ML20147D730

Affidavit of Ms Miller Re Proposed Offsite Emergency Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20147D730
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/15/1988
From:	Mark Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20147D722	List: ML20147D718 ML20147D730
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8801200281
Download: ML20147D730 (9)

Text

.

s, January 15.1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of

)

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

)

(Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL S. MILLER Michael S. Miller, being duly sworn, hereby states as follows:

1. I am a partner with Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, which has been representing Suffolk County since early 1982 in the NRC Shoreham operating license proceedings (Docket No. 50-322-OL). I have been personally involved, as one of the counsel representing Suffolk County, in the litigation conducted before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the NRC Appeal Board, and the NRC, concerning LILCO's proposed offsite emergency plan for Shoreham, inchding its provisions for protective actions for hospital patients. I have read and am familiar with LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue, Dec. 18, 1987 (hereafter, 'LILCO's Motion"), which includes a preliminary description of LILCO's revised hospital evacuation proposal.

l$$1$Do!k l2 G

k

2. Counsel for Suffolk County received LILCO's Motion on Saturday, December 19, via overnight mail.

Prior to that time, LILCO had provided no indication to Suffolk County, the State of New York, or the Town of Southamptoa (hereafter, the "Governments") of the changes it intended to make in its Plan regarding the evacuation of hospital patients from the 10-mile EPZ during a Shoreham emergency.

3. LILCO's Motion and the accompanying "Statement of Material Facts as to Which LILCO Contends There Is No Genuine Issue to be Heard on the Remanded Hospital Evacuation Issue" (hereafter, "LILCO's Statement of Material Facts" or "Statement") and the Affidavits of Diane P. Dreikorn and Edward B. Lieberman make numerous references to so-called "facts" and "details" contained in Revision 9 to the LILCO Plan.

4. By LILCO's own admission, Revision 9 has not been served upon the NRC and the parties to this proceeding. Statement T 1.

5. LILCO's Statement of Material Facts asserts that Revision 9 does not contain any "major substantive changes" in the procedures that would be used to implement a hospital evacuation.

Statement 1 4.

LILCO's Statement then proceeds to illustrate, by way of example only, so-called procedural changes to be implemented by Revision 9.

At this time, since Revision 9 has not yet been produced, the Governments are unable to determine the extent to which Revision 9 will alter the procedures for hospital evacuation previously included within the.

LILCO Plan and, in particular, OPIP 3.6.5. However, based upon simply the asser-tions in the Motion, the changes appear to be numerous and potentially significant.

6. For example, LILCO's Statement of Material Facts notes that the list of reception hospitals in Attachment 5 to OPIP 3.6.5 will be "modified" so as to include only those hospitals at least 5 miles beyond the edge of the 10-mile EPZ that can treat contaminated individuals.

Statement 1 6.

At this time, the Governments are unable to controvert, by affidavit or otherwise, this undocumented "fact," particularly since the "modified" OPIP 3.6.5 has not been provided. Nor can the Governments ascertain, from LILCO's Statement, how many hospitals will remain on LILCO's Revision 9 list of so-called "reception hospitals,"

which ones they are, their treatment capabilities, or how many patients they are capable of treating.

7. LILCO's Statement of Material Facts notes that under LILCO's new hospital proposal, reception hospitals were assumed to have 14% of their total capacity available to accommodate evacuated hospital patients and the homebound handicapped. Statement T 9(c). This 14% figure is allegedly based on information about national hospital occupancy rates. LILCO has produced no evidence to indicate bow, or whether, this general national figure bears any relation to the occupancy rates for its selected reception hospitals on Long Island.

8. The affidavit of Edward B. Lieberman purports to authenticate the 14%

vacancy rate which was used to calculate new evacuation time estimates. On the basis of his affidavit, it appears that Mr. Lieberman lacks personal knowledge to.

testify as to the accuracy of the 14% figure. This is because LILCO's 14% figure is itself the product of multiple levels of hearsay - data learned by Mr. Lieberman from an unidentified member of the LERIO staff who apparently obtained the data from an unidentified person at the American Hospital Association. Se_g,Lieberman Affidavit 1 4(c). Such multiple levels of hearsay provide no basis for finding "facts."

9. LILCO's Statement sets forth data purporting to constitute a breakdown of the patients in the EPZ hospitals according to status as ambulatory, wheelchair-bound or stretcher-dependent. The data were allegedly obtained through telephone contacts between unidentified hospital officials and unidentified LERIO staff members. Statement T 2. The information provided is insufficient to allow the Governments to verify its accuracy. It does appear, however, that there are discrepancies in LILCO's data regarding the status and breakdown of EPZ hospital patients, in that the figures presented in LILCO's Motion (at page 15), its Statement of Material Facts (T 2), and the LILCO Plan (in OPIP 3.6.5) are not consistent.

10. LILCO's Statement sets forth as undisputed material facts data purporting to be its hospital evacuation time estimates. These estimates cannot be accepted as undisputed material facts because LILCO has presented the estimates in conclusory fashion as the results of an analysis by Edward B. Lieberman. LILCO has provided insufficient data for the Boerd and the parties to review its analysis and verify the evacuation time estimates.

Specifically, LILCO has failed to klentify critical variables used in its analysis, including (a) the particular

reception hospitals used in calculating the evacuation time estimates, their locations and capacities, and the bases for such datal (b) the number of EPZ hospital patients assumed in its analysis; (c) the number and type of vehicles assumed to be available for evacuating hospital patients, their locations at the start of an evacuation and the bases for such assumptions; and (d) the basis of the assumption that vehicle drivers would be immediately available for additional trips, after delivering hospital evacuees to reception hospitals. In the absence of the underlying data and assumptions, LILCO's evacuation time estimates are incapable of verification or even any meaningful or productive review.

11. At this time, the Governments cannot present, by affidavit or otherwise, facts to controvert many of the statements, representations and proposals upon which LILCO's Motion is premised. Several reasons have caused and explain this situation.

12. First, since LILCO's Motion is based on a new proposed plan for evacuating the EPZ hospitals which has not yet been provided, the Governments have been unable to research or analyze the feasibility or adequacy of LILCO's proposal. The Governments are not capable of doing so, until additional infor-mation and data are provided by LILCO.

13. Second, many of the proposals, commitments, statements, opinions and characterizations included in LILCO's Statement of Material Facts and upon which LILCO's Motion is premised are not themselves "facts," and, therefore, are not susceptible of simple admission or denial. In the absence of an opportunity to t !

l

---n.,.

analyze Revision 9 itself (as opposed to characterizations of it) and conduct independent review and discovery, the Governments cannot at this time present by affidavit many facts essential to justify opposition to LILCO's Motion.

14. The above facts are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am competent to testify to such facts and would so testify in any formal proceeding on this matter.

-Michael S. Miller hN

, 44 :

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of January,1988.

l Y A4.1% W l

(/

l Notary Public My commission expires: [t[# hN /4,199/

l l

i l.

000 METED USHRC January 15.1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICAg1 ${ 19 N) :27 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS5 UN Before the Atomic Safety and LicensininfhsEnr.gN~;Nf.

ouun'MANCH

)

In the Matter of

)

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

)

(Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK I

AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION FOR l

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF THE HOSPITAL EVACUATION ISSUE have been served on the following this 15th day of January,1988 by U.S. mail, first class.

James P. Gleason, Chairman Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman William R. Cumming, Esq.

513 Gilmoure Drive Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency l

Dr. Jerry R. Kline 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

I Hunton & Williams Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

P.O. Box 1535 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

707 East Main Street l

Special Counsel to the Governor Richmond, Virginia 23212 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 l

l State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 l

l 1

l l

l

Joel Blau, Esq.

Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.

Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg.158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.

Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.

Hon. Patrick G. Halpin New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger George E. Johnson, Esq.

New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Agency Building 2 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Empire State Plaza Office of General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555 David A. Brownlee, Esq.

Mr. Stuart Diamond Khkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 ___.

o Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 9V Michael S. Mil. er KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.

South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 I...

.