ML20214J854
| ML20214J854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3625 OL-5, NUDOCS 8705280217 | |
| Download: ML20214J854 (166) | |
Text
-
@R G NA UMTED STATES I O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
I l
~
(O LOCATION:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 7251 - 7415 i
l DATE:
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1987 l
l b9, D \\
yt AG-FEDERAI. REPORTERS, INC.
'O OfficialReporters m
or,..
444 North ChpitolStreet (Dd ^'[i[,jg' o3pg Washington, D.C. 20001 an U oaca;r (202)347-3700 S
PDn NATIONWIDE COVERACE
07800000 7251 cuewalsh
( ).
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND. LICENSING BOARD 4
X 5
In the Matter of:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 6
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (EP Exercise)
Unit 1) 7
X e
Court of Claims State of New York 9
State Office Building Third Floor Courtroom 10 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 11
. Tuesday, May 26, 1987 12 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 13 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m.
BEFORE:
14 JdHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman-15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16
- Bethesda, Maryland 20555 17 OSCAR H. PARIS, Member Atomic Fafety and Licensing Board 18 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
Bethesda, Maryland 20555 l
19 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 22 23 24 25 O
07800000 7252 uuewalsh
}?1
..qj 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Compaqy:_
DONALD P. IRWIN, ESQUIRE 3
LEE B. ZEUGIN, ESQUIRE Hunton & Williams 4
707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 5
Richmond, Virginia 23212 6
On Behalf of Suffolk County:
7 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, ESQUIRE SUSAN M. CASEY, ESQUIRE 8
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby, 9th Floor 9
1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036-5891 10 On Behalf of the State of New York:
11 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQUIRE 12 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber 13 Room 229
.(
State Capitol 14 Albany, New York 12224 15 On Behalf of the NRC:
16 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQUIRE RICHARD G.
BACHMANN, ESQUIRE 17 MYRON KARMAN, ESQUIRE U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
.i.
.m.
m
07800000
_7253 suewalsh I
2 CONTENTS 3
Direc t Cross R_edir_ec_t, Recr,oss Voir Dire CHARLES A. DAVERIO 7254 7268 4
GARY A. SIMON 7354 7359 7409 5
6 7
EXHIBITS Identified Admitted 8
LILCO Exercise Exhibit 19 7267
-7267 LILCO Exercise Exhibits 19 RENUMBERED 9
to LILCO Exercise Exhibit 21 7359 10 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 99 7355 7359 11 12 A. M. RECESS Page 7317 13 LUNCHEON RECESS Page 7349 P. M. RECESS Page 3890 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
00000101 7254 cuewalsh J
-h I
PROCEEDINGS 2
(9:00 a.m.)
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Good mo rning.
We are ready to 4
begin with Mr. Daverio again, I see.
5 MR. ZEUGIN:
Yes.
6 Whereupon, 7
CHARLES A'. DAVERIO 8
was called as a witness by and on behalf of the Long Island 9
Lighting Company and, having previously been duly sworn, was 10 examined and testified as follows:
II DIRECT EXAMINATION l
12 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
13 r-,
Q Mr. Daverio, let me ask you to identify yourself i
14 and state your business address for the reco'rd, please?
15 A
Charles A. Daverio, Shoreham Nuclear Power 16 Station, P. O. Box 628, Wading River, New York 11792.
1 17 Q
Mr. Daverio, do you have in front of you a i
18 document entitled "LILCO's Testimony on Contention EX-21,"
19 dated April 6th, 19877 20 A
Yes, I do.
21 Q
Was this testimony prepared by you or under your 22 supervision and direction?
23 A
Yes, It was.
24 Q
Mr. Daverio, so that the record is clear, could 25 you please identify the portions of this testimony that 1
l l
l
00000101 7255 cuewalsh
(~h I
LILCO has agreed to withdraw?
~
%/
2 A
Yes, I can.
Page 8, the fifth line, starting 3
with the word "However" through the word "LILCO," that one sentence.
4 Q
And the word "LILCO" appears on Line 7 of that?
5 That whole sentence is essentially --
6 A
Yes.
It's from Line 5 through 7.
It's the 7
entire Question 10 on Page 11, and it goes over on to Page 8
12.
The entire Answer, starting on Page 15, Number 13.
9 And, again it goes over to the top of Page 16.
10 Page 17, Question 15.
Page 19, Question 17.
11 Page 22, Question 20.
Page 23, Question 22.
- And, 12 Attachment B.
()
I believe that includes all the sections.
14 JUDGE PARIS:
Did you say Attachment B?
15 WITNESS DAVERIO:
Attachment B.
That's 16 correct.
Attachment B is also withdrawn.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
And, the last question and answer 18 was 22?
19 WITNESS DAVERIO:
22, that's correct.
20 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
(Continuing) 21 Q
Mr. Daverio, are there any corrections or 22 additions you would like to make to the testimony?
23 A
Yes.
Just a reference was left -- should have 24 been included on Page 14, Question 12.
There should have 25 O
00000101 7256 cu walch
-7 been an additional bus driver problem at Patchogue
(~h 1
\\J referenced, and the reference is in our training testimony.
2 Attachment.B, Contention 50.A, Contention 42.E of that 3
attachment discusses the failure of one bus driver to 4
complete his whole router he missed a part of it.
5 And, that should have been included in this 6
discussion.
7 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, can I ask for a 8
clarification?
Is there a specific --
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
I was about to ask the same 10 thing.
Do you have a specific --
11 WITNESS DAVERIO:
I was just going to add, the 12 reference to our discussion in the training testimony rather 13
--,()
than try to add an insert at this time.
as u
JUDGE FRYE:
And, where would that go?
15 WITNESS DAVERIO:
I would add a sentence that 16 said, " Additionally - "
17 JUDGE PARIS:
Where are you going to add it?
18 WITNESS DAVERIO:
A new paragraph at the end.
19 JUDGE FRYE On Page 15?
20 WITNESS DAVERIO:
On Page 15, sorry:
21 Additionally, one bus driver missed part of his route.
See 22 LILCO testimony on Contention 50, Attachment B, discussion 23 of Contention 42.E.
24 That's where it's referenced, and I will just 25 D
00000101 7257 cutw210h add that sentence.
/'N; I
k/
MR. LANPHER:
I just want to know where on Page 2
15?
3 WITNESS DAVERIO:
Mr. Lanpher, I would add a new 4
paragraph that said that after the word " performed."
5 MR. LANPHER:
Okay.
Thank you.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
See Contention 50 testimony, 7
Attachment B.
8 WITNESS DAVERIO:
Attachment B.
And Attachment 9
B, Contention 50.A, which is a discussion of Contention 10 42.E.
I 11 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Contention 50.A.
12 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
(Continuing) 13
(])
Q Mr. Daverio, is this testimony, as corrected, true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
15 A
Yes, it is.
16 i
0 Do you adopt it as your testimony on Contention 17 EX-21?
18 A
Yes, I do.
19 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, at this time I would 20 move the admission of LILCO's testimony on Contention EX-21 21 into evidence.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Any objection?
23 MR. LANPHER:
Yes.
I understand the Board ruled 24 last Friday on the remaining portions of the strike motion.
25 (O
_s
00000101 7258 cu;walch i
My purpose is not to reargue the portions that I think you f) 1 A/
ruled upon, but I think there needs to be some 2
clarification, Judge.
3 Last Thursday I believe the parties informed the 4
Board that with two exceptions other exercise testimony such 5
as Mr. Daverio just related were being excised from the 6
testimony, so that portion of the strike motion to an extent 7
Was moot.
8 Actually, given this morning's testimony there 9
are three aspects that I wish to raise with the Board.
10 First, if you would turn to Page 8, Mr. Daverio stated that the sentence on that page starting "However" would be 12 deleted.
We understood last week that that sentence plus 13 I"A
/U the following sentence, "Thus, to che extent that sample i4 size is even a meaningful index the samples taken at 15 Shoreham are consistent with those taken at other licensed 16 facilities."
That's other exercise testimony, gentlemen.
17 We understood last week that that was coming 18 out.
Now, maybe there was a misunderstanding.
I don't mean 19 to point fingers, but if it's not a misunderstanding I want 20 to argue that.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
Is there another -- do you have 22 other --
23 MR. LANPHER:
Yes.
There are two other similar 24 ones.
Going in reverse order, but stay on that page, the 25 b.o
000001t1 7259 cu;walch top sentence on that page, the sentence before the "However"
.( )
sentence, they talk about the nature of sampling done, the 2
chosen field of activities, et cetera, that was part of our 3
motion to strike on other exercises.
4 I can go into that.
We believe that should be struck from another exercise perspective.
I won't argue it right now.
7 And, then if you go back to Page 5, gentlemen, 8
the only full paragraph on that page, "In this respect" and 9
then it continues, that paragraph was subject to our motion 10 to strike on other exercise grounds.
LILCO declined to 11 voluntarily withdraw that, and that was one of the matters 12 which we were going to raise in the conference call on
(])
Friday.
I don't think that was focused for the Board.
14 I understand that you have reviewed the other 15 portions of the motion.
I'm not sure that you realized that 16 we had a continuing live dispute with respect to that 11 paragraph.
18 So, really there are three items from the other 19 exercise perspective that I believe there is still a live i
20 dispute on, this paragraph on Page 5 and two sentences on 21
)
Page 8.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Zeugin.
23 MR. ZEUGIN:
I think with regard to the first 24 point Mr. Langher raised with regard to the confusion about 25 t
00000101 7260 4
cucwolch the last sentence on the first paragraph on Page 8, I in fact think there was confusion for whatever the basis.
2 LILCO only intended to withdraw the sentence "However,"
3 which, in fact, Mr. Daverio has identified today.
We did 4
i not intend to agree to withdraw the last sentence of that i
paragraph.
l 6
JUDGE FRYE:
The whole paragraph seems to go to 7
other exercises, doesn't it?
i 8
MR. ZEUGIN:
It does.
I think the reason LILCO 9
j-10 has refused to withdraw the particular material that Mr.
Lanpher has now pointed out is that, in fact, Mr. Daverio 11 does have an independent basis for these particular 12 j
statements, namely his own experience at other exercises, 13 his knowledge of other planning activi, ties, independent of 14 the particular research on the 38 plants that were inc16ded i
15 in Attachment B.
I 16 It is for that reason that LILCO did not 17 f
withdraw this particular testimony.
We feel Mr. Daverio is 18 l
perfectly capable of sponsoring these statements and has a i
19
)
basis for them even without the analysis of 38 plants.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
The same goes for --
l.
21
)
MR. ZEUGIN:
The same goes for --
j 22 i
JUDGE FRYE
-- Page 57 23 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, may I respond briefly?
JUDGE FRYE:
I think Judge Shon has a question 25 l
i 00000101 7261 cuewalsh here.
o JUDGE SHON:
I was just going to say, do I 2
understand then that you are withdrawing the material that 3
you did withdraw simply, in effect, for lack of response or 4
because it is, in effect, hearsay and not because it 5
reflects experience at other exercises?
l 6
It sounded to me as if Mr. Lanpher's current 7
objection was that it involved other exercises at all, and 8
that is not why you are withurawing it; is that correct?
9 MR. ZEUGIN:
That's correct, Judge Shon.
LILCO 10 still believes that evidence regarding what FEMA has done at 11 other exrgcises is, in fact, relevant to the issues in 12 Contention 21.
13 9
O And, as to the testimony that still remains, Mr.
14 Daverio has personal knowledge that will allow him to make 15 the statements that he has made in his testimony.
16 JUDGE SHON:
Okay.
17 l
MR. LANPHER:
I don't want to reiterate the l
18 points that were made in our motion to strike, but briefly I 19 should since you weren't focused to it.
You reviewed 20 I
Contention EX-21 which is the subject in the instant 21 hearing.
22 We dispute -- Suffolk County disputes the 23
(
relevance of other exercise testimony whatsoever to the 24 specific issues and objectives which are the subject of this t
1 25
(
l I
I
00000101 7262 cuewalsh
,4 contention.
In the Board's earlier rulings having to do
, -( s) 3 with contentions 15 and 16, you stated that you would 2
entertain that evidence if properly sponsored, because you 3
thought that it might be helpful there.
4 I went back to the Board's pre-hearing 5
conference Orders, et cetera on Contention EX-21, there is 6
no evidence that this Board ever contemplated such other 7
exercise matters or the sampling in other exercises to be 8
pertinent with respect to EX-21.
When you read the 9
contention, it's just not part of that contention.
10 Second, the stuff on Page 8, to the extent that 11 this might even be construed to be relevant, this is stuff 12 l
that FEMA should be asked about.
If you look at that first 13
()
sentence, the nature of sampling done by FEMA is indicative of wnat is felt by FEMA to be necessary.
Well, if LILCO l
15 really thinks this is important, they ought to pursue cross-16 examination of FEMA on this, i
17 We believe that Mr. Daverio is not competent to 18 testify about what FEMA felt about what was done at other 19 exercises.
And, voir dire and other examination on 20 Contention 15 and 16 made clear that Mr. Davorio and Mr.
21 Behr, at that time, as well with him had not consulted with 22 FEMA about what wan necessary under the regulations and that 23 sort of thing.
24 So, we are getting far outside the scope of the 25
00000101 7263 suewalsh contention.
And, regardless of whether Mr. Daverio was
,( )
I present at other exercises, his previous testimony has 2
indicated that he doesn't have knowledge of why FEMA did 3
particular things.
i 4
So, I think this does fall within the other 5
exercise category.
It's outside the scope of 21.
And, the 6
I portions that I referenced ought to be deleted.
l 7
JUDGE FRYE:
You all think it's within the scope i
E of 21 obviously?
9 MR. ZEUGIN:
That's correct, Judge Frye.
And, I l
10 think the reason for that is that in the past, typically 11 Contentions 15, 16 and 21 have always been talked about kind l'
12 of as a group, and for that matter I think the Board's prior
(])
rulings on the relevance of what is done at other exercises I4 is' also relevant to Contention 21, because it does show that l$
that is the way FEMA conducts exercises and that is the way 16 they typically evaluate performance during an exercise.
11 I think the earlier testimony of Messrs. Behr la and Daverio really didn't go to the issue that is now before 19 us.
Instead, that earlier testimony on Contentions 15 and 20 16 went to the meaning or' the words " full participation t
21 exercise."
l 22 t
I think the earlier testimony has also clearly i
23 pointed out that Mr. Daverio was involved with FEMA in 24 developing this exercise.
And, for that reason he has again 25 O
00000101 7264 cu;walch
/,4 an independent basis for his knowledge of why given sample
)
I sizes were or were not chosen at Shoreham.
And, I think his 2
testimony --
3 MR. LANPHER:
Well, we have no --
4 MR. ZEUGIN:
-- is -- he is able to testify to 5
that.
And, I would assume also testify -- although the 6
questioning has not yet obviously taken place -- about what i
has happened at other exercises.
8 MR. LANPllER:
Judge Frye, we don't object to Mr.
9 Daverio's talking about why particular sample sizes were 10 taken at Shoreham.
In fact, I don't think he does testify 11 to that -- that might be relevant -- except in a most 12 general kind of way.
13 7'T So, our motion to strike doesn't go to whatever d
i4 he may have to say about Shoreham.
It's the sampling at 15 other exercises, which is just outside the scope.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Does New York have a view?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
We agree with Mr. Lanpher and 18 are unable to add anything new.
19 JUDGE PRYE:
Does the Staff have a view on this?
to MR. BACl!MANN:
The Staff has no comment.
21 (The Board members are conferring.)
22 JUDGE PRYE:
We have determined to leave it in 23 and let you cross-examine him on it.
24 MR. LANPi!ER:
All right.
25 0
00000101 7265 cucw31ch l,
JUDGE FRYE:
Do you have a feeling as to how l
l 1
l long at this point --
(
2 l
MR. LANPHER:
Yes.
I informed Mr. Zeugin 3
i yesterday that the examination will go relatively fast, and 4
l I informed him that he should be prepared to commence his 5
cross-examination of Dr. Simon today.
6 JUDGE FRYE Okay.
?
MR. LANPHER:
It may be this morning that I will 8
be done.
There is a lot of repetition from other 9
contentions --
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Sure.
II l
MR. LANPHER:.-- and frankly I have no intention 12 of duplicating things.
J ])
JUDGE FRYE:
Nor do I think it's necessary.
It MR. LANPHER:
Well less than a day is my 15 estimate.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
I just was asking to get some sort 17 of a feel for where we stood.
So, we should be done, I i
is would take it from that, some time tomorrow.
19 MR. EEUGIN:
We may even be done today.
I assume my cross-examination will be on the order of two 21 i
hours.
JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
Well, then let's proceed.
23 Mr. Daverio has been previously sworn and now is available 22 for cross-examination I take it.
l 25 i
($)
i 1
00000101 7266 cu walch MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I think I still have i
pending before the Board a motion for admission of the 2
l testimony into evidence.
i 3
MR. LANPHER:
Judge, one other thing I was going l
4 l
to say with respect to that motion.
There is a portion in I
l 5
l this testimony -- I believe it's on Page 8 -- which similar l
6 l
to the testimony during 15 and 16 cites at length FEMA Staf f i
7 1
depositions.
I did not pursue cross-examination on 15 and l
1 e
i 16 on that.
i We moved to strike, as you recall.
We didn't l
10 pursue cross-examination on that because the Board made 11 clear it intended to have the Staff come and present 12 testimony.
13 l [({)
JUDGE FRYE:
If the, Staff should not come and present testimony, I would -- you would certainly'be free to l
renew your motion.
16 MR. LANPHER:
An3, I assume the same goes then l
for this portion of -- well, the second full paragraph on i
t is Page 8 of the 21 testimony?
I 19 JUDGE FRYE:
Yrs.
Oh, yes, the reference to the 20 deposition of Schwartz and Bernard Weiss.
21 MR. LANPHER:
It's the same deposition, and 22 there is an Attachment C t.o this testimony which has a i
23 l
deposition excerpt.
I dot't think it's very fruitful for me 24 1
to pursue examination abcut that.
25 i
00000101 7267 suewalsh JUDGE FRYE Okay.
e i
MR. LANPl!ER:
Without waiving -- well, we object 2
to the admission of this testimony for the reasons that we 3
have already stated in the motion to atrike.
We don't have 4
additional objections except for the caveat regarding the 5
NRC Staff material.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
With that understanding, the 1
testimony will be admitted.
What'a your next exhibit 8
number?
9 MR. ZEUGIN:
19.
10 JUDGE FRYE Okay.
It will be LILCO Exercise 11 l
Exhioit 19.
12 (The document referred to in i
13 l
lll marked no LILCO Exercise Exhibit 14 Number 19 and admitted into is evidence.)
16 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, at this point, Mr.
17 Davorio la ready for cross-examination.
18 JUDGE FRYE Good.
Mr. Lanpher.
19 20 21 22 23 lt 25 O
00000202 7268 joewalsh J
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LANPHER:
2 Q
Mr. Daverio, I would like to direct your 3
attention first to Page 7 of your testimony.
And, in the 4
second full paragraph on that page you say, "Each of these 5
areas..." -- and for context, che areas that you are talking 6
about are the subparts of Contention EX-21, correct?
1 A
That's correct, a
Q You say, "Each of these areas involves a broad 9
spectrum of sub-activities from initial information 10 gathering, evaluation to decision-making capabilities, to a series of physical responses from initial call-out and 12 mobilization through final field activity."
13
}{)
Then, you go on.
You have another sentence and you say that, "Each of these sub-activities was, in fact, 15 observed by FEMA and formed a part of its overall conclusion 16 on the acceptability of the organization's performance in 17 the area."
la Do you see that sentence, sir?
19 A
The two sentences, yes.
20 0
Well, the last sentence I read?
21 A
Yes, I see it.
22 0
Now, when you say "its overall conclusion," you 23 are talking about FEMA's I believe there; is that correct?
24 A
Yes, that's correct.
2s O
I l
00000202 7269 joewalsh 1
Q And, when you talk about the " organization's
()
I performance," you are talking about LERO's performance; is 2
that right?
3 A
In the area observed, that's correct.
t Q
Well, in the area observed, that would, for 5
instance, be in the area of route alerting, in the area of 6
bus drivers, the area of school preparedness; is that 7
correct?
8 A
That's correct.
But, when I talk about l
9 conclusion I also mean negative comments, too.
It's their 10 conclusion.
That's correct.
ii Q
Okay.
Can you please show me where in the FEMA 12 report FEMA reaches an overall conclusion about LERO's
(])
performance on route alerting?
It*
A As I just said, it includes their comments that is route alerting was done but that the time was unacceptable I 16 believe, that they wanted it to be done faster.
So, they 11 commented.
And, that's their conclusion I would assume.
is l
Q Well, Mr. Daverio, let me ask the question 19 again.
20 A
Sure.
21 Q
You used the term "ito overall conclusion," and 22 you have made clear that that's FEMA's overall conclusion, 23 all right, on the acceptability of LERO's performance in 22 each of these areas.
We were talking about route alerting, 25 O
I l
00000202 7270 joewalsh 7:(
bus drivers and the other Contention 21 subparts.
Okay?
A That's correct.
2 Q
Okay.
Now, is there an overall conclusion by 3
l FEMA regarding LERO's performance on route alerting?
- And, 4
if so, please point me to where it is in the FEMA report.
l 5
And, as you are going through that, Mr. Daverio, 6
just so we don't do repetitive things I'm going to ask you 7
the same question concerning bus drivers, concerning school a
preparedness and concerning ambulance /ambulettes.
9 I want to know if there is an overall conclusion 10 such as you've referenced in your testimony.
11 (The witness is looking through a document.)
12 A
It's going to take me a few minutes if you want 13
{({})
that for each one.
The general answer is, if you look at the ARCA's, the deficiency area requiring improvement, or is ARCA's, FEMA drawn a conclusion or a comment on each of the 16 areas you just mentioned in some fashion negatively.
Maybe 11 not on ambulance drivers.
We would have to go back to look 18 to see in the body of the report.
19 If you would like, I could take the time and do 20 that.
Dut, that's what I meant by this.
They drew some 21 kind of factual statement on the performance of the 22 organization in those areas.
23 24 25 O
07800303 7271 marynimons Q
Let me como at it another way, Mr. Davorio and llh 3
maybe we can go footer.
2 Ian't it true that FEMA's ovaluation, and let'a 3
atay with route alerting since it's 21-A, and uno it just no 4
i an examplo.
PEMA's ovaluation of route alerting was not a s
ningle overall evaluation of route alerting; isn't that 6
correct?
7 A
I don't understand that question.
8 Q
PEMA's evaluation of route alerting Wan 9
conducted in connection with a number of different oxorcino 10 objectivos; isn't that truo?
it A
Thoro are in your Contention 3 exercino 12 objectivos that you've referenced to thin, and como of them l
i)
(l) are general enough to have como relationship to route alert 14 driving, but thoro waa a specific one also tied to backup is public alerting if noconnary.
16 0
Mr. Davorio, my quantion was inn't it truo that 11 PEMA's evaluation of route alerting was in the context of a 18 number of different exercino objectivon?
I'm not 19 referencing the contention right now.
20 A
Thore are EOC objectiven, ataging area 21 objectivos and field objectiven that are -- there was a 22 field one that's opacific to route alotting.
Thore aro EOC 23 and staging area general objectiven that would be reviewed as in diapatching people.
Thoro in a staging area objectivo to as O
l 07800303 7272 marysimons 7:
demonstrate the dispatch and direct emergency workers in the
'd field.
2 So route alert drivers who fit in that category were tested against that also I believe.
4 Q
And FEMA reached conclusions about route 5
alerting related activities in the context of each of those 6
objectives, didn't it?
?
A They looked at Stage Area 9 as the example and a
said in different areas that people were dispatched 9
properly.
So, yes, I think the answer is to that question.
10 Q
And so FEMA's conclusions related to route II l
alerting are not in the context of an overall conclusion 12 l
such as you have alluded to on page 7 of your testimony, but I
i)
((}
are a series of separate c,onclusionu dealing with separately identified objectives; isn't that true.
15 l
Q And that's the proper way to do it because they l
16 l
are interrelated functions that if one fails it can have an l
11 effect on route alerting.
l Q
Mr. Daverio, answer the question, please.
l
'9 Isn't it true that PEMA's conclusions related to 20 i
route alerting are in the context of neparate conclusions on 21 neparate objectives?
22 A
I think the annwer in yes to that question in 23 that they had to be dispatched to be oboorved doing their ta route alerting.
So staging Area 9 had como impact on it.
25 l
07800303 7273 perysimons Q
And so FEMA, reached a conclusion regarding the
()
I briefing and dispatch of route alert drivers?
2 A
Of all workers at the staging area.
3 Q
Including route alert drivers?
4 A
Including route alert drivers; that's right.
5 Q
And bus drivers, for instance?
6 A
And traffic guides and there are others.
1 Q
And that was in the context of Staging Area e
Objective 9, correct?
9 A
That's correct.
10 Q
FEMA also reached conclusions about mobilization li of those personnel in the context of Staging Area Objective 12 2r isn't that correct?
(])
A I just want to check 2.
Yes, 2 is the ability la to mob 111 e; that's correct.
is Q
So isn't it true, Mr. Daverlo, that FEMA reached 16 no single overall conclusion about the acceptability of 1r LERO's performance in any of the Contention 21 subpart is area?
FEMA reached separate conclusions for separate 19 objectives, correct?
20 A
They reached separate conclusions for separate at objectives, but they are interrelated and if one caused a 22 problem on another one I think it would have been noted.
n Q
But there was no overall conclusion.
That 2t statebent on page 7 of your testimony is just overly broad, as O
07800303 7274 Cnrysimon]
a isn't it?
There is no overall conclusion, and if we went j7 through the FEMA report we wouldn't find a single overall 2
conclualon about route alerting, correct?
3 A
To draw the overall conclusion you would have to 4
look at a couple of objectives 2 that's correct.
5 Q
Including EOC objectivos, staging area and 6
field, correct?
7 A
In some casen, that's correct, and probably in 8
most.
9 Q
Well's let's go through it.
For route alerting, 10 you agree, don't you?
ti A
For ambulanco drivero, thero in no staging area 12 required.
That goes out of the EOC. So that there wouldn't 13
- -,( )
be a staging area.
That's what I'm saying.
There may be
. 's-u exceptions, but in general you're right.
Q For ambulances there was no ataging area, but 16 there were both EOC and field objectiven, correct?
11 A
Yen.
is Q
And for the achool preparednean, that's the 19 name, EOC and field objectiven, correct, becauno there was 20 no staging area activition for ochool preparodnoso?
21 A
Well, thoro wan for the Ridge School.
So thoro 22 may have boon.
I don't know whether they put it thero or 23 not, but thoro was a staging area requiremont for Ridge to 2t I
have a buo diapatched from a staging area.
2s
07800303 7275 marysimons i
Q But you consider that Ridge demonstration that
\\#
you discuss in your testimony as backup activity by LERO, 2
I correct?
3 A
It was FEMA testing LERO's ability to provide 4
assistance to a school that requested it.
So it's a backup 5
to the schools that's correct.
6 0
It's not a demonstration of what the schools 7
could do in the event of an emergency, correct?
l 8
A That's correct.
l 9
l 0
With respect to bus drivers in Contention 21(b),
l 10 that involved separate objectives at the EOC level, staging 11 area and field, correct?
12 A
Yes, that's correct, though again not all
(])
subparts can have all three.
I think congregate care is one 14 and here I'm not sure that that has a staging area 15 l
function.
I'm just saying in general you're correct, but 16 you've got to look at each example.
17 0
Well, the ones we've covered.
18 A
The ones you've covered are correct so far.
l I?
l 0
If you go back to page 3 of your testimony, you 20 criticize the government's intentions and you state that l
21 they are not wrong because they define narrowly the relevant 22 points of observation for a given emergency response 23 function and then argue that the sample size chosen by FEMA l
for that isolated portion was too small.
Had intervenors 25 O
XJ l
l
07800303 7276 carysimons
/ (,
focused instead on FEMA's review of the entire emergency 1
response function, as they should have, then it would have 2
been clear that FEMA conducted a detailed review of the 3
performance of the LERO organization that intervenors claim 4
are meritless.
5 Focusing just on field activities for a moment, FEMA did not review with respect let's say for route alert 7
drivers all potential field activities, did it?
They only 8
looked at a sample of three out of I believe 60 route alert 9
drivers.
10 A
They looked at 3 out of 44.
There are 16 that 11 in theory are left for deaf notification.
12 l
Q The are under the rubric of route alert, right?
13
-[])
I l A
Right, but they are not all used for it.
I a
believe it's 44 that's the right number.
15 0
So it's a sample of 3 out of 44 or a sample of 3 16 out c>f 60 were in fact what was looked at in FEMA's review 11 of field objective five; is that correct?
18 A
They looked at three failed sirens and therefore 19 three route alert drivers; that's correct.
20 0
And you criticized the governments for focusing 21 on Field Objective 5, but isn't it true that FEMA itself had 22 a separate objective that they evaluated solely in the 23 context of the field activities for route alert drivers, 24 Field Objective 5, correct?
25
-n+-
e-rm mm,
,,-n.
g,-+w
-ny,,
g.,n,
--n.
-.- ~. - - -,--s----wn.owne,<v-cc,,
y ups n-,--n-,--
w,we,mw,--
,,r-n--
07800303 7277 carysimons A
That's correct, but'I think you have to go look
().'
at the points of review which are a little broader than that 2
I believe.
They look at stage area activities I believe to 3
some extent in that Field Objective 5, too.
But in general 4
you're correct, they had a separate one for route alerting. '
5 Q
Mr. Daverio, I see you've got notes.
6 A
These are the Daverio notes.
7 (Laughter.)
8 Q
.I don't criticize you for having notes up there 9
at all, sir.
Can you describe generally what you're 10 referring to in your testimony?
11 A
Well, it's not in my testimony.
12 Q
Well, in answering the questions.
(])
A To prepare myself for this testimony I took your 14 Contention 21(a) and made a matrix out of it which gives.me 15 the reference objectives that you have, the exactly words 16' out of the FEMA report for that objective, the points of 17 review that FEMA looked at for that objective, some notes I 18 took while I read all of FEMA observer forms on each of 19 those and then a column I entitled " Comment" which I wrote 20 down notes as I read the LERO procedures or my knowledge of 21 LERO procedures so that when you asked me a question on 22 21(a) on one sheet of paper I have all the information I 23 need.
I've done that for each of the subparts.
24 MR. LANPHER:
You didn't have a great weekend, 25
(:)
07800303 7278 Emarysimons did you?
WITNESS DAVERIO:
No, I did not.
2 (Laughter.)
3 My family agrees with you, too.
4 MR. LANPHER:
Well, we won't get into that.
5 (Laughter.)
6 BY MR. LANPHER:
7 0
Would you agree, Mr. Daverio, that for the 8
governments to have focused on FEMA's review of so-called 9
the entire emergency response function, such as route alert, 10 you would have to then look at FEMA's review having to do 11 with a number of specific objectives, EOC objectives, 12 staging area and field?
13
()
A To try t,o evaluate the end response you have to review the whole organizational respohse in the function 15 area; that's correct.
16 Q
But FEMA did not come up with that kind of a 17 conclusion about the entire emergency response by LERO in 18 say the route alert area?
19 A
I have a problem with that broad a statement. I 20 believe FEMA takes each of those objectives, writes up a 21 finding or what they think happened and draws conclusions on 22 each one.
While they may not say this is the overall 23 conclusion, it's my opinion if you look at their report you 24 can put those three together very easily, and if there was a 25
'07800303 7279 marysimons
(-)'.
mistaken in two it,may affect three at the staging area, but es 1
they don't specifically use those words; that's correct.
2 Q
FEMA doesn't pull those various objectives for 3
functional areas, like route alerting or bus drivers 4
together in one place?
5 A
I think they do in some cases.
If you look at 6
traffic impediments, I think if you look at their writeup 7
they do interrelate how field activities may have been 8
impacted by EOC activities.
So I think if they see a 9
problem and they find an interrelationship that causes that 10 problem, I believe they do write it in their report.
11 Q
Well, with respect to the four areas that we've 12 been focusing on so far this morning, ambulances, route
()
alert, bus drivers and school preparedness, they don't do it 14 for any of those four, do they?
15 A
They don't have specific words in there; that's 16 Correct.
17 Q
. Now looking at the bottom of page 3 and the top 18 of page 4 of your testimony you talk about LILCO's 19 mobilization of a large number of workers.
Do you see that 20 testimony?
21 A
Yes, I do.
22 Q
And you cite on page 4 facilities such as the 23 ENC, the Brookhaven area office and the system service 24
' operator offices.
Now none of those offices or facilities 25
07800303 7280 marysimons c ')
are the subject of Contention Ex-21, are they?
1
-u/
2 3
I 4
5 l
l 6
l l
i 7
8 9
10 11 12 ex 13
'k l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l
21 22 23 24 25
]
.n i
-. __~.
i 07800404
'7281 cuewalsh~
A Could you repeat those again, which ones you --
).
I Q
Well, you reference ENC, the emergency news 2
center, the Brookhaven area office, and the system service 3
L operator offices.
Those facilities, whether they were a
mobilized or not, have nothing to do with Contention EX-21, 5
do they?
6 1
A The ENC and the Brookhaven area office, probably 7
not, and were just included for general information.
To sum 8
3 extent, if the system service operator didn't perform, there i.
9 would have been no exercise.
He does all the initial i
10 notification to mobilize all the forces.
11 Q
With respect to the specific subparts of 12 Contention 21 we are dealing with here, there is no
- i(])
allegation about that office and your testimony doesn't i4 address in terms of what it did, does it?
15 A
That's right.
These are -- some of these are t-16 generally in for just background information.
17 Q
Okay.
You state also in that same paragraph 18 that FEMA evaluators were present at the major facilities, 19 including schools in the EPZ.
20 Now, the only schools that evaluators were at 21 was at one school, the Shoreham-Wading River, correct?
22 A
I believe they evaluated the Shoreham-Wading i
23 River School District.
They used the high school, because that's where the administrative offices are.
25 C:)
l 1
a
07800404 7282 cuewalsh
- )\\
Q They went to one school, correct?
/
l "J
A That's correct.
2 Q
And that was the only school the evaluators went 3
to?
4 A
Yes, that's correct.
5 0
At the top of Page 5 you reference personnel 6
from the Red Cross and again th Department of Energy, Coast 7
Guard.
Those personnel had nothing to do with Contention 8
21, correct?
9 A
That's correct.
10 Q
Why did you include them in this testimony?
11 A
We were just talking about a general background 12 of how many people we notified and mobilized.
13
})
Q Is this just for background purposes?
<u 3a A
Those specific ones, that's correct, to put the 15 whole thing in context.
16 Q
You state near the end of that carry-over 17 paragraph from Page 4, on Page 5 about six lines down, that 18 "All exercise participants implemented all aspects of their 19 procedures except those that would have had an impact on the 20 public."
21 That's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it?
22 We went through this the other day on 15 and 16.
You didn't 23 implement the procedure of calling up WALK radio, right?
24 A
It may have been an overstatement, that's 25 1
07800404 7283 cuswalch correct.
And, it goes on the caveats of all the things that
(, /\\
1
\\-
we have testified on.
2 You could find, as we discussed in training, 3
someone who didn't follow their procedure precisely, too.
4 So, it was a general overview which may --
5 Q
I'm talking in terms of --
6 A
-- have been an overstatement.
7 0
-- out and out omissions, though, not failures 8
to --
9 A
That's correct.
We didn't call WALK.
They 10 simulated that, so they followed their procedures up to this 11 extent of simulating it.
12 O
You didn't call all the schools?
13
((])
A That 's right.
14 Q
So, this should not be taken literally, that 15 sentence that all exercise participants implemented, et 16 cetera, right?
17 A
No.
It should be taken literally.
All aspects 18 of their procedures.
They may have called simulated people, 19 but they followed all aspects of their procedures.
20 But they didn't im lement their procedures Q
e 21 completely, did they, short of effecting the public?
22 A
Given that they were using simulators, one could 23 argue that they did implement all their procedures by 24 calling someone.
They didn't call the real number; that's 25 OO
07800404 7284
- cuswalsh-Correct.
l')l 1
\\/
Q And, they didn't interact with real people from 2
those other organizations, did they?
3 A
Other than the ones we discussed last week, 4
that's correct.
5 Q
Okay.
And, the participants did not implement 6
their ingestion pathway procedures and the recovery and re-7 entry either, did they, as we discussed last week?
8 A
Well, I'm not sure we agreed entirely.
There 9
was one calculation done by the Rad Health Coordinator based 10 on smear data which was an ingestion pathway beginning, j
11 Q
But, tnat wasn't all aspects of your ingestion 12 pathway procedures, Mr. Daverio.
13
{]}
A Th,at's correct.
Q ~
Okay.
Now, Mr. Daverio, on Page 5 you talk 15 about the other off-site exercises of which I am aware.
16 Now, which exercises are you relying on there, sir?
17 A
Oh, I think in general what I was talking about 18 here is the --
19 Q
No, no.
I want to know which exercises you are 20 relying on first.
21 A
I'm relying on my general knowledge of exercises 22 based on my participation with the New York Power Pool 23 Committee in dealing with New York State.
I've been at four 24 exercises.
I'm also a member of the AIF Subcommittee on 25 6
07800404 7285 euewalsh Emergency Planning, so I hear many people talk about what 7-they do at other exercises.
2 I don't think I relied on a specific exercise.
3 I'm talking about my general eight years in emergency 4
planning background and having talked to people in that 5
period to have a feel for the general types of samples FEMA 6
uses.
7 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, I was led to believe 8
earlier that this testimony was directed to exercises in 9
which Mr. Daverio specifically had participated.
Now, I 10 heard something quite different in terms of what the scope 11 of this testimony was, in terms of the other exercise 12 aspects.
()
If it were limited strictly to exercises at 14 which Mr. Daverio actually participated the hearsay would be 15 fairly direct.
But, if we are now talking about what he has 16 picked up through AIF meetings and the Power Pool Committee 17 and this, we are getting down to multiple levels of hearsay.
18 I don't think this is probative.
And, if you 19 want me to probe it and go through it, I think it's a waste 20 of time.
I think this testimony ought to be struck for the 21 reasons that were set forth in our motion to strike before.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, Mr. Daverio, can you clarify 23 the situation for me?
I tend to agree with the 24 characterization of your testimony.
25
07800404 7286 cuewalsh Is that correct or not?
/_;\\
i WITNESS DAVERIO:
Mr. Lanpher's 2
characterization?
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
WITNESS DAVERIO:
This -- these statements here 5
are based on my experience having been at a couple of Indian 6
Point exercises, been to Ginna and Nine Mile, but more 7
generally based on my -- just experience of eight years in 8
the industry and talking to people and being at conferences 4
9 where these types of subjects come up.
10 I can't say that I rely on one specific exercise 11 though for this statement.
12 MR. LANPHER:
Then, I -- thank you, Mr.
[)
Daverio.
I renew my motion, then.
The primary basis is not specific exercises; the 15 primary basis is this -- these discussions that he has had.
16 And, I don't mean to belittle what Mr. Daverio has done over 17 the years, but I don't think this leads to the kind of 18 probative evidence that you have previously indicated ought 19 to be the subject of cross-examination.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Zeugin.
21 MR. ZEUGIN:
Mr. Daverio, from his answers, has 22 clearly established himself as an expert in emergency 23 planning.
He has stated that he is relying on his being at 24 four exercises in part for this as well as his various other 25
07800404 7287
-cuewalsh background knowledge, be it from membership in New York
,()
1 State Power Pool meetings or in AIF Emergency Planning 2
Subcommittee meetings.
3 I think there is clearly a factual basis, and 4
Mr. Daverio has clearly identified it, for this testimony, 5
and his expertise to give this particular testimony.
I 6
think the testimony is relevant.
7 And, Mr. Lanpher's argument is simply going to 8
the weight to be given the testimony and not its relevance.
9 And, therefore, it is not a prcper basis for striking this 10 particular testimony.
11 JUDGE FRYE:
And, we are talking-about this full 12 paragraph on Page 57
()
MR. LANPHER:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Daverio made clear 14 his primary basis is not the four exercises he has attended.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Does the Staff have a view?
16 MR. BARTH:
I think, Judge Frye, that this is no 17 different in quantity than the focus interviews of Dr.
18 Cole's which are hearsay and had not been stricken.
This is 19 an expert who is testifying on the basis of his past 20 knowledge in the field, which was much the explanation that 21 Dr. Cole gave for the fccus interviews as hearsay.
22 MR. LANPHER:
I beg to differ.
Dr. Cole 23 specifically conducted each or those interviews that he 2s relied upon.
We are in a very different situation here.
25 0
07800404 7288 suewalsh JUDGE FRYE:
New York would support the motion, i(a's 1
f 'J then?
2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes.
3 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I would merely note 4
also that the paragraph basically talks about -- if you look 5
at the entire paragraph -- the FEMA methodology and how it 6
goes about conducting other exercises.
Mr. Daverio, having 7
been at four exercises, clearly has a basis for this 8
testimony as well as the other grounds he has noted.
9 MR. LANPHER:
That's not the basis he is 10 claiming, number one, Judge Frye.
11 Number two, if LILCO thinks this is important 12 they ought to pursue that with FEMA.
They are the proper 13 7~)
witnesses on how FEMA goes about exercises if LILCO believes Jss i4 that is relevant.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I'm inclined to agree with 16 that remark, that FEMA is the primary -- has got to be the 17 primary source for this sort of information.
18 Now, how much -- if we were to leave this in, is 19 this going to create a big glitch in your cross-examination 20 plan subject to --
21 MR. LANPHER:
That shouldn't be the basis, Judge 22 Frye.
Come on.
23 There is not going to be a big glitch one way or 24 the other, I will be hones with you on that.
But, I don't 25 O
r
a 07800404 7289 cuewalsh want to have in the testim,ony and have findings cited to me stuff that I don't think is proper.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
3 MR. LANPHER:
If it stays in, I will have to 4
pursue more cross-examination.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
We will grant your 6
motion.
7 MR. LANPHER:
Thank you.
So, that whole 8
paragraph starting, "In this respect...?"
9 JUDGE FRYE:
That's right.
10 MR. LANPHER:
Thank you, sir.
11 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 12 Q
Mr. Daverio, let's go to Page 8.
That sentence
()
at the top of the page, if I ask you questions about the 14 basis for that sentence at the top of the page, plus the is sentence after the "However" sentence, the ones that we 16 talked about before with the Judges, is the basis for those 17 sentences the same as you have previously described; that 18 is, your general knowledge of exercises, the Power Pool 19 Committee, AIF Subcommittee, your eight years as the primary 20 basis and the less important basis, the four exercises you 21 have attended, the four other than Shoreham, sir?
22 A
I don't know how much of less importance, but 23 the answer would be in general the same, that's correct.
24 MR. LANPHER:
Thank you.
The same motion, Judge 25
~.
07800404 7290 cuewalsh
.._ i Frye.-
JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Granted.
Now, what are 2
we talking about here?
Are we talking about the entire 3
paragraph at this point?
4 MR. LANPHER:
Well, we have taken one paragraph 5
out before, but now it's the entire --
6 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I guess I would like 7
clarification as to why the Board has now decided to reverse e
its earlier ruling and strike this particular testimony.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Because I think, as Mr. Lanpher 10 indicated, what we had understood earlier was that the 11 testimony was based on Mr. Daverio's participation in other 12 exercises.
And, now it appears that that's only --
13
[]
MR. ZEUGIN:
He clearly has, Judge Frye, participated in four other exercises.
He has stated those 15 exercises.
16 If that isn't a factual basis, I don't know what 17 is.
I don't -- I guess for that reason, I don't understand 18 the basis.
It is certainly one of the bases he has 19 identified.
20 If the Board feels that is the only relevant 21 basis he should talk to, then I think he can certainly 22 defend it based on his observations at those four 23 exercises.
But, he has identified those exercises and he 24 has clearly stated that he was at those exercises.
- And, 25
07800404 7291 cuewalsh that is one of the bases for this testimony.
(._)
I JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Let us confer at the 2
break.
I would like to have an. opportunity to confer with 3
my fellow Board members rather than passing notes back and 4
forth.
5 MR. LANPHER:
Okay.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
So, why don't you continue for now 7
and we will give you a ruling after the break?
8 MR. LANPHER:
Okay.
Thank you, Judge.
9 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing))
10 Q
Mr. Daverio, I want to turn your attention to 11 Page 4 of your testimony.
It's the last paragraph before 12 Question 6.
You state about halfway through that -- well,
{])
in that answer you say:
"In my view, given the 14 comprehensive context of FEMA's observation of the overall 15 exercise, FEMA's use of random samples to review this last 16 group of activities is appropriate and the size of the 17 samples chosen by FEMA was adequate to draw meaningful 18 conclusions about LERO's performance."
19 Now, when you state "last group of activities,"
20 you are referring above to traffic guides, bus drivers and 21 specifically in the field objective context?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
Okay.
Thank you.
Now, is it your testimony 24 that FEMA used random samples with respect to route alert 25 O
07800404 7292 cuewalsh
,a bus drivers or with respect to bus drivers, not route alert l
)
bus drivers?
2 A
Yes.
I'm trying to figure out where they fit in 3
LERO.
4 (Laughter.)
5 Q
Is it your testimony that FEMA used random 6
samples in the bus demonstration?
7 A
Random to the extent that they were not pre-8 chosen.
It wouldn't be statistically random, if that's 9
what's you are asking.
10 0
Well, I want to know how you used --
11 A
Well, " random" if you looked it up in the 12 dictionary means done haphazardly in general.
And, what 13
[)
they did there, as I understand it, it was -- all the bus drivers were available.
They chose someone.
It may not be 15 statistically random, but it was random.
16 Q
Now, they also -- FEMA did not use random 17 selection for the selection of the bus routes that would be 18 demonstrated, did they?
19 A
They didn't -- those chose bus routes from a 20 sample.
We were not involved with how they chose those bus 21 routes, so I don't really know that I can speak to their 22 exact process.
23 0
Well, isn't it true that prior to the exercise 24 FEMA looked at the scenario, the kind of accident, and 25 E) i.w I
.-n-.--
07800404 7293 sunwalch decided:
Well, it's pretty clear that LILCO is going to
\\ ')
1 I
have to seek to evacuate at least a portion of the EPZ, so 2
we are going to pre-select bus routes within that portion 3
for our demonstration?
4 A
That's my understanding of what they did, but we 5
weren't involved in doing that.
That's what I was trying to 6
say.
7 Q
But, you don't disagree with that general 8
characterization of what FEMA did?;#
9
/
A That's correct.
But. I don't know within that 10 subset of A through J that they chose within how they chose 11 what they chose.
So, I don't know --
12 O
You don't know if it was random or not o.
13
(,)
whether they had special criteria to select particular bus routes?
You don't know.
IS A
Well, I know from reading some of the 16 depositions that they wanted to look at a certain amount of 17 transfer points, so there were different factors they 18 weighed when they picked the sample.
19 Q
So, the selection of the routes that would be 20 demonstrated was not statistically random, correct?
21 There were other criteria that FEMA used.
22 A
Yeah.
When I use the word " random" here I'm not 23 using it with statistics in -- or statistically in front of 24 it.
25
(~J
's
(_
07800404 7294 cucw310h
,J Q
Okay.
Fine.
That clarifies that.
Now, you
!]
1
\\
state that -- in that same sentence that I read on Page 6, 2
you state that the size of the samples chosen by FEMA was 3
adequate to draw meaningful conclusions about LERO's 4
performance.
5 Now, you are talking, are you not, about the 6
size of the samples with respect to those designated field 7
activities, right?
8 (The witness is looking at a document.)
9 A
Yes, and the types of activities that have to be 10 performed within those samples.
That's correct, in Q-Well, you say " meaningful conclusions."
Do you 12 mean statistically meaningful conclusions?
13 O( \\
.A No.
I don't believe I used the word 34
" statistically" in the testimony at all'.
What I am saying 15 here is they can draw meaningful conclusions given they are 16 an expert agency on LERO's performance based on their 17 evaluation of what we did that day.
18 Q
Well, LERO's performance with respect to those 19 particular field activities, correct?
That's the context of 20 your sentence, right?
21 A
Well, if you go aaove, we talk about the overall 22 j
exercise.
But, in this context I'm saying when you take a 23 look at the activities to be performed there FEMA, in my i
24 opinion, did what they do as an expert agency every place, 25 D
- - ~
07800404 7295 suCwalch decided on a sample that would allow them to draw
.()
I organizational and functional area conclusions.
And, that's 2
what they did.
3 But, they are not statistically determined.
4 Q
Well, let's take an example.
Turn to Page 14, j
5 please, for one moment.
This is -- you state that FEMA 6
accompanied eight bus drivers on their field assignments and 7
you say that you believe this sample of eight was sufficient 8
to draw meaningful conclusions about this activity.
9 Now, "this activity" is bus drivers' ability to 10 go from the staging areas to the bus depots, pick up their 11 buses, go to transfer points, pick up their routes and drive 12 their routes; is that correct?
13
- ()
A Well, there is also a -- at least, looking back 14 at the FEMA evaluator forms in this area, they talk about 15 briefings and packets and equipment.
So, if you look at the 4
16 4
points of review FEMA had for this, it was reference 17 Appendix A which is the evacuation plan.
The OPIP that gets 18 buses dispatched and out in the field, and presence of 19 equipment is specified in the OPIP's also.
20 So, I think FEMA looked at it a little bit 21 broader than only what you said but it included what you l-22 said.
23 0
Well, in fact, the dispatch of, say, bus 1
24 dhivers, while it's included on the review forms for Field 9 25 O
4
-, + - - - - -,, - -
,.,,7
.---v-.----,,--,,------.-c-
-<-----r--
07800404 7296 cu;walch
-a was also reviewed in the context of the field dispatch objective which --
2 A
I think you mean Staging Area 9.
3 Q
Staging Area 9; isn't that correct?
4 A
That's correct.
5 0
So, there is a bit of overlap, right?
6 A
There is a bit of overlap.
7 Q
And, in the FEMA report when it talks about how 8
the bus drivers did in performance on Field 9, they don't 9
talk about their dispatch, do they?
10 l
That's reserved for the staging area discussion, it isn't it?
12 A
I don't recall.
I would have to go back and 13
}])
look if you wanted me to.
I don't recall that specifically right now.
15 0
Well, the FEMA report will speak for itself on 16 that.
17 A
If that's in the record, I believe so.
It can, 18 that's correct.
19 Q
Okay.
Thanks.
Now, looking at Page 14 then, 20 you talk about FEMA having accompanied the bus drivers.
You 21 are talking here about FEMA's -- not about the dispatch of j
22 them or the picking up of their packets, you are talking 1
23 about really their field stuff, what they do in terms of 24 getting the buses and doing their routes, right?
25 O
4
07800404 7297 su:wsloh A
In this particular paragraph, that's correct.
t~)>
Q And, it's your testimony, sir, that -- well, 2
1 there are 333 bus drivers that may be required at any one 3
time; is that right?
4 A
That's the total for the general population.
5 Q
For the general population?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
And, it's your testimony that by looking at 8
eight bus drivers on their field assignments that FEMA could 9
reach a meaningful conclusion about how other bus drivers i
10 would do, bus drivers that were not observed by FEMA; is 11 that your testimony?
12 A
It's my testimony, as it says here, that all 13
(])
LILCO/LERO bus drivers have New York State driver's 14 licenses; therefore, that part of it is accepted.
They have 15 a valid license to drive a bus.
16 So, you are not testing them to drive the bus.
17 0
And, that wasn't a review criterion either, was it?
19 A
No, it wasn't.
20 Q
A point of review?
21 A
That's right.
22 Q
Okay.
So, let's go back to the question.
Do 23 you believe that a meaningful conclusion can be reached 24 regarding bus drivers who -- regarding the capabilities of 25
)
(
07800404 7298 cucwalch
,a bus drivers who were not observed by FEMA to perform their
/ )
1
\\/
jobs based upon FEMA's review of the eight bus driver 2
sample?
3 A
I think FEMA could draw conclusions using the 4
eight bus drivers on whether bus drivers had the equipment 5
available to them to do it and whether they knew what they 6
were doing.
7 So, FEMA could draw a conclusion as to whether 8
bus drivers could actually perform the duties they are
?
required, given that the functions they have to perform are 10 rather straightforward as we talk on the bottom there.
They 11 are common place and everyday.
Driving a bus, these people 12 drive large equipment everyday.
13
( ') -
Q But, looking at a sample of eight bus drivers, o~s na you believe that FEMA could reach a conclusion about the 15 capability of the other 300 plus, 325, bus drivers to 16 perform as required in the event of an emergency?
17 A
I think FEMA, by looking at eight, could draw a 18 meaningful conclusion if they reviewed not only the 19 performance but also have an understanding of the plan and 20 procedures so that they understand the conclusion that they 21 are drawing.
22 In other words, you can't say eight bus drivers 23 did something in a vacuum.
You have to know what that means 24 in relation to the plan and procedures.
And, when FEMA sets 25 O
.V l
1
07800404 7299 cusw;1ch up sample sizes, they know the plan and procedures, they
\\/
know how many staging areas there are, and they make a 2
determination of what they think they need to see to 3
determine the functioning of that functioning unit or the 4
bus driver function from the EOC out completely.
(
5 l
And, then based on resources they allocate their i
6 l
resources to see what they think are the more important and l
7 l
try to see as much as they can of the whole functional area.
8 Q
What is the basis for that last answer regarding 9
what FEMA thinks?
10 A
Only by the way they developed this exercise in 11 working with them and --
12 0
It's not based on personal discussion on why do 13
(])
you draw -- why do you choose eight here?
A I've never asked that specific question.
15 Q
Okay.
So, you are surmising really your answer 16 of why FEMA did it that way, aren't you?
17 A
I know how they developed the exercise, because 18 I worked with them in that and I'm surmising that they did a l
good job in developing it.
That's correct.
20 l
21 22 23 24 25
07800505 7300 j:Cw310h 0
When you say that they could draw a meaningful conclusion, again you don't mean a statistically meaningful 2
conclusion at all, do you?
3 A
As I stated previously, I do not use the word 4
" statistics" in this testimony at all.
So, it's not 5
statistically meaningful.
6 0
Then, how would the conclurion be meaningful?
7 A
From an organizational and functional area point 8
of view, FEMA, being an expert agency, can draw a conclusion 9
on the functioning of that unit.
10 Q
How can they draw a conclusion from looking at only a -- how can they draw a conclusion about how the 12 personnel who were not observed would, in fact, perform?
{)
On what basis would FEMA draw that conclusion?
i, m
A Based on the people receiving the same training, 15 using the same equipment, the maps, the performance aids 16 that they have, FEMA could then draw a conclusion as to what 17 they think negatively and positively on the bus function.
18 Q
But it is your testimony that eight is enough to 19 look at, to be able to reacn overall conclusions about how 20 the other 325 would perform?
21 A
I think based on knowing the plan and procedures 22 and the other items I just mentioned to you, one could draw 23 some conclusions, that's correct.
24 Q
How does knowing the plan and procedures help 25
,s
07800505 7301 joew310h you to know how people would perform in implementing the
,rs i
plan and procedures insofar as the bus driver activities?
2 A
If you don't know the plan and procedures, you 3
cannot determine what failure is, whether good or bad 4
occurred.
So, you have to have an understanding of what you 5
want to look for before you can go look for it.
And, that's 6
what FEMA does in their points of review.
7 They put down what the good performance would 8
be, what their trained expert observers are going to look 9
for, and then they go out and look for those things.
10 Q
So, you know what the points of review are.
You 11 need to look at the plan to know what the points of review 12 are.
13
(])
Once you have established the points of review, so you know what to look for when the bus drivers get out 15 there and do their thing, how does knowing that information 16 help you generalize from the eight bus driver sample to a 17 conclusion about how all bus drivers would do in an actual 18 emergency?
19 I don't understand the connection between having 20 points of review.
I agree you need those so you can judge 21 people, judge those you looked at, but how can you make a.
22 generalization from such a small sample?
23 A
Because the bus driver has a procedure that he 24*
uses that walks him through it.
If the procedure is good 25
07800505 7302 j ewalsh j
and the instructions are good and the job performance aids l'1 1
'/
are good, one can use those to help you draw conclusions on 2
the other 325 as you mentioned.
3 Q
So, your testimony is if the plan and procedures 4
are good, FEMA ought to be able to assume that people will 5
be able to carry those out?
6 A
No.
That's why they take a sample of whatever 7
size to see if they can carry out the plans and procedures 8
that look good on paper.
9 Q
But you think essentially that the size of the 10 sample is not very important?
11 A
I wouldn't say it's not important.
I would say 12 it has to be something that one feels is adequate.
13
(}
Q How do you decide what is adequate?
A You must look at -- in this case, FEMA looked at 15
-- there were three staging areas.
They wanted to take a 16 sample of each one, and they did.
They looked at -- and 17 based on that, they came up with eight that would be a 18 sample that would allow them to draw functional area 19 conclusions for each staging area and organizational 20 conclusions in general.
21 Q
You don't know whether FEMA attempted to draw 22 statistically valid conclusions with respect to bus drivers, 23 do you, bus driver parformance?
24 A
It would be my general knowledge that I don't 25
07800505 7303 joewalch believe FEMA uses statistically valid sampling techniques.
('.s')
1
\\>
Q Mr. Daverio, you don't consider yourself an 2
expert in statistics, do you?
3 A
I was waiting for that question.
4 Q
You were?
5 (Laughter.)
6 A
Yes.
7 0
What did your counsel tell you you should say?
8 No, you don't have to answer that one.
9 (Laughter.)
10 A
He told me to tell the truth.
I --
11 Q
No one ever accuses you of not, Chuck.
You go 12 right ahead.
13
(])
A I've taken graduate level courses in probability 14 and statistics, and I was actually talking to Dr. Simon 15 before, because I actually took a graduate level course in 16 operation -- my graduate level work is from NYU in 17 operations research when it was in the Engineering School 18 before it was in the Business School.
I was asking him why 19 it moved.
I know they closed the campus but --
20 So, I've taken probability statistics in 21 graduate school and I've just finished a course in economics 22 where we used statistics to do hypothesis testing.
I don't 23 consider myself an expert, but I have knowledge in the 24 field.
25 1
_n
07800505 7304 jo3walch
,_4 Q
You have got a working knowledge of statistics?
A I have to go look at the text book.
I can 't do 2
it from memory.
3 Q
Okay.
I would like to direct your attention to 4
Page 9 of your testimony.
This is pertaining to Contention 5
21.A, that's the route alert portion.
And, maybe we can 6
cover this fast, because I asked you some general questions 7
before about FEMA's review methodology in the EOC, staging 8
area field activities.
9 The first paragraph on Page 9, you talk about 10 EOC activities.
And, these matters which are discussed by 11 you in the first paragraph on Page 9, these would all be 12 evaluated by FEMA, if they are evaluated at all, in the 13
[)
context of EOC objectives; isn't that correct?
A The activities discussed in Paragraph 1 occur at 15 the EOC, correct.
16 Q
And, so they would be evaluated, if they are 17 evaluated at all by FEMA, in the context of EOC objectives; 18 isn't that correct?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
And, for instance, in the post exercise 21 assessment report at Page 30, there is discussion in the 22 context of EOC Objective 7, the ability of the EOC to 23 transmit a message to the staging area that there had been 24 siren failures.
I believe that's the first full paragraph 25
s% 2
.y s--
07800505 7305
_jecwalch on Page 30, Mr. Daverio.
1
~
(The witness is looking at a document.)
2 Do you see the sentence, "For example, 3
information properly identifying the numbers of sirens which i
4 did not activate and their associated zone designations was 5
transmitted to the appropriate staging areas within 20 6
minutes after the EOC had been informed."
7 Do you see that?
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q
And, so this activity having to do with route 10 alert generally was evaluated in the context of EOC 11 Objective 7, correct?
12 A
That's correct.
13
( }-
Q And if y,ou turn to Page 35, at the very top of Page 35, of the exercise report, again matters related to 15 sirens at the EOC was evaluated in the context of the EOC 16 Objective 16, the organizational ability to manage an 17 evacuation, correct?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
At the bottom of Page 9 of your testimony, you 20 state that Contention 21.A focuses only on FEMA's review of 21 the last of these actions.
You mean the field actions, 22 i
right?
23 A
That's correct.
24 Q
And, you say that the contention fails to 25 O
07800505 7306
[
joewalsh i
acknowledge that FEMA observed all of the preceding steps in the backup notification process save Marketing Evaluations.
2 Isn't it true that regardless of whether FEMA 3
- observed those or not, FEMA also graded as a separate matter 4
LILCO's ability to carry out Field Objective 5 5
A That's correct.
But, if you look at your 6
l contention you lump all three of them together.
\\
7 Q
Mr'. Daverio, the answer is, it's correct?
8 A
I said that.
That's correct.
9 Q
Page 10 of your testimony, you didn't correct l
10
(
the first full paragraph on that page, the fourth line.
You 11 say that the component objective Field 9 -- Field 9 relates 12 to buses.
Didn't you mean Field 5 there?
13
[('
A You are correct.
I didn't pick that up.
w
,a 0
.That should be a correction in your testimony?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
That's a nit but --
17 A
No..You are right.
IB Q
Okay.
While we are dealing with corrections, 19 look at Page 19, Mr. Daverio.
Answer 18, the fifth line, 20 the start of that line starts out, "At where they receive 21 dosimetry upon their arrival."
Shouldn't that just all be 22 deleted as a typo also?
23 A
Sorry, I lost you.
24 O
Page 19, fourth --
25 RD 1
-. ~
I 07800505 7307 joewalsh A~
Oh, I see that.
.1 Q
-- line, the fifth line of Answer 18.
2 (The witness is looking at the~ document.)
3 That's a typo also, isn't it?
Shouldn't that 4
just be-deleted?
I think the word processor went crazy.
5 A
Where they receive dosimetry upon their arrival 6
is what you think needs to be removed?
7 Q
Yeah.
You have got that in the previous 8
sentence, Mr. Daverio.
9 JUDGE PARIS:
He is talking about the next i
10 sentence, "At where they receive dosimetry.upon their 11 i
arrival."
12 WITNESS DAVERIO:
Oh, that's correct.
That is 13
(])
just a redundant sentence.
That can be removed.
14 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 15 Q
Okay.
All right.
Now, Mr. Daverio, on Page 10 16 you state in the context of only the field objective in 17 looking at three route alert drivers that you believe the 18 sample of route alert drivers observed by FEMA was 19 sufficient to ensure that the component of objective Field 5 l
20 as it relates to this field function was met.
I 21 l
Do you see that?
22 A
Yes, I do.
23 Q
Now, we talked about the basis for such a 24 conclusion with respect to the bus drivers.
Again, this is 4
25 O
I
~.,,,. -
,e,
,- -,,-..n-,-,
,.,,,,,,,.rn,,,
~,~,--.,.,-n--
--n
,~-.-.,-.v.-
,w
07800505 7308 joewalsh not a statistically valid conclusion, you are not asserting (a%
1 iNi that?
2 A
No, I'm not.
3
{
Q But, it is your testimony that in looking at I
three of 44 or three of 60 permits FEMA to reach a
)
5 1
l conclusion regarding how well or poorly other route alert 6
drivers who were not officially observed would perform in an 7
emergency situation; is that your testimony?
8 A
In this particular case, this probably reflects 9
reality.
You would only probably have a small number of 10 siren failures so that this is probably a realistic number 11 of people that might have to be sent out.
l 12 l
Q But, in the event of an emergency you don't know 13
"(})
which three of that 44 or 60 are going to be sent out, do 14 you?
15 A
That's correct.
16 Q
And, so is it your testimony that looking at 17 three let's you state with any kind of assurance how three 18 others might perform if they were sent out in the event of 19 an emergency?
20 A
No.
It's the same testimony I gave on the 21 buses.
In general, using the job performance aids, the maps 22 and being able to drive an area slowly is not a very complex 23 task.
And, I think FEMA, looking at three, one from each 24 staging area, could determine each-staging area knew how to 25
07800505 7309 joewalsh get people out and that people using those job performance
(
1 aids who have received the same training could perforra the 2
function.
3 4
5 6
7 4
8 9
]
10 11 j
12 13 14 15 16 17 i
18 4
l 19 20 21 22 23 t
l l
25
' O i
]
I i
_=.
07800606 7310 maryaimons Q
You say driving slowly on a route is not a tough
]\\
1 task.
If that your testimony?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
Well, some of the bus drivers who had to drive 4
on a route got messed up, didn't they?
5 A
One bus driver missed one turn and two bus 6
drivers had problens going to transfer point and staging 7
areas.
All would have been used effectively in an 8
emergency, but not perfectly.
9 Q
Three of the eight bus drivers that were 10 observed didn't follow directions, did they?
11 A
Three of the eight had problems in one fashion 12 or another.
No two had the same problem.
13
.({}
Q Mr. Daverio, my question is three of the eight following directions; that's true, isn't it?
15 A
Yes, and we explained that in our training 16 testimony.
i 17 Q
The answer is that's right, isn't it?
18 A
I said that first.
19 Q
Okay.
And you want on to say that the bus 20 drivers would still have been used properly, correct?
21 A
Effectively, or could have been effective.
22 Q
Now look at page 15 of your testimony for a 23 moment.
24 A
Which page, 157 25
07800606 7311 enry21monc Q
15. - It's just before Answer 13, and you're j"
I talking about the bus driver who went to the wrong transfer 2
point.
Do you see that?
3 A
Yes, I do.
4 Q
In that last sentence you say "Even if a 5
transfer point is short a bus, the buses can either assigned 6
to run extra routes or buses, or buses can be moved from one 7
transfer point to another."
Those are things that can be done if they have 9
to and the organization has the diversity and the 10 flexibility to do it.
11 Q
In the exercise, however, when that bus went to 12 the wrong transfer point, the personnel at the transfer
])
point didn't p,ick up that the bus was at the wrong place, ur-la did it?
f A
That's correct, and we have changed our 16 procedure now.
17 0
We're talking about what happened in the 18 exercise, Mr. Daverio.
The LERO organization in fact did 19 not pick that up during the exercise?
20 A
That's correct.
If it was a real emergency they 21 would have picked it up or could have picked it up.
22 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, I'm getting speeches 23 now.
I'm trying to ask narrow questions and I would like 24 narrow answers.
25
l 07800606 7312 marysimons JUDGE FRYE:
Yes, I think so, Mr. Daverio.
,O'.
1
\\-
MR. LANPHER:
You had too much rest this 2
weekend.
3 (Laughter.)
4 WITNESS DAVERIO:
You liked me'better the other 5
way.
6 MR. LANPHER:
I like you each way.
I like the 7
record I~make.
8 (Laughter.)
9 BY MR. LANPHER:
10 Q
In fact, isn't it true that the only reason that 11 that bus, the bus driver and the transfer point operator 12 learned of the mistake was because the FEMA evaluator 13
()
corrected them on the spot?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
Going back to page 10, the route alert, in f
16 talking about the route alert activities, you say "These are 17 not unusual activities that required extensive observation 18 to judge that they can be performed."
19 Isn't it true that it's standard practice in 20 exercises for FEMA to in fact follow route alert drivers 21 around to see if they can follow their routes and do whac 22 they're supposed to do?
23 A
In general that's true.
They don't always do 24 it.
25 O
1
)
{
L 07800606-7313 marysimons Q
But they generally do, right?
_(
1 A
Generally.
J~
2 Q
I would like to direct your attention to page 13 3
of the testimony, the second sentence of the first full 4
paragraph.
You state that " Contention 21(b) neglects FEMA's 5
review of the overall functioning of LERO's bus 6
organization."
7 Similar to the earlier questions I asked you, j
8 there is no FEMA review of the overall functioning, no 9
single review, right?
It's via a number of different objectives, correct, sir?
11 A
That's correct.
12 Q
At the bottom of that page, page 13, you've 13
]()
related a number of things that fall under both EOC, staging area and field objectives.
And then you conclude " FEMA 15 evaluated every stage of the bus transportation process and 16 had ample information to draw conclusions about that 17 p roces s. "
18 Do you see that statement?
19 A
Yes, I do.
20 Q
Again, the conclusions they drew were not in 21 terms of the overall bus process, but as to specific sub-22 activities of that process as delineated and reviewed in 23 specific objectives.
24 A
They don't use the specific words, but again, as 4
25 i
1 t
s l
. -..-. -. -...- - -. -. ~ -.-. -
07800606 7314 maryaimona I said, I think if you add what they've done together you k/
get a conclusion.
2 Q
FEMA nowhere in the FEMA report adds what they 3
did together, does it?
4 A
I think they draw conclusions on each objective; 5
that's correct.
6 Q
And they don't add those together, at least in 7
the Shoreham post-exercise assessment they report they 8
don't.
9 A
I know of some examples where they have added 10 them together, the traffic one being one, but in general 11 you're correct.
12 Q
Well, and for bus drivers specifically ---
13
(}
A Bus drivers, I don't recall them adding them together.
15 0
Okay.
On page 14 in talking about bus drivers 16 again, you state that "The bus drivers' field activities 17 were straightforward tasks that do not require the 18 observation of every bus driver to draw a conclusion."
19 Do you see that statement?
20 A
Yes, I do.
21 Q
What do you mean by straightforward task?
22 A
As a said a little earlier, common place, every 23 day.
You've got to realize the bus drivers for the bulk 24 come from the part of the company who every day of their 25 0
07800606 7315 marysimona existence within the company are given a street address or a
]-(J
\\-
pole and a map and are told to go find it and fix it, or 2
underground lines.
So they are used to that kind of 3
functioning of finding an area to perform an activity.
So 4
it was common place to them, and they have the New York 5
State license, as I mentioned earlier, which gives them the 6
right to drive the bus.
7 Q
Well, if they were so straight forward with 8
these tasks, you would have thought that the eight bus 9
s drivers who were chosen to do these straightforward tasks 10 wouldn't have had any trouble doing them, wouldn't you?
11 A
As I testified in training when we went back and 12 looked at it, there was a specific reason why there was a
]"3 problem out of Patchogue, which was the only place that we uJ ta had bus driver problems, and we have taken remedial actions is in our training program to correct it.
16 Q
So the task in fact during the exercise, at 17 least with respect to Patchogue, weren't all that 18 straightforward, were they?
19 A
The task was still straightforward.
The way we 20 had drilled them previously caused them to not perform in a 21 way we would like.
22 Q
Now you added as a correction I guess to page 15 23 a third Patchogue problem with bus drivers, correct?
24 A
That's correct.
Your contention alludes to the 25
07800606 7316 toryaimon3 three and we only had addressed two of them here.
(~N 1
N>
Q So you should really correct the testimony, the 2
second line of Answer 12 on page 14 as well, shouldn't you?
3 You say " FEMA's concern about bus operations at the 4
Patchogue staging area can be traced primarily to the fact 5
that one did one thing and another did another," right?
6 A
You could add a third there, but we added it at 7
1 the end.
There are three.
8 Q
So FEMA found problems with three of the four 9
bus driver demonstrations coming out of Patchogue?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
Going back to the top of page 14, the fact that 12 the bus drivers are licensed bus drivers.
What does that 13
(])
have to do with Contention Ex-21(b) that you're talking about here?
15 A
It's only another fact that FEMA knew when they 1
16 were considering how to do an exercise that the bus drivers 17 were licensed in the State of New York.
So you didn't have 18 to test them on driving buses.
19 Q
Don't you think the bus drivers probably that 20 are used in exercises or emergency response are licensed bus 21 drivers everywhere?
22 4
A I don't know whether there is or not a State 23 requirement in every State to have a license to drive a 24 bus.
There may be, but I don't know.
25
07800606 7317 marysimons Q
So you don't know whether this is a significant l
fact or not?
2 A
It's just a factor.
3 Q
And you don't know the degree of importance of 4
this fact?
5 A
To being able to respond it's important, but to 6
FEMA, no, I can't say how important it was to them.
1 Q
But these LERO personnel don't regularly drive 8
buses, do they?
9 A
No, Most of them normally drive large vehicles 10 within the company, trucks, line trucks and other such 11 vehicles.
12 Q
But not buses?
13
](
A, Not buses.
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Would this be a good time for a 15 break?
16 MR. LANPHER:
Whenever the Board wants to.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
Why don't we do that, take our 15-18 minute break.
19 (The mid-morning recess was taken from 10:30 20 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
21 JUDGE FRYE:
Shall we go back on the record.
22 Mr. Lanpher, we re-reviewed your objections to 23 the testimony on page 8 and page 5, and on further 24 consideration we think Mr. Zeugin has a good point with 25 RJ
07800606 7318 marysimons regard to the four exercises that Mr. Daverio has attended, O
and to that extent it would seem that he does have some 2
2 personal knowledge of the matters to which he testifies.
4 3
MR. LANPHER:
I can't hear you because of this 4
noise.
5 (Due to interruption of noise from the hallway 6
Mr. Lanpher goes to close the courtroom doors.)
7 JUDGE FRYE:
So I think we are inclined to admit 8
the testimony and treat your objection as going to weight, 9
the weight the testimony should be accorded as opposed to 10 excluding it entirely, and I believe that is consistent with 11 how we have treated other testimony in the past.
l 12 MR. LANPHER:
I've got so many lines through it i
O aow-14 (Laughter.)
I 15 JUDGE FRYE:
You need a clean copy.
j 16 (Laughter.)
17 MR. LANPHER:
Let me just seek a clarification.
18 You're readmitting it or whatever you're doing ---
19 JUDGE FRYE Well, we are reversing our ruling 20 striking it.
21 MR. LANPHER:
You said something to the effect 22 of limiting it insofar as Mr. Daverio attended four 23 exercises; is that correct?
24 JUDGE FRIE:
Yes.
25
.O l
i
- ~ _ -
07800606 7319 tarysimons MR. LANPHER:
So I don't need to probe what he 1
did at AIF meetings and this kind of stuff.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
No.
I think his personal knowledge t
3 l
obviously has to be limited to his attendance at exercises, 4
^
and he said that he attended four exercises.
But so far as 5
AIF meetings and that sort of thing, I don't think we would 6
be willing to accord it any weight on that basis whatsoever.
7 MR. LANPHER:
Okay.
Thank you.
Well, I will 8
i come back to that.
Let me finish the areas that I'm 9
pursuing at this time.
10 JUDGE FRYE Also, before you go on, as I think I said earlier, we regard FEMA as of course being the 12 primary source for this sort of information.
13 i
MR. LANPHER:
Why don't you strike it then.
14 (Laughter.)
l$
We've had this discussion before.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Right.
I know, because he was 11 there at four exercises.
So we are going to let it in.
18 j
MR. LAN7HER:
Fine.
I understand.
19 kI i
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) i 20 l
BY MR. LANPHER:
l 21 Q
Mr. Daverio, going to page 15 of your testimony j
22 having to do with bus drivers still, you have a citation to 23 the partial initial decision about bus transportation plan i
24 has enough flexibility and excess capacity to accommodate 25 i
07800606 7320 marysimons i
this error.
Isn't it true that the PID cite was in terms of I'T i
each bus's individual carrying capacity?
2 A
Yes.
It was talking about that we had excess 3
capacity and flexibility and in how we ran the buses.
4 That's correct.
5 Q
That PID discussion which you cite has nothing 6
to do with a bus going to the wrong transfer point or 7
leaving out part of a route, does it?
8 A
Not to my recollection.
9 Q
Now looking at page 16 at your discussion of 10 school preparedness, you state there that " FEMA's 11 observations of schools' activit ies was more than l2 sufficient.
Do you mean school activities?
Do you see the
-({}
word " schools" there?
What do you mean?
14 A
What we're talking about there, we're talking 15 about the different ranges of activities that a school could 16 have in an emergency plan.
You had really two or three 17 demonstrations of school activities on the day of the 18 '
exercise.
19 Q
So you really mean school activities and not 20 more than one school, but school activities, right?
21 A
Well, when you use the word " schools" and why 22 they didn't participate, that was the Ridge message.
It was 23 another school that was used.
But I think there we are 24 talking about in general the school at Shoreham Wading 25 i
l I
07800606 7321 marysimons pc(
River, the early dismissal decision by the Director that was done from home, not the early dismissal, but to close 2
schools that FEMA says they don't evaluate because it 3
happens too early in the morning and the assistance to the 4
Ridge School. So we're talking about three things in this testimony when I wrote that.
6 l
JUDGE PARIS:
But in this sentence school is 7
modifying activities, isn't it?
d WITNESS DAVERIO:
That's correct, and we're 9
talking about the different activities that were done at 10 different schools.
The Ridge message, while they did play it, was used during the day as a point.
12 BY MR. LANPHER:
13 s
[)
Q First of all, you're not talking about the early dismissal pre-EOC activation because FEMA didn't observe, 15 right?
16 A
I mentioned it happened, but FEMA didn't observe 17 it; that's correct.
So that's not part of your testimony on this portion?
19 A
It's my knowledge.
20 Q
Dut it's not part of your testimony ---
21 A
We don't reference it; that's correct.
22 0
of the three activities that you mention, only 23 two of them were school activities.
Those were the Shoreham 24 Wading activities.
The thing that happened at Ridge was not 25
07800606 1
7322 maryaimona an activity of any school district, right?
(~)
1
\\/
A That's correct.
2 Q
So you're down to really two activities, isn't 3
it, early dismissal by Shoreham Wading River and evacuation?
4 A
And evacuation of Shoreham Wading River, right.
5 Q
And in fact those demonstrations were in fact 6
only one demonstration.
Tney were the exact name thing.
7 A
The field was the same.
I believe the FEMA 8
evaluator talked to people about the two options.
So there 9
was more than just a field there.
10 0
It was part of one single evaluation by FEMA 11 looking at the same exact same actions by -- or pretend 12 actions by Shoreham Wading River School District and that 13
(^)
bus company, Seaman Bus Company, the FEMA evaluator decided m.
that there has been a demonstration of early dismissal by 15 Shoreham Wading River and there has also been a 16 demonstration of the capability to evacuate students.
17 A
The only thing I'm disagreeing with or 18 amplifying in I think the FEMA evaluator talked to them 19 about the two options at the school.
The demonstration was 20 the same in the field.
21 22 23 22 25
\\_)
07800707 7323 cu w31oh
- ]
Q Okay.
So, in fact, there was one activity, wasn't there?
2 A
Well --
3 Q
You talked about schools ' activities.
There was 4
l only one activity having to do which was performed by 5
schools, by a school, and that's what Shoreham-Wading River 6
did?
7 i
A You could defino it that way, but I've defined l
8 l
it that the activity of discussing the two options with the 9
ochool district is two different demonstrations of their 10 l
knowledge of the plan.
The field activity was one, that's i
11 Correct.
l2 l
Q And you counted discuncions with the I
13
}
Superintendent from Shoreham-Wading River School District as constituting a demonstration activity, correct?
Or, a 15 portion of a demonstration activity.
Or, more than one i
16 l
activity.
l 17 (The witnoon in looking at a document.)
la A
When we woro talking about this, the schools' 19 l
activition was the two, that's correct.
20 Q
My question -- I'm sorry if I confused you.
21 A
Okay.
22 l
Q The discunnion by I guoso it was Mr. Oaupor, the i
23 FEMA ovaluator, with Dr. Doromus and some other individual i
2t j
from Shoreham-Wading River School District, that discuncion 2s l
07800707 7324 cucwalch you count as part of the demonstration of school
('J T
i l
preparedness, correct?
2 l
A That's correct.
3 l
Q And, while that discussion was going on the l
4 evaluator missed the opportunity, in fact, to ride on the 5
buses and evaluate how the bus drivers did, correct?
6 A
lie did not ride the buses, that's correct.
7 Q
And, subsequently he went to the bus station and 8
talked with the bus dispatchers is that correct?
9 A
The bus company.
10 Q
Or the bus company.
l 11 l
A Yes, that's correct.
12 l
Q And, he was told at that time that the buses had l (])
driven wherever they were supposed to drive; is that 14 correct?
15 l
A That's my understanding.
16 Q
!!o had no personal knowledge of that?
17 A
I think that's correct.
18 Q
And, he was also told that the bus driver 1 had I
19 no training on dosimetry, K1 or exposures beyond the PAG's, 20 isn't that true?
21 A
Well, it's KI.
22 Q
KI.
I koop wanting --
23 (Laughter.)
2J A
I don't remomber the exact comments, but they 25 O
07800707 7325 Cu;w310h t
were comments to that of fect, that's correct.
T I
J Q
And, you state that the foregoing activities, to 2
use your term -- I don't agree that it's more than one 3
activity, but those activities were more than sufficient --
4 do you see that testimony on Page 167 l
5 A
Yes, I do.
6 Q
More than sufficient for what?
For what kind of 7
a conclusion?
What conclusion could FEMA draw from that?
l 8
l A
I think you asked me this question last week on 9
the schools.
I will try to give you the same answer.
10 (Laughter.)
11 Q
Well --
l A
The answer was that based on the requirement to l
13 l((])
have plans by New York State, as we discussed last week, the demonstration at the Shoreham-Wading River School District, 15 as I stated last week, one could draw conclusions that the other school districto could implement the plans that they 11 L
have developed under the New York State law.
la I
l I think that's what we said last week.
19 Q
Okay.
It's your testimony then that based upon 20 that one observation or the one demonstration at Shoreham-21 l
Wading River and your statomont that schools are required to l
22 have plano, that FEMA could conclude that all the other j
school districto and privato achools in the EPZ could take adequato protective monouren for their students in the ovent 25 l
l
07800707 7326 cuewalch of a radiologi:al emergency?
MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I will object to the 2
form of the question.
I think Mr. Lanpher has 3
mischaracterized --
4 MR. LANPHER:
Let the witness correct me if I'm 5
wrong.
6 l
MR. ZEUGIN:
-- Mr. Daverio's earlier testimony i
7 about the one activity.
I think Mr. Daverio has tried to be 8
5 clear on how he was defining the activities.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Let's let Mr. Davorio clear it up.
10 WITNESS DAVERIO:
I will try.
The question was 11 long, but I will try.
12 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 13
(]}
Q Let me do it again --
A Okay.
l$
Q
-- because I want to see if we can finish this 16 up.
Is it your position, your testimony, that baand upon 17 the Shoreham-Wading River demonstration or demonstrations, 18 whatever you want to call it, whatever happened at Shoreham-19 Wading River Central School District, plus the fact that 20 schools, according to you, are required to have plans that 21 FEMA could conclude that all schools within the EPZ, both 22 public and private are capable in an emergency of taking 23 adequate protective measures for their students?
22 A
FEMA, based on those kind of activities, could 25 O(/
4 I
07800707 7327 Cucw31ch draw a conclusion.
Now, let me just clarify, because I've
--]T
/~
I
's l said it a couple of times today, FEMA may draw a negative 2
conclusion like an ARCA that says you at the next exercise 3
have to have more school districts, but they could make some a
conclusion and then give us a level of grade that they think 5
is appropriate.
6 Q
You didn't answer my question.
Is it your 1
conclusion that they could draw positive findings that all 8
schools are capable of taking adequate protective measures 9
on the basis of what went on at that exercise?
10 A
As in previous testimony, I have no disagreement 11 with FEMA that they gave us an ARCA on this which means that 12 they --
13
{}
Q That's not my question, Mr. Daverlo.
l A
Which means that they could not draw a positive is conclusion without comment that at the next exercise they 16 wanted more school districts to participate.
11 Q
Then, it 's your testimony that based on that one is demonstration they could not find that other schools are 19 capable of implementing adequate protective measures?
20 A
I think given the school district plans one 21 could draw that conclusion, but PEMA wanted to talk to more 22 school districts about it.
And, I don't really have a way 23 to dispute that.
24 Q
But, you think they could have made a positive 25 j
I m.
m
07800707 7328 cu walch finding on the basis of just that one demonstration?
(~%
i
\\J A
I have trouble with the word " positive 2
finding."
It's not a word that we use.
They found an ARCA, l
3 1
which means that it isn't something that needs to be 4
corrected todays it's something they want to see in the next 5
)
exercise.
t 6
I don't know if that's a positive or negative 7
finding to you.
Q Do you believe, Mr. Daverio, that there was a 9
sufficient mobilization of school resources so that there i
10 could be verification of the capability of all schools to 11 respond to the accident scenario used in the exercise?
12 A
I think, as I testified last week, to do that 13
()
would have required mandatory public participation.
14 MR. LANPHERi That wasn't my question, Judge 15 Frye.
I don't know why I'm having so much trouble getting 16 this.
17 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) is Q
You testified, Mr. Davorio, that FEMA's l
19 I
observations of schools was more than sufficient.
I'm 20 probing to find more than sufficient for what?
21 A
I think --
22 Q
Wait.
Let me try again.
23 A
Okay.
22 Q
Is it your testimony that the mobilization of 1
25 1
I
i l
07800707 7329 l
cu walch lf school resources in the Shoreham exercise was sufficient to 1
l I
l verify the capability of all schools to respond to tho l
2 accident scenario?
3 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I object to the 4
question.
I don't neo how it's relevant to the inquiry here 5
on contention 21.
6 JUDGE FRYE I think it is relevant.
And, I 1
think if I understand what you are after correctly you are l
after the carple basically, his opinion of whether the 9
sample was adequato.
10 MR. LANPHER:
Thank you, Judge.
11 l
JUDGE FRYE:
Maybe that will help in answering.
12 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 13 l -}{])
Q A sample of one school out of all the --
i4 i
A Let me try again and hopefully this --
15 Q
Isn't the answer no, the sample wasn't enough, 16 Mr. Davorio?
A sample of one out of all of thoso --
l 11 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Fryo, I wish Mr. Lanphor 18 would not argue with the witness and allow him to answer the 19 quantion ho posed.
20 JUDGE FRYE Overruled.
In one enough or not?
21 WITNESS DAVERIO:
I think, given a camplo of ono 22 l
would allow FEMA with other knowledgo about what Now York 23 1
Stato requires for school plano to draw nomo conclusion to l
based on the oxorcino evento.
Their conclusion happened to 25 l
07800707 7330 cu walch 1
be to give us an ARCA.
r I
\\
i Now, whether that's a positive finding or not is l
2 subject to interpretation.
3 l
JUDGE FRYE All we are talking about now is l
4 whether one is enough, and you say yes, that's enough l
5 provided certain other things happen.
6 WITNESS DAVERIO:
And to draw a conclusion.
It 7
may be a negative conclusion which FEMA says --
8
(
JUDGE FRYE Well, we are not concerned about a l
9 l
conclusion right now.
to t
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 11 Q
Your testimony is that a sample of one plus 12 l
knowledge of school plans is enough?
i
()
A And the LERO plan, yes, that's correct, which 14 was the Ridge demonstration of being able to provide is resources if they requested it.
i 16 Q
The Ridge demonstration had nothing to do with l
what schools themselves could do.
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
I'm focusing only on what schools could do, Mr.
i 20 l
Davorio.
It was one demonstration and you nay ono 21 demonstration plus knowledge of school plans and some i
22 knowledge of tho LERO plan by whom, by the way?
By FEMA?
23 A
Yes.
2a Q
So, one demonstration by one school district 25 O
l 07800707 7331 cuewalch plus knowledge or belief that schools have some sort of
,('i' ')
1 plans plus FEMA's knowledge of the LERO plan is enough to 2
reach some sort of meaningful conclusion about the I
preparedness of other schools to respond to an emergency?
4 l
A Yes.
I believe you can do that.
5 l
JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Daverio, can you tell me where l
6 I can find that ARCA that you have been mentioning, what 1
page?
8 WITNESS DAVERIO:
Not quickly.
9 MR. LANPHER:
I think if you go to Page 38, 10 Judge Paris, I think that's the textural discussion that in 11 the future all schools must be included in federally 12 ovaluated exercises, and then Page 41 I think is the 13 discussion of'it.
Is that what you were looking for, Judge?
15 JUDGE PARIS:
Thank you, yes.
16 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 17 Q
Now, Mr. Daverio, you cite on Page 16 of your 18 testimony the partial initial decision cite having to do 19 with school preparedness.
Do you see that statement?
20 A
Yes, I do.
21 Q
That was a partial initial decision cito in the 22 context of the school plan review, correct?
The review of 23 the LILCO plan and --
24 A
The 0-3 proceeding.
25
07800707 7332 cuswalch Q
What we call the plan review proceeding?
,_ )
1
('-
A The plan review proceeding; that's correct.
2 Q
And, there was no statement in the PID, was 3
there, to the effect that at the exercise stage the exercise 4
didn't need to include anymore than one school, was there?
5 A
No such statement.
6 Q
There was no statement about sample size for an 7
exercise either?
8 A
For the schools, no, not that I'm aware of.
9 Q
I'm looking at Page 18, Mr. Daverio.
You are 10 talking about the ambulance /ambulette drivers.
So we don't 11 have to go through some of the same discussions we were 12 talking about before, when you use the term " random sample"-
13
(']
at the bottom of that page, again you are not using it
\\
14 statistically, are you?
15 A
No.
It was as I explained previously.
16 0
In fact, LILCO chose which ambulance /ambulette 17 company or companies would be utilized in the exercise, 18 Correct?
19 A
Yes, that's correct.
20 Q
And then it was from that sort of sample that 21 LILCO initially chose that FEMA chose two drivers to 22 specifically evaluate, correct?
23 A
That's correct.
24 Q
You state at the bottom of Page 18, or I 25 1
07800707 7333
.cuewaleh construe what you say at the bottom of 18, to the effect j' 7'}'
l that to have required a demonstration-by more than the two 2
drivers would have conflicted with the Appendix E 3
requirement that public activity should not be impacted by 4
l anraxercise.
l Do you see that statement at the bottom of the 6
page?
7 l
A Yes, I see that.
8 Q
Well, you had 12 ambulance and ambulette drivers present at the EWDF, correct?
10 A
We had six and six, that's correct.
This more 11 went to your contention which sort of talked about every --
12 all of the ambulance drivers and all the ambulette drivers.
13
)
Q Well, but to have evaluated all 12, for instance, of those that wouldn't have had any impact on 15 public function because they were already out of their 16 normal activities, correct?
17 A
That 's correct.
18 Q
So, the sample size certainly could have been as 19 large as 12 or six and six without any such impact, correct?
20 A
Yes, that's correct.
21 Q
Now, it's your testimony that looking at a 22 sample of one ambulance driver and one ambulette driver 23 permits a conclusion regarding how well or not well all 24 other ambulance or ambulette drivers would perform in an 25 l
k 07800707 7334
.CuCw310h actual emergsncy?
Is that your testimony?
(. )
1 x/
A Yes, it is.
2 Q
And, what is the basis for that judgment that 3
that's a sufficient sample size?
4 A
As we say on Page 18, it has to do with these 5
are trained ambulance drivers and ambulette drivers that 6
have certification from the state and all they are really 7
doing is going to an address and picking up someone, which 8
they do everyday in their normal function.
'9 Q
Well, what if one of those had failed, they had 10 gotten lost for some reason, would that have been 11 significant?
12 A
As I stated in the training testimony, if that 13
/~
.b >l qccurred we would go back and analyze why it occurred to
'a find out if there '-- if it was a procedure problem, a job 15 performance problem', a training problem.
One can 't jump to 16 a conclusion as to what that means.
17 Q
What I'm trying to understand is, is the basis 18 for your answer that this is a sufficient size the fact that s
19 they succeeded or FEMA concluded that they ran these routes 20 properly?
21 Is that the basis for your conclusion?
22 A
No.
I think it draws -- one has to understand 23 that FEMA is really doing two things simultaneously here.
4
'^
j 24 They are basically looking at two different planes.
They 25
's
, e.
I
l 07800707 7335 cuewa slh are looking at the plane of, 'does the plan and procedures l}_t 1
i work?
Do the tools we've given the emergency workers.
2 accomplish the task?
So, they are looking at plans and 3
proc edures.
4 And, then second they are looking at individuals 5
on a sample basis to see if the written material can be 6
interpreted and used by people.
And, a sample size of two 7
could do that in my opinion, given that they are normally.
8 ambulance drivers and ambulette drivers.
9 Q
But, is it really your testimony that there was 10 no reason'even to test the ability of ambulance and 11 4
ambulette drivers to carry out this function?
12 A
That's not my testimony.
13 Q.
Well, in terms of their capabilities you seem
+
u confident that they could do it, period.
15 A
No.
You have to look at two different things.
16 I said that they are ambulance' drivers and they know how to 17 drive ambulances and know how to handle people who need 18 ambulance pick-up.
19 What FEMA was looking at in the second plano 20 that I've discussed is, they are looking at-does the written 21 r
plan and procedures that look good, can people use them?
Is-22 the job-performance aids given to them, the maps, usable?
23 So that that's what FEMA is looking at with
. 24 their sample.
25 A
o-
, +,. - - - -
._,<-----,,,n.
,---e,.
,,wer=,-.
..n-,.,e
.m v e,.
--.,-~--p,-.,,e_,v,---,m,--,,-
e
---g
07800707 7336 cuewalsh Q
So, it's really their capability of following
,s
(
i 1
LILCO's special instructions, whatever they nay be, that is 2
being evaluated?
3 A
That's one of the things that is being 4
evaluated; that's correct.
They don't go to a house and 5
actually pick up a mobility impaired person and put them in 6
the ambulance..
7 Q
No.
I understand that.
Or, to a nursing home, 8
right?
9 A
That's correct.
10
.Q But, the kind of demonstration that you think-11 needs to be made is to -- since you think they know their 12.
way around the EPZ generally, because that's their-job, then j
)
what I'm lef t with is that what needs to be tested in an 14 exercise is whether they can follow LILCO's instructions.
15 A
I think we've agreed.
16 Q
Okay.
So, that's what it's for.
And, you think
'17 that a sample of two out of the universe that may be called 18 upon is a sufficient sample size to reach a conclusion 19 whether-ambulance and ambulette drivers can, in fact, follow 20 LILCO's specific instructions in an emergency?
21 A
Yes, also given that FEMA has spent years 22 reviewing the plan and procedures so they have a familiarity 23 what with given them to do their job and they draw a 24 conclusion based on observing some sample that they 25 w-4n.,
men-
- ~-.-
-n.-..e--
~ - -. - - -,
-07800707 7337 cuewalsh
,_ i.
determine to be appropriate.
.(
)
I v
Q Well, how does FEMA's years of reviewing the 2
plan and procedures have anything to do with whether 3
ambulette or arrbulance drivers an follow those procedures 4
and instructions?
5 A
That's the exercise part of it.
But, they also 6
during -- this particular one happens to all be out of the 7
EOC, so there's only really -- it's two objectives almost 8
tied together because everything goes out of the EOC to 9
dispatch.
The field activity again is a different field 10 activity 13, but the integration of getting them dispatched 11 is more closely alicned here than it might be with the 12 staging area in the middle.
13 mm t]
Q So, it's an organizational factor at the EOC and then there is the field activity of actually running the 15 routes, following'the instructions and the maps and going to 16 the right place outside of the EPZ with a simulated patient?
17 A
That's correct.
18 d
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
07800808 7338 joewalsh l- (~k 1
- X_)
Q You state that you believe doing 2
the activities called for by ambulance workers is a fairly 3
simply task given their everyday chores, right?
4 A
Not being one, I don't know if it is simply, but 5
handling mobility impaired people is what they are trained 6
to do.
7 The do it every day.
8 Q
Well, following instructions is part of an 9
emergency thing.
You don't know whether that is something 10 that is viewed as simple or not by the ambulance personnel, 11 do you?
12 A
Well, I think it is.
If you look at how 13 ambulance drivers get dispatched every day, they get an
,s Id address to go pick someone up, or a hospital to go pick 15 someone up and a map, they generally have to work in a 16 fashion similar to the way they do with LERO.
17 Q
You are surmising that they consider this to be la a simple task?
19 A
I didn't say that.
I said --
20 Q
That is my words.
21 A
That is your words, and what I would say is what 22 I said.
This is the type of activity they perform every 23 day.
They go to a hospital, they go to a nursing home, they 24 move a patient from a nursing home to a hospital, and they 25 have a map to do it.
D
07800808 7339 joewalsh
-(J l
Q' And your experience with these four other 2
exercises that you attended, isn't it part of the standard 3
modular format for FEMA to require demonstrations of 4
ambulance drivers capabilities?
5 A
In general they do.
Again, not every exercise 6
has ambulance demonstrations.
7 Q
So, apparently, FEMA thinks it is important to 8
find out whether th'e ambulance drivers can do that?
9 A
I think they did, and they did at our exercise.
10 Q
Let's go back to the stuff that the Board 13 decided you ought to talk about, Pages 5 and 8, okay?
12 A
Sure.
13 Q
Am I correct this is -- the exercises are two Os 14
-Indian Point, one Ginna,.amd what was the other?
15 A
One Nine Mile Point.
16 Q
Which were the two Indian Point?
17 A
I don't recall.
I don't have the list in front 18 of me.
19 Q
You have got an Attachment B, don't you?
20 A
That is correct.
Thanks for reminding me.
I 21 was at the Nine Mile September '81 exercise.
I was at the 22 January 21, '82_Ginna exercise.
Those were the easy ones.
23 I believe it was the March 3,
'82 Indian Point 24 exercise --
25 Q
March 3,
'827 px.)
07800808 7340 j oewalsh
,l.
I (j
A Right.
And I have been to one of the more 2
recent ones, probably the '84 exercise.
3 Q
The Indian Point 3, November 28, '84?
4 A
Yeah, to the best of my recollection, I think 5
those are the ones I have been at.
i.
6 I could be wrong, but I think those are the ones 7
in~ general.
I 8
Q Excuse me.
Was the March 3,
'82 Indian Point --
l 9
l I get them confused.
Is that the compensating plan 10 exercise?
II A
No, it is not.
That is the 24th and 25th I 1
12 believe was the compensating.
There may have been -- that 13 wasn't the compensating one that I can recall.
I was at an l
14 onsite facility on that exercise, so I wouldn't have been 15 involved with what was going on offsite.
16 Q
So, your activities with respect to -- well, 17 with respect to the March '82, assuming that is the right 18 one, your activities were solely onsite?
l9 A
That is correct.
20 Q
What were your activities with respect to Ginna i
21
'82?
'22 A
That was onsite also.
23 Q
Let's go to Nine Mile
'81.
24 A
That was onsite.
25 Q
What do you mean, onsite.'
Were you at the p
.i
07800808 7341 joewalsh 1
EOF?
2 A
At those three particular exercises, I was --
3 Ginna and Indian Point, I was at the EOF; Nine Mile, I was 4
5 0
And one of those facilities were subject in 6
those three exercises to FEMA evaluation, correct?
7 A
The facilities?
8 Q
9 A
That is correct; the facilities were not.
10 JUDGE PARIS:
Where were you for the Indian Il Point 3/84 exercise?
12 MR. LANPHER:
You took my question.
You can go 13 ahead.
14 WITNESS DAVERIO:
If I recall, I believe that 15 was when I was at the Rockland County EOC and the 16 Westchester EOC, and I believe I may have been at the news 17 center, too.
I drove around a lot that day.
18 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 19 Q
So, it is fair to state that only one of these 20 exercises, that last one in fact, were you involved in any 21 observation of any of the offsite activities which were 22 subject to FEMA's evaluation?
23 A
That is correct.
24 Q
So, isn't it fair to state your testimony as it 25 comes from these four exercises that you attended, it really
.O M
07800808-7342-
'joewalsh A
I
-()
comes down to one exercise, the Indian Point?
2 A
The only other thing with the three was being 3
there and having discussions with people, but you are d
correct, the only one I was at an offsite facility was the 5
Indian Point one.
6 Q
Where you had personal observation?
7 A
That is correct.
8 Q
So, all this testimony insofar as your personal 9
observation concerned about, the only resources typically 10 activated comes from this one exercise that you think is II November 28,
'84, but you are not positive?
12 A
It was one of the Rockland County EOC ones after 13 p
the interim compensating plan, so I think it is that one, u
Id that is correct.
15 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, I can probe more, but 16 I am sorry, I think he testified generally, based upon 17 personal experience from one exercise, and we don't have the I8 exact date of.
19 I move to strike it.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
I would like to hear his response 21 to Page 5, the second, third, and fourth sentences in that 22 paragraph in question, where you are talking about other 23 exercises in which state and local players, FEMA indicates 24 what it wants to observe, and then apparently they mobilized 25 five bus drivers for FEMA to observe.
O
=
07800808 7343 j oewalsh
(}
I What is the basis for that?
2 WITNESS DAVERIO:
I think my testimony was clear 3
that those kind of statements are more based on my_ industry d
experience than participating at particular exercises.
~
3 MR. LANPHER:
I move to strike, Judge. Can we re-6 strike it?
7 JUDGE FRYE:
I am getting tired of striking.
8 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I would merely note 9
that as an expert witness, Mr. Daverio is not strictly 10 limited to what he has seen in other exercises.
II As-he said, he was at these other exercises, he 12 had discussions while he was at them.
You do not have to 13 physically see X number of buses or ambulances being driven 14 at the exercise to, in fact, know that is what was done at 15 the exercise, and that is how it was done at a given 16 exercise.
17 We have had a lot of testimony in this 18 proceeding by a lot of witnesses.
I would simply point out 19 on Contention 15 and 16, Messrs. Petrone and Colwell both 20 showed relatively little knowledge of how FEMA did business, 21 even.
22 Nevertheless, their testimony was admitted for 23 what it was worth on the ground that they were expert, and 24 they could opine in areas that again they had no actual 25 observation on their own about.
07800808 7344 j oewalsh I
-(
).
I think in this case, Mr. Daverio has said that 2
he observed the Rockland County /Westchester EOCs during the 3
Novenber of '84 exercise.
He stated that he was at these d
otner exercises where he had discussions with people at 5
those exercises about what was going on.
6 It seems to me he is perfectly competent to 7
offer this testimony, and again Mr. Lemur's objections are 8
merely going to the weight to be accorded this testimony, 9
and not whether or not it is admissible.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
I think we will treat it as going II to weight.
12 MR. LANPHER:
Well, Judge, I am sorry, but your 13 earlier ruling, and I don't mean to be critical of you all, "V,c,
14 and this may sound it, you said that he could testify to the 15 extent it was based on personal knowledge.
16 Those sentences that you just brought out are 17 not based on personal knowledge.
This is based on his 18 general discussions.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
I said we would not rely on 20 testimony that was not based on personal observation, and I 21 adhere to that.
22 But, you know, you are going to be erasing more 23 lines, and putting in more lines through your testimony. I 24 think it is quite clear what the basis for the testimony 25 is.
We said we would let it in, and I think we will treat
.(
I 07800808 7345 joewalsh
()
I this as simply going to the weight of the testimony.
2 MR. LANPHER:
Well, let me understand.
I don't 3
want to take up time needlessly.
To the extent it is not 4
based on personal observation, you are going to accord it no 5
weight, is that your ruling?
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Background.
It wouldn't support a 7
finding.
8 MR. LANPHER:
Okay.
9 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 10 Q
Mr. Daverio, your testimony in response, I Il believe, to Judge Frye's question, is that the sentences on 12 Page 5 that we are all arguing about are not based on your 13
,q personal observation.
That this comes from your discussions 14 with industry pe.ople, et cetera?
15 A
As I testified, I would put more weight on that, 16 and only the one exercise I was at, I saw a small part of 17 it.
18 But the bulk of it is based on industry 19 experience.
20 0
Well, are any of the sentences on Page 5, in 21 that paragraph, beyond the first sentence, which is just an 22 introductory sentence, okay, leave that one aside, any of 23 the other sentences based on personal observation at the 24 Rockland exercise, which I understand to be the only one 25 where you had personal offsite observation?
OO 1
1
07800808 7346 joewalsh
,\\
I f
A No, there were no personal observations.
2 MR. LANPHER:
I understand from the Board then 3
all the rest of that paragraph is simply background, and d
would not support a finding, is that correct?
5 JUDGE FRYE:
That is right.
6 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 7 Q
Now, the only -- going to that first sentence of 8
that paragraph on Page 5, the Shoreham Exercise departed 9
measurably from other offsite exercises of which I am aware.
10 The only cne where you have personal knowledge of offsite matters was Rockland, correct?
12 MR. ZEUGIN:
Objection.
Asked and answered, and 13 we seem to be going over the same areas.
Id JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah, I think that has been asked 15 and answered.
I think it is perfectly clear.
16 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 17 0
Well, is there any personal knowledge basis for 18 the first sentence?
I don't want any of this cited, Judge, I9 I am sorry.
I move to strike it.
I have a right to probe 20 it.
I apologize if I am being repetitive, but we have gone 21 around, I admit, a couple of times, and I am not sure 22 exactly how clear the record is.
23 If you will make the ruling Judge, that this 24 entire paragraph on Page 5 is strictly, background, that is 25 fine, I will move on.
07800808 7347
_ j oewalsh
-,w-()
1 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you recall the question, Mr.
2 Daverio?
3 WITNESS DAVERIO:
Yes, I believe so.
My answer d
would be the same for the first sentence.
5 MR. LANPHER:
Okay, thank you.
Do you know 6
where we are going next?
7 WITNESS DAVERIO:
Page 8.
8 (Laughter) 9 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 10 Q
In terms of personal knowledge about the nature II of sampling in other exercises, do you have any personal 12 knowledge based upon those four exercises?
Were you es 13 involved in the sampling at all?
_(
14 A
No, I was not.
I have no personal knowledge.
15 Q
And that applies both to the first sentence on 16 Page 8, and the third sentence on Page 8, correct?
17 A
That is correct.
18 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, I assume that this will not 19 support a finding either then.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
I 21 MR. LANPHER:
Is that correct?
22 JUDGE FRYE:
I am not going to respond to your 23 questions.
I have already told you what our ruling is.
You 24 can draw your own conclusions.
i 25 MR. LANPHER:
All right.
Just one moment.
I
07800808 7348 joewalsh
,l.
I I )
want to review my notes.
I may be almost done.
2 (Mr. Lanpher reviews his notes.)
3 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, I have no further d
questions for Mr. Daverio.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Zahnleuter?
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No further questions either.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
Does the Staff have any questions?
8 MR. BARTH:
None, Your Honor.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Redirect?
10 MR. ZEUGIN:
May I have a couple of minutes, II Judge Frye, to confer with Mr. Daverio?
12 (Mr. Irwin, Mr. Zeugin, and Mr. Daverio depart 13 the hearing room at 11:30 a.m, to return at 11:34 a.m.)
r-,
. '~
Id MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, LILCO has no redirect.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Daverio, thank you very much.
16 It has been a long ordeal I suspect.
17 WITNESS DAVERIO:
It has been.
Thank you for 18 listening to me.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
We appreciate your patience and 20 your testimony.
21 WITNESS STANDS ASIDE.
22 JUDGE FRYE Why don't we take our lunch break 23 then, and come back in an hour and a half, and we will at 24 that point take up the Suffolk County testimony.
25 MR. LANPHER:
I would just say that I informed
[7~N
.\\-)
- 07800808 7349 joewalsh h
I LILCO yesterday, I couldn't get in touch with the Staff 2
yesterday, the testimony is going to be sponsored solely by 3
Dr. Simon.
Mr. Cole is unavailable.
It is still the same d
testimony.
5 JUDGE FRYE I see.
Joint throughout, I take 6
it?
7 MR. LANPHER:
As he will testify, he was the 8
primary author of it. all, anyway.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
We will take our recess for an hour 10 and a half, then.
II (Whereupon, Luncheon Recess was taken at 11:35 12 a.m.,
to reconvene at 1:05 p.m.,
this same day.)
13 n
v u
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
n
,.._,,.,,_-m
.._.-,,,_,,_,,_y-
__,_,1-,.-,_.__m.
07800808 7350 joewalsh I
AFTERNOON SESSION 2
JUDGE FRYE:
Before we begin, I understand from 3
Mr. Bachmann that it is all right with FEMA to switch our June Schedule to Tuesday through Friday, so we are going to 5
do that.
6 That would get us beginning on --
7 MR. LANPHER:
The 9th.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes, the 9th through the 12th, and the 16th through the 19th.
10 Some time ago, LILCO filed a dose assessment II with regard to evacuation of the EPZ, and we would like to 12 get Suffolk's response to that by the time we come back on 33 the 9th.
'b I4 MR. LANPHER:
I will convey that to, I think, 15 Ms. Letsche Who is the person who has that.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
I cannot think of any other little 37 housekeeping things.
Those two, I did want to take up this 18 afternoon before they slipped my mind.
I9 MR. LANPHER:
I have a couple of little ones for 20 the end.
Maybe we should finish this first, then.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
It is up to you.
I get a little 22 nervous if it looks like we are going to finish this 23 afternoon, people may not be anxious to stay around for 24 housekeeping matters.
25 MR. LANPHER:
I will stay around.
If you -- one i
07800808 7351 joewalsh 7)
I
(
of the ones is whether we had a schedule for the NRC Staff 2
testimony, sir.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Do we, at this point?
4 MR. BARTH:
I am not certain we are going to 5
give any testimony, Your Honor.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
We specifically requested that the 7
Staff furnish testimony, and I understood that that request 8
was winding its way through the EDO.
9 MR. KARMAN:
It hasn 't winded by our desk.
10 JUDGE FRYE It hasn't winded it's way back from II the EDO.
12 MR. KARMAN:
Not as far as we know.
13 JUDGE FRYE:
I see.
Okay.
We will face that 14 when we get the answer, I suppose.
15 Anything else?
16 MR. LANPHER:
That was the one that really came 17 to mind.
Just in terms of planning and preparing that.
18 Obviously, we know what the FEMA testimony is.
19 MR. KARMAN:
We will convey that information.
20 MR. LANPHER:
Obviously, if they are going to 21 submit testimony, it should be prefiled some time in advance 22 of the start.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
It would be helpful.
24 MR. LANPHER:
Because otherwise people are going 25 to be involved in the ongoing hearing.
It is going to be O
07800808 7352 joewalch
,y I
,)
hard to prepare for it.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
Incidentally, who is handling the 3
FEMA testimony for Suffolk County?
4 MR. LANPHER:
I can't answer that.
It may be as 5
many as three people who will contribute to portions of it.
6 The question is whether to do it on a contention basis, or --
7 JUDGE FRYE:
And for LILCO?
8 MR. LANPHER:
I am not trying to be tricky.
If 9
you want to know the answer beforehand, we will decide it by I0 the end of this week --
II JUDGE FRYE:
No, I was just curious.
I don't 12 have to know beforehand.
13 7 ;
MR. IRWIN:
We are going through exactly the 14 same calculus, Judge Frye.
In that connection, though, I 15 think it would be useful for the parties as soon as they 16 have a reasonably specific idea of how long they believe I7 their questioning will last to the FEMA witnesses, to let 18 e'ach other and the Board know, because we can all plan I9 better if we know.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
I think that is a good suggestion, 21 yes.
I would like to -- well, why don't we set a date, is 22 probably better.
23 MR. LANPHER:
I think we will be in a position 24 by some time in the middle of next week to let you know.
25 Oh, you are going to be away though, next week, the Board O
07800808 7353 joewalsh O
i-2 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, we were, but now it appears 3
we are not.
4 MR. LANPHER:
We will let you know, say, next 5
Wednesday?
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Wednesday would be fine with us, if 7
it meets with everyone else's approval.
8 MR. IRWIN:
That is fine with LILCO.
We should 9
know then.
I take it that the Board may be thinking of 10 having a brief conference call with the parties just to get Il their es timates, and see how it looks.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
No, I don't think so, because I 13 will be in and out next week, and I don't feel comfortable O
14 particularly on Wednesday trying to set up a conference
(
15 call.
16 MR. LANPHER:
So you just want a letter from 17 each party?
18 JUDGE FRYE:
A letter, or even a phone call.
19 20 21 22 23 24 A
25 lO
07800909 7354 narysimons a
(_)
I JUDGE FRYE:
A letter or even a phone call to my 2
secretary leaving a message.
Why don't you drop us a brief 3
letter.
That's probably the best way to do it, and that way d
we'll be informed.
5 Anything else we should take up at this point?
6 (No response.)
7 Now much cross-examination does the Staff 8
anticipate?
9 MR. BARTH:
Perhaps 15 minutes, Your Honor.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Shall we proceed then 11 with Mr. Simon's testimony.
12 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, this is Dr. Gary A.
13 Simon.
He has not previously been sworn, so if we could 1
A-14 start with that.
15 Whereupon, 16 GARY A. SIMON 17 was called as a witness on behalf of Suffolk County and, 18 having been first duly sworn by Judge Frye, was examined and 19 testified as follows:
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Thank you very much.
21 DIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. LANPHER:
23 Q
Dr. Simon, do you have in front of you a 24 document entitled " Testimony of Gary A. Simon and Steven 25 Cole on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning Contention Ex
.G
l' 07800909 7355 marysimons
(~')
1 21" which dated April 6th, 19877 v
2 A
Yes.
3 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, this we have marked Suffolk 4
County Exhibit 99 and we have given the reporter three 5
copies.
6 (Tne testimony referred to was 7
marked Suffolk County Exercise 8
Exhibit No. 99 for identification.)
9 BY MR. LANPHER:
10 Q
Dr. Simon, was this testimony prepared by you or 11 under your direction and supervision?
12 A
Yes, it was.
13 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, as I informed the Board
(;
\\/
before ' lunch, obviously this testimony was to be cocponsored i4 15 previously with Dr. Cole.
Dr. Cole is unavailable, and some 16 corrections thus need to be made for that reason.
The 17 copies which we have provided to the reporter reflect the is corrections which I'm going to go over right now.
19 BY MR. LANPHER:
20 Q
Dr. Simon, let me go through a number of 21 corrections and at the end of those corrections I will ask 22 you whether that completes all the corrections.
23 I'm looking at the cover, the inside title page 24 and the title page and in each place delete the reference to 25 Steven Cole.
O
'J
_m 07800909 7356 marysimons
..;{
On page 1, the last paragraph, which is also the 1
2 last five lines of the page is sponsored solely by Dr. Cole, 3
and that should be deleted.
4 Page 3, the first full paragraph on that page is 5
an answer sponsored solely by Dr. Cole and that should be 6
deleted.
7 Page 12, and by the way for the Board's 8
information, that the last of the corrections which I 9
underctand go solely to Dr. Cole and the rest of some 10 correc tions.
11 The third paragraph, the answer starting "No, 12 based upon our review of," and af ter the word "of" insert i
13 the word "tha" between of and FEMA.
7g ds 14 Then pursuant to an announcement last week on 15 the record starting at page 20 in the middle of the page, 16 the question that states "LILCO's witness, Dr. Mileti," the 17 remainder of page 20 up through page 27 up to Roman numeral 18 IV on page 27, that portion of the testimony is being 19 withdrawn.
20 JUDGE PARIS:
Give us a chance to mark this.
21 (Pause.)
22 JUDGE FRYE:
I think we're ready.
23 MR. LANPHER:
Okay.
Page 30, on the second line 24 between the words "Riverhead" and " area" insert the word 25
" staging."
07800909 7357 marysimons
(}
I On page 31, the block quote, the first block 2
quote on the page, the eighth line into it the word is 3
" effected area."
It should be "affected."
Change the "e" 4
to an "a."
5 And about four lines farther down after the (19) 6 the word " minutes" should be inserted.
7 On page 43, the first full paragraph on that 8
page, the last line where it says " FEMA evaluators" should 9
be "FEHA evaluation."
10 JUDGE PARIS:
Is that 437 11 MR. LANPHER:
Yes, sir, the first full paragraph 12 on the page, the last line in that paragraph should read 13
" FEMA evaluations -- sample size."
r'\\
k/
Page 46, the first'line after the quote of EOC 14 is Objective 20 should read as follows.
There is a change at 16 the end.
"A related objective, EOC 18, is also referenced 17 in the FEMA report," and delete the word "subpart."
18 MR. ZEUGIN:
Could you please repeat that one.
19 MR. LANPHER:
Yes.
This is on page 46 just 20 after the block quote of EOC 20, the objective, the first 21 sentence should read "A related objective, EOC 18, is also 22 referenced in the -- and insert the words " FEMA report," and 23 delete the word "subpart," and then the remainder of the 24 sentence remains the same.
25 Page 52, five lines from the bottom, and O
,-.~..-._,7-
-,we---,,r_.,--.,,
..-m-
.-g----e e
07800909 7358 marysimons l
./
')
1 disregard the footnott, but five lines of text from the v
2.
bottom the word " evaluation" should be " evacuation."
Change 3
the "1"
to a "c."
4 At page 57, the first full paragraph on that 5
page, the fourth line, delete the word "a" between "for" and 6
" Conclusions."
7 BY MR. LANPHER:
8 Q
Now, Dr. Simon, does that complete the 9
corrections to the testimony?"
10 A
Ac tually, there are many instances where the 11 word "we" appears and perhaps those should be "I."
That's 12 perhaps not important.
13 Q
That's correct.
We'll make it the royal we for 14 this testimony.
15 (Laughter.)
16 With those corrections, Dr. Simon, is this 17 testimony true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
18 A
I believe that it is.
19 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, we move for the 20 admission of Exhibit 99.
21 MR. ZEUGIN:
No objection.
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
23 MR. BARTH:
No objection from the staff, Your 24 Honor.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
It will be admitted.
f73
.Esl
07800909 7359 marysimons
[/]
1 (Suffolk County Exercise x_
2 Exhibit No. 99, previously 3
marked for identification, 4
was admitted into evidence.)
5 MR. LANPHER:
Dr. Simon is available for cross-6 examination.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Zeugin.
8 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, before I get going with 9
my cross-examination of Dr. Simon, the reporter just noted to to me that we had miscounted this morning on the exhibit 11 number for the LILCO testimony.
It should in fact be LILCO 12 Exercise Exhibit 21 rather than 19.
Just so the record is 13 clear, I would like to make that correction.
14 JUDGE PARIS:
You lost track, did you?
15 (Laughter.)
16 (The document previously marked 17 as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 18 No.19 WAS RENUMBERED to now be 19 Suffolk County Exercise 20 EXHIBIT NO. 21.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
We'll note that correction.
22 CROSS-EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
24 Q
Dr. Simon, have you previously assisted in the 25 preparation of an offsite emergency response plan for any (2)
07800909 7360 marysimons
-I
/
')
I nuclear power plant?
x_/
2 A
I have not.
3 Q
Have you ever assisted in the review of such a 4
plan?
5 A
No.
6 Q
Have you ever observed an exercise of an offsite 7
emergency response plan for a nuclear power plant?
8 A
I have not.
9 Q
Have you ever been involved in the evaluation of 10 an offsite response organization as a result of its 11 performance during an exercise or drill at a nuclear power 12 plant?
13 A
Not before this one.
,_,e x
\\
14 Q
Dr. Simon, do you consider yourself to be an 15 expert on emergency planning for nuclear power plants?
16 A
Well, my expertise is in the area of statistics, 17 and to the extent that statistical issues come into play 18 here, I certainly feel qualified to speak to those.
19 Q
I take it then, Dr. Simon, that your testimony 20 on Contention 21 is focused entirely then as a statistical 21 critique of the way in which FEMA evaluated the February 22 13th exercise?
23 A
I believe that is correct.
24 Q
Dr. Simon, have you reviewed any NRC or FEMA 25 regulations in preparation for this testimony?
c'em
.V
07800909 7361 marysimons
()
1 A
I have looked at a number of documents relevant 2
to this, yes.
3 Q
Do you know of any specific NRC regulations you 4
may have reviewed by name or number?
5 A
Yes.
The regulations are under Title 10 CFR 6
Part 50, especially Appendix E, and also 10 CFR Part 50, 7
Section 47, parts thereof.
Those constitute my a
understanding of Federal regulations.
9 Q
Did you review any FEMA regulations on this?
10 A
I'm not sure what the FEMA regulations are.
I 11 have the report by FEMA.
12 Q
Did you review any, what I will call guidance i3-documents of the NRC or FEMA with regard to the conducting Q
14 df exercises?
15 A
I believe not.
16 Q
In preparation for this testimony did you review 17 the LILCO plan and procedures?
18 A
No.
I'm aware of that document.
19 Q
But you have not reviewed it?
20 A
No.
21 Q
Did your review any documents that were 22 generated during the February 13th exercise?
23 A
Oh, a number of them, yes.
24 Q
Could you identify specific ones?
25 A
Sure.
I have seen a number of the EECF forms,
y L
1 '
07800909 7362 marysimons f, )i.
' the critique forms that were actually. filled by FEMA
.1 2
evaluators in the field.
I believe those were done on the s
3 day of the drill.
4 Q
Did you review any other documents that you w
5 remember or any categories of documents that you remember?
6 MR. LANPHER:
Excuse me, I couldn't hear the 7
question, Mr. Zeugin.
8
.MR. ZEUGIN:
I simply asked whether he 9
remembered any other categories of documents that he may 10 have reviewed.
11 MR. LANPHER:
Were these documents generated or 12 exercise documents?
13 MR. ZEUGIN:
Generated on the day of the 5
14 exercise, yes.
"4
~ 15 WITNESS SIMON:
Well, my understanding of the 16.
FEMA report is that it 's a composite of observations and 17 judgments that were made on the day of the drill along with 18 thoughts that were composed during the weeks thereafter.
19 So to the extent that the FEMA reports 20 represents information on the day of the drill, sure.
21 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
22 Q
Did you review any player documents that were 23 prepared by a player during the exercise to your 24-recollection?
25 A
By players you 're referring to LERO personnel?
fC
>. s-
.=
07800909 7363 marysimons 1
Q That 's correct.
2 A
I believe not.
3 Q
You mentioned earlier that you reviewed the EECF 4
forms that were prepared by FEMA evaluators on' the day of 5
the exercise.
Did'you review all of-those forms or a subset 6
of those forms?
7 A
No, a subset.
8 Q
Did you select those specific documents that you 9
wanted to review?
10 A
No.
I was provided with the documents 11 specifically related to those parts of the drill that the 12 testimony is about?
13 Q
Dr. Simon, did you have any role in selecting O
14 the various objectives that are listed in the subparts of b
15 Contention 217 4
16 A
I did not write Contention 21.
17 Q
Have you sWasequently reviewed the exercise is objectives as a whole?
19 A
The list of 30 or -- yes.
Yes.
20 Q
Did you confirm for you own sake that the 21 specific objectives that were listed in Contention 21 are 22 the only objectives that are relevant to the assertions that 23 are being made in that contention and its subparts?
24
.A Well, certainly the list of objectives contains 25 many things that are not relevant to the claims we're I
l
07800909:
7364 marysimons I
./
1 making.-
2 A'
Could you ask'that again, so rry.
3 Q _
What I'm really _ trying to find. out is Contention 4
21 has a series of ~ objectives in it, and I was wondering if 5
in your review of the broader set of all exercise 6
objectives, 'since you had no role in the actual-preparation 7
of.the contention, whether you have since. confirmed that the 8
objectives'that are listed in Contention 21 are the only 9
' relevant contentions to the points' that are being made in 10 Contention 21?
11 A
I didn't attack it from that perspective.
I 12 mean Contention 21 was drafted by other people.
Indeed the 13 objectives that'are cited in there do appear among the list 14 of objectives.
I certainly didn't go.on a. hunting is expedition and ask if some of the uncited objectives might 16 be thrown in'as well.
I'm not sure if that is the point of 17 the question.
18 Q
I think it was, thank you.
19 Dr. Simon, are you aware of what FEMA calls its 20 points of observation with regard to given objectives?-
21 A
I believe so.
22 Q
Did you review those points of observation in 23 preparing this testimony?
24
'A No.
25 Q
You did not?
D
4 07800909 7365
'marysimons
('Y 1
A No.
U 2
Q Have you reviewed them since this testimony was 3
prepared?
4 A
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
Your points of 5
observation and geographical spots as I understood them in 6
the field where things are being checked.
No?
7 Q-Let me ask it in maybe a little different 8
wording.
9 Are you aware of FEMA points of review?
Have 10 you heard that term before?
11 A
I think not in those words.
12 Q
Dr. Simon, do you have in front of you a copy of 13 LILCO's testimony on Contention Ex 21?
14 A-Mr. Daverio's testimony?
15 Q
Yes.
16 A
Yes, I do.
17 Q
Could you please look at Attachment D to that 18 testimony.
19 (Witness complies.)
20 A
Yes.
On my copy that consists of a single EECF.
21 Q
That's correct.
Let me have you look at the 22 column that is on the left-hand side of that table where 23 there is listed an objective and below it points of review.
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
That is the kind of points of observation I have
()
07800909 7366
=marysimons j"}
)
been referring to.
Does that refresh your recollection as v
2 to whether or not you've reviewed ---
3 A
Yes, I've seen these on the EECF form and they.
4 are cross-references to places in OPIP where various 5
descriptions are made.
6 Q
And I take it from the fact that you have not 7
previously reviewed the plan and procedures that you didn't 8
go back to look at the various OPIPs to see what they 9
provide?
10 A
At various times I've looked in OPIP, but that 11 was -- indeed, the items are mentioned in OPIP, and every 12 time I had an occasion to check one, it seemed to be 13 appropriate.
'u 14 Q
Let me go back to my first question of this 15 series then so I'm clear.
Did you review these points of 16 review prior to preparing your testimony on Contention Ex 17 21?
18 A
No.
19 Q
Dr. Simon, have you ever reviewed any other FEMA 20 post-exercise assessments for exercises conducted in any 1
21 other nuclear power plant?
22 A
I have not.
23 Q
Dr. Simon, let me have you turn to page 5 of 24 your testimony.
25 (Witness complies.)
M 07800909 7367 marysimons
' r()\\
1 In the first sentence of the answer on that 2
page, in the first answer on that page you state that 3
_ basically the exercise included no quantitatively stated 4
performance objectives and the evaluation process was done 5
without reasonable thought about sample sizes or random 6
selection mechanisns.
7 Now I take it both of those criticisms of the 8
way FEMA conducted this exercise are premised on the 9
underlying assumption that a statistically valid analysis to should have been conducted; is that correct?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Dr. Simon, what is your basis for the second gs 13 part of your statement, namely, that the evaluation process
.d 14 was done without reasonable thought about sample sizes or 15 random selection mechanisms?
16 A
The FEMA procedures, at least as reflected in 17 their report, give no indication as to how the sample sizes la were chosen, no indication of any thought processes that 19 went into them and as a rather direct negative indicator the 20 smallness of the sample sizes suggested that they were 21 really not thinking along these lines.
22 Q
I take it then that you assume that FEMA's 23 silence on the subject suggested that they had not given 24 reasonable thought to items such as sample size or random 25 selection.mechanisns?
O
07800909 7368 marysimons j
1 A
In a statistical sense I would agree with that.
G 2
'Obviously they think in the sense that there is a. decision 3
made we will look at two of these.
In that sense indeed i
d thought is involved, but it's certainly not thought of a 5
statistical nature.
6 Q
Dr. Simon, could I have you turn to page 13 of 7
your testimony.
8 (Witness complies.)
9 At the very bottom of that page you give a set 10 of values for a component of the LILCO exercise where you 11 set a target value of 90 percent and the range of 12 unacceptable values might be zero to 70 percent.
13 I take it from the context of that statement r,- g O'J 14 that those values are being offered as examples of how one 15 could set a target value and a range of unacceptable values 16 rather a statement that those are values that FEMA should 17 have used for the exercise?
18 A
Oh, I think undeniably they are put there to 19 illustrate the definitions and 90 percent is a very nice 20 value, but this does not offer or even enforce the 21 requirement that 90 percent is what ought to be done for 22 every component.
I mean this is hypothetical and 23 illustrative.
24 25
. O)
I 07801010 7369
_cuewalsh
(~T 1
Q Is it also fair to say, Dr. Simon, that nowhere
%.)
2 in your testimony do you suggest value -- specific target 3
values or ranges of unacceptable values that FEMA should 4
have used on the day of the exercise to judge these various 5
activities?
6 A
Well, in fact, I'm not able to do-that.
I'm 7
able to say that they certainly should have thought of this a
and such numbers should have been incorporated into their 9
designs.
You know, it's -- you know, I will take the point 10 of view that before you send out players into a game, say, 11 bus drivers you ought to have some idea of what you would 12 like to see in the response.
13 Q
Dr. Simon, let me have you turn to Page 17 of O'V 14 your testimony.
15 (The witness is complying.)
16 And, let me have you focus on the last sentence 17 of the first full answer on that page where you say, "On the la other hand, small samples, chosen without regard to the 19 matters just discussed, will produce results with such large 20 error bounds that they are virtually meaningless."
21 Could you please identify for me the matters 22 just discussed that you are referring to in that sentence?
23 A
Okay.
Oh, matters -- I belie ve that refers to 24 information that appears at the eno of Page 16.
For 25 exanple, it says:
In order to determine the appropriate O
1
07801010-7370
~cuewalsh l'
sizes of'the samples, FEMA should have specified target V
2 value, bad value and other things.
3 And this comment on Page 17 is if you choose 4
small samples without regard to such things, you will get 5
large error bounds.
6 Q
Dr. Simon, if we are talking about statistically 7
valid samples, isn't this statement true with regard to a
small samples regardless of whether or not one considers 9
target values bad values and the probability of being able 10 to make a distinction?
11 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question, because 12 it is vague.
13 JUDGE FRYE:
Define "this statement."
!(~^--
14 MR. ZEUGIN:
I'm sorry.
15 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
(Continuing) 16 Q
This statement meant " chosen without regard to 17 the matters discussed above."
In other words, isn't it true 18 that small samples will produce results with such large 19 error bounds that they are virtually meaningless?
20 Isn't that true in every case?
21 A
That's a fairly general statement, yes.
Samples 22 of two or three have very little informative power.
23 Q
So, I take it then that that statement was 24 generally accurate, that the clause that is added there, 25
" chosen without regard to the matters just discussed,"
O l
07801010 7371 cuewalsh
(~fY 1
really isn't. needed in that sentence?
N 2
A Sure.
3 Q
Dr. Simon, on Page 18 of your testimony, in the
.4 last sentence of - the carry-over paragraph, you at that point 5
are. commenting on the way FEMA determined sample size, and 6
you state that "In.other words, we understand that the 7
sample sizes were not selected based on an. analysis of the 8
difficulty of the task to be demonstrated, the number of-9 persons expected to perform the task, the number of tasks to necessary to be performed in order to implement the LILCO 11 plan, or how accurately FEHA wished to predict the ability 12 of the entire population."
13 I take it that those four factors that are 14 contained in that particular sentence are all factors that 15 you believe FEMA should have considered in deciding on the 16 sample sizes on the day of the exercise?
17 (The witness is looking at the document.)
18 A
Yes.
Those are relevant things to consider.
19 Q
Dr. Simon, in your subsequent testimony 20 following this point, does your testimony to your knowledge 21 ever discuss either the difficulty of the task to be 22 demonstrated or the number of tasks necessary to be 23 performed in order to implement the LILCO plan with respect 24 to any of the functions that are the subject of Contention 25 21?
i 07801010 7372 cuewalsh
-R 1
A Well, you know, I'm not in the position of
.g _)
2 having the background or expertise, you know, to specify l
'3 which tasks are difficult, how many of them should be done i
4 or how critical they are.
You know, the point of this 5
comment is that those are things that should have been 6
considered in the design.
7 And, I believe that the answer to your question i
e is that in what follows there is not a specific discussion 9
of difficulty of the task or the number of them to be 10 performed.
11 Q
Dr. Simon, let me have you turn to Page 33 of 12 your testimony.
13 (The-witness is complying.)
14 In preparing your table which appears on the top 15 of Page 34 of your testimony, did you assume that 60 route j
16 alert drivers would routinely be dispatched in an emergency l
17 at the Shoreham plant?
18 A
No.
This assumed that there was a population of 19 60 available from which route alert drivers would be 20 selected.
21 Q
Do you know if all route alert drivers are 22 expected to perform essentially the function of notifying 23 the public should a siren fail?
24 A
My understanding is that there is a pool of l
25 these people, and according to the chance variations of L
07801010 7373 cuewalsh
( ';
i siren failures any one of them might have to do this.
2 0
Dr. Simon, if I asked you to assume with me for 3
a minute that the population was some number smaller than 60 4
-- and let's say 40 for my example --
5 A
You could use Dr. Daverio's number from this 6
morning which was 44.
7 Q
Of 44.
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
All right.
Would that have changed the results 10 that you present in the table on Page 347 11 A
It would change the numbers.
I cannot possibly 12 imagine that it would change the broad message of the i3 conclusion, as a sample of three even taken from a (3
k' population of 44 is simply not very informative.
i4 Q
Let me be more specific, Dr. Simon.
Would it 15 16 change any of the values that appear in the right-hand 17 column of the table on the top of Page 347 Or, would those is percentages remain the san,e?
19 A
They would -- no, they would change.
If you 20 change the 60 -- you know, in a couple of minutes I could 21 produce whatever they would be.
22 Q
Could you give me some idea of how much they 23 would change, those particular values?
24 A
Rather than speculate, I could actually do the 25 calculation.
O
07801010 7374 cuewalsh j(1) 1 Q
If you think you can do it in a couple of 2
minutes, why don't you?
I would be interested in seeing how 3
those numbers change.
4 A
I have some mechanica assis tanc e.
Is that 5
okay?
6 Q
That's fine.
All I want you to do is basically 7
change the population from 60 to 44.
8 MR. LANPHER:
Excuse me.
Mr. Zeugin, do you 9
want him to use 447 You have used both the number 40 and 10 44.
Do you want him to use 447 11 MR. ZEUGIN:
44 is fine.
Let's use 44.
12 WITNESS SIMON:
Okay.
I have no power in this.
13 (Laughter.)
r, 14 JUDGE FRYE:
Just so we are clear, that's a 15 portable computer?
16 WITNESS SIMON:
Yeah.
Unfortunately, I didn't 17 bring the power pack either, 18 JUDGE PARIS:
Would you like to borrow my seven 19 dollar check pocket calculator?
20 WITNESS SIMON:
No, because the nature of the 21 calculation is difficult.
That's very annoying.
- Now, 22 instead of giving you the exact numbers I can give this to 23 you as an approximation, but that's annoying.
24 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
(Continuing) 25 Q
Go ahead if it's only going to take you a couple D
su.
m
- i. 07801010 7375 cuewalsh
~f [
t of minutes.
An estimate is fine.
2 A
You are talking about out of 44.
3 (The witness is performing a calculation by 4
hand.)
5 MR. LANPHER:
Do you want him to try to come up 6
with an estimate for each of the things in the right-hand 7
column or do you just want the one --
8 WITNESS SIMON:
I was doing the 0 out of 3 line.
9 (The witness continues to do a calculation.)
10 BY MR. ZEUGIN.
(Continuing) 11 Q
All right.
12 A
As a crude calculation -- and it's extremely 13 crude -- if you get 0 out of 3, my percent column comes out O
14 approximately to O percent to 65 percent.
Now, I'm not --
15 you know, I'm not going to swear on that on a stack of-16 Bibles, because in the interest of speedy calculations, you 17 know, I may make some brutal approximations.
But, it's is going to be in the ball park.
19 Q
Is it fair to say kind of as a generality -- and 20 I will not hold you to specific numbers -- that in general 21 there would not be a very large change in any of the ranges 22 that appear in the right-hand column if we change the 23 population from --
24 A
In terms of --
t 25 Q
-- 60 to 44.
O
07801010 7376 cuewalsh
}
l A
You are talking about'the percent terms column,
./
2 correct?
3 Q
That 's correc t.
4 A
They would not change materially.
- Now, 5
certainly -- let me say this.
If the population size is 6
allowed to decrease to numbers as low as four and five, yes, 7
then things are going to be different.
8 What is far more critical in a problem like this 9
is-the size of the sample rather than the size of the 10 population.
11 Q
Thank you.
Dr. Simon, on Page 40 of your 12 tes timony, in the middle of the page there is a sentence 13 that reads -- and I will only read you the first part of the
~
'N 14 sentence:
"Thus, looking at eight out of 333 bus drivers, 15 or a sample of 2.4% of those drivers...," do you see that 16 statement?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Are you suggesting in that sentence that some 19 percentage of a total population can be used as a way of 70 determining whether or not something is a statistically 21 valid sample?
22 A
The critical thing in selecting a sample size 23 weighs much heavier on the size of the sample rather than 24 what fraction it represents out of a population.
In that 25 sense, the sample of 2.4 percent may be a little
07801010 7377 cuewalsh (u')
i gratuitous.
It sounds neat to say it that way, but that's 2
not the critical issue here.
3 The critical issue is the eight.
4 Q
Thank you.
The last part of that sentence, 5
perhaps you can explain to me, it says,
...particularly 6
since the sample was itself drawn from only a little over 7
one-third of the population..."
Could you tell me what you a
mean by a little over one-third of the population, what the 9
relevant populp. tion is?
10 A
Ye).
My understanding on that was that the i
11 actual sampling of bus drivers was done over a subset of the 12 routes, I believe regions labeled A through J, when a larger i3 number of regions were available, bl ss 14 Q
Okay.
Do you know then if one picks that 15 smaller area whether 333 bus drivers served that area or 16 whether a smaller population served that area?
17 A
Certainly it would be a smaller number but I is don't know what that number would be.
I mean, even if it's 19 50 or 80, a sample of size eight is the problem again.
20 Q
Dr. Simon, on the top of Page 43 of your 21 testimony, you are in the carry-over paragraph speaking 22 about the FEMA selection of given bus routes to observe.
23 And, you state that it may have resulted in the selection of 24 routes that were particularly easy, particularly dif ficult, 25 et cetera.
O
07801010 7378 ruewalsh I
_(~")
1 Dr. Simon, do you know whether or not the LILCO
%.J 2
plan and procedures contain descriptions of the bus routes, 3
of all bus routes as part of the plan?
4 A
A listing of all of the routes?
5 Q
Yes.
6 A
Oh, I believe it did.
7 Q
Did you attempt to review that material to e
determine in your own mind whether or not the routes chosen 9
by FEMA were particularly easy or particularly difficult?
10 A
No.
This comment is addressing the -- you know, 11 the relevance of using randomization in sampling.
And 12 whether or not that has to do with the ease or difficulty of 13 bus routes or the personalities of the bus drivers or 14 anything else is sort of the point that is being made.
15 I have no way of knowing if these routes were 16 hard or were easy.
17 Q
Dr. Simon, let me have you look at the bottom of 18 that page, Page 43.
19 (The witness is complying.)
20 And, here you are talking about a dif ferent 21 sample size than the eight that FEMA picked on the day of 22 the exercise and, in fact, you are talking about a sample 23 size of ten.
24 Could you explain for me what you mean by the 25 parenthetical "with probability 70 percent?"
07801010 7379 cuewalsh
(}
i A
Yes.
Much of this testimony is drafted in terms 2
of being able to distinguish a desirable or target value 3
from an appropriately far away bad value.
4 The reasons that one gets into discussions like s
this become clear after you get meshed in it for awhile.
6 Obviously, if you are trying for a target performance of, 7
say, 80 percent, a value like 75 percent cannot be a
considered too bad.
For example, if 80 percent were deemed 9
wonderful and 75 percent awful you would need an enormously 10 large sample to distinguish those situations.
11 The issue in distinguishing here is the 12 following:
We imagine that we have a target value and then i3 we assume hypothetically that one of our very bad values, in i4 fact, is what is happening.
What is the probability then 15 that a sample taken will scream at us that the target value 16 is not achieved?
And, that screaming probability is that 17 number 70 percent in this hypothetical situation.
18 That is, if you have got values, a target value 19 and a bad value, that are about 40 percentage points apart 20 and if the bad value is, in fact, true that procedure has a 21 probability of 70 perce t of coming to your attention.
With 22 a probability of 70 percent you will detect the bad value.
23 Q
Dr. Simon, help me if I don't understand.
Is 24 the 70 percent probability that you are referring to there 25 the same thing as a confidence interval that you refer to in O
07801010 7380 cuewalsh 1
your table?
2 A
Technically, the label that would get put on the i
3 70 percent is statistical power.
That's -- the power is the l
4 ability to distinguish.
5 Q
Is that somehow dif ferent than the confidence l
l 6
interval you produce in your table on, for example, Page 417 7
A It is a slightly different notion.
l 8
9 10 11 12 13 l
r,.
14 15 16 17 l
18 19 20 21 22 23 t
24 l
25 l
l
~.-
L l'
07801111 7381 L
j oewalsh
'I
' h 1
.Q Is there any reason why in talking about.the 2
sample size of ten on the bottom of Page 43 you chose a 3
probability of 70 percent where you used a confidence 4
interval of 95 percent when you prepared your table?
5 A
only in the following sense.
When people come l
6 around to the activity of giving confidence intervals, the 7
95 percent choice is reasonably traditional,.almost to the j
i 8
point now that eyebrows go up when you advertise confidence 9
intervals with other numbers on them.
10 A statistical power is chosen by the people 11 designing the experiment and often,.or reasons of economy, 12 they choose -- they do choose numbers, you know, that are 13 not 95 or 99 percent.
In industrial experiments people O
14 will, for instance, decide on power of 70 percent or 80 15 percent.
16 Q
Dr. Simon, could I have you turn to Page 58 of 17 your testimony?
18 (The witness is complying.)
19 Okay.
In the first full paragraph on that-page, 20 you will see a discussion -- I think you are discussing at 21 that point ambulance drivers --
22 A
Yeah.
23 Q
-- and there you talk about a probability of 95 24 percent.
Is there any particular reason why you have 25 switched in this case from your probability of 70 percent to O
07801111' 7382
. j oewalsh
[)-
I a probability of 95 percent?
2 A
Well, you will notice that more drivers are 3
involved.
I mean, there is no -- there is no attempt to 4
deceive.. On the 70 percent statement it was with regard I 5
think to 10 drivers.
And, now with 12 the probability is up 6
to 95 percent.
7 So, I don't think there are any particular a
strange motives there.-
You should realize, by the way, that 9
everyone of these situations involves a sample size, a 10 spread of probability, so many percentage points apart, and 11 a probability of detection.
12 These numbers can -- you know, each number la moving around makes the others move around.
14 Q
Dr. Simon, let me ask you a kind of general 15 question.
I know you -- I'm not asking for specific 16 numbers, just your general view as an expert.
17 On the top of Page 41 on that table you have on 18 that page, what would have been the change in the results 19 had instead of a 95 percent confidence interval, you had 20 instead prepared that table with a 70 percent confidence 21 interval in terms of I guess both the middle column and the 22 right-hand column in terms of the --
23 A
Okay.
I can speculate actually rather easily.
24 Certainly the center intervals, the ones dealing with around
.25 three of eight, four of eight, five of eight, those would D
07801111 7383 j oewa lsh
(~)
i have been reduced probably -- they would have been, I would x_/
2 say, about 30 percent shorter.
3 So, for instance the four out of eight interval, 4
instead of running, you know, 20 percent to 80 percent, a 5
span of 60 percentage points might have been -- it might 6
have been, for example -- and this is crude, might have 7
been, say, 29 percent to 71 percent, something like that.
8 That's a quick guess.
9 Q
So, then the delta or the dif ference between to those two would have been about a third less; is that what 11 you are saying?
12 A
Yes.
If you reduce confidence, you get shorter i3 intervals.
The -- I'm reluctant in any officially consumed AJ work to use anything other than 95 percent confidence 14 is intervals because there is an enormous tradition behind it.
16 Q
That's fine.
I understand.
Dr. Simon, just so 17 I cover the corollary of what I just asked you, on Page 43 18 if I change the probability from 70 percent there to 95 19 percent, then I take it that the distance between the 20 percentage points would increase perhaps upwards toward 21 about a number of 60; is that about right?
22 A
Okay.
The statement at the bottom of Page 43 23 involves three numbers.
There is a ten, the sample size, 24,
and there is the 40 percentage point apart, and there's the 25 detection probability, 70 percent.
Which of those do you OL
07801111
.7384-joewalsh-J'~
f want to keep fixed and which do you want to move around?
u 2
Q I want to keep the sample size of ten fixed.
3 A
You want to keep ten.
4
-Q-And, change the probability to 95 and figure out 5
what the effect is on the dif ference in the percentage-6 points.
7 A
Well, it's certainly going to be more than 40 8
percent points apart.
Ac tually, I can give you that 9
calculation approximately as well.
I'm sorry about the 10 delays.
I hadn't anticipated answering exactly this nature 11 of questions.
12 JUDGE FRYE That's okay.
13 (The witness is doing a calculation.)
L 14 WITNESS SIMON:
Okay.
So, you want to keep the 15 ten and you want to change the 95 -- the 70 percent to 95 16 percent.
17 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
(Continuing) 18 Q
That's correct.
19 A
Okay.
20 (The witness is doing a calculation.)
21 Yeah.. I get something very close to 60 22 percentage points.
23 Q
Thank you.
24 A
Sorry about that.
25 Q
Dr. Simon, I have a few short questions I hope O
.07801111
.7385 joewalsh
(~T 1
and then I will be done.
\\_)
2 In preparing these various tables, I take it 3
that one of the assumptions you made in preparing these 4
tables was that with regard to the observations that are 5
made with regard to each sample that one of two outcomes is 6
expected, either pass or fails is that correct?
7 A
The tables were certainly premised on that 8
arithmetic, yes.
9 Q
So, there was nothing in between.
It was either 10 you passed or you failed?
11 A
In organizing those numerical summaries, yes, 12 that 's correct.
13 Q
Dr. Simon, I take it on Page 41 of your 14 testimony -- and I will read you the sentence that is in the 15 last paragraph on that page, you are basically talking about to FEMA's review and you say that, "It found that only five of 17 the eight drivers evaluated could perform adequately."
18 Do you see that statement?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Have you had a chance to review the specific 21 factual detail of the three bus drivers that did not perform 22 adequately?
23 A
Well, I have the EECR forms.
I'm sorry, the 24 EECF forms for those three drivers.
2$
Q Dr. Simon, let me have you again look at O
07801111 7386 joewalsh
(
l Attachment D of LILCO's testimony on Contention 21.
2 (The witness is complying.)
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Is this one of the EECF forms that you were just 5
referring to on the bus drivers?
6 A
I will have to check, but I think that is one.
7 Q
Could you, please?
8 A
Let me make sure.
9 (The witness is looking at documents.)
10 Yes.
In f ac t --- yes, I have that one.
That is 11 the Jankowski.
12 Q
With regard to this specific evaluation critique 13 form, could you identify for me the actions that the bus d
14 driver took which were not adequate to perform his job?
15 A
Well,-there are several loaded phrases in 16 there.
Example, bus driver followed wrong direction to bus 17 yard, arriving at Wheat Transport in Lake Ronkonkona, driver 18 still managed to secure a bus.
Driver before leaving wrong 19 yard caught error, returned bus, proceeded ' to the other bus 20 yard, United in Coram, got there at a certain time.
He 21 arrived at a transfer point with no difficulty.
Okay.
22 Q
Okay.
I take it then from what you have just 23 read, Dr. Simon, that the principal failure of this 24 particular bus driver was his inability to find the correct 25 bus company initially; is that correct?
O
.=
l.
07801111 7387 j oewalsh i{}
1 A
It appears to be, yes.
2 Q
And.I take it also it appears from the form that 3
even though he arrived at the wrong bus company he l
4 nevertheless rented a bus; is that correct?
5 A
It.says that.
l 6
Q Dr. Simon, do you know if those particular i
7 actions, namely driving to an incorrect bus company but a
nevertheless renting a bus would in any way have effected 9
the emergency response of the LERO organization?
10 A
I have problems with, you know, decisions of l
11 this nature.
In particular, one wonders to what extent I'm I
12 allowed to use charitable ex-post criteria in evaluating how 13 someone did.
You know, the crucial point in running an 14 exercise like this, certainly from the standpoint of is statistical power, is that you must give yourself a 16 demonstrable opportunity to fail.
17 That is, if there is never an opportunity to is fail the drill, then it wasn't much of a drill at all.
19 Therefore, you know, I am uncomfortable with looking at 20 something that went wrong and saying, well, it wasn't so bad 21 or looking at it and saying, well, gee, that was tough.
We 22 will put it in the training plan.
23 I don't know how to deal with that.
When I see 24 that it was a, you know, recovered problem I am a little 25 nervous.
Would the person have recovered in a real
07801111 7388 joewalsh g(
1 emergency?
I don't know.
2 Q
Okay.
I take it, Dr. Simon, from your last
-3 answer that your problem with the line of questioning-I am 4
going through is that it is hard for you to draw a partial 5
success or partial failure when looking at a given exercise 6
event, and you would prefer simply to say pass or fail with 7
no in between?
8 A
Well, let me say it this way.
You know, I
9 obviously the intermediate decisions are murky
.nd I feel we 10 are committing something of a disservice if we make, you 11 know, partial successes, you know, something that can be 12 swept under the rug in some sense.
You know, I'm not 13 denying that, gee, this fellow did recover a bus in spite of t
14 his initial difficulties.
J 15 The difficulties in grading the exercise as a 16 whole and, indeed, you know, the consequence of some of 17 these, you know, in between problems which look reasonably la benign to a drill may be disastrous in a real emergency.
19 And, you know, it's exactly that reason that I am 20 uncomfortable with how to deal with somebody who succeeds 21 partially.
You know, do we want military style precision in 22 success?
Maybe we do.
23 Q
I take it, Dr. Simon, that a lot of those views 24 are your own, since you earlier noted to me that you do not 25 view yourself as an expert on emergency planning matters; is D
I
'07801111 7389
' j oewalsh
' l^ '
1 "that correct?
w) 2 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
That 3
wasn't his testimcny earlier.
That's a mischaracterization.
-4 JUDGE FRYE:
I thought it was.
5 MR. ZEUGIN:
I think that was exactly his 6'
testimony.
I will be glad to ask that question over again.
7 MR. LANPHER:
His testimony earlier was, are you a
an expert and he said:
I feel qualified to present this 9
statistical testimony.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
But, he earlier testified --
11 correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Simon, you earlier testified 12 that you don't regard yourself as an expert in emergency 13 planning?
g\\
e\\#
14 WITNESS SIMON:
Oh, that 's true.
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
15 WITNESS SIMON:
That's true.
16 i
17
'BY MR. ZEUGIN:
(Continuing) 18 Q
Let me ask you again then, Dr. Simon, I take it 19 then the views you just gave in that previous answer were 20 your own and not any particular expertise you may have in 21 emergency planning in judging performance?
22 A
Well, that's somewhere in between.
I -- you 23 know, I have been asked to render some statistical 24 judgments, and I'm particularly concerned with the issue of 25 statistical power.
.O
07801111 7390 j oewalsh a
)
1 The issue of statistical power involves can you 2
detect when something goes wrong.
And, indeed, if one makes 3
operational definitions or verbal apologies that let you not 4
see things or let you not count them in certain ways, you 5
know, I feel that has an impact on the statistics.
6 Q
Dr. Simon, let me ask you -- let me give you two 7
examples and then I want to ask you a question about them a
from a statistical point of view.
9 A
Sure.
10 Q
Let me ask you to assume with me that at the 11 outset you have a sample group of eight and in the first 12 case five of those eight performed perfectly and are 13 basically pass.
On the other hand, three people are total
--,'I T Jl 14 failures or essentially entitled to O percent in terr.s of 15 their performance.
16 In the second group, let me again have you pick 17 five people who perform perfectly and would be given scores la if I were to write them on a basis of 0 to 100 percent.
Let j
19 me ask you to assume that one additional person achieves a 20 score of 90 percent and that two other people -- the 21 remaining two achieve scores of 60 percent.
22 Do you have my two sample groups at this point?
23 A
No.
That's an obvious and appropriate question 24 I think.
And --
25 Q
I don't think I've got a question yet.
I think
~3 L
07801111 7391 j oewalsh
.()
1
-- I just wanted to make sure you understood my sample 2
group.
3 MR. LANPHER:
I don't mean to mess up his 4
hypothetical, but I don't understand.
Maybe he does.
I 5
would like to just -- may I address a question to Mr.
6 Zeugin, Judge Frye?
7 JUDGE PARIS:
I haven't heard a question.
8 MR. LANPHER:
No, about his sample groups.
May 9
I?
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
11 MR. LANPHER:
For the first, you had five of 100 12 percent and three of 0 percent?
13 MR. ZEUGIN:
That's correct.
14 MR. LANPHER:
Okay.
15 MR. ZEUGIN:
And for the second group, I had 16 five of 100 percent, one of 90 percent and two of 60 17 percent.
~
18 MR. LANPHER:
That 's fine.
I just didn't 19 understand on the first group.
Thank you.
20 WITNESS SIMON:
I think you still have to ask 21 the question, although I can imagine what it is.
22 BY MR. ZEUGIN:
(Continuing) 23 Q
All right.
I will try and do my best with the 24 question, though.
25 (Laughter. )
I i
l
-078011111 7392 j oewalsh' I
1 From a statistical viewpoint, would one draw 2
'dif ferent conclusions about the confidence one had in 1
3 predicting the -larger population from each of these sample 4
. group results?
5 A
The answer is yes.
However, one has to watch 6
out about the ex-post nature of the scoring system.. That 7
is, if you had dealt originally with, you know, some 8
~ agreement or some understanding about what partial successes 9
mean and what level of partial success you were working 10 with, sure, then indeed the second instance you mentioned, 1
11 the one in which there were fractional successes would be 12 scored more favordbly than the other one.
13 You know, what troubles me in-this instance is 14 the ex-post classification.
15 Q
And I take it when you said scored more.
16 favorably you meant -- when you said scored more favorably, 17 Dr. Simon, I take it you were referring to the confidence in-18 your ability to predict the performance of other than a 19 population would be better in the second case than in the
- 0 first.. You would have more --
21 A
No.
The predicted average performance would be 4
22 higher in the second instance.
3 23 Q
All right.
l
-24 A
The confidence is about the same.
25 MR. ZEUGIN:
Judge Frye, I have no further i
07801111 7393
~ j oewalsh
~'l 1
questions.
Thank you, Dr. Simon.
~'b 2
JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Zahnleuter.
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No questions.
4 JUDGE FRYER Mr. Barth.
5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6
BY'MR. BARTH:
7 Q
Dr. Simon, could you tell me approximately when a
you first saw this project which you were working upon which 9
resulted in your testimony?
10 A
It first came to my attention in November, maybe 11 December of 19 86.
12 Q
And, how did you view this problem?
13 A
Well, the problem was presented to me through 14 the Kirkpatrick & Lockhart attorneys, and the problem was is characterized as an instance in which very small sample 16 sizes were used to make generalizations to populations.
17 Q
I'm concerned with the three out of 60 bus is drivers on Page 33, the eight out of 333 on Page 40 in your 19 testimony, the two out of 20 ambulance /ambulette drivers on 20 Page 57, and the 32 traffic guides out of 156, 21 You have tables for the first three of these.
22 Did you, in your draft, prepare a table for the traffic 23 guides, the 32 out of 156?
24 A
I did not.
Obviously, I could have.
If you 25 look at the testimony carefully, there is not obviously the
{)
same level of condemnation on that kind of sample size.
07801212 7394 marysimons 7j
)
1 Q
Although the question has been asked and 2
answered I'm aware of, did you review basically each of 3
these drivers as a Bernoulli process?
4 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
He 5
hasn't said which drivers he's talking about.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
I didn't understand the question.
7 MR. BARTH:
I would refer Your Honor to 3 out of 8
60 drivers on page 33, 8 out of 333 on page 40 and 2 out of 9
20 on page 57.
I thought this was reasonably precise.
1 10 JUDGE PARIS:
What was the question.
11 JUDGE FRYE:
Then you said some sort of a 12 p roc es s.
13 MR. BARTH:
I asked him did'he consider this to 7._
14 be a Bernoulli process.
JUDGE FRYE:
A Bernoulli process, 15 16 MR. BARTH:
B-e-r-n-o-u-1-1-i.
17 WITNESS SIMON:
The process which generated the 18 tables was one which assumed simple random sampling of the 19 people and thereafter independent Bernoulli trials that 20 again scored success / failure.
21 BY MR. BARTH:
22 Q
And indeed in effect were these drivers on the 23 three pages, were these a Bernoulli process, were these a 24 success or failure situation in fact?
25 A
In the end there are critique sheets on each of b, )
c.
07801212 7395 mnrysimons
{)
i them, and in some instances there are checks that they did 2
okay and in other cases there are descriptions of goof-ups.
3 If the criterion has passed everything, yes, you 4
could think of that as a Bernoulli success / fail situation.
5 Q
That was the basis of your analysis?
6 A
The calculations are made on that premise, yes.
7 Q
Did FEMA regard it as such?
8 A
Apparently not.
FEMA made no attempt of that 9
nature in anything that I saw.
10 Q
Again referring to these same drivers, sir, did 11 you consider them to be a stochastic variant, each of them?
12 A
There are a number of models that can be used to 13 describe this particular game.
The model that actually h~.s 14 generates the table is one in which there is a fixed 15 population of drivers.
16 The fixed population of drivers is completely 17 non-s tochas tic, meaning non-random.
Randomness is is introduced then by the selection process, and following that 19 there is a random process as to whether they succeed of 20 fail.
21 There is another model which in fact is actually 22 easier to implement which assumes that there is a 23 potentially infinite population of such drivers.
If you use 24 the potentially infinite population, then the confidence 25 intervals get a little bit wider.
l
_b 4
..~_ -
m
,..x
07801212 7396 marysimons j
1 I made the decision early in the work that I 2
would consider this as a finite population problem simply 3
because it was a more conservative treat it, meaning that I 4
would get narrower confidence intervals and therefore 'it's 5
less likely to raise a number of technical objections from 6
the other side.
7 Q
For the purpose of your analysis did you 8
consider each driver to be a stochastic variant?
9 A
I think I described where the stochastic parts 10 were in the model.
I regarded the entities, let's say the 11 60 route alert drivers, or 44 I guess, I regarded them as 12 fixed non-random entities.
The act of whether they would 13 succeed or fail I regarded as random.
O'd 14 Q
Did FEMA in fact treat these people as random 15 variables?
16 A
Well, I don't think I see any statistical 17 discussion in what I've read from FEMA.
la Q
To the best of your knowledge, did FEMA assign is these people numbers in this random digit generator to 20 produce their sample?
21 A
Oh, I think Mr. Daverio revealed the contrary.
22 In fact, it was a haphazard selection scheme.
23 Q
Am I correct that only if you have a random 24 sample can you make an estimation of a population parameter 25 from a sample statistic?
q
-._----xwm-Iw~
e g--
07801212 7397 marysimons I( )
1 A
Well, that's the chapter and verse that the 2
statisticians preach.
There are a lot of non-random samples 3
out there, and there are occasional objections to these non-4 random samples.
How one objects depends on the nature of 5
what happened.
6 I can give you an example of one that involves 7
no objections.
It was a study I analyzed recently involving 8
a hundred people to use two products.
The people were given 9
numbers from 1 to 100.
All of those who were given sequence 10 numbers or ID number divisible by four, meaning 4, 8,
12 and 11 so on, those people got to use product "B."
The remaining 12 people _got to use product "A."
7_
i3 Technically that's supposed to be a non-u acceptable randomization scheme, but we live with it and we
~
15 make believe it 's okay.
16 Q
I understand from the general thrust of your 17 testimony that you felt that it was improper to make is judgments regarding the total number of drivers on all three 19 pages because of the fact that the drivers who were sampled 20 were not randomly selected, and that would be crucial, would 21 it not?
22 A
The sample size is a more critical issue here.
23 Frankly, this was the first time I had ever been asked to 24 deal with samples of size 2 and 3 and so on that people 25 actually took seriously.
So I was a little bit flustered 2
07801212 7398 marysimons
.,3 fj
-1 initially.
2 Q
I direct your attention to page 34 of your 3
testimony, sir.
4 What I would like to.know is what kind of a 5
distribution are you using in your table at the top of page 6
34.
7 A
Gee, this is all on the record.
I assumed that 8
there is a population of 60 items of which some number of 9
them ---
10 Q
Type of distribution, sir?
11 A
Hypergeometric.
12 Q
You used a hypergeometric.
,-q 13 A
Yes.
U-14 Q
Did you work these figures out by hand yourself 15 or did you use a table?
16 A
I used a computer program.
17 Q
And whose computer program did you use, Lotus?
18 A
No, my own.
19 Q
And you used a 95 percent confidence interval 20 throughout the three driver situations?
21 A
Whenever I use confidence intervals they tend to 22 be 95 percent.
23 Q
I direct your attention to page 41, the table 24 that you have, 8 out of the 333.
25 A
Yes.
C)
.s
07801212 7399 marysimons
.,(,)
1 Q
When I worked these figures myself I did not get 2
the 64 to 100 percent for the 8 out of 8.
Could you tell us 3
how this is done arithmetically if you don't have a computer 4
that works?
5 A
Okay.
It was the hypergeometric sampling 6
scheme.
I did the following.
I obtained this confidence 7
interval by a technique of repeated hypothesis testing until a
I found a limit of accepted values.
4 9
For example, one could form the hypothesis that to out of these 333 drivers there were 250 who would perform 11 well.
In such a case getting 8 out of 8 in a sample is not 12 remarkable and therefore the number 250 appears in the. 8 out i3 of 8 confidence interval.
1.
14 I repeated this using successively smaller 15 numbers, you know, 250, 249 and 248, 212 was the last 16 number going down that allowed me to accept the hypothesis 17 of that many successful drivers in the population.
This is 18 a way of saying if I formed the hypothesis that 212 of the 19 333 drivers were good, then getting 8 out of 8 in the sample 20 is not remarkable at the 5 percent level of significance.
21 The cross-over comes at 211.
If I make the hypothesis 22 that 211 out of the 333 are good ones, and remember that is 23 about two-thirds, then seeing 8 out of 8 successful ones in 24 the sample crosses over the threshold of being 25 unreasonable.
So the lower limit of that interval comes out AU l
07801212 7400 marysimons 7(j 1
to 212.
2 Q
Are you certain that you did not change the 3
significance level from.05 to.025 for the 8 out of 8 on 4
your last figure, the table that was published-in the 5
Journal of. the American Statistical Association with you 6
were Associate Editor by Blythe would indicate a 7
difference..That's a binomial table.
l 8
MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
If he's i
9 going to refer to some statistical table like that, he ought 10 to show the witness.
11 JUDGE FRYE:
Can you answer the question or do 12 you need to see the table?
13 WITNESS SIMON:
I think I would need to see the rT 14 table, but obviously we can do that.
15 JUDGE-FRYE:
Do you have the table?
16 MR. BARTH:
Yes.
17 (The table referred to was placed before the 18 witness by Counsel Barth.)-
19 MR. LANPHER:
And I would also appreciate having 20 the question either read back or repeated.
8 21 JUDGE PARIS:
What is this a table of?
22 MR. BARTH:
This is a. table of binomial 23 probabilities.
l 24 JUDGE FRYE:
Which appeared in?
25 MR. BARTH:
The Journal of the American
07801212-7401 Emarysimons
/'
- v)-
1 Statistical Society in March 1983.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
I see.
3 Now can we get the question read back.
4 (The pending question was read by the reporter.)
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay, go ahead, Dr. Simon.
6 WITNESS SIMON:
This table covers an 7
approximation to binomial confidence intervals.
This is an 8
infinite population model.
The problem that I'm dealing 9
with is a finite population model.
In my case, or the one io illustrated we are talking of 8 of 8.
In the notation of 11 this table "X"
is eight, "N"
is eight, but there is no 12 symbol corresponding to the 333.
13 Yes, there will be a discrepancy of course 14 because these are two dif ferent probability models.
This is 15 an infinite population model, and I did these as 16 hypergeometric or finite population.
17 BY MR. BARTH:
is Q
And would the finite population correction 19 factor of N minus N divided by N minus 1 discrepancy, would 20 that account for the five percent difference?
21 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
I 22 couldn't hear it at all.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Can you repeat the question and 24 more slowly because I think we're having trouble following.
25 BY MR. BARTH:
'07801212 7402 marysimons (y) 1 Q
Would the finite population correction factor 2
which is accounted for in the variance of the 3
hypergeometrical distribution account for the five 4
dif ference in percentage points?
5 A
I think we are talking at cross-purposes. 'The 6
calculation that I made on this page 41 of the testimony 7
assumes that there is a finite population of size 333.
It 8
assumes that a sample is taken out of this finite 9
population, and in making the arithmetic hypergeometric 10 probabilities were used 11 The table that comes out of Blythe's article is 12 for binomial sampling.
That's one in which the population la is infinite.
,cs
\\
- },d Indeed, if one takes a binomial type problem and 14 15 applies the finite population correction to the variance, 16 then indeed the binondal table will produce something 17 reasonably close to an exact hypergeometric calculation.
18 I suppose I should apologize for littering the 19 transcript with all of these strange inscrutable terms, but 20 in fact the table are not inconsistent with each other, and 21 I would believe that both are correct.
22 BY MR. BARTH:
23 Q
Dr. Simon, do you know of any kind of
-24 requirements by the NRC or by FEMA, either regulation or
. 25 guidanc e, which would require a statistical sampling such as O
07801212 7403 marysimons
()i i
the subject of your analysis?
2 A
I know of nothing in the official regulations 3
regarding this.
4 Q
Let me ask you to assume for a moment a totality 5
of the FEMA finding, whatever that may be, and assume that 6
your analysis is correct.
What kind of an effect would that 7
have, your analysis have upon the FEMA finding?
8 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
The 9
question is vague.
He hasn't told us what FEMA finding he's 10 talking about.
In fact, he says whatever that may be.
It 11 calls for speculation.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Can you make that a little more 13 specific,.Mr. Barth, BI MR. BARTH:
u 14 15 Q
Without regard to what the FEMA' finding may be, 16 what percentage of that finding is dependent upon FEMA 17 correctly evaluating the three out of 60 drivers which 18 appear upon page 34 of your testimony?
19 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question again.
20 It's vague and calls for speculation.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, it's difficult, but do you 22 think you can handle that?
23 WITNESS SIMON:
Well, maybe I can ask a question 24 that will reclarify it.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Let's try it.
O
..._ ~
t-
~07801212 7404 marysimons 1
JWITNESS SIMON:
FEMA prepares a report which 2
appears to be very modular in that judgments or statements-3
'are given about individual facts.
I could probably answer
~
4 questions dealing with those parts to which this' statistical 5
stuff is relevant.
6' JUDGE FRYE:
Let me try a question here, if I 7
may.
8 Dr. Simon, FEMA -- aside from Shoreham now --
9 but in general terms FEMA makes a finding that there is or 10 is not: reasonable assurance that the health and safety of 11 the public can be protected-following an exercise similar to 12 the one that was conducted here.
I 13 I'm not sure I can make this any more specific
, D 14 than Mr. Bardh did, but do you' think that that finding is l
15 called into question by the failure of FEMA to follow the 16 sort of statistical procedures which you have outlined?
17 WITNESS SIMON:
The short answer is yes.
The h
18 slightly longer answer is that -- well, FEMA is evaluating 19
'many. things, organizational plans and the EOC.
The issues i
20 that I've dealt with concerned field activities at precisely 21 where the emergency people have to deal with the public, and 22 my feeling is that the sample sizes involved here have 23 simply not tested some important questions.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
So you feel that.the finding 25 is called into question by the failure to follow statistical 1
,e
,.n.,
- - +. -
n,,, ~
a-,-n ~, n - _ r,- n n
-,-n-
...,. n n e n n,.
,,-n
-,-,--w-~~-~~~a-
-n.e
07801212 7405 marysimons
,a;
_( j 1
proc edures?
2 WITNESS SIMON:
Yes.
3 MR. BARTH:
Thank you, Your Honor.
4 BY MR. BARTH:
5 Q
The next question is what is the quantity of 6
that importance of the testing or talking to the drivers on 7
page 34 of your testimony?
8 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Frye, could I please have 9
that question read back?
I may have an objection.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
I have a problem with the question.
11 MR. LANPHER:
Then I object.
12 (Laughter. )
13 JUDGE FRYE:
I don't-think there is any need to O
i4 read it back.
15 Can you quantify the importance or the 16 significance of the failure to follow procedures say with 17 specific reference to their sample of bus drivers?
18 MR. LANPRER:
Judge Frye, could I ask for a 19 clarification.
Is this in terms of some type of a specific 20 objective in field 5 which I think Mr. Barth is talking 21 about on page 34, field objective 5?
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Is that the one you had reference 23 to, Mr. Barth?
24 MR. BARTH:
I was really not concerned with a 25 field objective number.
I was concerned, as you put it,
07801212 7406 Lmarysimons l
1 Your Honor, how important is it that FEMA do or not do 2
correctly the -interviewing of these drivers, 3 out 60.
It 3
seems to me a ' fair question.
If this is a'significant 4
matter, we should know it's significant and why, and if it's 5
insignificant, we should know that also.
If FEMA has made a 6
terrible goof, tell us.
If FEMA has not made a terrible 7
goof, tell us that, too.
Is this important.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
I think that is what we are really 9
after.
10 MR. BARTH:
Only on the 3 out of 60.
We'll 11 worry about the rest later.
12 WITNESS SIMON:
Well, certainly the sample of 13 size 3 is inadequate to make an inference of reasonable 14 assuranc e.
15 16 J
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
l
07801313 7407 cuewalsh Y
.(_)
I MR. BARTH:
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
2 I accept your thesis that FEMA was an improper 3
sample in this case.
My question is:
Is that important to 4
the scheme of the world tomorrow?
FEMA's evaluation.
5 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
Can you deal with that?
7 WITNESS SIMON:
Let me make sure I understand 8
the question.
The question is how important is this?
9 Well, the answer goes as follows:
You haven't to looked at enough to know whether they are going to do well M
or not.
If, indeed, the bus drivers would do just 12 wonderful, it is another unknown error.
As in many 13 ins tanc es, things which are unchecked or infuriates do turn g3Q 14 out eventually to be okay anyhow.
15 However, the point is unchecked.
Now, I am not 16 qualified to say what is a legitimate experiment to 17 perform.
Certainly, we have to look at more than three to 18 have some idea as to whether the thing is important or not.
19 JUDGE PARIS:
In other words, with a sample size 20 of three, and you reach a judgment on the basis of that, you 21 really have no idea how right you are, or how wrong you are?
22 23 WITNESS SIMON:
That says it well.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
It is pass / fail, or analogous to 25 pass / fail, in a sense.
-s e
__=
07801313 7408 suewalsh v,
(,j, :
1 WITNESS SIMON:
If you were to-take a case of 2
bus drivers, five out of eight did it okay, that leads one 3
to suggest that if you had a real emergency some of them 4
would do okay.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
But I gather from what you are 6
saying, you don't feel -- or you do feel that an inadequate 7
sample size in this instance means that you really don't 8
know the answer to the question.
9 WITNESS SIMON:
Yes.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
That is what I meant by pass / fail, 11 or being analogous to pass / fail.
12 WITNESS SIMON:
Yes.
k 13 JUDGE FRYE:
Either you have some valid basis 14 for reaching a conclusion, or you did not.
15 WITNESS SIMON:
Yes.
I don't want to create the 16 impression that it is a distinct possibility that all three 17 hundred and something drivers would goof up.
That seems 18 unrealistic.
19 What seems likely is that some in between level 20 of performance will happen, and I simply have not seen 21 enough information to know what that is going to be.
l 22 JUDGE FRYE:
I see.
Thank you.
23 BY MR. BARTH:
(Continuing) i i
24 Q
Dr. Simon, you were here earlier when we heard 25 testimony that FEMA did not statistically sample.
Is it
- O I
l wwyv y
rv v -
p-'
w--
W Y
v w
w yrw w
v-W
07801313 7409 cuewalsh 1
your view that the NRC should require statistical samples in 2
these exercises?
3 A
Well, you know, it is like asking a Minister if 4
he believes in God, I suppose.
5 (Laughter.)
6 It is a statistical Article of Faith that
)
7 samples randomly selected have many features that make them 8
desirable and appropriate.
So, the answer is, yes.
9 MR. BARTH:
I have no further questions, Your 10 Honor.
11 JUDGE FRYE:
Redirect?
12 MR. LANPHER:
There will be some brief
(^;
13 redirec <.
Would this be an appropriate time to take our t)
'J 14 break?
15 JUDGE'FRYE:
We will take a break at this point 16 for fifteen minutes.
17 (Whereupon, afternoon recess was taken at 2:35 18 p.m.,
to reconvene at 2:50 p.m.,
this same day.)
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Back on the record.
Redirect?
20 MR. LANPHER:
Just very briefly.
21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. LANPHER:
23 Q
Dr. Simon, Mr. Zeugin earlier asked you some 24 questions about the EECF forms, particularly the points of 25 review on that form, FEMA points of review, for purposes of
07801313 7410 euewalsh
. -(,8.
)
I testimony that you presented in this proceeding, was it 2
relevant or important for you to review or critique those 3
points of review?
4 A
At best they were mildly interesting.
I was 5
accepting FEMA's judgment at the end of the form.
I was not 6
critiquing the standards they used to reach those decision.
7 Q
Okay. 'Now, second, you were asked a number.of 8
questions, I think by both Mr. Zeugin and Mr. Barth, 9
regarding whether you took into account partial successes 10 during the Shoreham exercise where there were some screw up 11 in some part of the demonstration, but some part was done 12 successfully.
13 Was it relevant to your testimony to take into V
14 account partial successes?
15 A
There are two answers to that.
The first is 16 that the tables which are presented in the document were 17 made without reference to partial successes.
18 The 6ther comment, which I believe I made 19 before, was that even if partial successes are allowed, or 20 scored, that does not get around the problem of having small 21 sample sizes.
22 Q
It is your testimony that the same sizes were 23 simply too small?
24 A
Yes, that is so.
25 Q
Now, Mr. Barth as you a question, and I think it
-O V
07801313 7411 cuewalsh 7
k,I I
was followed up by Judge Frye, whether the small samples m
2 were important in terms of reaching a reasonable assurance 3
finding, or otherwise judging the outcome of the exercise.
4 Can you explain why you answered that in terms 5
of,.yes?
6 A
Well, the regulations require a finding of 7
reasonable assurance that the evacuation can be 8
accomplished.
The small sample sizes simply do not let you 9
reach that conclusion.
10 Q
With the use of small samples, can you reach a 11 determination whether you can verify the capability of 12 response personnel to respond?
13 A
The sample sizes are so small in this instance g--
'\\-d
- 14 that I am unable to reach a judgment -- I am unable to 15 verify that they are capable of responding.
16 Q
That is because of the small size of the sample?
17 A
Indeed.
18 MR. LANPHER:
No further questions, Judge Frye.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Dr. Simon, thank you very much.
20 WITNESS SIMON:
You are very welcome.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
I appreciate you coming in and 22 giving us your thoughts.
23 WITNESS SIMON:
Thank you.
24 WITNESS STANDS ASIDE.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Is there anything we need to take
.~)
w
,,m, n-,--
c-
07801313 7412
- cuewalsh-
_a-3t j, I
up at this point before we adjourn?
2 MR. LANPHER:
We start 9:00 then on the th 9th?
3 JUDGE FRYE:
9:00 on Tuesday the 9th of June.
4 MR. LANPHER:
My understanding, correct me if I 5
am wrong, that we start with the Government's motion to 6
' strike portions of FEMA's testimony?
7 JUDGE FRYE:
That is correct.
8 MR. LANPHER:
And then we will go to cross 9
examination.
My assumption is that LILCO will go first, 10 since they have the burden on proof.
That is the normal 11 proc edure.
We haven't had FEMA testimony up here before, 12 and the Government will follow, and then the NRC Staff, if
.g-.
~13 they have cross examination, is that correct?
-(
You are getting a response to that, i
14 JUDGE FRYE:
15 I think.
16 MR. IRWIN:
I think we may be getting ahead of 17 ourselves.
Mr. Lanpher also assumes in other circumstances 18
_that FEMA is aligned with the NRC, and that the NRC is 19 aligned with LILCO.
I am not sure whether LILCO has the 20
. burden of proof or not should determine who goes first.
- 21 Certainly from the estimates we have received so 22 far, Suffolk County has indicated it has a far longer period 23 of examination that LILCO, and LILCO may be finding itself 24 in the position of having to follow up on some of Suffolk 25 County's questioning.
.~
3 07801313 7413 cuewalsh Il 1
It may be more economical for LILCO to question 2
later in any event, because of that.
3 MR. LANPHER:
Well, there will obviously be that d
opportunity when we go around and around in circles, or 5
whatever.
6 MR. IRWIN:
I am not prepared to concede Mr.
7 Lanpher 's sugges tion.
8 MR. LANPHER:
For our planning purposes, I would 9
like to suggest -- frankly, I don't know what LILCO is going 10 to do.
I am a little interested to see whether there are Il some other exercise questioning, frankly, that is going to 12 make a dif ference in some of our questioning.
13 I would be interested in seeing LILCO go first ry 0~d 14 on that Tuesday after the motions are decided, and we will 15 be prepared to go, and the Governments be prepared to 16 proceed thereaf ter.
17 MR. LANPHER:
Do you have any problem with that?
18 MR. IRWIN:
Yes, sir.
I frankly think that -- I 19 would like to talk about it further with Mr. Lanpher, but I 20 think the situation is equally imbalanced on the other 21 side.
The interveners will have a lot of questioning for 22 FEMA.
LILCO will want to follow up, and it would be maybe 23 just as economical for us to follow them.
24
,I strongly suspect that our questioning will not 25 last as long as their intended questioning, to suggest that I
i
,~-3
07801313 7414 cuewalsh
(,)
1 it would be more compactive to do it all at one time at the 2
end, but maybe Mr. Lanpher and I can reach an agreement on 3
it.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Why don't you discuss it, and if 5
you can't reach an agreement, let us know.
I would suggest 6
. that you let us know -- can you do it tomorrow?
7 MR. IRWIN:
It might be --
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Tomorrow or --
9 MR. IRWIN:
It might be best if we did it on 10 Wednesday the 3rd when we outline to the Board who is going 11 to be asking questions, and what our estimated duration 12 might be.
13 JUDGE FRYE:
My concern is if there is a dispute 14 over that that we give you a ruling so whoever is going 15 first will know in advance that they are going first, or as 4
16 well in advance as possible.
17 MR. LANPHER:
Why don't we let you know by the 18 end of this week?
Are you going to be in the office toward 19 the end of the week?
20 JUDGE FRYE:
My schedule is very chopped up, and 21 I will probably be in -- I will be in tomorrow and Thursday, 22 according to current plans.
I probably won't be in Friday.
23 I may be in some the following week.
But I can't guarantee 24 that.
25 MR. LANPHER:
How about if we let you know by O
.~
-07801313 7415 cuewalsh n
-I
/
1 noon on Thursday?
s 2
JUDGE FRYE:
That would be fine with me.
3 MR. LANPHER:
I put my position out on the d
table.
Don obviously wants ' to. think about it some, and we 5
will talk.
6 MR. IRWIN:
I think ours is on the table as 7
well.
Let's see if Mr. Lanpher and I can come to an 8
~ agreement by Thursday.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Anything else we need to 10 take up at this point?
11
(:No response.)
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine, we will be adjourned until
- 13 9:00, Tuesday, June the 9th.
14 (Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 3:00 p.'m.,
15 to reconvene at 9 :00 a.m., Tuesday, June 9, 1987.)
16 17 4
+.
18 I.
20 li 21 22 23 l
24
. 25 LQ
~, - -
c
-. -,. - +
..a-,
.,.-,,.nn,
.m,-,-.
n,,,..--
-,,n
.n.-,
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
T DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
PLACE:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK DATE:
TUESDAY, tiAY 26, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
//
(TYPED) k GARRETT J. WALSH Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
& blu/h MYRTLE S.
HALSH O
n Ob~N MARY C.&BIfiONS' i-r-w-
y
-+eg e
ep
.g
-.9*w r-.,
,-+m--+
m--.m-e=-w-.,
~,--
..p%-
- y
--e-
+>y+gg
---o
.