|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:EG NAL 4 | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| s UlN11ED STATES
| |
| ] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
| |
| LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
| |
| LOCATION: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 7649.to 7887 DATE. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1987 D\
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3M 8706160203 870610 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
| |
| | |
| 24800000 7649 marysimons
| |
| (([
| |
| 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
| |
| 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
| |
| 6 -----------------------------------X 7 In the Matter of: :
| |
| 8 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 9 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, : (EP Exercise) 10 Unit 1) :
| |
| 1 11 -----------------------------------X 12 Court of Claims
| |
| ,, 13 State of'New York L- 14 State Office Building 15 Third Floor Courtroom 16 Veterans Memorial Highway -
| |
| 17 Hauppauge, New York 11788 18 Wednesday, June 10, 1987 19 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 20 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 o' clock a.m.
| |
| 21 BEFORE:
| |
| 22 JOHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Bethesda, Maryland 20555
| |
| !r0~,
| |
| i I
| |
| | |
| 24800000 7650 marysimons OSCAR H. PARIS, Member
| |
| ( )'
| |
| 1 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 5 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 9 APPEARANCES:
| |
| 10 On Behalf of Lona Island Lichtina Company:
| |
| 11 KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESQUIRE 12 LEE B. ZEUGIN, ESQUIRE 13 Hunton & Williams 14 707 East Main Street 15 P. O. Box 1535 16 Richmond, Virginia 23212 -
| |
| 17 On Behalf of Suffolk County:
| |
| 18 KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQUIRE l
| |
| j 19 MICHAEL S. MILLER, ESQUIRE 20 LAWiENCE COE LANPHER, ESQUIRE 21 KirNpatrick & Lockhart 22 Souta Lobby, 9th Floor 23 1800 M Street, N. W.
| |
| , 24 Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 25 l
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| P 24800000 7651 marysimons 1 On Behalf of the State of New York:
| |
| }
| |
| 2 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQUIRE 3 Special Counsel to the Governor 4 Executive Chamber 5 Room 229 6 State Capitol 7 Albany, New York 12224 8 On Behalf of the NRC:
| |
| 9 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, ESQUIRE 10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 7735 Old Georgetown Road 12 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 13 On Behalf of FEMA:
| |
| 14 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESQUIRE 15 500 C Street, S. W.
| |
| 16 Washington, D. C. 20472 -
| |
| 17 18
| |
| : I9 i
| |
| 20 * * * * *
| |
| * I 21 t 22 23 1.
| |
| I 24 25 0 .
| |
| 1 l
| |
| - - - - - - - - .,--n a- ,-, ,.. -n. -
| |
| , . - . - , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - . c---------,-,a- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - , - - - - - - - - - - , - - - ,
| |
| | |
| 24800000 7651-A marysimons
| |
| ( .
| |
| 1 C O N T E N T S 2 Direct Cross Redirect Recross Voir Dire 3 (Resumed Panel) 4 ROGER B. KOWIESKI 5 THOMAS E. BALDWIN 6 JOSEPH H. KELLER 7 By Mr. Lanpher 7623 8 By Ms. Letsche 7699 9
| |
| 10 * * * *
| |
| * 11 12 EXHIBITS Admitted o 13 Identified 14 FEMA Exercise Exhibits 15 No. I through 5 inclusive 7622 16 17 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibits 18 No. 100 7764 19 No. 101 7799
| |
| ; 20 * * * *
| |
| * 21 l
| |
| 22 A. M. RECESS Page 7695 23 LUNCHEON RECESS Page 7767 24 P. M. RECESS Page 7830 25 Fire Drill Page 7781 O
| |
| | |
| - .. - - - . ~ . .- _. -- -. .. . . - _ - - --
| |
| t 24800101 7652 guewalsh
| |
| ([ 1 PROC'EEDINGS 2 (9 :02 a.m. )
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: Well, let 's go on the record and 4 take up your brief administrative issue.
| |
| 5 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, with reviewing 6 yesterday's transcripts, I had moved into evidence FEMA 7 Exercise Exhibits 1 through 6. Because of the objection of 8 Mr. Lanpher, it could be unclear that his objection was just 9 to Exercise Exhibit Number 6 which was the FEMA guidance 10 materials and you delayed ruling.
| |
| 11 So, I believe it would be helpful for the record 12 to clarify that 1 through 5 were, in fact, admitted and that 13 it was only Exercise Exhibit Number 6 that was objected to '
| |
| i ~
| |
| 14 or you delayed ruling on.
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE: I believe that's correct. Mr.
| |
| , 16 Lanpher? .
| |
| 17 MR. LANPRER: Thank you, Judge.
| |
| 4 18 Whereupon, 19 THOMAS E. BALDWIN, 20 ROGER B. KOWIESKI I
| |
| 21 and i; 22 JOSEPH H. KELLER 23 resumed the witness table and, having previously been duly
| |
| , 24 swo rn , were further examined and testified as follows:
| |
| i
| |
| ! 25 CROSS EXAMINATION f
| |
| , . - . --- ~ - - . , , . - , - - . , . - ,__ . - . . - - . . , , - - _ , . ~ . - , . . - , - . - .
| |
| | |
| 24800101 7653 cuewalsh I
| |
| f') 1 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing)
| |
| _(/
| |
| 2 Q Turning your attention, gentlemen, to Page 92 of 3 your testimony you state there that FEMA made every effort 4 to attengt to ensure that preparation for and evaluation of 5 .the exercise of the LILCO plan for Shoreham was consistent 6 with the parameters and processes of Region II for full-7 scale exercises.
| |
| 8 I understand your caveat on that related to lack 9 of state and local government that we discussed yesterday.
| |
| 10 In addition, however, isn't it standard Region II practice 11 to hold a public meeting after the exercise as part of the 12 exercise evaluation?
| |
| 13 A (Witness Kowieski) Correction to your
| |
| 'k l 14 characterization. It's a part of the 350 process, sir. ,
| |
| 15 Q That's right. And, that's done for all full-16 scale exercises, isn't it? .
| |
| 17 A Not really. The process that we followed in 18 FEMA Region II was to schedule and conduct the public 19 meeting or mootings prior to our submission of 350 report, 20 or our recommendation to FEMA Headquarters Office on the 21 approval of the emergency plans and preparedness for any 22 given site.
| |
| 23 Q And, such a public meeting was not held for 24 Shoreham, correct?
| |
| 25 A That's correct. And, there is a reason for it.
| |
| | |
| 24800101 7654 cuewalsh
| |
| ('')
| |
| (/
| |
| 1 Q Well, all I asked is whether there was a meeting 2 held. And, your answer is no, correct?
| |
| 3 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 4 Q And, in addition, it's normal FEMA Region II 5 practice in conjunction with FEMA Wasnington, D.C.
| |
| 6 Headquarters to make findings related to the adequacy of 7 plans af ter the exercise, correct?
| |
| 8 A That's correc t. But, there was -- this was a 9 unique exercise.
| |
| 10 Q And, in this exercise no findings were made by 11 FEMA; is that correct?
| |
| 12 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 13 Q Now, turning to Page 104 of your testimony, 14 gentlemen, you' state on that page that in addition to 15 standard objectives you included Field Objective 5 related to to back-up public alerting. .
| |
| 17 Do you see that?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Keller) Yes, sir, at the bottom of the 19 page.
| |
| 20 (Witness Kowieski) Yes. Right.
| |
| 21 Q Isn't that -- isn't Field 5 or something to the 22 equivalent of Field 5 -- perhaps not the exact words -- a 23 fairly standard Region II objective?
| |
| 24 A It was when I was the RAC Chairman.
| |
| 25 Q Thank you. Now, gentlemen, Standard FEMA O
| |
| - - ~ -
| |
| | |
| .. - - -- - - _ - . . ~ ~ ... _ - - - - .-
| |
| 4
| |
| ! 24800101 7655 cuewalsh m
| |
| i.(}- 1 Objective 13, which is on Page 97 of your testimony, relates 2 to the 15 minute --
| |
| 3 A Which --
| |
| 4 Q 15. Excuse me, it's on Page -- I apologize.
| |
| 5 Objective 13 concerns the 15 minute notification rule. Do 6 you see that?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| ! 8 (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
| |
| ! 9 Q And, am I correct that both EOC Objective 15 and 10 21 for Shoreham also concern that 15 minute notification 11 rule or criterion? It's not a rule.
| |
| l 12 A (Witness Keller) That 's correct.
| |
| i 13 Q In your Region II exercises, gentlemen, I would
| |
| ; 14 like to have you describe how that 15 minute rule is i
| |
| 15 applied. When does the 15 minute time start and when do you 16 say it must be satisfied? .
| |
| 1 l 17 What are -- what is the final action? What is !
| |
| 18 the first action, and what is the final action?
| |
| 19 A (Witness Kowieski) Well, let's take an l 20 example. Utility makes a recommendation on protective i
| |
| 21 action, protective action, let's say to evacuate ERPA-A.
| |
| 22 This is being communicated to state and local authorities.
| |
| 23 State and local authorities or decision-maker or 24 makers will consult their respective staf f. At certain ,
| |
| i 25 point in time, they will make a decision whether to go along
| |
| ) l l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 24800101 7656 cuewalsh
| |
| () I with the utility recommendation or to modify the utility 2 recommendation and they make a decision. When the decision 3 is made, let's say that, yes, we are going ahead with
| |
| ! 4 certain protective action recommendations. We concur, let's 5 say, with the utility recommendation to evacuate Zone A and 6 issue EBS message. That's when the clock starts.
| |
| 7 Q With the decision?
| |
| 8 A With the decision, sir.
| |
| 9 Q Fine. Let me interrupt one second.
| |
| 10 A Surely.
| |
| 11 Q Let's focus on the initial decision, not farther 12 into the exercise, but the initial decision for protective 13 action.
| |
| - &r s 14 A Any decision dealing with the protective action 15 recommendations. This applies to any decision.
| |
| 16 Q Okay. Fine. All right. Now, wh'at is the final 17 action that has to take place within the 15 minute time la period?
| |
| 19 A In 15 minutes, the sirens are sounded if 20 decision is made to sound the sirens. Sirens must be 21 sounded and EBS message has to be issued within 15 minutes.
| |
| 22 In other words, what we observe in our exercises 23 is actually we observe the Public Information Of ficer 24 actually would have to push the button and get on the air.
| |
| 25 Q So, the end of --
| |
| O V
| |
| | |
| L 24800101 7657 cuewalsh l (Mr. Keller and Mr. Kowieski are conferring.)
| |
| [6(}
| |
| 2 A To the radio station obviously.
| |
| 3 Q Now, I'm confused, Mr. Kowieski. I understood 4 you to say that the 15 minute close, the final action that 5 would have to take place within the 15 minute time frame is 6 the airing of the test message.
| |
| 7 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 8 Q And --
| |
| i 9 A One minute.
| |
| 10 (;Mr. Keller and Mr. Kowieski are conferring.)
| |
| 11 As far as test message is concerned, yes. I 12 think we testified to this effect, that in previous 13 exercises we had, generally speaking, only one test message
| |
| ' 14 on the air.
| |
| 15 16 -
| |
| 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
| |
| | |
| 24800202 7658 marysimons
| |
| '() i Q Actually, Mr. Kowieski, that is why I'was 2 focusing on the initial one. As I understand then, after 3 the initial 15-minute period is checked for subsequent 4 decisions since you don't require repeated actual broadcast 5 of messages, your 15-minute clock ends when communication is 6 established with the EBS radio station; is that correct?
| |
| 7 A Well, or simulated communication of a radio
| |
| ,a station.
| |
| 9 Q But the initial message, the initial decision to and action subsequent to that initial included the actual 11 coordination with the radio station and the airing of ' the 12 message?
| |
| 13 A Tes t message.
| |
| 14 Q Or the test message, correct?
| |
| 15 A That 's correct.
| |
| 16 Q Therefore, the initial 15-minute time clock 17 which is graded by FEMA, it includes the coordination, the 18 actual coordination with the radio station?
| |
| 19 , A That 's correct, and may I qualify again, and I 20 think already this is in the record, but I negotiated with 21 the State of New York a time window when'the radio station 22 would be able to broadcast the EBS message.
| |
| 23 If they have an important program and you have 24 an exercise, and let me advise you that a radio station 25 would not agree to interrupt an important program. That's O
| |
| | |
| -- - - - .= -
| |
| 24800202 7659 marysimons i '
| |
| _ ("') I the facts of life.
| |
| V 2 Q Gentlemen, turning your attention to page 108 of 3 your 'prefiled testimony, you state that " FEMA's evaluation 4 of Coast Guard activities on the day of the exercise was 5 limited to the observation of LERO's communications with the 6 Coast Guard officials in New Haven. Do you see that 7 testimony?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) Yes, I do.
| |
| 9 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes.
| |
| 10 Q And, Mr. Baldwin, you were the evaluator in 11 charge of reviewing those communications; is that correct?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Baldwin) I was in charge of watching
| |
| ,, 13 the person who actually did the observations themselves who L 14 was a former official of the Coast-Guard.
| |
| 15 Q And it's standard FEMA practice to evaluate 16 communications with the Coast Guard during an exercise; is 17 that correct?
| |
| 18 A It's done in many exercises, but not all.
| |
| 19 Q And am I correct that the reason that you 20 evaluated those communication is because of standard l 21 objective 5 which specifies that there needs to be a 22 demonstration of the ability to establish communications 23 with all appropriate locations and organizations.
| |
| l l 24 A Yes, in part. ,
| |
| i-25 Q EOC 16.
| |
| | |
| 24800202 7660 marysimons
| |
| () 1 A Yes, it's EOC 16 in this specific case where we 2 have talked about demonstrate organizational ability to 3 manage an orderly evacuation on all or part of the 10-mile 4 EPZ, including the water portion.
| |
| 5 Q So the reason the communications with the Coast 6 Guard relates to more than one objective?
| |
| 7 A That 's correct.
| |
| .8 Q Now on page 109 you state that a FEMA observer 9 verified that the Coast Guard had taken certain actions 10 during the exercise. Do you see that testimony? It's 11 toward the bottom third of the page.
| |
| 12 A Yes.
| |
| 13 Q Were you that observer, Mr. Baldwin?
| |
| 7-s id 14 A No, I was not.
| |
| 15 Q Was that Mr. Lutz?
| |
| 16 A Yes, it was. -
| |
| 17 Q Mr. Lutz interviewed Coast Guard personnel after is they had said they had taken certain actions; is that 19 correc t?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
| |
| 21 Q Is it fair to state that this is similar -- that 22 the FEMA evaluation in this respect is similar to the 23 evaluation conducted with LERO personnel who had made the 24 simulated early dismissal phone calls and there were 25 interviews after the fact to find out what they had done?
| |
| | |
| - . _ - - _ - - --- -__ -- . . ._ - .. . - =. - .
| |
| 24800202 7661 marysimons 7
| |
| _( ; 1 A That's right, but I would draw a distinction 2 between the school dismissal and this one.
| |
| 3 A (Witness Keller) So would I.
| |
| 4 A (Witness Kowieski) There is a reason. It was 5 not an exercise objective.
| |
| 6 Q What was not an exercise objective?
| |
| 7 A To evaluate the Coast Guard.
| |
| 8 Q In fact, in your post-exercise report there is 9 no evaluation, isn 't that correc t, of the Coast Guard?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) That 's correct.
| |
| 11 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.'
| |
| 12 Q And the reason is that it was not an objective?
| |
| 13 A (Witness Keller) That 's correc t.
| |
| FC
| |
| ' 14 A (Witness Kowieski) That'd correct.
| |
| i 15 Q Turn your attention to page 113 of your 16 testimony, to your discussion of the special facilities, 17 hospitals and nursing hones and adult homes within the 10-18 mile EPZ.
| |
| 19 (Witnesses comply. )
| |
| 20 Gentlemen, when you prepared this testimony were 4
| |
| 21 you aware that the NRC's Appeal Board had reversed portions 22 of the ASLB decision which you quote at the bottom of page 23 114 having to do with hospital evacuation?
| |
| 24 A (Witness Keller) I'm sure of the timing. I'm 25 aware now that it has been reversed, but I'm not sure when
| |
| ;P LJ 1
| |
| , , - - , - . -,,,--,-,,,,-,v. ,,-,,,r --, -- , ,r,
| |
| | |
| 24800202 7662 m;rysimons
| |
| .t.g) I we prepared the testimony if we were aware at the time.
| |
| 2 Q Well, do any of you have a recollection of 3 whether you were aware of it at the time?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Baldwin) I was not aware of it at the 5 time that we prepared the testimony.
| |
| 6 Q Mr. Kowieski, do you have a recollection?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't have a recollection 8 of it. .
| |
| 9 Q It's a fact, is it not, that during a Shoreham 30 emergency it would be necessary for LERO personnel to 11 coordinate with hospital personnel, nursing home personnel 12 and adult hone personnel; isn't that correct?
| |
| i3 A (Witness Kowieski) Will you please be more specific, coordinate or advise the special facilities about 14 15 protective action recommendations? Could you restructure 16 your question so I'll understand? -
| |
| 17 Q Isn't it a fact that during a Shoreham emergency 18 which involved protective action recommendations that LERO 19 personnel would need to communicate those protective action 20 recommendations to personnel of hospitals, nursing homes, 21 adult homes and similar facilities?
| |
| 22 A That's correct.
| |
| 23 Q And isn't it also a fact that if evacuation were 24 one of the recommended protective actions that LERO would 25 need to coordinate transportation needs of adult homes and O
| |
| | |
| 24800202 7663 marysimons h 1 nursing homes?
| |
| 2 A (Witness Keller) Not necessarily.
| |
| 3 Q Well, in some instances doesn't the LERO plan 4 provide that LERO will provide the transportation resources 5 for certain adult homes and nursing homes.
| |
| 6 A In some instances that is correct.
| |
| 7 Q And that coordination would require phone calls 8 and discussions between LERO and those homes, correct?
| |
| 9 A Yes, it would.
| |
| 10 Q And during the exercise such discussions did not 11 take placer is that correct?
| |
| 12 A It was not an objective of the exercise and to 13 my understanding they did not take place, i
| |
| " Isn't it a fact, gentlemen, that during the 14 Q is earlier phase in this proceeding you testified that during 16 an exercise for Shoreham you would evaluate through a 17 sampling approach the level of coordination between LERO and 18 adult homes and nursing hones?
| |
| 19 A That is correct.
| |
| 20 Q But you did not do that in the exercise?
| |
| 21 A I believe our testimony was that during an 22 exercise, not during all exercises and not during the first 23 exercise. What we are trying to say is these things have to 24 done, it is part of the six-year cycle and you don't do 25 everything in every exercise.
| |
| | |
| 24800202 7664 marysimons And these things have to be done because these (v'') i Q 2 constitute major portions of the plan, correct?
| |
| 3 A That is correct.
| |
| 4 O And these are observable portions of the plan, 5 correct?
| |
| 6 A That's correct.
| |
| 7 (Pause.)
| |
| 8 9
| |
| 10 11 12 13
| |
| . ,{')
| |
| <v ,,
| |
| 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
| |
| V
| |
| | |
| 24800303 7665 joewalsh
| |
| ._~ l
| |
| ') I Q Mr. Keller, yesterday we were discussing -- or 2 you testified about ingestion pathway testing in New York 3 State.
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) Yea, sir.
| |
| 5 Q And, you sta ted -- and , this is at the 6 Transcript 7527 to 7528. I don't know if you have the 7 transcript.
| |
| 8 On 7528, you seem to have stated -- and I don't 9 know if you meant this -- that you were the evaluator at all 10 or of all ingestion pathway activities where ingestion 11 pathway activities were tested in New York State exercises.
| |
| 12 A I'm not sure I said all. And , I -- but I can ' t
| |
| ,7 13 find it.
| |
| 14 (Witness Kowieski) Which line?
| |
| 15 Q Lines 9 and 10 on 7528. You didn't say "all" 16 but the implication -- .
| |
| 17 A 27 and 287 18 Q No. 9 and 10 on Page 7528. The sentence says --
| |
| 19 well, the paragraph says: It is true there were a few 20 ingestion pathway exercise objectives in previous 21 exercises. The people couldn't find the forms, they didn't 22 have the maps, they didn't know where to go. I know that 23 for a fact, because I was the evaluator.
| |
| 24 A (Witness Keller) That is correct, a correct 25 statement.
| |
| b N
| |
| | |
| 24800303 7666
| |
| .joewalsh Well,'you weren't the evaluator at all the
| |
| (]) 1 -Q 2 exercises?
| |
| 3 A No, I was not. I was the evaluator at the Nine 4 Mile Point exercise or Fitzpatrick. I'm not sure which we 5 called it at that particular site. The Oswego County site.
| |
| 6 (Witness Kowieski) Nine Mile Point site.
| |
| 7 Q But, isn't it a fact that there were exercises 8 where the performance related to ingestion pathway was not ,
| |
| 9 such that it would have led to a deficiency?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) Not at Nine Mile Point, it was 11 not.
| |
| 12 Q Well, I'm not limiting my question to Nine Mile Point. Is that the only one you have familiarity with, sir?
| |
| O 13 14 A That was the only one that I was the evaluator 15 for the ingestion pathway objectives, yes.
| |
| 16 Q So, your testimony yesterday that we-referred to 17 is strictly with respect to the Nine Mile Point exercise is which I believe, in fact, is the -- was for Fitzpatrick and 19 the -- I will give you a copy of the report.
| |
| 20 It was previously marked as Suffolk County 21 Exhibit 73. And, is that the exercise you are referring to?
| |
| 22 A If you will give me a moment, I will --
| |
| 23 Q If you will look at Page 8, you are listed as 24 one of the evaluators for ingestion, okay?
| |
| 23 A Yes. It should be the one.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24800303 7667 j oewalsh
| |
| [l 1 (The witness is looking at the document.)
| |
| 2 Yes. This is the one. There is a typo, or I'm 3 sorry, a transcription error in Line 8. The transcript says 4 " forms." That should be " farms," f-a-r-m-s.
| |
| 5 Q Okay. Let's be clear. You are talking about 6 Line 8 on 7528 of yesterday's transcript?
| |
| 7 A Yes, sir.
| |
| 8 Q Gentlemen, let me show you a copy of Suffolk 9 County Exhibit 75 for identification. And, for the record 10 that was the September 28, 1983 exercise report for Nine 11 Mile Point.
| |
| 12 And, I would like to turn your attention to Page 13 , 25. First of all, looking at Page 10, I'm correct, am I
| |
| ' 14 not, that this was another of the exercises whero ingestion is pathway objectives were tested? If you will look at two-16 thirds of the way down Page 10, there is an objective 17 listed: Analysis and determination of ingestion exposure la pathway consideration.
| |
| 19 Do you see that on Page 10?
| |
| 20 (The witnesses are looking at the document.)
| |
| 21 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 22 Q If you look at Page 25, a little below the 23 middle of the page, it states: Good protective actions for 24 the ingestion pathway EPZ were developed promptly. Maps 25 showing locations of dairy farms, produce farms and water
| |
| | |
| '24800303 7668
| |
| -j oewalsh
| |
| () I resources were available at the State EOC. On the basis of 2 plant conditions, dairy cattle within 10 miles of the plant 3 were placed on stored feed at the alert emergency 4 classification level as a precautionary measure. Later, 5 after the staff learned that the release included some 6 radioiodine commercial produce was embargoed on the basis of 7 the ingestion pathway protective action guide for child a thyroid until sampling and analysis could be completed.
| |
| 9 Residents were advised to abstain from consuming their own 10 garden produce, especially rough surfaced and leafy 11 vegetables until the commercial embargo had been lifted.
| |
| 12 Do you see that statement?
| |
| 13 A Yes. You have read what is on the page. Yes.
| |
| 'O-14 Q That doesn't indicate that the ingestion pathway 15 response was deficient, does it 16 A This is a decision-making response, and this 17 response was adequate.
| |
| Is Q Thank you. And, isn't it true that there are 19 other ingestion pathway exercises in New York State where 20 the response was adequate?
| |
| 21 A The decision response was adequate, that's 22 correc t.
| |
| 23 Q Is it your testimony that the f f *1d response was 24 25 A That is correct.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24800303 7669 joewalsh I
| |
| 1 Q -- inadequate'--
| |
| _(''}
| |
| 2 A That is correct.
| |
| 3 A -- at all others?
| |
| 4 A At the previous exercise that we have just 5 discussed, that was all field response. The people in the 6 field who are assigned to find the farms and to collect the 7 samples and to make the decision, whether it was adequate, 8 it was appropriate to lif t the embargo, couldn't find the 9 farms.
| |
| 10 Q Well, is it your testimony, Mr. Keller, that at 11 every other exercise where ingestion pathway response was 12 tested, the field response was inadequate?
| |
| 13 Is that your testimony?
| |
| 14 A I cannot recall every other exercise at this 15 point from recall . I do recall the ones I-was involved in, 16 and that was inadequate. .
| |
| 17 Q Let me provide you a copy of Suffolk County 18 Exhibit 71 for identification. It is the June 22, 1983 19 exercise at Ginna. And, looking at Page 3 of that report, 20 it appears, Mr. Keller, that you were present at that 21 exercise as an evaluator of accident assessment, correct?
| |
| 22 A That is correct.
| |
| 23 Q You were not the evaluator of ingestion pathway?
| |
| 24 A That is correct.
| |
| 25 Q A Mr. Connelly --
| |
| | |
| 24800303 7670 joewalsh
| |
| 'I ') 1 A From the Department of Agriculture, that's a
| |
| 2 right.
| |
| 3 Q -- was the evaluator. Or, they called it 4 observer then. Does that mean the same thing?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Kowieski) Same thing.
| |
| 6 Q And, if you would look at the bottom of Page 26 7 of this report, the last paragraph which continues on page a
| |
| 27, it says: The field response was good. When the SEOC 9 ordered ingestion pathway sampling during the recovery and 10 reentry phase of the exercise, the Department of Agriculture 11 and --
| |
| 12 A Pardon me. I'm sorry, could you direct me
| |
| ,m 13 again?
| |
| .i ~'
| |
| ')
| |
| 14 Q I'm sorry. Page 26 of this report.
| |
| 15 A I thought you said at the bottom of 25 and 16 continuing on 26. I'm sorry. -
| |
| 17 Q I'm sorry. Page 26.
| |
| 18 A At the bottom of 26, okay. Good. I have it, 19 yes, sir.
| |
| 20 Q It says: The field response was good. When the 21 SEOC ordered ingestion pathway sampling during the recovery 22 and reentry phase of the exercise, the Department of ,
| |
| 23 Agriculture and Markets personnel at both the LDEOC and the 24 WDEOC promptly dispatched field sampling teams to collect 25 samples of fruits, vegetables, soils, milk and foliage. The fm k-)
| |
| | |
| 24800303 7671 joewalsh
| |
| ....I .
| |
| / ) I teams were knowledgeable and collected the samples in a 2 timely manner. All samples were labeled. The appropriate 3 forms were filled out. The location of each sample was 4 noted on a chart and the samples were given to the New York 5 State police for express delivery to the State's laboratory 6 at Albany.
| |
| 7 Correct?
| |
| 8 A That is correct.
| |
| 9 Q That indicates a pretty good field response, 10 doesn't it?
| |
| 11 A In that exercise, it was good field response.
| |
| 12 Q So, at least in some of the exercises there was 13 good field response.
| |
| 9-s\
| |
| d'"' 14 A As I said, I could not recall all of the
| |
| ~
| |
| is exercises from recall. And, yes, there were some.
| |
| 16 17 18 f
| |
| 39 20 l
| |
| ( 21 i
| |
| 22
| |
| ! 23 1
| |
| 24 .
| |
| I 25 r'';
| |
| . . \_ J l
| |
| | |
| 24800404~ 7672 guevalsh If'')
| |
| us 1 Q Mr. Baldwin, were you the evaluator -- turning 2 your attention to Page 126 of the testimony, there is a 3 discussion there of the participation of the State of 4 Connecticut which was limited to communications.
| |
| 5 Do you see that statement?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Baldwin) Yes.
| |
| 7 Q Isn't'it true that it was a single communication 8 with the State of Connecticut?
| |
| 9 A My understanding is that it was.
| |
| 10 Q And, isn't it a fact that prior to that single 11 communication being effected, there were multiple efforts to 12 try to communicate which were unsuccessful?
| |
| 13 A I have no direct -- could you clarify for me O' 14 what you mean by multiple? There was more than that one 15 attemp t .
| |
| 16 Q There were a number of attempts during the 17 morning of February 13, 1986 to communicate with 18 Connecticut. And, the initial attempt, and more than one 19 attempt, were unsuccessful. And, finally around 10:30 in 20 the morning they finally reached the appropriate Connecticut 21 . official.
| |
| 22 A My recollection is that you have got an accurate 23 characterization there. There was more than one, and it was 24 -- I can't tell you what time it was.
| |
| 25 Q Don ' t worry abou t the time . There were a number O
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7673 cuewalsh
| |
| [() 1 of unsuccessful attempts and finally they were able to get 2 through; is that correct?
| |
| 3 A That's correct.
| |
| 4 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Baldwin, do you know why they 5 had dif ficulty getting through to Connecticut?
| |
| 6 WITNESS BALDWIN: No, I don't.
| |
| 7 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 8 Q Gentlemen, yesterday we talked briefly about 9 recovery / reentry which you discuss at Page 128 of your 10 testimony. I believe you stated that that does constitute 11 one of the major observable portions of an emergenc9 plan 12 but under FEMA policy it's not necessary to test that in 13 every exercise.
| |
| ' 14 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 15 Q There was no reason why you couldn't have tested 16 recovery and reentry at Shoreham, however, was there?
| |
| 17 A (Witness Keller) Yes, there is a reason.
| |
| 18 Q Why is that?
| |
| 19 A The federal government in the position of the 20 Environmental Protection Agency is yet to pronulgate doses, 21 acceptable doses, for reentry of evacuated areas. They are 22 currently out in draf t form, but they have not been 23 promulgated as of yet.
| |
| 24 And, therefore, you don't know what standard you 25 have to measure against. The State of New York has objected
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7674 i cuewalsh
| |
| ''( )
| |
| ~
| |
| I to including recovery and reentry objectives in their 2 exercises after the new system was established after '83, i
| |
| i 3 August '83, and we have not had after the new system.was 4 established in August of '83 recovery and reentry objectives
| |
| , 5 in New York.
| |
| 6 We had some prior, but the system at that time 7 was a lot different than we have now. And, we were j s evaluating different kinds of th,ings. And, if you don't 9 have a standard against which to measure it's very difficult 10 to make a measurement.
| |
| i 11 Q Well, there are other activities besides the 12 dose standard which are part of the recovery and reentry i3 operation.
| |
| O' 14 A Clearly, they are. But, if the doses are not 15 safe --
| |
| 16 Q Could you just answer the question, please?
| |
| 17 A Yes, they are.
| |
| l 18 JUDGE PARIS: Such as finding farms.
| |
| 19 WITNESS KELLER: Such as finding farms.
| |
| 20 (Laughter.) L l 21 MR. LANPHER: Well, finding farms is I think
| |
| ;. 22 inges tion pathway, Judge.
| |
| i 23 JUDGE PARIS: Oh', excus e me . I'm sorry.
| |
| , 24 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 4 i 25 Q Isn't that correct, Mr. Keller?
| |
| t
| |
| ,,,-...----,,r-+ ..<.n-,--en~ . ~ ~ . ,,,, , ,, .- w ,,- -,m, ,____n ----.vev,v_, ,we,n.-, ..mn-.., -n-,,,e,.,n,
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7675 cuewalsh 1 A (Witness Keller) It can also be recovery and
| |
| [(~ }
| |
| 2 reentry.
| |
| 3 Q Okay. So, you could do it on both, couldn't 4 you?
| |
| 5 A That is correct.
| |
| 6 Q That wasn't done for Shoreham?
| |
| 7 A That is correct.
| |
| 8 Q And, some of those other activities relating to 9 recovery and reentry are set forth in the evaluation 10 criteria of 0654, Section M --
| |
| 11 A Did you say M, M as in Mary? That is correct.
| |
| 12 Q And, isn't it a fact that you construed NRC's 10 13 mile suggestion to be an indication from the NRC that you l' -
| |
| 14 should omit recovery and reentry from the exercise?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Kowieski) It was a deciding factor, 16 yes e sir. .
| |
| 17 Q You made that decision, correct, Mr. Kowleski?
| |
| i l 18 A No. NRC made the decision.
| |
| i 19 Q Well, in your initial set of objectives for 20 Shoreham, you did not include recovery / reentry?
| |
| 21 A Yes. I followed the instructions.
| |
| 22 Q And, you did not evaluate recovery and reentry
| |
| : 23 even within 10 miles, correct?
| |
| ) 24 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 25 0 And, Mr. Keller, you testified before that I
| |
| , . , - - . - - _ _ - , - _ - . . . - , - _ _ _ . , - _ . ~ . , . - . -
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7676 ,
| |
| cuewalsh-b() I recovery and reentry has been exercised at other New York 2 State exercises, correct?
| |
| } 3 A (Witness Keller) That is correct, those prior 4 to -- the new system which was established in August of '83.
| |
| 5 Q So, prior to August '83 it was done?
| |
| 6 A That is correct.
| |
| 7 Q And, so there is nothing that makes it 8 impossible -- I mean, you have had experience doing recovery 9 and reentry.
| |
| 10 A There are very few things that are impossible.
| |
| ~
| |
| 11 Q Well, in fact, FEMA Region II has had experience 12 doing recovery and reentry?
| |
| 13 A In a much different system than we currently
| |
| ('' i4 haves that is a correct statement.
| |
| 15 Q But, under the same NUREG 0654 criteria?
| |
| 16 A That is correct. -
| |
| 17 Q And, in fact, during some of those exercises la FEMA concluded that recovery and reentry had been well 19 demonstrated; isn't that right?
| |
| 20 A That is correct.
| |
| I 21 Q Even without the dose guidance which you spoke 22 about before, the EPA dose guidance, you were able to i
| |
| 23 evaluate recovery and reentry --
| |
| 24 A We evaluated --
| |
| i 25 Q -- during other exercises?
| |
| _J_._.,_--__._-.--. . , . _ , _ _ _ , , _ _ _ . , - . _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| . .. - - . . _ - . . . - . . .- ~.
| |
| 24800404 7677
| |
| -cuewalsh i A We evaluated recovery and reentry based on the
| |
| [s -)
| |
| 2 criteria which were in existence at the time which were --
| |
| 3 which is a different system than we have now. And, at that 4 time we made the judgment that what was demonstrated was 5 adequate.
| |
| 6 Q Your RAC reviews sdbsequent to 1983 of plans i
| |
| 7 include evaluation of recovery / reentry, don't they?
| |
| 8 A And prior to ' 83, yes , sir.
| |
| 9 Q So, the fact that there was a different system
| |
| 'to didn't stop you from evaluating recovery / reentry in your il plan reviews, correct?
| |
| . 12 A That is correct.
| |
| 13 Q I don't understand why it stops you from L' 14 evaluating recovery / reentry during exercises.
| |
| 15 A Because the plan review is a review of a ,
| |
| 16 document which is words on paper. And, my recollection of ,
| |
| 17 the M criteria state that there should be generalized plans l 18 for recovery and reentry. I can look it up, but I think '
| |
| l 19 that's close enough. But, it's a general plan that is i
| |
| 20 required in the plan.
| |
| 21 When you get to an exercise, you expect people i
| |
| j 22 to implement something. A general plan is very difficult to 23 evaluate, whether they did a good job or not. And, that's
| |
| ( 24 why there has been a stop, at least in Region II, of the l 25 evaluation of recovery and reentry exercise objectives, I .
| |
| s
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7678 cuewalsh
| |
| ' ( ,) i exercise observation.
| |
| 2 In the early stages, what we saw were typically 3 a committee was formed, they would sit around the table and 4 they would say: Look, the exercise or the plant is now 5 stable. The threat to the population is decreasing. What 6 are we going to do? Well, we will have to worry about 7 getting the people back into their homes. We will have to a worry about whether the food supply which has been lef t in 9 restaurants and stores is acceptable and that kind of thing.
| |
| to That was the type of thing that was evaluated as 11 being adequate in the earlier exercises. As we have evolved 12 in this program, for better or for worse, we think there are i3 some other things that should be considered.
| |
| , 14 EPA, as I said before, has been tussling with 15 the acceptance criteria for dosage, long term dosage. You 16 are going to have to make a lot of measurements to decide 17 what areas you can relocate people into. You may have to is make the decision that people that were not evacuated during 19 the emergency phase of the exercise may have to be relocated 20 based on long term dose once these dose criteria are finally 21 established.
| |
| 22 Recovery and reentry is a very complex issue.
| |
| 23 The limited wording that's in 0654 is very general. And, I 24 believe based on representations to me in my presence and to, 25 Mr. -- ac tually, the representation was to Mr. Kowieski, but b
| |
| ~s
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7679 cuewalsh 9
| |
| jj 1 I was present, by Mr. Papile of New York State is that they v
| |
| 2 felt that because the guidance was so shakey that they did 3 not want to be involved in recovery and reentry activities 4 in exercises until the guidance was more formalized.
| |
| 5 And, Region II agreed with that approach. And, 6 the standard set of objectives that Mr. Kowieski submitted 7 to LILCO for this exercise did not include recovery and a reentry because it was the standard set of objectives.
| |
| 9 Q And, you felt that that was satisfactory even 10 though this was a major observable portion of the plan?
| |
| 11 A As we stated in our testimony, we tried to do it 12 consistently with what had been done in other exercises in 13 this region.
| |
| L'- 14 Q , Other exercises under FEMA's regulations?
| |
| 15 A That is correct.
| |
| 16 Q Okay. Gentlemen, turning your attention to Page 17 130 related to Contention 16.K and buses and transportation 18 resources, you state that it has been standard operating 19 procedure of FEMA Region II to evaluate a sample of bus 20 companies listed in the plan at any full-scale exercise.
| |
| 21 During the Shoreham exercise, you did not speak 22 with any bus company officials about the availability of 23 buses; isn't that correct?
| |
| 24 A It's my understanding that Mr. Gasper did speak 25 to a bus company official, and we discussed it yesterday.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7680 cuewalsh -
| |
| ' (t3j 1 Q That's not reflected in the post-exercise 2 assessment, is it? -
| |
| 3 A I believe that the post-exercise assessment d(xf 4 not specify that it was based on an interview, but I believe 5 we had discussion of this yesterday, that Mr. Gasper had an 6 interview with the school officials at the high school and 7 he also had an interview with the bus company officials. I s believe we testified to that, and you asked questions about 9 it.
| |
| 10 Q Okay. I hear what you are saying. That's 11 right. And, that was for school buses for the Shoreham-12 Wading River Central School District, correct?
| |
| i3 A It was bus company, yes.
| |
| .O' 14 Q Okay. Focusing on the bus companies that would 15 supply buses to LERO for general transportation needs, the --
| |
| 16 I believe it's 333 buses that are called for under the plan.
| |
| 17 A The maximum of, yes.
| |
| la Q The maximum of. FEMA didn't speak to any bus 19 company, any officials of those bus companies, about the 20 availability of the requisite number of buses; isn't that 21 correc t?
| |
| 22 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 23 A I think we are having a little difficulty with 24 the wording of your question, and we would like to give you 25 a responsive answer.
| |
| m
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7681 cuewalsh I
| |
| .f)
| |
| \_
| |
| 1 Q If you don't understand the question, just tell 2 me.
| |
| 3 A Okay. We don't understand the question.
| |
| 4 Q It is a fact, is it not, that during the 5 exercise FEMA evaluators spoke with no bus company officials 6 abou t -- and , these are the bus companies for general 7 transportation -- the availability of the requisite number 8 of buses to support the LERO plan?
| |
| 9 A That's a fair statement.
| |
| 10 (Witness Baldwin) I don't think that we really II know the answer to that question specifically, as to whether 12 or not they spoke with a representative. The people
| |
| ,_ 13 assigned to those responsibilities of evaluating the bus-
| |
| '/ 14 routes were to pick up their assigned driver, which they 15 were to designate out of a sample, and they randomly picked 16 that driver out at a staging area and followed that person 17 to his -- to a bus company to pick up a bus.
| |
| 18 It's my recollection in talking with some of the 19 evaluators that I talked with that they counted the buses.
| |
| 20 It's possible that they spoke with the people at the 21 companies . But, I -- factually, we can 't say.
| |
| 22 Q You are just speculating what might be 23 possible. You don't know for a fact?
| |
| 24 A Well, I know that they were instructed to go to 25 those bus companies with --
| |
| l
| |
| . N,
| |
| , L
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7682 cuewalsh f) 1 (Witness Kowieski) With the bus driver.
| |
| 2 (Witness Baldwin) -- the bus driver.
| |
| 3 Q Well, that 's correc t. And, you've reviewed the 4 EECF forms; isn't that right, Mr. Baldwin?
| |
| $ A That's correct.
| |
| 6 Q And, those forms don't reflect any interviews 7 with bus company officials about the number of buses a available to LERO during an emergency?
| |
| 9 A That 's correct.
| |
| to (Witness Kowieski) That's correc t.
| |
| 11 Q So, the written record from the exercise that 12 FEMA compiled certainly doesn't support any kind of a i3 finding that FEMA did evaluate the availability of buses, 10 14 the general transportation buses, correct?
| |
| i$ A It was done during the plan review, sir.
| |
| 16 Q Excuse me? -
| |
| 17 A During our plan review we looked for letters of 18 agreement to bus companies, i, Q And, isn't it a fact that during that plan 20 review you stated that based on the plan review it is not 21 possible to determine at this time the accessibility of 22 buses to LERO drivers?
| |
| 23 Wasn't that your testimony?
| |
| : 24. A Well, I don't know whether we stated in our 25 evaluation exactly what you are saying.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7683 cuewalsh I'm showing the FEMA witnesses the prefiled 7() 1 Q
| |
| 2 testimony from April 17, 1984, Page 73. And, that statement 3 goes on to say: The issue of bus accessibility would be 4 assessed during an exercise based on interviews with 5 selected bus companies.
| |
| 6 (The witnesses are looking at the document.)
| |
| 7 JUDGE PARIS: Is this prefiled testimony of the 8 witness in the OL-3 proceeding?
| |
| 9 MR. LANPHER: This was before I think we had an 10 OL-3 designation. This was back in 1984, Judge.
| |
| 11 JUDGE PARIS: Oh.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE The same witnesses?
| |
| 4 13 MR. LANPHER: Yes, the same witnesses.
| |
| ' 14 WITNESS KELLER: Except Mr. McIntyre.
| |
| 15 MR. LANPHER: Mr. McIntyre was --
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. McIntyre is not here.
| |
| 17 MR. CUMMING: The same attorneys, too.
| |
| 18 DY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 19 Q Did I read that accurately?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes, sir.
| |
| 21 Q Mr. Kowieski, I forget your exact statement but 22 carlier you said that you had evaluated during your plan 23 review the availability of the number of buses. That, in 24 fact, wasn't completely accurate.
| |
| 25 The availability on paper was evaluated during
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7684 cuewalsh
| |
| ( ) i the plan review. You didn't do anything to verify during 2 your plan review back in '83 or '84 whether those numbers of 3 buses, in fact, were available, right?
| |
| 4 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 5 Q You stated back then that you would do that 6 during an exerciser isn't that correct?
| |
| 7 A When we testify in 1984, we made a statement to a this effect.
| |
| 9 Q And, you didn't do that during the February 1986 to Shoreham exercise, did you?
| |
| 11 A ile did not specifically make a point to 12 interview the bus companies. And --
| |
| 13 Q You didn't -- excuse me. I didn't mean to
| |
| .(
| |
| 14 interrupt you.
| |
| is A -- there was also a reason for it. The way 16 evaluation was structured -- -
| |
| 17 MR. LANPHER: Judge, that wasn't my question.
| |
| 18 JUDGE FRYE: All we want to knoa really, Mr.
| |
| 19 Kowieski, is did you verify the number of buses during the 20 exercise?
| |
| 21 WITNESS KOWIESKI: The answer is no.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE Okay.
| |
| 23 MR. LANPHER: Thank you, Judge.
| |
| 24 BY MR. LANPHER: (Continuing) 25 Q Now, turning your attention to Page 35 of the O
| |
| | |
| 24800404 7685 cuewalsh 9
| |
| I FEMA report, it states in the second paragraph, the second
| |
| _(vI 2 sentence, that LERO Bus Coordinators were calling bus 3 companies to determine the potential numbers of buses 4 available.
| |
| 5 Do you see that statement, Mr. Baldwin?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Baldwin) Yes, I do.
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10 11 12 13 uv i, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 I
| |
| 25
| |
| .r
| |
| | |
| 24800505- 7686 marysimons
| |
| ()
| |
| i Q Were you the evaluator?
| |
| 2 A (Witness Baldwin) No, I was not.
| |
| 3 Q Do you know whether those were actual calls or 4 simulated calls?
| |
| 5 A I don't know whether they were actual or 6 simulated.
| |
| 7 Q Thank you.
| |
| 8 Gentlemen, turning your attention to page 136 of 9 your testimony.
| |
| 10 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| 11 JUDGE PARIS: 1367 i 12 MR. LANPHER: Yes, sir.
| |
| 13 BY MR. LANPHER:
| |
| O 14 Q Excuse me, before we go on and staying with is buses just for a moment, and we're jumping to Contention 21 16 really because there is,a related issue under Contention 21.
| |
| 17 I believe we established that a maximum number 18 of buses that might be needed in a Shoreham emergency for 19 general transportation would be 333, correct?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's correc t.
| |
| 21 Q And during the exercise FEMA evaluated eight of 22 those bus runs?
| |
| 23 A For the general population.
| |
| 24 Q Yes. And I believ,e your testimony later 25 establishes that three of those eight drivers had various O
| |
| | |
| i-24800505 7687 marysimons
| |
| ) I difficulties.
| |
| p 2 Q With dispatch from the Patchogue staging area.
| |
| 3 Q Yes. Three of the four in fact from Patchogue 2
| |
| l 4 had difficulties?
| |
| 5 .A Right.
| |
| 6 Q So the total sample that you looked at was eight
| |
| ; 7 for the general population?
| |
| I 8 A Yes, sir.
| |
| 9 Q Is it your testimony that by looking at eight 10 drivers you are able to verify the capability of LERO bus 11 drivers generally, including all those you did not look at, i
| |
| 12 to respond to an accident scenario?
| |
| 13 A That 's correc t. That's our testimony.
| |
| ' Have you reviewed the testimony of Dr. Simon, a 14 Q 15 Suffolk County witness. ,
| |
| ! 16 A (Witness Keller) I have not. -
| |
| ! 17 A (Witness Kowieski) I started last night and 18 fell asleep.
| |
| 19 (Laughter.)
| |
| 20 MR. LANPHER: Of f the record.
| |
| I 21 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| ! 22 BY MR. LANPHER:
| |
| Mr. Kowieski, you said that that is your
| |
| ) 23 Q 24 testimony, that looking at 8 of 333 let you verify the 25 capability of the rest to respond?
| |
| - , _ - , . . . . _ . , _ . . . - - . _ . _ , . _ _ , , . , . .-._.._._,.,.,,,_.,_.--.m. ._m,_,,,_._._.,_,_,_, . . . , . . . _ , _ . . . _ _ . . , , , , _ _ _ ,
| |
| | |
| 24800505 7688 m0rysimons j ' 1( ) 1 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's correct, and may I 2 add?
| |
| 4 3 Q Well, let me ask a question and then maybe then
| |
| . 4 we'll want to qualify it.
| |
| 5 In providing that answer you don't mean with any 6 statistical certainty that you had verified the ability to 7 respond, do you?
| |
| 8 A That's correct.
| |
| 9 Q Thank you. ,
| |
| 4 10 Gentlemen, now we are ready to go to page 136, 11 your discussion under Contention 16-L in ambuiance 12 companies .
| |
| ,o 13 Am I correct that you evaluated the capabilities
| |
| ' ~
| |
| 14 of two ambulance drivers on the day of the exercise?
| |
| 15 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 4 16 A (Witness Baldwin) Well, one was an ambulance 17 and one was an ambulette.
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowieski) Ambulette, yes.
| |
| 19 Q Thank you. Two drivers from these companies.
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 21 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's correc t.
| |
| 22 Q And similar to the question I just asked you 23 about buses, is it your testimony that evaluating two out of 24 whatever the universe of potential drivers was, and I don 't 25 have that number exactly handy, but it's in the record, lets
| |
| (
| |
| i >
| |
| | |
| 24800505 7689 marysimons
| |
| < ,,1 j ') I you verify the capability of all drivers to respond to the
| |
| %J 2 accident?
| |
| 4 3 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 4 Q But your answer is not in terms of a 5 statistically significant ---
| |
| 6 A A reasonable assurance, not a statistical 7 assurance.
| |
| 8 Q It let's FEMA nake some sort of a judgment that 9 they feel confident in, correct?
| |
| 10 A That's correct.
| |
| Il Q Now am I correct that on the day of the exercise 12 or at no other time that FEMA has not evaluated the number i 13 of ambulances actually available to LILCO during an r7 s 14 emergency?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Kowieski) Except planning review.
| |
| 16 Q Well, you did it then with a paper review, 17 correct?
| |
| 18 A That's correct.
| |
| 19 A (Witness Keller) We have not verified actual
| |
| ! 20 physical resources ,
| |
| l 21 A (Witness Kowieski) And this is consistent with 22 the process used in our region for other sites.
| |
| 23 Q Well, Mr. Kowieski, you testified in 1984, did 24 you not, and I'm referring to page 16 of the same prefiled
| |
| ! 25 testimony, that "An assessment of whether the number of 1
| |
| .s
| |
| | |
| 24800505 7690 marysimons i ambulances identified in the plan, (See Procedure OPIP 3.6.5
| |
| '{}}
| |
| 2 ' Health Care Facilities Listing) -- let me start over.
| |
| 3 That was all a parenthetical.
| |
| 4 (Laughter.)
| |
| 5 "An assessment of whether the number of 6 ambulances identified in the plan are actually available 7 will be determined during an exercise."
| |
| a Do you recall that testimony?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Kowieski) Yes, we do.
| |
| to Q You didn't do that in the Shoreham exercise, did 11 you?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 33 Q And the ambulance portion of the plan is again a O~ ,14 major observable portion of the plan, isn't it?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Baldwin) Well, it's an observable 16 portion. .
| |
| 17 A (Witness Kowieski) I don't know. Could you is restructure your question. I don't know if I follow you.-
| |
| 19 Q You stated in 1984 that an assessment of the 20 number of ambulances is something that has to be looked at 21 during an exercise.
| |
| 22 A (Witness Keller) I disagree. I don't think we 23 said it has to be looked at. We said we would look at it I 24 believe. There may be a dif ference between has to look at c 25 and would look at.
| |
| ;(
| |
| | |
| y
| |
| \
| |
| h'24800505 7691 marysimons
| |
| ( ] 1 Q Well, before you make a determination of whether 2 they have adequate resources to support an emergency 3 response don't you have to verify the accessibility of the 4 number of ambulances?
| |
| 5 A The way I understood your statement, I thought 6 you said ---
| |
| 7 Q Just answer the question.
| |
| 8 A Would you restate it. I'm sorry, I lost it.
| |
| 9 MR. LANPHER: Could the reporter please read my 10 last question back, Judge.
| |
| 11 (The pending question was read by the reporter.)
| |
| 12 WITNESS KELLER: I understood the thrust of your
| |
| _, 13 question to say that we testified that we had to do it.
| |
| ] 14 BY MR. LANPHER:
| |
| 15 Q No. The last question that the reporter just 16 read back had nothing to do with your prior testimony. It 17 wasn't referring to it.
| |
| 18 In order to evaluate or determine whether the l 19 necessary resources exist to support the emergency response, i
| |
| 20 do you not have to verify the availability of ambulances l 21 available to LERO7 l 22 A (Witness Keller) If one is going to verify the 23 existence of resources one would have to count resources, j 24 yes.
| |
| 25 Q And you said that you won,1d do that back in your j
| |
| 1 i
| |
| | |
| 24800505 7692 marysimons
| |
| () i 1984 testimony?
| |
| 2 A Yes, we did.
| |
| 3 Q And you didn't do it in the Shoreham exercise?
| |
| 4 A That is correct.
| |
| 5 Q Gentlemen, turning to page 140 of your profiled 6 testimony, you state around the middle of the page that FEMA 7 understood that actual telephone contacts were to take place 8 with NASA County on the day of the exercise.
| |
| 9 Mr. Baldwin, do you know whether were actual 10 phone calls or just simulated phone calls?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Baldwin) Excuse me . I have to go back 12 in this contention.
| |
| 13 Q Sure. Review what you need to.
| |
| 14 (Pause.)
| |
| 15 My question may have been turned around a little 16 bit. It was designed to be fairly simple. You talk about 17 phone calls to NASA County.
| |
| 18 A Well, this contention is dealing with 19 communications ---
| |
| 20 Q That's right, and that's why I directed the 21 question to you, sir.
| |
| 22 A (Witness Baldwin) Okay.
| |
| 23 Q Do you know whether actual phone calls were made 24 to NASA County or whether those were simulated phone calls?
| |
| 25 A It's my understanding those were simulated phone l
| |
| O l _
| |
| | |
| 24800505 7693 marysimons
| |
| . k I calla.
| |
| 2 Q Thank you.
| |
| 3 Gentlemen, turning to your testimony on 4 Contention 21-A, and for the Board's information I'm going 5 to ask only one question there. Most of that, as I think I 6 had indicated yesterday morning, will be handled by Mr.
| |
| 7 Miller.
| |
| 8 JUDGE PARIS: Where are we? ,
| |
| 9 MR. LANPHER: Contention 21-A.
| |
| 10 JUDGE FRYE Page 141 I believe.
| |
| Il MR. LANPHER: 141, that's right.
| |
| 12 BY MR. LANPHER:
| |
| -s 13 0 You looked at a sample of three route alert L )
| |
| C'" 14 drivers, correct?
| |
| 15 A (Witneon Kowicoki) That's correct.
| |
| 16 Q And it's your testimony that looking at a sample 17 of 3 out of approximately 60 would permit you to generaliza la about the capabilities of all route alert drivero to perform 19 ao required during an exerciac?
| |
| 20 A That's correct based on the process used by us.
| |
| 21 Q Which la a non-statistical proccan, correct?
| |
| 22 A And also based on the free-play messages that we 23 introduced during the exercine.
| |
| 24 Q What does a free-play message have to do with 25 judging the capabilities of the 57 or ao route alert drivera n
| |
| \.
| |
| * ~1
| |
| | |
| /
| |
| 24800505 7694
| |
| ..r,. ..n.
| |
| (n}, I that you did not evaluate in field activities?
| |
| 2 JUDGE PARIS: Were are you getting these 3 numbers, 60 and 577 This looks to me like the answer here 4 indicates that there were 98 of them.
| |
| $ MR. LANPHER: No, Judge. I believe that there 6 are 89 sirens.
| |
| 7 JUDGE PARIS: 89, excuse me.
| |
| s MR. LANPHER: Sirens, but I don't ---
| |
| 9 JUDGE PARIS: Siren coverage areas.
| |
| l 10 WITNESS KELLER: Twenty route alert drivers.
| |
| Il MR. LANPHER: There are approximately 20 route 12 alert drivers, Judge, for each staging area.
| |
| _ _, ) JUDGE PARIS: Oh, okay.
| |
| 14 MR. LANPHER: And in fact some of those route 15 alert drivers I believe, Judge, take care of the home to bound. So that is why I was using the word " approximate."
| |
| 17 That is where I was getting my numbers from.
| |
| 18 JUDGE PARIS: Is he correct?
| |
| 19 WITNESS KELLER: yes, sir, except it's the deaf 20 and not the home bound necessarily. It's the deaf is my 21 understanding, but close enough.
| |
| 22 The way that this gives us some additional 23 confidence is if the participant in the exercise were to say 24 here is your route alert driver that you're going to go i
| |
| | |
| 24800505 7695 marysimons I with, or they only gave us one route alert driver, they a(t) 2 could select the best one. By use of the free-play messages 3 it's a random selection that we essentially make. We say 4 this route alert driver and that is random.
| |
| 5 So the likelihood of getting (a) the best one or 6 (b) the worst one is about the same and that is why we have 7 some confidence, and I believe you asked that question and I a was just trying to answer it.
| |
| 9 Q Okay. I understand. That was the context of
| |
| ]
| |
| 10 your free-play messago?
| |
| i 11 A Yes.
| |
| 12 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 13 Q Now, gentlemen, looking at the bottom of page
| |
| ' - 14 141 in the footnoto you stato "There is no attempt as part 15 of FEMA's biennial exerciso of fort to correlate the number 16 of routes to be demonstrated at those oxercisco with airon 17 operability (i.e. up to 10 porcent failure of oiren unito)."
| |
| 18 Do you soo that statomont?
| |
| 19 A (Witneon Koller) Yes.
| |
| 1 20 A (Witness Kowlooki) Yes, wo do.
| |
| 2I Q In it a FEMA accumption that in an actual 22 cmorgency thoro may be up to 10 porcent airon 23 unavailability? In that what you're really saying thoro?
| |
| 24 A (Witneno Daldwin) No. Thio footnoto refore to 25 a caveat in our explanation which comon to the issue that in i
| |
| | |
| 24800505 7696 marysimons
| |
| () the annual certification actually it's a monthly report to 2 the NRC. The licensee must provide operability to test data 3 for their siren system and they have to provide assurance 4 that at least 90 percent of the sirens are operable.
| |
| 5 There is no attempt in an exercise to coordinate 6 an evaluation of siren failure with that number. In other 7 words, we did not try to test in this case nine sirens. We, e instead, tested the siren failure and backup route alerting 9 capability for one route alert driver dispatched from each to staging area, which is consistent with what is done in other 11 States in this region where counties have that 12 responsibility so we would do one per county.
| |
| 13 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Baldwin, did you testify that 10 ~#
| |
| 14 NRC requires a utility to report on the soundability of" is sirono monthly?
| |
| 16 WITNESS BALDWIN: Yes, the operability, and I 17 believe that's based on a trial test.
| |
| is WITNESS KOWIESKI: At least for operating 19 sites. I that myself when I was RAC Chairman, I was 20 receiving reports through the State from the utilities on 2I 'various testo.
| |
| 22 MR. LANPHER: Just one second, Judge.
| |
| 23 (Pause.)
| |
| 24 Judge Frye, that completes suffolk County's 25 quantioning on 15, 16 and 21. I will note that I did not O
| |
| | |
| 24800505 7697 marysimons 7')
| |
| j v
| |
| I cover in ' terms of 15-K, Special Facility Evacuees. The FEMA 2 testimony on that is coordinated with some other testimony, 3 and that will be handled by one of my colleagues and 4 obviously a number of the parts, including the primary part 5 of the route alerting stuff on 21 is again coordinated with 6 other testimony which will be handled by my colleagues and I 7 don't think there will be any duplication.
| |
| 8 Gentlemen, thank you.
| |
| 9 JUDGE FRYE I think we have at least one 10 question before we move on to a new topic.
| |
| 11 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Kowieski, you said earlier 12 today that there was a reason why a public meeting was not 13 held after the Shoreham exercise and I would like to know
| |
| '(N"') 14 what that reason was.
| |
| 15 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Sir, when the Shoreham 16 exercise was scheduled it was not scheduled in compliance, 17 or it was not scheduled under the 350 process. It was in a la request under a MOU in response to an NRC request to 19 schedule as full an exercise as feasible of the LERO plan.
| |
| 20 FEMA stated in the letter to the NRC that PEMA 21 won't be able to provide a finding on reasonable assurance, 22 and that's why there was no reason for FEMA to go to the 23 public meeting because FEMA did not provide a finding and 24 did not have any intention to provide a finding on 25 reasonable assurance.
| |
| | |
| '.i l
| |
| 24800505 7698 marysimons
| |
| ( )/ i The public meeting is required only.when FEMA is 2' going with the 350 approval process. Prior to 350 approval 3 of plans and preparedness FEMA is required to schedule the 4 public meeting, a public meeting in the vicinity of the 5 nuclear. power plant to explain the plans, to explain the j' 1 6 results of the exercise and to answer any questions that may 7 come from the public.
| |
| , . 8 JUDGE PARIS: I see. So you viewed your 9 participation as not being under 44 CFR 350, and so 10 therefore a public meeting was not necessary?
| |
| 11 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That 's correct, sir.
| |
| 12 . JUDGE FRYE: The regulation I take it talks in 13 terms of holding a meeting prior to approval?
| |
| j.
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes, sir.
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
| |
| 3 16 Why don't we take our morning break at this 17 point and we'll pick up when we come back.
| |
| (Recess taken from 10:08 a.m. to 10:23 a.m.)
| |
| ~
| |
| 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 b(_-
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 1 24800606 7699
| |
| 'j oewalsh i
| |
| I' \ 1 JUDGE FRYE: Are you ready to proceed?
| |
| .%)1 2 MS. LETSCHE: I am.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: Which contentions are we taking up?
| |
| 4 MS. LETSCHE: We are taking up a group of 5 contentions. I am going to be beginning with 22. A, 49 and 6 47. And,.then I will move on from there.
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
| |
| 8 CROSS EX AMINATION 9 BY MS. LETSCHE:
| |
| 10 Q Gentlemen, would you turn please to Page 21 of 11 your written testimony?
| |
| 12 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| _ 13 First, I just have a few background questions.
| |
| ' \"' 14 I'm correct, aren't I, that neither you, Mr. Keller, nor 15 you,'Dr. Baldwin, were at the Nassau Coliseum at all on the
| |
| ; 16 day of the exer'ciser is that correct? -
| |
| 17 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 18 (Witness Baldwin) That's correct.
| |
| 19 Q And, Mr. Kcwieski, you were there for a period 20 of time; is that right?
| |
| t i 21 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 22 Q About h'ow long were you there, sir?
| |
| 23 A An houri an hour and a half.
| |
| 24 Q Now, you, I take it, observed the layout and the 3,,
| |
| 25 facilities that were set up at the Coliseum on the day of
| |
| ,.3
| |
| )
| |
| i '4
| |
| | |
| '24800606 7700 j oewalsh t 'the exercise while you were there; is that correct?
| |
| ([
| |
| 2 A' Specifically, I did not concentrate my 3 observation on the layout of Nassau County Coliseum as a 4 reception center. I presented myself- as an evacuee, and I 5 asked to be processed.
| |
| 6 Q So,.you didn't evaluate even informally for your-7 own purposes the layout or the facilities that were a available at the Coliseum; you focused on the monitoring 9 process; is that right?
| |
| 10 A Yes. I saw the layout, but if you ask me for my 11 -- whether I passed a judgment on, no. It wasn't my 12 intention.-
| |
| 13 Q Now, it is true, is it not, that on the day of 14 the exercise there was -- there were several different areas 15 of the Coliseum that were being used by LILCO for the 16 .various reception center functions, right? -
| |
| 17 A That's right.
| |
| -18 Q And, they did have fairly elaborate ropings and 19 things like that laid out in order to process the simulated 20 evacuees through that centerr is that correct?
| |
| 21 A Well, they had a set-up to separate people that 22 _were not -- register and monitor from people that were 23 clean.
| |
| 24 Q Right. And, they had also a set-up to separate 25 potentially contaminated from decontaminated evacuees, l
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| .T 24800606 7701 j oewalsh n
| |
| 1 correc t?
| |
| }
| |
| 2 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 3 Q And, you also, I take it, at least went through, 4 if not formally evaluated, the portion of the Coliseum that 5 was designed to deal with vehicles; is that correct, Mr.
| |
| 6 Kowieski?
| |
| 7 A At the end of my visit, I spent some time in the 8 parking lot, right.
| |
| 9 Q Right. And, out in that parking lot LILCO again 10 had fairly elaborate driving directions and a set-up to deal l
| |
| 11 with potentially contaminated vehicles and to deal with 12 monitoring and decontaminating them; is that correct?
| |
| y 13 A That's I think a fair characterization on your
| |
| *!Q,,
| |
| ' 14 part. But, I don't recall specific deta'ils right now how 15 the parking lot was designed to process vehicles, evacuees.
| |
| 16 Q All right. Now, it's also true, is it not, that 17 under Revision 6 of the LILCO plan, which was what was the 18 subject of the exercise and which assumed that the Coliseum 19 would be the reception center, that there are facilities 20 such as dressing rooms and showers and restrooms at the 21 Coliseum that were intended to be used by LILCO in the 22 reception center functions, correct?
| |
| 23 A That's correct.
| |
| 24 Q Now, according to Revision 6 of the plan one of 25 the purposes to be served at the reception center was .the
| |
| | |
| 24800606 7702 l registration of evacuees; is that right?
| |
| ) I 2 A That 's correct, yeah.
| |
| 3 Q And, the registration function was,_in fact, one 4 of the specific functions which FEMA evaluated during the 5 exercise, correct?
| |
| 6 A That's correct. i 7 Q And, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that a one of the purposes of having the registration service 9 available at a reception center is to permit families who 10 may be separated during an evacuation to reunite subsequent 11 to.the evacuation?
| |
| 12 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Relevance to the 13 contentions before the Board.
| |
| l 14 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I think we are inclined to 15 get the answer to that. Are you going very far with that?
| |
| 16 MS. LETSCHE: No. -
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: I didn't think so.
| |
| 18 WITNESS KELLER: That is one use that you could 19 use the registration information for, yes.
| |
| 20 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 21 Q Now, you discuss in your testimony here on Page 22 21 the evaluations of objectives, Field 17, 19 and 21. And, 23 those are identified on Pages 14 and 15 of the post-exercise 24 report, which is FEMA Exhibit Number 1; is that right?
| |
| 25 A (Witness Keller) That 's correct.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| . = - . .- . .- . ..
| |
| 24800606 7703
| |
| .joewalsh
| |
| :- 1 Q And, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that 2 all three of those exercise objectives evaluate in one form 3 or another the facilities that are available under the LILCO 4 plan for various functions to be performed at a reception 5 center?-
| |
| 6 A I think that 17 is the mobilization of staff, 7 and that would have something to do with facilities.- I 8 believe 19 has to do with 24-hour staffing via a roster' and 9 that has very little to do with facilities.
| |
| 10 Q All right.
| |
| 11 A But, I would agree that 17 and 21 have to do --
| |
| 12 something to do.with facilities, but I would disagree that 13 19 has much to do with facilities.
| |
| I 14 Q Okay. That's fine. Now, in fact, in the review is of -- during the exercise, FEMA found that exercise 16 Objective 21 was only partly met, correc t? -
| |
| 17 A That is correct.
| |
| 18 Q . And, you found that Objective Number 17 was met; 19 is that right?
| |
| 20 A That's correct.
| |
| -21 Q And, that was based upon your evaluation of the I
| |
| 22 facilities at the Nassau Coliseum, correct?
| |
| 23 A Well, primarily it was the mobilization for 24 staff, that's correct, but also the facilities. That's 25 right.
| |
| 6
| |
| | |
| 24800606 -
| |
| 7704 joewalsh
| |
| '(') 1 Q Well, when you say mobilization of the staff, 2 you are referring to Objective 17; is that right?
| |
| 3 A That's correct.
| |
| 4 0 'Now, Objective 17 also includes , doesn ' t it, Mr.
| |
| 5 Keller, the ability to activate the reception center in a 6 timely manner?
| |
| 7 A That 's correct.
| |
| 8 Q So, that would directly relate to the facilities 9 that were at the reception center, right?
| |
| 10 A That's correct.
| |
| 11 Q Now, you acknowledge in your testimony that, as 12 everyone knows, the Nassau Coliseum is no longer available
| |
| ,. 13 to LILCO and.no longer part of the LILCO plan, right?
| |
| li
| |
| , 14 A That is, correct.
| |
| 15 Q And, I take it that in light of that you would 16 agree with me that the conclusions that FEMA drew during the 17 exercise pertaining to' exercise Objective 17 and 21 no 18 longer have any bearing on the current situ 5 tion with 19 respect to the LILCO plan, because the Coliseum is not in 20 that plan anymore; is that right?
| |
| 21 A I would disagree.
| |
| 22 O You would disagree with that?
| |
| 23 A Yes, I would.
| |
| 24 Q Do you recall having your deposition taken by 25 myself and Mr. Miller in this proceeding, Mr. Keller, back O
| |
| | |
| 24800606 7705
| |
| .joewalsh l 1 in January of this year?
| |
| 2 A Yes, I do.
| |
| 3 Q And, do you recall that we asked you several 4 questions during that deposition concerning your testimony 5 and opinions related to contentions in this proceeding?
| |
| 6 A I remember a series of questions. Specifically, 7 I don't think I remember any. But, there were a number of 8 questions, yes.
| |
| 9 Q And, I assume that you answered those questions 10 truthfully and accurately at that time; is that right?
| |
| 11 A I tried to. Yes.
| |
| 12 Q And, do you recall being questioned specifically 13 about the Nassau Coliseum contentions that have been 14 admitted in this proceeding?
| |
| 15 A I recall that we had discussed Nassau County 16 Coliseum contentions, yes. -
| |
| 17 Q Let me give you a copy of the January 30th 18 portion of that deposition transcript, Mr. Keller, and 19 direct your attention to Page 9 and 10 of that transcript.
| |
| 20 Excuse me, Pages 8 and 9. Let me correct myself.
| |
| 21 (The witness is provided the document.)
| |
| 22 Now, do you recall being asked by Mr. Miller 23 during that deposition: My question to you is, do you have 24 any disagreement with the conclusion as stated in Contention 25 22.A? And, the reference is that because the Nassau
| |
| | |
| & .2.e s 4. e .sa 4 _-4 .a. -_ 4 -
| |
| 24800606 7706 joewalsh 9T( 1 - Coliseum is no longer available .for LILCO's use, therefore, s) 2 certain objectives considered adequate or partly met during 3 the exercise no longer have any basis in fact.
| |
| 4 And, you responded: .Let-me get this very
| |
| ~
| |
| i 5 straight in my mind, because I don't want to mislead you. I
| |
| .6 want to be responsive.
| |
| And, I am quoting here: "
| |
| 7 If what you are saying 4
| |
| 8 is that at this point in time, post-exercise, what we 9 evaluated as being either met or partly met no longer has 10 any bearing on the current situation, okay, that's one way 11 to interpret what you said. If that's the interpretation, 12 the correct interpretation, I agree with you.
| |
| l 13 That was your testimony, correct, Mr. Keller?
| |
| ,f'\-
| |
| 'O A
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 That is correct.
| |
| s 15 Q Are you saying you no longer adopt that a statement that you made during your deposition? .
| |
| 17 A No. I think I made the same statement again.
| |
| l 18 And, in trying to -be narrowly focused, as we had been with 19 Mr. Lanpher, the -- tried to be -- you had made a statement
| |
| ' 20 that said that we should disregard essentially two 21 objectives. And, I said I disagreed with that statement.
| |
| 22 Q. Let me rephrase --
| |
| 23 A Insofar as the facility part is concerned, I 24 agree with your statement. Insofar as the ability to ,
| |
| 25 mobilize staff, I don't see where it makes any dif ference l
| |
| l ()
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 24800606 7707
| |
| -j oewalsh I
| |
| _ (' ') I where you mobilize staff to, but insofar as that objective
| |
| \)
| |
| 2 has facilities in it I agree with you.
| |
| 3 Q Okay. So --
| |
| 4 A I disagree only with portions.
| |
| 5 Q Okay. Let me just make sure the record is clear 6 here. You agree with me that with respect to exercise 7 Objective 17 and 21, other than the portion of Objective 17 8 which talks about the ability to mobilize staff, that the
| |
| - 9 conclusions FEMA drew from the exercise no longer have any 10 bearing on the current situation with respect to the 11 Shoreham plan, correct?
| |
| 12 A No. I'm sorry. You are --
| |
| 13 Q I thought you said during your deposition that
| |
| ,_/ ,\
| |
| 3 14 it is not --
| |
| is A Just a minute. That is not what I said, I don ' t 16 believe. With regard to -- -
| |
| 17 Q Hold on, Mr. Keller. Let me ask a question 18 before you give us an answer, please.
| |
| 19 A _Okay. 3o ahead.
| |
| 20 MS. McCLESKEY: I object. There is a question 21 before the panel, and Mr. Keller is trying to answer it.
| |
| 22 MS. LETSCHE: He did answer it. He said no.
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE: Yeah. All right. Let's get to the 24 next question.
| |
| 25 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) t
| |
| .v
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| .24800606 7708 L j oewalsh
| |
| [). 1 Q You agreed with me, Mr. Keller, did you not, 2 that the portion of Objection 17 which relates to activation of a reception center goes to the facilities available at l 3
| |
| 4 the reception center, right?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Keller) A portion of it goes to the 6 facilities which were available at the reception center; 7 that's correct.
| |
| 8 Q And, with respect to that portion of Objective 9 17, you would agree with me, would you not, that the ,
| |
| 10 conclusions FEMA drew during the exercise no longer have any it bearing on the LILCO plan?
| |
| 12 A I would agree with you.
| |
| 13 Q Okay. Now, you also agreed with me, did you
| |
| ' '~
| |
| 14 .not, that Objective 21 goes to the facilities that are 15 available at a reception center?
| |
| 16 A A portion of 21, I agreed with you, yes.
| |
| 17 Q Okay. Would you identify for me what portion of 18 Objective 21 -- let me rephrase that.
| |
| 19 Is the portion of Objective 21 that in your 20 opinion does not go to facilities that portion which deals 21 with the actual monitoring and decontamination of evacuees 22 and vehicles?
| |
| 23 A That is correct.
| |
| 24 Q And, when I say the actual monitoring, I am 25 referring to the activity of the personnel.
| |
| 2-6 .
| |
| t
| |
| , , . . e- ~, e , . - - - - . - - - , . . . - , . , - - - - . - - , .
| |
| | |
| ~_ _ ,_ . -. . . . . . . . _ _ . - . . . - __
| |
| 24800606 7709 joewalsh
| |
| ./'I)
| |
| V 1 A That is correct.
| |
| 2 Q You would agree that with respect to monitoring 3 and decontamination, the facilities and equipment that are 4 used for that purpose do relate to the facilities at the 5 reception center, correct?
| |
| l 6 A I would agree with facilities, not the equipment 7 nec es sarily.
| |
| E 8 Q Okay. And, by that I assume you are talking 9 about the monitoring equipment that the monitors would be i
| |
| 10 using?
| |
| 11 A That is correct.
| |
| 12 Q So, with those exceptions then, you would agree
| |
| -,s 13 that Objective 21 does deal with the facilities at a
| |
| 'U 14 reception center, right?
| |
| 15 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 16 A Yes, I would agree. .
| |
| 17 Q Now, with respect to those matters we have just i
| |
| 18 identified with respect to Objective 17 and 21, you would i
| |
| 19 agree with me that the conclusions FEMA drew during the 20 exercise no longer have any bearing on the current situation 21 with respect to the LILCO plan, right?
| |
| 22 A With the caveats we have just discussed, yes, I 23 would agree with you.
| |
| 24 Q Now, I take it you would also agree with me that 25 the ability to actually perform, that is carry ou t,
| |
| . . _ _ _ . -. .- .,. . , . . , _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , . , , , , , , _ , . _ . . . _ . _ . , . _ _ , . . . . . m , .~. , , _ . _ _ . . - _ . . _ _
| |
| | |
| 24800606 7710 joewalsh
| |
| '( j r/7 1 monitoring functions could be adversely impacted by the lay-2 out or the actual condition of the facilities where that 3 function takes place?
| |
| 4 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Relevance and 5 specula tive .
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE: Why are you objecting on relevance 7 grounds?
| |
| 8 MS. McCLESKEY: Because she is now asking 9 whether a different facility might in some way impact a 10 future evaluation of a different plan. And, that's not 11 before this Board.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE: I think the question is 7s i3 appropriate . We have to draw what conclusions we are able
| |
| () 14 to draw with regard to.a reception center, and I think these 15 questions are aimed at exploring that particular issue.
| |
| 16 MS. McCLESKEY: My concern, Judge Frye, is that 17 this line of questioning is exploring the adequacy of 18 reception centers that are actually before the O-3 Board.
| |
| 19 JUDGE FRYE: No, I don't think so. Not yet 20 anyway.
| |
| 21 WITNESS KELLER: I'm sorry. Could I have the 22 question again?
| |
| 23 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 24 Q I will try to repeat it. You would agree with 25 me, wouldn't you, that the ability of personnel to actually O
| |
| | |
| 24800606 7711 joewalsh 7
| |
| I carry out or perform the monitoring function could be
| |
| _(s._/)
| |
| 2 adversely impacted by the lay-out or the adequacy of the 3 facilities where that function is performed?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) It could be, yes.
| |
| 5 6
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10 11 12 13 y( ..s)
| |
| 'b 14 15 16 -
| |
| 17 IE 19 20 21 22 1
| |
| 23 4
| |
| 24 25
| |
| , L)
| |
| | |
| -24800707 7712 cuewalsh
| |
| . ,(-)
| |
| i Q Now, you would also agree with me I assume, Mr.
| |
| 2 Keller, that during the exercise the Nassau Coliseum was the 3 facility to which the LERO players assumed that the buses 4 and ambulances and vans that were evacuating people out of 5 the EPZ would report and discharge their passengers, 6 correc t?
| |
| 7 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, objection to the form 8 of these questions. Counsel prefaces all of her questions, 9 do you agree with me. We don't know whether counsel agrees 10 with the statement or not. She is not testifying.
| |
| 11 I believe it's distracting to the witness.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled. Overruled. I think the 13 witness can sort that one out. ,
| |
| i'
| |
| . 14 WITNESS KELLER: I think I would disagree, 15 because I think I heard some parts in there -- I think I 16 agree in part and disagree in part, is what I'm trying to 17 say.
| |
| 18 BI MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 19 Q Okay. Let me see if I can rephrase the question 20 to clarify it.
| |
| 21 You would agree, wouldn't you, that during the 22 exercise the Nassau Coliseum was the facility to which the 23 buses and vans carrying general population evacuees reported 24 and were to discharge their passengers?
| |
| 25 A (Witness Keller) Yes, I would agree with regard i
| |
| | |
| 24800707 7713 cuewalsh to general population.
| |
| [G(} I 2 Q Right. And, you also would agree that during 3 the exercise it was from the Nassau Coliseum that such 4 general population evacuees would be provided directions and 5 transportation as necessary to congregate care centers for 6 sheltering, correct?
| |
| 7 A Yes, I would agree.
| |
| 8 Q And, you would also agree, wouldn't you, that 9 during the exercise the evacuation time estimates and 10 traffic control strategies which LILCO implemented during 11 the exercise were premised on the assumption that the 12 ultimate goal of that emergency response was to enable 7, 13 evacuees to reach the Coliseum if necessary or desired?
| |
| l- 14 A I disagree.
| |
| 15 Q You disagree with that?
| |
| 16 A Yes, I do. -
| |
| 17 Q It's your testimony that during the exercise the 18 LILCO players did not assume that the ultimate goal of their 19 evacuation was to enable evacuees to reach the Coliseum if 20 necessary or if they desired to do so; is that right?
| |
| 21 A That's not the part I disagree with.
| |
| 22 Q So, you agree with my last question, then?
| |
| 23 A No, I do not. I disagree with your last 24 question. It was a multi-part series of things that the 25 assumption was based on.
| |
| | |
| 24800707 7714 Ecuewalsh I() 1 The part I specifically disagree on is the 2 evacuation time estimates.
| |
| 3 Q Okay. It 's your understanding that the 4 evacuation time estimates used by LILCO during the exercise 5 were not premised on the assumption that the Coliseum was 6 the reception center; is that --
| |
| 7 A It is my understanding of the evacuation time a estimate is for the last car to clear the 10-mile EPZ or the 9 zone. Now, the evacuation routes are designed to go toward 10 a reception center. But the evacuation time estimate 11 itself, it is my understanding, is for the time for the last 12 car to clear the zone.
| |
| 13 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Kelleri that the evacuation
| |
| .O 14 time estimates used by LILCO are based on the assumption, 15 that evacuees will utilize particular routes out of the EPZ?
| |
| 16 A That is correct. -
| |
| 17 Q And, you just said that those routes were is designed to dump people at the Nassau Coliseum, correc t?
| |
| 19 A Dump, I -- I would disagree on.
| |
| 20 (Laughter . )
| |
| 21 Q To have people land at the Nassau Coliseum?
| |
| 22 A I would prefer to say that people would travel 23 to the Nassau Coliseum.
| |
| 24 Q Okay.
| |
| 25 A But, the time estimate is the time to leave the
| |
| ;O 1
| |
| | |
| -24800707 7715 cuewalsh 1 ~
| |
| _f. 10-mile EPZ.
| |
| v )
| |
| 1 2 Q That's the exact -- that's the hour or time 3 period that you are referring --
| |
| 4 A That is correct. But, I thought your first 5 question -- the one I disagreed with -- had a whole series 6 of things I was supposed to agree with, and one of which was 7 the evacuation time estimates.
| |
| 8 Q Right. But, you have now agreed with me that 9 those time estimates do assume the utilization of particular 10 routes?
| |
| 11 A That is correct.
| |
| 12 Q Okay. Now, would you turn please to Page 23 of 13 your testimony?
| |
| 14 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 15 Now, you discuss there some of the matters set 16 forth, or the way you define certain matters set-forth, in 17 Contention X-46. And, you say in that testimony that FEMA 18 would expect a LILCO plan to be revised to account for the 19 fact that the Coliseum is no longer available. And, you 20 reference the RAC review of Revision 7 and 8.
| |
| , 21 A That is --
| |
| 22 Q Right?
| |
| 23 A That is correct.
| |
| 24 Q Now, in the RAC review of Revision 7 and 8, the 25 revision designed by LILCO to account for the fact that the
| |
| : ,kJ
| |
| | |
| 24800707 7716 cuewalsh l
| |
| oI'T i Coliseum is no longer available have been rated inadequate, 2 correct?
| |
| 3 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Relevance.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: Would you state that question for 5 me once again?
| |
| 6 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 7 Q In the RAC review of the plan changes submitted 8 to account for the fact that the Nassau Coliseum was no 9 longer available, FEMA rated the adequacy of those io facilities -- or rated those facilities inadequate, correct?
| |
| 11 MS. McCLESKEY: My objection stands.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE: I'm sorry. I'm still having 13 trouble with the question. Can you rephrase it?
| |
| ih,s 14 MS. LETSCHE: Yes, I will.
| |
| 15 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 16 Q In FEMA Exhibit Number 3, which is the RAC 17 review of 7 and 8, FEMA determined that the LILCO plan 18 revisions to account for the fact that the Nasshu Coliseum 19 is no longer available as a reception center were 20 inadequate, correct?
| |
| 21 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Relevance.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled.
| |
| 23 MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, the changes go to 24 the monitoring methods that are being used in the new plan 25 that are being litigated before the O-3 Board.
| |
| | |
| 2'.h 24800707 7717 cuewalsh JUDGE FRYE: 'Do you want to respond?
| |
| _( (}-.-
| |
| 'l 2 MS. LETSCHE: Well, I will if I need to. If you 3 overrule the obj ection, I won't.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: Please.
| |
| 5 MS. LETSCHE: I've asked one simple question.
| |
| 6 I'm referring to an exhibit which is in evidence in this 7 proceeding . If Ms. McCleskey wants to cross-examine further:
| |
| 8 on this matter, she may do so.
| |
| 9 What I am asking about -- and if there is any 10 question -- is a specific statement by the RAC concerning 11 the adequacy of the facility. And, you know, Ms.
| |
| , 12 McCleskey's characterization I think is just not correct.
| |
| 13 In any event, it is not relevant.
| |
| ,J 14 These gentlemen have specifically referenced the 15 RAC review of these changes to account for the Nassau 16 Coliseum unavailability. And, I think I'm entitled to cross-17 examine at least briefly on the statement in the testimony 18 of these gentlemen.
| |
| - 19 JQDGE PARIS: What page are you on?
| |
| ; 20 MS. LETSCHE: On Page 23 of the prefiled
| |
| [ 21 testimony, Judge Paris.
| |
| ! 22 JUDGE PARIS: I meant on Exhibit 3.
| |
| -23 MS. LETSCHE: Oh, on Page 11 of Attachment 1 to
| |
| { 24 FEMA Exhibit Number. 3.
| |
| 25 MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, that section --
| |
| !KD .
| |
| c i
| |
| , - . . . , . . _ , . , , . . - . - - - . . - - - . . , , - _ - ~ , _ _ _ , - . _ - _ . - - - - - , - - , _ - - - . _ _ _ - - - - . _ . - - - _ - ~ - - _ _ , , , - , -
| |
| | |
| 24800707 7718 cuewalsh
| |
| '(( ) 1 JUDGE FRYE: Yeah. I see your point. Your 2 point is that the new reception center is a matter that is 3 pending before the OL-3 Board.
| |
| 4 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes, sir. And --
| |
| 5 MS. LETSCHE:. Let me just state, Judge Frye, I 6 do not intend to go into any details here. I merely want to 7 get on the record the rest of the story in terms of the 8 RAC's findings. That's really all I'm intending to get on 9 the record here with respect to specific matters that these 10 gentlemen have raised in their testimony.
| |
| 11 I will have at most three questions on this.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE: All right. Well, let's get --
| |
| 13 MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, I would just like to O' - - respond to have the record clear , then.
| |
| 14 15 The section of FD04 Exhibit 3 that Ms. Letsche 16 is referring to is the plans portion, not changes made in 17 response to the exercise. And, it's irrelevant whether Ms.
| |
| 18 Letsche intends to ask 40 questions or two questions on this 19 issue.- It is not before this Board.
| |
| 20- JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Well, that 's your position.
| |
| 21 Let's get through this quickly and we will get it so we will
| |
| ~
| |
| 22 have it.
| |
| 23 WITNESS KELLER: I disagree with your -- if I 24 remember your question correctly, I disagree for the 25 following reason, and maybe we can get it straight here.
| |
| O' i
| |
| | |
| .24800707 7719 cuewalsh I I think that you said that we have already ruled
| |
| _( J}
| |
| 2 on the adequacy of the new facilities. We have not as yet.
| |
| 3 J-12, Element J-12, is rated inadequate. That's true.
| |
| 4 But, the new facilities which are proposed in 5 Revisions 7 and 8 have not been evaluated as of yet.
| |
| 6 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 7 Q And, that's because you need to have an exercise 8 in order to have --
| |
| 9 A (Witness Keller) We need to see --
| |
| 10 Q -- an exercise in order to evaluate them, 11 correc t?
| |
| 12 A We need to see those set up as they would be.
| |
| ,_ 13 But, your statement that we have ruled that the new r( ,i L's# 14 facilities are inadequate is not correct.
| |
| 15 Q Well, I was just noting the fact that you have 16 an inadequate rating in the RAC review of 7 and 8, correct?
| |
| 17 A Element J-12, which includes more than 18 facilities and it includes more than the general public 19 reception center --
| |
| 20 Q Right.
| |
| 21 A -- is inadequate, as it was inadequate 22 previously.
| |
| 23 Q Right. And, when you say it includes more than 24 the facilities, it also includes the monitoring procedures 25 to be used according to the LILCO plan, correct?
| |
| l
| |
| ?
| |
| 2?-
| |
| * 24800707 7720 cuewalsh
| |
| '[]
| |
| 1 A I --
| |
| 2 MS. McCLESKEY: Same objection to the question.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: I missed the question. I'm sorry.
| |
| 4 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 5 Q When you say that this element which is rated 6 inadequate includes more than just the facilities, some of 7 the more that it includes are the monitoring procedures in 8 the LILCO plan, correct?
| |
| 9 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Overruled.
| |
| 10 WITNESS KELLER: My recollection is, I just 11 said, it includes more than the general public reception 12 center, anduit -- because it includes reception centers for i3 special populations.
| |
| 'O 14 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 15 Q Right.
| |
| 16 A Which are not provided for in the plan at this 17 time. And, that is one of the reasons it's inadequate.
| |
| 18 Q Right.
| |
| 19 A It also.does include the monitoring that Ms.
| |
| 20 Letsche --
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: But, that, I take it, is not a
| |
| . 22 reason why it is inadequate?
| |
| 23 WITNESS KELLER: No. That 's correc t .
| |
| 24 MS. LETSCHE: Thank you.
| |
| 25 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing)
| |
| ; O l
| |
| l-
| |
| | |
| . . . . . . -. . . - . - - ~ .- . . - ~ . ~ . - - . . . - - . . - . _ _ .
| |
| 24800707 7721 cuewalsh I Q Wait a second. Mr. Keller, would you turn to 2 Page 12 of the Attachment 1 to FEMA Exhibit Number 37 3 A Okay. Yes.
| |
| 4 Q That's where the monitoring procedure is 5 discussed. And, I'm correct, aren't I, that the statement 6 there by FEMA is that the screening procedure is inadequate?
| |
| 7 A Yes. I misspoke. In the original Rev 6 of the 8 plan, there was a procedure for monitoring up to 32,000 9 evacuees at the reception center. There was an additional 10 procedure for additional evacuees above the 32,000 which we 11 had ruled as an ad hoc procedure was acceptable.
| |
| 12 The ad hoc procedure was converted in Revision 7 13 and 8 to the primary procedure, and we found that to be
| |
| " 14 unacc ep table . So, I just misspoke a moment ago.
| |
| i is The procedure which io currently extant, it is
| |
| } 16 my understanding, FEMA has f ound to .be unacceptable.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: Well, just so I understand, was 18 that the procedure that was used during the exercise?
| |
| 19 WITNESS KELLER: The procedure that was used 20 during the exercise -- the procedure which was in Revision 6 i
| |
| 21 of the plan for the monitoring of the first, if you will, 22 32,000 evacuees, was a normal body scan which is acceptable.
| |
| 23 In the event that more than 32,000 evacuees were 24 to be expected at the exercise, they were supposed to l 25 convert to a special screening procedure of the driver
| |
| --. - - - - - - - - - - . _ = - - .
| |
| | |
| 24800707 7722 guewalsh i
| |
| only. And, as an ad hoc procedure for over and above the
| |
| } )
| |
| 2 32,000 we found that to be acceptable.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
| |
| 4 WITNESS KELLER: In Revision 7 and -- now, that 5 was not really demonstrated during the exercise. There was 6 a table-top, if you will. There was a discussion between 7- the workers.
| |
| 8 When the Decontamination Coordinator was 9 informed to expect more than 32,0JO he had already processed to his roughly 100 volunteers, so he did not change the set-up 11 because there was nobody coming through. They did discuss 12 what they would have to do if this other group of people 13 would arrive. But, it was not actually demonstrated or 14 evaluated, just the discussion -of it was, much like the 15 reentry thing as we were talking about this morning were 16 just discussions and not actual demonstrations. .
| |
| 17 So, in that regard it was done in the exercise la but it was not an actual physical evaluation.
| |
| 19 JUDGE FRYE: All right. And, as an ad hoc 20 solution to the problem it was acceptable?
| |
| 21 WITNESS KELLER: That's right.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: And, you did not approve it as a 23 permanent solution?
| |
| 24 WITNESS KELLER: As the permanent primary 25 solution, and that's what is in 7 and 8. And, I'm sorry, I
| |
| .O
| |
| | |
| 24800707 7723
| |
| .euewalsh-i ,
| |
| I misspoke a moment ago,
| |
| }
| |
| 2 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 3 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 4 Q Now, gentlemen, would you please turn to Page 29 5 of your testimony?
| |
| 6 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 7 Now, Mr. Keller and Mr. Baldwin, did you review 8 any pictures or films or videotapes of the activities that 9 occurred during the exercise at the Nassau Coliseum?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) I have not.
| |
| 11 (Witness Baldwin) I have not.
| |
| 12 Q And, Mr. Kowieski, when you were at the Nassau 13 Coliseum on the day of the exercise, about how many people
| |
| '' 14 did you observe being monitored other than yourself?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Kowieski) I just concentrated my own 16 evaluation on processing of me as an evacuee. .
| |
| 17 Q Now, you refer in the answer which starts on 18 this Page 29 that -- you refer to the post-exercise 19 assessment statement that the facilities at the reception 20 center were capable of handling 32,000 evacuees within the 21 required 12-hour time limit.
| |
| 22 And, that's I believe on Page 80 of the post-23 exercise assessment.
| |
| i' l
| |
| 24 Now, am I correct, Mr. Keller, that this 25 conclusion is basically a result of the mathematical i
| |
| I L
| |
| i t
| |
| .- -my - , - -,-,,,.-,_..---,,,m.,
| |
| ,m,. -
| |
| .p._,,,,,,,m,,m--..- -,w,-.m-me,i...._,,---um....,,-m----, ,m.----mm,%-.em -
| |
| | |
| 24800707 7724 cuewalsh
| |
| () I calculation of roughly 90 seconds per person times the 2 number of monitors carried out for 12 hours?
| |
| 3 MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Relevance.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled.
| |
| 5 WITNESS KELLER: This is exactly what we 6 discussed in the deposition. And, that is correct.
| |
| 7 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 8 Q And, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that 9 that conclusion would not necessarily hold true -- and, the to conclusion I'm talking about is how many people could be 11 processed -- if the process was taking place at a dif ferent 12 facility?
| |
| MS. McCLESKEY: Objection. Relevance.
| |
| O 13 14 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled.
| |
| 15 WITNESS KOWIESKI: We don ' t understand the 16 question. Maybe you can rephrase it. .
| |
| 17 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) is Q Your conclusion that 32,000 people could be 19 handled at the Nassau Coliseum -- let me rephrase that.
| |
| 20 It's true, isn't it, that if the monitoring were 21 to take place at a facility other than the Nassau Coliseum, L
| |
| 22 the number of evacuees who could be handled may not be the 1
| |
| 23 same as what was demonstrated during the exercise?
| |
| 24 MS. McCLESKEY: Same objection.
| |
| 25 JUDGE FRYE: Overruled. Let me try. May I?
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 24800707 7725 cuewalsh i
| |
| Obviously the Nassau Coliseum is no longer available. New s()
| |
| 1
| |
| .2 facilities have to be found. You made a conclusion as a 3 result of the exercise with regard to the number of people 4 who could be monitored at the Nassau Coliseum.
| |
| 5 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's correct.
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE: In view of the fact that the Nassau
| |
| ~7 Coliseum is no longer available, would you need to 8 reevaluate that conclusion in another exercise?
| |
| 9 WITNESS KELLER: Yes. I stated in J-12 of the 10 Exhibit 3, Comment J-12 of Exhibit 3, we have looked at the il proposed three new facilities which have been proposed. On 12 paper, they look so-so. We would like to see them set up in 13 the form that they are intended to be used, and that is as a
| |
| *7s
| |
| ' 14 " reception center ,for monitoring potential decontamination, 15 before we can draw a conclusion as to whether they will be 16 acc ep table . .
| |
| 17 And, that's what -- I think that's what part of 18 the comment under J-12, Element J-12 in Exhibit 3, says. I 19 believe it says that.
| |
| 20 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 21 Q Now, it is true, isn't it, Mr. Keller, that in 22 the FEMA Exhibit Number 3 which includes the FEMA evaluation 23 of LILCO's response to exercise problems that FEMA stated 24 the capability to monitor individuals within approximately 25 90 seconds needs to be evaluated at a future exercise also?
| |
| i.
| |
| | |
| . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ - . . _ _ - _ _ _ = - . - _ _ . _ . . . . . . .. _ _ _ . . ___
| |
| 24800707 7726
| |
| ] suewalsh i [t i I'm referring to Table 3.9 in the back of FEMA 2 Exhibit Nunber 3 at Page 1.
| |
| _3 .The
| |
| ( witnesses are looking at the document.)
| |
| i-4 5
| |
| 6 7 ,
| |
| 8 9
| |
| 10
| |
| , 11 f
| |
| 12 13 14 I- 15 i
| |
| . 16 1
| |
| 17 Iy_ 18 19
| |
| \ ;, .
| |
| f '20 l
| |
| ! 21
| |
| ; 23 i
| |
| 24 i.
| |
| 25 f
| |
| o v
| |
| | |
| '24800808 7727 marysimons 1 f'I')
| |
| a 1 A 'I think the issue'is ---
| |
| 2 Q That 's enough, Mr. Keller.
| |
| 3 Now-you go on in your testimony here on page 29
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 to sort of take issue with what is stated in' Contention 49
| |
| ^ 5 subpart -(a) , and I am talking about midway into the answer 6 paragraph there.
| |
| 7 You refer to the fact that the FEMA report t
| |
| 8 indicates that on several occasions the monitoring of
| |
| ~
| |
| 9 simulated evacuees took four to five minutes, 10 Now in fact the report says that three . separate
| |
| 's 11 timds, doesn't it, on pages 80 and 81 of the report?
| |
| 3 12 A (Witness Keller) Yes, the report says several s
| |
| t 13 occasions; that's correct.
| |
| l' l1 l
| |
| ' 14 '
| |
| Q And it says that three times in the report, l 15 correct? '
| |
| 16 A I would think that, yes. .
| |
| 17 Q Now there were two FEMA evaluators at the 18 reception center who evaluated the monitoring function, 19 correct?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 21 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| .22 Q And those were Mr. Slagle and Mr. Bernacki, 23 right?
| |
| 24 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 25 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| b
| |
| . w n) .
| |
| | |
| l24800808' 7728 marysimons f) 1 Q And the other FEMA person who looked at the 2 monitoring process was you, Mr. Kowieski, right?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct, and I was 4 also accompanied by my former Director, Frank Petrone, and I 5 don't know if General Counsel was there, Spence Berry and 6 Stewart Glass.
| |
| 7 Q Well, did those people go through the monitoring a process as pretend evacuees?
| |
| 9 A No , ma 'am.
| |
| 10 Q They were just accompanying you?
| |
| 11 A That's correct.
| |
| 12 Q And they didn't participate in any evaluation of g; 13 the monitoring function either, did they?
| |
| I(_/-
| |
| A Not formal evaluation of the reception center.
| |
| 14 15 Q Well, did they have any input into the 16 evaluation by FEMA which is reflected in the post-exercise 17 assessment?
| |
| 18 A No ma'am.
| |
| 19 Q So there were three FEMA evaluators, or two FEMA 20 evaluators plus yourself who observed the monitoring 21 function at the reception center, correct?
| |
| 22 A That's correct.
| |
| 23 Q Were Mr. Slagle and Mr. Bernacki present at the 24 reception center for the entire time that that center was
| |
| -25 activated during the exercise?
| |
| (a'T
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7729 marysimons
| |
| /) 1 A (Witness Keller) They were not.
| |
| 2 Q They were there for only a portion of that time?
| |
| 3 A Mr. Bernacki was there for the entire time is my 4 understanding. Mr. Slagle had another assignment which he 5 lef t the reception center and went to the emergency worker 6 decontaminLcion facility-to finish his assignment.
| |
| 7 Q Do you know how many individuals either Mr.
| |
| 8 Bernacki or Mr. Slagle observed being monitored on the day 9 of the exercise?
| |
| 10 A Based on my discussions with both of these 11 individuals they said that they saw approximately 100 people 12 be monitored.
| |
| 13 Q That they each saw a hundred people?
| |
| D 14 A App roxima tely, yes, and I think it's the same is hundred people by the way.
| |
| 16 (Laughter . ) -
| |
| 17 Q Now you say here in your testimony that the only 18 occasions on which the monitoring personnel took more than 19 the approximately 90 seconds, which is the planning 20 assumption, was when the individual was being monitored, or i- 21 when the individual being monitored was a FEMA evaluator.
| |
| l l- 22 Is it your testimony that that taking more than 23 90 seconds occurred only three times during the exercise?
| |
| 24 A That's my understanding, approximately 90 l- 25 seconds.
| |
| i 6
| |
| l i
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7730 m:rysimons
| |
| '( ) i Q Who wrote the portion of the FEMA report, post-2 exercise assessment on pages 80 and 81 which deal with 3 objective 21 in the monitoring function?
| |
| 4 (Witnesses' conferring. )
| |
| 5 A Could you clarify who actually ---
| |
| 6 Q My question was who wrote it?
| |
| 7 A --- who actually penned what is on the page here 8 or where did it come from?
| |
| 9 Q Who wrote it?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Baldwin) Well, it was initially 11 draf ted during the evaluator critique forms by Argonne 12 personnel.
| |
| - 13 Q By you, Dr. Baldwin?
| |
| A 14 A No.
| |
| 15 Q By someone else?
| |
| 16 A That's correct. .
| |
| 17 Q And they wrote it based upon the evaluator la critique forms; is that what you stated?
| |
| 19 A That is correct.
| |
| 20 Q And those would be those filled out by Mr.
| |
| 21 Slagle and Mr. Bernacki, correct?
| |
| 22 A Correct.
| |
| 23 Q Now after whoever this Argonne person was who 24 draf ted this portion of the report did so, I take it you 25 reviewed it; is that right, Dr. Baldwin?
| |
| | |
| ' 24800808 7731 marysimons "b A That is correct, I did.
| |
| ]G 1
| |
| 2 Q Did you make any changes concerning what was 3 drafted on the monitoring?
| |
| 4 A My initial recollection is that the first draf t 5 of this report did not contain these specifications that we 1
| |
| 6 have on this final.
| |
| 7 Q . I see.
| |
| 8 Now, Mr. Kowieski, it is true, is it not, that 9 prior to the preparation or the finalization of the FEMA 10 post-exercise report you did not review the evaluator 11 critique forms filled out by Mr. Slagle or Mr. Bernacki?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
| |
| 13 Q And neither did you, Mr. Keller, correct?
| |
| 14 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 15 Q Did you, Dr.~Baldwin?
| |
| 16 A No, I did not. -
| |
| 17 A (Witness Keller) I ---
| |
| 18 Q That's fine, Mr. Keller. Wait until I ask a 19 question, please.
| |
| 20 Let me give you gentlemen a copy of Suffolk 21 County Exercise Exhibit No. 43.
| |
| 22 (Counsel Lanpher places a document before the 23 witnesses.)
| |
| 24 BY MS. LETSCHE:
| |
| 25 Q Now what has been marked as Suf folk County 9 W e - - , . . , - _ y. - . . , . .. - - - ,. . , , , - , . . , - - .--,,m,..,,.. --,,,,--,,~.g, - . . ,,,.y ,,,v..--e----c. . - . . . - , , _ _ . _ - - ,
| |
| | |
| 24800808~ 7732 marysimons
| |
| ^
| |
| i Exercise Exhibit 43 consists of the evaluator critique forms
| |
| )
| |
| 2 filled out by Messrs. Bernacki and Slagle concerning Field 3 Objective 21, correct?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 5 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 6 Q And in fact the language contained in Mr.
| |
| 7 Bernacki's form on the first and second pages is with minor 8 modifications what is contained in the post-exercise 9 assessment concerning this subject, correct, on page 80?
| |
| 10 A Generally speaking, yes, that 's correct.
| |
| 11 Q And Mr. Bernacki in making his factual 12 observations of what happened at the reception center did 13 not say that personnel monitoring was observed to take four
| |
| ('
| |
| 14 to five minutes for the three FEMA personnel who were 15 evaluated, did he?
| |
| 16 A No, he did not. .
| |
| 17 Q And neither did Mr. Slagle in his form, did he?
| |
| 18 A That is correct.
| |
| 19 Q Would you turn to page 30 of your testimony, 20 please, gentlemen.
| |
| 21 Now you discuss there under the heading 22 Contention X-31 the provision in LILCO's plan, Revision 6, 23 which is what was exercised, concerning what they would do 24 if they got more than 32,000 people at the reception center, 25 right?
| |
| aO
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7733 marysimons I A That's correct.
| |
| }
| |
| 2 Q And this is related to what you were discussing 3 before with Judge Frye, right, Mr. Keller?
| |
| 4 A That is correct.
| |
| 5 Q Now you say here, and you may have also 6 mentioned it to Judge Frye, and I just want the record to be 7 clear, that during the exercise FEMA did not evaluate 8 LILCO's implementation of that procedure, correct?
| |
| 9 A That is correct.
| |
| 10 Q- In fact, FEMA did not during the exercise 11 evaluate LILCO's capability of monitoring 100,000 people at 12 that reception center, right?
| |
| 13 A That is correct.
| |
| II T d 14 Q Would you turn to page 31 of your testimony, 15 please.
| |
| 16 (Witnesses comply.) -
| |
| 17 Now you discuss here the portion of Contention X-18 .49 which refers to LILCO trying to get additional personnel 19 to help them perform the monitoring function; is that right?
| |
| 20 A I'm not sure that "trying to get" is an accurate 21 depic tion, but yes ---
| |
| 22 Q That 's what you ' re talking about here, right?
| |
| 23 A Yes.
| |
| 24 Q Now you reference here sone telephone contacts 25 made by DOE personnel. I assume these were things that you P
| |
| M ,
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7734 marysimons observed, Mr. Keller, over at the Brookhaven office; is that h() 1 2 right?
| |
| 3 A That is correct.
| |
| I 4 Q Now when you say here that' there wasn't any I. 5 movement of personnel or equipment in response to these 6 requests you're referring to the DOE request; is that right?
| |
| 7 A To any request.- I believe at the conclusion of 8 that answer we also talk about INPO, the' Institute for.
| |
| 9 Nuclear Power Operations, and I don't believe they moved any to resources either.
| |
| 11 Q Right. And in fact other than LERO personnel no 12 other entity or personnel demonstrated personnel monitoring 13 capabilities during that exercise, correct?
| |
| ; , 14 A As it states in the answer to our testimony,
| |
| : 15 yes. There was no objective to demonstrate the capabilities
| |
| ! 16 of other agencies. .
| |
| 17 Q Right. Now you reference INPO here. Do you 18 know whether INPO was actually contacted by LILCO during the 19 exercise?
| |
| 20 A My recollection is I saw, and I believe it's in l 21 the exercise report ---
| |
| 22 A (Witness Kowieski) Right.
| |
| i 23 A (Witness Keller) --- that INPO was contacted.
| |
| j 24 If you 're asking me whether I know whether that was a ,
| |
| ! 25 simulated call or an actual call, I do not know the answer.
| |
| <( }
| |
| ~ __ ., .._. . _,_ , _ . ___ __ _ _ _ _ , _ _ .. - _-.._ ..,...._.- _ ._ _ _.__ _ _ ,_. _ _ _ ._ . _ _ - _ _ . - _ _
| |
| | |
| '24800808 7735 marysimons I
| |
| _fs_/
| |
| T 1 Q Does anybody on the panel know the answer?
| |
| l 2 (Witnesses reviewing documents and conferring.)
| |
| 3 A (Witness Kowieski) The phone call was made-at 4 the EOC.
| |
| 5 Q Do you know whether that was a real call to INPO 6 or a simulated phone call, Mr. Kowieski?
| |
| 7 A (Witness Baldwin) I would like a 8 clarification. We are having trouble finding it. It's been 9 a long time since we've processed the lines and commas in 10 this report. So if you could point me to where in the EOC 11 this is mentioned.
| |
| 12 Q It's not in the EOC I don't think. It's on page 13 81 of your report if that 's what you 're asking about. I
| |
| ' 14 assume ,that's what you were talking about in your testimony, 15 but I could be wrong.
| |
| 16 A The reason I asked for the clarification is 17 this. I was an evaluator at the EOC and watched the 18 assessment being made there. I'did not watch telephone 19 calls being made, but I did ask the person has INPO been 20 called and they said yes that they had been and this is 21 where the assessment of these additional resources came 22 from.
| |
| 23 It was also mentioned by our evaluators at the 24 reception center that there was coordination between the 25 reception center and the EOC. That's how it winds up in the f
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7736 m crysimons
| |
| (() I reception centers.
| |
| 2 A (Witness Kowieski) Let me add ---
| |
| 3 Q Wait a second, Mr. Kowieski. Let me just-follow 4 up with Dr. Baldwin. Are you saying that the statement on 5 page 81 of the report relating to contacting INPO and 6 estimated arrival times was based upon your conversation 7 with somebody at the EOC who told you that INPO had been a called?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Baldwin) No. The writeup here that 10 you see on page 80 and 81 is based on the reception center 11 evaluation, and there is no mention of it.
| |
| 12 Q The report seems to say'that the EOC did this 13 contacting, and it says the supervising decontamination O' 14 leader contacted the EOC to make arrangements and the 15 estimated arrival times were provided by the EOC.
| |
| 16 A That 's correct, and I watched them at the EOC 17 making the estimation of the arrival times. They contacted 18 INPO and they contacted other utilities in New York.
| |
| 19 Q Okay. But you don't know whether those were real 20 or simulated contacts right?
| |
| 21 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 22 A (Witness Kowleski) May I add something, Ms.
| |
| 23 Letsche?
| |
| 24 Q Well, I don't think you were at the EOC during 25 this period of time, Mr. Kowieski. So I doubt that you x 0
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7737 mnrysimons t
| |
| j ) I would have anything pertinent to my question to Dr. Baldwin.
| |
| s.
| |
| 2 A (Witness Kowieski) Just a clarification.
| |
| 3 JUDGE FRYE: Let's get his clarification.
| |
| 4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: It's just we very seldom that 5 we will have a person on the other side of the phone to 6 verify actual receipt of the phone calls.
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: But you would know, I would think, 8 and maybe I'm mistaken, but I would have assumed if you were 9 observing someone placing a telephone call to INPO, for 10 example, that the person observing the placing of the call 11 would know whether it was a simulated call or an actual 12 call.
| |
| I thought you testified yesterday that in the
| |
| -r) 13 1 .
| |
| '' ' 14 simulated call they would actually hold the switch hook 15 down.
| |
| 16 WITNESS KOWIESKI: True but, Your Honor, if 17 someone dials the number we don't know whether he dialed or 18 she dialed the actual number or whether someone answered or 19 not. We don't know. We have no way of verifying whether he 20 or she is talking to the real person or somebody else.
| |
| 21 WITNESS KELLER: I think we would like to draw i
| |
| 22 the distinction between when you hold the switch hook down 23 and when a call is placed and the man talks and you hear one I
| |
| 24 end of the conversation that sounds like you 're talking to 25 INPO, for example, right.
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7738 1marysimons
| |
| " JUDGE FRYE: But they may have the weather 1( ) 1 2 service.
| |
| 3 WITNESS KELLER: That's right, and you say who 4 did you call and the man says I just_ talked to INPO, and we 5 say gold star you called INPO. In truth, you know, they may 6 have called Aunt Mini and we don't know that.
| |
| 7 (Laughter.)
| |
| 8 WITNESS BALDWIN: And in this particular 9 exercise, they may have been calling simulators which were 10 LILCO personnel to accomplish that in order to get a 11 dialogue between themselves which we could observe at the 12 EOC. We see only that half that we're physically watching.
| |
| 33 JUDGE FRYE: So there were basically three O' 14 possibilities, if they held the switch hook down, they 15 called Aunt Mini or they called a simulator.
| |
| 16 WITNESS KELLER: Or they called INPO.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: Or they called INPO.
| |
| 18 WITNESS BALDWIN: And what I watched on this 19 particular instance was the result of the analysis done and 20 not the phone call.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
| |
| 22 WITNESS BALDWIN: I did not see the phone call 23 made.
| |
| . 24 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Your Honor, there is an 25 element of trust if you go to the exercise.
| |
| ,O
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7739 marysimons hx.-') 1 JUDGE FRYE: Sure, I understand. I think we 2 understand that, and we don't have to verify every last 3 little detail.
| |
| 4 Excuse me.
| |
| 5 BY MS. LETSCHE:
| |
| 6 Q You mentioned, Dr. Baldwin, an analysis that was 7 done. Were you talking about an estimate of arrival times?
| |
| 8 Is that what you meant by an analysis?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Baldwin) That is correct.
| |
| 10 Q And you observed INPO estimated arrival times or 11 you observed EOC arrival times, or what analysis are you 12 talking about?
| |
| , 13 A They had information available as to how long it
| |
| ''- 14 would take personnel from, for instance, Consolidated Edison 15 to get there from Indian Point. They had also contacted 16 Niagara Mohawk and they had contacted INPO. I believe that 17 they contacted the utilities in New Jersey as well.
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowieski) In addition, they contacted 19 FEMA's control cell which was FEMA simulators at a command 20 post asking for the State assistance.
| |
| 21 Q New York State assistance?
| |
| 22 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 23 Q I'm going to move to Contention 47 now.
| |
| 24 A What page?
| |
| 25 Q Well, you begin it on page 26 but you basically
| |
| . . - ,- .--...,.,..-,_,,n._, , . - . - - - . - . . , -
| |
| | |
| 24800808 7740 marysimons
| |
| () i cross-reference over to Contention 15-K. So I'm going to 2 ask you to turn to page 127 which is where 15-K is.
| |
| 3 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| 4 Q It is true, isn't it, that procedures for 5 monitoring and decontaminating special facility evacuees was 6 not demonstrated during the Shoreham exercise?
| |
| 7 A That's correct.
| |
| 8 Q Now you reference here on page 127 the RAC 9 review of the LILCO plan, and you say as stated in that 10 review "The location of the reception centers for many of 11 the special facilities has not been designated in the plan."
| |
| 12 Now the reception centers that have not been 13 designated for special facilities includes the schools in la the EPZ, correc t?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Keller) That's my recollection.
| |
| 16 Q And there needs to be a capability, or there 17 needs to be reception centers for school children, don't is there?
| |
| 19 A That's part of the evaluation of element J-12 20 being inadequate at the current time, yes.
| |
| 21 22 23 24
| |
| ! 25
| |
| /~T U
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7741 joewalsh j"\ 1 Q And when you say it is part of the inadequate G
| |
| 2 element, you are referring to the portion of FEMA Exhibit 3 No. 3, Attachment 1, which is set forth on page 12 of that 4 attachment, correc t , Mr. Keller?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Keller) It is element J-12 -- yes, it 6 is Page 12.
| |
| 7 Q Now, in order to get rid of that inadequate a rating, there would need to be an exercise at which this 9 capability was evaluated, correct?
| |
| 10 A Not necessarily. The rating on J-12 is a plan 11 review rating.
| |
| 12 I would assume that a plan review rating could
| |
| , , _ 13 be remediated by a plan change. Now, the evaluation of the
| |
| '- 14 adequacy of the fix might need to be evaluated in an 15 exercise, but the plan review rating could, indeed, be 16 changed without an exercise. -
| |
| 17 Q So, if they came up with a fix you would look at la that and you might change the inadequacy for a plan review, 19 but I take it you would, in effect, have an incomplete 20 status for an exercise review, is that right?
| |
| 21 A And then we get back into the six year cycle 22 issue, that is correct.
| |
| 23 Q So, in order to determine the implementability 24 of a fix, assuming there was a fix, you would have to 25 evaluate that implementation capability during an exercise?
| |
| p'~)N
| |
| , v.
| |
| 1
| |
| . - - . . _ -_-__m, . . . _ -
| |
| --_m_
| |
| - - - - , _ ~ ~ _
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7742 joewalsh A During an exercise, that is correct.
| |
| '( ))
| |
| 1 2 Q Going back for just a second to the schools and 3 the reception centers, at the reception centers for schools, 4 there needs to be the capability to monitor those school 5 children, right?
| |
| 6 A Not necessarily. Some plans are structured so 7 that the school children will go to a general population 8 reception center first, and then go to a school reception 9 center.
| |
| 10 So, depending on how the plan is structured.
| |
| 11 Q Right.
| |
| 12 A But if the plan is structured so that monitoring 13 would occur at the school reception center yes, then --
| |
| C 14 Q Let's back up a sec,ond. If the plan is 15 structured so that school children go to a special reception 16 center rather than to the general p8 ulation reception 17 center, then monitoring would have to -- there would have to is be monitoring capability at the reception center for ths 19 school children, right?
| |
| 20 MS. McCLESKEY : Objection. Relevance. We are 21 getting into a discussion of what if there were a sort of 22 plan that had these sorts --
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE: Let 's talk about what we have got 24 now. Unless I am missing something here.
| |
| 25 MS. LETSCHE: Excuse me just a second, Judge O
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7743
| |
| -joewalsh
| |
| ~n
| |
| _I'i = 1 Frye. I direct your attention, Judge Frye, to subpart E of
| |
| \~J 2 Contention Ex. 47, which deals directly with the need to 4
| |
| 3 have monitoring personnel at reception centers for schools, 4 which is what I am inquiring about here.
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I have no problem about 6 that. We are getting into, you know, whether they went to 7 what the plan provided.
| |
| 8 MS. LETSCHE: No, no, that wasn't my question.
| |
| d 9 I was trying to get from these gentlemen what the j 10 requirements are, and my question was: It is true, isn't 11 it, that if the plan provided that school children were to l
| |
| 12 go to a special reception center, then the capability to
| |
| ! 13 provide monitoring must exist at that special reception
| |
| , 14 center?
| |
| i 15 MS. McCLESKEY: I object to the question. I 16 don't have 47 right in front of me, but my recollection is 17 that it's thrust in that there were no reception centers for 18 schools in the LILCO plan which we have all agreed is truce, 19 and I don't see any point in getting into speculative j- 20 discussions about what might be done at reception centers if l 21 they existed, and if they were of a certain type.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: What does the plan provide? Do we I know?
| |
| 23 l 24 MS. LETSCHE: The plan provides that school i
| |
| i 25 children go to special reception centers, and LILCO has i
| |
| i I
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7744 joewalsh taken the' position which Ms. McCleskey I would think would I( ')
| |
| 2 remember, that they don't need to provide monitoring 3 facilities at the school's special reception centers, and 4 that is precisely what is addressed in Subpart E of 5 Contention 47, and I think I am entitled to get these 6 gentlemen's comments on the admitted contention here.
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: Is that your understanding that the 8 plan provides for school children to go to special reception 9 centers?
| |
| 10 WITNESS KELLER: My recollection is that it is 11 not specified where they go.
| |
| 12 MS. LETSCHE: Well, it is; it is in the plan,
| |
| _ 13 Judge Frye, and we can get it out if you want.
| |
| ''- 14 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I wanted to get their 15 understanding.
| |
| 16 WITNESS KOWIESKI: My recollection -- again, I 17 wasn't involved directly in RAC review of Revisions 7 and 8, la but in previous revisions, there was a statement, a 19 tabulation, a statement made to be arranged. A reception 20 center to be arranged.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: To be arranged, all right. So, 22 then it was not involved in the exercise, because it didn't 23 exist.
| |
| 24 WITNESS BALDWIN: It is correct it was not 25 involved in the exercise.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| -24800909 7745
| |
| :joewalsh
| |
| ,(~J) v.
| |
| 1 JUDGE FRYE: And that, I gather, is the reason.
| |
| 2 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Not the only reason. As we 3 already stated for the record, you cannot exercise every 4 single facility.
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE: I understand that. If you don't 6 have a provision in the plan, how can you exercise that 7 provision?
| |
| 8 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That is a good reason.
| |
| 9 (Panel conferring.)
| |
| 10 JUDGE FRYE: Well, the contention overall begins 11 by saying that the exercise revealed a fundamental flaw in 12 the LILCO plan, in that LILCO failed to demonstrate the la ability to to register, monitor, and decontaminate evacuees i
| |
| ''" 14 from special facilities who are transported to reception i
| |
| 15 centers other than the Nassau Coliseum, or that such 16 activities could be accomplished within 12 hours -as 17 required.
| |
| 18 And it goes on in Subpart E to say that it is 19 not necessary to provide monitoring personnel at reception 20 centers for schools is wholly inadequate, assuming, 21 arguendo, that such reception centers exist, and they do 4 22 not, there is no basis for LILCO's refusal to provide 23 radiological monitoring and decontamination services to 24 school children,. evacuees who would be taken there.
| |
| 25 And the witnesses tell me that there is no
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7746 j oewalsh
| |
| () i provision in there for no exercise of the plan. I guess I 2 am a little lost as to where we are going with this line of 3 questioning.
| |
| 4 If they didn't exercise something, I can l
| |
| 5 certainly see how you can say, because it wasn't there in 6 the plan, I can certainly see how you have a legitimate 7 point in saying it should have been there in the plan and 8 exercised. But going into questions about what they would 9 do if it existed, strikes me as going a little bit beyond 10 it.
| |
| 11 MS. LETSCHE: Let me just see if I can refresh 12 your recollection.
| |
| 13 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| (~h 14 MS. LETSCHE: This is the contention in which we 15 had several discussions when LILCO and the Suffolk County 16 witness panels were up. -
| |
| 17 We presented testimony concerning the Revision 7 la proposed fix. What this subpart relates to, because in that 19 Revision 7 proposed fix, LILCO said: We know we don't have 20 any school reception centers, but it doesn't matter, because 21 we are not going to bother monitoring kids at those 22 reception centers; we don't need to do that.
| |
| 23 And that is what this is addressing. This is 24 saying you do need to do that, and I would like to have the 25 FEMA personnel confirm that when the plan actually provides,
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7747 joewalsh 7)
| |
| J 1 as LILCO's does, that the school children do go to special 2 facilities.
| |
| 3 LILCO then went on and came up with its other, 4 you know, draf t proposal that we talked about, but that is 5 what this contention is about. It deals with both the 6 proposed fixes and with what happened during the exercise.
| |
| 7 And in light of the 0654 requirement that we 8 cite in here, to challenge LILCO's position that it doesn't 9 need to be able to monitor children, and therefore that it 10 doesn't matter that they didn't demonstrate it at the 11 exercise, I think I am entitled to get through these 12 witnesses that they do need to have that ability so that I 13 can then argue that it is very significant that it was not
| |
| ''w' 14 demonstrated during the exercise.
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE: Do they need to have that ability?
| |
| 16 WITNESS KELLER: Yes. -
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 18 MS. LETSCHE: Thank you.
| |
| 19 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 20 Q Now, can I get you gentlemen to turn back to 21 Page 26, which is where you talk some more about Contention 22 47. Now, you have a discussion there about objective Field 23 13. That is contained on Page 14 of the Post Exercise 24 Assessment. And goes to a demonstration of a sample of 25 resources necessary to ef fect an orderly evacuation of the
| |
| . ~ ,)
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7748
| |
| _ j oewalsh institutionalized, mobility-impaired individua'Is within the
| |
| '( ) i 2 ten mile EPZ. On Page 26 of your testimony, and Page 14 of 3 the report.
| |
| 4 Now, it is true, isn't it, gentlemen, that under 5 the LILCO plan, they intend to use vehicles to evacuate the 6 mobility-impaired in more than one trip? In other words, 7 the vehicles that they are going to use, ambulances and 8 ambulettes frequently have to make more than one trip to get 9 all the mobility-impaired evacuated, right?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) My recollection of the plan is 11 that for the most part, not completely, but for the most 12 part, the institutionalized mobility-impaired are handled by i3 their own institutional vehicles.
| |
| 14 However, LILCO will supply additional 15 ambulances, ambulettes, and that is what we evaluated in the 16 exercise. This additional. .
| |
| 17 My recollection is also that perhaps it would be is multiple runs per vehicle.
| |
| 19 Q Right. Now, in order to evaluate whether there 20 are adequate resources to effect the evacuation of the 21 mobility-impaired then, you would need to know whether the 22 multiple trips could be accomplished, right?
| |
| 23 A I don't understand.
| |
| 24 Q In doing the multiple trips, after the first 25 trip each of the trips would end at a reception center,
| |
| [ }
| |
| %d
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7749 j oewalsh I right?
| |
| 7(}
| |
| 2 A That is correct.
| |
| 3 Q So, in order to figure out when the second trip 4 would take place, you would have to know when the first trip 5 was over, right?
| |
| 6 A The second trip cannot begin before the first 7 trip is over, I will agree to that.
| |
| 8 (Laughter.)
| |
| 9 Q Now, in the case of the LILCO plan, you can't to make that determination because we don't know where the 11 reception centers are for the special facilities, right?
| |
| 12 A That is correct.
| |
| 13 Q Now, on Page 27 of your testimony, gentlemen,
| |
| ' 14 you referred to certain issues which are raised in the ,
| |
| 15 subparts to Contention 47. You don't address any of those 16 subparts in your testimony, other than what you say on Page 17 28, is that right?
| |
| 18 A That is correct. I would like to add here at 19 the time we wrote this testimony, it was our understanding 20 that the OL-3 Board had these things under their purview.
| |
| 21 It is now my understanding that OL-3 has ruled that they are 22 not under it's purview.
| |
| 23 My understanding of OL-3 is they have narrowed 24 their focus to general population reception centers. That 25 is my understanding of OL-3 at this point in time, and had N
| |
| .V
| |
| | |
| 24800909 7750 joewalsh
| |
| .() I we been in that place at that time, we might have done 2 something else for this.
| |
| 3 Q But you didn't?
| |
| 4 A That is right, but we didn't. When we wrote the
| |
| $ testimony, we thought it was under the OL-3, and that is 6 what we said. It is now my understanding not before OL-3, 7 so that kind of throws it.
| |
| 8 JUDGE PARIS: Where do you say that?
| |
| 9 WITNESS KELLER: On Page 28.
| |
| 10 WITNESS BALDWIN: It is the second sentence of 11 the first paragraph.
| |
| 12 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 13 Q Have any of you gentlemen read the testimony 14 submitted by' Suffolk County concerning Contention Ex. 477 15 A (Witness Baldwin) I have not.
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) I have not. .
| |
| 17 A (Witness Keller) I don't think I have.
| |
| 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
| |
| U
| |
| | |
| 24801010 7751 cuewalsh
| |
| _(~Il
| |
| \_/
| |
| 1 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, I just want to note 2 for the record, because FEMA has some concerns about this, 3 that the witness' testimony based on his understanding is 4 based on the fact that the special facility testimony was 5 stricken by the OL-3 Board, and so this may be ancther 6 interstitial area that I would like to note for the area 7 that may fall in the crack.
| |
| 8 But, Mr. Keller has accurately testified as to 9 what FEMA's position is on the special facilicy population 10 reception centers this morning.
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE Okay.
| |
| 12 MR. CUMMING: Sometimes we have concerns when
| |
| -,_' 13 both Boards take jurisdiction or else I have concerns when
| |
| 'I
| |
| ' \ ') 14 neither Board takes jurisdiction.
| |
| 15 BY MS. LETSCHE: (ContinuineJ) 16 Q Gentlemen, I would like to move into. Contention 17 38, please. Would you turn to Page 3; of your testimony?
| |
| 18 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 19 Now, neither Mr. Keller nor Dr. Baldwin were at 20 the ENC at a]1 during the exercise, right?
| |
| 21 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 22 (Witness Baldwin) That is correct.
| |
| 23 Q Now, Mr. Kowieski, I know that you at least 24 passed through the ENC on the day of the exercise. While 25 you were there, were any news briefings going on by LILCo?
| |
| | |
| 24801010 7752 cuewalsh A (Witness Kowieski) You mean -- you meant, LILCD
| |
| } 1 2 or LERO?
| |
| 3 Q Any LILCO personnel.
| |
| 4 A All right. I don't have any specific 5 recollection. I was with my -- followed my Director.
| |
| 6 Q Now, I'm correct, aren't I, that the FEMA 7 evaluation of activities at the ENC was done by on a evaluator, Ms. Jackson; is that right?
| |
| 9 A That 's correc t.
| |
| to Q And, Ms. Jackson was responsible for all seven 11 of the ENC objectives, right?
| |
| 12 A For all objectives related to ENC.
| |
| , 13 Q Now, did any of you gentlemen review any KJ 14 videotapes of what went on at the ENC on the day of the 15 exercise? -
| |
| 16 A (Witness Baldwin) I did not. .
| |
| 17 (Witness Keller) I did not.
| |
| 18 (Witness Kowieski) I did not.
| |
| 19 Q Did you review or listen to any audiotapes?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Baldwin) No.
| |
| 21 (Witness Keller) I did not.
| |
| 22 (Witness Kowieski) No.
| |
| 23 Q Did you review any transcripts of what went on 24 at the ENC during the day of the exercise?
| |
| 25 A (Witness Baldwin) I did not.
| |
| O V
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| i i
| |
| 24801010 7753 '
| |
| cuewalsh n
| |
| .fxs) 1 (Witness Keller) I did not.
| |
| 2 (Witness Kowieski) I did not.
| |
| 3 Q Ms. Jackson didn't review any of those things 4 either, did she?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Keller) I can 't speak for Ms. Jackson.
| |
| 6 (Witness Kowieski) I will say no, to the best 7 of my recollection.
| |
| 8 Q Okay. Now, you begin on Page 32 talking about 9 when the ENC was declared operational, and you say the post-10 exercise report doesn't state when it was.
| |
| 11 I take it that you don't know when the ENC was 12 declared operational; is that right?
| |
| ., 13 A What we say, the exact time was not provided by
| |
| ''")
| |
| (
| |
| 14 our evaluator.
| |
| 15 Q So, you don't know, right?
| |
| 16 A (Witness Keller) Well, I have seen v-17 Q Is that right, Mr. Keller?
| |
| 18 A I think that's incorrect.
| |
| 19 Q You do know what time the ENC was declared 20 operational? What time was that?
| |
| 21 A Based on admissions by -- that LILCO said were 22 true, which I saw, so I presume they were true, my 23 recollection is -- and I wrote it in my book I hope.
| |
| 24 (The witness is looking through documents.)
| |
| 25 We had it when we were doing the testimony, b
| |
| ,v)
| |
| | |
| 24801010 7754 cuewalsh
| |
| ( ') i because we made some statements about the release of 2 information within 15 minutes of it being activated. So, 3 therefore, we had the number.
| |
| 4 And, I don't have it now. But, I can 5 reconstruct it.
| |
| 6 Q Okay. Well, let's move on past that. You say 7 that the post-exercise report states that the activation of 8 the ENC was done very well.
| |
| 9 You don't know, do you, whether the ENC could
| |
| , 10 have been activated or declared operational sooner than it 11 was, do you?
| |
| 12 A I don't understand your question.
| |
| ,, 13 Q You don't know whether the ENC could have been
| |
| \ 'i 14 declared operational earlier than it was?
| |
| 15 A That's the same question which I still don't 16 understand. .
| |
| 17 Q Okay. You are aware of the fact that -- based 18 on your review of the LILCO admissions, Mr. Keller, I assume 19 you agree with me that the ENC was not declared operational 20 until some time around 8:25 or 8:30, in that time frame, 21 right?
| |
| 22 A I think that's about right.
| |
| 23 Q And, that was more than two hours after -- no, 24 let me rephrase that.
| |
| 25 That was almost three hours after the emergency (v
| |
| | |
| 24801010 7755.
| |
| .cuewalsh
| |
| - I l
| |
| } was declared and roughly an hour and a half af ter' the alert 2 EBS message had been broadcast or simulated to be broadcast, 3 right?.
| |
| t 4 A That is correct. :
| |
| 5 Q Now, you don't know, do you, why it took LILCO 6 that long to get the ENC activated and declared operational?
| |
| 7 A Could you explain that long? Are you referring 8 from the --
| |
| 9 Q Th'e period of time from the beginning of the i
| |
| 10 exercise until 8:25.
| |
| 11 A There is no requirement that they --
| |
| 12 -Q Listen to my question, Mr. Keller.
| |
| 13 A Okay.
| |
| ,- 14 Q You. don't know, do you, why it took LILCO until 1
| |
| 15 '8:25 to declare the ENC operational? -
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) Because they tried to follow 17 the plan.
| |
| , 18 -Q It's your understanding that it took them that 19 long because that's what their plan provides is that right?
| |
| 20 A They don't have to activate at an unusual event.
| |
| 21 -Q Listen to my question, Mr. Kowieski. Is it your 22 understanding that it took them until 8:25 or 8:30 to 23 . declare their ENC operational because that is what their
| |
| - 24 plan provides? ,
| |
| 25 A The plan doesn't provide specific time frame t
| |
| - - - ~ - , . , . - ---,--+-
| |
| c . . , , -. , . -- , , . , - _ , - , -m.- - - - - - - - - - - - . , , , , . - -
| |
| -e3ew*-
| |
| | |
| 24801010 7756 cuewalsh i
| |
| '( ) 'when staff should be available or when facility should be 2 operational. The plan --
| |
| 3 Q Let me --
| |
| 4 A -- provides for -- let me finish my answer.
| |
| 5 MS. LETSCHE: Well, that's not a responsive 6 answer, Judge Frye. .
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE:. No. I think he is getting to it.
| |
| 8 WITNESS KOWIESKI: The plan provides that ENC's 9 staff will be activated after alert is declared.
| |
| 10 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 11 Q Okay. Now, the alert was declared at what time?
| |
| 12 A (Witness Kowieski) I will have to check.
| |
| 13 (Witness Keller) It's -- in the plant, the i
| |
| ' '/ alert was declared at 6:17.
| |
| 14 15 Q Right.
| |
| 16 A There then ensues a notification from the i
| |
| 17 control room at that point or perhaps the TSC to the off-i 18 site authorities. Then, a call-out procedure is initiated.
| |
| .19 So, some time after 6:13. My recollection is something like 20 6:20 or something like that, the call-outs were begun to 21 notify those people who are required in the plan to report 22 to their duty stations, if you will, so that the duty 23 station call-out started some time on the order of 6:20 or 24 thereabouts.
| |
| 25 Q Now, you don't know, do you, why it took LILCO f'
| |
| (
| |
| | |
| 24801010 7757 cuewalsh G~
| |
| f1
| |
| ^_/
| |
| i from 6:17 until 8:25 or 8:30 to be able to declare the ENC 2 operational?
| |
| 3 You don't know that, do you?
| |
| 4 A No.
| |
| 5 Q So, you don't know if, in fact, they should have 6 been able to do it earlier?
| |
| 4 7 A (Witness Kowieski) I --
| |
| 8 Q You don't know, do you?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Keller) I disagree with "should have 10 been able to do it earlier."
| |
| 11 Q You don't know whether they should have been 12 able to do it earlier.or not?
| |
| 13 JUDGE FRYE: Well, they disagree with the
| |
| . G",)
| |
| 'k ' 14 "should." Why don't you say: Do you know whether they 15 could have done it?
| |
| 16 WITNESS KELLER: No, we do not know whether they 17 could have done it.
| |
| 18 MS. LETSCHE: That's fine.
| |
| 19 JUDGE FRYE: All right. Let me also ask you a 20 question. You say that the activation was done very well.
| |
| 21 Was that meant to imply any sense that it was a timely 22 activation?
| |
| 23 WITNESS KELLER: That is my understanding with 24 talking with Ms. Jackson, yes. She -- the implication was 25 that it was timely and --
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| _24801010 7758 cuewalsh-
| |
| .9 s . -
| |
| :( )
| |
| 1 JUDGE FRYE: That it was done on a timely basis?
| |
| 2 WITNESS KELLER: Yes.
| |
| 3 WITNESS BALDWIN: We should point out that the 4 post-exercise assessment report also says that the people 5 began arriving at 6:41, which was how many minutes after --
| |
| 6 25 minutes.
| |
| 7 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 8 Q Now, Judge Frye asked you a question about a 9 statement in your testimony that the ENC was done very --
| |
| 10 or, the activation of the ENC was done very well.
| |
| 11 .Are you saying that you intended by that 12 testimony to say that the ENC was activated in a timely 13 manner?
| |
| .O 14 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 15 Q And, what do you base that tsstimony on, Mr.
| |
| 16 Keller? -
| |
| 17 A Discussion with Ms. Jackson.
| |
| 18 Q It's your understanding that Ms. Jackson made a 19 determination based on her observations that declaring the 20 ENC operational at roughly 8:25 was timely?
| |
| 21 A Again, a minor dispute. Ms. Jackson did not 22 report.the time at which the activation was declared 23 operational, okay. But, given the admissions and all that 24 sort of thing, that's the time that was declared 25 operational.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24801010 7759 cuewalsh r I
| |
| .f~ 'g 1 Ms. Jackson, when I talked to her, said yes, L.)
| |
| 2 they activated it well, people got there in a reasonable 3 time. She did not find any fault with it is what I'm trying 4 to say.
| |
| 5 Q Now, do you know whether Ms. Jackson's 6 determination was at all related to when in the course of 7 the accident the ENC was activated?
| |
| 8 A I do not, no.
| |
| 9 Q Now, the first -- you say in your testimony that i- 10 the first press briefing at the ENC wasn't held until 11 approximately three hours after the on-site initiating 12 event. And, that's referring to -- what events are you 13 talking about?
| |
| '\ / 14 A_ Well, this came out of the contention I 15 believe. I believe the contention talkc about the on-site 16 initiating event which I believe is the notification of the 17 unusual event.
| |
| 18 Q That's what you had in mind, the unusual event?
| |
| 19 A Yes.
| |
| l 20 (Witness Kowieski) That's right.
| |
| i l 21 Q Now, I take it that it's FEMA's position that I
| |
| l 22 there is no problem with not having any spokesperson 23 available to the press until almost two hours after l- 24 protective action recommendations have been made; is that 1
| |
| 25 right?
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 24801010 7760 cuewalsh
| |
| '(~i d
| |
| 1 A (Witness Keller) That's right.
| |
| 2 (Witness Kowieski) That 's our testimony.
| |
| 3 Q I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
| |
| 4 A That's our testimony.
| |
| 5 Q Now, you say at the bottom of your testimony 6 that you concluded that the ENC activation procedure was 7 adequate. That's a plan comment, is that right?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) Both the plan and what we saw 9 at the exercise.
| |
| 10 Q Well, what Ms. Jackson saw, right?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Kowieski) That''s correct.
| |
| 12 (Witness Keller) We use the grand "we."
| |
| , , 13 Q You also say that the procedure was consistent 14 with those used at all ope' rating sites in Region II.
| |
| 15 Now, is that the standard by which you evaluate 16 the adequacy of performance during an exercise? -
| |
| 17 A (Witness Kowieski) What are you referring, that 18 standard?
| |
| 19 Q I'm referring to your testimony, Mr. Kowieski, 20 where you say that FEHA concluded that the ENC activation 21 procedure was consistent with those used at all operating 22 sites in Region II.
| |
| 23 I'm asking you if that standard of consistency 24 with what is used at other operating sites in Region II was 25 the standard on which you base decisions on the adequacy of
| |
| ( .
| |
| I
| |
| ,a ,c-, -,,-e- - - - , ,--g- , - - n -
| |
| | |
| ~24801010 7761
| |
| 'cuewalsh
| |
| ,.-l -
| |
| performance during an exercise?
| |
| }; I 2 A (Witness Keller) I would say no.
| |
| 3 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: Did you want to modify your answer 5 in any way?
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: No. It's more of a 7 . clarification, not a modification.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 9 WITNESS KELLER: And, I don't know how --
| |
| 10 JUDGE FRYE: If you have a clarification for it, 11 I think it would be good to get it.
| |
| 12 WITNESS KELLER: - Okay. What-we are trying to 13 say in the testimony here is that the activation of this
| |
| "(
| |
| '\ /
| |
| 3 14 facility at the alert level is consistent with all of the 15 other sites in Region II.
| |
| 16 Now, the -- and the evaluation of the adequacy 17 of whether they did it properly was not-the fact that they 18 started at the alert. It's the fact that they took.a 19 reasonable amount of time to get the people there after they 20 started at the alert. If, for example, in an exercise they 21 started to activate the people at the alert and it took them -
| |
| 22 six hours or 10 hours to get there, you can't say that's 23 adequate. It's adequate that they activate the facility at 24 the alert; it's not adequate that it took them 10 hours to 25 get the people there.
| |
| | |
| l 24801010 7762
| |
| .cuewalsh (f')
| |
| v 1 JUDGE FRYE: All right. And, that standard I 2 take it, the fact that they --
| |
| 3 WITNESS KELLER: That they activated the alert.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: -- were consistent with other 5 operating sites within Region II --
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: Is that the activation occurs 7 at the alert emergency classification level.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: That's what that statement refers 9 to?
| |
| 10 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, sir.
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 12 WITNESS KELLER: But, that's not the standard of i3 whether their performance is adequate or not.
| |
| ' ~
| |
| , 14 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 15 WITNESS KELLER: Well, I think that's what I 16 answered to Ms. Letsche's question. .
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: Their performance is not judged by 18 the standard of what's prevailing at other sites within 19 Region II?
| |
| 20 WITNESS KELLER: That's right.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
| |
| 22 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 23 Q Ms. Jackson did not evaluate the -- Ms. Jackson 24 did not evaluate whether or not that first press briefing 25 was held in a timely manner, did she?
| |
| C)
| |
| L i
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 24801010 -7763 cuewalsh
| |
| )Iv) . 1 A (Witness Keller) Not specifically, to my 2 recollection.
| |
| 3 Q And --
| |
| 4 A I would like to clarify something and add one 5 thing to that. Ms. Jackson reviewed all of this testimony 6 on the public information contentions. And, insofar as our 7 testimony on Page 33 states that having the press release --
| |
| 8 the news conference -- the press briefing within 15 minutes 9 of the EOC being adequate, right, Ms. Jackson reviewed that to and did not suggest that we change that draft testimony.
| |
| 11 So, in the context of during the exercise she 12 did not review it for adequate - you know, for whether it
| |
| _ _ . . 13 was timely or not, but in the overall scheme, Ms. Jackson t/ \
| |
| i-- 14 reviewed all of this draf t at that time, draft testimony.
| |
| 15 And she made no substantive changes in any of 16 it. I, therefore, am forced to conclude that che did not 17 disagree with any of it.
| |
| , 18 Q Now, your testimony that Ms. Jackson reviewed 19 that you are referring to here on Page 33 says that it's-20 adequate if the briefing takes place within 15 minutes of 21 activation of the facility, right?
| |
| 22 A That's a little twisted to the way we meant it.
| |
| 23 I mean, that may be the way it reads but that's not what we 24 meant.
| |
| 25 Q Well, it relates the timing of the briefing to I)
| |
| ,t -
| |
| | |
| =24801010' 7764 suewalsh the' activation of the facility, correct?
| |
| f()l. 1 2 A That is correct.
| |
| o 3 Q It does not relate the timing of the briefing to 4 what was happening in the accident, _ does it? ,
| |
| 5 A That is correct.
| |
| 6 Q And, that is what -- there is no indication that 7 Ms. Jackson ever reviewed that latter relationship, is 8 there?
| |
| 9 A' (Witness Kowieski) No, she did. As a matter of 10 fact, .I refer you to Ms. Jackson's evaluation form, exercise 11 evaluation critique form, on Page 207 of 219.
| |
| 12 Q That doesn't mean anything to me, Mr. Kowieski.
| |
| 13 What objective is it that you are referring to?
| |
| I -
| |
| -ENC-1.
| |
| 14 A 4
| |
| j$ MS.-LETSCHE: Okay. Let's have marked as 16 Suffolk County Exhibit Number 100 a copy of that. form.
| |
| 17 (The document referred to is is marked as Suffolk County Exercise 19 Exhibit Number 100 for identi-l 20 fication.)
| |
| l 21 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) i-22 Q Now, on this form, Ms. Jackson -- on this form
| |
| , 23 which is Ms. Jackson's evaluation of. Objective ENC-1, she L 24 does not address the timeliness of the first press briefing, 25 does she?
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| L24801010 7765 ocuewalsh' n:
| |
| 1 'She just -- she says what time it occurred, but
| |
| _( }
| |
| 2 she doesn't say.whether that was timely, does she?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: There is a blank spot in my copy 5 .here on the first line of her comments. I don't know 6 whether anybody can fill it in. It says: LERO personnel 7 began arriving at --
| |
| 8 WITNESS BALDWIN: It's supposed to be 6:41.
| |
| 9 WITNESS KELLER: The original says 6:41.
| |
| 10 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 11 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 12- Q .Now, gentlemen, in your testimony on Page 33 you.
| |
| _ 13- say that the LERO Coordinator of - Public Information, . as
| |
| ' 14 required by the plan, OPIP 3.8.1, conferred with the LERO 15 Director of Local Response during - this 15 minute period you 16 are talking about there. .
| |
| 17 Where is the LERO Coordinator of Public 18 Information located?. .
| |
| 19 A (Witness Baldwin) At the ENC.
| |
| 20 (Witness Kowieski) Let us double-check to be 21 sure.
| |
| 22 (The witnesses are looking through documents.)
| |
| . 23 Yes. Coordinator of Public Information, he is 24 stationed at the EOC.
| |
| 25 Q At the EOC, not the ENC?
| |
| A (Witness Baldwin) That 's correc t . I misspoke.
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| J24801111 7766 marysimons I(v.1 1 Q What does this statement here about the 2 Coordinator of Public Information conferring with the 3 Director of Local Response have to do with what went on at 4 the ECN during the exercise?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Keller) Information is passed from the 6 EOC to the ENC via the Coordinator of Public Information is 7 my understanding of the plan. In order for the ENC to hold 8 a press briefing they have to get information from the EOC, 9 and aCCording to the plan they get it through the 10 Coordinator of Public Information.
| |
| 11 Before you can hold a press briefing you have to 12 know what you 're going to talk about generally.
| |
| fs 13 Q Do you know, Mr. Keller, whether there was any rU 14 communication during this 15-minute period during the 15 exercise between the Coordinator of Public Information and 16 anyone over at the ENC? .
| |
| 17 A Based on conversations with Ms. Jackson, yes, 18 there was communication between the EOC and the ENC.
| |
| 19 Q Ms. Jackson told you that?
| |
| 20 A- Yes.
| |
| 21 Q And how did Ms. Jackson know that?
| |
| ; 22 A I don't know.
| |
| 23 Q And Ms. Jackson didn't write that down anywhere 24 in any of her forms, did she?
| |
| 25 A No. I think I know the problem. Our exercise ---
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7767 marysimons e i.
| |
| L('~ ') 1 Q You 've answered my question, Mr. Keller.
| |
| \/
| |
| 2 You go on to say that this procedure, this two 3 people at the EOC talking to each other that you reference 4 here would increase and not diminish the accuracy of the 5 information provided at a briefing, at a press briefing.
| |
| 6 A That's correct.
| |
| 7 Q You don't know, do you, whether or not the 8 accuracy of information provided at LILCO's first press 9 briefing was increased as a result of any communication, do 10 you?
| |
| 11 A All I can go on is what the report forms say and 12 my discussions with Ms. Jackson.
| |
| l .
| |
| 13 Q Right, and those reports ---
| |
| 0 14 A And Ms. Jackson said that the press briefings 15 were accurate and they answered the questions of the 16 simulated press or the press that were there. I. don't know 17 whether they were inaccurate or not. I know ---
| |
| 18 MS. LETSCHE: That's the answer to my question, 19 Mr. Keller.
| |
| 20 This would be a real good time to take the lunch 21 break if you're ready to do that.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: We'll break for our lunch at this 23 time then.
| |
| 24 (Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the hearing recessed, 25 to reconvene at 1:42 p.m., the same day.)
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7768
| |
| , marysimons
| |
| 'f ) 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (1:42 p.m.)
| |
| 3 Whereupon, 4 THOMAS E. BALDWIN 5 ROGER B. KOWIESKI 6 and 7 JOSEPH H. KELLER 8 resumed their seats at the witness table and, having been
| |
| ; 9 previously duly sworn, were further examined and testified to as follows:
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE: Shall we go back on the record.
| |
| 12 Ms. Letsche.
| |
| .c 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)
| |
| (L.) 14 BY MS. LETSCHE:
| |
| 15 Q Gentlemen, among the objectives which Ms.
| |
| 16 Jackson evaluated during the exercise were a few-that dealt 17 with the adequacy of the facilities that were used at the 18 ENCr is that right?
| |
| 19 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 20 Q And I think those would be ENC objectives 1, 6 21 'and part of 7, and you would probably say part of 1 also, l
| |
| 22 part of 1, 6 and 7; is that right?
| |
| i A Part of 7.
| |
| 23 I 24 Q I knew you were going to say that and that's why l
| |
| 25 I put it in my question.
| |
| W
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7769 marysimons J
| |
| 1 Are there any others among the ENC objectives
| |
| _(v) 2 that involved the facilities available at that location?
| |
| 3 A well, part of 3 could certainly be considered a 4 facility objective if that has to do with the ability to 5 brief the media. If there is not a suitable physical space 6 to brief the media, that would come into it. And as a 7 matter of fact, my recollection just recently was in her 8 writeup of objective 3 it was where she had pointed out some 9 of the inadequacies of the facility, which would be maps,et 10 cetera. So I guess part of 3 would also be facility 11 oriented.
| |
| 12 Q Any others?
| |
| _ 13 A (Witness Baldwin) Well, 5 also is where she f( \
| |
| U' l 14 pointed out the dif ficulty with the rumor control and the.
| |
| 15 availability of the EBS messages being available to rumor 16 control and that indirectly relates to facilities in the 17 sense that there has to be a communication of the 18 inforration available in those EBS messages to the people 19 providing the rumor control. So that's an equipment issue.
| |
| 20 Q Now I take it based on our earlier discussion, 21 gentlemen, the facility to be used as an emergency news 22 center were to change from that that you evaluated during 23 the exercise, that you would need to review that facility in 24 another exercise; is that right?
| |
| l 25 A (Witness Keller) I would agree.
| |
| g
| |
| . u,/
| |
| I l
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7770 marysimons I([ 1 2
| |
| A Q
| |
| - (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| Would you turn, please to page 34 of your 3 testimony.
| |
| 4 (Witnesses comply. )
| |
| 5 Now you say in the beginning of the answer that 6 starts on that page that the PEA report and the supporting 7 evaluator critique materials do not contain any information 8 on the new release times. I take it from that statement 9 that you don't challenge the factual allegations -that are 10 set forth in subpart 03) of Contention 38; is that right?
| |
| 11 A- _That's correct, but we were trying to"make the 12 point that our_ evaluation is based primarily on our 13 evaluator critique forms which hopefully all of them get
| |
| : -h '
| |
| into the post-exercise assessnent report and that was not 14 15 reported.
| |
| 16 Q Right. .
| |
| 17 A So anything that we have said on these issues 18 beyond that is from other information. It's not those 19 critique forms and not the exercise report.
| |
| 20 Q Right. But in terms of even the other things 21 you have said in your testimony on subpart 03) of Contention 22 38, you don't challenge the factual allegations that are 5
| |
| 23 made in that subpart, do you?
| |
| - 24 A We have no reason to challenge it.
| |
| -25 Q Now am I correct that you three gentlemen have
| |
| : O
| |
| +
| |
| | |
| '24801111 7771 marysimons t
| |
| j ) I not personally reviewed the contents of LERO News Release 2 No. 1?
| |
| 3 A I believe that is incorrect.
| |
| 4 Q Have you reviewed that news release, Mr. Keller?
| |
| 5 A Yes, I believe I have.
| |
| 6 Q Did you review it in connection with the 7 preparation of this prefiled testimony?
| |
| 8 A Yes.
| |
| 9 Q Now I take it from your review that you are 10 aware of the fact that that new release contains information 11 concerning the alert condition rather than the site area 12 emergency condition, correct?
| |
| _ 13 A The notes that I made when I reviewed this
| |
| ,l
| |
| \
| |
| O'"# 14 release indicate that it was essentially a copy of the EBS 15 Message No. 1 which was the alert message, yes.
| |
| 16 Q And based on your review do you understand that 17 News Release No. 1 also announced that there had been no-18 releases of radiation?
| |
| 19 A I don't recall at this time. I note indicate 20 that it was basically a copy of EBS No. 1.
| |
| 21 Q Now do you know when the LERO news release which 22 contains the information about the site area emergency and 23 the actual release of radiation was distributed to the 24 press?
| |
| 25 A My recollection is we do not have the time it I
| |
| l
| |
| (
| |
| -e. ,-m-- ,- , - , , ,, - -- - - -
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7772 marysimons
| |
| (~' , I was distributed to the press.
| |
| v 2 Q Okay. I take it from that then that you don't 3 know the period of time during which the only hard copy 4 information available to the press related to the alert 5 condition rather than the site area emergency condition, 6 right?
| |
| 7 A I think I lost your question. If you asked we a don't know how long they only the alert, the answer to that 9 would be yes .
| |
| 10 Q That is what I tried to ask.
| |
| 11 Now you say'down at the bottom of this paragraph 12 on page 34, the answer paragraph, that the fact that onsite
| |
| ,, 13 scenario events overtook the efforts of the LERO ENC t\~) 14 personnel and thereby making information contained in the 15 news release technically outdated is not considered by FEMA 16 to be a serious problem. -
| |
| 17 What did you mean when you said that making 18 information contained in the news release technically 19 ou tdated? I take it you 're referring to News Release No. 1 20 in that sentence; is that right?
| |
| l 21 A Yes. This contention and this subpart, my 22 understanding is News Release No. 1.
| |
| i 23 Q Now what did you mean when you were referring to
| |
| ! 24 information in News Release No. I was technically ou tdated?
| |
| l 25 A My recollection is that at the time News Release
| |
| ,0 V
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7773 marysimons 1 No. I was actually issued that we were no long at the alert 2 stage. That is my recollection. I'll have to verify that.
| |
| 3 It will take me a second.
| |
| 4 That's_ correct. So that it's my understanding 5 or our understanding that when News Release No.1 -was in 6 fact issued to the press in hard copy it said alert. The 7 time that I have is 0821'and the control room or wherever a
| |
| 8 onsite declared at 0819 that they were in a site area 9 emergency. .So that technically speaking the news-release as to it was being handed out was technically outdated.
| |
| 11 Q Now do you know whether at the time News Release 12 No. 1.was given to the press there had been publicly 13 disseminated or simulated by way of EBS' message information
| |
| ' 14 that was also inconsistent with News Release No. 1?
| |
| 15 A It's my understanding that the EBS concerning 16 the site area emergency was aired, or simulated to be aired 17 at 0841 which would have been af ter the 0821 time that I 18 have.-So the answer to that would be no.
| |
| 19 Q Okay. But it is the case, is it not, that while 20 that site area emergency EBS message was being aired the 21 hard copy information that had been disseminated to the 22 press was inconsistent with that EBS message, correct?
| |
| 23 A I'm sorry.
| |
| 24 Q Let 's go back. You just referenced the EBS-25 message that identified the existence of the site area
| |
| --- _,y,_.-. x - _ , . - _ -..y. , , . . ,_..-,.,_,,m. . , _ , . _ . - , _ . .
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7774 marysimons
| |
| ;mf~)'i. 1 emergency and the radiation release as having been aired at 2 8:41, right?
| |
| 3 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 4 'Q And that's EBS' message No. 2; is that right?
| |
| 5 A That is correct.
| |
| 6 Q While that message was being aired, isn't it
| |
| '7 true that the only press release that was available to the 8 press was Press Release No. 1?
| |
| 9 A That is correct.
| |
| 10 Q And that only talked about the alert and no 11 release of radiation, right?
| |
| 12 A' That is correct.
| |
| 13 Q So those two pieces of information were
| |
| ~'
| |
| 14 inconsistent, right?
| |
| 15 A Yes.
| |
| 16 Q Now is it your position that that inconsistency 17 is not a serious problem?
| |
| 18 A That's what our testimony says and that is our 19 position, yes.
| |
| 20 Q Now you do say, don't you, on page 70 of your 21 testimony in connection with Contention X-40 that it is 22 FEMA's position that misleading information should not be 23 distributed to the public?
| |
| 24 A That is correct.
| |
| 25 Q Now am I correct that FDIA's evaluation of rx 1
| |
| i-
| |
| | |
| . 24801111 7775 marysimons I'
| |
| I activities at an emergency news center during an exercise
| |
| }.
| |
| 2 relate to the requirements in NUREG 0654 set forth in 3 Section G?
| |
| 4 A Not exclusively, for the reason that the 5 requirements in Section G may not necessarily have to 6 originate at a news center, and only in that regard do we 7 disagree.
| |
| 8 Q One of the requirements in Section G of 0654 is 9 that there exists procedures for coordinated dissemination 10 of information to the public; is that right?
| |
| II A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 12 Q And is it your position that-the dissemination 13 of information over the radio that is inconsistent with r7~e .
| |
| '' 14 information disseminated to the news media is consistent 15 with the 0654 requirement that there be coordinated 16' dissemination of information to the public? -
| |
| 17 A I don't believe there is a way for simultaneous 18 production of hard copy of EBS messages or news releases 19 while the EBS message is being broadcast. There is a fact 20 of life that there will be a slight delay. You have to 21 actually process the EBS message or the news release.
| |
| 22 Q My question, Mr. Kowieski, didn't go to whether
| |
| '23 or not there was a requirement or even a capability that 24 there be simultaneous dissemination. My question went to a 25 situation where there is inconsistent information being
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| \
| |
| 24801111 7776 marysimons
| |
| '[a; i disseminated.
| |
| 2 Is it your position that the dissemination of 3 inconsistent information as we have discussed here satisfies 4 the 0654 requirement that there be coordinated dissemination 5 of information to the public?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Keller) As we have discussed here, 7 yes, for the reason that Mr. Kowieski just gave you.
| |
| 8 MS. LETSCHE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Keller.
| |
| 9 JUDGE PARIS: Before you go on to another one, I 10 would like to ask a question about this one.
| |
| 11 MS. LETSCHE: Sure.
| |
| 12 JUDGE PARIS: You say on page 34 that it is 7s. i3 unreasonable to expect that the coordination required by the
| |
| .O 14 plan and discussed in response to Contention Ex-38(a) and 15 the preparation of the hard copy news release could possibly 16 be accomplished with two minutes, the time between the ECL 17 notification and distribution of the LERO News Release No.
| |
| 18 1.
| |
| 19 I would like to ask if it is unreasonable to 20 expect that the arrival of the new information and the 21 issuance of the outdated news release two minutes later, is 22 it unreasonable to expect that someone in the ENC would have 23 been aware that that news release was about to go out and 24 could have held it up?
| |
| 25 WITNESS KELLER: Within the two minutes I would
| |
| /^N
| |
| \
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7777 marysimons 7
| |
| I suspect it is, Your Honor, for the following reason.
| |
| _( })
| |
| 2 The notification goes from the onsite authority, 3 and in this case LILCO, to LERO at the EOC. There is a 4 requirement to make a decision and to get an EBS message out 5 quickly. All of the emphasis is on that EBS message which 6 is the primary means of providing emergency information to 7 the public.
| |
| 8 The new releases should amplify, broaden, expand 9 and are helpful, and they should be coordinated. But as Mr.
| |
| 10 Kowieski tried to bring out, it is not reasonable to assume 11 that they will be coordinated in time as closely as the two 12 minutes would indicate.
| |
| It would be reasonable to expect that someone
| |
| ( '_,_
| |
| l l ) 13 l ' \ '' 14 would get up in a press briefing when this thing was 15 published and say, and the hard copy went out at 8:21 let's 16 say as we have, to then say we've just had an upgrade in the 17 emergency classification and we'll get the message to you as 18 quickly as possible. That would be reasonable.
| |
| 19 JUDGE PARIS: Well, you say the ENC received the 20 notification of the declaration of the site area emergency 21 at 8:19 and issued its new release about an alert at 8:21, 22 and my question is is it unreasonable to expect that 23 personnel in the ENC wouldn't hold up the issuance of that 24 8:21 news release?
| |
| 25 WITNESS KELLER: I don't think they should hold
| |
| ,[%)I l
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| -24801111 7778 marysimons
| |
| (} 1 it up, no. I think that they should announce that this 2 information regarding something that has gone in the past 3 and that we have to update this. There has been a change in 4 the circumstances and we will get you another hard copy as 5 soon as we.can. But I don't believe they should have held 6 up the first one.
| |
| 7 JUDGE PARIS: Well, was what you just suggested 8 done?
| |
| 9 WITNESS KELLER: I have no information.
| |
| 10 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Your Honor, I would like to 11 add also that in the real situation, in case of a real 12 accident or incident, what will actually happen is that the
| |
| , i3 EBS station most likely would broadcast the radio station
| |
| !)
| |
| 14 EBS message every 15 minutes. PIS and the news media 15 station at the emergency news center would have an access to 16 monitor, to monitor the actual EBS message, and in this way 17 they would get up to date and up to the minute information 18 on the status of an accident.
| |
| 19 JUDGE FRYE: What do you consider a reasonable 20 amount of time to update or issue, I should say, a new news 21 release af ter receipt of an upgrade?
| |
| 22 WITNESS KELLER: Once it had been approved, 10 23 to 15 minutes I think would be reasonable for a hard copy.
| |
| 24 JUDGE FRYE: And once it, and "it" being the 25 news release itself?
| |
| ~N (b
| |
| | |
| 24801111 7779 marysimons 7/I 1 WITNESS KELLER: Yes. There are approvals
| |
| 'V 2 because of the legal liabilities, aside from anything else.
| |
| 3 Someone has to sign off on these news releases and it has to 4 be approved. First it has to be composed, then it has to be 5 approved and then it has to be constructed into hard copy 6 and then disseminated, and I would think 10 to 15 minutes 7 would be a reasonable time af ter it were approved.
| |
| 8 9
| |
| IO 11 12 f- 13
| |
| , y I5 i
| |
| Ib
| |
| * 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s
| |
| | |
| . . . - - ~ _ .
| |
| 24801212 7780 sjoewalsh I JUDGE FRYE: And, how long for the overall
| |
| . ( '}
| |
| 2 process?
| |
| 3 WITNESS KELLER: That depends on how fast things 4 are breaking, because my recollection --
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE: Well, the reference to the exercise
| |
| , 6 events?
| |
| 7 WITNESS KELLER: A half hour, 45 minutes. I a would not like to see it go any further than that.
| |
| 9 JUDGE FRYE: I'm sorry, you said --
| |
| 10 WITNESS KELLER: I would not like to see it go 11 any further than that, recognizing again that the news 12 releases are supplemented, okay. The critical information s i3 of which there is a regulatory -- FEMA is not regulatory, 14 but quasi-regulatory, we will find a significant problem if 15 they don't meet the 15 requirement of our rules as to the 16 EBS messages, okay. .
| |
| 17 There is no such time proscription for news 18 releases, et cetera. Okay.
| |
| 19 Now, there is a statement in what we were just 20 discussing, in 0654, that you have a coordinated news 21 release program but I'm not aware of any time constraints 22 put on that program. The EBS messages which are the 23 principle means, or primary means, are constrained by time, 24 15 minutes from the decision. The rest is window dressing.
| |
| 25 It certainly amplifies, it helps to get the word U
| |
| 1
| |
| , - . - . . - . - - - , _ _ . - - . - . . - , . - , - . , - - . - . - , - . . _ - . . - - . . . . , - - - . - - . - . . ~ . .
| |
| | |
| 24801212. 7781 joewalsh j'x-) 1 ou t . But, as Mr. Kowieski correctly pointed out, the radio 2 stations are supposed to re-broadcast the EBS message every 3 15 minutes. I find it very dif ficult to believe that once a 4 radio station got the message that there was an emergency at 5 the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station or any other nuclear 6 power station in the country, for that matter, they would 7 ever get off the story. They would never go back to regular 8 p rogramming , and now back to our top hit 40 of the week, you 9 know. They would stay on that story continuously.
| |
| 10 So, I -- the hard copy of the news releases I 11 think is a little bit -- I mean, reporters all take notes.
| |
| 12 Give him a hard copy, hopefully you will eliminate some
| |
| ~s 13 erro rs . But whether they have a hard copy or not is really a)
| |
| ''- 14 not as critical as having the information.
| |
| 15 And, on the evaluations of -- to my knowledge --
| |
| 16 all of the emergency news centers in Region II, we do 17 strongly suggest and write inadequacies if there are not 18 means of monitoring EBS there in the news center. So, that 19 any reporter in the news center would have access to the EBS 20 real time on line.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you.
| |
| 22 (The fire alarm in the building is sounded.)
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE: That's the fire alarm.
| |
| 24 (Whereupon, the hearing was recessed due to a 25 fire drill at 2:03 p.m., to reconvene at 2:14, this same
| |
| .u)
| |
| | |
| 248012121 7782 joewalsh
| |
| / ''N d z.y .')
| |
| ,;wA-2 JUDGE FRYE: All right. We will pick up again.
| |
| 3 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 4 Q I wanted to ask a follow-up question to 5 something I believe you mentioned, Mr. Keller, and maybe you 6 also, Mr. Kowieski, I can't remember, about a requirement 7 that there be a capability to monitor EBS stations at the 8 ENC.
| |
| 9 Do you recall saying that?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) Yes.
| |
| 11 Q As I recall, you reference that somewhere in 12 your testimony. I was just flipping through to see if I i3 could find it but I know you do referenc'e that. It's on
| |
| !,')
| |
| \-
| |
| 14 Page 40 of your testimony.
| |
| 15 You say there was in the ENC a means of 16 monitoring the EBS broadcasts. Now, when you say a means of 17 monitoring those broadcasts, who do you have in mind that is would be monitoring them?
| |
| 19 A Well, what we are saying is, there is a radio 20 and a television station in the ENC. And, anybody who 21 listens to the radio would be monitoring it.
| |
| 22 Q Okay. So, this requirement that there be a 23 means of monitoring the EBS stations is designed to
| |
| . 24 accomplish what? ,
| |
| 25 A Well, in most plans -- not in this one, but in
| |
| | |
| . . _ . . - - - - -. . ~ _ . . - . . _ - ..
| |
| 124801212 7783
| |
| >j oewalsh I' -most plans the EBS messages are inserted to the EBS station 2 from the news center, okay.- There is the possibility, 3 although hopefully not, that there be some confusion at the 4 radio station end.
| |
| 5 So, we felt that the people who were putting in 6 'the~EBS message -- they had written it, they had formulated 7 it,.and they had inserted it-to the EBS station -- should 8 monitor what the EBS station came back with.
| |
| 9 Q Okay. But, as you noted, in the LILCO plan that 10 isn't the way it works.
| |
| 11 A -Well, the insertion in the LILCO plan is from 12 the EOC rather .than the news center, but still the news 13 ' people are going to be answering questions from the news
| |
| [
| |
| 14 media. The news media would be m,onitoring the EBS station
| |
| -15 also I believe. That's how they are going to get there in 16 the first place probably. -
| |
| 17 They should be able to know what's on the EBS 18 message and be.able to answer questions.
| |
| 19 -Q So, with respect to the LILCO plan, when you 20 talk about a means of monitcL iv.g the EBS broadcasts you are
| |
| .21 considering that a way 20c tb media to become informed on 22 the EBS broadcasts; is that right?
| |
| 23 A The media and the staff at the news center, yes.
| |
| 24 Q The staff at the news center?
| |
| 25 A Yes, because we were discussing at this point I
| |
| | |
| -24801212 7784 j oewalsh
| |
| '(~') I think the news center.
| |
| %J 2 Q Yeah, right. It's your understanding then that 3 the EIK: personnel should use as the source of information on 4 what's going out over the air by way of EBS their own 5 listening to the EBS messages at the ENC?
| |
| 6 A That's half of it. They should get the copies 7 of the EBS message from the EOC, all right. This was what 8 was intended to be broadcast.
| |
| 9 By listening to the broadcast, you ascertain 10 what was broadcast. Hopefully, somebody is going to compare 11 these, that what was broadcast is what was intended to be 12 broadcast.
| |
| 13 Q Right.
| |
| : (
| |
| ''- 14 A And, therefore, in Region II at least there has 15 been a Region II requirement -- for the lack of a better 16 ' term -- that there be the means of monitoring the EBS 17 broadcasts.
| |
| 18 Q Okay. But, in terms of what FEMA would be 19 looking at, you would want to find out that there was 20 basically a way of being assured that what was going out 21 over the air was what they had intended to have go out over 22 the air, right?
| |
| 23 A That's part of it, sure. That's clearly part of 24 it.
| |
| 25 0 And, in this case that kind of monitoring would I
| |
| u.i
| |
| | |
| 24801212 7785 j oewalsh -
| |
| have -- it would' make sense to have that done at-the EOC,
| |
| )~ 1 2 since they are the ones who put out the EBS messages, right?
| |
| 3 A But,-it would also make sense at the ENC, 4 because they are going to have to answer questions from the 5 media if they are present.
| |
| 6 Q Right. But, the ENC only knows what is supposed 7 to be in the EBS messages if they are able to get that 8 information from the EOC, right?
| |
| 9 A That is correct.
| |
| 10 Q Okay. Now, during the Shoreham exercise was Il this monitoring capability at the EOC evaluated?
| |
| 12 A There was nothing on the exercise evaluator
| |
| ,,, 13 critique forms, to my recollection. I asked Ms. Jackson --
| |
| 14 Q No, the EOC.
| |
| 15 A Oh, the EOC. I'm sorry, excuse me. I don't 16 have any knowledge. -
| |
| 17 (Witness Baldwin) Was it evaluated? There was 18 a radio located in the room which was used by the 19 Coordinator of Public Information where that person would 20 discuss with his contact at the ENC. There were no EBS 21 messages actually aired on the day, there was no test 22 message.
| |
| 23 I would assume in the case that there were going 24 to be a test message they would turn the radio on. But, 25 there was a capability there to monitor it.
| |
| PO
| |
| | |
| -24801212 7786 joewalsh Q Because there was a radio?
| |
| ['/Y s-1 2 A Yes.
| |
| 3 Q Okay.
| |
| 4 A I might also add there was a television set in 5 that same room which they could go to.
| |
| 6 Q Okay. Gentlemen, would you turn to Page 35 of 7 your testimony, please?
| |
| 8 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 9 Now, there you talk about Subpart C of 10 Contention 38 which relates to News Release Number 2.
| |
| 11 Now, I take it based on the first sentence which 12 is similar to the one in the last Subpart that.you-a11' don't 13 contest the factual allegations that are contained in 14 Subpart C of the conten, tion, right?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Keller) We have no means to, that is 16 correct. .
| |
| 17 Q Now, in this answer you have a statement which is says: "The purpose of news releases is to supplement the 19 information provided in EBS messages. . ." and then you go on 20 to talk about there not being established a minimum time 21 frame.
| |
| 22 Is it your understanding that the news releases 23 used by LILCO during the exercise contained any information 24 supplemental to that contained in the EBS messages used 25 during the exercise?
| |
| o
| |
| | |
| 24801212 7787 joewalsh I
| |
| _ r') 1 A It is my understanding they did not.
| |
| L 2 Q That they did not? Okay. So, this purpose that 3 you identify here of news releases was not met, or it was 4 not consistent with what happened during that exercise, 5 right?
| |
| 6 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 7 Q Now, you also state here that -- in the prior 8 sentence, you state that: "EBS messages serve as the 9 primary means for providing essential emergency information 10 and clear instructions to the public."
| |
| 11 Now, have you reviewed or looked at the actual 12 EBS messages that were prepared during the Shoreham 13 exercise?
| |
| 'ws 14 A I doubt if I saw the actual ones, but I did see 15 a -- I saw EBS messages, yes.
| |
| 16 Q That were prepared -- I don't mean the exact 17 ones, but copies of those that were prepared during the 18 exercise.
| |
| 19 A I saw what was in Ms. Jackson's files. And, I 20 presume she got them at the ENC.
| |
| 21 Q Do you know if Ms. Jackson had a full set of the 22 EBS messages that were prepared during the exercise?
| |
| 23 A I reviewed messages which were labeled 1 through 24 8, 8.1, 9 and 9.1.
| |
| 25 Q Okay.
| |
| (Th
| |
| .RJ _
| |
| | |
| 24801212 7788 joewalsh
| |
| () 1 A And, I think that that's a full set, but I'm not 2 sure of that.
| |
| 3 Q All right. Now, it was not part of Ms.
| |
| 4 Jackson's evaluation assignment to evaluate the substantive 5 content of those messages, was it?
| |
| 6 A- -That is correct.
| |
| 7 Q And, I take it you didn't do that either in your 8 reviewing the messages?
| |
| 9 A Well, I'm not sure what you mean by evaluate.
| |
| I 10 The evaluation was long gone before I ever saw all these 11 messages.
| |
| 12 Q Right. Now, in the FEMA review of this l
| |
| 13 exercise, there was no determination made as to whether the l /~T
| |
| \~'' , 14 EBS messages. provided clear versus unclear instructions to 15 the public, was there?
| |
| 16 A I think we have a problem. -
| |
| 17 Q Could you try answering my question?
| |
| 18 A The EBS messages were not given to the public.
| |
| 19 Q All right. Let me ask the question a little bit
| |
| '20 differently. In its evaluation of the Shoreham exercise, 21 FEMA did not make a determination as to whether the EBS 22 messages were clear as opposed to unclear, did they?
| |
| 23 A I think that in the exercise evaluation report 24 there are some statements, and in the contentions and in our ,
| |
| 25 testimony there are statements about the content of the EDS O
| |
| | |
| 24801212 7789.
| |
| joewalsh I'
| |
| . (~') . I messages having sections which were clearly marked for
| |
| \_/
| |
| 2 deletion that could possibly lead to some confusion. So, in 3 that regard, yes, there was an evaluation, so that your 4 assessment that we did not evaluate that is not correct.
| |
| 5 Q Okay. Setting aside for now-because we will 6 come back to it in a minute -- that's the Ms. Jackson 7 evaluation about these things that were marked for deletion 8 and were left'in, let's set that aside for a minute, other 9 than that observation by Ms. Jackson there was no other 10 determination made concerning the substantive clarity of the 11 test of the EBS messages, was there?
| |
| 12 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 13 A (Witness Kowieski) Actual evaluation of the
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 content of EBS messages is accomplished by RAC Committee 15 during the plan review.
| |
| 16 Q Okay. So, the answer to my question.is --
| |
| 17 A During the RAC review of the plan --
| |
| 18 JUDGE FRYE: Of the plan a's opposed to the 19 exercise?
| |
| 20 WITNESS KOWIESKI: That's right. We do, 21 however, during the exercise want to make certain that PARS 22 follow the plan. In other words, whether they are using 23 properly EBS messages contained in the plan.
| |
| ; -24 JUDGE FRYE: But, you don't reevaluate the 25 content of the messages for clarity?
| |
| | |
| 24801212 7790 j oewalsh
| |
| ~( }) 1 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct.
| |
| 2 JUDGE PARIS: The EBS messages have to be 3 modified somewhat for time and that sort of thing?
| |
| 4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Oh, yes, sir, that's 5 absolutely -- you are correct.
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: There are spaces filled in.
| |
| 7 The zones which are to be considered for protective action 8 has to be filled in and that type of thing, and there are 9 obviously places which are omitted, as we will discuss in a 10 few minutes apparently, in these messages.
| |
| 11 So, that there is -- basically, there are 12 prescripted formats in the plan which you fill in the blanks 7s 13 and delete certain sections. And, that 's your EBS message.
| |
| '. ' ('' )
| |
| 14 In order to meet the 15 minute requirement, this 15 almost has to be done. And, it's in that stage that the 16 clarity of the EBS messages is reviewed. -
| |
| 17 JUDGE PARIS: Does FEMA make any effort to is determine whether the information that's filled into the 19 blanks is correct?
| |
| 20 WITNESS KELLER: Based on the decision that's 21 made, yes.
| |
| 22 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
| |
| 23 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 24 Q When you say based on the decisions made, does 25 that mean you verify that the protective action i O l (_)
| |
| l L__
| |
| | |
| 24801212 7791 j oewalsh .
| |
| 'f_.v)- -l recommendation that they decided upon is, in fact, what is 2 filled into the blanks is that what you meant?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Keller) Yes, that's correct.
| |
| 4 Q You don't go -- you don't review anything else 5 which may be filled in during the time of the exercise on 6 those prescripted messages? !You focus on the protective 7 action recommendations, right?
| |
| 8 A Essentially, that's correct, yes.
| |
| 9 Q Okay. Turning, if you would, gentlemen, to Page 10 36 of your testimony, you discuss there Subpart D of 11 Contention 38, and you mention the fact that one of the 12 exercise deficiencies related to the inability to produce 13 hard copies of the EBS messages.
| |
| '.'" 14 Am I correct in reading the substance of this 15 answer here on Page 36 that what you are saying is that that 16 deficiency should also be read to cover the problems in 17 reproducing the news releases?
| |
| 18 A No.
| |
| 19 Q Is that what you are saying here?
| |
| 20 A No. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by your 21 statement. Let me try --
| |
| 22 Q No. Let me --
| |
| 23 A Okay, you try.
| |
| 24 0 -- ask the questions. You say here, the.
| |
| 25 inability to provide hard copies of information to the media
| |
| | |
| 24801212 7792 j oewalsh i at the ENC would also apply to news releases, right?
| |
| {])
| |
| 2 'A That is correct. But, that's --
| |
| 3 Q And, when you refer to the inability to provide 4 hard copies that you are referring to there in the answer 5 relates to the one you discuss right above, which is the 6 inability to produce hard copies of EBS messages, right?
| |
| 7 A That is correct.
| |
| 8 Q And, that inability to produce hard copies of 9 EBS messages during the exercise was part of the basis for to the exercise deficiency which is at Table 4.4, ENC 11 Deficiency Number 1, correct?
| |
| 12 A That's correct.
| |
| i3 Q So, basically what you are saying is that that O 14 deficiency should relate to both the inability to produce 15 hard copies of EBS messages and the inability to produce 16 hard copies of news releases, right? -
| |
| 17 A No.
| |
| 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7793 cuewalsh
| |
| ,[V . 1 Q The basis for your not including the news 2 releases in your deficiency I gather is because you say 3 there isono time' requirement for the distribution of news 4 releases to the media, right?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 6 Q And, the reason you don't have -- strike.that.
| |
| 7 Is it FEMA's position that there is -- that it is not even 8 an area for corrective action that LILCO was unable to 9 provide hard copies of news releases to the media in a 10 timely manner?
| |
| 11 A The deficiency is going to require a corrective 12 action or remediation. The deficiency said there was a lack 13 of ability to provide hard copy to the media and provide i
| |
| i O '
| |
| 14 information to the rumor control number.
| |
| r 15 It seems reasonable to assume that if a 16 capability is developed which will allow for the-17 reproduction and distribution of hard copies of one type of 18 message that that capability would be available for the 19 other type of message.
| |
| 20 Q This is my question. You are assuming that if 21 they fixed one they would fix the other; is that what you 22 said?
| |
| 23 A That is correct.
| |
| 24 Q Okay. That wasn't my question.
| |
| 25 A Okay.
| |
| a
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7794 cuewalsh r}
| |
| { l' 2
| |
| Q My question went to the fact that they weren't able to do either one of those things. Their inability to 3 do them, to provide the hard copy of _the EBS messages, 4 resulted in a deficiency. Their inability to -- my question 5 was,.didn't their inability to provide hard copies of news 6 releases at least rise to the level of an area for 7 corrective action?-
| |
| 8 A No.
| |
| 9 Q No? And, I take it that it didn't even rise to 10 the level of an area for improvement, right?
| |
| 11 A That's correct.
| |
| 12 Q And, that is simply because there isn't any O 13 timing requirement for those releases;?
| |
| 14 A That's correct.
| |
| 15 Q You don't take- into account any other impact 16 that the inability to provide hard copy news releases may 17 have; is that right?
| |
| 18 A I would think that absent the deficiency that i
| |
| 19 probably this would have been cited for an area recommended 20 for improvement as a guess at this point in time, absent the i
| |
| 21 deficiency.
| |
| 22 Q Let me ask my question again, Mr. Keller. In 23 arriving at the positions you have just stated for me with 24 respect to news releases, you don't take into account any l 25 other potential impact the inability to provide news
| |
| (_)g-i
| |
| | |
| '24801313 7795
| |
| -cuewalsh
| |
| : 1. .
| |
| _(u ,/Y l releases may have on the emergency response; is that right?
| |
| 2 A If.it were news releases completely as an 3 entity, yes, we would. But, this is merely hard copy _of 4 news releases.
| |
| 5 I don't think that it's a requirement that any 6 plan sponsor, anyone, has to do all of the work for the news-7 ' media. The news media still has to take notes, will be able 8 to take notes.
| |
| 9 Hard copies are embellishments.
| |
| 10 Q And, in order for the news media to take notes 11 they have to have some source of information to take notes 12 from, right?
| |
| , la A That is correct.
| |
| ''k-) 14 (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
| |
| 15 Q -
| |
| And, in the LILCO plan that source of 16 information is -- for the. news media, is supposed to be the 17 emergency news center, right?
| |
| 18 A That's correct.
| |
| j 19 Q And, what the emergency news center is supposed 20 to be issuing, among other things, are press releases,
| |
| . 21 right?
| |
| ; 22 A (Witness Keller) And press briefings, yes.
| |
| t 23 (Witness Kowieski) And press briefings. That's
| |
| , 24 what --
| |
| 25 Q Right.
| |
| .0 l N
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7796 cuewalsh
| |
| (~)
| |
| %/
| |
| 1 A -- I think is critical.
| |
| 2 Q And, it 's your testimony that the ability to 3 issue news releases, even though it's only one of the things 4 that the ENC does, is not -- the inability to do that is not 5 significant enough to make it into your report, right?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Keller) I don't believe we said there 7 was an inability. We said they were late. And, that's a a little different than inability.
| |
| 9 0 Well, it 's the same inability that they 10 demonstrated with respect to the EBS messages though, isn't 11 it?
| |
| 12 A That is correct. And, I said earlier that 13 absent the deficiency associated with the EBS message I
| |
| ^ 0'-
| |
| 14 believe this probably would have been, rated at least an area 15 recommended for improvement.
| |
| 16 Q Now, wouldn't you agree with me, Mr..Keller that 17 hard copies of news releases are important to lessen the 18 possibility that the press will misstate or misreport 19 important emergency information?
| |
| 20 A I would hope that would be the case.
| |
| 21 Q So, they do have some importance in terms of 22 getting information out to the public, don't they?
| |
| 23 A They are an additional means of getting 24 information to the public, yes.
| |
| 25 Q Now, would you turn please to Page 37 of your l
| |
| [/
| |
| s._
| |
| i L
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7797 cuewalsh
| |
| ) 1 testimony?
| |
| 2 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 3 Now, this section of your testimony discusses 4 Subpart E of Contention 38. And, I think we mentioned 5 before -- I think you mentioned before that Ms. Jackson's 6 observation about the lack of maps and displays related to 7 her evaluation of ENC Objective Number 3; is that right?
| |
| 8 A That 's my recollection, yes.
| |
| 9 Q And, ENC Objective Number 3 is to demonstrate 10 the ability to brief the media in a clear, accurate and 11 timely manner, right?
| |
| 12 A That is correc t.
| |
| 13 Q And, the discussion that you have on Page 37 of
| |
| '() -
| |
| 14 your testimony is derived from Ms. Jackson's observations as 15 stated on'her critique form; is that right?
| |
| ; 16 A And from the report, the exercise report.
| |
| 17 Q And, the exercise report is based upon Ms.
| |
| 18 Jackson's observations?
| |
| 19 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 20 Q She's the only one who did any observing, right, 21 of those objectives?
| |
| 22 A Aside from Mr. Kowieski who was passing through.
| |
| 23 Q Now, you say in your -- no. Ms. Jackson did not 24 review any LILCO press releases, did she?
| |
| 25 A LILCO, that's correct.
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7798 cuewalsh
| |
| (~)
| |
| v.
| |
| 1 Q And, she did not review the performance of the 2 LILCO personnel who were involved -in press briefings, 3 correct?-
| |
| 4 A I do not know who was involved in the press 5 briefings. But, reading her report form, her statements say 6 -- and I will read it: The LERO PIO staff at the ENC 7 routinely briefed the media.
| |
| 8 Q Okay. Fine. Let's stop there for a-second.
| |
| 9 Ms. Jackson's assignment was to review the LERO off-site 10 related performance, right?
| |
| 11 She wasn't doing an on-site review?
| |
| 12 A That is correct.
| |
| 13 Q And, her critique form, in fact, does refer to 2' i() 14 LERO performance, correct?
| |
| 4 15 A (Witness Kowieski) That's. correct.
| |
| 16 (Witness Keller) That is correct. -
| |
| 17 Q Not LILCO?
| |
| 18 A Correct.
| |
| 19 Q And, you know, don't you, Mr. Keller, that 20 during -- at the ENC there are present both LILCO on-site 21 and LERO off-site personnel?
| |
| 22 A My recollection of the plan indicates that there 23 would be these people there, that's correct.
| |
| l 24 Q Right. And, do you know whether during the 25 exercise both LILCO and LERO spokes people participated in
| |
| | |
| w.
| |
| 24801313 7799 cuewalsh
| |
| ]P3 .
| |
| . .( j 1 the press briefings?
| |
| 2 A That would be an assumption on my part, but that 1
| |
| 3 . is the common occurrence, yes.
| |
| 4 Q Right. Now, you were reading a minute ago from 5 one of Ms. Jackson's critique forms.
| |
| 6 A Yes.
| |
| 7 MS. LETSCHE: Why don't we have that marked as 8 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit Number 101?
| |
| I 9 (The document referred to was 10 marked as Suffolk County Exercise II Exhibit - Number 101 for identifi-12 cation.)
| |
| - 13 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing)
| |
| ' -' Now, am I correct, gentlemen, that what has been i
| |
| 14 Q is marked as Suffolk County Exhibit Number 101 is Ms. Jackson's 16 critique form relating to Objective ENC Number 37
| |
| . 17 A (Witness Kowieski) That 's correct.
| |
| 18 Q And, this is the one you were just referring to, f
| |
| i 19 Mr. Keller; is that correct?
| |
| ! 20 A (Witness Keller) That's correct, yes.
| |
| I 21 Q Now, I notice that under the points of review, 22 the fourth one down, apparently Ms. Jackson added when
| |
| {
| |
| 23 discussing prompt receipt and distribution of hard copy news l 24 releases, she added EBq in there also.
| |
| r 25 I take it she considered it important to be able l
| |
| 8
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7800 suewalsh
| |
| ((,)
| |
| f'') i to distribute hard copies of both of those itemst is that 2 right?
| |
| 3 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 4 Q Now, you state in your answer on Page 37 that 5 FEMA disagrees with the assertion in the contention that 6 LERO personnel disseminated confusing and unclear 7 information to the media.
| |
| 8 Ms. Jackson did not in her review compare 9 information disseminated during the briefings with other 10 information other than EBS messages which were disseminated 11 during the exercise, did she?
| |
| 12 A I don't understand your question.
| |
| 13 Q Is there any indication in Ms. Jackson's form, 14 Mr. Keller, that she compared what the LERO spokes people 15 said during press briefings to what may have been 16 disseminated by other entities or other people during the 17 exercise?
| |
| 18 A I don't know what you mean by other entities and 19 other people.
| |
| 20 Q Well, for instance, LILCO?
| |
| 21 A Well, you just told me -- and I agreed with you 22 on that -- that there were LILCO spokespersons at these 23 briefings.
| |
| 24 Q That's right. And, Ms. Jackson didn't evaluate 25 their performance, did she?
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7801 cuewalsh I
| |
| A I disagree with that. I mean --
| |
| j\s) 1 2 Q On what basis do you have to disagree with that?
| |
| 3 A I read her statement as saying that there were 4 six briefings conducted between 8:44 and 3:06. It also said 5 that answers questions and provided requested information.
| |
| 6 Q And, what she says is LERO PIO staff, isn't it, 7 Mr. Keller?
| |
| 8 A That's correct. But, as you said -- and I 9 agreed -- that it is a normal circumstance for both the on-10 site and the off-site spokesperson to participate in 11 briefings.
| |
| 12 Q Now, you said you discussed what she did with r7.s 13 Ms. Jackson in connection with preparing this testimony.
| |
| 'l )
| |
| d'"' 14 Did Ms. Jackson ever tell you that she did any evaluation of 15 LILCO press briefing performances during that exercise?
| |
| 16 A No. -
| |
| 17 Q And, you haven't reviewed any LILCO performances 18 during that exercise? You didn't review any videotapes or 19 any transcripts to know what LILCO did, did you?
| |
| 20 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 21 Q And, you haven't reviewed any LILCO press 22 releases disseminated during the exercise, have you?
| |
| 23 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 24 Q And, to the best of your knowledge Ms. Jackson 25 didn't review any LILCO press releases either, did she?
| |
| ~)
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7802 cuewalsh f'')
| |
| xs 1 A She told me she had not.
| |
| 2 Q So, to the best of your knowledge, you don't 3 know that there was any comparison done between what was 4 said by the LERO spokes people during the briefing and what 5 may have been said during a briefing or in press releases by 6 LILCO personnel, right?
| |
| / A I must base my evaluation or my answer to that a question on the fact that Ms. Jackson is a PIO from the 9 Region, who is an experienced evaluator, who has evaluated io public information and exercises in a number of occasions, 11 and she made no comment on her form that I could find.
| |
| 12 And, when we gave her the draft testimony, she i3 didn't suggest we ought to include anything different. So, (D
| |
| 14 I base my conclusion that she did not fin,d a problem.
| |
| 15 0 Well, but you don't discuss in your testimony, 16 do you, Mr. Keller, anywhere in here whether what LERO said 17 was or was not consistent with what LILCO was saying?
| |
| 18 You don't address that in your testimony, do 19 you?
| |
| 20 A Well, I think we say that we disagree with the 21 assertion in the contention that the LERO personnel 22 disseminated confusing and unclear information to the 23 media. And --
| |
| 24 O And, you intend by that --
| |
| 25 A May I finish my answer?
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7803 suewalsh I Sure. Go ahead.
| |
| .7(}
| |
| Q
| |
| -2 A And, when I gave Ms. Jackson our draf t 3 testimony, I gave her the contentions, because we have, as )
| |
| 4 you are quite aware, condensed the contentions to some 5 considerable degree in our issues that we have tried to put 6 on each page, so that she understood what we were trying to 7 say.
| |
| 8 I got no response that we should make any 9 substantive changes, aside from a word here or there, in the 10 testimony. I assumed that she had agreed with what we had 11 said. That's an assumption on my part.
| |
| 12 Q But, you didn't intend by this statement to 13 indicate that you had made a conclusion that what LERO said
| |
| ,' ' 14 during the exercise was or was not consistent with what i 15 LILCO said?
| |
| ; 16 A I think I answered that previously in stating i
| |
| 17 that my evaluation is based on what Ms. Jackson had written la on her critique forms and what she told me. I did not --
| |
| . 19 Q And, none of that involved LILCO, right?
| |
| 20 A She saw the contention; she saw our testimony.
| |
| i i
| |
| 21 Insofar as the contention implies LILCO, then I assume she l~
| |
| ! 22 considered LILCO.
| |
| l 23 Q Well, Contention 38.E doesn't imply LILCO.
| |
| I 24 Contention 38.E talks about the insufficient, inadequate 25 maps and displays.
| |
| l TO r
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7804 cuewalsh
| |
| [~') 1 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, it seems to me that Rs 2 the question is repetitive. The witnesses are testifying 3 not with respect to their personal knowledge but with 4 respect to their expertise as to what was done. And, 5 occasionally there are some circumstances in which they do 6 have personal knowledge.
| |
| 7 Mr. Keller has testified he didn't have personal 8 knowledge and yet we are going through repetitive questions 9 over and over again. So, I just object based on the 10 repetitiveness of the question.
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE: It does seem to be repetitive. If 12 I understand your testimony correctly, the only basis you
| |
| <~ 13 have for making any assumption that the LILCO performance might have been evaluated is the fact that LILCO people were 14 15 in the ENC?
| |
| 16 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct. .
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 18 WITNESS KOWIESKI Judge --
| |
| 19 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 20 0 Now, my --
| |
| 21 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Your Honor, ma y I --
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE Yes.
| |
| 23 WITNESS KOWIESKI: We not only did not evaluate 24 on-site response. LILCO is part of on-site response. And 25 not only that, on-site response is being evaluated by NRC C
| |
| d
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7805 cuewalsh j1 I team.
| |
| ;s_-)
| |
| 2 JUDGE FRYE: Right.
| |
| 3 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 4 Q Now, the basis of your testimony here on Page 5 37, Mr. Keller, where you say you disagree with the 6 assertion that LERO personnel disseminated confusing and 7 unclear information, I think you said was Ms. Jackson's 8 critique form, right?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 10 Q Now, she says here that the LERO PIO staff 11 routinely briefed the media, answered questions and provided 12 requested information. She does not say anywhere in this
| |
| -, 13 form, does she, that the questions were answered accurately?
| |
| hs ''
| |
| 14 A That is the job of the evaluator. If questions 15 are answered inaccurately, the evaluator's job is to put 16 that down and to find an exercise inadequacy. -
| |
| 17 O Let me ask you this, Mr. Keller. Did Ms.
| |
| 18 Jackson have with her over at the ENC during her evaluation 19 a copy of the exercise scenario?
| |
| 20 A She was provided a copy of the exercise 21 scenario. Whether she took it to the ENC or not, I have no 22 idea.
| |
| 23 Q Right. So, you don't know, do you, whether Ms.
| |
| 24 Jackson would have known if information such as 25 meteorological information that was given out during press
| |
| ,~)
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7806 cuewalsh briefings by LERO was or was not accurate?
| |
| (} t 2 A In our training program prior to the exercise, I 3 personally gave a briefing on the meteorological information 4 in the scenario so that all of the evaluators who were not 5 typically meteorologica11y inclined would have some idea of 6 the plume direction and the wind speed and the area which 7 was going to be impacted by the plume so that they would a have a general feel for what was going on, so that I do know 9 that Ms. Jackson had that information.
| |
| 10 Whether she remembered it, whether she used it 11 at the news center, I have no way of knowing. ,
| |
| 12 Q And, we do know that Ms. Jackson didn't have all 13 the EBS messages in a timely -- a hard copy of the EBS O 14 messages very quickly after they were supposedly 15 disseminated over at the ENC, right?
| |
| 16 A That's in the report and our testimony; that's 17 correc t.
| |
| Is Q Right. So, when she was listening to a press 39 briefing she wouldn't know at that time whether what that 20 briefer was saying was or was not consistent with what was 21 supposedly being broadcast over the EDS at that time, would 22 she?
| |
| 23 A And, she did not fill out her form at the time 24 she was listening to the press conference. We conorally all 25 take notes, we generally all then compare our notes, and O
| |
| | |
| 24801313 7807 cuewalsh l 1 after the exercise -- sometimes the next day for most people 2 -- we sit down, we think about what our notes say, and we 3 then fill out our form.
| |
| 4 And, I submit to you again that an evaluator, if 5 he aees an inaccurate statement or confusion, it's part of 6 the evaluator's responsibility to note that on the form and 7 to put that as an inadequacy as either an ARCA, an area 8 recommended for improvement, or a deficiency. And, none of r
| |
| 9 those things were done. t 10 11 12 34 t
| |
| 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [
| |
| 25 N
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7808 marysimons Well, that may very well be the instructions
| |
| } I Q 2 that an evaluator has, Mr. Keller. My point to you was you 3 don't know whether Ms. Jackson did that or not, do you?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) No, I do not know.
| |
| 5 Q Now, Ms. Jackson did note in her form, however, 6 that the briefings she observed were limited, didn't she?
| |
| 7 A There is a statement to that effect on the form; 8 that is correct.
| |
| 9 Q And she also noted ways in which the briefings 10 could be improved; is that right?
| |
| 11 A That is correct.
| |
| 12 Q And one of the ways she noted was that they is could or should perhaps include a review of previous actions
| |
| ;Q i4 that had been taken; is that right?
| |
| is A That is correct..
| |
| 16 Q And she also suggested that the EBS messages 17 should be read at the press briefings, right?
| |
| 18 A The most recent EBS messages that is correct.
| |
| 19 Q Now would you turn to page 38 of your testimony, 20 please.
| |
| 21 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| 22 Now here you address subpart (f) of Contention 23 38 which talks about the hard copies of the EDS messages 24 that we had discussed briefly a minute ago.
| |
| 25 I take it that once again this testimony of
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7809 marysimons n
| |
| h) 1 yours is based upon Ms. Jackson's observations; is that 2 right?
| |
| 3 A That is correct.
| |
| 4 Q And you say that the report states and you're referring to the post-exercise assessment, that "The 6 extraneous material in the hard copies of the EBS messages 7 was clearly marked for deletion."
| |
| 8 Is it your testimony that with respect to the 9 all of the EBS messages that all material that was not 10 simulated to have been broadcast was clearly marked for 11 deletion on those copies?
| |
| 12 A That's my understanding, yes.
| |
| 13 Q And that's your understanding of what Ms.
| |
| D 14 Jackson observed; is that right?
| |
| 15 A That is correct.
| |
| 16 Q And I take it based on your testimony at the end 17 of this paragraph where you say " FEMA is not aware of any la situation where hard copy of EBS messages provided to the 19 media were inconsistent with information simulated to be 20 broadcast over the radio," that it's your belief that 21 reading the marked up EBS messages would clearly indicate to 22 the reader what was and was not reads is that right?
| |
| 23 A It did to me when I read them.
| |
| 24 Q And is your reading of those messages the basis 25 of this testimony, Mr. Keller?
| |
| | |
| t 24801414 7810 marysimons
| |
| ~
| |
| t''~') i A The basis for the testimony is Ms. Jackson's s_,
| |
| 2 observations and her evaluation.
| |
| 3 Q Well, when you say here " FEMA is not aware of 4 any situations where hard copy of EBS messages provided to 5 the media were inconsistent with information for broadcast 6 over the radio," is that testimony based on your reading of 7 the EBS messages?
| |
| 8 A And discussions with Ms. Jackson. After all, 9 there were no broadcasts.
| |
| 10 Q That's right.
| |
| 11 A Therefore you cannot compare what was handed to 12 the media with the broadcast.
| |
| 13 Q That's right. So the basi's of this statement
| |
| . O 14 then, I take it, is your reading of the messages and 15 deciding that you could figure out what was or was not readt 16 is that right? -
| |
| 17 A And the contention.
| |
| 18 Q And the contention?
| |
| 19 A I think the contention says, or my recollection 20 of the contention is that there was an inconsistency between 21 the hard copies that were given and what was broadcast.
| |
| 22 That was my recollection of the contention. I will read for 23 you from page 49, EX-3 8 (f ) .
| |
| . 24 " Copies of the EBS messages provided to the 25 media contained extraneous information that should have been (n
| |
| %j')
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7811 marysimons l 1 deleted and were thus unclear, confusing and-inconsistent 2 with radio broadcasts." -
| |
| 3 Q Now I take it from this statement here that 4 we've been talking about in your testimony that you believe 5 that the hard copy messages were consistent with what was 6 simulated to be broadcast, right?
| |
| 7 A That.is correct.
| |
| 8 Q I take it it's not your testimony that those 9 messages were necessarily clear, right?
| |
| 10 A Would you reword that, please?
| |
| 11 Q Yes. 'That was a real bad question.
| |
| 12 Ms. Jackson found those hard copy EBS messages
| |
| - 13 to be a problem because of the extraneous information
| |
| '" 14 contained in them, right? .
| |
| 15 MR. CUMMING: Your Honor, a point of 16 clarification. It's not really in the nature of an 17 objection, but it'shows in fact that this line of 18 questioning demonstrates the shif ting burden of the proo'f in 19 this case and the fact that FEMA has a rebuttable 20 presumption with respect' to its finding.
| |
| f 21 Here you have the gentleman before you, Mr.
| |
| Y i2 Kowleski, who was the arbiter or whether or not a 23 deficiency, an ARCA or an area requiring improvement should 24 be assigned to a category and basically the line of 25 questioning concerns whether or not not the judgment of the l n l' J L ,
| |
| ?
| |
| {
| |
| l d' . - ,
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7812 marysimons
| |
| () I witnesses, but whether or not there was any basis at all.
| |
| 2 Now I could make an argument at this point in 3 the questioning that they have established Mr. Keller's 4 personal knowledge was limited largely to his interview with 5 Ms. Jackson and to the analysis of the form and therefore 6 has established that there is a good chance that perhaps if 7 there was other material and maybe it should not have been 8 assigned to one of those three categories.
| |
| , 9 So it's not in the nature of an objection, but 10 it goes to the point of how the Board wishes to structure
| |
| ~
| |
| 11 the proceeding. In fact, the gentlemen present could in 12 fact identify and describe why in fact it was listed as a 13 deficiency, an ARCA or an AFRI, to use those terrible
| |
| (
| |
| * 14 ac ronyms , and in essence the line of questioning is 15 irrelevant to the contention.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: I didn't understand it, but if it's 17 not an objection, I think ---
| |
| 18 (Laughter.)
| |
| 19 MR. CUMMING: It's an objection based on the 20 irrelevancy of the fact that they are trying to point out 21 what the personal knowledge is of the witnesses and we've-22 gone through this before.
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I think she clearly has 24 established what these witnesses are basing their testimony 25 on. I think that's clear, and I think that probably largely O .
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7813 marysimons l 1 goes to the weight to be according to the testimony.
| |
| 2 So let's move ahead.
| |
| 3 BY MS. LETSCHE:
| |
| 4 Q When Ms. Jackson identified this as a problem 5 she identified it in terms of possible confusion, right?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Kowieski) Possible confusion.
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: I've forgotten. What's the problem 8 so I can go along with everybody else.
| |
| 9 (Laughter . )
| |
| 10 MS. LETSCHE: We're on page 38 of the FEMA 11 testimony and we are talking about the extraneous 12 information.
| |
| 13 JUDGE FRYE: The extraneous information.
| |
| 14 BY MS. LETSCHE:
| |
| 15 Q And I take it you agree with Ms. Jackson's 16 conclusion that the EBS messages that were provided to the 17 media were possibly confusing, right?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowieski) Could lead to possible 19 confusion.
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 21 Q Would you turn to page 39 for me, please.
| |
| 22 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| 23 Now there you are discussing subpart (g) of 24 Contention 38, and I take it from the introductory material 25 or the introductory sentence that you don't have any basis 1
| |
| -__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ l
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7814 m rysimons
| |
| [) I to challenge the factual allegations that are contained in 2 that subpart, right?
| |
| 3 A That's in the second sentence.
| |
| 4 Q Well, it 's the first sentence of the answer.
| |
| 5 A And in the second sentence of the answer we say 6 if those admissions are correct, then those are the times.
| |
| 7 Q Now at the end of this answer paragraph here you 8 say that there appears to be an inconsistency within the 9 contention.
| |
| 10 A That's correct.
| |
| 11 Q I want to ask you a couple of questions about 12 that and then the sentence which follows it.
| |
| l ,-- 13 You look like you have the contention there.
| |
| t
| |
| %)
| |
| 14 Good because I'm going to ask you a question about it.
| |
| 15 The contention does not talk about the 16 confirmation of information in the public domain: It talks 17 about information that's in conflict with other data in the is public domain, doesn't it?
| |
| 19 A That's correct.
| |
| 20 Q And in fact if press releases were distributed 21 after information in the public domain had already changed, 22 then those press releases when issued would be in conflict 23 with other data in the public domain, right?
| |
| 24 A There is a time on every press release that I 25 saw and the reader must include the time when reading the
| |
| . C)
| |
| '%/
| |
| l t
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7815 marysimons h 1 information. And if one includes the time of the press 2 release, I mean if you pick up a pre,ss release that says 8 3 a.m. and you 're comparing it with the information from 3 4 p.m. in the afternoon, yes, I would assume on technical 5 grounds that is in conflict.
| |
| 6 But I believe the reader has to look at the time 7 on the press release to factor in what weight he gives to 8 the press release.
| |
| 9 Q So the only basis for your disagreement with 10 this contention then is that the press releases had times on 11 them; is that correct?
| |
| 12 A That is correct, which allows you to place that
| |
| ; 13 press release in perspective of what it means.
| |
| ' Okay. And the fact that a press release has a 14 Q 15 time of issuance on it, in your mind, removes any 16 possibility of it leading.to confusion by the media or the 17 public; is that right?
| |
| 18 A Well, No. 1, the press release goes to the 19 media. What the media does with it, that's how it gets to 20 the public. If we make the assumption, and based on my 21 observations of the press it 's very unlikely that the press 22 takes a press release and gives it to the public directly 23 without some modifications, it's an assumption that what's 24 given to the press will go directly to the public, if we 25 assume that for a minute.
| |
| 1 i
| |
| I
| |
| . _ _ .,. . . . , , . r , - - - _ .
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7816 marysimons
| |
| () 1 The press, a responsible press should state that 2 here is a press release that says as of 10 o' clock in the 3 morning X, Y. and Z are the facts.
| |
| 4 Q Okay.- Now when you said all these press 5 releases have a time on them, is it your understanding that 6 the times on the press releases were when the releases were 7 issued?
| |
| 8 A' There was a time of approval and the release was 9 sometime after that.
| |
| 10 Q And it's your understanding that releases that 11 were given to the press had a notation of the time 'of 12 approval on them?
| |
| ( 3_ i3 A The ones that I saw did.
| |
| A ,) -
| |
| 14 Q And it's your understanding that the ones you 15 saw were the ones that were going to be issued to the press;-
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 is that right?
| |
| ; 17 A Ms. Jackson told me those are the ones that she 18 picked up from the emergency center as her copy of the hard s -
| |
| 19 copy that was provided to the press.
| |
| 20 Q Okay. Now in many cases it was the case, wasn't, 21- Mr. Keller, that the press releases were actually issued 22 long after they had been approved?
| |
| 23 A They were posted I understand; that's correct.
| |
| 24 Q So the approval time isn't going to help much, 25 'is it?
| |
| | |
| 24801414_ 7817 marysimons k 1 A Help what?
| |
| 2 Q In terms of being able to figure out the 3 significance of the press release.
| |
| 4 A I think they are very clear. I don't have a 5 problem with that.
| |
| 6 Q All right.
| |
| 7 Would you turn to page 40, please.
| |
| . 8 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| 9 JUDGE PARIS: Can I ask a quick follow-up to question?
| |
| 11 MS. LETSCHE: Sure.
| |
| 12 JUDGE PARIS: Do you think that the members of 13 the press there in their rush to get out with the news are
| |
| ' 14 going to pay much attention to the time of approval or its 15 significance?
| |
| 16 WITNESS KELLER: Well, again, the prsss release 17 is an amplification of what has come over the EBS, and in 18 this particular exercise the press releases were basically 19 nothing more than repeats of the EBS.
| |
| 20 This is information that the press had and these 21 hard copies, it's after the fact and it's confirmation of 22 things that have gone on ahead of time, you know, have 23 already gone ahead. I would have liked to have seen more 24 explanatory detail in the press releases, more fleshing 25 out. It wasn't there.
| |
| . :)
| |
| . . _ . . ,___m. _ _ , , . , . _ _
| |
| | |
| :24801414L 7818 marysimons 5( ) .1 JUDGE PARIS: They had gotten the information 2 previously in briefings?
| |
| ~3 WITNESS KELLER: That 's correct. That's my 4 understanding.
| |
| 5 JUDGE PARIS: So that's when they rushed to get 6 it out.
| |
| 7 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, right. They won't-wait for
| |
| .8 the hard copy.
| |
| 9 BY MS..LETSCHE:
| |
| 10 Q. Now here you are addressing. subpart (h) of-11 Contention 38, and you talk about FEMA's position .up at the 12 beginning of your answer here, and you reference this means of monitoring EBS messages and the fact that there was an
| |
| ' ;{ ' 13
| |
| '14 EBS message aired within 15 minutes of the second evacuation 15 PAR.
| |
| 16 What we'are talking about here is thi 17 recommendation for the' entire 10-mile EPZ to evacuate, 18 right?
| |
| 19 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 20 Q And what you essentially are saying in the-21 beginning of - this answer is that if there were a delay in 22 telling the media about the full EPZ evacuation, it doesn't 23 matter because the media could have heard it over the EBS, 24 right? -
| |
| - 25 A That's correct. You've got to remember that
| |
| | |
| 24801414- 7819 marysimons 1 this is EBS. Message No. 6. You've had EBS messages 1, 2, 3, 2 4 and 5. The media would have been listening to all of
| |
| '3 these messages and they would have been listening to the 4 incessant news. This is not going to come to the media as a 5 surpris e.
| |
| 6 Q Now, Mr. Keller, in light of the express 7 requirements of NUREG 0654 concerning the media and 8 providing information to the media, how can it be adequate 9 to have the media have to rely upon EBS information for 10 protective action recommendations?
| |
| 11 A It seems to me that 0654 has express 12 requirements that the media be notified. There is no time 13 in my knowledge, no time - in which the media has to be l
| |
| !' 14 informed. The only time is in the FEMA guidance on 15 acceptability of the 15-minute notification of the public.
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 The media is part of the public I believe.
| |
| 17 Q So that would mean the media would have to be 18 informed within 15 minutes.
| |
| 19 A And they were via EBS.
| |
| 20 Q So as far as you're concerned, as long as the i
| |
| ! 21 media has access to the EBS messages concerning protective 22 action recommendations, a plan is adequate regardless of 23 when people get around to informing the media of the 24 recommendations; is that right?
| |
| 25 A (Witness Kowieski) That's not what we are I
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7820 marysimons c i saying.
| |
| (J 2 Q That's what it just sounded like to me. You 3 said there is no time requirement in terms of getting 4 information to the media as long as they get it by the EBS S stations; is that right?
| |
| 6 A -(Witness Keller) The official means of putting 7 out necessary emergency information is via the EBS system.
| |
| 8 The media, and any media worth his salt, is going to monitor 9 that system particularly when you're on EBS Message No. 6.
| |
| 10 There is an additional requirement in 0654 to 11 provide information, a coordinated information'to the media 12 to help explain the ongoing events. There is no time
| |
| ,, 13 requirement, specific time requirement, to my knowledge,
| |
| - Q, 14 that this coordination and expanded information has to be 15 given.
| |
| 16 Q To the media. -
| |
| 17 A To the media.
| |
| 18 Q So it 's your testimony then that it could take 19 any amount of time to get ---
| |
| 20 A No.
| |
| 21 Q Wait a second. --- to get the information to 22 the media, and as long as - the media heard the EBS radio 23 announcement that would be fine under 0654; is that right?
| |
| 24 A. No.
| |
| 25 Q Okay. How about if it took an hour to get the f) a
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7821 marysimons h .1 information to the media, would that be all right?
| |
| 2 A Depending on the circumstances, I think an hour 3 would be a little long.
| |
| 4 Q Okay. How about 45 minutes?
| |
| 5 A You're getting close. It's a judgment. It is 6 clearly a judgment. Since there is no specific time that 7 you must do X, Y or Z, it then becomes a judgment as to 8 whether this was a timely, which I believe is the word that 9 is in 0654, a time dissemination of information, but that is 10 a professional judgment.
| |
| 11 We had a professional evaluator at the the 12 emergency news center, and that evaluator did not make any i.
| |
| L- .
| |
| 13 comment that this was untimely and we therefore did not
| |
| '- 14 report that in the report.
| |
| 15 Q Let me ask you a question, Mr. Keller. Ih) you 16 know when it was that the media was informed, setting aside 17 EBS, when the media was informed of that full EPZ evacuation 18 during the exercise?
| |
| 19 A I knew at one time. The number does not come to 20 me how, but I did know at one time.
| |
| 21 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Keller, there is another aspect l
| |
| i 22 to this that concerns me a bit because of our earlier 23 partial initial decision and some of the implications 24 thereof.
| |
| L 25 We found that although things would be just fine l.
| |
| c
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7822 marysimons
| |
| ,m.
| |
| 'x )
| |
| _ 1 if the public got single valued, accurate, reliable and non-2 conflicting information. Considerable dif ficulty could be 3 generated from a number of standpoints if they were given 4 conflicting or confusing information and that this was 5 actually a safety matter, the fact that if you confuse the 6 people you are headed for dif ficulties of various sorts.
| |
| 7 WITNESS KELLER: That is clearly correct, sir.
| |
| 8 JUDGE SHON: It seems to me then that the 9 question of whether the news release comes an hour af ter the 10 EBS message or the EBS message is from a previous time or a 11 later time or something like that, the actual separation in 12 time between these is less important than the separation rT 13 between them in content.
| |
| IV
| |
| [ 14 If there are two different things being given 15 out at the same time that are saying dif ferent things, that 16 is a flaw even if one says it's only 15 minutes delayed or a 17 half an hour delayed. If when it comes out it has a good la chance of getting out through the media and represents a 19 conflict with what the people are presently being told by 20 another channel, then you've got a difficulty.
| |
| 21 What have you to say to the notion that they 22 have suggested here that when one set of conditions was 23 being announced by the EBS system that quite another set of 24 conditions was only now being announced by the emergency 25 news center? That's the thing that concerns me. Do you
| |
| ; A k.
| |
| | |
| 24801414 7823 marysimons I see?
| |
| 2 JUDGE PARIS: There is something else that 3 concerns me also that's related to this. If I'm listening 4 to -- or I tune into WALK Radio because I hear the sirens 5 blow and I get one message, and then I turn on good old WMAL 6 where I listen to traffic reports every day and depend on 7 them to tell me what the weather is going to be and all this 8 stuff and they are saying something else, which one am I 9 going to believe, this information coming from WALK Radio 10 that I know is being given out by LILCO for heaven sakes, or 11 good old WMAL?
| |
| 12 WITNESS KELLER: Well, I have a couple of 13 comments, and how do you want to start. .
| |
| ' 14 Clearly I believe that if you're putting out 15 confusing information you 've got a problem. I did not see
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 that.
| |
| 17 What we are discussing here I believe is 18 strictly hard copy. I believe all these' contentions are 19 talking about the hard copy. Let me read from another 20 portion, and I think this is the one we marked as Suffolk I
| |
| 21 County Exhibit 101 on page 209A of that exhibit. It says 22 that "The LERO, ENC and PIO received the content of the EBS 23 message by phone promptly," and then they go on to talk 24 about the bad hard copy.
| |
| 25 It's not clear that this message that was
| |
| | |
| A 24801414 7824 marysimons
| |
| ()
| |
| '7s 1 received promptly from the EOC was transmitted promptly to 2 the media verbally. -That is not clear.
| |
| 3 Basically you can' track and have tracked after 4 the exercise the written record times that hard copy were 5 distributed. It's much more dif ficult to track 6 verbalizations.
| |
| 7 The evaluator said that they got the information e at the ENC promptly verbally. There was a delay in the hard 9 Copy.
| |
| 10 WITNESS KOWIESKI: I think that is a very 11 important factor, and I would like to echo what Mr. Keller 12 stated.
| |
| 13 There is a statement from our evaluator that the 14 EBS message was promptly communicated from the EOC to the 15 joint news center, or the emergency news center. The 16 emergency news center had six briefings. We ass 6me as a 17 given that the LERO staff used an up-to-date EBS message 18 when they read the EBS message to the press.
| |
| 19 The problem was when they copy, they had a 20 problem with the copy machine and they were not able to copy 21 the EBS messages in a timely fashion.
| |
| 22 So as far as informing the news media, we 23 assumed that the news media was informed in a timely 24 fashion.
| |
| 25 The issue is well, the hard copy of the EBS f
| |
| l l
| |
| [
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| l l
| |
| 24801414 7825 l
| |
| -marysimons ,
| |
| l 1 message wasn't produced immediately or within 5 to 10 2 minutes and was produced later on, and this caused some 3 confusion, especially since the rumor control people didn't 4 -have up-to-date information.
| |
| 5 6
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10 11 12 1
| |
| 15
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 17 18 19
| |
| . 20
| |
| , 21 22 23 24 .
| |
| , 25
| |
| , , , - - - - - _< , . . . . . . . - _ . . . . . . - - , - ,, _ _--,,1 ._m.. . -. _ , - , -. , , - ._ . , , - - - - . - , . , _ - - -
| |
| | |
| 24801515 7826 joewalsh
| |
| ,- 1 A (Witness Keller) That was the basis of the
| |
| ("' !
| |
| 2 deficiency.
| |
| 3 JUDGE PARIS: Here Ms. Jackson says on the 4 second page of this thing, for example, at 10:45 a.m., EBS 5 No. 32 and No. 4 were not posted in the press area. These 6 two EBS messages were aired at 9:37 and 10:03 a.m.,
| |
| 7 respectively. This means that reporters do not have an 8 accurate picture of the protective actions.
| |
| 9 That suggests to me that the reporters are 10 dependent on the posting of the EBS messages, and they 11 weren't posted in a timely fashion.
| |
| 12 WITNESS KELLER: If, indeed, the reporters were 13 depending strictly on the posting of the EBS messages, and
| |
| . r ~T
| |
| (./ 14 they were not promptly posted, that is a serious situation.
| |
| 15 JUDGE SHON: But your own evaluator said this 16 means that reporters do not have an accurate picture.
| |
| 17 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct, and that was is identified by the evaluator as- an area for corrective 19 action; an area requiring corrective action, I am sorry.
| |
| 20 Which Mr. Kowieski, in his evaluation of putting 21 the report together raised in conjunction with the rumor 22 control not having the information in a timely fashion also, 23 he raised that to a deficiency.
| |
| 24 So, I guess basically what I am saying is the 25 evaluation is based on what is on these evaluator sheets,
| |
| (")T
| |
| | |
| 1 24801515 7827 i j oewalsh !
| |
| l
| |
| _' I because those are the people who are there physically and 2 see what is there.
| |
| 3 There is a consideration, an evaluation of what 4 the evaluator said, and then a judgment is made before the 5 report and the findings are drawn, okay?
| |
| 6 This says that that should be an area for 7 corrective action. It is part of a deficiency in the 8 report.
| |
| 9 To address Judge Paris' question, or comment, or 10 whatever it was, or maybe it was another question. You asked II who would you believe --
| |
| f 12 JUDGE PARIS: Oh. You responded to that by 13 saying that they would be getting their information in news
| |
| ' 14 briefings, and then I encountered this thing, that made it 15 appear as though they were depending on things being posted.
| |
| 16 MR. KELLER: But there is another issue for the 17 public, I believe, that this whole system, that we in this 18 business have tried to promulgate, is that the EBS System, 19 and the EBS messages are the critical information, and the 20 public should depend on the EBS system for its information.
| |
| 21 JUDGE PARIS: They should.
| |
| 22 WITNESS KELLER: They should, I understand 23 that. It is my understanding that the Commission, and we 24 are only here -- and the reason I am stating, OCommission' 25 is because the only reason we are here is because of the
| |
| | |
| 24801515 7828 joewalsh-
| |
| ) ~1 MOU..'If it weren't for_the MOU, we wouldn ' t be here, but 2 the Commission, I think, said that we were supposed to 3 assume that the State and Local' Governments would a ' participate on a best effort basis, and for lack of anything
| |
| .5 else would'use the LERO plan.
| |
| 6 Now, based on that assumption I have made an 7 assumption. I have made the assumption tha't the State and 8 Local Governments will do police, and they will do EBS.
| |
| 9 That is an assumption on my part. But if they are going to 10 participate, I-think those are the-things they will 11 participate'in.- They are going to take care of the police 12 actions, and they.are going to take care of the EBS.
| |
| 13 So, that addresses who do ypu believe.
| |
| L(O. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye, I move to strike the 15 last' comments by Mr. Keller concerning State and Local 4
| |
| 1 16 Government; what he assumes would or wouldn't happen about 17 police functions and the EBS. They are totally irrelevant, 18 and ' out of place in this proceeding.
| |
| (Board confers.)
| |
| 19
| |
| -20 JUDGE FRYE: Granted.
| |
| 21 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing)
| |
| . 22 Q Just to follow up a little bit, Mr. Keller, on 23 your discussions with the Board members. I gather that we 24 now have established that there are basically three sources 25 of information for the media.
| |
| . O
| |
| | |
| 24801515 7829 joewalsh h 1 There is the EBS announcements; the hard copy 2 information which they may get from the ENC; and whatever 3 orally they can pick up from the briefings, isn't that 4 right?
| |
| 5 A (Witness Keller) Those are three major areas, 6 that is correct.
| |
| 7 Q Right. And so those would be three potential 8 sources of inconsistencies in terms of information being 9 disseminated, is that right?
| |
| 10 A With potential, I will accept, yes.
| |
| 11 Q Now, with respect to the full EPZ evacuation 12 recommendation, which is what we were talking about and what 13 is referenced in Contention 38, Subpart H -- and if I have
| |
| ' 14 already asked you this, I apologize -- but do you know when 15 the media was informed by ENC personnel, not by EBS message,
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 of that recommendation?
| |
| 17 A Let me check my notes for a second.
| |
| 18 (Mr. Keller peruses his notes.)
| |
| 19 A (Continuing) All I can say is some time after 20 12:23.
| |
| 21 Q And what is your bacis for that?
| |
| 22 A That the hard copy message which was received --
| |
| 23 well, which was picked up by Ms. Jackson in the ENC had a 24 time of 12:23 for the approval time. I assume it was not 25 transmitted to the ENC until af ter it was approved. I also e- -
| |
| | |
| .24801515- 7830
| |
| _joewalsh-b( f I assumed that it could not be provided to the press until 2 after it had~ been' received by the ENC, so I assume it was 3 some time after 12:23.
| |
| -4 Q And that is . talking about the hard copy?
| |
| 5 A That.is the hard copy, that is correct.
| |
| 6 Q. Do you know when, if ever, the ENC personnel 7 informed the media verbally of that recommendation?
| |
| 8 A I don't know.
| |
| 9 MS. LETSCHE: This would be. a good time to take 10 a break.
| |
| ~
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE: We will take our afternoon break.
| |
| 12 (Whereupon, afternoon recess was taken at 3:23
| |
| -; x 13 p.m., to reconvene at 3:3 8 p.m. , this same day.)
| |
| i --] 14 JUDGE FRYE: Ms. Letsche?
| |
| '15 MS. LETSCHE: Yes.
| |
| 16 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) -
| |
| 17 Q Gentlemen, will you turn to Page 41 of your.
| |
| 18 testimony, please?
| |
| 19 Now, you say in the first paragraph-of the 20 answer on that page that you have no basis on which to form 21 an opinion as to whether the assertions in the contention 22 are either true or false.
| |
| 23 I take it that is because Ms. Jackson didn't 24 make any observations on this subject during the exercise, 25 is that right?
| |
| | |
| . l 24801515 7831 j oewalsh l 1 A (Witness Kowieski) Didn't make a comment to 2 this effect.
| |
| 3 Q And whatever other information you reviewed in 4 connection with preparing your testimony did not enable you 5 to form any opinions as to whether the assertions in the 6 contention are either true or false?
| |
| 7 A That is correct.
| |
| 8 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye, in light of that I 9 move to strike the paragraph which follows that statement on 10 Page 41 as just irrelevant and not probative. The witnesses 11 have said they don't have any basis on which to form an 12 opinion on this contention, and I think it is just burdening
| |
| ' . 13 the record with things that d.on't matter.
| |
| 1 i 14 MR. CUMMING: I would object to the Motion to -
| |
| l 15 Strike on the basis that the counsel for Suffolk has had an 16 opportunity to move to strike since May 8th, esssntially 17 when the filings were in.
| |
| 18 Testimony has been here since March 20th. I 19 think it is appropriate background material.
| |
| 20 JUDGE FRYE: I am sorry, I missed the last of 21 that.
| |
| 22 MR. CUMMING: At least appropriate background 23 material. Certainly appropriate whether there is a basis 24 for the contention.
| |
| 25 MS. McCLESKEY: I also object to the Motion to
| |
| | |
| 24801515 7832 j oewalsh j,,)
| |
| ( 1 Strike for the reason that the second paragraph, even if you 2 assume that this is true and that it happened, explains why 3 it is not important that the media be informed about KI and 4 what is being done about it, and the contention -- the clear 5 implication of the contention is that it is a safety problem 6 if emergency workers are taking KI, and the media isn't told 7 abou t it , and this paragraph responds to that.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: Well, refresh my recollection.
| |
| 9 Isn't this also in the LILCO testimony somewhere?
| |
| 10 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes, sir.
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE: That is what I thought. So, it is 12 in the record already anyway.
| |
| r 13 . MS. McCLESKEY : Well, and that just goes to S
| |
| U denying the motion to strike. I mean it is clearly 14 15 pertinent information, and it is important coming from FEMA 16 witnesses who have seen a lot of exercises.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: I don't know how pertinent I think is it is, but if it is in the record anyway, I see no point in 19 striking it here. We can weigh it appropriately.
| |
| 20 The point of the contention, as I understand the 21 contention, is that the failure to inform the public would 22 have created confusion, is that correct?
| |
| 23 MS. LETSCHE: Well, the contention speaks for 24 itself. It says that -- the main point is it would create 25 confusion, and it would reduce LILCO's credibility, and
| |
| | |
| 24801515 7833 joewalsh
| |
| _lI I result in people not following their advice.
| |
| 2 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. We will leave it in. Since 3 it is already in anyway, we will leave it in here as well.
| |
| 4 BY MS, LETSCHE: (Continuing) 5 Q Gentlemen, you say here, in the next paragraph 6 of your answer, that the LILCO plan does not contemplate the 7 use of KI for the general public. It does contemplate the 8 use of KI for emergency workers, correct?
| |
| 9 A (Witness Kowieski) That is correct.
| |
| 10 Q And during the exercise a decision was made to 11 have the emergency workers simulate the ingestion of the KI,
| |
| !2 is that right?
| |
| - 13 A That is also correct.
| |
| ' Now, you go on to say this is in complete accord 14 Q 15 with the New York cate plan for other nuclear power plants 16 within it's border.
| |
| 17 The New York State plan to which you refer in 18 your testimony does not contemplate concealing from the 19 public that KI has been distributed to emergency workers, 20 does it?
| |
| 21 A What do you mean by concealing -- maybe you can 22 rephrase that question.
| |
| 23 Q Well, --
| |
| 24 A Information?
| |
| 25 Q Withhold information.
| |
| | |
| l 24801515 7834 joewalsh
| |
| /~ -
| |
| ls,) 1 A There is no requirement as far as I know to 2 provide general population, or informing general population 3 the decision was made to provide emergency workers with KI.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: Is there any requirement that that 5 information be withheld from the general public?
| |
| 6 WITNESS KOWIESKI: No, sir.
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. So there is no requirement 8 one way or the other?
| |
| 9 WITNESS KOWIESKI: There is only, sir -- what is 10 important, what we have stated in response to the 11 contention, that New York State -- it is New York State 12 policy not to distribute KI to general public.
| |
| JUDGE FRYE: Yeah, we understand that.
| |
| (~))
| |
| 13 14 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 15 Q Now, a decision to distribute KI to emergency
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 workers is based upon a judgment that there is a potential 17 health threat to those workers, isn't that right?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Keller) That they may be exposed to 19 thyroid exposures in excess of a certain value, that is 20 correct.
| |
| 21 Q And I take it that it is your position that 22 information concerning the potential health effects of a 23 radiological accident is of no direct value to the public, 24 is that correct?
| |
| 25 A That is not our position, no. That is not what b(m
| |
| | |
| '24801515 7835 joewalsh h I the testimony says either.
| |
| 2 Q Well, you state that it is unnecessary and 3 inappropriate that information which is of no direct value 4 to the public should be disseminated via the media.
| |
| 5 Now, am I correct, Mr. Keller, that in that 1 6 sentence in your testimony, the information which you are 7 referring to is information that emergency workers have been 8 instructed to take KI?
| |
| ]
| |
| 9 A Emergency workers have been instructed to remain 10 in the plume exposure EPZ for extended periods of time.
| |
| 11 They are not to leave their posts until certain exposures, i
| |
| 12 whole body exposures have been incurred, and these people l
| |
| 13 have a task to perform which will require them to stay in
| |
| ' 14 the EPZ for longer periods of time.
| |
| 15 Q Let me ask my question, Mr. Keller. And try top
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 listen --
| |
| 17 MS. McCLESKEY: Judge Frye, I object to Ms.
| |
| 18 Letsche continually interrupting the witnesses before they 19 finish their answer.
| |
| 20 JUDGE FRYE: The answer wasn't responsive. I 21 agree with Ms. Letsche on that.
| |
| 22 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 23 Q My question is: In this sentence, Mr. Keller, 24 the last sentence on Page 41, the information which you are 25 referring to is information that emergency workers were
| |
| | |
| 24801515 7836 joewalsh instructed to take KI, right?
| |
| I{()..
| |
| 1 2 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 3 Q And it is your testimony here that it would be 4 unnecessary and inappropriate to disseminate that l
| |
| 5 information to the public, right?
| |
| 6 A- That is correct.
| |
| 7 Q And you say that you believe it is unnecessary 8 and inappropriate because in your opinion that information 9 is of no direct value to the public, right?
| |
| 10 A That is correct.
| |
| 11 Q Now, doesn't that mean that it is your testimony 12 that it is of no direct value to the public to know that 13 there is a potential health effect that would result from i
| |
| 14 that radiological accident?
| |
| 15 A That radiological accident. No, I don't 16 understand what you mean.
| |
| 17 Q We are talking here about an exercise which 18 assumed a hypothetical radiological accident, correct?
| |
| 19 A That is correct.
| |
| 20 Q And that hypothetical accident resulted in a 21 recommendation that emergency workers needed to take KI, 22 correc t?
| |
| 23 A For people who are assigned to remain in the 24 plume exposure EPZ for extended periods, it is correct that 25 these people were recommended to take KI, that is correct.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24801515 7837 j oewalsh h I Q It is true is it not, Mr. Keller, that during 2 the - exercise LILCO's instructions were not limited jus t to 3 emergency workers who were going to stay in the EPZ for 4 extended periods of time?
| |
| 5 A No. The recommendation for KI for emergency 6 workers -- the definition of an emergency worker --
| |
| 7 Q No, no, no. Let's talk about the recommendation 8 that was made during the exercise. The recommendation that 9 was made during the exercise by LILCO was fore all emergency 10 workers who had assignments in the EPZ, correct?
| |
| 11 A Number 1, it was not made by LILCO. It was made 12 by LERO.
| |
| 13 Q ,
| |
| All right'. The one that was made by LERO.
| |
| i
| |
| ' ' 14 A That is correct. -
| |
| 15 Q You believe this was made by LERO, I take it, 16 not by LILCO.
| |
| 17 A It is my understanding that the offsite 18 emergency workers were directed to take KI by LERO. 1 19 Q Okay. And it was the offsite emergency workers 20 who had any assignments inside the EPZ, correct?
| |
| 21 A That is correct.
| |
| i 22 Q Now, is it your testimony again that information 23 that the radiological emergency, which was the subject of 24 the exercise, could have a potential health impact on l'
| |
| 25 persons inside the EPZ is of no direct value to the public?
| |
| l t
| |
| | |
| Upg 124801515 783b-njoewalsh-
| |
| 'X.
| |
| ((sb 1 A That is correct.
| |
| .2 JUDGE PARIS: Does your answer mean that- you do 3 'not know whether the media were informed that LERO emergency 4 workers were instructed to take KI?
| |
| h~
| |
| 5 WITNESS KELLER: No, no. The first sentence is 6 there are some contentions or assertions in the contention 7 abou t times . And there is also an assertion' that the media 8 was requested not to print the information, okay, in the .
| |
| 9 Contention.
| |
| 10 - That is the point of the first sentence. We-
| |
| ^ 11 don't have any information -- we have' no information about 12 'those assertions, so we don't have any way of forming an i3 opinion on whether they are. correct or incorrect. In the 14 assumption, they are correct, right? The fact that 15 emergency workers who normally will be assigned activities i- 16 .in the EPZ, who are going to be asked to fulfill *a function 1
| |
| 17 _w hich, has a health :and safety significance -- this is the
| |
| [ 18 . definition of an emergency worker -- those people who are
| |
| [ - 19 badged and have dosimetry and take KI, are going to be asked 20 -to stay in the, EPZ for some time, - that information is not
| |
| : 21 relevant or important~ to someone who is told to get out of
| |
| . 22 the EPZ.
| |
| 23 That is the basis of our opinion.
| |
| 24 JUDGE PARIS: So, if it is a fact that the media 25 were informed that LERO emergency workers were instructed to LO e
| |
| - g y --mer 7 g ,.-e- - -
| |
| -w r- + ,, ,m,-, .- - , -----r=- m.-ee->~w*w-+------m---- ---,-w-v's ---~c --*=~~--en-e------
| |
| | |
| a t t u,
| |
| -24801515 7839 jcewalsh l 'I take KI,'4 you think that they should not have been so 2
| |
| informed?
| |
| 3 WITNESS KELLER: I don't think it is important 1
| |
| -! that they be informed, that is correct. If the judgment is s
| |
| , j5 made to tell them -- I suppose that is all right -- but I 6 would disagree -- if you tell someone: Here is a fact, now 7 don ' t print it.
| |
| 8 I'think that is wrong. That is my judgment. If 9 you are going to tell them not to print it, then don't tell 10 them.
| |
| 11 JUDGE PARIS: That sounds wise. But if you tell 12 them the LERO workers are being given KI, might not the 13 publicithink: Well, why don't they give us KI?
| |
| Y
| |
| ' 14 . WITNESS KELLER: That is correct, and that is 15 the basis for why we think it is ,not really important that 16 you tell them, and probably you shouldn't, and this is 3 ,, , 17 consistent with .the New York State- program.
| |
| , 18 There is no intention "o t distribute KI to the 19 general population. And if you make statements to the
| |
| ! 20 effect that we are giving KI to some people, without 21 explaining in some detail, which we are having trouble doing 22 .here, the people who are taking this KI are people who are
| |
| ~s 23 going to be required to stay and do what we perceive to be 24 necessary functions in the risk zone, while the rest of you 25 people are being advised to get out of the risk zone, to the l.
| |
| l-
| |
| | |
| t I
| |
| 24801515 7840 h ~ j oewalsh~
| |
| a''h T_) I degree that you create additional anxieties, I want KI also, 2 that is not a good thing to do.
| |
| 3 JUDGE PARIS: None of you know for sure whether 4 the media was told this?
| |
| 5 WITNESS KOWIESKI: We don't know.
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: I.believe that the Governments' 7 and Interveners are knowledgeable. They made these 8 assertions based on some facts; they didn't make these up.
| |
| 9 I am assuming that those are true.
| |
| 10 I don't have any factual information that they 11 are or not, and that is why we made the first statement, by 12 making the essumption that that is a true statement.
| |
| f'T 13 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing)
| |
| <\~J 14 Q I take it from your discussion with Judge Paris, 15 Mr. Keller, that if there was a point in time at which the 16 media found out that KI had been distributed to 6he workers, 17 and they found out that they hadn't heard about it right 18 away, that that fact would result in reducing LILCO's 19 credibility?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) That doesn't follow directly 21 to me. I think that the assertion is in the contention that 22 it would further reduce LILCO's credibility, and the public 23 to obey LILCO's advice.
| |
| 24 The media knows it. I am not sure that the 25 public knows it right away. They may report it, they may
| |
| | |
| 24801515 7841 j oewalsh I not report it.
| |
| 2 I would think, and . this is an assumption on 'my 3 part, that if I were a reporter and I were told -- I came to 4 find out that LILCO had advised KI for their emergency 5 wo rk ers , and. I hadn't been told in the media center, I would 6 go to the media center and say: Why?
| |
| 7 I would hope that at the news center someone 8 would be able to explain that the ' emergency workers are 9 required to- stay in the EPZ to be exposed -- potentially 10 exposed longer in the plume, and that is why this was 11 prescribed for these. people.
| |
| 12 What the media does with that, or the people 13 does with that, I can't tell you.
| |
| 14 15 16 17 18
| |
| .19 20 21 22 23 24 .
| |
| 25
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7842 Euewalsh
| |
| -~.) , 1 Q Okay. Would you turn to Page 42, please, of 2 your testimony?
| |
| 3 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 4 Now, here you are discussing Subpart J of 5 Contention 38 which deals with the press briefings that took 6 place at the ENC.
| |
| 7 I take it from the first paragraph of your 8 answer here that you don't take issue with the factual 9 allegations that are set forth in Subpart J; is that right?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Keller) That's correct, yes.
| |
| ~11 Q Now, that -- and I take it that assuming the 12 truth of those allegations that --
| |
| 13 A Well, I --
| |
| 14 Q Let me ask my question, please.
| |
| 15 A Surely.
| |
| 16 Q Assuming the truth of those allegati6ns that you 17- would agree that there could not be a finding of compliance 18 with NUREG 0654, Section G.4.A?
| |
| 19 A Well, I misspoke a second ago. I do take --
| |
| 20 reference -- looking at the contention again, the only 21 factual allegation that I see in the contention, or at least 22 not the only one, but the first one is that during the press 23 conferences LERO personnel were unable to respond 24 satisfactorily and accurately to questions about the 25 evacuation. In that regard, I disagree with that factual O
| |
| O f
| |
| .ma -
| |
| .w.. -
| |
| n e- - _ . - - , ,..g.--n-._,n. __m-- n,. , _ . - , , ,,~,,,-_,w._, .,_,,y,
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7843
| |
| .guewalsh ll 1 allegation.
| |
| 2 Q Well, you say in your testimony, don ' t you, lir.
| |
| 3 Keller, that FEHA has no additional information with regard 4
| |
| to the assertions made in the contention and has no basis on 5 which to form an opinion as to the accuracy of those 6 assertions?
| |
| 7 A That's correct. Those assertions beyond the 8 fact --
| |
| 9 Q Well, what you are referring to here, as you 10 define the issue in Contention 38.J on Page 42, is that LERO 11 personnel at the ENC were not able to respond satisfactorily 12 and accurately to questions about evacuation and traffic I
| |
| ,_ , 13 conditions that were posed during the press conferences',
| |
| 'L,) 14 right?
| |
| 15 A That's correct.
| |
| 16 Q Now, are you now changing your testimony? You 17 are saying that, in fact, you do have information which 18 enables you to disagree with those assertions?
| |
| 19 A Based on the first sentence of the answer, which 20 is almost a direct quote out of Ms. Jackson's evaluator 21 critique form, she stated that there were six briefings that 22 were conducted, they answered questions and provided 23 information.
| |
| 24 Ms. Jackson nor myself -- nor I don't believe 25 any other members of the panel -- have any other factual
| |
| : r0,
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7844 cuewalsh
| |
| ,m i 1 information that we obtained during the exercise about these v
| |
| 2 other things that were asserted in the contention. We have 3 tried to be as factual as we can.
| |
| 4 The evaluator said there were six briefings.
| |
| 5 They answered questions and provided information. The 6 evaluator did not say that they did not provide information.
| |
| 7 The evaluator's job -- and, Ms. Jackson is an 8 experienced evaluator who has done this many times -- is to 9 point out when press briefings go badly, if you will. She 10 did not do that in this regard. I, therefore, assumed that 11 they -- that what she wrote on her report form is reasonable 12 accurate, that they answered questions and provided i3 information. ,
| |
| f''-
| |
| ,.7_ s .
| |
| 14 That was the genesis of the first sentence.
| |
| 15 Beyond that, we don't have any factual information.
| |
| 16 0 Fine. So, other than the general statement that 17 you have quoted from Ms. Jackson, you don't know whether the is LERO personnel at the ENC were or were not able to provide 19 information about traffic conditions or evacuation activity 20 on the water portion of the EPZ or protective actions for
| |
| ^21 the correctional facilities or information about bridges and 22 tunnels?
| |
| 23 A On the evacuation routes, which I don't believe 24 there are any on the evacuation routes to my knowledge.
| |
| 25 Q But, the answer to my question is, you don't O
| |
| ()
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7845 cuewalsh M)
| |
| <xs I knowI one way or the other, do you?
| |
| 2 A What? That there are no bridges or tunnels that 3 --
| |
| 4 Q No, no, no. All the things in my question 5 before you interrupted me. You don't know whether:the ENC 6 personnel were or were not able to provide information about 7 traffic conditions or evacuation activity on the water, a protective actions for correctional facilities, questions 9 about bridges and tunnels or the activities of the Nassau 10 County police?
| |
| f- A' II That is correct.
| |
| 12 Q And, I take it that if it were true that the ENC 13 personnel were not able to provide information on those
| |
| '('') 14 matters -- and I will set aside now the bridges and tunnels is on evacuation routes because you have a problem with that, 16 setting that one aside, if they weren't able to provide it 17 there would not be compliance with NUREG 0654, Section 18 G.4.A, would there?
| |
| 19 A There is, to my knowledge, not an exercise 20 requirement to be in compliance with 0654.
| |
| 21 Q Answer my question, though. There would not be 22 compliance with 0654 G.4.A, would there?
| |
| 23 A Just a minute, please.
| |
| . 24 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 25 I'm sorry, you said G.4.A, I'm sorry?
| |
| | |
| . .. . - ~ - .. ,. .
| |
| T 24801616 7846 cuewalsh
| |
| (( ) 1 Q .Yes.
| |
| 2 (The witnesses are looking at a document.)
| |
| i A 3 I would say there would be an inadequacy at that 4 level.
| |
| 5 Q Would you turn to Page 43, : please?
| |
| 6 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| l 7 Now, here we are discussing.the information 8 about the gravel truck impediment. And, you -- based on the 9 first sentence, I take it -- based on the first sentence of
| |
| ; 10 your answer, I take it that you don't have any basis to 11 challenge the factual assertions that'are made in Subpart L 12 of the contention, right?
| |
| 13 A To challenge or agree with, either one, that's i I ~
| |
| 14' Correct.
| |
| 15 Q Right. Now, you go on to note that the handling 16 of the impediment problems involved a deficiency-and then
| |
| ; 17 you say that it's reasonable to assume that incorrect 18 information was available to LERO personnel in the ENC.
| |
| 19 You don't know, do you, whether the information 20 that was available to LERO personnel at the ENC was 21 consistent with the information at the EOC concerning the 22 gravel truck, do you?
| |
| 1 23 A As we stated in the first sentence, we-have no
| |
| ! 24 information on this specifically.
| |
| 25 Q And, I take it you would agree that the fact
| |
| - a
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7847 cuewalsh k I that the ENC personnel had incorrect information about the 2 gravel truck impediment would be another reason for an 3 inadequacy with respect to NUREG 0654, Section G.4.A; is 4 that right?
| |
| 5 A I wouldn't put it there, no. The inadequacy was 6 in the' foul-up of the information flow in the EOC. If the 7 originator of the information has the wrong information or 8 incorrect information or inadequate information, however you 9 call it, and he then passes this information down the line 10 and I-dinged him, the man at the top, for having the wrong 11 inaccurate, however you want to characterize it, information 12 I'm not going to ding the fellow down the line for having 13 wrong information.
| |
| lUd 14 Q But, under that circumstance the fact would 15 remain that the spokesperson designated to provide 16 information would not have access to all necessary 17 information, right?
| |
| 18 A He had access to the information as it was 19 generated in the EOC, and the EOC has the deficiency.
| |
| 20 Q And, in your mind, once there is a mess-up at 21 one level of the organization, the fact that that results in 22 an inability to do what needs to be done at a dif ferent
| |
| ; 23 level does not need to be noted; is that right?
| |
| 24 A Does not need to be noted is a little strong, 25 but basically one citation, if it really is a continuing
| |
| /
| |
| f L
| |
| | |
| 24801616. 7848
| |
| -cuewalshi
| |
| ) I type of thing, is sufficient ,to cover the situation, yes.
| |
| 2 Q Now, what if the circumstance were that, in 3 fact, the information the ENC had was not consistent with 4 the incorrect information at the EOC; in other words, that 5 it was even more incorrect than what the EOC had?
| |
| 6 A Another wrong.
| |
| 7 Q I'm sorry?
| |
| 8 A Another wrong.
| |
| 9 Q Whatever, it was not consistent with what the to EOC had. There was another mess-up somewhere in 11 communicating between the EOC and the ENC, in that case I 12 take it you would agree that there would be an additional 13 problem in that there wouldn't be compliance with G.4.A,
| |
| ;,g.g 14 right?
| |
| 15 A If there was another -- another failure to 16 properly communicate information, that's another problem, 17 yes.
| |
| 18 JUDGE FRYE: If you eliminate the problem at the 19 EOC, confine it to the ENC, you would not have compliance or 20 satisfaction of G.4.A; is that correct?
| |
| 21 WITNESS KELLER: Well, I think what Ms. Letsche 22 said -- I hope what she said is that if there was bad 23 information in the EOC, okay, and that an additional error 24 was made --
| |
| 25 JUDGE FRYE: I understand that. I changed what O
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7849 Euewalsh h I she said.
| |
| 2 WITNESS KELLER: Oh, you changed what she said?
| |
| 3 I'm sorry. I lost you. I'm sorry.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: Forgetting the EOC --
| |
| 5 WITNESS KELLER: Okay.
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE: Forget the EOC, if there is 7 incorrect information in the ENC regardless of the source --
| |
| 8 WITNESS KELLER: But it had to come from the 9 EOC. I'm sorry. You can't eliminate the EOC, because the 10 ENC does not generate information; they just are a 11 transmitter of information in this plan.
| |
| 12 JUDGE FRYE: Say they got confused?
| |
| g 13 WITNESS KELLER: Then, they fouled up. That's
| |
| 'd 14 another ding.
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE: They fouled up?
| |
| 16 WITNESS KELLER: That's another ding.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. And, G.4.A -- that would 18 mean that G.4.A had not been satisfied?
| |
| 19 WITNESS KELLER: I'm not sure it would go under 20 G.4.A, but it would be another error. I think it may fit 21 someplace else.
| |
| 22 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Yes.
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
| |
| 24 JUDGE PARIS: So, if only the gravel truck 25 somehow came out of the ENC as a panel truck, that would be i ( -
| |
| . 7 i
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7850 cuewalsh
| |
| () I a foul-up at the ENC?
| |
| 2 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, if only.
| |
| 3 (Laughter.)
| |
| 4 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 5 Q On Page 44, gentlemen, you address Subpart M and 6 I take it that you do not -- you don't have any basis for i
| |
| ; 7 disagreeing with the --
| |
| 8 A (Witness Keller) Well, aside --
| |
| 9 Q -- allegations in that Subpart, do you?
| |
| 10 A .Aside from the statement that is in the report,
| |
| , 11 which came from Ms. Jackson's form that there were press 12 briefings and they provided information and answered questions, aside from that we have no other information.
| |
| () i3 14 0- And, I take it the same is true with respect to i
| |
| 15 your response to Subpart N that's on Page 45, correct?
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 A That's correct.
| |
| 17 Q Now, on Page 45 you go on to provide a little 18 comment about one portion of Subpart N, and you say that in
| |
| - 19 your opinion the discrepancy noted there would have no 20 measurable and practical impact on the overall ef fectiveness i gi of the ENC.
| |
| 22 Is it your testimony, gentlemen, that if there 23 were an inconsistency between what was stated at the ENC and 24 other demonstrable facts that the media would not pick up on 25 that discrepancy and report it?
| |
| [
| |
| I
| |
| . _ . - ~ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . . _ . , _ - . - - . . . _ . . _ . , _ . . _ _ _ . - _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . , _ - , _ _ , . . _ . _ , . . _ _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ . . __ --_
| |
| | |
| -24801616 7851 cuewalsh
| |
| [ l A I can't ascribe what the media will or will not 2 do.
| |
| 3 Q Okay. That's fine. Would you turn please to 4 'Page 48 of your testimony?
| |
| 5 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 6 Now, in that -- on that page you were discussing 7 Subpart Q of Contention 38. And, you say that the revised 8 procedures that are referenced in that Subpart have been 9 reviewed and addressed by the RAC in its review of Revisions 10 7 and 8 of the plan.
| |
| 11 Would you turn to FEMA Exhibit Number 3, which 12 is the RAC review, and go to Table 3.4 of the attachment?
| |
| (~ 13 (The witnesses are complying.) .
| |
| I L3 14 Page 1 of Table 3.4. Now, this -is the beginning 15 of the FEMA evaluation of the LILCO response to the
| |
| ~
| |
| i 16 deficiency at the ENC; is that right?
| |
| 17 A That's correct.
| |
| ; 18 Q Now, in your discussion here -- well, first of 19 all, the RAC review has rated the response inadequate, 20 correc t?
| |
| f 21 A That l's correc t.
| |
| 22 Q And, in addition, FEMA's position is that there 23 needs to be a remedial exercise in order to remove that i
| |
| 24 deficiency; is that right?
| |
| 25 A It's rated as incomplete.
| |
| e
| |
| .,..,,,,,___,-.,,,,_,,,.,__,_y,,-,,,,,.,,n ___.,,.,_.._..,,y_ _ , - , _ . , , ., ., , . _ -
| |
| | |
| 1 24801616 7852 cuewalsh
| |
| .(,
| |
| , m) i Q Well, and that means that there needs to be an 2 exercise --
| |
| 3 A That is --
| |
| 4 Q -- before that incomplete can be removed; is 5 that right?
| |
| 6 A Well, until the plan is adequate -- if.they 7 exercise an inadequate plan, that will not remove the 8 incomplete.
| |
| 9 Q Right. But, in addition to getting -- if they 10 were to remove the inadequate in the first column and get an 11 adequate rating, they would.still have an-incomplete rating 12 in the second column until they had an exercise, right?
| |
| - 13 A That's what it says on Page 2, yes. I'm sorry.
| |
| (/
| |
| 14 I take it back. I misread that. I'm sorry.
| |
| 15 Q But, my statement'is correct, right?
| |
| 16 A Your statement is correct. That's right.
| |
| 17 Q Now, in your discussion of your evaluation of 18 the LERO response here -- and that's the last column before 19 you get to the ones with the "I's" in it -- you say the plan 20 has been modified to create an additional position LERO 21 spokesperson.
| |
| 22 I take it that it 's FEMA 's understanding that 23 there is an additional staff position that has been added to 24 the plant.is that right, over the number that were present 25 during the exercise?
| |
| C)
| |
| | |
| 1 24801616 7853 cuewalsh h 1 A I was with you until you added over the number 2 that were present.
| |
| 3 Q Okay. Let me rephrase ~the question. I gather 4 from this statement here that you understand the plan 5 modification to consist of the addition of a person at the 6 ENC who would act as a spokesperson above the number of 7 people who were present during the exercise?
| |
| 8 Let me rephrase that. It's getting late and --
| |
| 9 A They have established a new job title who is ,
| |
| 10 responsible for coordinating information at the ENC, that's 11 correc t.
| |
| 12 Q Now, is it your understanding that that -- that g-) 13 there is an additional person who is performing that role 14 under the LILCO plan?
| |
| . 15 A I do not understand it's an additional person.
| |
| 16 But, there is a job title now assigned to an individual who 17 has a defined role that may not have been in existence 18 during the exercise.
| |
| l 19 I'm not sure it's an additional person.
| |
| 20 Q Okay. Well, is it your understanding -- the way 21 you phrase this where you are talking about an additional 22 position, I gather that it 's something dif ferent from what 23 was in effect during the exercise, right?
| |
| 24 A That 's correc t, yes. That's correct.
| |
| 25 Q So, it 's your understanding that during the Y
| |
| . -. - - , _ __ _ . - _ . _ _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - ~ . _ , . _ _ _ _ . _ .
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7854 cuewalsh p)
| |
| (_ I exercise there was not a LILCO spokesperson under the plan?
| |
| 2 A Not one designated as such. That's my 3 understanding.
| |
| 4 0 What is the significance of a -- there was a 5 spokesperson during the exercise, right?
| |
| 6 A That is correc t.
| |
| 7 Q What is the significance in your mind of a designating an additional position or designating someone 9 with that title over having somebody serve in that function, 10 which is what happened during the exercise?
| |
| II A If you recall the plan, there is a section in 12 the OPIPs which have job descriptions for each of the r~s i3 positions which are identified specifically in the plan.
| |
| (_)
| |
| * 14 You now have a job description with some duties 15 and some responsibilities for an individual who has been 16 ascribed to a position; you have now got responsibility, 17 tractability, if you will, which is an improvement over la somebody doing it.
| |
| 19 Q Well, under the version of the plan that was 20 exercised, which is Revision 6, there was a provision that a 21 member o'f the Public Information staff would act as 22 spokesperson during briefings, correct?
| |
| 23 A That 's correc t.
| |
| 24 Q And, that was what was demonstrated during the 25 exercise, right?
| |
| O C
| |
| | |
| :24801616 7855 cuewalsh h 1 A That's correct.
| |
| 2 Q And, it 's your opinion that now having a 3 separate job title of spokesperson is a substantive change 4 over what was in Revision 6; is that right?
| |
| 5 A That's correct.
| |
| 6 Q You also say that additional staff have been 7 assigned to assure better coordination of information in the 8 ENC. What do you mean by that?
| |
| 9 How many additional staff have been assigned, as to you understand it?
| |
| 11 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 12 A At this point, I don't recall the exact number.
| |
| ~) 13 I have a number in mind, but I won't -- I'm not ready to
| |
| ' 14 assert that it's the right number.
| |
| ; 15 Q Is it your understanding that the staff are 16 going to be present in the ENC?
| |
| 17 A No. My recollection of this lection is that the 18 -- no, I don't recall. I would have to go back to the plan 19 revision.
| |
| 20 (The witnesses are conferring.)
| |
| 21 Q Now, these ratings are -- I'm sorry.
| |
| 22 A The dif ficulty is that our position was that the 23 plan review was something else. We tried -- well, we are 24 not completely disfamiliar with it, but in terms of 25 reviewing it and trying to get it in our mind clearly -- we
| |
| | |
| 24801616 7856 cuewalsh n
| |
| 4.s-) i can look in the plan if you would like, but -- if you think 2 it's important.
| |
| 3 But, we are not as up on that. We were just 4 trying to get our collective recall, and we don't recall.
| |
| 5 Q All right. We will come back to that later.
| |
| 6 The ratings of inadequate in the plan review column, which 7 is the next to the last column here, relate to NUREG 0654, a Element G.4. Is that B and C? I can't read the --
| |
| 9 A- (Witness Baldwin) G.4.B.
| |
| 10 Q G.4.B and G.4.C, right? It's B, right?
| |
| 11 A (Witness Keller) I think Dr. Baldwin replied.
| |
| 12 O You did not make an inadequacy rating with 13 respect to G.4.A, did you?
| |
| 14 A That is correct. .
| |
| 15 Q Okay. I am going to move, gentlemen, into a 16 discussion of Contention 39. And, that's on Pags 49 of your 17 testimony.
| |
| 18 Now, you say on Page 49 that -- in the second 19 paragraph of your answer - " FEMA has no basis to form an 20 opinion on the accuracy or lack thereof of the assertions in 21 the various subparts of the contention. Since the exercise 22 evaluation did not include the direct observation of the 23 Rumor Control function at the District Of fices or Call 24 Boards..." and then you also say FEMA did not evaluate the 25 responses reported on logs used as support for the
| |
| | |
| 24801616. 7857 cuewalsh I assertions pertaining to those locations.
| |
| 2 .I take it from that that you mean you did not 3 review the documents provided by LILCO which reflected those 4 rumor control responses to the simulated public inquiries 5 that were used during the exercise?
| |
| 6 A That's correct.
| |
| 7 8 .
| |
| 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7858 marysimons
| |
| () 1 Q In the first paragraph of this . answer you refer 2 to a test call made to a rumor control number. That was a 3 call made by Ms. Jackson; is that_right?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) That is correct.
| |
| 5 Q And the call that she made was to a rumor 6 control person who was at the ENC; is that right?
| |
| 7 A We are not sure of that.
| |
| 8 Q But it was not a call to a district office or a 9 Call board that would then go through the whole system?
| |
| 10 A I said we are not sure of where the call was 11 made and Ms. Jackson is not sure of where the other end of I? the call went either.
| |
| 13 Q Her observations, however, were based solely
| |
| .O 14 upon her own telephone call and the response she got to the
| |
| ; 15 question?
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 A That is correct.
| |
| 17 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye, in light of the 18 responses I have just received to these questions on the 19 FEMA panel's testimony here on page 49, I move to strike the 20 testimony on pages 50 through 54. All of that tes timony 21 purports to address the various responses to the rumor I
| |
| 22 control, or public inquiry messages that were injected by 23 LILCO during the exercise that we had discussed at length in 24 the testimony by LILCO and Suffolk County, and these
| |
| : 25 gentlemen have just stated they haven't reviewed and FEMA i
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7859*
| |
| marysimons I 1 did not evaluate any of those materials and they have no 2 basis upon which to opine concerning the assertions in those 3 subparts.
| |
| 4 In light of that, none of this testimony has any 5 basis or is relevant to the contentions. It 's not probative 6 and I move that it be stricken.
| |
| 7 JUDGE FRYE: 50 through 54?
| |
| 8 MS. LETSCHE: That 's correc t.
| |
| 9 JUDGE FRYE: Any response?
| |
| 10 MR. CUMMING: Just a minute, Your Honor.
| |
| 11 Your Honor, FEMA objects to the motion to strike 12 on the basis that the testimony is relevant, and perhaps 13 Suf folk 's motion is premised on a fundamental
| |
| ' 14 misunderstanding which the Board should have noted to it for 15 the record.
| |
| 16 While it appears that when it serves-Suffolk 17 County's interest to use a building block approach to 18 document something with respect to the exercise evaluator 19 critique forms, they do that.
| |
| 20 FEMA has never made any secret of the fact that 21 it primarily relies on its own exercise evaluators and their 22 factual observations during the exercise and not other 23 materials in order to reach an evaluation.
| |
| 24 It's also true that because of the judgment and 25 experience of the people that are put in charge of
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7860 marysimons
| |
| () i developing the final post-exercise assessment, particularly 2 the RAC Chairman, he has the authority to determine whether 3 or not those observations should result in a deficiency and 4 area requiring corrective action or an area requiring 5 approval under FEMA's regulations and definitions. This was 6 done in this case.
| |
| 7 Because the NRC asked FEMA to provide expert a witnesses to this with respect to what . occurred on the day 9 of the exercise, I think all this information is relevant 10 because in some cases other information was brought to our 11 attention either through the extensive discovery process or 12 otherwise, and I think that our testimony is relevant and fs i3 will help to guide the Board in reaching a decision.
| |
| ('')
| |
| 14 So I think it is relevant and I would object to 15 the motion to strike.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: Does LILCO have a position?
| |
| 17 MS. McCLESKEY: Yes, sir. LILCO also objects to la the motion to strike. If you look at pages 50 through 54, 19 the witnesses have stated that they are assuming the facts 20 as taken in the contention are true and they are simply 21 giving expert testimony assuming that those facts are true, 22 and I think that's admissible evidence.
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE: I'm inclined to agree that it's 24 admissible to comment on a hypothetical. The facts will 25 either be borne out in the record or they won't be.o fs
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7861 marysimons
| |
| _ll 1 So the motion will be denied.
| |
| 2 MR. PI RFO: If I may, I couldn't hear all of 3 Suffolk County's counsel's motion, but I took it that it was 4 not a relevancy objection, but it was a competency 5 objection. Am I correct?
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE: I think it was largely a competency 7 objection, but I can be corrected if I'm wrong.
| |
| 8 MS. LETSCHE: The fact is that the witnesses 9 have said -- I mean they flat out say they don't have any 10 basis to form an opinion concerning the allegations that are 11 in those contentions and they have not and their evaluators 12 have not reviewed any of the pertinent documentation which 13 presumably would give them some kind of a basis to form even
| |
| ' 1J 14 an expert opinion.
| |
| 15 That was the basis for my motion, and in light 16 of that all the things that follow here are purely 17 speculative. They haven't looked at any of the underlying 18 information to know if it makes sense. I can go through and 19 spend a lot of time ---
| |
| 20 JUDGE FRYE: I know. What they have looked at 21 is your contention basically, as I understand it, and they 22 have assumed the facts stated in the contention to be true 23 and this is their expert opinion based upon those facts.
| |
| 24 So basically what we've got is a question here 25 of their comments on a hypothetical it seems to me.
| |
| r(
| |
| )
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7862 marysimons K._/ 1 MR. PIRFO: That's the key consideration, and I 2 would agree with the Board that they can comment on it 3 irrespective of where the facts came from. It's not 4 speculation when an expert does it on a hypothetical 5 question.
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE So it looks like you've got a lot 7 more questions to ask.
| |
| 8 (Laughter.)
| |
| 9 MS. LETSCHE: It sure does.
| |
| 10 BY MR. LANPHER:
| |
| 11 Q Now in fact, gentlemen, FEMA determined as a 12 result of the one call that Ms. Jackson made that there was
| |
| (~ 13 a deficiency with respect to LILCO's rumor control V}
| |
| 14 operation; is that right?
| |
| 13 A (Witness Kowieski) That's correct.
| |
| 16 Q And in light of that fact that FEMA itself found 17 a deficiency in LILCO's ability of dealing with rumors, is wouldn't you in fact agree with the first sentence contained 19 in Contention 39?
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) Would you please define
| |
| . 21 fundamental flaw for me, please?
| |
| 22 Q No. I would like you to answer my question for 23 me.
| |
| 24 A I do not understand the term " fundamental flaw" 25 and therefore I can't understand your question honestly.
| |
| (~)
| |
| v
| |
| . . , . ~, . - , . -
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7863 marysimons 1
| |
| Q Well, let me ask this question, Mr. Keller.
| |
| 2 Would you agree with me that the exercise 3 revealed a deficiency as FEMA defines it in Exercise Exhibit 4 3 that the exercise revealed a deficiency in the LILCO plan 5 and that LILCO is incapable of dealing with rumors or 6 responding to inquiries from the public during an emergency?
| |
| 7 A I disagree.
| |
| 8 Q You disagree with that?
| |
| 9 A I disagree with that.
| |
| 10 Q You did find a deficiency ---
| |
| II A I agree with that.
| |
| 12 Q And you found that based on that deficiency, or f~' 13 that deficiency was based on an inability by LILCO as
| |
| '] 14 demonstrated during the exercise to comply with NUREG 0654, 15 Section 2G concerning rumor control, correct?
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 A (Witness Kowieski) To implement the plan, their 17 inability.
| |
| 18 0 With respect to Section 2G of MUREG 0654, wasn't 19 it, Mr. Kowieski?
| |
| 20 A That's correct.
| |
| 21 A (Witness Baldwin) I'm sorry. I need 22 clarification. Section 2G of NUREG 0654?
| |
| 23 Q Yes. Roman II, Section G.
| |
| 24 A I see. Roman II, Section G-4C.
| |
| 25 Q Now on page 50 of your testimony, gentlemen, you
| |
| \ ,
| |
| . ')
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7864 marysimons
| |
| ,n
| |
| (_) i say that "Many of the asserted inadequacies are in part 2 artifacts of an exercise."
| |
| 3 The asserted inadequacies you are referring to 4 are what? What do you have in mind by "many of the asserted 5 inadequacies" in that statement?
| |
| 6 A (Witness Keller) These were out of the 7 contention, and I would have to go back to the contention to 8 get the asserted inadequacies. There is "i" through "V" 9 assertions in the contention, and those were the assertions 10 that we were talking about. Those asserted inadequacies 11 were in part artifacts of an exercise.
| |
| 12 Q Well, let's see if we can clear this up.
| |
| 13 When you say that many of them are in part 14 artifacts of an exercise, do you mean by artifacts the is discussion which follows that sentence which talks about the 16 EBS broadcasts being simulated?
| |
| 17 A Yes.
| |
| is Q And is that all that you had in mind by the 19 artifacts of an exercise?
| |
| 20 A Primarily that, yes.
| |
| 21 Q Now you say that district offices and call 22 boards would have access to information in real time by 23 monitoring the EBS stations during a real emergency I 24 guess. Does the LILCO plan, to your knowledge, provide for 25 that?
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7865 marysimons
| |
| [h 1 A I don't recall that, no.
| |
| 2 Q And because your testimony is based just on Ms.
| |
| 3 Jackson's one telephone call, you don't know, do you, 4 whether during the exercise the rumor control personnel at 5 the call boards or district offices were able to provide the 6 necessary information even if they did have it? ,
| |
| 7 A I'm sorry, I lost you.
| |
| 8 Q You don't know whether during the exercise the 3
| |
| 9 rumor control personnel at the district offices or the call 10 boards were able to provide the necessary information even 11 when they had it?
| |
| 12 A Beyond the facts in the contentions and in the 13 admissions by LILCO in the discovery process I know nothing
| |
| ,' 14 heyond that facts, and I mean I assume those are facts.
| |
| ll 15 Q Now in your statement'here that the district 16 offices and call boards would have access to inf6rmation in 17 real time by monitoring EBS stations, if we follow that 18 logic for a minute, I take it you're suggesting that these f 19 rumor control people should get the information they use to
| |
| : 20 dispel rumors from the media; is that right?
| |
| 21 A They should get of ficial information. The 22 information which is broadcast over EBS stations, if you 23 call that media, that is one way they would get information.
| |
| 24 Q And that's what you're talking about here when i 25 you say have access to information by monitoring the EBS h
| |
| 8
| |
| , , , , , , , - - ---w,-,,rm,-- ~--,-------,-n,
| |
| -e-r, --,w--w, anen-r-- e nn-e- - - - , - - - - - n-- - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - , e--~
| |
| | |
| n, e
| |
| 24801717 7866 marysimons
| |
| . f^~
| |
| 1 A_)T I stations, and you're referring to them getting their 2 information from those radio stations and the media reports 3 on those stations, right?
| |
| 4 A I do not define an EBS message as a media 5 report.
| |
| 6 Q And you 're assuming that the rumor control 7 personnel at district offices and call boards who you a believe would be monitoring EBS stations would know what was 9 an EBS message as opposed to something else that those 10 stations may be broadcasting about the event, right?
| |
| 11 A EBS messages are required by law to have a tone 12 signal and an announcement that this is an EBS message, and g3 13 if the people were listening to it, yes, I believe they A .)
| |
| 14 would know that it were an EBS message.
| |
| is Q Now the LILCO plan does not provide that the 16 rumor control operators are supposed to get their official 17 information by listening to the EBS stations, does it?
| |
| 18 A (Witness Kowieski) We would have to verify the 19 plan. If you want us to, we will be glad to do that.
| |
| 20 A (Witness Keller) My recollection is the plan 21 does not say that they are supposed to get their information 22 from EBS, but that is one way they could certainly get 23 in f orma tion .
| |
| 24 0 Would you turn, please, to page 51.
| |
| 25 (Witnesses comply.)
| |
| n
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7867 marysimons h i Now there you are addressing subpart (b) of 2 Contention 39, auul I take it from your answer here in the 3 first paragraph where you say you have no basis on which to 4 form an opinion as to the accuracy of the assertions in the 5 contention that you don't have any basis and that you don't 6 challenge the accuracy of those allegations; is that right?
| |
| 7 A We do not challenge the accuracy; that is 8 correct. .
| |
| 9 Q And that's true for all the subparts of subpart 10 (b); is that right?
| |
| 11 A That 's correct.
| |
| 12 Q Now you go on to say that if the facts asserted g-) 13 are reasonably accurate, it would appear that the rumor L d' 14 control system functioned as designed in the plan, and then 15 you go on to talk about some provisions of the plan.
| |
| 16 Do you know whether the plan requires rumor 17 control operators to forward all inquiries to the ENC?
| |
| 18 A My recollection that it does not require them to 19 forward all inquiries to the ENC.
| |
| 20 Q Is it your understanding that there are certain 21 inquiries that the rumor control operators at- the call boards and district offices, that there are some inquiries 2]
| |
| 23 that they are supposed to answer themselves?
| |
| <j 24 A Yes.
| |
| pg 25 Q Do you know whether that ever happened during l
| |
| l g
| |
| | |
| 24801717' 7868
| |
| . marysimons
| |
| /]
| |
| (_/ 1 the exercise?
| |
| 2 A I believe that resulted in a deficiency that we 3 discussed earlier.
| |
| 4 Q Yes, but do you know if it happened in any other 5 instances during the exercise?
| |
| 6 A No, we do not know that.
| |
| 7 Q If in fact rumor control operators did forward 8 all calls to the ENC rather than answering some of those 9 calls themselves then the system would not have functioned to as designed, correct?
| |
| 11 A I'm not sure that follows.
| |
| 12 Q Didn't you just agree with me, Mr. Keller, that 13 . the plan provides that certain calls are supposed to be 14 answered by the operators? -
| |
| 15 A If they have the information, they are supposed
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 to answer the call. That's my understanding.
| |
| 17 Q And you said that in fact what happened during 18 the exercise or what FEMA observed during the exercise was 19 an instance of that not' happening, right? Is that what you 20 just said, that it results in a deficiency?
| |
| 21 A No. I think you asked whether or not they 22 forwarded all the calls to the emergency news center, and I 23 said no, they did not because I assumed that the emergency 24 news center had the right information based on Ms. Jackson's 25 forms that said that they got verbally the protective action O
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7869 marysimons I recommendations promptly.
| |
| 2 Clearly, whoever handled the rumor control call 3 that Ms. Jackson made gave late information, and that 4 resulted in a deficiency.
| |
| 5 We are not clear, Ms. Jackson is not clear, and 6 we are clearly not clear where that call was actually 7 plac ed . She called a number that was given to her as a a rumor control number. It may have been the back room in the 9 ENC and it may have been one of these call boards or 10 district offices. We don't know, but it was the rumor 11 control system. That system gave her wrong information and 12 we evaluated that as a deficiency.
| |
| 13 If that system had forwarded her inquiry, the
| |
| 'Q"g t
| |
| 14 inquiry being what zones are being evacuated at this time, 15 to the em3rgency news center and the emergency news center 16 had formulated an answer and called back to the person who 17 was calling initially and that person called back to the 18 inquirer, and I'm making an assumption now, I would have 19 assumed they got the right information.
| |
| 20 It appears to me that whcever handled that first 21 rumor control call answered with the information at hand and 22 it was the wrong information and we rated it as a 23 deficiency.
| |
| 24 JUDGE FRYE: So all of that really is an 25 assumption on your part and you don't have any personal
| |
| . s
| |
| | |
| 24801717 7870 marysimons S) m i knowledge?
| |
| 2 WITNESS KELLER: Ms. Jackson knows she got the 3 wrong information.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: You know you got the wrong 5 information, but beyond that you don't really know ---
| |
| 6 WITNESS KELLER: We don't know anything.
| |
| 7 WITNESS BALDWIN: I think we need to clarify I
| |
| e here that the deficiency has been given in the ENC with 9 respect to the production of hard copy which then could be 10 used by rumor control with the assumptien that if they had 11 had that hard copy the rumor control system overall would 12 have had the chain so that it could flow through it.
| |
| 13 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
| |
| i4 15
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 j
| |
| : v. .
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7871 Joewalsh h 1 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 2 Q But, that's all just based on Ms. Jackson's one 3 telephone call, right?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Keller) That's correct.
| |
| 5 Q Would you turn please to Page 52?
| |
| 6 (The witnesses are complying.)
| |
| 7 Now, this is where you go through several of the 8 subparts of Subpart C of this contention. And, I have a few 9 questions.
| |
| 10 Now, am I correct that here in your discussion 11 of Subpart I, which relates to a call from someone who has 12 trucks going to Suffolk, am I correct that it's your
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 testimony that it would be appropriate given the facts set s
| |
| ']- 14 forth in this contention to suggest to the caller that it 15 was okay to send trucks into the EPZ at 8:20?
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 A Yes.
| |
| 17 Q Now, with respect to Subpart 2 which you talk 18 about on Page 53, which relates to the inquiry at 11:30 19 about whether lobsters caught that morning were safe to eat 20 or to touch, and you say that you believe the response at 21 12:30 to that call was correct and accurate, you don't know, 22 do you, Mr. Keller, what questions were asked of that caller 23 to determine whether that was, in fact, an appropriate 24 response to the inquiry?
| |
| 25 A No . , I think our testimony speaks for itself.
| |
| . J_ f
| |
| | |
| -24801818 7872 joewalsh
| |
| ,e m .
| |
| (_) 1 Q And, you don't know, do you, the location of 2 that caller?
| |
| 3 A It makes no dif ference.
| |
| 4 Q It makes no dif ference to your determination 5 that the response was correct and accurate where the caller 6 was calling from?
| |
| 7 A That is correct.
| |
| 8 Q It wouldn't matter to you if that caller were 9 calling from an area that had already been advised to lo evacuate?
| |
| 11 A The call was whether it's safe to eat or touch 12 the lobster. And --
| |
| 6 13 Q And, you believe --
| |
| 14 A -- in regard to eating or touching the lobster, 15 the response is correct and accurate.
| |
| 16 Q And, it's not relevant to you that LILCO might 17 have been telling someone to go ahead and eat the lobster in is a house that they should have evacuated from an hour 19 earlier; is that right?
| |
| 20 A It's not part of this question as I read it.
| |
| 21 Q Well, it's part of my question that I'm asking 22 you now. Is that right, you don ' t believe it 's relevant?
| |
| 23 A If the person said I live in Zone A through M, Q 24 or R, then they should have been told to evacuate. We are 25 .trying to give you -- since the Board admitted these ,
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7873 j oewalsh I contentions and I assume that the Board wanted to hear r 2 testimony on these contentions, we assumed that the facts in 3 the assertion were correct. We didn't assume beyond the 4 facts in-the assertions.
| |
| 5 We tried to formulate what we thought were 6 reasonable responses to what is in the contention. This 7 whole idea of where the caller was, where the house was, is 8 not in anything I can read in the contention. We, 9 therefore, did not address that.
| |
| 10 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye, I move to strike that 11 answer. My question ~was whether or not something was 12 relevant to Mr. Keller's opinion as stated in his testimony.
| |
| 13 And, what he just said doesn't have anything to V 14 do with it.
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE: You lost me. I thought it was-
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 directly relevant.
| |
| 17 What did you ask him again?
| |
| 18 MS. LETSCHE: I asked him whether it was 19 relevant to his conclusion about the correctness and
| |
| ; 20 accuracy of a response to this person saying that it's okay
| |
| : 21. to eat those lobsters if that person was located in a house 22 that should have been evacuated an hour ago.
| |
| 23 JUDGE FRYE: All right. Overruled. I think his 24 answer is directly responsive to that.
| |
| 25 He is telling you what he assumed. I also think
| |
| | |
| -24801818 7874 joewalsh
| |
| . ,m
| |
| (_) I that you would assume, had that assumption -- you did 2 testify that if it had been an A through M, Q or R, yes, 3 this would be an inadequate answer; is that right?
| |
| 4 WITNESS KELLER: That's right.
| |
| 5 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 6 Q Now, Mr. Keller, in some more of this answer 7 here to Subpart 2, you state that: "It is true that a minor a release of radioactive material had begun earlier in the 9 morning, however, there was no measurable off-site effects to of this first release."
| |
| 11 Is it your testimony that as of 12:28 on the day 12 of the exercise there were no -- there was no field 13 measurement data available?
| |
| 7%,y) 14 A That is not my testimony.
| |
| 15 Q In fact, there was, wasn't there?
| |
| 16 A There was what? -
| |
| 17 Q Field data available as of that point in the is exercise.
| |
| 19 A As of 12:28, there was field. data. But, as of i
| |
| 20 the earlier release prior to the lobster being caught at 21 11:30, there was no measurable off-site effect.
| |
| 22 Q Now, is it your testimony that the -- as of 23 11:30 or 12:30, either one, on the day of the exercise that 24 LERO was in a position to conclude that, in fact, there had 25 not been any measurable off-site effects prior to that time?
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7875 j oewalsh ,
| |
| 7 ,
| |
| 1,,,) 1 A That is correct.
| |
| 2 Q And, I take it that it 's your testimony that 3 this statement of yours that follows, that both releases 4 were airborne releases and there was never any indication 5 that any abnormal amounts of radioactivity were released 6 through the liquid effluents from the plant, that that also 7 was something that LERO should have been able to conclude as 8 of 12:30; is that right?
| |
| 9 A That is correct.
| |
| 10 Q And, you don't believe that it would have been 11 more prudent in light of the fact that there was already a 12 large evacuation order in effect and a major release going r~g 13 on as of 12:30 to have advised this person, to be safe, not
| |
| ' 14 to eat those lobsters; is that right?
| |
| 15 A I don't believe that was the question we were 16 answering in the testimony.
| |
| 17 Q No. That's the question I just asked you. 1And, 18 I would like you to answer it.
| |
| 19 A Would you rephrase the question, restate the 20 question? I'm sorry.
| |
| 21 MS. LETSCHE: Would you read the question back, 22 please?
| |
| 23 (The Reporter read the question as requested.)
| |
| 24 WITNESS KELLER:' I don't think it 's imprudent or 25 p ruden t , one way or the other. There is not enough
| |
| .- J
| |
| | |
| m 24801818 7876 joewalsh b.,,)
| |
| 1 information in~this assertion or in your question to make a 2- _ valid judgment on what is the most prudent thing to do.
| |
| 3 For all I know, this man could have evacuated 4 and he could have been 50 miles out of the zone calling with 5 his lobster in hand wondering whether he could eat it or 6 not.
| |
| 7 BY MS. LETSCHE: (Continuing) 8 Q Now, in discussing Subpart 3 here, also on Page 9 53, and that relates to the simulated inquiry from The New to York Times _ inquiring what's going on at the plant, you say 11 that: "Had the EBS messages actually been broadcast, it 12 would seem that a news organization as highly reputed as The 13 New York Times, would also have access to the EBS
| |
| _14 broadcasts."
| |
| 15 Do you mean by-that that if you have an EBS 16 message or an EBS system there is no need to have a rumor 17 control syst'em?
| |
| 18 A I do not mean that, no.
| |
| 19 Q Okay. I assume, despite the fact that there
| |
| , 20 exists an EBS system, the rumor control system set forth in 21 the LILCO plan should nonetheless be implemented, correct?
| |
| 22 A Of course. Yes, that's correct.
| |
| 23 Q And, in fact, the response that was given to The 24 New York Times inquirer as set forth in Subpart 3 of this 25 contention was incorrect, correct? Isn't that right?
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7877 joewalsh h 1 A It was late; that is correct.
| |
| 2 Q Well, it was wrong information, right?
| |
| 3 A If one considers the information with time 4 associated with it, yes, it was incorrect.
| |
| 5 Q Well, Mr. Keller, what 's the point in giving out 6 information that's untimely and, therefore, inaccurate? I 7 mean, that 's not what a rumor control system is designed to 8 do, is it?
| |
| 9 A Much information is given out in the following to manner: As of 8 o' clock X happened. As of 9 o' clock Y 11 happened. As of 10 o' clock Z happened.
| |
| 12 You can give that information out at 1 o' clock t
| |
| i 13 or 2 o' clock or 3 o' clock. That is out-of-date 14 information.
| |
| 15 We agree with you that the information that was 16 given was given -- it was not up-to-date. It was not up to 17 the time as it -- we agree with that.
| |
| 18 Q Yeah. And, in fact, that information was not 19 accurate at the time that it was given out, right? It was 20 not an accurate response to what's going on, to be talking 21 about what was going on two hours earlier?
| |
| 22 A Well, I have a problem with that. The way this 23 statement is written, the assertion is written, is --
| |
| 24 Q Try to focus on my questions, Mr. Keller.
| |
| 25 A I believe it's correct based on the contention.
| |
| | |
| l 24801818 7878
| |
| -j oewalsh
| |
| . ,-s -
| |
| , \_/' 1 JUDGE FRYE: Was the . information represented to 2 be accurate at the time it was given out, as of the time it 3 - was given out?
| |
| -4 WITNESS KELLER: Yes, because the contention p 5 says the rumor control responder related that at 5:40 there 6 - was an unusual event. That's correct.
| |
| '7 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 8 WITNESS KELLER: And, had been declared. At
| |
| -9 6:17 alert had been declared. Right? Those are correct 10 statements.
| |
| - 11 And, that's what the contention says.
| |
| I~ 12 JUDGE.FRYE: So, it's.--
| |
| 13 . WITNESS KELLER: The time is there. The time is
| |
| - 14 part of it. -
| |
| j- 15 JUDGE FRYE: Right.
| |
| ~
| |
| b 16 JUDGE SHON: Yes, but --
| |
| 4 17 JUDGE.FRYE: But, if that information were is represented to be the current status, it would not be 19 accurate, would it?
| |
| 20 WITNESS KELLER: That's correct. That's also 21: correct. But, the --
| |
| 22 JUDGE PARIS: The request, what's going on out-
| |
| [ 23 there, is a request for current status.
| |
| 24 WITNESS KELLER: I believe it is.
| |
| 25 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
| |
| )
| |
| gi- .-- 3+ m.-gs-- --#,.w... -y---,,e-> + . --. 9-mm --ap- g 99.-- p 9 --1e+---,g---mm-,5m.reetne 3 a- sr---9em--,e-yey-ep-+g --q- m--+- -
| |
| -p- p m
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7879 joewalsh h 1 WITNESS KELLER: And, what is not in this 2 contention -- we don't have all the facts. All we have is, 3 the contention, right. What's in this contention, it says 4 that the rumor control responder related at 5:40 there was 5 an unusual event and at 6:17 there was a site area 6 emergency.
| |
| 7 It seems to me that what the contention is 8 saying is that the rumor control operator was giving a 9 chronology. Now, the contention stops after the 5:40/6:17.
| |
| 10 It then jumps and at 8:45 something else had happened. We 11 don't know what was said by the rumor control operator 12 beyond the 6:17.
| |
| i 13 JUDGE FRYE: But, you are-commenting or giving
| |
| -(
| |
| 'g ~e .
| |
| 14 an opinion on a hypothetical --
| |
| ~
| |
| 15 WITNESS KELLER: That 's correct.
| |
| 16 JUDGE FRYE: -- which is -- now, the~ contention 17 as I recall it, my recollection is that it raised the 18 question whether this information, although it may have been 19 accurate information, was incomplete in that it did not 20 include the most --
| |
| 21 WITNESS KELLER: Incomplete, I will agree with.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 23 WITNESS KELLER: We were getting inaccurate.
| |
| 24 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. So, you would agree that it 25 was incomplete?
| |
| 1 1
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7880 j oewalsh
| |
| (/)
| |
| 1 WITNESS KELLER: That is correct. If they did 2 not include the site area emergency, which was the next 3 step, that was lef t out. What is in the contention -- the 4 way I read the contention -- is that they gave a correct and 5- accurate, within a minute or two, chronology of what had 6 occurred earlier.
| |
| 7 What we were trying to say in the testimony is 8 that the rumor control is to try to stop the spread of mis-9 information, okay. That's what rumor control is generally 10 looked at to be. News organizations, The New York Times, et-11 cetera, normally monitor EBS messages. That's where they 12 pick up things. It comes off the wire. They will have the 13 accurate information right there. They should anyway.
| |
| 7-N- -
| |
| 14 JUDGE FRYE: Well, you are adding assumptions 15 that weren't present in the hypothetical.
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 WITNESS KELLER: That's correct.
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| 18 WITNESS BALDWIN: If I could try here, this 19 entire contention goes to the judgment and reasonable advice 20 provided by the responders on the receiving end of the rumor 21 control, in other words, LERO's respondents to the rumor 22 control.
| |
| 23 We have given the rumor control overall a 24 deficiency based on what we saw at the ENC. All of these 25 are indeed hypothetical with respect to the judgment and O
| |
| \_/ .
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7881
| |
| 'j oowalsh k i reasonable advice given by those people. But, it's 2 important to note that really the most important part of our 3 testimony is that rumor control has been given a deficiency.
| |
| 4 WITNESS KOWIESKI: I mean, it seems like we are 5 going over and over the issue, how bad is that. We already 6 . stated that it is rated a deficiency and they must take 7 corrective action.
| |
| 8 JUDGE FRYE: Just by way of background, do you 9 usually give, or do you sometimes give more than one 10 deficiency for a particular operation?
| |
| 11 JUDGE PARIS: You don't have super-deficiencies 12 or double deficiencies?
| |
| 13 ,
| |
| WITNESS KOWIESKI: For a particular function, L- 14 let's say, rumor control would be --
| |
| 15 JUDGE FRYE: Well, taking rumor control.
| |
| 16 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Generally speaking, one 17 deficiency unless --
| |
| 18 JUDGE FRYE: If Ms. Jackson had made three phone 19 calls instead of one --
| |
| 20 WITNESS KELLER: It's still the one deficiency.
| |
| 21 JUDGE FRYE: -- and gotten three wrong answers, 22 it would have still been one deficiency?
| |
| 23 WITNESS KOWIESKI: One deficiency.
| |
| 24 JUDGE FRYE: I see.
| |
| 25 WITNESS KOWIESKI: The issue is -- I don't know, J.
| |
| | |
| . .-. ~
| |
| 24801818 7882
| |
| . j oewalsh -
| |
| (-s) i I want to make certain the record is clear. Quite often, we 2 can give two deficiencies, one deficiency, not. enough 3 telephones and a second deficiency, inaccurate information 4 is provided to the caller. Same operation, rumor control.
| |
| 5 Two deficiencies.
| |
| 6 WITNESS BALDWIN: In fact, the system that has 7 been used traditionally is to look at resources, equipment 8 and training. It's basically an equipment issue with 9 respect to copying machines which provided the hard copy of 10 the information in the ENC which then could be promulgated 11 through the rumor control.
| |
| 12 Had we made a number of calls and gotten 13- inaccurate responses and been able to tabulate that, we O'. 14 would have -- it's very likely that that would have.been a 15 deficiency with respect to the training of those rumor 16 control personnel. On the other hand, it could Be the 17 equipment end. We tend to look for the reasons behind 18 that. Or, not enough. Another one would be resources, the 19 number of individuals in rumor control. If the phone lines f
| |
| 20 get backed up and we start getting busy signals.
| |
| 21 MR. CUMMING: Judge Frye, I would just like to 22 note for the record that if Suffolk and LILCO agree that the r 23 factual premises upon which FEMA asserted its expert I
| |
| l 24 judgment to render a deficiency were in error, then I don't L 25 know what the contest is before this proceeding.
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| -- . . . - . , .. . . . ~ ~
| |
| 24801818 7883 j oewalsh k 1 In essence, we are here not as just fact 2 witnesses but as expert witnesses, and.it basically goes to 3 the issue of whether FEMA's expert judgment can be ' rebutted.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE:
| |
| I think they are trying to rebut i
| |
| 5 some expert opinion as to these specific facts. It's as 6 simple as that.
| |
| 7 WITNESS KOWIESKI: Your Honor, just one more t
| |
| 8 comment. It's hard for me as someone who observed, the 9 reporters from The New York _ Times they would be calling the 10 rumor- control to' get up-to-date information. They normally 3- 11 would go to the emergency news center to get up-to-date-12 information.
| |
| 13 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
| |
| i- -4 .
| |
| <' 14 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye, this is a good place is for me to break. What I would like to do if I could --
| |
| 16 there is obviously a bit more of the same as we dontinue 17 -through this testimony, and what I think might be helpful is
| |
| , 18 if I could -- I don't know when we get the transcripts in 4
| |
| 19 the morning, but if I could have a few minutes in the 20 morning to just look at the transcript I might be able to 21 shorten a little bit the remaining examination on this.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: On rumor control?
| |
| l- 23 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. And, just on the rest of 24 these similar sorts of questions.
| |
| 25 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Well, we've only got one i-r , , -
| |
| ,-,,---,-n - - , , , - . - ,- .,.,,,..e-,-,-,,---m..,,n. ~~.-r---- . - , ..-,-~.,,,n ----c- - -, -.,,e-, - , - - . , - . . . ,e.,-.
| |
| | |
| 248018'18- 7884 j oewalsh i ) I more page of rumor control. I don't know how much time that V
| |
| 2 would entail.
| |
| 3 MS. LETSCHE: Anyway, this would be a good place 4 for me - to break.
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE: All right. Why don't we do that?
| |
| 6 Where do we stand? Are there any estimates now as to how 7 much longer the County's examination may take?
| |
| 8 .
| |
| MS. LETSCHE: It would be our estimate that we 9 would probably finish up our examination some time early on 10 Friday.
| |
| 11 JUDGE FRYE: And, New York, at this point what 12 does it look like?
| |
| 13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Two hours.
| |
| (,, ,d
| |
| '~#
| |
| j 14 JUDGE FRYE: Two hours. LILCO?
| |
| 15 MS. McCLESKEY: I would say the better part of 16 the day. -
| |
| 17 JUDGE FRYE: And redirect?
| |
| 18 (Laughter.)
| |
| 19 MR. CUMMING: My witnesses are pressing me to 20 have a few questions on redirect. I would hope that they 21 wouls tot consume more than two hours.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: Well, it sounds to me like this is l 23 going -to go over into next week based on all of this.
| |
| 24 MS. LETSCHE: That's right, because there could 25 also -- it is also very likely to be follow-up based on l
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7885 joewalsh k 1 LILCO's examination and potentially redirect. But, this 2 isn't a situation where this is their witness or our 3 witness.
| |
| 4 JUDGE FRYE: I understand that. All right.
| |
| 5 Based on that -- we wanted to schedule a tour. We have the 6 Staff witnesses coming in Thursday morning, and we have --
| |
| 7 do we have any rough ideas on that at this point?
| |
| 8 MR. LANPHER: The answer is no, but I will try 9 to get a -- be more accurate than that tomorrow morning. I 10 think there is one aspect of the Staff testimony that I 11 would like to move to strike, and it would make sense for 12 planning purposes to argue that and get that decided this 13 week. The Staff testimony is not that long, and maybe we i -
| |
| ' 14 could even schedule a brief time on Friday for that.
| |
| 15 I think that in terms of Dr. Simon and Dr.
| |
| 16 Hockert that it's looking as if that will be the~latter part 17 of next week also. My understanding is that Dr. Hockert 18 won't get here until, what, Wednesday? Is that right?
| |
| 19 MR. ZEUGIN: Yes, late in the afternoon.
| |
| 20 MR. LANPHER: Dr. Simon is on jury duty next 21 week.
| |
| 22 (Laughter.)
| |
| 23 MR. LANPHER: He is looking forward to the 24 opportunity to get out of it. +
| |
| 25 (Laughter.)
| |
| | |
| 24801818 7886 joewalsh
| |
| (). 1 MR. LANPHER: I would like a definite time so he
| |
| , 2 can put in his chit. Apparently, there is no problem the 3 latter part of next week for him to be relieved of that jury 4 assignment.
| |
| 5 JUDGE FRYE: That looks like it would probably 6 be either Thursday or Friday that we would get to those 7 witnesses, Thursday afternoon or Friday?
| |
| l 8 MR. LANPHER: That's right.
| |
| 9 JUDGE FRYE: So, by Wednesday, would that be an 10 appropriate time to --
| |
| 11 MS. McCLESKEY : That would be great. Would you 12 like to plan it for the afternoon so that if we do spill
| |
| .r i 13 over --
| |
| .V' 14 JUDGE FRYE: I would say yes. In the event this 15 goes over we would have the morning and we could plan to
| |
| ' ~
| |
| 16 have the tour that af ternoon.
| |
| 17 MS. McCLESKEY: Starting around 2; is that all 18 right?
| |
| 19 JUDGE FRYE: How long should we allow, an hour 20 or two?
| |
| 21 MS. McCLESKEY: A couple of hours.
| |
| 22 JUDGE FRYE: Two o' clock sounds good.
| |
| 23 MS. McCLESKEY : That's fine. I assume everyone 24 knows that they are invited.
| |
| 25 MR. MILLER: Looking forward to being there.
| |
| O-m
| |
| | |
| 24803818 7887
| |
| ' j oewalsh l 1 MS. McCLESKEY: _ Yeah. We are looking forward to 2 having you.
| |
| 3 JUDGE PARIS: Any kind of special clothing d required, boots, hard-hat, anything like that?
| |
| 5 MS. McCLESKEY: Oh , no . It's very safe there.
| |
| 6 JUDGE FRYE: All right. We will be adjourned 7 then until 9 tomorrow morning.
| |
| 8 (Whereupon, the hearing is adjourned at 5:00
| |
| '9 p.m., Wednesday, June 10, 1987, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.,
| |
| 10 Thursday, June 11, 1987.)
| |
| 12 13
| |
| .-$)
| |
| d'a'' u 15
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
| |
| | |
| CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
| |
| _( .y/
| |
| 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: UCDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1987 V
| |
| were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| (sig /2 I (TYPED) [
| |
| GARRETT J. WALSH Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| Reporter's Affiliation 9
| |
| cdus ODA2/J MYRTLE S. WALSH
| |
| % A %'
| |
| * MARY C. 43IMONS u}}
| |
