ML20237G754
| ML20237G754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1987 |
| From: | Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-5-S-001, OL-5-S-1, NUDOCS 8709020396 | |
| Download: ML20237G754 (9) | |
Text
v n
h0" b 5 2 ~0& S
(
l.
% i. :.--
s-/
~.19 9 h' T.UG 23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IU 32 e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
)
Unit 1)
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SIIELDON SCHWARTZ AND BERNARD H. WEISS OF THE NRC STAFF ON CONTENTIONS EX 15 AND EX 16 June 5,1987 g
5 3"
8709020396 870618 PDR ADOCK 05000322 f
G PDR
____________m_
t
-s s,
e 2
s a
si
- i i
\\
A
=a a
s' C m i
N d.
{
Ja, "ll 3 ca t
a E:
-M
- 1
\\
s o
4
= 0 ::
g 3 N...
a E ', '
l
,)
OE a
i
\\f 3
.6 h
M c,
- ^,
m p
'h E
. k
=
8
=
s.
t 3.
.1:
l
- g e2 *U g
1 2 55 bb$h I
t
li.,
l4 l
(
UNITED STATES OF A?.iERICA NT1 CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise) l (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
l Unit 1)
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SHELDON SCilWARTZ AMD BERNARD H. WEISS OF THE NRC STAFF ON CONTENTIONS EX 15 AND EX 16 i
Q.
Would you please state your name, business address, and position?
j A.
My name is Sheldon Schwartz.
Since April 12, 1987, I have held the l
position of Deputy Director, State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs,
(
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
l l
My name is Bernard I!. Weiss.
I am the Federal Response Coordi-nator in the Incident Response Branch, Division of Engineering l
Response, Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, i
l U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
I have been employed in this position since March 1982.
l Q.
Do you sponsor this testimony jointly?
l A.
Unless otherwise noted herein, we sponsor the following testimony jointly.
I l
r
~
i
(
Q.
Would you please give a brief summary of your educational and professional background?
A.
(Schwartz) I received a Dachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering I
in 1900 from Widener University in Chester, Pennsylvania.
I have i
taken various courses in engineering and management at Drexel 1
l Institute of Technology in Philadelphia and Sacramento State College in California. Additionally, I have taken technical courses on boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors at the NRC Training Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
I joined the Commission Staff in 1972 and have since held various assignments in technical and management positions.
From 1983 to April 1987 I was Deputy Director, Division of Emergency Prepared-(
ness and Engineering Response.
From 1980 to 1982, I was Deputy
.o l
Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and in 1980 I was detailed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. From 1972 to 1979, I held various positions in the NRC (AEC) cooperative programs with State and local governments.
Prior to joining the Commission Staff. I worked in the California Legislature as a Senior Consultant and in the private sector as a l
designer, project manager and senior engineer on various aerospace and nuclear technical projects.
(Weiss)
I received a Bachelor's Degree in Chemical Engineering in l
1958 from City College of New York, and in 1962 a Master's Degree l
I in Public Health, with a concentration in Environmental Health from l
c.,
r I
the Univercity of Michigan.
I have more than 25 years of experience working on public health issues involving radiation safety, with nearly 20 years of thtt experience at the NRC and its predecessor, the AEC.
l l
1 i
Q.
What have your responsibilities been at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relating to offsite emergency planning?
A.
(Schwartz)
In 1980, I was detailed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with some other NRC employees to develop the FEMA Radiological Emergency Preparedness program.
l This effort involved a number of activities relating to rulemaking, l
l technical analysis of the current posture of State and local 1
governments to respond to an emergency at a nuclear power plant,
(
development of initial guidance to the FEMA regions, and projects designed to upgrade offsite radiological emergency preparedness.
1 l
As Deputy Director of two divisions at NRC, my principal involve-1 ment in offsite planning was as a member of the NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee.
Since FEMA has the responsibility for offsite prepared-l l
ness and NRC has the responsibility and licensing authority for nuclear power plants, NRC and FEMA coordinate various policy, technical and administrative matters through this committee.
(Weiss)
As the NRC Federal Response Coordinator, I am the primary coordinator of all Federal response to emergencies involving licensed facilities.
I develop and maintain emergency operating procedures for coordination between NRC headquarters and regional l-L
r l
1 l l
(
offices and other agencies involved in a offsite emergency planning and response; plan and develop the National Emergency Preparedness program; and perform various emergency response duties at the NRC Operations Center such as assun:.g that Federal agencies, the news media, and the Congress understand the course of any accident, and insuring that appropriate Federal agencies are notified of significant accidents and have sufficient information to perform their duties in responding to such accidents.
In that position, I have been responsible for doing some of the scenario planning and control for I
l many tests of the NRC incident response program.
Additionally, in I
this position I have been Chairman of the Scenario Development, l
l l
Control and Evaluation Work Group for both the 1984 and 1987 l
l l
l Federal Field Exercises which involved the largest participation of
)(
Federal responders in a nuclear power plant exercise.
i l
From 1979 to 1982, I was Chief of the NRC Incident Response l
Branch.
In this position, smong other things, I developed guidance for NRC regional offices on procedures to be used in emergencies; planned, monitored and evaluated exercises of emergency response plans for NRC licensed facilities; developed agreements w!th I
organizations supporting NRC emergency responses; and assured the operational readiness of the NRC Operations Center.
From 1977 to 1979, I was an NRC Senior Technical Operations 1
Specialist, responsible for developing, exercising and coordinating i
the NRC incident response program.
I also participated in the
a
} 1 1
(
development and implementation of emergency response agreements between NRC and other Federal as well ss State agencies.
I i
O.
Did you participate in any way at the February 13, 1986 exercise of
)
the LERO plan for the Shoreham facility?
A.
(Weiss)
I participated as the controller in charge of the FEMA Control Cell.
This control cell was responsible for simulating a number of State and county officials who would not have been expected to be sent to the LILCO EOF or the LILCO EOC.
Their inquiries and requests for information were simulated by use of commercial telephone.
All the comments and exercise materials i
developed by these simulators were given to the FEMA evaluators
]
immediately after the exercise.
I never reviewed the material nor
(
was I provided with a copy of the simulator comments.
(Schwartz)
During the February 13, 1986 exercise, I did not
}
l participate in any manner in that exercise.
After the exercise, I j
i had only informal conversations with a few of the NRC participants.
l Q.
Has the NRC established specific criteria or guidance for determining
)
whether the exercise of an offsite response plan constitutes a " full participation" exercise?
l A.
There are no criteria or guidance published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with respect to the scope and depth of a " full participation" exercise.
FEMA has published guidance which includes a number of elements which need to be exercised periodically but not at each exercise.
Each exercise scenario is reviewed by a Regional i
Assistance Committee to assure that the exercise objectives are met
(
and will cover appropriate FEMA guidance objectives to constitute a
" full participation" exercise, if such an exercise is required.
Q.
How does what constitutes a " full participation" exercise depend on the emergency response plan that is being evaluated?
A.
While ell offsite plans are required to meet the 16 planning standards in the regulations in order to gain FEMA approval, each plan is different because of unique State and local governmental infrastructures.
Therefore, it is our view that a determination as to i
whether an exercise is " full participation" is dependent on the i
particular details in the plan that is being evaluated.
l Q.
Is there a relationship between the number of objectives identified in FEMA Guidance Memorandum 17 Rev.1, which are to be evaluated,
(
or which are actually evaluated, and whether an exercise is a " full i
participation" exercise?
A.
Not directly.
The number of FEMA objectives exercised is not the determining factor as to whether an exercise is " full participation."
The FEMA guidance and NRC regulations require that the exercise test the integrated capability to assess adequately and respond to an accident at a nuclear power plant.
See 10 CFR Part 50, App. E, IV.,
F.,
fn. 4.
Since each plant is unique, the specific number of FEMA objectives exercised in a " full participation" exercise will vary.
Q.
What is the significance of the lack of Suffolk County and New York State participation in offsite emergency planning for the Shoreham facility with respect to what you consider to be a " full participation" exercise of the Shoreham offsite emergency response plan?
t f
A.
The plan exercised includes compensating features for the lack of State and County participation.
Consequently, the exercise was l
l designed to test these compensating features and the lack of Suffolk l
County and New York State participation is not relevant to the determination of whether this was a " full participation" exercise; however, because the exercised plan provides for accommodating State and local authorities in an actual emergency, these features were exercised by simulating the participation of State and local officials.
l Q.
Is it your opinion that the exercise conducted on February 13, 1986 i
at the Shoreham facility was a " full participation" exercise?
i A.
The February 13, 1986, exercise attempted to test the integrated
[
capability of the LERO plan to adequately assess and respond to an accident at the Shoreham facility.
This exercise was designed to tect the major observable portions of the LERO plans and the mobilization of those resources which were designed to compensate for the non-participation of State and local authorities, plus j
accommodating State and local officials should they respond to an emergency.
We believe that thia was a " full participation" exercise.
l I
i e