ML20235M714
| ML20235M714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4057 OL-3, NUDOCS 8707170287 | |
| Download: ML20235M714 (198) | |
Text
.
OR/Gwg; O
UNITED STATES
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning) i (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) l l
0 I
LOCATION:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 18 056 - 1825 4 DATE:
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
/? O \\
N.
1 1
Q ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Er o -. 3 0; co o.'a / i ::
Washington, D.C. 20001 f *
- '# " " # '"' ')lj lh '
(2d2) 347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
)
64600000 18056 marysimons
(
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
a BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
l 5
6
X j
l i
7 In the Matter of:
l 8
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I
9 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, l
10 Unit 1) t 11
X l
l 12 Court of Claims 13 State of New York 14 State Office Building 15 Third Floor Courtroom 16 Veterans Memorial Highway 17 Hauppauge, New York 11788 18 Tuesday, July 14, 1987 19 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 20 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m.
21 BEFORE:
22 MORTON B.
MARGULIES, Chairman 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25
- Bethesda, Maryland 20555 Od 1
l l
64600000 18057 l
marysimons
]
1 JERRY R.
KLINE, Member 2
Atomic Safety and Licensing board 3
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
Bethesda, Maryland 20555 5
FREDERICK J.
SHON, Member 6
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
Bethesda, Maryland 20555 0
APPEARANCES:
1 l
10 On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company:
l
}
11 JAMES N.
CHRISTMAN, ESQ.
12 MARY JO LEUGERS, ESQ.
l 13 l
STEPHEN W.
MILLER, ESQ.
/\\U' 14 Hunton & Williams 1
15 707 East Main Street 16 P.
O.
Box 1535 l
l 17 Richmond, Virginia 23212 le On Behalf of Suffolk County:
19 CHRISTOPER M.
McMURRAV, ESQ.
20 RONALD ROSS, ESQ.
21 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 22 South Lobby, 9th Floor 23 1800 M Street, N.
W.
24 Washington, D.
C.
20036-5891 25 p wg k.)
t
64600000 18058 marysimons l
On Behalf of the State of New York:
2 RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
3 Special Counsel to the Governor 4
Executive Chamber 5
Room 229 6
State Capitol 7
Albany, New York 12224 8
On Behalf of the NRC:
9 RICHARD G.
BACHMANN, ESQ.
l 10 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 7735 Old Georgetown Road l
12 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 i
l l
'3
<w ja On Behalf of FEMA 1 15 WILLIAM R.
CUMMING, ESQ.
16 Federal Emergency Management Agency l
l 17 500 C Street, S.W.
18 Washington, D.C.
20472 19 20 21 22 23 l
24 25 OO t
64600000 18059 marysimons
,O I
V CONTENTS 2
Voir 3
(Panel ot Witnesces) d JAMES C. BARANSKI JAMES D.
PAPILE 5
LAWRENCE B.
CZECH 18063 18066 18250 18246 6
7 EXHIBITS 8
Identitled Admitted Suttolk. County Exhibits 9
Exhibit No. 17 18179 18185 Exhbilt No. 18 18191 18198 10 II New York State Exhibits Exhibit No. 1 18065 18065 12 13 LILCO Exhibits Exhibi t No. 16 18075 18091 Id Exhibit No. 17 18101 Exhibi t No. 18 18103 15 Exhibit No. 19 18110 18119 Exhibi t No. 20 18112 16 Exhibit No. 21 18116 Exhibit No. 22 18121 17 Exhibit No. 23 18123 18128 Exhibit No. 24 18128 8
Exh1Di t No. 25 18139
.18147 19 FEMA Exnloits 20 Exn1DIC No. 1 18203 21 M o rn i ng RO C O S s................................. 18119 22 LunC D eon KeC e s s................................ 1817 7 Arternoon Recess...............................
16232 23 w w w w w 24 25 0
1.
i l
46000101 18060 j
suewalsh j
l Q
PROCEEDINGS 2
(9:00 a.m.)
l 3
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Good morning.
d MR. McMURRAY:
Good morning.
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We have scheduled for today I
6 witnesses from New York State's Radiological Emergency 7
Preparedness Group.
8 Is the State of New York ready to proceed?
j i
MR. McMURRAY:
Judge Margulies, before we 9
l 10 l
proceed I have a couple of housekeeping matters if I could 11 raise them now.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Sure.
]
'i 13 MR. McMURRAY:
The first is a minor one.
Last
{
J 14 week, the County introduced Suffolk County Exhibit 16 which 15 was the testimony of Dr. Radford, et al.
We moved that it 16 be admitted into evidence.
There was an objection by LILCO 17 based on the footnote, you will remenber, from Dr.
18 Linnemann's deposition.
The Board overruled that objection.
19 There was never an explicit ruling by the Board 20 that Suffolk County Exhibit 16 was admitted into evidence.
21 And, just so that the record is absolutely clear, I would 22 like the Board to clarify that now.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I thought it was -- I did make 24 a statement that it was admitted into evidence, which it 25 is.
I believe there was a condition attached to it, in that
46000101 18061 suewalsh
)
1 David Harris was not present and it was subject to the same 2
condition as-the other exhibits.
For example, LILCO's 3
Exhibit Number 1 in which Mr. Lieberman has not been sworn 4
to as yet.
l 5
MR. McMURRAY:
Fine.
We searched the transcript 6
and didn't find that ruling.
But, that is clear; that's 7
fine.
8 The second matter is a scheduling matter.
Over 9
the weck-end, in preparation for the FEMA ~ panel and in doing 10 a preliminary review regarding the cross-examination of Mr.
11 Lieberman, I revised downward my estimates for the cross-12 examination of the FEMA panel and Mr. Lieberman.
13 I now believe that the FEMA panel will take --
0 14 that I will take less than a day and that we will be able to 15 finish the FEMA panel in one day.
They are scheduled to go 16 up to tomorrow.
17 I also believe that Mr. Lieberman is not going 18 to take more than two days.
Based on -- given the current 19 schedule then, that would mean that there would be a free 20 day, this coming Thursday, between the end of the FEMA 21 testimony and the beginning of Mr. Lieberman's testimony.
22 Also, if Mr. Lieberman started next Friday it would mean 23 that he would finish up the following Tuesday, leaving a 24 free day between the end of his testimony and the State DOT j
I 25 testimony, i
l l
46000101 18062 suewalsh r~h, I
I've talked with the parties about this in a 2
letter that I sent to them yesterday.
This morning we j
3 agreed on the following, which I would like to present to d
the Board; and, that is that when we finish with the FEMA 5
panel tomorrow that that is the end of the hearings for this 6
week.
Next week, we would start with Mr. Lieberman at 9 7
o' clock on Tuesday and we would do him for twe lays and then 8
the State DOT witnesses would come up as scheduled.
9 l
I think also an incidental benefit of this 10 proposal is thr we would focus all the traffic testimony II together in one week.
We would have all the experts there 12 in one week.
And, also obviously the main purpose for this 13 proposal is that we would be avoiding open days in the 14 middle of the schedule where people would be sitting around 15 in Long Island, not doing anything but wasting time.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Okay.
You added waste time.
17 I just wondered up until that point as to whether it was a I8 pej orative statement, sitting around Long Island.
19 MR. McMURRAY:
No, sir.
20 (Laught er. )
21 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Do the other parties agree to 22 that procedure?
I 23 MR. CHRIS3 MAN:
Yes, we agree to that.
That 24 assumes that we can finish, that all parties can finish 25 their questioning of FEMA tomorrow, which I believe to be 0
1
46000101 18063 suewalsh
)
I the case.
If that were not the case, we might have to go 2
over to the next day to finish FEMA but I doubt that will 3
happen.
)
4 MR. BACHMANN:
The Staff agrees with that 5
schedule.
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
We agree.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will proceed as outlined by i
8 Mr. McMurray.
9 MR. McMURRAY:
Thank you.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is New York State ready?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes, Judge Margulies, we are 12 ready.
Would you like to swear the witnesses?
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes, I will.
14 (The witnesses are sworn by Judge Margulies.)
15 Whereupon, 16 JAMES C. BARANSKI, i
l 17 JAMES D.
PAPILE 18 and 19 LAWRENCE B.
CZECH 20 were called as witnesses by and on behalf of the Intervenor, 21 the State of New York, and having first been duly sworn, 22 were examined and testified as follows:
23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
25 Q
Gentlemen, could you please state for the record O
l
46000101 18064 suewalsh
'?
I j
'your names and business addresses?
s_
2 A
(Witness Baranski)
James'Baranski, Radiological 3
Emergency Preparedness Group, Building 22, State Campus, d
Albany, New York.
5 (Witness Papile)
James Dcminick Papile, 6
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group, Albany, New York.
7 (Witness Czech)
I am Lawrence B. Czech, Chief l
8 of Nuclear Protection Planning, the Radiological Emergency 9
Preparedness Group, the same address as the others.
j 10 Q
Do you have before you a document which is II entitled " Direct Testimony of James D.
Papile, James.D.
12 Baranski and Lawrence B.
Czech on Behalf of the State of New 13 York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers," dated April 13th, 7v Id 19877 1
15 A
(Witness Baranski)
I do.
16 (Witness Papile)
I do.
17 (Witness Czech)
I do.
IB Q
Did you prepare this document, or was it 19 prepared under your supervision?
20 A
(Witness Papile)
We did.
l 21 (Witness Czech)
Yes.
1 22 (Witness Baranski)
That's affirmative.
23 Q
Mr. Papile, do you have any corrections to be 24 made?
25 A
(Witness Papile)
Yes, we do.
On Page 8, the O
46000101 18065 suewalsh
)
I third line from the top, after Footnote 3 it states -- at 2
the beginning of the next sentence should be NUREG 0654 3
rather than NUREG 9654.
d Q
Are there any other corrections?
5 A
There are no other corrections.
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Judge Margulies, I would like 7
to have this document marked as New York State's Exhibit 1 8
and offer it into evidence.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any obj ection?
10 MR. CHRISTMAN:
No, sir.
Il i
MR. BACHMANN:
No, sir.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
All right.
It will be so 13 marked and be admitted into evidence as New York's Exhibit 14 Number 1.
15 (The document referred to is marked 16 as New York State Exhibit Number 1 l
17 for identification and admitted IB into evidence.)
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This panel is ready for cross-i l
20 examination.
21 JUDGE MARGULIES:
You may cross-examine, Mr.
22 Christman.
23 WITNESS PAPILE:
I would like to make one 24 request, that the hearing aid that I have and the air l
25 conditioning that's going on, it becomes very difficult with l
C:)
46000101 18066
)
suewalsh (h)
I the background sometimes to hear the question, and I would 2
like to have people make sure that they speak loud enough 3
for me.
4 Thank you, i
i l
l 5
JUDGE MARGULIES:
1If you are having any 6
difficulty, speak up.
7 WITNESS PAPILE:
I had some this morning when I 8
first walked in.
9 CROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
II Q
I would like to ask the three of you about some-
)
12 of the operating plants in New York State other than 13 Shoreham to begin with.
Id A
(Witness Papile)
I would like you to speak 15 louder, because you are not coming through.
16 Q
I would like to ask you about the operating 17 plants in New York State other than Shoreham.
Can one of 18 you, one of the three of you, tell me what those other 19 operating plants are?
20 A
(Witness Baranski)
Yes, sir.
The other 21 operating plants that we have are Indian Point Unit 2, 22 Indian Point Unit 3, the R.
E. Ginna facility, Niagara 23 Mohawk's Nine Mile Point Unit 1, the James A. Fitzpatrick i
24 site.
I 25 Q
And, Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile Point are at the i
V(
i 1
1
1 46000101 18067 suewalsh I
same site, aren't they?
2 A
That's affirmative.
3 Q
Let me ask you about Indian Point.
I want to 4
just pin down the population estimates for the EPZ around 5
Indian Point.
Let me show you a document called Table I.1 6
which I pulled out of the Putnam County emergency plan.
I 7
just want to check the numbers with you.
8 (The witnesses are shown the document.)
9 Now, that says that based on 1980 population 10 estimates for the Indian Point EPZ, the population in the 11 various portions of the EPZ within each county were for 12 Orange County 18,539; Putnam County, 19,992; Rockland 13 County, 92,993; and, Westchester County, 125,858, adding up g-V 14 to a total of 257,382.
15 Do those figures look correct to you?
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Excuse me.
Judge Margulies, if 17 the questions are going to be asked about this document I IB would appreciate seeing a copy of it.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Counsel should be shown, 20 counsel.
21 MR. CHRIS3 NAN:
I only have the one, and I'm 22 only going to ask the one question as to whether -- it is to 23 establish the population estimates.
I will be glad to pass 24 it around.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, let counsel see it t
l 46000101 18068 suewalsh
.gr%
d I
before the witnesses answer the question.
2 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Sure.
1 (Counsel is looking at the document.)
l 3
l I
4 WITNESS PAPILE:
Those are approximately l
5 correct.
6 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Thank you.
That's all I needed 7
to know about that.
l 8
l 9
1 10 l
11 12 13 14 j
15 1
1 16 17 18 19 20 1
21 1
22 23 24 l
25 l
l l
l l
46000202 18069 l
joewalsh Y1 1
(_)
BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 2 Q
Now, if you look at Page 23 of your testimony, 3
you say that in your judgment it takes about two to three 4
minutes to monitor a person.
Now, if there are 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 5
times 60 minutes, you have 720 minutes in a 12-hour period.
i 6
That's right, isn't it?
l 7
A (Witness Papile)
Absolutely.
8 Q
I thought you would agree with me.
Since you l
9 l
say it takes two to three minutes to monitor a person, can 1
10 we take it an average of 2.5 minutes, and if we divide the 11 720 minutes and the 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> by 2.5 we come up with 288 12 persons that a single monitoring team can monitor in the 12-13 hour period; is that right?
73, l \\ '!
14 A
We will buy that, yeah.
15 O
Okay.
So, if we divide the 257,382 people in 16 the EPZ for Indian Point by that 288 persons it would seem 17 to follow that we need about 893 or maybe 894 monitors to do 18 all those people, or monitoring teams to do all of those 19 people, in about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />; is that right?
20 A
According to your calculation, yes.
21 Q
Is there anything wrong with my calculation?
22 A
Nothing wrong witl your calculations.
23 Q
And, I take it your opinion is that those four 24 counties have available to them somewhere in the 25 neighborhood of 893 or 94 trained monitoring teams?
lif
46000202 18070 joewalsh 1
Mr. Czech?
2 A
(Witness Czech)
I didn't characterize that as 3
being a true statement.
4 Q
You don't agree with that?
5 A
That they are actually available?
No, sir, I do l
6 not.
7 Q
Okay.
How about monitoring instruments?
Would 8
there be that many, 893 instruments, available, do you 9
think?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Okay.
And, what instrument does New York State 12 use, the CDV-700s?
13 A
Primarily the CDV-700.
O la Q
Do you have any idea how many trained monitoring 15 people there are for that -- for those people in that EPZ, 16 for Indian Point?
17 A
Just from those counties within that area, sir?
18 Q
Uh-huh.
Yes.
19 (The witness is looking at a document.)
20 A
According to information that's provided by the 21 counties in the area of Indian Point in their submissions to 22 FEMA on an annual basis for the amount -- for the nunber of 23 trained and available radiation monitors, if you take the 24 four counties that were within the 10-mile emergency 25 planning zone plus the one county which acts as a host 0
l 46000202 18071 joewalsh I
county, I believe you will find that the number of monitors 2
that those directors indicate as of March 31st of '87 is on 3
the order of 550 or 555 monitors.
4 Q
What is that host county?
5 A
Duchess County, sir.
6 Q
And, you say the 555 came from the county 7
officials?
8 A
That comes from the county officials; that's 9
correct, sir.
10 Q
Is that in writing?
11 A
That is something they provide in writing gg 12 through the State Emergency Management Office as a 13 requirement for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
O'.,
id Q
Have you seen those documents that reflect those 15 numbers?
16 A
I have not, but I've had someone check those and 17 get the numbers for me.
IB Q
Where did he go to find those numbers?
19 A
Where would you go?
I would assume you could go 20 to FEMA, Region II and get those numbers.
21 O
Well, where did he go?
22 A
Where did this individual go?
23 0
Yes.
24 A
This is the Technical Resources Group within the 25 State Emergency Management Office which has responsibility
j I
46000202 18072 joewalsh
(
1 for collecting and collating that data from across the State 1
l 2
for annual submission to FEMA.
3 Q
So, they looked in their own files?
l 4
A They looked in their files and what they send to l
5 locals to fill out, that's true.
j l
6 Q
Let me ask you about the Fitzpatrick and Nine 7
Mile Point plant.
What county is responsible for the l
8 cmergency planning for that site?
9 A
(Witness Czech)
For Nine Mile Point and l
10 Fitzpatrick, the county which is within the 10-mile 11 emergency planning zone is Oswego County.
j i
12 Q
Now, let me show you a Table K.1 which I pulled l
)
l 13 from the Oswego plan, and I will pass it to your counsel.
I 14 just want to ask you, since it lists the 1980 population 15 estimate for the EPZ for Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile Point as l
l 16 48,765 I would like to know if that's about right?
17 A
(Witness Papile)
That's approximately correct.
IB Q
If you do the same calculation I just went 19 through and divided that 48,765 by 288 I would come out with 20 169 monitoring teams needed to do everybody within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 21 is that right?
22 A
We agree.
23 Q
Mr. Czech, I take it you checked on this county l
l 24 as well.
Do they have 169 trained monitors?
l 25 A
(Witness Czech)
Well, first let me clarify
i 46000202 18073 joewalsh I
something.
Oswego County sends any evacuees to one of two 2
host counties, one county being Onondaga County to the 3
south, the other county being Jefferson County to the 4
northeast.
l 5
The monitoring that would typically be done of 6
evacuees would be done at either of those two host 1
7 counties.
The second part -- or, the part of your question
)
8 you asked first, is there a sufficient number of monitors, 9
again going back to the same documentation, yes.
to Q
What's the number?
11 A
If you were to take all three counties, Oswego, 12 Jefferson and Onondaga the number that the director is 13 reporting annually is 575 monitors.
14 Q
Do you know that all of those people have been 15 trained to do the monitoring?
l 16 A
Do I know specifically?
No, I do not.
17 Q
How about the Ginna plant?
What counties have 18 emergency plans for the Ginna plant?
19 A
Wayne County and Monroe County.
20 Q
Do you know the population of the EPZ.in Wayne 21 County?
I have f rom the plans that it 's -- this is j ust in 22 Wayne County now.
I have 23,072.
Does that sound about 23 right?
24 A
Yes, it does.
25 Q
And, if we divide 23,072 by 288 we find we need n
Y l
s_e
46000202 18074 joewalsh h
I about 80 monitors to do everybody in about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />; is that 2
right?
3 A
That sounds right.
4 Q
Are those monitoring people available to Wayne 5
County?
6 A
Wayne County reported 91 monitors as of March 7
31st, 1987 trained and available.
I 8
Q Do you know if those monitors, those 91 people, j
'1 9
have been trained?
10 A
That's what the counties are certifying in the i
11 data they are providing to go to FEMA.
i 12 Q
How about the EPZ population that's in Monroe 1
13 County for the Ginna plant?
I have 1980 figures that that I-s\\
\\
/
14 population is 31,870.
15 Is that about right?
l 16 A
Could you say that number again, sir?
I 1
l 17 couldn't hear with the background noise.
18 Q
Surely.
It's 31,870.
I will show you the 19 document if you would like.
20 A
That's approximately right.
I believe that that 21 nunber has gone down somewhat.
22 Q
The population has declined somewhat?
23 A
But, that's -- it's in the ball park.
24 O
And, dividing 31,870 by 288 we get 111 monitors i
25 for the entire population in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, right?
O<
>'w) i i
l J
46000202' 18075 joewalsh
?
1 A
Okay.
2 Q
Do you have a number for the number of trained --
3 A
Yes, I do.
Yes, 140.
d Q
Do you know if they have been -- those 140-l 5
people have been trained to monitor?
6 A
I don't have personal knowledge that they've
]
1 7
been trained other than what's reported on the form.
/
8 Q
Does anybody on the panel?
9 A
(Witness Papile)
No.
i 10 (Mitness Baranski)
No, sir.
1 11 Q
Let's talk about Monroe County in a little more
)
l 12 detail if we may.
I want to show you a document labeled
]
13
" Monroe" at the top in hand that we got from your counsel in 14 discovery.
15 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I would like to mark this LILCO 16 Exhibit 16 for identification, and we will hand out copies 17 to everybody.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
19 (The document referred to is marked 20 as LILCO Exhibit Number 16 for l
identification.)
21 22 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 23 Q
Now, let me tell you, we asked for a current 24 version of the state and county plans that had -- that were 1
25 concerned with monitoring and decontamination, and this is (b/
i
1 i
46000202 18076 j oewalsh
()
I the document we got, labeled " Monroe."
It's the entire I
l 2
document as we received it.
Nothing has been added or J
l 3
deleted.
4 Do you recognize this document or these pages?
5 (The witnesses are conferring.)
6 A
(Witness Papile)
I would like to ask a 7
question.
8 Q
Surely.
9 A
When was this requested?
Can you give me an l
10 approximate date?
11 Q
Within the last two months.
We received this in 12 April.
13 A
In April?
O 14 Q
Yes.
15 A
We have revised this document, and it has gone 16 to FEMA for final changes.
And, I think the revision was 17 submitted in May some time.
But, I just wanted to let you 18 know that this has been revised.
17 Whether this specific part has been revised, I 20 can't testify to.
But, the plan has plan changes submitted 21 as of I think May or June, 22 Q
We will have to go with the documents we have 23 been given.
You can tell me if anything has changed.
24 A
I just wanted to let you know that the plan has 25 been revised.
O l
l 46000202 18077 joewalsh j
rm
[]j 1
Q Well, as of the date that we got this, this was 2
the current version of various pages of the Monroe County 3
plan having to do with reception centers, I take it.
'And, l
4 you are telling me that there may have been changes which we 5
will have to identify as we go along; is that right?
6 A
- yes, 7
Q I take it, according to this document,-that 8
reception and congregate care centers under the Monroe
)
9 County plan consist primarily of public high schools and 10 junior high schools; is that right?
11 A
That's true.
That's for the general public now.
l 12 O
That's what I'm interested in, yes.
j l
I 13 A
All right.
O 14 Q
And it says in here that under the Monroe County j
l 15 plan lead responsibility for monitoring evacuees is given to 16 the County Director, Department of IIealth, and particularly l
\\
l 17 the County Radiological Officer.
l l
18 Does that sound right?
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Could you please identify the l
20 portion of this docun ent --
21 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Sure.
But, it's going to be 22 hard to find.
It's Page I-C-15.
And, since the numbers are 23 not consecutively numbered you may have to hunt for it a 24 bit.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Page 7 of the document.
J
46000202 18078 joewalsh I
WITNESS PAPlLE:
That's what it says.
2 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continulag) 3 Q
Well, is that right?
4 A
(Witness Papile)
Yes, that's what it says.
5 Q
It's still right, not withstanding changes?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
And it says his primary support is the New York 8
State Department of Health?
9 A
That would be true.
l l
1 l
10 Q
And, secondary support is the Environmental 1
11 Protection Agency?
I 12 A
That's what it says.
l l
1 13 Q
Is that a state agency?
,,}
l 14 A
I assume.
No, no.
EPA would not be a state j
l l
15 agency.
16 Q
No, you are talking about the Federal EPA.
17 A
We have no agency in in the state called the 18 Environmental Protection Agency.
19 Q
That's what I wanted to know.
Now, Page Roman l
20 III-H-1, the same document, it says that personnel 21 radiological monitoring will be conducted by the County 22 Department of Social Services and the County Department of l
23 Health.
24 Is that still correct?
l 25 A
The page again?
l T's i
1
7 1
46000202 18079 joewalsh
('S 1
(,j Q
III-H-1.
2 A
I have it.
Under Reception Centers, that's a 3
true statement.
4 Q
That 's -- we. are talking about the personnel,
)
5 then.
6 A
They will operate reception center.
7 Q
It also says they will do the radiological 8
monitoring.
9 A
Who?
10 Q
Personnel radiological monitoring will be l
l 11 conducted by the County Department of Social Services and 12 the County Department of Health.
13 A
That's not right.
Jointly participate.
14 Q
Okay.
15 A
I would like to clarify that for you if I might.
4 16 Q
Please do.
17 A
Jointly participate means in the full activity 18 of the reception center which includes registration as well 19 as monitoring.
Social Services does the registration.
The l
20 Health Departuent personnel are the volunteers through the 21 County Radiological Officer, and they do the monitoring.
j 1
22 I would like to clarify that, because there are 23 two missions within the reception center which we take very 24 seriously.
25 Q
Yes, I understand.
So, tell me again, who --
O s.)
i i
l 1
\\
l
46000202 18080 joewalsh
()
I what agencies provide the trained monitors to do the 2
monitoring of the public?
3 A
As I stated before, that is the responsibility l
4 of the County Radiological Officer and the people in the 5
Health Department as well as volunteers that he may have, of I
i 6
the trained list that Larry read from.
i 7
(Witness Czech)
What --
8 Q
Where do those -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
I 9
A I was just going to try to clarify one point, j
10 The County Radiological Officer is not a Health Department i
11 employee.
He is an employee of the County's Emergency 12 Management Office.
I 13 I don't know if that adds anything or helps you 1
14 out.
I 15 (Witness Papile)
We would like to go further 16 than that, too.
Monroe County, they do not have what we 17 call a Health Commissioner, although they have a doctor on i
18 the staff who acts as a Health Commissioner.
He is a Health 1
19 Director which comes under the services and the auspices and 20 the directorship of the Commissioner for Human Services.
21 So, when we say the Health Department it does 22 not -- the doctor who is the Director of Health coming under 23 a specific Commissioner.
It happens to be the Director of 24 Social Services also comes under that same individual, the 25 Commissioner for Human Services, so they are all within the O
l l
l r
I
46000202 18081 i
joewalsh I
same organization.
2 Q
How many people does the Radiological Officer a
1 3
have in his agency or his organization; do you know?
I 4
A In his agency?
l 5
Q Uh-huh.
Yes.
6 A
He is alone there as the Radiological Officer i
7 for the Emergency Services.
But, he calls on the Health i
8 Department for people.
9 l
Q Okay.
How many people are in the Health 10 Department altogether?
11 A
Oh, I have no idea.
Monroe County has a rather U
large Health Department.
13 Q
Okay.
You mentioned volunteers.
Do you know (D,
\\
/
14 where these volunteers come from that aren't in the Health l
15 Department?
16 A
The volunteers come from -- that I know directly 17 come from personnel like the State Guard which would help l
I 18 train.
That's a volunteer organization.
And, other I
1 19 volunteers could be firemen.
I don't know, but they have 20 come volunteers also, f
21 Q
Other than the State Guard, the State of New 1
(
22 York doesn't supply monitors for this plan, does it?
l 23 A
I can't hear you.
24 Q
Does the State of New York supply any monitors 25 for this plan?
l [b v
)
1
46000202 18082 joewalsh (f
1 A
Do we directly?
2 Q
Yes.
3 A
Only when we are called upon, and then we would 4
go to the Regional Office in Rochester for them to assist 5
the County.
It would be the ad hoc basis, as FEMA calls it.
6 Q
Well, how many people would the State have on an 1
7 ad hoc basis?
l l
8 A
(Witness Czech)
I wanted to clarify something 9
moving back to the question if I could.
The State does have 10 its own monitors for State emergency workers.
We do have an l
11 emergency worker monitoring center that we would mann with 12 State people.
13 Getting back to the question, how many people la does the State have, that's difficult to answer because we 1
15 would have certain people trained within the Health l
16 Department whi'ch would be a limited number but very highly 17 qualified.
But, there are also people trained primarily 18 from the State Department of Transportation and from the 19 State Police who are primarily trained for missions for 20 operating the State Emergency Worker Personnel Monitoring 21 Centers, which we have established eight around the State 22 for the various sites.
23 Q
Can you give me a ball park number of how many 2a people you might have under -- who have been trained?
j i
25 A
No, I'm not involved with that so I really -- I J
O l
4
_____d
46000202 18083 joewalsh I
don't have any handle on that at all.
2 O
You don't even know if it's between 10 and 1007 3
A It would be more than 10, but I honestly don't d
know.
5 Q
Okay.
Well, I won't press you, then.
You say 6
these people come from, as I understand, the Health 7
Department, the Department of Transportation and the State 8
Police as well?
9 A
That's correct.
And, also we have a limited 10 number from the State Emergency Management Office.
11 12 13 ja 15 17 i
l 18 19 20 1
21 i
22 23 24 25 FN km
{
l i
46000303 18084 suewalsh i
1 Q
Do you think people could be trained to do this 2
sort of personnel monitoring of the general public on an ad i
1 3
hoc basis at the time of an emergency if you had to and you l
I 4
were strapped for people?
5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I object to the --
6 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I think one of the witnesses 7
didn't hear it.
Well, why don't you make your objection and 8
then we will see if I have to repeat it.
l 9
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I object because the question I
10 is vague and it calls for speculation.
l 1
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
No.
It asks for an opinion.
12 And, it's certainly not vague.
13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
The question asked for an 7,
14 opinion, but it doesn't specify who the people that would be 15 relied on for this ad hoc response even would be.
So, how 16 can they estimate whether or not they would be trainable.
17 I think the question is vague.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The objection is overruled.
17 If the witnesses have a problem with the question, they may 20 say so.
21 WITNESS CZECH:
Well, if Mr. Christman wants me 22 to speculate, I'm going to ask him to give me an assumption 23 as to how much lead time is he going to give me for the 24 training.
l l
25 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing)
/~T U
1 i
I
I 46000303 18085 suewalsh f%
(;)
1 Q
Could you take an ordinary person of ordinary 2
intelligence, if you were shorthanded and needed to monitor 3
people, show him the instrument, teach him how to use it in d
a short period of time, let's say, 15 minutes to a half an 5
hour?
6 (The witnesses _are conferring.)
7 A
(Witness Czech)
Our opinion would be that you 8
would require more on the order of three to four hours to do 9
the training, since we go into more than just the use of the j
l 10 instrument.
But, given sufficient time, yes, you could 11 train people with average intelligence to do the monitoring.
12 Q
If you look at Appendix C of that document you 13 have got in front of you labeled -- designated LILCO Exhibit 14 16 for identification, on Page 2, Paragraph 5.a. --
15 A
Can you give a page citation?
16 Q
Let's see if I can find it.
I have a Page 23 on 17 it.
It's 17 or 18 pages in.
18 A
Yes, we've got it.
19 Q
That lists -- it says congregate care centers 20 and student center.
And, I take it that those congregate 21 care centers are also reception centers, because the 22 reception center has been written in by hand.
23 A
(Witness Papile)
They'are co-located.
They are l
24 not in the same facility.
They are co-located.
1 25 Q
Right.
So, your congregate care spaces, your
46000303 18086 cuewalsh
()
1 capacity figures there in the right-hand column is for 2
congregate care rather than for monitoring or 3
decontamination, right?
4 A
Those figures are for congregate care.
5 Q
Now, I take it that each reception / congregate 6
care center has a designated personnel monitoring center, 7
PMC, at the timc of an emergency; is that right?
8 A
At the reception center, that's true.
9 Q
At the reception center.
And, if you look at to to Procedure K in that document, which I have 11 listed as Page Roman III-K-4-4, it says that each PMC 12 monitoring team, that's personnel monitoring center team, 13 will have a minimum or five monitors per team, correct?
O 14 A
Five monitors per team, that's what it says.
15 Q
Okay.
But, that's a minimum obviously.
16 A
That's true.
17 Q
Look at j ust a few pages --
18 A
I would like to make one comment here to make 19 sure it's on the record.
This plan has been approved by 20 FEMA and by the RAC and has 350 approval.
21 Q
This plan has --
22 A
This plan has been approved and has 350 23 approval, so it's been fully approved by FEMA.
I wanted to 24 make that part of the record.
25 Q
Okay.
Look at Attachment 5 which is Page Roman 0
46000303 18087 suewalsh 1
g,gj III-K-5-6.
And, you are going to find that just a few pages 2
further on.
3 A
I've got it.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Let me interject here.
I 5
assume the panel, if they know of any corrections made to 6
this document, they will change --
7 WITNESS PAPILE:
We will, absolutely, yes, sir.
1 l
8 We will, sir.
9 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I appreciate that l
10 clarification.
I should have said that myself.
11 WITNESS PAPILE:
We will, sir.
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
We don't want to have anything t
13 in the record that's outdated it it has changed.
O, 14 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 15 Q
Looking at Page III-K-5-6, they talk about now 16 you do tne monitoring, and it says that the probe should be 17 moved around the entire perimeter of a person, moving about IB one foot per second; is that correct?
19 A
(Witness Czech)
That is correct.
20 Q
Has that procedure changed in the revision that 21 you have submitted to FEMA?
22 A
It has not.
23 Q
When you talk about around the perimeter, I want I
24 to ask you what that means.
For instance, it you had a 23 silhouette of a person like a paper doll, I take it the l
l E '}
\\
L;e 1
1 46000303 18088 suewalsh
(
l monitor starting at the head moves around that silhouette of 2
a person: all the way around?
3 A
That's correct.
4 Q
Is that what that means?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Now, it you look just a couple of pages turther 7
on I believe, on Roman III-K-6-1, it once again says that in 8
the event of a potential radiological contamination of the 9
general population, that these PMCs or personnel monitoring l
10 centers would be established, and at says that there is a l
l 11 center set up a the Armory at 145 Culver Road, Rochester New 12 York.
13 Is that for the general public?
(1) 14 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
That is not.
That's for 15 emergency workers in Monroe County only.
l 16 Q
Okay, and not for the imblic?
l 17 A
Not for the public.
18 Q
Look, 11 you will, back a couple ot pages to 19 Roman III-K-5-1.
Now, that gives some general tacility 20 requirements for PMCs.
And, it says -- Number 5 there says 21 that:
Ad]acent to the monitoring area there will be a 22 decontamination area with at least a sink and shower which 23 can be used for decontamination.
24 So, that's sort of your minimum standard for a l
l 25 decontamination area, is a sink and shower?
i O
46000303 18089 suewalsh p
(_)
1 A
(Witness Czech)
Can you wait a minute, please?
2 (The witnesses are conidrring.)
3 Yeah, that's true.
That would be a minimum.
4 Q
Okay.
By the way, I notice on another page --
5 and we will turn to it 11 you need it, but let me just ask 6
you the question.
You say that the PMC monitors will have 7
undergone or completed an 8-hour New York State approved I
A course on radiological emergency response monitoring.
9 Is there such an 8-hour course that you put your 10 monitors through?
11 A
That's a course that's put on through the State 12 Emergency Management Oitice.
13 Q
And, these numbers of people that you cited to O',
14 me who are designated under this county plan have all taken 15 that 8-hour course?
16 A
That's dy understanding.
17 Q
Let me get a couple of facts about how you set 18 up your PMCs under this particular county plan it I may.
On 19 Page III-K-5-2, which is close to what we were just talking 20 about, it is Attachment 5 and it says that this attachment 21 describes the individuals needed at a PMC.
And, those 22 individuals at each PMC include a PMC manager, a PMC 23 administrative otticer, a monitor, a radiation specialist 24 and S recorder.
25 Is that correct?
f:]
1 i
i
46000303 18090 suewalsh 1
A That's correct.
2 Q
That's still the same.
So, in addition to your 3
monitors, however many of them you have, you have certain 4
administrative people, recorderc, radiation specialists and 5
that sort of thing.
6 A
That's true.
7 Q
Can you get by at each PMC with Just one of the 8
PMC managers?
I guess you Just need one at each PMC as a 9
manager.
10 A
Per shitt.
11 Q
And, how about PMC administrative otticers?
12 Just one at each PMC?
13 (The witnesses are conterring.)
(
14 A
Yes, that's true.
15 Q
Monitors, of course, would depend on how many 16 people you had to monitor?
17 A
That's true, 18 Q
So, when you say a monitor that could be any i
1 19 number.
l 20 A
The monitor here is referring to an activity as 1
21 opposed to one monitor.
It is one of the activities that 22 has to be performed at the reception area.
23 O
How many radiation specialists do you need at 24 each PMC?
Is one enough, or does it depend on the number of 25 people you might have there?
/~N 1
l
46000303 18091 suewalsh b)
I
's_
A Looking at Monroe County's plan which is not one 2
that I particularly work with day in and day out, but the 3
radiation specialist could be a monitor.
It looks like it's l
1 4
someone primarily interested in a decontamination activity.
l 5
Some plans refer to that person as a l
6 decontamination specialist as opposed to radiation 7
specialist.
l 8
Q I see.
So, it the monitor tound someone who was l
9 contaminated, then the radiation specialist would take care 10 of the decon?
11 A
This plan says that they are to assist in the 12 decontamination, that's true.
13 Q
Okay.
And, how about recorders?
How many of
, 3, (N"'I 14 those do you need?
That would seem to depend on the number 15 of monitors you have, wouldn't it, the number of people j
16 coming through?
17 A
That's true.
Typically, there would be -- cur 18 recommendation would be a recorder for each monitor.
17 Q
Now, look at Paragraph -- J ust a second.
Look 20 at Paragraph C on the very next page, which is III-K-5-3.
21 That says at least one monitor will be needed in each of the 22 following areas.
23 And, you have one -- this plan rather has one 24 near the entrance to the PMC for initial scanning, in the 25 decontamination area for determining the clicctiveness ot
1 46000303 18092 suewalsh f
I decontamination.
That would be, 1 guess, on the exit side i
i 2
of the snowers.
3 A
What page are you on?
4 Q
l'm sorry.
1*m on Roman III-K-5-3, still the 5
same attachment.
It's Just one page beyond what we were 6
doing a minute ago.
7 Under Paragraph C right a the top, it lists tive 8
areas you need a monitor in.
And, they are near the 9
entrance to the PMC for initial scans.
And, then you need 10 one in the decontamination area after people have been 11 deconned to see that it was effective.
And, you need one in 12 the area where vehicles and equipment are monitored and 13 decontaminated.
And, then it's advisable to have an 0
14 additional monitor who can quickly scan a line of waiting 15 arrivals tor gross contamination.
And, then tinally one to 16 scan the PMC and outside areas to determine background 17 levels and contaminated areas.
18 Now, it sounds as though you need those -- one 19 each of those tive for each PMC as well, right?
~0 A
That's a recommendation.
21 Q
Now, it says on Roman III-K-5-4, which should be 22 the very next page I hope, that for members ot the public --
23 and this is in Paragraph C on that page -- arriving -- it 24 says:
For members of the public arriving'at a 25 reception / congregate care center, it may not be practical to O
i
46000303 18093 suewalsh n(,)
1 monitor all arriving vehicles.
It may be teasible during 2
non-peak periods to do a quick survey of parked vehicles 3
using random sampling to see it vehicle contamination.ls a 4
problem.
5 Did that change in this revision?
6 A
Not to my knowledge.
7 Q
So, this has Deen the same and it was approved 8
by FEMA?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
And, that recognizes that in hard t2mes you 11 might have to park the cars I take it and monitor them 12 either on a random basis or later on, correct?
13 A
Well, if you are more interested in protecting Q
14 the public than you are in protecting your car, I would say 15 that's true.
16 Q
Sure.
Did those -- those numbe.s of people you 17 read me earlier that you had veritled had been submitted to 18 FEMA, they included people like the PMC manager, the 19 radiation specialist and all of these other people we have 20 talked about or were they just monitors who are devoted to 21 monitoring members of the public?
22 (The witnesses are conferring.)
23 A
I can't speculate on that answer.
All I know is 24 that those individuals were reported as.being trained 25 monitors available to those count 2es and so certitied by the r
46000303 18094 suewalsh
(
1 county or its management director on the submission that's 2
going to go to FEMA Region II.
3 Q
Okay.
So, you can't be sure then whether some 4
ot those people on that list would be required, say, as a 5
PMC manager?
6 A
No, I can't.
7 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I would like to move LILCO 8
Exhibit 16 for identification into evidence at this point.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any objection?
l 10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I have no ob]ections to the l
11 portions that were reterred to during cross-examination.
I 12 But, this document contains about 100 pages that are largely l
13 1rrelevant to the proceeding and to the cross-examination.
O 14 So, I would object to the portions that were not 15 referred to during cross-examination.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Do you have any problem with 17 that, Mr. Christian?
18 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, I do.
Last week we had 19 obJ ections about things being taken out of context.
In this 20 case, we've taken the entire package that we got trom the 21 State.
22 I think both for context and tor completeness we 23 ought to have the whole thing that the State says is all the 24 pages relating to monitoring and decontamination in the 25 record.
And, going through and trying to pull out these l
I i
1 46000303 18095 suewalsh I
(i) precise pages would be not useful and not very helpful.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Does the Stati wish to 3
comment?
l l
MR. BACHMANN:
Both FEMA and the Statf have no I
4 l
l 5
ob]ection to admitting the entire document.
6 MR. McMURRAY:
Judge Margulies, the County would l
l l
7 support Mr. Zahnleuter's position.
i 8
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I would like to respond to Mr.
9 Christman and state that what's relevant to this proceeding 10 is the LILCO plan for Shoreham.
And, what this document by 11 and large consists of and I'm' speaking of portions not 12 referred to during cross-examination is the Monroe County l
l 13 plan.
~~6 14 And, I don't see how the procedures at Monroe 15 County that have nothing to do with cross-examination today 16 are relevant to the LILCO plan and the Shoreham Nuclear 17 Power Plant.
18 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, how the State does these 19 sorts of things and the counties and other plants in the 20 same state is relevant to both the consistency of the case 1
l 21 being presented here with practice outside of this case.
It l
l l
l 22 bears certainly on the testimony of these witnesses who have 23 testitled that their opinions and expertise are based on 24 their experience.
Their experience includes these plans, in j
25 some cases writing and in some cases administering these l
r1 v
l 46000303 18096 suewalsh 1
- plans, j
2 And, we've already gone through the issue of 3
whether other plans are relevant to this case and we have 4
found that they are.
S 6
4 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
,4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
46000404 18097 joewalsh I
JUDGE MARGULIES:
The Board will admit the 2
Monroe County Plan as Exhibit -- LILCO Exhibit No. 16, but 3
in terms of what it is being utilized tor in this proceeding 4
1s only to the extent that the panel was examined on.
5 In terms of the context issue, that issue is 6
really one that should be of intercst to New York State, and 7
it is really one that doesn't inure to the benetit of the 8
Applicant.
9 Our interest in the document only goes to that 10 portion to which the panel was examined on, but to put it in Il perspective, the entire document will be admitted.
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Thank you.
13 (Above referenced document, 14 previously marked for identification 15 as LILCO Exh1Dit No. 16, is 16 admitted into evidence.)
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Our concern, Mr. Zahnleuter, 1
la is only that portion of the document with which the panel 19 was examined.
l l
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I understand.
Thank you.
21 JUDGE MARGULIES:
You looked a little quizzical.
22 MP. ZAHNLEUTER:
I was thinking about to 23 redirect.
24 (Laughter.)
25 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing)
W
46000404 18098 joewalsh rm()
Q How far away are the reception centers trom the 1
2 plant under this plan, do you Know?
l 3
A (Witness Czech)
Which plant are you talking 4
about?
5 Q
We are talking about G1nna.
l l
6 A
(Witness Papile)
About fifteen to twenty miles, i
l 7
Q How about Wayne County?
8 A
Wayne County, about the same.
i 9
Q Do you happen to know how many people live trom 1
10 ten to twenty miles away from the plant?
Let me show you a 1
11 document, ano I will pass it through your counsel.
I 12 This was not given to us in discovery this time, 1
I 13 but it is Monroe County Plan, and there is a Table called 14 1980 Population Estimates by Sector ard Zone.
That is Table 15 G-2.
Let me show it to you.
I have circled three of the 16 numbers.
17 (Document passed to Mr. Zahnleuter and 18 witnesses.)
l 19 Q
(Continuing)
That table suggests that the l
l l
20 population of the EPZ trom 10 to 20 miles is 701,398, i 1
21 believe, is that right?
22 A
Approximately, I would say, yes.
It includes l
23 the City ot Rochester.
l 24 O
Ugh-uh.
25 A
There is no question about that.
This document 9
46000404 18099 J oewalsh 1
1s also contained in most of the county plans, as you know.
2 This is an NRC requirement.
3 Q
Right.
How big is Rochester, do you know?
4 A
Pardon me?
5 Q
How big is Rochester?
6 A
Big in population, or size, space or time, how?
7 Q
population?
j l
8 A
Good.
I am going to venture a guess.
9 Q
Let me ask you.
I looked it up in the Almanac 10 yesterday.
It says 241,741 in 1980.
How does that sound?
11 A
It sounds pretty good. Mayor Ryan I think would 12 go along with that.
13 Q
Okay.
It said in the same almanac, which is the
,q f
14 World Almanac, and I don't know the publisher, it said that 15 the Roches ter Metropolitan Statistical Area was 971,230 16 people.
i 17 A
This is a cumulative figure I think, isn't it?
18 Q
Pardon?
19 A
This is a cumulative figure, isn't it, the 701?
20 Q
The 701 I think is from 10 to 20 miles.
21 A
It is a cumulative 11gure, though.
22 Q
Well, what do you mean by, " cumulative?'
It 23 says only -- I don't think it is zero to 20.
I think it is 24 10 to 20.
Maybe you better explain what you mean by 25 cumulative, because as I read it that is the population from
?"Q t
%sh j
I 46000404 18100 Joewalsh
)
1 10 to 20 miles in that row rather than from zero to 20 2
miles.
3 (Witnesses conferring.)
4 A
It 2ncludes the Town of Greece, and Henriette, 5
and so forth.
Rochester itself, there are suburbs of rather 6'
large towns, such as Henriette and Athens and Greece and so i
7 on and so forth, i
l 8
Q Just so we haven't confused the record, this 1
1 9
701,398 tigure is the population in an annulus from ten to f
10 20 miles, correct?
I 11 A
Yes.
l l
12 Q
Okay.
Thank you.
How long under this plan we 1
13 were J us t looking at, how long are the shifts of nonitors
/,,\\
ij la supposed to be, how many hours?
How long are they expected 15 to perform?
l 16 A
I think in the document you presented to us it 17 said 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
l 18 Q
It is at Roman III-K-4.4.
It says at least 8 1
19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br />.
20 A
It said eight hours.
21 Q
It said at least eight hours.
Better check and 22 get the right words. It is right in the middle of the page.
23 It says:
Each team will perform duty for at least eight 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, right?
l 25 A
Yeah.
1 1 9 l
l l
46000404 18101 joewalsh I
Q Okay.
2 A
Now, part of the G1nna EPZ 1s in Wayne County 3
also, as you said, right?
4 A
True.
5 Q
Okay.
Let me hand out a corresponding document 6
that we got in discovery again, headed Wayne County 7
Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
It is dated 3/1/83.
8 It is one of the package ot documentt we again got in abou t 9
April of this year, so I guess as of April it was the 10 current version of the Wayne County Plan that had to do with 11 monitoring decontamination, which was what we requested l
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be marked LILCO's l
1 13 Exhibi t No. 17 tor identification.
paq 14 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Thank you, Judge.
15 (Above referenced document is 16 marked LILCO Exhibit No. 17, for 17 Identification.)
18 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 19 Q
First, let me ask you -- we haven't taken 20 anything out of it.
This is as we received it from the 21 State.
Now, tell me it that looks like those pages from the 22 Wayne County Plan for G1nna that you all got from your 1
23 files, I suspect, and it was turned over to us in about 24 April of this year?
25 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
Yes.
1 r=8 v
46000404 18102 Joewalsh I
Q Has that also been revised and submitted to 2
FEMA?
3 A
It has the same kind of Monroe County Plan.
4 Q
Same type?
Okay.
I will ask you once again, if 5
something is changed as I go through this, I want you to l
i 6
tell me about it so the record is straight.
7 A
Okay.
I l
8 Q
On Appendix A in this document, which is 17 tor l
l l
9 identification, Page A-b and A-6, look at that it you would, l
10 for a minute.
11 A
A-5 and A-6.
Okay.
Got it.
12 Q
That suggests to me that there are three primary 13 reception centers which are public schools designated as
('%
14 reception / congregate care centers, and that is at the bottom 15 of A-5, so I take it there are three reception / congregate lo care centers for Wayne County under the G1nna plan?
17 A
Yeah.
18 Q
Correct?
19 A
Yeah.
i 20 Q
And then it says they also have 12 additional l
1 21 schools that have been designated only as congregate care j
22 centers.
Let me show you a document about the G1nna
{
l 23 exercise -- about the Ginna plan, rather.
It is headed 24 G1nna Exercise, Verli1 cation of Remedial Actions.
25 And someone has written in 1-21-82 exercise, and j
OV f
i
46000404 18103 Joewalsh I
let mc hand out a copy of that, because I have some for 2
everybody.
3 (Copies of above referenced document handed to 4
Board and parties.)
5 I don't propose to put this into evidence, but I 6
would like to ask the witnesses about it?
JUDGE MARGULIES:
You don't want to identity it?
8 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I don't think I need to.
It we 9
have trouble, let's do that.
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I have a copy of it, and 11 11 questions are asked about the document, I would like to have 12 it marked for identlilcation.
O~'.,
13 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Let's marx it for identli1 cation 14 as LILCO Exhibit 18.
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The document entitled G1nna 16 Exercise Verli1 cation of Remedial Action will be marked 17 LILCO Exhibit No. 18 for identli1 cation.
18 MR. CHRISTMAN:
This is designated Page 19 of 22 19 out of apparently a larger document, although I don't have 20 that.
This, again, was give us in discovery.
21 (Ibove referenced document is 22 marked LILCO Exhibit No. 18, for 23 Ident111 Cation.)
24 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 25 Q
What is this?
D
46000404 18104 joewalsh
(
)
A (Witness Papile)
Pardon me?
2 Q
What is this document?
3 A
This document here?
4 Q
Yes.
5 A
To me, it is a FEMA Report.
i 6
Q And --
7 A
Column 2 is the County's answer to the FEMA 8
corrective action noticed in Column 1.
i l
9 (Witnesses conterring.)
10 A
(Continuing)
I am sorry.
Go ahcad, please.
11 Q
This had to do with a January 21, 1982 exercise 12 at the G1nna plant?
l 13 A
This was the first exercise at G1nna.
14 Q
Okay.
And FEMA put out this report and listing 15 the State or County's response to a RAC recommendation.
16 It -- who prepared the answer?
17 A
The County Liaison, in con] unction with the 18 County Director would prepare the answer, i
19 Q
Does that go through the State before it goes --
J l
20 A
And the State would comment it the notice -- the 21 system has changed quite a bit since this document has been 22 made.
The system has changed, because this document was 23 proven to be not adequate in making these remarks, and not 24 giving people opportunity to comment on it, and this was 25 your stab at it, and it has changed quite a bit since then.
i l
l l
l 1
I 46000404 18105 l
Joewalsh I
Q Okay.
Let's talk historically there.
This 2
says in response to the recommendation trom the Federal 3
Government.
The county said that sutticient su rvey 4
equipment is now or band to provide for tour survey teams at 5
each of three reception centers, and the one emergency 6
worker FMC.
That would be a total of 12 teams, I guess.
7 A
Additional equipment is available.
8 Q
Right.
And then the County says some additional 9
staf t will be required.
These teams will be organized from 10 volunteer fire companies located outside the EPZ.
Training 11 will be accomplished as personnel are made available.
l 12 A
That is true.
l 13 Q
Is -- starting out with 12 survey teams total --
\\' ')"
14 well, total for the general public -- they must have 15 recruited an awful lot of people trom volunteer fire 1
l 16 companies?
17 A
We did.
la O
And that is where those big numbers come from 19 that you told me earlier for this County, Wayne County.
20 A
We assume that statement to be true that you 21 said, because in the Fireman's training, they do have a l
l 22 radiological course which is very similar, it not the same 23 eight hour course that most volunteers take.
I 24 Radiological training is included in volunteer l
25 firemen, to the best of my knowledge.
j i
PR3 a
1 y
l l
46000404 18106 Joewalsh
()
1 Q
Do they get refresher training from time to 2
time?
3 A
Pardon me?
l l
4 Q
Do they get refresher training trom time to time 1
5 on the radiological aspects, or do they Just get the one?
6 A
I can't speak for the volunteer tiremen, but as 7
you all know, New York is made up mostly of volunteer 8
firemen, rather than permanent fire companies, and they do 9
go through a lot of training, yes.
10 Q
That is statewide?
11 A
Absolutely.
12 O
Leave that document, if you will, and go back to 13 LILCO Exhibit 17 for ident111 cation.
If you look at Pages la LE 1-39 and 1-40, you see a Table 11, which lists reception 15 centers serving Wayne County.
And consistent with what we 16 said earlier about there being three centers, it does, 17 2ndeed, last three reception centers.
IB And you have associated with them, or the plan 19 rather has associated with them the congregate care centers, 20 and it lists CCC capacity, so the capacity there is for 21 congregate care and represents the number of spaces they 22 have for people to stay, and it doesn't have anything to do 23 with monitoring and decontamination, is that right?
24 A
(Witness Czech)
That is true.
25 Q
On Page PH-13-2, about half way through I guess -
0
46000404 18107 j oewalsh l
l k,m r
1
- not quite that tar, it once again repeats that statement l
j l
2 about for members of the public arriving, it may not be 3
practical to monitor arriving vehicles, so is that pretty i
4 much standard language in the county plan throughout New 5
York State?
l 6
A That would be pretty much standard language, 7
that is true.
l 8
Q At the bottom ot Page 13-2 and then on 13-3, it I
9 once again lists guidelines for the personnel who should be 10 present at a PMC, and that looks pretty much like the 11 previous plan we talked about.
That is to say, you need a 12 supervisor at a PMC, and you need monitors and a recorder, 13 and you need the monitors -- or at least it is recommended 14 in each of four d111erent places, so that is pretty much 15 like the plan we looked at earlier, isn't it?
16 A
That is true.
17 Q
Again, more or less a standard provision in 18 these sorts of plans?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 21 22
~
23 24 l
25 0
46000505 18106 suewalsh I
Q You can't tell trom this county plan that you've 2
got betore you, at least the pages you have before you, how 3
many monitoring personnel and monitoring instruments are 4
available for that county plan, can you?
5 A
(Witness Baranski)
In general, what you said 6
was correct, that trom the county plans you cannot locate, 7
for instance, that the county has 8,7 00 CDV-7 00s available.
8 Q
The same with people.
You can't tell how many 9
people they've got available?
10 A
That's attirmative.
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Judge, I would like to move i
12 LILCO Exhibit 17 Into evidence.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Any objection?
u MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I have the same objection, and 15 ask for a ruling, similar to the previous exhibit for Monroe 16 County.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. McMurray.
j 18 MR. McMURRAY:
I agree with Mr. Zahnleuter.
19 MR. BACHMANN:
The Statt and FEMA has no 20 objection.
21 MR. CUMMING:
Judge Margulies, it may be that 1
l 22 some of these exhibits FEMA may wish to have questions, so l
23 it might be helpful to have it in the record.
l 24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The ruling will be the same 25 for LILCO Exhibit 17 as it was for 16.
It is admitted as 1
1
1 46000505 18109 suewalsh f "1
()
LILCO Exhibit Number 16 -- 17 with the same condition.
l 1
l 2
(Tne document previously marked as j
3 LILCO Exhibit Number 17 tor i
d identification is admitted into
~
5 evid enc e. )
j 6
BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing)
I 7
Q Let me ask you first about Indian Point.
8 Westchester County has an emergency plan for Indisn Point, 1
l 9
does it not?
I 10 A
(Witness Papile)
It does.
l 11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Let me pass out a document, at 12 the top of which someone has written "Westchester" in hand.
13 And, let's label this for identification 11 we I ).
14 may as LILCO Exhibit 19.
15 16 17 l
1 18 19 20 l
21 22 i
23 I
24 25
--______a
l l
l 64600606 18110 marysimons 1
JUDGE MARGULIES:
The document will be marked as 1
2 LILCO Exhibit 19 tor ident111 cation.
l 3
(The document referred to was j
i 4
marked LILCO Exhibit No. 19 5
tor Ident111 cation.)
6 BY MR. CERIS7 NAN:
7 Q
Now, again, we got this package compete as it is 8
in discovery trom your counsel.
l 9
Are those the pages trom the Westchester County M
plan concerning decontamination and monitoring as of the 11 time we got them, which was about April?
12 (Witnesses conferring.)
13 A
(VJ1tness Papile)
This is the same as the r-)
V 14 others, and we have submitted changes to this plan.
15 Q
And again you will tell me 11 there is any 16 change that a11ects what I as k you ab ou t.
17 A
Yes.
1 18 Q
If you would look at Table 2 on pages 6-12 19 through 6-16, please.
20 (Witnesses comply.)
21 Now that is the list of reception centers 22 serving Westchester County and, as usual, it has associated 23 with each the congregate care centers, and aga2n the 24 capacity in the right-hand column is congregate care and not 25 for monitoring and decontamination, correct?
9 l
i 3
l i
1 64600606 18111 marysimons I
A (Witness Czech)
That's correct.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Let me show you another l
2 l
3 document, and we w111 pass out copies here -- let me hand d
I out both documents, as a Matter of fact.
I've got two that j
I l
5 I want to ask you about that again we got during discovery.
6 We'll pass them out now, and just so we don't 1
l 1
7 get confused, we will talk Just about the first one.
8 (Documents distributed.)
9 The one that I'm interested in talking about now 10 1s labeled " Indian Point Exercise" at the top, and it is II dated -- you can see the date better.
It's March 9th, 1984.
12 (Pause while the witness review the document.)
13 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
Id Q
Do you recognize that document?
15 A
(Witness Baranski)
Yes, sir.
16 0
What is it?
I7 A
It is part of the FEMA process for identifying I8 areas that need upgrading in either the plans or the l9 exercise or weakr. esses that were identitled in exerc2ses.
J 20 Q
Pretty much like the one we talked about a l
21 minute ago with the G1nna plant?
22 A
That's afilrmative, and this one specifically 23 refers to an exercise.
1 24 Q
What was the exercise?
What date, do you know?
I 1
25 (Witnesses conferring.)
O
64600606 18112 marysimons I
A (Witness Baranski)
Without going back to our 2
records to specifically identity the exercise trom this 3
document J us t because of the date on top, I cannot adentity 4
the particular exercise this is associated with.
5 Q
It was an exercise, I take it, of the Indian 6
point plan?
7 A
That's true.
8 Q
And the exercise had to have been before March 9
9th, 1984, I take it?
10 A
That's also true.
11 Q
Probably whatever FEMA exercise of the Indian 12 Point plans that was held most immediately prior to March 13 9th, 1984 I would imagine?
O 14 A
That also is a sate assumption.
15 Q
Okay.
I don't know that I need the exact date.
16 That's pretty good.
17 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
Well, by the completion date, 18 It's before March 1st, 1984.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
This document has not been 20 identitled.
21 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Let us mark it for 22 identification as LILCO Exhibit 20, 23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
24 (The document reterred to was 25 marked LILCO Exhibit No. 20 0
64600606 18113 marys2 mons R
_)
I f or identification. )
2 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
3 Q
Now in response to a recommended corrective d
action or deficiency from FEMA Westchester County said that i
5 the Health Department will have a training plan which we'll 6
identity by name and billet number over 140 such personnel, j
7 and they are reterring to personnel who do radiation 8
surveying and decontamination for an annual training cycle 9
consisting of two or three-hour radiological training sessions.
II Do you know it this resolution of the problem 12 was acceptable to FEMA?
I3 gv A
(Witness Baranski)
Well, first of all, Mr.
- )
Id
~
Christman, from this particular comment and not having the 15 particular exercise in tront of us, we cannot be sure that 16 this is not referring to an emergency worker PMC as compared to a general population reception center.
So I want to make that known up iront.
19 Q
It does say " Reception Center Personnel" in the 20 left-hand margin, but you think that might be a PMC rather 21 than a reception center for the public?
22 A
At times FEMA has used the same nomenclature to 23 Identliy arear of weaknesses f or both emergency worker, 24 personnel monitor centers and general public reception 25 centers, because 11 you go through NUREG 0654 the cit 1ng in S
1 i
64600606 18114 marysimons 1
1954 is the same.
2 Q
It does refer to Roman II.J.12, does it not, in 3
the lett-hand margin, and that applies to the general 4
public, does it not?
5 A
(Witness Papile)
That's true.
Without looking 6
at 0654 I contirm what your assistant is telling you, but my 7
point is again that in the writing itselt and in the answer 8
itselt, there is no clear definition as to which type 01 a 9
PMC it reters to.
That's all we want to bring up.
10 0
I understand.
II A
And FEMA has the habit of interchanging the 12 nomenclature of the PMC.
13 Q
But they probably have accurately identitied the 0
14 NUREG 0654 as II.J.12, haven't they?
15 A
Yes.
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I ob ect.
That question calls J
17 tor speculation.
It asks for a probable action.
18 (Witnesses conferring.)
19 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I guess there is an obj ection, 20 but he has already answered the question.
21 WITNESS PAPILE:
We have answered the question.
22 So I think we should pursue it.
23 MR. CHRISTMAN:
WC11, all right, with that 24 understanding.
25 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
0
64600606 18115 marysimons l
I Q
I guess the question, and I don't think. you 2
answered it because we digressed.
This says that the 3
proposed solution was to identity over 140 personnel to do d
radiation surveying and decontamination.
5 Do you know it that was acceptable to FEMA?
Did 6
that put the matter to rest?
7 (Witnesses conterring.)
8 A
(Witness Baranski)
At the current time, we are 9
still awaiting FEMA RAC review of the latest Indian Point 10 plan submissions.
So at this time I cannot answer you II whether there is an erea of weakness in the Westchester plan 12 regarding reception centers now or not.
I3 A
(Witness Papile)
And assuming from the dates on Id this, even though it says 1984, I'm assuming that this 15 exercise was either in 1982 or 1983 because the first 16 exercises was in March ot '82 and I think March ot '83 was 17 the second exercise.
I8 This is a document, although it says
'84, I
l9 would say It's over a year old when we wrote this because 11 20 you notice the completion dates, we said we would complete
)
2I it in three 3/1/84.
So it's probably some time in '83.
)
22 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Look at the other document 23 you've got there, and I would like to have this for 2d identification marked LILCO Exhibit 21.
It's titled at the i
25 top "Westchester County RAC Consolidation Plan Review" dated
64600606 18116 marysimons l}
1
(,,
Septenter 1986.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
3 (The document reterred to was 4
marked LILCO Exhibit No. 21 5
tor identification. )
6 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
7 Q
Now this is another one of those FEMA documents 8
I take it?
9 A
(Witness Papile)
This is dliterent.
This is on 10 the plan rather than the exercise.
Il Q
All right.
Why don't you explain that.
Just 12 tell me what the document 1s.
13 A
Sir?
14 Q
Just describe the document and what it is.
15 A
The document is another FEMA RAC review.
It's a 1
16 consolidation of the RAC comments and it specifically on 17 this one refers J.10 m, J.12 and J.10.1 continued, and we do 18 not have the previous page, but we do have 10 and 12 19 complete.
20 Q
Right, and that indicates that the RAC tound an 21 inadequate under J.12, Criterion J.12 of NUREG 0654 in that 22 an inventory list of radiological equipment was not provided 23 so that it could not be determined whether the personnel and 24 the equipment available are capable of monitoring evacuees 1
25 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
I e
l i
l i
I 64600606 18117 l
marysimons I
A That's true.
2 Q
And the State and County response was to give a 3
list of personnel and equipment for 14 monitoring teams d
provided by the Health Department, and this information 5
would be on file.
Is that right, 14?
6 A
Again, I don't know what you are referring to 7
because 14 in his case here is by the Health Department P
only.
So I don't know what other Departments have been 9
oftering people or whether this is an emergency workers PMC.
10 Q
But again it refers to J.12.
II A
Again it's J.12, true.
12 O
It also says evacuees in the RAC evaluation, I
i I3 mcnitoring evacuees within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, doesn't it?
(-q\\'
Id A
I agree with that, and again C.12 states that.
15 O
So when the solution was to provide 14 16 monitoring teams by the Health Department, was that actually 17 the State and County response to that?
I3 A
1 don't know, and I will say that that was not I
I9 bought by FEMA and we have had to reply since then, and I i
20 don't know what the reply is.
So I think the question is 1
21 j
moot and it was not bought by FEMA.
So we are still 22 answering that question.
So to answer you would be to 23 speculate right now.
24 i
l O
Okay, but the 14 was found inadequate?
q 25 A
I don't know that.
All I'm saying to you is I
l fl u<
i i
l i
1
64600606 18118 marysimons b
i I
that for me to say yes or no would be to speculate.
That is u/
2 what it says on the document.
I don't know.
3 Q
You are Just saying you haven't heard back trom 4
FEMA as to whether the 14 1s adequate or not; 1s that I
i 5
right?
You said it was not bought by FEMA, or not bought
{
l 6
oft by FEMA.
7 A
Well, FEMA says the response was inadequate, and I
l 8
that's all I read.
That means we've got more work to do 9
and the county has more work to do.
10 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Judge Margulies, I would like to l
II l
move, not this document now, but the document labeled LILCO 12 Exhibit 19, which was the Westchester County plan portions 13 that we got in discovery, into evidence.
And to save time,
(-
(~'/
I4 given the precedent of the last two exhibits, I think we can 15 agree that it will be under the same condition that you 16 Imposed betore.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any objection?
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Under the same terms, no 19 ob]ection.
20 MR. McMURRAY :
No objection.
21 MR. BACHMANN:
No ob]ection.
22 MR. CUMMING:
No ob ection.
J 23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be admitted under the l
l 24 same conditions.
25 1
1L______________.._._______.__.__________
64600606 18119 (LILCO Exhibit No. 19, previously 2
marked for identli1 cation, was j
3 admitted into evidence.)
d MR. CHRISTMAN:
Having finished with that f
5 document, it's 10:20, but I'm amenable to tak1ng the usual
{
6 mid-morning break, or I can go on, as you wish.
l JUDGE MARGULIES:
Let's take a 15-minute recess.
j 7
8 The mid-morning recess was taken from 10:20 a.m.
9 to 10:35 a.m.)
i l
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Please come to order.
II You may continue.
l 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resuming.)
13 Q
Thank you.
g t 3
"~~'"
Id Let me sh11t to a ditierent plan now, the i
15 Fitzpatrick Nine Mlle Point plan for Oswego County.
We 16 didn't receive any pages of any plan in the most recent 17 discovery request in April on that plan.
Do you have any M
2 dea why that was?
19 (Witnesses conferring.)
20 A
(Witness Papile)
I'm assuming that the plans l
21 are contained in the two host county plans which they keep l
22 themselves and they are not in our ille right now, and I'm 23 Just assuming that, and that's Onondaga and also Jetterson 1
24 County.
25 Q
Where are the reception centers for the p.y (v
i
64600606 18120 marysimons 1
Fitzpatrick and Nine Mlle Point plans, do you know?
2 A
(Witness Baranski)
In Onondaga County it's the 3
New York State fair grounds./
4 Q
And that's about 35 miles trom the plant?
5 A
That's approximately correct.
6 Q
Then there is another at the Jetterson Community 7
College in Watertown?
8 A
That's attirmative.
9 Q
And that is about 40 miles away from the plant?
10 A
That's approximately correct.
Il Q
Are there any other reception centers for those 12 plants?
13 A
No, sir.
14 A
(Witness Papile)
I would like to add that those 15 are both on high-speed roads that can go directly f rom 16 Oswego County to the tair grounds.
17 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Mr. Papile, let me hand out an 18 Interottice memorandum of the State of New York - Department 19 of Health.
This is dated Septenter 22nd, 1983.
20 Judge Margulies, I would like to ask that this 21 be marked for identification as LILCO Exhibit I believe it 22 is 22.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes, it is.
It will be so 24 marked.
25 O
64600606 18121 marysimons I
(The document referred to was 2
marked LILCO Exhibit No. 22 3
for identlilcation.)
d (The document referred to was distributed to the 1
5 parties.)
6 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
7 Q
Now Don Davidoti and J. R. D111enback were both 8
with your group on the date in question, September 22nd, 9
1983?
10 A
(Witness Papile)
They were what?
II Q
They were with the Department of Health I take 12 it?
13 A
No.
They were with the Radiological Emergency p, q i>
Id Preparedness Group.
15 0
All right.
That was my first question I guess, 16 They were with your group and ---
I7 A
Which is not part of the Department of Health.
I8 Q
Okay.
They were with the REPG then at this 19 time?
20 A
Right, both of them.
That's true.
Q Is J.
R.
D111enback still with REPG or has she I
21 22 left?
23 A
She will be with us until July 24th.
24 0
Where is Mr. Davidoff now?
25 A
Pardon me?
[RU
64600606 18122 marysimons I
Q Where is Mr. Davidoit now?
2 A
Mr. Davidoff is now the Director of the Field 3
Operations Ottice of the Health Department.
d Q
Do you recognize this memorandum of September I
l 5
22nd, 1983?
I 6
A I do not.
7 o
Does anybody on the panel recogn1ze that?
l 8
A (Witness Czech)
I don' t believe I have ever 9
seen it before.
10 A
(Witness Baranski)
I do not.
l 11 Q
Do you know anything about the sub]ect matter ot 12 the memorandum which is a statting matter raised by Onondaga 13 County?
In the second paragraph it says ---
Id A
(Witness Papile)
Well, it's obvious and I can 15 read it, and I imagine the sub]ect matter is like she stated 16 in her document, that it's a matter of manning and personnel 17 required for the PMC at Onondaga County.
18 O
Right, and the County was saying it's a State 19 responsibility and Ms. D111enback says that it might require 20 a commitment of resources trom the State.
Do you know it 21 this meeting that was reterred to was held?
l 22 A
Excuse me.
Nowhere does it say it's a State 23 responsibility.
24 Q
It says that the County people have clearly 25 stated to ODP and Oswego that they do not have the O
l
64600606 18123 marysimons e-(_m)
I equipment, stait or time to handle the assignment and it is 2
therefore a State responsibility under 0654.
3 A
She is quoting '0654, true.
d Q
Do you happen to know it this meeting was held 5
or it there was a State commitment of resources to help 1
6 solve this problem?
7 A
I do not know.
8 Q
No one knows anything about this?
9 (Witnesses conferring.)
10 A
(Witness Baranski)
To the best of our II knowledge, there was no State commitment of resources to I2 assist Onondaga County, and since the time of this memo the 13 7c 350 approval has been granted to Oswego County.
So I can Id only safely assume that this problem has been resolved.
15 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Let me pass out another 16 document, a letter of March 12th, 1982 again from J. R.
17 D111enback to several people who appear to be school la personnel, and I would 11Xe to have this Parked as LILCO 19 Exhibat 23 tor ident111 cation.
20 (The referred to document was distributed to the j
l 21 parties and the Board.)
j 22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
23 (The document referred to was l
24 marked LILCO Exhibit No. 23 25 tor ident111 cation.)
l l
lJ l
l l
q I
i 64600606 18124 marysimons 1
BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
2 Q
Now this is a letter to, as I say, school 3
otticials, Arlene Clinkscale being the first, Arthur l
l 4
Williamson, Jack Anderson, Michael Macklin and John l
5 Connelly.
6 Now was J.
R.
D111enback with REPG on the date 7
of th2s letter, March 12th, 1982?
8 A
(Witness Papile)
Yes, she was.
9 Q
Is that her signature on the letter?
10 A
Pardon me?
11 Q
Is that her signature on the letter?
12 A
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
13 O
And that is letterhead of the State ot New York, 14 Department ot Health - Ottice ot Public Hea3th, correct?
15 A
That's true.
l 16 Q
We received this in discovery.
Did any ot you I
l 17 dig this out ot your tiles tor us?
18 A
I didn't understand your question.
19 Q
Have you ever seen this letter before?
20 A
We did not, and I think I can speak for the l
21 three of us because this became aware during one of the 22 depositions was being made, and I'm not sure it it was O-5 l
l 23 or tor th1s deposition, but it was brought to our attention
{
24 by yourself or Mr. Irwin the question ot Ms. D111enback 25 being a policymaker or not.
O 1
1 1
04600606 18125 I
Q I'm not sure I understood the answer to my 2
question though.
Have you seen this?
l l
3 A
We did not see it until atter the deposition.
d After you showed it to us or made reference to it, then we 5
went back and asked for it.
6 Q
Was this a letter sent by Ms. D111enback in the 7
ordinary course of business of REPG?
8 A
Pursuant to what she says in there, I assume it 9
was in her role now.
10 Q
And what was her role?
II A
Her role at that time was the liaison to 12 Rockland County and she had something to do with the schools 13 at that time, too, sort of work as a go-between for the 14 schools.
15 O
Well, she attached to this J etter to the school 16 people some documents, each of which was pretty much the 17 same as far as the tex t goes, although the numbers change.
la The attachments are each titled "Possible Participants At 1
Reception Centers," and she has listed for each of those 20 reception centers the general population and the maximum 21 expected.
22 And under maximum expected on each or those 2J pages near the bottom of the page she said "This figure 24 equals 30 percent of the general population.
Statistically 25 this is high.
People going to reception centers stop for a
1 64600606 18126 marysimons 1
information, maps or reuniting with families.
They may 1
1 2
never get out of their cars.
Should there be a radioactive -
3 release and the population tears decontamination, then the 4
30 percent becomes more realistic."
l j
5 A
Do you have a question?
6 Q
I will have.
7 Do you agree with those statements she put in 8
there?
9 A
No, I don't.
10 Q
What part do you disagree with?
11 A
Well, I would like to explain the document l
12 first, it I may.
13 O
Okay.
Id A
The document was written by Ms. D111enback as a 15 11alson to Rockland County only f or speclilc questions to be 16 answered by school superintendents in Rockland County.
17 This, as Ms. D111enback so rightly states, is i
i 18 her's, and again a decision not made by me or anybody at 19 this table that this would be the policy.
20 I was working at three other counties at the 21 time and I did not know of this policy it it was a policy.
22 So I'm saying again that Ms. D111enback as a person, as a 23 liaison was probably rightly trying to do a good Job and 24 help the schools.
1 25 This is a moot question also because right after l
l 1
I wa
_m__.___
l 64600606 18127
(
marysimons
,o (12 I
this Rockland County dropped out of the plan completely and 2
we went all anew after this.
After this date Rockland 3
County dropped out of the planning for Indian Point and we d
had to start all over again with Rockland County.,
5 Q
So you are essentially disclaiming this 6
statement of Ms. D111enback's interpretation of a 30 percent 7
of the maximum expected; 1s that right?
8 A
I don't know.
The way she stated it, her 9
thinking was 30 percent was accurate as far as she was 10 concerned and not having seen another document, this is her opinion and I think rightfully so.
It she was asked her 12 opinion I think she gave it.
13 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Judge, I would like to move into Id evidence this exhibit.
I 15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any ob]ection?
16 MR. BACHMANN:
No objection.
U MR. CUMMING:
No objection.
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This exhibit being 23?
19 MR. CHRISTMAN:
That's correct, LILCO Exhibit 23 20 for identification.
21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I have no objection.
I 22 MR. McMURRAY:
No ob ection.
J 23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be admitted as'LILCO's 24 Exhibit No. 23.
25 I
64600606 18128 marysimons O
\\_)
2 (LILCO Exhibit No. 23, previously l
3 marked for identatication, was l
4 ddmitted into evidence. )
5 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Let me pass out another 6
document, a memorandum to Don Davidoft trom one W. Condon 7
who is in the Bureau of Environmental Radiation Pro]ection 8
dated July 3 rd, 1985.
9 Let me ask that that be marked LILCO Exhibit 24 10 tor identification.
I I
II (The roterled to document was distributed to the 12 parties and the Board.)
l 13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
l 14 (The document reterred to was 1
15 marked LILCO Exhibit No. 24 16 tor identification.)
17 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
18 Q
Have any of you ever seen this document betore?
19 A
(Witness Czech)
Yes, I have.
20 A
(Witness Papile)
I have.
21 A
(Witness Baranski)
I have.
22 Q
And is this in tact a memorandum trom Mr. Condon 23 to Don Davidott?
l 24 A
(Witness Czech)
I believe this is, yes.
25 Q
Was this a part of the REPG's ordinary business?
O
___.___.__.____.____________m_____
l 64600606 18129 l
marysimons
("3 k_)
A (Witness Papile)
This is a REPG.
If you I
2 notice, it goes to Don as the Director at his new position 3
and Bill in his position of being the Bureau of J
l 4
Environmental Radiation Protection which does not come under I
5 l
Don but which is in the Health Department.
l 6
Q Why was this memorandum generated, do you know?
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I object to this question.
I 8
don't see the relevance of this document because it pertains 9
to the Nassau Coliseum.
Also, it pertains to an issue 10 involving impact statements and waste water which was
)
II withdrawn from this proceeding.
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
That's correct, but I'm not going to ask about the bottom line about the waste water.
13 l
Id l
I'm asking about some of the assumptions in the accident 15 scenario which would be applicable to an accident no matter 16 where the reception center was located.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. McMurray.
18 MR. McMURRAY:
I must agree with Mr.
19 Zahnleuter.
This document does appear to deal with issues 20 that are no longer in this proceeding.
I notice also that l
21 none of the witnesses are either an author or recipient of 22 the document, and we have no link which links up the portion 23 of the document that Mr. Christman wants to ask about with 24 1ssues that are relevant to this proceeding as to that link, I
l 25 and I would support Mr. Zahnleuter's motion.
M k) i i
l
64600606 18130 marysimons 1
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, that's because the 2
objection has come at a time when I haven't even started to 3
ask questions about this document.
So it's impossible to 4
say that the question won't be relevant to any issues in 5
this proceeding.
6 As I say, my point is not to ask about the 7
eliminate of contaminated waste water.
It's to ask about 8
the assumptions, the accident assumptions that were used.
9 JUDGE MAPGULIES:
Statt.
10 MR. BACHMANN:
Having looked at the document, II although Mr. Christman has not yet questioned on it, I 12 perceive there is some information that is relevant to the 13 1ssues in this proceeding.
I suggest that he ask his 14 questions and then the Board determine thereafter.
15 MR. CUMMING:
We would agree with staff.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
At this time the Board will 17 overrule the obJ ection with prejudice to cbJ ecting to 18 specific questions as they come up.
19 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
20 Q
All three of you said you had seen this document 21 before; la that correct?
22 A
(Witness Papile)
Yec, we have.
23 l Q
How did you happen to see it?
24 A
It was given to me.
25 O
By whom?
O
64600606 18131 I
A As a result of a deposition.
2 Q
Well, my first question was how did this 3
memorandum happen to come to be prepared?
4 A
1 don't know.
If you see the first line, it was 5
prepared and answered to a DEC question.
So I really don't 6
know.
7 Q
And this was atter Don Davidoit had taken up his 8
new position you say?
9 A
That's his title on the address, yes, sir.
10 Q
Okay.
None of you knows how this document came II to be prepared or how it was prepared?
12 A
(Witness Czech)
I do not know why or how it 13 came to be prepared, no.
..,O Id A
(Witness Baranska)
I do not know.
15 O
Let me csk you it you agree with something in 16 the letter.
The first sentence in the second paragraph is I7 as follows:
"The most likely scenario for any accidental I8 release at a nuclear power plant is the release of noble I9 gases, which represent an external radiation hazard, but 20 does not cause ground contamination."
Do you agree with 21 that?
22 (Witnesses conterring.)
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I would lake a point of 24 clar112 cation.
In what context is Mr. Christman asking for 25 this agreement?
1 64600606 18132 marysimons 1
MR. CHRISTMAN:
There is no context necessary.
2 I'm asking it they agree that is the most likely scenario 3
tor any accidental release.
4 WITNESS PAPILE:
We have to go along because 5
this is what the NRC states and also FEMA states, that the 6
imminent danger is noble gases.
7 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
8 Q
All right.
Now Mr. Condon in that memorandum j
i 9
undertakes a calculation of contamination otisite trom an
)
10 accident at Shoreham and he assumes the release of 100 Il curies of fission products, about that six times that 12 released at TMI.
Do you see that?
13 A
(Witness Papale)
Yes, we do.
(:)
14 Q
Do you know why he used that assumption, that i
15 particular assumption in his analysis?
I 16 A
I do not.
I 17 A
(Witness Czech)
I do not.
j 18 A
(Witness Baranski)
I do not.
19 Q
He says right above an the previous paragraph,
(
20 "There is a graph in ' Environmental Aspects of Nuclear l
l l
l 21 Power' by Eichholz which estimates the amount of 11ssion 1
22 products released to the atmosphere tollowing a loss-ot-I 23 coolant accident and he says using the peak values at one l
24 day the total amount of radiolodines and other solids l
25 released is about 100 to 200 curies.
l
(
64600606 18133 l
marysimons l
1
(_)
That seems to be where he got his assumption, j
i 2
doesn't it?
3 A
(Witness Papale)
I assume that, d
MR. McMURI;AY:
I ob3ect.
It calls for the 5
witnesses to speculate.
6 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, it doesn't call for any 7
speculation at all.
You can tell it trom the document.
8 MR. McMURRAY:
He has asked them to interpret a 9
document that they didn't know anything about.
10 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, they are entitled to do II that, and the weight to be given to that is up to the Board.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will permit the pane] to 12 answer 11 they can.
--(y)
Id WITNESS CZECH:
It refers to a document that I'm 15 not really tamiliar with and I have no idea of the 16 background and why this was done or anything.
I'm Just I7 reading the words as you are.
l
'8 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
19 Q
Do you think that assumption of a release of 100 20 curles of tission products six times that released at TMI 21 would be an unreasonable assumption to use in an analysis of 22 this sort?
l l
23 A
(Witness Czech)
I don't know why the analysis 2d was done.
So I can't answer that.
25 A
(Witness Papile)
I must say here, if I may, l
1 l
1 1
\\
N
64600606 18134 marysimons I
that this document is a Health Department document, and this 2
is their responsibility.
When we have questions on 3
contamination of the amount of contamination of the d
computation of contamination, we go to the Health Department l
5 and this is a Health Department document.
It's not within 6
the purview of our organization.
So, again, what Larry J ust 7
said is true.
I don't know why he made this or why he did 8
it and what his assumptions were.
9 I can read it and I can say yes it says that, 10 but it's meaning I'm not sure.
II Q
I understand it's not in your organizational 12 purview, but I know Mr. Czech is training and quallilea in 13 matters of radiological health and safety, and I think the O
14 rest ot you know something about those subjects as well.
15 What I'm asking Mr. Czech in particular about is 16 whether this assumption by the Healt'h Department of 100 17 curies of fission products is an unrealistic or unreasonable 18 assumptaon for calculating the amount of contamination that 19 might be on people in cars, which is what was done in this 20 memo.
21 MR. McMURRAY:
Objection.
The question has been 22 asked and answered.
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I ob]ect, too, on the grounds 24 of vagueness unless this quest 2on can be related to Shoreham 25 in some way it's improper.
9
64600606 18135 marysimons I
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, the memo is about 2
Shoreham.
l 3
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
It's about Shoreham and waste d
water and the Nassau Coliseum, and that's why I ob ect on J
b the ground of relevancy.
i 6
MR. CHRISTMAN:
The location of the reception 7
center has nothing to do with the analysis or the question 8
I'm asking.
j 9
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Could you ask the question 10 independent of LILCO's 24 ior identification.
l MR. CHRISTMAN:
Sure, I'll be glad to.
II 12 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
1 13 O
If you were going to calculate for the purposes 7;_q Id of analysis how much contamination might be on cars and l
l 15 people resulting trom an accident at Shoreham, would an 16 assumption of a release of 100 curies of ilssion products, 17 about six tln:es that released at TMI be an appropriate I8 assumption to use?
19 A
(Witness Czech)
I don't know, and one of the l
20 things is it you iollow some of the assumptions here that f
21 perhaps we don't really need to have recept 2cn centers for 22 for the populations.
So obviously there are other accident 23 scenarlos which include more than Just noble gases but 24 perhaps sign 112 cant quantitles of radiolodines as well as 25 perhaps particulate.
l
?S
\\
t_-
64600606 18136 marysimons 1
I'm really at a loss to Know why this was 2
developed.
This is perhaps a valid assumption for a 3
particular situation, but there are probably other 4
situations that one should consider.
If you followed the 5
FEMA gu2 dance or the guidance we're under for developing 6
these plans, we have to go to very severe accidents where 7
you potentially have not only noble gases but radiolodines 8
and perhaps I submit particulate.
9 Q
Well, but there is contamination under this 10 scenario with the 100 curies, is there not?
II A
Six times Three Mlle Island, Three Mile Island 12 did not produce significant contamination olisite.
So I 13 don't see where six times that is going to necessarily 14 create a significant problem.
15 O
Mr. Pap 11e, you did say that when you want an 16 analysis of this sort done yo'.i go to the Health Departinent?
17 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
Pardon me?
IB Q
Did you say a few minutes ago that when you want 19 this sort of an analysis done you go to the Health 20 Department?
21 A
I couldn't hear you.
I'm sorry.
22 O
Did you say a few moments ago that when you need 23 an analysis of this sort done you go to the Health 24 Department 1or that purpose?
l 25 A
It I needed it done?
1
{
64600606 18137 marysimons 2
A I would go to the Health Department.
l 3
O And the Health Department did this analysis, did they not?
l A
Yes, but they didn't do it for me.
I 5
I 6
O They did it for Mr. Davidoli who used to be?
7 A
They did it f or Mr. Davidoit, and again I'm 8
saying the 11rst sentence that's got me contused, "Recently 9
raised by DEC."
I con't know what the question was that was 10 raised by DEC which really precipitated the whole paper.
Il O
The memorandum says that under the assumption 12 that we've been talking abou t, the 100 cur 2es of' ilssion 13 g
products, people and/or vehicles would have low levels of
(~'
M contamination.
IS Mr. Czech, do you think he was right or wrong
\\
\\
l 16 about that?
i I7 A
(Witness Czech)
It you use his assumption on E
c'u r l e s, I would say that that is a logical conclusion.
l 19 O
And 100 curles is about six times what was l
l 20 released at TMI; 1s that correct?
l 21 (Watnesses conferring.)
22 A
Our best recollection is that would be about six 23 times the amount of radiolodines re3 cased.
24 Q
Mr. Condon also assumed in that Inemorandum that 25 20,000 people and 5,000 cars went to the reception center P;Q t
i V
4
64600606 18138 marysimons I
which in this case was the Nassau Coliseum ior 2
decontamination.
Do you know why he would have made that 3
assumption?
4 A
I have no idea.
5 0
Have any of you ever talked to either Mr. Condon l
6 or Mr. Davidoit ab ou t this anblysis?
7 A
(Witness Papile)
I have never talked to Bill 1
8 about 2t.
9 A
(Witness Baranski)
I never have.
10 A
(Witness Czech)
I never have either.
I l
ll O
So all you know about the document is what 12 you've seen on the document?
13 A
(Witness Baranski)
That's atilrmative.
14 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
And also myself.
l 15 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Let me show you one raore j
16 document.
This 18 a letter of Sep tenter 16th, 1985 to a 17 Diane Stuber trom a Marvin Silverman who is with REPG.
Did 18 I pronounce at wrong?
17 WITNESS PAPILE:
He is.
20 WITNESS BARANSKI:
Your pronunciation is 21 cerrect.
22 BY MR. CHRISTM1W:
Fe attaches a letter of 1981 23 and says that the State policy 18 that the disposal of 24 contaminated water remains unchanged.
25 Judge, I would like to asx that this be O
w_______________________
64600606 18139 marysimons g, )9 I
(m designated for Identification only as LILCO Exhibit No. 25.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The two-page document will be 3
so marked for ident111 cation.
d (The document referred to was 5
marked LILCO Exhibit No. 25 6
tor identification.)
7 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
8 Q
how looking at the document, the second page 9
more than the first, that's the letter from Mr. Silverman, 10 and he is in REPG, is he?
II A
(Witness Pap 11e)
He is in REPG, yes.
12 Q
Was this second-page letter sent in the ordinary 13 course of business of REPG?
v f
1
~
14 (Witnesses conterring.)
15 A
Again, this is the same as with D111enback and 16 Rockland.
Marvin was the liaison to Orange County, and when I7 a question came up like this he would go to the Director at I8 that time and get a decision and then he would send the l
19 letter.
20 Marvan at this time probably Just wrote the l
21 letter almost verbatim trom what he was told and sent it to l
22 the County to advise the County Director of the teeling and 23 the policy.
l l
24 Q
Told by whom?
25 A
By probably Mr. Davidoit in this case.
5
64600606 18140 marysimons
(~))
i,_
I Q
Okay.
All I want to ask you about is this.
He 2
says, Mr. Silverman that is in your group say, "It is 3
believed that the small amount of contamination that may d
settle on a car will be diluted to a great extent."
5 When he says it is believe that a small amount 6
of contamination may settle on a car, was that an 7
unreasonable thing for him to say?
l 8
A I don't know, and I can't speculate on that.
I l
l 9
can read, literally read what it says, and it says "It is 10 believed that the small amount of contamination that may Il settle on a car," and it continues on without reading it.
12 From the statement that he makes, I'm sure he got the backup 13 to do it, and by that I mean he received the approval to
(-]
V Id send this letter out.
15 Q
And the approval would have come from whom?
16 A
From Mr. Davidott.
17 I would like to explain something here, too, to 18 the Board.
At this time when we were writing these letters 19 in '81 and '82 we were all very busy working on the plans 20 and trying to get them in, and many times the letters were 1
21 sent by the County liaisons directly to the County Directors 22 as I'm sure in our previous case Ms. D111enback did the same 23 thang because she was loyal, she worked hard and had to get 2d quick answers to the countles, and this as one way we did i
25 It, we let the county liaisons do it.
l l
l l
l L_
J
I 64600606 18141 j
marysimons J
I I can't criticize them.
I think they did a 2
great Job 11 you can remember what we were doing back in 3
those days.
d Q
Look at the cover, the 11rst page of that i
document that we Just talked about, which is Exhibit 25 tor i
S 6
identlilcation, j
7 The 11rst sentence says " Jim Pap 11e asked me to 8
send you the enclosed letter that was sent to Phil Schmer in 9
Orange County back in Novenber 1981."
That's you, right?
10 A
Ms. Stuber called and asked it she could have a II copy of the letter that was sent to Phil on water and 12 decontamination and contamination of water.
So to answer a l
simple question, we said yes, you can have it.
13 gs Id O
Okay.
So you approved the sending of this l
l 15 letter?
1 16 A
I told Marvin to send her it.
I7 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Judge, I would like to move into 1
18 evidence LILCO Exhibits 24 and 25.
l 19 l
WITNESS PAP 1LE:
I would like to bring out at l
20 this time that I was not the Director at that time.
I was l
21 Just a co-worker.
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I have no objection to LILCO l
23 Exhibit 25.
However, LILCO Exhibit 24 ---
l l
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It wasn't ottered.
i 25 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, I Just oftered 24 and 25.
F=9 i
\\-)
\\
l
64600606 18142 marysimons n
k_)
I I'm sorry.
I said them both at the same time and it was 2
hard to hear I suppose.
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I most certainly ob ect to J
I 4
LILCO Exhibit 24 on the several grounds that I enunciated
)
5 before involving relevancy on waste water, the coliseum and 6
to the issues in this proceeding, but moreover, the 7
toundation tor this document has not been laid.o 8
Mr. Condon is not part of the State Ottice that 9
these witnesses represent and neither is Mr. Davidoit and 10 these witnesses testitled several times that all they know Il about this memorandum is what they can see trom reading it 12 upon being shown it by Mr. Christman.
13 g
There is no toundation for this memo.
They
-]
14 didn't write it, they didn't receive it and they don't know
{
(
15 anything about the rationale behind it.
So I object to the 16 otter of Exhibit'24 into evidence.
17 MR. McMURRAY:
Judge Margulies, may I be heard, 18 please?
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Sure.
20 MR. McMURRAY:
I agree with Mr. Zahnleuter, and 21 as a further point Just to elaborate, we also don't know 22 what the quest 1on was that was asked that elicited this 23 letter trom the Department of Health.
24 There has been no foundation laid for this 25 letter.
Now where Mr. Christman has asked general questions 9
64600606 18143 that may have been brought to mind by this letter, they are 2
in the record.
But to put this letter into the record I 3
think would be improper because there has been no toundation d
laid and no 11ndings should be drawn from this letter to the 5
extent that he has asked questions, general questions which 6
don't rely on the wording of this letter then that is 1
7 already in the record.
i 8
MR. CHPISTMAN:
As to the foundation otJection, this was received in discovery from New York State.
It l
10 comes trom their tiles and was prepared in the ordinary 1
'I course of business of the State and I take it there is no 12 question that that is true.
There is also I take it no j
l l
13 dispute about the authenticity of this document.
It there j
l
' ~#
Id were the foundation ob]ection would have some colortul i
15 merit, but absent some claim that th3s is a torgery or an 16 unauthentic document, a toundation objection is not well I7 tounded.
1 18 As to relevance, the questions were asked and l
19 allowed in.
They go to the issue of the spectrum of l
20 accidents and are relevant and the document that I was i
21 questioning trom should be in the record for completeness 22 and to shed light on those questions and to make sure that 23 the transcript is accurate.
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Cumming, did you bave 25 something?
f~
v
I 64600606 18144 marysimons 1
MR. CUMMING:
Yes, Judge Margulies, I did.
2 While the State of New York withdrew the 3
l testimony concerning the ground water decontamination, 1
l certainly the thrust of a large portion of the New York 4
5 State testimony was as to what in their expert opinion was 6
required for a reception center, and I believe that LILCO 7
Exhiba t No. 24 does bear on the position ot the State of New 8
York.
9 Now these pcople are testitying in their expert 10 capacity, and I believe that their understanding of a II document which is as instructive as this one is relevant to 12 the Board's consideration and therefore the document should 13 be allowed in.
It is relevant.
14 MR. BACHMANN:
The statt might add that I 15 believe the panel was asked whether the Department ot Health 16 was the proper New York State agency to prepare such an 17 analysis, and the answer was yes, it is.
Although it was 18 also stated that this particular group did ask tor this to 19 be prepared, I agree with Mr. Cumming that it is definitely 20 relevant, people were questioned on it and it is trom an 21 otticial New York State agency.
I believe it should be 22 admitted into evidence.
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
May I please respond?
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes, you may.
25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Mr. Christman confuses the 9
64600606 18145 I
distinction between authenticity ot a document and the 2
toundation for a document.
This document was provided by 3
the State ot New York in response to a discovery request, d
and I have no problem with the authenticity.
5 I might add that the discovery request asked for 6
documents in the possession of the State of New York and 7
this was in the possession of the State ot New York.
8 These witnesses come trom an ottice within the 9
State called REPG and they certainly can't be held 10 responsible for the information that passes through all or 11 the other ottices in the State of New York.
This goes to 12 the meaning of what a toundation is.
A toundation is built 13 by people who are familiar with the document, who know about
(-g!
Id 2ts contents and who can stand by it.
l l
15 These witnesses don t know anything about that 16 document, and they have said that.
In tact, one of Mr.
I7 Christman's question was so all you know is what you have 18 seen by looking at this document, and the answer were 19 attarmative.
20 It's true that the document was provided in 21 discovery, but there is a distinction between the threshold 22 tor discovery documents and for document which are admitted 23 Into evidence.
This threshold is higher and here we have a 24 document which Mr. Christman is ottering into evidence, but 25 there is no toundation laid.
It might be relevant perhaps 79 U
64600606 18146 marysimons 1
in a discovery context, but not in terms of an evidentiary 2
and probationary value in this record.
3 MR. CUMMING:
Judge Margulies, it I understand d
the counsel tor New York State correctly, he has Just stated 5
that these gentlemen do not testity on behalf of the State 6
of New York but only the REPG organization.
7 The question I would have is who then speaks for 8
the State of New York in this matter?
I think that is a 9
very important clarification and FEMA intends to bring out 10 through its cross-examination and will attempt to 11nd out II who it is that speaks for the State of New York on these 12 matters.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We've heard enough argument on 14 this issue.
15 (Board conferring.)
1 16 l
17 f
18 19 l
1 20 1
i 21 22 j
23 24 25 O
46000707 18147 Joewalsh I
JUDGE MARGULIES:
The Board will not admit 2nto 2
evidence LILCO's Exhibit Number 24 tor identification.
It 3
really has not been related to th2s panel, and they cannot --
d their testimony cannot sponsor it.
5 It 's an orphan document.
And, why the parties 6
to the document used a figure of 20,000 persons is something 7
that is unrelated to this panel.
8 Exhibit Number 25 tor identification w111 be 1
9 l
admitted as LILCO's 25 into evidence.
10 (The document previously marked as II LILCO's Exhibit Number 25 tor 12 ident111 Cation is admitted into I3 evid enc e. )
l
(,g
)
Id l
BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 15 Q
Mr. Papile, on Page 8 ot your testimcny you say 16 that your interpretation of Criterion J.12 is consistent I7 with comments we received trom FEMA personnel in the past to I8 the ettect that compliance with Section J.12 requires I9 planning and resources for monitoring 100 percent or the EPZ 20 population, and you mention that FEMA guidance again on Page 21 11 in the bottom two lines, 22 Who are those FEMA personnel who gave you that j
23 guidance or comments, as you put it?
24 A
(Witness PaplJe)
Page 87 l
25 g
- yes, R
/U ~f 1
l 1
1
46000707 18148 J oewalsh
/'N
(,)
1 A
We have said -- and, again I reiterate, J.12 2
says all personnel, transient and residents.
And, we are 3
going along with J.12.
The 100 percent to us is synonymous 4
with all who arrive at the reception centers.
5 0
You say on Page 8, "Th1U interpretation is 6
consistent with comments we have received trom FEMA 7
personnel in the past."
8 Who are those FEMA personnel?
9 A
It sure is.
We have a RAC comment that was made 10 in January 1986 on Rockland County, in that it takes the Il total population ot Rockland County which is a little 12 diiterent than the figure that you gave us 01 90-odd 13 thousand, we said we assumed it right, not to quibble over j
U 14 figures.
15 But, here it says:
Assuming 1.5 minutes per 16 e'racuee for monitoring in excess of 233 monitors would be l
l 17 needed to meet the statement in the plan.
Additional 18 monitors would be required to meet DOH-2, so torth and so on 19 and so on.
We received an inadequacy on this.
20 This is January 1986.
So, again FEMA, by making 21 this comment, I am assuming they meant 100 percent or all l
l 22 residents in the EPZ.
23 Q
Okay.
So, that's the guidance.
That inadequacy
(
24 1s the guidance that you are talking about on Page 8 ot your 25 testimony of comments received from FEMA personnel and it's 9
I l
46000707 18149 Joewalsh l
I also the FEMA guidance you refer to on Page 11 in the bottom i
2 two J1nes of your testimony; 1s that correct?
3 A
Yes, sir.
And, it's in writing here.
d Q
And, that's all you were talking about.
5 A
(Witness Czech)
No, that's not true.
6 (Witness Papile)
No, no.
Go ahead.
7 (Witness Czech)
One -- this has been a question 8
that has come up per]odically from time to time.
There are 9
other similar plan consents and open items of inadequacies l
10 for Orange County and Putnam County that come to mind.
- But, II there is also one that I remember in terms of the large 12 meeting with Oswego County and with the Radiological l
13 p_q Assistance Committee up in Oswego, New York when we went
( !
Id through the -- this as prior to receiving the 350 approval 15 and our suggested changes for what had to be done.
16 And, at that time that was one of the open items i
I7 that was brought forth by a FEMA consultant, that we didn't
)
l I8 provide the planning at that time for monitoring 100 percent 19 of the residents of the EPZ.
20 Q
Have you had any discussions with County 21 personnel or utility personnel from these other plants in 22 which they expressed reservations about meeting a 100 23 percent standard?
24 A
Have I personally?
25 0
Anyone on the panel?
l P'l l
L.)
46000707 18150 Joewalsh
(
l A
I have not.
2 (Witness Baranski)
I have not.
3 (The witnesses are conterring.)
4 (Witness Papile)
What is your detination ot 5
discussion?
6 Q
Any communication.
7 A
Pardon me?
8 Q
Any communication, oral or written.
9 A
Otticially, no.
10 Q
Any communication, oral or written, otticial or 11 unotticial.
12 A
They have brought up the question, yes.
13 O
Recently?
14 A
Yes.
15 O
What -- how did they bring it up?
Who brought 16 it up tirst?
l 17 A
Because FEMA and the utilities sent the Krimm 18 letter directly to the counties, and the counties got 19 possession of the Krimm letter which we and the State did 20 not have, and they brought the question up.
21 And, I would like to get into that right now 11 22 I may.
The Krimm letter -- you asked me a question and I l
23 would like to answer it complete it I may.
I 24 Q
Well, the question was --
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
No one has raised any O
1 L
46000707 18151 Joewalsh I
ob]ection, so go ahead.
2 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 3 Q
The question was, who raised the issue?
d A
(Witness rap 11e)
I'm bringing up the counties 5
did because of the Krimm letter.
6 Q
All of the countles?
7 A
I can't -- I wasn't at the meeting.
It was the 8
meeting that was held with the counties, and I happened to 9
be away at that t1ree in philadelphia.
But, my people told 10 me.
And, I can't answer the question, because I wasn't II there.
But, my people did say tFat the counties brought up 12 the question, yme Q
Who, of your people, was at the rneeting?
l 13
\\ l I4 A
(Witness Baranski)
I was at that meeting, and 15 it was in a meeting where we had the :ounty representatives, 16 the 11Censees and Repo present tor one of our power rool I7 Ineetir.gs and it was an issue that was recently brought to I3 light because of this proceeding.
I9 O
All righi:.
Mr. Baranski then, did any of the 20 people at that meeting express disagreement with the 100 21 percent standard?
22 MR. McMURRAY:
Judge Margulles, I'm going to 23 ob]ect right now on the grounds of hearsay.
Any statements 24 n ade by county personnel ob]ecting to the standard are 25 hearsay staternents.
5
46000707 18152 Joewalsh I
It Mr. Christman wants to bring in county 2
personnel to dispute the interpretation of these gentlemen 3
regarding Criterion J.12, he is tree to do so.
But, he d
can't use these witnesses to bring in unreliable hearsay j
5 regarding what county personnel may have telt.
1
'l 6
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Number one, nearsay is
]
7 admissible under the Catawba case.
8 Number two, the State witnesses depend in large l
l 9
part in their testimony on hearsay about what the counties j
- l 10 can do.
I'm now exploring what the counties have said about 11 what they can do, by the best means available to me.
12 (The Board members are conterring.)
l l
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We do know that the counties p,U 14 have raised an inquiry, and the important thing is not so 15 much the spec 1 tics of the counties inquiries but what the 16 State told the county.
And, to that extent you may answer 17 the question.
18 WITNESS BARANSKI:
At that meeting, this issue 19 was brought to light, of 20 percent versus 100 percent i
20 monitoring capability.
There were several areas that were
]
1 21 discussed during this meeting, and what happened wau is that 22 the counties were operating on the basis of the Krimm 23 memorandum with no further explanation from the State or 24 from FEMA on what it meant, number one.
That was the first 1
25 area of confusion.
46000707 18153 Joewalsh
,.5
(_)
I Number two, we had not -- that is, the State had 2
not officially received that alleged guidance in the torm of 3
a guidance memorandum which we normally get explanation of d
0654 requirements in, so that was another area of 5
confusion.
6 And, the bottom line of the whole meeting was 7
that nobody understood what it meant.
And, it Just amounted 8
to total contusion and we agreed that we would have to go 9
I back to FEMA to attempt to clarity what it meant.
10 But, up to the point of the Shoreham proceedings II that was not an area of significant discussion with the i
12 counties.
The RAC reviews came in telling us -- and we have 13 p,,
given one example of RAC reviews where we have had w
insutticient monitoring.
We would go back to the counties.
l Id 15 The counties would attempt to supplement the areas of 16 weakness until we had adequate monitoring capability as I7 determined by FEMA.
I8 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing)
I9 Q
What did the counties not understand about the 20 l
Krimm memorandum?
21 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
There is quite a bit to 22 understand about the Krimm memorandum.
And, one of the 23 tirst issues is why did it go as an internal document to
]
s 24 FEMA and not be published like the other guidance 25 memorandums which we agreed with Washington FEMA that would 0
46000707 18154 j oewalsh I
I
(_/
be published and signed by to the Region Directors.
2 This was a letter that we have never seen 3
before.
And, In December 1986 at a meeting at FEMA in 4
Washington, we were given every outstanding up-to-date 5
guidance memorandum.
This was not included prior to our 6
meeting in February.
7 We had no knowledge of the Krimm memorandum 8
until someone said they had seen it in the county in the 9
hands of a utility personnel.
We did not take it as 10 guidance because, number one, it was not addressed to the 11 Directors of the Regions but directed to the Division Chiefs 12 only of a certain element within each region.
13 We have asked the question, why wasn't it 14 published publicly so that everyone could take advantage of 15 it or at least argue about it.
We are of the feeling that 16 that document was speclilc in an answer of a question that 17 Mr. Keller asked -- Mr. Keller asked a question of Mr.
18 Stewart Glass.
In asking the question, it was specifically 19 on LILCO referring to a problem that may have occurred at 20 Indian Point.
But, he asked since he was going to start the 21 reopening of the ASLB's at LILCO he would like to get a 22 definite answer.
We have not been privy to that question.
23 Number two, Mr. Glass then sent the letter to 24 Washington because he couldn't answer it at Region II.
Mr.
25 K rinat then put out the directive I assume without conterring
1 l
i 46000707 18155 Joewalsh ry I
g,/
with any of the states.
2 And, we had made an cgreement with the FEMA 3
people in Washington, the Associate Director, verbally as it d
may have been, but we had made an agreement that no guidance l
5 memorandum would be issued in tinal torm but would be issued 6
in drait form so the states could Comment on it.
We have 7
not -- since then we have received some, such as PR-1 and EV-J l
8 3 and a few others.
But, nowhere nave we received the Krimm 9
memorandum tor comment or did we know about it until I
February at the time of our deposition.
l 10 II Normally, the routing usually is from the FEMA 12 Region to myself of all guidance memorandums.
13 Q
Mr. Pap 11e, didn't you testity in the 0-5 Id exercise proceeding that FEMA guidance is not always 15 addressed to the states and counties?
16 A
That is true, and I Just brought that up.
We 17 have now made an agreement it will be addressed -- on the 18 address and how it will be addressed in the inture as a l
l result of O-5 when we told them that.
19 20 If you look at the guidance memorandum, none of 21 them are addressed to the State.
They are all addressed to 22 the Region Directors.
And, this document wasn't even 23 directed to the Region Director.
And, I was told by a 24 menber of FEMA that it was an internal document.
- Now, 25 whatever that means in FEMA's Jargon, I don't understand, n
4 v
l l
l 46000707 18156 Joewalsh 1
But, I'm taking it literally that it meant it 2
was only for their eyes.
1 3
Q Do you generally try to tollow FEMA guidance?
4 A
It it's published -- it it's published, yes.
It 5
it's made a comment in an at ter-ac tion report either as a 6
result of an exercise or a plan review, we can question 7
them.
8 Yes, it it's published and we find on it that 9
the NRC has concurred -- and that's an agreement we made l
10 with Mr. Podolak in Washington in a meeting with FEMA that l
Il l
trom now on all guidance memorandums would be concurred in l
\\
l by the NRC.
j
!2 l
l 13 Q
It this Krinc memorandum we have been talking l
l
,f s l
14 about were published as a f ormal FEMA guidance memorandum l
l 15 and concurred in by the NRC, would you tollow it?
l 16 MR. McMURRAY:
Objection.
17 WITNESS PAPILE:
It we had an --
18 MR. McMURRAY:
Ob ection.
J 19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Ob ection.
J 20 JUDGE M ARGULIES:
Would you state your grounds?
21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This question calls for 22 speculation on what might happen it the NRC approves of this 23 guidance -- of this internal memorandum and it becomes a 24 guidance n'emorandum.
It's so speculative that any 25 information would not be probative.
l
[
l
(/
1 1
f l
46000707 18157 Joewalsh r~
\\
I I
MR. McMURRAY:
I agree with Mr. Zahnleuter.
2 MR. CHRIST. MAN:
It is a hypothetical.
- And, 3
I these are expert witnesses.
d MR. CUMMING:
It the standard for the Board is l
1 5
that expert witnesses may answer hypothetical, then it 6
certainly is an appropriate question.
7 MR. McMURRAY:
But, there has to be a toundation 8
tor the hypothetical.
9 MR. CUMMING:
Well, actually the foundation has 10 been laid by the witnesses' testimony, because they have i
l II Indicated to what extent or what the basis is for their 12 agreement or disagreement with guidance.
13 MR. BACHMANN:
The Stati concurs with FEMA.
Id The ob ection is overruled.
JUDGE MARGULIES:
J 15 You may answer the question.
16 WITNESS PAPILE:
According to the agreement, it 17 wouldn' t be published in that tashion.
We would get a I8 chance to comment on it.
It would probably come to us in l
19 dratt form, as the last few have, for comments and we send 20 it to the counties for their comments.
21 I do not think that it would come out as a 22 finished product but it would come to us for comments.
- And, 23 that's speculation.
24 But, in accordance to the procedure that we now l
25 have in being, that's the way it would be.
r, (i) l l
l
46000707 18158 Joewalsh 1
BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 2 Q
Hypothetically, you commented, and it the Krlmm 3
memorandum came out the same form as it is today, as a FEMA 4
guidance memorandum concurred in by the NRC, would you 5
follow it?
6 A
I'm not sure.
I would go through the State l
7 agencies for their comments on it as well as to the 8
counties.
9 O
But, my hypothetical was that you had already i
10 had the comment process behind you.
11 MR. McMURRAY:
Ob]ection.
The question has been 12 asked and answered.
13 MR. CHRISTMAN:
The witness misunderstood the O
14 hypothetical.
The hypothetical was that this was submitted 15 to you for comment and that includes, I think you said, 16 sending it to the Counties for Comment and it was then 17 published -- after your Comments were taken into account, 18 published as a final FEMA guidance memorandum, concurred in 19 by the NRC, would you follow it?
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We are getting pretty tar out 21 there, but we will permit the question.
22 WITNESS BARANSKI:
Following along with the 23 hypothetical, one of the first comments we would have made I
24 back to FEMA was to get a clear-cut definition of a 25 relocation center.
In New York State, we have two separate l
l 0
46000707 18159 J oewalsh
(_)
I entitles, a reception center and a congregate care tacility 2
or mass care facility.
That's one of the problems we have 3
with the Krimm memorandum as written that talks about d
relocation centers.
5 And, it becomes very confusing on making a 6
determination on what it says or what it means.
So, it 7
making the assumption that we got a clear-cut deilnition on 8
what he was talking about, reception centers and/or 9
congregate care centers, then we could go trom there.
I 10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, the panel has not j
l II answered the question.
The -- you can restate your j
12 question, counsel.
l 13 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing)
O Id O
The question is a hypothetical and was, it the 15 Krimm memorandum came out in the same words as it is today 16 after this process of comment and publication as a FEMA j
.1 17 guidance memorandum and concurrence by the NRC, would you 18 follow it?
l 19 MR. McMURRAY:
Objection.
]
20 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 21 Q
Or, would you be unable to follow it because you 22 don't understand the ditterence -- what it means by 23 reception centers?
24 MR. McMURRAY:
That's been asked and answered.
1 25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The question will be b
v i
l
\\
46000707 18160 Joewalsh
("N
! d I
permitted.
2 WITNESS PAPILE:
Again, I would have to say that l
3 I would have to go to the agencies responsible.
In this l
4 l
case, the Health Department and so torth.
1 5
But, I would like to add, that's a minimum 6
requirement.
And, I would.like to add also, a minimum 7
required is 20 percent.
What we are saying is, maybe above 8
20 percent.
I 9
As long as we meet the minimum requirement FEMA 10 has no cal 3-back.
We have been threatened, we have been 11 written letters, we have been told that they are going to 12 check us for 100 percent.
And, I keep telling them 20 13 percent is what you are asking tor.
That's all you can.
14 check.
That's what the tederal agency is asking tor.
It we l
15 say all, that it's more than 20 percent, we have met the 16 minimum requirement.
17 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I still don't think the question 18 has been answered, Judge.
)
19 WITNESS PAPILE:
I think I answered it by saying 20 our procedure would include probably more than 20 percent.
l 21 But, again I'm telling you what FEMA is telling us, that we 22 have to say 20 percent.
We don't have to say 20 percent.
23 We could say more.
24 But, FEMA only should check for 20 percent it 25 the Krinst memorandum was published as guidance.
We have O
46000707 18161
_ Joewalsh pmh been asking this question for many years.
Interpret J.12 I
2 for us.
We have comments here and there.
Everybody has got 3
a gut feeling.
The Krimm memorandum was a complete shock d
and surprise to us.
5 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 6 Q
But, you do have your guidance now that you have 7
been asking for all these years in the torm of the Krimm 8
memorandum, don't you?
9 A
We had no guidance on-this.
And, we have been l
l relying on FEMA's reports on the exercises and on the plans.
10 II Q
But, now you have the Krimm memorandum which is 12 the guidance I suggest that you have been asking for all 13 these years, is it not?
O Id MR. McMURRAY:
I ob]ect to that 15 characterization.
16 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, it's a question and it's I7 cross-examination.
I8 WITNESS PAPILE:
I would like to say --
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Just one minute.
Counsel is 20 asking, do you recognize the Krimm memorandum at this point 21 as guidance?
22 WITNESS PAPILE:
We do not.
It does not follow 23 Guidance Memorandum IT-1 which tells you how guidance should 24 be put out by FEMA, sir.
25 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) l 0 l
46000707 18162 Joewalsh I
Q But, it it were published again atter tollowing 2
that process, it would be the guidance that you have 3
requested all these years, would it not?
4 A
Again, I want to say that we would get it in 5
dratt f orm for our connents.
6 Q
That was not the question.
It it were published 7
atter that process that you have described --
8 A
I can't answer that question.
That's 9
speculation, because it would be in dratt form and then we 10 would have to get the comments trom all agencies concerned.
11 Right now, I'm not sure whether some of our state agencies 12 would buy that.
13 Q
And, I'm asking you to assume that after that 14 process was followed through and all those people that you l
15 want to comment have concented, it was published in the --
16 according to the process, would you accept that as guidance 17 (The witnesses are conferring.)
IB A
Atter we went through our process, then we would 19 make a decision.
I can't say yes or no right now.
20 Q
You can't tell me what the decision would be?
21 A
No, I can't.
22 Q
Okay.
At that Power Pool meeting, Mr. Baranski, 23 that you mentioned did all of the county people step torward 24 and wholeheartedly endorse the 100 percent standard that you 25 were --
(:)
46000707 18163 I
I ob ect.
Judge Margulies, MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
J 2
according to the ruling that you made on a similar question i
before, you stated that the important thing is what the I
3 d
State told the county people and not what so much the county 5
people had concerns about.
6 And, this question exclusively calls for 7
comments and opinions by county personnel.
So, I object.
8 MR. McMURRAY:
I agree with Mr. Zahnleuter.
9 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, I do want to know what the 10 county people said.
And, that is the crux of the question.
'I I won't try to sneak it by.
12 MR. CUMMING:
Again, FEMA believes it's a 13 relevant question to be answered.
O M
MR. BACHMANN:
The Stati concurs with FEMA.
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The objection is sustained.
16 The panel is here to testify as to the State's position in I7 regard to the Krimm memorandum.
I8 It the parties were interested in the counties 19 reaction they should have been brought in.
The objection is 20 sustained.
21 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 22 Q
Mr. Pap 11e, what is New York State's policy 23 about distributing or administering potassium lodide to the 24 general public?
25 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
We do not issue it to the O
l 1
l 46000707 18164 l
joewalsh I
public.
It's only for emergency workers.
2 O
Why is that?
3 A
The decision of the Department at Health and the d
Commissioner of Health.
1 5
j Q
Based on what?
I 6
A Not being an M.D.,
I don't know.
But, I will 7
try to find out for you.
8 l
10 l
11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 i
l 22 i
23 24 25 s
46000808 18165 suewalsh
,m I
Q Well, it anybody on the panel can answer the 2
question, that is all right.
3 A
(Witness Papile)
Just a minute.
d (The witnesses are conterring.)
5 (Witness Baranski)
When the issue of KI arose 6
tor the general public, the Commissioner ot Health trom the l
7 State ot New York convened a New York Academy of Sciences 8
meeting / seminar, and the general consensus of that meeting 9
was that KI was of little or no use tor the general public to and that there shou.1d be no ettorts on our part to develop a II system to distribute and provide KI to the general public.
12 And, I think this is also consistent with the FDA guidance 13 that goes along with it.
14 Q
Was there any concern about the health ettects 15 of potassium lodide itselt?
That is, allergic reactions or 16 that sort of thing.
I7 A
Oh, certainly, certainly.
And, we -- that's one I8 of the areas that we address when we do training tor 19 emergency workers, that the standard line, that it they are 20 allergic to she1111sh or so torth or are on some medication l
21 that they consult their doctor betore taking KI.
22 Q
Back to the Krimm memorandum, are you testitying 23 here that being prepared to monitor 100 percent ot an EPZ l
24 population within about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> is an absolute requirement l
25 tor every operating power plant?
O i
4 46000808 18166 suewalsh 1
A (Witness Papile)
We are saying, according to 2
J.12 ot 0654, literally interpreted, all residents and 3
transients in the EPZ who arrive at reception centers must 4
be monitored.
And, that's all we are saying.
5 That could be any percentage you want to pick.
6 We don't know.
Could it be 100 percent?. I assume it could 7
be.
8 Q
It depends on the accident?
9 A
Pardon me?
10 Q
It depends on the nature of the accident?
11 A
It depends upon the accident, true.
12 O
But, as a planning matter, is it an absolute 13 1ron clad requirement that an operating plant must meet that 14 it be able to be prepared to monitor 100 percent within 15 about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />?
l 16 A
(Witness Czech)
I would say that based upon l
17 planning guidance that we have gotten through FEMA and our IB plan review comments -- and I will go back to the Rockland I
i 19 j
County review or early 1986 -- that assuming that the Krimm 20 document is not out for in terms of interpretation or I
21 guidance trom the state, that that is a true statement, that 22 FEMA is looking for -- planning for 100 percent of the 23 rest. dents within the EPZ tor purposes of monitoring.
I 24 Q
So, based on FEMA guidance you interpret that as l
25 a binding requirement, the ability to monitor 100 percent ot l O l
b
46000808 18167 suewalsh rm
(,)
the EPZ within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />?
I 2
A With the exception document, the current 3
document that came torward in the Shoreham hearing, we have d
never heard anything to the contrary.
5 (Witness Papile)
I would like to otter the 6
letter trom Mr. Keller to Stewart Glass, in Paragraph 2:
I 7
raise tnis issue for two reason.
First, during the Indian 8
Point ASLB hearings I recall an NRC Commission ruling which 9
supplied that the background material which stated that 100 10 percent ot the EPZ populat2cn must be considered when f
applying the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> time trame to J.12.
12 O
Okay.
That's already in the record.
13 A
I Just wanted to bring it out.
That's a Id question you Just asked.
Up until the Krimm memorandum, Joe 15 was only relating what they were telling us.
16 O
So, you are basing your interpretation on FEMA's 17 comments to you in the past?
IB A
Or lack of comments, either one.
19 Q
Okay.
20 MR. CUMMING:
Judge Margalles, I note for the 21 record that FEMA intends to-have its witnesses authenticate 22 that document and reenter it as-a FEMA exhib2 t.
l 23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
You dropped your voice, and I 24 didn't hear you, Mr. Cumming.
25 MR. CUMMING:
FEMA Intends to authenticate that, II V
1 l
46000808 18168 suewalsh I
have its witnesses authenticate the document Just ref erred 2
to by General Pap 11e, and enter it as an exhibit.
3 WITNESS PAPILE:
I believe the attorney said it 4
was already in the record.
5 MR. CHRISTMAN:
It's an attachment --
I 6
MR. McMURRAY:
There is no question pending.
7 WITNESS PAPILE:
Oh, okay.
8 MR. CHRISTMAN:
It's Just procedural stutt..
9 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) l 1
10 Q
On Page 19 ot your testimony, you say that a 11 driver of a car who is arriving at a reception center may 12 have been indoors during the passage of the plume, the 13 radioactive plume, while the passengers were outdoors.
14 The driver would have to go outdoors to.get in 15 his car unless he had an attached garage, wouldn't he?
i 16 A
(Witness Czech)
That's true.
j l
17 Q
Let's suppose that the driver were inside his 18 house and the car were in an attached garage, all closed up, 19 but the rest of the family were outside when the plume 20 passed, so you've now got the wife and two or three kids 21 contaminated, the driver in the car clean, okay?
They all i
l 22 climb in the car and drive to the reception center.
23 The car now has to drive over the same ground 24 that the plume passed over to get to the reception center, 25 doesn't it?
O l
46000808 18169 suewalsh I
A That's true.
2 O
Wouldn't the wheel well likely get contaminated 3
during that passage?
d A
Possibly.
5 Q
General Papile, you say on Page 9 of your l
6 testimony that during the 1979 accident at TMI some people 7
appeared at the Albany Medical Center and requested to be 8
monitored even though they were 250 miles or more from TMI.
9 How many of those people were there, do you know?
10 A
(Witness Papile)
Larry can explain that.
Larry II is the one who made that, and I would deter to him.
12 Q
Okay, Mr. Czech.
13 A
(Witness Czech)
I don't know the actual Id numbers.
They were few in numbers, but there were some that l
15 did appear at Albany Medical requesting monitoring.
16 Q
Few in number.
Can you give me ball park, 10 or
'l iever?
18 A
Less than 10.
1 19 Q
Less than 107 okay.
Some of those people had 20 been in the TMI area and then travelled to Albany, hadn't i
21 they?
I i
22 A
To the best of my recollection, they were not in 23 the immediate TMI area.
I 24 Q
Did you ask any of them whether they had been I
25 south, say, in Pennsylvania?
.l 0
l
)
46000808 18170 suewalsh 1
A I did not, because I didn't do the monitoring.
2 I was Just -- I Just received a phone call trom the 3
Radiation Satety Otticer from Albany Medical who related the 4
particular experience.
I also did 11nd out that as a 5
service the hospital Just decided to go ahead and check the 6
people since they were so Concerned.
7 Q
But, he didn't tell you where those people had 8
been before they came in for monitoring?
9 A
Other than they weren't in the immediate Three 10 Mlle Island, I don't -- it he had told me, this was so many II years ago I can't remember now.
12 O
But, he told you they had not been in the 13 1mmediate Three Mlle Island area?
O 14 A
That's true.
15 O
Do any oi you know whether an analysis of the 16 roads leading to reception centers has been done by the 17 State at other plants than Shoreham?
18 (The witnesses are conterring.)
l l
19 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
I can't rement er.
Way back in 20 the beginning of our operation back in '81 and
'82, we did l
21 have some DO people working with us but specifically on that 22 1ssue I can't remember.
23 Q
None ot you knows of any traitic analysis?
Are j
24 you tamiliar with the State's DOT people's testimony in this 25 proceeding?
I) i
46000808 18171 suewalsh f,h I
A Yes, I am.
2 (Witness Baranski)
I'm aware of their 3
testimony.
d O
Have you looked at it?
5 A
No, sir, I've not.
6 (Witness Paplie)
I have.
i 7
Q You have not?
8 A
I have.
i Q
You have?
Are you aware of any similar analysis l
9
)
10 of that detail tor any other recept. ion center in the State?
II A
As I've stated beiore, I can't remember but I do 12 know we had some DOT people involved with us in the 13 beginning of this operation back in '81 and
'82.
O Id But, I was not privy to that information.
It 15 may well have-been -- they may well have done it, but I 16 don't remember.
I7 Q
But you've never seen one, an analysis?
18 A
No, I would not have seen one either.
19 O
Have plans been made at plants other than 20 Shoreham to monitor people outside the 10-mile EPZ who might 21 want to be monitored?
22 A
(Witness Czech)
I don't think the plans 23 spec 112ca11y say where the people come from.
It they come 24 to a reception center, they would be attorded the 25 opportunity.
So, it wouldn't matter it they were within the o
46000808 18172 suewalsh I
EPZ or somewhere outside.
2 Q
How tar is the Shoreham plant from the Indian 3
Point plant?
Do you know roughly?
d A
(Witness Pap 11e)
Indian Point?
5 Q
Yes, the distance between the two?
6 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is this road miles or air 7
miles?
8 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Either.
9 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 10 Q
You can gave both it --
II (The witnesses are conterring.)
12 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
It's got to be over 100 miles, 13 road miles, over the bridges and everything.
O 14 O
A hundred roughly?
15 A
As the crow flies.
I would say 60 miles by air 16 probably, maybe a little more.
17 Q
Mr. Czech, you and Mr. Davidoti test 111ed in the IB Indian Point proceeding on emergency planning, didn't you?
19 A
(Witness Czech)
Yes, I did.
20 Q
1)o you recall submitting written testimony 21 called " Supplemental Testimony" in that proceeding?
It the 22 date will help, it was February 21, 1983.
23 A
No, I don't remember.
There have been so many 24 documents prepared since that time.
25 Q
I will show you the document.
I only have the 9
46000808-18173 suewalsh r
l k,y I
/
one copy, 'but I will pass it to your counsel.
2 7.m interested in what's labeled-3.2.
I think 3
that was the questioning you were addressing.
d MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
May I have about a minute to j
5 read it?
6 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes.
J 7
(Mr. Zahnleuter is looking at the document and P
lt is then passed to the witnesses.)
1
)
9 WITNESS CZECH:
I still don't remember it, but 10 it you say that was part of our testimony --
j l
II BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing) 12 O
You did say you recalled illing supplemental 13 testimony?
Id A
No, I didn't say I recalled.
15 Q
Oh, you don't recall --
i 16 A
I remember testliylng, but I don't remember 37 filing either additional or supplemental testimony.
IB Q
Well, that is a copy of your supplemental 19 testimony from the NRC's public document room.
You have no 20 recollection whatsoever of that testimony?
l 21 A
Not at this time.
22 O
And, reading it doesn't retresh your memory?
23 A
Not particularly.
l 24 Q
Well, let me ask it you agree with it?
And, so 25 at's in context, I think you were addressing a question l
l l
46000808 18174 suewalsh I
whether the emergency plans for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 2
do not conform with NRC/ FEMA guidelines because the 3
assumptions made therein with respect to human response 4
factors during a' radiological emergency are erroneous, hence 5
the estimates of evacuation t2mes and the feasibility of 6
timely evacuation for certain areas are incorrect.
7 Now, the answer to that after two initial 1
1 l
8 sentences is:
The response of emergency workers and the 9
public during the accident at the G1nna Nuclear Power Plant 10 on January 25th, 1982 was excellent.
Workers manned their f
13 posts, including positions near the plant.
The public 12 exhibited no panic.
The plan worked.
We recognize that 13 evacuation was neither called for nor necessary at G1nna and O
14 that the Indian Point emergency planning zone is more 15 densely populated than the G1nna zone, that human response 16 at Ginna was as assumed when the radiological emergency 17 preparedness plan was developed.
IB Now, can you -- are you in a position to agree 19 or disagree with that statement from your earlier testimony?
20 A
With the answer.
I agree with that answer.
21 That's a clear characterization.
22 What I'm having problems with is the particular 23 contention or question, because that seems to be out of l
24 context with a whole series 01 questions.
I'm not quite so 25 sure at this stage of the game what human response tactors O
1
l 1
46000808 18175 l
suewalsh i
p
(_)
I and so on are referred to here.
I would have to go back and 2
really look at the whole testimony.
l 3
But, the answer that you are quoting as tar as d
the performance of the licensee, the county and the state 1
5 was quite good.
And, as a matter of tact it happened a few i
j 6
days after we ran an exercise.
7 O
How about members of the public?
Was their 8
response good?
9 A
The public's response was good.
10 Q
By which you mean what?
II A
Well, there was very good media coverage.
There 12 I
was very good EBS messages telling the public what was going 13 on, keeping the public informed so that the public responded i
Id very well.
15 There was no type of panic or waiting for the --
16 I believe that they felt that the otticials in charge were 17 on top of the matter and responded appropriately.
I8 l
Q This G1nna plant at this time had an emergency l
l plan that had been put together pursuant to the post-TMI l
19 1
20 emergency planning guidelines?
21 A
That's correct.
22 Q
Mr. Czech, I'm not sure I understood tully.
I 23 asked you a question about two questions ago.
I asked you I
24 whether these other plants in New York State other than 25 Shoreham planned to monitor people outside the 10-mile EPZ, I
T;t)
__________________________a
l 46000808 18176 suewalsh I
and you said they don't distinguish between the people 2
inside and outside.
They monitor whoever show up, I take 3
it.
d But, in determining the numbers that they are 5
planning f or, do they take into account the population 6
outside the 10-m11e EPZ?
7 A
No.
They don't take into account the population 8
outside the EPZ.
9 Q
Did you-all meet witn Sutiolk County counsel 10 yesterday?
11 A
Yes, as well as with our counsel.
12 Q
With your counsel and with the Suttolk County 13 counsel together?
O Id A
Yes.
15 Q
Did you talk about this testimony you were going l
j 16 to give today?
l 17 A
That's true.
l IB (Witness Pap 11e)
Yes, we did.
19 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Just a minute, Judge.
20 (Pause.)
i 21 MR. CHRISTMAN:
No further questions of this 22 panel.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It's now 12:04.
Do the 24 parties wish to recess at this time for lunch?
i 25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes, that will be 11ne.
l l
l l
E
46000808 18177 suewalsh 1
- d MR. McMURRAY:
Yes, Judge Margulies.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will recess until 1:30.
3 (Whereupon, the hearing is recessed at 12:04 d
p.m.,
to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.,
this came day.)
5 l
6 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0
l
164600909 18178 marysimons I
AFTERNOON SESSION 2
(1:30 p.m.)
3 Whereupon, 4
JAMES C.
BARANSKI 5
JAMES D.
PAPILE 6
and 7
LAWRENCE B.
CZECH 8
were recalled as a panel ot witnesses on behalt ot the State 9
ot New York and, having been previously duly sworn, were 10 turther examined and testitled as tollows:
II JUDGE MARGULIES:
Please come to order.
12 You may proceed, Mr. McMurray.
13 CROSS-EXAMINATION O
14 BY MR. McMURRAY:
15 Q
Mr. Czech, this morning Mr. Christman asked you 16 some questions regarding the population around the Indian l
17 Point plant.
Do you recall that?
l 18 A
(Witness Czech)
Yes, I do.
I l
19 Q
And you also recall some questions regarding the 20 number of monitors available through the tour counties and 21 the host county?
22 A
Yes, I do.
23 Q
I believe you also stated earlier that one ot 24 the bases tor your opinion regarding the need to plan for 25 monitoring a hundred percent of the EPZ population is a RAC O
l
i 164600909 18179
)
marysimons j
rm 1
(j I
review on the Rockland County plan; 1s that correct?
2 A
That's correct.
3 MR. McMURRAY:
At this time I would like to show d
you a document which is a three-page document, the first 5
page ot which is a letter to Mr. Pap 11e on FEMA letterhead 6
dated the 2nd ot October 1986, and I would like to have this 7
document marked as Suttolk County Exhibit 17 tor 8
1dentitication.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
10 (The document reterred to was II marked Suttolk County Exhibit 12 No. 17 tor Identification.)
l 13 BY MR. McMURRAY:
Id Q
Mr. Czech, do you have Suttolk County Exhibit 15 No. 17 in tront ot you?
16 A
(Witness Czech)
Yes, I do.
Q Let me reter you to the tirst page 01 this 18 document.
What is this letter?
19 A
It's a letter ot transmittal trom the Chairman 20 ot the Regional Assistance Committee 01 Region II to New 21 York State addressed to Mr. Paplie, Director of the 22 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group providing the plan 23 review comments by RAC tor the counties in the Indian Point 24 emergency planning zone.
25 Q
Have you seen this document before?
E7 U
164600909 18180 marysimons l
(h 1
g,f A
Yes, I have.
2 Q
And was it received by REPG is the normal course 3
of its business?
d A
Yes, it was.
5 Q
Who is Ihor Husar?
6 A
Mr. Husar is presently the Chelrman of the 7
Regional Assistance Committee.
He is also a FEMA statt 8
person.
9 Q
Thank you.
Let's go to the second page of this 10 document.
Can you tell me what the second and third pages Il are of this document?
l 12 A
The second and third pages are extracts ot the 13 total document relating specifically to comments on the l
l 14 Rockland County plan and specifically on NUREG 0654, FEMA 15 REP 1 Elements J.12 and K.3.a and K.3.b.
16 Q
Let's Just concentrate on Element J.12.
Is the 17 tormat laid out here typical tor RAC comments?
l IB A
This is the newer style RAC comments; that's 19 correct.
l 20 Q
And I take it you have seen these comments 21 betore?
22 A
Yes, I have.
I 23 Q
Now the first column says NUREG 0654 Elements, 24 and underneath that is J.12.
It's your understanding 25 therefore that the comments deal with Item J.12; la that O
i I
l
\\
i l
I 164600909 18181
)
marysimons
)
I correct?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
Now the second column is headed RAC Comments and d
Recommendations.
What is your understanding of that column?
5 A
Basically that's a review process ot a County
{
I 6
and/or State plan.
The RAC will make a determination as to 7
the adequacy of the planning material to see 11 in tact it a
meets the criteria within 0654, and specifically this one 9
reters to J.12 regarding the monitoring of evacuees at to relocation centers.
II O
The third column says Adequate / Inadequate with a 12 paren (A) and a paren (I) after those words respectively, j
l 13 What is that column supposed to indicate?
7-q i )
Id
~~"
A That retlects the RAC teeling as to how the plan 15 material that was submitted meets the planning standards.
l 1
16 In this particular case in Item J.12 in the Rockland County I7 plan as of this revision Item J.12 was iound to be I8 Inadequate.
19 Q
Now I take it that Item J.12 was in part 20 determined to be inadequate because the plan didn't set out 21 enough monitors and equipment to monitor the portions of the 22 general public who would be arriving at reception centers, l
l 23 c orrec t?
l l
24 A
That's correct.
25 O
Let me refer you to the second paragraph.
The l
u].
E' 1
l 164600909 18182 l
marysimons I
second paragraph states it monitoring of all residents and 2
transients can be completed in'a 12-hour period, and I take 3
there has been a reterence to the plan, using the population d
tigures trom page C-1 of 107325 and reducing this amount by 5
those in ERP's 38 through 41 who will report to the Orange 6
County Reception Centers, one-arrives at a tigure of 107095 7
potential evacuees plus any transients.
I 8
Do you see that?
9 A
Yes, I do.
10 0
And tollow that it says assuming 1.5 minutes per Il evacuee for monitoring in excess of 233 monitors would be 12 needed to meet the statement in the plan.
13 Do you see that?
O 14 A
Yes, I do.
15 Q
And is that the basis for your statement that 1
16 FEMA RAC comments have led you to believe that 100 percent l
17 of monitoring capability was the planning requirement?
18 A
That detinitely is one of the bases and of l
19 course it is probably one of the more current items that we 20 have trom FEMA which spells out specifically the total l
l 21 population within the EPZ tor monitoring plus transients.
22 Q
And it's fair to say from looking at this 23 paragraph, isn't it, that FEMA was taking the population of 24 Rockland County and reducing it by those who would go to 25 Orange County Reception Centers and then dividing into that O
164600909 18183 marysimons j
l the 1.5 minutes per evacuee and coming up with 233 monitors; 2
is that correct.
3 MR. CHRISTMAN: I ob]ect.
I'm not sure whether d
the question is what FEMA had in mind or what one can 5
reasonably anter from a document.
In the tormer case it's 6
the sort of hearsay that I had stricken over my ob]ection 7
this morning.
On the latter case we don't need the expert 8
testimony to answer the question.
q 9
MR. McMURRAY:
The question is how he 10 interpreted it.
He's saying that his Interpretation is part l'
of the basis for his opinion.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The question will stand.
13 You may answer.
O Id WITNESS CZECH:
May I hear the question again, 15 please.
16 BY MR. McMURRAY:
17 Q
Is it fair to say that the procedure that was IB gone through here was to take the total population of 19 Rockland County, reduce it by a certain amount of those 20 people going to Orange County and then take the remainder 21 and divide into that the amount of time to monitor one 22 evacuee and coming up with the number of monitors required 23 to monitor the entirety of the population of Rockland County 24 in the EPZ?
25 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Objection.
I think the question a
164600909 18184 marysimons I
changed to is it fair to say that rather than what was his 2
opinion or what the basis for his statement was.
It the 3
question has changed ---
4 MR. McMURRAY:
It's how he interprets it.
He 5
can interpret this.
6 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, the question was is it fair 7
to say.
If you are rephrasing the question to say how he B
interprets something, I believe that is covered by the 9
Board's ruling.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Counsel clarliled his Il question, an as clarliled you may answer.
12 WITNESS CZECH:
I would make one comment, that 13 the population they are talking about is not the entire 14 population in Rockland County, but it's the population of 15 Rockland County within the EPZ minus a small amount in 16 basically park areas and one northern Rockland area that 17 does go to Orange County; that's correct.
18 BY MR. McMURRAY:
19 O
So given your clarification, that's a tair 20 interpretation?
21 A
(Witness Czech)
That's a fair interpretation.
22 O
And that's how you interpreted it, correct?
23 A
That's right.
24 Q
Were you ever led to believe by FEMA that a 25 d111erent interpretation should have been applied to this l
1 i
l 164600909 18185 l
marysimons I
paragraph?
2 MR. CHRISTMAN: Objection, hearsay.
3 MR. McMURRAY:
At the time this comment was made 4
were you told by FEMA that there should be a different 5
interpretation of this comment?
MR. CHRISTMAN: Objection, hearsay.
l 6
t MR. McMURRAY:
I'll withdraw the question.
)
7 l
l 8
At this time I would like to move into evidence 9
Suttolk County Exhibit 17.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Any ob ection?
J II l
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No ob ection.
J 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: No objection.
1 13 MR. BACHMANN:
No ob ection.
J Id MR. CUMMING:
No objection.
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It's admitted into evidence as 1
Suttolk County's Exhibit No. 17.
l 16 I7 (Suttolk County Exhibit h
No. 17, previously marked for 19 2dentlilcation, was admitted 20 into evidence.)
21 BY MR. McMURRAY:
22 Q
Let me reter you, gentlemen, to LILCO Exhibit 23 23, which is a letter from J.
R.
D111enback who I believe we 24 have established that he is in REPG, correct?
25 A
(Witness Papale)
Yes, sir.
c:=
v l
t i
]
I 164600909 18186 marysimons 1
A (WJtness Czech)
Yes, sir.
2 A
(Witness Baranski)
That's correct.
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
LILCO Exhibit 23 1s in 4
evidence, yes.
l 5
BY MR. McMURRAY:
{
6 Q
Mr. Baranski,'let me reter this question to you.
)
7 Let me reter you to the second page of this 1
8 exhibit.
Do you have that in tront of you?
9 A
(Witness Baranski)
Yes, sir, I do.
10 Q
Under the heading " Maximum Expected" do you
'l recall some questions trom Mr. Christman this morning 12 regarding that paragraph?
13 A
Yes, I do.
O 14 Q
Do you agree with that paragraph?
15 A
No, I do not.
16 MR. CHRISTMAN: Ob]ection, asked and answered 17 this morning.
18 MR. McMURRAY:
That's an introductory question 1
l 19 that I think we want to get it.
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It was also asked and answered l
l 21 this atternoon.
22 (Laughter.)
23 BY MR. McMURRAY:
24 Q
Can you explain why, please?
2'J A
(Witness Baranski)
I would like to start with
)
I h
1
1 l
l 164600909 18187 marysimons n
(,/
the second part of that, or the second paragraph that starts I
2 ou t "Should there be a radioactive release and the 3
population tears decontamination."
That in itselt I think d
was erroneous.
I don't think there is any tear associated 5
with cl aning oneself.
I think the problem which she meant 6
to say, or I'm only assuming she meant to say there was a 7
problem with one becoming contaminated.
8 So that in itselt is a contusing part ot this 9
letter.
10 The second part is the number related to the 30 I
II l
percent.
I think this was a good talth ettort on her part 12 to attempt to provide guidance to her county as the liaison, 13 but it certainly was not State policy because it was never j
Id printed or published or provided to the rest of the 15 countries as State policy.
16 So those two areas are of concern.
I7 Q
Mr. Czech, do you disagree with that?
I8 A
(Witness Czech)
No, I don't disagree, and the 19 other part that I might add is that I think myself from the 20 reading that I teel there is perhaps some contusion of 21 whether she was talking about reception or mixing up the l
22 question of how many people would actually seek housing and l
23 shelter in the event, which was a number that we are using
)
24 of about 20 to 30 percent, using it to 30 percent.
l l
25 Q
Mr. Papile, do you disagree with what either Mr.
l P75 b
s./
i 164600909 18188 marysimons 1
Baranski or Mr. Czech said?
2 A
(Witness Papile)
I don't disagree.
3 Q
Do you have anything more to add?
4 A
No.
5 Q
Mr. Czech, there has been some question in prior 6
testimony regarding whether people are monitored in cars in 7
any other plant in New York State.
l 1
i 8
To you knowledge, does the Orange County plan 9
call for people to be monitored in their cars?
10 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I'm going to ob]ect to this on I
il the grounds that this is improper supplementing of the 12 State's and County's case, that this line of questioning was 13 probably developed in consultation with the witnesses and we 14 are now in an area ot abuse or cross-examination by Suttolk 15 County.
16 Moreover, it we apply the standards that I think 1
17 should be applied, this is not within the scope of the cross-18 exam 2 nation and it should be.
19 MR. McMURRAY:
Well, for one thing, I'm 20 conducting cross-examination and I don' t have to stay within 21 the scope of Mr. Christman's cross-examination.
I 22 For another, these gentlemen do discuss in their i
23 testimony whether mon 2toring is proper in their cars, and i
24 there has been a lot ot discussion about what goes on in 25 other plants.
I'm entitled to ask these gentlemen whether O
l
164600909 18189 marysimons I
monitoring is done in cars in any other plant.
2 No. 3, I think the Board should be aware that
)
7
~
the intorniation that these witnesses are going to give is d
that there is not monitoring done in cars in any other plant l
and the Board should be aware of that because there has been l
5 I
6 I
some misaniornation provided to the Board.
j 7
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Do you wish to withdraw your l
8 objection?
l 9
l MR. CHRISTMAN:
01 course not.
The argument 10 still stands.
You know wnat I'm talking about.
I'm talking l
f II about my motion to limit cross-examination which the Board f
12 said I could renew in the case of abuse, and I think we are 13 now having abuse.
(5,>
'~^
Id JUDGE MARGULIES:
Does the statt wish to be 15 heard?
i 16 MR. CUMMING:
I would Just make a briet comment, I7 that it appears that Mr. McMurray is in a way testliying.
IB In fact, there are plans in which monitoring 1s done in l
l 19 cars.
They don't happen to be in New York State.
I think 20 the clar111 cation could be brought out on the record.
2I MR. McMURRAY:
I can't agree with what Mr.
22 Cumming said.
I said no such thing, but I'm not going to 23 quibble with him.
24 MR. CUMMING:
You stated for the record that 25 there was no monitoring in cars in any other plant, Mr.
l p_q 1
v l
j l
164600909 18190 marysimons 1
McMurray.
2 MR. McMURRAY:
In New York State.
3 MR. CUMMING:
Thank you tor that clarification.
4 MR. BACHMANN:
The statt has no other comment to 5
- make, 6
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Ob]ection overruled.
You may 7
answer the quest 3on.
8 WITNESS CZECH:
The question I believe was on 9
Orange County?
10 MR. McMURRAY:
Orange County.
11 WITNESS CZECH:
One ot my functions or 12 activities right now is I also act as the Orange County 13 liaison for REPG.
I am tairly well tamiliar with the Orange 14 County plans and there are no plans in Orange County for 15 monitoring personnel in their cars.
16 Either the general public is reporting to a 17 reception center or emergency workers are reporting to an 18 emergency worker personnel monitoring center.
I 19 And, in addition, I can also say that I actively 20 reviewed a remediation that was done in Orange County in 21 November of last year which was evaluated by FEMA tor some 22 deficiencies both at an emergency workers personnel 23 monitoring center and at a reception center for the general 24 public and in neither case was there any attempt or any 25 setup that would lead one to believo of any monitoring of O
164600909 18191 marysimons I
people within cars.
2 Q
With respect to any other plans in New York 3
State is monitoring of the general public done in cars?
d A
No, it is not.
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr..Christman, the last ruling 6
does not preclude you trom raising that ob]ection at any i
7 tuture time.
l 8
BY MR. McMURRAY:
9 Q
Mr. daranski, I believe that you or other 10 members of the panel testitled earlier that you didn't i
II consider the Krimm Memorandum to be FEMA guidance.
Do you
]
12 recall that testimony?
13 A
(Witness Baranski)
Yes, sir, I do.
--v Id Q
Are you familiar with a document issued by FEMA 15 called " Guidance Memorandum IT-1"?
16 A
Yes, I am.
i 17 MR. McMURRAY:
At this time I would like to hand 18 out a document which is issued under FEMA letterhead dated I9 October 1, 1985 and headed "Guldance Memorandum IT-1, and I 20 would like to ask that this be marked as Suttolk County
]
21 Exhibit No. 18 tor identification.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
1 l
23 (The document referred to was 24 marked Suttolk County Exhibit l
l 25 No. 18 tor identification.)
1 q
l 1
164600909 18192 marysimons I
BY MR. McMURRAY:
2 Q
Mr. Baranski, as this Guidance Memorandum IT-1 3
that I Just mentioned to you, this Exhibit 18?
I 4
A (Witness Baranski)
I have my own copy of GM IT-5 1,
6 Q
Why don't you look at the exhibit J ust to make 7
sure that what you have is the same thing as the exhibit.
8 A
It is the same exhibit.
9 10 11 i
i2 l
13 t
14 15 l
16 l
l 17 1B l
19 20 21 22 1
23 l
2a I
25 l
,q u-
l 46001010 18193 Joewalsh r
I Q
Does REPG regularly receive guidance memorandum 2
such as IT-1 trom FEMA?
)
3 A
Witness Baranski)
Yes, we do.
d Q
In the normal course or business?
5 A
That is attarmative; we do.
l l
6 0
Okay.
So, you receive guidance memorandum IT-1 i
in the normal course ot records business, correct?
l 7
8 A
We received IT-1 in a package of operative 9
guidance memorandum in December ot
'86.
l l
10 Q
What is the purpose ot Memorandum IT-1, as you i
understand it?
i II 12 A
IT-1 sets out a hierarchy tor REPG documents 13 related to FEMA.
Level 1 documents and the regulations Id itselt, such as 44CFR350, and Level 2 documents are 15 documents such as NUREG 0654, and Level 3 documents are i
l 16 l
guidance memorandum that are provided to us to Interpret 17 various elements 01 NUREG 0654.
18 j
And Level 3 documents -- and I am quoting 19 directly trom the memorandum now, are used for -- Level 3 20 GM's are useo tor these purposes:
Number 1, to set torth 21 FEMA policies and procedures related to REPG regulations or 22 general agency policies, such as the integrated emergency 23 management Information system.
24 I am not going to continue with the rest, but 25 the Krimm memorandum did not tall in this category ot 0
46001010 18194 Joewalsh I
documents, and we have been proved other GMs to do the same 2
thing tor interpreting 0654 elements.
3 Q
Let me Just step back a second.
Guidance d
Memorandum IT-1 sets out tour levels ot documents, correct?
5 A
That is attirmative.
6 Q
Okay.
And they are set out as a hierarchy, 7
correct?
8 A
That is attirmative.
9 Q
Okay.
Is that hierarchy basically from the most 10 authoritative to the less authoritative?
II A
That is --
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I ob]ect to these questions, 13 asking this witness to anterpret what FEMA intended by this 14 FEMA guidance document.
15 MR. McMURRAY:
Again, this witness has testitled I
16 he has received in the normal course ot business the REPG.
17 He is an emergency planner.
This is the type ot document I
1 18 that he reviews.
He is permitted to interpret it.
I 19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Does the Statt wish to be I
I 20 heard?
21 MR. CUMMING:
We have no ob]ection to this being l
fl j
22 Introduced into the record.
It seems to me the text speaks 23 tor itselt.
It Mr. Baranski has some opinions that he 24 thinks he can express that are relevant, FEMA has no 25 objection.
46001010 18195 Joewalsh l
I JUDGE MARGULIES:
Ob]ection overruled.
2 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 3 Q
Was the last question answered?
4 REPORTER:
I don' t believe it was.
It is still 5
on the table.
I 6
MR. McMURRAY:
Okay.
7 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 8 Q
I think the question was:
The hierarchy runs 9
from the most authoritative to the least authoritative, 10 correct?
II A
(Witness Baranski)
In general, that is correct.
12 Q
And in general, Level 1 deals with documents 13 like the actual regulations issued by FEMA and the NRC, is O
Id that correct?
15 A
That is correct.
16 Q
And Level 2 deals with ma]or documents, such as 17 0654, correct?
18 A
That is correct.
19 Q
Level 3 pertains to guidance memoranda, correct?
20 A
That is correct.
21 Q
Let me refer you to Page 3 of this document.
In 22 the last sentence of the paragraph beginning, Level 3; do 23 you see that?
24 A
Yes, sir, I do.
25 Q
It says:
We will use the new numbering scheme IM V
i i
46001010 18196 Joewalsh I
tor Level 3 GMs, which include two alpha characters, which 2
suggests the sub]ect addressed, and the sequential number 3
for that sub]ect area, such as EX-1, is that correct?
l 4
A That is correct.
5 Q
Does the Krimm memorandum bear that numbering l
6 scheme?
7 A
No, sir, it does not.
8 Q
The next sentence says Level-3 documents are to 9
be developed in coordination with other organizations in the 10 same manner set forth for Level 1 documents, do you see l
11 that?
4 12 A
Yes, sir, I do.
l 13 MR. CHRIS7 MAN:
I ob]ect.
14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Let him ask the question.
15 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 16 Q
To your knowledge, and only to your knowledge, l
17 was that practice followed with respect to the Krlmm l
l l
18 Memorandum?
l 19 A
(Witness Baranski)
Not that I am aware of.
1 20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Don't answer it.
You'have l
21 your ob]ection?
22 MR. CHRISTMAN:
My ob]ection is the line of l
23 questions.
I don't ob]ect to having this in the record, the 24 whole memorandum.
FEMA says it is a FEMA guidance 25 memorandum, but having the witness read trom it and l
l l
l
46001010 18197 I
acknowledge that there are certain things said in it I do 2
object.
3 This question wasn't of that sort, so I think d
the ob]ection will apply to the next question, not to this 5
one.
6 No objection to this question.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES:
You may answer.
8 WITNESS BARANSKI:
Okay.
The answer that I gave 9
was that 2t did not follow the process outlined for Level 3
'O documents.
I 11 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) l I
12 O
The next paragraph, which is Level 4, you see 13
-g where it says:
Level 4 documents are used for the purpose I
)'
Id of providing cupport to specific aspects of FEMA REPG 15 programs, and may include, for typical studies, special 16 research reports and publications on other program issues l
17 and concerns.
I8 l
A (Witness Baranski)
I do see that paragraph.
l l
19 Q
And as you interpret that document, does the 20 Krimm memorandum tall under No. 4?
l l
21 A
To the best of my knowledge, it does not.
22 MR. McMURRAY:
At this time, Judge Margulies, I 23 would like to have admitted into evidence Sutiolk County 24 Exhibit 18.
25 JUDGE M ARGULIES:
Is there any objection.
kN O
46001010 18198 Joewalsh 1
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
2 MR. CHRIS7 NAN:
No ob]ection, so long as this 3
really is the current version of the FEMA guidance document d
that it purports to be, and I take it there is no dispute 4
5 about that.
6 MR. CUMMING:
I will stipulate for the record 7
that I believe it is.
l 8
JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be admitted into 9
evidence as Sutiolk County Exhibit No. 18.
10 (Above referenced document, 11 previously marked Suttolk County 12 Exhibit No. 18 tor ident111 cation, 13 is admitted into evidence.)
O 14 MR. McMURRAY:
Judge Margulies, I have no 15 further questions.
l 16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We move over to staff.
17 MR. CUMMING:
I have a number of questions.
18 CROSS EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. CUMMING:
l 20 Q
Do you still have Sutiolk County Exhibit No. 17 l
21 before you?
22 A
(Witness Czech)
Could you identliy it by what 23 it is.
2d Q
It is the letter from Ihor Husar, to Mr. James 25 Pap 11e, with Attachments dated the 2nd of October 1986.
O i
46001010 18199 I
A Yes, I do, thank you.
2 Q
Will you turn over to Page 27 of 39?
And 3
incidentally, throughout my questions this atternoon, unless d
I address them to somebody specifically, whoever has 5
knowledge may answer, or supplement.
6 The heading in the last column is State Response 7
to RAC Evaluation 2/87.
Would the state response have been 8
drafted by any ot you gentlemen, or the REPG Group?
Is that 9
what that Indicates?
10 A
No.
That actually would have been dratted II primarily by input trom Rockland County.
12 Q
And is it your understanding --
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I don't know it they have Id finished answering that question.
15 WITNESS CZECH:
One thing 1 should point out, is 16 FEMA does not deal directly with counties, so that any 17 comments that would be coming torth trom local to political IB subdivisions, would be through the State.
17 So, although it is in the State response, it 20 would be the County's comments also.
21 MR. CUMMING:
Thank you for that clarification.
22 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 23 Q
And is it your understanding that the Rockland 24 Plan requires a 100 percent monitoring of the population of 25 the EPZ?
V w___-_-____-___________________=______
l s
46001010 18200 J oewalsh 1
A (Witness Czech)
That is correct.
2 O
And is it your understanding that FEMA reviews 3
against what is called for in a plan?
4 A
(Witness Papale)
I think I contested that this 5
morning by saying we think FEMA grades against their 6
criteria, whatever that criteria 1s.
7 A
(Witness Czech)
FEMA will exercise against what 8
they see in a plan.
But as far as reviewing the plans, 9
NUREG 0654, FEMA REP 1, and any perhaps additions or changes t
i 10 to tb3t that might have come out in terms 01 guidance Il memoranda.
12 Q
General Papile said this morning that FEMA was 13 not authorized to review a plan for documenting a deficiency O
14 or an inadequacy beyond what FEMA's standard was.
Was that 15 your testimony this morning?
16 A
(Witness Papile)
That is exactly right, and I 17 still agree with that.
l 18 O
However --
I?
A Authorization may be a bad word in this case, i
i 20 but we would contest them on their authorization to do so in i
21 our deliberations with them after we get a reply.
22 So, we do sit down with the RAC and go over l
I 23 these plan comments.
That would be one of my areas of i
l
)
24 contesting a RAC comment.
j 25 Q
Given that you might contest that RAC comment,
[
1 s_-
i 2
46001010 18201 Joewalsh iy I
%)
is it the understanding of the panel that FEMA reviewed 5
2 against what is called for in the plan?
Even it you might 3
disagree as to whether it is an inadequacy or a deilciency.
A Have to review against a criteria.
The Plan I
d 5
itselt is a result of a review of the criteria which is 4
6 contained 2n 0654.
7 We have always used 0654 as our basis.
As you 8
can see, the first column of this document refers to a 9
specific criteria or an item in NUREG 0654.
10 Q
Assuming that 0654 is met, when FEMA reviews a II plan, 21 a higher standard is called for in the plan, does 12 FEMA review against the plan; yes or no.
13 A
I still don't understand -- they review against Id 0654.
If it is above the criteria 0654, what do you mean 15 review against that criteria.
16 They have already reviewed the plan against 17 their criteria in 0654.
18 Q
When FEMA reviewed the Rockland County Plan 19 discussed in Suttolk County Exhibit No. 17, did not the 20 Rockland County Plan call for 100 percent monitoring?
21 MR. McMURRAY:
Objection.
Asked and answered.
22 WITNESS PAPILE:
I don't know.
I don't know 1
23 whether it did, and I don't think it did.
I don't know.
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I will let counsel pursue this 25 line of questioning, because the record is not clear.
It 0
1 l
i 46001010 18202 Joewalsh I
may have been asked and answered, but the record is not 2
clear on this one.
3 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) l Q
Assuming it did call for 100 percent monitoring, 4
5 1s it your understanding, any member of the panel, that FEMA 1
6 did review against the Plan for Rockland County?
l 7
A (Witness Czech)
I have never heard anything l
8 from FEMA or the RAC that would have indicated prior to the 9
Shoreham hearing, that we were to plan for anything other 10 than 100 percent of the EPZ population.
11 As I said before, we have documentation.
There
)
l 12 are other FEMA comments similar to that.
The Oswego Plan 13 before that received 350 approval.
It was also stated by l
14 Mr. Keller, the FEMA consultant at the FEMA RAC Review.
We 15 have stated that before.
16 And I think this is one oi the most recent ones 17 that would indicate that in our opinion FEMA is saying:
IB Your plans should have the provision for nonitoring 100
]
19 percent of the EPZ population, and it doesn't.
20 We don't put things in our plans typically that 21 FEMA doesn't want in there.
22 O
So the record may be crystal clear, the Krimm 23 memorandum referred to this morning, do you have a copy of j
24 that in iront of you?
25 A
(Witness Papile)
I think so.
i h.____
m_-__-
---__m m___-____.-_-_
u_
46001010 18203 joewalsh ym
(,/
Q For the convenience of the Board, let me I
2 distribute a copy, even though it will be authenticated and 3
introduced tomorrow.
4 (Mr. Cumming passes out document to Board and 5
parties.)
6 MR. CUMMING:
It we could mark this as FEMA 7
Exhibit No. 2, and we will authenticate it and introduce it 8
tomorrow when our panel is here.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Just one minute.
10 (Board confers.)
II JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there a FEMA 1 in the 12 record?
13 w
MR. CUMMING:
FEMA 1 is either going to be our Id prefiled testimony, since we are merking that as an Exhibit, 15 or the RAC Review --
16 JUDGE.MARGULIES:
Well, let's take them in 17 ord er, and we will mark this as FEMA 1 tor identificatloa.
18 MR. CUMMING:
That is 11ne.
19 (Above referenced document is 20 marked FEMA Exhibit No. 1, for 21 identification.)
l 22 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 23 Q
Is this the Krimm document referred to you in l
24 your testimony, and also this morning?
25 A
(Witness Baranski)
Yes, it is.
l l
1 l
46001010 18204 Joewalsh I
Q And it is dated December 24, 19857 2
A (Witness Czech)
That is correct.
3 A
(MR. McMURRAY:
Let me Just note for the record 4
there are two addit 2onal documents attached to this.
For 5
clarity purposes, I assume counsel is referring to the 11rst 6
document?
7 MR. CUMMING:
That is correct.
I am referring 8
to the Krimm memorandum.
Mr. McMurray is correct, there is 9
an attachment which is dated October 22, 1985, from Craig 10 Wingo to Marshall Sanders, and its incoming memo referred to Il this morning by General Pap 11e, which is Mr. Keller's letter 12 to Stuart Glass, which precipitated the Krimm memorandum.
13 f_
Prior to -- or subsequent to December 24, 1985,
(-
14 are you aware of any document other than Suttolk County 15 Exhibit No. 17, which establishes the principle that 100 16 percent monitoring was required by FEMA?
17 WITNESS CZECH:
Give us a moment, please.
18 (Witnesses conterring.)
19 WITNESS CZECH:
Did you put a time date on the 20 FEMA --
21 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 22 Q
Right.
On or subsequent to December 24, 1985, 23 was any menter of the panel aware of guidance given to New 24 York State by FEMA in any form which indicated that 100 25 percent monitoring of population in the EPZ was required, b'
/~
i
46001010 18205 joewalsh
,f.
~
I other than as you have interpreted Suttolk County Exhibit 2
No. 17?
3 MR. McMURRAY:
We are excluding Suttolk County d
17 as something they can --
5 MR. CUMMING:
That is correct.
6 WITNESS CZECH:
I have some comments on Orange 7
and Putnam from '85, but I couldn't tell you right now it 8
they were before or atter.
Most likely before the date of 9
the Krimm memorandum.
10 We also have outstanding plan comments for the II tour Indian Point counties that we haven't seen, so I don't 12 know whether that is still in there, but we never had any 13 indication trom FEMA that they have changed their span on G
Id what they expected to see.
15 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 16 Q
What are the tour Indian Point countles?
I7 A
Westchester, Rockland, Orange and Putnam.
18 Q
Going on to a new area, do you have a copy ot 19 your testimony?
l l
20 A
(Witness Czec:a)
Yes.
21 Q
Despite my comment this morning, this panel is, 22 In fact, test 1 tying on behalt of New York State, is it not?
23 A
(Witness Papile)
On behalt of New York State?
24 Q
That is correct.
Not Just for the REPG 25 organization.
0
1 46001010 18206 1
A On behalt of New York State for those items that 2
REPG is responsible tor.
I am not testitying for DOT,.which 3
will testity later on next week, for instance.
I am 4
testitying for those items that we gave testimony to, for 5
those items which REPG is responsible tor.
6 Q
Do you still have LILCO Exhibit No. 2f, in tront 7
oi you?
8 A
Which 1s?
l 9
Q It says September 15th, ' M, letter on State of 10 New York, Department of Health letterhead trom Marvin II Silverman to Diana Stuber?
12 A
Yes.
Yes, I do.
13 Q
Now, you testitled this morning, General Papile, O
l 14 that REPG was not part of the Department of Health, isn't 15 that correct.
16 A
We were not.
We are part of the DPC.
17 A
(Witness Czech)
Maybe Just a couple of seconds 18 to clarity.
REPG was a group that was originally formed 19 under contract monies f rom the utilities post TMI to do 20 expanded planning.
l 21 Subsequent to that, there is tormal assessment.
22 REPG was housed within Department of Health.
Officially, we 23 were in the Division of Military Naval Attairs.
We are an 24 arm of the Disaster Preparedness Commission.
But when we 1
25 were in the Department of Health, it was located in that O
46001010 18207 I
building.
It was much better to use Department of Health 2
letterhead for example.
We got tree access to mall 3
service and so on.
d A
(Witness Papile)
I think we anticipated your 5
quest:on.
The letterhead had no significance to our l
duties.
We were given permission to use the letterhead l
6 7
because we could not get approved at that time a separate 8
letterhead from the DPC, Disaster Preparedness Commission, 9
which we have now, Disaster Preparedness Commission, a 10 little subtitle called REPG.
II At that time, to save money, to save time, to 12 l
save malling cost, we used Health Department letterhead.
1 13
,...- q,
Let me go at it another way.
l 1
^ ~ ^
Id It Just happens to be that the Chairman of the 15 Disaster Preparedness Commission is also the Health 16 Commissioner, so he gave us a leadway to use the letterhead.
I7 We report to the DPC for operations, the IB Department of Naval and Military Attairs f or pay, 19 punishment, and logistic support.
20 Q
I leave at to Mr. Zahnleuter it any New York 21 State regulation has been violated, but in my Judgment at 22 sounds like the State Organization of New York is almost as 23 complex as the Federal Government.
24 A
It is.
25 Q
Before I leave this document, this LILCO Exhibit HI O
46001010 18208 Joewalsh I
No. 25, to be absolutely clear, General Papile, you were not 2
the Director of REPG at the time this was written, is that 3
correct?
4 A
I otilclally took over as Director of REPG in 5
Noventer of 1985.
6 7
8 9
l 10 11 12 13 14 i
l I
15
{
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9
l
46001111 18209 suewalsh I
Q Now, your testimony Indicates that you teel 2
qualltled to give expert testimony on what NUREG 0654 means; 3
18 that correct?
d (The witnesses are conterring.)
5 A
(Witness PaplJe)
We are Ridding, because we 6
have otten been referred to as experts and I'm not sure we 7
are experts.
But, we will reter to -- we will answer any 8
questions that you may have on 0654 that pertains to the 9
Criterlon 0654, 10 Q
The modern ev2dentiary rule is by training, II experience or education you can be qual 111ed as an expert.
12 It's to the Board to give the appropriate weight to your 13 testimony.
'~'#
Id A
(Witness Baranski)
Thank you.
15 Q
Do you issue guidance as an orgenizat:on on 16 NUREG 0654 to counties within New York State?
I I7 A
Yes, we have.
I8 Q
Both oral and in writing?
19 A
That's attirmative.
We have.
20 0
Was any of the New York State guidance to the 21 counties turnished to Mr. Christman in response to has 22 discovery request?
23 A
I don't recall what Mr. Christman requested.
24 l
(Witness Papile)
We do not have a specitic 1
25 document called guidance memorandum.
It may be in some of b
v l
l l
l l
l
46001111 18210 suewalsh I
the letters that you have Just shown me, the one trom Mr.
j l
2 Silverman.
And, that we consider guidance but we do not 3
have an otticial document like FEMA has or an IT-1.
We Just 4
put it out in letter torm.
5 Q
Fine.
Have you ever put out a letter on the 6
requirement to monitor any portion of the population of the 7
EPZ or all of the population of the EPZ?
l 8
A Not that I know ot.
Not that we know ot.
9 Q
Since you became aware of the Krimm memorandum l
10 previously discussed and identitled by you, has New York 11 State commented back to FEMA with respect to any comments on 12 behalt of either New York State, REPG or any of the counties 13 with respect to its concern with that document?
14 A
We have not, because we were not otticially 15 notitled.
And, again I used a bad word this morning.
I 16 said threatened.
Not really threatened, but I would like to i
17 go through this little chronology with you.
18 We were discussing next year's exercise at the 19 tour counties.
That's the Indian Point counties.
At that 20 time, the RAC Chairman brought up the point that we would, 21 according to OL-5, that -- we testified in OL-5 that 100 l
l 22 percent of the EPZ, according to State policy, was to be 23 monitored, that he was. going to Judge our exercise at the 24 tour counties based on OL-5.
I told him at that time -- and 25 that would be in litigation and so torth, my remarks to him 1
l 1
46001111 18211 suewalsh I
was:
We have never received the guidance otticially.
2 He then put it in a letter to me with a bunch of 3
other stutt telling me about the ob]ectives for the exercise d
next year.
That's the only thing that we have received from 5
FEMA otilcially, is a small paragraph in the letter trom Mr.
6 Husar to myselt, on the four-County exercise wh1Ch will take 7
place in March next year.
8 We have never received a document saying this is 9
FEMA's policy and so forth other than that one paragraph.
10 And, it was included in a bunch of other comments made about II the exercise for next year.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
How is your panel otticially 13 cq notitled by FEMA?
You say you weren't otticially notitled d
Id in regard to this matter.
How are you normally nota tied 15 that you consider it Ott1Clal?
16 WITNESS PAPILE:
They would send us a guidance I7 memorandum, sir.
l 1
I3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
And, who would it be addressed i
19 to?
l 20 K1TNESS PAPILE:
To me.
We have Just changed l
21 that, too, sir.
But, up until a week ago it was me.
We l
22 have got so much contusion with this that we have agreed 23 that no guidance memorandum would come unless it's signed by l
l l
24 the District Director addressed to the Chairman of the DPC, f
l 25 mainly because of the problems we are talking about during l
I l
'\\
E
I l
46001111 18212 suewalsh l
I this hearing, sir.
2 But, up until this time it came to me trom the 3
RAC Chairman, sir.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES:
And, how long was that policy 5
in ettect?
6 WITNESS PAPILE:
It was supposed to be in ettect 7
right along, but we clarltled it last December at a meeting 8
in Washington, D.C.
with FEMA, at that time with Mr.
l 9
Wilkerson and Mr. Podolak, NRC and FEMA representatives, 10 that in the future we would have the opportunity not only to Il receive them but to review them as it so states in the 12 paragraph in the letter in IT-1, sir.
l 13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you.
l 14 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 15 Q
Since you discussed that meeting, were there any l
16 utilities present at that meeting?
17 A
All ut111tles were there.
18 Q
And, were some of them equally surprised at the I?
existence of certain documents?
20 A
I didn't hear your quest;on.
I'm sorry.
21 Q
Were there some utilities who were not familiar 22 with the GMs that expressed that at the meeting, that they l
23 also wanted to comment?
24 A
I can't speak for them.
None stood up and 25 gasped that they were surprised, no.
None that I know of,
/^T Y
l
i i,
46001111 18213 suewalsh I
but I can't speak for them.
There were no comments made at 2
the meeting that they were surprised, no.
3 Q
Since you have not responded in writing to FEMA d
based on the Krimm memorandum, is it your opinion that your 5
testimony before the OL-5 and the OL-3 proceeding is, in 6
tact, the New York State statement of policy on what 7
percentage of the EPZ population must be monitored?
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I ob]ect, because I'm contused
)
9 by the question, especially the lead-in phrase about since 10 you have not responded in writing to the Krimm memorandum.
l II I don't understand what that means.
i 12 MR. CUMMING:
Well, he test 111ed that since he j
13 knew ot its existence there had been nothing tiled with FEMA Id with respect -- giving New York State's concern as to what 15 was in the Krimm memorandum.
1 16 And, all I'm asking -- and another way to ask it I7 18, in tact, can we interpret your concerns as based on your 18 testimony in the OL-3/OL-5 that it is New York State policy 19 that 100 percent of the population of the EPZ must be 20 monitored.
21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I ob]ect to the form of this 22 question.
It the purpose is to find out whether FEMA can 23 interpret the State's view one way or another, I think the l
l 24 question should be phrased in a format so that the witness' 25 knowledge can be stated, not so that FEMA can understand 0
46001111 18214 suewalsh I
what the State's position is trom an interpretation point of 1
2 V2ew.
3 MR. CWiMING:
Well, we have had some conflicting 4
testimony this morning trom the panel, Judge Margulies.
5 And, once we have established what the policy is then we can 6
get into what the basis ot the policy 1s.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Why don't you ask it directly?
8 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) t Q
The State policy is that 100 percent of the l
9 l
10 population of the EPZ must be monitored.
What is the 1
i l
Il panel's understanding of the basis of that policy?
12 Is it Judgment?
Is it research?
13 MR. McMURRAY:
Ob;ection.
It's in the f-+]
14 witnesses' testimony.
They have stated their basis.
- And, 15 it he's asking whether there is additional basis that's i6 tine.
But, the basis is laid out in their testimony.
I7 I don't see where this is getting us anywhere.
18 MR. CUMMING:
I would disagree, Judge 19 Margulies.
There is no basis for the 100 percent figure 20 which is stated as State policy in their testimony.
- And, 21 FEMA believing that it is truly a health and safety matter, 22 FEMA believes that it should have the benefit of New York 23 State's understanding on this matter.
24 MR. McMURRAY:
I will direct the Board to Pages 25 7 through 10 of the State's testimony where I think the bo
1 46001111 18215 suewalsh I
bases are laid out.
It Mr. Cumming wants to go through 2
those pages and ask about them specifically or ask whether i
3 there are additional bases, he's entitled to do that.
d But, to ask these witnesses to J ust state again 5
what's already in their testimony is a waste of time.
6 MR. CUMMING:
Did you say Pages 7 through 11?
7 JUDGE MARGULIES:
7 through 10.
8 MR. McMURRAY:
I think I said 7 through 10.
I 9
guess it does go over into 11 a little bit.
Please explain I0 the reasons for your opinion, and they go on for -- through II Page 10.
12 MR. CUMMING:
It counsel wishes to rely on Pages 13 7 to 11 I have no objection.
May I restate the question?
, ~7
)
(#
I4 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 15 Q
Does the panel have any additional basis to 16 support the New York State policy that 100 percent ot the I7 population of the EPZ must be monitoreu?
j I3 A
(Witness Papile)
I think our testimony clearly I9 states that the 100 percent is for planning guidance.
- And, 20 I think that's an important issue that we must keep 21 reiterating, because FEMA keeps saying 100 percent total 22 population.
We are saying 100 percent planning guidance.
23 And, I think that's an important issue.
24 Q
I'm going to come back to this, but let me go on.
Does New York State verity in any way that the 25 P'9 ij t
46001111 18216 suewalsh I
resources for 100 percent monitoring to tultill the New York 2
State policy are actually available?
l 3
(The witnesses are conterring.)
4 A
We request the counties to send us information 5
on their resources list and whether it's sutticient or not.
6 Q
Now, you mentioned this morning a letter l
7 t ransmi tt ed to FEMA which indicated for each of the counties I
8 the resources that would, in tact, provide 100 percent l
9 monitoring of the population of the EPZ.
10 Could you describe that letter in turther 11 j
detall, it's date, who it was addressed from, who it was l
l 12 addressed to, when it --
13 A
(Witness Czech)
I don't believe you l
14 characterized my testimony very well.
I said this was 15 information extracted trom material developed by the various l
16 county emergency management ott1Ces, submitted to FEMA as 17 part of an annual requirement, and that was information 18 served through those counties.
It wasn't a spec 1 tic 19 letter.
It was actually torms trom each of these counties 20 and then torwarded to FEMA as part of a FEMA requirement.
21 Q
You are suggesting that data was on the most 22 recent annual certification --
23 A
March 31st.
24 Q
Annual certification?
25 A
March 31st, 1987.
Oh, not in a certification O
)
\\
i
46001111 18217 suewalsh s,
I
(_)
letter, no.
This was part of FEMA's other programs for 2
looking at probably financial support for the countJ es.
I 3
don't know what the actual intent was.
It was an annual requirement for the status of the various programs within 5
the counties.
6 Q
Unrelated to the radiological emergency 7
preparedness program?
8 A
Unrelated directly, that's correct.
And, I also l
9 didn't say this morning that there was sutticient resources 10 tor 100 percent capability, particularly in the Indian Point II area.
We've said that, and the FEMA comments also indicate 12 that we don't have the resources in terms of personnel for 13 monitoring 100 percent of the EPZ and the Indian Point area l
Id l
at this time.
1 15 Q
Does New York State stand behind that submission 16 that was made, or did New York State actually prepare and I7 conso]1date that material that was submitted to FEMA you I8 Just described?
19 l
A That's through the State Emergency Management l
20 Ottice.
I really can't characterize how that's transmitted.
21 Q
Well, once again we are relying on material 22 prepared by another arm of New York State, but I believe it 1
23 will be he]ptul to FEMA as well as to the parties in this to 24 have a copy of that document furnished to the Board so it 25 could understand it, and I would request that.
O
46001111 18218 suewalsh 1
A
. (Witness Papile)
I must bring up, FEMA must l
2 have a copy of that report.
It it goes --
l 3
Q I don't believe it has becn described with 4
enough clarity to Indicate what that document is.
5 MR. CHRIST 14AN:
I'm pretty sure we don't have a 6
copy of it.
And, I would like to have a copy myselt.
7 WITNESS PAPILE:
My point is, li the report was 8
submitted to FEMA, FEMA should have a copy of it.
9 MR. CUMMING:
I J ust stated, General Papile, it to has not been described in enough clarity for FEMA to be able II to locate it.
So, it you could give us --
12 WITNESS CZECH:
I can give you a title.
l l
13 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing)
O 14 Q
Fine.
What is the title?
15 A
Local Radiological Protection ot Personnel
)
16 Resources as reported for FEMA Radiological Protection Data 17 Base as of March 31st, 1987.
1 18 (Witness Papile)
I think it's part of your 1
19 resources base that FEMA is trying to get in the IAAM.
20 Q
This was on a computer tormat?
21 A
(Witness Czech)
I didn't look at the tormat.
I 22 had someone else get the data for me.
23 Q
Do you still have LILCO Exhibit Number 167 24 That's the Monroe County extract.
25 (The witnesses are looking through documents.)
i
46001111 18219 suevalsh I
A (Witness Papile)
Yes, we do.
2 Q
You stated this morning that there was a later 3
revision.
What is the date of that revision?
Are you aware d
of that?
1 A
I have -- the latest revision is -- we've Just 6
submitted it.
It's our annual submission of plan changes 7
that's required by 0654, and we submitted it some time in 8
May or June.
I haven' t got the date.
9 O
Thank you.
10 A
We update all plans annually, try to.
11 12
?~
u>
u 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 l
24 1
25 l
~S,j v
l
J l
j 1
1 64601212 18220 marysimons j
i Q
Now you stated this morning, General Pap 11e, 2
that all volunteer tiremen in New York State obtained 3
j radiological preparedness training, is that correct?
I i
4 A
(Witness Papile)
I'm not sure that all of them 5
do, bu t I know a great many of them do.
I'm not sure that 6
they all do or not because there are ditterent levels of 7
volunteer tiremen.
But I do know at their center in Montauk 1
8 Falls they do give this program on radiological because it's 9
given by the people.
10 Q
Does New York State review or approve or 11 subsidize the training?
12 A
l'm not sure.
You would have to ask the State 13 Department because that comes under them.
14 Q
The New York State Department?
15 A
The New York State Department, right, or the 16 Department of State.
17 Q
And so I understand your testimony this morning, 18 and I believe Mr. Baranski and General Papile answered on 19 this, that counties have or have not told you that they 20 could meet the 100 percent standard?
21 (Witnesses conterring.)
22 A
(Witness Baransni)
The question you asked has 23 a yes and no answer.
Some counties can and some counties 24 cannot.
25 Q
My question was have they ever asked you?
O
1 64601212 18221 marysimons I
p I
V A
I think you are referring to the power pool 2
meeting in that line 01 questioning.
At that particular 3
meeting the counties wanted to know trom us what the standard was.
It was a contusing standard then and I think 5
even based on your own people's questioning ot this issues 6
of whether it was a clear-cut policy in a guidance 7
memorandum, which it was not, or otherwise the questions 8
wouldn't have arisen trom Mr. Keller to Mr. Glass and 9
throughout that whole chain.
What the counties were asking 10 ot us is what is the policy.
II Q
I believe this proceeding shows that there is 12 substantial doubt on the issue, but may I move back to your 1
1 13 testimony.
If you look at the second tuli paragraph on page Id 8.
15 The sentence reads "Nothing in Section J.12 16 suggests that a plan need only provide personnel and 17 equipment for 20 percent, 30 percent or some other traction I8 of the EPZ population."
Do you see that sentence?
l 19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
And it you look at the question and answer on l
21 the bottom ot page 11, and I will read it.
It says "Do you I
22 agree with the Krimm Memorandum and the 20 percent planning 23 basis it suggests?"
l 24 Answer "No.
First, for the reasons explained 25 above that the Krlmm Memorandum is in cont 11ct with the
' O
l I
64601212 18222 marysimons r
I plain language ot Section J-12 and the' guidance which we 2
have previous received from FEMA personnel Interpreting this 3
provision."
d That question and answer conflicts with your 5
statement, the first full sentence at the beginning of the 6
second paragraph on page 8, does it not?
7 MR. McMURRAY:
Ob]ection.
I think that 8
completely mischaracterizes this witness' testimony.
9 What Mr. Cumming is doing is extracting one 10 sentence and not going to the explanation atter that 11 sentence and then asking whether that sentence is in 12 conflict with something three pages later, and I don't think 13 that is a fair way to conduct this proceeding.
14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I'll permit the question.
I i
15 This is cross-examination and the panel knows what they have i
16
- prepared, f
l 17 WITNESS BARANSKI:
I think, Mr. Cumming, what we
]
i 18 need is an explanation trom you of why you think wo 19 disagree.
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, rather than go to an
]
21 explanation trom Mr. Cumming, why don't you come out and say 22 what you mean by the sentence.
I 23 WITNESS BARANSKI:
We do not understand why he 2d perceives this to be in disagreement.
1 3
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
That's your answer.
O
64601212 18223 marysimons I
g,)
WITNESS PAPILE:
That's it.
2 BY MR. CUMMING:
3 Q
The first sentence of the second paragraph d
indicates that there is nothing in Section J.12 which 5
suggests a percentage, and then in the question and answer 6
it Indicates that in tact there is a direct conflict because 7
Sr.;1on J.12 does suggest a percentage.
8 It that is not your testimony, would you please 9
state for the record what your testimony 1s?
10 A
(Witness Czech)
The Krimm Memorandum is the one II that discusses the percentages and not J.12.
12 A
(Witness Pr3p11e)
J.12 does not present any 13 percentages whatsoever.
It's in the Krimm Memorandum.
O 14 O
That's 11ne.
So you're saying that the Krimm 15 Memorandum with respect to its 20 percent tigure conflicts 16 with J.127 U
A (Witness Czech)
That's what we are saying.
IB Q
Would you explain why?
19 MR. McMURRAY:
The same ob]ection, Judge 20 Margulies.
The question is asked on page 11, "Do you agree 21 with the Krlmm Memorandum and the 20 percent planning basis 22 it suggests?"
23
- Answer, "No.
First," and then it goes on to the 24 second reason and then a 11nal reason.
25 Now it Mr. Cumming wants to go into these UU L
64601212 ~
18224 marysimons I
reasons and ask why these reasons are given or whether there 2
are additional reasons, I think that is proper, but to ask 3
these witnesses again to regurgitate the testimony which is d
already here on paper I don't think is the proper way to 5
proceed.
6 MR. CUMMING:
It states that the memorandum is 7
in conflict, and I'm Just asking the panel to express in 8
their own words why it is that they think that memorandum is 9
in contlict with J.12.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We do have their written Il testimony as to why they believe it's in contlict.
12 MR. CUMMING:
Fine.
I'll move on.
13 BY MR. CUMMING:
O Id Q
Do you stall have LILCO Exhibit No. 23 in 15 evidence?
It's the March 12th letter ot 1982 trom J. R.
16 D113enback.
17 A
(Witness Papile)
We have it some place, sir.
IB (Pause while the witnesses look tor the document 19 reterred to.)
20 Yes, sir.
21 Q
As I understand your testimony, and primarily 22 this is tor General Pap 11e, it was that you disagreed with 23 this letter, although you indicated that J.
R. D113enback 2d was in tact authorized to send it under Mr. Christman's 25 questioning this morning.
O 1
1
64601212 18225 I
A (Witness Pap 11e)
I have a question on the word 2
that you're using and the word is " authorized."
I don't 3
know.
I was not the Director at that time.
Mr. Davidott d
will have to answer that qucstion for you.
5 In addition, as tar as I am concerned on this 6
memorandum, and as Mr. Baranski has so well stated, there 7
are a couple of statements and areas in here that we ditter 8
with and he has brought that up in answering Mr. McMurray's 9
questions.
10 Q
Okay.
I understand that you disagree with the l
II l
memorandum now.
At the time it was written did this 12 conflict with any other guidance that you Know ot?
13 (Witnesses conterring.)
O Id A
We didn't have any guidance at that time, Mr.
15 Cumming, other than J.12.
16 Q
I thought your testimony was that New York 17 State's consistent policy has been to to require 100 percent 18 monitoring of the EPZ population?
19 (Witnesses conterring.)
20 A
(Witness Baranski)
That has always been based 21 upon the one tact that we relled on the FEMA guidance 22 provided to us in the RAC reviews.
23 Q
Your testimony this morning Indicated, General 24 Pap 11e, that New York State believes that it has the right 25 to independently analyze the requirements of NUREG 0654; 1s O
u
64601212 18226 marysimons I
that correct?
l 2
A I sa:d this morning that we could make them more 3
severe, but we could not go below the minimums that FEMA has l
4 set for us.
5 Q
Based on New York State's interpretation ---
6 A
No, based on New York State's teelings, policy 7
or whatever you want to call it.
8 O
This is a hypothetical, but should this Board 9
rule that there is a percentage of the population required to to be monitored, would New York State teel bound by that?
11 A
I can't answer that question for you.
As I 12 stated this morning, Mr. Cumming, I would send it to the 13 various agencies that have an interest in this, and that O
14 would probably be the Health Department because of the 15 sanitation rules of New York State.
I would have to go to 16 them and probably deter to those people on what they think 17 of the FEMA policy.
IB Q
Have you sent the Krimm Memorandum to any other 19 components in New York State to ack them tor their comments?
20 A
I have sent it to others and not asked for l
l 21 l
comments as yet.
I was waiting for the ruling to come out.
l 22 I have sent the Krlmm Memorandum to other agencies, yes.
l l
l 23 0
You do believe this is an urgent health and j
24 safety issue, do you not, General Papile?
25 A
Do I what?
O l
A
64601212 18227 marysimons I
Q Do you believe that the question of what 2
percentage of the population should be monitored or have the 3
capabil2ty to be monitored is an urgent health and satety d
issue?
5 A
Well, we are already complying with the 100 1
6 l
percent.
So it's not urgent to us.
What I want to do is I i
7 want to explain to the counties why we are not going along 8
with FEMA.
9 O
What is the ruling that you Just stated that you l
10 are waiting tor?
11 A
The ruling trom this is whether the Krlmm 12 Memorandum has any bearing so that I can get a guidance 4
13 memorandum out trom FEMA.
We have no memorandum, Mr.
14 Cumming, and we have no guidance.
That has no ettect on me 15 and is being addressed to Mr. McIntyre in FEMA Region II.
10 Q
You have no knowledge of wnether any counties in 17 New York State agree or disagree with the Krlzmn Memorandum, 18 any member of the panel?
19 MR. McMURRAY:
Ob ection.
I think that calls 3
l 20 tor hearsay testimony about the county's position, and that 21 type of testimony has already been kept out.
22 MR. CUMMING:
I think it's an appropriate 23 question and goes to their knowledge, their direct 24 knowledge, j
25 MR. McMURRAY:
Their knowledge about whether it 0
1 l
64601212 18228 marysimons I
has happened or not is irrelevant.
It Mr. Cumming is trying 2
to get to the truth of the matter asserted that's hearsay 3
and it's improper because county personnel could have been d
brought in to give their opinions about J.12.
5 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I think the Board ruled the 6
other day that an expert's opinion can be based on hearsay 7
and it always been the rule.
8 MR. McMURRAY:
He is not asking for an opinion 9
of what it's based on.
He has given a statement 11at out 10 and asked whether they know about it.
II (Board conterring.)
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Ob]ection sustained.
I 13 BY MR. CUMMING:
14 Q
With respect to what 7 perceive as a conflict in 15 your testimony, you've indicated that this issue came to
(
16 light with respect to New York State's administration ot REP l
17 and its technical assistance to the counties when you tound 18 out about the Krimm Memorandum, and yet you have also stated 19 that there was a 3ong-standing New York State policy with 20 respect to the 100 percent monitoring requirement.
21 Could the panel speak to or reconcile what I 22 perceive as a conflict?
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I ob]ect to the torm of that 24 question.
25 MR. McMURRAY :
I support that ob]ection.
i l
64601212 18229 marysimons I
MR. CUMMING:
I would like to know the basis.
2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I don't think it is proper to 3
have State witnesses comment on what counsel for FEMA d
perceives as a contlict.
It the question could be restated 5
to relate to testirnony or a matter in controversy in this 6
proceeding it would be much more helptul.
7 MR. CUMMING:
Let me try it this way.
8 BY MR. CUMMING:
9 Q
Given that there was a long-standing New York 10 State policy requiring a hundred percent monitoring; 1s that II correct?
12 A
(Witness Papile)
Given that there was a long-
)
13 standing New York State requirement that there be provided Id planning guidance for 100 percent monitoring.
15 O
The Krimm Memorandum when you found out about it 16 Caused you to do what?
What did you do when you found out I7 about the Krlmm Memorandum?
IB A
You really don't want to know because I got real 19 mad to find out that FEMA was sending documents out without 20 not1 tying the State of that document, and then that document j
21 being held to us as guidance because it was being used in a 22 hearing and for another fac131ty.
23 So to answer your question, I got mad and that's 24 about It for the tame being.
I did get mad.
At that time I 25 called FEMA and I asked them what right they had to put that O
t
64601212 18230 marysimons I
document out without coming to the State for comments first, 2
and at that time I also got my cohorts together and we 3
discussed it and then we gave it to counsel because we 4
didn't receive it I think it was the day betore the 5
deposition for OL-3.
It was reterred to us during OL-5 by I
6 Mr. Irwin.
We had not seen it.
7 Q
So the basis of your being mad was that you had 8
no prior notice and not that you had some other reason for 9
disagreeing with the memorandum?
10 A
Oh, no.
There is a multitude of sins and reason 11 tor it.
One was as you Just stated.
Why were they coming 12 out with a criteria that we may not agree with.
13 O
This memorandum is dated December '85.
(:)
14 State telt at was so important that it didn't bother to 15 articulate in a written document to FEMA its concerns?
16 I mean admittedly that there was no prior 17 notice, did you write a letter to FEMA saying that it 18 contlicted with New York State policy?
19 A
We discussed it with them over the phone and at 20 meetings more so because they wouldn't give us policy.
I 21 have yet to receive a policy letter other than that one 22 letter that I stated this morning trom FEMA Region II on 23 this.
24 In my consideration the Krlmm Memorandum as it's 25 written right now had no ettect until someone puts it out O
l
64601212 18231 marysimons I
with a signature on it showing to us that it's policy.
2 Q
You testitled previously that it had been 3
transmitted to you by FEMA Region II.
4 A
Exactly, and in that same time they sent me that 5
letter with that small paragraph in it.
That's when I got 6
it from FEMA.
7 (Witnesses conierring.)
8 I think he sent it with that letter as an 9
enclosure.
That was June 26th this past year.
10 MR. CUMMING:
I don't have many more questions, II Judge Margulies.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
To help me with my 13 recollection, what did that small paragraph say?
p_c
('
I4
~~
WITNESS PAPILE:
I haven't got it with me, sir, 15 but it say in the tour-county exercise preparation for next M
year, it said we' re going to Judge you against a hundred 17 percent criteria that was stated in OL-5, and it said IB because of the Shoreham testimony 19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Cumming, you started to 1
20 say something about having ---
l l
21 MR. CUMMING:
Well, I do have a few more 22 questions 11 you want to take a short recess and maybe I can 23 expedite things.
I don't care.
If you Just want to take 24 the normal afternoon recess, that's fine.
t l
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, let's take a 15-minute i(_)
.-________-__.-_-a
64601212 18232 marysimons I
recess.
2 (The mid-atternoon recess was taken trom 2:45 3
p.m.
to 3:03 p.m.)
4 5
6
-7 i
9 10 11 l
12 l
O 14 15 16 17 18 i
19 20 l
21 l
22 23 24 25
46001313 18233 Joewalsh r- -I I
(3:03 p.m. )
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Back on the record.
You may 3
continue.
4 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 5 Q
So that the record is clear, could the panel 6
tell me whether the State ot New York has notitled all 7
counties in New York State with respect to the State ot New 8
York policy requiring 100 percent monitoring ot the 9
population ot the EPZ?
l 10 A
(Witness Baranski)
The method that the counties II have received notification, or are aware ot the 100 percent 12 monitoring capability that you refer to, is through the 13 constant review ot the plans by RAC, and meeting the l
l l
Id criteria to satisfy the RAC Review comments.
15 Q
You mean that New York State's posture is that 16 when FEMA's RAC reviews the plans, that will be the I7 notification of New York State's 100 percent mon 2toring I8 requirement?
19 MR. McMURRAY:
I ob]ect to the torm of that i
20 question.
It is very unclear.
21 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 22 Q
I don't think that question is unclear at all, l
f 23 Judge Margulies.
I think it precisely retlects what I was 24 Just told.
25 l
(Witness panel conterring.)
O L
46001313 18234 j oewalsh I
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Does the panel understand the 2
question?
3 WITNESS PAPILE:
I understand the question, yes, 1
4 sir.
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
You may answer.
1 1
6 WITNESS PAPILE:
There was never a doubt in 7
anybody's mind on New York policy until the Krimm letter 8
came out.
Whether it was 100 percent, twenty percent, the 9
Krine letter was the one that did it to us, because we l
10 complied with J-12 as it is liberally stated, and there was Il no percentage even att111ated or directed toward that 12 criteria.
13 Our policy was that J-12 would be Judged by FEMA 14 and the RAC, and the plans were stated, Just 11Re Mr.
15 Baranski Just stated.
We have never published a document or 16 a sentence or a word saying that 100 percent is required.
17 We were interpreting J-12 as it is written now, 18 and we teel as thougn it they were going to change J-12, 19 they ought to change J-12, and not come up with a decision 20 on a letter, a separate letter, signed by Mr. Krimm.
21 Our policy has been that we submit our plans to 22 FEMA based upon J-12 as wri tten, and then the comments would 23 come back trom the RAC.
24 0
You understand that the Krinn memorandum does 25 exist, General Pap 11e?
en o
t
46001313 18235 Joewalsh n(j I
A In my estimation, it does not exist.
That is i
1 2
not the State talking, that is Jim Papile talking to you.
{
3 Q
So I understand your answer, it is that the q
d State of New York is relying on FEMA's RAC reviews to 5
reintorce or bring to the notice ot each county that there 6
1s a d11terence between New York State policy and FEMA on 7
what percentage of the population of the EPZ must be 8
monitored?
9 A
And I say that because the Rockland County paper 10 that you have, it hadn't been stated in our last RAC reviews i
II that there was such a thing u;,
the Krlmm memorandum.
i l
l 12 In January '86, and later in '86, In the review 13 7c of our plans that we have submitted in the last year, Id nowhere has the percentage been given of what we should do 15 in an EPZ as tar as monitoring goes.
16 And again, I say that we took it 21terally what I7 J-12 does state, and J-12 states, as we all know, that 18 residents will be monitored.
l 1
19 Q
Does any member of the panel know what l
l 20 percentage of the plan -- Rockland County's plan required 21 for the population to be monitored?
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I ob]ect to the torm ot that 23 question.
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
What is the matter with the l
25 torm?
t l
l L
46001313 18236 Joewalsh 1
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I heard does anyone know what 2
percentage of the plan deals with something, and I thought 3
that was very contusing.
4 MR. CUMMING:
Well, I will restate it.
5 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 6 Q
Does any member of the panel know what 7
percentage of the population was to be monitored under the 8
Rockland County Plan?
What was the number called for by the 9
plan?
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
May I ask tor a time trame?
Is 11 this current, or as it the time of the RAC comments.
12 MR. CUMMING:
This is at the time the Suttolk 13 County Exhibit No. 17, the RAC review occurred of the 1
14 Rockland County Plan.
15 MR. CZECH:
I guess I am having a hard time 16 understanding your question, but I can understand what you j
17 are trying to say, and what I think we have been trying to I
18 tell you is that based upon J-12, continuing guidance and 1
l 19 discourse with FEMA and RAC and FEMA consultants thrcugh the j
l 20 years, starting at '82 or '83, that the interpretation has 21 been that the plan should provide a planning basis for
]
22 having monitoring that includes personnel resources for 100 I
i l
23 percent of the EPZ population.
{
l 24 It the Rockland County Plan was to meet the FEMA 25 criterion J-12, as well as interpretation we had previously l
L__--_-___.
._______--____--______-a
l 46001313 18237
)
Joewalsh l
?"
\\
k_R) been provided, it should state that it should provide for I
2 that capability.
3 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 4 Q
That war not my question, Mr. Czech.
What 1
5 percentage of the population must be monitored under the 6
Rockland County Plan.
Do you know?
7 A
(Witness Czech)
Specifically, no.
1 8
Q Thank you.
So I also understand your testimony, 9
it is that New York State policy requires that 100 10 monitoring capability must exist for the population of the i
II EPZ, unliorm throughout New York State, is that correct?
l 12 (Witnesses conterring.)
13 A
(Witness Papile)
Will you restate the question, l
\\
l Id please?
l 1
15 Q
Is it New York State's policy, unitormly, 16 throughout the State, that 100 percent monitoring of the EPZ I7 mus t be the capabili ty ot each ottsate emergency plan?
I8 A
Well --
1 19 Q
Is your policy uniform, or is it not?
20 A
I will Just answer it again.
Just give me-21 time.
I will answer it again.
In accordance with J-12, we 22 will use J-12 as our policy.
As J-12 is stated, all is the 23 word used in J-12.
We use that as our policy.
24 It is the guidance that I will continue to use.
25 Q
Is it New York State policy unitorm, or is it i
0 i
l
46001313 18238 Joewalsh n
1 not?
U 2
A It is in compliance with J-12.
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I don't know it the witness 4
has the question.
l 5
WITNESS PAPILE:
Yes, I do sir.
l 6
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, then you are not 7
answering the question.
As you apply this policy for each 8
plan in the State.
9 WITNESS PAPILE:
Sir, we have a question on the 10 word, upolicy,' tirst of all.
100 percent policy that he 11 keeps -- that the attorney keeps reterring to, 100 policy is 2
12 the planning guidance only, and we use it because of what is 13 stated in J-12, sir.
l O
1 14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
And do you use it for each 15 plan?
16 WITNESS PAPILE:
Yes, sir.
In accordance with J-17 12.
I want to make sure, because that is really what J-12 18 says.
19 JUDGE KLINE:
You keep making a distinction l
20 l'etween tbc L.Unitoring requirement and planning guidance, I
l 21 and I am not sure I am tollowing that.
Could you clarity 22 that for me?
I 23 WITNESS PAPILE:
In our statement, we feel as 24 though in order to meet the criterla of J-12, that you may
)
25 have so many monitors on hand at that time to stop the O
1 l
l 46001313 18239 joewalsh e
'~
I operation, and then you may have a call-up ot other monitors 2
at that time, and your planning guides must then show where 3
you are going to get the other monitors from, d
It is the same thing as was stated, I think, by 5
LILCO when they brought up the tact ot INPO coming in and 6
other agencies.
We do this on a county-to-county basis.
7 JUDGE KLINE:
So, the requirement for monitoring 8
capability on hand on the day of the emergency, may not be --
9 l
WITNESS PAPILE:
We have to build it up to 100 l
10 percent, sir.
II JUDGE KLINE:
The amount of capability on hand, 12 plus the amount that you can call, must be 100 percent?
13 WITNESS PAPILE:
Must be 100 percent, yes, sir.
gmy d
14 And we say that should be so stated, sir.
15 JUDGE KLINE:
Okay.
16 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 17 Q
With the exception ot the 100 percent monitoring I8 requirement which New York State has adopted, has New York i
l 19 State adopted any other generic standards or policies with 20 respect to relocation centers?
21 A
(Witness Papale)
Not that I know ot, Mr.
22 Cumming.
23 (Witnesses conterring.)
l 24 A
(Continuing)
Mr. Baranski brought up a point 1
25 having to do with congregate care centers that do use the 0
l
46001313 18240 Joewalsh I
Red Cross criteria for the congregate care centers.
j 2
You said reception centers.
l 3
Q No, I said relocation centers.
You are aware I
d the NUREG uses the term, relocation centers?'
v l
i 5
A That is true.
In our testimony, we detined the l
l l
6 relocation center as we use it in our plans to be reception l
l
\\
l 7
centers, congregate care centers, a distinction between the l
8 two.
l 9
Q And you testitled this morning that you had l
10 ditticulty translating the term, urelocation center' into II the arrangement under the LILCO plan, is that correct?
1 1
12 A
(Witness Baranska)
I believe what we stated 13 this morning was that we have dittaculty transferring the
,ms 14
- word, relocation center' as stated in the Krlmm memorandum v
15 to our plans and our definitions for reception center and 16 congregate care.
17 O
Now, you have stated that FEMA should not review 18 any plans beyond the standards called for in NUREG 0654; 1s 19 that your testimony?
20 (The witnesses are conterring.)
21 A
(Witness Pap 11e)
What we meant to say is that 22 11 FEMA gives us a minimum or an acceptable 11gure, we go l
23 along with that acceptable figure but we can go above that 1
f 24 depending upon the State's wishes to do so.
That's what we 25 Said this morning.
(\\_/
l 3
m--__-----------
I 46001313 18241 joewalsh sq I
({)
Q You reserved the right to disagree with FEMA; 1s 2
that correct, General Papile?
l
)
3 A
We reserved the right, but again it you remember 4
to the best ot my memory that is otten the case.
It the law 5
states you are going 55 miles an hour and that's the law.
6 the county can pass a bill saying you can only go 45.
What 7
I'm saying to you, as long as we keep the minimum as 8
specitled in 0654 or as dictated by FEMA I think that the 9
plan should be acceptable.
1 10 Q
And, you have also testitled that New York State II does not verity that its requirements as expressed in its 12 policies are met under the plan?
It relles on FEMA to do 13 that.
g Nob i
Id A
The word " verity" again was not used.
Verliy l
15 has a connotation different I think trom what you take it to l
l 16 be.
What we say is that it FEMA RAC accepts our plan and 17 does not make a comment thereto, then we accept the RAC 18 decision.
19 Q
New York State never Independently veritled any 1
20 portion of the resources necessary to verity implementation l
I 21 capability ot a plan, does it?
)
l 22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I ob]ection, because these 23 questions have been asked by Mr. Cumming and answered 24 previously.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
How does that ditter, Mr.
(V
~5 i
I L-__----_----_--
l
{
46001313 18242 joewalsh I
Cumming, from your prior question in that area?
2 MR. CUMMING:
I hope to tie this in with the 3
next question.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be permitted subject l
5 to connection.
)
i 6
WITNESS PAPILE:
Could you restate your last 7
question, please?
8 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 9 Q
New York State never verities the resources l
l l
10 necessary to implement its policles with respect to ott-site l
Il emergency plans?
l i
12 (The witnesses are conterring.)
l 11 A
(Witness Baranski)
That is incorrect.
That is 14 incorrect.
15 Q
Could you tell me why it is incorrect?
j 16 A
For instance, we have veritled emergency worker i
l 17 supplies such as TLDs and dosimetry which, in my estimation, 18 talls within the bounds of your question.
19 Q
Personnel?
Do you verity personnel?
20 MR. McMURRAY:
I think we need a clarification 21 of what verification means, whether it means actually going l
22 and counting bodJ es or looking at a 31st or What?
23 MR. CUMMING:
That trained personnel exist to 24 implement New York State policy.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is this --
i L
1 l
46001313 18243
__,Joewalsh r"s 1
(;/
I WITNESS PAPILE:
Again, I'm going to bring --
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
One minute, Mr. Papile.
Is 3
this beyond -- is this looking at the people or is it d
looking at the paper?
5 MR. CUMMING:
Looking at the people.
l 6
WITNESS PAPILE:
I'm going again in saying that
{
l 7
you -- you keep insisting New York policy, and again I'm 8
saying that's the same policy as the J.12 takes.
Okay.
9 MR. CUMMING:
Thank you, General.
10 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing)
II O
Is Rockland County currently a participating 12
. community with respect to ott-site emergency preparedness?
13 A
Yes, it 2s.
14 MR. CUMMING:
I have no further questions, Judge 15 Margulies.
16 MR. BACHMANN:
Excuse me.
The Statt would like 17 to have some questions.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I'm sorry.
I thought Mr.
I 19 Cumming was taking care of that entire side.
20 MR. BACHMANN:
Well, during the course of his 21 questioning something came up.
I would ordinarily not have 22 had any.
23 CROSS EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. BACHMANN:
25 Q
Mr. Cumming asked a question earlier and I don't 0
l
46001313 18244 Joewalsh I
think it was ever specifically answered so I would like to 2
Just explore it because I want the record to be clear on 3
this point.
4 There was testimony earlier today the way I 5
understood the testimony that it is the bellet ot New York 6
State that when FEMA is reviewing an emergency plan that 7
they should go or should not be permitted to go turther than 8
insuring that the plan meets FEMA's minimum standards.
9 I think that's what I heard.
Does this mean 10 that it a county in its plan elects to hold itself to-higher i
11 standards, it is your bellet that FEMA should not look to 12 see whether or not they can implement those higher l
13 standards?
l 14 A
(Witness Papile)
It is my bellet that FEMA's 15 responsibility is to look at the standards that they have l
l 16 established in accordance with the RAC which has an NRC l
l l
D member with it.
1 l
18 It is my understanding -- and I have brought i
19 this point up before, it is my understanding that it we put 20 a requirement or, ourselt we will do the validation of that 21 requirement.
But, as tar as FEMA is concerned FEMA should i
22 look only at their criteria or change their criteria.
We 4
23 established that back eight years ago when we first 3
I 24 discussed with FEMA 0654 when it was in its dratt form.
j l
25 Those people all seem to have disappeared now.
j j
l L
46001313 18245
,,Joewalsh k,,,
But, we discussed this issue with them at that time.
- And, I
2 that was only a guesswork at it, and 0654 when it was first 3
published we had to keep in strict compliance with 0654, 4
5 1
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 a
13 pg, N
- s 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
24 25 FT U
1 l
i
46001414 18246 suewalsh 1
MR. BACHMANN:
I have no turther questions.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Redirect?
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
May I please have a tive minute 4
recess to consider redirect?
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will take a short recess.
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you very much.
7 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 3:23 p.m., to 8
reconvene at 3:32 p.m.,
this same date.)
{
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Back on the record.
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you tor giving me the few 11 minutes for a recess.
I have no redirect questions.
)
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I have about two questions, two 13 or three.
O 14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Did you have any questions?
l i
15 JUDGE SHON:
Yes.
16 BOARD EX AMINATION 17 BY JUDGE SHON:
18 Q
Gentlemen, I'm still not quite sure of the 19 distinction that you attempted to draw under Judge Kline's 20 questioning between what Mr. Cumming had been calling a 100 21 percent monitoring requirement and what you had been calling 22 a requirement to demonstrate the resources to monitor 100 23 percent.
24 Is there somehow any way that you could clarity 25 that for me?
~>
\\
l L-
i
.)
I t
46001414 18247 suewalsh f-v k
I A
(Witness Baranski)
I will try, sir.
In our 2
planning basis what we have worked with the counties tc do 3
1s, tirst ot all, by looking at the EPZ population you place d
a limit on the upper bound tor the number ot persons and at i
5 that point you try to identity the resources; that is, the 6
tacilities, the people and the equipment in the event you 7
had to put this many people through a reception center, 8
monitoring.
9 Q
And, you showed that you actually have that many 10 monitors and that many trained people who could be called II up; 1s that right?
12 A
That is partially correct.
I think that we have 13 test 111ed that in the Indian Point area we have not yet l
14 2dentitled a large enough number to handle that commitment 15 in the event we had to.
16 That is our planning basis, and that is the 37 instructions that we've been giving to the counties.
- Now, i
a I8 the basis for that guidance has been the implication trom
)
l I9 the RAC teedback that we needed to do all ot the persons in
]
20 the EPZ based on J.12.
21 Q
Now, do you still have Suttolk County Exhibit 22 177 23 A
That is the Rockland County RAC review?
24 Q
That is what it is, yes.
The number that is 25 mentioned there on the second page ot the exhibit, a page l
l l
l
46001414 18248 suewalsh I
numbered 27 ot 39, this tigure or 107,325 mentioned in the 2
second paragraph under RAC comments and recommendations --
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
-- is that the total population of the zone?.
5 A
That is the total population ot the Rockland 10-6 mile EPZ.
7 Q
That's what I understood, but I Just wanted to i
8 make absolutely sure.
l 9
A (Witness Czech)
Excuse me, Judge Shon.
That is 10 the population excluding a couple of ERPAs, emergency 11 response planning areas in our Jargon, for the smaller 12 divisions, two ot which are primarily park lands which 13 straddle or cut by the Orange and Rockland County line.
14 So, there is a -- it those ERPAs were to be 15 evacuated, those people would go through reception centers l
16 in Orange County so that that number should be diminished by 17 a small amount to take into account the Rockland residents 18 that would go to Orange County.
19 Q
Yeah, I Just wanted to make sure that this l
20 wasn't a halt or a quarter or anything like that.
21 A
It's not.
22 Q
It's not?
Lastly, I'm still a little contused i
23 as to exactly when you tound out about the content of the 24 Krlmm memorandum, the approximate date.
25 The memorandum was written, as I understand it, 1
i
46001414 18249 suewalsh n
I
(_)
in December of 1985.
How long was it betore you knew what-2 it said?
3 A
(Witness Baranski)
Approximately February '87 l
4 when we were in preparation f or our depositions for both OL-5 5 and OL-3 hearings.
6 Q
That was as I understood it.
7 A
- Yes, j
l Q
Then, it was well over a year in other words?
I 8
9 A
(Witness Papile)
Yes, sir.
10 (Witness Baranski)
That is attirmative.
II Q
Lastly, this may be an untair question to ask in 12 a sense, but as I'm sure you are aware there is well i
13 established case law on what a state can do as tar as 14 nuclear reactor safety regulation is concerned in making 15 more stringent regulations than the iederal government 16 makes.
I7 Yet, you have said that you telt you could make 18 more stringent requirements in the matter of emergency 19 planning.
I note that these are not quite exactly the same 1
20 thing, but how did you arrive at that conclusion?
21-A It is our understanding, sir, that the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission is responsible f or the "on-site" i
l 23 planning and the licensee, and that FEMA was responsible for 24 the ott-site portions of the plan.
25 Q
And, that's how you distinguish it?
\\
l
l 46001414 18250 suewalsh
)
1 A
That's attirmative.
2 JUDGE SHON:
Thank you.
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I will come back to Mr.
d Zahnleuter in terms ot asking any questions that resulted 5
trom Judge Shon's questioning, it you have anything?
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No.
No, thank you.
I don't 7
haVG any.
8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Christman.
i 9
RECROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
l k
11 Q
Anybody on the panel, Mr. Cumming asked you 12 about that D111enback letter, LILCO Exhibit 23, to the I
l 13 school otticials.
Do you remember that one?
14 A
(Witness Papile)
Is that the D111enback --
l 15 Q
The D111enback letter to the school otticials, l
16 LILCO Exhibit 23.
17 A
March 12th, yeah.
i IB Q
She was acting in her otticial capacity at REPG 19 when she wrote that letter, wasn't she?
20 A
l'm sure she was, as the liaison to Rockland 21 County, yes.
22 Q
Okay.
And, Mr. Cumming asked you I think it you 23 disagreed with that.
Is this Just a case ot a d11tering 24 professional opinion between yourselves and Mrs. D111enback?
25 (The witnesses are conterring.)
46001414 18251 suewalsh n
(_)
I A
(Witness Baranski)
Sir, the ditterence'in 2
opinion exists based upon the tact and the teedback tha t-3 we've received since then on FEMA reviews or RAC reviews of d
our plan submissions.
I think it's tair to state that 1982, 5
we were in the intancy in the program for even Indian 6
Point.
And, the teedback that we have gotten in a number ot 7
years trom FEMA has caused us to make other interpretations.
8 (Witness Papile)
It's really very untalr.
I i
9 think it's untair, because this is dated 1982.
As Mr.
10 Baranski Just stated, we have developed a lot of sort of II routines and opinions since then because of FEMA 12 requirements.
13 Q
Okay.
Mr. Cumming asked you whether the State Id verities that the various counties in New York State have 15 the monitoring personnel to meet the 100 percent planning i
guldance.
And that question wasn't answered.
l 16 1
I7 What is the answer?
I8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I ob]ect, because I ob3ected l9 betore that it was asked and answered.
l 20 MR. CHRISTMAN:
The ob]ection was overruled, and l
21 It was not answered.
A dliterent question was answered.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Just one minute.
23 (The Board members are conterring.)
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
My recollection or the Board 's 25 recollection is the same as Mr. Christman's, that although 0
l I
46001414 18252 suewalsh i
It was asked again it was never answered.
2 So, you may answer the question.
3 WITNESS CZECH:
I would say that the State has 4
,verliled as accurate records in terms of the amount ot 5
equipment that is in all the counties.
And, we know that 6
there is enough equipment out there.
In terms of actually 7
going ahead and checking the bodies, I think trom the Indian 8
Point we know from the FEMA RAC reviews that we are 9
deficient in the Indian Point area.
10 So, we have not gone out and actually Il particularly done another study and said no, we disagree I
l l
12 with FEMA on this particular score.
13 BY MR. CHRIS7EAN:
(Continuing) 14 Q
How about the other plants, other than Shoreham 1
i 15 and other than Indian Point?
Have you veritled the number 16 of personnel there?
17 A
I have not, no.
18 (Witness Papile)
No.
l 19 (Witness Czech)
I don't know whether the 20 particular liaisons for those counties would have done that.
21 Q
Do you have any means or method for doing that, 22 tor making that verlilcation, such a ver111 cation?
23 A
Ot?
Verification oi?
2d Q
The number of people.
25 A
The number of people?
Well, one way would be to O
t
l 46001414 18253 suewalsh d(n I
go to the counties for their records on who is trained and 2
available.
3 Q
But, you Just haven't done that yet?
d A
Pardon?
5 Q
You Just haven't done that yet?
i 6
A I don't have any, no.
7 Q
Nobody on the panel has?
8 A
(Witness Papile)
No.
9 MR. Cl!RISTMAN:
Thank you.
That's all I have.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. McMurray?
II MR. McMURRAY:
I have no questions, j
1 12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Cumming?
13 MR. CUMMING:
I have one question, Judge 14 Marg uli es.
15 RECROSS EX AMINATION 16 BY MR. CUMMING:
37 Q
This is for the panel.
When New York State 18 transmits plans, county plans, to FEMA is it your J udgment 39 that the State in any way represents or stands behind the 20 documentation in those plans?
21 A
(Witness Papile)
In accordance with 44 CFR 350, 22 in accordance with the letter I Just received trom Mr. Ihor 23 Husar, I am the only one that can sign oil for that plan 24 other than the Chairman of the DPC or the Governor himselt, 25 because according to 44 CFR 350 when I s2gn ott I'm ensuring 0
1
\\
46001414 18254 suewalsh
)
I that the Governor has taken the interest in the satety of 2
the public into consideration when he approves the plan and 3
sends it to FEMA.
4 We have also what we call 2.B which is our 5
Disaster Preparedness Commission requirement that we review 6
all plans before they are sent torward.
7 So, yes, I'm the cne that signs ott on the 8
plans.
Did that answer your question?
9 MR. CUMMING:
I have no further questions.
10 WITNESS PAPILE:
Thank you.
11 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Bachmann?
12 MR. BACHMANN:
The Statt has no turther 13 questions.
14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there anything turther of 15 the panel?
16 (No response.)
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The panel is excused.
Thank 18 you.
19 (The witnesses stood aside.)
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will recess until tomorrow 21 morning at 9 o' clock.
22 (Whereupon, the hearing is recessed at 3:45 23 p.m.,
Tuesday, July 14, 1987, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.,
24 Wednesday, July 15, 1987.)
25 O
,