ML20215E749
| ML20215E749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1953 OL-5, NUDOCS 8612230102 | |
| Download: ML20215E749 (275) | |
Text
.
, , , o s , ,
[3 NfLATED COHH).sPONDEf*U4 TRANSCRIF1 -
~
i OF PROCHKDINGS00KETEn
'86 DEC 19 P1 :50 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CFF NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00C rl '_- .
ATOMIC. SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_x In the Matter of: :
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY :
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, :
Unit 1) :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF FRANK PETRONE i ,
t 4
Monday, December 15, 1986
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stawtvpe1%vrters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 u '
(202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage l 8612230102 861215 800-336-6646 PDR ADOCK 05000322 h 1 T PDR ll t' -
I!
t o 1
,y 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 ___________________________________x 5 In the Mattor of f
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No.
7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, 50-322-OL-5 8 Unit 1) 9 -----------------------------------x ,
10 December 15, 1986
.11 12 Deposition of FRANK PETRONE taken by the Qi - 13 Long Island Lighting Company pursuant to Notice, 14 held at the offices of Hunton & Williams, Esgs.,
15 100 Park Avenue, New York, New York, commencing at 16 10:35 a.m. before Douglas M. Burke, . Shorthand 17 Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New 18 York.
19 i
.20 Ace-Federal Reporter, Inc.
21 444 North Capital Street 22 Washington, D.C. 20001 23 (202) 347-3700 (h. 24 f 25 i
l l
A 'I e
2
-,-[*9 1 A P PE A R A N C E S 2 HUNTON & WILLIAMS, ESQS 3 100 Park Avenue 4 New York, New York 10017 5 Attorneys for Long Island Lighting Company 6 BY: DAVID REES DAVIES, ESQ.
7 and 8 707 East Main Street 9 P.O. Box 1535 l
10 Richmond, Virginia 23212 11 BY: DONALD P. IRWIN, ESQ. and 12 LEE B. ZEUGIN, ESQ.
13 14 FABIAN G. PALOMINO, ESQ.
15 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
16 Deputy special Counsel to the Governer 17 Executive Chamber 4 :
18 Capitol, Room 229 19 Albany, New York 12224 20 21 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, ESQS.
22 1800 M Street, N.W.
23 Washington, D.C. 20036-5891
('j 24 Attorneys for Suffolk County 25 BY: KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQ.
' o 3
fg v .1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 3 THOMAS AINORA, ESQ.
4 Associate General Counsel 5 Federal Emergency Management Agency 6 Office of General Counsel 7 500 C Street, S.W.
8 Washington, D.C. 20472 9
10 BERNARD M. BORDEN CK, ESQ.
11 Office of the General Counsel
'12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 13 washington, D.C. 20555 14 15- ALSO PRESENT:
16 ELAINE D. ROBINSON l
17 JEFFREY M. VIGLIAROLO 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
i (l) 24 25
4 vna 1 F R. A N K P E T R O li E, called as a L.
2 witness, having been first duly sworn by'the 3 Notary,Public (Douglas M. Burke), and 4 stating the residence address as 3 5 Buckingham Drive, Dix Hills, New York, 6 was examined and testified as follows:
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVIES:
. 8 Q. Would you state your name and address 9 for the record, please.
10 A. Frank Petrone, 3 Buckingham Drive, 11 Dix Hills, New York.
12 Q. Ha e you previously testified in any k(
13 proceeding?
14 A. No, I have not.
15 Q. Are you represented today by an 16 attorney?
17 A. Yes, I am.
18 Q. Who is that? l l
19 A. Mr. Palomino.
20 Q. If you don't understand any of my 21 questions, feel free to tell me that. If you l
22 don't, I will assume that you have understood the i 23 question and that your answer is given accordingly.
24 What is your present employment?
l 25 A. I am presently with a manufacturing
o * ,
5
> 1 house mak.ng ladies' garments.
2 Q. What is the name of that house?
3 A. PJ's Place, Inc.
4 Q. Where is your pla'ce of employment?
5 A. Mid-town Manhattan.
6 Q. How long have you been associated 7 with PJ's?
8 A. I would say approximately seven or
. 9 eight months.
10 Q. What is your educational background 11 commencing with college?
12 A. I have a college degree and I have a 13 Master's degree in higher education, in counseling, 14 and I have a Master's degree in public 15 administration.
16 Q. Would you summarize for me your 17 employment history upon graduation?
18 A. Upon graduati.on I worked in a higher 19 education facility. I then moved into a Master's degr ee, 20 completed the Master's degree, worked again for 21 another higher education institution, changed 22 positions to another higher education institution, 23 and at that point then worked for the County of 24 Suffolk 25 Following my stay at the County of
~ ~
r-6 yya -1 Suffolk, I became regional director of FEMA.
L.'
2 Following that I am in my present employment.
3 Q. What is the institution at which you 4 worked immediately prior to joining suffolk?
5 A. Prior to joining Suffo k County I was 6 at Suffolk County Community College.
7 Q. Where is that located?
G A. The campus I was with is Brentwood, 9 New York.
10 Q. How long were you with Suffolk County 11 Community College?
12 A. Approximately three half years.
i; 2-- 13 Q. What was your position there?
14 A. I was director of student affairs, 15 Q. When did you leave Suffolk County 16 Community College and join Suffolk County?
17 A. I left there in 1981, January '81, I 18 believe.
19 Q. What position did you take up in 20 Suffolk County?
21 A. Special assistant to the County 22 Executive. -
23 Q. Is that an appointed position?
j 24 A. Yes.
25 0 Who was responsible for making that
7
,: S 1 appointment?
2 A. The County Executive.
3 Q. Who was the County Executive at that 4 time?
5 A. Peter Cohalan.
6 Q. What were your. duties and 7 responsibilities as special assistant to the 8 County Executive?
9 A. As special assistant to the County 10 Executive I had worked for him in working with 11 various departments in the county and working with 12 varied community organizations and groups.
'~ 13 Were there particular areas of the Q.
14 county's concerns for which you were responsible?
15 A. Not specific.
16 Q. Could you tell me in broadbrush 17 fashion the general areas in which you were 18 engaged during your tenure as a special assistant?
l 19 A. The general areas I would say were in l
20 the human services area.
21 Q. How long did you remain in that 22 position?
23 A. I remained in that position for
('.- 24 approximately one year.
25 O. Did your position change after one
8 1
Ir -i 1 ' year?
L
'2 A. My position changed. '
3 Q. What title did you hold after one 4 year?
5 A. I was then Assistant Deputy County 6 Executive for human resources.
7 Q. When did you take up that position?
8 A. I believe it was January 'C2.
9 Q. What were your responsibilities in 10 that position?
11 A. In that position I was coordinating 12 the various human resources agencies and offices.
13 Q. Did you continue to have any 14 responsibilities as a special assistant to the 15 County Executive?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Did you continue to hold both 18 positions?
19 A. It was basically one position, not 20 two.
21 Q. Were your duties as an Assistant ,
22 County Executive for human resources broader than 23 that position would imply?
r g] 24 A. In certain instances it might have 25 been broad, but basically it was devoted to the
t )
9 fn 1 human resources area.
2 Q. Did someone succeed you in the 3 position of special assistant to the County 4 Executive when you took the position of Assistant 5 to the County Executive?
6 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
7 Q. Did you cease to perform any of the 8 functions which you had performed as a special 9 assistant when you took up your position as an 10 assistant for human resources?
11 A. To the best of my recall, no.
12 Q. You continued to perform those duties ~
13 also?
14 A. I believe so.
15 Q. To whom did you report as a special 16 assistant when you first took up your employment l
[ 17 with the county?
i l 18 A. I reported to the Chief Deputy County 19 Executive.
20 Q. Who was that?
21 A. That was John Gallagher.
22 Q. What was his title?
23 A. Chief Deputy County Executive.
[.7 24 Q. For how long had Mr. Gallagher held i
l 25 that position?
l l=
e 10 1 A. Mr. Gallagher held that position at
- {c 5 2 the time that Mr. Cohalan had been elected.
3 Q. Was that in approximately January of 4 19807 5 A. January '81, actually.
6 Q. 1981?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q.- When did you take up your position 9 with FEMA?
10 A. I took my position with FEMA roughly 11 January, I can't recall the date offhand.
12 Q. How many years were you in the 13 position of Assistant County Executive for human 14 resources?
15 A. One year.
1G Q. During your tenure with the Suffolk 17 county government, did you have any 18 responsibilities with respect to emergency 19 planning for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station?
20 A. I did not.
21 Q. Do you know who within the county 22 government was responsible for coordinating for 23 Shoreham during the time that you were with the
[] 24 county?
25 A. I could not recall at this point.
I s o.
11
~
l 1 Q. During _ the time that you were with r7> -
2 the county did you attend any meetings at which 3 emergency planning for Shoreham was discussed?
4 A. I attended one informational meeting, 5 to the best of my knowledge.
6 Q. Do you recall when that was?
7 A. Shortly after I arrived in the 8 position as special assistant.
9 Q. Where was that meeting held?
10 A. That meeting wi. s held in Mr.
11 Gallagher's office. -
12 Q. Were there persons other than 13 employees of the Suffolk County government in 14 attendance?
15 A. There were.
16 Q. Who were they?
17 A. Ms. Robinson and Mr. Freilicher of 18 LILCO.
19 Q. You characterized that as an i
20 informational meeting?
21 A. It was an informational meeting.
22 Q. Who was communicating information at 23 that meeting?
. ,) 24 A. Mr. Freilicher and Ms. Robinson, 25 basically to Mr. Gallagher.
12 y ;' 1 Q. Were there any documents which were L-2 used in the course of that meeting?
3 A. I don't recall.
4 Q.. Did you take any notes at the meeting?
5 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
6 Q. Do you know whether or not a 7 memorandum was prepared by anyone employed by the 8 county concerning that meeting or anything that 9 was discussed at the meeting?
10 A. I don't recall.
11 Q. Other than that. meeting did you 12 communicate with anyone during your tenure as an 13 employee of the Suffolk County government 14 concerning emergency planning for Shoreham?
15 A. To the best of my knowl dge, no.
16 Q. During your time with the county did 17 you ever review any documents which referred to 18 emergency planning for Shoreham?
19 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
20 Q. During your time with the county did 21 you ever discuss with Mr. Cohalan emergency 22 planning for Shoreham?
23 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
h(] 24 Q. During the time that you were with 25 the county did you have any knowledge of the
i 2 13 1 status of-the county's participation in emergency 2 planning for Shoreham?
3 A. Not specifically, no.
4 Q. During your time with the county did 5 you ever have meetings with representatives of the 6 Suffolk County police department concerning 7 emergency planning for Shoreham?
8 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
9 0 Did you ever have any such meetings 10 with members of the Suffolk County legislature?
11 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
12 Q. Did you ever have any such meetings
(
13 with representatives of New York State?
14 A. To the hast of my knowledge, no.
15 Q. I may have asked you this, but other 16 than the one meeting you mentioned that you had 17 with Eliine Robinson, were there any other 18 meetings with members or representatives of the 19 Long Island Lighting Company? ,
l l 20 A. Not that I can recall.
21 Q. Did you ever author any documents 22 while you were with Suffolk County which referred 23 to or concerned emergency planning for yhoreham?
24 A. No, to the best of my knowledge.
25 O. In the course of your duties as
L 14 l- y a 1 assistant for human resources, did.you ever .
.la 2 communicate with any public or private agencies 3 concerning emergency planning for Shoreham?
4 A. No, to the best of my knowledge.
5 Q. Did Mr. Gallagher have any 6 responsibilities, to your knowledge, for emergency 7 planning for Shoreham? j 8 A. I don't recall.
3 Q. Do you recall any discussions you had 10 with Mr. Gallagher concerning emergency planning?
11 A. No, I don't.
12 Q. Prior to taking your position with
.( .
13 Suffolk County, did you have discussions with Mr.
14 Gallagher concerning the position which you would i
15 take?
16 A. Just prior to taking the position, 17 yes.
l 18 Q. In the course of those discussions 19 did Mr. Gallagher make any reference to Shoreham L 20 or emergency planning for Shoreham?
l l 21 A. No, he did not, to the best of my j 22 knowledge.
23 Q. My questions have been limited to i 24 emergency planning for Shoreham. With the l
25 exception of emergency planning, did you have any l
i
- i. s ,
15 l 1
l 1
,f - 1 ' responsibility.for other activities which 2 concerned Shoreham?
3 A. No, I did not, o the best of my l l
4 knowledge. .
~
5 Q. Did you have meetings with any of the 1
6 persons or entities whom I have named concerning 7 Shoreham on aspects other than emergency planning?
8 A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
9 Q. Do you know today whether or not 10 Suffolk County was engaged in any activities 11 during the period of your employment concerning E12 emergency planning for Shoreham?
l 13 A. Specifically I could not recall.
14 Q. Do you know today whether or not 15 there was any activity by Suffolk County during 16 that period?
17 A. I could not specifically answer 18 either way, other than just basically the general .
19 participation in terms of what I have read during 20 that period of time.
21 Q. What you have read during which t
22 period of time?
23 A. During that period of time I was at 24 the county, because I had no responsibility for 25 emergency planning.
16 Pia 1 Q. During the peri.od of time you were L:
2 with the county what did yo'u read concerning the 3 county's involvement.with or participation in
'4 planning for.Shoreham?
5 'A. At that point it was an issue and it 6 was being basically discussed with regard to their 7 role in emergency planning.
8 Q. Where did you read about that?
9 A. To the best of my knowledge, in the 10 local newspapers.
11 Q. Other than what you may have read in 12 the media, was there anything else that you had LA- 13 read during that period concerning the county's 14 involvement in planning for Shoreham' 15 A. No, not to the best of my knowledge.
16 Q. Did anyone employed by the county or 17 representing the coanty characterize to you during 18 the period when you were employed by the county 19 the attitude of the county owards planning at 20 Shoreham?
21 MS. LETSCHE: I object to that 22 question. I think it is vague and I think you 23 sort of covered the fact that Mr. Petrone has told t-(,] 24 you everything he knows about emergency planning 25 while he was a county employee.
17
,q :- 1 Q. ,
You can answer.
2 THE WITNESS: Counselor?-
3 MR. PALOMINO: Answer it.
4 A. Not that'I recall.
-5 Q. How did you learn of a position with 6 FEMA which you ultimately took up?
7 A. I learned of the position with FEMA 8 through the Republican county chairman.
9 Q. Is that Mr. Prudenti?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. When did you learn of it?
12 A. To the best of my knowledge, sometimes 13 in October prior to my appointment in late January.
14 Q. Was that October of '81 or October 15 of '82?
16 A. I would have to look at that.
17 (Document handed) 18 A. That would be October 1981.
j 19 Q. Generally what were the discussions 20 that you had with Mr. Prudenti at that time 21 concerning the position with FEMA?
22 A. The discussions were basically that 23 the position was available and if I would be
, .j 24 interested in pursuing that position.
25 Q. What was the position discussed?
& 9 -
18
. f9' 1 A. It was regional director of FEMA.
r*~
2 Q.
Were-you familiar with the 3 organization.known as FEMA at that time?
4 A. No, I was not.
5 Q.- Had you had any communications with 6 FEMA or representatives of FEMA during the time - --
7 that you were employed by Suffolk County or indeed 8 prior thereto?
9 A. No, I had not.
10 Q. Other than discussions with Mr.
11 Prudenti did.you have discussions with other 12 persons prior to determining that you were i
L" 13 interested in the position at FEMA?
14 A. To the best of my recollection, I had 15 discussions with a staff member on l
16 Senator D'Amato's staff.
l 17 Q. Do you recall the name of that person?
l 18 A. . No, I do not.
L 19 Q. Did Mr. Prudenti tell you how you 20 could secure the position at FEMA which you 21 discussed with him?
22 A. No, he did not.
i 23 Q. What did he tell you about FEMA as an
)
, 24 organization and the activities conducted by FEMA?
25 A. To the best of my knowledge, he i
l
19
,;p- 1 related to me that it was the emergency management 2 agency for the federal government and specifically 3 involved in disasters.
4 Q. Did you and Mr. Prudenti-at any time 5 between October of 1981 and January of 1982 6 discuss FEMA's role with respect to emergency 7 planning?
8 A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
9 -Q. Did Mr. Prudenti ask you whether or 10 not you had any personal views concerning 11 emergency planning for Shoreham?
12 A. No, not to the best of my knowledge.
13 Q. Did the staff member employed by Mr.
14 D'Amato discuss with you any personal views which 15 you held concerning emergency planning at Shoreham?
,16 A. No, not to the best of my knowledge.
17 Q. Did you at that time hold personal 18 views with respect to emergency planning at i
! 19 Shoreham?
l l- 20 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
21 Q. Do you today?
22 A. Let's just say that my position is l 23 continually evolving and still tremendous thought
(,j 24 has to be given to this.
l l 25 Q. When did your position with respect l
l
s _ .
r 20 y-' 1 to FEMA begin to be something which was evolving?-
2 A. Excuse me?
3 Q. When did your position with respect 4 to FEMA begin to be something which was evolving?
-5 A. Initially during our initial stages 6 of involvements with the Shoreham facility.
7 Q. When you say "our involvement," to 8 whom do you refer?
9 A. FEMA.
10 Q. Did Mr. Prudenti tell you how you 11 could take the position of regional director with 12 FEMA?
~-
- f. .
1"" 13 A. No, he did not, to the best of my 14 knowledge.
15 Q. What did he tell you about that 16 position other than describing it for you as you 17 told me and asking you if you were interested?
18 A. Just that if I were interested at 19 this point, he would contact Senator D'Amato and 20 we would pursue it further.
21 Q. Did he tell you why he needed to 22 contact Senator D'Amato?
23 A. No, he did not.
j 24 Q. Do you know who was responsible for 25 making an appointment to the regional director
r
.. o 21'
,c - 1 position?
2 A. To the best of my knowledge, the 3 director of the agency.
4- Q. In October of 1981 do you know 5- whether or not there was a regional director in i 6 New Y o r k-i n Region II of FEMA?
7 A. To the best of my knowledge, there 8 was an acting regional director.
9 Q. Did you tell Mr. Prudenti that.you 10 were interested?
11 A. I at that point just told him that I -
12 would be interested in pursuing.
t,
'" M 13 Q. Was it based upon that stat _ ment that 14 he arranged for you to meet with a staff member 15 from Senator D'Amato's staff?
l 16 A. I don't recall.
17 Q. What was the next thing that happened
- 18 concerning your interest in the regional director's I
l' 19 position?
20 A. I spoke to someone on the Senator's 21 staff and learned somewhat more about the position 22 and then I had a period I had to be thinking about 23 whether or not I would be interested in pursuing l , . .j 24 it, i
I
! 25 Q. Did you have discussions with anyone i
22 j.-y 1 else concerning the position?
L.
2 A. To the best of my knowledge, I did 3 not, .other than my family.
4 Q. Did you discuss with your family any 5 aspects of emergency planning for Shoreham during 6 your discussions concerning the regional director's 7 position?
8 A. To the best of my knowledge, no, I 9 never considered Shoreh m the main part of the 10 position, 11 Q. Were you aware prior to taking the 12 position that FEMA had certain responsibilities 13 for emergency planning?
14 A. Vaguely, somewhat.
15 Q. Prior to taking the position as 16 regional director did you read any documents which 17 contained information concerning FEMA, its 18 organization and activities?
19 A. To the best of my knowledge, I just 20 looked at the federal handbook that described the 21 agency and some of its functions.
22 Q. When did you receive the position?
23 A. Late January 1982.
j 24 Q. Is that when you commenced your 25 activities as regional director?
r 4 *1 sw 23 j~ l A. Yes.
2 Q '. When did you receive the appointment?
3 A. I think the actual appointment came 4 sometime in January '82.
5 . Q. That'was to the position of regional 6 director, Region II, is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You held that position for how long?
9 A. Approximately four and a half years, 10 a little bit more than four years.
11 Q. Until February of this year, 19867 12 A. April.
?
13 Q. During your tenure as regional 14 director of Region II of FEMA, what were the 15 responsibilities of FEMA with respect to off-site 16 radiological planning?
17 A. To the best of my knowledge, the 18 responsibilities were that of working with state 19 and local government with respect to off-site 20 emergency planning around fixed nuclear facilities.
21 Q. What were your responsibilities in 22 particular as regional director with respect to 23 those FEMA activities?
, 24 A. My responsibility was to oversee the 25 various operations that dealt specifically with
-24
- 1. ~ i 1 the programs.
L' 2 Q. To whom did you report?
3 A. I reported to the director of the 4 agency'.
5 Q. Where is the director's office 6 located?
7 A. Washington, D.C.
, 8 Q. Were there any documents that you 9 reviewed or which were shown to you at any time 10 which delineated the authority of Region II with 11 respect to FEMA's activities for off-site planning?
12 A. I don't recall at this point.
r-13 Q. Did you have any discussions with 14 anyone during your tenure at FEMA concern'ing the 15 authority of Region II with respect to off-site 16 planning? ,
17 MS. LETSCHE: Could I have a 18 clarification? Are you talking about off-site ,
19 planning for fixed nuclear facilities?
20 MR. DAVIES: Yes.
21 A. I would assume yes. Specifically I 22 could not tell you.
23 Q. You don't recall any in particular?
C-gj 24 A. No, I don't.
25 Q. Do you recall the substance of the
n
. o. p 25
,. 1 content of any such discussions?
2 A. Just basically the content and 3 subject dealing basically with the fact that FEMA 4 works with state and local governments and that 5 this program, similar to other programs, they 6 would be working in state and local government.
7 Q. What, if any, involvement did t'he 8 national office of FEMA have with respect to such 9 activities?
10 A. To the best of my knowledge, they 11 would work with the regional operations with 12 regard to reviewing technical aspects of any type
,n '
k-- 13 of reviews or e v a ,l u a t i o n s .
14 Q. Did the FEMA regional office have 15 responsibility for the approval of off-site plans?
16 A. To the best of my knowledge, they had 17 the responsibility for recommending.
18 Q. To whom would such recommendations be 19 made?
20 A. The associate director of state and 21 local government, state and local planning.
22 Q. For what purpose would such 23 recommendations be made?
t , 24 A. To the best of my knowledge, for 25 submission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
26 v:m . 1 Q. What was the basis upon which the t
2 regional office formulated a recommendation?
~
3 A. Following a long technical review and 4 recommendations submitted through the RAC 5 Committee.
6 Q. During the time you were with FEMA, 7 were there criteria by which you performed your 8 review and formula.ted a recommendation?
9 A. Very difficult to recall because the 10 criteria kept changing.
11 Q. Do you know of any documents which 12 set forth any criteria used for that purpose?
7 b-- 13 A. To the best of my knowledge, I can't 14 recall.
15 Q. Did the criteria change throughout 16 the period of time that you were with FEMA?
17 A. There were changing criteria, correct, 18 but I just could not recall when and how and what 19 did change.
20 Q. Can you recall the name of any 21 document which would contain or which did contain 22 during this period of time criteria for the review 23 and evaluation of off-site plans?
,j 24 A. The only document that would come to 25 mind is that of the document containing FEMA's 350
o O &
27 1 process and that of 0654.
2 Q. When you refer to the 350 process, 3 are you referring to provisions of the Code of 4 Federal Regulations? ,
s 5 A. I cannot recall what provisions I am 6 referring to other than the 350 process in and of 7 itself.
8 Q. When you referred to 0654, are you 9 referring to that document which is known as NUREG 10 0654 REP l?
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. Was that a document you used in the 13 course of your activities as regional director?
14 A. I know it was a document that my 15 staff used.
16 Q. Does that document contain criteria 17 by which off-site plans are evaluated?
l 18 A. To the best of my knowledge, it does.
I 19 Q. Other than that and the provisions of I.
20 section 350, are.you aware of any other documents
.21 which contain criteria for the evaluation of i
22 off-site plans?
23 A. Not to the best of my knowledge and
, 24 my recall at this point.
25 Q. Do you know when NUREG 0654 first l
l l
l t
F .m , . .
f i f.;( .
s-p :j < ; ,
' -> r J I' 28
$k.
W l came into e'x i s t'e n c e ?
.PJ ..
2 A. I could not recall that.
~
jg 3 Q. ,
Do you know what it is? Do you know
- 4 how it came into existence?
. 5 ,
A. Not specifically, no, I don't. ,
y,
.. , / 6 Q. Do you know whether or not that document has e title other than NUREG 0654 FEMA
'8 REP l? '
'9 A .\ No, I don't.
'{Li 1
,~ '
10 Q. Have you ever seen that document?
l
'J 4 11 A. I believe I have seen'it, yes.
'12 Q. Do you know whether.or not the 13 document contains standards which apply to off-site 14 planning?
15 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
16 Q. Are you familiar with any regulations 17 promulgated by the NRC with respect to'off-site 18 planning?
19 A. I could not recall at this point.
20 Q. During your time as regional director, 21 Region II of FEMA, were you familiar with
'22 regulations of the NRC concerning off-site 23 planning?
24 A. I would say I was familiar to the r]
[,
25 extent that my staff was very familiar with it.
, u 29
. -- 1 Q. Were the activities of Region II with
~
2 respect to the evaluation of off-site planning 3 activities largely conducted by staff members 4 rather than by yourself as regional director?
5 A. The ongoing, every-day activities 6 were conducted by staff members.
7 Q. What were your responsibilities as 8 regional director with respect to those activities?
9 A. I would oversee those activities.
10 Q. Did you yourself ever engage in an 11 evaluation of an off-site plan by reference to any 12' Ho f the standards in NUREG 0654?
'# I recall being involved in 13 A.
14 evaluations of plans.
15 .Q. What involvement do you recall?
16 A. The basic reports that would come 17 from my staff, their extensive reviews and their 18 recommendations.
19 Q. Do you know whether or not any of the 20 standards set forth in NUREG 0654 are reflected in 21 regulations promulgated by the NRC?
22 A. Could you repeat that, please.
23 (Record read.)
24 A. I could not specifically recall, but 25 I believe they are.
30 rc 1 Q. Are you familiar with a document L:
2 known as Guidance Memorandum 17?
3 A. No,-I.am not.
4 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 5 mark as Exhibit A a multi-page document bearing on 6 the front page the heading " Guidance Memorandum 17, 7 Revision 1, . Technological Standards."
8 (Petrone. Exhibit A marked for 9 identification, as of this d a t e.. )
10 Q. I ask you to review that document and 11 tell me when you have done so.
12 (Witness complies with request.)
r-
~
13 Q. Have you reviewed that document?
14 A. Briefly.
15 Q. Have you ever seen it before?
16 A. I don't recall seeing it specifically, 17 no.
18 Q. During the course of your employment
- 19 as regional director, Region II, did you ever have l 20 occasion to work with this document?
21 A. I could not recall whether or not I 22 worked with the document.
23 Q. Do you know what it is?
r' ,.gj 24 A. Basically the document sets forth 25 some guidance with regard to pre-exercise and l
3 - 4 31 es 1 post-exercise activities.
2 Q. Do you know whether or not'this 3 document plays any role in the review .and 4 evaluation by FEMA of off-site plans?
5 A. I believe it is relative to the 350 6 process.
7 Q. Do you know what significance it has 8 with respect to that process?
9 A. I believe it sets time lines. As I 10 am reading it, I believe it sets time lines in 11' terms of the exercise.
12 Q. Is this document used by FEMA with
~
13 -respect to the evaluation or formulation of 14 recommendations with respect to exercises 15 conducted for off-site plans?
16 A. I can't recall at this point. I 17 haven't had a chance to extensively review it.
18 Q. Based upon your experience as 19 regional director of FEMA, Region II, can you 20 answer that question?
21 A. I would say it plays a role. To what 22 extent, I cannot recall.
23 Q. Referring to attachment 1 which 1
24 follows pag'e 5 of Exhibit A, do you know what the 25 36 items set forth under attachment 1 are?
32
- t 1 A.- To the best of my knowledge, .they 2 represent the various objectives and elements that 3 are to be evaluated _in'an exercise of state and 4 local government.
5 Q. Do you know-who formulated those 6 objectives?
7 A. No, I can't recall that.
8 Q. Do you know how those objectives 9 relate to the standards set forth in NUREG 0654?
10 A. I believe they correspond to NUREG 11 0654.
12 Q. Do you know how those objectives Et 13 relate, if at al1, to any of the regulations of 14 the NRC concerning planning and the exercise?
15 A. I could not tell you at this point 16 how they relate individually.
17 Q. Did you have any occasion during your 18 cmployment with FEMA to review, evaluate or make 19 recommendations with respect to an exercise by 20 reference to any of the objectives set forth in 21 -attachment 1 of Exhibit A?
22 A. I don't recall.
23 Q. You don't recall ever having done kj 24 that?
25 A. I don't recall. It has been a long
33
,-. 1 time.
2 Q. Based upon your experience as 3 regional director, Region II of FEMA, do you have 4 an opinion as to whether any of those objectives 5 are more important for the purposes of an 6 evaluation of an exercise by FEMA?
7 A. Based on my own experiences, they are 8 all important.
9 Q. Based upon your experience is it your 10 view that each of those objectives is of equal 11 importance?
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to that as 13 asked and answered already, but you may answer.
14 A. They are of equal importance.
15 Q. If you refer to the next page 16 following the fourth page of attachment 1, again 17 in Exhibit A, do you see a memorandum dated 18 January 8, 1981? .
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Is that a document that you have seen 21 before?
22 A. I don't recall.
23 Q. Does the term or phrase " guidance je 24 memorandum" have a particular meaning with respect 25 to the establishment of policy within FEMA?
34 t . -J .1 A. It is a t,e r m I think that was
- L 2 utilized for just about every program in terms of 3 guidance memorandum, namely guidance, the key, I 4 think.
5 Q. Is guidance memorandum a term that is 6 applied to certain kinds-of communications within 7 FEMA?
8 A. _I can't recall the-internal structure 9 of FEMA at this point.
10 Q. Do you know whether or not there are 11 particular subject areas to which the use of the 12 term " guidance memorandum" is reserved?
1 -
13 A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
14 Q. Do you know whether or not there are 15 -particular levels of policy to which the term "guidanc e 16 memorandum" is reserved?
17 A. To the best of my knowledge, I don't 18 believe it is reserved, but again, I don't really 19 recall.
l I
20 Q. Referring"to the two pages that 21 follow that memorandum, have you seen those before?
22 A. I don't recall.
23 MR. DAVIES: The first of those pages
, j 24 is a document which bears a heading " Joint 25 Exercise Procedures." The second bears a heading
- o. 1 .
35 y 1 which I think is " Milestones For Exercise, 2 Information and Critique."
3 Q. Does that seem-correct to you?
4 A. Your eyes are better than mine. I 5 can't make this out.
6 Q. Do you have any recollection of 7 having seen this document before?
8 A. No, I don't.
9 .Q. Other than this document or NUREG 10 0654 or part 350, are you aware of any other 11 documents w'hich were promulgated by, used by or 12 referred-to by FEMA or any persons within FEMA
'l 13 concerning the evaluation of planning or of 14 exercises of plans?
15 A. I couldn't recall at this point.
16 Q. Are you familiar with the term " full 17 participation e x e r t: i s e " ?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What does that term mean?
20 A. To the best of my knowledge and 21 recollection, it means a full participation of 22 state and local government.
23 Q. In what, sir?
24 A. In the planning and exercising of 25 fixed facilities, nuclear facilities.
._, _ . __ 1 _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ .
36
- p. 1 Q. Are you aware of any documents which
- C_'.
2 set forth criteria by which full participation may 3 be measured?
4 A. At this point in time I can only 5' recall the 350 process as you have stated it, 6 presented it h e r e . - ---
7 Q. By "here" you are referring to 8 Guidance Memorandum 17, Exhibit A?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Are you familiar with the term 11 " full-scale exercise"?
12 A. At this point in time somewhat, yes.
.t.
'^J 13 Q. What does that term mean?
14 A. To the best of my recollection, it 15 means the full participation of state and local 16 government in an exercise that measures the 17 various objectives and elements as delineated by 18 the 350 process in NUREG 0654.
19 Q. Do you use the terms " full-scale" and 20 " full participation" interchangeably with respect 21 to exercises of off-site plans?
22 A. Do I use them interchangeably, is 23 that the question?
F..
- p. 1 24 Q. Yes.
25 A. At this point I would use them, at
37
,l 1 this point in time I would use them 2 interchangeably.
3 Q. During your time with FEMA did you 4 use those terms interchangeably?
5 A. I might have, but I really can't 6 recall specifically.
7 Q. Do you know whether other 8 representatives of FEMA use those terms 9 interchangeably?
10 A. I can't recall.
11 Q. Are you aware of any amendments or 12 revisions or drafts of changes to Guidance Memo 17, I
13 Exhibit A?
14 A. No, I am not, to the best of my 15 recollection.
16 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 17 mark as Exhibit B a multi-page document described 18 as a draft, bearing a date of 8/15/86 with the 19 heading " Guidance Memorandum EX-3."
20 (Petrone Exhibit B marked for 21 identification, as of this date.)
22 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review 23 Exhibit B?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Have you seen this document before?
6
. - - - , , - - - - - - - - - - . , - , , - - - - - - - - --.---.,e--w-
38
[f . -1 A. N o', ' I haven't.
U. -
2 Q. Are you aware of any differences of 3 meaning between the terms " full-scale" and " full 4 participation" when applied to an exercise of 5 off-site planning?
6 A. Am I aware of any differences between 7 those two terms?
8 Q. Yes, sir.
9 MS. LETSCHE: Point of clarification.
10 When applied by whom?
11 MR. DAVIES: By anyone. If he tells 12 me differences, we will explore it.
13 . A. I believe I would be aware of the 14 fact that full-scale would mean a full-scale 15 exercise measuring all elements of the plan as it 16 has been submitted, and full participation, 17 meaningful participation of all entities that 18 would be involved in a.n exercise as it is written 19 by its plan, and specifically state and local l
20 government. May I be excused a moment.
21 (Recess taken.)
22 Q. Is it your belief that any exercise 23 lacking state and local government participation F
l j 24 cannot be a full participation exercise?
25 A. Yes, it is.
l I
39 g~ l Q. Do you know of any regulation which 2 provides a basis for a distinction between the 3 ts as ~" full-scale" and " full participation" when 4 applied to an exercise of an off-site plan?
5 A. I could not recall at this point, no.
6 Q. Do you know what the> Regional 7 Assistance Committee is?
8 A. To the best of my knowledge, it is a 9 technical staff of representatives from various 10 federal agencies that work with the radiological l'1 program. -
12 Q. Whose radiological program?
-Gi 13 A. Work with the FEMA REP radiological 14 program.
15 Q. What is the function of the regional 16 assistance committee, which I will refer to as RAC?
17 A. To the best of my knowledge, the '
18 function is to review plans, make recommendations, l 19 to review exercise evaluations and to make 1
20 recommendations.
21 Q. Did you say that the function was to 22 review exercise evaluations?
- 23 A. To the best of my knowledge, the j 24 function, part of the function is to review 25 exercise evaluations of various elements within an
40 te N .1 exercise.
C. '
2 Q. Whose evaluations of exercises are 3 reviewed by RAC7 4 A. To the best of my knowledge, the 5 -evaluations of various team leaders and observers 6 of exercises.
7 Q. To whom does RAC make recommendations 8 concerning plans?
9 A. To the best of my knowledge, a 10 recommendation would go to FEMA.
11 Q. To FEMA headquarters in Washington?
12 A. To the regional office.
i i
' 13 Q. To whom does RAC make recommendations 14 concerning exercises?
15 A. I would say they would make the same 16 recommendations to the same place, t. o the best of 17 my knowledge, to the regional office.
18 Q. What responsibility does the regional 19 office have with respect to RAC recommendations 20 concerning plans?
21 A. To the best of my knowledge, to 22 review those recommendations and to implement some 23 of those recommendations, to the best of my
[ 24 knowledge. It has been a while.
25 Q. With respect to RAC recommendations
41 3 1 on exercises and evaluations of exercises, what is 2 the responsibility and role of the regional FEMA 3 office?
4 A. To the best of my knowledge, the role 5 is to submit a recommendation for submission to 6 the -Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Washington, 7 FEMA Washington.
8 Q. During the period when you were 9 regional director, Region II, did you ever have 10 occasion to change a RAC report with respect to 11 any plan or exercise? .
12 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
13 Q. Do you know whether or not there are 14 criteria upon which any change to or evaluation of 15 a RAC report by a regional office would be made?
16 A. To the best of my recall, I don't 17 know.
18 Q. When you joined FEMA in January of 19 1982, were there any commercial nuclear plants 20 op'erating in Region II?
21 A. I believe so, yes.
22 Q. Do you know which they were?
23 A. I believe there was Indian Point, the 24 plant up in Oswego, the Salem plant and plant in 25 Tom's River, to the best of my knowledge.
42
- v. > 1 Q. The one in Tom's River is Oyster Li 2 -Creek?
3 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
4 Q. What was the one in Oswego?
5 A. I don't recall the exact name at this 6 point.
7 Q. Those-plants all had full operating 8 licenses when you joined FEMA.?
9 A. I believe they did, yes, to the best 10 of my knowledge.
11 Q. During the time that you were 12 employed as regional director, Region II FEMA, b-~ 13 were there any full-scale exercises held within 14 your region?
15 A. Yes, there were.
16 Q. Do you know approximately how many?
17 A. I can't recall how many. I would say 18 several.
- 19 MR. DAVIES
- I ask the reporter to l
20 mark as Exhibit C a two-page document promulgated 21 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 22 entitled " Fact Sheet" and dated 2/10/86.
23 (Petrone Exhibit C marked for
(,j 24 identification, as of this date.)
~
25 Q. I will ask you to look in particular
.. i j
43
>_ 1 at the fourth paragraph.of this document which 2 begins "Since 1981." Does that refresh your 3 recollection to any extent concerning the number 4 of exercises conducted by FEMA during your tenure?
5 ,
A. It reflects only the fact that it was 6 in writing here and it is a fact sheet, and I so 7 accept it.
8 Q. Of the 17 full-scale exercises 9 referred to in this document as having been 10 conducted by FEMA Region II staff since 1981, how 11 many were during your tenure?
12 MS. LETSCHE: Let me note my
. ~ .
'~
13 objection to the record. I assumed you were doing 14 some general background before you got into the 15 Shoreham exercise, which is in issue. I object to 16 the relevance of questioning about 17 exercises at 17 other plants that took place six years prior to 18 the one we are litigating here.
19 Q. Do you have the question in mind?
20 The question was how many of the 17 full-scale 21 exercises were conducted during your tenure?
22 A. I could not recall.
23 Q. How many of these full-scale
(; 24 exercises involved participation by state and 25 local governments? .
44 Ig u 1 MS. LETSCHE: > Note my objection again 1..
2 to that question. If you are going to continue to 3 ask about other exercises, I would like to have a 4 c6ntinuing objection to anything other than 5 questions going to the February 13, 1986 exercise G of the LILCO plan for the Shoreham plant.
7 Q. The question is how many of the 17 8 involved participation by state and local 9 governments?
10 A. To the best of my knowledge, all.
11 . Q. Did these exercises involve plans 12 which had been reviewed against the criteria of 13 NUREG 0654?
14 A. To the best I my knowledge, I believe 15 so.
16 Q. Were they exercises which were 17 conducted to determine whether or not the plan 18 satisfied the objectives of NUREG 6054?
19 A. To the best of my knowledge, I 20 believe so.
21 Q. Do you know whether or not the 22 exercises as conducted were adequate to test the 23 plans?
.4 24 A. I could not recall at this point.
25 Q. Do you recall what your involvement
45 s 1 was in any of the exercises conducted during your 2 tenure?
3 MR. PALOMINO: I object on the 4 grounds of relevance. I think - they are different 5 exercises. There is a motion pending right now to 6 determine whether or not you have a right to go 7 into this subject. You are not specifying which 8 exercises, what time, and as he said, they are 9 totally different in that they didn't have state 10 and local participation. I mean they all had, and 11 the particular one at Shoreham which we are here 12 to discuss, doesn't, so I am objecting on the 13 grounds of relevance for all those reasons.
14 MR. DAVIES: Are you directing him 15 not to answer?
16 MR. PALOMINO: I guess so, yes, I 17 would.
18 MR. DAVIES: I think, as you well 19 know, we clearly take the position that the other 20 exercises have a great deal of relevance to the 21 issues --
22 MR. PALOMINO: I understand. There 23 is a discovery motion pending to determine that.
'[ y 24 At this point I direct hin not to answer.
25 MR. DAVIES: I think that we clearly
46 i
j p; 1 will need to seek a ruling at an early date with z
2 respect. to that. direction.
3 MR. PALOMINO:- I understand. If it 4 is favorable, then you can go into it.
5 MR. DAVIES: Of course if that ruling 6 requires that we reconvene, the added burden is 7 one which I think is unwarranted. I think your
-8 objection can be preserved upon the record. Mr.
9 Petrone can testify to the best of his 10 recollection concerning those issues, and if 11 indeed we do not prevail with respect to that 12 issue, that testimony would not be able t~o be used 13 by us by reason of the objection which you have 14 asserted in a timely fashion.
15 The alternative, of course, involves 16 a considerable burden both of cost --
17 MR. PALOMINO: When the discovery i
18 motion is decided, I don't think you have to have i
19 a separate application.
- 20 MR. DAVIES
- The difficulty that I I
- 21 have is that if ultimately the board rules that t
! 22 this is an area which is relevant and an area in 23 which we are entitled to make inquiry of this and n
g,,3 24 other witnesses --
(
j 25 MR. PALOMINO: By the same token if i
2 47 ep 'l it is not, we are going to spend three hours today tf 2 going into it, which is also a burden.
3 MR. DAVIES: It would not be three 4 hours, but we are all here today for this 5 deposition.
6 MR. PALOMINO: We are going to be 7 here for many of them.
8 MR. DAVIES: We are certainly not 9 going to be here for this one, and it will require 10 that we reconvene, which is a burden of cost as 11 well as logistics in a proceeding which is already 12 telescoped into a short period of time.
'~
13 MR. IRWIN: I have a suggestion.
14 That is that first of all I think under the usual 15 stipulations we discussed earlier all objections 16 are preserved except as to form and it seems to me 17 you have said nothing that doesn't go.
18 MR. PALOMINO: We didn't enter into 19 the usual stipulations. I explained them.
L 20 MR. IRWIN: In the alternative it may 21 be useful during a break to seek the guidance of 22 the board. There is a burden of all parties 23 having to reconvene the deposition unnecessarily,
(, 24 and it has been the practice in this proceeding to 25 inquire into areas considered by one party to be
- ~
48 7"3 1 not relevant but not privileged. No privilege has 2 been asserted. ,
3 MR. PALOMINO: I think that is a 4 reasonable alternative. During a break we can 5 seek the guidance of the board. That may be 6 premature because the board really has this on 7 discovery and before them now it may prejudice 8 their view on a motion.
- 9. MR. IRWIN: It is our view that on 10 deposition one is~ entitled to explore areas which 11 may conceivably be of relevance. It is the usual 12 procedure which has been followed in this case,
" -- 13 which I think is consistent with the procedure 14 followed in other proceedings, which is to inquire 15 into matters for which no claim of privilege has 16 been made.
17 MS. LETSCHE: In the past there have 18 been instances where there have be.en instructions 19 not to answer on .elevancy grounds. Perhaps we 20 can proceed with your questions which no one is 21 going to dispute here, which is those that go to 22 the Shoreham exercise, and at least get through l
23 those, and let everyone think a little further l r 24 about what position they want to take or how this l j,]j 25 all works out with respect to these other l -. , . -
- = -
49
,- 1 questions as to which the staue and county are i ,
2 objecting, but at least we can be accomplishing 3 something productive by getting some relevant 4 questions asked and answered.
5 MR. IRWIN: I agree with that. I was 6 simply suggesting that we find out what the board's 7 schedule is so in case the issue does not resolve 8 itself, we can calendar a time.
9 MR. PALOMINO: Why don't we reserve 10 until the end today and.we can see.
11 MR. IRWIN: What I am afraid is that 12 it is going to get to be 3:30 and everybody will 13 find it inconvenient.
14 MR. PALOMINO: If you are going to go 15 into all these different sites, which are 16 irrelevant, we are definitely going to have more 17 than one meeting anyway. There is no problem with 18 it. At least put the relevant stuff on, then 19 start on it. If you have to go into another one, 20 it would have been a meeting you would have gone 21 into anyway. If you feel it is that important to 22 go into those areas --
23 MR. IRUIN: We believe it is 24 important to go into these arear and it would be 25 far more convenient to discuss it today rather
50 vi 1 than. bring.everybody back.
L.
2 MR PALOMINO: What you are doing is 3 projecting two meetings. You are saying if we go 4 into two if we start these others, it will make a 5 second meeting. If you wanted to go into it to 6 that extent it would make two meetings anyway.
7 MR. IRWIN: We will not be going into 8 it that deeply. However, we believe the subject 9 matter is relevant.
10 MR. PALOMINO: Then put it to the end 11 and we will have enough time. I am suggesting we 12 go through it and then we will have time and by that time maybe our position will be different.
13 14 MR. IRWIN: Do you object to my 15 requesting Mr. Zeugin to call the board?
16 MR. PALOMINO: I think it might 17 prejudice their view of something they have been 18 deliberating on and should give deliberation to in 19 order to just resolve this question which we might 20 in time resolve here today.
21 MR. IRWIN: Let's go on to the lunch 22 break and if we haven't changed the outcome of the 23 current impasse, I am going to request Mr. Zeugin
[y 24 to call the board and anybody can join in. I 25 think it is important to try to get the issue
51
> 1 explored today, if we can.
2 MR. PALOMINO: Okay.
3 MR. DAVIES: At this point you are 4 asserting an objection to any and all questions 5 concerning any FEMA activities in Region II with 6 respect to planning or the exercise of plans for 7 any nuclear plants other than Shoreham?
8 MR. PALOMINO: Up to what I have let 9 you go into already as far as the general overview 10 of what the agency's responsibilities are to those 11 plants, the fact that there is a number of them, 12 17 of them and so forth, yes.
13 MS. LETSCHE: I will note for the 14 record that you have now spent about an hour and 15 fifteen minutes going over exactly that, the 16 general activities of Region II with respect to 17 presumably all nuclear plants in that area, and
. 18 Mr. Palomino let Mr. Petrone let answer all of 19 those questions.
20 MR. DAVIES: I think the record will 21 be a pretty clear reflection of what we have been 22 doing today. I appreciate your guidance.
23 Q. With respect to Shoreham to which we
".,, 24 are now limited under instructions of your counsel, 25 could you tell me generally what FEMA's activities
52 i
i T"9' 1 were during-thi period from '82 until you left L:
2 that office with respect to Shoreham?
3 A. To the best of my recollection, FEMA's 4 activities were based in making decisions as to 5 whether or not to proceed with plan reviews and 6 then ultimately to proceed with exercise 7 development and actual exercise.
8 Q. What was the role that you played as 9 regional. director with respect to those activities?
10 A. I oversaw the actual activity and the 11 actual workings of the various technical 12 professionals that were involved in the. process.
L- 13 Q. Did you consult with any FEMA 14 employees in Washington with respect to these 15 activities?
16 A. Constantly.
17 Q. Did you seek approval from FEMA 18 officials in Washington with respect to these 19 activities?
20 A. To the best of my knowledge, I did.
21 Q. Were there issues or particular 22 activities with respect to which t: h e approval or 23 authority of FEMA employees in Washington was 24 required?
25 A. I can't recall specifically, but I
53 rg 1 know that there was tremendous concurrence with Di 2 people 'n i Washington, especially with this project, 3 based on.the fact that the policy in FEMA has 4 constantly changed.
5 Q. There was concurrence between Region 6 II and FEMA headquarters; is that correct?
7 A. There is usually concurrence with 8 regard to some of the objections.
9 Q. Was there concurrence with respect to 10 any other aspects of these activities between 11 Region II and headquarters?
12 A. I can't recall. It has been a long
(?
' 13 process.
14 Q. During this period did you 15 communicate with LILCO representatives concerning 16 these activities?
17 A. I think we communicated, to the best 18 of my knowledge, only at the very few meetings
! 19 that the region had been involved in.
20 Q. Were there communications with 21 Suffolk County or representatives of Suffolk 22 County?
23 A. I believe the only communication with
.. y 24 Suffolk County was that of a meeting in Suffolk l
25 County with a principal, Mr. Speck, had a meeting l
l
[ . . . . -
54
. ! ;.1 1 with Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Cohalan, and I was L:
2 present there with Mr. Speck, but to the best of 3 my knowledge, that is the only involvement I had 4 in terms of a meeting with Suffolk County.
5 Q. When was that meeting?
6 A. To the best of my recollection, we 7 are talking, to the best of my knowledge I believe 8 it was October '85, around that period of time.
9 Q. Did you have communications with New 10 York State concerning these activities?
11 MS. LETSCHE: I have forgotten what 12 the activities are you are referring t o ~.
'- 13 MR. DAVIES: The activities were 14 decisions concerning plan review, exercise 15 development and actually exercising.
16 A. To the best of my knowledge, I had no 17 communication with New York State specifically.
18 Q. During this period of time did you 19 have any communications with the Kirkpatrick law 20 firm or any member of that law firm or 21 representative of that firm?
22 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
23 Q. When did you first meet Herb Brown, I a 24 an attorney with that firm?
25 MS. LETSCHE: Objection. I don't
55 (d. 1 recall the relevance of any of this stuff from 2 1982 on to the matters at issue *here, which is the 3 February 13, 1986 exercise. Obviously some 4 background questioning is okay and I haven't 5 objected to that, but I thought the idea here was 6 to get in the relevant questions et this point.
7 (Recess taken.)
8 A. I don't recall. I believe there was 9 one meeting where FEMA met with LILCO, FEMA Region 10 II people, and it was at a LILCO facility. That 11 was early out where there was a discussion in 12 terms of emergency planning, and I believe that's 13 the first time I had ever met Mr. Brown.
14 Q. When you say that was early out, can 15 you put a time frame on that meeting?
16 A. I think it was sometime in the spring, 17 early spring of '82.
18 Q. This was very shortly after you took 19 up your position?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. When was the first occasion that you 22 recall that FEMA was asked specifically to 23 undertake activities concerning a plan for an
., 24 exercise at Shoreham?
25 A. I don't recall specifically when.
., 7 , , , -, .- ? "'
56 c
1 F91 1 MR. DAVIES: I ask the' reporter to L '
2 mark as Exhibit D a document on the letterhead of 3 the United States Nuclea 'Regulat,ory Commission 4 dated June 1, 1983. ,;
/
5 (Petrone Exhibit D marked for dh;didentification, as of this date.)
7 Q. Does that refresh your recollection .
8 concerning a request being made upon FEMA for al
, 9 review of LILCO's planning?
10 +
'l"A. I can't recall specificaliy. Here is
~
^ '
a memo,.b'ut.I can't ~ recall specifically other than 11 1.'
w .
12 the'f'act / that what's here is the LILCO county plan i.-
Ll 13 is b e'i n g ' ' d i s c u s s e d .
8 14 Q. Do you recall receiving at copy of 15 this memorandum at or about the date it bears,
~1 16 June l?
17 A. ,I don't recall.
18 Q. Do you recall being asked to lend 19 assistance to a review of t h e. LILCO. county plan in i.
+
-20 , e,b o u t June of 19837 t 3 ,
j 21; MS. LETSCHE: Let me note my
,L 22 ' objection for the record and it can be a
,7 23 continuing one. I don't see the relevance of I' >
F- interrogating this witness about what happened in Lj y 24
.. 25 June,of 1983. This document has nothing to do 1
i x
57
,p
. 1 with exercises, which is what your lead-in' 2 question w a s, , and I object. I think we are taking -
3 up a lot of unnecessary time here.
4 Q. Do you recall being asked at about 5 this time to assist?
6 A. I don't recall. -
7 Q. Do you know whether or not in June of 8 1983 there was a LILCO interim plan for Shoreham?
9 T. I don't recall.
10 Q. Do you recall whether or not you were 11 asked to review that plan?
12 A. I don't recall.
(
13 Q Do you recall whether FEMA contracted 14 with an outside entity during June of 1983 to 15 conduct a review of plans for Shoreham?
16 A. All I recall at this point is that 17 there were outside contractors involved, but to 18 what extent and at what period of time, I can't 19 recall that.
20 Q. Do you recall that Argonne had been 21 requested to assist FEMA in a review of LILCO's 22 planning?
23 A. I recall that they had been involved
!. ,j 24 in the process, yes.
25 Q. I would like you to look at a
58 .
4 i i document which I will ask the reporter to mark as L;
2 Exhibit E, which is a document on the letterhead 3 of FEMA dated June 23, 1983.
-4 (Petrone Exhibit E marked for 5 identifiertion,.as of this date.)
6 0. . Did you assist in directing a 7 technical review of the transition plan in June of 8 19837 9 A. I assisted to the extent that my 10 staff had assisted and had been involved. Other 11 than that, I had no direct involvement.
12 Q. Did you make recommendations to FEMA L- 13 headquarters following that technical review?
14 A. I believe I made recommendations. I 15 can't recall exactly what they were.
16 ,
Q. Were the two pre-conditions which are 17 . set forth on the second page of Exhibit E 18 pre-conditions which were contained in your
[ 19 recommendation?
i l 20 A. To the best of my knowledge, I 21 believe so, yes.
l
[ 22 Q. Were those pre-conditions 23 pre-conditions which reflected the views of FEMA i
'24 Region II at that time with respect to LILCO's l 25 plan?
/
59 g5 1 A. Not entirely, no.
- ~.a . .
2 Q. To what extent did those 3 pre-conditions differ from the recommendation 4 which had been made by Region II?
5 A. Region II's feeling at this point ,
6 basically was that No. 1, the determination of 7 whether LILCO has the appropriate legal authority 8 to assume management and implementation of the 9 emergency response plan, that was basically a 10 Region II concern.
11 We at Region II at that point, as 12 best as I can remember, did not want to be in a
!?
13 position to even think about full-scale exercising, 14 because we felt it was not appropriate. It was 15 not entirely ready for that. That's the best of 16 my knowledge at this point.
17 Q. Did you agree at that time that a 18 full-scale exercise was required in order for a
~
19 FEMA finding to be made conccening whether a LILCO 20 plan could be implemented?
21 A. I don't recall, specifically I don't 22 recall.
23 Q. Would you agree that that was a
( ';
24 position taken by FEMA in its communications with i
25 the NRC?
l'
1
~
60 9,1 1 A. I would agree it was a position taken L
2 by FEMA coupled with the authority concern.
3 Q. Do you recall whether or not-the NRC 4 subsequently. asked FEMA if it could find 5 reasonable assurance that LILCO's plan was 6 adequate and-capable of implementation?
7 MS. LETSCHE: Note my continuing 8 objection. We took a lot of depositions back in 9 '83 and '84 on exactly this subject, and it is 10 already on the record and we are supposedly 11 litigating an exercise at this point, so I note my 12 continuing objection.
li 13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. Do you recall whether or not FEMA 15 expressed a view concerning whether LILCO's plan 16 would be acceptable if those pre-conditions 17 referred to in Exhibit E were removed?
18 A. I recall FEMA taking a definite 19 position with regard to the legal authority 20 question that had to be resolved prior to them 21 going beyond into an exercise development. I 22 recall that.
23 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to r
[3 24 mark as Exhibit F a document on FEMA's letterhead 25 dated August 29, 1983.
-a . ==-+e e.
61
- i. ,
-- f p 1 (Petrone ~ Exhibit F marked for
'J 2 identification, as of'this date.)
3 Q. Have you seen this document before?
4 A. I-don't recall.
5 Q. Do you recall having discussions in 6 June, July'or August of 1983 with FEMA 7 headquarters concerning FEMA's policy with respect 8 to non-governmental plans?
9 A. I vaguely recall having discussions 10 that centered around the legal authority concern.
11- Q. Did Region II make any
.12 recommendations to FEMA headquarters concerning
,-~ .
\~ 13 FEMA's policy with respect to the review of' 14 non-governmental plans?
15 A. On several occasions, and if I can 16 vaguely recall on several occasions, it was the 17 position at that point in the region that we 18 should not proceed with review without i
l' 19 governmental entities involved.
20 Q. Did Region II take a position with l 21 respect to whether a non-governmental plan could l ,
22 be considered adequate when reviewed against NUREG 23 0654 standards?
('- 24 A. I believe that region took a position 25 that it could not be with regard to the legal l
b r . ,
62 t
?
!.si 1 authority-concerns-that existed.
[L, 9 2 Q. Did Region II take a position 3 concerning the question whether a plan, a 4 non-governmental plan, could be implemented if 5 those required to implement it had the authority 6 to do so?
7 MS. LE'TSCHE: I object to the form of 8 the question on the grounds that it is v i.g u e .
9 MR. DAVIES: Would you read that
.10 question back.
11 (Record read.)
12 Q. That question assumes that there is
'- 13 not participation by state and local governments.
14 MS. LETSCHE: I still object to the 15 form.
16 A. To the best of my recollection at 17 this point, the issue was that of legal authority, 18 and if the legal authority question has been, 19 resolved and Region II's position basically was 20 later on down the road that it was resolved and 21 that the plan was not implementable without state 22 and local government.
23 Q. At that time in 1983, what was FEMA's hlq 24 position with respect to that issue?
25 A. FEMA's position was as it is written,
-. , :.-.. - .i.--. - . . _ .
63
- y. 1 that their legal authority question had to be 2 resolved.
3 Q. I am sorry, I should have said what 4 was Region ~ II's position in 1983 with respect to 5 that issue?
6 A. Region II's position was that the 7 legal authority issue had to be resolved, as.far 8 as I can remember.
9 Q. And that absent a resolution of that 10 issue, Region II felt that the plan could not be 11 implemented 1 is that correct?
12- A. To the best of my recollection, right.
13 Q. In August of 1983 did Region II have 14 a position concerning the issue whether FEMA could 15 make a finding of reasonable assurecce with 16 respect to a non-governmental plan based upon an 17 exercise demonstrating that the plan could be 18 carried out given the authority and resources to 19 'do so?
l 20 A. I believe so, yes.
21 Q. What was Region II's position with 22 respect to that?
23 A. Region II's position at that point
(, 24 was that it was not in a position to even discuss l 25 going into a full-scale exercise, since the legal l
l i
1 1
. e 64 t -i 1 authority concern had not been resolved.
L.
2 Q. Did Region.II concur with FEMA's view 3 that it could review LILCo's transition plan and 4 certify the adequacy of the plan?
5 A. Region II's position at that time was 6 that it should not be reviewing a plan that is not 7 submitted by state and local government.
8 Q. Was.it similar1y the view of Region 9 II that no finding of off-site preparedness could 10 be made?
11 A. Without a submission of state and 12 local government, yes, basically.
13 Q. Did you communicate those views to 14 FEMA headquarters?
15 A. Continuously.
16 Q. Do you know whether you did so in 17 writing?
18 A. I can't recall.
19 Q. Do you recall whether you had an 20 opportunity to review Exhibit F prior to its 21 submission to the NRC?
22 A. Clarification, is this Exhibit F?
23 Q. Yes.
F l_ ] 24 A. I don't recall. The language is 25 familiar, but I really can't recall whether I
f'
- s. o 65
- 1 reviewed it or I did not review it.
2 Q. Was it generally the practice of-the 3 agency to communicate to the regional office to 1
)
4 Region II recommendations which were going to be l
5 made by headquarters? .
1 6 A. That's a difficult question to answer
.7 for the simple eason that there were different 8 principals, at least .three or four, involved in 9 this program out of FEMA headquarters, and each of 10 them had a very different style, and I could never 11 say whether or not. I know we were involved early 12 out at the region and then as time went on, the
'~
13 region had much, much less involvement in the 14 Shoreham project when it came to policy input.
15 Q. How long was Mr. Bragg executive 16 deputy director subsequent to August of '83?
17 A. I can't recall that.
i 18 Q. Was it Mr. Bragg's practice to 1
i 19 communicate with Region II prior to making a a
20 recommendation on FEMA's behalf to the NRC?
21 A. Whether it was his practice of 22 dealing with Region II personnel or Washington 23 staff's practice, I can't recall, but there was l
l 24 communication.
l 25 Q. At this time were you personally
66
~
yu l' opposed to proceeding with the review of planning L.
2 for Shoreham?
3 A. I was professionally opposed t o' 4 proceeding.
5 Q. Did planning by FEMA nevertheless 6 continue during the period following August 1983 7 and into 1984?
8 A. I would have to say I believe, to the 9 best of my recollection, it did, but also I was 10 not privy to whether or not they were proceeding 11 and working with the NRC. I mean I did not 12 receive all information other than information r_.
13 that they felt was appropriate to discuss with me.
14 Q. Was the responsibility for_ review of 15 plans for Shoreham one which was assigned to the 16 regional office?
17 A. The responsibility was usually 18 assigned to the regional office, as far as I can 19 remember.
20 Q. If the regional office were engaged 21 in a review of plans for Shoreham, would you be 22 aware of that at this time during 1983 and 1984?
23 A. Vaguely what I can remember is that (j 24 the regional office had been involved in plan 25 review of a LILCO or LERO plan.
67 1
% l Q. Do you recall that in 1984 FEMA was 2 considering an exercise of the LILCO plan,?
3 A. I can't recall.
4 Q. During.1984 do you know whether or 5 not an) RAC reviews of LILCO plans had been 6 requested?
7 A. I really cannot be sure of dates and 8 time lines a't this point, so I could not recall.
9 Q. Who was responsible for the 10 initiation of a'RAC review of an off-site plan?
11 A. .T o the best of my recollection, it 12 was the state.
.c 13 Q. The state would be responsible for 14 initiating?
15 A. Initiating a request for a review.
16 Q. Do you recall any requests being made 17 upon the regional office of FEMA during 1984 for a g- 18 RAC review of the LILCO plan? .
19 A. As I mentioned prior, I cannot recall i
20 dates and time lines, but I do recall that there 21 were requests for a review. To what extent and 22 what time line, I couldn't give you that at this 23 point.
- . ; 24 MR. DAVIES
- I ask the reporter to 25 mark as Exhibit G a document dated November 15, l
l
I-68 i vev 1 1984 on the letterhead of FEMA.
L -
2 (Petrone Exhibit G marked for l l
3 identification, as of this date.)
4 Q. Does this refresh your recollection 5 as to whether the NRC requested FEMA to conduct a
-6 RAC review of revision 4 of LILCO's transition
'7 plan in July of 1984?
8 A. It is a letter here stating that. I 9 wouldn't dispute it.
10 Q. Does it refresh your recollection 11 that as of November 15, 1984 that RAC review had 12 been completed?
13 A. I couldn't recall exactly when it was 14 completed, but obviously it was in process 15 sometime during that period.
16 Q. But you agree that as of November 15 17 that RAC review had been completed?
18 A. I can't recall what the time line was 19 on it.
20 Q. Was that a review against the 21 criteria of NUREG 06 '
22 MS. LETSCHE: Note my continuing 23 objection and also note that these documents all 7, j 24 speak for themselves, and I am not quite sure I 25 understand the point of going over them with Mr.
69 xy 1 Petrone, in addition to my relevancy objection, n -
2 A. To the best of my recollection, it 3 was a review against the elements of 0654, but at 4 that point, these are things that the technical 5 staff dealt with and I had no direct, direct 6 involvement, so I really couldn't say to what 7- extent it had been.
8 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 9 mark as Exhibit H a document on the letterhead of 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated June 1, 1984.
11 (Petrone Exhibit H marked for 12 identifis- tion, as of this date.)
~t "-
13 Q. Does this refresh your recollection 14 as to whether FEMA was considering the development 15 of a full field exercise at this time to test 16 LILCO's plan?
17 A. I need a minute.
18 (Witness perusing document.)
19 A. I don't recall whether or not I saw i
! 20 this, even. There was much talk about exercises
, 21 at different periods of time, and I just could not ,,
l l 22 place it in its right time frame.
j 23 Q. You don't recall today whether Region
- ;; 24 II had been asked to consider the development of a 25 full field exercise in June of 1984?
l l
70 -
I
. 1
-<,u
1 A. Again, I couldn't recall specific
, 2 time lines.
3 MR. DAVIES: We will break for lunch I l
4 at this time. l 5 (Luncheon recess: 12:30 p.m.)
6 --
7 8
9 10 11 12 r.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 f
21 22 23 (l 24 l 25 i _
71
.c. 1 A F T E R N O O N S 'E S S I O N i.
2 -1:15 p.m.
3 F R A N K P E T R O N E, resumes.
4 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. DAVIES:
6 Q. Before lunch I think we had discussed 7 a RAC review of revision 4 of LILCO's plan which 8 was complete as of November of 1984 and your 9 recollection of whether or not FEMA was planning a 10 full field exercise of that plan during the summer 1L of 1984.
12 Do you have any present recollection 13 of a further review by RAC of revision 5 of LILCO's 14 plan during 1984 and '85?
15 A. I recall that there was a revision 5.
16 and that there was a review.
17 Q. Do you recall that in 1986 there was 18 a further RAC review of revision 6 of LILCO's plan?
19 A. I believe at that point I had been 20 separated. I believe I had been separated prior 21 to that.
22 Q. From FEMA?
23 A. From FEMA, so I would not recall.
24 Q. Shortly prior to your leaving FEMA 25 were you aware that there was a RAC review
.- r~ .: . . -
72 vu 1 underway of revision 6?
L. ;
2 A. All I can recall at this point is 3 that I'know there was something that sounded like 4 a revision 6.
5 Q. During the period from ' 8.4 r.n d into 6 '85 were there also activities in R e g ',o n II 7 concerning a proposed exercise of LI1CO's plan?
8 A. I can recall that there was 9 discussions with the technical staff with regard 10 to the possibility of considering an exercise.
'l l Q. Do you recall that the RAC review of 12 _ revision 5 was completed in approximately October 13 of 1985?
14 A. I can't recall the time line.
15 Q. Would that seem right to you?
16 A. It is hard to recall the time line.
17 I wouldn't object to that.
18 Q. Do you recall that it was revision 5 l
19 which was the plan utilized as a basis for the l
l 20 exercise which' occurred in February of 19867 l
21 A. Vaguely.
22 Q. Do you know whether or not that 23 revision had received a RAC review prior to the
{-j 24 staging of the exercise?
25 A. I believe it did receive a review.
73 e 1 Q. During 1984 and 1985 did you have 2 discussions with anyone outside of FEMA concerning 3 the LILCO plan, a review of that plan and the
~
4 proposal to conduct an exercise?
f 5 A. To the best of my recollection, no.
Q. Do you recall specifically whether 7 you had meetings with Suffolk County or any 8 representatives of Suffolk County?
9 A. To the best of my recollection, no, 10 other than the meeting I described earlier with 11 Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Cohalan and Mr. Speck and 12 myself.
13 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 14 mark as Exhibit I a document which is entitled 15 " Meetings between FEMA and Suffolk County 16 Executive's Office" consisting of three pages.
17 (Petrone Exhibit I marked for 18 identification, as of this date.)
19 Q. Have you seen this document before?
20 A. No, I haven't.
21 Q. Do you know who prepared this 22 document?
e 23 A. I do not.
24 Q. Does this document refresh your 25 recollection with respect to meetings which you
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
74
. p -; I had with.Suffolk County during the 1984-85 time 2 period?
3 A. I know that there'were meetings and I 4 just could not give.you specific dates, nor could 5 I give you specific principals.that were involved, 6 but there were a few meetings.
7 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt the 8 accuracy of this document insofar as it reflects 9 your attendance at meetings and the subjects 10 discussed at the meetings which you attended?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to that
'12 question until there is some foundation or 13 clarification made as to what this document is.
14 It purports to be a chart but its origins and 15 derivations are completely unknown, and Mr.
16 Petrone has testified he has never seen this 17 before.
18 HR. DAVIES: My question is whether L 19 or not he had reason to doubt its accu, racy insofar 20 as he attended meetings at which the subjects 21 identified here were discussed.
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: As a matter of law i 23 he has reason to doubt it because this document
( _;; 24 doesn't purport to be anything but a chart 25 prepared by persons unknown.
A 75 3
1 MR. DAVIES: To the extent that that 3
2 may have prompted a response, I think if he has 3 reason to doubt, that is something he can tell me.
4 I don't believe it is a legal question. I am
. 5 simply asking him whether or not he has reason to 6 doubt that, for example, on October 4, 1984 he 7 attended a meeting with Mr. Speck and Mr.
8 Gallagher at which there was a discussion of 9 information concerning FEMA's radiological 10 emergency preparedness program.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: If Mr. Petrone knows, 12 he may answer with the objection stated.
t 13 A. I won't object, but I can't 14 specifically remember October 4. I know there 15 were, there was a meeting or there were two 16 meetings or whatever, but I cannot attest to the 17 exact dates and principals.
18 Q. Do you recall meetings attended by 19 you at which the subjects which are described in 20 this document were discussed?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you recall that in June of 1985 23 the NRC requested that FEMA should report to it t; 24 whether or not it could schedule an exercise of 25 .the LILCO plan?
l
'76 *
- i , S: 1 A. I don't recall specifically.
L 2 MR. DAVIES: I would like to ask the 3 reporter'to mark as Exhibit J a document on the 4 letterhead of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 5 Commission which is dated June 4, 1985.
6 (Petrone Exhibit J marked for 7 identification, as of this date.)
8 Q. Have you seen that document before?
9 A. I might have. I can't recall offhand 10 right now that I have seen it.
-11 0 Does that refresh your recollection 12 that in June.of 1985 the Nuclear Regulatory r ,--
' 13 Commission had sought to determine whether FEMA 14 could-schedule an exercise of LILCO's plan?
15 A. I could not recall time lines. I 16 know there was discussion several times with 17 regard to an exercise from the regulatory 18 commission to FEMA.
19 Q. Do you know that the NRC made a 20 formal request of FEMA.that it advise the NRC 21 whether it could schedule an exercise of LILCO's 22 plan?
23 A. Yes.
{ 24 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 25 -mark as Exhibit K a document on the letterhead of
/
77 g;g 1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated
~.:
2 June 20, 1985.
3 (Petrone Exhibit K marked for 4 identification, as of this date.)
5 Q. Have you,seen that document before?
6 A. I believe so, he yes.
7 Q. Do you know whose initials appear on 8 the document, RWK?
9 A. I believe that's Mr. Krimm's.
10 Q. Did you receive at Region II a copy 11 of this document?
12 A. I don't recall whether I was the VN 13 perso,n that received it or not.
14 Q. Do you recall that the NRC had asked 15 that FEMA schedule as full an exercise of LILCO's 16 LERO plan as was feasible?
17 A. I recall that based on the fact that 18 it was a period of time, again the timetable I 19 can't refer to, but a period of time where the l 20 county of Suffolk was considering participating, 21 and I believe from my own recollection that's what 22 stimulated the movement toward moving into a 23 full-scale or as full-scale as possible an l , 24 exercise as would be adequate.
25 Q. Do you recall that in response to l
78 i t , .: 1 this request FEMA advised the NRC that it could L
2 schedule o n e .- o f two different kinds of exercises 3 in response to the request of June 20?
4 A. I recall that there was that
- 5. discussion, yes.
6 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 7 mark as Exhibit L a document dated October 29, 8 1985 on the letterhead of the agency.
9 (Petrone Exhibit L marked for 10 identification, as of this date.)
11 Q. Is this document the response by FEMA 12 to the request from the NRC that it schedule.as 1- 13 full,as possible an exercise of the LILCO plan?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. ,
was option 2 an option which would 16 test all functions and all normal exercise 17 objectives of that plan?
18 A. I don't understand what you mean by 19 " normal exercise objectives."
20 Q. Do you know what FEMA intended by the 21' use of the term " normal exercise objectives" as
[
22 used in describing option 2?
- 23 A. I would assume what they meant was it
! r-l [s ,.j 24 would be, they would be exercising all the 25 elements that are identified in NUREG.
l
79
. 1 Q. In NUREG 0654?
v.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did the letter dated October 29 which 4 is Exhibit L reflect FEMA's policy as it then 5 existed concerning a request that it schedule an 6 exercise of the LILCO plan?
7 A. I believe so. a
'8 Q. Was it FEMA's policy at this time 9 that FEMA should leave to the NRC a determination 10 of the value of an exercise of LILCO's plan?
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. Following that communication by FEMA 13 did you receive any instructions or directions 14 with respect to planning an exercise of LILCO's 15 plan?
16 A. I don't recall specifically but I 17 believe I was requested to have my staff work in 18 conjunction with the planning of an exercise.
19 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 20 mark as Exhibit M a document dated November 1, 21 1985 on agency letterhead.
22 (Petrone Exhibit M marked for 23 identification, as of this date.)
'% ;j 24 Q. Do you recall receiving a copy of 25 Exhibit M, the memorandum from Mr. Speck to
~ . _ .-
80 le v 1 yourself? ,
L:
2 A.- Yes, I do.
3 Q. .Did ~ that in essence instruct you to i
4 proceed with planning for an exercise of LILCO's 1
5 plan?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What steps did you take to respond to 8 the direction to proceed with planning and 9 exercise?
10 A. To the best of my recollection, I 11 proceeded'with the professional staff to make
~12 necessary arrangements to proceed with the agency's c
'-- 13 direction.
14 Q. What steps were'necessary to do that?
15 A. An evaluation of resources necessary, 16 a timetable that would be necessary.
17 Q. Did you establish a timetable?
18 A. I don't recall specifically, but 19 there was some timetable discussion between the 20 regional staff and the Washington staff.
21 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 22 mark as Exhibits N a three-page document, bearing 23 the title " Proposed Milestone Dates for the
(;j 24 Completion of the Exercise Scenario."
25 (Petrone Exhibit N marked for
81 cw 1 identification, as of this date.)
2 Q. Are you familiar with that document?
~
3 A. No, I am not.
4 Q. Do you know what it is?
5 A. A timetable.
6 Q. Is it a timetable for an exercise of 7 LILCO's plan pursuant to the documents passing 8 between the NRC and FEMA which we have recently 9 reviewed?
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object on the same 11 grounds as I objected to for Exhibit I, but you 12 'may answer.
i' tE 13 A. I am not sure. There is no date on 14 this other than what is stated here in terms of 15 completion of exercise scenario. It has no other 16 identification to it, so I don't know.
17 Q. To what do you refer when you speak 18 of the exercise scenario?
19 A. To what do I refer?
l 20 Q. Yes.
1 21 A. An exercise scenario would make 22 reference to the actual playing out of the various t
23 objectives that are to be evaluated. ,
(_ . 24 Q. Who was responsible for the l 25 development of the objectives to be attained in l
l
m 82 T51 1 the exercise?.
L. '
2 A. The objectives to be attained?
3 .Q. Yes.
4 A. It would be the person evaluating the 5 exercise. That would be the LERO organization.
6 Q. With respect to the exercise of the 7 LERO plan ~do you know what steps were taken to 8 develop objectives for the exercise?
9 A. I don'.t know specifically, no. The -
10 staff would have known that.
11 Q. Was your staff involved in the 12 development of objectives for that plan or'for 13 that exercise?
14 A. To the best of my recollection, they 15 were.
16 Q. Who in particular on your staff was 17 responsible for the development of those 18 objectives? ,
19 A. Mr. Kowieski and I"believe Mr.
20 McIntyre.
21 Q. Was Mr. Kowieski working on behalf of 22 FEMA or RAC or both in developing objectives for 23 the LERO plan exercise?
g I] 24 A. He was working in his capacity as RAC 25 chairman.
83 i n' 1 Q. Was it the responsibility of RAC to 2 develop the objectives to b'e tested by an exercise ,
3 of LERO's plan?
4 A. I_believe they were to develop the 5 proposed objectives.
6- Do you know whether or not Mr. 0 Q.-
7 Kowieski, Mr. McIntyre or other staff members 8 during the fall of 1985 and into 1906 in fact 9 worked to develop objectives for the exercise?
10 A. I know they had been involved in the 11 process, but beyond.that I really couldn't give s
12 you any more information.
4- 13 Q. Do you know what the criteria 14 utilized by RAC to develop the objectives were?
ss 15 A. To the best of my recollection it was s
, 16 the various elements of 0654.
e s,
17
'Q . Do you know whether the objectives 18 developed were objectives to satisfy all of the i 19 criteria of NUREG 0654?
20 A. I can't recall at that point whether 21 or not that was the discussion item in issue. I
( s s 22 c a t. ' t recall.
23 Q. Based on general practice would that
', 24 be the case with respect to RAC developments of t'
w 25 objectives for plan exercises?
t t
.g
.f
-' i
. y. Y;
- 84
/\ t
- p t ; 1 J,',Lc r 1 A. ForCa1 full-scale' exercise, yes.
g i' ~ [2 Q. Who; was responsible for the 3 developmen't of a scenario for the exercise?
- g f O ., ; 3 H< 4 A. I can't recall ar'this point.
Tl a
5 Q. Do you know what t hel ' c r i t e r ia were
$,~ ..
6 for the' development of the scenario?
..t 7 A. To the besthof my. recollection, the 8 i ' objectives.
i' 9 Q. Is it your understanding that a 10 scenario should be sufficient to satisfy an
,;, 11 evaluation of the objectives developed by RAC?
id ?
.~
12 MS. LETSCHE: Point of clarification.
4 , , ,
0-- 13 Are'you talking about the Shoreham scenario and 14 Shoreham exercise or just in general?
15 MR. DAVIES: I am talking about 16 ,
Shoreham.
17 A. I believe so, yes.
18 Q. What was your specific role in i ,
19 connection with the development of objectives and 20 the development of a scenario to evaluate those 21 objectives?
22 A. I had no direct involvement.
23 Q. Do you know whether the procedures r-
['g 24 utilized by RAC in developing the objectives for
! 25 the Shoreham exercise differed in any way from the
(
85 L
I l m 1 procedures utilized with respect to other L
I 2 exercises?
3 A. I can't recall.
4 Q. Do you know whether the procedures 5 utilized to develop the scenario for the Shoreham 6 exercise differed in any respect with procedures --
7 utilized with respect to other exercises?
8 MS. LETSCHE: Let me note for the 9 record my objection to those questions on the 10 grounds that other exercises aren't relevant to 11 this proceeding.
12 A. I can't recall other than the fact
\\
'- 13 that scenario development was different because 14 you did not have state and local participation and 15 involvement with regard to their functions as 16 outlined in the plan.
17 MR. DAVIES: Let me just ask at this 18 point, since Ms. Letsche raised this question 19 again, it occurs to me that we could maybe obviate 20 the difficulties we are having with respect to 21 these other exercises if you would permit one 22 question, which I think may satisfy our needs and 23 resolve otherwise lengthy questioning and perhaps
( y, 24 the need to resort to the board for a ruling.
25 That would be the following: Whether
-,.,e -- _____
86-
!((G 1 it is Mr. Petrone's recollecti'on that in all 'o f -
, k 2 the exercises, whether it was'the 17 or some 3 smaller number with whi.ch he was involved as
-4 regional director for Region II a full-scale 5 exercise was one which was designed to test each 6 of the objectives set forth in Guidance Memorandum 7 -17.and/or-each of the criteria of NUREG 0654, and 8 I think if we'were permitted at this stage.to pose 9 that question, we may be able to resolve.the 10 difficulties we have concerning that whole line of 11 questioning and perhaps avoid the necessity of 12 approaching the board.
13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would also like to 4 14 expedite the deposition, but I honestly have to 15 contemplate the question that you have posed 16 before I give you an answer, because I was just 17 writing it down as you said it.
18 MR. DAVIES: Do you want it read back?
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would just like to 20 sit here and think about it for a minute.
L 21 (Recess taken.)
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Do I understand that
? -
23 your question may be answered by yes or no?
! ('; 24 MR. DAVIES: Yes.
25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: That is the only
-- -_ . - . . _ . . - _ . - - . . -. . . ~ .. . . - - , ,--
-* p 87 pp- 1 : question you wish to pose?
2 MR. DAVIES: It is offered now as a 3 possible solution to a problem we encountered, and 4 I think we would certainly take the position, but 5 I would have to speak with Mr. Irwin, but we would, 6 probably take the. position that if we got a 7 response to that we could at least await a ruling 8 by the board with respect to the pending motion 9 rather than an interruption now of this deposition.
10 That's right, at least it would depend on the 11 answer. I don't want to suggest which way the 12 answer should come so we could shorten this.
0- 13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I had trouble 14 catching the full meaning of your question. I 15 think it would be not easily answered yes or no, 16 and on that basis for now I can't accept your 17 offer.
18 MS. LETSCHE: I think one problem 19 with the question is that it is sort of convoluted.
20 There is sort of a compound ' question there, there 21 are a lot of things in there, and maybe there is a 22 way for you to break it down and get what you want 23 in a way that would satisfy Mr. Zahnleuter, but I y 24 agree it would be difficult for anyone to answer 25 that yes or no because there are a lot of things
e o 88 Um i stuck in there.
'L(
2 MR. DAVIES: I take it Mr.
3 Zahnleuter's comments and yours now are based on 4 some shared perception as a result of your 5 conference, but I think he should speak for 6 himself and you can voice your views separately.
7 MS. LETSCHE: I did. That was my 8 view. Mr. Zahnleuter is perfectly capable and has 9 spoken for himself.
10 MR. DAVIES: That is why I prefer 11 that he did so rather than have you try to 12 -articulate concerns he might have.
?,
13 MS. LETSCHE: I was making a 14 suggestion to try to clear up this problem, since 15 perhaps if you broke this question down, so I 16 heard Mr. Zahnleuter to say he thought it would be 17 difficult to answer yes or no. Perhaps if you 18 broke it down you could dissolve this impasse.
19 MR. DAVIES: I am going to try.
20 Q. With respect to the 17 or however 21 many full-scale exercises that were conducted by 22 Region II since 1981, is it your view that the 23 objectives for those exercises needed to reflect
[; 24 all of the objectives of Guidance Memo 17 in order 25 for the exercise to be called full-scale or full 1
,e D 89 l
- 1 participation?
2 MS. LETSCHE: I object as asked and 3 answered. We already have a definition of 4 full-scale on the record.
5 MR. DAVIES: My question now is 6 whether or not in his view each of the exercises 7 conducted by Region II since 1981 or at least 8 during the period that Mr. Petrone was regional 9 director in order to be considered full-scale 10 exercises needed to have as objectives to be met 11 each of the objectives set forth in Guidance Memo 12 17.
13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I appreciate your 14 offer to expedite the deposition and I wish we 15 could expedite the deposition, but I still object 16 to that question on the same grounds that Mr.
17 Palomino objected before and I still instruct the 18 witness not to answer on the same grounds.
19 MR. DAVIES: Let me ask another 20 question and let's see if this helps any.
21 Q. With respect to any of the other 22 exercises conducted in Region II while Mr. Petrone 23 was regional director, is it your view that the
_'j 24 scenario for those exercises needed to establish 25 for evaluation all of the objective set forth in
. o i
90 I a, 1 Guidance Memo 17 so that the exercise could be
- g. -
2 considered-full-scale?
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: My position is 4 unchanged.
E . MR. DAVIES: I think in terms of an 6 attempt to accommodate the witness and the 7 expedition of t'his proceeding I have really.gone 8 as far as I can possibly go in reformulating the 9 questions without hopelessly prejudicing LILCO's 10 right to take discovery on what is clearly a 11 relevant and material issue affecting that which 12 is to be litigated before the board. I think b-7 13 given your persistence in obstructing our 14 discovery of those issues, even when we do so in 15 what I consider to be an extremely limited way 16 adopted solely in a good faith effort to expedite l
17 things, that you leave us little alternative but 18 to contact the board and seek a ruling.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: It is our position 20 right now that even if it is a little bit 21 irrelevant, it is still irrelevant.
22 MR. DAVIES: I said a little bit 23 limited. I didn't claim in any way that it was a f.; 24 little bit relevant. It was extremely limited, I 25 think the least intrusive possible inquiry into an
91
'1 1 area which is clearly relevant and material.
2 MS. LETSCHE: Let me just note on the 3 record separate fror the relevancy objection tl:a t 4 Mr. Zahnleuter has made and that I have noted on 5 behalf of Suffolk County earlier, I think there is
- j. 6 a problem with asking the kind of question that is 7 trying to-obtain information that covers a 8 five-year period and 17 exercises all with a yes 9 or no or one simple answer, and I would object to 10 the form of that question separate and apart 11 from --I just don't think it is answerable, 12 separate and apart from relevancy.
1 13 MR. DAVIES: It was not my suggestion 14 that the response should be limited to yes or no, 15 but that was rather a request that was made by 16 counsel for the witness.
17 MS. LETSCHE: I am noting my 18 objection to the question which you asked. I 19 don't want to characterize how it came to be.
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Why don't we 21 continue with your line of questions other than i 22 other exercises and we will see where it takes us i
23 at the end of the day.
,, 24 MR. IRWIN: We don't want to wait 25 that long because when there is an opportunity to i
l
p.-
a .
I 92
.1 1 resolve this possibly with one question, otherwise 2 we~are going to have to bring everybody back. It 3 is a lot of people. I don't feel we can. wait that 4 long. When we have the break I am going to
, 5 approach the board and I invite everyone to come 6 with me.
7 MS. LETSCHE: Why don't_we proceed 8 until the break.
9 MR. DAVIES: I think this may be an 10 appropriate time to break.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Could we go off the 12 record.
(
13 MR. DAVIES: Sure.
14 (Recess taken.)
15 MR. DAVIES: While we were off the 16 record Mr. Z a h n l"a u t e r and I had a discussion 17 concerning the objections which have been raised,
! 18 and I think that we have probably reached a 19 resolution pursuant to which, and correct me if I j
20 am wrong in this statement, Mr. Zahnleuter will
, 21 permit the witness to answer over his objection I
l 22 the questions which have been posed and in 1
l 23 addition identical questions concerning NUREG 0654,
- t. p g_] 24 and that subject to the nature of the response l
25 with respect to which I think both Mr. Zahnleuter l
t
93 y 1 and I have reasonable predictions, we will not 2 press this witness any further with respect to the 3 issue of other exercises, reserving, however, our 4 right to pursue that discovery from other sources 5 in the event the board rules we are entitled to it.
6 Is that an accurate and reasonable 7 statement of our discussion?
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: That is correct, 9 provided that also at the end of this deposition 10 today Mr. Petrone will not be subject to recall 11 regarding any relevancy questions which were 12 objected to or will be objected to, for that
(' - ' 13 matter.
14 MR. DAVIES: Relevancy concerning 15 other exercises.
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: That is correct.
17 MR. DAVIES: I assume if I were to 18 ask him a question on contention 15 and we were 19 faced with an objection as to relevancy, I would 20 have the right to bring him back.
21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: That is correct.
22 MR. DAVIES: I would like to ask the 23 reporter to read the two questions which Were Q'j 24 posed immediately prior to the break.
l 25 (Record read.)
i
. o 94
!- ; 1 Q. With respect ~ to the 17 full-scale L -
2 exercises conducted in Region II since 1981 is it 3 your view that the objectives to be met'in order 4 for those exercises to be characterized as 5 full-scale needed to reflect every objective set 6 forth in Guidance Memo 17?
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: My objection as 8 noted before stands, but you may answer.
9 A. I mentioned earlier that I was not 10 fully familiar with Guidance Memorandum 17, and 11 fully comfortable with all the objectives, so at 12 this point I would have to answer to that question 13 that I really don't know at this' point.
14 Q. Let me ask you this: With respect to 15 those 17 exercises in order that they be 16 considered full-scale exercises is it necessary 17 that the scenario developed for those exercises 18 establish for evaluation each of the objectives 19 set forth in Guidance Memo 17?
20 A. Again I mentioned earlier I was not 21 truly familiar with Guidance Memorandum 17 and 22 therefore I would have to answer that I don't know.
23 Q. Let me ask you this: With respect
[j 24 again to each of those 17 exercises in order that 25 they be characterized or regarded as full-scale,
't 0 95
- 1 is it necessary that the objectives developed need
~
2 reflect each criteria set forth in NUREG 0654?
3 A. I am not familiar with every criteria 4 of NUREG 0654 as I sit here today, so I could not 5 answer the question.
6 Q. Let me ask you again with respect to 7 each of those 17 exercises whether as a pre-condition 8 to the characterization of those exercises as 9 fu.ll-scale the scenario developed for the exercise 10 need establish for evaluation each objective to 11 reflect and meet each of the criteria set forth in 12 NUREG 0654?,
(
13 A. I am not fully familiar with every 14 criteria in NUREG 0654, so I cannot answer the 15 question.
, 16 Q. With respect to the Shoreham exercise 17 which was conducted in February of 1986, do you 18 know whether or not the objectives for.that 19 exercise included each and every objective of 20 Guidance Memo 17?
21 A. No, I don't recall.
22 Q. Do you know whether or not the 23 objectives for the Shoreham exercise reflected 24 each and every criteria of NUREG 0654?
25 A. I don't recall.
1 96
! . .a 1 Q. Do you know whether or not the b
. 2 scenario f'o r the Shoreham exercise was one which 3 established as-objectives to be evaluated each of 4 the objectives of Guidance Memo 17?
5 A. I don't recall.
6 Q. Do you know whether or not the 7 scenario developed for the Shoreham exercise was 8 one which established as objectives objectives to 9 meet and evaluate each criteria established in 10 NUREG 0654?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Did FEMA characterize the Shoreham L- 13 exercise', and when I say the Shoreham exercise I 14 am referring to the exercise of LILCO plan 15 revision 5 which occurred in February of '86, did 16 FEMA characterize that exercise as a full-scale 17 exercise?
18 A. To the best of my knowledge, I 19 believe they characterized it as a limited 20 exercise. I don't recall whether they 21 characterized it as full scale.
22 Q. Do you know whether or not FEMA 23 developed objectives for a full-scale exercise at g 24 Shoreham?
25 A. I believe initially they developed
- 2 97 1 proposed objectives that would have satisfied what 2 they considered at that time full-scale.
3 Q. Do you know whether those objectives 4 were adopted as objectives for the Shoreham 5 exercise?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 8 mark as Exhibit O a document on the agency 9 letterhead dated January 3, 1986.
10 (Petrone Exhibit O marked for ,
11 identification, as of this date.)
12 Q. To your knowledge had the objectives 13 for the Shoreham exercise been developed prior to 14 January of 1986?
15 A. To my knowledge, I believe they were.
16 Q. Looking at Exhibit O, is that a 17 document which was sent by Mr. Kowieski to Mr.
18 Wilkerson?
19 A. I would assume it was. I haven't 20 seen the doc ~ument. I don't recall seeing the 21 document.
22 Q. Are you familiar with Mr. Kowieski's 23 signature?
, 24 A. Yes, I am.
25 Q. Is that his signature on this
1 98 ic .i i document?
L 2 A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
3 Q. Does this document refer to the 4 exercise as a full-scale exercise?
5 A. That's what.the document says.
l 6 Q. Do you know that the NRC -dir ec ted 7 FEMA to proceed with an exercise which would be 8 consistent with option 2 which was set forth in 9 the October 29 FEMA letter to the NRC which we 10 previously marked as Exhibit L?
11 -
A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you know whether the objectives
"-- 13 determined for the exercise were objectives 14 consistent with the approach outlined in option 27 15 A. I could not recall at this point 16 whether they were or not.
17 Q. Do you know that it was FEMA's goal,
. 18 at least within the limitations of the legal 19 authority issue, to conduct a full-scale exercise 20 for Shorehem?
21 A. I don't know if that was FEMA's goal 22 or if it were the NRC's goal.
i 23 Q. Was it the goal for the exercise as
{}g 24 developed by FEMA in response to the request of 25 the NRC?
I
.o. .
99 cp 1 A. I believe the goal was to conduct a
.t 2 full-scale exercise as best as possible, given 3 that the exercise was limited. I think that 4 statement has been stated many, many times by FEMA.
5 Q. Did you yourself review the 6 objectives or any drafts of the objectives as they 7 were developed by RAC7 8 A. No, I did not.
9 Q. Did you review the scenario or any 10 drafts of the scenario?
11 A. No, I did not.
12 Q. Did you voice or communicate to 13 anyone any views or opinions which you held with 14 respect to the objectives?
15 A. I would talk to my staff. We would 16 , discuss status in terms of how far they were in 17 developing this, but other than that, that was the 18 discussion. It was limited to that and it was 19 basically my concerns were always aired with them 20 with regard to how we were going to proceed with 21 this with regard to the fact that it was limited 22 and without the state and local government 23 participation. That was our topic of discussion 1 ., j 24 continuously.
25 Q. Would that response be equally
3
. ~
r 100 yi 1 applicable to a question concerning your views or 2 opinions on the scenario developed for the 3 exercise?
4 A. Yes, I would say so.
5 Q. Do you agree that duzing any exercise 6 conducted by FEMA of off-site radiological 7 planning that there is simulation of certain 8 activities?
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Clarification. Are 10 we into questions relating to other exercises?
11 MR. DAVIES: I don't think we are.
12 That was intended to be a broader question of FEMA
'-- 13 procedures with respect to the staging of 14 exercises rather than specifically addressed to 15 other exercises that may have been conducted.
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Thank you.
17 A. I would say that certain activities 18 were common in terms of simulation, but 19 decision-making processes, to the best of my 20 knowledge, were not simulated.
21 Q. Similarly, and again this question is 22 posed on the same basis, is it FEMA's practice and 23 policy to utili?.e selected sampling in conducting 3 24 exercises of off-site plans?
25 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes,
-o ,
101
,w 1 they would use selected sampling.
2 Q. During the Shoreham exercise on 3 February 13, 1986, what particular activities were 4 you asked to undertake as regional director?
5 A. As regional director I undertook the 6 same role that I always took when arriving at an 7 exercise. I joined Mr. Kowieski and I would 8 overview and oversee and visit various of the 9 facilities. I did not take a specific observation 10 role in terms of being an evaluator.
11 Q. Were you a witness at the exercise?
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Could you clarify
~
13 what you mean by " witness"?
14 Q. How would you characterize your role 15 during the exercise of February 13?
16 A. I observed.
17 Q. Were you accompanied by any other 18 people during the exercise on the 13th?
19 A. Mr. Kowieski and Mr. Glass and Mr.
20 Spence Perry.
21 Q. Were they with you at all times that 22 day?
23 A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
. 24 Q. Did you visit any particular areas or 25 facilities which were utilized in the exercise
102
_ ;,- u 1 during the day?
2 A. The operating center in Brentwood.
3 We visited the Nassau Coliseum, and we visited, I 4 believe, the Patchogue staging area.
5 Q. Did you have any communications 6 during the day of the 13th of February with 7 members of the press or other. media organizations?
8 A. To the best of my ability, I can 9 recall yes, there were some discussions. I 10 couldn't tell you what press and to what extent, 11 but there were some, as I had many other exercises 12 that I had been involved in.
13 Q. Do you recall in particular the 14 substance of any of your interactions with the 15 press that day?
16 A. No, I don't at this point.
17 Q. Did you have discussions with anyone 18 at FEMA concerning your interactions with the 19 press that day?
20 A. I believe there was some discussion.
21 Yes, that day I was discussing many things with 22 Mr. Speck and I believe, if I can recall, that we 23 did discuss the press and interaction with the I 24 press.
j j 25 Q. What was the substance of your
c.
o
- l 103 I
> 1 conversation with Mr. Speck concerning your 2 interactions with the press?
3 A. I believe one of the discussion items 4 was the fact that the press was telling Mr. Speck ,,
5 that although I am accurately portraying what FEMA 6 is attempting to d o ,- -I- a m not as enthusiastic and 7 positive as Mr. Speck was or would be. I believe 8 that was basically our discussion.
9 Q. Is it your perception that Mr. Speck 10 was leveling some criticism at you concerning your 11 interactions with the press?
12 A. I don't know if it was his criticisms 13 to me or criticisms that were coming to him that 14 he was relaying. I couldn't tell you.
15 Q. What was your response to those 16 statements by Mr. Speck?
17 A. I don't know if there was a response.
18 Q. Focusing specifically upon the 19 Shoreham exercise could you identify for me those 20 aspects of public notification which you believed 21 to be important to the conduct of an exercise?
22 A. The aspects of public notification?
23 Q. Yes.
, 24 A. I think the aspects that I would see 25 as important would definitely be a notification t
=
l l
104 1.
i i system, namely a siren system that:was functioning, L -
2
- system that had an EBS model identified and 3 workable and a system that identified and was able 4 to work with during an exercise varied radio 5 stations and other electronic media that would be 6 participating.
7 Q. Is your answer complete? r, 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Which, if any, of those aspects were 10 not demonstrated during the Shoreham exercise?
11 A. To the best of my recollection, there 12 had not been a notification via siren alert.
r- -
13 There was no participation of the walk radio 14 station that was part of the plan, and the EBS 15 process in terms of the public being notified was 16 not complete as per the plan, to the best of my 17 recollection.
18 Q. Is your answer complete?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Were any of those aspects which you 21 identified in your prior answer components of a 22 FEMA REP 10 demonstration?
23 A. I don't recall the substance of a hj 24 FEMA REP 10 demonstration.
25 Q. Do you know what a FEMA REP 10
.s a ~~,
105
,r > 1 demonstration is-?
2 A. No, I don't recall.
3 Q. Have you ever. conducted or been 4 involved in the conduct of a FEMA REP 10 5 demonstration? .
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection, asked and 7 answered, but you may answer it.
8 A. I am not faniliar with the FEMA REP 9 10 de nons tra tion.
10 Q. Were you present at a press 11 conference which was held on February 15, 1986 by 12 FEMA concerning the Shoreham exercise?
(* 13 . A. Yes.
i 14 Q. Did Mr. Kowieski in summary fashion 15 give an overview to the gathered members of the 16 media of what had been observed during the 17 exercise that had occurred two days earlier?
18 A. He had given a preliminary overview.
19 Q. Do you recall that.Mr. Kowieski 20 informed those gathered that a test of the alert 21 notification system is an independent test of an 22 exercise?
23 A. I don't recall.
i_ , 24 Q. Do you agree with that 25 characterization?
e 106 t- i 1 A. I agree with the characterization to L
2 the extent that an alert notification test would 3 be l'imited to the actual electronic equipment that 4 would be aired, in'this case sirens, but the 5 aspect of EBS and coordination of EBS with the 6 public and the aired messages to the public would 7 not be part of that test. That would be part of a 8 full-scale and during a full-scale exercise.
9 Q. During the February 13 exercise did 10 the LERO organization go to the point of full 11 relay of E5S messages but short of the issuance of 12 actual messages?
13 A. To the best of my recollection, I 14 believe so. I believe that is correct.
15 Q. Do you believe that notification to 16 the public in the water portion of the Shoreham 17 EPZ is an important element of the Shoreham plan?
18 A. I believe any notification portion of 19 the plan is important.
20 Q. Could you explain to me why you take 21 the view that notification of the public in the 22 water portion is an important element of the plan?
23 A. No. 1, it is in the plan, so r there g,j 24 obviously LERO feels it is important. 2, 25 are public, there is a public that is part of that
e ,
107 1 water portion of the EPZ, and basically for a 2 protection of that public it would be necessary 3 for them to be involved.
4 Q. Could you tell me how in your view 5 the performance of the Coast Guard should have 6 been exercised during the Shoreham exercise of 7 February 13?
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection. In this 9 proceeding we have had a long-standing custom of 10 not suggesting to LILCO how LILCO should improve 11 its plan, but I will allow the witness to answer.
12 A. I think basically by following what i -
13 has been written in the plan for a notification 14 with the Coast Guard. I think a follow-up by the 15 Coast Guard in terms of what steps they would take 16 following notification of need for their resources.
17 Q. Is it your view that during an 18 exercise of the plan the Coast Guard is required 19 to perform every aspect of the performance called 20 for in the plan?
21 A. If it involves alert notification to 22 the public on the waterways, I believe they would 23 have to or they should show a certain amount of (f, ,, 24 proficiency with regard to how they are going to 25 actually notify the public on the water, and again
e v.
108 t :;:J - 1 a sampling of some sort would be appropriate.
2 Q. This is a question which is focused 3 upon general practice within FEMA, but in those 4 exercises which involve the proximity of waterways 5 to-the nuclear plant, particularly. waterways 6 within the EPZ, is it FEMA practice to request 7 Coast Guard performance so that Coast Guard 8 performance can be evaluated?
9 A. I don't. basically really recall any 10 other plan where we had extensive waterways in 11 Region II, and so I really couldn't recall at this 12 point whether or not an extensive Coast Guard b- 13 participation would be relevant.
14 Q. Do you know whether or not Coast 15 Guard participation would be relevant in exercises 16 of plans for those plants adjacent to the Great 17 Lakes?
18 MS. LETSCHE: I object to the i 19 relevancy of that.
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection.
21 MS. LETSCHE: It also calls for 22 speculation on the part of the witness.
23 MR. DAVIES: Speculation as to I
hJ 24 whether there are such plants?
25 MS. LETSCHE: Speculation with
a O
.109 1 respect to what goes on with respect to plants 2 near the Great Lakes, if there are any.
~
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: You can answer.
4 A. I think if it were deemed important 5 enough to be in their plan, the utility's plan, it 6 would be deemed important for the simple reason 7 that they know there to be public and population 8 there, and if it is so written in the plan, it 9 would be important to exercise because it is 10 notification, it is public protection.
11 Q. Are you familiar with the manner in 12 which LILCO's plan called for the public on the O
13 beaches in the affected area are to be notified?
14 A. No, I can't recall that at this point.
15 Q. Do you believe that notification of 16 the public on the beaches should have been 17 included in the Shoreham exercise?
18 A. I can't recall to what extent it is 19 in the plan. That's where I have a problem right 20 now. I don't recall the plan nor to what extent 21 that would be in the plan if it is in the plan at 22 all.
23 Q. Let me ask you this so the record is sj 24 complete: Do you know whether or not notification 25 of the public on the beaches is a function that
110 M 'l can be demonstrated'by a FEMA REP 10 test?
L
, 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection as before 3 with regard to FEMA REP 10.
4 MR. DAVIES: You object, but I take 5 it you are objecting only because Mr. Petrone's '
6 response would be only he has no familiarity with 7 REP 10.
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I am not sure what 9 his response would be,-but I know what it has been.
10 I object that the question has been asked and 11 answered because he has expressed no familiarity 12 with the document that you referred to.
b- 13 MR. DAVIES: Then I think it is 14 appropriate that you let him respond and state 15 thac in fact he doesn't know, rather than state an 16 objection to the question, which in itself is 17 proper.
- 18 MS. LETSCHE: He hasn't instructed ,
19 the witness not to answer. I think counsel is 20 entitled to state his objection for the record.
21 MR. DAVIES: It does clutter up the 22 record when the objection is one posed not to the 23 propriety of the question but the inability of the
(, y 24 witness to state an answer to the question.
25 Q. The question is whether you know that
~
T'Tyq ( ~
,e r.
, 111
^~ -
,q : - 1 notification to the public on the beaches could be 2 demonstrated during a FEMA REP 10 test.
3 A. As stated before, I am not familiar
.(
'~
,(
MS. LETSCHE: Off the record.
5
~
.6 4 (Discussion off the record.)
t %
t 7 Q. When I asked you whether or not you s
8 feltithat notification to the public was an q'
l -9 ,important item to have been e2.ercised or included
' 10 ' ,
sin the Shoreham exercise, your response was that .
11 you were not sure whether that function was part c l 2' .and parcel of the LILCO plan.
13 Am I to assume from that response
' 'i 4 that you take the position that if a function or
- \ -C 15 an' element is included in the plan, then it shouri 16 have been included in the exercise?
lh MS. LETSCHE: Note my objection for 18 the record. I think you mischaracterized the
{
19 witness' prior' testimony. -
l l 20 A. I think we can go back to the fact 21 that I did mention that it is important based on s 22 the fact that it is written in the plan. It is a 23 part of the plan and the full-scale exercise is to I,, 24 test the, plan. Therefore it is important for it 25 to,be tested.
t _,
112 939 -l Q.. Is it your belief that a full-scale L
2 exercise of the Shoreham plan should have tested 3 every' function and element of the Shoreham plan?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. DAVIES: This is a good time to 6 take a break.
7 (Recess taken.)
8 . Q. Do you believe that the dissemination 9 of information to the public is an important 10 planning activity with respect to the Shoreham 11 plant?
12 A. Yes, I do.
k- 13 Q. Do you believe that as part of an 14 exercise of the Shoreham plan the printing and 15 distribution of information to the public is 16 necessary prior to NRC approval of the Shoreham 17 plan?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Do you know whether or not the 20 adequacy of public education materials can be 21 tested other than through an exercise such as that i
22 which was conducted on February 13 at Shoreham?
! 23 A. I believe that the interaction of the
[d 24 public can be sampled with regard to an exercise, 1
25 an interaction that dictates that there be some l
l l
l
113 cw 1 information in their hands in order for them to 2 understand 'what the process is and what's 3 happening.
4 Q. I assume that you continued to have 5 no familiarity with a FEMA REP 10 sufficient to 6 tell me whether or not that testing process for -
7 public education materials can be conducted as 8 part of a FEMA REP 10 demonstration?
9 A. I am not familiar with FEMA REP 10.
10 Q. Are you familiar with the provisions 11 of the Shoreham plan which referred to protective 12 action recommendations for hospitals?
13 A. No, I am not at this point.
14 Q. Are you familiar with any aspects of 15 the exercise conducted on February 13 which would 16 relate to provisions for protective action 17 recommendations for hospitals?
18 .A. Can you repeat that?
19 (Record read.)
l 20 A. Not specifically, other than the fact 21 that it is part of the plan for certain aspects of 22 hospital protection, patient protection.
23 Q. Would you describe for me the actions 24 that FEMA took during the exercise in connection 25 with school testing?
L__
114 eM
-73 5 1 A. I believe the actions were very L .
( 2 limited with regard to observation of any school 3 resting. I can't determine at this point to what ,
4 extent there was school testing other than it was 5 extremely limited, and from my own recollection I 6 believe one school district had been minimally 7 participating.
8 0 Are there items which you can 9 presently identify which were not tested which in 10 your view FEMA should have tested with respect to 11 schools?
12 A. I think the involvement of the school 13 officials in each of the schools, both in and out 14 of the 10-mile EPZ, their own procedural 15 involvement in terms of how th9y would proceed, 16 should have been tested.
17 Obviously the problem, as I recall, 18 there had been the concern with agreements that 19 were not existing.
20 Q. Can you tell me why you believe that 21 those aspects involving the schools were important 22 to test in the exercise?
'23 A. It is the beginning stages of any 3
24 general evacuation is always the schools and the 25 first concern, and that sets the stage for the
e e 115 r> 1 entire general evacuation, the timetable involved v
~
2 and the efficiency of that evacuation and the 3 decision-making processes so identified to that
, 4 process.
5 Q. Do you know what the provisions of 6' the LILCO plan with respect to ingestion pathway 7 activities are?
8 A. I am not familiar with that at this 9 time.
10 Q. Do you know whether or not any 11 elements of the ingestion pathway activities were 12 tested during the Shoreham exercise?
I
"- 13 A. I can't recall whether they were or 14 not. I believe they were not.
15 Q. Do you think that the testing of
-16 ingestion pathway activity is an important element 17 of an exercise of the Shoreham exercise?
18 A. To the extent that there is 19 cooperation from other municipalities and 20 governments that would be involved in an ingestion 21 pathwsy, to that extent it is important to be 22 tested, if that cooperation exists.
23 Q. Is it your view that the testing of
(_j 24 ingestion pathway activities is an essential 25 element of an exercise?
116 1 .i 1 MS. LETSCHE: Are you talking about L.
2 the Shoreham exercise or are you just talking in 3 general?
4 MR. DAVIES: Full-scale exercise.
5 -A. I would think some semblance of 6 ingestion pathway evaluation would be important, 7 depending on the site and depending on the area 8 that you are dealing with.
9 Q. Do you know whether or not there are 10 regulations concerning the frequency or the 11 necessity of testing ingestion pathway activities 12 in a full participation test?
13 A. I am not familiar at this time with 14 the regulation.
15 Q. Are you familiar with the provisions 16 of LILCO's plan concerning the monitoring of 17 evacuees from special facilities?
18 A. Not specifically.
19 Q. Do you believe that such activities 20 are necessary to be exercised as part of a full 21 participation exercise?
22 A. To a certain extent, yes.
23 Q. Could you tell me why you regard that t-
- j. g 24 as a necessary important element of such an 25 exercise plan?
117 gm. 1 A. Because it is realistic in that there
.i 2 would be people from the special facilities that
^
3 would have to be evacuated, and again an 4 evacuation must be an integrated process and these 5 individuals must be brought to safety, so it is 6 very, very important in order that there be some 7 resemblance of how this process would proceed.
8 Q. In your view is there a method 9 whereby the provisions of the LILCO plan 10 concerning the monitoring of evacuees, for example, 11 can be evaluated short of a replication of those 12 elements called for in the plan as part of a full
- participation exercise?
13 14 MS. LETSCHE: I object to the form of 15 the question.
16 Q. Do you want it read back?
17 A. Please.
18 (Record read.)
19 Q. In your view is there a method 20 whereby the adequacy of LILCO's plan with respect 21 to the monitoring of evacuees can be evaluated 22 short of a full-scale replication of each and 23 every element of the plan with respect to that
( ;,
24 function?
25 MS. LETSCHE: Point of clarification,
- - ^ ~ ~ ~
- - - :_ - . _ . . - . . - - __~ .- . -. ' ':T::-. _ _
118 i- ;t -1 are you talking about evaluating the plan or the L
2 implementation of the plan?
3 MR. DAVIES: I am talking about the -
4 evaluation of the plan and I have taken the 5 example of the monitoring of evacuees from special 6 facilities.
7 A. I think as much as that plan that 8 could be evaluated during a full-scale would be 9 essential based on the integrated approach that is 10 necessary in an overall general evacuation. The k 11 drilling of individual components or elements 12 becomes important when they can stand by 13 themselves when there are specific corrective 14 actions that do not involve any other elements, 15 but first one must find out whether or not the 16 entire plan could be integrated and work together 17 as one, and that's why I believe that such an 18 element should be tested during a full-scale drill 19 or exercise.
20 Q. In what manner do you believe such 21 testing should occur?
22 A. I don't understand the question.
23 Q. Let me pose it this way: Do you e
(_., 24 believe that the simulation and sampling 25 techniques which we earlier discussed can be
-J
119 ,
c, 1 utilized in a test of elements of the plan 2 .concerning the monitoring of evacuees from special 3 facilities?
4 A. I would not at this point offer a 5 sampling technique, nor would I offer a sampling 6 size, but my-own feeling on that is that you can 7 only sample and you can only simulate when you 8 have full participation and agreements in place, 9 and people involved in the process that wish to be 10 involved in the process.
11 Q. Is it fair to state that the 12 reservations you are now expressing with respect 13 to this particular issue are once again 14 reservations that spring from concerns about the 15 legal authority issues?
16 A. The legal authority issues and the 17 limited participation, yes.
18 Q. In particular the absence of ,
19 participation by state and local governments?
20 A. And other private entities that would 21 be subject to agreements in any plan.
22 Q. Do you know whether or not the 23 scenario developed for the Shoreham exercisc
, (, 24 included a demonstration of any activities 25 concerning recovery and re-entry?
l l
12H i, ; i 1 A. I <l e n ' t recall at this point.
L 2 Q. y Is it "our view that a full-scale 3 exercise would be required to demonstrate recovery 4 and re-entry activities of an emergency plan? l 5 A. To the extent that the evaluation 6 would test the decision-making processes and the 7, interaction among all the players in an exercise it that would be responsible for bringing back a 9 community to its normalcy.
10 . Q. Again are you referring to the 11 involvement of state and local governments and
- 12. other private entities?
13 State and local governments and other A '.
14 private entities that would have the authority to 15 proceed.
16 Q. Is it your view that absent the 17 participation of state and local government, one 18 could not evaluate in an exercise recovery and 19 re-entry activities of an emergency plan?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know whether LILCO offered to 22 FEMA a demonstration of recovery and re-entry 23 activities of its emergency plan?
r 7, _ , 24 A. I don't know at this point.
25 Q. Do you know whether FEMA normally
121 l
.:"- 1 tests recovery and re-entry activities of an 2 emergency plan?
3 A. To varying extent.
4 Q. Is it your view that a demonstration 5 of those activities by LILCO would have served no 6 purpose absent state and local government 7 participation?
8 A. The only purpose I think it would 9 have served was the actual presence of and 10 willingness of LERO workers to assist in this 11 process, if indeed the process were called upon.
12 Again, the legal authority question.
13 Q. Do you believe that such a 14 demonstration of the abilities of LERO workers 15 would have any value in the context of the 16 exercise of LILCO's plan?
i 17 A. Value, yes, if there were 18 participation of state and local government.
19 Q. Absent a participation of state and 20 local government in any exercise of LILCO's plan, 21 do you believe that such value can exist for 22 activities of LERO workers?
23 A. I think the value can exist and
[, 24 specifically looking at this plan, the value is 25 there, if i ndeed there is state and local
,, -, - - , , , - re-,-, e --n-- w- m- y w ,e - , , , ,---m--,--,-,- --s ,----o--
o 122 jr- a 1 government involvement, because the LERO workers-L.
2 become in essence secondary principals with-regard 3 to any emergency' planning, taking their lead 4 ultimately from state and local authorities.
5 Q. Do you believe that in the context.of 6 a declaration by the state and local governments-7 that they will not participate in'an exercise or 8 in planning that a demonstration of activities 9 such as recovery and re-entry activities by LERO 10 workers has some value in an evaluation of the 11 plan?
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection, asked and 13 answered.
14 THE WITNESS: Can you read the 15 question back, please.
16 (Record read.)
17 A. Again, value only in measuring 18 secondary resources that would be available.
19 Q. Is it your belief that in the event 20 of an actual emergency at Shoreham that state and 21 local governments would respond?
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection. The 23 question is speculative.
j 24 MS. LETSCHE: I agree. I think it 25 calls for speculation on the part of the witness.
123
- 1 MR. DAVIES
- It calls for a statement 2 of his present belief.
3 MS. LETSCHE: I also object on 4 relevancy grounds and what is at issue here is S what happened during the February 13 exercise and 6 the LILCO plan, as to which there is no state and 7 local government participation, so it is 8 speculating on things involving state and local 9 government participation and is irrelevant to what i 10 we are litigating here.
1
-11 MR. DAVIES: Except that the witness' l
12 testimony has clearly brought into very sharp 13 focus this issue and has made it very relevant.
14 MS. LETSCHE: My objection is noted.
15 Q. Do you have the question in mind?
-16 A. If state and local government 17 participated in an actual emergency, we would not 18 right now be able to measure their capability. He 19 wouldn't know what their capability is, and that's 20 basically the problem.
21 Q. Do you have yourself a present belief 22 as to whether or not state and local governments 23 would respond in an actual emergency?
i, c 24 A. My belief is that they would respond.
25 Q. In light of that belief is it your
r 124 i .1 - ~1 l view.that a demonstration of LERO worker O .
2 activities in an exercise of the LILCO plan 3 provides a basis for an evaluation of LILCO's 4 ability to adopt and implement a plan?
5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection bas.ed on 6 the fact that contentions regarding that same 7 subject matter were excluded from this proceeding, 8 but you may answer.
9 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that, 10 please.
11 (Record read.)
12 MS. LETSCHE: You are referring to C 13 the demonstration that took place on February 13, 14 I assume, in that question?
15 MR. DAVIES: I don't think that 16 necessarily follows, but I am prepared for present 17 purposes to limit it to that.
18 A. The answer to the question is no.
19 Q. Do you believe that to be so because 20 of the absence of state and local government 21 participation?
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Continuing objection.
23 Go ahead.
y,g 24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is it your belief that state and
125 1 local government participation is always essential
'. n .
2 to the ability of a utility or any organization to 3 adopt.and implement a plan for off-site
~
4 radiological emergencies at a nuclear power plant?
5 A. Yes.
6 - - - -
Q. Is it your belief that the LERO' plan 7 corrected for any perceived deficiencies based 8 upon a review with respect to NUREG 0654 could 9 never be implemented without state and local 10 government participation?
-11 A. Yes. .
12 Q. Do you believe that to be true of any 13 utility-sponsored plan?
14 MS. LETSCHE: I object to the 15 question.
16 A. With the absence of state and local?
17 Q. That absent state and local 18 government participation, no plan, even'the most 19 wonderful plan in the world, could ever be adopted 20 and implemented in a manner which could assure 21 public safety?
22 MS. LETSCHE: Objection.
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection.
, f,,, 24 A. My professional judgment is yes.
I 25 Q. Does that view spring from a concern
126
.i-i 1 over the absence of legal authority to implement 2 provisions of the plan?
3 A. It stems from legal authority concern, 4 as well as a practical concern with regard to
, 5 emergency response.
6 Q. What is the practical concern to 7 which you refer?
8 A. The practical concern is that any 9 emergency is responded slways at a local level of 10 government, and that a response builds from a 11 local level to a state level to a federal level, 12 and it is your local responders that are first and 13 foremost on the scene, and that is the practical 14 sense of emergency management. It is your firemen, 15 your police that respond to a need of an emergency 16 nature in a community.
17 Q. Do you refer with respect to that 18 concern to something other than a concern that you i 19 have about the legal authority of some other l
20 entity to respond as a substitute for such local 21 personnel?
22 MS. LETSCHE: Objection, asked and 23 answered.
i r 24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection.
gj 25 A. I think I am concerned with the legal
I
-M i
127
. s 1 authority of any segment of a society with regard 2 to emergency response, and then the ultimate in 3 terms of being the practical sense in who responds l 4 and who is responsible in the community for 5 responding based on the expertise that is 6 available.
7 Q. Let me ask you this: If the LERO 8 plan or any utility-sponsored plan lacking state 9 and local government participation were such that 10 it provided all of the resources which otherwise 11 would be provided by state and local government 12 participation, would your concern about the 13 implemen ta tio n of that plan be one solely 14 motivated by legal authority concerns?
15 MS. LETSCHE: I object to that 16 question. It is a purely hypothetical question.
17 There are so many assumptions in it I don't know 18 how it can be answered.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Agreed.
20 MS. LETSCHE: If you wanted to ask 21 him about the local plan, that would be fine.
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Do you understand 23 the question?
(, 24 THE WITNESS: I understand the l 25 question.
m ,
128 i, , n l 1 A. I woul( hesitate at this point to be 2 professionally supportive of any plan that didn't 3 count on government workers and their full 4 ' participation on the basis that government workers 5 are people that are dealing on a daily basis with' 6 the fine-tuned network of government and 7 government works to protect people and government 8 works on an emergency response every day. Given 9 resources other than government workers, I would 10 have to characterize that as part time individuals ;
11 that would try and wear the hat of a government 12 worker, that government worker that wears that hat i
"- 13 every day, and I would have to say that it 14 probably would not be sufficient in terms of an 15 adequate emergency response.
16 Q. Solely because it is not state and 17 local government-sponsored or authorized?
18 A. State and local government-sponsored 19 and authorized as any emergency plan throughout 20 this country, be it a power plant or for any other 21 emergency, is dedicated to the fact that you have 22 trained individuals that do this type of work on a 23 daily basis.
r
- g. y 24 Q. Can you describe for me the 25 responsibilitiras under the Shoreham plan which are
O- 82 129 1 assigned to Marketing Evaluations?
-2 A. I don't recall at this point.
3 Q. Do you know what responsibilities 4 assigned to Marketing Evaluations were 5 demonstrated during the exercise?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. I take it that you don't know whether 8 any of Marketing Evaluations' activities could be 9 reviewed in a FEMA REP 10 demonstration?
10 A. I am not familiar with FEMA REP 10.
11 MS. LETSCHE: Perhaps it would be 12 helpful if you were to show the witness something 13 to refresh his recollection on that, since you
.14 seem to want to keep asking about that.
15 MR. DAVIES: That might be* helpful if 16 I thought there was a recollection to be refreshed, 17 but the witness' testimony was he never heard of 18 it, never saw it, didn't know what it was. It 19 wasn't a question of lacking present familiarity 20 or being able to recall, so I am not sure there is 21 a recollection to be refreshed.
22 Q. Under the LILCO plan as it was tested 23 in the exercise, do you know what the
's . , 24 responsibilities of bus companies are?
25 A. If my recollection serves me l
- - ~ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
130
, i 1 correctly, bus companies to provide equipment and
~
2 to provide drivers to serve in various evacuation 3 settings.
4 Q. Do you know what aspects of those 5 responsibilities were demonstrated and tested 6 during the exercise?
7 A. The alerting of the various companies, 8 the alerting-of the various routes that would be L
9 utilized, the testing and evaluating of the '
10 proficiency of the driver with regard to route 11 knowledge, with regard to timeliness. Basically 12 those types of functions.
L 13 Q. Is it your belief that it is 14 important that each and every bus company 15 participate in the exercise?
16 A. I don't believe that it is essential 17 in one exercise for all bus companies to a
18 participate.
19 Q. Let me ask you the same question with 20 respect to ambulance or ambulette companies. Do 21 you believe it is important that every ambulance 22 or ambulette company participate in the exercise?
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to the F
j , 24 extent that these questions pertain to contentions 25 for which Mr. Petrone has not been identified as a 1
e
l I
131 l
t l
.~. 1 witness, but you may answer to the best of your t:
2 ability. 1 3 A. I don't believe every ambulette 4 company has to participate in one exercise. Over 5 the course of time in other exercises the goal 6 would be to have everyone participate.
7 Q. Are you familiar with the 8 responsibilities of ambulance and ambulette 9 companies under .the shoreham plan?
10 A. Under the Shoreham plan.I can't what they would be 11 recall basically at this po -t 12 involving.
13 Q. Is a preliminary press conference 14 following an exercise a regular practice adopted 15 by FEMA?
16 A. To the best of my recollection, it 17 had been, yes.
18 Q. Is it fair to state that the 19 expression of any findings concerning an exercise 20 at such a preliminary press conference has not 21 been a practice of FEMA?
22 A. Preliminary findings have been a 23 practice.
24 Q. Has it been a practice of FEMA to 25 express findings concerning a reachable assurance
132 t .. l 1 of public safety at such a preliminary-press L
2 conference?
3 A. It has been a practice in the past, 4 to my recollection, yes.
5 Q. Do you know on how many occasions 6 that has been done?
- 7. A. I could probably guess at probably 8 two occasions that I am familiar with at other 9 facilities.
10 Q. Can you identify those for me?
11 MS. LETSCHE: Note my objection.
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection. Off the 13 record.
f 14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I wish to object to 15 the question based on relevancy.
16 MS. LETSCHE: Note my objection as 17 well, same grounds.
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Y,o u may answer to 19 this limited inquiry.
20 A. There were two situations at the 21 Indian Point facility. I can't recall the exact 22 time line associated with them, but where there 23 was lack of participation we made a determir.ation
(, 24 and a finding at that point there was a lack of 25 reasonable assurance, and rhen when there was full l
l
.~ .
9
133
~;. 1 participation, we modified that finding to a 2 finding for reasonable assurence.
3 Q. As.I understand your testimony, and 4 perhaps you misunderstood my question, I was 5 referring only to the initial press conference 6 immediately following an exercise.
J 7 A. I believe, if my memory serves me 8 correctly, that we did this at initial press 9 conferences.
10 Q. Is it your view that the absence of a 11 finding of reasonable assurance by FEMA with 12 respect to the Shoreham plan and exercise is the
~
13 functional equivalent of a negative finding?
14 MS. LETSCHE: I object to the 15 question. I am not sure what the relevancy of 16 this whole line of questions is. I just want to 17 note my objection.
18 A. The absence of a finding for 19 reasonable assurance or of reasonable assurance is 20 in and of itself a determination that a positive 21 finding could not be found and therefore in my 22 estimation it is a negative finding.
23 Q. Did you communicate with anyone on
(;,. 24 the evening of the 13th, the date of the exercise, 25 or the f o l l o w i rig day, the 14th, your views and i
[
l
~
~ ~ . - , , , . . . - - _ , - _ - _ . - . . _ _ - - - - -
134 1 1 opinions concerning the exercise?
'l 2 A. There was an-awful lot of 3 communication between people in Wa sh i ng to n and 4 some of my Washington colleagues that had been 5 here on Long Island during that period of time.
6 Yes, there was communication.
7 Q. Other than people associated with 8 FEMA and-responsible for the exercise and 9 evaluation of the exercise by FEMA, did you 10 communicate on those days with anyone concerning 11 your evaluations of the exercise?
12 A. No, to the best of my knowledge.
L- 13 Did you participate in the Q.
14 formulation of the formal evaluation by FEMA of 15 the exercise?
16 A. I reviewed the draft report that was 17 submitted via the RAC Committee.
18 Q. Was there more than one draft?
19 A. There were two that I can remember.
20 Q. Did you review both?
21 A. I looked at the first one initially 22 and then I looked at the second one again when 23 indeed I had my opportunity for my own input.
r
[,3 24 Q. Do you mean to suggest that your 25 opportunity for your own input came at the time o
135 s 1 -that the second draft had been created?
2 A. The first draft was generally a draft 3 of the technical input via the RAC and a draft 4 that was shared with Washington in terms of 5 technical accuracy. A second one modifies 6 basically the information s u ppl-i ed through the 7 first draft, and it is more of a fine-tuning and a 8 finalization of the final document.
9 Q. During the period while these drafts 10 were being prepared and up to the preparation and 11 distribution of a final evaluation, did you 12 communicate with anyone outside of that group 13 responsible for the evaluation process concerning 14 your views of the exercise?
15 A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
16 Q. Did you have any communications 17 during this period with representatives of Suffolk 18 County?
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection, asked and 20 answered. You may answer.
21 A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
J 22 Q. Did you have any communications o 23 during this period with representatives of New I ,. 24 York State?
25 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Continu.ng objection.
l l -
136 rN 1 A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
2 Q. Did you have any communications 3 during this period with Herb Brown or anyone else 4 from Kirkpatrick & Lockhart? ~
5 A. N o., not to my knowledge.
6 Q. Did you make any recommendations 7 whibh were incorporated in the second draft of the 8 evaluation?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Could you tell me what those were?
11 A. It was the statement dealing.with the 12 lack of local and state authority in participation 13 relative to the inability for the plan to be 14 implemented, and the statement relative to the 15 fact that we could not find for reasonable 16 assurance at this time.
17 Q. Is that statement which you refer to 18 the same statement which you included in your 19 comments at the post-exercise press conference?
I 20 A. Yes, I believe, if my memory serves 21 me correctly, it is identical.
22 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 23 mark a one-page handwritten document.
f d 24 (Petrone Exhibit P marked for 25 identification, as of this date.)
i s' '
C e p
137
.1 MR. DAVIES: I have now marked as 2 Exhibit P a one-page, handwritten document-bearing 3 a Bates stamp $91.
4 Q. This appears to have the writing of 5 two people on it? .
6 A. No, this is my writing, all of it.
7 Q. Different pens?
8 A. Different pens done at different 9 times.
10 Q. This bears a date of 2/14 followed by 11 1:55?
~
12 A. Yes, that's a time.
I *
'- 13 Does that reflect that it was first Q.
14 drafted at 1:55 on February 14?
15 A. It was drafted thereabouts at that 16 time and reviewed by the people's names that are 17 listed above -- Speck, Petrone, Perry and Dave 18 McLaughlin.
! 19 Q. I take it this is 1:55 p.m. on 20 the 14th?
21 A. I hope so.
i l 22 Q. Could you read into the record for my l
23 clarification the writing in the top left which is
. 24 in the thinner point.
25 A. This was in a flair for the record.
l
138
'P9 1 The actual writing was in a flair pen and the-L-
2 above writing was done in a typica.1 fine point 3 ball point.
4 Q. I am asking t h a't the fine point ball 5- point writing be read.
6 A. If I can. Let me try. I believe it 7 says, "I have a closing statement which clarifies 8 FEMA's overall posture regarding off-site 9 emergency preparedness for Shoreham."
10 Q. Is this statement, this writing as 11 amended in one or two places in the fine point, a 12 statement which you included in your comments at
'" 13 the press conference of the 15th?
14 A. Yes, it was the exact statement.
15 Q. Is this also the language which you 16 had sought to include in the draft of the 17 evaluation by FEMA of the exercise?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you recall that the first draft 20 was prepared bearing a date of Marct. 21, 1986?
21 A. I don't recall the date.
22 Q. Do you know that the second draft was 23 prepared bearing a date of April 7, 1986?
f,, 24 A. I don't recall the date.
25 Q. If you were to look at copies of the
i s
D f .
n- m 139
-s
., (
[I i.[
' ~'
, .s ,
rm 1 drafts, would that refresh your recollection with
, , .gs
'l \
2 r e's p e c t to dates?
s
- >g the .,
3 A. '
Yes, sure.
4 MR. DAVIES: Perhaps we could do that i
s s
1,s 5 without marking them, if you have no objection.
, s.,
- .k $
S % q 6 t MR. ZAHNLEUTER: If= I . have no ', s.. N
\ s' t
.d 7 .objectian, then I have no objection. (
\ ,
8
- MR. DAVIES: I can only do it without ,
i s y( 't 9 ha r k i,r:g' t h em if you have no objection. - \
s '- ,
10 ,
MR. ZAHNLEUTER*: "I have no objection.
t i i 11 Q. 5 I am going to'show you for the
\
t 12 purpose of refreshing your' recollection copies'of
( v. 's c. x 13 what appear to be draft opinion exercise j p 14 assessments bearing your name on the bottom left 15' $ corner and <s ask you whether or<not that refreshes
.s 16 z your r e c o l'l e c t i o n that the first draft s -
was s ,
s . s.
> \ . \\
A 17 prepared beari-ng a date of March 12'and the second s
L r a 18 , bearing a date of April 7, 1986. 3 s
19 -
A. I believe so, yes. '
x 20 Q. The final evaluation bore a date of 21 April 17; is that correct?
+ 3 22 A. That was after my departure. I i t l 2,3 wouldn't attest to anything after my departure.
s
, ,2 44 Q. Have you ever seen a copy of the(
25 . post-exercise ' '
assessment?
j s s. \ s i
s .,
e 4
L, , k
140 y .+ 1 A. I believe I saw a copy of it during a L
2 congressional. hearing.
3 Q. .Does this refresh your recollection 4 .that it' bears a date of April 177 5 A .- Yes, it does.
6 Q. But not your name.
7 .The language which is contained on 8 Exhibit P was-not contained in the first draft 9 bearing.the March 21 date; is that correct?
ls 10 A. Correct.
l 11 Q. Is that language reflected in the 12 draft of April 77 k-- 13 A. Yes, it should be.
14 Q. Were you responsible for the 15 inclusion of that language in that draft?
16 A. Yes, I was.
17 Q. Do you know that the final assessment 18 does not contain the language reflected on Exhibit
.. 19 P?
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I presume your 21 question is based on the premise that he has the 22 final post-exercise assessment and that he has 23 read it.
. r
{g 24 MR. DAVIES: No, it may be based on
'25 other knowledge that he has. He may know from
141
.:. 1 -other sources that it is not included.
2 A. I understand that it was not included.
3 Q. You resigned from FEMA on' April 14, 4 1986;.is that correct?
5 A. I believe that is correct.
6 Q. Do you know whether on the date that 7 you resigned the post-exercise assessment had been 8 prepared in its final form?
9 A. 2 have no knowledge of that.
10 Q. Was the preparation of the final
.11 document the responsibility c# Region II office?
12 A. Yes.
M 13 Q. Other than the language which is 14 reflected in Exhibit P, were there any other 15 changes which you had sought or recommended with 16 respect to the draft of March 21?
17 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
18 Q. With the exception of the language 19 reflected in Exhibit P which you had introduced in 20 the second draft of April 7, did the post-exercise 21 assessment draft as of that date adequately 22 reflect your views concerning the exercise?
23 A. With my inclusion, with this
._. 24 inclusion?
25 Q. Correct.
142
!, N 1 A. In terms of the report it had. There r -
2 was a need to go beyond and this had been 3 mentioned to my colleagues in' Washington, that I 4 wo.uld be doing that in letter form in a submission j l
l 5 letter in terms of making recommendations of how 6 we would proceed at this point following the 7 exercise, as well as highlighting some of the 8 major issues that I felt were the stumbling blocks 9 to the emergency preparedness around this fixed 10 site.
i l 11 Q. Just so that the record is clear, my 12 question began with a premise, except for this 13 language, and we referred then to a draft which 14 contained this language. Let me put the question 15 a different way.
16 with respect to the evaluation of th 17 exercise which is reflected in the aan nt, 18 save for the issue reflected in Exhibit P which I 19 referred to as the legal authority concern, you 20 did not disagree with the assessment; is that 21 correct?
22 A. The assessment was basically factual 23 and there was nothing really to disagree with.
r g 24 Q. Is it also true that those comments 25 which you had intended to make in a cover letter l_ ____________
o e 143
- - 1 were comments which focused similarly upon the 2- legal authority concerns you had?
3 A. Those comments would have expanded 4 upon the legal authority concerns.
5 Q. But they were comments which 6 addressed the legal authority concerns at greater 7 length?
8 A. Correct, in addition to also, as I 9 had mentioned before, some of the practical sense 10 and concerns of emergency management.
11 Q. Those concerns again being focused 12 upon the absence of state and local government 13 participation?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Did you discuss your decision to 16 leave FEMA with anyone outside of FEMA on or prior 17 to the 14th of April?
18 A. To the best of my knowledge, just my 19 wife.
20 Q. Did you have any discussion at any 21 time concerning your resignation with Senator 22 D'Amato?
23 A. No.
. j 24 Q. Mr. Gallagher?
25 A. No.
" ' - ~ ~ ~
144 9 1 Q. Mr. Cohalan?
2 A. No.
3 Q. M r '. Ashare? .
4 A. No.
5 Q. Mr. Blass?
6 A. No.
{
7 Q. Mr. Brown? -
8 A. No.
9 Q. Anyone from Kirkpatrick & Lockhart?
10 A. No.
\
11 Q. Anyone from New York State?
12 A. No.
'- 13 Q. Did you write to General Becton 14 concerning your resignation?
15 A. I submitted a letter of resignation 16 to him.
17 Q. Did you telecopy that letter to 18 General Becton in addition to mailing it?
19 A. I don't recall. Mr. Ainora had been 20 present in my office, and I know I gave Mr. Ainora 21 a copy of the signed letter to present to Mr.
22 Becton.
23 MR. DAVIES: I would like the P
gj 24 reporter to mark as Exhibit Qa two-page document 25 on agency letterhead dated April 14 signed by Mr.
145 l' Petrone and addressed to Mr. Becton.
{.
2 (Petrone Exhibit Q marked for 3 identification, as of this date.)
4 Q. Is Exhibit Q your letter of 5 resignation to which we have referred? ,
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 MR. DAVIES: I would like the 8 reporter to mark as Exhibit R two pages, the first 9 of which is entitled "NRC Background Statement" 10 dated April 14, 1986, the second being entitled 11 " FEMA Statement" of the same date.
12 (Petrone Exhibit R marked for 13 identification, as of this date.)
14 Q. Have you seen either of those 15 documents which are now collectively Exhibit R 16 before?
17 A. No, I haven't.
18 Q. Were you aware prior to April 14 that 19 FEMA had told the NRC and Congress that it would 20 make no finding as to the adequacy of the Shoreham 21 plant?
22 A. I said it could not make a finding 23 for reasonable assurance. i
,, 24 Q. That seems to be something rather l 25 different from my question. My question was
146
~
!.Nl 1 whether you understood or knew that FEMA had told r_ .
2 the NRC and the Congress that it would make no 3 finding?
4 A. That it would make no finding of 5 reasonable assurance?
6 Q. . That-it would make no finding as to 7 the adequacy of the Shoreham plant.
8 A. I am vaguely familiar.
9 Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Speck a 10 statement on behalf of FEMA that it would make no [
11 finding as to the adequacy of the Shoreham plan?
12 A. It was part of continuous discussions L' 13 and presented to me in a way that we would make a 14 finding because we can't make a finding for 15 positive assurance or reasonable assurance.
16 Q. Did Mr. Speck inform you that he had 17 informed Congress that FEMA would make no finding?
18 A. I don't recall whether or not he 19 mentioned to me that he informed Congress that 20 they would make no finding.
21 Q. Did you ever have a discussion prior 22 to April 14 with anyone at FEMA concerning whether 23 a refusal or failure by FEMA to give assurances F 24 constituted a finding with respect to the adequacy L3 25 of the Shoreham plant?
l
o .
/
147 1 A. That discussion, I had that 2 discussion many times at FEMA, a n'd specifically I 3 had that discussion in February leading up to the 4 press release and leading up to Exhibit P, which 5 that was exhaustively discussed when this was _
6 written, as well wa's'the fact that my resignation 7 was verbally submitted at this point and the 8 agency told that I would not go on, I could not go 9 on, and I would resign, and at that point I would 10 like to sit down with them and work out an orderly 11 resignation and an orderly transfer.
12 Q. Did you agree that a statement by t -
13 FEMA that it could not give assurances.would 14 constitute a finding by FEMA?
15 A. It was a finding by FEMA not to give
.16 a reasonable assurance.
17 Q. That was a view which you held?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Had it been made clear to you or had
- 20 it been communicated to you by Mr. Speck or indeed 21 anyone else at FEMA that FEMA had stated that it 22 would make no finding as to the adequacy of the 23 plant?
s, 24 MS. LETSCHE: Asked and answered.
25 A. I answered that question. We
m 148
[73 1 discussed that and disagreed. In terms of L.
2 semantics we disagree, 'obviously.
3 Q. It was your view that a refusal to 4 give assurances constituted a finding, whereas it 5 was FEMA's view that it would make no finding and 6 that not giving assurances did not constitute a 7 finding, is that fair?
8 MS. LETSCHE: What dates are you 9 talking about?
10 A. I.really lost it.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Could you repeat 12 that.
i
"- 13 Would you agree that it was your Q.
14 position that to refuse or fail or decline to give 15 assurances constituted a finding with respect to 16 the plant?
17 A. Yes.
18 s. Would you agree that it was FEMA's 19 view first and FEMA's policy that it would make no 20 finding?
21 MS. LETSCHE: Point of clarification.
22 What time period are you talking about with 23 respect to that question?
(y 24 MR. DAVIES: Um can cer ta i nl y take 25 any time frame from October 29, 1985 up through
- . ~ ,, - , , _ , - ,- ,. , . _ , . . , .- -_.
$ 8 149 gy 1 the exercise.
2 A. FEMA came to that position based on 3 the fact that they could not do a positive-finding 4 under the present circumstances, and therefore 5 constituting the fact that the finding-was issued 6 prior to the exercise, actually.
7 Q. Would you agree with me that for the 8 period from October 29, 1985 when FEMA advised the 9 NRC that it could conduct an exercise and offered 10 option 1 and option 2 up through the time when you 11 left FEMA that FEMA's policy was not to make any 12 finding with respect to the adequacy of the plan?
13 A. FEMA's policy at that point was that 14 they wouldn't stipulate a finding because they 15 could not make a finding. They had a limited 16 exercise. They made that clear.
17 Q. Would you agree with me that it was 18 FEMA's view that failing or declining or refusing 19 or simply desisting from the giving of assurances l
20 did not' constitute the making of a finding?
21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object to these 22 long series of similar questions. They are not 23 taking on any different appearance.
- . 24 MR. DAVIES: They are an effort, 25 however, to assist the witness, who previously
=
, __- , - . -,-n, , , , _ - . , _ , -- - - . - -
, i p
150
- ~i 1 said that he had difficulty withRmy question, and L:
2 I -do n ' t believe that the question which is now 3 posed has been answered.
4 MS. LETSCHE: It has. You have asked
-5 it 14 dif.ferent times. You haven't got the answer 6 you want, but that's too bad. He has explained to 7 you five or six times now what his answer was.
8 MR. DAVIES: There are two people 9 participating in this question and answer, myself 10 asking the questions and Mr. Petrone giving the 11 answers. He and.I are both in accord that this 12 question has not in answered. You differ 13 because perhaps you are concerned about the answer 14 I am finally getting to something which is clear 15 to the witness and clear to me with respect to the 16 issue we are addressing.
17 MS. LETSCHE: My concern is getting 18 out of this deposition and I am objecting to 19 repetitive questions and answers and I am noting 20 my objection for the record, which I am entitled 21 to do.
22 MR. DAVIES: It is not particularly 23 advancing the position of getting you out of here.
24 MS. LETSCHE: I am going to do what I EJ 25 need to do here, so let's just get on with it.
151
,. 1 MR. DAVIES: Now I could have sworn 2 that asking the question and asking the witness to 3 answer it was fairly well designed to that end.
l 4 MS. LETSCHE: Once is enough.
5 MR. DAVIES: Let's have the question 6 read back and see if we can have an answer without l 7 interruption this time.
8 (Record read.)
9 A.- No. It constituted the lack of 10 adequacy of the plan, thereby not making it 11 possible for them to give a positive finding.
l 12 Therefore rather than give a negative finding, 13 they withdrew with the concept that if we could 14 not go to the extent of making a positive finding, 15 we therefore will take the position that there 16 will be no finding. We are talking semantics.
17 Q. You differed from FEMA with respect 18 to the consequences of not making a finding?
19 A. I differed with them to the extent 20 that we were not telling the entire story 21 throughout the entire process. The concern I 22 think that I had with FEMA and that perhaps FEMA 23 had with me all along with period of time, and q, 24 especicily as we got to the lith hour, the 25 semantics became very much highlighted, and what e
ii 1
152 r., q. I wasnintended to.be a certain type of rationale for 2 ~ not-doing the finding, which at one point at FEMA 3 was of course we'can't do a finding because we are 4 not going to be able to'do a positive finding, 5 this was the talk of the 8th floor, and then 6 became something very different as we came closer 7 and closer into the exercise, s o' it really became 8 a semantics exercise and it became something that 9 was-utilized by different people at different 10 times to the advantage of whatever they wished to 11 promote, given that specific date or to the 12 advantage of trying to overcome the pressures of L 13 the day, and I understood that.
14 Q. Did you understand that FEMA in 15 agreeing to proceed with an exercise in October of 16 1985 had stated that it would do so only upon an 17 understanding that it would.make no finding?
18 A. It could not make a finding. That 19 was the understanding as we discussed it with FEMA 20 Washington. It is impossible to do a finding 21 because there is no capability to measure when it 22 comes to in fact the plan itself, when it came to 23 the state and local government being escorted into r
[ ,, 24 the plan at their own discretion. There was no 25 way to measure that capability, and so this is
e 'e 153 r- 1 where that entire thing became a major discussion 2 item, and in certain instances Frank Petrone was 3 stroked-very well and the stroking that took place 4 was we are not doing a finding and here are the 5 reasons. What went on beyond the stroking I could 6 never tell you, but it didn't work at the final 7 hour8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> because we got down to brass tax.
8 Q. Is it true that FEMA advised the NRC 9 cnd Congress that the exercise could have value 10 for the NRC in. connection with its licensing 11 duties?
12 A. That was another issue too, and that 13 was what we called a predictive finding which I 14 objected to also, the fact that FEMA was not in a 15 position to tell ,the NRC how to proceed with any 16 of its regulatory authorities or regulatory powers, 17 because FEMA was not a regulatory agency and 18 therefore should not have taken any position 19 either way, especially when it was going to 20 infringe upon its own credibility by them trying 21 to second-guess the NRC's direction, and so when 22 that evolved I had an objection to that for those 23 very reasons.
's ,j 24 Q. Is it true that FEMA had informed the 25 NRC that in FEMA's belief the exercise it was
154 y si 1 proposing in either option could have'value in the 2 licensing process to the NRC?
3 A. That was ?lr. Speck making those' 4 statements and Mr. Speck made those statements in 5 a letter, and basically the value to the NRC in 6 terms of them doing a predictive finding because 7 that statement was also clarified in there, 8 because again I just mentioned I objected to that 9 approach because it is not for' FEMA to say whether 10 something is valid for the NRC. It is for the NRC 11 to determine whether or not the information 12 presented by FEMA is valid to them.
i
'- 13 Q. Did Mr. Speck make that statement in
[
'14 the letter on behalf of FEMA?
! 15 A. Obviously he made it on behalf of 16 FEMA.
, 17 Q. Did you prepare while you were at 18 FEMA a chronology relating to Shoreham?
i 19 A. I had a chronology prepared. In 20 November of '85 we did a chronology, and that was 21 something that had been very useful to us 22 throughout the process from November '85 on.
23 Q. Was it prepared for the purposo of r assisting you in the development of the objectives p ,j 24 I
25 for the exercise in planning the exercise?
155 1 A. It was actually prepared for two
.(>
2 reasons. One, so that I, No. 1, would be able to 3 at any given time know the entire process that we
.4 had gone through for four and a half years, and 5 two,.it was useful for the professionals working 6 in that area to identify any specific conflicts 7 and inconsistencies along the entire approach that 8 they had taken over the last four years.
9 Come that period from November '85 on 10 is when I had been discussing in great detail with 11 FEMA the need to suspend any further work on 12 Shoreham until the state and local government 13 issues and the legal authority issues were 14 resolved, and that chronology served basically to 15 highlight some of the things that we have gone 16 through and some of the inconsistencies that the 17 agency found themselves involved in as they 18 shifted positions. .
19 Q. Did you take that chronology or a 20 copy of it with you when you l e.. t FEMA?
21 A. Yes, I had a copy of that chronology.
22 Q. Did you take any other documents or 23 take copies of any other documents with you whan 24 you left FEMA?
25 A. My draft, the draft report of April,
156 I i 1 I think we identified that as April 7, was it?
L -
2 -Q. Right.
3 A. And some of my own personal 4 belongings and a few copies of my reports on 5 Indian Point. My clippings file, more personal 6 items.
7 Q. With respect to Shoreham, LILCO's 8 plan, the exercise, other than the chronology and 9 the April 7 draft were there any other documents 10 that you took with you or copied in connection 11 with your departure from FEMA?
12 A. Not that I recall. I departed very
'- 13 quickly.
14 Q. I show you prior to marking and ask 15 you whether that is the chronology which you 16 prepared.
17 A. I had it prepared. I want to nake it 18 clear that I didn't prepare it. I had it prepared 19 by the professionals.
20 Q. Is this the chronology you had 21 prepared?
22 A. Yes. In fact I may add to the record 23 at this point that this was not unusual. The 24 professional staff at that point prepared 25 chronology for all our plants, and there is a
157 i
l
[ ,> -- 1 similar chronology there for Indian Point, so that 2 is merely something I asked them to provide me for 3 my own knowledge, and basically I believe that it 4 was probably already intact and already prepared 5 when I requested it.
6 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 7 mark as Exhibit S this chronology of Shoreham.
8 (Petrone Exhibit S marked for 9 identification, as of this date.)
10 MR. DAVIES: It is a 13-page document 11 entitled " Chronology on Shoreham."
12 Q. You have" stated that this is the 13 chronology which you had prepared while you were 14 at FEMA in November 1986. Let me ask you, turning 15 to page 12, the penultimate page, when you 16 departed FEMA and took a copy of the chronology 17 with you, were all of the entries on page 12 18 contained in the chronology?
19 A. I can't recall. I don't have the 20 original in front of me.
21 Q. Do you know whether your copy 22 contains the entries on page 13 which run from 23 February 13 through April 22, 1986?
Is .j 24 A. No, it would not have, I assume.
25 Q. But up to at least a portion of page
158
- a 1 12 is it your best recollection that this document 2 is the chronology which was prepared at FEMA in 3 November of 1985?
}
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Have you seen the contentions Nos. 15 6 and 16 which were filed in this proceeding?-
7 A. I have looked at them, yes. I read -
8 through them.
9 Q. When did you first see them?
1 10 A. Probably about a month ago.
11 Approximately a month ago.
12 Q. Did you participate in the 13 preparation of those contentions?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you believe that the inclusion in 16 the Shoreham plan of all of the elements of 17 contention 15 is essential to satisfy FEMA
- 18. exercise objectives?
19 MS. LETSCHE: I object to the form of 20 the question.
21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Would you like to 22 look at contention 15 before you answer?
23 A. I had a chance to review it once, r
24 maybe read over it twice. I am not in a position, b..J 25 I haven't studied it, so I am not in a position te
9 7 .
151
.-w 1 make a statement on it at this point.
.2 Q. Would that be true also of the 3 elements in contention 16?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Did you review the elements set forth .
6 in those contentions to determine whether they 7 were consistent with FEMA regulations?
8 A. As I said, I haven't studied the 9 contentions'other than read them through once or 10 twice.
c 11 Q. Whc gave you the contentions?
12 A. Counsel.
13 Q. Which counsel?
14 A. This gentleman.
15 Q. Mr. Zahnleuter?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you review them in his presence?
18 A. No, I don't believe so.
19 Q. Other than reading them once or twice, 20 I think you said, approximately a month ago, have 21 you performed any other activities expressly 22 concerning or in relation to contentions 15 and 167 23 A. Not that I can recall. I met with ,
/
s 24 counsel last week, if this is relevant to what you 25 are asking.
r-i . .
r 160 FTl 1 Q. With whom did you meet last week?
u.
2 A. Ms. Letsche, Mr. Zahnleuter and Mr.
3 Palomino.
4 Q. Where did that meeting take place?
5 A. In Mr. Palomino's office.
6 Q. What day of last week?
7 A. It was on Friday.
8 Q. December 12; is that correct?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. Did you review contentions 15 and 16 11 at that time?
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection.
(- On what grounds?
13 MR. D A V I E.S :
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: On the grounds that 15 that subject is covered by attorney work product 16 and attorney / client privilege. That is the nature 17 of the discussion of our conversations and I will 18 instruct Mr. Petrone not to answer.
19 MR. DAVIES: Mr. Pctrone has 20 testified 'that present at the meeting was not only 21 yourself and Mr. Palomino but also Ms. Letsche, 22 who represents not Mr. Petrone or New York State.
23 Thus any c onimu n i c a t i o n occurring in her presence
,.3 24 is a communication which is not protected by'the 25 attorney / client privilege.
r 161
(% 1 Q. Did you review contentions 15 and 16 2- at this meeting?
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Do not answer. I am 4 comfortable with the position that I hav~e taken 5 and that subject matter may not be inquired into.
You may ask about the extent of his analysis, what 7 his' opinion may be, if he has formed one, but you 8 may not ask the s u b j e c t. matter of any discussions 9 with counsel.
10 Q. Was Ms. Letsche present throughout 11 your meeting last Friday? -
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did Ms. Letsche ask you questions?
14 A. No, I don't believe she did.
15 Q. Did she communicate with you at all 16 orally?
17 A. We discussed the object, basically.
18 What we really discussed was the scope of 19 testimony and the type of activity that I would be 20 involved in, because I have no familiarity with 21 this process, nor was I ever involved in a hearing 22 process, and I think it was at my discretion that 23 I wanted some introductory types of opportunities
. 24 to look into what would be taking place here today 25 and the future.
162 C79 1 Q. Was Ms.-Letsche present during the
'L 2 . meeting when yoc spoke?
3 A. Yes, I would say yes.
4 Q. What did you-say at the meeting in 5 Ms. Letsche's presence?
6 A. I can't recall.
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection. I 8 instruct him not to answer.
\
9 MR. DAVIES: What grounds?
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Attorney / client 11 privilege and attorney work product.
12 MR. DAVIES: Attorney / client
(
" 13 privilege attaches to confidential communications 14 between counsel and his client. The presence of a 15 third party during the course of such 16 communication negates any finding of 17 confidentiality with respect to those 18 communications and thus loses for the client the i
19 protection of an attorney / client privilege.
! 20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: This was a 21 confidential communication. I have researched the 22 issue. I am comfortable with the position I have 23 taken and I am not prepared to change it now.
r Is it your intention to p- , 24 MR. DAVIES:
25 persist in objecting to any inquiry concerning
m 163
^3 1 what' occurred at the meeting and communications 2 and statements made at the meeting which occurred 3 last Friday in the presence of Ms. Letsche?
4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I think I have
. 5 already allowed you some inquiry and further 6 inquiry along the lines of subject matter of 7 discussions I will not allow.
8 MR. DAVIES: Do you take the position 9 that Ms. Letsche's presence at that meeting was in 10 a role as counsel for Mr. Petrone?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I have stated my 12 position and I don't wish to engage in further 13 discussions or characterizations about 14 Ms. Letsche's role.
15 MR. DAVIES: I think it is important 16 because we ultimately will have to seek a ruling.
! 17 MS. LETSCHE: Maybe I can clarify as I
l' 18 to what my role was. As you well know, Suffolk 19 County and the State of New York do have certain 20 mutual interests in the Shoreham proceeding and in 21 fact have jointly filed contentions as to which l
22 Mr. Petrone has been identified as a witness.
l 23 Therefore my participation in that
. . 24 meeting insofar as it involved discussions 25 concerning Mr. Petrone's testimony was in the
-164 L t' l' ' context of the mutually held position in .this
- t, 2- proceeding that is held by both suffolk County and 3 'New York and therefore revelation of discussions 4 of counsel concerning that meeting are protected 5 by the attorney work product doctrine.
6 MR. DAVIES: Do I understand that you 7 are asserting a joint interest privilege on behalf 8 of both New York State and Suffolk County?
9 MS. LETSCHE: With respect to the 10 subject matter of potential testimony concerning
-11 jointly sponsored contentions, conversations 12 between attorneys on those subjects would reveal
'- 13 ' attorney opinion and thought processes and 14 therefore are covered by the attorney work product 15 privilege in the context of a joint defense type 16 situation.
17 MR. DAVIES: Do I understand that 18 based on what you say Mr. Petrone is a witness who 19 is also sponsored by or appearing on behalf of the 20 county?
21 MS. LETSCHE: No. Mr. Petrone is 22 appearing as a witness sponsored by the State of 23 New York. However, as I understand it, he intends I 24 to be testifying in support of contentions which p .;
25 are sponsored, the contentions, that is, by both
165 gm 1 Suffolk County and the State of New York and a-1 s o 2 by the Town of Southampton. Therefore the subject 3 . matter of his testimony does also support the 1
( 4 position of Suffolk County and therefore 5 conversations between Mr. Zahnleuter and myself 6 concerning that subject matter are protected by 7 the attorney work product privilege.
8 MR. DAVIES: So I am clear and the 9 record is clear when a ruling is sought, your 10 presence at the meeting which occurred last Friday 11 attended by Mr. Petrone was as counsel fo: Suffolk '
12 County and the assertion of a privilege is 13 premised upon the existence of what is alleged to 14 be a joint interest privilege shared by New York 15 State and Suffolk County in this proceeding?
16 MS. LETSCHE: I attended that meeting 17 in my role as counsel for Suffolk County and the 18 basis of the objection has been stated by Mr.
19 Zahnleuter and I have explained to you what the 20 position is.
21 MR. DAVIES: I am not going to delay 22 this proceeding by pursuing other questions. I do 23 want to make it clear that it is our position that
(, 24 we are entitled to inquire fully into all 25 communications that occurred in the course of that
m 166 L i 1 meeting and all activities which occurred, L .
2 -including what documents were viewed by the 3 witness, what statements were made to him by 4 others present at that meeting and that I reserve 5 our rights to pursue a complete line of inquiry 6 into those areas, which I assume would be met by 7 an objection premised on this joint interest 8 privilege at this time. Is that correct?
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: What is correct is 10 what I have stated previously and I don't wish to 11 restate it.
12 MR. DAVIES: Am I correct that if I
' 13 pursue questions I would be mot by an objection 14 and a direction to this witness not to answer to 15 the extent that those questions seem to elicit l 16 information concerning what he did and what was
{
l 17 said by anyone at the meeting last Friday to which 18 we have referred?
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: That is correct.
20 MR. DAVIES: Then I think that I will 21 not belabor the issue and we will seek an 22 appropriate ruling and pursue the matter.
23 I would like the reporter to mark --
r
[. ; 24 MR. IRWIN: I will add i
25 parenthetically on the record that by making it
.. o 167
-> 1 impossible for us at this point to inquire into s
'2 'the discussion at that meeting, you are requiring 3 us in order to obtain meaningful discovery, as we 4 are entitled under the board's outstanding order, 5 to require Mr. Petrone to outline his intended 6 testimony with respect to each and every sub-part 7 of 16, and 16 based upon his qualification as an 8 expert witness.
9 MS. LETSCHE: I am not sure what the 10 connection is from the earlier part of your 11 statement to the end.
g 12 MR. DAVIES: Do you have for your use 13 a copy of the contentions?
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Yes.
15 MR. DAVIES: Do you have a copy, Ms.
16 Letsche?
17 MS. LETSCHE: Yes.
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I should clarify i
19 what version of the contentions you have in mind.
20 MR. DAVIES: I have the contentions I 21 believe as they were filed.
22 MR. IRWIN: As I understand it, 23 contention 15 as it currently exists is as it was
,, 24 filed except for sub-part J, which was stricken,
! and that contention 16 remains as it was filed but 25
168 v '.i 1 for sub-part M, which was stricken.
L 2 MR. DAVIES: I ask the reporter to 3 mark as Exhibit T copies of contentions 15 and 16, 4 and I invite counsel to look at the exhibit as 5 marked and make a comparison between that and the 6 contentions.
7 (Petrone Exhibit T marked for 8 identification, as of this date.)
9 Q. Do you have Exhibit T before you?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. With respect to contention 15, which 12 begins on the first page of the exhibit which is t
'- 13 page No. 16 and continues to page 25, I would just 14 like to ask you to state now on this record what, 15 other than that which is reflected in the exhibit 16 before you and the contentions themselves, you 17 would intend to state with respect to these i
18 contentions in your testimony in this proceeding.
I 19 A. I haven't even had a chance to study l
20 this or even to begin writing testimony. I can't 21 answer that.
22 Q. Is it your testimony that at this 23 time you have not determined upon the testimony (j 24 you will give with respect to contention 157 l 25 A. I haven't done any work with regard l
l t
o ~
169 1 to the testimony that I would be giving relative 2 to contention 15 and 16.. I have reviewed it, 3 period.
4 Q. So at this time you cannot tell us 5 what, if anything, you would say with respect to 6 contentions 15 and 16?
7 A. No, I will not state anything because 8 I haven't had a chance to study it and to really 9 start developing the testimony that I would feel 10 comfortable with, 11 Q. Your answer refers to 16 also?
12 A. Yes, as I said, I reviewed this twice.
13 I just read it over.
14 Q. Just so the record is clear, you are 15 not able to state here today what testimony, if 16 any, you would give in this proceeding with 17 respect to those matters set forth in contention 18 15 and with respect to those matters set forth in 19 contention 16?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. When were you first approached or 22 asked to be a witness in this proceeding? -
23 A. Approached about two months ago.
s, , . 24 Q. By whom?
25 A. Mr. Zahnleuter.
i
170 7 73 1 Q. Had you spoken with anyone at any E
2 time from April up until approximately two months 3 ago concerning the possibility that you would 4 testify in this proceeding?
5 A. I spoke to many people after I 6 resigned and there was much speculation by several 7 people in terms of well, Mr. Petrone, maybe you 8 will be a witness, maybe you will not be, in terms 9 of the outcome of what is going to happen at 10 Shoreham. If I had a nickel for every question I 11 have been asked after April, I would be a very 12 rich man right now. I could not even begin to 13 speculate on who asked me what questions and 14 relative to testimony and not testimony.
15 Q. Let me ask you this: Other than the 16 request from Mr. Zahnleuter to be a witness which 17 was made approximately two months ago, had anyone 18 else expressly made a request upon you that you be 19 a witness?
20 A. No. I think the only discussion that 21 took place that I can give relevance to at this 22 point was following my congressional testimony.
23 After that some period of time where Mr. Lampher LJ 24 did call me from Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.
25 Q. When was that?
e: ~
171
, 1 A. I can't recall. It was after the 2 April fiasco.
3 Q. Did he ask you to be a witness?
4 A. He mentioned the fact that there is a 5 possibility we would like to talk to you with 6 regard to some of these-concerns, and I at that 7 point said I am ailling to talk to anyone, and 8 that's where it ended basically two months ago.
9 Two months ago Mr. Zahnleuter communicated with me, 10 to the best of my recol,lection.
11 Q. When did you agree to testify in the 12 proceeding?
I 13 A. I finally agreed probably about two 14 weeks ago, ten days or two weeks ago.
15 Q. Prior to that decision had there been 16 other communications between you and Mr.
17 Zahnleuter or anyone else?
18 A. Just in discussion prior to in terms 19 of the possibility of being a witness and 20 providing your expertise, that's all.
21 Q. Did you discuss compensation?
22 A. Compensation has never been discussed.
23 Q. To this day is that true?
(, 24 A. To this day, that is correct.
25 Q. Have you received any compensation in
172
', 4 1 connection with preparing for this hearing or i
2 preparing to be a witness in the proceeding?
3 A. No, not at all.
4 Q. Have you received any reimbursement 5 of any expenses which you incurred?
6 A. No, I have not.
7 Q. Have you reached any agreement with 8 anyone concerning a reimbursement?
9 A. it has never been discussed, never 10 been broached.
11 Q. Has the principle of whether expenses 12 will be reimbursed been discussed?
U
'- 13 A. Nothing of that subject matter has 14 been discussed.
15 Q. Did you know whether you were going 16 to receive any compensation?
17 A. I have no idea and I never asked.
18 Q. Do you intend to ask?
19 A. No. It depends. I may ask you, if 20 you keep me here any longer.
21 Q. Was there a particular reason why 22 some six weeks or so elapsed between the first 23 request and your agreement to appese as a witness?
(, 24 A. Basically we just didn't communicate, 25 and I have had a lot of things I have been
a o ,
173
,. 1 involved in in my life. This is not the primary 2 issue of my life any longer.
3 Q. When you were first approached by New 4 York State and asked if you would be a witness, 5 did you indicate that,that was a proposal which 6 was acceptable to you?
7 A. I just said that I had agreed only 8 about ten days ago, so obviously I took time to 9 think about this and review it and look at my 10 options, and my options being of course that 11 someone was going to want me here somewhere in the 12 process, and New York State and the county
.t 13 appro. ached me, and I do believe in what they are 14 contending on 15 and 16.
15 Q. Did you review any documents during 16 the period between the first communication and 17 your decision to become a witness?
18 A. No. The only thing is I said I read 19 over the contentions once or twice, and that's it.
20 Q. Did you review the contentions before 21 you agreed to become a witness?
22 A. Yes, I did. I looked them over prior.
23 Q. From whom did you receive them?
i.,, , 24 A. Mr. Zahnleuter.
25 Q. Did he mail them to you?
l-174 p i 1 A. Yes, he mailed them to me.
2 Q. When was that?
3 A. I can't recall when I received them.
4 I think I mentioned approximately six weeks ago.
5 Q. Had you asked him for a copy of the 6 contentions?
7 A. I had wanted to see, yes, what they 8 basically were contending and I asked for a copy 9 of it.
10 Q. Did he tell you that he specifically 11 wanted you to be a witness with respect to those 12 contentions which you reviewed?
13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection. I have 14 to object o ne the grounds of attorney work product 15 and attorney / client privilege regarding that 16 discussion and I instruct Mr. Petrone not to 17 answer.
18 MR. DAVIES: I don't think he was a 19 client at that time. I am referring now to the 20 c o n .' e r s a t i o n some six weeks before he agreed to be 21 a witness.
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: The consultation 23 process is still covered within my objection.
[g 24 MR. DAVIES: We will take the same 25 position with respect to that communication,
' c' A 175
, . , 1 though for other reasons, principally the absence 2 of an attorney / client r e l a t i o n s h,i p .
3 MR. DAVIES: Let's take a short break.
4 (Recess taken.)
5 Q. Other than the meeting of Friday last, 6 the 12th, and the conversation when you were asked 7 to be a witness and the conversation when you 8 agreed to 'O e a witness some six weeks later, have 9 there been any other meetings at which your 10 testimony concerning contentions 15 and 16 have 11 been discussed?
12 A. Not specifically with 15 or 16. We 13 did meet prior in terms of just discussing the 14 process, as I mentioned. Probably one or two 15 meetings prior to discuss the process and my 16 involvement.
17 Q. When was that?
18 A. I can't recall the time frame other 19 than there has been this two-month time frame.
20 Q. Were these meetings that occurred 21 before the date upon which you agreed to be a 22 witness?
23 A. Yes.
q, 24 Q. Where did these meetings take place?
25 A. They took place in Suffolk County.
a 176
'l 1 Q. Attended by whom?
2 A. s Ms. Letsche, Mr. Zahnleuter, and we 3 utilized the State Office in the Department of 4 State.
5 Q. In Hauppauge?
6 A . -- Yes.
7 Q. Was anyone else present?
8 A. Ms. Pohanka, who is with the Governor.
9 Q. Who is pho?
10 A. The liaison for the Governor's office 11 based in Suffolk.
12 Q. In Hauppauge?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. She was present?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. There were two meetings?
17 A. Yes, just basically to begin 18 discussions. They were short meetings.
19 Q. What did you say at these meetings?
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Objection, attorney 21 work product and attorney / client privilege.
22 Please don't answer.
23 MR. DAVIES: I once again want to r
24 make it clear that I believe we have a right based i>Ed 25 upon two factors, one that at the time of these
a_ o 177
< , 1 meetings Mr. Petrone had not become a witness in 2 this proceeding, and secondly the presence of Ms.
3 Letsche and Ms. Pohanka, who is not an attorney, a 4 person who is not there as an assistant or an 5 employee of the attorneys, all of which combined 6 to rob the occasion of any of the qualities which 7 would be necessary for the assertion of either the 8 attorney / client privilege or the work product 9 privilege.
10 I assume again, so we cannot belabor 11 this, that you would assert one or more or both of 12 those privileges and bar inquiry into activities, 13 communications and statements at both of these 14 meetings which occurred in Hauppauge; is that 15 correct?
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I will not allow Mr.
17 Petrone to answer questions about the subject 18 matter of discussions at those meetings.
19 MR. DAVIES: Would you permit him to 20 identify the nature of any documents he may have 21 examined at those meetings?
22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No.
23 MR. DAVIES: We naturally reserve the
, 24 right of full inquiry concerning those meetings 25 for the reasons that I have alluded to and the
178 9 1 reasons that I articulated in connection with the 2 meeting which occurred in Albany attended by 3 yourself, Mr. Palomino, Ms. Letsche and Mr.
4 Petrone.
5 .
THE WITNESS: 'It was New York City.
6 MR. DAVIES: Just so the record is 7 clear, the meeting that I said occurred in Albany 8 occurred in the Governor's Office in New York City.
9 THE WITNESS: Last Friday.
10 MR. DAVIES: I think I have stated my 11 position with respect to the inquiries which we 12 would make and naturally we reserve the right to
. 13 pursue that following a ruling from the board with 14 respect to this apparent assertion of 15 attorney / client and/or an attorney work product 16 privilege.
17 Q. So I can fix these two meetings at 18 Hauppauge, did they occur subsequent to the date 19 some two months ago when Mr. Zahnleuter approached 20 you concerning your desire or ability to be a 21 witness?
22 A. The original approach was at one of 23 the meetings.
g 24 Q. That was approximately two months ago?
t 25 A. Approximately two months ago.
r
. o 179 7; . 1 Q. Prior to that meeting had you 2 reviewed contentions 15 and 16?
3 A. No, I had not.
4 Q. What period of time elapsed between 5 the first meeting in Hauppauge and the second 6 meeting in Hauppauge?
7 A. Probably a month.
8 Q. During the intervening period had you 9 reviewed contentions 15 and 167 10 A. I believe I stated that I believe I 11 received them six weeks'ago to a month, so I 12 believe I received the contentions and then we had
('-
- 13 our second meeting.
14 Q. The contentions, I think you said, 15 had been mailed to you?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And to your best recollection today, 18 that occurred between the two meetings?
19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. Had you agreed to be a witness prior 21 to or subsequent to the second meeting?
l 22 A. I had mentioned only ten days ago I 23 agreed.
i i. 24 MR. DAVIES: Subject to those matters 25 which I have already articulated as being areas I
L
r 180 e
n-J 1 with respect to which we claim a right of inquiry, l
2 I have no further questions at this t.me. Thank 3 you, Mr. Petrone.
4 MS. LETSCHE: I have no questions.
5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No questions. I 6 would like to ask Mr. Petrone if he has in 7 preparation for this deposition reviewed Guidance 8 Memorandum 17 or NUREG 0654.
9 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't.
10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I have no other 11 questions. I would like to state for the record 12 we do have a stipulation with regard to testimony I
L 13 dealing with other, exercises and if I understand 14 correctly, that matter will be closed at the close 15 of this deposition.
16 Furthermore with regard to the 17 assertion of attorney work product and 18 attorney / client privileges, I think you have asked 19 Mr. Petrone whether or not he knows what his 20 testimony is. He has said he has not, but on the 21 other hand you have had an ample opportunity to 22 probo the opinionn that he may have, and you have 23 done so at this deposition. (
]
)
- [ g 24 MR. DAVIES
- Let me just respond to 25 that. It would take, I think, more exportise than
i 181 i
3 1 any living lawyer possesses to elicit from this 2 witness anything meaningful concerning testimony 3 which he himself doesn't yet know or doesn't yet 4 have any basis of formulation, and therefore if 5 your statement was intended to be an attempt to 6 limit examination based upon this examination 7 being a fair and full opportunity to determine 8 what testimony Mr. .Petrone might give with respect 9 to contentions 15 and 16, I must reject it and 10 state that plainly when Mr. Petrone is on record 11 as having said that he has not yet begun to 12 prepare and doesn't yet know what his testimony
(. .
+
13 will be, we cannot possibly have meaningful 14 discovery with respect to that issue.
i 15 Let me also just ask this. In light 16 of your question concerning what he has reviewed, 17 I believe that you have opened the door to 18 questions concerning documents which were reviewed 19 by Mr. Petrone and you have waived the assertion 20 of a privilege with respect to the identification 21 of documents which were reviewed by yourself 22 asking the witness to exclude certain documents.
23 In light of that I would like to take s,. 24 this opportunity now to ask Mr. Petrono to 25 identify those documents which were reviewed by
182
, ., 1 *him at the meetings in Hauppauge and in New York
.J 2 City.
3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I object. Your 4 position is without merit and I assert the s
5 attorney work product and attorney / client 6 p'rivilege.
7 MR. DAVIES: It is my position that l
8 by asking questions yourself as to the witness' 9 review of documents, you have waived that 10 privilege.
11 MS. LETSCHE: Let me note for your 12 information, Mr. Davies, concerning your inquiry IJ' 13 of witnesses, there have been lots and lots of 14 depositionc of witnesses taken in this case, both 15 in this litigation, both in this exercise 16 litigation and in prior litigation, and most of 17 the lawyers, whether we are technically competent 18 or not, are able to inquire and ask as to 19 witnesses' opinions, despite the fact that mest R
20 . witnesses at the time they are deposed have not 21 prepared their testimony, and I just want the 22 record to reflect that.
23 MR. IRWIN: Let me add one thing with 24 respect to prior discovery. One of the reasons 25 this deposition has taken some of the twists and b
. ,. . . . _ . . . . . . . ~ .... . . -. . .. .
. o 183 1 turns it has taken has been that prior discovery 2 and attempts to inquire into witnesses' views and ,
3 witnesses and bases for testimony have been a 4 continuing exercise in frustration which has led 5 to an inability to ' prepare proper summary ,
6 disposition papers.
7 one of the purposes of summary 8 disposition is to narrow and focus litigation, and ;
9 if the conduct discovery is strategized and 10 orchestrated in a way to frustrate the bringing 11 forth of expert knowledge on the subject matter, 12 that is something which frustrates the intended
( .
':* 13 function of discovery and a matter for which we 14 may have to seek remedies. I j 15 (Time noted: 5:10 p.m.) ;
- 16 17 i
4
.' 18 L
19 .-
i 20 [
21
, 22 i
23 l e
- 25
?
I
184 A_C K N O W L E D G M E N T
{a l
2 3 STATE OF NEW YORK:
4 COUNTY OF NEW YORK 5
6 7 1 FRANK PETRONE certify that I have 8 read the transcription of my testimony, and that 9 the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription 10 of same.
11 12 ,,, , ,,
L- 13 FRANK PETRONE 14 15 16 signed and subscribed to before me 17 this ,
day of,., , 1986.
18 19 .... ... .... _ _.. _.._...__
20 NOTARY PUBLIC 21 22 23 l 24 25
. O O 185 1
2 3 S _ !..! _ .t _ 1._ L I._ g._.A _ T I_E.w 4
5 6
7 1, DOUGLAS M. BURKE, a Shorthand Reporter and 8 a Notary Public, do hereby certify that the 9 foregoing witness, FRANK PETRONE, was duly sworn 10 by me on the date indicated, and that the a 11 foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of 12 my stenographic notes.
( 13 I further certify that I am not employed by 14 nor related to any party to this action.
15 16 _ _ , , _ , , _ , , _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ,
17 DOUGLAS M. BURKE 18 19 20 ,
21 22 23 24 25
/
186 1'
j, j. 1 E X H I B I T S a
2 3 PETRONE I 4 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE I 5 A Guidance memorandum 17 30 i
6 B Draft dated 8/15/86 37 I
7 C Fact Sheet dated 2/10/86 42 8 D NRC memo dated 6/1/83 56 l 9 E FEMA letter dated 7/23/83 58 10 F FEMA letter dated 8/29/83 61 11 G FEMA letter dated 11/15/84 68 i
12 H NRC letter dated 6/1/84 69 I I
. . ,.J 73 13 I chart of' meetings i
14 J NRC memo dated 6/4/85 . 76 l l l 15 K NRC memo dated 6/20/85 77 l
l 16 L FEMA letter dated 10/29/85 78 17 H FEMA memo dated 11/1/85 79 18 N Proposed milestone dated 80 19 0 FEMA memo dated 1/3/86 97 20 P Petrone handwritten draft 136 l T l 21 Q FEMA letter to Bector 145 22 R NRC background statement 145 I
23 s Chronology on Shoreham 157 24 T Contentions 15 and 16 168
[]
25 l
~~
\
s 4- -
- Guidance Memorandus 17. Revision 1
- ,/ w .e U * * * *"' * *' I) Technoiogical Nasards 0.::.s. . ...I. 2d.(.dG CONDUCTING FRE-EXERCISE AND POST-EXERCISE ACTIVITI Pursese This Guidance Memorandum provides guidelines for conducting pre-emercise an post-emercise activities.
Background
Under 44 CFR 350, it is the responsibility of a state and its local governments to conduct joint exercises as a condition of initialThe and continued Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval.
original Guidance Memorandum (GM) 17 dated January 8,19g1, provided precedural guidance intended to improve the condwet of esercises and to establish greater uniformity among the FEMA Regiosa in this ctivity.
while progress has been made, there is still auch diversity among RegionsT 2
in the gus11ty of exercises conducted. It i
, at achieving uniformity in preparing for and It isconducting to be seedemersises.
in senjunction supersedes the January 8.1981, CM 17.
with the August 3,1933, aseerandue f ree Dave Mai.eughlin entitled
" Procedural Felicy en Radielegical Energency Freparedness Flas Reviews, -
- Esercise Observations and Evaluations, and Interia Findings
- La all joint esertises required by the Nuclear Reguistory Coesissica (NRC) and_FF.MA .
- regulations.
Cuidance
^
- 1. Pre-enercise Activity Past experience has shown that joint esercises suet be planned seneiderably in advance and each step scheduled. Is order to ensure optimus results, the following silestanes should be met, at a sinimus.
More f requent contacts are at the discreties of the legies.
NOTE:
These silestenes are predicated es adheresse to the biential esercise frequency. If, f or say reason, emeratees will be more freguest, the milestone dates shows la parentheses should be used.
Mthv.E5 yet ertaCIft PREPARAT10W i
se Later Then the Rev Prior to tseresse f sesce med 11eeeeee jointly develop and 120 days esboit eserstee objectives to FEMA and (73) NEC RegLonal 0ffices.
FEMA and NRC Regional offices acepte e 105 days reviews of objectives and essent of pisy (60) af ter meeting with itsensee/ State, if seese esty.
L
l 90 days State and licensee submit exercise 1 (45)
- scenario to FEMA and NRC Regions )
' J for review.
[ 60 days FEMA and NRC Regions contact or meet
. (35) with State and licenses to discuss modifications and complete the scenario.
i 40 days Controller's meeting to develop (30) coordination of esercise.
30 days FEMA and NRC Regione do wlop specific (25) post-enercise activity schedule i
with the State and advise FEMA and NRC Headquarters.
15 days optional - The RAC Chairman and NRC (15) team leader meet to develop observer j
action plan (where stationed, how nany from each organization, what l
I to look for).
1 day All Federal eboervers, both onsite (1) and effsite, meet in the exercise ares to finalise assignements and receive instructiosa.
d
' Whenever an exercise is scheduled, the Region should immediately assure construction of a time line based on the above and make 1.c available to the State NRC Region, and FEMA Headquarters. Where a plant is located en a Regional hous'.dary, the Region in which the plant is actually located is considered the lead Region for purposes of scheduling and coordination.
- tatablishing the time line is the responsibility of the lead Region.
! Adhering to the time line should permit emple time to review and negotiate any changes to the exercise objectives and the esercise scenario. However, should delays occur which may affeet the scheduled esercise date, the Regional Director must so advise the State, the utility, the NRC Region, and FEMA Headquarters. The FEMA Regional Of fice should aske every eff ort to rectify slips in the timetable to avoid reacheduling the esercise date.
The basic objectives f or the esercise should be takes free the list
, of 36 in Attachment 1. The objectiree have been developed to generally serrespond to the observable elements of NUEID-0634/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, as well as the sedules contained in the "Medslar Format for gaiformity of Radiological Emergency Freparedness taercise Observations and Evaluations."
l Objectives should be choses to test a asjoe porties of emergesey reopease t espebilities. Objectives related to dettaiensies of record am1=d for eerrection free the previene esercise should be instuded. la addities, each of the 36 ebjectives should be tested at least enee within a five-ysar period. ,
s 1
1 i
i
(
-3,-
The objectives for each exercise must be reviewed by both the FDLA
"- and NRC Regional Offices before specific scenarios are written. Once reviewed, the State and licenses will develop a scenario for submission which will include, et a sinimus:
- a full schedule of all events,
)
i - all dosiostry and monitored values to be supplied to the honitoring teams,
- all release data free the plant,
- calculations of offsite dose, and
'3
- applicable esteorological data.
' FEMA and NRC Regions will coordinate review of the scenario and notify the State and licensee of any necessary modifications. If necessary, a seeting to discues modifications should be held. If agreement cannot be reached. FEMA and NRC Meadquarters assistance should be sought.
II. Post-emerciou Meetings A. Three audience groups are to be involved in poet-enercise meetings:
- - observe rs , -
- esercise participants, and .
I f
- public/ media.
The approach to each audience's meeting will usually vary. In addition, the timing and intent of the meetings may vary depending upon whether the esercise is conducted in advance of FDLA ~350* approval
(*qualif ying exercise") or for continued *350* approval.
f 5. The fellowing chart illustrates post-enarcise meeting requirements for qualifying esercises and exercises for continued FDtA approval.
Guidance se each type of meeting follows.
CONT!NUED-APpnovAL ExttC!st QUALIFTIWG EXERCISE Observer Debriefing Observer Debrieflag Emeraise Participants Emersies Portisipants Srteting 3riefins .
Public Meeting Meettag l
d
l
, 1. Observer Debriefing (for qualifying and continued-spproval exercises).
- a. Immediately following the exercise, the RAC Chairman should convene the FEMA and RAC evaluators to debrief thes and to consolidate their observations and comments. The separate observer debriefing is not specified under 44 CFR 350 but should be incorporated as standard procedure. Duttag
! this same period, the NRC team leader should parallel this process with the NRC observers.
- b. As soon as possible af ter their independent debriefings, i the RAC Chairman and the NRC taas leader should meet to coordinate and arrange Federal participation in the joint esercise participant's briefing.
- 2. Exercise Participants' Reiafing (for qualifying eM continued-approval esercises).
- a. Within 44 hours5.092593e-4 days <br />0.0122 hours <br />7.275132e-5 weeks <br />1.6742e-5 months <br /> of the completion of an exercise, a briefing involving the exercise participants and Federal observers should l
be held to discuss the preliminary results of the esercise. This briefing should be held in accordance with 44 CFR 350.9(a) and (d).
- b. A recommended agenda to be used is as followet Review of onsite actions by NEC, Licensee presents their views (clarifying questions or comments). -
r -
Review of offsite actions by RAC Chairman, State and locals present their views (clarifying questions or comments),
Review of Federal response (if applicable) by RAC Chairman, and Opportunity for clarifying questions or comments by
- licensee, state, and locals.
i
- c. The presentations should each he a brief, integrated i overview covering the highlights of the esercise. The aset important I
deficiessies ebeerved east be insladed and appropriate esamendation for good performesse saa he included. Eeuever, the RAC Chairmes east 33, indiaste ehether the State or local preparedness is adequate er imedequate.
i
- 3. Meeting For Castissed FEMA Approval Emercises.
1 s. Following an emerates for eastimmed FEMA approval, a asettag involving esercise participeats, representatives from the NRC and other appropriate Federal agencies and the public sad the media should be held is asses 9dases with 44 CFR 350.9(e) in the vicinity of the neslear peuer f acility. At the diserecies of the Regional Director, this meeting may be sembined with the
, esercise participants' briefing.
i l
i e l l
w--,-..e _
-__ym .mv .rw. ,- ....-w-1-- - - ------w-----
+
- b. The public and media may attend the meeting as observe s.
,. . Howevege at the discretion of the Regional Director, written questions
, from the public and media may be submitted at or af ter the meeting for consideration in the exercise evaluation. Also, the Regional Director
~
may further use his/her discretion to solicit and respond to oral questions and casaments during this meeting. Under as circumstances should it be indicated whether State or local preparednesar is adequate or inadequate.
- c. During the meeting, the RAC Chairman should offer an overview of the esercise and should provide his/her observations. Comments from the RAC members and FEMA observers may be solicited at the discretion of the RAC Chairman.
4 Public Muting.
- a. Prior to the submission by the Regional Director of '.t. t evaluation of the plan and exercise to FDIA Meadquarters, a public use. ..g in accordance with 44 CFR 350.10 should be held in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility. Exercise participants, representatives from the NRC, and other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies should attend. ,
- b. The meeting should acquaint members of the public with appropriate State and local energency plass, the results of the exercise and indicate actions on corrective measures, answer any questions about FEMA's review sad evaluation, and receive suggestions from the public .
for improvement or changes.
l .
,. c. ForsituationsinwhichapublicmeetinghasbeEnheld during the 350 approval process and prior to both the qualifying exercise and the effective date (October 28, 1983) of the final rule, 44 CFR 350, the requirement for conducting a public meeting under 350.10 will be
- considered by FEMA to have been met if a
- briefing" was held for the l initial, qualifying exercise.
1
- 5.
- Meetings" for exercises conducted during 350 sooroval orocess.
Requirements in 44 CFR 350 do not address the conduct of *asetings* for esercises held af ter the initial, qualifying esercise and before the completion of the
. 350 approval process. For such esercises, a meettag as described La 350.9(e) should be held even though the sentest of this meeting is the rule is for emeraises seeducted for costiamed FDIA approval. FINA's evaluation of such
- isteria* exercises is an integral part of ear everall 350 approval presses; therefers, as opport aity should be provided to the emeraise participeats, the pahlis, media, and other Federal agemeias te disemos the perforassee 1 of the emeraise and our preliminary evaluaties.
l l
l 1
d b
~ . _ . _ . _ - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - - - _ _ ..- .. - ,- - - - .- ._m _
. . .. .~. . _ - . . . . . _.
ATTACHMENT I
. GM 17 CORRESPONDING OBJECTIVE PART(S) of F05 NURIC-0656_
- 1. Demonstrate ability to mobilise -
g Sec. I E.1, E.2 stff and activate f acilities EOF Sec. I proeptly. 3[,DQ D Sec. I
,R,&Oc qq Sec. I
, 3 Sec. I 2'. Demonstrate ability to fully g Sec. I A.2.a, staff facilities and esintain g Sec. I A. 4 staffing around the clock. MEDI A Sec. I
,REgC, Sec. I
- 3. Demonstrate ability to make g sec. II A.1. d ,
l ' decisions and to coordinate A. 2. s
! emergency activities.
4 Demonstrate adequacy of facilitics g Sec. III G.3.a.
and displays to support energen:y E Sec. II M.2, operations. MEDIA Sec. 11 X.3 f
S. Demonstrate ability to communicate E Sec. IV F with all appropriate locations, g Sec. III organisations, and field personnel. MEDIA Sec. III M Sec. III F A Sec. I , II ,,,
$ Sec. IV l .
- 6. Demonstrate ability to mobilise 3 Sec. I E.2. I.8 and deploy field monitoring teams in a timely fashion.
- 7. Demonstrate appropriate equipment 3 Sec. II, III I.8, 1.11 1 and procedures for decernining ambient radiation levels.
8*. Demonstrate appropriate equipment m Sec. II, III I.9 and procedures for esasurement of h Sec. I, II e airborne radioiedine concentratione l as low as 10-7 oci/CC in the preseman of noble gases.
- 9. Dessentrate appropriate equipment M Sec. II, III I.8
- and preesdures for es11ection and h Sec. I, II tressport of semples of esti,
! vegetaties, snow, water, and silk.
4
- 10. Deessetrate appropriate lab M Sec. 1. !! C. 3 operation functices for esseuring .
and analysing all types of samples.
t i,
--n-w-,-w ne__. - - , _ _ , , _ _ _ , _ .
_, _,,_v,,- ,-.--,m-w,~ ,
- . _... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. i
. l
. . . j
. C.. 25PONDING OBJECTIVE 't.**'5) of FORM NUREC-065; I c.
*#'*. 11. Demonstrate ability to project YoC Sec. V :,10, y,10,:
dosage to the public via pluse Ecr sec. XI es posure, bee d on plant and j field data, and to determine I appropriate protective seasures, based on FAC's, available shelter, evacuation time estinctes, and all other appropriate f actors. -
- 12. Demonstrate ability to project . IOC Sec. V I.10, J.11 dosage to the public via ingestion Ecr Sec. VI pathway exposure, based on plant and field data, and to determine appropriate protective measures, ,
based on PAC's and other relevant factors.
- 13. Demonstrate ability to implement Ecc Sec. VII.C J.9, J.11 protective actions for ingestion pathway haza-ds.
- 14. Demonstrate ability to alert the !cc Sec. VI I.6 public within the 10-sile EPI, and jgt Sec. III disseminate an initial instructional message, within 15 minutes.
- 15. . Demonstrace ability to forzu. ate ,FgC Sec. VI E.5 and distribute appropriate l .. instructions to the public, in a ,
l timely fashion.
I
- 16. Demonstrate the organizationcl EOC Sec. VII. A J.9, J.10.
l ability and resources necessary Jgi Sec. I to manage an orderly evacuation of all ce part of the plume EP:.
- 17. Demonstrste the organizational jylc Sec. VII.A J.10.X ability and resources necessary FJL Sec. I to deal with impediments to evacuation, as inclement weather or traffic obstructions.
- 18. Deeenstrate the organizations 1 toc Sec. VII. A J.10.j sbility and resources necessary jgt Sec. I to control access to an evacuated area.
l .
N 1
l t
l
'4 ATTAQORNT I GM 17
. CORRESPONDING OLTECmrt
- FART (S) of FORM MURIC-0654
- 19. De-onserste the organizational o sec. VII, s loc J.10.4 ability and resources necessary u sec. II.3 to effect an orderly evacuation of mobility-impaired individuals within the plume EFZ.
- 20. Demonstrate the organizational M Sec. VII.S J.9, J.10.g ability and resources necessary & Sec. II.A to effect an orderly evacuation of schools within the plume EFZ.
s .
- 21. Demonstrate ability to continuously 20C Sec. VIII K.3. a b l
j monitor and control emergency B Sec. IV worker exposure. 3 Sec. V
- 22. Desonstrate the ability to aske the EOC Sec. Y J.10.f I decision, based on predetermined g Sec. VI criteria, whether to issue KI to emergency workers and/or the general population.
- 23. Demonstrate the ability to supply g Sec. VIII J.10.e j
, and administer KI, once the decision 3 Sec. IV -
has been made to do so. g Sec. V -
" 24. Demonstrate ability to ef fect an g Sec. VII.B J.2 orderly evacuation of onsite personnel.
- 25. Demonstrate ability to brief the EOC Sec. IX C.3.a media in a clear, accurate and MEDIA Sec. IV G.4.a timely manner. E Sec. IV
- 26. Demonstrace ability to provide E Sec. II C.4.h advance coordination of information MEDIA Sec. IV released.
l 27. Demonstrate ability to establish g sec. II c.4.c and operate rumor control in a M Sec. YI coordinated fashion.
- 28. Dessestrate adequacy of procedures M Sec. II J.12 for registration and radiological aseitering of evacuees.
- 29. Demonstrate adequacy of facilities RELOC Sec. III . J.10.h for mass care of evacuees.
N. .
/
e
ATTACHMENT I GM 17
~
,' f
. CORIESPONDING -
, OLTECTIVE PAJtT( 5) of FORM NURIC-0654
- 30. Demonstrace adequate equipment DECON all K.5.a. b and procedures for decontamination of emergency workers, equipment
. sad vehicles.
- 31. Demonstrate adequacy of ambulance MEDIC Sec. III L.4 facilities and procedures for handling contaminated individuals.
- 32. Demonstrate adeguacy of hospital MEDIC Sec. II L.1 facilities and procedures for handling contaminated individuals.
- 33. Demonstrace a'ility o to identify (to be developed) C.1.a. b need for, request, and obtain Federal assistance.
- 34. Demonstrate ability to relocate to (to be developed) B.2, R.3 and operate the alternate EDT/EOC.
- 35. Demonstrate ability to estimate E sec. Y M.4 total population exposure. EOF Sec. VI
! 36. Demonstraterability to determine EOC Sec. X M.1
- and implement appropriate measures for controlled recovery and reentry.
l e.
. . . .....p.... - . . . - ,- - ~ . .o. . ,,
.q . . , :, ;.A .; : . .:. e :r.s..y. . - - -
...u.r i . c. :.. . -. i l - .
m ':: c. :.. := .3 : ~. 2 1
/
di.I 3 '$
i i
I
..-.. yu:m. tor: Dennis Kwiatkovski i
Direc: tor
{ Regional Coordination l
TROT : John I. Dickey, Directcr l R:fielugi=al I.ergancy l
Preparedness Divisica y
\ .
- A THRU: John W. Mccennell M-[I'~L Assistant Associate Director l for Population Preparedness SUNICT:
Joint Exercise Procedures - REP Guidance Memorandum $ 17 Please arrange to have the attached guidance memorandum published in the Director's Memorandum as soon as prac.icable . The following tex' should
, accompany the guidance memorandum.
In coordination with NRC, the attached joint exercise procedures Tuve been developed. The objective is to establish more uniformity in the Radiological Emergency Preparedness exercises under the proposed FIMA Rule 44 CFR 350.
Since the F3HA " Rule" speaks to off-site activity, the exercise procedures
- emphasize that aspect. ~ However, in recognition of the parallel involvement of the MRC, their activity is shown in direct relation to FIMA's.
' We hava also aiscussed with tne ItRC our desire for completion of all plans and exercises by April 1,1981. This is apparently causing a problem with some licenseeswho will not be ready to exercise effectively until after this date. Therefore, while F2MA must continue to press for implementation of state an.1 ?.ccal plans by April 1, Regions unst be f1==4Ma in sch " W g of joint exercises in support of the " Rule". Facilities should not be forced in.o pre-April exercises if they are ,not, read ,fsince premature involvement of the facility works against the development of integrated preparedness . I rope that this approach will help in scheduling,,your exer,_c,i, ses,po,re,,,p,f,fe,cti,vely .
If you have any guestions about this memorandum please contact Marold W. Gaut at 523-1781. ,,,-
Attachment:
727 Cuidance' Memorandum f 17 -
./ .'
. . ../ ag.).T Tk*, t q .
y l y '.. -
1 {,J,r ,e
.(fi I
P
- .=.
- l 1
l l
i
- ee .d.::: the cri.iqae :.:h a1i ha prisc ;a1.ar.:.es 7 .
- .;c' $. :,. d ( c.J g.s. .'the
- a."4C.
2Che:2 *. th: in**:24f S ::e u d 10:1- kJ;h:N28, 22 J may 'ce s :casians when :t. h .1 jcia: criti a
' . ..we and .utt:) .
is .o . feasible and separate sessions (:ne related to licensee pa::icipa:ica i.:s4 cnc related to State and le=al part;.=:.patien) are necessary due to j .c.psticsi or. funding con =traints. The:a si ations are to be clearef in
! ' advance th=u the FEM /tiRC Steering C===i ttaa. *n such casas the UC l Caairman should be avail. bis for heth critiques.
The oint c=ltique shculd be chaired by the RAC chairman and shculd he w:. thin c: near the 10 r:ile I? . As pa: of t::s overall f a. at the RAC Chai. man will di cass chservations cf the offsite response and the NRC will discuss observations of the onsite response. The state, local governments and utility should be present at this meeting to make pre-For the joint critique to be ef fective, it should take sentations.
place within the 24-hour period immediately following the exercise.
There should also be opportunity for clarification, questions or commentis
- by licensee, State and local officials.
I The RAC Chair: nan's overview statement should be based on comments fromIt l RAC members and other FEIA observers as well as his own observation.
should include the strong points as well as a general statement on the deficiencies noted. Under no circumstances will the RAC Chairman'sRe/she comments indicate that the State or local plans passed or failed.
~ should indicate that the comments are preliminary to be followed by a, The final FEM A findings and comprehensive evaluation within 14 days.
determination, as well as approval of a' State and/or local plan, submitted according to 44 CFR 350 of which the exercise is a part, is reserved to the Associate Director for Plans and Preparedness in Washington. ,
The principair milestones for "FIMA and NRC exercise observati'on and critique are given in Enclosure 1. These milestones are for planning purposes and actual schedules may need to be different because of local circumstancas.
l
- l 1 .
l .
l
--.e-- me - . ~ - . , ---- - - - -
- - . . . , . ~
- e
(
u ** .IiiO D ,,
- ...s
, . = e ..0 j " * **:.*.r e d".e S 9 M**ifI"U -
, so:::T ExzRC:st 7:00:3URIs In the interess of assuring that the health and safety of the public it
/ is protected in the event of an aceiisnt at a nuclear power dney plant, is necessary for the licensee (applicant), to conduct an e:ner ies.
j preparedness exercise jointly with appropriate state and l telocal the egenc l The role of the Federal government at such exercises is to eva ua tect I
capability of the utility and the state and local governments to pro ident at the facility.
the public health and safety in the event of an acc it Regional The FDtA official responsibis for this activit'y is the appropr a e .
Director.
f l over the last few months there have been several jointinexercises written wh l and NRC have made reviews both orally in an open meeting, and d We find however, significant variation The need for a standardised approach ures among regions in the proce form.
used for providing the svaluation.is evident' and the following is .
involved in exercise evaluation. Casite Assignmerits for offsite observers will be nade by the RACAChairman. meeting'of observers will be assigned locations by the NRC Team I.eader. }1 all parties should be conducted prior to *.he exercise to assure h that c. >
I observer locations are staffed by an evaluator, as well is to make w ate l last minute v.hanges are necessary based on field conditions, numbe ,
l
' evaluatora available, etc. =.
ii The betwee The exercise should be followed as soon as possib tatives and the participants (state and local officials and utility).represen It should le open the Federal observer teams headed by flu and the HECThey should, h to the public and the :: redia. If local ciroomstances dictate that a not participate in the discussions. hdldir i t private session be held with the stata authorities, meeting should be repeated in the open session. .
e
"--' - = _ . .
. .r * .
E.~. *, . . a :: . .
- . . ...-=.-
__;_== ~ - . * ~ . = . .a.......
- }
- ,.
3...............n I -.
i
. ;5 days' State and licansee jointly suW t exercise chjectin u '
- 'r-!A ar.d
- :R :legional Offices. '
- 60 days TE A and !!RC Regional Offi=ss discuss a .d = set with licensee / state ce necessary and prepara respcase.-
- 45 days St:ta and licensee sese.ario developers suti$it exercise '
scer.ario to rrtA and ::RC Regions for review. W.;...} -; . . . , . .
' . ..- '- -" ..a;:-@g. -D . '
~
- 35 s'ays TE:A and :RC Regions actify State and licensee'%f"scenaris '
u *Ij.
. accaptability. ,
- 30 days r=tA and HRc Regions develop specific post exercise c=iticpaa schedule with the state and advisa FIMA and NRC . .g.,. headesarter.s.
. ..j... .
- 15 days The RAc chairman and 1:RC team leader will'amet' 6 develop observer action plan (where stationed, how many from each _
~
organization, what to look for).
@ - 1 day Meeting, in the exercise area, of all Fedazar'Greervers both
. t .. ... . . :. ,h-
,e e.
, J...'
. ._c. -
casite and offsite to finalize assignments,' an'dgive instrucci E day Exercise '... ..
. ' :,e rE4A and RAc c'bservers caucus to es11 ate observations. NRC E day l
observers also caucus to collats. obsazvatieIns.'9C.%..
- . .w-e
- .? .*;..n.. :Q'g ,.L.y :,H'"Q7..
~ * : . . \. :
E day RA ~ ~ and uRC t== 1.ad., me.t,- s.oc.afta .. uni ;
respective eaucusa as practical, .t. coordinit& Ired.r:1:. m.,
particLpation in critieue. (:y'f;'
.$ ((.-g.} h..; .~r,:
,..,.W;e4
- . : ~ :s e a . v :Q.,.a.,,*,, ** !
p.4.. .y9 M'h.c . .
J' E to + 1 day Joint 16C/NEC critigae - .'t".. p4.m,'c.,<.y.g,. =p .
. . . o.-M
. . .;, c :;-n ..
.w a.%. : ..
....:c+ q @-..e*5:*er-ntqu%
amneral A da
.as
. %.:a c.t;;=%E c ..g.p ,, . .e .,a. ~
- m. -. ..,
p r , w .,
.....~..n...- :: .e. , .,. n. s. .z 3,-- 3 state, locals and licensee present ?,.
e '.
A. *
- 3. criticas of offsite action.s. 5.b.y:m.. .m.". -+- .*.-
- c. Critigte of oasite actions,:by..- -
,W Rc.w.i
-i
- ',. Critigse of Todasal response..?(if.f~
RAc chair =an.
.c.f.--s'. ?. w, m.
^-
.g , , m m -
3.
m . -= M_J mom i
,i
. ... y y e./ ,_ . - ,
[
E. ,
V. opportunity licensee, 5 tate for clarification and locals :(pressi'aniEye 'questices.#m $. ... .
et
. will not be entertained..during . . c9 thelcrit$ 29&%e _C_ ,., _
tiritten critiques by TrtA RegioIn!.tNsD(d ?'7;;f~-
~
+ 15 days hencquarters a..c ':nc and by !ct: Re d oii, M u Z "*i to ::::= headquarters and re A. . . .g.$ .
,. ..wa.' r ee- \
. . - -=+ 71w=*-) 1
-n . . , . , - . - ,
, , , - . . . , - . , - , - - - - ,,-------,n- -,--m., e -. , - - - - - , , - . , - - - - - - - .
,' E..EK..)....,iD D.t.B. ....Lk..(M d.f l DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT I
l 8/15/86 l
Guidance Memorandum EX-3 d
i CONDUCTING PRE-EXERCISE ACTIVITIES AND POST-EXERCISE MEETINGS l l
Purpose ,
1 This Guidance Memorandum (GM) provides guidelines for l conducting pre-exercise activities and post-exercise meetings in support of the Federal Emergency' Management ,
, Agency's (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP)
Program.
Backcround l Under 44 CFR 350, it is the responsibility of a State and its local governments to conduct joint exercises as a condition -
of initial and continued FEMA approval. The predecessor Guidance Memorandum (GM) 17, dated January 8, 1981, provided
. procedural guidance intended to improve the conduct of l i exercises and to establish greater uniformity among the FEMA
- Regions in this activity. While progress has been made, there is still diversity among Regions in the uniformity and quality of exercises conducted. This revision is a further effort at achieving greater uniformity in preparing for and conducting exercises. It supersedes the January 8, 1981, GM 17.
Guidelines .
I. Pre-exercise Activity l Past experience has shown that joint exercises must be l planned considerably in advance and each step scheduled. In prder to ensure optimum results, the following milestones should be met, at a minimum. These milestones are predicated on the biennial exercise frequency; if exercises are conducted more frequently than biennially, the milestone time frames placed in parentheses should be used.
MILESTONES IQB EXERCISE OBSERVATION AND EVALUATION _
No Later Than DAXA Prior 12 Exercise
, 120 days State and licensee jointly ,
i 1
i
. ... m . - - -
(75) develop and submit exercise objectives to FEMA and NRC Regional Offices.
105 days FEMA and NRC Regional Offices (60) complete reviews of objectives and withextent of p/ State,1 flay after meeting licensee necessary.
90 days State and licensee submit (45) exercise scenario to FEMA and NRC Regions for review.
60 days FEMA and NRC Regions contact or (35) meet with State and licensee to discuss modifications and complete the scenario.
40 days Controller's meeting to develop (30) coordination of exercise.
! 30 days FEMA and NRC Regions develop (25) specific post exercise activity schedule for debriefings and meetings with the State.
15 days (Optional) The RAC Chairman and NRC team leader meet to develop l observer action plan (where stationed, how many from each organization, what to look for).
I day All Federal observers, both onsite and offsite, meet in the exercise area to receive assignments and instructions.
Whenever an exercise is scheduled, the Region should promptly assure construction of a time line based on the above milestones and make it available to the State, Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) Members, NRC Region, and FEMA Headquarters. Where a plant is located on a Regional boundary, the Region in which the plant is actually located is considered the lead Region for purposes of scheduling, coordination and establishing the time line. Adhering to the time line should permit ample time to review and negotiate any changes to the exercise objectives and the exercise scenario. However, should delays occur which may affect the scheduled exercise date, the Regional Director shall'so advise the State, the NRC Region, the RAC Members, and FEMA Headquarters. The FEMA Regional Office should make every effort to rectify slippage in the timetable to avoid
, ( rescheduling the exercise date.
l 2
g wP--w' y--w--V e ww---t---"7 s
- wm--'e----- T-
-wem-
. .-. . ...c . ,.
The basic objectives for the exercise should be taken from the list of 35 in section III. The objectives have been i developed to generally correspond to the observable elements of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, as well as the the modules 4
contained in the " Modular Format for Uniformity of Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Observations and Evaluations." The objectives should be selected in order to test a significant portion of the emergency. response capabilities. The selection of objectives should also ensure 1 that all major elements of the plans and preparedness i
organizations are tested at least once every six years as set forth in GM PR-1.. Some objectives, because of their fundamental nature to emergency response, are to be included
- in each biennial exercise. This set of exercise objectives is to be referred to as the " core objectives." These core objectives are listed in section III (Emergency Objectives) as group A. <
l
! The objectives for each exercise shall be reviewed by both the FEMA and NRC Regional Offices before specific scenarios are written. Once reviewed, the State and licensee shall develop a scenario for submission which will include, at a minimum:
- The exercise objectives, .
~
- The date (s), time period, place (s),
participating organizations and extent of State participation (i.e., full or partial),
- A time schedule of all key events, Identification of simulated events and activities,
- A chronological narrative of exercise events and activities,
- Appropriate radiological off site release data with appropriate values for dose calculations, dosimetry and field monitoring and meteorological data.
! FEMA and NRC Regions will coordinate review of the scenario and notify the State and licensee of any necessary modifications. If necessary, a meeting to discuss
! modifications should be held. If agreement cannot be I
reached, FEMA and NRC Headquarters assistance should be sought. -
II. Post-erercise Debriefinns and Meetinas e A. Three audience groups may be involved in 1, post-exercise meetings:
3
- observers / evaluators,
- exercise participants, and
(
- public/ media.
The timing and intent of the meetings may vary depending upon whether the exercise is conducted in advance of FEMA 350 approval (qualifying exercise), for continued 350 approval or after a remedial exercise.
B. The following chart illustrates post exercise meeting requirements for qualifying exercises and exercises for continued FEMA approval.
QUALIFYING EXERCISE CONTINUND APPROVAL EXERCISE I Observer / Evaluator Observer / Evaluator Debriefing j Debriefing Observer / Evaluator Observer / Evaluator Exit Interviews Exit Interviews Exercise Participants' Exercise Participants' Briefing -
. Briefing Public Meeting Meeting to which public and' media are invited. ,
i C. Guidance on each type of debriefing / meeting follows.
- 1. Observer / Evaluator Debriefino Jf2I cualifvino i
ans] continued Agge r,31 exercises) l a. Observer / Evaluator Debriefiner Immediately l following the conduct of the exercise, an exercise observer / evaluator debriefing should be held at assigned observer locations, as appropriate, to briefly provide a i
preliminary assessment of the exercise participants' strengths and weaknesses. No attempt should be made to categorize exercise performance inadequacies as
" deficiencies" or " areas requiring corrective actions."
Also, no indication of a " bottom line" finding should be made as to whether State or local preparedness is adequate. The observer / evaluator debriefing is not specified under 44 CFR 350, but should be incorporated as standard procedure.
- b. Observer / Evaluator Egli Interviewst Boon af ter the exercise, the RAC Chairman should effect exit interviews for all observers / evaluators. These interviews
- may be conducted by team leaders selected by the RAC l7t i
Chairman. The purpose of these interviews is to debrief the observers / evaluators to secure accurate and complete 1
4
. _ - - _ - . ._- . _, ,-_ ,--,..--, ,..y
.. . .. . . .. -a-7 -
information per their assignments prior to their departure.
Exit interviews are not specified under 44 CFR 350, but
- should be incorporated as standard procedure. During this same period, the NRC team leader will conduct a parallel meeting with the NRC observers / evaluators of onsite
~
performance in the exercise.
- c. As soon as possible af ter their independent debriefings, the RAC Chairman and the NRC team leader should meet to coordinate and arrange for Federal participation in the joint exercise participants' briefing.
- d. If exercise inadequacies are indicated, the RAC Chairman shall report same to FEMA Headquarters by telephone, per GM EX-1. Following the RAC Chairman's telephone contact with FEMA Headquarters, this debriefing can j serve as the initial step in the consultation process required in GM EX-1.
- 2. Exercise Particicants' Briefino J12I cuallfvino ARd continued-aoeroval exercises)
- a. Within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of the completion of an exercise, a briefing involving the exercise participants, RAC .
4 Chairman, NRC representative and other RAC members and Federal observers / evaluators, as appropriate, should be held to discuss the preliminary results of the exercise. This
. briefing should be held in accordance with 44 CFR 350.9(a) and (d).
i b. Recommended agenda to be used is as follows:
Review of onsite actions presented by NRC, Licensee presents their views (clarifying questions or comments),
Review of offsite actions by RAC Chairman, j State and local governments present their views (clarifying questions or comments),
Review of Federal response (if applicable) by RAC Chairman, and Opportunity for clarifying questions or comments by licensee, State and local governments.
c.The presentations should be a brief, integrated overview covering the highlights of the exercise.
Included in the presentation should be a commendation for -
good performance, where appropriate, and a preliminary
- assessment of the participants' strengths and weaknesses. At I- ,
5
i this stage, no attempt should be made to categorize exercise performance inadequacies as " deficiencies" or " areas I
requiring corrective actions." Also, no indication of a
, " bottom line" finding should be made as to whether state or local preparedness is adequate. .
( d. As soon as possible af ter this briefing, the RAC Chairman, through the consultation process, should provide the state with a tentative identification of the exercise inadequacies, if any, by classification, i.e.
- " deficiencies" and " areas requiring corrective actions."
Again, no indication of a " bottom line" finding should be made as to whether State or local preparedness is adequate.
- 3. Public Meetina JISI cualifyino exercises)
- a. Prior to the submission by the Regional Director of the evaluation of the plan and exercise to FEMA Headquarters, a public meeting in accordance with 44 CFR i 350.10 should be held as soon as possible after the exercise i
- in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility. Exercise participants, representatives from the NRC and other appropriate Federal, State and local agencies should attend.
. b. The meeting should acquaint members of the i
public with appropriate State and local emergency plans and the results of the exercise, including strengths and weaknes-ses observed. The meeting should also answer any questions
- about FEMA's review and evaluation, and receive suggestions
- f rom the public for improvements or changes.
- c. During this Public Meeting an assessment of the exercise participants' performance should be made. The timing of the Public Meeting with relation to the post-exercise evaluation procedures will dictate the degree to i which the RAC Chairman can address the exercise participants' 4 pe rformance. When the consultation process has progressed to the point of agreement on the degrees of inadequacies in the
! exercise participants' performance, these inadequacies can be discussed in their proper categorisation, i.e., -
" deficiencies" and " areas requiring corrective actions."
When an agreement on the inadequacies in the exercise participants' performance has not been reached, discussions
- should be more general, i.e., in terms of strengths and '
- weaknesses. Whether a " bottom line" finding is made will ;
also depend on the status of the post-exercise evaluation process.
- d. For situations in which a Public Meeting has i
been held during the 350 approval process and, thereafter, a
]
plan amendment is submitted which significantly changes the context or nature of the planning (e.g., a change in the r emergency planning sone that results in the inclusion of l i additional jurisdictions), the FEMA Regional Director shall ,
l i 6
- .- _.. - - . .-. L.-..-----_ . -. l . - _ _ _ - ..
determine whether the amendment necessitates holding another public meeting.
- 4. Egg 11BS f.9I Continued IfdB Accroval Exercises
, s. Following an exercise for continued FEMA approval, a meeting involving exercise participants, representatives f rom the NRC, other appropriate Federal agencies, the public and the media should be held in accordance with 44 CFR 350.9(e) in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility. At the discretion of the Regional Director, this meeting may be combined with the exercise participants briefing.
- b. The public and media may attend the meeting :
I as observers. However, at the discretion of the Regional Director, written questions from the public and media may be submitted at or af ter the meeting for consideration in the exercise evaluation. Also, the Regional Director may further use his/her discretion to solicit and respond to oral questions and comments during this meeting. Under no circumstances should it be indicated whether State or local preparedness is adequate or inadequate.
i
, c. During the meeting, the RAC Chairman should -
l offer an overview of the exercise and should provide his/her
,- observations. Comments from the RAC members and FEMA -
observers may be solicited at the discretion of the RAC ,
Chairman. !
- 5. "Meetinas' igI exercises conducted durino 2]A amoroval process Requirements in 44 CFR 350 do not address the conduct of '
' meetings' for exercises, held after the initial, qualifying exercise but before the completion of the 350 approval process. For such exercises, a meeting as described in 350.9(e) should be held (the context of this meeting in the ,
rule is for exercises conducted for continued FEMA approval).
FEMA's evaluation of such "interin' exercises is an integral part of our overall 350 approval process; therefore, an '
opportunity should be provided to the exercise participants, l the public, media, and other Federal agencies to discuss the performance of tha exercise and the preliminary evaluation. ;
- 6. *neerinas' 311gr remedial exercises After remedial exercises required under 44 CFR 350.9(a) and 9 (c) (5), it is necessary to hold a debriefing (item 2 above) and may be necessary to hold a meeting (item 3 above). l Because remedial actions may vary from remedial exercises involving many organizations to drills involving only one or
(
s two organisations, discretion is given to the Regional Director to determine the need to convene a meeting to which 7 -
the public and media are invited, in accordance with 44 CFR 350. 9 (e) .
(
III. Exercise obinetives
~
~
The following list of 35 exercise objectives is to be incorporated into the desi n of radiological emergency '
preparedness exercises. T$eseobjectivesarepresentedin two groups. Group A, numbers 1 - 13, are core objectives that are to be demonstrated in each biennial exercise. Group B, numbers 14 - 35, are to be included in at least one exercise during a six-year period per guidance provided in GM PR-1.
QEQCZ A - CORE OBJECTIVES i CORRESPONDING OBJECTIVE PART(S) QE MODULAR ZQE&E NUREG-0654
- 1. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. I E.1.,
to mobilize and EQE Sec. I E.2.
activate facilities HEQIA Sec. I promptly. EELQC Sec. I ZH Sec. I .
l
- 2. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. II A.l.d.,
to make decisions and A.2.a. ~
to coordinate emergency _
, activities.
- 3. Demonstrate adequacy EQC Sec. III G.3.a,E.3.
j of facilities and MEDIA Sec. II ,
! displays to support
- emergency operations.
- 4. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. IV F.
to communicate with EQE Sec. III all appropriate HEQI& Sec. III '
locations, organ- EELQC Sec. III izations and field ZA Sec. I,II personnel. Z5 Sec. IV
- 5. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. V I.10.,
to project field data EQE Sec. XI J.10.m.
and to determine approp-riate protective measures, based on PAG's, available shelter, evacuation time estimates and all other - '
appropriate factors.
i
- 6. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. VII.A J.9., !
e to implement protective I& Sec. I J.10.g.
- actions for plume 1 -
8 o
r
^
j pathway hazards. l
(~ 7. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. VI E.6.
to alert the public ZA Sec. III within the 10-mile )
i EPI and disseminate an initial instructional message within 15 minutes.
- 8. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. VI E.5.
to formulate and distribute appropriate instructions to the i- public in a timely
, fashion.
- 9. Demonstrate the E2C Sec. VII.A J.10.K. ,
organizational ZA Sec. I !
ability and resources necessary to deal with
. impediments to evacuation, including weather or traffic obstructions.
- 10. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. VIII K.3.a.b.
to continuously ZA Sec. IV i
monitor and control ZH Sec. V -
emergency worker exposure.
- 11. Demonstrate ability EQC Sec. IX G.3.a.,
to brief the media in HERIA Sec. IV G.4.a.
a clear, accurate and EQZ Sec. IV timely manner.
i
- 12. Demonstrate ability to EQC Sec. II G.4.b. l provide advance HERIA Sec. IV coordination of infor-nation released.
i based on predetermined EQZ Sec. VI l criteria, to supply ZA Sec. IV and administer KI to ZH Sec. V j emergency workers.
GEQQZ A - SIREE OBJECTIVES i
- 14. Demonstrate the ability EQC Sec. Y J 10.e.
. to make the decision, EQZ Sec. VI J.10.f.
based on predetermined EQC Sec. VIII
- criteria, whether to ZA Sec. IV l f issue KI to the general Z5 Sec. Y j 4., population, and supply V
and administer KI, once the decision h'as been
( made to do so.
- 15. Demonstrate the ability IQC Sec. VIII J.10.e.
to supply and adminis- I& Sec. IV ter KI, once the Z3 Sec. Y decision has been made to do so.
! 16. Demonstrate ability IQE Sec. II G.4.c.
to establish and HEDIA Sec. VI operate rumor control in a coordinated
- fashion.
- 17. Demonstrate ability Egg Sec. I A.2.a.,
i to fully staff EQI sec. I A.4.
! facilities and maintain HEDIA Sec. I i staffing around the EELQC Sec. I
- clock.
i l
- 18. Demonstrate ability IM Sec. I E.2., ,. .
to mobilize and deploy I.8.
field monitoring teams in a timely fashion. ~
- 19. Demonstrate appropriate IM Sec. II, III I.8.,
i equipment and procedures I.ll.
for determining ambient ~
j radiation levels.
- 20. Demonstrate appropriate Z5 Sec. II, III I.9.
l equipment and procedures RADLAB Sec. I, II l for the measurement of I airborne radiciodine concen as10-grationsaslow uCi/cc in the presence of noble gases.
- 21. Demonstrate appropriate IH Sec. II, III I.8.
equipment and procedures RADLAB Sec. I, II for collection and
! transport of samples of soil, vegetation, snow, water and milk.
- 22. Demonstrate appropriate RADLAB Sec. I, C.3.
lab operation functions Sec. II for measuring and analyzing all types of
, samples.
t l
l 10
1
- 23. Demonstrate ability to EQC sec. V I.10.,
project dosage to the J.11.
( public via ingestion pathway exposure, based on plant and field data, l
and to determine approp-riate protective measures, l
based on PAG's and other relevant factors.
- 24. Demonstrate ability to EQC sec. VII.c J.9.,
implement protective J.11.
actions for ingestion pathway hazards.
- 25. Demonstrate the organ- XQC Sec. VII.A J.10.j.
izational ability and IA Sec. I resources necessary to control access to an evacuated area.
- 26. Demonstrate the organ- XQC Sec. VII.B J.10.d.
izational ability and IA Sec. II.B resources necessary to .
effect an orderly evac-untion within the plume ~
EPZ of these groups:
transit-dependent, -
- special needs and
! institutionalized.
- 27. Demonstrate the organ- XQC Sec. VII.B. J.9.,
izational ability and IA Sec. II.A. J.10.g.
t resources necessary to effect an orderly evac-untion of schools within l the plume EPZ.
- 28. Demonstrate adequacy EELQC Sec. II J.12.
of procedures for the registration and l radiological monitoring i of evacuees.
- 29. Demonstrate adequacy EELQC sec. III J.10.h.
of facilities for mass care of evacuees.
{
) 30. Demonstrate adequate DEQQE all K.5.a.b.
equipment and procedures for decontamination of emergency workers, equip-ment, and vehicles.
I 11
_ _ z___. _
- 31. Demonstrate adequacy of BEDIC Sec. III L.4.
ambulance facilities and
{
and procedures for handling contaminated, injured and exposed individuals.
- 32. Demonstrate adequacy of HEDIC Sec. II L.l.
hospital facilities and procedures for handling contaminated, injured and exposed individuals.
- 33. Demonstrate ability to To Be Developed C.1.a.b.
identify need for, request, and obtain Federal assistance.
- 34. Demonstrate ability to EQC Sec. Y M.4.
estimate total EQL Sec. VI population exposure.
35.* Demonstrate ability to IQC Sec. X M.l.
determine and implement appropriate measures for '
, controlled recovery and reentry.
e e
J i 12
r . . , - , . - , . . ._..,.,,------~.-,-.._-_-,-,---,-----,-,,,,,-.,,.,,-,--n,
c
- s 4 M EX b
... . . 10 DEB.....1..e.&do, 207784
[6L FEDERAL EMERGENCY C PT Q1s/ I LC ").
\Y/ #
MANAGEMENT AGENCY I vI
=
Region 11/ 26 Federal Plaza / New Yor!. NY m r 1 2/10/86 8bb (For further infor:mtion contact:
Marianne C. Jackson (212) 264-8980 or (516) 654-3000 (Inn at Medford)
FNRAL ENER:ECY MABMENENT AGENCY The Federal Dnergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an irdependent federal agency responsible for working with state and local governments, volunteer non-profit crganizations, and the private sector to prepare for and respond to all types of natural and technological energencies and disasters.
Pacion II i
Pegional Directcr Frank P. Petrone heads Pegion II which covers, New York, New Jersey, Puerto hico, and the Virgin Islands. The Pegion, with a 45 number staff, is headquartered in New York City at 26 Federal Plaza. Agency pi; @ aus administered in Begion II include federal disaster response and recovery, National Flood Insurance Padiological Dnergency Preparedness, and Dmrgency Panagement Assistance (EMA) .
Through the EMA program, state and local ernergemy managers throughout the region receive federal funds and technical assistance to help strengthen emergency planning '
and res;cnse t-ayhilities. During 1985, Region II disaster officials managed federa]
disaster recovery programs for six Presidential disaster declarations in the region:
three for New York State, two for the Cermonwealth of Puerto Rico, and one for Few Jersey.
FEMA AND OFF-SITE RADICIf%3ICAL PLANNIE Following the accident at 'Ihree Mile Island, the President assigned FEMA the respon-l sibility for reviewing and approving off-site energency plans for ntriear power plan l
The Nuclear Pegulatory Cemnission (!GC), which is the licensing authority for nuclea power plants, makes all regulatory decisiens.
Since 1981, FINA Region II staff have evaluated 17 full scale exercises of off-site
(
i emergency plans, two remedial exercises, and an exercise of New York State's Cenpen-sating Plan for Rockland County as well as nutrerous training drills. Ccmmrcial nuclear power plants in Begion II are operating at Salen and Oyster Creek in New i
Jersey and at Indian Point, Ginna, and Nine Mile Point in New York.
The criteria used to review plans and evaluate exercises are set forth in " Criteria i for Prepmticn and Evaluation of Radiological Dnergency Pesponse Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants". This publication, carmenly known as NUREG 06$4, centai:ts 16 major planning standards,15 of which apply to off-site l preparedness. Within the 15 broad criteria are 212 separate off-site evaluation r
criteria. In full scale exercises all 212 criteria may be dermnstrated and cbserved by merters of the FENA team.
f
' -nere-1 f
207785
- .nr0 URAL CGDCY PESPCNSE OMANIZATION (LEE) PI.AN
. At the request of the ST, FD% Tegion II has reviewed three sutzrissions of the
- .340 Io::al D:ergency response Organization (IIBO) Plan. The reviews were con-d=ted by the Pagional Assistance Ca:ttittee (PAC) . ':he eight federal agencies wnich ca: prise the RAC are Departments of Comerce, Energy, Health and H:.rnan Services, Transportation, Agriculture, the Enviremental Protection Agency, the hT, and FD%. FD% chairs the camittee.
L'nder a Me::crandum of Understanding, hT has also requested that FD% evaluate an exercise of the LERO Plan. 'Ihe exercise is scheduled for February 13, 1986. A team of 41 federal observers will critique off-site emergency preparedness. Eleven federal controllers will direct the flow of the exercise and insert surprise problems (" free play") for LEBO players to solve. In addition, eleven other federal employees will serve as simulators; these simulators will test the ability of LERO players to accw.&te the presence of state and county officials and respond to state and county concerns and questions. These sinulators will not assume any comnan:1 and control functir.s. 'Ihe Nuclear Regulatory Ctmnission (hK) will evaluate on-site response to the si::ulated accident.
LEIC energency response will be dertenstrated at the following ten fixed sites:
- Dnergency Operating Center (Brentwood)
- Dnergency Operations Facility (LIICO Training Center in Hauppauge)
- Emergency News Center (Ibnkonkana-Holiday Inn
- 'Iko Congregate Centers (Nassau)
- Beception Center (Nassau Coliseun)
- Accident Assessment (Brookhaven National Laboratory)
- Dnergency Worker Decontarrination Center (at IDC)
- Port Jefferson Staging Area
- Patchogue Staging Area
- Riverhead Staging Area In addition, the following emergency capabilities will be observed in the field during the exercise:
- General Population Bus Ibutes School Evacuation
- Special Facilities Evacuation
- M3bility Impaired at Hate
- Ibute Alerting
- Traffic Points
- Irpediments to Evacuation Exercise critique and Report Following the exercise, ED% and NIC officials will present a brief oral critique about the onsite and offsite exercises. (The date, time, and place for this critique will be announced). 'Ihe critique will provide only a preliminary overview. The FD% written report will be issued s,ix to eight weeks after the exercise. hT will also issue a written report.
~~
~ -5
' ~
S UNITED STATES 4[' [o
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.i . j/..I e
WASHINGTON. D. C.20S55 June 1, 1983 NW .....
.o# ,
4 % c.- b.. .. ,. ., . u ,.. iD _
D.C.8. .....g .5fdy (,
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krimm -
- Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Federal Emergency Management Agency Edward L. Jordan, Director FROM:
Division of Emergency. Preparedness .
and Engineering Response -
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
FEMA SUPPORT FOR NRC LICENSING OF SHOREHAM NUCL Enclosed are the LILCO interim offsite plans for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, consisting of 1) the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station local offsite Radiological Emergency (Response Plan, Revision 0 (2 volum for the interim plans 3 volumes), and 3) an addendum to Appendix A (the evacuation plan) of the previously finished LILCO-Coun You have already received the document, dated May 26, 1983, also enclosed. -
Shorehim Nuclear Power Station Offsite Radiologi1:a1 Emergency Response Plan for Su* folk County (the LILCO-County plan), dated Octo of the LILCO transmittal document).
The purpose of this memorandum is to invoke Section h
with findings and detenninations as to whether the LILCO-County plan and/or t e interim plans for the Shoreham huclear Station are adequate a implementation.
'on whether the state of emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the eve radiological emergency.
FEMA findings regarding offsite emergency plans and preparedness.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board plans to issue a partial initial decision The util-on all matters except offsite emergency planning in late July 1983. We ity projected schedule for the completion of construction is August 1983.
expect that a decision permitting issuance of a full power have been resolved in favor of LILCO by that time.
CONTACT:
C: R. Van Niel, TE 492-4535
~
y
?* s t
41 chard W. Krimm 20, 1983,-
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in an' order da.ted April indicateo its intention of entertaining contentions regarding both wheth Shoreham offsite emergency response plan meetsIt NRC furtherrequirements an and whether LILCO has the capability to implement the It isplan. therefore ,
1r.dicated that these issues might be litigated separately.
requested that FEMA provide separate findings on whether the LILC and/or the interim plans are adequate, 23, 1983. whether the Your findings on these matters are needed by June
/
Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement t
i
Enclosure:
l LILCO Interim Offsite Emergency Plans & Procedures
' cc w/o encl.: R. C. DeYoung, IE I
J. H. Sniezek ,
E. S. Christenbury, ELD .
E. J. Reis, ELD E. L. Jordan, IE J. M. Taylor, IE
- 5. A. Schwartz, IE >
F. G. Pagano, IE r. .
i C. R. Van Niel, IE F. Kantor, IE D. B. Matthews, IE l
i
..- . - - - , - - - - - . - - - - . .- - , , - , . -- - - - . . _ , - - . _. ~,
{c{x W. y _ ,10 _
WM D.t. .B. ..../..>.4.rb.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 JUN 23 133 MDIORANDtM FOR: Edward L. Jordan ~
. Director, Division of Emergency Freparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nucle 1 ulatory Commission f
FROM: Richard W. Krian Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Basards SURJECI: Findings on the LIE 0 Transition Flan As Requested by the NRC as Part of NEC Licensing of the Shorehas Nuclear Power Station This is in response to your June 1,1983, memorandum in which you invoked Section 11.4 of the November 1,1980, NEC/FDIA Memorandum of Understanding by requesting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NEC) with findings and determinations as to whether the LIM OM:ounty plan and/or the interim plans for the As
[ Shorehme Nuclear Station are adequate and capable of implementation.
a result of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) order, your
'- subsequent memorande of June 17, 1983, requested that FD(A provide findings and determinations on the LIED Transition Flan as a first priority. This Plan, developed wholly by LIED, proposes to use LIMO personnel to carry out the of f site preparedness aspects of the plan (to include the total direction and control faction) in the case of an emergency involving an ac.ident at the $borehen Nuclear Power Station.
First, we would like to indicate how the review process for the LILCO Transition Plan differed from the usual "350" approval process. As you know, under normal processing, the plan review is initiated by a formal request by the Governor of the State in which the nuclear f acility is located, after be/she has received and analyzed plans submitted by the local governments in the amargency planning some surrounding the facility. The request includes the State plan dich is site-specific to the applicable power f acility, appropriate local plans and a stacament by the Governor that the State plan, together with the local plans, are adequate to protect public health and safety of the citisens living within the emergency planning sones for the nuclear power f acilities included in the submission by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can and will be taken in the event af a radiological emergency for the site. The FDIA processing of a Governor's submittal includes aztensive review by the relevant Regional Assistance Casaittee (RAC), a public ameting and most importantly, a drill or amercise, including all appropriate governments, to test whether the plan can be implemented.
l.
.e.. . _ . . ._. .
X00476
. \
l
. 1
~
km contrast to the process described above, the LILCO Transition Plan was submitted, without suffolk County or New York State endorsement, directly to FDIA Beadquarters through the NRC for revisa under the terus of the NRC/FDu Memorandum of Understanding. Recause the Flan was not submitted under 44 CFR 350, a RAC review was not undertakan. For this reason, coupled with the f act that the NRC needed a FDIA findits within three weeks, it was necessary to obtain the support of Argonne National Laboratories to assist and perform a technical review of the plan against the 16 planning standards and criteria (A-P) listed in NUREG-0654/FD(A-REP-1, Rev. 1. FDIA Beadquarters, assisted by FDIA's Region II Regional Director
' sad staff, directed this technical review. -
i FD(A finds that the LIIED Transition Plan has 34 inadequacies in terms of NUREC-0654/FDIA-REP-1, Rev.1. Our analysis relating these inadequacies to the various criteria is attached. ,
There are two preconditions, identified below, that need to be met for a j FDu finding as to whether the plan is capable af being taplemented and-
- whether LILCO has the ability to implement the plan.
f (1) A determination of whether LILc0 has the appropriate legal anchority to assume management and implementation of an offsite
- emergency response plan.
(2) A demonstration through a full-scale exercise that LIICO has the ability to implement an off site plan that has been found to be adequate.
FDIA will continue to review the other plans associated with your June 1 request in anticipation that the ASD will require FD(A findings on these l Plans at a later data.
Attachasnt As Stated 9
l l
l i
4 4 m
h..........
- EX. 7
., 2 D.M.B. '......(.?!.L.C.{!..G x(jQ
- e. -
iq Federal Emergency Management Agency
- (^ . . - '
Wanliingism. D.(:. 2tH72 M
i August 29, 1933 Mr. William J. Dircks Eaecutive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
This is in response to your July 22, 1983, letter requesting the Federal l
Energency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide additional information concerning our report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NKC) of June 23, 1933, entitled " Findings en the LILCD Transition Plan a6 .
requested by the NRC as part of NRC Licensing of the Shoreh.se clear Power Station."
Generally, for any non-governmental plan submitted to es for review, our position will be:
- 1. he plan could be considered adequate, if there are nu deficiencies when the plan is reviewed against the NUKEG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 standards.
, 2. De plan could be implemented, if the organisatien' or persons j
' required to implement planned actions have the authority tu du so.
- 3. FEMA, in its advisory role to NRC, could aske a finding that there is reasonable assurance that offsite preparedness is adequate, if a full scale esercise demonstrates that, with the authority and resources, the plan can be carried out ef fectively.
I l Speelfically with respect to our June 23 reports e If the NRC requests, we will review the revloed LILCD Transition l
Plan assinst the standards and criteria in NUREC-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, and if we find that the 34 previously identified deficiencies are corrected, we could certify to the adequacy of the pl.sa.
e If LILCO is given the authority to perform response roles of Suffolk County personnel, and there is an esercise in whteh l
this is demonstrated, FEMA, in its advisory rete to the satC, l
eeuld aske a finding that of fsite preparedness is adequate to protect-
. the public living ta the vicinity of the Shorehas plant.
With regard to the first point, because of the short tier that NRC allowed i
for the FEMA review of the LILCD Transition Flan we had to modify our precedure and met use the Regional Assistante Committee (RAC). If NF.C requests a further review of the LILC0 plan, sW there is adequate time, i
we would want to see the services of the RAC.
v .
l . .,
l . . .. -
(
.S.
- X00479
=3- ,
I also want to emphasise again that there is a real need to resolve the issue of LILCO's legal authority to act in accordance with the plan either la an exercise or during an actust energemey. h is probles is ese that can be resolved by the State of New York.
TEMA's preference. in any case, is to gain the active participation of State and local governments in the amergency planning and preparedness process related to Shorehas. Perhaps the diesti generator problem at Shorehan will provide more time for the State and Suffolk County to work out the offsite emergency preparedness problem. .
This should clarify FINA's views. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistanes.
31acere ,
, /
effrey S. Brass Executive Deputy Director 9
t
%e 1
,-m----,,-,_n,------,--,-- , , , , , . _ , , , - - - , , _ , , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . ,
--,-----,--.-,_------,--n-
g.../.4... .. .. . . 4.. ..,,o.a,a DKB....2..F..h.r..l.M X004s5 i
Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 10/ I 5 884 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D.C.' 20555 m, ,
Dear Mr. Dircks:
/ ,
On July 9,1984, the Nutlenr Regulatory Comission (NRC) requestrd the Federal Emergency Manageient Agency (FEMA) to conduct a full Regional Assistance Comittee-(RAC) review of Pevision 4 of the Long Island Lighting 1 Company's (LILCO) Transition Plan for the ShorehamThis Nuclear requestPower wasStation made l (SNPS) and to provide the'FRC with its findings. f in accordance with the WRC/ FEMA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated November 1980.
RevisionA was submitted to the NRC by LILCD on June 29, 1984, in response to FEM Region II's' Consolidated RAC Review of Revision I
3 dated February 10, 1984.' FEMA's fiddings on Revision 3 were provided to the NRC'on March 15,' 1984 ,
? ' 'M'L-C.W A4 Mon 44es4een. completed 4ad the.eesultsJre .
etmTwined 6 deWh$so ..,~. Ctatitivd*LitCO Transition 43eader SmNtiim - nw'itiver dMonse116ated1ACMteview.". The RAC review Plan against the staridards and evaluative criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA- '
REP-1, Rev. 1. Due to' the legal authority issues which arise when some NUREG elersta are applied to a utility-based plan, we have marked with an asterisk any aspect of the plan where, in our view, this legal issue occurs. The specific legal concern related to that part of the plan is
identified separately in Attachment 2 of the consolidated RAC review.
With the exception of
'- Such. legal concerns affect 24 NUREG elements.
plan ispects relating te'NUREG element A.2.b. (a requirement to state, by reference to specific acts, statutes, or codes, the legal basis for
, the authority to carry cut the responsibilities listed in A.2 rating given to the , technical or operational items relating to NUREG elemer.ts. 'e ,
..?tver$evision J.,
TTMA44eds.that,Arvision44shL.i. dAel-6v m..
OfDevnseegv.chMdefrtified 'inW1AC4 ..hSf4evision,.3. oni,y. ,
' , t wissentsn .c 46 4*edegeste. The deficienciesThe and recomendations for NUREG evaluation criteria improvement are explaihed in the RAC report. (An asterisk indicates for the' remaining B elements are as follows.
'there 'is also a concern pertaining to legal authority which surfaced in In some of the inadequacies, the legal issues are the the Rt.C review.
majorconcerns.) d
/*
--n--,_,
y---w, yy,i------ny,e- -,,,,,,,Wmw9ehw"wwww='w-t"*"9e-'"v '-N'--**ww-N'-'"'"'u"'NN---=='= * - -+ *7"- ' ' --""
. . _ , ,, ~ -- - ..
- - ~ ~ . . . - - , .
X004R6
.Z.
(1) A.2.b.* Each plan shall contain (by referense to specific acts, codes or statutes) the legal basis for such authorities (i.e., the .
i authorities mentioned in NUREG-D654 element A.2.c.).
(2) A.3.* Each plan shall include written agreements referring to the concept of operations developed between Federal, State, and local agencies and other support organizations having an emergency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones. The agreements shall identify the emergency measures to be provided and the mutually acceptable criteria for their implementation, and specify the arrangements for exchange of information.
(3) C.4.* Each organization shall identify nuclear and other facilities, organizations, or individuals which can be relied upon in an emergency to provide assistance. Such assistance shall be identified I. and supported by appropriate letters of agreement.
(4) I.7. Each organization shall describe the capability and resources for field monitoring within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone (EP2) which are an intrinsic part of the concept of operations for the facility.
(5) I . 9._ Each organization shall have a capability to detect and measure radiciodine concentrations in air in the plume exposure EPZ as low as 1D-7 uti/cc (microcuries per cubic centimeter) under i
field conditions. Interference from the presence of noble gas and background radiation shall not decrease the stated minimum detectable activity.
(6) I.10. Each organization shall establish means for relating the various measured parameters (e.g., contamination levels, water and air activity levels) to dose rates for keiy isotopes and gross radioactivity measurements. Provisions shall be made for estimating i
integrated dose from the projected and actual dose rates and for The l comparing these estimates with the protective action guides.
- detailed provisions shall be described in separate procedures.
l J.g. Each State and local organization shall establish a capability (7) for implementing protective measures based upon protective action
, This shall be consistent with the j guides and other criteria.reconnendations of the Environmental Prote regarding exposure resulting from passage of radioactive airborne plumes and with those of the Department of Heaith and Human Services / ,
y.
Food and Drug Administration (HHS/FDA) regarding radioactive
+
contamination of human food and animal feeds.
l #
I-----
)(0Od W/
(8) J .10. k.* The organization's plans to implement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include: Identification of and means for dealing with potential impediments (e.g., seasonal impass.
I ability of roads) to the use of evacuation routes, and contingency measures.
I have also enclosed a copy of a letter (dated October 17, 1984) from the Federal Comunications Commission (FCC-) to FEMA Region II RAC Chairman Roger B. Kowieski clarifying a RAC concern, in connection with the review of NUREG-0654 element E.5, as to whether private organizations have the authority to activate the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). According to the FCC letter, "...the EB5 may be activated at the State and local l
level by AM, FM and TV broadcast stations, at ' management's discretion, in connection with day-to-day emergency situations posing a threat to the safety of life and property." (See Attachment 1, Consolidated RAC Review, page 16, for review comments concerning the EBS to be utilized by l
LILCO.) This information was not available until after the submittal of the RAC finding to FEMA Headquarters. .
Finally, additional information has come to our attention since the RAC report was submitted concerning the relocation centers. The enclosed LILCO letter dated September 25, 1984, from John D. Leonard, Jr. to Harold R. Denton, NRC provides details pertaining to how LILCO proposes to modify Revision 4 regarding these centers. However, there are three facilities identified on the list of 53 which are State facilities and, therefore, it is not certain whether they will be available for use as relocation centers. They are: Nassau County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Westbury; State University of New York (SUNY), Old Westbury; and, SUNY, Farmingdale.
I hope the enclosed finding is helpful in your analysis of emergency preparedness issues concerning Shoreham. If you have any questions,'
please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely, W. "
amuel W. Speck Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support Enclosures l
I
- . %~M... ...w......u..W.....g, ,; w
.1.k- A M.B.,.. 43..f.j..dzG UNITED STATES y9949y g${& 5%Wu,/ .
! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l s -
! wasumcfoes. o. c. zones G 4e j
..... ) - g;.o e
Mr. Samuel W. Speck Associate Director ~
State and Local Programs and Support Federal Emergency Management Agency _
Washington, D.C. 20472
Dear ek:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 26, 1984, in which you discussed the steps being contemplated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding the demonstration of offsite emergency preparedness at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. You indicated that PEMA*W'etmsi1pering 9- d-v.1aa-.nt pfap11 f 4hmercise to evaluate the offsite emergency plan prepared for Shoreham by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) following j the correction of inadequacies in the plan identified by FEMA, and that this exercise may be undertaken in conjunction with the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) which was recently exercised at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant in Florida.
Your proposed exercise for Shoreham would provide FEMA an opportunity to
[ evaluate offsite preparedness as implemented by LILCO and supplemented by certain Federal capabilities; e.g., the Department of Energy's field monitoring teams at Brookhaven would be daployed in lieu of state teams. However, we wish to point out that the Shoreham and St. Lucie situations are quite different as to the nature of the Federal involvement in the two cases. At the St. Lucie exercise, which included full participation by the licensee, state, and local governments, the Federal involvement was external to the regulatory aspect of the exercise. The emphasis in the Federal involvement was on determining whether the FRERP was an effective mechanism for coordinating and providing the full range of Federal support and assistance available to a licensee and to offsite authorities in the event of a large-scale accident, if such support and assistance were needed. The St. Lucie exercise demonstrated the effectiveness of the FRERP.
At Shoreham, the Federal involvement would be an integral part of the regulatory aspect of the exercise. Consequently, the emphasis in Federal participation would shift from testing the FRERP to providing specific support to supplement the applicant's response so that FEMA could make a finding and determination as to whether the utility's offsite plan provides adequate emergency preparedness to protect the public health and safety.
, _..-m__.,.._ = . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ , , _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ , _ _ - . . , _ . . . _ . -..___..,__ _ _ _
~ -
.. a.
, X00497 samuel v. speck We also note that in the attachment to your letter titled, " Items' for Considera-tion in Planning an Exercise at shoreham," under Item 2.8, sources of Funding, the statement is made that the total funding (for the exercise) must be shared among DOE, NRC and FEMA. The NRC can support only its own participation in the l exercise and is not prepared to expend funds to support the participation of other Federal agencies.
We appreciate your informing us of FEMA's exercise planning efforts.to date.
Sincerely.
f Wi 11am J. Dircks -
Executive Director for Operations 1
e e
d j
)
1- -- _ . .,..., _--- - - - ,_,r._
klf6...u... . EL..1 .; ,.,10
?.
D.M.B. ....../..k!LC .f.6 - 1 i
V i
j j MFETINGS BETWEEN FEMA AND l SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE '4 DATE/
. LOCATION PARTICIPANTS WHOSE INITRATIVE SUBJECTlS) DISCUSSED s ,
October 4 19R$ FEMA: Samuel Speck Suffolk County Informational meeting to esplain FEMA's j j Suffolk Co. Frank Petrone Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program, t I
Suffolk County .
j John Callagher ,
1 December 3, 1994 FEMA: Samuel Speck Suffolk County Explored County's interest and concerns l Suffolk Co. Spence Perry i regarding offsite radiologleal emesgency i Robert Wilkerson preparedness planning. Also discussed l Frank Petrone . overall emergency management preparedness .
planning including the uttllsation of the i Suffolk County Integrated Emergency Management Information
, John Gallagher System and its applicability to population
{ evacuation for hurricanes, hasardous materials spills, nuclear pouer plant
) incidente, etc.
l I
- Dec. 11-12, l'IH4 F EMA Samuel Speck Suffolk County Continued espectation of County's interest
] Atlanta, CA. Bob Wilkerson and concerns regarding offsite radiological i Frank Petrone emergency preparedness planning during attendance at the Federal Radlological i Suffolk Countys Emergency Response Plan Capahititles l John Gallagher Conference.
l
! January 31, 1985 FEMAs Frank Petrone Suffolk County Further emptoration of County's concerns and i Washington, D.C. Samuel Speck interest regarding offstte radiological emergency preparedness planning.
I Suffolk Countys John Gallagher
.1-I I
i N
! C) j ::)
- ')
J t D6 CD
8 MEETINGS SETWEEN FENA AND
- SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE DATE/
,,. LOCATION PARTICIPANTS WHOSE INITIATIVE SU8JECTIS) DISCUSSED June 5, 1985 See Attached List LILCO Tentative arrangements for County to review Washington, D.C. LILCO plan and to work with LILCO in resolvin<l issues related to con.luct of an esercise.
i June 5, 1985 FENA: Samuel Speck Suffolk County News Conference by County Executive to Suffolk County announce his decision Is cooperate in of(site Suffolk Countys emergency preparedness planning activities.
Peter Cohalan September.28, 1985 FENA: Samuel Speck State of New York Disaster survey on damage resulting from Suffolk County Hurricane Gloria Suffolk Countys Peter Cohalan i
G D
D O
x .
4 M
- i e
-*. .1 DEC.17 '85 16:21 FEr% REGICN II t{W YCRK 1 ,
eaosna. amemos=ce manaoen.s=v ase=cv 20EITING ATTENDANCE RECOAO noca tion - i FE*/>) .%, o=re ,
=arwas on a.ss7,w.. , /,-/,,-
~
i L -. ' c A. r,. ,o~ < r .
ON$Es/-//9/f
. a. , o , . ,- -,, i
.~.
/ /. , - T H L.._, ( w -)
>=T/>A e s. e _2 y u (Abtdd AAV 5 i -4%27 t'/* _.
4 / 2.5' / ONk A /-'/[N Cl N- /Laf & b b Ye 1*)
. b ?ibx 4 RmA 6vt .:2 rr7 N.ff hff.f /~CM'd /A'-yvf7 11 k. /S/ncke, blb W C*4 Y 6f30
$.A, d D /ma b r m - tv, .. , la a w ,n.,,,, ;
\ li,4(m ElWlasha Y i\ j --h% hnE M7/liantsdiaMo4D-789-t#! -
~
sLh.j .;D ' 8 %jwz .wso s~
a 4 p.5- g 4 30$w. L. Sd.ll LJL CO sic,,-tz9 #o2.
0
/AKsMALL__E 5AAfD M ?O MA Go 2&. W3) r $9,4/ f, 6 kll AI6 o I
FE M A (ser)h/L.k2.h fcanh_ PnArpts '
S C PoGeL'7'~ f
- a. I1.96.-con :
])Gh 0 kcNc' %iW(K L34hl~bs,o .
afi5e??
/ /
r*r f* L \
m fY
- nr J4Vbe" . . *0 4
l - r 7
. g 2bh .,,
~'
u,. . . d...... w., ID
'.,,,,, D.L. B. ... ./...>.../.f...r..../..f.(.
X00495 __Attien: Taylor. IE
/ UNITEo STATES Cys: Dir:Ks N
' ! * * . ,. . . '. h . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RO' . - - - '
- Rehm
- .5- y I V N.D =asaiwovos.o.c.nossa f Stello
( '.'M
. ...s[i b
June 4, 1985 GCunningham Denton oppesoetwa Nurley ssenstany Jordan COMTR-85-5A
- MEMORANDUM FOR
- William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations ..
l TROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secret */ 3
SUBJECT:
SCHEDULING OF EMERGENCY P EXERCISE FOR SliOREHAM ,
in view of LILCO's standing request to schedule an exercise of its emergency plan, the Commission, with Chairman Palladino ~~ ~ --
and commissioner Asselstine disagreeing, sees no reason why the licensee should not be. allowed to exercise those parts of l the plan whic' 't may legally exercise.
i The Commission does not disagree with the view that an exer-cise of the LILCO plan could yield meaningful results, even - - --
though such an exercise may not satisfy all of the require-ments of NRC's regulations. It could, as a minimum, identify the impact of the limitations of LILCO's plan when executed .
under the state and county restrictions. Although the Com-mission is aware that because of the recent court decision w-
_ _ _ L_ . '-th; LI"^ :- : r ..:y-;'-- - y moth possible ,
- the se,e&-ohould v r i- J.. . --^
4-
"Nis air-15:11- un *xer - .
}
ciee sent efe:--LTMOp-time. If FEMA"icates ind an exercise is not currently 9--4 h' = and law.f.ul possible', the staff should ask FEMA to provide a detailed . . . .
report cf its reasons for declining, addressing the following:
- 1. Status of the outstanding technical and operational deficiencies with the LILCO plan.
- 2. Estimates of when each remaining deficiency will be l corrected.
NOTE: Since snis SRM was approved, the County Executive of Suffolk County has issued an Executive Order indicating that the County will cooperate in emergency planning activities for -
Shoreham. The Staff, in requesting that FEMA schedule an emergency plan exercise, should also suggest that FEMA give appropriate consideration to the County's apparent change of position regarding participation in emergency planning activities. . ._.
X00kng
= h .&
- 3. Specific plan implementation activit.ies LILCO could not exercise given the state court's decision. :
- 4. Benefits and disadvantages to holding an exercise, given the response to Item 3, until legal concerns have been-fully resolved or adequate compensating measures taken. , _
- 5. Views on whether (and if so how) the deficiencies can be
' ' ~ '
adequately remedied without the involvement and coop-eration of state and local entities.
Commissioner Asselstine's views for inclusion in any letter tol.'
FDLA vill be provided to you within several days. h ces Chairman Palladino commissioner Roberts commissioner Asselstine --
Commissioner Bernthal - - - -
Commissioner zech
. OPT, .
! O!
01A OPA l OCA l Shoreham Service List -
l . . . ..
....e 4
8
- - - - - _ _ _ _ - - . . .-.--- - - _ .~._- - --.-_-- - - - . . . - - - , , , - - , _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - . . . . - , - - - ..---,--,--. ,. , .,--
XOOUOO . .
Consissioner Asselstine does not believe that the Coastssion sh that FDu schedule an ememency planning exercise of the LILCO time. ,, , ,,
Absent state or local government participation, there are serious ~
questions about LILCO's authority to tap 1 ament significant portions amergency plan for Shoreham.
Further, there is an ongoing dispute within .
Suffolk County concerning the county's position on emergency pla Shoreham and its willingness to participate M4esting and laplem amergency plan.
Under these circumstances, Commissioner Asselstine believes that scheduling an exercise of the LILCD plan at this time wou Daly confuse matters further.
He therefore recomends that FEMA wait to plan and schedule an exercise for Shoreham at least until there is some -
molution of Suffolk County's position on this issue.
y f
t* 9 *d 4 . . . . .
.e a
ENCLOSURE 2
s
[ UN!TED STATES
- 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.o.
. ss X00h.
\,,.,.) 6- D
- CR9734 .ne8 ! 885.. u a 0banEx.K....z.m D.c.u. L.?h.d!L . y.% 4 y #S
% MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krimm 8 W-. '
Assistant Associate Director .
Office of Natural and Technological Kazards Programs -
Federal Emergency Management Apeney FROM: Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response - -
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
SCHEDULING 0F EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE FOR SHORENAM
~
In response to LILCD's standing request to schedule an exercise of its emergency plan for Shoreham, the Commission, in a memorandum to the Executive Director for -
Operations dated June 4,1985 (Enclosure 1), stated that it sees no reason why the licensee (i.e., LILCD) should not be allowed to exercise those parts of the plan which may be legally exercised. Further, the Commission indicated that it does i not disagree with the view that an exercise of the LILCD plan could yield meaning-ful results, even though such an exercise may not satisfy all of the requirements * **
of NRC's reoulations. The exercise could, as a minimum, identify the impact of the nattations of LILC0's plan when executed under the state and county restrie-tions. '
Accordingly, we request that FEMA schedule as. full an ' exercise of the LILC0 Local Emergency Response organization (LERO) plan as is feasible at the present time giving appropriate consideration to the suffolk County Executive's May 30, 1985 Executive Order and subsequent developments relating to emergency planning activities by the County. In determining those portions of the LERO plan that might be appropriate for inclusion in an exercise at this time, we suggest that FEMA emphasize evaluation of the functional areas of emergency preparedness related to the demonstration of response capabilities within the plume exposure (10 mile) Emergency Planning Zone.
l -
1 l
I
. . :I l
Contact:
F. Kantor, IE 492-9749
- - .~.- - - . - . _ - _ _ . - - _
~
00b02 . . .:
Richard W. Krim *2-In the event FEMA determines that an exercise is not currently possible, we request that FEMA provide a response which addresses the five issues identified in the memorandum from the Secretary of the Comission. Comissioner Asseistine's views on this matter are provided as Enclosure 2. .
hdward L. Jordan, Director I
_V Division of Emergency Preparedness .
and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
- 1. Memorandum from the ~
Secretary of the Comission ' ' ~
dtd. 06/04/85
- 2. Comissioner Asselstine's Views 8 - .m m
9
l l
.; ,23 .E! 11:1! res i.:+. rc . m i
./.
=~>~.*~.- ,v g b
~~~~J e- -
u b , b.
D L B..1:y:Lc.df4. 20'i47 r Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 i October 29, 1985 Mr. Willian J. Dirths i Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Angulatory Ccnsmission Washirgton, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
his is in response to a sonorarsian dated June 20, 1965, frcun
, Edward L. Jordan to Richard W. Krinen in *1ch FEMA was requested to pece-osed with the conduct of 'as full an esercise......as is feasible to test offsita preparedness capabilities at the shorehas Nuclear Pcaser Plant.'
In my October 8,1985 letter,which trarunnitted the revier of revision 5 of the LIICC Icoal Emergency posponse organisation (I,Epo) plan, I 1rmiinsted we were analyzirg the results of the plan review in the aantant of the
, Septancer 17, 1985 letter frcsa Chairman Palladino to Congressaan Markey, and the varicus legal gx,4irgs related to shorehen in order to roepend to the June 20 sonoranduin within several weeks. Our analysis inclaaims
! consideration of the Actsnic Safety and i.ioensirg Appeal Board decision af i October it, 1985.
1 De deficiencies identified in my letter of October 8 do not preclude the conduct of an exercise of the LEno plan. Mcasever, the reluctanos of acunty and state of ficials to participate in such an esercise and the related legal authority issues would place special parameters on the oorubet cd a U30 exercise.
, We have no indication at this tine that effsite jurisdictions are willitg ;
to directly participate in an exercise in the stort tecm. Thus, ary i i exercise will be dranstically different than is typical at other sites in the State of New York. Any exercise without pnrticipation by State and local pverments sculd not allcar us sufficient demonstratica to room a findirg of reasonable assurance. his conclusion is based en the current l 1egal decision with respect to utility authority to perform civil somrgency
- functions. However, that does not preclude the conchact of an esercise i i
that would provide an indication to the hcisar Reqplatory OconLesion (NIC) I as to utility crusite and offsite emergency empebilities. He believe su e a report would have value in decisions to contirmae the licarmire prosses i
or possibly provide a basis on *1 cit the NRC could aske predistive firuiirgs. Ctnicualy, the value af such an searcise in the lisensive prosses is a determination sich aan artly be unde by the IWC.
i Given the nature cd your June 20 request and consideretion af a practical I structure for an exercise, tan feel that, stile there are a nuuher af variations gossible, the basic cptions kr eserciaire in the near toon i are limited to tact .
Cotton 1 - his cption would require that to set aside all i
~
functions and esercise objectives related to ineues of i
autterity and State and local participation. 'Duas, only '
., . the functions outlined for LIiC0 would be esercised. Such l
y- .) E! 1ali. Em + GI' W i "N-
.,. 20N77 m
/
an exerclae is possible tut its usefulness would seen very
- limited. An exercise af this type would not address l questions such as those raised on pages 35 througn 39 of the October 18 decision cd the Atmic Safety araj Licereiry i
l Appeal board and would be redundant to actions already tahon by 10C.
l cotice 2 - his aption muld include all fmotions armi noomal anarcise abjoetives. mis cption would esercise movision 5 l
' of the LEED Plan. Emercise contro13sts muld simulate the roles cd key state or local . officials unable or urarilling to participata. It would be desirable that stata and local government personnel actually play. However, such a simu- '
lation nochanian would at least test the utility's ability to resp:md to ad hoc participation on the part of State and local omrments.
, he ultimate purpose cd an exercies is to su; sort a finding by FINA for L
use of the let in their licensing process. As we mentioned above, neither i
of those cptions tauld allc>t a finding by FEMA on offsite preparednesa.
Henever, we recognise that Shoreham is in no way typical and that in the past in exercisirg its adMicatory pusers the ccmutesion and the varicus ,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Daards have reached predictive findings. ,
~
r Pursuant to your June 20 request, to are initiating the process noosemary
,, to conduct an esercise of either cption. We are prepared to conchact such an exercise in approminately 75 days. However, FINA rup. tires frther clarification fra NIC as to the scope of the esercise to be conducted.
FEMA will ve d with the initiating steps until Ibvember 15, at *ich time we wibi need a definitive esercise eccpe from NRC in cL:dar to avoid pechibitive costa. If at that tim we have received no @ zwetion from the Nuclear Degulatory Ccumission to will suspend activities util a decision is nede. Given other demands, we do feel that any delay beyond the current window muld require an amorcise pcste c.t. of at least 90 days beyond the mid,3aruary tine frase.
Sinonrely, f\ n - . s.,)
frmeaAI W*fy (aeustw.
soCistaspeak Director Stata and 1 meal P::ngram and Agpcet l
l e
l I
(*,-.
- ... g f f)
- s o.c.a. .......c..e.G.dz c 4 Federal Emergency Management Agency O. k Washington, D.C. 20472 .
NOV l'1985 PecRANDlM FOR: Frann Petrone Regional Director FD(A Region II FROM: .
ciap or ,
St ,
1 Prograns a
SUIL7FCT: Sched ing of Energency Plan Exercise For Shorehan -
You have, of course, received a ecoy of my October 29, 1985, letter to Mr. William Dircks of the NRC. NRC's decision on the Shoreham exercise options is still uncertain. In addition to the two stions stated in the letter, NRC could choose to have no exercise at all. As ycu can also see, we are cx:mmitted to continuing cur miministrative process mtil Novencer 15, 1985. These actions would reasonably include the developnent of exercise objectives for both of the gtions in the October 29, 1985 letter to Mr. Dircks, and the normal steps in Region 2 for receipt and review of the exercise scenario.
During the staff discussions on October 24 in your cffice, the resource inplications of the preliminary work were outlined at length. The innediate needs identified were: 1) extra suppsrt fran Argonne in the form of an assistant to the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) Chairman to deal exclusively with Shoreham requirenents; and 2) contirued clerical support.
Headquarters staff have already discussed the assistant for the RAC Chairnen with Argonner that resource is available on request from the Argonne Field Office in Garden City. Argonne is already providing additional support to the RAC review process. The State and local Prograts Suppsrt (SLPS)
Directorate is also aggressively pursuing the exenption to allcw you to fill the existing clerical vacancy in RIP. If y:n find it inpossible to neet the clerical requirenant for this exercise, Argonne has been alerted to provide the necessary supgnet.
I would hge that every effort would be nede to supply LI!ro and the exercise control contractor with the objectives for both 9tions before November 9,1985 and have on hand the pr@osed scenario and suggert materials for both options on Novencer 15.
As a fi:al nota, the Office of the Acting Direct.or has waived the requirunent to give 10 days notice before asking the Regional offices to initiate work.
This was done to facilitate the process of working on th!4 invertant' sita.
ee 4
e e
e
gej,g,a r.. ..&'.m., iD 207402
(,},,}. , ...n.ns~tln
.... "'h**
7 -
IV.
PROPOSED MILE'":'ONE DATES FOR THE COMPI.ETION Or *HE EXERCISE SCENARIO DAYS PRIOR PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO DATE EXERCISE
- l. 1 80 11/25/85 -
TEMA provides the' utility with the proposed exercise objectives.
I 80 11/25/85 Meeting with the utility to establish the exercise scenario requirements.
i
.s 71 12/4/85 Utility will advise TIMA in writing about suggested modification to the exercise objectives, if any.
69 12/6/85 Utility submits the draft exercise scenario to rEMA and NRC Region for review. This su& mission will include the on-site (radiological data) and fe\ off-site portions of the exercise scenario. .
69 12/6/85 Proposed exercise objectives and utility comuments/ modifications are
{
sukmaisted to the Regional Assistance Commaittee for review and comments.
l l 62 12/13/E5 Taking into account the utility input
{ and RAC comuments, rEMA will provide the j j utility with the revised exercise i l l objectives. In addition, rEMA provides
}
LERO with a list of items to* be demonstrated (e.g. , number of ': cps, evacuation routes, etc.).
}
_ _ , _ , _ , _ _ . - . - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' '
... , . . ~ . . .. . . . .
S . 6 207403 I
l FROPOSED ACTIVITY ;
, CAYS PRIOR l
' W l DA3 l cxrRcIst i ;
s i
$7 12/18/85 Utility submits tne final exercise l
j . objectives to TEMA and NRC Regional office.
55 12/20/85 RAc coemeents on the exercise scenario are provided to the utility. If necessary, TEMA and NRC Region will meet with the utility representatives to discuss modifications necessary to complete the scenario.
41 1/3/86 Utility submits the final exercise scenario which will include, at a minimums o's comprnhensive description of all activities to be demonstrated, consistent with exercise objec-tives:
o a full schedule of all eyents at each classification level (matrix):
o dosimetry values to be supplied to the field monitoring and sampling teams by exercise controllers:
o calculation of all offsite doses, including those that trigger pro-tective responses, and applicable meteorological data.
' 38 1/6/86 Utility submits the starting locations and times of field activities to be
! ; demonstrated in chronological order.
- The locations of all facilities and'
- field activities will be also indicated f on the county maps.
?
- l I $
35 1/9/b6 rinal date for the approval of the e . I exercise scenario and fiel11 activities .
i
- 1. . .
8 f .a #
G
-. ----.~,---n.,-- ,-------,-.--v.-.-- -,--- ~ -,,---r._---m,- ,_ ,- -,,-,,,,c,-._-,---w-- - - - , - , . , - , . - - . - - - , . +--wn-,----, ,-n-..<
T. . . .. .. . . .
- O g
,s
- 207404 o f e. . ..****=*
t* f T ?.or t .3 M' * ***
a- . .e.o om.
. o
.. as..
, .<.:.r .a a f
-- **9' 0 Table-tep exercise. ,
C 2/13/oG E"ERCISE DAY.
t k,
G O
e T
e e
e G
L e
e
i
^
Federal Emergency Management Agency
"" ** '" "*~ '"~ ' '
[* ..a.....R .- .
January 3, 1986 C.U. 8. ,../1(L[1..b MEMORANDU.M FOR: ROBERT S. WILKERSON, CHIEF SL-NT-TH p,/ h . - U f 64' /
FROM: ROGER . KOWIESKI, CHAIRMAN j REGIONAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE l
SUBJECT:
SHOREHAM EXERCISE - COMMUNICATIONS A full-scale exercise for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on Long Island is scheduled for February 13, 1986, utilizing approximately 50 federal observers and 20 con-trollers.
We request two independent communication linksiin the following areas:
4
- 1. An independent cummunication system for the federal observers consisting of approximately 25 radios with a range of 25 miles.
- 2. An independent communication system for the exercise controllers consisting of approximately 10 radios with a range of 25. miles.
- 3. At least 2 telephones at the observer command post with a radio link with field locations and EOC.
- 4. Three telephones and a radio at the controller command post.
l S. In addition, we need reliable communications between i the mobile unit, EOC and field locations.
l The command posts will be established at the Hotel (we I
anticipate using the Holiday Inn at Exit 72 on the Long Island Expressway).
We request that testing of all communications equipment l two days prior to the exercise.
1 i I would appreciate hearing from you by January 15, 1986. .,
Thank you for your assistance in this important matter.
Attachments i
cc: Bruce Campbell, OP-IR
I...d....[. i L., iD D.f,'.B. . z..v.h..f.I.f.G
" !. }[
g A iQ s M"a ua & % " y,y pg MM s w a r.w r q g a,n.s w ri 4+
l 1
H fx.er<>M w+r den w##n%a r:r b I ! e dN N 4(
Ws.Nrr % C6pui/uNr + fgem.ht es s1' f+L $s * 'Y $ kcluN %"=, % r<.rrend, W lay+/# d eH//p 5are.ervw % kan
~
hd.d m is 5% Senmr. 4)4d *
% .< utt r< gor 7 n $ ees Y4ase l
i of .uast wa May 6.< ch.nt A ee.u.n< bF YL d e i / l.
3m se .
4% p + % nr k jpppk mer & %e W G 'l p fi u f '
wt % naf y' yc reksm xlal< .#.pq Fe a t
/ N k $l hh fY !~
.:'; ,. L / /. u (. C.
- 8) (M N e
, ,- . .. . s ~. . a , . .
tw ., R. m.,io
,a /, . / %f .
- m. ,,,.g. . i W. .... ../ n 207253 Federal Emergency Management Agency I'
't Region 11 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 14h . ..-
Mr. Julius W. Becton 1 Dillictor i Federal Ema.M Manageant Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Dear Director Bactons
, . I am hereby resigning as Regional Director of Region II of the
', Federal Emergency Management Agency. After four days of soul-searching 9
I realize that I cannot in pod conscience modify in any way the state-ments I have nede p$1bly concerning the scope of mn's evaluation of the February 13, 1986 exercise of off-sita plans for the Shoreham nuclear power plant on Iong Island. I stated after the exercise, as widely reported, and I will stata again that without the participaticn of stata and local governnant in off-sita mergency planning at Shoreham, or any ccamercial nuclear power plant site for that natter, it is not possible for anyone to give reasonable assurance that public health and safety can be rvi.-;t.ed.
'the responsibility given to IEm after the accident at '1hree Mile j Island is a responsibility I taka very seriously: that is to provide an
- unbiana#and inpartial review of mergency preparedness to s vinct. people
.j living near nuclear power plants. I an proud of the job I have cbne in 1 this regard. At Indian Point, working with state, county, icical officials and the utilities, w successfully resolved serious off-site mergency planning issues. At Indian Point, I found that unless deficiencies were 1 corrected, I could not offer reasonable assurance that public health and safety could be protected. Although we are dealing with a very di.fferent
, set of circumstances at Shoreham, I again nust state that I cannct give
, reascnable assurance.
l I would lika to cormand the omrgency managers at all levels of pvarmrant, in the private sector, and with volunteer ncm-profit organizatisms in New York, ,
1 New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, with dxza I have worked for l a four diallenging and inportant years. I believe together we have nede people i in Region II safer in the face of all types of natural and todmological a disasters. I would also lika to ocumend the highly-prof *==imal Region II l staff for having dcne an outstanding job on all FDR programs, fran disastar relief and flood insurance to radiological ame:.M preparedness.
i il e
- , . - - , - - - , - _ , ,a,.- --------.--g--,,.---.-.-,-w-_-,,..,.,_.e-,-- , , , , , , , . -~--,,.a----------r-----.-n.-, , , - n- - - - ,------
l 207260 I believe that the credibility of the agency is endangered when National Office officials neve to overturn critical regional decisions particularly since the a:nrts have ruled on their issues. As an official with an agency responsible for working with state and local .
government, I cannot support a policy which does not recognize the essential role of state and local government in emergency respcmse.
I wish you well in your role as Director and I enjoyed working with you for this brief period of tina.
S y, x m ,. et_
m giona1 Director e
I i
1 0
i l
l t ..
l t
i e
. . . . . ., e . . .
I 4
O
$ h.. ..FC,? ID i
- o. e a i W ...i.r.. h_ c
~. ,
NRC BACKGROUND STATEMENT NRC has been advised of Mr. Petrone's resignation today and has no
'omment.
c In June 1985, the NRC requested FEMA to schedule as full an exercise of the LILCO offsite plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station as is feasible and lawful. FEMA conducted an exercise of the LILCO plan on February 13, 1986, and the report on that exercise will be used by the NRC in reaching an overall decision on authorizing Shoreham to proceed to full power operation.
FEMA has the responsibility and the expertise at the Federal level for reviewing and assessing offsite emergency planning and preparedness. The Nuclear Regulatory Com'ssion has the responsibility and expertise to review and assess the adequacy of onsite emergency planning and preparedness by licensees at nuclear power plants. Although NRC has the responsibility and authority to make the ultimate reasonable assurance finding, we rely heavily on FEMA's input for the offsite component.
April 14, 1986
I I '
FEMA STATEMENT - April 14, 1986 Before Mr. Petrone's resignation today, there existed a serious conflict between him and existing FEMA policy concerning the recent exercise of offsite emergency plans for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. This is not the first such policy conflict between Mr. Petrone and the agency he represented.
Mr. Petrone insisted that the report to the NRC make it clear that FEMA cannot give a reasonable assurance that those plans are adequate to protect public health and safety in the unlikely event of a radiological accident at the plant.
This position does not comport with the position FEMA has maintained since the NRC directed that a limited exercise of the Shoreham plan be conducted. FEMA told the NRC and it told the Congress then and it continues in the position l
that it will make no finding as to the adequacy of the Shoreham plan.
l For FEMA to say it cannot give its assurances is to rake a finding.,
Mr. Petrone position, therefore, is in direct conflict with that of FEMA.
l .
t
- -- . . . - . . . ~ . . _
. L
{, r,g,,,[X ,,. ,,..iwiD CHRONO!I)GY ON SiORDRM N b b7 k. O D.!* B. /s..I.. d.). .h.
'horeham is located in Suffolk County Long Island, New York-about 30 miles
. sway frcm New York City. Plans are required for Suffolk County in addition to the State of New York site-specific plan.
SHOREHAM-HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 9/81- o Plans for Suffolk County are initially develcped by a early 1982 consultant for the utility, Long Island Lighting Ccnoeny (LILCO) . hose were unacceptable to the County.
3/23/82 o Suffolk County rejects LIICO plans, returns LILCO noney, and undertakes developnent of their own plan. (Resolution 4262-1982 of Suffolk County Legislature.)
Later in o LILCO submits its plan directly to New York State Disaster 1982 Preparedness Ccumission (NYSDPC) for consideration, withcut Suf folk County approval.
Later in o suffolk County gets Court order to block consideration of 1982 LII4D Plan by NYSDPC. D e Court also rules that unless the County submits their cwn County-develcped-and-spproved plan to the NYSDPC by 2/21/83, State cxuld act on the LIICO plan.
2/17/83 o Governor Cucmo directs State not to reviw or appecwe any energency evacuation plan other than a plan approved by Suffolk County officials. 9 2/17/83 o Within hours af ter the Governor's action, Suffolk County legislature, in a 15-1 vote (Resolution 4111-1983), rejects ccunty-develcped plan and refuses to forward it to the State of New York.
The legislature feels that it is not possible to achieve workable evacuation plans for Shoreham, given the long Island f demographics. boy decide tot to adcpt or inplement ,any, radiological energency response plan.
o Suf folk County also requests NRC to terminate licensing process, allegig that develogment of acceptable plans is not possible.
4/83 o AS:.a requests all parties to file briefs on the County's notion.
his is done.
4/20/83 o Asul denies the County's motion and refers its ruling to the Appeal Board for reviw.
4/22/83 o Governor Cueno asks varicus of ficials, f1MA, and NRC to participate in fact-finding ecmmission to study the entirs question of teether Shoreham sh:uld cperate, including issues of plant design, operation, economics, and offsite energency planning. he task force is ocuposed of leading authorities in the field of economics, public health, and pelic admints-tration, as tell as representatives cf State and local qpverment, FIMA, and the NRC. (Dave mci 4ughlin, supported by Spence Perry, FEMA CXE, is designated as the F1MA representative.) .
X00711 o In the interim, LIICO prepares offsite energency plans for Shorehen and semits them to NRC.
o ASI.a haarings are suspended. We to later develcq;ments, the NiiLB does not start offsite preparedness hearings again until December 6, 1983. Onsite, diesel generator problems will occur which will apparently delay opening of the plant smtil Jaruary 1985 at the earliest. This raioves offsite issues from the critical path for the plant opening.
6/1/83 o NRC irwekes the FEMA /NRC POU and requests that FEMA provide,
- by 6/23/83, findings and detenninations on 5 different plans prepared by LIICO. The five plans differed basically in the designation of the principal organizations which were to be responsible for the offsite preparedness and response actions '
in the event of an energency at the Shoreham site. The five versions aret the LILCO-County Plan, the LI& State Plan, the LIICCHEMA Plan, the LIICO-NRC Plan, and the LIICO Transition Plan.
In the LIICO Transition Plan, approximately 1300-1500 LIICO personnel (under the title local thergency Response Organization (LERO)) are to perform the necessary emergency preparedness and response functions in the event of an accident at Shorehen.
These actions, which are normally perforned by goverrnent officials, includes traffic direction and control, pelic transportation, and coordination of fire and anbulance services, to the extent that these services respond.
6/8/83 o Peter Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive, testifies before the Subcownittee on Energy, Conservation and Poiatr of the Hcuse Committee on Energy and Cermerce (Mr. Ottinger, Chainman) on offsite energency preparedness for Shorehen. Reiterates the County position that emergency preoaredness to protect the public welf are is not possible for long Island. He says that Shoreham should rot be licensed.
o FEMA's Executive Deputy Dirwetor also testifies before the sane secownittee. Part of his,statenent is on Section 5 of the NRC Authorization Act and on plans prepared by or for a utility. FEMA's position is that while we will review su::h plans under the FEMMtRC POU, they wculd be of diminished value in assuring pelic health and protection without State and local goverment canmitment.
l .
I
' ' * * - - ~ ~ - - - ~ , - - . _ , _ _ , , , _ _ _ , _
, w X007l2
./17/83 o NRC nodifies its request so that it pertains only to the "LIICO Transition Plan" tut does not nodify deadline. .NRC asks for separate findings on whether the plan is adequate, whethat it is capable of being inglenented, and 1 Aether LIICO has the capability to implement the plan.
N
'-6/23/83 o FEMA provides NRC findings on the LIICO Transition Plan. Ibe to the extrenely short deadline, the Plan is reviewed by Argonne National 14boratories, not Regional Assistance Consnittee (RAC).
- 34 inadequacies found in tenus cf the standards of NtRED-0654/TEMA-REP-1, Rev.1.
But, even if these are corrected, 2 nore pawiditions for adequacy exist
- Determination that LIICO has necessary legal authority to inglenent the plan.
- Full-scale exercise to demonstrate LIICO's capability to inglenent a plan.
N 7/22/83 o NRC requests clarification cf FEMA's 6/23/83 letter.
N J/29/83 o FEMA provides clarification, provides its general position on am non governnental (e.g., utility) plan submitted for reviw, and nentions the possibility of a full RAC review of the LIICO plan.
o f1MA's ;olicy position is as folicws:
- 1. 'Ibe plan could be considered adequate, if there are no deficiencies een the plan is reviwed against the NURED-0654/FIMA-REP-1 standarchs.
- 2. 'Ibe plan could be inglenented if the organization or persons required to implenent planned actions have the autrority to do so.
- 3. FEMA, in its advisory role to NRC, could neke a finding that there is reasonable assurance that offsite preparedness is adequate, if a full-scale exercise denonstrates that, with the authority and resources, the plan can be carried cut effectively. .
l
\ 9/15/83 o NRC requests FEMA to provide firtiirgs and determinations by December 1, 1983, on " Revision I of the LIICO Transition Plan" (4 volumes), which LIICO furnished to the NRC in response to the FIMA 6/23/83 report. .
9/23/83 o FEMA's Executive Deputy Director requests the Director of FEMA's Region II to initiate a full RAC review of LIICO's
" Revision I" and prcuide findirgs to FEMA Hea4uarters b/
11/18/83.
L _ _
, '(
n .
+
~
s ,
X00713
~
10/4/B o Governor'Cuano, aware of the NRC request for FEMA findirgs,
, sends a' letter to NRC Chairnen Pilladino which reiterates his
. policy of non-interference in Suffolk County's decision because of his belief that in the absence of County participation, the State does not have "the capability or the rescurons to assure that the public health and safety can be adequately protected."' Eut, he exprest.as doubt abcut the value of a
. plan,which relies on private utility workers.
10/10/83 o "In a letter to Gary Johnson, Actirg Chief, Technological
- Hazards Division, Argonne National Laboratory indicates that upon re-examinirg it's Jtme 1983 findirg in preparation for depositions, it has determined that on three NLREG-0654 elenents,
- /, they,Jould have changed their findirg fran " adequate" to l , ,l "inajequate."
10/27/83- 'o2 NRC's Executive Director for Operations responds to Governor Cui:rio that all relevant offsite preparedness issues will be
/.1rvi at the ASIS hearirgs, and that NRC's consideration of
(
- LIICO's plans is only a reflection of the Ccenission's decision that LIICO should be given an @;nrtunity "to present evidence on the plan seekirg to derionstrate its effectiveness."
i .0/28/I3 o ' hesed on FEMA Region II's estimate of the impact cf the reviw l /, .rst the LIICD Plan on the norr.al workload of Region II and the
! I ' M4, ' FEMA Headquarters requests NRC for a time extension cf 60 f:' dayu (until February 1, 1964) for the submittal of its findings.
,' s u. I-11/10/83 o NRC'grb,nta the extension (letter dated 11/10/83 but received 11/16/83 6f,ITMA) but also asks that FEMA reviw Revision 2 of 1 ,.'
the Transition Plan (about 800 pages), which had already been j
,,< delivered directly to RAC nembers, including FEMA, by LILCO on i 11/7/83. e ,
) , /
I 11/23/83 o 12.1CO reques.ts tha': NRC extend the Shoreham Construction Pe:: nit completion date to Decenber 31,1984, (fran 12/31/83)
, die to ensite nectinical problems.
12/6/83' / o, #S.B hearirgs on cffsite preparedness begin, with issues ret j' 4 Wapendent on the RAC teview. 'Ihis is terned Phase I. Phase II
,' will be issurs dependent on the RAC reviw. This division was i
l made so t: hat FEMA's finding process would not delay the hearing.
12/8$3 c FIMA's Associate Director for SLPS directs FEMA Region II to l
begin the review of Revison 2 of the LIICD Transition Plan
' imnediately. Also reques'.s infonnation to support an/ necessary i
ine extension. mees ' '
3 he this review. .
( 's /
o nhA Region Il recebe4, directly fran LIICO, additional pages 12/9/83 /'
!" /.af.':hanges to the LII 0 Transition Plan for reviw.
'l I
' fJ
< , I f
i t 1 l' '
% .d1 ! __ __ ,
- . .. ... . .. . l o
,d
. i
-5, -
FEMA Region II's Chlef of the Division d Natural and Xnn71d
.o '.2/14/83 ' o 2l1 Technological Hazards requests noeting with FEMA's Associate
- I Director for SLPS and other relevant' FEMA Headquatars staff to discuss and resolve issues concerning the review of revisions
,. 3 4
to LIIco Transition Plan. Tine extension will be needed for
' Revision 2 but apparently a "Revisim 3" is to be delivered in about 2 weeks. 'Ihe timing of the delivery of these changes, according to Region II, is very disruptive and will effectively prevent then fran preparing a satisf actory report for the ASG. Region II recawiends a position of not reviewing any natorial delivered after 12/9/83 until after a report on the Transition Plan is nede to the AS2. If such an arrargenent can be made and certain other problens resolved, they estinate that they could deliver findings by 3/1/84, at the cutside. j
, 12/14/83 o Governor Cuomo's fact-finding cmmission releases its report.
At ecpy is being sent to FEMA Headquarters fran FEMA Region II.
' Acbrding to a New York Times article, there was difficulty in reaching a consensus anong the 13-netter panel on the questions they were asked to answer. The conclusions did ,
cite the economic problens involved in Sh:treham's operation and LIICO's lack of, crecibility as an operator of a ruclear iplant.
Attorri other things, the report concluded that Governor Chcmo should not step in to break an inpesse between LIICO and Saffolk Ccunty over energency planr.ing.
12/14/83 o Don Irwin, of LIICO's legal ocunsel's staff, writes to Stewart Glass, FEMA Region II coursel, to describe the content of Revision 3 to the LIICO Transition Plan. He also informs Mr. Glass that r a Rev. 3 is to be delivered sonetine between 12/20-23/83.
l 12/15-16/83 o FEMA Region II Chief-NTH testifies at the ASW hearing on the issues of role conflict among emergency workers. After the hearings reconvene on Jaruary 10, 1984, he will testify on the other 2 issues nentioned in his pre-file testimony, i.'e.; "shadcw" evacuation and evacuation time estimates. -
12/20/83 o Gensrnor Cuano states in a press conference that he is adamantly
" W to Shoreham's opening and will do everything in his power to prevent it. Also, according to infonastion received by FEMA Region II, the State is to becone a full participant in the AS2 hearings. Heretofore, they wre not going to participata.
o .
_6 X00715 l
12/23/83 o FD4A notifies NRC that every offort will be made to cmplete f the RAC review of the LILCO Transition Plan, including Revisions 2 and 3, as close to February 1,1984, as possible l
l provided we receive the required material from LIICO no later l
than Jaruary 3,1984, (i.e., a collated plan plus all appegriate NUREG-0654 cross-references). However, FEMA enphasians that sczee I additional time beyond 2/1/84 will probably be needed.
FD4A also notifies NRC that due to the workload involved in aseting the NRC deadlines on Shoreham, work on other reactors in FD4A Region
! II will be delayed.
12/30/83 o FEMA Headquarters receives fax of 12/22/83 memorandian fran Jordan (NRC) to Krimrn (FD4A) requesting that FD4A review Revision 3 of the LIICO Transition Plan. It confirms a verbal request node on Decenber 19, 1983.
1/9/84 o FEMA Region II's Director confirms to FD(A Headquarters the receipt of Revision 3 noterials by the full RAC on Deceiber 30, 1983, t and their intention to revied the materials.
1/13/84 o FEMA notifies NRC of the receipt of Revision 3 and if the fact that February 1,1984, is no longer a definite date for the delivery of the FD(A reviet to NRC. .
1/17/84 o FEMA Region II receives a copy of statsvent made to the Shorehan Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board (ASIR) by Fabian G. Palcmino, Special Counsel to (and representing) Governor Cueno. Statenant indicates the Governor's belief that 1) LIICO lacks legal authority to implenent its Plan, 2) the ASIR lads jurisdiction to rule on contentions 1-10 (relating to the legal authority issues),
and 3) this matter should be settled in a State court.
1/19/84 o Mr. Palanino, in a letter to the FD1A Region II Director, .'
reiterates the position indicated on 1/17/84 and cites specific New York State laws which would be violated if LILCO inglenented the Plan (letter received 1/23/84).
o LIICO sutznits update to NRC construction Status Report. They list ,
current fuel loading date as 5/84 and current estimated comnercial l operation date ac 3/85.
1/24/84 o In a namorandum to the Ass >ciate Director of SLPS, the FEMA Region II !
Director questices whether RAC review of the LILCO Plan should continue, j l
l in light of recent events. ,
! 1/25/84 o FD4A writes to NRC to irriuire abcut whether it should "contirue, nodify l 1
or terminate" its review of the LIICO Plan. l 1/26/84 o NRC responds that the revied srculd contirue since it wil,1 be an essential part of the ASLB's ultimate determination on the adequacy and "inglenentability" of the Plan (Istter received 1/30/84). ,
\
l l t
]-
(
~ ~ . . _ . . . .
X00716 2/21/84 o FEMA Headquarters receives, directly fran LIICO, 2 c@ies of Revision 3 of the Pelic Infornetion Brochure for Shorehen.
2here is no request fraa NRC to include this in the RAC review thich is, at this point, oceplete, FEMA Region II also received copies.
2/22/B4 o FEMA Heackguarters receives RAC elenent-by-element reviet of the LILCO Transition Plan. A separate legal attactment indicates those elements on which legal questions arose. 2he RAC nakes no judgnent ori the legal issues; it nerely surfaces them. In all, there are:
- 32 inadequacies, based on a technical review against the standards and evaluative criteria of NLREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1;
- With the exception of plan aspects relating to NUREG elenent A.2.b. (a requirenent to state, by reference to specific acts, statutes, or codes, the legal basis for the authority to carry out the respnsibilities listed in A.2.a.,
i.e., all major response functions), the legal concern did not affect the FEMA rating given to the technical or operational itens relatirg to NCREE elenents;
- 24 elements (sene judged adequate; same inadaquate fran a technical pint of view) concerning which legal questiors tere psed;
- 19 elements found inadaquate in the June 1983 firdirg which changed to adequate in the RAC revied; and
- 17 elsnents found adequate in the June 1983 firdirq which changed to inadequate in the RAC review.
2/23/84 o NRC is informed by FEMA Headquarters, Office of Natural and l
Technological Hazards, that the FEMA Region II Comsel had I
told the ASta that FEMA would try to deliver its funding to NRC by 3/1/84, but that 3/15/84 was a nere probable date.
2/24/84 o Director of FEMA mandates a 3/2/84 deadline for delivery of the FEMA finding to NRC. -
3/2/84 o Deadline-is pstp ned to 3/15/84.
3/6/84 o FEMA Headquarters, Office cf Natural and Technological Hazards, receives new meterials fran attorneys for Suffolk County for review before sending a finding to NRC. Scum are in the form of testimony before the ASLB by Suffolk County consultants and Police Department cfficials. Also included was a czpy of materials sent directly to one of our consultants, Mr. Joseph H. Keller cf Idaho National Iaboratory.
3/6/84 o FEMA Headquarters receives egy et Revision 3 of the LIIdo Public l
Infornation Brochure through the NRC, Regulatory Infornetion Distribution Systen. Hcwever, no instructional nessage or revimi request is enclosed.
j l
. . ~ , . , _,
, .I . . ' _ , . . . . , .
l' j- , - - -- . ..
a' M
7
_=.
- e XOO717 _
f o Suffolk County files suit against LI@ in the New York State Supreme m
3/8/84 Court, to obtain a judgnent that LI@ does not have the necessary L" legal authority 'to implement an evacuation and energency plan for Suffolk County. t l
o FDE Headquarters receives a letter frcrn atterneys for LIE protesting 3/9/84 the 3/6/84 semission of noe noterials by Suffolk County.
3 a
3/15/84 o FDB transmits te NRC findings on Revision 3 of LII4D Transition "'3
= _~
Plan. This is based on a review by the full RAC, in response to NRC's -
l Septenber 15, 1983, request (as modified en November 10, 1983, L and Deceritzer 22, 1983).
- 32 inadequacies found in terms cf the standards and evaluative B" criteria cf NIRE-0654/FD%-RIP-1, Rev.1. This includes an
" inadequate" on elenent A.2.b., which is solely related to the legal autrority issue. } "
o The RAC also had legal concerns abcut m:ste 24 NIRE elements m as treated in the LIIID Plan. These were expressed in a 3 i
separate attactraent to the finding. The RAC nade no judgnent @
on the legal issues, nerely raised then. With the exception _i of plan aspects relating to N1Rm element A.2.b., the legal 1 t
concern did not affect the FD% rating given to the technical or cperational itens relating to NURm elements. f m
i.e., ttose which ;
o ASIR begins hearings on Phase II offsite issues, 3/20/84 ccncern the RAC review of the LIIID Plan. Hearings will be conducted E for three weeks, recess for 2 weeks, then restane for three wore weeks. +
5 4/4/84 o Freedon of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Kirkpatrick, f lockhart, Hill, 01ristcpher, and Phillips, the laryers for Suffolk Ccunty. Request tes for all noterials relating to Shorehan or LI@. -
o FOIA request filed bf Hunton and Willians, LIIID's laryers.
j 4/26/84 3
4/26/84 o FEMA informs NRC (by letter to Willian Dirtks) of its preliminary ]
planning ideas relat.ive to exercising the LII4D Transition Plan. _?
g o FD% receives notice of hearings by the Subcomunittee on Energy 4/27/84 and the Enviroreent, of the House Subcownittee on Interior and a
Insular Af fairs on procedural natters pertaining to Shorehan, G 3
5/1/84 o Identical sets of FOIA noterials supplied to Suffolk County's j laryers, LI@'s laryers and Honorable Etherd Markey. '
h S/4/84 o ASIA, at the request cf Suffolk County's lawyers, postpones ';
the depcsition of FD% Region II staff, originally scheduled '
for May 8 and 9, 1984. i y
f
,~..
X0071S l
_p 5/7/84 o NRC holds icw-power hearing for Shoreham.
.5/11/84 o At NRC's request, ETMA holds a meeting in New York City, for MIID I to brief the RAC on its proposal to correct the 32 deficiencies and to re a ive clarification frcza the RAC on those issues. Suffolk County and the State of New York attend as observers.
5/17/84 o The 91Wittee on Energy and the Envirarsnent, of the House Ccsonittee on Interior and Insular Affairs convenes a hearing on WM ral matters pertaining to Shoreham.
~
7/9/84 o NRC requests ITNA to conduct a full RAC review of Revision IV of the UIID Transition Plan.
7/11/84 o FINA reg.W that due to the substantial workload of the FEMA Region II office and the RAC, a finding on Revision IV cannot be given to NRC before November 15, 1984.
7/10-13 o FEMA witnesses testify before ASIR concerning the remaining contentions except those about training, as they relate to Revision 3 of the UIID Transition Plan.
8/14/84 o FEMA witnesses testify on contentions dealing with training.
11/15/84 o FEMA provided NRC with findings on Revisions IV. This was the result
- of a full RAC review.
- Inadequacies were reduced fran 32 in Revision III to only 8 in Revision IV.
- 'Ibe RAC still cited legal concerns related to 24 elenents, many of which were adequately treated in the Plan from an operational point of view.
2/12/85 o NRC granted UIID permission to cperate at 5% pcwer for testing purposes. However, this order was sW=ntly vacated by an NRC Appeals Iksard, pending placenent of note security around Shorehan's backup generators.
2/20/85 o New York State Supreme Court (Suffolk County) concluded that LII4D does not have the legal authority to exercise governmental functions
.and, therefore, to carry out its plan.
3/18/85 o U.S. District Court in New York ruled that the State and Suffolk County could not be forced to participate in emergency planning.
4/3/85 o FEMA sw pvi4ed to an NRC request that a full RAC review be conducted for UIID's approaches to resolving the remaining deficiencies.
- Only 7 of the 8 deficiencies were addressed by LII4D.
'Ihey did not address the legal authority issue.
V
f e
- X00719 f-E 9
- This did rot constitute a full plan review. R:nsever, I the approaches to correctirg the plan were found to be appropriate for 6 of the 7 items addressed.
y I 4/17/85 o The Atcznic Safety and Licensirg Board for emergency plannirg ruled that, although LIIID's offsite plan is generally adequate, LIIco does not have the legal authority to perform many of the required P energency functions set out in the plan.
l 5/6/85 o The ASLB reopened its hearirgs to hear testinony on one issue, the h use of the Nassau County Coliseum as a center for the reception of evacuees in the event of a radiolcgical emergency at the Shoreham w plant. FDR's 4 person witness panel is scheduled to testify on June 26, 1985, on that issue.
m -
Br o A decision on the energency diesel generators is expected in
[C July 1985 fran the ASIE considerirg the matter.
F 5/30/85 o May 30, 1985, Suffolk County Executive Peter F. Cohalan issued an
@ Executive Order directing the County to join in offsite energency an E planning for the Shoreharn plant. Ibwever, two lawsuits filed in Er the New York Supreme Court (Suffolk County), by county legislators
_=-
and several m2nicipalities, charged that the Order usurped sane p of their powers.
The Suffolk County Executive Order was voided by the Court. The g 6/10/85 _o Court further directed that Mr. Cohalan make rc modifications in g
y the official position of the County Imgislature, contained in a F resolution passed two years ago. At that time, the legislature r
voted 17-1 that safe evacuation fran the Shoreham vicinity would be impossible in the event of an accident at the plant.
P 6/20/85
- NRC requests FD% to schedule as full an exercise as is feasible at the present time givirg appropriate consideration to the Suffolk County Executive's May 30, 1985, Executive Order and subsequent developments relating to emergency plannirg activities by the County.
7/15/85 o The Suffolk County Executive issued an Executive Order restrictirg the use of County personnel and resources essentially to data gatherirg and plan review functions.
8/5/85 -' Congressman Markey writes to Sanuel Speck to express his views on NRC's June 20 request to FDR on exercisirg the LIIID plan.
He reiterates his continuirc coposition to such an exercise.
- His argments include the concept that an exercise of an uninglementable plan is a waste of the taxpayers' money. ,
8/7/85
- FD% responds that his views will be taken into consideration in any future evaluation of options for the review of offsite plannirg and preparedness around the plant. Ibwever, FD%
has no position on the potential for an exercise.
e % ,
l X0072D ,
l 8/26/85
- ASIS on emergeri:y planning issues a Concluding Partial Initial Decision in which it finds that "an operating license for a nuclear ;xwer reactor shall not be issued to LIIID". In explain-ing this finding, the ASIA mentions "one fatal flaw" to the successful inplenentation of the LIICD plan as being the lack of legal authority on the part of the applicant. It further states, We have no reason to believe this defect can be corrected in the near term."
9/17/85
- NRC Chairman Palladino responds to a letter fra Congressman Markey about the NRC's " change of position" on Shoreham. He explains that "in the matter of holding a drill in the current circumstances, I disagree with the Ccaunission majority." He questions the usefulness of a drill at this time.
10/8/85 o FDIA provided NRC with the results of FD4A's review of Revision 5.
Six (6) elements were identified as being inadequate. One inade-quacy concerned J.12, an elenent which had been rated adequate in the previous finding. In addition, NUREG elements affected by legal authority concerns were identified.
4 10/29/85 o FDIA respcided to NRC's request of June 20, 1985 asking that FEMA p wce.i.d with the conduct of as full an exercise as is feasible of the LIIDD plan. FDIA identified the following two (2) options:
l Option 1 - would require setting aside all functions and exercise objectives related to issues of authority and State and local participation. Thus, only the functions outlined for t. Tim would be exercised. Such an exercise is possible but its usefulness would seem very limited.
Option 2 - would include all functions and normal exercise objectives. This option would exercise Revision 5 of the 150 Plan. Exercise cetrollers would similate the roles of key State or local officials unable or unwilling to participate. It would be desirable that State and local goverment personnel actually play. Hwever, such a simulation mechanian would at least test the utility's ability to z + -4 to ad hoc participation on the part of -
State and local goverments.
The ultimate purpose of an exercise is to support a finding by FEMA for use by the NRC in their licensing process. Hmover, as we noted l in our letter to NRC, neither of the above options wculd allow a finding by FDIA on offsite preparedness. However, we recognise that' Shoreham is in no way typical and that in the past in exercising its adjudicatory i i
pcwers the Cannission and the various Atcenic Safety and Licensing ~' '
Boards have reached predictive findings. ,
l l - . - - -
l
- _~
, J ,
X 007 ? TL 11/5/85
- Fan is imited to testify on November 14, 1985, before the 9_**M ttee on Energy Conservation and Pcuer, of the House Comittee on Energy and Camerce (Mr. Markey, Chairman), on whether it is appropriate to conduct an exercise of UtrO's plan for Shorehan without the full participation of the State and local gcuerment.
11/6/85 * *1he Suffolk County Executive issues a press release after the elections, reiteratim his opposition to Shoreham's opening.
11/12/85
- NRC chooses Option 2 for the Shorehen exercise, as explained in FDR's October 29, 1985 letter.
11/14/85
- Samuel Speck testifies for FDR at the hearing before Mr.
Markey's Subcorsnittee.
12/23/85
- The Suffolk County Iagislature pa==as local Iaw i 2-86, which stipulates: "It shall be a crime for'any person to conduct or participate in any test or exercise of any response to a natural or man-snade emergency situation if that test or exercise includes as a part thereof that the role or function of any Suffolk County official will be performed or sinulated and if the Suffolk County legislature, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sec 3 and 4 of this local law, has issued a notice of disapproval of such performance of simulation of County roles or functions..."
1/13/86
- Suffolk County Executive sions Local Imw 2-86, which is to be effective 25 days thereafter.
1/30/86
- A dry-run exercise is coMucted by MICO aM observed by FD%
representatives.
1/30/86
- NRC, in a 3-2 vote, denies Suffolk County's request to cancel the February 13, 1986 exercise.
2/4/86
- U.S. Department of Justice (DQ3) files a motion in Federal court seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Suffolk County low. U.S. District JMge Wexler grantsCICO a
had notion for Da7 and UICO to consolidate their suits.
previously filed a motion on Jaruary 27, 1986, seeking an injunction against enforcement of the County law.
2/11/86
- U.S. District Court granted a greliminary injunction against enforcement of the Suffolk County law that could have pre-vented a test of the UICO plan. 'Ihe ruling enjoins the County frm interfering with the drill.
- Suffolk County anncunces that it will not appeal the Court's decision.
V
- c. ~ .b X00792 2/13/86 ' Shoreham RE:P exercise is conducted without State and Ccunty participation, as requested by NIC.
4/14/86
- Frank P. Petrone, Regional Director of F1MA Region II, submits resignation, which he links to language in the Shorehan post-exercise assessnent.
4/18/86
- Post-exercise assessnent on the February 13, 1986, Shoreham exercise is delivered to NRC.
4/22/86
- FEMA is invited to testify on April 22, 1986, before the Subccanittee on Energy Conservation and Power, of the House Ccenittee on Energy and Ctrmerce (ptr. Markey, Chairman), on reasons for the resignation of the FEMA Regional Director as they relate to the Shoreham licensing process.
l l
l e
9
[Q,C.E.T....Fw10 D .M .B. . . .. . .I .&. .. . . . .S. .I.1. . .". .
,- flaw in the Plan, because that Plan does not assign " primary responsibilities for emergency response" to the governments assigned those responsibilities under the " realism" argument.
Accordingly, the Plan fails to comply with NRC emergency planning regulations, including 10 CFR SS 50.47(b)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6),
(8), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15) and (16).
III. CONTENTIONS EX 15-19: LIMITED SCOPE OF THE l
EXERCISE PRECLUDES REASONABLE ASSURANCE FIMDING CONTENTION EX 15. The scope of the February 13 exercise of the LILCO Plan was so limited that it could not and did not yield valid or meaningful results on implementation capability as re- g 4 (
quired by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(2), in that it did not includa dem-onstrations or evaluations of major portions of the LILCO Plan.
The data set forth in subparts A-M of this contention individual-ly and collectively establish that the extreise demonstrated a fundamental flaw in the LILCO Plan. The exercise results do not demonstrate that the LILCO Plan could or would be implemented, and the exercise results preclude a finding that there is reason-able assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Shorcham, as
)
required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Thus, the exercise demon-strated a fundamental flaw in the LILCO Plan.
Specifically, several critical aspects of offsite emergency preparedness, and major substantive portions of the LILCO Plan, were excluded from the exercise. Neither the exercise scenario (which LILCO prepared), nor responses by players during the
exercise, nor any FEMA evaluation or observation, addressed the following elements of emergency preparedness required by the ,
referenced sections of the NRC's regulations and NUREG 0654:
A. Procedures for actual notification of the public and actual issuance of emergency information and protective action recommendations to the public, as set forth in OPIPs
( 3.3.4, 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, and at pages 2.2-2 thru 2.2-2a, 3.3-4 thru 3.3-6, 3.4-6, 3.8-4, 3.8-6 and Appendix A, pages IV-2 and IV-3 of the LILCO Plan, were excluded from the exercise, in that sirens, the LILCO EBS system, and WALK Radio were not tasted, used, demonstrated, or involved in the exercise. Thus, neither the notification capabilities of LILCO or WALK Radio personnel, e nor the notification capabilities of LILCO's EBS system, were evaluated during the exercise. Such capabilities are required by 8
10 CFR S 50.47(b)(5), 10 CFR Part 50, App. E $ IV.D; NUREG 0654 i SS II.E and F, and Appendix 3, and were required to be demon-l strated in the exercise. Objectives EOC 14 and 15. Their
(
exclusion from the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable l assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham emergency, as required by 10 CFR l
l 5 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
LILCO's suggestion that the conduct of a " prompt notification test" would correct this deficiency (agg letter dated June 20, 1986, from John Leonard to Harold Denton (SNRC-I 1269), Enclosure 1 at 4) is incorrect. Such a test, assuming one were conducted in the future, would deal with siren operability; l
I i . ,
a g it would not test or demonstrate the ability of LILCO's offsite response organization to integrate that single portion of an emergency response with the remaining actions necessary in an emergency, nor would it test or demonstrate that the LILCO Plan could be implemented.
B. Procedures for notification of, and issuance of protective action recommendations to, the members of the public in the water portion of the plume exposure EPZ, as set forth in OPIP 3.3.4, and at pages 2.2-2a and 3.3-5 and Appendix A at IV-4 and IV-6 of the LILCO Plan, were excluded from the exercise, in i that the U.S. Coast Guard did not participate in the exercise (other than perhaps the receipt of one or more telephone calls) e i
and FEMA never evaluated Coast Guard performance (assuming arcuendo there was any). Such capabilities are required by 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(5), 10 CFR Part 50, App. E, S IV.D, and NUREG 0654 SS II.E and F, Appendix 3, and the exercise was supposed to (but did not) test the alleged Coast Guard commitment under the LILCO Plan to notify water-borne traffic in the EPZ. Egg, gigs, FEMA Report at 9; objective EOC 16. The water portion of the EPZ
! constitutes nearly 50 percent of the physical area of the plume EPZ. The exclusion of such procedures from the exercise pre-cludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective
! measures can and will L. tonen in the event of a Shoreham emer-gency, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the
[ LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
i F
3
I. . . , ,. . , , ... . . . , ..
C.- Procedures for public education and the dissemi-nation of information to the public on a periodic basis, as set forth in OPIP 3.8.1, and at pages 3.8-1 thru 3.8-4 and Appendix A at IV-3 thru -4, IV-70 of the LILCO Plan, and a demonstration of the adequacy of public education materials, were excluded from the exercise. Such programs and materials are required by 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(7), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.D, and NUREG 0654 5 II.G. Their exclusion from the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR-S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
- D. Procedures relating to evacuation of EPZ hospital patients and patients in the Suffolk Infirmary, and a demon-stration of the capability of implementing such an evacuation, were excluded from.the exercise. There are approximately 850 patients in the Central Suffolk, St. Charles, and John T. Mather 7 Hospitals and the Suffolk Infirmary (OPIP 3.6.5, Att. 2), of i
which approximately 155 are designated maternity, newborn, or pediatric. Procedures to ovacuate these persons and the :
capability and resources to implement them are required by.10 CFR l 55 50.47(b)8) and (b)(10), and NUREG 0654 5 II.J.9 and 10. Their exclusion from the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable as-surance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken 1
, in the event of a Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
19 -
,,---w r w.- -
--4 ,-----..-- ,-
.w, ,,m-, , , , - . - - , _ , - , - - . . m,
l
~
l 1
E. Procedures relating to the sheltering of school I
children (111 OPIP 3.6.5; OPIP 3.6.1; App. A at II-19 thru -21) '
were excluded from the exercise. Such procedures, and the resources and capabilities necessary to implement them, are required by 10 CFR $$ 50.47(b)(8) and (b)(10), and NUKEG 0654 Ss II.J.9 and 10. Officials of most of the school districts i relied upon in the LILCO Plan for the implementation of the' protective action of sheltering have stated that they do not have the resources and are not capable of. implementing such an action ,
during a Shoreham emergency. The exclusion of LILCO's proposed school sheltering procedures from the exercise precludes a !
finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures ,
can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham emergency as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
F. FEMA did not observe any demonstration of the organizational ability necessary to effect an early dismissal of schools, even though such a demonstration was one of the exercise objectives. Egg objective EOC 18; FIELD 15; FEMA Report at 38. -
l Under the LILCO Plan, early dismissal is one of the primary pro-tective actions for school children. LILCO Plan at 3.6-7; App. A at II-19 thru -21; OPIP 3.6.5. Thus, procedures relating to the 4
early dismissal of schools and the ability to implement them are required by 10 CFR $ 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG 0654 5 II.J.
Officials of most of the school districts relied upon in the !
LILCO Plan for the implementation of early dismissals have stated that they do not have the resources and are not capable of safely i
i e
f
. ,_ . _ _ _ __________.m..,#,-,.____,____,,_m. _ , _ , . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ ,
-
- or effectively implementing an early dismissal during a Shoreham accident. FEMA's failure to observe any demonstration of the ability to implement LILCO's proposed protective action of early dismissal during the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented in the event of a Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is funda-mentally flawed.
G. Procedures relating to the evacuation of school children, as set forth in OPIP 3.6.5 and in Appendix A at II-19 thru -21 of the LILCO Plan, which refer to non-existent school plans and rely upon school officials to locate and mobilize ne-cessary personnel and equipment to implement an evacuation, were excluded from the exercise. Such procedures and the capability of icplementing them are required by 10 CFR SS 50.47(b)(8) and (b)(10), and'NUREG 0654 $$ II.J.9 and 10. Officials of most of the school districts relied upon in the LILCO Plan for the implementation of school evacuations have stated that they do not have the resources and are not capable of safely or effectively implementing an evacuation of school children during a Shoreham accident. And, the one free play message in the exercise purportedly involving simulated evacuation assistance for the Ridge Elementary School did not even purport to demonstrate the resources or capabilities of officials of that school or of the Longwood School District to implement an evacuation, and thus failed to demonstrate the resources or capabilities necessary to implement the proposed procedure for evacuation of school 4
children set forth in the LILCO Plan. The exclusion of such procedures from the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1), and precludes any finding that objectives EOC 20 and FIELD 16 were met. Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is funda-mentally flawed.
H. Demonstration of the capability of implementing protective action recommendations for the public on the waters of the plume exposure EPZ, or for transients on beaches or in parks or similar areas in the EPZ, as set forth in OPIP 3.3.4, and at i
pages 2.2-2a, 3.3-4 thru 3.3-6, 3.8-1 thru 3.8-3, and Appendix A .
at IV-4 and IV-6 of the LILCO Plan, was excluded from the exer-cise. Such capabilities are required by 10 CFR S 10.47(b)(10),
and NUREG 0654 SS II.J, and objectives FIELD 9 and EOC 16 re-quired a demonstration of the ability to evacuate all or part of the 10-mile EPZ including the water portion. There in fact was no demonstration of any ability to effect an evacuation of the water portion of the EPZ. This exclusion from the exercise pre-cludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham acci-dent as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
I. Procedures for determining, issuing, and imple-menting protective action recommendations for the ingestion pathway EPZ (aside from the single recommendation that dairy animals be placed on stored feed), as set forth in OPIP 3.6.6 and i
O e I
...--,.,----..-.,n,--.,-..,--,,--_.,.,,,.n,_,_.-,,,,----.-- . - . _ , . , _ _ _ , , _ _ - _ - - , - , - - - , . -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. 6 l
at pages 3.6-1 thru 3.6-4 and 3.6-7a thru 3.6-8a of the LILCO Plan, were excluded from the exercise.in that the State of Connecticut did not participate in the exercise and LILCO did not implement such procedures even for the portion of the. ingestion pathway EPZ located in the State of New York. Such capabilities are required by 10' CFR S 50.47(b)(10), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix i
E, 5 IV.F, and NUREG 0654 S II.J, and by objectives EOC 9, 12.
Their exclusion from the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed. <
J. Procedures and arrangements relating to the pro-
, vision of medical services for offsite contaminated injured individuals were excluded from the exercise. Such arrangements are required by 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(8), (b)(12); NUREG 0654 S II.L and objective FIELD 23. The LILCO Plan contains nothing but a i
list of facilities described by LILCO as potentially available to provide such services (OPIP 4.2.2, Att. 1), but no procedures setting forth how contaminated injured individuals could or would f
be transported to such facilities, whether such facilities are in fact available and properly equipped to provide necessary ser-vices, or whether such facilities have trained personnel and other necessary resources to provide the required services in a timely manner. During the medical drill' referenced in the FEMA Report, only the treatment of an individual contaminated and in-
- jured onsite was demonstrated, and the purported treatment was 23 -
I i
-,,------,,e-,,-- r --e ----,r- - , ---mr,-s *~r v-w
. . , . . . -. . \
1 l
4 provided at Central Suffolk Hospital, located in the EPZ. The exclusion from the exercise of the demonstration of procedures 1
for the treatment of individuals contaminated and injured offsite precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate pro ' {
tective measures can and will be implemented in the event of a 1
Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Accord-ingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed. I K. Procedures relating to the radiological monitoring and decontamination of evacuees from special facilities who, ac-cording to the LILCO Plan, are to be evacuated to special recep-tion centers, were excluded from the exercise. Such procedures, and the resources and capabilities necessary to implement them, e are required by 10 CFR SS 50.47(b)(8), (b)(10); NUREG 0654 S II.J.9 and 10 and objective FIELD 21. Their exclusion from the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham accicent, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1).
Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
L. A demonstration of the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of facilities designated to be used as congregate care centers for evacuees under the LILCO Plan (ggg, gagu, OPIP t
j 4.2.3, pages 2.2-2 thru 2.2-2a, 3.6-7 thru 3.6-7a, 3.7-2, 3.9-6, and 4.8-1 and Appendix B of the LILCO Plan) was excluded frem the l exercise, in that the two facilities involved in the exercise are not among those identified in the Plan. Sag FEMA Report at 82-
- 83. Such facilities are also not referenced in any letter of agreement from the Red Cross. Such facilities and agreements t
24 -
i V
- _ - - - . . . - . - __ - - - . -_- _ ._ --~
. a guaranteeing and demonstrating their availability, accessibility and adequacy are required by 10 CFR SS 50.47(b)(8) and (b)(10);
NUREG 0654 SS II.A.3, C.4, J.10.a. and g., and J.12; and objectives FIELD 18 and 22. Their exclusion from the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1).
Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
M. Procedures relating to recovery and re-entry and activities to implement recovery and re-entry, as set forth in OPIP 3.10.1 and at pages 3.10-1 thru 3.10-2 of the LILCO Plan, were excluded from the exercise. Such capabilities are requirred .
by 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(13), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E S IV.H, and NUREG 0654~$ II.M. Their exclusion from the exercise precludes a finding of reasonable -assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham accident, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally flawed.
l CONTENTION EX 16. The scope of the February 13 exercise of the LILCO Plan was so limited that it could not and did not yield valid or meaningful results regarding LILCO's capability to I implement its Plan, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(2), in that it did not include demonstrations or evaluations of emergency response capabilities of many persons and entities relied upon to implement the LILCO Plan. 'In addition, the exc'lusion of these entities from the exercise precludes a finding that the exercise
, -_-,,,.__.-_._.._-_,.,__,,,_,.,,,-_.__,,._,n _
evaluated major portions of emergency response capabilities, as required by 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(14). The failure of each of the persons and entities identified in subparts A-N below to participate in the exercise both individually and collectively j means that the exercise did not comply with 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(14) and did not demonstrate that the LILCO Plan can or will be implemented, as required by 10 CFR 55 50.47(a)(1) and (a)(2).
Rather, the exercise results were so limited that they demon-strated a fundamental flaw in the scope of the exercise and in the implementability of the Plan and preclude a finding that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham accident, as .
required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1).
i Other than LILCO and its personnel, the majority of the or-ganizations, entities, and individuals relied upon in the LILCO Plan for implementation of that Plan did not participate in the exercise. Thus, the exercise did not address the willingness, availability, training, equipment, capability, or adequacy of performance of the entities and individuals identified in subparts A-N below, each of which is necessary to implement the portions of the LILCO Plan referenced in each subpart. The fact that each of these entities and individuals did not participate in the exercise precludes a finding that the LILCO Plan is i
capable of implementation or a finding of reasonable assurance 4
that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the 26 -
r, -- , ---,- .y--,,-,----- ,,-,--.,-.-,,--w-- -.----m-,-,- - - - - v,
.. l
. o l
l event of a Shoreham emergency, as required by 10 CFR
^
S 50.47(a)(1). Accordingly, the LILCO Plan is fundamentally ,
flawed.
A. The State of Connecticut did not participate in the exercise beyond perhaps receiving a phone call from a LILCO
" player" at approximately 10:30. Connecticut is relied upon for issuance and implementation of protective actions for the portion !
of the ingestion pathway EPZ located within its borders. Egg LILCO Plan at 3.6-8; OPIP 3.6.6.
B. The U.S. Coast Guard did not participate in the exercise beyond perhaps receiving phone calls. It is relied upon for initial notification of, and communication and implementation of protective action recommendations to, members of the public in the water portion of the plume exposure EPZ, and for private and commercial vessel traffic control and access restriction on the water portion of the EPZ. Egg LILCO Plan at 2.2-2a, 3.3-5; OFIP 3.3.4. The water portion of the EPZ constitutes approximately 50 percent of the entire EPZ. FEMA did not observe or evaluate the Coast Guard's performance of any of these activities, including, if it occurred in fact, the dispatching of any Coast Guard vessels into the EPE.
C. WALK Radio did not participate in the exercise. It is relied upon for initial notification of the public of an emergency as well as for issuance to the public of protective action recommendations and other emergency information. Egg LILCO Plan at 2.2-2 thru 2.2-2a, 3.3-4 thru 3.3-6, 3.4-6, and 3.8-6; OPIP 3.3.4; OPIP 3.8.1; OPIP 3.8.2.
D. No other radio stations participated in the exer-cise. Under the LILCO Plan, stations WBLI, WCTO, WGLI, WGSM, WLIM, WLIX, WLNG, WRCN, WRED, and WRIV are relied upon to con-stitute LILCO's EBS system; therefore they are relied upon for initial notification of, and communication of protective action recommendations and other emergency information to, the public.
Egg LILCO Plan at 2.2-2 thru 2.2-2a; App. B.
E. According to FEMA, Marketing Evaluations, Inc. did not participate in the exercise. FEMA Report at lii. It is relied upon for verification of siren operation and evacuation.
Agg LILCO Plan at 2.2-4g, App. A at V-9, and App. B; OPIP 3.3.4.
4 F. Other than one or two persons from the Shoreham- .
Wading River School District, school officials and personnel, including teachers, from the two parochial schools, 13 nursery f schools, and 33 public schools located in the EPZ, as well as I
l those from the seven school districts outside the EPZ but with l children who reside within the EPZ, did not participate in the exercise. Personnel from such schools are relied upon for
! implementation of protective action recommendations for school ,
-children under the LILCO Plan. Egg App. A at II-19 thru -21, l IV-169 thru -171; OPIP 3.6.5.
i G. Other than two drivers from the Shoreham-Wading River School District, school bus drivers did not participate in the exercise. School bus drivers from 10 school districts, as well as from numerous private and nursery schools, are relied 28 -
_nt.-.-., ,- ,,-------,-,n,~
e v upon for implementation of the protective actions for school children of early dismissal and evacuation. Egg LILCO Plan, App.
A at II-19 thru -20; OPIP 3.6.5.
H. Officials from hospitals located in the EPZ --
Central Suffolk Hospital, St. Charles Hospital, John T. Mather Hospital -- and the Suffolk Infirmary did not participate in the exercise. Such officials are relied upon for determination and implementation of protective action recommendations for hospital
- patients. Egg App. A at IV-172; OPIP 3.6.5 5 2.0 (Note); OPIP 3.6.1 5 5.3.2.
I. Officials and personnel from the nine nursing and adult homes located in the EPZ did not participate in the exer-cise. Such personnel are relied upon for implementation of 4
protective action recommendations for the residents and patients in such homes. Egg App. A at II-28 thru -29, IV-173 thru -176; OPIP 3.6.5.
i
J. Officials from hospitals, nursing homes, and similar facilities outside the EPZ relied upon for relocation services and necessary health care for special facility evacuees did not participate in the exercise. The LILCO Plan fails to include agreements for such facilities which indicate an ability to provide necessary reception services, in violation of NUREG 0654 5 II.J.10; instead, the Plan merely includes a list of such facilities and indicates LILCO's reliance upon them for reloca-tion services and necessary health care for evacuees from hospi-tals, nursing and adult homes in the EPZ. Egg App. A at IV-166a l thru -168, IV-172 thru -178; OPIP 3.6.5.
~
l .
- a K. The following bus companies or yards did not parti-cipate in the exercise:
(1) Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc. -- East Northport Yard (50) i (2) Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc. -- Amityville Yard (74)
(3) Huntington Coach Corp. (100)
(4) Herman E. Swezey Co., Inc. (29) ,
(5) United Bus Corp. -- Ronkonkoma Yard (46)
(6) Suffolk Transportation Service, Inc. --
3 Lakeland Yard (40)
(7) Suffolk Transportation Service, Inc. --
Bayshore Yard (147) l (8) Coram Bus Service -- Coram Yard (39) *
(9) Coram Bus Service -- Rocky Point Yard (27) '
(10) Louis A. Fuoco Buslines, Inc. (39)
[ (11) Starlite Bus Co., Inc. (60)
(12) Seaman Bus Co, Inc. (35)
They are relied upon for implementation of the protective action 4
of evacuation in that the LILCO Plan assumes that each listed
- entity would provide for LILCO's use the number of buses indi-cated in parentheses above. Egg LILCO Plan, App. B.; OPIP 3.6.4.
L. The following ambulance companies did not parti-
- cipate in the exercise (1) Bi-County Ambulance and Ambulette (8) i (2) Gosline Ambulance Service (5) '
(3) Mercy Medical Transpcreation Service (7) l l
L I
j .
l . I t
e- -
- e. .s (4) Nassau Ambulance Service (11)
(5) New York Patient Aids, Inc. (18)
(6) Orlando Ambulance and Ambulette Service, Inc.
(6)
(7) Peconic Ambulance Service, Inc.-(10)
(8) Transportation With Care (9)
(9) Weir Metro AmbuService, Inc. (62)
They are relied upon for implementation of the protective action of evacuation in that ,the LILCO Plan assumes that each company will provide the number of ambulance and ambulette vehicles, manned with the necessary personnel, indicated in parentheses in the above list. Egg LILCO Plan, App. B.; OPIP 3.6.5.
M. Local governments did not participate in the exer-cise, other than perhaps the receipt of one or two telephone calls by personnel in Nassau County. They are relied upon for, inter alla, local law enforcement, emergency fire and rescue services, snow removal, traffic control on the roads surrounding the Nassau Coliseum, and traffic control, parking supervision, and security at the Nassau Coliseum. Egg LILCO Plan at 1.4-2a thru 1.4-2b, 2.2-4g thru 2.2-4h, 4.7-1 OPIP 4.2.3.
N. The owners of facilities, purportedly available and relied upon to serve as congregate care centers, did not parti-cipate in the exercise, nor were the facilities themselves used or their adequacy demonstrated, during the exercise. Egg LILCO Plan, App. B; att glag FEMA Report at 82.
l 31 -
e f
M i
T LILCO, December 18, 1986 v
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S SUPPLEMENT TO ITS NOVEMBER 24, 1986 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF NEW YORK STATE were served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indicated by an asterisk, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, and that copies of the stenographic transcript of the December 15, 1986 Deposition of Frank Petrone were served on those persons marked with a double asterisk.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman *,** Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris *,** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 7735 Old Georgetown Road
, Board (to mailroom) 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814
- East-West Towers
. 4350 East-West Hwy. Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- i Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon *,** Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
- Atomic Safety and Licensing South Lobby - 9th Floor Board 1800 M Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 East-West Towers, Rm. 430 4350 East-West Hwy. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Secretary of the Commission ** Executive Chamber i
Attention Docketing and Service Room 229 i Section State Capitol U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12224 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing 120 Broadway Appeal Board Panel Third Floor, Room 3-116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10271 Washington, D.C. 20555
)
l
%)- Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.'
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federa1 Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel i Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Donald P. Irwin i
Hunton & Williams i
707 East Main Street P.O. Box IS35 Richmond, Virginia 23212 i DATED: December 18,1986
- , . . _ . _ . _ - . _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , - - _ _ _ . _ . _ , , , _ . . _ _ - - , - . . - - _ _ _ _ - - _ - , . - _