ML20100G598

Submission Pursuant to McGuire Decision Informing Board of Relevant New Info Re Lilco Offsite Emergency Plan.Dp Irwin to ASLB & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20100G598
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/05/1984
From:	Mark Miller, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20100G604	List: ML20100G598 ML20100G610
References
CON-#484-489 OL-3, NUDOCS 8412070330
Download: ML20100G598 (8)

Text

ll N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bogrd

'h.O

) ,

In the Matter of ) .C fr

, ) Docket No. 50'p'3'2h-g LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Emergency-Rlanning)g

~

) .

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF'NEW YORK SUBMISSION PURSUANT TO McGUIRE DECISION Pursuant to the McGuire decision (Duke Power Company (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units l'and 2), ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623, 625 (1973)_),1! Suffolk County and the State of New York hereby inform the Board of new information which is relevant and material to the adjudication of LILCO's offsite em'ergency plan, and which has potential safety significance.2/

On October 23, 1984, it was reported in Newsday that LILCO, which had " laid off more than 600 workers in a stringent aus-terity program last spring," had " lost another 250 employees

. . . for better paying jobs elsewhere . .. A copy of the October 23 Newsday article is appended as Attachment A. That article did not identify how many of the additional 250 " key personnel" had been relied upon by LILCO as members of LERO.

1/ See also Georgia Power Company (Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-291, 2 NRC 404, 411-12 (1975).

2/ This submission is being made by Suffolk County and New York State because, to date, neither LILCO nor the NRC Staff has brought the information discussed herein to the Board's attention.

412070330 841205 (lC 05000322 '

.DR ADOCK - ,s e} 6't)( ,,/ a o

4 However, according to LILCO documents quoted by the article, LILCO's austerity program has " caused considerable hardship,"

with "many . . . management employees, primarily highly skilled employees who were key to . . . daily operations . . . in criti-cal areas [leavin*g) in favor of higher paying positions else-where." This information is relevant in light of evidence pre-viously presented to the Board which indicates that many LILCO employees originally designated as members of LERO, particularly those in important supervisory and coordinator roles, had manage-ment positions with LILCO. See, e.g., SC Ex. 61 (as of March 6, 1984, of the approximately 1,800 members of LERO, approximately 600 were LILCO management employees); and see, generally, LILCO Plan, OPIP 2.1.1, Att. 2 (listing representative titles of LILCO employees designated to fill LERO positions).

In addition, on November 8, 1984, the Daily News reported that LILCO faced a " massive defection of employees" from LERO.

According to the Daily News article (a copy of which is appended hereto as Attachment B), "more than 400 [LILCO] workers have withdrawn from LERO since the end of the bitter LILCO strike in August." (Emphasis added). This is significant new information because the evidence pertaining to " attrition" and strike-related or other losses of LERO personnel was presented to the Board prior to the availability of such data. See, e.g., St Ex. 61; Tr. 13,288-90 (Cosgrove). See also Testimony of Deputy Inspector Peter F. Cosgrove, Lt. John L. Fakler and Professor Michael

Lipsky in Support of Emergency Planning Contentions 39, 40, 41, 44, 98, 99 and 100 -- Training of Offsite Emergency Response Workers, at 78-91 3f Further, LILCO's Chairman of the Board was reported to have stated that, in an attempt to bolster the number of LERO workers to have "at least 30% more employees available for LERO than the i

1,700 active participants required by the plan to carry out the necessary 'off-site public evacuation procedures,'" LILCO had decided to offer employees $500 to join, or stay in, LERO.

November 8 Daily News article (emphasis added). A November 9 article in Newsday (a copy of which is appended as Attachment D),

reported that LILCO's $500 bonus offer was being made in the wake of "the loss of more than 200 [LERO] volunteers" since last summer's strike. (Emphasis added). In addition, another Daily News article (dated November 11, 1984 and appended hereto as Attachment E) reported that many LILCO employees have been resigning from LERO since the strike "as a means of showing their unhappiness with (LILCO) and the treatment of long-term workers during and after the employee walkout."

3/ After the record in this proceeding had been closed, in a letter dated September 7, 1984 (copy appended as Attachment C),

counsel for LILCO disclosed that during the LILCO strike (July 10 until August 14), a total of 106 union workers had resigned from

LERO. Although this letter is not in evidence, this number of strike-related losses, in light of reported subsequent events, is apparently a rubstantial understatement.

=

The foregoing new information is relevant to issues pre-viously discussed before the Board, particularly those relating to Contentions 24.S, 39-41, 44 and 98-100 (Training), ;25 (Role Conflict), and the strike issues. We bring the following speci-fic matters (whic'h are intended to be illustrative, rather than all-inclusive) to the Board's attention:

(1) LILCO's statements that (a) only 166 LILCO employees left LERO between March 6 and May 30, 1984; (b) replacements were selected and trained for 124 of these 166 employees (see LILCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Offsite Emergency Plan ing (hereinaf-ter, "LILCO's Proposed Findings"), at 121); and (c) as of June 1984, LERO had only 42 vacancies (see LILCO's Reply Findings on Offsi'te Emergency Planning (hereinafter, "LILCO's Reply Findings"), at 123) appear to have been rendered inaccurate, or irrelevant, by the subsequent reported additional 200 to 400 resignations; (2) LILCO's statement that LERO positions are over-staffed (LILCO's Proposed Findings, at 120; LILCO's Reply i

l Findings, at 324) is apparently not true; (3) LILCO's statement that LILCO is committed to main-(

taining LERO staffing at 150% (LILCO's Proposed Findings, at 120; LILCO's Reply Findings, at 124) appears to have been contradicted by the reported statement by LILCO's Board Chairman concerning LILCO's desire to overstaff at only a 30% level;

4 (4) LILCO's statement that "[ alt the time of the hearing [ December 1983] only 73 of 1585 LILCO emergency workers lived in the 10-mile EPZ and therefore might be expected to have families at risk . . . Even if some of them did not show up for work, there is a surplus of workers that could be drawn on" (LILCO's Proposed Findings, at 35 (citations omitted]), may no longer be accurate.

I The County and State submit that in light of this new infor-mation, the above-referenced LILCO proposed findings should be rejected, and the Board should require LILCO to provide all pertinent, updated data on the subject of the current actual composition of LERO, the projected future composition of LERO and how LILCO intends to achieve such composition, for review and appropriate further action by the Board and the parties. When such data are received, the Board and parties may appropriately consider what action (s) may be necessary in view of the data.

In addition, the County and State submit that the foregoing new information constitutes a substantial basis for the Board to reconsider, and to reverse, its decision not to consider, as a serious safety issue, the question how a strike or other job action might affect the LERO work force, including its morale, its willingness to work and, indeed, its very existence, either before or after a strike. See Tr. 14,004-12; Memorandum and 1

, , - , - - - - - - -- - ,.-n.ww-- ~,- ------,-~-----~r' , ~ ~

Order Denying Motion of Suffolk County to Admit New Contention, dated September 7, 1984.

Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11786 L'a w r e n c e C o e L a n p h e r Karla J. Letsche Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.

Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County MARIO M. CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York BY: 4 /bW h.

FABIAN G. PALOMINO, ESQ.

& M M Special Counrel to the Governor of the State of New York Dated: December 5, 1984 Attorney for the Governor of the State of New York l

l i

l

ATTACilMENT A

/

NEWSOAY TUESOAY OCTOGER 23. 1984 i

i i

i Key Staffers

~

Quitting LILCO l Utility says 250 have taken otherjobs since austerity began i By Rick Brand - '

LIIf0 officials on b ihsue next week. (LIILO company of b pool of" people who . . . haddemon.

Iong Island Lighting Co which laid off more Urges Stockholder Lobbying, Page 28.) strated potential management abilities that would I, than 500 workers in a strins'ent austerity Pmgram PSC Chairman Paul Gioia said the publem is have provided . . . fhture esecutive talent

• j last spring, has lost another 250 employees who are still being evaluated. "If we feel the drain on man. . h company is aseking approval of a plan to.

j " key . . . to daily operations" for better payingjobs asement is so severe that it will asset service, we make ==nasement employees eligible to receive

! elsewhere, according to camps.ny documents. will have to address it," he said. shares of common stock equivalent to the 1964 anla-i LIIfO, for the first time, revealed the extent of  % austerity plan, adopted March 6, eliminated ry reductions that were imposed in March. To obtain l personnel lossee in a petition to the Public Service 987 positions, including the layoffof 533, and forced those shares an employee must stay with the com-Commission. b petition seeks approval of a $3.6 pay cuts of 20 percent for corporats officers,10 per- pony through April,1986.

cent for managers earning more than $35,000 a year Herman Berliner, dean of Hofstra University's million mannsementstock plan designed to stop defections by and 5 percent for managers earningless. Before aus. School of Business, said LIICO's sit employees-i As of Aug. 31, according to b documents, terity, LIILO had more than 5,900 employees, typical utility behavior, but ia normal for a company i In its application, LIILO disclosed that the in trouble" He said employees leave because they

' LIICO had plan,200 emplo lost since the initiation of the austerity austerity pay cuts have " caused considerable " don't know what the fhture holds" and they of the program,yees beyond the 500 laid off as part hardship," and "many . . . ==nasement employ. "at the time most opportune for them " that is when which saw 987 job stats eliminated. ees, primarily highly skilled employees who were they find a better position. Berliner said be would Yesterday, the PSC staff said the company had up- key to . . . daily operations . . . In critical areas e dated the figute to 250 as of Sept. 20. the losses to continue until LILCO can re.

have left . . . In favor of higher paytag positions we its financial -

"I had anticipated sonw leaving . . . but I would elsewhere." Murphy said not have guessed that it would be of this marni. O's defections have been "per-1

% problem, LIICO states, has caused the num- tially compounded by the fact they made a conscious l

tude PSC gas* amid Edward division, whoMurphy, deputy is monitoring thedirector utility's of the bor' of employees to " rapidly decline" and the com- decision not to se out in a panic and fill (Job pany has been " unable to hire r

• i austerity program. He said he had le'erned of the e the same rate of their attrition.5 : nts . . . at He said the company is reviewing which areas need problem several weeks ago and plans a meeting with . to be bolstered and which can operate without added N lesses, LIIf0 also asserta, has drained the , personnet 2 , ,. . . .

s..

\ . '~

-: .s.

i 4

l l

l 4

• p ATTACHMENT B I

i i LILCO offers bonus to vols in nuke evac plan LILCO Board Chairman C7 MICHAEL HANRAHAN William participation.

i Catacosinos,in a let- already paid for their ser

• the legally constituted body i The Long Island Lighting ter to all of the approximate- All LILCO workers who vices at their normal rate of required by federal law to Co., faced with a massive de. ly 5,000 employes, said the participate in the employe pay, including overtime conduct evacuation in times l

fection of employes from its , offer was being made in ree- group, which the company when appropriate. of an emergency at a nuclear proposes to substitute for LILCO has proposed to facility.

{ voluntary Shoreham emer. ognition that the required state and county police and the Nuclear Regulatory Com- The company seeks this j gency response plan, yester. classroomtraining and exer- other officist personnel in mission that the employe recognition as a result of the 9 day offered them a $500 cise drills pose an inconvent- conducting any required group, known as the LILCO refusal of state and county 4 j canual bonus to stay in the enee to workers and as an evacuation in the event of a Employe Response Organiza-volunteer group. officials to participate in any added incentive for their mishap at Shoreham, are tion (LERO), be accepted as evacuation.

I Sources have told the Dal-ly News that more than 400 i

of the unionized workers have withdrawn from LERO

since the end of the bitter s LILCO strike in At' gust.

i CATACOSINOS noted in -

his letter that the company's 1

objective is to have at least .

30% more employes available

• 1 .for tiveLERO than the participants 1,700by required ac- {

! the plan to car-v out the

! necessary off-site public evacuation procedures.

Catacosinos wrote that re-cent developments were "en-couraging" that the Shoreham plant would be licensed.

I l

l