|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:, _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| o ORG M* UN11ED STATES V : NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MNITER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exerciso)
| |
| LONG ISLAND LIGI! TING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
| |
| S p
| |
| V ,
| |
| LOCATION: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 0121 - 0307 DATE: FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1987 q7 ,() f A
| |
| ON ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 444 Official North Capitol Ravrters Street Washington, D.C. 20001 N[g61lp}{f gfggz!((g7 ) (202) 347 3M NATIONWIDE COVFRACE
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8121 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
| |
| ' (dS rysimons 1 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 ...____...__....______..
| |
| ....._____x 5 In the Matter of: :
| |
| 6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 i
| |
| 7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, t (EP Exorciso) 8 Unit 1) :
| |
| 9 -----------------------------------X 4
| |
| 10 Court of Claims 11 State of New York 12 State Offico Building iO la 1hird rieer ceureroom 14 Votorans Memorial liighway 15 llauppauge, New York 11788 16 Friday, June 12, 1987
| |
| , 17 The hearing in the abovo-ontitled matter 18 reconvened, purnuant to notico, at 9:05 o' clock a.m.
| |
| ]
| |
| ; 19 BEFORE:
| |
| 20 J0llN 11. FRYE, III, Chairman
| |
| ; 21 Atomic Safety and Liconning Board 22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminnion 23 Bothonda, Maryland 20555 i 24 O 25 Acit.17i nititAi. Iliti>oitti!its, INC, 202.t:7 37(n Naiiimwide rmerage suo )16,4 6
| |
| | |
| 4 i
| |
| l 2500 00 00 8122
| |
| (')rysimons 1 OSCAR' II. PARIS, Member V
| |
| 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
| |
| 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
| |
| 4 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 5 FREDERICK J. SIION, Member 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 9 APPEARANCES:
| |
| 10 On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company: i 11 KATilY E. D. McCLESKEY, ESOUIRE 12 LEE B. 2EUGIN, ESOUIRC
| |
| () 13 Ilunton & Williams 14 707 East Main Street f 15 P. O. Box 1535 16 ,
| |
| Richmond, Virginia 23212 17 On Behalf of Suffolk County:
| |
| 18 KARLA J. LETSCllE, ESOUIRE 19 MICilAEL S. MILLER, ESOUIRE 20 LAWRENCE COE LANPilER, ESOUIRE l l
| |
| 21 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 22 South Lobby, 9th Floor 23 1000 M Street, N. W.
| |
| 24 Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 25 j i
| |
| Acii FimiinAi. RitronTrias, INC.
| |
| M 347,37W Nationwide Cmerage 8ubl4M46
| |
| | |
| l 2500 00 00 8123 i ( 'rysimons 1 On Behalf of the State of Now York l
| |
| 2 RICilARD J. ZAllNLEUTER, ESOUIRE 3 Special Counsol to the Governor l 4 Executive Chambor 5 Room 229 6 Stato Capitol 7 Albany, Now York 12224 l
| |
| l 8 On Dohalf of the NRC:
| |
| 9 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, ESOUIRE l l
| |
| 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 11 7735 Old Georgetown Road 12 Dothosda, Maryland 20814
| |
| () 13 On Behalf of FEMA:
| |
| 14 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESOUIRE 15 500 C Stroot, S. W.
| |
| 16 Washington, D. C. 20472 i
| |
| 17 *** * *
| |
| * 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
| |
| () 25 ACli-Fitolti<Al. Rlil'Oltl'liRS, INC.
| |
| 202147.}7(u) Nationwide (herage Mu) 316 u.46
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8124 r"';rysimons 1 CONTENTS LJ 2 Direct Cross Redirect Rocross Voir Diro 3 (Rosumod Panol) 8125 (BY MR. MILLER) 4 ROGER B. KOWIESKI 5 TilOMAS E. BALDWIN 6 JOSEPil 11. KELLER 7 * ****
| |
| 8 EXilIBITS 9 (Nono) 10 * ****
| |
| 11 A. M. RECESS Pago 8177 12 LUNCilEON RECESS Pago 8240 13 14 15 16 17 ,
| |
| 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 2s Acit FimliRAI. Riti>onnins, INC.
| |
| 202 34717(n)
| |
| . Nationwide Coserage M110336 /M6 w
| |
| | |
| ._ _~ __ . - . _ _ __.. . _ . _ .. ~ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ -
| |
| i 2500 01 01 8125 '
| |
| l
| |
| 'f~D.cuewalsh1 PROCEEDINGS J
| |
| 2 (9:05 a.m.) ;
| |
| 3 JUDGE PRYE Good morning. Are we ready to (
| |
| 4 commonco? I 5 MR. MILLER: Yos, sir. i 6 JUDGE PRYE Good. ,
| |
| 7 Whorcupon, 8 TilOMAS E. BALDWIN, 9 ROGER B. K0WIESKI 10 and L 11 JOSEPil 11. KELLER 12 renumod as witnessou and, having proviounly boon duly
| |
| () 13 nworn, woro further examined and testified as follows:
| |
| 14 CROSS EXAMINATION 15 nY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 16 0 Contlomon, wo are starting with contontion 21.E :
| |
| 17 on Page 152 of your testimony. I havo rotatively few i
| |
| 18 quantionn on Contention 21.E.
| |
| 19 JUDCE PRYE: Pago 22, did you say? >
| |
| l j 20 MR. MILLER: No, Pago 152.
| |
| l I 21 JUDGE PRYE: Oh, 152.
| |
| I L 22 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 23 0 Gontiomon, tho first sontonce of your answor, :
| |
| 24 "The namplo nir.o solocted by PEMA was comparable to that
| |
| () 25 unod at any other oxorcino ovaluated by PEMA Rogion II."
| |
| i
| |
| ! AClilil!Dl!RAI, RitronTiins, INC. >
| |
| Mantw Nanonwide onnage mun ua6
| |
| | |
| 2500 01 01 0126 ,
| |
| And, of courno, wo aro hero talking about the camplo sizo l().cuowalsh1 2 of the traffic guidos that woro obnorved by PEMA; in that e
| |
| 3 correct?
| |
| 4 A (Witnana Kowioski) That'n correct. ,
| |
| 5 0 Now, Mr. Kowtonk i, typically, in fact, at all ,
| |
| G oxorcinon ovaluated by Region !! profoanional omorgoney 5' 7 ronponno pornonnot, primarily polico, have boon unod to i 8 perform the traffic and accons control functions that woro
| |
| ; 9 oboorved at Shorohamp in that right?
| |
| l 10 A That's right. ;
| |
| i :
| |
| 11 0 Now, at the bottom of Pago 152, Mr. Kowlonki, f 12 thoro in a ntatomont that discuanon the doploymont of !
| |
| () 13 traffic guidos from the Rivorhood staging aron whoro you, i 14 Rogion II, found a doficioney. -
| |
| 1 !
| |
| j 15 Can you toll mo how you aro defining tho term l i i j 16 "doploymont" an unod in your tontimony?
| |
| 17 A What term again? l l 10 0 Doploymont.
| |
| t i 19 (Tho witneanon aro conforring.)
| |
| i 20 A It would bo tho timo when traffic guidos 21 actually loft tho ntaging area.
| |
| i 22 0 Now, Mr. Kowtonki, in that tant bullot on Pago j 23 152 whoro you stato that tho timo botwoon duploymont of i t
| |
| j 24 traffic guidos from the ntaging aron to their traffic l 1
| |
| O 25 control nontn was exceneive and ranaed between 50 end 70 r
| |
| l 1 Acit Fiiniinai. Riteonriins, INC. !
| |
| i zo:w.mo Nam,nwue emuag m o m u,v,
| |
| {
| |
| | |
| [
| |
| ; 2500 01 01 0127 C.cuowalnh1 minuton, and then you say approximately 30 minutos of which 2 was spont dintributing field kitu and proceduron to the t 3 traffic guidon.
| |
| l 4 I tako it, Mr. Kowtonki, from your dofinition of l j :
| |
| ; 5 "doploymont" that tho 30 minutos npont in rocoiving tho [
| |
| f 6 ffold kits and proceduron was in addition to tho 50 to 70 7 minuton that wan upont by tho traffic guidon in loaving tho j U ntaging aroan and arriving at their ponts in tho field; in
| |
| , 9 that corroct? i i
| |
| I, 10 A I'm norry, I minopoko, okay. That doploymont j 11 timo includos also tho briefing and providing traffic 12 guidon with the noconnary oquipmont. !
| |
| O 13 0 1 want you to leek, aonet men, at vaae 74 of tho l
| |
| , 14 FEMA report. .
| |
| i l 15 (Tho witnennon aro complying.) [
| |
| t i 16 Now, Mr. Kowtonki, onnontially Pago 74 of the f t
| |
| 17 report staton, an you ntated on pago 152 of your tontimony, !
| |
| 18 that tho timo botwoon doploymont of tho traffic guidon from !
| |
| 4 i
| |
| ) 19 the ntaging aron to their arrival in the field wan botwoon l i (
| |
| i 20 50 and 70 minuton. l 1 i
| |
| ) 21 Do you noo that utatomont? !
| |
| ; 22 A Yon.
| |
| i 23 0 Aro you tolling mo now that the approximatoly 30 ;
| |
| L j 24 minuton npont in rocoiving fiold kitn and boing providad O 25 neoceaoren at the ntaoiaa eren wan iaoluaea within the 50 l
| |
| ! I
| |
| ?
| |
| L Arl!.171!DliltAl. Rlil'Oltilil6, INC, f
| |
| , .une.no s.uk u.ume nne.sge w m u,u, \
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| -- _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ - . =
| |
| r r
| |
| T 2500 01 01 8120 :
| |
| Oc" tai te 7o in=ta=>
| |
| 2 A That's my undorntanding. i t
| |
| i 3 0 That doon not noom to be what in stated in the i 4 FEMA roport though, in it?
| |
| 5 It nayn, Mr. Kowionki -- I'm looking at Pago 74 :
| |
| I T
| |
| 6 of the report -- that according to the traffic guido t 7 dispatch tog tho traffic guidon woro given their 8 annignmonto betwoon 10:53 and 11:01. They did not arrivo l 9 at their TCP annignmonta until betwoon 11:50 and 12:10.
| |
| L 10 Do you noo that statomont? l 11 JUDGC silon: Mr. Millor, the noxt sontonco !
| |
| l i 12 clearn tho wholo thing up complotoly, the noxt two l l
| |
| lO l
| |
| la nontencent Travei timon frem the neaoina arean te the TCPa ;
| |
| l l 14 woro up to 20 minuton on tho avorago. tach guido opont an >
| |
| l 1
| |
| 15 additional 30 minuten in lino. !
| |
| j 16 MR. HII.tER: Yon, nir. My problom, Judge 11 hon, !
| |
| ; I 17 and I'm not nuro -- thoro may bo como confusion horo. Ilu t , [
| |
| 10 whon you review the critiquo forma for the Rivorhond !
| |
| l 19 ntaging aron traffic guidon and when you review the 20 tantimony of thono witnonnon and when you review tho FEMA ;
| |
| i 21 roport itnolf, it junt gooma -- thoro noomn to bo a 22 contilct in the way tho data in pronontod. l t
| |
| 23 It doon not mako nonnu to mo to nay that it !
| |
| L 24 takon betwoon 50 and 70 minuton to arrivo following their
| |
| (
| |
| O 25 deniovmoet from the ntacina erean and thea, an vee neiated l I
| |
| i l
| |
| ACl!.IIt!!)l!RAI., Rn'on flins, INC,
| |
| :oL10tl7m Namw Mc Cmete mn lite (M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 01 01 8129 out, Judge Shon, to say that the travel timos averaged only
| |
| ().cuowalsh1 2 20 minutos. And, I'm just trying to sock a clarification 3 from the witnosson. I just think the two are inconsistent.
| |
| 4 JUDGE SIION: Frankly, I don't 800 the 5 inconsistoney.
| |
| 6 !!Y HR. MILLER: (Continuing) 7 O Mr. Kowlooki, maybo you can just oxplain to mo --
| |
| 0 A (Witnono Baldwin) Lot mo try. Tho key fact 9 hora that noods to be pointed out is the recommendation.
| |
| 10 Thin in a consolidation, as wo wont through youtorday, of 11 tho two things that woro lookod at in Mr. Roynolds' form 12 who was ovaluating the dinpatch of omorgoney workors from
| |
| () 13 that Rivorhood staging area and what was oboorved by Mr.
| |
| 14 Lovinnon in tho field.
| |
| 15 You combino tho timo linon that woro dovoloped 16 by thom and tho information in their form. Tho important 17 point horo in thin nontonco that nayne A moro expoditious 10 moann of dinpatching guidon in rocommonded, particularly 19 for thono locationn within tho two-milo EP2.
| |
| 20 And, than it goon on from thoro. To got to your 21 npocific innuo thoro, it apponen to mo that an additional 22 30 minuten in npont in them gotting a briefino and their 23 donimotry oquipmont and omorgoney fiold worker kits.
| |
| 24 IlY HR. MILLI:R (Continuing)
| |
| () 25 0 Lot mo try it thin way, gontlomon. In it your ACibli :1)l!It l Al. Riii'on t i:sts, INC.
| |
| 202 W Uno NenMdv Cmom W Ha fM.
| |
| | |
| 2500 01'01 8130 i tontimony that an average travel time of 20 minutes from
| |
| ().cuowalsh1 i 2 the staging area to posts in the field for traffic guides 3 is an excessivo amount of timo under the LILCO plan?
| |
| i 4 A (Witnons Kowieski) No.
| |
| 5 0 Well, then I'm very confused by the FEMA report 6 and by your testimony.
| |
| 7 MR. MILLER: And, I think, Judge Shon, the i
| |
| 0 confusion may bo ovon doopor, thon. It scoms to me that if 9 you road the report that indicaton that the travel time was 10 20 minutos --
| |
| 11 WITNESS KOWIESKI Woll --
| |
| 12 MR. MILLER: It says clearly above that 20
| |
| () 13 minuto roforonce in the PEMA report on Pago 74 that the 14 timo betwoon doploymont of the traffic guidos from the 15 ntaging area and their arrival at the TCPn was exconsivo. (
| |
| 16 It clearly saya deploymont from thin staging area. f 17 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 10 0 So, it apponrn to me, gentlemon, that you aro 19 ntating tho 20 minuten an a travol timo to the traffic 20 control ponto by the traffic guidon in an oxconnivo amount 21 of timo.
| |
| 22 A (Witnono Kollor) I'm norry if that'n what you f
| |
| (
| |
| That'n not what was moant.
| |
| 23 road into it.
| |
| 24 Wo ntated at tho vory boginning of thin cronn-() 25 oxamination -- and wo minopoko -- tho 50 to 70 minuton in i
| |
| Acit.Fitnt:i<Al. Rlil'Ollll!l4S, INC, ;
| |
| j M m.pm Nai,on%Ie rmone um un (M6 !
| |
| | |
| 2500 01 01 8131 from the time that they were told to dispatch, the times
| |
| ().cuewalsh1 2 which are listed as 10:53 and 11:01 and the time that they 3 arrived. And, we misspoke, because wo said it was from the 4 time they left.
| |
| 5 And, we are very sorry for that. We just missed 6 it. Sorry.
| |
| 7 O Mr. Koller, if that's the caso, then clearly the 8 FEMA report at Page 74 is wrong; is that right?
| |
| 9 A No.
| |
| 10 (Witnoss Kowleski) No.
| |
| 11 (Witness Kollor) I don't understand. I'm 12 sorry.
| |
| () 13 JUDGE FRYE: I don't understand that either.
| |
| 14 WITNESS K0WIESKI: Well, you ought to go to Page 15 75.
| |
| 16 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) ,
| |
| 17 0 Well, let's go to Page 75 in a minuto, Mr.
| |
| 18 Kowioski.
| |
| 19 A (Witnoss Kowloski) All right.
| |
| 20 MR. MILLER: Judge Fryo, here is my problem.
| |
| 21 I'm looking at the third sontonce on Pago 74, the second 22 full paragraph: The timo botwoon deploymont of traffic 23 guidos from the staging area and their arrival at TCPs was
| |
| ! 24 oxconsivo.
| |
| i
| |
| () 25 WITNESS KELLER: Wo start the clock for Acit.FitniinAi. Ilitron ti:ns, INC.
| |
| ! l 202 147 3700 mtionwide comm %3% w6
| |
| | |
| 2500 01 01 8132 deployment from the time they are told to go. So, included ch.suewalshI 2 in the deployment time is the time to get dosimetry, the 3 time to be briefed, the time to pick up the traffic cones.
| |
| 4 That's the 30 minutes that we found to be excessive.
| |
| 5 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 6 0 Mr. Keller, is it your understanding that 7 LILCO's traffic guides at the staging areas are told when 8 and where to go in the field prior to the time they are 9 given their dosimetry briefings and given their equipment?
| |
| 10 Is that your understanding?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Keller) I don't recall. I would have 12 to go back and look at the plan, but I don t recall.
| |
| 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 2s Acn FnonRAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-147 3700 NationwWe Cmerage Mk13MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500~02 02 8133
| |
| /''7rysimons.1 0 ' Assume with me, Mr. Keller, that.the traffic
| |
| (/
| |
| 2 guides are briefed, given dosimetry equipment prior to any 3 instruction to go to their post in the field. If that is 4 the case, the FEMA report is inaccurate in stating that the 5 time between deployment of traffic guides from the staging d
| |
| , 6 area and their arrival at TCPs was excessive. Is that your 7 testimony?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) Given your hypothetical I 9 guess, because I'm assuming with you something that I don't
| |
| ,; 10 know to be a fact -- I'm not lost -- I don't know that it
| |
| ! 11 is a fact chat they are told and they are given all their 12 equipment prior to their being told where to go, in other
| |
| () 13 words.
| |
| 14 But if that were the case, I don't believe we 15 would have found what we found in the report.
| |
| ! 16 JUDGE FRYE: I don't see how you could have. It i 17 seems clear from reading the report that they spent up to
| |
| ! 18 20 minutes traveling and on average 30 minutes in line. .
| |
| ?
| |
| l 19 WITNESS KELLER: And it was the 30 minutes we i
| |
| ! 20 objected to.
| |
| i !
| |
| I 21 WITNESS BALDWIN: And, you see, that is the key i
| |
| l 22 thing because on page 75 the emphasis is af ter the
| |
| ! 23 semicolon for us approximately 30 minutes was spent in line 24 at the staging area receiving field kits and procedures.
| |
| i
| |
| () 25 The recommendation is a more expeditious means of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| I l 202 347 4 700 Nationwide Cmcrage m133MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 02 02 8134 (prysimons1 dispatching the traffic guides from the staging area to the 2 field should be developed.
| |
| 3 Now that really refers to that 30 minutes in 4 providing them with their instructions and field kits and 5 we are not objecting to the 20 minute arrival time at their 6 post.
| |
| 7 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 8 O Gentlemen, let me try one other way. Can you 9 point me to any other documentation which would refute my 10 proposition that the 30 minutes spent in line at the 11 staging areas receiving the kits and the procedures was in 12 addition to the 50 to 70 minutes that was spent in p
| |
| i ,) 13 deploying traffic guides from the staging areas to their 14 positions in the field?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Keller) The report.
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) The report, the second 17 paragraph on page 74.
| |
| 18 Q And I submit that the report supports my 19 proposition because it says the time between deployment of 20 traffic guides from the staging area and their arrival at 21 traffic control posts was excessive taking between 50 and 22 70 minutes period.
| |
| 23 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Mr. Miller is 24 arguing with the witnesses.
| |
| () 25 JUDGE FRYE: We understand his position.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6s46
| |
| | |
| 4 2500 02 02 8135
| |
| :('1rysimons 1 MR. MILLER: I'm just asking, Judge Frye, if u
| |
| 2 there is any ---
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: Well, they have cited you to'this 4 paragraph. They don't share your view of the paragraph. I 5 think that's clear.
| |
| 6 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 7 0 Is there anything, gentlemen, other than the 8 FEMA report that you know of that would refute my 9 proposition?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Kowieski) The report speaks for 11 itself.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE: And nothing other than this?
| |
| () 13 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
| |
| 14 (Witnesses confer.)
| |
| 15 Obviously the report is based on the critique 16 forms.
| |
| 17 MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
| |
| 18 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 19 0 Mr. Kowieski, is there a time frame, and I'm 20 focusing now on just the time for when traffic guides leave 21 staging areas until when they arrive at their post in the 22 field, is there a time frame which focusing only on that ;
| |
| 23 portion of the dispatching and deployment of traffic guides 24 FEMA Region 2 would find to be an excessive time frame?
| |
| () 25 Where does that time frame begin?
| |
| ! /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 02 02 8136 f~/)rysimons 1 A (Witness Kowieski) The specific time frame that w
| |
| 2 FEMA Region 2 has been using? No, we don't have any 3 specific time frame as long as traffic guides or any other 4 emergency workers are in a proper location at a time when 5 they are needed.
| |
| 6 0 How does FEMA Region 2 determine that time frame 7 when traffic guides are needed?
| |
| 8 A To respond to your question, first of all, you 9 have to see how a plan is designed.
| |
| 10 0 I'm talking about the LILCO plan.
| |
| 11 A Right, and when evacuation starts it's 12 reasonable to expect if the plan calls for it that the rm traffic guides should be there.
| |
| ( ) 13 14 0 So it's your understanding and your testimony 15 that the traffic should be at their posts in the field when 16 evacuation starts; is that correct?
| |
| 17 A If the plan has a statement to this effect, yes, 18 it's an accurate characterization on your part.
| |
| 19 0 And if the evacuation process starts prior to 20 the time that LILCO would recommend an evacuation order to 21 the public, therefore traffic guides should be in the field 22 in place at their traffic control posts; is that correct?
| |
| 23 A No, I don't understand your question. If you're 24 asking me whether there is an early or volunteer p) s 25 evacuation, is that what you're asking me for to respond to a
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364t6
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| '2500 02 02 8137 ir your question? Are you asking me of an evacuation order by
| |
| - (''? x- ysimons 1 )
| |
| 2 decision-makers or a decision-maker or a voluntary 3 evacuation? .What are you referring to, sir?
| |
| I 4 0- We've established I think, Mr. Kowieski, that
| |
| . 5 FEMA believes the traffic guides should be in place in the 6 field at the time the evacuation process is recommend'ed by a
| |
| 7 LILCO, correct?
| |
| 8 A That's correct.
| |
| 9 0 Now should traffic guides also be in place in 10 the field at whatever time evacuation starts, even if that 11 evacuation process begins prior to the evacuation 12 recommendation by LILCO?
| |
| 13 A -The answer is-no.
| |
| 11 4 'O And can.you tell me, Mr. Kowieski, why you do 4
| |
| 15 not believe it to be necessary for traffic guides to be' in 16 place at whatever time the evacuation process starts, even i
| |
| 17 if that is prior to the time the utility recommends it?
| |
| ; 18 MS. McCLESKEY: I'm going to object to the 19 question unless Mr. Miller defines what he means by the 20 evacuation process because I don't think that's clear.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: You're talking about the shadow 22 evacuation ---
| |
| 23 MR. MILLER: I'm talking about people leaving 24 their homes and attempting to evacuate the EPZ.
| |
| l() 25 JUDGE FRYE: Prior to any formal recommendation.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 02 02 8138
| |
| '[''Irysimons 1 MR. MILLER: Prior to any formal recommendation
| |
| -qg 2 by LILCO to do so.
| |
| 3 MR. CUMMING: I will object on the continuing 4 basis that it's not what' occurred on the day of the 5 exercise.
| |
| i 6 WITNESS KELLER: You overruled the objection?
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: Yes.
| |
| 8 WITNESS KOWIESKI: .I consider this again, you 9 want me to speculate.
| |
| 10 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| , 11 Q No, Mr. Kowieski, I don't want you to speculate.
| |
| 12 A (Witness Kowieski) Again, the plan, I have
| |
| () 13 reviewed that plan over two years ago, and according to my 14 recollection of that plan, the plan does not assume or 15 provide for early evacuation of any part of the 10-mile 16 EPZ.
| |
| 17 Evacuation generally is based and interrelated 18 to emergency classification, and evacuation takes place 19 generally speaking after the declaration of a general 20 emergency.
| |
| 21 0 Mr. Kowieski, you are not really responding to 22 my question. My question is as follows. Could you tell me 23 why it is FEMA's view that the LILCO traffic guides need 24 not be in place at their field positions at whatever time
| |
| () 25 evacuation of the public would begin even if that would be ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 02 02 8139
| |
| (~')rysimons 1 prior to the time LILCO would recommend that the pubic v
| |
| 2 evacuate?
| |
| 3 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Judge Frye, we 4 litigated the issue of when traffic guides should be out in 5 the field under Contention 65 in the planning phase and 6 also in the shadow phenomenon questions. There was no 7 assumption made about an early shadow evacuation on the 8 exercise and I don't see the relevance of asking these 9 witnesses about something that didn't happen at the 10 exercise and that has already been litigated.
| |
| 11 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, just very briefir.
| |
| 12 Contention 40 directly raises the issue that I'm asking
| |
| () 13 these witnesses about. Contention 40 alleges that the 14 LILCO plan is inherently flawed because traffic guides are 15 not dispatched until after LILCO recommends an evacuation 16 order. And I'm asking these witnesses questions that 17 directly pertain to that allegation in the contention, 18 Contention 40.
| |
| 19 20 21 22 23 ,
| |
| I 24 )
| |
| l
| |
| () 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 l l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 3 8140-()000303 G.joewalsh 1 MS. McCLESKEY: Sir, Contention 40 challenges 1 2 the time it took for people to get into the field, not 3 whether the plan is adequate in its planning phase of how 4 people are going to get there or when they are sent.
| |
| 5 MR. CUMMING: FEMA counsel understands that the
| |
| , 6 strict rules for stating a hypothetical aren't required for 7 ASLBs but, in essence, a generic question has been asked'in 8 a hypothetical form by Mr. Miller.
| |
| 9 If the witnesses have the ability to answer, 10 they can. But, that does require speculation, and Mr.
| |
| 11 . Miller has ordered them not to speculate.
| |
| () 12 JUDGE-FRYE: I think it's a close question 13' whether this is within the scope of this particular portion 14 of the proceedings, but let's see.if we can quickly get an
| |
| : 15. answer to it. I think I know the answer already, but --
| |
| ; 16 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Well, again it's -- I can 17 only empaasize hhe fact that an exercise is implementation 18 of the plan. And as far as -- we found the provisions ;
| |
| 19 provided in the plan to be adequate during our review, RAC 20 review, of the plan.
| |
| '21 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
| |
| 22 *, WITNESS KOWIESKI: And, we have no basis to 23 assume that it will be voluntary evacuation.
| |
| ('.) 24 JUDGE FRYE: So, as a general matter you review 25 a plan to determine whether the plan is accurate --
| |
| ).
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80t>336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 03 03 8141
| |
| [%)).joewalsh 1 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
| |
| 2 JUDGE FRYE: -- and then when you exercise the 3 plan, that's what governs the exercise?
| |
| 4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Absolutely. You are correct.
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE: So, if the plan had concluded --
| |
| 6 or, if you had determined that the plan should include --
| |
| 7 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: -- a provision for having traffic 9 guides in place prior to a formal evacuation 10 recommendation, then you would have tested that?
| |
| 11 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
| |
| 12 WITNESS KELLER: And, what we found as deficient
| |
| () 13 in the exercise is what looked good, or what looked 14 acceptable, in the plan review was dispatching these 15 people, right, and having-them out according to the plan.
| |
| 16 During the exercise, we made a judgment that 17 they didn't get them out quick enough.
| |
| 18 JUDGE FRYE: Right.
| |
| 19 WITNESS KELLER: And, we called that a 20 deficiency.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: I understand that. But, I think 22 that clearly puts it back into the other proceeding.
| |
| 23 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, if I could just ask one 24 follow-up, and --
| |
| (o) 25 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| i 2500 03 03 8142
| |
| (}}.joowalsh1 MR. MILLER: -- then I'm willing to move along.
| |
| 2 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 3 0 Mr. Kowieski, if FEMA Region II had data that 4 demonstrated that evacuees would, in fact, evacuate prior 5 to LILCO's recommendation to do so, would you then say that 6 LILCO's traffic guides should be in place at their posts in 7 the field prior to the LILCO recommendation to evacuate?
| |
| 8 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. It calls for 9 speculation on a planning issue.
| |
| 10 JUDGE FRYE: It is a planning issue. Sustained.
| |
| 11 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 12 0 Look at Page 154 of your testimony, gentlemen.
| |
| () 13 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 14 Gentlemen, this page says, first of all, that 15 FEMA was unable to evaluate the timeliness of TCP set-up 16 for the Port Jefferson staging area. And, we discussed 17 this yesterday. That was because the evaluator was held up 18 for two and a half hours awaiting a response by LERO to the 19 fuel truck impediment, correct?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 21 0 And, then it says: "Moreover, FEMA anticipated 22 that this would be the case in planning for the exercise, 23 since one field evaluator was assigned the responsibility 24 for observing three field activities; (a) route alerting,
| |
| ( w) 25 (b) field response to an evacuation impediment problem and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| ~_ _.- . . . _ _.
| |
| 2500.03 03 <- 8143
| |
| ().joewalsh'l -(c) three TCP clusters."
| |
| 2 I take it, Mr. Kowieski, that statement refers 3 to both the Port Jefferson and the Patchogue staging areas, 4 . correct?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Keller)' That's what it says. 'That's I
| |
| 6 what it says further down. The'next sentence says that.
| |
| 7 0 Okay. Well, I take it, Mr. Kowieski, FEMA did 8- not anticipate that it would have taken LERO two and a half 9 ' hours to respond to the fuel truck impediment?
| |
| , 10. A (Witness Kowieski) No, sir. The way -- well, 11 okay.
| |
| i 12 0 -And, I take it that FEMA did not anticipate that
| |
| ) 13 upwards of 90= minutes would have been spent by LERO f
| |
| 14 attempting to run only one-half ofLthe route. alert for the 15 Port Jef ferson staging area; is that correct?
| |
| 16: A That's correct.
| |
| 17 :0 I guess my question, gentlemen, is why is it 18 that only one evaluator was assigned by FEMA to the Port 19 Jefferson field activities if FEMA anticipated beforehand ,
| |
| t 20 'that that one evaluator could not have observed all these 21; functions?
| |
| 2:2 A- Well, it's not true characterization on your 23 part that FEMA won't be able to observe this particular
| |
| .24 function.
| |
| i-p
| |
| () 25- But, _the issue is -- the issue of effective ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 03 03 8144
| |
| (}}.joewalsh1 utilization of our observers. I personally, I was 2 responsible for designing and planning of the exercise.
| |
| 3 And, it would be very -- I would be hard pressed to justify 4 to sending someone, bringing someone from, let's say, 5 Argonne, from Chicago and assigning him just one -- giving 6 him one simple assignment, okay. It's not effective 7 utilization of the evaluator.
| |
| 8 That's why we gave him three assignments. We 9 thought, and I thought, that by providing a reasonable time 10 window for each assignment, let's say, route alerting an 11 hour and a half, two hours, and impediment evacuation and 12 traffic control guides arrival in the field, I thought it
| |
| () 13 was reasonable approach and logical approach.
| |
| 14 Unfortunately, there were some delays.
| |
| 15 There were unfortunately delays, more than I 16 anticipated, you know, for two hours. And, that's why our 17 observer missed the assignment.
| |
| 18 O Mr. Kowieski, is this a fair statement, that if 19 LERO would have performed adequately with respect to the 20 route alert functions out of Patchogue and Port Jefferson 21 and with respect to the traffic impediment problems that 22 were injected into the exercise by FEMA, then the single 23 PEMA evaluator at Patchogue and Port Jefferson could have 24 observed all three of these activities discussed on Page
| |
| () 25 154 of your testimony?
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| u 2500 03 03 8145 l').joewalsh1 A Not necessarily every single traffic guide, but
| |
| \m/
| |
| 2 at least arrival of some of the traffic guides. That's 3 correct.
| |
| 4 (Witness Baldwin) It's possible, but not very 5 likely based on my experience at exercises.
| |
| 6 0 It would have required an adequate performance 7 by LERO, right, Dr. Baldwin?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Kowieski) That's right. We --
| |
| 9 0 Thank you.
| |
| 10 A -- just.--
| |
| 11 0 Thank you. Okay, gentlemen, we are going to 12 Contention 41 which begins on Page 15 of your testimony.
| |
| r';
| |
| (_/ 13 JUDGE PARIS: Give me that page number again, 14 please.
| |
| 15 MR. MILLER: Page 15.
| |
| 16 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 17 0 Contention 41, of course, gentlemen, deals with 18 LERO's response to the two simulated traffic impediments.
| |
| 19 Would you agree with me, gentlemen, that during 20 the exercise LERO failed to demonstrate an ability to 21 remove impediments from the roadways until long after 22 evacuation had begun under the accident scenario during the 23 exercise?
| |
| 24 A (Witness Kowieski) Speaking in broad terms,
| |
| () 25 yes.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(h336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 03 03 8146
| |
| ().joewalsh1 0 Would you agree with me that there are likely to 2 be accidents and other events creating blockages on 3 evacuation routes during a Shoreham emergency?
| |
| 4 A That's a reasonable assumption.
| |
| 5 6
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-3366M6
| |
| | |
| 8147 (J' 00 04 04 M.cuewalsh 1 O Would you agree with me, gentlemen, that given 2 LERO's inability to deal with the roadway impediments 3 during the exercise that it is reasonable to conclude that 4 such a performance during an actual Shoreham emergency 5 would cause a delay in the implementation of protective 6 actions and preclude LILCO/LERO from managing an orderly
| |
| . 7 evacuation of the EPZ?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) We disagree with that.
| |
| 9 Q And, why do you disagree with that, Mr. Keller?
| |
| 10 A Because we evaluate, and did evaluate, in the r
| |
| 11 exercise, as Mr. Baldwin stated very early in this cross-() 12 examination, objectives in bite size pieces. Now, it is l 13 true we have an objective which says orderly manage and 1
| |
| ; 14 orderly evacuation of the EPZ. We had that -- my 15 recollection is that we had it met.
| |
| 16 There is a deficiency in the report with its 17 attendant meaning as explained on Page 8 of the report with 18 the way that LERO handled the impediments to evacuation.
| |
| 19 0 I don't understand the basis for your 20 disagreement with my question, Mr. Keller.
| |
| 21 A Because we, in our -- wa use objectives which 22 are explained in the report. You have used the same words 23 that one of our other objectives has that we evaluated it I
| |
| () 24 in the report not as a deficiency. And, therefore, you are 25 trying to get us to characterize that what we did in the Ace-FEDERAL RueonTuns. INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 04 8148 report is different than we did in the report; and, we
| |
| ().cuewalshI 2 disagree with you.
| |
| 3 0 I'm not trying to get you to characterize 4 anything, Mr. Keller. Let me repeat my question. Maybe 5 you didn't understand it.
| |
| 6 Would you agree with me that LERO's inability to 7 deal with roadway impediments as demonstrated to FEMA 8 during the exercise could cause a delay in the 9 implementation of protective actions and preclude LERO from 10 managing an orderly evacuation of the EPZ during an actual 11 Shoreham emergency?
| |
| 12 MR. CUMMING: Objection as to the form of
| |
| () 13 counsel's witness (sic) in prefacing, do you agree with 14 me. Our witnesses have no knowledge of the intent of 15 counsel asking the question.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled. But, let's take -- you 17 have two questions in there. Let's get them one at a time.
| |
| 18 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 19 0 Would you agree with me, gentlemen, that during 20 the exercise LERO demonstrated an inability to handle 21 adequately roadway impediments?
| |
| 22 A (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
| |
| 23 (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 24 (Witness Kowieski) We testified to this effect.
| |
| () 25 JUDGE FRYE: They said that.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 m-3M Nationwide Cmcrage 8(ak33MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 04 8149 MR. MILLER: Well, that's the first part of the
| |
| ().suewalsh1 2 question I asked.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: You had two other parts.
| |
| 4 WITNESS KELLER: You had two parts.
| |
| 5 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 6 0 Would you agree with me, gentlemen, that LERO's 7 inability to handle roadway impediments as demor.strated 8 during the exercise could cause a delay in the 9 implementation of protective actions?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) Depending on the definition of 11 implementation. The protective action implementation, to 12 my thinking, is an order or a recommendation for an
| |
| () 13 evacuation.
| |
| 14 Now, the impediment does not delay that order.
| |
| 15 Clearly, it delays the ability of some portion of the 16 population to comply with that order. But, it does not --
| |
| 17 in my definition of implementation which may be different 18 than yours, it does not delay the implementation of the 19 order.
| |
| 20 LERO can recommend an evacuation, impediment or l 21 not. It does delay the people who are behind the 22 impediment from complying with the recommendation, that's 23 true.
| |
| 24 JUDGE PARIS: And, you interpret implementation
| |
| () 25 of the order as the process of getting out the order?
| |
| l l
| |
| t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
| |
| | |
| 1 2500 04 04 8150 WITNESS KELLER: That's all LERO can --
| |
| [w/').cuewalsh 1 2 JUDGE PARIS: Rather than the process of 3 complying with the order?
| |
| 4 WITNESS KELLER: Well, LERO can get the order 5 out, but that's all LERO can do. The public has to comply 6 with the order, okay, or the recommendation. Let's stay 7 away from " order." The recommendation.
| |
| 8 Now, if something occurs which will make it more 9 difficult'or impractical or more difficult for the public 10 to comply with the recommendation, then LEP.O in this case 11 has the responsibility to, as expeditiously as possible, 12 provide assistance and make the public be able to comply r~
| |
| (_N) 13 with the recomnendation. That pa"t, we rated as a 14 deficiency.
| |
| 15 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
| |
| 16 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 17 0 Mr. Keller, under the LILCO plan, traffic guides 18 and road crews and personnel of that sort are assigned jobs 19 which are structured to help the public comply with an 20 evacuation order; is that correct?
| |
| 21 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 22 (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 23 Q And, given LERO's response to the roadway 24 impediments during the exercise, it's reasonable to
| |
| () 25 conclude that such a response in an actual emergency at ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MO-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| U i I
| |
| l 2500 04104 8151 1
| |
| Shoreham would prevent or certainly make more difficult the
| |
| ().auewalsh1 2 ability of LERO's personnel to help the public comply with 3 an evacuation order; is that your statement?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Kowieski) I would agree with the 5 second words, characterization. Actually, it would at 6 least make more difficult --
| |
| 7 0 And perhaps could preclude the ability of the 8 public to comply with an evacuation order?
| |
| 9 A- I wouldn't agree with that.
| |
| 10 (Witness Keller) Slow it down, clearly. Extend 11 their time of evacuation, et cetera. Preclude is a little 12 strong.
| |
| () 13 0 You would agree, Mr. Keller, that a response 14 such as that demonstrated by LERO on the day of the
| |
| -15 exercise to the roadway impediments that were simulated 16 during the exercise could certainly extend the evacuation 17 times needed to leave the EPZ of the public?
| |
| 18 A For that portion of the people who were impeded 19 by the impediment, clearly it could extend the times.
| |
| 20 (Witness Baldwin) That's an important point, 21 because it's not the entire population of the public which 22 your question does tend to imply.
| |
| 23 0 We understand that, Dr. Baldwin. Now, 24 gentlemen, on Page 15 of your testimony you indicate that
| |
| () 25 under the plan some road crews are placed on standby status ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 04 8152
| |
| , ,!.cuewalsh 1 at the site area emergency classification.
| |
| .( O 2 Is that correct?
| |
| 3 A That's correct.
| |
| 4 0 Now, during the exercise, LERO did not place any 5 of its road crews on standby status, did it?
| |
| 6 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 7 A We don't know about any. What we were able to 8 observe apparently they -- we were unable to conclude that 9 they put them on standby status.
| |
| 10 0 So, you just don't know one way or the other?
| |
| 11 A That's correct.
| |
| 12 0 Now, gentlemen, with respect to the mobilization O
| |
| (_) 13 of road crews -- and, by mobilization I'm talking about the 14 time required to get road crews to the staging areas, okay; 15 can you agree with that definition?
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
| |
| 17 (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 18 0 Now, with respect to the mobilization of road 19 crews under LILCO's plan, can you give me the parameters of 20 any time frame for what PEMA would expect to be a 21 reasonable amount of time to mobilize the road crews?
| |
| 22 (The witnesses are corderring. )
| |
| 23 A (Witness Baldwin). My recollection of the plan 24 is that the LERO plan says that it takes approximately
| |
| () 25 three hours to mobilize all of their emergency workers.
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-M7-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| p .,
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 2500 04 04 8153 Okay. I'm focusing just on the road crews,
| |
| [).cuewalsh1- 12 2 because that's what Contention 41.A focuses on. Would you 3 tell me -- the answer may be that.you don't have a time 4 frame, but can you provide me with the parameters of a time 5 frame for the mobilization of road crews under LILCO's 6 plan?
| |
| A I don't believe there is one specifically-for '
| |
| 7 i
| |
| 8 them. {
| |
| 9 0 There may not be one specified in the plan. I'm 10 asking if you have an opinion in that regard?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Kowieski) Well, as.I stated before, as 12 long as emergency. workers -- in this case, road crews -- l
| |
| () _13 are present or_they are assigned locations when evacuation 14 is in progress.
| |
| 15 0 So, Mr. Kowieski, can I assume from your answer 16 that:it would be FEMA's view that the road crews should be !
| |
| 17 at their locations in the field as of the time an 18 evacuation order is recommended by LERO?
| |
| 19 A When evacuation is in progress, that's right.
| |
| 20 0 Okay. You extended the use of my word 21' " mobilization." Do you have an opinion with respect to 22 just-the mobilization; that is, getting the road crews from 23 their work or their home location or wherever they may be 24 to the staging areas, as to how long that process should h 25 take?
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 L___-.________.-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 4 4
| |
| 2500 04 04 8154 !
| |
| "'().cuewalsh1- A (Witness Keller) We don't have -- I think we 2 have discussed this -- any direct recall of the plan. Dr. '
| |
| ! 3 Baldwin is right -- I mean, I agree with Dr. Baldwin. ;
| |
| 4 My recollection is three-hour mobilization for i
| |
| 5 emergency workers. Road crews are emergency workers.
| |
| 6 There may be a citation in the plan that I don't recall.
| |
| i 7 0 Mr. Keller, assume with me that there is nothing
| |
| ; 8 in the plan -- l 9 A They are emergency workers, three hours. An 10 exercise is a demonstration of the implementation of the 11 plan.
| |
| l 12 O I'm asking not what you recall from the plan.
| |
| 4
| |
| .i
| |
| () 13 I'm asking if FEMA would have a position with respect tx)
| |
| ; 14 the amount of time that would be reasonable to mobilize the i
| |
| l 15 road crews under LILCO's plan?
| |
| i 16 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. The question of what 17 time is reasonable to mobilize is a planning issue that was l
| |
| 18 previously litigated.
| |
| l i 19 JUDGE FRYE: Sustained.
| |
| ) 20 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, Contention 41.A 21 directly raises the issue of mobilization and then 22 dispatching into the field of road crews. The contention
| |
| ; 23 alleges -- in fact, Contention 41.A specifically alleges 24 that it took too long for LERO to mobilize its road crews I() 25 during the exercise.
| |
| F i
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
| |
| ; 202-347-37m) Nationwide Coverage HM)-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 04 8155 I'm just asking these gentlemen if they have an
| |
| *().cuewalsh1 2 opinion regarding what would be a reasonable time frame for 3 LERO to mobilize its road crews.
| |
| 4 MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye --
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE Do you have an opinion?
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: Only insofar as in an 7 exercise. When we evaluate any exercise, LILCO's or a 8 state exercise, we are exercising the plan. And, believe 9 me this has happened --
| |
| 10 JUDGE FRYE: Independently of the plan, do you 11 have an opinion?
| |
| 12 WITNESS KELLER: No.
| |
| (m_) 13 JUDGE FRYE Okay.
| |
| 14 MR. MILLER: Fine. That's really --
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE: Does that answer your question?
| |
| 16 MR. MILLER: Right.
| |
| 17 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 18 0 Now, gentlemen, during the exercise, site area 19 emergency was declared at about 8:19, correct?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 21 Q Now, under LILCO's plan, road crew personnel are 22 called out at the site area emergency, correct?
| |
| 23 A That's my understanding of the plan.
| |
| 24 Q During the exercise, gentlemen, a general
| |
| !() 25 emergency was declared at about 9:40; is that correct?
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 04 8156 A 9:39, 9:40, that's correct.
| |
| )
| |
| ('.cuewalsh1 I 2 O Now, assuming, gentlemon, that the road crews 3 were called out during the exerciso at about 8:19, do you 4 believe that it would have boon reasonablo for the road 5 crews to have boon at the staging areas by 9:40 when the 6 general omorgency was declared?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Kollor) Some of them, yes. I think 8 the three hours -- and I hate to go back to it but --
| |
| 9 0 Mr. Koller, the three hours has nothing to do 10 with my question.
| |
| 11 A All right.
| |
| 12 O Okay.
| |
| () 13 A People will be -- all the people who are 14 activated at a given emergency classification level and 15 told to report to a duty station will not arrivo 16 simultaneously at their duty station. They don't como from 17 the same place, they woron't doing the same things when 18 they wore told to report.
| |
| 19 Some of thom -- and, they are going to arrive as !
| |
| 20 a spectrum of time. Some people will arrivo earlier and ,
| |
| 21 some people will arrive later. I would think that some of 22 them should have boon there by the timo frame that you 23 discussed in your question.
| |
| 24 0 My question was, do you think -- or my question
| |
| () 25 is, do you think that all of the road crows that woro ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Gnerage 800-336-(446 6
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 04 8157 called out to report at about 8:19 should have been at the
| |
| {)cuewalshI 2 staging areas by about 9:40?
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: He said some of them should have 4 boon there.
| |
| 5 WITNESS KELLER: And, I disagree with your 6 "all."
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: All of them --
| |
| 8 WITNESS KELLER: No, not all.
| |
| 9 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 10 0 Do you have any parameters as to how you would 11 define the sum, Mr. Keller?
| |
| 12 A Judgement.
| |
| (') 13 0 No, no. I'm talking about -- well, looking at 14 your testimony, do you believe there are 38 road crows --
| |
| 15 A No. I believe there are 38 people.
| |
| 16 0 Okay. There are 38 road crow members under 17 LILCO's plan if overyone is called out, can you break your 18 sum of thoso that should have been there by 9:40 into a 19 number, given that total of 38 road crew members?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Baldwin) Well, in preparing this for 21 this cross-examination we looked at OPIP 3.6.3, Attachment 22 8 that providos for the mobilization and dispatch of road 23 crows according to zones recommended for ovacuation.
| |
| 24 There are 38 personnel that arrivo. It's our
| |
| () 25 opinion that 28 may have boon adequate to dispatch them ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| :02 347 37ai Stionwate coserage so s33 u 626
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 04 8158 according to those zones.
| |
| )
| |
| ('cuewalsh1 2 0 Dr. Baldwin, you are referring to given the 3 initial evacuation order during the exercise, which was not 4 a complete evacuation of the entire 10-mile EPZ, it's your 5 opinion that 28 of the 38 road crew members may have been 6 adequate?
| |
| 7 A That's correct.
| |
| 8 0 Now, your 38, the number 38, road crew members 9 includes the gas tank truck members which I'm putting to 10 the sider that's not part of Contention 41. Looking just 11 at the road crew members that are assigned the essentially l
| |
| I 12 tow truck duties, can you tell me approximately how many
| |
| () 13 would have -- should have been there by about 9:40 during 14 the day of the exercise?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Kowieski) I would say 40 or 50 16 percent.
| |
| 17 0 Well, did you conduct the same kind of analysis 18 that Dr. Baldwin was just talking about where you can give 19 me more of a particular number?
| |
| 20 Dr. Baldwin, did you do that analysis?
| |
| 1 21 A (Witness Baldwin) During the exercise?
| |
| 22 O No, just in preparing for this testimony. I i
| |
| 23 thought you said you did an analysis?
| |
| 24 A I'm going to have to rodo it, because I -- we
| |
| () 25 based it on the 38, total road crews and gas tanks. We Acn-FnonnA1. RneoitrERS INC.
| |
| 202 3M&m Nanonwide Cmcrge 8p D6W6
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| '2500-04 04 8159 didn't -- it's 12 tow trucks times two. That's 24.
| |
| ( )cuewalsh1 2 0 So, you think 24 should have been there as of
| |
| -3 about 9 --
| |
| 4 A No, that's 24. That's the complete number, 5 right. That's the total number of personnel, because 6 you've got two people assigned to each of those crews.
| |
| 7 0 I understand. So, maybe we will come back to 8 this. If it's not a complex analysis, I would like to know 9 what your number would be for the number of road crew 10 members assigned to tow truck duties that should have been 11 at the staging areas by about 9:40 on the day of the 12 exercise, okay.
| |
| () 13 That's the question. That's the pending 14 question. We will come back to it.
| |
| 15 A Well --
| |
| 16 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 17 0 Maybe we can avoid that analysis if that's what 18 you are talking about. I will try a different question.
| |
| 19 A (Witness Keller) Maybe we could do an analysis 20 at the break and come back.
| |
| 21 0 Fine. I wasn't asking you to do it now. Let me 22 try --
| |
| 23 A Okay.
| |
| I 24 0 -- it this way, Dr. Baldwin. If -- assume with 25 me that as of about 9:40 on the day of the exercise there
| |
| (])
| |
| Act FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 37(X) Nationwide Cmcrage MX)-336W46
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 '4 0 8160 were a total of nine road crew members assigned tow truck
| |
| ' (V~Tcuewalsh I 2 duties at the three staging areas, a total of nine, which 3 would be approximately, if my calculations are correct, 24 l 4 percent.
| |
| 5 A Wait. Clarification. Are we -- we are 6 excluding the gasoline truck people; is that right? I 7 mean, you had said that Contention 41 excludes the gas i
| |
| 8 truck people so we are only talking about the tow truck 9 people, right?
| |
| 10 0 You are right. And, I think my percentage can 11 be wrong, then.
| |
| 12 A Yeah. You put them back in again.
| |
| () 13 0 You do the calculations. Here is the question.
| |
| 14 If you have a total of nine road crew members --
| |
| 15 A Nine out of 24?
| |
| 16 0 Nine road crew members available as of about 17 9:40, would you find that to be sufficient?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowieski) That's what we testified.
| |
| 19 We testified to this effect, 40 to 50 percent.
| |
| 20 0 Now, for purposes of this question, gentlemen, 21 I'm looking at all 38 road crew members, okay. Would you 22 find nine road crew members of the total of 38 to be an 23 acceptable percentage? That's about 24 percent.
| |
| 24 Is that acceptable?
| |
| () 25 A (Witness Keller) That would be a little short.
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| , 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 I
| |
| | |
| 2500 04 04 ,
| |
| 8161 (Witness Baldwin) A little short, but my
| |
| {)cuewalsh1 2 opinion on it would be that the gasoline truck individuals 3 are there to provide fuel to those vehicles that run out of 4 gas, out of fuel.
| |
| 5 0 Right. Dr. Baldwin, my problem -- just by way 6 of explanation, my numbers come from LILCO but the numbers 7 are not broken down so I know which are road crew for tow 8 trucks and which are road crew members for the gas trucks.
| |
| 9 So, that's why I'm asking you to do the calculations both 10 ways.
| |
| 11 It could be that all.nine were just for the gas l 12 trucks and none of those were for tow trucks. I assume
| |
| '() 13 that you would find if there were no road crews available 14 as of about 9:40, that certainly would be unacceptable?
| |
| 15
| |
| * A (Witness Keller) Yeah, we are now back just to 16 .the tow trucks now?. ,
| |
| 17 0 If there were no tow truck. road crew members 18 available as of that 9:40, that would certainly be 19 unacceptable, correct?
| |
| 20 A That would be considerably short.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: Let'me ask a question.here. Are 22 road crew members fungible? In other.words, can you assign 23 them to a gas truck or a tow truck?
| |
| 24 WITNESS KELLER: I'm not aware. I don' t know.
| |
| () 25 JUDGE FRYE: You don't know? Okay.
| |
| 1-- ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| , .02-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 830 336-6646
| |
| | |
| .2500-04.04 8162 yauswalsh 1 WITNESS BALDWIN: The plan is very difficult.
| |
| 2 -There is an organizational chart in the plan. They come to 3 the staging area and get an assignment, and they go pick up.
| |
| 4 a road crew vehicle. That's either a gas truck or a tow 5 truck. .
| |
| 6 And, then they are sent to a station along the 7 side of -- an evacuation route.
| |
| 8 9
| |
| 10 11 12
| |
| : h. _13 14 15 16 17
| |
| -18 19 20
| |
| '21 22 23 24 25 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| . . ~ . ._ -- . . . . . .
| |
| i
| |
| )
| |
| -2500 05'05 8163
| |
| ?/~7srysimons 1 JUDGE FRYE: So that any' individual might be
| |
| -Q.
| |
| 2 assigned eitherito a~ tow truck or-to a gas truck?
| |
| 3- WITNESS BALDWIN: Well, it's conceivable.
| |
| t 4 JUDGE FRYE: But you don't know.
| |
| 5 WITNESS BALDWIN: I don't know.
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: I would expect not as a guess.
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: I see. I was just curious.-
| |
| .8 JUDGE PARIS: We had earlier testimony that said- .
| |
| ! 9 . road crews also could be-assigned to compressor trucks.
| |
| ,. 10 Were you aware-of that, compressor trucks?
| |
| 11 WITNESS BALDWIN: . Compressor trucks, no, I 12 wasn't aware of.that.
| |
| WITNESS KELLER:
| |
| .(} 13 I don't know what'a compressor 14 truck is.
| |
| 15 JUDGE PARIS: You say you know what a compressor 16 truck is?
| |
| 17 WITNESS KELLER: I do not know what a compressor 18 truck is.
| |
| 19 JUDGE PARIS: Well, it's a truck with a 20 compressor on it.
| |
| 21 (Laughter.)
| |
| 22 It's got an air hammer I guess, but it's a big, 23 heavy truck.
| |
| 24 WITNESS BALDWIN: That's a key point because one
| |
| {} 25 of the things here is what kind of license those people ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| l 2500 05 05 8164
| |
| < mnrysimons 1 carry. In other words, what kind of qualifications do they
| |
| . bi 2 have to have to drive one of these large vehicles. It's 3 takes a special kind of license to operate them. So I 4 would presume that if they are qualified to drive a fuel 5 truck that they would be qualified to drive a tow truck. I 6 don't know if the reverse is true. But, at any rate, they 7 should be qualified to and licensed to drive these large 8 trucks, be knowledge and trained.
| |
| 9 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 10 0 Gentlemen, the numbers set forth at the bottom 11 of page 15 of your testimony, those numbers assume a 100 12 percent mobilization of all road crew members, correct?
| |
| 13 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| (v~')
| |
| 14 Q And you state above those numbers that FEMA 15 assumed in its evaluation of the exercise that all of these 16 personnel, road crew personnel would be available for 17 dispatch to the field from the staging areas when an 18 evacuation recommendation was made.
| |
| 19 Do you see that statement?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 21 A (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
| |
| 22 0 lias FEMA done anything to attempt to verify that 23 assumption?
| |
| 24 JUDGE PARIS: Did you say all of the road crew
| |
| (~T 25 personnel? Is this all of the road crew personnel?
| |
| U ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3XXI Nationwide Coserage 800-336- % 46
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| 2500 05 05 8165 arysimons 1 WITNESS KELLER: This is one shift.
| |
| 2 JUDGE PARIS: One shift, okay.
| |
| 3 WITNESS KELLER: It's my recollection this is 4 full staffing for one shift. So that really all the road 5 crew, but for one shift it's all the personnel.
| |
| 6 (Witnesses confer.)
| |
| 7 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 8 0 My question is very limited and let's make sure 9 everyone understands the question. You have some numbers 10 stated on page 15 of your testimony, and those numbers are 11 pulled directly from the LILCO plan.
| |
| 12 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| (" 13 0 And they assume that all road crew members were 14 available at the time of the exercise when an evacuation 15 recommendation was made. All I want to know is have you 16 done anything to attempt to verify this assumption?
| |
| 17 A (Witness Kowieski) No, we did not, and we do 18 not verify every single item and resource identified in the 19 plan.
| |
| 20 0 Okay. Would you look at page 16, gentlemen, of f
| |
| 21 your testimony.
| |
| 22 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| 23 The second sentence on that page, "Since the 24 road crews apparently have two LERO personnel assigned to
| |
| ~
| |
| /) 25 each unit, FEMA would not require full mobilization of a ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-M46
| |
| | |
| 2500 05 05 8166
| |
| -~]trysimons 1 complete first shift for purposes of an exercise."
| |
| (V 2 Would you explain that statement to me?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Keller) For example, there are 333 bus 4 routes to be run and we never evaluate 333 bus routes in 5 any one exercise.
| |
| 6 0 Let's stick with the road crews.
| |
| 7 A Okay. If we leave the gas trucks in, right, 8 there are 19 road crew vehicles staffed by 38 people. In 9 any one exercise we would never evaluate 19 road crews.
| |
| 10 A (Witness Baldwin) I know this isn't a test, but 11 I'm going to clarify something. Mr. Keller just said 333 12 bus routes I believe. It's 333 bus drivers and there are 13 40 some routes.
| |
| (v"]
| |
| 14 A (Witness Keller) Sorry.
| |
| 15 (Laughter.)
| |
| 16 0 Let me back off. Looking at the sentence that I 17 was referring you to, gentlemen, on page 16, you are just 18 simply saying there that FEMA would not have required LERO 19 to have mobilized all of its road crew personnel?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 21 0 FEMA did not require LERO to do that, did it?
| |
| 22 A That's correct.
| |
| 23 JUDGE PARIS: Is this a matter that would be 24 evaluated at some exercise in the next six years or in a 25 six year period?
| |
| {.}
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 05 05 8167 r 7crysimons 1 WITNESS KELLER: It would always be a sample.
| |
| V 2 For the emergency facilities, the EOCs and EOFs and that 3 type of thing, we require full staffing. For the field 4 activities it's almost -- well, I've never seen it where we 5 have ever done all of it. Well, never; never say never.
| |
| 6 It has not been my experience in exercises that all of --
| |
| 7 I'll take that back. Field monitoring, we generally do all 8 of it. With the exception of field monitoring, the sample 9 that is taken in an exercise is not a full sample of what 10 is required in the plan.
| |
| 11 A (Witness Kowieski) If I may add, as far as 12 facilities are concerned, and let's say reception centers,
| |
| /^ 13 congregate care centers and bus companies, we try to Q) 14 rotate. In other words, in one year we use two bus 15 companies and then in the next exercise, two years later, 16 the remaining bus companies. So this way we cover all bus 17 companies identified in the plan.
| |
| 18 It wouldn't be feasible to exercise, for 19 example, or dispatch and evaluate all of the bus drivers 20 identified in the plan. Some of the plans have 700 and the 21 LILCO plan calls for 333 bus drivers for the general 22 population. So this wouldn't be feasible.
| |
| 23 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 24 0 I understand now, gentlemen. What you're really
| |
| {} 25 saying on page 16 of your testimony is that because road ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8 5 336-6646
| |
| ~_ - . - -- .- - - - . - - _ _ - .
| |
| | |
| 2500 05 05 8168 crews are field personnel, FEMA never requires an G(~7 rysimons 1 2 organization to mobilize all such field personnel?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 4 0 There is nothing specific about the road crew 5 function which makes road crews under LILCO's plan somehow 6 different?
| |
| 7 A That's correct.
| |
| 8 0 Now, gentlemen, let me show you Attachment 2 to 9 the County's testimony on Contention 41.
| |
| 10 (A document was placed by Counsel Lanpher before 11 the witnesses.)
| |
| 12 MR. MILLER: And just to remind the Board, 13 Attachment 2 to the County's Contention 41 testimony sets
| |
| (~]\
| |
| \-
| |
| 14 forth for the road crews assigned the tow truck functions, 15 the 12 total road crews reflected on pags 15 of the FEMA 16 testimony, the times that a request came into the staging 17 area for the road crews to be dispatched to their post in 18 the field and the time those road crews were actually 19 dispatched into the field.
| |
| 20 Now, gentlemen, looking at this data I'm 21 assuming that certainly with respect to the Port Jefferson 22 Staging Area you would find these dispatch times of road 23 crews to their post in the field to be unacceptable; is 24 that a fair statement, Mr. Kowieski?
| |
| {} 25 (witnesses conferring.)
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| L 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| 2500 05 05 8169 !
| |
| r 70rysimons 1 A (Witness Keller) It certainly appears that the U
| |
| 2 delay between the request which was about the time of the 3 evacuation recommendation and the time they were actually 4 dispatched is delayed.
| |
| 5 0 Now lot me just follow up. Mr. Kowieski, I 6 think you had given me this previous answer. So perhaps 7 you should answer, but I really don't care.
| |
| 8 You stated that the road crew personnel should 9 be at their post in the field at the time an evacuation is 10 ordered by LERO.
| |
| 11 A (Witness Kowieski) When evacuation is in 12 progress.
| |
| 13 0 And during the exercise an evacuation was (G~)
| |
| 14 ordered at about 10:24, correct?
| |
| 15 A That's correct.
| |
| 16 0 Now if you look at Attachment 2 to the County's 17 41 testimony, no a single road crew was at its post in the 18 field at the time an evacuation order was made by LERO, 19 correct?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) That's correct. I think -- a 21 clarification, please -- I think Mr. Kowieski said, and I 22 remember him saying this, now maybe I'm mistaken, that the 23 evacuation process was underway.
| |
| 24 A (Witness Kowieski) In progress.
| |
| 25 JUDGE FRYE: I think he did say that, but we'll
| |
| .}
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-y46
| |
| | |
| 2500 05 05 8170
| |
| ,r y rysimons 1 get to that.
| |
| \)
| |
| 2 WITNESS KELLER: Well, that's an hour. In the 3 plan there is an assumption of an hour.
| |
| 4 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 5 Q Mr. Keller, Mr. Kowieski or Dr. Baldwin, if you 6 make this one hour assumption, then about 11:24 you would 7 assume the evacuation process under LILCO's plan would be 8 underway, correct?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 10 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 11 A (Witness Baldwin) Correct.
| |
| 12 0 And even then only the road crews from Riverhead 13
| |
| ('/
| |
| s_
| |
| ') would have been in place at their post in the field?
| |
| 14 A (Witness Baldwin) Correct.
| |
| 15 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 16 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 17 Q And in fact if you look at the road crews from 18 Port Jefferson, those road crews were being dispatched as 19 late as 12:40 correct?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) That's what the data says.
| |
| 21 0 Now if this data is true, and if FEMA would have 22 been made aware of this data or would have known this data 23 at the time it was putting together the FEMA report, isn't 24 it a fair statement to say that this data would have been
| |
| {} 25 the basis for an additional deficiency by PEMA?
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6 4 6 i I
| |
| | |
| ~2500 05 05 8171
| |
| -rar ysimons A (Witness.Kowieski) .W e have identified a Q 2. deficiency at the EOC. The delays and misinformation
| |
| .3 .regarding impediments to evacuation. prevented our evaluator 4 to make an evaluation or observation of the actual arrival 5' of road crews in the field.
| |
| 6 0 Mr. Kowieski, that is a different issue.
| |
| -7 A. What you evaluated as a-deficiency at the EOC 8 concerned communications problems at the EOC and field 9- response problems in dealing with the simulated traffic 10 impediments.
| |
| 11: I'm asking a different question. Given this 12 data in Attachment 2 to the County's Contention 41 13- testimony, if that data is in fact' correct, that data would
| |
| _( }-
| |
| 14- in'dicate significant delays by at least some road crews in 15 ~ even being dispatched into the field on.the day of the-16 exercise,-and given this data is it not true and it is not
| |
| : 17. a fair statement.to say that FEHA would have found an 18 . additional deficiency?
| |
| 19 A (Witness Keller) -Without some additional 20- information, that's too strong a statement I believe. I 21 agree with you it is a serious problem. Before we rate a 22 -deficiency we-do take a great-deal of care. A deficiency 23 is a very significant evaluation. We are saying that there 24 is lack of ability to protect the public health and 25 safety. We don't do that lightly.
| |
| :{ }
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 05 05 8172 Just with the data that is on the page, I agree, e-]srysimons1 s_s 2 there is a serious problem. My inclination is it probably 3 would be a deficiency, but before I would say that 4 definitely I would like to have a lot more data on why it 5 was and that sort of thing.
| |
| : 6. Clearly that is not within the parameters of the 7 plan, and clearly there are significant delays which are 8 unacceptable.
| |
| 9 JUDGE FRYE: So you would say it would be either 10 an ARCA or a deficiency.
| |
| .11 WITNESS KELLER: Oh, clearly an ARCA, an ARCA 12 plus maybe. Without more data I'm not ready right now to
| |
| ~'s 13 say yes, that would have been a deficiency.
| |
| (V 14 MR. MILLER: I can live with that answer, Judge 15 Frye.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: Good.
| |
| 17 (Laughter.)
| |
| 18 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 19 0 Gentlemen, looking at page 17 of your testimony, 20 I'm going to Contention 41B at this point.
| |
| 21 Gentlemen, Contention 41B essentially takes the 22 data reflected in the FEMA report regarding the roadway 23 impediments and restates that data, and my real first 24 question is do you have any basis for disagreeing 25 whatsoever with any of the statements and allegations set (u~}
| |
| l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3R10 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M446
| |
| | |
| '2500 05 05 8173 r-~srysimons 1 _forth in Contention 41B?
| |
| $~]
| |
| 2 I don't even believe the term " fundamental flaw" 3 ~1s used here,-Mr. Keller.
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) An oversight I trust.
| |
| 5 (Laughter.)
| |
| 6 Do you have a citation for the page?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Baldwin) It's 75.
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) If you asking me whether I 9 want to agree with the contention, I would like to look at 10 the contention again.
| |
| 11 0 Right. I understand.
| |
| 12 A Do you have a page citation for the contention?
| |
| 13 0 To tell you the truth, Mr. Keller, I'm looking
| |
| (~}
| |
| 14 at the November 24th version of the contention.
| |
| 15 A I'm sorry, I don't have that version. I have 16 Mr. Lanpher's March 2nd version.
| |
| 17 JUDGE PARIS: You mean you don't have the March 18 2nd, 1978 one that you prepared at the Board's request?
| |
| 19 MR. MILLER: Not with me right now, Judge Paris.
| |
| 20 (Laughter.)
| |
| 21 WITNESS KELLER: It's about page 40C; is that 22 right, Mr. Miller.
| |
| 23 MR. MILLER: 41B.
| |
| 24 WITNESS BALDWIN: I have it on page 75 of that.
| |
| 25 It begins on 75 and it's several pages.
| |
| }
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336W>46
| |
| | |
| -2500 05 05- 8174 Orysimons 1 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you, Dr. Baldwin.
| |
| 2: (Pause while the witnesses review the document.)
| |
| 3 WITNESS BALDWIN: Essentially we agree with the
| |
| -4 contention.
| |
| 5 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 6 0 Okay. Can you just tell me, Dr. Baldwin, if you 7 disagree with anything in Contention 41B7 8 JUDGE FRYE Do you all what to take time to 9 read it carefully before you answer?
| |
| 10 WITNESS KOWIESKI: We will have to read it line 11 by line.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE: I would suggest then why don't we 13 take our break and let them read it.
| |
| -( )
| |
| 14 MR. MILLER: Okay. I've got just about three 15 other questions on 41B and then maybe they.could do that 16 during a break.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: All right, fine.
| |
| 18 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 19 0 One is just a clarification question, gentlemen, 20 on page 17 of your testimony. The 25 and the 29 in the 21 margins, that refers I assume to the contention numbers?
| |
| 22 A (Witness Kowieski) That's right.
| |
| 23 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 24 A (Witness Baldwin) We understand from ---
| |
| Those
| |
| (} 25 0 I think I know the answer, Dr. Baldwin.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REpoRTEns, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800436W46
| |
| | |
| . . =. . - _ _ _ _ - .-
| |
| 2500 05 05 8175 r 70rysimons 1 contentions were subsumed within Contention 418.
| |
| b 2 A (Witness Kowieski) Right.
| |
| i 3 A (Witness Koller) Yes.
| |
| 4 0 We understand that.
| |
| 5 A (Witness Baldwin) If you understand it, good, 6 better than us.
| |
| 7 (Laughter.)
| |
| 8 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, I only have a couple of i 9 questions on 41E as well, and maybo we could just finish up 10 this contention.
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYEt Fino.
| |
| 12 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| {} 13 0 Jontlomon, I'm going to expand my request by a 14 little bit. Would you look at Contentions 25 and 29 as 15 well.
| |
| i 16 A (Witness Baldwin) What page number?
| |
| ! 17 0 They follow right aftor 41B. I want to now if 18 there is anything at all that you disagroo with as stated 19 in Contontions 41B, 25 and 29. This is all primarily drawn 20 right from the FEMA report.
| |
| j 21 Now going to pagos 18 and 19 of your testimony 22 which deals with Contention 41E, the first part of your 23 answer statos that Revision 6 of the LILCO plan did not 24 contain reference to a traffic ongincor at the EOC.
| |
| 4
| |
| {} 25 In fact, gentlemon, Revision 6 does not includo Act Ft;ntinai. Ittii>ouriins, INC.
| |
| 1
| |
| : i. 202m.nm Nationwide Cmcrag m)MIM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 05 05 8176 r~ Orysimons 1 the position of traffic engineer; is that correct?
| |
| U 2 A (Witnoss Koller) That's correct.
| |
| 3 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 4 0 And in discussing the procedural changes that 5 have boon mado by LERO in response to the problems 6 identified by FEMA at the oxorciso regarding the roadway 7 impedimonts, I assumo, gentlemon, that again the 8 offectiveness of those procedural and plan changos would 9 have to bo ovaluated at a remedial oxorciso?
| |
| i 10 A (Witness Kowieski) That's right.
| |
| 11 12 l(:) 23 l 14 15 L L
| |
| 16 17 18 l
| |
| l 19 l 20 l
| |
| l 21 22 23 24 25
| |
| (:) ,
| |
| ACit.FlID!!RAI. Illil'OlriliRS, INC.
| |
| I su.147 37m
| |
| . N iiionwide roserare unim(M4
| |
| | |
| ^
| |
| r '00 06 06 8177 U
| |
| G.joowalsh 1 JUDGE FRYE: Did you say a remedial exercise?
| |
| 2 WITNESS KOWIESKI: An exercise.
| |
| 3 WITNESS BALDWIN: An exercise.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: It was his question.
| |
| 5 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 6 0 A remedial or another -- or other exercise.
| |
| 7 A (Witness Kellor) Exerciso, yes.
| |
| 8 Q Okay. And, until such time as there is this 9 exorcino, this deficiency -- the implementation of the 10 actions nooded to correct this deficiency will romain an 11 open itom; is that a fair statomont?
| |
| (} 12 A The verification of the acceptability of the fix 13 is incomplete.
| |
| 14 MR. MILLER: Okay. Judge Fryo, that finishes 15 Contention 41.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: Fino. We will take our 15 minuto 17 break at this point.
| |
| 18 (Whoreupon, a recess is taken at 10:16 a.m., to 19 reconvene at 10:38 a.m., this same day.)
| |
| 20 JUDGE FRYE All right. We are back on the 21 record.
| |
| 22 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 23 0 Gentlemon, woro you able to review contentions
| |
| {} 24 41.B, 25 and 29 during the break?
| |
| 25 A (Witness Kowlooki) Yes, wo did.
| |
| Aci! Fennnat. RueonTnns, INC, I :02 347 37(n Nationwide Cmcrage me.31MM6 u_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 2500 06 06 8178
| |
| .joewalsh 1 0 Do you have any disagreement with any of the 2 matters stated in those three contentions?
| |
| 3 A I would have one disagreement as far as 4 Contention 41.B is concerned. And, in the first -- in the 5 second line of the sentence that starts, "LILCO was 6 incapable of responding..." I disagree with incapable. I 7 would substitute incapable with another word, maybe 8 adversely effected in a response, effective response.
| |
| 9 0 would you be able to agree with substituting the 10 words saying, "LILCO was unable during the exercise to 11 respond to..." and then go on from there?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Keller) To respond adequately.
| |
| (~T 13 (Witness Kowieski) To respond adequately.
| |
| ; \_/
| |
| 14 (Witness Keller) or something like that.
| |
| i 15 (Witness Kowieski) Okay.
| |
| 16 0 Now, with that one modification is there 17 anything else in those three contentions you would disagree 18 with?
| |
| 19 A No, sir.
| |
| 20 (Witness Keller) Wait. lie said all three.
| |
| 21 (Witness Kowieski) I'm saying 41. We are 22 talking about 41.B. Let's take one at a time.
| |
| 23 0 Okay. 41.0, there is no other modifications you 24 would want to make?
| |
| {} 25 A Well, it was very hard for us to verify every ace FEDERAL REI'ORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coscrage M10-33HM6
| |
| | |
| r.
| |
| 2500 06 06 8179 g-"j.joewalsh 1 single time quoted in the contention, but I would think
| |
| (.J 2 generally speaking we do agree with the contention.
| |
| 3 0 What about Contention 25?
| |
| 4 A Yeah. We do agree with the part that begins 5 with "See OPIP 3.1.1..." somewhere in the middle of the 6 page, 3.1.1, OPIP 3.6.3.
| |
| 7 Well, we also agree with the statement I guess.
| |
| 8 JUDGE PARIS: What page are you looking at?
| |
| 9 WITNESS KOWIESKI: 78, sir.
| |
| 10 WITNESS KELLER: 78.
| |
| 11 WITNESS KOWIESKI: We agree also with the next 12 sentence which starts, "In order to be able to make
| |
| (~'\ 13 necessary decision..." which ends with "...information from V
| |
| 14 the field."
| |
| 15 We disagree with the sentence that starts, 16 "Does, this deficiency..." First of all, there was no 17 deficiency identified by FEMA during the exercise in the 18 field.
| |
| 19 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 20 0 Mr. Kowieski, the deficiency there is with a 21 little "d" so if you substitute the word --
| |
| 22 A (Witness Keller) ARCA?
| |
| 23 0 No. If you substitute the word --
| |
| 24 ,
| |
| A (Witness Kowieski) Inadequacy?
| |
| 25 0 Inadequacy or problem or something of that sort
| |
| ' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Mn3364M6
| |
| | |
| A
| |
| ( ;2500 Oi6106 8180
| |
| 'f"1.- it --
| |
| ' (-) joewalsh 1 2 A All right.
| |
| 3 0 It's not used as a term of' art as used in the 4 FEHA' report as a Deficiency, capital "D", Mr. Keller;
| |
| ) -5. that's-all I'm saying.
| |
| 6- A (Witness Keller) But, I think the rest of the 7 sentence is akin to the same kind of definition .
| |
| 8 (Witness Kowieski) Yeah.
| |
| . 9 (Witness Keller) And even though you have a 10 little "d" and tell me you don't mean that, you've got to' 11- change the rest of the sentence for me to agree. with you.
| |
| 12 0 No. I was making that one clarification. You
| |
| (} 13 .can tell me if'you disagree with the sentence.
| |
| 14 A Yeah, we disagree, because we think that.that.
| |
| 15 conclusion which is in the rest of the sentence is akin to 16 the same kind of thing as the Deficiency with a capital f
| |
| 17 "D."
| |
| 18 (Witness Kowieski) That's one point. The
| |
| , 19 second point, we have no opinions.as far as 10 CPR Part 50 1
| |
| i 20 is concerned.
| |
| 21 O Okay. Now, what about Contention 29? Just tell 22 me, if you would, what, if anything, you disagree with.
| |
| l 23 A (Witness Keller) It's the same -- it's the end 24 of it --
| |
| 25 (Witness Kowieski) End of it which -- okay. We
| |
| ( )-
| |
| i
| |
| /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 06 06 8181 r~1.joewalsh I disagree with the part that starts, "Does, this V
| |
| 2 deficiency..."
| |
| 3 0 For the same reasons as Contention 25?
| |
| 4 A That's correct.
| |
| 5 0 Thank you. Now, would you look at Page 20 of 6 your testimony 7 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 8 Mr. Kowieski, NUREG 0654, in discussing 9 impediments to evacuation includes more than traffic 10 accidents; is that a fair statement?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 12 0 For example, inclement weather would be within
| |
| (} 13 the types of things that constitute impediments to 14 evacuation that NUREG 0654 says the LILCO plan must be able 15- to provide means for dealing with; is that a fair 16 statement?
| |
| 17 A I don't know if I understand your question.
| |
| 1 18 But, if you could rephrase it?
| |
| 19 0 Under NUREG 0654, LERO is required to deal with 20 impediments to evacuation including, for example, inclement 21 weather; is that a fair statement?
| |
| 22 A That's a fair statement.
| |
| 23 0 During the exercise, there was no demonstration 24 of LERO's ability to deal with any impediments to
| |
| (~} 25 evacuation other than the two simulated traffic accidents,
| |
| \!
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. <
| |
| t 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MW).336-6M6
| |
| | |
| .2500 06 06 8182 r *.joewalsh I correct?
| |
| 2 A Impediments, as far as I'm aware of impediments, 3 are -- I can deal only with impediments introduced by FEMA.
| |
| 4 0 And, those were the two simulated roadway --
| |
| 5- A That's right.
| |
| 6 0 -- traffic accidents?
| |
| 7 A Yes, sir.
| |
| 8 0 Now, Mr. Kowieski, do you recall that LILCO 9 itself estimates that there would be approximately four 10 traffic' accidents during an evacuation of the 10-mile EPZ?
| |
| 11 A Four -- I read the transcripts, and I recall 12 four accidents. I don't remember in what context. Whether
| |
| (} 13 it was 12 hours or 10 hours or eight hours or nine hours, I 14 ' don't recall.
| |
| 15 O Now, would you agree with me, Mr. Kowieski, that 16 during an evacuation of.the EPZ the potential need for tow i
| |
| 17 trucks to deal with accidents might be higher than would i
| |
| j 18 normally be the case?
| |
| j 19 A (Witness Keller) Might be higher, yes.
| |
| 20 0
| |
| * And, in fact, the last sentence in your 21 testimony on Page 20 reflects that assumption; is that j .22 correct?
| |
| 23 A (Witness Kowieski) That's right.
| |
| 24 0 And, is it fair to say, gentlemen, that since it
| |
| (} 25 is possible that during an EP2 evacuation there is a l
| |
| l t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-334 6646
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| 2500 06 06 8183
| |
| .joewalsh 1 potential for a higher number of accidents it would 2 normally be the case --
| |
| 3 A (Witness Keller) Aro you finished?
| |
| 4 0 No. Conclusions, any conclusions drawn 5 regarding the number of accidents that should be planned 6 for by LI:RO -- lot me just start again.
| |
| 7 A All right.
| |
| l 8 0 Is it fair to say, gentlemon, that since the 9 potential for a greater number of accidents exists during 10 an EPZ ovacuation than othorwise, data which is drawn from I 11 normal days of the year with respect to traffic accidents 12 might have to be adjusted in order to permit FEMA to draw l
| |
| (} 13 conclusions about the appropriato number of accidents that 14 could exist ddring an EPZ ovacuation?
| |
| l 15 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Firut, I think the 16 question is pretty complicated and confusing. But, to tho l
| |
| 17 extent that I think I understand it, what Mr. Miller is l 18 asking is about the planning basis that the LILCO plan used l
| |
| 19 and the number of accidents that woro postulated.
| |
| j 20 And, that wa; litigated under Contention 66 in 21 the previous litigation.
| |
| 22 MR. MILLER: Judge Fryo, it's not a planning 23 basis issue. It's directly raised by Contention 22.I and, 24 in fact, those gentlemon in their testimony have looked at some data which is presented in Contention 22.I rogarding
| |
| {} 25 Acn FEDERAL RunonTens, INC.
| |
| 202 M 37m Nationwide Cowrne Nn3M u>ui
| |
| | |
| 2500 06 06 8184 r- the Suffolk County Police Department information, and they C].joowalsh1 2 apparently have drawn some conclusions from that data.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: You had an assumption in there. I 4 tend to agree --
| |
| 5 MR. MILLER: I don't think it's a good question, 6 so --
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: The question is all right, but you 8 had an assumption in thoro that I wasn't cortain had boon .
| |
| 9 ostablishod. And, that assumption had to do with the fact 10 thatthorovasaposfibilitythorowouldbomoreaccidents 11 in an ovacuation. {
| |
| l 12 MR. M I L LE R',i Oh, okay.
| |
| i
| |
| (} 13 14 that had -
| |
| JUDGE FRYEi And, I just wasn't cortain whether 15 MR. MILLER: I thought wo had establishod --
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: You may havo.
| |
| 17 MR. MILLER: Lot mo make sure.
| |
| 10 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 19 0 Gontlemon, is it fair to say that thoro 20 cortainly is a potenttal for a greator number of accidents 21 during an EP2 ovacuation than would normally bo the caso?
| |
| 22 A (Witnons Kollor) If I understand your "than 23 normally would bo tho caso," I would accept that. Yos.
| |
| 24 0 And, in f.ict, is that assumption not reflected 25 in tho last nontonco of your tostimony on Pago 207
| |
| {~}
| |
| ACl! Ftioiinal. Itiii'on1itas, INC,
| |
| :02.W.Um Nanondie Coserage M u ltr,f M 4 L
| |
| | |
| 2500 06 06 8185 p.joewalsh1 A Yes, that's correct.
| |
| v 2 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. You had established it. I 3 apologizo.
| |
| 4 MR. MILLER: But, I don't think my question was 5 a good question, so lot mo --
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: Well, I think I undoratand your 7 question.
| |
| O BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 9 Q Woll, lot's just try to clean it up, Mr. Kollor.
| |
| 10 A (Witnons Kollor) Okay.
| |
| 11 , O In it fair to say that in your testimony on 12 Contention 22.1 you rollod on tho data regarding traffic 13 accidont information prononted in Contontion 22.I?
| |
| 14 A (Witnoon Kowlooki) That's corroct.
| |
| 15 0 And, I tako it, Mr. Kowtonki, that that data van 16 anoontially that no reported by the Sixth Procinct of the 17 Suftalk County Polico Dopartmont that thoro woro 18 approximately 335 accidonta during the porlod of Fobruary 19 6th, 1986 through Fobruary 20, 19867 ,
| |
| 20 A (Witnenn Kollor) Wo dopondod on tho 65 l 21 accidento requiring tho annintanco of one or moro tow 22 trucks which in shown in tho noxt to the lant lino on Pago 23 80 of tho March 2nd not of contontionn. And, wo really did ,
| |
| 24 not concorn ournolvon with the numbor of roported 25 accidento.
| |
| i ACl! I''l!Dl!H Al. Rl!I'OR l't!IUi, INC.
| |
| :o!.m.Mm NausinwMe Omdage W HW,#>
| |
| | |
| l l 2500 06 06 0186
| |
| ! p.joowalsh1 J
| |
| We woro only talking about the number of 2 accidents requiring one or more tow trucks, sinco as wo l 3 road the contention it was assorted that since we only put 4 in two froo-play messagos for impodiments requiring tow l
| |
| 5 trucks that was not enough.
| |
| l 6 Rather nimplo arithmotic, which is shown in our l 7 rosponno, indicatos that wo should on the averago put in a l
| |
| 8 little over ono. It's hard to put in one and a half, so wo 9 put in two. Wo think that's roanonable to the extent that
| |
| ! 10 thoro could bo more accidento during an ovacuation which 11 requiron tow trucks. And, that's all wo are concernod 12 about in terms of impodimonts.
| |
| 13 If you are talking about having to clear the 14 road, it's accidents which require tow trucka that are 15 important, not reportable accidonto, thin 400 dollar l
| |
| l 16 roportablo thing. It really doonn't make a wholo lot of 17 difforenco if you don't havo to clear the road.
| |
| 18 if we had other data, wo may havo dono another l
| |
| ! 19 analynia. Ilu t , tho data that wo did tho analysin on was l
| |
| 20 what wan prononted in tho contention.
| |
| ! 21 Q Mr. Kollor, tot mo junt follow up. Tho data 22 proconted in the contention won not rolled upon by F10MA in 23 any way in the annortion of the two froo-play monnagon 24 rogarding tho traffic impodimonta at tho oxorcino?
| |
| 25 A (Witnoan Kowtonki) That'n corroct.
| |
| ACli li )liH l1 Al. Rl!I'Olt 11!!15, INC, I
| |
| x m um Neinnahic nncrue w i tri tMr.
| |
| | |
| 2500 06 06 8187
| |
| .joowalsh 1 0 That's correct?
| |
| 2 A That's correct.
| |
| 3 0 So, can you tell me, gentlemon, on what basis it 4 was decided to employ only the two traffic impediments [
| |
| 5 during the exorcino?
| |
| 6 A Prior exporionco in FEMA Region II.
| |
| 7 0 Are you saying that at other exercison within 0 Region II it in always the caso that two simulated roadway 9 impodimonts are injectod?
| |
| 10 A It dopondo on the otto, it doponds on the 11 location, doponds on the oxorciou sconario. One or two por 12 county in a roanonablo number of impedimento.
| |
| 13 JUDGE FRYE One or two por?
| |
| 14 WITNESS KOWIESKI Por county. Por county. t i
| |
| 15 WITNESS BALDWIN: And, the way that thono i 16 impodiments woro solocted related to the sconario, which 17 was to offoct -- wo know in planning for, becauso wo know 18 tho aconario prior to the oxorcino, being able to plan for
| |
| , 19 whore wa woro going to placo thono, it was going to offact 20 at loast Zonon A through J. So, thono zonos do not offoot 21 Rivorhoad, the road crown dinpatched out of Rivorhocid.
| |
| 22 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 23 0 Dr. Baldwin --
| |
| 24 A (Witnoon Baldwin) And, thoroforo, wo limited
| |
| : 25 tho domonstration of thoso to tho two ntaging aroan from i
| |
| f A ci!.1'ii niin A i. Iliti>o n I I!sts, 1 NC,
| |
| :n.u m m Nanon*We nneruc m untu6
| |
| | |
| 2500 06106 8188
| |
| +
| |
| r 1.joewalsh 1~ which those road crews would be dispatched based on the V
| |
| 2 scenario for that particular day, that exercise day.
| |
| 3 0 okay. We will come to a discussion of the 4 selection of the site. But, in terms of the number 5 selected, it's your testimony that you selected the number 6 two, two simulated impediments, based upon prior experience 7 at other sites? '
| |
| 8 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct. -i 9 (Witness Baldwin) Yes, as well as the fact that 10 those two were selected because they were effecting zones --
| |
| 11 not the location, let's leave the location aside, but the 12 staging areas from which these road crews were going to be
| |
| () 13 dispatched in response to those impediments were coming out of two staging areas as pre-defined by the scenario 14
| |
| ,=
| |
| 15 selected for the day.
| |
| 16 0 So, are you saying, Dr. Baldwin, that the 17 precodont that was relied upon is really the fact that you 18 selected one accident per staging area that would, by 19 nocessity, be involved during the exercise?
| |
| 20 A That is correct.
| |
| 21 Q lias FEMA Region II over selected or employed 22 more than one impodimont por county at an exorciso?
| |
| 23 A (Witnons Kowleski) Woll, again I cannot -- I 24 don't have an instant recollection. I would have to go to
| |
| {} 25 the post-oxerciso assessment to verify it.
| |
| Acn-Fl!DERAl. RnvonTuns, INC.
| |
| 202 m.noo Nationwide cmcrage 8m3n6M6
| |
| | |
| 'a -
| |
| 2500 06 06 8189
| |
| -(~").joewalsh 1 0 No, just from your recollection. ,
| |
| ' \s '
| |
| 2 A The possibility always exists.
| |
| 3 0 Just from your recollection. I just want to ,
| |
| 4 'know -- let me, in fact, broaden the question.
| |
| 5 -Based upon your recollection, has FEMA Region II 6 'ever employed.more than two traffic impediments at other 7' exercises? l
| |
| , 8 'A Yes. It's my recollection that in June 4th or 9 Sth exercise, 1986, Indian Point exercise, we introduced at
| |
| .10 least two impediments to evacuation, Putnam County. .And, 11 this was because -- due to the fact that county emergency 12 manager specifically requested to keep his staff busy.
| |
| 13 0 Okay. So, Mr. Kowicski, for that particular
| |
| /~')
| |
| (_-
| |
| 14 exercise, do you recall the total number of impediments
| |
| : 15. that were injected by FEMA?
| |
| 16 A Two or three.
| |
| , 17- 0 Do you recall any other exercises where more
| |
| 't ;r 18 than'two simulated roadway impediments were injected by
| |
| . 19 FEMA at the exercise?
| |
| 20 A I'm sorry, but I don't recall.
| |
| 21 MR. MILLER: If you would just give me one t 22 second, I may eliminato an entire line of questions here.
| |
| . 23 (Pause.) ;
| |
| I 24 25
| |
| : C:)
| |
| 1 1-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| ,4 l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07 8190
| |
| (' pcuewalsh 1 O Let me just maybe ask one other question, v 2 gentleme n. In looking at the data that was presented in 3 Contention 22.I and, if I understand correctly, you focused 4 upon not the total number of reported accidents but the 5 number of reported instances of where tow trucks were 6 required.
| |
| 7 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 'l 8- O You did understand, I assume, that it is not 9 necessarily the case that every time a tow truck responds l
| |
| 10 to an accident.within Suffolk County that is, in fact, 11 reported to the Suffolk County Police Department?
| |
| 12 Did you know that?
| |
| () 13 A I don't know it now.
| |
| 14 0 Well, assume it now. Would that make a b 15 difference to your selection of the two --
| |
| 16 A We analyzed the data that was presented in the 17 contentiok, period. The part that we focused on was the s
| |
| 3 18 part at the bottom, next to the last line, on Page 80 which 19 stst 5: "And 65 required the assistance of one or more tow 20 tru ck s . "
| |
| -21 If the contention had said: And, this is only 22 half the reported accidents, we would have doubled the 65.
| |
| >~
| |
| 23 But, we focused on --
| |
| l t 24 i JUDGE FRYE: It would have changed your
| |
| () > 25 testimony? i s
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07 8191 WITNESS KELLER: Sure. But, we tried to draft
| |
| )cuewalsh'l 2 our testimony in response to the admitted contention, not 3 to some other information.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
| |
| 5 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 6 0 Can you tell me, Mr. Keller, how your testimony 7 might have been changed if you would have understood that 8 the number of' tow truck incidents reported in the 9 contention was only those instances that are actually 10 reported to the Suffolk County Police Department?
| |
| 11 A Well, I would assume then that there would have 12 to be more than 65. If you are saying that some went
| |
| (_j3 13 . unreported, then you would have -- we would project more 14 than the one point -- whatever it is, a little over one tow 15 truck accidents per the roughly six hour evacuation time.
| |
| 16 (Witness Baldwin) Well, Mr. Miller, your 17 question goes to tow truck incidents. And, I don't know 18 what a tow truck incident is.
| |
| 19 0 Let me just follow up with Mr. Keller, and then 20 I think we can put this one to rest.
| |
| 21 A Sure.
| |
| 22 0 Mr. Keller, is there any number of incidents of 23 tow truck responses that could have been depicted in the 24 contention which would have led this panel to conclude that
| |
| () 25 the insertion of only two traffic impediments at the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07 8192
| |
| ,'' )cuewalsh 1 Shoreham exercise was an insufficient number?
| |
| v 2 A (Witness Keller) Probably not. The number of 3 impediment messages --
| |
| 4 0 Let me just follow up, Mr. Keller. If that's 5 the case, then I'm having trouble understanding your answer 6 to me which was that if we would have known -- if you would 7 have known that the number or tow truck incidents was 8 higher that could have changed your testimony.
| |
| 9 How could it have changed your testimony?---
| |
| 10 A The contention -- the nub of the contention is 11 that the sample size was too small. We had the contention 12 upon which to base our response. We based our response
| |
| () 13 based on what was in the contention.
| |
| 14 If the contention says -- again, the nub of the 15 contention is -- that the sample size was too small and 16 there was no data there whatsoever, because we didn't have 17 this date when we decided to put two impediments in --
| |
| 18 (Witness Baldwin) I think we need to make it 19 clear that we didn't have the contentions before the 20 exercise was --
| |
| 21 (Witness Keller) That's right.
| |
| 22 (Witness Baldwin) -- developed.
| |
| 23 0 I understand that.
| |
| 24 A (Witness Keller) Our testimony would probably
| |
| (~) 25 have been -- rather than the way we did it here, the ws ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07 8193 testimony would have been what Mr. Kowieski gave you U)cuewalsh 1 2 verbally, that the reason we think that the two was a 3 reasonable size sample and not inadequate was based on 4 prior experience in FEMA Region II. It would not have been 5 a mathematical approach at all 6 0 Okay. Thank you. Let's go to Contention 21.F 7 A (Witness Kowieski) Page?
| |
| 8 0 Page 155.
| |
| 9 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 10 Gentlemen, you reference at the beginning of 11 s your te'timony on Contention 21.F Objective EOC-17. This 12 objective was judged not to have been met during the
| |
| () 13 exercise; is that correct?
| |
| 14 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 15 O Now, you state that FEMA evaluated the 16 assessment and response to two free-play evacuation 17 impediments at the EOC and attempted to evaluate the field 18 response to these impediment problems.
| |
| 19 Do you see that statement?
| |
| 20 A That's correct.
| |
| 21 Q Now, first of all, gentlemen, which objectives 22 at the Shoreham exercise were designed with respect to 23 FEMA's attempt to evaluate the field response to the 24 impediments?
| |
| 25 Is that Field Objective 10?
| |
| [)D u.
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| t 2500'07.07 8194 A That's correct.
| |
| (pcuewalsh1 2 O And, for Port Jefferson Field Objective 10 could 3 not be observed or evaluated, correct?
| |
| 4 A It was not observed, that's right.
| |
| 5 0 And, for.Patchogue staging area, Field Objective 6 10 was partly met; is that right?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 8 (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
| |
| 9 0 Given LERO's response to the impediment out of 10 the.Patchogue staging area, which was the gravel truck 11 impediment, can you tell me how Field Objective 10 was 12 judged to be anything other than not met?
| |
| e (m) 13 A (Witness Kowieski) Because the problem was 14 -caused not in the field but was caused by miscommunication 15' in problems at EOC.
| |
| 16 0 Mr.-Kowieski, there were problems in the field, 17 were there not?
| |
| 18 A The problems in the field, like insufficient 19 response to the impediment, was caused by miscommunication 20 or lack of communication between the staging area and EOC 21 and as well as among EOC staff, the source of the problem.
| |
| 22 And, we already identified deficiency for EOC.
| |
| 23 0 But, there were problems in connection with the 24 gravel truck impediment that occurred in the field; is that 25 true?
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07 8195
| |
| ^
| |
| J 3cuewalsh 1
| |
| \.
| |
| A That's correct.
| |
| 2 0 Now, you state, gentlemen, that both impediment 3 problems were intentionally situated at the confluence of 4 traffic along major evacuation routes and were designed to 5 entirely block the route including both shoulders of the 6 roads where they occurred.
| |
| 7 I want to focus on that statement in your 8 testimony for a few moments. Is it fair to say that the 9 reason these impediments were located where they were was 10 to determine whether LERO could handle what in an actual 11 emergency would be considered a serious accident?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
| |
| 13 0 And, in an actual emergency such accidents could (a) 14 have serious impacts upon evacuation time estimates for 15 evacuees; is that correct?
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) We already testified to this 17 effect.
| |
| 18 0 So, you would agree?
| |
| 19 A It would have an impact, right.
| |
| 20 0 Serious impact?
| |
| 21 A (Witness Keller) For some of the evacuees.
| |
| 22 0 And, is it fair to say that the exercise, in 23 fact, demonstrated that LERO was unable to handle these 24 simulated impediments in an adequate or a timely fashion?
| |
| () 25 A (Witness Kowieski) Was slow in responding, and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500'07 07 8196
| |
| > the response was not adequate.
| |
| M(' cuewalsh 1 2 0 And, it was not timely, was it?
| |
| 3 A That's correct.
| |
| 4 (Witness Keller) That's right.
| |
| 5 0 Now, the major evacuation routes at which these 6 two impediments were located were Yaphank-Middle Island 7 Road for the gravel truck, and Route 25-A for the fuel 8 truck impediment; is that correct?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Kowieski) We have to verify this.
| |
| 10 (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 11 (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
| |
| 12 0 Now, is it your understanding that both Route 25-(*^
| |
| -( ) 13 A and Yaphank-Middle Island Road are major evacuation 14 routes under LILCO's plan?
| |
| 15 A Yes.
| |
| 16 (Witness Kowieski) That's correct, yes.
| |
| 17 0 Given the significance of the evacuation routes 18 that were chosen, gentlemen, and given the inadequacy of 19 LERO's response to those impediments on the day of the 20 exercise, what would be your opinion with respect to the 21- impact on traffic flow that would have been -- or would 22 have occurred -- in the event of an actual emergency?
| |
| 23 A (Witness Baldwin) Well, the impact as defined 24 in the message would have -- it would have been cut off of
| |
| ( ) 25 going through those -- the locations of those impediments.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| '2500 d7 07 8197 JUDGE PARIS: The locations of those what?
| |
| T(])cuewalsh'1
| |
| .2- WITNESS BALDWIN: Impediments. The message in 3 'both cases blocked both lanes and the shoulders of the r 4 road, so they could not go around on that particular-5 artery.
| |
| 6 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 7 0 Gentlemen, one of the' exhibits in this case is-a 8 deposition of Mr. Saricks who was the. evaluator at the 9 gravel' truck impediment; is that correct?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| l'1 (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
| |
| :12 (Witness-Keller) He was the evaluator for the L,0 13 or 1 erucx t 9 eat e='- 1 a #'t *=o ta t te'= -
| |
| - 1 44 exhibit,-but I suppose it will be soon. r 15 O Mr. Saricks characterized the impact to traffic 16 flow as one that would present extreme traffic flow 17 -difficulty. You would agree with that characterization?
| |
| 18 A I think Dr. Baldwin's characterization is even 19 'more harsh. Dr. Baldwin blocked the flow, and that was the 20 intent of the message.
| |
| - 2 11 JUDGE FRYE: Do you agree with that?
| |
| 22 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, sir. That was the intent 23 of the message.
| |
| 24 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 25 0 Now, you say farther down on Page 155 that these
| |
| )
| |
| ACE FEDERAI, REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| ! 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07~ 8198
| |
| (~'peuewalsh 1 impediments were designed to present realistic types of v
| |
| 2 problems to coordinators and decision-makers at the EOC.
| |
| 3 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 4 0 Is it fair to say, gentlemen, that in general 5 free-play messages at exercises are employed to inject 6 realism into the exercise scenario?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 8 0 So, in this regard, Mr. Kowieski, the impediment 9 free-play messages were really no different than other 10 types of free play messages that are employdd by FEMA; is 11 that a fair statement?
| |
| 12 A The intent was the same, right.
| |
| f( ) 13 0 To inject realism?
| |
| 14 A Right.
| |
| 15 0 And, you believe that these impediments did, in 16 fact, present LERO with realistic situations?
| |
| 17 A I'm convinced.
| |
| 18 0 Now, you say that the impediments were designed 19- not only to present realistic types of problems but to 20 require field evaluation by LERO evacuation route spotters-21 and the actual dispatch of road crews to the scene of the 22 impediments.
| |
| 23 Is it fair to say, gentlemen, that in all of 24 these respects, all three respects, LERO failed during the
| |
| (~')
| |
| V 25 exercise?
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07 8199
| |
| ~
| |
| A I do have a problem with your characterization
| |
| {32uewalsh1 2 of failed. I think that the report speaks for itself, and 3 our' testimony speaks for itself.
| |
| 4 0 Well, how would-you characterize LERO's 5 performance with respect to these three aspects set forth 6 on Page 155 of your testimony?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Keller) We gave a deficiency rating to 8 the decision-making and communications aspects within the 9 EOC.
| |
| 10 With regard to the field areas, we gave areas 11- requiring corrective action.
| |
| 12 (Witness Kowieski) Only for one, for one
| |
| ()- 13 impediment.
| |
| 1-4 (Witness Keller) Right.
| |
| 15 (Witness Kowieski) As we already testified, we 16 were not able to evaluate fuel truck impediment.
| |
| 17 (Witness Keller) And, I suppose the failed --
| |
| 18 we don't look at it that way, but failed I would say would 19 have to be a deficiency I guess.
| |
| 20 0 Okay. I have two follow-ups. Mr. Kowieski, you 21 were not able to -- FEMA was not able to evaluate the fuel 22 truck impediment because after two and a half hours of 23 waiting the FEMA evaluator had to move onto other aspects 24 of the exercise, correct?
| |
| () 25 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't know if it was two ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| ' 2500 07 07 8200
| |
| ~
| |
| ('Scuewalsh 1 and a half. I must agree with you, it was long time. Our
| |
| .\J 2 evaluator waited for long time and finally decided to 3 proceed to the next assignment.
| |
| 4 O Now, .in and of itself, that long time that that 5 evaluator waited without a response forthcoming by LERO 6 demonstrated a problem with LERO's response, did it not?
| |
| 7 A That's correct. But, again I must go back. The 8 problem was at EOC.
| |
| 9 0 Okay. And, you found at the EOC, of course, the 10 deficiency?
| |
| -11 A ~That's correct.
| |
| -12 O So, at least with respect to the EOC
| |
| /~s 13 coordinators and decision-makers that you reference on Page
| |
| (_)
| |
| 14 155 of the testimony, their response to the impediment in 15 that regard they failed, correct?
| |
| 16 A- It was deficient.
| |
| 17 O They failed?
| |
| 18 JUDGE FRYE: I think you are getting into an 19 argument over semantics. They say it's deficient; you say 20 it's --
| |
| 21 MR. MILLER: Well, I thought Mr. Keller told me 22 that a failure is a deficiency.
| |
| 23 WITNESS KELLER: I said a failure would be more 24 akin to a deficiency. And, the ARCA is not a failure. It
| |
| (') '25 has to be fixed.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07 8201
| |
| '~
| |
| )cuewalsh 1 JUDGE FRYE: But, you-all don't like the term w) 2 " failure?"
| |
| 3 WITNESS KELLER: That's right. We have 4 established a hierarchy of terms, and we would like to stay 5 with our hierarchy.
| |
| 6 Deficiency has a very severe consequence and 7 meaning.
| |
| 8 WITNESS BALDWIN: That's right. If you fail a 9 course, does that mean you get to retake the course I guess 10 to make it up? In this case, a deficiency in an operating 11 plant situation allows you to retake the test, in a sense, 12 because you are allowed the opportunity to remediate n
| |
| I j 13 through a plan change and then demonstrate that you can --
| |
| 14 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Correct the problem.
| |
| 15 WITNESS BALDWIN: -- correct the problem.
| |
| 16 JUDGE PARIS: It doesn't necessarily mean you 17 failed the course?
| |
| 18 WITNESS BALDWIN: I guess that's why we are 19 here.
| |
| 20 (Laughter.)
| |
| 21 WITNESS KELLER: You failed the battle, 22 clearly. You may not have failed the war, but yes -- a 23 deficiency and a failure are very close. But, we prefer 24 our terminology.
| |
| /~D 25 MR. MILLER: I understand, gentlemen.
| |
| \_)
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 N ationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 T
| |
| | |
| -2500 07.07 8202
| |
| ~
| |
| BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing)
| |
| [L j^;cuewalsh 1 2 O Let me ask, at the bottom of Page 155 you state 3 that, "The impediment problems were not designed to 4 entirely cut off traffic flow from all of an affected 5 emergency planning zone..."
| |
| 6 And, in fact, during the exercise they did not, 7 did they?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 9 0 And, you state that ...LERO's ability to 10 reroute traffic using secondary roads or other means was to 11 be taken into consideration by the FEMA evaluators on the 12 day of the exercise."
| |
| , ~ ..
| |
| t, ) 13 Can you tell me what other means you are 14 referring to in that?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Baldwin) Their ability to reroute 16 traffic around the cut-of f of that particular artery or 17 route.
| |
| 18 O Did FEMA, in fact, evaluate LERO's ability to 19 reroute traffic during the exercise?
| |
| 20 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 21 A (Witness Keller) Are you talking about field 2? observations or ECC observations?
| |
| 23 0 Well, my first question is, did FEMA evaluate 24 LERO's rerouting of traffic on the day of the exercise
| |
| () 25 around the impediment?
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 07 07 8203
| |
| [~'pcuewalsh 1 A (Witness Kowieski) It is my understanding that v
| |
| 2 evaluation was done at EOC, not in the field, for gravel 3 impediment.
| |
| 4 0 Do you recall, Mr. Kowieski, if the FEMA report 5 references that evaluation?
| |
| 6 ,
| |
| A I don't recall.
| |
| 7 0 Would the FEMA report reference such an 8 evaluation if, in fact, it had been made?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Baldwin) Yes, it would.
| |
| 10 (Witness Kowieski) Normally, it should. But, 11 again it's not every single evaluation, every single 12 component evaluation is stated in the report.
| |
| () 13 (Witness Baldwin) I misspoke. I'm going to go 14 back to Page 65 of the report which specifies in the --
| |
| 15 it's the first full paragraph, the third line from the 16 bottom of that. This is based on Mr. Saricks' observation, 17 and it says here rerouting of traffic was not observed.
| |
| 18 (Witness Kowieski) In the field.
| |
| 19 (Witness Baldwin) And, that's a field 20 observation at that particular location.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: Could you, in fact, have observed 22 something like that, given the constraints on the exercise?
| |
| 23 WITNESS BALDWIN: No.
| |
| 24 WITNESS KOWIESKI: No.
| |
| (} 25 WITNESS KELLER: Unless -- one you could have ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6M6
| |
| | |
| '2500 07 07 8204
| |
| } pcuewalsh I done is, you could have seen traffic guides be positioned.
| |
| 2 They can't set their cones up, but they could move to-3 intersections and move --
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: I suppose you could ask them --
| |
| 5 WITNESS KELLER: What are you doing? I'm 6 sending traffic, whatever.
| |
| 7 WITNESS BALDWIN: And, that's how it's done, 8 Judge Frye. You ask them how you would do it.
| |
| 9 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 10 0 Let's just make sure we are real clear.
| |
| 11 A (Witness Kowieski) Just one minute.
| |
| 12 0 I was going to follow up --
| |
| ( ) 13 A We would like to --
| |
| 14 0 Okay.
| |
| 15 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 16 Gentlemen, are you ready?
| |
| 17 A Okay. Go ahead.
| |
| 18 0 Is it fair to say -- to make sure we all 19 understand this point -- that FEMA could have evaluated in 20 the field LERO's response to rerouting traffic around the 21 impediment but, in fact, FEMA did not do so?
| |
| 22 A Normally --
| |
| 23 0 would you answer my question first, Mr.
| |
| 24 Kowieski, and then you can clarify if you need to clarify?
| |
| () 25 A (Witness Keller) Could have?
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage NO 336-6M6
| |
| | |
| .2500 07 07 8205 O FEMA could have observed LERO's rerouting of the
| |
| (]cuewalsh'1 2 traffic but FEMA, in fact, did not do that? Is that not'a.
| |
| 3 fair statement?
| |
| : 4. A (Witness Kowieski) Could have, although it was 5 never done in the past in the field. Surely, it could have 6 evaluated in the shoreham exercise.
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10
| |
| 'll 12 O 13 14 15
| |
| * 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
| |
| , 23 24 i -
| |
| lO' 25 i
| |
| Ace FEDERAL ReeonTens, INC. '
| |
| : 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| , .. .. . . . . . . ~ . . . . - . . - . . . - . ~. .. ,. -..
| |
| cc
| |
| (}0[08:;08 ~ .
| |
| =8206
| |
| ,Jccrysimons 1 JUDGE FRYE:~ You could have.
| |
| 2 WITNESS BALDWIN:- Could have. We need to talk 3 about the normal way that this is evaluated.-
| |
| .4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's my point.
| |
| 5 MR. MILLER: I'm not sure we need~to' discuss the r
| |
| 4 6 normal way it's done,. Judge Frye.
| |
| +
| |
| 7 WITNESS BALDWIN: We do because it's a very 8 different kind of response when-you'have-State and local 7
| |
| ; 9 ' participation. Typically the way in which an-impediment 10- problem is responded to is a policy officer responds to i 11 that' site and assesses based on the-input of the message.
| |
| t
| |
| ()
| |
| '12 ' what kind of response will be~needed. An ambulance'would
| |
| .13 be.~ called to the site or a tow truck or whatever, and then
| |
| ,14 those authorities'are responsible for describing getting 15 .around the response as well.
| |
| I l 16- In the LERO plan ~ we have a. different- approach I.
| |
| '17 'where they are using. road spotters who' drive around the EPZ 18 during an evacuation and they are checking the evacuation i 19 routes, the viability and the accessibility along those-L 20 evacuation routes.
| |
| 21 Those field route spotters then when they detect -
| |
| 22 an impediment go back to the EOC with the determination
| |
| . 23 that an evacuation route has been blocked.
| |
| 24 JUDGE PARIS: Go back to or radio?
| |
| !()
| |
| 25 WITNESS BALDWIN: They radio back, I'm sorry.
| |
| ]
| |
| 14CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| - , _ . _ , , _ ~ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . , , _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . , _ . _ . _ _ , , , , , . _ - , __ _._ _ . ,,
| |
| | |
| .2500 00 00 8207
| |
| ?rysimons 1 They communicate with a radio. And then based on that, a 2 road crew appears and responds.
| |
| 3 So as opposed to a primary response by the
| |
| : 4. police officer, here you have a esponse by a route spotter 5 as the first thing. So we are typically, when we do this 6 evaluation in the field on an impediment, we are typically 7 talking to a law enforcement officer.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: But how does that affect your 9 ability to have done the same sort of thing with the LERO 10 response?
| |
| 11 WITNESS BALDWIN: Because the first thing that 12 comes to that law officer's mind usually is how to get
| |
| () 13 around this as well as the particular kind of problem.
| |
| 14 WITNESS KOWIESKI: I would like to add that 15 normally these types of decisions are being made at the 16 emergency operation center. In an emergency operation 17 center normally they locate an accident on the map and 18 various experts, the policy people or the Public Works 19 Department would gather together and decide what is best 20 way to deal with an impediment.
| |
| 21 They discuss what is needed to respond to that 22 accident and how to route the traffic because it's very 23 hard for a police officer or traffic guide to make these 24 types of decisions in the field.
| |
| (} 25 Someone who has the overall picture of what is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| l2500 00.00- 8208
| |
| ~
| |
| going on during an evacuation can be only in the position-v('arysimons 1 2 to make this kind of. decision. So that generally speaking 3 theseLtypes of decisions are being made at the emergency 4 operation center.
| |
| -5. JUDGE FRYE: But you could have evaluated the 6 field response to the traffic impediments and the rerouting 7 of the traffic, but you did not.
| |
| 8 WITNESS KELLER: It think it probably would have 9 required another evaluator. Well, depending on the timing >
| |
| 10 because if the one evaluator is waiting for the ---
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE: I'm assuming that you've got an
| |
| -12 ~ evaluator available.
| |
| () 13 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, we could have.
| |
| 14~ BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 15 0 Now, Dr. Baldwin, you say that normally _ at other 16 exercises where. police are responding to the. simulated 17 traffic impediments the first thing that comes to that law t
| |
| 18 officer's mind is how to get traffic around the problem; is 19 that correct?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Baldwin) That's what I said.
| |
| 21 O Now during the Shoreham exercise the LERO 22' responders in the field did not take into account how to
| |
| -23 get traffic around that simulated traffic impediment, did 24 they? They did not take it into account.
| |
| 25 A I don't believe we know.
| |
| l(])_
| |
| Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33'-6646
| |
| | |
| 4 E
| |
| 2500:00 00 8209
| |
| -(})rysimons1 0 You just don't know.
| |
| 2- A It says we didn't observe it for the Patchogue 3' . gravel truck problem, and we didn't observe any response 4 for the Port Jefferson one.
| |
| 5 0 So FEMA has no reason to form an opinion one way 6 or the other about the ability of LERO's field. responders 7 to these impediment scenes to have taken it into account l 8 how to get traffic around this and related problems. Is 9 that a fair statement?
| |
| 1-0 A (Witness Kowieski) I guess that is a fair 1
| |
| 11 characterization on your part.
| |
| 12 0 Now, Mr. Kowieski, just to make sure I
| |
| ('.) 13 understand, you believe that at the EOC th'ere was an 14 evaluation made by FEMA as to LERO's response in rerouting 15 traffic around the impediments?
| |
| 3-16 A Again, I'm assuming, okay, and I don't know 17 whether or.not our evaluator form has anything to this
| |
| -18 effect. Ncrmally when I assign an evaluation to an 19 individual who is responsible for impediments to evacuation 20 I'm asking also to take into account whether an emergency I
| |
| 21 response team decision-makers discuss and consider the 22 rerouting of the traffic and the issuance of an EBS
| |
| ; 23 message.
| |
| 24 So as far as the Shoreham exercise is concerned, 25 and I believe it was Mr. Smith who was responsible for this
| |
| {)
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| W
| |
| '2500H00100. 8210
| |
| (~1r particular evaluation, whether or not he made a comment'to V :ysimons-1 2- this effect,'I don't know. I would have to'go back to his 3 evaluation form.
| |
| 4 0 .But normally, Mr. Kowieski, at other exercioes --
| |
| -S well, it should have been done at Shoreham, shouldn't~it?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Keller) Well, I think ---
| |
| : 7 0 Let me just follow up with Mr. Kowieski.
| |
| 8 Mr. Kowieski, at Shoreh'am if the normal process 9 would have been followed there should have been an 10- evaluation of the rerouting of traffic aspects of the LERO
| |
| . 11 plan at-the EOC. Is that your testimony?
| |
| 12 -A (Witness Kowieski) That's my testimony again
| |
| ()
| |
| ^
| |
| 13~ with another qualifier. We identify a lot of problems, a 14 lot of problems at the EOC. I think the problems were of
| |
| ~
| |
| 15 such a magnitude that even I would be surprised that our i-16 evaluators say'that this is it, okay, if it's deficient 17 it's deficient. We don't have a super deficiency for any 18 of the inadequac'ies identified during the exercise.
| |
| 19 So I wouldn't be surprised if our evaluator 20 after a while says, well, this is it, okay, and I'm not 21 going to spend any more time because he has various 22 assignments at the EOC.
| |
| 23 0 So, Mr. Kowieski, what you're telling me is that L
| |
| 24 it's very possible that things went so badly at the EOC
| |
| ()
| |
| 25 with respect to these impediments that the FEMA evaluator
| |
| /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500.00 00 8211 L
| |
| j prysimons1 just said enough was enough, it's a deficiency and there is 2 no need for me to look any more at this.
| |
| 3 A It's quite possible.
| |
| 4 A .(Witness Baldwin) But what we have in the 5 report on page 36, the third full paragraph down here 6 toward the end, it says, and I'll count lines, counting 7 from the bottom on page 36, the third paragraph, the 7th
| |
| . 8 line from the bottom, and it begins after the word 9 " impediments," "by about 12:45 the evacuation coordinator 10 had discussed the following with his staff:." There is a 11- list, and then as you read on down.it says ";the need to o 12 . reroute traffic around the impediments and the procedures
| |
| () 13 for so doing."
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 So, yes, FEMA did evaluate it.
| |
| 15 0 No, no, Dr. Baldwin. That simply says that 16 someone observed some LERO person talking to his staff 17 about'the need to do it. It doesn't indicate that anyone 18 observed LERO actually doing it, does it?
| |
| 19 A I didn't think we were at that point yet, but 20 that's correct.
| |
| 21 O Now I'm on page 156 of your testimony.
| |
| -22 Mr. Kowieski, is it fair to say that the reason 23 LERO's response to the two simulated impediments, the
| |
| : 24. reason that response was not make two deficiencies was
| |
| () 25 because FEMA believes the source for both impediments, the ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| .- , . . . _ . , _ . ~ . , _ ,- _
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8212
| |
| (~';rysimons 1 problems with both impediments was the miscommunications ss 2 and other problems identified at the EOC7 3 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 4 0 Now in the middle of page 156 there is a 5 statement, " FEMA's field evaluator was delayed in 6 evaluating LERO's response to the gravel truck problem when 7 LERO personnel at the EOC failed to transmit the entire 8 message with the result that the road crew could not locate 9 the evaluator."
| |
| 10 Do you see that statement?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
| |
| 12 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
| |
| () 13 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 14 0 I want this very clear, gentlemen. So please pay 15 attention to the question.
| |
| 16 The delay in evaluating this response by LERO 17 was due to LERO personnel; is that correct?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowieski) The evaluation by LERO?
| |
| 19 0 The delay in FEMA's evaluation was due solely to 20 LERO personnel; is that correct?
| |
| 21 A (Witness Baldwin) It was due to LERO.
| |
| 22 "Solel'y," we'll have to talk about. The end of the message 23 on this particular one was left off apparently when LERO 24 transmitted this to the field.
| |
| () 25 The end left off on the message, and I'm not ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Mxb336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00.00 8213
| |
| (~/ ysimons 1 7t going to read the whole message because it describes the x_
| |
| 2 particular incident, but at the end it says "The LERO 3 responder to the site of this impediment should locate the 4 FEMA evaluator who will be wearing a colored arm band."
| |
| 5 Apparently that is the part that was left off the message.
| |
| 6 0 Now we're talking about the gravel truck 7 impediment, correct?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Baldwin) That's the one I just read 9 from.
| |
| 10 0 So is it fair to say that FEMA's evaluator was h
| |
| 11 at the scene of the impediment awaiting LERO's response but 12 LERO's response was delayed due to LERO's failure to
| |
| () 13 transmit the entire message?
| |
| 14 A (Witness Baldwin) That's right.
| |
| 15 (Witnesses conferring.)
| |
| 16 My colleagues have just pointed out to me that I 17 need to clarify this. In selecting the particular site for 18 this impediment and in discussing with Mr. Saricks where he 19 should locate for his observation of this, we had 20 instructed him to meet at one place and he went to another 21 which is in the vicinity, but it's at a fire station in the 22 same -- it's not an intersection. Much happened on the day
| |
| ; 23 of the exercise with respect to this because Mr. Saricks in i
| |
| 24 the field was at a telephone talking with me in the EOC as l
| |
| () 25 to where it was he should be and that was another problem.
| |
| l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTEns, INC.
| |
| 202-347-37(U Nanonwide Cmcrage 8(0-UMM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8214
| |
| /~'2rysimons 1 A (Witness Keller) lie was in the vicinity. He V
| |
| 2 was not at the scene of the impediment. The scene of the 3 impediment was the middle of the road. I just want to get 4 that clear.
| |
| 5 0 Gentlenen, I want to get thin very clear. There 6 has been much to-do in this proceeding made by LILCO 7 blaming this problem with the gravel truck impediment on 8 FEMA to be quite blunt, and in part LILCO has implied to 9 this Board that the problem was due to FEMA because Mr.
| |
| 10 Saricks had changed locations and could not be found by the 11 LERO responder.
| |
| 12 Now is it not true, gentlemen, that on the day
| |
| () 13 of the exercise when Mr. Saricks changed his location that 14 information was conveyed to LERO at the EOC for 15 transmitting to the field personnel?
| |
| 16 A (Witness Baldwin) I'm sorry. I was looking for 17 something else and not listening.
| |
| i 18 0 Let's take it one step at a time.
| |
| 19 On the day of the exercise the gravel truck 20 impediment was simulated to occur close to the intersection 21 of Main Street and Yaphank-Middle Island Road out of the 22 Patchogue Staging Area, correct?
| |
| 23 A (Witness Baldwin) Correct.
| |
| 24 A (Witness Keller) Correct.
| |
| () 25 0 And there was a free-play message that was ACE. FEDERAL REi>oRTERs, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37(X) Nationwide Coserage 8633MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8215
| |
| (''arysimons 1 inserted at the EOC at about 10:40 on the morning of the V
| |
| 2 exercise to that regard, correct?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Baldwin) Correct.
| |
| 4 0 And Mr. Saricks initially went to the location 5 described in the free-play message, but for various 6 reasons, and I think primarily because of the parking, 7 moved somewhat to the east of the intersection close to a 8 fire station; is that correct?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Keller) That's my understanding.
| |
| 10 0 And, in fact, that was at the intersection of 11 Everette Drive and Main Street?
| |
| 12 A Is Everette the North / South?
| |
| 13 0 Yes.
| |
| 14 A Okay. I'll take your word.
| |
| 15 0 Do you agree with me?
| |
| ; 16 A Well, I know where the fire station is. I 17 didn't know the name of the street.
| |
| 18 0 Now, Dr. Baldwin, I gather it 's your testimony 19 that Mr. Saricks made this fact, his movement to another 20 location know to you at the EOC; is that correct?
| |
| 21 A (Witness Baldwin) That's correct, his movement 22 to another site. That's the part ---
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE He let you know that he wasn't 24 where he originally was supposed to be?
| |
| (} 25 WITNESS BALDWIN: I don' t think Mr. Saricks ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MO 3366646
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8216
| |
| /~'arysimons 1 every knew where he was supposed to be.
| |
| (/
| |
| 2 (Laughter.) ,
| |
| 3 JUDGE PARIS: But he eventually notified you 4 where he was?
| |
| 5 WITNESS BALDWIN: Where he was, that's right.
| |
| 6 MR. MILLER: At the fire station.
| |
| i<
| |
| 7 WITNESS BALDWIN: That's right.
| |
| 8 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| ]
| |
| 9 0 At Everette Drive and Main Street; is that 10 right?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
| |
| 12 O And, Dr. Baldwin, you I assume conveyed that
| |
| () 13 information to LERO at the EOC; is that correct? Did you 14 convey to LERO the location of the evaluator?
| |
| 15 A I conveyed to the controller at that time, Mr.
| |
| 16 Donovan, who was responsible for talking with LERO's other 17 controller, Mr. Daverio, that we were having difficulty 18 connecting up in the field with our -- that our field 19 observer was having difficulty in that regard, yes.
| |
| 20 0 So you conveyed to LERO ---
| |
| 21 A I conveyed to the controller ---
| |
| 22 O To the controller the fact that Mr. Saricks was i 23 located at Everette Drive and Main Street at the fire 24 station close to the intersection where the gravel truck
| |
| () 25 impediment was being simulated?
| |
| i i
| |
| i /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| ;A h,
| |
| ' 2500 00 00 8217
| |
| [''iryoimons.1 A I conveyed to the controller that we were having v
| |
| 2 trouble making the connection. I don't recall at this 3 point in time whether Everette Drive, the fire station, et 4 cetera, because I was trying to convey to Mr. Saricks at 5 the time-that there was a small store with a telephone 6 booth where we thought he was going to be.
| |
| 7 ,
| |
| O Dr. Baldwin, have you ever seen before what is 8 Attachment B4 to LILCO's testimony on Contention 41?
| |
| 9 A No, I have never seen this.
| |
| l 10 0 Has.the panel ever seen this?
| |
| l 11 A (Witness Keller) I don't think so.
| |
| 12 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't know.
| |
| t6
| |
| ()/ 13 (Pause while the witnesses review the document.)
| |
| 14 A (Witness Keller) I have seen it because this is
| |
| ' 15 one of the testimonies I had glanced through.
| |
| 16 A (Witness Baldwin) Let me take another look at 17 'this.
| |
| 18' JUDGE PARIS: Will you describe for us what
| |
| '19 you're looking at?
| |
| 20.- MR. MILLER: I'll describe it, Judge Paris. It 21 is the handwritten piece of paper which sets forth, it says s 22, Everette Drive and Main Street and it sets forth a license ,
| |
| 23 plate number. I submit it's the piece of paper that was 24 given to LERO so they knew where Mr. Saricks was on the day 25 of the exercise so they could dispatch their personnel in
| |
| -( )
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8218
| |
| < (~nrysimons 1 the field to the proper location.
| |
| V 2 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| I 3 0 Dr. Baldwin, do you disagree with the way I have f
| |
| f 4 characterized this Attachment B4?
| |
| i 5 A (Witness Baldwin) I'm trying to recall this 6 now, and my memory, it's jogged me a bit.
| |
| 7 0 Okay. Why don't you describe it for me. This 8 is Attachment B4 to LILCO's testimony on Contention 41.
| |
| 9 A It's a handwritten note.
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) With no addressee.
| |
| 11 A (Witness Baldwin) I'm going to speculate about 12 who wrote it. The indication on here, it's bracketed on l'^)
| |
| v 13 both sides and it has written Everette Drive and Main 14 Street, and below it there is an 895-ZPK which I would 15 assume to be a license plate number.
| |
| 16 And I believe that that part based on my vague 17 { recognition of Ms. Paula Kamarada's handwriting is that is 18 her handwriting. We had her assisting us on that day of 19 that exercise as a telephone communicator in the LERO EOC 20 so that we could obtain communications from our field 21 people and I believe that Ms. Kamarada wrote these three 22 lines that are bracketed. There are other notations on 23 here which none of them are mine, I can tell you that, but 24 it would appear that this is a small note which would have l'~3 25 been passed to me.
| |
| %)
| |
| Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| '2500'09 09~ 8219 y-j.joewalsh1 Q Now, Dr. Baldwin, is it fair to say that this W. 2
| |
| ~
| |
| note, cnr at least the contents of this note, was given by 3 you to the controller at the EOC?
| |
| 4 A Is it what? Could you restate it one more-time?
| |
| 5 Are you asking_me factually did I give this to the 6 controller?
| |
| 7 Q Or tell the controller about the contents 8 reflected on Attachment B-47 9 A Yes.
| |
| 10 0 And did the controller then inform LERO 11 personnel about the contents of Attachment B-4 to LILCO's 12 testimony (n1 Contention 417 13 A I would suspect he did. Mr. Donovan is a highly
| |
| { }.
| |
| 14 trained and experienced person. He happens to be the RAC 15 Chairman for_ Region X.
| |
| 16 Q Now, Dr. Baldwin, is it not true that Mr.
| |
| 17 Saricks' relocation, if you will, on the day of the 18 exercise to Everett Drive and Main Street was at about the 19 time the impediment message for the gravel truck was first 20 inserted at the EOC7 21 A (Witness Kowieski) We don't know what those 1
| |
| 22 times represent on this particular note, but 10:04, 11:04, 23 it is about --
| |
| 24 Q Well, Dr. Baldwin, you spoke with Mr. Saricks,
| |
| ("N
| |
| (,)
| |
| 25 so if you can s rely on your memory do so, if you can please. l i
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 300-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| d' 72500o09 09- 8220
| |
| '""njoewalsh 1 Did be not inform you at about the time the k) - 2 message was first injected at the EOC regarding the gravel
| |
| $ ~3 truck that he had relocated to Everett Drive and Main 4 Street?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Baldwin) Well, I recall seeing this, 6 and I recall speaking with Mr. Saricks when Ms. Camarada 7 asked me to speak with him on the telephone.
| |
| . 8 0 Let me-try a different way, please. Let me-try
| |
| ; 9 it'a different way.
| |
| 10- A (Witness Kowieski) Let me help you, 11 JUDGE FRYE: We are trying to probe Dr.
| |
| 12 Baldwin's recollection right now, so let's let him do it.
| |
| l 13 You don't recall the time that you saw that note I gather?
| |
| [}
| |
| 14 WITNESS BALDWIN: No, I don't.
| |
| 15 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 16 0 Dr. Baldwin, do you have any reason for
| |
| , 17 believing that it was Mr. Saricks' relocation to Everett I .18 Drive and Main Street at the fire station, that caused 19' LILCO's, LERO's delay in responding to the gravel truck 20 impediment?
| |
| 21 A (Witness Baldwin) Any reason to believe?
| |
| 22 0 Yes. Do you have any reason to believe --
| |
| 23 A Yes. I believe that the confusion here did 24 contribute.
| |
| -C )
| |
| i i
| |
| l /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
| |
| . _ . .. .._..,_,.... - _ - ..- , __..-__... - -- __.,, ~ _-
| |
| | |
| l 2500 09 09 8221
| |
| ,-].joewalsh 1 0 To what degree do you believe it contributed?
| |
| \'' >
| |
| 2 A Do I believe it was the cause of this 3 deficiency? No. I believe that it was the problems we had 4 about doing the evaluation in the field, which are 5 discussed in the Patchogue Staging Area.
| |
| 6 I must call your attention to a sentence here in 7 the Post Exercise Ascessment. On Page 36, the third 8 paragraph. The fifth line down, there is a sentence which 9 says, and this is with respect to the gravel truck, it 10 says: Although there were problems verifying the gravel 11 truck impediment in the field because the Federal evaluator 12 was not at the specified location, a route spotter had met
| |
| (~ 13 the Federal evaluator at the site of the simulated gravel V}
| |
| 14 truck impediment by about 11:40.
| |
| 15 0 But, Dr. Baldwin, I am not sure what that tells 16 us. We don't know if that -- the message was inserted at 17 about 10:40, so that is about an hour after the insertion 18 of the message by FEMA, correct?
| |
| 19 A That is correct.
| |
| 20 0 And what we don't know, based upon that sentence 21 in the FEMA Report, is whether that one hour delay was due 22 to LERO's inability to respond or somehow due to Mr.
| |
| 23 Saricks' relocation.
| |
| 24 A I think we have a situation here where it is a 25 combined thing. We have as two page discussion in this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(XL336-6M6 1
| |
| | |
| A
| |
| , : 2500 09 09 8222
| |
| -1 post exercise assessment from 36'-- all of page 36 and all
| |
| :C.joewalsh1.
| |
| 2 offpage 37,--deal.with these impediments,'the impediment-3 -problems, and the discussion here focuses on the lateral 4 and downward communicati'on experienced by LERO,-which 5 clearly affected their ability to dispatch a route spotter -
| |
| p 6- --I am sorry -- a road crew and what have you to that i 7 location.
| |
| 8 We also have acknowledged here that-the-Federal f
| |
| 9 evaluator is not at the specified location.
| |
| 10 0 Dr. Baldwin, let me try it this way. Assume 11' with me :that Mr. Saricks relocated to Everett Drive and 12 Main Street at about the same time the EOC received the
| |
| !j j' 13 free play message regarding the gravel truck-impediment, 14 okay, just make that assumption.
| |
| 15 .A Okay.
| |
| 16- O .And assume with me further that that information
| |
| : 17. was promptly conveyed to LERO personnel at the EOC. Are 18 you with me?
| |
| 19 A Okay.
| |
| 20 0 Now, if that -- if what I described in fact is 21 the case, is there any reason whatsoever for you or this 22 panel to conclude that FEMA is somehow at fault for the 23 delay, the initial delay, by LERO in responding to the 24 gravel truck impediment?
| |
| {} 25 A (Witness Keller) If your assumptions are
| |
| .i i
| |
| , /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364 646
| |
| ,,,-_m - , _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . - _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ - - . _ . . - - - _ - - - _ _ . -
| |
| | |
| i 2500 09 09 8223 e 1. correct, there is no reason.
| |
| \_) joewalsh I 2 O And is it fair to say, gentlemen, that at least )
| |
| 3 here today there seem to be no facts known to this panel 4 which would disputp the assumptions I have asked you to 5 make in this regard?
| |
| 6 A Or to confirm them either, that is correct.
| |
| 7 0 Thank you. I guess one last question. With 8 respect to the finding of a deficiency regarding the 9 roadway impediments, does any member of this panel somehow 10 believe that a deficiency should not have been found by 11 FEMA due to some delays incurred by LERO because of the 12 movement of this FEMA evaluator with respect to the gravel
| |
| /~N 13 truck?
| |
| O 14 A (Witness Kowieski) This particular deficiency 15 that FEMA identified in the post exercise assessment has 16 nothing to do with the field response. In terms of what 17 happened in the field.
| |
| 18 0 So, the the answer to my question is that there 19 is no reason for you to believe that the deficiency should 20 not have been found, is that a fair statement?
| |
| 21 A (Witness Keller) We are very happy with the 22 deficiency in the EOC.
| |
| 23 0 Do you agree, Mr. Kowieski?
| |
| 24 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes, sir.
| |
| 25 A (Witness Baldwin) And I agree completely,
| |
| (~}/
| |
| s-ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-37tV) Nationwide Coverage M433MM6
| |
| | |
| I 4
| |
| 2500 09 09 8224
| |
| ,-1.joewalsh 1 because the two page description here of this is after CI 2 long, long conversations, and the deliberative process with 3 the people in the EOC that watched it, and with the two 4 evaluators in the field, although there was a very limited -
| |
| 5 - obviously, less discussion with Mr. Bertrand because 6 there was no observation there, but there was a great deal 7 of discussion with Mr. Saricks focusing not on this piece 8 of paper that I just looked at, but the discrepancies, and 9 there is nothing that would lead to our failure to link up 10 there in the field would have changed this evaluation of a 11 deficiency in any way.
| |
| 12 0 Well, you have peaked my curiosity there a
| |
| {} 13 little bit, Dr. Baldwin. Why the need for such long, long 14 discussions?
| |
| 15 A Because it is part of the deliberative process 16 in putting together one of these post exercise assessments.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: It is your standard procedure, as I 18 recall your earlier testimony.
| |
| 19 WITNESS BALDWIN: Standard procedure.
| |
| 20 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Keller testified earlier today 21 that they don't take a deficiency lightly.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: That is right.
| |
| 23 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 24 0 This deficiency with respect to the road
| |
| () 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn33M646
| |
| | |
| 2500 09 09 8225 7].joewalsh1 impediments'was not in some respect different then, was it?
| |
| R. J 2 A (Witness Keller) No.
| |
| 3 A (Witness Baldwin) No. These reports are 4 difficult to put together in terms of deficiencies, ARCAs, 5 areas recommended for improvement. Even the boiler plate 6 on the front, so there is a lot of discussion in putting 7 together the draft and even more discussion after we get 8 that draft.
| |
| 9 0 At the bottom of Page 156 of the testimony, you 10 state that personnel at the Patchogue Staging Area should 11 be trained to request more information from the LERO EOC 12 when impediments to evacuation are indicated.
| |
| (~S 13 Do you see that statement?
| |
| 'w) 14 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 15 0 I assume, gentlemen, that EOL personnel should 16 also be better trained to provide more complete 17 information. Is that correct?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
| |
| 19 0 Now, Mr. Kowieski, during the 1984 plan 20 litigation, PEMA committed to testing the effectiveness of 21 LILCO's proposed use of the tow trucks and the road creus 22 and so forth under its emergency plan, and I am assuming 23 that is what you did when you evaluated these two road 24 impediments, is that correct?
| |
| 25 A It was my intent.
| |
| l ACE. FEDERAL REronTens, INC.
| |
| l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 09 09 8226
| |
| ?~ .joewalsh 1 0 Now, this is an important point also, so I would L]J 2 .like for you to pay particular attention.
| |
| 3 During this litigation before this licensing 4 board, there has been suggestions by LILCO that it's 5 response to these impediments could have, in fact, been 6 better had it known that impediments would have been 7 interjected during the day of the exercise, and would have 8 prepared as such. Is it not true, Mr. Kowieski, that 9 during the 1984 plan litigation, in testimony rendered to 10 the licensing board, PEMA essentially told LILCO thrt 11 during the exercise they would have to demonstrate an 12 ability to respond to traffic impediments?
| |
| 13 A (Witness Keller) We said an exercise. I don't (a'')
| |
| 14 think there was any designation of one in a series of an 15 NTOL exercise. We just said in an exercise.
| |
| 16 And in that regard, that would put them on 17 notice, I suppose.
| |
| 18 0 You said the exercise, Mr. Keller, with respect 19 to this issue, and it was Mr. Kowieski actually that 20 testified.
| |
| 21 For the Board's information, I am referring to 22 transcript pages 12,803 and 12,804, from the 1984 plan 23 litigation, in which Mr. Kowieski was discussing the issue 24 of the tow truck and road crew responses, and Mr. Kowieski,
| |
| {} 25 here is the statement by you: What we are going to do ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-1700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| ,2500 09 09 8227
| |
| ,-7.joewalsh'I during the exercise, we will test the effectiveness of the k,)
| |
| 2 tow trucks, so what we have done during the exercise as for ,
| |
| 3 other plants, we introduced what we call surprises.
| |
| 4 Impediments to evacuation during the exercise, and we 5 evaluated how effectively, how quickly, tow trucks and
| |
| -6 equipment was able to get to it, and it was based on the 7 fact that we actually expected the police officer will.be 8 dispatched to the designated location, that we would 9 evaluate the-simulated situation, would identify the 10 location of the equipment, would evaluate the time of 11 arrival, and also would advise EOC Emergency Operation 12 Center. In turn, decision-maker and responsible agency at
| |
| (} 13 'the emergency operation center would make proper decisions 14 as to should they detour the traffic or wait until the 15 impediment from the evacuation route is removed.
| |
| 16 So, basically, to answer your question, this 17 would be evaluated during the exercise.
| |
| 18 Do you recall generally that testimony?
| |
| 19 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes, I do, and as I 20 testified today, it was my intention to evaluate this 21 capability during the February 13, 1986 exercise.
| |
| 22 A (Witness Keller) In addition, the exercise 23 objectives were not closely held. They were available for 24 participants and anyone else.
| |
| 25 A (Witness Kowieski) That is a very important ACE. FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M433MM6 w____-_______-_-___--__._______--_______-_-___________-____________-_-_-___
| |
| | |
| ^ (2500)l09. 09 8228 f'i 1-- point.
| |
| D .joewalsh 1!. A: (Witness Keller) And Exercise Objective 17,~EO-
| |
| .3 17, clearly states demonstrate the organizational ability
| |
| .4 to deal with impediments to evacuation'such as' inclement 5 weather cnr traf fic obstructions.
| |
| 6 The objectives, as is standard practice in FEMA 7 Region II, the objectives of the exercise, the test that 8 you.are going to be given, you know'about.
| |
| 9- 0 Okay. Mr. Keller, I appreciate that comment.
| |
| 10 Here is my next question: Any suggestion -- would you
| |
| :11 agree with me-that any suggestion by LILCO to this Board
| |
| ~
| |
| -(
| |
| 12 that it was somehow surprised by the inclusion of~the Ov 13 traffic impediments during the exercise and would have done 14 better but for that surprise, would you agree with me that 15 that suggestion is nonsense?
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't know if I would -- I 17 had a discussion with Chuck Daverio, who was an exercise 18 director. He asked me -- I don't know at which point prior 19 to the exercise -- but he asked me whether he can train his 20 people how to deal with impediments to evacuation.
| |
| 21 And I said, well, it is too late, it would be 22 prompting, okay? If you haven't done your training until 23 now, it would be too late.
| |
| 24 And I disagreed with his suggestion to train his 25 staff, road crews, specifically to deal with impediments to
| |
| {
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 09 09 8229 c,joewalsh 1 evacuation.
| |
| 2 0 Because this was a conversation you had with Mr.
| |
| 3 Daverio right before the exercise was conducted, is that 4 right?
| |
| 5 A I would say a week, or two weeks prior to the 6 exercise, that is correct.
| |
| 7 0 So, you were telling Mr. Daverio that for him to 8 go out and start doing last minute training and dress 9 rehearsals with respect to traffic impediments would have 10 been prompting, is that correct?
| |
| 11 A It was my understanding, it was my decision. I 12 felt it would be very inappropriate for someone to prompt 13 emergency response personnel as to what will occur during 14 the exercise.
| |
| 15 That is why I denied his request.
| |
| 16 0 And, Mr. Kowieski, it is fair to say that it was 17 your opinion and belief that LERO should have been training 18 its personnel all along to have been preparing to handle 19 roadway impediments?
| |
| 20 A I agree. Just a minute. We would like to have 21 a caucus.
| |
| 22 (Panel discussion.)
| |
| 23 A (Continuing) If you want me, I would like to 24 clarify or add on the issue of introducing of free play m 25 messages. In other words, response to impediment, field ace FEDERAL REl'ORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3X10 Nationwide Coserage m)-31MM6 w
| |
| | |
| 2500 09 09 8230 r^1.joewalsh 1 versus EOC. We have not discussed this issue at all, but G
| |
| 2 this is also discussed between me and Mr. Daverio.
| |
| 3 -JUDGE PARIS: Whether to introduce the message 4 in the field or at the EOC?
| |
| 5 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Right.
| |
| 6 MR. MILLER: I did want to come to that. Maybe 7 if you would give me the leeway to do it as I would like to 8 do it.
| |
| 9 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Okay.
| |
| 10 MR. MILLER: We will come to it, Mr. Kowieski.
| |
| 11 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 12 Q. I want to go back to my question. Is it fair to
| |
| {} 13 say that any suggestion to this Board that LERO would have 14 done better with respect to these impediments at the 15 exercise but for the fact it was surprise, and had not 16 trained properly, is a characterization that you gentlemen 17 would disagree with?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowleski) Could have done better in 19 the field. That is always a possibility in the field. As 20 far as the EOC is concerned, I disagree with that 21 allegation.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: So, you are saying that you would 23 agree with that as it applies perhaps to field personnel, 24 but not to EOC personnel?
| |
| 25 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That is correct, sir.
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage NWh 33MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 09 09 8231
| |
| -(~].joewalsh 1 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| y/
| |
| 2 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 3 0 All right. I just --
| |
| 4 JUDGE PARIS: Where did you decide to introduce 5 the message at the EOC?
| |
| 6 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Normally, the responsibility 7 of route spotter is to drive the routes, evacuation routes, 8 and soo whether there are any problems, to see if the 9 traffic is moving as it should, and any accidents that 10 might occur during evacuation.
| |
| 11 JUDGE PARIS: So, in real life an accident would 12 probably be first detected by a route spotter, who would
| |
| (~} 13 then have to radio?
| |
| v 14 WITNESS KOWIESKI That is correct. A similar 15 fact, Mr. Daverio initially convinced me, and we agroo 16 both, you know, that we should introduce in the field, but 17 when we discussed the details of how this could be 18 accomplished in the field, how can wo locate the spotter in 19 -
| |
| the field, how can we actually locato the spotter who is 20 driving the routo, how can wo identify him, so wo agroo 21 that makes sonso, let's introduce at EOC.
| |
| 22 So, basically wo nort of cut out a small picco 23 of the demonstration; in other words, communication betwoon 24 the route spottor to EOC. It was missing from that
| |
| /~T 25 demonstration.
| |
| V Acn.FlionnAL Ri:Ponti:ns, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nadonwide cmcrage m336 W6
| |
| | |
| 2500 09 09 8232 e-1.joowalsh 1 JUDGE FRYE: I guess one thing I haven't b 2 understood about this is why you didn't put a big sign on 3 Mr. Saricks that said, 'Gr1 vel Truck Impediment.'
| |
| 4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Well, there are other 5 concerns, and to be honest with you, as you recall, 6 probably Suffolk County law that was passed, and I know the 7 Federal judge ruled it was unconstitutional just as few 8 days prior to the exerciso.
| |
| 9 JUDGE FRYE I s00.
| |
| 10 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Wo still had a concern, 11 okay? Serious concerns. My specific instructions to all 12 field observers, look for legal parking. My regional
| |
| {} 13 14 counsel at that timo, Stewart Glass, emphasized that fact, look for legal parking, to mako certain there is no 15 opportunity for Suffolk County Polico Force to in any way 16 interfere with the observation.
| |
| 17 That is probably part of the problem with Mr.
| |
| 18 Saricks. Mr. Saricks datormined in his own opinion that 19 parking area, that we have already discussed with Dr.
| |
| 20 Baldwin and Mr. Kellor discunned earlier today, was 21 questionable in his mind.
| |
| 22 That is why he decided on his own to movo to 23 another location.
| |
| 24 JUDGE FRYE I soo.
| |
| 25 WITNESS KELLER: Thoro was no implication that Ace FEDERAL REponTEns, INC.
| |
| :a w.nw Nationshte cmcrne w nuns
| |
| | |
| 2500 09 09 8233
| |
| ( 1.joewalsh I we were going to be harassed, but don't break any laws, and LJ 2 be very careful.
| |
| 3 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 4 O Mr. Kowieski, I want to follow up on a couple of 5 things you just said. Is it not correct that the way FEMA 6 introduced the free play impediment messages at the 7 Shoreham exercise was, in fact, the same way that FEMA has 8 introduced such messages at other Region II exercises?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
| |
| 10 0 And Judge Frye's suggestion about the sign, this 11 is the gravel truck impediment, or this is the fuel truck 12 impediment, FEMA Region II has never employed such tactics
| |
| /~ 13 at other locations, is that correct?
| |
| %1) 14 A No, we never posted signs, no.
| |
| 15 0 And at other sites, Mr. Kowieski, at other 16 exercises, there have been adequate responses noted with 17 respect to simulated road impediments, is that correct?
| |
| 18 A That is correct.
| |
| 19 A (Witness Keller) And there also have been 20 minned contacts, too. To be perfectly clear, it has been 21 both ways. This is not the first time that we have 22 miscontacted.
| |
| 23 24 Acti FilimnAi. Rnvonriins, INC.
| |
| l 202. M 3Ro Nationwide Cmcrage m336 W6
| |
| | |
| i i
| |
| I
| |
| <^~00 10 10 8234
| |
| ( /
| |
| '"M.cuewalsh 1 ,
| |
| O Well, let me ask you, Mr. Keller, from your 2 knowledge of other exercises with respect to the road 3 impediments, simulated road impediments, of other 4 exercises, have you ever seen a response as poor as LERO's 5 response to.the two simulated impediments on the day of 6 February 13, 1986?
| |
| 7 MR. PIRFO: Staff counsel objects to that.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: Why?
| |
| 9 MR. PIRFO: I'm not sure it points out a 10 fundamental flaw in this plan. I moan, we are comparing --
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE Overruled.
| |
| (')
| |
| us 12 WITNESS KELLER: I'm trying to remember. I 13 don't believe we've had in Region II a dediciency 14 previously on impediments to evacuation.
| |
| 15 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 16 0 So, you --
| |
| 17 A (Witness Koller) Therefore, since deficiency is 18 the worst category that we can evaluate, therefore, asido 19 from somo quibbling about your words, this is as bad a 20 grading as we can give. I don't believe we -- this is 21 based on recall of about 10 exercisos, I don't boliove wo 22 have over given this bad rating previously.
| |
| 23 So, this would bo in that regard the worst one
| |
| /~) 24 we have over givon.
| |
| V 25 0 And, I don't want you to quibble with my words, Acn FEDEnAL RunonTens, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage feh3364M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8235
| |
| (~^).cuewalsh 1 Mr. Keller. Your words in the past, under oath, have V
| |
| 2 described the response by LERO to the simulated impediments 3 as terribly done, just terrible; is that correct?
| |
| 4 A I recall saying something like that.
| |
| 5 0 And, you still believe that, I assume, Mr.
| |
| 6 Keller?
| |
| 7 A I said that it was -- as far as I'm concerned, 8 and I think I can speak for my colleagues here, the 9 performance in the LERO EOC was not good. It was a 10 deficiency.
| |
| 11 We do not rate things deficient lightly. It was 12 not a good performance; it was terrible.
| |
| (')
| |
| V 13 MR. MILLER: Now, Judge Frye, I think in another 14 five minutes or so we can wrap up this contention and maybe 15 take the lunch break then if we could -- I would like to 16 finish up this traffic issue.
| |
| 17 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 18 O Mr. Kowiecki, I want to explore a little bit 19 your discussion with Judge Frye and Judge Paris regarding 20 the reason you have injected the free-play message at the 21 EOC rather than in the field.
| |
| 22 Is it fair to say, Mr. Kowieski, that prior to 23 the exercise consideration was given by yourself, Region 24 II, to injecting the free-play messages regarding the 25 impediments at locations other than the EOC?
| |
| }
| |
| ACE.FEnERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage Me 336446
| |
| | |
| F 2500 10 10 8236 (Witness Kowieski)
| |
| ,-i.cuewalsh 1 A That's correct.
| |
| Lj 2 JUDGE PARIS: He has already said that.
| |
| 3 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. I just kind of want to 4 develop a line here if you will permit me, Judge.
| |
| 5 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 6 0 And, you specifically considered whether or not 7 you should inject the free-play messages in the field, that 8 was considered prior to the exercise, correct?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 10 0 And, is it fair to say that based upon Region 11 II's prior experience at other exercises it was decided to 12 inject'the free-play messages at the EOC?
| |
| c'''s 13- A No, that's -- I don't think that's what I said.
| |
| L.)
| |
| 14 I said that -- well, the prior experience is fine. It was 15 consistent with prior experience.
| |
| 16 But, there was other complication which I 17 discussed with Mr. Daverio. Specifically, I mentioned 18 already that --
| |
| 19 0 The logistical complications?
| |
| 20 A That's right. And, that's why we decided that 21 instead of guessing whether or not the route spotter would 22 be able to meet our evaluator we decided to introduce free-23 play message at EOC.
| |
| 24 0 Now, is it fair to say -- do you recall, Mr.
| |
| ~') 25 Kowieski, that you and others observed a LERO dress (J
| |
| ~
| |
| ACE FEnEnAt REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800-33M646
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8237
| |
| ,r'1.cuewalsh I rehearsal shortly before the exercise, January 29th to i '' )
| |
| : 2. January 30th?
| |
| 3 A January 30th, yes.
| |
| 4 0 Is it fair to say that observations you and S 'others made at this dress rehearsal on January 30th 6 confirmed in your mind that the insertion of the free-play 7 messages regarding impediments at the EOC was the correct 8 way to proceed?
| |
| 9 A Yes, the best way to proceed.
| |
| 10 0 And, is it not correct, Mr. Kowieski, that you, 11 in fact, discussed the matter of where to insert the free-12 play messages with Mr. Daverio, and Mr. Daverio agreed to
| |
| /~T 13 your proposal to have the messages inserted at the EOC?
| |
| b 14 A That's correct.
| |
| 15 0 And, Mr. Kowieski, if you were doing it again 16 today, is it not the case that you would. insert free-play 17 messages regarding impediments under LILCO's plan at the 18 LERO EOC and not in the field?
| |
| 19 A I don't know.
| |
| 20 0 You don't know?
| |
| 21 A I don't know. I would have to reevaluate the 22 free-play concept for impediments to evacuation. And, 23 always you learn from the experience.
| |
| 24 In this case, you know, I would have to again 25 reevaluate the entire process, thought process, and maybe ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8238
| |
| ,'].cuewalshI g:
| |
| whatever Judge already suggested, maybe a sign -- but, I 2 don't know. I would have to reevaluate in great dotail.
| |
| 3 I'm not in the position right now to commit
| |
| .4 myself one way or another.
| |
| 5 0 Mr. Kcwieski, EOC-16, Objective 16, relates to 6 LERO's ability to manage an orderly evacuation of the 7 entire 10-mile EPZ, correct?
| |
| 8 A One minute. I I
| |
| 9 (The witness is looking at documents.)
| |
| 10 That's correct. I 11 0 And, it's Field Objective 10 which was the 12 objective requiring LERO to demonstrate its sampling of 13 resources necessary to deal with impediments to evacuation,
| |
| (' }
| |
| 14 correct? ,
| |
| 15 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 16 (Witness Kowieski) Field?
| |
| 17 0 Field 10.
| |
| 18 A (Witness Keller) Field 10. That's correct.
| |
| 19 (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 20 0 It's true, is it not, Mr. Kowieski, that LERO's 21 handling of the roadway impediments, i.e. Field Objective 22 10, was not taken into account by FEMA in reaching a 23 determination with respect to Objective EOC-16?
| |
| 24 A That's our testimony.
| |
| 25 0 My statement is a correct statement?
| |
| (~)3 Acn.FnonnAI. RiironTuns, INC.
| |
| 202-347-37m Ntionwide Coserage Rn3364646
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10- 8239
| |
| ^hcuewalsh 1 A A correct statement.
| |
| .(\ )- -
| |
| 2 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, I think that this 3 essentially completes the traffic impediment issues. I 4 would like to look at my notes, but I'm pretty sure that's 5 right.
| |
| 6 And, I would start after lunch with the training 7 issues, which would be Contentions 42, 45 and 50.
| |
| l 8 JUDGE FRYE Fine. About how long is that going i
| |
| 9 to take you, do you anticipate?
| |
| 10 MR. MILLER: I will finish today, but I can't 11 tell you whether it's going to be before the end of the l 12 day. '
| |
| L
| |
| (} 13 JUDGE FRYE: Ok'ay. About how long do you 14 anticipate for the Staff witnesses, Mr. Lanpher? f 15 MR. LANPi!ER: I'm hopeful of a half a day or l
| |
| 16 less.
| |
| l 17 JUDGE FRYE Does LILCO have an anticipated l
| |
| l 18 amount of time for the Staff's witnesses?
| |
| ! 19 MS. McCLESKEY: Perhaps an hour. !
| |
| l i 20 JUDGE FRYE: Perhaps an hour. Now York?
| |
| I 21 MR. ZAllNLEUTER: I'm also intorested in cross-l l
| |
| [
| |
| l 22 oxamining Staff witnesses, but it probably will not bo a 23 much greater time than minutes.
| |
| 24 JUDGE FRYE All right. We like your style, Mr.
| |
| 25 Zahnloutor.
| |
| I Acit Frintinai. Riti>onTitas, INC.
| |
| l l 202 347 3700 Nationwide rmerage M104(M6 i
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8240
| |
| ('1.cuewalsh 1 (Laughter.)
| |
| Q,)
| |
| 2 MR. Z AllNLEUTER: Well, keep in mind, I have to 3 follow Mr. Lanpher.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE Right.
| |
| 5 (Laughter.)
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE Why don't wo take our lunch break 7 then at this point? That will bring us back in an hour and 8 a half.
| |
| 9 (Whoroupon, the luncheon recoss is taken at 10 12:10 p.m., to reconveno at 1:45 p.m., this same day.)
| |
| 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Acit.17 tinERai. IAEl' ORT!!RS, INC.
| |
| 202 m.1;m Nation Lle rmerage m11wa6 i
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8241 c' AFTERHOON SESSION U).cuewalsh2 i (1:45 3 p.m.)
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE Okay. Let's go back on the record.
| |
| 5 MR. MILLER: Let mo just say this, Judge Fryo.
| |
| 6 With respect to the proposed site visit to the LERO 7 training facility, the Board had roquestod I think that the 8 parties briofly confer to soo if I supposo ground rules 9 could be worked out or if thoro woro probloms that had to 10 be worked out.
| |
| 11 Ground rules havo not boon worked out, although 12 I understand that LILCO is committing that the tour that 13 the Board will be given will bo the regular tour that is 14 given to the LERO training facility --
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE To tho --
| |
| l 16 MR. MILLER: The regulatory that is given at 17 that facility.
| |
| 18 JUDGE FRYE If I, as a membor of the public, 19 walkod up and said I wanted to tour tho facility this is 20 the tour I would got?
| |
| l 21 MR. MILLER: Yes.
| |
| I 22 JUDGE FRYE I soo.
| |
| l 23 MR. MILLER: Now, I think, given the Board's 24 comments yesterday that they considor this sito visit to bo O 25 nee vert of the eviaeatiary recera tm eav v' ta=t l
| |
| ! ACi! Fiti)iinAi. RiivoRuins, INC.
| |
| 2tumm N. Honakte Onet. ige lunt D6 W6
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8242
| |
| .cuowalsh 1 alloviates to a largo degroo the concerns that the County 2 would have, given the fact that wo are in the dark as to I
| |
| 3 what is going to bo involved in this site visit, becauso we 4 have never boon thero oithor, I havo requestod Ms.
| |
| 5 McCloskey to permit myself and maybe others for the County 6 to go on this site tour some timo on Monday, at any timo 7 Monday, so that I could soo beforehand what was involved in 8 the procosa.
| |
| l l 9 I think it's fair to say that it looks like that 10 roquent is going to bo denied by LILCO. And, thoro is 11 nothing I can do about that I supposo. I just want it mado 12 clear that if that's the situation wo, of courso, reservo 13 our rights to noto for the record following tho sito visit,
| |
| * i]
| |
| 14 and perhaps during the sito visit, if nocessary, making 15 comments to the Board of concerns that wo may have as to 16 what is being dono on that visit, becauso wo just don't i 17 know what is going to bo involved in it.
| |
| l l
| |
| 18 I would havo hopod that we could have boon shown i
| |
| 19 tho facility beforohand, but apparontly that is not going 20 to be the caso.
| |
| 1 21 JUDGE PRYE: Okay.
| |
| l 22 MS. McCLESKEY: I'm surprisod to hear from Mr.
| |
| I 23 Millor that the ground rules havon't boon worked out, i
| |
| l 24 becauso I thought our discussion attor the hoarings 25 yesterday had alloviated any concerns that tho NRC at least ActiftiniinAi. Riti>onTiins, INC.
| |
| 202 147 1700 Nationwide rmerage *0 116 M44
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8243 c'%cuewalsh I had raisedd I thought Mr. Millor had raised.
| |
| l (-) As far as LILCO is concerned, the Board has 2
| |
| 3 asked to soo the training contor. Everybody else is 4 invited. We are happy to have overyone como along.
| |
| 5 There is -- the training contor building is used l 6 for training overybody who does anything at LILCO. And, l
| |
| 7 there is a regular tour for that. There is -- it's not in 8 placo yet, but thoro are plocos of what will eventually bo 9 the control room simulator and that's where the operators 10 will be trained. Thore is some machinery picco on one wing l 11 of the building where people who fix things, parts of the l
| |
| 12 LILCO machinery, are trained.
| |
| l
| |
| (^) 13 It is also used for -- and I'm assuming that i %s 14 most of that is not what this group is interestod in. But, 15 thoro is a regular training tour for that sort of thing at 16 the training contor.
| |
| 17 It's also the training contor for LERO. And, 18 there is a regular training contor for a LERO tour. And, l 19 wo are going to take a few plocos of the training contor 20 gonorally tour that you-all might bo interested in just to 21 look at the facility but oliminato some of the dotails 22 about machinery tour and that sort of thing.
| |
| 23 And, than we will go on the amorgency planning 24 training contor tour. I don't soo any nood for prior !
| |
| viewing by anybody.
| |
| {} 25 And, unless the Board orders it we aro Act:.Fimiinal. Rimon riins, INC.
| |
| l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage No 316 (M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8244
| |
| (~^].suewalsh 1 not going to do it.
| |
| C/
| |
| 2 JUDGE FRYE: Well, usually it isn't done, but 3 certainly you are free to comment, you know, in writing or 4 at the time with regard to anything. And, all the parties 5 will be there.
| |
| 6 MS. McCLESKEY: Sure. I will add that it's my 7 understanding that the parties have agreed and that the 8 Board acquiescos that this is not going to be testimony in 9 any fashion --
| |
| 10 JUDGE FRYE No, no. No, it's not.
| |
| 11 .
| |
| MS. McCLESKEY: -- that this is extra record.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE That's right.
| |
| () 13 MS. McCLESKEY: And, no one will be relying upon 14 anything that happens at the tour in their findings and 15 that sort of thing.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: That's right.
| |
| 17 MS. McCLESKEY: So, I really don't know what the 18 hoopla is about.
| |
| 19 JUDGE FRYE: Let me ask, while we are talking 20 about this sort of thing, a schedule point, you are going 21 to finish today.
| |
| 22 Ilow much time do you anticipate with FEMA at 23 this point, Mr. Zahnleuter?
| |
| 24 MR. ZAllNLEUTER: Between one hour and two hours.
| |
| (} 25 JUDGE FRYE: One to two hours. And --
| |
| ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37(U Nationwide Coserage 844-336 6646
| |
| | |
| 2500.10 10 8245
| |
| '' 9.cuewalsh 1 't MS. McCLESKEY: I would say two-thirds of a day.
| |
| hw] ~
| |
| . 2 1 JUDGE FRYE: Two-thirds of a day. And, so we 3 have redirect. So, we might -- are you going to have -
| |
| -4 1 questions?
| |
| S(: MR. PIRFO: I would like to reserve an hour, an
| |
| (
| |
| 6 hour and a half. But, that's an outside limit. . It may be
| |
| ; 7 significantly less than that.
| |
| 4 8~ JUDGE FRYE: Then, we will have Mr. Cumming's iLt w . 9 redirect. So, it looks like we will go over to Wednesday
| |
| !F-
| |
| ['y , _10 with this panel.
| |
| , 11 And, we have this scheduled for Wednesday ,
| |
| 12 ' afternoon.
| |
| 13 MS. McCLESKEY: Right. At 2 o' clock. '
| |
| >L -v: (~}
| |
| 14 JUDGE FRYE: At 2 o' clock.
| |
| 15 ' JUDGE PARIS: When is Dr. Simon coming?
| |
| . 16 JUDGE FRYE He is coming Thursday or Friday?
| |
| I . l'7 MR. LANPHER: Dr. Simon, we have on hold to come 1
| |
| '6_ 18 whenever the Staff examination is completed on Thursday.
| |
| 19 JUDGE FRYE: On Thursday. The examination of 20 the Staf f witnesses, you mean?
| |
| Yes.
| |
| , 21 MR. LANPHER:
| |
| t ,
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE I see.
| |
| 23 MR. LANPHER: My assumption was that if the l
| |
| 24 Staff went only part of the day, after an appropriate break 25 we -- I'm not going to say that I'm going to have them
| |
| ; {)
| |
| /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 4-202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8246 7-].cuewalshI waiting in the next room that day, but I will have a way of
| |
| \ J' 2 getting them here relatively fast.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: Sure. Sure.
| |
| 4 MR. LANPHER: We could, you know, take a lunch 5 break and then pick up with that.
| |
| 6 JUDGE PARIS: We don't have to subpoena him to 7 get him out of jury duty?
| |
| l 8 MR. LANPHER: I don't think so. If I could just l
| |
| 9 add a comment, Judge Frye, when you were going around i
| |
| l 10 asking for amounts of time, don't forget -- as we have-11 mentioned before -- examination by other parties may prompt 1
| |
| j 12 --- '
| |
| 13 JUDGE FRYE: May prompt questions. I understand
| |
| {~} .
| |
| 14 that. And, that's really why I was asking.
| |
| 15 MR. LANPHER: Fine.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: As things stand now, it looks to me 17 like we will get finished Wednesday morning with the FEMA i 18 panel. But,.I think there is always the possibility that 19 we might not, and that might conflict with the tour. ,
| |
| ( 20 MS. McCLESKEY: 'Right. Let me just say this, 21- that the center has been cleared for the entire afternoon
| |
| > 22 of Wednesday. There won't be people trying to take classes 23 in the places where we will be going.
| |
| 24 So, if we are an hour or so off, I don't think
| |
| {} 25 that's going to be a big problem if we get there at 3 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8247
| |
| .cuewalsh 1 o' clock instead of 2 o' clock.
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 MR. LANPHER: How far is it from here?
| |
| 3 MS. McCLESKEY: It's very close. I will bring a 4 map. One last thing about the tour, they usually only take 5 groups of eight at a time through the building, and I've 6' asked them to put us all together so we all see exactly the 7 same thing and there won't be any problems later about 8 that.
| |
| 9 But, I would ask that we limit the crowd, and i
| |
| 10 particularly if Suffolk County is planning to bring any l 11 additional people other than you, Mr. Miller, and Mr.
| |
| 12 Langher, I would like to know about it in advance so that-I 13 can warn the people at LILCO. And, there is a security 14- post that you have to go through to get into the building, 15 and you have to show an I.D., but it's not anything i
| |
| 16 . elaborate. It's not like getting into the plant or 17 anything.
| |
| 18 Do you-all anticipate bringing a lot.of other
| |
| ! .19 people?
| |
| ! 20. MR. LANPHER: I think we anticipate bringing 21 right now just bringing one attorney and maybe one of the 22 Suffolk County training witnesses. We are not going to 23 have a whole entourage.
| |
| 24 MS. McCLESKEY: Okay.
| |
| 25 MR. PIRFO: Staff will be alone. At this point, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 10 10 8248 1 1.'cuewalsh 1 it looks like it will be me and might possibly be Mr.
| |
| 'u.)
| |
| 2 Johnson, but it will just be one of us.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Cumming, are you going to go?
| |
| 4 MR. CUMMING: I don't believe that FEMA is going 5 to attend.
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. And, Mr. Zahnleuter will go 7 I'm sure.
| |
| 8 MS. McCLESKEY: Okay.
| |
| 9 JUDGE FRYE: You are going to go?
| |
| 10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I will be there alone.
| |
| 11 MS. McCLESKEY: It doesn't look like there will 12 be a large crowd, then.
| |
| (^T 13 JUDGE FRYE: No, it doesn't. Okay. We are off
| |
| %.,)
| |
| 14 the record until the witnesses return.
| |
| 15 (Off-the-record.)
| |
| 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
| |
| (~') 25 v
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| ' /''j0111 11 8249 L,/ ,
| |
| :carysimons-1 JUDGE FRYE: Let's go back on the record.
| |
| 2 MR. LANPHER: Our understanding is that this is 3 .a visit-to the training facility and it is not a visit to 4 'the ENC or the EOC.
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE: That's our understanding, too..
| |
| 6 MR. LANPHER: Fine. Thank you.
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: But I understand that we are going 8 to necessarily see that.
| |
| 9 MS. McCLESKEY: Exactly. The training facility 10 is the ENC 'and the EOF during an emergency. I just got off 11 the phone with the~ fellow who does the-tours an'd to tour 12L the Emergency Planning Training Facility, the ENC is set up
| |
| }
| |
| 13 because that is how they train people. So you are going to 14 see the ENC and the EOF.
| |
| 15 MR. LANPHER: Judge or-Judges, this is not the 16 . ENC that was in the plan that was exercised.
| |
| -17 MS. McCLESKEY: That's right.
| |
| 18 JUDGE PARIS: We understand that.
| |
| 19 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, we understand that.
| |
| 20 (Pause while waiting for the witness panel to 21 return.)
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: We are again off the record.
| |
| 23 (Pause.)
| |
| 24
| |
| -{}.
| |
| 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| .(~'30/11-11 8250 Q
| |
| c2rysimons l' Whereupon, 2~ THOMAS E. BALDWIN 3 ROGER B, KOWIESKI 4 and 5 JOSEPH H. KELLER 6 -a panel of witnesses called on Fehalf of the Federal 7 Emergency Management Agency resumed their seats at the 8 witness table and, having been previously duly sworn by 9 Judge . Frye, were further examined and testified as follows:
| |
| 10 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Miller, do you want to ask your 11 question at this point.
| |
| 'l A ,) '12 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) 13 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 14 0 Gentlemen, we are. going to start this afternoon 15 with Contention 45 which begins on page 75 of your 16 testimony. During the lunch recess I had asked you if you 17- could review Contention 45 and I'm hopeful that the time 18 spent on that review will allow you to answer this 19 question.
| |
| 20 Do you have any basis for disagreeing with the 21 allegations set forth in Contention 45?
| |
| 22 A (Witness Kowieski) As a summation, I would say
| |
| ~23 we agree with the facts presented in the contention.
| |
| (} 24 JUDGE PARIS: You agree with what?
| |
| .25 Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 3 7(~10D11.11 8251 q;
| |
| marysimons l' WITNESS KOWIESKI: The facts.
| |
| :2' JUDGE PARIS: The facts, okay.
| |
| 3 WITNESS KOWIESKI: We disagree with your 4 conclusions. In many cases we disagree with your 5 conclusions or analyses.
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: Most of the-facts came out of 7 the report.
| |
| 8 MR.-MILLER: Exactly.
| |
| 9 WITNESS KELLER: We-agree with what is in the 10 report. Most of your conclusions we feel go.well beyond
| |
| . 11 the analysis that FEMA drew in the report. We like'our
| |
| () 12 . analysis better than your going further. I mean we read 13 some of.these where you say deficiencies and you say it i
| |
| -14 precludes a finding which would be a deficiency, and we 15 rate these things as ARCAs.
| |
| 16 I'mean clehrly there are problems. And insofar
| |
| : 17. as the factual presentation of what's in Contention 45 and
| |
| '18 - all of its subparts as in the report we have no problem 19 i with that. But it is FEMA's position that the report 20 accurately reflects the magnitude of the seriousness of 21' these problems, and we believe that your contentions in 22 many cases go beyond that.
| |
| 23 MR. MILLER: Thank you, gentlemen. We may have 24 to touch on parts of this, but I think that's helpful.
| |
| L( }
| |
| 25 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| .. _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . , . . _ _ _ , _ , . . . , _ _ . _ . - . , , , __ . _ . ~ . _ _ . _ . .
| |
| | |
| _m- _
| |
| ( l0 11 11 8252 marysimons 1 O Would you look at page 75 of your testimony.
| |
| 2 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| 3 You state in the second sentence of your answer 4 to Contention 45A that the deficiency regarding the roadway 5 impediments was caused by a lack of internal communication 6 and failure to inform the evacuation coordinator of 7 impediment problems in a timely manner.
| |
| 8 Do you see that statement?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 10 0 It's true, is it not, gentlemen, that even after 11 the evacuation coordinator was informed by FEMA of the l ; 12 impediment problems that other problems regarding LERO's 13 response to the impediments continued to exist?
| |
| 14 A (Witness Kowieski) If you would clarify and 15 give us some examples of what you're referring to.
| |
| 16 0 No, I'm not going to give examples. If you 17 cannot answer my questions, fine. Let me try it a 18 different way.
| |
| 19 A (Witness Keller) I think there were still some 20 problems in the field, but the major problems which were 21 the route of the deficiency as we felt it and as we 22 characterized it were in the EOC and that the performance 23 in the EOC did appreciably improve once the evacuation
| |
| (} 24 coordinator was informed and he began to move things 25 along.
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| ('~?0 11 11 8253 s) c rysimons 1 That goes to the sentence that Dr. Baldwin read 2 out of the report this morning, or before the lunch break 3 where he delineated the number of things that happened 4 after a certain time and we would have to look for that 5 reference.
| |
| 6 0 Is it fair to say, Mr. Keller, that even after 7 FEMA's prompt to the evacuation coordinator at about 12:13 8 on'the day of the exercise there were still some 9 inadequacies involved with LERO's response to the two 10 traffic impediments?
| |
| 11 A Yes, and I would like to take some -- I would I~T 12 like to quarrel a little with your term " prompt." I am not
| |
| %.)
| |
| 13 sure that the reintroduction of the message at another-14 level in the' management chain _is really a prompt.
| |
| -15 Certainly it could be called that in some ways, but I'm not 16 sure that's exactly the correct way to call it.
| |
| 17 0 Dr. Baldwin, would you agree with Mr. Keller in 18 that regard?
| |
| 19 A (Witness Baldwin) Could you ask your question 20 again.
| |
| 21 0 well, let me just ask you the question. Would-22 you agree with me that PEMA prompted LERO at about 12:13 on 23 the day of the exercise with respect to the two traffic
| |
| ('T 24 impediments that had been simulated?
| |
| \_/
| |
| 25 A Could you clarify your term, the use of the term ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage WO-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| ''30 11 11 8254 marysimons 1 " prompted"?
| |
| 2 O FEMA informed LERO about the existence of the 3 two impediment messages that had been sitting at the desk 4 of the evacuation route spotter since about 10:40 and 11 5 o' clock a.m.
| |
| 6 A That's true.
| |
| 7 O Do you consider that a prompt?
| |
| P 8 A No, I don't consider that a prompt.
| |
| 9 JUDGE PARIS: What would you consider it? What 10 term would you use to describe it?
| |
| 11 WITNESS BALDWIN: Well, a prompt to me indicates I~') 12 providing them with information which is leading them.
| |
| v 13 It's clear that we had in this case enough information that 14 we had a problem here with respect to their response. We 15 knew that that problem was going to be in the report. We 16 did not want to lead them so that they could anticipate 17 ahead of time. That's prompting. Providing them with 18 information once we know they have a problem is allowing 19 them to go ahead so that we can conduct some kind of an 20 evaluation.
| |
| 21 We were giving them information at that point 22 through the controller which would allow us to see whatever 23 response they could at that point muster.
| |
| /~N 24 WITNESS KELLER: It's a fine distinction I L ,]
| |
| 25 agree. We reintroduced the same message. In my opinion, a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
| |
| | |
| J'"30 11111 8255 G
| |
| .carysimons 1 prompt would be, hey, your subordinate has dropped the ball 2 and you've got to pick up the ball and do something with 3 it. That would have been a prompt.
| |
| 4 It's a very fine line, but as Dr. Baldwin says, 5 it's'how much you lead them, you've forgotten to this and B
| |
| 6_ you've forgotten to do that.
| |
| 7 It's my understanding that what we did,'and this 8 is based primarily on reading Mr. Donovan's deposition, is 9 that we reintroduced the message one level higher in the 10 chain. It was the same message and we didn't tell them 11 more and we didn't tell them less.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE: You didn't suggest a solution to
| |
| (~}
| |
| v 13 the problem.
| |
| 14 WITNESS KELLER: And didn't suggest a solution, 15 and had we suggested a solution, that clearly would have 16 been a prompt.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: That would be a prompt.
| |
| ; 18 WITNESS KELLER: I'm -just quibbling a little bit 19 about the terminology " prompt."
| |
| 20 ( Laughte r. )
| |
| 21 WITNESS BALDWIN: Since I was involved in 22 providing, I was directly involved in providing this 23 information, one of the questions asked was -- well, we've 24 got a discussion of this on page 37 of the report in the
| |
| .}
| |
| 25 third paragraph down. It's this paragraph, "After the road ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| /~' 0 11 11 8256
| |
| \J marysimons 1 logistics coordinator had been informed of the need to 2 dispatch equipment to the fuel truck impediment, the 3 response to that impediment appeared adequate. A road crew 4 was dispatched by approximately 13:50 when it was 5 determined by FEMA injection that the truck belonged to 6 Hess Oil Company," and then it goes on from there.
| |
| 7 This was not providing them with a prompt so 8 that they could -- a prompt to me means allowing them to 9 anticipate.
| |
| 10 JUDGE PARIS: My dictionary defines it to assist 11 by suggesting the next words.
| |
| () 12 (Laughter.)
| |
| 13 I guess that's leading.
| |
| 14 WITNESS KELLER: That's what I meant. I don't 15 thing we suggested the next words. We did reinsert the 16 message which clearly was going to be written up as there 17 was a problem that it didn't flow the way it was supposed 18 to flow.
| |
| 19 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
| |
| 20 WITNESS KELLER: But we didn't say you botched 21 this and you've got to send traffic guides out and you've 22 got to do this and you've got to do that. We put the 23 message in again.
| |
| (~'i 24 WITNESS BALDWIN: At this point they knew it was V
| |
| 25 a fuel truck, and then they wanted information as to what ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 8257
| |
| ~}0 11 11 brysimons1 the fuel was. Was it fuel oil or was it gasoline, and I 2 said this impediment is in the road in front of a Hess oil, 3 or a Hess gasoline station, and they inferred from that 4 that this was Hess's truck. One could have inferred that 5 it was Amoco's because Amoco has a station on the other 6 corner, but I didn't tell them that.
| |
| 7 (Laughter.)
| |
| 8 WITNESS KELLER: It's a minor point.
| |
| 9 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 10 0 Dr. Baldwin, would you agree with me that with 11 respect to the fuel truck-impediment once the evacuation
| |
| [^)
| |
| v 12 coordinator learned about that impediment which was at 13 about 12:13 that one of the steps that should have been 14 instituted by the evacuation coordinator was to ensure that 15 a vehicle be sent to the scene of the impediment to offload 16 the fuel from the overturned fuel truck?
| |
| 17 A (Witness Baldwin) You say the first response?
| |
| 18 0 No, one of the steps that should have been 19 taken.
| |
| Yes, one of the steps that could have been taken 20 A l
| |
| 21 would be that.
| |
| 22 0 And in fact under the actions taken on the day j l
| |
| 23 of the exercise eventually LERO did initiate such action, !
| |
| I
| |
| () 24 correct? l 25 A (Witness Kowieski) That's my understanding. At
| |
| /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 7-uc.
| |
| '}01111 8258
| |
| $2rysimons 1 4:15, to the best of my recollection, Hess would have 2 transferred the fuel at 4:15 -- 1415.
| |
| 3 0 I think at 2:15 and not 4:15.
| |
| 4 A 2:15 right.
| |
| 5 0 Now given the fact, Mr. Kowieski, that the 6 evacuation coordinator learned of the incident at about 7 12:13, and given the fact that the vehicle to offload the 8 fuel as not sent to the scene until about 2:15, would you 9 consider that a-timely response by the evacuation 10 coordinator and his staff?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Keller) Well, if the only response to
| |
| '^ 12 the impediment was to wait and get the fuel transferred out (J 4 13 of the overturned truck, if that's all they were going to 14 do, then that would not be a timely response. If the 15 traffic were rerouted, if the traffic were detoured around 16 the impediment, then the speed with which the gasoline is 17 removed from the impediment becomes somewhat less 18 important.
| |
| 19 0 so you believe, Mr. Keller, is it your testimony 20 that an overturned fuel truck should remain overturned for 21 approximately 3 hours and 15 minutes without any action by 22 LERO to remove the fuel from that overturned truck?
| |
| 23 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't think it was his
| |
| (~') 24 testimony. I think Mr. Keller testified to the effect of V
| |
| 25 the issue of priorities, what comes first. First, to make ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage R10-336-6646
| |
| | |
| src -
| |
| ^
| |
| 8259
| |
| (~}01111 v
| |
| c ;rysimons 1 certain that the traffic is rerouted, to make certain that 2 the public evacuating from the 10-mile EPZ, the evacuation 3 will continue. That's No. 1. Obviously one should have 4 contacted the Hess representative in a timely manner.
| |
| 5 Whether the two hours that you referred to was 6 timely, I don't consider this to be timely.
| |
| 7 0 Thank you.
| |
| 8 Now at the bottom of page 75 there is a 9 statement, "The lack of appropriate information to respond 10 to the gravel truck impediment resulted in an area 11 requiring corrective action."
| |
| 12 Is it fair to say, Mr. Kowieski, that it not
| |
| (~JT
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 just the lack of appropriate information, but also the 14 timeliness of the response in the field and the inadequate 15 dispatching of equipment and personnel that led to this 16 finding of an area requiring corrective action?
| |
| 17 A (Witness Baldwin) The timeliness of response in 18 the field, the lack of that timeliness was a result of 19 failure in lateral and downward communication inside the 20 EOC. I think we have testified on a number of occasions we 21 have given this a deficiency and that deficiency has been 22 assigned to the EOC because it was an inadequacy in their j 23 response to assess that appropriately, and to then 24 criticize again for the failure of a timely response in the
| |
| (~)T q
| |
| 25 field, it's obvious that that response couldn' t have been I
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 4 46 i
| |
| | |
| /"'70 11 11 8260 L-)
| |
| marysimons 1 timely based on what we saw in the EOC.
| |
| 2 0 Let's talk about the gravel truck for a second, 3 gentlemen. Is it not true that FEMA's evaluator at the 4 scene of the gravel truck impediment once LERO finally 5 responded to that impediment asked questions of the 6 response personnel regarding how they would have handled 7 the impediment in real life?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 9 0 And is it not true that FEMA's evaluator at the 10 gravel cruck impediment scene found the answers given to 11 him to be inappropriate and inadequate?
| |
| 12 A And he rated this inadequacy an ARCA; that's
| |
| ([ }
| |
| 13 correct. That's my recollection.
| |
| 14 0 And is it your testimony that FEMA was unwilling 15 to rate this aspect of LERO's response any higher than an 16 ARCA because FEMA had already determined that a deficiency 17 would be identified at the EOC with respect to the 18 impediments?
| |
| 19 A I'm sorry, I got lost.
| |
| 20 A (Witness Baldwin) There are many pieces to 21 this.
| |
| 22 0 Well, are there any circumstances that you can 23 envision that would have led FEMA to have identified a 24 deficiency with respect to the response in the field to the (v^)
| |
| 25 impediments?
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| 'r"CO.11 11 8261 kf .
| |
| MS. McCLESKEY:' I object to the question ~as nrrysimons 1 2 asking for gross speculation.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: Let me see if I can get at it-if I 4 understand it.
| |
| 5 Did you consider whether this ARCA should in 6 fact have been a deficiency?
| |
| 7 WITNESS KOWIESKI: We did consider it.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: Well, why did you not ---
| |
| 9 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Well, when we considered.--
| |
| 10 in the thought process we considered it, and in our 11 judgment we felt that the rating shouldLremain as an area
| |
| {} 12 requiring corrective action.
| |
| 13 JUDGE FRYE: -Right, but why?
| |
| 14 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Why? Professional judgment.
| |
| 15 First of all, they responded.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. I see.
| |
| 17 WITNESS BALDWIN: In the deliberation process, 18 and maybe this is helpful, but in the deliberation process 19 the pieces as they fit together fit with the analysis in 20 the EOC and the timeliness of their analysis and using the 21 information in the EOC. There could have been other ways 22 in which we could have gotten a deficiency in the field.
| |
| 1 23 I think if that is the hypothetical, yes, we
| |
| . ('s 24 could go into that area. But the point was that we had a V
| |
| 25 number of problems at the EOC and those have been discussed
| |
| /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1
| |
| | |
| 1'~10 :11 11 8262 V
| |
| marysimons 1 really in those two pages. Then when we put in addition to
| |
| -2 that the information that we got from our field observers, 3 .that fit as well with what we've got in the. discussion of 4 the EOC.
| |
| 5 WITNESS KOWIESKI: To supplement what I already I
| |
| 6 said, yes, it was a-weak response. It was adequate, but a 7 weak response. In other words, what I'm referring to is
| |
| ; 8 well, they sent only one tow truck. Their estimate, you 9 know, was very optimistic. How long it would take to 10 remove the impediment was sort of optimistic. So we rated 11 this as an area requiring corrective action. That's.the 12 reason.
| |
| (]).
| |
| i 13 JUDGE PARIS: The road crew was unaware that 14 there were cars as well as the truck.
| |
| 15 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's right.
| |
| 16 JUDGE SHON: I think Mr. Miller was suggesting 17 at one point that one of-the reasons you rated it an ARCA j 18 instead of a deficiency was that you were already granting 19 or assigning a deficiency to the EOC in connection with 20 this same operation. Is that true?
| |
| i l 21 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Part of it, sir. Again, the 22 reason I think, one of the reasons why they could have sent r
| |
| 23 only one tow truck was because of miscommunication. The
| |
| (} 24 message did not contain information about three cars 25 involved in an accident.
| |
| ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
| |
| | |
| -n . .
| |
| p 0_11 11 _- 8263 1 v -
| |
| marysimons 1 WITNESS BALDWIN: I think, if I could try to l
| |
| 2 l respond to that, that there was no preconceived notion !
| |
| 3 during the exercise that, okay, we've got a deficiency in 4 the EOC and we are going to quit here. That deliberative 5 process took place after the exercise, the day after and 6 during the preparation of the report..
| |
| 7 JUDGE.SHON: And I trust also that nobody 8 actually said out.and out, oh, gee, we've already got a 9 deficiency in the EOC on this and we'll only call this an 10 ARCA?
| |
| 11 WITNESS BALDWIN: No.
| |
| 12 WITNESS KELLER: No.
| |
| 13 WITNESS KOWIESKI: No. ,
| |
| 14 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 15 0 Mr. Kowieski, I think there is only one thing I 16 want to follow up with. Did you tell Judge Frye a few 17 minutes ago that the LERO response to the gravel truck 18 impediment in the field was adequate?
| |
| 19 A (Witness Kowieski) Was weak.
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) No, he said adequate.
| |
| 21 0 I thought you said adequate but weak.
| |
| 22 A (Witness Keller) He did say adequate.
| |
| 23 0 Is it your testimony that the LERO response in r"N 24 the field to the gravel track was adequate?
| |
| L) ^
| |
| 25 A (Witness Kowieski) Well, again, this issue is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M686
| |
| | |
| ;fr~]O.11 11 8264
| |
| 'q carysimons 1 .how we are going to -- it was inadequate because'we gave an
| |
| '2 ARCA.
| |
| 3 0 'Okay. It was inadequate.
| |
| 4 A That's right.
| |
| 5 MR. MILLER: Those are important distinctions.
| |
| 6 (Laughter.)
| |
| -7 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 8 0 Now would you look at the footnote on page 75, 9 gentlemen.
| |
| 10 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| .11 You stated that LERO followed the plan-and 12 relied upon evacuation route spotters to relay route-( })
| |
| 13 impediment'information to the EOC. It's true, is it not, 14 that the dispatching of these route spotters, although 15 perhaps in accordance with the plan, was delayed during the
| |
| .16 exercise?
| |
| 17 A -(Witness Kowieski) At least with respect to the 18 fuel truck. I believe that there was one hour that elapsed 19- before the route-spotter was dispatched.
| |
| 20 21 22 23
| |
| () 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
| |
| | |
| a 10 12 12 8265 uj G.joewalsh 1 0 okay. So, you believe the route spotters 2 followed the plan, but they certainly did not follow the 3 plan in a timely manner, is that a fair statement?
| |
| 4 A- (Witness Kowieski) I agree with you.
| |
| 5 O Thank you. Now, at the bottom of that footnote, 6 at the end, you state that FEMA judged that the failure to 7 provide appropriate equipment to the one impediment 8 response that was evaluated in the field, and that is the 9 gravel truck impediment, would have been facilitated by the 10 upward flow of information from the scene.
| |
| 11 Now, I take it, Mr. Kowieski, that in fact 12 during the exercise there was not an adequate upward flow (v~')
| |
| 13 of information from the scene, is that a fair statement?
| |
| 14 A (Witness Keller) To the best of our knowledge, 15 that is right.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: Was there any?
| |
| 17 WITNESS KELLER: I don't know of any. The 18 difficulty is, as we discussed this morning, the message 19 was put in at the EOC.
| |
| 20 The route spotter went by the corner and he 21 didn't see that gravel truck and those three cars. He just 22 didn't know enough to see those.
| |
| 23 He did not get the message in the field, and I
| |
| () 24 think that is what we are trying to say here, that had we 25 however done that, and I think Mr. Kowieski covered that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336W46
| |
| | |
| 8266 l }01212 G.joewalsh 1 this morning, he is not sure we would do it the same way 2 again, although that is the way we have always done it in 3 the past, we are not sure we would do it the same way 4 again.
| |
| 5 And I think that is all we are trying to say in 6 this footnote here.
| |
| 7 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Keller, it may be that you had 3 an unfortunate choice of words here. The sentence says 9 that the failure would have been facilitated. I am sure 10 you didn't really mean that.
| |
| 11 Perhaps instead of
| |
| * facilitated,' you mean, 12 ' ameliorated.' The failure would have been ameliorated in
| |
| ("J 13 actuality by the flow of information from the scene.
| |
| 14 Is that about it?
| |
| 15 MR. KELLER: I will accept sloppy wording.
| |
| 16 WITNESS BALDWIN: That is correct, Judge Shon.
| |
| 17 Absolutely. And at Page 37 of the post exercise assessment 18 deals with this. There is a paragraph here, the second 19 paragraph on Page 37, deals with yes, there was 20 information they tried to pass up with respect -- in other 21 words, pass up the chain of command from the field here.
| |
| 22 So, although there was a message received by the 23 transportation support coordinator from the bus dispatcher
| |
| (} 24 at the Patchogue staging area which indicated that a visual 25 check of the fuel truck impediment had indicated that there ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6646
| |
| | |
| ~ ~' ^0 12 12 8267
| |
| %).
| |
| G.joewalsh I was no problem.
| |
| 2 The difficulty we had in the evaluation, of 3 course, was when this person did this visual check, there 4 was no one there to explain to them the contents of this 5 message, and therefore, --
| |
| 6 JUDGE PARIS: Better get those signs.
| |
| 7 WITNESS BALDWIN: And said I don't see a fuel 8 truck problen.
| |
| 9 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 10 0 I think gentlemen we have been through all this, 11 and we all understand, but if I understand, Mr. Kowieski,
| |
| -( ; 12 what you told us before the lunch break, at other exercises 13 EEMA has done it the same way they did at Shoreham, and at 14 other exercise 3, response personnel have been able to 15 adequately respond to these simulated impediments?
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) To some, to some of the 17 simulated impediments.
| |
| 18 O Look at Page 76 of the testimony. This addresses 19 contention 45-B, which is the Ridge School simulated 20 dispatch of a bus to pick up the s'chool children.
| |
| 21 You state about half way down your answer that 22 LERO personnel, to the best of FEMA's knowledge, followed 23 procedure 3.6.5, and thus this problem was classified as an 24 ARCA rather than as a deficiency.
| |
| : f. J'')
| |
| ~
| |
| 25 And I believe you are referring there to the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage MX)-3346646
| |
| | |
| / 'TO 12 12 8268 t/
| |
| G.joewalsh 1 excessive time it took from the receipt of a message from 2 the EOC to dispatch a bus driver to the school, is that 3 correct?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 5 0 Is it your testimony, gentlemen, that this 6 response by LERO was made an ARCA rather than a deficiency 7 merely because LERO did at least follow procedure 3.6.57 8 You know, you said they followed the procedure, 9 and although they followed it inadequately, they at least 10 followed the procedure, and therefore a deficiency finding 11 was precluded? Is that your testimony?
| |
| (x_/') 12 A (Witness Keller) We did not preclude, with the 13 exception of the back-up route alerting, we don't preclude 14 a rating, I don't believe, in any of our evaluations going 15 in.
| |
| 16 We make our observations and we evaluate and 17 then we arrive at a judgment as to what the rating should 18 be, and I don't believe that any rating is precluded, 19 starting out.
| |
| 20 I think that is what you asked. Did we preclude 21 the rating of deficiency, and I don't believe we precluded 22 the rating of deficiency.
| |
| 23 There was a delay. We looked at the magnitude
| |
| (~') 24 of the delay, and decided we thought that that should be in v
| |
| 25 the area of an ARCA.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| "~}01212 8269 G.joewalsh 1 0 That was not at all my question, Mr. Keller.
| |
| 2 Let me try it again. It seems like when you read the words 3 of your testimony, that what you are saying is that because 4 LERO personnel followed Procedure 3.6.5, even though maybe 5 inadequately, it was decided to make this an area requiring 6 corrective action rather than a deficiency. Is that your 7 testimony?
| |
| 8 A Those are what the words say, that is correct.
| |
| 9 A (Witness Baldwin) We used our professional 10 judgment in this.
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE: It sounds like if they hadn't
| |
| (^i
| |
| \J 12 followed the procedure, it would have been a deficiency.
| |
| 13 WITNESS KELLER: Much more likely have been a 14 deficiency. Again, it is going to be a judgment.
| |
| 15 The whole idea of why we have emergency planning 16 for radiological emergencies is that someone decided that 17 there should be a plan ahead of time, and there should be 18 exercises to demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance 19 that the plan can be implemented.
| |
| 20 Therefore, following the plan is an important 21 thing to do. Now, if someone does not follow the plan and 22 demonstrates an adequate response, you generally say well, 23 that was pretty good, but you ought to change the plan to
| |
| (~]
| |
| sJ 24 match what you did.
| |
| 25 If someone doesn't follow the plan, and the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3346M6 w--
| |
| | |
| f~'70 12 12 8270 V
| |
| - G.joewalsh 1 response was inadequate, now you have to evaluate whether a 2 deficiency or an ARCA.
| |
| 3 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 4 0_ Gentlemen, this is what I am trying to explore.
| |
| 5 Would you agree with me that it is possible that a 6 procedure, in this case procedure 3.6.5, could be followed
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 but in an inadequate manner, and result could be the same 8 as if LERO would not have followed the procedure at all?
| |
| 9 Is that a possibility?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) I don't know what you mean by, 11
| |
| * result.'
| |
| ;() 12 A (Witness Baldwin) I think Mr. Keller has 13 answered the question.
| |
| i 14 JUDGE FRYE: I don't understand precisely what 15 you are getting at at this point.
| |
| 16 MR. MILLER: What I am getting at, Judge Frye, 17 is that it seems to me that the impact of not following a 18 procedure, which could be a deficiency according to these i 19 gentlemen, could be the same impact as if the procedure was 20 followed, but in a way which was not intended by the 21 procedure.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: I think they indicated that.
| |
| 23 WITNESS KELLER: You can follow the procedure,
| |
| (} 24 and get a deficiency, yes, is that what you are trying to
| |
| ! 25 say?
| |
| i
| |
| : ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| '~'O 12 12 8271 c)
| |
| G.joowalsh 1 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 2 O You can get a deficiency if you follow the 3 procedure?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) Yeah, right, sure.
| |
| 5 0 Now turn to Page 77 of your testimony, 6 gentlemen. Talking about the Long Island Railroad, you 7 state that the Railroad was not notified during the 8 exercise, *because there were no procedures in the plan for 9 such notification.'
| |
| 10 A (Witness Baldwin) That is correct.
| |
| 11 O Would you agree with me, Dr. Baldwin, that given
| |
| () 12 the accident scenario on the day of the exercise, plan 13 provision or not, notification of the Long Island Railroad 14 was something that should have been done by LERO personnel?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
| |
| 16 0 Would you agree with me that LERO's failure to 17 do this on the day of the exercise demonstrates a lack of 18 good or independent judgment by LERO personnel?
| |
| 19 A To my recollection, there was nothing in the 20 plan, there was no contact person identified in the plan.
| |
| 21 And we identified this inadequacy.
| |
| 22 A (Witness Baldwin) This is a planning 23 inadequacy, that is the trouble we are going to have with
| |
| () 24 answering this question, because we have identified it as a 25 planning inadequacy in our review of Rev. 6 of the plan, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 4"'00 12 12 8272 U
| |
| ' G.joewalsh I which was exercised-on the' day.
| |
| 2 JUDGE FRYE I think Mr. Miller's. question-14s
| |
| .3 different from that.
| |
| 4 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 5 0 It is. Let me try it again. All I am asking is 6 this: Would you agree with me that LERO's failure to 7 notify the Long Island Railroad during the. exercise is 8 indicative of a lack of good orl independent judgment by.
| |
| 9 LERO personnel?
| |
| .10 A~ (Witness Keller) I am'not sure that good 11 judgment and independent judgment necessarily go~together
| |
| (}l 12: in this kind of a situation.
| |
| .13 As we just discussed - ~can I finish or.not--- I.
| |
| 14 would like to' finish.-
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE: Can you answer his question.
| |
| 16 Modify'it a little bit. Whether you think it illustrated a .
| |
| 17 lack of good judgment, or a lack of --
| |
| 18 WITNESS KELLER: It certainly lacked -- it 19 certainly demonstrated a lack of independent judgment. I
| |
| '20 am not sure that in all cases, although in this case I 21 think I would -- I want this kind of independent judgment, 22 but in many emergency situations you have a more 23 unstructured response.
| |
| 24 We, the grand we, who have been in this business 25 of emergency preparedness for nuclear emergencies, have ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| -A A *<
| |
| I,(
| |
| 1 8273 11(>"50 f- 12 12 -
| |
| G.joewalsh 1 chosen a'very structured type of response. Plans must meet
| |
| ; 2 the criteria of'0654. They get very voluminous.
| |
| That we have fostered a structured response.
| |
| (3-4 Now, I am not saying good, common sense should be thrown
| |
| .? ~e
| |
| '?
| |
| 5 out the window just because we have this wonderful eight
| |
| ; c .
| |
| 6 volume plan.
| |
| 7 And in this case clearly, if there is something 19 8 that is not covered by the plan, and somebody thinks about 9 it, you ought to do something about it, so independent
| |
| ': .10 judgment should be exercised in that case.
| |
| 11 But I am a little concerned about getting down-(
| |
| 12 the path of saying we should foster independent actions 13 outside of the plan.
| |
| 14 .The planning standards were moderately well 15 . thought through. Obviously, there are still some 16 problems. But the plans are comprehensive, they are 17- subject to review. I would much prefer an approach, and I 18 think it is the approach that has been selected for us, 19 that we follow the plans, and exercises are demonstrations 20 of the implementation of the plan.
| |
| L 21 If we took the unstructured approach, under 22 normal circumstance you would gather together ten or 23 fifteen competent, professional emergency responders, give
| |
| /~ 24 them the problem and say: How do you respond? Sit back (T /
| |
| 25 and say: That was a good response. That is enough.
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| , jj (
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
| |
| *' W D - - , ,_, .,.- , . _ .- ,., - ,.
| |
| | |
| h
| |
| ,'7"*0912 12 8274 LV L ~G.joewalah 1 That is not the ~ procedure or the process that 2- 'nas 'been adopted for nuclear emergencies.
| |
| ( 3. ~A (Witness Baldwin) I would like to go and add to l
| |
| 4- what-Mr. Keller.is saying. -I agree with-him about l
| |
| 5 Lindependent' judgment. '
| |
| ~
| |
| : 6. ' 'But in this context, it-would have been good 7' -judgment, I believe, on their'part to have considered ,
| |
| l L 8 calling Long Island Railroad, and then passed it up the 9 chain'for a decision to then come back down to the person 1
| |
| 10 who would actually make that contact.
| |
| p j 11 And i'f that is not in keeping with the plen, 12 that'is fine. If I were doing that evaluation and it i
| |
| 13 weren't'in the plan,' I would say,l hey, that is a gold star 14 for him~today.
| |
| 15 0 Now, ,Dr. Baldwin, during the exercise, there is 16 no ' indication t. hat LERO. personnel did either of the things
| |
| ' 17 you say good judgment would have required them to do?
| |
| 18 A That is correct.
| |
| [ 19 0 Thank you. Gentlemen, would you look at Page 80 20 of your testimony?
| |
| , 21' (Witnesses poris Oor ' ne nt . ) -
| |
| 22 0 (Continuing) You discuss on Pages 78, 79, and 23 80, Contention 45.D. ^'
| |
| Now, gentlemen, the matters that are
| |
| , L. ,
| |
| 24 discrissed on those t.hree pages of your testimony, and I am 25 'not going.to.try to go through each of them, because it y ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| ) 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66 #
| |
| '(
| |
| | |
| /''70 12 12 8275 C/
| |
| G.joewalsh-1 would take some time, but the three failures or 2 shortcomings if you will, that are discussed on Pages 78 3 through 80 of your testimony, is it fair to say that those 1
| |
| 4 failures indicate an inattention to detail, and an I I
| |
| 5 inaccuracy in the recording, processing, and communication l 6 of information by LERO personnel? l i
| |
| 7 A (Witness Keller) The first one, on Page 78, the 1
| |
| 8 fact that there weren't two columns to separate where the 9 data comes from, I am not sure I would go along with that 10 characterization, but that could be - the case.
| |
| 11 With regard to the wrong units -- I am sorry,
| |
| () 12 having 7,000 meters rather than 700 meters, and having the 13 extrapolated as opposed to measured dose, clearly there was 14 some detail that was not recorded properly.
| |
| 15 I think you had four parts that I was supposed 16 to agree to.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: You had a lot of elements in 18 there. It might help to break them out.
| |
| 19 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 20 0 Well the third one, Mr. Keller, is on Page 80 of 21 your testimony.
| |
| 22 A (Witness Keller) No, no, no. There were -- I 23 know that. You said there was the processing, the 24 communication, the --
| |
| f-)T 25 0 I asked you if it was not fair to say that these ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| "T~~iO 12 12 - 8276
| |
| ~V G.joewalsh I failures demonstrate an inattention to detail and 2 inaccuracy in the recording, processing, and communication 3 of data or information during the exercise?
| |
| 4 A You could characterize it that way. Clearly, 5 there were errors made. Whether all of those, processing, 6 recording, I don't know. That is one way to characterize 7 it.
| |
| 8 0 And these three failures that we are discussing, 9 gentlemen, were they all identified as ARCAs by FEMA?
| |
| 10 A That is correct.
| |
| 11 0 Do you recall, Mr. Kowieski, if any 12 consideration was given to finding-these failures by LERO
| |
| . .w(')
| |
| 13 personnel a deficiency-rather than three separate ARCAs?
| |
| 14 (Panel confers.)
| |
| 15 A- I don't believe they were.
| |
| 16 0 You don't believe there was --
| |
| 17 A I don't believe there was a consideration, no.
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowieski) That is also my 19 recollection.
| |
| 20 21 22
| |
| , 23 <
| |
| 24
| |
| {}
| |
| 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| . - , - - , , ~ _ _ - , , _ , . ,, ,- - - - - - - - _ _ , ,,,_.,,,,_.,,,y7. _ _ ..-, , , . , _ _ _ _ . _ . .
| |
| | |
| 7"^30;13 13- 8277
| |
| -C/
| |
| M.cuewalsh.1 O Now, Page 81 of your testimony, please.
| |
| 2 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 3 This testimony discusses the absence of the LERO 4 Director and the failure to get certain messages to the 5 Director and also the problems with some of the evacuation 6 status boards in the command room.
| |
| 7 You state at the bottom of the page that while 8 these problems were observed during the exercise it was 9 determined that they would not impair the ability of 10 command personnel to perform their duties and would not 11 adversely impact the public health and safety.
| |
| 12 Are you saying, gentlemen, in that testimony
| |
| {J-13 that you an envision those circumstances where these 14- problems that were identified at the exercise could 15 substantially impair the ability of LERO's personnel to 16 perform their duties?
| |
| 17 A (Witness Keller) What we saw at the exercise 18 was evaluated as an area recommended for improvement. Are 19 you saying hypothetically could this sort of thing at any 20 time, could we envision any circumstances where it could be 21 raised to a higher level of inadequacy, the answer to that 22 is yes. We could envision under other circumstances where 4
| |
| 23 it could be raised to a higher level.
| |
| {} 24 But, based on what we saw at the exercise, it was our evaluation that these two items basically were an 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
| |
| _ _ _ . _ , ._ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ ,
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| (~70 13 13 8278 x/
| |
| M.ouewalsh'1 area recommended for improvement rather than either an ARCA 2 or a deficiency.
| |
| 3 0 okay. Thank you. Would you look at Page 84 of 4 your testimony?
| |
| 5 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 6 The first bullet, if you will, in connection 7 with Contention 45.G concerns the transfer point 8 coordinator's failure to direct the bus driver to the 9 reception center during the exercise.
| |
| 10 Is it fair to say, gentlemen, that this failure 11 by LERO personnel indicated a failure to follow
| |
| ~
| |
| 12 instructions by superiors during the exercise?
| |
| (])
| |
| 13 A (Witness Keller) It is.my recollection at that 14 time, there was an instruction that went to the transfer 15 point coordinators that said any bus that leaves prior to 16 1600 should be sent to the reception center. This transfer 17 point coordinator sont the bus to the emergency worker 18 decon facility.
| |
| 19 That was contrary to the instruction, that's 20 correct.
| |
| 21 0 Thank you. Page 86 of your testimony.
| |
| 22 (The witnesses are looking at the document.)
| |
| 23 This is really a general question as much as
| |
| (} 24 anything else, gentlemen. When you have an area 25 recommended for improvement as you have for various ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| (~}0 13 13 8279 t/
| |
| M.cuewalsh 1 problems that were identified on the day of the exercise, I 2 think you have already testified that there is no 3 requirement in this case for LILCO to make any response to 4 PEMA Region II or the RAC; is that correct?
| |
| 5 A That is correct.
| |
| 6 (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
| |
| 7 0 If a response is made with respect to areas 8 recommended for improvement, are such responses reviewed by 9 the RAC?
| |
| 10 A That's correct.
| |
| 11 (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
| |
| () 12 0 If a response is made, are such responses also 13 subject to determinations of their effectiveness at a 14 future exercise?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Kowieski) Not necessarily.
| |
| 16 (Witness Keller) No. I -- insofar as if a 17 response is made which results in a plan change, okay, and 18 if there is a subsequent exercise, the subsequent exercise 19 would be of the revised plan; and, in that regard it would 20 be reviewed in the subsequent exercise.
| |
| 21 (Witness Kowieski) Not necessarily -- again, it 22 depends -- this wouldn't be a priority item, okay. The 23 priority would be given to assign deficiencies and areas
| |
| (~'' 24 requiring corrective action. Areas requiring improvement d
| |
| 25 would be our third priority.
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3X0 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| [~10-13 13 8280 M.cuewalsh 1 So, it depends on availability of staff, federal 2 observers. It's quite possible we would evaluate also the 3 effectiveness of remedial action with respect to area 4 requiring -- recommended for improvement.
| |
| 5 (Witness Baldwin) The process used in Region II 6 as well as other regions is the tables in the back of this 7 report, the post-exercise assessment, are provided with 8 responses back from the writer's of the plan. Those sheets 9 and the RAC evaluation of those responses are then taken to 10 the next exercise and evaluated specifically by FEMA 11 evaluators.
| |
| ~'s 12 With respect to deficiencies, that's done in a-(O 13 remedial exercise or drill. With respect to ARCAs, that's 14 done at the biennial exercises.
| |
| 15 Such a tracking, a specific tracking, is not 16 done for ARFIs. But, as Mr. Keller and Mr. Kowieski have 17 already testified, to the extent that they involve plan 18 changes then those are evaluated at a biennial exercise.
| |
| 19 0 okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Page 88 of your 20 testimony.
| |
| 21 (The witnesses are looking at the document.)
| |
| 22 This concerns Contention 45.H. Is it fair to 23 say, gentlemen, that FEMA is unable to render an opinion
| |
| (~'; 24 one way or the other with respect to Contention 45.H?
| |
| v 25 A (Witness Keller) That's what it basically says ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| ?
| |
| 8281
| |
| ;(a"10' 13113 '
| |
| M.cuewalsh:1: Lin our answer.
| |
| 2- 0. .Now, you state ~at the end of this answer that 3 IthereLwas one-instance where apparently one of the 4 simulators indicated that-there would be assistance made 5' available to assist with the. staffing of various; access 6 points around the periphery of the EPZ.
| |
| 7 To your knowledge, was this the only instance 8 where the instruction to simulators not to offer assistance 9 during'the exercise was violated?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Kowieski) That's my understanding..
| |
| -11 It's not a violation, but basically towards the end of I'l '12 exercise when our simulator already knew that very shortly-v;
| |
| : 13. that.there will be -- all the exercise will come to the 14 . closure, he decided I guess on his own to offer an 15 assistance.
| |
| 16 (Witness Paldwin) Well, this -- I would like to 17- really take issue with your characterization of violation.
| |
| ~
| |
| 18 0 Okay. Fine, Dr. Baldwin. I really want to 19 finish today with you. And, so I understand your concerns.
| |
| 20 This was the only instance where your 21 instruction was not followed; is that correct?
| |
| 22 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 23 0 Let's go to contention 50, Page 72 of your 24' testimony.
| |
| {}
| |
| 25 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| i' ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202,347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| ~' 0 13 13 8282 M.cuewalsh 1 Now, Page 72, gentlemen, merely sets forth in 2 summary fashion, if you will, Contention 50's allegations; 3 is that correct?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 5 (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
| |
| 6 0 As a beginning point for Contention 50, which is 7 the basic training contention before the Boarc, I assume, 8 gentlemen, that you would agree that LERO is required to 9 provide effective, adequate and appropriate radiological 10 emergency response training to both LILCO and non-LILCO 11 members of LERO?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 13 (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
| |
| 14 (Witness Kowieski) We would just like to caucus 15 for a minute.
| |
| 16 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 17 (Witness Keller) With one minor exception. The 18 Brookhaven RAP team responders get their radiological 19 training as part of their normal federal radiological 20 response training. That part of it is not provided by 21 LILCO.
| |
| 22 LILCO does provide them training vis-a-vis the 23 LILCO plan, but there is a part of their training, basic
| |
| (} 24 radiological response training, use of instruments, 25 dosimetry, et cetera, that is not provided to the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| r^~0 13 13 8283 M.cuewalsh 1 Brookhaven people by LILCO. That's the only caveat.
| |
| 2 0 Just the Brookhaven caveat, that's it?
| |
| 3 A Yes. Yeah.
| |
| 4 0 Now, on Page 73 of your testimony, gentlemen, 5 when I read your testimony it appears to me that insofar as 6 Contention 50 accurately states the facts expressed in the 7 FEMA report, FEMA agrees with Contentions 50.A through 50.H 8 and Contentions 23, 27 and 28, is that correct?
| |
| 9 A The factual part of the contentions, that is
| |
| (
| |
| 10 correct. We don't necessarily agree with the conclusions, 11 with the same -- that's all.
| |
| 12 0 Well, would you agree with me, gentlemen, that
| |
| }
| |
| 13 the exercise for Shoreham demonstrated that LERO personnel 14 were unable to carry out effectively or accurately the 15 LILCO plan because of inadequate training?
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) Some. Some of the LERO 17 personnel demonstrated that the training was not really 18 adequate.
| |
| 19 0 And, with respect to those personnel, Mr.
| |
| 20 Kowieski, who were unable to carry out effectively or 21 accurately the LILCO plan because of inadequate training, 22 those personnel would be identified in the FEMA report, in 23 your view, and to that extent you would agree with
| |
| ,/~'s 24 Contentions 50.A through H, Contentions 23, 27 and 287 L.)
| |
| 25 A That's correct.
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Mn336-6M6
| |
| | |
| ( 70'13 13 8284
| |
| %)
| |
| M.cuewalsh 1 (Witness Baldwin) We have tried to respond to 2 this in writing where we say it's FEMA's position that the
| |
| -3 effectiveness of the training program must be enhanced to 4 ensure that the emergency response personnel will be able 5 to carry out their assigned roles within the framework of 6 the plan. ,
| |
| 7 0 Okay. We are going-to come to that, Dr.
| |
| 8 Baldwin.
| |
| 9 Now, the beginning of your-answer on Page 73 10 states that most of the exercise inadequacies that_were 11 identified and evaluated as either deficiencies or ARCAs
| |
| () 12 were attributed to breakdowns in the training program.
| |
| 13 Do you see that statement?
| |
| 14 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 15 (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
| |
| 16 0 Did you attempt to make or conduct the same kind 17 of analysis with respect to the areas recommended for 18 improvement, whether or not those were related to the 19 training program?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) I didn't.
| |
| 21 (Witness Baldwin) No, not specifically.
| |
| 22 0 Mr. Kowieski?
| |
| 23 A (Witness Kowieski) I did not.
| |
| 24 0 okay. Now, when you state that most of the
| |
| -( )
| |
| 25 ARCAs and deficiencies were attributable to breakdowns in ;
| |
| l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 80(h336-6M6
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| 8285 v
| |
| ~~}01313 M.cuewalsh 1 the LILCO training program, could you tell me what you mean 2 by breakdowns in the training program?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Keller) That training needs to be 4 enhanced. We were not satisfied with the performance of 5 the individuals in some portion of the plan, implementation 6 of the plan.
| |
| 7 An issue was identified that was either rated as 8 an ARCA or as a deficiency. And, we said this has to be 9 fixed. If it's deficient, under normal circumstances it 10 will be done in a remedial exercise or an expeditious 11 basis. For the ARCAs, it would be in the biennial
| |
| (~') 12 exercise.
| |
| ~,
| |
| 13 And, generally speaking, the recommendation is 14 to improve the training. I think, to the best of my 15 recollection, that -- I tabulated these at one time but it 16 was a long time ago -- the only one that comes to mind 17 offhand that was not a training issue was the copy machine 18 breakdown. That was an equipment issue.
| |
| 19 I think -- I would hazard a guess that greater 20 than 95 percent of the rest involved training.
| |
| 21 0 Okay. Now, let me ask you this question, 2' gentlemen, because I think we are all looking for the 23 bottom line in a sense here, when do breakdowns in a
| |
| {} 24 training program lead you to conclude that there is an 25 inadequate training program?
| |
| ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 M46
| |
| | |
| I l'''70 13 13 8286
| |
| - V
| |
| _M.cuewalsh 1 A I am not aware that we have ever evaluated a 2 training program as a separate entity. The evaluation, the 3- normal evaluation, in FEMA Region II and the other regions 4 where I have evaluated is we evaluate the performance of 5- the implementation of the plan. Now, that I think 6 obviously depends on the effectiveness of the training 7 program.
| |
| 8 But, I have never seen a separate objective or 9 an evaluation of the training program. All the evaluations 10 we have ever made, to my knowledge, have been involved with
| |
| -11 the implementation of the plan, the 35 standard objectives
| |
| ()' 12 or derivatives thereof, and coming to conclusions based on 13 those objectives.
| |
| 14 0 Okay. Now, Mr. Keller, it's fair to say that
| |
| : 15. you did not specifically evaluate the LERO training program 16 at the February 13th exercise, correct?
| |
| 17 A That's correct.
| |
| 18 0 You would agree with me, however, that the 19 training program is an important portion of the LILCO plan; 20 is that correct?
| |
| 21 A Yes. '
| |
| 22 (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
| |
| 23 (Witness Keller) The training program is an
| |
| () 24 important portion of the plan, yes.
| |
| 25 0 And, you would agree with me that it is an ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 1 e
| |
| (^70 13 13 8287
| |
| %.)
| |
| M.cu walsh 1 observable portion? ,
| |
| 2 A No. I disagree there. The effectiveness of the 3 training program is an observable portion. And, that's 4 what we think we are observing when we observe these other 5 objectives.
| |
| 6 But, the training program per se, I mean that's 7 classroom study and lesson plans and that sort of thing.
| |
| 8 The effectiveness, what comes out of that training program, 9 is what you see when you evaluate participants 10 demonstrating their implementation of the plan.
| |
| 11 0 Now, Mr. Keller, at other exercises, Region II
| |
| () 12 has conducted at least spot checks of training logs, 13 training rosters and other training related documents; is 14 that correct?
| |
| 15 A Not at exercises typically, but I think we have 16 once or twice. But, not typically, no.
| |
| 17 (Witness Kowieski) Not only is being done --
| |
| 18 not only the state would submit a summary of the training 19 program, the training schedule as well as training 20 conducted for various emergency workers for FEMA's review 21 and comments.
| |
| 22 O That was not done at the Shoreham exercise.
| |
| 23 LERO did not present training documentation to FEMA at the i
| |
| /~ 24 exercise, did it?
| |
| b}
| |
| 25 A (Witness Keller) That's right.
| |
| l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| '02-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(M6 ,
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| (~~;01313 8288 w/
| |
| M.cuewalsh 1 (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 2 (Witness Baldwin) That's right.
| |
| 3 0 So, it is possible that there could have been at 4 least some objectives for the Shoreham exercise that would 5 have specifically addressed various aspects of the LERO 6 training program; is that correct?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Kowieski) I disagree.
| |
| 8 0 You disagree?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Keller) No. I agree. There could 10 have been. Hypothetically, there could possibly have been 11 objectives written which were outside the standard 35
| |
| ('~T 12 objectives which were outside of the standard, what I would V
| |
| 13 call standard, FEMA Region II objectives.
| |
| 14 Yes, we could possibly have written an objective 15 that would have said: We want to check your training logs.
| |
| 16 0 And, Mr. Keller, it is true that other 17 specialized objectives outside these standard 36 objectives 18 were, in fact, prepared for the Shoreham exercise, correct?
| |
| 19 A The only one that was different from the ones 20 that we have used in other FEMA Region II exercises had to 21 do with the simulators of the state and county; and, this 22 is the first exercise where we have had state and county 23 simulators so that this was the first time we've used that 24 objective.
| |
| (' }
| |
| 25 The rest of the non-standard objectives are ones ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6 L . __ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| f~"!0 13 13 8289 V
| |
| M.cuewalsh I which have been used in other exercises in this region, 2 tailored you have to understand to fit the plan. We used 3 staging areas in this plan. There are no other plans that 4 use staging areas. So, we tailored the exercise objectives 5 to meet staging areas.
| |
| 6 But, basically the set of objectives that we 7 used was the standard set of objectives that FEMA Region II 8 has used for about three years now, maybe four.
| |
| 9 (Witness Kowieski) Maybe four, right.
| |
| 10 (Witness Keller) With the addition of the one 11 objective which had to do with state and county simulators
| |
| (' 12 which this is the first time we've ever had that, been U) 13 presented with that issue.
| |
| 14 0 So, now, Mr. Keller, to make sure I understand, 15 you believe that the training program as a portion of the 16 LILCO plan is an important portion of the plan; and, with 17 respect to what's observable about the training program for 18 LERO, it's the effectiveness of the program; and, you think 19 that the effectiveness is indirectly evaluated by looking 20 at other objectives for the exercise?
| |
| 21 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 22 (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 23 (Witness Baldwin) Indirectly? I believe it's
| |
| ("T 24 directly. Did you use the word " indirectly" or --
| |
| \J 25 0 I think I said indirectly. I'm not sure it ace-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
| |
| | |
| ['';0 v
| |
| 13 13 8290 M.cuewalsh 1 really makes a difference to the question.
| |
| 2 JUDGE FRYE But, you think directly?
| |
| 3 WITNESS BALDWIN: Yes, I think directly.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 5 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 6 0 Now, you state that the effectiveness of the 7 LERO training program must be enhanced?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 9 0 Is there a way that you could briefly tell me, 10 gentlemen, the degree of enhancement that you believe is 11 necessary with respect to the LERO training program?
| |
| (~)
| |
| 'w]
| |
| 12 A (Witness Baldwin) Each of these issues, as we 13 have testified on a number of occasions, we developed 14 exercise objectives and a scenario, and then as a result of 15 the exercise identified a number of issues which are 16 deficiencies and ARCAs. There is a recommendation under 17 each of those.
| |
| 18 And, we try to be very specific as to what those 19 recommended fixes are. Some say plan changes, some say 20 equipment, some say plan and equipment, some say training, 21 some say training and equipment. Every place you see 22 training, that is a place we are recommending training be 23 done so that the emergency workers can carry out those l (~') 24 functions to a better degree.
| |
| l \J 25 0 Now, gentlemen, you are aware of the fact that l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3M) Nationwide Coserage Mb33MM6
| |
| | |
| W 8291 b"O13-13
| |
| .M.cuewalsh 1 prior to the exercise, LERO had effectively been training 2 its personnel to prepare for that exercise for about three
| |
| . years? ,
| |
| 4 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't --
| |
| 5 (Witness Keller) Effectively been training?
| |
| ~
| |
| 6 I will accept that they had effectively been training.
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l 21 22 ,
| |
| 23 O ''
| |
| 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336 4 46
| |
| | |
| 2500 01 01 8292
| |
| ~
| |
| Q Had been training its personnel for about three b}nrysimons1 2 years in order to prepare for the February 13th exercise?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Kowieski) I'm not aware of the time 4 frame. I would expect that LILCO trained its personnel in 5 preparation for the exercise.
| |
| 6 O And you are aware of the fact that LERO 7 conducted a number of dress rehuarsals or practice runs 8 shortly before the exercise?
| |
| 9 A How many, I don't know. I heard about it.
| |
| 10 Q How many did you hear that they had held, Mr.
| |
| 11 Kowieski?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Keller) I had heard about seven over a 13 two-year period I think. That's my recollection.
| |
| (v~')
| |
| 14 O Now, Mr. Kowieski, you did attend at least one 15 dress rehearsal right before the exercise, correct?
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) Whatever you call it, a 17 drill or a dress rehearsal, whatever.
| |
| 18 O And that was the January 30th?
| |
| 19 A That's right.
| |
| 20 0 Is it fair to say that FEMA at least expects 21 improved performance by response agencies or organizations 22 because of the conduct of dress rehearsals prior to the 23 exercise?
| |
| 24 A We do, and we would expect from any other site,
| |
| {} 25 any operating site in the State of New York or the States ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage m)-33MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8293 of New York and New Jersey,
| |
| (~)7arysimons
| |
| < 1 2 Q So given the dress rehearsals conducted by LERO 3 it's fair to assume that their performance was better than 4 would have otherwise been the case if such dress rehearsals 5 had.not been held?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Keller) It's an assumption, but I 7 think it's a fair assumption, yes.
| |
| 8 0 Now on page 74 of your testimony, gentlemen, 9 where you state " FEMA has not been able to verify if the 10 actions proposed by LILCO have been successfully 11 completed," and this is the responses by LILCO to the 12 training issues raised in the FEMA report, is it fair to
| |
| ,C'; 13 say that PEMA has not attempted to verify whether'the C
| |
| 14 actions proposed by LILCO have been successfully completed?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Kowieski) The answer is no, but you 16 have to understand the process.
| |
| 17 A (Witness Keller) Correct.
| |
| 18 O Mr. Keller says yes and Mr. Kowieski says no.
| |
| 19 A We have not attempted to verify whether they 20 have completed these training actions; that's correct.
| |
| 21 0 That's the question.
| |
| 22 A (Witness Kowieski) Well, normally when we deal 23 with the State and local governments --- .
| |
| 24 0 Mr. Kowieski, I really want to get through 25 this. If your answer is different from Mr. Keller's, then
| |
| {
| |
| /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-1700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3%fM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8294 r" arysimons 1 you can tell me it's different.
| |
| ()
| |
| 2 A It's not different, but I thought ---
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE It's not different.
| |
| 4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: I would just like to expand 5 on what Mr. Keller already said.
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE: Go ahead.
| |
| 7 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Normally when we deal with 8 the State and local governments it is our responsibility to 9 ask for training logs and to ask for training schedulos and 10 training conducted. In this case we don't deal directly 11 with LILCO. If the NRC in an MOU would ask us to evaluate 12 the training program and FEMA fleadquarters would forward
| |
| (')
| |
| N_s 13 such a request to our region, most likely we would follow 14 .up on it and we would evaluate the logs or traininn 15 schedules or training conducted.
| |
| 16 Very soldom we actually go go the field and 17 verify the training itself, and it's an issue of resourcos 18 again. We are understaffed and we havo very few people and 19 we have operating plants. We concentrate first on the plan 20 reviews and exercises and the remedial drills.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you.
| |
| 22 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 23 0 The last sentonce on pago 74 of your testimony, 24 "The effectiveness of LILCO's emergency worker training program is an issue of emergency preparedness that would
| |
| {} 25 Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coscrage lun33MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8295 r 70rysimons 1 have to be evaluated at an exerciso or drill."
| |
| V 2 I take it, gentlemen, from your testimony today 3 that this is exactly what you believe was dono also at the 4 February 13th exorcisor is that correct?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
| |
| 6 A (Witness Koller) No. Well ---
| |
| 7 0 Now Dr. Baldwin says yes and Mr. Koller says no.
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) We're trying to trade off a 9 little.
| |
| 10 JUDGE PARIS: I'm not sure we ought to lot you 11 guys study those things ahead of time.
| |
| 12 (Laughter.)
| |
| {} 13 WITNESS KELLER: This is, to my knowledge, the 14 first time -- the February 13th drill was the first timo 15 that LILCO/LERO over had, and I will use a word which may 16 got some question about, the bonofit of FEMA comments, and 17 therefore the next drill, if any, that is ovaluated by FEMA 18 would be the first time that FEMA would have the 19 opportunity to ovaluato whether the LILCO or LERO personnel 20 had offectively changed or modified their plan and their 21 training to accommodate the FEMA comments.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: But you don't disagroo with the 23 carlier testimony that the February 13 exorciso did 24 ovaluate the offectiveness of the training?
| |
| {} 25 WITNESS KELLER: Of their previous training, Ace FrintinAL RtieonTrins, INC.
| |
| 202 347 37(x) Nationwide Cmcrage N(0-3M ue
| |
| | |
| , , ~ .
| |
| '2500 00 00 8296
| |
| ,-garysimons 1 that's right, but I don't know who had commented and what 2 kind of comments they had. So I don't know whether the 3 previous training had been ovaluated in the same way 4 equally or whatever.
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE I soo.
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: That's all I'm saying.
| |
| 7 BY MR. MILLER:
| |
| 8 0 Gentlemen, following the plan litigation in 9 1984, the Licensing Board in issuing.the April 17, 1985 10 partial initial decision conditioned its conclusions 11 regarding the adoquacy of training on a finding by PEMA 12 following a FEMA graded exorciso that LILCO's plan "can bo 13 satisfactorily implomonted with the training program 14 submitted, and that LILCO possesses an adoquato number of 15 trained LERO workers."
| |
| 16 Are you familiar with this statomont by the 17 Licensing Board in the partial initial decision for 18 Shoreham?
| |
| 19 A (Witnoss Kollor) I road that partial initial 20 decision roughly right after it came out. I vaguely 21 remember that thoro was somo discussion about that, and I 22 would think that you road it correctly.
| |
| 23 0 And in fact, gentlomon, the prociao language of 24 the Licensing Board as not forth in the introductory
| |
| (
| |
| 25 language of Contention 50, it's truo, is it not, gontlomon, Acn.FunnRAL Revoin cas, INC, 202 347 17(o Nationwide Cmcrage mnU6-fM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8297 r 7arysimons 1 that no such finding was made by FCMA following the V
| |
| 2 February 13th exercise?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 4 Q It is also true, gentlemon, that FEMA did 5 identify a significant number of training problems and 6 inadequacios following the February 13th exerciso?
| |
| 7 A That's correct as identified in the post-8 exorciso assessment.
| |
| 9 0 Thorofore, gentlemon, if a finding were to be 10 mado by FEMA with respect to the adequacy of the LERO 11 training program, is it not the caso that that finding 12 would be that LERO's training program has boon, is and
| |
| (} 13 remains inadequato?
| |
| 14 A (Witness Kollor) No. 1, I am not aware that 15 FEMA has over mado a finding on a training program as wo 16 stated previously. The performance of the training program 17 is ovaluated as part of the other objectivos. An overall 18 finding which was precluded going into this exorcise by the 19 lotters betwoon Mr. Spock and the NRC is not the samo 20 thing.
| |
| 21 When you put your question togother you said 22 was, is not now, hasn't boon, wasn't and isn't. All I can 23 is based on our ovaluation of the Fobruary 13th oxorciso as 24 you had stated in your previous question, we observed many
| |
| {} 25 areas whero the training noods to bo improvod and was not ACi! FliDliRAl. RtironTrins, INC, 202.)M 17m Nationwide Oncrage hm 3%W6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8298 g-~crysimons 1 completely adequato.
| |
| V 2 What it is now, we have no way of knowing. We 3 have not ovaluated that, and I think you had the future in 4 there also I believe.
| |
| 5 0 What about at the time of the exerciso?
| |
| 6 A At the time of the exerciso, as we have stated 7 soveral times,-there were a number of issues raised by the 8 performance of the individuals participating in the 9 exorcise which indicated that the training program noods to 10 be enhanced and it was not completely adequato at that 11 timo.
| |
| 12 A (Witnoss Baldwin) Could you be a little bit
| |
| /~T 13 more specific when you say at the time of the exerciso. Is O
| |
| 14 that the day before the exorciso or the day of the 15 oxerciso? It makes a difference to me because in answoring 16 it PEMA did not evaluate the offectivonoss of that training 17 program before the exorciso. It did it at the exerciso.
| |
| 18 0 Wo understand, Dr. Baldwin.
| |
| 19 Gentlemon, let's go to Contention 42.
| |
| 20 A (Witness Kowieski) What pago?
| |
| 21 0 It's pago 59 of your testimony.
| |
| 22 0 Ono little follow-up to this last lino of 23 quantions, gentlemon. I take it from your answors that 24 FEMA has not reviewod any post-oxorciso training materials 25 such as delli reports and training logs and other records; u
| |
| Act!.Fl!!M!RAl RITORE!RS, INC, 202.m.37m Nationwide emerage m3wua6 w___________.___________________.__.________.._____________________.
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8299 arysimons 1 is that correct?
| |
| 2 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 3 0 Is it a fair statement to say gentlemen, that 4 the only time FEMA Region 2 has conducted an evaluation 5 specific to the LERO training program was in 1984 in 6 connection with the plan litigation where you gentlemen, 7 and I believe Mr. Keller specifically made a spot check or 8 spot audit of cortain training records. Is that a fair 9 statement?
| |
| 10 A Well, that and the performanco of the exerciso.
| |
| 11 0 okay. Thank you.
| |
| 12 A Wait, I'm sorry. I misspoke. All of us 13 reviewed the videotapes or most of the videotapes at about 14 the same time I was doing that spot audit of the records.
| |
| 15 I think I remember 10 modules or 13 module videotapes that 16 I sat through and I know that Dr. Baldwin and Mr. Kowieski 17 say through some number. So that was part of the training 18 program.
| |
| 19 But the one ovoning that Mr. Glass and I did go 20 to the Ilicksville office I did a spot check of the records.
| |
| 21 0 And that was 1984 in connection with the pian 22 litigation?
| |
| 23 A Yes.
| |
| 24 0 But nothing since that timo?
| |
| 25 A No.
| |
| Acti.I71ti>iinA1. Illiron tlins. INC.
| |
| 202J47.Um Nationwide Oncr.ye Mml % fMt.
| |
| | |
| 2500.00'00 8300 r 7 rysimons 1 0 -Generally, gentlemen, Contention 42 alleges that V
| |
| 2 LERO participants at the exercise were unable to adequately 3 respond to and handle unexpected situations at the.
| |
| 4 exercise. Do you agree with me that there were instances 5 where LERO players were unable to handle unexpected 6 situations?
| |
| 7 A They handled them in an inadequate manner as 8 reflected by the ARCAs generally speakir.g in timeliness, in 9 terms of timeliness.
| |
| ii 10 0 And not just reflected by ARCAS, but also 11 deficiencies, correct?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Kowieski) At the EOC, that's right.
| |
| {} 13 14 A
| |
| that's right.
| |
| (Witness Keller) At the EOC the deficiencies, 15 0 Now on page 60 of your testimony you're 16 referring to contention 42B. You refer to two objectivos, 17 Objectivo EOC 20 and Objective Field 16. I believe I'm r
| |
| 18 correct that EOC 20 could not be observed and Field c 19 Objective 16 was rated as an ARCA with respect to the Patchogue Staging Area.
| |
| 20 21 A (Witness Keller) Just a second. I believe '
| |
| 22 that's right.
| |
| 23 A (Witness Baldwin) I believe that's right.
| |
| 24 A (Witness Koller) That's correct. i 4
| |
| (Witnessos confor.)
| |
| {} 25 i
| |
| ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| : 202.m.3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m)w ua6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8301
| |
| '~10rysimons 1 'A (Witness Kowieski) Just one minute.
| |
| j 2 (Pause.)
| |
| 3 0 I think it's ARCA Patchogue 9, or ARCA 9 for 4 Patchogue, is that correct?
| |
| 5 ,
| |
| A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| V 6 0 Now on page 61 of your testimony, gentlemen, the 7 last sentence which is from the FEMA report at page 20, 8 "The reception center was contacted and requested to inform s 9 the public school coordinator at the LERO EOC when the bus 10 arrived."
| |
| 11 It's fair to say, gentlemen, is it not, that 12 LERO's reception center personnel failed to follow this 13 instruction during the exercise?
| |
| (v~}
| |
| 14 A We have no direct knowledge to that allegation.
| |
| y' 15 We do know, as far as we know, that at 4:23 the message had 16 not been received, and according to our records, which is 17 shown on page 64 ---
| |
| 4 18 A (Witness Kowieski) 63 and 64.
| |
| 19 A (Witness Keller) --- the driver had arrived at 20 the reception center at 1:50, 1350. So that the reception
| |
| , 21 center up until 1623 had not followed that instruction, and
| |
| \
| |
| ,"' 22 we don't know what happened after that. But clearly it
| |
| , 23 would have been late.
| |
| 3 24 0 And, clearly, Mr. Keller, if LERO's reception
| |
| (~} 25 center personnel had told to tell the EOC when the bus gets q
| |
| t
| |
| ! 3 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(MK33MM6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8302 there, those personnel did not follow that instruction; is !
| |
| 6arysimons1 f 2 that corrcet? .
| |
| 3' A That's right.
| |
| )
| |
| 4 0 Rn page 63 which we just were at of your 5 , testimony, gentlemen, the times that are listed on pages 63 6$ and 64 of your testimony, are all those times based upon 7 FEMA's records from the day of the exercise?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| ) 9 A (Witness Keller) Well, wait, in the one column. l
| |
| {
| |
| 10 A ,
| |
| (Witness Kowieski) That's very clear. One is 11 one time as pre. tented on page 60, one column, is presented i
| |
| 12 on pages 63 and 64, that the times come from the l
| |
| j 13 contention.
| |
| 14 0 Mr. Keller, I assume from your last answer that 2
| |
| 15 you would .2 gree that it was about 4:23 in the afternoon on 16 the day of tha exercise before the bus's arrival at the 17 reception center was confirmed; is that correct?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Keller) My recollection is that at 19 4:23 the arrival had not been confirmed yet. That was my 20 recollection and I may be wrong. I'll have to check.
| |
| 21 0 Is it your understanding gentlemen, that given 22 the data from FEMA's records that the only significant s
| |
| 23 delay in confirming the arrival of the bus at a certain 24 location is in connection with the bus's arrival at the 25 school? In other words, your efforts indicate that the s ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| , 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 00 00 8303
| |
| / anrysimons 1 . arrival was at 12:17, but the confirmation didn't come
| |
| '(_)1 -
| |
| 2 until 1:23. Is that the only significant delay that you're 3 aware of?
| |
| '4 A Well, also, if there.was transmission of the 5 information that the bus had arrived at the reception j l i 6 center at 1623, that's a delay. If it was not transmitted I 7 by 1623, that's a non-transmission. So there are two of 8 them.
| |
| l 9 0 Now.you suggest, gentlemen, at the bottom of- i 10 page 64 that part of the reason for the problems on the day 11 of the exercise in connection with the bus that was 12 dispatched to the Ridge School and then to the reception
| |
| {} 13 center lay in exercise artifacts, and you say at the end of 14 the page."The free-play. message did not include controller 15 instructions to initiate follow up calls that there were l 16 delays in LERO's response."
| |
| l 17 Do you see that?
| |
| 18 A Yes, we do.
| |
| 19 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
| |
| 20 21 22 23 24 25 C:)
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| g'}00 15 15 8304 G
| |
| G.joewalsh 1 0 Are you suggesting, gentlemen, that the free-2 play message for the Ridge School bus should have contained.
| |
| 3 such controller instructions?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller)' No. It could have.
| |
| 5 0 If it would have, Mr. Keller, would that not 6 have constituted prompting of the LERO personnel?
| |
| 7 .A No. This is what is called in most scenarios 8 contingency messages. In most scenarios, there is a 9 message, an-initial message, which is designed to elicit a 10 certain response. .If by some fixed time period beyond that 11 . insertion of-that initial message the scenario will have a-
| |
| .{';. 12 contingency message which is put in.
| |
| 13 In other words, if the bus had'not arrived -- if 14 there was no confirmation of the bus arrival by, let's say, 15 12:30 in the LERO EOC, there would have been a contingency 16 message for the cont' roller to add another message from the 17 school that requested the bus initially that said: Where 18- is my bus? Okay.
| |
| 19 Now, that is the way that scenarios are 20 typically laid out, more on-site than off-site, because we 21 don't normally have as many possible pathways off-site as 22 they have on-site, but that's a standard scenario 23 technique. And, we just didn't do it with these off-site 24 messages.
| |
| {}
| |
| 25 And, that's one of the reasons we did not draw ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M6
| |
| -- . - _ _ . _ . . ~ - - - - - - _ ,.
| |
| | |
| 2500 15 15 8305
| |
| ^*).joewalsh 1 as great a significance to what appears to be some delays
| |
| \s 2 in confirmation that things happened.
| |
| 3 'O Mr. Keller, contingency messages, as you have 4 described, is really just a form of prompting though, isn't 5 it?
| |
| 6 A I don't believe so.
| |
| 7 (Witness Baldwin) No, it's not.
| |
| 8 0 Is it not a way to keep the exercise scenario on 9 track?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 11 (Witness Keller) Clearly, it's that.
| |
| 12 O And, it includes, if necessary, advising the 13 participants of actions they should take, does it not?
| |
| (~))
| |
| x..
| |
| 14 A It could. I mer.n, you could write a contingency 15 message that was prompting. You could write a message that 16 says: You know, you haven't sent the bus yet. Send one.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: But, normally it would not I 18 gather.
| |
| 19 WITNESS KELLER: Well, it depends on how you 20 designed the contingency message. I mean, you could design
| |
| :21 one that was clearly prompting, and you could design one 22 which I would believe would not be prompting.
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE: I suppose, to a certain extent, if
| |
| -24 you got a message that says where is my bus, that's (N 25 prompting?
| |
| O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(486
| |
| | |
| 2500 15 15. '8306
| |
| ,f-7.joewalsh 1 WITNESS KELLER: In a way.
| |
| L) 2 BY MR. MILLER: (Continuing) 3 Q And, are you suggesting that that's what the 4: free-play message'should have done in connection with the
| |
| :5 ' Ridge School bus during the exercise at Shoreham?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Keller) No, I'm not suggesting that.
| |
| 7 What I'm suggesting is that what appears to be a delay in
| |
| .8 the confirmation -- not the fact that the bus didn't get 9 there, a delay in the confirmation that-the bus was there, 10 right, would have been -- could have been' handled by the 11 contingency messages or further free-play messages.
| |
| 12 And we, therefore, did not find that this delay 13 in confirmation was a significant.or as serious a problem
| |
| {}
| |
| 14 as it may appear just looking at the numbers. That's all 15 I'm saying.
| |
| 16 (Witness Baldwin) My answer, to build upon what 17 Mr. Keller is saying, would be that a contingency message 18 in that context would be to pulse the confirmation system 19 to make sure that they were doing a follow-up. In other 20 words, to ensure and add that as another sentence on a free-21 play message, if the bus has not arrived by such and such a 22 time verify that with the reception center, and then we 23 would be looking for that verification on the other end.
| |
| 1 24 (Witness Kowieski) The important point is that I l
| |
| 25 what was the purpose of this free-play message was just to i
| |
| ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
| |
| | |
| 2500 15 15 8307 r 74.joewalsh 1 test the knowledge of bus drivers, whether or not he or she J
| |
| 2 was able to locate the school, whether he or she knew where 3 to bring the school children, the location of reception 4 center.
| |
| 5 The message was not designed to check LERO 6 ability to communicate or to verify whether bus arrived at 7 the reception center.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 9 MR. MILLER: Judge Frye, I think I probably have 10 less than half an hour, which I'm glad to do first thing 11 Tuesday morning or I'm willing to go until 4 o' clock and do 12 it today.
| |
| /''' 13 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I think we should let Mr.
| |
| (>i 14 Keller make his plane.
| |
| 15 MR. MILLER: I agree. I'm sorry. I thought I 16 could finish this afternoon.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: That's all right. I understand.
| |
| 18 Why don't we adjourn then until 9 a.m. on Tuesday, the 19 16th.
| |
| 20 WITNESS KELLER: Thank you, sir.
| |
| 21 (Whereupon, the hearing is adjourned at 3:30 22 p.m., Friday, June 12, 1987, to reconvene at 9 a.m.,
| |
| 23 Tuesday, June 16, 1987.)
| |
| 24
| |
| ('s/
| |
| \
| |
| 25 Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER I As This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR- REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
| |
| NAME OF PROCEEDING: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
| |
| DOCKET NO.: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
| |
| PLACE: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK DATE: FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the-United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| (sigt) Ar (TYPED)
| |
| GARRETT J. WALS Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| Reporter's Affiliation M"YRTLE S. WALSH
| |
| % M MARY CV SIMOUS}}
| |
