ML20236P842

Affidavit of Kj Letsche Re Lilco Proposed Emergency Plan for Protective Actions for School Children.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20236P842
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/13/1987
From:	Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20236P799	List: ML20236P797 ML20236P842
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8711190027
Download: ML20236P842 (9)

Text

- _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

's, November 13, 1987

' 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) )

)

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). I have been personally involved, as one of the counsel representing Suffolk County, in the litigation conducted before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the NRC Appeal Board, and the NRC, concerning LILCO's proposed emergency plan for l

{

Shoreham, including its provisions for protective actions for I school children.

2. All versions of the LILCO Plan which have been the subject of litigation to date before the NRC have proposed, as

_ protective actions for school children who live or go to school in the 10 mile EPZ, early dismissal of schools, sheltering of 8711190027 B71113 PDR ADOCK05000gg2 0

E'

> .c. .

H l

l ,

l g children in school buildings, and evacuation of school children to i reception centers outside the EPZ. Plan, $3.6-7, App. A, II-19,  !

1 20 (Revs. 3 - 7); OPIP 3.6.5 55.10 (Revs. 3 - 7). All such versions of the LILCO Plan provided that early dismissal and evacuation of school children in the public schools would be implemented by the school bus drivers employed by those companies under contract to the individual school districts. Egg id. j

3. No litigated version of the LILCO Plan has included any provision for LILCO employees to perform as school bus drivers during a Shoreham emergency except with respect to certain nursery and private schools.

4. No litigated version of the LILCO Plan has included any provision for implementing an evacuation of school children in a single wave (i.e., without more than one bus run). l

5. Subsequent to the close of the record in the 1983-84 emergency planning litigation, the first mention of any LILCO proposal to implement protective actions for school children I

during a Shoreham emergency by having LILCO employees act as i 1

school bus drivers (except with respect to certain nursery and private schools), and to have them conduct an evacuation in a single wave, was contained in LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C, dated October 22, 1987 (hereafter referred to as "LILCO's Motion"). Suffolk County had no notice of l

LILCO's intention to change its proposed' plan for protective actions for school children prior to receipt of LILCO's Motion on

'l LOctober 23, 1987.

6. LILCO's Motion, and its " Statements of the Material Facts 1

as to which LILCO Contends There is no Genuine Issue to be Heard on Contention 25.C (" Role Conflict" of School Bus Drivers)"

(hereafter-referred to as "LILCO's Statements"), are predicated-upon a completely new proposal for the implementation of the protective action of evacuation for school children, involving the use of LILCO employees to perform as school bus drivers assigned to transport-school children. Egg, e.a., LILCO Statements 7, 8, 18, 19, 20. They are further predicated upon certain LILCO

" commitments," " predictions," " projections," and " proposals."

Egg, e.o., LILCO Statements 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

7. LILCO's Motion also appears to rely upon certain

" experiences" and " discussions" with unidentified " instructors" by LILCO employee Ms. Diane Driekorn, as well as characterizations and opinions of Ms. Dreikorn concerning her beliefs about certain

" attitudes," " concerns," and " uncertainties" of unidentified LERO workers. Egg Affidavit of Diane P. Dreikorn (Attachment 3 to LILCO's Motion).

8. LILCO's new proposed plan for implementing protective I

actions for school children, and the. purported bases of LILCO's l-Motion, raise'many new issues, not addressed in the earlier.

(-

litigations including, by way of example, the following: .the number of school bus drivers needed to implement a safe "one wave" evacuation of school children living or attending school in the EPZ during a Shoreham emergency; the impact on other portions of:

LILCO's Plan caused by the addition of 562 additional LERO members whose activities must be coordinated and controlled;.the amount.of time necessary to accomplish evacuation of school children under LILCO's new proposal; whether school districts or superintendents would, or could, permit LILCO employees to perform as school bus i

drivers. transporting children; whether, and how, a " single wave" i evacuation could be implemented, particularly in the absence of any identified receptions centers to which the evacuated children would be taken; how the use of LILCO employees with preassigned bus yards and routes could perform an evacuation during an emergency, particularly since the regular school bus drivers would have possession of the necessary buses; the adequacy, legality, and efficacy of LILCO's proposed training of school bus drivers; the value, if any, of various LILCO " commitments" to " offer" training, equipment, and money to school bus drivers; the impact of survey data and other evidence concerning role conflict on the adequacy and implementability of the new LILCO proposal for ,

protective actions for school children.

9. At this time, Suffolk County cannot present by affidavit  !

4 f'

f facts to controvert many of the proposals, commitments, and undocumented opinions and beliefs upon which LILCO's Motion is f premised for several reasons.

l

10. First, since LILCO's Motion is based on an entirely new l proposed plan for protective actions for school children, the County has done no previous investigation, research, or analysis of the feasibility, workability, or adequacy of the new LILCO proposal, or of the many new matters raised by LILCO's Motion.

11. Second, the projections, predictions, opinions, beliefs, and characterizations upon which LILCO's Motion is premised are for the most part wholly conclusory, without detail, or stated bases or authority. In the absence of an opportunity to conduct discovery, to determine the origin, bases, nature, reliability, accuracy, and relevance of such premises, Suffolk County cannot at this time controvert them by presenting facts in an affidavit.

12. Third, the " proposals," " projections," " commitments,"

and opinions included in LILCO's Statements are not themselves i

I

" facts," and, therefore, are not susceptible of simple admission or denial. In the absence of an opportunity to conduct discovery, and independent investigation and analysis, concerning LILCO's proposals and the other conclusory elements of LILCO's Motion, Suffolk County cannot at this time present by affidavit many facts essential to justify opposition to the Motion.

4

__ _ _-_-_a

a l

13. Fourth, LILCO's proposals are wholly executory. The LILCO Plan has not been amended and Suffolk County has not even been provided draft Plan or procedure revisions which describe how LILCO's proposals would be implemented.

> / l f

Karlla J.

- Y.

Letschf l Sworn to and subscribed before me this M M day of November, 1987.

ht<AJ. AH' W g Notary Public My Commission Expires:

$6hbeL /Y, I991

ii ',

at a D0LKETED

'U5NRC

. November 13, 1987 UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '0FFlCE CF FcRayy 1

DOCKETouGX SERVICT' Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board BRANC4

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)  !

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

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 25.C (" ROLE CONFLICT" OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS) have been served on the following this 13th day of November, 1987 by U.S. mail, first class.

James P. Gleason, Chairman Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 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 840 Washington, D.C. 20472 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. Hunton & Williams Special Counsel to the Governor P.O. Box 1535 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 707 East Main Street State Capitol Richmond, Virginia 23212 Albany, New York 12224

Joel Blau, Esq. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel.

N.Y. Consumer Protection-Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County _ Legislature

. Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans' Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788

)

Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes

~

Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

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

Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Hon. Michael A. LoGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116' Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider.

1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

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

Agency Building 2 Office of General Counsel Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12223 David A. Brownlee, Esq. Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 4

l

f;: ..,.

-i r L- 1.

.4

, i' l

~ Douglas J. Hynes,. Councilman j

! Town Board of Oyster Bay j

' Town Hall- .I Oyster Bay, New York.-11771 l

l J

Michael S. Miller i KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART.

1800 M Street,.N.W.

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

]

1 l

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ __ -i