ML20054L945

Objections to Suffolk County,Shoreham Opponents Coalition & North Shore Committee Against Nuclear & Thermal Pollution Emergency Planning Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054L945
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/06/1982
From:	Mccleskey K HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207090088
Download: ML20054L945 (13)

Text

-

LILCO, July 6, 1982 Of!l50 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'82 J -

r1 :43 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0.

In the Matter of

)

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

LILCO'S OBJECTIONS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S, SOC'S, AND NSC'S EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS I.

In its Prehearing Conference Order dated April 20, 1982, the Board ruled as follows:

Emergency planning contentions based on LILCO'S emergency plan must be received by June 22, 1982

. Parties filing emergency planning contentions shall do so in a consolidated filing.

. The contentions shall be discussed with the NRC Staff and LILCO prior to filing so that their positions on admissibility can also be received on June 22.

Order at 7-8.

On Thursday, June 17, 1982, LILCO received Suffolk County's emergency planning contentions 1 through 19, and the North Shore Committee's (NSC) emergency planning contentions 1(a) through 1(d) plus thirty-two numbered sections of " bases" for these contentions.

On Saturday, June 19, 1982, LILCO 8207090008 820706 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR g

G

, /,

c 1

~

+ n

,e-

/,

Qr N,

received another draft of the intervenor's contentions,

)

consisting of the ordginal Suffolk County EP 1 through EP 19, c,

A

• j.. y the original NSC 1(a) through1(d)withtwenfyG9gn of the

,f

<* /.:,,

thirty-two sections of " bases", slightly rewritten ',itnd, numbered i

,~

EP 20, and six additional contentions, EP-21 through EP 26.1/

This draft, with minor changes, wai filed v,ith t'he Board on

• % ; p: l/

June 22, 1982.

-7.,.

. 'M.F Pursuant to the Board's April'Iy?/ 1982 Prehearihg i

Conference Order, LILCO filed a-statemeht of its position on*

e s,.

~

the admissibility of the cententelons on June 22, 1982.

In that i ;,

statement, LILCO noted thay,the,founty, SOC, and NSC had indi-cated that many of LILCO'/s ep,ncerns regarding the wording and scope of the contentions coul'u / resolved given further dis-bi-

-~

_c cussion among the parties / Nounse) for'th' e County, NRC, and f:

r LILCO met on Wednesday,-June 30,to d.iscuss the-contentions, and z

e x

n spoke with counsel for NSC.by phone that day.2/

As a result of

,4.,

i those discussions, the county reworded a few of its conten-

$/ r s '

~;

e tions, and NSC deleted aphr$xirately ten pages of material from #

'h j

~

,,r +

its contentions.

r..

'/3 g.

LILCO's remainin objections to the emergency planning contentions appear below.

Listed in cart II are those V.

1/

The County, SOC, and hSC indicated they had attempted to consolidate this second set of draft contentions; it is LILCO's 7

position that neither draft Qas adequately consolidated as re-quired by the Board's April 20,.1982 Or, der.

p.

2/

Counsel for SOC was unavailable and did;not participate in these discussions.

'l

, ' : I '.a.

~

s/

3

~

3.. -

o

,e es (N

W

^

contentions that have not been consolidated; in part III, those e,

j contentions that are not adequately particularized as yet ; and n-part IV, a contention that is simply not admissible.

s II.

y Contrary to the Board's April 29 Order, the County, j

SOC, and NSC have not filed consolidated contentions.

The f'intervenors' inital filing, while a single document with e

s

_ sequentially numbered contentions, contained redundancies among It now appears that NSC has filed its own set "thefcontentions.

"of emergency planning contentions (NSC 1(EP), 2(EP), and 3(EP)), and that the County has merely substituted that filing g

for the old EP 20 in its First Amended Consolidated Emergency Planning Cqptentions.

The County, SOC, and NSC have not thor-oughly reviewed the contentions for possible consolidation.

The following contentions and parts of contentions should be combined:

4',,,

EP 3B, EP 6B, and EP 9D.

These contentions question i't.

the ability of medical personnel and onsite and offsite emer-JA %

gency response personnel to respond during an emergency given t.

s#

the congested traffic conditions that the County alleges may exist.

Since the postulated traffic conditions, if they limit personnel responses, will limit responses of different person-a nel groups in the same sorts of ways, these contentions should be consolidated.

. EP 3C, EP 6C, and NSC 3(EP)(7).

EP 3C provides:

The LILCO plan does not contain up-to-date agreements with Central Suffolk Hospital, University Hospital or the Wading River Fire District for emergency medical services to be provided by those facilities.

Moreover, the agreements in the plan with Central Suffolk Hospital and the Wading River Fire Department lack specific information to determine whether those organizations can provide necessary medical services in the event of a radio-logical emergency.

Thus, LILCO has failed to satisfy 10 C.F.R. $$ 50.47 (b)(3) and (12), 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix E,

and NUREG 0654, Items II.C.4 and L.4.

EP 6C provides:

The LILCO plan does not contain up-to-date contracts with local fire and ambu-lance organizations or other offsite or-ganizations concerning the services those organizations will provide in the event of a radiological emergency.

NSC 3(EP)(7) provides:

The letters of agreement with the medical and other facilities are not current and, additionally do not specify the functions each will perform.

These contentions are redundant and should be consoli-dated.

EP 6A and EP 9C.

EP 6A provides:

It does not appear that LILCO has ad-dressed or analyzed the possibility that offsite personnel expected to report to the Shoreham site for emergency duty, many of whom are volunteers, would fail to report (or report in a timely manner) because of conflicting family (or other) duties that would arise in the event of a radiological emergency.

2 i

. EP 9C provides:

LILCO has not evaluated the effects upon its emergency response efforts of poten-tial family (or other) role conflicts that may inhibit or even prevent LILCO personnel from responding to a radiologi-cal emergency.

Whether role conflicts will inhibit emergency personnel from reporting as planned is a single issue requiring a common analysis of the response of all emergency personnel, both from LILCO and from offsite organizations.

Therefore, these conten-tions should be consolidated.

EP 3 and NSC 3(EP)(1) through (6).

These contentions question the medical assistance available in a radiological emergency.

NSC 3 (EP)(1) through (6) significantly overlap EP 3; EP 3 should be rewritten to include any additional points in NSC 3 (EP) not now covered by EP 3, and NSC 3(EP) should be deleted.

EP 11 and NSC 1(EP), NSC 1(EP)(5), and NSC 2(EP)(1).

These contentions all bear on whether LILCO can maintain com-munication with response organizations using commercial tele-phone lines that the intervenors allege may overload during an emergency.

The contentions should be consolidated and rewrit-ten.

Additionally, within the NSC contentions, NSC 1(EP)(3) and (4) are redundant to NSC 1(EP)(2), and NSC 1(EP)(10) is redundant to NSC 2(EP)(1).

. III.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b), the County, SOC and NSC are required to state contentions with " reasonable specifi-city."

The contentions listed below are not adequately partic-ularized.

EP 8B.

The County has not defined what it means by a

" social and psychological profile of Suffolk County's resi-dents."

EP 26.

The County has not articulated what it consi-ders to be the "necessary human factors principles and ana-lyses," has not detailed the regulations that require those principles and analyses to be factored into the LILCO plan, and has not identified how LILCO has failed to meet that require-ment, if any exists.

NSC 1(EP)(1).

NSC has not specified the ways in which the communications network is inadequate.

NSC 2 (EP)(1).

NSC has not stated clearly what it means by "[c]ommunications are inadequately staffed, briefed, and technically equipped.

Additionally, (1) the County has not specified in each contention which part of a regulation it is relying upon to support that particular contention, and (2) the proceeding would benefit from a careful rewording of the NSC contentions.

. Finally, regarding particularization, in EP 1, EP 2G, and EP 5B(1), the County contends that LILCO has not taken into account local conditions in preparing its emergency response plan based on a 10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ).

Title 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(c)(2) provides in part:

Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles (16 km) in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall con-sist of an area about 50 miles (80 km) in radius.

The exact size and configuration of the EPZs surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demogra-phy, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boun-daries.

This Board has ruled that while the County, SOC and NSC are not entirely precluded from alleging that adjustments should be made to the 10 and 50-mile limits provided in 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(c)(2), those allegations "have to be tied to those particular requirements" of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E, and allegations regarding local con-ditions must be considered "in relation to local emergency re-sponse needs and capabilities."

Prehearing Conf. Tr., March 10, 1982, at 389.

For the reasons stated below, EP 1, EP 2G, and EP SB are not adequately particularized.

, EP 1 provides:

The Board should rule that LILCO's plan is inadequate under 10 C.F.R.

$ 50.47, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, and NUREG 0654 criteria because the state of pre-paredness under that plan does not pro-vide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

LILCO has not adequately identified and evaluated local conditions in Long Island that could influence the public notifica-tion system, public education program, accident assessment and monitoring sys-tems, protective action measures, and evacuation time estimates referenced in the LILCO plan and used in preparation of that plan.

The failure of LILCO to tai-lor these systems, programs, measures, and estimates to local conditions pre-cludes a finding of reasonable assurance that the LILCO plan is workable.

The local conditions which LILCO has neither identified nor evaluated are the following:

(1) local demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the population likely to be affected by a radiolo-gical emergency; (2) the social and behavioral character-istics of the population likely to be affected by a radiological emer-gency; (3) local topographical and geographical characteristics; (4) emergency evacuation alternatives, routes, and transportation facili-ties; and (5) the types of materials of which local houses and buildings are con-structed and the extent to which these materials would affect the health effects of a radiological release in the event that sheltering i

_9_

is the recommended protective action.

Suffolk County contends that LILCO must, in developing the systems, programs, mea-sures, and estimates identf.Ited above, determine the extent to wnich such local conditions affect LILCO's own responsibi-lities (irrespective of the size of the EPZ and even assuming for present pur-poses an EPZ of about 10 miles), and must account for such effects in its plan.

The County has not identified the specific local condi-tions that bear on LILCO's emergency response plan, and has not articulated how those specific local conditions affect such items as the public notification system, pub 31c education pro-gram, and other aspects of the LILCO plan.

The contention mer-ely includes a laundry list of undefined terms designated

" local conditior.s", and an assertion that the plan is inade-quate as a whole.

The contention is therefore overbroad and not adequately particularized.

EP 2G provides:

LILCO has failed to demonstrate that 10-mile siren coverage is the proper cover-age for the Shoreham facility.

The large population groups located just outside a lO-mile radius zone, and the effects re-l sulting from movement of persons from outside a 10-mile radius zone to within that zone (thus potentially hindering the emergency response), require that place-ment and coverage include such population groups.

This is also necessary to assure that such population groups have accurate information on the state of emergency conditions so as to guide their own be-havior and to control the spread of rumors.

. The County has not defined precisely what large popula-tion groups are located outside the 10-mile zone, and precisely where those groups are located.

EP 5B(1) provides:

The LILCO evacuation time estimates do not take into consideration the partic-ular local conditions surrounding the Shoreham facility.

Rather, the evacua-tion time estimates are based upon an arbitrary 10-mile area around the Shoreham site.

The County has not identified particular local condi-tions it alleges LILCO must consider in evacuation time esti-mates.

Additionally, LILCO objects to the term " arbitrary" as applied to the 10-mile emergency planning zone.

That zone is based upon 10 C.F.R.

S 50.47(c)(2), and is not arbitrary.

IV.

Contention EP 27 provides:

LILCO has not completed, nor has the NRC reviewed, a PRA/ consequence analysis to provide the basis for the accident assessment and dose assessment models.

Thus, Suffolk County contends that there is no assurance that LILCO has met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. $$ 50.47(b)(9) and (10), 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E and the planning criteria of NUREG 0654.

The contention assumes that a PRA or consequence ana-lysis is required for the LILCO emergency plan.

No such re-quirement existc.

Additionally, this Board has ruled that a contencion that merely asserts LILCO must " perform a complete accident consequence assessment" is not litigable in this proceeding.

Prehearing Conf. Trans., March 10, 1982, at 382.

.=

. For the reasons stated above, LILCO objects to the County's, SOC's, and NSC's emergency planning contentions.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY jd bk b

W. Tay/ Lor Reveldy, III i

James N. Christman Kathy E. B. McCleskey Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.

Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:

July 6, 1982 i

s e

LILCO, July 6, 1982 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S OBJECTIONS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S, SOC'S, and NSC'S EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by hand (as indicated by an asterisk), on July 6, 1982:

Lawrence Brenner, E.sq.*

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 Dr. Peter A. Morris

• 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.*

Commi=sion David A. Repka, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. James H. Carpenter *i 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 im

~.

Secretary of the Commission Stephen B.

Latham, Esq.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Twomey, Latham & Shea

' Commission 33 West Second Street Washington, D.C.

20555 P.

O.

Box 398

)

Riverhead, New York 11901 j

Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*

Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

Karla J.

Letsche, Esq.

9 East 40th Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, New York, New York 11901 Christopher & Phillips Albany, New York 12223 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.

Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20036 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith Energy Research Group Matthew J.

Kelly, Esq.

400-1 Totten Pond Road State of New York Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza MHB Technical Associates Albany, New York 12223 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K Mr. Jay Dunkleberger San Jose, California 95125-New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

$ b.

bY1 Wl James N.TayWor Revelef, III-~

Christman Kathy E.

B.

McCleskey Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.

Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:

July 6, 1982

.