ML20063E164

Response Opposing Util 820706 Objections to Emergency Planning Contentions.Contentions Adequately Particularized. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20063E164
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/09/1982
From:	Shapiro R Cammer & Shapiro, NORTH SHORE COMMITTEE AGAINST NUCLEAR & THERMAL POLLU
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207130321
Download: ML20063E164 (7)

Text

.

\

j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.... . . U "[" h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4" DM'# 7 9

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ^ BOARD;

. . . ic- ic C,f

~ ~ ' " ',"/ a g/f/Y Y

. y F

E N

5

)

In the Matter of ) j

)

LONG' ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.  ?

) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power ) Proceedings) y Station, Unit 1) )

)

j

) *i NSC's RESPONSE TO LILCO's i' OBJECTIONS TO EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS  ?

Ei e

Preliminary 5 m

Counsel for NSC received LILCO's Objections, dated and mailed July 6th,1982, at 9:15 a.m. on July 9th, 1982. i 5

In an attempt to meet the Board's schedule, NSC submits the following " bare-boned" Response. @

To dispel an apparent misunderstanding by LILCO (p.3); E NSC filed a revised set of contentions on July 1st, 1982. The A second full paragraph on page 2 thereof stated that time constraints did not permit the form of a consolidated contention but asserted that, in counsel's judgment, there was neither duplication, c E

overlap nor redundancy among the Intervenors' Contentions. After E F

reviewing the Obj ections we are still of that opinion. M Counsel learned after the NSC July 1st filing that 1

}5 counsel for SC had timely filed a First Amended Consolidated c

=

0207130321 820709 h..

PDR ADOCK 05000 o

3 5 s.3 y

u

l

[

8 Emergency Planning Contentions. The Consolidated Contention 5 incorporated, in haec verba, NSC's July 1st, 1982, revised  !

?

contentions. .Therefore, LILCO has had since July 1st' to  !

ponder the contentions.

The Objections l

Objection to EP3 and NSC3 (EP)(1 through 6)(p.5): l 0

It is certainly true that these contentions, in LILCO's words, " question the medical assistance available in a radiolog-ical emergency." However, SC and NSC approach this aspect of LILCO's plan from different perspectives. NSC, unlike SC, emphasizes LILCO's failure to provide adequate concunications/

notifications procedures.

Thus, SC EP3(A) speaks to the inadequate medical services and facilities; (B) addresses the absence of appropriate trans-portation plans; and (C) focuses on the absence of current agree-ments with the off-site facilities.

In sharp contrast, and with the debatable exception of NSC3(2), the other contentions in NSC3 address thenselves to the inadequate communication and notification procedures in the Plan. i NSC3(1), (4), and (5) are concerned only with inadequate notification i

and communi' cation procedures. NSC3(3) is not duplicative of '

anything in SC EP3. The latter speaks to the inadequacies of Central Suffolk Hospital and University Hospital because of their locations with respect to the Shoreham plant and the possible

4 inability of Central Suffolk Hospital to treat radiologically injured patients. NSC3(3) goes beyond that by pinpointing LILCO's failure to foresee and to plan for inadequate emergency facilities in facilities other than the two hospitals mentioned in EP3(A).

?

I SC EPll and NSC1 (EP), NSCl (EP)(5) and NSC2 (EP1)(1): .

El,es L t LILCO glaringly misreads 4NSC contentions when it j states that they allege only the overload of commercial telephone lines. The most cursory review of NSCl shows that the contentions go far beyond the overload of commercial telephone lines. For example, NSCl(l) criticizes the low-powered UHF radio station upon which LILCO relies; (2) speaks to sabotage, the absence of a back-up power source, as well as a power overload; and (3) refers to the history of power outages in Long Island because of adverse weather conditions.

We will not burden the Board with further analysis of the differences between NSCl (EP) and SC EPil, for they are apparent from a mere reading. LILCO is the ungrateful beneficiary  :

of contention-particularization, whose absence it is prone to criticize and should not seek to have them consolidated and rewritten. (p.5).

The redundancies of which LILCO complains (p.5) are [

more apparent than real. NSCl(3) and (4) speak of power outages, sabotage and the effect of adverse weather conditions on an outdoor, 7

=

~

b S

hh

, i

9 overhead telephone system. NSCl(2) emphasizes the absence of a backup power source if any of the foregoing circumstances cause &

p a communications failure. O There is no redundancy between NSCl(10) and NSC2(1) .

3 The former concerns the communications / notifications system's inability to communicate with off-site assistance resource  !,

facilities. The latter concerns itself with the inadequate I

staffing, briefing and equipment of facilities to communicate i e

with the media, the general public and other governmental agencies. R g

5 E

5 The Contentions are adequately particularized. $

n Were it not for the burden imposed upon NSC counsel, f L LILCO's shift of position in its present complaint of the lack g of particularization and specificity would be laughable (p.6) .

As indicated in our July 1st submission, one of LILCO's cocplaints l

'about the contentions previously served upon it on June 16th, B EL 1982, were that they were too particularized. Indeed, during 5 L"

the telephone conference call, counsel for NSC queried why ji LILCO's counsel were unwilling to accept more information than B H

was required. When LILCO persisted in its objections, counsel -

E 6

for NSC pruned the June 16th draft submission and filed revised -

contentions, deleting the then objectionable particularities.

LILCO's 180 shift is inexplicable and should be rejected. a a

=

E

=

i I

a

=

n

i. - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ n

===me: m M77

_j - *

(

Conclusion The Objections are without inerit and should be rejected.

1 Respectfully submitted, A Y

CAMMER & SHAPIRO, P.C. p t

By: X4/4 Ralpn#3hapiro '

j 9 East 40th Street =

New York, New York 10016  !

Attorney for North Shore E Committee Against Nuclear and Thermal Pollution. f g

l-July 9, 1982 2-New York, New York I

.n l'

i41 il h

\ a l t r

p

_s_

l i

r

. 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..... :---

3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

• . ~ 1 2 E U-

)

In the Matter of ) . r-

)

' C:

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) _

.) Docket No. 50-322 (0. L. ) i

'(Shoreham Nuclear Power )

Station, Unit 1) )

) 3

) i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NSC Response to LILCO's Obj ections to Emergency Planning Contentions were sent on July 9th, 1982, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Administrative Judge 217 Newbridge Rd.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville, NY 11801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.

Hunton & Williams Dr. James L. Carpenter P.O. Box 1535 Administrative Judge 707 East Main St.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Richmond, VA 23212 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkelberger New York State Energy Office Mr. Peter A. Morris Agency Building 2 Administratice Judge Empire State Plaza l:

Atomic Safety S Licensing Board Albany, New York 12223 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen Latham, Esq.

• Twomey, Latham & Shea Edward M. Barrett, Esq. P.O. Box 398 General Counsel 33 West Second Street Long Island Lighting Company _Riverhead, NY 11901 250.Old Country Rd.

• Mincola, NY 11501 Marc W. Goldsmith Energy Research Group, Inc. l Mr. Brian McCaffrey 400-1 Totten Pond Road Long Island Lighting Company Waltham, MA 02154 l 175 East Old Country Rd.

Hicksville, NY 11801

e -

_3 .

Joel Blau, Esq. Jeff Smith l N.Y Public Service Commission Shoreham Nuclear Power Station  ;

The Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller Bldg. P.O. Box 618 Empire State Plaza North Country Rd.

Albany, NY 12223 Wading River, NY 11792 David H. Gilmartin, Esq. MHB Technical Associates

. Suffolk County Attorney 1723 Hamilton Avenue County Executive / Legislative Bldg. Suite K Veterans Memorial Highway San Jose, CA. 95125 '

Hauppauge, NY 11788 Hon. Peter Cohalan Atomic Safety and Licensing Suffolk County Executive Board Panel County Executive / Legislative U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Building Washington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Docketing & Service Station Office of the Secretary Ezra I. Eialik, Es,q.  !

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General l Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Protection j Bureau l Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. NYS Department of Law David A. Repka, Esq. 2 World Trade Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, NY 10047 Washington, D.C. 20555  ;

Atomic Safety & Licensing i Stuart Diamond Appeal Board Environment / Energy Writer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commn NEWSDAY Washington, D.C. 20555 Long Island, NY 11747 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.  ;

Cherif Sedky, Esq. Staff Counsel, NYS Publf;;  ;

Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson Service Commission r

& Hutchison 3 Rockefeller Plaza ,

1500 Oliver Bldg. Albany, NY 12223 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 -

Christopher McMurray, Esq. 9 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips  ;

1900 M Street, 8th floor Washington, D.C. 20036 DATE: 9.[ '~ -

UV' 1 , k Ralph SH7piro , 'E5q. ' {.

CAMMER & SHAPIRO, P C.

9 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Attorney for North Shore Committee Against Nuclear -

and Thermal Pollution.  :

i 1