ML20215K217
| ML20215K217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3442 OL-5, NUDOCS 8705110118 | |
| Download: ML20215K217 (73) | |
Text
ORIGINAL U311ED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATI'ER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-S (EP Exercise)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear' Power Station, Unit No. 1)
Q LOCATION:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES:
4892 - 4962 DATE:
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1987 0[
g\\\\
0 AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet 8705110118 870505 as@n, D.C. 2m DR ADOCK 050003;l2 (202)34F3M rch NATIONWIDE COVERACE
=.
81500000 4892 carysimons
()
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
6
X In the Matter of:
7 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (Shoreham Nuclear Power (EP Exercise) 8 Station, Unit 1)
X 9
Court of Claims 10 State of New York State Office Building 11 Third Floor Courtroom i
Veterans Memorial Highway 12 Hauppauge, New York 11788 13 Tuesday, May 5, 1987 14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 15 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m.
16 BEFORE:
17 JOHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 19 OSCAR H. PARIS, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 22 FREDERICK J.
SHON, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Matyland 20555 24 25 O
1
--,,.,a
, ~, -
,n.,
81500000 4893 marysimons 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Long Island Lightina Company:
3 JESSINE A.
MONAGHAN, ESQ.
KATHY E.
B.
McCLESKEY, ESQ.
4 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 5
P.
O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 6
On' Behalf of Suffolk County:
7 MICHAEL S.
MILLER, ESQ.
8 P. MATTHEW SUTKO, ESQ.
GEOFFREY R. KORS, ESQ.
9 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby, 9th Floor 10 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 On Behalf of the State of New York:
12 RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
13 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber 14 Room 229 State Capitol 15 Albany, New York 12224 16 On Behalf of the NRC:
17 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, ESQ.
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 j
81500000 4894 marysimons 1
CONTENTS VOIR' 2
WITNESSES 2.
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSE DIRE BOARD 3
(Panel Resumed)
DENNIS BEHR d
CHARLES DAVERIO MARY GOODKIND 5
MICHAEL LINDELL DENNIS MILETI 6
ELLIOTT PURSELL 4905 7
8 EXHIBITS 9
EXHIBIT NO.
IDENTIFIED ADMITTED 10 Suffolk County Exercise II Exhibit No. 55 4938 Exhibit No. 56 4938 12 13
()
LAY-IN DOCUMENTS Id Follogg Page 15 (None) 16 17 RECESSES
'8 Morning Recess...............................
4962 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
81500101 4895 cuewalsh
(,j J PROCEEDINGS 2
(9:00 a.m.)
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Good morning.
4 MR. MILLER:
Good morning, Judge Frye.
You were 5
going to review where you stood with Mr. Pursell, as I 6
recall.
7 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
I was able to go through a
the examples I had chosen to discuss with Mr. Pursell which 9
were, of course, randomly selected and eliminate a fair 10 number, Judge Frye, because we discussed them in one context or the other yesterday.
12 I would think that we have another 20 minutes to 13 a half an hour that I would like to explore with Mr. Pursell
~
14 of the content analysis.
And, then-there is a little wrap is up from Pages 25 and 26 of the testimony, ending with his 16 second analysis on Page 26 which I think will go very 17 quickly.
18 JUDGE FRYE:. You mentioned 25 and 26 which is 19 not the second analysis.
20 MP. MILLER:
No.
Pages 25 and 26 more or less i
21 give kind of the conclusions reached of the first analysis, l
t 22 a few points about the Indian Point analysis, and then there 23 is discussion of the second analysis that was performed by 2d Mr. Pursell which again I think will go rather quickly.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, let me say this.
We l
D
. ~.
l 81500101 4896 cuewalsh
()
I discussed the matter last night after we adjourned.
We 2
don't see any need -- and we think it's cumulative at this 3
point -- to go through anymore of the examples of the kind 4
that you were going through yesterday afternoon.
We've got 5
your case on that.
l 1
6 After redirect, if something comes up you will 7
have an opportunity for recross.
So, let's move on from a
that point.
9 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
Judge Frye, if I could just 10 make one request in terms of a clarification.
I understand 11 the Board's ruling, and I'm assuming that what you are 12 telling me is that the Board certainly can make a judgment 13 of the significance or reliability of this analysis based on O
14 what it has heard already --
15 JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah.
16 MR. MILLER:
-- through my cross-examination.
I 17 would like to make a few brief points that will require me 18 to go into the Shoreham analysis as a basis of comparing to 19 the Indian Point analysis to show that there was a 20 difference in application of the methodology.
21 We will go very quickly.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
I don't have any problem with 23 that.
I just don't want to replow the same ground that we 24 were plowing yesterday afternoon.
I think at this point 25 it's getting to be cumulative.
O
81500101 4897 cuewalsh k,)>1 5
I MR. MILLER:
Okay.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
Now, with regard to completing this 3
panel and how we are going on, as I indicated I think last d
week, you know, we want to be through with everything except 5
FEMA by the end of this month.
6 So, if we go too far -- I mean, if you take too 7
much time with this panel, you may be cutting into time for 8
21 and 15 and 16 later on.
And, I will leave it up to your 9
judgment, you know, as to where you want to spend the time 10 to a certain extent.
II But, we went over the calendar -- I don't seem 12 to have that with me right now.
There were, as I recall, a 13 couple of extra days.
And, Mr. Lanpher wants some extra Id time, so there we are.
15 MR MILLER:
Judge Frye --
16 JUDGE FRYE:
The Board also needs a day.
17 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I'm not sure I really 18 need to respond to the comment.
Let me just say this.
19 I have told this Board consistently for the last 20 month or more that I thought this witness panel was going to 21 take two weeks.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
I know you have.
23 MR. MILLER:
And, I've done everything I can to 24 keep --
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah.
U-
81500101 4898 cuewalsh
()
1 MR. MILLER:
-- my estimate at two weeks despite 2
I think some problems we had, especially the first two days, 3
with witnesses not being very curt in their answers and speech-making being performed by the witnesses.
4 5
But, yesterday I think that was rather much 6
eliminated.
So, there were some problems last week and 7
yesterday went rather well from the standpoint of the time 8
that was being consumed in responses to my questions.
9 But, that doesn't help my situation from the 10 standpoint of the high degree of matter which is relied upon 11 by these witnesses in sponsoring their testimony.
And, if 12 the Board will recall, when we originally filed our motion 13 to strike this testimony back I think at the end of March, 14 maybe the beginning of April, I thought I was pretty blunt 15 with the Board in telling the Board that if the matter was 16 not stricken it was going to take some significant time, 17 because we had to explore the underlying --
la JUDGE FRYE:
You did.
19 MR. MILLER:
-- documentation.
And, that's what 20 I'm trying to do here.
And, I think I'm doing it in an 21 efficient way.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
I'm not quarreling with that.
23 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
I'm not quarreling with that.
25 MR. MILLER:
With respect, Judge Frye, to a 0
81500101 4899 cuewalsh I
calendar which shows that we have to be through with 2
.everything by the end of this month except for FEMA, I 3
really can't comment on that calendar.
I think all I can do d
is give the Board my best estimate as to how long it's going 5
to take me to present in fairness my case for Suffolk 6
County.
l 7
And, I'm doing that with respect to contention 8
50.
As the Board knows, I'm not responsible for some of the 9
other issues that lie down the road, for example, 10 Contentions 15 and 16.
Mr. Lanpher has provided a good 11 faith estimate as to the amount of time he will need for 12 those' issues.
13 I am not going to assume that by taking the time 3d that I need to make my case in Contention 50 Mr. Lanpher's is time will be eliminated or minimized.
16 IUDGE FRYE:
We are trying to get through with 17 all of this except for FEMA by the end of the month.
- Now, is the schedule that we went over last week, as we had 19 originally drafted it out, had allotted six days to 20 Contention 50 for LILCO's testimony and that took you up to 21 the end of this week.
22 And, then two days for the County's testimony 23 which would have been Monday and Tuesday of next week.
- And, 24 then on to LILCO's testimony on contentions 15 and 16 for 25 which we had allotted three days which took you to Monday, d
81500101 4900 cuewalsh I
the 18th.
Then, two days for the County's testimony on 15 2
and 16 and the State's testimony.
And, that took you to 3
Thursday, the 20th.
Then, we would have begun LILCO's i
testimony on Contention 21 on Thursday -- excuse me, 5
Wednesday, the 20th.
And, then we would have begun LILCO's 6
testimony on Contention 21 on Thursday, the 21st.
7 Monday, the 25th is Memorial Day.
We would have 8
taken the County's testimony on Contention 21 on Tuesday, 9
the 26th which left us with the 27th and the 28th.
10 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I understand and I have 11 looked at the calendar, believe me.
And, I understand that 12 the Board has a goal in terms of when they would like to see 13 the litigation completed.
O id And, I can appreciate that goal, although I can 15 disagree with it also.
But, let me just say that even under 16 the estimates which I have given to the Board and under the 17 estimates which Mr. Lanpher has provided to the Board, I 18 think we are talking a total of three days that are added to 19 that schedule that you just discussed.
And, in the greater 20 scheme of things three days doesn't strike me as being a 21 particularly long amount of time.
22 And, who knows, maybe it's more, maybe it's 23 less.
All we c'an do is do our best to give estimates and 24 try to adhere to those estimates.
And, that's what I am 25 going to attempt to do.
O
_ - _ -.. ~
.-m.
81500101 4901 cuewalsh 3
If in going through my cross-examination the i
2 Board thinks that they have heard enough on an issue, I 3
would appreciate being told that and I will be more than d
happy to move on, as the Board has done this morning.
- And, 5
I appreciate what the Board has told me this morning.
6 I think we have made our points.
So, I agree 7
with the Board, and I will go on to another matter.
- But, a
it's not going to change my estimate of two weeks.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, let's see how it goes.
10 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
II JUDGE FRYE:
I don't know what else to do at 12 this point.
13 MS. McCLESKEY:
I just want to add that our O-14 understanding is that the Board set a page time limit of 25 15 pages per day approximate to be covered.
Mr. Miller, by the 16 end of this week, will have taken double his time.
And --
17 JUDGE FRYE:
I don't think that's a fair is criticism under the circumstances.
Mr. Miller said at the 19 outset that this particular portion that he's going through 20 now would take a good deal longer than the latter portion 21 which deals directly with the allegations in the contention.
22 MS. McCLESKEY:
Right.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
So, if he wants to spend -- you 24 know, if he wants to divide his time that way, that's 25 certainly up to him.
Q
81500101 4902 cuewalsh
\\_/
1 MS. McCLESKEY:
That's right.
My only remaining 2
question, given the discussion that Mr. Miller and you have 3
just had is whether we are, in fact, going to have this 4
panel released at the end of this week or not.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I think it's too soon to say 6
at this point.
7 MS. McCLESKEY:
All right.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
We will try to get through with Dr.
9 Mileti.
As I understand it, Mr. Miller, you plan to be 10 through with Dr. Mileti --
Il MR. MILLER:
I will attempt to finish with Dr.
12 Mileti today.
13 JUDGE FRYE Today?
O 1
14 MR. MILLER:
And, I assume -- that's my goal, to 15 finish with Dr. Mileti today.
And, I guess it's up to the i
16 Board.
I suppose I assumed that once I had finished my 17 cross-examination with Dr. Mileti there may be other cross 18 and redirect and so forth of Dr. Mileti, so then he can 19 leave.
I suppose he's not coming back next week.
20 MS. MONAGHAN:
My current assumption is that 21 none of these witnesses will be returning next week, because 22 my understanding is that we were going to be finished by 23 Thursday unless there is some other agreement.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, we are just going to have to 25 see how it goes.
If we get through with Dr. Mileti today or O
81500101 4903 cuewalsh I
tomorrow morning --
2 MR. MILLER:
We will definitely finish with Dr.
3 Mileti at least by tomorrow morning.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
That would get him back by 5
Thursday, and that's what you need to do, as I understand 6
it.
Is that correct?
7 WITNESS MILETI:
Yes, it is, sir.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Now, is there anybody else who has got -- and, then you've got Mr. Weismantle coming in 10 on Wednesday.
11 MS. MONAGHAN:
He will be here Wednesday all 12 day.
13 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Now, is there anybody else v
14 who has schedule constraints of that nature?
15 MS. MONAGHAN:
Certainly not this week.
But, if 16 we extend into next week, these witnesses all have other 17 jobs and commitments, and I need to know as soon as possible la if there is going to be an extension of time --
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
20 MS. MONAG'HAN:
-- so that we can make 21 arrangements to have them here.
I think it's pretty self-22 evident that they have other commitments besides being here.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
Right.
Well, we are going to make 24 every effort I think to try to get through with them.
- But,
.25 I think it's not safe to say at this point that we will be b
i
181500101 4904 cuewalsh
()
I through with them.
2 MS. McCLESKEY:
Right.
One 16st question I 3
have.
When we had gone through the schedule last week, you 4
had mentioned that the Board needed the 27th and the 28th --
5 I guess it's the Wednesday and Thursday of Memorial Day --
6 Open.
Are we assuming that that is out-of pocket for having 7
hearings?
i 8
JUDGE FRYE:
The Board would like it.
9 MS. McCLESKEY:
Okay.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
The Board would very much like it, 33 but we will just have to see how it-goes.
12 MS. McCLESKEY:
Okay.
13 MR. JOHNSON:
Judge Frye, I just have a O
14 question.
Do you have the cross-examination plan from-15 Suffolk County at this point on this contention?
16 JUDGE FRYE:
On this contention, yes.
17 MR. JOHNSON:
So, you have an idea of where they is are and where they are going?
39 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
20 MR. JOHNSON:
Thank you.
21 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, just one comment.
I 22 would suggest that given the uncertainty in LILCO's mind, 23 although not in my mind, about whether we are going to 24 finish this week that perhaps witnesses make plans right now 25 to arrange schedules to be here next week.
I
81500101 4905 ~
cuewalsh Q
k_)J l
JUDGE FRYE:
Well, let's move ahead.
If we 2
continue discussing this, they will certainly be here next 3
week..
d (Laughter.)
u.
4 5
Whereupon, 6
DENNIS M. BEHR, 7
CHARLES A. DAVERIO, 8
MARY E. GOODKIND, 9
MICHAEL K. LINDELL, 10 DENNIS S. MILETI 11 and 12 ELLIOTT D. PURSELL 13 resumed the witness stand and, having previously been duly 5-
^^ -
'id sworn, were further examined and testified as follows:
15 CROSS EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 17 Q
Mr. Pursell, good morning.
18
.A (Witness Purse 11)
Good morning.
If I may make 19 a comment, I did, per the request yesterday, speak with Mr.
20 Aidikoff and asked about his familiarity with the Indian 21 Point report.
22 And, he indicated that indeed he was -- had read 1
23 the plans and p'rocedures for the Indian Point exercise and 24 was familiar with them.
And, he specifically said that he 25 was as familiar as a FEMA observer would be.
v
81500101 4906 cuewalsh l
' 's>;
1 So, that was his conunent regarding his I
I 2
familiarity.
3 4
5 l
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 V
14 15 16 17 18 l
19 I
20 21 22 23 24 25
81500202 4907 marysimons
-rwI i
k._);
I Q
Now, Mr. Pursell, let me ask you because I 2
thought that statement you made was a little confused.
I 3
didn't ask you to inquire as to whether Mr. Aidikoff had d
read the Indian Point report.
I was interested in whether i
1 5
Mr. Aidikoff was intimately familiar with the Indian Point 6
operating procedures and the Indian Point plan.
7 Are you telling me that Mr. Aidikoff is 8
intimately familiar with the procedures and plans for Indian 9
Point?
Is that what he stated to you?
10 A
What Mr. Aidikoff specifically stated to me is il that he is as familiar with the Indian Point plans and 12 procedures as a FEMA observer would be.
13 Q
What does that tell you, Mr. Pursell?
. (3 1
l 14 A
It tells me that he is obviously familiar with l
15 the Indian Point plans and procedures.
16 Q
Mr. Daverio, to your knowledge, from 17 JUDGE FRYE:
Before you leave that point, are 18 you satisfied as the person who has overall responsibility 19 for this study that you did with his familiari(.y for 20 purposes of achieving the results you wanted to achieve?
21 WITNESS PURSELL:
Yes.
I'm certainly satisfied 22 with his familiarity.
23 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I was not going to
)
24 leave the point.
I was going to ask Mr. Daverio a question 25 about this statement.
O-
i 81500202 4908 carysimons I) 1 JUDGE FRYE:
Go ahead.
2 BY MR. MILLER:
3 Q
Mr. Daverio, is it fair to say that FEMA d
evaluators at exercises typically do not know, or will not 5
have read an entire plan for the plant, but only those 6
portions of a plan that pertain to the area they are 7
assigned to evaluate?
8 A
(Witness Daverio)
I've never been a FEMA 9
evaluator.
So I'm only going on what I've heard from them, 10 and I would generally agree with that.
But other people on il this panel have been evaluators and may know more than I do 12 about it.
13 A
(Witness Lindell)
I can't speak directly to the
()
14 of a FEMA evaluator, but I know on NRC teams that some of is the evaluators have read only the portions of the plan and 16 procedures for the areas that they are supposed to observe, 17 but there is at least one person on the team that has read 18 the entire plan and procedures, the team leader and often 19 there is another individual as well, and maybe more than 20 that if somebody else on the team has had primary 21 responsibility for that plan.
22 Q
Now, Mr. Pursell, Mr. Aidikoff did not tell you 23 he was as familiar with the Indian Point plan as a team 24 leader at Indian Point would be, did he?
25 A
(Witness Purse 11)
He did not use the phrase O
81500202 4909
-marysimons.
I
" team leader."
2 Q
He talked about FEMA evaluators, correct?
3 A
That is correct.
d Q
Now, Ms. Goodkind, you've been an evaluator for 5
FEMA; is that correct?
6 A
(Witness Goodkind)
Yes, I have.
7 Q
Is it fair to say that FEMA evaluators typically 8
only know or only have reviewed limited portions of a plan 9
or procedures, that is those portions they are assigned to 10 evaluate?
II A
I don't think that is entirely correct.
FEMA 12 generally schedules a day before the exercise at which time 13 an overview is given to all the evaluators on how the 3d emergency procedures are organized and what agencies are 15 involved and what the scenario is going to be like and what 16 they should expect to see.
17 Then evaluators, I know that I was given 18 material to read in a advance so that at least you have an 19 idea of how you're function fits into the overall plans and 20 procedures.
21 I think the other thing, particularly in Region 22 II, is that many of the evaluators are coming back to the 23 same site year after year, and by virtue that they also have 24 familiarity that they have gained through their previous 25 experience at the site.
D
.....,_.-.--.---.-.--...-_.----------.------.1
4 81500202 4910 marysimons
()
1 Q
Now, Ms. Goodkind, are you telling me that the 2
typical FEMA evaluator will generally have read an entire 3
offsite plan and the procedures for that plan before serving 4
as an evaluator to the FEMA exercise?
5 A
No.
6 Q
Thank you.
7 Mr. Pursell, I had another question for you a
about the numerator and the denominator of your 76.6 calculation.
Can you give me the answer to that question?
10 A
(Witness Pursell)
Yes, I can.
The numerator il was 879 and the denominator was 1,148.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Can you relate that back for 13 convenience which question and answer was that?
14 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Pursell had indicated to me 15 that there was a 76.6 100 percent agreement factor between 16 the two teams that reviewed the Shoreham report, and I 17 wanted to know the numerator and denominator.
18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 Q
Could you tell me, Mr. Pursell, where those 1
20 numbers are derived?
21 A
(Witness Pursell)
Yes.
The numbers came from a 22 counting of going through each sentence in the FEMA report 23 and looking at each check and each "X" within each sentence 24 and comparing sentence by sentence from the report evaluated 25 by team one versus the report evaluated by team two, and O
l d
81500202 4911 marysimons I
summing across all of the sentence across.both reports and 2
looking at the number of times that a check mark had been 3
identified, in other words, identified a positive behavior d
or identified a negative behavior, looking at it at the 5
sentence level we came up with a figure of 879 times that 6
the two. teams agreed on exactly within a sentence that'it 7
was a negative critical incident or that it was a positive 8
critical incident out of a total number of -1,148 which then 9
gave our percentage of 76.6 percent.
10 JUDGE PARIS:
Where did the 1,148 come from?
II WITNESS PURSELL:
That was the total number of 12 observations that we got in terms of counting the number of-13 times a check or "X" appeared.
O.~
14 JUDGE PARIS:
Is that what one team got or both 15 teams got?
i 16 WITNESS PURSELL:
That's with both teams, 17 looking at both teams.
In other words, if you took a 18 sentence, for example, e,nd let's say team one had seven 19 check marks and team two had eight check marks, then that 20 would be a difference of one, but it would be a total of 21 eight because it would be the maximum number within that 22 sentence that was calculated for the denominator.
23 JUDGE PARIS:
Among the seven there were two 24 different ones in addition to the odd one, would you take 25 that into account?
4 Q
r
81500202 4912 marysimons 0
1 WITNESS PURSELL:
Yes, we took that into s/
2 account, too, right.
3 BY MR. MILLER:
4 Q
Mr. Pursell, would you look at page 32 of the 5
Shoreham content analysis, Exhibit 55.
6 (Witness complies.)
7 Now there is a statement, Mr. Pursell, the 8
second sentence of the first full paragraph on that page 9
that discusses the telephones and radio links and you 10 provide a total of eight positive ratings for that 11 particular sentence that begins " Dedicated telephones" and 12 ends " worker staging areas."
13 Do you see that?
14 A
Yes, I do.
15 Q
Is it your testimony, Mr. Pursell, that you 16 would have followed the same methodology in performing the 17 content analysis at Indian Point?
18 A
Certainly, to the best of my knowledge, we would 19 have applied the same criteria.
20 Q
Would you look at page 17 of the Indian Point 21 report which is Exhibit 56.
22 (Witness complies.)
23 JUDGE PARIS:
What page?
24 MR. MILLER:
Page 17.
25
.BY MR. MILLER:
O
81500202 4913 marysimons Q
Now in the very middle of the page, Mr. Pursell, (h
I 2
the second sentence of the third paragraph, the RECS 3
dedicated telephone line was available to communicate with 4
the SEOC, the utility and Rockland County.
Can you tell me 5
why that received only one positive rating in Indian Point?
6 A
(Witness Behr)
I think I Can answer that question.
The difference there is that the RECS 7
8 communications line is one integral communications system 9
for that area.
The communications that we are talking about 10 at Shoreham are all separate lines and radio systems.
Q Mr. Behr, at Shoreham there is a RECS telephone II 12 system, is there not?
13 A
That's right.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e
81500303 4914 joewalsh n(_)
1 Q
And it is one integrated system, is that 2
correct?
3 A
That is correct.
4 Q
And there are comments in the Shoreham Report 5
where references to the RECS telephone system has received 6
more than one positive rating, isn't that correct?
7 A
I am not sure, I don't recall that.
a Q
I thought we discussed one of those yesterday 9
with Mr. Daverio, perhaps, in Team 2 providing 11 check 10 marks to a sentence that referenced the RECS telephone hook-11 up to 11 different facilities?
12 Do you recall that, Mr. Daverio?
13 A
(Witness Daverio)
I remember talking about O
14 RECS.
I don't remember if it was because of being hooked up 15 to facilities, or because it was used that many times during 16 the day, and I don't remember if it was myself or others.
I 17 don remember RECS being discussed, though.
18 Q
Well, Mr. Behr, is it your testimony that there 19 was no occasion where references to the integrated RECS 20 system at Shoreham did not receive more than one positive 21 rating?
22 A
(Witness Behr)
Well, if you could point me to 23 a place in the report where it indicates that, I will be 24 glad to look at it and comment on it.
25 Q
You just don't recall?
81500303 4915 joewalsh 1
A I don't recall.
2 Q
We will look for it.
Will you look at Page 22 3
of the Indian Point Report, Mr. Pursell.
There is a 4
statement in the very middle of the page again, the system 5
included commercial dial telephones, hot lines to the 6
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dedicated lines to plant 7
emergency system centers, and communications between the 8
various EOF work areas'.
9 Do you see that statement, Mr. Pursell?
10 A
(Witness Pursell)
Yes, I do.
Il Q
And that, again, receives only one positive 12 rating at Indian Point as compared to Page 32 of the 13 Shoreham Report, where many positive ratings were given.
C 14 Can you tell me the difference?
15 A
(Witness peruses document.)
16 Q
Let me ask Mr. Pursell, Mr. Behr, then you can 17 feel free to add or comment.
la A
As of right now, I can't recall why_we checked 19 it that way.
20 0
I guess now you can comment, Mr. Behr.
21 A
(Witness Behr)
I would be willing to admit that 22 that is a possible error on our part.
The only thing I 23 would add to that is that our thinking may have been at the 24 time that those communication lines do not connect anywhere 25 outside of the utility.
81500303 4916 joewalsh
()
1 They are all utility lines -- well, except for 2
the NRC line.
They have nothing to do with the County 3
emergency planning, but I will admit that if we were to be 4
consistent, we probably should have awarded checks to each 5
of those.
6 Q
Thank you, Mr. Behr.
Mr. Behr or Mr. Pursell, l
)
7 on Page 23 of Indian Point, the next page, did you also make 8
a mistake with respect to the third sentence on Page 23 of 9
the Indian Point report, that at 1610 the nuclear facility 10 operator personnel used the RECS line to notify Rockland, 11 Putnam, Orange and Westchester Counties and the Town of 12 Peekskill that an unusual event, ECL exercise, was in 13 progress?
14 Should not each of those locations have received 15 a rating of some kind?
I 16 A
No.
That is just one communication system.
17 It's one observable action.
The operator picks up the 18 phone.
19 Q
So, the fact that different localities were 20 notified should not have resulted in more than one rating?
21 Is that your testimony?
22 A
Yes.
23 0
We will look for that reference in the Shoreham 24 report.
Would you look, Mr. Purse 11, at Page 36 of the 25 Shoreham report, which is Exhibit 55, and Page 19 of the O
81500303 4917 joewalsh
/. i.
1
(_/>
Indian Point report which is Exhibit 56?
2 A
(Witness Pursell)
Okay.
I'm sorry.
You said 3
Page 36 of the Shoreham report?
4 Q
Yes.
5 A
And, what page of the Indian Point?
6 Q
19.
Now, Mr. Pursell, at the very end of the 7
large paragraph on Page 36 of the Shoreham report there is a 8
statement about the discussions that the Evacuation 9
Coordinator had with his staff that we discussed yesterday, 10 remember that?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
And, you gave a positive rating for each of a 13 number of matters that was discussed between the Evacuation 4
(%
id Coordinator and his staff, correct?
15 A
Correct.
16 Q
Now, on Page 19 of the Indian Point report, 17 about the middle of the page there is a statement in the 18 first full paragraph, "These briefings included discussions 19 of alternative actions, changing plant and weather 20 conditions, and technical data."
21 Do you see that statement, sir?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
Isn't it fair to say that if you would have been 24 consistent with your approach at Shoreham you would have 25 provided at.least two or three additional positive ratings
)
81500303-4918 joewalsh-~
1 to that sentence in the Indian Point report?
2
.A As I said yesterday, the sentence on Page 36 3
refers to specific behaviors.
For example, informing the 4
Road Logistics-Coordinator, rerouting traffic.
They are 4
l 5
talking about behavioral items there and actions.
6 Whereas, in the Indian Point report here we are F
7 talking about primarily, for example, the weather 8
conditions, technical data.
So, that to me would be a clear 9
distinction between those two.
10 Q
Mr. Pursell, in the Indian Point report you are 31 talking about briefings, or it is talking about briefings 1
12 that were provided to others.
13 Do you not consider briefings to constitute C:)
14 behavior?
Is that your testimony?
15 A
No.
Briefings does constitute behavior, because 16 we gave it a check mark for the briefings.
17 Q
But, you gave one check mark for numerous 18 briefings; is that correct?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
And, at Shoreham that same statement referring 21 to numerous briefings would have received more than one 22 positive rating; is that not correct?
23 A
It doesn't specifically say briefings in the 24 Shoreham report.
4 I
25 Q
No.
It says discussions, Mr. Pursell.
You draw 1
.,., _,.. - _.. _. ~ _. -. _. - _ _ _ _ _.. _.. _ -.
-~
81500303 4919 joewalsh
. ]mf l
(_)J a distinction between briefings at Indian Point and 2
-discussions at Shoreham, is that your testimony?
3 A
The point I'm trying to make is that in the d
Shoreham report, they are talking about specific behavioral 5
actions.
And, I don't see that as the same in terms of the 6
briefings in the Indian Point report.
7 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
Fine.
Judge Frye, I'm e
prepared to move on.
I don't know if anything further is to 9
be gained with this matter.
10 I would like to ask Mr. Pursell about a few other examples in Indian Point report which I think will 12 demonstrate an inconsistent approach in the application of 13 the critoria used at Shoreham.
,')
[\\/-
14 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 15 Q
Now, we will do this rather quickly, Mr.
16 Persell, if we can.
17 Would you look at Page 18 of the Indian Point 18 report?
19 (The witness is complying.)
i 20 Let me ask you, Mr. Behr, because you say you 21 have some knowledge of the Indian Point compensating 22 exercise.
The compensating exercise was held at a time when 23 Rockland County was not participating in emergency planning 24 for Indian Point; is that correct?
l 25 A
(Witness Behr)
That's correct.
l i
-.,---,.,,_.e
,,n..,.,,-_.-,..___-_
81500303 4920 joewalsh k
1 Q
And, it's fair to say, is it not, Mr. Behr, that 2
the exercise scenario for the compensating exercise did not 3
involve Rockland County but rather New York State which was 4
to provide the compensating measures for Rockland County?
5 A
To the best of my knowledge, it included New 6
York State and some utility workers.
7 Q
Did Rockland County participate?
a A
I don't have intimate familiarity.
I don't
)
9 believe they participated in that exercise.
10 Q
Let me ask you, Mr. Pursell, the very first 11 sentence on Page 18, "When it had been verified that..." --
12 all these references are to the Indian Point report, Exhibit 13 56 -
"When it had been verified that Rockland County could O
14 not mount an effective emergency response, state respondents 15 were promptly alerted."
16 Could you tell me why "Rockland County could not 17 mount an effective emergency response..."
received a 18 negative rating when Rockland County was not within the 19 scenario for that exercise at Indian Point?
20 A
(Witness Pursell)
I do not know.
I think it 21 would require someone more knowledgeable with the -- about 22 the plans and procedures for the exercise.
23 Q
Could you tell me, Mr. Behr?
24 A
(Witness Behr)
Well, the only thing that I can 25 say is that it seemed to us that FEMA went out of their way O
81500303 4921
_joewalsh
' ')
I to make a negative observation of the fact that Rockland 2
County did not participate.
3 Apparently, it was part of the exercise to at d
least verify that they would not participate.
And, they saw 5
that as a negative attribute to the exercise.
6 Q
Mr. Behr, isn't it true that the scenario for 7
this compensating exercise included the fact that Rockland 8
County was going to be found to not be able to mount an 9
effective response?
10 A
I am not familiar with the scenario.
II Q
If my statement is true, is it then correct that 12 this negative grading on Page 18 of the report was an error?
13 A
No, it's not.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l
23 24 25 6
(
81500404 4922 cuewalsh
- ()
1 Q
Fine.
Would you look down the page please, Mr.
2 Pursell, about two-thirds down through the last large 3
paragraph, there is a statement, "The telephone message used 1.
d for initial notification identified the caller, noted that 5
the Lieutenant Governor had ordered the activation of the 6
NY/RC EOC,..."
7 Do you see that statement?
8 A
Yes, I do.
9 Q
The phrase, "noted that the Lieutenant Governor 10 had ordered the activation," why does that not receive a 11 positive rating or any rating at all under your analysis?
12 A
Under our analysis, that should have -- the 13 "noted" should have received a check mark.
1d Q
So, it was a mistake, correct?
15 A
Yes, that's correct.
16 Q
Now, would you look at Page 23 of the Indian 17 Point report?
18 (The witness is complying.)
19 I have the same question again.
Mr. Behr, let 20 me ask you since Mr. Pursell is not knowledgeable about 21 Indian Point, in the section entitled "New York State 22 Compensating for Rockland County," there is a negative 1
rating given for the phrase "in the event that Rockland 23 a
24 County was unable to mount an effective radiological 25 emergency re.sponse."
()
81500404 4923 cuewalsh (N
I
(,/>
Again, if Rockland County, under the exercise 2
scenario, was not to participate, was it not a mistake to 3
have rated that as a negative?
d A
(Witness Behr)
Not through my understanding of 5
the way the critical incident technique is implemented.
6 Q
And, what is your understanding that allows you 7
to make that statement?
8 A
That we are evaluating FEMA's report and what 9
they write and the observations they make in their report.
10 Q
Mr. Behr, I will put to one side my point about 1
11 Rockland County not participating.
This statement says, "in 12 the event that Rockland County was unable to mount an 13 effective radiological emergency response."
v" 14 That does not make a statement of observable 15 behavior, does it?
If anything, it makes a factual 16 statement, doesn't it?
17 A
Well, it's no more observable than the example la that you gave me back on Page 22 about the communication 19 systems.
20 0
Would you agree with me that the phrase I've 21 been referring to is a factual statement?
22 A
It looks like a factual statement, yes.
23 Q
And, under the criterias that you were to have 2d applied, factual statements were not to have been rated; is 25 that correct?
U
81500404 4924 cuewalsh.
/~N
(_)
1 A
That's correct.
2 Q
Thank you.
Would you look at Page 25 of the 3
Indian Point report, Mr. Pursell?
d (The witness is complying.)
5 In the second sentence under the heading, 6
" Alerting and Mobilization of Officials and Staff," there is 7
a statement, "The Lieutenant Governor, his Staff, and key 8
MY/RC personnel were at the EOC by 1700."
9 Can you tell me why that statement received only 10 one positive rating rather than at least three or four?
11 A
No, I cannot.
I would agree with you that 12 apparently here we should have had three, I would say three, 13 check marks here instead of one.
O Q
Thank you.
Would you look at Page 26 of the 14 15 Indian Point report?
16 (The witness is complying.)
17 There is a statement in the very first sentence 18 of the first full paragraph, "The staffing of the County 19 warning point and the receipt of the initial notification 20 could not be observed."
21 And, you have an X by "could not."
Is it not 22 correct, Mr. Pursell, that events that could not be observed 23 should not have been rated under your analysis?
24 A
I'm not certain that that's where that X 25 applies.
It may -- we may have applied the X to the latter O
81500404 4925 cuewalsh
/mi I
Ch part of that sentence.
I'm not certain.
2 Q
Did you put it there to fool me, Mr. Pursell?
3 A
Pardon?
4 Q
Did you put it there to fool me?
5 A
No.
I mean, the X is -- it's right there above 6
the word " County," so it could be for the latter part of the 7
sentence.
I mean, I simply don't recall.
8 0
Well, tell me, Mr. Pursell, under any 9
explanation, can you tell me why that sentence should have
'O received a negative rating since that sentence implies that il something could not be observed?
12 A
Well, yes, I agree with that.
But, I'm 13 referring to the part of the sentence where it says the G;J V
Id observer was not permitted access to the County police is communications area.
And, that --
16 Q
That refers to why he could not make his 17 observation, does it not?
18 A
Yes, I agree.
19 Q
And, under your criteria, Mr. Pursell, events 20 that were not observable should not have been rated; is that 21 correct?
22 A
That's correct.
But, we may have been judging 23 the reason here and that is the observer not being permitted 24 access rather than the lack of observation.
25:
Q Can you go to Page 32 of the report, Mr.
Q.
81500404 4926 cuewalsh
)
1 Pursell?
There are a number of these, but I will ask you 2
about one more only.
3 (The witness is complying.)
d Seven lines from the bottom of the page, "It was 5
not observed whether there was a survey meter or any other 6
means of directly Checking for contamination."
7 "It was not observed," under your analysis, 8
received a negative rating.
Again was this not a mistake in 9
conducting your review of the Indian Point report?
10 A
Yes, I would say so.
But, I would like to point 11 out at this point that I think from the very beginning I 12 have admitted, in terms of the content analysis, that in 13 doing this type of analysis that you do expect these types O
14 of discrepancies that have been pointed out.
15 In fact, I recall yesterday that I specifically 16 agreed with at least three, if not four, places where 17 clearly we did not follow our own criteria.
And, the point 4
18 is that it is not 100 percent perfect, as any type of 19 content analysis; that is, trying to take narrative 20 information and to convert it into quantitative information.
21 But, even if we did something like, for example, 22 in the Shoreham report Team 1 found 821 positive critical 23 incidents.
Even if we said -- just throwing out a 2d hypothetical example -- that we were wrong 100 times and 25 that, in fact, if out of about 821 positive critical
()
81'500404 4927 suewalsh I
1 VJ incidents 721 of them were positive and that 100 that we 2
identified as positive were actually negative, we still come 3
out with a percentage of positive critical incidents of d
roughly 72 percent or roughly a ratio of about three to one 5
positive to negative critical incidents.
6 So, I think that the overall point that we are 7
still trying to make is that the result of -- the overall a
result of the exercise is positive based on an analysis of 9
the specific behaviors and incidents cited by FEMA in the 10 i
report.
But, any time you take, or that anyone takes, l
l Il l
narrative information of this sort and converts it, the 12 other critical incident technique in order to come up with 13 this, this is the type of thing that's to be expected.
Id So, I don't find this surprising.
15 Q
Mr. Pursell, I'm not trying to claim that you 16 were 100 percent correct, obviously.
I think you were far 17 from that.
I'm just trying to show this Board the degree of 18 reliability of your study, and I have questions, grave 19 questions, in that regard.
20 Would you answer this question for me, Mr.
21 Pursell?
Is it fair to say that your analysis of both the 22 Shoreham and the Indian Point reports was to look at 23 observable behavior by emergency response personnel?
24 A
I would say, yes.
But, I guess I would phrase 25 our objective a little bit differently, in that the o
i 81500404 4928
)
cuewalsh n(_) -
1 objective was to analyze FEMA's evaluation of the exercise 2
in both Shoreham and Indian Point.
3 Q
I'm trying to pin this down, Mr. Pursell, d
Yesterday, there was a question that involved the inaccurate 5
information given to reporters at the EOC at Shoreham.
Do 6
you recall that?
7 And, you told me that the reporters was not 8
rated as inadequate because they were not LERO response 9
personnel.
Do you recall that line of questions?
10 A
Yes, I do.
11 Q
So, I'm trying to determine, is it fair to say 12 that you, therefore, sought to rate observable behavior of 13 emergency response personnel?
O 14 A
Can you give me a specific example?
I mean, is when you say emergency response personnel, are you limiting 16 that to LERO personnel or --
17 Q
No.
I'm just talking in the abstract for now, 18 Mr. Pursell.
Emergency response personnel at Indian Point 19 certainly would not have been LERO personnel but the kinds 20 of emergency response personnel that were involved in Indian 21 Point, those were the people you were rating their l
22 performance; is that correct?
23 A
Individuals related to the emergency response.
24 Q
Mr. Pursell, there is -- well, would you turn to 25 Page 28 of the Indian Point report?
I have a very brief O
81500404 4929 cuewalsh 1
question first of all.
2 (The witness is complying.)
3 The very end of the first full paragraph on Page d
28, there is a statement that, "The staff demonstrated an 5
excellent understanding of the RERIP and demonstrated a 6
Capability to carry out its duties without using written 7
aids."
l 8
And, you have rated negatively "without using written aids."
Now, can you tell me, was that a mistake, 30 Mr. Pursell?
'l (The witness is looking at the document.)
12 A
I think that depends on -- again, it would 13 require someone with more knowledge than I have about the 14 objective -- the policies -- the plans and procedures, 15 rather and not objective, but the plans and procedures for 16 the exercise as to whether or not written aids should or 17 should not have been used.
la Q
Mr. Pursell, please don't waste my time with 19 that kind of a statement.
Read the sentence.
Just please 20 read the sentence.
21 The sentence says that the the staff 22 demonstrated an excellent understanding and demonstrated the 23 capability to carry out its duties without using written 24 aids.
25 Are you unable to tell me whether that was a 5
81500404 4930 cuewalsh
(,I 1
mistake in your system or not without knowing more about the 2
Indian Point plan and procedures?
3 A
If I don't know whether written aids should be 4
used or not, yes.
5 (Witneus Behr)
I think it's one of the common 6
evaluations that PEMA makes when chey observe an exercise, 7
is to see if the responders are indeed using their 8
procedures.
9 And, we interpreted this as a negative remark, 10 meaning that they did not have procedures to look at.
Il Q
You decided, Mr. Behr, that it was negative to 12 say that a capability was demonstrated to carry out duties 13 without using written aids?
14 A
That's -- we believed that that remark goes to 15 the sentence above that, that they were making a negative 16 observation.
That's the way we interpreted it.
17 Q
Mr. Behr, please, let's just be straight with 18 one another.
The sentence before says, "No written 19 procedures were available in the accident assessment room."
20 And, that received a negative rating, correct?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
And the next sentence starts, "However, the 23 staff demonstrated an excellent understanding...and 24 demonstrated a capability to carry out its duties without 25 using written aids."
O
81500404 4931 suewalsh
)
3 And, you are now telling me that that previous 2
sentence supports your negative rating to the comment, 3
"without using written aids?"
d A
That is the way we interpreted it, yes.
5 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, it speaks for itself.
6 It's just no use exploring that anymore.
7 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 8 Q
Would you look please, Mr. Pursell, at the bottom of Page 28 through Page 29?
30 (The witness is complying.)
'I I'm not going to read all of this.
It deals 12 with public alerting and notification.
There are an array 13 of negative ratings for things that the public did not know O
V 14 or did not hear or see or understand at Indian Point.
15 For example, brochures, sounding of sirens.
16 Would you agree with my characterization?
17 MS. MONAGHAN:
Could Mr. Miller identify 18 specifically which portions of the report he is seeking to 19 have the witnesses review so that we can be sure that 20 everyone is looking at the same paragraph?
21 JUDGE FRYE:
He said the bottom of 28 and 22 carrying over to 29, the paragraph on alerting and 23 notification.
24 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir, that's the section.
- And, 25 also including the public and media relations on Page 29.
6
x.
-81500404 4932 cuewalsh
();
1 MS. MONAGHAN:
Which runs over to Page 30,-Mr.
2 Miller?
3 MR. MILLER:
I'm content to have Mr. Purse 11 4
look at the bottom of Page 28 through Page 29.
If he wants 5
to look further, he may.
6 MS. MONAGHAN:
I just want to be sure that we 7
have complete sections identified here so that there is no a
conflict on the record as to what happened.
9 (The witness is looking at the document.)
10 JUDGE PARIS:
What's the question, Mr. Miller?
'I MR. MILLER:
I'm back to my point, Judge Paris, 12 about the review that should have been conducted that was 13 with respect to emergency response personnel.
O 14 And, my question to Mr. Pursell was, isn't it is fair to say that on this page or so of the Indian Point 16 report there were an array of negative ratings with respect 17 to things that the public did not understand or did not hear la or did not see, the brochures and sirens being the examples.
19 WITNESS PURSELL:
Okay.
I've read this 20 section.
Would you repeat the question specifically, 21 please?
22 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 23 Q
I just did, Mr. Purse 11.
I will repeat it for 24 the third time.
25
.Isn't it fair to say that from the bottom of O
-J.
81500404 4933 auswalsh I
Page 28 through Page 29 there are a number of negative 2
ratings with respect to things that the public did not see, 3
did not hear, or did not understand?
For. example, sirens d
~
being sounded or public information brochures.
5 A
(Witness Pursell)
Yes, I would agree.
I see 6
two items, two X's there, that were related to the public 7
not hearing.
8 Q
Two?
At the bottom of Page 28 there are two, 9
are there not?
"Only about half of those questioned had 10 heard the sirens, and those who were inside buildings at the 11 time of the siren sounding had not heard them."
12 There are two negatives for that statement 13 alone, correct?
~
Id A
correct.
That was the sentence I was referring 15 to.
16 Q
Now, in the next page, Page 29, there is a 37 statement that says -- I'm about a third of the way down is through the large paragraph, "Of the limited number of 19 residents of the 10-mile EPZ questioned by federal 20 observers, only about half could recall having received the 4
21 brochure."
That's a negative.
22
" Fewer still had read of the brochure."
That's 23 a negative.
24 Do you see those statements?
. 25 (The witness is looking at the document.)
i l
i l.-.-,,--.-,.-,,__--..-
81500404 4934 cuewalsh
()
1 Look for the X's, Mr. Pursell.
Do you see that?
r 2
(The witness is looking at the document.)
3 About middle of the page, Mr. Pursell.
d A
Yes, right.
I see it.
5 Q
You are with me, okay?
6 A
Right.
7 Q
And, then further down, Mr. Pursell, I can keep 8
reading the examples but there is far, far more than two, 9
are there not?
10 A
Well, no far I think we have four.
11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
- 23 24 25 O
'l i
.Il o
- -..,.,. - - -. - +__
81500505 4935 carysimons
)
1 O
Okay, fine.
Do you see the statement " limited 2
recall of the pertinent information"?
3 Do you see that statement, Mr. Pursell?
d A
Yes.
5 Q
Do you see the statement "Less than half the 6
people questioned knew that the sirens meant that they 7
should tune to an EBS station," negative rating"?
8 A
Yes, I see it.
9 Q
Do you see in the next paragraph, Mr. Pursell, 10 discussed in the brochure that the brochure, the posters II were not displayed in any of the hotels, motels, et cetera 12 and that gets rated negatively?
Do you see that?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Now all of these things, Mr. Pursell, deal with 15 matters that were not performance by emergency response 16 personnel; isn't that correct?
17 A
That's correct, and the reason that we included 4
la them here is because FEMA obviously went out of their way to 19 point out that -- they mentioned earlier in the paragraph 20 that this whole area of public and media relations was a 21 deficiency noted prior to the exercise, and this was an 22 evaluation of the response to that or their effectiveness in 23 notifying the public and the media relations, and then 24 specifically later on in the paragraph, the large paragraph 25 on page 29 it points out that additional public education is Q
81500505 4936 marysimons
()
I needed as noted in previous exercises.
2 So I think that the point that we were making 3
here is that this was an area of deficiency prior to the 4
exercise and apparently, in FEMA's opinion, is still a 5
problem area.
So what we did was apply from a behavioral 6
standpoint looking at positive and negative critical 7
incidents.
8 Q
Thank you for that speech, Mr. Pursell.
9 Now, I'm back to my question.
Well, let me just 10 ask you a different question.
11 Is it not true, Mr. Pursell, that none of these 12 kinds of matters, public information and the sounding of 13 sirens was demonstrated during the Shoreham exercise?
14 A
I don't recall.
15 Q
Do you recall, Mr. Behr?
16 JUDGE FRYE:
I think it's in the record, isn't 17 it?
18 WITNESS BEHR:
From what I recall, the sirens 19 were not sounded and there was no objective for public 20 education.
That was the objective here and that is why we 21 evaluated it.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
23 Q
Mr. Behr, would it be a fair statement to say 24 that none of the kinds of statements that were rated as 25 negative at the Indian Point exercise that we have just been O
81500505 4937 marysimons i
discussing at pages 28 and 29 appeared in the Shoreham 2
report because those matters in fact were not included 3
within the scope of the exercise at Shoreham?
4 A
(Witness Behr)
I believe there was a rating for 5
not sounding the sirens and there were some negative 6
attributes associated with that.
7 Q
You believe there was?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Do you recall any statements in the FEMA report 10 that went to the issue of the adequacy or distribution or il understandability of brochures?
12 A
No, that was not an objective.
13 Q
Mr. Pursell, I asked you yesterday a question, O~
id and I want to ask you a question again, is it not true that 15 at Indian Point in conducting your review that you conducted 16 your review in such a way so as to decrease the number of 17 positive ratings and arbitrarily increase the number of 18 negative ratings so that you could bring the Indian Point 19 rating in line with the rating you had identified in the 20 review of the Shoreham exercise?
21 A
yo, l
l 22 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I have more examples 23 from the Indian Point exercise, but I think the Board has 24 probably heard enough.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
O
81500505 4938 carysimons p) 1 MR. MILLER:
And I will let the document speak
(,
2 for itself.
There is an entire inconsistent application of 3
methodology between the two exercise and I will at this time d
simply request that Suffolk County Exercise Exhibits 55 and 5
56 be moved into the record.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Any objections?
7 MS. MONAGHAN:
No objection.
8 MR. JOHNSON:
No objection.
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
So ordered.
II (Suffolk County Exercise 12 Exhibit Nos. 55 and 56 having 13 been previously marked for
()
14 identification, were admitted 15 into evidence.)
16 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, also just to make sure 17 that there is no misunderstanding about what my purpose or 18 intent would have been if I would have proceeded through the 19 Shoreham analysis, we do have other examples.
I understand 20 the Board does not want to hear those examples.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
They are along the same lines as 22 the ones you have ---
23 MR. MILLER:
There are categories that are 24 somewhat different than what we discussed yesterday.
For
\\
25 example, I believe we can demonstrate that Mr. Pursell's
'l 81500505 4939 marysimons k)
I analysis of Shoreham focused upon equipment when under his 2
own criterion pure equipment needs or resources should not 3
have been included within his analysis, d
Perhaps I could just offer one or two examples 5
from different categories if the Board would permit.
6 (Board conferring.)
7 JUDGE FRYE:
All right, a couple of questions.
8 MR. MILLER:
I think this will take just a few 9
minutes, Judge Frye.
I will keep this very limited.
10 BY MR. MILLER:
II Q
Mr. Purse 11, let me just ask you about one 12 category of equipment, what I call my equipment category.
13 Yesterday you told us that equipment per se as commented N}
~p I
14 upon by FEMA should not have been included within your IS analysis, but when equipment was used by personnel, then 16 that should have been included within your analysis; is that 4
17 a fair characterization?
18 A
(Witness Pursell)
As a general statement,-yes, 19 I would agree with that, but it would also include, and let 20 me clarify that just by one minor. point, and that is if it 21 was the -- to give an example, if it was the responsibility 22 of a person to have equipment in a certain place, then the 23 action of getting that equipment there is ---
24 JUDGE FRYE:
We understand that from yesterday.
25 BY MR. MILLER:
d 1
81500505 4940 marysimons
()
1 Q
Let me just ask you a couple of examples, Mr.
2 Pursell.
On page 28 of the Shoreham report, which is 3
Exhibit 55, there is a statement four lines from the bottom 4
of the page, " lighting was adequate," which you rate as a 5
positive.
Is it not true, Mr. Pursell, that that was a 6
mistake under your own criterion?
7 A
(Witness Pursell)
Not from the standpoint if 8
you consider that the lighting had to be provided by 9
someone.
I mean somebody had to do that and had to make 10 sure that that was done.
I'm assuming there our 11 interpretation.
12 Q
Is it's your understanding that you rated that 13 positive because someone must have turned on the lights?
Is 14 that your testimony?
15 A
Well, it's more than just turning on.
It's 16 arranging for.
17 Q
Arranging for?
We have a building and generally 18 buildings have light switches and you turn on the light 19 switch and you have lights.
20 A
If that is the way it's set up, yes, then that 21 would be the case.
22 Q
And that's a positive rating in your analysis?
23 A
Yes'.
24 Q
Let me ask you about page 32, Mr. Pursell, the 25 last sentence in the first full paragraph, "Telecopiers were r's V
4 w
,,,+,,--m.
,w..
--,e
,e r----
81500505 4941 carysimons 3
available for the transmission and receipt of hard copies."
2 JUDGE PARIS:
The first full paragraph?
3 MR. MILLER:
The last sentence of the first full d
paragraph, the "Telecopiers were available."
5 BY MR. MILLER:
6 Q
Isn't it true, Mr. Pursell, that under your 7
analysis it was a mistake to have rated that statement by 8
FEMA as a positive?
9 A
(Witness Pursell)
Again, it was our judgment 10 that someone had made the effort or taken the action to make 11 the telecopiers available.
So there was action behind that 12 statement in order to have that there.
13 A
(Witness Behr)
Those telecopiers are dedicated O"i 14 to LERO.
They are located normally in the storage room and 15 they have to be taken out of the storage room, lugged 16 upstairs and put in place as part of the activation process.
17 Q
Do you believe, Mr. Behr, that FEMA knew that in 18 making this statement?
19 A
I believe that FEMA was there and observed the 20 activation process of the EOC.
21 Q
Okay.
We'll ask FEMA.
22 There is a statement, Mr. Pursell, in the second 23 paragraph down from where we just were, at the very end, "A
24 copy machine was also available."
What is your explanation 25 for why that was positive?
o
81500505 4942 marysimons 4
- ()
1 A
(Witness Purse 11)
I think that would be the 4
2 same explanation as the last one.
3 0
Mr. Behr, at the ENC do you have to lug in a d
copy machine as well?
5 A
(Witness Behr)
No.
I believe the copy machines 6
are set up.
7 Q
Now I'm just curious, Mr. Pursell, the way 8
you're explaining this to me.
No. 1, what is the observable 9
behavior that justified your rating all these equipment 10 resources as positives?
11 A
Providing the equipment, as I pointed out 12 earlier.
13 0
What is the observable behavior?
O 14 A
The observable behavior is providing the 15 equipment and, as in the case that Mr. Behr just indicated, 16 that is physically moving the telecopiers.
17 Q
Let's look at the example of the copy machine, 18 which was there already.
Your own criteria, Attachment E to 19 your testimony, Mr. Purse 11, says that the events had to be 20 observable behaviors by FEMA observers.
So tell me what it 21 was that was observable by FEMA that allows you to make such 22 statements as a copy machine was available a positive?
23 A
(Witness Behr)
Aren't we discussing the EOC d
24 here?
25 JUDGE FRYE:
Apparently, yes.
O
81500505 4943 marysimons j
i 3
V WITNESS BEHR:
What I had said was the copier machine in the ENC was available which is normally so.
I 2
3 MR. MILLER:
I'm discussing the paragraph on d
page 32 which is copy machine at the ENC.
5 MS. MONAGHAN:
I think Mr. Miller is misreading 6
that particular paragraph.
This is in the section of the 7
report that deals solely with the ENC and I think that what a
that paragraph refers to is the links by telephone and 9
computers between the EOC and the ENC and the reference to 10 the copier is that a copier was available at the EOC and not it the ENC.
The ENC's resources and facilities are covered in 12 a separate section of the report.
13 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, none of this relevant 14 i
to the question I have on the table.
1 15 JUDGE FRYE:
I agree.
16 BY MR. MILLER:
17 Q
Mr. Pursell, can you answer my question?
Do you 18 recall the question?
19 A
(Witness Pursell)
Repeat the question, please.
20 Q
My question is that reading your own criteria, 21 reading the definitions of what constitutes a critical 22 incident as set forth in Attachment E to your testimony, an 23 event to be rated just be an observable event, observable by 24 FEMA observers.
25 Tell me what it is about a copy machine being
81500505 4944 marysimons
()
I available, or any other kind of equipment, purely being 2
available that allows you to have rated these statements by 3
FEMA as positives.
4 A
If the equipment is available and is made 5
available through actions, for example, as Mr. Behr 6
indicated, if the telecopiers had to be moved, then that is 7
observable behavior.
8 If in fact the copy machine was there and it did 9
not have to be moved and no one had to do anything to make 10 it available, then that would be incorrect.
il Q
And the same would'be true, Mr. Pursell, and can 12 I just do this generally with respect to the entire report, 13 is it your testimony that when equipment was just available, O
14 that in those instances there should not have been a rating 15 applied under your analysis to such statements by FEMA?
Is 16 that a fair statement?
17 A
If no one did anything at all to make it la available, I mean in other words, if it was something that 19 simply existed ---
20 JUDGE PARIS:
God given equipment?
21 (Laughter.)
22 WITNESS PURSELL:
If it just simply existed.
23 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, there are other 2d examples, and I'll let the document speak for itself.
25 BY MR. MILLER:
O
81500505 4945 marysimons 1
1 Q
Mr. Purse 11, I will try and hopefully this will 2
be my last question of your analysis referring to the 3
Shoreham report.
d Would you look at page 61 of the report.
5 (Witness complies.)
6 There is a statement about half way down on the 7
page, two sentences in fact, one receives a positive rating 8
l and one receives a negative rating.
It says, "LERO 9
personnel used telephones on the second floor to carry out 10 emergency notifications."
That's rated positively.
Then it il states "This contradicts security provisions in OPIP 4.7.1,"
12 and it goes on, and that is rated negatively.
13 Is it not fair to say, Mr. Purse 11, that having O-Id rated the use of telephones by LERO personnel as.a positive is was a mistake under your analysis?
16 A
No.
The positive and the negative there 37 indicate that the positive is for the fact that LERO used 18 telephones and the negative is related to the location of 19 telephones, the fact that they used telephones on the second 20 floor, that they used them in the wrong location.
But the 21 positive is for the fact that the".4d use the telephones.
22 So, in other words, in order to have two 23 negatives there it would have to say that they did not use
)
the telephones.
24 25 Q
Mr. Pursell, it's clear in reading the context b
- ~
~. -.
,.81500505 4946 marysimons A-1 of the report, as you tell me I must do, that the use of 2
telephones on the second floor by LERO personnel 3
contradicted procedures under the LILCO plan; is that 4
correct?
5 A
On the second floor, that's correct.
6 Q
Well, they used the telephones on the second 7
floor, and you give them a positive for that, and I'm asking i
you how you can justify having rated as positive the use of a
telephones at a place which expressly contradicted LILCO 9
10 procedures as positive?
i 11 A
Because of the fact that they did use the i
12 telephones.
13 A
(Witness Behr)
The observation was a positive 14 observation.
If you know what occurred as a result of that, 15 FEMA later went on and assigned an ARCA for them not 16 following their procedure, but said that it was good judgment for them to use the telephones on the second floor 17 18 and recommended that the procedure be revised to reflect 19 that.
20 Q
So you went beyond the statement made in the 21 FEMA report, Mr. Behr?
22 A
No.
We stuck to the context in the FEMA report.
l 23 MR. MILLER:
I understand.
Judge Frye, I'll let 24 it speak for itself.
25 BY MR. MILLER:
O
~
81500505 4947 marysimons
(_}; J f
I Q
Mr. Pursell, would you look at page 25 of your 2
testimony.
3 (Witness complies.)
d We discussed yesterday I think with Mr. Behr and 5
Daverio the statements on page 25.
My first question, Mr.
6 Pursell, is why you did not sponsor this answer 24 to the 7
testimony?
8 A
(Witness Pursell)
Your question to me is why I 9
did not?
10 0
Well, you don't appear to be listed as a 13 j
sponsor.
12 A
That's correct, simply because the primary input 13 was from Mr. Behr and Mr. Daverio.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3
25 s
81500606 4948 cuewalsh
()
1 Q
Let me ask you, Mr. Daverio or Mr. Behr, is it 2
fair to say that following the Indian Point compensating 3
exercise FEMA reached the conclusion that there was 4
reasonable assurance?
5 A
(Witness Behr)
Yes, they did.
6 Q
And, of Course, FEMA has not reached that 7
conclusion with respect to Shoreham; is that correct?
8 MS. MONAGHAN:
I'm going to object to that 9
question.
That's an issue in the proceeding, and it's not 10 under this contention.
Il JUDGE FRYE:
Sustained.
i 12 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 13 Q
There is no where in the FEMA report for 14 Shoreham that it's stated that FEMA has reached the is conclusion that there is reasonable assurance for Shoreham; 16 isn't that correct, Mr. Daverio?
17 MS. MONAGHAN:
Same objection.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
The report speaks for itself, it 19 seems to me.
And, it's in evidence.
20 MR. MILLER:
Well, I'm willing to let the report 21 speak for itself in that regard.
You are correct.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 23 Q
Now, Mr. Daverio, I will keep referring this to 24 you but, Mr. Behr, you can feel free to answer if you like.
25 The first two factors you list on Page 25, the O
81500606 4949 cuewalsh I
location of the plants in Region II, the fact that there are 2
essentially the same group of persons that come and do these-3 evaluations and the fact that Mr. Kowieski was the RAC 4
Chairman for both Shoreham and for the compensating 5
exercise, I take it that those factors would equally apply 6
to most all of the exercises that are listed on Pages 27 and 7
28 of your testimony; is that correct?
8 (Mr. Behr and Mr. Daverio are conferring.)
9 A
(Witness Daverio)
In general, yes.
There may 30 have been.a different RAC Chairman at some of the '82 time Il frame exercises.
But, in general, you are correct, Mr.
12 Miller.
13 Q
And, I take it from our discussion the other i
14 day, Mr. Daverio, that at this time you cannot think of.any 15 other factors that were looked at before it was decided to 16 Compare Shoreham to the compensating exercise at Indian 37 Point; is that correct?
18 A
The only one that came up this morning, c::4 it's 19 not explicitly here, where there were some utility workers 20 participating to provide assistance to the State Management 21 Team.
That would be the only thing.
22 But, I think it's included in there.
It's just 23 not explicitly stated.
24 Q
Now, at the Indian Point compensting exercise 25 was it just New York State that participated along with b
l 81500606 4950 guewalsh
()
I perhaps some utility personnel in the exercise?
2 A
The question is a little vague, Mr. Miller.
I 3
don't know what you mean by others.
4 0
There are I think four counties that are 5
included within the emergency planning zone for Indian 6
Point; is that correct?
7 A
Well, I can answer your question and probably 8
cut some of the middle questions out.
There was only one 9
county, Rockland, playing.
They were the only one.
The 10 other three counties did not participate.
11 Q
At the compensating exercise, none of the 12 counties participated, correct?
13 A
That's my understanding.
O 14 Q
And, New York State participated on behalf or in 15 lieu of Rockland County, correct?-
16 A
Under Article 2.B, they were taking interim 17 compensating measures to participate when Rockland County 18 wouldn't.
19 Q
Well, for whatever reason, New York State 20 participated.
Now, is it true or fair to say, Mr. Daverio, 21 that at the Indian Point compensating exercise there were 22 far fewer deficiencies and ARCAs identified by FEMA than at 23 Shoreham?
24 A
I didn't do that work, but from the other people 25 on the panel, in general, that's correct, Mr. Miller.
()
4 v
, ~,.., _,
,,m
~.,-.. _.,, _.,,
.,.._..m.
81500606 4951 l
cuewalsh l
1 Q
Well, if you look at Attachment C, Mr. Daverio, 2
to the testimony, there was -- there were 24 total ARCAs and 1
3 deficiencies identified for the compensating exercise at i
d Indian Point; is that right?
5 (The witness is looking at the document.)
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
And, at Shoreham, either 42 or 43 total ARCAs j
8 and deficiencies identified; is that correct?
l 9
(The witnesses are conferring.)
l 10 A
I think we have closer to 47, Mr. Miller.
11 Q
47?
Okay.
Thank you.
Now, so about two for 12 one deficiencies and ARCAs at Shoreham as compared to the 13 compensating exercise.
Id Did you take this into account in deciding to 15 make a comparison to the compensating exercise?
16 A
When we made this decision, I had no idea of
'7 that relative proportion.
18 Q
Mr. Daverio, you are aware that, of course, 19 there have been other Indian Point exercises?
20 A
Yes, I'm aware of that.
21 O
And, for example, there was an exercise that was 22 held in March of the same year, March of 1983, for Indian 23 Point, correct?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
And, at the March exercise counties did a
81500606 4952 cuewalsh
)
I participate.
Is that your understanding?
2 A
I don't remember what Rockland's response was, 3
but I believe the other three counties participated.
- And, d
Rockland may have to some extent.
I don't know.
5 Q
And, there certainly were more ARCAs and 6
deficiencies at the March exercise.
Your Attachment C 7
identifies 32 as compared to the 24 for the compensating a
exercise.
9 Did you consider using as your comparison the 10 March 1983 Indian Point exercise, which was a one-day 11 exercise, rather than the compensating exercise in August of 12 1983, which was a two-day limited exercise?
13 A
(Witness Behr)
No.
That didn't enter into our O
14 decision.
And, I think the fact that we ended up with the 15 one that had the lower ARCAs and deficiencies meant that our 16 comparison, if anything, was much more conservative.
17 Q
It goes to the point, Mr. Behr, of how the la analysis was performed which is the point I've been trying 19 to demonstrate to the Board I suppose.
20 Now, Mr. Pursell, you suggest on Page 24 and 21 Page 26 of your testimony -- let me give you the particular 22 references.
Page 24, it would be the bottom part of the 23 page; and, on Page 26, it's really the second sentence of 24 Answer 27.
25
,You suggest that FEMA and, for that matter, your
i 81500606 4953 cuewalsh I
analysis essentially accentuates the negatives rather than 2
positives.
Is that a fair statement?
3 A
(Witness Pursell)
I don't think that's quite d
characteristic of what is intended in the testimony here.
I 5
think basically or more importantly what we are trying to 6
characterize in the testimony here is that the FEMA observer 7
forms are designed specifically to note deficiencies, to 8
record negative behaviors, as I previously indicated, and 9
that the whole purpose of the FEMA exercise is to review 10 performance in an effort to improve performance, and to 33 improve' performance they need to identify areas for 12 improvement, whether they be ARCAs or deficiencies.
13 But nowhere do I recall having seen that this is id similar to a performance appraisal situation that you would 15 see in a typical organization, where that appraisal is 16 designed to be a positive reinforcer.
37 That it is designed to give positive is reinforcement in order to be a strong motivator, but rather 19 here the purpose more seems to be to identify. areas that 20 need correction.
21 For example, areas for additional training or 22 equipment changes, and so forth, and I think given the 23 nature of that, that that makes the fact that the results 24 were positive even more impressive is the point that I am
. 25 trying to make, rather, on Page 24 and 26 in the testimony.
d
81500606 4964 cuewalsh
()
I Q
Mr. Purs' ell, you are correct that the critique 2
forms used by FEMA are designed to identify the negatives 3
over the positives, and if you are correct that your 4
analysis would have done the same, can you explain to me why 5
at Indian Point there were but one half of the number of
-f 6
ARCAs and deficiencies identified as Shoreham?
7 Your analysis determined that there was only a a
difference of between 87.2 percent for the compensating 9
exercise at Indian Point, and 82, or 83.1 percent for your 10 analysis conducted at Shoreham?
II A
Well, I am not certain I understand your 12 question.
13 Q
Let me just try it again.
What I am suggesting O
Id is this, Mr. Pursell.
We have twice as many ARCAs and 15 deficiencies at Shoreham identified by FEMA than we have 16 with the compensating exercise at Indian Point.
Do you 17 agree?
We just established that.
18 A
Yes, I agree with that.
19 Q
Now, we have an analysis, your analysis that was 20 conducted at Shoreham, at which it was decided by Team 1 21 that 82 percent of the ratings were positive, by Team 2 that 22 83.1 percent of the ratings were positive, okay?
23 A
Correct.
24 Q
And we have your same analysis applied at Indian 25 Point, at which it was determined that 87.2 percent of the O
+
+,..g.
,,.,,..g__.
~,,
w.,
81500606 4955 cuewalsh I
incidents identified were positive.
2 A
Correct.
3 Q
Now, I am asking you how it could be that FEMAs d
critique forms are designed to identify the negatives, as 5
you suggest, and you have testified that your analysis also 6
would tend to identify the negatives.
Why it is that there 7
was but a roughly five percentage point difference between a
the analysis you conducted at Indian Point and Shoreham?
9 A
The five percentage point difference, I 10 interpret that to be very favorable.
I think, in fact, it 31 says something quite remarkable about the Shoreham Report, 12 because again what we are looking at in the purpose of the 13 critical incident technique, is to not look specifically Id just at ARCAs or deficiencies, but rather to look at the 15 narrative text of the FEMA Report in order to come up with 16 some general estimation of how FEMA judged these two 17 exercises, and since the FEMA report in both cases is a very 18 comprehensive report of what happened, I interpret the 19 result of only five percentage point difference to be 20 extremely positive result.
21 O
Mr. Pursell, does it strike you at all curious 22 that although there were twice as many deficiencies and 23 ARCAs for Shoreham than at Indian Point, your analysis as 24 applied and conducted, resulted in only a five percent 25 percentage difference?
Q-
81500606 4956 cuewalsh
/~T ts) 1 A
I can't say that I am surprised.
You said am I 2
surprised by it, and my answer is no, I think it is a very --
3 you don't know in advance what the result is going to be, so you don't have an expectation of a particular percentage 4
5 when you conduct a content analysis, so to say that you 6
would be surprised by a result, I find that difficult.
7 (Witness Lindall)
I think there is a useful 8
point of comparison here.
That if you look at the ratios of 9
the negative statements, 13 percent in the case of Indian l
I 10 Point, and approximately 18 percent in the case of Shorebam, l
11 and that ratio of 18 to 13 is roughly 50 percent, so it is 12 roughly in the ball park.
13 JUDGE FRYE:
Even though there were twice as CE) i 14 many ARCAs and deficiencies at Shoreham than there were for 15 Indian Point?
16 WITNESS LINDELL:
I wouldn't feel comfortable 17 saying there would be an exact linear function, that is, 18 that if there are twice as many negative comments that there 19 are -- that that would correspond to twice as many ARCAs and 20 deficiencies, but I think the points are that first of all, 21 it is in the consistent direction.
It is in the direction 22 that we would expect, and it is roughly of the magnitude 23 that one would expect.
As to preserving the exact ratio or 24 the exact proportionality, there could have been differences 25 in what FEMA saw as being the significance of the ARCAs and O
81500606 4957 cuewalsh.
I deficiencies at Indian Point and Shoreham.
2 That gets us into the weighting question, which 3
we said is extremely problematic.
d I just can't speak to that.
I don't think there 5
is enough data here, but I think the data that are available 6
suggests that the analyses are not inconsistent.
7 JUDGE SHON:
As I understand it, Dr. Lindell, l
8 what you are suggesting is that this ratio, a ratio of one 9
and a' half, which looks a little like a ratio of two, or 10 fifty percent difference, is the kind of thing that you think represents the comparison rather than five percent; 12 that is, one part in twenty.
13 Mr. Miller had suggested that there were only.
14 five percent difference.
i 15 WITNESS LINDELL:
Right, that is right.
That is 16 exactly right.
17 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing) 1 18
{
Q Mr. Pursell, the discussion that just took place 19 between Judge Shon and Dr. Lindell, do you have any i
20 disagreement at all with that; the statements made by Dr.
21 Lindell?
22 A
(Witness Pursell)
No, I do not.
23 Q
Now, at the bottom of Page 25, Mr. Pursell, 24 where you express your percentage calculations, is it fair l
25 to say from.our discussions I think last week that we cannot
81500606 4958 cuewalsh p)
I
(_
tell from your analysis -- we cannot tell whether the 2
overall proportion of 18 percent negatives and 82 percent 3
positives is the same proportion among the strong and the 4
weak incidents that would have been identified.
Is that a 5
fair statement?
6 MS. MONAGHAN:
I am going to object to the 7
question as vague.
I am not sure what we mean by ' strong' a
and ' weak' in this context.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
I think you are probably referring to back to an earlier answer of Mr. Purse 11, but I think it 31 needs to be a little better defined.
12 MR. MILLER:
Yes, let me try again, Judge Frye.
13 BY MR. MILLER:
(Continuing)
O id Q
Mr. Purse 11, on page 24 you talk about very 15 strong and very weak incidents, and we have explored that.
16 I am looking at your Answer 22, and you stated that you J
17 believe those instances tend to cancel each other out, and 18 I am simply asking is it fair to say that we cannot look at 19 your 82 percentage calculation for Shoreham and necessarily 20 conclude that 82 percent of the successes, if you will --
21 let me just try it again.
22 Is it fair to say, Mr. Pursell, that we cannot 23 necessarily conclude that the proportion of very strong and 2d very weak incidents that would have existed at Shoreham 25 necessarily apply along the lines of your 82 percent ratings O
81500606 4959 cuewalsh
()
I that were positive, and 18 percent that were negative.
Is 2
there a correlation in your mind?
3 A
(Witness Pursell)
I --
d Q
You still can't understand the question.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
I think the answer is no, but I am 6
not sure.
7 WITNESS PURSELL:
I am not sure.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
What do you mean by strong and weak 9
incidents?
10 WITNESS PURSELL:
By strong and weak, I simply 11 mean that the findings of 82 or 83 percent is a very 12 positive result.
13 JUDGE FRYE:
When you talk about strong or weak 14 incidents cancelling each other out.
15 JUDGE PARIS:
You say in Answer 22:
- Moreover, 16 when a large number of incidents are observed, the very 17 strong and very weak incidents in each category will tend to la cancel each other out.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
Those are not necessarily, if I 20 l
understand it correctly, necessarily positive, negative.
21 Strong doesn't mean positive; weak doesn't mean negative.
22 WITNESS PURSELL:
That is correct.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
So that the ratios of positive to 24 negative would not necessarily have any bearing or any 25 relationship to ratios --
6
81500606 4960 cuewalsh
)
1 WITNESS PURSELL:
To the strong and weak, that 2
is correct.
3 MR. MILLER:
Thank you, Judge Frye.
4 JUDGE PARIS:
The strong and weak being used jin 5
the sense of very significant, and very insignificant as far 6
as Consequences are Concerned?
7 WITNESS PURSELL:
Yes, that is correct.
8 9
10 11 12 J
13 33 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4
25 0
4 1
81500707 4961 joewalsh I) 1 Q
Mr. Daverio, I don't think I have asked this 2
question, but frankly I am not sure.
3 Can you tell me why your team, Team 2, did not d
look at Indian Point?
5 A
(Witness Daverio)
No, I can't.
6 Q
Mr. Pursell, Mr. Behr, do you have an 7
explanation?
8 A
(Witness Pursell)
Yes, because when we wanted 9
to get an overall look at the reliability between Team 1 and 10 Team 2 in a general sense, and once as I indicated earlier, Team 2 was performing their. analysis.on the same day that 12 Team 1 was doing the Indian Point Report.
1 13 So, the results for the Indian Point Report and 1
14 Team 2 were all the calculated at the same time.
Once we is found that 82 and 83 percent were obviously very close, and 16 not'significantly different, and that is that Team 1 and 17 Team 2 reached the same conclusion on the Shoreham Report, la it did not appear to be necessary then to have Team 2 review 19 the Indian Point Report.
20 Q
Did you make that judgment, Mr. Pursell?
21 A
I had several, or at least a discussion, if not 4
22 several discussions with counsel about it, and I don't 23 recall who made that decision.
24 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, maybe we could take a 25 break here.
I have a little bit on Page 26 in the second J
4
"81500707 4962 joewalsh
()
I analysis, and.then we will be finished with Mr. Pursell.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
I think it is a good time to take 3
the break.
We have seven witnesses here, one of whom is d
absent by prior agreement.
When you finish up with Mr.
5 f
Pursell this morning, will that be the end?
6 MR. MILLER:
I believe so, Judge Frye.
Unless I 7
am mistaken, I don't believe he appears in the testimony 8
after page 27.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
The reason I raise the question is 10 do we want to go to redirect on this now and let Mr. Pursell 11 go, or do we want to keep --
12 MR. MILLER:
Judge Frye, I will be completely 13 amenable to doing the redirect, and letting Mr. Pursell go
, -()
14 when I am through with my questions and others have had 15 their opportunity.
16 I see no reason to keep him here.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
That was my thought, too.
So, why 18 don't you all think about that during the break, and let us 19 know how you might be proceeding.
20 (Whereupon a power failure in the State Office 21 Building caused the Governor of the State of New York to 22 close the building for the remainder of the day.
Thus, the 23 hearing adjourned at 10:30 a.m.,
to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.,
2d Wednesday, May 6, 1987.)
25 O
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
-gs -
1)
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the-UNITED-STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-[(EPExercise)
PLACE:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK DATE:
TUESDAY, MAY 5,-1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United. States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sig-)
7 (TYPED)
GARRETT J. WALSH Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's-Affiliation A//J
//////
MYRTLE S.
WALSH o
MARY C.
SIMONS