCHE: I have one other thing, Judge 23 24 Frye. This morning when you were giving your views about scheduling, there were a couple of left-over items that I 25 O

44901010 ~ 2978 j 'marysimons. i promised to get back to the Board on, and a coaple of points I that I would like to make related to that. 2 3 First of all, we will put our position ~ 4 concerning the attachments and cross times and things like 5 that related to training and possibly also 15'and 16 which, l 6 by the way, for the Board's information, this is LILCO's 7 testimony on Contentions 15 and 16, this stack. a JUDGE FRYE: Is that two volumes. 9 MS. LETSCHE: Yes, this is one. 10 (Laughter.) 11 JUDGE FRYE: What in the thin one?- 12 MS.. LETSCHE: The thin one is Contention 21. 13 JUDGE FRYE: I see. i 14 MS. LETSCHE: This one is Contention 15 and 16. I 15 MS. McCLESKEY: Well, Mr. Letsche, could you i P ck up the pages of testimony as separated from the 16 17 attachments? j is MS. LETSCHE: Well, I can't,-but it_really ]i doesn't matter from my point. l 19 s 1 JUDGE FRYE: I think I can see it. 20 l 21 MS. LETSCHE: In any event, we will put that in ) 22 writing and get it to you within the next couple of days. I 23 don't know if it will be this week or'the'beginning of next y 24 week. 25 JUDGE FRYE: If you're going to put it in 1 j !O i j i .+.-.,r c,,,,-.v, ww.,.-+ .-,-.,--,_~%-..r.---.._,y .,,_--.r-, e-,,.,,.----e-. .m _~,.r-w,..y...,. ..., -, ~,,

44901010 2979 marysimons - j' ) i ' writing and get a response from.LILCO and staff if they wish. 2 MS. LETSCHE: I don't know. I'm not even sure. 3 4 I thought what you wanted was a' specification from us as to e -5 the particular attachments and things that we felt may --- JUDGE FRYE: Require more-time. 6 + MS. LETSCHE: Yes. I'm not sure if that's 7 1 a something.that anyone needs to respond to. 9 In any event, another point --- io JUDGE FRYE: Well, after we get it, we'll decide in whether we want to respond to it. j 12 MS. LETSCHE: Just to be also clear,.I want to ] point'out so that everyone is on the same wave length here i3 ja that you talked about adopting or-incorporating or whatever the proposed schedule that Mr.'Irwin mentioned yesterday, 15 and I think that the dates that you read off come close to i 16 i7 doing that. 4 is I just want to point'out in case people missed i9 it, that Mr. Irwin's schedule, while applying the guideline 20 of four pages an hour that the Board had mentioned, did not 21 take into account anything but the cross-examination of a 22 panel. So there is no leeway or allowance in that schedule 23 for other parties having questions or redirect or Board 24 questions or motions to strike or anything like that, all of l which take time. 25 l l

44901010 2980. marysimons . h i So the dates that you have that assume that all-2 you're doing is cross-examining and going from one cross-4 3 examination to another on another. panel really leaves out 4 some time which is spent realistically with respect to every 5 witness panel because you have all the other lawyers in the 6 room who are going to ask questions. U 7 So I think everyone needs to be aware that while s those dates might all be useful guidelines in terms of how j 9 much time cross-examination will take, as a practical matter 10 there will be additional time that will-probably end up 11 being spent. 12 Finally, just on the scheduling of~the Contention 38 and 39 issues, the estimate of approximately i3 14 one week or four days for the cross-examination of the LILCO is testimony given the fact that we are now would~be beginning 16 at roughly one o' clock I think you said on that Monday, 17 assuming that estimate holds, ould end up pushing that is testimony into the week of the 27th. Then assuming that there.is going to be redirect 19 20 and other parties asking at least a few questions of that i Panel, I just want people to understand that the Suffolk 21 22 County panel would go on on the 27th, and I assume that it's 23 at least.possible that that will end up being pushed somewhat. 24 The bottom line of all these points is that I 25 l0

44901010 2981 marysimons .k()[ i assume that everyone understands that those dates are 2 guideline dates based on estimates and~the: Board's i 3 guidelines, and that they are not dates which are going-to 4 be punitively applied orLwhich don't take into account the' 7 5 fact that other things take up time. J 6 Anyway,-I didn't.want people to be getting upset-if Contentions 38 and 39 carry over into that second week 7 because in fact even with that four-day estimate they'would 8 do that. 9 i That's all. jo ti JUDGE'FRYE: I think your-fear.need'only apply 12 to the Board. If the Board gets upset, then:I think you l need to worry. i3 j MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, in light of Ms. u 1 j Letsche's comments, we.had talked about this schedule in 15 i l light of all kinds of scheduling difficulties, and I hate'to 16 n keep bringing up Dr. Mileti,'but'it's going to be a real i 1 difficulty for him to come back that next week, especially 33 i9 since he's also on the training panel and is likely to have i 20 to miss another day or two of school the following week. l 21 If in fact that half a day is going to require 22 us to bring the entire panel back the following Monday, I would request that we at least, and of course this is all 23 speculative because who knows how long it will take or what 24 difficulties we'll run into, but I would like to'at least 25 -.,-- - s ,,-e m-.~u-my,- .-<g-w-- ..-w,. e-y ,....y,-- ,w-----:. m - -+- ,w---*.-

44901010 2982 marysimons !r[) i float the idea that we go a little later that week each day.. 2 JUDGE FRYE: That week being the week --- 3 MS. McCLESKEY: The week of.the 20th to make up 4 the time and, in addition, I still --- 5 JUDGE FRYE: To finish with Dr. Mileti. 6 MS. McCLESKEY: Right. --- I still offer my 7 other four witnesses to at least get voir dire out of the a way with them this week if that would be helpful to moving 9 the ENC cross-examination along. to JUDGE FRYE: I'm inclined to think that might it be. 12 MS. McCLESKEY: I think so, too. 33 MS. LETSCHE: Well, frankly, I just need to know 14 because I made calls during the last break telling other ~ is people who are involved in this issue what the schedule was, 16 and if we are now going to put 38 back into this week, I 17 need to know that. 18 JUDGE FRYE: Do you have much voir dire? i9 MS. LETSCHE: I'm sorry? 20 JUDGE FRYE: Do you have much by way of voir 21 dire? 22 MS. LETSCHE: Let me just think. Whose on that 23 panel? 24 MS. McCLESKEY: It's Patterson, McCaffrey, 25 Robinson and Daverio. i

44901010 2983 marysimons MS. LETSCHE: I imagine I would not have very ( much. It would probably be roughly an hour or so. 2 JUDGE FRYE: How quickly can those people be 3 available? 4 MS.'McCLESKEY: Mr. Patterson is in the city. 5 The rest of those people are on Long Island, except that Mr. 6 McCaffrey I've just been passed a note is in Richmond until 7 g Thursday. I can call him back and he can be here on 9 Thursday morning. JUDGE FRYE: I get the feeling that we may not i 10 ii be getting much advantage, but we would perhaps be 12 inconveniencing some people considerably. MS. LETSCHE: If it's important enough I'll be 13 i4 happy to do that, but I think that for an hour and just sort is of gettirig everybody's mind set that way and then having to come back in another two weeks or ten days later, whatever, 16 u might be somewhat disruptive, but I'll go with whatever way ig anyone wants to go on that one. MS. McCLESKEY: And I'm happy to have the 39 witnesses here tomorrow or Thursday if that would suit the 20 Board. g MS. LETSCHE: I should say though that I really, 22 just so there isn't any misunderstanding, the fact that we 22 get the hour's worth of voir dire out of the way this week, 24 I don't think, assuming my four-day estimate holds, and that 25 O r

l 44901010 2984 carysimons h) was a real estimate, I don't.think that's going to make us ~ 2 able to finish in the roughly three and a half days that j 3 we're going to have. I mean I can't guarantee that. 4 JUDGE FRYE: We understand. Why don't we go.on i 5 and get that out of the~way since we are working a short 6 week that week any way. Let's get that out of the way. I 7 think that would alleviate some pressure, particularly in-8 ' light of Dr. Mileti's commitments. 9 So why don't we do that Thursday morning first-3 10 thing. I would say earlier if they'were close by.. 11 MS. McCLESKEY: That's fine. 8:30? 12 JUDGE FRYE: No, I was thinking earlier in the week. 33 14 MS. McCLESKEY: Oh, you mean tomorrow. 15 JUDGE FRYE: 'Since you have one in Richmond. 16 MS. McCLESKEY: Well, there are planes from 17 Richmond back to New York. We.could have them here is tomorrow. 3 MS. LETSCHE: Are we going to have time 20 tomorrow? What are you talking about, tomorrow afternoon? 21 JUDGE FRYE: Tomorrow afternoon. 22 MS. McCLESKEY: Well, if we start at 12:30 or 1 23 o' clock, whatever, and we have Harris and Mayer for an 24 hour. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to fit in the witnesses for an hour and then have th'e argument on the 25 .v f f . - - - -,.. ~ - -..., -

44901010 - 2985' -marysimons i motions. JUDGE FRYE: I'think so. Let's shoot for 2 3 tomorrow afternoon, and that would give us Thursday free. ) MS. LETSCHE: Okay. So we're starting at roughly 4 ) 12:30 tomorrow with Harris and Mayer? 5 JUDGE FRYE: Let's start at.1 o' clock. 6 MS. LETSCBE: And we are going to do the Harris 7 and Mayer panel, then the argument of the motions _and then l a 9 if we still have time the Voir dire of the 38 panel; is that to the program? ii JUDGE FRYE: Well, let's plan to do it all. 'I 12 think we can and I think we should plan for it all. MS. LETSCHE: I just want to know how much I j3 hC should do tonight. That's the only reason for my question. i4 j 15 All three of those things, right? l JUDGE FRYE: That's right. 16 i MR. KARMAN: Did you say we would be off on i7 is Thursday? JUDGE FRYE: Yes. On that schedule we would be j9 j i 20 free on Thursday, unless somebody can think of something else we can probably do. 21 22 All right, we're adjourned.until 1 o' clock i tomorrow afternoon. 23 j 24 (Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the hearing in the 25 above-entitled matter adjourned, to reconvene at 1 o' clock m,. -e.-- o-,.-r..ir,,--,wy 4-,.,-r--,-r e,r---,-,4.. ---,,---w ,,--e..r,.v.r...--4,-~-c, - -, -. -. -~.-+ v. % we- --w

44901010 2986 marysimons ) i p.m., Wednesday, April 8, 1987.) v 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [t-c 34 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s

CERTIFICATE OF. OFFICIAL REPORTER j 1 This is to certify-that the attached proceedings before the -l ITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME 0" PROCEEDING: SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 (EP EXERCISE) DOCKET NO.: 50-322-OL-5 PLACE: HAUPPAUGE, NY DATE: TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 w:are held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. MARY SIMONS O ' M. WALSH kS$ h WA SH (TYPED) Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation mhd ~ h/M h e = .}}

ML20206D649

Text

Subject:

Dear Mr. Deverio:

Navigation menu

Search