Text

Applicant Exhibit A-36,consisting of Deposition of D Axelrod on 880422 in Albany,Ny
	ML20207D823
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/14/1988
From:	Axelrod D; NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	;
References
	OL-3-A-036, OL-3-A-36, NUDOCS 8808160130
	Download: ML20207D823 (110)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_ a .s j) - 36 ['0(.Kli E D ~ "(m - ym upac D OF.?.10 ".d.i L ~G9 "" "" ~ 6FF C; 3. ..r DOChi. i M 2 ' !!' f. LPANG" ~~ 'JIIITED STATES OF A!1 ERICA tiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOli BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AllD LICE!!SI:iG BOARD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of: Docket !!o. 50-322-OL-3 LO::G ISLAtID LIGHTIIG COMPAliY (Emergency Planning) (Shorebam tiuclear Powe. Station, Unit 1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITIO!1 OF DAVID AXELROD Albany, tiew York O!!!cial 4hibit Ilo. % Case!!0-p_ 3 n~_a tr L (r;c, Board, Party) Friday, April 22, 1988 I h nt.di d V ~ D. spa:!! ion: n.s .-/ ' f " ~' ~ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Pd.p.7 l l{i h t nI M '," Stenergy ltwrters -{,g,'~~p.t. O 50.3 58II Washington, b.tol Street 444 North Cam

n;w 1

C.20001 Qh-(202) 347-3700 '

l'db. K Nationwide Coverage f tiO. Pages:

800 336 6646 5, 8808160130 880714 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR i.

T 5421 00 01 1 1 GJW/sw 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

X l

44 In the Matter of:

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 l

5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

(Emergency Planning -

6 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, : Best Efforts Issue) 7 Unit 1) 8

X 9

DEPOSITION OF DAVID AXELROD 10 Albany, New York 11 Friday, April 22, 1988 12 Deposition of DAVID AXELROD, called for examination 13 pursuant to notice, at the State of New York Capitol 14 Building, Room 214, at 3:00 p.m., before Garrett J. Walsh, 15 Jr., a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia 16 At I.arge, when were present on behalf of the respective 17 parties: 18 K. DENNIS SISK, Esquire, and DONALD P. IRWIN, Esquire, 19 d Hunton & Williams, 707 East Main Street, P. O. Box 1535, j 20 t Richmond, Virginia 23212; on behalf of the Applicant, the

.' 1 Long Island Lighting Conpany.

32 r N ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 1 Nationwide Contrage l g

-~. e .) I 5'421 00 02 i 2 l j 1 GJW/sw 1i HERBERT H. BROWN, Esquire, and RONALD R. ROSS, Esquire, J Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, 1800 M Street, N. W., South Lobby, i 2 l 3 ;t Washington, D. C. 20036; on behalf of the Intervenor, the j 4 il County of Suffolk, State of New York. 5 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, Esquire, Deputy Special Counsel l 6d to the Governor, Capitol, Room 229, Albany, New York 12224; i 7 on behalf of the Intervenor, the State of New York. 8 9 10 11 12 i 4 13 14 15 16 l 17 18 <. 4 19 !! l t 20 4 I i 21, i 22 P

s i

9 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. [, j saiion io, coser... _m,

i ) i 5421 00 03 3 1, GJW/sw 1 d C0NTEN?S i U Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross 2 { 3 :l David.Axelrod 6 104 l 4 d EXHIBITS 5 !! FOR IDENTIFICATION r 6 $ Aysired Deposition Exhibit Number 1..... 7 7 Curriculum Vita of David Axelrod 8 Axelrod Deposition Exhibit Number 2..... 10 9 Direct Testimony of David Axelrod 10 on Behalf of the State of New York, 11 dated April 13, 1983 12 Axelrod Deposition Exhibit Number 3..... 37 13 Article 2-B - State and Local Natural 14 and Man-Made Disaster Preparedness 15 Axeirod Deposition Exhibit Number 4..... 51 16 Decision of the NRC, 21 NRC 1587(1985), i 17 ~ dated June 20, 1985 i 18 h Axelrod Deposition Exhibit Number 5..... 73 19 i; Document with Cover Memo, dated l 20 September 1, 1987, from James D. I i 21, Papile to All Recipients of the NYS ~ 22. Radiological. Plan I l i i ] ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC, j Nationwide Coserage l l g

e 5 1-5421-00 04 4 1 GJW/sw 1 EXHIBITS (Continuing) 2 FOR IDENTIFICATION 1 i I 3 Axelrod Deposition Exhibit Number 6..... 82 l l 4 FEMA Post Exercise Assessment for i l 5 Indian Point Nuclear Power Station, ( 6 August 24 and 25, 1983, dated 7 September 26, 1983 8 9 10 11 i a 12 13 14 15 i 16 i t I 17 i 18 c 19 20 21 22, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. I Nanonwide coserage l 1

s I l 5421 01 01 5 1 1 GJW/sw 1J PROCEEDINGS 2' MR. SISK: Let the record show that this 3 'i deposition is convened on notice by Long Island Lighting i 4 il Company, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure I I 5 ii and the NRC Rules of Practice. 6i It is now 3 p.m. The deposition is beginning at 7 this time because this is the time the witness has been 8 proffered by the State without consent from LILCO. 9 Mr. Zahnleuter has informed me that the witness 10 will only be able to continue until 5 o' clock this 11. afternoon. I want to make it clear for the record, as we I 12 have in previous correspondence, that LILCO will do its 13 utmost to pursue the questioning as quickly and efficiently 14 as possible but that we do intend to continue the 15 deposition. If we are unable to do so this evening, we are 16 prepared to do so tomorrow or next week at any time the f i 17 witness hopefully will be available. 18 - MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Mr. Sisk, Dr. Axelrod will not 19 ! be available tomorrow or next week. So, if the time allowed i 20, is not sufficient, then I recommend you pursue what remedies 4 21 you think are appropriate and we will respond appropriately .i i 22 J also. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. q Nationwide Coserage mu, 5 9

a 1 l 6 $421 01 02 1 GJW/sw 1 I am sure you will find that Dr. Axelrod will be j 1 i 2 9 forthright and cooperative, and let's continue. l' I 3 MR. SISK: I will see how far we can get, then. J a 4 li Whereupon, i DAVID AXELROD 5 i i is called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 6 1 7 was examined and testified as follows: 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. SISK: 10 Q Dr. Axelrod, would you state your name for the 11 record, please? l 12 A I'm David Axelrod. 13 Q Are you a sponsor of testimony in this 14 procceding? 15 A Yes, I am. 16 Q Dr. Axelrod, what is your position with the 17 State? 18 A I am Commissioner of Health for the State of New [ 19 a York and also Chairman of the Disaster Preparedness l I l i 20 e Commission. i 21' Q How long have you held the position of Chairman 22 of the DPC? I i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 1 !} Nationwide coserage j

a 'l 7 5421 01 03 i l I 2 GJW/sw 1 '. A I have held the position as Chairman since the 2 '. Fall of 1982. So, to the best of my recollection that was 3 i; the date on which I was appointed by Governor Carey. l i 4i Q Do you recall what month in the Fall of '82? l a I 5 'l A No, I do not. I i i Q And, how long have you been the Commissioner of 6 : 7 Health? 8 A I have been the Commissioner of Health since 9 1979, since January of 1979. 10 Q And, who appointed you to that position? 11, A I was appointed by Governor Carey. t 12 MK. SISK: Dr. Axelrod, I will now hand to the 13 Reporter and ask that he mark as Exhibit 1 to this 14 deposition a document entitled "David Axelrod, M.D., 15 Comrissioner, New York State Department of Health." 16, (A three-page Curriculum Vita of David i i Axelrod is marked as Axelrod Deposition l 17 I 18!1 Exhibit Number 1 for identification.) i f 19 fi BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) l i 2 0.!, Q Dr. Axelrod, do you recognize that document? \\ 211 A Yes, I do. i l e I 223 Q Can you identify it for me? ] i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC, j Nationwide Coserage mg

I 8 l 5421 01 04 ( 2 GJW/sw 1 ? A It is a Curriculum Vita for myself. i 2d Q And, is that document true and accurate to the 3i best of your knowledge, information and belief? i 4 II (The witness is looking at the document.) I i 5' A There is an omission, which is not of great i 65 significance, and that is that I was awarded an Honorary / Degree, a Doctor of Science Degree from Union University, 8 from Union College I guess, in Albany. 9 I believe my membership as a member of the 10 National Drinking Water Advisory Council has expired, as has 11 my membership -- no, that's past nembership so those are { 12 correct, yes. 13 Q And, the document is otherwise correct? 14 A I believe so, yes. 15 Q Could you describe for me very briefly the 16 composition of the Disaster Preparedness Commission? 17 " A The Disaster Preparedness Commission's 18 li composition is dictated by Article 2-B of the Executive Law J. 19 !! and consists of the major departments of government, which 20d are elucidated under Article 2-B. I 21;i They include, among others, the Department of 220 Health, the Department of Agriculture and Markets, the i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '] Nationwide Coserage

g a

., i I.: 5421 01 05 9 j i 1 GJW/sw 1 Department of Labor which I think is identified as the 2 Industrial Commissioner, the Environmental Conservation, the i 3 Superintendent of the State Police, the Director of Criminal l 1 Justice, Energy, Social 3ervices. 4 '5 Q There is a complete list in the statute, is there I 6 not? l 7 A Yes. It is identified in the Executive Law 2-B. 8 Q And, what are your responsibilities generally.as 9 Chairman of the DPC? 10 A The responsibilities are to coordinate the State 11 responses to disasters as they occur, to be responsible for 12 the actions of the State Emergency Management Office, and to 13 otherwise respond to the requirements such as two meetings 14 per year of the Disaster Preparedness Commission to consider 15 reports. 16 The additional responsibilities are to ensure i l i 17 that the statutory requirements for the Disaster I 18 Preparedness Commission are met, including the eversight for 19 t. the preparation of the various documents that are required. I 20 Q Dr. Axelrod, you mentioned the State Emergency 4 21 Management office. Is that office subject to your direction 22 F in responding to'an emergency? [ i '. ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. t i wwwwni;auem

ei 5421 01 06 10 l A Yes, it is. 1 GJW/sw 1 I 2,, Q And, is it also within your responsibility to i 3 '! prepare for and respond to radiological emergencies within i 4 il the State of New York? I l 5 A Part of the Article 2-B places the responsibility l 6 with the Disaster Preparedness Commission to respond to all I 7 man-made and natural disasters. 8 MR. SISK: Dr. Axelrod, I will now hand to the 9 Reporter and ask that he mark as Exhibit 2 to this .10 deposition a document which bears the title, "Direct i l l '., Testimony of David Axelrod on Behalf of the State of New l i o 12 York." It bears a date in the upper right-hand corner of 13 April 13, 1988. 14 (Direct Testimony of Cavid Axelrod, 15 dated April 13, 1988, is marked as 15: Axelrod Deposition Exhibit Number 2 Il 17t for identification.) i 18 ; BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 1911 Q r Axelrod, do you recognize that document? .i 20l! A I do. 21d Q Is that the testimony you have filed on behalf of 221 the State of New1 York in this proceeding? d I i l \\ )I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lPC. l' Nanonwide coserase

e i. l 5421 01 07 11 j i 1 GJW/sw 1 A Yes, it is. l 2 Q Is that testimony -- let me ask you this. Did 3 you write this testimony? 4 ij A No, I did not. 5c Q How was it prepared? t 6 l' A It was prepared at my direction by counsel to the 4 7 Governor. 8 Q At this time, let me ask you this. Have you 9 reviewed this testimony recently prior to this deposition? 10 A Yes, I have. 11 Q At this time, do you wish to make any. changes to j 12 the testimony? i l 13 (The witness is looking at the document.) 14 A No, I do not. 15 Q Dr. Axelrod, on Page 2 of this testimony, if you r 16 - Will return to that page, near the top there is a statement l 17 which says, "I am authorized and directed by Governor Cuomo l 18 ii to present testimony to address a hypothetical situation: I d 19 !! what action would New York State take if the NRC were to 4 a l 20 0 license Shoreham to operate at levels above five percent l n 21 L power and there were a serious accident at the plant that "equired offsite' emergency response." l l I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Coserage l 3

5421 01 08 12 l 1 GJW/sw 1 Dr. Axelrod, now that you have briefly reviewed 2 l-the testimony, is there anything which you, on behalf of the + l 3 :! State of New York, wish to add to this testimony to address i I 4d that hypothetical? l l i 5' A No, I do not. 6.i Q To your knowledge, do you, or does any other 7 representative of the State of New York, intend to add to 8 the content of this testimony in response to that 9 hypothetical? 10 A To the best of my knowledge, the only persons 11 would be identified by counsel and have been identified by f. 12 counsel. i 13 Q And, to your knowledge, has anyone been 14 1 identified by you, Dr. Axelrod, as a witness in this 15 proceeding on this particular - le? 16 ' A You would have to be more specific with respect to particular issues. 17 :1 18 Q The particular issue of what New York State would 19 d do if the NRC were to license Shoreham to operate at full ,I n 20 ij power and there were a serious accident requiring an 3 210 emergency response. 1 i 22:1 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Is your question limited to New i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. wions.ioe coserage l 1 m,w.,

5421 01 09 13 1 GJW/sw 1i York State witnesses? j 2? MR. SISK: Yes. i 31 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any other witness i i 4 ll that has been directed to respond to a specific question. i t i 6 5i BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 1 6, Q Dr. Axelrod, let me return to Page 1 of the 7 testimony. It states, "In my capacity as Chairman of the 8 Disaster Preparedness Commission, I am responsible to 9 Governor Cuomo for the actions of the New York State 10 Rcdiological Emergency Preparedness Group and the New York 11 Stute Emergency Management Office." 12 Dr. Axelrod, does that include the actions of 13 those agencies in response to an actual radiological 14 emergency? 15 A Yes. 16a Q Are you then in command of the State's response 17 n to a radiological emergency at the direction of the [ 18b Governor? 1 19 h A At the direction of the Governor, I would respond 200 to any natural or man-made emergency, as is dictated under i i 213 the Disaster Preparedness Commission. l l 225 Q Dr. Axelrod, can you describe for me briefly the I i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j Nationwide Coserage s

.o I 14 9421 01 10 1 GJW/sw 1 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group? What are its I 2 responsibilities? I 3 A Its responsibilities are for the determination of 4 the efficacy of the plans for dealing with a radiological 5 emergency, the development of plans and assuring the 6 response capabilities, as well as developing capabilities 7 that relate to mitigation, as well as hazard prevention 8 associated with radiological amergencies. 9 Q Does it also have responsibilities in responding 10 to a radiological emergency? 11 A Yes, it does. l 12 Q And, what are those responsibilities? i 13 A Those responsibilities vary depending upon the 14 site-specific requirements for each of the potential 15 disaster scenarios that have. been identified within the 16 activities of the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group. l 17' Q Are they generally responsible, for example, for r I 18 i dose assessment in the event of a radiological accident at a 19 9 power plant? 20; A They would play a role, but they may not be 21. directly responsible. They are involved in the process, but 22; there is a concurrent process in which, depending upon the i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. ___Noasaw$_Coterage _ _m_

0 l I 5421 01 11 15 i I 1 GJW/sw 1 site, they would be involved with local officials as well. 2 Q Can you tell me what you mean by the concurrent f 3 process? What other organizations are you referring to? l 4d A Local governmental organizations, County i 5 government organizations, local County Health Departments. i 6 The extent to which the Rad,iological Emergency 7 Preparedness Group assumes a primary role is dependent upon 8 the availability of other site-specific activities. 9 Q Do they also coordinate with the federal agencies 10 such as the Department of Energy? 11 A Yes, they do, i t 12 Q Would that include the Department of Energy's i 13 so-called RAP team? 14 A In the event that such a response would be 15 required, yes, they would. 16 Q And, that DOD RAP team is headquartered at 17 Brookhaven National Lab, is it not? 18 u A I can't respond to that. I don't know. j I i 19 n Q Brookhaven National Lab is within Suf folk County, 20 is it not? l i 21 A Yes. I i 22 Q Can you describe for me briefly the people at the b 1 s i l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i! Nationwide Coserage y

i t 5421 01 22' 16 i 1 GJW/sw 1 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group who perform q 2 :i functions in connection with radiological emergtencies? .l 3 il A There is General Papile, who is the current 4 11 Director of the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group. j i 5 He is the overall coordinator. l l 64 There is a Larry C:cch, who is involved in the 7 evaluation of dose assessment. And, a man named Baranski 8 who is also directly involved in the assessment of 9 conditions (* plant operations, as well as the delineation 10 of the nature of a radiological emergency. 11 " Those would be the three key personnel. There is l 12 a fourth person who is currently the PIO within the 13 ' Department of Health, the Public Information Officer who 14 : coordinates with the Radiological Emergency Preparedness 15 Group. That is a Mr. Peter Slocum. 16 Q Do you know a Mr. Karim, K-a-r-i-m, Rimawr? l 17 ' A Yes, I do. 18 U Q R-i-m-a-w-r? I I 19 l A Yes. l i 20 t Q What is his position? n 1 21:1 A His position is within the functional j .i l 22 il organization of the Department of Health, and he is in l l 1 i i l. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. l ,, y,,3., sanon io, coserage

I $421 01 13 17 i 1 GJW/sw 1 charge of the Bureau of Radiological Health. 2 ' Q What are his responsibilities? \\ 3e A His~ responsibilities relate to the overall safety 4 ll and protective responsibilities that fall to the Department 5h of Health as it relates to radiological devices, X-ray 6e equipment, any radiation emission equipment that is licensed 7 within the State of New York, as well as to provide general 8 information, to provide consultation to the Department in 9 areas relating to dosage of all forms of radiation. 10 Q Does Mr. Rimawr have any responsibility for 11 accident or dose assessment in the event of a radiological 12 emergency at a nuclear power plant? 13 A The full resources of all of the Department are 14 used as the situation may require it. And, Mr. Rimawr, 15 Dr. Rimawr, is used by the Department to assist the 16 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group in dose assessment 17 as the situation may demand. 18 3 Q In terms of monitoring for dose assessment, what 1 19 1 type of equipment does Mr. Rimawr have at his disposal? i i 20:1 A I am not familiar with the specifics of the 21:. equipment that Dr. Rimawr has. i 1 22' Q Is helable also to coordinate with the Federal I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. Nationwide Covera $e

I 5421 01 14 18 i i 1 GJW/sw 1 ! Department of Energy, DOE? j i 2' A He is not directly able to, since his 3J responsibility is primarily within the Department of 1 4 11 Health. That coordination would occur through the l 5 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group rather than i 6 ii directly through him, although he certainly would play a i 7 role. 8 Q Does he report to a Mr. Davidoff? 9 A His ultimate supervisor is a Dr. Staziek, who is 10 Director of the Environmental Health within the Department. 11 And, the Bureau of Radiological Health falls within the 12 overall jurisdiction of the Division of Environmental 13 Health. 14 ' Q What is Mr. Davidoff's position? 15 A Mr. Davideff is responsible for the offices that 16 deal with local Health Departments in terms of their 17, responso and obligations under the Public Health Law. l 18, Q Does the State Department of Health itself have i 19! local field offices throughout the State? 204 A Yes, it does. } l 21:1 Q Does it have such offices in Suffolk County? t 22y A It has a very small of fice in Suf folk County that I i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. ol i s u m ia c e nar, l j

5421 01 15 19 1 GJW/sw 1 is a subsidiary of the major regional office that is 2 responsible for Long Island. And, that is in New Rochelle. 3 Q And, where is the office located on Long Island? 4 A In Hauppauge. 5 Q can you describe for me briefly the 6 responsibilities of the New York. State Emergency Management 7 Office in planning for radiological emergencies at nuclear 8 power plants? 9 A The State Emergency Management Office's responsibilities are generic in nature. And, the 10 11 radiological response is a part of its generic response for i 12 dealing with all man-made or natural disasters, so that it 13 is integrated into the overall activities of the State 14 Emergency Management Office. 15 It is responsible for the response, the 16 prevention and the mitigation of all disasters, i i 17 Q Who is in charge of the State Emergency l 18 Management Offica? 19 A Mr. Donald Diveto. 20' Q Is there a local office of the State Emergency 21 Management Office on Long Island? 22. A Therelis the remnants of one. We have had to 1 I i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. I Nationwide Coserage l g

s i t 1 'd421 01 16 20 l 1 GJW/sw 1J curtail many of our activities in terms of our regional 2 offices. And, most of those activities are now carried out 3 a through the main office in Albany. 4I In those instances where we have had regional 5 of 2ces, they consist of one person who is very much under I 6 the control of the office in Albany. I do not believe l } 7 ! currently there is someone assigned in the Long Island 8 region. There has been someone in the past. 9 Q Where is that office located? 10 A That was also in Hauppauge. 11 Q Has the curtailment that you've described been a l 1 12 ' State-wide curtailment? l 13 ' A Yes, it has. 14 Q It is not specific to Suffolk County? 15 A No. i 16 Q Can you describe for me briefly your duties and 17 responsibilities as Commissioner of Health as it relates to f 18 - radiological emergencies? 1 19li A The responsibilities relate to the specific il 'l 20 ii health hazards associated with exposure to various forms of l 21 ", radiation. My responsibilities relate to identification of 22 ' the source of the potential hazard, any preventive i 3 6 1 ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. lNC. h Nationwide Coserage p

8 5421 01 17 1 21 1 1 GJW/sw 1j activities, mitigating activities, that might be taken by 2.; the State, and to make recommendations to either the 4 l 3d Governor or to local constituencies as to what action would 4 i be most appropriate to limit the hazards associated with any form of radiation. 5 6 6-Q Does that include what is described in NRC l 7 parlance as a protective action recommendation in the event 8 of an emergency? 9 A Yes. The Department has a specific 10 responsibility for protective action guidelines. 11 MR. BROWN: Just a point of clarification, 12 Mr. Sisk. In your question,, are you referring to 13 radiological emergencies as some generic concept or on a 14 ' site-specific basis? 15 Are you -- obviously I'm addressing Shoreham. 16 Are you asking questions about the Shcreham plant? Because l ~ interpreted it to be anything related to Shoreham 17 ' I have not l 18 8 at this point, just general questions that exclude Shoreham, i 19 !j MR. SISK: I have asked general questions which I 2 0 ll would include Shoreham. l l l 21:i MR. BROWN: Well, that certainly wasn't 1 22 !! understood by ne? I don't know if the witness understood it l l i d ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC, d NA(lonunde Contrage 3%

a s i 5421 02 01 22 l 1 GJW/sw 1, that way, because there is no plan for Shoreham, as you 2 know. 3 MR. SISK: Well, we will be getting to that. Let 1 44 me ask you this, Dr. Axelrod. 5 MR. BROWN: Well, if you don't mind, I think it 6i would be very useful. Otherwise, I will be asking for a 7 clarification repeatedly. If you could make clear whether 8 Shoreham is included or excluded from each of those kinds of 9 questions, I would appreciate that. 10 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 11 Q Let me ask you, Dr. Axelrod, as Commissioner of 12 Health, do you have general responsibility within the State 13 of New York for developing and inplementing protective i 1 14 action recommendations in response to a radiological 15 emergency at any and all power plants in the State of New I 16 York? l 17 ' MR. Z AHNLEUTER: And, that includes Shoreham? l l 18 L THE WITNESS: The -- 19 i: MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Excuse me. Is that correct, 20i that includes Shoreham? 21, MR. SISK: Yes.

l 22 H THE WITNESS

The Department would provide for 4 i 4 i I ) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC, Nationwide Coserage j g,y;,37g

r e e 1 3421 02 02 23 i 1 GJW/sw 1 -guidelines for those power plants that are currently 2 licensed and operating and for which there is an existing 3 site-specific plan. That does not include Shoreham. 1 4n BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 5J Q Would it include Shoreham if Shoreham were 6-licensed and operating? 7 A No, it would not, because there is no 8 site-specific plan to which the guidelines could relate. 9 Q Will you tell me what you mean by "site-specific 10 plan?" 11 A Each of the operating power plants currently have 12 a site-specific plan which identifies the relationship of 13 all of the parties; that is, local parties, community 14 government, county government, and in some cases multiple 15 county governments, to the State of New York and its various 16i. activities. 173 The protective guidelines would relate to l 1811 information that would be transmitted through those i 1911 individual entities of local government and how they would 2011 be applied. The guidelines assume that form of I e I 21i implementation which would require some form of site-specific ac'ivity by each of the entities that would be t 22; 1, } i e ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. Nationwide Coverage

5421 02 03 24 1 GJW/sw 1 involved in providing for the protective actions that would l 2 be anticipated. l 3' The guidelines clearly would have to relate to a 4 mechanism for implementation. That would be part of the 5-plan itself. 6c Q As a general matter, how are the guidelines 7 -formulated? i 8 A They are formulated by the Department by an 9 evaluation of the various land forms, the various crops, a i 10 whole series of considerations that relate to not only 11 generic considerations but to site-specific considerations 12 with respect to potential deposition, potential ingestion 13 pathways, all of those characteristics which are dependent i 14 upon information that is site-specific. i 15 Q In formulating the guidelines generally, do you l 16 make reference to federal regulatory requirements? j i 17 A We utilize the federal regulatory requirements l i 18 9 in coming up with site-specific actions or site-specific 19 9 recommendations that are developed where there is in 20 il existence a plan for dealing with a radiological emergency. i 21 Q Dr. Axelrod, in order for the various plants in 22 Y: New York, other t'han Shoreham, to remain in operation, they l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. l } Nationwide Coveraoe j

o i 5421 02 04 25 1 1 GJW/sw 1 have to have emergency plans approved by the federal 2 government, do they not? 1 3 A Well, they must first be approved by the State. i 4 And, they are submitted by virtue of the actions that are 5 - required by the Disaster Preparedness Commission after their 6, approval to the Governor, and then eventually to the federal 7 government. 8 So that there are a series of steps prior to the 9 submission to the federal government for its approval. 10 Q I understand that. So, my question is, in order 11 for those plants to operate don't they have to have 12 emergency plans that are approved by the federal government? 13 MR. "AHNLEUTER: I object, because this calls for 14 a legal conclusion. But, you may answer, Dr. Axelrod, if 15 you know. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Would you repeat the i 17 question? I lost track. 18 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 19 1 Q In order for the various nuclear plants in the 3 20 i; State of New York, other than Shoreham, to operate they have l 21 to have emergency plans which are approved by the federal 22 government, do they not? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. l t Nationwide Coserage i 3

e s i I S421 02 05 i 26 i i 1 GJW/sw 1 A That's not an exclusive requirement. The 2 position that has been taken by the State of New York is 3 D that they not only must have approval by the federal j 4 6 government but they must also have the approval of the i 5! Governor of the State of New York as well as the Disaster 6-Preparedness Commission. -l 7 So, while that may be a requirement, it is not an 8 exclusive requirement for operation. 9 Q But, it is a requirement? 10 A It is a requirement. 11 ' Q And, in order to obtain federal approval, those i 12 plans have to comply with federal requirements, do they not? 13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like to enter a 14 continuing objection on legal conclusion grounds to these 15 questions. 16 MR. SISK: Very well. 17 r THE WITNESS: The question was? 18 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) i i 13 t! Q In order for the emergency plans to be approved I i 20 !! by the federal government, they have to be in compliance I i l 21a with the federal requirements, don't they? ? 1 22 H A That's a judgment to be made by the federal i J l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. t j sa svtuwst Natio_nwide Coy _erage ____

l 9421 02 06 27 1 GJW/sw 1e government as to the way in which those reqdirements are I mean, I think you would have 2 inte rpreted. So, I can't 33 to get someone from the federal government to respond to 4a whether or not what the requirements are. 53 There are a set of requirements that are generic l 6 6i in nature. But, the conclusion that would have to be drawn I, v t 7 would be based upon the extent to which any site-specific 8 activity would provide for the implementation of those 9 generic requirements in those cases. 10 As I've indicated, there has been a previous t 11 submission through the Governor where there has been a clear l 12 determination that it is approved by the State of New York 13 as well as by the Disaster Preparedness Commission prior to i 14 its submission. 15 Q What criteria does the State of New York use to f i 16 approve emergency plans for commercial nuclear power plants? I i 17 A There are a series of detailed identifiable l 18 6 characteristics that are included in the State's generic 1 19 d plan that provides for the basic outline which would have to 1 20 e be followed. And, then each of the site-specific projects j 21 ' is assessed against those regulatory requirements with the 1 i 22 q assumption that a' plan can be prepared, which is the first I 1 1 1 6 f ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. N Nationwide Coserage w,,,,

a .s 9421 02 07 28 3 1 GJW/sw 1 question that is addressed by the State in terms of any site t t 2 for which a plan is being evaluated. 3 Q What regulatory requirements are you referring j i 4A to, Dr. Axelrod? i 5 A There is a -- I am referring to the federal i t 6 regulatory requirements which make up the structure upon 'l i 7 which the State requirements are identified in terms of the 8 specifics that would be required at each site for which 9 there is a required plan. e 10 Q So, is it correct to say that the State 11 regulatory requirements for approving emergency plans for i I 12 commercial' nuclear power plants are structured upon the 13 federal regulatory requirements? 14 A They include -- 15 MR. 2 AHNLEUTER: Excuse me. Are you including 16 Shoreham in your question? 17 ' MR. SISK: I'm asking about the general State 13 i requirements for approval of emergency plans. That's all. i 19a MR. 2AHNLEUTER: You said "for commercial nuclear l 20:1 power plants." Does that includs Saoreham? 21: I think we should arrange some kind of system to 22 il distinguish the questions as to whether you mean to include i i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Coserage

t $421 02 08 29 I 1 GJW/sw 1 Shoreham or not. 2 MR. SISK: I'm simply talking about the general I' 3r requirements that Dr. Axelrod referred to which the DPC uses 44 in evaluating emergency plans for nuclear power plants. 5 MR. BROWN: I would like to raise a point, too. l 6. I don't see how you can expect a non-lawyer, as counsel for I '7 the State stated in his objection, to respond to these kind 8 of detailed legal questions. 9 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 10 Q Let me ask you this, Dr. Axelrod. Do you know 1 11 what regulatory requirements the DPC applies in approving or l i 12 disapproving emergency plans for commercial nuclear power i 13 plants in the State of New York? j 14 A The specifics or the general -- 15-Q The general structure. 16! A The general structure? I t 17: Q Yes. 181! A The Disaster Preparedness Commission uses the l l 194 generic requirements for an operating nuclear plant that are 20n included within the evaluation that takes place. They are 21:! part of, but do not represent, the entire requirement for 22H evaluation by thw Disaster Preparedness Commission. 1 j l j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Coserage .i g

B421 02 09 30 1 GJW/sw 1 In the instance of Shoreham, the determination l i' 2F has been made that no plan is possible; and, therefore, the 3! plan would not be considered or evaluated against those I' i 4 4 criteria. 5 Q Who determined that no plan is possible? i 6L A Who determined that no plan is possible? 7 Q Yes. 8 A The Disaster Preparedness Commission made that 9 determination after an evaluation of the information that it 10 obtained through the -- offered through the member agencies . 11 of the Disaster Preparedness Commission, as well as from ] 12.; materials submitted by the counties which would be i 13 responsible for the implementation of any plan. 14 Q When was that determination made? 15 A That has been a continuous evaluation of those 16 d determinations. I think the Governor, in his statement, has 17 " indicated that he relied upon member agencies of the I' 18 q Disaster Preparedness Commission in reaching that i 19 t'l conclusion. 20: It has been made over a period of some five i 21 t

years, j

i i 22 If Q Is there any specific DPC Order or Decision i ACE,FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC, h Nationwide Coverage 9

s i 5421 02 10 31 1 _GJW/sw 1 reflecting that result? 2 '; A I don't recall any specific order reflecting 3 ] that. But, I believe there is a statement to the Governor 4 d at some point in time that indicates that the plan is a 5 non-plan; and, therefore, it would not be submitted for 6 either his approval or submission to the federal government. 7 Q Was there an administrative proceeding of record 8 which produced that determination? 9 MR. IAHNLEUTER: Could you clarify what that 10 means, "an administrative proceeding of record?" 11 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 12 Q Let me see if you understand what I am referring 13 to, Dr. Axelrod. Was there any DPC administrative 14, proceeding in which LILCO participated and in which other 15 parties participated which led to that determination? 16 4 A I think I need some help on "administrative ) 17 " proceeding." I guess I -- could you tell me what that would i 18 d include or exclude? I need a little bit of help. 19 il Q Well, you tell me, was there any proceeding? j i 20y A There was a proceeding in which the Disaster 21: Preparedness Commission did evaluate a plan in which the DPC 22{i made a determination, based on recommendations from staff, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i Nationwide Coserage

t t 5421 02 11 32 1 GJW/sw 1 as to whether or not a plan existed for the Shoreham plant. 2 Q Can you describe that proceeding for me? 3 A My best recollection is that it was a meeting of 4 the Disaster Preparedness Commission. 5 Q Do you recall when that occurred? 6 A No, I do not. 7 Q Is there any record of that meeting? 8 A There are records of all Disaster Prepared' ness 9 Commission meetings. There are Minutes that are kept. I 10 Q Do you have any recollection generally of when 11 that meeting occurred, 1982. or 1983? l 12 A I don't have a recollection. t 13 MR. SISK: I will request counsel for the State 14 of New York to see if he can ascertain whether any meeting i 15 Minutes exist and, if so, to produce those. 16 And, we will make a follow-up request in writing. 17 MR. " AHNLEUTER: I will await your request in 18 writing. 19 o BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 20 9 Q Dr. Axelrod, when you referred to the New York 21 State regulatory requirements earlier for approval of 2 2,l radiological emergency response plans at a nuclear power ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC, Nationwide Coserage 3 g,,

-= i l i 5421 02-12 33 1 GJW/sw 1 plant, can you tell me specifically what regulatory 2' requirements you are referring to? What document I can find 3 those in? 4c A There is a general response plan that I believe 5 has been also submitted to the federal government that 6 identifies the procedures utili ad by the Disaster 7 Preparedness Commission for approval of radiological 8 emergency response plans. 9 Q Is this the New York State Radiological Emergency 10 Response Plan itself? 11 A Yes, it.is. i 12 Q Was that document based upon federal regulatory 13 requirements for approval of emergency plans for nuclear 14 power plants? 15 A It includes federal requirements. 16i Q Are there requirements in that document in 17 addition to federal requirements? 18h A I believe that there are. 1911 Q Are there requirements that are different from 2011 federal requirements? 4 213 A There are requirements that extend beyond the i 22" specifics of the. federal requirements that are contained ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. if Nauonwide Caerage

I 5421 02 13 34 1 GJW/sw 1 within the emergency response plan that are related to the 2 specific nature of New York's problems and the demographics, et cetera, within New York State. 3 ( 4 l Q Are there any provisions in that plan that are 5 inconsistent with the federal regulatory requirements? i 6 A To the best of my recollection, there are no 7 inconsistencies, since it would have had to have been 8 approved by the faderal government. And, those 9 inconsistencies would have been identified presumably by the 10 federal government at the time of its submission. 11 Q Was the New York plan approved by the federal 12 government? 13 A Yes, it was. 14 Q By what agency of the federal government? 15 A My recollection is that it was approved by TEMA. 16 Q Do you recall when that approval occurred? t 17 A No, I do not. I 18 Q To the best of your recollection, can you 19 9 describe for me the differences in those regulatory l I 20 a requirements which are specific to the State of New York? I I 21" A I cannot identify the specific elements other 1 2 2 than to recall that there are requirements that extend l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. f t Nationwide Coserage l b e

i 5421 02 14 35 i 1 GJW/sw 1 beyond those of the statutory or the federally mandated j i 2, requirements. i Q Now, when we refer to the federally mandated 3 i 4 requirements, are we referring to NRC regulations? l 5J A Yes. 6U Q Does that also include NRC guidance documents? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And, guidance documents issued by FEMA? 9 A To the best of my recollection, it does include 10 those documents. 11 Q Dr. Axelrod, on Page 2 of your testimony which 12 has been marked as Exhibit 2, there is a statement, "I also 13 stress that the views and statements contained herein 14 ' represent the views of the State of New York." 15' Dr. Axelrod, who, within the State of New York -- 16 - A Where is that? 17'l Q Page 2, the middle of the page. I apologize. i i 18 y That is the last sentence at the end of the first answer. 1911 A Okay. 1 1 20] Q Dr. Axelrod, who, within the State of New York, I 1 21!: cuthorized you to speak on behalf of the State of New York 1 I 22ll in this testimony'? j i, 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. j 1 ii woon.iu cems. l

~ e e 5421 02 15 36 l l 1 GJW/sw 1 A The Special Counsel to the Governor. l 2P Q And, who is that? I 3 :; A Mr. Palomino. 4,; Q Did anyone else, withiri che State of New Yrrh, i 5a authorize you to speak on the State's behalf in this 6 testimony? .'j l \\ 7 A No. i 8 Q Are your statene.:ts today in this depositl'on also 9 on behalf of the State of New York? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And, do they also represent the position of the 12 Governor of New York? l 13 A Yes. 14, Q-Dr. Axelrod, a bit earlier you referred to 15 Article 2-B of the New York State Executive Law. That's the 16 law which, in fact, creates the Disaster Preparedness i 1 l l 17' Commission, is it not? { l 18i: A Yes, it is. l l i j 19 ll MR. SISK: I will now hand to the Reporter and l l 20 li ask that he mark ae Exhibit 3 to thic deposition a document i 21 'l entitled "Article 2-B, State and Local Natural and }:an-Made I 22H Disaster Preparedness." l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. ] Nationwice Coserage zmg

f 37 5421 02 16 1 GJW/sw 1 I will vouch for the record that this is a copy i 2 of Article 2-B of the New York State Executive Law. l 3 (Article 2-B, State and Local Natural 4o and Man-Made Disaster-Preparedness, is 5 marked as Axelrod Deposition Exhibit j i 6 Number 3 for identification.) i I 7 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 8 Q Dr. Axelrod, as an official of the State of New 9 York, are you bound by this State law? 10 MR. 2AHNLEUTER: I object to this question, 11 because that calls for a legal conclusion. As you know, 12 Dr. Axelrod is not a lawyer or a legal witness in this case. 13 MR. SISK: I'm asking for his answer as the 14 Chairman of the DPC and the Commissioner of the Department 15 of Health. t 16;i MR. 2AHNLEUTER: In any event, I still object. l 17 !! But, Dr. Axelrod may answer. l t 18 !! THE WITNESS: Article 2-B defines the l i 19i' responsibilities of the Chairman of the Disaster 20d Preparedness Commission. It also includes reference to the i I requirement that the Commissioner of Health be a member of 21:1 22 the Disaster Preparedness Commission. I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. a Nationwide Coserage j mg

5421 02 17 1 38 1 GJW/sw 10 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 1 2 Q Does it also set forth requirements with which i 3d you must comply as Chairman of the DPC and Commissioner of l 4 il the Department of Health? 5 ti MR. Z AHNLEUTER: To expedite matters, I will 6 enter a continuing objection to all questions relating to 7 this exhibit on the grounds that the questions call for 8 legal conclusions by Dr. Axelrod. 9 MR. SISK: And, let me just simply state for the 10 record that Dr. Axelrod's testimony incorporates various 11 1 statements about the Governor of the State of New York, some I, o 12 ' of which refer to and rely upon Article 2-B of the Executive l i 13 1 Law. And, the witness has also previously referred to it. i 14 6 MR. BROWN: Perhaps, counsel, you would want to 15' just clarify you are asking for his understanding rather i 16 ] than a categorical question. l f 17 0 MR. SISK: It is. It is his understanding in his i 18 !! official capacity as Chairman of the DPC and Commissioner of I 1911 the Department of Health. 20i Lawyers can always argue legal questions later. 210 MR. Z AHNLEUTER: My objection stands. But, you 22 ll may answer, Dr. Axelrod. 1 1 i I e j ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. l s.uon.ia,co,uan I

e I f 5421 03 01 a 39 1 GJW/sw 1? THE WITNESS: The question is? 29 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 3:I Q Does this law set forth requirements with which 6 4 ij you must comply as the Chairman of the DPC and Commissioner 5 !! of the Department of Health? 6 A It sets forth requirements for the Commission. ~ 7 As I look at the statute, it sets forth a series of 8 requirements and also an enumeration of duties, as well as 9 responsibilities for the Commission and the Chairman. 10 Q And, also various authorities of power; is that 11 correct? o 12 A Yes. 13 Q Dr. Axelrod, if you will refer to Section 21 of I 14., that document, that, in fact, is the section of the statute 15 which creates the Disaster Preparedness Commission; is it 16U not? 1 17 :; A Yes. i 184 Q Dr. Axelrod, this statute specifically applies to i 19 planning for a response to radiological emergencies to j i 201 nuclear power plants also, cessn't it? i 21!! A I'm sorry. Your question was? j l \\ 22k Q The document also -- the statute, I'm sorry, sets l l 1 i-1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. Nationwide Coverage g

i 5421 03 02 40 1 GJW/sw 1 forth -- let me withdraw that and try again. 2 The document also sets forth the -- also applies l to planning for and responding to radiological accidents at .3 4 commercial nuclear power plants; is that correct? 5i MR. BROWN: A clarification. What section are 6 you referring to in saying that? 7 MR. SISK: Let me refer specifically to the 8 second page of this document, the definition of "dis 5 ster," 9 under Section 20, 2.a. 10 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) t 11 Q That includes radiological accident I believe; is 12 that correct? l I 13 A Yes. l i 14 Q And, Dr. Axelrod, there are various sections 15 which relate to planning for and responding to radiological 16 emergencies specifically, aren't there? And, particularly 17 in Section 29. 18 ;i MR. BROWN: Clarification. Is your question I 19 lj limited to what does Section 29 say? Or, are you asking if 20i! there are other ones in addition to Section 29? i 21/ BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 1 22 'f Q Can y6u answer the question, Dr. Axelrod? i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. Nationwide Coseraft

l 5421 03 03 41 1 GJW/sw 1 A I'm looking at Section 29 -- 2 MR. BROWN: I'm sorry. I asked a question. I 3 :l would like to know what the question is so I can understand 4 it. 5 Is your question limited to -- are you asking i I 6 'I what Section 29 says? Or, are you asking him to define what ~ l, 7 sections in this statute deal wita radiological emergencies? 8 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 9 Q Does Section 29-c particularly apply to responses 10 to and planning for radiological emergencies at nuclear 11 power plants? i 12 MR. " AHNLEUTER: 29-c? ' ISK: 29-c. J 13 MR. i 14 THE WITNESS: 29-c is entitled "Radiological 15 Preparedness," and it identifies the actions of the 16 c Commission with respect to radiological preparedness. l 17 " BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) I 18 U Q Dr. Axelrod, if you will look specifically at t 19 !! Subsection 1(c) of that section, which appears on a page 20U which has Page Number 45 at the bottom of the document, the 21' last paragraph states, "Upon the occurrence of a l 221: radiological acc^ident, the commision shall promptly provide l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwid: Coserage m

A t S421 03 04 42 i 2 GJW/sw 1 appropriate and available radioactivity monitoring data to 2 any chief executive who requests it." 3 Have I read that correctly? i 4 A Yes. You said to "any chief executive who 5 requests it," right? 6 Q Correct. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, is that function of providing radioactivity 9 monitoring data part of the function that we referred to 10 earlier that is performed by the REPG? 11 MR. BROWN: Pardon me. I want clarification. i 12 Again, we are going back to questions which are sensitive to 13 Shoreham versus non-Shoreham. 14 Is this a shoreham-specific quention in which you 15 are asking the witness, if there were an accident at the 16 r Shoreham plant would the Commission provide appropriate, 17 available and sc on equipment? 18 MR. SISK: I have not asked that question. 19 c MR. BROWN: So, you are excluding Shoreham from 201 this? You are just asking questions about what the language 21: of this statute says generally? 22 ' MR. SISK: I am asking whether the requirement l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. l 'l Nationwide Coserage l

+ 43 5421 03 05 2 GJW/sw 1 that the Commission provide monitoring data to any chief f 3 i i' 23 executive who requests it is a function that is performed by 3 :l the REPG. 'l 40 MR. Z AHNLEUTER: I object to the 5 ! characterization of this as a requirement. 6a BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 7 Q Can you answer the question, Dr. Axelrod? 8 A I can answer the question only with respect to 9 site-specific activities, since the radiological accident 10 response is based upon an existing plan in which information 11 would be made available on the basis of that plan and would 12 provide for the specific information that would relate to I 13 the implementation of that plan. 14 So that each of the terms, as it relates to the 15 response, would relate to the specific requirements of the 16. existing plan for an operating nuclear power plant. 17 ' Q Is it your testimony, Dr. Axelrod, that this 4 i 18 0 requirement applies only if there is a plan for a specific 1 191i plant? A There is no way in which we could respond to 20q t 211 provide monitoring data unless the nature of that data were i 1 l related to the s'ecific responses and the specific 22 l1 p j t l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. Nationwide Coverage g

p i 5421 03 06 44 l' 1 GJW/sw 1 relationships of that plant to the population at risk. I 2 So, therefore, our ability to provide information to a specific plan which we define in the j 3 : would relatre i 4.I nature of the information to be provided to the chief i 5 executive at the time of a radiological accident. I l 6 Q So, is it your testimony that this requirement 7 does not apply unless there is a specific plan for the 8 particular plant? 9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object. This has been asked 10 and answered once, and perhaps twice. 11 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) l 12 Q Could I get an answer to that? 13 MR. BROWN: I also object on grounds that this is I 14 calling not for his understanding of the law but the 15 statutory construction of the nature that lawyers and legal 16 scholars are engaged in. I 17: MR. SISK: I will stipulate that I'm asking for l 18; the witness' understanding. l l 19? THE WITNESS: My understanding is that the j 2 0 !' requirement would be to respond to the best of its i ?.12 capabilities in a radiological accident, and those 1 I 22a capabilities would be dependent upon the existence of a plan l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. I Nationwide Coserage i zgg

5421 03 07 45 l 1 GJW/sw 1 in order to give the data any meaning to the chief executive 2d who requests it. 3: BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) I 4 ii Q Dr. Axelrod, does the requirement apply to a i f i 5 nuclear power plant if there is no site-specific plan, to I 6 the best of your understanding as the Chairman of the i 7 DPC? 8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to this question. It's 9 a mischaracterization of the statute as a requirement. 10 But, I would also seek a clarification to 11 determine if you are including the Shoreham Nuclear Power i 12 Plant in your question? 13 MR. SISK: I think my question speaks for itself. i 14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Then, I object, because it is 15 vague and on the other grounds that I've asserted. I 16 MR. BROWN: Well, I would like to know, does it l 17 ' or does it not include Shoreham? That seems like a I 18 q straightforward question that we should know. i 19 !! BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 20q Q Let me ask you this, Dr. Axelrod. To your 21 !! understanding, does this statute exclude Shoreham? l 22 d A There'.is nothing in the statute that makes l t 3 i a i e ] ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. i ] Nationwide Coterage y

s' t 5421 03 08 46 1 GJW/sw 1 ;I reference to Shoreham. 2 ll Q Is there anything in the statute that excludes i 3d Shoreham from the ambit of the statute? i t 4 MR. BROWN: Again, you are asking for his l 5I understanding? i 6> MR. SISK: As Chairman of the DPC. 7 MR. BROWN: However, I would like to stress that 8 this really is beyond the scope of anyone's understanding 9 except the legal scholar. You are asking for statutory 10 construction at this time as opposed to an administrator's 11 impression of what his responsibilities are. i i 12 MR. SISK: I'm asking -- 13, MR. BROWN: You have asked him to interpret a 14.. provision of the statute and not: As you look at this 15 statute in your understanding of it, sir, is it your 16, understanding tnat you have the responsibility. I 17 ' MR. SISK: For clarification, and because we do 18 i! have limited time, let me stipulate that every question I j i 19 11 ask related to Article 2-B or any other provision of law of il 20 h this witness is asked to the witness in his capacity as the l 214 Chairman of the Disaster Preparedness Commission and the l I l 221! Commissioner of the Department of Health, and it l i I 1 I I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. I d Nationwide Coserage f

4 5421 03 09 47 l 1 GJW/sw 1 specifically relates to his understanding in that official 2 capacity. i 3 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 4 Q I'm not asking you legal questions. That can be 5 debated by lawyers. 6 Do you understand that, Dr. Axelrod? 7 A I understand it, but I don't know that it 8 necessarily makes it any easier for me to respond to your 9 questions. 10 Q Well, let me just ask you specifically, to your 11 knowledge, is there anything in this statute which excludes 12 Shoreham from the applicability of this statute? 13 MR. CAHNLEUTER: Are you asking for a specific 14 citation to a section? 15 MR. SISK: I'm asking for anything to the 16 witness' knowledge. I 17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: So, you are asking him to review 18 this document to point out specific words? Is that 19 9 understanding of mine correct? l 20? BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 21'. Q Can the witness answer the question? l 22P KR. Z AHNLEUTER: Can you answer my question I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Courage sm

i 5421 03 10 48 1 GJW/sw 1 first, Mr. Sisk? 2 ':I MR. SISK: Let me state for the record that it's i 3 li now 3:55. We have a very limited time for conducting the 44 questioning. 5 'l It is my firm impression that both counsel for 6I the State and counsel for Suffolk County are obstructing my b 7 questioning and not permitting the witness to answer a f 8 straightforward question. I have attempted, as best'I can, 9 to clarify the question several times. i 10 I would like to have an answer. i 11. MR. BROWN: Well, I want to -- 12 HR. Z AHNLEUTER: I disagree with your 13 characterizations of obstruction. I won't delay this 14 proceeding any turther. 15 I am simply asking for the type of answer that 16, you are looking for so that Dr. Axelrod may give an 17 3 appropriate answer. If you are asking him to review this 18 e document to cite a specific question, then please just say 19 !) yes or no to my inquiry. i 20] MR. SISK: I'm not asking that Dr. Axelrod review 'i i 21;i every wo.d, colon, comma and phrase in the document. I'm 22y asking Dr. Axelrod, as Chairman of the Disaster Preparedness l 1 I ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. i j Nationwide Cogerage g g

i 49 5421 03 11 i 2 GJW/sw 1 Commission, which is created by the statute and which is i 1 responsible for implementing this statute, whether there is 2!! I' 3 ll anything, to his knowledge, that excludes Shoreham from the 4 il operation or applicability of this statute. 5" MR. BROWN: Well, before that, I am going to i i 6i respond to your accusation of my obstructionism. I think 7 you got carried away here. 8 But, the failure here for the last several 9 minutes has been your inability to phrase an intelligent 10 question and your insistence that the witness engage in 11 legal statutory construction. 12 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 13 ' Q Can you answer the question, Dr. Axelrod? 14 A My difficulty is that Section (a), (b), and (c) 15 of 29-c.1 contain a number of conditions which relate to the 16 it ability of the Commission to make determinations. None of I 17 those conditions, in effect, exist for the Shoreham Power 1811 Plant. l 19h My presumption would be that those conditions i a i i 20il would have to be met in order for the commission to provide I 21q appropriate radioactivity monitoring data to any chief 1, 22 executive. So,'my concern with respect to any response is I 3 J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Coverage m

t 5421 03 12 50 2 GJW/sw 1 the assumption, the hypothetical, in effect, that all of 2 li these information exist and they have been provided to the l 1 3 q commission to allow it to provide appropriate and available 4d radioactivity monitoring data. l 5 So that when you ask me if Shoreham is excluded, 6 >! by virtue of the fact that these information do not exist 4 7 within the Commission, I would believe that, in effect, 8 Shoreham would be excluded by the fact that these critical 9 pieces of information, which would allow an appropriate 10 response to a chief executive, don't exist. 11 MR. SISK: Okay. Let's take a recess. 12 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 3:56 p.m., to 13 reconvene at 4:05 p.m., this same date.) 14 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 15 Q Dr. Axelrod, if you will, turn to Section 22 of 16i-Exhibit 3. i 17 u (The witness is complying.) 18 I section 22 states that, "The commission shall 19 0 prepare a state disaster preparedness plan and submit such r 20: plan to the governor for approval no later than one year 21!! following the effective date of this act." i 22 Dr. Axelrod, does the State have a State-wide t i j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. j j Nationwide Coverage j gmg

l 5421 03 13 f 51 1 1 GJW/sw 14 disaster preparedness plan? 'l A Yes. 2 ! I I 31 Q And, is there also a State-wide radiological l t 4! emergency response plan? l 5 !! .A The State-wide plan consists of the site-specific i I 6 ij plans for each of the operating nuclear power plants. So l ~ 7 that while there is a State-wide plan, it focuses on the 8 individual activities and the State's responses required at 9 each of the specific sites. 10 Each of those is appended to the major plan as t 11 being part of the State-wide response. i 12 " MR. SISK: Okay. Dr. Axelrod, I'm going to hand 13 to the Reporter a document which is covered by a memorandum, 14 L dated September 1, 1987. It is from James D.

Papile, 15 Director, REPG, to All Recipients of the NYS Radiological 16i; Plan.

Its subject, according to the title of the document, l i 171l is the Revised New York State Plan. l I l 9 18 il (A document with a cover memorandum, dated I 19 il September 1, 1987, from James D. Papile i 20N to All Recipients of the NYS Radiological l. I 21!! Plan, is marked as Axelrod Deposition 22; Exhibit Number 4 for identification.) 1 I I I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. h Nationwide Contrage 3

52 5421 03 14 1 GJW/sw 1 EY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 2 Q I'm going to ask you to -- this document is very thick, by the way. I only have two copies available, one 3 49 for the Reporter and one for the State. 5 I will ask you to look briefly at that document 6 and tell me whether you can identify it for me? J 7 (The witness is looking at the document.) 8 Dr. Axelrod, for the purposes of time, it'.is not l 9 necessary for you to identify every page of the exhibit. 10 A What I am attempting to see is whether or not it 11 represents the complete plan or it represents a portion 12 thereof. 13 Q Excellent. Thank you. 14 (The witness continues to look at the document.) 15 A This does not represent the complete plan but 16 represents that portion of the plan which identifies the 17 9 response and it refers to the site-specific plans which are 18 " a part of the overall State plan that have been attached in 1911 the past. It is an appendices, so I'm not sure how this t 20!l relates to the existing State plan except as a part of it. l 21L Q Dr. A::elrod, let me ask you to turn to Page 1 of 220 that document. It bears the title of "Executive Summary" at 1 1 j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. d Nationwide Coserage m

l ] 53 5421 03 15 1 yl the top. l-GJW/sw 2l (The witness is complying.) i 3l MR. BROWN: May I ask for clarification? Is this 4i Executive Summary that of the entire plan, Mr. Sisk? or, is t 5i this the Executive Summary of a portion of the plan? 6! MR. SISK: Let's ask the witness. 7 :l BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 8 Q Can you answer that question posed by Mr. Brown, 93 Dr. Axelrod? I t' 10 " A The Executive Summary refers to the State P i 11: Disaster Preparedness Plan, although the document which I 1 12 n have before me does not contain that portion of the plan 1 13, which is identified as containing the seven-county plans, 14 !! county and state implementation materials, et cetera, that 15:i relate to the site-specifics. I 1 16f So that while the Executive Summary is in the I! 17 l front of the document and refers to the site-specific plans, 18i it does not contain the site-specific plans. 19f Q Dr. Axelrod, Page 1 of the Executive Summary, 20 under Introduction, states, "This New York State 1 21 tI Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan has been written to I 2211 assist in protecting the health and safety of the !I i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 1 Nationwde Coverage [ 3gg

I 5421 03 16 54 1 GJW/sw 1 inhabitants of New York State in the event of an emergency 2l at a commercial nuclear power plant. I 3i "The New York State Disaster Preparedness Plan i 4I addresses radiological emergencies in general terms whereas L 5[ this NYS Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan fills in i 6l the specific details." L 7I Now, let me continue with that quote: "This Plan 1 81 also contains seven county plans, county and State 94 implementation material and procedures necessary to carry 10,, out adequate protective action responses should a t 111 radiological emergency at a nuclear power plant occur. All 1 o I 12! components of this plan are designed to provide preplanned i n i 13 !! c.cordinated efforts by emergency managers." d ' 4 lI Now, Dr. Axelrod, having reviewed briefly this j 1 1 15i! document, is this a complete copy -- or, does it appear to 16i be a complete copy of the New York State Radiological 171 Emergency Preparedness Plan with the exception of those I 18i site-specific county plans? 19l A There -- i 20! MR. BROWN: A point of clarification first. Am I 2 11 correct to assume this excludes Shoreham? It says, "a j i 2 21 commercial nuclear power plant." e 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Nationwide Coserage I en

I 1 O i 5421 03 17 4 55 1 2-GJW/sw 1i Is your question excluding Shoreham? 2i MR. SISK: The document will speak for itself. l 3 MR. BROWN: But, so I understand what the 4l question is, I would like a clarification. 5h MR. SISK: I must express befuddlement at this i a l 6 il continuing objection. I have read the contents of the 7" document. 8 My question is, is this the New York State 9d Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan with the exception 10 of the seven county plans that are referred to in that 'l 11 :1 paragraph? That's my question. 1 12 MR. BROWN: Your question.is not asking whether l i I 13 :i this would apply to Shoreham, then; am I correc*' l., 14 MR. SISK: I have not asked that question. 15 0 MR. BROWN: And, therefore, your question is? l 16 g could you repeat your question? 17 I BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 18 i Q Do you understand the question, Dr. Axelrod? 19 A Well, first of all, I am having difficulty in 20 affirming that this represents the plan, having just been 211 handed the document. Without a more careful examination, I 22 am reluctant to suggest that this is, in fact, the t i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Coverage

5421 04 01 56 2 GJW/sw 1 ! Disaster Preparedness Plan prepared by the New York State 2 Radiological Emergency Group for the purposes of dealing i 3 l with the specific details. i 4 I It is -- it would appear to contain all of the i 5l elements which have formed the basis of the site-specific l 6 ll plans, but I have no way of being certain of that since, as 1 7d you have pointed out, to go through it in detail would take l i 8e an extraordinary amount of time. } 9 il Q Dr. Axelrod, if you will, look at the cover 10 :! memorandum. Is that the official letterhead of the Disaster 0 11 g Preparedness commission? il s 12 d (The witness is complying.) 13 ! A Yes, it is. 1 14 H Q Do you recognize the initial next to Mr. James 15 i D. Papile's name on that document? .i 1 6 !: A Yes. 17 h Q And, is that Dr. Papile's -- is he a Doctor? I 1 'l 18 11 apologize. 19t (Pause.) 201 I don't know. I will be safe. i 21l A General. We will both be safe with General. 221 (Laughter.) i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Coverage [ ym

5421 04 02 57 -1 GJW/sw 1 Q Very well. Is that General Papile's -- or, does 2 that appear to be General Papile's signature? i 3 A Yes. .i 4L Q Is there anything in this document -- I recognize i 5 you've only reviewed it briefly, but is there anything in 6 this document to suggest that it is not a correct copy of 7 what it is stated to be in that cover memorandum? 8 A From the cursory review, I don't see anything 9 that would suggest that it is not. 10 MR. SISK: Let me request on the record that e 11 prior to hearings on this subject, the witness either review 12 this document and verify that it is the current version of 13 the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan 14 for commercial plants; or, if it is not, I would request 15 that the State provide a current copy. 16 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 17 Q Now, Dr. Axelrod, let's assume for a moment that 18 this is a correct copy. Is this the New York State 19 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan with the exception 20 of the seven county plans referred to in that paragraph that 1 21 I read of the Executive Summary? ) 22 A The concern that I have is that the suffolk 6 ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. 1 s.tionwide emerage m,,,.,, y,

58 5421 04 03 1 GJW/sw 1 County plans are not the only parts of the plan. There are site-specific plans for each of the nuclear -- operating 2 3 nuclear commercial plants that extend beyond the specific 4 !! information associated with the counties. 5 Q Are these the so-called Nuclear Facility Operator 6 Plans, NFO plans? 7 A Yes. And, they are appended as part of the 8 State Radiological Emergency Plan. So, they are part and 9 parcel. 10 But, this represents only a portion of it. That 11 is my concern, that this not be construed as being the plan. 12 Q Okay. Can you describe for me the components of 13 the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan 14 which go beyond this document? 15 A The components relate to site-specific elements. 16-They relate to plume characteristics. They relate to ground 17-characteristics. They relate to demographic 18-characteristics. They relate to -- 19 Q Let me ask it this way. What specific documents 20s included within the New York State Radiological Emergency 21 Plan are not contained in the materials before you? 22 Are they -- can we safely summarize those as ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. sanonwide coserage i

g,,3c,3.go

I 59 5421 04 04 1 GJW/sw 1 the seven county plans and the Nuclear Facility Operator 2 plans, and all appendices and information that go with those 3 site-specific plans? 44 A That -- I would have to check to be certain that 5 there are not other elements that are contained within the 6 complete plan. But, those are the major elements that are 7 contained uithin the State plan. 8 Q Can you think of anything else? 9 A I can't. But, on the other hand, I haven't 10 reviewed this in some time. So, I am reluctant to say that 11 this represents the complete document or that those 12 documents themse'ives represent the only addenda that would 13 constitute a complete State plan. 14 Q Now, Dr. Axelrod, earlier we talked about State 15 requirements for emergency plans for nuclear power plants. 16 Does this document -- and I'm referring specifically to the 17 portion you have before you, and I will again ask you to 18 assume that it is a correct copy of the generic part of the 19 New York State Plan, is this the document you were referring 203 to which sets forth the State's requirements for emergency 21 plans for nuclear plants generally? 22; KR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to the characterization i ACE-FEDER AL REPORTE RS. I NC. '" "*'* " '"#F 202-347.)?00 300 336-6646 i

i o. a t 60 5421 04 05 1 GJW/sw 1 of this document as the generic State plan. I don't believe 2 Dr. Axelrod has ever used those words today. 3 MR. SISK: The generic part of the State plan. i 4 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) l l 5 Q Can you answer the question, Dr. Axelrod? 6 A It carries within it a requirement for the 7 general operations of the emergency response and identifies 8 those critical elements associated with direction and 9 response activities, assessment and evaluation. 10 Without looking specifically to ensure that all 11 elements that were contained within the original plan that 12 identified State-specific requirements, I really would not 13 want to comment on it further. l 14 Q Dr. Axelrod, is there any other document, to your 15 knowledge, which sets forth State DPC requirements for 16 radiological emergency plans or preparedness plans for 17 commercial nuclear power plants? 18 A I'm not aware of any additional plan. On the 19 other hand, I am reluctant to conclude that this contains i 20 within it all of the State-specific requirements without 21 having reviewed it. 22 But, I know of no other document. 9 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. j sationwide coserage ,o,,y,.3.gg

a-z. i 61 5421 04 06 fl GJW/sw 1 Q You know of no other document that contains such 2 State DPC requirements; is that correct? 3-A My concern is the following: I have not reviewed 4 this most recent revised New York State Plan which is based 5 upon a previous plan which did contain a number of concerns, 6 State-specific elements. And, whether or not they have all 7 been transcribed faithfully in this plan, I'r not in a position to respond to unless I've had the opportunity to 8 9 compare this with the previous plans that have been the 10 basis for the State-wide planning requirements. 11 Q Now, ignoring whether the document contains all 12 of the State requirements, is there any other document which 13 contains State requirements, State DPC requirements, for 14 radiological emergency plan. for commercial nuclear power 15 plants? 16 A As I've indicated, I don't believe that there is. 17 Q Thank you. If this plan is a correct copy of the 18 State Radiological Emergency Plan, as set forth in the cover 19 memorandum, has this document been approved by you? 20 A I have no recollection of specific approval 21 having been granted for the distribution of this plan. 22 Q Do you have any specific recollection of the ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC-Nationwide Coserage 202 347.T00 3tg).33h.6646 u.

j i 62 5421'04 07 l 1-GJW/sw 1 revision, dated September 1, 1987? I 2 A I am aware of the fact that there was a revision i 3 in progress. I am not aware that there has been a full 1 approval of the revised plan as it has been presented to me. 4 i 5 here today. i Q Has it been approved? 6 a 7 A I have no recollection of a specific approval 8 having been granted for the revised plan. 9 Q Would you have to approve it prior to its 10 official issuance? 11. A The Disaster Preparedness Commission would consider the revised plan prior to its becoming the official 12 ' 13 designated plan and replacing a previously approved plan. 14 Q And, that would have to be approved by the entire 15 Commission; is that correct? 16 A It would be presented to the Commission for its t 17 approval. i 18-Q Do you know whether it has been presented for 19 - approval? 20: A The Commission meets twice annually. The most 21' recent Commission meeting was only several weeks ago, and it was not presented-at the time of that meeting for official 22. e e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. I 02 147.1700..-. ' W ' 2. 300 336 6646

o v. i f 5421 04 08 63 1-GJW/sw 1 approval. 2 There has been discussion of the revised plan, but I cannot give you an affirmative answer as to whether or 3 : 4 not this has-been approved by the full Disaster Preparedness 1 d 5 Commission. 6 Q So, the answer is that you don't know whether it 7 has been approved by the full DPC? 8 A The best of my recollection is that it has not. 9 Q Dr. Axelrod, the cover memorandum says that it is 10' to all recipients of the New York State Radiological Plan. 11 Can you tell ne who the recipients are? 12 A The recipients would be the State, tne federal 13 and local agencies that would be required to respond under 14 the site-specific activities that would be identified in the 15 appendices which represent the complete radiological plan. 16 Q Does the DPC have a list of recipients? 17 A I believe that it does, yes. 18 Q Is that maintained by General Papile? 19 ' A Yes. 20' Q Are there any recipients within the government of 21 Suffolk County? 22 F A The recipients of Suffolk County would relate to a ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS. INC. Nanonmde coserage x,3c,33 )

e s f 64 5421 04 09 1 GJW/sw 1 any site-specific relationships to any of the operating 2 nuclear power plants. I believe that since there is a 3 relationship of one of the operating nuclear power plants 4 that it would have been provided to the entities, all 5 ontities responsibla for responding. 6 Q Do you know whether that would include anyone 7 within the government of Suffolk County? 8 A I have no specific knowledge as to whether or not 9 anyone within Suffolk County received a copy. I can only 10 rely upon the distribution list that General Papile would 11 have as to who would have received it, including anyone 12 within Suffolk County. 13 MR. SISK: Let me simply note for the record that 14 I have numerous goestions concerning this document. And, in 15 the interest of time -- I will not have sufficient time 16 between now and five o' clock to cover those. 17 So, let me ask you just a few questions about 18 this document. 19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: It's only 25 after four, 20' Mr. Sisk. Why don't you try? 21' MR. SISK: I have other questions to cover as 22 well. 9 ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. woon ioe coerne

o,m,m

t 4 65 5421 04 10 1 GJW/sw 1 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 2 Q Dr. Axelrod, does this document identify the resources generally available to the State for responding to 3 4 radiological emergencies at nuclear power plants? l i 5 MR. BROWN: A clarification. Are you including 4 6 the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant? 7 MR. SISK: I am including any plant within the 8 State of New York, which includes St<c-tham. 9 MR. BROWN: Even thoug

,horeham is not an 10 operating plant, you are including Shoreham, I take it?

11 MR. SISK: Yes. 12 THE WITNESS: The plan oporates on generic 13 capabilities of each of the departments that would be 14 involved in a response, as they are identified in the seven 15 counties -- as are identified in relationship to the seven 16 counties in which there would be an expected response in the 17 event of an accident at an operating commercial power plant. 18 It does not include Shoreham. 19 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 1 20 Q Dr. Axelrod, is it your testimony that the State 21' resources identified in this document would not be available 22 for response to an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power ( 0 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. u nonmeeem u m l c,3,,3,

66 5421 04 11 1 GJW/sw 1 Plant? 2 A It would be impossible for me to speculate as to 3 what resources might or might not be available, since there 4r is the assumption that those resources would be in response 5 to a plan. Since there is no plan with respect to Shoreham, i 6 it is impossible for me to identify which resources would or 7 would not be available in addressing an incident at the 8 Shoreham plant. 9 Q Dr. Axolrod, when you say there is no plan, do 10 you mean there is no Suffolk County plan? 11 A No. There is no site-specific plan with respect 12 to the Shoreham Nuclear Facility. 13 Q Dr. Axelrod, have you -- let me ask you this, 14 Dr. Axelrod. Referring back to your testimony, on Page 2 of 15 your testimony there is a question at the bottom of the 16 page which states, "Are you aware that LILCO has prepared an 17 offsite emergency pinn for Shoreham and that LILCO asserts 16 that State personnel would follow that plan in responding 19 cooperatively with LILCO personnel to an accident at 20s Shoreham?" 21 Answer: "Yes." 22 Now, Dr. Axelrod, you are aware that LILCO has O h ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. ]a"'d' C "' 3 8' mwu

02-347 3:00

,a 67 '5421 04 12 1 GJW/sw 1 prepared an offsite emergency plan for Shoreham, are you 2 not? 3 A Yes. The fact that LILCO has prepared a plan 4 i doesn't mean that a plan exists. I would not suggest that a 5 plan prepared by LILCO represents an offsite emergency preparedness plan as far as we are concerned in terms of its 6 7 ability to respond to the specifics that we believe should 8 be responded to in terer,of the development of an offsite 9 plan. 10 Q What would be necessary, in your opinion, 11 Dr. Axelrod, as Chairman of the DPC, for a site-specific 12 plan to exist? 13 A The first would be an assertion that a plan 14 could, indeed, be developed. And, in the case of the 15 Shoreham facility, the conclusion has been reached that it 16 would not be possible to provide for such a plan. 17 Q Dr. Axelrod, do you mean that a plan physically 18 cannot be written up for Shoreham? 19 A Well, there is no limit to the amount of paper 20r that can be produced that relates to operating parameters 21 that relate to a plan. 22 Q What do you mean then by "a plan is not possible \\ e 9 ACE-FEDER AL REPORTE RS, INC. sun iae cmune m.y ,3,,

1 68 5421 04 13 1~ GJW/sw 1 for Shoreham?" 2 .A A site-specific plan relates to the ability of I 3 that plan to provide public protection and to assure the 41 welfare of those individuals and to effectively carry out 5 the assurance responsibility that government has. 6 The conclusion has been reached by the Governor 7 that no such possibility of a governmental assurance is 8 potentially possible. And, the Suffolk County Executive has 9 also made statements to the effect that such an assurance 10 would not be possible and, therefore, that a pist. rauld not 1 11 be written that would provide for the kinds of assurances 12 that government have the responsibility to provide to its 13 residents. 14 Q So, Dr. Axelrod, is -- and correct my 15 characterization if it's incorrect -- your testimony then 16-that it is possible to prepare a plan, but in the State's 17 view it is not possible to prepare a plan for Shoreham which 18 will meet applicable State and federal regulatory 19: requirements for protecting the public health and safety in 20a the event of an emergency? 21 Is that your position? 22: A My position is that no plan could be prepared for ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. i sationwide cmcrare j j g

i 69 '5421 04 14 <1 'GJW/sw 1 Shoreham since the requirements with respect to public i 2 safety cannot be met at Shoreham. 3 Q Is the answer yes? 4-A The answer to my question is yes. I am not sure 5 I understood your question. It was a little bit convoluted, 6 so I prefer to respond yes to a question which I understand. 7 If you want to rephrase it -- 9 Q Is it your position that a plan could be drafted 9 but that such a plan could never meet federal and State 10 regulatory requirements for protecting public health and 11 safety? 12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like a clarification. 13 Drafted by whom and under what circumstances? 14 MR. SISK: I am trying to und rstand what.the 15 witness' testimony was. 16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Your question is vague. 17 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 18 Q Can you answer the question? 19 A What I think I have previously testified to is 20F that it is possible to develop a great deal of paper with 21-respect to identifying issues that relate to some of the 22: parameters that would be required in the State -- under the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. saiion.iee coserage m m,3.,

70 S421 04 15 GJW/sw 1 State directive. My testimony is that I do not believe that a plan 2 3 can be prepared that is a plan that would provide for an adequate level of safety, that would provide for public 4 5 assurance, governmental assurance, to protect the public 6 welfare under the circumstances at Shoreham. 7 Q And, is that specifically what you mean by "a 8 plan cannot be prepared?" 9 A That is what I mean by "a plan cannot be 10 prepared." 11 Q And, when you refer to a plan that is adequate to 12 protect public health and safety, what standards are you 13 referring to in making the judgment that the plan cannot 14 adequately protect public health and safety? 15 A I am referring to judgments tnat have been made by experts to whom information -- by whom information has 16 17 been provided to both the Suffolk County Executive and to 18 the Governor of the State of New York. 19 Q What experts are you referring to? 20 A

7. think that the Governor has identified the origins of tne information that he has based his 21-22 determination on.

And, I believe that the County Executive e ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. ^ '"""d' 202 147.1?00 390 33 % g

9 4 71 5431 04 16 1 GJW/sw 1 has also identified the specific nature of the information 2 which he has relied upon to reach his conclusion with 3 respect to the inability to prepare a plan. 4 Q Where has the Governor identified that 5 information? 6 A The Governor has submitted an affidavit. And, I 7 would defer to counsel. 8 Q Is that the affidavit attached to this testimony, 9 Dr. Axelrod, to your testimony, Exhibit 2? 10 (The witness is looking at the document.) 11 A "It c. important to bear in mind that experts of 12 New York State have analyzed LILCO's Plan and the capabilities of LILCO's emergency workers as part of the 13 14 State's participation..." 15 "These State officials, including those who presented sworn testimony, have found LILCO's emergency plan 16 I 17 to be unworkable and its emergency workers incapable of performing effectively in a radiological emergency." 18 19 MR. SISK: Let the record reflect that the 20: witness is reading from a portion of an affidavit by the 21 Governor, which is attached to the witness' testimony. 22 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. Nanonmoe cmcran j g,3g,33

I 72 5421 04 17 1 GJW/sw 1 Q Dr. Axelrod, the statement you have just referred 2 to, did that make specific reference to the LILCO plan which 3 is currently in litigation before the NRC? 4 i A The reference is to LILCO's plan. And, this is 5 on Page 2 of the Governor's affidavit and the Governor's 6 testimony. 7 And, I don't know whether or not that is the 8 LILCO plan that is currently the subject of litigation. 9 Q Dr. Axelrod, are you aware that the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission Licensing Board has determined that an 11 adequate emergency plan for the Shoreham Plant is possible? 12 MR. BROWN: I object to that -- 13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object. 14 MR. BROWN: -- as a gross mischaracterization of 15 what the Board said. 16 MR. Z AHNLEUTER: I have the same objection. 17 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 18 Q Can you answer the question? 19 MR. Z AHNLEUTER: If you know. 20. THE WITNESS: No, I do not know. 21 MR. SISK: Dr. Axelrod, I'm going to hand to the 22 Court Reporter a< document entitled "United States Nuclear ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. sanonwide coseran g3p,33

l 73 5421 05 01 1-GJW/sw 1/ Regulatory Commission, Cite as 21 NRC 1587 (1985)." It is a 2, decision, dated June 20, 1985. 3 And, I will vouch for the record that it is a 4 ~ i; decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granting LILCO 5 a license to the Shoreham plant. 6 (A Decision of the NRC, 21 NRC 1587 (1985), 7 dated June 20, 1985, is marked as 8 Axelrod Deposition Exhibit Number 5 for 9 identification.) 10 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 11 Q I will ask you, Dr. Axelrod, to turn to Page 12 1589. 13 (The witness is complying.) 14 That states, "We note that our Licensing Board in 10 its..." 16 MR. BROWN: Where is this, Mr. Sisk? 17 MR. SISK: This is in the middle of the page. 18 "We note that our Licensing Board in its decision of April 19 17, 1985..." and there is a citation, "has found that an 20v adequate emergency plan is in fact achievable if the State 21/ and County participate in emergency planning, as all other 22a local and State jurisdictions have done when so called ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. sationwede coserage ,g,, g,

I 74 5421 05 02 1 GJW/sw 1 upon." 2 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 3 Q Have I read that correctly? l 4 A Yes, you have. 3 5 Q Dr. Axelrod, until today, were you aware that the 6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission had made that determination I 7 just quoted? 8 A I have no specific recollection -- 9 MR. BROWN: I object. The Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission made no determination whatsoever. They made a 11 notation. 12 MR. SISK: I will stand corrected. 13 MR. BROWN: Insofar as the legal effect of that 14 notation, we categorically disagree that there ever was any 15 finding. If you would like to, Mr. Sisk, go back to those 16 words that the Licensing Board used and read those into the 17 record. And we, among counsel, won't quibble away some of 18 your precious time, because they do not represent what you 19 are trying to suggest. 20: MR. SISK: I would prefer to let the record scand i 21: on its own. 22 THE WITNESS: If I might, with respect to that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. \\ *"* *d ' C 2 F# 200-34?.3 W em

75 5421 05 03 1 GJW/sw 1 statement? 2 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 3 Q Yes. A There is a hypothetical, which is attached to the 4 5 Licensing Board's note, which relates if the State and 6 county participate in emergency planning. 7 In spite of the Licensing Board's decision, the 8 County has clearly identified the fact that it will not 9 participate in emergency planning because of its conclusion 10 that no plan can be constructed. 11 So that if one construes the notation as it is 12 identified on Page 1589, one would reach the conclusion that 13 no plan is available because State and County have clearly 14 determined that they will not participate in emergency 15 planning based upon their own evaluations. 16 So, I would construe that as, in fact, concluding 17 that no adequate emergency plan could be identified for 18 Suffolk County. 19 Q Dr. Axelrod, does that mean that it's your 20! understanding that the State and County have declined to 21-plan because they disagree with the NRC characterization 22? that a plan is, in fact, achievable? ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. sanonwide coserage m m.,

? 76 5421 05 04 1 GJW/sw 1 MR. BROWN: I object -- 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object. 3 MR. BROWN: -- categorically. On behalf of the County, the reasons _for the County are well known to you. 4 a 5 They have nothing to do with what you suggested. 6 And, I would like to say that we will not look 7 favorably or charitably upon your complaints later that you 8 had no time, Mr. Sisk, when you simply dribble it away over 9 frivolities. 10 MR. SISK: I am asking the witness to explain his 11 answer. 12 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 13 Q And, I will pass on if you cannot answer the 14 question. Can you? 15 A What was the question? 16 Q Let me withdraw it. Dr. Axelrod, does the State 17 DPC have any plans for responding to radiological I i emergencies for plants outside the State of New York? 18 The State cooperates with other entities that are l 19 A i responsible for operating commercial nuclear power plants 20 21 and has documents that relate to site-specific responses for those other commercial power plants that are located outside 22. ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. D " ""'d' C#E' 202 3C 3% m%4 l

77 S421 05 05 1 GJW/sw 1 the State of New York in which the emergency planning zone 2 extends to within certain specific areas within the State of 3 New York. 4 Q Does that include the Yankee Rowe Plant? 5 A Yes, it does. 6 Q There is an exercise for that plant, in fact, 7 next week; is there not? 8 A I know there is an exercise. I don't know the 4 9 specific scheduling of that exercise. 10 Q The State of New York DPC has site-specific plans 11 for responding in the event of an emergency at Yankee Rowe: 12 is that correct? 13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Excuse me. I would like to 14 object. 15 MR. SISK: The witness just said he had 16 site-specific plans. I'm asking if that is correct for 17 Yankee Rowe. 18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: What I would like to do is 19 register an objection based on relevancy grounds, because 20; the issue here is Shoreham, LILCo and the realism issue. other nuclear power plants are irrelevant to the 21' 22 subject of this proceeding. 4 i 9 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. .--:n w:rm -. - -. " ~ - - _ ' * * ", " " * " a.m.ws____

i 5421 05.06 ^ 78 2, GJW/sw 1 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 2 Q Dr. Axelrod, your testimony states, does it not, 1 3" that there is no site-specific plan for Shoreham; is that 4d correct? 1 5, A That is correct. 6 Q Is it your testimony thtt there is a 7' sit ~e-specific plan for the Yankee Rowe plant that is 8 established by the DPC? 9' A The DPC does not have a site-specific plan for 10 the Yankee plant. The site-specific plan has been forwarded 11 to the Disaster Prepa. dness Commission by the responsible agency within the State of Connecticut as to the expected 12 13 role of geographic areas within the State of New York. 14 Q Is that site-specific plan incorporated within 15 your State plan that was handed to you earlier? 16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I will make a continuing 17 objection on all questions related to the Yankee Rowe plant, especially in light of the diminishing amount of time that 18 ' 19' is available. 204 And, my objection is grounded on relevancy. 21f BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) P 22: Q Can you answer the question? I a ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. lNC. wnonmoe coser,,re , g, y,,,,,

V. e 79 5421 05 07 Without a careful review of the information that 1 GJW/sw 'l A 2 is contained in there, I am not in a position to comment as to whether or not the site-specific activities required with 3 respect to plants operating outside of the State of New York 4 5 are contained within the New York State Radiological 6 Emergency Plan. I would have to determine whether or not that is 7 8 included. 9 Q The answer is you don't know? 10 A I don't know without going through it. 11 Q Dr. Axelrod, let me ask you to refer back to the State Radiological Emergency Plan, at least assuming again 12 that this is an accurate copy of the generic portion of that 13 14 plan. Please turn to Page III-18, Section 3 of the plan. 15 The number appears to have been copied off of the bottom, 16 but it's between III-17 and III-19. 17. (The witness is complying.) 18: The section -- 19-MR. BROWN: Wait. Pardon me, I don't have a copy 20L and I don't have access to it. Would you wait a minute, 21' please? 2 2.. MR. SISK: There is one right here. ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. saiion ioe toser re m y,

,e. e 1 80 5421 05 08 li GJW/sw 1 MR. BROWN: What page is it, Dennis? I'm sorry. 2 MR. SISK: III-18. I believe the witness -- 3 MR. BROWN: Is this under Part 3 or -- 4i MR. SISK: Section 3. I believe the witness has 5 found it. 6 MR. BROWN: Part 2 or Part 1 of Section 3? 7 MR. SISK: It is approximately one-quarter of the 8 way tnrough the bulk of the document. 9 MR. BROWN: Okay. III, and then what is it? 10 MR. SISK: III-18. The b0ttom of the page has 11 not been copied. It is between III-17 and III-19. The witness found it a couple of minutes ago. 12 13 MR. BROWN: Okay. 14 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 15 Q The caption to that section is "State Implementation of A County's Plan In Those Instances Where A 16 4 17 County Does Not Implement the Plan Itself." 18 Are you familiar with this portion of the New l 19 York plan? 20 A Generally, yes. I 21' Q How long has that been in the New York plan? 1 22 A I would only ba speculating. I don't know how ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC. i sanon,a ceaan x.,,.,,

l 81 5421 05 09 1 GJW/sw 1l long it has been there. It has been there prior to this 2 edition. I recall seeing it previously. But, I do not know 3 L the precise point in time in which it became part of the 4 Il plan. 5 Q .Does this portion of the master plan apply where 4 6 a county fails to provide or implement its own plan? 7 MR. BROWN: I object to that. It is calling for 8 a legal conclusion. 9 MR. SISK: This is the Chairman of the DPC. 10 MR. BROWN: I don't think there is any precedent 11 for this, though. I'm positive there is no precedent, plus 12 it's asking for a legal interpretation. 13 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 14 Q Can you answer the question? 15 A I will defer to counsel. 16 Q Do you know what this section is designed to deal 17 with, what it does? 18 MR. BROWN: Mr. Sisk, I think he just answered 19t your question. He said he didn't know. l 20$ MR. SISK: He deferred to counsel. 21" BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 22L Q Could.-you answer the question, Dr. Axelrod? i I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. won io, em< rag, a m.m..

I c 82 G421 05 10 n .1 GJW/sw 1 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: If you know. i 2, THE WITNESS:. This plan --this requirement refers 3 to a site-specific response for the DPC and is related to 4 county participation in a site-specific instance. i 5 MR. SISK: Dr. Axelrod, I will hand to the Reporter and ask him to mark as Exhibit 6 to this deposition + 6 7 a document of which I unfortunately only have one copy. 8 I will read the title, and then I will ask the 9 Reporter to hand it to you. The document bears the 10 letterhead of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It 11 is captioned "Post Exercise Assessment, August 24-25, 1983, 12 ' Exercise of the State of New York Radiological Emergency Response Interim Plan for Implementing Compensating Measures j 13 14 for Rockland County for the Indian Point Nuclear Power i 15 Station." It is dated September 26, 1983. f 16 (A FEMA document, dated September 26, 17 1983, Post Exercise Assessment, August f 18: 24 and 25, 1983, for Indian Point Nuclear i 19L Power Station, is marked as Axelrod I. 20 ii Deposition Exhibit Number 6 for 21f identification.) 22, O ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. e s iionwide coscr.ge 3,,y,g,,

= 83 5421 05 11 1 GJW/sw 1 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 2 Q Dr. Axelrod, have you ever seen that document 3 before? 4 MR. 2AHNLEUTER: Excuse me, Mr. Sisk. I would 5. like a chance to look at this docuuent. It's unfortunate l' 6 that you only brought one copy with you. It will take a 7 moment. 8 MR. SISK: The questioning will be very brief. 1 9 It is 4:45. 10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: It will take a quick moment to 11 quickly review this. 12 MR. BROWN: Yes, I would like to look with t 13 counsel. 14 (Mr. Zahnleuter, Mr. Brown and the witness are 15 looking at the document.) 1 16-MR. BROWN: Mr. Sisk, to cut through all the 2 17 preliminary questions, is this the first or the second 18 Indian Point exercise? i 19: MR. SISK: I do not know. 20~ MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Is there a pending question? 21 MR. SISK: No, there is not. I've asked the 22 witness -- actually there is. ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. Nanon.ide coverage so,,3g,pon

i 84 5421 05 12 1 1 GJW/sw 1 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) l i 2 Q I've asked the witness has he ever seen this f f 3: document before? 4o A Yes, I have. I 5 Q Dr. Axelrod, was there an interim compensating plan for the State of New York that was specific to Rockland.. 6 1 7 County? J 8 A The specific implementing plan was in response-to 9 the site-specific plan which had been adopted by the 10 Disaster Preparedness Commission for the Indian Point 11 facility. j l 12 Q And, that Rockland County plan was adopted, was 13 it not, when Rockland County itself failed to approve a 14 plan? 15 A The specific circumstances of Rockland County's 16 activities at the time werd very confused, and I would not 17 want to characteri:e the specific actions of Rockland County 18 at the time in which this exercise took place. 19: Q At the time that the exercise took place, was 20h there a State interim compensating plan for Rockland County? l l 1 21" A Yec. 22 Q 'ow, dii'.'t tha State REPG draft that 9 39 ERA: R5 PORTERS. lNC. whenv.ide Coverage

i 85 5421 05 13 1 GJW/sw 1 compensating plan? 2 A The DPC utilized planning activities that had 3 been carried out within Rockland County as the basis for 4ii providing the site-specific activities and defining the role l 1 5 for the compensating plan for the DPC at that time. 6 Q The State REPG, however, actually prepared that f 7 interim compensating plan, didn't it? 8 A The actual compensating plan as it related to the 8 9 required State activities was prepared as a modification of 10 an existing Rockland County -- my best recollection is that 11 it was of an existing Rockland County plan and was based 12 upon the recommendations and actions that were associated 13 with the requirements for a Rockland County response. 14 So that it was part of an existing site-specific 15 plan that was designed to address the response at Indian 16-Point. 17 Q That plan may have been based upon a Rockland 18 County plan, but it was prepared by Mr. Ned Smith within 19i REPG, was it not? 20: MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to these questions on 21 the grounds of relevancy. And, I will take a continuing 22 objection to these questions about Indian Point and Rockland ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. \\'"# " * 'd ' C ' "d 8' I L 20' 3 M 3'00 em

e t 86 $421 05 14 1 GJW/sw 1 County, especially in this detail. 2 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) i 3 Q Do you know the answer to the question, l 4 il Dr. Axelrod?' S A I do not recollect who was responsible for -- who a 6-within the REPG was responsible for the interim plan. 7 I would acknowledge certainly that it was done 8 within REPG, but I cannot identify the persons or person 9 responsible for it other than I would -- 4 10 Q Do you know Ned Smith? 11 A Yes. I would be hard pressed to suggest that any 12, compensating plan would have been pre;. red by a single 13 individual; in addition to which my reevilection was that 14 there were, even at that point, engagements with Rockland 15 County with respect to the development of the compensating 16 plan. 17 c Q Did Mr. Ned Smith work on preparing that plan to 18 your knowledge? 19 A My best recollection is that he did work on it. 20 Q Now, Dr. Axelrod, returning to the State plan and i the provision I referred to earlier, the one captioned 21-22? "State Implementation of A County's Plan In Those Instances ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. lNC. Nattonwide Coierag gy,3p 3.go

87 5421 05 15 1 GJW/sw 1 Where A County Does Not Implement the Plan Itself." Does the Rockland plan I just referred to and 2 3 that is reflected in that Post Exercise Assessment, does that reflect an implementation of this portion of the State 4 5 plan? 6 And, by that I mean the portion on III-18 and 7 subsequent pages. 8 A My recollection is that the reference to the State plan which refers to State implementation was related 9 10 to the implementation of the Rockland County participation 11 in a site-specific plan in which there had been a 12 determination that a plan could be prepared. 13 The participation by the State DPC was based upon 14 the threshold assumption that a plan could be prepared that 15 was adequate to protect the public safety from a 16 radiological accident at Indian Point. 17 Q Dr. Axelrod, could this portion of the State plan 18 be used for a compensating measure for any county which 19 n failed to adopt its own plan, including Suffolk County? Could this section be used for Suffolk County? I 20? 21 MR. BROWN: Objection. That is the most profound legal and constitutional question that could be raised -- 22' 9 ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. sai on..ae coserage 3,,y,,3y,

if f 88 -5421 05 16 1 GJW/sw 1 MR. SISK: I have' asked for his understanding -- in emergency planning in the State 2 MR. BROWN: 3 of New York. 4 MR. SISK: Based on -- j 5 MR. BROWN: Obviously, it's addressing Suffolk i 6 County and Shoreham, matters litigated, that have gone all 7 the way to the Court of Appeals, have been to the Second 8 Circuit Court of Appeals, and appropriately should not even 9 be addressed by anyone except counsel. 10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I endorse that objection, and 11 also add that it calls for gross speculation. j 12 MR. SISK: Let the record reflect that it is now 13 4:50, and we are encountering more obstructionism which I 14 again I don't understand. 15 MR. BROWN: Mr. Sisk, let the record -- 16 MR. SISK: Can the witness answer the question? 17 MR. BROWN: The word "obstructionism" is the 18 product of your imagination, Mr. Sisk. And, it's not 19 necessary for you to raise your voice. 20 MR, SISK: I did not raise my voice. 21 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) l 22: Q Dr. Axelrod, could this section of t he State + ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 I , _. _ _. - _.. _. -.. ~ - -, -

c 89 5421 05 17 plan issued by the DPC of which you are Chairman be used in 1 GJW/sw 1 2 order to compensate for a lack of participation by Suffolk 3 County with respect to a plan for the Shoreham plant? 4 A No. 5 Q Why not? 6 A Because the presumption is that there is a County 7 plan. There is no assertion that there exists a County 8 plan. 9 The portion of the plan that you referred to 10 identifies implementation of a county plan. And, the 11 determination has been made that there does not exist, and 12 cannot exist, a County plan. 13 Q Dr. Axelrod, I will ask you to turn to Page K-9 14 of this document, which is a map. 15 MR. BROWN: Is this closer to the front or 16 toward the back? 17 MR. SISK: Toward the back. It's in Subdivision 18 K, K-9, which is one of the last attachments to the 19 docurent. 201 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 21 Q Dr. Axelrod, that map depicts -- 22 MR. BROWN: I'm sorry. One moment. I don't know ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC \\J" n"'d' C M ' W ' 202.t4L3 w) gg3y%

a s t 90 9421 06 01 1 GJW/sw 1 wnere this -- 2 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 3 Q The map depicts 10-mile EPZs and 50-mile EPZs for 4 various nuclear plants inside and outside the State of New 5 York. I will ask you to focus your attention particularly l l l 6 on the large circle with dots around Millstone. 7 Dr. Axelrod, does that large circle which 8 encompasses the 50-mile EPZ for Millstone encompass a portion of Suffolk County in the State of New York? 9 l 10 A It appears to, yes. 1 11 Q Dr. Axelrod, isn't there, in fact, in place in 12 the State of New York a plan for ingestion pathway responses 13 within Suffolk County related to the Millstone plant? 14 MR. 2AHNLEUTER: I object to questions about 15 Millstone on relevancy. I 16 THE WITNESS: There is no plan in Suffolk County I ) that relates to -- or for Suffolk County that relates to } 17 18 specific, site-specific, activities that would be required t 19 in the event of an accident at Shoreham. 20 Those site-specific plans which have been 21 identified for Millstone relate only to peripheral 22 activities that would be required under the Millstone ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS, INC. wnonmae comm 3,, y.,,,,

4 l i 91 5421 06 02' 1 GJW/sw 1 site-specific plan and are not relevant to the Shoreham 2 site-specific plan. 3 Q Disregarding relevancy, Dr. Axelrod, does the d State of New York have plans for responding within the 4 5 ingestion exposure pathway of the Millstone plant, which 6, encompasses a portion of Suffolk County? t 7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to the question. It is - G based on the premise of disregarding relevancy. Relevancy 9 is something that can't be disregarded. 10 MR. SISK: Relevancy can be raised later. 11 MR. BROWN: It's not the legal question of 12 relevancy, Mr. Sisk. The witness used the word "relevance" 13 as a central part of his answer. 14 You've asked him to eliminate his answer in 15 responding to your next question. 16 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 17 ' Q Dr. Axelrod, does such a State plan exist? l 18 A A State plan for Millstone does not exist. A 19 ' site-specific plan that involves portions of New York State 20o have been submitted by the State of Connecticut to the State 21 of New York identifying the needs for satisfying the i 22 site-specific requirements associated with Millstone. I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j saiion.iee c o erase

m. w,3.,

= _. 4 = 1 92 5421 06 03 1 GJW/sw 1 Q Does the State of New York have a plan for 2 emergency responses for the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ 3 for Millstone which includes all or a portion of Suffolk f 4 Ccunty? 5 A The State has received from the State of 6 Connecticut a plan which includes a portion of Suffolk 7 County. 8 Q Is that document maintained by the DPC? 9 A That document would be maintained by the DPC 10 based on submission of site-specific activities submitted by 11 the State of Connecticut. 12 Q Dr. Axelrod, does suffolk County have a. Disaster i 13 Preparedness Plan that is not Shoreham-specific, to your 14 knowledge? 15 MR. BROWN: I object. That's a matter for j i 16 Suffolk County to address, not a State witness. I i 17 BY KR. SISK: (Continuing) 18 Q Can you answer the question? 19 A I do not know of the specific nature of a 20 disaster plan. My knowledge of such a plan is predicated l 21 upon the Suffolk County's response in the instant emergency 22: in Hurricane Gloria. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. i l won.ie co,u n m.y ,3,,

.~.. _. 4 = 93 5421 06 04 i 1 GJW/sw 1' Q Very well. Dr. Axelred, let me return quickly to i 2-your testimony. Dr. Axelrod, your testimony states at 1 i 3' various points on Pages 2 through 4 l 44 A Just a minute. I lost my testimony here. j 5 Q That's Exhibit 2. 6 A I don't have Exhibit 2 here. I have 3, 4 and 6 1 7 here. 8 .(The witness is provided with Exhibit 2.) 9 ThE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. The Reporter had 10 Exhibit 2. 11 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 12 Q Page 2 states, "I am authorized and directed by 13 Governor Cuomo to present testimony to address a 14, hypothetical situation: what action would New York State 15 take if the NRC were to license Shoreham to operate at 16 levels above five percent power and there were a serious 17 i accident at the plant that required offsite emergency i 18i response." 19 d Now, Dr. Axelrod, specifically let me ask you to i 20 respond to this hypothetical question. Assume the following 210 facts: Tne NRC has granted an operating license for i 221; operation at full power for the Shoreham plant. All ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. sacionunde coierage j ,g,,g,pgg

4 a 1 94 5421 06 05 judicial appeals have been exhausted and the license has 1 GJW/sw 1 2 been sustained. An accident has occurred at the plant. The is notified by LILCO that an accident has occurred and 3 State LILCO recommends evacuation of the 10-mile EPZ. 4 Let me ask you to assume further that upon 5 receipt of that notification the Governor ordered you to 6 of respond to protect public health and safety -to the best 7 8 your ability using all the resources, agencies and 9 assistance at the State's disposal. Dr. Axelrod, what would you do? 10 11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to this question. It assumes many, many facts that are in dispute and have been 12 vigorously disputed in this proceeding. It also calls for 13 14 speculation. 15 And, I will allow Dr. Axelrod to answer, but I 16 will also point out that it is 5 o' clock. So, I suggest that you accelerate your questioning and we will allow this 17 to continue for a few minutes because of the break. But, I 18 hope that you can wrap up this hypothetical to which I 19: object strenuously in the few minutes that we have extended 20; 21' this deposition for. 22' MR. BROWN: I object more strenuously than that, 9 ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide cmerage g,333,

95 5421 06 06 i GJW/sw 1 because it does not assume only issues in dispute but it 2 assumes to be facts something categorically contrary to the 3 sworn affidavit of the Governor of the State of New York, 4i shich is appended to the testimony of this witness. 5 And, I don't think that a question can be predicated intelligently upon four or five hypothetical 6 7 matters which are in dispute, none of which have any 8 foundation, including the suspicion that somehow 9 notification could occur and then state that the Governor 10 would make a direction categorically contrary to what he has 11 said under oath. 12 I've never heard such a question before, and I 13 think it ought to be withdrawn. 14 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 15 Q Can you answer the question, Dr. Axelrod? 16 A There are so many hypotheticals with respect to 17 the scenario which you have described that I would not be 18 able to respond. 19: I don't know what I would do under the 20 circumstances. 21' Q Dr. Axelrod, would you be able to employ various 22 State resources under that circumstance? M a ace-FEDER AL R EPORTERS. INC. Nanonwwe cmerage ,o,,m pgg

t 96 5421 06 07 - 1.- GJW/sw 1 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object. 2 MR. BROWN: He just answered the question. He 3 said he didn't know what he would do. 4h And, now you are going to complain later that you 5 have no time to ask your questions when you insist on asking 6 a question that the gentleman has already answered. 7 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 8 Q Can you answer what your abilities would be, 9 whether or not you know what you would do? 10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like a clarification of 11 i that question. "You" and "your" are personalized terms, and 12 the question needs to be refined. Please refine that 13 question. 14 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 15 Q Dr. Axelrod, what resources would be available to 16 you in the event that you were notified of an emergency at 17 the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and the Governor ordered 18-you to respond to protect public health and safety? 19: MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I have the same objection as 200 before. 21! MR. BROWN: And, I do, too. This is getting 22' absurd. S 0 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Coserage 202 347 3700

I 97 5421 06'08 '1 GJW/sw 1 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: And, it's also repetitive. 2 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 3 Q Can you answer the question? i i 4 d A Without a site-specific plan and the { 5 identification of the specific resources that would be 6 allocated with respect to time, place, event that involve 'i 7 the coordination of all governments, I would not be in a 8 position to respond as to the nature or kind of resources 9 that could or would be made available in a hypothetical 10 situation, a 11 Q And, I assume that that means also you would be 12 unable to identify the time factors that would be needed to 4 13 employ those resources? 14 A Without any additional information to the extent 15 of the hypothetical, I certainly would not be able to 16 identify the time frame in which any response might take place without knowing what the nature of that response would 17 18 be or what resources could be moeilized to respond. 19 Q Dr. Axelrod, I will ask simply two more questions 209 that have been prompted by the remarks of Suffolk County's 21' counsel. t me ask you to turn to the appended statement 22' of Governs. Cuomo, to the very last document appended to e O ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. saiionwide coserage j ,e.y ;, pg

l 98 .5421 06 09 1 -GJW/sw 1 your testimony, Page 3, 2 (The' witness is complying.) 3 A Okay. 4 i: Q In the middle of that page, Dr. Axelrod, it -- "Whatever I would 5 and I'm just going to quote one sentence. do at the moment of an emergency would be for the public 6 7 good." 8 And, I will vouch for the record that that is in context of the Governor's statement as to his response in 9 10 the event of an emergency at Shoreham. 11 Dr. Axelrod, further down the page there is a 12 quoted statement. And, I'm just going to quote the first is sentence of that statement. "Of course, if the plant were to be operated and a misadventure were to occur, both the 14 State and the County would help to the extent possible; no 15 16 one suggests otherwise." 17 Have I read that correctly? 18 A Yes. 19' Q Is that statement true today? 7 2 0 :' MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Mr. Sisk, I object to this 21' question because, as the Governor's statment clearly says, this portion of the statement that he made on a previous 22' -a ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. e sanonwide coserage ,o,.y,.3.oo

o o I 99 5421 06 10 1 GJW/sw 1 occasion has been withdrawn and may not be cited, quoted or 2 otherwise relied upon, which is exactly what you are doing. 3 MR. BROWN: I want to underscore that I think 4 there is obviously an inappropriate and ulterior purpose in 5 these questions. 6 Mr. Sisk, your first question quoting the 7 "Whatever I would do at the moment of an emergency would be 8 for the public good," conveniently left off the next 9 sentence which is the central point here. And, that 10 sentence stated, "LILCO's plan does not serve the public 11 good, and I would not facilitate the implementation of it." 12 Secondly, it's inconceivable that anyone would "This 13 quote a sentence which immediately thereafter states, 14 paragraph is being misused by LILCO to create false 15 impressions..." And, then you just precisely do the same 16 thing in the face of the Governor's conclusion that, "I hereby take the extraordinary measure of withdrawing these 17 18 words so that they not be cited, quoted, or otherwise relied 19, upon." 20 You just quoted them and predicated a question 21 upon them. 22 BY MR.cSISK: (Continuing) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. Nanonwide coserage ,g,3g,3 3

a i I 100 5421 06 11 i 1 GJW/sw 1 Q Dr. Axelrod, my question stands. The provisions 2 that I've just quoted to you in Governor Cuomo's statement, t given all of the objections of counsel, is that statement j 3 4 f 4y true today? i 5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Same objection. 6 THE WITNESS: The statement contained in 7 Paragraph 3? 8 BY MR. SISK: (Continuing) 9 Q The statement contained in Paragraph 3, let's ask 10 that first. r' 11 A There is no question but that the State of New i York would respond in a way which would be for the public 12 13 good. That is the function of government. 14 Q Is it also true *. hat in the event of an accident 15 at the nuclear power plant at Shoreham, if it were operating the State would respond to protect the public 16 i at full power, I 17 good? That assumes a hypothetical which I think we have 18~ A 19 :j clearly indicated is not one that we believe can happen. 20q The State has made it very clear that it would respond at { 219 all times to the extent that it can to promote the public 22 :. welfare. And, I.-think that that statement stands as it has ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. lNC. Nanonwide coserage m,3g,33

l e 1-101 5421 06 12

11 GJW/sw 1

been stated by the Governor. 2 And, I'would -- since the statemen't with< respect 3 to the misadventure has been withdrawn, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. 4 5 Q Dr. Axelrod, you stated earlier that you are 6 testifying on behalf of the State and at the direction of 7 the Governor today. Does the withdrawal of this statement by the Governor indicate that that sentenc' in Paragraph 4 8 9 which I've quoted is not true? 10 A I don't think that there is anything in the 11 Governor's statement that suggests that it is not true. 12 What it does is simply enlarge upon what I have already said 13 with respect to any response of government that would be taken would be taken for the public good in the event of an 14 15 emergency of any kind. 16 Q Can you tell me what that response would be if there were an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant? 17 18 A Without the existence of a plan, without the existence of a clea.r situation, the question is totally 19 206 hypothetical. And, I do not know what we would do under any since given set of circupsiances nor how we would respond, 21 any response would be predicated upon governmental 22 ' ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. Nationwide Cmcraft 202 347 3700 500-336-6646

a I 102 5421-06 13 1 GJW/sw 1 activities and the coordination of governmental activities 2 for which there is no bas s at the present time. a 3 Q Dr. Axelrod, that question was not how would the 4 State respond, but would the State respond in the event of 5 an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant? 6 A I think you would have to be more specific with 7 respect to respond. I mean, clearly there would be -- there 8 are a whole different layer of kinds of responses that could 9 occur. And, I think that those also relate to the 10 hypothetical questions as to what the State might do in any 11 series of events or in an event. 12 There would be a response. I think the Governor 13 has made it very clear in the event of any disaster, since 14 the primary responsibility is to provide for the public 15 welfare. 16 Q How would that response be implemented? 17 A That would be a judgment that would depend upon a 18 series of events, actions, and a determination by the 19 governmental entities that would be responsible for 20 t implementing any kind of response. 21 Q Can you identify for me any plans, procedures or 22 other means by which such a response could be implemented? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. Nanonwide coser. ige g,g

I 103 5421 06 14' '1, GJW/sw 1 A There is no site-specific response with respect 2 to LILCO. All of the radiological emergency responses are predicated on the existence of a site-specific plan which 3 t 4 d relates _to a variety of governmental entities that must be 5 coordinated in order for the public to be properly 6 protected. 7 That does not exist because, as I've indicated to ~ 8 you, it is our belief that no such plan can be developed for 9 Shoreham. 10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: With that, Mr. Sisk, I regret to 11 inform you that the time for this deposition has expired. 12 And, as I indicated before, even though it is now 10 after 13 five, the deposition must be concluded. 14 MR. BROWN: I would like just to ask two or three 15 questions. One minute, two minutes is what it will take. 16 MR. SISK: Let me simply note for the record that 17 I will have a few things to put upon the record when 18 Mr. Brown concludes, because I obviously have not completed 19 LILCO's questioning. 20 21 22 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Nationwide coser. ige ,g,3g,3.g

6 i 104 5421 06'15 1 GJW/sw 1 CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. BROWN: 3 Q Dr. Axelrod, am I correct in hearing your testimony that you do not know what actions would be taken i' 4 p. I 5 by the State of New York in the event of an emergency -- 6 A That is correct. 7 Q -- at Shoreham under the assumption that it would be operating under the hypothetical posed by Mr. Sisk? 8 9 A Yes, that is correct. 10 Q Number two, is it correct -- have you spoken to n 11 the Governor about the two-sentence quotation that is at the 12 bottom of Page 3 that Mr. Sisk quoted? 13 A No, I have not. 14 Q And, do you have any idea what the Governor 15 intends by any of these words at the present time, 16 therefore? f 17 A No, I do not. 18 Q Also, do you have any idea what form and what actions would constitute a so-called response that would be 19 20n for the public good at the time of an accident if such were 21: to occur? 22? A Without a great deal more information with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. t \\ 'II "" 'd' C* * E' 202-347 3700 gym

6... t i 105 . 5421 06 16 i respect to the hypothetical and a site-specific plan that 1 GJW/sw 1 incorporates all of the elements of the requirements that we 2 i 3 i. have identified, the answer is no. l i I 'l 4 li MR. BROWN: Thank you. That's all I have. l I, 54 MR. SISK: Let me ask simply for the record, 6d Mr. Zahnleuter, is it correct that Dr. Axelrod Will not be l made available for the continuation of this deposition? ~ 7 8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: That's right. The time for the 9 deposition today has expired. 1 10 MR. SISK: And, he will not be made available on any subsequent date by the State of New York? 11 12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Are you requesting that he be 13 made available? 14 MR. SISK: I am. 15 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I don't see any reason why. I think that you have had an ample opportunity to depose 16 17 Dr. Axelrod today for two hours. It should have been 18 J sufficient. And, with that I recommend that you pursue 19: whatever remedies you think are appropriate. 20'i 21 MR. SISK: Then, let me make this proffer.

But, let me ask one other question to counsel for the State.

Mr. 22; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. a Natt nwide Coserage 202-34h3'00

6 106 5421 06 17 1 GJW/sw 1 Zahnleuter, will the Governor be made available for a deposition or at hearing or cross-examination on his 2 affidavit which is submitted with this testimony? 3-4 ! MR. ZAHNLEUTER: At this time, no plans have been 5 made. I can't answer your question any further. 6 MR. SISK: I'm simply noting that the witness was 7 unable, in response to the questions from the -Suf folk County's counsel and in response to my questions, to explain 8 9 certain portions of the Governor's statement. And, I had a in that number of other questions which I was unable to get 10 11 respect. 12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I disagree with that 13 characterization. 14 - MR. BROWN: I didn't ask any questions that go to 15 interpreting what the Governor said. Today, Mr. Sisk, for some reason you have persisted in mischaracterizing. 16 17 MR. SISK: Very well. Let the record reflect I have that LILCO has a number of additional questions. 18 noted some subject matter areas as we went through the 19-20: questioning that I would have pursued in more detail, 21-including more detailed questioning on the State 22 Radiological Emergency Plan, the content of the Governor's W ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. lNC. sationwide coserage y.g.g

5.,. 1 107 5421 07 01 1 GJW/sw 1 affidavit and various appended statements which are 2 incorporated within the State's testimony. There are other lines of questioning which I wish 3 4 ! to pursue with respect to this witness' knowledge of a 5 review of a prior Radiological Emergency Plan for Shoreham 6 which was conducted by the DPC, which I was unable to get 7 to, and other lines of questioning. 8 I will state for the record that, in LILCO's 9 view, for the State to produce the State's sole witness on 10 the realism /best efforts issue and make that witness 11 available for only two hours and decline at this time to 12 continue the deposition we believe is unreasonable and 13 insufficient time for LILCO to complete discovery prior to 14 hearing. 15 MR. Z AHNLEUTER: Regardless, Mr. Sisk, the 16 deposition is concluded. 17 KR. SISK: Let the -- a final notation. LILCO 18 does not agree that the deposition is concluded. LILCO can 19 only agree that it wishes to continue the deposition, and we will adjourn and request a continuation and go to the Board 20 21 if necessary. 22 Thank.you. e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. NallOn%IdC CO%Crage

e. ,:,c.',.- l- '1 5421.07 02 108 I 'l GJW/sw-1 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: The deposition is concluded. { l l' 2 (Whereupon, the deposition is concluded at 5:12 I. s 3 p.m., this same date.) 4 f 5 DAVID AXELROD 6 7 i 8 9 i 10 i i 11 l j 12 I, 13 i f i 14 15 I 16 1 i 17 18 l 19 i 20 1 i 21 i' 22 4 9 I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. i sanon ioe co, erase ,,3, 3,,, 3., j

1,. 5421 07 03 109 1 GJW/sw 1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC 2 I, Garrett J. Walsh, Jr., the officer before whom 3 the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that 4 the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing 5 deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said 6 witness was taken by me and thereafter reduced to 7 typewriting by me or under my direction; that said 8 deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the 9 witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to nor 10 enployed by any of the parties to the action in which this 4 11 deposition was taken; and further, that I am not a relative 12 or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 13 parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in 14 the outcome of the action. /) c\\ \\n t \\' f) e y Ah,\\ b A.'w WS-An 15 7 16 GARRETT J. WALSH, JR. 17 Notary Public in and for the 18 Commonwealth of Virginia at Large 19 My Commission Expires: l 20 January 9, 1989 21 l 22 o ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC. sanonmce cmerage 3 ,3.g}}

ML20207D823

Text

Navigation menu

Search