ML20237L505

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Intervenor Exhibit I-SC-11A,consisting of Partial 861124 Transcript of Cl Saricks Deposition in Washington,Dc Re Emergency Plan Exercise
ML20237L505
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 03/12/1987
From: Saricks C
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
86-533-01-OL, 86-533-1-OL, OL-5-I-SC-011A, OL-5-I-SC-11A, NUDOCS 8708280130
Download: ML20237L505 (10)


Text

_

ssuap TIMN5 IN

"'N8 03 Z10CEMD: XGS,*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 40 - S 2 2. - Oc - 5 J/a-/P 7

_ _'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 1-S 6 - //N l

In the Matter of:

Doc.ket

~

j LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY e

s (Sh eh m Nuclear Power Station, (ASLBP No. 86 533-01-OL)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x

~

DEPOSITION OF CHRISTOPHER L.

SARICKS

. Washington, D.

C.

Monday, November 24, 1986 l

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Stenotype Reporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1

8700280130 870312 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C

PDR

-,-W h

a 5

4 m

\\

b, s%

P 6

~

S

~

s F r

\\

.e

'3 s

Y-s

.s s

f~.~'

s N

J,

'A >

p

\\

's G, '>.

/, 3,%.

/,

s N

t,.

d',

N d s.

p

g 5

3t N./s "f

f', +

d g

s s

f N.

x 5,

.', /S s

g'

\\

s

,b 5

sN A

g

'O e*

s

\\

q, w ',,

s sf g

M N

\\

N N v, sy N

(a s

~'f

'm b,

7 3

s

'3 }gy 3

'N

- s>

o.,

~

1

$\\[M,

~.,.'). Q

'O c

o f

N

, :a.,., O ;

4,; 6 s

g g

,y v,

'\\[k,

'b

~

s lf >,

f) 4,

f;

\\

53 i

Ycu mean prior to twelve-forty?

A

/

2 I Q

Prior to twelve-forty.

I A

Not to my recollection.

3 4

0 Now, once there was a response to a simulated traffic impediment, gravel truck impediment, Mr. Saricks, tell me what 5

you did?

A The vehicle pulled into the lot where my automobile 7

was.

I walked to the vehicle and asked the driver if he were 8

there in response to the accident.

9 The driver responded, yes.

I asked him what he had 10 been informed regarding the impediment.

He said there was a 11

_ and he was to remove truck out here with a broken drive train, i

l '~

it from the road.

13 I asked him if he had information regarding other 14 vehicles involved in the accident, and he said no.

I i

15 i Then he proceeded to show me how the vehicle would i

be used as a tow truck to clear the impediment from the road.

16

,I 17 I asked him how long in his estimation it would take to clear that impediment, and he said no more than ten minutes to clear 13 j

the truck.

g I

l i

I then asked him to speculate regarding other i

20 l

lvehiclesinvolvedblockingtheroad,andhesaidprobably 21

{

thirty minutes.

He didn't volunteer any information that he

)

22 l

I Ae-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

E 347-FC0 Nanonwuie Co..w m 336-6o 4

.D

s.%.,< -

a s,..

u,.,

.s,.

I j

S4 1

i l

l would radio into his depot regarding support equipment.

l 2 {

l And then I proceeded to ask him and his co-responder, j l i

3 l

who was on the passenger side of the vehicle, the same sort 4

of questions I had asked the route alert driver regarding radio 5

protective measures and their dosimetry.

5 Q

Do you recall any other questions you would have 7

asked these two individuals?

g A

I believe that is the extent of the questions I asked them.

I g

10 y u ask the driver, or for that matter, the "co-passenger, why the time delay in responding to the impediment?

4 12 '

I asked when they had been dispatched.

He told me l

A he had been dispatched at eleven-fif ty.

That'he had passed 13 the location, had not seen me, the FEMA Evaluator, and had 14 i l

gone to a point further north, and then returned to this 15 location.

He alco stated he was dispatched from a LIE depot I

16 ;

I which was considerably closer than the Patchogue staging area.

17 O

Do you know if his dispatch from the depot on the 13

! Long Island E.:cpressway, and not the Patchogue staging area, 19 i was consistent with the LILCO procedures?

20.

A I do not know that.

From my reading of the procedures, i

l 21 j diere is no incons2 sten cy, no.

i 22 l MR. CUMMING:

Can we take about a five minute break?

l j

MR. MILLER:

Let me just get through this line of i

I l

ACE-FEDEML REPOR1ERS, INC.

~.--c.,-..

55 questioning.

L BY MR. MILLER:

(Continuing)

Q Mr. Saricks, if in fact the response that was made --

if in f act there was a response in terms of dispatching at e:

r and if in fact the i

eleven-fif ty, as the driver told you, i.S free-play message had been put into play at ten forty-five T*

6 a.m., would you have considered that an adequate response to the x

4 07 In other words, an hour and w[.

simulated accident impediment?

,"l 8 five minutes from the time of notification to the time of b

i N9 f

dispatch.

p;h10 If you are asking for my judgment --

A Ifil am asking for your opinion.

Q I

j.

12 Can I answer on the question of opinion?

j A

13 MR. CUMMING:

Yes.

that given the fact l

THE WITNESS:

My opinion 1

that that 15 ' that that road was a designated evacuation route, l

16 l was not suf ficiently timely to prevent extreme traf fic

(

17 ' flow difficulties at that location.

^

I BY MR. MILLER:

(Continuing) 13' Saricks, how long it took the O

Do you know, Mr.

19 vehicle that responded to the gravel truck 3.tpediment to I

,0

arrive -- strike that.

you know how long it would have taken the vehicle

.IR) 7 l

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

300-32M:o

%C-347-Tm0 Nanenwu:e Czaage I

I

?

' (-

i

~

i record the information at regular intervals,. and they had the I

2 correct information regarding authorization for incurring 3

excess levels of exposure, and potassium iodide was not an 4

issue at that time, because they had both simulated ingestion 5

Per instructions before th.ey had departed.

6 l!

Q So with respect to radio protective measures, were there any areas where you concluded an inadequate response by I

the LERO personnel?

A No.

Hot at that location.

Q Do you know if there was any simulation of rerouting 1

. traffic at the location of the gravel truck impediment?

A I observed none.

Q Given the text of the free-play message, Mr. Saricks, that there had been~this accident involving a loaded gravel truc and three passeng~er vehicles, and that both the north and south-bound shoulders of the road were blocked, in your~ opinion, would i

it have been necessary to have rerouted traffic at that i

I location in the event of an actual accident of that scale?

A Yes.

During the period of the impediment.

l Q

Could traffic, in fact, actually be rerouted at that location?

A While there, I saw a means by which traffic could be diverted onto another street, and around the impediment.

ACE-:?EDERAL :DORIERS, INC.

EA' 7-n00 Nanonwide Cr..::sse RL336 %16

__W~

69 i

e I

k%, g But you did not observe--

O?

I did not observe that that was the procedure that 3

been followed.

I

_ '?yguldhave p

. g$

g Now, do you recall, Mr. Saricks, what you generally T

{

' fconcludedabouttheresponsebyLEROtothisgraveltruck impediment?

I believe my own conclusions did not make specific A

/

i reference to delay in time, because I was not in a position to

?

know the cause of that.

My own conclusions were that the b

7 equipment that was actually dispatched was not adequate to 10

-clear the impediment in a timely fashion.

1.1 i

So, my own conclusions, based on my observations, e

Wil2 y.[

' rel. ate only to the adequacy of the response in terms of

g};l physical equipment.

)13 fV14 j Q

Am I correct then, in what you are telling me, is jj;

'b 15 !

t that your conclusions did not address the issue of the b.,

O I

9, 16 j adequacy or inadequacy of the response time?

(n r

17 A

I made a note of the fact that the response time 18 : was substantially delayed, but my difficulty was in not being able to ascertain it was due to the result of the depot which 19 ;

20 dispatched the vehicle.

21 ]

Q Under your understanding, Mr. Saricks, of your evaluation responsibility, if the delay was attributed to LERO g

i l

Aa-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

3 E M7 3700 Natonwide Co. rage M3:W

m i

P 89 t

i o

Now, I assume t. hat,given your previous testimony I;

that the start time for your traffic control point evaluation y

i M

as stated on this form?

75, began after twelve o' clock noon, A

A Yes.

f4, k

_Y And that is because you were delayed at the traffic

=f,.5 0

r

@ 1h impediment scene?

A Correct.

}

l E

And I assume from your previous testimony, Mr.

r Q

i. 8

=

Saricks, that in performing these functions as reflected on "o

.2, you took your personal notes that you Saricks Exhibit t

ff10

)

f4 referred to earlier today?

Mll cf(,-

A Yes.

g712 f g, Q

Now, if you look down under this impediment to E 13 h

! evacuation, under Description of Activity, it says you are h 14 I to evaluate the LERO person in simulating the setup of traffic E i.

f i

7 ji-l control, if any, and removal of t'raf fic obstruction.

a 16 Do you see that?

93

@ 17 i A

Yes.

-o 4

18 )

Q Now, I take it that you did not observe those Z-I functions by the LERO personnel?

g 19 i C

There was no actual setup of traffic control at A

M 20.

There was a demonstration of how an impediment e

2^, l that location.

3

w uld be removed, but it was not done at the actucl location

~

22 I__ _______-____ ___-_

~

Aa-FEDERu REPORTERS, INC.

m-w-roo Naconme: c.w cw WN

m 1

t of the impediment.

It was in the parking lot adjacent to my vehicle.

Q And where it says:

The LERO person should assess the 4

situation and request for an actual arrival of emergency 5

equipment, did you observe that?

i 6

A My belief is that this refers to a LERO route 7

spotter, rather than the response individual.

Q Well, did you observe a LERO route spotter?

8 A

Yes, I observed the LERO route spotter who actually 9

arrived at my location at about eleven-forty.

g Q

Did you talk to that person?

A Yes.

I asked that person if they were there in 12 l I any way connected with the impediment.

13l O

And what was the response?

14 I j

A They said they had been instructed to come and find l

15 me.

i Q

Did you have any other conversation with this route 17 spotter?

18 A

Well, given that I wasn't interested in providing 19 information to prompt-this individual to do anything more than 20 he was supposed to do, and I really limited my remarks to him 21 to just the question regarding what he was doing there.

22 4

I ACEUEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l l

n 'A7 3700 Nsounde Con-age 300-336&A6 l

j

wx

\\

\\

1 I

Q Let me go back to my initial question.

Did you l

i 2

observe this LERO person, this route spotter, assess the 3

situation and request for an actual arrival of emergency 4

equipment?

5 A

He did not do that in my presence.

6 Q

So, you don't know if he did that or not?

I 7

A That is correct.

Again, the person who was the g

route spotter, it was not necessarily clear to me that that was going to be the person who would, in fact, radio for 9

the assistance.

0

~

Q Now, if you look over to the second page of the document, Mr. Saricks, under the traffic control points i

i j

discussion, did you ask the traffic control personnel how a3 4

i they would interact with State or County police should they arrive?

I A

Yes, I did ask that question.

l Q

And what was their response?

'l I

A I think in all cases they indicated that t' would i

1

! relinquish their specific traffic direction responsibil' at j

l that location to the official.

However, they would remain i

I at the site with their dosimetry and answer any questions that i

the of ficial might have.

l l

l Q

When you questioned these traffic guides from your 1

\\

l i

Aa-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.

u l

_ _ _ _