ML20215M059
| ML20215M059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1987 |
| From: | Zeugin L HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3423 OL-5, NUDOCS 8705130076 | |
| Download: ML20215M059 (100) | |
Text
.
3M23 LILCO, May 8,1987 L
'e 00CHETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~87 MAY 11 P3 :09 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board GFFl:;E y m h;4m 00Chf. Tit.G /. J sqct'
?YM;CH In the Matter of
)
)
.LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP hercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTIONS EX 15 AND 16 - THE SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) hereby moves to strike portions of the
" Direct Testimony of James C. Baranski, William Lee Colwell, Lawrence B. Czech, Gregory C. Minor, James D. Papile, Charles B. Perrow, Frank R. Petrone and Harold Richard Zook on Behalf of the State of New York and Suffolk County Regarding Con-tentions EX 15 and 16," on the grounds that (1) several witnesses are incompetent to testify on the matters involved in this proceeding; and (2) portions of the testimony go beyond the scope of Contentions EX 15 and 16.
I.
SEVERAL WITNESSES ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER CERTAIN OPINIONS The Commission's regula!!ons require that testimony, in order to be admissible in licensing proceedings, be " reliable." 10 CFR S 2.743(c). While the regulations do not specify any particular test of expertness sufficient to demonstrate the reliability of ex-pert or opinion testimony, consistent case law makes clear that the traditional test of expertness (codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 702) - knowledge, skill, experience training or education in relevant areas sufficient to assist the trier of fact in under-standing evidence or determining facts in issue - has been adopted for Commission proceedings.
[b3 8705130076 870508 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
. e' The subject matter of Contentions EX 15 and 16 involves understanding and in-terpretation of a less than self-explanatory regulatory phrase
" full participation" exercise - through a series of documents of varying levels of regulatory dignity and their implementation through several years of regulatory practice.
LILCO does not challenge the qualifications of all of Intervenors' witnesses on this subject. However, the absence of relevant expertise on the part of the witnesses dealt with in this motion, not just with specifics of Shoreham but with the discipline of emergency planning and its relevant subset
" full participation" exercises - is clear, as is demonstrated in Parts I.A through I.D below. The implementaticn of the legal standard for expertness in other NRC cases and its applicability to compel the exclu-sion of the proffered testimony of these witnesses is spelled out in Part I.E.
A.
Testimony Sponsored by Frank R. Petrone LILCO moves to disqualify Frank R. Petrone as a witness on Contentions EX 15 and 16 on the ground that, despite his position as Director of FEMA Region II from 1982 to 1986, his deposition testimony, taken on December 15, 1986, reveals an utter lack of substantive knowledge regarding the matters in this proceeding.
It is evident that Mr. Petrone served his post as Regional Director by overseeing the general administration of FEMA Region II, not by getting involved in its day-to-day operations. When asked during his deposition whether the activities of Region II with respect to the evaluation of off-site emergency planning were largely conducted by staff members rather than himself, Mr. Petrone repiled affirmatively:
The ongoing, every-day activities were conducted by staff members.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone (December 15,1986) at 29. (The specific deposition pages cited throughout this motion are collected in Attachment A.)1 Mr. Petrone's 1/
For the Board members' convenience, the entire transcript from the Deposition of Frank R. Petrone has been included with this pleading. Since all other parties al-(footnote continued)
lack of substantive participation is evident from his total dearth of knowledge re-garding the specifics of FEMA's role in emergency planning. When asked during his deposition whether he was familiar with any documents that delineate FEMA's authori-ty with respect to activities for off-site emergency planning, he responded, "I don't re-call at this point." Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 24.
When asked whether, during his tenure at FEMA, he had any discussions concern-ing the authority of Region II with respect to off-site emergency planning, he re-sponded that he did not recall any in particular. Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 24.
When asked whether, during his tenure at FEMA, there were criteria by which he formulated recommendations for ultimate submission to the NRC regarding off-site emergency plans, he responded:
Very difficult to recall because the criteria kept changing.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 26.
When asked whether the criteria changed throughout the period during which he was at FEMA, he replied:
There were changing criteria, correct, but I just could not re-call when and how and what did change.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 26.
When asked whether he could recall the name of any document that might contain criteria for the evaluation of off-site plans, he said:
The only document that would come to mind is that of the document containing FEMA's 350 process and that of 0654.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 26-27. Af ter further testifying that he could not re-call whether his reference to the "350 process" meant provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, he said:
(footnote continued) ready possess this transcript, LILCO has not provided a duplicate copy for those par-ties.
4..
. I cannot recall what provisions I am referring to other than the (44 CFR] 350 process in and of itself.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 27.
. When asked whether the "0654 document" was one he used in the course of his activities as Regional Director, he replied:
I know it was a document that my staff used.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 27.
When first questioned about FEMA Guidance Memorandum 17, a document that sets forth the standard FEMA exercise objectives to be selected from in a full partici-pation exercise, Mr. Petrone recalled nothing, and what little he did ultimately recall came only af ter he was handed the document:
Q.
Are you familiar with a document known as Guidance Memo-randum 17?
A.
No, I am not.
[ witness handed document for review]
Q.
During the course of your employment as regional director, Region II, did you ever have occasion to work with this docu-ment?
A.
I could not recall whether or not I worked with the document.
Q.
Do you know what it is?
A.
Basically the document sets forth some guidance with regard to pre-exercise and post-exercise activities.
Q.
Do you know whether or not this document plays any role in the review and evaluation by FEMA of off-site plans?
A.
I believe it is relative to the 350 process.
Q.
Do you know what significance it has with respect to that process?
A.
I bel' eve it sets time lines. As I am reading it, I believe it sets time lines in terms of the exercise.
i Q.
Is this document used by FEMA with respect to the evaluation e
or formulation of recommendations with respect to exercises conducted for off-site plans?
A.
I can't recall at this point. I haven't had a chance to exten-sively review it.
Q.
Based upon your experience as regional director of FEMA, Re-gion II, can you answer that question?
A.
I would say it plays a role. To what extent I cannot recall.
f.
Q.
Do 'you know how [the 36 standard FEMA exercise] objec-tives relate to the standards set forth in NUREG 0654?
A.
I believe they correspond to NUREG 0654.
Q.
Did you have any occasion during your employment with FEMA to review, evaluate or make recommendations with re-spect to an exercise by reference to any of the [ standard ex-ercise) objectives?
A.
I don't recall.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 30-32.
Mr. Petrone evinces a similar lack of knowledge regarding NRC regulations that pertain to the meaning of " full participation" exercises. When asked whether he was currently familiar with any NRC regulations relating to off-site emergency planning he replied:
I could not recall at this point.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 28. When asked whether he had been familiar with NRC regulations concerning off-site planning during his tenure as Regional Director he
-said:
I would say I was familiar to the extent that my staff was very familiar with it.
Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 28.
U When asked whether or not any of the standards set forth in NUREG-0654 are re-flected in NRC regulations, Mr. Petrone replied.
I could not specifically recall, but I believe they are.
' Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 29.
Finally, when asked a question that touches the very core of the issue raised by_
Contentions EX 15 and 16 - whether every standard FEMA exercise objective needs to be tested for an exercise to be a " full participation" exercise - Mr. Petrone answered:
I mentioned earlier that I was not fully familiar with Guld-ance Memorandum 17, and fully comfortable with all the ob-jectives, so at this point I would have to answer to that ques-tion that I really don't know at this point.
Deposition of Frank R. 'Petrone at 94.
Indeed, at the time of his deposition, Mr.
Petrone had no opinion on the issues he would later testify on. See Deposition of Frank R. Petrone at 168-69.
In short, Mr. Petrone's deposition testimony is replete with statements that show that, despite his position as Regional Director, beyond the question of state and local participation, he knows little or nothing about anything regarding the issue in this pro-ceeding, namely whether the scope of the Shoreham Exercise comports with NRC re-quirements for full participation exercises. Yet, in his direct testimony on Contentions t
. EX 15 and 16, filed three months later, Mr. Petrone remarkably purports to render ex-pert opinions on matters that he knew nothing of, or could not recall, during his deposi-tion. This is glaringly illustrated by comparing portions of the direct testimony spon-sored in whole or in part by Mr. Petrone with portions of his deposition transcript:
Direct Testimony Deposition Testimony pp. 8-12 (detailed discussion of NRC pp. 26-27 (could not recall any NRC regulatory scheme pertaining to regulations regarding off-site emer-emergency planning, including 10 gency planning)
C.F.R. S 50.47 and Part 50 Appendix E) pp.11-15 (detailed discussion of what
- p. 35 (defines the term " full
~
,--,,--e
..n--.
m,
. a e
the term " full participation" exercise participation" exercise as simply means in light of NRC regulations) meaning " full participation of state and local government"); p. 37 (cannot recall whether the terms " full partic-ipation" and " full scale" are used in-terchangeably)
- p. 25, lines 1-5 (practice in New York
- p. 42 (could not recall how many full State to test as many elements of a participation exercises held in Region plan as possible during an initial ex-11 during his tenure as Regional Di-ercise); p. 44 (describing experience rector); p. 44 (could not recall with other NYS full participation ex-whether Region II full participation ercises) exercises were adequate to test Emergency Plans); p. 29 (did not know whether the 17 full participa-tion exercises conducted in Region II since 1981 tested every objective set forth in Guidance 51emorandum 17);
- p. 95 (could not answer whether all NUREG-0654 criteria were reflected in objectives for the 17 full participa-tion NYS exercises) pp. 28-29 (familiarity with FEMA's
- p. 30 (not familiar with Guidance standard exercise objectives and how Memorandum 17; does not recall ever they relate to NRC's Appendix E re-having seen it; could not recall quirements, and with Guidance Mem-whether had ever worked with it); p.
orandum 17) 31 (could not recall whether or to what extent Guidance Memorandum 17 was used by FEMA with respect to the formulation of recommendations with regard to of f-site exercises); p.
32 (could not discuss whether or how the 36 standard FEMA exercise objec-tives relate to NRC regulations per-taining to emergency planning; did not recall whether, during his tenure at FEMA, he had occasion to evaluate an exercise by reference to the stan-dard FEMA exercise objectives); p. 34 (could not recall precise meaning of the term " guidance memorandum" or
" internal structure of FEM A"); p. 37 (not f amiliar with revisions to Guld-ance Memorandum 17) pp. 34-35 (familiarity with Guidance pp. 35-36 (could not recall documents Memorandum PR-1 and its interpre-or provisions other than NUREG-0654 tation as it bears on the meaning of and 44 C.F.R. Part 350 that were full participation) used by FEMA concerning the evalua-tion of exercises of off-site plans) pp.140-41 (knowledge of regulations p.116 (not f amiliar with regulations
C..
relating to the ingestion pathway concering the frequency or necessity EPZ) of testing ingestion pathway activi-ties in a full participation exercise) p.154 (knowledge of recov-pp.119-20 (did not recall whether the ery/ reentry activities tested at the Shoreham Exercise scenario included Exercise) recovery / reentry)
- p. 49 (decision not to include siren pp. 82,84 (did not know what steps sounding made by LILCO); p.144 (it were taken to develop objectives for was determined by LILCO and/or the Shoreham Exercise or who was FEMA prior to the Exercise not to in-responsible for development of the clude ingestion pathway activities) scenario; admitted that he had no di-rect involvement in the development of the objectives or the scenario);
- p. 99 (did not review any draf ts of the objectives or scenario)
- p. 97 (discussion of ambulances and pp. 58,66-69 (did not have any direct ambulettes under the LILCO Plan) involvement in the Jeview of the LH CO Plan); p.131 (unfamiliar with respcnsibilities of ambulance /-
ambulette companies under the LILCO Plan)
Counsel for Suffolk County has previously objected to LILCO's use of deposition testimony to disqualify witnesses in its Motion to Strike on Contention EX 50. The rea-son given was that the depositions were taken early on in the proceedings when the knowledge of the witnesses was ostensibly limited "because they had just been re-tained." Tr. at 4204-05. That objection is inapposite here. Mr. Petrone etnnot avail himself of the explanation of unfamiliarity with Shoreham at the time of his deposition.
For four years previous to the exercise he had directed the FEMA region which contains Shoreham, and occupied that position thereaf ter until he removed himself from it, in a dispute over the policy concerning the very exercise he claims to be an ex-pert on. Since then (within 'veeks af ter his deposition) he has gene to work as a
$54,000-per year assistant County Executive for Suffolk County with specific responsi-bility for coordinating the County's opposition to the plant. In short, he has occupied positions both before and since the Exercise which presumed his expertise. Absent a disability not claimed for him, LILCO and this Board are entitled to assume that that
_g_
expertise was on full display in his sworn deposition testimony, and the extent of his expertise can fairly be evaluated on the strength of that testimony.
No amount of tutoring between the time Mr. Petrone's deposition was taken and the time the direct testimony was filed could make Mr. Petrone anything but a synthet-ic expert on Contentions EX 15 and 16, nor could his recollection have become so "re-freshed," given his lack of substantive involvement during his tenure at FEMA. This is what his deposition testimony makes clear, and the Board need not wait for voir dire to find Mr. Petrone incompetent to testify. Nothing in Mr. Petrone's training - or in his actual experience - qualifies him as an expert here.
B.
Testimony Sponsored by Gregory C. Minor LILCO moves to disqualify Gregory C. Minor 1s a witness on Contentions P 15 and 16 on the grounds that his expertise, as revealed by his resume and by his deposition testimony, relates to the safety and design of nuclear systems, not to broad aspects of emergency planning.
As is set out in detall below, Mr. Minor sponsors testimony ranging broadly over emergency planning policy issues relating but not ever limited to those involved in the concept of a " full participation" exercise. However, the vast majority of the publica-tions and previous testimony listed in Mr. Minor's resume deal with technical subjects relating to nuclear reactor safety. See Resume of Gregory C. Minor at 3-8 (Attachment I to Suffolk County Testimony on Contention EX 36). That Mr. Minor is an expert in nuclear engineering rather than emergency planning is confirmed by his deposition tes-timony:
Q.
Would it be fair to characterize your expertise as a nuclear engineer, in your judgment?
A.
My educational background is electrical engineering and elec-tronics. My experience throughout my.. 26 years of experi-ence has been almost entirely related to nuclear matters.
And, so by experience I would say yes, I'm more of a nuclear engineer than an electrical engineer.
U Deposition of Gregory Minor (December 2,1986) at 46. Indeed, throughout the history of the emergency planning litigation Suffolk County has consistently offered Mr. Minor as an expert on narrow technical issues such as shielding f actors (Tr. at 12,320, July 11, 1984) and plant safety during a strike by LILCO workers (Tr. at 15,598, August 29,1984) rather than on broader planning issues. See also Dep. Tr. of Gregory C. Minor (August 18,1982) (accident assessment and radiological monitoring); (October 7,1983) (risk analysis, consequence analysis, radiological monitoring instrumentation); (August 24, 1984) (strike issues: plant safety during cold shut down).
Several statements in his deposition testimony further illustrate Mr. Minor's lack of expertise in the emergency planning area:
Q.
Have you ever participated in developing any scenarios for nuclear emergency drills or exercises?
A.
No, I have not.
Q.
Have you worked in some other capacity on the scenarios for nuclear emergency drills or exercises?
A.
No. I have reviewed some of them, but I have not partici-pated in the preparation of them.
Q.
Have you reviewed scenarios for nuclear emergency drills other than Shoreham drills?
A.
I have looked at other plant scenarios. I can't even recall which plants they were....
Q.
Have you ever participated as a player, as someone re-sponding to the postulated emergency -
A.
No I have not.
Q.
-in a nuclear drill?
A.
No, I have not.
Q.
Have you ever attended a drill or exercise?
A.
No, I have not.
Q.
Do you have any specific degrees, or have you done a signifi-cant amount of course work in emergency response, either ra-diological or non-radiological?
A.
Well, in terms of course work, because emergency response is what you do in response to a base of knowledge given a par-ticular situation that exists. It's not something you take very extensive course work in.
You train yourself for the responsibilities you have in the drill or the exercise or the emergency response, then you use your other training and knowledge to implement that.
Q.
Have you ever participated in that sort of training program that you have just described?
A.
No, I have not.
Deposition of Gregory C. Minor at 14-18.
Indeed, Mr. Minor testified during his deposition that the only issue he would tes-tify on relating to Contentions EX 15 and 16 would be ingestion pathway. Deposition of Gregory C. Minor at 5,12.
Yet the direct testimony he subsequently sponsors or co-sponsors covers the gamut of issues in Contentions EX 15 and 16, issues that are far broader than his expertise would warrant. S_ee Direct Testimony at pp.11-15 (how one e
would assess whether an exercise satisfies NRC's " full participation" requirement); pp.
15-16 (type of performance perceived important in full participation exercise); p. 28 (familiarity with FEMA's standard exercise objectives); pp. 28-29 (relation of standard exercise objectives to full participation requirement); pp. 51-52 (provisions of LILCO Plan pertaining to public education); pp. 72-73 (LILCO Plan provisions pertaining to schools); p. 80 (opinion that Shoreham Exercise was not " full participation" because of inadequacy of school preparedness); pp. 86-88 (inadequacy of demonstrating protection of special facility residents); p.133 (Exercise did not include a reasonably comprehen-sive test of LILCO's bus plan). Thus, not only is Mr. Minor not an expert on emergency
exercises for nuclear plants, but he gives testimony for which he was not designated as a witness, on subject areas in which he has never previously demonstrated expertise.
Moreover, Mr. Minor is incompetent to testify even on the narrow issue of inges-tion pathway as it relates to the meaning of a " full participation" exercise. Although, given his technical engineering background, he might be competent to judge whether, if protective action recommendations had been made, they were satisfactory (el,the efficacy of a dose calculation), he is not qualified to render an expert opinion on the to-tally distinct policy question of whether ingestion pathway activities must be included in an exercise for it to be " full participation." The Board need not wait for voir dire to find Mr. Minor incompetent to testify here. That his deposition was taken at an early stage in the proceedings is irrelevant given that his background is, always has been, and always will be, technical in nature. Given this technical engineering background, he is simply not qualified to testify on the issues involvcd in Contentions EX 15 and 16 no matter what tutoring he may have been given between the time his deposition was taken and the testimony filed.
C.
Testimony Sponsored by Harold R. Zook LILCO moves to disqualify Harold R. Zook as a witness on Contentions EX 15 and
- 16. His self-described background as a " career law enforcement officer," with "ex-pertise in law enforcement training and evaluation of personnel and performance training," s_ee Deposition of Harold R. Zook (January 15,1987) at 11,57, does not qualify him to render expert testimony on the emergency planning issues involved in Conten-tions EX 15 and 16. Moreover, his publications confirm the truly narrow, and totally distinguishable, nature of his expertise. The articles he has written deal with such pure law enforcement topics as " tactical operations, countersniper tactics, recommenda-tions for the use of sniper weapons, forensic scence as it relates to sniper activities, utilization of helicopters, and counterterrorism tactics." See Deposition of Harold R.
i Zook at 56,57.
Indeed, when asked during his deposition about how Contentions EX 15 and 16 re-late to his expertise, he responded: "Only that they might _ relate to certain law en-forcement training functions or training functions and the performance of personnelin positions that could be related to law enforcement." S_e_e_ Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 11-12, 56. The issue in Contentions EX 15 and 16, however, is whether the scope of the Shoreham Exercise makes it a " full participation" exercise within the meaning of NRC regulations.
Thus, Mr. Zook's expertise bears no relation whatever to the wide-ranging direct testimony he sponsors. See Direct Testimony at pp. 8-10 (discus-sion of NRC's regulatory requirements); pp. 30-32 (relation of standard FEMA objectives to scope of full participation exercise); p. 34 (familiarity with FEMA-GM PR-1); p. 72 (how LILCO Plan deals with schools); pp.141-48 (ingestion pathway discussion); pp.
151-52 (regulatory requirements for recovery / reentry).
Mr. Zook's lack of expertise in the area of nuclear emergencies is clear from his deposition testimony. When asked whether he has ever been involved in emergency planning activities, Mr. Zook replied:
Not in a nuclear power plant.
Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 40. One alternative experience he does mention is emergency planning for a possible bleacher accident at a stadium, see Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 41, an endeavor that hardly makes him an expert in emergency plan-ning for a possible radiological emergency. Nor does his experience with exercises relating to emergencies such as floods, tornadoes or aircraf t crashes, s_e_e Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 45, make him an expert on what the scope of an exercise for a nucle-ar facility should be.
Mr. Zook also admits an utter lack of familiarity with the regulatory criteria and guidance documents that are the very foundation of off-site emergency planning for nu-clear plants. When asked whether he had any knowledge of FEMA's responsibilities i
concerning evaluation of off-site emergency response organizations for nuclear power plant emergencies, Mr. Zook replied:
I had no concept of that until I started reading some of these documents and saw that FEMA was involved in it. Prior to that I had no knowledge of it.
Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 60.
When asked whether he was familiar with NUREG-0654, he replied that he was not. Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 58. By his own admission, his only familiarity with FEMA prior to preparing for the testimony in the Shoreham proceeding - was gained when he attended a seminar at a FEMA f acil-ity in Gaithersburg dealing with law enforcement officers' response to natural disasters.
Deposition of Harold R.
Zook at 59.
When questioned about FEMA Guidance Memoranda 17 and EX-3 he said he was not familiar with them. Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 60,61.
Indeed, when asked his opinion regarding the issues raised in Contentions EX 15 and 16, he could not even recall what those issues were:
Q.
Mr. Zook, do you have an opinion about the issues raised in Contentions 15 and 16?
A.
Could I see the contentions?
Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 71. Later, he mistakenly confused these issues with the sampling issues involved in Contention EX 21. Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 71,113.
When asked the question whether it was his understanding that all items listed in Con-tentions EX 15 and 16 needed to be tested in order for an exercise to be " full participa-tion." he answered:
I would have to see what those items are.
Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 110.
Finally, when asked whether he knew what a " full participation" exercise was, his circular answer was:
A full participation exercise, as I would define it, would be an exercise of sufficient scope where conclusions could be made as to its being properly conducted and whether the standards of public health and safety had been maintained.
Mr. Zook did not know the NRC definition of the term " full participation," and con-ceded that his opinion on the meaning of that term was limited at that point to his own understanding. Deposition of Harold R. Zook at 110. Mr. Zook's personal opinion is meaningless of course, and not admissible as expert testimony. Whatever " education" he may have received between the taking of his deposition and the filing of the direct testimony does not make his subsequent opinion any more expert.
Mr. Zook may be an expert on law enforcement or training matters. However, he is not an expert on any aspect of radiological emergency planning, much less that of the meaning of the term " full participation" exercise on its applicability to the facts of the Shoreham Exercise. His testimony should be stricken.
D.
Testimony Sponsored By William Lee Colwell LILCO also moves to disqualify William Lee Colwell as a witness on Contentions EX 15 and 16. Despite his prolific experience in law enforcement, and his august posi-tion as Associate Director of the FBI, this expertise does not qualify Dr. Colwell to ren-der an expert opinion on whether the scope of the Shoreham Exercise was adequate to satisfy NRC requirements for a " full participation" exercise. When asked during his
- deposition which disciplines he considered himself to be expert in, he replied:
... I consider my knowledge pretty broad in the area of man-agement. I think I have a broad experience in making assess-ments and evaluations of programs. I consider that I have a broad knowledge of the so-called public administration area and the criminal justice system.
Deposition of William Lee Colwell(December 30,1986) at 64.
Dr. Colwell concedes that he has "no idea what [ FEMA's] standards are," Depo-sition of William Lee Colwell at 97, and that he has never been involved in emergency planning for nuclear power plants:
Q.
Have you ever planned for an emergency in a nuclear power plant?
A.
No.
Q.
Has anyone whom you supervised been involved with - has anyone _which you supervised planned for an emergency 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 involved with plan-ning - has anyone whom you supervised planned for that kind of an emergency?
A.
Probably. I don't recall specifically, but maybe.
Deposition of William Lee Colwell at 65.
It is also obvious from his deposition testimony that he is not familiar with NRC regulations pertaining to emergency plan-ning:
Q.
Have you reviewed any of the regulations referenced in Con-tention 15?
A.
I have not. Are you speaking of the Code of Federal Regula-tions?
Q.
Have you ever reviewed 10 C.F.R. Section $0.47?
A.
I may have in the past. I doubt it. I don't know.
Deposition of William Lee Colwell at 92-93.
Dr. Colwell also confessed an unfamiliarity with regulatory documents that are the fcundation 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 familiar with FEMA Guidance Memorandum 17?
. 4 31 A.
_ No.
L Q.
Do you expect that you are going to review FEMA Guidance
. Memorandum 17 prior to preparing your testimony?
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.
Deposition of William Lee Colwell at 79-81.
Further, when asked his view regarding the scope of the Shoreham Exercise, he
~
responded "[w] hat do you mean by scope?" Deposition of William Lee Colwell at 71.
When asked to state _ his opinion on an issue that lies at the heart of Contentions EX 15
- and 16 - whether every aspect of an off-site emergency response organization must be tested during a full participation exercise - he stated:
I don't _believe that I am qualified at this point to say that....
Deposition of William Lee Colwell at 95. The same conclusion applies at this point'.
Whether information may have been provided to Dr. Colwell between the taking of his deposition and the filing of the direct testimony, it does not make him an expert quali-fled to' enter judgments or judgment as an expert witness on the rarefied issue of-the meaning of the concept of a " full participation" exercise under NRC regulations.-
E.
The Proffered Witnesses Do Not Satisfy the Commission's. Tests for Qualification as Experts in Their Proposed Areas of Testimony Each of the witnesses referred to above demonstrated, in depositions taken only a few weeks before the filing of their testimony on Contentions EX 15 and 16, profound ignorance of the structure of the Commission's regulations governing the interpretation of the specialized concept of a " full participation" exercise. Each of them demon-strated comparable ignorance of the contents of the FEMA documents and practice
- which complement and add meaning to the NRC's regulations. Indeed, none other than
i,
Frank Petrone had even had any previous involvement with emergency planning as a discipline. None of them had any involvement with the Shoreham Exercise except Mr. Petrone, who at least in his deposition disclaimed any involvement with its devel-opment and execution.
Contentions EX 15 and 16 involve, in addition to details of the Shoreham Exer-cise, the interpretation of the relatively esoteric term " full participation" exercise.
This inquiry implicates complex issues involving years of interagency practice and fine questions of interpretation of two agencies' documents of varying levels of regulatory dignity. Knowledge of the derivation, application and interpretation of the term as re-tiected in the exercises conducted since 1980 and the documents structuring them is the relevant body of information on this issue. None of these witnesses, each by his own admission on deposition, possessed any knowledge of these matters at the time of his deposition, scant weeks before filing this testimony.
The Commission's regulations themselves do not specify a standard regarding the degree of expertness required to qualify a person to present opinion testimony. Com-mission decisional law on the issue of qualification of expert witnesses, however, adopts the traditional test of expertness, that set out in Federal Rule of Evidence 702:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to deter-mine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, tralmng or education, may testi-fy thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
S_ee Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-663,15 NRC 453 (1982). That decision illustrates the importance of the applicability of a prof-fered witness' knowledge to the issues at hand in a case. There, the Appeal Board sus-tained the Licensing Board's exclusion of the testimony of one Jasse L. Riley, a chemist with a master's degree, on matters involving the ability of a containment structure to resist a hydrogen explosion. Mr. Riley, through a chemist with an advanced degree, did
a O.
g e.m
.5b s
f not claim to. being a structural engineer, nor to have had extensive training in, or pro-fessional involvement with, relevant disciplines and theories of combustion, flame
- propagation and explosives.15 NRC at 475. Counsel for the party proffering Mr. Riley as an expert premised that proffer, as stated-in its brief to the Appeal Board, on j
Mr. Riley's " asserted ability to ' understand and evaluate' matters of a technical nature due to his background of ' academic anil practical. training' and ' years of reading AEC and NRC documents.'"' Id..
. The Appeal Board found that Mr. Riley's general background, including un-questioned Neientific competence in areas not directly relating to his proposed testimo-ny, was not enough:' that notwithstanding his acknowledged areas of scientific endeav-1 or and: competence,"he did not possess any "special ' knowledge, skill, experience, 7
training or education' rermane to the matters which his proposed testimony addressed."
O Ld.- (Emphasis supplied). It also noted the strength of the Licensing Board's own back-ground in asse.ssing its evident conclusion that Mr. Riley's testimony would not satisfy
'y the test of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 - that the testimony be of material assistance
)
' toIt as trier of fact
- and held that the Licensing Board had not abused its discretion
~
in refusing to allow Mr. Riley to present opinion testimony on containment strength and i-I hydrogen generation and control.
i 2/(
At McGuire, the expertise noted by the Appeal Board was based on the Licensing Board's educational background: eacn of the Board members, including the Chairman, possessed a doctorate in a scientific discipline (though the Appeal Board decision makes no assertion that these degrees encompassed disciplines germane to the issues covered by Mr. Riley's proposed testimony). 15 NRC at 475 n. 48. In the instance case, at least equivalent Board expertise in the relevant discipline - emergency planning - exists, education totally aside. Previous to this proceeding, Judge Shon has participated in two of the most substantial emergency planning proceedings in the NRC's history (Indian
' Point and Shoreham); Judge Paris has participated in the Indian Point proceeding; and Judge Frye has presided over another extensive emergency planning proceeding, that for the Zimmer plant.
,~
nw..n
u The rationale of the McGuire decision has laen recently applied and confirmed by the Appeal Board in proceedings involving Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick plant.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-819,22 NRC 681 (1985). There, the Licensing Board had permitted some selected aspects, and excluded others, of the testimony of one John Walsh, a meterologist, on the consequences of a natural gas pipeline rupture and explosion, based on its evalua-tion of his expertise. The Appeal Board's review of the Licensing Board's decision on admission of Mr. Walsh's testimony notes the following factors: (1) that the discipline of meteorology includes study of multiple phenomena underlying weather and atmo-gh4ric behavior, including atmospheric dispersion; (2) that Mr. Walsh had taken gradu-3H Mut courses in meteorology, physics and mathematics; (3) that Mr. Walsh had worked u a professional meteorologist for two decades and had done research in atmo-spheric dispersion; (4) that he had performed accident analyses previously involving over a dozen nuclear power plants,inc(uding analyses of natural gas or petroleum pipe-lines near these plants; and (5) that the scope Mr. Walsh's testimony relied upon by the Board was limited to matters relating to " formation and dispersion of a flammable mix-ture within the atmosphere - matters clearly within (Mr.] Walsh's expertise." 22 NRC at 732.
Thus ALAB-819 reinforces the proposition that it is both the Board's prerogative and duty to examine the qualifications of witnesses and to winnow out proffers of testi-mony in areas where expertise does not exist. Indeed, in the consolidated radon-emissions cases the Appeal Board retroactively excluded, s ta sponte, reliance on testi-j mony previously admitted by a Licensing Board, on the basis of its review of the 3/
The Board had earlier determined that Mr. Walsh was not qualified to testify on certain other areas outside the legitimate scope of his expertise, for instance, whether the pipeline's pumps would shut down in the event of a pipeline accident. 22 NRC at 733.
qualifications of the sponsor of that testimony. Philadelphia Electric Co.. et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3) and consolidated dockets, ALAB-701, 16 NRC 1517,1523-25 (1982).
The concept of expertness thus implies a pre-existing degree of competence in a relevant specialized area at the time a project or inquiry is undertaken. However, none of the witnesses whose testimony is sought to be excluded here demonstrated, in depost-tions taken shortly before the filing of their testimony, any expertise on the bases rec-ognized by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 - knowledge, skill, expertise, training or edu-cation - sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the discipline of emergency planning for nuclear plants, much less on the detailed and arcane subset of that field relevant to Contentions EX 15 and 16 and dealt with in their testimony. Indeed, in their deposi-tions they for the most part expressly disclaimed any expertise in the area. Thus at that time there was no possible basis for their knowledge to be of value to the trier of fact, as required by Rule 702.
If they have by now become " expert"it must be by the process of having super-vised and directed the production of a piece of testimony they are now sponsoring.
LILCO submits that preparation of a given piece of testimony is not the process of "ed-ucation," " training" or " experience" contemplated as the basis for qualification as an expert to sponsor that testimony, nor does it confer the " knowledge" or " skill" contem-plated by the concept of expertness.
The basis for disqualification here is thus significantly different from that as-serted in previous motions to strike, which have been premised primarily on the unfa-miliarity of witnesses with the specifics of the Shoreham case. There, the Board has typically accepted the argument that the recent retention of persons acknowledged to possess substantial knowledge about a general subject-matter area could excuse their lack of specific knowledge of Shoreham-related matters at the time of deposition. In y
g
~
=i.
,7-y nii---
9 g
c-5
-. -.+
the present situation, by contrast, the witnesses (with the exception of Frank Petrone) disclaimed not only knowledge of Shoreham specifically but knowledge of the subject matter of the contention - the content of NRC and FEMA emergency planning docu-ments and the history of their interpretation in the conduct of nuclear emergency pre-paredness exercises. And Mr. Petrone, though in a position to be knowledgeable, is not in fact.
The deposition testimony is sufficiently clear on these issues that voir dire testi-mony is not necessary, since it must either cast doubt on the accuracy of answers given at one time or another, or illuminate the synthetic nature of the knowledge recently acquired by these witnesses.
Nor are Intervenors prejudiced by the exclusion of the witnesses whose testimo--
ny is proposed to be stricken. In all significant areas of their testimony on Contentions EX 15 and 16, the testimony is also sponsored by witnesses whose credentials on this testimony LILCO does not challenge. Thus Intervenors still have a vehicle, and a legiti-mate one, to present their views. The testimony of the witnesses sought to be struck is simply surplusage.
F. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, LILCO respectfully requests that the Loard dis-qualify Frank R. Petrone, Gregory C. Minor, Harold R. Zook and William Lee Colwell as witnesses on Contentions EX 15 and 16, and consequently (1) strike those portions of the Direct Testimony sponsored solely by them and (2) remove them from any panel where they co-sponsor testimony.
II.
PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF CONTENTIONS EX 15 AND 16 According to the Board's December 11, 1986 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on FEMA's Motion for Reconsideration of and Intervenors' Objections to October 3,1986
o
.. (
Prehearing Conference Order), "[t]he issues litigable under EX 15 and EX 16 are limit-ed to whether the scope of the exercise meets the Commission's regulatory require-ments for full participation exercises."
Memorandum and Order at 14 (emphasis supplied). See also Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and Estab-'
+
lishing Discovery Schedule), at 11-12 (October 3,1986); ALAB-861, Memorandum and Order at 17-18 (March 2,'1987).
LILCO moves to strike certain portions of Suffolk County's. testimony on the i ~
ground that it goes beyond the scope of Contentions EX 15 and 16, and is therefore irrelevant, for the following reasons: (1) some of the testimony deals with whether or not emergency functions were satisfactorily demonstrated at the Exercise, rather than with the " scope" issue of whether or not they were tested during the Exercise; (2) some of the testimony addresses the merits of FEMA's review of the Exercise rather than whether a given function was tested; (3) portions of the testimony refer to a FEMA Guidance Memorandum that post-dates the Shoreham Exercise; (4) some of the testimo-ny references a Contention that was not admitted; (5) some of the testimony is duplicative of Intervenors' testimony on Contention EX 21; and (6) some of the testimo-ny amounts to a generic challenge _to FEMA practice.
A.
Exercise Objectives Tested Versus Objectives Demonstrated 4
In its December 11,1986 Order, the Board framed the issue in Contentions EX 15 j
and 16 as follows: "If (the Exercise] is found not to comply with the Commission's reg-ulations concerning the scope of a full participation exercise, it may constitute '... a deficiency which precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken, i.e., a fundamental flaw in the plan.'" Memorandum and Order at 13, quoting CLI-86-11, 23 NRC 577, 581 (1986).
Accordingly, the sole issue to have been addressed in this testimony is whether the scope of the Shoreham Exercise -- the number and type.of exercise objectives tested -- meets the Commission's requirement
0.
for full participation e..arcises. As FEMA witnesses have repeatedly pointed out, the issue here is not whether the Exercise objectives were satisfactorily demonstrated dur-ing the Shoreham Exercise. See Deposition of Roger B. Kowieski, Thomas Baldwin and Joseph H. Keller, January 29,1987, at 237-40; Direct Testimony of Thomas E. Baldwin, Joseph H. Keller and Roger B. Kowieski' concerning Emergency Planning Exercise (March 20,1987) at 94. In the following portions of their Direct Testimony, Intervenors ignore this distinction, and LILCO thus moves that they be stricken:
- p. 30, lines 7-20 through p. 31, lines 1-3 (mere inclusion of all stan-dard exercise objectives would not constitute a full participa-tion exercise)
- p. 32, lines 4-23 (discusses " satisfaction" of objectives; mere fact that FEMA includes exercise objectives does not mean that the full participation criteria are satisfied).
B.
Some of the Testimony Addresses the Merits of FEMA's Review, and Not Whether a Given Function Was Tested Again, the issue in this proceeding is whether the scope of the Shoreham Exer-cise meets NRC's requirements for " full participation" exercises. It is not whether FEMA properly evaluated the Exercise. Accordingly, the following numerous passages -
dealing with the merits of FEMA's review should be. stricken as irrelevant:
- p. 27, lines 15-17 starting with "Furthermore" (FEMA only observed and evaluated a limited number of persons mobilized)
- p. 40, lines 8-16 (FEMA did not evaluate the operability of sirens or WALK Radio's personnel or equipment)
- p. 46, lines 1-8 (FEMA evaluation never addressed public notifica-tion system due to omissions in Shoreham Exercise)
- p. 50, lines 7-9, the phrase "and FEMA's inability to evaluate im-portant and observable portions of LILCO's Plan"
- p. 51, lines 2-12 (FEMA did not evaluate adequacy of public educa-tion materials)
- p. 68, lines 4-10 ending with "childran" (FEMA did not conform to normal practice in evaluating schools at Shoreham)
a,
- p. 69, line 14 starting with " FEMA" through p. 70, lines 1-3 (FEMA acquiesced in limited school demonstration)
- p. 75, lines 18-24 through p. 76, lines 1-7 (FEMA evaluator never observed any actions by bus drivers)
- p. 76, n. 33 (FEMA's conclusion regarding schools is unsupportable)
- p. 77, lines 8-16 through p. 78, lines 1-3 (criticizes FEMA evalua-tion of bus drivers)
- p. 79, lines 14-16 ending with " limited" (FEMA did not evaluate schools except the Shoreham-Wading River School District)
- p. 80, lines 7-21 starting with " Finally" (FEMA's evaluation of school preparedness is too limited)
- p. 82, lines 4-17 (FEM A's evalution of school officials is too limited)
- p. 83, lines 1-10 (FEMA departed from normal procedure with re-gard to evaluating school officials)
- p. 84, lines 11-12, the phrase "and observed and thoroughly evalu-ated (which they apparently were not)" (relates to school demonstrations)
- p. 87, lines 7-11 (FEMA did not evaluate LERO's ability to commu-nicate with special facilities inside or outside the EPZ)
- p. 87, lines 16-17, the phrase " FEMA evaluated only one ambulance and one ambulette during the entire Exercise" p.100, lines 12-19, starting with " FEMA" (FEMA did not evaluate patient evacuation procedures) p.102, lines 12-22 (FEMA's evaluation of hospital procedures was deficient) p.103, lines 11-18 (FEMA did not observe availability of special fa-cility relocation centers) p.108, lines 13-18 starting with "Even" through p.109 and n. 49 (FEMA did not verify availability of emergency vehicles) p.108, n. 48 (FEMA did not evaluate availability of reception facil-ities or communcations between ambulances and medical fa-cilities) p.112, lines 12-23 (FEMA evaluation of ambulance activities was deficient)
D p.113, lines 1-9 (FEMA's limited observations do not support its conclusions) p.114, lines 12-23, beginning with "Further" (FEMA's evaluation is insufficient) p.117, lines 11-16, beginning with " FEMA found" (FEMA does not specify how Coast Guard objective was satisfied)
_ p.119, n. 53 (Degree of FEMA evaluation of LERO/ Coast Guard communication is not clear) p.120, n. 54 (FEMA had considered closer evaluation of Coast Guard performance) p.121 through p.122, lines 1-6 (FEMA failed to evaluate Coast Guard performance in first-hand manner) p.137, lines 1-9 ending with "No.143" and n. 62 (FEMA's bus evalu-ation was deficient) p.138, lines 2-9 ending with " Emergency" (FEMA's evaluation of bus activity did not provide adequate basis for conclusions) p.138, lines 17-23 through p. -139, lines 1-3 (FEM A's bus evaluation did not conform to its evaluation at other plants) p.147, lines 5-14 through p.148, lines 1-3 (FEMA did not observe ingestion pathway PAR's) p.154, lines 10-14 (FEMA did not review recovery / reentry activi-ties)
?
C.
References To FEMA Guidance Memoranda.
Post-dating the Exercise Are Irrelevant FEMA Guidance Memorandum EV-2, " Protective Actions for School Children,"
was issued on November 13,1986, nine months af ter the date of the Shoreham Exercise.
It did not apply and could not have to the Exercise. The following portions of testimony referring to this document should thus be stricken as irrelevant to this proceeding:
- p. 66, n. 27, p. 67, lines 9-29.
, gl-D.
References to Contention EX 20 Should Be Stricken In its October 3,'1986 Prehearing Conference Order, the Board denied the admis-sion of Contention EX 20, stating that:
. This contention, in essence, states that FEMA 'did not review' the features and participants which the previous contentions 'com-plained were not exercised. We reject it as being adequately cov-ered by Contentions EX 15 and 16, which we are admitting.
Memorandum and Order at 13.
Accordingly, the following portions of testimony referencing Contention EX 20 should be stricken as going beyond the scope of the admitted contentions:
. p. 89,-lines 5-8, beginning with In addition"
. p. 89, lines 10-11, the phrase "except for those portions of Contention
]
- EX 20 which are found in Attachment 5 (sic) to. this testimony" p.125, lines 1-4.
E.
Some_of the Testimony Should Be_ Stricken as Duplicative of Intervenors' Testimony on Contention EX 21 At numerous places, Intervenors' testimony strays beyond the issue raised by Contentions EX 15 and 16 - whether given objectives were tested - and argues,'in-
. stead, that FEMA could not have reached certain conclusions since it evaluated too
~
small samples to draw meaningful conclusions. This testimony duplicates testimony.
presented by other Intervenor witnesses on Contention EX 21. This Board has previc s-ly stated that it intends to hear evidence only once on each admitted factual issue. See Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Discovery SchM-ule), p. 30 (October 3,1986). Accordingly, the following passages should be stricken as irrelevant and duplicative:
'l
)
r-
- p. 74, ilne'4 through p. 78, line 13 (demonstration of early dis-missal from schools [ Contention EX 21.C])
- p. 87, lines 12-20 (sample size of ambulance /ambulettes for evacuation of the mobility-impaired population (Con-tention EX 21.D])
p.105, line 18 through p.108, line 3 (samples used to draw conclusions about ability to evacuate mobility-impaired
[ Contention EX 21.D])
p.110, line 3 through p.111, line 16 (FEMA observation of ambulances /ambulettes for evacuation of mobility-1 impaired (Contention EX 21.D])
p.133, line 2 through p.135, line 32 (sample size of buses for evacuation of EPZ residents without cars (Contention EX 21.B]).
F.
The Structure of the LERO Organization At several places, Intervenors seek to revisit issues involving the organizational
~
structure of LERO. As LILCO has previously arged in its motion to strike Intervenors'-
testimony on Contention EX 50, Motion at 27-31, the. organizational structure of LERO has been repeatedly challenged and found to be appropriate and acceptable. The Board -
granted this motion to strike to the extent that the testimony on organizational struc-ture was not directly tied to the exercise. Tr. 4332-33.
In their testimony on Contentions EX 15 and 16, Intervenors rely on organiza-tional theory to argue (1) that since LERC workers have little or no "real life" emergen-cy experience, the Exercise needed to be as " realistic as possible" (pp.17-18); (2) that LERO's structure requires an exercise to include "all key players and potential interac-tions" (pp.18-21); and (3) that it is important to include all key facilities and potential sources of problems in a community in an exercise (pp. 21-23, 83). None of these com-plaints relates to Exercise activities, instead, they are broad brush attacks on the LERO organization, on the way FEMA conducts exercises and on the NRC regulations that re-quire them. Accordingly, the following passages should be stricken:
I
.. 6 p.17, line 17 through p. 23, line 17
. p. 83, line 11 through p. 84, line 3.
Respectfully submitted, Donhld P. fyfin [/
Lee B. Zeugin Marcia R. Gelman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 8,1987 l
c TI M N~S C M I OF :?ROCKKUINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) i l
---x DEPOSITION OF FRANK PETRONE l
1 Tew York, New York Monday, December 15, 1986 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
itetot1gv Re,vrtm 41 North Capitol Street Washington, b.C. 2M01 i
1 (202) 347-3700 l
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
+-w---w-~vs
- wwsfe, wwew,e.,g.,--,
,m3,.,,,_,,,y,,,
_.,,,,,%g__,..,,
I-e 23
~
l A.
Yes.
2 Q.
When did you receive the appointment?
3 A.
I think the actual appointment came 4
sometime in January
'82.
5 Q.
That was to the position of regional 6
director, Region II, is that correct?
7 A.
Yes.
8 Q.
You held that position for how long?
9 A.
Approximately four ano a half years, 10 a little bit more than four years.
I 11 Q.
Until February of this year, 1986?
12 A.
A p r i.l.
13 Q.
During your tenure as regional 14 director of Region II of FEMA, what were the 15 responsibilities of FEMA with respect to off-site 16 radiological planning?
17 A.
To the best of my knowledge, the 18 responsibilities were that of working with state 19 and local government with respect to off-site 20 emergency planning around fixed nuclear facilities.
21 Q.
What were your responsibilities in 22 particular as regional director with respect to 23 thosc FEMA activities?
24 A.
My responsibility was to oversee the 25 various operations that dealt specifically with
- b.
- 24
.~
1-the programs.
2 Q.
To whom did you report?
3 A.
I reported to the director of the 4
a g e n c y'.
5 Q.
Where is the director's office-6 located?
7 A.
Washington, D.C.
any 'ocuments that you d
8 Q.-
Were there 9
reviewed or which were shown to you at',any time 1
10 which delineated the authority of Region II with I
11 respect to FEMA's activities for off-site planning?
12 A.
I don't recall at this point.
13 Q.
Did you have any discussions with 14 anyone during your tenure at FEMA concerning the 15 authority of Region II with respect to off-site 16 planning?
L7 MS.
LETSCHE:
Coul'd I have a 18 clarification?
Are you talking about off-site 19 planning for fixed nuclear facilities?
20 MR. DAVIES:
Yes.
21 A.
I would assume yes.
Specifically I 22 could not tell you.
23 Q.
You don't recall any in particular?
J 24 A.
No, I don't.
25 Q.
Do you recall the substance of the
+
r -
w.
e.
.-,m----e-
~ ~ ~ ~
,1 f.
26 1
Q.
What was the basis upon which the-f.
2 regional office formulated a recommendation?
3 A.
Following a long technical review and
/
4 recommendations submitted through the RAC 5
Committee.
6 Q.
During the time you were with FEMA, 7
were there criteria by which you performed your y
8 review and formulated a recommendation?
9 A.
Very difficult to recall because the 10 criteria kept changing.
11 Q.
Do you know of any documents which 12 set forth any criteria used for that purpose?
13 A.
To the best of my knowledge, I can't 14 recall.
15 Q.
Did the criteria change throughout 16 the period of time that you were with FEMA?
17 A.
There were changing criteria, correct, 18 but I just could not recall when and how and whar 19 did change.
20 Q.
Can you recall the name of any 21 document which would contain or which did contain 22 during this period of time criteria for the review 23 and evaluation of off-site plans?
24 A.
The only document tha't would come to 25 mind is that of the document containing FEMA's 350
-27 I
1 1
process and that of 0654.
2 Q.
When you' refer to the 350 process, 3
are you referring to provisions of the Code of 4
Federal Regulations?
5 A.
I cannot recall what provisions I am 6'
referring to other than the 350 process in and of
)
7 itself.
8 Q.
When you. referred to 0654, are you 1
9 referring to that document which is known as NUREG i
10 0654 REP l?
c I
(
l 11 A.
I believe so.
12 Q.
Was that a document you used in.the 13 course of.your activities as regional director?
4 14 A.
I know it was a document that my 15 staff used.
16 Q.
Does that document contain criteria 17 by which off-site plans are evaluated?
18 A.
To the best of my knowledge, it does.
19 Q.
Other than that and the provisions of 20 section 350, are you aware of any other documents 21 which contain criteria for the evaluation of 22 off-site plans?
23 A.
Not to the best of my knowledge and 24 my recall at this point.
25 Q.
Do you know when NUREG 0654 first i
28
/.o 1
came into existence?
A.
I could not recall that.
2 3
Q.
Do you know what it is?
Do you know 1
l 4
how it came into existence?
I l
5 A.
Not specifically, no, I don't.
t 6
Q.
Do you know whether or not that 7
document has a title other than NUREG 0654 FEMA l
8 REP l?
9 A.
No, I don't.
10 Q.
Have you ever seen that document?
11 A.
I believe I have seen it, yes.
12 Q.
Do you know whether or not the 13 document contains standards which apply to off-site 14 planning?
J 15 A.
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
16 Q.
Are you familiar with any regulations 17 promulgated by the NRC with respect to off-site 18 planning?
19 A.
I could not recall at this point.
20 Q.
During your time as regional director, 21 Region II of FEMA, were you familiar with 22 regulations of the NRC concerning off-site 23 planning?
j 24 A.
I would say I was familiar to the 25 extent that my staff was very familiar with it.
i
V.
29 1
Q.
Were the activities of Region II with 2
respect to the evaluation of off-site planning 3
activities largely conducted by staff members 4
rather than by yourself as regional director?
5 A.
The ongoing, every-day activities 6
were conducted by staff members.
7 Q.
What were your responsibilities as 8
regional director with respect to those activities?
9 A.
I would oversee those activities.
{
10 Q.
Did you yourself ever engage in an l
11 evaluation of an off-site plan by reference to any 12 of the standards in NUREG 0654?
13 A.
I recall being involved in 14 evaluations of plans.
15 Q.
What involvement do you recall?
16 A.
The basic reports that would come 17 from my staff, their extensive reviews and their 18 r e c o r. m e n d a t i o n s.
19 Q.
Do you know whether or not any of the l
20 standards set forth in NUREG 0654 are reflected in i
21 regulations promulgated by the NRC?
22 A.
Could you repeat that, please.
23 (Record read.)
t.
24 A.
I could not specifically recall, but i
25 I believe they are.
l
.n.
V 30 l
[
1 Q.
Are you familiar with a document 2
known as Guidance Memorandum 17?
f 3
A.
No, I am not.
MR. DAVIES:
I ask the reporter to 4
5 mark as Exhibit A a multi-page document bearing on 6
the front page the heading " Guidance Memorandum 17, 7
Revision 1, Technological Standards."
8 (Perrone Exhibit A marked for 9
identification, as of this date.)
1 10 Q.
I ask you to review that document and
\\
11 tell me when you have done so.
(Witness complies with request.)
12 13 Q.
Have you reviewed that document?
14 A.
Briefly.
15 Q.
Have you ever seen it before?
16 A.
I don't recall seeing it specifically, 17 no.
18 Q.
During the course of your employment 19 as regional director, Region II, did you ever have 20 occasion to work with this document?
21 A.
I could not recall whether or not I 22 worked with the document.
23 Q.
Do you know what it is?
2 4 A.
Basically the document sets forth j
2 5 some guidance with regard to pre-exercise and 1
31 1
post-exercise activities.
'2
- Q.
Do you know whether or~ not this 3
document plays'any role in'the review and 4
evaluation by FEMA of off-site-plans?
5 A.-
I believe it is relative to the 350 6
process.
7 Q.
Do you know what significance it has 8
with respect to that process?
9 A.
I oelieve it sets time lines.
As :
10 am reading it, I believe it sets time lines in 11 terms of the exercise.
12 Q.
Is this document used by FEMA with
'13 respect to the evaluation or formulation of 14 recommendations with respect to exercises 15 conducted for off-site plans?
16 A.
I can't recall a't this point.
I 17 haven't had a chance-to extensively review it.
18 Q.
Based upon your experience as 19 regional director of FEMA, Region II, can you 20 answer that question?
21 A.
I would say it plays a role.
To what 22 extent, I cannot recall.
23 Q.
Referring to attachment L which 24 follows page 5 of Exhibit A,
do you know what the 25 36 items set forth under attachment 1 are?
A
32 1
A.
To the best of my knowledge, they 2
represent the various objectives and elements that 3
are to be evaluated in'an exercise cf state and 4
local government.
5 Q.
Do you know who formulated those 6
objectives?
7 A.
No, I can't recall that.
8 Q.
Do you know how those objectives 9
relate to the standards set forth in NUREG 0654?
10 A.
I believe they correspond to NUREG 11 0654.
12 Q.
Do you know how those objectives 13 relate, if at all, to any of the regulations of 14 the NRC concerning planning and the exercise?
15 A.
I could not tell you at this point 16 how they relate individually.
17 Q.
Did you have any occasion during your 18 cmployment with FEMA to review, evaluate or make 19 recommendacions with respect to an exercise by 20 reference to any of the objectives set forth in 21 attachment 1 of Exhibit A?
22 A.
I don't recall.
23 Q.
You don't recall ever having done 24 that?
25 A.
I don't recall.
It has been a long
.L
.s.
34 1
A.
It is a term I think that was s
2 utilized for just about every program ir terms of 3
guidance memorandum, namely guidance, the key, I 4
think.
5 Q.
Is guidance memorandum a term that is 6
applied to certain kinds of communications within 7
FEMA?
8 A.
I can't recall the internal structure 9
of FEMA at this point.
r, 10 Q.
Do you know whether or not there are 11 particular subject areas to which the use of the 12 term " guidance memorandum" is reserved?
13 A.
Not to the best of my knowledge.
14 Q.
Do you know whether or not there are 15 particular levels of policy to vhich the term "guidanc e 16 memorandum" is reserved?
8 17 A.
To the best of my knowledge, I don't 18 believe it is reserved, but again, I don't really j
/
19 recall.
20 Q.
Referring ~to the two pages that 21 follow that memorandum, have you seen those before?
22 A.
I don't recall.
l 23 MR. DAVIES:
The first of those pages lj 24 is a document which bears a heading " Joint
[
25 Exercise Procedures."
The second bears a heading
35 I
which I think is " Milestones For Exercise, 2
Information and Critique."
3 Q.
Does that seem. correct to you?
4 A.
Your eyes are better than mine.
I 5
can't make this out.
6 Q.
Do you have any recollection of 7
having seen this document before?
8 A.
No, I don't.
9 Q.
Other than this document or NUREG 10 0654 or part 350, are you aware of any other 11 documents which were promulgated by, used by or 12 referred to by FEMA or any persons within FEMA p'anning l
or of 13 concerning the evaluation of 14 exercises of plans?
15 A.
I couldn't recall at this point.
16 Q.
Are you familiar with the term " full 17 participation exer ise"?
18 A.
Yes.
19 Q.
What does that term mean?
20 A.
To the best of my knowledge and 21 recollection, it means a full participation of 22 state and local government.
23 Q.
In what, sir?
24 A.
In ene planning and exercising of 25 fixed facilities, nuclear facilities.
36 1
Q.
Are you-aware of any documents which 2
set forth criteria by which full participation may 3
be measured?
4 A.
At this point in time I can only 5
recall the 350 process as you have stated it, 6
presented it here.
7 Q.
By "here" you are referring to 8
Guidance Memorandum 17, Exhibit A?
9 A.
Yes.
10 Q.
Are you familiar with the term 11
" full-scale exercise"?
12 A.
At this point in time somewhat, yes.
13 Q.
What does that term mean?
14 A.
To the best of my recollection, it 15 means the full participation of state and local 16 government in an exercise that measures the 17 various objectives and elements as delineated by 18 the 350 process in NUREG 0654.
19 Q.
Do you use the terms " full-scale" and 20
" full participation" interchangeably with respect 21 to exercises of off-site plans?
22 A.
Do I use them interchangeably, is 23 that the question?
j 24 Q.
Yes.
25 A.
At this point I would use them, at k
37 1
this point in time I would use them 2
interchangeably.
3 Q.
During y'our time with FEMA did you 4
use those terms interchangeably?
5 A.
I might have, but I really can't 6
recall specifically.
7 Q.
Do you know whether other 8
representatives of FEMA use those terms 9
interchangeably?
10 A.
I can't recall.
11 Q.
Are you aware of any amendments or 12 revisions or drafts of cnanges to Guidance Memo 17, 13 Exhibit A?
14 A.
No, I am not, to the best of my 15 recollection.
16 MR. DAVIES:
I ask the reporter to 17 mark as Exhibit B a multi-page document described 18 as a draft. bearing a date of 8/15/86 with the 19 heading " Guidance Memorandum EX-3."
20 (Petrone Exhibit B marked for 21 identification, as of this date.)
22 Q.
Have you had an opportunity to review 23 Exhibit B?
24 A.
Yes.
25 Q.
Have you seen this document before?
42 1
Q.
The one in Tom's River is Oyster 2
Creek?
3 A.
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
4 Q.
What was the one in Oswego?
5 A.
I don't recall the exact name at this 6
point.
7 Q.
Those plants all had full operating 8
licenses when you joined FEMA?
9 A.
I believe they did, yes, to the best 10 of my knowledge.
11 Q.
During the time that you were 12 employed as regional director, Region II FEMA, 13 were there any full-scale exercises held within 14 your region?
15 A.
Yes, there were.
16 Q.
Do you know approximately how many?
17 A.
I can't recall how many.
I would say 18 several.
19 MR.
DAVIES:
I ask the reporter to 20 mark as Exhibit C a two-page document promulgated 21 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 22 entitled " Fact Sheet" and dated 2/10/86.
23 (Petrone Exhibit C marked for j
24 identification, as of this date.)
25 Q.
I will ask you to look in particular l
+
44
,e 1
MS. LETSCHE:
Note my objection again 2
to t h'a t question.
If you are going to continue to 3
ask about other exercises, I would like to have a 4
co'ntinuing objection to anything other than 5
questions going to the February 13, 1996 exerci.3e 6
of the LILCO plan for the Shoreham plant.
7 Q.
The question is how many of the 17 8
involved participation by state and local 9
governments?
10 A.
To the best of my knowledge, all.
11 Q.
Did these exercises involve plans 12 which had been reviewed against the criteria of 13 NUREG 0654?
14 A.
To the best I my knowledge, I believe 15 so.
16 Q.
Were they exercises which were 17 conducted to determine whether or not the plan 18 satisfied the objectives of NUREG 6054?
19 A.
To the best of my knowledge, I 20 believe so.
21 Q.
Do you know whether or not the 22 exercises as conducted were adequate to test the 23 plans?
. g 24 A.
I could not recall at this point.
25 Q.
Do you recall what your involvement
O 52
!*;,e '
1 were during the period from '82 until you left 2
that' office with respect to Shoreham?
3 A.
To the best of my recollection, FEMA's 4
' activities were based i n making decisions as to 5
whether or not to proceed with plan reviews and 6
then ultimately to proceed with exercise 7
development and actual exercise.
8 Q.
What was the role that you played as 9
regional director with respect to those activities?
10 A.
I oversaw the actual activity and the 11 actual workings of the various technical 12 professionals that were involved in the process.
l,,
13 Q.
Did you consult with any FEMA 14 employees in Washington with respect to these 15 activities?
16 A.
Constantly.
17 Q.
Did you seek approval from FEMA 19 officials in Washington with respect to these 19 activities?
20 A.
To the best of my knowledge, I did.
21 Q.
Were there issues or particular 22 activities with respect to which ': h e approval or 23 authority of F E:t A employees in Washington was 24 required?
25 A.
I can't recall specifically, but I
,-..m.-.,. - -
.--._.,,7_
j 58 f
+
1
' document which I will ask the reporter to mark as 2
Exhibit E, which is a document on the letterhead 3
of FEMA dated June 23, 1983.
4 (Petrone Exhibit E marked for 5
identification, as of this date.)
6 Q.
Did you assist in directing a 7
technical review of the transition plan in June of 8
1983?
l 9
A.
I assisted to the extent that my 10 staff had assisted and had been involved.
Other 11 than that, I had no direct involvement.
12 Q.
Did you make recommendations to FEMA 13 headquarters following that technical review?
14 A.
I believe I made recommendations.
I 15 can't recall exactly what they were.
16 Q.
Were the two pre-conditions which are 17 set forth on the second page of Exhibit E 18 pre-conditions which were contained in your 19 recommendation?
20 A.
To the best of my knowledge, I 21 believe so, yes.
22 Q.
Were those pre-conditions 23 pre-conditions which reflected the views of FEMA 24 Region II at that time with respect to LILCO's j
25 plan?
- ~ -
61 1
(Petrone Exhibit F marked for 2
identification, as of this date.)
3 Q.
Have you seen this document before?.
4 A.
I don't recall.
5 Q.
Do you recall having discussions in 6
June, July or August of 1983 with FEMA 7
headquarters concerning FEMA's policy with respect 8
to non-governmental plans?
,9 A.
I vaguely recall having discussions 10 that centered around the legal authority concern.
11 Q.
Did Region II make any 12 recommendations to FEMA headquarters concerning 13 FEMA's policy with respect to the review of 14 non-governmental plans?
15 A.
On several occasions, and if I can 16 vaguely recall on several occasions, it was the 17 position at that point in the region that we 18 should not proceed with review without 19 governmental entities involved.
20 Q.
Did Region II take a position with 21 respect to whether a non-governmental plan could 22 be considered adequate when reviewed against NUREG 23 0654 standards?
24 A.
I believe that region took a position 25 that it could not be with regard to the legal
j -
62 1
authority concerns that existed.
,e 2
Q.
Did Region II take a position 3
concerning the question whether a plan, a 4
non-governmental plan, could be implemented if 5
those required to implement it had the authority 6
to do so?
7 MS. LETSCHE:
I object to the form of 8
the question on the grounds that it is vague.
9 MR. DAVIES:
Would you read that 10 question back.
11 (Record read.)
12 Q.
That question assumes that there is 4
13 not participation by state and local governments.
14 MS. LETSCHE:
I still. object to the 15 form.
16 A.
To the best of my recollection at 17 this point, the issue was that of legal authority, 18 and if the legal authority question has been 19 resolved and Region II's position basically was 20 later on down the road that it was resolved and 21 that the plan was not implementable without state 22 and local government.
23 Q.
At that time in 1983, what was FEMA's 24 position with respect to that issue?
3 25 A.
FEMA's position was as it is written,
=. * +
m__,__ _}_3 3
I 1
authority concern had not been resolved.
,e 2
Q.
Did Region II concur with FEMA's view 3
that it could review LILCO's transition plan and 4
certify the adequacy of the plan?
5 A.
Region II's position at that time was 6
that it should not be reviewing a plan that is not 7
submitted by state and local government.
I 8
Q.
Was it similarly the view of Region 9
II that no finding of off-site preparedness could 10 be made?
11 A.
Without a submission of state and i
12 1ocal government, yes, basically.
13 Q.
Did you communicate those views to 14 FEMA headquarters?
15 A.
Continuously.
16 Q.
Do you know whether you did so in 17 writing?
18 A.
I can't recall.
19 Q.
Do you recall whether you had an 20 opportunity to review Exhibit F prior to its 21 submission to the NRC?
22 A.
Clarification, is this Exhibit F?
23 Q.
Yes.
- 3 24 A.
I don't recall.
The language is 25 familiar, but I really can't recall whether I
.m.
-._.r rw-
-r---
+ + - - - + - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-w
3..
y, 66 1
opposed to proceeding with the review of planning 2
for Shoreham?
3 A.
I was professionally opposed t o' 4
proceeding.
5 Q.
Did planning by FEMA nevertheless 6
continue during the period following August 1983 7
and into 1984?
8 A.
I would have to say I believe, to the 9
best of my recollection, it did, but also I was 10 not privy to whether or not they were proceeding 11 and working with the NRC.
I mean I did not 12 receive all information o t h.e r than information I
13 that they felt was appropriate to discuss with me.
14 Q.
Was the responsibility for review of 15 plans for Shoreham one which was assigned to the f
16 regional office?
17 A.
The responsibility was usually l
18 assigned to the regional office, as far as I can 19 remember.
j 20 Q.
If the regional office were engaged 21 in a review of plans for Shoreham, would you be 1
2 i
22 aware of that at this time during 1983 and 19847 23 A.
Vaguely what I can remember is that 24 the regional office had been involved in plan g
i 25 review of a LILCO or LERO plan.
t l
A
~-
-~
" ~ ' ' '
4-67 1
Q.
Do you recall that in 1984 FEMA was 2
considering an exercise of the LILCO plan,?
3 A.
I can't recall.
4 Q.
During 1984 do you know whether or 5
not any RAC reviews of LILCO plans had been 6
requested?
7 A.
I really cannot be sure of dates and 8
time lines at this point, so I could not recall.
9 Q.
Who was responsible for the 10 initiation of a RAC review of an off-site plan?
11 A.
To the best of my recollection, it 12 was the state.
13 Q.
The state would be responsible for 14 initiating?
j 15 A.
Initiating a request for a review.
16 Q.
Do you recall any requests being made 17 upon the regional office of FEMA during 1984 for a 18 RAC review of the LILCO plan?
19 A.
As I mentioned prior, I cannot recall 20 dates and time lines, but I do recall that there 21 were requests for a review.
To what extent and 22 what time line, I couldn't give you that at this 23 point.
1 j
24 MR. DAVIES:
I ask the reporter to 25 mark as Exhibit G a document dated November 15,
68 1
1984 on the letterhead of FEMA.
v i 2
(Petrone Exhibit G marked for 3
identification, as of this date.)
4 Q.
Does this. refresh your recollection 5
as to whether the NRC requested FEMA to conduct a 6
RAC review of revision 4 of LILCO's transition 7
plan in July of 19847 8
A.
It is a letter here stating that.
I 9
wouldn't dispute it.
10 Q.
Does it refresh your recollection 11 that as of November 15, 1984 that RAC review had L2 been completed?
13 A.
I couldn't recall exactly when it was 14 completed, but obviously it was in process 15 sometime during that period.
16 Q.
But you agree that as of November 15 17 that RAC review had been completed?
18 A.
I can't recall what the time line was 19 on it.
20 Q.
Was that a review against the 21 criteria of NUREG 0654?
22 MS.
LETSCHE:
Note my continuing 23 objection and also note that these documents all
- j 24 speak for themselves, and I am not quite sure I 25 understand the point of going over them with Mr.
69 1
Petrone, in addition to my relevancy objection.
2 A.
To the best of my recollection, it 3
was a review against the elements of 0654, but at 4
that point, these are things that the technical 5
staff dealt with and I had no direct, direct 6
involvement, so I really couldn't say to what 7
extent it had been.
8 MR. DAVIES:
I ask the reporter to 9
mark as Exhibit H a document on the letterhead of 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated June 1,
1984.
11 (Petrone Exhibit H marked for 12 identification, as of this date.)
13 Q.
Does this refresh your recollection 14 as to whether FEMA was considering the development 15 of a full field exercise at this time to test 16 LILCO's plan?
17 A.
I need a minute.
18 (Witness perusing document.)
19 A.
I don't recall whether or not I saw 20 this, even.
There was much talk about exercises 21 at different periods of time, and I just could not 22 place it in its right time frame.
23 Q.
You don't recall today whether Region 24 II had been asked to consider the development of a i
25 full field exercise in June of 19847 i
[.
82 1
- -c 1
the exercise?
j' 2
A.
The objectives to be attained?
i' 3
Q.
Yes.
i, 4
A.
It would be the person evaluating the 5
exercise.
That would be the LERO organization.
f 1
6 Q.
With respect to the exercise of the j
)
7 LERO plan do you know what steps were taken to 8
develop objectives for the exercise?
A j
9 A.
I d o n '. t know specifically, no.
The 10 staff would have known that.
11 Q.
Was your staff involved in the 12 devel'opment of objectives for that plan or fo r 13 that exercise?
2 14 A.
To the best of my recollection, they 15 were.
3 16 Q.
Who in particular on your staff was t
t 1
17 responsible for the development of those r
f 18 objectives?
I 19 A.
Mr. Kowieski and I*believe Mr.
I 20 McIntyre.
i 21 Q.
Was Mr. Kowieski working on behalf of i
i j\\
22 FEMA or RAC or both in developing objectives for i
I 23 the LERO plan exercise?
l lg 24 A.
He was working in his capacity as RAC
[
i
[
i 25 chairman.
l 1
i r
k D
s.
T i
1
. *~
~
84 1
A.
For a full-scale exercise, yes.
2 Q.
Who was responsible for the 3
developmen't of a scenario for the exercise?
4 A.
I can't recall at this point.
5 Q.
Do you know what the criteria were 6
for the development of the scenario?
7 A.
To the best of my recollection, the 8
objectives.
9 Q.
Is it your understanding that a i
10 scenario should be sufficient to satisfy an
,1 l
11 evaluation of the objectives developed by RAC7 l
12 MS. LETSCHE:
Point of clarification.
13 Are you talking about the Shoreham scenario and 14 Shoreham exercise or just in general?
15 MR. DAVIES:
I am talking about t
16 Shoreham.
17 A.
I believe so, yes.
i 18 Q.
What was your specific role in l
19 connection with the development of objectives and 20 the development of a scenario to evaluate those
= 21 objectives?
22 A.
I had no direct involvement.
23 Q.
Do you know whether the procedures 24 utilized by RAC in developing the objectives for
,3 25 the Shoreham exercise differed in any way from the
- + see* e m
W-
AT 94 t
Q.
With respect to the 17 full-scale 2
exercises conducted in Region II since 1981 is it 3
your view that the objectives to be met in order 4
for those exercises to be characterized as 5
full-scale needed to reflect every objective set 6
forth in Guidance Memo 177 7
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
My objection as 8
noted before stands, but you may answer.
9 A.
I mentioned earlier that I was not 10 fully familiar with Guidance Memorandum 17, and 11 fully comfortable with all the objectives, so at 12 this point I would have to answer to that question 13 that I really don't know at this point.
14 Q.
Let me ask you this:
With respect to 15 those 17 exercises in order that they be 16 considered full-scale exercises is it necessary 17 that the scenario developed for those exercises 18 establish for evaluation each of the objectives 19 set forth in Guidance Memo 177 20 A.
Again I mentioned earlier I was not 21 truly familist with Guidance Memorandum 17 and 22 therefore I would have to answer that I don't know.
23 Q.
Let me ask you this:
With respect 24 again to each of those 17 exercises in order that j
25 they be characterized or regarded as full-scale,
T 95 1
is it necessary that the objectives' developed need 2
reflect each criteria set forth in NUREG 06547 3
A.
I am not familiar with every criteria 4
of NUREG 0654 as I sit here today, so I could not 5
answer the question.
6 Q.
Let me ask you again with respect to 7
each of those 17 exercises whether as a pre-condition 4
V 8
to the characterization of those exercises as 9
full-scale the scenario developed for the exercise 10 need establish for evaluation each objective to 11 reflect and meet each of the criteria set forth in 12 NUREG 06547 i
13 A.
I am not fully familiar with every 14 criteria in NUREG 0654, so I cannot answer the 15 question.
1 16 Q.
With respect to the Shoreham exercise 17 which was conducted in February of 1986, do you 4
18 know whether or not the objectives for,that I
19 exercise included each and every objective of i
20 Guidance Memo 177 1
21 A.
No, I don't recall.
l 22 Q.
Do you know whether or not the 23 objectivos for tne Shoreham exercise reflected 24 each and every criteria of NUREG 0654?
l 25 A.
I don't recall.
e 99 1
A.
I believe the goal was to conduct a 2
full-scale exercise as best as possible, given 3
that the exercise was limited.
I think that 4
statement has been stated many, many times by FEMA.
5 Q.
Did you yourself review the 6
objectives or any drafts of the objectives as they 7
were developed by RAC?
8 A.
No, I did not.
9 Q.
Did you review the scenario or any i
10 drafts of the scenario?
11 A.
No, I did not.
12 Q.
Did you voice or communicate to 13 anyone any views or opinions which you held with i
14 respect to the objectives?
15 A.
I would talk to my staff.
We would i
l 16
. discuss status in terms of how far they were in 17 developing this, but other than that, that was the l
18 discussion.
It was limited to that and it was 19 basically my concerns were always aired with them 20 with regard to how we were going to proceed with 21 this with regard to the fact that it was limited 22 and without the state and local government j
t 23 participation.
That was our topic of discussion 1
24 continuously.
25 Q.
Would that response be equally
LL6 1
MS. LETSCHE:
Are you talking about 2
the Shoreham exercise or are you just talking in 3
general?
4 MR. DAVIES:
Full-scale exercise.
5 A.
I would think some semblance of 6
ingestion pathway evaluation would be important, 7
depending on the site and depending on the area 8
that you are dealing with.
9 Q.
Do you know whether or not there are 10 regulations concerning the frequency or the 11 necessity of testing ingestion pathway activities L2 in a full participation test?
13 A.
I am not familiar at this time with 14 the regulation.
15 Q.
Are you familiar with the provisions 16 of LILCO's plan concerning the monitoring of 17 evacuees from special facilities?
18 A.
tio t specifically.
19 Q.
Do you believe that such activities 20 are necessary to be exercised as part of a full 21 participation exercise?
22 A.
To a certain extent, yes.
23 Q.
Could you tell me why you regard that 24 as a necessary important element of such an
,3 25 exercise plan?
e 119 1
utilized in a test of elements of the plan 2
concerning the monitoring of evacuees from special 3
facilities?
4 A.
I would not at this point offer a 5
sampling technique, nor would I offer a sampling 6
size, but my own feeling on that is that you can 7
only sample and you can only simulate when you 8
have full participation and agreements in place, 9
and people involved in the process that wish to be 10 involved in the process.
i 11 Q.
Is it fair to state that the 12 reservations you are now expressing with respect 13 to this particular issue are once again 14 reservations that spring from concerns about the 15 legal authority issues?
16 A.
The legal authority issues and the 17 limited participation, yes.
18 Q.
In particular the absence of v
19 participation by state and local governments?
20 A.
And other private entities that would 21 be subject to agreements in any plan.
22 Q.
Do you know whether or not the 23 scenario developed for the Shoreham exercisc 24 included a demonstration of any activities 25 concerning recovery and re-entry?
o 12H 1
A.
I
'l o n ' t recall at this point.
2 Q.
Is it your view that a full-scale 3
exercise would be required to demonstrate recovery 4
and re-entry activities of an emergency plan?
5 A.
To the extent that the evaluation 6
would test the decision-making processes and the 7
interaction among all the players in an exercise 8
that would be responsible for bringing back a 9
community to its normalcy.
10 Q.
Again are you referring to the 4
11 involvement of state and local governments and i
12 other private entities?
13 A.
State and local govecnments and other 14 private entities that would have the authority to 15 proceed.
16 Q.
Is it your view that absent the 17 participation of state and local government, one 18 could not evaluate in an exercise recovery and 19 re-entry activities of an emergency plan?
20 A.
Yes.
21 Q.
Do you know whether LILCO offered to 22 FEMA a demonstration of recovery and co-entry 23 activities of its emergency plan?
24 A.
I don't know at this point.
g 25 Q.
Do you know whether FEMA normally
- - =
O 131 I
witness, but you may answer to the best of your 2
ability.
3 A.
I don't believe every ambulette 4
company has to participate in one exercise.
Over 5
the course of time in other exercises the goal 6
would be to have everyone participate.
7 Q.
Are you familiar with the 8
responsibilities of ambulance and ambulette 9
companies under the Shoreham plan?
10 A.
Under the Shoreham plan I can't 11 recall basically at this point what they would be 12 involving.
13 Q.
Is a preliminary prass conference 14 following an exercise a regular practice adopted 15 by FEMA?
16 A.
To the best of my recollection, it 17 had been, yes.
18 Q.
Is it fair to state that the 19 expression of any findings concerning an exercise 20 at such a preliminary press conference has not 21 been a practice of F E!! A ?
22 A.
Preliminary findings have been 1 23 practice.
24 Q.
Has it been a practice of FEMA to 25 express findings concerning a reachable assurance
o 168 1
for sub-part M,
which was stricken.
2 MR. DAVIES I ask the reporter to 3
mark as Exhibit T copies of contentions 15 and 16, 4
and I invite counsel to look at the exhibit as 5
nacked and make a compactson between that and the 6
contentions.
7 (Petrone Exhibit T marked for 8
identification, as of this date.)
9 Q.
Do you have Exhibit T before you?
10 A.
- Yes, I do.
11 Q.
With respect to contention 15, which 12 begins on the first page of the exhibit which is 13 page ti o. 16 and continues to page 25, I would just 14 like to ask you to state now on this record what, 15 other than that which is reflected in the exhiait 16 before you and the contentions themselves, you 17 would intend to state with respect to those 18 contentions in your testimony in this proceeding.
19 A.
I haven't even had a chance to study 20 this or even to begin writing testimony.
I can't 21 answer that.
22 Q.
Is it your testimony that at this 23 time you have not determined upon the testimony 24 you will give with respect to contention 157 25 A.
I haven't done any work with regard I
~-
x.
O 169 a
O I
to the testimony that I would be giving relative 2
to contention 15 and 16.
I have reviewed it, 3
period.
4 Q.
So at this time you cannot tell us 5
what, if anything, you would say with respect to 6
contentions 15 and 167 7
A.
No, I will not state anything because 8
I haven't h.d a chance to study it and to really
?
start developing the testimony that I would feel 10 comfortable with.
l 11 Q.
Your answer refers to 16 also?
12 A.
Yes, as ! said, I rev-ioved this twice.
l 13 I just read it over.
14 Q.
Just so the record is clear, you are 15 not able to state here today what testimony, if 16 any, you would give in this proceeding with 17 raspect to those mattern set forth in contention 18 15 and with respect to those matters set forth in l
l 19 contention 167 20 A.
That is cotract.
l 21 Q.
When were you first approached or 22 asked to be a witness in this proceeding?
23 A.
Approached about two months ago.
24 Q.
Dy whom?
25 A.
Mr. Zahnioutet.
l
,a
r.
1 TIMN'SCluP1 OF PROCEEDIN'GS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE T!!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGl! TING COMPANY (EP Exorciso)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (ASLDP No. 86-533-01-OL)
Unit 1)
..........x I
h DEPOSITION OF HAROLD R.
"00K i
ll ll l
l Washington, D. C.
I Thursday, January 15, 1987 6
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, iwwrm,7.w rer i
M N fth C r t!01ffffvt I
h g ren.p,C y 1
.... ).14.. >, w Ntionwide Coserage h
300 336 6646 H
I l
[,
29487.0 l
K3W 11 l
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 l
7 in law enforcement training most of my career.
8 Q
Do you know why you are being asked to testify on l
l 9
the particular contentions that you have listed for me or 10 that you may be asked to testify on those contentions?
11 A
Cnly that I may have some knowledge or input which 12 would be helpful to counsel in this particular case.
13 Q
What 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.
1)
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 tnat they might relate to certain law
.~. w " " 7.. m - -
. t s." Pa L."s.
, Lw. 4 c o..r, 1. s is..
ci-r c..
..s
29487.0 K5W 12 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. :ook, have you spoken with anyone who has t
5 already had their deposition taken in this proceeding?
6 A
Concerning -- spoken to them concerning whht?
7 Q
Just spoken to them at all?
8 A
Yes, sir.
t 9
C Wno would that have been?
10 A
Dr. Colwell.
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.
Tnat 17 was the nature of our conversations.
i 18 Q
What did you talk about with Dr. Colwell?
19 MR. MILLER:
With respect to this case?
3 1
20 BY Ms. MONA0HAN:
1 21 Q
With respect to your discussiens concerning this 22 case or your deposition.
- . 7 :- -
. '... ~.
s 7...;..*. 7..y 7.1 ~.;., h r.
u.
s.
.,...,v...,
v i p.w, e
w-
29487.0 K5W 40 1
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
utill:ation 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 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 abcut 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 16 necescarily that I initiated it and completed it by myself, 17 but I was a part of the team that did develop it, and again, 18 as it relates to criminal activity; and that's the limit of 19 my exposure to statistics.
20 0
Now, have you been involved in planning for a 21 response to an emergency at a nuclear power plant?
22 A
Not in a nuclear power plant.
p.
d
... !. " T. %
't-'. ~.' c. s A l C O.0,.J....\\. L.
- 6. O R I..
...,,.s...
...: u..,
r--
~
r.
e 29487.0 KSW 41 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 conjunction 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?
)
.~ i '. C " T. - - - n..
f*. v C 1%.-'. L.Q.1 v.\\ i 01%.", 1.g.,-
T y,3-tr
.w.
..t
.. vw
. r. :v,
n-.
29487.0 KSW 56 1
contentions were; is that correct?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
Did you know before yesterday afternoon generally 4
what subject matters you might be asked to testify on?
5 A
I believe it may have been discussed that I would 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, puoliched 11 any articles or papers?
Your resume does not indicate that 12 but I just wanted to be sure.
13 A
I have written articles for certain law 14 enforcement publications; that has absolutely nothing to do 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 t ~ T ~ ~. " n s ( Q v-m m =~,
~
- '. .'.~. ~ i~. J. \\.% a. ~.* V A $ 1.C,... r
- ~ r~
'. u.
. : ~.
v. m.. ;.. :.a
..:y. w
^ ~
- V
.o 29487.0 KSw 57 1
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.
-.7_2 ^ C ? 2. - 5._TT T.T. Z.? Q
[
4
~
^
..N. s-s.,.
4
- . e
- .%..a
29487.0 K59 58 1
Q When you say "directly and indirectly," what do 2
you mean by things that would indirectly have an 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 9
can get competent medical personnel to take the person into 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.
We identify procedures there on how to properly care 14 for that 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 16 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.
19 Q
Mr. Zook, are you familiar with a document called 20 NUREG-0654?
21 A
Not that I recall.
No, ma'am.
22 Q
Are you familiar with the Federal Emergency
_ " C _ C ': "' 2 7. 1.*
"*~ _. q. qf, T.\\ Y
-~ 7,
.n....
s
s 6-29487.0 KSW 59 1
Management Agency?
2 A
I have some knowledge of FEMA.
3 Q
Have you ever done any work with FEMA?
4 A
I have been to the FEMA facility in Gaithersburg, 5
or wherever the facility is, some 40 or 50 miles from here.
6 I have been to that facility in a seminar.
7 Q
What did the seminar concern?
8 A
Natural disasters or incidents.
FEMA was at one 9
time and still may be projecting information on an earthquake 10 area that has been projected, that an earthquake is going to 11 occur in the south central part of the United States, a fault 12 line which comes out of Missouri or possibly Illinois and 13 northeastern part of Arkansas, and this dealt with the law 14 enforcement officers' response and responsibility in this 15 type of incident should it occur or had it occurred.
They 16 say it is going to occur.
17 Q
When did you attend that FEMA seminar?
18 A
I believe it was in 1984 or early '85.
19 Q
Have you,had any other affiliation with or contact 20 with FEMA?
21 A
Not that I recall.
22 Q
Do you have any knowledge of FEMA's 27TCnCQ 1 [ 2 C T R.T7 7..C
.I.'N s.
T 1 _t v t.
v..._.-
.f vi :....,
29487.0 KSW 60 1
responsibilities concerning evaluation of off-site emergency 2
response organizations for nuclear power plant emergencies?
3 A
I had no concept of that until I sta.rted reading 4
some of these documents and saw that FEMA was involved in 5
it.
Prior to that I had no knowledge of it.
6 Q
Are you familiar at all with FEMA Guidance 7
Memorandum 17?
8 A
Not that I recall.
9 Q
I'm going to show you a copy of Guidance Manual 10 17.
Have you ever seen that document before?
11 A
I don't recall ever seeing this document before.
12 Nothing looks familiar at all to me.
13 Q
Do you think you would be reviewing that document 14 in order to prepare for the testimony you might be giving in 15 this proceeding.
16 A
I possibly could be.
I couldn't rule that out.
17 Q
Would you know what contention you might be 18 reviewing that document in connection with?
19 A
I don't know.
This document is unfamiliar to me.
20 I have never seen it before.
21 Q
Are you familiar with another FEMA guidance 22 memorandum known as EX-3?
7 -..-.-.,
7 -e -. _ y
.J.'-
. d b'.1.'b
. L...C[ L'ik k.' AC f
e..
s:
0.
c :u.:
5. u :.~-
1,.
e 29487.0 KSW 61 1
A
'No, ma'am.
Not to my knowledge.anyway.
2 Q
Let me show you a copy of FEMA EX-3 and let you 3
take a look at it, and you tell me whether you have ever seen 4
that document before.
5 A
I don't recall ever having seen this document 6
before.
7 Q
And the title on the document that I have shown 8
you is " Conducting Pre-exercise Activities and Post-exercise 9
Meetings"; is that correct?
10 A
That's the title of this document, Guidance 11 Memorandun EX-3, " Conducting Pre-exercise Activities and 12 Post-exercise Meetings."
13 Q
You have never seen that draft document?
14 A
Not to my knowledge.
15 Q
Nor the Guidance Memorandum 17 that I showed you 16 previously?
17 A
I don't recall ever having seen it before either.
18 Q
Are you familiar with the materials used in the 19 LILCO training program?
20 A
What type materials are they?
Maybe if you could 21 expand on that.
The only thing that I'm primarily familiar 22 with is the post-exercise document that FEMA prepared, and I i
l
-. r -
. T.L._'. ? :..._. C T.-.3, ?.~. Y.
'.u._ _ w b -
T. _ sm v
.. ~.
.C.s p
. r. Q '.~, s
u is s
29487.0 KSW 71 1
MR. MILLER:
Does your question include counsel?
2 MS. MONAGHAN:
No.
With the exception of 3
counsel.
4 THE WITNESS:
No.
5 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
6 Q
Mr. Zook, do you have an opinion about the issues 7
raised in Contentions 15 and 16?
8 A
Could I see the contentions?
9 Q
Do you recall at all what issues ar,e raised by 10 those contentions?
11 A
I think that the issues that are raised in 15 and 12 16 concern the sampling of the exercise being insufficient to 13 draw a conclusion that the health and safety of the general 14 public could be assured.
15 Q
Do you agree --
16 A
That's from memory.
17 Q
All right, and I understand that you were only 18 informed yesterday of the contentions on which you think you 19 will be testifying?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
Do you agree that the sample size was too small?
22 A
Based on what I read in the contentihns, that
- 1. T 5:_p:lu.1 T S C.;2 O.p\\.; u ?,3, l.. \\ m.
n T
...w _..
_vm m
.m v
\\ ',% ;,
s +.,
& *. - %s.
p u.
d 29487.0 KSW 110 1
A I would have to look to see wh,at those items are.
2 Q
Do you know what a-full-participation exercise is?
3 A
A full-participation exercise, as I would define 4
it, would be an exercise of sufficient _ scope where 5
conclusions could be made as to its being properly conducted 6
and whether the standards of public health and safety had 7
been maintained.
That would be my --
8 Q
Do you know whether there is any legal definition 9
associated with the term " full-participation exercise"?
j 10 A
I'm not able to quote a legal detinition.
11 Q
So your opinion on contentions 15 and 16 would be 12 limited to your understanding of what full-participation 13 exercise might be?
14 A
That's correct.
15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 THE WITNESS:
I have seen the definition 17 ident.4fied in the Code of Federal Regulations on a 18 full-p rticipation exercise, but I cannot quote that.
19 BY MS. MONAGHAN:
20 Q
Do you recall at all what the nature of that 21 definition was or anything that was said in it?
e 22 A
No.
..CE-FEDEPGi EEFORTERS, I.'..:C.
n. ::-
m
p ut-a o>
e.
4 29487.0 KSW 113 1
conclusion?
2 A
Any other material that may be available that 3
would address the question as it may be presented.
I don't 4
know at this time, but I would not preclude anything else 5
being added.
6 Q
What's your understanding of the issues reing 7
presented in Contentions 15 and 16?
8 A
That the sampling of this exercise was 9
insufficient to assure the safety and protection of the 10 people in the area, the general public.
There was not 11 sufficient data to make an assessment from.
12 Q
When you say the sampling was insufficient and 13 that there was insufficient data, can you define for ne more 14 fully what you mean by that in connection with contentions 15 15 and 16?
)
16 A
The only thing I could say on tr.at would be what 17 is specifically contained in the contentions and the FEMA J
18 post-exercise report, the data that may have been generated 19 from either one of those two or both documents.
20 Q
Why was that insufficient?
Why is that data 21 insufficient?
22 A
The information contained in the contentions has a
-p,.
, r.,, r.-
~
, 1.\\,\\.
f~fw ~."[ d b 1 A". "
1 C I V 3"\\. L II
- :... ~ -
e.v. e
.e.:..
- x...~
~
L
TRK ~SCRIF1 CF PROCEEDE ~GS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 GREGORY MINOR i
Washington, D.
C.
Tuesday, December 2, 1986 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotuye Rqvrters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3 00 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
.e 5
e 1
A It was on the order of.a month ago, but I don't 2
remember the exact date.
3 Q
And, what is your understanding of what you are
, 4-going to testify about?
5 A
The issues that I am tentatively planning to testify on are the Issues 15, Subparagraph I, which is part 6
7 of the Contention 36, I believe; and, also Contention 37.
8 0
Okay.
g A
I guess you could say that the other way around.
10 Contention 36 is part of 15.I.
I'm not sure how the ordering 11 goes there.
12 Q
We hope that mystery at some point will be cleared 13 up for all of us.
14 Were you at the exercise on February 13th?
15 A
No, I was not.
16 Q
Have you looked at any documents that were generat-17 ed during the exercise to try to figure out what went on at 18 the exercise?
19 A
Yes, I have.
20 Q
What have you looked at?
21 A
I've looked at a vast part of the discovery, 22 particularly related to all radiological issues and the
-.v.
?
12 filing on the contentions and arguments about the contentions 1
2 and so forth.
And, I have been reviewing those as we went 3
along.
4 I can't recall any large block of documents at 5
this time that I haven't mentioned in that set.
There may be 6
some, but I just can't think of them at this time.
7 O
So, is it true to say that all of the information 8
you have about what happened at the exercise has come from 9
your review of the documents that you have been referring.to in answer to my questions previously?
10 11 A
Yes.
As I stated, I was not at the exercise but I did review this large body of documentation that came from 12 the discovery process resulting from the exercise.
13 14 Q
I take it from your reference in answering my 15 question about what you are testifying to, the 15.I, 36 and 37, 16 that you have read the contentions?
17 A
Yes.
la Q
Have you read all of the contentions that were 19 filed or just 15.I, 36 and 37?
20 A
Well, I read a lot of the other contentions that were filed, but I will not claim that I have read every one 21 22 of them.
c-14 1
you focus on in your particular editing and review process?
2 A
Well, the contentions as originally drafted, 3
Numbers 35, 36 and 37 I believe.
And those were the ones
,4 -
that I was particularly interested in.
5 Q
I take it that having read 15.I, 36 and 37 and a
having edited, at least 35 also, that you agree with those 7
contentions?
8 A
Yes, I do.
I agree with 35 also.
9 0
Alas, 35 is gone, we think.
10 f tS. LETSCHE:
Yes, there is a pcoding objection.
11 So, we shall see.
12 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing) 13 O
Have you ever participated in develooing any 14 scenarios for nuclear emergency drills or exercises?
'Is A
In actually preparing the scenario?
Is that 16 your question?
17 Q
Yes.
18 A
No, I have not.
19 Q
Have you worked in some other cacacity on the 20 scenarios for nuclear emergency drills or exercises?
21 A
No.
I have reviewed some of them, but I have not 22 participated in the preparation of them.
,e
-=,->nwa.---,-
a
,,m e
15 o
1 Q
Have you reviewed scenarios for nuclear emergency 2
drills other than Shoreham drills?
3 A
I have looked at some other plant scenarios.
I can't even recall which plants they were.
But I did get ahold-4 of a few others to see what type of scenario they had put in 3
e front of the ~ players for their exercise.
'T Q
Was that in connection with other work that you do, a
or in connection with the shoreham work?
9 A
Well, we had some of this information around the 10 office.
It was quite some time ago when they were setting up the exercise and I was curious about what the scenarios may it include, and I went to look and see what others had included.
12 13 O
So, your undertaking or review was in connection 14 with your Shoreham work?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Do you recall -- were these for nuclear power plants" 17 A
Yes.
la Q
Do you recall which plants the scenarios were --
19 A
As I said earlier, no, I do not.
And, I -- well, 20 I just don't recall.
I'm sorry.
21 Q
Were you looking at particular aspects of those 22 scenarios in comparing them to the Shoreham scenario?
f' 16 q
1 A
Well, this is not an indepth study I'm talking about, I just went and glanced at some documents that we had which 2
would indicate what type of emergency drill or exercise they 2
4 had at other plants.
My general conclusion was that they were reasonably 5
s 6
similar.
T Q
Similar?
I'm sorry.
F 8
A My first look was to see what they were.
After the drill, my conclusion was that they were generally similar.
9 10 0
Similar to the shoreham drill?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Have you ever been an evaluator at a nuclear 13 emergency drill or exercise?
14 A
No, I have not.
15 Q
Have you ever participated as a player, as someone responding to the postulated emergency --
16 17 A
No, I have not.
18 Q
-- in a nuclear drill?
gg A
No, I have not.
20 Q
Have you ever attended a drill or exercise?
21 A
No, I have not.
22 O
Ne have all been familiar for quite some time with
17 your background and resume, and I.just have a couple of quick 1
2 questions.
3 MS. McCLESKEY:
Let's go off the record a minute.
c4 (Off-the-record.)
5 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing)
~
s 0
I believe I was saying.I just had a couple of 7
questions about your background particularly related to a
scenario and drill and exercise work.
9 Do you have any specific <2egrees, or have you done go a significant amount of course work in emergency response, 11 either radiological or non-radiological?
12 MS. LETSCHE:
I don't know what you mean by 13 emergency response work.
5 14 MS. McCLESKEY:
Emergency reponse.
15 BY MS. McCLESKEY:
(Continuing) 16 0
Mr. Minor, do you know what I mean by emergency 17 response?
Is A
Well, in terms of course work, because emergency 19 response is what you do in response to a base of knowledge 20 given a particular situation that exists.
It's not something 21 you take very extensive course work in.
22 You train to prepare yourself for the responsibilitie.
.y.
a 18 4
you have in the drill or the exercise or the emergency,re-1 s
2 sponse, then you use your other training and knowledge to 3
implement that.
4 Q
Have you ever participated in that sort of train-5 ing program that you have just described?
6 A
No, I have not.
7 0
What about in radiation protection?
I've had some background in that area from my wo,rk 8
A 9
both at the Hanford reactor and the SEFOR reactor in to Arkansas and my work with General Electric.
11 0
What about meteorology or any kind of atmospheric 12 dispersion calculations?
13 A
My only connection with that has been re' lated to 14 probabilistic risk assessments we have done on some plants 15 and the fact that you have to make those kind of assumptions 16 in order to create the different sequences that you are going 17 to analyze and sum up as a risk curve for the plant.
18 And, in that you have to assume stability factors and 19 dispersion characteristics for the plume.
20 0
Nhat about environmental sampling?
21 A
I have not been involved in that directly.
of 22 course, I'm aware of what goes on in that process.
But, I
s' 46 1
1 taking your undergraduate degree in engineering?
2 A
It was, k
3 Q-Were you enrolled in that power option?
j 4
A Yes, I was.
5 Q
Would it be fair to characterize your expertise as 6
a nuclear engineer, in your judgment?
7 A
My educational background is electrical engineering 8
and electronics.
My experience throughout my -- whatever it-9 has been, 26 years of experience has been almost entirely 10 related to nuclear matters.
11 And, so by experience I would say yes, I'm more 12 of a nuclear engineer than an electrical engineer.
13 MR. CUMMING:
For the record, since I'm 'not making 14 this an exhibit, this is an eight page document.
l 15 BY MR. CUMMING:
(Continuing) 16 Q
Mr. Minor, on Page 3 there is a list of your 17 publications and testimony.
Are you familiar with the term with respect to scientific publications or technical publica-la 19 tions, " peer group review?"
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
What does that mean, in your judgment?
22 A
It is generally used with the publication of
'11 M. S RIF1
~
OF PRO 'KHLE. GS
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NdCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE 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) u'l
x l
l i
i DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM LEE COLWELL h
!I I
lj Washington, D. C.
p F
Tuesday, December 30, 1986 p
- i 6
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i!
i itenc:ure Rqorters l-444 North Capitol Street i
Washington, D.C. 20001 l
(202) 34 -3700 l
Nationwide Coverage j,
~
l 800-336-6646 ll l
l
.I t.
t-1 i
' ~
29343.0 j
COX 64
+
s 1
A It would include -- it would have included a
_2 number of things and terrorism is one of the most visibic and f highes t areas of concern of the public today.
3 And so that 4
would have been one of them.
5 Q
In what disciplines do you consider yourself to be 6
- an expert?
7 3
A What do you mean by "disciplinca"?
8 Q
Well, for example, at universities there are a 9
number of departments or disciplines, such as anthropology, 1
10 sociology, s ta tis tics, human performance.
What disciplines 11 would you characterize yourself as being an expert?
f-12 A
May I answer that and tell you what I teach?
I i
13 l consider my knowledge pretty broad in the area of i
14 I management.
I think I have a broad experience in making 15 assessments and evaluations of programs.
I consider that I h have a broad knowledge of the so-called public adminis tration 16 17 area and the criminal justice system.
18 I
Q Do you consider yourself a$1 expert on statis tics?
19 A
No.
20 Q
What about sociology?-
21 A
No.
22 Q
Have you ever been involved in planning for the i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I x.w.n
>-. c-
i i
i
- ~
29343.0 l
COX 65 i
1 emergency of a nuclear power plant?
I A
What do you mean " involved"?
2 I
Q Have you ever planned for an emergency in a 3
jnuclearpowerplant?
4 5
A No.
1 6
Q Has anyone whom you. supervised been involved with 4
?
7 l -- has anyone which you supervised planned for an emergency f
8 of a nuclear power plant?
9 A
What kind of an emergency?
10 Q
Well, let's take a nuclear emergency, radiological 11 emergency.
(
12 i
A What kind of nuc1 car emergency'?
13 Q
Let's assume that there was a problem at the 14 nuclear plant in which they were concerned about a possibic 15
- breach of the containment.
Have you ever been involved with 16 j planning -- has anyone whom you supervised planned for that i
17 I kind of an emergency?
18 A
Probably.
I don't recall specifically, but 19
- maybe, t
l Q
In connection with your work in Arkansas, have you 20 21 been involved at all in planning for an emergency at either 22 Arkansas 1 or 2?.
t l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i i
202 34?.3?00 Nauon* hie Coerage 500.)) W
l (i
29343.0
'COX 71 f*"
k A
Okay.
1 l
l 2
l Q
Dr. Colwell, you have indicated that you have 3
developed some preliminary views on the FEMA exerclae at the lShorehamplant; 4
is that correct?
5 A
I said " views."
I don't know -- I don't recall it 6
I used the word " preliminary."
7 Q
Did the viewa that you have developed deal with 8
the scope of the exercise?
9 A
Wha t do you mean by " scope"?
10 l
0 By " scope," I mean whether the exercise included 11 I
all of the parts that it should have included, all of the 12 elements that should have been demonstrated in the exerciue.
13 j
A I don't -- I think the whole FEMA assessment deal.
I 14
-- arcuably you could say it dealt with the scope of the 15 exercise, the contentions that I have seen.
Mo s t o t' them in 16 some way touch on the scope of the exercise, either specific 17 areas or in broad general terms.
I i
18 Q
Based on your review of the contentions in the 19 FEMA exerciJe report, do you have any views on whether the 20 i scope of the exercise was appropriate or inappropriate?
21 MR. MILLER:
Ms. Monaghan, let me repeat, I think I
22 it would be far more efficient, we have particular I
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M 44*3*m)
Nanonnece Coerase
$n336 6M6
o 29343.0
.COX 92 4
t j
C, procedures for pubile education and 1
2 dissemination of information on a periodic and timely basis 3
I were found, at Loast in the author's view, to be deficient.
4 j-0 Is it your understanding that the procedurus i
5 i themselves were found to be deficient in 15?
6 A
That's what is said here.
As I said previously, 7
that is what I am dealing with right now at this time, just 8
based upon what is written in this contention.
I 9
Going on, each one of the other items, subitems is 10 the same.
I would answer the question, continue to answer 11 the question in that manner.
12 Q
So it's your' understanding that Contention 15
'13 alleges that there is a fundamental flaw in the LILCO plan.
14 j Do you know what the basis is for the allegation that there i
)
19 La a fundamental flaw?
16 A
It's based on the references that are contained in i
i i
17 these contentions, this contention and the subparts.
t L
18 Q
Do you know what the nature of the fundamental 19 Claw is that is being alleged there?
20 A
It's not -- I would assume that what lu sta ted i
?
21 here, it's not in accord with regulations.
l 22 Q
Have you reviewed any of the regulations
)
I f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l m.m.>o s.
. c....
m,-
l
{
29343.0 j
COX i
93
.t I
referenced in Contantion L5?
i 2
3 A
I have not.
Are you speaking of the Code of f
3 Federal Regulations?
4 j
Q I think Contention 15 references the Code'of 5
Federal Regulations; in particular 10 CFR Section 5047.
Have 6
} you reviewed that portion?
i 7
)
A Not in connection with this case.
l l
8 Q
Have you ever reviewed 10 CFR Section 5047?
9 l
A I may have in the pas t.
I doubt it.
I don't I
10 l
know.
i 11 i
Q You don't have a present recollection of having 12 reviewed tha t?
13 J
A I don't have a present recollection of it.,
but I l
14 i could have, becauso, in my previous capacity with the FBI, 15 t.here were frequent references.
You hac to co to the Code of 1
16 Federal Regulations for various ituma.
17 Q
In connection with your work with the FBI, did you 18 have occasion to review the regulations of the Nucioar l
19 Regulatory Commission?
20 l
A I don't recall specifically, but. I am sure some i
.f referenco was made to them at some point in time.
21 22 Q
In connection with propdriny for the tcctimony I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 0MM.3*00 Sationoide Coserage 800 3m
{
I
,i j
e 29343.0 C0K '
95 I
i l
j that.
Lot me.go back.
1 I
2 l
In connection with the FEMA exercise of an 3
off-site response organization, is it your opinion that every e
1 4
aspect of the organization shouJd be testod during an 5
exercise?
6 A
Would you state that, in connection with the FEMA 7
exercise?
8 Q
Right.
In it your opinion that every aspect or 9
j every function of that organization should be tested or 10 j
evaluated during that exercise?
I 11 l
A I don' t believe that I am qualified at this point 12 to say that.
I haven't reviewed what their standards are for l
13 review of an off-site iccation.
i 14 Q
So you would ba:e your opinion on what FEMA i
15 i standards for roview would be?
l 16 l
A That would be a part of the developmont of my 17 opinion, yes.
la Q
What else would be a part of the development of l
l i
19 your opinion?
i i
+
l 20 l
A It would be -- it would have to be governed by tho 21 environment in which the off-site location was operating in, I
I 22
{ density of population, escape routes, so t o speak, or avenuus i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- w. n
,-.a. c-nn-t..
-wn~
-- a-
i
.c 29343.0 COX 79 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.
5 t
Tile WITNESS:
Again, my -- I think it's premature i
6
) for me to state, for me to state a view regarding the 7
training program that has been used.
I 8
BY MS. MONAGHAN:
l 9
Q Dr. Colwell, why would it be premature for you to i
i i
10 make a statement at this point in time?
1 l
11 A
Because I have not reviewed the -- I am not L2 satisfied with the extent of my review at this point.
13 Q
Are you familiar with NUREG-0654, that's a FEMA i
14
- document?
15 j A
Not that I am aware of.
16 j
Q Ar+e you familiar with FEMA Guidance M.smorandua 17?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Are you generally familiar with whist FEMA is, the i
19 Federal Emergency Management Agency?
{
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Have you ever worked with FEMA 7 22 I
A Yos.
3 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- o:,.> m
- s. _. c.,,,,,
m,, _
e em e e..
. e..
I t
~
29343.0 COX 80 I
i l
Q What' kind of work have you done with FEMA?
.1 i
2 i
A It's classified.
It's a classified program.
f i
3 1
Q Can you tell me at all generally what the work was 4
i that you would have done~with FEMA without delvi.ng into the i
5 specifics?
6 s
A It involves a part of the responsibilities of FEMA 7
as a federal emergency management agency.
8 Q
Does it involve a particular kind of emergency?
9 A
It involves emergencies, yes, a particular 10 l
category of emergencies, yes.
11 Q
Does it involve radiological emergencies?
12 A
I said it was classified earlier.
I don't feel 13 comfortable in further defining and I am not trying to be i
14 evasive.
To do so would put me under -- give me problems j
15 that I don't want to invite.
16 O
I understand.
Okay.
Have you ever dcalt with 17 FEMA in connection with their responsibilities for reviewints 18 and evaluating emergency plans for nuclear power plants?
19 A
Not directly or personally.
f 20 0
Have you dealt with them --
21 l
A It may have been discussed at some point but not 22 as the main topic of discussion for me.
4m ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M.14?)*a)
.Nationmue Ceerase 300 33uu
.e-.......
e
_j I
9 29343.0 l
COX 81 a
1 Q
Have you reviewed any of the -- strike that.
Let t
1 2
me go back.
i 3
i Do you expect that you are going to review FEMA I
4 l ' Guidance Memorandum 17 prior to preparing your testimony?
5 A
I can't answer that.
I don't know what is 6
l contained in it.
I would rely on counsel to, in part, to i
7 I
point me to pertinent references.
0 Q
Are you familiar with materials used in the LILCO 6
i 9
training program?
I i
10 A
For presentations, no.
11 l
Q Do you expect that you will review those materials 12 prior to preparing your testimony?
13 A
I might.
It would certainly be something that I 14
) might consider.
15 Q
Are you familiar with the LERO player documents 16 l
that were generated during the exorcise?
i 17 A
No.
I have seen the references to them.
18 Q
But you have not reviewed any of those documents?
i 19 A
That's correct.
I 20 Q
Do you expect that you will review tnose material 21 ] prior to preparing your testimony?
22 A
I might.
l J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x.m.m s _ e.c..
.m m
e to M
LILCO, Md 8,1987 g-DOLK[IED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE N
'87 MAY 11 P3 :09 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OFFICE U H..a i Ar Y (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 00CKETftig'iWICf.
~ Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTIONS EX 15 & 16 - THE SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE were served this date upon the following by hand as indicated by one asterisk (*), by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks (**), by telecopy as indi-cated by three asterisks (***) 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 i
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 l
l
Spence W. Perry, Esq. *._
- Executive Coordinator Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq.
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 11787 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 Counse!
Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Led B. Zeup (/
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 8,1987