ML20024A866
| ML20024A866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1983 |
| From: | Repka D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Jay Dougherty, Letsche K, Mcmurray C DOUGHERTY, J.B., KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8307010068 | |
| Download: ML20024A866 (6) | |
Text
.
i June 30,1983 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill 33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips P.O. Box 398 1900 M Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Washington, D.C.
20036 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
James Dougherty, Esq.
Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
3045 Porter Street 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C.
20008 New York, NY 10016
, DISTRIBUTION
- Repka/Bordenick/Dewey/Rawson/ Mcdonald /Reis Christenbury Murray In the Matter of NRC Docket File
- PDR/LPDR LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OELD FF (2)
Chron (2) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
J.Higgins Lieberman Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 1
l Olmstead E.Weinkam 330 (Emergency Planning)
, J.Norris AR5008 R.Carusol44 l ASchwencer
Dear Counsel:
330 I have received the draft energency planning contentions and Kathy McKleskey's letter to you with suggested revisions for the final consolidation.
I generally agree with Kathy's observations. The draft contentions seem to be unneces-I sarily repetitive, and, if admitted, would result in redundancy in the issues and the evidence.
I am attaching a list of some other specific modifications which might be made to eliminate a portion of the redundancy. This listing generally does not deal with the propriety of the various contentions, defects in their form, or other possible objections to them such as vagueness or lack of basis.
The Board has requested that we confer on the final consolidation of the draft contentions.
I am available for a meeting on Friday, July I and believe this may be the best way to discuss all the suggestions.
I look 1
forward to hearing from you on whether or not a meeting can be arranged.
Sincerely, 8307010068 830630 4
i PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
PDR David A. Repka Counsel for NRC Staff l
Attachment:
As Stated cc:
(w/ attachment)
(( f Jim Christman, Esq.
s Kathy E. B. McCleskey, Esq.
I DS07 DFC
- 0EL
- 0 ELD i _____:___ Q_____ g
_________:_________.,_____7:_________________:__________________:________________
_____:_________________:________4 [________:_____________
- EReis M lNAME:DRepka/dkw DATE :06/2J)/83
- 06/p/83
Attachment l
STAFF COMMENTS ON ORGANIZATION OF DRAFT EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS Suffolk County Contentions Contention 1: Command and Control 1.B.1 and 1.B.2 concern training and experience and should be consolidated with parts of Contention 11.
1.B.4 concerns role conflict and should be consolidated into a general role conflict contention.
1.B.5 is vague; emergency personnel mobilization time concerns can be identified as the specific concern and may be the proper subject for a general contention instead.
The issue is also the subject of other proposed contentions.
See Contentions 4.C.3; 8.C.1.
1.C.2 concerning LILC0's lack of credibility should be removed to a general credibility contention.
Either 1.D or 10.B, if otherwise proper, might become the general contention on LILC0's credibility.
Contention 2:
Emergency Planning Zone The Staff will object to this contention to the extent it represents a challenge to the regulations.
If admitted, this contention should subsume all ' evacuation shadow" subcontentions; alternatively it may be appropriate to designate a general traffic congestion contention to eliminate the many other subcontentions in which traffic congestion appears as an issue.
Contention 3: Accident Assessment 3.G appears to be a summary and not a discrete contention; if so, should be worked into preamble.
Contention 4: Adequacy of Protective Actions The focus of 4.B.2 is whether a shelter orcer would be obeyed and the focus of 4.B.3 is whether sheltering is adequate. Therefore, 4.B.2.b should be covered by 4.B.3.
Further, neither 4.B.2 nor 4.B.3 state a nexus to regulatory requirements.
4.B.2(d) seems to unnecessarily repeat 4.B.1.
/
e.
- d.
4.B.3(e) can be covered in the relocation center contention, 4.C.5(h).
4.C.2(c) raises issues better consolidated with other contentions.
For example, 4.C.2(c)(i) raises LILC0's credibility and should be in the general contention.
All the remaining parts of 4.C.2(c) concern public education and should be removed in favor of Contention 10.
4.C.2(d) also raises issues which are raised elsewhere. 4.C.2(d)(ii) includes issues of communication appropriate for Contention 8, a traffic congestion issue, and legal authority issues covered by Contention 1.A.
4.C.2(e) and (f) again raise traffic congestion and " shadow phenomenon" issues.
See Contention 2.
4.C.3(d) raises role conflict.
4.C.3(f) raises personnel nobilization and traffic congestion issues which again may be suitable for general contentions.
4.C.3(j) is a legal authority issue.
4.C.3(k) is a traffic congestion issue.
1 4.C.3(1) is a security issue discussed in Contention 6.
Many of the sub-issues of 4.C.4 relate to evacuation time estimate which can be put into the time estimates contention, 4.C.2.
See 4.C.4(a)(iv);4.C.4(b)(vi);4.C.4(c)(iv);4.C.4(d)(ii)(f).
4.C.4 contains several more role conflict assertions.
See 4.C.4(b)(iii)(c);4.C.4(c)(iii).
Contention 6: Security This contention should subsume all other subcontentions raising
~
security issues such as 4.C.3(1).
- 6. A and 6.B should be covered by Contention 1.A on legal authority.
1 6.C should go to the general training and experience contention, Contention 11.
6.D seems to reraise the issue of LILC0's credibility which can be l
i litigated under Contention 1.0 or 10.B.
6.E deals with agreements es does Contention 1.C.
l l
Contention 7: Medical and Public Health Support 7.A and 7.B deal with lack of agreements and should be consolidated with Contention 1.C.
7.C raises the issue of traffic congestion within the EPZ and could be put into a general contention on the subject.
Contention 8: Communications 8.C.1 raises the issue of delays in mobilization of emergency per-sonnel which are raised elsewhere and can be consclidated; 8.C.1 should focus on whether sirens will be heard or understood.
8.C.4 raises the issue of reliance on commercial phone lines. This should be a general issue under 8 and subsume all the other subcon-tentions in which the question is raised.
See also S0C Contention 3.
Contention 9: Public Notification /Information 9.A repeats the issue of LILC0's credibility 9.B and 9.C should be included in the public education question raised in Contention 10.
9.E appears to be an issue for the general credibility contention.
Contention 10:
Public Education 1
10.A.2 raises three issues raised elsewhere:
role conflict, mobili-zation of personnel, and LILC0's legal authority.
The substance of 10.A.3 will be litigated under 4.B.
10.B. again raises LILC0's credibility.
10.C through 10.F should adequately cover all the public education concerns raised as subissues in other contentions (such as 4.C.2(c)).
10.F appears to be similar in substance to 4.B.3(e).
Contention 11: Training j
11.A.7 raises role conflict.
11.A.10 would seem to be the appropriate place for the concerns of Contention 1.B.1.
---g.--
--.v.
..-n.,
b
, a
_ 4_
11.C.2 is vague and should set out details of alleged inadequacies in drills and exercises.
S0C Contentions Contention 1:
Protection of Disadvantaged and Minority Population This contention raises public education concerns and should be folded into County Contention 10.
Contention 2: Loss of Offsite Power Contention 5:
Bad Weather i
These two contentions raise similar concerns regarding evacuation under adverse conditions; they can be combined into one contention.
Contention 3: Loss of Telephone Service This is a communications issue and can be folded into County Contention 8.
Contention 4:
Staffing This can be consolidated with County Contention 1 regarding command; specifically the issues may go under 1.B regarding the effectiveness of the LILC0 organization.
Southampton Contentichs Contention 1, 2, 3, and 4 All three contentions are similar to County Contention 2; the issues of evacuation shadow / traffic congestion should be spelled out as one contention; the Staff will object to a contention generally asserting the need for a 20 mile EPZ.
9 Contention 5 This is a security issue and is already covered by County Contention 6.
^
,,y e,
gw r-m y
v
-5
. Contention 6 This contention repeats the issues of County Contention 4.0 and can be dealt with in that context.
4 Contention 7 This issue should be incorporated into County Contention 7 on medical support.
(
l l
l
/