ML20073R177
| ML20073R177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1983 |
| From: | Morgan C MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8305030549 | |
| Download: ML20073R177 (40) | |
Text
- . o.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNEJfD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN'd3 BOARD Before Administrative Judges: MI T29 James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shon
x CONSOLIDATED EDISION COMPANY OF : Docket Nos. 50-247-SP NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, Docket Nos. 50-286-SP Unit 2) :
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF :
NEW YORK, (Indian Point, Unit 3) :
x April 26, 1983 POWER AUTHORITY'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA OF RICHARD W. KRIMM ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Charles Morgan, Jr.
Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
Paul F. Colarulli, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)466-7000 8305030549 830426 PDR ADOCK 05000247 /
g PDR -
- ef '
POWER AUTHORITY'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA OF RICHARD W. KRIMM Preliminary Statement Power Authority of the State of New York (" Power Authority"), licensee of Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant hereby moves the board to issue a subpoena for the appearance at the hearings of Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA") office i
of Natural and Technological Hazards ("Krimm").
Background Of This Motion The Board has explicitly stated that the parties are entitled to discovery with respect to the exercise testi-mony to be presented April 26-29. (T:ll,667). See also Com-mission Memorandum and Order dated January 8, 1981 at p. 6 (this special proceeding shall include "the full procedural format of a trial-type adjudication, including discovery").
Pursuant to this right, the licensees noticed the deposition of FEMA regional officials Philip McIntire and Roger Kowieski (a copy of the Notice of Deposition is annexed hereto as Ex-hibit A) and Krimm (a copy of the Notice of Deposition is annexed hereto as Exhibit B). Oral notice was provided to Stewart Glass, Esquire, counsel to FEMA, prior to service of the formal written notices, and as soon as possible following the receipt of FEMA's Post-Exercise Assessment.
On April 20, 1983, licensees filed a Motion to Com-pel discovery and preclude non-exercise testimony (" Motion to Compel"). Licensees filed the Motion to Compel only after meeting initial resistance from FEMA to their discovery re-quests.
Subsequently, licensees and FEMA reached an agree-ment with respect to the issues raised by the Motion to Com-pel. Pursuant to the Agreement, FEMA consented to the depo-sition of the two officials of FEMA's regional office (Roger Koweiski and Philip McIntire), which were completed on April 22, 1983. Licensees" agreed to withdraw their Notice of Depo-sition of Krimm and their motion to compel that deposition, in consideration of FEMA's agreement to provide prompt res-ponses to a set of interrogatories to be prepared by licen-sees.
Grounds For The Instant Motion Licensees drafted and served upon FEMA last week approximately 25 interrogatories, which primarily focused on the generic nature of the deficiencies cited by FEMA in its Post-Exercise Assessment, and FEMA's recent alteration of the procedures it has heretofore followed for evaluating off-site emergency planning at Indian Point, and, we believe, else-where. The agreement with PEMA provided that FEMA would con-sent to the admission into evidence of the interrogatories and responses thereto, subject only to objections as to rele-vance or materiality.
The Power Authority has now been advised, contrary to our understanding at the time the agreement was reached with FEMA, that FEMA cannot respond to the majority of licen-sees' interrogatories prior to the completion of hearings on April 29. Accordingly the Power Authority has now been left with no method of establishing for the record the generic nature of the deficiencies cited by FEMA, and FEMA's sudden change in its evaluation criteria. For these reasons, we a
submit that the subpoena of Krimm is necessary to complete l the record and avoid clear and substantial prejudice to the I
Power Authority.
i Krimm's Testimony Is Necessary and Material It is, of course, well-settled that a licensing board "shall not attempt to determine the admissibility of 1
[the] evidence" in ruling on an application for a subpoena.
{ 10 CFR S 2.720(a). Regardless, for the reasons set forth a
below, we submit that the evidence to be elicited from Krimm is both relevant and admissible.
A. FEMA Has Applied Unique and Excessive Standards at Indian Point.
The Power Authority has reason to believe that FEMA has applied unique an'd excessive standards to the enforcement
_4_
of its regulations at Indian Point, and that this application contravenes equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the fifth amendment of the Constitution. To the Power Author-ity's knowledge, New York is the only site nationally to have faced a 120-day clock for failure to enact state radiological ,
emergency planning legislation, at a time when such legisla-tion was still pending in other states in which nuclear plants are situated. To the Power Authority's knowledge, Indian Point is the only site which could not be judged "ade-quately prepared" because bus driver participation is alle-gedly not assured. Since the FEMA assessment regulations are presently only a proposed rule (see 47 Fed. Reg. 36,38 6 ( Aug.
19, 1982)), FEMA's interpretive process is especially signi-ficant. If, as it appears, standards are not being uniformly and consistently applied, lack of adequate discovery is sure ;
to prejudice the Power Authority.
Furthermore, in its Post-Exercise Assessment, FEMA suddenly departed from its long-standing practice of compre-hensively reviewing the state of emergency planning as a means for determining the adequacy of such planning at Indian Point. Instead, FEMA indicated that it could not certify i
emergency planning in Rockland County as adequate for the sole reason that Rockland County personnel had not partici-pated in the exercise. The Power Authority submits that this procedure is not only contrary to FEMA's prior practice at i
l i
1
Indian Point, but also contravenes NRC and FEMA regulations, and interpretation thereof by FEMA's national office. !
B. The Generic Nature Of The Deficiencies.
As noted above, the Power Authority has reason to believe that the deficiencies cited by FEMA are generic in nature, and that FEMA has not found such deficiencies to be the basis for adverse findings at other nuclear reactor sites. If this is, in fact, the case, testimony with respect to the generic nature of the deficiencies would obviously be relevant since it suggests (1) unequal enforcement in viola-tion of the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Constitution; and (2) deficiencies in the credibility of the FEMA regional witnesses.
The regional witnesses, in their earlier appearance before the Board and at the April 22 deposition, demonstrated an appalling lack of personal knowledge of generic issues.
With respect.to the lack of written agreements with bus dri-vers, for example, witnesses Kowieski and McIntire conceded that there have been discussions at FEMA's national office, but that they (Kowieski and McIntire) had no specific knowl-edge regarding sites in other regions. (See T: 168-71; a copy of the deposition excerpt is annexed hereto as Exhibit E).
. - .. _ . .. - .. -- -. .-. . = - - . - . .
At the hearings, when licensees attempted earlier ,
to ask certain relevant questions of the witnesses sponsored I by FEMA's regional office, those regional witnesses have dis- [
claimed personal knowledge, suggesting that only the national i
officials are capable of providing such answers: ;
Q Would you consider it important in ,
1 your evaluation of the Indian Point plan to familiarize yourself with whether other plans in which there has been no verification of sirens have been approved (
by, FEMA?
MR. GLASS : Your Honor, I object. I think he is putting information into evi- ,
dence that is [ sic] not been in evidence. [
He is making statements. -
JUDGE CARTER: I think that he is really ;
asking him, when you go about marking l your cesions, do you consider those types of things. I think he can ask him whe- ;
ther the [ sic] considers that, and not [
whether he actually did it in this case.
WITNESS McINTIRE: No, we don't, and let !
me explain so that the Board will not .
think that we are parochial in our inter- i est.
i What we do, we are in contact with l our national office whose job is to be ,
aware of what is going around on all the [
REP programs across the country. If any- l thing that has been done at another site ,
- might be germane to one of the sites we i are working on, they will provide us that i information. :
Therefore, we have a channel to !
receive information about what is going ,
on at other sites as appropriate. It is !
just not a matter of our natural business l to send us everything that has to do with i REP.
t (T:2247-48.)
i l
J l
l C, Krimm Is An Appropriate Witness.
By virtue of his position as Assistant Associate Director, the Power Authority understand Krimm to be among the most senior FEMA officials engaged in evaluating off site radiological emergency planning. As Krimm's June 17, 1982 memorandum to the Commission's Division of Emergency Pre-paredness (Exhibit C hereto) indicates, he has been integral-ly involved in FEMA's evaluation of emergency planning at Indian Point, and has been a key liaison between FEMA and the Commission.
Indeed, at the deposition of FEMA regional wit-nesses McIntire and Koweiski on April 22, those witnesses confirmed that FEMA's national office played a critical role in the decision not to certify the adequacy of emergency planning at Indian Point:
MR. BRANDENBURG: From the time that you prepared your first draft of the trans-mittal letter until its preparation in final form, was the text of this letter discussed with anyone at FEMA National?
MR. McINTIRS: The letter was typed at FEMA National, as a matter of fact, after discussions with people down there.
MR. BRANDENBURG: With whom at FEMA National was the decision to characterize the Rockland non-participation and in Westchester, the transportation matters, as significant deficiencies discussed?
l i
I e - .- . . ,
1 MR. McINTIRE: With whom were they dis-cussed?
^
MR. BRANDENBURG: At National FEMA?
MR. McINTIRE: Personal knowledge in meetings with Mr. Krimm and Mr.
McLoughlin. And I remember that Mr.
Petrone and Mr. Krimm met with Mr. Bragg, who is the executive deputy director.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Were these face-to-face meetings or telephone calls?
MR. McINTIRE: Face-to-face meetings.
> I participated and Roger did in the meetings with Mr. Krimm and Mr.
McLoughlin.
MR. BRANDENBURG:- These occurred imme-diately prior to what?
MR. McINTIRE: After April 13th and the i early afternoon of April 14th.
(T: 112-13; a copy of the deposition excerpt is annexed here-1 f to as Exhibit D).
FEMA's inability to provide timely responses to licensees' interrogatories makes Krimm's testimony impera-tive.
It is apparent that the regional witnesses assume 1
that they are receiving full information from their national office. The Power Authority is entitled to discover whether i.
r these assumptions are in fact correct, and whether FEMA's regulations are being properly and constitutionally applied at Indian Point and in the same manner as at other sites.
FEMA's testimony suggests that the alleged problems at Indian
_. .. ~ . . . . . . - . . . _ .
I Point are unique. We submit that this is not the case.1 ,
Since the principal aim of this special proceeding is to com-pare the risks at Indian Point with the spectrum of risks at ,
other sites, the discovery sought herein is proper, relevant, i and necessary.
e I
l i
f i
i i
1 At the April 22 deposition, Koweiski and McIntire indi-cated that FEMA's national office was engaged in efforts to address generic problems, and to minimize inconsistent enforcement of regulations. Those regional witnesses, however, could not specifically identify the measures now under way, suggesting that the FEMA National Office was the proper source of such information. (T:135-37; a copy of the deposition excerpted is annexed hereto as Exhi-bit F).
F b
,-.-- ,, - ,--an , - - - , --.-, .m -- - - -- -
l I
Respectfully submitted, 4
, YL DO4h 1 Charles Morgan, Dr.V Paul F. Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 3 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-7000 Stephen L. Baum General Counsel Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel
) POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE 1
OF NEW YORK
- Licensee of Indian Point l Unit 3 t
10 Columbus Circle
! New York, New York 10019 i (212) 397-6200
- Bernard D. Fischman Michael Curley ll Richard F. Czaja David H. Pikus 1
SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Dated: April 26, 1983 e
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COMMISSION i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -
l Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris i i
6
) :
In the Matter of
)
) .
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos.
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-286 SP
) :
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE ) April 15, 1983 OF NEW YORK )
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) ) ;
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PHILIP McINTIRE, JOSEPH KELLER AND ROGER KOWEISKI BY LICENSEES i i
Notice is hereby given that a deposition will be i i
taken by Licensees of Philip McIntire, Joseph Keller and Roger i
Koweiski, witnesses for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(" FEMA") , on Thursday, April 21, 1983, at 9:00 A.M., at the ,
offices of Shea & Gould, 330 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, and will continue until completed.
i i
i I,
i f
i i The deposition will concern testimony under i
j commission Questions 3 and 4 which the deponents will be
\
l providing on behalf of FEMA in the captioned proceeding. The l
l deponents should bring with them copies of all documents upon l l
! which they rely in their testimony, together with any l j documents concerning suggestions or instructions received from l 1 l l any person regarding the content of the testimony or the ,
{ April 14, 1983 Post Exercise Assessment. Other parties are i
invited to appear and cross-examine.
4 Respectfully submitted, i
Brent L. Brandenburg Charles Morgan, Jr. y Paul F. Colarulli
'g
! Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
1
} CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED
] OF NEW YORK, INC. 1899 L Street, N.W.
l Licensee of Indian Point Washington, D.C. 20036 i Unit 2 (202) 466-7000
{ 4 Irving Place 1; New York, New York 10003 Stephen L. Baum 2
(212) 460-4600 General Counsel Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel j POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
- NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 .
l 10 Columbus Circle !
New York, New York 10019 I i . (212) 397-6200 I
e .
1 Bernard D. Fischman .
Michael Curley Richard F. Czaja
, David H. Pikus l SHEA & GOULD
- 330 Madison Avenue
j 1
1 I
1 1
l 3 1 i
I
] I I
e =
_ - , - - - ,, ,r-- - -- ,--.-,,- -- ,-,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris In the Matter of
}
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF Docket Nos.
I NEW YORK, INC. 50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) 50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE April 18, 1983 OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF RICHARD W. KRIMM BY LICENSEES ,
l Notice is hereby given that a deposition will be taken by Licensees of Richard W. Krimm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA") , on Friday, April 22,
l l
l l
1983, at 10:00 A.M., at the offices of Shea & Gould, 1627 K Street, Washington, D.C., and will continue until completed.
The deposition will concern (1) the current status and degree of conformance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission /
FEMA guidelines for off-site radiological emergency planning in the emergency planning zones surrounding the Indian Point nuclear power plants in Buchanan, New York; and (2) FEMA's participation in the above-captioned special proceeding.
The deponent should bring with him copies of all documents listed on the annexed schedule.
Other parties are invited to appear and cross-examine.
Respectfully submitted, s e Brent L. BrandEnburg CharlesMorgan,Jg. " /g Paul F. Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED OF NEW YORK, INC. 1899 L Street, N.W.
Licensee of Indian Point Washington, D.C. 20036 Unit 2 (202) 466-7000 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4600 Stephen L. Baum General Counsel Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Bernard D. Fischman Michael Curley Richard F. Czaja David H. Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Dated: April 18, 1983
l '.
i SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED BY RICHARD W. KRIMM '
t i
l, DEFINITIONS
" Document" shall mean any kind of written or :
graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, of any kind or description, whether sent or received or neither, i including originals, copies and drafts and both sides I
?
thereof, and including, but not limited to: papers, books, correspondence, telegrams, cables, telex messages, memoranda, notes, notations, work papers, transcripts, minutes, reports and recordings of telephone or other conversations, or of interviews, or of conferences, or of other meetings '
(including, but not limited to, meetings of boards of directors or committees thereof) , affidavits, statements, summaries, opinions, reports, studies, analyses, evaluations, contracts, agreements, journals, statistical records, desk l calendars, appointment books, diaries, lists, tabulations, I sound recordings, financial statements, computer printouts, data processing input and output, microfilms, all other records !
kept by electronic, photographic or mechanical means, and '
f things similar to any of the foregoing however denominated ;
by intervenors.
t I - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _
?
Documents
)
. l
- 1. All documents referring or relating to the Indian Point nuclear reactor site in Buchanan, New York i or the surrounding area. .
- 2. All documents referring or relating to any deficiencies in off-site radiological emergency planning in the Indian Point area (" Indian Point planning").
- 3. All documents containing instructions, suggestions, or inquiries regarding:
(a) the status of Indian Point planning; (b) a decision to report any deficiencies in Indian Point planning; and/or (c)
FEMA testimony in the Indian Point special proceeding.
- 4. All documents which compare the status of off-site radiological emergency planning at two or more nuclear reactor sites in the United States.
- 5. All documents referring or relating to "significant deficiencies" identified by FEMA at any nuclear reactor site in the United States.
- 6. All documents referring or relating to the failure of a state, county, or local government to participate in off-site radiological emergency planning.
l l
l t
e e l
)
- 7. All documents referring or relating to advance commitments from emergency response personnel (including, without limitations, bus drivers) and/or the necessity therefor, including, without limitation, the absence of such commitments at any nuclear reactor site in the, United States.
- Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 i
17 JUN 1982 .
PEMORANDUM FOR: Brian K. Grimes, Director Diviolon of Emergency Preparedness Office of s e io and Enforcement FROM:
Assistant Associate Director
) Office of Natural and Technological Hazards 3UBJECT: Need for Findings on Indian Point i
Reference:
Mr. Brian Grimes to Mr. Krimm, dated June 16, 1982,
! Same Subject
' In response to the reference memorandum, which requests an interim finding under the FEMA /NRC Memorandum of Understariding, I have attached the Post i
Exercise Assessment dated May 27, 1982, together with the June 4 press release relating to the March 3,1982 exercise at Indian Point. The Post Exercise Assessment was provided to NRC Region I by FEMA Region II.
, Significant deficiencies (" capability werA") are identified in the press i
release and discussed in the Post Exercise Asse ssment:
Westchester County pages 30 a 36
- Rockland County pages 39, 40, 42 & 43 Orange County pages 49 & 54 Putnam County page 59 As indicated in Mr. Petrone's letter date June 17 to Mr. Hennessy (also
~
attached), Region II, FEMA will review the State's schedule of correctue sctions in developing the recommendations for an Interim Finding by FEMA headquarters, as you have requested. Further, a meeting with the State is suggested by Mr. Petrone on either July 7 or 8, at which time the methods and timing for resolution of significant deficiencies will be reviewed.
Assuming this schedule of events takes place as projected, the FEMA head-quarters Interim Finding with respect to preparedness at Iridien Point will be transmitted to you by July 30.
Attachment as stated s
. e l
I 10-7 1 112 2
MR. McINTIRE:
I think probably one of the 3
f: main factors was the degree of progress or change that I d had occurred between the time we issued our update 5
i status report in December 1982 and what we observed
/ 6 at the ex'ercise and information that we subsequently l
3 7 gathered on these two areas of what progress had been i '
- 8 made.
9 MR. BRANDENBURG: From the time that you 10 prepared your firstidraft of the transmittal letter 11 until its preparation in final form, was the text of 12 this letter discussed with anyone at FEMA National?
13 MR. McINTIRE: The letter was typed at i
14 FEMA National, as a matter of fact, after discussions with 15 people down there.
16 MR. BRANDENBURG: With whom at FEMA 17 National was the decision to characterize the Rockland 18 non participation and in Westchester, the transportation 19 matters, as significant deficiencies discussed?
j 20 MR. McINTIRE: With whom were they y i 21 discussed?
{ 22 t
MR. BRANDENBURG: At National FEMA?
5 23
- MR. McINTIRE
- Personal knowledge in 24 meetings with Mr. Krimm and Mr. McLoughlin.
25 And I remember that Mr. Petrone l NEWROCK RE!'ORTING SERVICE o 9 East 41st Street New York N.Y.10017 e (212) 840-1891
l l
. 0 l
'l 10-8 1 113 2
and Mr. Krimm met with Mr. Bragg, who is the executive 3 deputy director.
4 MR. BRANDENBURG: Were these face-to-face 5 meetings or telephone calls?
6 MR. McINTIRE: Face-to-face meetings.
7 I participated and Roger did in the 8
meetings with Mr. Krimm and Mr. McLoughlin 9
MR. BRANDENBURG: These occurred 10 immediately prior to what ?
11 Mr. McINTIRE: After April 13th and the 12 carly afternoon of Apt il 14th.
13 MR. BRANDENBURG: What was the nature 14 of the discussion as to whether these two items should 15 be characterized as significant or some other type 16 of deficiency.
17 51R - McINTIRE: The best way to 18 characteri 2 i; was that Mr. Petrone briefed the people 19 in Wash.s;te. what the letter is saying and the 20 reasons therefor.
3 21 gg MR. BRANDENBURG: Now focusing i 22 9
specifically on the adjective specific for these two 23 items, what was the noint that Mr. Petrone was 24 emphasizing as to why these two items, among all of them, 25 should be separately characterized as significant deficiencies.
NEWROCK REPORTING SERVICE e 9 Eur 41st Street.New York N.Y.10017 e (212) 840-1891 4
y 4-1 1 168 2 MR. K0WIESKI: Mr. Lee Thomas , in the 3 meno or letter to Mr. Frank Petrone , requested that we 4 provide him, again on a biweekly or monthly basis , with 5 an update report on the Indian Point situation.
4 MR. CZAJA: In one of these reports, you 7
discussed the Rockland County situation?
8 MR. K0WIESKI: It is my recollection.
9 MR. C2AJA: I would ask that those 10 reports be produced, Mr. Glass.
11 MR. GLASS: I will review them,and 12 subject to privilege, we will produce.
13 MR. CZAJA: Now, in reaching your i4 judgment that a significant deficiency exists with 15 regard to the transportation situation in Westchester 16 Co unty - -
17 MR. GLASS: Make sure to leave a space 18 in the transcript so we could put in an attachment.
19 MR. CZAJA: -- what weigh t, if any, did 20 you give to the lack of written agreements with bus 21 drivers?
22 MR. McINTIRE: That was definitely given 23 some weight. -
/
24 MR. CZAJA: Is it a matter of some 25 importance , in your judgment?
NEWROCK REPORTING SERVICE o 9 Eau 41u Screet.New York N.Y.10017 e (212) 840-1891
3 .
L4-2 y 169 2 MR. McINTIRE: It 's a matter of concern.
3 . MR. K0WIESXI: May I elaborate on it?
i-
,ur!ca.
+
y- .
4 -wrv MR. CZAJA: Yes. l
} k '. .
.3Gl. K0WIESKI: As a matter of fact, it's l
ki 5
6 a requirement of the NUREG 0654, and it was .specifically 7
stated in our plan review comments.
8 MR. CZAJA: Are you aware of Any 9 situations where FEMA has found emergency preparedness 10 adequate in the case of a nuclear plant other than n Indian Point, in which there were no written agreements 12 with bus drivers?
13 MR. McINTIRE: I didn't understand the 34 statement "other than Indian Point."
15 Is it implied we found it adequate in u Indian Point?
17 MR. CZAJA: I will rephrase the question.
18 Are you aware whether your counterparts 19 in any (region other than your region have looked into 20 this question of whether written agreements exsit with 21 bus drivers?
22 MR. McINTIRE: Do you have any specific 23 knowledge?
24 MR. K0WIESKI: I have no specific 25 knowledge, ucwerv r o cnnome,- cremre . o c. As.. C.... Le V e ne w e nne s . #sess e sa eaa.
- - - - - -,, - - e , . , ,-
i 4
I 170 l4-3 i
! 2 NR. CZAJA: You neveT raised this j 3 specific question wi.th any of your RAC chairman j n $r.
~ i 4 meetings? '
,p: .' -
} MR. KONIESKI: Maybe I did, but I don't
, 5 i
6 have a specific recollection.
MR. CIAJA: This has not been the
- 7 y
! 8 subject of some sort of directive or discussion from l 9 FEMA's national office?
MR. McINTIRE: The question of written l 10
] n agreements -- '
2 1
12 MR. CZAJA: With bus drivers.
1
- 13 MR. McINTIRE
- There have been discussions j u on this. I don't know of any written guidance or i 15 memos.
1 j g MR. CZAJA: What has been the nature of
! 17 the discussions that you have knowledge. of? _
r i is MR. McINT;RE: Basically, reporting on the 1
19 status of the Westchester County transportation 4
20 situation.
Do you have any knowledge l '
21 MR. CIAJA:
I ] whether any written agreements with bus drivers exist l 22 i 23 in the case of any other nuclear plants in the United i
24 States?
MR. K0WIESKI: I. don't have specific
- 25 t NEWROCK RFPORTING SERVICE o 9 East h Screer.New York N.Y.10017 e (21 l
1
171 3 1 knowledge.
2
- MR. CIAJA: I have no further questions. ;
3 MS. POTTERFIELD:
Let us look at p ge'll 4
D) on your chronology of events. It indicates that at I 5
8:00 o' clock A.M. there was a declaration of , alert 6
y classification.
Do you see it that way?
8 MR. McINTIRE: Yes.
9 MS. POTTERFIELD: That time of 8:00 10 11 o' clock is different than the time that is on ,
times McIntire Exhibit 3, which indicates six different 12 f r an alert, for a declaration of alert classification.
13 MR. McINTIRE: That is correct.
14 MS. POTTERFIELD: Eight o' clock is later 15 3.
16 than all but those times indicated on McIntire Exhibit MR. McINTIRE: That is correct. -
17 MS. POTTERFIELD:
Could you tell me what 18 19 the difference is?
MR. McINTIRE: The difference?
20 MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes.
/ 21
] MR. McINTIRE: Why?
22 .
MS. POTTERFIELD: Yes.
23 MR. McINTIRE: Why there is a difference?
24 MS. POTTERFIELD:
Why it says 8:00 o'cloc k 25 (212) 840-1891 u NFWROCK RFPORTING SERVICE e 9 Eut dist Screet.New York N) .
1
.- ... . a .:.-... .. . . _ . .
135 I
2 Pl anning, that on a national scope, FEMA has identified 3 as a generic deficiency occurring on a number of 4 occasions such things as problems associated with 5 evacuation?
6 MR. GLASS: You would have to define the term " generic." I realize it is a problem because it 7
i 8
appears to be a term that you are referring to in his 9 Presentation.
10 Do you mean deficiencies that have been 11 identified in more than one region?
12 MR. BRANDENBURG : Yes , that would be fine.
13 MR. GLASS: During the course of a post-14 exercise assessment.
15 MR. BRANDENBURG: Mm-hmm.
MR. McINTIRE: I have very little personal 16 17 knowledge of the deficiencies noted in other regions 18 and in other exercises.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Well, are you aware of 19 20 any -- let us take a hypothetical map and a hypothetical 21 facility, nothing in particular.
22 Is there any program that you are aware t
23 of to guard against such a hypothetical deficiency 24 being characteri:ed as minor in one region and significan t l l
25 elsewhere, something of that sort?
NFWROCK REPORTING SERVICE o 9 Eur 41,r Screer,New York N.Y.10017 e .(212) 8401$91 l
l
1
- o 1
136 2 MR. McINTIRE: I unde rstand that is one 3 of the concerns and one of the goals of the national 4 office, is to improve consistency.
5 MR, K0WIESKI: I referred before to RAC 6 chairman's meetings in Washington. Obviously, at those 7 meetings, the issue of significant or minor deficienciesj 8 were discussed. l i 9 So, to answer your question, yes, we ;
10 discussed. We did not go into any specifics. We j 11 discussed in gene ral terms .
l l
12 MR. BRANDENBURG: Can you describe for i l
l 13 us, Mr. McIntire, what activities you are aware of 14 and that you have participated in to make --
to improve 15 the consistency of assessment from site to site and
! 16 from region to region?
17 MR. McINTIRE: There has been at least one 18 memo that I am aware of that has been issued on the 19 subject.
l 20 MR. K0WIESKI: From the national office.
21 Again, if I may refer to our quarterly
, 22 mee tings , Regions I, II and III, NRC, there is another 23 forum for discussion as to what constitutes minor or i
t 24 major deficiencies, and discussions about how we conduct 25 the bus iness , Regions I, II and III.
l NEWROCK REPORTING SERVICE o 4 Ent 4hr Serm No. Ymk N Y IMi' - "' n ' 'a " a'
w 's 1 137 2 MR. BRANDENBURG: Did these result in the 3 preparation of documents that you just described? Were 4 they verbal discussions between the three regions? l l
5 MR. K0WIESKI: Verbal discussion. I l
6 MR. BRANDENBURG: I would like to request 7 a copy of the memorandum that Mr. McIntire referred to, 8 emanating from FEMA national,on the subject of 9 consistency.
l 10 MR. GLASS: I will have to look at it 11 first before I can give you an answer, t
12 MR. BRANDENBURG : I have no further i
13 questions. I 14 MR. CZAJA: Let us take a short recess.
15 (Recess taken) 16 MR. BRANDENBURG: Mark this document as 17 McIntire Exhibit 2 for identification.
A 18 (Mr. McIntire's notes were marked 19 McIntire Exhibit 2 for identification, as of 20 this date.)
21 MR. CZAJA: We marked as McIntire Exhibit 22 2,Mr. McIntire 's notes that were identified in Mr.
23 B randenbu rg 's examination and have now been produced 24 by Mr. Glass.
25 Mr. Kowieski, am I correct that you NEWROrg R renR TING ceprit r . o c.. 41.. C..~. A'- Va4 N Y i nv u - . s'on t o '(ot
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ) 50-247 SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-286 SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ) April 26, 1983:
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of POWER AUTHORITY'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA OF RICHARD W. KRIMM in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 26th day of April, 1983.
Docketing and Service Branch Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Office of the Secretary William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Harmon & Weiss Commission 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20006 James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Joan Holt, Project Director Administrative Judge Indian Point Project Atomic Safety and Licensing- New York Public Interest Board Research Group 513 Gilmoure Drive 9 Murray Street Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 New York, N.Y. 10007
q l
W Dr. Osca r 11. Paris Janice Moore, Esq.
Administrative Judge Counsel for NRC Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
, M r. Frederick J. Shon Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq.
l Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Consolidated Edison Co.
Board of New York,.Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Irving Place Commission New York, N.Y. 10003 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. Charles J. Maikish, Esq.
New York University Law Litigation Division School The Port Authority of 423 Vanderbilt Hall New York and New Jersey 40 Washington Square South One World Trade Center New York, N.Y. 10012 New York, N.Y. 10048 Marc L. Parris, Esq. Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Eric Thorsen, Esq. Steve Leipsig, Esq.
County Attorney Enviromental Protection Bureau County of Rockland New York State Attorney 11 New Hemstead Road General's Offico New City, N.Y. 10956 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y. 10047 Joan fliles Andrew P. O'Rourke Indian Point Coordinator Westchester. County Executive New York City Audubon Society 148 Martine Avenuo 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 White Plains, N.Y. 10601 New York, N.Y. 10010 Greater New York Council on Energy c/o Dean R. .Corren, Director l New York University j 26 Stuyvesant Street i New York, N.Y. 10003 l
i i
i
r-2 Y
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq. Honorable Richard L. Brodsky New York State Assembly Member of the County Albany, N.Y. 12248 Legislature Westchester County County Office Building White Plains, N.Y. 10601 Renee Schwartz, Esq. Phyllis Rodriguez, Paul Chessin, Esq. Spokesperson Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq. Parents Concerned About Margaret Oppel, Esq. Indian Point Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg P.O. Box 125 200 Park Avenue Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10520 New York, N.Y. 10166 Stanley B. Klimberg Charles A. Scheiner, Co-General Counsel Chairperson New York State Energy Office Westchester People's Action 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Coalition, Inc.
Albany, New York 12223 P.O. Box 488 White Plains, N.Y. 10602 Honorable Ruth Messinger Alan Latman, Esq.
Member of the Council of the 44 Sunset Drive City of New York Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10520 District No. 4 City Hall New York, New York 10007 Richard M. Hartzman, Esq. Zipporah S. Fleisher Lorna Salzman West Branch Conservation Friends of the Earth, Inc. Association 208 West 13th Street 443 Buena Vista Road New York, N.Y. 10011 New City, N.Y. 10956 w t T'*
4 Mayor George V. Begany Judith Kessler, Coordinator Village of Buchanan Rockland Citizens for Safe 236 Tate Avenue Ene rgy Buchanan, N.Y. 10511 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y. 10956 David R. Lewis, Esq. Mr. Donald Davidoff
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Director, Radiological Board Panel Emergency Preparedness U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Group Commission Empire State Plaza l Washington, D.C. 20555 Tower Building, RM 1750 Albany, New York 12237 l
Stewart M. Glass Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Regional Counsel New York Public Interest Room 1349 Research Group, Inc.
Emergency Management 9 Murray Street, Agency 3rd Floor 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10007 New York, New York 10278 Melvin Goldberg Steven C. Sholly Staff Attorney Union of Concerned Scientists New York Public Interest 1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Research Group Suite 1101 9 Murray Street Washington, D.C. 20036 New York, New York 10007 Spence W. Perry Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20472
=
David H. Pikus l
_4_
. .