ML20237L411
| ML20237L411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-5-A-003, OL-5-A-3, NUDOCS 8708280094 | |
| Download: ML20237L411 (14) | |
Text
c TRANSCRIFf
""?J/pr5 3 4
O:? PROCEEDINGS 8 L
v I
'87 TUG 20 P3 :40 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (EP Exercise)
]
- ASLBP No. 86-5.13-01-OL)
L (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
.(
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x
]
DEPOSITION OF y
ROGER B.
KOWIESKI, THOMAS BAUDWIN and JOSEPH H.
KELLER
(
I 1
New York, Net. York; 1
Thursday, January 29, 1987
-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Maype Wm J
444 North Ca sitol Street Washugton 1C.20001 (202) 347-3700 y
wide Cmtra6e
> 336-6646 8708280094 870318 DR ADOCK 0500 2
-_---._-_-x_.
~._--_~.__-_...-.._-_._.._m...
~
n o-O
- O Y
/
T p.
1 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v!29 / 87 i
ped:JocW NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!cf1SSION yped:SueW 2
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j
3
X 4
In the Matter of:
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY s
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
- (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL) e Unit 1)
--,.--------------------------------X 7
DEPOSITION OF ROGER B. KOWIESKI, THOMAS BALDWIN AFD s
JOSEPH H. IGLI1'R 9
New York City, New York to Thursday, January 29, 1987 ti I
Deposition of ROGER B. K0WIESKI, TH0!!AS BALDWIN 12 1
v 13 and JOSEPH H. KELLER, called for examination pursuant to 14 notice, at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 26 Federal Plaza, New York City, New York, at 9:38 a.m., before is Garrett J. Walsh, Jr., a Notary Public in and for the is 17 Commonwealth of Virginia at Large, when were present on is behalf of the respective parties:
19 KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQ.
MICHAEL S. MILLER, ESQ.
20 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 9th Floor, South Lobby 21 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 22 On Behalf of the Intervenor, the County of Suffolk, State of New York v
- _- = _ _ ___._..- ~ _
2 l
APPEARANCES:
(Continuing) 1 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
2 Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor Capitol, Room 229 3
Albany, New York 12224 the State of l
On Behalf of the Intervenor, 4
New York 5
LEE B. ZEUGIN, ESQ.
Hunton & Williams 6
707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 7
Richmond, Virginia 23212 On Behalf of the Applicant, the Long Island s
Lighting Company 9
ORESTE RUSS PIRF0, ESQ.
Off:.ce of the General Counsel to U. ti. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 l
is WILLIAM R. CUtetING, ESQ.
12 Federal Emergency Management Agency v.
500 C Street, S. W.
is Washington, D. C. 20472 14 15 i
16 17 18
' 19 20 21 22 I
v l
-R 1
4 6
I
. \\. \\
4
\\ -
N=
+N
> i i i
\\
\\
i ! \\
%*'s\\'\\@4 g
^
.k s
% \\
p (h, n dS M 0 s
!= y 7>
Ch
- a
> y 4
y &
C
- 5
-M y & $
o d s
- 5. j
't
\\
k I
\\w1
\\
\\
s Ug +'sA
\\
,\\
>~
g
\\ (
sg
,s gm
\\
\\
e u
,4 I-a s
d*
s
ji 108 1
of policy in writing?
2 A
No, I did not.
3 Q
All of your conver'sations were just verbal?
4 A
I asked for supporting metiorandum to support their position at the time.
5 6
Q But you ha~d not put your req'uest in writing?
l I
7 A
No.
l 8
(Witness Keller)
Es. Letsche, I don' t knowshow 9
you want to handle it, but we had discussed the fact that 10 he has asked for coment.
I had c'oment on this specific 11 point also.
12 Q
Which specific poir..t, route alerting?
13 A
Redundant route alerting.
14 Q
Right.
15 A
In oy review of the' draft post-exercise report, 16 I consulted with the other three ~ItiL evaluators.
We,all 17 reviewed our individual parts of the' report, and I also 18 stated that 1 reviewed the whole rep' ort.
19 I had made a coment to Mr. Kowi'es'ki that I felt 30 that we had a probl~em with ' consistency, in tha~t 'it was my recollection tha't in previous exercises' in llew York --
21 now, I don't know whether you want to get' into this here 'or 22 v
/
7 l
i l
5 g
\\
L 1
,\\
l 5
109 "
+
3
.s s
,s f.
s u
4 x4 1
later or however you want to handle itj' 1
(t i..
2 Q
Well, it his to do with'.this doute alerting issue,
\\
bA I
3
' so you might as wel.1 go ahea'd and telli b.e 'now.
'c 1
My recolikbtion\\,-- ind it' may 'have been in error, 'I s
Y
\\
4 A
~
- \\
\\
,st but my recollcetion was that in, previous, exercises in New s
d s1 s
s t.
York, we had had a reste alerting, redundan9 rcuta salerting,
.{
s 6
7 Siren' failure, samt situdtion, that was in exesi of 45 s
1 s
~
k s
8 minutes and weJhad arsthat time evaluated that as a
?
I 9
Categcry A delikis6cy.
(
s x,s 10 Q
Now, ithat is a bad one, a' more ser'ious one?
t h
11 A
(Witnt ss Kov*eski)
That's right'.
3 i
12 (Witneic Keller)
Yes.
Roger said that we had s_.
la changed ; 511osophy.
I believe we' changed semantic.s.
We E
14 had several levels of issue.
The one'which would lead, I
r 15 or could lead 'to a degative findind has bean ve.riously cate 3criZed from a ZEto to a; Category A and it's now 16
+
17 calle'd a deficiency.
w la Q
Righs.,
19 A
Okay.) The true vhich does not lead so a negative 4
finding was a 1 of a 2, ' Category B; and, now it's an area 20 21 requiring corrective 'a tiot, 22 We still had those,'whicPis where it ends up.
..h E
y 1
k
{
x s
s 1
i i
110 g,'.
1 Q
Ri ght'.
l3 h 2
A And, in my review letter to Mr. Kowieski, my 3
' comment was that I thought us were being inconsistent,
,\\
4 being unfair, and that we had not -- recognizing that the' 5
draft had an ared requiring correc~tive ' action, I thought we q
6 had not rated hard enough.
T 3
Q R:.ght.
You thought it should have been a 8
deficiency?
9 A
Tha~t's correct.
And that wa's' my position that to I had given to Mr. Kowieski.
Subsequent to that, the' 11 policy-settar's told us that our interpretation was incorrect.
4 13
'And it went down in seriousness of issue 'from the draft 13 post-exerciae report.
s 14 I was saying up; Headquarters said down.
i 15 Q
Okay.
Did you have any other co=ments that I
16 ratings were too easyi D
A No.
The only rating change in my comments, right, j
i involved this particular issue to my rec'ollec~ tion.
My te 19 recollection is the only rating change.
Lots of verbage.
i 20 I thought there wer~e some things that were ' misstated in 21 Mr. Giardina's discussion.
That vo'uld be the inconsistency 1
22 L
we were talking about.
s-
____m
~
v3[;~ -
ULco ExerEg 4d 3(
t A
That is correct.
However --
Q Would --
)
A However, Obj ective EOC 12, which is the objective 4
.tich we are discussing, has in it ths evaluation of how 4j ir.fomation from thd Brookhaven Area Office is integrated h
ir.:o the sys tem.
i 9
Q Right.
I A
And, therefore, this is legitimate.
1; U
Q Sure, I understand.
Nou, you would agree vith me e
- hough that Mr. Giardina was the only evaluator who vas 1
n the EOC evaluating Obj ective EOC 12 ; isn't that right?
I A
That is correct.
Q And, the' information received from the Brookhaven l
Area Office at ths LERO EOC did not deal with the questions e
I Of evacuation time estimates and impediments and the Nassau fa Coliseum that I've been discussing with Mr. Kowieski; is that 9
0 right?
q g
A That is correct.
Nor, should the'y.
Q Right.
Right.
Now, Mr. Kowieski, you also il 4
centioned before that an area involving a change in the i.
j assessment report relating to the backup alerting system, 1
the route alert drivers --
i k
4 i
i
-4 i
j 104 I
i 1:
O
}
A (Witness Kowieski)
That's correct.
I recollect I
(;
caking statement to this effect, i
f Q
Right.
And, I believe you said that that wa's as a result of some inputs by the policy-makers in Uashington?
1 l
gj A
That's also correct, i
Q Now, I gather' from your statement that originally i
\\
it had been -- FEMA had intended, or you had intended, to 4
h i
identify. LILCO's failure to demonstrate the ability to y
t
}
accomplish the route alerting within the'45 minutes time i
i frame as an area requiring corrective action; is that i
right?
j
- j A
It was my initial intention.
t 9
Q Yes'.
And, why was that?
b; j
A It was my understanding of guidance documents or (j
NUREG 0654 as well as other guidance' documents such as a
i l
Rev 10 which deals with alert notification.
8 i
)
Q It was your understanding tha't that was the E
.i requirement, that there was a 45 minutes requirement?
g i
g A
And that it was important.
4 Q
Right.
And I gather from uhat you said that the
!j instruction that you received that this should be identified 3
as only an area for improvement 1
S i
R 1
1
T 105 4<,
f*a A
That's correct.
i Q
-- rathe'r than an area req'uiring' corrective
}
1 action was an instruction that was made'specifically with l
i to the evaluation of the Shoreham exercise; is that respect 1,
ij right?
?
3 Ue came'across this issue in the Shoreham exercise.
A i,
j Right now, are you referring to other' exercises now, or are k..
I we dealing with the Shoreham exer'cise?
i 1
i e
i i.
O Mo.
I'm only -- I was following up on your j
4 j
- l discussion of the exchange you ha'd with the ' individuals in j
. j Uashington.
?,
~
- j A
Well, I hope 'the' record will be clear.
It has 3
been our policy of Regior II to share'the'first draft of 1
i It's y
., l post-exercise assessmen't with' people in Washington.
A also true that'in the past there was no rea' son to change j
our evaluation.
a j
/t It didn't happen here.
As far as I'm concerned, f.
a{
the problem was identified and it was my decision -- keep in mind, this is policy-makers, they are right and interpret I
5
.i i i
V
~
i policies.
They felt that my interpretation wasn't really i
I s,
.{
accurate.
I i
i The mode'of operation of Roger Kowieski is that i
I
'l a
b
?:
),
--.,,h....*
w---
i m t-
?
106 i
s f1 I have to see it in writing, because I knew that one day, a
[
year from day of exercise, I would be cross-examined and I 2
i 3
would have real answer and they won't be he're to really 4
answer questions posed by, like you today.
I 5
g Q
Now --
6 A
And that's why I asked for a back-up material.
I Q
I understand.
Now, prior to your having submitted Ik3 the draft of the' Sho'reha'm exercise assessment to the peop.'.e 1
l 1
}
in Headquarters, the policy'-makers had not previously v
indicated co you that your interpretation of the 45 minutes
{
requirement was incorrec't; is that right?
4 A
Again, "s.
Let' sche, we didn't come across -- we t
}
J didn't face this particular issue before ~in the same way as h
1 a
we did in the Shoreham exercise.
{
J Kee~p in mind that the issue of -- before we had k
6 Category A and Category B that I'm certain all of us 4
t
{
II understand the~ meaning and later on Uashington office 9tj 1;
instructed all the' regions to use another approach, N
l j
dl de ficiencie s, areas for correct' + ' actions and areas for i
I l
3!
improvement.
?
n j
So, keep in mind there was a cha~nge in policy.
c
{
"i So, maybe that's why we never came 'across this particular I
4 I
3 4
6 0
7
107 l
1 l
1 i
j issue.
f Q
Okay. 'You had, however, testified before~the' y
1 Licensing Board in the Shoreham proceeding on this issue, haven' t you?
4 A
Yes, I did.
i Q
And in that testimony you, Mr. Kowieski, had the I
(
interpretation of the requirement that was reflected in the i
c l
draft assessment report tha't you sent down to Washington?
I p
3 A
That's my recollection.
And it means that
~
probably my interpretation, aceording to' FEMA's Headquarters _
a il
- i o f fi c e',
really wasn't accurate.
4 MS. LETS~CHE:
Right.
Noie, let me have~marke~d as A
[
2l 24A Panel' Exhibit Number 31 for identification a memoran-j.
t
[
a!
dun dated April 7, 1986 for Mr. Kowieskf from Robert S.
a i
i i
)l Jj
'Jilkers on.
l l
5 l
r t
(The document referred to is I
marked as FEMA Panel' Exhibit V
J !
Number 31 for identification.)
I
[
J, BY MS. LETSCHE:
(Continuing) 1 a
Q Mr. Kowieshi', in your conversations or discus-i l
lj sions or exchanges uith FEMA Headquarters on this issue, 1
J I had you put your request for a cl'arification or a statement 1
3 1
3 i
e l
109 later or however you want to handle it.
1 2
Q Well, it has to do with'this route' alerting issue, 3
' so you might' as well go ahead and tell me'now.
4 A
My recollection -- and it'may have been in error, but my recollection was that in previous exercises in New s
York, we had had a route alerting, redundant route alerting, e
7 siren' failure, same situation, that was in exces's of 45 8
minutes and we had at that f.ime evaluated tha't as a 9
Category A deficien'cy.
10 Q
Now, that is a bad one, a more serious one?
11 A
(Witness Kowieski)
That's right.
12 (Hitness Keller)
Yes.
Roger said that we had 13 changed philosophy.
I believe we changed semantics.
We 14 ha'd several levels of issue.
The' one which would lead, is or could lead to a negative finding has been variously categorized from a zero to a Category A and it's now 16 17 called a deficiency.
18 Q
Pdght.
19 A
Okay.
The one which does not lead to a negative 20 finding was a 1 or a 2, Category B: and, now it's an area 21 requiring corrective ' action.
22 We still had those, which is where it ends up.
w.
I-110 f...
t Q
Right.
s 2
A And, in' my review letter to Mr. Kowieski, my 3
' comment was that I thought we were being inconsistent,
~
4 being unfair, and that we had not -- recognizing that the 5
draft had an ared req'uiring corrective 'actica, I thought we 6
had not rated hard enough.
7 Q
R:.ght.
You thought' it should have been a 1
8 deficiency?
9 A
That's correct.
And that was' my position that j
f to I had given to Mr. Kowieski.
Subsequent to that, the'
)
11 policy-settar's told us that our interpretation was incorrect.
12
'And it went down in seriousnes's of issue 'from the draft 13 post-exerci.ie report.
14 I was saying up; Headquarters said down.
15 Q
Okay.
Did you ha've any other comments that 16 ratings were too easy?
17 A
No.
The only rating change in my comments, right, 18 involved this particular issue to my recollec~ tion.
My
~
19 recollec' tion is the only rating change.
Lots of verbage.
20 I thought there were some things that were ' misstated in 21 Mr. Giardina's discussion.
That would be the inconsistency 22 we were talking about, w
_____________________m________________.________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _