ML20087N375

Testimony of Gj Jeffers & AR Rossi on Emergency Planning Contention 15.C.Related Correspondence

ML20087N375
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/30/1984
From:	Jeffers G, Rossi A SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20087N362	List: ML20087N361 ML20087N369 ML20087N375 ML20087N380 ML20087N386
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8404030387
Download: ML20087N375 (3)

Text

f 1

, .;, 3 cL. :.=a S N O S C0(METED U:Ai;C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 84 APR -2 R2:05 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' Fs ' ! !i FC . 'c :

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board m

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

. )

(Shoreham Nuclear Power' Station, ) (Emergency Planning)

Unit 1) )

)

. DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DR. GEORGE J. JEFFERS AND ANTHONY R. ROSSI ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING CONTENTION 15.C Q. Please state your names and positions.

A. My name is Dr. George Jeffers. I am the Superinten-dent of Middle Central School District.

My name is Anthony R. Rossi. I am Director of Transporta-tion for the Middle County Central School District.

Q. Are you familiar with Contention 15.C?

A. Yes. Contention 15 states that the public, including school administrators, do not consider LILCO to be a credible source of information, and that as a result people are unlikely c

8404030387 840330 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR T

l 1 's l

to trust LILCO's advice or implement its recommendations. In particular, Contention 15.C asserts that because school person-nel on whom LILCO would rely to implement its protective action recommendations for school children do not trust LILCO, LILCO's recommendations would not be followed. We agree with Conten-tion 15.C.

In our opinion, school administrators are unlikely to trust LILCO or to follow LILCO's recommendations. This cer-tainly is correct with respect to the Middle County Central School District. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has expressed the concern that LILCO lacks experienced personnel to operate Shoreham; various studies have concluded that LILCO grossly mismanaged the construction of Shoreham; and LILCO is arguing for approval of an emergency plan that, insofar as it would affect school districts, is completely unworkable. Under these circumstances and in light of our responsibility for the children in our schools, we likely would not believe or trust protective action recommendations or any other information or advice that came from LILCO officers, employees or consultants.

Nccordingly, we would not base our determinations as to what should be done to protect the children in our charge solely

.upon information, recommendations or advice from LILCO; at the very least, we almost certainly would seek verification of the u_

. , - _ _ - w

I . 'o accuracy and propriety of LILCO information or recommendations from more objective sources before we would act upon LILCO's suggestions.

Furthermore, based upon our contacts with other school ad-ministrators in and near the EPZ and our familiarity with the resolutions passed by other Boards of Education, we believe that distrust of LILCO and a lack of confidence in LILCO's pro-posals for school children are widespread among the school authorities upon whom LILCO relies for implementation of its Plan.

Q. Does that conclude your testimony?

A. Yes.

t u