ML20236N828
| ML20236N828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1987 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4822 OL-3, NUDOCS 8711170023 | |
| Download: ML20236N828 (9) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,,
- .1< J
. g' + i ,g Ti 00CKETED 1 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N UCLEAR. REGULATORY :COMMISSIO N. '87 IEN 13! P3:42 BEFORE TH'E ' ATOMICL SAFETY AND-LICENSING BOARDf0C(E bd G BRANCH. in the'. Matter of- -). t
- )
L LONGilSLANDL LlGHTING COMPANY' ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) L(Emergency Planning) . Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ' ) ( ) Unit 1)- - NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LILCO'S-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION-25.C (" ROLE CONFLICT" OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVEP,5) 1. ' INTRODUCTION On ' October 22,~ 1987 LILCO filed a Mo' tion for' Summary Disposition of, Contention' 25.C- (" Motion") concerning potential role conflict of school bus . drivers ' in the 'e' vent of an - accident at Shore'am. ' This -issue was h - remanded ~ by the. Appeal. Board on the groundsz that the. record did ' not ~' provide a sufficient basis to find ' reasonable.~ assurance that-an adequate l number of bus drivers wouldl be available to evacuate -school children. S .i
- In the Partial sinitial Decision on Emergency Planning, '21 NRC 644,
.'675,- the Licensing Board considered the evidence of role conflict on the l l part of. school bus' drivers for the several school districts within the - 1 Shoreham EPZ. While the Board considered the September 1982 survey of school bus -drivers offered by-Interveners, the Board found it to have 'little predictive value. Id.. at 676. Moreover, the Board concluded that, 1/ Long island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135,152-154 (1986). j 1 8711170023 871113 'l PDR-ADOCK 05000322 1 G PDR 1
s.. s@ t y 59: g even assuming the. survey's predictive 'value, It ' did "not suggest a massive defection." M. The Board found that role conflict among school bus drivers', ~ as well as. other emergency workers,. would not be a significant problem at Shoreham. g.at679. On appeal, ethe Appeal Board viewed the survey of school bus drivers ' as showing' "that. significant role conflict might occur." ALAD-832, supra, 23 NRC at 152. It found "no evidence" that a surplus of drivers. would likely be available to compensate for "any abandonment caused by' role conflict of the dimensions euggested by the drivers survey." [ Footnote omitted] M. In addition, the Appeal Board found that the Board's exclusion of a survey of volunteer firemen was erroneous, because '.the Board could have drawn inferences from the l excluded survey -- albeit adverse to LILCO's position -- concerning the expected conduct of school bus drivers. M. at 153. LILCO's October 22, 1987 Motion relles en several grounds. First, it is argued that admission of the survey of volunteer firemen would not change the outcome of the case and that it differs little from the survey of school bus drivers that was considered by the Board. Motion at 6. The Motion points out that data from the two surveys is quite consistent and the firemen _ survey adds no useful information to the bus driver i survey, M. at 7. 1 i Second, the Motion, citing the Appeal Board's reliance on FEMA testimony in making its determination that potential role conflict for school teachers would not be significant, argues that FEMA's testimony regarding f bus drivers also should be dispositive regarding role conflict for this group. M.at9,10. i u--__._--__
y 't' 4 .s -{ H ' Third,. the' Motion largueslthat,' given the Licensing Board's prev.lous. findi.ng that ' opinion polls : 'are ' poor predictors '.of beriavior in an t . emergency, Lthe' survey. cf firemen would have had little impact.on the- ~ Board's previous finding 'regarding bus. drivers. Id. at 11. Finally, LILCO. argues that. summary ' disposition, should be granted based on its Lcommitment to' evacuate all public school children in a single wave,using 562 school bus drivers. Id,. at 12. Although LILCO argues that ' there' is basis.- for expecting L regular school bus drivers -(numbering ~ at least :340) to be available, id. at.14, LILCO presents a' plan.to recruit, l train,: license, compensate' and. assign to bus yards auxiliary bus drivers to assure that. the number :of drivers needed for a single wave school e' acuation will be available. ,1,d. at :15-17. v 2/ For the reasons. stated below, ' the Motion should be granted. 11. DISCUSSION a ....A. 'The Firemen Survey As LILCO argues,. the results 'of.the firemen survey are quite similar to "those ~ of the survey of school bus drivers. As such, the firemen a... survey only adds marginally to the substantial record already developed y ~ on the issue of role conflict, and by itself does not warrant findings not otherwise. supported by the more directly probative survey of how bus -- 2 / It - should : be noted, however, that while the narrow issue of " role ~ ~ conflict"1 for bus drivers ' may be resolved here, the closely related l Issue of availability of buses for these drivers is still not. resolved, l and summary disposition of " role conflict" does not change the - Licensing Board's finding of lack of reasonable assurance with regard to' the evacuation of school children, absent some further demonstration that buses will be available for the drivers. See, 21 NRC 644, 872-874. T
\\. ) s. 4 w drivers would respond in the event of 'an emergency. The survey of bus drivers'.'that was considered by the Board showed ' that 24% would report 1 to work, ' 4% would first check on their family and then report to ' work, 69% would first make> sure their families were out of the evacuation zone, and 3% would immediately leave the' zone.- 21 NRC 644, 675 (1985). The excluded testimony reveals that of 291 firemen ' interviewed, 55% j ') 'would attempt to report to. work relatively quickly, 36% would look after the safety of their family in such a way'as to prevent reporting to duty quickly,.1% would immediately leave the zone, and 8% did not know what l they might do. See Motion at 7. N The testimony goes on to state that ~ i the survey revealed that most of the firemen would want to help in an emergency, but that they also feel a strong sense of obilgation to their families. These results lead to the conclusion that at least a sign!ficant minority of firemen would resolve this conflict by attending to the needs of their families rather than reporting to duty. Cole, ff. Tr.1213 at 15. Hence, while the results of the two surveys are fairly consistent, . comparing the two shows that people normally assigned emergency response roles (firemen as opposed to bus drivers) would have a slightly higher immediate response rate. This accords with the FEMA testimony in this proceeding, in which FEMA pointed out that it has generally found that those who serve 2.s emergency workers on a regular basis (police, 3/ Both surveys asked whether responders would first assure that their ~ families were safe. However, firemen were asked the follow-up question, how they would look after their family's safety, with some saying they would simply call home and give instructions, while others stated they would drive their families out of the EPZ. Compare, Cole, ff. Tr.1216 at 6-7, and 12-14. j i i i l d I
j p L, I l -fire, traffiq control) require less training and are more likely to respond 1 to all types,of emergencies. Tr. ~ 2159 (McIntire). l 1 Certainly there is' nothing in the results of the survey of firemen to suggest 'c conclusion with respect to the likelihood;of a massive defection different from that reached by the Board regarding the bus driver i survey. Only 1% -(in the case of firemen) said they would immediately leave the evacuation zone. See, 21 NRC 644, 676 (1985). 1 B. LILCO's Plan to Recruit and Train Additional Bus Drivers LILCO maintains that it e>'pects bus drivers would do their jobs in an emergency because they e'e 'amiliar with the job and would receive training and compensation. Motion at 14.. And, indeed, FEMA testified that providing training and compensation for bus drivers was a factor in reso'ving role conflict for bus drivers at Indian Point. Tr. 2175 (McIntire). However, LILCO does not provide. any empirical evidence to show that such training and compensation would assure an adequate supply of drivers, if one accepts the weight given the bus driver survey by the Appeal Board, the provision of training and compensation, by itself, does not, on its face at least, resolve doubts raised by the survey. However, rather than rely exclusively on the non-LERO bus drivers, LILCO has set forth in its Motion and supporting affidavits a detailed scheme for assuring that there are sufficient numbers of LILCO employees available and prepared to fill the ranks of needed bus drivers. Motion at 15. LERO will recruit, train, equip, compensate, and license LILCO u__-
7 ~ i.;. 1-is, .t ' employees as bus drivers, and will preassign these additional drivers to a i. t, Id. at 15-17. l bus yard.. .The facts and law. presented by LlLCO's Motion support the grant of- . summary disposition. The Licensing Board has previously. resolvsd the issue of. role conflict regarding LERO' employees in LILCO's favor. See 21 NRC 644,. 679. This. result was not upset on appeal. See ALAB-832,' 23 NRC. at 149-154. Moreover, there is adequate precedent for ~the use of . utility ' employees ' to' serve;as ' bus drivers.- Phliadelphia Electric Company. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-857, 25 - NRC 7,12- --(1987 ). The' Issue.of role confilet here deals' solely with bus driver -j availability. LILCO has provided. evidence of detailed plans to assure n such availability, in the absence of facts as to which there is a genuine . issue ~to be heard, LILCO is-entitled to a decision as a matter of law. S i i -4/ As noted previously this does not resolve the issue of availability of b'uses, nor does it address the ability of LERO bus drivers to perform their assigned duties. FEMA. cited the poor performance of some bus drivers during the February 13, 1986 exercise of the LILCO Plan as a deficiency. Post-Exercise Assessment at 66. While changes have been made to the training program to address this issue, this has not yet been tested. LILCO Testimony concerning the offsite emergency planning exercise proceeding, 'ff. Tr. 4368 at 73. The ability of LERO workers -to perform, however, is not raised by the contentions concerning role conflict. See NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the j February 13, 1986 Emergency Planning Exercise, September 11, 1987, 168 et seq. - - -l L.---'A-
- 7.- t 4..
- 111, CONCLUSION
(: For the reasons' discussed herein, LILCO's Motion should be granted. I t j.
- Respectfully submitted, l
orge . Jo on Counsel for-C Staff v Dated at Dethesda, Maryland this 13th day of November 1987 s -i 1 i 1 i i i 1
00LKETEC' VihRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '87 HOV 13 P3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE Of E!CRt I A"I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BQARDilNG A SEWICf. BRANCH in the Matter of ) l } LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-O L-03 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
' DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 25.C (' ROLE CONFLICT' OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS)" in the above-captioned procccding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by l double asterisks, by express mail, this 13th day of November,1987. Morton B. Margulies, Chairman
- Joel Blau, Esq.
Administrative Judge Director, Utility Intervention Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 1020 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 99 Washington Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12210 Jerry R. Kline* Fablar G. Palomino, Esq.** Administrative Judge Special Counsel to the Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12224 Frederick J. Shon* Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. Administrative Judge New York State Department of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Empire State Plaza Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12223 Philip McIntire W. Taylor Reveley lil, Esq. Federal Emergency Management Donald P. Irwin, Esq.** Agency Hunton S Williams 26 Federal Plaza 707 East Main Street Room 1349 P.O. Box 1535 New York, NY 10278 Richmond, VA 23212 Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771
4} E+ Stephen B'. Latham, ~ Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq. 7 Twomey, Latham & Shea. Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.** ? Attorneys at Law. Karla J. Letsche, Esq. 33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick 6 Lockhart Riverhead, NY.11901 South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, NW - . Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20036-5891 Board Panel *- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jay Dunkleberger Washington, DC 20555 New York. State Energy O ffice - Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Building 2 Appeal. Board Panel
- Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, NY 12223 Washington, DC 20555 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. General Counsel Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management H. Lee Dennison Building Agency Veteran's Memorial Highway 500 C Street, SW Hauppauge, NY 11788 Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Monroe Schneider Robert Abrams, Esq. ] North Shore Committee Attorney General of the State P.0; Box ' 231 of New York Wading River, NY 11792 Attn: Peter Blenstock, Esq. Department of Law Ms. Nora Bredes State of New York Shoreham Opponents Coalition Two World Trade Center 195 East Main Street Room 46-14 Smithtown, NY - 11787 New York,. NY 10047 Anthony F. Earley, Jr. William R. Cumming, Esq. General Counsel Office of General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company Federal Emergency Management 175 East Old Country Road Agency l Hicksville, NY 11801 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Robert Hoffman Long Island Coalition for Safe Docketing and Service Section* Living Office of the Secretary P.O. Box 1355 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Massapequa, NY 11758 Washington, DC 20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Barbara Newman New York State Department of Law Director, Environmental Health 1 120 Broadway Coalition for Safe Living 3rd Floor, Room 3-116 Box 944 New York, NY 10271 Huntington, New York 11743 b f;_ ' George EV Johyon Counsel for NRC Staff i g=*.}}