ML20214W834
| ML20214W834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3815 OL-5, NUDOCS 8706160205 | |
| Download: ML20214W834 (232) | |
Text
-_-
U311ED STATES O 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
GR1G NhL IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
.n v .
LOCATION: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 7888 . 8120 DATE. THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1987
/
\
9\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 8706160205 070611 2 PDR ADOCK 0500 (202)347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
24900000 7888 marysimons 1
IT y
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
6 -----------------------------------X 7 In the Matter of: :
8 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 9 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, : (EP Exercise) 10 Unit 1) :
11
X 12 Court of Claims 13 State of New York O
14 State Office Building 15 Third Floor Courtroom 16 Veterans Memorial Highway -
17 Hauppauge, New York 11788 18 Thursday, June 11, 1987 19 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 20 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 o' clock a.m.
21 BEFORE:
22 JOHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 r3
.v .
t
c 24900000 7889 marysimons OSCAR H. PARIS, Member
) 1 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 Bethesda, Maryland 20555
~5 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member-6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 9 APPEARANCES:
10 , On Behalf of Lona Island Lichtina company:
!I KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESQUIRE 12 LEE B. ZEUGIN, ESQUIRE 23 DONALD P. IRWIN, ESQUIRE
'O 14 Hunton & Williams f
15 707 East Main Street 16 P. O. Box 1535 -
17 Richmond, Virginia 23212 18 On Behalf of Suffolk County:
19 KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQUIRE 20 MICHAEL S. MILLER, ESQUIRE 21 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, ESQUIRE 22 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 23 South Lobby, 9th Floor 24 1800 M Street, N. W.
l 25 Washington, D. C. 20036-5891
- O O
- 24900000 7890 marysimons I On Behalf of the State of New York:
}
2 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQUIRE 3 Special Counsel to the Governor 4
Executive Chamber 5 Room 229 6 State Capitol 7 Albany, New York 12224 8 On Behalf of the NRC:
9 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, ESQUIRE 10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 7735 Old Georgetown Road 12 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 13 On Behalf of FEMA:
14 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESQUIRE 15 500 C Street, S. W.
16 Washington, D. C. 20472 .
17 18 19 20 e e e e e e 21 22 23 24 ,
25 i
J
24700000 7891
.'marysimons ,
) 1 C0NTENTS 2
Direct Cross Redirect Recross Voir Dire 3
(Resumed Panel) 4 ROGER B. KOWIESKI 5 THOMAS E. BALDWIN 6 JOSEPH H. KELLER 7892 7
a . . . e e 9
10 EXHIBITS 11 Identified Admitted 12 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibits
,13 No. 102 7954 7982 14 No. 100 and 101 7982 15 No. 103 7985 7986 16 No. 104 8009 -
17 No. 105 8012 18 No. 106 8096 19 20 * * * *
- 21 22 A. M. RECESS Page 7945 23 LUNCHEON RECESS Page 7986 24 P. M. RECESS Page 8024 25 Brief Recess Page 8075 O
i 24900101 7892 cuewalsh l PROCEEDINGS 2
(9 :02 a.m.)
3 JUDGE FRYE Good morning. Are you ready to d begin?
5 MS. LETSCHE: Yes.
6 Whereupon, 7 THOMAS E. BALDWIN, 8 ROGER B.'KOWIESKI ,
9 and 10 JOSEPH H. KELLER ll were resumed as witnesses and, having previously been duly 12 sworn, were further examined and testified as follows:
13 CROSS EXAMINATION O 14 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 15 Q Mr. Keller, I want to go back briefly to 16 something we discussed yesterday. Do you recall our 17 discussion about Ms. Jackson and what she was reviewing over ,
18 at the ENC, and we talked about whether or not she was 19 reviewing the performance of LILCO personnel as well as LERO 20 personnel?
21 Do you recall that discussion? l 22 A (Witness Keller) Yes, I do.
23 MR. CUMMING: I'm sorry, is Ms. Letsche's mike 24 on? I can't hear her.
1 25 MS. LETSCHE: Yes, it is. I will try to speak cO i
l I
24900101 7893 cuewalsh v~x 1 up.
{}
2 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 3 Q In connection with your preparation for 4 testimony in this proceeding, Mr. Keller, did you review'any 5 deposition transcripts? i, 6 A I read some of the deposition transcripts, yes.
7 0 Did you read the transcript of Ms. Jackson's 8 deposition?
9 A I believe I did, but I'm not positive.
10 Q And, I assume that you would not take issue with II what Ms. Jackson said in her own deposition, would you?
12 A I would not.
g~3 13 Q So, you would not disagree with Ms. Jackson's
~
14 statement at Page 58 and 59 of her deposition which was that 15 she did not observe because it was not her job, the 16 performance of the LILCO Public Information personnel during 17 the exercise, corroct?
18 A If that's what she said -- she was the evaluator 19 at that site -- I have no reason to disagree.
(Witness Kowieski) 20 And, I believe I testified 21 yesterday that normally we do not evaluate on-site 22 capability . And, LILCO is part of on-site team.
23 Q Okay. Gentlemen, I would like to direct your 24 attention to Page 54 of your testimony. This is a 25 continuation of your discussion about Subpart C of
F 24900101 7894 cuewalsh L bl
' 3 Contention X-39.
2 Now, you begin there by discussing a matter that 3 And, that is raised in Subnart Roman IV of Contention X-39.
d dealt with a public inquiry that was simulated to the rumor 5 control personnel at 3:15, and the response involved 6 information accurate as of 1 o' clock.
7 Now, in your testimony you say that the response 8 at 3:15 was an exampic of the lack of up-to-date information 9 which resulted in the evaluation of a deficiency by FEMA.
10 Now, you don't know, do you, whether the response that is t
Il referenced in the contention here was a result of the hard U copy problem which FEMA identified in its deficiency, do 7 ,.
13 you?
4 e
~# 14 A We don't know.
15 Q And, you don't -- the response which is E
16 referenced in the contention could have been a result of a 17 brhakdown in verbal communications between individuals at 18 the EOC or ENC and the rumor control personnel, correc t?
19 A It's possible.
20 0 And, I take it it could also be the result of 21 inadequate training of the rumor control personnel, correct?
22 .
.A You ask me to -- again to speculate. If you 23 want me to speculate, I will.
24 Q No. I want you to answer my question. It could 25 be a result of inadequate training of the rumor control i
,3 s
)
24900101 7895 cuewalsh
(')
s-I personnel, couldn't it, Mr. Kowieski?
2 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, excuse me a moment.
3 Could the New York delegation swing back? I cannot see Ms.
4 Letsche from where I sit.
5 WITNESS KELLER: It 'could be the result of many 6 different things.
7 BY MS, LETSCHE: (Continuing) 8 Q That 's right . And, you don't --
9 A (Witness Keller) One of the things it could be 10 the result of is the issue that you raised. It could be the 11 result of many, many things and we have no way of knowing 12 what the result is.
73 13 Q That's right. Thanks, Mr. Keller. In fact, it U . 14 could also be -- among the many things that this could be a 15 result of, it could be that the rumor control procedure 16 itself is unworkable or inadequate, correct? -
17 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. She is asking the 18 witness to speculate. He has clearly stated that he doesn't 19 know what is the cause.
20 JUDGE FRYE: Sustained.
21 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 22 Q In your discussion of Section 5 of Subpart C of 23 Contention 39, you comment upon the rumor control response 24 to someone identified as Dan Rather who wanted to take a 25 t.v. crew into the Shoreham plant.
24900101 7896 cuewalsh i
k' ) Now, you are aware I assume, because it says in 2
the contention, that that inquiry supposedly from Mr. Rather 3
took place at 11:45 on the day of the exercise, right?
d A (Witness Keller) Let me verify that I -- that's 5 correct, yes.
6 And, as of that point, LILCO was recommending Q
7 that Zones A through M, Q and R be evacuated, correct?
8 A That is correct.
9 And, shortly after that the recommendation was Q
10 ~ made to evacuate the entire EPZ, correc t?
II A That's correct.
12 Now, you say in your answer here that the Q
13 response given would have been an unreasonable one for an 14 ordinary citizen. I take it that's because you wouldn't 15 want an ordinary citizen to be going into an area that had 16 been evacuated, correct? -
37 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's correct.
18 Q And, I take it from your answer that you don't 19 care if Dan Rather went into an evacuated area?
20 A No. That is not an issue. We disagree.
( 21 (Laughter.)
22 Q Well, is it your testimony that the response
! 23 that is identified or set forth in the contention was an j
24 appropriate response by the rumor control personnel?
l l
25 A That's correct, b
.s ,-
I p ----r w-w-v, --, w- - - - , e,- -s y , -m- -=w- -
24900101 7897 guewalsh
..( 1 Q And, that response was to give directions to the 2 plant, correct?
3 A (Witness Keller) Partly.
4 Q It included that, didn't it, Mr. Keller?.
5 A It included that. It also included: We advise 6 you not to go to the plant.
7 Q Right. The response, to the best of your 8 knowledge, did not include any advice to Mr. Rather that the 9 area had been evacuated, did it?
10 A That is correct. We are making our response --
11 Q That's fine, Mr. Keller. You answered my 12 question.
13 Now, you indicate that it 's your understanding
"'~
14 that in giving Mr. Rather directions to the-plant that the 15 rumor control responder was doing so in the interest of 16 being responsive to the media. Now, do you know-whether the 17 LILCO plan or the LERO plan has particular provisions la concerning how inquiries from the press are to be addressed?
19 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
20 0 It does have such provisions, doesn't it?
21 A At the emergency news center.
22 Q It's your understanding that the -- well, strike 23 that.
24 I was referring, Mr. Kowieski, to responses to l
25 be made by rumor control personnel to inquiries that come in l
i w
(..
24900101 7898 guewalsh 1 from members of the press. Is that what you were 2 referencing _ in your answer?
3 A I was referencing generally dealing with the 4
news media.
5 Let me try this again. Do you know whether the Q
6 LILCO plan or the LERO plan has provisions concerning how 7 telephone inquiries from the press are to be handled?
8 (The witnesses are conferring.)
9 A It is our recollection that the plan is not 10 specific with respect to how the press inquiries should be II answered, should be handled by rumor control.
12 13 7)9 Es i4 15 16 .
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 D
24900202 7899 marysimons
.(~T 1 Q According to the information that is contained
.O 2 in the contention about this particular inquiry the rumor I
3 control responder did not ever advise Mr. Rather to go to 4 the emergency news center for information, did they?
5 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
6 Q And it is a provision of the LILCO plan or the 7 LERO plan, isn't it, Mr. Kowieski, that news media are to be 8 advised to go to the ENC to obtain information?
9 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
10 Q So that provision of the plan was not followed 11 by the rumor control responder in this instance, was it?
12 A If we accept your contention the way it is.
,_ 13 Q But you nonetheless believe this response was an 14 adequate and appropriate one, correct?
15 A Well, at least part-of that response was 16 appropriate. It's consistent with the general policy not to 17 withhold information from the press. I thought yesterday we 18 had a length discussion about KI.
19 Q Yes, but in this case no information other than 20 the fact that there was a site area emergency and they don't 21 advise going to the plant was given to Mr. Rather, right?
22 A- According to your contention, that's correct.
23 Q Now with respect to subpart 6 ---
24 JUDGE PARIS: Could I ask a question about 25 subpart 5?
['
x
W 24900202 7900 marysimons
~l
( jf 1 MS. LETSCHE: Sure.
2 JUDGE PARIS: The responder to Dan Rather's 3 request said we don't advise going to the plant. You will 4 be in the way, which is perhaps true. But don't you think 5 it would have been prudent for him to say we don't advise 6 going to the plant because there has been a release of 7 radioactive material into the atmosphere?
8 WITNESS KOWIESKI: It would have been more 9 accurate, that is correct.
10 WITNESS KELLER: It would have been prudent, Il yes.
12 BY MS. LETSCHE:
13 Q Do you think it might also have been prudent to
- 1y,) . ,
O# 14 have said we don't advise you going to the. plant, and if you 15 go there are not going- to let you in anyway?
16 A (Witness Keller) I'm not sure that the rumor 17 control operator knows what would happen when that would 18 happen. I would assume, and it 's an assumption, that they 19 would not let him in the plant. I would assume he would be 20 in the way, as they said. The press is most of the time in 21 the way in this kind of situation. They have a job to do 22 and they assume certain risks in the pursuit of their. job in 23 doing their job.
24 We tried to answer these questions based on what 25 was in the contention, very limited. You can add lots of O) s
w 24900202 7901 marysimons
.h(f 1 . additional things, and if you add all the additional things 2 we might have answered the questions differently.
3 Q Let me follow up on your assumption, Mr.,
4 .Keller. You began your answer by what you assume about the 5 rumor control personnel. Wouldn't you assume that the rumor 6 control personnel knowing there had.been.an evacuation of.
7 the' entire EPZ would have known that Mr. Rather wouldn't ' be 8 permitted to get into that area?
9 A- You're making an assumption that I knew 10 something that I don't know.
Il Q No. I'm trying to find out you assumed one 12 thing about the rumor control personnel and not something 13 else.
14 A Well, I believe you stated that I knew that the 15 rumor control people knew that there was an evacuation of 16 the entire EPZ. We have already testified that there was a 17 breakdown in the information flow. The rumor control people
'18 didn't get the information in a timely manner. That is part 19 6, which we are going to get to I presume in a second.
i 20 (Laughter.)
21 Q Right.
!- 22 A So I don't believe that I can assume that the 23 rumor control personnel knew -- I mean I don't know what i
24 time they knew when the entire EPZ had been evacuated, and I 25 don't know for sure what time they knew A through M and Q O
l
24900202 7902 marysimons t-():
I 2
through R were evacuated.
We do know they did not have the information 3 when they should have had it.
4 So you would agree that they should have known; Q
5 -is that correct?
6 A That's the basis of the deficiency, yes.
7 And in light of the fact that they should have Q
8 known that, this response would be a deficient, inadequate 9 response, correct?
10 A No.
Il MR. PIRFO: I don't understand what "that" was 12 in that question. The question is vague.
y3 13 JUDGE FRYE: Pardon?
4 )
' # 14 MR. PIRFO: I didn't understand what "that" was 15 in that question. Counsel asked Mr. Keller, and apparently 16 the witness understood. He said they should have' assumed 17 "that" and I don't know what "that" mean in that question.
18 So I'm going to object to it as v6gue, but the witness has 19 responded.
20 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, I think the witness has 21 responded. He understood it.
22 WITNESS KELLER: I thought I did.
23 (Laughter . )
24 BY MS. LETSCHE:
25 Q Let me follow up, Mr. Keller. You don't think O
- w)
24900202 7903 marysimons q(f 1 this was an inaccurate or inappropriate response?
- 2. MS. McCLESKEY: Obj ec tion, asked and answered.
3 JUDGE FRYE: I don't think she has gotten to the 4 . question yet.
5 MS. LETSCHE: That's right. Thank you, Judge 6 Frye.
7 BY MS. LETSCHE:
8 Q Now did you just tell me that the reason that 9 FEMA identified a deficiency with respect to rumor control 10 was because the rumor control personnel did not have - timely 11 access to up-to-date information?
12 A (Witness Kowieski) We - _yes, we ---
,r's 13 Q Isn't that what you just said, and I'm l%
14 addressing this to Mr. Keller, Mr. Kowieski. Isn't that 15 right?'
16 A (Witness Keller) That is correct. -
17 Q What we are talking about here is subpart 5, and 18 I believe you just said that you don't know when the rumor 19 control people knew that there had been an evacuation 20 recommended for the whole zone or even for part of the zone, 21 right?
- 22 A That is correct.
23 Q And in light of that, that may have been why Mr.
24 Rather was not advised by these people not to go into that j 25 area, right? That was your assumption, right?
- - -..- . . . . ~_. . -.-. . .. . ., . . _ . - -
e
'24900202 7904
.marysimons e I I
I read the. contention.
A e( .
The contention states 2
4 that the responder said there is a site area emergency. At.
3 11:45 it's my understanding that the site area emergency was 4 inc'orrect infonnation.
5 I'm.saying that based on the information that 6 the rumor control operator had 'we made a judgment about what 7 he told, he or she, I'm sorry, told respondent' Dan Rather. ,
8 Based on the information the rumor control' operator had, the 9 . response was reasonable. We recommend you not go to the 10 plant.
(. It would have been more appropriate to say - there has II been a release, but at the site area emergency there had not 12 been a health effects release or a relea'se sufficient enough i- 13 to warrant any-health effects.
j 14 Therefore, I've got'to assume that the rumor -
1 4
15 control operator was not in possession of all- of the up-to-16 date information, and that was the --- -
17 Q Right. Now let me stop you there, Mr. Keller, i
18 . That was ---
19 A May I finish my answer, please? .
20 JUDGE FRYE: Let him finish.
, 21 . WITNESS KELLER: And that was the basis of the 22 deficiency that we discussed yesterday and, as Dr. Baldwin 23 discussed yesterday, there is a deficiency on the overall 24 operation of the rumor control. We thought everybody 25 understood that.
I k
---,r- a e ,ve.- --,ws.mww.v-3.-~mes e- , w e r . -- --.-e------,++w,greyw#, y .---1,---=,,93 w- oc- -w-r ,,w---w -++-e*---- , . . - - - ,
24900202. 7905 marysimons
()
1 In the contentions which were admitted, the way 2 we read them and the way we tried to answer them, is we were 3 given a set of conditions which we did not evaluate in the 4 exercise, but we felt since the Board had admitted these and 5 they wanted to hear testimony on these things, we tried to 6 formulate answers based on what is on the paper and nothing 7 else. We didn't go beyond that.
8 Our testimony is based on what is on-this paper 9 and not additional added things. We have stated and we will 10 state again and we will continue to state that the overall 11 operation of the rumor control function was a deficiency. .
12 Q Now, Mr. Keller ---
f--
13 JUDGE PARIS: What was the paper you were s'y 14 referring to?
15 WITNESS KELLER: The contentions, I'm sorry.
16 Excus e me . -
17 BY MS. LETSCHE:
18 Q The deficiency that FEMA identified with respect 19 to rumor control ---
20 A (Witness Kowieski) Could we caucus for a I
21 minute.
22 (Pause while the witnesses confer.)
23 A (Witness Keller) I think I know what I said.
! 24 Dr. Baldwin said he thinks he heard something different, and 25 we don't want to confuse the record. I think I said that 1
24900202 7906 marysimons 5
/%,1\
I- the information that the rumor control operator had was that 2 there was a site area emergency, and at the site area 3 emergency classification there was no release which has 4
health effects.
5 Now I don't mean that there was not a release as 6 of 11:45 that didn't have health effects, and I think that's 7 what I said, but we're not dbsolutely sure what I said.
8 JUDGE FRYE: That's what I understood.
9 WITNESS KELLER: That was all. I'm sorry.
10 BY MS. LETSCHE:
II Q Now the deficiency that FEMA identified for the 12 rumor control function was a copier machine problem, g-, 13 correc t?
N. 14 A (Witness Keller) What we said,was, I believe, 15 is that they did not have up-to-date information. That was 16 the fault. We tried to give a recommendation on how to 17 solve the fault, and we thought that had to do with the fact 18 that there was a copy machine breakdown and they didn't have 19 the capability to give hard copy and therefore to distribute 20 current, up-to-date information to these people who were 21 responding to rumor control.
22 The fault is -- the fault -- is that they didn't 23 have correct, up-to-date information. Our recommendation 24 for the fix was fix the copy machine so that you can get 25 hard copy to these people so they will have information.
0 L)
24900202 7907 marysimons I '1 That may.not be the right fix. I mean there may be a'better 2 fix, or that may not be the right way to fix it.-
3 The thing that must be fixed, however' it's 4 fixed, is for these people to have the correct, up-to-date 5 information.
6 7
8 .
9 10 11 12 14 15
~
16 17
-18 19 20 21 22 i 23 24 25 O
i l l
t
24900303 7908 joewalsh e1
() 1 2
Q Right. Now, in identifying a deficiency for rumor control you identified the inability to get hard copy 3 information to the rumor control personnel, right?
4 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's correc t.
5 Q You didn't identify any training problems for 6 rumor control personnel, did you?
7 A We did not.
8 Q And, you didn't identify any inadequacy in the 9 procedure for rumor control, did you?
10 A No, we did not.
Il Q And, you didn't identify any problem or any 12 deficiency in the communication of information other than by 7 ,.
13 hard copy to rumor control personnel, did you?
s i .
O'"' 14 A That 's correc t.
15 MR. PIRFO: Judge Frye, I apologize to counsel 16 for Suffolk County. We really can't hear over here. We are 17 only picking up about 80 percent of this. I apologize for-18 interrup ting . It's very, very difficult to hear.
19 JUDGE FRYE: The mike is on.
20 WITNESS KELLER: It seems like there is a fan 21 blowing that is louder today than it has been in the past, 22 and I don't know whether that's bothering it or not.
23 MS. McCLESKEY: We've had trouble hearing.
24 JUDGE PARIS: I will turn it up a little it. I 25 hope we don't get feedback.
. (3 A/
~ 249003 03 7909
. j oewalsh
,;,)
( 1 WITNESS KELLER: But, the fan is louder.
2 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) l
.3 Q And, I take it you would agree -- I will try to '
4 speak up.
5 MR. PIRFO: I don' t think that 's the problem.
6 JUDGE FRYE: Your voice is about the same as it 7 has been.
8 MR. PIRFO: I apologize for interrupting.
! 9 JUDGE PARIS: You guys over there are under the 10 fan.
Il JUDGE FRYE: I'm beginning to ~ think that 's the 12 p roblem. Try it for a couple of more questions and see.
g 13 MR. IRWIN: I will rotate the speaker and see if
- i )
14 that makes a dif f erence.
15 JUDGE FRYE:- Let's try it and see if it helps.
-16 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) -
17 Q I take it from your last long response, Mr.
18 Keller, that you would agree, given what is identified in 19 the contention as the response to this inquiry, that it is 20 another example of the rumor control personnel not having up-21 to-date information for whatever reason?
22' A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
23 Q And, for that reason then the response given by 24 the rumor control personnel would not be adequate --
25 A (Witness Kowieski) Again --
i~
i
24900303 7910 j oewalsh I -- just as you found a deficiency with respect Q
2 to the other example of that that Ms. Jackson observed?
3 A -- based on the information available to rumor d control staff about site area emergency, the response was 5 adequate. Mr. Keller already testified that at that point, 6 at 11:45, we had a major release. So, we know that it was 7 already major release going on.
8 Q -Mr. Kowieski, let me stop you for a second. The 9 -- Ms. Jackson made a telephone call to somebody. You don't
'10 know who it was, right?
11 And, she asked a question about what's the 12 status of the emergency, right?
nex 13 A That's correct.
b 14 Q And, she was told some stat'u s which was an hour 15 or so behind the time, right?
16 A That's also correct. -
17 And, Ms. Jackson found that to be inadequate, Q
18 and'it was rated a deficiency, right?
19 A No question about it.
20 Q And, that was --
21 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, excuse me a moment.
22 JUDGE FRYE: One moment.
23 MR. CUMMING: The Reporter is having a problem 24 because of the feedback. He is getting feedback both ways.
25 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
f
, .L n /
l I
h 24900303 7911 joewalsh
.( ,
) 1 (Mr. Irwin adjusted the speaker.)
2 JUDGE FRYE: Try that for awhile.
3 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 4 Q Now, presumably the person who responded to Ms.
5 Jackson's question responded with whatever information that 6 was available to them, right?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q And, Ms. Jackson nonetheless found that because 9 that information was out-of-date that that was an inadequate 10 and deficient ~ response, right?
11 A That's also correct.
12 Q Now, given that, why is it that you-all take.the
. ,~ 13 position that with respect to this answer which, while 0
14 presumably using the information available to the rumor 15 control responder, nonetheless is information that is out-of-16 date, why is it that you-all think this response -is 17 adequate?
18 A (Witness Baldwin) Because --
1? MR. CUMMING: Obj ec tion. Asked and answered.
20 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled.
21 WITNESS BALDWIN: Because this contention comes 22 to the issue of whether or not the rumor control individuals 23 exercised good judgment and advice or poor judgment and 24 advice.
25 And, the point is that based on the information i
l i
24900303 7912 j oewalsh h I available to the rumor control, which we have already 2
testified was late, that individual responding to that call 3
used their good judgment in' responding to that query based 4 on their knowledge at the time as it's laid out in the 5 contention based on the information, such that we have now, 6 that there was a site area emergency.
7 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 8 -Q Okay. Set aside the good judgment portion of 9 this contention. I had been asking you not to try to 10 reiterate the contention to me but I had asked you several Il questions which were, is this an adequate response.
12 That's my question to you now.
,-m 13 A (Witness Kowieski) That's -- if I were to 14 rephrase your question and I would say --
- 15 Q Now --
16 A -- as of 11:45, whether the response was 17 adequate. Set aside everything else, you know, the 18 p roblems , okay. 11:45. As of 11:45, the response was not 19 adequate.
20 Q Okay. Thank you.
21 A All right.
. 22 JUDGE FRYE: I think that clears it up.
23 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Okay.
2d BY MS..LETSCHE: (Continuing)
I
! 25 Q And, I take it that your answer would be the
/
l' IN~
l l
24900303 7913 j oewalsh k). I same with respect to Subpart 6 of the contention; is that 2 right, that as of 1:21 the response that was given was 3 inadequate?
4 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
5 (Witness Keller) That is the deficiency, as far 6 as we know. There may be -- this may be a duplicate of Ms.
7 Jackson's call. But, as far as we know, that is the 8 deficiency call.
9 Q Now, moving on to Part VII, you say here: "If, 10 in fact, a member of the public had called the correct rumor il control number and had received a recorded message as 12 asserted in this subpart of the contention, this would be considered as a breakdown in the rumor control function."
O
, 13 14 You don't have any basis of knowing, do you, 15 whether the number that was called was correct or incorrect?
16 A That is correct. -
17 Q And, I take it you would -- if it was a correct 18 number, you would consider this a breakdown in the system 19 because no response was forthcoming for the inquirer; is 20 that right?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q I would like to address your attention, 23 gentlemen, to FEMA Exhibit Number 3. That's the RAC review.
24 And, in particular I would like to direct your attention to 25 Table 3.4.
() A (Witness Kowieski) Page l?
N 124900404- 7914 Auewalsh n ~
~
/'N 1 Q Yeah, let's talk about Page 1. Now,'Page 1
%/ .
2 relates to the deficiency that we have discussed a little 3 bit already. And, the way you-all did it in your report, 4 your evaluation of the exercise, you identified two problems 5 related to the hard copy communication issue, with respect 6 to the EBS messages and with respect to getting documents to 7 rumor control, right? EBS messages to the media and 8 information to the rumor control, right?
9 A_ (Witness Kowieski) That 's correc t.
10 Q Now, there are two separate functions, are there 11 not, that are involved here? One is communication .to the 12 media and one is rumor control. Those are separate 13 functions, right?-
D Id 'A . (Witness Kel'ler)
Yes.
15 (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
. 16 Q But, you nonetheless identified just-one 17 deficiency rather than two, right?
18 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
19 Q And, I believe we already established that in
, 20 order to -- that in addition to reviewing whatever plan
- 21 responses LILCO comes up with. that there will have to be an l
22 exercise to determine the adequacy of whatever plan fixes 23 there arer is that right?
i.
24 A (Witness Kowieski) That is our position.
25 Q Now, would you turn to Page 3 of this table, f
i
1 1
24900404 7915 ;
Cuewalsh '
?,
{j 1 please?
2 (The witnesses are complying.)
3 Now, this relates to one of the ARCAs identified 4 during the exercise relating to maps and displays in the 5 media briefing room. This goes to the adequacy of LILCO's 6 ability to brief the media; is that right?
7 A That 's correct.
-8 Q And, I note on here that the NUREG element 9 reference is J.10.B. Shouldn't that be NUREG Element G.4 10 rather=than J.10.B?
13 J.10.B doesn't relate to the news media, does --
12 A (Witness Keller) But, it does relate to maps
, - 13 and population' zones and evacuation areas. I think probably v 14 a more pertinent reference would be to the G, or to both.
15 But, I think the more pertinent would be to the G, because 16 we are talking about media relations. J generally talks 17 about the EOC; and, generally the ENC and the EOC are not in 18 the same place.
19 Q Right. And, in fact, this was a problem which 20 Ms. Jackson identified in her evaluation of ENC Objective 3, 21 correc t?
22 A And, Table 3.4 is clearly labeled Emergency News 23 Center.
24 Q And, with respect to this problem identified in 25 the briefing of the media capability the "I" in the final O
24900404 7916 cuewalsh
,1 I column again indicates that there must be an exercise to
[}
2 evaluate whatever plan fix is proposed; is that --
3 A (Witness Kowieski) That's what I said I believe 4
two minutes ago.
5 Well, that was with respect to the deficiency.
Q 6 I wanted to make sure it was also true with respect to this 7 ARCA.
8 A (Witness Keller) It's stated in the third 9 column or in the FEMA evaluation of the LERO response.
10 Okay. Would you turn to Page 4 please of Table Q
il 3.4?
12 (Tha witnesses are complying.)
7-13 Now, on this one I notice that there is an "NR"
' 14 in the NUREG element column. What does that mean?
- 15 (The witnesses are conferring.)
16 A It's either not reported or not -- I-think it 's 17 not reported.
18 Q What does that mean, not reported?
19 A The 35 standard FEMA objectives and hence our 20 subset which are breakdowns of those individual ones were 1
21 cross-referenced when attached to the August '83 memo that 22 promulgated these 35 standard objectives. Each one of the 23 objectives was cross-referenced to at least one, and 24 sometimes multiple., planning elements in NUREG 0654 in most 25 cases.
~24900404 7917
_ cuewalsh
/-
V~l 1 Sometimes there wasn't a cross-reference. If
.NJ 2 there wasn't a cross-reference, you get an NR.
3 (Witness Baldwin) And, the NR stands for no 4 reference.
5 JUDGE PARIS: I would like to get a definition 6 of an abbreviation on the previous page, Page 3 or 4, in the 7 left-hand column. What is an ECL?
8 WITNESS KELLER: Emergency classification level.
9 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. Thank you.
10 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing)
-11 Q This would generally fit, would it not, 12 gentlemen, under Section G of 0654 which requires
,_ 13 coordinated dissemination of information to the public?-
U 14 A (Nitness Keller) Generally speaking, that would 15 be correct.
16 Q And, this once again relates to LILCO's 17 abilities to provide information to the media, correct?
18 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
19 Q And, I note that over in the FEMA evaluation 20 column here you talk about plan modifications proposed by l 21 LILCO, and then you also say: Training of PIO staff at the 22 ENC should be evaluated at a future exercise to ensure that 23 extraneous information from EBS message draf ts is not 24 inadvertently given to the media.
25 I take it that that means that in addition to
l l
~
.24900404 7918- )
- cuewalsh I the problem,you have identified concerning the physical
)
2 ' appearance of the EBS messages, which Ms. Jackson identified 3
at the: exercise,~ that there is also a potential. training --
d or a training problem that was revealed during the exercise; 5 is that right?
a 6 A (Witness Keller) No, I don ' t believe so . I 7 believe --
8 Q Well, what is the meaning of this comment in 9 your evaluation which says that the training of the PIO 10 staff should be evaluated to ensure that extraneous II- information is not inadvertently given to the media?
- 12. A If you will look at the column that we have been t
~
13 skipping over, the first column, the RAC evaluation, is 14 clearly -- is essentially a quote out of the report. The i 15 next column identifies whether it was an area requiring 16 corrective action or a deficiency. The next column is the j
17 LERO response.
18 The LERO response says that they will not post 4
19 messages which have material deleted, all right. Someone 20 has to be trained not to do that. And, that's the genesis 21 of our comment in the last column. Basically --
22 Q Okay. So, you think that training will only be 23 -- additional training would only be required because they 24 are making some change in their plan? Is that what you are
- 25 saying?
f'T 31 l
i.
4
, - , . . - , , - , . - --- ,-m.-----,,-n,- - - , , --..,----,---,-,.---,..-.n.,---..-.-,,,p. .--,<, men-,,-c--...- n+,,m- - - - . , - - - -
24900404 7919 cuewalsh
/i 1 A .In the -- yes, that's correct. Yes.
\./
2 Q And, it's your opinion that the fact that the 3 LERO personnel went ahead and posted these possibly 4 confusing messages during the exercise did not reveal any 5 training problem; is that right?
6 A That's right, because we said -it was -- had we 7 said it was confusing, definitely confusing and definitely a bad, that would have been -- in my opinion, that would have 9 been an area where it was a training deficiency. I'm sorry, 10 not -- please, remove the word " deficiency."
11 Q You are --
12 A A training issue.
13 Q You are - -
14 A A training issue. The fact --
15 Q I'm sorry. I thought you were finished.
16 A I'm sorry. The fact that we identified an area 17 requiring corrective action, LILCO had -- LERO had -- LILCO 18 responded that they will not in the future post EBS messages 19 which have areas marked for deletion, scratched through.
20 They will only post clean copy.
21 Then, you have to, in the exercise, verify that 22 this indeed is going to happen. What you are looking at is, 23 have people been trained not to put pieces of paper on the 24 bulletin board that have marked-up stuff.
25 Q Now, you were focusing on the statement in the
24900404 7920 cuewalsh J
I report that having this extraneous information in there was
/ ')
v 2 only possibly confusing, right?
3 A That 's correc t.
d Q In your evaluation of the LERO response, it 5 appears that you are taking a little tougher position in 6 that you want to make sure that extraneous information is 7 not given to the media, right?
8 You don't have the possible qualification in 9 that comment, do you?
10 A Well, the LERO response is that they won't do Il it. We say: Fine, that's an acceptable response to the 12 area requiring corrective action. And, therefore, you have r7 13 given an A in the next to the last column. That's an 1j U' 14 acceptable response.
15 Now, in order to verify that indeed this has --
16 this won't happen again, at least the next time we verify it 17 it doesn't happen again, you have to indeed verify it.
18 And, in order for there to be an adequacy Q
19 finding or an adequacy finding following that exercise, you 20 would have to find that there was no extraneous information 21 given to the media, right?
22 A (Witness Kowieski) To remove the "I" from the 23 last column we would have to verify this during the exercise 24 or drill and find this adequate.
25 Q Okay. Now, in your last answer, Mr. Kowieski, q'h
, v.)
24900404 7921 cuewalsh ,
[l f 'l you said exercise or drill. The fact .is ' that with . respect.
2 to -- we've.now discussed several matters that there is~an
(
3 "I" in this column where you-all have agreed there needs to 4 be an exercise. The. position of FEMA and=the RAC is that 5 that exercise needs to be a fully integrated exercise, 6 correc t?
7 A If one wants to --
8 (The witnesses are conferring.)
9 (Witness Keller) Since I was present and Mr.
10 Kowieski was not present, at the deposition of Mr..Husar.for il the OL-3 Board, this. issue or a very-similar issue was 12 rais ed . Mr. Husar, who is the current RAC Chairmani said 13 that he felt that it.would need to be an. integrated
~
14 exercise.
15 But that was not a' RAC position, b'ecause the RAC' 16 has not met on that position.- That was Mr. Husar's opinion, 17 and he is the RAC Chairman and would carry a great deal of.
18 weight.
19 (Witness Baldwin) If I could also add to that.
20 This is an ARCA. This would not be one that would be under 21 current guidance tested in a remedial exercise. This.is one 22 that would be tested in an integrated full-scale exercise, 23 next biennial exercise.
24 With respect to --
25 (Witness Kowieski) Let me just --
..O
24900404 7922 cuewalsh I
< "i' 1 (Witness Baldwin) -- deficiencies, those can be G
2 done in partials, partial exercises or drills or small-scale 3 exercises.
d (Witness Kowieski) Let me jus t --
5 In the statement which you referenced, Mr.
Q 6 Keller, which was in a deposition in this proccuding, not in 7 the OL-3 proceeding, Mr. Husar'in fact was talking about all 8 ,of the ARCAs and deficiencies that were identified during 3
9 -the exercise, wasn't he?
JO MR. CUMMING: Objection based on the relevancy H of the OL-3 depositions. The witness has tried to explain 12 that --
gr, 13 MS. LETSCHE: It's not an OL-3 deposition, Mr.
0")
14 Cumming.
'15 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled.
16 WITNESS KELLER: I have read Mr. Husar's OL-5 17 deposition. I was present at -- I have read his OL-5 18 deposition. I was present at his OL-3 deposition.
19 And, to be perfectly frank I may be getting the 20 two of'them confused. I think your characterization is
- 21 correct.
22 JUDGE SHON: Ms. Letsche, just for clarity, 23 gentlemen, and so it 's fixed in my mind, in order to correct 24 a deficiency or an ARCA would the drill or exercise in which 25 it was studied have to be a FEb1A-graded one?
O
1 24900404 7923 cuewalsh
)J 1 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct.
2 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That is correct, sir.
3 JUDGE SHON: That's what I thought.
4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: But, may I add as a point of 5 clarification, my understanding of present FEMA guidelines 6 is that you don't have to -- you don't have-to take 7 immediate action on areas requiring corrective action, but a what needs to be rectified are deficiencies.
9 JUDGE FRYE: Yeah. I wanted to ask about that, 10 because-I was making that inference from what you had said 11 earlier.
12 NITNESS KOWIESKI: Right.
l 13 JUDGE FRYE: In other words, if I understand you 14 correc tly, an ARCA would not prevent FEMA from making a 15 finding of reasonable assurance ---
16 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's -- -
17 JTDGE FRYE: -- whereas a deficiency would?
18 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir. That's absolutely 19 c orrec t .
20 JUDGE FRYE: I see- You have also used a term I
, 21 which I think is new to me o 1 .on't recall it earlier --
l 22 " integrated exercise."
23 WITNESS KELLER: Well, as opposed to an exercise 24 which only tests a portion of a plan or a very small --
25 JUDGE FRYE: Which is a remedial exercise?
l l
L
.. . . . - -. . , - -,,, , __.m. _ , - _ , . _ , . , _ , , _ . _ . . _ . .
~24900404- 7924 cuewalsh n'
l WITNESS KELLER: It would be a remedial
/'_}
\e 2 exercise; that is correct.
3 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
4 WITNESS KELLER: In other words, you have all --
5 you have observable portions of the plan, you have 6 mobilization of significant numbers of the responders.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Is this somewhat equivalent to a 8 full participation?
9 WITNESS KELLER: We are getting very close.
10 WITNESS BALDWIN: In my mind, an integrated il exercise requires the activation of major facilities. In 12 other words, the EOCs, EOF, in this case staging areas , the 4
13 emergency news center, the Brookhaven area office, all of
" 14 thes e dif ferent facilities ,that are identified in the plan.
15 In a limited scale exercise or a partial or 16 remedial exercise, you can have the activation of only one 17 or two or fewer of those facilities in order to actually 18 evaluate. For instance, if you are going to do an EOF-out 19 exercise, you don't need the plant response. You can 20 activate the EOF only for purposes of implamenting the 21 scenario for the day and providing information to the EOC 22 where you are going to grade the exercise, a remedial 23 exercise at the EOC solely and you don't need to go beyond 24 that down scale.
25 So, it depends on what you are trying to
~
t- -r--- , - g - ---w- , , , - , , , , , - , , > , ---e--- >
1 24900404 7925 l cuewalsh l 1
I' remediate. You define the --
L U) 2 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
3 WITNESS 'BALDWIN: -- which facilities need to be 4 activated.
5 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Baldwin, I would like to 6 explore with-you a little bit about what you said a few 7 minutes ago to the effect that ARCAs would be tested in an 8 integrated exercise, whereas_ deficiencies would be tested in 9 a partial exercise.
10 Is this because a deficiency is of sufficient
' ll seriousness that you think it should be fixed very promptly?
12 WITNESS BALDWIN: That's correct.
j- 13 JUDGE PARIS: And, so you wculd just do a small d
14 exercise to see if that has taken place?
15 WITNESS BALDWIN: That's correct. A deficiency 16 means that the health and safety of the public can't be 17 protected or -- there is an indication that the capability 18 is not there. So, there is a time frame placed on 19 remediating those things, making plan changes and then for 20 FEMA to go in and evaluate that to make sure that it has 21 been remediated in a very timely way.
22 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
23 WITNESS KELLER: There is a 120-days after the 24 plan participants, the state and local, are notified of the 25 deficiency that they must -- they are supposed to remediate.
l
jf , -
24900404 7926 cuewalsh D();
.b 1
-this within a 120 days, at which time if they have not FEHA.
2 then informs the NRC. Whatever happens after that happens.
3
. JUDGE SHON: That 120 days really applies only 4
to operating plants, doesn't it?
5 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct. This is the 6 only case that we have here, and we are talking about the 7 normal situation.
8 The areas requiring corrective action are 9
normally -- are, according to procedure and process, 10 remediated at the next biennial' exercise. 'Now, in the event-Il that there are deficiencies in an exercise and areas 12 requiring corrective action, it has happened most of the
.13 time that if a deficiency drill is conducted to remediate 14 the deficiency sometimes the area requiring corrective 15 action is also remediated at the same time, if it fits.
16 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That was my point: I was 17 going to add that the remedial drill doesn't prevent us from 18 taking care of some of the areas requiring corrective I
19 action.
20 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing)
- 21. Q Just to follow up for a minute on this subject, 22 gentlemen, NUREG 0654, Section N defines, does it not, 23 exercises and makes the distinction between exercises and 24 drills, which you basically were just discussing with the 25 Board ; is that right?
f( A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
i I
24900505 7927 marysimons
) 1 Q And it's true, isn't it, Mr. Keller, that during 2 Mr. Hussar's deposition at which point he said that all of 3 the matters identified during the exercise, that is both 4 deficiencies and ARCAs, would require a fully integrated 5 exercise for FEMA to evaluate them, that he stated at page 6 105 that he was speaking as the Chairman of the Regional 7
Assistance Committee and that it was the official FEMA view?
8 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Mr. Keller has 9 stated that he hasn't seen the deposition. It is not in the 10 rec ord , and I don't think we should be relying on Ms.
11 Letsche's reading it in and asking him to guess at it.
12 (A copy of the deposition was placed before the
,s 13 witness by Counsel Lanpher.)
)
14 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you.
15 MS. LETSCHE: Mr. Keller has been provided with 16 a copy of the deposition. -
17 WITNESS KELLER: I think what I said was I had 18 read it. I was at the other deposition and I was getting 19 the two confused.
20 MR. CUMMING: Mr. Keller, could you read from 21 the first page. Is that the OL-5 or the OL-3 deposition?
22 WITNESS KELLER: This is the OL-5 deposition 23 taken on Tuesday, January the 27th in New York. I've had to 24 look back because it starts at the top ot the page.
25 MS. LETSCHE: I think where you have that little
( wu
24900505 7928 marysimons D)
/m; 1 yellow tab is about where you should start.
2 (Pause while Witness Keller reviews the 3
document.)
4 WITNESS KELLER: Let me read his answer.
5 "My answer again is a fully integrated exercise 6 is what we would be looking for with a scenario that would 7 prompt these kinds of response measures so that we can 8 properly evaluate the adequacy of the plan that treats these 9 planning criteria."
10 It goes on, "What this your own particular II view?" was the question.
12 MS. LETSCHE: Read that question and answer, Mr.
13 Keller.,
p, U" ") 14 MR. PIRFO: I will object to the use of this 15 FEMA deposition. I'm not sure this is the proper use of the 16 deposition. FEMA is not a party in this case and the 17 deposition isn't being used to buttress or refresh the 18 recollection of this witness. It's being offered simply for 19 what the deposition says at this point, and that is not a 20 proper use of the deposition.
21 MS. LETSCHE: I disagree. I think it's clearly 22 being used to refresh the recollection of Mr. Keller who 23 stated that he was at this deposition.
24 JUDGE FRYE: But it's still hearsay.
25 MS. LETSCHE: I'm sorry?
O p
I
- 24900505 7929 marysimons
.s, 5jb 1 JUDGE FRYE: It's still hearsay though. I mean 2 it's not~Mr. Keller's statement. It 's someone else 's 3 statement.
4 MR. PIRFO: I heard him say he was at the 5 deposition.
6 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, he wasn't at this 7 deposition. He's had read this transcript, as anyone else 8 in this room could read this transcript. So it's even 9 further hearsay.
10 JUDGE FRYE: Do you also object to the use of 11 the deposition?-
12 MS. McCLESKEY: In this manner, yes.
(~s 13 MR. PIRFO: Well, I would like to hear,a (9) 14 p ro f fer. To the extent it has been used so far it's an 15 improper use of this deposition at this point.
~
16 JUDGE FRYE: Sustained.
17 BY MS. LETSCHE:
18 Q Mr. Keller, you stated before that Mr. Hussar's 19 position, that a fully integrated exercise was necessary, 20 was his position as the RAC Chairman and not the position of 21 the RAC; is' that correct?
22 A (Witness Keller) That's what I said, yes.
23 Q To your knowledge, was Mr. Hussar's position the 24 official FEMA position?
25 A What I just read in his deposition, he said this s
O
24900505- 7930 marysimons g .
) 1 is my position.
2 MR. PIRFO: I move to strike that response.
3 JUDGE FRYE: Sustained.
d You' don't know yourself?
5 WITNESS KELLER: That's right. That 's correct.
6 WITNESS KOWIESKI: No, wait. Again, Mr. Letsche 7 is asking us to speculate.
8 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
9 (Pause while counsel confer and the witnesses
, 10 caucus.)
II BY MS. LETSCHE:
12 Gentlemen, would you turn to page 70 of your Q
- 13 testimony, please.
L' d 14 (Witnesses comply.)
15 Q Now here you are discussing subpart (c) of' 16 Contention 40 relating to the EBS messages. I tdke it from 17 your comment in the answer to this testimony that in -light 18 of the fact that during the exercise the traffic guides were 19 not at their posts when the prescripted messages referred to 20 were supposedly aired that those messages would be 21 misleading to the publics is that right?
22 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
23 Q Now this problem with the EBS messages was not
~24 noted by FEMA in the exercise report, was it?
25 A That is correct.
I 24900505 7931 marysimons
()- 1 Q I take it thought that the inclusion of that 2 misleading information in the EBS messages would be a 3 violation of Section G of NUREG 0654?
4 A Could you be more specific?
5 Q Do you mean with respect to 0654?
6 A The violation of Section G.
7 Q The provision of Section G that there be 8 coordinated dissemination of informat' ion to the public.
9 A I do not agree that the inclusion of misleading to information violatec coordinated information.
11 Q Well, if this were something that FEMA noted 12 during the exercise, what NUREG element would you have 13 related it to?
14 A You're asking us to speculate. If we had noted 15 this during the exercise, which we said we had not, what 16 would we have done with it, and I'm not sure we can give you 17 an answer to that.
18 JUDGE FRYE: Well, it relates to a NUREG 19 element, doesn't it?
20 WITNESS KELLER: It's probably more related to 21 "E" than "G" probably.
22 WITNESS BALDWIN: E-5 specifically deals with 23 EBS.
24 (Pause.)
25 BY MS. LETSCHE:
'O v
i
24900505 7932 marysimons h) 1 Q Gentlemen, would you turn to page 55 of your 2 testimony, please.
3 (Witnesses comply. )
4 And I would also like you to turn to, I know you 5 have the contentions up there, so would you turn to 6 Contention X-44 for me.
7 A (Witness Keller) I'm sorry, do you have the 8 page number?
9 MS. LETSCHE: Well, in the copy I have it's on 10 page 58. I don't know what copy you have.
II WITNES'S KELLER: I have Mr. Lanpher 's submission 12 to the Board. I have it. Thank you.
m, s 13 JUDGE SHON: I think it's page 135 in what you i( )
L' ' '
14 have.
15 WITNESS KELLER: I have it on page 60.
16 (Laughter.) -
17 JUDGE FRYE: How many versions are there of 18 this?
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. CUMMING: FEMA notes that no officially 21 adopted version is in the record.
22 WITNESS KELLER: I have Mr. Lanpher's March 2nd.
23 JUDGE PARIS: That's what I have, too. The 2d Board asked Suf folk County to prepare a new version and the 25 March 2nd is the one they prepared.
b
. ~: .
24900505 7933
'mcrysimons
() 1 WITNESS - BALDWIN: We should tell you this March 2 2nd is the one we prepared all of these answers from.
3 JUDGE PARIS: I think that was appropriate.
4 MS. McCLESKEY: March 2nd of what year?
5 . WITNESS BALDWIN: 1987.
6 MS. McCLESKEY: And you're on page 60 with 7 Contention 44 on the March 2nd, '87 version?
8 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct.
9 MS. McCLESKEY: I'm on page 58, but apparently 10 it's the November 24, '86 version.
11 BY MS. LETSCHE:
12 .Q Gentlemen, your testimony on Contention X-44 is 13 basically a long citation from the April 17, 1984 partial h"' 14 initial decision. I take it that in light of your citation 15 of that decision that you're familiar with it; is that 16 right? -
17 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
18 A (Witness Kowieski) To some extent. If you're 19 asking whether I remember every single part, no. We read it 20 and we think we understand the decision.
21 Q Now you all did find, or FEMA found that there 22 were deficiencies with respect to LILCO's ability to provide 23 information to the media at the ENC and to the public via 24 the rumor control function, correct?
25 A The deficiency to the public -- well, to the o
- V
24900505 7934 marysimons M I
-(v ) media. Okay, I agree.
2 Q And you made that finding because during the 3 exercise there were instances where inaccurate or not up-to-4 date information or information inconsistent with what was 5 going out over the EBS stations was disseminated either to 6 the media or to the public through the rumor control system, 7 correc t?
8 A (Witness Keller) I would like to take part of 9 your answer and agree to part of it and disagree with part to of it.
11 The information that was passed was out of date, 12 and in regard to the fact that it was done at a later time, 5-, 13 that made it inaccurate for the time it was given. But
" 14 basically it was out-of-date information. The information 15 was correct as of a given time, but not at the time it was 16 given. -
17 A (Witness Kowieski) To be more specific , you 're 18 referring to the rumor control. The caller did not receive 19 up-to-date information from the rumor control staf f. As far 20 as the briefing of the media is concerned, we noted that six 21 briefings were held and all briefings were clear, accurate 22 and in a timely manner.
23 Q Wait a second, Mr. Kowieski. I'm referring to 24 the deficiencies which you all identified which had to do 25 with the rumor control response that Ms. Jackson got and the (I
,w) 1 1
24900505 7935 marysimons 1 inability to provide hard copy EBS information to the media.
2 A '(Witness Keller) In a timely manner.
.3 Q -Right.
4 A That 's correc t.
5 Q. And that resulted in the provision during the 6 exercise to both the media and to the public through the 7 rumor -control responder of information which when provided 8 was not accurata, correct?
9 A That is correct.
10 Q And it also resulted in the provision during the 11 exercise to the media and to the public through the rumor 12 control of information .which when provided was not i 13 consistent with what was being. broadcast supposedly over the
! . b .
14 -EBS station, correct?
15 A That is also correct.
16 Q Now in light of the FEMA findings, that is the 17 deficiencies we have just been talking about with respect to 18 the media an'd the rumor control, and the Board's ruling in 19 the PID, which are referenced in Contention 44, I take it 20 that you do not dispute the first sentence in Contention 44 21 is that right?
22 A Yes, I do dispute because I cannot define 23 fundamental flaw.
j 24 A (Witness Kowieski) I agree with Mr. Keller.
25 (Witness Baldwin) I also do.
CE) 1 I
L
24900505 7936 morysimons l
( Q Gentlemen, let's set aside for now the first 11 2 words of that sentence and begin reading at the word as, "as 3 a result of LILCO's inability. " With that amendment, which 4 gets rid of the words " fundamental flaw," I take it you 5 would agree ---
6 JUDGE PARIS: I think you have to eliminate 12 7 words to do that.
8 (Laughter.)
9 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, so as not to delay the 10 p roc eeding, FEMA would state a continuing objection to the il fact that counsel for Suffolk County has repeatedly stated 12 hypotheticals . We are offering these witnesses as experts 13 and they are authorized to respond to hypothetical questions 14 ___
15 JUDGE FRYE: And in fact they do in their 16 testimony.
17 MR. CUMMING: --- but it should be noted for the 18 record that many of the hypotheticals the relevancy of which 19 are their weight will have to be considered by the Board.
20 FEMA would just like to interpose a continuing 21 objection to revisions of the contentions as not in fact 22 being the contentions in issue.
23 MR. PIRFO: I'm sorry, Judge Frye, I didn't hear 24 your comment.
25 JUDGE FRYE: I said and in fact they do in their
24900505 7937 marysimons 1 testimony.
2 Okay, you have a continuing objection.
3 Now we 're asking about?
4 MS. LETSCHE: I'm asking about the first
. 5 sentence in Contention 44 beginning with the word "As."
6 JUDGE FRYE: "As a result of LILCO's inability 7 to provide accurate, clear, consistent and non-conflicting 8 information to the public there would be a substantial 9 evacuation shadow or voluntary evacuation of persons not
-10 advised to evacuate in the event of a Shoreham accident.
11 MS.-LETSCHE: That's right.
12 WITNESS KELLER: And I'm asked whether I agree with that or not?
D 13 14 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. .
15 WITNESS KELLER: Except for one word, I agree.
16 JUDGE FRYE: What's your one word? -
17 WITNESS KELLER: Sub s tantial . I have no way of 18 knowing the degree of the shadow or voluntary evacuation. I 19 agree that there would be one.
20 JUDGE FRYE I see, but you have no opinion as 21 to its magnitude?
22 WITNESS KELLER: That's correct.
23 BY MS. LETSCHE:
24 Q Would you turn, please, to page 58 of your 25 testimony?
.0
.u
}
. _ , . _ . - , . , . . - _ , _ . . ...- .,. - ,__._ .... ..,._, ,, -,,_,, _ ,_ ,. , , - . ~ . _ - _ . . ~ . , _ . . . _ , . - , .
24900505 7938 marysimons
.~t.
'w,-) 1 (Witnesses comply.)
2 Now that's where you were discussing Contention 3
22 (f) . You are familiar with Contention 22 (f), aren't you, d gentlemen? I'm sure you are.
5 A (Witness Keller) We have read it, it's here and 6 it's several pages long; that's correct.
7 Q Now I take it you don't dispute the fact that if 8 there were a substantial voluntary evacuation that that 9 would impact the implementation of the LILCO plan?
10 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. She is asking the II witnesses to speculate.
12 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled.
-, 13 WITNESS KELLER: If there were a substantial --
""' 14 could you define substantial and what in particular, and the 15 LILCO plan is a very large plan and it has many, many 16 facets, would impact the implementation of the LILCO plan.
17 That's too general to give you any kind of an 18 answer, I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE FRYE: That's a fair answer.
20 MS. LETSCHE: Le t 's be more spec ific .
21 (Pause.)
22 23 24 25 b
,v
24900606 7939 joewalsh j 1 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) f 2 Q Assuming that evacuation began -- and using the 3 day of the exercise as the base here, assuming that 4 evacuation began at the time of the first EBS message, that 5 is at roughly 6:52, that would have an impact, wouldn't it, 6 on LILCO's ability to mobilize the members of LERO?
7 (The witnesses are conferring.)
8 A (Witness Keller) Again -- and, we are not 9 trying to be dif ficult. You say evacuation began at 6:52.
10 How much evacuation -- the answer is, it would have an 11 impact. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the 12 degree of the voluntary evacuation.
73 13 Q Right. And, because during the exercise there
!.k) 14 wasn't any assumption that evacuation began at 6:52 the 15 nature of the impact of such an evacuation wasn't ever 16 evaluated by FEMA, was it? -
17 A In exercises, we never move people.
18 Q Could you answer my question, Mr.'Keller?
19 Because during the exercise there was no assumption that 20 there was any evacuation at 6:52, the impact of an 21 evacuation beginning at 6:52 was never evaluated by FEMA, 22 was it?
23 A The potential impact was not evaluated; that's 24 correct.
25 Q Now, you state on Page 58 of your testimony that
(~)
- U
24900606 7940 j oewalsh -
/'4 7 ) I the FEMA evaluation -- I'm referring to the last sentence in V
2 the answer: The FEMA evaluation was based on the 3
demonstrated ability of the participants to implement the d
plan without regard to any assumptions other than the 5
scenario events.
6 Now, that's a little bit of an overstatement, 7 isn't it, Mr. Keller?
8 MR. CUMMING: Objection. And, this goes back to 9
the statement that was made before with the relevance of 10 hypotheticals, variations on what occurred the day of the il exercise, what assumptions. This is the first exercise 12 litigation.
7, 13 I'm not going to' elaborate again. But,
~0"# 14 basically FEMA is trying to be responsive to NRC in 15 providing expert witnesses, but to engage in lengthy 16 discussions of hypotheticals or variations and assumptions 17 of what occurred the day of the exercise is something that 18 really is, in FEMA's judgment, not relevant to what occurred 19 the day of the exercise.
20 JUDGE FRYE The question goes directly to the 21 testimony. It's overruled.
22 WITNESS KELLER: I don't believe it is.
23 WITNESS BALDWIN: I would like to point out, in 24 answering that question, that the sentence also contains the 25 explanation in the beginning, "With regard to the FEMA
!O
24900606 -7941 j oewalsh
,R '
(_) I evaluation of the objectives cited..." The evaluation upon 2 which this exercise was conducted, FEMA's evaluation of this 3 exercise, is defined in the objectives. set forth in the 4 introduction to the post-exercise assessment.
5 None_of those objectives deal with any 6 assumptions regarding voluntary evacuation.
7 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Nor_is there a requirement 8 that we should make such an assumption.
9 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 10 Q Let me focus -- let me follow up on what you 11 said, Dr. Baldwin. You were talking about the objectives in 12 your answer.
13 Your testimony refers to FEMA's evaluation.
14 Now, what FEMA evaluates is the performance and whether or 15 not the performance of the responders meets or doesn't meet la the objectives, correct?
4 17 A (Witness Baldwin) That is correct.
la Q What you are evaluating is the performance, not 19 the objectives?
i 20 A Well, that's correct.
- 21 Q Okay. Now, that performance, I take it, is 22 intended to be realistic, isn't it?
23 A (Witness Kowieski) What do you mean by -- could
. 24 you -- the performance to be realistic -- .
25 Q Let me go back a second. The performance is
\
O
q 24900606 7942
. j oewalsh I
T 1 evaluated in the context of a scenario, right?
[~/-
s_
2 A (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
3 Q And, the scenario is intended to simulate a real 4 emergency, correc t?
5 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
6 Q And, so what you are trying to evaluate is a 7
performance as it would occur in a real emergency?
8 A. That 's correct, whether LERO organization was 9 able to implement the plan.
10 Q Now, in order to simulate a real emergency, you 11 would presumably want to -- you would attempt to have a 12 realistic real emergency, wouldn't you?
13 A Yes. We try this very hard.
14 Q And, in order to look. at a realistic real 15 emergency, since you don't have a real emergency going on --
16 A Right. -
17 -- you would have to have certain assumptions in Q
18 mind, wouldn't you?
19 A (Witness Keller) They are called the scenario; 20 that's correct.
21 Q Well, the scenario though, Mr. Keller, did not 22 include anything about what the public would be doing during 23 this real emergency, did it?
24 A The Commission has directed us --
25 Q Mr. Keller, could you answer my question, O
l
_24900606- 7943 j oewalsh
. .,g .
itj 1 please?
2 A . The scenario did not include any assumptions 3 that is correct.
4 (Witness Kowieski) Well, let--me just add while 5 the scenario assumed that. instructions would be issued by
~6 LERO decision-maker to evacuate certain areas, and we 7 anticipated that the public would follow the evacuation 8 . order.
9 Q Right. So, you are -- the assumption that, in ,
10 fact, FEMA was operating under was that the public would i' il follow those directions, right?
12 A (Witness Baldwin) Our assumptions come back to, 13 we are evaluating the LILCO transition plan which addresses
, 14 the elements in NUREG 0654. And, the exercise is an 15 evaluation of LERO's implementation of that plan.
16 I can 't recall sections in that plan "that deal 17 with this so-called shadow and voluntary evacuation.
18 Q That really wasn't my question, Dr. Baldwin. I 19 was following up on Mr. Kowieski's statement about what he 20 thought was in -- what was part of the scenario.
t I
21 And, what you said, Mr. Kowieski, was that FEMA 22 assumed that the public would follow whatever 23 recommendations would be made by LERO, correct? Isn't that 24 what you said?
, 25 A (Witness Kowieski) Th.at's correct.
! C) 4
, , __.,._,,,..,____._..._,,,m., , . . _ . , , , _ - . _ , . _ , _ . . _ . . , _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ , _ . _ , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ,
l 24900606 7944 j oewalsh n
1 Q And, I take it that FEMA assumed that the LERO
{ })
2 responders would make that same assumption, correct?
3 A Yeah, that's a fair assumption.
4 JUDGE FRYE: To put it the other way around, 5 when you evaluated -- when you conducted and evaluated the 6 exercise, you did not assume or you did not introduce any 7
elements into it which would have indicated that the public 8 was not following the instructions that were supposedly ,
9 being made available to it?
10 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's correct.
13 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
12 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing)
- 13 Q Would you turn, gentlemen, to Page 71 of your
14 testimony?
15 (The witnesses are complying.)
16 okay. Gentlemen, this is where you are 17 discussing Subpart C of Contention 49. Now, you don't 18 address in your testimony here whether only those expressly 19 advised to report to the reception center for monitoring 20 would seek monitoring in a real emergency, do you?
21 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
22 Q But, in fact, you believe, don't you, Mr.
23 Keller, that in a real emergency on Long Island more people 24 than would be advised to do so would report for monitoring?
25 A I said that's a possibility, yes.
b) g k.m/
24900606 7945 j oewalsh I(w/D 1 Q Have you-all read the testimony submitted by 2 Suffolk County concerning Contention 49, Subpart C?
3 A I have not. I -- well, I don't think I have but 4 I may have. I've read a bunch. I haven't read some of it.
5 I don't remember. which is which anymore.
6 Q Has anybody else read it?
7 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't recall reading it, 8 no.
9 (Witness Baldwin) I have not.
10 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye, this would be a good 11 place for me to take a break.
12 JUDGE FRYE All right. We will take our p 13 morning break.
L' ) 14 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 10:20 a.m., to 15 reconvene at 10:35 a.m., this same day.)
16 JUDGE FRYE Could we go back on the record, 17 please?
18 Ms. Letsche.
19 MS. LETSCHE: Yes.
20 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 21 0 Gentlemen, would you turn to Page 24 please of 22 your testimony?
23 (The witnesses are complying.)
24 , We are switching gears here. This is Contention 25 36. Now, I'm correct, aren't I, that there was one FEMA
24900606 7946 joewalsh
,,3 c j 1 evaluator that was responsible for evaluating Objective EOC-2 12; is that correct?
3 A (Witness Kowieski) Let us first find the 4 objectives.
5 (The witnesses are looking at documents.)
6 That's correct.
7 And, that was Mr. Giardina; is that right?
Q 8 A Paul Giardina, that's correct.
9 Q And, even though you were at the EOC you did not 10 do any evaluation of LILCO's protective action Il recommendation process; is that right, Dr. Baldwin?
12 A (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
- 13 Q And, the evaluation that you did, Mr. Keller,
d 14 was of the performance over at the Brookhaven area office, 15 correc t?
16 A (Witness Keller) Which is part of the overall 17 dose projection and decision process; that's correct.
18 Q Right. But, you were not evaluating the LERO 19 end of that; you were evaluating the DOE RAP end of it; is 20 that right?
21 A I believe we established yesterday that DOE RAP 22 is part of the LERO plan. They are a separate entity, but 23 they are an integral part of the plan.
24 And, insofar as they are a part of the plan, 25 that's an integrated part of the plan, I was watching the t
..___.____._-_______-___m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
24900606 7947 j oewalsh
()
w.-
I part which occurred at the Brookhaven area office. Mr.
2 Giardina was watching the part which occurred at the EOC.
3 Q What you were observing was the performance by 4 the DOE RAP personnel, and Mr. Giardina was observing the 5 performance by LILCO personnel, correct?
6 A Not LILCO personnel, no, not correct.
7 Q Well, who was Mr. Giardina observing?
8 A LERO personnel. ,
9 Q Oh, but you just told me that DOE RAP was part 10 of LERO --
11 A That is correct.
12 0 -- s o , I wanted to make a distinction for you 13 between the DOE RAP members of LERO and the LILCO members of 14 LERO. And, if that is the distinction then Mr. Giardina was 15 observing the LILCO members of LERO and you were observing 16 the DOE RAP members of LERO, correc t? -
17 A Not correct.
18 JUDGE FRYE: Why is that not correct?
19 WITNESS KELLER: Because there is also another 20 individual who was from Impell I believe. LERO is the name 21 which is given to essentially LILCO people, but there are 22 other outside agencies which are included in LERO.
23 Some of those outside agencies -- there is a 24 contractor who I believe is from Impell Corporation, the 25 Radiological --
24900606 7948 joewalsh 1
fT I (Witness Baldwin) Health Coordinator.
v 2
(Witness Keller) Yeah. There is a contractor 3 who is not a LILCO employee, okay. There is the DOE RAP 4 liaison who is present in the LERO EOC who is not a LILCO 5 person. He is a LERO person.
6 What I tried to imply -- maybe incorrectly or 7 badly -- is that it's my understanding of the plan that the 8 LERO organization is made up of primarily LILCO employees 9 with certain other added people. Mr. Giardina evaluated the 10 performance in the LERO EOC of all of the people in the LERO Il plan which includes mostly LILCO people; however, there is 12 the DOE RAP liaison, there are a couple of other people.
g3 13 I was looking at the Brookhaven area office.
")
6 14 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
15 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 16 Q Now, in the answer that begins on Page 24, you 17 say that it's FEMA's position that appropriate PARS were 18 made by the LERO personnel. And, then you reference Table 19 1.2 of the report.
20 Now, that Table 1.2 does not address how the 21 protective action recommendations were arrived at, does it?
22 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
23 Q And, it does not address whether or not those 24 protective action recommendations were appropriate, does it?
25 A That's correct.
4 24900606 7949 joewalsh ,
1 Q It's just the time line, right?
2 A I think the sentence in the testimony speaks for 3 itself. But, that's right. That table is a time line.
4 Q Right. Now, Objective EOC-12 which Mr. Giardina 5 was evaluating deals with the ability to determine 9 6 appropriate protective measures, correct?
7 That's what EOC-12 deals with, correct?
8 A Among other things, that's correct.
9 10 '
11 12 i : v 15 16 i
i 17 18 4
4 19 20 2,1 22 23 24 25 i O
24900707 7950 l Cuewalsh i E23 I Q And, in the FEMA report, based upon Mr.
)
~J ,.
2 Giardina's observation, FEMA found that objective only 3 partly met, correct?
d A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
5 Q And, in the RAC review which is FEMA Exhibit 6 Number 3, that item is -- give me just a second.
7 (Paus e. )
s 8 A 6, 7 and 8 of --
9 Right. And, those items are --
Q 10 A Page 6, 7 and 8 of Table 3.1.
II O Well, it actually begins on Page 5, doesn't it, 12 Mr. Keller?
g- ,
13 A That 's correc t, yes.
O'- '
14 So, it's 5 through 8, and those items, based on 7
, Q 15 Mr. Giardina's observation, are still incomplete because 16 they require an exerciser is that right? -
17 A I -- yes, that is correct. I think we might 18 save time. We would stipulate that all corrective actions 19 arising from the exercise are still incomplete, because they 20 require some verification that the correction has been
- 27 made. No verification has been made. To my knowledge, no 22 verification at this time is planned. All of those are 23 incomplete.
24 JUDGE FRYC: So, now they require some 25 verification at an --
p^s
, L)
24900707 7951-cuewalsh
'/~T I WITNESS KELLER: An exercise.
U 2 JUDGE FRYE -- exercise?
3 WITNESS KELLER: That's correct.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Is this a full 5 participation / integrated exercise?
6 WITNESS KELLER: Based on Mr. Husar's statement.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. You don't really know the 8 answer?
9 WITNESS KELLER: Well, he told me personally 10 that he feels that it ought to be -- he trid me that he 11 feels it ought to be an integrated exercise; that's correct.
12 JUDGE FRYE: So far as you know at this point, 13 all of the deficiencies and ARCAs that were identified in (O - 14 the F.ebruary 13 exercise before' the remedial actions may be 15 accepted they must be demonstrated at a full participation 16 exercise? -
17 WITNESS KELLER: That's right. The plan changes 18 may or may not be accepted. That's documented in Exhibit 3.
19 But, everything is incomplete at this point in 20 time to my recollection.
21 JUDGE PARIS: Including the deficiencies?
22 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE PARIS: I thought there was a 120-day time 24 limit?
25 WITNESS KELLER: For an operating plant.
b(~s L
'24900707 7952 cuewalsh I JUDGE PARIS: Oh, for an operating plant.
2 That's right. Five percent doesn't count? !
3 WITNESS KELLER: That's correct.
4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's right.
5 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 6 Now, Mr. Keller, in the second paragraph of your Q
7 answer, you are discussing the first evacuation PAR and that 8 was for Zones A through M, Q and R. You state there that 9 that PAR was precautionary at the time of the decision based 10 on plant status information.
11 Does your calling that precautionary mean that 12 in your view it was not a necessary recommendation?
yS 13 A (Witness Keller) No.
b:/ Id Q Is it your position that it would have been 15 appropriate to have only recommended evacuation for Zones A 16 through J? -
17 A I -- A through J -- I would like to -- my answer 18 is no. I would like to expand if I could, but if you want 19 short answers leave it no.
20 Q I think the short answer is better.
21 A Okay.
22 Q Do you know what, if any, alternative protective 23 action recommendations were considered by the Radiation 24 Health Coordinator prior to his making this first evacuation 25 recommendation?
O
'b
i 24900707 7953 cuewalsh
()_ 1 A I do not know.
2 Q Do you know whether the Radiation Health 3 Coordinator used evacuation time estimates in making his 4 protective action recommendation?
5 A No.
6 Q Now, you don't dispute, do you, that the 7 Radiation-Health Coordinator did not take into account the 8 impact of the injected road impediments in his protective 9 action recommendations?
10 A I think that was a double negative, and I got 11 lost.
12 Q The Radiation Health Coordinator did not take g- 13 into account the impact of road impediments on his v 14 protective action recommendations, did he?
15 A I don't know whether he did or did not.
16 Q Well, Mr. Giardina observed, did he not, that 17 the Radiation Health Coordinator did not take those into 18 account?
19 A (Witness Baldwin) It's my recall of his form 20 that he did point that out on his form.
21 Q And, that comment by Mr. Giardina reflected in 22 his form is not reflected in the post-exercise assessment, 23 is it?
24 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
25 (Witness Baldwin). That is correct.
l f
(
24900707 7954 cuewalsh i
'I Q Now, Mr. Giardina also --
4' )
2 A (Witness Kowieski) Could we have a minute? We 3
would like to look for Mr. Giardina's form.
4 MS. LETSCHE: Okay. Why don't we have marked as 5 Suffolk County Exhibit 102.for identification a copy of Mr.
6 Giardina's evaluator critique form?
7 (The document referred to was 8 marked as Suffolk County Exercise 9
Exhibit Number .102 for identifi-10 cation.)
11 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 12 Now, this is Mr. Giardina's evaluator critique Q
., 13 form that has been mark.ed as Suffolk County Exhibit 102, l ,
O 14 correct?
15 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
16 JUDGE FRYE: I see it's also identified here as 17 FEMA Panel Exhibit Number 30.
18 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. It was a deposition exhibit 19 as well.
20 JUDGE FRYE: It was a deposition exhibit? Okay.
21 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) i 22 Q Now, Mr. Giardina was assigned to evaluate 23 Objective EOC-12 because his field of expertise is in l
!' 24 accident assessment; is that right?
25 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's correct.
~
-24900707
- 7955 suewalsh (fl 1 Q' And, I take Lit Mr. Giardina has experience in 2 evaluating accident assessment functions at FEMA exercises 3 in addition.to the Shoreham exercise, right?-
4 'A (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
5 Q Now, on Page 2 of Mr. Giardina's form, in the 6 second- area for discussion on the lef t-hand side, Mr.
7- Giardina states: The Radiation Health Coordinator did not 8 demonstrate that he used the data contained in plans.and
-9 procedures concerning time estimates for evacuation.
10 ' That comment is not contained in the post-Il exercise assessment, is it?
12 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
13 (Witness Keller) .That's correct.
(
14 Q Mr. Giardina recommended in the portion of his.
15 form-to the right of that comment that the Radiation Health' 16 Coordinator should review the ' time estimates for-evacuation ,
17 and demonstrate this in the next exercise or drill.
'18 That recommendation is also not reflected in the 19 post-exercise assessment, is it?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q Now, on the fourth page of Mr. Giardina's form 22 in the --
23 A- Is this C or D, I'm sorry?
24 Q I'm sorry?
25 A Is this C or D? Up in the upper right-hand D
24900707 7956 cuewalsh n
() I 2
corner they are labeled.
Q Yeah. It's D.
3 A Thank you.
4 Q In the second comment down on the lef t-hand 5 side, Mr. Giardina stated: While the NVC is capable of 6 handling 30,000 or so in two hours, the expanded use of this 7 facility is dubious.
8 That comment was not contained in the post-9 exercise assessment, was it?
10 A That is correct.
II (Witness Kowieski) That is correct, and there-12 is a reason for it.
.- 13 (Witness Baldwin) We have a correction. Mr.
Y 0"" Id _Giardina's comment doesn 't say in two hours. It says in 12 15 hours.
16 Q In 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. You are right, Dr. Baldwin. I'm 17 sorry.
18 And, Mr. Giardina's recommendation related to 19 that on the right-hand side of that comment that a review of 20 the adequacy of the NVC to handle the 100,000 people is 21 necessary is also not reflected in the post-exercise 22 . assessment, is it?
23 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
2d Q Now, on the first page of Mr. Giardina's form 25 where he has his general comment, he says in the next to the F'T M .
24900707 7957 cuewalsh
,.s I The most serious problem involves:
(_) last sentence: lack of 2 use and/or analysis of times for evacuation.
3 That comment is not reflected anywhere in the 4 post-exercise assessment, is it?
5 A That 's correct.
6 Q Now, it is true, isn't it, gentlemen, that under.
7 the LILCO plan the Radiation Health Coordinator is supposed 8 to consider evacuation time estimates in making his 9 protective action recommendations to the Director of LERO?
10 (The witnesses are conferring.
11 If you don't know, just say so.
12 A I don't recall that as being correct, but I'm
.p 13' not sure.
?J
. 14 (The witnesses are conferring.)
15 Q I can represent to you that the Radiation Health 16 Coordinator, Mr. Watts, has so testified in this proceeding.
17 A I --
18 Q In light of that fact, would you agree that 19 given Mr. Giardina's comments concerning the problems in 20 that area that there should have been either a deficiency or 21 an ARCA related to the Radiation Health Coordinator's 22 failure to demonstrate the use of evacuation time estimates 23 during the exercise?
24 A No. .
25 JUDGE FRYE: I will ask. Why?
p 9
24900707 7958
'Cuewalsh 4' ) 1 WITNESS KELLER: It 's my recollection it 's the 2
Health Services Coordinator. It's one step above the 3 '
Radiation Health Coordinator, my recollection. And, I would d
have to go back and look at the plan.
5 It's my recollection, and that's why we did not 6 . include it in the exercise report. And, we did not want to 7 add on to the question. I assumed we-would get to it on 8 recross or somebody would ask us.
9 There were valid, we thought, reasons for why 10 these things were not put here. There is another layer of 11-activity that is supposed to consider these things.
12 JUDGE FRYE: Did that second layer actually g, 13 consider --
- '" 14 WITNESS KELLER: Mr. Giardina did not evaluate 15 -that --
16 JUDGE FRYE: No, I said the second layer.
17 WITNESS KELLER: That 's correct. And.that's why' 18 basically he evaluated something that wasn't his job to 19 evaluate. That's why it wasn't in the report.
20 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 21 Q Mr. Keller -- I'm sorry, Judge Frye. Are you 22 finished.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Go ahead.
24 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 25 Q Maybe my question wasn 't clear. It was the O
r .LJ
,. ,. , - . , . , ~ , - - . , -, , _ , . . . - . . . ~ .
24900707 7959 cuewalsh
()
' 1 following: Assume for me that the Radiation Health 2 Coordinator, as he testified here, is expected under the 3 LILCO plan to consider evacuation time estimates. Assume 4 that.is true for me. Given that assumption, should there 5 not- have been a notation in the FEMA report of a problem 6 based on Mr. Giardina's observation?
7 A (Witness Keller) With your assumption only, 8 nothing beyond that. I mean, here's my point. If the 9 evacuation time estimates were not considered at all, yes, 10 there should have been a notation.
Il Q Okay. What you have before you is Mr.
12 Giardina's comments.
13 A That is correct.
'v 14 Q Based on Mr. Giardina's comments concerning the 15 Radiation Health Coordinator's performance during the 16 exercise and the assumption I gave to you, that the 17 Radiation Health Coordinator under the LILCC plan is 18 expected to take into account evacuation time. estimates, 19 should there not have been a notation of a problem in that 20 regard in the post-exercise assessment?
21 A If your assumptions are correct, there should 22 have been; that's right.
23 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Giardina recommended six times 24 or six different matters that it should be an area for 25 corrective action, and from what you said it appears to me f^\
%I
24900707 7960
.cuewalsh I that you ignored-that'_in the PEA on a technicality.
h 2 WITNESS KELLER:. We believed that the evacuation 3 . time estimates had been considered, okay. And, on that 4 basis --
5 JUDGE PARIS: By whom?
6 WITNESS BALDWIN: My-recollection of this.is, 7 Judge Paris, that in the deliberative process in . preparing - a 8 report, first of all an evaluator makes his evaluation on 9 this sheet and then it's consolidated with a team leader.
10 There were discussions with Mr. Connolly, who is a. FEMA Il employee, add with the team leader of the'EOC team, with .
12 myself and Mr. Giardina. There were discussionsiafter the jg ag 13 exercise with Mr. Keller involved in those.
%)
14 And, the result of those discussions were what 15 was deleted, were the strike-out, and I can't tell you when, 16 in fact, .the strike-out was done on this material. If you
,i 4
17 look at the' original, it appears to be done in the same 18 color. ink, so I' would suspect -- I infer from that- it- was f 19 done by_Mr. Giardina with the consultation that he had with
- 20 .Mr. Connolly, and that in the process of getting from .these 21 forms to',thenreport these deliberative discussions were held 22 with,the' team leader and Mr. Keller and the other people 23 involved in the exercise.
l 24 The point is though that we did evaluate the 25 ability of LERO to take into consideration the evacuation L
24900707 7961 cuewalsh '
()
I time estimates. It was done at the EOC. It was done at a 2 higher level than what Mr. Giardina specifically saw in the 3 accident assessment or dose assessment room.
4 JUDGE PARIS: 'Okay. So, on the basis of your 5 knowledge of observations made elsewhere, you concluded that 6 Giardina's remarks were inappropriate or the recommendations 7 were --
8 WITNESS KELLER: That's essentially correct.
9 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes. ,
10 WITNESS BALDNIN: Yes.
11 JUDGE FRYE: I infer from what you are saying is 12 that what he was -- the function that he was observing was a s 13 function that was simply to assess the amount of radiation N
~
1.4 that was present and not the dose?
15 WITNESS KOWIESKI: And, in addition, basically 16 the Health Services Coordinator, he is an advisor to the 17 decision-maker. The decision-maker was the Director of 18 Local Response. So,' all the people reporting to the 19 Director of Local Response, they had a caucus, okay, and 20 made a recommendation to the Director, discussed the 21 situation, and the Director of Local Response made the final 22 decision.
23 WITNESS BALDWIN: I think if I could just add to 24 -- in the lay-out of the EOC, the evacuation time estimates, 25 that evaluation, that specific assessment, .is done in the
)
's i
24900707 7962 cuewalsh e i.
j') 1 operations room in the EOC, whereas the accident assessment
. v 2 function is in a separate ream in the back, if you look at 3 the lay-out.
4 That's not to say he shouldn't have considered 5 them, because he has access -to that information and all the 6 plans and the operating procedures . In fact, they are in 7 the dose assessment room.
8 But, the point is that that use of that 9 information, the evacuation time estimates, taking that case 10 and integrating that with the other piece of the dose 31 assessment information was done at a higher level.
12 13 e-,')
il 0~J- 34 15 16 .
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9
d
24900808. 7963 marysimons
) 1 WITNESS KELLER: And I also might add, if you 2 will look-very carefully at the objective on the form and 3 not the points of review, the points of review go beyond the 4 objective and in turns out inappropriately. We didn't catch 5 it before the exercise.
6 JUDGE FRYE: The objective is to demonstrate the 7 ability to receive and interpret radiation dosage 8 proj ec tion .
9 WITNESS KELLER: That's correct, and that's 10 fine. That's all right. But the evacuation time estimates 11 are not dose rates.
12 JUDGE FRYE: But they affect dosage, don't they?
13 WITNESS KELLER: They could potentially affect 14 dosage, but both of the protective action recommendations 15 which were made in this exercise, aside from the more dr 16 less automatic one of closing the schools early, were 17 precautionary at the time. There were no doses.
18 They were made based on -- the first one at 19 least was made on plant status. The plant has gone sour.
20 If it continues to go sour and we get a release, the dose 21 rates are going to be in excess of the PAGs.
22 The Brookhaven people where I was made several 23 calculations on potential leak rates from containment based 24 on potential source terms in the containment and potential 25 leak rates with the actual meteorological conditions at the
['T v
m 24900808 7964 marysimons
- n l I time they were made and they came up with dose projections 1A./J .
2 in terms of dose rates.
~3 There is a default time for a period of exposure 4 and how long it would take to get the problem fixed, and 5 .they used that time as the time' to integrate the dose rate 6 to get doses, and those doses were in excess of the PAGs, 7 and therefore the evacuation recommendation was made.
8 Now that evacuation recommendation from a 9 radiological basis, a technical basis is one part of the 10 decision. That's one piece of advice. The Evacuation il Coordinator has information about, or should have 12 information about the conditions of the roads, impediments ,
13 et' cetera. That's another piece of the decision.
14 In many of our exercises, and if you look at the 15 35 standard objectives, this is all rolled into one major.
16 objective of the 35 standards, the evacuation times, the 17 roads, the shelter, all that sort of thing. That's all one 18 objective.
19 Because of the fact that in most plants, not 20 all, this decision is not made by one person, it is a
' 21 - collegial thing where the decision-maker gets advice from 22 -four or five people who may be in separate rooms as Dr.
23 .Baldwin pointed out, we have separated or tried to separate 24 these objectives.
25 The points of review which we wrote on our
d 24900808 7965 marysimons
- 1) I sheets and which was a mistake included information which 2 was not appropriate we felt, and Mr. Giardina responded to 3 that information. We felt that the evacuation time 4 estimates had been considered by the Evacuation Coordinator 5 and the decision-maker.
6 BY MS. LETSCHE:
7 Q Mr. Keller, under what objective, other than EOC-8 12, did FEMA-evaluate whether evacuation time estimates were 9 taken into account in making prote.ctive action 10 recommendations?
11 A (Witness Keller) Part of EOC 16.
12 Q EOC-16 says " Demonstrate the organizational fs 13 ability to manage an orderly evacuation."
14 A Part of the management of an orderly evacuation
- 15 has got to consider times.
16 Q No, no, that wasn't my question. My question 17 was under what objective did FEMA evaluate whether 18 evacuation time estimates were taken into account in 19 determining protective action recommendations? In making 20 the decisions there isn't any other objective on that, is 21 there?
22 MR. CUMMING: Objection to the question as 23 compound . Can you break it down into little pieces?
l 24 WITNESS KELLER: EOC 8.
25 BY MS. LETSCHE:
O L
l 24900808 7966 !
.marysimons l 9-1 '
q_) 3 Q. Now it is true under the plan, is it not, Mr.
2 Keller, that the Radiation Health Coordinator is responsible 3 for giving a recommended protective action recommendation to 4 the Director of LERO, right?
5 A (Witness Keller) My recollection is it goes to 6 the Health Services Coordinator, but I may be mistaken, but 7 that's my recollection.
8 Q It goes through the Health Services Coordinator, 9 but the Radiation Health Coordinator does his accident 10 assessment job and arrives at a recommended protective Il action recommendation, right?
12 A- That's correct, and he then gives that to the y-~ 13 Health Services Coordinator who then gives it to ths 4
0") 14 Director.
15 Q Right. And Mr. Giardina, based upon the 16 comments in his form was focusing in his evaluation on the 17 performance of the Radiation Health Coordinator, right?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q And he was evaluating whether that individual 20 correctly assessed the accident and arrived at protection 21 action recommendations, right?
22 A That 's correc t.
23 Q And he noted in evaluating the Radiation Health 24 Coordinator's performance that he did not take into account 25 various things related to the evacuation time estimates, C
24900808 7967 marysimons
_i j 1 right?
2 A That is correct.
3 Q Mr. Giardina believed from his from that the 4 Radiation Health Coordinator should have taken those things 5 into account in making his protective action 6 recommendations, correct?
7 A I don't know what he believed. That's what is 8 on his form. So I assume that's what he believed.
9 Q And in fact one of his comments at least to implies, and I'm talking about the comment on ---
11 MR. CUMMING: Objection as to the form of the 12 question. She said in fact and then implies. It's very f-s 13 confusing and it will lead to a confusing record.
14 .
JUDGE FRYE: Overruled.
15 MS. LETSCHE: Let me start the question again.
16 BY MS. LETSCHE: -
17 Q Directing your attention to Page B of Mr.
18 Giardina's form and his comment at the bottom of that pgge 19 on the left-hand side, the last sentence of that comment 20 which does have lines through it implies, does it not, that 21 the Radiation Health Coordinator's protective action 22 recommendations may not have been proper; is that right?
23 MS. McCLESKEY: I object to the question. The 24 witnesses have testified that the lines were drawn through 25 by the writer of this form and Ms. Letsche is trying to get N/
24900808 7968 marysimons I the information that was lined through in as fact, and I
.k )
2 just don't think that is proper. -
3 MS. LETSCHE: I think the witnesses testified 4
that they d:dn't know when these lines were drawn or by 5 whom.
6 JUDGE FRYE: My recollection of the testimony is 7 that you indicated in the original the lines appear to be in 8 the same ink and ---
9 WITNESS KELLER: Here is the original if you 10 would like to look at it before you rule.
33 JUDGE FRYE: Well, your assumption is what I'm 12 trying to recall. Your assumption was that ---
-- 13 WITNESS KELLER: --- that Mr. Giardina had done 14 it. I believe he said that in his deposition also, that he 15 had done it. That's my recollection of his deposition, but 16 that's a recollection again. -
17 JUDGE FRYE: And he would have done that when?
18 WITNESS KELLER: Sometime after the exercise, 19 but prior to turning his forms in.
20 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Your Honor, the day after the 21 exercise team leaders met with their evaluators and team 22 members to discuss, to put together the highlights of the 23 exercise. At that time any problems identified during the 24 exercise are discussed and there certainly was some exchange 25 between Mr. Connolly, who was a team leader at the EOC and II) s '%/
'24900808 7969 marysimons
_yx t ,1/f 1 Mr. Paul Giardina. It's our conclusion that at that time 2 Mr. Giardina decided to strike part of his evaluation or 3 some of the comments.
4 JUDGE FRYE: So the record will be clear, would 5 you read -- and I take it you can read from the original the 6 material that was drawn through.
7 WITNESS KELLER: With some difficulty, yes.
8 JUDGE FRYE: I can't read it on this copy. So 9 if you.would read that into the record.
10 WITNESS KELLER: To the best of my ability.
11 " Additionally, the accident / impediments to 12 evacuation were never reverted back to the accident 13 assessment staff for analysis for dose implications to those
(
1' 14 which might be -- I think stuck. This resulted in people 15 being evacuated through the plume."
, 16 And there is also a portion on the -
17 recommendation which has been deleted.
18 JUDGE FRYE: And that is?
19 WITNESS KELLER: That reads: "The Rad Health 20 Coordinator should be consulted when an impediment to 21 evacuation is encountered."
22 JUDGE FRYE: I think that pretty well speaks for 23 itself.
24 MS. LETSCHE: Right.
25 BY MS. LETSCHE:
O
i l
24900808 7970 '
mnrysimons 7
{_) I Q Now, Mr. Keller, you have not reviewed, have 2 you, the dose calculations that were performed at the EOC 3 during the exercise?
4 At the EOC, no, I have not.
A (Witness Keller) 5 You don't have any basis to dispute, do you,
-Q 6 that no shelter versus evacuation comparison calculations 7 were done at the EOC af ter 12 o' clock on the day of the 8 exercise?
9 A No, I do not.
10 And you don't know, do you, whether the Q
il personnel at the EOC ever considered the continuing 12 appropriateness of an evacuation recommendation in light of
- .y s 13 the fact that a lot of people hadn't left the EPZ at 2 L ~ l4 o' clock?
15 A I don't r'emember how you started to phrase your 16 question. I'm sorry, I lost that.
17 Q You don't know whether the personnel at the EOC 18 ever considered the continued appropriateness of that 19 recommendation?
20 A I know that some of the people at the EOC did.
21 I'm sorry, instead of some I would say one. I'm sorry, 22 excuse me.
23 Q You don't know whether the Radiation Health 24 Coordinator did?
25 A That is correct.
s
24900808 7971 marysimons
. f j.x
(, ), 1 Q Or whether any of the accident assessment staff, 2 the LILCO accident assessment staff considered that, do you?
3 A I do not understand the term "LILCO".
4 Q The LERO accident assessment staff other than 5 those employed by DOE.
6 A Well, my definition of'LERO includes those 7 emp'loyed by DOE.
8 Q I just said other than DOE.
9 'A No, I do not know.
10 Q And you don't dispute the fact that as of 2:40 11 on the day of the exercise that LERO was informed that 12 .approximately 20,000 people were still inside the ' EPZ?
fx 13 ,
A I understand .that that message was injected.
(V.
14 Q Now on page 25 of your testimony you refer to 15 the second evacuation recommendation which was the one to
!~ 16 evacuate the entire EPZ, and you identify that as also 17 precautionary. Do ycu mean by that that it was an 18 unnecessary recommendation?
19 A No.
20 Q Do you mean-that it was an inappropriate 21 recommendation?
22 A No.
23 Q Do you mean to suggest by that that the 24 projected wind shif t was not going to bring the plume over 25 the additional zones that were included in that i
. - - _ - - - . - . . - - - - -.- . . - , . -- .- , _ , . . , -,_. -.-__. ,-., . ~ - - - - . - , . . , - . . - -
24900808 7972 marysimons 54
,s w/
i 1 recommendation?
2 A (Witness Kowieski) Could you rephrase your 3 question again?
d Q Mr. Keller, you say that the second-5 recommendation .was based on the projected wind shif t which 6 was to occur later in the afternoon. You don't dispute, do 7 you, that that projected wind shift was going to take the 8 plume'over the additional zones that were added to the 9 evacuation recommendation?
10 A- (Witness Keller) If in fact the wind shift did 11 occur as projected, then the plume would have been directed 12 to the new areas; that is correct.
I 7, 13 Would you want me to define precautionary? We
~
14 might save a lot of time.
15 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, what do you mean by 16 " precautionary"? -
I7 WITNESS KELLER: At the point that the 18 recommendation was made there were no doses in that area, 19 and in that regard it was precautionary. They were making a 20 recommendation as a precaution to reduce potential dose in 21 an area that was not receiving doses at the time of the 22 rec ommendation.
23 JUDGE FRYE: It was potential future dose.
24 WITNESS KELLER: That's correct.
25 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Any that's abnormal I guess iM f
'24900808- 7973 m2rysimons e;
$) I we'll accept the procedure to evacuate prior to the release.
2 You do not evacuate and bring people through the plume.
~3 BY MS. LETSCHE:
4 Q Now also on page 25 in the last two sentences 5 you sort of take issue with something that is in the 6 contention. You say that "It's FEHA's-position that the EBS 7 messages aired af ter 12 o' clock contained the instructions 8 that all of the 10 mile EPZ should evacuate.
9 That instruction that .all of the EPZ should 4
to evacuate includes the instruction that Zones A through M, Q 11 and R should evacuate, doesn 't it?
12 A (Witness Keller) All of the zones means all of jq 13 the zones. .
U 14 -
Q And it '.ncludes zones A through M, Q and R?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Now, gentlemen, I would like to diredt your o 17 attention to page 157 of your testimony, 18 (Witnesses comply.)
19 Now on pages 157 through 160 you discuss a 20 couple of contentions, all of which are subparts and all of 21 which relate to congregate care centers.
22 Now during the exercise FEMA identified as an 23 area requiring corrective action the fact that the 24 congregate care centers that were demonstrated during the 25 exercise were not identified in the LILCO plan; is that
- O
24900808 7974 marysimons l
23 V
I right?
2 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
3 Q And you also identified in that ARCA that the d facilities that would be used as congregate care centers 5 should be included in a letter of agreement that would be 6 part of the plan, correct?
7 A That's also correct.
8 Q In the RAC review which is FEMA Exhibit No. 3, 9 LILCO's response to that ARCA relating to the congregate 10 care center is still rated as inadequate, correct?
II A That's correct.
12 .Q And it's also rated as incomplete, that is 13 requiring an exercise, correct?
l -
14 A That's also correct.-
15 Q And in your evaluation of the LILCO response to 16 that ARCA you refer to LILCO's response concerning the I 17 American Red Cross, correct?
18 A (Witness Baldwin) Correct.
19 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
, 20 Q And you state that with respect to LILCO's 21 response on the American Red Cross that the policy is 22 unworkable, correct?
23 A (Witness Baldwin) That is correct.
24 i
25 l
I L
i
24900909 7975 j oewalsh I) 1 JUDGE PARIS: Ms. Letsche, when you started 2 asking questions about Exhibit 3 just now, I don't think you 3 gave a page number.
4 MS. LETSCHE: I think you are right. I was 5 referring to Table 3.10, which is the next to the last page 6 of the exhibit, Judge Paris.
7 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 8 Q Okay. I just have one additional question, or 9 additional line of questions. You referenced before in 10 response to a question, Mr. Keller, that when I asked you II what objectives dealt with using evacuation time estimates 12 in protective action decisions, and you told me EOC-8, is
-s 13 that right?
U 14 A (Witness Keller)
That is correct.
15 Q Now, there were two FEMA evaluators who 16 evaluated EOC-8, correct? -
17 A Probably.
18 Q It was Mr. Giardina and Mr. Connolly, is that 19 right?
20 A Mr. Connolly for sure, and I would have to do ,
21 some verification on Mr. Giardina.
22 (Panel peruses documents.)
23 A (Continuing) Without a very thorough search, we 24 think only one; but perhaps two. You are right.
25 Q Mr. Connolly and Mr. Giardina, correct?
O
'24900909 7976 joewalsh I '
1 A Apparently that is right.
/%)D 2 Now, the points of review -- I know you have the Q
3 EECF's up there, the points of review relating to EOC-8 4 include three, right?
5 A That is correct.
6 And the first one is command of emergency Q
7 operations by LERO Director of Local Response, or designee?
8 A That is correct.
9 Q And the second one is use of EOC Staff in 10 operations decision-making and implementation of response, il correct?
12 A That is correct.
gy, 13 Q And the third one is availab'ility and use of the b 14 plan procedures and check list, right?
15 A That is correct.
16 Q And no where-in the points of review are 17 evacuation time estimates mentioned, are they?
18 A Not specifically, but the plans contain the 19 evacuation time estimate. The check list contain evacuation 20 time estimates . They are included by reference.
21 Q Okay. Now, looking -- you have the critique 22 forms up there by Mr. Connolly and Mr. Giardina.
23 A Just a moment, please. We have Mr. Connolly's; 24 we are looking for Mr. Giardina's.
25 Q I will give you a copy of Mr. Giardina's to s
l 1
)
24900909 79771 j oewalsh ,
.rm
(_) I speed things up a bit.
2 (Panel is handed copy of document by Mr.
3 Lanpher.)
4 Q Now, Mr. Connolly's, let's look at Mr.
5 Connolly's first. His comments don't deal with the use of 6 evacuation time estimates, do they?
7 A (Witness Kowieski) They do not specifically 8 mention evacuation time estimates, that is correct.
9 Q But he does say that there,were limited 10 discussions regarding evacuation options and 'all LILCO's Il evacuation recommendations were followed, correct?
12 A That is also correct.
13 Q All right.
/~}
0-) -
14 A That doesn't imply there was anything wrong with 15 16 Q He did not evaluate, based upon his forms, 17 whether or not there was any consideration of evacuation j 18 time estimates by the accident assessment staff, did he?
19 A No, I cannot draw this conclusion.
! 20 Q Right. And Mr. Giardina's form concerning the l
21 EOC --
22 JUDGE PARIS: What was your answer to that?
23 WITNESS KOWIESKI: I cannot draw that conclusion 24 that he did not evaluate. I think he did evaluate. He was
! 25 responsible for evaluation of command and control functions,
( _ .. - - . . -.
LfY
- s
~24900909 7978 joewalsh
( 1 including decision-making,-and decision-maker should take 2 into account evacuation time estimates.
.l ,
'3 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 4 There is no indication on Mr. Connolly's form Q
5 that he took that into account when he did his evaluation, 6 is there?
N i
7 A (Witness Kowies'ki) I call your attention that 8 he said the objective was met, and he -- Mr. Connolly 9
received as a part of evaluator package LILCO plan and 10 procedures .
Il MS. McCLESKEY: Excuse me. Before we go forward 12 discussing Mr. Connolly's form, Ms. Letsche, is that an 13 exercise exhibit from S,uffolk County?
'O. 14 MS. LETSCHE: No, it is not.
~
15 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 16 Q Mr. Kowieski, you cannot determine from Mr.
17 Connolly's form whether or not he did any evaluation 18 regarding the use of evacuation time estimates, can you?
19 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. I object to further
,. 20 discussion without putting the form in the record. I also 21 think the question is speculative toward Mr. Kowieski.
~
22 JUDGE FRYE: I think he has already answered the 23 question already, it seems to me. He said he is presuming 24 that he did on the basis of the instructions that he had, 25 and the conclusion that he reached on the form.
O
24900909 7979 j oewalsh r .
'( ) 1
'It,seems.he also agrees that there is nothing 2 explicit on the form, is that correct?
3 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Your characterization sir, is 4 correc t .
5 WITNESS BALDWIN - If I could answer the
-6 question, too, 'since I was on that team, and involved in the-7 team-meetings that related to the discussions around this.
8 .There were discussions between Mr. Connolly and.Mr. Giardina-9 revolving around~the use of these evacuation time estimates.
10 This is part of the deliberative process of 11 ' integrating a large stack of forms in putting together a 12 report.-
13 On EOC-12, Page B, Mr. Giardina writes on his I _. '
.14 form, in the area that we are talking about, he said: I
' 15 asked what time estimates -- let.me be very specific here.
16 On the left hand side, in the second item down, he is-4' Ll7 . talking here about the radiation health coordinator. did not
'la ' demonstrate that he used the data contained in plans and 19 procedures concerning time estimates for evacuation, and he 20 goes on: I asked what the time. estimates were, and he knew 21 -off the top of his head that it would.take eight hours under 22 the worst winter conditions I believe that says. He never 23 communicated or showed this evaluator, meaning Mr. Giardina, I, 24- the actual estimate for those conditions.
l
[ 25 And the process of getting from these forms to
24900909 7980 j oewalsh '
I the report, discussions were had between Mr. Connolly and 2 Mr. Giardina regarding the use of these evacuation time 3
estimate information.
4 It is true we testified I think on three 5 dif ferent times here that there is no specific mention of 6 that in Mr. Connolly's form.
7 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 8 Q And the only place, in terms of these evaluator 9 forms, where 'the relationship between a protective action 10 recommendation and a projected dose is evaluated is by Mr.
11 Giardina under EOC-12, right?
12 MS. McCLESKEY: Same objection to the question.
13 -Mr. Connolly's form needs to be in the record.
7~,)
1 O 14 JUDGE FRYE:. I want to get to that in a moment, 15 but .let 's get .'n answer to the question.
16 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) -
17 Q Let me restate the question so everyone is 18 clear. I am r.ot talking about Mr. Connolly's fo'rm right 19 now. I am asking these gentlemen, the only evaluation 20 objective, and the only evaluation form, which deals with -
21 the relationship between projected doses and a protective i
22 action recommendation at the EOC is Mr. Giardina's form on 23 EOC-12, correct?
24 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct, and we 25 already testified --
U'~\
.\ /
.24900909 7981 joewalsh j( ) 1 A And Mr. Giardina in doing that evaluation noted 2 ' his concern that the radiation health coordinator did not 3 take into account evacuation time estimates in making his.
4 protective action recommendations based on projected doses, 5 correct?
6 A That is stated on the form.
7 MS. LETSCHE: Thank you. That is all the 8 questions I have of this panel.
9 JUDGE FRYE: Now, let's get these forms. I 10 think it would be helpful to have these forms in the record.
11 MS. LETSCHE: I don't have sufficient copies of 12 them made at this point, Judge Frye. I can do that.
12 JUDGE FRYE: Okay, fine.
14 MS. LETSCHE: In fact, I understand they are is being made, and when I get them I will have them marked.
16 JUDGE FRYE: Fine. -
17 MS. LETSCHE: At this point, I would like to 18 move into evidence Suffolk County Exercise Exhibits 100, 19 101, and 102, and when we get the other ones, we_will do 20 those.
21 JUDGE FRYE: Any objections?
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No objections.
23 MR. CUMMING: FEMA has no objection.
4 24 MS. McCLESKEY: No objection.
25 JUDGE FRYE: Fine. It is so ordered.
i l
24900909 7982 l joewalsh l k; '; 'l (Suffolk County Exercise Exhibits 2 Nos. 100, 101, and 102, having 3 previously been identified, are 4
admitted into evidence.)
5 BOARD EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE PARIS:
7 Q Gentlemen, I have a follow-up question for you 8 from something that was discussed yesterday. Let me get
'9 organized here for a moment. I want to go back to the 10 monitoring issue.
II Now, turn to Page 29 of your testimony, and Page 12 80 of the PEA, and you will recall yesterday that Ms.
q7, 13 Letsche was exploring with you the fact that in the PEA, the 14 statement is made on several occasions personnel 15 radiological monitoring took approximately four to five 16 minutes per-individual, which is considerably longer than 17 the 90 seconds specified in the LERO procedures.
la And she also showed you a copy of the 19 evaluator's -- a couple of evaluator reports, or one, that 20 contained a statement which you testified was essentially 21 similar to what is in the PEA, and I would like to ask on 22 what basis you state in your testimony that the only 23 occasions on which the monitoring personnel took more than 24 the approximately ninety seconds was when the individual .
25 being monitored was a FEMA evaluator?
I t w l.
, _ , e - - _ -
p+ -
, . - . , , - - ,..g -
-%,a _, , , . . . . _ , , , , . . -
,,%_ .- s-.
~24900909 7983
- j oewalsh im
() 1 A (Witness Keller) My personal contact with the 2 two professional evaluators who were assigned at the.Nassau 3 County Coliseum, Mr. Slagle and Mr. Bernacki.
4 Q On some statement they made to you they stated 5 to you that it was only when FEMA evaluators --
6 A That is correct. We asked specifically. Because 7 of the interest in this area. The post exercise assessment 8 report is not a cut and paste, direct cut and paste of 9 evaluator critique forms.
10 There is evaluation. There is analysis. It'is 11 not just write it down, cut it and paste it, and let it rip.
12 A (Witness Kowieski) The report, just for the 7- 13 benefit of this Board, when we put together the first draf t V) 14 of post exercise assessment, the report was circulated to 15 all team leaders and RAC members for review and comments.
16 We received comments. There were some 17 contradictions. We would call people. We would discuss the 18 issue, various issues, and finally would settle what would 19 be the final version, and we put together the second 20 version, and the second version was basically the second
- 21 version of the draft report was reviewed by a smaller group 22 of people, and finally when we polished the second version, 23 we put in the final form.
24 Q Okay, but it would appear that your discussion 25 with these two evaluators must have occurred af ter the final O
l
. . . . . - . . . . - . - ~ . . . - ~ .
4
- 24900909 7984 j oewalsh .
W ~
(J. I report was put together, because there is nothing in ' the
~
-l finalL report that reflects what you say in your testimony, 3 right?
4 A (Witness Keller) I disagree, Ifam.sorry. I 5 .believe that the last paragraph on Page'80, the facilities l
6 at. ~ the reception center as demonstrated during the exercise-e i
'7 were capable _ of handling 32,000 evacuees within the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
8 time period.. ,
9 Now, the only way you can get the 32,000- .
l 10 evacuees in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> is to use 90 seconds with the personnel II that were'there. That is the only way.
12 If you use four to five minutes, you are well 13 over 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, or you need a lot more_ people, one or the 14 other, so I believe'it is in the report, sir.
15 A (Witness Kowieski) It is not specifically 16 mentioned. -
A (Witness Baldwin) I think it is important to 17 L 18 note on this point that Mr. Bernacki and Mr. Slagle in their i' 19 evaluation forms did note this sentence which is included in 20 the post exercise assessment.
21 However, on their form they checked that th'e 1 .
22 objective was met, and on the second part of the form, they 23 did not provide any description of the problem, or a 24 recommendation relating to that.
} 25 That was part of the deliberative process that i-
,, - . . . - , - - - _ ._ __.-.._ - . _ .._ .--.,_..- _ _-. _ .,_. _ ....-,.__ - ..___ -- --. _ .- , - ,_.~ _ ,,,,,- --
24900909 7985 i j oewalsh (f- .1 involved Mr. Kowieski, who was again an evaluator in his
.2 oversight function that came through the reception center on1 .
'3 that Lday and said .the same ' thing happened to me. ~We'should 4 make this an area requiring corrective action, and then 5 discussions were~ held between Mr. Bernacki:and Mr. Slagle 6 and Mr. Kowieski and Mr. Keller, - and f that is how on Page 81
-7 we get this area: requiring corrective action.
~8 A- (Witness Kowieski) I decided basically on my .
9 own observation, I decided.to raise this. We don't'have any 10 recommendation for area requiring corrective action or 11 imp rovement, but I decided on my own to raise to to-an ARCA.
12 Q I see. I take it they.took.four or five< minutes 13 with you.
- 0
- ~' 14 A Sir,-I~was followed by like 15 to 20 people.
15 . JUDGE PARIS: All right. Thank.you.
16 MS. LETSCHE: I now have the copies of the 17 Connolly evaluation critique form that we were discussing,
- 18 and that should be marked as Suffolk County Exhibit'103.
19 (Above referenced document is
- 20 marked Suffolk County Exhibit 21 No. 103, for identification.)
22 MS. LETSCHE: And I would move that one into
, 23 evidence.
24 JUDGE FRYE: Any objections?
25 MS, McCLESKEY: No objection.
j'
, c . - _ _ , , ,.- ,.--, , , - . - _ , - , . , , - . , _ . , , - . . . . , , , - . ..._ ,_ ,,.-, _ ,. - . _ . . , , - - . . , . , . . _ . . - . - _ , , , - - - . - , , ,
24900909 7986 j oewalsh I JUDGE FRYE: So ordered.
2 (Suffolk County Exhibit No. 103, 3 previously marked for 4
identification, is admitted into 5
evidenc e. )
6 JUDGE FRYE: Is that all of it?
^
7 MS. LETSCHE: That is it; that is all there a was. There was nothing on any of the additional sheets.
9 That is all-the questioning that I have. Mr. Miller --
10 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Miller now picks up with his 11 portion.
12 MS. LETSCHE: Yes.
py c , 13 JUDGE FRYE: Would it be appropriate then, you
,)
a 14 think, to take our lunch break, and that will give you a 15 chance to shuffle your papers and what not.
~
16 MR. MILLER: It is up to the Board.
17 JUDGE FRYE: Judge Paris votes yes, so we will 1
18 take our lunch break.
19 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken at 11:45 20 a.m., to reconvene at 1:15 p.m., this same day.)
21 22 l 23 24 25
I l
24901010- 7987 cuewalsh
![~ ) 1 AFTERN00N S.ESSION
%/
2 (1:15 p.m. )
3 JUDGE FRYE: Could we go back on the record, 4 pleas e? At the break, Mr. Pirfo indicated to us that there 5 needs to be some discussion of the proposed visit to the 6 training facility. So, perhaps it would be a good time to 7 have that discussion.
8 Do you want to lead off, Mr. Pirfo?
9 MR. PIRFO: I think so. 'The Staff's chief 10 concern is -- I guess what the bottom line would be of the 11 tour is for purposes of the evidentiary record in this 12 hearing. Obviously, we have been assuming the Reporter c- 13 would not be along with us but obviously if the Board had r
' 'O 14 questions along the way and whoever was responding to those 15 questions, whether a LILCO tour guide or LILCO personnel, 16 the' attorneys, it 's "unsworn" testimony. -
17 Obviously, if Suffolk County has no problem with 18 what the responses are, then there is no problem. And it 19 may just be a temptress in a teapot. But, there are going 20 to be -- I don't know what we are going to see on the tour.
21 Maybe LILCO could tell us better. I don't know 22 if they have a plan of the tour at this moment, and maybe 4
23 just hearing that at this point will obviate a lot of the 24 problems. Our chief concern is what the evidentiary value 25 is with the Board in writing its Opinion or the parties in O
24901010 7988 cuewalsh f l I writing proposed findings, would you be citing to, like the f}
2 tour visit. And, there are just questions we have. We just 3
don't know.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I guess our initial view of 5 it - was that it would not be evidentiary. It would be like a 6 site tour in any other licensing proceeding where the Board 7
goes out and looks at the site or the plant, as the case may 8 be.
9 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, Suffolk County has 10 assumed that when the Board first brought up the issue of Il the possibility of a visit to the training facility, the 12 Board was indicating that they just really wanted to see the 13 building itself and that there would not be substantive 7s
' 14 discussions or presentations made by LILCO during that visit 15 but it would just be the Board looking at the building 16 itself and -- -
17 JUDGE FRYE: The facility.
18 MR. MILLER: The facility itself, yes, sir.
19 JUDGE FRYE: And hearing an explanation.
20 JUDGE PARIS: Just like a site visit to a plant 21 under construction.
22 MR. MILLER: And, if that's what the Board has 23 in mind, I would not see obviously the -- I wouldn't see why 24 it would be necessary to have Court Reporters or anything 25 like that along on the visit. We, of course, would have
. ~,
l l-
24901010 .7989 1 cuewalsh I problems if the visit turned into a substantive discussion
([s) ,
2 with LILCO trying to present or amplify in any way its case 3 regarding the training issues before the Board.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we certainly hadn't viewed it 5 like that. Had you viewed it like that?
6 MS. McCLESKEY: No, sir. Our view of it is that 7 the Board asked for a tour of the building. We will give
,8 it. There is a standard hour to two hour tour depending on 9 how many questions anyone asks and how far we walk around, 10 and we are prepared to go forward with that.
11 It's the training building. It's also the ENC 12 and the EOC. I mean, the OF, excuse me. And that's all we 13 are planning on doing with it. And, we will be glad to take 7
4 14 you wherever you want to go.
15 JUDGE FRYE: Why don't I suggest this? Why 16 don't you-all confer with regard to how this should be done 17 and let us know if you see any problems with it, okay?
18 I think that's probably the best way to handle 19 it.
20 MR. MILLER: Is it the Board 's intent though 21 just to view the training facility? I heard mention just 22 now of the ENC and the EOF.
23 JUDGE FRYS: Well, I didn't realize that the ENC 24 or the EOF were located at the same facility.
25 MS. McCLESKEY: Well, the training facility
[q U
24901010 7990 cuewalsh.
1
,[~3 I becomes the ENC and - the EOF in emergency planning. The
%)
2 building is used for that.
3 JUDGE FRYE: So, in the event of an emergency it 4 would serve that function?
5 MR. MILLER: The Board understands I'm sure that 6 the ENC and the EOF that is being referred to is dif ferent 7 than the one used during the exercise.
8 JUDGE FRYE: Yes.
9 MS. McCLESKEY: It's a dif ferent building. It's 10 the same stuff.
11 JUDGE FRYE: The same copying machines.
12 MS. McCLESKEY: No, no, no. An incredibly 13 improved copying machine, extraordinary copying machines.
i[ )
# 14 (Laughter.)
/
15 JUDGE FRYE: New maps -- -
16 MS. McCLESKEY: New maps, great copying 17 machines.
18 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Why don't you-all confer 19 with regard to it? And, if there are problems let us know.
20 But, we hadn't viewed it as being evidentiary. It would be, 21 you go on one of these tours -- I went on one at the West 22 Chicago site which involved some tailings from an old 23 thorium mill that are supposed to be disposed of and also 24 they were demolishing the factory,that had been there at one 25 point, you know.
m hi p
i 24901010 7991 cuewalsh I, 1 So, they took us around and said this is where 2 we did this and this is where we did that and, yes, that's 3 the tailings pile and over here is a pit and, you know, that 4 -sort of thing. It's that kind of thing.
5 JUDGE - PARIS: This one, we won't have to wear 6 film badges, will we?
7 ' MS . . McCLESK EY : No, sir. No special equipment 8 required.
9 MR. PIRFO Thank you, Judge Frye.
10 JUDGE FRYE: Now, Mr. Miller, do you want to 11 pick up?
12 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. Just for the Board 's 13 information and it's actually for the information of the
'^'
14 witnesses as well, I believe during the course of my cross-15 examination we will essentially cover the rem 61nder of the 16 contentions. My list shows those contentions wod1d be, in 17 es senc e, those dealing with the route alert functions, the 18 traffic -impediment problens that were identified during the 19 exercise, and training issues.
- 20 The particular contentions and the contention 21 subparts would be Contentions 34, 21.A, 40, 21.E, 41, 22.I, 22 21.F, 42, 45 and 50.
23 CROSS EXAMINATION i
24 BY MR. MILLER:
25 Q Mr. Keller, let's start with you if we could? I c
. -.. _ - . - ~ . . _ . . .-- -
24901010 7992
-Euewalsh i
[) I think we should, before we really begin a substantive
. -GJ 2 discussion of those issues, we should try to clear up a few 3 of the misstatements that appeared on the record yesterday 4 in your discussions with Mr. Lanpher. Let me just see if I 5 can clarify a few things.
6 Is it your understanding that FEMA during the 7 February 13th exercise decided which route alert drivers a would be sent out to drive the siren territory during the 9 exercise?
10 A (Witness Keller) It is my understanding that II FEMA selected the routes. In other words, the free-play 12 message said that siren Number X, Y and Z have failed. So,
- - 13 FEMA selected the areas to be covered by the route alert U 14 drivers.
15 Q And, is it your understanding Mr. Keller, that 16 in selecting the routes that would be covered that, in 17 essence, FEMA was, therefore, also selecting the route alert
- 18 drivers that would cover those routes?
19 A No. We did not select the route alert drivers r 20 to run those routes, no.
21 Q I understand. But, in selecting the routes for 22 the sirens that were simulated to have failed during the 23 exercise, is it your understanding that FEHA, in essence, 24 therefore, also selected the route alert drivers that would 25 be assigned to cover those routes?
p 24901010 7993 cuewalsh s .
(,) 1 A We selected one siren failure in each of the 2 staging areas, so that in that regard we selected -- well, 3 we selected a driver from the Patchogue staging area, from 4 the Port Jefferson staging area and from the Riverhead 5 staging area. But, we did not select Driver Number 1 or 6 Number 20 or anything like that.
7 Q Let me ask you a different way, Mr. Keller.
8 JUDGE PARIS: Let me try. If the drivers were 9 pre-assigned to particular routes and your selection of the 10 route, salected the driver, is that the case or did you 11 select the route and then perhaps --
12 WITNESS KELLER: It was not our understanding --
,7-) 13 it was not our understanding going in that the drivers had CN_j 14 been assigned routes.
~
15 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
16 NITNESS KELLER: And, it was not our*
17 understanding that when we selected a siren failure that we 18 would have then gotten a driver, a particular driver. We 19 were under the impression that there were a maximum of 20 20 route alert drivers available at each staging area. When 21 the free-play message went in that a siren had failed, then 22 the staging area director would assign a driver to that 23 route.
24 JUDGE SHON . But, it was my understanding 25 yesterday -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that you had told us u
l l
l 24901010-7994 cuewalsh I that, in essence, your method of selection was an attempt at k'
2 randomization and that it would not be possible for LERO to 3 assign their best driver when they needed one.
4 How did you preclude that?
5 WITNESS KOWIESKI: I think that's what we 6 testified yesterday when we spoke. This applies to bus 7 drivers.
8 JUDGE SHON: That may be where the confusion 9 lies.
10 WITNESS KOWIESKI: All right.
II JUDGE SHON: Thank you.
12 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 13 Q Okay. So, I think now we have clarified that b- 14 yesterday, Mr. Keller, you did misstate or misspeak when you 15 told Mr. Lanpher that by selecting three route alert 16 drivers, one from each staging area, you effectively 17 precluded LERO from choosing its best driver?
18 That's not a correct statement, is it?
19 A (Witness Keller) Yeah, I agree with your -- I 20 agree with this characterization, that 's right.
21 Q So, let me go back to Mr. Lanpher's question to 22 you, Mr. Keller, which was essentially to state how it is 23 FEMA could conclude that the selection of only three of a 24 possible 60 or so route alert drivers is a sufficient 25 sampling size to permit FEMA to generalize about the D
24901010 7995
.guewalsh f)-
us 1 adequacy of LILCO's plan with respect to the route alert 2 function?
3 MR. CUMMING: Objection, Your Honor. Are we 4 going to go back over Mr. Lanpher's cross-examination now?
5 Is this the appropriate format?
6 It seems to me that we got into the issue -- I 7 know Mr. Keller could finish it, but is this extensive or.is 8 this the only clarification? I can see some justification 9 in light of what's to come that needs to be clarified, but to it seems to me we are going back substantively into Mr.
~
11 Lanpher's cross-examination.
12 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, this is the only point f-s 13 that I recognized yesterday where there were misstatements
(') 14 made by the witnesses, and it does tie directly into 15 Contentions 34 and 21.A; and, therefore, I want to clear it 16 up. But, I'm not going back through other areas -of the 17 record .
18 JUDGE FRYE: Fine. Do you recall the question?
19 WITNESS KELLER: Close. Basically, FEMA makes 20 its evaluation based upon precedent. We have, in this 21 Region, evaluated redundant backup route alerting in many 22 exercises.
23 We have made a judgment over the years that this 24 was an adequate thing to do based on the sample size that we 25 had picked, essentially one driver or one -- I'm sorry. One O
s
l 1
24901010 7996
.cuewalsh j
.n '
I
[~)
s-siren failure from each of the areas which is required to 2 dispatch drivers. And, we had made that judgment a long 3 time ago. It was not made for the Shoreham exercise.
4 This is a standard practice, a precedent if you 5 will. And, that basically is the reason we think it's 6 adequate now.-
7 -JUDGE FRYE: That's sort of the- standard 8 operating procedure in Region II I gather?
9 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, sir.
10 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes._ It is a negotiated 11 process, Your Honor. Way back in 1982 when we initiated the 12 first series of exercises for each site, we negotiated with 13 the state and county the approach that would be logical,
- 14 reasonable and feasible.
15 When I became the RAC Chairman initially I 16 remember I asked the New York State to deploy all the
- 17 buses.- They convinced me very quickly it is not feasible, i
18 because this would be interruption of normal life of the 19 community. And, I agree. So, we sort of negotiated, okay, 20 what would be the reasonable size, and we reached a 21 conclusion that the reasonable size, let's say per county,
- 22. would be two or three. In this case, we selected eight.
23 This process is the RAC process nationwide.
24 This is -- I mean, it was evaluated by General Accounting 25 Of fic e. And, General Accounting Of fice back in 1984 I r
,r n-- - - , - - - , , - - - -
n- , , , - _ , - , -.--._,e---,--,n-- ..-,vg,v, ..,...,--,e--e..,._v .-w .um ,e
i 24901010 7997 cuewalsh
(^)
\J I believe --
2 MR. MILLER: Mr. Kowieski, I think --
3 WITNESS KOWIESKI: -- the --
4 MR. MILLER: -- we understand.
5 WITNESS KOWIESKI: May I finish my answer?
6 JUDGE FRYE: I think we have really got it at 7 this point.
8 MR. MILLER: I think we all have it by now, Mr.
9 Kowieski.
10 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing)
Il Q And, Mr. Kowieski, you were jur i talking about 12 buses again, not route alert drivers, when you said eight?
,s 13 You were talking about the bus drivers, right?
l l )
14 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes, sir.
15 Q Okay.' Now, I want to proceed along with route 16 alert drivers. -
17 Mr. Keller, is it fair to say that during the 18 February 13th exercise LERO could have done exactly what you 19 expressed fears about yesterday; that is, LERO could have 20 selected its best route alert driver from each staging area 23 and have deployed that driver during the exercise to run the 22 routes?
23 A (Witness Keller) That could be possible, yes, 24 sir.
25 (Witness Kowieski) That possibility always O
.()
24901010 7998 cuewalsh I
exists.
2 Q Well, we are talking about the Shoreham 3 ~ exercise, Mr. Kowieski. That's the only exercise I'm here 4
to talk about.
5 A Understood.
6 Okay.
Q Now, Mr. Keller, you certainly would 7 agree with me in any event that none of the route alert 8 drivers that were deployed during the exercise performed 9 their function in an adequate manner during the exercise; is 10 that correct?
II A (Witness Keller)" Well, the ones -- the drivers
~12 who were deployed had some difficulties. When you say 13 adequate --
0 14 Q Well, we are going to get into the specifics.
15 But, generally would you agree with my statement?
16 None of the three performed in an adequate 17 manner during the exercise; is that correct?
18 A (Witness Kowieski) Well --
19 (Witness Keller) I would disagree.
20 (Witness Kowieski) So do I.
21 Q In each case, did FEMA identify Field Objective 22 6 I believe which dealt with the route alert function as an 23 ARCA?
24 A (Witness Keller) I believe that my records 25 indicate that Port Jefferson Field 6 was met. ' will agree D .
24901010 7999 '
cuewalsh '
l
[( with'you, there were issues.
2 But, what I disagreed with was the adequacy.
'3 And this is a matter 'of degree.
4 JUDGE FRYE: In your judgment, it was not 5 -inadequate? .
6 WITNESS KELLER: Yeah.
7 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 8 Q_ ,
~ Mr. Keller, it's Field 5 that dealt with route 9 alert --
10 A (Witness Keller) Okay. Backup route alerting.
11 Okay.
12 Q Now, with respect to Field 5, does FEMA identify
/~g 13 each -- initially identify each route alert driver's G1 -14 performance during the exercise 'as an ARCA?
15 A No. I know what you are talking about, and I 16 _ would like to amplify. -
17 Q Well, we are going to go into all of the 18 details, Mr. Keller.
19 A Okay. Fine.
20 Q Now, in the final report, the FEMA report, that 21 was issued FEMA identified Field 5 in each case as an area 22 recommended for improvement; is that correct?
23 A There were areas recommended for improvement.
24 Let me verify -- yes. However, in one of the staging areas -
25 -and this was where I was disagreeing with you -- it was a O
, v.-.- , - - - -- - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
24901010- 8000 cuewalsh I problem with noisy radio reception.
2 With respect to the route alert' drivers?
Q ;
3 A I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Field 5. I had got 4 crossed with traffic' guides, I'm sorry.
-5 The only question is with respect to Field 5,
, Q J 6 which was the objective that dealt with the route alert 7 drivers, isn't it correct that FEMA identified in the final 8 _ report each of those objectives for each staging area as an 9 area recommended for improvement?
.10 A Area recommended for improvement, yes.
11 (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
I 12
-Q And, isn't it true that initially, at least in 13 the first draf t of the FEMA report, in each case for each of lL 14 those three objectives an ARCA was identified?
4 15 A We don't know for each staging area. We would I 16 have to verify our records, but at -least for one *of the 17 staging areas or one of the route alert drivers we identify i 18 ARCA.
j 19 (Witness Baldwin) My recollection is that you 20 are correc t, Mr. Miller, that they were all identified as.an 21 ARCA in the first draf t of the report.
l 22 Q Okay. Now, we are going to come back to that i .
j 23 point. Let me just ask you generally, gentlemen, do you j 24 have -- let me rephrase that. .
, 25 Can I assume from your testimony -- and I'm 1
O i
l
,-_..-,...._,m.---_.___._.-.___.____.,__-,,.
24901010 8001 cuewalsh
( ). I referring specifically to Contention 21.A, Pages 141 to 143, 2 which deals with the route alert functions during the 3 exercise -- that you have no basis for disagreeing with 4 Contention 34?
5 A (Witness Keller) I would like to refresh my 6 memory to exactly what Contention 34 says.
7 Do you have the page reference for Contention 34 8 handy?
9 Q No.
10 A Well, we will find it.
11 (The witnesses are looking at documents.)
12 JUDGE PARIS: In the March 2nd, 1987 version of 13 the contention, it's on Page 43. .
14 . WITNESS KELLER: Thank you.
15 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Well, you know, at the top of 16 the contention 34, a fundamental flaw, obviously we don't 17 understand the meaning of fundamental flaw. So, that takes 18 care of that.
19 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 20 Q Well, let me follow up on that, Mr. Kowieski, 21 before you go any further. If you don't understand the term 22 " fundamental flaw," how could you disagree with the 23 contention regardless of what it might say?
24 A (Witness Keller) The contention says that there 25 is a fundamental flaw. If I don't know what a fundamental O
24901010 8002 cuewalsh I flaw is, I can neither agree nor disagree with the h
2 contention.
3 Fine. So, you have no basis one way or the Q.
4 other for agreeing or disagreeing with contention 34 --
5 A (Witness Kowieski) The fundamental flaw.
6 -- and you do not understand the concept of the Q
7 term " fundamental flaws " is that your testimony?
8 A No, no. But, listen, okay. We went on and we 9 explain why there was a problem during the exercise. And, 10 we address all the issues raised in your contention. We did Il not address, you will notice, the issue of fundamental flaw.
12 You discuss that one route alert driver was not 13 . dispatched from each staging area.
crS
&J 14 Q Mr. Kowieski, put to one side your problems with 15 understanding the term " fundamental flaw."
16 A Yes.
17 Q Do you have any other basis for dica 3reeing with 18 the contention, contention 34?
19 A (Witness Baldwin) We specifically disagree on 20 the last sentence of the first paragraph of the contention.
21 There are details above. But, it says: In all three cases, 22 however, the notification process was much too long.
23 And, we are specifically disagreeing with: And 24 demonstrated LILCO's failure to comply with the regulatory --
25 and I emphasize the regulatory -- requirement of pronpt i
24901010 8003 cuewalsh 1 public notification.
(^)'t w
2 Q Dr. Baldwin, can you tell me why you take 3 exception with the phrase in the contention that the 4 notification process performed by route alert drivers took 5 "much too long?"
6 A We don't disagree with that part.
7 8
9 10 11 12 n
U ,,
15 16 .
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24901111 8004 marysimons
'c (
- s ) 1 Q I thought you just told me that you did disagree v
2 with that?
3 A No. It took too long, we agree with that part.
4 I'm asking then, putting to one side the term Q
5 " fundamental flaw" which you seem to have problems with, and 6 tell me what, if anything, in the contention, Contention 34 7 you disagree with?
8 A "And demonstrated LILCO's failure to comply with 9 the regulatory requirement of prompt public notification."
10 We disagree with that.
Il Q Is it your testimony, Dr. Baldwin, that there is 12 not a regulatory requirement for LERO to perform prompt 73 13 public notification in the event of an accident at Shoreham?
)
'# 14 A (Witness Kowieski) No.
15 A (Witness Keller) No.
16 A (Witness Baldwin) There is a regulatory 17 requirement for LERO to provide a pronpt public 18 notification.
19 Q So what is the basis of your disagreement?
20 A Because the route alerting system is a backup.
21 It's the secondary system which backs up the primary alert 22 system. The regulatory requirements in NUREG 0654 are with 23 regard to the primary alert system.
. 24 Q Is it your testimony that 0654 does not contain 25 any requirements with respect to the timeliness of backup p
,Q
24901111 8005 marysimons
) I notification?
2 A (Witness K.owieski) That's our position.
3 Q Mr. Kowieski, for how long has that been your 4 position?
5 A (Witness Kowieski) Well, going back, and 6 hopefully this will ---
7 Q My question is, Mr. Kowieski, for how long has 8 that been your position? '
9 A (Witness Kowieski) Since I received a letter 10 from Mr. Wilkerson from Washington, D.C., and the date of Il that letter I don't remember, after the draft report was 12 circulated for review and comments, April the 7th, 1986.
r^x 13 Q Therefore, Mr. Kowieski, at the time of the
$j 14 exercise it was Region 2's position that there was a 15 regulatory requirement with respect to the timeliness of the
~
16 backup route alertingr is that correct?
17 A (Witness Kowieski) It was our understanding.
18 Q Is that correct?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q And that regulatory requirement, Mr. Kowieski, 21 was that LERO had to perform such backup route alerting 22 functions within 45 minutest is that correct?
23 A That's also correct.
24 Q And it's now your testimony that based upon a 25 letter which you received post exercise from Mr. Wilkerson O
v
24901111 8006 marysimons
.' I
! in Washington, D.C. FEMA Headquarters that that is no longer s_-
2 Region 2's position; is that correct?
3 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
4 Q So it's your testimony, Mr. Kowieski, that a 5 letter from Mr. Wilkerson from FEMA Headquarters overrides 6 the requirements specifically stated in NUREG 0654 is that 7 correct?
8 A No, that 's not correct.
9 Q Mr. Kowieski, at the time of the exercise upon 10 what did FEMA Region 2 base its position that there was a 45-Il minute time requirement for backup route alerting?
12 A It was my understanding of NUREG 0654, Appendix r~s 13 3.
,i i
14 Q And are you referring to page 3-3 of Appendix 4 15 of 0654?
16 A Yes. -
17 And are you referring specifically to Item 2C of Q
18 page 3-3 of Appendix 3 of 06547 19 A That's correct.
20 JUDGE PARIS: Would you read 2C for us?
21 WITNESS KOWIESKI "A special arrangement will 22 be made to assure a hundred percent coverage within 45 23 minutes of the population who may not have received the 24 initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ."
25 JUDGE PARIS: Did Mr. Wilkerson in his letter
,-[
.n .
I 24901111 8007 marysimons
( ) 1 suggest that that sentence means something other than what 2 you thought it meant?
3 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir, and may I elaborate 4 and this would help?
5 JUDGE PARIS: Yes.
6 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Okay, sir. When we produced 7 under my direction the first draf t of the post-exercise 8 assessment, as I mentioned before, the draf t report was 9 circulated among RAC members, team leaders, our contractors, 10 Mr. Keller and Dr. Baldwin, and also I sent a copy to FEMA II Headquarters. I asked for comments and feedback. They came 12 back with comments.
('N 13 One comment that I remember, recall vividly, is k) 14 the one with respect to route alerting. If I recall what 15 the report stated, we called that particular area as an area 16 requiring protective action. We had a lengthy discussion, a 17 phone conversation back and forth between Margaret Lawless 18 and her boss, Mr. Wilkerson, and they convinced me that 19 there is no requirement and that my interpretation of the 20 NUREG 0654, Appendix 3 was incorrect.
21 And I said I k'new, I predicted that I will end 22 up on the witness stand and it will be very hard for me to 23 convince this Board, any Board that I took just simply the 24 word of my superiors in Washington.
25 JUDGE PARIS: That you what?
r's k
i 24901111 8008 marysimons l hl 1 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That I took the word of my 2 superiors without asking to receive confirmation in writing.
3 So what happened is I asked for confirmation in 4
the form of a letter or menno. So Mr. Wilkerson sent me a 5 memorandum to this effect stating that there is no fast and 6 hard rule with respect to backup route alerting.
7 And if there is a problem -- if it's reasonable 8 to expect that this would be accomplished in 45 minutes.
9 However, if this time frame is not met, FEMA can only 10 recommend an area requiring improvement.
II JUDGE PARIS: And Mr. Wilkerson did not suggest 12 that the population who may not have received the initial y- 13 notification did not include people who might not have heard 14 sirens because the sirens filed?
15 WITNESS KOWIESKI: No, thb understanding, the 16 interpretation of NUREG 0654, Appendix 3 was that this 17 particular requirement, the design objective -- the design 18 objective pertaining to the primary, the primary 19 notification system and not to the backup system.
20 WITNESS BALDWIN: Mr. Wilkerson's letter, we've 21 got pertinent quotes from the letter directly in our 22 testimony.
23 JUDGE SHON: On page is it?
24 WITNESS BALDWIN: On page 143 of our testimony.
25 WITNESS KELLER: The colon for the quote starts
24901111 8009
, murysirons
()- 1 on the bottom of page 142, and then the quote starts at the i 2 top of page 143.
3 MR. MILLER: Judge Paris, I have the memorandum, 4 and I was going to identify it as an exhibit. Perhaps that 5 would help also.
6 Maybe we can mark this as Suffolk County 7 Exercise Exhibit 104 for identification.
8 MS. McCLESKEY: I will also note for the record 9 that it's Attachment B to LILCO's testimony.on Contention l
10 34.
11 JUDGE FRYE: Do we need to mark it? Do you want 12 it marked anyway, Mr. Miller?
13 MR. MILLER: I think so, yes, sir.
).
14 (The document referred to was 15 marked Suffolk County Exercise
~
16 Exhibit No. 104 for 17 identification.)
18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 Q Now, Mr. Kowieski, is what has been marked as 20 Suffolk County Exhibit 104 for identification the Wilkerson 21 memorandum that we've been discussing?
22 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes, that 's correct.
23 Q And as I think you stated earlier, the date of
! 24 this menorandum is April 7, 1986. So it does obviously come 25 after the Shoreham exercise was conducted and in fact after s_J
24901111 8010 marysimons 1
Region 2 had prepared at least its initial draft of the FEMA 2 report; is that correct?
3 A That's correct, sir.
4 And nowhere in this memorandua, Mr. Kowieski, is Q
5 there any statement that says that NUREG 0654, Appendix 3, 6 the requirements we 've been discussing at page 3-3, Item 2C, 7 does not apply; is that correct?
8 A It doesn 't specifically mention Appendix 3 of 9 NUREG 0654; that's correct.
10 Now, Mr. Kowieski, prior to the Shoreham Q
Il exercise, and in fact for years prior to the Shoreham 12 exercise, Region 2 had applied the 45-minute time
('s 13 requirement in Appendix 3 of 0654 to other exercises; is l' 14 that correct?
15 A That 's correc t.
16 Q And for years prior to the Shoreham exercise in 17 applying this 45-minute time requirement if facilities and 18 offsite organizations were unable to meet the 45-minute 19 requirement, Region 2 judged that to be a deficiency or at 20 least areas requiring corrective action; is that correct?
21 A To my recollection we never identified a 22 deficiency with respect to route alerting. It's my 23 recollection that we identify an area requiring corrective 24 action.
25 Q Mr. Keller, is your recollection that the p
24901111 8011 marysimons
() I failure to meet a 45-minute time requirement route alerting 2 had never been made a deficiency by Region 2 with respect to 3 other exercises?
4 A (Witness Keller) That's correct. That's my 5 recollection now.
6 Q It wasn't your recollection at your deposition, 7 was it?
8 A No.
9 Q At your deposition you said in fact failure to 10 meet the 45-minute time requirement had been found to be 11 Category deficiencies in the past; is that correct?
12 A I don't remember the deposition in that regard, 13 which you have a copy of and which was an exhibit to the
'id deposition. In commenting on the draft of the exercise-15 report that Mr. Kowieski has just discussed, I wrote a
.16 letter to Mr. Kowieski as part of the review prodess. I 17 that letter I had made a statement stating in effect that it 18 was my opinion that we had rated this previously as a 19 deficiency. I have gone back since then and reviewed the 20 records and I find that my opinion was incorrect.
21 Q How closely have you reviewed those records, Mr.
22 Keller?
23 A I think reasonably closely, but I may have made 24 a mistake.
25 MR. MILLER: Well, we will come to the mistake h
a
.24901111 8012 marysimons -
l 1 after we come to the next exhibit.
2 Judge Frye, I would introduce as S.uffolk County 3
Exercise Exhibit 105 for identification a letter dated March 4
19, 1986 from Mr. Keller to Mr. Kowieski consisting of a 5 total of six pages.
6 JUDGE PARIS: What is the number of this 7 exhibit?
8 MR. MILLER: This would be Suffolk County 9
Exhibit 105.
10 (The document referred to was Il marked Suffolk County Exercise 12 Exhibit 105 for
, p-w 13 identification.)
l 'h i 14 BY MR. MILLER: .
15 Q Now, Mr. Keller, what has been marked as Suffolk 16 County Exhibit 105, does this appear to be your letter to 17 Mr. Kowieski commenting upon, among other things, the route 18 alerting functions during the Shoreham exercise that we were 19 just discussing?
20 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
21 Q And I believe, Mr. Keller, it's the next to the 22 last page of the exhibit that presents your views at least 23 as of March 19, 1986 regarding the performance by LERO at 24 the exercise regarding route alerting functions; is that 25 correct?
i .x/
1 l
24901111 8013 marysimons
_. ,-~
(,,, -
1 A Yes, the second item on page 5; that's correct.
2 Q And you state in this letter of March 19, 1986 3 that in your opinion the rating regarding the route alert 4 functions should have been a deficiency; is that correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q And you refer in fact to NUREG 0654, Appendix 3 7 in stating that you believe that the route alert functions 8 should have been rated as a deficiency at the exercise; is 9 that correct?
10 A That was the basis of my opinion, that's Il correct.
12 A (Witness Baldwin) If it's helpful at this n 13 point, I ---
k_J -
14 Q Not it's not yet, Mr. Baldwin, because I'm still 15 questioning Mr. Keller.
16 Let me ask you, Mr. Keller, you point out in the 17 last sentence of this paragraph in Exhibit 105 that the 18 exercise evaluation did not include the initial step in the 19 process , and you're referring there I believe to the fact of-20 the time it would take to identify which siren or sirens had 21 failed to sound.
l 22 A (Witness Keller) That 's correct.
23 Q And then you say, "And still took considerably 24 longer than the design objective," there referring to the 45-25 minute time requirement; is that correct?
O A_J- .
l
24901111 8014 marysimons 1
[l
\/
1 A The 45-minute design objective; that's right.
2 So it was your opinion at least as of March 19, Q
3 1986 that although a step in the process was skipped in the 4 evaluation during the Shoreham exercise LERO still was 5 unable to meet the 45-minute requirement; is that correct?
6 A If you will substitute design objective for 7 requirement, I will accept your characterization. If you 8 won't substitute it, I won't accept your characterization.
9 And, again, Mr. Keller, all these opinions Q
30 expressed in Exhibit 105 were based upon, specifically based 11 upon NUREG 0654, Appendix 3 thereto?
12 A I think the statement that is on the page speaks 13 for itself, but that's correct.
l i
7 ,)
1
' '"# 14 Now as of March 19, 19 86, Mr. Keller, why is it Q
15 .that you stated that you believe that the performance of 16 route alert drivers at the exercise for Shoreham should have 17 been rated as a deficiency?
18 A On my reading of NUREG Appendix 3, Section 19 B.2.C, as I've stated in the letter, I have no other reason, 20 I could just re-read what is in the letter. I don't have
! 21 anything to amplify it. That was my opinion at the time.
22 Q Well, I'm asking you why it is that you believed 23 that this item should have been rated as a deficiency for 24 the Shoreham exercise?
25 A As I read that particular section of NUREG 0654, l
w l
l l
24901111 8015 marysimons (v ') 1 my opinion of its proper interpretation, and I state that in' 2 the letter that it was my opinion of the proper 3 interpretation was that there was a design objective of 45 4 minutes to notify people who hadn't heard the initial 5 notification.
6 I also stated in my letter that I recognize that 7 a design objective is not a performance standard. But based 8 on my recollection of what we had done previously at that 9 time I thought it should be a deficiency. That was my 10 opinion.
11 JUDGE PARIS: I take it you interpreted the 12 initial notification to mean the siren, the primary warning?
g- 13 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, in this plan, as in most 14 plans, the initial notification is the sirens, that's right.
15 JUDGE PARIS: And the population who may not 16 have received the initial notification included those who 17 did not hear the sirens because the sirens because the 18 sirens failed?
19 WITNESS KELLER: That would be one way you would 20 not hear the initial notification.
21 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
23 Q And, Mr. Keller, since your letter it 's your 24 testimony that you 've gone back and you 'vp reviewed the l 25 other exercise reports for Region 2 and you have concluded 1
~24901111 8016 marysimons
(_)t I that never before was the failure to meet the 45-minute time 2
requirement ruled or rated as a deficiency by Region 2; is 3
that your testimony?
4 A I have looked at the other reports. I have not 5 gone down and line by line looked at all of them, but it's 6 my recollection based on my review of the reports that we 7
did not have in New York State a deficiency for backup 8 redundant route alerting.
9 I object to your characterization of the 45-10 minute requirement. It's a 45-minute design objective.
Il Q Just semantics, Mr. Keller.
12 A Agreed.
13 Q Now, Mr. Keller, did you review the Indian Point r--)
i 14 post-exercise assessment at Indian Point on February 27, 15 1985?
16 A I believe I looked at that report, yes.
37 Q Maybe I could request that you look at it again 18 between now and tomorrow morning to refresh you recollection 19 of that report.
20 A If you have a copy I would be happy to look at 21 it.
22 Q Do you have copies of the other exercise reports 23 with you here?
24 A I have one with me I believe. I don't have the 25 Indian Point. I have a Nine Mile Point with me I believe.
m
,w
24901111 8017 marysimons r; ~
(_) 1 I don't mind looking at it, but I'm not sure we have it.
2 Q I don't want to take the Board's time to do it 3 now. I think you need to refresh your recollection on some 4 scores.
5 A Pardon me, can I have a clarification. If we 6 have it, I don't mind looking at it, but I'm not going to 7 commit to looking at it if I don't know I have it.
8 Q Now, Mr. Kowieski, let me ask you this question 9 as the former RAC Chairman for Region 2. Can you tell me 10 why, Mr. Kowieski, FEMA headquarters made an exception to 11 the requirements of NUREG 0654, Appendix 3 with respect to
~12 Shoreham?
(S, 13 A (Witness Kowieski) In my opinion, it wasn't an n.J 14 excep tion. It was their interpretation of NUREG 0654, 15 Appendix 3. They are the policymakers. They are provided 16 policy guidance through each region, including Rdgion 2.-
17 Q I understand that, Mr. Kowieski, but for how 18 many years prior to the Shoreham exercise had you identified 19 the failure to meet the 45-minute-time requirement as a 20 problem at other exercises?
21 A I don't know on how many occasions. I have l
22 identified the route alerting problem, the timing of it at 23 leaht in one of the post-exercise assessments.
24 Q Well, in at least that one other exercise did
~
25 FEMA headquarters instruct you to change your rating?
e
24901111. 8018
.'marysimons 1
A Not- to my recollection.
2 But they did instruct you to change your rating Q
3 with respect to the Shoreham exercise; is that-'Jorrect?
4 A They issued a policy clarification ---
5 Dld they instruct you to change your rating, Mr.
, Q 6 Kowieski?
7 A They issued a policy clarification.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .
t 17 18 19 20 5-21 22 73 24 25 G
,[ra? H-24901212- 8019 j oewalsh
.,z.
{ } 1- Q Did they instruct you to change your rating, Mr.
2 Kowieski?
3 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't think they 4 instructed me to change, you know. I followed the policy 5 issued by FEMA Headquarters office.
6 0' Would you have changed the rating for Shoreham 7 from an ARCA to an area recommended for improvement but for 8 the memorandum that you received from Mr. Wilkerson on April 9 7, 1986?
10 A I don't think I understand your question.
11 Q Would you have changed your rating with respect 12 to the route alert functions from an ARCA to an area 1
13 recommended for improvement if you had not received the -
kJ i*- April .7,.19 86 instruction _ or memorandum from Mr. Wilkerson 7 j 2 aeIFEMA Headquarters?
pc . ?
4 ;4* c.-/[ A I would not. -
g v.
2' S Q Gentlemen, I'm going to Page 141 of your
'sk',
[ l testimony. This is Contention 21.A which essentially covers
%f}I J.
I think the sur-stantive merits of Contention 34 as wells
- -
- 19 20 and, in fact, you refer to it in your testimony as 21 Contention 34.
22 Gentlemen, there was one correction made in your i --
23 testimony abcut - you inserted the term "a maximum of 20."
24 "A maximum of" were the words you inserted before 20 drivers 25 and vehicles in the testimony.
,- ,-n., -- - ,,,~,a -n , , , - - - - - , r --, , , . - - - - ,-
24901212 8020-
- joewalsh I . Was 'it your understanding at the time that this 4 )
2 testimony was prepared there were 20 route alert drivers per 3 staging area assigned to the function of backup notification 4 to the public?
5 A (Witness Keller) Along with another assignment, 6 yes.
7 Q And, that's the notification of the deaf.
8 A That is correct, sir.
9 Does it sound about right to you gentlemen that Q
10 of the total of 60 route alert drivers under LILCO's plan 11 approximately 44 have responsibility for notification of the 12 public in the event of siren failure?
g, 13 A I believe at the time of the exercise that's t
14 approximately the right number. But, the number who are 15 assigned to deaf alerting -- if you will let me call it that 16 -- would vary with the number of deaf people who -live in the 17 EPZ. So, that, yes, we would . accept the 44 as, you know, at 18 the time of the exercise being a reasonable number.
19 Q And, you had that understanding at the time your 20 testimony was prepared; is that correct?
21 A That's correct.
i-22 Q NoW, during the exercise, Mr. Keller, each of 23 the routes that were driven, given the simulated siren 24 failures, was driven by a single route alert driver; is that 25 correct?
lO 1
i, f
-'.r
, ,...w.-_.- - - . . , , . . , _ . , . - , - . - , . . , - - - . , . - _ , - . - . , . , , _ . , ,..~...,,.=t -r- '-----+-v~
'24901212 8021 j oewalsh-l; ( f' 1 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
2 Q And, I take it, Mr. Kowieski, that it was LERO's 3 decision to drive these routes with a single route alert 4 driver; is that correct?
5 A That 's not correct.
6 Q That's not correct?
7 (The witnesses are conferring.)
8 A May I qualify this?
9 Q No. My question is: Was it LERO's decision to 10 send out during the exercise one route alert driver per 11 route?
12 A Without qualification, the answer is yes.
I g 13 Q Well, did FEMA, Mr. Kowieski, prevent LERO from 3 '
14 sending out more than one driver' during the exercise per 15 route?
16 A During the exercise preparation process, prior 17 to the February --
18 Q Mr. Kowieski, listen to my question.
19 MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, I object to the 20 witness not being allowed to complete the answer. And, I r 21 also object to qualifications being omitted if they might 22 change the yes or no nature of the answer.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Go through this line and then if 24 you want -- when we get through with it, if you still want 25 to qualify your answer, we will permit you to do so.
24901212 8022 joewalsh
,4 i(_)
1 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
2 MR. MILLER: But, I want the witnesses to pay 3 particular attention to my questions here.
d WITNESS KELLER: Yours or the one that Mr.
5 Lanpher added on at the end?
6 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 7 My questions, Mr. Keller. You listen to my Q
8 questions and respond to my questions, okay. We are going 9 to get along a lot better if you follow that ground rule.
10 Now, Mr. Kowieski, here is my question.--
II MR. CUMMING: Objection to counsel for Suffolk 12 trying to instruct my witnesses how to behave. I think they
~, 13 are behaving very appropriately, and I resent it.
14 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 15 Q Here is my question, Mr. Kowieski. Did FEMA 16 prevent LERO from dispatching more than one route alert 17 driver per route during the Shoreham exercise?
j 18 A (Witness Kowieski) During the -- on the day of 19 February 13, 1986, on the day of exercise, FEMA did not 20 prevent LERO route alert, more than one. Let me rephrase 21 it. That more than one route alert drivers will be 22 dispatched to cover the area.
23 JUDGE FRYE: The answer is no.
24 WITNESS KOWIESKI: The answer is no.
25 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
m N
'24901212- 8023
-j oewalsh
,/~T . 1 WITNESS KOWIESKI: However, I would like to --
- \.f 2 JUDGE FRYE: Well, let's get through his line 3 and then we will pick that up.
4 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 5 Q And, it's true, is it not, Mr. Kowieski, that 6 under the LILCO plan it is not required that more than one 7 route alert driver per route be dispatched in the event of 8 an accident?
9 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
10 Q That's correct?
II A Right.
12 MR. MILLER: Judge-Frye, I'm through with that
_ 13 line of questioning.
~/ 14 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Do you have any
) 15 qualifications now?
16 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir. -
17 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
18 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Prior -to February 13 --
19 (At this point, a fire drill is announced.)
20 JUDGE FRYE: You were in the midst of an 21 explanation. I don't know if this' thing is going to come 22 back on or not.
23 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Prior to February 13, 1986 --
24 (The fire drill is again announced.)
25 JUDGE FRYE: We will take the af ternoon break at
-. _ .=. _ _ . . - _-- . . - _ . , .
I J
24901212 8024-M]}ljoewalsh
(
1 this~ point. j
.I 2
(Whereupon, a recess is taken at 2:06 p.m., to 3
~
y reconvene at12:23 p.m. , this same date.)
4 JUDGE FRYE: Shall we go back on the record and .
{~ 5 see if we can get your explanation now, Mr. Kowieski,.
6 without interruption.
7 JUDGE PARIS: They have sounded the all clear.
[ 8 Go ahead.
9 ~
WITNESS KOWIESKI:- What I was trying'to explain i 10 was . the fac't 'that prior to February 13, 1986 exercise when I
- j. 11= had numerous discussions with Mr. Daverio, who is the 12 Exercise Director.for LILCO,- he brought out an issue of using ~more th'an one route alert driver per area covered by
- 13 14 simulated siren-failure.
!: My response was no, and-I gave him i
15 the reason.
~
16 I said: It is my understanding of the plan that 17 you can use only one route alert driverJ per . siren. And, 18 that's why I did not. agree with his - or, did not go along l-19 : with-his suggestion. I did not allow him to use more than 1
4 20 one driver per siren.
l 21 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Why was that, I'm curious?
! 22 WITNESS KOWIESKI: I'm sorry?
23 JUDGE FRYE: Why? Why did you take that i
24 position?
25 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Well, because again an l
I o :
- - t,-g .. , - , y ,y
,,,c.<77 ._% ,,y ,,, ,4n,--m.w,. ,,-m,__,,- ,7,,,,y -.,,,,,,,-,n,,,m..,. ,_,.r% =ww e w w --- ee n- %ee- wya-&*.zr , wr&m-me---w.,. vm>-
24901212 8025 j oewalsh
/, ,
(_) I exercise, any exercise, constitutes the implementation of 2 the plan. If plan states that they are going to use only 3 one driver --
4 JUDGE FRYE: I see. Okay. It was so stated in 5 the plan, in other words?
6 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes.
7 WITNESS KELLER: I believe it said a route alert 8 driver. I don't think it said one or didn't say multiple.
> 9 I think at that time it said "a."
4 10 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
11 WITNESS KELLER: And, we interpret that as one, ,
12 "a" being one.
13 JUDGE FRYE: But, you would have no objection if
(~~
,\
14 they wanted to have two or three?
15 WITNESS KELLER: As long as the plan said that.
16 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Oh, absolutely. -
17 JUDGE FRYE: I see. Let me ask one other 18 question with regard co Mr. Wilkerson's memorandum. This 19 policy that he lays down, I take it, is a policy that 20 applies to all FEMA regions?
l 21 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Absolutely, that's correct.
22 WITNESS KELLER: And, it has now been -- it has 23 now been I guess formalized in a more formal way in AN-1, i
I 24 Guidance Memorandum AN-1.
f 25 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
1 1 ~~s
- 24901212- -
8026 joewalsh I
~
C()
1 WITNESS KELLER: The same -- essentially the 2 same --
3 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Wording.
4 WITNESS KELLER: -- conclusion ' that 's in that -
5 memorandum to' Mr. Kowieski from Mr. Wilkerson is now j l
6 contained in the final version of Draft AN-1 that says that 7 if they don't meet the standard, which is a reasonMale time 8 of 45 minutes, an area required -- an area reconmended for 9 improvement is what should be given. And, it's also I 10 believe in that particular GM, if I'm not mistaken there is 11 a statement that the NRC Staff concurs in this guidance 12 memorandum.
. , - . , 13' WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's correct.
14 JUDGE FRYE: Thank.you.
15 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 16 Q Let me just follow up briefly, gentlemen, to 17 Judge Frye 's questions and comments.
i-i 18 First of all, typically NRC does concur in
$ 19 various memorandum; is that correct?
20 A (Witness Kowieski) Rec ently. Rec ently, I guess j 21 FEMA has been discussing guidance, FEMA guidance, memoranda
- 22 with NRC Staff.
23 Q Well, I'm just trying to determine, gentlemen, 24 if you are indicating to the Board that GM AN-1 is somehow 25 different from other various memorandum in that regard?
24901212 8027 joewalsh-l' A (Witness Keller) The guidance memorandum, the 2 new series guidance memoranda that has_the two-letter 3 designation, AN-1, EV-2, MS-1, et cetera, that's a new 4 series as . opposed to Guidance Memorandum 17, the older 5 series with numbers.
6 I think with one exception, my recollection is, 7 with one -exception all of the new series, the two-letter 8 series followed by a number, have a statement to the effect '
9 that this guidance memorandum has been concurred in by NRC
-10 Staff. I believe there is one of them -- I think it's only-11 'one -- that' doesn't carry that designation.
12 I don't. believe that any of the previous ones, .
.13 the GM-17, GM-4, et ' cetera, that kind, the old series,-had' 14 any of those designations.
j' 15 Q Now, is it fair to say, Mr. Keller, that AN-1 16 has superseded the Wilkerson memorandum which is -Exhibit 104 l 17 in this proceeding?
18 A That is correct.
19 Q And, we are going to come.to AN-1 later, but is 20 it fair to say that AN-1 is certainly more specific with
- . 21 respect to notification .of the public- than Mr. Wilkerson's 22 memorandum?
.23 A Yes. Clearly, there are more specifics in AN-1 24 than in Mr. Wilkerson's memorandum. .
!~ 25 Q And, AN-1, unlike Mr. Wilkerson's memorandum,
i
-24901212 8028 joewalsh 3
/T
.v 1
does reference a 45-minute time frame for the backup route 2 alerting function; is that correct?
3 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
4 And, Mr. Wilkerson's memorandum, of course, did Q
5 not mention the 45-minute time frame, did it?
6 A It mentions 45 minutes.
7 Q But, that's referring to primary route alerting?
8 A That's correct.
9 With respect to backup route alerting, Mr.
Q 10 Wilkerson's memorandum did not mention the 45-minute time 11 frame, did it?
12 A That 's correc t.
y, 13 Q Now, Mr. Kowieski, with respect to your 1 1 4h'# 14 clarification, I take it that given your understanding of 15 the LILCO plan today you were inaccurate with respect to 16 your understanding of the plan and its provisions for route 17 alert functions prior to the exercise?
18 A I don't understand your question.
19 Q Well, your understanding of the plan with 20 respect to route alert functions at the time or shortly j 21 before the exercise was essentially inaccurate; is that 22 correc t?
23 A (Witness Keller) I don't think so.
24 0 Well, Mr. Kowieski is the one that made the 25 clarification.
(~m bJ i
l
24901212 8029
. j oewalsh .
) 1 A Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me.
2 (Witness Kowieski) No, I disagree with you.
3 Q Let me back up, Mr. Kowieski. I thought you 4 told Judge Frye that prior to the exercise, because you 5 understood the LILCO plan only allowed one driver per route, 6 you instructed Mr. Daverio that if LERO were to attempt to dispatch more than one route alert driver that would not be 8 permitted.
9 Is that a fair characterization o.f your 10 testimony?
11 A That's fair characterization, that's right.
12 Q So, your understanding of the LILCO plan shortly 13 before the exercise was conducted, in fact, was wrong; is 7
14 that correct?
15 A I don't understand why wrong.
16 Q Well, does the LILCO plan today require that 17 only one route alert driver be dispatched per route?
18 A (Witness Keller) The LILCO plan today has --
19 Q Mr. Kowieski, I'm talking to, Mr. Keller.
20 (The witnesses are conferring.)
4 21 A (Witness Kowiesk.1) First of all --
22 Q The question, Mr. Kowieski, is as of today-does 23 the LILCO plan require that only one route alert driver be 24 dispatched per route?
25 A I don't know.
l i
24901212 8030-joewalsh-T I,_f I (Witness Keller) May I answer?
2 Q You think it does not; is that correct, Mr.
3 Keller?
4 A That's correct. Revision 7 and 8, the current 5 plan allows for more than one route alert driver.
, 6 (Witness Kowieski) And, I want to clarify that 7 and --
8 Q Well, let me follow up with Mr. Keller, Mr.
9 Kowieski. Is it your understanding, Mr. Keller, that the 10 LILCO plan has been changed with respect to the numbers of Il route alert drivers that can be dispatched?
12 A (Witness Keller) That's my recollection, yes.
- 13 Q And, you thin?t those changes were made in l 6 14 l Revision 7 and 8?
15 A I think that's correct, yes.
16 Q Do you agree with that, Mr. Kowieski?
17 A (Witness Kowieski) That's what I wanted to 18 add. I was not involved in the review, in RAC review, of 19 Revision 7 and 8.
20 JUDGE FRYE: That's why you don't know?
21 WITNESS-KOWIESKI: That's why I don't know.
22 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 23 Q Dr. Baldwin, do you believe the plan has been 24 changed?
25 A (Witness Baldwin) I don't know. I'm going to
. NY
'24901212- 8031 joewalsh-I check something here.
2 (The witness is looking through a document.)
3 4
'S 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 I .
s 1, .
15
! 16 .
i 17 18 19 f'
20 l-21
[
22 l 23 p-t 24
! 25 l
l+O
i l
1
.24901313 8032 j oewalsh
,I
[~D
% J.
1 Q While they are checking, Mr. Kowieski, when you 2 had this conversation with Mr. Daverio, who initiated that l 3
conversation that you had with Mr. Daverio prior to the 4
exercise?
5 A (Witness Kowieski) I believe it was Mr. Daverio 6 that brought up the subject.
7 Q Did he simply come to you and say we are going 8 to, perhaps, use more than one route alert driver per route?
9 A No, the issue came up when we discussed the free-10 play concept. How we are going to introduce free-play 11 messages during the exercise, and one of these, one of the 12 free play messages was a free-play message dealing with 13 siren failure.
h_,b A
~
14 Q So how did the issue come up about the numbers 15 of drivers that could or could not be dispatched?
16 A I believe, again, it is my recollection right 17 now I did not take a note of it, but I believe to the best 18 of my recollection, Mr. Daverio asked me whether LERO would 19 be permitted to dispatch more than one route alert driver.
20 I explained to Mr. Daverio my reasoning why, in 21 my opinion, it was not acceptable to dispatch more than one 22 driver, because as I explained before, this would not be in 23 accordance with the plan.
2d Q Mr. Kowieski, have you discussed this matter 25 with Mr. Daverio recently?
P
.U 1
l
24901313 8033 j oewalsh
)' 1 A I have not been in contact with Mr. Daverio 2 since February 13th exercise, ' except returning a list of 3 home bound individuals.
4 I sent him a letter after the exercise, and that 5 is the extent of my communication with Mr. Daverio.
6 Q Are you aware of the testimony Mr. Daverio.gave 7 to this Board regarding Contention 34 in this issue of the 8 numbers of route alert drivers that could, or could not, be 9 dispatched?
10 A I don't have a vivid recollection of this 11 particular subject. I read some of his testimony, but not 12 the entire testimony. Maybe one of my colleagues will be
, 13 able to add.
(h .
~
14 Q Mr. Keller, you indicated you areawere of Mr.
15 Daverio's ---
16 A (Witness Keller) My recollection of-reading the 17 transcripts is that Mr. Daverio suggested that they could, 18 indeed, dispatch more than one route alert' driver per route, 19 and I guess I misspoke when I said it was review of 7 and 8.
20 I think, perhaps, what I was thinking about was -
21 - I have seen it written somewhere.
!' 22 Let's back off. I was present at the meeting or l
23 discussion that Mr. Kowieski was talking about with Mr.
24 Daverio. This is the pre-exercise planning. We were 25 discussing how to get the free play in. Mr. Kowieski made
- . - , . ._ . - . . _. = - . . _ . . _ - - . . . . - ... - . - - - _
Vk?ln m, m; 249'01313 ~ 8034 j oewalsh 2
h I the statement'that it was our reading'of the plan at.that O'4 C1}'.-ir l r 2 time that' a route alert driver was what the plan said, Mr. -l 3 Daverio did not refute that.
4 A,4, 1 He didn't come up and show us the procedure and 5 say:: It says we can send three, four, five, or six out.
^
So, he basically acquiesced, concurred, or whatever you want
~
7 to call.it -- you can characterize it however you like, he j
8 did not refute our reading of.the plan that a route alert
-9 driver per. route would be assigned.
10 It-is my understanding that his current II testimony- is that they can send more than one out, and I L
7 12 suppose that is correct. I thought I remember reading 13 something which may have been the draft, for lack of a Id better term, Rev. 9 of.the plan. It may be in there.
i 4 15 But I thought I had read something that changed l' 16 - what we were working from for the exercise as Rev. 6. It is
{' 37 not in Rev. 7 or 8, and the. reason I know that now, 18 refreshing .my memory, is that LILCO has addressed in Rev. 7
- 19 and 8, the deficiencies first, and then the areas requiring 20 corrective action second, and since after the Wilkerson b 21 letter, this is-m1 area recommended for improvement, those 22 things ~ have not been addressed as yet, so that would not 23 have been addressed in the changes in Rev. 7 and 8.
24 A (Witness Kowieski) And they don't have to be 25 addressed.
FO d
k 6
- - , , - . - -we m y,,,.,-.,,-,w.--,----,.---.,,,-r,-,-,,-e,,-,-,w.-, ,y, --v.,n-w-~ , . - , , -
e -
-w--n- a , ,, , -,-c,--,..- ,e.. v.- ,y, -, y , n. v.-
24901313 8035 joewalsh f') 1 Q Mr.'Keller, if I understand your recollection of N_/
2 the conversation between Mr. Daverio and Mr. .Kowieski in 3 which you were at, there was no instruction given to Mr.
4 Daverio that LERO could only dispatch one driver per route.
5 A (Witness Keller) That is what I said.
6 Q That is not what Mr. Kowieski said.
7 A I believe Mr. Kowieski said that it was our 8 reading, meaning FEMA's reading of the plan, that if LERO 9 wanted to -- we thought that the plan said a driver per 10 route, and we had made our evaluation plans, our assignment 11 of evaluators, based on that assumption.
12 Unless Mr. Daverio could prove to us that we had l f 13 misinterpreted the plan, we would go on that assumption.
1 ')
14 Q But to your recollection, Mr. Keller, Mr.
15 Daverio did not even contest your understanding of the plan?
16 A That is correct. -
17 Q Now, Mr. Daverio has testified before this Board 18 . that notwithstanding this conversation that he had with Mr.
C 19 2 Kowieski, he did not convey to anyone within LERO, including 20 any LERO participants at the exercise, the substance of that 21 conversation.
22 A And I would suspect, based on my dealings with 23 Mr. Daverio, that since he was privy to information that the 24 participants weqe not privy to, that he would not, indeed, 25 communicate that conversation, because that would be in the
24901313 8036 ;
. j oewalsh l D'
I form of coaching, and that is completely consistent with my
/~',)
Q '
2 understanding of how he performed as the exercise 3 controller, the exercise controller for LILCO.
4 Is it fair to say to your knowledge, gentlemen, Q
5 . during the exercise LERO did' not attempt in any way to 6 dispatch more than one route alert driver per route?
7 A (Witness Baldwin) It is my recollection that in 8 one case they did try to dispatch more than one driver, an.d 9 this is based on my conversations with Mr. Bertrand, who did 10 the route alerting evaluation at Port Jefferson.-
11 There is a comment in the report, the post 12 exercise assessment, on Page 57 of that report, that-deals 13 with this issue in the middle of the -- in the first if)
E# 14 paragraph ---I am going to-count from the bottom of the 15 paragraph, it is better than the top -- in the 6th line from 16 the bottom of that paragraph. This is the evaluation of 17 that route alerting.
18 It says about half of the total assigned area 19 was covered. It should be noted however that alerting half 20 of the siren coverage area took the driver 90 minutes.
- 21 Presumably, it would take three hours for one driver to-22 cover the entire area.
4 23 Now, my recollection of my conversations with 24 Mr. Bertrand was at that time that the option was presented 25 that when he arrived at the staging area, that he was told gy+,- ,. - .g,95 y-,-----. 7w-p . . , -y-- 3 9yp,,,, ryr.my -.--,.ww,w.-ne,* y',ae
24901313 8037 j oewalsh Lg) ('s 1 that they could, perhaps, dispatch two route alert drivers, 2 and he indicated to them at that time that I am but one 3 evaluator, and I can only evaluate that which you are going 4 to demonstrate, because I have multiple assignments.
5 Q Now, Dr. Baldwin, this is all news to me. I 6 want to explore this. At what time did Mr. Bertrand tell 7 you he had this conversation at the staging area? What time 8 did he say he had had the conversation?
9 A What time did he say he had had the 10 conversation? When he got to the staging area.
11 Q And at what time, about, did Mr. Bertrand get to 12 the staging area, do you recall?
13 A- (Witness Keller) .We could work backwards,
,7)
't 14 because his assignment was to get to the staging area, to 15 call the EOC to inform the FEMA evaluator, team leader, Mr.
16 Connolly, or the lady who was standing at her desk, that he 17 was in place and ready to take up the redundant route 18 alerting.
19 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Keller, during the exercise, all' 20 three evaluators for the route alert function made that 21 notification before the free play message for the simulated 22 failed sirens was inserted, correct?
23 A That is right, that is how we got it started.
24 Q And that insertion was made at about 8:10 in the 25 morning of the day of the exercise, is that correct?
24901313 8038 joewalsh-k)%-
1 A That is correct.
2 Q And Mr. Bertrand was therefore at the Port 3 Jefferson staging area sometime prior to 8:10 in the 4 morning, correct?
5 A (Witness Baldwin) That is correct.
6 Q' Now, you are telling me, Dr. Baldwin, that Mr.
7 Bertrand got to the staging area, who presumably would not 8 have known anything about the insertion of a free play 9 message regarding the failed sirens. That someone came up to to him and simply said: Hey, we may send out more than one 11 route alert driver?
12 A I am sorry, will you restate your question?
13 Does your question say that Mr. Bertrand didn't realize this T'"s) 14 free play message -- .
15 Q No. I thought you told me that Mr. Bertrand was 16 approached and told by someone at the Port Jefferson staging 17 area that they may send out more than one route alert 18 driver. Is that your testimony?
19 A I believe that would have come -- again, for a 20 year and a half af ter an exercise, where -- talking about a 21 conversation that I had with Mr. Bertrand, it was in 22 preparation of this first draf t of the report, he was 23 providing clarification as to what this indication in his 24 write-up meant to me, and I will hazard a guesa, speculate, l
25 that when they received the message on the LERO end, that l
24901313 8039 joewalsh
/^3
- (,/ 1 they pull the map of the area and said we need to dispatch 2 two drivers, now what?
3 Q I thought you just told me, Dr. Baldwin, the 4 conversation was prior to 8:10 when the message was first 5 input at the EOC?
6 A I didn't mean to say that.
7 A (Witness Keller) I don't believe we said that.
8 We said he had the conversation at the staging area.
9 Q Mr. Keller, I really don't see how you can 10 contribute to this discussion.
11 JUDGE FRYE: How is this material?
12 MR. MILLER: Well, it is material, Judge Frye, r3 13 because I suggest that there is some selective memory going V
14 on here with these witnesses.
15 JUDGE FRYE: You are talking about events that 16 they weren't even at, and occurred a year and a half ago.
17 My goodness, I think they are doing pretty well.
18 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, it is relevant to the 19 issue which is whether or not LERO attempted to dispatch 20 more than one route alert driver, and was stopped from doing 21 that by FEMA during the exercise, because there is a 22 suggestion being made by these witnesses because if you 23 would have dispatched more than one route alert driver they 24 would have, perhaps, come closer or perhaps even met the 45 25 minute time requirement and this entire issue would not be O
24901313 8040 joewalsh
) 1 before the Board.
2 I suggest to the Board that there is no such 3 thing as any indication anywhere in the record that LERO 4
ever attempted to dispatch more than one driver per route.
5 In fact, Mr. Daverio stated that when he was before this 6 Board.
7 Dr. Baldwin is now stating something somewhat to 8 the contrary, and I am trying to clarify the record in that 9 regard. The memory that he has displayed to the Board seems 10 fairly vivid in some regards, and not too vivid in other 11 regards, and that is what I am trying to explore.
12 JUDGE FRYE: I am still a little concerned about 13 the materiality of it. I think the report seems to speak 14 pretty well for itself. I understand, if I recall 15 correctly, the plan now does permit more than one route 16 alert driver --
17 WITNESS KELLER: I don't think there has been a 18 formal plan change at this point in time, because this is --
19 in the report, is an area recommended for improvement. It 20 is my understanding that Rev. 7 essentially addressed the 21 deficiencies, Rev. 8 addressed the areas requiring 22 corrective action, and the areas recommended for improvement 23 have not as yet been addressed.
24 JUDGE FRYE: Is it your position that more than 25 one route alert driver should be used?
I
24901313 8041
- j oewalsh i(r 1 WITNESS KELLER: It would be prudent, I 2 believe. But I still don't think they will make the 45 3 minutes.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Well, if they had enough 5 theoretically they would.
6 WITNESS KELLER: Well, I have a problem with 7 that. This plan is one of the few plans that has a means of 8 identifying a siren failure, and this I believe is a problem 9 with 0654. If there is a requirement, if there is a 10 requirement for back-up route alerting, the first step in 11 that requirement is going to have to be establish that a 12 siren did not sound.
/~ 13 That requirement is not spelled out anywhere in
- b}
14 0654. Now, you can infer that if you say that this section 15 we have been talking about requires a 45 minute capabili'ty
~
16 for back-up.
17 Ycu can infer that there is a requirement that 18 you establish that the siren has not sounded. There are 19 means on most siren systems to know that the signal went out 20 to the siren, that is on the board. The light lights, the 21 signal went out.
l 22 Most of the systems do not have a feedback loop 23 that says the siren sounded. There are a few systems that 24 do, but not many.
25 LILCO, LERO has developed a system with Market O
F (_/ .
t l
l
24901313 8042 j oewalsh
) 1 E valuations to make random phone calls in the area that. the 2
sirens are to sound to establish if the sirens sounded.
3 It is my recollection of the plan, we testified 4
earlier, that this _ random phone calling could take as much 5 I don't care how many route alert drivers as 90 minutes.
6 you have, if it takes 90 minutes to find out which siren 7 didn't sound, you are not going to make 45 minutes.
8 JUDGE FRYE: Assuming that you had some 9 mechanism for learning immediately whether a siren had 10 functioned --
11 WITNESS KELLER: Then more drivers would give 12 you a better chance of making 45 minutes, that is correct.
13 JUDGE FRYE: And it clearly says one won't do 14 it, or didn't in this instance, wasn't able to do it. I 15 guess I just am lost as to why it really matters whether
~
16 LERO tried to send two out- instead of one.
17 MR. MILLER: Let me try, Judge Frye. I will 18 just make a proffer as to what I would demonstrate, and I 19 think it is relevant.
20 The LILCO plan has not been changed in any 21 regard since the exercise with respect to the dispatching of 22 route alert drivers. The LILCO plan, as Mr. Daverio 23 testified, always permitted LERO to dispatch more than one 24 driver per route. They have additional route alert drivers 25 in part for that possibility.
i
24901313 8043
. j oewalsh
/~ ) 1 During the exercise I submit that good judgment,
\_J 2 and in part this ties into training, perhaps, good judgment 3 by LERO personnel would have had them look at their maps, 4 seen the size of the siren territory, realire that to meet a 5 45 minute requirement which was then in effect in Region II, 6 they would have had to have sent out more than one route 7 alert driver.
8 Mr. Kowieski has suggested that if they would 9 have attempted to do that, FEMA evaluators maybe would have 10 stopped them. Mr. Daverio testified that during the 11 exercise LERO never considered, never attempted, did not 12 dispatch more than one driver per route.
j- 13 Therefore the issue never really came to a 1^ ,
# 14 head. I suggest that reflects in part upon inadequate 15 judgment, bad judgment by the LERO perscanel involved in 16 this matter.
- 17 JUDGE FRYE: If I were you, I would let that 18 lie. It sounds to me like if you go into this you may find 19 something tnat is not in your client's interest.
20 MR. MILLER: Dr. Baldwin has suggested that LERO 21 in fact was going to send out more than one driver, at least 22 for the Port Jefferson staging area, and that in fact FEMA 23 did preclude that possibility, which is the first time that 24 information has been provided to this Board to my knowledge, 25 and conflicts with Mr. Daverio's testimony, and all the
- O
24901313 8044
-- j oewalsh I~
b 1
other testimony that has been presented in this issue to my 2 knowledge, so I want to establish that Dr. Baldwin is wrong.
3 JUDGE FRYE: Are you confident of your 4 recollections in this regard, Dr. Baldwin? -
5 WITNESS BALDWIN:- Reasonably. confident.
~
6 Reasonably confident that it was one of my staff that did-7 that evaluation, and I recall it was Dr. Bertrand 'irr this 8 case because we had a conversation about it.
9 JUDGE PARIS: Is it not pos,sible that.this could 10 have occurred, and Mr. Daverio would never know about .it?
II
.MR. MILLER: It is a possibility, ' Judge Par'is, 12 but very unlikely. Let me .just try a couple of other 13 questions, and maybe we can come to the end of this.
14 JUDGE FRYE: Sure. j 15 BY MR.. MILLER: (Continuing) 16 ,Q' -Dr. Baldwin, I am showing you'what has been 17 marked as Suffolk County Exhibit 27, which is the critique 18 form that was filled out by Mr. Bertrand for the Port 19 Jefferson staging area, with respect to Field 6 regarding 20 the route alert function.
21 This is Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 60, and 22 .would you take a look at that?
23 A (Witness Kowieski) Page number, sir?
24 Q It~is evaluation form for Objective F3 84 5 for
! 25 Port Jefferson filled out by Mr. Bertrand. It is Suffolk I
1 i
. . . - , ~ - . , . . . . . . _ , . - . . _ _ . . _ , , - , . . _ . . - . . , . . _ - _ . _ . _ . , . . . _ - . . . . _ - - . . . , . . , . ~ , . , , , - _ . _ , _ . . , . . . - _ - . _ . . _ -
i 24901313- 8045 joewalsh-
/- /-
County Exercise Exhibit 60, and what I would like to-know,
-( 1 7 Dr. Baldwin, if this form, completed by Mr. Bertrand, at the 3 time of the exercise anywhere reflects that LERO attempted 4 to dispatch more than one route alert driver?
5 A (Witness Baldwin) There is no indication here 6 that -such a discussion took place.
7 8
9 10 11 12 i
O ,,
15 16 4 17 18 19 20 21 l-22 23 i'
24 i- 25 lO r
l
24901414 8046 marysimons
.I . )
[_)
s-1 Q Now, Dr. Baldwin, the FEMA report itself in its j 2 discussion of Field 5 for Port Jefferson which is on page 57 3 nowhere states that LERO attempted to dispatch mcre than one 4 route alert driver, does it?
5 (Witness Baldwin) That 's correct, it does not.
6 One last question, I think Dr. Baldwin. In Q
7 recalling the conversation that you had with Mr. Bertrand, 8 is it fair to say that what Mr. Bertrand indicated to you 9 was that someone.at the Port Jefferson staging area 10 indicated that they might dispatch more than one route alert 11 driver and Mr. Bertrand 's only comment and response was that 12 I can only evaluate one driver?
j 7, 13 A That's correct.
I ~
14 Q Mr. Bertrand did not instruct the LERO personnel IS at Port Jefferson not to dispatch only one driver?
16 A That's my recollection of my conversation with 17 him.
18 Mr. Keller, I have a follow-up to you in Q
19 response to Judge Paris' question. With respect to the 45-20 minute time frame for route alerting is it not correct that 4 21 other sites in Region 2 have successfully demonstrated the 22 ability to meet the 45-minute time frame?
23 A (Witness Keller) From the insertion of a free-24 play message as we did at the Shoreham exercise on the 13th, 25 they have indeed demonstrated that capability.
n)
- - _ . _ _ _, _.. ~, , . _ _ , _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - , _ _ _ . - . _ __ .___ _,___ _ . _ _ _ . _
24901414 8047 marysimons
~)~
%j 1 Q And of course at Shoreham from the insertion of 2 the free-play message LERO did not even come close to 3 meeting the 45-minute time framer is that correct?
4 A The data is clear. They did not approach 45 5 minutes.
6 C The initial alert and notification test that you 7 referred to on page 141 of your testimony, gentlemen, that 8 test has not been conducted at Shoreham; is that correct?
9 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
10 JUDGE PARIS: What page are we on?
11 WITNESS KELLER: 141.
12 MR. MILLER: I was looking at 141. There is a f, 13 footnote. That's really the only question I was going to
'~) -
a 14 ask, that the test is no.t at this time being conducted.
15 BY MR. MILLER:
16 Q Mr. Kowieski, is it fair to say that during the 17 exercise, the Shoreham exercise that FEMA did not evaluate 18 the timeliness or the adequacy of mobilization of route 19 alert drivers?
20 A (Witness Kowieski) Just one minute.
21 (Witnesses confer.)
22 MS. McCLESKEY: While the witnesses are-23 conferring I have an objection to the question. The 24 contention on mobilization deals with traf fic guides only 25 and not route alert drivers, and I think the question it _7
24901414 8048 merysimons I
(C) outside the scope of the contentions for that reason.
^
2 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Miller?
%(
3 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, if you 'll permit me 4 some eeway, I'll tie it up. It's going to fit right into 5 the specific issues that are in contention before this 6 Board.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.-
- 8 MS. McCLESKEY: Might I inquire which contention 9 it's going to fit into?
10 MR. MILLER: 34, and 21A.
II BY MR. MILLER:
12 Q Mr. Kowieski, do you recall th5 question?
13 A (Witness Kowieski) Our evaluation of the
.D 14 staging areas generally states that activation and 15 mobilization of avaff was accomplished according to 16 p roc edures , to LERO procedures. -
17 Q I understand, Mr. Kowieski, in a general fashion 18 you believe FEMA looked at and evaluated the mobilization of 19 personnel, but specifically with respect to route alert 20 drivers was there an evaluation made of the effectiveness of 21 the mobilization of the route alert drivers?
22 A No, we did not single out route alert drivers in 23 our evaluation. Our evaluation speaks for itself of what we 24 did, but there were no problems in activation or i
25 mobilization of staff in the staging areas.
~24901414 8049 marysimons If"'j x/
1 Q Now, Mr. Kowieski, the receipt of notification 2 of a siren failure under the LILCO plan comes into the LERO 3 EOC; is that correct?
4 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
5 Q And it was at.the LERO EOC that the free play 6 message regarding the simulated failure of the three sirens 7 was inserted during the exercise, correct?
8 A That 's correc t.
9 Q And then from the EOC information regarding the 10 simulated failed sirens was communicated to the three 11 staging areas?
12 A That's correct.
13 Q And of course then from the staging areas the f_% .
14 route alert drivers were dispatched to run the routest is 15 that correct?
16 A That's right. -
17 Q On page 142 of your testimony, gentlemen, you la have set forth the three sirens that were simulated to have 19 failed during the exercise by siren number, staging area and 20 then you have the elapsed time in minutes. Do you see that?
21 A Yes, I do.
22 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
23 (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
24 Q Now right above this little chart you state that 25 FEMA observed the following elapsed periods from the time
.s n.
^ 24901414 8050
-marysimons n '
() I 2
the LERO ECC-informed the staging areas of the given simulated siren failures until back-up public alerting was 3 completed.
4 Your. testimony in this regari is incorrect, is 5 it not?
6 (Pause.)
7 Maybe we can try it one by one, gentlemen.
8 With respect to the 90 minutes for the Port 9 Jefferson staging area, that 90 minutes was the time that 10 was required from the the route was first started until the II route was one-half completed; is that correct?
12 A (Witness Keller) We need to check our notes.
13 Q I think gentlemen, this may help. Let me hand L 14 out to you a copy of what is suffolk County Exhibits 19A, 15 19B, 19C and 19D. These are the, or a portion of the 16 evaluator forms for the three staging areas with the route 17 alert function.
( l l 18 (Witnesses confer.)
19 Feel free to look at other documents, but if you 20 -look at-Exhibit 19B regarding Port Jefferson, I think that 21 indicates that the 90 minutes began at 9:30 when the route
- 22 was started to actually be run and then at 11 o' clock the 23 route was one-half completed. Is that correct?
l 24 A . (Witness Kowieski) It appears that the elapsed i
- 25 time as represented on page 142 for the Port Jefferson I .
a 24901414 8051 marysimons 1 staging area represents only the time it took a route alert
( ])
2 driver to cover the area of siren failure.
l 3 Q And in fact, Mr. Kowieski, given the way you 4 present the data, that is from the time the LERO EOC 5 informed the staging areas of the simulated siren failure 6 until one-half the route was completed for Port Jefferson 7 approximately two hours and 32 minutes passed; is that 4
8 correc t?
9 A It took longer than 90 minutes, and we would 10 have to figure out ---
11 Q If you look at Exhibit 19B which I handed to 12 you, Suffolk County Exhibit 19B, does that not state that 13 the message was dispatched to the staging area at 8:28?
O 14 A To the staging area. .
15 Q And it was at 11 o' clock that they ceased 16 running the route and they were one-half complete at that 17 time?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q So that's the two hours and 32 minutes I 20 referred to?
i 21 A That is correct. But for your information, the i
22 times presented for the Patchogue Staging Area and Riverhead 23 I think are correct.
24 Q Well, let's look first at Patchogue, Mr.
25 Kowieski. You believe it was 17 minutes from the time the Or~S
24901414 8052 m2rysimons i
/ ') /
I message was dispatched from the EOC to the staging area 2 until the route was completed; is that your testimony?
3 A Our testimony is it took 19 minutes from the 4 time the route alert driver was dispatched before he reached 5 the beginning of the route.
6 To make sure we are clear, Mr. Kowieski, I'm Q
7 looking at Patchogue, siren 45 where you say it took 17 8 minutes from the time the LERO EOC informed the Patchogue 9 Staging Area until the route was completed.
10 Now is it not correct, Mr. Kowieski, that it 11 actually took from 8:25 in the morning until 9:50?
12 A I think our elapsed time would That 's correc t.
gr, 13 represent the time when route alert drivers were dispatched 1'~') 14 from the staging areas.
15 Q So the 70 on page 142 of your testimony should 16 really be 85 minutes t is that correct? Well, whatever, from 17 8:25 ---
18 A (Witness Keller) Approximately.
19 A (Witness Kowieski) Right.
20 Q And for Riverhead, Mr. Kowieski, where you have 21 78 minutes, it should really be if you look again at Exhibit 22 19A and 19C, it should be the dif ference between 8:28 in the 23 mo rning and 9 : 52 ; is that correct?
24 (Witnesses confer.)
25 A (Witness Keller) 8:34 maybe? I mean the No. 2
24901414 8053 marysimons
[ ') I block on the message ---
2 A (Witness Kowieski) What page are you referring 3 to?
4 Exhibit 19A, which is the first page of the Q
5 document I gave to you .which indicates that the message was.
6 dispatched through the staging area at 8:28 for Riverhead.
7 Do you see that?
8 ,A (Witness Keller) Right.
9 A (Witness Kowieski) Right.
10 Q And for Riverhead, they finished the route at 11 9:52 is that right?
12 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's right .
13 A (Witness Keller) That 's correct.
O 14 Q Mr. Keller, is it a fair statement to say that is in other exercises the measurement of the time required to 16 perform backup route alerting begins with the insertion of 17 the free play message?
18 A I can't recall specifically, but I think that is 19 a reasonable assumption.
20 Q And again I think we established if you look at 21 Exhibit 19A that that was 8:10 on the day of the exercise 22 for Shorehamt is that correct?
23 A That's correct.
24 Q And, Mr. Keller, if I look at again at your 25 letter to Mr. Kowieski of March 19, 1986, which we have O
24901414 8054 m rysimons rA -
I ,) I marked as Exhibit 105, even if you begin with the insertion 2
of the message at the EOC, you have excluded whatever time 3 would be required to have identified in the first instance d the failure of the sirens, correct?
5 A That is correct. We would stipulate I think.
6 JUDGE FRYE: You have already testified to that.
7 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, we went into it in the a discussion that we had with the Judges. There is a two-part 9 proces s . We only did half the process and they didn't get 10 close to the 45 minutes.
II If there is a regulatory requirement, they are 12 not going to make it.
ge-) 13 BY MR. MILLER:
- x"/
" 14 Mr. Keller, on the day of the exercise the Q
15 sirens were first sounded at about 6:51 in the morning, is 16 that correct, the simulated sounding of the sireds?
17 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
18 Can you tell me why if the sirens were simulated Q
19 to have sounded at 6:51 in the morning the free play message 20 regarding the simulated failure of the sirens was not input 21 until 8:10?
22 A There was an operational constraint. Part of 23 the evaluation process requires that the evaluators who are 24 going to evaluate the redundant backup route alerting be in 25 place where this is going to be evaluated from.
24901414 8055 marysimons n
(_) 1 That required these people to get to a certain 2 location, to make a phone call to the EOC, to our FEMA 3 individual in the EOC to report in and say we're ready and 4 we're in place. I can only assume that those calls were not 5 made until on the order of 8 o' clock and, hence, the message 6 was inserted after that.
7 Q Do you think it's a fair assumption, Mr. Keller, 8 that in addition if the message would have been inserted at 9 or about 6:51 in the morning, which is when the sirens were 10 first simulated to have sounded there would have been II insufficient LERO personnel available to have run the routes 12 in any event?
13 A I would almost guarantee it.
Qs 14 Q Does that tell you anything, Mr. Keller, abou t 15 the deficiency of LERO's ability to mobilize its personnel, 16 specifically route alert drivers?
17 A No.
18 0 You don't believe there would have been 19 sufficient personnel to have run the routes if the message 20 would have been inserted at 6:51 -- let me back up. At 21 6:51, that was about the time of the alert notification 22 during the exercise, correc t?
23 A That is correct. I know of no requirement that 24 the sirens be sounded at the alert emergency classification 25 level for whatever reascn.
O
(_/
24901414 8056 marysimons
,- - I s ,
) 1 Q But under the LILCO plan, Mr. Keller, sirens can 2 be sounded at the alert notification level; is that correct?
3 A I think they can be sounded in the unusual d
event.
5 And on the day of the exercise they in fact were Q
6 simulated to have sounded at the alert level?
7 A That is correct.
8 Q But under the LILCO plan L3RO does not begin 9 mobilizing route alert drivers until the alert levelt is 10 that correct?
II MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. We are back to 12 mobilizing route alert drivers, and that is not in the 13 contentions.
y-~)
1
'" 14 MR. MILLER: And this is my tie-in, Judge Frye.
15 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Overruled.
16 WITNESS KELLER: Clearly, you cannot dispatch 37 people until after they have been mobilized.
18 If the sirens are sounded at the alert level and 19 if there is a siren failure at the alert level and if you 20 identify that there has been a siren failure promptly at the 21 alert level, there is a good probability that you will not 22 have suf ficient staf f on hand at their dispatch point to be 23 deployed for backup route alerting.
24 BY MR. MILLER:
25 Q Unless you call them out, Mr. Keller, prior to
. . ~ . _. .- --.
-24901414 8057 marysimons 1 the alert level; is that correct?
m 2 A One of the ways that you could alleviate this-3 problem would be to call them out at an earlier stage, that 4 is correct.
5 Q But LILCO's plan does not do that, does it?
6 A That is correct.
7 Q. Now I'm on page 142 of your-testimony still, 8 gentlemen. ,
9 Mr. Kowieski, earlier you told Judge Frye that 10 Mr. Wilkerso. Vid Ms. Lawless at FEMA Headquarters convinced 11 you that NUREt 1654, Appendix 3 does not require compliance 12 with the 45-min.tte time frame for backup route alerting. Do 13 you recall that?
O' 14 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes, I do.
l 15 16 j
- 17 18 19 20 I 21
- . 22 23 24 25
- O
24901515 8058 cuewalsh I How did they convince you, Mr. Kowieski?
h Q 2 A (Witness Kowieski) With a telephone 3
conversation, and we discussed various aspects of draf t post-4 exercise assessments. And, one of the issues raised by them 5 was how- we should grade the fact that route alert drivers 6 did not meet 45-minutes requirement.
7 I believe we already testified to the fact that 8 it was our initial intention to grade this as an area 9- requiring correction action. Mr. Keller indicated that he 10 wanted to raise to deficiency.
II After I had lengthy discussion with my 12 Headquarters people, they advised me there is no specific 13 requirement that 45-minutes with area, the backup system
' Id would meet 45-minutes requirement, that this only applies to 15 primary notification system.
16 They convinced me -- they are policy-makers, as 17 I already testify to this effect, and they convinced me that 18 their interpretation was correct.
19 Q Mr. Kowieski, my question was how did they 20 convince you?
21 A They did not twist my arm, because it was 22 telephone conversation. They told me --
23 (Laughter . )
24 I don't understand, you know, what else I can 25 add. They convinced me -- they convinced me that my b
bt'
24901515 8059
-cuewalsh j ) I interpretation of NUREG 0654, Appendix. 3 was incorrect.
2 (Witness Baldwin) As I recall -- I think I can-3 contribute here. You don't have a piece of paper or a 4 letter from me to this effect, because I was at the time 5 very busy in drafting this report and running back and forth 6 between Chicago and New York.
7 When.I came back to New York, Mr. Kowieski and I 8 sat down at a table and reviewed a conversation we had had 9 with Mr. Keller actually before. And, I came back with the 10 opinion that despite the fact that the initial report was Il rated an ARCA that this should be elevated to a deficiency 12 as well. So, I was in agreement at that point with Mr.
13 Keller.
k 14 Mr. Kowieski also apparently was in agreement 15 with me. We needed clarification as to where this all went, 16 and that went to a conversation with Ms. Lawless; as has 17 already been mentioned. Then, we had a telephone 18 conversation, a conference call, with Mr. Wilkerson where 19 this was discussed at length.
20 It was his opinion at that point that the 21 requirement in 0654 went to the primary system for alerting 22 which in this case, of course, would be the sirens.
23 Q Dr. Baldwin, here is my confusion. Now, I 24 understand that you and Mr. Keller and Mr. Kowieski all 25 believed that the failure of LERO to meet the 45-minutes D
4
24901515 8060 cuewalsh a
yj 1 time frame for backup route alerting should have been at 2 least an ARCA and perhaps a deficiency. And, you called 3 FEMA Headquarters to discuss that.
4 No, don't raise And, FEMA Headquarters said:
5 the ARCA to a deficiency but lower it to an area recommended 6 for improvement.
7 Is that a fair characterization of --
8 A (Witness Kowieski) I believe -- I didn ' t call 9 them; they called me. They called me af ter they review the 10 first draft of post-exercise assessment.
Ii Q When they reviewed that first draft, Mr.
12 Kowieski, you had rated the route alert functions as an area 13 requiring corrective action, correct?
' '" Id A That's correct.
15 Q They called you and they said: No, lower it to 16 an area recommended for improvement?
17 A We had some discussion of the NUREG 0654, of the 18 requirement stipulated in NUREG 0654. It wasn ' t just 19 conversation: Roger, you are going to change this to an 20 area requiring improvement, and that was it.
21 JUDGE FRYE So, they didn't direct you to make 22 that change?
4 23 WITNESS KOWIESKI No, sir.
24 JUDGE FRYE Okay. After you spoke with them, 25 you believed that their interpretation was correct?
a
A [
24901515 '
8061 e cuewalsh
- c)
(_, 1 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes. But, I also testified 2 today that I'm very careful in way I deal with this type of 3 issues, because it was a new issue to us, to Region II, and- ,
4 that's why I asked for a clarification. And, I asked for 5 this clarification in writing.
6 And, Mr. Wilkerson follow-up on his promise and
, 7 he sent me a memorandum.
8 JUDGE PARIS: Did you have something you wanted 9 to add, Mr. Keller?
10 WITNESS KELLER: Well, I think we mentioned this 11 the other day. It is not FEMA policy, all right, until the 12 report is transmitted from FEMA Headquarters to the NRC.
13 When the FEMA policy-makers put a piece of policy down in ,
14 writing, i.e. the 'Wilkerson memo, I suppose that a region 15 could decide to fly in the face of the policy and then I
~
16 don't know what would happen after that.
17 (Laughter.)
18 JUDGE PARIS: A lot of people would lose their 19 jobs.
20 (Laughter.)
21 WITNESS KEULER: Well, that's one of the 22 possibilities. That's what happened. I think, Judge Paris, 23 you characterized it. The boss said no, and that was it. -
. 24 WITNESS KOWIESKI: But, we had a discussion and 25 we tried to reason as to why we should --
t
3, Wy. f,e
- t ;24901515 8062
'.cuewalsh I WITNESS'KELLER:. What the problem was.
x 2 JUDGE FRYE Okay.
3 WITNESS KOWIESKI Okay.
4 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 5 Q _Mr. Kowieski, just to make sure I'm clear in 6 this.though, previously Region II, yourself, had sent draft 7
post-exercise assessment reports to FEMA Headquarters in a
which you had noticed problems with other sites not meeting 9
a 45-minutes time requirement, and FEMA Headquarters had 10 never: instructed you that you could not find that to be a II! problem?
12 Is that a ;:nir characterization?
(
13 A (Witness Kowieski) I --
14 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. This'has been asked i
l 15 and answered at least three times.' And, I'think we are into e 16 minutia here.
17 l JUDGE FRYE I think it's clearly in the i
18 record . Is that not so?
j 19 WITNESS KOWIESKI I think already I testifled 20 to this effect.
! 21 JUDGE FRYE: That's clearly I think that's so.
22, in the record.
, t ,
i n
+
21 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) t ,
l
[ '
24 Q Now, Mr. Kowieski, 'in 1984 when FEMA was 25 involved in the plan litigation for Shoreham, FEMA took the
- H O t
~
l c
?
, 8 J' ,
); r
_(
24901515 8063 cuewalsh
() < 1 position in its prefiled testimony that LERO had to comply 2 with the 45-minutes time frame set forth in 0654, Appendix 3 3; is that correct?
4 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Relevance.
5 MR. MILLER: I will tie it up, Judge Frye.
6 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
7 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 8 Q Is that correct, Mr. Kowieski?
9 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't have a vivid 10 recollec tion. I --
11 (Witness Keller) If you've got something to 12 show us?
13 (Witness Kowieski) If you would be kind enough 14 to show us our testimony from 1984 -- -
15 (Witness Keller) There is a lot of water over 16 the dam.
17 Q Is it fair to say, Mr. Kowieski, that that 18 prefiled testimony would have been sent to FEMA Headquarters 19 for approval prior to its filing?
20 A (Witness Kowieski) Not really for review, not --
21 it 's sort of approval. It's our testimony, and I hope this 22 is clear, it 's our testimony of the few of us sitting at 23 this table.
I 24 Q Would the testimony have been sent to FEMA 25 Headquarters prior to its filing?
l
[ - - . . - . -_ . . _ _ -
24901515 8064 cuewalsh l M
sj) 1 A Thi s time, yes . Last time, I don't --
2 (Witness Keller) I think it was.
3 (Witness Kowieski) I think it was.
4 Q Gentlemen, I'm going to show you your prefiled 5 testimony from 1984. It 's dated April 17, 1984, Page 48 and 6 49 of that testimony.
7 And, it states: An estimate of the amount of 8 time required to implement and execute the route alerting 9
backup alternative for the siren alerting system could not 10 be located in the LILCO transition plan. Therefore, it Il cannot be determined whether the route alerting procedures 12 described in the plan are sufficient to satisfy that these 13 special arrangements will ensure 100 percent coverage within 7-)
"'2 14 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the 15 initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ, 16 Citation to Appendix 3, NUREG 0654, Section B.2.C, Page 3-17 Route alerting would be evaluated at an exercise or 3.
18 communications drill.
19 (Mr. Lanpher provides the witnesses with the 20 document . )
21 A (Witness Keller) I can 't remember what you 22 read. And, I guess in order to get it right we will have to 23 read it back since we didn't have it while you read it.
24 Q But, see if the substance of what I said, Mr.
25 Keller, is correct.
~
24901515 8065 cuewalsh p)
(_ 1 (The witnesses are looking at the document.)
2 A I also remember --
3 Q Well, first of all, Mr. Keller, is the substance 4 of your testimony that was filed in 1984 regarding backup 5 route alerting as I've just read into the record?
6 Was it -- is that a fair description of what 7 your testimony was back in 19847 8 A . (Witness Kowieski) This was our understanding 9 of the requirement in 1984.
10 Q And, that testimony was sent to FEMA i- II Headquarters in 1984, and FEMA Headquarters at that time did 12 not advise you or instruct you or tell you in any way that
(~S 13 the position you were taking at that time was an inaccurate
.'%) -
14 position; is that a fair characterization?
15 A (Witness Keller) There was -- to my 16 reco: tection, there was no instruction, information, 17 direction, suggestion that we take substantive changes in 18 this part of the testimony, that 's correct.
19 (Witness Kowieski) Yes, I agree with Mr.
20 Keller.
21 Q Thank you. Now, g entle.T.en , putting to one s.Ide 22 all of this discussion that we have been having, is it fair 23 to say that followi,ng the exercise it was nevertheless i 24 concluded that for Shoreham LERO shculd come up with a way
( 25 to reduce the time required to perform the route alert O
l
24901515 8066 cuewalsh I functions?
2 .A I don't understand your question. Maybe you --
3 if you will rephrase it. You used the term " precluded?"
d Q No.
5 A We recommended it as -- in the (Witness Keller) 6 area recommended for improvement of the report, all right, 7 we recommended that they do that. You have to recognize 8 what we are saying here. The evaluators had -- two of the 9 evaluators had said area requiring corrective action. I 10 believe that one of the evaluators said a deficiency.
11 In the draft report, it came out as an area 12 recommended -- requiring corrective action. You had then an 13 issue, all right. Then, you had a recommendation.
14 In the latter stagen of the drafting of this 15 report and the finalization of the report, the rating on the 16 issue got dropped, based or$ the policy statement " fro 17 (Witness Keller) They don't have to do it.
18 Areas recommended for improvement are not tracked.
19 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. But, it is an area 20 recommended for improvement?
21 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct, yes.
22 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
23 WITNESS KELLER: But, they are not tracked and 24 if they don't do it and if they never do it, it can ' t ever 25 get bumped to an area requiring correct
24901515 8067 guewalsh
-( 3j' I Q It's your suggestion and not your 2 reconsendation?
3 A That 's correc t.
4 (Witness Keller) They don't have to do it.
5 Areas recommended for improvement are not tracked.
6 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. But, it is an area 7 recommended for improvement?
8 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct, yes.
9 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
10 WITNESS KELLER: But, they are not tracked and il if they don't do it and if they never do it, it can 't ever 12 get bumped to an area requiring corrective action.
13 WITNESS BALDWIN: Now that that's all straight, 14 there is only one thing. It is in the -- in the area, each 15 one of these area recommended for improvements is broken 16 down into two sections. There is a description section, and 17 the other thing -- there is the word " Recommendation." We la use that nomenclature, but it is, as Mr. Keller has just 19 testified, not a requirement. Those are not tracked.
20 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 21 Q You state on Page 142, gentlemen, that LERO's 22 plans for backup route alerting should be reviewed and 23 revised as necessary to reduce the time needed for route 24 alerting.
25 My queation to you is as follows: Can you tell Y
l l
24901515 8068
.guewalsh R
q )- I me the' time frame.that you believe LERO should reduce the 2 time -required for backup route alerting?
3 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Relevance.
4 JUDGE FRYE: No. Overruled. It's clearly in 5 the testimony here.
6 WITNESS KELLER: Because of the rating in the 7 exercise report, this is a suggestion.
8 JUDGE FRYE: We understand it's a suggestion.
9 But, what -- .
10 WITNESS KELLER: We would like to see them do it Il as soon as they can, but there is no requirement that they 12 do it now or later or whatever.
13 JUDGE FRYE: We understand that. What period of 7- .
14 time --
15 WITNESS KELLER: As soon as reasonable.
16 JUDGE FRYE: Had they accomplished it in 45 17 minutes, would you not have made your recommendation?-
18 WITNESS KELLER: That's basically correct.
19 JUDGE FRYE: If they had concluded it in an 20 hour, would you not have made your recommendation?
21 WITNESS KOWIESKI: 45 minutes, that's a 22 reasonable time frame.
23 JUDGE FRYE: 45 minutes is a reasonable time 24 frame?
25 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's correct.
- r0 t-w - y -- .,gy-- - - - - g.+r+ - - - . - + 9 #-*g- -;--g- y- y mq.,.-+,i. -
7 n.u -----wm----.y.- +-my, wg s v qp.
24901515. 8069 suewalsh f%
(_,) 1 WITNESS KELLER: In excess of that, as AN-1 2 says, you are supposed to find an area recommended for
-3 imp rovement .
4 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
5 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 6 Q Is it fair to say, gentlemen, that anything more 4 7 than 45 minutes would be a time which FEMA Region II would 8 think is too high with respect to adequate protection of the 9 public?
10 A (Witness Keller) No'.
11 (Witness Kowieski) No. Disagree.
12 Q You would disagree with that?
~g 13 .A Yes, sir.
~
14 Q But, you would agree, Mr. Kowieski, that the 45' 15 minutes is the objective that should be met by licensees in 16 providing and providing backup route alerting functions?
17 A For primary, primary system, yes.
18 Q No, not primary, backup.
19 A For backup, there is no requirement, sir.
20 Q I didn't say requirement. I said 45 minutes 21 would be the reasonable objective to be met in notification 22 of the public in the event of siren failure?
23 A That's correct.
24 Q That's correct?
25 A Yeah. .
O
24901515 8070
-cuewalsh h I Q Is there any time frame which in Region II's 2 opinion would be so excessively high that it would be 3 concluded that something more than an area recommended for 4 improvement should be noted?
5 A We don't have any specific time frame in mind, 6 sir.
7 Q So, even if during an exercise an applicant took 8 four hours using multiple drivers to perform backup route 9 alerting,_ FEMA Region II would still find that to be merely 10 an area recommended for improvement?
11 A That's correct.
12 (Witness Baldwin) It should be pointed out, y -s 13 however, that Mr. Wilkerson 's letter indicates . specifically Y%.
"3 ) Id that there is no "hard and fast" time requirement for the 15 redundant route alerting systems. Now, I read that to mean 16 that Mr. Wilkerson will listen to reason, and thst if it 17 gets beyond the 45 minutes there is going to be some 18 discussion about it.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s 1
24901616 8071 cuewalsh
() 1 Q Gentlemen, when you were referring to Mr.
2 Wilkerson's memorandum obviously I thought we had 3 established that that memorandum had been superseded by AN-4 1.
5 A (Witness Keller) I think it 's the same thing.
6 An-1 has a lot more information in it clearly, but it's --
7 with regard to the point that we are talking about here, Mr.
8 Wilkerson's letter and AN-1 are identical with regard to 9 this point, a rather narrow point.
10 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Keller, I think they might not 11 quite be -- be quite identical. They might not be quite 12 identical unless I'm reading from the wrong page in AN-1,
~. 13 I'm reading specifically from Page I-4. It says: There is Q 14 no - hard ' and fas t time requirement for completing the backup 15 route alerting process, however, 45 minutes is a suggested 16 objective for completing the process. -
17 That seems quite congruent with what you have 18 been telling us, but I think the 45 minutes isn't actually 19 mentioned directly in that connection in Mr. Wilkerson's 20 memo; is that not right?
21 WITNESS KELLER: I'm sorry, sir. If you --
22 WITNESS KOWIESKI: You are correct, sir.
23 WITNESS KELLER: -- go to Page I-6, the last 24 bullet: Failure to complete the backup route alerting in 25 accordance with the time frames established should be cited l l
f7 24901616 8072 guewalsh n
%) I as an area recommended for improvement.
2 JUDGE SHON: Oh, yes. Sure.
3 WITNESS KELLER: That's what I meant in terms of 4 the issue that we are debating here whether it 's an area 5 recommended for improvement, whether it's an area requiring 6 corrective action, whether it's a deficiency, that AN-1 and 7 the Wilkerson letter are identical in that regard.
8 JUDGE SHON: Oh, yes. I see that --
9 WITNESS KELLER: And, that's what I meant. And, 10 I'm sorry if I --
11 I misunderstood what you were JUDGE SHON:
12 driving at.
ys 13 WITNESS KELLER: I'm sorry.
Id BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 15 Q Gentlemen, I would very much like to try to wrap 16 this up, and I'm going to talk about AN-1 which is FEMA 17 Exhibit 4, because we have established that that has 18 superseded Mr. Wilkerson's memorandum. And, if you would 19 look at AN-1 where Judge Shon was just referring you to, 20 Page I-5, where there is a heading " Backup Route Alerting,"
21 and it states that if backup rcute alert and notification 22 system procedures are demonstrated during the exercises, the 23 evaluators should be aware of the time required -- the 24 emphasis is on required in my question -- for off-site 25 authorities to complete the entire backup route alerting n
b tq
24901616 8073 cuewalsh f, ; I process .
2 Do you see that statement?
3 A (Witness Keller) Yes, I do. l 4 Q Is it still your testimony that there is no 45 5 minutes time requirement to complete route alert functions, 6 backup functions?
I j 7 A That's correc t.
8 Q Would you explain to me the use of the word 9 " required" in AN-l?
10 A Sloppy wording.
Il Q That's a convenient explanation, Mr. Keller. Do 12 you have anything else?
O 14 (Witness Baldwin) I would submit that if there 15 is a time specified in the plan for backup route alerting to 16 be done in, that that would be a statement on thd part of 17 the plan, the planners, that they would adhere to that.
18 Q Is it your position, Dr. Baldwin, that if the 19 plan -- that if a plan contains a time requirement and that 20 time requirement was not met in an exercise that could 21 constitute something more than an area recommended for 22 improvement?
23 A (Witness Kowieski) If plan states that route 24 alerting would be used as the primary notification system, 25 then obviously we would grade this.
.VO
24901616 8074 i guewalsh !
I Mr. Kowieski, all of my questions are talking h Q 2 about route . alerting as a backup function.
3 A (Witness Keller) Page I-6, or Roman I-6, the 4 same.section that I referred Judge Shon to is the policy 5 statement in AN-1 on how to evaluate failure to comply in 6 accordance 'with the time ~ frames established by the 7 responding organizations. That's the policy statement from 8 FEMA Headquarters the way I read it.
9 Now, Mr. Keller, the LILCO plan does not Q
to establish any time frame for completing backup route Il alerting; is that correct?-
12' A That'is correct.
13 .(Witness Baldwin) ,
I want the record to be 14 complete _on my position. I didn't have Page I-6 at this 15 point, and .I have now had my memory refreshed here.
16 And if they don't meet the time specified in the 17 plan, route alerting in accordance with the ' time frames 18 established by the responding organizations should be cited 19 as an area recommended for improvement. That is FEMA's 20 policy, and that would be cited' as an area recommended for 21 improvement .
22 Q I understand. I'm not quite sure why you are 23 telling me that, Dr. Baldwin. But, I understand that's what 24 it says.
25 A (Witness Kowieski) Well, I thought you asked
~
l
l
.24901616 8075 cuewalsh s
( J- I this question.
2 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, we have been going 3 approximately since 2 o' clock except for the brief 4 disturbance over the fire alarm. If we are going to go 5 until 5, can we take just about a five minutes recess?
6
- JUDGE FRYE: Let's do that. Is this a good 7 place to -- have you finished up with this point?
8 MR. MILLER: I guess that's fine, Judge Frye. I 9 will -- let me look. I think I have a few other questions, 10 but I will look during the break.
11 JUDGE FRYE: All right. We will take a five 12 minute break.
fw 13 (Whereupon, a recess is.taken at 3:41 p.m., to
!U 14 reconvene at 3:49 p.m., this same day.)
15 JUDGE FRYE: Shall we resume?
~
16 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 17 Q I think I just have a few questions, gentlemen, 18 to wrap this up. Mr. Kowieski, if you look at Exhibit 104 19 which is the Wilkerson memorandum, at the very end of that 20 memorandum it says -- this is Mr. Wilkerson writing to you 21 there - "I hope that this responds to your concerns."
22 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes, I see that.
23 Q Is it fair to say that your concerns were as we 24 have previously discussed, the fact that the failure to meet 25 the 45 minute time frame should have been at least an ARCA O
,, r-y . - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,rm.-- m - -
1 24901616 8076' cuewalsh c:t- l I
() and perhaps even a deficiency?
2 A If I understood your question that the concern 3 - that I raised with Mr. Wilkerson or Margaret Lawless, this 4 memorandum addressed my concerns --
5 I'm just asking, are those your concerns as I Q
6 just described? Those are the concerns being referred to?
7 A Issues or concerns, or issues that we discussed 8 in our telephone conversation, yes.
9 And, those concerns were that it should have Q
10 been rated as at least an ARCA and perhaps a deficiency?
11 Is that a fair characterization?
12 A That's fair characterization, yes.
-- 13 Q Mr. Kowieski, were all three,of you gentlemen-
'~" Id involved in this phone conversation with Mr. Wilkerson or 15 just Mr. Kowieski?
16 A (Witness Keller) I was not4, -
17 (Witness Baldwin) I was.
18 And, was it just Mr. Wilkerson on the other end Q
19 of the phone line?
20 MS. McCLESKEY : Objection. I object to 21 continuing the line of questions along this line. I don't 22 see --
23 JUDGE FRYE: Yeah.
24 MS. McCLESKEY: -- how an ARFI can possibly 25 reveal a fundamental flaw in a plan. And, I don't know b
.L)
l 24901616 8077 cuewalsh l
- ( ,) I where we are going but we have been going there for two 1
2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. '
3 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, let me respond. Number 4 one, our whole point is that this should not have been an 5 ' area recommended for improvement. It should have been at 6 least an ARCA and perhaps a deficiency. That's what this 7 questioning has been about.
8 I am about at the end of this. But, what I want 9 to explore with these witnesses may only be this one 10 question, depending on their answer, is who was in that 11 conversation and who at FD!A Headquarters made the decision 12 to make this only an area recommended for improvement.
And, then what I want to know is if these O
13 -
14 witnesses know anything about the expertise and what the 15 person at Headquarters did to make that determination.
16 JUDGE FRYE: So what? You know, I'm'at --
17 MS. McCLESKEY: Exactly.
, 18 JUDGE FRYE: -- a loss to know how that helps us 19 in writing a decision and in determining whether there is a 20 fundamental flaw in the plan, because FEMA changed their 21 policy. FEMA may have been wrong in changing their policy 22 and maybe they even did it because somebody down there 23 said: Gee, I want to help Shoreham. So, I'm going to 24 change the policy.
25 Assuming that's so, how does that bear on
("%
%.)
24901616' 8078 cuewalsh p,.
( _ ,/ 1 whether there is a fundamental flaw in the plan?
2 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, I assume t. hat if I 3
could make the sort of demonstration that you just d
suggested, I could make the demonstration that someone at 5 FEMA Headquarters wanted to help Shoreham, that that would 6 impact this Board in its writing of a decision and the Board 7 would take that into account in reaching a decision 8 regarding Contention 34.
9 JUDGE FRYE: We have to decide whether there are 10 fundamental flaws in the plan. It's clearly established and II these witnesses have testified that they cannot -- that 12 LILCO or LERO cannot perform backup route alerting in 45 t p 13 minutes.
14 Now, FEMA has -- it's also clearly established 15 that FEMA has changed its policy with regard to whether that 16 is a requirement. And they now take a position that it's 17 not a requirement. Now, you may convince us that it should 18 be a requirement and that, therefore, it's a fundamental 19 flaw in the plan.
20 But, what FEMA's motivation might have been in 21 changing their policy doesn 't seem to me to have a whole lot 22 of relevance to what we have to decide.
23 MR. CUMMING: I would support LILCO on the 24 objection. It's also not unique that issues arise out of 25 various Board hearings; and, in fact, in the alert J
i
' 24901616 8079 I
cuewalsh I notification area at the Shearon-Harris hearing there was a f ))
2 similar analogous situation. It just arrives from time to 3 time and also from individual exercises.
4 So, FEMA would support LILCO's objection.
5 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, we can end this. If I 6 understand what the Board is telling me is that the Board 7 does not find relevant the motivation --
8 JUDGE FRYE: Of FEMA.
9 MR. MILLER: That the Board does not find 10 relevant whatever motivation FEMA had or raised or caused to 11 make this. change, the 45 minute requirement to a 45 minute 12 reasonable objective, and if the Board does not find it 13 relevant to know FEMA's motivation because the Board is if-,)/
s 14 going to look at the issues and determine whether --
15 JUDGE FRYE: We have to make an independent 16 determination it seems to me of whether there are 17 fundamental flaws, and we understand your position that la route alerting should be -- backup route alerting should 19 take place within 45 minutes and the fact that it can 't is a 20 fundamental flaw.
21 MR. MILLER: Given that, Judge Frye, let's move 22 on to another issue.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Yeah.
24 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 25 Q Gentlemen, I want to go to your testimony on A
%-) .
24901616 8080 cuewalsh
, hllIl 1 Contention 40. It begins at Page 9 of your testimony.
2 JUDGE PARIS: Page 907 3 MR. MILLER: 9.
d JUDGE PARIS: 9.
5 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 6 Q Gentlemen, just to begin, is it fair to say that 7 with respect to Contention 40 that you have no basis for 8 disagreeing with the allegations made in that contention?
9 A (Witness Keller) I suspect it says fundamental 10 flaw. I think they all did. And, in that regard --
II (The witnesses are looking at a document.)
12 We have a standing objection to the use of 13 fundamental flaw. If we have to say we agree with it --
7-s) 4 R'" 14 JUDGE FRYE: We understand your position.
15 WITNESS KELLER: In terms of the various and 16 sundry objectives which are stated in the contention, we do 17 not agree that LILCO failed to satisfy the -- all of those 18 objectives.
19 I mean, our report says what our report says.
20 And, insofar as we said not met, or met, or partly met in 21 the report, the report says what it says. And, we'are not 22 going to change that in this testimony.
23 Now, we could go back and track them one at a 24 time here if you would like, but I don't think that is 25 necessary because the report is part of the record also.
l l
r
-. - =- - __ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
24901616 8081 cuewalsh
() 1 2
Clearly, our testimony states that because of the multiple assignments that our evaluators had in the exercise, we only 3 saw the set-up -- well, we didn't see the set-up even 4 b ecaus e you don ' t s et up traf fic guides . We do not set up 5 the cones and we do not block traffic during exercises, and, 6 in the LILCO plan, because of the legal authority issues, we 7 wouldn't have done that anyway.
8 But, we did net see the arrival at the assigned 9 location for most of the traffic guides. I mean, our 10 evaluators had as many as eight different locations to il evaluate for traffic guides.
12 He might be at one place and see one traffic
! _ 13 guide out of the eight arrive. And, it might be lucky that
# 14 he finished with that traffic guide and moved someplace 15 where he could see another one. But, we probably were not -
16 going to physically see the arrival of the traffic guides at 17 most of the locations.
18 So, what we had was based on interviews as an 19 exercise evaluation. My recollection is that the evaluator 20 out at the Riverhead staging area did not have a traffic 21 impediment and, therefore, his availability to evaluate 22 traffic guides was not delayed because of his evaluation of 23 a traffic impediment. So, in that regard, if you will look 24 at the third paragraph of our answer to the testimony, the 25 only place we have any reference to untimely dispatch of the r
0
l 24901616 8082 cuewalsh r7
) I traffic guides was out of Riverhead.
2 WITNESS KOWIESKI: No, no.
3 WITNESS KELLER: I'm sorry. Only for Riverhead d
staging area was there any reference to untimely dispatch of 5 traffic guides.
6 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's correct.
7 WITNESS KELLER: The other two, we would not see a the dispatch because they are doing other things.
9 WITNESS KOWIESKI: If'I may add, for Port 10 Jefferson, the staging area, we made a comment to the effect 11 that the traffic control point was set up in timely -- I'm 12 sorry, for Patchogue staging area, we made a statement that 13 traffic control points were established in timely manner.
"" Id And, our statement was based on interviews with traffic 15 guides.
16 We did not actually see traf fic guidd arriving 17 at their location, but when we -- our evaluator met the 18 traffic guides, when he interviewed traffic guides, he asked 19 them: At what time did you arrive in this location? And, 20 our evaluator felt that the arrival times given by the 21 traffic guides were reasonable and their arrival was timely.
22 JUDGE FRYE: I take it from all of that that you 23 do have a basis for differing with the contention --
2d WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, we do.
25 JUDGE FRYE: -- in certain instances?
24901616 8083 cuewalsh
([ l WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
2 WITNESS KELLER: And, we agree in certain 3 instances.
4 JUDGE FRYE: And you agree in certain instances?
5 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
6 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 7 Q I think, gentlemen -- I appreciate that, but I 8 think we may have to go through this a little bit more 9 piecemeal. Let me follow up, first of all, Mr. Kowieski, 10 with your comments.
11 With respect to the Port Jefferson dispatch of
(
12 traffic guides, that process was not actually observed by i
13 the FEMA evaluator, correc t?
14 A (Witness Kowieski). I'm sorry. I think I missed 15 part of the question.
16 Q- With respect to the Port Jefferson staging area 17 FEMA --
18 A Right.
19 Q -- did not actually observe the setting up of 20 the traffic control posts by traffic guides in the field; is 21 that correct?
(
22 A That's correct.
23 Q And, FEMA did not actually observe that -- well, 24 did FEMA actually observe the setting up of traffic control 25 posts for any of the staging areas?
O
- a l
I 24901616 8084 cuewalsh p),
1 A Well, could you define actually setting up the 2 cones and the barricades?
3 No. We know the cones and barricades weren't Q
4 set up.
5 A Okay.
6 The actual arrival times by traffic guides at Q
7 their assigned locations in the field at traffic control 8 posts, was that process actually observed by FEMA at any of 9 the -- for any of the three staging areas?
10 A I believe that time of arrivals of some of the II
. traffic guides at the Riverhead staging area were actually 12 observed.
(~~) 13 Q Mr. Kowieski, we are talking about the setting
~
i_
' "/ 14 up of the traffic control posts in the field. I'm not -
15 talking about the staging areas.
16 JUDGE FRYE: I think that's what he snswered.
17 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes.
18 JUDGE FRYE: That was his answer.
19 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's right.
20 JUDGE FRYE: They observed them arriving at 21 their posts.
l 22 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Right, from the Riverhead --
23 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 24 Q From Riverhead?
25 A Right.
,r)
[
1
24901616 8085 cuewalsh
() 1 Q From Patchogue and from Port Jefferson, FEMA did 2 not actually observe traffic guides arriving at their posts 3 in the fieldt is that correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Now, for the one staging area from which traf fic 6 guides were observed to arrive at their posts in the field, 7 and that is Riverhead, FEMA for that one staging area 8 identified a deficiency?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q Is it fair to say, Mr. Kowieski, that given the 11 rating classifications used by FEMA at the exercise, it was 12 definitionally impossible for FEMA to have identified a es 13 problem with respect to the arrival of traf fic guides at
( )
% .J 14 their post in the field from either the Patchogue or the 15 Port Jefferson staging areas?
16 A It was -- I don ' t understand your question.
17 Q Okay. Page 8 of the FEMA report, Mr. Kowieski, 18 maybe we should look at that. It provides the definition of 19 __
20 A (Witness Keller) Deficiencies.
21 Q -- deficiencies, ARCAs and areas recommended for 22 imp rovement . Is that right?
23 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's correc t.
24 Q And, on Page 8 of the FEMA report it states for 25 each of those areas that a problem must be demonstrated and l
/m i
t
24901616 8086 cuewalsh P'R 1 ,) I observed; is that correct?
2 A (Witnesc Keller) That's correct.
3 (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
4 Q So, if FEMA did not observe something by 5 definition it. could not be identified as- a problem at the 6 exercise; is that correct?
7 A (Witness Keller) No. We believe that 8 interviews are an adequate way to make observations. We 9 made an observation of an area requiring corrective action 10 at one of the other staging areas, my recollection is, and 11 we did not observe it. It was done through interviews.
12 That same prohibition is in the definition of e- 13 area requiring corrective action, and we already did it.
(' .
14 Q I can't recall, gentlemen, have you seen and 15 reviewed the County's testimony on Contention 40?
16 A I've seen some of the transcript. I~have not-17 seen -- I don't recall specifically reading that.-
18 Q Was it at Port Jefferson that you believe you 19 identified as an ARCA the arrival of traffic guides at their 20 posts in the field based upon interviews with those traffic 21 guides?
22 A Met at Port Jefferson, partly met at Patchogue.
23 (The witness is looking at a document.)
24 Q Patchogue or Port Jefferson, Mr. Keller?
25 A Patchogue, I believe.
l l
24901616 8087 cuewalsh f 1 Q And, was that ARCA because traffic guides 2 reached their posts in the field in an untimely manner?
3 A I would have to look it up.
4 (The witness is looking at a document.)
5 No. It was primarily due to the fact that they 6 had the wrong information to give to the evacuees, simulated 7 evacuees. They had wrong information to give to the 8 simulated evacuees.
9 (Witness Kowieski) Yeah, just only one of --
10 out of 14 traffic guides knew the location of their 11 reception center, and that's the reason why we gave --
12 assigned ARCA.
13 Q So, it had nothing to do with the fact of 14 whether they arrived or did not arrive in a timely fashion 15 at their posts?
~
16 A You are correct.
17 Q Now, with respect to Port Jefferson, there were 18 no problems identified by FEMA with respect to the arrival 19 of the traffic guides at their posts in the field?
20 A No. We stated in our post-exercise assessment 21 that timeliness of traffic control points setup was not 22 evaluated during the exercise, and we provided the reason.
23 Q And, that's because the FEMA evaluator was 24 delayed for two and a half hours at the fuel truck 25 impediment site?
9
i 24901616 8088 cuewalsh IIT
( ,) 1 A Yes. He was waiting for road crew at simulated )
2 impediment evacuation, that's correct.
3 Were the traffic guides from the Port Jefferson Q
{
4 i staging area at any time interviewed by FEMA with respect to j 5
the timeliness of their arrival at their traffic control 6 posts? I 7 A We have to verify.
8 (The witnesses are locking through ~ documents.)
9 (Witness Keller) Would you clarify again for 10 me, I'm sorry, which staging area we are talking about?
Il Q Port Jefferson.
12 A Port Jefferson.
r3 13 (The witnesses are looking through documents.)
- ~ 14 Q It's my understanding, gentlemen, that the 15 traffic guides from Port Jefferson were not observed by FEMA 16 and in addition FEMA never interviewed those traffic guides 17 to determine whether they had arrived at their posts in the 18 field in a timely fashion.
19 I want to know if I'm correct in that regard.
20 A I don't think so, if.it's possible.
21 (Witness Baldwin) I think that on Page 57 of 22 the report it speaks for itself. There is no indication 23 there that they were interviewed with regard to their 24 dispatch.
25 Q Are you saying, Dr. Baldwin, that if they would
.1 l
1 24901616 8089 I cuewalsh
.f- s
( ,) I have been interviewed the report would have said so?
4 2 A, (Witness Keller) That's a fair assessment.
3 (Witness Baldwin) Most likely, yes. .
4 So, is it fair to say, gentlemen, that with Q
5 respect to the Port Jefferson traffic guides even if the 4
6 arrival of those traffic guides would have been untimely 7 FEMA had no way of knowing that?
8 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
9 .Q And, I gather, Mr. Kowieski, that if that is the 10 case under the definitions set forth on Page 8 of the FEMA Il report, FEMA could not have identified as either a 12 deficiency, an ARCA or an area recommended for improvement -
e- 13 anything regarding or involving the mobilization and 14 dispatch of traffic guides from Port Jefferson; is that is correct?
16 A Not the dispatch, the actual arrival ~of the 17 traffic guides at their location, field location; that's 18 correct.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7 ap .*
~\ i s'
[ 4j [/,k< g i ,
- i. , l
'2'4901717 8090 marysimo'ns 't - .
l~ Now, gentlemen, during-the exercise the traffic-
-Q
,\ ,/ ,
- s. ,
, 2 guides from the Riverhead Staging Area where a deficiency.
f
. c. . .
3 was identified arrived 'at their posts between 11:50 and s
4 12:10, correct?' I'm looking at page 74 of the FEMA' report.
k b q-
'3 A ~(Witness Baldwin)
ThatI's correct. .It says in
- /} ' / F3 the report:on.page 74,.according}to the traffic log dispatch y ,
7 guide, the'f.raffic' guides were given their assignments at ,
8 10:53 and 11:01 and they did not' arrive at their TCP 9
j; assignments. until,11:50 and 12:10 which is about two, hours f[ % 10 after'the general emergency ECL route alert.
Il Q' Now, gentle' men,nX want.to show you Suffolk 12 County's testimony on C'ontention 40, ' and particularly i b'
l 13 Attachment 11 to.that-testimony. Attachment 11,-as the i: ,
!" Id Board may recalA. was a compilationLof the dispatch and' 15 arrival times,of the traffic guides from the Port Jefferson i
16 Staging Area during the exercise,< and that cornpilation was 17 based upon records and documents provided to the governments
[ 18 in discovery by LILCO.-
19 Gentlemen, assume with me that the times set l_ 20 forth in Attachment 11 to the County's' testimony on' 21 Contention 40 are correct. If that assumption is made, is -
'22 it a . fair statement to say that had such information been
[ 23 known by FEMA that FEMA would have identified the arrival of E
i 24 traffic guides at their post in the field as an additional 25 deficiency during the February 13th Shoreham exercise?
l -
I 1 24901717 8091 marysimons
/m
( j' 1 A (Witness Keller) I don't know whether we would 2 have said an additional deficiency. There is a deficiency 3 with regard to the dispatch of traffic guides currently in 4 the report.
! 5 We may very well, and I don't know what we would 6 have done to tell you the truth, but we may very well have 7 Said deficiency, traffic guides were slow in being 8 dispatched and arriving at their place. Example, Port 9 Jefferson, Patchogue, Riverhead. Or we may have said three 10 deficiencies. But my inclination is, based on the way we 11 have worked in the past, tnat we would have said one 12 deficiency, and as a basis for the one deficiency showed the
, 13 three different examples. That's my guess at this, point in
'~
14 time.
15 Q How do you decide, gentlenen, whether you should 16 identify a problem as one deficiency, two deficidncies, 17 three deficiencies and so forth?
18 A Partly in what we think is going to be the means 19 of correcting the deficiency. If you have what appear to be 20 clumped deficiencies, which could be either grouped as one 21 deficiency or spread as several deficiencies, if the fix, 22 what-we think is the reasonable fix is the same fix, that's 23 one deficiency shown in several examples.
24 If the fix, whatever you have to do to fix it is 25 different, then that probably would be multiple 9
24901717 8092 marysimons P -
- d . I deficiencles.
2 Q Now, Mr. Keller, and I don't want to spend a lot 3 of time pursuing this, but with respect, for example, _to the d
route alert drivers. There you had essentially the same 5 proble.m at three different staging areas and there you have 6 the same recommended fix, but ycu identified three separate 7 areas recommended for improvement that you would have 8 otherwise have identified as three ARCAs or deficiencies.
9 A (Witness Baldwin) Let me try to answer this.
10 In that case we have an indication that the time to complete 11 those routes was consistently beyond the time, beyond the 45 12 minutes that we were talking about earlier and went tnrough
~~ 13 before, and that was checked by our evaluators as partly met
d 14 in two cases and not met in one. So we had consistent
~
15 information.
16 If we were to take this case where wd had 17 consistent information coming out of each of these staging 18 areas and we had an observation, I believe the answer to 19 your question is yes, we would have had separate 20 deficiencies in each one of these staging areas.
21 The point Mr. Keller is trying to bring out is 22 that the fix with respect to each would be the same because 23 we would track the same language in each staging area.
24 .
Q Dr. Baldwin, let me just follow up, and I think 25 that we've reached an agreement on this one.
-. ~. . - .
k 24901717 8093 marysimons
( ) 1 If FEMA would have had the data set forth in 2 Attachment 11 to the County'c Contention 40 testimony, and 3 assuming that that data is indeed correct, EEMA would have ,
4 identified an additional deficiency that wculd have related 5 to the timeliness-of the. arrival of traffic guides at their 6 post in the field during the exercise. Is that a fair 7 characterization?
3 Let me'get Dr. Baldwin's answer.
9 A A fair characterization -- this, whatever I'm 10 looking at here, whatever piece, it's titled " Port Jefferson 13 Staging Area." So I don't know from tais of you've done a 12 similar compilation with respect to Patchogue, but yes, this 13 would substantiate in Port Jefferson ---
'm]
14 Q A deficiency, correct? -
15 A Correc t .
16 A (Witness howieski) We would have noted it in 17 some way, in one fashion or another in the post-exercise 18 assessment.
.19 If you ask me for an actual illustration of this 20 particular problem, at this point I don't know how, okay, 21 but definitely this would have been noted in the report.
22 (Pause.)
23 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, I might just ncte for 3
24 the record that this is extremely important testimony, and 25 it demonstrates that the relationship of the parties of what i
-.,.y - - . , . _
,. , , , - ,~.,,m-,, -
24901717 GC94 marysimons
- f,-L
. ( ,) 1 may be the normal situation is not exactly the alignment 2 here. <
3 Mr. Miller has brought out something which d
counsel doesn't wish to testify for FENA, but in fact the 5
way deficiencies are ultimately determined is that the 6
evaluators and the technical team furnish to the RAC Chair 7
advice on whether they think there should be a deficiency, 8 anc the P.AC Chair, unless there is specific guidance from 9
Headquarters, ultimately is the person who has to make the 10 decision as to what he is going to recommend to Headquarters M on whether or not'there is a deficiency.
12 JUDGE FRYE: Do you agree with that, Mr.
,_, 13 Kowieski?
("~" )
14 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's a-fair 15 characterization.
16 I have another point, and maybe later on if you 17 wish ---
18 JUDGE FRYE: Let's save it for later on at this 19 point.
20 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Okay.
21 BY MR. MILLER:
22 Q Gentlemen, on page 9 of the testimony you state 23 that Field Objective 6 ---
24 A (Witness Baldwin) What page?
25 Q Page 9. --- Field Objective 6 was partly met 7"b k.a .
T 24901717 8095 marysimons
( )' I for the Patchogue and Riverhead Staging Areas. Do you see 2 that? It's the fourth paragraph down the page.
3 Are you with me, gentlemen?
4 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
5 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
6 Q Is if fair to say that Field Objective 6 was 7 only partly met for Patchogue because of the fact that only 8 onc of the 14 traffic guides knew about the location of the 9 reception center?
10 A (Witness Keller) That's a fair 11 , charac teriza tion. They had the wrong information, or most I
12 of them had the wrong information.
13 Q And I take it that also part of that was because O- ~#
14 one traffic guide would have advised the public to have gone is to ---
16 A That's wrong information. I clumped-it all in 17 one piece.
18 Q Let me finish my question.
i9 At least one traffic guide would have advised s
20 the public to have gone to the emergency worker 21 - decontamination facility, correc t?
22 A That's another example of wrong information; 23 that 's correct.
24 MR. MILLER: Now I'm handing you what we'll mark 25 as Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 106, a two-page document b
_ w , , , , - . - , - ,- - -
24901717 8096 marysimons
'n
() I which purports to be the critique form that was prepared 2
with respect to Field ' Objective 6 at the Patchogue Staging 3
Area.
4 (The document was placed by Counsel Lanpher 5
before the witnesses. )
6 (The document referred to was 7
, marked Suffolk County Exercise 8
Exhibit No. 106 for 9
identification.)
10 BY MR. MILLER:
II Q Now, Mr. Kowieski, is this in fact the 12 evaluation critique form for Patchogue Field 6?
13 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
14 Q And this form references the discussion that Mr.
15 Keller and I just had regarding the misinformation or lack 16 of information available to the traffic guides from the 17 Patchogue Staging Area; is that correct?
!8 A (Witness Kowieski) I'm reading. Just allow me 19 a minute.
20 (Pause.)
21 You 're correct.
22 Q And as reflected on the first page of Exhibit 23 106, the evaluator for this field objective rated the 24 objective as having been partly met, but if you would look 25 at the second page of the exhibit, please.
-m
- D l
24901717 8097
-mnrysimons
. ig) 1 A Yes.
2 Q There is a statement made by the evaluator in 3 the left column that says " Traffic guides do not have 4 complete or correct information on the appropriate 5 destination for evacuees, i.e., reception center."
6 In the case of TCP No. 67 this is a near 7 deficiency because the general public would have been 8 directed to the EWDF at Brentwood. Do you see that 9 statement?-
10 A Yes, I do.
11 Q Can you tell me what - the evaluator meant when he 12 said that this misinformation by traffic control post 67 was
, g-s 13 a near deficiency?
r~ ~') -
~14 A It was his opinion.
15 Q He was referring to deficiency as used by FEMA 16 to indicate the most severe kind of problem; is 6 hat 17 correct?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q Did you consider making this lack of information 20 and misinformation by traffic guides out of Patchogue a 21 deficiency, Mr. Kowieski?
22 A Would you please' restate the question.
23 Q Did you consider whether or not you should have 24 made the misinformation and lack of information displayed by 25 traffic guides from the Patchogue Staging Area a deficiency?
O v .
24901717 8098 merysimons M I A
() I did not.
2 Were you aware of this evaluator's comment that Q
3 he believed this problem to constitute a near deficiency?
4 A But we have ---
5 Were you aware of that, Mr. Kowieski?
Q 6 A A near deficiency? No, we don't have a----
7 Were you aware of the fact that the evaluator Q
8 had even made this comment prior to just now?
9 A At the time when the report was prepared? No.
10 First of all, we don't have a term of "near deficiency."
11 JUDGE FRYE: We understand that.
12 BY MR. MILLER:
13 Q I'm looking at page 10 of your testimony now, 14 gentlemen. Is it fair to say that the exercise demonstrated 15 that LILCO is unable to mobilize and dispatch its traffic 16 guides in a way which provides assistance to the public at 17 the outset of an EPZ evacuation?
18 A (Witness Keller) I don't understand outset of 19 an EPZ evacuation.
20 0 Well, on the day of the exercise an evacuation I
21 was recommended at about 10:24; is that correct?
.l 1 22 A You're saying at the outset of a recommended 23 evacuation?
24 Q Yes.
25 A I would say that what we observed on the day of D-
-24901717 8099 mOrysimons
~
(_ ~)
- 7. I the exercise was that some of the traffic guides were not in 2 place at the time that the plan considers, that is one hour 3 after the evacuation recommendation starts, that some of 4 these guys were not in place at that time; that's correct.
5 Q Mr. Keller, No . 1, isn't it correct that most 6 traffic guides were not in place within one hour of the time 7 that an evacuation was recommended during the exercise?
8 A We don't have all the data. Your exhibit that 9 you just showed us briefly appears to be a great deal more 10 data then we had to evaluate. I have not tabulated it, but 11 looking at it I would say it looks like a majority were not 12 in place.
13 Q Within one hour after the evacuation was
(~~)g w
14 recommended?
15 A That is correct.
16 Q Now my question was a little different. Isn't 17 it fair to say that under the LILCO plan LERO is unable to 18 mobilize and dispatch these traffic guides to their posts in 19 the field at the outset of the evacuation recommendation?
20 A The way I just heard your question, unless I 21 misheard it, is a fairly global one. It seems to imply all 22 scenarios and all time lines. I could give you a scenario 23 where the alert went down and it was 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> or 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or 24 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> until an evacuation order, and than I would say 25 that we have no means to judge that.
O
24901717 8100
.marysimons yg
(_) 1 Q Mr. Keller, let me stop you because I think we -
2 .are a little off track here.
3 Let me try it-.this way. Isn't it correct that d
under the LILCO plan' traffic guides are not even dispatched 5 to their posts in the field until an evacuation order is
- 6 issued by LERO?
4 7 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection to the question.
8 That's clearly a planning issue that was resolved in the 9 . previous litigation. .
10 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled.
Il WITNESS KELLER: That is my understanding of the 12 plan; that is correct.
13 BY MR. MILLER:
Id Q So therefore, Mr. Keller, by definition you 15 could not under LILCO's plan have traffic guides in place at 16 their post in the field at the outset of the evaduation 17 process; isn't that correct?
i 18 A (Witness Keller) At the outset of the 19 evacuation recommendation; that's correct.
20 Q Look at page 11 of your testimony, gentlemen, 21 and this is Contention 40B.
22 (Witnesses comply.)
- 23 In the last paragraph you state that "With the 2d exception of the traffic guides from Riverhead, FEMA has no 25 knowledge as to the specific times that the traffic guides l
l
24901717 8101 marysimons
() 1 arrived at their assigned posts."
2 A I believe that we have just been through all 3 that.
4 Q I haven't asked a question, Mr. Keller.
5 A Sorry.
6 .Q And then the next sentence, Mr. Keller, where 7 it's stated " FEMA also has no specific knowledge of the 8 times at which dispatch of the traffic guides were completed 9 at the various staging areas."
10 Do you see that statement?
L 11 A Yes, sir.
l 12 Q That last sentence applies with respect to all
, fS 13 three staging areas; is that right?
1 Q 14 A At the various staging areas means all three 15 staging areas; that's correct.
16 Q Is the reason why FEMA does not have'such 17 knowledge is because FEMA did not choose to evaluate the 18 times that traffic guides were dispatched from the staging 19 areas?
20 A We selected a group -- I don't understand. We 21 are trying to explain what we did, and then you can draw 22 your own conclusion because I don't know what you mean.
23 Q Why don't you just tell me why FEMA does not 24 have information available to it in this regard.
25 A That's what I was trying to say. The FEMA 9
i 4
24901717 8102 marysimons R I
-s evaluation depends upon information that we have gathered
^'
2 either by direct observation or through interview during the 3 exercise. We do not collect, for example, the kinds of d
information that were admitted to by LILCO in its set of 5 admissions in discovery. We don 't base our evaluation on 6 that.
7 We chose to evaluate a sample of traffic guides 8 from each staging area. Two of our evaluators for two of 9 the staging areas had other field assignments. They were in 10 the field when the traffic guide portion started. So they 11 didn't see any of that at all.
12 The other evaluator at Riverhead could have seen 13 some of the dispatch, but he couldn't see it all. While he id is out in the field doing the ones he's evaluating, other 15 traffic guides are being dispatched to other locations.
16 So we didn't have anybody to watch it.
17 Q So, Mr. Keller, I'm back I think to my initial 18 question. It's a result of the way FEMA applied its 19 resources during the exercise; is that correct?
20 A Yes, that's right.
21 A (Witness Baldwin) It 's also with respect to the 22 way the evaluators collect their information and keep their 23 time logs. Most evaluators that I know and work with keep 24 time logs of the time that they see things. They could have 25 asked for information, what time did you arrive, but that's
g 'i
~
24901717 '8103 marysimons
- (-
1 .not the way in which.mr evaluator is really trained and 2 traditionally. collects information.
3 And with . respect to this specific case at 4 Riverhead, we had an eva*uator who did not have to cover an 5 impediment problem and thereby was freed up to arrive at at 4 :6 least one TCP to watch what time they arrived.
7 With respect to Patchogue and Port Jefferson, L
8 those evaluators had a prior commitment- to observe an l 9 ' impediment problem. So they didn't-have the opportunity to 10 arrive at a TCP in sufficient time to write down the time at i 11 which they say them arrive.
t l- 12 Q I want to come back to that later, gentlemen, I
~
[ 13 think in connection with Contention 21E and it may be a l
14 little bit clearer there.
15 Let me just follow up to what I was just 16 questioning you about. Staging Area Objective 9,.which'is
! 17 discussed on pages 11, 12 and 13, that objective was for I-4 18 LERO to demonstrate the ability. to dispatch and direct 19 emergency workers in the fieldr is that correct?
i 20 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
, 21 I
22 24 25 i
I~
O .
4 4
i
,,.% ..c.. . _ _ , ._ . , . . - - . , . _ . . . _ . _ . . , - . , _ , _ _ , , . . , , . _ , , , , . . . . . , . . , , , , , _ , , , , , _ _ _ . - . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - , - , , . . _ _ , . . . - - -
24901818 8104 joewalsh I
~" I
- Q Now, for Port Jefferson staging area, that 2
objective was found to have been met, is that correct?
3 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
d Q Patchogue was found to be partly met, is that 5
correct?
6 A That is correct.
7 Q But it was really only partly met because of 8 problems experienced with the bus drivers, is that correct?
9 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
I'0 I have a hard time understanding, gentlemen, how Q
II FEMA could have reached conclusions regarding staging area 12 objective 9, demonstrate the ability to dispatch and direct 13 emergency workers in the field, given the fact that FEMA did 14 not specifically observe the timeliness of the dispatching 15 of the traffic guides and other emergency personnel from the 16 staging areas?
17 A (Witness Kowieski) I think FEMA observed the 18 dispatch of traffic guides. FEMA did not take specific note 19 of time, at what time those traffic guides were dispatched.
20 I think we made a note to this effect, abou t 21 briefing and dispatch of traffic guides at Port Jefferson 22 staging area.
23 Q Let's look, for example, on Page 12 of your 24 testimony. There you essentially had quoted from the report 25 at Page 56 regarding staging area objective 9 for Port g- .
l L
24901818 8105 j oewalsh
(~]
v 1 Jefferson, is that right?
2 -
A That is right.
3 Q And it is stated that the dispatch and direction 4 of field workers in Port Jefferson was well organized, do 5 you see that statement?
6 A Yes, I do.
7 Q It is possible is it not, that the dispatch of 8 personnel including traffic guides, could have been well 9 organized, and yet not have been expeditious during the 10 exercise, is that true?
^
11 A (Witness Keller) True.
12 Q And if personnel, including traffic guides, had 13 not been timely and expeditiously dispatched, then I assume
' (~)
.A/ 14 Staging Area Objective 9 would not have been ruled as having 15 been met or satisfied, is that correct?
16 A (Witness Kowieski) Let me onc e more --
17 Q Can you just answer that question?
i 18 A Yes, sir, that is a reasonable assumption on 19 your part. .
20 Q So you agree wita my -- the answer is, yes, is 21 that right?
22 A That is correct.
23 Q Given that fact, Mr. Kowieski, given your last 24 answer, can you explain to me how FEMA could have ruled 25 Staging Area Objective 9 as having been met for Port
/
b'
24901818 8106 j oewalsh 7
<~+ 1 Jefferson when it did not have knowledge available to it of b 2 the times at which the traffic guides were dispatched from 3 that staging area?
d A We judge overall performance of the staging 5 area. If you are asking me whether we actually time every 6 Single emergency worker that was dispatched from the staging 7 area to the field, the answer is, no.
8 The overall way emergency workers, field 9
workers, were briefed and dispatched, we already stated. We 10 stated in the post exercise assessment, and now in 31 testimony. It was well organized. The field workers were 12 briefed and dispatched, properly dispatched.
13 To be specific, the report states dispatch and lA ,
(_) 14 direction of field workers from the Port Jefferson staging 15 area was well organized, and that is a summation, okay, of 16 our evaluation.
17 So, essentially, Mr. Kowieski, you relied upon Q
la the judgment and opinion of the evaluator at the staging 19 area?
20 A Absolutely. As we always do, and if there is 21 any concern on my part, then I would question keenly their 22 evaluator, and then if necessary, I would adjust his or her 23 evaluation and it happened. Our testimony is clear it 24 happened on numerous occasions.
25 Q Is it fair to say, Mr. Kowieski, that with
3 24901818 8107 j oewalsh j- 1 respect to the dispatching and direction of emergency
\
2 personnel in the field, staging area objective 9, there were 3 no hard and fast criteria applied by FEMA at the exercise to 4 reach determinations in judgment?
5 A We did not apply time frame criteria.
6 Q And criteria?
7 A Professional judgment. Emergency field workers 8 were briefed. The way they were dispatched.
9 Q I understand that, Mr. Kowieski. That is 10 judgment and opinion, but I am talking about fixed, pre-II determined criteria to be used by those evaluators in 12 reaching their judgments. Is there such criteria?
13 A If you go to the p.lan and procedures, that is (D
(_s' 14 our criteria, and NUREG 0654.
15 Q NUREG 0654 and the LILCO plan and procedures?
16 A That is correct.
17 Q Which would require the evaluator to employ 18 their judgment as to whether that plan had been met or not 19 met, is that correct?
20 A That is correct.
21 Q So, is there any hard and fast criteria other 22 than NUREG 0654?
23 A No, sir.
24 Q And is that also true with respect to all FEMA 25 evaluators at all positions on the day of the exercise?
o
,_,s j
24901818 8108 joewalsh l
I A (Witness Keller) No.
2 Could you tell me those evaluators for which Q
3 that would not be true?
d A There is a fif teen minute requirement based on 5
FEMA policy for the simulated sounding of the notification 6 message which we discussed --
7 Q That is set forth in NUREG 0654 is it not, Mr.
8 Keller?
9 A The fifteen minutes.
10 Part of Appendix 3.
Q 11 A In that regard, it is in 0654, that is right.
12 So, just tell me which, if any evaluators, were Q
13 subject to any criteria for reaching their judgments and
( \
14 determinations on the day of the exercise, other than 15 criteria specified in the guidance and NUREG 0654?
16 A (Witness Kowieski) Their knowledge of the 17 subject area, prior experience.
18 Q Mr. Kowieski, we understand that the evaluators 19 use their judgment, they use .their professional opinions, 20 and they may draw upon their experience.
21 We also understand that evaluators employed by 22 FEMA at the Shoreham exercise were directed to reply upon 23 the guidance of NUREG 0654, okay?
24 A And the plan and procedures.
25 Q And the LILCO plan and procedures. You are with r~'
24901818 8109 j oewalsh
(~'q 1 me, right?
kJ 2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Now,.my question is: Would any evaluators, 4 given other hard and fast criteria --
5 A Let us caucus for a minute, okay?
6 (Panel discussion.)
7 A (Witness Keller) We collectively can't think of 8 one at this point in time. We won't guarantee there aren't 9 any, but we collectively can 't think of one.
10 Q Do you have available to you, gentlemen, the 11 critique form for staging area objective 9 for Patchogue?
12 Mr. Keller, do you have that in front of you?
13 A It fell, it is here. ,
O Is it fair to say that that form reflects some
\s / 14 Q 15 problems with the time required to brief and equip field 16 personnel with respect to dosimetry, bad recommended that 17 dosimetry processing time be reduced?
18 A Yes, that is correct.
19 Q Can you tell me why it is that those comments 20 are not reflected in the FEMA Report?
21 A (Witness Baldwin) Okay. The reason for this is 22 that SA 9 is one part of this issue. The other part is 23 defined in Field 9, which was rated there with the dispatch
-24 of those bus drivers as a not-met, and handled as a 25 deficiency with the deployment of those bus drivers.
n
(-)
24901818 8110 joewalsh 7
L'~N 1 It was originally rated as a deficiency for b) 2 those bus drivers based on field observation, which was 3 substantiated in this by Mr. Reynolds, who was the team leader, who was at the staging area.
5 Dr. Baldwin, this may have gotten a little Q
6 confused. Staging Area Objective 9, the critique form of 7 which you are looking at, reflects some problems with 8 dosimetry, briefing time, and processing. We have 9
established that.
10 A Yes.
II Q We have established that those comments do not 12 appear in the FEMA Report, at least in connection with 13 Staging Area Objective 9, is that true? That objective is k> Id discussed on Page 62 of the report.
15 A It says in the middle of the second full 16 paragraph, it is talking about the bus dispatcher and the 17 traffic guide closely overseeing the dispatch of their 18 people. Emergency workers were briefed, et cetera.
19 And we have a sentence here that begins -- let 20 me count lines -- on the 8th line down, over toward the end 21 of the line, it says: However, the first bus drivers were 22 not dispatched until approximately 10:45, over two hours 23 after 8:32 declaration of the site area emergency.
24 This is not according to the time table for pre-25 staging bus drivers stated in OPIP 3.6.4. It is recommended U
u
24901818 8111 j oewalsh 1 that bus drivers should be trained in the importance of
(~~
v 2 promptly dispatching bus drivers.
3 A (Witness Keller) And look at Recommendation 1 4 under Deficiency, where it states: In addition, an area 5 should be established for the distribution of dosimetry to 6 reduce bus driver processing time.
7 I believe that is the genesis -- it is the same 8 issue.
9 A (Witness Baldwin) It is the same issue, and the to language tracks what is on Mr. Reynold's form here on Page ll 2, which he has rated area requiring corrective action, and 12 he states the dispatching of bus drivers did not start until 13 over two hours after the receipt of the site area emergency O)
(- 14 declaration.
15 That is here. He has the language here. I need 16 to speak up.
17 Q Let me just wrap this up if I can. Dr. Baldwin, 18 the statements, the dosimetry problems that I directed your 19 atten', ion to on the evaluation form for Staging Area 20 objective 9, are you believe the same dosimetry problems 21 referenced in Recommendation 1 on Page 62 of the FEMA 22 Report, is that your testimony?
23 A (Witness Kowieski) That is our understanding.
24 A (Witness Baldwin) Well, it is also covered in 25 Recommendation 2, additional staff should be trained to n
-v
24901818 8112
.j oewalsh provide them with -- to assist the dispatcher in deploying
\
2 his 300 drivers.
3 Q Now, let me ask you. In your testimony, 4
gentlemen, you more or less quote Staging Area Objective 9 5 for Patchogue, and for Port Jefferson you do not even 6 discuss the objective with respect to Riverhead, which 7
appears on Page 72 of the FEMA Report. Is that because the 8 objective for Riverhead noted that the dispatching of route 9 alert drivers and traffic guides needed to be more 10 expeditiously handled?
11 A (Witness Kowieski) Where are you?
12 Q I am on Page 72 of the FEMA Report. My first 13 question is: It is true, is it not, that you do not discuss id Staging Area Objective 9 in your testimony with respect to 15 the Riverhead Staging Area?
16 MR. CUMMING: Could Mr. Miller move his 17 microphone closer to himself.
18 WITNESS KELLER: I am sorry. I think I am 19 getting questions from two attorneys. It is coming out of 20 one mouth, but one mouth speaks to the other and it comes 21 out.
22 JUDGE FRYE: I am sorry. I don't understand 23 what you mean.
24 WITNESS KELLER: I believe Mr.Lanpher is adding 25 things to Mr. Miller's questions as he is saying them, and I P
~24901818 8113 j oewalsh-
~1 1 - don't have any problems answering questions -from both of '
(d 2 you, I really don't, but I would prefer to answer one at a 3 time.
4 MR. MILLER: Mr. Keller --
5 JUDGE FRYE: Are you relaying anything, Mr.
6 Lanpher?.
7 MR. LANPHER: I am absolutely not. I am allowed 8 to consult with Mr. Miller at any time.
9 JUDGE FRYE Are you overhearing that?-
10 -WITNESS KELLER: Yes,1[ am.
'll JUDGE FRYE That is the problem. I have no 12 problem with your consulting with Mr. Miller, but 'I think it 13 is confusing the witness, .that is the problem.
() 14 MR. LANPHER
- I beg to dif fer. "I think if the .
15 witness would wait ur the question is asked, everyone 16 would be helped.
17 JUDGE FRYE: Try to keep it down. Mr. Miller, 18 state your question.
19 MR. PIRFO: We can 't hear Mr. Miller, and the 20 witness can hear both of them.
21 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 22 Q I will go very slowly, Mr. Keller. Is it fair 23 to say that your testimony does not address Staging Area 24 Objective 9 with respect to the Riverhead Staging Area?
25 A (Witness Kowieski) What page of our testimony O
24901818 8114 j oewalsh V'h I
again, Aecause we are going back and forth.
xJ 2
Q On Page 12 of your testimony you talk about the 3
objective with respect to Port Jefferson. On Page 13 of the 4
testimony you talk about the objective with respect to 5
Patchogue, but you do not talk about Objective 9 with 6 respect to Riverhead.
7 A That is a correct statement.
8 Q Now, is the reason that you do not discuss 9
Staging Area Objective 9 for Riverhead because it indicates 10 that there were problems with the expeditiousness of the 13 dispatching of route alert drivers and traffic guides from 12 that staging area?
13 A It was never our intention to hide any problems f4 K> Id identified in our post exercise assessment.
15 Then tell me why you do not discuss, or did not Q
16 discuss Staging Area Objective 9 for the Riverhead Staging 17 Area in your testimony? Is there a reason?
18 A (Witness Baldwin) I believe it is an oversight.
19 Thank you.
Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 n
k_)
24901919 8115 cuewalsh
'r^w: 1 JUDGE PARIS: What is the significance of the 2 sentence in the fif th paragraph: The ability to dispatch to 3 and direct emergency workers in the field was demonstrated 4 (SA 9) .
5 Oh, you are asking about why they didn't talk 6 about that in their testimony.
7 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, in their testimony, and I 8 think it is because it was an oversight.
9 JUDGE FRYE: They just said it was because of an 10 oversight.
11 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
12 MR. KELLER: It may have been an oversight, but 13 I also think, and I am trying to review now, -- that is
(~
(,,h / 14 right, it is in the Contention, and it would be an oversight 15 then. I thought perhaps it wasn't in the contention, and it 16 is an oversight.
17 MR. CUMMING: I would note for the record again 18 we adopted the post exercise assessment as part of our 19 testimony. I hope the additional 137 pages doesn't give 15 20 minutes a page more opportunity.
21 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) l 22 Q Gentlemen, on Page 14 of your testimony, you 23 discuss Contention 40 E. Can you tell me, do you have any I
24 basis whatsoever for disagreeing with the allegations set 25 forth in Contention 40 E?
l
/~T 1
l
1 l
24901919 8116
~cuewalsh I
L) 1 A (Witness-Keller) The contention states that Q) 2 there is a defect inherent -in the LILCO plan. I am not sure 3
that we are willing to accept that there is a defect in the d
LILCO plan.
5 Is that it, Mr. Keller?
Q 6 A I think what we have said is there was a 7 deficiency, which means that we felt it was an exercise 8
issue that was identified and evaluated as an area resulting 9
that we could not protect the public health and safety.
10 That speaks for itself.
11 Q Mr. Keller, Contention 40 E addresses the 12 proposed fix by LILCO to that deficiency, and that is what I 13 am asking you about.
( 14 A We have evaluated -- my recollection is we have 15 evaluated that fix --
16 A (Witness Kowieski) And we find it acceptable.
17 A (Witness Keller) -- but it is incomplete.
IB Pending an exercise?
Q 19 A That is correct. .
20 Q Is it fair to say that, therefore, the 21 deficiency remains an open item until such time as an 22 exercise is conducted?
23 A The verification is open. The RAC Review found 24 that the plan change appears to be adequate, but the 25 verification of whether it is adequate is still an open V~1 L)
24901919 8117 cuewalsh
, 5 ~) 1 item.
()
2 A (Witness Baldwin) We have testified that a 3 deficiency in our normal nomenclature requires remedial 4 exercise. Until such time as that exercise, remedial 5 exercise or drill is held, these are open issues.
6 We also testified'there is 120 day time period 7 for operating plants, which this is not.
8 Q Now, gentlemen, I think we can wrap up 9 Contention 40 and go hone for the evening, or at least back 10 to our hotels.
11 JUDGE FRYE: Which are home by now.
12 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 13 Q Will you look please at NUREG 0654, Section p
(_) 14 J.10.j , page 63 of NUREG 0654. Now, that provision requires 15 that LERO have some means for controlling access to 16 evacuated areas, is that correct?
17 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
18 Q And under LILCO's plan, Mr. Kowieski, is it fair 19 to say that LILCO relies upon its traffic guides to do such 20 a task?
21 A That is also correct.
22 Q Is it fair to say, Mr. Kowieski, that under 23 LILCO's plan, traffic guides would attempt to control access 24 to evacuated areas simply by advising motorists, evacuees, 25 taht they should not go into such areas?
L- .
l 24901919 8118 cuewalsh 7
A y I A That is correct.
Q,'S '
2 Is it your opinion, Mr. Kowieski, that that sort Q
3 of proposal satisfies' the provisions of NUREG 0654 J.10.j?
4 A That is correct.
5 Q Mr. Kowieski, just to make sure I am clear in 6 this, it is your opinion that merely advising evacuees that 7
they should not enter into an area is sufficient to satisfy 8 a requirement that LERO have means for controlling access to 9
evacuated areas? Is that your testimony?
10 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. That is a planning 11 issue, not an exercise litigation issue, and we litigated it 12 previously.
13 JUDGE FRYE: Let's get the answer to it.
C
(. 14 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That is my testimony.
15 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 16 Q Now, Dr. Baldwin, I believe we have discussed 17 this before. With respect to this controlling of access to 18 evacuated areas, it is your understanding that LILCO would 19 do this by re-deploying it's traffic guides following an 20 evacuation of the EPZ to perimeter locations around the EPZ, 21 is that a fair characterization?
22 A I would ask for you to define your 23 characterization of, 'redeployment.' What does 24 e redeployment' mean?
25 Q Let me just ask you, Dr. Baldwin. What is your v
24901919 8119
- f. cuewalsh I understanding as to how LERO would control access to
" 2 evacuated areas following an evacuation of the EPZ?
3 A My understanding is they would take the traffic 4 control guides and those would be withdrawn outside the ten 5 mile EPZ to areas where they would have limited access into 6 the EPZ.
7 Q Now, Dr. Baldwin, this particular aspect of the 8 LILCO plan, as you understand it, was not demonstrated 9 during the February 13th exercise, is that correct?
10 A That is correct.
11 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, I think this is 12 probably a good place to stop for the day.
13 JUDGE FRYE: We are through with 40 E at this
() 14 point -- or 40?
15 MR. MILLER: We are through with 40, although we 16 will be looking at Contention 21.E, because they cross 17 reference back to contention 40.
18 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, before we go off the 19 rec ord , I understand your flight has been moved to 5:00 20 tomorrow?
21 JUDGE FRYE Yes. For planning purposes, we are 22 leaving at 5:10, so we would be getting out of here at 23 quarter to four.
24 MR. CUMMING: Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE FRYE: Fifteen minutes earlier.
O l\
_ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ m, .
24901919 8120 J,uewalsh 7
1 MS. McCLESKEY: I have another matter I would 2 like to take up of f the record.
3 JUDGE FRYE: Anything else we need to do on the d
record?
5 (No Response. )
6 JUDGE FRYE: We will be adjourned until Fine.
7 9:00 tomorrow morning.
8 (Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 5:00 p.m.,
9 to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Friday, June 12, 1987.)
10 11 12 13 g{
( ) la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Iz - t'
{
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings
' before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter oft NAME OF PROCEEDING: LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
DOCKET NO.: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
PLACE: IIAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK DATE: T!!URSDAY, JUNE 11, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(s.1 tE7d W (TYPED) k GARRETT J. WALS!!
Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation w tb MYRTLE S. WALSli fart t' HL MARY Ce SI!!ONS