ML20215G301
| ML20215G301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#387-3850 OL-5, NUDOCS 8706230206 | |
| Download: ML20215G301 (200) | |
Text
-- ---- - - - -
O RGINAl*
U1N11Eu STATES O
XUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-S (EP Exercise)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
O LOCATION:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES:
8553 - 8750 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1987 0f
/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.
Q OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street e700?:30?o6 87061/
Washington, D.C. 20001 F;DP OS00g;'
(202) 347-3700 AnocK NATIONWIDE COVERACE
37600000 8553 suewalsh
,~
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
d 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
'.3 LA Id State Office Building 15 Third Floor Courtroom 16 Veterans Memorial Highway I7 Hauppauge, New York 117 88 18 Wednesday, June 17, 1987 19 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 20 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 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 D
bl
1 i
37600000
.8554 I
suewalsh V
I OSCAR H.
PARIS, Member l
2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission d
Bethesda, Maryland 20555 5
FREDERICK J. SHON, Member f
6 l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7
'U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
l 8
Bethesda, Maryland 20555
-)
9 APPEARANCES:
10 On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company:
II KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESQUIRE 12 DONALD P.
IRWIN, ESQUIRE I3 LEE B.
ZEUGIN, ESQUIRE Id Hunton & Williams j
15 707 East Main Street 16 P. O. Box 1535 l
Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
37 I8 On Behalf of Suffolk County:
I9 KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQUIRE 4
20 MICHAEL S. MILLER, ESQUIRE 21 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, ESQUIRE 22 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 23 Sou th Lobby, 9th Floor 24 1800 M Street, N. W.
25 Washington, D.
C. 20035-5891 O
EU9 1
1 J
- 37600000 8555 suewalsh j
g q
'1' I
gl On Behalf _of the State of_New York:
2 j
RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESQUIRE j
3 Special Counsel to the Governor 4
Executive Chamber J
5 1
Room 229 6
State Capitol
)
7 Albany, New York 12224 I
8 1
On Behalf of the NRC:
I 9
ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, ESQUIRE l
10 GEORGE E. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE d
l 11 11 S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
12
-s-7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 On Behalf of FEMA:
15 WILLIAM R.
CUMMING, ESQUIRE 16 500 C Street, S. W.
17 Washington, D. C. 20472 18 19 i
20 1
22 23 24 25 i
s-I i
l i
6
- }
r a
724700000 8556 2
,,4narysimons CONTENTS i
\\
3 Direct Cross Redirect Recross Voir Dire l
4 ROGER'Bt KOWIESKI 5
THOMAS E. BALDWIN l
6 JOSEPH H. KELLER 8557 8593 8612 7
8 9
10 EXHIBITS 11 Identified Admitted 12
[~
FEMA Exercise Exhibit No. 7 8594 8676 l
N-)/
- g Suffolk Exercise Exhibit No. 107 8617 15 Suffolk Exercise Exhibit No. 108 8692 16 17 18 19 20 A. M.
RECESS Page 8592 21 LUNCHEON RECESS Page 8674 22 23 24 25 rh(-)
1
37600101-8557 suewalsh j%
()
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
(9 : 00 a.m. )
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Good morning.
Are you ready to 4
proceed?
5 MS. McCLESKEY :
Yes, sir.
Before I do, I had l
6 promised that I would consult with LILCO about the menber of 7
the public who wants to come along on the tour today, and I 8
spoke with the Director of the Office of Training and he 9
said he would be delighted to have her.
10 So, if she would like to come she is welcome.
11 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Fine.
I don't see her in 12 the courtroom this morning.
1 13 SPECTATOR:
I will convey that to her.
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah, okay.
Good.
15 Whereupon, 16 THOMAS E. BALDWIN, 17 ROGER B. KOWIESKI 18 and 19 JOSEPH H. KELLER 20 are resumed as witnesses and, having previously been duly 21 swo rn, were further examined and testified as follows:
1 22 CROSS EXAMINATION 23 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing) 24 Q
Gentlemen, the ENC is a joint on-site /off-site f
25 facility, isn't that right?
i 37600101 8558 suewalsh F-)'
1 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
r%_
2 Q
And, the rumor control function that is 3
performed at the ENC is an on-site function, right?
4 A
(Witness Keller)
I believe it may have aspects 5
of the on-site function but it also has aspects of the off-6 site function.
7 Q
So, you would consider that a joint function as 8
well?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
What about media monitoring, is that an on-site 11 function?
12 A
Well, again I think that would be -- as I
~3 13 understand media monitoring I understand it to mean that someone will monitor the media to see that correct 14 15 information is being disseminated to the public; and, that 16 would be both information concerning the events on-site and 17 the events off-site.
18 So, I would say that would be a joint function.
19 Q
Okay.
Now, because of the joint nature of the 20 ENC, the NRC looks at certain aspects of the facility and 21 evaluates it in addition to FEMA; isn't that right?
22 A
(Witness Kowieski)
I would expec t so.
23 Q
Ms. Jackson, a FEMA evaluator, attended press 24 briefings at the ENC, did she not?
25 A
Yes, she did.
O V
37600101 8559 suewalsh I( )
1 Q
And, those were joint on-site /of f-site 2
briefings, right?
3 A
(Witness Keller)
That's my understanding.
4 Q
Right.
Do you-all still have Suffolk County 5
Exercise Exhibit 101?
It's Ms. Jackson's exercise 6
evaluation critique form.
7 A
Which one?
8 (Witness Kowieski)
Which --
9 Q
On ENC-3.
10 A
(Witness Keller)
Yes.
11 (The witnesses are looking at documents.)
12 Q
Do you have it?
13 A
YOS-I.'
14 (Witness Kowieski)
Yes, we do.
15 0
And, do you see there on the right she has 16 written:
The following problems are noted.
Number 3 is 17 ef fectiveness of maps and displays can be improved.
18 A
Yes, we see that.
19 (Witness Keller)
We see that.
20 Q
And, do you see Number 2:
Briefings should 21 include a review of previous actions and improved in other 22 ways?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
Okay.
Now, those briefings that she attended 25 were the on-site and off-site briefings, right?
O
37600101 8560 suewalsh
,s
- . ) -
1 A
That's my understanding, yes.
2 Q
And, the maps and displays she was looking at 3
were all the maps and displays in the room at the briefings, 4
right?
5 A
That 's my assunption, yes.
6 Q
So, some of those were on-site as well?
7 A
They certainly could be on-site displays, yes.
8 O
And, in the press briefings if the on-site 9
representative and the of f-site representative had i
10 contradicted each other she would have heard it?
11 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
This 12 whole line of questioning is asking these gentlemen to 13 speculate about what someone else might have seen or might I
E 14 have noticed.
15 MS. McCLESKEY :
I don't believe --
1 16 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, we have been -- they are i
17 being asked to speculate as to what she might have seen or
)
4 18 might have noticed, but it seems to me that goes through j
19 this entire testimony to a large extent.
20 Do you have very much of this?
21 MS. McCLESK EY :
No, sir.
l l
l 22 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Well, let's get this in.
I 23 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing)
I 24 Q
Mr. Keller, it's true, isn't it, that you had 25 extensive discussions with Ms. Jackson following the f
l v
J
-37600101 8561 suewalsh.
r^y
's j
-1 exercise about what her evaluation was, isn't it?
l l
2 A
(Witness Keller)
That's correct.
l 3
Q Did you talk to her about where she was and what 4
she did at the exercise?
5 A
Yes, I did.
6 Q
Do you feel as though you are speculating when 7
you say that she was in the briefing room?
8 A
No.
I am sure that she was in the briefing 9
room.
[
io o
And, are you sure that there were on-site and it of f-site representatives in the briefing room?
12 A
That 's what - she represented to me, yes.
fs i3 0
And, are you sure that there were map.s and ia displays ' in the briefing room?
15 A
Well, she raised the issue she thought that the 16 maps and displays could be improved.
I don't remember her 17 distinctly saying that there were no maps and displays in is the briefing room.
19 I remenber -- and her exercise critique form l
20 indicates that she thought there could be better maps and 21 displays and there could be better use of maps and displays 22 which were not there.
23 I do not have any direct recollection of her 24 saying there were no maps, so it would be an assumption that 25 there were some.
O
37600101-8562 Suewalsh
)
1 Q
And, your assumption is based on the fact that 2
if Ms. Jackson suggested that a map and display could be 3
improved, the map and display exists?
4 A
That's right.
5 Q
And, you feel sure that if during the briefings 1
6 the on-site and the off-site representatives had
.7 contradicted each other she would have mentioned that?
8 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
It 9
calls for speculation again, Judge.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
I think we will permit it.
11 WITNESS KELLER:
That's my conviction, that one 12 of the things that the evaluator at the joint news center is 13 supposed to be evaluating is the coordination of 14 dissemination of information to the media.
Part of the 15 coordination at the joint -- at any joint news center is the 16 coordination between the of f-site agency, whoever that may 17 be, state or local or in this case LERO, and the on-site, in 18 this case LILCo.
19 So, it 's kind of -- in this particular case, 20 it's a little closer tie.
But, one of the things that you 21 would like to look at is the fact that there is a j
22 coordinated release of information and that one entity is 23 not saying one thing and the other entity saying something 24 else.
25 That's part of the evaluation that you are l
iV i
37600101 8563 suewalsh l
I r~g
(_j i
supposed to be doing there.-
2 JUDGE FRYE:
So, she did her job properly?
3 WITNESS KELLER:
That's right.
And, Ms. Jackson 4
is an experienced evaluator.
She has been to many of these
{
5 things.
i 1
6 It is an assumption on my part, but she is an l
7 experienced evaluator and she did not make that statement.
l 8
Therefore, I assume that she was satisfied that that did not 9
occur.
10 BY MS. McCLESKEY :
(Continuing) l 11 Q
And, Mr. Keller, are you satisfied that through 12 Ms. Jackson FLMA did evaluate the on-site and off-site coordinauion at the ENC 7 g-i3
+
14 MR. I.ANPHER:
Same objection.
15 JUDGE FRYE:. Overruled.
16 WITNESS KELLER:
Insofar as part of her 17 evaluation was to look at this coordinated release and l
18 insofar as there was information released by the on-site 19 authorities, she should have looked at that evaluation.
I l
l 20 believe she is a qualified evaluator; I believe she does her l
21 job in a conscienticos way.
22 There are no statements to the effect that there 23 was a discoordination of information.
I, therefore, assume 24 it was all right.
25 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing)
I b
37600101 8564 suewalsh
. p )~.4 1
Q Gentlenen, are any of you aware whether at other t
s 2
New York State exercises KI has been given to emergency 3
workers?
4 A
Well, could you rephrase?
Recommendation to 5
simulate injection of KI.
l 6
Q Right.
7 (Laughter.)
l 8
A Okay.
With that in mind, yes, it has occurred.
9 at other New York State exercises.
10 0
All right.
And, have you ever seen an exercise 11 where the fact that a recommendation that KI be simulated to i
12 be taken was announced at the ENC to the media?.
)
13 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Not to my recollection.
,-.3 14 (Witness Keller)
I don't have any recollection 15 of it.
I don't believe that it was, but that's just a 16 recollection.
17 Q
Dr. Baldwin?
18 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Nor do I, no recollection.
19 Q
Do you have a copy of the EBS messages up there?
20 A
(Witness Keller)
I'm sorry, I do not.
21 Q
That's quite all right.
I will give you one.
)
I 22 MS. McCLESKEY :
For the rest of the room, I'm 23 going to hand the witnesses the attachments to LILCO's 24 testimony on Contentions 38 and 39 and direct them to 25 Attachment B, Message 8, EBS Message 8, at the top of OPIP
~37600101 8565 i
suewalsh 1
3.8.2, Page 49 of 63, and ask them to look at the sentence, 2
"You will be directed along evacuation routes by trained 3
traffic guides who will know which way you should go."
4 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, could we have just a short 5
break so we can get our copies?
j 6
JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
I 7
MR. LANPHER:
Maybe we should ask, are there 8
going to be other documents we should get from the other j
9 room?
10 MS. McCLESKEY:
No.
11 (Ms. McCleskey provides the witnesses with a 12 d oc ument. )
WITNESS KELLER:
I probably didn't get all of -
33 14 that reference.
15 (Of f-the-rec ord. )
I 16 I
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
s 37600202 8566 joewalsh p9) 1 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing) tg 2
Q All right.
Now, gentlemen, you have in front of 3
you in that message the sentence, "You will be directed i
1 4
along evacuation routes by trained traffic guides who know 5
which way you should go."
6 A
(Witness Keller)
That's what it says, yes.
7 Q
And, Mr. Kowieski, I believe you already 8
testified that all the EBS messages were reviewed, the 9
content of the messages were reviewed, as part of the plan 10 review; is that right?
11 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
12 0
And, did FEMA review the content of the EBS 13 messages at the EOC during the exercise?
.3 V J-
'U 14 (The witnesses are conferring.)
15 A
(Witness Keller)
Well, it would have to be an i
16 assumption on our part.
Mr. Hugh Laine would be evaluator 17 at the EOC, and I believe that was your c;uestion -- was it 18 reviewed at the EOC.
That -- again, he is a professional 19 PIO, and we are assuming on his part.
I did not have 20 extensive discussion with Mr. Laine.
21 I feel reasonably confident in talking about 22 what Ms. Jackson represented to me.
I'm a lot less 23 confident about Mr. Laine.
And, I would assume that he did, 24 because that was part of his job.
25 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, I object to the answer and PU
37600202 8567
()
1 move that it be struck.
Again, we are asking for 2
specula tion.
3 The question he should have just answered no, he 4
doesn't know.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
You don't know, do you?
6 WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
8 BY MS. McCLESK EY :
-(Continuing) 9 O
Did you three look at the messages in preparing 10 your testimony on Page 70 in response to Contention 40.C?
11 (The witnesses are conferring.)
12 A
(Witness Keller)
I will speak for myself.
I 13 did review the messages that were in Ms. Jackson's files.
I l.{
14 reviewed them fairly carefully.
I believe -- well, I will l
15 let the others say for themselves.
l (Witness Kowieski)
Well, Mr. Keller share some l
16 17 of the EBS messages with me just to prove, I guess, his is point, what was presented in our testimony.
So, I did not 19 review every single EBS message.
20 Q
Mr. Kowieski, are you looking at your testimony 21 on Page 707 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
It refers particularly to that sentence that I l
l 24 referred you to in the EBS message about the traffic guides, j
I 25 A
Right.
37600202 8568 joewalsh
{
)
1 Q
Did you look' at that sentence in preparing this 2
testimony?
l 3
A (Witness Keller)
Yes.
4 (Witness Kowieski)
Yes.
5 Q
Mr. Keller, you did --
6 A
(Witness Keller)
Yes.
7 Q
And, Mr. Kowieski, did you?
8 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes, I did.
9 Q
Dr. Baldwin, did you?
10 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Well, in the same context 11 that Mr. Kowieski did in developing the testimony.
It was 12 written in this case by Mr. Keller, and in going over what 13 was contained in it he pointed out to me what was in the k2 plan and how the EBS messages had been -- what was injected 14 15 in the exercise.
16 Q
Now, on Page 70 your testimony indicates that 17 FEMA's position is that misleading information should not be 18 distributed to the public.
And, you say that the EBS 19 messages should be reworded to include statements to the 20 effect that traffic guides are being dispatched to assist 21 evacuation traffic.
22 Mr. Kowieski, would you explain to me how that l
23 s entenc e abou t traffic guides is misleading?
f j
24 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Well, I guess what we are 25 referring to is the fact that some of the traffic guides PV
)
l
g
.37600202 8569 I
joewalsh
(~h i
()
I were not at their posts when evacuation was in progress.
2 That's what we are referring to.
3 0
And, so the statement, "you will be direc ted,"
4 is misleading because some people might not have seen all S
the traffic guides ou t; is that your position?
6 A
That's correct.
7 0
You didn't find that sentence misleading when 8
you reviewed the plan and the EBS messages, did you?
9 A
No, we did not.
10 (Witness Keller)
We didn't know at that time in 11 the paper review of the plan when the traffic guides would 12 be on station vis-a-vis when an evacuation message would be 7s 13 aired.
That's why you have exercises.
!)
14 (Witness Kowieski)
We anticipated when we A-15 reviewed the plan that the traffic guides would be 16 dibpatched and would be present at their posts when 17 evacuation will start, when evacuation will be in progress.
18 It happened that some of the traffic guides did 19 not arrive at their p
- s in timely manner.
20 0
Would you look at Contention 44, please?
In my 21 set of the contentions, it's on Page 58 if that gives you a 22 ball park.
23 (The witnesses are looking at documents.)
24 Now, you will probably recollect that you I
25 testified previously that leaving aside the words "the l
'Jr'
37600202 8570 joewalsh g.
4j 1
exercise revealed a fundamental flaw in the LILCO plan in 2
that" that you agree with the renainder of the sentence and 3
that in your opinion there would have been a shadow as a 4
result of the information given out during the exercise but 5
that you could not gauge the magnitude of'it.
6 Do you recall that, Mr. Keller?
7 A
(Witness Keller)
That's essentially correct.
I 8
disagreed with -- aside from the first part, the word 9
" substantial."
We could not define " substantial evacuation 10 shadow" but we did agree that there could be shadow because 11 of some of the information.
12 Q
Now, on what are you basing that opinion?
13 A
Well, basically that goes back to our testimony
'4 la in the planning -- before the planning Board,'that Mr.
15 McIntyre who at that time was.part of the panel had stated i
16 that it was his position, and FEMA's position, that the 17 confidence that the public had in the information and the 18 degree to which it was clear and its meaning was clear to 19 the public would have an effect on potential shadow 20 evacuation.
21 And, all we are saying consistently that if 22 there is sone misleading information out there that that 23 could ef f ect the shadow evacuation.
We have no way to 24 quantify substantial, minor, very large, minimal.
We can't 25 quantify it any way.
PU
l l
. 37600202' 8571 joewalsh 7N
(_)
i But, we do believe that shadow evacuation can 2~
occur and that would be dependent on the perception of the
)
1 l
3 people who are going to respond, take part in the shadow l
4 evacuation, on the accuracy and the credibility of the
{
5 information they receive.
i l
6 Q
Well, let me make sure I'm clear on what you are l
l 7
testifying to.
Is it your position that, in fact, as a 8
result of the information at the exercise there would have l
9 been some shadow in response?
10 A
I think that's a fair statement, yes, because 11 there was some misinformation in the exercise.
I mean, 12 c]early rumor control was -- which we have been through at l
l 13 great length, there were problems with the rumor control 1
l V
information.
That could have led to some confusion, right.
14 l
15 Yes, there could have been some shadow.
We 1
16 cannot quantify the magnitude of it.
17 Q
You said that during the exercise, Mr. Kowieski, l
18 FEMA assumed that people would follow directions, right?
19 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's my position.
20 0
And, you assume that in the construct 3on of the 21 scenarios for all exercises, don't you?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
If you had assumed differently, how would you
(
24 have taken a lack of following directions into account in a 25 scenario?
l i
37600202 8572 joewalsh n.L) 1 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
I don't 2
understand what she means --
3 JUDGE FRYE:
I don't understand the question 4
either.
I think you had better rephrase it.
5 MS. McCLESK EY :
I will rephrase the question.
6 BY MS. McCLESKEY :
(Continuing)
)
1 7
Q Assume that'you were going to try to take some 1
8 people not following directions into account in a scenario, 9
how would you do it?
t i
10 A
(Witness Keller)
I think you would have to do 11 it through contingency messages or free-play messages or 12 some kind of message injects.
As we have stated more often 1
13 than we probably should have, the exercise is a
,f-14 demonstration of the implementation-of the plan.
l 15 I know of no plan which is premised on the fact I
16 that people are not going to do what is recommended'that 17 they should do.
The plans are not premised on that 18 p rinciple, none of them, the LILCO plan, state and local 19 plans, none of them that I know of in the country.
20 If you desired to attempt to evaluate a premise 21 that the plan inn't based on, you would have to do it 22 through the injection of messages.
In other words, 23 contingencies or free-play messages or something, to tell 24 the participants what's your plan, what you have been 25 trained on, what the procedures say, is not happening.
- Now, Py
I 37'600202 8573 l
j oewalsh j
()-
'I what are you going to do?
Or, something to that effect.
2 We have never done it.
I don't think I ever 3
want to try it.
We haven ' t really thought ' about it.
- But, 4
it would have to be done on some kind of a message inject of 5
that type.
6 How you would evaluate what they do gets very 7-difficu3t.
I mean, I think as we all-recognize there are 8
questions on how you evaluate anything.
'But, if you haven't j
9 got the plan to fall back on -- I mean, did they follow the 10 plan, if you haven't got that to fall back on then what is 11 your evaluation going to be based on?
I 12 I would prefer not to be involved in a situation
]
13 like that, because you haven't got any basis to make your
,/~)
5/
evaluation.
It's pure judgment, then.
And, it's a lot of 14 i
15 evaluation as it is, but at least with the system that we l
16 have we have the plan to go back to.
Did they follow the 17 plan.
l 18 (Witness Kowieski)
You mentioned performance of 19 the emergency response organization against the plans and 20 proc edu res.
And, Mr. Keller pointed out if you make an 21 assumption which is not part of the plan, it 's very hard to 22 deal with.
It would be very hard to deal with, especially 23 we don't have a solid basis to make such an assumption.
24 The literature, whatever I read in preparation 25 for 1984 Board hearing, it's my recollection whatever I read GU
F 37600202 8574 joewalsh ya
. F. )
1 at that time, generally speaking, generally speaking, people j
2 that have done a lot of research in this area, people listen I
3 to decision-makers.
Pecple, generally speaking, follow the 4
orders unless, as Mr. Keller pointed out, if.there is a lack 5
of confidence.
Lack of confidence of decision-makers, I
6 whether true or false, okay, then obviously there could be 7
some confusion.
8 But, generally speaking, people do follow 9
o rd ers.
10 MS. McCLESKEY :
Thank you, gentlemen.
Judge 1
L 11 Frye, I have no further questions.
1 12 JUDGE FRYE:
Does the Staff have questions?
13 MR. PIRFO:
Thank you, Judge Frye.
s~l
<! b2 CROSS EXAMINATION 14 13 BY MR. PIRFO:
f 16 Q
Gentlemen, would you turn please to Page 14 of i
17 your testimony?
18 (The witnesses are complying.)
19 And, the fourth line of the answer the 20 parenthetical says:
See Table 4.4.
21 A
(Witness Keller)
Yes.
l 22 Q
Is that corr ect?
23 A
I believe that's supposed to be 4.7.
24 Q
You believe it to be 4.7?
L 25 A
(Witness Baldwin) 4.7.
b 0
1 l-L 37600202 8575
.. j oewalsh -
'(f 1
Q Thank you.
Gentlemen, if you would turn to Page 2
121 of the FEMA report, Table 4.1, the deficiency with L
3 regard to delay of responding to the two evacuation
]
4 impediments?
l 5
(The witnesses are complying.)
f:
i 6
Do you have that in front of you?
j 7
A (Witness Keller) l-.
8 Q
Now, I understand you state -- well, the FEb1A
[
9 report states that this impacts on NUREG 0654, Element to J.10.K.
i 11 Could you explain to me how that planning i
i 12 standard and that evaluation criterion are linked?
I i
s 13 Well, let me read to you Element J.10.K out of 14 NUREt 0654.
Element J.10.K:
Identification of and means i
L i
15 for dealing with potential impediments, i.e.,
seasonal
)
l 16 impassability of roads, to use the evacuation route and l
17 contingency measures.
18 Well, the example given in the NUREG is seasonal 19 impassibility.
We didn't have a seasonal impassibility; we 20 constructed a temporary impassibility.
And, we tried to 21 evaluate the means for dealing with the potential impediment 22 and the cont 3ngency measures, informa tion flow, how did they handle it.
And, we evaluated that as being a deficiency in 23 24 the EOC.
25 Q
Because of lack of communication in the EOC, OV
37600202 8576 joewalsh 1
right?
2 A
Primarily the lack of communication flow, 3
horizontally and vertically.
4 0
But, it was not because of the -- so, you are 5
focusing on the identification aspect of the criterion as 6
opposed to the means?
7 A
Well, when they didn't recognize promptly and 8
ef fectively that they had a problem their means of dealing 9
with the problem were delayed.
And,.the overall evaluation 10 of that complex complete thing was a deficiency.
11
'It becomes problematic tu say that they wouldn't 12 have made errors had they identif ded it and had good message 13 flow.
And, that 's why you have remedial exercises or drills L.)
14 so that if they resolve the root cause of the problem you 15 can also verify that something else didn't creep up along 16 the line.
l 17 It's very -- we went through a long discussion.
1 18 It's difficult to know because of the breakdowns in the 19 communication all the ins and outs.
I mean, it was 20 deficient we feel.
I mean, it may have been deficient for i
21 15 things or it may have only been 13 things.
And, that l
22 really is not important.
The fact is, it was deficient.
It
.[
23 has got to be fixed.
24 If this were an operating plant, it would have 25 to be done in a remedial exercise or drill within a very 4
cmU L
f.
.37600202 8577 i
joewalsh k
l'mited prescribed time frame.
And, in the remedial j
sQ i
1 2
exercise you look to see if there are other things.
3 Q
Okay.
Now, on Page 127 of the FEMA report, the 4
deficiency with regard to the copying capabilities at the 5
ENC.
6 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Right.
7 Q
Mr. Kowieski, yesterday you stated that but for a
the interrelationship between the rumor control function and 9
the hard copies getting messages to the media this would not to have been a deficiency.
1 11 Is that a fair characterization of your 12 testimony yesterday?
13 MR. LANPHER:
Can you please direct us to where i
14 in the testimony --
16 MR. LANPHER:
I don't think that's an accurate 17 charac teriza tion.
I 18 MR. PIRFO:
Well, I just asked the witness j
19 whether it was.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
We will 3et the witness respond to 21 that.
22 WITNESS KELLER:
I think there is a little 23 confusion in the terms.
We had stated earlier last week 24 that the issue was the lack of proper information going out 25 p ronp tly, and the big problem was the rumor control not C:)
1
37600202 8578 joewalsh
)-
I having the proper information.
2 And had -- I believe we stated this before, I 3
think I remenber it, that had rumor control had proper 4
-information and had given it promptly and correctly, the j
5 hard copy portion of this for the hard copy for the media ~
6 would probably not have been a deficiency in and of itself.
.7 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
I agree with that.
(Continuing) 9 Q
Absent the interrelationship then --
10 A
(Witness Keller)
Absent the interrelationship, 11 yes.
12 Q
It 's only the rumor control function because 13 that has impacted the hard copy to the media that --
14 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
15 (Witness Keller)
That's correct.
16 Q
Now, on Page 129 with regard to the Patchogue 17 staging area and the bus drivers, one of these has been 18 upgraded, depending on how you say it, upgraded / downgraded, 19 to an ARCA, correct?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
Okay.
And, which one was that?
22 A
Number 1 which is labeled Number 1 on Page 129.
23 Q
With regard to Number 2 then and planning --
24 well, of the two evaluation criterions cited there, J.9 and 25 J.10.J, could you explain to me again how your method of U
V i
i
.m
~37 600202 8579 joewalsh
(~x
(,)
1 sanpling or the nunber of bus drivers that you sanpled 2
illustrates - why this evaluation criterion or criteria were 3
not met in' this case?
4 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, could I please have. that 5
' question repeated?
I didn't understand it.
l 6
JUDGE FRYE:
I didn't understand it either.
7 MR. PIRFO:
Let me rephrase it.
(Continuing) 9 Q
You cite two evaluation criteria as impacted by 10 the facts surrounding this, the bus drivers being two hours 11 late, et cetera, evaluation criterion J.9 and J.10.J.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
J.10.G.
33 MR. PIRFO:
I'm sorry, J.10.G, correct.
f)
\\/
BY MR. PIRFO:
(Continuing 14 15 Q
Could you explain to me how the -- I think you 16 did it yesterday, but could you explain to me again how your 17 sampling method, if you want to call it a sampling method, 18 or your method of testing this planning standard results in 19 a deficiency as gauged by the evaluation criteria?
20 MR. LANPHER:
Well, I object to the question.
I 21 still don't understand it.
22 MR. PIRFO:
Let me just try again.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
It seems to me like you 've probably 24 got a nunber of elements there.
Maybe you ought to go 25 through them one at a time.
l
37600202 8580 l
j oewalsh l
j 1
MR. PIRFO:
Let's do that.
2 BY MR. PIRFOs (Continuing) 3 Q
Okay, gentlemen, let's do J.9 first.
4 A
(Witness Keller)
Okay.
5 6
7 8
l l
9 10 11 12 13 R
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W
2 37600303 8581 1
?suewalsh
(,f' 1
Q
~ Explain to me why evaluation, criterion J.9 was 2
not met in this case?
1 3
A (Witness Keller)
Okay.
We did not say.that 4
directly.
What we said is that this objective bears on 5
evaluation criteria J.9.
And, J.9 says that you establish a 6
~ capability for implementing protective measures.
7 Q
All right.
8 A
In this particular plan, and at this particular 9
site, there are a significant number of the population' who.
10 require tranEportation to leave the plume exposure EPZ in 11 the event of an evacuation recommendationt that is, the p
12 implementation of protective action.
ses-
-13 The utility plan has provided for the provision 4
1
?
5" 6 14 of buses along prescribed bus routes.
We. had a problem in is the exercise, as delineated on Page 129, that some of them i
16 couldn't find the transfer points, et cetera, that the bus 4
~
1 17 drivers were not~ adequately on these bus routes as called f
18 for in the plan.
And, that impacts on that first statement 19 of J.9, the capability for implementing protective measures.
20 And, the rest of it, based on the PAGs and all
]
21 that sort of thing, the protective measure was evacuate.
22 That means, according to this plan, that buses will be 23 provided, okay, for a portion of the population.
We felt in 24 the evaluation of this exercise that the plan was not 25 followed in sufficient rigor and that there were indeed n~-
}
37600303 8582
.suewalsh rm
!)
I problems with some of the bus drivers that we evaluated; s
l 2
and, we said that that was deficient.
l 3
Q And, I think you stated yesterday you evaluated 4
a very limited number of the bus drivers?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
An extremely limited number of the bus drivers?
7 A
(Witness Kowieski)
I would disagree with that.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
You would not agree with that or 9
you would?
l 10 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
I disagree with that.
l l
11 BY MR. PIRFO:
(Continuing) l l
12 O
Why would you disagree?
I 13 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Based on my previous l
14 experience at other sites, based on my professional l
15 judgment, the way exercise was planned, was designed with 16 the introduction of free-play messages, I think that the l
l 17 sample used in the Shoreham exercise was sufficient to draw 18 a conclusion on the performance of bus drivers.
19 (Witness Baldwin)
I think what we testified to l
20 yesterday was the element of surprise.
And, the 21 confidentiality of the bus routes to be selected, and the f
22 randomization of the picking of those bus drivers to be 23 unknown, and so the element of surprise allows the small l
l 24 number to be used in this context.
25 (Witness Kowieski)
Especially in the -- I l
()
i 1
37600303 8583 cuewalsh'
]b l
1 believe already we testified to this effect, that especially l
2 in Shoreham situation all the bus drivers were dispatched to
'3 the -- well, were present at the staging area. 'Our d
. evaluators stationed at the staging areas had an opportunity l
l 5
.to pick at random the bus drivers to drive buses.
So, this 1.
6 is an additional sort of element which sort of adds more
]
7 confidence when to our judgment on overall performance of 8
bus drivers.
9 (Witness Keller)
But, to be strictly honest and 1
i 10 on a statistical basis, it was a small sample.
JUDGE PARIS:
You have accounted for selectivity II I2 or bias in your manner of selection, but you have not
(
accounted for random variability, have you?
That is, 13
(
\\
l Id chance.
1 15 WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's correct.
M MR. PIRFO:
Did you have anything else, Judge 17 Paris?
I8 WITNESS KOWIESKI Well --
1 19 MR. PIRFO:
Are you finished?
j 20 JUDGE PARIS:
I'm sorry.
I'm finished.
'21 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's another -- you know, I l
22 believe in our testimony --
23 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, I object.
There is no 24 question'pending at this po.4nt.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
What are you responding to, Mr.
n f
o
- ~~J
_.__.__.-mm._
_m____-.-_
37600303 8584 suewalsh (D'
V' Kowieski?
2 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
I want to just add one more 3
statement.
d JUDGE FRYE:
To Judge Paris' question?
5 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
No.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Well, let's hold it, 7
then.
8 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Okay.
9 E BY MR. PIRFO (Continuing) 10 0
Gentlemen, please turn to Page 133 with regard to the deficiency at the Riverhead staging area on traffic 12 guides.
13 p
JUDGE FRYE:
133?
V' Id MR. PIRFO:
Yes, sir.
15 (The witnesses are complying.)
16 BY MR. PIRFO:
(Continuing)
II Q
I understand you tie this to evaluation I8
. criterion J.10.J.
This is J.10.J.
1 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes.
20 Is that the only evaluation criterion against Q
21 which this deficiency was assessed?
22 A
(Witness Keller)
Yes.
I would like to add that 23 these ICREG 0654 cross-references are basically derived from 24 the set of 35 standard objectives which were first published 25 with the reissuance of GM-17 with the McLoughlin memo of O
4
37600303 8585 August of
'83.
And, it was in that context that this cross-3 reference first appeared.
And, we have continued to use 4
it.
And, I'm sure that you could argue that you could add 5
other elements if you really wanted to to many of these.
6 But, based on that standard FEMA document, that's where 7
these things came from.
O Okay.
But, NUREG 0654, Element J.10.J reads:
9 Control of access to evacuated areas and organizational 10 responsibilities for such control, 11 A
Yeah.
12 Q
Is that the primary problem?
It reads that way, f~)
does it not?
kJ u
A Yes, it reads that way.
We have interpreted --
Q Let me ask the question.
16 A
Sure.
Excuse me.
17 Q
Is that the primary problem with this deficiency 18 here, that it does not provide for control of access?
19 A
No, that is not the prinary problem.
We have 20 lumped perhaps incorrectly over the years access control and 21 traffic control or traffic guide as an entity, okay.
22 In the control of evacuation, depending on the 23 plan, you use more or fewer traffic control points.
In this 24 plan, traffic guides.
And, we have lumped those two as a 25 single entity.
rmU
37600303 8586 suewalsh (Witness Kowieski)
Because it's the only 2
element that would apply to traffic control and access 3
control.
(Witness Baldwin)
It's also the way we got there, as Mr. Keller just indicated.
It's typically the 6
same people that -- not the same people, but the same staffing personnel.
They represent the same kind of a
organizations that do the access control and the traffi control.
It's basically the same function.
Q Okay.
Now, continuing with the traffic control 10 I want -- if-this isn't a fair characterization, tell me that.
The traffic guides were evaluated here as if they 12 Q
were the police, let's put it that way, the traffic cop out I3
\\-.)
Id on patrol; is that fair to say?
15 A
(Witness Kowieski)
No.
The plan clearly states 16 that traffic --
Q Okay.
Let me just -- the answer is no, right?
I7 I8 A
(Witness Keller)
The answer is no.
Q How did you evaluate the traffic guides 19 20 differently than you would -- explain to me the differences 21 between how you evaluated traffic guides in this context as 22 opposed to the traffic cop on the beat?
23 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Well, we would have to go back to the plan.
The plan states that traffic guides will 24 guide the traffic.
This is different than the police --
25
37600303 8587 suewalsh p3
(_)
I Q
Now, let's talk about -- I want to limit it to 2
the deficiency._ The deficiency talks in terms of deployment 3
time.
Let's limit it to that.
i d
We don't have to go through the panoply of 5
dif ferences between the traffic guide and a police officer.
6 A
(Witness Keller)
But, that was your question I 7
thought.
8 Q
Well, ma yb e.
Let me rephrase the question,
~9 then.
Limiting it to the facts stated in the deficiency, 10 okay, how did you grade the traffic guides?
What was in 11 mind in grading the traffic guides as opposed to police 12 officers on routine traffic patrol?
13 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Limiting it only to the words 14 that are in the deficiency?
15 Q
Well, let's not take a strictly literal 16 interpretation, but the facts set out here.
I realize that 17 the traf fic guides -- there is a number of dif ferences that 18 are between the traf fic guides and the police officer on 19 patrol.
A traffic guide obviously can't give a ticket, 20 can't do a number of things.
21 Bu t, limiting it to the facts stated in the 22 deficiency.
23 A
Based on the facts stated in the deficiency, 24 this same wording would apply if the problem were found with 25 regard to a law enforcement of ficer.
This exact same thing f~1 V
r
37600303 8588 suewalsh
,r)
V I
would' apply.
2 O
The law enforcement of ficer would be presumably 3
out on patrol,. correct?
d A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's a possibility.
5 (Witness Baldwin)
He could be.
i 6
Q They wouldn't be deployed?
7 MR. LANPHER:
I object.
This is calling for 8
speculation.
These gentlemen don't know where the law.
9 enforcement officers would be.
l 10 JUDGE FRYE:
I think it is getting pretty speculative at this point.
12 MR. PIRFO:
These gentlemen evaluate emergency I3 plans and other plans, use state and local government I#
participation and other state and local entities have 15 police, and they have been involved in a number of plans 16 where police were involved.
I don't see how it calls for
'I
' speculation.
I8 They are expert witnesses in emergency I9 preparedness, and the police are involved in emergency 20 preparedness.
21 MR. LANPHER:
It also goes far beyond any of the l
22 23 MR. PIRFO:
And, if you think --
{
JUDGE FRYE:
One moment.
When you assigned this 24 25 deficiency basically to the time that it took to deploy O
37600303 8589 suewalsh
_,q N-traf fic guides, would it have made any dif ference if instead 2
of traffic guides a police force were involved?
3 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Not in my mind.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
The same deficiency would have been 5
assigned?
6 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Not in -- it would have been a 7
deficiency.
8 WITNESS KELLER:
That's right.
9 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's correct.
10 JUDGE SHON:
I --
11 JUDGE PARIS:
It would have taken the same 12 amount of time to get to --
['}
WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's correct.
Ls
- g WITNESS KOWIESKI
That's correct.
I 15 JUDGE SHON:
But, it is in a sense true though 16 that when you said this amount of time was too long, you in 17 some sense had it in the back of your mind that it wouldn't 18 normally take policemen that long to get there; is that 19 right?
20 WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's true.
21 MR. LANPHER:
I object.
That's speculation 22 again.
I'm sorry, but I don ' t think that these witnesses 23 are competent to testify to that, Judge Shon.
24 JUDGE SHON:
Well, I simply asked them what 25 standard they had in the back of their minds.
It's true 0
37600303
'8590 k)suewalsh 1
that it's probably speculative on their part as to how long 2
a policeman would take to get there.
3 But, I was simply asking.whether they felt if 4
the standard they were using was their conception of how 5
long it would take a policeman to get there.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, let's get the policemen out 7
\\
of it.
What would you consider to be timely?
How much j
time?
9 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Timely to be -- to have 10 traffic guides --
11 JUDGE FRYE:
The time between the deployment of 12 a person or individuals to direct traf fic and their arrival
()
at the points at which they had to direct the traffic --
14 WITNESS KELLER:
I think --
15 JUDGE FRYE:
-- how long should -- what would be 16 timely?
17 WITNESS KELLER:
We discussed this in our 18 testimony.
And, the 20 minute driving time was not the crux 19 of the problem.
It was the 30 minute equipment --
20 JUDGE FRYE:
That's right.
21 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Waiting in line to receive 22 the kits.
i 23 JUDGE PARIS:
And that was the crux?
24 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Yes.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
So, 20 minutes would be timely?
O
37600303 8591
[77{ suewalsh
( j 1
WITNESS KELLER:
Yeah, something less than 30, 2
10 to 15 minutes to get your equipment and get on the road.
3 The driving time of 20 minutes, we did not find untimely.
4 Now, that came int.o the whole ball of wax.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Forget what has to happen between 6
the time these irdividuals are directed to go to_these 7
points and the time that they arrive at these points.
8 WITNESS KELLER:
About 30 minutes from the time 9
that --
10 JUDGE FRYE:
About 30 minutes?
11 WITNESS KELLER:
Yes.
12 WITNESS BALDWIN:
But, to tie it all together, I3
(~N (j
we would expect that these traffic guides would be at their post when an evacuation is in place.
15 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
I think that's the bottom 16 line.
f WITNESS BALDWIN:
I'm sorry, when an evacuation 18 is underway.
BY MR. PIRFO:
(Continuing) 20 0
When an order has been issued?
21 A
(Witness Keller)
Well, we testified to this 22 last week I believe.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
I think you did, but you had better 24 refresh --
)
WITNESS KELLER:
My recollection of what we said I?
O l
f 37600303 8592
^
suewalsh 3
, m)
I was that we were talking about an evacuation order that had been recommended by the dec'. unn-maker and the planning 3
process says that roughly an hour will transpire between the 4
time that the order has been issued and the onset of the 5
evacuation.
6 l
Now, we recognize that there may be some people 7
that leave earlier, but that was the time we are talking 8
abou t.
If the order comes down at 10 o' clock, the guides 9
ought to be in place by 11.
Again, we are trying to 10 evaluate the implementation of the plan.
JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
So, that's putting it 12 in another context.
In other words, in that context the (m.
13
,)
individuals who are going to be guiding traffic should be in 14 place within one hour after the recommendation to evacuate 15 is made to the public?
16 WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's correct.
17 MR. PIRFO:
That's all I have, Judge Frye.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Cumming.
19 MR. CUMMIN" realize we have only been going 20 about 45 minutes, but I _aink we could expedite things if we 21 could take about a five minute recess.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Why don't we take our 23 15 minute recess and give you an opportunity to confer with 24 these witnesses?
25 (A recess is taken at 9:45 a.m.,
to reconvene at 10:00 a.m.,
this same day.)
37600404 8593 joewalsh
.c'y' l
(_)
1 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Cumming.
2 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 3
BY MR. CUMMING:
4 0
would the panel please clarify the discussion on 5
the deployment of the traffic guides that you just went 6
through with Mr. Pirfo?
7 I was a little confused as to the basis of the 8
deployment and the time frame.
9 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
I think you had better be _ a 11 little bit more specific than that 12 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 13 Q
Mr. Keller, you testified that the deployment of i
\\-
14 traffic guides required a minimum time of one hour?
15 A
(Witness Keller)
Yeah.
16 Q
Is it your understanding that that, in fact, is j
l 17 the basis of the deficiency that you were discussing with --
{
i 18 A
No.
I misspoke.
I'm sorry, I apologize.
The 19 one hour after the evacuation order is for the bus drivers 20 to start their routes.
That is not the traffic guide 21 situation, and I misspoke.
22 I was recalling a different set of emergency 23 workers.
So, the 30 minute time frame that I had discussed 24 in response to Judge Frye's question I think is a better 25 characterization.
Just leave it at that.
(\\
%,1
37600404 8594 joewalsh f-I JUDGE FRYE:
Thirty minutes after the order or 2
the recommendation to evacuate is made to the public?
i 3
WITNESS KELLER:
That's right.
4 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 5 Q
Yesterday, FEMA marked into evidence the' letter 6
discussed by Mr. Kowieski.
Let me pass out copies.
7 (The document is furnished to the Board and the 8
parties.)
9 (The document referred to is marked 10 as FEMA Exercise Exhibit Number 7 II for identification.)
12 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing)
I3 Q
Mr. Kowieski, would you identify this document?
Id A
(Witness Kowieski)
It's a cover memo from Roger 15 Kowieski to Robert S. Wilkerson, Chief.of Technological 16 Hazards Division, Washington, D.
C.,
dated March the 25th,
'7 1986.
18 In this memorandum, I transmitted the State's I9 comments on Guidance Memorandum GM/PR-1 and GM/EV-2.
There 20 is a letter from James D.
Papile, Acting Director of 21 Radiological Emergency Preparadness Group, State of New 22 York, to Roger B. Kowieski, RAC Chairman, in which State 23 provided their comments on FEMA Draf t Guidance Memorandum GM-24 PR-1, dated January 17, 1986.
25 JUDGE FRYE That's the date of the letter?
RL) i
37600404 8595 joewalsh I
WITNESS KOWIESKI That's right.
And, letter 2
dated February 12th, 1986 from James D. Papile, Director of Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group to Roger B.
Kowieski, RAC Chairman, in which New York State provided 5
comments on Draf t Guidance Memorandum EV-2.
6 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 7 Q
Now, Mr. Kowieski, I would like to ask you a 8
couple of questions about these letters.
Mr. Lanpher questioned the panel extensively 10 about the status of exercises in New York with respect to 11 the ingestion pathway; is that correct?
2 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correc t.
13 Q
With respect to the letter of January 17 th, Id 1986, did this letter reflect your understanding of the 15 position of the State of New York on ingestion pathway 16 exercises in New York as of that date?
A That's correct.
I8 Q
And, that was just prior to the date of the exercise?
20 A
Prior to the February 13, 1986 exercise.
21 Q
Would you read for me the paragraphs you believe 22 indicate most precisely the State of New York's position?
23 It's - I will be reading from the letter dated A
24 January 17, 1986, first page, Sec tion 3.a.
It reads:
In 25 addition, I find that there are other areas of review that O
p 376'00,404
'8596
$ joewalsh-i I'#
need further comment.
a.
Paragraphs..."
And, again that 2
" Paragraphs 3,N.1.b Evaluation Criterion-refers to PR-1.
3 (page 2) states that'it is a requirement for each state j
}
4 o fully
]
which has a nuclear power -plant within its borders t' d
5 1
exercise its plans'and preparedness related to ingestion 6
exposure pathway measures at least once'every six years:in 7
conjunction with a plume exposure pathway. exercised for same 8
site.
This is all well and' good if FEMA can' provide 9
FEMA has.not' guidance on the ' conduct of such exercises.
10 provided specific guidance on ingestion pathway criteria.
11 The lack. of this guidance places the states in the hold 12 position and will delay' meeting the six year requirement.
{ }-
FEMA must designate the time of each exercise af ter guidance is published."
15 I think that's -- this particular statement 16 clearly expresses the position that New York State took in 17 January of 1986.
18 Q
Thank you, Mr. Kowieski.
With respect to the 19 letter of February 12th, 19 86, do you remenber Mr. Miller 20-questioning you with respect to school issues?
21 A
Yes, we do.
22 Q
And, do you remember your testimony with respect 23 to the status or the position of the State of New York just 24 prior to the exercise?
25 A
Yes, we do.
k_'.
P S
L
37600404 8597 g g joewalsh
\\_)
1 Q
And, the basis of your opinion is in part this 2
letter of February 12th, 19867 3
A That's correct.
4 Q
Would you --
5 MS. LANPHER:
Excuse me.
Could I have that 6
question and answer read back, Judge Frye?
7 JUDGE FRYE:
The basis of your opinion is in 8
part this letter of February 12, 1986.
9 MR. LANPHER:
I don't understand what the 10 opinion was.
I think I missed -- I'm not going to have the 11 transcrip t.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Can you go back and get the fs 13
/
question earlier?
l 14 (The Reporter read the question as requested.)
15 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 16 0
Mr. Kowieski, would you read to me the portions 17 of the letter upon which you based your opinion as to the 18 position of the State of New York with respect to schools?
19 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Well, the letter -- I will 20 read from the letter dated February 12th, 1986.
I think we 21 7
can start in the third paragraph of that letter, it states:
22 "In reviewing the Guidance Memorandum EV-2, it is evident 23 that the FEMA is not aware that school districts in New York 24 are separate political entities and the planning for the 12 5 school districts is not necessarily the responsibility of O
L
m 37600404 8598 i
joewalsh
()
i the local governments.
Although the guidance addresses the 2
1 cal g vernment responsibility for coordinating with school 3
officials, there is no assurance that school of ficials will adopt recommended emergency procedures.. The issuance of EV-5 2 guidance by FEMA indicates that the schools in New York, as part of the State School System, should be required by 7
law to cooperate with local government officials.
In the past six years, local officials have worked closely with 9
school officials and they have reached agreements on risk assessment."
{
jj
(
The fourth paragraph also states the position of 4
g New York State, and again I will be quoting,-reading
(
directly from the letter, "The State of New York has no I
doubt that in the event of an emergency, local and school i
15 officials will implement the protective action option most compatible with the protection of the school children and g
potential general population evacuation."
18 And, on the second page, somewhere in the middle j9 of that paragraph, the sentence starts, "The Department of g
Education at Federal and State levels have certain 21 authorities.
FEMA should explain what these authorities are 22 before putting out guidance.
To attempt to mandate is not 23 the solution.
The hands of the Emergency Manager at local 24 and state levels are tied unless cooperation is guaranteed."
25 I think this clearly, in my opinion, this letter q
3 J
s 8599 i
37600404 l
(]
-joewalslji clearly expresses the position --
2 MR. LANPHER:
I object.
i 3
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
-- of New York State.
MR. LANPHER:
I object.
There is no question 5
pending.
6 i
JUDGE FRYE:
All he says is that that's what he 7
bases his opinion on.
g MR. LANPHER:
That's not what he was just i
9 saying.
,o JUDGE FRYE:
What were you saying?
j ji MR. LANPHER:
He previously answered the
{
12 question, Judge, to cite the portions of the letter that he i3 1
n V
was relying upon.
And, that was the question and I object
- 4 t
further speeches by the witness that are not responsive 15 to a proper question.
16
)
I MS. McCLESKEY:
Judge Frye, I think the answer j7 was responsive.
We are on redirect here.
18 I don't know what the problem is.
39 MR. LANPHER:
And, on redirect --
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Would you read back the answer, tl-e 21 l
last part of the answer?
22 (The Reporter read back the answer as 23 requested.)
24 25 O
37600505 8600 suewalsh I
V JUDGE FRYE Mr. Cumming.
l.
MR. CUMMING:
FEMA moves into evidence the two letters and the cover memorandum marked as FEMA Exercise d
Exhibit Nunber 7.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Any objections?
6 MS. McCLESKEY:
No objection.
I MR. LANPHER:
Could I -- I would just like one 8
clarification.
I assume that Mr. -- Mr. Cumming, you are 9
relying just on those portions that were quoted from the letters; is that correct?
11 i
MR. CUMMING:
The letters were prof fered for the position of the State of New York.
I think the letters
(
I3
- O speak for themselves.
Mr. Kowieski highlighted those j
k2 ja portions, but the entire letters I think are the basis of
}
I5 his opinion.
16 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, if I could then -- I want to have a chance to review the entire letters.
I didn't 18 have a chance last night.
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Fine.
We will hold it until 20 you have had a chance to review it.
Does New York want a 21 chance to review it as well?
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes, please.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
Mr. Cumming.
BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 25 Q
Mr. Kowieski, do you wish to add anything with I
l V
37600505 8601 suewalsh
( '
!,_7 I
respect to your understanding of these letters?
2 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
That's 3
not a. proper redirect.
4 JUDGE FRYE:- Mr. Cumming, I think you need to be 5
more specific.
6 MR. CUMMING:
Let's move on.
7 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 8 Q
Mr. Keller, would you locate Suffolk County 9
Evercise Exhibit Number 105 which is a letter from you to 10 Roger B. Kowieski, dated March 19th, 19867 II (The witnesses are looking through documents.)
12 Do you have the exhibit?
13 A
(Witness Keller)
I have a copy of my letter, Id yes.
15 Q
This letter was discussed by Mr. Miller and.you 16 last Thursday, June lith, roughly Pages 8011 through 8016 of I7 the transcript.
Do you remember that discussion?
i 18 A
I believe I do, yes.
19 0
In that discussion with Mr. Miller, you were asked the question as to whether you understood whether back-20 l
21 up route alerting had been listed as a deficiency in several i
22 reports.
23 Could you identify what those reports were?
24 A
Well, Mr. Miller directed me to review the post-
{
25 exercise assessment at Indian Point on February 27th of 1985 j
p-i i
)
1 137600505 8602
~
suewalsh
/%
1 at Line 14 of 8016, Page 8016.
2 Q
Now, you have been unable to locate that report; 3
is that correct?
4 A
That is correct.
5 Q
However, you do have with you a later Indian Point report which you have in your. hand?
i 7
l A
Yes, I do.
I 8
l Q
What is the date of that report?
l 9
A All right.
This is the date -- this is the I
10 report for.the remedial exercise of April the 10th, 1985, 11 and it was prepared on May the 10th, 1985.
l 12 MR. CUPMING:
FEMA counsel doesn't wish to mark 13 this report and p] ace it into evidence; however, I am going to ask several qu estions of Mr. Keller.
15 There have been extensive rulings on other 16 exercise reports, and I don't want to delay the proceeding.
17 I just want to ask Mr. Keller a question or two on 18 clarification.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
One moment.
20 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, reviewing my list of the 21 post-exercise rep 6 cts that were marked for identification 22 and moved into evidence, I don't believe this one is among 23 that list.
24 What is the date agair?
25 WITNESS KELLER:
This is -- well, there are two RU
I i
1 37600505 8603 I
suewalsh l
I dat os, sir.
There is the date of the exercise which is 2
April 10, 1985; and the report itself is dated May 10, 1985.
I 3
(
MR. LANPHER:
And, this is for Indian Point?
4 WITNESS KELLER:
This lo for New York -- yeah, 5
Indian Point.
6 JUDGE PARIS:
Which unit?
i WITNESS KELLERt It's off-sito, so it doesn't 8
)
l l-make any dif f ere,ce.
i 9
MR. T.ANPHER:
Judge Frye, this was not one of l
10 And if there are going the ones I believe that was marked.
l 11 to be questions asked, we would like to have a copy of it.
12 Do you have ext ra copies, Mr. Cumming?
(
MR. CUMMING:
No, I don't.
JUDGE FRYE:
Do you have extensive ";uestions?
15 MR. CUMMING:
No, Your Honor, I don't.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Let's see how it goes.
17 If' there is a problem about it, we will have to stop and let you take a look at it.
19 MR. LANPHER:
Thank you.
20 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) l 21 Q
-Now, Mr. Keller, you were asked by Mr. Miller as 22 l
to whether you remembered whether a deficiency had been l
23 j
\\
l assigned to back-up route alerting at Indian Point.
I 24 What does the report you have just described 25 l
tell you about t.he history of that issue, if any?
I r) l
\\
37600505 8604
- - 'suewalsh L
1 A
(Witness Keller)
In all the FEMA reports of 2
recent vintage, there is a tracking of either areas 3
requiring corrective action or deficiencies.
And, in this d
1 report -- at the back of the report -- in Table 4.5.1, under 5
Rockland County, on Page 87 of this report, there is a 6
tabulation of an issue which was identified in the 11/28/84 7
exercise of Indian Point.
8 Now, I assume -- it 's an assunption on my part --
9 that this is the exercise with which Mr. Miller asked me to 10 review, because he asked me to review an exercise report.
11 The question is on Line 13 of 8016 where he says:
Did you 12 review the Indian Point post-exercise assessment -- I'm 13 m-
[]w sorry.
Did you review the Indian Point post-exercise assessment at Indian Point on February 27, 19857 15 Well, my records indicate that we did not have 16 an exercise in February of 1985 at Indian Point.
We did 17 have an exercise in Novenber. - And, since we could not 18 locate the exercise report, it is reasonable to assume that 19 the February date is the date of the exercise report for 20 Novemb er.
That's about the right timing.
21 But, in this table on Page 87, there is a 22 tabulation of an exercise issue which involves back-up route alerting in Rockland County.
And, based on the fact that
)
24 i
this was not part -- this issue was not part -- of the 25 remedial exercise for which this report that I'm reading U
37600505 8605 suewalsh
[
from is the report, that issue was not rated as a deficiency; it was rated as an area requiring corrective 3
action.
4 Now, at that time we were using a slightly different terminology.
If you had the previous reports 6
there will be in the tabulation of the report a deficiency 7
which leads to a negative finding which we now call 8
deficiency; and, there will be other deficiencies which we now call ARCA.
And, that could have led to the confusion if 10 l
there was confusion.
l 11 But, based on this report which I have in my hand, it is my conclusion that there was no deficiency which
. ()
would lead to a negative finding found with redundant back-14 up route alerting at the Indian Point exercise conducted in 15 Novenber of ' 84 and I assume reported in February of
'85.
16 Q
Dr. Baldwin, do you remember during the course of your cross-examination by Mr. Lanpher you testified that the February 13th, 1986 exercise was limited in scale?
A (Witness Baldwin)
That's correct.
I remember 20 that.
21 Q
You were not allowed to finish your remarks; however, do you have anything you wish to add or clarify l
with respect to that comment?
A Well, what I had in mind there was that my response was solely confined, limited scope meaning that my
1 i
I 1
l 37600505 8606 suewalsh j
I thinking on that was solely limited to the issue of the lack 2
f of local and state participation.
That's the only thing I 3
had in mind.
a MR. CUMMING:
I just have one more question for 5
Ow esM.
I'm going to ask Mm to refer to a memoranhm
.6 of order, CLI-86-14.
I have some additional copies.
7 (Copies of the document are distributed.)
l 8
BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 9 Q
Mr. Kowieski, CLI-86-14, the copy I furnished 10 i
4 jj you, has a paragraph marked and underlined on Page 5.
A (Witness Kowieski)
I see that.
l 12 l
0 Would you read that into the record?
l l
33 esj MR. LANPHER:
I object to the reading of an ja opinion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission into the 15 rec ord.
That's improper redirect.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
I don't think it's necessary 37 to read that into the record.
18 Do you have a question based on it?
39 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 20 Q
Mr. Kowieski, is it your understanding that the 21 simulation of state and local activity was consistent with 22 that paragraph which is underlined?
23 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the --
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Sustained.
25 MR. CUMMING:
I have no further questions, Your p
V l.
37600505 suewalsh 8607 fg
u]
Honor.
I would like to note, however, that FEMA understands 2
the State of New York, Suffolk, LILCO'and the Staff were all 3
on cross-examination of my witnesses; therefore, the scope 4
of recross would be limited to the scope of my redirect.
5 JUDGE FRYE Well, I'm not sure we are going to 6
follow that rule in this particular instance.
What you were
{
7 trying to find out from these witnesses I gather is whether 8
in their opinion the exercise that was conducted on February 9
13, 1986 complied with the Commission's desires; is that 10 right?
11 MR. CUMMING:
That's correct.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you have an opinion on that?
13
(
MR. LANPHER:
Could you repeat your question, 14 Judge?
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Is it their opinion that the 16 exercise which they conducted on February 13, 1986 was in 17 compliance with the Commission's directives, the Nuclear 18 Regulatory Commission's directives or requests, however you 19 care to characterize it?
20 MR. LANPHER:
Am I allowed to object to your 21 question?
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Sure.
I 23 MR. LANFHER:
I think it's a leading question, 24 and it's improper and ou tside the scope of any admitted 25 contentions.
(:)
l i
l 37600505 8608 f"puewalsh r
1 JUDGE FRYE It is a leading question, I grant you.
I'm not sure that I think it's outside the scope though.
MR. CUMMING:
Judge Frye, I don't believe it's outside the scope, and that's the reason I asked the question, because there have been extensive cross-8 including state and local activities.
9 MS. McCLESKEY:
And we have also gone into a lot of detail as to how the exercise was put together.
MR. LANPHER:
Judge, there has --
JUDGE FRYE I'm going to overrule your LJ objection.
(Laughter.)
MR. LANPHER:
Why don't you hear me out, otherwise the --
g JUDGE FRYE:
Sure.
3g MR. LANPHER:
There have been no questions about 9
the simulations.
And, there are no contentions in here in g
this about the simulation.
JUDGE FRYE:
I didn't ask them about simulation.
MR. LANPHER:
That's the portion of the directive that was all underlined.
8***
9 25 MR. LANPHER:
So, I will also object to your V
37600505 8609 ISuewalsh V
1 question as vague.
2 (Laughter.)
3 JUDGE PARIS:
I would like to raise a point of 4
clarification about your question.
5 Is it directed just at the underlined portion of the --
7 8
e underlined portion when I asked the question, to be frank 9
with you.
10 JUDGE PARIS:
Oh.
- j JUDGE FRYE
That's one of the objectionable 12 portions of the question is the fact that --
MR. LANPHER:
Just one of several.
JUDGE FRYE:
One of several.
Nonetheless, with 15 all of those objections noted, what is your opinion?
16 WITNESS KOWIESKI Your Honor, it is my strong j7 l
belief that FEMA in designing -- planning, designing and i
18 executing the February 13, 1986 exercise complied with the j9 Commission's order.
Our documents, our actions speak for 20 themselves.
21 Our document which was provided to controllers 22 and simulators prior to the exercise, one of the -- under 23 the Purpose clearly stated and described the roles of 24 simulators during the exercise.
It clearly states the 25 l
purpose to have simulators during the February 13, 1986
j 1
.i
)
-}7600505
.8610 Juewalsh i
2 exercise is to see, to assess, how LERO organization will l
3 accommodate an ad hoc response by the state and local 4
of ficiale, not to take posture, decision-makins posture, but d
5 basically to ask LERO officials questions on the status of.
J 6
emergency, to ask LERO officials to be briefed on the status'
~
7 of an accident.
.j i
a And, I feel strongly that we complied with the 9
Commission's order.
i 10 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
11 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, I move to strike that 12 answer unless you can point out which contention that 13 relates to.
I-o) 14 JUDGE FRYE:
I will take that under advisement.
i 15 MR. LANPHER:
Thank you.
.1 16 JUDGE FRYE:
Now, I think we are back to you at
'\\
17 this point.
18 MR. LANPHER:
Just one moment.
I want to 19 perhaps follow up on one of the answers that was just 20 given.
I was trying to figure out a, transcript cite.
I 21 JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
22 MS. McCLESKEY :
Judge Frye, while Mr. Lanpher is 23 looking up his cite, I do understand that the scope ofiour 24 questioning on the second round is not limited simply to Mr.
25 Cumming's questions but I do think it would be good to F5 define the limitation.
l t_;
I
.\\
l l
7600505 8611
'uewalsh 1
2 And, my understanding of the limitation is that o
3 the parties can ask questions raised as a result of the 4
other parties' questions but that's it.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
I think that is appropriate in 6
thes e circums tanc es.
6 7
MS. McCLESK EY :
All right.
8 MR. PIRFO:
Let me qualify that.
Limited to the 9
parties that went after them?
10 JUDGE FRYE:
No, let's not -- if there is a 11 problem we will worry about it when it arises.
12 MR. FIRFO:
All ri ght.
'rs
.m j
s /
jg is l
16,
17 4
18 19 20 21 l
22 23 24 i
l 25 m
a
1
- 37600606 612 RECROSS EXAMINATION j oewalsh
,p) x BY MR. LANPHER:
1 I
L, Q
Mr. Kowieski, Mr. Cumming earlier this morning 2
asked you a question about the January 17, 1986 Papile 3
letter having to do with -- I believe his questions went to d
the ingestion pathway portion.
5 Now, I assume you received that letter some time -
6 after January 17, 1986, correct?
7 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That is correct.
8 0
And as of that time, FEMA had already decided, 9
in fact, back in Novenber I guess, during that time frame, 10 November 1985, that ingestion pathway would not be one of Il the objectives in the Shoreham exercise, correct?
12 A
That is correct.
13 7q Q
This letter did not impact your decision one way
d Id or the other, did it?
15 A
Just simply --
16 Q
Just answer the question, please, Mr. Kowieski.
17 This letter did not impact your decision --
I8 A
Reaffirmed my judgment.
19 Q
I want an answer.
20 JUDGE FRYE You got it.
The answer was it 21 reaffirmed his decision, or confirmed.
22 BY Mr. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 22 Q
It was after the fact, wasn't it?
24 MR. PIRFO:
I didn't hear that question.
25 (Reporter reads back the question.)
p-U i
37600606 8613 joewalsh O
\\
I JUDGE FRYE:
Is that so?
2 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Well, generally speaking, 3
yes.
d BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 5 Q
Gentlemen, there was no meeting of the Shoreham 6
RAC between the date of Mr. Speck's letter that we talked 7
about, and I believe it was October 29, 1985, and the date 8
of the Shoreham exercise, February 13, 1986, isn't that 9
correc t?
IO A
(Witness Kowieski)
If you talk about all the II RAC members.
12 Q
That is what I am talking about, sir.
I3
(~}
A No, sir.
There was no meeting held.
U Id Q
And the meeting I believe has been referenced on 1
15 February 11 and 12, 1986, at which RAC members were in 16 attendance, that was a training session for evaluators, I7 observers, controllers?
18 A
That is also correct.
I9 Q
Do you recall your testimony yesterday, 20 gentlemen, in which you stated that each RAC member, for 21 instance the DOE member, t,he EPA member, has a relatively 22 narrow area of responsibility?
23 A
Generally speaking that is correct.
Has a 24 distinc t area of responsibility.
25 JUDGE PARIS:
But not necessari.1y narrow, is
37600606 8614
-Joewalsh
( )
1 that what you mean?
2 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That is correct, sir.
4 3
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) l 4
0 Well, Mr. Kowieski, you stated yesterday at Page 5
8466, quote:
Each RAC menber has a very narrow 6
responsibility in the area of his or her expertise.
7 Do you recall that statement? '
8 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes, I do, and I think --
9 Q
And that was a correct statement, wasn't it?
10 A
The correct statement was made a few minutes j
11 ago, or a minute ago.
Distinct.
I misspoke.
It is 12 4
distinct area of responsibility related to his or her 13 expertise.
O Was your statement yesterday that I just quoted 15 to you from Page 8466 of the transcript incorrect?
16 A
That is correct.
It is incorrect.
I think it 17 is a better definition, a better answer would be that each 18 RAC menber has a distinct area of responsibility related to 19 his or her expertise.
20 0
And in connection with review of exercise 21 objectives, each RAC member when they receive a set of 22 objectives -- proposed objectives from you as RAC Chairman, 23 is expected to review those objectives with respect to their 24 distinct area of responsibility, correct?
25 A
That is correct.
4 s_-
k l
i
37600606 8615-esjoewalsh
(_)
i Q
Now, is that your understanding of what the RAC 2
members for Shoreham did?
3 A
Generally speaking, yes.
On occasion, on 4
occasion RAC members take the liberty to comment on other 5
areas if they feel they have something to contribute.
6 Q
I am talking only about Shoreham.
The Shoreham l
objectives that were being decided upon in late 1985 or 8
early '86, was my description of the process accurate?
9 A
Sir, I would like to be responsive, but again 10 without going back to each reply to each piece of 11 correspondence that I received from a RAC member, I cannot 12 give you a very accurate --
[)
Q Okay, let's do that.
That is a fair answer, Mr.
A/
ja Kowieski.
Now, from the NRC RAC menber, that was Mr. Amato, 15 correct?
16 A
That is correct.
17 Q
He was the only RAC member other than yourself 18 to review the Shoreham scenario while it was being 19 developed, isn't that correct?
20 A
That is also correct.
21 Q
And with respect to the objectives for Shoreham, 22 did you receive comments from Mr. Amato ?
23 A
I believe I received very late.
24 MS. McCLESKEY:
Judge Frye, I am going to object 25 to any further questions about the objectives.
There wasn't I
37600606 8616
[Fibewalsh
'%)
any questioning about that.
2 My questions about the process went to the 3
I choosing of observers and evaluators, and how they got to 4
the exercise, and then post-exercise activities.
I did not ask any questions about how the scenario was put together, and I don't think Mr. Cumming or Mr. Pirfo did.
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I asked questions.
8 MS. McCLESKEY:
If the ground rules are that the State and the County can double team, then I object.
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
We are not double teaming anything.
MR. LANPHER:
Judge, the context of these
(~[j) questions happen to do with questions by the Licensing Board yesterday af ternoon.
I can give you transcript references 15 if you wish.
If you will go to 8440, in that area, about 16 whether there was any kind of collegial decision about whether this was a full participation exercise in late 1985, g
and I think you will recall Dr. Baldwin talking about his recollection of the consensus of RAC members and that sort 20 of thing, and I have a perfect right to probe what this consensus was, and this is laying the basis for probing that, so these were the Board's questions that sponsored this.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
8440 is Mr. Zahnleuter.
25 MR. LANPHER:
Well, if ivu go after that, Judge, ilj
37600606 8617 ewalsh you will find questions --
JUDGE FRYE:
I agree with you.
Overruled.
MR. LANPHER:
By the way, I would like to just note I think there is one fairly significant error in the transcript at 8459.
Where I objected to a question, and at Line 19, it is Judge Frye:
All right.
And then it goes on:
This Board just frankly proceeded through a bunch of speculation.
That was my statement.
I don't think you made that statement, Judge.
JUDGE FRYE:
I agree.
I remember that, too.
11 MR. LANPHER:
I thought I might jog your memory 12 a bit or whatever, and when we make transcript changes, we
()
will correct that one.
I would like to be the sponsor of that.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
16 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing)
Q Now, gentlemen, I would like to have marked for
- g identification Suffolk County Exhibit 107.
(The above referenced document is g
marked Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit No. 107, for Identification.)
For the record, it is a letter from Terry L.
24
]
Harpster, of the NRC, to Mr. Kowieski, dated December 3, 1985.
,}
()
l 600606 8618 walsh j
JUDGE FRYE:
This le 107.
2 MR. LANPHER:
Yes, sir.
The exhibit notation at 3
bhe top, the xerox, is from a deposition.
4 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 5 Q
Mr. Kowieski, have you ever seen this letter 6
- aefore?
7 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes, sir.
8 9
Q Is this the letter of comments on the proposed jo objectives which you received from the NRC?
11 A
That is correct.
12 Q
Now, Mr. Harpster is not a member of the RAC, is he?
13 y,k L ta ja A
No, but he was the supervisor of Mr. Amato 0
15 And do you know the circumstances under which it 16 came to pass that Mr. Harpster rather than Mr. Amato I7 provided you comments?
l I8 A
I believe that is an NRC internal operating I
I9 p roc edure.
The boss elected to sign the letter.
20 0
And I am correct, am I not, that this was --
21 that these were the only comments on the objectives, the 22 Shoreham objectives, which you received from the NRC?
23 A
That is my recollection.
24 Q
And these comments, by the terms of this letter, 25 these comments were made on the basis of the initial draf t objectives which you put together in November?
%./
O 37600606 8619 3
Vj oewalsh j
i MR. PIRFO:
I object to that. question.
He is 3
asking Mr. Kowieski to speculate on the basis on which NRC made certain conanents.
MR. LANPHER:
Well, I am asking him to look at 6
the letter and see if that is a reasonable deduction, given the expreF'ed statements in the letter.
8 MR. PIRFO:
The letter speaks for itself.
JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
l WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That is correct.
MR. LANPHER:
Thank you.
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing)
Q I apologize if I asked this just a minute ago.
You didn't receive any subsequent conanents from the NRC 15 about the Shoreham objectives, correct?
A (Witness Kowieski)
In writing.
I had numerous 17 telephone conversations with various RAC members, including 18 Charlie Amato.
About the exercise, the scope of the 19 exercise, and exercise objective themselves.
20 Q
Are you saying, Mr. Kowieski, that you had 21 additional comments beyond this letter from Mr. Amato abou t 22 the Shoreham objectives?
A In what context, I don't remember, sir, right 24 now.
25 Q
It is fair to state you don't have any recollection of additional comments, isn't that true, sir?
376006'06 1.
8620 joewalsh 2
A
.That is true.
'3 Q
Is it' fair to say'that you don't know what kind 4
I of a review that Mr. Amato or anyone else at the NRC made 5
of the Shoreham objectives?
6 A
What I know sir, I can only testify what I. asked 7
for.
I asked each RAC member' to review the proposed 8
exercise objectives.
9 Q
That is'not my question.
You don't have --
10 1
A I don't know.
I 11 Q
Okay.
Similarly, you don't know what guidance 12 documents, if any, may have been utilized by Mr. Amato or f
anyone else at the NRC to review'the objectives, correct?
Ld 34 A'
That is correct.
15 0
And you don't know what guidance documents, if-16 any, any menber of the' RAC, other-than yourself, perhaps, 17 used to review the proposed objectives,' isn't that correct?
18 A
That is also correct..
I 19 Q
You don't know what regu3ations, if any, were 20 reviewed by any member of the RAC, except perhaps yourself, 21 related to the proposed objectives of Shoreham, correct?
22 A
That is also correct.
23 Q
Mr. Kowieski, am I correct that the only -- the 24 comments from the NRC, which are referenced in Suf folk 25 County Exhibit 107 on the objectives, correc t?
.si)
A That is correct.
r\\
(,)37600606 1
8621 joewalsh 2
Q Yesterday, Dr. Baldwin, you referenced some 3
conversations with Mr. Fish, with a DOE official about the s
exercise?
5 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Correct.
6 Q
Was that Mr. Fish?
7 A
Yes, it was.
l 8
Q Can you identify who Mr. Fish is?
9 A
Mr. Fish-is the Department of Energy 10 representative on the RAC.
11 Q
And when you made references to a DOE person 12 yesterday in your testimony on at least two occasions, was 13 (f
it Mr. Fish to whom you were referring?
A Yes, it was.
15 0
And he provided comments on the objectives, did 16 he not?
17 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes, he did.
18 j
Q Am I correct that his comments on -- what is Mr.
j 19 Fish's area of expertise on the RAC?
20 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Let me caucus for a minute.
21 (Panel discussion.)
22 MR. PIRFO:
Judge Frye, I obj ec t to this 23 question in the sense the question calls for the expertise 24 of these various RAC menbers.
The RAC members are chosen 25 because of the agencies they represent, as distinct from what their particular expertise might be.
s 00606-8622 k }Mwalsh L
So,.to that extent, I object to the question
'3 calling for'the Chairman..to assess the various' expertise of-I the RAC ~ members.
JUDGE FRYE:
I,think it is a proper question.
6 They have already said'that they were experts,.and that they 7
functioned within their particular field.
q 8
.MR. PIRFO:
I am sorry, Judge Frye, but I can't 9
hear you.
J 10 JUDGE FRYE I think it 'is a proper question.
-11 The witnesses have already testified that the RAC is 12 composed'of various experts who. function within their I3 p
particular area.'of expertise in their capacity as RAC 14 menbers.
15
~
(Continuing)
BY MR. LANPHER:
16 0'
Have you had a chance to confer, Mr. Kowieski?
A (Witness Kowieski)
Yes.
Well, unfortunately, I don't have a document which would assign responsibility.
Q Mr. Kowieski, let me stop you.
If you don't 0
know the answer, just tell me, that is fine.
A I can answer in general terms.
He is the 22 administrator, and as far as the specifics are concerned, I 23 would have to refer to the document, which assigns the 24 responsibility for reviewing the plans and evaluating the 25 exercises,to each agency on the RAC.
m f
JUDGE PARIS:
Do you have such a document?
Vl
/~s37600606 8623
(_)doewalsh'I 2
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Yes, sir.
Yes.
3 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 4 Q
Mr. Kowieski, am I correct that Mr. Fish's 5
comments, or Dr. Baldwin, his comments regarding the 6
objectives for 'Shoreham concerned the responsibilities and 7
role of the Brookhaven area office of DOE in the exercise?-
8 A
(Witness Baldwin)
That is one area, correct.
9 Q
He provided written comments, didn't he?
10 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes, he did.
Il Q
And, his written comments only covered 12 Brookhaven matters, didn't it?
r 13 A
I have a good recollection of --
t 14 Q
Let me clarify the question.
15 A
- yes, 16 0
The objectives dealing with the Brookhaven
'7 of fic e?
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
Do you have a different recollection that his q
20 written comments covered anything else, Dr. Baldwin?
21 A
(Witness Baldwin)
No.
22 O
Now, within the area of -- well, within the 23 responsibilities of Mr. Fish in connection with this 24 exercise to reach any kind of a determination as to whether 25 this was a full participation exercise?
(
A (Witness Kowieski)
I specifically did not ask --
i V47600606 I
8624 kdoewalsh 2
3 MR. LANPHER:
That wasn't my question, Judge.
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Yes.
1 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) i 6
0 Was it.within his area of responsibility to make a determination whether this was being structured as a full 8
participation exercise?
9 (The witnesses are conferring.)
10 Isn't the answer to that question no, gentlemen?
11 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes.
No.
12 (Laughter.)
{'2 l
(Witness Keller)
I think the answer to that i_
- g question is no.
I Q
Thank you.
Now, the only other written comments 16 you 've received on the Shoreham objectives were from Mr.
17 Lutz of the Department of Transportation; isn't that 18 correct?
A (Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
20 Q
I meant from the RAC.
A (Witness Keller)
From the RAC.
(Witness Kowieski)
From the RAC, right.
4 O
And, he had comments related to the degree of 24 Coast Guard participation and how the objective for 25 evacuation activities should be structured in light of the r"
i Coast Guard's anticipated participation; is that correct?
V l
J
h600606 i
8625
's ewalsh o
j
-2 j
A:
That's my recollection.
1
-3 i
Q And, gentlenen, except -- Mr. Kowieski, except 4
l for the NRC Staf f, which we talked about, Mr. Fish and Mr.
5 Lutz, those were the only RAC comments that you received i
i concerning the objectives for the Shoreham exercise; isn't 7
that correct?.
8 A
I cannot' answer this, your question --
9
-(T To the best of.your recollection.
10 A-
-- with a great degree of accuracy.
I know that 11 during the deposition in January Mr. Miller or Ms. Letsche 12
.tsed the same' question, and I think I provided copies of ra 13 the RAC comments to either Ms. Letsche or Mr. Miller.
14 So, maybe you - can help me ou t.
'15 Q
I'm asking to the best of your recollection, Mr.
16 Kowieski, ' the only comments on the objectives you received 17 from RAC menbers were from Mr. ' Harpster, the NRC Staff --
18 A
That's --
19 0
Let me finish the question.
Mr. Fish and Mr.
20 Lutz.
21 A
Written comments, that's correct.
22 Q
I didn't say written comments.
I said comments 23 on the objectives.
24 A
I thought that I received comments from 25 U.S.D.A.
Definitely, Cheryl Malina called me to advise that
()
she didn' t have any problems with the proposed exercise
I'"37600606 8626 k-d oewalsh 2
objectives.
3 Q
Okay.
With that addition, you don't' recall any 4
other comments, do you?
A No, I don't.
Q And, that time period for Ms. Malina's connents -
would have been in that December 1985 time-frame?
8 A
End of November, beginning of Decenber of 19 85.
9 Q
And, the time for Mr. Fish's written comments 10 that we have been discussing were in the December' time 11 frame, correct?
12 A
That's my recollection.
I km, 13 ja 15 i
16 17 18 f
1 20 l
2, l
l 22 1
23 l
24 25 RC
[-
h.
f 37600707 8627 suewalsh I
Q It was not within Ms. Malina's area of 2
responsibility to make a determination whether the Shoreham I
1 l
3 exercise was constructed as a full participation exercise, was it?
5 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
I didn't 6
ask for it.
Q If I went through the rest of the RAC members 8
with that same question, the answer would be the same, wouldn't it?
10 A
The same.
l 11 O
Dr. Baldwin, yesterday you testified to the 12 Board about your recollection of some conversations with
)
I3 l
- ^<
some RAC members.
Do you recall that?
l l
A (Witness Baldwin)
Yes, I do.
l 15 Q
And, you testified yesterday you cannot recall l
16 when these conversations took place; is that correct?
A That's correct.
O Is it fair to state that these conversations I
l were in the context of efforts by Region II, Mr. Kowieski 2
and you in assisting Mr. Kowieski, to structure the Shoreham 21 exercise in a manner which was consistent with the practices 1
22 l
of Region II at other exercise locations?
A That's a fair characterization, yes.
24 l
Q And, you didn't have any specific discussions 1
25 with any RAC member whether this was going to be a full U
U I
I e
37600707 8628
)
suewalsh
,s I
participation exercise as defined in the FEMA regulations in Part 350, did you?
3 A
Not specifically, that's correct.
4
}
Q You testified yesterday in response to a 1,
5 question from Judge Frye, "I remember a number of j
6 discussions with various RAC members centering on this where 1
7 we would look up what the participation parts of a FEMA-l 8
graded exercise were.
Judge Frye:
You are thinking in 9
terms of whether this was a full participation exercise as 10 defined in FEMA's regulations?"
And, you say, "That's 11 c orrec t, as defined by FEMA, yes."
And, that was at 8446.
Given the discussion we just had, those discussions with RAC menbers should not be construed to be 15 specifically about full participation exercises, should 16 they?
You just testified you didn't have those discussions?
17 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Well, my recollection is that 18 they were around that.
l 19 l
Q I asked whether you had any discussions with any 20 RAC menber about whether the Shoreham exercise would 21 constitute a full participation exercise as defined in the 22 FEMA Part 350 regulations.
You testified no.
23 Correc t?
24 A
Well, I misspoke, since you just -- in reading it back, my recollection -- to keep it straight, my r~s tj
37600707 8629 m uewalsh recollection is that when I-had these conversations with Mr.
2 j
Fish we went back and looked at that clause about full l
3 j
participation and we had a discussion about what the various
)
4 parts of that are.
5 Q
Well, Mr. Baldwin, not one minute ago you 6
testified that you had had no discussions with any RAC 7
member focused on full participation exercise.
Where was 8
the confusion in my question, do you know?
9 Or, is this just a recollection that just came 10 back to you?
11 j
MS. McCLESKEY:
I object.
Mr. Lanpher is 12 arguing with the witness.
He has been presented with a 13
(}
conflict --
JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
15 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Well, my recollection is just 16 what I told you, that I misspoke when I said that I hadn't 17 had any specific conversations about 350.
I specifically 18 recall having discussions with Mr. Fish where I looked up --
19 we looked up together and discussed what those parts are in 20 the definitions of exercises.
21 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 22 Q
Now, what did you look up, sir?
What parts did j
23
)
you look up, to use the words you just used?
{
24 A
Well, this one is from October '86 so it's the I
25 wrong edition.
f"l v
f
37600707 8630 Suewalsh
\\
JUDGE FRYE:
Can you tell the Board what you are 2
looking at?
3 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Oh, this is 44 CFR 350.
a MR. CUMMING:
The FEMA regulation has not 5
changed so I could give him the October '85 edition if he i
6 wishes.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
I don't think it's necessary if it 8
has not changed.
9 I
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 10 Q
My question is, you said that you and Mr. Fish 11 looked something up.
Do you recall that statement?
What 12 did you look up?
lh A
(Witness Baldwin)
In Part 350.1 -- I'm sorry, 14 350.2, Definitions, Part J, K,
which deal here with full 15 participation and partial participation, this section that 16 deals with these definitions.
17 Q
Now, let's leave Mr. Fish for a second.
You 18 didn't have any such conversations with any other RAC j
l menber, did you?
20 l
l A
That's correct.
21 Q
So, your recollection, or your corrected 22 rec ollec tion, is solely with respect to Mr. Fish?
l A
That's correct.
24 Q
And, so your testimony yesterday at 8446 was 25 solely with respect to Mr. Fish.
And, you, in fact,
i l
37600707 8631 q
1
~If "uewalsh I
1 V
referenced the DOE representative on the next page, Page 2
3 A
That's correct.
Yes.
It says DOE 4
- E#*8""
5 (Witness Kowieski)
Mr. Lanpher, could I add 6
something to this?
7 8
JUDGE FRYE Yes.
I think we are dealing with 9
the recollection of Dr. Baldwin right now.
jg BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) jj Q
Now, in your testimony yesterday at 8446 you 12 said y u were going to look up the participation part of a 13 m
FEMA-graded exercise.
Do you see that statement; it's at ja Lines 15 and 16 on that page?
15 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Yes, I do.
Q Now, was that statement accurate yesterday?
j7 A
Yes.
jg Q
Mr. Keller --
39 A
(Witness Keller)
Yes, sir.
20 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, I asked to question Mr.
21 Baldwin.
Mr. Keller is whispering over to him yes.
- And, 22 this was Mr. Baldwin's testimony yesterday.
I don't think 23 it was material this time, but I don't think that --
24 JUDGE FRYE:
I think when we are dealing with an 25 individual's recollections it's best to let him answer.
7 k
t 8632 f)37600707 luewalsh' WITNESS KELLER:
Excuse me.
2 R.
LANPHER:
(Condnuing) 3 Q
Now, what are the participation parts that you 4
were looking up with Mr. Fish?
5 A
The part that I just cited.
6 Q
.No.
I asked you, what are the participation 7
parts that are referenced in your testimony, what are'the 8
participation parts of a FEMA-graded exercise?
9 A
The participation parts refers to 350.2, 10 Sections J, K,
L, et cetera.
ij Q
What is the et cetera?
What else?
I want to 12 know the full universe of what you are referring to, Mr.
,O d
Baldwin?
ja A
Well, that's my recollection, J,
K and L.
l 15 W
ch of Oe M ec, in J wMch'is fu U 16 participation, K which is partial participation, and L which l
37 is remedial exercise, were you and Mr. Fish focusing on?
j 18 A
We were discussing all three and focusing on J.
j9 JUDGE PARIS:
J is full participation?
20 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Full participation.
21 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 22 Q
It's a fact, is it not, that -- have you 23 reviewed Mr. Fish's deposition in this proceeding?
24 A
No, I have not.
25 p
Q Mr. Fish did not review the scenario, did he?
U
i I
7600707 8633 uewalsh 1
2 A
(Witness Kowieski)
He did not.
3 Q
And, this conversation that you had with Mr.
4 Fish was in the Decenber time frame also; is that correct?
5 Decenber 19 85.
6 A
(Witness Baldwin)
My recollection is -- I'm 7
going to say that it was in the December / January time frame.
8 Q
So, as of that time Mr. Fish had no knowledge
)
9 about whether the Sirens were going to be sounded, did he?
10 A
That 's correc t.
11 Q
Did you?
12 A
No, I did not.
13 Q
Mr. Fish had no knowledge whether an EBS test 0,"
14 message would be broadcast, did he?
15 MR. PIRFO:
I object to the form of these 16 questions.
He is asking if Mr. Fish had knowledge, and it 's 17 just not -- this witness is incompetent to answer that.
If 18 he wants to ask if he conveyed any of that knowledge to him, 19 that's another question entirely.
20 But, I don't want the record to represent this 21 witness testifying to what Mr. Fish did or did not know.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Can you rephrase the question?
l 23 MR. LANPHER:
Yes, sir.
24 BY MR. I.ANPHER :
(Continuing) 25 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Fish knew as of the time you had this conversation with him that
j
- rs37 6007 07 8634' l
(,)uewalsh 1
2 EBS -- that an EBS test message would not be broadcast?
3 A
No, I had no reason to believe that he knew 4
anything about that.
5 Q
And, in fact, neither you nor he knew that WALK 6
radio would not be participating at all in the exercise, did' l
l 7
you?
8 A
Well, I certainly did not.
9 Q-You have no reason to believe that he had any 10 such knowledge, do you?
11 A
No, I don't.
12 O
You didn't learn that until after the post-13 exercise assessment was prepared, correct?
j O
l 14 A
Could you ask your question again?
f l
15 Q
In fact, you didn' t learn about WALK radio's 16 lack of participation until after the PEA was prepared?
17 A
I'm just having trouble with " lack of 18 participation."
19 Q
If you recall, Dr. Baldwin, we talked about 20 phone calls being made to WALK radio.
I believe you agreed l
1 21 that you have learned subsequent to the exercise that those 22 phone calls, in fact, had not gone to WALK radio because 23 WALK radio didn't participate; is that correct?
24 A
That's correct, yes, sir.
25 Q
And, as of the time that you had your discussion
(}
with Mr. Fish, you have no reason to believe that Mr. Fish
1 k
(
l i
R37 600707 8635
(_)suewalsh I
2 knew that only Shorehara-Wading River Central School District 3
would participate, did you?
d A
At this point, I wouldn't know.
I don't know 5
what the -- I believe we knew that earlier on.
6 0
But, you don't know whether he -- whether it was 7
before or after this conversation, do you?
8 A
No, I do not.
J 9
Q So, you don't know what the bases were for this l0 discussion sbout those 350 parts that you were talkira II about, what the universe of knowledge about the scope of, he 12 exercise, you just don't recall what that universe of I3 pm knowledge was at that time, do you?
i~e' Id A
Yes, I do.
15 Q
Well, it included an assumption that the testing 16 was going to bs more broad than it turned out to be, correct?
8 MR. CUMMING:
Objection, Your Honor.
I don't remerpber the Board asking my witnesses this line of 20 questioning.
We are straying pretty far afield.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
No.
It's clearly related to the 22 questions we asked.
23 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 24 Q
Do you recall the question, sir?
25 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Let's do it again.
MR. LANPHER:
Could you have the Reporter read
, - - _. - - - -- ~ - -. -. - - - _. -
'F ' 3
'9 l
l
~
8636 I Y37600707 '
I\\/ Cuewa1sh '
the question back please, Judge?
3 (The Reporter read the question back as requested.)
WITNESS BALDWIN:
No, not mere broad than it 6
turned out ~ to be, because our conversations were focusing on the objectives that dealt with the simulation of the state 8
and local players.
ar BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 10 0
So, your discussions with Mr. Fish were in terms 11 of full participation exercise and were solely in terms of whether the lack of~ state and local government participation
' bN-I3
'would' affect whether this was a full participation exerciser
'k Y' 34 is that correct?
15 A
No.
They were in the context of whether or not 16
. the simulation that was going to be conducted would meet the 17
-- would meet the consistency which had been done in the 18 past for an integrated exercise, to test the integrated capability of implementation of the plan.
O Well, Dr. --
l 21 A
And, they focused on -- they came back to our i
I 22
[
discussions about the plan review.
And, we had that l
23 L
discussion yesterday, too.
And, that we were going to be 24 evaluating the plan in the exercise; we were going to be
~
25 evaluating the implementation of the plan in the context of
.q
,Li j the plan review that had been conducted which identified
r,
(
) 37600707 i 8637
'~' cuewalsh 2
legal authority issues by asterisk marks, et cetera.
3 O
Dr. Baldwin, you referenced in your earlier 4
answer, however, that your discussion wit'h Mr. Fish was 5
focused on the simulation of state and local government 6
officials; isn't that correct?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
And, it was in that context -- in the context of 9
that simulation that you and Mr. Fish went to the 10 regulations to look up the participation parts, correct?
11 A
Correct.
12 Q
And, in doing that, in that context of focusing
['l on the simulation, you were also assuming that the testing kal ja of things like sirens, EBS radio stations, would be broader l
15 than actually turned out to be the case?
16 A
I don't recall any assumption that I was naking 17 l
explicitly about WALK radio, about EBS, about siren l
18 soundings.
I don't recall.
19
(
I certainly was not employing those specific 20 kinds of issues.
21 Q
You don't recall what your assumptions were then 22 f
about the extent of the testing?
23 A
I recall that I was not focusing on specific 24 issues such as EBS, siren sounding and WALK radio.
25 U
t.J k
r
I I
37600808 8638
~joewalsh I
Q Now, Mr. Baldwin, do you have -- I apologize if 2
this is repetitive, but it's just getting into a little 3
different line, d
Your conversation with Mr. Fish was the only 5
detailed discussion you had with a RAC menber other than 6
perhaps Mr. Kowieski, whom you were working with everyday, 7
about the scope of the exercise under the 350 regulations, 8
correct?
9 A
(Witness Baldwin)
That's correct.
10 0
And, Judge Frye asked you yesterday which was II more -- which was a matter of more concern to the RAC, the 12 lack of state and local participation or the question of 33 whether all the major observable portions of the plan were 7q bj Id exercised.
And, you answered:
I think the latter.
15 Well, when Judge Frye asked you about the matter 16 of more concern to the RAC, the only RAC member you had had I7 a detailed conversation with about that was Mr. Fish, 18 correc t?
19 A
That 's correc t.
20 0
And, so that answer should be limited to the 21 conversation with Mr. Fish?
22 A
Yes.
23 0
And, given the conversation that you have just 24 had this morning with me, I believe you stated that Mr.
25 Fish's concern or the focus -- not concern, the focus of PU l
'l 1
37600808 8639 joewalsh I
your discussion was in the simulation of state and local 2
government personnel, correc t?
3 A
That's correct --
Q So --
5 A
-- in the context of-being able to observe the --
6 to evaluate the observable portions of the plan, 7
specifically that port.. ion of the plan that deals with the opportunity of local and state officials to exercise their 8
9 authority.
10 0
Well, you -- do you have yesterday's transcript
'I handy?- Please turn to 8452.
I 12 (The witness is complying.)
13 It starts at Line 17.
Shouldn't that answer Id have been the former as opposed to the latter?
Which was a 15 n;atter of more concern to the RAC, to Mr. Fish is really 16 what it was -- which was a matter of more concern to Mr.
37 Fish, the lack of state and local government participation I8 or the question whether all the major observable portions of l
l' the plan were exercised.
20 Shouldn't you have answered the former?
21 (The witness is looking at the document.)
22 A
It's the latter.
It's the latter.
23 O
Is it your testimony, notwithstanding what you 24 said earlier today, that Mr. Fish's major concern was that 25 all the major observable portions of the plan be exercised?
O
o 37600808 8640 joewalsh k,
1 MR. PIRFO:
I object to the question again of 2
Mr. Fish's concern.
i 1
3 JUDGE FRYE:
I'm sorry?
d MR. PIEFO:
The same objection.
He keeps 5
talking in terms of these other person's state of mind.
6 MR. LANPHER:
That was the question of Judge 7
Frye yesterday.
JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah.
Overruled.
8 9
MR. LANPHER:
I didn't like your question 10 yesterday, Judge.
II WITNESS BALDWIN:
Well, the question as I 12 understood it yesterday and now reading the transcript.,
13 7q which was a inatter of more concern emphasized to you or the LJ Id RAC rather, to you, okay, and in the context of Ine speaking i
15 with Mr. Fish as a RAC member, which was a matter of more 16 concern to the RAC.
I7 I would identify one as the lack of state and 18 local participation or -- and I would identify two, the l'
latter, in this case, the question of whether all major 20 observable portions of the plan were exercised.
And, I 21 answered I think the latter emphasis on the question of 22 whether all major observable portions of the plan were 23 exercised.
24 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 25 0
And, you had no discussions with Mr. Fish about tU
l J
37600808 8641 I
joewalsh
' (3
( /
I the omission of ingestion pathway objectives, did you?
2 A
(Witness Baldwin)
That's --
3 Q
You can't recall?
d A
I can't recall.
5 0
And, you can't recall any discussions with Mr.
6 Fish about the omission of any public information 7
objectives, can you?
8 A
Correct.
9 Q
You can't recall any discussion with Mr. Fish to about the omission of recovery and reentry objectives, can I'
you?
12 A
Correct.
33 O
And, your plan review that you referenced, FEMA 14 Region II had reviewed those portions of the LERO plan, 15 correct?
16 A
Yes, we had.
Q So, this exercise was not consistent with all 18 the portions of the plan which had been reviewed before, was I9 it?
You didn't cover all those portions, did you?
20 A
That 's correc t.
We did not cover all those 1
21 portions.
22 Q
Gentlemen, do you recall yesterday you testified 23 that FEMA made no interim finding on the basis of the review 24 of the Shoreham exercise?
25 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
O
37600808 8642 oewalsh 1
1 Q
Imt I correct that under the Memorandum of 2
Understanding which we referred to yesterday and which I i
3 i
guess we marked State Exhibit 4 for identification -- I 4
believe that's correct, the number --
5 A
(Witness Keller)
That's what I have.
6 Q
Isn't it true that when FEMA is asked to review 7
a plan, it is provided under the MOU that it will make 8
findings and determinations on the current status of 9
emergency planning and preparedness?
10 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct, when 11 requested by NRC.
12 Q
And, NRC did request FEMA about January 20th --
13
{}
June 20, 1985 to conduct an exercise and to provide findings and determinations; isn't that correct?
15 A
That's correct, as full exercise as feasible.
16 That's my recollection.
17 O
That's right.
And, the NRC did not direct in 18 that June 20 letter that you conduct a full participation 19 exercise, did it?
20 A
As full exercise as feasible.
21 Q
The answer to my question then is no, did it?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
Now, you testified yesterday that -- strike 24 that.
25 Now, you made no findings and determinations, no v
37600808 8643
,-ioewalsh
(_)
i interim findings and determinations, correc t?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
And, as I understand your testimony yesterday, 4
it was because policy-makers in Washington, D. C. decided that no findings, either positive or negative, would be made 6
by FEMA, correct?
7 i
A To give you simple answer, the answer is 8
c orrec t.
I would like to expand on it, but that's right.
9 Q
All I want is the answer.
I don't need an 10 i
explanation.
i 11 And, the reason, as set forth in Mr. Speck's 12 letter of the 29th of October and as described at Page 91 of
()
your testimony, was the lack of state and local government participation; isn't that correct?
15 i
A That's correct.
16 Q
Is it fair to state that what that really meant 17 was that even if this exercise were perfectly performed, no 18 deficiencies, no ARCAs even, that on the basis of that 19 exercise FEMA would not have been in a position to provide a 20 reasonable assurance finding because of the lack of state 21 and government -- the state and local government 22 participation; isn' t that correc t?
23 A
That 's correc t.
2A 0
Leave aside the state and local government 25 participation or the lack thereof, you testified yesterday O
37600808 8644
? >oewalsh
-Q that there were at least three deficiencies identified in 2
the Shoreham exercise that had nothing whatsoever to do with lack of. state and local government participation, correct?
A That's correct.
5 Q
So, isn't it fair to state that independent of 6
that caveat, which you discuss at Page 91 of your testimony 7
about the lack of state and local government participation, g
the only finding if one had been issued by FEMA on the basis 9
f the Shoreham exercise would have been a negative finding, 10 because you identified at least three deficiencies that were jj independent of state and local government lack of 12 participation?
33 b
A Again, I would have to speculate.
Not only if y,
y u -- to give you an example, what would happen at Indian 15 Point if FEMA would have identified similar deficiencies at Indian Point.
37 Q
The definition of a deficiency is something that ig precludes the reasonable assurance finding, correct?
39 A
That 's correc t.
20 Q
And, you identified four of them, correct, in 21 the Shoreham exercise?
22 A
That's correct.
23 I
Q S
independent of the lack of state and local 24 government participation, you could not provide reasonable 25 l
l p
assurance?
In fact, you would have to make a no reasonable l Q
8645
,37600808
( joewalsh 3
assurance finding on the basis of those three deficiencies 2
if you had made any finding?
3 MR. CUMMING:
Objection to this line of 4
questioning.
The FEMA official position has been stated by 5
Mr. Kowieski.
Is he asking a personal opinion?
6 MR. LANPHER:
Excuse me.
The FEMA position is 7
in their testimony.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah, it is.
And, I think it's a 9
legitimate question.
10 Overruled.
11 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Nould you be kind enough to 12 restate your question again?
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 14 Q
Mr. Kowieski, I -- let's go back a second.
I 15 understand from your previous testimony that FEMA's initial 16 caveat about not making a finding was it's concern about how 17 to judge an exercise where there was no state and local 18 government psrticipation, correct?
19 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
20 Q
But, after the Shoreham exercise you found 21 deficiencies that were entirely independent of that caveat, 22 correc t?
23 A
That 's also correc t.
24 Q
And, given that fact that you found those 25 deficiencies, isn't it true that there was no reason that O
37600808 8646 joewalsh 3
FEMA could not have issued a negative finding on the basis 2
of this exercise?
l A
There is -- there was a reason.
There was an agre reacM beMen E and N.
5 O
But, that had nothing to do with the merits of the exercise review, did it?
7 8
O That was a policy decision having nothing to do 9
with the exercise?
10 A
Nothing to do with the results of the exercise, jj that's correct.
12 Q
Okay.
And, the results of the exercise, the b
three independent deficiencies, would have required a no reasonable assurance finding under the MOU in any other exercise?
A By definition of deficiency, that's correct.
37 Q
In any other exercise, it would have led to a no
,g reasonable assurance finding, correct?
g (The witnesses are conferring.)
20 A
(Witness Kowieski)
If -- again, big "if."
If NRC would request interim finding on the status of plans and g
preparedness, most likely FEMA would have to conclude that FEMA cannot give a reasonable assurance that public health I
g and safety can be protected; that's correct.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Kowieski, let me put this --
7 l
l l
37600808 8647 joewalsh take it out of the context of Shoreham and put it in the context of an operating plant.
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Surely.
JUDGE FRYE:
Had you conducted this exercise, were Shoreham operating, and you had found these three deficiencies --
7 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
-- what would have happened?
WITNESS KELLER:
A remedial exercise would be 10 scheduled.
11 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
First of all, in the cover 12 letter -- normally, in the cover letter or cover letters, 13
,j which are issued simultaneously to FEMA Headquarters Of fice and to the State, FEMA identify deficiencies.
FEMA also 15 requests a schedule of corrective actions from the state and counties.
FEMA would state those facts in the letter, to send the letter to Washington, our Washington Office, that here is what we evaluated and we found three deficiencies.
19 We requested the state to take remedial action.
And, we are in the process of scheduling remedial exercise.
JUDGE PARIS:
And, there is a time limit within 22 which that has to be done?
23 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's correct, 120 days.
JUDGE PARIS:
So, they have to demonstrate that 25 they have remedied the deficiencies within 120 days?
1
i l
37600808 8648 R,yjoewalsh 1
WITNESS.KOWIESKI:
That's correct.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
And, if they did not make that 3
demonstration, then you would issue a finding I would a
l presume that there is not reasonable assurance that the 5
public health and safety can be --
6 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Well, we would go -- it 7
varies.
You are right.
8 9
My recollection is that a number of occasions, 10 that's what actually happened.
Regional Director, in his ij cover letter transmitting post-exercise assessment to FEMA 12 Headquarters Office, stated that based on the fact that we found three, four deficiencies during the exercise we cannot 33 ja provide reasonable assurance that public health and safety can be protected.
15 16 I don't think it has happened in every single case when we found deficiencies.
But, to answer your i7 ig question, what would happen if after the remedial exercise still some deficiencies would remain, the --
19 20 JUDGE FRYE:
If I'm following you then, coming 21 back to the context of a plant that does not have a 22 commercial operating license and goes through a full participation exercise --
23 24 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Right.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
-- and FEMA finds three p
deficiencies, FEMA then schedules a remedial exercise, the C
37600808 8649
(
doewalsh j
2 exercise takes place but up until this point I gather that j
FEMA hasn't issued any finding at a13?
3 4
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's correct.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Now, the exercise takes place and 6
the deficiencies are still present --
7 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Correct.
JUDGE FRYE:
-- now, at that point would you 8
9 issue a finding that there is not reasonable assurance that jo the public health and safety could be protected?
ij WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Well, it depends if NRC would
)
i 12 ask for it, for interim finding.
But, most likely when FEMA submits the results of the exercise to NRC, normally, 33
\\s generally speaking, NRC would take action against the ja 15 utility.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, now taking it out of the 17 context of an operating plant and putting it into the is context of a plant that does not have a consercial operating license and --
19 l
20 WITNESS KELLER:
We have no experience with 21 that.
I 22 JUDGE FRYE:
You have no experience with it?
23 WITNESS KELLER:
We have experience with an 24 operating license.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Indian Point, as I recall that was a 120 day letter --
O 5
y 47600808 8650
( joewalsh 1
2 WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
We just went 3
through this after Mr. Kowieski was relieved of his RAC 4
Chairmanship du ties.
5 But, Guidance Memorandum EV-2 -- I'm sorry, EX-6 1, excuse me.
Guidance Memorandum EX-1, which I'm not sure 7
is an exhibit or not --
8 MR. LANPHER:
It's an exhibit.
9 WITNESS KELLER:
Okay.
And, I don ' t remember 1
10 which exhibit it is, but on Page 4 of EX-1 there is a Il section which is titled " Action on Inadequately Performed 12 Remedial Exercises."
Okay.
And, you only get into remedial 13 exercises if you have a deficiency.
-d 14 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
15 WITNESS KELLER:
There are two actions 16 basically.
One, if there isn't a formal 350 -- has not been 17 app roved, okay, you haven't gone through a 350 process which 18 is the FEMA finding that reasonable assurance can be 19 assured; that's the formal process, the public hearing, the 20 whole thing, if you don't have that, you do not have the 350 21 in place, FEMA may, in consultation with NRC, require 22 another remedial exercise and NRC may consider enforcement l
23 actions, which is exactly what Mr. Kowieski just said.
24 And, that was the case at Indian Point last
)
i 25 Summer.
Okay.
)
l f"]
If a 350 process has been finalized and the site j
(-
J
r' 7600808 8651
- (
oewalah 1
2 has been certified by FEMA, you initiate steps to withdraw 3
the 350.
And, those are the two options for operating d
plants.
5 We have no --
6 JUDGE FRYE:
But, the point of it, if I 7
understand you correctly, is that if you have defic'iencies, 8
you know, that have been demonstrated, whether the plant is 9
operating -- if the plant is operating, a process is going 10 to be started to correct the deficiencies or take Il enforcement action?
12 WITNESS KELLER:
That 's correc t.
es 13 JUDGE FRYE:
If the plant is not operating, FEMA 14 would not take steps tbat would permit it to operate under 15
' those circumstances, would it?
16 WITNESS KELLER:
FEMA makes its position, its 17 opinion, known to the NRC.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
That's right.
19 WITNESS KELLER:
The NRC is the only entity 20 which can either allow the plant to operate or deny the --
21 JUDGE FRYE:
I understand that.
But, if FEMA 22 has conducted an exercise and there are deficiencies, FEMA 23 isn't going to say to NRC, yes, there is reasonable 24 assurance that the health and safety of the public can be 25 protected, is it?
(
WITNESS KELLER:
That's a true statement in my
l
{
l j
[joewalsh 7600808 8652 3
v 1
2 opinion.-
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing)
O-And, in fact, given the deficiencies the only i
finding that could have been made was that there are 6
deficiencies that may adversely impact the'public health and J
safety that must be corrected, right?
8 A
(Witness Keller)
If a finding were to be made, that is the only finding that could be mades' that's correct.
10 Q
And, that's a negative finding, isn't it?
11 A
Yes.
JUDGE FRYE:
We will take a five minute break.
13 (Short recess.)
$n]
- 4 BY MR. LANPHER
(Continuing) 15 Q
Gentlemen, you testified yesterday that on only 16 one occasion had you actually evaluated an EBS radio 17 station's performance during an exercise.
18 Do you recall that testimony?
A (Witness Kowieski)
Yes, I do.
0 Q
And, I believe you identified that as the August 21 lith, 1982 Fitzpatrick exercise?
Maybe it wasn't clear on 22 yesterday's transcript which it was, and that's what I want 23 to clarify.
(The witnesses are conferring.)
MR. PIRFO:
Could we have a transcript cite, Mr.
m
{
Lanpher?
7600808 8653 3
oewalsh MR. LANPHER:
I think it's 8526.
3 MR. PIRFO:
Thank you.
A BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 5 Q
If you look at Lines 7 through 13, you talked 6
about Ginna or Nine Mile Point, and I believe that you meant 7
the Fitzpatrick exercise and which the post-exercise 8
assessment report-has been entered into the record as 9
Suffolk County Exhibit 73.
10 Am I correct that that's the exercise you were 11 referencing?
12 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Well, again I would have to verify in the post-exercise assessment to be certain.
O Gentlemen, let me provide you with a copy of 15 that post-exercise assessment, and I'm going to direct your 16 attention to Page 23 where it states:
Significant 17 deficiencies were noted in the performance of the siren 18 system and the familiarity of come radio broadcast personnel 19 with EBS procedures.
20 And, then on page 24 it states:
During the i
21 exercise, use of the EBS was evaluated as weak.
Radio 22 station broadcast personnel at WKFM, the originating EBS 23 station, were neither provided with nor were familiar with 24 the county radiological emergency plan.
The master message 25 log was not utilized at the radio station to record EBS activation as called for in the plan.
I i
i r
{f4 -sq.
I 8654 i
(,j37600808 joewalsh (The witnesses are conferring.)
3 Gentlemen, did I read those statements 4
accurately?
5 6
7 i
8 9
10 11 12 13
- m; 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1
21 22 23 l
24 25 i
l l
1 1
37600909 8655 l
f suewalsh
()
1 A
(Witness Keller)
Essentially, you did.
I can't 2
remember the exact words as you read them.
But, it looks as 3
though you read them accurately.
4 Q
And, from those statements it does appear that 5
FEMA actually evaluated the EBS radio station personnel at 6
the radio station, correc t?
?
7 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
8 Q
You couldn't have made those findings from some 9
other location?
10 A
No.
And, there was a lot of controversy after 11 we presented our evaluation.
12 Q
And, your evaluation was that those personnel 1
13 didn't perform in a satisfactory or adequate manner, O
14 correct?
15 A
They performed in sort of weak manner.
16 Q
Okay.
That's not a satisfactory manner, is it, 17 Mr. Kowieski?
18 A
That's correct.
19 JUDGE PARIS:
Could I ask a quick follow-up?
20 MR. LANPHER:
Sure.
21 JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Kowieski, in situations where 22 you don 't send anybody to the radio sta tion, do you listen 23 to the broadcast if there is going to be a broadcast 24 following the siren sounding?
25 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Yes.
Generally speaking, O
37600909 8656 suewalsh i
pm l
yes.
2 JUDGE PARIS:
You tune in on the radio?
t 3
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Right.
d JUDGE PARIS:
Fine.
Thank you.
f 5
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 6 Q
And, didn't we establish, gentlemen, I think 7
last week that when you don't send someone to the radio 8
station to evaluate performance you use the broadcast of a 9
test message or the airing of a test message as some sort of 10 a confirmation to you that, gee, everything must be going II right because they got it on the air within our time limit?
12 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's fair 13 p:
characterization, yes.
LA 3d Q
You can't make that kind of a judgment, however, 15 for Shoreham where there was no test message and you didn't 16 evaluate the radio station personnel?
I7 A
That's correct.
18 Q
Now, gentlemen, yesterday there was some
'9 discussion with you about the Indian Point June 4, 1986 20 exercise.
I don't want to take you back through all that 21 discussion, but you stated -- or, you characterized your 22 evaluation of the school preparedness at that exercise as "a 23 spot check or spot checks."
24 Do you recall that?
25 A
Yec, I do.
CU
37600909 8657 suewalsh (O
d I
Q Now, am I correct that this spot checking in 2
connection with that exercise involved for Rockland County 3
interviews -- well, first of all, with respect to school d
preparedness you had EOC activities and school bus runs; 5
isn't that correct?
6 A
Could you rephrase your question?
I don't know 7
if I --
8 Q
If you don't understand the question, just tell 9
me.
A Okay.
Q Am I correct that each of the local EOC's went through organizational activities related to school 13 preparedness?
MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
These questions are j
Id 15 follow-ups on Mr. Zahnleuter's questions about the Indian 16 Point exercise, not the other parties.
Suffolk County and New York State filed joint testimony on 15 and 16 and 21, I0 and I think it's inappropriate for Mr. Lanpher to be following up on Mr. Zahnleuter's questions.
I MR. LANPHER:
I don't think it's inappropriate at all.
We are independent parties, and we have pursued non-repetitive cross-examination.
MS. McCLESKEY:
They are not --
JUDGE FRYE:
Is this relevant to 15, 16 and 21?
MR. LANPHER:
Excuse me?
[
~
37600909 8658 uewalsh 1
^
JUDGE FRYE:
Is this relevant to Contentions 15, 2
16 and 21?
3 MR. LANPHER:
Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Now, you filed joint testimony --
5 l
MR. LANPHER:
We filed joint testimony and we H
6 have done independent cross-examination, and we each 7
defended our own witnesses.
t 8
Now, if I get repctitive that's certainly a 9
valid objection, but there were statements made on the i
10 record yesterday that I think have to be clarified.
11 MS. McCLESK EY :
Well, to the extent that Mr.
12 Lanpher is going into further depth on questions that Mr.
13 T~
Zahnleu ter asked initially, it is repetitive.
They had the L_]m opportunity to ask these questions about 15 and 16, and I 15 think they've had their shot at it.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Is there very much of this?
17 l
MR. LANPHER:
It depends on what answers I get.
)
l I8 I don't think so, but I don't make that kind of prediction, q
19 i
Judge.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Let 's -- what is your 21 transcript reference?
22 MR. LANPHER:
The spot check is 8408, sir.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
24 MR LANPHER:
I think it was a couple, but 25 that's the one place I found it.
I had in my notes a couple m
I l
v
s 37600909 8659 jcgsuewalsh
'\\)
of places.
2 MS. McCLESKEY:
This is exactly the sort of 3
difficulty we were anticipating when we filed the motion to 4
consolidate the parties for the purposes of 15 and 16.
- And, 5
the representations that were made was that this wasn't 6
going to be a problem.
l 7
MR. LANPHER:
Well, I don't think it's --
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I'm not sure it is a problem 9
i yet.
But, let's get into it and see.
10 I
MR. LANPHER:
Thank you, Judge.
The reference 11 l
was on Line 24 at sort of the very bottom of the page, a 12 spot check on emergency planning for school children.
)
(f BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing)
Q Now, each of the local EOC's had organizational 15 activities related to the organizational ability to either 16 evacuate or early dismissal of schools, correct?
17 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
18 Q
And, for at least some of the counties 19 surrounding the Indian Point plant actual bus runs were 20 demonstrated; isn ' t that correc t, for schools?
21 A
That's my recollection.
22 Q
Now, the spot checks at the actual schools in 23 Rockland County involved actual interviews at least at two 24 non-public schools, correc t?
25 A
That's correct.
O
37600909 8660 F-]isuewalsh' k.
Q And, in Orange County there were interviews at five schools, correc t?
3 A
I don't have an instant recall.
4 Q
I refer you to Page 102 of Suffolk County Exhibi t 66.
Do you have a copy of that, sir?
It's the June 6
4 exercise report?
7 A
(Witness Keller)
I don't think we do.
8 0
I can provide mine if you need it.
I A
(Witness Kowieski)
Please do.
10 (The witnesses are looking at a document.)
Q My reference was Page 102, gentlemen.
(The witnesses are conferring.)
i'~1 A
(Witness Keller)
That's correct.
zd y
Q I was correct, Mr. Keller?
15 A
That is correct.
16 Q
And, in Putnam County, gentlemen --
17 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Wait, wait.
Let me add that 18 we have --
19 Q
No.
I just asked a single question.
20 A
Okay.
21 Q
Now, gentlemen, in Putnam --
22 (The witnesses are conferring.)
23 Are you through conferring?
24 A
(Witness Keller)
Yes.
25 Q
Gentlemen, in Putnam County, am I correct that P
u-
37600909 0u61 suewalsh
,n
%)
there were interviews of a principal of a public school, a 2
teacher at a nursery school and the principal's secretary at 3
yet a third school?
You refer to Pages 122 and 123 of the d
report.
(The witnesses are looking at a document.)
6 A
(Witness Kowieski)
We see that.
Q Am I correct?
8 A
You are correct.
9 Q
Now, yesterday at Page 8398 of the transcript 10 you testified that the spot check -- and maybe this is the 11 other reference to spot check -- were mainly related to 12 checking the adequacy of tone alert radios.
13 MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
In addition to Id renewing my previous objection, I would also like to object 15 on relevance grounds.
The witnesses have previously 16 testified that the review of school children in this exercise came af ter the issuance of EV-2 which was not issued at the time of the Shoreham exercise.
jg And, I fail to see any connection between this and what went on at the exercise for Shoreham.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
EV-2 was what prompted you to -- if I recall correctly, wan EV-2 what prompted --
{
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
I believe EV-2 in draft form, 23 and what I did not mention yesterday, there was a standing 24 request from NRC to FEMA to provide an interim finding or 25 O
\\g
L 37600909 8662 suewalsh assessment of the level of preparedness for school children
(
)
around Indian Point.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
I think we had better go on and get 3
this.
I think it's getting too complicated to try to 4
exclude it at this point.
(
5 MR. LANPHER:
Thank you, Judge.
6 WITNESS KELLER:
Would you repeat your 7
question?
I'm sorry.
8 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 9 Q
Well, I was directing your attention to Page 10 8398 of yesterday's transcript.
And, you testified I 11 believe, Mr. Kowieski, that you decided to have a very 12 limited spot check on tone alerts and whether school 13 officials were aware of what to do in case of emergencien.
~,,
14 Do you recall?
15 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes, I do.
16 Q
Now, the two deficiencies that you identified 17 relating to schools out of the Indian Point exercise both 18 related to the lack of awareness by school officials of what 19 to do in an emergency, correct?
I 20 A
In Rockland County, that's my recollection.
I 21 Q
Well, not --
22 A
(Witness Keller)
And, Orange.
23 (Witness Kowieski)
And, Orange, yes.
24 O
One was Rockland and one was Orange, correct?
25 VT v
p
'37600909 8663 suewalsh A
Okay.
That 's correct.
I Q
And, then there were additional ARCAs relating 2
to each, correct?
3 A'
That's correct.
d Q
Now, you stated yesterday also that special 5
facilities generally are tested by no more than telephone 6
calls.
Do you recall that?
7 A
Yes, I do.
8 O
Did you mean to include schools as special 9
facilities when you were testify $ng?
10 g
pg, II O
You meant nursing homes and hospitals?
12 A
That's correct, although the plan -- although 33 the plan defines special facilities as --
Q But, in your testimony yesterday when you used 15 special facilities you weren't including schools?
16 A
That's correct.
I Q
Because usually more than just a telephone call is done with schools?
A That's correct.
0 Q
And, am I correct that sometimes more than just 21 a telephone call is done for schools in FEMA-graded 22 exercises- -- for special facilities, excuse me?
23 (The witnesses are conferring.)
24 Isn't it a fact, gentlemen, that in the Indian 25 0
l
37600909 8664 suewalsh P)
Point exercise that we've just been talking about, the June 1
Q 1986. exercise, FEMA interviewed the Assistant Director of 2
the Walter llobby Home which is a special medical facility?
3 You can look at Page 123 of that exhibit.
(The witnesses are looking at the document and j
5 conferring. )
6 Am I correct that that occurred, Mr. Kowieski?
7 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
g Q
Now, gentlemen, yesterday Ms. McCleskey asked
{
9 you some questions about whether LILCO had an opportunity to 10 review the draf t post-exercise assessment prior to it being j;
finalized.
.g Do you recall those questions?
i 13 gb A
Yes, I do.
g 0
If LILCO had been given an opportunity, would 15 you -- do you think you would have changed that report in any way?
j7 A
What first comes to my mind is the deficiency ig related to timely dispatch of bus drivers.
We changed later 39 n -- RAC, af ter reviewing additional documentation provided 20 by LILCO, the RAC made a decision to lower our rating from g
deficiency to area requiring corrective action.
g O
So, LILCO had that kind of an opportunity g
whether it was before or af ter the PEA came out; is that g
correct?
25 m.
37600909-8665 suewalsh O
A That's correct.
U I
O So, it didn't make any dif ference whether they 2
had the opportunity before or af ter, right?
3 A
(Witness Keller)
Only in timeliness, but on 4
substantive dif ference in the result, that's right.
5 Q
Thank you.
You didn't make any other change to 6
the report after the assessment came out --
7 I think to be perfectly -- we didn't A
e 8
change the report, okay.
We did, in the spread sheets that 9
we track deficiencies and ARCAs, make a change in that.
10 But, we didn't -- we did not go back and change the report.
j i,
Q Right.
But, in terms of like the tables which 3
g are in the RAC comments on 7 and 8 which basically track what you had in the PEA, the tables, you didn't change
""Y "9
- 8*
15 A
That is correct.
g I
Q Gentlemen, yesterday Judge Paris asked you a i7 number of questions about how a particular sanp3 e size, ig looking at a sample of eight bus drivers, could give you 39 nfidence about the universe of the 333 bus drivers, how 20 they would perform when you hadn't looked at any beyond 21 those eight.
Do you recall that discussion?
j i
A (Witness Kowieski)
Yes, I do.
g Q
Now, your testimony in response to Judge Paris g
O
en :
37600909 8666 suewalsh
'()
i yesterday relied on the insert of a free-play message --
2 A
Messages.
3 0
-- or messages and the FJ204 evaluators being 4
able to select the particular bus driva rs who would then go j
5 out on particular routes, correc t?
i 6
A (Witness Keller)
That 's correc t.
1 7
(Witness Kowieski)
That's correc t.
8 Q
Now, just so there is no confusion,- that 9
testimony did not relate at all to the route alert 10 situation, djd it, where FEMA chose the -- LILCO c' hose the 11 particular drivers who would go out?
12 A
That's correct.
13 (Witness Keller)
That's correct.
-J 14 Q
It similarly didn't apply to the ambulance 15 situation, did it?
16 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's. correct, although 17 there were six ambulances and six anbulettes present at the 18 EOC.
19 Q
But, FEMA decided the routes they would go and 20 LILCO selected the ambulance?
A That's correct.
21 Q
Now, Dr. Baldwin, you testified yesterday that 22 the confidentiality -- and I think you mentioned it this 23 morning briefly, the confidentiality of the free-play 24 messager and the routes that would be selected you believed 25
!"T lJ I
m.
I 37600909 8667 suewalsh
' fx were important to the ability of FEMA to look at a snall i) 1 sample and being able to judge how the entire population 2
would perform.
3 Do you lacall that?
4 A
(Witness Baldwin)
Yes, that's correct.
5-Q And, you also testified this morning that the
'6 element of surprise lets a small number of persons be looked 7
at and form that you can judge how the entire universe will 8
perform; is that correct?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
Can you tell me, Dr. Baldwin, am I correct that the LILCO bus drivers that were -- that are relied upon in 12 the Shoreham plan, they don't drive buses as their regular f
j ob, c orrec t?
A Yeah, that 's my understanding that they don ' t 15 routinely drive buses in their job with LILCO.
16 Q
And, in other -- at other plants where bus drivers are evaluated, some certain sample of bus drivers, g
those bus drivers generally are professional bus drivers; isn't that correc t?
20 A
Generally, yes.
(Witness Kowieski)
Generally.
There are some exceptions.
O But, generally they are, correct?
A (Witness Baldwin)
That's correct.
25 O
37600909 8668 suewalsh R
(Witness Kowieski)
Except Indian Point when ry 1
2 compensating plan was -- state compensating plan was 3
exercised for the Rockland County.
Q And, then some of the bus drivers were utility employees, correc t?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
Not all of them, correc t?
7 A
Most of them.
g Q
But, that's the only exception you can think of, 9
correc t?
10 ij A
That's correct.
Q Now, gentlemen, I want you to explain why 12 looking at a sample of eight bus drivers that are LILCO or y3 g,
k_
LERO employees who don't drive buses as their regular jobs 34 lets you reach a conclusion or a judgment about how the rest 15 of the bus drivers, the other 300 plus bus drivers, would 16 j7 actually perform?
18 MR. PIRFO:
Obj ec tion.
We have gone through this.
I went through it as well this morning.
It has been 39 20 gone through fairly well.
i JUDGE FRYE:
I think that's true unless you've 21 got a different -- it's almost the identical question I 22 believe.
23
)
MR. LANPHER:
Well, I was trying to follow up on 24 Judge Paris.
If you think you understand -- I don't 25 rq l
v
37600909 8669 suewalsh
()
i understand how you can possibly make that -- reach a 2
conclusion on the basis of eight.
And, I added the one 3
additional element here that I don't think was in the 4
Judge's question yesterday or Mr. Pirfo's this morning.
5 JUDGE PAF3 S:
What was that additional element?
MR. LANPHER:
The understanding that the LERO 6
7 bus drivers don't do bus driving as part of their regular enployment.
g 9
MR. PIRFO:
I don't understand why that's a distinction here.
I understand why it's a distinction, I jo ii don't understand why it makes a dif ference.
12 MS. McCLESKEY:
It's an irrelevant distinction to Contentions 15, 16 and 21.
I object to the question.
["T.
13
\\_/
JUDGE FRYE:
Let's move on.
I think we've got ja enough on this.
15 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 16 17 Q
Now, gentlemen, in the Shoreham exercise, of the is eight bus drivers that you evaluated fl' tee of them performed j9 inadequately, correc t?
20 MR. PIRFO:
Objection.
I thought we were moving 21 on.
I don't see where we are moving on.
22 MR. LANPHER:
Well, it's a foundation question.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
24 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 25 0
Does your conclusion based upon looking -- the O
e
.37600909 8670 suewalsh I
deficiency that was identified pertaining to bus drivers is 2
that there is no confidence that other Shoreham -- based on 1
3 the exercise results, there is no confidence that other 4
Shoreham bus drivers can perform adequately?
)
5 MR. PIRFO:
I'm going to object because of the 6
use of the word " confidence."
Is he talking about 7
reasonable assurance which FEMA uses, and then confidence is 8
a statistical term which I think is --
9 MR. LANPHER:
Use reasonable assurance.
That's 10 fine, too.
l 11 (The witnesses are conferring.)
12 MR. CUMMING:
Now we have two questions, Judge-13 Frye.
p 14 JUDGE FRYE:
I think they understand the 15 question, don't you?
16 WITNESS KELLER:
I think we do.
I would not 17 agree with your characterization.
I think you have gone a 18 little far.
And, if you would like me to explain or you can 19 ask, howevtr you are going to do it 20 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 21 Q
Now, a deficiency which means there is no 22 reasonable assurance that bus drivers -- given this 23 deficiency that you have identified, there is no reasonable 24 assurance that bus drivers will perform adequately; isn't 25 that correct?
PO i
rl' 37600909 8671 suewalsh 1
A (Witness Keller)
Based on the three of the four 2
at the Patchogue staging area, that is a correct statement.
3b JUDGE FRYE:
The deficiency is related solely to 4
Patchogue?
5 WITNESS KELLER:
Yeah, three of the four drivers 6
at Patchogue.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
And, your exercise, your remedial 8
exercise, would be limited solely to Patchogue?
9 WITNESS KELLER:
Prob ably.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Prob ably?
11 MR. LANPHER:
What was the answer to that?
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Prob ably.
13 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 14 0
Well, you haven't scheduled any kind of a 15 remedial exercise for this or any of the other problems?
16 A
(Witness Keller)
That is correc t.
We testified 17 to that early last week some time.
It seems like it was 18 carly last week.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
37601010 8672 oewalsh bkd Q
Mr. Baldwin, I want to clear up what seem to me I
2 to be a potential inconsistency in your statement from 3
yesterlay morning to yesterday afternoon, and yesterday morning you testified that --
A
' Witness Kowieski)
What page is that?
6 Q
Let me find it first.
You testified at Page 7
837 8 that you believed that a REP-10 test would satisfy 8
exercise objectives for demonstrating the ability to alert the public in a timely manner.
837 8.
I And it was with reference to EOC Contentions 14 11 and 15, generally that the discussions were taking place.
Do you see that. testimony?
13 p'"i A
(Witness Baldwin)
Yes.
14 Q
Then later in the day, you testified that a REP -
15
- I think it was questions from Ms. McCleskey, and then from 16 the Board as well, that in fact' REP =10 test plus an exercise 17 would not be adequate because -- plus the exercise that took 18 place -- forget about future exercises -- because you wouldn't have a chance to evaluate the integrated 20 capabilities of all the players that are involved.
21 A
That is correct.
Can you give me a page citation on that, too?
Q There ~were a number of pages; s tarting' around 8521.
But my question, Mr. Baldwin, I think you don't have 25 to go to that if you agree generally with my CU t
b 37601010 8673
_ oewalsh I
characterization of the later testimony.
I think it was all 2
three of you that later testimony.
3 A
That is right.
Being able to evaluate the 4
integrated capability in the context of an exercise in which 5
we would have objectives such as EOC-14 and 15.
6 Q
So, this testimony on 837 8 is really modified by 7
that later discussion that we had yesterday?
A That is correct.
9 MR. LANPHER:
Thank you.
Judge, that completes 10 the questions on 15, 16, and my portion of 21, and Mr.
11 Miller has some questions on some of the traffic 12 contentions.
JUDGE FRYE:
How much more collectively would you estimate?
MR. LANPHER:
Ms. Letsche tells me that she has 6
about ten minutes on the ENC-type.
A half hour or less from 17 Mr. Miller.
)
JUDGE FRYE:
Ms. McCleskey?
19 MS. McCLESKEY:
I have a few minutes of 20 questions.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
One question from Staff.
There 22 will be some redirect, I suspect.
MR. CUMMING:
That depends.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Why don' t we take our lunch break 25 now, and come back at 1:45.
O
- 37601010 8674 p.
ijoewalsh 5j-1 (Whereupon, luncheon recess was taken at 12:15 2
p.m.,
to. reconvene at 1:45 p.m.,
this same day.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 ja 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P
\\v\\
- i.
.......s
____ _,__i
37601010 8675 f""gj oewa lsh
(_)
i AFTERNOON SESSION 2
(1:45 p.m.)
3 Whereupon, I
THOMAS E. BALDWIN, j
5 ROGER B. KOWIESKI, 6
and 7
JOSEPH H. KELLER, 8
resumed as witnesses, and, having previously been dul-9 swo rn, were further examined and testified as follows:
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Let's go.back on the record.
Mr.
11 Lanpher, I believe we had finished with you -- before we 12 leave that, your motion to strike the answer to the question
()
which I asked concerning compliance with NRC wishes is 14 granted.
15 I agree with you it is not related to any 16 contention.
17 MR. LANPHER:
It might be helpful -- I will try 18 to review the transcript, and maybe we can just make sure we 19 identify exactly what it is.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
You only have one motion to strike 21 pending that I am aware of.
22 MR. LANPHER:
While we are cleaning up some 23 stuff, I have had an opportunity to review FEMA Exhibit No.
7, I believe it is, and we don't object.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
So it will be admitted.
O
i 37601010 8676 1joewalsh 3
%J (FEMA Exercise Exhibit No. 7, 2
.previously marked for 3
identification, is admitted into evidence.)
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Now, Ms. Letsche?
MS. LETSCHE:
Yes.
7
)
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I had a comment on FEMA Exhibit 8
7.
The letter from Mr. Papile, dated February 12, 1986,.was 9
I
[
also marked'as LILCO Exhibit 20.
10 1i' JUDGE FRYE:
So, it is in twice in other words.
- j MR. ZAHNLEUTER
I presume it is in twice.
I g
don't recall if it was marked for identification.or 13 7~
{]
evidence.
JUDGE FRYE:
If it is in twice, we will just 15 have to live with that situation.
You have no objection to it's admission?
I MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
JUDGE FRYE:
Good.
I9 RECROSS EXAMINATION 20 BY MS. LETSCHE:
21 Q
Gentlemen, you answered a few questions this 22 morning by Ms. McCleskey concerning media monitoring.
Do 23 you recall those questions?
24 A
(Witness Keller)
Yes.
25 0
I am correct, aren' t I, that the extent of
, s i
1
.i
I l
37601010 8677 joewalsh I
FEMA's evaluation during the exercise of the media monitoring capability of LILCO was to verify that there was 3
radio and television in the EOC, and that there was also a means to monitor EBS messages at the ENC?
A (Witness Kowieski)
That is correct.
6 Q
In response -- do you also recall some questions by Ms. McCleskey concerning recommendations during other 8
exercises that emergency workers ingest potassium iodide.
9 Do'you recall those questions?
A (Witness Keller)
Yes.
11 Q
And you were asked some question about whether 12 there had been announcements to the public during those
'3 f's exercises concerning the simulated order that workers take k/
y KI, do you recall those?
MS. McCLESKEY:
I object to that question.
That 16 was not my question.
17 MS. LETSCHE:
I don't intend to characterize the 18 question.
BY MS. LETSCHE:
(Continuing) 20 Q
I don't intend to characterize the question.
Do you recall the line of questions I am talking abou t,
22 gentlemen?
MS. McCLESKEY:
There were two questions.
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Yes, I do.
BY MS. LETSCHE:
(Continuing) n v
F e
i
.37601010 867 8 oewalsh
'\\'
O Now, Mr. Keller, at how many exercises have you 2
evaluated functions performed at the cmergency news center?
3 A
(Witness Keller)
To the best of my 4
recollection, three.
5 0
And I take it that your answer to Ms.
6 McCleskey's questions concerning information given to the 7
public about ingestion of KI by emergency workers was based 8
upon your participation in those three exercises, is that 9
correc t?
10 MS. McCLESKEY:
I object to the characterization 11 of my question.
My question went to an announcement at the 12 ENC, and I think Ms. Letsche has broadened it considerable.
13 JUDGE FRYE:
That is my recollection.
MS. LETSCHE:
I didn't intend to broaden the 15 question, and I will rephrase it.
16 BY MS. LETSCHE:
(Continuing) 17 Q
Am I correct, Mr. Keller, that in responding to 18 Ms. McCleskey's question relating to an announcement at the 19 ENC about the ingestion of potassium iodide, that your 20 answer was based upon your participation as an evaluator at 21 those three exercises, is that right?
22 A
(Witness Keller)
That is part of it.
23 1
Q And am I correct that your statement to Ms.
24 McCleskey, or your response to Ms. McCleskey's question on 25 that subject was based on the fact that there wasn't any C
1
37601010 8679 g-oewalsh
~
identified area for corrective action or deficiency related 2
to an. ENC announcement about the ingestion of KI?
3 A
That is correct.
4 Q
Dr. Baldwin, at how many other exercises, or how 5
many exercises have you performed as an evaluator of 6
emergency news center functions?
7 A
(Witness Baldwin)
None.
8 Q
And Mr. Kowieski, have you performed as an 9
evaluator of emergency news center functions at any 10 exercises?
11 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Well, I was in charge of all
'12 exercises held in FEMA Region II when I was appointed as the
()
RAC Chairman, so it was my responsibility to design the evaluation process, evaluation of the entire exercise, as 15 well as emergency news center, or joint news center.
16 In addition, obviously, I was the one who had 17 the final authority to approve the post exercise assessment, 18 including statements regarding joint news center.
19 Q
Now, my question, Mr. Kowieski, was at how many 20 exercises have you served as an evaluator at an emergency 21 news center?
22 A
I did not -- to the best of my recollection, I 23 did not assign evaluation of joint -- emergency news center 24 or joint news center to myself when I was in the position of 25 RAC Chairman.
O i
37601010-8680 P oewalsh f
(j 1
Q At any exercise, is that right?
I 2
)
A That is correct.
3 Q
Now, when you answered Ms. McCleskey's question about announcements at emergency news centers concerning the ingestion of potassium iodide, am I correct that you answered that based on the fact that there haven't been any 7
deficiencies or areas for corrective actions identified in 8
any other exercises concerning ENC announcements about KI?
9
^
U' 10 Q
And would the same be true for you, Dr. Baldwin?
3, 1
A (Witness Baldwin)
Yes.
O Mr. Keller, yesterday Ms. McCleskey asked you a 13 n
question at transcript page 8531, to the effect of in your I
opinion should the radiation health coordinator have changed his protective action recommendation to the Director of LERO if he had had information about traffic conditions.
g Do you recall that question?
- g A
(Witness Keller)
The transcript indicates slightly different wording.
Specific traffic information.
Yes, I recall, yes.
Q Right.
Now, we discussed this at some length g
when I was examining you earlier, and I understand your position about whether or not the radiation health coordinator is supposed to be considering traffic g
impediments as opposed to someone else that you believe mU
37601010 8681 O oewalsh V
1 under the LILCO Plan may have that obligation, so I don't 2
want to get back into that discussion.
3 Now, my question is:
It is not your testimony, 4
is it, that someone involved in the making of a protective 5
action decision should not consider traffic information in 6
making protective action recommendations?
7 A
I think there were a couple of negatives in g
there, and I am not really sure.
Let me try it this way --
9 o.
yo on't derstand de @ Won, Id 10 me try it another way.
jj A
Try it another way.
12 0
You would agree with me, wouldn't you, that someone in the decision making chain should consider traffic inf rmation in making protective action recommendations?
15 MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
That is outside the scope of my cross.
And it has also been asked and j7 1
answered.
Ms. Letsche asked them about it, and they 18 answered it a couple of days ago.
j, JUDGE FRYE:
I think it is close enough.
20 Overruled.
21 WITNESS KELLER:
The answer is, yes.
The 22 decision maker should have that input, and he should 23 consider that input in his decision.
i 24 MS. LETSCHE:
Thank you.
25 BY MS. LETSCHE:
(Continuing)
O
7601010 8682 h,}loewalsh 1
a 2
O Now, Mr. Keller, in response to a question from=
3 Ms. McCleskey this morning, it may have been a series of 4
questions, I am not sure, you discussed with her whether or-5 not you could design an exercise or a scenario to deal with l
6 an assumption that people would not follow evacuation 7
recommendations.
Do you recall that?
8 A
(Witness Keller)
I remember the discussion, 9
yes.
10 Q
And, basically your response was it would be 11 possible by injecting a contingency message, or a free play 12 message of some sort, is that right?
4 13 A
I think I said that the only way that I saw'
['1 I
k-14 where it could be possible would be use free play message or 15 contingency message, that is correc t; but I also said I i
16 thought it would be very difficult.
17 Q
Right.
Now, in terms of -- when you were 18 talking about it being dif ficult, you were talking about the
.19 evaluation side, correct?
20 A
That is correct.
21 O
It wouldn't be hard to draft a message which 22 would say something like assume there are 400 cars on such 23 and such a road, what would you do now?
24 A
You could draft messages, but as I think I said 25 this morning, or I hope I did, the evaluation is the
,r K implementation of the plan, j
(_)
i l
es37601010 8683
.(jjoewalsh 1
2 I know of no plans which make the assumption 3
that the public will not respond in the way -- to directives 4
or ' rec ommend a tions.
5 Q
To follow up a little bit on the evaluation.
6 You said the evaluation is the implementation of the plan.
7 In making your evaluation, FEMA determines whether the 8
implementation of the plan is adequate or appropriate by 9
using your professional judgment, correct?
10 A
To a large degree, that is correct.
11 Q
And some of the evaluating that you do involves 12 whether or not the players appropriately use their own 13 judgment, or -- well, their judgment in reacting to whatever O
14 situation there is that they have to react or respond to, 15 correc t?
16 A
We discussed this judgment issue -- I think it 17 was on Friday of last week, and yes, we had stated at that 18 time while common sense it not to be ignored, the structure 19 of radiological emergency response planning and preparedness 20 is a highly structured one, and we do not want to be in the 21 position of advocating the tearing down of the structure, 22 and allowing individual responder participants a broad range 23 of independent initiative.
24 Q
But in fact, at least some of what FEMA 25 evaluates in an exercise involves actions by the players that are not necessarily all pre-scripted in the plans,
(~})
~~}37601010 8684 1
s_/joewalsh 2
correct?
l 3
A I think that is a fair characterization.
d Q
And an example would be, for instance, the 5
response to an impediment free play message.
The plan might 6
say that people will respond to it, but exactly how they 7
respond, how they reroute, or where they send the tow 8
trucks, or where they get the tow trucks from, is something 9
which the players must determine in response to that 10 message, correct?
II A
I would say about half of that is right.
12 Clearly, if you say there is an impediment at the corner of 13 73 Yaphank Road and Middle Island Road, for example, I would LA Id expec t that the player participant would.sent the tow truck 15 to that intersec tion.
16 There is no option there, right?
That is not 17 independent.
He has got to send his response unit to the I8 site of the impediment, not some other intersection, but 19 insofar as the rerouting of the traffic, which we did not 20 evaluate in this exercise, that would be based on the 21 judgment of the individual participants as to what the most 22 appropriate rerouting would be, given the injected message, 23 so I would agree with part, and disagree with a part.
24 JUDGE PARIS:
The kind of equipment dispatched 25 has to be based on judgment, too, doesn't it?
Based on the f~
information he gets?
v
1 1
i f'\\ 37601010 8685 I
.d.joewalsh
'2 WITNESS KELLER:
The information that he gets, 3
and either the free play message is sufficiently clear to d
tell the individual what kind of equipment to respond with, 5
or a recognizance of the scene which then means in an 6
exercise another message gives him that information.
7 1
0 9
10 11 12 O
15 16
- t.1 18 19 20 21 22 23 1
24 25 (V
"s
37601111 8696 suewalsh j
3
.s,)
1 BY MS. LETSCHE:
(Continuing) 2 0
Now, also in response or in clarification or 3
something of this line of questions by Ms. McCleskey, Mr.
d Kowieski, you stated your opinion that people listen.in 5
general to decision-makers.
1 6
Do you recall'that statement?
i 7
A (Witness Kowieski)
Yes, I do.
8 Q
Now, with specific reference to Shoreham and the 9
public around the Shoreham plant, it is FEMA's position that 10 that isn't necessarily the case, correct?
II MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
That's outside the 12 scope of the contentions and my questioning.
13 m
JUDGE FRYE:
The premise of your question was?
5 LJ
- d MS. LETSCHE
Was Mr. Kowieski's statement that 15 people listen to decision-makers.
And, my question --
16 JUDGE FRYE:
I think I would like to hear the I7 answer to that question.
18 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
I think it is hypothetical I9 question.
I mean, in general or based what happened during 20 the exercise.
I can only testify with respect to what 21 actually happened during the exercise.
j 22 We know that some of the information -- that 23 there was some problems with rumor control.
We know that; 24 that's a fact.
We already testified.
Mr. Keller testified 25 to this effect yesterday or on Friday, that actually v
37601111 8687 suewalsh OV I
confusing information communicated to the public could have 2
an impact.
j 3
JUDGE FRYE:
And, you testified as well, as I d
recall, that you expected -- or Mr. Keller had testified 5
that he expected that there would be some shadow evacuations 6
but he could not say how large.
7 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's right.
And, we 8
disagree with the contention that substantial -- the contention used that term " substantial" evacuation.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
I think that's probably largely the answer to the question, isn't it?
12 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Yeah.
13 MS. LETSCHE:
My question was a little bit Id different, Judge Frye.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
16 BY MS. LETSCHE:
(Continuing)
Q Isn't it true, gentlemen, that it is FEMA's position that with respec t to Shoreham, the evacuation shadow that would be likely would be larger than would be 20 the case at other plants?
21 MR. CUMMING:
Objection.
It calls for a conclusion rather than an opinion.
Isn't it true that --
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, overruled.
WITNESS KELLER:
I'm sorry.
The counsel was 25 reaching for his microphone and I wanted to wait until he b
v 1
l
37601111 8688 7-uewalsh l
got it.
2 I don't think that -- I think that's a 3
mischaracterization of FEMA's position.
FEMA has stated in 4
the prior exercise proceeding -- I'm sorry, prior planning z
5 proceeding that shadow evacuation phenomenon is a 6
possibility.
The extent of the shadow evacuation phenomenon 7
would largely depend on the credibility and. the degree of 8
clear and concise information that was provided to the 9
public.
That's the FEMA position, period.
10 With regard to the exercise, we have stated, and 11 I think that there were problems with the information, the 12 rumor control specifically.
That would increase.the size of 13 the potential shadow evacuation.
That's it.
We don't know how much.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
So, you won't go any farther than 16 that?
17 WITNESS KELLER:
I -- not willingly.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Not willingly.
19 WITNESS KOWIESK1:
We don't have a basis to draw 20 other conclusions.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
22 BY MS. LETSCHE:
(Continuing) 23 Q
Well, it's true, Mr. Keller, isn't it, that Mr.
24 McIntire has testified more recently than 1984 that there 25 would be an evacuation shadow at the Shoreham plant larger F-"I
(
i V
37601111 8689 g-puewalsh N_)
than at other plants and that he has a great concern that 2
the public would not follow the direction of a private 3
organizational person from LILCO.
4 MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
That is a planning 5
issue.
That is not before this Board.
In the exercise, it 6
was credibility and conflict of interest, and it has been 7
litigated.
8 It's outside the scope of this proceeding.
- And, 9
that's why I objected to the original question.
Her 10 question goes to the source of the information, not the 11 credibility of the information.
12 And, we went through this in the motiens to
()
strike, and you-all struck all the credibility-related 4
14 testimony in Suffolk County's testimony on the ENC.
And, I 15 don't think that these witnesses can answer that question 16 based on the prior rulings and the prior decisions of the 17 Board.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
When did Mr. Mc1'ntire testify to
{
19 this?
20 MS. LETSCHE:
He testified to that effect, Judge 21 Frye, on March 6th, 1987.
And, I can provide copies of the j
testimony.
Mr. Keller and Mr. Ba3dwin were present.
23 WITNESS KELLER:
It was an OL-3 deposition.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
OL-3 deposition, okay.
25 MR. PIRFO:
I will object to the use of this 0'J l
J 37601111 8690 Plhuewalsh I
y deposition testimony, just as I did the other day.
I mean,-
it 's nic e if you can do i t, to get the deposition testimony from another witness and put it in front of these witnesses 4
and say, didn't he testify to this, isn't that true.
JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah.
I'm going to have to sustain 6
that one.
7 MS. LETSCHE:
Well, Judge Frye, if I could 8
respond please to this objection.
What I am doing here is following up on Mr. Keller's testimony and Mr. Kowieski's testimony in response to questions by Ms. McCleskey which went precisely to an issue in this litigation, whether or not the assumption during the exercise that there would be 13 g
L,j no shadow evacuation and FEMA's stated assumptions, stated by Mr. Kowieski, that in the scenario it was assumed that the public would follow the directions of the decision-maker was an appropriate and accurate assumption.
One of our contentions, as you know, is that
,g that was an inappropriate assumption and various results should follow from that.
20 Now, Ms. McCleskey questioned these gentlemen about that this morning, and they had things to say about it.
And, I'm following up.
And, Mr. Keller just explained that he didn' t believe that it was FEMA's position that there would be a higher than normal evacuation shadow at Shoreham and I have evidence to impeach that statement made i
1
37601111 8691 f~N
( / uewalsh I
by Mr. Keller and the statement by Mr. Kowieski that people 2
would follow the decision-maker's statement.
It is Mr. McIntire's testimony -- and Mr. Keller an a
n were present dudng dat tes dmony -- dat 5
precisely the opposite is the case.
I think because we have an admitted contention on it, we had questioning on it by 7
Ms. McCleskey, we had testimony by these precise witnesses 8
on the subject, I should be permitted to follow up and, if 9
10 g ne essary, impeach these witnesses' testimony by the use of, if necessary, a deposition that they were present at.
j; JUDGE FRYE:
Well, if it were their deposition I would agree with you.
MS. LETSCHE:
It was their deposition, sir.
Y
~~
15 JUDGE FRYE:
But, you are not quoting their answer.
You are quoting another person's answer.
37 MS. LETSCHE:
Well, if this is a hearsay jg objection I might note for the record that for the past two 39 weeks we have been doing nothing but getting hearsay 20 testimony.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
I'm also concerned about the fact g
that this comes out of the OL-3 proceeding and not this 23 pr eeding.
24 MS. LETSCHE:
Well, Judge Frye, that makes no 3
dif f erence to sworn testimony.
i I
I
37601111 8692 g, y
-( )suewalsh.
i 2
JUDGE FRYE:
OL-3 does not deal with the 3
exercise.
MS. LETSCHE:
Judge Frye, this question, as I 4
just explained to you, goes directly to whether or not an 6
assumption that was underlying'the exercise was accurate or 7
not.
And, we have an admitted contention on that.
And, I'm following up on these witnesses' 8
9 testimony on that subject, j
10 MR. PIRFO:
Judge Frye, the Staff doesn't I
11 quarrel with the --
12 (The Board members are conferring.)
JUDGE FRYE:
Two to one, the objection is 13
.-s '
- L2 ja sustained.
MS. LETSCHE:
I think what I would like to do, 15 16 Judge Frye, in light of your ruling is have marked as 17 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 108 for identification a 18 portion of the deposition of Joseph H. Keller, Philip 19 McIntire, Igor Husar and Thomas E. Baldwin, from March 6th, 20 1987.
And this is Pages 64 through 73.
I would like it marked as identification, for 21 22 identification.
And, I have copies for everyone here.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
(The above-referenced document is 24 marked as Suffolk County Exercise 25 Exhibit Number 108 for identifica-fr7 U
1 g s37601111 8693
'g_)suewalsh 1
2 tion.)
3 MS. LETSCHE:
And, I would like to have that 4
constitute an of fer of proof pursuant to --
5 JUDGE FRYE:
You don't have to --
6 (Laughter.)
7 JUDGE FRYE:
You may have it as an offer of 8
proof.
There is no problem with that.
9 MS. LETSCHE:
Concerning the position stated by 10 Mr. McIntire.
I will provide additional copies.
I only 11 have three right now with me.
Conc erning the position of 12 Mr. McIntire testifying on behalf of FEMA about the size of 13 the evacuation shadow in response to a Shoreham accident and 7-s 14 the fact that. people around the Shoreham plant would likely 15 not follow the directions given by LILCO during a Shoreham 16 emergency.
17 And, I will provide additional copies of this is exhibit.
l 19 JUDGE FRYE:
And, that 's Nunber --
20 MS. LETSCHE:
108.
I don't have any further 21 questions, but Mr. Miller does.
22 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I think we have less 23 than a half an hour.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
25 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MILLER:
(
f'
37601111 8694 p()' suewalsh 1 2
Q Now, Dr. Baldwin, let's start with you.
3 Yesterday you told Ms. McCleskey that you and Mr. Keller together selected the site of the two simulated traffic d
5 impediments at the exercise and that you did so at the 6
reques t of Mr. Kowieski; is that correct?
I 7
A (Witness Baldwin)
We were asked to develop 8
impediment messages.
Mr. Kowieski asked us -- did not ask 9
us to specifically select those sites.
We selected those 10 sites based on the request of Mr. Kowieski to develop impediment messages which would require us selecting a site, 12
- siteg, 13 0
Now, Dr. Baldwin, it's true, isn't it, that the 1d fact that the free-play messages were written to block 15 evacuation routes and, in fact, to block the evacuation 16 routes completely including the shoulders of the roadways, I7 was in keeping with the way FEMA Region II normally writes free-play impediment messages?
A That's correct.
When you use the term " routes" 19 we specifically in that case are talking about that -- in this case, two roadways, separate roadways.
Q Two evacuation routes?
A Two evacuation routes.
23 O
Now, it's also true, is it not, Dr. Baldwin, 24 that in FEMA's opinion the free-play messages, impediment i
i 25 messages, that were presented to LERO during the exercise C
37601111 8695 suewalsh presented realistic situations to which LERO was to respond?
2 A
I believe that's what we testified to yesterday.
3 Q
And, these are the kinds of situations that at 4
other exercises in Region II have been handled in an 5
adequate and timely manner; is that correct?
6 MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
Asked and answered.
7 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I'm just trying to lay 8
a foundation.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
10 WITNESS BALDWIN:
That's correct.
ji BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 12 Q
Now, in your task of preparing the free-play j3 messages, Dr. Baldwin, you and Mr. Keller actually visited j,
the site of the two impediments, correct?
15 A
(Witness Baldwin)
That's correct.
16 Q
And, as you told Ms. McCleskey yesterday, among 37 other things you looked to see whether the impediment sites is presented LERO with feasible options for rerouting traffic i9 around the simulated impediments; is that correct?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
And, in fact, Dr. Baldwin, you and Mr. Keller 22 looked to see if such optione for rerouting were evident or 23 obvious; is that correct?
24 (The witnesses are conferring.)
25 A
We didn't specifically look for obvious.
.(
L i
37601111 8696 j
p3 y J suewalshi
~
2 Q
Did you look to see, Dr. Baldwin, if other
.c 3
routes for rerouting traffic were evident at the scene of
]
4 the simulated traffic impediments?
5 I thought that was your testimony to Ms.
l l
6 McCleskey.
Is that your testimony?
j 7
A Yes.
8 Q
Now, Dr. Baldwin, of course, there were two 9
impediments, the gravel truck impediment and the fuel truck 10 impediment.
I want to focus with you for a moment on the I
11 gravel truck impediment.
12 Let me show you, Dr. Baldwin, what has been 13 marked Suf folk County Exercise Exhibit 4 in this proceeding.
. T1 b2 MR. MILLER:
If the Board will recall, this was 14
'15 put into the record by way of -- this Suf folk County 16 Exercise Exhibit 4 was reduced and put into the record by 17 way of an 8 1/2 by 11 photograph.
A xerox version also 18 appeared as Attachment 10 to Suffolk County's testimony on 19 Contention EX-41.
20 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 21 Q
Now, Dr. Baldwin, I will represent to you that 22 this photograph depicts the scene of the gravel truck 23 impediment.
Does it look familiar to you?
24 (A photograph is displayed on the easel.)
25 A
(Witness Baldwin)
No.
f5 (Witness Keller)
I haven't seen it from the V
.37601111 8697
- "powalsh 4
i air.
But, I think if I'm correct there is roughly a light.
2 car in the upper lef t-hand --
3 (The witnesses are conferring.)
4 Q
Gentlemen, to save time, let me just represent 5
to you --
6 A
(Witness Baldwin)
How are we oriented here, 7
north or south?
8 Q
Dr. Baldwin, listen to me.
To save time, in the 9
upper left of the photograph, Suffolk County Exhibit 4, is 1
Yaphank-Middle Island Road.
Cutting across the top of the' i
11 photograph is Walters Drive.
Cutting across the right-hand 12 side of the photograph is Everett.
And, the bottom is Main 13
./
Street.
k_2 y
So, you have towards the lef t upper corner of 15 the photograph the intersection, the Y-intersection of 16 Yaphank-Middle Island Road, Main Street, and if I recall 17 correctly the impediment scene was approximately 75 yards 18 north of that intersec tion.
19 So, about halfway between what I've represented 20 to you was Walters Drive and the intersection of Main Street 21 and Yaphank-Middle Island Road would be the scene of the 22 gravel truck impediment.
23 Does that all sound correct to you, gentlemen?
24 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Well, we --
25 Q
Just take my representations as true.
NU
37601111 8698
{9uewalsh
\\_)
I A
(Witness Keller)
That sounds correct to me, and 2
l it looks reasonable.
3 Q
Now, I assume, Dr. Baldwin, that when you and 4
Mr. Keller visited the scene of the simulated gravel truck impediment that you would have noticed Walters Drive and 6
L Everett; is that correct?
l 7
l A
I recall passing the intersection of Walters B
Drive and Yaphank Road.
We did not drive the route that you 9
just suggested.
We did not have benefit of aerial l
10 reconnaissance at the time.
11 While we were concerned that there would be a 12 means, a way, to reroute traffic we were not looking for a f-13
(
specific way to reroute traffic when we selected this site, 14 1
is my recollection.
15 Q
Well, Mr. Keller and Dr. Baldwin, if you take as 16 true my representations as to the scene of this impediment 17 as depicted in Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 4, would you 18 1
agree with me that a logical, appropriate and obvious 19 rerouting scheme around the gravel truck impediment would I
20 have been to have detoured the traffic proceeding south down 21 j
Yaphank-Middle Island Road of f on to Walters, down Everett 22 and back to Main Street?
23 MS. McCLESKEY :
Objection.
24 MR. CUMMING:
Objection.
25 MS. McCLESKEY:
I will defer to Mr. Cumming 4
i i
l
f 37601111 8699 iuewalsh O
first, since they are his witnesses.
But I would like to 2
get my two cents' worth in.
3 MR. CUMMING:
My objection is based on the fact that the witnesses have testified they didn't evaluate 5
r erou ting, so the relevance of this sort of testimony is not apparent to me.
And, I would object based on relevancy.
JUDGE FRYE:
Ms. McCleskey.
8 MS. McCLESKEY:
My objection is that this is 9
gr ssly outside the scope of my three questions about 10 impediments.
I did not go into the merits at all.
j; Mr. Miller has given them essentially a 12 hypothetical, since they said they haven't looked at the R
]
(d routing scheme that he has just described as brilliant and g
asked them if they have agreed.
f And, I just don't think that this is appropriate questioning.
j7 S odSMe de scope of 18 her examination.
39 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I would like to 20 respond.
Number one, it's not the number of questions that g
counsel for LILCO asked these witnesses.
It's what those g
questions were and what they raised.
And, those questions raised the issue of why g
these gentlemen went to the scenes of the impediments 25 beforehand.
These gentlemen told Ms. McCleskey in response
%s i
37601111 8700 suewalsh j
to that question that among other things they looked to see 2
if rerouting, other secondary roads for rerouting _were 3
evident.
That's in the transcript.
I can find that if the Board wants --
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah.
I recall that.
I recall it.
]
6 MR. MILLER:
In terms of the relevancy, Judge 7
Frye, it's completely relevant to this issue.
These 8
gentlemen have stated -- Mr. Kowieski in particular, that he 9
thought rerouting at least at the EOC was incluoed within 10 the scope of FEMA's evaluation.
jj I'm asking these gentlemen's opinion as expert 12 witnesses for FEMA whether or not the rerouting scheme I've described was a logical, appropriate and evident way to reroute traffic.
MR. CUMMING:
To lend precision, actually it was rerouting in the field that was not evaluated.
It was, in p
fact, evaluated at the EOC or --
18 JUDGE FRYE:
But, let's let the witnesses say
),
that.
20 WITNESS KELLER:
The report states, and we g
marked it at lunch -- Tom, do you have the correct page?
22 I
SS BA w WIN:
Page 35.
23 WITNESS KELLER:
On Page 35 --
24 WITNESS BALDWIN:
I'm sorry, 36.
Page 36 --
)
25 i
WITNESS KONIESKI:
Third paragraph.
l
37601111 8701 suewalsh l
I WITNESS BALDWIN:
Seventh line from the bottom 2
of that paragraph.
3 WITNESS KELLER:
This discussed what was done in 4
the EOC.
There is also a reference with respect to the 5
gravel truck impediment in the field.
6 WITNESS BALDWIN:
Before we leave that, let's 7
just make it clear here that what we are citing here is in B
)
the seventh line from the bottom.
It says by about 12:45 9
the evacuation coordinator had discussed -- in other words, 10 we observed a discussion of that evacuation coordinator with 1) his staff.
And, then there is a colon and a list of things.
12 And, included in that list is the need to 13
}
reroute traf fic around the impediments and the procedures for.so doing.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Did you evaluate the merits of the 16 rerouting --
J 17 WITNESS BALDWIN:
No.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
-- solution?
19 WITNESS BALDWIN:
No.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
You did not?
21 WITNESS BALDWIN:
No.
22 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
We don't have evidence --
23 written evidence to this effect.
24 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye --
25 JUDGE FRYE:
The objection is sustained.
IG i
i 37601111-8702
! uewalsh' 1
MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I submit that the 2
answer just given.by the witnesses is irrelevant to my j
question which calls upon these gentlemen and their 4
expertise as evaluators for FEMA Region II as to whether or 5
not this is an appropriate rerouting scheme that I've just 6
shown these gentlemen through Exhibit 4.
7 J
JUDGE FRYE:
My problem with it is that I don't 8
recall Ms. McCleskey going into that particular point.
You 9
know, if you can show me in the transcript where she went 10 into the merits of the rerouting scheme, then I will permit the question.
Otherwise, I have to sustain the objection.
12 j
MS. McCLESKEY:
Judge Frye, my questions are at
/
Page 8539.
I asked three of them, and I asked nothing about the merits of the rerouting scheme.
15 This is a hypothetical that could have been 16 posed to these witnesses on original cross.
BY MR MILLER:
(Continuing) 18 Q
Let me try this one, gentlemen.
Are you aware 19 even today as to the rerouting schemes actually employed by 20 LERO during the exercise?
MS. McCLESKEY:
Same objection.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Sustained.
23 24 25
L37601212 8703 joewalsh
()
1 MR. MILLER:
We are making a quick review of the l
2 transcript, but I will leave before the Board page 8541 -- I 3
am sorry, 40, where Ms. McCleskey asks:
Is it fair to say 4
that your main concern was getting an impediment to block i
5 the road so that you could see a response of rerouting?
6 Witness Baldwin: Yes.
7 MS. McCLESKET:
That has nothing to do with the
)
8 merits of the rerouting scheme.
9 MR. MILLER:
It brings up the issue or 10 rerouting, Judge Frye.
11 MS. McCLESKEY:
Well, the word, rerouting' is 12 in the question, yes.
13 MR. MILLER:
I am not sure how narrowly the k-la Board is going to try to limit the follow up questions 15 admitted, but rerouting is raised by opposing. counsel.
I 16 think my question is a fair question.
And it is the last in 17 the line of questions I have developed, and I think I am 18 entitled to an answer from this witness panel.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
That question in no way it seems to 20 me goes to the question or the merits of the rerouting 21 scheme that they adopted.
j 22 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, that is not my 23 question.
Judge Frye, my question does not go to the merits 24 of the rerouting scheme adopted by LERO at this point.
My 25 question is:
I have shown these gentlemen a possible
37601212 8704 joewalsh J
l F~.
~ <s_).
I rerouting scheme.
I have asked for their expertise as to 2
whether that seems to be the logical --
I 3
JUDGE FRYE:
It could have been asked on cross, 4
and now we are on recross.
That is the problem with it.
I 5
MS. McCLESKEY:
That is right.
6 JUDGE FRYE Sustained.
)
1 7
BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 8 Q
Mr. Keller, yesterday Ms. McCleskey asked you 9
whether or not LERO provides an oversupply of road crews,
)
10 and whether that would be a factor which you might want to 11 consider in determining whether the data reflected in 12 1 of Suffolk County's testimony on Contention 13 41, constitutes a serious problem, or perhaps even a
-y s >
Id deficiency.
Do you recall that line of questions?
' ' ~ "
15 A
(Witness Keller)
I recall discussing this 16 issue.
I don't remember whether we discussed it was a 17 serious problem or a deficiency.
I recall discussing this,
'18 yes, that is true.
19 Q
Do you recall the part about whether or not an 20 oversupply of road crews is a factor you might want to 21 consider?
22 A
That is right.
I remember that.
23 Q
I thought I gave you the wrong attachment.
24 Actually, it is Attachment 2 to the County's testimony on 25 Contention 41.
I will show you again, Mr. Keller,
(
1 s_
i 37601212 8705 joewalsh 1 to the County's testimony on Contention 41.
j 2
That attachment, assuming that it is true, shows 3
that none of the road crews from the Port Jefferson staging l
4 area were dispatched to their posts in the field as of the 5
time of the evacuation recommendation, is that correct?
6 A
That is correct.
7 Q
In fact, Mr. Keller, the data reflects that none 8
of the road crews from Port Jefferson staging area were 9
dispatched to their post in the field even as of one hour 10 following the evacuation recommendation by LERO, is that 11 correct?
12 MS. McCLESKEY:
Asked and answered.
f 13 JUDGE FRYE:
Overruled.
g^s,
(/
14 WITNESS KELLER:
I just want to verify my time, 15 but that is my recollection, that is right.
16 JUDGE FRYE I thought you asked if the 17 attachment showed that?
18 MR. MILLER:
The attachment, yes, sir.
a l
19 WITNESS KELLER:
I would have to know the time 20 of the evacuation order, and I think I remember it, but I J
l 21 want to make sure before I say.
It was one hour after, and j
i 22 I have to have the starting time, and I can't find the page.
23 WITNESS KELLER:
26.
24 WITNESS KELLER:
That is correct.
25 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
O i
i 37601212 8706 joewalsh
't,4 -
1 Q
And the same is true as with respect to the road p -.
j 2
crews. dispatched from the Patchogue staging area, correct, 3
Mr. Keller?
4 A
(Witness Keller)
That is correct.
1 1
5 Q
Now, given the data in Attachment 2 to the 6
County's Contention 41 testimony, Mr. Keller, where none of 7
the road crews from Patchogue, and none of the road crews 8
from Port Jefferson were dispatched into the field as late 9
as one. hour following an evacuation recommendation by LERO, 10 can you'tell me how in any way information regarding an over-11 supply of road crews could impact your testimony given to me 12 previously that the data in Attachment 2 would reflect a 13 serious problem, and perhaps even a deficiency?
ko 14 A
My recollection of the testimony we have given 15 previously, and what I told Ms. McCleskey either yesterday 16 or this morning, was that this basically is a hypothetical 17 situation, and if we take just these numbers, with no 18 further information whatsoever, I would be reluctant in my 19 opinion,-to evaluate whether or not it was an area requiring
, 20 corrective action or deficiency; with just these numbers I 21 would need to know a lot more information in order to give 22 an opinion of this situation.
23 I believe that is what we said previously, and I 24 still don't have any more information, and I would be 25 reluc tant without more information to say I would say this f~R km 1
e-
'37601212 8707 joewalsh rh
(_)
I is a deficiency.
I would say this is an ARCA.
It 2
definitely is a problem.
I agree there is a problem.
The 3
seriousness of the problem, my point is without more 4
information I am very reluctant to say this would be a 5
deficiency.
6 O
Mr. Keller, you are assuming that the data in i
7 to the County's Contention 41 testimony is j
8 true, would you please give me an example of what other kind 9
of data you might need to know in order to determine the 10 seriousness of the problem reflected in this attachment.
11 A-Okay.
The particular evacuation recommendation l
12 that was being issued at the time --
es -
13 Q
Mr. Keller, first of all, you know that 14 information.
You know that as of the time of the evacuation 15 recommendation _that at least portions of the Port Jefferson 16 and Patchogue staging areas were involved.
Zones in those 17 areas were involved, is that not correct?
l 18 A
I thought that this was a hypothetical question, 19 because we said we did not evaluate these things.
20 I thought that you had said assume with me that 21 this is the correct information, and that gets us into a 22 hypothetical, I think.
23 Q
Let's start again.
Everything that happened at 24 the exercise that you and FEMA know about remains, of 25 c ou rs e, as it was.
All I have asked you to do is to assume
/^\\
\\/
37601212-8708 joewalsh I
that the data in Attachment 2 to the County's testimony on 2
Contention 41 is, in fact, true.
3 Given that assumption, is it not the fact-that d
there should -- would have been a deficiency found with 5
respect to the dispatching o.f road crews from the Patchogue 6
and Port Jefferson staging areas on the day of the exercise 7
had this data been known to FEMA?
i 8
MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
This is also outside 9
the scope of my question.
I askea wi question. It is on 10 Page 8517 of the transcript, and it was simply following up U
on a series of questions that Mr. Miller asked.
It referred 12 to whether over-supply of road crews was one of the factors i
13 that these people wanted to think about in determining id whether the data in Attachment 2 constituted a deficiency, 15 ARCA, or other.
16 And when Mr. Miller started his questioning, he 17 used over-supply of road crews in his question, and I have 18 no objection if he wants to pursue the over-supply of road 19 crews as a factor further, but to go back to the original 20
-. questions that he asked, and asked again, what is the basis 21 of your deciding it is a deficiency, creating new 22 hypotheticals, is outside the scope.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
I am inclined to agree with that.
24 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, again I submit that the 25 Board has construed too narrowly the proper follow up RO
37601212 8709
'joewalsh m.
I questions that should be permitted.
2 I e.stablished last week through Mr. Keller that 3
the data reflected in this Attachment to the County's d
testimony reflects a serious problem, and perhaps even a 5
deficiency.
6 Ms. McCleskey tried to get Mr. Keller to back 7
off from that testimony by suggesting that he may need other 8
information, including whether or not there was an over-9 supply of road crews.
10 I am follow.ing up on that.
I want Mr. Keller to II go back to where we was last week, with respect to his 12 testimony regarding the data in Attachment 2 to the County's 33 testimony on Contention 41, and I think I am entitled to do Id that.
15 MS. McCLESKEY:
Judge Frye, I am not sure Mr.
16 Miller has adequately represented the earlier testimony, and 37 I know that he has over-extended the one question that I I8 asked, and that question is on Page 8517.
39 JUDGE FRYE:
Ms. McCleskey, we would like to let 20 Mr. Miller pursue this one for a short while and see where 21 it goes.
22 Overruled.
23 MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
24 WITNESS KELLER:
When we m&ke --
25 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
O
37601212 8710 O
Let me just make sure everyone knows the 2
question.
The question is simply this:
Given the data in 3 to the County's Contention 41 testimony, and 4
l assuming that data is true and accurate, is it not correct l
5 that had this data been made known to FEMA, FEMA would have 6
concluded that there was a deficiency with respect to the 7
dispatching of road crews during the day of the exercise?
8 A
(Witness Keller)
I cannot agree that that is 9
Correct.
10 Q
You agree that there would be a serious problem 11 indicated by this data, but the degree of that seriousness, 12 you are unable to say at this point in time, is that 13 f~~1 correc t?
b_d ja A
That is correct.
15 Q
It is an ARCA, and perhaps a deficiency, but you 16 are unable to say whether it would have been a deficiency, 17 is that correct?
18 A
That is correct.
19 Q
I think this is the last question, Mr. Keller.
20 Can you tell me how, if at all, whether or not LERO provides 21 an over-supply of road crews would change the conclusion you 22 just gave to me regarding this data in Attachment 2?
23 A
I don't think it would change the conclusion i
24 regarding the data in Attachment 2.
25 Q
Thank you.
Now, gentlemen, I want to explore l
P v
37601212 8711 joewalsh k#
very briefly the 45 minute time frame of AN-1, and I submit 2
Mr. Keller, here is my initial question:
3 MR. CUMMING:
Judge Frye, I would just like to j
4 note for the record that the correct version of current AN-1 5
was objected to, and is not in the record.
6 So, in fact, current AN-1 is not in the record.
7 MR. MTLLER:
I think it is in the record.
I 8
thought it was put in as a separate exhibit by FEMA.
9 MR. CUMMING:
It was marked, the version I 10 served was Exercise Exhibit No. 4.
That is not current AN-11 1.
The Board sustained Suffolk's objection to FEMA Exercise 12 Exhibit No. 6, and did not put it in the record.
(}
JUDGE FRYE:
Exercise Exhibit 6 is current AN-1, is that correct?
MR. CUMMING:
That is correct.
MR. MILLER:
Mr. CLmming, is Exhibit 4 -- the 16 17 version of AN-1 that is Exhibit 4 is dif ferent from the 18 version in Exhibit 6?
MR. CUMMING:
That is correct.
39 20 MR. MILLER:
And yet a different version is FEMA 21 Exhibi t 2, which was another draft version of AN-1?
22 MR. CUMMING:
That is correct.
JUDGE PARIS:
Which version was in effect at the 23 time of the exercise?
24 MR. CUMMING:
Neither.
Or none of the above.
25
(')s s_.
u
q L37601212 8712.
Ej oewalsh 1
JUDGE FRYE:
I am going to suggest, Mr. Miller, 2
that. you 'go by the version in FEMA Exhibit No. 6, which'has-3
-been identified.
- 4 MR. MILLER:'
I am not even sure it is~necessary-
'5 to.my questions.
Let me-try my question.
6 BY MR. - MILLER:
(Continuing) i 7
0 Mr. Keller, you told Ms. McCleskey yesterday
]
8 that -- and this is pretty close to a quote -- clearly,it is 9
FEMA's policy that Appendix 3 of NUREG 0654 does not apply-10 to back-up ' route alert functions.
Do you recall that 11 statement?
12 A
(Witness Keller)
Yes, I recall the statement.
13 Q
And you believe that -statement to be true?
rs t
14 A
I-believe that statement to be true.
15
-Q Now, this policy as you have described.it, Mr..
1 16 Keller, was not established until after the Shoreham 17 exercise on February 13, 1986, is that correct?
l 18
'A We testified'to that last week, that is correct.
19 Q
And as of the time of the Shoreham exercise, Mr.
20 Keller, FEMA's policy was quite the contrary wasn' t it? ' In 21 fact, the policy of FEMA was that Appendix 3 of NUREG 0654 22 did apply to back-up route alert functions, correc t?
23 Mr. Keller, I would like your answer.
I 24 A
Fine.
In FEMA Region II, we had, as we 25
' discussed'this morning, on redirect from. our counsel, rated f~?
- t_;
C
9 37601212 8713 joewalsh
/n
( )-
1 redundant.back up route alerting as an ARCA in the past.
I 2
am not aware of any firm written policy decision out of FEMA 3
headquarters prior to Mr. Wilkerson's letter to Mr.
4 Kowieski, which is an exhibit in this proceeding.
5 Q
And Mr. Kowieski, you would agree with that, 6
correc t?
1 7
A (Witness Kowieski)
That is correct.
1 8
Q Now, with respect to the status of things as of 9
the time of the Shoreham exercise, Mr. Kowieski and Mr.
)
10 Keller, you would agree that it was FEMA's Region II opinion 11 that the 45 minute requirement of NUREG 0654, Appendix 3, 12 clearly applied to backup route alert functions, correct?
13 A
It was our interpretation of Appendix 3 of NUREG I
,f g 14 0654, that is correct.
15 Q
And could you tell me, gentlemen, just briefly, 16 could you tell me or show me the basis for that 17 interpretation by Region II in Appendix 3 of 0654?
Point me 18 to the language that you relied upon?
19 A
On Page 3-3 of Appendix 3 of NUREG 0654, under t
20 section entitled, Criteria for Acceptance, Part 2.C, it
\\
21 states:
Special arrangements will be made to assure hundred 22 percent coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may 23 not have received initial notification of the entire plume i
24 exposure EPZ.
25 Q
Now, is it a fair statement to say, Mr.
]
37601212 8714 joewalsh I
- (j Kowieski, that as of the time of the exercise, Region II 2
interpreted that language to mean that when a siren or 3
sirens failed to sound, there was 45 minutes within which to d
notify the population by means of a backup system?
5 A
It was my interpretation.
6 Q
And Mr. Keller, you discussed with Ms. McCleskey 7
yesterday when the clock starts to run, under the provisions 8
of 0654, Appendix 3, the clock would obviously start to run 9
from the time the sirens failed to sound, correct?
10 A
(Witness Keller)
I disagree with your term, II
'obviously. '
That is certainly one place to start the 12 clock, and if I were going to start a clock, that is where I 13 q
would start it, but I am not sure that is obvious.
ld Id Q
The only other place it could start, Mr. Keller, 15 would be from the time the EOC learned of the failure of the 16 Sirens to sound, correc t?
I7 A
That is another place to start the clock, that 18 is true.
19 Q
Under the facts as developed during the exercise 20 on February 13, 1986, LERO did not come close to meeting the 21 45 minutes one way or the other, correct?
22 A
That is correct.
23 Q
This provision on Page 3-16 of Appendix 3, 24 gentlemen.
It talks about notification of the public in 25 remote areas, such as hunting trails, hiking trails, it says (m
r v
37601212 8715 joewalsh
\\
I in cases such as that a best efforts basis can be used to 2
notifiy the public.
3 Are you familiar with that provision?
d A
(Witness Kowieski)
Yes, I am.
5 Q
Do you equate in any way notification of the l
6 public in areas around failed sirens with notification of 7
the public in areas on hiking trials on hunting areas?
8 A
(Witness Keller)
We do not.
I think the 9
language of 0654 is fairly clear.
10
.Q So, Mr. Keller, it is fair to say that it is not II acceptable for LERO to use a best effort basis to notify the 12 public in the areas around failed sirens, correc t?
I3 A
FEMA's position, as enunciated in Mr.
7 Id Wilkerson's letter --
15 Q
Mr. Wilkerson's letter has been superseded, Mr.
16 Keller.
I7 A
And as stated in -- if you will let me finish my I8 answer -- and as is atated in the accepted version of AN-1, 19 is that redundant backup route alerting should use as a 20 guide 45 minutes.
21 However, if the guideline is not met, the only 22 weighting which can be given in an exercise, is an area 23 recommended for improvement.
By definition, an area 24 recommended for improvement is not a trackable issue.
It is 25 not something that has to be fixed.
It, therefore, cannot O
?
1 37601212 8716 joewalsh F~3 k/
in my opinion be called a requirement.
2 I
Q Mr. Keller, that wasn't at all my question.
My 3
only question is:
It is correct, is it not, that the use of 4
i a best efforts to notify the public in the area around i
5 failed sirens, would not be acceptable.
Is that not a true 6
statement?
7 MS. McCLESKEY:
I am going to object to the question as outside the scope of my questions.
JUDGE FRYE I think it is, but let's get the 10 answer to it.
I think it is just one question.
11 WITNESS _ K".LLER:
I have a problem.
The current 12 policy is you can't give anything other than an area recommended for improvement, which by definition is not a problem.
That is a definition of an area recommended for 15 I
improvement.
JUDGE FRYE:
So, a best effort --
17 WITNESS KELLER:
Best effort is okay.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Is okay.
l BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 0 Walt a second.
Mr. Keller, AN-1, which you 20 21 submit controls these days, says there is a 45 minute time
]
22 frame that should be met, is that not correct?
A (Witness Keller)
That is correct.
3 24 Q
Now, do you equate a 45 minute time trame with a 1
25 best ettort basis?
Is that your testimony?
?%-
l I
~.
37601212 8717 Joewalsh
(
1 A
No.
2 Q
I ask you again, Mr. Keller, is a best effort 3
basis suf ficient with respect to _ notification of the public 4
in the areas around failed sirens?
5 A
I am going to have to say yes.
j 6
Q Do you agree, Mr. Kowleski?
A (Witness Kowleski)
FEMA regulations --
Q Mr. Kowieski, could you give me a yes or no, and 9
then you can clarify if you need to.
]
10 A
I am sorry, but you will have to restate the 11 question.
12 Q
Is it your testimony, Mr. Kowieski, that a best
)
~
'3
/"
ef fort basis is suf ficient with respect to notification of (T/
i ja the public in areas around failed sirens?
15 A
The answer is yes.
I think the guidance 16 document speaks for itself.
17 Q
Can~you show me in AN-1 where a best effort 18 basis is stated to be sufficient with respect to 19 notification of the public in areas around failed sirens.
20 Show me the sentence.
MS. McCLESKEY:
Obj ec tion.
I renew my objection 22 about outside the scope of my questioning.
In addition, we 23 have plowed this ground before.
Mr. Miller is simply 24 arguing with the witnesses because he is not getting the 25 answer he wants, and I think enough is enough.
37601212 8718 g,.4 joewalsh JUDGE FRYE:
It seems to me it is getting 2
argumentative. Would your answer Mr. Kowieski, be any 3
different from Mr. Keller's?
4 MR. MILLER:
The question, Judge Frye, is I want 5
them to show me -- they say AN-1 controls.
I don't 6
1 understand how that can be the case given the fact that even 7
AN-1 still has a 45 minute time frame.
I ask them to show 8
is rae anywhere in AN-1, where the term, 'best ef fort basis '
9 indicated to be sufficient?
10 And of course I am arguing with the witnesses, I 11 think they are wrong.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
We will take official notice of AN-13 Il 1,
and you may argue the point, and I am sure you are L_J ia correct, that it doesn't appear.
The term, 'bes t ef f orts '
15 doesn't appear anywhere in there.
16 I think we should move along now to a new topic.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7-x U
\\
37601313' 8719 suewalsh'
()
1 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 2 Q
Mr. Keller, yesterday you told Ms. McCleskey J
3 that -- let me start this again.
Mr. Kowieski, Ms. McCleskey asked you yesterday 4
5 whether you could offer any opinion as to whether the number J
6 of training problems identified during the Shoreham exercise j
7 was about averager and, your testimony was'that you were l
8 unable to do so.
9 Do you recall that?
10 A
(Witness Kowieski)
Well, I do recall discussion i
11 to this effect.
12 O
Now, Mr. Keller, following Mr. Kowieski's i3 inability to respond to the question, you ventured the 14 opinion that the number of training problems at Shoreham was 15 probably about average or probably dbout the same as at 16 other first-time exercises.
17 Do you recall that?
18 A
(Witness Keller)
That's my recollection, yes.
19 Q
Now, if I told you, Mr. Keller, that the nunber 20 of training problems identified at Shoreham based upon an 21 analysis conducted by Suffolk County of all other Region II 22 post-exercise assessment reports, that based upon that 23 analysis the number of training problems at Shoreham is at 24 least three times the number as at other first-time 25 exercises, would that change your opinion in any way?
37601313 8720 suewalsh 1
MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
There is no basis in 2
the record for Mr. ' Miller's question.
3 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) d Q
Make the assumption, Mr. Keller.
5 MS. McCLESKEY:
And, if it's a hypothetical it's 6
vague.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
No.
Overruled.
He can connect it 8
up if possible.
9 WITNESS KELLER:
When I made my statement, I was 10 using my experience not only in Region II, because I don't II believe the question specified first-time exercises in 12 '
Region II, it just said in first-time exercises.
And, your 13 7q data base may be perfectly valid for Region II, and I don't 1
c' #"a Id dispute it.
15 I have reviewed lots of other exercises outside 16 of Region II.
It is my opinion that on average this is I
17 about the same.
I am a little surprised that even in Region 18 II it was three times larger, but if you say that's what the 19 data says -- and I'm directed to accept those numbers --
20 that's' fine.
21 But, as I think we discussed I thought in 22 response to one of the Judge's questions, there are three 23 y I
t kinds of corrections.
There is a planning or procedures, i
24 there is an equipment and there is a training.
Recently, as 7
25 the process has evolved, most of the procedures and most of
! FM U
+.
1
'37601313:
8721 suewalsh I
the equipment issues have gone away and you are left with 2
training issues.
3 So that the percentage of training issues, as d
the' root cause, has gone up for all. exercises.
The absolute 5
number -- it's just my impression that it's about average, 6 but that includes the totality of my experience not only in 7
Region II but in other regions.
8 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 9 Q
And, Mr. Keller, is it fair to say that's more 10 or less your top-of-the-head belief?
II A
(Witness Keller)
It was not based on any 12 statistical evaluation, adding them up and -- no, that's 13 correct.
That's based -- that's my impression based on 14 having been to a lot of exercises, having reviewed a lot of 15 exercise reports.
That's my impression.
16 Q
Okay.
Gentlemen, let's try one last question 17 here if we could.
You indicated to Ms. McCleskey yesterday, 18 Mr. Keller, I think you in particular, that you might need 19 more data or information before you would be able to draw 20 any conclusions regarding how post-exercise training 21 problems at Shoreham might reflect upon the adequacy and 22 approach to training used by LERO.
1 23 Do you recall that?
24 A
I recall a discussion, but I don't -- I thought 25 it was a little different than you characterized it there.
O
37601313 8722 suewalsh C(,,1 ~
l That's just my recollection and you may be right.
Go ahead.
2 MS. McCLESKEY:
Judge Frye, rather than have 3
people speculate, can Mr. Miller give us a transcript 4
citation?
The transcript has been available since this 5
morning.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, let's get the question and 7
then get to the transcript citation.
8 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 9 Q
Now, Mr. Keller, I want to give you some more 10 data.
And,-if you will please focus carefully -- it's going 11 to be rather long, but if you pay attention I think it will 12 be fairly simple.
13 A
We will try.
gq Id Q
Assume with me the following, Mr. Keller.
In 15 post-exercise training drills, there have been the following 16 kinds of problens -- make this assumption with me -- all of 17 which were similar to problems during the exercise:
Delays 18 in dispatching traffic guides into the field after an 19 evacuation recommendation is made by LERO; confusion in 20 communications and the dispatching of road crews and other 21 field personnel to respond to simulated traffic impediments, 22 many of which have involved the same impediments used at the 23
- exercise, i.e.,
the field truck and the gravel truck; l
24 including failures of road crews to ever arrive at 1
25 impediment scenes despite repeated requests to do so; delays
[?
u>
)
l
37601313 8723 suewalsh
(~\\'
(/
.I in issuing EBS messages relating to simulated road 2
impediments; breakdowns in EOC copying machines; breakdowns 3
with respect to field personnel understanding dosimetry 4
usage and procedures;' delays in the dispatching of route 5
spotters due to communications breakdowns at the EOC; delays 6
in the flow of information from the EOC to the staging areas 7
and vice-versa; phones of key coordinators going unanswered; 8
delays in dispatching-route alert drivers and in the time 9
required to cover simulated siren territories, in some cases 10 taking two, three, four hours or more even using multiple l
11 drivers.
12 Now, gentlemen, if you, in fact, assume that 13 these kinds of problens and others have occurred since 'the 14 exercise during training drills, and keeping in mind that 15 LERO has been training its personnel upwards of three years 16 prior to the exercise, is it fair to say that in your 17 opinion LERO's approach to training, LERO's training 18 methodology and its conceptual training approach are likely 19 inappropriate, inadequate and wrong?
20 MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
21 MR. PIRFO:
I object to that question.
It was 22 so loaded with assumptions and so loaded with these kinds of 23 problems and other problems and inappropriate, inadequate.
24 I mean, there's only one possible answer.
There is just no 25 room for judgment in that.
T 37601313 8724 suewalsh b
I U
MS. McCLESKEY:
I object because it's an 2
incredibly complex question.
I don't think anybody can 3
orally take it all in.
d MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, the only complexity of 5
the question is the assumption I've asked these gentlemen to 6
make.
I will be glad to go back through those.
7 MR. PIRFO:
My objection is not on the grounds a
of complexity.
My objection is there is no possible answer, 9
and the answer won' t be probative of anything.
10 MR. MILLER:
That's for the Board to decide.
JUDGE FRYE:
The objection is sustained.
12 MR. MILLER:
What's the basis of the objection
'3 p
being sustained?
l Id JUDGE FRYE:
I agree with the Staff counsel.
15 MR. MILLER:
That --
16 JUDGE FRYE:
The Staff counsel stated an I7 objection and that objection has been sustained.
Now, let's
'8 move on.
MR. MILLER:
But, I want to understand the basis 20 of the Board's --
21 JUDGE FRYE:
You have been given the basis of 22 the Board's objection -- sustaining of the objection.
We 23 are sustaining Staff counsel's objection on the grounds 24 which he stated.
25 Now, move on.
N k)
i 37601313 8725 suewalsh
)
1 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I don't mean to argue f
2 with the Board, but I just' simply want to understand.
Is.it 3
the Board's position that there'is only one answer that d
could be given to the question I have asked?
5 JUDGE FRYE:
It certainly seems that way.
6 MR. MILLER:
I will represent to the Board that 7
I have reviewed the post-exercise training drills which are 8
an exhibit in this case; they have been admitted into the 9
record.
I would not intend to take these witnessec through 10 those training drill reports.
II Rather than do that, I have gone through the l
drill reports and I have pulled out problems which have l
12 13 consistently appeared in those drill reports.
I have C) 14 attempted to present to these witnesses that data in the way 15 of a question.
16 I have, therefore, asked these witnesses to make 17 assumptions.
If there is only one answer that can be given, 18 therefore, I submit that's the answer that the Board has to 19 live with.
But, the answer is based upon facts and data in 20 the records that I've pulled from the training drill 21 reports.
22 And, I don't consider that a proper obj ection to 1
23 my question, given that representation that I've made.
- And, i
24 I would ask the Board to reconsider.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Sustained.
O
37601313 8726
{
suewalsh l
p4
()
I BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
Q Mr. Keller, let me try it this way then to make sure we can try to straighten out the record somewhat.
I d
had asked the other day for you to assume that if the same 5
substantive kind of problems occurred in post-exercise 6
training drills as occurred during the exercise that that would lead you to conclude that LILCO's approach to training 8
is likely wrong.
Is it your testimony that their approach to 10 training is likely wrong given the hypothetical I have 11 presented to you?
A (Witness Keller)
No.
That is one possibility.
'3 y'j And, I think we went through this two days ago or whenever LJ
- g it was.
15 One of the possibilities is that the approach is 16 wrong.
That's not the only possibility in my mind.
I cannot agree with you that definitely their approach is 18 wrong even if the same kind of substantive problems reoccur.
O And, could you give me one other example, Mr.
20 Keller, of another possibility that would explain the results that I've just conveyed to you?
l 22 MS. McCLESKEY:
Objection.
Asked and answered.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
I think we have been through this.
MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I'm asking --
25 JUDGE FRYE:
We've been through this.
(v
(
l l
37601313-8727' suewalsh
- \\
I MR. MILLER:
We have not been through this.
_I'm simply --
3 JUDGE FRYE Mr. Miller, you asked him these d'
questions the other day.
5 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Same question.
6 MS. McCLESKEY:.That's right.
7 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I'm asking -- Mr.
8 Keller has now told me that is one possibility.
I've asked him this question, could you give me one other possibility 10 that would explain --
JUDGE FRYE This is recross, you know.
We are 12 not going back over cross again.
So, I have.to sustain the.
13 objection.
Id Move on.
15 MR. MILLER:. Judge Frye, Ms. McCleskey asked the 16 question. I'm following up on her question.
This is I7 completely within the scope of her cross-examination.
IO JUDGE FRYE:
I don't think Ms. McCleskey ever 19 asked that question.
I think you did.
O MS. McCLESKEY:
Yes, sir.
He asked these exact 21 questions he has just asked.
Mr. Keller gave the same exact 22 answers.
23 I did -- now, to be fair, on my cross I did ask 24 Mr. Keller whether he wouldn't want to know some other 25 things before he answered a hypothetical, and he said he
(:)
/
l 37601313 8728 suewalsh R
I V
would.
And, I take it Mr. Miller came in with gillions of other things that you might put in a hypothetical.
You have 3
rejected that question.
We are now back to Mr. Miller's original 5
questions of last week.
6 MR. MILLER:
So, I would like to ask, give me one other thing you would like to_know, Mr. Keller.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Sustained.
Let's move on.
MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, given the Board's 10 rulings and the inability to permit me to even ask any kind 11 of follow-up questions, I have no further questions.
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Mr. Zahnleuter, do you have 13
'q very much?
LJ 1s MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I have no questions.
15 JUDGE FRYE:
You have no questions.
Ms.
16 McCleskey, do you have very much?
MS. McCLESKEY:
I don't have very much, but if 18 you want to take 3. five or ten minute break --
JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I'm just wondering about our 0
field trip.
Do you have any questions, Mr. Pirfo?
I MR. PlRFO':
No.
l JUDGE FRYE:
Are you going to have any redirect?
MR. CUMMING:
I have no re-redirect.
JUDGE FRYE:
Re-redirect, I should say.
- Well, 5
why don't we go ahead with your questions, then.
}~T V
37601313 8729 guewalsh I
v MS. McCLESKEY:
Yes, sir.
MR. CUMMING:
I'm assuming I have no re-redirect but based on Ms. McCleskey's questions --
JUDGE FRYE:
We understand that.
RECROSS EXAMINATION 6
BY MS. McCLESKEY:
Q Mr. Keller, the plan provides, does it not, that 8
congestion after the evacuation declaration would begin at about one hour af ter the declaration; isn't that right?
10 A
(Witness Keller)
That's my recollection, yes.
11 Q
And, the evacuation time estimates in the plan 12 assume that?
I3 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
I don'.t know what that follows up on.
O JUDGE FRYE:
Are you going to connect that up?
l MS. McCLESKEY:
I certainly am, and it will take one minute.
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
MR. LANPHER:
Could we get a proffer to what 20 it's supposedly going to connect up with before --
JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
the question?
MR. LANPHER:
23 MS. McCLESKEY:
Do you want a proffer?
JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
MS. McCLESKEY:
Mr. Keller has testified that i
37601313 8730
- Suewalsh 1
traffic guides have to be out within 30 minutes of the 2
declaration of an evacuation order; and, I think that's 3
wrong.
d i
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
1 5
MR. LANPHER:
Well, I don't understand what the 6
evacuation time estimate questions have to do with that.
7 JUDGE FRYE Well, she is going to have to 8
connect it up; otherwise, you can move to strike it.
We 9
will find out how it's going to connect up, if it does.
10 MR. LANPHER:
Well, I thought you were asking, 11 Judge, for a proffer before we went through a line of 12 questions and I didn't hear that proffer, sir.
13
['~]
JUDGE FRYE:
Let's just -- to keep it simple, La ja let's just let her go on, and if it doesn' t connect up with 15 anything move to strike it at this point.
16 Repeat your question, would you?
17 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing) 18 Q
Mr. Keller, the LILCO plan assumes that the 19 traffic guides will be out within one hour of the 20 evacuation; isn't that right?
21 A
(Witness Keller)
I don't recall.
22 O
You don't recall?
Do you recall that the 23 Licensing Board found in the partial initial decision that 24 the mobilization for the traffic guides was to be within one 25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />, they were to be in the field within one hour of the ri V
37601313 8731 suewalsh F' 1-(,)
I declaration of the evacuation?
2 MR. LANPHER:
I object.
That's far outside the 3
scope of anything that went on since Ms. McCleskey's --
4 MS. McCLESKEY:
He stated specifically in 5
response to Mr. Pirfo's question that it had to be 30 6
minutes, not one hour.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes, he did.
Overruled.
8 MR. LANPHER:
That's right, but what --
9 MS. McCLESKEY:
I misspoke.
It was Mr.
10 Cumming's question that elicited the 30 minutes, not Mr.
11 Pirfo.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
13 MR. LANPHER:
But, the PID citation that I y
l E 'S 14 believe she was just referring to has to do with 15 mobilization.
That's just a different subject.
16 MS. McCLESKEY:
I'm sorry --
17 JUDGE FRYE:
I must be missing something here.
18 MS. McCLESKEY:
The PID says that traffic guides 19 are assumed to be out in the field within one hour of the 20 evacuation order.
21 JUDGE FRYE All right.
Let me get something 22 straight, because I'm confused at this point.
You testified 23 at one point that the traf fic guides had to be out within 24 one hour and at another point within 30 minutes.
25 Now, can you straighten that out for us?
PU
37601313 8732 i
suewalsh
,GV 1
(Laughter.)
2 WITNESS KELLER:
I have a coin.
3 (Laughter.)
4 WITNESS KELLER:
No.
The first round, I thought 5
it was' your question, to tell you the truth, and we were i
6 talking about 30 minutes and I said an hour.
7 JUDGE FRYE:
I think it was.my question.
l l
8 WITNESS KELLER:
Okay.
And, we had a break and 9
I was convinced in the break -- and I was testifying from 10 recall, I was convinced in the break that the hour was for 11 the bus drivers, okay.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
That's right.
13 WITNESS KELLER:
And, we'came back and I
~
L/
14 recanted my hour vis-a-vis the traffic guides after the 15 break on a response to Mr. Cumming's question to amplify 16 what we had said.
And, to be honest,.I did not recall the 17 specific plan provision for the hour or the PID decision 18 over the hour, but the hour had been in my. mind the first go-19 around.
20 And, I allowed it to be shaken during the break.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
But, your -- you also put a 22 specific point at which that time should begin to run.
23 WITNESS KELLER:
Yes, when the evacuation order 24 is --
25 JUDGE FRYE:
The evacuation order is made to the l
A
(_)
37601313.
8733 suewalsh
.p 3 O
I public?
2 WITNESS KELLER:
That's correct.
That's 3
correct.
d JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Now, your question is --
5 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing) 6 Q
I believe m*f only remaining question is, you 7
would evaluate whether the traffic guides were out in time 8
based on what the plan says, isn't that right?-
9 A
.(Witness Keller)
That is our general rule.
We 10 try to fol]ow the plan and made our evaluation based on the
'I plan.
12 Q
So, are you still with your 30 minutes or are I3 you.back to your hour?
b' Id A
-I do not recall the specific time in the plan 15 for the traffic guides.
We would evaluate-based on whatever 1
16 the plan says.
I7 JUDGE FRYE:
Is.that different from the 30 minutes?
I9 WITNESS KELLER:
It's my recollection -- and I 20 believe counsel for LILCO suggested that the plan says an 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />, and I think that's right.
JUDGE FRYE:
So, if the plan says an hour that's f
22 23 the --
24 WITNESS KELLER:
That would be the time, that's 25 right.
We would not impose --
FT
- t
f 37601313 8734 1
suewalsh 1
JUDGE FRYE:
A different requirement?
2 WITNESS KELLER:
-- a different requirement than 3
what is in the plan.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
5 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing) 6 Q
Mr. Kowieski, at any time during-the exercise 7
process for Shoreham, did you instruct RAC members and 1
8 evaluators to review the exercise as anything other than a 9
full participation exercise?
10 A
(Witness Kowieski)
I did not.
i Il Q
And, regarding the Indian Point. exercise report, 12 the discussion you had I believe it was with Ms. Letsche 13 fs today about that, do you know what the Walter Hobby Home 14 is?
Do you know?
15 A
I believe it was a school.
16 Q
A school?
17 A
I believe.
It's my recollection it was a 18 school.
19 Q
And, isn't an interview a phone call?
20 A
(Witness Keller)
It could be.
21 (Witness Kowieski)
It could be.
22 (Witness Keller)
It could be, but in that case 23 it wasn't.
24 COURT REPORTER:
Was that your answer, sir, in 25 that case it wasn't?
O
f.
'37601313 8735 suewalsh
. I' 1 k_)
WITNESS KELLER:
It could be.
I'm sorry.
i I
MR. LANPHER:
But, then --
WITNESS KELLER:
Yeah.
And, I said in that case 4
my recollection i.s it wasn't.
JUDGE FRYE:
I believe your last question was, 6
isn't an interview a phone call?
MS. McCLESKEY: -Yes.
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
9 JUDGE PARIS:
Did you mean isn't a phone call an I
10 l
11 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
An-interview, I guess.
12 MS. McCLESKEY:
I don't think the question or I3 r'j the answer changes if you interpose " interview" and " phone L_2 ja call" in it, but what I meant was -- they stated that the Walter Hobby Home had been interviewed as a result of the 16 Indian Point exercise, post-exercise assessment.
17 l
And, what I wanted to know was whether that l
18 interview is a phone call.
U JUDGE PARIS:
Oh, whether --
20 JUDGE FRYE:
That particular one?
Oh, I see.
WITNESS KELLER:
My recollection is that we had 22 people in the field who went --
WITNESS KOWIESKI:
In the field, yeah.
WITNESS KELLER:
-- to these facilities, the ones that were enumerated in the exercise report.
It could s_,
i
37601313 8736 suewalsh 4
1
\\-
have been a phone call, but in that particular case it was a 2
face-to-face --
3 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
That's my recollection.
WITNESS KELLER:
Yes.
5 BY MS. McCLESKFN:
(Continuing) 1 Q
Okay.
Thanks for that clarification.
Now, as 7
to the Attachment 2 to the Suffolk County testimony on I 8
believe it's 41 with the data about the drivers, and the 9
fact that there is an over-supply of drivers, I mean of road 10 crew members in the LILCO plan doesn't change the data in 11 ; isn't that right?
12 A
(Witness Keller)
That's correct.
O But the fact that there is an over-supply of road crew drivers might change your conclusion about the 15 data in Attachment 2?
16 A
I think that's what I told Mr. Miller, or at 17 least I hope that's what I-told Mr. Miller.
18 i
MS. McCLESKEY:
Okay.
Well, I thought that j
19 i
might be but I wanted to clear it up.
1 20 Those are all my questions.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Pirfo.
l 22 MR. PIRFO:
Thank you, Judge Frye.
The Staff 23 has no questions.
I just did want to clear up one thing.
24 Shortly before Suffolk County's offer of proof 25 on Exhibit 108, Ms. Letsche I believe was speaking at the
'(
1 1
37601313 8737 p guewalsh N-]
moment and in responding to her I said the Staff does not 2
quarrel with her and look.
and saw the Board was 3
conferring, and I cut myself off.
4 So, the record as it stands now says the Staff 5
does not quarrel with her.
I think it's obvious from the 6
record, since we made the objection, that we did quarrel l
7 with her.
But, the sentence on the record now says that the 8
Staff does not quarrel with her.
9' I
So, I don't want to -- if they should appeal on 10 that, I don't want the record to reflect that we agreed with 11 them at hearing and opposed them on appeal.
12 Thank you.
13 em:
[
l MR. LANPHER:
We wouldn't want the record to L_z ja reflect the Staff agreed with the County on that point.
15 (Laughter.)
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Cumming.
17 MR. CUMMING:
No questions.
18 TUDGE FRYE:
No questions.
19 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I have one follow-up 20 which now I think for sure I'm entitled to ask, which is to 21 Mr. Keller in response to Ms. McCleskey's last question 22 regarding whether or not an over-supply of road crews could 23 affect the data in Attachment 2 of the County's Contention 24 41 testimony.
25 Mr. Keller said that it could.
And, my question i
P%
tm)
37601313 8738
( quewalsh y) 1
'is how.
2 WITNESS KELLER:
I'm sorry.
That's not what I 3
said.
I said that it cannot affect the data but it could 4
affect the seriousness with which you reviewed and evaluated 5
what the consequence of that data was.
6 RECROSS EXAMINATION 7
BY MR. MILLER:
8 Q
And, my question is how, given the fact that the 9
attachment demonstrates, Mr. Keller, that not a single road 10 crew from two of the three staging areas were dispatched 11 into the field until more than one hour following an 12 evacuation recommendation by LERO?
(.
A (Witness Keller)
My recollection is that one of the staging areas, all of the people were. dispatched within 15 one hour and four minutes.
And, I'm not going to quibble 16 about four minutes.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
But, how does the number or the 18 theoretical over-supply of road crews affect your 19-conclusions?
I thought that was the question.
20 WITNESS KELLER:
If there are more crews than 21 you need in the field for a particular situation, it seems 22 to me that all of them not being there as rapidly as you
)
23 j
would like to see them mitigates the seriousness of the i
24
)
problem.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
An over-supply in the field?
l 37601313 8739 F Suewalsh k_)
WITNESS KELLER:
Yes.
7 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
Q But, Mr. Keller, the attachment reflects that eight of the 12 were not in the field at the time they should have been in the field and none of the road crews for 6
two of the three staging areas were present in the field at the time they should have been in the field; therefore, how could a theoretical over-supply change your conclusion that 9
this attachment reflects a serious problem?
A I didn't say that it changes the fact that it's a serious problem.
We are -- I thought last week and again today we were trying to address a hypothetical.
13
,g[_j Q
I understand.
Mr. Keller, if you will tell me that it does not change, then that's fine.
That's the answer.
16 A
I think it could affect.
Q And, my question is how?
JUDGE FRYE:
Wait a minute.
I think I see 19 what's happening here.
I think you-all are talking past each other.
21 You, I think, have taken the theory out of it, Mr. Miller, when you gave him the numbers of people who are actually there.
MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
That's what the attachment reflects.
U.
(.
i 37601313 8740 J
.(luewalsh
(_)
I l
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
That's what the attachment refl ec ts.
So, based on the data in the attachment --
WITNESS KELLER:
Right.
JUDGE FRYE:
-- which we are assuming, subj ec t to verification, reflects what happened during the exercise you've got a serious problem.
WITNESS KELLER:
That's right.
There is a serious problem clearly.
9 JUDGE FRYE Okay.
If somehow those data.
change, the seriousness of the problem might change?
j WITNESS KELLER:
That's right.
JUDGE FRYE:
I think that's it.
(D
(,/
MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
14 JUDGE FRYE:
Now, Judge Paris and I think Judge Shon have questions.
17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25
/~N
'\\j
37601414 8741 joewalsh F"
A 1
JUDGE PARIS:
I have a quick follow up question on something I heard you say this morning, and if I did hear
~2 i
l l
3 you say it, I would like a little more information about it.
4 I thought I heard you say that there is an 5
unusually large number of people in the Shoreham EPZ that 6
would require bus service in order to be evacuated.
Did you 7
say that?
8 WITNESF KELLER:
I hope I didn't say unusually 9
large number.
I said there is a significant number of 10 people that would require transportation by bus to evacuate.
11 12 JUDGE PARIS:
A significant number.
13 WITNESS KELLER:
Yes.
~ _,,
l' 14 JUDGE PARIS:
Any more compared to say, Indian 15 Point, which is also a densely populated EPZ?
16 WITNESS KELLER:
I think, at least as far as 17 this region is concerned, clearly those are the two that had 18 the largest transportation requirements.
19 Based on my experience at other sites in the 20 country, I think these two are the largest that I have been 21 to, and I have been to about 50 of the sites.
22 JUDGE PARIS:
Is that a function of something l
23 more than just the dense population density within the EPZ?
24 WITNESS KELLER:
Yes, it is.
25 JUDGE PARIS:
What is it?
y~_
V
37601414 0742 joewalsh I) g_j WITNESS KELLER:
Well, in California, for 1
7 1
2 example, everybody has at least two cars, and you have a 3
densely populated area around San Onofre, for example, and 4
you do not require anywhere near the number of public 5
transportation buses that you require in these two sites.
6 I think it is affected by the caliber of the 7
normal public transportation system that is available.
You i
8 have lots of subways, you have lots of trains and buses, and 9
people are used to using public transportation in this area, 10 where in other areas of the country, that is not quite as Il prevalent as it is.
12 JUDGE PARIS:
I see. Okay.
Thank you, 13 JUDGE FRYE:
Anything further?
Nothing g-t
14 further?
Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Appreciate your 15 patience and your tectimony.
16 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Hope we have been helpful to 17 you.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
I think you have.
I think you have 19 been indeed.
20 WITNESS KOWIESKI:
Thank you.
21 WITNESS PANEL STANDS ASIDE.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
So, I think we are now adjourned 23 until 9:00 tomorrow morning, at which time we will have the 24 Staff witnesses, am I correct on that.
25 MR. PIRFO:
Yes, sir.
O
.1 i
i
+
37'601414.
8743
- foewalsh2 b,
I MR. LANPHER:
Could we: talk just briefly about
'2
. tomorrow's' schedule.
3
-JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
Do you want'to talk on the
'd record or off'the record?
5 MR. LANPHER:
-I think it would be useful to be 6
on the record.
I indicated last week, I guess, that I' 7
believe I can complete the examination'of the Staff'in less.
8 than.a half day.
I hope that is still accurate.
I will let L
people.know in the morning if it is not.
j 10
'But'I wanted to know what examination estimates for the. Staff other people had, and then Mr. Simon will be 12 here.
What the. estimates are for him, and finally, I know 13
.p Dr. Hockert is supposedly arriving today, and'I want.to know
' tJ
- d whether LILCO plans " to submit testimony by Dr. Hockert, and i
15 if so, when we will know about-it.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
-Let's take Staff first.
Mr.
Zahnleuter, do you have an estimate as to how much time you
'8 might want with the Staff?
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:'
Several minutes.
I I
20 JUDGE FRYE Several minutes.
Ms. McCleskey?
21 MS. McCLESKEY:' Fifteen minutes.
22 JUDGE FRYE Fifteen minutes.
FEMA, I take it,
~
23 probably has no questions of Staff?
24 MR. CUMMING:
Unlike Mr. Pirfo's brutal cross 25 examination of our witnesses, FEMA doesn' t intend to ask the y
l 37601414 8744 joewalsh-
\\
U Staff any questions.
JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
So, we should be able 4
3 to finish up with the Staff probably in about half a day, I would'say.
Now, the next question is how much time for Dr.
, Simon, am I correct?
6 MR. LANPHER:
I think that is right, Judge.
JUDGE FRYE:
Is that a New York witness as well 8
as a Suffolk County witness?
MR. LANPHER:
Suffolk County witness.
JUDGE FRYE:
Is New York goir.g to want to 11 examine him at all?
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Usually LILCO precedes New York, and I really don't have any substantial questions of Dr. Simon.
Again, a few minutes.
It will be dependent on 15 other parties.
MS. McCLESKEY:
Judge Frye, LILCO would object 17 to Mr. Zahnleuter cross examining Mr. Simon at all.
He is a 18 witness on 15 and 16, and they have filed their testimony jointly on that.
I don't think he is entitled to cross 20 examine Mr. Simon.
JUDGE FRYE:
Well, cross I would agree.
It is a 22 question of whether he is entitled to examine is perhaps 23 another question.
It is not a hostile witness.
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I will also state for the 25 record that the State of New York was involved in no way in O
I 37601414 8745 j--poewalsh I
('~/
the preparation of Dr. Simon's testimony that will be 2
presented.
3 MS. McCLESKEY:
But they have joined themselves 4
in together on the issues, and you have to assume that --
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Let's don' t create problems where 6
it seems that none exists.
7 MS. McCLESKEY:
All right.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
If it turns out to be a problem, we 9
will face it then, but Mr. Zahnleuter has indicated that if 10 he has any questions at all it will be very brief.
11 Let's see where we are tomorrow.
Do you have 12 extensive examination?
Ij MS. McCLESKEY:
About half an hour.
L sa ja JUDGE FRYE:
Half an hour?
Staff?
j 15 MR. PIRFO:
Nothing.
16 JUDGE FRYE Nothing.
FEMA nothing.
J 17 MR. CUMMING:
Nothing.
)
18 JUDGE FRYE:
And then the question of testimony 19 of Dr. Hockert.
20 MS. McCLESKEY:
Dr. Hockert will be here.
It is
.21 probable that we will put him up for short testimony.
It 22 1
will be oral, and it won't take very long.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Very long is what?
24 MS. McCLESKEY:
Ten minutes.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Ten minutes.
vw I
l l
37601414 8746
- j oewalsh l
(/
I MR. LANPHER:
Well, if it is going to be so short, I would --
L 3
JUDGE FRYE Why don't you tell Mr. Lanpher what you anticipate his answers to be.
The questions you are l
5 l
l going to ask, and the answers you anticipate.
l 6
MS. McCLESKEY:
I will ask Mr. Zeugin to do 7
that.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Not right now, not on the record, 9
l but give them some advance warning as to what it is going to 10 be.
11 MR. LANPHER:
If it can be prefiled, that is 12 preferable; if not, I would just like to know what, so we 13
(( s) don't have to take a long break tomorrow.
14 MS. McCLESKEY:
We don't intend to prefile 15 anything, unless the Board orders us to do so.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
That sounds almost as though we 17 might finish up tomorrow.
18 MS.'McCLESKEY:
Judge Frye, I would like to 19 raise one other matter that I raised last week, and that is 20 we would very much like to discuss the finding schedule 21 while we are all here tomorrow.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
And there was a question of how you 23 l
view the question of what a fundamental flaw might be.
24 MS. McCLESKEY:
Right.
You had asked about that 25 as well.
O
I f'
37601414 8747 doewalsh O
ij 1
JUDGE FRYE:
Perhaps Friday morning would be the 1
2 time to get into those things, in the assumption that j
i 3
tomorrow will be pretty well taken up with testimony.
I d
Do you have a view on that, Mr. Lanpher.
You 5
look like you are not happy with that.
6 MR. LANPHER:
I have a long standing preference 7
to -- for getting-home when it is possible to get home.
8 Frankly, you asked the question about fundamental flaw quite 9
a while ago, Judge, and it was put on.
10 I think that is a matter that is appropriately 11 dealt with in our briefs.
I think it is going to have to be 12 dealt with in the briefs.
I think it is an important 13 question, and rather than try to put together an oral 7_5
. ' ' - ~ >
14 presentation that will have to be repeated anyway in briefs, 15 I think that is not an appropriate matter to be taken up at 16 the end of the trial.
17 Obviously, the finding schedule is appropriate 18 to take up, but the fundamental flaw thing, it is far too p'.
19 important to do at'the end of this trial.
20 MS. McCLESKEY:
I disagree with Mr. Lanpher.
I L
21 think it would be helpful to the Board and to the parties to i
22 get an articulation of what people are meaning when they 23 say, ' ' fundamental flaw, ' and my experience has been that 24 oral discussions, supplemented by written papers, are 25 understood better.
yy V
9-
i 1
l 37601414 8748 joewalsh
)
1 JUDGE FRYE:
Let's do it this way, and I would 2
assume thatLyou all would be in a position to do this.
Tell 3
us briefly what your definition of ' fundamental flaw' is, 4
and I just mean just define it.
That is all.
You can 5
argue, you know, for your definition and opposing the other 6
person's def!.nition in your briefs.
7 I think that would be helpful to us when we go i
8 back, that we would know what your definition is, and we 9
will reserve the detailed argument in support of it for the j
1 10 briefs.
)
11 MR. PIRFO:
Judge Frye, one other matter.
12 Counsel of Suffolk County has informed the parties as well i
13 as the Board that they will move to strike one question of r~
( 'g/
14 the Staff testimony, 15 The practice 2 past has been for motions of 16 strike to be filed in writing, usually, some time before.
17 So, I think it would be only fair that Suffolk County state 18 its grounds for its motion to strike now, and that we be
)
19 sble to respond to it tomorrow morning.
JUDGE FRYE:
How are we doing on this field 20 21 trip?
22 MS. McCLESKEY:
We can still do the field trip.
)
23 he can do the field trip at four.
L 24 JUDGE FRYE:
Why don't you --
25 JUDGE PARIS:
Would we have to be there at four?
O
37601414 8749 icewalsh V1 k,,)
MS. McCLESKEY:
No.
I mean as late as four.
-I I
am assuming it won't take more than 40 minutes for Mr.
'3 Lanpher to articulate his motion to strike, d
JUDGE FRYE:
I was just going to suggest, tell 5
Staf f counsel on what grounds you are moving to strike,.and 6
we will have the argument tomorrow morning, but give them.
7 some advance notice.
8 MR. LANPHER:
I will sit down with them right after this.
10 MR. PIRFO:
I would prefer it on the record, 11 candidly.
i 12 JUDGE FRYE:
It will be on the record tomorrow, 33 PJ you are going to get it on the record tomorrow;*so you are U
3a aware in advance of what you are going to have to face 15 tomorrow, he is going to tell you this afternoon what'it is all about.
MR. PIRFO:
Okay.
As long as what we are told
'8 this afternoon is a limitation on what they can argue, no problem.
20 JUDGE FRYE:
Anything else?
21 (No reply.)
JUDGE FRYE:
Well, we will plan then to finish 23 up tomorrow afternoon with everything, and even on the assumption we might have to go a little bit late.
I would 25 think that would be preferable than planning now to come P^K
%Y
37601414 8750
( joewalsh
\\
I V
back Friday morning.
That would leave everybody's Friday 2
free.
MS. McCLESKEY:
Fine.
JUDGE FRYE:
So, with that let's be adjourned until 9:00 tomorrow morning.
6 (Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 3:20 p.m.,
to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.,
Thursday, June 18, 1987.)
8 e
i 10 11 12 1
15 i
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER l
Q l
This -is to certify that the attached proceedings before
'the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the i
matter of:
i NAME OF PROCEEDING:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power s
Station, Unit 1)
DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
. PLACE:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK DATE:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1987 were he'ld as herein appears, and that this is the' original transcript.thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1 i sigt)//7df (TYPED)
[
GARRETT J. WALSH-Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
.4.-
b./
fiYRTLE S.
WALSH O
.