ML20058E521
| ML20058E521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1982 |
| From: | Mcmurray C KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207280265 | |
| Download: ML20058E521 (6) | |
Text
_-
w-go,TED ColillESPONDENU K ED 2 aa.27 mo c5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CIT 1ffy iNC b7 hgANCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD o ii I
l
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power
)
Proceedings)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
Suffolk County's Response To LILCO's Suggested Revision Of Contention EP 27 On Emergency Planning On July 22, 1982, LILCO submitted to the Board a suggested revision of Contention EP 27.
While conceding that an " initial goal" of the Shoreham PRA is "to assess the Shoreham Emergency Plan
" LILCO nevertheless argues that EP 27, as drafted by the County, should not be admitted because its PRA was not used to develop its plan nor does LILCO intend to rely on the PRA to demonstrate compliance with NRC requirements.
LILCO's argument, however, should not affect the admissibility of EP 27 at this time.
Evidently LILCO believes that a PRA/
consequence analysis (hereinafter "PRA") is a valuable tool to determine whether its emergency response plan, particularly its accident and dose assessment models, will provide an adequate response to accidents at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
The County agrees with LILCO that a PRA is a valuable tool and contends that it is relevant to an assessment of the emergency 8207280265 820726 DRADOCK05000g g]
. plan.
For precisely that reason, the reliability of the PRA itself must be examined.
The County intends to explore during discovery the extent to which LILCO has used, or will use, its PRA to assess and/or prepare its plan.
If the discovery process reveals that, in fact, the PRA played no role in formulating LILCO's emergency plan, Suffolk County will, in any event, wish to address whether LILCO's accident assessment and dose assessment models are adequate.
LILCO also asserts that it wishes to reserve the right to introduce evidence regarding its PRA if "in the future it is needed to counter the evidence of some other party to this proceeding."
In view of LILCO's assertion, and irrespective of any other basis for litigating LILCO's PRA, if LILCO uses its PRA for any purpose during the hearings, Suffolk County will inquire into the adequacy, reliability and integrity of that analysis.
I Finally, in the event that the Board is inclined to adopt LILCO's version of EP 27, and without prejudice to the i
County's right to object to litigating someone else's contention, the County suggests that LILCO's version of EP 27 should more i
closely track the language of 10 C.F.R.
S50.47 (b) (9).
Further-more, as suggested by LILCO, the County has set forth below the ways in which LILCO's accident assessment and dose assess-ment models may be deficient:
. 1 l
EP 27.
Accident Assessment and Dose Assessment.
LILCO has failed to demon-strate that its methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are adequate and comply with 10 C.F.R.
S50.47 (b) (9) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, in that:
A.
LILCO has failed to demonstrate that the methodology employed in developing LILCO's accident assessment and dose assessment models was site-specific to the Shoreham facility; B.
LILCO has failed to demonstrate that its accident assessment and dose assessment models are capable of incorporating the range of variables resulting from LILCO's accident probability and conse-quences analyses conducted for the Shoreham facility; and C.
LILCO has failed to demonstrate that its assessment and monitoring equipment will be capable of
. assessing and monitoring the full range of conditions which may be experienced at the Shoreham facility in the event of a radio-logical emergency.
Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Suffolk County Attorney Patricia A. Dempsey Assistant Suffolk' County Attorney Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Y
b "w
Refbert H'.
Brown Cherif Sedky Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 452-7000 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated:
July 26, 1982 Washington, DC
UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 (0.L.)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Suffolk County's Response to LILCO's Suggested Revision of EP27 on Emergency Planning" was sent on July 2[, 1982 by first class mail, except where otherwise noted, to the following:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.*
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D.C.
20555 Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Dr. James L.
Carpenter
- 217 Newbridge Road Administrative Judge Hicksville, New York 11801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.*
Washington, D.C.
20555 Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main St.
Mr. Peter A. Morris
- Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C.
20555 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Empire State Plaza General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Mr. Brian McCaffrey Attorneys at Law Long Island Lighting Company P.O.
Box 398 175 East Old Country Road 33 West Second Street Hicksville, New York 11801 Riverhead, New York 11901
- By Hand
Marc W. Goldsmith Mr. Jeff Smith Energy Research Group, Inc.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O.
Box 618 l
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq.
MBB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
County Executive / Legislative Suffolk County Attorney Building County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection' Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Department of Washington, D.C.
20555 Law 2 World Trade Center Docketing and Service Section New York, New York 10047 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
Commission David A.
Repka, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Staff Counsel, New York Stuart Diamond State Public Service Comm.
Environment / Energy Writer 3 Rockefeller Plaza NEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223 Long Island, New York 11747 Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchison 1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
/
ristop6er M'.
McMu r r a'y KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL,
/
CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS
, u 2;[ /'jkfd-1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor DATE:
p7 " }/
Washington, D.C.
20036
/'
l 1