ML20215M086
| ML20215M086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1987 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3406 OL-5, NUDOCS 8705130085 | |
| Download: ML20215M086 (30) | |
Text
f
.: ~_'E t yd6
~
.1*y
- si-00tKETED L:
USNRC May 8, 19E 7 iu - nu 11 P5 :18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'0FF E F 5' C W M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETINGI SERVICf.
BRANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF LILCO'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTIONS EX 15/16 Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton
(" Governments") move to strike portions of LILCO's Testimony on Contentions Ex 15 and 16, submitted-to the Board on-
' April 6,'1987, (the "LILCO Testimony").
At the outset, the Governments emphasize that in moving to strike-the portions designated below, they do not waive their right at the trial to move to strike additional portions of the
+
LILCO Testimony.
Based on preliminary review of the LILCO Testimony, it is the Governments' view that depending upon answers to cross-examination inquiries, there may be other l'
8705130085 870508 PDR ADOCK 05000322
)$6gg G
a portions of the LILCO Testimony-that also should be struck.
However, in advance of conducting cross-examination, it is not appropriate to make such a motion.1 In addition, the Governments note that LILCO has relied upon or cited the FEMA Prefiled Testimony filed on March 20 as the basis-for LILCO Testimony filed on April 6.
- Egg, e.o.,
LILCO Testimony at 6, 9, 12, 14-15, 21, 22, 33-34.
Since the Govern-ments will have an opportunity to cross-examine the FEMA witnesses on the testimony which is being relied upon by the LILCO witnesses, the Governments do not move to strike such references to the FEMA Testimony.
We note, however, that it would not be appropriate in proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to cite both the FEMA Testimony and the LILCO Testimony which relies on the FEMA Testimony for the same propo-sition.
That would be duplicative citation.
The portions of the LILCO Testimony which the Governments move to strike and the reasons therefor are set forth below.
1 Further, the Governments need to review the hearing transcript of May 7, 1987, regarding the Board's rulings on the i
need to cross-examine the LILCO "other exercise" testimony on training matters.
Based upon that review, it may be appropriate at the outset to seek to strike all or a portion of LILCO's Testimony at pages 43-50 and Attachments Q and R. L
. ~ _ -
' s,.
.l
?
' p.
l..
LILCO References to Draft Documents-t
.LILCO?s Testimony on. Contentions _Ex 15/16 discusses certain FEMA' guidance documents pertaining to~ emergency-planning. iThese are'one-portion of NUREG 0654 (Attachment C to the LILCO Testimony), GM-17 (Attachment D to the LILCO Testimony), and
+ <
f GM PR-1 (Attachments E and F to the LILCO Testimony).2 4
t In addition to the foregoing guidance documents which have been adopted by FEMA, LILCO also devotes discussion to two draft j
FEMA guidance documents:
draft Revision 1 to GM-17, dated February 16, 1982 (agg LILCO discussion in last full sentence-on
.page 9); and draft GM EX-3, dated August 15,'1986 (which-is discussed at multiple locations in LILCO's testimony, including i
Attachments G, H, J, and K).
i The Governments object to and move to strike all references to these draft FEMA guidance memoranda.
Draft documents of this sort are inherently unreliable evidence.
These are not and have
- never'been used by FEMA or the NRC in connection with the i
determination as.to whether a full participation exercise has
^
.2 GM PR-1 is Attachment'E to the LILCO Testimony.
GM PR-1 L
-references another FEMA guidance document, an August 15, 1983, FEMA Memorandum to Regional Directors and attachments thereto.
This August 15, 1983, Memorandum is Attachment F to LILCO's Testimony.
The Governments do not concede the relevance to Contention Ex 15/16 of LILCO's discussion of any of these guidance documents.
This is an area, however, that will need to 3'
be pursued on cross-examination before it can be determined whether a motion to strike any or all of the LILCO discussion is appropriate.
. - -.. -..... - =.. - =.
e; e
occurred.- And, notwithstanding LILCO's speculation that GM EX-3 isLto be adopted in the' coming months (311 LILCO Testimony at-7, 11),3 the' fact is that neither of these guidance memoranda are in fact official agency documents which set forth official agency policy.
At most, the two draft guidance memoranda constitute draft FEMA working papers.
Neither has been adopted or.
. sanctioned by FEMA; neither represents or purports to represent current FEMA policy respecting emergency preparedness for nuclear power plants.4 As such, testimony concerning these documents is speculative, unreliable, and non-probative and should not be admitted into evidence.
Egg Duke Power Comnany (Catawba Nuclear Station,. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 416 (1976).
Accordingly, the following portions of the LILCO testimony should not be admitted:
Draft GM-17, Rev. 1:
page 9, last full sentence Draft GM EX-3:
page 7, lines 3-4 and 9-14 page 8, line'2
(" including all of the 13 ' core' objectives")
page 10, last paragraph thru page 11, top two lines 3
It is pure speculation for LILCO to argue that draft GM EX-3 will be adopted in the coming months.
Certainly, it was the expectation that draft Revision 1 to GM-17 would be adopted at some point.
However, it was published in draft in 1982 and still has not been adopted at this time.
Similarly, it is pure speculation for LILCO to assert that draft GM EX-3 " presents FEMA's latest thinking.
sag LILCO Testimony at 10.
A draft document is just that -- a draft -- and does not represent an agency's " thinking".in any official sense.
4 FEMA mentions draft Revision 1 to GM-17 in its testimony, stating:
"This revision, including the modified objectives, was a draft version circulated for comment only.
The modified obiectives have not been accented at this time."
FEMA Testimony at 90 (emphasis added).
FEMA's Testimony does not even mention draft GM EX-3.
page 11, line 6 thru page_12 (until question 9) page 14, lines 9-10 page 20, Question 21,. Answer, line 3 (reference to GM EX-3) page 20, last line and:first two words on page 21 page 22, Question 23 (all, continuing to middle of page 24) page 24, line 5 page 24, Question 25 through page 26, completion of Answer to Question 26) page 26, line-10 (reference to GM EX-3)
Attachment G (all)
Attachment H (all)
Attachments J and K (all references.
to draft GM EX-3) 2.
LILCO Reliance on Staff Deposition Testimony The NRC Staff is an active participant in this licensing
-proceeding.
The Staff decided to offer no testimony on Contentions Ex 15/16.
LILCO deposed two Staff members during discovery and now, in its testimony,' has relied heavily upon-the deposition testimony of those two Staff persons in an attempt to l
support its position that the February 13 Exercise was a full c
participation event.
The Governments object and move to strike all references to l
L the Staff deposition testimony.
As.a party in this proceeding,.
l the NRC Staff was expected to submit testimony.5 When the Staff l
l 5
"In a proceeding in which the NRC is a party, the NRC Staff will make available one or more witnesses designated by the l
Executive Director for Operations, for oral examination at the hearing or on deposition.
10 CFR S 2.720(h)(2)(i).
l l
t
-~
J
. decided not-to submit testimony, LILCO, if it felt that the Staff.
had material data which needed to be presented at trial, should have. moved to compel the Staff to supply a witness.
Or, if
" exceptional circumstances" existed, LILCO could have sought a subpoena to compel the attendance of particular Staff personnel.
Egg 10 CFR S 2.720(h)(2)(1).
It is improper, however, for LILCO merely to cite to the deposition testimony of Staff personnel when neither those personnel nor any other Staff witnesses are being presented.
This completely deprives the Governments of any opportunity for cross-examination.6 The Governments do not object to the Staff presenting testimony or LILCO (or any other party) seeking to compel the Staff to present testimony.
The Governments do object, however, to out of trial hearsay statements of a party offered for the purpose of proving or attempting to prove whether the exercise satisfied Appendix E requirements.
The Governments also object toLthe use of such deposition testimony to prove (allegedly) what the Staff " position" is about the regulations generally and the L
l-
. Shoreham Exercise specifically.
Egg LILCO Testimony at 12-13, p
15.
If a party is to have its " position" set forth in evidence, it must be done in a manner which permits effective cross-6 This is particularly the case when there was no advance
- notice that the Staff discovery deposition would thereafter be utilized and relied upon by LILCO in its testimony.
The
- Governments attended the Staff deposition and did ask certain questions.
But this hardly constituted a full opportunity to bring out on the record the various reasons why the Governments i
believe that the Staff witnesses' testimony is not reliable or
- probative.,
-,,, ~, - -
,,-,.4 e m-
,.,,_.y.----
...--_,,y.,-.~_,.,,-y-.
.____,r--
.0) examination.
LILCO's Testimony provides no fair opportunity to cross-examine these personnel.
Accordingly, the testimony must be struck ~from'this proceeding.
If LILCO still believes it must present such testimony at.the trial, its remedy is through-application to the Board to compel the' Staff to present
' witnesses.
Accordingly, the following portions of the LILCO Testimony should be struck:
Pages.12-13:
question.and answer 9 Page 15:
question and answer 137 Page 19:
last 5 lines beginning with "When asked.
Page 23:
last 2 lines and page 24, first line and one-half Page'32:
last three words and page 33, first 3 lines Page 39:
bottom of page, sentence beginning "NRC Staff.
Attachment I All t
3.
LILCO Ouestion and Answer 16 foaces 17-18) li At_the bottom of page 17 of theEDILCO Testimony, the following question is asked:
"Why was the actual evacuation of school children, hospital patients and transients not demon-strated?"
The LILCO witnesses proceed to present an answer on page 17 and the first three lines of page eA.
7 The last sentance on page 15 of the LILCO Testimony should be struck for the additional reason that it is unrelated to the
- allegation of any' portion of Contention Ex 15/16.
The only contention portions to which the sentence might relate --
Contentions IDc 1-14 or 16.M -- were not admitted by the Board.
Egg October 3, 1986, Prehearing Conference Order at 9-11, 12.
-- = ---- -
9 This question and answer is outside the scope of Contention Ex 15/16.
There is no allegation that there should.have been or needed to be an actual evacuation of any personnel in order to constitute a full participation exercise.
LILCO never attempts to tie this question and answer to any admitted contention.
It should be struck.
4.
Testimony of John W. Hockert LILCO offers the testimony of Mr. Hockert concerning a report he helped to author.
That report, entitled "Importance Ranking of Various Aspects of Offsite Radiological Emergency Preparedness" ("Hockert Report"), is Attachment L to the LILCO training Testimony.
The Hockert Report reflects the results of a
. survey of alleged emergency planning experts designed to assess the relative importnce of the GM PR-1 FEMA standard objectives (those objectives are part of Attachment F to the LILCO Testimony).
On the basis of the survey, the Hockert Report divides the FEMA GM PR-1 objectives into three groups: -- - -. -
l-7 objectives were deemed "very important" 19 objectives were deemed " moderately.important" 10 objectives were deemed "less important" ggg LILCO Testimony at 28-30.
Mr. Hockert testifies that not every "very important" objective needs to be exercised in each full participation exercise and that the exercise of less important objectives could make up for omission of more important-ones.
LILCO' Testimony at 29.
He also testifies that "the total importance of all 10 of (the less important) objectives combined is comparable'to the importance of any single one of the seven
{
(
objectives considered to be very important."
Id. at 30.
Messrs. Behr and Daverio testify that all of the "very important" objectives were tested in the Exercise,'except that the ingestion pathway objective -- one of the Hockert Report's "very important",
objectives -- was only partially tested.
- 14. at 29.
The LILCO Testimony about the Hockert Report (LILCO Testimony at 7 (lines 14-19); 8 (lines 4-7); 13-14 (Question and Answer 10); 26-30 (Question and Answers 28-36)) and the Report itself (Attachment L) should be struck for multiple reasons.
First, there is no evidence in the Report or the LILCO Testimony that the Report was prepared as a means to define what i
constitutes an Appendix E full participation exercise.
The Report certainly concerns exercises and attempts to prioritize exercise objectives.
But the Report never so much as mentions Q
" full participation" requirements.
Thus, there is no nexus between the Report and the issue which is central to Contentions Ex 15/16.
Second, although the Report was apparently performed with the cooperation of FEMA, there is no evidence that it has ever been used or relied upon in any way by FEMA or the NRC or anyone else in structuring exercises, much less in structuring " full participation" exercises.8 Indeed, if one were to accept LILCO's speculation about draft GM EX-3 (i.e., that it reflects FEMA's
" latest thinking" on the full partlicpation exercise issue), it
{
is clear that the Hockert Report has B21 been accepted.9
- Thus, the Report and testimony related thereto is neither reliable nor probative.
8 Mr. Hockert stated in his deposition that he did not know what FEMA had done with the Report.
Hockert Dep. at 55.
Egg also id. at 74 (Mr. Hockert does not know whether NRC uses the Report).
(All pages from the Hockert deposition which are referred to herein are attached to this Motion.)
9 The Hockert Report has seven "very important" objectives, and then two other categories of lesser important objectives.
Draft GM EX-3 has two categories of objectives -- 13 core objectives and 22 other objectives.
And the Hockert Report's "very important" objectives do not match with the draft GM EX-3 core objectives.
For example, the Hockert Report has ingestion pathway testing as a "very important" objective, while draft GM EX-3 does not include that among the core group.
Similarly, the Hockert Report has dealing with impediments to evacuation as one of the least important objectives (agg Attachment L, p. 4-3, objective 6); draft GM.EX-3, on the other hand, considers the impediment objective as one of the " core" objectives.
Egg LILCO Attachment G, p. 9, Objective 9).
The only comments which Mr. Hockert could recall from FEMA about the Report were essentially negative, i.e.,
that some of the objectives listed as relatively unimportant were more important than reflected in the Report.
Hockert Dep. at 57-59 (examples of objectives that FEMA thought were given too low priority in the Hockert Report). _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'O l
1 Third, the Hockert Report testimony is cumulative.
LILCO has. testified that it tested the vast majority of FEMA's standard i
objectives.
- Egg, e.a.,
LILCO Testimony, Attachments J and K.-
The Hockert Testimony basically adds nothing, therefore, since whether the objectives are very important, moderately important or less important, it is LILCO's position that LILCO covered almost all'of them.
Finally, the Hockert Testimony is unreliable hearsay sponsored by an unqualified individual.
Mr. Hockert does not claim to be an expert on emergency planning objectives.
- Indeed, during his deposition, Mr. Hockert testified as follows:
Q Let me come at it another way.
When you prepared this report, did you consider yourself an expert in preparing objectives for emergency planning exercises?
A No, sir.
Q Do you today?
A No, sir.
O In fact, you have had no experience at all in drawing up objectives for such exercises, correct?
A For radiological emergency exercises, that is correct.
Q Unless we get into your safeguard work.
Please understand my questions that we.
I think you have.
It is fair to state also, Mr. Hockert, that you don't have any personal judgment based on experience in emergency preparedness matters to assess which particular exercise objective should be core objectives, or the most important objectives or not? g, w--w-
.w w
T-m-ew-,--7y w-
--Tw re-+
, p.
A That is correct.
Q~
Is it_also fairJto-state that your testimony regarding the relative importance of exercise objectives is based solely upon the input-that you have derived from other persons?
A-That is correct.
I would.say, perhaps,.
primarily.
I would also credit myself with some reasonable ability to draw logical conclusions from the input,.but-in terms of the substantive expertise, it has been from other persons.
Hockert Dep, at 60-62.
Egg also id. at 93.
Despite his admitted lack-of expertise,-Mr. Hockert, nevertheless, is sponsoring a report based upon responses from alleged emergency planning experts.
Egg Hockert Dep. at 94.
It is impossible to question
- Mr. Hockert effectively about the substance _of the survey respondents' views since Mr. Hockert himself has no expertise.
Further,-Mr. Hockert also is drawing conclusions which necessarily depend upon expertise in emergency planning matters, i
Egg-LILCO Testimony at 29, Question and Answer 33 (Mr. Hockert opines that a full participation exercise can occur even if "very important" objectives are omitted).
This is improper testimony
.from an unqualified sponsor.
5.
LILCO Hosoital Testimony At page 36 (the first two full paragraphs on the page),
LILCO argues that evacuation for hospitals is only a backup protective measure and that the PID, although reversed in this __
- regard, agreed with LILCO'that hospital evacuation is not
-pert nent.
LILCO's Testimony on page 36 relies solely upon the i
PID; indeed, that is the only citation to any record material on that page..
It is improper for LILCO's witnesses to be arguing in the testimony that.the PID~or other Board rulings' effectively resolve
' this contention.
Those are appropriate. arguments at the contention admissibility stage or, possibly, during findings of fact and conclusions of law.
It is not appropriate testimony.and these witnesses are not competent to provide such testimony.
t Indeed, what sort of cross-examination does the Board expect about LILCO's references to the PID?
This simply highlights the fact that this is inappropriate testimony and not probative of any issue in this proceeding.
It should be struck.
1 6.
Other At page 39, LILCO states the following:
i The exclusion of ingestion pathway activities is, moreover, consistent with FEMA regulations, which do not require states occupying the ingestion pathway (50 miles) EPZ around a nuclear plant, but not its plume exposure pathway (10 miles) EPZ, to participate in every exercise for such plants.
e In fact, the regulations require state participation only every 6 years in ingestion pathway activities.
44 C.F.R. S 350.9(c)(4).
r I
l l
l i i
... ~
This statementLis irrelevant and should be struck.
FEMA's regulations are not cited in -the contention.
What they provide or'do not provide'is not probative of any issue.
At pages 40-41,.the LILCO witnesses discuss their view of whether the Exercise was limited due to-the exclusion of recovery and re-entry activities from the Exercise.
The Testimony states:
Q.
Intervenors allege that the exclusion of recovery and re-entry activities from the
' February 13 Exercise demonstrates a flaw in the LILCO Plan.
Is this correct?
A.
[Daverio, Behr]
No. - Recovery and re-entry activities were deliberately excluded from the scope of this one-day Exercise by FEMA, although LILCO was willing to make these part of the Exercise.
Recovery /re-entry activities are not even contemplated until evacuation and all other applicable short-term protective action measures have been completed and the affected population is safe.
Thus, the' time constraints affecting short-term protective measures do not' apply to recovery and re-entry activities.
Further, the covernmental actors involved, carticularly state and federal acencies, are no strancers to nuclear safety.
See Deposition of James Conrad Baranski, James Dominic Paoile and Lawrence Bruno Czech at 81-87 (Attachment P).
(emphasis added).
The emphasized portions of the Testimony (including pages 81-87.of Attachment P) should be struck.
Whether the " governmental actors" are " strangers to nuclear _ _.
safety" is irrelevant to Contention Ex 15/16 or any other admitted contention.
This testimony is related, if at all, to Contentions Ex l-14 and 16.M which were not admitted.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788' QMt.kw Herbert H.
Brown r
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County F66. 26;-(M Fabian G. Palomino Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York
- -. - - - - - -. - = -.
- . o.
1 Stephen B.-Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second-Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton 4........ _
kl.]
n 7
\\ !
l I
n UNITEIE STATES; OFJ' AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
l l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY.AND LICENSING BOARD i
j
______._________._.__._x.
}
In the-Matter of:
Docket.No. 5 0 --3 2 2-OL-5' l
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise)
\\
i 4
l (Shoreham Nuclear-Power-Station, (ASL3P No. 86'-533-01-OL) l Unit 1) l
_________.________.__x i
)
DEPOSIT' ION' OF' JOHN N.
HOCKERT l
I l
i Washington, D. C.
l Friday, February 6, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
stowev,,eenwrm 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001
,j (202)347-3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800-336-6646 4
i J
- 7. -:,. -_ e. s.:.. _...:_.
._ _. _ e
-g,. -,:_ c ;. __
.,.- 4.: _ -_. :. _.
l *M V*,._ Y > ^ ' i c -
t.
7
~
'- K
. a.
g..
3 1,'
0:
Could I please see the-dccument that you brought
\\f rl!. y.ourselfT,.because you indicated;there was a different cover.
3l A
Yes.
4
'O.
~ L would.' Iike to see the dif~ferent cover, sir.
5l A
The differences are it says Draft Report, and the ~
1 6i Prepared For is missing.
l 7i 0
And the. only difference is that it is the exact 8;
same report except for the ccver, and you just delivered 9i this report tc FEMA?
10~ p A
And except for the title page, that is correct.
1r O'
Do: you know what. FEMA did. with. this: report?'
12' )
A No, si'r, I do not, as a fact.
13 0
You have not talked with any personnel at FEMA 14 regarding their review of this report?
~
15 A
I briefly talked to them regarding their review 16 around the end of November 1985.
l 17 0
You said talked with, "them." With whom did you 18 speak?
19 A
Vern Wingert was the gentleman at FEMA we worked 20 with throughout this process.
21 O
And when he got the final report, you don't know It 22 what he did with it?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
] (_
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
.7 F
i 4
1 ST p 04 06-pfgv 1]
they take a position en your ranking?.
.i 2i A
Mr. Wingert.did.not.
When we briefed it to l
3j Mr. Wilkerson at FEMA, he had some ecmments with regard to 4;
feeling.that perhaps some of the issues with regard to media i
5!
relationships which were considered, the relatively l
6) unimportant objectives shculd have been more important.
7, O
Let's be more specific if we can.
Turning to 8
page 1-4, there are a number of bullets on that page, 9j exercise objectives.
~
10 j The second.one, I quote:
Ability to brief the i
11,
media.in a clear,. accurate, and timely manner..
Il l
12 J tou had put in your category of quote:
I 13 l Relatively unimperant objectives, unquote.
Correct?
I 14 A
That is correct.
15 !
O That was one that he suggested should have been I
16 more important?
17 A
That was his feeling, yes, sir.
l i
18 lj Q
And isn't it true that in draft guidance l
l 19 !
memorandum EX 3, that is one of the core objectives?
i 20 -
A I would have to go back to that to verify it.
1 21 i 0
Let me provide you a copy of Guidance Memorandum i
22 EX 3.
We will mark this as Exhibit 4, please.
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 900 3364M6 Y
3I 1
i 58'
{ ps 07 (Above referenced dccument is 2
~
}1 2,
marked Hockert Exhibit No. 4, 1
3 3 4 forr identification..)
4!
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Continuing) 5i Q
Mr. Rockert, you directed my attention to 6
Objective 11 in Draft GM, Guidance Memorandum EX 11, and 7
they have included that comparable objective as one of their 8
ccre objectives, correct?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 0
And turning your attention back to the Hockert 11 Report, we call it page 1-4, the si::th objective under ycur 1
12 i caregory of bullets there, is ability to coordinate 13 !
information releases, do you see that, sir?
14 ;
A That is correct, yes.
15 Q
And isn't that another one that you had 16 i categorized as relatively unimportant, which FEMA in its 17 l draft guidance memorandum has categorized as a core 18 i objective?
i 19 A
Yes, sir.
I 20 '
O Are those the two that you were referring to' 21 I before based upon your conversation with Mr. Wilkerson, or 22 briefing with Mr. Wilkerson that he expressed a concern ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-H7 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 3M66e
s 3
64 08 59 pp 1
about so-called media relations matrers?.
2j A
Yes, that included those two, yes.
.i 3!
O Were there other ones as well, sir?
l 4*
A Yes, sir, there was the third one down in that 5i bullet, the rumor control objective Number 26, which I l
6 believe came up in that discussion.
I 7 i O
The third bullet on page 1-47 l
9 A
Yes 9.
O Okay.
And he stated to you that he didn't think 10 that that was a relatively unimportant objective?
11 A.
That was what he told me, yes, sir.
It did no,t 4
12j agree with his feelings.
I 13 j Q
Is that the sum total of the comments on this 14 I report that you can recall from FEMA, sir?
i 15 l A
Yes, that is the sum total of the substantive 16 l comments.
l There may have been a few word changes here and 17 there.
j 18 !
O But in terms of substantive comments.
Did you I
i 19 talk with anyone else at FEMA regarding this report besides 20 Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Wingert?
21 A
I believe that Craig Wingo was also present 22j during that presentation.
f i
ACE-3EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 6646
e 304 09 f
/
60 m
gp 1
O Did he have any substantive comments?
2j A'
No, sir.
1 3J 0
And since the time this report was presented to i
4-]
FEMA have you had any substantive discussions about this 5'
report or your views in this report with any personnel at 6I FEMA?
l 7l A
No, sir.
l 8'
O Did you agree with Mr. Wilkinson's comments?
9 A
To be honest with you, sir, I did not form a
{
10 ;
judgment.
The ranking of these items items in the report is 11 not based on my judgment.
It is based on the information i
12 j that we receive frcm the individual surveye'd.
13 i 0
Is it fair to state that this report from your 14 :
perspective involves statistical analysis by you, or people 15 !
assisting you, sir, and not the exercise of judgment I
16 l yourself about which objective is more important than 17 another objective?
l 18 A
With the exception of the characterization of 19 l the statistica.1 analysis, I would say that is fair.
20 :
Mathematical or analytical analysis.
21 0
Let me come at it another way.
When you prepared 22 this report, did you consider yourself an expert in l
1 l
ACEUEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3c.147 3700 Natenwide Coverage m 3 M 4646
~
m_
e7 I t
.J p 04: 10-61 y/gv i
preparing cbjectives for emergency planning exercises?
2l A.
No,. sir-d s
3j Q
.co you today?
i 4?
A No, sir.
i 5l 0
In fact, you have had no experience at all in 4
6j drawing up objectives for such exercises, correct?
a 7
A For radiological emergency exercises, that is 8-correct.
9-0 Unless we get into your safeguard work.
Please 10 j understand my quest}.ons that we.
I think you have.
It is 11 l f air to state also, Mr. Rockert, that ygu don't have any l'
I 12 j personal jucgment based on experience in emergency 13 f preparedness matters to assess which particular exercise 14 objective should be core objectives, or the most important
(
i 15 objectives or not?
16 A
That is correct.
17 ;
O Is it also fair to state that your testimony 1
18 !
regarding the relative importance of exercise objectives is l
19 l based solely upon the input that you have derived from other i
20 persons?
21 ;
A That is correct.
I would say, perhaps, t
22 primarily.
I would also credit myself with some reasonable ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
J
{
202 347 3700 Nationwde Coverage 800 33646 4 I
l e
1 i,04 11 2
62:
gjgv 1'
ability to draw logical conclusions from-the input, but in 2 i terms.of the substantive expertise, it has been frem other i
3 l persons.
41 0
And your work has been primarily, I think you 5j used the word a mathematical modeling of the data that you 6
received in response to your inquiries?
3 7
A Yes.
A mathematical construct to collect 8
relevant, valid data and to aggregate it.
9 0
I turn your attention to Appendix B to your 10,
report, the Hockert Peport.
Did ycu draw up the questions, 11 Level 1, et cetera, questions in Appendix 37 12.
A Yes, sir.
13 Q
Did anyone assist you?
I 14l A
No, sir, and not in the questions in Appendix B.
l i
15,
The final question there had a set of instructions attached 16 '
to it, and perhaps a modification or two put on my i
17 Mr. Wingert at FEMA before it was sent out to the 18 '
respondents.
19 0
Is that set of instructions included in your 20 report?
21 A
No, sir, it is not.
22 )
o Do you have a copy of that set of instructions?
ACE-3EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2n.347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3M.6646 A
lw e
l 165 06 (4
c 1
methodology.
ipjgv 2j O
Do you know whether NRC, in the I&E program, or 3',!
elsewhere utilizes-this report in any of its work?
l 41 A
I do not know.
I doubt that they would, since it i
5 I is offsite and their perview is ensite.
The other gentleman i
6(
at NRC is Dave Mathews.
7*
Q And which division was he in at that time?
8 A
Same division.
Mr. Podalak worked for him.
2 9
0 Did these NRC gentlemen ask for a briefing about 10 i this report?
Did yeui provide a briefing?
11 A
We provided a briefing on.the methodology and a 12 i copy of*the final report, I believe.
I 13 l 0
For those two gentlemen?
I l
14 l A
For those two gentlemen, yes.
I 15 0
Is it' fair to state you don't know what they did 16 with this report after that briefing?
I 17 A
That is fair to state.
18 l Q
Did you, Mr. Rockert, supply this report either i
19 !
in draft or final, to any other entities except Edison 20,
Electric Institute, NRC, and FEMA?
21 l A
No, sir.
I 22 O
Mr. Hockert, when I went through Appendix D to r
ACE-FEDERAL MPORTERS, INC.
2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 23364H6
~. - -
- u
]
)
93~
q 06 08 e
A That is a judgment that I am not prepared to g/gv 1j 2j make.
What I am prepared --- the point I was trying to make 1
3' !
is that the figures are not so precise as to say that it is t
4l better.
To say that it is comperable is a reasonable 5l statement.
l 63 0
Is it fair to state also that you'do not intend 7-in your work to attempt to beceme competent to testify about 8-whether as a factual matter one objective is absolutely 9) critical to emergency planning, versus other objectives.
10 l You are not an emergency planning expert, correct?
11 u A-That is cor;ect, in this area.
12 -
0 In this area.
What you have done is you have 13 l taken surveys and applied a mathematical analysis to those l'
14 i and that is the extent of your knowledge about exercise 15 objectives?
16 l A
I think that limits it a bit.
17 Q
Well, how did it limit it?
g 1
18 A
What I would rather say, if I might paraphrase 19 it, is that I will certainly not say that, for instance, 20 l}
Objective 10 has a weight of.134 and Objective 5 has a 21 weight of.097, but because of my judgment I would conclude 22 that 5 is more important 10.
I am not going to try to l
)
l Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nmionwide cowrage 800 3m
-347 3700
~-
3 1
45 66' 0 9 j
94 g/p 1l testify as a judgmental e:: pert in that area.
I b
2)
I'am relying on the judgment of the individuals i
3 l who submittad the questionnaire.
I do believe~ that I am 4'
suffic'iently congnizant of the exercise objectives'and 5I operating exercises in general that I can draw reasonable 6j conclusions..
7 :
O Well, Mr. Hockert, I thought you said you never 8
attended an exercise for an offsite emergency preparedness 9I plan.
10 i A
That is true.
11 Q
And..you never reviewed an offsite emergency 12 1 preparedness true?
13l!
A That is not true.
Remember I told you that I 14 I reviewed the Salem plan?
l 15 !
O You reviewed one?
l 16 f A
Yes, sir.
17 0
But you also told me you don't intend to review 18
'any others for purposes of your testimony.
19 A
That is correct.
20 ;
O And you neverthess feel that you are in a l
21 :
position to reach some judgmental conclusions in the i
22,
I t
l I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3*00 NationwMe Coversee g(53364H6 4
c.,
{
'4.
b
.y D0LMETED USNRC May 8, 1987 17 MAY 11 PS:18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jFf I~ ibIk 0
^"
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF LILCO'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTIONS EX 15/16 have been served on the following this 8th day of May 1987 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
William R. Cumming, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472 l
l l
l4'
'j Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Joel Blau, Esq.
General Counsel Director, Utility Intervention Long Island Lighting Company N.Y. Consumer Protection Board 175 East Old Country Road Suite 1020 Hicksville, New York 11801 Albany, New York 12210 Ms.-Elisabeth Talbbi, Clerk _
W.-Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
Suffolk County Legislature Hunton & Williams
-Suffolk County Legislature-P.O. Box 1535 Office Building 707 East Main Street Veterans Memorial Highway Richmond, Virginia 23212 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading; River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555
~
Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Michael A. LoGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 I
i Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.**
j Suffolk County Attorney Special Counsel to the Governor l
Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.*
New York' State Energy Office Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Agency Building 2 George E. Johnson, Esq.
Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Albany, New York 12223 Office of General Counsel i
Washington, D.C.
20555 L:
4 i
David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036 W
L%wrence Coe LanphWF KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 By Hand By Telecopy 4
i i
I
.