ML20151T628
| ML20151T628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1988 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151T632 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6166 OL-3, NUDOCS 8804290087 | |
| Download: ML20151T628 (73) | |
Text
-~
- b. 1 g
[
dd LILCO, April 20,1988 N
y
")
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g,cycco 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
o *y. :-
v%mc g ooc c3 A
- T[ch Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board b
o>
4 In the Matter of
)
)
LOMG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
) (School Bus Driver Issue)
UMti)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF BRODSKY, ET AL.
LILCO hereby moves to strike portions of the "Direct Testimony of Bruce G.
Brodiky, Edward J. Doherty, Howard M. Koenig, Nick F. Muto, Robert W. Petrilak, Anthony R. Rossi, J. Thomas Smith, and Richard N. Suprina on Behalf of Suffolk County Regarding Contention 25.C," dated April 13, 1988 (hereinaf ter "Brodsky testimony").
Due to the extent of the improper testimony, LILCO also requests that the Board re-quire Suffolk County to resubmit its testimony leaving out those portions that are ob-jectionable and impermissible. The arguments for making these requests are the fol-lowing:
1.
The testimony seeks to broaden the issue of the availability of an adequate number of bus drivers to evacuate school children in disregard of the Ap-peal Board's remand order, the Licensing Board's 1984 partial initial deci-sion (PID) en the emergency planning issues, and the Board's ruling on LILCO's January 25 Motion in Limine.
2.
Much of the testimony is sponsored by witnesses who are not competent to present the proffered evidence or to testify on issues raised by Suffolk County. Also, much of the testimony is irrelevant to the narrow issues before this Board ard is cumulative of the County's 1984 testimony on this issue.
b5h 8804290087 8G0420 PDR ADCCK 05000322 G
PM 4
\\
, I l
3.
The testimony impermissibly challenges NRC regulations concerning the j
naw rule and the size of the emergency planning zone.
I.
Suffolk County Should Be Required to Resubmit Its School Bus Driver Testimony Suffolk County's testimony is riddled with questions and answers or parts of an-swers that reclamor issues which have already been litigated and decided in LILCO's favor and that challenge NRC regulations and prior Board decisions. In addition, the testimony is incompetent, unreliable, lacking in foundation, and cumulative; or irrele-vant to the focused issue before the Board. LILCO has tried to sif t through this morass to identify those portions of the testimony that should be stricken as either not rele-vant, material, and reliable or repetitive.10 C.F.R. S 2.743(c). Suffolk County's prac-tice of sprinkling snippets of improper testimony throughout has required LILCO to skillfully diagnosis and excise the offending portions. This excision may result in a dif-ficult to read transcript. Therefore, LILCO requests that the Board order Suffolk County to resubmit its testimony absent the objectionable material, but without revi-sion of the remainder, by May 6.
II.
The Brodsky Testimony Should Be Stricken Where It Attempts To Broaden the Scope of the Proceeding Much of the Brodsky testimony seeks to expand the scope of this remand beyond the narrow issue of "the availability of an adequate number of bus drivers to evacuate school children during a radiological emergency." Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO Motion in Limine and Motion to Set Schedule) at 3 (Feb. 23,1988)("February 23 Order"). 10 its testimony, Suffolk County seeks to relitigate the following issues: re-ception centers for school children, plans for early dismissal and sheltering, which schools are located within the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ, telephone system overload, role i
________.______________.______...__..________.x_
_m
n conflict of teachers and other administrative personnel, the effect of par 0nts trying to pick up their children at school, methods for calculating student populations, moni-toring and decontamination of school children, and plans with the American Red Cross for congregate care. Each of these issues has been fully litigated before and none of them were remanded by the Appeal Board for reconsideration in this proceeding. One issue in particular, reception centers for school children, was specifically excluded by this Board in its ruling on LILCO's Motion in Limine. All testimony on these issues should be stricken as irrelevant and imrc.atarial.
Below LILCO addresses each of these issues and lists the partlons of the testimo-ny to be stricken.
A.
Reception Centers for School Children On February 12, 1988, the Board granted LILCO's Motion in Limine which sought i
to prevent the production of any evidence in this proceeding on reception centers fc?
l school children, the availability of buses, and school evacuation time estimates. The Board confirmed its ruling in its written order stating: "Questions concerning availabili-l ty of buses, reception centers for school children, and evacuation time estimates are not within [the] scope of (the} remanded bus driver issue."M February 23 Order at 4.
Suffolk County's attempt to include testimony on school reception centers defles the Board's February 12 and 23 Orders and should not be allowed. Accordingly, LILCO moves to strike the following questions and answers:
i l
i 1/
Suffolk County throughout its testimony refers to the number of buses that would be needed to evacuate each schoolin the EPZ. This testimony should be interpreted to refer only to whether there will be a sufficient number of bus drivers available and not l
to whether LILCO is capable of obtaining a sufficient number of buses. See February 23 Order at 4.
kI til 1 ~
1.
Brodsky testimony, pages 53, line 5, through 55, line 8.
2.
Brodsky testimony, pages 56 through 57,line 10.
3.
Brodsky testimony, Attachment 13.
4.
Brodsky testimony, Attachment 14.
B.
Early Dismissal and Sheltering of School Children In its testimony, Suffolk County seeks to relitigate the issues of "role conflict" during early dismissal and LILCO's procedures for early dismissal and sheltering of school children-three issues that have been fully litigated and decided in LILCO's favor. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644,677-78,880-66 (1985). The history of the remanded school bus driver issue, including this Board's Orders, makes patently clear that none of these issues was re-manded. The County's testimony should be striken as not relevant to this proceeding and as barred by res judicata.
Furthermore, the testimony to be stricken raises issues clearly outs!de the scope of the remand. LILCO briefly traced the early history of the bus driver "role conflict" issue in LILCO's Answer to Five Recent Pleadings on Realism and Summary Disposition (Nov. 27,1987). ("LILCO's November 27 Answer"). For the convenience of the Board, LILCO quotes the relevant portions of that pleading below.
[T]he volunteer fireman survey that the remand is to con-sider asked what firemen would do in an evacuation but did not ask about early dismissal of schools. (Even the Intervc-nors' survey of school bus drivers did not ask about early dis-missal. See Cole, ff. Tr.1216, at 6-8.) Thus the remanded issue does not include early dismissal.
This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Ap-peal Board declined to rule on the Intervenors' claim that the Licensing Board did not give sufficient weight to the In-tervenors' testimony on the effect of role conflict on the transportation and personnel requirements for early dismiss-al. See Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Brief on Appeal of Licensing Board April 17, 1985 Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning, at 60 (Oct. 23,1985). The Appeal Board obviously found no fault
with the Licensing Board's treatment of that testimony, since it did not order the Licensing Board to reconsider it, the Intervenors' only testimony on early dismissal. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the Appeal Board was satisfied with the Licensing Board's treatment of that testi-many and with its finding on role conflict and early dismiss-al.
LILCO's November 27 Answer at 13-14 (emphasis added.)
When this Board uled on that and other pleadings filed in support of LILCO's motion for cummary disposition on the issue of school bus driver "role conflict", it ree-ognimd that the only issue is "whether, in light of the potential for role conflict, a suf-ficient number of school bus drivers can be relied upon to perform emergency evacuation duties." Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant's Motion of October 22, 1987 for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C Role Conflict of School Bus Driv-ers) at 5 (emphasis added) (Dec. 30, 1987). Again in its February 23 Order, this Board reiterated that the issue is "the availability of an adequate number of bus drivers to evacuate school children during a radiological emergency." February 23 Order at 3 (emphasis added). Early dismissal and sheltering of school children are not issues in this proceeding.
Not only is the testimony beyond the scope of the remand, but Intervenors have already litigated LILCO's plans for early dismissal and sheltering and the effect of "role conflict" on those plans. Intervenors' "role conflict" testimony on early dismissal and shelterir.g (and, for that matter, its testimony on evacuation) is no different than the testimony they flied in 1984. See Petrilak direct and supplemental testimony, ff. Tr.
3087; Campo direct testimony, ff. Tr. 3087; Jeffers and Rossi direct and supplemental testimony, ff. Tr. 3087; and Muto and Smith direct and supplemental testimony, ff. Tr.
3087. The Intervenors' 1984 testimony on the school contentions, Contentions EP 24.E, 24.F. 24.N,61.C,69,70, and 71, also included testimony on LILCO's procedures for early dismissal and sheltering. Jeffers and Rossi direct testimony, ff. Tr.11,001; Petrilak
h 6 direct testimony, ff. Tr.11,001; and Muto and Smith direct testimony, ff. Tr.11,001.
The Brodsky testimony is repetitive of testimony on sett'ed issues and should not be al-lowed for that reason alone.
The following testimony should be stricken as irrelevant, immaterial, and already litigated:
1.
Brodsky testimony, page 28, line 1 (beginning with "LILCO assumed..."), through line 4 ("Shoreham emergency"); the phrase "the lack of parental or adult supervision of children in the event of an early dismissal" at lines 7-8; and the phrase "the lack of adequate school buildings to provide safe shelters for our children" at lines 9-10.
2.
Brodsky testimony, page 29, lines 4-8.
3.
Brodsky testimony, page 31, the phrase "as well as the early dismissal of schools proposed by LILCO" at lines 8-9.
4.
Brodsky testimony, pages 31, line 12, through 32, line 22.
5.
Brodsky testimony, page 32, the words "or early dismiss" at line 31.
6.
Brodsky testimony, page 65 the phrase "or conduct early dis-missal in a Shoreham emergency?" at lines 14-15.
7.
Brodsky testimony, page 71, lines 15-18.
8.
Brodsky testimony, pages 72-77, sections VI-VII on "Early Dismissal" and "Sheltering".
9.
Brodsky testimony, page 78, the phrase "or attempt an early disnissal" at lines 9-10.
10.
Brodsky testimony, page 78, the phrase "and other alterna-tive actions" at line 15.
11.
Brodsky testimony, page 79, the phrase "either early dismiss-al" at line 14.
12.
Brodsky testimony, Attachment 10.
C.
Which Schools Are Within the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ On several occasions the testimony goes beyond the scope of the remand and challenges both the NRC's regulations and the initial decision, which was upheld by the
kh
- %l
-7 Appeal Board (ALAB-832,23 NRC 135,145-49 (1986)), on the boundary of the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ.E For example, page 13 of the testimony states "[wle feel it is unrealistic to as-sume that those [three) schools falling just outside the 10-mile line are somehow ' safe'.
Thus, we consider all the Riverhead schools to fall within the potential zone of danger."
The Port Jefferson and Riverhead School District schools to be included in the EPZ for planning purposes was an issue specifically addressed in the initial decision. PID, 21 NRC at 704-707. Although Intervenors argued that all of the community of Riverhead and all of the community of Port Jefferson, including all schools, should be in the EPZ, the Board held only that three additional schools in Riverhead should be included in planning. This issue is Les judicata.
The testimony also opines that LILCO should plan for the schools in the Middle Country School District: "[W]e have children attending public schools within the 10-mile EPZ."
Brodsky testimeny at 66. None of the Middle Country School District schools are within the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ. A challenge to their exclusion from the LILCO plan some four years from "the submission of emergency planning issues for litigation... would be untimely in the extreme," CLI-87-12, 26 NRC 383, 395 n.19 (1987), and an impermissable challenge to the rule.
2/
The Commission rejected Suffolk County's attempt to expand the EPZ beyond 10 miles as an impermissible challenge to the rule and stated:
the proper interpretation of the rule would call for adjust-ment to the exact size of the EPZ only on the basis of such straight forward administrative considerations as avoiding EPZ boundaries that run through the middle of schools or hospitals, or that arbitrarily carve out small portions of gov-ernmental jurisdictions. The goal is merely planning sim-plicity and avoidance of ambiguity as to the location of the boundaries.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-87-12,26 NRC 383, 395 (1987). The testimony makes no such allegation of boundary ambiguity.
Section 50.47(c)(2) establishes a 10-mile emergency planning zone for which de-talled emergency plans must be maintained to protect the population within that zone.
Intervenors' testimony is but another attempt to expand the EPZ beyond the 10-mile ra-dius prescribed by the regulations. Intervenors' past attempts were unsuccessful. PID, 21 NRC at 701-07; ALAB-822, 23 NRC 135 (1986); CLI-87-12, 26 NRC 383 (1987); see also Special Prehearing Conference Order (Aug. 19,1983) (unpublished); Order Ruling on Objections to Special Prehearing C-ference Order (Sept. 30,1983) (unpublished). The opinion testimony of school administrators, who are not competent to testify about the size of an EPZ necessary to protect the health and safety of school children from a ra-dialogical threat, shocld he striken.
The following testimony is a challenge to the initial decision and to Section 50.47(c)(2) and should be stricken:
1.
Brodsky testimony, page 13, line 16 (beginning with "We feel..."),
through line 21.
2.
Brodsky testimony, page 39, lines 1-4.
3.
Brodsky testimony, page 66, lines 5-16.
l 4.
Brodsky testimony, page 68, lines 1-6.
D.
Role Conflict of Teachers and Other Personnel At pages 52, line 15 through 53, line 4, the testimony revisits "role conflict" of i
teachers and administrative personnel. The Board has already ruled in LILCO's favor on this issue, finding that "there is no reason to believe that there would not be a suffi-cient number (of school teachers) remaining to supervise students on evacuation buses
" PID,21 NRC at 677. The Intervenors' appeal of the issue was denied. ALAB 832, 23 NRC 135,150-52. Thus, the following Suffolk County testimony should be striken as res judicata and beyond the scope of the remand issue:
hi x
1.
Brodsky testimony, page 28, the phrase: "the likelihood that school persoisel... would experience role conflict" at lines 5-7.
2.
Brodsky testimony, page 48, lines 5-8.
3.
Brodsky testimony, pages 52, line 19 through 53, line 4.
4.
Brodsky testimony, page 54, the phrase "who would also be subject to role conflict" at line 3-4.
5.
Brodsky testimony, page 73, lines 3-15.
6.
Brodsky testimony, page 77, line 12 (beginning with "Moreover, even if it..."), through line 17.
7.
Brodsky testimony, page 79, the phrase "and teachers" at lines 10 and 11.
E.
Telephone System Overload The testimony that telephone system overload will prevent LILCO from con-tacting their bus drivers should be stricken because (1) it attempts to reopen the record on the issue of telephone overload, an issue that was expressly found to be nonlitigable, and (2) none of these witnesses is competent to testify on telephone overload. The telephone overload issue was a "Phase I" issue dismissed as a sanction for Suffolk Coun-ty's def ault. See LBP-82-75,16 NRC 986,1026 (1982). When it was reralsed in Phase II, as Contention 26.B, it was found to be nonlitigable. Special Prehearing Conference Order at 15-16 (Aug.19,1983); Tr. 4003-10, 4064-66, 4250-53. The denial of Contention 26.B was affirmed. ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135,143 (1986). For further discussion see "LILCO's Motion to Strike Testimony of Stephen Cole et al. at 5-6 (Apr. 20,1988). Ac-cordingly, the following testimony should be striken:
1.
Brodsky testimony, page 44, the phrase: "and if the telephone cir-cultry were not overloaded, as might well be the case in the event of a Shoreham emergency" at lines 15-19.
2.
Brodsky testimony, pages 73, line 24 (beginning with "At the first sign...), through 74, line 4.
n F.
Parents Goinst to Schools to Pick Up Children The testimony at page 64, which argues that LILCO's plan cannot work because many parents would converge on the schools to pick up their children during an emer-gency at Shoreham, should be stricken as an attempt to re11tigate settled issues. The Intervenors made this same argument in 1984 about early dismissal. Petrilak direct tes-timony, ff. Tr.11,001, at 9,10-11; Muto and Smith direct testimony, ff.11,001, at 10.
The Board ruled then that there was "no evidence or basis to believe" that this behavior would disrupt early dismissal. 21 NRC at 866. While the Board was referring to early dismissal, Suffolk County does not distinguish between early dismissal and evacuation, and gives no reasons why parents at the schools would create any greater problems dur-ing an evacuation than during early dismissal.
Therefore, the following testimony should be striken:
1.
Brodsky testimony, page 28, the phrase "as well as parents' desires to reunite with their children at the schools" at lines 10-12.
2.
Brodsky testimony, pages 64, line 19 (beginning with "Further, it would..."), through 65, line 2 ("confusion").
G.
Number of Students that Must Be Evacuated in 1984, LILCO presented testimony on the number of students that needed to be evacuated at each school in the 10-mile EPZ. Cordaro e_t a_1. direct testimony, ff. Tr.
9154, Vol. II, at 55-56. LILCO's numbers were based on several assumptions: 1) that 5%
of the student population are absent daily, 2) that 20% of the high school population drive to school in their own vehicle or ride with someone else who drives, and 3) that 3% of all students are on split sessions. Ld. at 55. LILCO, then used the following load-ing capacities for buses to determine the number of bus trips needed: 60 passengers per bus for elementary and middle schools and 40 passengers per bus for high schools. Id.
These calculations, and the student population figures that resulted from these calcula-tions, were not challenged by the Intervenors. In the PID, the Board accepted LILCO's
. o estimate, based on these calculations, of the number of bus trips needed to evacuate schools. PID,21 NRC at 872.
Having neglected to testify on the validity of LILCO's calculations in 1984, Suffolk County tries to do so now by redoing the basic assumption of the calculations and recalculating the estimates based on their new untested assumptions. It is improp-er for Suffolk County now to attack testimony already heard four years ago. Accord-ingly, the following testimony should be striken:
1.
Brodsky testimony, pages 37, line 15, through 38, line 11.
2.
Brodsky testimony, page 39, line 5, through 42, line 21.
3.
Brodsky testimony, page 67, line 14 (beginning with "Using only
... ), through line 21.
4.
Brodsky testimony, page 68, line 18 (beginning with "Even if we
... ), through page 69, line 3.
5.
Brodsky testimony, page 70, lines 1-7.
H.
Monitoring and Decontamination of School Children At page 54, lines 8 through 17, the testimony again strays from the issue of evacuating school children, which is the focus of this proceeding, to revisit LILCO's plans for decontamination and monitoring. Those plans were litigated at length in the reception center proceedings in which Suffolk County filed testimony (S.C. Ex.16 Tes-timony of Edward P. Radford, Gregory C. Minor, Susan C. Saegert, James H. Johnson, David Harris and Martin Mayer on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning LILCO's Recep-tion Centers (Monitoring and Decontamination Procedures) (Apr. 13, 1987)) and cross-examined LILCO's testimony (LILCO Ex.1 Written Testimony of Douglas M. Crocker, Dale E. Donaldson, Diane P. Driekorn, Edward B. Lieberman, Roger E. Linneman, Michael K. Lindell, Dennis S. Mileti, and Richard J. Watts on the Suitability of Recep-tion Centers (Mar. 30, 1987)). The following testimony should be stricken as irrelevant and immaterial:
b$
i
- 1.
Brodsky testimony, page 54, lines 8-17.
I.
Congregate Care Similarly, the testimony at page 30, lines 17-20 should be stricken as beyond the scope of this proceeding and an attempt to relitigate settled issues. It states:
The East Meadow District has taken no formal position on Shoreham, except to advise the Red Cross and LILCO that our schools cannot be used as congregate care centers in a Shoreham emergency.
As the Commission recently held, availability of facilities for congregate care and Red Cross personnel to staff those facilities is a settled question. CLI-87-05, 25 NRC 884,887-90 (1987).
Accordingly, the following testimony should be stricken:
1.
Brodsky testimony, page 30, lines 17-20.
J.
Limited Road Network The testimony improperly includes at least two references to traffic issues that were heard an6 decided in the initial decision. They are clearly an inappropriate sub-ject for this focused remand proceeding. For example, the testimony at page 28, lines 4-5, states that one reason the Middle Country School District concluded that LILCO's plan could not be implemented was "the limited road network on Long Island," and the i
testimony at page 69, lines 4-12, alleges that traffic congestion in a Shoreham emer-j gency makes it unlikely that schools could be evacuated. These and other traffic issues l
were examined in minute detail. PID,21 NRC at 781-809. Indeed, the Board even ex-amined the effect of the dismissal of schools on the overall evacuation time estimates.
PID,21 NRC at 798-800. The Board found that LILCO's evacuation time estimates were reasonable and that LILCO had met its burden of proof. Intervenors should not be per-mitted to second guess such a final decision; the testimony should be stricken at:
(
(
n 1.
Brodsky testimony, page 28, line 4-5.
2.
Brodsky testimony, page 69, line 4-12.
DI.
Suffolk County Witnesses Are Not Competent To Testify on Issues Raised in this Testimony Portions of Suffolk County's testimony should also be stricken as incompetent and therefore without foundation and unreliable. Specifically, the witnesses are not competent to testify about 1) 255 bus driver statements of unknown origin,2) the Frye Board's initial decision on LILCO's training program; 3) the position of the school dis-tricts in the EPZ that are not represented on the panel; and 4) the sociological issue of "role conflict". For the reasons stated below, the County testimony on these issues should be striken as well.
A.
Bus Driver Statements At pages 45-46 and 79, the testimony relles on statements signed by unknown bus drivers which say that they would not drive buses during a Shoreham emergency. None of the witnesses is competent to sponsor the testimony or attached statements because not one of them can swear to the origin or reliability of the "bus driver statements."
The witnesses who sponsor the testimony admitted in their depostions that they knew nothing about the statements. Koenig deposition transcript '(Feb. 16,1988) at 40 (At-tachment 4); Muto deposition transcript (Feb. 29,1988) at 57 (Attachment 5); Rossi dep-osition transcript (Feb. 18,1988) at 29 (Attachment 7); Suprina deposition transcript (Feb. 25,1988) at 60-61 (Attachment 9).
Moreover, Suffolk County's sworn answers to interrogatories about these bus driver statements confirm that little to nothing is known about their origin or reliability. See Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's Fif th Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers
m m
9.
(Feb. 22,1988) (Attachment I to this Motion). The County swore that it did not know who developed the statement form, the conditions under which the bus drivers were asked (or coerced) to sign the statements, how the bus drivers who signed the state-ments were picked, whether particular bus drivers or bus companies were purposefully not approached to sign the statements, or whether and how many bus drivers refused to sign the statements. Due to the unreliability of this evidence, all testimony about the "bus driver statements" should be stricken.
The testimony and "bus driver statements" should also be stricken for a powerful policy reason. As Suffolk County's answers to interrogatories show, their lawyers coun-seled the people who solicited these statements. S_ee Interrogatory Answer No. 47 (At-tachment 1 to this Motion). The County participated in the undermining of emergency planning and now seeks to rely on evidence of that sabotage. Such efforts should be discouraged by the NRC. See Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point, Units Nos. 2 and 3), LBP-83-68,18 NRC 811, 986 (1983); see also, LILCO's Motion to Strike Testimony of Stephen Cole et al. at 13-14 (Apr. 20,1988).
1.
Brodsky testimony, pages 45, line 21, through 46, line S.
2.
Brodsky testimony, pages 46, line 24 (beginning with "Based upon..."), through 47, line 4.
3.
Brodsky testimony, page 79, lines 3-8.
4.
Brodsky testimony, Attachment 12.
B.
T_he Frye Decision on Training Suffolk County witnesses argue that LILCO's training program for school bus drivers is inadequate. To support this opinion, they rely on the Frye Board's decision (LBP-88-2) concerning whether LILCO's February 13,1988 exercise satisfied NRC regu-lations. None of Suffolk County's witnesses are legal experts and, thus, none are com-potent to testify about the effect or relevancy of that decision to issues in this case.
Accordingly, LILCO moves that the following testimony be stricken:
g---- - -
y 1.
Brodsky testimony, page 52, line 8 (beginning with "The recent Li-censing Board..."), through line 10.
C.
Positions of Other School Districts None of the witnesses are competent to testify about whether other school dis-tricts that have schools located in the 10-mile EPZ believe the LILCO school bus driver procedure is not implementable. Their knowledge and experience with schools on Long Island, with the exception of Messrs. Suprina and Koenig, is limited to the school dis-tricts they now serve. Brodsky testimony at 2-6.
And, each witness admitted in his deposition that he had not discussed LILCO's new bus drivr-r prowdere with other school districts. See Brodsky deposition transcript (Feb. 24,1988) at 18-27 (Attachment 2); Doherty deposition transcript (Feb. 18,1988) at 19-20 (Attachment 3); Koenig depo-sition transcript (Feb. 16,1988) at 31-39 (Attachment 4); Muto deposition transcript (Feb. 29,1988) at 53-54 (Attachment 5); Petrilak deposition transcript (Feb. 18,1988) at 18-19 (Attachment 6); Rossi deposition transcript (Feb. 18,1988) at 27-28 (Attachment 7); Smith deposition transcript (Feb. 25,1988) at 68-70 (Attachment 8); and Suprina deposition transcript (Feb. 25,1988) at 11-12 (Attachment 9). Also, several of the wit-nesses stated that the opinions expressed by them were either their own, their school districts, or Suffolk County's. No one said they represented the views of any other school district. See, g, Smith deposition at 70 ("I really can't speak for the other school districts").
Accordingly, the following testimony should be stricken:
1.
Brodsky testimony, pages 78-79.
D.
Testimony on Role Conflict The eight school officials who sponsor the Brodsky testimony are not competent to give expert testimony on the behavorial issue of "role conflict." Nevertheless, they do. Such testimony should be lef t to experts who have studied the phenomenon. And,
36 h
both parties presented sociologists and psychologists on this issue here and in prior phases of the Shoreham proceeding. The amateur testimony at issue here is unreliable and should be stricken.
As Suffolk County admitted, the "expertise" that the school officials are to bring to this proceeding is their experience as school officials at their respective school dis-tricts, their knowledge and understanding of the positions taken by their school dis-tricts about LILCO's evacuation procedures, and upon "their knowledge and experience concerning matters relating to the implementability of LILCO's proposal." See Second Supplement to Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers at 2-3 (Feb.15, 1988). Any credible "role conflict" testimony sponsored by these witnesses could only be based on their persond knowledge and experience, but no such testimony is pres-ented. Nor could it be; Suffolk "ounty has admitted that no such evidence of role con-flict exists. S_ee Response of Suffolk County to LILCO's March 11,1988 Motion to Com-pel Answers to Certain Interrogatories ar.d Requests for Production of Documents at 5, 8-10 (Mar. 23,1988); see also Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO Motion to Compel Answers to Certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents)
(A pr.14,1988). Accordingly, the following testimony should be striken:
1.
Brodsky testimony, page 32, lines 23-33, 2.
Brodsky testimony, pages 44, line 23, through 47, line 4.
3.
Brodsky testimony, page 47, line 12 ("If given that choice...),
through, line 14.
4.
Brodsky testimony, page 48, the phrase "or because of role con-flict," line 12, 5.
Brodsky testimony, pages 52, line 19 through 53, line 4.
6.
Brodsky testimony, page 58, lines 12-16 ("LERO's drivers").
7.
Brodsky testimony, page 79, lines 9-20.
Lk 6
-1.7-E.
The Testimony of Brodsky, Rossi and Koenig Should Be Stricken Suffolk County filed 80 pages of school bus driver testimony sponsored by eight school officials from five separate school districts. Only three of the school districts have schools located within the 10-mile EPZ for Shoreham, and only five of the wit-nesses work at school districts that have schools located within the EPZ. Messrs.
Brodsky, Koening and Rossi represent school districts with no schools in the Shoreham EPZ and their testimony is based on their knowledge and experience gleaned as school officials in those districts.E LILCO's school bus driver procedure does not involve the school districts of Messrs. Brodsky, Koenig, and Rossi.. Any testimony about the proce-dures followed in those school districts, what those school districts would do in an emerger.cy at Shoreham, or whether the LILCO plan is implementable in those school districts is irrelevant.
Suffolk County tries to create relevancy by arguing that the school district (Mid-die Country Central School District) represented by witnesses Brodsky and Rossi should be included within the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ. Brodsky testimony at 66. For reasons stated above, this argument is without merit. See section II.C above. Once this f acade is removed, it becomes clear that Brodsky's and Rossi's testimony on the following is-sues has no bearing on this case: the School District's policies regarding transportation of school children, the number of schools in the school district and the number of stu-dents attending particular schools, the school district's bus driver training program, the buses used by the school district to transport its school children, its early dismissal pro-cedures, and its position on Shoreham. See Brodsky at 7-12, 27-28, 61-62, 65-66, 74, 75 and Attachment 9. Also Rossi's and Brodsky's testimony about whether Middle Country J/
Witnesses Rossi and Brodsky testified on the school issues in 1984. That fact does not make their present testimony relevant. Many school contentions were liti-gated in 1984; they covered a broader and more general group of issues than the narrow remanded issue before this Board.
18-School District's bus drivers would drive buses during a Shoreham emergency is irrele-vant since neither its drivers or buses would be used. See l_d. at 47-48,65-66.
Witness Koenig does not say that his school district should be included in the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ. His testimony implies that he is aware of how the school dis-tricts inside the EPZ feel about LILCO's school evacuation plans because he is a mem-ber of the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association and because, in his opinion, his school district's policies are similar to those of the school districts in the 10-mile EPZ.
Witness Koenig sponsors little testimony independent of the other witnesses. Besides the fact that his testimony is unreliable second hand information, it is generally cummulative of the other witnesses. All testimony sponsored by Koenig alone (Brodsky testimony at 5-6, 20, 76) should be striken and his name should be removed whenever he jointly sponsors testimony.
Testimony of Messrs. Brodsky, Koenig, and Rossi addressing the procedures of other districts or the views of other school districts is incompetent and unreliable.
Messrs. Brodsky, Koenig, and Rossi said in their depositions that they had not discussed LILCO's new school bus driver procedure (or its school evacuation plans) with any school officials from the school districts that have schools located inside the EPZ.
Brodsky deposition transcript (Feb. 24,1988) at 18-27 (Attachment 2); Koenig deposition transcript (Feb. 16,1988) at 31-39 (Attachment 4); and Rossi' deposition transcript (Feb.
18,1988) at 27-28 (Attachment 7). Therefore, they are not competent to testify about the opinions held or positions taken by these school distrie:s.
The following testimony should be stricken:
1.
Brodsky testimony, pages 5-6.
2.
Brodsky testimony, pages 7-12.
3.
Brodsky testimony, page 20, 4.
Brodsky testimony, pages 27-28.
' 5.
Brodsky testimony, pages 61-62.
6.
Brodsky testimony, pages 65-66.
7.
Brodsky testimony, pages 74-76.
IV.
The Brochky Testimony Should Be Stricken as a Challenge to NRC Regulations The Brodsky testimony challenges NRC regulations in two ways. First, Suffolk County challenges 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(2) by arguing that schools outside the 10-mile EPZ for Shoreham should be included within the planning zone. Second, the County challenges the NRC's new rule on utility-sponsored plans,52 Fed. Reg. 42078 (Nov. 3, 1987),'which presumes that state and local officials will use their best efforts in re-sponse to a radiological emergency at a nuclear power facility. The first issue was ad-dressed above under the heading "Which Schools Are Within the Shoreham 10-Mile EPZ," and will not be repeated here. The second issue is addressed below.
Portions of the testimony, which state that school districts will not cooperate with the LILCO plan to evacuate school children in an emergency or that school dis-tricts will follow Nassau and Suffolk County's determinations not to follow LILCO's plan, challenge the NRC's new "best efforts" rule. 52 Fed. Reg. 42078 (Nov. 3,1987).
The new rule is clear. It may be presumed that state and local governments will gener-ally follow the utility plan in an emergency, unless the presumption is rebutted by evi-dence of "an adequate and feasible state and/or local radiological emergency plan that would in f act be relied on in a radiological emergency." 52 Fed. Reg. at 42086. Simple statements of non-cooperation, such as are contained in the testimony, are not to be taken as rebuttal evidence. Memorandum (Extension of Board's Ruling and Opinion on LILCO's Summary Disposition Motions of Legal Authority (Realism) Contentions and Guidance to Parties on New Rule 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(1)) at 20-22, 24 (Apr. 8,1988).
Statements such as are included in the testimony at page 57, lines 7-10:
bk 3
- The County has determined that in the event of an emergen-cy, it would be best not to follow or rely upon the LILCO Plan or school-related provisions in any way. We agree with that determination.
are nothing more than a statement of non-cooperation and are not appropriate rebuttal evidence.
School districts, which are "independent political subdivisions of their own" (Brodsky testimony at 56) and responsible for the school children in their care (Brodsky testimony at 71), are presumed to engage in best efforts to protect the school children.
As the testimony indicates, there is no school plan for a radiological en.ergency other than the LILCO plan. Statements, without more, that LILCO's plan w0did not be fol-lowed flies in the face of the new rule's presumption.
Repeated references in the testimony to school board resolutions condemning the LILCO plan's provisions for schools as unacceptable and testimony that because of those resolutions that school boards will not implement the Shoreham plan in the event of an emergency also should be stricken as an improper challenge to the new rule.
Portions of the testimony should be stricken as repetitive, as is evident from statements on the face of the testimony:
in a Middle Country School District Board of Education Res-olution dated November 7,1983, which is Attachment 9 to this testimony, and was included in testimony previously submitted in the Shoreham proceeding, Brodsky Testimony, page 28, lines 16-19.
The following testimony should be stricken as a challenge to the Commission's "best efforts" rule, as unreliable evidence under that rule, and repetitive:
1.
Brodsky testimony, page 28, line 15 (beginning with "Middle Coun-try...") through line 20.
2.
Brodsky testimony, page 29, line 1 (beginning with "S_ee Attachment
- 10..."), through line 8 and lines 16 through 20.
3.
Brodsky testimony, page 30, line 4 (beginning with "and determined that..."), through line 9.
ki 1
- 4.
Brodsky testimony, page 49, line 5 (beginning with "First, the school districts..."), through line 7 ("their schoolchildren.")
5.
Brodsky testimony, page 49, line 19 (beginning with "We would not..."), through lir.
9.
6.
Brodsky testimony, page 51, line 7 (beginning with "Thus, we could
... ), through line 8.
7.
Brodsky testimony, page 52, line 13 (beginning with "In these circumstances..."), through line 14, 8.
Brodsky testimony, page 53, lines 5 through 20.
9.
Brodsky testimony, pages 56, line 1, through 57, line 10.
10.
Brodsky testimony, page 57, line 20 (beginning with "We reiterate..."), through line 21 ("its employees").
11.
Brodsky testimony, page 70, line 15 through 71, line 14.
12.
Brodsky testimony, page 71, line 18 (beginning with "The safety risk..."), through line 21, 13.
Brodsky testimony, page 74, lines 11 through 14 ("LILCO employ-ecs").
14.
Brodsky testimony, page 78, line 7 (beginning with "In particular..."), through line 10 ("Shoreham emergency").
15.
Brodsky testimony, page 78 line 14, through page 79, line 2.
16.
Brodsky testimony, Attachments 9-11 and 14-15.
Respectfully submit ted, ft O
[ft/)b/4.t,t /
l James N. Christman MM
%iary Jo Leugers i
Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company l
l Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street l
P.O. Box 1535 l
Richmond, Virginia 23212 1
DATED: A pril 20,1988 1
s ATTACIIMENT 1 i
1
l
- i..
l i
February 22, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
(Emergency Planning)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S ANSWERS TO LILCO'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING ROLE CONFLICT OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS On February 8, 1988, LILCO filed its "Fifth Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State" ("Fifth Discovery Request").
Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b, Suffolk County (the "County") hereby responds to LILCO's Fifth Discovery Request.
I.
GENERAL RESPONSE A.
All documents identified in these Answers will be provided within the time allotted by the NRC's Rules of Practice, to the extent the County does not object to their production.
Vf2
<W
e 9
8.
The County hereby ob'jects to LILCO's interrogatories and document requests to the extent they seek information or documents outsido of the possession, custody or control of the county.
C.
The County objects to all interrogatories, document requests, definitions and instructions insofar as they require the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
II.
ANSWERS TO IMER.ROGATORIES AND DOCUMEM RBOUESTS LILCO Interroaatory No. 47 47.
Suffolk County has provided LILCO, under cover letter of February 4, 1988, a number of forms filled out by bus drivers and stating, among other things, that "I cannot and will not agree to drive a school bus in the event of an accident at Shoreham."
An example of such a form is Attachment 1 to this Request.
Who drafted and who participated in preparing this form?
&ngyggt Members of the public contacted counsel for suffolk County, indicated that drivers wished to sign statements such as the ones provided, and sought advice on how such statements could be drafted.
Following such conversation with counsel for the County, the forms were prepared.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 48 48.
Who gave the forms to bus companies or bus drivers on Long Island?.-.... - - -. - _ _ -., - - -
M a y.a g.:
On information "and belief, members of the public gave the school bus driver statement forms to school bus drivers on Long Island.
To the extent the names of any of such individuals are known to suffolk County, they will not be reves. led in order to protect the privacy of those individuals.
LILCO Interrouatory No. 49 49.
When vere the forms given to the bus companies or bus drivers?
Answer:
Suffolk County does not know the date that the forms were distributed to school bus drivers.
However, to the.
extent the forms were dated at the time the statements were signed, that date has been provided to LILCO on the forms.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 50 50.
What bus companies and bus drivers received the forms?
I Answer:
Suffolk County does not know what bus companies and bus drivers received the school bus driver statement forms.
However, since only the names of the school bus drivers have been redacted from copies of the completed forms provided to LILCO, the bus company names, if present, are available to LILCO.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 51 51.
How and from whom did Suffolk County acquire copies of the completed forms? l l
m
~
AgtM31:
Counsel for Suf' folk County received the compl6ted forms from members of the public.
LI?.,CO Interroaatory No. 52 52.
Have other similar forms been given to bus companies or bus drivers?
If so, when were they given, by whom, and to whom?
Ana.v.tr.:
On information and belief, Suffolk County has no knowledge about whether similar forms have been given to bus companies or school bua drivers.
OBJECTIONS STATED BY COUNSEL All objectiores and assertion of privilege, or reference thereto, were stated by counsel. _.
I Michael S. Miller J. Lynn Taylor s
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County February 22, 1988.
- - - ~ - - - - - - -
__,_--._,_,_m,.__-,,,_y__.,-..,,___,___,m__
a S
f e
ATTACHMENT 2 t
I
o TI M N~S C RIF 1 OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AliERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.x In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITION OF BRUCE G.
BRODSKY Hauppauge, New York Wednesday, February 24, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, blC.
% tyrw &
444 North Capitol Street Washinf)on, D.C. 20001 (20 M7-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
02 01 18 2 '3W/sw 1
Q What I am going to show you, which might help a 2
little bit here, is -- and I would like to have it marked as 3
Brodsky Exhibit Number 1.
4
.(Educational Facilities Key is marked 5
as Brodsky Deposition Exhibit Number 1, 6
for identification.)
7 What it is, is from Appendix A of LILCO's Plan, 8
Revision 9, which is a 1,ist of all school districts that are 9
located in the schools that are located within the ten mile 10 emergency planning zone for Shoreham.
11 And I would like to ask you, if you could, to 12 first look over this for a second so you can be familiar j
13 with the document.
14 First, I would like to ask you if you have ever l
l 15 seen this document before?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
When did you see it?
i l
18 A
I believe I have seen this in information 19 supplied by my attorneys to ae.
I am not sure.
They all 20 look alike after a whilo.
21 0
Now, I have given you this document and I want to 22 ask you some questions following up on what we were just i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 3N
.~
02 02 19 2
SW/sw 1
talking about, the school board members that you have talked 2
to about their response during a Shoreham emergency.
3 And I would like to start out with the Shoreham-4 Wading River Central School District, which is the first 5
school district listed here.
Have you had conversations 6
with anyone at the Shoreham-Wading River Central School 7
District about evacaution of schools during a Shoreham 8
emergency?
9 A
I couldn't honestly tell you who they were, or 10 when they were, what school districts they came from 11 specifically.
12 So, the answer to that would be:
I can't give 13 you an answer of yes or no to that.
14 Q
okay.
Can you give me an answer yes or no to 15 that question for Little Flower Union Free School District?
16 A
No.
Well, I can tell you no definitely to that.
I 17 I have not spoken to anyone there.
18 Q
Have you spoken to anyone at the Rocky Point 19 Union Free School District about the evacuation of schools?
20 A
Again, informally I would say, yes.
21 Q
And when was that?
22 A
Four years agos three, four, five years ago.
I ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043 4 6646
02 03 20 2
3W/sw 1
really, you know --
2 O
Have you talked to anyone there in the last year?
3 A
No.
4 Q
Okay.
And could you tell me what the gist of the 5
conversation was four or five years ago when you discussed 6
evacuation of schools?
7 A
It was whether -- you know, our concern, "our,"
8 meaning school beard members' concern, was always the 9
concern that could we in some way evacuate our students if a 10 true emergency occurred at the Shoreham plant?
11 And it was at that particular point discussed, 12 strictly hypothetical.
And, there were feelir.gs.
13 O
And what was the opinion of the people you talked 14 to at Rocky Point Union Free School District about whether 15 schools could be evacuated?
16 A
I can recall at that particular time, Rocky Point 17 was uncommittal.
Some of them did express concerns, but 18 they would not at that point take a public position, because 19 they were not sure themselves.
20 0
And the last school district is Longwood Central 21 School District.
Can you tell me about conversations you 22 had with anyone at Longwood Central School District ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
e 02 04 21 1
7W/sw 1
concerning evacuation of schools during a Shoreham 2
emergency?
3 A
Again, the conversations in the same context that 4
I described before, and I have spoken to board members in 5
Longwood.
6 O
And how long ago?
7 A
Again, all in that same time frame.
8 Q
About four or five years ago?
9 A
Yes, yes.
10 0
Were there any conversations within the last six 11 to twleve months?
12 A
There might have been some brief conversations 13 regarding articles in papers and such, and how it would 14 affect us, but again there were never extensive l
15 conversations.,You know, even four or five years ago there 16 were never extensive conversations.
17 They were brief sentences here and there, 18 fragmented at best.
19 O
And the next school district is Miller' Place l
20 Union Free School District.
I 21 A
Yes.
22 0
Have you had an converstions with individuals ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l l
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 3 %-6646
=.
02 05 22.
1 3W/sw 1
at this school district about evacuations?
2 A
Most probably.
3 Q
And how long ago were those conversations?
4 A
All within the same time frames.
5 0
About four or five years ago?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Have there been any conversations within the last 8
six to twelve months?
9 A
I don't believe so.
10 Q
Have you had any conversations with anyone at 11 Mt. Sinal Union Free School District about evacuation of 12 schools?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
And how long ago were those conversations?
15 A
Four or five years ago.
16 O
And what was the gist of those convercations?
17 A
Again, same gist in conversations as in the 18 previous school districts.
19 Q
Have you had any conversations in the last six to 20 twelve months with anyone from the Mt. Sinai School 21 District?
22 A
I believe so.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 80MM 6646
-02'06 23 3 ~ 3W/sw 1
Q And when were those conversations?
2 A
Within the past year.
3 0
Did you say within the last six years -- I am 4
sorry, six months?
5 A
Probably.
6 0
Would you know if it was in the last three 7
months?
8 A
I couldn't say for sure.
9 0
It is possible anywhere from three to six months 10 ago you had conversations with individuals at Mt. Sinai?
11 A
It is possible.
12 O
Who did you talk to at the Mt. Sinai School 13 District?
14 A
As I stated before, I'm active on the bi-county 15 level 'and I very frequently meet many school district. Board 16 members from different districts, so it may not have been 17 anybody in specific but, you know, it could have been any 18 one of the Board members there.
l l
j 19 0
Could you tell me about -- could you tell me what 20 the conversation entailed concerning the evacuation of 21 schools?
22 A
I gather it's the same conversation that has gone
(
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l I
202.M7 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
02 07 24 1
3W/sw 1
on before, and that is expressing our concern with the 2
safety of our students.
3 0
Did you discuss specific procedures with those 4
individuals --
5 A
No.
6 0
-- from Mt. Sinal?
7 A
No.
8 O
Do you remember what opinions were expresse,d by 9
individuals from the Mt. Sinai School District about 10 evacuating schools during a Shoreham emergency?
11 A
I would have a great deal of difficulty 12 testifying as to what other people feel, you know.
I 13 believe the feeling of most School Board members in this 14 area of Suffolk County are concerned about the potential 15 safety issue.
16 O
Do you know if the people that you talked to at 17 the Mt. Sinal School District, did they express any opinions i
l 18 as to whether it was possible to evacuate the schools during l
l 19 a Shoreham emergency?
20 A
I can't be certain of that.
21 Q
Have you discussed the evacuation of schools with 22 the Port Jefferson Union Free School District, any ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3HM646 L_
02 08 25 1
3W/cw 1
individuals from that school district?
2 A
I don't believe so.
3 0
Have you discussed the evacuation of schools with 4
any individuals from the Comsewogue Union Free School 5
District?
6 A
I believe so, yes.
7 Q
And, could you tell me when that would have been?
, In the same time frames as before.
8 A
9 Q
About four or five years ago?
10 A
Four or five years ago.
11 Q
Have there been any conversations within the last 12 six to twelve months?
13 A
I don't think so.
14 Q
Have you discussed the evacuation of schools with 15 anyone with the Patchogue-Medford Union Free School 16 District?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Have you discussed the evacuation of schools with 5
19 any individual at the South Manor Union Free School 20 District?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
And, when were those conversations?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 M7 3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800 336 6646 l
02 09 26 2
7W/sw 1
A I really couldn't recall, but that would be 2
somewhere -- you name it.
It could be anywhere from one to 3
four to five years ago.
4 O
So, you are not sure if you had a conversation 5
with someone from the South Manor School District within the 6
last year or if it was five years ago?
7 A
That's correct.
8 0
Could you tell me what the gist of those 9
converstions were?
10 A
Again, the gist of the conversation was always 11 the same.
Ard, that was all of us expressing our concern 12 about the safdty of our students.
13 Q
Did any of the individuals that you talked to 14 from the South Manor School District express any opinions 15 about whether you could -- whether it was possible to 16 evacuate schools during a Shoreham emergency?
17 A
Again, I can't give you exact recall of 18 conversations that occurred.
19 Q
During these conversations with individuals from 20 the South Manor School District, were LILCO procedures 21 discussed, the procedures for evacuating schools?
j 22 A
I don't believe the specifics of procedures were ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Comage 2 316-6666
w
- - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 02 10 27 1
M/sw 1
discussed.
I believe it was feelings.
2 Q
Have you had any conversations with any 3
individual from the Riverhead Central School District 4
concerning the evacuation of schools during a Shoreham 5
emergency?
6 A
I don't believe so.
7 Q
Have you had any conversation with any 8
individuals from the BOCES about the evacuation of schools?
9 A
If you are talking about Board members on BOCES I 10 or II, I believe the answer would be no.
But, BOCES is a 11 very vague term and many school dis Qicts are members of 12 BOCES.
13 So, when you say to me BOCES II, that would 14 involve I believe 23 school districts that make up BOCES 15 II.
So, in the generic sense, yes, I've had conversations F
16 but not with BOCES personnel per se.
17 Q
Okay.
Have you discussed the evacuation of 18 schools with any of the parochial schools that are listed on 19 Brodsky Exhibit Number 17 20 A
No.
4 2
21 Q
Have you discussed the evacuation of schools with 22 any of the nursery schools that are listed on this exhibit?
I
{
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20L347 3700 Nationwide Cowage 80 M MHi646
e 8
ATTACHMENT 3
j TRAXSCRIF1 0
CF PROCKKDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAliD LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x I3
+
DEPOSITION OF EDWARD J.
DOHERTY l
Hauppauge, New York l
Thursday, February 18, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
senaypew 444 North CapitolStreet
,tj
\\%shington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
7891 02 02
,19 1
GJW/sw 1
(A Two-Page Documtat, Edu:ational 2
Facilities Key, is marked as Doherty 3
Deposition Exhibit Number 1 for 4
identification.)
5 BY MR. RARLOWs (Continuing) 6 Q
All right.
I will represent to you that this is 7
a list of the educational facilities that are located within 8
the emergency planning zone around the Shoreham plant.
9 I would like you to take a look at this and in 10 looking at it, I want you -- what*I'm going to.ask you is, 11 do you know the Directors or Supervisors of Transportation 12 for each of the school districts listed here?
13 So, if you could take a look at that and you 14 could just tell me if you know the Transportation Directors 15 or Supervisors from each school district?
The school 16 district is underlined.
17 (The witness is looking at the document.)
18 A
Do you want me to tell you as I go along?
19 0
Yeah, why don't we do that.
20 A
Okay.
Longwood.
21 Q
A point of clarification.
I'f you mention 22 Longwood, can I take it as being true that you do not know ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33M646
o 7891 02 03 20 1
GJW/sw 1
the Transportation Director for Shoreham-Wading River, 2
Little Flower,and Rocky Point?
3 A
That's right.
4 0
okay.
5 A
Okay.
Mt. Sinai, Comsewogue, Patchogue-Medford, 6
BOCES II and BOCES I.
7 O
Apart from those that you have listed, you do not 8
know the Transportation Directors or Supervisors from those 9
school districts?
10 The ones you did not mention, you don't know 11 them?
12 A
I don't know who the person is that is 13 responsible.
14 O
For those school districts that you do know the 15 Transportation Director or Supervisor, have you ever talked 16 to that person -- have you ever talked to any of those 17 persons about the LILCO evacuation plan for school children?
18 A
No.
19 Q
Were any of those Transportation Directors or 20 Supervisors present -- let me start again.
21 of those that you say you know, were any of those 22 at the meeting of February lith at which you said Mr. Rossi l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 6646
S 8
ATTACliMENT 4
TRAXSCRIF1 OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERI!h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - -x In the !!atter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, a
Unit 1)
(School Bus Driver Issue)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF HOWARD 11. KOENIG East Meadow, New York Tuesday, February 16, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotype &
444 North CapitolStreet
\\Wshington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 Nationwide Cowrage o
800-336-6646
e l
7700 03 03 31
'AVbur 1
emergency planning zone or the emergency planning zone.
I 2
will use those to mean the same.
3 My question is, do you know what school districts 4
are in that ten-mile emergency planning zone?
5 A
Because of my f amiliarity with Long Island, I i
6 could probably come up with a list of them.
If it were a 7
final exam and I had to name them all, I probably would not 8
be able to do that.
But I am familiar with the geography of 9
Long Island.
10 0
Since you are a teacher, you don't have to take 11 any final exams.
So I won't ask you to.
l 12 A
Thank you.
13 MS. LEUGERS:
What I am going to have marked.as 14 Koenig Exhibit 2 is entitled "Educational Facilities Key."
15 (Koenig Exhibit 2 16 identified.)
17 MS. LEUGERS:
I have taken this from Appendix A 18 of LILCO's plan, Revision 9.
I am just going to ask you a 19 couple of questions about it.
20 BY MS. LEUGERS:
21 Q
Have you ever seen this document before?
22 MR. LANPHER:
Give him a moment to look this a
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 NanonwWe Coserage 800 3)& 6646
7700 03 03 32 1AVbur 1
over.
2 (Pause.)
3 THE WITNESS:
I don't believe so.
4 MS. LEUGERS:
I will represent for you that this 5
is a listing of all schools, public schools, parochial and i
6 nurssey schools that are within the ten-mile emergency 7
planning zone.
8 BY MS. LEUGERS:
9 0
What I would like to do is start at the top with 10 this Shoreham-Wading River Central School District.
What I 11 would like to ask you is, do you know the superintendent at 12 the school district?
13 A
Yes.
14 0
Do you know any of the school board members at 15 this school district, also?
16 A
I probably know the school board members, but I 17 am not very f amiliar with them.
I interact a lot with 18 school board members in my other function, but I am -- I do 19 know Dr. Doremus because we serve together.
20 0
In what capacity do you know him, then?
l 21 A
Professionally.
i 22 Q
Also, with the two organizations we have already I
l
/\\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 147 3700 Natsnede Coverage 600 336-6 4 6
7700 03 03 33 AVbur 1
discussed?
2 A
No.
3 Q
How would you know him professionally other than 4
those organizations?
I 5
A Dr. Doremus and I serve together on the Advisory 6
Board of WNET Educational Television, Channel 13, in New 7
York.
In addition, Dr. Doremus and I have had interactions 8
as members of the New York State Council of School l
9 Superiatendents.
10 Q
Have you ever d scusse1 evacuation of schools 11 during a shoreham emergency with Dr. Doremus?
12 A
No.
13 0
Do you know the superintendent of the Little 14 Flower Union Free School District?
i I
15 A
No, only because that is a special act sch001 16 district.
I know of Little Flower.
I do not know the 17 superintendent connected with Little Flower.
18 Q
Do you know the superintendent of the Rocky Point 19 Union Free School District?
j 20 A
Only through my state association.
21 Q
Have you ever discussed with him evacuation of 22 schools during a Shoreham emergency?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20M47 3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800 336 6646
7700 03 03 34 AVbur 1
A No.
l l
2
,O Do you know any of the school board members for 3
Rocky Point Union Free School District?
t 4
A Probably the same way I know the Shoreham-Wading 5
River School District members.
1 6
Q Do you know the superintendent of the Longwood
~
7 Central School District?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Have you ever discussed evecuation of schools l
10 during a Shoreham emergenc'y with the superintendent of the 11-Longwood Central School District?
12 A
No.
13 0
Do you know any of the school board members of 14 the Longwcod Central School District?
I 15 A
Yes.
J 16 Q
Have you ever discussed with them the evacuation l
17 of students during a Shoreham emergency?
18 A
Not individually, but if I am not mistaken, one i'
19 of the Longwood board members is on the Nassau-Suf folk 20 School Boards' Executive Committee and, as such, would have 21 been involved in the original discussion involving the group l
j 22 that was up.
\\
I I
i ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3?00 Nationwide Coserage 2 336-6646 l
7700 03 03 35 t
SAVbur 1
Q The NRC board?
2 A
The NRC board, yes.
3 0
There haven't been any recent discussions with 4
the superintendent -- I am sorry -- the school board members 5
in the Longwood Central School District?
I 6
A No.
7 0
Do you know the superintendent of the Miller 8
Place Union Free School District?
l 9
A Only through our state association.
10 Q
Have you ever discussed evacuation of schools 11 during a Shoreham emergency?
12 A
No.
i 13 Q
Do you know any of the school board members from 14 i the Miller Place Union Free School District?
[
l 15 l A
only through the county association.
16 Q
So I suppose it is correct to say that you 17 haven't discussed evacuation of schools during a Shoreham 18 emergency with any school board members there, is that 19 correct?
20 A
That is correct.
21 0
Do you know the superintendent at the Mt. Sinal 22 Union Free School District?
\\
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-)47 3700 Nationmxle Coverage 8(6 336-6646
(
i
- _, _ _.. _ ~ _ _. -
~ _.
7700 03 03 36 AVbur 1
A Only through the state association.
2 Q
Have you ever had any conversations with him 3
about evacuations of schools?
4 A
No.
5 0
Is the same true for the school board members?
6 A
The same would be true for the school board 7
members, but a Mt. Sinai School Board member serves on the 8
Executive Board of Nassau-Suffolk, so I have more contacts 9 I with her.
But I have not discussed the evacuation plan with i
10 her.
11 Q
Do you know the superintendent of Port Jefferson I
12 Union Free School District?
13 A
Only through the state association.
14 Q
Sorry, this is very repetitious.
We are about I
- ldonewithit.
15 l
Have you ever discussed the evacuation of schools 16
(
17 during a shoreham emergency?
18 A
No.
1 19 Q
Have you had such conversations with any school i
20 board members at the Port Jefferson Union Free School 21 District?
j 22 A
No.
I t
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 316 6M6
...-I
7700 03 03 37 AVbur 1
Q Do you know the superintendent of the Comsewogue 2
Union Free School District?
l 3
A Yes.
4 0
Have you had any conversations with him about I
5 evacuation of schools during a Shoreham emergency?
6 A
No.
7 Q
Have you had any such conversations with school 8
board members from the Comsewogue Union Free School 9
.I District?
10 A
No.
11 Q
Do you know the superintendent of the Patchogue-12 Medford Union Free School District?
13 A
Yes.
14 0
Have you had any conversations with that 15 superintendent about the evacuation of schools?
16 A
No.
17 Q
Have you had any such conversations with school 18 board members from the Patchogue-Medford Union Free School 19 District about the evacuation of schools during a Shoreham 20 emergency?
21 A
No.
s 22 O
Do you know the superintendent of the South Manor a
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
. % 347 3700 Nation.de Coverase 800 336-6646
O 770G 03 03 38 1
1AVbur 1
Union Free School District?
2 A
No, but probably through the state association, 3
yes.
I don't know the South !!anor superintendent.
4 Q
So it would be correct to say that you haven't 5
had any conversations with him about the evacuation of 6
schools during a Shoreham emergency?
7 A
It would be correct to say that.
8 Q
Have you had any such conversations with school l
9 board members from the South Manor Union Free School 10 District?
11 A
No.
12 O
Do you know the superintendent of the Riverhead 13 centen1 School District?
14 A
Yes.
l 15 0
Have you had any conversations with him about 16 evacuation of schools during a Shoreham emergency?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Have you had any such conversations with school i
19 board members at the Riverhead Central School District?
[
20 A
No.
21 0
Do you anticipate that in preparing your 22 testimony fer this proceeding that you will have
(
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, l
202 147 3?00 Nationsde Coserage 804 336-6646
i t
1 l
7700 03 03 39 j
AVbur 1
conversations with any of the superintendents of the school l
I 2
districts we have gone through?
j 3
A No.
i 4
O Do you think you may have any conversations with l
5 school board members from any of these school districts?
I 6
A No.
If the question is in preparation of my 7
testimony, no.
7 8
0 On the second page of the document I have handed l
9 you there is a list of parochial schools.
10 Have you discus ed evacuation of schools with any 11
, representatives from parochial schools that are listed?
{
12 A
No.
j l
13 0
And for the nursery schools.
There's 12 nursery 14 schools that are listed here that are located inside the EPZ i
l l
15 around Shoreham.
l 1
16 Have you had any conversations with any 17 representatives of those nursery schools about evacuation of d
l 18 schools during a Shoreham emergency?
j
)
19 A
No.
20 0
Have you talked to any school bus drivers about t
i 21 driving buses during an evacuation during a Shoceham j
s
]
22 emergency?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202 347 3?00 Natenwde Coserage 800 3 4 4646
7700 03 03 40 AVbur 1
A No.
2 O
I am going to hand you another form which was 3
produced by Suffolk County to Hunton & Williams during part 4
of the discovery process.
5 MS. LEUGERS:
I would like to mark this as Koenig 6
Exhibit No. 3.
7 (Koenig Exhibit 3 8
identified.)
9 BY MS. LEUGERS:
10 0
Have you ever seen this form before?
11 MR. LANPHER:
Take your time to read it.
12 THE WITNESS:
Never.
13 BY MS. LEUGERS:
14 O
So I guess it is safe to conclude that you don't 15 know who produced this document?
16 A
I do not know who produced this document.
17 Q
Have you heard in any conversations that you may 18 have had over the last year or two about evacuation of 19 schoois,about information being collected about whether 20 school bus drivers would drive during an emergency at r
21 Shoreham?
22 A
I have no knowledge of that.
f a
i s4CE.Fsos. tat REPORTERS, lNC, i
202 347.)?00 Nanon*de Cose age 8 % ))6-6646
ATTACilMENT 5
e TIMNBCRIPT OF PROCHEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x s
DEPOSITION OF NICK P. MLTO Hauppauge, New York Monday, February 29, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
seexnmematm 444 No th Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8970 04 02 53 1
IJW/sw 1
where the issue of evacuating schools has been discussed?
2 MR. MILLER:
The evacuation of any kind or a 3
Shoreham evacuation?
4 MS. LEUGERS:
An evacuation of s,hools for a 5
Shoreham evacuation.
6 THE WITNESS:
No, I have not.
7 BY MS. LEUGERS:
(Continuing) 8 0
What I would like to hand you is a list entitled, 9
"Educational Facilities Key," that comes from Appendix A of 10 the LILCO plan of Revision 9.
11 And, this has a list of school districts and 12 schocls that are located within the EP7..
13 A
All right.
14 MR. LEUGERS :
I would like to have this marked as t
15 Huto Exhibit 3.
l 16 (A document, Educational Facilities Key, 17 is marked as Muto Deposition Exhibit 18 Number 3 for identification.)
19 BY MS. LEUGERS:
(Continuing) l 20 Q
Rather than go down one by one with these, could 21 you tell me if you have talked to any school personnel at 22 any of these school districts about an evacuation of schools 1
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
8970 04 03 54 m
1 IJW/sw 1,
during a Shoreham emergency?
2 (The witness is looking at the document.)
3 A
I meet on a regular basis with the 4
Superintendents from Rocky Point, Miller Place, Mt. Sinai, 5
Port Jefferson and Comsewogue.
6 The others, I know them just professionally.
We 7
meet monthly.
We have a regular agenda.
And, the Shoreham 8
evacuation plan has not been on our agenda to date.
9 0
So, it's correct to say that you have not 10 discussed the evacuation of schools during a Shoreham l'
emergency with any of those school districts?
s 12 A
Correct.
13 MR. MILLER:
I tiaink, Ms. Leugers, in ft.irness to 14 the witness that his answer is with respect to the current 15 LILCO proposal and not with respect to issues of 1983 and 16 1984.
17 BY MS. LEUGERS:
(Continuing) 18 0
Well, Dr. Muto, I'm sorry if I misled you but --
19 A
Okay.
/
20 0
-- I didn't want to limit it just to the current 21 plan.
But, if you could, tell me whenever in the last four 22 or five years you may have had such discussions?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
\\
8970 04 06 57 1
3JW/sw 1
Are you referring to something other than the school bus 2
driver statements?
3 THE WITNESS:
No.
That's the document I'm 4
referring to.
I don't have a copy of it.
And, I don't 5
recall the disposition of it at that time.
6 MS. LEUGERS:
I'm going to hand you a document I 7
would like to mark as Muto Exhibit 4.
8 (A bus driver sample, dated 4/30/86, is 9
marked as Muto Deposition Exhibit 10 Number 4 for identification.)
11 BY MS. LEUGERS:
(Continuing) 12 Q
And, if you coald, take a moment to look over 13 thia.
And, could you tell me if this is the document you 14 are talking aceut or something similar to this?
15 (The vitness is looking at the document.)
16 A
Okay.
I don't -- I'm not familiar with this 17 document. - But, I'm assuming that the results of that survey 18 are a response to this.
19 Q
Okay.
20 A
And, I was told that it was 60 or 65 drivers, 21 which is roughly 60 percent of the employees.
22 0
I still have a confusion about the original one, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646 vy u-
,-- ~ - - -
e n.
---,n.,
-n--
--e-e c
4 ATTACHMENT 6
TRAXSCRIF1 OF PRDCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE '"HE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x I
l l
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT W.
PETRILAK l
l 1
Hauppauge, New York Thursday, February 18, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Statype Voorters 444 North CapitolStreet i
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Cowrage l
1 800 336-6646
7892 02 01 18 l
~GJW/sw 1
the School Boards for the districts that are listed here.
2 So, if you want to just take a moment, if you 3
want to start at the top and go down and tell me yes, no.
I 4
don't really need names.
If you can, just in your own mind, 5
identify whether or not you know any of the School Board 6
members for any of those districts.
7 (The witness is looking at the document.)
8 A
To do it the easy way, it would be under the Port 9
Jefferson Union Free School District, all the Board 10 members.
We deal with them quite regularly.
11 Those are the only ones that I would say I really 12 know.
I know of other people who are on School Boards or on 13 School Board Associations, out I don't specifically know 14 them to say that we have discussed any kind of issues.
15 0
All right.
Speaking then of the School Board 16 members from Port Jefferson Ur4 ion Free School District, havo 17 you ever talked to any of these School Board members about 1
18 the Shoreham -- pardon me, the LILCO evacuation plan in 19 general?
20 A
No, I haven't.
21 0
Have you ever talked to members of the Port 22 Jefferson Union Free School District about the LERO or 1
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
o 7892 02 02 19 GJW/sw 1
the LILCO auxiliary school bus driver proposal?
2 A
No, I haven't.
3 Q
What documents have you reviewed to prepare 4
yourself for this deposition today?
5 A
The -- I don't know if they have names, formal 6
names.
But, there was a packet of documents that -- one was 7
the actual LERO plan I believe it had on the top there.
I 8
recognized the top of it.
And, the listing of the school 9
districts done by LILCO which showed how many children were 10 in each school, the number of buses, the additional buses 11 that would be required; a document f rom LILCO on the
(
12 procedures to 59 used by LERO drivers; and, I guess it was a l
13 syrtopsic -- I guess is the best word -- of the most recent 14 rulings in the most recent case on the adequacy of LILCO's 15 prior plan.
16 Q
Yoa say a synopsis of the most recent case.
Do 17 you happen -- let me start over.
i 18 Who provided you the documents that you just 19 referred to?
l l
20 A
They were provided by Mr. Lanpher.
l 21 Q
And, the synopsis you mentioned of the most 22 recent case, would that be the decision handed down recently l
/4CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
CS 0
ATTACHMENT 7 1
l
TRANSCRIF1 OF PROCEEDIXGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
. Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shcreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
/
DEPOSITION OF ANTHONY R.
ROSSI i
l Hauppauge, New York i
Thursday, February 18, 1988 l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotype w 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 l
(202) 347-3700 l
Nationwide Coverage 1
800 336-6646
7890 02 10 27 1
GJW/sw 1
Longwood is Tom Smith.
Miller Place is Gail 2
- Litsche, L-i-t-s-c-h-e.
3 Port Jeff is -- no, I don't know Port Jeff.
4 Comsewogue is Thomas Acero, A-c-e-r-o or "a. "
5 Patchogue-Medford is Frank Cappella.
South Manor 6
I believe is Shirley White.
7 Riverhead Central School District is Ed Doherty.
8 BOCES I, I believe that is Frank Perry.
BOCES II is Tony 9
Caamano.
10 The parochial schools fall into different 11 districts.
12 MR. HARLOW That will be fine.
We will stop 13 with BOCES.
14 BY 14R. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 15 0
Can I take it then you are not f amiliar or -- you 16 do not know the Directors of Transportation for 17 Shoreham-Wading River, Little Flower and Mt. Sinai?
18 A
Not that I can think of off the top.
14 0
And, you said you don't know the Director of 20 Transportation for Port Jefferson?
21 A
I don't.
22 0
Okay.
For those persons that you indicated that ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 7890 02 11 28 1
GJW/sw 1
you do know, for any of those, have you ever discussed 2
LILCO's school evacuation proposal, the proposal that is the 3
subject of this proceeding, not in the earlier proceeding?
4 A
We have discussed -- I did-discuss with some of 5
these people, as I said earlier, not in any great detail but 6
the fact that there was a revision to LILCO's old plan.
7 0
Have you ever talked to any school bus drivers 8
about driving buses during a Shoreham emergency?
9 A
Not recently.
10 0
When have you talked to bus drivers about driving 11 during a Shoreham emergency?
12 A
I mentioned I did a survey with District and 13 contract drivers for my prior testimony.
14 Q
And, that's the only time that you have talked to 15 school bus drivers about that issue?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
I'm going to hand you another form.
I'm not 18 going to have this marked as an exhibit.
19 MR. LANPHER:
I've seen it.
I would, as a 20 general matter, prcfer that we mark things so that it is 21 kept with the transcript.
22 But, if you don't have copies Joe can supply it ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
O 3
e 7890 02 12 29 1
GJW/sw I
later I think.
2 If you are going to only ask one simple question, 3
fine.
But, as a general matter, I would prefer to have 4
things marked.
But, I can't make copies easily for you -
I 5
either.
6 MR. HARLOWs Let me ask the question and maybe I 7
can determine if I want to mark it.
8 BY MR. HARLOWs (Continuing) 9 Q
Have you ever seen this form or a blank form 10 similar to it?
11 (The witness is looking at a document.)
12 A
Not that I recall.
13 MR. LANPHER:
Do you want to make clear what you 14 have shown him so that it is on the rccord?
r 15 MR. HARLOW:
To make it simplor, I fill mark this l
I 16 as Rossi Exhibit 2.
17 (A bus driver form, dated 4/30/86, is 18 marked as Rossi Deposition Exhibit 19 Number 2 for identification.)
20 BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 21 Q
What dccuments, Mr. Rossi, have you reviewed in 22 preparing for this deposition today?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3/7 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
,-._-.-._--.____.-,__m.,
__,,....__,._,_.,__.m-
e 4
ATTACilMENT 8 I
i
a TRANSCRH'1 OF PROCHKUINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the !!atter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF J.
TFOMAS SMITH l
i Hauppauge, New York Thursday, February 25, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
9ttwt?Pe Reporters i
l 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800 336-6646
e 8591 04 17 68
.GW/sw 1
(Educational Facilities Key, Appendix A, 2
Revision 9, Pages II-10 and II-10a, is 3
marked as Smith Deposition Exhibit 4
Number 3 for identification.)
5 BY MS. LEUGERS:
(Continuing) i 6 !
O And, I would like you to look over this document 7 !
and toll me if you've ever seen it before?
8 (The witness is looking at the document.)
l 9
A Yes, I have.
I 10 p Q
Was this document provided to you by counsel?
11 A
Yes, it was.
12 O
Have you -- rather than go schoc. district by 13 a school district, I would first like to ask you if you have 14 discussed the evacuation of schools during a radiological 15 emergency at Shoreham with any individuals at the school 16 districts listed on this exhibit?
17 (The witness is looking at the document.)
18 A
I can't really say that I have spoken to any 19 other administrator within these schools.
The only l
20 communication I can really -- I don't see Tony Rossi's 21 school district on here, which is Middle Country.
He and I l
22 have spoke about it.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
202 347 3700 Nationvnde Coverase 800 336-6646 l
i
--.~.
a
+
i 8591 05 01 69 GJW/sw 1
The only connection I can say between school 2
districts is that Suburbia Bus accommodates not only the 3
Longwood School District but the Miller Place School 4
District and the Port Jefferson School District.
And, I 5
spoke to the dispatcher who dispatches for all three school 6
districts about the feasibility of supplying buses for a 7
one-wave evacuation.
8 And, some of the logistics that were involved I 9
thought very, very strange, or somebody hadn't done their 10 homework.
Apparently, within the Longwood, Miller Place and 11 Port Jefferson School Districts, the total number of buses 12 involved is like 352 if my memory serves me right.
The 13 Suburbia Bus Company in that particular garage, which would 14 have to supply all these buses to these districts, only 15 have 130 buses.
16 And, a one-wave could not be accommodated no 17 matter what they did.
And, I thought that very peculiar 18 that they said that this -- you know, I'm just trying to fit 19 pieces together.
20 But, other than that I can't really say that I've 21 had any contact with anybody on this list in relation to the 22 purpose of the hearing.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3W6646
d 0
8591 05 02 70 GJW/sw 1
Q Have you in general talked about the feasibility 2
of evacuating schools during a Shoreham emergency with any 3
of the individuals at these school districts?
4 A
No, I can't say that I have.
5 Q
Now, today you have given your opinions about 6
what is wrong with LILCO's plan to evacuate the schools.
Is
(
7 that opinion that of your school district?
Or, is that the l
8 opinion of Suffolk County?
9 A
That is the opinion of my school district, 10 r.yself, and I believe very fervently Suffolk County.
11 0
Okay.
Is that -- do you represent that your 12 opinion is the opinions of the other school districts that 13 are on this list that I've given you as Exhibit 37 14 A
I really can't speak for the other school 15 districts.
But, my belief is that their opinion is the 16 same.
l 17 0
And, what do you base that opinion upon?
l 18 A
Certain Resolutions that have been posted in tho 19 past from the individual school districts like Mt. Sinai, 20 like Middle Country.
And, Miller Place I believe has just 21 joined us in our opinion.
(
22 That is what prompts me to believe that.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
e t
l ATTACliMENT 9
TIMN~SCRU'1 OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-)L-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (Emergency Planning)
Unit 1)
(School Bus Driver Issue)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF RICHARD N.
SUPRINA Hauppauge, New York Thursday, February 25, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotyt Reporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. %001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800-336 6646
a 8590 01 11 11 GJW/sw 1
are here.
I'm here to find out what he knows about it.
4 2
And, I understand the need for clarification that 3
we are on the same wavelength.
But, why don't we start with 4
that, then.
5 BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 6 0
Why don't you describe for me your understanding l
7 of what LILCO's proposal is as it concerns the evacuation of 8
school children?
l 9
A My understanding of the most recent plan is that 10 LILCO is attempting to obtain X number of buses and recruit 11 X number of drivers from various sources, mostly ongoing bus i
12 firms, leasing firms and also the school districts who own I
13 buses, and trying also to get drivers to do that, to drivs I
14 under emergency situations.
15 And, if drivers cannot be obtained from the I
16 normal sources and the normal people who do drive the buses I
17 that LILCO has said tnat thcy are going to train their own 18 personnel or other pirsonnel to come in and, if you will, 19 confiscate the school district-owned vehicles and drive s
20-those vehicles.
And, they are supposed to put our children 21 on those buses and take them to locations in Nassau County.
22 O
Thank you.
Given then your understanding of what I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M33M
8590 01 12 12 GJW/sw 1
I've been referring to as the auxiliary school bus driver 2
proposal or LILCO's school proposal, then if we could go 3
through this list and, if you could, tell me if you have had 4
any conversations in the last, say, six months up to this 5
point with the Superintendents of the districts that are 6
listed here, discussions about that proposal?
7 A
I can save you a lot of time rather than going 8
through this.
9 O
Sure.
i l
A The answer is no, not to the best of my 10 4
11 knowledge.
s 12 O
You've looked through the list and you have not 13 discussed with any of the Superintendents fot' any of the 14 i
school districts listed here the proposal for -- LILCO's 15 proposal as you've described to me?
16 (The witness is looking at the document.)
i 17 A
No.
18 0
Dr. Suprina, you say in the last six months you 19 have not had any discussions with anyone, any school 20 Superintendent on this list, the school districts listed.
l 21 A
About that particular plan.
22 O
Have you had discussions with Superintendents ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l M2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverne 400 336-66 4
.c s 8590 04 09 60 GW/sw 1
THE WITNESS:
Sure.
2 (Recess taken at 10:27 a.m.,
to reconvene at 3
10:32 a.m.,
this same day.)
4 BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 5 0
Doctor Suprina, I would just like to ask a couple 6
of questions about something you mentioned earlier.
You 7
mentioned you were aware of a survey that was taken a year 8
or two ago, a survey of school bus drivers?
9 A
I guess I don't know whether the term, "survey" 10 is correct.
Opinion poll.
I saw at one time a statement I 11 believe was discussed with bus drivers and that they signed 12 indicating that they would not participnte or would 13 participate, as the case may be.
14 To the best of my knowledge that was a couple of l
15 years ago.
16 0
You said you saw it.
How did you come to be 17 aware of the survey?
Where did you see it?
18 A
Somebody came into the office and showed me a 19 copy of the form, and again, ~ I don't know whether you would 20 classify it as a survey.
21 0
Do you know who conducted or arranged this 22 survey?
I ACE.FeoERAL REPORTERS INC.
- &.M7 3700 NadonWe Coverage 2 33 W 6
, - _...-.-~ -.
r-8590 04 10 61 GW/sw 1
A No, I don't.
2 O
Do you know who might know who conducted this 3
survey?
i 4
A LILCO probably would know.
Because I am sure 1
5 they have enough people looking around to try and find out j
6 who is doing things like that.
i 7
O Do you have a copy?
8 A
No, I don't.
9 O
Was this a one page form, a printed form?
I 10 A
To the best of my knowledge there was a statement 11 written on there and a place for people to sign.
That is l
12 from my recollection.
I 13 O
And, again, you don't recall who provided you 14 with this form?
15 A
I do not.
i 16 MR. HARLOW:
All right.
That is all the i
17
- questions I have for you.
I got you out by 11:00, well 18 before it, and I appreciate your being here.
l 19 THE WITNESS:
I appreciate that.
20 CROSS EXAMINATION l
l l
21 BY MR MILLER:
22 O
Dr. Suprina, these latest questions, the last ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
l l
- 02.}47 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-66 4 i
_. _ __ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - -. - _ __.