ML20082D846

Testimony of P Mcintire on Contentions 23,25 & 65 Re Evacuation Shadow Phenomena,Role Conflict of Emergency Workers & Evacuation Time Estimate.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20082D846
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/18/1983
From:	Mcintire P Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8311230088
Download: ML20082D846 (13)

Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

^

q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CMETED USNRC

?7JCLEAR REGULAM RY COMMISSION BEIVRE 'mE A'IOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA rtTU OF SECr ETA"

$0CF El f C s #C I-.

In the Matter of

)

) Dxket No. 50-322-OL-3 IDG ISLAND LIGHTItG COMPANY

)

(Dnergency Planning)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1

)

DIRECT TESTIMJNY OF PHILIP MCINTIRE, CONCERNING CDNTENTIONS 23, 25, 65 The Federal Dnergency Management Agency's Natural & Technological Hazards Division is currently engaged in an intensive program of assistance to the States for development and review of offsite emergency plans and emergency response capability to be used in the event of a nuclear power plant accident.

Following the Three-Mile Island incident, the need fo'r a coordinated o'ffsite emergency response effort became apparent and on December 7, 1979, the President assigned FEMA the lead responsibility in offsite radiological emergency preparedness and response planning. FEMA is responsible for making interim and

' final findings and determinations as to the state of offsite emergency plans and preparedness.

FS4A's rule, 44 C.F.R. 350, establishes plicy and procedures for the approval of State and local emergency plans and preparedness for coping with offsite effects of radiological emergencies which may occur at nuclear power plants.

'Ihe Nuclear Regulatory C&tnission (NRC) is responsible for onsite emergency planning and licensing of comnercial nuclear power plants.

FEMA and NRC have a Menorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to Radiological Dnergency Planning & Preparedness (45 F.R. 82713, December 16, 1980) wh!ch defines inter-agency responsibilities. Specifically, FEMA has agreed to make findings as to whether offsite emergency plans are adequate and capable of implementation. Such findings are referred to as " interim" because they are provided outside the formal procedures set forth in 44 C.F.R.

350 and they reflect the status of the plans and the capability of the resp nse at the time of evaluation. Requests for interim findings are usually made by the NRC to t-assist the NRC Staff's presentations in the licensing process.

0311230000 831118 PDR ADOCK 05030322 J

T PDR

4 L

y In the proceeding presently before us, the NRC has requested that FEMA review the tong Island Lighting 02npany (LILCO) Transition Plan, Revision 2.

'Ihe NPI has requested that FEMA's findings on this plan be transmitted to the Nic by February 1, 1984.

In addition, FEMA has been requested to provide witnesses, l

where appropriate to appear before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this matter. Ebr the first phase of testimony, Philip H. McIntire will appear on behalf of FEMA.

I Philip H. McIntire, am employed as the Chief, Natural and Technological Hazard: Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region II, New York. I have been requested to address a number of issues raised in Contention 23 dealing with the Evacuatica Shadow Phenomena, Contention 25 dealing with Bole.

Conflict of Emergency Workers and Contention 65 Evacuation Time Estimates (Phase I of the Hearing).

0.1 - Do you.have a statement of professional qualifications?

1 A.

Yes, My statement of professional qualification is attached to this testimony.

Q.2 - When did you first become involved in energency planning?

In 1966 I joined the Office of Emergency Planning in Washington, D.C.

A.

This was a predecessor agency o# the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In 1975 I first became it.volved in emergency radiological planning when the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration became a member of the Committee that preceded the Regional Advisory Cbmmittee.

Q.3 - Please describe the nature of that involvement up to the present time, including the various activities engaged in, persons connunicated with and responsibilities.

A.

My involvement with Radiological emergency planning in FEMA began soon after FEHA was assigned its offsite responsibilities. I was Acting Director of the Plans and Preparedness Division, for the period April-July 1981 that Division planned and carried out the first exercise at Salem in April 1981 and Nine Mile Point in Septenber 1981. When FEMA was realigned in November 1981 I was named as Acting Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division.- In that position I managed the Division's plan reviews and exercise observations at the Ginna, Nine Mile Point,

._ _. Indian Point and Oyster Creek power generating stations.

In my present position as Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division, I have met with the top FEMA staff at FEMA's National Office, the Regional Director of NRC Region I, and State Officials working in the REP program in order to help formulate policy and make decisions.

Q.4 - Are you authorized by PEMA to present your professional opinion to this Board on the contentions contained in Phase I of this hearing?

A.

Yes.

1 I

k Contention 23 te Evacuation Shadow Phenmina Q. 5 - Is there a need to consider the effacts of spontaneous evacuation in the preparation of an offsite plan for the Shoreham Power Station?

A.

Experience has shown that spontaneous evaucuation will occur norm ily in mst cases. As a result it is entirely possible that fewer people would actually have to evacuate when an order to leave is issued. At tree tiile Island it appears the reason for the high rate of spontaneous evacuation was conflicting infomation fran the authorities.

Q.6 - Based on your experience and review of other plans, what is the function of traffic control point and traffic controllers? Are the individuals asigned to this function expected or intended to physically stop individuals from entering the EPZ?

A. Traffic Controllers are stationed at key points in the transportation y

system to guide traffic. These individuals are at their duty stations only to facilitate the mvement of traffic. Their task is to assist individuals leaving the EPZ, and discourage individuals from entering the EPZ but not to physically prevent people from entering it.

Q.7 - What steps can be taken to assure that individu,als outside the EPZ will not eyacuate into the EPZ? What steps can be taken to assure that individuals will not attempt to evacuate dring or iirmediately before a release and dispersion of radioactive t-terials?

A. mREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. I requires that educational information is made available to the pt.blic on a periodic basis on how they will be notif M and yhat actions should they take in a radiological emergency.

B is program should include provision for written material that is likely to be available in residence during an emergency. In addition, a system for disseminating to the public appropriate information to appropriate broadcast media, ?.g., the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) should be in place. Assuming that the public education program is effectively implemented, we can assume that the public will follow the instructions i

issued over the EBS system.

It is also assumed that decision the maker will provide a clear instruction to the populace in a timely fashion.

Contention #25 lble Conflict of Emcrgency Wrkers Qr. 8 - Based on a review of the literature and your personal experience, how have emergency workers resolved their conflict between performance of their emergency functions and obligations to their family?

A.

Based upon my more than 15 years experience in emergency operations, I have never been made aware of a situation where there aas a conflict of such magnitude on the part of emergency workers thnt the response operations were negatively impacted. Rather the litcrature, particularly from the Ohio State University Disaster Research Center, indicates that the most comon problem is ccordination of the activities of all the people who wish to assist.

u -

i s

Q. 9 - Are you familar with the experiences and response of emergency workers at

'IMI?

A.

Generally, yes, through a review of ;.xne of the literature and discussions about the subject at meet.ngs and conferences.

Q.10 - What conclusions can you draw from this material?

A.

In order to ensure a successful emergency response, an individual with unquestened authority"must be in charge and directing trained emergency responders.

In addition the person in charge must be recognized as a

redible individual by the general public, and there mest be a steady flow of accurate information to the public from the person in charge.

Finally, there must be close coordination a: Tong the three levels of government.

Q.11 - Is there a difference between asking an irdividual already within the EPZ to respond and asking an individual outside the EPZ to respond? What is your answer based on?

A.

As a general rule we believe not. An individual in the EPZ would probably be sure that arrangements for his/her family are made before responding. This minor delay, in rest cases, would probably be off-set by the longer travel times needed for most people outside the EPZ where safety of ones family would not be a concern.

Q.12 - Will emergency workers look to assure that their own families safety is provided for before responding? What actions will emergency workers take to assure this protection before assuming their emergency roles? htat type of delay will this cause in the assumption of their emergency duties?

A.

It is our experience, because of their training, most emergency workers develop procedures to assure the safety of their families during emergency conditions, similar to hane fire evacuation p-ocedures.

Implementation of these procedures are generally timely and would cause only minimal delay in carrying out emergency duties.

Q.13 - What is the anticipated response of emergency workers such as police officers, firemen, and traffic control officers if they feel they may be exposed to some sources of contamination?

A.

Properly trained and equipped emergency workers would in alnost all cases undertake their assigned responsibilities even though exposure to contamination is possible. Based upon my nore than 15 years experience in emergency operations I have never been made aware of a situation where emergency workers did not fulfill their responsibilities even tPreugh they were exposed to hazardous conditions.

Q.14 - What role conflict, if any, will be experienced by teachers and other l

school personnel ~ (including crossing guards)?

l A.

We believe it will be similar to that of bus drivers, but that it can be mitigated by the same methods.

j Q.15 - On what do you base your assumption that non-emergency workers such as teachers, will remain to assist in an evacuation or sheltering effort instead of leaving to rejoin their families?

A.

The history of disaster response has consistently shown that nca-emergency workers, and particularly teachers, also more than meet responsibilities when faced with emergency situations. Continued improvement in training and public education will provide a higher confidence level to non-emergency workers regarding the safety of their families.

Q.16 - What role conflict is expected to be experienced by BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory) personnel who have family residing within the EPZ?

A.

Because of their knowledge of and experience with radiation, it is expected that role conflict with Brookhaven National Laboratory personnel would be almost non existent.

Q.17 - What role conflict is expected to be experienced by Bus drivers? Is this different.than that expected of LIILD employees? Why?

A.

Based upon our experience at Indian Point we would expect role conflict on the part of bus drivers to exist until they are trained and equipped with_ protective devices; the matter of compensation for responding to a radiological emergency is resolved; and letters of agreement are signed.

We believe that role conflict would not be a serious problem with Lilco employees because of their knowledge of and training in the field of radiation as well as their loyalty to the company.

Q.18 - What role conflict, if any, will be experienced by drivers of ambulance and other rescue vehicles, and paramedical support service personnel?

Will they perfrom their assigned functions? What steps can be taken in

.sdvance of an actual emergency that will better assure the response of these individual and your ability to assure their response?

, A.

The same answer as for question # 14.

g, Q

O.19 - What has been your prior experience with the response of members of the American Red Cross, Salvation Amy and other volunteer groups to perform their assigned tasks in emergencies. In emergencies involving fixed nuclear facilities? What response would you expect in case of an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station? What do you base your judgment on?

A.

FEMA and its predecessor agencies' experience with the Red Cross, Salvation Army and other voluntary agencies has been outstanding in all types of emergencies.

• We would expect that all the primary voluntary agencies would carry'out their response roles in a similar matter in the event of an accident at Shoreham, especially in light of the fact that most of their personnel would be working outside the 10 mile EPZ.

Contention 65 Evacuation Time Estimate 0.20 - What purpose do evacuation time estimates serve?

A.

Evacuation time estimates are utilized by decision-makers when determining the availability of the timely utilization of alternative protective actions.. They are utilized to determine if evacuation can be accomplished before release dispersion of radioactive materials.

(See 10 CFR 50-47 (b) (10) NUREG-0654 (II J-10m).

Q.21 - Did FEMA contract for or receive any data on evacuation time estimates?

A.

Yes, Under the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency -

(FEMA) of January 14, 1980, FEMA agreed to provide NRC with an independent assessment of evacuation times around 12 reactor sites which have the highest population density within the 10-mile Emergency Planning zone or were mutually agreed by FEMA and NRC. @ e report, " Dynamic Evacuation Analyses," ('ID-13 October,1981) fulfills this agreement. The report was completed by the Radiological Dnergency Preparedness Division.

W e FEMA independent assessment of the 12 reactor sites consists of contractor assessments, major conclusions by the contractors, cor:mentary by pertinent State and Iocal government officials on these assessments and a critique of the contractor' methodologies. In addition, the report was reviewed by our Mitigation and Research Office and our Government

-- -Preparedness Office. h is report contains the assessment of evacuation times for Shoreham which were conducted by Wilbur Smith and Associates.

Q.22 - What does the literature and your exoerience show to be the most ccmon unit by which families evacuate during a natural or man-made disaster?

A.

Families evacuate as a unit.

e L

4 h

0.23 - Are parents expected to follow instructions and leave the plume exposure pathway EPZ without stopping to pick up their children from school? hhat effect will parents driving to school to pick up their children have on an orderly evacuation or sheltering effort?

A.

FEMA is not sure what percentage of the parents would drive to schools to pick up their children.

If a significant percentage of parents did drive p

to the school to pick-up their children it would have an impact on an 1

evacuation. FEMA believes that an intense public education program would j

result in a rise in the confidence level, on the part of the parents. We J

also hope that consideration will be given in the Shoreham EPZ of adopting the early release program developed by Westchester County for Indian Point.

Q.24 - hhat impact will separation of family members have on the orderly evacuation or sheltering of the general population?

j I-A.

While it is impossible to give a categorical answer it should be noted that nest major evacuations have been carried out with the family unit emerging intact. This is one area where further education will increase parents' confidence that their children will be evacuated safely by teachers or other adults if the early release program is rot adopted.

l Q.25 - hhat does the literature as well as your experience show to be the l

expected response of the general population in cases of disasters and radiological incidents?

I l'

A.

In over thirty years of research, the evidence is that a negligible proportion of persons panic in disaster situations. We research covers

{

a range of situations from massive strategic bambing in Europe and the

{

two atcmic bombs dropped on Japanese cities during World War II through more recent natural and technological hazards including the t ree Mile 1

I Island accident and the eruption of Mount St. Helens, and other natural disasters. Panic occurs only t.nder special circumstances, e.g. when people are faced with a highly visible and imnediate threat to survival l

within an enclosed area and escape routes are closed off.

Non-cooperative behavior during evacuation is always isolated.

Q.26 - hhat effect will a power failure have on an evacuation?

A.

A power failure during an evacuation would have significant initial effects brought on by traffic-signals and gas pumps not functioning.

i During the New York City black-out of 1977 volunteers and off-duty officials manned key traffic control points until off-duty personnel I

could be recalled to duty.

l

w Q.27 - What impact is expected on telephone service during an emergency?

A.

It can reasonably be expected that the teleohone system could become overloaded in the event of an incident. This is why NUREG-0654 requires a backup comunication system and an effective alert and notification system via EBS so people will not be dependent upon the phones. Also, an effective public information program relating directives from a credible authority figure would reduce the phone demand.

Q.28 - Are there certain circumstances whereby evacuation would not be available as a protective measure? If yes, what other actions would be taken?

A.

In the case of a fast moving event it is possible that evacuation would not be available as a protective action. In that cases, sheltering of individuals would most likely be implemented.

w m m ---

e o

---m.

e s

4

f-~0 PHILIP H. McINTIRE i

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Philip H. McIntire is employed at FEMA Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York.

Mr. McIntire is the Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division of the Region II Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Mr. McIntire holds a B.A. Degree with a major in political science from Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Me. and an M.B.A. Degree from Baruch College with a major in human resource management.

The witness began his Federal service in 1966 as a management, intern in the Office of Emergency Preparedness, a predecessor agency of FEMA. Af ter a year of rotational assignments, he was assigned to the office which administered the President's Disaster Relief Program.

Soon af terwards, OEP created a disaster preparedness branch and Mr.

McIntire was assigned to it.

This was the first effort by the Federal Government to institutionalize a natural disaster preparedness function.

During the next few years, the witness was involved with several major disaster preparedness projects including serving as a principal author of " Disaster Preparedness:

A Report to Congress" in 1971, and a major hurricane preparedness conference in Miami in 1972.

Mr. McIntire also-served as a special assistant to the Director of the agency for the NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society.

The witness planned and participated in meetings of international disaster experts in Brussels, Rome, Venice and San Francisco.

The head of the American delegation to the NATO committee was then Counselor to the President and now U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

In 1972, Mr. McIntire transferred to the newly created Regional Office of OEP in New York. His first assignment in Region II was to direct the Federal effort to temporarily house nearly 4,000 families who were forced from their homes by the floods generated by Tropical Storm Agnes.

During the 1970s, the witness held key management positions in Federal responses to nearly 15 Presidentially declared disasters and emergencies, including t.he Xenia, Ohio tornado of 1974, and hurricane Eloise in 1975, and David and Fredrick of 1979, all in Puerto Rico.

L

9

, p( ~,

. In 1974, Mr. McIntire was named Assistant Regional Director for Preparedness.

In this position, the witness managed $250,000 grants to each jurisdiction in Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) to develop a State plan and preparedness capability to rerpond to disasters.

Subsequently, he managed $25,000 per year grants to each jurisdiction to maintain the plans and improve preparedness posture.

During the period 1974-1979, Mr. McIntire served as the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration's representative on the interngency committee that preceded the current Regional Assistance Committee.

In this regard, the witness was involved in the first efforts by the Federal Govern-ment in radiological emergency planning in the States of New York and New Jersey.

With the Realignment of the Regional Of fice in November 1981, Mr.

McIntire was named Acting Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division, and in August 1982 he was named Chief of the Division.

The Natural and Technological Hazards Division has re-sponsibility for FEMA's Radiological Emergency Planning program.

In this regard, Mr. McIntire has supervised the preparations for conduct of and the pompletion of the Post Exercise Assessments for a dozen full-scale exercises in New York and New Jersey. He also served as the agency's chief expert witness for the Indian Point Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 000KETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY C05141SS10N USHRC BEEDRE THE ATOMIC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD'83 IDI 22 N0:20 In the Matter of

)

0FFICr OF SLCRt.f A" -

)

Dacket No. 50-322300t6TmG & SERV!U 10:G ISIAND LIGHT 1tG COMPANY.

)

(Emergency Planning) SRANCH

)

(Shoreham Ibclear Power Station, Unit 1 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "The testiInony on Contentions 23, 25, and 65 of the Federal Emergency Management Agency" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by depo. sit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by express mail this 18 day of November,1983:

James A. Laurenson, Esq.*

Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Administrative Judge, Chairman 217 Newbridge Road

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville, NY 11801 U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Comission Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry R. Kline*

W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.*

Administr4tive Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Si.fety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. lbelear Regulatory Comission Richmond, VA 23212 Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frecerick J.. Shon

• Cherif Sedkey, Esq.

Administrative Judge Kirkpatrick, Inckhart, Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

& Hutchison U.S. Nucle.sr Regulatory Comission 1500 Oliver Building Bethesda, Mu 20814 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Staff. Counsel John F. Shea, Ill, Esq.

_ _.. New York State DepartInent of Twomey, Latham & Shea Public Service Attorneys at Law 3 Empire State Plaza P.O. Box 398 Albany, New York 12223 33 West Second Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Camer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing 9 East 40th Street Board Panel New York, NY 10016 U.St Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20555

f-

. Atomic Safety and Licensing James B. Dougherty, Esq.

Appeal Board Panel 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20008 Washington, D.C.

20555 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Dacketing and Set / ice Section Regional Counsel Office of the Secretary Federal Emergency Managenent Agency U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Comission 26 Federal Plaza, Pa. 1349 Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10278 Spence Perry, Esq.

Lucinda low Swartz, Esq.

Associate General Counsel Pacific Legal Foundation Federal Emergency Management Agency 1990 M. Street, N.W.

Room 840 Suite 550 500 C. Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Washington, D.C.

20472 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*

Secretary of the Comission Lawrence Coe 12npher, Esq.

U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

Comission Kirkpatrick,'Lockhart, Hill Washington, D.C.

20555 Christopher & Ph.llips 1900 M Street, N.W.

8th Floor Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20036 David A. Repka; Esq.

Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.*

U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Attorney Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7735 Old Georgetown Road Panel (to mailroom)

U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Comission Bethesda, FD 20314 Bethesda, MD 20814 Z.(ja.ln Ad n Stewart M. Glass Regional Counsel for Federal Emergency Management Agency

)

l fc h !

COURTESY COPY LIST Edaard M. 3arrett, Esq.

Mr. Jeff Smith General Counsel Shoreham !iuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Campany P.O. Box 618 250 Old County Road North Countrj Road Zineola,IE 11501 h'ading diver, tri 11792 Mr. Brian McCaffrey MHB Tecnnical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue 175 East Old County Road Suite K Hicksville,fu 11801 San Jose, CA 95125 4

Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. Peter Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc.

Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road County Executive /Le61slative Eldg.

h'altham, MA 02154 Veteran's t'emorial Highway Hauppauge,12 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.

Suffolk County Attorney Mr. Jay Dunkleberger County Executive / Legislative Bldg.

liew York State Energy Office Veteran's Memorial Highway Agency Building 2 Hauppauge,11Y 11788 Empire State Plaza Albany,IE 12223 Ken Robinson, Esq.

N.Y. State Dept. of Law Ms. Nora Eredes 2 Vorld Trade Center Shoreham Oppone:lts Coalition Room 4615 195 East Main Street

!!ew York, IE 10047 Smithtown,IE 11787 Lecn Friedlan, Esq.

Costigan, Hyman & Hynan 1301 Franklin Avenue Garden City, New York 11530 e

- - _ - - - -. _. _ _ _ _ _ _