ML20049H514

Reply to Shoreham Opponents Coalition 820218 Response to ASLB Directive in 820202 Order.Aslb Request for More Specified Contention Reasonable.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20049H514
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/26/1982
From:	Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203030240
Download: ML20049H514 (8)

Text

-

o- i. ..

February 26, 1982 01 0

4

'd Dwa

, .~ Urac 4 I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

{ -fb MAR] I !

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g82y e

(  % row

• C&p:e. ,

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4

?<

In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S REPLY TO RESPONSE OF SOC TO BOARD ORDER OF FEBRUARY 8TH The Shoreham Opponents Coalition responded on February 18, 1982, to the following Board directive:

LILCO, supported by the NRC Staff, has moved for summary disposition of SOC Contentions la and b and 2 relating to emer-gency planning. The Board defers ruling on these motions pending further particulariza-tion by SOC of the contentions. On the bases of the documents before us and the present vague wording of the contentions, we are un-able to determine whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact (including whether the contentions are an impermissible attack on the Commission's emergency planning regulations).

SOC is directed to set forth the specific local conditions around the Shoreham facility

-)fb9 8 l 8203030240 820226 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR

(within the broad categories now alleged in Contentions la and b) that it alleges would require adjustments to and deviations from the general radii of 10 and 50 miles for the plume exposure pathway EPZ and ingestion pathway EPZ, respectively, set forth in the emergency planning regulations. As to each local condition specified, SOC shall include the approximate adjustment in the EPZ which it alleges is necessary and the reasons therefore.

As to SOC Contention 2, the Board directs SOC to specify how the effects of radioactive releases through the liquid pathway from the Shoreham facility would not be adequately I considered by an approximately 50 mile radius ingestion pathway EPZ. SOC shall specify with greater precision the approximate ad-justments it avers are necessary to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

SOC shall make the above filings in the manner and time established below for initial filings. LILCO and the NRC Staff shall re-spond to SOC's specification of Contentions 1 and 2 in the manner and time established below for reply filings.

Board Order of February 8, 1982, at 2-3 (footnote omitted).

SOC, in its response of February 18, 1982, concluded that "[t]he Board's directive does not make sense" and refused to comply with itj

,p. ~.-n -., . , . . , . . . - . . , , , . . - , ~ , , , , - , , . . . , , , . _ . - - - . , _ - . - . - , - - . , - - - - - , - , , , , , - , , - , - , - - , -

O*

Implicit in the Board's directive is the reality that the more specific a contention -- the more clear its basic fac-tual elements -- the more readily it can be determined whether the contention passes muster under S 2.758, including that sec-tion's "special circumstances" exemption. Thus, the Board asked for greater specificity.

That makes perfectly good sense. First, the Board is not bound by the parties' willingness to submit the S 2.758 issue without further particularization.1! If the Board needs greater specificity "to determine whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact (including whether the conten-tions are an impermissible attack on the Commission's emergency planning regulations)," the Board has ample authority to re-quest and get greater specificity.

1/ SOC is correct that, without further particularization of SOC 1 and 2, LILCO agreed to submit to the Board the question of these contentions' justiciability under 10 CFR S 2.758.

LILCO did so after failing during informal and then formal dis-covery to get SOC to significantly link its concerns to Long Island specifics. See page 4 below. Further, in light of LILCO's increasingly acute concern about the pace at which this proceeding has been moving, the Company has been willing to try virtually anything (within the bounds of law and reasonably good taste) to crystallize issues for decision and thereby move the proceeding forward.

Second, it is quite possible that the Board wishes to have sufficient information in hand to state the issues to be litigated in clear and concrete terms if the Board concludes that all or part of SOC 1 and 2 do survive S 2.758. Without such additional specificity, it is unavoidably apparent that the present language of SOC 1 and 2 provides no meaningful guidance about the matters actually to be litigated.

SOC complains that the Board's request for greater spe-cificity " asks that SOC assume the role of a local planning agency." That is not so. SOC has merely been asked to iden-tify what it claims the problems are and how they ought to be remedied -- irrespective of what local planning agencies and anyone else may think.

Nor ara SOC's discovery complaints persuasive. SOC's June 9, 1981 answers to LILCO's May 21, 1981 interrogatories showed that SOC's complaints are largely generic; SOC offered relatively little Long Island basis for them. SOC may not de-mand sweeping studies and discovery in the hope that, if only such fishing expeditions were permitted, perhaps some Long Island substance might be lent to its vague assertions.

SOC has had more than ample opportunity to get spe-cific. It has declined to do so, most recently when responding to the Board's February 8th directive. Accordingly, SOC 1 and 2 as written ought to be resolved up or down under 10 CFR S 2.758. If lack of specificity adversely affects the contentions' prospects under that regulation, the fault is SOC's.

LILCO is content to rest on its summary disposition papers of July 13, 1981. In that regard, however, the footnote on page 4 of SOC's February 18, 1982 response needs correction.

The note states in part:

LILCO's 10 mile EPZ is simly [ sic] a semi-circle, so lacking in an evaluation of local factors that it cuts through the municipality of Riverhead.

To the contrary, LILCO's 10 mile EPZ is not simply a semi-circle. Rather, as contemplated by NRC regulations, it is drawn with " minor perturbations" to take into account local factors. Figure 6-2 in the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Plan, Revision 1 (Jan. 11, 1982), so ind'icates, as did Figure 6-2 in the original version c' this plan, dated May 27, 1981.

In the absence of a showing of "special circumstances" under 10 CFR S 2.758, SOC may not challenge EPZ's of 10 and 50 miles (with " minor perturbations"). The EPZ's were set by rulemaking. Nor may SOC attack the liquid pathway basis for these zones that is inherent in the regulations. SOC has re-fused, despite generous opportunity, to try to show special circumstances. Accordingly, its contentions should be struck as the impermissible attack on existing regulations that they are.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY f

W. Ta 1 Reveley, III Anthony . Earley, Jr.p[

Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 26, 1982

l In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Reply to Response of SOC to Board Order of February 8th were served upon the following people by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on February 26, 1982, except for the asterisked people, who will be served by hand or Federal Express on March 1, 1982:

Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Frederick J. Shon* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*

Commission David A. Repka, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. James H. Carpenter

• Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Gilmartin, Esq.

Board Panel Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory County Attorney Commission Suffolk County Department of Law Washington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 4

Herbert H. Brown, Esq.* Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. 217 Newbridge Road Karla J. Letsche, Esq. Hicksville, New York 11801 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips Jeffrey C. Cohen, Esq.

8th Floor New York State Energy Office 1900 M Street, N.W. Swan Street Building, Core 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith Energy Research Group, Inc. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger 400-1 Totten Pond Road New York State Energy Office Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza MHB Technical Associates Albany, New York 12223 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.*

Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P. O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

9 East 40th Street' New York, New York 10016

/

W.

I' vs/br aY r R6veley,'III Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 26, 1982

-. ,. . --. -- .-- .-- - . - . , .