ML20079F491

Supplemental Direct Testimony of Lj Campo on Emergency Planning Contentions 25.C & 25.D Re Role Conflict Addressed in Rev 3 of Lilco Plan

ML20079F491
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/16/1984
From:	Campo L SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20079F461	List: ML20079F458 ML20079F480 ML20079F489 ML20079F491 ML20079F496 ML20079F500
References
ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8401180281
Download: ML20079F491 (6)

Text

• .. dk

, DolKETED USNRc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g g 97 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa'idh >

ll,] 4. ,.[,i

~)

In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Emergency Planning)

Unit 1) )

)

SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LEON J. CAMPO ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONCERNING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 25.C AND 25.D 0 Please state your name and position.

A. My name is Leon J. Campo. I am the Assistant Superinten-dent of Schools, East Meadow Schools, Nassau County, New York.

O. What is the purpose of this testimony?

A. The purpose of this testimony is to supplement my previous testimony concerning role conflict by addressing the new pro-posals contained in Revision 3 to the LILCO Plan.

O. Have you reviewed Revision 3 to the LILCO Plan?

l e401180281 840116 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T PDR ,

4 A. I have reviewed those sections of Revision 3 that concern protective actions for schools, namely pages II-10 to 10a, II-19 to 21 and IV-169 to 171 of Appendix A. These sections of the LILCO Plan now provide that in addition to early dismissal, schools may be advised to relocate their students to emergency centers outside the EP2 or to shelter or retain their students in school buildings.

O. Does Revision 3 reduce the effects that role conflict would have on attempted implementation of protective actions for schools?

A. No. Indeed, the proposals in Revision 3 exacerbate the difficulties schools would face in ensuring the safety of their students in the event of a radiological crisis, because they make it more likely that school staff would resolve role conflict by leaving their places of employment and attending to the needs of their families.

O. Why?

A. All of tNe new options would require school staffs to remain away from their families for very long, indefinite periods of time, conceivably as long as a matter of days. For example, implementing a relocation of an entire student

s population, as opposed to those students who normally receive transportation assistance, would require more buses than are.

available to a school system. As a result, buses would have to make multiple runs between. schools and relocation centers.

This would mean that teachers and administrative staff would have to remain at schools to supervise students while they waited for buses to make the multiple runs. Staff would also have to accompany students to the centers and remain with them in order to supervise them. If sheltering were recommended, or schools were advised to retain children in school, staff would have to remain at school until the danger had passed. In any of these situations, the staff would be asked to stay away from their families for long, indefinite lengths of time.

Faced with the prospect of a lengthy, indefinite separa-tion from their loved ones during an emergency that poses the risk of injury to those loved ones, it is all the more likely that school personnel would opt to join their families. Staff within school systems do not define their job function's to ,

include supervision of children during a radiological emergen-cy. And, in fact, they are under no obligation to remain at their job locations after the end of their normal work days.

That is, if school staff were to leave after the end of the school day, one could not even say they had left their jobs.

,s l

~

They could r t be required to remain at their work stations under crisis conditions. To remain would be completely volun-tary for them.

In light of the significantly increased and indefinite l

time school staff would be separated from their families under the proposals in Revision 3, and the purely voluntary nature of a decision to remain at schcol after normal hours, it is all the more likely that staff members would resolve role conflict by choosing to attend to their families.

But not only has Revision 3 made it_more likely that adequate staff will not be available because of role conflict, the consequences of inadequate staffing are more severe under Revision 3.

O. Why?

A. Sheltering and evacuation would require additional person-nel. Sheltering students in schools would require much more effort than would sheltering healthy adults,.because students have greater needs and cannot fend for themselves. Consequent-ly, if students were sheltered, the school staffs, in effect, wo'uld have to take over the role of the students', parents. In addition to caring for their emotional needs, this would i *

?

l

. tk necessitate statisfying the s.tudents' need for food, bedding, clothing, and proper hygiene. The needs of handicapped chil-a dren would be even greater. Schools are neither equipped nor staffed to provide such care to children. As a result, the logistics involved in providing adequate care to students for long periods of time under emergency conditions would require large numbers of additional staff.

Similarly, the option of relocation also would require ad-ditional personnel. First, if relocation were implemented the students would have to be supervised for extremely long periods at schools, on buses and at relocation centers. During those periods of time, extra school personnel would be needed to provide the same sorts of care that would be necessary if shel-tering were recommended. In addition, school distric,ts do not normally transport their entire populations, as they would in an evacuation. Consecuently, extra staff and vehicles would be needed.

In short, Pevision 3 has added three new options for protecting school children which worsen the situation wf.th respect to role conflict. Under Revision 3 it is even more likely that school staff will choose to attend to their families than it was under the proposals discussed in my l

1

)

November 18 testimony, and the conseguences of role conflict are more serious under Revision 3.

9

_ _j