ML20209E918
| ML20209E918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1987 |
| From: | Knauer T HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3274 OL-5, NUDOCS 8704300153 | |
| Download: ML20209E918 (103) | |
Text
.
}7-00(.ME TED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~87 APR 27 P1 :00 CFF W GF.i.;
DOC 6ETua; e, :s a' Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board SIG NCH In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S Motion to Strike Portions of Suffolk County's Testimony on Contention EX 50 - Training of Offsite Emergency Personnel Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.743(c), the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO")
moves to strike portions of the Direct Testimony of William Lee Colwell, Deputy In-spection Peter F. Cosgrove, Phillip Evans, Charles B. Perrow, Ford Rowan, Lt. John W.
Streeter, Jr., and Harold Richard Zook on Behalf of Suffolk County Regarding Conten-tion EX 50, Training of Offsite Emergency Personnel (hereaf ter SC Testimony). The reasons why specific portions of that testimony should be struck are set forth below.
I.
THE WITNESSES ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER CERTAIN OPINIONS.
Contention EX 50 concerns the training of offsite response personnel for a ra-i diological emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. LILCO moves to strike portions of Suffolk County's Testimony on Contention EX 50 on the grounds that the witnesses testify about matters which are beyond the areas of their demonstrated expe-rience or expertise and that none of the witnesses have any experience or expertise in the training of personnel to respond to radiological emergencies at nuclear power plants.O 1/
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that a witness be qualified by " knowledge, skill, experience, training or education" in order to express an expert opinion. More-
'3 (footnote continued) 8704300153 870422 PDR ADOCK 0500 2
/
G J
r i
, A.
The Witnesses Testify Beyond the Scope of Their Qualifications 1.
Dr. Colwell Dr. Colwell's prior experience consists largely of administrative positions with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As part of his various administrative positions,-he was responsible for budgeting, formulating and implementing policy, long range planning, and policy review. Colwell Dep. (Dec. 30,1986) at 18-26. His teaching experience has been limited to the area of " substantive and policy issues relative to criminal investiga-tions" and other " executive type development courses sponsored by the Training Divi-sion of the FBI." SC Testimony, Attachment 1 at 1. He has little experience in training individuals and no experience in developing training programs or training persons to re-spond to emergencies and in particular, radiological emergencies. Like his work expe-rience, his list of publications demonstrates expertise in management, not training. Id.
y at 5.
During his deposition, Dr. Colwell confirmed that his area of expertise was man-agement:
Q.
Well, for example, at universities there are a number of departments or disciplines, such as anthropology, so-ciclogy, statistics, human performance.
What disci-plines would you characterize yourself as being an ex-pert?
(
A.
May I answer that and tell you what I teach? I consider
(
my knowledge pretty broad in the area of management.
I think I have a broad experience in make assessments and evaluations of programs. I consider that I have a (footnote continued) over, the opinion must be one which will" assist the trier of act to understand the evi-dence or to determine a fact in issue." Fed. R. Evid.,702. Where, as here, a witness purports to express expert opinions about matters in which he has no knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, he is not competent to express the opinions and the opinions would not assist the trier of fact.
r-9 i i
/r-broad knowledge of the so-called public administration area and the criminal justice system.
' Colwell Dep. (Dec. 30,1986) at 64.
With regard to specific questions about his involvement in planning for a nuclear eme'rgency,' Dr. Colwell testified:
Q.
Have you ever_ planned for an emergency in a nuclear-power plant?
A.
No.
Has anyone whom you supervised been involved with -
} Q.
has anyone which you supervised planned for an emer-gency of a nuclear power plant?
A.
What kind of emergency?
Q.
Well, let's take a nuclear emergency, radiological emergency.
A.
What kind of nuclear emergency?
Q.
Let's assume that there was a problem at the nuclear plant in which they were concerned about a possible breach of the containment. Have you ever been in-volved with planning - has anyone whom you super-vised planned for that kind of an emergency?
A.
Probably. I don't recall specifically, but maybe.-
Colwell Dep. (Dec. 30,1986) at 65.
Dr. Colwell is not competent to testify on the issues raised by Contention EX 50 because he has no knowledge of what is necessary to plan for an emergency at a nucle-ar power plant and no experience in training persons to respond to such an emergency
- his limited training experienae has been with unrelated FBI training. He is not com-petent to render expert testimony on the training issues raised by that Contention.
i t
4 i
k
/
t.
(
i
r i
_4_
Moreover, to the extent that Dr. Colwell has any knowledge, it has been gained ia the last month or two; this does not qualify him as an expert. At the time of his depo-sition, Dr. Colwell demonstrated his complete ignorance of the very scope of the training issues raised by Contention EX 50:
Q.
Do you have any view on whether the LILCO - LERO training program or LILCO training program for the training of traffic guides was effective or ineffective?
A.
What contention is that in?
Q.
You are going to look at Contention 50 to let me know whether you have developed a view on whether the LERO training program for traffic gn des was effective or ineffective.
MR. MILLER:
Do you have a particular subpart of Contention 50 you are referring to, Ms. Monaghan?
MISS MONAGHAN: No.
THE WITNESS: I assume that the traffic guides are mentioned in Contention 50?
THE WITNESS: igain my - I think it's premature for me to state, for me to state a view regarding the training program that has been used.
Colwell Dep. (Dec. 30,1986) at 75-79.
When asked about sources of information upon which he would base his opinion about the LERO training program for traffic guides, Dr. Colwell again was without knowledge:
Q.
Dr. Colwell, will your view as to whether or not the LERO training program was effective or ineffective based upon the traffic guides be based upon what is contained in Contention 50?
~
1 1 1 l
A.
I can't say that. I think that the information contained in Contention 50 would be used, and that it might be before developing a final opinion I might want to look at other sources.
Q.
Do you have any idea what other sources you might want to look at?
A.
It would depend on what is available.
Q.
Do you have any idea what other documents might be available?
A.
I don't believe - I am certain that I am not knowledge-able on what all kinds of documents might exist, but I am sure there are work papers or backup papers.
Q.
But you haven't seen or reviewed any of those?
A.
No, I have not. I am told - I am aware that there are other documents that exist that go behind that support these contentions.
Colwell Dep. (Dec. 30,1986) at 76-77.
Dr. Colwell also confessed an unfamiliarity '.<ith regulatory criteria and guidance documents that are the foundation of any offsite emergency response organization or FEMA exercise:
Q.
Are you familiar with NUREG-0654, that's a FEMA document?
A.
Not that I am aware of.
Q.
Are you f amiliar with FEMA Guidance Memorandum 17?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you expect that you are going to review FEMA Guidance Memorandum 17 prior to preparing your tes-timony?
A.
I can't answer that, I don't know what is contained in it. I would rely on counsel to, in part, to point me to pertinent references.
{
r
. Cowell Dep. (Dec. 30,1986) at 79-81. Indeed, Dr. Colwell had no familiarity with the LERO training program itself:
Q.
Are you familiar with the materials used in the LILCO training program?
A.
For presentations, no.
Q.
Do you expect that you will review those materials prior to preparing your testimony?
A.
I might. It would certainly be something that I might consider.
I_d. at 81.
Despite his lack of knowledge of the relevant regulatory documents, training ma-terials, and player documents at the time of his deposition, and total lack of prior ra-dialogical emergency planning experience or familiarity with FEMA exercises, Dr.
Colwell now offers expert opinions about all manner of things, including traffic control, communications training, radiological ' procedures, public inquiries and evacuee assis-tance, and media relations. It is clear that Dr. Colwell lacks the experience and inde-pendent knowledge essential to offer such opinions. Moreover he has no factual bases for his opinions; he relles instead on a narrow set of documents selected for him by counsel. See Colwell Dep. (Dec. 30,1986) at 81. Dr. Colwell's opinion on Contention 1
EX 50 is merely a hastily formulated personal opinion that is not admissible as expert testimony.
In addition, with respect to specific matters contained in Suffolk County's Testi-many, Dr. Colwell has admitted his lack of expertise. Dr. Colwell, at page 150, line 12 through page 165, line 18, co-sponsors testimony on Contention EX 50.E which alleges j
that the LERO training program has failed to train personnel to exercise good judgment and to use common sense. However, Dr. Colwell has already stated in his deposition u
_7_
that he has no expert opinion on whether a training program can train people to use common sense.
Q.
In your opinion, can a training program train people to use common sense; is it possible to do that?
A.
I don't know, I never addressed that. I have never ad-dressed that before.
Q.
Do you have an opinion about that.
A.
No.
Colwell Dep. (Dec. 30,1986) at 166-167.
~
Likewise in testimony at page 181, line 18 through page 185, line 6, Dr. Colwell testifies in general about the ability of LERO to deal with the media and admits that:
"In fact, if the event in question were a nuclear emergency, I imagine the pressure from the media would be particularly intense..." SC Testimony at 183. The reason Dr. Colwell must " imagine" the intensity of the questioning from the media during a ra-diological emergency stems from the fact that he himself has never been involved in such a situation and has no basis for his opinion. Dr. Colwell's experience with the media has been limited to his role as a participant in news conferences about "aircraf t hijackings, kidnappings, shooting incidents, fugitive apprehensions, bombings and major legal cases such as ABSCAM."
I_d. at 181. Thus, Dr. Colwell has no professional ex-pertise on which to base his opinions about how the media is likely to react in a ra-diological emergency, about LERO's dealings with the media or about the hierarchy of public information contemplated by the regulations and guidelines. Instead, his opinion is based on his imagination. See SC Testimony at 183. In addition, to the extent that Dr. Colwell offers an opinion on media issues that testimony is duplicative of testimony offered by Mr. Rowan whose expertise on media issues is not disputed here.
. Accordingly, LILCO moves that the Board strike Dr. Colwell as a witness on Con-tention EX 50 on the grounds that he is not qualified to render opinions about the struc-ture of an emergency response organization, communications training, personal ra-dialogical procedures, traffic control, responses to traffic impediments, dealing with media or public inquiries, or training programs in general.
2.
Deputy Inspector Cosgrove and Lt. Streeter Deputy Inspector Cosgrove is a law enforcement officer who, as a former com-manding officer of the Suffolk County Police Academy, has had experience training other law enforcement officers. Similarly, Lt. Streeter's experience is exclusively in the area of law enforcement with the Suffolk County Police Department. The course of instruction at the Police Academy, which is the sole basis of Cosgrove's and Streeter's experience, involves training of police personnel to fulfill police functions.
The training programs offered by the Academy are courses in criminal investigation, in-structor development, radar operations, firearms training, emergency vehicle op-eration, basic police training, supervisory training and in-service training. See SC Tes-timony at 7-8.
They have not by virtue of " knowledge, skill, experience, training or education" (see Fed. Rule of Evidence 702) developed any expertisc in training person-nel to deal with the media. Dealing with the media is simply not part of the law en-forcement training with which they are familiar. Neither witness has experience in planning, training or evaluating personnel for the full range of duties necessary to re-spond to a radiological emergency at a nuclear power plant.
Deputy Inspector Cosgrove and Lt. Streeter are simply law enforcement officers whose area of expertise and experience is in law enforcement training. LILCO moves that the Board remove Deputy Inspector Cosgrove and Lt. Streeter as witnesses on the following Suffolk County testimony:
e
, Pages 68, line 10 through page 74 (rumor control /public inquiry function);
111 through 114,line 17 (dealings with media);
153, line 17 through page 156, line 3 (rumor control /public inquiry function);
166, line 8 through page 185 (radiological procedures);
i 186 through page 195 (radiological procedures);
i 200, line 11 through page 207, line 11 (organizational structure of an emergency response organization) 3.Mr. Zook Mr. Zook's experience, like Deputy Inspector Cosgrove's and Lt. Streeter's, is lim-ited to law enforcement and law enforcement training. SC Testimony, Attachment 5.
He has no experience, knowledge, skill, or training about planning for a radiological emergency or about training or evaluating personnel who respond to radiological emergencies at nuclear power plants. Mr. Zook admitted in his deposition that he had never been involved in the planning for a response to a nuclear power plant. Zook Dep.
(Jan.15,1987) at 40. When asked to describe his area of expertise, Mr. Zook responded:
A.
Well, as I have previously stated, I have had consider-able exposure and experience in law enforcement training, and the measurement of the, or the evalua-tion of that training that's been presented; and then personnel performance based on the training that had been received, this type of activity. I would say in broad terms that I might have some expertise in law enforcement training and evaluation of personnel and performance training.
Q.
We have been using the term " law enforcement training" quite a bit today. Could you define what you mean by that term so I'm sure we have the same mean-ing for it?
r
. 9 A.
Law enforcement training, as I have used that term today, deals with training'in subjects that are related directly or indirectly to the function of a police officer in the performance of his duty.
Id. at 57.
Based on his stated area of expertise, Mr. Zook stated that his testimony would be limited to law enforcement related training:
Q.
What do you understand the nature of that knowledge or input might be that counsel would be drawing on?
A.
At this point - as I said previously, we started our re-view for this deposition yesterday, so I think it is pre-mature at this time - I couldn't make that assessment at this time?
Q.
So you are not sure why you were selected for the par-ticular contentions that you think you will be asked to testify on; is that right?
A.
Only that they might relate to certain law enforce-ment training functions or training functions and the performance of personnelin positions that could be re-lated to law enforcement.
Zook Dep. (Jan. 15,1987) at 11-12.
In spite of the foregoing limitations to Mr. Zook's expertise, he now testifies on behalf of Suffolk County on all manner of things outside the scope of law enforcement training. Accordingly, LILCO moves that the Board remove Mr. Zook as a witness on the following testimony:
Page 68, line 10 through page 74 (dealings with public media)J, 111 through page 114, line 17 (dealings with public or media);
i
r
, 153, line 16 through page 159, line 5 (dealings with public or media);
166, line 8 through page 178, line 7 (dealings with public or media) 186 througn page 195 (radiological procedures);
200, line 11 through page 207, line 11 (organizational structure of an emer-gency response organization).
4.
Mr. Evans Philip Evans sponsors virtually all of Suffolk County's training testimony. Ac-cording to his testimony and resume, Mr. Evans can be best characterized as a newspa-per journalist. His experience is limited to mass communications of the print variety.
He has no demonstrated experience in the training of personnel. As revealed by his deposition testimony, his experience beyond that of a newspaper reporter is strictly confined to the area of newspaper administration. As Deputy Managing Editor of the Washington Times, his duties included the design of the news format of the paper, the hiring of editorial staff, and the day-to-day operation of the News Department. Evans Dep. (Feb. 4,1987) at 11. He also held the position as Deputy General Manager of the Washington Times in which he was responsible for such things as selling advertising, managing the circulation operation, producing the newspaper, promotional activities, and general management of all functions of the newspaper other than the news content itself. Id. at 12. Prior to being with the Washington Times, Mr. Evans was Managing Editor of the Philadelphia Bulletin where he directed the news coverage of a variety of events including catastrophic events such as terrorist activities, floods, earthquakes, and nuclear accidents. However, his role in the coverage of these catastrophic events was as the dispatcher of reporters to the scene.
For example, although he sent
. reporters to cover the accident at Three Mile Island, he himself was never present at the scene. I_d. at 18.
Mr. Evans admitted in his deposition that he was not a training expert:
Q.
Do you consider yourself an expert on training?
A.
I don't consider myself, per se. But for more than two decades have been a fairly senior executive and for the most part very large corporation, with responsibility for upwards of two thousand people involved in many different tasks, and receiving significant amounts of training in various programs.
Evans Dep. (Feb. 4,1987) at 101. What experience Mr. Evans has in evaluating training programs is confined to his role as an editor / administrator of a newspaper:
Q.
Have you ever evaluated the training programs at any other organization?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Which ones?
A.
Well, quite a few. In f act, anything from summer in-tern programs for journalism students. to training pro-grams for various of the craf ts involved in the newspa-per industry. Printer, pressman.
Id. at 107. Furthermore, it is clear from his deposition testimony that Mr. Evans'so-called evaluation of training programs was merely administrative in scope:
Q.
Yes. In what context did you review those training programs? Why did you have cause to review those training program?
A.
Well in some cases they were established under my di-rection and I had cause thereaf ter to review them peri-odically.
In other cases, they were in place when I became -- took over a position, and as part of my re-sponsibility in that position was to review training.
Q.
Do you have an established set of criteria or standards which you judge the training program?
. A.
Not really, no.
Id. at 107-108. This deposition testimony clearly illustrates Mr. Evans' lack of qualifi-cation to render expert opinions in the areas of planning, executing, or evaluating training programs.
a Not only is Mr. Evans not a training expert, but he renders testimony on subparts of Contention EX 50 for which he was not designated as a witness. At Mr. Evans' depo-sition, counsel for Suffolk County stated that Mr. Evans was to testify only on Conten-tions EX 50.E and EX 50.F:
Q.
Mr. Evans, do you know if you will be testifying on any parts of contention 50?
A.
I believe that I may be, yes.
Q.
Do you know which ones?
A.
I don't have them Q.
It starts on page 87. If there are specific points of it you can point us to.
MS. LETSCHE: I will. You know which ones they are.
E and F, which are on page 92, okay?
Evans Dep. (Feb. 4,1987) at 100. In spite of this fact, Mr. Evans co-sponsors testimony well beyond the scope of the allegations in Contentions EX 50.E and EX 50.F.
For the foregoing reasons, LILCO moves that the Board remove Mr. Evans as a witness f rom the following testimony:
i Page 25, line 11 through page 26, line 20 (purpose of training);
28, line 1, through page 33, line 5 (training methods);
44, line 10 through page 38, line 3 (training flaws);
41, line 1-5 (significance of training deficiencies);
41, line 22 through page 50 (training analysis);
4
,, ~, - - -
~ - - - - - - -, -, - - - ~ -,, - -, - - -, -,
---.,e-~
n--
,v-
-r~.
-n
.~ -
a
. 53 (training methodology);
55, line 1 through page 60 (training analysis and methodology);
61 through page 66, line 13 (traffic impediments);
67, line 4 through page 80 (rumor control /public inquiry functions);
{
86, line 4 through page 95, line 16 (training analysis and methodology);
95 line 17 through page 99, line 10 (traffic analysis and methodolgy);
104,line 18 through page 110 (traffic impediments);
114,line 18 through page 156,line 7 (training analysis and methodology);
)
158, line 20 through 165, line 18 (training analysis and methodology);
{
185, line 7 through page 200, line 10. (training analysis and methodology);
i 200, line 11 through page 207, line 11 (organizational structure of an emer-J gency response organization).
5.
Mr. Rowan Mr. Rowan is a well-known former television journalist. His expertise in televi-sion journalism is not challenged, here.
However, Suffolk County's Testimony l
indiscriminantly employs Mr. Rowan as an all purpose expert on issues dealing with the control of traffic, organizational structure, and radiological monitoring. Mr. Rowan's i
j expertise either from experience or educational training is not so broad.
l First, it is clear that he has no experience or expertise as a trainer of personnel responding to a radiological emergency at a nuclear power plant:
j Q.
Have you ever been involved in developing scenarios-for nuclear plant emergency drills or exercises?
i A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever been an evaluator at that sort of drill or j
exercise?
i 4
l 1
i
1,
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever been a participant in that sort of drill or exercise?
i A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever attended as an observor any sort of drill or exercise?
A.
Well, real emergency, yes. Three Mile Island. Drill or-exercise, no.
Q.
Have you reviewed any other exercise reports or pa-gm?
A.
Regarding radiological?
Q.
Yes.
A.
No.
Rowan Dep. (Jan. 6,1987) at 7-8..
1 1
Second, Mr. Rowan's experience is limited to his work in the media and in providing media training to industry. He has no expertise on issues related to traffic j
control, radiological monitoring, evacuee assistance, etc. Third, Suffolk County identi-fled Mr. Rowan as a witness who would provide testimony only on the preamble to Con-f tention EX 50 and subparts E and F. Rowan Dep. (Jan. 6,1987) at 68-69. However, like i
Mr. Evans, he co-sponsors testimony on a wide range of subjects beyond the scope of subparts E and F.
)
LILCO moves to strike Mr. Rowan's sponsorship of testimony on anything other than the preamble to Contention EX 50 and subparts E and F because Rowan was desig-nated as a witness only to those parts. Testimony of those parts of the contention are i
i contained in SC Testimony at pp.1-54, and 150-185, i
t 4
r 1
. Alternatively, because he is qualified only to testify about LERO's dealings with the media, LILCO moves that the Board remove Mr. Rowan as a witness on the follow-ing testimony about non-media aspects of the LERO training:
Page 25, line 11 through page 26, line 20 (purpose of training);
61, line 1 through page 66, line 13 (traffic impediments);
67, line 4 through page 80 (rumor control / pub!!c inquiry functions);
86, line 4 through page 93, line 3 (training analysis and methodology) 95, line 17 through page 98 (traffic impediments) 104, line 18 through page 110 (traffic impediments);
120, lines 5-18 (radiological procedures);
154, line 4 through 17 (rumor control /public inquiry function);
159, lines 10 and 11 (nature of emergencies);
186, line 1 through page 195 (radiological procedures) 200, line 11 through page 207, line 11 (organizational structure of an emer-gency response organization).
6.
Dr. Perrow During his deposition and in his testimony, Dr. Perrow describes his areas of ex-pertise as complex organizations, industrial society, high risk technologies organiza-tional dynamics and ef fectiveness, and technology and social change.
Q.
What specific areas of your expertise are being drawn on to provide testimony in this proceeding?
- ee**
A.
I would refer to a statement in my curriculum vitae on my teaching interest: Complex organizations, industri-al society, technology and social change, social move-ments, research design, sociological theory. I think all of those would be involved to some extent.
. s I
Perrow Dep. (Dec. 18,'1986) at 23-30; see also, SC Testimony at 11-12. Dr. Perrow's re-search and writing have also focused on characteristics of organizational design and be-havior. SC Testimony at 11. Dr. Perrow's demonstrated expertise is ilmited to the area of organizational structure. He has no expertise or experience from which to render an 1
expert opinion about what would constitute an effective training program for ra-dialogical emergency response workers, traffic control, radiological monitoring, 4
dosimetry, media relations, etc. all of which are subjects about which he sponsors testi-many.
Dr. Perrows' testimony on these issues should be stricken as incompetent.
Moreover, as LILCO will show below, much of Dr. Perrow's testimony is an attack on the organizational structure of LERO which should be stricken from the record as irrel-4 evant and barred by the doctrine of res _judicata. Accordingly, LILCO moves that the Board remove Dr. Perrow as witness on all testimony except that dealing with the orga-nizational structure of emergency response organizations found at:
}
l Page 26, line 21 through page 27; 32,line 8 through page 33; 4
51-52; i
54; I
j 165, line 19 through page 166, line 7; i
1 200-217.
B.
The Witnesses are Unqualified to Render Opinions About i
Training for Radiological Emergencies at Nuclear Power Plants I
j LILCO objects specifically to the following Suffolk County testimony co-sponsored l
l i
. by all of the witnesses on the ground that none of the witnesses is competent to testify on the training of individuals to respond to radiological emergencies at nuclear power plants.
1.
LILCO moves to strike the testimony on page 26, lines 7 through 20 begin-ning with the following statement: "As hinted to above training for organizations re-sponding to a nuclear emergency includes an element which goes beyond the training required for some other organizations." Not one of the witnesses has any demonstrated 4
expertise or experience in the area of planning or training for a radiological emergency at a nuclear power plant nor has any one of them studied nuclear emergencies to deter-mine whether they raise special issues or needs. Thus, without any expertise in the area, their opinion that something more is required of a radiological emergency re-sponse organization is merely personal opinion, not expert opinion.
2.
LILCO moves to strike the following testimony dealing with the frequency of unanticipated and unrehearsed events during a radiological emergency:
Page 27,line 6 through 12; 57,line 3 through 5 and line 17 through 19; 59,line 15 through 20; 68, line 9 through 12.
No Suf folk County witness has demonstrated any expertise or experience in predicting, measuring or studying in any f ashion events which an emergency response organization such as LERO would face during a radiological emergency. Thus, the Suffolk County witnesses' opinion that LERO training must be designed to address a plethora of unanticipated events is not expert opinion.
3.
LILCO moves to strike testimony on page 71, lines 1 through 19, in which the witnesses allege that LILCO personnel did not anticipate the contents of public
o
. inquiries and were unable to respond to them properly, thereby demonstrating a failure of the LILCO training program. The witnesses go on to opine that had the training been adequate, LILCO personnel would certainly have been able to respond more quickly and presumably in a more reasoned and appropriate fashion. LILCO also moves i
to strike SC Testimony on page 76, line 8 through page 77, line 20, in which the wit-nesses state that an adequate training program would have provided LILCO's Traffic Guides with the knowledge, skill and experience necessary to enable them to respond to inquiries from the public. None of the Suffolk County witnesses has any demonstrated expertise in what is likely public behavior during a radiological emergency or any emer-gency. Therefore, they are not qualified to render an opinion about what would be ap-propriate training for personnel who might receive public inquiries during a radiological emergency. Accordingly, LILCO moves the Board to strike this testimony as incompe-tent.
4.
LILCO moves to strike Suffolk Ccanty testimony on page 120, lines 5 through 18, in which the witnesses state that the maximum allowable dose is not a triv-tal matter and that the LERO training program has fa! led to train LERO personnel on this relatively easy task. The witnesses also opine that one could reasonably expect i
that, of all the material presented in the training program, trainees would make the greatest effort to learn those procedures involving their personal safety, and that if personal safety procedures are not learned, other material not as crucial to personal safety surely has not been learned. None of the Suffolk County witnesses is qualified to testify on personal radiological monitoring or radiation exposure control procedures for cmergency response personnel. Consequently, the conclusion that the maximum allow-able dose is not a trivial matter, is not an expert opinion. Furthermore, the witnesses do not have expertise on which to base their conclusion that one could reasonably i
o
. expect that from all the material presented in the training program, the trainees would make the greatest effort to learn those procedures involving the radiological moni-toring or exposure control. Although witnesses Colwell, Cosgrove, Streeter and Zook have experience in training law enforcement personnel, they have no demonstrated ex-pertise in the area of dosimetry or radiation exposure control methods or on training emergency response personnel about personal exposure control. The other witnesses are clearly unqualified as well to comment upon these subjects: Rowan's and Evan's ex-pertise is limited to media and Perrow's is as an organizational theorist. Accordingly, the opinion stated in that testimony is not an expert opinion and should be stricken as incompetent testimony.
5.
SC Testimony on page 186 through page 195 dealing with Contention i
EX 50.G and EX 50.H is sponsored by all of the witnesses. but none has been involved in training personnel about the use of dosimetry, potassium todide or radiation exposure control procedures. The witnesses are all unqualified to render opinions about the oc-currences and ef fects of so-called " deficiencies" in the training of LERO personnel in personal radiological procedures. They merely recite a litany of incidents reported in the FEMA Post-Exercise Assessment without any elucidation and the characterize the training program as fundamentally flawed. The witnesses are not experts in dosimetry and radiation exposure control; their testimony is personal opinion, not expert opinion.
6.
On page 200, line 11 through page 207, line 11, the Suffolk County witness-es state that there are inherent deficiencies in LILCO's structure which make it ex-tremely difficult for LILCO's training program, even as modified, to succeed. With the exception of Dr. Perrow, none of the Suffolk County witnesses has the knowledge or expertise to render them competent to testify on aspects of the LERO organizational structure. To the extent that the testimony is sponsored by Suffolk County witnesses
other than Dr. Perrow, it must be considered incompetent testimony. Accordingly, LILCO moves that the Board remove all of the witnesses other than Dr. Perrow from the organizational structure testimony. However, as discussed below, this testimony l
should be stricken from the record anyway because it is irrelevant and barred by the i
doctrine of res judicata.
II.
PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S TESTI510NY DEAL WITH ISSUES PREVIOUSLY DECIDED AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN AS RES JUDICATA Intervenors apparently interpret the Partial Initial Decisions' concluding finding on training issues as an invitation to revisit issues that were previously decided in the Plan phase o' this litigation. There, the Board found that:
l
[Clontrary to the allegations contained in Contentions 24.S.
39-41,44 and 98-100, the LILCO Plan training program meets l
the regulatory standards. This conclusion is made subject to i
confirmation by a finding, to be made by FENIA af ter a graded exercise, that the Plan can be satisf actorily implemented with the training program submitted and that LILCO pos-sesses an adequate number of trained LERO workers.
PID at 756. The Licensing Board specifically contemplated that the Exercise would j
confirm its findings and that any further litigation of training issues would be limited to l
1ssues specifically raised by the FESIA Exercise.
51uch of Suffolk County's testimony on Contention EX 50 seeks to relitigate gener-i i
ic training issues that were previously decided by the Licensing Board in the Plan phase of this litigation and that were not reopened by the Exercise results. These issues are I
outside the scope of this narrowly focused, expedited proceeding and are barred from l
relitigation by res judicata. To permit Intervenors to relitigate these issues either by admission of these portions of the testimony or by cross-examination would violate the time-honored principle of res judicata.
l l
l w
, +.-
. A.
Attrition of LERO Personnel Was Decided and Is Not Raised by Exercise Events One of the issues previously raised by Intervenors in the Plan phase of this pro-ceeding was whether there were an adequate number of trained LERO workers and whether the LILCO Plan adequately assured the training of appropriate individuals. See PID at 747-749. The Board found that:
the FEMA graded exercise will determine whether there is an adequate number of trained LERO workers. We further find that LILCO has an adequate plan in all other respects to com-pensate for attrition from LERO.
PID at 749. The decision was affirmed. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nu-clear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986), petition for review granted 1
on other grounds, Order, Docket No. 50-332-OL-3 (Sept.19,1986)(unpublished).
i During the February 13 Exercise, FEMA found that LERO demonstrated the ability to mobilize, staff and activate its f acilities and, through rosters, the ability to maintain staffing on a 24-hour basis, where necessary. Sjte FEMA Report at 27-28 (EOC), 43 (Ambulance) 47-48 (BHO), 52 (ENC), 55 (P.J.), 60 (Patchogue), 71 (Riverhead), 78 1
(EWDF), 80 (Reception Center), and 82 (Congregate Care). Thus, FEMA tound there was an adequate number of trained LERO personnel to implement the Plan and thereby confirmed the Licensing Board's earlier finding. No issue remains that was not decided by the Licensing Board.
Not only is testimony on turnover or attrition of LERO personnel barred by res judicata, but it is not relevant to the issues raised by Contention EX 50. The only men-tion in Contention EX 50 of LERO staffing is a quotation of the Licensing Board's ulti-mate finding on the training issues raised in the Plan litigation; that finding is quoted above. The issue framed by the Licensing Board, and the only one which could possibly be raised by incorporation of the Board's finding into Contention EX 50, is whether the 4
i l
. Exercise demonstrated that possesses an adequate number of trained LERO workers.
As noted above, FEMA found this was conclusively demonstrated during the Exercise.
Testimony concerning what Intervenors perceive to be an attrition or turnover problem 4
during post-exercise drills is irrelevant to the issue framed by this Board and by Con-tention EX 50 itself. Those are training drills that are part of the ongoing LERO training program. It is patently obvious that new personnel must be trained. Thus, drill reports will reveal that new personnel appear for and receive hands-on training during drills as part of LERO's ongoing training program. The integration of new personnel into the training is not at issue here; it relates solely to the structure of LILCO's ongoing training program, which was litigated at length in the Plan litigation (PID at 744-756) and was not raised by events that occurred in the Exercise.
The issue of attrition and turnover is not raised by Exercise events,it is not raised by Contention EX 50, and it was previously litigated and decided. Further explanation of this issue is barred by r_es ludicata and is irrelevant to Contention EX 50. Conse-quently, the following portions of Suffolk County's testimony should be stricken:
t Pages 35, lines 3-5 51-52, including footnote 28 B.
The Realism of LILCO's Drills and Exercises and The Need For Experience Has Alreadv Been Litigated Suffolk County has also submitted testimony asserting, once again, that the LILCO training program lacks realism, that performance of emergency duties under real life conditions is a necessary element of effective training, and that "real life" practical experience is necessary in order to perform LERO jobs. This testimony, which ad-dresses an issue considered at length in the Plan phase of the litigation (sg PID at 749-750, 753, and 755-756), directly contradicts the' Licensing Board's determination that the training program was sufficiently realistic to train LERO personnel for their emergency jobs. Specifically the Board found:
. i no support for Intervenors' assertion that the drills and exer-cises pursuant to the LILCO Plan are defective because they lack realism.
PID at 753.
1 i
Despite testimony of Suffolk County Police Department witnesses "that most of the emergency response jobs assigned to LILCO personnel cannot be performed proper-i ly without extensive experience. Cosgrove e_t al_., ff. Tr.13,083, at 17," PID at 749, and that "the LILCO training of traffic guides was insufficient, inadequate, and unrealistic.
j Tr 13,347-64 (Fakler)," PID at 755, the Board held that:
Intervenors have not established that any LERO jobs are so
(
complex that they require training or experience beyond that called for in the Plan.
PID at 750 (emphasis added).
In light of this holding, further testimony discussing the need for realism in the training program or the need for experience to perform LERO jobs is barred by res I
j judicata. Nor can this testimony be saved as " background information," because it I
clearly attempts to relltigate the issue of whether the LERO training program is suffi-ciently realistic to provide a " hands-on" or " learning-by-doing" training experience and
)
whether real life experience is a necessary prerequisite to an effective emergency re-sponse organization; this directly contradicts the Board's prior findings.
Not only is the testimony on the lack of realism in LERO training and the need for 2
real life experience barred by re_s ludicata, but it is also irrelevant. Nothing in the Ex-ercise or Contention EX 50 raises the issue of the structure or format of the training i
program and whether that program is a sufficiently realistic training vehicle. Conten-tion EX 50, then, does not and can not challenge the lack of realism in the LERO training program or the need for real life experience to perform LERO jobs. Indeed,in admitting Contention EX 50, this Board specifically stated that it would 4
I
. i I
not take evidence on the details of the training program be-cause that has been thoroughly ventilated in previous hear-1 ings. The only issues of interest in this proceeding will be whether flaws specified in the bases occurred in the exercise and if so whether they collectively point to a fundamentally deficient training program, i
Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing a Discovery 4
Schedule), Oct. 3,1986 at 30.
I l
Consequently, the following testimony on the lack of realism in LERO training or 4
l the need real life experience to perform LERO jobs should be stricken:
l Pages 15. footnote 3, !!ne 15-18 j
28, lines 6-9, including footnote 12 53-54 78, lines 8-11,15-20 79, lines 10-12 and footnote 43 80, lines 1-5 J
82-84, including footnote 45 85, lines 8-10 86, !!nes 11-13,15-22 j
l 87, lines 1-11 J
89, lines 3-6,16-29 i
92, lines 9-12 l
93, lines 11-13,17-19 l
94, footnote 46 95, lines 37 through page 97, line 1 j
99, lines 1-4 i
C.
There Is No Reautrement To Train Schools or Hospitals In the Plan litigation, Intervenors claimed that LILCO was required to train per-f sonnel of schools, hospitals, and other special facilities. LILCO argued that organiza-I
}
tions such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and special facilities which may be J
i called on during an incident in Shoreham to implement protective actions, were not support organizations and, therefore, there was no requirement to train those organiza-l tions. Nonetheless, LILCO planned to offer training and information sessions annually
{
to those facilities so that key personnel would know what to do when a protective ac-tion was ordered. S_e_e PID at 753-754. The Board concluded that:
s
1 [Ilt is sufficient for LILCO to offer the training because there is no requirement for such organizations to accept such an offer. Moreover, Intervenors have failed to establish any need for such mandatory training. In conclusion, the Board finds that Plan's provisions for training non-LILCO personnel are adequate.
PID at 755.
In their testimony on Contention EX 50 the Intervenors attempt to reclamor that issue by claiming that schools, hospitals, and similarily situated organizations would have to be involved in training, including drills and exercises, in order for that training i
to be realistic. This testimony directly contradicts the Board's findings.
l Moreover, the testimony should be stricken as irrelevant. Nowhere in Contention EX 50, its nine subparts, or the eleven contention subparts subsumed within Contention EX 50 is any mention made of the need for training of school or hospital personnel, in-tervenors should be denied their ad hoc attempt to expand the scope of Contention EX50.
Consequently, the following testimony related the participation of schools and hospitals in LERO training should be stricken:
Page 53, lines 19-20 82, footnote 45 lines 11-14 D.
Stress Training intervenors argued in the Plan litigation that emergency workers perform their duty under great stress and that the LERO training program was faulty because it did not realistically simulate the fatigue and stress of an emergency situation. S_ee PID at e
750, ruling on Contention EX 40 ("there is no assurance that LILCO training compen-sates for this lack of job-related experience, especially when the task to be performed may be accompanied by high levels of stress and f atigue involving life-threatening situ-ations. Training alone cannot prepare people for the actual stress and trauma that l
l
. acco apany emergency conditions. Experience is also essential"). The Board found that:
LILCO's witnesses are more qualified and persuasive on the issue of stress and fatigue than the Suffolk County witness.
Accordingly, the Board agrees with LILCO that stress and fa-tigue will not adversely affect the LERO emergency workers t
^
overall job performance.
PID at 750. In addition, on the related issue of whether the LERO training program I
provided for sufficient experience in handling surprises or unanticipated events, which the Suffolk County Police Officer witnesses equated with " role playing episodes during police training," PID at 752, the Board found that "the Plan adequately addresses the NUREG-0654,5 II.N.3 requirement for free play for decisionmaking... (and] that the LILCO drill and exercise scenarios allow fer implementation of such free play for deci-stonmaking." PID at 752. Suffolk County's testimony, which claims in essence that the training program "should be designed to force trainees to make decisions under pres-sure" (S.C. Testimony at 80).-is a transparent attempt to relitigate the issues of stress and fatigue and whether sufficient free play for decision making has been included in the training program. On that basis the following testimony should be stricken:
Page 80, lines 1-5 E.
The Structure of the LERO Organization In the Plan proceeding, the organizational structure of LERO was specifically and repeatedly challenged and found to be appropriate and acceptable. As described below, Intervonors challenged the organization and structure of LERO in connection with, among other things,2/ the design of the communication system (former Contention 30) 2/
These following examples also illustrate the broad-reaching inquiry into the or-ganizationalstructure of LERO that characterized the Plan litigation:
(footnote continued)
. and the appropriate structure of the training program in much the same manner that i
. Suffolk County now challenge LERO's organization structure in tast mony on Conten-tion EX 50.
(footnote continued) 1.
Intervenors challenged the organizational structure and procedures used by LERO to accomplish initial public notification. The Board found that the Plan to notify LILCO's Customer Service Office of an accident and to have the Customer Service Office attempt to reach the Director of Local Response and other key personnel who must decide whether to initiate public notification or, in the event the Director cannot be reached, to ini-tlate public notification by standard procedure "is conceptually adequate to comply with the regulations requiring public notification within 15 minutes." PID at 709.
2.
The Board found that the organizational structure LILCO presented for notifying its key emergency workers was adequate. PID at 711-712.
i 3.
With respect with the notification of non-LILCO emergency support orga-nizations, the County argued that the Plan should " include designation of individuals responsible for notifying each organization, the content of no-tification messages, and the name of specific individuals to be contacted."
PID at 715. There the Board found "Suffolk County's criticism of LILCO's Plan to alert supporting organizations to border on the disengenuous and frivolous." PID at 715-716.
4.
Intervenors also challenged the organizational structure and plans for mo-bilization of those LERO workers. Af ter considering the evidence pres-ented by both Suffolk County and LILCO, the Board concluded that LILCO has taken practical and reasonable steps to minimize the mobilization time for LERO workers.
It was helpful to establish three staging areas around the periphery of the EPZ and to distribute the responsibilities of LERO workers among the staging areas.... LILCO has matched special vehicles to the three staging areas to reduce travel times. The Board finds that, for a reasonable spectrum of possible acci-dents, LERO can mobilize its workers in a timely f ashion before there is a need for evacuation.
P!D at 724.
j l
l
With respect to the design of LERO's communication system, the Board found that LILCO had designed (aln administrative system... (that]... uses vertical pathways of communications within a management hierarchy rather than lateral communications among field personnel.
Tr. 5927-30 (Renz, Cordaro).... Contrary to LILCO's view, the County asserts that the communication system must be an operational system that permits emergency personnel in the field to communicate with one another without management involvement.
Regensburg et al., ff. Tr. 6184, at 31; Tr.
6211-13, 6243-50 (Snow).
Lateral communication among emergency workers in the field is necessary, the County says, because no plan can accurately predict all contingencies, and required traffic control activities are not predictable in ad-vance. Workers in the field should have the means to solve problems among themselves. Accidents, for example, would require communication between a road crew and traffic guides. Under LILCO's system, workers would send messages through the staging area to the EOC where coordinators would make the needed contacts to direct road crews.
PID at 730. The Board recognized that the conceptual and technical basis for interve-nors' opposition to LILCO's proposed communication system was based on their experi-ence in the design and use of communication systems for police use and on their belief that a similar system should be in place for a radiological emergency. The central issue posed by Contention 30 in the Plan phase was the propriety of LILCO's system design as administrative rather than operational. Noting that the County's opposition to an ad-ministrative system was the lack of flexibility to engage in on-the-spot problem-solving without involving higher management, the Board agreed with LILCO and found that the uses LILCO has for a communication system in an emergency (based on the structure of its organization) were not the same as those the police officers have in day-to-day op-erations. Therefore, the Board concluded that "LILCO's administrative communications system is a useful provuton for emergency response." PID at 737, 1
i
I Similarily, in challenging the basic structure of the training program, the County's witnesses repeatedly asserted, in the Plan litigation, a need to train personnel to deal with surprise events (Cosgrove et ab, ff. Tr.13,083 at 63-64) and the need to be able to develop ad hoc responses at the scene. Tr. 13,090-93 (Cosgrove). The Board rejected those arguments, made here again by Suffolk County's witnesses, and concluded:
The fundamental difference in training methodology between the police and LILCO is based on the fact that the Suffolk County Police Department teaches police officers broadly conceived response techniques, but the specifics must be de-veloped at the scene (Tr. 13,090-93 (Cosgrove)) whereas LERO personnel are trained to implement a narrow, detailed, preplanned emergency response function.
PID at 746.
From the foregoing it is clear that LERO's organizational structure, now chal-lenged in the testimony on Contention EX 50, was extensively litigated in the plan pro-
,f
\\
cceding and that the Board made specific findings on the lack of need for an operation-al/ lateral structure. Thus, the portions of Suffolk County's testimony'in which they assert that LILCO's organizational structure is inappropriate and that that organiza-tional structure will make it ditficult for LILCO to train its personnel should be h
v stricken as raising an issue already decided.
i These portions of the testimony should also be stricken because the organizational structure of LERO is not at issue in Contention EX 50 and is, therefore, irrelevant. The contention deals only with the results of the Exercise as it reflects on the training of LERO workers. The testimony does not draw any relationship between Exercise events and the claim that the organizational structure of LERO precludes an effective training (y'
program. For example, pages 200 through 217 of the testimony, which are the main portion of the organizational structure testimony, do not refer to any specific Exercise events as supporting the organizational theory.
At pages 215-217, the testimony
f 1
(
describes events in the ENC and the procedures to be followed by Road Crews and the Evacuation Coordinator.E Even assuming that the characterization of the event were true, there is no discussion of how these Exercise events demonstrate the organiza-tional structure problem of which the testimony complains. Accordingly, any Suffolk County testimony concerning the organizational structure of LERO is beyond the scope of the contention and should be stricken as irrelevant.
LILCO moves to strike the following portions of Suffolk County's testimony on the ground that it is irrelevant and barred by res judicata:
Page 54 58 footnote 31, lines 20-26 68, lines 15-18 160, line 21 through 161, line 4 165, line 19 through page 166, line 7 200, line 11 through page 217.,
c F.
The Efficacy of The Plan and Procedures The entire focus of the Plan litigation was the efficacy of the LILCO Plan and its Procedures. Under the thinly veiled guise of attacking the training program, Suffolk County frequently attacks the underlying LILCO Plan and Procedures. For example, on page 176, line 4 through page 177, line 12 Suffolk County's testimony attacks not the training of personnel to deal with the media but the underlying Plan and Procedures.
l l
l
'y i i-l 3/
The propr'iety of the ' Road Crew procedures and the Evacuation Coordinator's procedures were issues that were the subject of the Plan litigation and are not raised by Exercise events. PID at 719-720 ("It is assumed that the arrival of these vehicles (tow trucks] and persons will be distributed over a period of time af ter notification");
723-725 ("The 130ard also finds no evidence in the record that LILCO has planned im-I properly with regard to special vehicles such as buses, ambulances, tow trucks, and gas-j oline tank trucks").
e
. Q.
Are there any other concerns which yod have regarding LILCO's training for media contacts as ref.'ected by the Exer-cise results?
^
A.
Y=.
The E::crcisc results demo =trate that LILO's plan for media contacts is fundamentally unworkable. The LILCO Plan appears to emphasize that media contacts by LERO/LILCO personnel will take place under controlled conditions, pri-marily through press releases and the like.
The witnesses' testimony is clearly aimed at perceived defects in the LILCO Plan and Procedures. It does not address whether individuals were properly trained to imple.
ment the Plan and Procedures for dealing with the media. Moreover, testimony di-rected at the Plan and Procedures 18.not grounded in any events or occurrences that took place on the day of the Exercise $rd thus is outside the scope of Contention EX 50.
For both these reasons the following testimony should be stricken:
Page 75 lines 7-12, and footnote 42
- 77. lines 10-20 (traffic gu!;.!e procedure directs guides 20 instruct the public to tune to the EBS. station) 172, line 1 through page 174, line,15 176, line 4 through page 177, line 12 (see above) 213, lines 5-8 214, lines 8 through page 215, line 3.
G.
LERO _ Training Need Not Be the Equivalent of Police Training Suffolk County's testimony on Contention EX 50 refers to the type of law enforce-ment training conducted by Suffolk County, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or var-ious police forces in Arkansas as providing an appropriate standard for LERO training.
This portion of the testimony revisits the issue of whether LERO training should mimic training for police or other law enforcement work, which was decided by the Licensing Board in the Plan proceeding. The Board held that:
(t]he fundamental difference in training methodology be-tween the police and LILCO is cased on the fact that the Suffolk County Police Department teaches police officers broadly conceived response techniques, but the specifics must be developed at the scene (Tr. 13,090-93 (Cosgrove)) whereas LERO personnel are trained to implement a carrow, detailed, g.
)
W P
. preplanned emergency response function.... LERO traffic guides need not be proficient in police work or even in all as-pects of traffic control; their job is to guide traffic through intersections on to the designated route. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Plan and training progracn appear iu contain adequate information to enable personnel to carry out their emergency response functions.
PID at 746-47.
Indeed the Board declined to address the issue of the relative merits of the Suffolk County Police Department's traffic guide training and the training of LERO workers (PID at 749) finding that:
the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the job of traffic guide is not so complex that it cannot be learned with-in the time allocated in Dr. Babb's training program.... [and that] Intervenors have not established that any LERO jobs are so complex that they require training or experience beyond that called for in the Plan.
PID at 749-50. In so ruling the Licensing Board recognized the fact that Police Acade-my training has nothing to do with many of the tasks required by LERO personnel, such as radiation exposure control, evacuee monitoring and decontamination, public infor-mation, public notification, developing protective action recommendations, etc. Indeed the purpose of the LILCO Plan and, therefore, the purpose of the training program, is to train LERO personnel to respond to radiological emergency at a nuclear power plant, not to train law enforcement personnel.
Furthermore, the structure of the training program under the LILCO Plan, including whether that training program should incorporated or be guided by aspects of law enforcement training, is not an issue that was raised by the Exercise, nor is it called out as an issue in Contention EX 50. Consequently, references to law enforce-ment training as indicative of the type of training that should be received by LERO personnel or as a criticism of the training methodology employed by LERO should be stricken as irrelevant.
. The following portions of Suffolk County's testimony on Contention EX 50 should be stricken as res judicata and irrelevant:
Page 66, lines 14 through page 67, line 3 80, lines 11 thrugh page 8447 137, footnote 58.
III.
PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY ARE DUPLICATIVE OF PRIOR TESTIMONY OR CONSTITUTE IMPERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY This Board has already stated "that it will hear evidence only once on each admit-ted factual matter in dispute regardless of whether it pertains to Contention EX 50 or to some referenced contention that has not been consolidated." Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Discovery Schedule) (Oct. 3,1986) at 30-65. LILCO moves to strike portions of Suffolk County's testimony dealing with the LERO response to the road impediments because the testimony is duplicative of prior testimony.
Detailed accounts of various aspects of the LERO response to the road impedi-ments that reflect Intervenors' interpretation of those events were previously admitted as testimony on Contention EX 41. See Suffolk County Testimony on Contention EX 41, Mobilization and Dispatch of Road Crews and Removal of Impediments from the Road-ways During the February 13,1986 Shoreham Exercise. The training testimony on these events is in all instances repetitive and redundant of other testimony and should be stricken.
4/
The testimony alleges that there are similarities between Emergency Mobiliza-tion Exercise in Little Rock, Arkansas and the Exercise of the LILCO Plan. See page 82, footnote 45. In fact, these two incidents are quite different. The Emergency Mobi-lization Exercise focused on a simulated emergency event where approximately 500 emergency response workers converged on a single location - the local football stadi-um. In contrast, the Exercise of LILCO Plan involved over 1,000 emergency response workers who manned locations within a complete 10-mile emergency planning zone.
4
. Portions of Suffolk County's Testimony on Contention EX 50 are also duplicative of the testimony on Contention EX 38 dealing with ENC operations. In each of the pas-sages cited below, ENC operations, which were discussed at length in admitted testimo-ny on Contention EX 38, are redescribed and reanalyzed by the training witnesses. The objectionable testimony deals with such topics as the judgment of ENC personnel during the Exercise, SC Testimony at 156-58, the realism of the Exercise scenario, id. at 167 n.
65, and the likely interaction of LERO and the media during a radiological emergency, i_d. at 168 n. 66; 172-74.
LILCO moves the Board to strike the following portions of SC Testimony on Con-tention EX 50 as duplicative:
Page 61 through page 68 105 through page 108,line 17 152 through page 153, line 15, and footnote G3 156, line 8 through 158, line 19 167, footnote 65 168, footnote 66 172, lir.e i through page 174, line 15 176, footno e 67 176, line 3 through page 181, line 17.
In addition to being duplicative, to the extent that this testimony differs from that already admitted on Contention EX 41, it is an improper attempt to present rebut-tal testimony without establishing good cause. On that ground, LILCO moves to strike Suffolk County's testimony at page 110, footnote 50. The footnote attempts to rebut LILCO's testimony on Contention EX 41 that injecting the message at the EOC was un-realistic, by opining that news of impediments is of ten learned about by headquarters personnel. This footnote constitutes rebuttal testimony on Contention EX 41 argued in the context of Contention EX 50. Accordingly, it should be excluded from the testimo-ny on Contention EX 50.
r v
o i i IV.
3f)NCLUSION For the reasons stated above, LILCO respectfully requests that the Board disquall-l Iy W1111am Lee Colwell as an expert witness on Contention EX 50, strike the portions of
]
the testimony listed in this motion, and remove certain witnesses from the portions of testimony listed in this motion.
i Respectfully submitted, ruA-
% Nl
/Jesine A. Monaghan Thomas E. Knauer i
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATE: April 22,1987 1
i I
1, h
j t
i 4
,n-
,-------n.
e---.,,n,,a a
s_e,.,,
-.m,,,~
-- - -. - - 4
ATTACHMENT A i
TRANSCit?1' 03 :?3OC eJL ~GS I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NT5 CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
__x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
LONG ISIMD LIGHTING COMPANY (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, 1
i Unit 1) j 1
x
\\
DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM LEE COLWELL Washington, D.
C.
Tuesday, December 30, 1986 ACE-FEDER.-\\L REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotype Reporters
+i4 North Cacitol Street washington, b.C. ml (202) 34 -3700 Natio'nwide Coverage 800-336-6646
,et
-.g
l 29343.0 l
COX 18 l
i L
j Inves t iga tion?
2
(
A No.
I 3
I Q
Can you list fer =e in re.crec chronclegical crder 1
4 the positions you held with the FBI and the job 5
responsibilities connected with those positions?
r 6
MR. MILLER:
Since the beginning of time with the 7
FBI?'
8 j
MS. MONAGHAN:
I have asked for it in reverse 9
chronological order.
Let's see how far we go back in i
l 10 i
history.
i i
11 THE WITNESS:
I was with the FBI approximately 26 12 years.
When I left, I was the associate director of the FBI, 1
which is the number two position in that organization.
13 14 Prior to that, I was the executive assis tant 15 director in charge of administration.
Do you want the 16 1 responsibilities, you said, in each?
i i
17 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
j
- l Q
Yes, if you would, please.
l 1
18 6
i 19 As associate director of the FBI, I was the acting 20 i director in absence of the director, which meant if he was 21 l out of the building, I was the acting director, if he was out 22 of town or wherever he might be, other than in the FBI i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, :NC.
^
E347 3700 Nationwnie Coverage 300 33M64 l
._m.....
[
29343.0
' i COX-I 19 i
i 1
building.
My responsibilities included all of those that go lwiththepositionofdirectoroftheFBIandinthose 2
1 3
) instances, which was running an organization of over 20,000 j people, interpreting and developing policy, making decisions 4
5 on cases, consulting with cabinet level officers, officials l
i 6
) in the White House, members of Congress, governors, state l'
d l
7 legislators, attorney generals, chiefs of police, foreign 8
representatives in the United States representing their l
t 9
i governments.
All criminal investigations and all l
10 intelligence investigations.
i f
And also included in that was the responsibility 11 i
12 of ensuring that there was a review of the activities of the 13 FBI, that the FBI's conduct on the part of its employees were 14 under the rule of law in accord with rules and regulations of 15 the organization; training programs, budget decisions which j
16 j involve a total of over $1 billion; how that money was to be spent, recommenda tions to officials in the Department of 17
.J Justice on how that money was to be allocated, decisions in i
18 i
19 allocati.ons of personnel, disciplinary matters, internal i
20 j audits, inspections and evaluations, effectiveness of the j
21 organization, liaison with approximately 740 interest groups i
22 I in Washington, the whole gamut of the responsibilities of i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n..u,.n s.-. c-
~~
~
29343.0 COX 20 1
someone in that position.
2 In the position as associate director --
3 Q
Dr. Coluell, during what time period did you hcid
)
1 4
i the position of associate director at the FBI?
l i;
5 l
A The last year of my service with the FBI, f
6 officially, effectively the title from 1978 to -- '77 to l
l 7
1985.
l l
8 Q
Was that -- you said effectively you had that 9
title from '77 to
'85.
10 A
My responsibilities did not change.
In the 1
11 absence of the director, I did all the things --
1 i
12
{
Q Did all the things of the director and took on all 13 the responsibilities that would have been those of the i
14 j director?
i l
i 15 j
A Tha t's correc t.
16 Q
During what time period was your official title 17 l - associate director?
i l
A 1985.
18 l
19
-Q Prior to that, you had been the executive i
1, i
20 l assistan't director for adminis tration?
21 A
That's correct.
l 22 l
Q Can you tell me briefly what tha t entailed? -
r l
l ACE-3EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l02 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 500 3Wr,646 l
21 l
COX j
i 1
A As I started to say, the responsibilities of the 2
associate director are ensuring that all of those things
- l occurred and are operating in an ef fective manner, even when 3
i fthedirectorispresent in the building, supporting him-in 4
l 5
! his decisionmaking processes or policy review or whatever it 6
might be.
Also keeping him abreast of investigations, making l
7 I
sure that he is informed or was informed.
l I
I As the executive assistant director in charge of 8
9
! administration, I had line responsibilities with specific --
i specifically with three or four assistant directors who had 10 Ii i
I the Il 11
! specific areas of responsibilities in the FBI such as 1,
4 budget, legal counsel, public affairs, maintenance of l'
12 l
\\
13 l documents, Freedom of Information Act, automation, long-range j
14 planning, evaluations, review of training, investigations.
h 15 1
Q Did you say that the evaluations concerned both 16 the review of training and of investigations?
I i
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Or was investigations a separate category that you i
19 listed?
i-1 20 A
It included -- well, each one is separate, but, in ;f
' 1 1
my characterization, including, evalua tions including
,l 21
!l 22 training -- for that matter, I just mentioned a couple.
All i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 02.;c.3 00 Nationwule Coverage 900 33H646 l
c.
29343.0 COX 22 l
a L
j operations within the organization.
2
]
Q All right.
During what time period was that your i
l J
j oEC1Cidi CICle aC Ene Fdit 1
A About -- sometime in 1980 to 1984, through ' 8'4,
4
]
5 through the most part of
'84.
i 6
Q Prior to becoming the executive assistant director l
', of administration, what was your position at the FBI?
7 i
8 A
My title,*
I stated previously, my position was as t
I 9
l the same for about eight, approximately eight years.
My i
i i
i 10 l
title was executive assistant director in charge of 11 investigations, that was for about a two-year period.
,I i
12 Q
From '78 to 1980?
13 A
Early '79 or sometime in '79 to
'80, through j
i 14 sometime in
'80.
15 Q
Okay.
Was your role as executive assistant 16 director of inves tigations the same or different than your 17 role as executive assistant director of administration?
l 18 A
It included all the things I have mentioned, in 19 addition to having line authority over all criminal and
)
}
i 20 j intelligence investigations in the FBI.
21 Q
At the time that you were executive assistant 3
22 director of inves tigations, did someone else hold the l
ACE-3EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
lc347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 300 336-6646 I i
l 1R 29343.0 i
COX 23 lI a
1 position of executive assistant director of adminis t ation?
l 2
A Yes. 'Part of that time.
3 Q
For most of it or for a little bit of that time?
?,
4 j
A For a little bit of that time, f'
5 Q
Prior to becoming executive assistant director of i
6 investigations, what was your position at the FBI and for f
7' l
what time frame?
i i
8 i
A Assistant director, 1977-78.
9 l
Q Now, as I understand it, the FBI is broken up into l
l a number of departments.
What department were you assistant l
10 ll 11 l
director of?
12
)
A Inspection, planning and evaluation.
i 13 Q
What was your role as the assistant director of I
l l
14 insoection and planning and evaluation?
l l
l j
15 i
A Much of what I have already mentioned; I
J 16 specifically, to review the operations of the FBI to ensure I
i 17 that we were in compliance with the' law, that the operations i
18 were effective and efficient, that we did not continue I
19 programs that were obsolete, that we adopted new management 20 procedures that would maintain the position of the FBI as a 21 preeminent inves tigative agency, not only in the United 22 S tates but i n the world.
i l
l ACE-3EDERAE REPORTERS, INC.
l i
l ll02 347 3 00 Nanonwide Coserase 300 34.eie i
1........
29343.0 f
COX l
24 1
Q Prior to becoming assis tant director of 1
2 il imspection, planning and evaluation, what position did you f,holdattheFBI?
3 4
l A
Deputy assistant director in charge of planning j
5 and evaluations.
i 6
Q What did you do in connection with that deputy I'
7 assistant directorship?
I I
8 A
I ovar=aw and participated in evaluations of FBI 9
l operations, all programs and all activities of the FBI, and l
10 i
made reports to the director with. recommendations for change, 11 l
modification or discontinuing or initiating new programs.
As
/
i, I mentioned previously, that responsibility continued
- l 12 i
I 13 throughout the rest of my time in the FBI.
)i
.i 14 I
Q What time period were you the deputy assistant t
LS director of planning and evaluation?
i 16 A
1976-77, mid-77.
t 17 Q
What did you do before that?
18 i
A I was a special agent in charge of the San Antonio l
- ll 19
-, office of the FBI.
1 20 Q
Were your responsibilities as special agent in 21 charge of the San Antonio office basically the adminis tration I
22
- and running of that office?
I, r
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l m.m..
.m-. cm,.
33 _
I 29343.0 l
COX 25 1
1 l
A That's correc t, but including liaison, dealing 2
with the press, ensuring that the FBI had a supportive role 3
in the training for the State of Texas for all of the law enforcement community there.
l 4
5 Q
When did you become a special agent in charge of 6
the San Antonio office?
i 7
A 1975.
3 8
Q Were you affiliated with that office prior to '75?
i 9
A What do you mean by " affiliated"?
10 Q
Were you affiliated with the San Antonio office of 11 the FBI?
I 12 A
Did I work there prior to that time, no.
i I
J 13 1
Q Where were you s tationed prior to that time?
i 14.
A I was stationed at FBI headquarters.
i 1
15 l
Q Wha t was your of ficial title at FBI headquarters 16 before becoming a special agent in charge of the San Antonio office?
17 18 l
A I was tha senior, I believe senior staff 19 coordinator for the office of planning and evaluation.
20 Q
What did that role entail?
21 A
It included items and categories tha t I previous ly f
f 22 i mentioned in connection with evaluations and the planning.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
1 m.m.3.
sm_. c-,
m>_
l l
29343.0 j
26 COX 1
Q How long did you hold that position as senior 2
staff coordinator for the office of planning and evaluation?
.i 3
A Less than a year.
4 4
1 Q
So from approximately sometime in '74 to sometime i
5 in '75?
i 6
A Late
'74, early
'75.
i i
7 Q
When you say that you were -- part of your job'
~
l 8
responsibilities and a number of jobs that you held with the 9
FBI was a review of the FBI operations, an evalua tion of i
10 those FBI operations, what do you mean by that?
j I
11 l
A Looking at a particular program or activity and I
i 12 making a decision or formulating a decision as to whether or i
13 not that activity is meeting the expectations, was meeting i
l the expectations of myself, the director of the FBI, members 14 15 l of Congress, the Attorney General, the public.
In other 16 words, whether or not it was effective.
Those were the 17 things that were included in the decision.
18 Q
How did you go about determining whether or not a I
19 partienlar program was meeting the objectives that had been l
r 20 j set by the public, the FBI, Congress?
21 A
We had to have a sense of what that expecta tion l
was and certainly had to review the activity to make sure you 22 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336 % 4 l
29343.0 27 COX
. 'e 1
l had an understanding of what the activity was, how much 1
i 1
I 2
resources were involved, both in human resources as well as 3
financial.
l 4
1 Q
Let's say, for example, that you were going to i
evaluate the effectiveness of one of the programs that S
i 6
I concerned itself with organized crime out of one of the area 7
offices of the FBI.
How would you go about developing an l
8 evaluation process for that?
9 i
A Well, certainly, you would have to have an i
10 existence of organized crime in that particular area, either 11 proven or perceived.
s 12 Q
Let's assume it was out of the New York area l office, the New York City area office, and that there was 13 i
14 proven organized crime out of that particular office.
15 A
You would look at.the level of activity ot i
16 investigations of the New York office, and the assumption you i
17 make and you would translate that to dollars to see what the i
I' 18 cost of the investigation was.
You would look at the results 19 of the-inves tigation.
It would entail discussions with the i
20 i United States attorney to determine whether or not the office.l l
21 was meeting his or her expectation in conducting organized 22
! crime investigations.
You might include discussions with I
4 l
l AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
- 02 347-3700 Sarionwide Coverage 80033964
1 G
I 29343.0 l*
- COX 64 1
A It would include -- it would have included a 2
number of things and terrorism is one of the most visibic and 3
highes t areas of concern of the public today.
And so that I
4 would have been one of them.
l 5
i Q
In what disciplines do you consider yourself to be 4
l I
6
) an expert?
l' 7
A What do you mean by " disciplines"?
I.
8 l
Q Well, for example, at universities there are a I
i 9
number of departments or disciplines, such as anthropology, i
i sociology, s tatis tics, human performance.
What disciplines j
10 11 l would you characterize yourself as being an expert?
i i
f 12 A
May I answer that and tell you what I teach?
I i
consider my knowledge pretty broad in the area of 13 i
i 14
! management.
I think I have a broad experience in snaking 4
15 assessments and evaluations of programs.
I consider that I i
16
' have a broad knowledge at the so-called public adminis tration 17 area and the criminal justice system.
18 1
Q Do you consider yourself an expert on statistics?
I i
I 19
.A No.
1 20 Q
What about sociology?-
21 A
No.
I Q
Have you ever been involved in planning for the 22 l l i
l l
ACE-3EDERAL hPORTERS, INC.
1 m.m.-
-o c-
29343.0 65 l
COX emergency of a nuclear power plant?
1 What do you mean " involved"?
2 A
.I Have you ever planned for an emergency in a 3
Q 4
nuclear power plant?
i.
5 A
No.
Has anyone whom you supervised been involved with 6
Q 1 -- has anyone which you supervised planned for an emergency
~
7 8
of a nuclear power plant?
I What kind of an emergency?
9 l
A l
take a nuclear emergency, radiological i
10 l
Q Well, let's i
11 emergency.
What kind of nuclear emergency?
12 A
s, Q
Let's assume that there was a problem at the 13 i! nuclear plant in which they were concerned about a possibic 14 i
15 j breach of the containment.
Have you ever been involved with l
planning -- has anyone whom you supervised planned for that 16 17 kind of an emergency?
I A
Probably.
I don't recall specifically, but 18 i
19 maybe.
In connection with your work in Arkansas, have you l 20 Q
either been involved at all in planning for an emergency at 21 I
22' Arkansas 1 or 2?
l l
ACE.rEDERAL REPORTERS, EC.
I m. m.3 -
s_m. c_
m >>-
l i
29343.0 i
66 j
COX,
i 1
j 1
j A
No.
2 Q
Dr. Colwell, when did you first learn that you 3
i might be a witness in this proceeding?
1 4
A Ch, probably about four weeks ago, approximately i
5 i
four weeks ago.
I i
6 l
Q So approximately the end of November, the I
,i 7
beginning of December?
l 8
A I don't think there was any date certain.
Just I
9
'over a period of a couple weeks that. developed that I might 10 be.
I I
i l
_Q Is it your' understanding that you would testify as 11 i
.m l ;.
12 l
an expert witness in this proceeding?
13 i
A It's my understanding that my background.as a i
14 4 whole might be useful in testimony.
15 j
Q What subject matters do you expect to provide 16 testimony on?
j I
i 17 I
A What do you mean by " subject matter"?
l' 18
]
Q Well, are there particular topics about which you l
19 expect to testify?
20 MR. MILLER:
Dr. Colwell has already stated, 7:
)
j think, his understanding of the particular contentions that 21 1
22
- he has looked at and is likely. prepared to offer testimony k
s i
i l
Ae-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 1700 Nationude Covenge 300-13W I
i 9 i l
29343.0 t
COX j
75 4
~
i 1
i Q
Dr. Colwell, at this time do you have a view on
}
j whether the LILCO training program was effective or 2
i finedfecti/e?
3 1
A I am not prepared to answer that as a total j
4 5
program for LILCO, whether it's ef fective or inef fective.
6 6
Q Can you answer that with respect to any specific i
i 7
incidents that indicate that a portion of that program. may or i
I 8
may not have been affected?
I 9
i A
Some of the contentions that I reviewed address 10 the training program of LILCO, or parts of it.
There are 11 areas that are identified in the contention itself that cause i
i 12 one to stop and question what has happened.
13 Q
But at this time you have not developed an opinion i
laboutwnethertheprogramitselfwaseffectiveor 14 i
15 i ineffective?
16 A
Not the whole program.
17 Q
Have you developed an opinion as to whether I
18 portions of the program were effective or ineffective?
19 A
As I said earlier, no.
I have some views but I 20 j haven't developed an opinion; that's correct.
1 21 Q
Do you have any view on whether the LILCO -- LERO 22 training program or LILCO training program for the
- t. raining I
i ACE-FEDERAL 3EPORTERS, INC.
I x.w.n 8 - + c -,.
i
I I
l 29343.0 COX 76 ll 1
of traffic guides was etfective or ineffective?
j 2
A What contention is that in?
i 3
Q 50.
4 5
A 50?
!I 5
l MR. MILLER:
Would you care to look at Contention i
6 i
50?
l l
7 THE WITNESS:
Yes, I would like to.
l 8
l MR. MILLER:
My objec tion, I am not going to I
9 l
repeat it all, but I think this whole line of questioning is l
10 l
a foray ~into a waste of everyone's time.
He is here to talk i
11 about the contentions, so let's focus on the contentions.
rl 12 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
j 13 Q
Dr. Colwell, will your view as to whether or not I
I-14-i the LERO training program was effective or ineffective based 15 upon the traffic guides be based upon what is contained in 16 contention 50?
17 A
I can't say that.
I think that the information 4
l l !
18 i
contained in Contention 50 would be used, and that it might l
i 19 be before developing a final opinion I might want to look at 20 j other sources.
l 21 l
Q Do you have any idea what other sources you might 22 want to l'ook a t?
l i
i ACE-FEDERAL 3EPORTERS, :NC.
212 347 3700 Nationwice Caserage 800 33m
29343~.W 77 j
COX-i 1
A It would depend on what is available.
h Q
D o y o u-h a v e a n y i d e a w h a t other documents might be 2
1 3
'g available?
4 A
I don't beliove -- I am certain that I am not
)
4 but 5
knowledgeable on what all kinds of documents aight exist, I am sure there are work papers or backup papers.
6 l
7 j
Q aut you haven't seen or reviewed any ot those?
8 A
No, I have not.
I am told -- I am aware that 4
9 j
there are other ' documents that exis t that go behind that l
10 I
support these contentions.
11 Q
How are you aware tha t there are other documents J
12 l
that exist?
I 13 A
Through discussions with people.
14 l
Q Would that be discussions with your counsel or j
15 I not?
f A
Yes.
16 i
Would that also include discussions with other Q
17 18 witnesses; for example, Mr. Zook?
19 A
No.
20
. Q Just discussions with counsel has made you aware 21 tha t there are other documents?
1 22 A
Yes.
I s
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,.NC.
j 202-347 3700 Nanonwide Coversee 800 33646d6 I
..,y.
s
I l
29343.0 78 i
COX i
1 l
Q Do you know at all what those other documents
.' might be?
i 2
3 A
No, I do no t.
4 i
Q You are going to look at Contention 50 to let me s
5 know whether you have developed a view on whether the LERO i
l 6
training program for traffic guides was effective or i
7 ineffective.
8 MR. MILLER:
Do you have a particular subpart of I
9 contention 50 you are referring to, Ms. Monaghan?
i I
10 l
MS. MONAGHAN:
No.
l i
t l
11 l
THE WITNESS:
I assume tha t the training' guides 12 are mentioned in Contention 50?
BY MS. MONAGHAN:
13 I,
Q Contention 50 deals with the training program and 14 15 i
the allegations of the Intervenors with respect to the 16 training program.
l 17 A
Your question about the training?
18 Q
My question is whether you have a view on whether f.
I 19 the LERO training program for the training of traffic guides 20 j was an effective program or not.
l MR. MILLER:
You referenced earlier that that 21 i
22 issue was brought to bear by Contention 50.
So we are asking m
9 i
l,!
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3*00 Nationwide Caerage 300-336 e646
l 2934300 79 I
COX l
1
' if there is a particular subpart of Contention 50 you want to 2
point us to.
3 MS. MONAGHAN:
No.
There is no particular 4
portion.
THE WITNESS:
Again, my -- I think it's premature 5
6 j for me to state, for me to. state a view regarding the j
i 7
training program that has been used.
l I,
BY MS. MONAGHAN:
8 i
9 Q
Dr. Colwell, why would it be premature for you to l
l I
make a-statement at this point in time?
10 l
A Because I have not reviewed the -- I am not 11 i
i 12 satisfied with the extent of my review at this poin t.
13 Q
Are you familiar with NUREG-0654, that's a FEMA 14 i document?
A Not that I am aware of.
j
~
15 16 Q
Are you familiar with FEMA Guidance Memorandum 17?
l 17 A
No.
18 Q
Are you generally familiar with what FEMA is, the 19 Federal Emergency Management Agency?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Have you ever worked with FEMA?
22 A
- Yes, t
6 I. '
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I l02 347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800 336 4 646
..-.--.--.......g...-__---
I
29343.0 i
COX i
80 i
4
.I 1
1 Q
What' kind of work have you done with FEMA?
2 A
It's classified.
It's a classified program.
f 3
Q Can you tell me at all generally what the work was 4
that you would have done with FEMA without delvi.ng into the j
5 specifics?
-l i
6 i
A It involves a part of the responsibilities of FEMA l
7 as a federal emergency management agency.
l j
Q Does it involve a particular kind of emergency?
8 i
9 l
A It involves emergencies, yes, a particular i
10 l
category of emergencies, yes.
{
11 Q
Does it involve radiological emergencies?
I 12 A
I said it was classified earlier.
I don't feel i
comfortable in further defining and I am not trying to be j
13 i
14 j evasive.
To do so would put me under -- give me problems 15 that I don't want to invite.
16 Q
I understand.
Okay.
Have you ever deal t with FEMA in connection with their responsibilities for reviewing j
17 18 and evaluating emergency plans for nuclear power plants?
i.
I, 19
-A Not directly or personally.
i 20 i
O Have you dealt with them --
l 21 A
It may have been discussed at some point but not l
22 as the main topic of discussion for me.
W j
~
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, NC.
l) ac.347 3700 Nanonwule Coerage aoo.3 m
o 1
i 29343.0 i
COX 81 4
1 I
Q Have you reviewed any of the -- strike that.
Let I
1 2
me go back.
3 Do you expect that you are going to review FEMA
)'GuidanceMemorandum 17 prior to preparing your testimony?
4 5
A I can't answer that.
I don't know what is i
[
6 contained in it.
I would rely on counsel to, in part, to l-1 references.
,l point me to pertinent 7
8 Q
Are you familiar with materials used in the LILCO i
9 training. program?
10 i
A For presentations, no.
11 Q
Do you expect that you will review those materials 12 prior to preparing your tes timony?
l 13 A
I might.
It would certainly be something that I i
j might consider.
L4 Q
Are you familiar with the LERO player documents 15 i
16 that were generated during the exercise?
17 A
No.
I have seen the references to them.
Q But you have not reviewed any of those documents?
18 i
19 A -
That's correct.
i
)
l 20 i
Q Do you expect that you will review those materials i
21 prior to preparing your testimony?
22 A
I might.
I l
I I
i j
ACE-rEDERAL REPORTERS,.NC.
202 347-3*00 Natwnwide Coserage 800 136 4 86
\\e 3
ges 29333.0 l
COX 166 1
1 doesn't indicate that the LERO player asked what kind of 2
equipment was needed; is that what you are saying?
j 3
3 A
That's richt.
i
'4 Q
Dr. Colwell, just prior to the break when we went i
5 off the record, you had looked at Contention 35.
Am I l
I 6
correct that you were not going to be relying on the facts in i
Contention 359 7
l 8
A If it is not available to me, if it's been denied, l
1 9
[
I guess I won't be using it, or I will stop using it.
l l
10 l
Q Is it your opinion that the LILCO training program i
11 i
does not ef f ectively train LERO personnel to use common sense i
I I
i 12 in dealing with the situations presented in an emergency?
13 A
Yes, I think -- didn ' t we say tha t?
I said that 1
14 j earlier.
15 l
Q I think we were talking about independent 4
i 16 1
judgment, but would your opinion be the same as to common e
i I
17 sense?
l I
18 A
Yes.
I am a little reluctant to say that somebody ls 19 didn't have common sense, but it appears tha t they didn't 1
I 20 j have or they didn't exercise it, based upon the material that I
21 i
I have reviewed.
I 22 Q
In your opinion, can a training program train i
'i l
l
' ACE-FEDERAL MPORTERS, INC.
2C-347 3700 Naionwide Cmerage 300 33H64
29343.0 COX 167 4
f j people to use common sense; is it possible to do tha t?
1 j
2 1
A I don't know.
I never addressed that.
I have 3
never addressed that bef ore.
4 Q
Do you have an opinion about that?
5 A
No.
i i
6 Q
Is it your opinion that LILCO's training program l
7 has not successfully or effectively trained its. personnel to 8
deal with the med.ja?
l 9
A Yes.
l l
10 l
Q Okay.
Ghat facts do you base that opinion on or e
i 11 l
do you rely on for your opinion?
I e
12 A
The references which clearly show that inaccurate, I
13 untimely information -- there is a casualness, ipparently,
+
i 14 I toward the media.
r' 15 3
Q What do you mean by a "casualnest towardc the 16 media"?
17 A
Not paying attention to detail, not correcting t
18 messages in a timely manner.
I s'
19 4
At this time are all of the facts on which you are l
20 going to rely those contained in the cross-referenced 1
21 contentions and the cross-references to the F$MA report?
22 MR. MILLER:
In subparagraph F?
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwwie Coverage 300 336 % M 8
1 ATTACHMENTB l
l
TIMNBClFT
~
03 P30CKKlNGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF JOHN W.
STREETER, JR.
Yaphank, New York Tuesday, December 16, 1986 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenottape Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
T\\
85
-s s 1
A No.
2 Q
Is your knowledge of what occurred the day of the 3
exercise based on the FEMA exercise recort?
1 4
A Yes, it is.
5 0
Is it based at all on your discussions with 6
Inspector Cosgrove?
7 A
No.
8 Q
So, your sole source of information about what 9
occurred the day of the FEMA exercise is the FEMA exercise 10 report; is that correct?
11 A
Yes, it is.
12 Q
Is it your opinion that LILCO's training program has not effectively trained LERO personnel to exercise in-13 dependent judgment in implementing the olan and procedures?
14 15 A
Yes, it is.
16 Q
What do you rely on for that opinion?
17 A
Their reported behavior in the FEMA report.
18 Q
Anything else?
19 A-No.
20 Q
Is it your opinion that LILCO's training program has not effectively trained LERO personnel to use common 21 22 sense in implementing the LILCO plan and crocedures?
1 86 1
A You have asked that.
,/
2 O
I think we already asked that.
Strike that.
Is it your opinion that LILCO's training program 3
has not effectively trained its personnel to deal with the 4
5 media?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
What do you base your opinion on?
8 A
On what was indicated in the FEMA report.
9 Q
Are there any other facts or documents on which you base your opinion other than what is in the FEMA report?
to 11 A
No.
12 Q
Have you had any discussions with anyone on which 13 you base that opinion?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Is it your opinion that LILCO's training program has not effectively trained LERO personnel to crovide timely, 16 17 accurate, consistent and non-conflicting information to the i
18 public?
1 19 A
Yes, it is.
l 20 0
What do you base that opinion on?
21 A
Based on the indicated behavior in the FEMA 22 report.
87 g
1 Q
Are there any other documents on which you
- ret, 2
for that opinion?
3 A
No.
\\ ;
4 Q
Discussions with anyone else on which you rely 5
for that opinion?
6 A
No.
7 Q
Your opinion is based solely on the facts and observations contained in the FEMA report; is that correct?
8 9
A That's correct.
10 0
Is it your opinion that LILCO has failed to provide training to persons and organizations relied on for i
11 implementation of this plan?
12 13 A
Yes, it is.
14 0
What do you base tha t opinion on?
15 A
Again, on information and observations as indicated i
16 in the FEMA report.
17 Q
And, your opinion is based solely on the FEMA 18 report; is that correct?
19 A-That's correct.
20 Q
Is it your opinion that the LERO training program is deficient in the area of dosimetry?
21 22 A
Do you mean training in the use of that device?
88 Q
Yes.
i A
If that is what you mean, the answer is yes.
2 3
Q Okay.
What do you base your opinion on?
4 A
Again, the information and indications of the 5
behavior via the FEMA report.
6 Q
Is your opinion based solely on the facts and 7
opinions contained in the FEMA report?
8 A
Yes, and the facts indicated in the FEMA report.
9 Yes.
10 Q
Is it your opinion that LERO training is ti deficient in the area of exposure control?
12 A
Yes, it is.
13 Q
What do you base your opinion on?
14 A
The behavior and information as indicated in the 15 FEMA report.
16 Q
Do you base your opinion on anything else?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Do you agree with the assessments in the FEMA 19 report?-
20 A
To a certain degree, yes.
21 Q
What do you disagree with in the FEMA report?
l 22 MR. MILLER:
Do you want to see the FEMA report?
1
\\
89 s
1 THE WITNESS:
I think I can answer in general think that certain things are extremely important 2
terms.
I from the training perspective that perhaps they didn' t attach 3
4 the same degree of importance that I do.
5 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
(Continuing) 6 0
What things do you feel that you attach a greater degree of importance to than was attached by the FEMA report?
7 8
A Training in general.
9 Q
Can you be more specific than that?
10 A
Just the overall training.
11 Q
Can you be more specific about what you disagree 12 with in the FEMA report?
13 A
No.
It's just my general feeling.
14 Q
Would you characterize the FEMA report as a 15 comprehensive evaluation of the exercise?
16 MR. MILLER:
Please define what you mean by 17 comprehensive.
18 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
(Continuing) 19 Q-Do you understand the question?
20 A
It depends on what you mean by comprehensive.
21 And if I wasn't there, I don't know if they omitted data.
22 Q
To the best of your knowledge, did the FEMA report
T
\\
90 1
cover all of the aspects of the exercise that were demon-2 strated?
MR. MILLER:
I don't understand that question at 4
all.
5 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
(Continuing) 6 O
Do you understand the question, Lt. Streeter?
7 A
I understand the question, and the answer is I 8
don't know because I wasn't there.
9 Q
Do you have any idea how FEMA went about evaluating 10 the performance of the LERO players?
11 A
As was indicated in the report, that's the degree 12 of my understanding.
13 Q
Do you have any reason to disagree with their 14 methodology based on what you have read in the report?
I 15 A
No.
16 Q
Would you modify the methodology in any way based 17 on what you have read in the report?
18 MR. MILLER:
Do you understand what the FEMA
~
19 methodology is, Lieutenant?
20 THE WITNESS:
It's my understanding that they had 21 observers at certain locations that made observations of 22 the performance and behavior of the personnel involved in the
ATTACHMENT C
L. '.
..S K F..'
03 ZROCH E ~GS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL) 1 Unit 1) 1 j
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF HAROLD R.
ZOOK 1
l Wa sh:.ngton,
D.
C.
t I
Thursday, January 15, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stewtwe Rwne i 4-H Nerth Caci:ol 5treet Washincron. D.C. 20001 f 202) 347 37C0 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 e
/g7. 0 11
,5W 1
expert by counsel for Suffolk County?
2 A
Possibly.
3 Q
Do you know why you were asked to testify in this 4
proceeding?
5 A
I would assume that it was due to my background as 6
a career law enforcement officer.
And I have been involved 7
in law enforcement training most of my career.
8 Q
Do you know why you are being asked to testify on 9
the particular contentions that you have listed for me or 10 that you may be asked to testify on those contentions?
11 A
only that I may have some knowledge or input which 12 would be helpful to counsel in this particular case.
13 Q
Ghat do you understand the nature of that 14 knowledge or input might be that counsel would be drawing on?
15 A
At this point -- as I said previously, we started 16 our review for this deposition yesterday, so I think it is 17 premature at this time -- I couldn't make that assessment at 18 this time.
19
~Q So you are not sure why you were selected for the 20 particular contentions that you think you will be asked to 21 testify on; is that right?
22 A
only that they might relate to certain law T
7, -
D -.-,, -
m.,-,-
c-
'*11
- 1\\ 1 E A D,,
- 1.. b.
I w C~ A bd CI
's
..w.
,r. :s,,.
I
l
'4 p. 0 12
.Y 1
enforcement training functions or training functions and the 2
performance of personnel in positions that could be related 3
to law enforcement.
4 Q
Mr. Zook, have you spoken with anyone who has 5
already had their deposition taken in this proceeding?
6 A
Concerning -- spoken to them concerning what?
7 Q
Just spoken to them at all?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 Q
Who would that have been?
10 A
Dr. Coh :ll.
11 Q
What was the nature of your discussion with 12 Dr. Colwell?
13 A
He and I are both teaching classes in 14 counterterrorism, and he is a professor at the University of 15 Arkansas in Little Rock, and I'm currently enrolled as a 16 student at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
That i
17 was the nature of our conversations.
18 Q
What did you talk about with Dr. Colwell?
~
19 MR. MILLER:
With respect to this case?
20 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
21 Q
With respect to your discussions concerning this 22 case or your deposition.
- 2. <~ r_TCG C 7 a ' R ' pL7.'.,1 c.1..q L.r.
~
?
N-
. w -.
..c,ju,,
3w;y,%,
lP l
,487 0
/S" study at the United States De.partment of Justice that would have dealt with the development of a training program or the 2
3 development of performance evaluations?
4 A
No, ma'am, I can't give you -- I can't respond.to 5
that in identifying the curriculum and type of training l
6 involved there.
This was -- all of these had a portion of 7
the elements-of management, administration and supervision, 8
and this was an integral part of all of the law enforcement 9
management and administration training that I have had.
10 Q
Were any of the courses taken at any of the 11 agencies or institutions that you have just listed for me as 12 being the ones where you received training on how to train 13 other people and how :o evaluate their performance, would any i
l 14 of them have been dedicated solely to teaching you about how 15 to train others and how to evaluate performance?
16 A
The training that I have received in this area has 17 always been a part of a course in police administration, a 13 course in police management or in police supervision.
~
1 19 Q
Have you ever testified before about the subject 1
20 of statistics?
21 A
tio, I haven't.
l l
22 Q
Do you consider yourself to be an expert in
)
i l
l 1
"s~ g ', '"
e-* -
an" e t
/* g q r-T* r
. ~. !. 2". ~. L/.~. 7, #.L. i'l l v n _f*L\\
,f
- 1. N.
i 1
l
- .,.~...
m..u
. s,e s,.
~
1
d#
7 W
40 i
statistics?
2 A
No.
Well, what type of statistics?
I have 3
testified relative to statistics as it relates to law 4
enforcement.
The uniform crime report as an example.
The 5
utilization of statistics to be able to predict rather
(
6 accurately the high crime-rate months, the hours of the day, 7
the days of the week, that certain offenses will occur due to c
8 statistics, but the involvement that I have relative to this 9
deals solely with law enforcement, and law enforcement 10 offenses.
11 Q
Would you have done the statistical analysis about 12 which you testified or would that have been done by someone 13 else?
14 A
I have done -- I have presented testimony on data 15 that I have assisted in the preparation of
}
it.
Not H
16 necessarily that I initiated it and completed it by myself, 17 but I was a part of the team that did develop it, and again, O
18 as it relates to criminal activity; and that's the limit of 19 my exposure to statistics.
20 Q
Now, have you been involved in planning for a 21 response to an emergency at a nuclear power plant?
b 22 A
Not in a nuclear power plant.
g e g D
.x~~
s.
,-.\\..
.. d. sen 1C1. f
.a ;,,.. a
.. e.; t4~ e
f f*
41 J
1 Q
At any other facility?
2 A
In the field of law enforcement, we've had several 3
exercises relative to -- well, as an example, we set up a 4
program in conjun.ccion with a particular hospital, the 5
University of Arkansas Medical Sciences campus, and others, 6
simulating a bleacher collapse at a major sporting event 7
whereby there were 100 or more casualties ranging from those 8
that would be killed or seriously injured on down to the 9
minor injuries, and then the preparation that went into this 10 from evacuation, the removal of the people from the scene, 11 coordinating with local health care facilities and so forth.
12 Q
In the course of developing those emergency plans 13 for the possibility of a collapse of a bleacher at a sporting 14 event, did you develop written plans for that?
15 A
There were written plans.
I was more directly 16 involved in the implementation and evaluation of it, more so 17 than in the development of the plan.
18 Q
Were you evaluating the plan itself or were there 19 any drills or tests of whether the plan would work?
20 A
I was evaluating the performance of the people 21 involved in it.
22 Q
Who were the people involved in it?
r_Cr rr U
p.v, p
_T.y c v u is 2. :
_ C v.\\ t m
.u.
a;,,;,
~;'
m;
90 56 7
5A 1
contentions were; is that correct?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
Did you know before yesterday afternoon generally 4
what subjec_t.. matters you might be asked to testify on?
Ed 5
A I believe it may have been discussed that I would 4
6 be testifying on issues relative to law enforcement training 7
or training and development of -- let's just say law 8
enforcement training.
I don't recall it being anything 9
beyond that.
It was very general in nature.
10 Q
Have you written any articles or papers, published 11 any articles or papers?
Your resume does not indicate that 12 but I just wented to be sure.
13 A
I have written articles for certain law 14 enforcement publications; that has absolutely nothing to de 15 with the issues that we're dealing with.
I'm a helicopter 16 pilot, and I wrote some articles for the Arkansas law 17 enforcement organizations relative to the utilization of 18 helicopter service in law enforcement, this sort of thing.
19 But it was all tactical, primarily.
20 Q
So they would not be at all related to the issues 21 in this proceeding?
22 A
Nothing that I have ever written -- nost of the
~~
- c. -
-,-,s 7
7 r-,n -,
- r
- c. ':. w.u a : u h 1 _ a :,...,u.
s
-... n.
a
pr 57
,p.0 y
i things I have written are tactical operations, countersniper 2
tactics, recommendations for the use of sniper weapons, 3
forensic science as it relates to sniper activities, 4
utilization of helicopters, counterterrorism tactics, of this 5
nature.
6 Q
If.you were to describe your areas of expertise 7
for me how would you describe them?
8 A
Well, as I have previously stated, I have had 9
considerable exposure and experience in law enforcement 10 training, and the measurement of the, or the evaluation of 11 that training that's been presented; and then personnel 12 performance based on the training that had been received, 13 this type of activity.
I would say in broad terms that I 14 might have some expertise in law enforcement training and 15 evaluation of personnel and performance training.
16 Q
We have been using the term " law enforcement 17 training" quite a bit today.
Could you define what you mean 18 by that term so I'm sure we have the same meaning for it?
19
'A Law enforcement training, as I have used that term 20 today, deals with training in subjects that are related 21 directly or indirectly to the function of a police officer in 22 the performance of his duty.
N - - T, - -. -,,.
- 7. -
f,- -,q N.r N.
C~.:..~
C.%.L
'.2 *v..::Aar L.M.
. w.-.
...... a....
.w p..,
9'0 1
1 58 d
i 1
Q When you say "directly and indirectly," what do 2
you mean by things that would indirectly have in effect on 3
the performance of a police officer?
4 A
As an example, some of the topics is the 5
recognizing and handling of abnormal persons, a person who 6
may be emotionally or mentally disturbed.
That's not a law 7
enforcement problem but that's a problem that a law 8
enforcement officer has to deal with until such time as he can get competent medical personnel to take the person into 9
10 their custody or under their control or something like this.
11 Many times we have situations whereby -- in a 12 sniper situation, as an example, a police officer may be 13 hit.
'ie identify procedures there on how to properly care 14 for hat officer in case he gets a chest hit, and it is a 15 sucking wound into the lungs or so forth, what we can do to it protect that individual until he is transported or turned 17 over to competent medical authority.
These are indirectly 18 related elements to enforcement of the law.
t
~
19 Q
Mr. Zook, are you familiar with a document called 20 NUP.EG-0654?
21 A
Not that I recall.
No, ma'am.
22.
Q Are you familiar with the Federal Emergency
~ C
'.~ m, 7 L.*
~~ ~, i\\. 7_.p i; T.% ';~
m'i~
A.-
u
.- o -
. w.,,.. -.
~
c.
~o.
- r. ~
w-
.w ATTACHMENT D l
\\
)
i
(
1
{
I I
TIR ~SCRIF.!
Q :? ROC w
. GS
~
N,)
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
[
t l
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x O
oreoS r1oN or eH1t e x. evans Washington, D.
C.
~
\\
Wednesday, February 4, 1987 l
l t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenot.:qv R vrters 4
444 North Cacitol Street Washington, b.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
10 a subscription.
t Q
If y u can describe the kind of magazine that it 2
is.
3 A
It is a city magazine, similar to the Washingtonian magazine, the Philadelphia magazine, but on a much smaller scale, for a much smaller city.
Q What does it do, news features, or --
7 A
We write about yuppie lifestyles.
3 Q
How big a circulation does that magazine have?
g A
It varies from month to month, but it ranges between six thousand and eleven thousand.
O So, there are about eleven tousand yuppies in the Annapolis area?
g A
There are about 35 thousand yuppies in there.
g Q
How big a staf f do you employ?
A 5 full time employees.
16 Q
Five full time.
Are they all reporters?
g A
No.
They are office personnel, an editor, and 33 advertising sales people, 19 Q
Going back to when you were Deputy Managing Editor g
and Deputy General Manager of the Times, can you describe g
your general duties and functions in that role?
g O
11
( ))
t A
Deputy Managing Editor was my role when the 2
newspaper was founded, to design the paper from a news 3
format, and hire the editorial staff, and once the paper 4
began publication, I was responsible for the day to day 5
operation of the news department.
6 Q
Were you responsible for assigning reporters to 7
different issues, dif ferent topics ?
g A
Yes.
9 Q
Did you decide what stories were printed?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Going back to when you were Deputy General d
12 Editor --
13 A
Deputy General Manager or Editor?
14 Q
Deputy General Editor.
15 A
I was Deputy Managing Editor, and Deputy General 16 Manager.
17 Q
Can you tell me the difference between these job la titles as far as the functions you performed?
19 A
Well, they are totally different in that as Deputy Managing Editor I worked in the news department and 20 my function related solely to the collection and publication 21 22 of the news.
m
12
()
i As Deputy General Manager, I was, I think, 2
Executive on the non-news side of the newspaper.
I was l
l responsible for such things as selling advertising, 3
i 4
managing the circulation operation, producing the newspaper, promotional activities.
General management of all functions 5
of the newspaper other than the news content itself.
6 7
Q Why did you leave the Times to go to the Annapoli-l 8
tan?
9 A
I purchased the Annapolitan in 1984, and at that to point made the decision that I was going to extricate myself 11 from my responsibilities with the Times as quickly as
(])
12 possible, so that I could, in fact, devote full time to the 13 Annapolitan.
It took me a year and a half to do that.
That 14 took place at the end of 19 85.
15 Q
When you were at the times, were you Deputy 16 Managing Editor and Deputy General Manager at the same 17 time?
18 A
No, no.
Separately.
19 Q.
What time periods did you have these positions?
l 20 A
I was Deputy Managing Editor from approximately 21 I guess April 19 82 until November 19 83.
And I was Deputy 22 General Manager thereafter.
l (^)
~
h T;
17 J
()
i the news coverage.
2 Q
And you would have performed the same kind of a
activities that you just described in the flood?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Deploying reporters and so forth?
5 A
Yes.
8 7
Q But you can't recall any specific earthquake?
8 A
No.
g Q
Ckay, let's go to nuclear accidents.
Which nuclear accidents did you cover, or act as an editor?
to A
Three Mile Island would be the most notable.
it
. ()
12 Q
Are there any others that you recall?
13 A
I have a recollection -- whether it would be 14 classified as an accident, I don't know, of deploying some reporters to one of the Virginia nuclear power plants when 15 I was with the Star, but I can't recall the details of that.
i 16 17 Q
Let's just talk about TMI then, since that is the 18 one you recall the most.
What was your role during the TMI 19 accidept?
20 A
My role was essentially the same as the role I just explained regarding Agnes.
21 22 0
You didn't act as a reporter during TMI?
' CE)
~.
18 O
1
^
aia moe, =o-2 Q
You weren't present at the scene?
3 A
No, I was not.
4 Q
You weren' t present at any emergency news center, 5
any news conferences?
A No.
e 7
Q What is your general impression of the news 8
coverage of TMI?
9 MS. LETSCHE:
Let me object.
10 BY MR. MATCHETT:
(Continuing) 11 Q
Do you think the public information function and ih 12 the itews coverage-functions at TMI were handled well, 13 would you say?
14 MS. LETSCHE:
Well handled by whom?
Are you 15 talking about how the media handled it, or how --
BY MR. MATCHETT:
(Continuing) 16 17 Q
Okay, let's start with the media?
18 A
I think the media did a fairly good job, given 19 the cir.cumstances.
20 Q
Could you explain that a little bit?
Given what 21 circums tances?
22 A
Given the circumstances of conflicting information O
j 100
(
)
1 BY MR. MATCHETT:
(Continuing)
/m 2
Q Mr. Evans, do you know if you will be testifying i
3 on any parts of Contention 507 4
A I believe I may be, yes.
5 Q
Do you know which ones?
6 A
I don ' t have them --
7 Q
It starts on page 87.
If there are specific 8
points of it you can point us to, o
9 MS. LETSCHE:
I will.
You know which ones 10 they are.
E and F, which are cin page 92, okay?
11 BY MR. MATCHETT:
(Continuing) 12 Q
Mr. Evans, have you ever looked at Contention 50.E
[>)
13 or F?
14 A
Yes, I have.
15 0
When did you look at those?
16 A
Today.
17 Q
Today for the first time?
18 A
Yes.
Can I take a minute to read these?
19 Q-Surely.
(Witness looks at document. )
20 21 Can you tell me what the gist of your testimony 22 will be on 50 E?
[)
v
y l
101'
/
O 1
^
't u1a ae oo# t e #e with ~a e r a v tre ar told you regarding my testimony on 38 and.39, with regard 2
3 to the failure to deliver timely, accurate and consistent 4
information to the ' media, 5
With regard to the inadequacies of the EBS 6
messages.
And with regard to the failure of the rumor 7,
control system to p'rpide timely and accurate responses 8
to the people soliciting information from that sys :em, all of which would deinonstrate a failure in the implementation 9
of the plan, and show that the people implementing the plan to were either inadequately trained, or incapable of..mplementing I1 O~
12 eaetr t=etatas
>=i e ceo=ttv-13 Q
Do you consider yourself an expert on training?
14 A
I don't consider myself an expert, per se.
But 15 for more than two decades, have been a fairly senior executive
.and for the most part very large corposation, with responsi-16 bility for upwards of two thousand pecfple involved in many 17 18 different tasks, and receiving 'significant amounts of training 3
to in various programs.
20 Q
' co you consider your'self an expert in the behavior
/
21 of organi::ations during an emergency?
22 A
Yeah, I do.
O 1
P
.\\
i
~
102
/~T
(_)
1 Q
What is the basis of that?$
2 A
Well, the nature of a daily newspaper is kind of 3
an ongoing emergency.
You have a deadline to meet every 4
day.
You produce -- you have to produce an$5ditorial product, t
and then you have to produce a manufacturkd product 5
6 involving great numbers of people, and very precise deadlines.
7 Q
Would you say that your day-to-day emergencies a
of getting out a newspaper are equivalent to the kind of 9
catastropic emergency we are talking about here?
10 A
No.
11 Q
Can you give me a few examples of the apparent
()
12 bad judgment, lack of common sense, that 50.E refers to?
13 A
Well, bad judgment.
I think fundamentally the 14 most serious error in judgment occurred in_ the preparation 15 of the EBS messages, which kind of read like a scenario for is war of the worlds rather than a device to provide useful 17 information to the public in the event of such an accident.-
18 Q
I hate to stray, but you keep referring to the 19 contend of EBS messages as being -- for example, in your 20 last statement you said like a scenario for war of the 21 worlds.
22 Is that based on your reading of all the EBS O
106 1
10
(_)
1 (Off the record discussion.)
2 BY MR. MATCHETT:
(Continuing) 3 Q
What is the basis of your linking of the examples 4
in 38 and/or 39 with the training program?
In other words, 5
what is the basis for your position that the examples of 6
inaccuracies and so forth in 38 and 39 were caused by 7
bad training?
8 A
The -- I have no specific information at then 9
moment that that is, in fact, the case., since I have not to reviewed the. training.
It is a presumption of mine that 11 that, perhaps, was the cause that resulted in the effect.
()
12 I would have to do more research into it before I could 13 answer more specifically.
14 Q
Could there have been other causes?
15 A
Well, I hope that -- I would hope that it wasn' t 16 the consequence of lack of intelligence on the part of all 17 of these people.
18 Q
How do you plan to establish or assess whether 19 the alleged problems stem from the training?
20 A
Well, I will look at what material is available 21 on the training end, and perhaps that will lead me to a 22 conclusion.
1
107
()
t Q
Have you ever evaluated the. training programs 2
at any other organization?
4 1
A Yes.
3 4
Q Which ones?
j 5
A Well, quite a few.
In fact, anything from summer intern programs for. journalism students, to training 6
1 7
programs for various of the crafts involved in the newspaper 8
indus try.
Printer, pressmen.
s Q
Will you be relying on those other training i
i 10 programs, or your review of them?
t A
Oh, perhaps I will rely I think just. generally it
(])
12 on my basic knowledge of it.
13 Q
When you said you looked at the training of these 3
14 other various organizations, was that in connection with your 15 editorial position at the newspaper, various newspapers?
16 A
I am not sure what you are asking.
17 MS. LETSCHE:
He means did you do it while you i
18 were in those positions?
19 BY MR. MATCHETT:
(Continuing) 20 Q
Yes.
In what context did you review those 21 training programs?
Why did you have cause to review those 22 training programs?
(:)
i
,~,
,._,._r-
.a m-
,-en r
e
-w
108
!()
1 A
Well, in some cases they were established under 2
my direction, and I had cause thereafter to review them 3
periodically.
4 In other cases, they were in place when I became
-- took over a position, and as part of' my responsibility 5
in that position was to review training.
6 7
Q Do you have an established set of criteria or 8
standards which you judge the training program?
9 A
Not really,t.w.
10 MR. MATCHETT:
We don ' t have any o ther ques tions.
11 MS. LETSCHE:
I don 't have any ques tions.
()
12 (Whe reupon, the taking of the deposition la concluded at 5 : 42 p.m., this same day.)
14 15 16 PHILIP M. EVANS g7 18 19 i
20 f
l 21 k
22 c
4
[
e-2
..ua m
.wa_,
u L
.l j
?'
ATTACHMENT E t
~, _..-
.1
~~S 1.E
~
n 7 '. 1 C " K <
~GS
~
o V..
v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
Unit 1)
___________________x p'%J s
DEPOSITION OF FORD ROWAN Washington, D.
C.
~
Tuesday, January 6, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenoture Reporters 444 North Caoitol Street O
I (L J Washington. b.C. IC01 (202)347-3 00 Nationwide Coverage S00-336-6646
29354.0 hoX 7
1 l
4 4
1 Q
Have you done anything else other than review 2
these materials to Cind out what happened at the exercisc?
3
}
A No.
I intend to, but have not.
i 4
l Q
What do you intend to do?
5 A
Well, in addition to thinking about i t, I intend l
~
6 to try to find out if there was any news coverage of t.h e 7
exercise itself, and to, read and review any radio, TV or 1
8 l
newspaper coverage oC the exercise, as well as any1.hing e.lse 9
3 that was written about i t, whether journalistic or nut, to 1
10 try to get all the Cactc I can.
Il Q
Have you talked with anyone about what happened at 12 j the exercise?
I 13 A
No, not yet.
I
]
Q Have you met with any ot.hcr witnccces?
14 i
15 l
A N o.-
a 16 O
Have you ever been involved in deve.1epiny L7 scenarios tor nuclear plant emergency drilla or exercises?
l 18 l
~A No.
19 l
Q Have you ever been an evaluator at that sort of 20 l drill or exercise?
21 i
A No.
i j
22 Q
Have you ever been a participant in that uort of.
- 0. FI-'_ECnCr) a r QrunoTrnq Tg c L.n u m - u v..1 -. ~,
..:.n*a~ n u.=.n.:: ::...,;:
- .c-::5- +
n 1
i 29354.0 i
j goX j
8 1
drill or exercise?
2 MR. MC MURRAY:
Radiological nuclear response?'
3 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
4 Q
Nuclear piant emergency drill.
S A
No.
6 Q
Have you ever attended, as an observer, any sort 7
of drill or exercise?
d 8
A Well, real emergency, yes.
Three Mile Island.
4 9
Drill or exercise, no.
10
)
Q Have you reviewed any other exercise reports or
(
i
(.)s 11 papers?
12 j
A Regarding radiological?
1.3 Q
- Yas, i
11 A
No.
15 Q
Did you bring any document.s with you today?
16 A
No.
I 17 Q
Have you written anything about the February 13 18 e xe rc'i s e'?
19 A
No.
i i
20 l
Q No memos, letters, paperc of any kind?
21 A
No.
I intend to draft ny thought 0, but I have no i:
/
/
I
(_/
I done
- t. hat yet.
I I
i l
I kI h
h b.
a.
1 L u b-i_.. m v. s. -.
f 4
- u A
D:34~ V:n sear,uu C;. g:;g
% b
29354.0 l
~ '
68
'_;COX i
L A
42.
2 l
Q Have you had a chance to glance at tha t?
3 A
Yes.
t 4
Q Have you seen this one before?
S A
Yes, I believe 30.
1 6
Q Do you intend to fi] e tes timony on i t?
7 A
Probably.
8 Q
Could you describe the gist of your testimony as t
9 j well as you know it now?
10 A
Wel1, once again, I am sorry La have to tell you, I
i i
11
]
it's an awfully preliminary s tage to give you a clear outline 12 l of what I intend to write.
I juct hav not gotten that far I
13 l along in the research to where I think I can give you an 14 accurate reflection of it at thic ti me.
1 15 Q
Could you turn to Contention 50.
Would you take a 16 mi nu te to look at the preamble to 50 and then part E and F 17 l and tell me if you have seen those before.
I i
18
'A E and F?
19 l
Q Yes.
Have you seen those betoro?
20 l
A Yes.
i 21 1
Do you intend to file tactimany on them?
,y O
22 l
A Probably.
i n u t. A i_ v uib" L u1 vi s
- 4 A L%N L.
m f
2 37 '"N
.%;ianwice CO..;;;;J ia)-3.'6-664
29354.0
. O OX I
C 69 f;
i 4.
1 Q
Do you intend to file tes timony on any other parts t.
I 2
l of Contention 50?
l 3
l MR. MC MURRAY:
I don't think we have identified 1
4 Mr. Rowan for any other parts.
l; l
l 5
THE WITNESS:
Thank vou.
That's-the answer.
l i:
ei BY MS. MC CLP.GKEY:
I 4
Q Have you reviewed any training materials from
[
7 e
l i.
8 l
LILCO's training program?
. ',J 9
i A
No.
I am hoping to do that.
10 Q
Have they been provided to you?
[~
11 A
I do not believe that at this time they have been 1
12 4
provided.
I I
13 j
Q I take it you agree with contentions 50--E ann l
14
} 50-F?
i 15 1
A Hased upon what I have seen, abso]utely.
Rut wnat i
16 I have seen is the assessments, the end tesults, some of the i
17 other material.
I have not seen the training material 10 i t s e L~f.
i.
19 i
Q Right.
1 20 A
So I am concluding, based on what I have seen.
4 t
1 2L Q
Could you -- ba s ed o n wha t you have seen and on l
O l
\\/
22 your experience in your profcusional view, could you describe i
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 2; '4.1 a)
MtWrcai& C# mie 9M?W
t ATTACHMENT F i
t
~
L..'
..SC t >1
~
O:? :?:RO "m::. GS
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
Unit 1)
x DEPOSITION OF CHARLES PERROW II Washington, D.
C.
Thursday, December 18, 1986 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stencrupe Rew~.crs 44 North CapitolStreet Washington. '.C. 20001 D
(202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
29 1
to be testifying as an expert witness.
2 SY MS. MONAGHAN:
3 Q
Dr. Perrow, what subject matters do you consider 4
yourself to be an expert on?
5 MS. LETSCHE:
Again, I object.
That is calling 6
q for a legal conclusion.
Dr. Perrow, you can describe for s
7 Ms. Monaghan your areas of academic study, if that's what she 8
wishes to know.
j 9
BY MS. MONAGHAN:
i 10 j Q
That is not the question that I have put before 11 you, Dr. Perrow.
You have indicated to me that you i
12 understand you are going to testify as an expert in this 13 proceeding, that your expertise is being drawn on to provide 14 testimony; is that correct?
15 l A
Yes.
16 Q
What specific areas of your expertise are being j
a 17 1 drawn on to provide testimony in this proceeding?
18 1 MS. LETSCHE:
vou know, you may answer that.
19 THE WITNESS:
I would refer to a statement in my 5
20 curriculum vitae on my teaching inter 3sts:
" Complex 21 i organizations, industrial society, technology and social I
l 22 change, social movements, research design, sociological I
1 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202.tr.3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 500 33m
}'g 30 1
1 theory."' I think all o-f those would be involved to some 2
extent.
SY MS. MONAGHAN:
3 4 j Q
All of them would be involved?
5 A
To some extent, yes.
6 !
Q Would you explain for me what you mean by the term j
" complex organizations" and how that relates to the testimony 7
8 that you are going to be providing.
9 MS. LETSCHE:
That's a compound question.
Why i;
10 %
don't you do them one at a time.
Tell her what complex I
- i organizations are.
11 1
12 :i THE WITNESS:
Complex organizations are amazingly 13 hard to define because there's a great deal of disagreement 14 about them, about the definition in the field.
For example, t
15 it's hard to find the boundaries of an organization, what is 16 l inside an organization and what is outside an organization.
17 It's rather hard to decide whether a family is an 18 organization or not, whether or not it's a complex l
19 organi:ation, because you need some criteria for the various 20 levels of hierarchy within tne organization.
Some people say that an organization is only complex if it hac three levels 21 22 of hierarchy:
It has a head, which may De a person or a I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i j
202 9 7 3700 Nanonwice Coserage 100 336-%a6 1
LILCO, April 22 1987 0
00(.KE T E D USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'87 APR 27 P1 :00 0FFICE e N: TA, f 2
In the Matter of DOCKET 6hG !. 3E6V!Cf.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY BPANCH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 1
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION EX 50 - TRAINING OF OFFSITE EMERGENCY PERSONNEL were served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indicated by an asterisk, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
John H. Frye,III, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- 7735 Old Georgetown Road Atomic Safety and Licensing (to mailroom)
Board Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- South Lobby - 9th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing 1800 M Street, N.W.
Board Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Secretary of the Commission Room 229 Attention Docketing and Service State Capitol Section Albany, New York 12224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway Atomic Safety and Licensing Third Floor, Room 3-116 Appeal Board Panel New York, New York 10271 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
,.,n
-m u
--,.,.n----
,.n...<
-,-,-w
,,n.-
,. _--n.,,
- Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq.
Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11737 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 W
f
'Th6 mas E. Knauer 2
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 22,1987
~
=.
-