ML20209E908
| ML20209E908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1987 |
| From: | Baldwin T, Keller J, Kowieski R SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3230 86-533-01-OL, 86-533-1-OL, OL-5, NUDOCS 8704300151 | |
| Download: ML20209E908 (150) | |
Text
,
M3
@.M ID Ccum q w n TIMN~SCRTE:T
_,<e sGFgOF PROCEEDIN53 [28 P2 o
QFFL r 7uGCh f. Tn,,'s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
Unit 1)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x O
DEPOSITION OF ROGER B.
KOWIESKI, THOMAS BALDWIN, and JOSEPH H.
KELLER New York, New York Friday, January 30, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenety;v Fepvrters
-144 North Capito! Street g
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700
)
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 8704300151 870130 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T
PDR i
l
,_,sn sm.-
a m
a w.
Paned h(/J6fs?Y dr f f y Y e//5r h 49/V'ne.rr Co/fCChikti /V67b
/
CORRECTIONS TO DEPOSITION
/'
Page Line Correction:
5' 4 e/uge : "aiae A
db
E2 8 Chduje
a, V e
, V &
eaeye *
'5A M OAa!me:
es~ Abe "
ea d/Jie//
c d5
//.C/fLa:
"wh4rp y (>
es Jo,/ '
63 3
'CA!rry:
"/Wh
>4
! ;/dese >
63 9 ch!-u.-
' s/ '
>4 a '-
80 ?
//ue)/: '% a,,e,,uf ct//e, "e vci g,, >
- 3 3 f/ ace-
, ben 6d s #w :
k & *
%fuNea',cirf,,/T4lrri<.js<{&,.,yfed' M
T CAaus rbO 1
1 J
f I
t
Corrections to Deposition of FEMA Witness Panel Deposition taken Friday January 30, 1987 corrections identified by T.
E. Baldwin i
Reference Page Line Correction j
13 21 Change "on" to for.
56 15 Change " execrate" to execrit.
4 I
i 4
l s
i l
l l
1 i
0
.,,,,,,-,,--,--,__,,,,,.,-,_,,,,_,,,,,--.---,--,.,,,.,,~,-n,,--,,,--na--
- 1-GZ80 f0/87 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
Rptd:JoeWalsh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Typed:SueWalsM ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ~
l 3
X-3 i
4 In the Matter of:
5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING _. COMPANY.
': Docket' No. 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise) 6 (Shoreham Nuclear Power. Station, Unit 1)
- (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL);
7
X' 8
9 DEPOSITION OF ROGER B. 'K0WIESKI, THOMAS BALDWIN AND JOSEPH H. KELLER 10 11 New.-York' City, New York
, ()
12 Friday, January 30, 1987 Deposition of ROGER B..K0WIESKI, THOMAS BALDWIN and 13 14 JOSEPH H. KELLER, called for examination' pursuant to 15 notice, at the 'of fices of. Federal Emergency Management i
16 Center, 26 Federal Plaza, New York City, New York, at 1
17 9:02 a.m.,
before Garrett J. Walsh, Jr., a Notary Public'in i'
18 and for the Commonwealth of Virginia at Large, when were j
19 present on behalf of the' respective' parties:
20 MICHAEL S. MILLER, ESQ.
GEOFFREY R. KORS,..ESQ.
1 21 Kirkpatrick-& Lockhart 1800 M Street, N.-W.
22 9th-Floor, South Lobby D.- C.- 20036-5891 Washington,f the Intervenor, County of Suffolk n
On Behalf o i
t,)
s 4
- - - - ~ _._
.i n
x 3.
'2 JO 3
1 APPEARANCES:
(Continuing) i LEE'B. ZEUGIN, ESQ.
2 Hunton &-Williams 4'.
707. East Main LStreet 3
Richmond, Virginia 23212)
-On Behalf.of the Applicant,,th'e'.Long' Island-4 Lighting. Company ~ ~
, et i
5 n
ORESTE RUSS;PIRFO,.ESQ. ;t Office 'of the4Gerieral' Counsel' 6
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.7
. Washington, ; D. C...; 20555 --
~
'c WILLIAM R.-CUMMING, ESQ.
8 Federal Emergencys Management; Agency
~
500 C Street, S. E." 'l ' '
~
e
+
9 Washington, D. C. 20472 10 F,
?
. i
'$ f 11 O
~
4 12 j;
A 13 t
14 g.;
W.
a er.
a 4.
15 16 W b.
17 l
18' j
3,
+
s 1
19
+
20 21
,e -
22 O
^
I C
. E
j
.O 3
O
~
F 1
E S E I.: E_ E I S_
o
'2 Rogeri B. K'owieski) i-
' Thomas Baldwin
)
~ '
Joseph-H. Keller-)
3 4
. Examination by Mr. Miller Page'4 Examination by Mr._Zeugin_
.Page 137 5-Examination :by Mr.. Cumming; Page' 141 s
i
'* *1*'
8 a
4 9
4
'10 v.
11 O-12 J
13 14 i
15 16 t
17 l
r 18 19 20 9
21 22
- Eg.
i
?
~ -,
. ~ -
, ~, -
c.
n.-
, +,
,.-,,..-r,,-
.n.
.w,,-
s
4 h
i E E Q q ? E_ E I,H g g 2
Whereupon,.
3 ROGER.B. K0WIESKI, 4
THOMAS BALDWIN 5
and 6
JOSEPH H. KELLER 7
were : recalled as witnesses' and, having be'e'n previously 8
duly sworn, were further cNamined and testified as 9
follows:
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR.; MILLER:
fm
%)
12 Q
Good morning,. gentlenien.
I believe ~ yesterday we'finishe'd questions reg'arding the'~ contention's and
~
13 14 Cdntention 21.
Sd, if you would,. turn to Page'38 of the' 15 version of the ' contentions that we 'are 'using her'e at this
~
16 dep'osition, and look at Contention ~22; and, let' me j ust 17 ask you'if at'this t'ime'you have prepared any testimony is regarding Contention 22?
A (Witnes's Kowieski)
As I stated for the record 18 yesterday, I have 'not^ reviewed contentions or prepared 20 21 testimony at this point.
22 Q
I recall that, Mr. K6wieski. ~And, so I direct O
V i
5' h
s.
1 these' questions primarily to Dr.JBaldwin--and-Mr. Keller.
2 A
Ho'wev'er, I unnt :you' to: be. aware :thit-th6 : issue 3
would -- if ths' issue ~would come'up tha't I..fedl' I can.
4
. address at leist in' general terms,.I will try-to.-iss i it.
5 Q
CeYtainly,.that wo'uld be appieciated. 'Dr.-Baldwin 6
or Mr. Keller, have 'you' at-this time ' prep'ared any testimony _
7 regarding Contention ~22?
8 A
(Witnes's' Keller)
My r'ecollection'is that-I have-prepared some ' testimony on s'ome ' subparts pf-Contention 22, 9
10 but as 'I stated yesterday whdt I have ? don ~e so far has been, with thd eiceptions of' the' 'ones wh'ichwe 'think 'are planning 11 12 issues' as we'di'scussed,.it has been with' reg ~ard to those things which ~I feel are. in ths exercise ' rep' ort.
2 13 14 So' that the' ' exercise. ~ report :is thd nub 'of what we 15 have ' don'e so far.
And I don' t recall -- I haven' t hid' a chance'to go thr~ough'all thd' subparts to sed if -- well, 16 17 there'are not thdt'many subparts.
4 18 Q
Contention' 22 at this time 'is es'sentially' 19 Contention 22.A', and thsn-Contention'46 his be6n subsumed 20 within that : contention'. 'And, in es'sence,' I believe'it's 21 fair to state that ths' contention alleges thdt the exercise incl ~uded' activities reg'arding ths Nassau Colisedm,~ and the 22 O
h
,. -. -. ~,.,
6
(
)
Coliseum is no longer available Jfor ' use by' LILCO or the 1
American Red Cr'oss on LILCO's behdlf and thdt,. ther'efore, 2
there is no valid agredment pe'rmitting ths 'use of the' 3
4 Coliseum as set forth'in the'LILCO plan.
Do you have'any' basis to disagred wi'th'th6' con-5 clusions stated in that: contention?
6 7
A Okay. ' Insofar as it. was' my understanding that 8
the 'OL'-5 Board was 'an Exerci'se ' Board and that :the exercise 9
that FEMA evaluated on Feb~ruary the 13t'h.'was an ' exercise demonstrating the' 'implementability ofL Revision 6 to the
~
10 11 plan, it was' my understanding or is' my understanding that as of February 13th 'there. 'was a valid agresnient to use the 12 13 Nassau County Co'liseum. 'And the'Nassau County Coliseum was 14 used.
15 I be1~ieve -- is this thd 'on~e 'that says- -- oh',
16 yeah.
Okay.
In thd ' middle 'of Page '39,.the' ' contention even points. out that the' letter. revoking the 'use 'was dated 17 June'16th, which~is a couple'of~ months after the report-18 19 and four months' after: th6 ex6rci~se.
20 Yes, we'under' stand that.Nr County Co'lise'um 21 is no longer available, and that va eviewe'd in th6'RAC 22 review 'of Revision' 7 'and' 8, primarily~ 8 I believe, in the' o(.
7 review 'of 7 and' 8 off..ths LILCO plan. ~ But,.~.during th6 I
2 eieYcise'for which we - 'ths'eserci'se was an imprementation 3
of' Rev~ 6,.thdre 'uds a ivalid 'let'ter.,of lagre'ement, for' ths 4
use.'of Nassau Cdunty Coliseum,:.for useJas a rec'e~ tion center.
p 5
To ths'ektentethdt thdt;has' chinged, thd'revien of:7.'and'8 6
is basically our position, in;that,1 pes,' we Yec'ognizd~they 7
have identified thr~ed'othdr:-locations. ~We have'seen a floor 8
. plan but ths' review'of:.7 and'8'says we: don't--know'whethdr
~
9 it's adequata or' hot at this point.
~
10 Q-Well, with kes'pect'to thd Nassau Coliseum, the' 11 contention essentially ~ alleges thdt certain con ~lusions-wer'e
~
c
-12 drawn during ths feiercise with 'respec't :td ce'rtain: objec'tives
~
13 for the ~eser~cise, th6se 'obj'ec'tives relating to th6 Nassau 14 Coliseum.
And,.then it goes on to allege'thit-thdse is obj'ectives which 'wer'd ' considered met' or' partly' met no 16 longer have 'any basis,.in fact,., given ths fact thdt -the
~
17 Nassau Coliseum his bden withdrawn from LILCO's use..
18 Do pou hdve'any'disagre'eMen't with'that': contention?
~
18 A
I believe thdt the review'of 7!and'8 states that.
20 Thd RAC review 'of 7 'and' 8 : states thdt we' : rec'ognize 'that 21 thdre~is a new' facility,.three' facilities in this' case, 22 and that based on' whdt we' hive 'reviewdd up to this time,1 just v
1
M 4
. E' 8
T a
s
~
,l
~
1
. the~ floor plan',7.a paper. plan,. look's.reisonabrelbut we' are.
1
. not sure fit-isfgoihg7 o sork"dhd we.' willy hive:'to' lookTat it t
~
~
2 3
furthdr'.
o,.
3 i
4 And,,1f thst's: whit you' mednt by'.4 your question, 5
theh I hdve no; disagre'ement with your qu.estion'.
6-Q Well',,let' me' j ust' '--- '- I don' t:1 think 'thit 's L what 11 ~
7 mednt, Jir. Keller:.
8 A
Okay. '.You'and I may hive 'a.disagre'eMen't.
Th6 ~costention ~ doe' ' noti. discu'sa ths 'adeq'uacy L ' r' s
o 9-Q E
the 'inadeciuacy' of LILCO's -new facilities for: r~edep' tion-10 11
' centers. ' Whdt thd ~ contention discu'sses'is ths-~Nissau Coliseum 12 and the' fact :that that. facility is no longer: available '.for i
13 LILCO's: use 'and thdt,. therefore,. certain. obj'edtives' con-sider ~ed adequate:or partly; met?during theexeYdise no longer 14
~
is have'any basis in.-fact?
16 Now, my only question' to you'.is,cdo youL have Tany j
l disagredmen't 'wi'th 'that' conclusion ~ as' state'd.in. Contention'.
17 I
18 U.A?
4 i
lj A
Le'f me :'geti this. very.' straight :in' my mind, -because -
18
~
- 20 I don't.want to'misledd you.
.I want to.be"res'ponsive.'
-If whdt, you arg 'saying.is thdtiat :this point in.
21 time, post-exeYci'se,' whdt we'. ' evaluated 'as. being eithe'r met -
22
~
O i.
s
.-. -, _ - _ _.,.,,. _,. - _..... _.. -....., _. - ~. -..
9 q\\J 1
or partly met no longer his any bearing on thd' current 2
situation, okay. 'That'sLone'way to interpret whdt you said.
3 If that's th6 ' interpretation, thd ~ corr'ect interpretation,
~
4 I agree with~you'.
5 If what you'are'saying is thdt at the'exerci'se 6
we'made an invalid interpretation of the' exercise, I dis-7 agred.
8 Q
Wel~1 --
8 A
Okdy. 'Do you see~ths~ differ ~ence?.
10 Q
That's hdlpful.
And, what I was going to ask vms the 11 former~, Mr. Kel'lcr, which'I do under' stand you do agree'with (J~h
\\
12 me in that context?
~
13 A
The way I explained it.
Theresson'I was mis-14 lead was because ths' contention at the top of Page 39, 15 the~y are all based upon an assumption which is available 18 for use, you know, and I thought you were' ques ~tioning our 17 conclusions during the~ ex~er'cise'and what's'in the' exercise 18 report.
And I disagreewith that.
18 But,. insofar as you are~ talking about are not 20 valid now, I have'no disagre'ement.
21 (Witness Kowieski)
Mr. Miller, just a note 'of 22 clarification ~.
As 'far as ' facilities are ' concerned, I would
~
(~h LJ
a
'10 f f ()
- j" agred with 'you. _ L Ii don' tl know':if)I wo'uld, agree ~with :you1with--
1-1 2_
res'p'ect'. to ability; of personnet - to proce's's,.to inonitor
~
I 7
3 ev'a cuee's.
Ipres'Ume'Ithssame[peoplefc s meymonitors would.be 4
{
s'
' involved at other facilities'. 1But as far'as training and
_6 ability to' monitor ~and decontaminate,E,l' don' t:.think ' yon can c'omplet'ely ignore ~what -his: been~ denionstrated during the' 7
J' 8'
FebYuary.13.'exerci'se.
4 9
Q-I 'under' stand thst,: Mr. _Kowieski; but you would agree'with'me,.would you not,.thdt--the~' ability of~ people to td -carry out thdir assigned funct' ions. co~uld be ' imp' acted,.
i 11-O 4
in fact adversely impacted, by thd adeq'dacy of the'! facilities
~
12 s
13 thdt they have'to work.'with?'
14 A
I don' t: have a problem with 'that cc ~ But,.l' again I 7
hope'thd'reco~rd will.show that as farcas/the ability of; 15 people,,if people 'are ' trained in. pr'oce'ssing ofL evacuees,-
~
16 i
. in.dec~on'tamination' ofi evacuess',qit's hard
]
in procedures, 17 i
18 to believe Ithdt pedple 'would forget' whit thsy: learned if.-
f thsy would b6 ' moved.to othdr facilities..
19 I agred 'with you,' Mr c. Miller,. thatoas far 'as the
~
20 l
new lay-outi co~uld sort of hinder: theToperation~.
~I agree-21 22 with'thdtc EO
_.-,,,.._..,-,...-,...,-,-.._.,_m,___,.
...,m
,._-,.--_..,,,_=.,.m.._,.
v 11 ry k);
1-Q Mr. Kowieskf, isn't;it also;.theEca~se thst since.
2 ths.'exerci'se LILColhis' changed s~ome 'of' ths 'pr'oce'dures' for monitoring thd ' evacuees iillvehfcl'ei thdt weren'in effec't at
~
3
~
~ 4 ths ~ time of ths 'exdrci'se?
,i 5
A Mr. Miller', as' I already testified hsre f an'd my
~
partner's hsrc. have ' testified' to 'this effect,-_ I was reassigned 6
7 as of June '20th, 1986 'and I'm not really. awdre. ~of any r
8 chdnges'.
+-
9 (Witnes's Keller)
Let' me :-- I. will answer. it.
'Yes',
in fact,. there. has been a major change,, a significant chinge, i
10 in thd 'way the ' primary method of monitoring which LILCO his i-11 O
proposed from Rev 6 to Revision 7'and'.8. 'Th6 RAC his found
~
12 i
13 this to be ~an unacceptable chsnge.
14 But to. continue' discussion ~, iti th6' contention 15 you talk about a number of obj'ectives'. :As-Mr..Kowieski a
18 pointed out, thdre.is Field.9, Field 17, Field 19 and 21.
4
'I7 At least two of thsie ' don' t follow 'with 'the ' facility argument.~. They go alon'g'with Mr. Kowieski's position thdt 18 if you know' h6w' to' monitor someo'ne 'it doesn' t' make a great J
19 deal of differedce' whdre 'you' monitor them if ths facility 20 21
.is adequat.e.
22 Ths ' review' ~of' 7 and' 8 says we' have 's'ome ' question O
12 O
1 about the'adeq'uacy'.of those' facilities.
It hasn't been 2
demon'strated as of ye:t'.-
3 Q
Okdy.
4 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Our position, as I understand 5
it, it's'my opinion abo:ut-exer'cised'and planning, that plan-ning is. an ongoing proc' ss in which ' things 'chinge 'from~ time e
a 7
to t'ime in all eniergency' planning. 'The' facilities to b6 used ch'ange,. the 'per'sonner change 'and need to. be ' retrained.
8 9
It's a forward proces's.
10 It's a dynamic process.
It's an ongoing process.
11 FEMA is in the busines's of receiving these letters from 12 time'to time which: change'a lot'of things in a lot of plans 13 that they evaluate routinely.
14 Uith' resp'ect'to an exer'cise, wh6n: the' ground work 15 is layed for an exerci'se, 'it's a snapshot in time, an 16 evaluation of the ' capability of an organization to implenient 17 that plan on' the. day that the ~ plan tha't we' have, with the 18 letters that are'in. effec't'on that day and all.of the arrangements and the personnel that have been trained and 19 the' rosters and the' pe6ple that are listed, is: evaluated.
20 21
.That's what we did in this - exercise 'on February 13 th, 1986. 'A snapshdt'wa's taken'and evaluated of all the 22 O
13 i
-1 facilities that are : documented in thd post-exdrci~se ' asses's -
2 ment.- 'To' thd'exten'tlthdt th6s'el things havs'chinged,,wd are i
,3 not going. to be ' treating thebi ~in our. testimony with ' resp'ect' 4
. to the 'ex'ercise.
.c 5
(Witneds K611er). And may I - '
4 l
.e (Witness'Baldwin)
We ~will be 'treiting ~thdm in.
-7 response 'to what has been given back :to us in terms of:
~
~
chinges toe ' he plan after ths ' post-exercise ' assessment, t
8 9
b'ecause 'in thd hack ~of thd rep' ort the're 'is a table. 'which to documents all of thd-: deficiencies 'and thd areds requiring 11 cor' rec'tive ' action.
O 12 There:'is a schddule in ther'e'for:whed thd'chinges 1
are. to be 'antici' ated back', corrective. ' actions to be taken, 13 p
i 14 and wha't thdse'are. 'And in this case, ths utility his 15 prepared responsed back'to whdt plan changes are' going to
~
16 be.
17 so, thdt's.why wehave' outlined yesterday with 18 respect to th6se planning contentions and tho'se 'thdt are 19 exercise ' contentions, b'ecause ~what. we 'are - going to be ' dis cus-
~
~
20 sing in thd' context of:our answers withfres~pec't to post-exercise asses'sment p:/the day.of thd ' exer'cise ' deals.with N j
21 22 th6se facilities and all of thd ' resources and personnel that O
14 k.J I
were ' evaluated in that exercise 'in the: ' context of the' 2
obj ec'tive s'.
3 Q
Do you' consi-der' Contention' 22 as ::it remains 4
admitted by the Board a planning contention' or an ' exercise 5
contention?
6 A-We ha've'said~ yesterday,-as we'rea'd.into the' record, 7
that we under' stand -
ou'r interpretation of -Contention' 22 8
is that it-is a planning issue.'
9 Q
Okay. ' Fine.
10 A
(Witness Keller)- May.I ask a question'to hel'p?
11 I hope.to hel'p, and I r'eco'gnize 'I can't. ask 'a ques' tion' so O) t.
12 I will'make'a statement.
13 The way-I read 22, and have ' read.22, is different 14 tha'n the way that you and I finally ca' e 'to an agreement on m
15 what it' meant.-
Sinceif wedo prep'are' testimony on 22, I 16 suppose I will have :the first sho~t 'at it b'ecause 'it's. a 17 radiological. issue'and' monitoring I thfnk,' it.would be very 18 helpful so that we: can be res~ponsive'to know -- we read it 18 one way, and I think because you' got' me-to agree with you
~
20 on a certain interpret'ation' which 'I ~ didn' t have ' originally, 21 if.that's the interpret'ation'tha~t the government's'mean, we 22 will write' testimony a difforent way.
15 O
1 Theuay we: interpret' it is the~'way,.you-know, thdt you are 'saying i-- if. you~ are [saying thit;.what.we' 'did at the' 2
eier'cise 'is wrond -- and that 'sf whiti' the' ' contention says '---
3 4
Q Well, Mr'. Kerler, let'me -- the> contentions have:
s to speak"for: theniserves. 'I cannot.tell you"how to interpret 6
the 'co'ntentions, but what -I 'am kelling you -- what I 'am 7
asking you today,.and I think you and I hdve're'ich'e'd an 8
agreenient :in thfs reg'ard, is focus with' 'me,.. for purposes 9
of this dep~osition', upon' the' ' facti that a ' facility that at to one time was available 'and was evaluated by FEMK at an
~
11 exercise' 'is no longer. available to LILCO.
O 12 What co'nclusion's do you' draw *from thst?..And I 13 thfnk you and I have: had that discussion' today.- And I'm 14 prepared to go forward to the next question ~.
15 A
Well, okay. ' I was trying to be' helpful' whdri we'.
16 file the' test'imony so thdt it would beJ-- it wo'uld speak 17 more'to whdt the needs are,. because'if.I were~ going to write
~
18 the' testimony today I would write'it entirely different 19 than our agreenietit.-
20 And that. caused more time' delays later. ~Now, maybe thdt's whdt we 'want,. but I don'tJwant thdt..
21 22 Q
No'ne'of us want'that, Mr. Keller.
O
d 16 f
1 A
I'm glad to hddr thdt.-
2 Q'
Geritl'emen, ?letIs: look 'at: Contention' 36 'whi'ch' begins onPage"43'of'the con'tentions>1lkave'you'at;thistime~
3
{
. prep'ared any.tes'timony. on' Contention' 36?
4 2
5 This may be" 'your 'ared,' lir. Keller.:
6 A.
It: certainlylook.i-thatway.llty'recollectionis, 1
7 I have begun. 'And,'again the premise'~of whati 1 have preparec.
J 8
is in support of' thd exer'ci'se ' rep'or.t..
8 Q
Well, let's summarize Jthd ' contention as it is t
18 phrased at the beginning of thd ' contention. "And'the essence, 11 I believe, is that thd' governments alleg'e:thdt.thd' exer'ci'se O-12 demonstrated a flaw:in thd plan, in thdt - _as it.says:
1 18 Subsequ.ent to thdir. adoption of the ' original r'ec'ommendations 14 from the 'on-sit c. ' staff at the EOF, LERO personnel' made 15 j
protective ' action rec'ommendations withdut apparent basis, l
18 failed to' consider: alternative protective' measures that I7 could have resulted in' more ' dose ' savings 'and made 'inappro-1 I8 priate recommendations.-
~
19 Now,. do you agree 'or-disagred with 'the' allegations 20 1
set forth in Contention'36?
21 A
First of all,. I. don',t. know' whdt a fundamental flaw I
22 i.
is.-
So', if fundamental flaw 'is the hub or' is an important-
- O d
]
5 1
_ -.., ~. _ _ ~ -., _ -. _,
_. _,,..., _ _... ~,. _ _. _ -. _. - -.. - _. -,_ __ _ ___-._.--., _.___.
17-em
_)
1 part-of thd contention,.I have no basis to agred'or. dis-2 agre e'.
I don' t: understand fundamental flaw.
I'm sorry.
3 And I'm not trying to be --
4 Q
Okay. ' Lets go on to thd ~more ' factual allega-5 tions, that LERO personner made 'protec'tive' ' action recom-s mendations witho~ut apparent basis,- -failed to' consider' 7
alternative prot'ective' 'medsured thdt could.have :resulted in 8
more.~ dose' savings and made ' inappropriate'r'ec'o'mendations.
m 9
A I disagree'.
to Q
Okay.
Now,' can you' tell me why you disagree?.
11 A
Sinc 6 Brookhsved Area Office,.as part of thd O'
plan, is -- I ass' me that 'they are 'part of~.LERO per~sonner.
12 u
13 Number one, they' sho'w as ~a dotted line 'on the'ir organiza -
~
14 tion charts but they are 'in thd plan sp'ec~ifically.
15 Uhdt I personally ob' served and whati I've ' read of 16 some 'of the -- of Mr. Gi~ardina's ' exer'cise ' evaluation critique 17 form, and in di'scu'ssions with Mr. Giardina, I don't believe.
18 that there~was no apparent basis. 'It is my understanding 19 of OPIP -- I believe 'it's. 3.1.1 but thdt's: a recollection, 20 but basically there 'is. an OPIP in the ' plan whfch has a 21 calculational pr'ocedure.in it,.ok dy... It: is my recollection of my review of thdt procedure thdt -ther'c 'is a consider'ation 22 O
4
.ig L
~
7 within the procedure of alternate' protective ~ actions.- It 1-is': my understanding thst thst procedure 'was impleniedted..
~
2 f
Ther~efore,,I disagree: 'with 'no 'appareht basis,
a 5
[
i' 4
oksy.
5 Q
Is'it.your understanding, Mr'.. Keller:,' thdt LERO.
. personnel at thd ~E'OC' utilize'd ' the} proce' dure :' ou 'are ' discuss-y 6
f ing in' terms of consider ~ing alterriative l prot'ective 'dctionL
~
7 i
8 redo'mmendation~s ?-
J 9
A It's my understanding that: -- and I..believe ~it's.
OPIP. 3.11.1, but 'thatt raay be 'the ' wrong OPIP,,thit that procedu re 10 11 was impl'eniented.
O 12 Q
At th6 EOC7.
13 A
At 'ths LERO EOC,. thdt is correct'..
14 Q
And, what. is your. understanding based upon?
15 A
Discussion's with Mr. Giardina.
1 to Q
Those ~dfscussions have bech si'nce' 'the 'e:ierci'se, 17 I assume?1 18 A
Yes. 'Well, okay.- Clearly,'thsy".were'not in the' i
19 time' frame'of th6' unusual event declaration termination of i
20 the exer'cise. 'Thdy' were'not in that-t'ime frame? 1They were 21 j.
post that time, frame.:
Q Have 'you hdd these ' discussion's with Mr'. Giardina -
22 lO 1
1 I
i
F
'19 rs t'-)
1 within the 'last month ~or two?
2 A
No.
3 Q
Do_ you' think 'that before 'you' write 'your testimony 4
you will again address this. issue with Mr. Giardina?
s A
Sinceyou have' raised ths issue, I will verify that s
my understanding thdt :this.0 PIP, whfch'ever thd ' correct number 6
7 is, was indedd impl'emented at. the' EOC.
'I will. verify thdt 1
8 that is his recoll'edtion, yes.
9 Q
At th6 top' of' ths page,,? age '44, Mr. Keller',.of.the to contentions,. essentially th6 governments allege'that ther'e 11 is no indication' that any calculation's or dose projections O
12 were ' performed at ths EOC 'to determine 'if thi's -- referring 13 to the redommendation to evacuate certain zones -- remained
~
an appropriate ' redo'mmendation' for' the ' entire ' period during 14 15 which it was broddcast,.during which'the' EBS': messages were is broadcast, referring to thd EBS messages' to evacuate.
17 A
To add the extra zones, over and b6 yond.
18 Q
Now', is t your testimony thdt you hdve ~ discussed 19 this issue with Mr.'Giardina at s'ome " point since the 20 exercise?
21 A
Specifically this issue, no.
Okay.
22 Q
What you are 'saying is -thdt there hds been some
20 O
1 dis cussion with Mr. Giardina regarding whethdr or not LERO 2
EOC' personnel. utilized some' procedure --
A A specific procedure within th6 ' plan, yes.
3 4
Q Uas that a dose' calculation procedure?
A Yes.-
5 6
Q Are 'there 'any different procedures in thd LERO plan than thd one you are recalling now'which'co'uld impact 7
a dec'ision by LERO regarding wh6thdrior not'to r'ecommend 8
9 an evacuation during an' eniergency at thd Shdreham plant?
10 Was:thdre'any one'proce' dure that you could be 11 referring to in th6~ plan?
O 12 A
Hell, you a feti ~ moments ago restricted me to V
13 answering wh6t'dec~urred in ths EOC, physically inside'the 14 EOC.
The way I read the LERO plan,.thdre.'is a r'ecommenda-15 tion which'comes from ths Brookhaven Area-Office, okay.
16 Q
Do you'know if ths Brookhaven Ared Office' person-17 nel that participated ~at the'exerci'se' considered and 18 utilized procedures of the' LILCO plan in determining whether or not' to recommen'd to th6 EOC protedtive ' action' recommenda-19 20 tions?-
i 21 A
There are'no procedures in: the' LERO plan which 22 formalize'th6~meth6dology whichis to be~'used at the O
21
.O V
1 Brookhaven Area Office.
2 Q
Did the' Brookhaven Area 0.ffic6' utilize pr'ocedures a
or' calculations,. dose' calculation ~,.during ths' exercise?~
s 4
A Yes.
5 Q
Did thdy base -- based upon th6se ' calculations or projec' tion',.did th6 Brookhaven' Area Office:'personner 6
s make ' recommendations to thd EOC?l 7
8 A
.Yes~.
9 Q
In your opinion,. did thdy do so in an acceptable 10 manner?
11 A
Yes.
O' 12 Q
Now,. do you know whethdr theEOCpersonner also 13 made' dose calculations or projec' tion's?'
14 A
As I stated a few moments ago,. based on a 15 conversation with Mr. Giardina, uh6 was the TEMA' evaluator' present in th6' dose asses ~sment area at ths LERO EOC, it-is 16 17 my recollection that LERO - personnel performed dose' calcula-
~
18 tions at the LZRO EOC.
Q Do you' know if such' ' calculations were ' performed 18 by EOC personner during the ' time 'of the project'ed wind 20 shift to determine'whe~ther or not an evacuation ~recommenda-21 22 tion remained an appropriate prot'ec'tive ' action r'ecommendatior1 7
~
O
t b
22-a r
i-0 1
A Would you plesse ' verify somethfng for.' me?D You 1
i 2
used the' ter'n "during thd ' time 'of thd ' projected wind shift."
l 3
And we. hid a.probl'eni with 'thd 'a~dmission's, okay, with 'the' 4
s'ame' type'of' wording.
i 5
Thdreare Jtwd pos'sibilities',1 and: I don't know a
which 'one 'you~ mean.
And thd' words"can ' t: srand for' theni---
j 7
selves.-
I'm sorry.
.i-i f
8 I cah proj ec't' at 9.a'.m.
in thd ' morning thdt the i
wind is going to shif t at. 3 'p.m. iti ths'afternoch'. LThdt's.
~
9 l
10 a projection, okay. ' Or, at 3'in the' afternoon',,I-can say.
4 11 thdt thd projected wind shfft his 'o'ecurred.
O And, LI don t kn'ow' ' hfch' 'one 'you' mean.
12 w
13 Q
Okay.
Le'ti's try it: this way. 'Thd' contention f
14 uses' the ' time 12 : 06 p'.mc hs ' thd 't'ime 'whdn' 'EBS' mes' sages i
i 15 were 'first broddcast.r+ dohmeriding. addition' l zones.to -
a i
16 evacuate.-
17 A
Thdt's correct'..
18 Q
Do you' kn'ow 'if LERO EOC per'sonnel' per: formed dose j
i calculations or dose projections to det' ermine'whdther-18 20 or not' evacuation remained an appropriate.' prot'ective i
21 action' rec'o'mmendation'.at any time'from'12:06 p.m'. on 22 j
during the'eserciae?'
i
. _.... _. -.. ~......,. _ _ _. _. - _,
23 0
1 1
A I don't recall.
~
2 Q
Okay.
3 A
I don't r'ecall whe'th6r in' my discussion'with Mr.
~
4 Giardina whether~we' discussed sp'ecific times. ~Let'me --
5 Q
Let me'ask-you' a follot(-up, Mr. Keller.
6 A
Okay.
7 Q
In your opinion, given~the'exercisc' scenario and 8
the projected wind shfft during thfs time ' frame, sh6uld LERO 9
EOC personnel have con'sidered calculations or dose pro-10 jections regarding the' appropriateness of theev'acuation
~
11 recommendation?
V 12 I'm not saying whether the~y' did or' didn' t, but 13 sh6uld the~y have'done so?
14 A
Could I have 'it read b'ack?'
This'nay be where --
15 I' m sorry.
16 (Th6' court reporter read back thd last question.)
17 Q
Okay.
Clearly, a proj' ction either of calculational dose 18 A
e 18 calculations or potential dose should be 'made ' prior to a protective ' action rec'oimnendation.
The wind shift, based on 20 21 my knowledge'of the' scenario which I think'was.in the 22 question, wa's to occur later in thd afternoon.
The O
24 Ov I
recommendation ~to add additional. zones was at thd time thd 2
rec'o'mmendation' was' made 'was prec~autionary. Land in --
a because thd zones' whi'ch' 'we're being affec'ted at thati time 4
were 'not under~ ths ' influence ~ ~of' thd plume.
It was projected 5
that they would bec'omeunder: the 'infludn'ce 'of the 'pl'ume 'at 6
a laterItime.
7 Thd' projection'was later th6t would hdppen.
- And,
~
8 insofar as thd LERO staff was-ant'icipatory saying:.We':_hdd 9
better begin to' inove :pcople ~now because later on in thd to af ternoon it's. going.to be 'a probl'em for' these.' people Jif we 11 haven't taken care 'of it yet, that was thd' appropriate' protective tO v
12 action.
And the. consider'ation, in my opinion, was correct.
13 Q
Mr. Keller, you'hdven't' answered my question.
14 A
I'm sorry.
Is Q
My question ~was, sh6uld LERO personnel', in' making 16 that decision, have performed any' calculations or' dose 17 projections to determine 'thd 'approp'riateness of telling 18 thes'e people tha~t they should ev'acuate 'tho'se ' addition ~al l'
zo'nes?
20 A
Okay. ~ In enfergency preparedness,.and in response 21 to nuclear power plant emergencies in particular, okay, 22 thd initial protec'tive " actions quite 'often' are 'taken on (a3
l t
25 t
plant status. ' There. '.is no dose in-the 'enviroiment quite 2
o f ten'. ' And, you' take ' prot'ective' ' actions based on a potential l
3 for doses exce'e' ding thd ~PAGs'.
4 Yo.u don' t necessarily ha've "to do a dose, a hard' I
and. fast number: punching to ' et'.to the'. point of:
- Look, s
g 6
I've:got'certain conditions inside.the' plant,.all' right'..
7 The plant has gon'e'to pot.
I've got' activity where it,
)
8 shouldn' t..be.. ' And if. it gets. out,
..I kn'ow' :I'm going to 1
I 9
' exceed the PAGs.
'.It's all pre 'done bas'ically. ' You don' t
~
to need to do a calculation.
And Ineed'to take' protective-
~
it action'.
i 12 Now, at 12:06 my.recollec~ tion'is that the' release-i 13 had already started, but it had started in a different i
i 14 direction ~,.oka;y.
And, as I stated previously,.the 'recom-i j
is mendation to add the other: zones was precautionary.
~
l 16 And, as wel discussed' yesterday at s'ome length, i
what we had tho~u' ht' when we~ ~reviewe'd the 'scen~ario that j
17 g
1
.l 18 there was going to be 'a minimum protecti.ve ' action to include i
19 Zones A to J, cledrly thd plant, the utility,.LERO, went-20 further than A to.J. 'And.it was preca' tion'ary..
~ u l
21 Hindsight'.: '20/2.0 hindsight. ~ Was ther'e 'a need l
22 to evacuate'the people'in these' addition'al-zones if you i O i
?
e-.r.
j-26
\\
~
1 knew'the' scenario?' Tlie' answer is, no,.the're~wa's not..
But 4
l 2
you didn' t know ths 'sceriario,. so you' base 'your thing on 'a:
3 Lo'ok, we ve 'got a bad position' in the' ' plant. It's begun to 4
leak.
There.is a metedrological projec' tion thdt we'~are
~
5 going to have'a wind shift. 'In order to prot'ect ths ' people 6
who reside in thdse.' zones,.let's start to move'them'no.w.
~
7 Q
lir. Keller,. you are " telling ~ me 'then that it. was -
8 if -- assume ~with~me'that LERO EOC'per'sonner did not 9
perform any calculation's' or' dose 'proj'ect' ions after their -
initial calculations ;that res'ulted in 'the' JeVacuation recoin-to j
11 mendation --
Q t
12 A
The' initial.
I 13 Q
-- and 'at no other time 'weYe any dose ' calculations 14 or projec'tions performed by LERO EOC' per'sonner or' anyone
(
15 else 'for~ LERO, you' are 'saying' thatwould make 'no ' differ'ence?
to They told the peo~ple~to evacuate, that was precautionary, i
i 17 that was the right thing to have'done; is that:your testi-
~
18 mony?
I j
19 A
Ye s'.-
i 20 Q
Okay. ' Now, when is it that yoti consider' shelter-i 21 ing versus evacuation?.
I 22 A
Uhe'n yoti can' t evacuate.'
O l
27 O
1 Q
Uhen you can't evacuate?
2 A
If ths roa'ds are blocked,. for example.
3 Q
If you've 'got' the release 'alreddy beyon'd the plant 4
site 'in areds where 'you would be ~ telling pedple to evacuate 5
through those'arens,. evacuation'.is still thd'way to go, 6
sheltering need not' bd ' considered.
i 7
Is that your. testimony?
8 A
Based on' reports, whfch'I hdve'not.seen, which have been. generated.by thd NRC Emergency' Response Staff 9
to at the NRC,.Bethesda Response Center, this is the position 11 that I have'been led to believe, that theie'are' reports GO in existence uhich I have'not seen, althdugh I do trust 12 13 ths individual who has'made'these representations, that the best thing to do in core ' melt sequences' is to move the 14 is people, period, unless it is phy'sically impossible'to move
~
16 the'pe6ple, if~ roads are blocked, trees' are 'down, that sort 17 of thing.
18 Then, it's not a good idea to rec'ommend an 19 evacuation if you know they cannot' phys'ically evacuate.
20 Q
But otherwise you recommend the' evacuation?
21 A
Tha't is correct.
22 Q
And what you are' telling me'then' is'that dose O
{
28
(~')
1 savings ~is irrelevant?.
Calculations of' dose savings means nothing? ' What you' are 'saying, !!r. Keller', '.is that you 2
wouldn' t perform calculations or projec't' ion's : ton deterndne 3
whether' you can save: dose by shelter'ing as' compared to 4
5 evacuation?
If. physically you'can evacuate, you tell ths 6
people'to do so?'
7 A
You have' characterized what.I told you.
.I am violently in opposition to your char'acter'izati'on of wha ~t 8
9 I told you.
10 Q
It sounds like, Mr. KcIler,.that you'are telling me that unless it's physically ' impossible :to evacuate 'you 11
()
12 tell people to evacuate.
13 A
Based,. as I told you, on rep'resentations from NRC 14 staff who are associated with 'the' NRC Emergehey Response 15 Center in Bethesda which 'in any major acciden't thes'e people 16 would be active' participants.
Based on the's'e repres'enta-17 tions, I have been told that the ' calculations, that in core ' melt sey'uences where you have significant releases,
18
~
18 tha't the best,.the bes t, is evacuation'.
Q So,. do you~ nce'd to perform any dose ' calculations 20 or projections to consider the ' advisability.of the shelter-21 22
'ing rec'ommendation ver' sus an evacuation rec'o'mmendation?
()
i
29 6
l.
Or,.do you~s' imply tell people in all cases ~whe~r'e l'
2 they can physically beftold.to evacuate'to evacuate?:
3 A
.I wo'uld -- if I were-.'to.do it,.I would_like'to-1 j'
4 do comparison dose' calculations. ' If LI werefgoing to do it.
i s
I saw calculations being done'at.Brookhaven.
l 8
Q Do you' know if calculations to ' consider'.a shelter-7 ipg alternative fwere ever performed by LERO EOC 'personner 8
duripg ths February 13th' exercise?
9 A
Insofar-as there are con'siderations in their dose'.
4
-calculations proce' dure -
and thNt' may be 'an overstatemen't, to j
11
. bec~ause 'I'm now 'trying' to reniember the ' plan and I haven' t.
O 12 reviewed that part.of the plan in well over. two years ago, j
. s by reviewing the' g
13 and I did not' prep'are 'for' the's'e 'dep'osition' 14 plan again.. ' Insofar as the'y are built into their. dose.
I 15 calculation'progr'am, and insofar as Mr.:Giardina wa's' correct
['
16 whe~n' he informed me 'that they had impicmented that dose -
l 17 calculation program, thdy were'done. 'If they are 'not' in 18 the program or'my rec'ollection is incorr'ec't',.the'n I have'no 19 knowledge ~of whether they werc 'done ~or not' in the LERO EOC.
20 Can we: have ~a break 'for' coffee?:
21 Q
Let' me have. just one 'last question' and we will take'a break. 'Are'you testifying that at'-Brookhaven 22 O
b
30
/
calculations to compare'a sheltering rec ~ommendation vis-a-vis V
1 an evacuation rec'o'mmendation weremade?
2 3
A I want to be res'ponsive:'and not try to mislead 4
you'.
I know of no' cdiculation which'sp'ecifically calculates doses per individual for an evacuation.or.for sheltering.
5 What is,gener' ally done is, you do d calculation e
7 which'says:
We 'are ' going to exceed the. PAG if. these things
~
8 come to pass.-
Cenerally. speaking, the~re are' roughly average 9
shelter factors or. facilities', hcmes,. buildings,: et' cetera.
10 You' then look' 'at the' 'proj ec'ted dose that you've ' calculated, 11 12 if you don' t: do anything, you apply.the~ shelter; factor and 13 say:
Is that enough?
And, did we geti below :the PGA by i
s eitsring?
h 14 15 All' right'. 'At th6 time'of this,.at the time we are 'talkfng about, prior-to noon',.ok' y, the plant status a
16 was 'suchthat there 'was' a higit hotential: for a much larger 17 release than ultimately was played in the exercise, and
~
18 the' rough factor of. two' for the* ~averagnhouse ' as not
~
w 19 20 sufficient 'to Lget it below' the PAG.
That was looked at.
No~w,.I. don't.believe'that:the~re was*-s calculation 21 that.went thr'ou~gh,; you' kn'ow', whit; I just ou'tlined for' yo.u. ~y 22 i
1 31 n
0 1
Hdrd and fast numbers on ths tabl~e.
You had a number' of very 2
knowledgeabl'e, profes'sional people "at 'thd 'Brookhaven' Area 3
Office.' Thdy' got' thdir' c~omput er printouts, off their shdeti,.
4 thdy looked at thdm,1.okay. 'Thdy said:
If.it: leaks' and if 5
it continues to leak ~for 10 ho~urs.which'is the: default time
'6 in the ' plan, we 'are ' going to be way above 'ths PAGs. ~ If 7
the ' wind ' shifts,.thdt plume Jis - going to co'me 'into a new 8
area. ' Protbetive ' action: sho'uld be'Ttaken.
T 9'
Q Is your aitswe'r the same 'for any time ~after noon i
10 on'the' day of thsJexerci'se?.
11 A
Once' ~a protective ' action has bedn initiated, tlfe'
~
i f EPA' manual states you don' t!I ack 'off.
i 12 b
13 Q
So, once'.1ERO ha'd advised thd public to evacuate --
14 A
Because 'of t-hdJconfusion' factor' more 'than anything 1
15
- else, 16 Q
In other: wor'ds, you never would change to a 17 sheltering rec'oinmendation' after an evacuation' rec'oinmendation?
18 A
NeVer wo~uld change?
Never say never. 'Okay.
19 It is generally assumed t-hat once you have.linitiated a
~
20 protective ' action and unless thdre 'are _ trenien'dous differences 21 dire consequences',.you' s t ay wit-h Tit. ~ You don't back~off.
22 Q
So, in ter'ms 'of' my ques' tion' abou~t whdthdr a O'
l
..l
32 g(*)
calculation was. performed any time after noon on the' day of 1
2 the' exercise, are:you'saying that you don't.think~there was one but that th6re 'neddn' t have-been one 'given the fact:
3 that you shouldn' t hdv6 ' changed th6 evacuation rec'ommehdation" 4
5 A
Unles's there 'was a tremehdous change. 'in the situation.
6 7
Q And th6re'wasn't,.from your opinion', during the 8
exercise?.
9 A
That's: corredt.
~
to MR. MILLER:
Okay, lets take~ our break.
11 (Re de s's.') ~
(3 v'
12 BY MR'.. MILLER:
(Continuing) 13 Q
Gen'tremen, would you~look'at Contention 38 on 14 Page.'45 of thd contentions?
This essentially ~ discusses the probrems that occurred on' the' ' day of the ' exercise 'at the
~
is 16 ENC.
17 And let' me ~ask 'you, _first of'all, have~you at 18 this time, ei~thdr Mr. Keller or Dr. Baldwin, prepared any 19 testimony regarding Contention 38?
20 Mr. Keller~, you go first?
21 A
(Witnes's Keller)
.Yes,.I have.'
Baldwin,. ave you' prep'ared testimony yet 'on 22 h
Q Dr.
nV
}
33 7-U Contention ~38?
1 2
A (Witness Baldwin)' No, I haven':t.
3 Q
Okay. 'Le't'me'ask you'th6n, Mr. Ke1.ler, first of all,.if. you would describe 'for' me 'thd ' substance' 'of the 4
testimony that you'have.'thus far prep'ared on this contention?
3 A
(Witness Keller)
Again, I don't understand what 6
7 fundamental: flaw.is. 'But the hub,.the' outline'and the basis of our test'imony is what is ~in ths ' post-ekercise assessment a
9 report.
10 Q
Now,.the' post-eiercise' assessment report determinec that there'was a deficien'cy'in ths' performance'.~of LERO.
11 fm
~
U personnel at the ENC; is that correct?
12 13 A
That'is correct'.
14 Q
Okay.
15 A
It had to do primarily'with 'an equipment problem.
16 Because'of the: fact:that the'eq~uipment' malfunctioned, okay,
~
the copying nachine' failed and thsy. didn't ha~ve'enough 17 copying' machfnes or whatever,.that hard copies of informa-18 tion' were 'not distributed in a timely ~ manner and, thsrefore, 19 people had information~ which 'was out of date and they made 20 responses which'we.r'e'not accurate'at the' time'they made
~
21 22 th6ir res'ponses.
(.m_.)
34 n
1 1
Q The' contention alleges at the very beginning on 2
Page ~45 that LILCO was unable 'to provide ' timely, ' accurate, 3
consistent and non~-confusing.. information to thd news' media 4
at thd Emergdn'cy: News' Center.
5 Is it fair to say thdt you'agred with the alleg'a-6 tion' set forth'in this' contention?
7 A
Partly.
Of the things you just. read, partly.
8 Q
Okay. 'Which'ones do you not agred with?
9 A
I believe:that the exerci'se. rep' ort states' that to there were hard co~ pies of the EBS' messages' posted on a 11 board which'. thd media hdd ' access to which hdd clearly marked O
12 for deletion certain sections of thd EBS.mes' sage.,Because 'the 13 procedure that all of the sites tha't I know of use pre-14 scripted EBS mes' sages' which are. then configured at the time is of the exercise to meet thd nedd, they struck'out some in-16 formation.
17 Thd rep ~ ore,.I believe,.says that'it.was clearly 18 marked for deletion. ~ H6 wever,.therc 'was possible' ' confusion.
I8 And thd rec'ommendation was made that you shouldn't.put thdm 20 up that way.
21 Your contention takes it.j ust a little. 'further 22 and leaves out ths ' ord "possible ' confusion."
Therefore,. I w
35 mU 1
would like to stay with'the language'of~the report, that 2
thdre 'was ths ' possibility.of confusion' because 'of this a
material.
4 But, no,. I don ' t know theYe 'was' confusion.
5 Q
Okay.
Uith thdt clarification ~, Mr. Keller,.do 6
you otherwise agred with 'ths alleg'ation set forth in 7
Contention'.38 thdt-I redd, whichis es'sentially that LILCO 8
did not provide timely, Idecurate, consistent'information 9
to ths news' media.during thd exercise?
10 A
No. ' I disagred for thd 'following ' reasons, okay.
11 Clearly, therc 'wer'e ~ instances where 'thdre 'were ' problems.
O 12 But when you say thdy = didn' t do it during the~ ' exer ~cise, 13 that means they never.did it.
14 Q
Uere'theYe'decasions where they did not' provide --
15 A
Yes'.
16 Q
-- timel'y, accurate --
17 A
Yes,.yes.
Q
-- or consistent information'--
18 18 A
Yes.
to the'new's' media?
20 Q
21 g
- yeg,
.Yes,.there ~were 'o'ccasion'.
s Uere thdse 'o'c'ca' ions set' forth 'in the ' post-exe'rci'se 22 Q
s O
36
'a 1
asses'sment rep' ort,.to your knowledge?;
2 A
The~re. 'are 'o'cc~a'sions set forth'in ths' post-exercise
~
3 assessment report.
4 Q
Are 'ther'e 'any examples of' LILC0~ not providing 5
t'imely,' accu ~ rate'or consistent information to the news 6
media that are 'not' contained in thd post-e:ier'cise ' asses'sment 7
report?
8 A
Not to'my knowledge.
9 Q
And, your testimony, if I understand what you 10 have 'said to me,. will rely upon ths TEMA'_ post-exercise 11 asses'sment report and will es'sentially co'nclude 'that LILCO 7V 12 did experience' 'problenis in providing information to the 13 news media?
14 A
That'one' occasion',-that is' correct.
15 Q
And that constituted a defici~ency, in FEMA's
~
16 Opinion, during the'exerci~se?_
17 g
Abgolutely.
18 Q
Now',. Dr. Baldwin, do you have an opinion that is 18 any different from Mr'. Keller's at this time reg'arding 20 Contention 38?.
21 A
(Witness Baldwin)
No, I don't'. 'The'only 22 opinion'tha't I ha've, of' course, is to add to what Mr.
7 37 1
Killer said, that in. putting' our tes'timony togethdr we _will 2
be' reviewing t-hit with :the PIO. person 'in this office, 3
Marianne' Jackson', to get' her input. ' She' 'was the' ' evaluator 4'
at thd ENC, so we will ensure 'to that ' extent that we' have-5-
as much' ' factual info'rmation as we' 'can ascertain at this 6
time ~.
7
.In addition --
8 Q
C6uld I just ask ~you, Dr. _Baldwin, be' fore lyou 8
go on, at this time.have 'you had such ' discussions with Ms.
1 to Jack' son?
The'discu'ssions abo'ut your, testimony, what will'.be 11 thd subs'tance' of' your tes'timony?.
O 12 A
No.
We have 'not had substantive ~ discussions with
~
~
13 anyone,. including I thinkfas we ' testified ourselves yester-14 day even 'among ourselves,. b'ec'ause ~ wha't/ wei have 'done at :this point is write '.it sep'arately and now' we.have Ebeen~ taking 15-the'dep'osition'for this we'ek, so we'really haven't.had ths 36 17
~
time to coordinate'even our answers..
18 But'--
i Q
Let: me -- onemore' follow-up. 'Do you kn'ow~if at 20 this time 'whdthdrL Ms'. Jacks'on' will hdve 'any bisis to dis-21 agree 'with 'the' ~ opinions just stated by Mr.. Kellerj-22 A
No'.
I -- at this time,' I believ'e 'that uhat-is in-
- ()
d 4
~-
.---a s
,e
38 N
ths rep' ort ' accurately reflects all of' the' 'information~ thdt 1
2 we: have ~at thfs point.
3 (Witness.Keller)
May I amplify just a little?
4 It may help or'it nay not.
I have'talkdd with Ms'. Jackson
~
5 j ust briefly, oksy. 'What I wanted to ascertain is, does she have any additional information ' for whfch,- for whitever 6
7 reasons, okay', didn't.en'd up in th6 report. 'Okdy.
8 Thdre 'is no indication ~ -
.we 'are ' firmly of ths 9
opinion that -thdre 'wa's 'a deficiency ^ at the' Emergency News' 10 Center.
We 'are 'in no way, going to back' 'away from that 11 deficfency.
/
(J 12 To try to be res~ponsive, before'wd' file our testimony we will try to-ascertain if there'is any addi-13 14 tional information that is not in ths' rep' ort. 'And, we 15 will. consider that in thd' formulation ~of our.tes'timony.
16 Q
At this time,' Mr. Kerler, his Ms. Jacks'on 17 indica ~ted to you' on'e'way or the~other whdthdr there'is 18 additional information that should c~ome'into play in 19 pggg,S testimony on this' contention?
20 A
Sh6 ' indicated tha~t shd did nor.think ~sheFhdd 21 anything.
Q And, she'is going to review'tha't. issue furthdr?.
22 n
r 39 L]
1 A
Yes.
2 Q
Nou, Dr. Baldwin, I interrrupted you.
I'm sorry.
3 If you uant to go b'ack to where. I cut you off before --
you were ' going to give me'an in addition.
4 5
A (Witness' Baldwin)
Oh, well, I have'not had even 6
tangential discussions with Marianne~ Jackson ~about this 7
issue.
As-I say, I think that whdt Mr. Kerler,. in talking 8
9 with her was doing, was getting hir impressions of what he 10 had drafted.in order.to get that down on paper'.
endTlA 11 The only addition I had was just to say that.
O 12 Are we going to go into this othe~r part about the public?_
13 I think you~ have ' confined your question at this point so 14 far only to the'~ media at the' news center.
Do I understand 15 you correctly?
16 Q
Are you asking if we 'are ' going to discuss the
~
17 rumor control?
18
~
A Correct.
19 Q
Yes., we'are' going to that next. 'But,.let me'ask 20 you before we. go there, have you, Dr. Baldwin, or you, Mr.
21 Keller,. reviewed or seen~ LILCO's. admissions that were filed
~
22 in response to Request for Admissions by the' governments?
~
/-
~)
't.
40
()
\\_/
1 A
(Witness Kerler)
Yes', I have.
2 Q
Are 'you-aware 'of the fact that.LILCO, in a number 3
of' instances, his responded to req'uests- -for~ info'rmation 4
regarding this issue'of thd ENC?
5 A
Well, I've'seen~ your request for' admissions or 6
interrogatories,.I can't rerbmber' whdt it's' recalled, but
~
7 anyway -- and I've'Sedn thdir response.
q 13 it" fair for'me'to characterize' LILCO's 8
9 res'ponse as a'dmitting in large 'part, almost entirely in 10 fact', the ' factual alleg~ations set -forth. 'in Contention. 38 with'res'pect to thd' delays and the' inaccur'aci'es' of infornm-11 12 tion thdt were 'provided to thd ' pres's-during thd ' exercise?.
13 Do you r'ec'all?
14 A
I recall thdt thd timeline thdt'I saw was not is in conflict'with'ths'timeline whichis in thd' exercise report, which 'is basically the 'timeline 'thdt is in some 16 17 of the~ alleg'ations hdr.e. ' There 'are 'a few ' minutes', to my
~
18 rec'ollection,.one 'or two' minutes' differ'e'nce: on d couple 'of I8 them but nothing of'any signifiednce.
In ter'ms'of ths' sccr'acy,.I. don't kn'ow about that, 20 u
21 because my problem is thefollowing if;we'are. talking about 22 the'same documen't.
Thdse 'were 'iden'tified as LERO press-O s_s
41
<~
N)
I reledse 'or -- one was news and one was press.
I can't.ke'ep~
2 them straight. 'One~was' LERO News Release Number X,,.Y or'.Z.
3 Whe'n I was drafting thi's information', I didn't.
4 have'those~ copies'b'e~cause'I wds-in Idaho, so I don't know s
specifically whdt's in dach~ 'one 'of thdse numbered news.
6 releases. ' Ue :do have 's'ome 'co'mments in ths ' rep ~ ort thdt 7
the~r~e were ~probl' ems with th6 ' timing, for examp1.e.
8 And I hdd to draw a con'c1'sion.
So,.'thdt's why~
u 9
I' m s till in draf t s tage 'and, you~ know', a. lo t'. to be 'done.
10 When~ LILCO -- from whdt I've~seen~,. I don't'.sedfany,grea't 11 disparity with~the excep' tion of a' minute lor two, and as
]'-
far as I know'thdre~is no disparity withths' context.
I 12
~
13 medn, Ms. Jackson hda copied and we hdve ~in ths ' rec'ord 14 room hdre co~ pies of' thd 'shme ~ news reledsed. 'How~can we is argue what it. 's ays ?
16 Q
ley me -- maybe'we'can shor'tcircuit-this..Is 17 it fair to 'ay thdt at this time it vo'uld appear thdt your s
18 testimony on Contention'38 will es~sentially agree ~with'the~
19 contention and its allegations?
20 A
Yes and no.
21
- (Witness Baldwin)
We'need to bd careful here 22 about ths ' timing issue, and I think that Mr'. Keller' may Ov
42' l'
hdve -- I just wdnt nto' clarify and makesure }thdtiwe 'say: that 2
hard co' pied ofithe7EBS messaged which'~wer~e.~ aired, in.the 3
report wd 'say thit thsf wdreall' broddca'st within the"'15 -
- 1
~
4 minute time' frame. ' AndrI believeLthdt wesay hdre'within 1
5 six' minutes'.
6 (Witness' Keller')t ~ That' nake's~ a differdnce'..
7 Q
1Well','let'me"trylit d'ifferently.
^LO'Ok'- 1 8
A
.Ldt' me hdrp,: maybe hdIp.
I agred'with~whdt you'.ve 9
'said,. there. 'werec ~probrems. ~ We'are:'goingsto pointtout,.or'.
10 at least so-far,. as :faras I hive.'got' ten', care going to point 11 out thdt there 'is n' regulation which ' req'uires thd broa'dcast 12 for info'rming.the public within d.certain time,' frame, okay.
13
' Based' on' ths ' info'rmationEas'. I am aware,. and ' base d -
14 on' what.is in ths ' rep' ort,/we 'said - "JFEMAJ,in thd ' evaluation, said. thdt.LERO met' thel '15 minute time < req'uh.renien't on all of -
I 15 16 thdir EBS broadcasts. ' EBS lis. tihe primary 1means "of1 providing
-l 17 nec'es'sary and important news' information.to thd 'public.
18 There Tare 'no i equirenients on' how' ' fast-. these; things hdve'to be given to thd' media at thelnewd center'.
- And, 19 20 insofar as you'r: conten'tions ' imply thdt thdr'e: 11s' a req'uire--
21 ment of~ timerines's, we ~disagred. 'We.ido not'disagred with 22 ths ' times' that you hdveEstated, within' maybda minute Jor :two,
~
- O 4
s 4
3,
.-r
,,.-e-
- i. e mv,
er-e
-,v-
-e, e--
,~.w-.
--.1.-
43 V
1 I can ' t: --
2 Q
Mr. Keller,. in. terms 'of adeq'uacy of'.per'formdnce',
3 I would' ass ~ume {you' would agree' 'with 'me 'thit at s'ome ' point 4
performance' his to be judged as inadeq'uate b'ec'ause 'of time 5
delays in get' ting info'rmation to the netis' media?_
~
6 A
We hdve'a deficiency in the'~ rep' ort.
7 Q
Now'.--
8 A
~(Witness 1Kowieski)
Mr.. Miller,.may I -- it seems 9
we are going around in' ci'rcles,_ okay. '1.think'that we 10 already -- we hdve: been' asked and. answer'ed.thfs ' ques' tion 11 over and over again.
,m O
12 And I think 'thdt we, Mr'. Keller and Mr. Baldwin, 13 alreddy put on the' rec'ord that, yesL, we'will support.
14 deficiency as stated in the~' rep ~or't.
' And I. don' t see the 15 reason why we are. ' going over and over :the' same issue.
t 16 Again, we 'are ' going to resedrch 'and we 'are ' going 17 to add more 'information if we will be 'able 'to gather' more 18 info'rmation'. ' But,. at this point in time 'I think 'the 19 record is cl' ear.
~
20 This paner.is going to support. whdtever it was 21 stated in the post-exerci'se asses'sment.
22 Q
Le~t' me 'ask 'you', gentlemen ~,.if you'will look at
,m
44-o c h(
Page i487 And.in almost ths very'. middle ~of the'pagei.the~re 1
2
.is a. statement, "LERO 1 Release Number' 6, approved bf.thd 3
Director at'.12i25,?was not' posted at the' ' ENC 'until '2 :'10.~" ~
~
.Now,: I'm j ust p'icking thfs out as an eiample.
4 5-If,.in fact, LILCO itself' his : admitted thst.~thfs wis,, in fact 6
thd ca'se, will' FEMK take'that into account in preparing its
~
7 testimony?.
~
8 l
.A
'(Uitness Keller')
Yes'.-
8 Q
Now, would yout agre6 ~with.'me 'thdt :if,..in. fact,:
10 the ' times set :forth hdr~e Tare 'correc~t'.that that would bean
~
11 inadeq'uate ' performance ~ by' LILCO in providing 'information.to O
12 the news' media?-
la A
No'.-
I4 (Witness Baldwin)
No.
Q Okdy. ' Th6 ~fa'ct tha~t ths ' info'rmat' ion' was available 15
~
38 at -12: 25 but not posted - or given to the'fmedia until -2:10 I7 f
was adequate, in you~r opinion?.
I8 A
(Witnes's ~Keller)
I don' t kliow whit thd ~informa-19 tion is, okdy. ' It' may be 'a probletd 'or' it may not' be a
~
2 problem.
21 Ther~e'are esercise' artifacts.
And thdrefis nothing, 22 we'can do about it. ' We hot' into it a -little bitryestefday, O
i j
i
=.. -..
,,-_,y
_.w-
,~ -.... ~
,..,e
_+g.-,
-y.--
45
-,3 i
1 V
and we'will.get' into it s'ome' more'if.you like'right'now.
1 In a.real emer' gen'cy', thd ' news center has television 2
3 sets, has radios'.
'If. this -
let' me lidek 'of f and s tart 4
again. 'Some of the' news reIedses, l' know~ the' LER0 news 5
releases, are' 'merely restat'ements 'of thd EBS~ messages, b6caus e I've' look6d at a couple ~and that's: all they are.
6
~In thd case'whdre 7
I don' t: know what this one Tis.
it is ths EBS message,. okhy, thd ' media in thd netis' center 8
can look-at thd bloody telev'ision set' or'. listen to the 9
to radio.
And, in a real 'eniergency,- they will' have the :informa-11 tion instantane6usly.
(3
('J In an exercise,.b'ecause it's an exerci'se 'and be'-
~
12 13 cause we never'actually broadcast, not'only-at Shoreham but
~
any other place'in ths'world to my knowledge,.anything but 3
14 15 a tes't message.' We have'to put in an additional step' which his nothing to-do with'a real emer'ge'ncy, that ths only way
~
16 that the ' media ati ths ' news ' center has acc'eds to this in-J 17 formation'is when wegive them a piece'of paper: or wegive
~
18 thsni a briefing and thsy read it. to 'them.
18 Clearly, it's. advantageo'u's to provide 'to ths 20 media a piece 'of paper. with 'all the 'words written down.
21 1
Thsy are les's likely' to put th6 wrong words in their' media l
22
/%
1 1
V i
46 k
i broddcasts or media rep' orts.
N6 preclusion if you give them 2
the words if thdy are ' going to use ~them. ~ But, if you 3
give 'them a p'iec~e' of paper,.it is: less- -likely thdt thdy 4
will -- thdt an error' will o'c~c~u'.
i r
5 It' is helpful. ' But,. in a real situation 'if indeed 6
this.is on'e'of thd EBS'~ messages, and I. don't know~whether 7
it is or not *-- as 'l to1d you before,.I hdven' t hid a 8
chahce ~to se6 :thds'e ' things -- I have: 'a probl'em with 'saying 9
off the ' top of my he'ad, as you' aske'd me 'to do,.that just o
because he ' approved it 'at 12 :'25. and Lit didn't get' posted 11 until ~2::10 that thdt automatically is. an inadeq'uacy.
O 12 Q
Are you saying,.Mr. Kdller,.that you'would have.
13 to look not' just.~at th6 ' time ' delay but at thd ' content of 14 thd message?
15 A
Thit-is correc't'.
~
16 Q
No'w,.if what you'are'saying is.correcti, }ir.
17 KellerI, about in. a real ' emergency' the linfo'rmation' could be given simultaneously or' i'mmediately to - thd ' press through 18 18 the T.V. or thd br~oddcasts over thd radioslof ths EBS message, whdt's the' purpose of having an~Emergsney' News 20 21 Center at all?
22 A
Ta' amplify, to 'give briefings.
Thd IBS messages AV
47
(.
i are by nature. 'relatively sh6rt, because they.do not amplify, 2
they don' t hdve ' input from all~ ths 'agenci'es. 'Thd EB'S 3
mes' sage' is. nec~essary -information being. given to ths 'public 4
whd are at risk..
s Q
But, my question is, whdt is thd ' purpose 'of ths 6
ENC?
And I gathei what you are telling me ~is thdt ths
~
~
7 purpose is to-hmplify 'and give ~ additional. briefings to the 8
pres's~ so thdt info'rmation' can be~ 'provided to ths 'public?
~
9 A
Thit-is correc~t.-
~
10 Q
And,.I assume thdt.given that purpose' TEMA~ would 11 like~to sed ~an adeq~uate, timely, consistent display of.
O 12 accurate'information'.given' to the' news ~ media?
13 A
And, I believe 'the ~ rep ~ ort 'says tha~t the' briefings 14 were' accurate and that:the briefings answered the questions 15 tha't the pres's hdd. ~ Again, we' ' don' t want to 'redd ths 16 report.into thd record,.I don't:believ'e.'
17 But that's' my recollection of' what 'the rep' ort
~
18 says.
19 Q
Go~ ahead, Mr. Keller. 'Are 'you'thriough'with ~your 20 answer?
21 A
. Yeah.
22 q
gg, whdt you are'saying is that.you'believe thdt
~
48 g
'G ths briefings given to the ~ press wer'e Jadeq'uate 'during the 1
exerci'se 'and thd problem was 'in the ' posting of thd hdrd
~
2 copies of' ths 'presk reledses?
~
3 4
A That's: whdt the ' deficiency: says..
5 Q
Are 'you saying, in addition to' thdt,.thdt thd posting of thd hdrd. copies even tho~ ugh 'untimery and even 6
thdugh~in somd cdses inaccurats'makes no differdnce?
7 8
A No,.I didn't say that.
9 (Witness-Baldwin)- May I try for a' moment?
10 (Witness Keller'). Pledse.'
~
(Witness'Balduin).This is br~oke~n into two parts.
11 In ths EOC, we are: evaluating the timeliness of' being able 12 13 to issue an EBS' message. 'And we' state'on'Page34 of'ths post-cxerci'se ' assessment -
and I will not redd thd whole 14
^
thing, but it's. in thd 's'ec~ond full' paragraph 'down, in thd 15 16 last sentenc'e :
"All EBS messages we'reTco'ordinated in
~
~
accordance'with'ths' plan and,_s'ec'ondly,.thit ths' simulated 17
~
broadcast of EBS messages' always (6ccurred withi'n six 18 minutes' after the' simulated sounding of sirens."'
18 20 That's. whdt we evaluate in terms of timeliness,
-from the 15. minutes' standpoint which'.is in guidanceEthdt 21 22 FEMA his as guidance ~.
O
'e 4
149 1
(j.
's
~
1 With ' respect. to ths ' timeliness of the ~ issuance' 2
-of ths' posting of.th6se hird copies in ths neidi center, 3
thdt is a subj'ective : interpretation on theUpart of ths 4
evaluator as to.whethdr or not it.was or'was not timely.
5 Based on' what we hdve 'dscertained at the ' ENC. from.
6 our evaluator' uho his done a number ofiexdr'cises,.it says 7
j thdt thdre were : delays in posting th6se but -it does~n't.say 8
l specIfically whdt th6se' times were,.what those time' delays
'This rep ~ ort also stipulates that thdyLdo have hdrd'
~ 8 were.
18 copy capability between thd newd center and the'EOCfin such'
~
11 a way thdt hdrd co~py of an EBS ' message ~can bd.relefaxed O..
12 to thd news: center.
18 Uhst we' witnessed, my interpretfation of..whdt we I4 witnessed since 'I was not thdre, wds that there !was' a-_ del'ay in taking th6se hard co~ pied thstL canie.'over ths. ~ tele' fax or 15 16 were ~in whatever fashion produced in_ hard 'co~py, making a-I 17 cop'y on a xerox co'pying' machine"dnd posting: thdt around the 18 ro'om for use by thd media.
2 19 We would support theEdeficien'cy'in thdt context 20 in thd news center in just the way thir I've said.
But, we 21 do need to understand thdt this evaluation is broke'n into 22 twd parts.- 'The part thdt was in ths ENC ~was a subjective.
4 4
4
-3 3
-y-
==y---m--
m.
~_
=
r-50 1
evaluation based on the reliability -
ths' ability to provide 2
information'. '.The ~part':in-. thd EOC was timed. ' And based on 3
tho'se-times, it wis' met:.
- 4 (Witnes's' Kowieski)
Let'me --
5 Q
ley me: follow up. LI'm sorry,-- Mr. Kowieski, wd wil1~ c'O' e back 'to you'.-
m 6
i 7
Dr. Baldwin, that was hdrpful. 'No~w,.in your 8
opinion', can there be ' situation ~s wheYe 'thd ' delaying,.ths.
9 posting.of ~ delayed information to the' ' pres ~s could hdve 'an
~
)
~
10 adverse ' imp'act' 'on thd 'public's: hddith 'and safet'y during i
11 a radiolog'ical emepgdn'cy?
d 12 A
'(Witnes's-Baldwin)
That's a pretty br'oad question,
^
la but yes'.
14 Q
Now~,. has' FEMA redchdd a determitiat-ion as to 15 whdther,. given thd 'per~fo'rmsnce 'of::thd. ENC fpersonnel at _ the 16 Shorehdm exercise, that poss-ibility in fact could hdve
~
17 resulted?
18 A
We have 'a deficiency. ~ And by definition of a 19 deficidncy',.as' 'I understand it. *- ' '
20 (Witnes's:.Kerler). Read it. ' Reid ~.it.
It's in-21 front of tF e bdo.k'.
22
-(Witness -Baldwin)-
Is'it'in thfs-book?
O
A 51-g-Q 1
Q Uell', I understand ths.' definition.of deficien'cy.
~
2 go 3
A (Witneds; Kdller)
.Yed, it's: he~re.
4 (Witness 1Baldwin)
It normally is -defined in - the report, but thd ' normal. definition' of'. a deficiency ~ is one f
~
5 6-Whdre'ths hdaltlt'and safet'y of 7-7
-(Witness Keller). Redd i.t.
8 (Uitness Baldwin) - It.. wduld cause. 'a finding that off-site 'eniergen'cy' prep'aredness was not udeciuate: to provide 0
reasonable ~assuranceTthat appropriate. 'protec'tive' 'medsures 10 can be takdn to protect thd health 'and safety of the' ~public.
~
11 12 Q
Think'you.- I'm prepared to, go on to the' 'next question unles's, Mr..K6 wies'ki,.you want to hdd something.
is 14 A
(Witness Kowieski)
.I'm sort of surprised and puzzled by the ' fact thst. yesterday Ms'.L Letschs. ' ques'tioned 15 us on every single..exe'rcise feritique form whe'r'e 'there was
~
16 a change and downgrade,'. sort.- of, from' - ' for instance,
17 deficiency to areas for? 'correctbre 'act' ion or from --
18 downgrade ifrom ureas -for correc'tive Jactions to area for
- 8
. improvenient.
20 Nobddy ques'tioned us, as.;far as I kn'ow, about 21
~
our change 'and upgrade 'from area's for' co'rrec't'ive actions 22 O
-- +
r, a
> +--
y e,.-,
a:
n g -
r
,w--
52 I _J 1
to deficiency.
If you~ go back to Marianne ' Jackson's form, 2
all right, now I recall-Marianne' Jackson'reco'mmended that hard co' pies of' EBS' messages were hot provided to' media in
~
3 4
timely ~ manner. 'She had as an area for.co~rrec'tive' actions.
5 It was Roger K6uieski who upgraded. 'And let me
~
6 give you the reason'. 'The' reason, the'~ main reason, why we made'it a deficiency'.is the' fact that rumor control person-7 8
nell didn' t ha've 'a ha'rd co~py of EBS messages ~.
And this is 9
combined deficiency.
Hard copy goes togethe~r with rumor 10 control, because based on our telepho'ne ' calls to rumor 11 control, rumor control didn' t have 'the ~up-to-date informa-(
)
12 tion, didn't.have'up-to-date EBS messages.
And that's the reason why' we p/
@8 it a deficiency.
13 vu 14 And we combin hard copics of EBS messages with' rumor 86 8 15 control personnel as one deficiency.
Hopefully, this clarified this particular 16 17 contention; and, h6pefully I clarify some'of the statements 18 made here by Mr. Ke'llerLand Dr. Baldwin.
Q Mr. Kowieski, let me ask you,.I recall'-- I 19
~
20 believe 'I even deposed Ms. Jackson some time'ago.
- She, I think, was unaware'of'any telephone' call by FEMA personnel 21 22 into the LILCO rumor control ~syst'em other than the one that c.
~
53 0.v.
'l she hdd tried.to' make,' and I believe 'shd 'was.. unable 'to even 2
. gets thr'ough..
3 A
Mr.: Miller --
4 Q
Ldt meijust ask ~you.
'My' question is, are'you ~
i 5
. aware: of othe'r'. FEMA ~. personnel thit. did call into ;the' ' rumor
~
6 control-syst'em'during ths' day of~theexerci'se --
7 A
Mr. Miller 7-8 Q
-- othe~r: thin-Ms. Jack's'on?
9 A
Mr., Miller,.it was-almost a yedr ago.
That-10 event.took ' place'. almost a year ago.
'I r'eniembeY that at training. session Marianne' Jacks'on asking federal W
11 O
12 evaluators to place 'th6 ' phone' ' call or' pho'nd ' calls to rumor 13 control'.
14-At'my session on' February 14, at night, when I.
15
. met' at nighti to c'ompile 'ths time ? framed as well as 'get the 16 initial feedhack ifroni evaluators, I'm certain we' ' discussed
]
also rumor.contro1~. ' If you~ ask"ine Jfor thd'ap~ecIfics,. Mr.
17 18 Miller, I do not..r'ec'all right' no.w'.
I8 Q
Okay.
I'm j ust search 1'ng fors'ome ' additional 20 information' - '
21 A
I understand.
22 Q
-- and I wo'nder if you' hive 'it?
.O
. a a
m-
54 1
A No, I don't, sir.
2 Q
Okdy.
-Do you~know'if,.in fact,. there.~wer'e'any teleP ohe ' calls' made :to rumor con' trol' othdr: thin by Ms'.
h 3
4 Jackson?
5 A
I: don' t: have any knowledge :to Ethis effect.
e Q
Dr. Baldwin,.,do you~ know~ ;of any?
7 A
(Witnes's Baldwin)
Not by a' FEMA evaluator, but
~
8 I hdve~seen s'omeplace -- it is'my foggy r'ec'ollection at 9
this point, in all' of thd ~ material that- -I have ' read, that to some othdr peo'ple called rumor: control. 'And I'can't.--
11 Q
Mr. Keller,. do. you know?~
qb 12 A
(Witnes's Keller')
It is my understanding that Ms.
13 Jackson ~made~the'only call that we have' documented as far 14 as FEMA is concerned. 'And the report of'that documentation 15 is on'Page53'of the rep ~ ort.
16 I believ'e -- and thi~s is from' meniory -- that 17 it's on her;ex'drci'se evaluation' critique form. 'At any 18 ex'erci'se, thdre'are' activities which'are'not evaluated or 19 ob' served by EMA.
It isL my understanding that' 'LILCO or 20 LERO, whoever, pulsed the'ir own systeni for rumor control.
21 And I believe:'thit there 'is a tabulation' of some 'of those 1
22 calls in Con' ten' tion' '39 which c'ame from' the' documentation O
55 73 i~)
1 of the LER0/L.ILC0~ or perhaps government's' calls to the 2
rumor. control' numbers.
3 Geierally speakihg, whehn you'do 'a' scenario or you 4
do an exerci'se, in. order to kde'p' th6 participants wh6 are 5
not in thes'e' EOCs, EOFs busy -.you have' 'to ha've 's'omething for them to do --' FEMA' does not evaluate'all of this.
The~
6 7
exercise prep'arer's,.in this' case LILC0~, provide ' messages 8
and information flow' just to ke'e~p' people 'from' going to 9
slee~p'.
10 And I believe~that the ' substance' ~of 49' c'ame 'from 11 th6se kinds of rec'o'rds.-
0 12 Q
Did FEMK -- Mr. Kowi'eski, I sho~uld ask~you thi's, 13 did FEMA request LILCO to activate and evaluate 'its rumor 14 control systeni?-
15 A
(Witness Kowies~ki)
I believe~so.
~
16 (Witness' Kel!1er)
N6.
Did we'ask --
17 Q
Did FEMA ask LILCO to do that?
18 A
'(Uitnes's' Keller)' Did we 'ask 'them to 'do a self-19 evaluation?
20 (Witness Kowleski)
Self-evaluation?
21 Q
.Yes'.
22 A
N6, we~'did not.
/~T U
56 p
LJ 1
Q Mr. Keller,.I understand from' what you' just said 2
tha~t it's your. understanding that LILCO -- that the' comments 3
regarding the adequacy ~or inadequ'acy:of.LILCO's. rumor 4
control'were'essen'tially based upon documents generated by 5
LILCO/LERO during the~exerci'se; is that' correc't?.
6 A
(Witnes's Keller)
That's:my understanding.
7 Q
And, it's your understanding tha't LILCO itself 8
the'n did evaluate'its own rumor control system?
~
9 A
Let'me add that as a provision ~of the' plan, in
~
to drills and ' exercises ~ there is a provision in thd plan which' 11 is required by 0654 that the ' participating organizations,
b 12 okay, are required..to do some self-evaluation,-.okay.
13 In the old, thd original, TEMK evaluation proces's 14
. prior to the'one we: -- wd'are now I guess in Stage'3, 15 okay -- the old e:iec'r t orm wh6n we' graded things from 16 Zero to five -- one'of the'~ grades was given to the' quality 17 of the self-evaluation proce'ss, okay.
18 I believe-there 'is a plan requirement that they 19 do their ovm thing, do their own evaluation.
20 Q
And your understanding is tha~t LILCO itself 21 evaluated its rumor control?
22 A
Yes, that's my understanding, o]
i*
57 emO l'
Q.
-Now, Dr. Baldwin or Mr. Keller, have:you prep'ardd~
2_
tes'timony.at this t'ime 'on LConten' tion: 39?
A.
(Uitnes's. 'Baldwi'n)
No',.'.I hdve'not.
~ 3 1
4 (Witness Keller)'
I' ve beg ^un," yen.'
3 Q
Cdn you tell me,. Mr. Keller,. the ' substance 'or ths a
thrust of thd testimony. that you' thinkEyou' will offer in 7
this' contention?
8 A.
.Ye i. ~ Bas'ically --
9 MR. CUIE!ING:
Can we' confer a'm'oment? ~Excu'se me 10 j us t' a.second.
f 11 (The psnel witnes'ses :are: ' confer' ring with Mr.
o 12 C'umming. ) '
la WITNESS KELLER:
Since:'I.had dony most of this, 14 thdy were wondering whdt I wds doing.
'I would like to 15 point out that' 38.Q'wa's one of thsJones:wegave you'that J
is we thought' was a planning-issue 'primarily,: from yesterday.
17 I haven' t. been - going b'ack' 'to tho'se ' individually, bdcause ~I j
18 presume they arefon th6Jrec~o'rd.
19 But,.all of'ths'subp' arts of A, the' sp'ecific, 20 s ubp arts of A and.B,. e t' ce't' era, are.e from information' thdt
-21 we don't have'in hand.
No'w',. wh6n I say we,'.I' don't.have.
~
Ihdve'not,--since'Iwas.giventhisass'knment, hid d ch~ance 22 i
58
)
l
,8 1
to do a tho' rough'sedrch'of all the records he're in the fella' 2
o f fice'.
3 I assumed, bdsed on thd previous.: response,' that 4
these 'were ' gen'er'ated -from records ' which 'were ' generated by' 5
LILCO, okay.
~We' don't hdve'any of thdse'r'ecords. ' Uel'1, 6
we'may have'thdm.
I hdven' t looke'd at theni, okay.
7 Bas'ically, I have ' looked at ths 'oned that I can draw a conclusion from' assuming th, t ths' dates and times 8
9 are'right, okay.
For' 'e xample, theYe'is.one'about ' lob's ter's 10 tha't I reniember. spedi'fically.
On Page ~54, j ust-a little '
11 below'the bottom, oksy.
I hdve ' written something on that.
~ ~
)
t' ' '
12 BY MR. li1LLER:
(Continuing) 13 Q
Well, let' me 'just ask ~you, lir. Keller, you;have 14 not at this. time 'sedd any of ths ' documentation which 'under-15 lies Co'ntention~39,. correct?
16 A
Thdt'is correct.
Q And,-you'are'not even s.ure' FEMA'his such~docu-17 18 ments,.co'rrect?.
18 A
That is correct.
Q Le't me represent to you thdt the governments 20 obtained the documentation underlying thi's' cotitention-from 21 LILCO, because ' e' 'didn' t generate ths fdoc~umen'ts and we 'did 22 w
OC1
'k f
r
59
-/~3 1
not place'the'pho'ne' calls to rumor contro.l.
And it's: based 2
upon the 'documen'ts. produced by' LILCO that we have 'draf ted 3
this contention.
4 A
And, I believe tha't's what I said in the 5
p r e v'i o u s 'a n s w e.~r'.
6 Q
That's'. correct.
'Now,. does FEMA' intend to requ.est-7 this documentation' from LILCO in prep'aring its testimony 8
on Contention?39?
9 A
Yes'.
I intended to ask 'if I could get the docu'-
~
10 mentation to ver'ify if I -- I've.already take'n ths first 11 cut on s'ome'of theim'. ' And if we are ' going.to finish 'this and really write 'som' thing '-- as we' tried to say yesterday,
~
e
~
12 13 as we: talked about.ths last time we' ha'd one of thsse.
14 meetings, it is the division of labor..
15 Mr. Kowieski was just coming back' on' the ' program,
~
16 right.
He had a lot of' catching up to do in order ~ to get 17 ready for' thes~c 'dep'ositions.
Dr. Baldwin and I had been 18 more ~or les's involved continuou~ sly.
'We' started a first cut -
I really obj ec't'. to:. charact'erizing what we' ha've besh talking 19 20 abo ~ut here 'as our testimony.
21 Q
Well,.your testimony as of'now',7your opinion as 22 of now, weall under' stand tha't.
O w
e 7
T
'l r
6'O
- O 1
A
'Okdy.
.Y e s',.s i r. - If I'm going.to be 'askdd to 2
finish 'thfs thing up, I wdnt.to ' ed ~the ' doc'umentation, s
i a
thdt's1 right'.'
4 (Witness, Ko'wieskf)
Could I hdveconferdnce?-
s' (Thd' panel' witnesses are' confer' ring with lir.
6 Cumming.)
i 7
WITNESS KELIER:
I thfnk"it ought' to be. obvious.-
s ~
We have 'said, I, don't know how' many times, ad nauseum, that 9
our tes'timony is heYe;' it is in ths ~ post-e:idr~ci'se ' assessment j
10 rep' ort. ' And, thdt'sn the' basis, thd hub,. of our testimony, 11 right'.
- O 12 If it's not.in-thdre'-- if -- and the' position 13 hasn' t: been dec'i~ded yet,.if we 'are ' going to' provide ' testimony as e:iperts,. and thdt has ~ not' been deci'ded -- it s'.- my 14 4
15 understanding it hasn' t' been deci~ded --
i 16 MR. cut &fING:
That's1 ~ corr'ecit.'
~
17 WITNESS KELLER:
I would look~'at-thdt i
is documentation ~. 'Now~,.;it had no -' nonelof'thdse' things hdd any relation' to thd frating ittrhe post 'e:iercise ~ asses'sment 19 20 rep' ort,.okdy.
We ~already. hive 'a deficien'cylin t rumor. control which 21 p
we' discussed alreddy, right'.
Maybe 'it's he1~pful to say that 22
]
e i
e r
.m
, 1
61
/~l
'w/
1 it wds deficient in 15 ways rath6r than only one way.-
A 2
deficiency is a defici6n'cy', is a deficiency. 'And it makes no differ'ence' h6w ' any ways it was wrong; it was wrong.
3 m
4 WITNESS ~BALDWIN:
Mr. Keller just hit: upon what 5
I wo~uld liketo add on that, and that is:in regard to thfs 6
whole issue 'of h6w muchdid we' : test s'omething.
~
7 And, in this context it redily doesn't! matter.-
8 We hdve a rumor control deficie'ncy based on. documentation 9
that we have 'of inaccurate 'in fo'rmation on -one ' call.
And to that's really all we'~nced.
11 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 12 Q
Well, let'me'ask'you, gentlemen, if you~ are ' going 13 to offer testimony on Contention' 39?. First of all, are 14 you going to offef testimony on Conten' tion 397.
15 A
(Witness Kel~ler)' I'm not'sur.e.
Wel'1,.I 'am not I don't.'.thi'nk'thdr'e'are'any subp' arts of.39 'hich'are 16 w
sure.
17 covered in thel 'exe'r~ci'se ' rep' ort at this - point in time.
18 Given thd assumption'thdt thdre~are'no parts 18 of 39 which 'ard 'co'vered in thd 'ex6refse ' rep' ort, okay, it is my under~ standing that the "deci'sion. hds.'not been~ made 20 21 whethdr we are ' going to offet testimony on; 39. ~And, at 22 least part of 39~ was one 'of' ths -- whdt we 'th6ught' were
62
("%
' (_)
i p]nnaing issue.s.
2 Q
I don' t. redily. under~ stand and I don' t: need to 3
explore with 'you' the' ' distinction you' are, ' drawing betweeh 4
whethsr you tes'tify as ' experts or' as a fact ' witness in this 5
cohtext.
For example,.there 'are 'obviously sonie 'thfngs that 6
you are.' going to.do outside~ths' confines of thdfpost-exercise
~
7 assessment report, such'as talk'to Marianne Jackson.to see
~
8 if shs has ' additional fact information.
So',,if there'is 9
additional fact' information available to TEMA, for example, getting doc' ments -from LILCO which 'go to the issues raised 10 u
11 in Contention 39, I'm simply asking you are. 'you going to do 12 that or not do 'that?
13 A
(Witnes's Kowiesti)
Mr. Miller ~, let?ne' clarify.
14 It is. common ~pr'actice'that whsn wego to evaluate.'any is exer'cis e, eithdr in the St' ate'of New Jersey'or'New York 16 State, we ' rely on evaluations of. federal observers.
We 17 do not rely on' evaluations of the' ' DOT' ' evaluators, co'unty 18 or the' state.
18 In this case, we' are.'not' going to rel'y on LILCO
~
20 evaluation because you'cannot in one' case, wheYever in this ca'se'the government. supports thap there was a-problem and 21 22 in anothdr' case LILCO' may disagree ~with'that.
So', we have l
(~)
\\,'
63 h
I to be consistent. ' As; -far as 'I am co'ncerned, I will rely --
1 2
as'a group, we'will rely on'our evaluation.
i 3
If you', Mr. Miller,.are asking'me, are 'you1 going 4
to look for additional information'. if you' have 'to' clarify.
5 any issues, to go back'.to our evaluators,.ths' answer;is yes..
i 6
If you'ask' me whether or' not' I'm going to look..'for' informa -
7 tion at ths gover'nment,.Suffolk County,.the state, th6 8
utility, the' answer is no.
W 4,.
fff 9
We'may, if there'islan issue that'is.a4. dispute, j
10 Mr. Miller,.likd EBS' messages, timing,-so forth'and'so on, 11 yes, wecan compare notes.- ' But,..if you ask' me 'if I'm going O
12 to rely on LILCO evaluation or' LILCO statements,.it's up 13 to LILCO to. respond to th6se ' allegations mde by the:
14 government.
15 Q
Is it. fair to say, Mr. Kowieski, _ based upon what l
16 you ha've just stated tha't FEMA will' likely not' offer 17 testimony on Contention. 39, with 'the 'eicep' tion of the'
]
18 conclusions drawn in the'eserci~se' rep' ort relating to the' 19 inadequacy of rumor' control?
l 20 A
Mr. Miller',.I have 'alrea'dy stated. for the' ' record,-
21 j
I have not analyzed any.of thelcontentions'--
22 Q
Well, then'let' me ask Mr. Keller: or'Dr. Baldwin
~
O i
1 4
...m
64 r
l ~ O
~ 1 the ' question'.
2 A
(Witness Keller)
If. you' take :thd "likely" out 3'
of your question ~; youisaid it :is -liksly weiwould not, okdy,-
4
~ theYe 'is a possibility we 'may not' offer restimony on. 39
~
I-5 insofar as it e'xcedds the scope'of whdt is in th6 exercise 6
rep' ort..
7 Q
So, I' m j us t trying. to ge t an under' standing,.Mr~.
8 Keller and Dr. Baldwin, as to ---
4 9
A I understan.d.
1 10 Q
--- whdre'you think~this.is going to c'ome'out. : Do '-
<r you believe. at -this time that you probably will not offef-11 1 O 12 testimony. on Contention 39 'excep't for' --- eicep't to the la extent thdt thd FEMK rep' ort addresses a defici~ency'in th6 i
14 rumor control program of' LILCO --
15 A
I have --
16 Q
-- and with'ths~ addition of follow 2up with o
17 Marianne ~ Jackson ~ or othe~r' people 'thdr worked with hdr in~
18 evaluating this. who :were. federal. evaluators on-the day of~-
18 thsfexercise?
Okdy.
'So',.at this time you likely.will not try 20 21 to. ascertain ths' truth, if.you will,.of ths' spec.ific 22 allegations set.forth 'in Contention' 39, b~ecause thdt will
)O L
65-
- O.
1 require ' going to the~ LILCO_ documentation?
2 A.
-You said --
3 MR.. CUlHfING:
MaybeJI can help'my witnesses, Mr.
4 Miller.
5 MR. liILLER:
S u're.
6 (Edughter'.)
7 MR..CUMMING:
None of my_ witnessed have authority.
8 to draft testimony bey'ond ths scope 'of the. post-exerci~se 9
asses'sment as of'.this time.
10 MR. MILLER:
Well, I still want an answer to..my.
11 question.
O 12 MR. CU1911NG:
If you are 'asking'.can the~y research --
13 MR. MILLER:
No.
My, question' right now --
14 MR. CUMMING:
-- thst.is a different issue.
15 BY }iR. MILL'ER:
(Continuing) 16 Q
My question.right now is,.do you intend at this 17 time'to address this specific allegation ~ set; forth'in 18 Contention.397 19 A
(Witness Keller)
I do not kn'ow.
20 Q
Dr. Balduin?
21 A
(Witness Baldwin)
I?m sorry?
22 Q
My' question ~is, at thfs. time'do you intend to
66
,9 L/
1 address ths' specific allegations set; forth'in Contention 39?
2 Ifr. Keller: said he 'does not' kn'ow' ~at this. time fwhdthdr h6 3
will or'will' no.t'.
4 A
(Witnes s; -Baldwin)
I. don't know eithdr,.because 5
that would req'u. ire ' instr'uctions from' counsel,.our' counsel.
6 Q
That would req'uire going to ths LILCO 'documenta-7 tion, correct?.
8 A
(Witness Kel:ler)
No. 'Wh6thdr we'are~ going to do 9
it req'uires' ' instruction from' Couilsel.
After' we 'are in-
~
10 structed whdthdr: we ~will do it or' won' t do it,. this pane 1~
11 will decide how we~~are going to do it.
(
)
12 Q
Let' me'ask'you.
Let's. ass'ume that counsel says 13 do it --
14 A
Right'.
15 Q
-- and if you are going to do it, is there any 16 way to do it.othdr: than geti ths LILCO documents?
17 A
No,. that's: correct.
~
18 MR. CUMMING:
.Yes, thdr'e is.
19 ffR. MILLER:
Tdll me ho'W'.
20 MR. CUMMING:
Counsel does' not wish 'to testify,
~
21 but to the exten't anything in the post-exercise ' assessment 22 is rel'evant to any' con'tentions, my witnesses are instructed
]
~
v l
67 1
to prep;are1 testimony.-
2 BY MR'. ' MILLER:
~(Continuing) l.
3 Q
My~q'uestion11s, ho'w'would you~ address.the 4
. specifics 1of' Contention 39 witho'ut looking at thd LILCO
)
docu'ents?
.5-m
~
-A' (Witness Keller). If instructed;bylcounsel to
~
6
_7 prepare'such'.' response,'it is~my opinion,:without consultation
~
~
8 with my cohorts her'e'on'th6' panel, that I would'wish'toLlook-9 at that docu' mentation'..
i 10 If we 'are instructed :by counsel not'-to prep'are 11 such.' testimony,'I'm not going to lookiat thd~ documents.
O 12 Q
I understand, ' Mr. Keller.
Now,EDr.2Baldwin, is 13 the same thd ca~se--with 'you?
14 A
-(Witness' Baldwin)
Yes.
j 15 MR. CUIR11NG:
I will state 'for the-~redord that 16 co'unsel would lik6 'to se6 the ' simulated contaminated 17 lobster so that he'can deal with.it,approp'riately.
18 BY MR. ' MILLER:
(Continuing)-
Q Would you.look 'at Page '59 'of the' ' contentions,
18 i
j.
please?
This is Contention 22.F which has now b'ecome part, 20 21 l.
I think,.of Contentions.38 and.39.
22 At this time, Dr. Baldwin.or~Mr. Keller, have-0 4
I r
I 6R r~
k) 1 you prep'ared any testimony on C6ntention 22.F?
'~
~
2 A
(Witness.Keller).I-bslieve'that this is a planning 3
issue.
I believe -- I was assigned: to take the' ~first cut
~
~
4 at this.
I believe 'this is a planning issue.
I believe 5
it ha's been litigated prior ~ to this, because :it -is' my under-6 standing thi's his to do with' shadow ev'acuation'ph6nomenon.
7 It clearly was not an exerci'se ~ issue, because we 8
did not actually~ move 'anybody and were 'pr'ecluded from 9
actually moving anybody.
10 Q
Mr. Keller, let' me just :stop you,. because time
~
~
11 is kind of the ~ essence ~today.
Are you' telling me that it's b
12 a planning issue 'and,. therefore, it will not' be ' addressed 13 in the ~ testimony that is. -filed with 'ths ~ Board for ths OL-5 14 do ck'et?
15 A
Again,. the' document -
.th6 post-exdrci'se assessment 16 is the outline of our testimony as we know it today.
We 17 may be instruct'ed by counsel as e:dpert witnesses' to prepare 18 testimony on th6se ' contentions which 'go beyond the exercise 19 report.
20 I don't-know whether hs~is going to do that or not.
21 I don't know whether it's.likely or not: likely.
I.have no 22 idea in the world.
O o
69--
O 1
The' 'first' cut that we"took 'was ba' sed on thd po'st-2 exdrcise ' assessment rep' ort,' okhy.. '.We have 'not'E. finished.
3 We are ~just beginning to prep'are Ites'timony.-
~
4 We :tried.to prep'are :for' the's'e ' depositions to b6 -
5 res'ponsive.
.Lo'oking at -:thfs,.I disagree"with 'thd ' contention; characterizdtion' that ths ' action':taken by LERO during the
~
6 7
- exercise 'as well' as FEMA's' conclusion's'. concerning obj'ectives a wh61e ' string,- your.characterizdtion' tha't. we inade 'an 8
inappropriate.'e aluation on all of"thdsefobj'ectives, I 9
10 disagree.with 'your' characterizdtion' thdt FEMA' made an
-inappropriate evaluation'of all tho~se'obj'ectives.
11 O
12 Insofar.as'that.is. involved in.th6 exerci'se' rep ~ ort, I have beg'un to write 's'ome 'thfngs down,. disagreeing with 'the la 14 contention that wd'made'all of those' error.s.
'I would also is like ~to state. 'again for ths 'r'ecord that.I' don' t: know what 16 fatal flaw is, blit I'.ve' ignored that, as I told Ms'. Letsche 17 yesterday.
18 Thdt's.the only place 1we~have'gone'so far.
19 Q
Do you disagree, Mr. Keller, with'thd' statement 20 in the' contention'tha't ths' actions taken by'LERO 'during the exercise ' ass'umed thdt given~ the"decident postulated 21 during the ' exercise 'there 'would bd no voluntary evacuation 22 O
70
/"\\
(.)
1 of the 'public?
2 A
I don't know~whdt anybody assumed.
I can't get' 3
into anybody's'hedd. ' I can' t geti into yours, clearly.
You 4
can't get' into ours.
I can't get into anybody's hdad any 5
t'ime during an exerci'se.
I don't know hdt a' man assumed. 'We hdve' testified W
~
6 7
that we think, FEMA thfnks',.there 'will be some ' shadow 8
evacuation phenomenon.
8 Q
Did you see 'any demonstration by LILCO during the 10 exercise of actions thdt would take'into account voluntary 11 evacuation by the 'public?
,0' 12 A
As we have'tes'tified, ad nausehm, the' exercise 13 was a demonstration of the 'implementability of Rev 6 of 14 the LERO plan.
It is my understanding and ~ recollection 15 of the plan, which'I did not prepare for for this deposi-
~
16 tion, that ther'e is no specific consider'ation of shadow 17 evacuation phenomenon in the plan.
18 To the extent that' my recollection is' correct, I 18 don' t. think 'we obs'erved any specific prep'aration' for that 20 kind of thing.
In other words, what I think'we'saw was an 21 implementation'of the plan, obviously not always perfect 22 because we have' deficiencies.
I don't think'the plan covers O
71-
.O 1
my recollection is th6 ' plan doesn' t cover thi's and, there-2 fore, we' 'would not Texpec't it to have been se6n in the'
~
~
3 exercise.
4 (Witness Baldwin)
My' rec'ollec' tion'is that LILCO 5
has testi-fied thdt the evacuation ~ time est'imates contained
~
~
6 in the~' plan do take: into consideration' the' ' additional popu-7 lation that could-be: involved in evacu'ation.
Th'at is my 8
rec'Olle c tion.
9 Q
Is it your. recollection, Dr..Baldwin, that the 10 plan contained any substantive' provisions'for how LILCO/
11 LERO would hdndle or acconnodate voluntary evacuation'by the 12 public other than containing thes~e~ time estimates?
13 A
It does not -- it's my understanding of the~ plan 14 that it.does not sp'ecifically include'those considerations.
~
15 Q
Would you agree with Mr. Keller's statement that 16 he -- that to his knowledge there was not a demonstration 17 by LILCO during the' Feb~r'uary 13th ' exer'cise ~of LILCO taking 18 actions to acconraodate voluntary evacuationL.by the public?'
19 A
That is correct.
Yes, I agree'with Mr. Keller
~
20 on that issue.
)
21 MR. ClMtING:
Could we. recess for two' minutes?
22 MR'. MILLI:R:
Sure.
O
72'
/
t)
(Uhe'reupon,.a rec'es's is taken at 10:32 a.m.,
~
1 2
to reconvene at 10:52 a.m., this same date.)
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 3 4
Q Gentlemen, would you look at Page 67 of the 5
contentions, Con.;ntion 40?
Dr. Baldwin or Mr. Keller, at this time have you prepared or drafted any testimony on a
7 Contention 40?
8 A
(Witness Baldwin)
I have not.
9 (Witness Keller)
I have not.
10 Q
At this time, do you have any opinions -- well, 11 first of all, have you read Contention 45?
12 A
Yes, I have.
13 (Witness Baldwin)
Yes, I have.
14 Q
Do you have any opinions that you can render at is this time regarding the --
18 A
I don't recall the substance of it at this 17 point.
I would have to go through.
And, could you sum-18 marize perhaps?
19 Q
I will give it a shot.
The contention essentially 20 alleges that the dispatch of traffic guides was untimely 21 during the exercise and that it is important to dispatch 22 traffic guides on a timely basis to provide assistance to O
l
73 q'
1 evacuees and sets forth some of the consequences of not 2
having a timely dispatch of the traffic guides.
I think 3
that's a fair but rough characterization of this contention.
4 Would you agree with me that during the exercise 5
there were some instances of traffic guides not being dis-6 patched to their post in a timely manner?
7 A
Yes.
Yes, there was that difficulty.
And, it 8
is my recollection we have identified that as a deficiency 9
in the report.
10 I am going to retract that, because the one I 11 am thinking of is with respect to the bus drivers.
- But, 12 the one I was thinking of when I misspoke was the issue 13 with dispatching the bus drivers.
14 Q
What you are retracting, Dr. Baldwin, I assume 15 is the fact there was a deficiency?
16 A
Yes, that's correct.
17 Q
With respect to the issue of whether traffic 18 guides were dispatched on a timely basis during the exercise, 19 you would continue to agree with me that that was, in fact, 20 the case during the exercise?
21 A
(Witness Keller)
There were some problems with 22 the dispatch of traffic guides.
And I've tried to remember -
74 C)'
i and I think we are about to find it -- that there is a 2
deficiency that was -- an exercise issue was identified at 3
the Riverhead staging area and the evaluation of that issue 4
was evaluated as a deficiency within the' definition of 5
deficiency that we discussed in our previous discussion.
And that's in the Riverhead staging area.
It is 6
7 discussed in Table 4.7, Page 133 of the exercise report.
8 It's also in another table, a previous table.
And, it's 9
also in the text in the report.
to Q
Let me ask you, under the LILCO plan, the way it it's constructed, would you agree with me that it is impor-()
12 tant to have traffic guides dispatched and in place at the 13 time that evacuation of the public begins?
14 A
My recollection of the LILCO plan -- again, we 15 prepared for exercise issues, not planning issues, but 16 my recollection of the LILCO plan is, it has two different 17 evacuation time estimates within the plan.
There is one la evacuation time estimate which has to do with the traffic 19 guides being in place.
And I believe that the other 20 estimate in the plan has to do with evacuation in the 21 event -- with no traffic guides in place.
22 I believe that the former case, the traffic O
75
(
l'
' guides in place, has a shorter evacuation-time estimate.. And 2
to the. degree that a short time estimate is more desirable 3
than a~long time estimate, yes,,it is better to have the I
4-traffic guides in' place.
5 Q
Would you a' gree with'me, Mr; Keller,'that'if
-6 LILCO's EBS messages broadcast and informed the public in 7
telling them to evacuate that traffic guides would be, in 8
. fact, in place, that that'provides an additional reason for 9
why the traffic guides, 'in fact,. should be in place?
f to A
I --
11
.Q If you tell the public through'the EBS messages O
12 that the traffic guides will be there at.their. positions 13 to assist the public, is.it important that in fact, the 14 traffic guides be there?
15 A
I don't believe~1n_giving~ misinformation to any-16 body any time.
17 Q
At this time, can you tell me, Dr.-Baldwin or is Mr. Keller, whether you will agree or disagree with 19 Contention 40?
i 20 Or, is that still~a matter under consideration?
21 A
(Witness Baldwin)
That we will agree on our 22 testimony or that we will agree with the allegations'in O
76 (3
~
1 the contention?
2 Q
Agree with the allegations in the contention?
3 I'm assuming you will agree on your testimony.
4 A
(Witness Keller)
A reasonable assumption.
5 MR. CUMttING:
I wouldn't agree to that.
6 (Laughter.)
7 WITNESS KELLER:
With the caveat that we have on 8
the record as of yesterday, that we think that some of 9
these -- some of the parts of Contention 40 -- are planning 10 issues, with the caveat that insofar as the contention 11 alleges that FEMA incorrectly evaluated certain objectives O
12 which are part of the exercise report, we will -- what we 13 are saying is, we are going to support this exercise 14 report.
15 Any place you say we made a mistake and had 16 the wrong evaluation, wc disagree with you, carte blanche, 17 all the way across.
We can go through this, however many 18 you wan t, right.
Every time you say we did it wrong, we 19 disagree.
20 WITNESS K0WIESKI:
And we will provide to 21 support the contention.
22 WITNESS KELLER:
Right.
With that caveat, we
77 1-
- 0
- And, 1
may' agree or disagree.with partsoof the contention..
2 I don't know at this~ point in time, 3
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 4 Q
Dr. Baldwin --
5 A.
Well --
6 Q
Well stated, Mr.Keller.
I couldn't possibly.
1 7
ask.a follow-up question to that.
l 8
Let's look at Contention 41 on Page 71.-
This-j i.
deals with the performance of LERO personnel to the 9
i to simulated road impediments.
This was judged. a deficiency 3
i 11 by FEMA, correct?
()
12 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
j-13 Q
Let me ask, Dr. Baldwin or Mr. Keller, have l
14 either of you at,this time prepared testimony on-Contention is 41?
16 A
(Witness Baldwin)
I have not.
17 (Witness Keller)
I have not started.
18 Q
Have you' formed any conclusions or opinions 19 about the matters alleged in Contention 41?
1 20 A
Taking the caveats that we just went through l
{
21 for the last contention, whatever it was, if you say we.
22 interpreted it incorrectly, which I don't think we did,
()
i i
78 g
1 since we called it a deficiency,-if that's the whole sub-2 stance -- okay, when I turn to Page 72, it appears that 3
your contention alleges that we incorrectly-evaluated 4
whether or not a whole ' string of objectives were met or 5
not met.
6 We will support the exercise report, and to the 7
degree that you say we did it wrong we disagree.
The --
8 clearly, the handling of the two traffic impediments in 9
the exercise, the performance of the LERO people was not to adequate.
We judged them deficiencies.
If that's the nub 11 of this contention, yes, we agree that they were wrong,
('>h
\\-
12 that their performance was not adequate.
i 13 Part of 41 is also a planning issue, we believe, 14 With all of those caveats that we have already talked about is numerous times, whether we will or whether we won't in this 16 hearing prepare testimony is yet to.befdecided.
17 Q
Dr. Baldwin, is there anything you would add 18 different from Mr. Keller's?
19 A
(Witness Baldwin)
The only thing I am trying 20 to ascertain right now is our deficiency.
My recollection 21 of it is, it's as a result of communications in the EOC and 22 the vertical and lateral communication of that information l
()
'm 79 4
1 so that it could be factored into the implementation of-2 evacuation.-
3-And, at this point I do not recall whether the
~
4 allegation deals with~the! field or not.
'5-Q Let'me ask a more general question. 'Look at' s
Page 72 of the contentions, if you would, please. 'And that 7
has the listing of. the objectives which we say were ~ not 8
satisfied given LERO's performance of the simulated impe-9 diments, simulated traffic impediments.
l 10 One of those objectives, an example'is.EOC-16.
}
11 That objective is:
Demonstrate the organizational ability i
12 to manage an orderly evacuation of all or part of the 13 10-mile EPZ including the water portion.
l i
14 Now, given the inability of.LERO to have 15 handled the traffic; impediments, how'is that FEMA concluded j
16
.that EOC-16 was satisfied?
17 A
(Witness Keller)
We' have"to 'look to see if we said 4
18 that, whether we said that it was satisfied, met or not 19 met.
I don't remember what we said.
l l
20 But, I would say the following:
There is a 21 separate objective --
Q Look on Page 34 of the report.
22 l
i l
80 1
A Okay.
2 Q
The very bottom of the page states-that EOC-16 3
was met.
2 4
A Okay.
5 (Witness Kowieski)
Mr. Miller, you ought to 6
recognize that weshave 36 standard objec ives.
And, as far 7
as issues related to evacuation they have been broken down 8
to several subparts.
And the issue how any organization 9
deals with impediments to evacuation is-a separate exercise 10 objective.
11 And, I call your attention to the fact that it's O
12 my recollection -- if my recollection serves me well, I 13 believe that we stated that this particular objective was 14 met.
15 Q
Now, Mr. Kowieski, let. me. explore "this with you 16 for a minute.
Field Objective 10:
Demonstrate a sample 17 of resources necessary.to deal.with impediments to evacua-18 tion such as inclement weather or traffic obstructions.
19 That objective was judged not met by FEMA, 20 correct?
21 A
I would again have to verify it.
22 (Witness Keller)
If you say that, we will go O
81 0
1 with it.
2 Q
Now,.EOC-16, which we just-looked at, talks 3
about the ability to manage an orderly evacuation of all
~ '
4 of the EPZ.
And that objective ~was judged to have been -
5 met.
6 Isn't it possible that there is an' interrela-7 tionship between these.obj ectives, that'if one' objective 8
is not met that could impact whether.or not another 9
objective is met or not met?
10 A
(Witness-Kowieski)
Absolutely.
And,-again 11 that's why, if you would keep in mind that one could also O
12 take an approach to combine other objectives and make a 13 statement that, yes, if one is not met obviously all of 14 them are not met.
15 You know, you cannot really take.an approach 16 of combining the exercise Objectives.
There is a reason, 17 we have the subparts and we deal with individual subparts 18 of the NUREG 0654 as it relates to the' plan ~, several 19 portions of the plan.
i 20 Q
I thought what you were telling me there, Mr.
21 Kowieski, is that there is -- FEMA acknowledges that there 22 is an interrelationship between exercise objectives, 3
82 O
I correct?
t 2
A (Witness Keller)
There can be.
3 (Witness Kowieski)
There can be.
4 Q
Now, Mr. --
5 A
All of them are related, interrelated to NUREG 6
0654.
7 Q
But they are interrelated to one another also, 8
aren't they?
9 A
(Witness Keller)
Some can.
There is clearly to some interrelation and some are not interrelated.
11 Q
Okay.
Would you agree with me that an objective CE) 12 that deals with the ability to remove traffic impediments 13 is related to an objective which talks about whether you 14 can evacuate the entire EPZ?
15 Isn't there some relationship there?
16 A
I would think so.
There is some relationship.
17 As Mr. Kowieski tried to point out, in the way we evaluate 18 obj ectives, okay, and the objectives that we use in this 19 exercise are derivatives of the 36 standard objectives.
20 The way these objectives are evaluated breaks 21 these apart.
There is a deficiency on the impediment 22 objective.
Clearly; no discussion.
The judgment is based O
v
83 O
1 on the fact that they did have buses, they did other things, 2
right.
But the~ objective, the one you started with, EOC-16, 3
I believe it was, was met.
4 Now, you could argue -- one could argue that 5
we shouldn't have done it that way.
It is our position that 6
we should have.
7 Q
- Okay, I just have a simple question to follow 8
up, Mr. Keller.
In determining whether EOC-16 -- to stay 8
with our example -- was met or not met, did FEMA take into to account the failure by LERO to handle the traffic impedi-11 ments?
12 A
You have in your position the exercise evalua-13 tion critique forms.
On those exercise evaluation critique 14 forms there are what we call points of review.
We've had 15 long discussions about what the points of review are and 16 how they were used.
You have deposed other people, in 17 their evaluation did they use those points of review, and 18 we could go on with it for hours, right.
18 I don't believe that on EOC-16 -- my recollection 20 is that the field, whatever it.plementation, the impediment 21 field was, is part of the point of review of EOC-16.
22 Q
So are you, therefore, telling me that LILCO's
()
84 (v~)
1 handling of the impediments was not taken into account in S
2 reaching a determination on EOC-167 3
A From memory at this point, I would say my 4
recollection is it was not.
5
.(Witness Baldwin)
This is consistent with what 6
has been done in the past --
7 (Witness Keller)
Everywhere.
8 (Witness Baldwin)
-- everywhere that we have --
9 that I've evaluated.
It comes to a matter of judgment as 10 to how an exerc'ise is going to be parceled out and disag-11 gregated for the purposes of observation and evaluation.
_s 0
12 We are not testing FEMA's capability to conduct 13 an integrated evaluation of the exercise here.
We are 14 evaluating LERO's, in this case the plans -- the capability 15 to implement the plan from an integrated standpoint.
That 16 is what we are doing.
17 And, in order to accomplish that end, that 18 objective, we have' broken the exercise down into observ-18 able portions to which we can send separate evaluators to 20 and then come back to -- with their product, with their-21 work product, so to speak, that can be put into a report.
22 But, you are correct that there is an
()
N,.-
i 1
f.
85 l'
- h
't=
interrelationship among those' things-l 2
Q.
And that's not takenLinto account by FEMA in 3
its-evaluation; is that correct,. Dr. Baldwin?:
4
'This interrelationship-is notztaken into account 5
' by FEMA:.is'that correct?.
6 A
Well, thAt's'. correct in the barest.'interpreta-7 tion 'of what you have. just' asked. me; the. answer;is yes, 8
that this-report'is written with each objective separate I
8 with a clear statement'as to whether each one --
10 (Ultness Keller)
Let me. add --
11 (Witness Baldwin)
-.was met, partly met or-0 12 not met, and the appropriate deficiencies or areas requir-'
13 ing corrective action attached to them.
14 (Witness Keller)
Let.me add that, yes, FEMA 15 does under normal circumstances -- and this is not the 16 normal circumstance; clearly 7 we all accept that -- FEMA 17 does integrate that.
It's the ~ so-called bottom line which 18 prior to this exercise there was an agreement by the 19 lleadquarter's staff -- and 'I can' t get. in 'their minds ;
4 20 I have no idea why.they made that statement that we would 21
.not give a bottom line -- said that we would not.
I have 22 an opinion of why they said it, and it may not be the right
(
i.
3 l.
86
( /
1 one.
Or it may be the right one or it may not be the right 2
one.
3 The way I read the FEMA rule',' 44 CFR 350, there 4
is a preclusion or an exclusion I believe, either Part 50.2 5
or 50.4, that says FEMA will not and shall not apply any 6
of 350 to an NRC's licensee's plan for preparedness.
Clearly,
7 this is an NRC's licensee's plan and this exer ise was the 8
NRC's demonstration of preparedness.
9 1 believe that the FEMA rule, which is the way cun our business, precluded a bottom line finding.
Under 10 we 11 normal circumstances, the integration of how one objective (7>
12 interacts with another objective is considered in the 13 bottom line statement.
But because of the preclusions and 14 the agreements ahead of time, there was not going to be,
/
15 and there is not, a bottom line statement on this exercise.
is Q
Okay.
So, normally, Mr. Keller, FEMA would do 17 this examination of the~ interrelationship among objectives 18 and reach a bottom line, but for Shoreham that was not done?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
Would you look at Contention 47 on Page 80, 21 please?
Do you consider Contention 47 a planning or an 22 exercise issue?
O I
87
( )'#
We spent some considerable time yesterday on --
1 A
2 oh, it was not yes'terday.
It was --
3 Q
I'm only asking --
4 4
A Oh, planning.
Planning.
Sorry.
8 Q.
I didn't bring my list with me this morning.
,.m 6
A Okay.
7 (Laughter. )
8 MR. CUMMING:
I want to renew my objection 9
on 47 for the record.
However, witnesses are instructed 10 to answer counsel for Intervenor's questions to the extent 11 they have knowledge or an opinion.
12 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 4 13 Q
Well, I'm assuming.at the time, Dr. Baldwin 14 and Mr. Keller, neither of you have prepared any' testimony 15 on 47; is that correct?
16 A
(Witness Keller)
With the exceptions that we 17 discussed yesterday, right, that this.is a planning issue, 18 that's it.
~
19 Q
I'm a bit confused.- 'Do you: intend'to.cffer testimony on Contention 47 at'the OL-5' hearing?
20 21-A At the OL-57, Okay.
IhN : Baldwin and I split up the contentions to start drafting proposed approaches to 22
()
4 88
()
.1 testimony.
Counsel has not reviewed those -- first, I 2
presume my-colleagues will review and we will come to some a
collegial approach'at which time counsel will say:
-Yes, 4
we are going to.
You, witnesses,.if this is your best 5
shot.
6 Counsel will decide whether we are going.to 7
offer testimony or not.
We will not.
8 Q
And at this time, to your knowledge, that 9
decision has not been made; is that correct?
10 A
To'my knowledge, at this time'that decision has i
11 not been made.
O 12 MR. CUMMING:
I will restate for'the record, 13 Mr. Miller, that if the~ post-exercise assessment report is 14 relevant to any contention that we will, in fact, be pre-
~
15 paring testimony.
16 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 17 Q
Do you consider, Mr. Keller or Dr. Baldwin, 18 the post-exercise assessment report relevant to Contention 19 47?
4 20 A
(Witness Keller).In my analysis, no.
21 Q
Dr. Baldwin~, do you agree?
22 A
(Witnes'sLBaldwin)
I haven't ~ formed an opinion
()
89
,cs.
I at this point.
I haven't had the time to go over it as 2
fully --
3 (Witness Keller)
That was one of the ones that 4
was mine.
5 (Witness Baldwin) -- as I might.
It's clearly 6
a planning issue in the sense that it involves the Nassau 7
Coliseum which is no longer in the plan, and it has been 8
replaced by others to that extent.
9 Q
Well, it doesn't really involve the Nassau 10 Coliseum, Dr. Baldwin.
Maybe I should talk to Mr. Keller 11 because he --
0 12 A
(Witness Keller)
My analysis of the nub of 13 Contention 47 is that the governments are contending that 14 the proposed fixes which are contained in Plan Revision 7 15 and 8 are not adequate to remedy the errors -- either the 16 errors that were identified in previous plan reviews or 17 the one ARCA, area requiring corrective ' action, which was 18 identified at -- in the post-exercise assessment report, 19 and that they are contending that the new procedure which 20 is in Revision 7 and 8 for monitoring is not adequate or 21 appropriate, that new facilities are not adequate or 22 appropriate, the~ new procedure for monitoring of special GkJ
90 g
V 1
facility evacuees is not adequate or appropriate, et 2
cetera.
3 These are all things which are proposed fixes.
4 Q
Is that your understanding of the contention, 5
Contention 47, Mr. Keller?
6 A
That's my recollection of my understanding, 7
yes.
8 Q
Let me give'you a different interpretation or 9
possibility.
Look at the contention as the contention would to say:
LILCO did nothing during the exercise to demonstrate 11 whether it can register, monitor and decontaminate, if rm
']
12 necessary, evacuees from special facilities that would be 13 taken to special reception centers.
14 Now, if that's the contention, do you have an 15 opinion about whether that contention is correct?
16 A
If that's the sole contention, I have no 17 problem with what you say.
18 Q
You vould agree with me that during the exercise, 19 LILCO did not make that kind of demonstration?
20 A
That is correct.
21 (Witness Baldwin).And,.I.would' agree with Mr.
22 Keller.
(>
u-
4 91-
. _c 1
Q Now, there are~ portions of the' contention which~
2 go on to Revision 7, and that's what we'have:been. discussing, 3
and that 'you : consider, a planning ; issue. and it's unclear' at '
4 this time whether you'will address that in any. testimony 5
offered before the OL-5 docket?
6
-A (Witness Keller)
We will, within' reason, follow
' 7 the directions of our counsel.-
8 MR. CUMMING:
I believe that's known as 9
reasonable assurance, for the' record.
10 BY--MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 11 Q
-At this time, Mr. Keller,' have'you. formed any' 0
12 opinion about the Revision 7, what I will characterize-as:
13 fixes that have been proposed by LILCO?~
14 A
(Witness Keller)
I was'part;of thetcollegial 15 process which formulated the responses: of the' RAC review 16 of Revision 7 and 8.
17 Q
Okay.
And I have read the RAC. review of'those:
18 revisions.
Now, maybe to shorteircuit this, are your opinions consistent:with the opinions,: withithe ' findings, 19 20 set forth by the RAC review of Revision 7-and 8?
21 A
That isrcorrect.
22 Q
Do you have'any opinions that would differ from.
'O
4 92
,m 1
. O 1
what is set forth in that RAC review?
2 A
I would not.
3 Q
Dr. Baldwin, is the same true for you?
4 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Yes.
I was involved in the-5 plan review of Revision 7 and 8.
I was involved in the 6
RAC meeting, attended the RAC meeting where'those; comments 7
were discussed; and, I agree with the' conments-that are 8
contained in them.
9 (Uitness Keller)- And Mr. Baldwin wrote --
10 (Witnes's Baldwin)
Consolidated.
11 Q
Let's look at Contention 49, if you would, on O
12 Page 84 of the contentions.. At this time, have --Edo you 13 consider titis a planning contention?
14 A
(Witness Keller)
It has-some aspectsoof plann-15 ing, but clearly it has some aspects of-the exercise.
16 Q
At this time, Dr. Baldwin or'.Mr..Keller, do you 17 intend -- have you prepared any testimony on Contention 49?
18 A
(Witness Baldwin)
It was mine.
I've started.
19 Q
Okay..Can you.tell;me the substance'of-what-
- 20 you believe your testimony will be-on Contention 49?
21 MR. CUMMING:
Objection, incidentally, to'this 22 line of questioning due to its relevancy.
To the extent t,~
l s
i t
93 (3j.
1 that witness ha's an opinion, he may answer fully.
2 MR. MILLER:
What is the relevancy objection to a
my question?
4 MR. CUMMING:
It's a planning issue.
5 MR. MILLER:
Well, I thought that Mr. Keller told s
me that he thought --
7 WITNESS KELLER:
That there were' parts of --
8 1Hl. MILLER:
That it's a combination of planning 9
and --
10 MR. CUMMING:
He have had an elaborate discussion 11 about that.
With the understanding that witnesses have of
,_)
f 12 this issue, they may so testify.
13 WITNESS KELLER:
Clearly, it is my understanding 14 in reading the documentation which has crossed my desk that 15 the OL-3 Board has reopened the issue on just plain 16 Contention 24, the whole issue ~of the reception center --
17 the whole issue of reception center or centers is about to 18 be relitigated in the other Board.
19 There are facts in the post-exercise assessment 20 report-concerning what was done at the' exercise.
Parts of 21 the contention -- I believe 'specifically A, 49. A, uses a 22 different analysis than I intend to.use in~my -- what I have
~
- 8
(
94 1
begun to use in our draft exercise'tes'timon~y. ' Clearly,
~
2 there. 'are parts that cre-planning but there are. some parts '
-s a
which are not.
_ Continuing).
(
4 BY MR. MILLER:
5 Q
Okay.
For purposes:of this dep'osition,-I.am not-inquiring about the a'dequacylof LILCO's proposed new a
7 facilities for reception center. functions.
I.am inquiring
-8 about what was demonstrated or not demotistrated by:LILCO 9
during. the February 13th,1986 exercise.
10 A
Right.
11 MR CUMMING:
I believe.the witnes'ses have O
12 already testified to that, to the'~adeq'uacy, to their.
13 understanding of the new facilities.
The'y testified as-part of the review of>-Revision 7 that;they have found'the'm 14 inadequate' 'or at.least subject to be tested by exercise.
15 16 MR. MILLERi. Well, that doesn'.t really relate 17 to my question right now.
I am focusing on what happened 18 during the exercise.
19
-And.I don't recall that the witnes'ses'-have 20 testified to that'effect.
But, we arefgetting-off the' 21 mark I think.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
. (Continuing)
O-
~
~
4
95
(
I I
Q Mr. Keller, let me again focus with you.
You
~
2 mentioned that at this time you believe your analysis of 3
this issue as set forth in Contention 49 will be different 4
than the analysis used in the contention.
5 Could you -- I'm not clear what you are referring 6
to.
What analysis is used in the contention that you are 7
referring to?
8 A
(Witness Keller)
Look at 49.A, for example.
9 Q
Okay.
10 A
At the bottom of 49.A, the~ contention says that 11 there were 78 monitors assigned to the reception center,
(~',
d 12 et cetera.
And at the' top of Page'85, the analysis used 13 in the contention says that you can monitor 11,232 evacuees 14 in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
15 My analysis indicates' 32,000.
We~are obviously 16 using a different basis for our analysis.
17 Q
Okay.
Now, how did you per' form your analysis?
18 A
I used 90 seconds.
You used five minutes.
19 Q
Now, we did discuss this issue the other day.
20 A
We certainly did.
21 Q
There were'some' instances of LILCO personnel taking upwards of five minutes to perform monitoring-22
96 1
functions during the~ exercise; is that correct?
2 A
That is' correct.-
3 Q
Okay.
4 1
4 A
However, the contention says that, in fact,
~
during the exercise'this procedure frequently. cook upfto 5
~
i 6
five minutes per evacuee.
7 My contention is, and the basis of. my testimony.
8 is, that based on discussions which~ I have had post-exercise and within the last month of the two, as it turns 9
out three, people who had input to-the' evaluation of this 10 objective -- the third person is Mr. Kowieski,.which we 11 discussed yesterday -- there were 'approximately ;103 people.
12 The reason I say approximately_103, it was approximately 13 100 of evacuee's processed, simulated evacuees processed,-
14 and three exercise evaluators, Mr. Bernacki, Mr. Slagle 15 16 and Mr. Kowieski.
Both of the exercise evaluators who' were 'there
-17 for an extended period of time, because as Mr. Kowieski
~
18 discussed yesterday he toured various and sundry ! facilities 19 so he was at the reception center only for a brief period, 20-
{
but both of the exercise -evaluators (who' had this objective 21 as one of their assignments for observation and evaluation 22 O
-r
,y
.v.,
--e a
y
,w.
,e
97
'~#
1 rated the performance of the LERO individuals as being 2
objective met with'no recommendations for corrective 3
action, obviously no deficiencies and not even any recommen-4 dations for areas for improvement.
5 However, in their discussion on their forms, 3
which you should be well aware because you have probably 7
read them by now, the~y stated that the~y,.eithe~r they in the 8
monitoring of themselves or they observed monitoring 9
which took four to five minutes.
I discussed with Mr.
10 Slagle at the time of the' exercise -- no, I'm sorry,'at the 11 time of the draft of the exercise when Mr. Kowieski elevated
/mU 12 the -- well, when Mr. Kowieski decided it was going to be 13 an area for required corrective action, I asked Mr. Slagle:
14 Hey, was it everybody or was it just you and Ron and Mr.
15 Kowieski?
He said:
It was just us.
16 And I said:
That's a cheap shot, then.
17 Q
Did you ask Mr. Slagle why it is that he wrote 18 his critique form in such a way as to imply that it was 19 clearly more than just the three FEMA evaluators?
20 A
I don't believe -- and from recall now, I don't 21 believe Mr. Slagle'~s form is written that way.
I believe 22 you could interpret Mr. Bernacki's ' form more appropriately
98
-)
V 1
that way than Mr. Slagle's -- and this is - from recall and 2
it may be reversed, but I believe'that Mr. Bernacki's fo::m 3
is the one which is more subject to interpretation of larger
~
4 numbers.
That's'why I talked to both of.them individually.
5 Q
Did you ask Mr. Bernacki the question tha't I 6
just asked?
7 A
Why he wrote his form the way he wrote it?
No, 8
I didn't.
I did not.
9 I asked him:
How many people did you observe 10 being monitored?
Everybody.
11 How many people did they take the~ four to five V
12 minutes?
Just the guys with evaluator arm-bands.
- Roger, 13 Lyle and myself.
14 I don't believe three out of 103 or approximately 15 103 is frequently.
I believe it's occasionally.
I happen 16 to believe that there has to be some ' allowances for the 17 perturbation that the FEMA evaluators put into an exercise.
18 Clearly, we are coming in there'to grade these 19 people, we make them nervous.
We have been kn'own to carry 20 Coleman Mantel lanterns on our person, which are radio-21 active.
I happen to know the individual who did the train-ing at this exercise site, because'we have been involved 22 (1)
99 O.
I with him whe'n he was an employee'of Rockland' County.- He 2
knew that we 'of ten carry 'Coleman Mante1 ~ 1anterns as a test.
~
They were looking to see' Jif we :had something, and they took 3
-4
' longer.
5 Q
Mr. Keller --
6 A
My analysis' was based on the ~ average ' tine that
'7
-both evaluators who~ were~ pres ~ent.at.the' exercise for an 8
extended period took.
And, in that analysis you end up 9
with~32,000 for'78 monitors.
10 Q'
Now, Mr. Keller, in fact, during the exercise.
~
11 LILCO advised upwards of -100,000 -people to go to the' O
12 Coliseum, correct?
13 A
I've got a problem with'that..
14 Q
You have'a probl~em with whether or not LILCO 15 advised upwards of:100,000 people ~to go to the Coliseum?.
l 16 A
I have seen in messageJ1ogs to expect-100,000, i
-17 I have never seen anyplace where it said upwards of
~
18 100,000, number one.
Number two, according to our exercise l
report, the EBS message called for certain zones.
Unless 19 my arithmetic is bad, I went back to the plan which was.
20 21 current at the time ~and:I>added the' number-of people that 22 were in the ~ zones' that were 'irt the' EBS - mes' sage, and I didn' t I
(
100
-U 1
come to 100,000.
It was 88,000 and odd numbers.
I.think --
2 I don't want to get' into a semantics argument.
3 Roughly 100,000 people were advised -- well, 4
there'was a message which indicated tha't roughly 100,000 5
people would be sent to the rec ~eption center.
6 Q
Now, did you perform any calculations to see 7
how long it would take 78 monitors, spending 90 seconds 8
per evacuee, to monitor approximately 100,000 persons?
9 A
It would be approximately three times 12, because to it --
11 Q
A day and a half?
/'s)
U 12 A
Yeah.
32,000 could be ~done in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, that 13 much I know.
100,000 is roughly three' times 32,000; there-14 fore, it would be roughly three times 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
15 However, the plan at the ' time 'of the exercise clearly stated -- and the exercise report states -- that 16 17 the Supervisor of Decontamination Services at the reception 18 center when he was informed that he was going -- should 19 expect approximately 100,000 people, he had a discussion 20 with his staff of how to implement the ad hoc, what I will call ad hoc, procedure which is documented in the plan --
21 22 was documented in the plan,' Rev 6 -- of how to handle O
- r 101 O
1 evacuees in exces's of 32,000.
2 But since'the' volunteers that the'y had. arranged-3 for had already been processed, they didn' t demonstrate it 4
because there'was nobody coming through.
5 Q
Let me ask'you -- let me ask the1 panel a question.
6 Is it correct to say that MUREG 0654 requires.LILCO'to be 7
able to register and monitor personnel, persons, that show -
{
8 up at the rec'eption centers within a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period?
9 A
What 'it says is, all arriving.
There'is clea'rly 10 a discussion as to how many will arrive ~at a relocation 4
11 center.
()
12 Q
Put to one side the number that will arrive.
i Is LILCO required by NUREG 0654 to register and monitor 13 14 persons who come to their reception centers within a 12 i
i 15 hour1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> period?
16
.A Approximately 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period, that is correct.
17 However, you' must then ascertain ho~w many people are going
~
18 to arrive.
F Q
Wha't difference does it make how many will 19 20 arrive if LILCO is going to be required to do the monitoring 21 function within a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period under NUREG 0654?
22 Isn't that correct?
O 1
r s
102
(
l 1
A Approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, that is co~rrect.
2 Q
Now, let me'ask you, would you lookat 3
Contention 49.C'~on Page 86?
Do you agree'or disagree with
~
4 the statement that ther'e is no basis to assume that only those persons expressly advised by LERO to report to the 5
a reception center for monitoring because of potential 7
exposure during evacuation activities would actually seek 8
such monitoring?
9 A
W'e ' disagree.
10 Q
What is the basis of your disagreement?
11 A
Testimony, prior tes'timony.
We are on record (3#
12 as having testified in the planning process before the la OL-3 Board that the RAC felt that the 20 percent planning 14 estimate in I guess Version 5 the'n of the plan was adequate.
15 We are also aware, okay, that the Board in its 16 ruling questioned that 20 percent number.
Since I was 17 the one that handled this, I wrote'a letter by -- I tried 18 to find out what the' policy of FEMA Headquarters was, and 19 I wrote a letter to Mr. Glass, our the~n' counsel, and I 20 believe that our current counsel has served both that -
21 letter and the' resultant FEMA Headquarters policy statement 22 on all parties.
/~T U
i
103 g
V i
And it says 20 percent.
The~re'are reasons for 2
that.
3 Q
Well, let me'just ask you, Mr. Keller, again 4
because time is short, is-it your opinion that only those 5
persons expressly advised to report to a reception center 6
to be monitored and if necessary to be dec'ontaminated will, 7
in fact, report during an actual emergency?
~
8 A
If we can break it down into some bite' size 9
pieces, I think --
10 Q
Is it your opinion that only those persons expressly advised to report will, in fact, report?
11
,rs V,
12 A
I think it has something to do with what part is of the country we'are in.
14 Q
Well, we are'in New York here.
15 A
Okay.
In New York here, I would suspect that probably more people would arrive than are -- have been 16 17 directed to report.
18 Q
Do you have an idea of what your opinion is 19 about how many more ' people may do so?
20 A
No.
I have no opinion on the number.
- However, 21 it --
22 Q
Do you --
=
104
()-
1 A
However, I --
2 Q
Do you --
3 A
No.
I would like to finish Jthe'-- I would like 4
to finish my response.
5-Q Well, you ha've' answered my question.
6 A
I don't.believe I have.
7 Q
You said you don't have'an idea of!what the --
t 8
A How'many. LHowever, I don't-believe there is an 9
0654 requirement that there be 'det' ailed planning for all, 10 no matter how many there~are.
endT2A 11 Q
You~ don't believe-that NUREG 0654 requires that
()
1 12 all persons who' rep' ort need to be ' monitored --
13 A
I think we'can save time'if you will let me.
14 Q
I thought we 'just discussed this line 'of' 15 questions.
16 A
You kee'p' cutting me Joff. _ -I was trying to put 17 the whole thing on, and you keep. cutting me ~off.
f 18 Q
Okay. Give it a shot.
19 A
Okay.
0654 says -- in Part 1, not J.12,. but 1
20 in Part 1, there is no requirement and, in fact, we should not do detailed planning for the wo'rst case ' accident.
21 I
22 Based on this premise that det' ailed planning and
()
=
105 6) t
t prep'aration is not required for thd worst case' accident,.
2 0654, Part 1, suggests ad hoc procedures, if you will.--
3 and, in fact, those words are'in 0654 --:to take care of 4
situations beyond the planning base and the worst case, 5
all right.
I believe'that ths RAC approval of the alternate 6
7 monitoring method which was in Revision ~6 to. handle' greater i
a than 32,000 people is an example 'of an ad ho~c procedure i
9 for taking care of more than the'Jplanning basis between 1
to the planning basis and the worst case, 3
11 Whsn LILCO proposed this, what I had approved
()
12 and Mr. Kowieski had concurred _in.the~ review ~of Rev 6, 13 as an ad hoc procedure to handle 'the 'differen'ce~ between the planning base and the worst case,.when LILCO converted 14 is that to their sole monitoring t'echnique we'the'n found that 16 unacceptable ~in the're$iiew of~ Revision of 7'and 8.
17 What I'm saying is that planning standard J.12 18 requires that whoever is going to.run a plan, in this case 19 LILCO or the State of New York in another case, has to.have
~
detailed planning, resources', personnel, et cetera, et 20 21 cetera, et cetera for all arriving but not for the worst 22 case accident.
It is our position' and 11:1M's position that
[
()
+
....2
106 4
1 20 percent is an ' acceptable planning basis.
2 Clesrly,.ths NRC is.in ths proces's of deciding
~
3 what they think. 'And thsy have the club on this.
It makes 4
no difference what we'think.
It's really what they think 5
is the rule.
6 Q
Let' me'--
7 A
Let' me ' finish 'and I've got thr~ee' more minutes..
~
8 Mr. McIntire, as part of the panel -- and this is his area t
9 of expertise -- in ths planning portion of the ' litigation 10 stated that a good average number for people who_ seek 11 shelter is somewhere between 10 'and '15 percent.
In some
()
12 cases a little lower and in some cases a little higher.
13 But the~ plan to shelter 10 to 15 percent is a 14 good planning number.
Fine.
We' accept that.
The 20 percent is that LILCO plans to be able'to shelter is perfectly accept-16 able, because it's more'tha'n 10 to 15.
The' LILCO 20 17 percent number for monitoring, detail, having the equipment, 18 having the people, indicates that'there'is a plan. capability u
1 for greater than the~ number of people who we ' expect to 19 20 shelter.
21 Therefore, the 20 percen't' is 'accep' table, okay.
22 Now, clearly the~all arriving is under litigation in another O
, ~.
~
J 4
107 dp i
forum, which'is in J.12.
And I can' t make that decision.
2 My opinion is that. 0 percent is fine.
And I've 2
3 given you all the' basis on why I think'it's okay.
I. hope 4
that has helped.
Maybe it hasn't.-
5 Q
.Let' me-try a couple'of-more~ ques ~tions,:Mr.
6 Keller --
7 A
Okay.
8 Q
-- and the~n I'm going to give up, lj (Laughter.)'
9 l
f 10 A
- Okay, f
11 Q
J.12 says:
Personnel and equipment available
!O 12 should be capable of monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period all residents and transients--in the' plume' exposure 13 14 EPZ arriving at relocation centers.
~
15 Now, is it your testimony that it is reasonable --
16 that it is a rea'sonable' interpretation of this criteria to consider 20 percent of the EPZ population to be all resi-17 18 dents that may arrive at reception centers?
19 A
With ~the caveat we just went through, there is' no requirement to plan for the worst case accident.
For
~
20 21 a planning basis, it is FEMA's position that all arriving, 20 percent is a reasonable number.
It is also consistent, 22
! C:)
u 108
.1 within reason, with what is done in the.'other' plants in 2
New York and in New Jersey and in' many other parts of the 3
country.
4 Q
Do you bel'ieve'that consider'ation and ree'valua-
~
5 tion should be.made 'of the planning basis for' Shoreham in 6
light of the ' exercise which' was he'1d and the recommendation 7
which was made'to advise' upwards.of 100,0.00 people to go to 8
reception center?.
9 A
No.
For the following reason --
10 Q
Well --
11 A
For the'following reason.
May I finish my o
12 answer.
13 Q
Fine, Mr. Keller.
That was all I cared about.
{
14 A
I understand that.
But, you asked the' question, 15 and I get a chance'to answer it.
16 Q
Okay.
17 A
As I stated, there is no req'uirement to plan in J
j 18 detail for the worst case.
Clearly, that's in 0654.
19 Even though the' scenario was not a worst case' accident 20 scenario -- it was a bad accident -- the' planners when they 21 decided as a precautionary measure'to recommend the evacua-22 tion of the entire 10-mile EPZ,.that clearly is the worst O
J m.v..-,,,
-_,m.._.-
.m_
.,.,r._
109-1 that they can recommend.
In-that regard,' it was the worst 2
case and,.therefore,..the 100,000 falls into the worst case.
3 Q
Well, if LILCO would have' recommended 50,000-4 people go to the Coliseum, would that hdve.' required re-5 examining the 20 percent planning base?
6 A
Not in'my-opinion.
7 Q
-So, in your opinion, there'is no number that 8
would require LILCO to reexamine'that 20. percent figure; 9
is that correct?
10 A
It is FEMA's position that the' plan for 20 11 percent of the permanent population, maximum by the way, O
12 of the EPZ is a reasonable planning base. In accordance with 13 NUREG 0654 for situations where you have'to deal with 14 numbers in excess of the 20 percen't, you ad hoc.
15 I felt, in my review of Revision 6, that LILCO
~
16 had included a provision which 'I judged to be ' acceptable.
17 And I presume Mr. Kowieski concurred with it, because he 18 didn't change my evaluation, on the ad hoc basis for handling 19 people in excess of.the 20 percent.
20 Q
What was the' ad hoc provision?
i 21 A
This is where 'you monitor the' ' car and the driver j
22 only.
()
I i
i
110 v
1 Q
okay.
'1 2
A Which whe'n they~ converted that to the sole basis, 3
we said no, that's not allowable.
4 Q
Do you believe that given-the~ caveat that the 5
licensee' can do ad hoc measures, the licensee'still must perform the monitoring functions within about the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 6
7 period irrespective of the number's that show up?
8 A
No, I do not.
9 Q
So, in your opinion the licensee not only.gets to to use ad hoc measures but they don't have to' meet the 12 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> requiremen't; is that your testimony?
~
OV 12 A
That's right'.
Now, I don't know that.
I'm not 13 sure I'm happy with that.
But, I don't.know' anyplace in 14 NUREG 0654, which is really our Bible, that says that whe'n you go into ad ho'c kinds of responses that the other limits is 16 require.
Now, maybe 'they should but I-don't know of any-17 place where they do.
18 Q
Okay.
Let's go onto Contention 50.
Mr. Keller, are you taking the lead in Contention'50?
19 20 A
We haven't decided that one yet.
50 is a long
~
21 way back.
We haven't got that far.
22 Q
Well, at this time, Mr. Keller or Dr. Baldwin, O
~
111 4
.,y I
have 'either of you prepared testimony. on jContention 507, 2
A (Witnes's-Baldwin)
No.
(Witnes's Keller)
No.
3 j
4 Q
Have you' both 'rea'd the~ contention?
A Ye s,- I have..
5 (Witnes's Baldwin)
Yes, I've read it.
8 i
7 (Witness Ke1~1er)
I.have~ spent a good. deal of
!i a
time 'trying to analyze why there 'is a difference in all the i
4 9
subparts, andLI find it very difficult..
10 Q
Well. let'me ask you -- lets try doing this
[
11 with'the overall approach.
If you assume that the~ con-l /~
12 tention, the thrust of the contention, is that the cxercise 4
13 demonstrated that LERO personnel are unable to' carry out
]
14 effectively or accurately the plan bec'ause of the inadequate training that those personnel are given, as demonstrated 15 j
to by the exercise, do you have'an opinion about whether or j
17 not that contention is correct or incorrect?~
i
~
A Okay.
18 19 (Witness Baldwin)
Some of'the'ir training was 1
good and other training was inadequate, as shown by-the-i 20 21 results of the exerci~se.
j 22 Q
Now, for example, I assume that you would say
()
1 t
i
(
112:
g L]
1 that there were instances of dosimetry training which was 2
inadequate, and that is reflected in the' ' post-exercise 3
assessment report.
4 Is that fair?
.5 A
(Witnes's Keller)
That's fair.
6 (Witness Baldwin)
That's fair.
And, they are 7
rated as areas, requiring corrective' action.
8 Q
Now, other than' matters set' forth'in the post-9 exercise assessment report with ' respect to LERO training, does this panel intend to comment or res'ea'rch in any other 10 11 way the adequacy of LERO's. training program?
fs
(_)
12 A
(Witnes's Kowieski)
Normally, Mr. Miller, when 13 we deal with ~the state 'and local gover'nment, we' are required 14 to -- they will provide us with the logs and documentation 15 of training that took place througho'ut the year.
16 In this case, as you kn~ow, the're is no state and 17 local participation.
He have to go to'NRC, or NRC has to approach us and ask us to perform -- take certain actions.
18 19 So, in case of training I don't know how FEMA 20 would react, but if NRC Headquarters would approach FEMA and ask FEMA to verify whether or not certain training took 21 place as required by NUREG 0654, the'n obviously FEMA 3
22 O
O
i 113 t
0 1
possibly w'ould take'such' action.
At this point in time, we-
'~
/
2 did not verify any training class.-
3 Q
Let me just back up and let's, go back in history y
4 for a moment.
Do you r'ecall during 1984 when you last testified before the Licensing Board at Shoreham,- and I 3
believe' Mr. Keller, you had done a spot che~ck on the o
7 adeq'uacy of certain aspects of LERO's. training program.
8 A
(Witness Keller)
That's correct.
9 Q
Has there been, to your knowledge, any check by FEMA on the adequacy Jof LER0'~s traini,ng program since that to 11 time?
\\
12 A
Yes.
What was -- if we' go back to 1984, we' said i
la on the witness stand that we didn't care how'they were
~
14 trained, that the important thing was how they performed is in an exercise.
16 Q
Exactly.
17 A
I think we have' stated numer~ous cases in the post-exercise ' asses'sment report where the training fell 18 19 down one way or another'.
20 Q
Okay.
Now, does this panel -- has this panel reached any conclusion about the overall adequacy or 21 inadequacy of the LERO training program based upon the 22 AV
+
.I
.. t i
~
r I
m 114 I
results of.ths'~exerci'se?
-2 A
(Witness-Kowieski)
_Yes'. 'And againJgoing back.
3 to the post-exercise' asses'sment, Dr. Baldwin.- s tate d ~.in.
4-certain areas training -- a= training course, we'think very 5
good.
And:other areas _, = thdre 'are ~probl'ers.
6 Q
I understand.
.I understand that with-respect ~
to particulars, Mr. Kowieski, but in terms -- my' question
~
7 is,-has this panel reached any conclusion.with' respect to
~
8 the overall adeciuacy' of the LERO trainin,pprogram based.
9 10 upon the results of ths exercise?
11 A
(Witness Keller)
I-have.
O 12 Q
Mr..Keller?
13 A
I believe'that the effectiveness'of'ths-'LERO training program, overall effectiveness,-? nee'ds to be 14 15 increased.
16 I also believe tha~t for~ a - first. exercise, first-17 evaluated exercise, excuse me, that thsLdemonstrat' ion that
~
we saw on February the 13th fwas. overall prettyj good.
18 Not acceptable, because there 'were ' deficiencies.. But,.if 19 you look at it based on a first evaluated-ex6rci'se, it 20 21 wasn't that bad compared to other sites, s
22 There 'will be 'in' my belief, firm belief, for as O
?
A 115
,a Q.
n 1
-long as this' program esists.there'are' going to be problems 2
with dosimetry, there.are going;to be~ problems'with KI.
3 Mr. Baldwin -- Dr. Baldwin is~a;very intelligent 4
individual.
I have a' great deal of respect for him.
As we 5
went thr'ough ~ yesterday, he ididn' t. follow his' directions ~ on
~
6 filling out his-form.
That's going to-happen.
~
P 7
And in-this pr~oces's, bec'ause of the' nature of the 8
way.it's put together~, ths exercise' rep ~ ort is-going to focus 9
on these warts, if you1will.
Clearly,.whoever in the.EOC T
10 was in charge'of the~ impediment thing, you know,.that whole 11 thing, that wa's ter'ribly done.
And that' individual, where 12 it can be tracked to one' individual, he~nesds.a' lot more 13 training.
That was terrible..
~
14 Q
What about the~ bus drivers?
15 A
There 'needs to be more ~ training thsre.
I 16 thought ths bus driver who' went to ths fwrong -lot and got 17 a bus on his own ho'ok'was very fine.
-18 Q
So, you think thsre needs to be more training 19 for bus drivers?
r 20 A
Sure.
1 Q
What about the traffic guides?
21 22 A
Yes.
O f
.I t
e w
r m.
,.,, - y r m---
y
,------,,---s---,--
116
,y 1
Q I mean, - there are ~ lots of aspects of LERO that 2
still need more training and better training. ~Would you 3
agree, Mr. Keller?
4 A
I said that.
I said at the ~very beginning that 5
I thought that the effectiveness of the LERO training has 6
to be increased.
But, I also said that on a relative basis 7
it's about average.
8 (Uitness Kowieski)' Mr. Miller, you have to also 9
recognize the' fact that I think LILCO, as-an organization, 10 made this exercise very difficult for'themselves~.
I will 11 tell you why.
12 I don' t know one ' single site 'in New York State 13 that has mobilized all the bus drivers during the exercise.
14 If you recall, in our post-exercise assessment we made a 15 statement that it took I believe too long to dispatch'some 16 of the bus drivers.
Obviously, if at any exercise 'if you 17 mobilize eight bus drivers there is no problem.
You can is dispatch, you know, within seven minutes.
~
19 And the' reason that LILCO made 'it more difficult 20 because they mobilize ~d all their resources'.
I'm talking 21 about human res'ources. 'And normally if -- they tried_to 22 sort of resemble a real situation, what actually would
~
117
.'^%)
-1
. happen.
The~y would. need 'all.their.. resources..to respond to 2
an emergehey.
3 Q'
Well, Mr..Kowfeski, let's: stay with bus drivers-
I may have'run across some LILCO people at meet-12 13 ings, et cetera, and I believe I have but I can' t -- I have 14 no substantive -- with the exception of tho'one conversation 15 with Mr. Irwin that we just discussed..Is that what you are to trying to get at?
17 MR. MILLER:
I have no further questions.
- And, 18 I thank you and Ms. Letsche thanks you.
1 10 MR. ZEUGIN:
I have, gentlemen, a very short 20 group of questions I hope.
endT2 21 22 0
137 ndexxx 1
CROSS EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. ZEUGIN:
3 Q
Yesterday you had discussion with Ms. Letsche 4
about revisions to the FEMA post-exercise report from the 5
time it was in its initial draft form to the time it reached o
its final form.
7 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
8 Q
And part of that discussion was about changes D
recommended by Mr. Petrone.
And a good part of your discus-to sion dealt with the whole question of legal authority and 11 the statement to be included with regard to legal authority.
b 12 And I don' t want to focus on that.
13 As I understood your testimony yesterday, you 14 stated also that there were some other additions by Mr.
15 Petrone and that those were included in the final report; 10 is that correct?
17 A
That's correct.
18 Q
Could you briefly describe those for me?
10 A
If you will allow me to refresh my memory, I 20 will try to go through the post-exercise assessment.
I 21 remember one statement which, if you will allow me, I will 22 read from the post-exercise assessment:
The exercise was
,9
138 1
limited without state and local government participation.
2 Therefore, FEMA ~cannot measure the capabilities and pre-paredness of state'and local governments if called upon to 3
4 respond.
The legal authority concerns have been ruled on in other forums. 'This report constitutes FEMA evaluation
~
5 of what was actually done during the' ' course of the exercise.
e 7
And I believe the statement also appears in other a
place somewhere'in the report,'if you want me to go through 9
it.
to Q
Is that basically the'only -- or, statements of it that same ilk, are those really the only statements that a
12 were suggested to be added by Mr. Petrone?
13 Were there any, for exampic, substantive changes 14 in how a given objective was graded or --
15 A
The record should show that Mr. Petrone did not 16 suggest -- as a matter of fact, he never did.in the past at 17 any other exercise -- to change our evaluation and whatever is was presented to him.
This also applies to the Shoreham 19 post-exercise assessment.
20 Mr. Petrone, not even in one singic case,even suggested to change anything except the statement that he 21 22 wanted to be added to the report.
O
139
~'
1 Q
All right.
Gentlemen, let me ask you this as a panel, because'over the~ last couple of days there have 2
3 been a whole ser~ies of questions about testing the Shoreham 4
notification system; and I believe, in fact, at one point, 5
Mr. Keller, you stated that there would be at some point a
o separate' scientific test of the notification system, that 7
FEMA would conduct a ceparate one.
8 A
(Witness Keller)
That is correct.
9 Q
Just so I'm clear, is the test that you are refer-10 ring to the test that I guess formerly was referred to as 11 a FEMA-43 test and I guess now is referred to as a FEMA 12 Rev 10 test?
13 A
That is correct.
14 (Witness Kowieski)
That is correct.
15 Q
Okay.
My last question I guess is to you, Mr.
to Kowieski.
Yesterday, Ms. Letsche went over a lot of -- had a whole series of questions with regard to changes in the 17 18 post-exercise report in which an evaluation may have been changed in what I will call a downward direction, a 19 deficiency changed to an ARCA or an ARCA to an area requir-20 21 ing improvement.
22 What I'm interested in is the opposite kind of o
vs
140 o
i changes, and that is changes where the' FEMA posr-exercise 2
report may have cha'nged the ratings upwards, say an ARCA a
going to a deficiency'.
g 4
I understand your testimony to date that there --
5 you have basically described two of those, one' dealing with the reception center, the monitoring that occurred at the 6
reception center; and, another dealing with the ENC, and I 7
8 will call it with rumor control and whether that should have 9
been an ARCA or deficiency.
10 Putting those two aside, were there any other 11 items that had essential upgradings?
12 A
Well, at this point in time I do not recollect other changes; however, just another clarification.
What I 13 stated, I believe I stated today, for the record, that we --
14 I upgraded hard copy of EBS messages from ARCA to deficiency, 15 16 Q
Okay.
17 A
(Witness Keller)
The rumor control portion, if you go to that deficiency in the ENC there are two portions, in ID two subparts, right.
20 The rumor control portion was clearly a de-al ficiency on Ms.' Jackson's report form.
The hard copy to 22 the -- of EBS to the press was an ARCA.
What Mr. Kowieski p
(
r 9
141 1
is saying is, it was only that half that was raised up.
2 Thsre sho~uld b6 no impres'sion that anybody. thought the
~
3 Problem with'ths rumor. control being late'was:not a 4
deficiency from^ Day One.
5 Q
And tho'se are ths'only two'tha't you can rec'ollect?
~
6 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Tha't is' correct.'
7 MR. ZEUGIN:
I have no furthsr questions.
8 MR. CUMMING:
I have'several' questions.
indexxx 9
CROSS. EXAMINATION,
10 BY MR. CUMMING:
11' Q
FEMA PanellExhibit NumberL26>ista letter from 12 Terry.L. Harpster, Chi ~ef of-ths Emergency Preparedness 13 Section, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards,.to 14 Mr. Roger Kowieski.
Mr. Keller, would you refer,to the' sentenc,e>
15 10 beginning, " Element"J.9...?"
17 A
(Witness Keller). Yes, sir..
18 Q
Would you read that into the~ record?
"El'ement..."what.appearstobeJ.9,"..'redates 19 A
20 to the correctnes's of the FDA levels. '.Ths' material could-I 21 not be located in. Revision.6'. ' The. evaluation ~ -remains 22 incomplete."'
l
)
142
'~'
1 Q
Is your understanding the same as Mr. Harpster 2
or whoever the' author of this letter was?
3 A
My recollection of my review of Revision 6 was 4
that the material which' ' FEMA and ths RAC had found inadequate 5
in Revision 5 in this regard was indesd incorporated in 6
Revision 6 and, therefore, aside~from the fact that the 7
incomplete should be' inadequate, I would also say I disagree 8
with the whole' sentence.
8 Q
Do any othsr members of ths panel have any other 10 understanding?
t 11 A
(Witnes's Kowieski)
Yeah, I do agree with Mr.
12 Keller.
13 (Witness Baldwin)
I have'no recollection.
Q Okay.
Let's recall FEMA Panel Exhibit Number 29.
15 It's one of ths evaluator shsets of P. Giardina.
Under the points of review, the last entry, Mr. Keller, would you 16 17 read that into the record?
A (Witness Keller)
This is for Objective EOC-12, 18 18 and the last point of review is:
" Consideration of relevant 20 factors such'as evacuation time' estimates, shelter 21 availability, meteorological forecasts, duration of release,
22 availability of bus resource ~s, road conditions, et cetera."
,~
'j
~
.143 a
i-Q In your judgment -- and this. goes' to all members 2
of the panel -- this was 2'to1 clarify, ths ' rec ~ord,. this is 3
a ques' tion for purpose 'of clarification of ths ~ record.
4 This wa's,1: in' fact, this' point of' review was 5
improperly included:on ths' form.of P. Giardina?
4 s
A Some of ths points in the' ' points of review are 7
relevant to this obj'ective.
Some ofLths' points are.not 8
relative to this obj'ective, in my opinion and my under-9 Standing of ths LILCO ' lan.
p l
10 Q
Is that'the under' standing:of ihs rest of the panel 11 members?
}
12 A
(Witne s's ' Kowieski)
That's'. correlct.-
And I be -
13 lieve'I already testified on-this.particular issue.
t 14
.Q Could you stateEfor ths ' rec'ord, Mr. Keller',
I which ones are' relevant?
15 16 A
(Witness Keller)
Meteorological forecasts and' t
i 17 duration of release ' clearly are fin-ths!' purview of the radiological people 'in their estimation' and projec~ tion of 18 i
19 doses offsite..
20 Thd' rest, in' my belief, do not belong in 'this 21 objective.
Thdy are not -- I medn,.that does'n't:mean they-22 don' t' have 'to bd ' con' sider ~ed, but th6y sho'uld not' be i.
144 3.
~
considered under this objec'tive.
1 f
2 Q
And,.do the'othe'r' panel' medberscagreewith that chsracterization?
3 4
A (Witnes's Kowieski)
'Yes,.I'do.
(Witness Baldwin)
I agres with 'it.
I also feel 5
that this is done at a higher level.
In other words, where.
e 7
we are' talking aboutfths~ availability of. bus resources and 8
road condition's and especially ths "et' ceter'a" which is
~
i 9
rather vague, that tho'se'are' integrated by..ths Manager of 10 Local Respon'se.with' input from:the' Coordinator of -- the 11 Evacuation Coordinator / road l'ogistics' people.
12 (Witnes's Kowieski)' :I"agred withe'Dr. Baldwin.
T And already I.think~ record shows.that we.tes'tified. yesterday i
is 14 to this effect.
15 Q
Mr. Kowieski, just to.hnve 'the rec'ord clear, 1
1s were you part of ths. RAC ' review of Revision ~ 7 and' 87 ~
17 A
I was not.
18 Q
Thst is of ths LILCO plan?.
19 A
I w6s not.
20 Q
Havelyou, in fact','reviewe'd Revisioni7 and 8 of-21 the LILCO plan?
i 22 A
I have'not.
145
('")
1 Q
Dr. Baldwin and Mr. Keller,. co~ ld one of you u
2 state' accurately for: thd rec ~ord, since counsel for FEMA 3
garbled it earlier', ex'actly what the finding was of the review of Revision 7 and 8 with'respec' toto the~' rec ~ep~ tion
~
4 center in the' FEMA and RAC review of Revision 7 and 8 of 5
6 the LILCO plan?
7 A
(Witness Keller)
Just as I had problems with
~
8 counsel for governments, I have ' problems with ~ counsel for 9
FEMA.
I do not consider ~ that ths RAC review of Revision 7 to and 8 constitutes a finding.
11 However, the RAC did. review Revision 7 and 8 12 and the rating which is given to J.12, I believe is the one la you asked about, is inadequate at ' this. point.
14 Q
Do you agree' with that,.Dr. Baldwin?
15 A
(Witness Baldwin)
I certainly do for these 16 two reasons.
17 Q
Go ahead.
18 A
With~ respect to the tren'tment of the reception places for the handicapped and mobility impaire'd;and with 19 respect to the scree'ning procedure-which has bee'n elevated 20 according to the plan from the alternate monitoring pro-21 22 cedure for drivers and cars in previous revisions of the (L,)
1 146
(')
I plan, it's. now the ' primary moni toring, monitoring procedure,
2 with'which'we:'do not agree.
~
3 MR. CUMMING:
No further questions.
4 MR. MILLER:
Thank'you',, gentlemen.
5 (Wher~etipon', the dep~osition'is' co'ncluded at 6
12:22 p.m., Friday, January 30, 1987.)
7 8
9 R6GER B. K0WIESKI 10 T'
hlWhk 5
,C3
- 4. W bd THOMAS BALDWIN g
12 id Y/
14
[0SlfR~H.
L R
f 15 f
p" f< (Me f4 Yht 16 rio, yJ a girs be
$. huh, N 17 18 19 20 21 22 0
-147
!b 1
-CERTIFICATE'0F COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC 2
3 I,. Garret't -J.
Walsh, Jr., the' ' officer before whom 4
the foregoing dep~osition'was taken, pages 1 through'146, 5
do hereby certify that the' witnesses:wh'o'se'tes'timony appears 6
in the' foregoing dep'osition were ' duly. sworn by me ; that the 7
testimony of said witnesses' was take'n by me'and the~reafter 8
reduced to typewriting by me'or un' der' my-direction; thdt 8
said dep'osition is a true record of the' testimony given by 10 the witnesses; that.I 'am neither counsel for, related to nor 11 73 employed by any of the parties to the' action in which this
$.)
12 deposition was tahe'n'; and further, that I'am not a relative 13 or employee of any attorney' or counsel employed by the 14 parties hereto, nor' financially or othe'rwise' interested in 15 the outcome.of the' action.
16 17
-GAR p -J.
- WALSH, 19 Commonwealth ~of Virginia at Large 20 21 My Commission Expires':
January 9, 1989 22 m
QN l
-