ML20213G219

Affidavit of Kj Letsche.* Forwards List of Testimony by Suffolk County Officials Re Inadequacies in Util Emergency Evacuation Plan.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20213G219
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/11/1987
From:	Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20213G123	List: ML20213G120 ML20213G172 ML20213G200 ML20213G219
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8705180189
Download: ML20213G219 (39)

Text

__

Attachment 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

i l AFFIDAVIT OF KARLA J. LETSCHE Karla J. Letsche, being under oath, hereby states as follows:

1. I am a member of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, the law firm which has been representing Suffolk County since early 1982 in

the Shoreham operating license proceedings before the NRC (Docket No. 50-322-OL) and in other Shoreham-related matters in other forums. I have been personally involved, as one of the counsel representing Suffolk County, in the litigation conducted before this Board, the OL-5 Licensing Board, the NRC Appeal Board, and the NRC, concerning LILCO's proposed emergency plan and the February 13, 1986 Shoreham Exercise, as well as in the other emergency plannlag-related proceedings discussed herein.

8705180189 B705141 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR

o t

2. Beginning in 1983, numerous officials of Suffolk County and the State of~New York have testified on behalf of the County and State in emergency planning proceedings before this Board in support of contentions which allege that: the LILCO Plan is

. Inadequate to protect the public health and safety; it is based on inaccurate, unrealistic, inappropriate, or flawed premises, assumptions, data, and analyses; and, for reasons in addition to LILCO's lack of-legal authority, the provisions of that Plan could not be implemented to provide reasonable assurance'that adequate protective measures could and would be taken by the public in the event of.a Shoreham accident. Identification of all such County and State officials who have testified in this proceeding, and a summary of their testimony with citations to the record, are contained in Exhibit A hereto. The County and State officials who appeared as witnesses testified in their official capacities, based upon their knowledge, background and experience, and their testimony sets forth the position of the s State and County that the LILCO Plan is seriously flawed and unworkable.

3. Many other expert witnesses have also testified in proceedings before this Board, setting forth and endorsing the position of New York State and Suffolk County, that the LILCO Plan is seriously flawed, that it is based on inaccurate, unrealistic, inappropriate or flawed premises, assumptions, data 1 and analyses and that it is. unworkable. Identification of such i

t

s witnesses who have testified as to the State and County position, and a summary of their testimony with citations to the record in this proceeding, are contained in Exhibit B hereto.

4. Richard C. Roberts, who at the time was Deputy Chief Inspector of the Suffolk County Police Department, submitted in this proceeding a sworn affidavit, dated September 25, 1984, in response to LILCO's August 6, 1984 Motion for Summary Disposition. That Affidavit explains in detail why LILCO's Plan cannot be implemented. A copy of that Affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

5. Officials of Suffolk County and the State of New York, as well as expert witnesses who have explained and endorsed the position of the State and County, have also testified on behalf of the County and State in proceedings before the OL-5 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, chaired by Judge Frye, concerning the 'N February 13, 1986 Shoreham Exercise and the results of that Exercise. Such testimony sets forth the position of these officials, witnesses and the State of New York and Suffolk County, that the Exercise revealed fundamental flaws in the LILCO Plan, and demonstrated that it could not and would not be implemented so as to. provide adequate protection to the public in a real Shoreham emergency. A list of witnesses in the Exercise proceeding and a summary of the'r testimony, with citations to the record, are contained in Exhibit D hereto.

6. Officials of Suffolk County have also testified before various subcommittees of the United States Congress concerning inadequacies in the LILCO Plan, its unworkability, and the fact that Suffolk County would not implement or rely upon the LILCO Plan in the event of a real Shoreham accident. Examples of such testimony are identified in Exhibit E hereto.

/

/ .W Karla J. Letsche V

t Sworn to and subscribed before me this }l day of May, 1987.

(

A 31Al$

Notary Public 0]

(

My Commission expires:

h m .

C ~

Exhibit A TESTIMONY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE OFFICIALS REGARDING LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN fEMERGENCY PLANNING HEARINGS) r Witness / Panel Position Testimony

1. Donald J. Dilworth Commissioner of Suffolk LILCO's Plan cannot be implemented j County Police Department because the personnel relied upon to

from April 5, 1977, to implement it will not respond as ex-

, September 13, 1983 pected by LILCO due to role conflict.

Dilworth, ff. Tr. 1213 et agg.

2. David Harris, M.D. Commissioner of Suffolk The LILCO Plan for evacuation of spe-County Department of Health cial facilities and handicapped persons Services living at home facilities cannot be be implemented because medical' person-i nel, health care professionals, and others relied upon for implementing such Plan provisions will not respond as ex-l pected by LILCO due to role conflict. ,

j Harris, ff. Tr. 1218 gi agg.

{ 3. Kenneth J. Regensburg Executive Officer, Suffolk a. LILCO's communications system and

! County Police Department the procedures in the LILCO Plan for notifying emergency response per-j Robert A. Snow Commanding Officer (Deputy sonnel are inadequate and will'not i Inspector) Communications provide prompt and reliable notifi-and Records Bureau, Suffolk cation. Regensberg, gt al., ff. Tr.

} County Police Department 4442, gi ggg.

i i

l

Witness / Panel Position Testimony Vincent R. Stile Police Officer, Communications b. LILCO's equipment and procedures for Technical Services Unit, communications among emergency re-Suffolk County Police Department sponse personnel are inadequate and will not provide reliable emergency

., communications. Regensberg, gt gl.r, ff. Tr. 6184, 31 ggg.

c. The LILCO Plan and procedures for notifying members of.the general public, special facilities, and boaters are inadequate and will not result in prompt notification of the public. Regensberg, Et al., ff.

Tr. 5416, gt Egg.

. 4. Joseph J. Monteith Inspector, Suffolk County a. LILCO's Plan cannot be implemented

Police Department because LILCO will be unable to mobilize the workers it relies upon

. Richard C. Roberts Inspector, faffolk County for such implementation in a timely Police Department manner. Thus, LILCO's emergency

response will be untimely and inade-l Phillip McGuire Commanding Officer, Special quate. Monteith, gi gl., ff. Tr.

Patrol Bureau, Suffolk County 7381, gi ggg.

j Police Department

b. LILCO's evacuation time estimates I

Michael J. Turano, Jr. Deputy Inspector, Patrol are inaccurate, based on unrealis-

! Division tic, inaccurate and flawed assump-

)

tions and data, and LILCO's proposed

! traffic control scheme, routings, Edwin J. Michel Executive Officer, (Captain), and strategies are unworkable.

Highway Patrol Bureau, Suffolk Roberts, gi gl., ff. Tr. 2260,

! County Police Department et Egg.

1 l

i

/

Witness / Panel Position Testimony

c. The LILCO Plan provisions pertaining to removal of roadway obstacles and dispensing the fuel to motorists could not be implemented, and would not be adequate in a Shoreham emer-'

gency. Monteith, gi gl., ff. Tr.

6868, gt agg.

5. Peter F. Cosgrove Deputy Inspector, Suffolk LILCO personnel are not trained to re-County Police Department, spond adequately to an emergency re-and Executive Director, sponse and the training program which Third Precinct is part of the LILCO Plan is inadequate to provide such training. Cosgrove and Fakler, ff. Tr. 8407, 11 agg.

John L. Fakler Commanding Officer of Recruit Training and Media Services, (Lieutenant), Suffolk County Police Department l 6. David Harris, M.D. Commissioner of Suffolk a. The LILCO Plan fails to set forth

! County Department of gaidelines or implementation pro-Health Services cedures for the protective actions of selective evacuation or selective Martin Mayer, M.D. Deputy Director of Public sheltering, which accordingly, can-Health, Suffolk County not be implemented under that Plan.

Harris and Mayer, ff. Tr. 9777, gt ggg.

b. LILCO does not have adequate agree-ments to assure transportation of special facilities residents from the EPZ during an evacuation; there-fore, the LILCO Plan provisions for special facility evacuations cannot be implemented.

/

Witness / Panel Position Testimony

c. LILCO's evacuation time estimates for evacuation of special facilities are invalid and are based on inaccu-rate and unrealistic assumptions and data. <

d. The provisions in the LILCO Plan for registration of handicapped persons and notification and evacuation of handicapped persons at home are in-adequate and would not result in reliable, appropriate, or sufficient identifications in notification of such individuals in an emergency.

Harris and Mayer, ff. Tr. 9574 tL EtG-

7. David T. Hartgen Director, Transportation LILCO's evacuation time estimates are Statistics and Analysis, invalid, and based on erroneous assump-New York State Department tions and data. Hartgen, gt al., ff.

of T.ansportation Tr. 3695 gt agg.

Richard D. Albertin Associate Transportation Analyst, Transit Division, New York State Department of Transportation Robert G. Knighton Associate Transportation Analyst, Transit Program and Evaluation Bureau, New York State Department of Transportation

/

Witness / Panel Position Testimony Foster J. Beach Supervisor, Regional Transportation Planning and Development, III, New York State Department of Transportation '

4 1 8. Thomas D. Gibbons Regional Highway Maintenance The New York State Department of Trans-i Engineer, III, New York State portation does not and cannot commit Department of Transportation that its personnel would operate snow

{ removal equipment during a radiological-1 emergency. Gibbons, ff. Tr. 7055,

_e_t agg.

9. Edwin J. Michel Executive Officer, (Captain), The provisions in the LILCO Plan for Highway Patrol Bureau, Suffolk evacuation of EPZ residents who do not County Police Department have access to automobiles are inade-quate and cannot be implemented as set forth in that Plan. Herr and Michel, ff. Tr. 8150, gt agg.

10. Richard D. Albertin Associate Transportation LILCO's Plan and procedures for a bus i Analyst, Transit Division, transportation system for evacuation of New York State Department EPZ residents are based on erroneous i of Transportation assumptions and data, are inadequate, and cannot be implemented as set forth

, William J. Acquario Bureau Director, Transit in the LILCO Plan. Acquario, gt al.,

Management Assistance ff. Tr. 8289, gi agg.

! Bureau, State Department j of Transportation 1

j Robert G. Knighton Associate Transportation

Analyst, Transit Program i and Evaluation Bureau, 4 New York State Department i of Transportation 4

i  :

4

-/

Witness / Panel Position Testimony

11. Richard C. Roberts Inspector, Suffolk County The LILCO Plan's provisions for noti-Police Department fying boaters in the Long Island Sound of a Shoreham emergency and necessary Donald A. Hoffman Sergeant, Marine Bureau, protective actions are inadequate, and Suffolk County Police will not assure prompt notification of' Department such boaters. Roberts, gi gl., ff.

Tr. 5522, gi ggg, James J.-Read Police Officer, Marine Bureau, Suffolk County Police Department j /

- - . - .. . . - . ~ . . .

Exhibit B~

I SUFFOLK COUNTY EXPERT WITNESSES BEFORE THE OL-3 LICENSING BOARD (NOT INCLUDING SUFFOLK COUNTY OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES _1 i

i j Witness /Pangl Position Testimony

1. Stephen Cole . Professor of Sociology, There is no assurance that there can be 1

State University of New York an adequate response to a Shoreham 2

at Stoneybrook; President, emergency because LILCO workers and Social Data Analysts, Inc. .other emergency workers will experience role conflict. Cole, ff. Tr. 1216, gi agg. Hundreds of thousands of individuals will' attempt

to evacuate in the event of a radiological emergency even though not advised to do so. Therefore, i LILCO's Plan vastly underestimates the j number of people who are likely to

evacuate making its Plan unworkable, j Cole, ff. Tr. 2792, gt agg.

2. Kai T. Erikson Professor of Sociology and LILCO workers and other emergency

! American Studies, Yale workers will experience role i University; Editor, Yale conflict in the event of a l Review radiological emergency at Shoreham.

Therefore, there can be no assurances of an adequate response. Erikson and l Johnson, ff. Tr. 1455, gt agg.

3. Fred C. Finlayson Principal Associate of F.C. A LILCO sheltering recommendation could

! Finlayson and Associates, not be implemented, thus LILCO's Plan Cerritos, California is inadequate. Finlayson, et al., ff.

Tr. 12,320, gt agg.

l /

Witness / Panel Position Testimony

4. Phillip B. Herr Associate Professor of City LILCO's evacuation time estimates are Planning, Massachusetts flawed in that they do not take into Institute of Technology, account certain factors which would Department of Urban Studies raise those estimates significantly.

Planning Herr, ff. Tr. 2,909, gt agg. LILCO's '

EPZ does not include certain areas of the population which must be included in the EPZ. Herr, ff. Tr. 8,666, gt agg.

5. George Jeffers Superintendent, Middle County There can be no adequate assurance that Central School District, Long the LILCO Plan can and will be Island, New York implemented because role conflict among school workers will reduce the number of Nick J. Muto Superintendent, Middle Island personnel available to implement Central School District, Long protective actions for school children.

Island Petrilak, ff. Tr. 3,087, gt agg.; Muto and Smith, ff. Tr. 3,087, gi ggg.;

Robert W. Petrilak Vice President, Mount Sinai Jeffers and Rossi, ff. Tr. 3,087, gt agg.

Union Free School District Protective actions for school children Board of Education, Long Island under the LILCO Plan cannot be implemented in a timely manner. Muto

. Anthony C. Rossi Transportation Director, Middle and Smith, ff. Tr. 11,001, gt sgg.;

Country Schools, Long Island Jeffers and Rossi, ff. Tr. 11,001, gt agg.; Petrilak, ff. Tr. 11,001, at agg.

6. James H. Johnson, Jr. Assistant Professor of Geography The TMI accident and research at the University of California conducted on Long Island demonstrate at Los Angeles that hundreds of thousands of people will attempt to evacuate from a Donald J. Ziegler Assistant Professor of Shoreham emergency, even if not Geography, Old Dominion advised to do so. Therefore, LILCO's University, Norfolk, Virginia Plan underestimates the number of people who would evacuate and its evacuation time estimates are too low. Ziegler and Johnson, ff. Tr.

/

e Witness / Panel Position Testimony 2,789, gt sea.

7. Michael Lipsky Professor, Political Science, LILCO's conflict of interest, and Massachusetts Institute of its low credibility, mean that Technology LILCO will be unable to respond in r an adequate and timely manner to a Arthur H. Purcell Executive Director, Resource Shoreham emergency and that the public Police Institute, will not respond appropriately to 1 Washington, D. C. LILCO management of a Shoreham emergency. Purcell, et al., ff. Tr.

j David J. Olson Professor and Chairman 10,727, gt ggg.

. Department of Political

. Science, University of j Washington, Seattle j 8. Gregory C. Minor Vice President, MHB Technical LILCO's Plan for recovery and reentry Associates, San Jose, is inadequate. Minor, ff. Tr. 15,384, California gt Egg.

9. Bruce William Pigozzi Assistant Professor, Geography, LILCO's evacuation time estimates are Michigan State University, faulty in that they are based on East Lansing inaccurate assumptions, thus LILCO's evacuation time estimates are far too low. Pigozzi, ff. Tr. 2,909, gi ggg.

r

10. Peter A. Polk Civil Engineer (Transportation LILCO's evacuation time estimates do Planning), Associate Vice not account for certain factors which President of PRC Engineering would significantly raise those estimates. In fact, PRC's evacuation time estimates demonstrate that it would take significantly longer to evacuate the i EPZ than LILCO estimates. Polk, ff. Tr.

2,909, gt agg.

i

/

Witness / Panel Position Testimony

11. Edward P. Radford Director, Center for LILCO's Plan is inadequate because Environmental Epidemiology, LILCO's brochure does not contain Graduate School of Public adequate information. Radford and Healtn, University of Saegert, ff. Tr. 14,105, 31 giq.

a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

12. Susan C. Saegert Associate Professor, LILCO's evacuation time estimates do not Environmental Psychology take into account driver behavior,-and Program, The Graduate School therefore are inaccurate. Saegert, ff.

and University Center of the Tr. 2,259, gt agg. LILCO's brochure is City University of New York inadequate. Radford and Saegert, ff.

Tr. 14,105, 31 ggg.

i

/ '

T Exhibit C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docke t No. 50-3 22-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD C. ROBERTS Richard C. Roberts, being duly sworn, does say under oath the following:

1. My name is Richard C. Roberts. I am a Deputy Chief

Inspector with the Suf folk County Police Department.

2. I am familiar with the LILCO Transition Plan, the radiological emergency response plan which LILCO proposes to implement in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.

I have appeared as a witness on behalf of Suffolk County in the ongoing Licensing Board proceeding concerning the adequacy of the LILCO Transition Plan.

1

3. Suffolk County Executive Peter Cohalan has stated that in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham,

"[t]he County could not implement a response to a Shoreham ac-cident because County law -- particularly Resolution Nos.

262-1982, 456-1982, and 111-1983 -- prohibits that." Statement of Suf folk County Executive Peter F. Cohalan Before the Gover-nor's Shoreham Commission, September 30, 1983, at 9 (attached hereto). In addition, County Executive Cohalan stated that there is no other government in a position to respond and that the State government does not have a prompt response capabili-ty. Id. at 10.

l 4. Assuming arguendo that there could be some sort of ad hoc response by Suffolk County personnel to a Shoreham radiological emergency. Such personnel would not have been trai'ned how to respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham.

Accordingly, it is my opinion, based on my experience in re-sponding to emergency situations, that their response would be inadequate and could not be counted on to provide effective l l

preparedness.

5. LILCO has asserted that under the LILCO Transition Plan, State and County personnel could communicate with LILCO and LERO using existing systems which are already installed.

s LILCO and LERO have no dedicated emergency planning communications system link with County offices. There is no plan and there are no procedures for Suffolk County personnel to communicate with LILCO or LERO using any communication sys-tem in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.

6. LILCO has stated that space exists at the Emergency i Operations Facility, the Emergency Operations Center, and the Emergency News Center for use by State and County officials.

As noted by County Executive Cohalan, the County could not im-plement a response to a Shoreham emergency and the State has no prompt response capability. See Cohalan Statement attached hereto.

7. LILCO has stated that the Transition Plan provides for the incorporation of the County Executive or his designated representative in responding to an emergency should that offi- *s l cial choose to participate. As noted in the attached statement of County Executive Cohalan, "[t]he County could not implement a response to a Shoreham accident because County law -- partic-f ularly Resolution Nos. 262-1982, 456-1982, and 111-1983 --

prohibits that."

8. LILCO has stated that the LERO Director of Local Re-sponse is to take into account in making any protective action l

_ . - ~ . . _ _ . , . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ - , , , . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - _. _. . _ _ . _ , - _ _ _ _ . , _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

recommendations advice that may be received from local and i State government officials. As noted in the attached statement of County Executive Cohalan, "[t]he County could not implement

a response to a shoreham accident because County law -- partic-ularly Resolution Nos. 262-1982, 456-1982, and 111-1983 --

prohibits that."

9. LILCO has stated that its LERO traffic guides are trained to assist police should the police participate in an emergency. LILCO also has asserted that the Transition Plan provides for the incorporation by traffic guides trained under the Plan of any police assistance that is offered during an emergency. As noted in County Executive Cohalan's attached statement, the County could not respond. Assuming arguendo i

that Suf folk County's police did participate in response to an emergency, they would not rely upon the assistance or advice of

%s LERO traffic guides whom they consider inexperienced and who would be lacking in essential training. Rober ts , e t al . , f f .

Tr. 2200, at 39-44.

10. LILCO also has asserted that traffic guides are trained to explain to the police the situation existing at the time of an emergency, to turn over posts for facilitating traf-fic to the police, and to remain as assistants if necessary in 4

1 I

i 9

- ,---r~ , , . . - - - --,-.---,e.,,-.-.,.%.--,-,.--sm-=.-r -

,--.,y., ~9 ---.---m. --,m-w-----,ew-.-ew--3-+w rw--w - --

m coordinating the evacuation effort. To repeat, County law bars the County from implementing any response to a Shoreham emer-gency. See Cohalan Statement attached hereto. Assuming arguendo that the police would respond to a Shoreham emergency, the police would not rely on inexperienced and inadequately trained LERO traf fic guides for assessment or other purposes.

11. LILCO has asserted that if the State of New York and Suf folk County participate in an emergency response, the LERO organization will coordinate its activities with State and i

County officials. The attached Cohalan statement states that the County could not implement a response and the State has no 4

resources for a prompt response. See Cohalan Statement at 9-10.

12. LILCO has asserted that it could implement an uncontrolled evacuation, using no traffic guides, signs, cones, *s channelization or other traffic control devices, with an in-crease of evacuation times of less than one hour 35 minutes in normal conditions and one hour 55 minutes in inclement weather.

I disagree. LERO does not have the capacity to implement any kind of effective evacuation of the EPZ or portions thereof due to its lack of experience in emergency evacuation operations.

The evacuation time estimates proposed by LILCO are far too

low, being based on unrealistic assumptions, particularly regarding the likely congestion on the limited Suffolk County road network. Pigozzi, f f. Tr. 2909 (entire testimony and es-pecially pages 37-39); Herr , f f. Tr. 2909, at 8-10; Polk, f f.

Tr . 2909, at 3-17; Saeger t, f f. Tr. 2259, at 8-10; Roberts, et al., f f. Tr. 2260, at 8 - conclusion; Hartgen, et al., ff. Tr.

3695, a t 5-19. Further, the County's witnesses have specifi-cally contested the accuracy of LILCO's so-called

" uncontrolled" time estimates. Pigozzi, ff. Tr. 2909, at

! 37-38.

13. In my opinion, for an " uncontrolled" evacuation to have any potential to succeed, an emergency response organiza-tion would need to have traf fic guides, tow trucks, etc. in place on evacuation routes during the evacuation effort so that they could respond to developing situations as the need arose.

This was a concept of " uncontrolled" evacuation that the SCPD suggested during the County's planning effort. Thus, the evac-uation effort would be closely supported by trained and capable response personnel to assist evacuees if, for istance, severe congestion developed at a particular location. LILCO's concept of an uncontrolled evacuation is drastically dif ferent and com-pletely inadequate since LERO would have no capability for any response to the needs of the evacuating public when traf fic congestion and similar events occurred during an emergency.

14. LILCO suggests that its evacuation time estimates, including those for an uncontrolled evacuation, are reasonable when co.npared to time estimates at other nuclear power plant sites and that they meet the accuracy standards of NUREG-0654.

With respect to the accuracy assertion, I dispute that LILCO's time estimates are accurate. Her r , f f . Tr . 290 9; Polk , f f.

2909; Pigozzi, f f. Tr. 2909; Roberts, et al., f f. Tr. 2260.

Given the inaccuracy of the LILCO estimates, there is no basis to compare these estimates with those at other nuclear power plants.

15. LILCO asserts that the controlled evacuation plan used in the LILCO Transition Plan could be modified to elimi-nate traffic guidance completely, with a resulting increase in evacuation time estimates of about 1-1/2 hours. I disagree.

If there were no traf fic guides and if LILCO/LERO were in charge of the evacuation effort, it is my opinion that chaotic conditions would result. This is because LILCO does not have the institutional capabilities or experience to implement an adequate response to a radiological emergency, and the public will realize this and will react accordingly. If chaos resulted, the evacuation would take considerably longer. Fur-ther, without having the capability and authority to institute traf fic control methods, there would be no ef fective means to

s e

respond to the chaos that would result. This would mean that evacuees would be stranded in traffic and likely be exposed to health threatening radiation.

16. In the event of an evacuation of all or portions of the EPZ, whether under controlled or uncontrolled conditions, LILCO would need to have the capability to institute effective l traffic control measures in order to have adequate prepared-ness. During the course of an emergency, there likely will be severe traffic congestion and also accidents. Unless the capa-

! bility exists to deal ef fectively with such traf fic contingencies, it is my opinion that no ef fective preparedness can exist.

17. The evacuation shadow phenomenon is expected to re-oult in a large number of voluntary evacuees in the event of a j Shoreham emergency. In order to cope with the traffic conges- **

! tion caused by these evacuees (who will be in addition to the

100,000 - 150,000 evacuees from within the EPZ), there must be a capability to deal with the traffic control problems which are certain to ensue, including traffic jams, traffic going the i

wrong way, and roadway impediments. LILCO has inadequately considered the evacuation shadow phenomenon. Polk, ff. Tr.

! 2909, a t 7-10; Pigozzi, f f. Tr. 2909, a t 45-4 9.

i I

. l

18. An uncontrolled evacuation would not result in ade-quate response under the LILCO Plan. An essential attribute of adequate preparecness to respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham is the capability to implement rapid and effective ac-tions to assist persons attempting to leave the EPI. Such ca-

< pability is essential because the precise way an emergency may develop cannot be predicted in advance. Thus, for example, if a serious traf fic tie-up occurs, it is essential that there be a capability to assist in alleviation of the resulting conges-tion. If LILCO lacks legal authority to implement the traffic l and security-related functions contested in contentions 1-4, 9, and 10, then there will exist no capability to take necessary actions to assist persons ordered to leave the EPZ.

19. I have reviewed the LILCO emergency plan and conclude that LERO employees, chiefly the traf fic guides, will in fact i will be directing traffic. One does not have to " compel" or

" require" people to move in a particular direction in order to be directing traffic. The traf fic guides, using hand signals 4 and other directional devices, including parked vehicles l .

i blocking lanes, will be directing and attempting to af fect the driving patterns of Suf folk County residents. This constitutes traffic direction in my opinion. See Tr. 3468-69 (Urbanik) {

(traf fic strategy to block lanes of the LIE with vehicles to I

s create congestion upstream, to attempt to preclude congestion down st r eam) .

20. Under LILCO's plan, traffic guides are to be stationed at key intersections to facilitate the movement of traf fic by using hand and arm signals, traf fic cones, parked vehicles and flashing lights and thus to discourage travel in certain directions. LILCO has asserted that traffic will not be restricted from traveling in a particular direction. Howev-er, in my experience as a police of ficer, the stationing of traf fic guides using hand and arm signals and other devices (such as parked vehicles and flashing lights) will restrict t

traf fic from traveling in particular directions and will con-stitute the direction of traf fic, something which I, as a po-lice of ficer, do not believe LILCO is permitted to do.

21. The LILCO assumption regarding the likely number of '%~

i accidents during an evacuation is too low. Herr, ff. Tr. 2909, at 39-41.

22. LILCO has asserted that it will not force anyone to

turn in a particular direction should they choose not to do so.

] However, LILCO intends to convert a two mile stretch of at least one two-way road to a one-way road. LILCO Transition Plan, Appendix A, Table XIII. LILCO will also be using channeling techniques and concurrent continuous flow treatment, methods of traffic control which will likely require drivers to go in particular directions. Thus, LILCO traffic guides will be forcing persons to turn in a particular direction. In addi-tion, under LILCO's Plan, LILCO traffic guides will use cones, hand signels, arm movements, parked vehicles and flashing lights to encourage the movement of traffic out of the EPZ.

Such actions, taken by persons standing in or next to the road-way, will constitute the direction of traffic.

23. LILCO has asserted that the controlled evacuation contemplated under the LILCO Plan results in an evacuation time estimate of four hours and 55 minutes for evacuation of the en-tire 10-mile EPZ in summer and good weather and six hours in inclement weather. The time estimate is substantially inaccu-rate, for reasons that are described in the expert testimony of Suf folk County and New York State Department of Transportation witnesses. See also 1 12, supra for citations.

24. LILCO has stated that whether a controlled or uncontrolled evacuation time estimate is used as the basis for protective action recommendations, LILCO will make the choice between evacuation and sheltering based on the action that af-fords the greatest dose savings. Thic may be true, but theso

s recommendations will be based on a fundamentally inaccurate propositions namely that LILCO can implement either a controlled or uncontrolled evacuation. LILCo does not have that capability. LILCO may believe that it has that capability and thus recommend evacuation, resulting in people being stranded in traf fic and potentially exposed to health threaten-ing radiation. See Pigossi, f f. Tr . 2909, at 7-8.

25. LILCO has stated that trail blazer signs are located along every major road in the EP3. In fact, these signs have not been located along any major road in the EP1.

26. LILCO has suggested that the evacuation time esti-mates for an uncontrolled evacuation would not be altered if there are no trail biaser signs. I disagree. Based on my ex-perience and knowledge of the roads in Suffolk County, I **

believe that signs providing clear guidance in an evacuation scenario would be helpful to drivers attempting to escape from the EP2. If there were no trail blazer signs, evacuation times would increase.

27. LILCO has asserted that the State of Connecticut has agreed to implement protective action recommendations in its State when notified by LILCO of an emergency at Shoreham.

I

However, Connecticut has not agreed to implement the LILCO Plan. Cordaro and Renz, f f. Tr.13,858; Tr.13,876-77 (Rens);

Tr. 13,877, 13,878 (Cordaro).

28. LILCO has asserted that protective action recommenda-tions for the 50-mile EP1 need not be made immediately follow-ing the declaration of an emergency. While this may be true in some instances, a fast developing emergency may require protec-tive actions in close-in portions of the 50-mile EP1 relatively soon after declaration of an emergency.

29. LILCO has stated that following an emergency at a nu-clear plant, many governmental entities will step forward to study the situation and to determine what actions should be taken to reenter the area af fected and to recover it if neces-r i

j sary. This may be the general rule, but there is no evidence that either the State of New York or Suf folk County would in *w

.l fact undertake recovery and reentry actions as suggested by LI LCO. Fur ther, Executive Cohalan has stated that the County l

could not implement a response. See attached Cohalan State-i ment.

30. LILCO has asserted that dispensing fuel from tank trucks is not required under the NRC emergency planning regula-tions or even suggested by NUREG-0654. NUREG-0654, Section i

j 1

a

II.J.10.K, requires that LILCO have a capability to remove road obstacles. If fuel trucks were not available to dispense fuel to cars running out of gas, these cars would be obstacles and thus there would not be compliance with NUREG-0654. Further, it is not enough just to push the disabled cars to the side of the road as LILCO has suggested. In my experience as a police of ficer, even cars which are pushed to the side of the road after an accident or after suffering a breakdown or running out of gas do constitute road obstacles, causing people to gawk and slow down and likely to cause traf fic jams and sometimes acci-dents as well. Tr. 3418-19 (Michel). It is estimated that 277 cars will run out of gas in a 10 mile EPZ evacuation; the pres-ence of so many disabled cars will impede the evacuation.

Polk, ff. Tr. 2909, at 13-17. See also Roberts, et al., ff.

Tr. 2260, at 55-59 (discussing vehicle breakdowns and effects N

on traf fic movement) .

31. LILCO has stated that its employees will be assigned to the EPZ perimeter to discourage people from entering the EPZ through the use of hand and arm movements and traffic cones.

Such action, in my opinion as a police of ficer, constitutes the direction of traf fic for which LILCO lacks legal authority.

Further, if adequate EPZ control is not exercised, additional congestion will result and evacuation times will be increased.

Rober ts, e t al . , f f . Tr . 2260, at 6 7.

i

i I I l

32. LILCO has stated that its employees will be channel-  !

ing traf fic and the stream of people who may be arriving at re-J location centers for assistance. In my opinion as a police of-I j ficer, such channeling of traffic constitutes the direction of i traf fic and LILCO is not authorized to perform such functions.

1 i i i

~ ' ' L W' . .o **

Richard C. Roberts p,

Sworn to this E I day of September, 1984. l 1

l l 2 0,' (' 'o e. 0 , ..

• w a.s t l Notary Public l C .yI, ,,, / , i C .. t r . / /,

0..t 9 y

" 'f WC 4 K ?

'io...,

ta,s,e> ?.' .no<L 10,f1G4 1

f

t f

i.

f 4  !,

t

- 15 -

1 1  :

f 1

Exhibit D TESTIMONY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY WITNESSES (EXERCISE PROCEEDING)

Witness Position Testimony

1. David Harris, M.D. Commissioner, Suffolk County The Exercise revealed that the LILCO Plan Depart =ent of Health Services fails to provide adequately or appropri-ately for the registration, monitoring Martin Mayer, M.D. Deputy Director, Suffolk County and decontamination of evacuees from Department of Health Services special facilities; the Exercise also revealed that under the LILCO Plan, there can be no assurance that all evacuees arriving at reception centers can be mon-itored within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> as required by i

NUREG 0654 Section 11.J.12. Harris and i Mayer, f f. OL-5 Tr. 2992, et seq.

2. Richard C. Roberts Assistant Chief Inspector, The Exercise demonstrated that the LILCO Suffolk County Police Department Plan is flawed in failing to provide an ability to remove impediments from evacu-Richard Dorser Inspector, Suffolk County ation routes until long after an evacua-Police Department tion had begun, meaning that an evacuation as set forth in the LILCO Plan cannot be Phillip McGuire Inspector and Chief Executive implemented. Roberts, et al., ff. OL-5 Officer of the Office of the Tr. 1134, et seq.

Chief Inspector, Suffolk County Police Department Edwin J. Michel Deputy Inspector and Co=manding Of ficer of the Communications and Records Bureau, Suffolk County Police Department r

i /

Testimony Witness / Panel Position

3. Richard C. Roberts Assistant Chief Inspector, The Exercise revealed that the LILCO Plan Suffolk County Police Department is fundanentally defective because its provisions for prompt notification to the Edwin J. stichel Deputy Inspector and Commanding public of a siren failure cannot be imple-Officer of the Communications mented. Roberts, et al., ff. OL-5 <

and Records Bureau, Suffolk Tr. 1495, e,t_ seg.

County Police Department

4. Richard C. Roberts Assistant Chief Inspector, The Exercise demonstrated that under the Suffolk County Police Department LILCO Plan, Traffic Guides cannot and will not be mobilized in time to be able to im-Richard Dormer Inspector, Suffolk County plement the traffic control strategies and Police Department evacuation routing which are the bases for the Plan's evacuation time estimates.

Phillip McGuire Inspector and Chief Executive Roberts, et al., ff. OL-5 Tr. 2180, Of ficer of the Office of the e_t_ seq.

Chief Inspector, Suffolk County Police Depart =ent Edwin J. Michel Deputy Inspector and emeanding Officer of the Communications and Records Bureau, Suffolk County Police Department

5. Peter F. Cosgrove Deputy Inspector and Commanding LILCO's Exercise demonstrated that LILCO's Officer of the Personnel B.areau, training program is inadequate and that Suffolk County Police Department the LILCO Plan cannot be effectively

, implemented by personnel trained according John W. Streeter, Jr. Lieutenant and Executive Officer to the LILCO Plan. (Testimony not yet of the Suffolk County Police admitted into the OL-5 record.)

Academy, Suffolk County Police Department l

l l

l l

/

Exhibit E ,

~.

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS BY SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE OFFICIALS REGARDING LILCO'S ENERGENCY PLAN Witness Position Testimony Michael A. LcGrande Current Suffolk County Executive Because the LILCO Plan is unworkable and a threat to the public's safety, Suffolk County would never use it in the event of an emergency. (Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States House of Representatives, April 28, 1987).

l Wayne Prospect Chairman, Energy and Environment The County has resolved not to adopt or t'n==ittee, Suffolk County implement an energency plan. LILCO's Plan Legislature is a usurpation of the County's police powers. (Before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, May 7, 1987)

Peter F. Cohalan Former Suffolk County Executive The LILCO Plan is a threat to the safety of Suffolk County's citizens. Attach-ments include a 49-page sn==ary of the County's findings supporting its conclu-i sion that no plan will be adopted or l implemented. (Before the House Subcom-l sittee on Energy and the Environment, 1 May 17, 1984) l The County will not adopt a radiological emergency response plan for Shoreham be-cause no such plan can be successfully l implemented. (Before the Subcommittee on l Oversight and Investigation, Interior and l Insular Affairs Committee, United States House of Representatives, April 18, 1983).

l l

i

/

• Attachment 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board >

In the Matter of )1

' LONG !$ LAND LIGHTING COMPANY lll Docket No. 50 322-0L-3 1 (Imergency Planning)

($horeham hcInr Power 1 Station, Unit 1) h 1

AFFIDAVlf of JM_t3 D. PAP!LE James D. Papile, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. I am the Ofrector of the State of New York's Radiological Emergency Preparedness Woup (REPG). REPG, under the auspices of the State of New s

York's Disaster Preparedness Comission is responsible for emergency planning and preparedness for radiological emergencies pertaining to commercial nuclear power plants.

f. It is my understanding that LILCO's Second Renewed Motion for Sumary Disposition of the Legal Authority !ssues (Contentions EP 1 10)

(Hotion) notes the existence of a generic State radiological emergency response plan and seeks to infer from this fact that the State is prepared and able to respond adequately to a Shoreham emergency. LILCO's attempted inference is wrong.

l 1- ,

g

3. It is true that a generic state plan exists. However, detailed site specific addenda which exist for each plant located in New York State excest Shoreham are an integral part of that plan. The site specific addenda provide the details, procetres, and specific data and information necessary to permit the State to respond as equired to the needs of a particular site, within both the 10 mile and 50411e planning mones. 1he $ tate could not l respond adequately to a shoreham emergency in the absence of a detailed shoreham epecific off site plan appended to the state generic plan, without the training of State personnel concerning those specifics, and without the evaluation of State personnel during exercises and drills. Since the state plan lacks a shoreham specific off site plan, REPG cannot assure that a fully integrated, coordinated and effective State and local response to a Shoreham emergency could be implemented.

4. It is my understanding that LILC0's Motion contends that oral autherfsation to sound the strens or to take other action can be readily  %

obtained from the State. The bases for LILC0's contention are that the Radiological Faergency Comunications System (REC $) lines connect Shoreham and LtR0 tot a) REPG in Albanyl b) the State Police in Albany c) the state t0C in Albany d) the State toergency Management Office (SEM0) district office in Poughkeepsie ($Dio is the current name for what LILC0 refers to as the Office of Disaster Preparedness).

.g.

However, none of these four RECS lines are capable of functioning.

First, there is no RECS line that connects Shoreham and LERO to REPG because REPG's offices have changed locations and the Shoreham REC $ line has repained in the same place. This Shoreham REC $ line terminates in an office that has no role whatsoever in radio *.ogical emergency preparedness and is miles away from REPG's current location. In addition, the wires for this line are not operational in any event. Second, there is no RECS line that connects Shoreham and LERO to the State Police Comunications Center in Mbany because the $ tate Police's Communications Center has changed locations and the Shorehtm RECS line has remained in the same place. This Shoreham RECS line also terminates in an office that has no role in radiological emergency preparedness and the wires are not operational. Third, there is no RECS line that connects Shoreham and LERO to the State E0C in Albany and SEM0 district office in Poughkeepsie because the wires are not operational. ben if the wires were operational, these two offices are only staffed during ordfrary businesshours. Thus, LILC0 cannot rely on the Shcreham RECS lines to seek N oral authorisation from the State to sound the sirens or to take any other action.

6. Additionally, it is my understanding that LILCO maintains that oral authorization to sound the strens or to take other action can be readily obtained by using back up commercial telephones, if necessary. However, reliance by LILC0 upon back up comercial telephones would be misplaced, unless, among other things, verification and authentication procedures had been adopted. No such verification and authentication procedures exist.

3

6. It is my understanding that the LILCO Motion also argues that certain State employees have become " familiar" with LILCO's Plan as a result of the litigation in this proceeding. LILC0 suggests that such " familiarity" means that the State could implement or work with LILCO to implement LILCO's Plan. It is true that certain individual members of REPG have reviewed portions of the LILC0 Plan for purposes of testifying before this Board and the OL-5 Board regarding certain flaws in the Plan and in LILC0's exercise of that Plan. Such review has been limited, however, to the extent necessary to provide truthful and accurate testimony. Most of REPG's members have no knowledge of the LILC0 P1an as it exists today or as it existed at the time of the Shoreham exercise. To my knowledge, no State employee or official is sufficiently familiar with LILC0's i Plan to implement all or any portion of it, with or without LILC0 assistance.

Nor have any 5 tate personnel been drilled, trained, or evaluated in exercises regarding the LILC0 Plan, which would be absolutely essential for a successful response to a Shoreham emergency.

7. I understand that the LILCO Motion states further that the State has seven controlled copies of the LILC0 Plan. Four recipients of those copies are

• attorneys who are using the Plan in connection with the $ tate's litigation efforts. One recipient is the State's equivalent of the NRC's public document room. REPG and other State agencies that have substantive response roles do not have anything more than scattered remnants of out of date transmittals from LILCO. Thus REPG and key State agencies are not sufficiently familiar with the LILCO Plan to implement all or any portion of it, with or without LILCO's ass istance. ,

( s ., _

s D. Phpfle '

$ worn to before me thi N' as E"

g ,

Nei.T@e.'s@*W

• "U..w aryrusC(/ c.w.m.TM,=Ihltt "

.m1 4

oxxttte b- Uit!HC 17 MAY 14 P2:04 May 11, lCE W : .e,g c ,, ,

POL,MLieNe  ;[pggy 3 RANCH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the ANSWER OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON TO "LILCO'S SECOND RENEWED MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF THE ' LEGAL AUTHORITY' ISSUES (CONTENTIONS EP l-10)" have been served on the following this'llth day of May, 1987 by United States mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.

Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman Joel Blau, Esq. '%s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Utility Intervention U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite Number 1020 Albany, New York 12210 Dr. Jerry R. Kline William R. Cumming, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. Perry, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 "C" Street, S.W.

Room Number 840 Washington, D.C. 20472

s 4

Mr. Frederick J. Shon Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C. 20555 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.*

Clerk Hunton and Williams Suffolk County Legislature Post Office Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Stree:

North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

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

Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Hon. Michael A. LoGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, Third Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room Number 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider *s 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite "K" Post Office Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

Suffolk County Attorney Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

Bldg. 158, North County Complex Special Counsel to the Veterans Memorial Highway Governor of the State Hauppauge, New York 11788 of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Agency Building Two Washington, D. C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223

o d

David A. Brownlee, Esq. Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick and Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 Cffristophet M. KcMurray KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 "M" Street, N. W.

South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D. C. 20036-5891

• Via Federal Express May 11, 1987 I

s