ML20058D838
| ML20058D838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1982 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207270408 | |
| Download: ML20058D838 (5) | |
Text
-.
LILC,0,. July 22, 1982 DCL b'ETCO U 2 q.~
EE. 20 QQ:35 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C ~[a,"i 0F ggg.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION G-a.I Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boarf]tG&SE;ar.
ANCH
~
In the Matter of
)
~' w ~.
.u
..y.,
)
~
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
4 LILCO'S SUGGESTED REVISION OF CONTENTION EP 27 ON EMERGENCY PLANNING At the hearing in this proceeding'on July 20, 1982, the Board suggested (Tr. 7403) that the parties might try to draft a revised Contention EP 27, which addresses a s
PRA/ consequences analysis.
LILCO hereby submits for' the Board's consideration an attempted revision.-
LILCO's position on EP 27 as drafted by the County is the following:
1.
It is true, as stated in LILCO's 7B testimony, that the Shoreham PRA 1
1 study had as an initial goal'to assess t'he Shoreftam Emergedcy Plan by evaldating the'Shoreham' specific s
response to hypothetical accidents and their consequences.
i
~
~
s 6
/3&
I 8207270408 820722 h*
PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
PDR l
1
> 2.
Nevertheless, Contention EP 27 should not be admitted.
The PRA was not used to develop LILCO's emergency plan; the NRC regulations do not require that a PRA be used to develop such a plan; and LILCO 6
does not plan to rely on the PRA as evidence that its emergency plan meets NRC require-monts.
The PRA uses a hypothetical radio-active release to predict the risk of that release based on certain assumptions and methodologies.
In contrast, the accident assessment and dose assessment models are tools used with measurements and observa-tions during a real incident to decide what action should be taken.
Title 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47 (b) (9) refers to analytical models used in a real emergency to predict the effects of a real emergency, not to the predicted results of a hypothetical accident.
3.
If LILCO does not plan to rely on the PRA analysis to carry its burden of proof, then there does not appear to be any NRC requirement that would compel LILCO to litigate the merits of the analysis.
4.
LILCO does, however, wish to reserve the right to present evidence on all or part of the PRA in the future if it is needed to counter the evidence of some other party to this proceeding.
For example, if the County eventually develops a PRA of its own, or produces some other kind of analysis, to make some point about the merits of evacuation versus sheltering, LILCO might need to supplement its basic case by offering evidence about its own PRA.
LILCO does not believe that by objecting to a contention about the PRA it gives up the right to submit a PRA as evidence on some other contention if submitting such evidence later becomes desirable.
x 5.
In any event, it appears that EP 27 is an "offsite" or " Phase 2" issue.
\\
s
s LILCO proposes the following suggestion for revising EP 27 so that it addresses what' appears to be the County's concern without presupposing that a PRA analysis is the appropriate evidence to resolve that concern:
EP 27a.
Dose Assessment Model LILCO's model for assessing the consequences of accidental radioactive releases to the atmosphere does not meet the requirement of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 (b) (9) that the emergency plan shall provide "[aldequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition."
The model does not meet this requirement because [here the County should state its reason to believe that the model is inadequate).
We hope this attempt at redrafting will be helpful to the Board.
Respectfully submitted,
~)?DUw Kathy E.
B.
McCleskey James N. Christman HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East Main Street P. O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
July 22, 1982 l
1 I
i 1
l j
In the Matter of l
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) j Docket No. 50-322 (OL) i I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S SUGGESTED BEVISION OF CONTENTION EP 27 ON EMERGENCY
]
PLANNING were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on July 22, 1982, or by hand
[
(as indicated by an asterick):
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 l
Board Panel l
Dr. Peter A. Morris
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission 2
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 Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Commission 217 Newbridge Road Washington, D.C.
20555 Hicksville, New York 11801
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
Matthew J.
Kelly, Esq.
I Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Empire State Plaza Christopher & Phillips Albany, New York 12223 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger l
Washington, D.C.
20036 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Mr. Mark H. Goldsmith Empire State Plaza Energy Research Group Albany, New York 12223 400-1 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea MilB Technical Associates 33 West Second Street 1723 Hamilton Avenue P. O.
Box 398 Suite K Riverhead, New York 11901 San Jose, California 95125 r
Ralph shapiro, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
9 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016
)-
2 Kathy E.
B. McCloskey James N.
Christman IlUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East Main Street P.
O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
July 22, 1982 j
l l
I i
i l
I r
.