ML20151A493
| ML20151A493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1988 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6735 OL-3, NUDOCS 8807200015 | |
| Download: ML20151A493 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.\\ h 55.
.l LILCO, July 15,1988 1
1 00LKETED 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U3NRC l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
'38 JUl.18 P4 :50 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board OrHCE 0: S E U : :.., v 60CKEiwi 4 J_ hin 3 RANCE In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
{
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) (Emergency Planning)
) (School Bus Driver Issue)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
) (Hospital ETEs)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS ON SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS AND HOSPITAL ETEs This is LILCO's reply to "The NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclu-1 1
sions of Law in the Form of a Partial Initial Decision on the Remanded Issues of Hospi-l tal Evacuation Time Estimates and Availability of School Bus Drivers"(July 12, 1988);
l In LILCO's view, either LILCO's Proposed Findings of June 22,1988, or the Staff's Pro-posed Findings of July 12, 1988, could be adopted by the Board as a suitable partial ini-tial decision. LILCO has no substantial disagreement with the Staff's Proposed Find-ings.
I.
Hospital Evacuation Time Estimates Issue There is no essential difference among the parties on the issue of hospital ETEs.
The NRC Staff finds that "the hospital ETEs, as set forth in the Appendix A to LILCO's Plan, are sufficleatly accurate to be used by emergency response personnel...."
Staff's Proposed Findings at 13132. The Intervenors also would have the Board find that "we believe that [Mr. Lieberman's model] is close enough to provide adequate hos-pital ETEs." Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Remanded Issues of School Bus Driver Role Conflict and Hospital Evauation Time Estimates at 1171167 (June 30,1988).
There is no serious disagreement here, and the Board should find in LILCO's f avor.
8807200015 880715 a
PDR ADOCK 05000322
< Q)
O PDR
/
. II.
Availability of Number of School Bus Drivers LILCO has no fundamental disagreement with the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings on school bus drivers either. The Staff's Findings are balanced and accurate. More-over, they are admirably concise. Whereas LILCO, out of an excess of caution, ad-dressed many of the nuts-and-bolts issues about LILCO's Plan that the Intervenors ar-gued, even though they were outside the scope of the remanded issue, the Staff limited itself to the scope of the remanded issue. It is appropriate to do so.
A.
Meda White The only respect in which LILCO may differ with the Staff, and the difference ts not important, is in its view of the significance of Meda White's 1962 master's taesis.
The Staff says "[w]e conclude that the evidence of role abandonment set forth in Meda White's master's thesis is not relevant to any matter in this proceeding." Staff Findings at 18142. The Intervenors also seem to feel White's paper is irrelevant; they attempt to distinguish it from the Shoreham situation. Cole et al., ff. Tr. 20,672, at 32-37.II LILCO, on the other hand, testified in 1983 that White's paper was significant, but not so much for the data she studied as for her pioneering insight. See Tr.1000 (Dynes),
1168-70,1185 (Mileti, Dynes), Cordaro e_t al., ff. Tr. 831, at 66-67. Along with Killian (1954, not 1952), Fritz (1961), and Bates (1963), White formed the "second generation" of research on role conflict. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 831, at 59-68.
In short, there are differences among the parties as to the significance of White's paper, but they are not important for this bus driver proceeding. The Interve-nors and the Staff would apparently ignore the paper. LILCO thinks its significance is historical, since it provided an early insight that set the course for later investigations.
In no one's view, apparently, does it show that bus drivers would abandon their roles.
1/
Also, in 1983 one of Suffolk County's witnesses testified that he had "serious res-ervations about a study that was done eight years af ter the fact." Tr.1392 (Erikson).
However, LILCO's witness pointed out that White used data much of which had been collected shortly af ter the disaster events. Tr. 997 (Dynes).
i
. l t
B.
Historical Occurrences of Role Abandonment The NRC Staff would find "that role abandonment can occur and has occurred, and that it has been of such limited numbers as to have no significant adverse effect upon evacuation." Staff Findings at 26. This is essentially the same as LILCO's pro-posed findings. It must be noted, however, that the actual instances of role abandon-ment are extremely few. Neither Suffolk County's 1983 testimony nor its 1988 testimo-ny offered specific actual cases of role abandonment, only the citation of a few generalized passages from "first generation" research.
Sce Erikson & Johnson, ff.
Tr.1455, at 13-19; see also Cordaro et M., if. Tr. 831, at 54-58, Tr. 856-57 (Dynes). The only actual cases that have been identified with any specificity are certain "workers" j
during the Texas City fire and a policeman who temporarily lett his phone-answering job to rescue his wife who was isolated in a flooding house.
Crocker et W., ff.
Tr.19,431, at 23, 38-39. While it may be correct, as both the Staff and LILCO have urged, to find that role abandonment "has" occurred, the evidence for it is so thin as to be almost invisible.
C.
Opinion Pol!s The Staff would have the Board find that the predicted behaviors of the firemen surveyed in 1982 and 1988 by Dr. Cole "would provide no insight into the likely course of conduct of school bus drivers during (a Shoreham] emergency." Staff Findings at
- 26. LILCO agrees with the Staff, in the sense that the Staff appears to have meant.
But it must be conceded that the Appeal Board has said that polls "would" provide in-sight. ALAB-832,23 NRC 135,153 (1986).
LILCO believes that the insight, if any, is this. In their own minds, people put their families first. In an emergency, emergency workers may suffer "role strain,"
meaning anxiety about their families' safety. This will cause mental discomfort, to a greater or lesser degree depending upon individual circumstances, in emergencies as it
does in everyday life. This mental discomfort can even cause role "abandonment,"
though that is so rare as to be almost nonexistent. See Tr.1136 (Sorensen, Mileti). The only practical issue (and it has nothing to do with meeting NRC regulations) is what LILCO can do toward easing this mental discomfort. As the record shows, LILCO has done more than anyone else by providing a family tracking system and a special reloca-tion center. See Crocker et a_1., ff. Tr.19,431, at 59.
Conclusion LILCO does not disagree with the NRC Staff's Findings.2/ The Board would be well advised to rely on either the Staff's or LILCO's proposed findings.
Respectfully submitted, "Y
o
//ames N. Christ' man VRita A. Sheffey Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: July 15,1988 2/
In one respect, however, LILCO has asked the Board to go further than the Staff has. LILCO has asked the Board to find that LERO back-up drivers for the regular bus drivers are unnecessary. LILCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Partial Initial Decision on the Remand Issues of School Bus Driver Role Conflict and Hospital Evacuation Time Estimates (ETEs) at 58 (June 22,1988).
LILCO, July 15, 1988 00D ETED U5NRC
'88 JUL 18 P4 50 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFICt.63 3.E EM '
00CKEit40L Ci Wifi BRANCH In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS ON SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS AND HOSPITAL ETEs were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman
- Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Board Panel Docket Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
- Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North East-West Towers, Rm 427 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East-West Hwy.
Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Board Kirkpatrick & Lockhart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor East-West Towers, Rm. 430 1800 M Street, N.W.
4350 East-West Hwy.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Secretary of the Commission Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Attention Docketing and Service Special Counsel to the Governor Section Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 1717 H Street, N.W.
State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 Atomic Safety and Licensing Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 120 Broadway Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 3-118 New York, New York 10271 l
George W. Watson, Esq.
- Ms. Nora B.W 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 Evan A. Davis, 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 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
Suffolk County Attorney Twomey, Latham & Shea Building 158 North County Complex 33 West Second Street Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 298 Hautpauge, New York 11788 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dr. Monroe Schneider Mr. Philip McIntire North Shore Committee Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 231 Agency Weding River, NY 11792 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 b.
i James N. Chridtman l
Hunton & Williams l
707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
l DATED: July 15,1988
_