ML20063E575
| ML20063E575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1982 |
| From: | Mccleskey K HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208300305 | |
| Download: ML20063E575 (140) | |
Text
- I ,:aru
~
- i LILCO, Auguc(,24, 1982 -
I?'
00 METED USNRC ,
52 k50 27 55 :22 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
~ ~ ' ' '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r L
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit-1) )
LILCO'S OBJECTIONS TO THE INTERVENORS' PHASE ONE CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS I.
In its Prehearing Conference Order dated April 20, 1982, the Board ordered the intervenors to file consolidated I
i emergency planning contentions, and LILCO to file a statement of its position on the admissibility of the contentions, on June 22, 1982. April 20 Order at 7-8. Following those filings, the intervenors filed a second set of contentions on l
July 6, 1982. LILCO filed its objections to the July 6 conten-tions that day as well.
On July 20, 1982, the Board heard oral argument on the l
July 6 contentions and, after a day-long, contention-by-contention discussion with the parties that included specific instructions to Suffolk County (the County), the North Shore Coalition (NSC), and the Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC)
F2083OO305 820824 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR bh]
r ,
. l (col.lectively, the intervenors) regarding further particularization and consolidation of the contentions, ordered l the parties to meet frequently to discuss, refine, and in some instances settle the contentions. The intervenors were direc-ted to file another set of contentions on August 20.
Since July 20, the County, NSC, and SOC have met once with LILCO, on July 26. LILCO met a second time with the County on the afternoon of August 3.1/
LILCO, in its letters of July 16 and August 5, included information pertinent to the issues raised in the contentions, a.nd questions designed to narrow the issues and explore settle-ment of certain contentions. On August 5, the County responded to LILCO's July 16 and July 24 letters. The County's letter contained no settlement proposals and little useful information concerning the County's position on the contentions.
On August 11, LILCO received a new draft of NSC's conten-tions, representing a substantial rewrite of EP 20. On August 13, LILCO provided additional information on many of the con-tentions, asked 45 informal interrogatories (including ques-tions from the July 16 and August 5 letters that had not been answered), and included nine draft settlement agreements.
1/ LILCO's Emergency Planning Coordinator participated in this meeting.
l
LILCO received the County's revised contentions on August
- 16. LILCO sent another letter on August 17 containing informa-tion and questions on the remaining contentions, as well as draft contention language for new EP 14.C, an additional draft settlement agreement, and the text of five sample public mes-sages. LILCO also discussed NSC's contentions with NSC by phone on August 18, and provided additional information NSC had requested. A letter confirming the information exchanged during that phone call was sent on August 20.2/ To date, LILCO has received no draft settlement language and no firm commit-ment from Suffolk County regarding settlement of any of the emergency rianning contentions. The County has not responded in any subatantive way to LILCO's questions and settlement pro-posals.3/
The Board and the parties are now facing the County's third attempt at drafting contentions that are adequately 2/ Copies of pertinent emergency planning correspondence are attached to this pleading.
3/ The County did telecopy to us yesterday a five page let-ter, dated August 23, that states in part that "[t]o help move things along, and as a sign of the County's good faith, we pro-pose a meeting of the parties on Tuesday, September 7, 1982, at which time we can begin to discuss your proposals and put forth the County's position with respect to them." Citing " existing time constraints" (discovery depositions), the County also states "we are unable to answer [your informal interrogatories) in writing at this time." We do not find it necessary to attach this. letter to the pleading, and mention it only because arguably it constitutes a response to our letters.
_4 particularized and have factual bases as required by 10 C.F.R.
5 2.714(b). These contentions have hardly changed from the original contentions the County filed two months ago. In LILCO's view, the contentions have remained unchanged because the County has done little towards refining the contentions, engaging the substantive issues raised in the contentions, or addressing the substantive issues raised by LILCO regarding the contentions.
For this reason, LILCO requests that, should the Board agree that certain of the August 20 contentions are still not adequately particularized, or lack bases, or both, that the Board deny admission of those contentions with prejudice. The County and SOC 4/ are not pro se litigants, but are represented by counsel with extensive experience in NRC licensing pro-ceedings. The Board has imposed obligations on the parties in this hearing regarding discussions and refinement of emergency planning issues, obligations that in our view would, if met, substantially improve the quality of the emergency planning phase of this proceeding. The County and SOC have not met their obligations. The appropriate sanction is to deny admis-sion of their contentions. See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co.
4/ SOC is the lead intervenor for one contention -- EP 19, Recovery and Re-entry. LILCO, in its objections below, is requesting that the Board deny admission of that contention.
f (Byron' Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-678, 16 NRC (June 17, 1982). Therefore, in the objections to the con-tentions detailed in part III below, LILCO has requested that the Board dismiss contentions lacking adequate bases or partic-ularization, rather than permitting the County and SOC to sub-mit these contentions a fourth time.
II.
The NRC Staff announced to the Board on August 3 (Tr.
8697) that the Staff would begin its onsite emergency planning appraisal on August 23, filing an interim appraisal report on September 6 and a final appraisal report on October 1.
Following that announcement, the Board requested that LILCO include in this filing its position on revising the filing date for emergency planning testimony, in light of the revised
( appraisal schedule.
l l LILCO continues to believe that the emergency planning testimony on Phase I issuec should be filed on September 14.
Filing testimony ~on the issues serves to focus the parties' attention on those issues in a way that discovery and informal I discussions cannot. This view has been borne out thus far during the Shoreham operating-license proceeding. Further, on the emergency planning issues, discussions among the parties have not worked. Given the dismal results of the parties' I
attempts to date to focus on emergency planning issues, it is particularly important that the parties file testimony on emergency planning as previously scheduled.
LILCO is mindful of the Board's wish that the results of the Staff's appraisal be included in the NRC's testimony. The Staff can une the interim appraisal report in writing its tes-timony, appending the final report on October 1. The Staff will also have the benefit of the information provided by LILCO to close out open CER emergency planning items on emergency planning.5/ Accordingly, the NRC Staff will have the opportu-nity to incorporate the appraisal findings in its testimony.
The County contends that emergency planning testimony should be filed on November 1, or 30 days after receipt of the Staff's final report, whichever date is later. It argues that the final appraisal report is " vital" to settlement of the issues, might uncover emergency planning deficiencies that would not be apparent to the parties, and will most likely
- identify new facts. We submit that filing testimony on September 14 will accomplish the same purpose. Further, we are not so optimistic as the County that the issues remaining for litigation will run well into November.
I 5/ LILCO will provide by August 30, 1982, the additional l information necessary to close the open SER items.
Therefore, LILCO requests that the Board maintain the pre-sent filing schedule for emergency planning testimony.
III.
Below are LILCO's objections to the County's, NSC's, and SOC's August 20 emergency planning contentions.
The Board ruled in its July 27, 1982 Order that old con-tention EP 1, "Overall LILCO Plan Inadequacy," was inadmissible because it lacked particularly and was overly broad. However, in response to the County's Motion for Reconsideration, the Board allowed the County to resubmit EP 1 in this filing. The
, new contention EP 1, retitled "LILCO's Failure to Account For l
the Specific Conditions Existing On Long Island," is also l
l overly broad, and lacks particularity and bases. It should be denied admission.
! The only regulations cited by the County to support the contention are the general provisions of 10 CFR S 50.47(a) and (b), requiring " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological 1
i emergency." No specific provisions that follow the general language of 50.47(a) have been cited to support the contention (unless by citing part (b) the County means to include the sixteen subparts that follow).
e Further, the County has once:again provided nothing more than a list of factors (this time round the list is more detai-led) that allegedfy have not been taken into account in forming the LILCO plan. No attempt has been made to identify specific factors unique to Long Island that may affect emergency plan-ning for Shoreham. For example, the County has added (i),
"where people live" and (ii), "where people work" under (1),
" local demographic, socio-economic and social and behavorial characteristics of the population affected by'a radiological emergency." Items (i) and (ii) may assist in defining what the County means by (1), but these additions do not provide-a basis for' litigating (1). The County does not state where these peo-ple are located, why their-location must,be taken into account, and how their location affects emergency planning. Contrary to' the language of the second paragraph of"the contention, the County has not provided the bases for EP 1.
Finally, many' parts of EP 1 are redundant to other conten-tions. Most of the factors listed in paragraph three of EP 1 are included in EP 5, Protective Action Recommendations, and EP 23, Dose Assessment Model. Notification of the population is discussed in EP 9, Public Information; public education was discussed in old EP 8, Public Education, which the Board ruled is a Phase II issue. Part (iii) of EP 1 is redundant to EP 9, Public Information; part (iv) is redundant to old EP 8, Public
-- - - - n .,
. l
. l
_g.
Education (Phase II); parts (v) and (vi) are redundant to each other and to EP 2, Prompt Notification System (partly Phase II; susceptible to settlement), old EP 2.G (Phase II), EP 5, Protective Actions, old EP 8, Public Education (Phase II), EP 9, Public Information (susceptible to settlement), and EP 11, Messages to the Public and to Offsite Authorities (susceptible to settlement); part (vii) is redundant to EP 6.A, Role con-flict in emergency workers; and (2) and (3) are redundant to EP 5, Protective Action Recommendations.6/ In addition, no regu-lation sections are cited-to support these points, and nowhere in the contention does the County cite the LILCO plan.
For the reasons stated above, LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of EP 1. If EP 1 is admitted, LILCO requests the Board to order the County to (1) delete those por-tions of the contention redundant to other contentions, (2) specify the unique circumstances on Long Island that have not been considered, (3) provide cites to the portions of the LILCO plan the County finds inadequate, and (4) provide cites to spe-I cific regulations that address each remaining point. It is t
, likely that whatever might remain of EP 1 after 6/ LILCO asked the County, in its letters of July 24 and August 13 (attached), to identify the evidence the County planned to present in litigating EP 1 that it was not going to present in litigating the other emergency planning contentions.
The County has not responded.
particularization and consolidation would be more properly litigated in Phase II of the emergency planning proceeding.
EP 2 (old EP 2, with old 2.C dropped)
The Board admitted EP 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C in its July 27 Order. The Board ordered the parties "to conduct whatever investigation or informal exchanges of information as are necessary for them to narrow or resolve" EP 2.D (old EP 2.E),
Order at 7, and suggested that EP 2.E (old EP 2.F) is suscepti-ble to settlement "in accordence with the on-the-record com-ments of counsel for Suffolk County." Order at 8.
LILCO provided additional information and asked questions designed to narrow these issues in its letters of July 16 at 2 and August 13 at 8-10. The County responded to the July 15 l
letter in its letter of August 5, stating that new 2.D (old 2.E) had been deferred to Phase II, and that the County would appreciate additional information (unspecified) on new 2.E (old 2.F). Contrary to the Board's July 27 Order, the County has l
made no effort to settle new 2.D and 2.E or to narrow these contentions. Accordingly, LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of 2.D and 2.E as not adequately particularized and without bases.
If new 2.D and 2.E are admitted, LILCO requests the Board to order the County to comply with the Board's July 27 Order by (1) particularizing the contentions by listing the facilities the County alleges are to be notified through tone alerts, and identifying precisely what objections the County has to LILCO's use of the Emergency Broadcast System to verify the tone alerts; (2) provide cites to the portions of the LILCO plan the County finds inadequate; and (3) provide cites to the specific regulations relevant to these issues. Additionally, it is likely these issues are more properly considered in Phase II of the emergency planning litigation.
The Board in its July 27 Order ruled EP 3.A inadmissible as written. Order at 8. The County has rewritten EP 3.A by adding this paragraph:
(1) LILCO's plan, if implemented, would constitute an emergency response so inef-fectual that large numbers of the public would require hospitalization for radiation injury. Thus, hundreds of thousands of peo-pie will be gridlocked in traffic jams for hours in automobiles that furnish virtually no shelter from radiation. In a severe radiological accident, many of these individuals are likely to receive radiation injury which would require hospitalization.
l Central Suffolk Hospital cannot accommodate l such a large number of individuals.
l EP 3.A is not adequately particularized and should not be admitted. The County's additional paragraph (1) is global in its assertions, redundant to paragraph (4), and contrary to the Appeal Board's decision in Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-680, 16 NRC (July 16, 1982). As the Appeal Board noted in its decision, 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47 (b)(12) -- sited by the County to support this contention - " requires arrangements for medical services only for ' contaminated injured' individuals, not for members of the general public who may have suffered radiation j exposure or injury in a nuclear accident. " San Onofre at 16.
The Appeal Board went on to identify the possible " contaminated injured" individuals as follows:
These people would be principally workers onsite who become contaminated and injured during the course of the accident. The con-taminated injured could also include members of the general public, such as emergency workers, who might be involved in monitoring a contaminated area onsite and are then injured (for example) in a traffic accident.
San Onofre at 18. The County asserts in paragraphs (1) and (4) of EP 3.A that "large numbers of the public would require hospitalization for radiation injury" as a result of being "gridlocked in traffic j ams for hours. " The County offers no bases for this assertion. If the County is challenging protec-tive action recommendations, the dose assessment model, the 4
- + - - -- - - , , - - , - . - . , , --e-,-- .
prompt notification system, or the public education program, the County has filed contentions that address these issues.
Additionally, in paragraphs (2) and (4) of EP 3.A, the County does not state precisely why the County thinks Central Suffolk Hospital is inadequate to treat contaminated injured individuals. And in paragraph (3) of EP 3.A, the County has not specified why University Hospital is "too distant" or what constitutes " timely treatment" of contaminated injured individuals. Paragraph (3) also refers to " contaminated individuals" rather than " contaminated injured individuals."7/
Despite the Board's July 27 Order and the questions in LILCO's letters of July 16, August 13, and August 17, the County has not particularized EP 3.A. In addition, in response to LILCO's July 16 letter, the County stated in its August 5
~
"/contaminated persons," " contaminated injured persons," and 7 In its contention, the County.is blurring the meanings of
" persons with radiation injury." Contaminated persons need to be decontaminated, usually by simply washing the contamination off. They need not go to the hospital to do so. Contaminated injured persons need attention to their traumatic injury, and decontamination. The traumatic injury, which may be life-threatening, is attended to before the decontamination.
These people may require hospitalization. Persons with radia-tion injury are not contaminated. Their symptoms develop over time, and while they may require hospitalization, it is unli-kely they would require immediate hospitalization. Title 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(12) refers to the " contaminated injured" individuals. See the discussion in San onofre at 13 through
- 22. A contention addressing rad $ation sickness and injury to the general population would be litigable, if at all, in Phase II.
I l
l letter that the County's expert was planning to visit Central Suffolk Hospital (at an unspecified date) to " evaluate its capacity to respond to a radiological emergency." The County has put forth EP 3.A without bases and without particularizing its concerns. LILCO therefore asks that the Board deny admis-sion of EP 3.A. If EP 3.A is admitted, the County should be required to particularize its contention.
The Board admitted this contention in its July 27 Order, instructing the intervenors to consider consolidating it with EP 6.B and 9.D, and reserving the possibility that this conten-tion will be heard during Phase II of the proceeding. Order at
- 8. It is LILCO's view that EP 3.B should be consolidated with EP 6.B and 9.D, and that all three are properly considered during Phase I.
Additionally, LILCO objects to the County's having rewrit-ten this contention to read "those persons who would require hospitalization for radiation injury and/or of contaminated injured individuals." The contention should be filed for liti-gation as originally admitted, with the additions to the con-tention (underlined in the above quote) omitted.
EP 3.C (old EP 3.C and EP 6.C)
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that this contention was susceptible to settlement. Order at 9. LILCO asked the County questions and provided information to the County regarding this contention in letters dated July 16 and August
- 13. The County responded to the July 16 letter by stating in its August 5 letter that it wants "some assurance" that response organizations will respond. The County did not define "some assurance", and did not respond to or suggest settlement proposals.
Accordingly, LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of EP 3.C as not adequately particularized. If EP 3.C is admitted, the County should be required to particularize this contention by (1) identifying by name the organizations it thinks LILCO should obtain agreements frem, (2) defining what it means by an "up-to-date agreement", and (3) defining what constitutes " reasonable assurance that those organizations have the capability to deliver and will deliver" services.
EP 3.D (old EP 20(c) and now EP 18)
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that this contention was not admissible as written. Order at 16. As rewritten by NSC, subpart (1) refers to training and should be consolidated with EP 7.A; subpart (2) refers to notification of offsite
personnel and should be consolidated with EP 6; subpart (3) refers to the ability to respond at Shoreham during an emergency and should be consolidated with EP 6.B; and subpart (4) is redundant to EP 3.B and should be dropped. Additionally, for subparts (1) through (5), NSC should list the specific regulations appropriate for each issue and state precisely which section of the-LILCO plan NSC contends is inadequate.
Accordingly, LILCO objects to EP 3.D as not. adequately particu-larized, and requests that the Board order consolidation and particularization as outlined above.
EP 4 (old EP 4, slightly rewritten)
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that the intervenors were to " file a better particularized version" of this conten-tion, that "[i]f LILCO's plan is silent as to the use of Federal Resources, that too should be noted," and that this contention is "readily susceptible to settlement." Order at 9.
In the LILCO plan, pages 3-1, 3-2, and 5-8 plus figures 3-1, 3-1.1, 3-1.2, and 3-1.3 mention Federal resources. Even looking only at page 5-8, the County has not particularized the l
contention as the Board ordered by stating precisely what is lacking from the LILCO plan. In addition, the County has not identified the part of the LILCO plan quoted in EP 4 that is j objectionable to the County or stated why it is objectionable, and has not defined " local resources."g/ Therefore, LILCO g/ LILCO requested this information in its August 13 letter.
requests that the Board deny admission of EP 4 as not ade-quately particularized.
The Board admitted EP 5 in its July 27 Order. Order at 9.
However, the intervenors have not referenced the specific pro-visions of the LILCO pit.n alleged to be inadequate, as required by the Board's Order. Order at 4. As stated in LILCO's August 13 letter, information regarding protective action recom-mendations is contained in the LILCO plan at 6.4.1 (page 6-11) and in SP 69.026.02 (found in volume 1 of the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures at tab 15). Although the Board has admitted this contention as written, we observe that the County
, could better particularize the contention by reviewing the 1
l material contained in the LILCO plan and corresponding proce-dure, and stating precisely what the County finds lacking in this material, including what "particular conditions existing in the Shoreham vicinity" have not been addressed.9/
l l 9/ The questions on EP 5 in LILCO's letters of July 16, August 13, and August 17 were posed to obtain these details.
The County responded to the July 16 letter on August 5 by stat-ing that in its view LILCO has failed to set forth in the LILCO plan a range of protective actions, or to discuss the bases for l those actions.
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that this contention is not admissible as written and "should be susceptible to resolution." Order at 12. It has not been rewritten, and it does not reference specific portions of the LILCO plan. A draft settlement agreement for this contention was sent to the County with LILCO's August 13 letter; the County has not responded. Therefore, LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of EP 6.C as not adequately particularized. If EP 6.C is admitted, the Board should order the intervenors to (1) reference the specific provision of the LILCO plan alleged to-be inadequate and (2) state precisely in what way the provi-sion is inadequate, including a list of the specific procedures that allegedly do not conform to NUREG-0654, and a discussion of the alleged deficiencies.
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that this contention is " susceptible to settlement as part of Phase I." Order at
- 10. The County was ordered to "[p]articularize, based on references in the recent revision to the LILCO plan, any mat-l ters which remain in issue." The intervenors have not rewrit-ten this contention.
l I
l I
LILCO provided information regarding EP 7.A in its letters of July 16, August 13, _and August 17. The County responded to the July 16 letter in its August S letter, stating its belief that fire departments and ambulance services in the Shoreham vicinity had not been trained. LILCO supplied information regarding EP 7.B in its letters of July 16, August 13 (noting an attached draft settlement agreement), and August 17.
LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of EP 7 for lack of bases and particularity. If EP 7 is admitted, the Board should order the County to comply with its previous Order regarding this contention.
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that this contention is " susceptible to settlement as part of Phase I, and subject to the clarification that the contention relates to coordi-nation of messages between LILCO and Suffolk County." Order at
- 11. In LILCO's letter of July 16, LILCO asked the County what role Suffolk County officials should take. The County responded in its August 5 letter that the County does "not seek l
in this contention to have LILCO set forth in any great detail precisely what role Suffolk County will play in the event of an emergency." LILCO provided a draft settlement agreement and additional information regarding EP 9 in LILCO's August 17
letter. The County has not identified, at any time since this contention first appeared, the language in the LILCO plan it finds objectionable, or the language it would like LILCO to add to the plan to address the County's concern.
LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of EP 9 as not adequately particularized and without bases. If EP 9 is admitted, the County should identify the objectionable language in the LILCO plan and to suggest language that would satisfy its concerns regarding the County's role in an emergency.
The Board ruled in its July 27 order that this contention was susceptible to settlement. Order at 12. The County has l
not suggested any settlement language. LILCO provided a draft settlement agreement for part of this contention (old EP 13) with its August 13 letter, and provided additional pertinent I information in its August 17 letter, including the number of the Shoreham procedure that contains preplanned message state-ments, the section of the LILCO plan that contains the stand-ardized message forms used by all nuclear power plants in the l
- State of New York, and five sample messages to the public. The l contention has not been rewritten, and merely states incor-rectly that LILCO's plan does not provide the contents of mes-sages to the public and to offsite authorities. Therefore,
l LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of EP 11 for lack of particularity and bases.
If the contention is admitted, the Board should require the County to examined the materials in the LILCO plan and the pertinent supporting documents, and state precisely what lan-guage the County finds objectionable.
EP 14.C (no old number)
LILCO objects to EP 14.C as worded because it does not adequately reflect the parties' settlement agreement on the iodine monitoring issue. The contention should be rewritten as follows:
Even though the equipment intended for use by LILCO to monitor iodine released to the l environment in the case of a radiological l
accident meets the specifications of NUREG-0737 and Regulatory Guide 1.97, the
( accuracy of the equipment is not satis-l factory to meet the requirements of (specify the requirement] because (explain why].
EP 14.D l
The Intervenors have not identified the pertinent regula-l tions or section of the LILCO plan for this issue. NUREG-0654
! II.H.S.b. suggests that a plan identify the process and radia-tion monitors to be used. LILCO has identified those monitors at page 6-2 and in Table 6-1 of the LILCO plan. If " furnish specific identification" means something other than this i
l I
l information, LILCO objects to this contention as lacking particularity.
This contention, as rewritten, deals entirely with alleged inadequacies in the training program for LILCO and off-site emergency workers. It should be consolidated with EP 7.
Further, EP 16.A is not adequately particularized in U.at NSC has not defined " psychological and mental stress" or identified the regulations and section of the LILCO plan pertinent to each subpart of this contention.
Based upon discussions last week with counsel for NSC, it appears that the parties may settle this contention. If settlement is not effected, EP 16.A should be consolidated with EP 8, Onsite Response Organization; EP 16.B should be consoli-dated with EP 10, Emergency Operations Facility; and EP 16.C should be consolidated with EP 9, Public Information.
l This contention is also included in its entirety as part D of EP 3, Medical and Public Health support. Objections to this l
l contention are included in the discussion of EP 3, above.
1 l
l
This contention should be deleted as redundant to EP 3.D.
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that "[t]his conten-tion, advanced by SOC, should be clarified . . . as to those aspects of LILCO's plan which allegedly do not comply with NUREG-0654, Item IIIM or 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(13)," and that the contention was susceptible to settlement as part of Phase I.
Order at 16. Contrary to the Board's Order,-the contention has not been rewritten.
LILCO's letter of August 13 asked SOC to review Chapter 9 of the LILCO plan, " Recovery," plus SP 69.070.01, "Re-Entry,"
to determine whether that material satisfied SOC's concerns.
SOC has not responded. Therefore, LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of EP 19 as lacking adequate particularity and bases.
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that "the subdivi-sions of this contention, particularly (f), should be better particularized by August 20 as to what specific matters intervenors seek to litigate." Order at 16. The County has dropped part F, but has not particularized the remaining A through E. Therefore, LILCO requests that the Board deny l
admission of EP 20 as not adequately particularized. If EP 20 is admitted, the County should comply with the Board's July 27 Order and particularize EP 20.A through EP 20.E.
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order at 17 that "[t]his contention should be better particularized by August 20, or dropped, if all necessary EPIP's have now been provided."
Order at 17. The interver ors have rewritten the contention by adding the phrase "contain numerous blanks and missing informa-tion." LILCO objects to this contention as still lacking par-ticularization. The County has not identified the alleged blanks in the EPIP's, or listed the EPIP's the County alleges are not complete and approved. Therefore, LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of this contention. If EP 21 is admitted, the County should be required to adequately particu-larize the contention.
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that this contention was not admissible as written. In an attempt to particularize the contention, the County has added this paragraph:
LILCO has failed to identify in its Emergency Action Level scheme (Plan Chapter 4: EPIP at SP 69.020), the extent, if any, to which non-safety-related instruments and equipment will be relied upon. To the
extent that non-safety-related instruments and equipment are relied upon in LILCO's Emergency Action Level scheme, LILCO has failed to demonstrate that such instruments and equipment are capable of providing accu-rate information during the course of an accident.
It appears to LILCO from this language that the County is attempting to re-litigate contention 7B, Systems Interaction (and possibly the quality assurance contentions as well) in the emergency planning phase of this proceeding. If the County intended to distinguish EP 22 from 7B, then the County has not adequately particularized EP 22 by identifying the "non-safety-related instruments and equipment" the County is referring to in the contention, and by providing a basis for the assertion that "LILCO has failed to demonstrate that such instruments and equipment are capable of providing accurate information during the course of an accident." In either case, LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of this contention.
If EP 22 is admitted, LILCO requests that the Board order the County to further particularize EP 22 by stating precisely what instruments and equipment it is referring to, what LILCO is required to " demonstrate" regarding the equipment, and why the County thinks such a demonstration has not been made.
l l
t
EP 24 (no old number)
The Board ruled in its July 27 Order that by August 20 the intervenors were to file a contention informing the Board of any " specific concerns" the County may have regarding the Technical Support Center (TSC). Order at 21. EP 24, the County's contention regarding the TSC, is not adequately par-ticularized, as it does not list precisely the alleged defi-ciencies in the TSC and gives no basis for the County's asser-tion that the TSC will not be functional by fuel load.
Accordingly, LILCO requests that the Board deny admission of EP 24 as not adequately particularized and without bases.
For the reasons stated above, LILCO objects to the County's, NSC's, and SOC's emergency planning contentions.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY t-
> m-E151, Thdu 1 W) TaylSr Revelby,' III '
Jhmes N. Christman Kathy E. B. McCleskey Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 l DATED: August 24, 1982 l
LILCO, August 24, 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 THE INTERVENOR'S PHASE ONE CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS were served upon the follot'ing by first-class mail, postage prepaid, by Federal Express (as indicated by an aster-isk), or by hand (as indicated by two asterisks), on August 24, 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 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.**
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. Nuclesr Regulatory County Attorney Commission Suffolk County Department of Law Washington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787
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 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 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 jr1' W . Tayl6r Reveley, III 1
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: August 24, 1982
o 4 *
> HUNTox & WILLIAxs 707 EA.7 Main SmctT P.O. Box 1535 RICX380ND,VZEOZNEA SSS12 .... .c--.,swa-i. ava w t, m w.
u -- - - ~. rm .. ....,......o ;;;.;;,a7,=.;; = ~>-
, , y;;;;:r ~ ~ ~ ... ,. ....... ,...
Herbert Brown, Esq. July 16, 1982 Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher
& Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 PROPOSALS FOR SEITLEMENT OF EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS Gentlemen:
I.
As we told you on Wednesday, we believe some of your contentions on emergency planning can be settled, and we understand that you will make a good-faith effort to reach agreement with us. Listed below are settlement suggestions for particular contentions. If you are not satisfied with our proposals, please advise us what would satisfy you.
In some areas we are unable to understand precisely what you would have LILCO do to correct the alleged deficiencies in its plan. We think settlement would be facilitated if you would simply tell us in concrete l
terms what you want LILCO to do; perhaps LILCO will be able to accept some of your proposals. Accordingly, we have included in this letter
, some questions about what your contentions mean. We will consider these l questions to be part of the informal discovery process, and we call upon
, you to answer them in that spirit, even if you are not interested in l settlement.
In reviewing our proposals and questions in this letter, be sure you are also referring to the latest draft of the LILCO Emergency Plan and the supporting documents that were submitted to the NRC on June 28, 1982, by SNRC-722. A copy of this latest draft has been provided to you.
II.
As for EP 2.C, despite your statements on July 14 that the issues regarding signs on beaches are intertwined with the " local conditions" issues and therefore not likely to be settled, we feel the beach signs issues could be settled if you would advise us what types of signs should be placed on the beaches, where they should be placed, and what they should say. We think this information from you would be useful in
" ~
HuwTow & Wzzz.zAus r
reaching a settlement agreement, and we had understood after Kathy's ,
June 30 meeting with you and our later discussions that you too thought we might profitably discuss settlement of these matters.
As for EP 2.D, regarding the " gaps" in siren coverage, would you be satisfied if you knew that the circles on the map represent the 70 dB coverage, which is a sound level greater than the 60 dB specified in NUREG-0654? If not, what would satisfy you?
As for EP 2.E, what would you consider " sufficient" in-house paging or alerting capabilities? Can you give us an example of an " appropriate" message and instructions for a nursery school, nursing home, recreational area, or major employer? What kind of showing would satisfy you that the notification responsibilities vill be effectively implemented? In addition, please advise us what regulation you think requires LILCO to demonstrate the in-house paging or alerting capabilities of nursery schools, nursing homes, recreational areas, and major employers.
As for EP 2.F, would you be satisfied with a showing that the tone alert .
system is tested ones a week using the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS)?
If not, what would you prefer?
As for EP 2.G, will you admit that members of the Suffolk County Planning Department reviewed the siren coverage and agreed that 10-mile siren coverage was proper?
As for EP 2.H, we believe we can agree on some procedure for notifying people who are hard-of-hearing. For example, at Diablo Canyon a procedure was developed to send local policemen door-to-door to notify people previously identified as having special needs. Another alternative would be to provide special tone alerts with blinking lights for the hard-of-hearing. Would you find either of these alternatives
( acceptable? If not, what do you suggest instead?
i As for EP 3.A, what hospitals should be designated? Why? How far away l is "too distant"? That is, how far away can a hospital be without being "too distant"? What capacity does Central Suffolk Hospital lack? What capacity would satisfy you?
As for EP 3.B, what ground transportation would be " adequate"?
As for EP 3.C. the LILCO plan contains a contract with Central Suffolk Hospital (see Appendix B of the LILCO plan). What more does LILCO need to do to satisfy your concern with respect to Central Suffolk Hospital?
As for EP 5.A, how does one " assess the relative benefits" of protective actions? Are you thinking of benefits in addition to reducing or preventing exposure to radioactivity?
As for EP 5.B. has the Suffolk County Planning Department ever estimated the evacuation time for the entire EPZ? If so, what is the estimate?
- , - , , - , - - .-w-._- ,,,,,.-_.,-.n,, ,,.,,,.e,,.g,,,.,, . , , , - . , , - , , , . . - - - . , , - . , , , , - - , , _ , , . - . - - - , , _ - . , - - , - , - - - - - - - - , , - - - - - -
o
. HuwTow & WILI.xAus As for EP 5. A(4), what is a realistic assumption, if not twenty minutes?
How should LILCO determine what assumption to use?
As for EP 5.D if LILCO were to delete from its plan the suggestion that sheltering is the immediate protective action te be taken at the general
- emergency action level, would Suffolk County drop this contention? If l not, what would you want LILCO to substitute for the deleted. suggestion?
As for EP 7.A, precisely why are the training programs for the Wading River Fire Department and Central Suffolk Hospital, which were provided to you in response to your first request to LILCO for emergency planning documents, not " adequate assurance"? Wat else do you think LILCO should do?
As for EP 7.B. the LILCO Training Manual is one of the supporting documents to the LILCO plan that were supplied with the letter of June 28, 1982, cited-above. Why isn't the Manual " adequate" information regarding the training of LILCO personnel? What, if anything, should be added to the Manual to satisfy you?
As for EP 9.A, please be sure you have read the latest draf t of the LILCO plan, pages 5-2 and 5-3. Section 5.2.1 of the plan says this:
The responsibility for emergency direction and control, emergency classification, the decision to notify and reconsnand offsite protective actions, and commitment of corporate resources is held initially by the Emergency Director and passes to the Response Manager as this individual augments the emergency organization.
The responsibilities associated with this position are non-delegable.
f' In light of the revisions to the draf t LILCO plan submitted with the letter of June 28, 1982, cited above, we feel there is no need to litigate EP 9.A. If you have reason to think the thrust of EP 9.A is significant, please tell us that reason.
As for EP 9.B. do you admit that NUREG-0654 is a guideline and not a l requirement?
l As for EP 10, precisely what role do you want Suffolk County officials
- to take? That is, what do you want them to do about determining the l form and substance of public statements, and what should LILCO do to help them or to make use of their efforts? Please also refer to CIP 17 and tell us in what respects, if any, you find it inadequate.
l As for EP 18, please review the revised chapter 4 in the draft LILCO j plan submitted with the cover letter of June 28, 1982, cited above. How does the revised chapter fail to satisfy you?
As for EP 19.A do you agree that NUREG-0654 suggests only two, not three, field monitoring teams? Isn't the plume, not the "large area and population," the important factor?
-,.-n.-- .- -, --+ - ,,
e Hurrow & WILLIAxo As for EP 19.E, isn't this just an effort to resurrect SC Contention 17 (Fire Protection), which has been settled? If not, how does 19.E differ?
As for EP 19.F. please provide the regulation that you think requires LILCO to provide for a mobile radiological lab.
As for EP 24, please change the title of the contention to conform to the text. All the EPIPs listed in Appendix D of the LILCO plan are complete and have been included in the EPIP manuals submitted with the June 28, 1982, letter cited above. If these EPIPs are approved as required by the applicable LILCO procedure, will you drop contention EP 24?
Please respond in writing to these questions and proposals as soon as possible. If you aren't able to respcad by the July 20 cut-off date for I
the filing of interrogatories, we will feel entitled to repeat the questions as interrogatories notwithstanding the cut-off date.
Very truly yours, i thy E. B. McCleskey James N. Christman i
{
1 l
f
.t ,
l d' - ,
Huwrow Sc WILLIAMS 7o7 EAST MAIN STREET P. o. Box 1535 e o a v .us60... Rzcuosrp, Vamon aaals ......,6...uc,....
a 9. 03 to. p.o..one.sao
.a6gsen, eso.,w ca.ouma a7.ca m .newavon,c.c.sooa.
7CLE pHO N C S04 - 788 - S2OO
- c. 3. ..r. ............
rias, v. ... vo**" -July 24, 1982
==.
~ u r w .v ,~.a es...
,6 . 24566.3
.o . ....o. ... c, .. 6 . .o. ,..a 3 6 8 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 8tn Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washing ton, D.C. 20036 Emergency Planning Settlement Proposals Gentlemen:
Here are a few more questions designed to elicit information about the County's position so as to facilitate settlement. Please respond in writing as part of the informal discovery process.
Regarding Contention EP 1, it appears that the contention says that " local conditions" are important to designing (1) the public notification system, (2) the.public education program, (3) the accident-assessment and monitoring systems, (4) protective action measures, and (5) evacuation time estimates. It locP.s to us as though all these concerns are covered by EP 2 (Pr.ompt Notification System), EP 5 (Protective Actions), EP 8 (Public Education), maybe EP 14 (Public Messages), and EP 19 (Accident Assessment and Monitoring). If you plan to present evidence for EP 1 different from that for the other contentions, please give us an idea what it will be.
Otherwise, why not drop EP l?
Regarding EP 2A, exactly what effects on siren operation do you think rain, snow, fog, high winds, and thunderstorms, respectively, might have? Some of the effects may seem obvious to you (for example, presumably you contend that the sound of thunder may drown out the sound of the sirens), but they are l
i I_ - -
O 'o H UNTON & WILLIAMS Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
July 24, 1982 Page 2 not obvious to us, and even the obvious effects may not be the only ones you are thinking of.
Regarding EP 2C, how should LILCO demonstrate that signs will actually be read? Do you want LILCO to do some sort ot survey to determine if people read signs? Similarly, please describe what,would accept as an " adequate demonstration" under each of the subparts EP 2C(2) and EP 2C(3). Under EP 2C(5),
how should the signs be " protected"? Since the signs you contemplate would apparently be on public property, what do you expect LILCO to do by way of maintenance?
Would the County permit LILCO to install, at LILCO's expense, a " hotline" (dedicated telephone line) from the County's Emergency Operations Center to the Emergency Broadcasting Station, WALK? Would the County permit LILCO to have installed, at LILCO's expense, the communication system described in Section 7.2.1 of LILCO's emergency plan? If not, what would you propose as an alternative?
l Yours very truly, ames N. Chris tman 126/755
HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East MnN Statt? P. o. Box 1535 0 0 e 9 .we60. o Rsczamown,V notwsA aaata .......,6,............
p.o..osi.aac e o, .os so.
. 6sica, .o t. c..ouse et.oa ""O"'"O'
- O'IOOIO Cod .e3.cate TtLEP.oNC Od4 = 788 * $20Q a c a . s a s. ..".o
,,se,v. .. ....to. .
,i6 ...
a 02....
....as.
no.,u.
.o... ..c... o.. e,..6 o..o.:... 8701 August 5, 1982 John J. Shea, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P. O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Gentlemen:
Attached are proposed changes to the LILCO emergency plan to effect settlement of contentions EP 12,13, 15, 16, and 17.
Sincerely, Kathy E. B. McCleskey Enclosures 301/798 j
. .d '
/ l
/
e -
A
/
/
3 Proposed Settlement of,EP,13 --
Notification of Response Organizations and Emergency Personnel The plan currently states (p 6-10):
6.2 Activation of= Emergency Organization Most emergency sit,pa'tions will be immediately indicated by local andcControl Room alarm instrumentation. For any emergency situation which is discovered by an ~
individutV in the plant environs, notification to ths Control Room will be mida using the nearest communica s
~
tion system. r Following a judgment,'using a guidance contained in Section-4.0, on the' par,t of the Watch Engineer that an emergency situation exists, notification of members of the emergency organization,will be achieved by use of both the Private Automatic Exchange and the, station pub-lic address system. For those emergencies'where the
, plant staff on duty must be supplemented with off-duty, members of the emergency organization, the emergency organizati_on Call Ph.one, commercial telephone as well as a paging systen will be used to summon additional emergency organizat,1,on personnel to the site.
Replace the second paragraph with the following:
i The Watch Engineer based upon valid indications of an exceeded Emergency Action Level (Section 4.0), will announce the emergency condition over the page' party system, take corrective action $, approve a completed Notification Fact Sheet (Appendix F), and direct the Control Rocm Communicator to initiate notifications in accordance wich the EPIP's. The Control Room Communicator will notify appropriate station personnel, offsite responso organizations and other personnel in the owner-controlled area (e.g. St. Joseph's Villa) con-sistent with the emergency classification and tne type of release.
- i Notificationifor augmentation of corporate personnel is accomplished by an initial call to the Gas Systems.
Operator from an Onsite Communicator. The Gas Systems Operator will then initiate corporate notification procedure consistent with the emergency classification.
s.
r
! -}
. . . - _ , , . . _ - - . - . ~ _ _ _ . . -
1
-2 Notification to members of the emergency organization is made by use'of page-party system, Card Dialer Phone and/or beeper system.
I
.I i
e f
j .
9 t
i e
1 l
I 4
I l
i i
i i
a n --w- ., - e ,, , , , . - , - ..~-,------,--.,,,_,,--,,.-,.---------n .w- - - - . - - - - - - - --.n--- -.-e- - ~ , . - - - - - - - , - - , - - - ,
Proposed Settlement of EP 16 --
Radiological Exposure EP 16A The plan currently states (pp. 6-12 to 6-13):
Protective action within the plant site will be initia-ted by actual or imminent radiological conditions or other habitability hazards such as toxic gas, or fire.
Upon assessment by the Emergency Director that a situ-ation exists that requires evacuation of. areas of the plant, an evacuation signal will be activated simulta-neously with an announcement of the emergency condition over the party page system indicating the areas to be evacuated. Evacuated personnel will report to designa-ted assembly areas consistent with implementing proce-dures.
When personnel have assembled, personnel accountability will then proceed following the guidance of the person-nel accountability procedures. Accountability for onsite personnel will be accomplished within 60 minutes.
In the event of a site evacuation, Figure 6-1 details the onsite assembly areas with primary and secondary evacuation routes leading to the LILCO main access road. Transportation for onsite personnel shall be by personal vehicle as well as car pooling where condi-tions warrant.
The extent and nature of personnel and vehicle moni-toring will depend on the amount and physical nature of the radioactive material released. If personnel exit the site via the portal monitors in the guardhouse, monitoring.can be considered complete. If background levels preclude use of the portal monitors, monitoring should be performed at the offsite assembly area. If vehicle monitoring is performed , it should be per-formed along the LILCO main access road at the 69KV substation. Vehicles found to be contaminated should be directed into the substation for decontamination.
Replace the second and third paragraph with the following:
In the event of a site evacuation, an evacuation signal will be activated simultaneously with an announcement of the emergency condition over the page-party system.
The announcement will indicate the means by which a
f evacuation is to occur and to what offsite assembly area people are to gather for subsequent monitoring, decontamination, and accountability. Transportation for onsite personnel shall be by personal vehicle as well as car pooling where conditions warrant. Station '
security personnel will direct traffic onsite and at the intersection of both access roads and North Country Road (see Figure 6-1). More detail is contained in EPIP's.
The extent and nature of personnel and vehicle moni-toring will depend on the amount andIfphysical nature of personnel exit the radioactive material released.
the site by means of portal monitors located in the If guardhouse, monitoring can be considered complete.
high radiation levels preclude the use of portal moni-tors, personnel monitoring will be performed at the If offsite assembly area by health physics personnel.
vehicle monitoring indicates levels in excess of 100 cpm above background Beta-Gamma radiation, decontamina-tion of vehicles shall be performed by health physics personnel at the 69KV substation.
At the remote assembly area, accountability of person-nel will be performed by the Administrative Supervisor with the assistance of Security. Any unaccounted for still missing, search personnel will be paged and, if and rescue efforts will commence.
EP 16B The plan (p. 6-14 to 6-15) currently states:
To the extent possible, the normal station contami-The personnel con-nation limits shall be adhered to.
tamination limits are 100 cpm above background as mea-sured by an RM-14/HP-210 or equivalent. Equipment con-tamination limits are lesa than 200 dps/100 cm2
~
removable Beta-Gamma.
Decontamination of emergency personnel wounds, sup-plies, instruments and equipment shall normally be con-ducted in the Personnel Decontamination Facility adja-cent to the Health Physics office on the 15' elevation of the Turbine Building. This facility contains showers with controlled drains and the necessary mate-rials for personnel decentamination. The Personnel Decontamination Facility contains a stainless steel sink and decon area which shall be used for contami-nated minor wounds, equipment and instruments.
- If the release has resulted in extensive offsite con-tamination such that evacuation of the general public is being implemented, monitoring and decontamination prior to exit from the assembly areas would be super-fluous in light of the potential for recontamination.
Under these circumstances, personnel will be monitored for contamination as provided in the emergency plans of the affected jurisdictions.
In the event where personnel are evacuated to offsite assembly areas, monitoring and decontamination will be performed along the site access road near the LILCO 69KV Substation.
Personnel found to be contaminated will be issued pro-tective clothing and directed to the EOF decontamina-tion facility for further monitoring and decontamina-tion. The same material and equipment utilized in onsite decontamination will be utilized at the EOF.
Provisions will be available for radionuclide analysis of the personnel contamination in order to determine the amount of radioiodine present. Personnel contami-nation that cannot be removed by normal Health Physics Procedures will be referred to a medical specialist in personnel radiation accidents.
Replace the first paragraph with the following:
During emergency conditions, normal station contami-nation limits shall be adhered to as much as possible.
Normal personnel contamination limits are 100 cpm above background as measured by an RM-14/HP-210 or equivalent. Normal equipment contamination limits are less than 200 dpm/100 cm2 removable Beta-Gamma activ-ity. Under accident conditions, the Radiation Protection Manager will determineActions if a change in con-taken by tamination levels is warranted.
health physics personnel will include access control for unrestricted areas where excessive contamination levels exist; personnel monitoring at alternate areas;
^ and vehicle monitoring at offsite assembly areas.
Personnel performing emergency actions such as search and rescue, first aid, corrective actions, assessment actions, personnel decontamination, and offsite assist-ance shall be subject to normal contamination limits unless the Radiation Protection Manager has increased these limits.
EP 16C
- 4 The plan currently states:
All reasonable measures shall be taken to maintain the radiation dose to-emergency personnel as low as rea-sonably achievable and within 10 CFR Part 20' limits.
Personnel performing emergency activities involving exposures which may or will exceed 10 CFR 20 limits.
shall be volunteers and shall be briefed on potential exposure consequences prior to receiving such dose.
Authorization to exceed 10 CFR 20 limits shall be made only by the Emergency Director and/or the Radiation Protection Manager. Since this authorization is mado only during declared emergencies, this capability is readily available on a 24-hour a day basis (see Section 5.1). Emergency Exposure Criteria, detailed in the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures, are consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Table 6-4 Protective Action Guides (EPA 520/1-75-001).
depicts Emergency Exposure Criteria for various activi-ties.
Replace this paragraph with the following:
?
Radiation doses to emergency personnel shall be maintained within 10 CFR 20 limits and be kept as low as reasonably ~ achievable (ALARA). Maintenance of expo-sure records shall be performed in accordance with nor-mal station procedures. Personnel performing emergency activities involving exposures which may or will exceed 10 CFR 20 limits shall be volunteers and shall be briefed on potential exposure consequences prior to
' receiving such dose. Authorization to exceed 10 CFR 20 limits shall be made by the Emergency Director and/or l
the Radiation Protection Manager. The means Since this to accom-plish this is contained in the EPIPs.
authorization is made only during declared emergencies, this capability is available on a 24-hour / day basis (see Section 5.1). Emergency exposure criteria (Table 6-4) depicts exposure guidelines for various emergency activities and are consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides (EPA 520/1-75-001).
i
. - - - . , _ , _ _ _ . , - . - _ - _ _ _ _ - , , , , . . - . . , -,,n__ . . _ . _ , _ __ - , . . - . , _ . -
i.
P Proposed Settlement of EP 15 --
Offsite Planning Coordination Section 6.4.1 of the LILCO plan states in part:
LILCO will make a protective action recommendation to Suffolk County and New York State authorities for the population at risk. The various protective action options available are detailed in the New YorkThe State and Suffolk County emergency response plans. pro-tective action recommendation is based upon dose pro-jection calculations, field monitoring data, EPA pro-tactive action guidelines, sheltering factors offered by local dwellings and evacuation time estimates for ambient conditions. The emergency plan procedure,
" General Emergency" immediate implementing actions, contains protective actions to be recommended during events that are deteriorating rapidly based upon condi-tions in accordance with NUREG 0654, Appendix 1. The t
details of this decision process are contained in the EPIPs. Regarding the protective actions ~taken on be-half of the general public, notification will be made
! of an emergency situation via the use of the Prompt Notification System set up throughout the ten (10) mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
Amend this portion of Section 6.4.1 of the plan to read:
LILCO will make a protective action recommendation to Suffolk County and New York State authorities for the i
population at risk. When notified, the New York State
' Office of Disaster Preparedness will initiate its noti-fication plan as outlined in The New York State
' Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan. As stated in the New York State Plan, if appropriate, New York State l
' will contact the State of Connecticut and repeat a mes-sage provided by the New York State Department of Health.
The protective action recommendation is based upon dose projection calculations, field monitoring data, EPA protective action guidelines, sheltering factors offered by local dwellings and evacuation time esti-mates for ambient conditions. The emergency plan pro-cedures contain protective actions to be' recommended j
during events that are deteriorating rapidly based upon
conditions in accordance with NUREG 0654, Appendix 1.
The details of this decision process are contained in the EPIPs. Regarding the protective actions taken on behalf of the general public, notification will be made of an emergency situation via the use of the Prompt Notification System set up throughout the ten (10) mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
4 e
d $
l l
t Proposed Settlement of EP 12 --
Emergency Response Facility (Parts A & C)
The plan currently states (pp. 7-2 to 7-3):
7.1.3 Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)
The Company's Training Center in Hauppauge has been designated the Emergency Operations Facility. The Facility is located approximately 18.5 miles from the reactor. Company, Federal and State officials may as-semble at this location. This facility is the Company center for the receipt and analysis of all field moni-toring data available from Federal, State, local and LILCO field teams. Specific media personnel may be escorted to the EOF to observe operations if conditions permit. More detailed information on this center, in-cluding types of data displays, available documents, is contained in SNRC-643, dated December 1981. An EOF floor plant and layout is contained in the Emergency Plan Implementing trocedures.
The EOF is activated upon the declaration of a Site Area or General Emergency. It may also be activated during an Alert Emergency at the discretion of the Response Manager in concurrence with the Emergency Director. The EOF shall achieve operational readiness within two hours and shall assume the following respon-sibilities under the direction of the Response Manager:
- 1. Management of corporate emergency response re-sources.
- 2. Radiological effluent and environs monitoring, as- '
sessment dose projections.
- 3. Flow of information and protective action recommen-dations to Federal, State and County response orga-nizations.
- 4. Management of recovery operations.
Replace the second paragraph with the following:
The EOF is activated upon the declaration of a Site Area or General Emergency. It may also be activated during an Alert Emergency at the discretion of the Response Manager in concurrence with the Emergency Director.
. 1 Upon declaration of an1Alert will Emergency, report to thethe Emergency EOF and Planning Advisor No.
either place the facility in a standby status or acti-vate it (mandatory within one hour of a Site Area or The EOF shall achieve operational General Emergency).
readiness one hour after activation (two hours after declaration of the emergency) and assume the following responsibilities under the direction of the Response Manager:
- 1. Management of corporate emergency response re-sources.
as-
- 2. Radiological effluent and environs monitoring, sessment and dose projections.
- 3. Flow of ir.!ormation and protective action recommen-dations to Federal, State and County response orga-nizations.
- 4. Management of recovery operations.
The EOF may be activated during an Alert at the discre-tion of the Response Manager as stated in the plan.
l f
l
Proposed Settlement of EP 15 --
Offsite Planning Coordination 4
Section 6.4.1 of the LILCO plan states in part:
LILCO will make a protective action recommendation to Suffolk County and New York State authorities for the population at risk. The various protective action options available are detailed in the New York State
' and Suffolk County emergency response plans. The pro-tactive action recommendation is based upon dose pro- ,
jection calculations, field monitoring data, EPA pro-tective action guidelines, sheltering factors offered by local dwellings and evacuation time estimates for ambient conditions. The emergency plan procedure,
" General Emergency" immediate implementing actions, contains protective actions to be recommended during events that are deteriorating rapidly based upon condi-tions in accordance with NUREG 0654, Appendix 1. The details of this decision process are contained in the EPIPs. Regarding the protective actions taken on be-half of the general public, notification will be made of an emergency situation via the use of the Prompt Notification System set up throughout the ten (10) mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
Amend this portion of Section 6.4.1 of the plan to read:
LILCO will make a protective action recommendation to Suffolk County and New York State authorities for the popula tion at ri sk. When notified, the New York State Offic.s of Disaster Preparedness will initiate its noti-fication plan as outlined in The New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan. As stated in the New York State Plan, if appropriate, New York State will contact the State of Connecticut and repeat a mes-sage provided by the New York State Department of Health.
The protective action recommendation is based upon dose I projection calculations, field monitoring data, EPA f
protective action guidelines, sheltering factors offered by local dwellings and evacuation time esti-mates for ambient conditions. The emergency plan pro-cedures contain protective actions to be* recommended during events that are deteriorating rapidly based upon l
l- - ._ ______ _,
conditions in accordance with NUREG 0654, Appendix 1.
The details of this decision process are contained in the EPIPs. Regarding the protective actions taken on behalf of the general public, notification will be made of an emergency situation via the use of the Prompt Notification' System set up throughout the ten (10) mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
o
2 Proposed Settlement of EP 17 --
Exercises Change the first three paragraphs of Section 8.1.3 of the LILCO plan to reed:
A full scale exercise which tests as much of the site, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be held annually. Each State and local government within the plume exposure EPZ shall participate in these annual exercises. Each state within the inges-tion pathway EPZ shall participate in at least one exercise every three years. The scenarios will be var-ied from year to year to allow all major elements of the plans to be tested within a five year period. At least once every fiv- " emes an exercise shall be sched-uled to take place be . 2.. 6 p.m. and midnight and another between midnight and 6:00 a.m. Exercises shall be conducted under various seasonal conditions. Some exercised shall be unannounced.
The scenario for the exercise shall be mutually agreed upon by those involved, and will be structured-se as to l
allow free play for decision making as much as pos-sible, providing that the basic objective (s) of the exercise or drill are satisfied. The scenario shall include, but not be limited to the following:
- 1. The basic objective of the exercise.
- 2. The date, time and place of the exercise.
I
- 3. The organizations participating in the exercise.
- 4. The simulated events.
- 5. The time schedule of real and simulated initiating events.
- 6. A narrative summary of the exercise including simu-lated casualties, offsite assistance, use of pro-tactive clothing, deployment of monitoring teams, communications, rescue of personnel, and public relations.
- 7. Arrangements for qualified observers.
---,--,------e- -- - - - -
4 KruirPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, Canzsroenza 8: PurLLIPs A Paarmoseary Inctuosmo A Peormassowan, Conromarnow 1900 M STREET, N. W.
%1suntoTox, D. C. 20006 Tatarssons (see) 4se-fooo g, yt? resumes CAsLas attens alasparsam,immaint.Joameos a st'1cursow Tutan 4eomoe n rst et saco otsvaa scIsasso ws Taa's DameCT DIAL NUMSSE FITISBCBGM, PBWWeTLVANIA asses (ass) see esco August 5, 1982 Kathy E.B. McCleskey, Esquire James N. Christman, Esquire Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Proposals for Settlement of Emergency Planning Contentions
Dear Kathy and Jim:
This letter is in response to your letters of July 16, July 24 and July 25, 1982 concerning the possible resolution of some of Suffolk County's contentions with respect to LILCO's emergency planning and certain other matters. Set forth below is our response to each of the contentions which you have iden-tified as being the subject of possible resolution.
CONTENTION EP 2.C. As we have told you previously, the thrust of this contention is not so much the content of the signs but whether the signs are an appropriate notification device for transients who are likely to be on Long Island beaches at the time of a radiological emergency. Since this contention has now been deferred until a later stage of the litigation, it '
would probably be more productive of our time to consider re-solving that contention sometime after the so-called " Phase I" issues have been litigated.
CCNTENTION EP 2.D. We do not agree that NUREG 0654 " specifies" a 60 dB sound level. Instead, we read NUREG 0654 to require sirens to have a sound level which is 10 dB above the ambient level. Presumably for that reason, the Wyle Report deemed it appropriate to suggect a 70 dB level. Since that appears to be the level necessary in the vicinity, the County contends that the gaps in the airen coverage should be filled. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the County could examine a map showing siren coverage at a 60 dB sound level.
CONTENTION EP 2.E. As you know, this contention has also been deferred to a later phase of the litigation. Accordingly, I
KimuPATRICK, LOCKHART, Bru, Cuarsroenum & Purures suggest-that we renew our efforts to resolve this contention after the Phase I issues have been litigated.
CONTENTION EP 2.F. We would be interested in learning more about how the tone alert system is being tested. Any informa-tion you can furnish us on such testing would be appreciated.
It may well be that our experts would be satisfied with the testing procedures and we would be able to resolve the conten-tion without the need for litigation.
CONTENTION EP-2.G. This contention has also been deferred for a later stage of the proceeding. I assume, however, that the County and LILCO could come to terms on the appropriate confi-guration of the siren coverage without having to litigate the question.
CONTENTION EP 2.H. Similarly, this contention has been de-ferred. I feel confident, however, that the County and LILCO will be able to work out a solution to the problem of notifying people who are hard of hearing without the need to litigate this question.
CONTENTION EP 3.A. Our expert, Dr. Rad ford , is arranging to visit Central suffolk Hospital and will evaluate its capacity to respond to a radiological emergency. After the review, I am sure that the County will have some ideas to suggest to you.
CONTENTION EP 3.B. It may well be that in light of (a) antici-pated traffic conditions in the event of a radiological emer-gency, and (b) the failure of LILCO's plan to take into account the likely human response to such an emergency, that no form of ground transportation for the conveyance of contaminated indi-viduals can be adequate. Therefore, unless LILCO and the County are able to work together towards alleviating the poten-tial level of traffic congestion, LILCO may have to propose other means of transportation in order to meet 10 C.F.R.
450.47(b)(12) and other regulatory standards.
CONTENTION EP 3.C. As we advised you during the course of our meeting on Monday July 26, we would like some assurance that Central Suffolk Hospital and other response organizations have the capability to do what they say they will do and will be able to deliver that capability in the case of a real emer-gency. Simply having an outdated contract with Central Suffolk Hospital does not, in our view, furnish the assurance we seek.
CONTENTION EP 5.A. As we understand 10 C.F.R. f50.47(b)(10) and NUREG 0654, Item II.J, LILCO is required to set forth in
- KinxFATRICE, LOCKHART, Hiz.r., Cunistorum O PnII.r.res its plan a " range of protective actions" and discuss the
" bases" for making recommendations within that range under var-ious emergency conditions. In our view LILCO has failed to do so. Had LILCO done so, we assume it would have been possible for one to assess the relative benefits of the various protec-tive actions Which would be set forth in the plan.
CONTENTION EP 5.B. As we read NUREG 0654, Item II.J, it is incumbent upon LILCO to furnish an estimate for the evacuation of the entire EPZ. I had understood from our conversation in Washington on July 26 that you believed that such an estimate had been made by LILCO. In any event, I do not believe that the County has yet formulated a final evacuation time estimate.
At such time as it does so, we will be happy to furnish the estimate to you.
CONTENTION EP 5.B(4). It would seem to us that a realistic assumption of how long it would take to mobilize the affected population would have to consider such factors as how much of the affected population is likely to evacuate, Where people are likely to be at the time of an emergency (i.e. parents at work, children at school), and whether families will seek to unite prior to evacuation. The study conducted by Steven Cole sug-gests the latter scenario. In that event, it would seem that 20 minutes is a grossly unrealistic assumption.
CONTENTION EP 5.D. If LILCO has no legal obligation to suggest any immediate protective action, it may well be that deleting the suggestion now contained in the plan would resolve the County's contention. On the other and, as a practical matter in coordinating LILCO's activities with those of the County's, an agreed to immediate protective action recommendation may be worked out. Since this contention has been deferred to a later stage or Ohe proceeding, it is likely that we will be able to resolve this matter at a later time.
CONTENTION EP 7.A. The basic thrust of this contention is that, except for Wading River Fire Department, no other fire department or ambulance service in the vicinity which is likely to be called in to assist in an emergency has the vaguest idea of what it.would be expected to do. Accordingly, unless there is some assurance that Wading River's resources will be ade-quate to meet all contingencies, we believe it is incumbent upon LILCO to furnish training to other response organizations that might be called upon to assist.
CONTENTION EP 7.B. We are still in the process of reviewing the new training manual and it may well be that the new materials satisfactorily respond to the County's concern.
. KimurArmscx, LocunAmr, Hux.r., Cumasroruna & PurLLIPs CONTENTION EP 9.A. Despite the provisions which are contained in the most recent draft of the LILCO plan, we are still confu-sed as to the roles of the Emergency Director and the Response Manager. I assume, however, that LILCO will be able to furnish whatever clarification may be necessary and incorporate it into its plan.
CONTENTION EP 9.B. Whether NUREG 0654 is merely a " guideline" and not a " requirement" does not address the County's concern.
It appears to us that LILCO is obliged to justify Why the pro-visions of NUREG 0654 are not being met.
CONTENTION EP 10. We do not seek in this contention to have LILCO set forth in any great detail precisely what role Suffolk County officials will play in the event of an emergency. It seems to be conceded by all that most of the substantive com-munications with the public will be made by County officials and that LILCO's dealings with the public will relate to tech-nical onsite matters. The contention simply addresses the fact that the plan makes it appear as though LILCO will have the only role to play in dealing with the public.
CONTENTION EP 18. This contention principally addresses the format of old Chapter 4 of the LILCO plan. In other words, it did not appear to us as though LILCO had set forth the various categories of information which are required by Appendix 1 to NUREG 0654. A brief review of new Chapter 4 suggests that the new chapter is in the format required by the guidelines.
Unless we have substantive contentions with respect to the con-tents of the new material, it appears that the concerns expres-sed in EP 18 may have been adequately responded to by LILCO.
CONTENTION EP 19.A. We ara reevaluating the sufficiency of the three field monitoring teams in light of the comment in your July 16 letter and Whether Table B-1 requires four teams or only four surveys. However, LILCO and the County may not be able to agree at this stage on the size of the plume for Which monitoring may be necessary.
CONTENTION EP 19.E. We do not believe that this emergency planning contention has been settled as part of SC Contention 17 (fire protection).
CONTENTION EP 19.F. As you know, NUREG 0654 Item 2.H.6.C.
suggests a choice of either fixed or mobile radiological labor-atory facilities. In light of anticipated traffic congestion, we believe that mobile laboratories are a more appropriate re-sponse.
KIRxFATRICK, LOCKHART, Hir.r., CHRISTOPHER & Purt.r.rFs CONTENTION EP 24. Based on your representation that all the EPIP's have been co:mpleted, and if you further represent that the EPIP's will have been approved prior to fuel loading, we believe that the County may be able to drop this contention.
We hope that the foregoing information also adequately respond a to your letter of July 24, 1982. Specifically, howe-ver, the County's concern over the effect of climatic condi-tions is that rain, snow and fog have a muffling effect on sound and may adversely affect the range of siren coverage.
High winds and thunder storms speak for themselves--deafeningly at times. As indicated above, the question of the adequacy of the signs as a notification measure is intertwined, we believe, with the entire public education process. With respect to LILCO's installation of certain communications systems, we be-lieve the County would be prepared to consider anything that LILCO has to offer as part of the County's ongoing planning efforts.
Finally, I wish to address your letter of July 25, 1982 in which you recited that I " reported that the County's experts were ready to file testimony shortly and to testify on many issues relating to the LILCO plan." I have not reviewed the transcript pages referred to in your July 25 letter. However, given the context of the discussions, I believe a fair inter-pretation of what I said was that the County's experts will be ready by mid-September to testify on all the issues raised by the County's contentions. If you construed my words to mean that their testimony is ready for filing today, then you are mistaken. The experts will be submitting their testimony on the date it becomes due. In the meantime, any deposition tes-timony they may give will represent the extent of their know-ledge up until that point and no more. Moreover, in light of the Board's limitation of deposition testimony solely to Phase l
I contentions, we see no basis for your taking the depositions I of anyone other than Messrs. Cole, Kanen, Erikson, Johnson, Rad fo rd , Finlaysoa and Budnitz. If you believe other persons previously identified by the County have information relevant i
to the Phase I contentions, please advise us and we will dis-cuss the matter with them.
In response to Item III of your July 25 letter, please be advised as follows:
(1) We have never undertaken to furnish you with pertodic written status reports of the work of the County's experts. I do not believe you furnished us with such reports for LILCO.
Nevertheless, if it would be helpful to you, to the best of our
1
\
- KimxPATRICX, 50CKMART, Htz.z., CungsroFuma & Purt.z.TPS I I
knowledge, at this time Dr. Cole has completed the survey which i is now in your hands; Dr. Erikson is still in the process of undertaking a survey on role conflict; De. Johnson continues to analyze the survey prepared by Dr. Cole in connection with an analysis of the evacuation shadow phenomenon; there has been some delay in Mr. Kanen's receipt of the PRA and consequence analysis.being prepared by Messrs. Finlayson and Budnitz --
accordingly, Mr. Kanen's work on traffic congestion is not yet complete; and, Dr. Radford has arranged to visit Suffolk County Hospital before his testimony on August 18.
(2) It appears that LILCO is in a better position to de-termine quickly which of the County's. employees submitted sug-gestions or materials for the LILCO plan. We would be happy to confirm that information for you if you tell us who it is you believe did so.
(3) We are still in the process of compiling previous testimony by the County's experts in response to your prior requests for documents. You will be furnished with the infor-mation as soon as we have it.
I trust that the foregoing adequately responds to your letters of July 16, 24, and 25.
Kindest personal regards.
Sincerely yours, b-A Cherif Sedky CAMMER 8 SHAPIRo, P. C.
ATTORNEY 5 AT LAW 9 0GT 40m STREET NEWYoRK,N.Y.10016 (212)es3-47eo
~
August 10, 1982 Christopher McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 James N. Christman, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 John Shea, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P. O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Richard Black, Esq. ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cdhmission 1770 H Street N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power .
Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322(OL)
Gentlemen: .
Herewith a draft of NSC's Second Contentions which earnestly attempts to conform to the Board's July 27th order (p. 14 et seq.) and our recent conference.
Please note the following:
- 1. Much of EP 20(a) is consolidated into I(A)(B).
- 2. EP 11 is incorporated into I(D).
- 3. The Board requested the Hotline definition.
- 4. I(G) incorporates former EP 20(a)(13).
- 5. II is responsive to the Board's suggestion to separate EP 20(a)(8) and (9) from the rest of EP 20(a). As noted, it does not implicate TMI-related issues. In that connection, I would appreciate insertion of the citation to the NRC regulation, if
CAMMER 8 SHAPIRO, P. C.
there is one, limiting the scope of that decision.
A a
- 6. III is a condensation of EP 20(b). EP 20(b)(2) is now in I and, as you will note below, I am questioning Jim Christman about the uninterruptable power source cited in EP 20(b)(3).
- 7. EP 20(b)(6) and (7) are transferred to II.
- 8. IV is an expansion of EP 20(c). I have omitted EP 20(c)(5) and (7) because they duplicate up Suffolk County contentions 6 and 13.
- 9. It is intended that IV should be consolidated into EP(3).
The following is directed to Jim Christman's expressed willingness to fill in gaps:
EP 20(a)(12) of the Consolidated Contentions refers to the Electrical Emergency Restoration Procedure and EP 20(b)(4) refers to the Health Physics Engineer. I have unable to find a reference to either of them in the June, 1982 revision and will appreciate guidance.
3 Please furnish a more detailed description of NAWAS including its load capacity, coverage, what agencies or personnel are linked to it, how long it has been in existence, etc.
How will the Hotline and the dedicated phone lines continue to function if there is a power loss? If there is a power back-up source, other than on-site (Plan 7.2.7) please identify it.
I Has LILCO considered the possibility that the Radiation -
Monitoring System Computer will become non-operational and, if so, its impact on the ability to communicate with and notify off-site response agencies. If not, we may have to add it as a contention.
Sincerely, l Ralph Shapiro i
l RS:jgb ,
Enclosure t
. i, 1
11-8 August 10, 1982 I
SECOND CONTENTIONS OF OF NORTH SHORE COMMITTEE AGAINST NUCLEAR AND THERMAL POLLUTION (NSC)
I. COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFF-SITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS The Plan relies completely for communication with off-site national, state, and local response organizations upon telephone communications (e.g. 7.2.1, through 7.2.8) and on a low powered UHF Radio Based Station and a VhF Radio Based Station (7.2.10).* It fails to meet the criteria of by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2)(5)(6), 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, IV Paras D(3), and E(9) and NUREG 0654, Appendix 3, Para C'(1), in the following respects: h A. In so far as the Plan relies on telephone communications (7.2.1 through 7.2.8), it does not take into account the possibility of (1) a power outage, (2) sabotage and (3) overload. This ommission is especially significant
~
because the Plan describes the Hotline ** as the " primary
- In this connection NSC notes that the Plan refers to the Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan (e.g.
5.3, 7.2.4). In view of the County's oft stated position that no such plan is now in existence and that its plan will not be filed until October, NSC requests a reservation for additional content, ions if the County's Plan, as filed, should so require. -
- Hotline (s) are " dedicated phone lines, made operational upon pick-up of the receiver and selection of desired location xxx"(7.2.1)
_ _________ __ \
. _ = - - . .. _
means for notification of the State and County of emergency -
l condition at Shoreham." (7.2.1; see also 5.4)'t @ 0I 6/
'4C$Wp O (W & c I.%WA4B. _Assuming that the telephone communications depend upon overhead, outdoor lines (there is nothing to the I
contrary in the Plan), the. telephone communication network is vulnerable to extreme weather conditions, especially to sleet and ice formations on its lines and poles.
C. The Hotline communications network is inadequate because (1) it is not connected to the NRC Bethesda office and its King of Prussia Regional Office (cf. 7.2.2), and (2) does not give titles and alternates of the personnel at both ends of the Hotline.
<j D. The Plan relies on commercial telephone lines as
' "the primary communication.siink" for hospitals, Coast Guard, h
and DOE (7.2.4).
E. The Plan does not describe the " redundant power supplias" (7.2) which purportedly insure communications with off-site facilities.* NSC understands a " power supply" to l
l mean the source of the power to maintain the communications systems and not the different communication modes and systems.
F. The personnel to whom beepers are issued have
~
- varying responsibilities to notify response organizations.
- The back-up power source relates only to intra-and on-site l communication (7.2.7)
(1l /'jy4 a
4(
bV5l;ff(t f[ ~
However, the beeper requires them only to call in ((l1;;
topredetermined numbers (7.2.9), using commercial telephone lines.
G. The Plan presents insufficient data about the k7y coverage and load capacity of the UHF and VHF Radio C sed Stations (7.2.10) to assess their capabilities as reliable /- -
communications facilities with the response organizations and -
4 ,I the Emergency News Center (7.1.5).
i H. The Plan describes the National Alert Warning System (NAWAS) as the " primary back-up communications -link between the Shoreham site and off-site officials." (7.2.3) It does not otherwise describe NAWAS and therefore it is impossible to determine if it can perform its assigned task. For example, there is no description of its load capacity, coverage, or technical configuration ; nor does it name the "off-site officials" and their agencies who are linked t0 NAWAS.
b G
w . - - - ,...y . - , - - , , . - - . - , - , - -
,,. ,----:----.-.,~..-_-
II. STRESS ON COMMUNICATIONS / NOTIFICATIONS PERSONNEL The Plan training procedures (8.1.1 et seq.), for communications / notifications personnel (110) are flawed because they neither recognize nor respond to the need for special training of the LILCO personnel who are assigned to implement the communications and notifications procedures Plan $55 and 7.* Therefore the Plan does not meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1)(2)(4)'(5)(7), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, IV, Para D(1)(3) and NUREG 0654, Appendix A 3(c)(2), as follows:
A. The psychological and mental stress to which personnel, both on site and off site, will be subjected when a radiological emergency ocT::urs is not addressed.
B. The training f ails to include programs to motivate
, off-site perconnel (1) to leave their homes and families to report for duty at the plant, (2) to overcome a natural reluctance to respond to a hazardous situation and (3) in any case, to subordinate considerations of family and personal safety. Thus, there is no assurance that personnel assigned to communication and notification will report their stations and be sufficiently trained.
l l *This contention is not intended to litigate and specifically excludes TMI-related issues considered in People v. Nuclear Energy v. NRC, (DC., Cir., May 14, 1982, No. 81-1131) which i is a subject of a Regulation .
l l
l
_ _ ,- ~.-,_.-m~ ,m . .. ,. - ,. . - - . . . . _-- -
..c - .. ,% ,
C. The Plan (5.2.8, 5.2.9) assigns various personnel as communicators, but they do not appear to be included in the training program described in 8.1.1.
D. The failure to furnish adequate training jeopardizes both LILCO's ability to assure adequate staffing and the ability to furnish appropriate responses.
4
=
5 e
9
III. PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENTS TO COMMUNICATION / NOTIFICATION The Plan's assignment of personnel to communications and notification responsibility is inadequate, both in the number of persemo'. assigned and because it overburdens these assigned with too many tasks. It thus does not meet the standards 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1) and (7), and 10 CFR Appendix E, IV Para D (1)(3) and (9), in the following respects:
A) Plan 5.2.1 assigns immediate responsibility and
- G authority to react to the emergency to the Emergency Director who may be the on-shift Watch Engineer, who must at once i
shoulder the additional duties thrust upon him. There is no assurance that one person can perform these manifold
, non-delegable tasks especn lly since it is impossible to b foretell, with any precision, the length of time during which the Watch Engineer may be required to function in that dual
. ~
capacity.
B. An insufficient number of personnel is assigned to s
he EOF to assure proper notification to of f-site emergency support and response organizations (5.2.8, 5.5.1, 7.1.3)
C. The Plan has no safeguards against the possibility
, that the Emergency Director or the Response Manager may make
\ communications / notifications decisions which conflict with j State or County actions. '
~
7
IV. MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES SUPPORT The Plan does not assure that off-site medical personnel and equipment, such as ambulances and radiologically-related medical supplies and equipment, will be available if an on-site emergency requires those services. Therefore the Plan does meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6)(8), 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, IV Para. E(1)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) and NUREG 0654, II L(1)(2)(3), in the following respects-:
A. The Plan does not provide assurance that off-site medical personnel required for on-site medical assistance have been trained to treat individuals sickened or injured by a radiological emergency.
B. If they have so been trained, there is no procedure to notify them to report, or if notified, that they will be available. .
C. If properly trained off-site medical and health-related personnel is available, the Plan does not
~
require that route instructions to reach Shoreham shall have been previously furnished or that appropriate identification to permit ready entry into the plant has been previously issced.
D. The Plan has no provision to assure that vehicles and trained personnel to staff the vehicles will be available to transport persons requiring off-site medical treatment.
~
- i ,.
f
~
I
. [ V b
..u-,
~
, E. There are no procedures "te/ relate the level of f .
' medical training and assistance which should be available to l the-escalating EAL levels in Plan 54.
. 2( .
, - , ~
, < +
s N'
(
r
,f./
W st'e "
O 7
(
(g>
/
M
? ?
a f
e
} .
+
+
,./
f.
W p r
6 I/ %
\' s
. 1 4 -
.r 3 ,
k' +
6 o
'/
.?
y ,
_['* '
ll
+
l I
Huwrow & WILLIAMS I 7o7 East MAIN STRCet P.O. Box 1535 Excamown,VxmoxxxA a0212 ,e, e .. .,, e,t a.,,a ayc.u c, m.
o o a r sunm+=a p.o.somisamo p.o. Com som "*"'"***"*'
sa6cie.e montn camouma areoa Tc Lc p = oN c 8O4*788*82OO aoa-aaa- e sso'** * ***
St3-c30 93F1 f-FacCT vimotNia BaNR TOWER p.o. com sees morroui, vinoimia assie 0,RCCT 044L No. S o* 7se.
Go4 Cas.esoi August 13, 1982 Herbert H. Brown, Esq. John Shea, Esq.
Cherif Sedky, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Christopher M. McMurray, Esq. 33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Post Office Box 398 Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, New York 11901 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
9 East 40th Street Richard Black, Esq. New York, New York 10016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Gentlemen:
This letter and the attached draft settlement agreements represent our attempt to move the group forward toward settle-t ment or at lesst narrowing of the emergency planning conten-tions.
Thus far, the parties' progress has been somewhat disap-f pointing. Our first meeting on July 26 was helpful, but the draft language of contentions that we thought the County would produce by Friday, July 30, as a result of that meeting never ;
materialized. The meeting we scheduled for the following
( )
HuxTox & WILLIAxs Tuesday, August 3, was forgotten by the County's counsel and was not attended by counsel for the other parties. (We even-tually met with Cherif and Chris for about two hours that day.)
We have sent three letters (dated July 16, July 24, and August
- 5) to the County.containing settlement proposals and questions designed to narrow the focus of the issues. The County's re-sponse on August 5 did not answer many of our questions and did not ir.clude any draft settlement proposals or draft contention language. Despite our repeated requests for draft contentions and our expressed willingness to accept draft contentions as they are produced rather than when the entire package is com-plete, to date we have not received any draft language from the County.-~
We received from Ralph Shapiro on August 11 a new draft of NSC's contentions. (We appreciate your efforts, Ralph, in reworking these contentions.) From our preliminary review of the NSC draft, we think that NSC may have raised new issues; if so, we may want to object to them. Additionally, it will be necessary for NSC to coordinate with the County to produce a single filing for August 20. We will provide shortly our de-tailed comments and the information Ralph requested regarding communications.
l HuxToN & WILLIAM 0 D
For each of the contentions listed below, we have pro-vided information, asked questions, or produced draft settle-ment proposals as appropriate. The questions incorporate the q
unanswered questions in our July 16 and July 24 letters, and are numbered consecutively for ease of response. Additional information and questions on the remainder of the contentions will be forthcoming on Monday; we are sending this material on now because we thought it important that you receive it as soon as possible.
The next round of contentions must be filed in one week.
Clearly, there is a great deal of work left to be done prior to next Friday. We would be grateful if you would answer our questions and return the draft resolutions with your comments by Tuesday, August 17. We would also welcome any draft conten-tions prepared to date by the County.
We propose that the group meet on Wednesday, August 18, in Washington to finalize settlement agreements and contention and go into the language. We are prepared to begin at 9 a.m.
evening if necessary.
Please advise us at your earliest con-venience whether you are able to attend.
Below is the additional information regarding the con-1982, letter addressing tentions. The County in its August 5, l
HuxTow & WILLIAxo our settlement proposals and questions suggests that discussions of Phase II issues (EP 2.C, for example) should be postponed. We do not agree. The Board has directed us to engage in intensive discussions and to try to settle as many issues as possible. We think this means all issues, Phase II as well as Phase I.
EP 1. We still think that Contention EP 1, as reworked in the County's " Objections to Prehearing Conference Order and Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, for Certification to the Commission," dated August 3, 1982, is un-wieldy. To be specific, you have mentioned at least ten plan elements -- (1) types and sizes of radiological releases, (2)
~
physical dispersion of radiological releases, (3) populations' at risk, (4) reactions of people to notification that they are at risk, (5) protective action recommendations, (6) who should give notification, (7) how notification should be given, (8) what education is required, (9) when education is to be pro-vided, and (10) how education should be provided -- and at least nine " local conditions," resulting in a potential of at least 90 issues involving how each plan element is affected by each " local condition." This seems to us an impossible burden on the Board and parties.A
HuwTow Sc WILLIAMC er Also, we continue to believe that most or all of the EP For exam-1 issues are already covered by other contentions.
ple, does not EP 2 (Prompt Notification System) in your view
- include how notification "should be done" in light of local conditions such as where people live (see EP 2(D) and 2(G)?
For that matter, don't EP 5 (Protective Actions) plus EP 8 and EP 14 (Public Messages) cover just (Public Information),
about all of EP 1?
We also regard as unacceptable your use of words like
" including" (page 16 of the County's August 3 " Objections"),
which might allow you to litigate the seven " demographic,
" you socio-economic and social and behavorial characteristics 1
have specified plus any others you can think up by the time of 1
hearing.
You need to decide by August 20 what social science d
characteristics you want to litigate and specify them once an You can always raise additional " characteristics" as for all. d d new contentions later if you can satisfy the legal stan ar s for lateness, etc.).
for late contentions (" good cause" In short, it appears to us that EP 1 contains no ideas not contained in other contentions and is merely a catchall w
contention designed to preserve your ability to litigate ne If you believe this is not the ideas you may develop later.
HuxTox & WILLIAMS case, please advise us in what respects litigation of EP 1 will require evidence different from EP 2, 5, 8, 10, and 14. .
l Otherwise we will have to conclude that EP 1 is superfluous.
Inasmuch as the Social Data Analysts, Inc., report
(" Attitudes Towards Evacuation: Reactions of Long Island Residents to a Possible Accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant," June 1982), concludes that "other demographic variables such as education and income were not significantly correlated with attitudes towards evacuations" (Executive Summary at 10, 6), can we not agree that such "other variables" are not at issue in this proceeding?
EP 2.A. In your rewrite of Contention 2.A, please in-clude the following information:
(1) What effect will rain have on one's abi-lity to hear the sirens? Do the rain-drops absorb sound, or does the drumming l
of raindrops drown out the sound of sirens, or are you concerned about some-thing else?
(2) Same question for snow.
(3) Same question for fog.
(4) Same question for high winds.
j (5) Same question for thunderstorms.
Since the thrust of this contention is not the l
EP 2.C.
l l
l
HUNTON & WILLIAMS content of beach signs but whether signs are an appropriate means of notifying transients, why don't we litigate (or set-tie) that issue, and drop the rest of 2.C? Please answer these questions:
(1) Does the County think that a public address (PA)-system would be better than signs?
(2) Does the County think some means of noti-fying people on beaches and in recrea-tional areas other than signs or a PA system should be used?
(3) If the County would prefer a PA system to signs, why does it prefer the PA system?
That is, what are all the advantages that a PA system has over signs?
(4) Given the thrust of Contention EP 2.C, does the County really want the federal government to decide what the beach signs should say, how far apart they should be placed, and how they should be main-tained?
r
Hurrow & WILLIAMS EP 2.D. In response to the County's request for infor-mation in its August 5 letter: the Wyle report set an ambient sound level of about 55 dB for the noisiest location. The sirens produce 70 dB at each location. Thus, the sirens are 15 l l
dB above the ambient in the worst case, and a goed deal above that at most locations. LILCO would be happy to discuss the
" gaps" in the siren coverage with the appropriate expert for the County to resolve this issue. In addition, please answer this question:
(5) NUREG 0654 Appendix E, Section D.3 says that the design objective of the prompt notification system shall be to have the capability to " essentially complete" the initial notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. Even if people within the " gaps" are not notified, isn't the coverage of the sirens sufficient to
" essentially" complete initial notifica-tion?
EP 2.E. We do not believe efforts to settle EP 2.E should be postponed. Please answer these questions:
f
HowTow & WILLIAxs (6) What if any "large facilities" does EP 2.E refer to in addition to the 50 l
schools, 15 nursery schools, 14 nursing homes, 36 recreational areas, and 11 major employers mentioned?
(7) What " paging or alerting" capabilities should these facilities have? Please describe the minimum capabilities that are necessary to satisfy (a) NRC require-ments and (b) the County.
(8) What information should " appropriate mes-sages" under EP 2.E(1) include?
(9) What " instructions" should be dissemina-ted to the personnel of large facilities?
(10) How often should large facilities hold drills to test the adequacy of their in-t ternal notification systems?
(11) What does the County believe would be an adequate demonstration that large facili-l ties have agreed to bear notification responsibilities? That is, what evidence would be necessary?
l
_g.
Huwrox & WILLIAus (12) What does the County believe would be an adequate demonstration that the large facilities will effectively implement their notification responsibilities?
That is, what evidence would be neces-sary?
EP 2.F. The Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) tests the tone alerts through radio station WALK once a week. Please answer this question:
(13) What further information do you require regarding the tone alert testing?-
EP 2.G. We think the County's planning people should promptly resume meeting with LILCO's planners to try to agree on the siren coverage. Please ask the County to advise LILCO when such meetings may take place.
EP 2.H._ The same remark as for 2.G above applies to 2H.
Please let LILCO know when LILCO may meet with County planners to resolve the issue of notifying the deaf. Surely there is no reason why the County's consultants have to finish their work before discuesions can be had between LILCO and the County.
HuxTox & WILLIAxs I
l EP 3.A. Please answer these questions:
(14) When will Dr. Radford visit Central Suffolk Hospital?
(15) When will you provide us his report?
(16) Are you going to claim his report is covered by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine?
(17) What hospitals should be designated in addition to Central Suffolk and University Hospital in Philadelphia?
(18) What hospital capacity is needed under Contention EP 3.A(3) to meet NRC require-ments?
(19) If Dr. Radford hasn't yet evaluated Central Suffolk, what was your basis for raising Contention EP 3.A. in the first place?
EP 3.B. Please answer these questions:
(20) You say it "may well be" that ground transportation will be adequate. When will you know whether you think it will be or won't be?
HUNTON & WILLIAMS l (21) What data or studies are you awaiting !
that will enable you to decide whether you think ground transportation is ade-quate or not?
(22) When may LILCO's planners meet with the County's planners to " work together to-wards alleviating the potential level of traffic congestion"?
(23) By "other means of transportation" you mean helicopters, do you not? If not, what do you mean?
(24) What "other regulatory standards" are you talking about?
(25) What would consti.ute an " adequate demon-stration" for the purposes of EP 3.B?
I (26) What is the "likely human response"?
(27) By "likely human response" do you mean that (a) ambulance drivers will not per-form as expected or (b) the public will use the roads and block the ambulances or (c) something else?
l Incidentally, we have to point out that the County's response to our questions about EP 3.B is of no help at all in getting
HuxTox & WILLIAxs ourselves closer to cettlement. It provides no information and equivocates on what the County's position really is. We hope the response to this letter will be more useful.
EP 3.C. A draft resolution for settlement of this issue is attached. In addition, please answer these questions:
(28) What precisely do you mean by "some assurance" that response organizations can do what they say they will do? What evidence do you want to see?
(29) What "other response organizations" do you mean?
Please list them.
(30) You say an outdated contract is not enough. What do you think is enough?'
(31) Is an up-to-date contract adequate assurance for l
l you?
I I (32) If not sufficient, is an up-to-date contract at least necessary?
(33) What date must the contracts bear in order to be sufficiently p-to-date to satisfy you?
(34) Is a contract with Central Suffolk, assuming its date is sufficently current, adequate assurance?
! (35) If the answer to the preceding question is no, what assurance do you need in addition to the contract?
1
HuxTox & WILLIAMS Please don't tell us you need "some assurance";
tell us in concrete terms what evidence you want to see. Otherwise how can we ever hope to satisfy the County's concerns?
EP 4. Plese review page 5-8 of the LILCO plan. In addi-tion, please answer these questions:
(36) What specific " local resources" are you referring to in EP 4?
(37) What language would you have LILCO add to page 5-8 of the Plan to resolve this issue?
(38) Is it the County's pocition that the information provided at page 5-8 of the Plan is not sufficient to comply with NUREG 0654?
EP 5.A. Information regarding protective action recom-mendations is contained in the LILCO Plan at 6.4.1 (page 6-11) and in SP 69.026.02, in Volume 1 of the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures at tab 15. Please review these mate-rials and advise us what, if anything, you find lacking. In addition, please answer this question:
HUNTow & WILLIAxs (39) How do the " bases for choice" in the first sentence of EP 5.A differ from the
" relative benefits" in the second sen-tence? The County's August 5 letter says that if the bases are discussed it should be possible to " assess the relative bene-fits." So why not drop the second and third sentences of EP 5.A?
EP 5.B. Please answer these questions:
(40) In your August 5 letter you say you "do not believe" the County has yet formula-ted a final evacuation time estimate.
Can you be less equivocal? Has anybody working for the County (Mr. Meunkle or Ms. Palmer, for example, or an outside consultant) prepared any evacuation time estimate, whether " final" or not? We believe such an estimate has been pre- .
pared. By what date will the County's
" final" evacuation time estimate be pro-vided to you? By what date may we have a copy?
HUNTON & WILLIAMS (41) Please list all the " local conditions" that the evacuation time estimates should take into consideration.
(42) If the County has an estimate for evacua-tion of the entire EPZ, be that estimate
" final" or not, what is it?
(43) EP 5.B(3) seems to address (a) people evacuating even though they are not told to by the authorities, (b) people outside the EPZ coming inside the EPZ to assist their families, (c) people moving from one area inside the EPZ to another area inside the EPZ, and (d) people outside the EPZ using the roads and slowing down evacuation from the EPZ. Does 5.B(3) refer to other " actions" in addition to theae?
(44) How long does the County think it will take to mobilize the affected popula-tions?
(45) Who of your technical experts think 20 minutes is " unrealistic"? Is that opin-ion reduced to writing?
- HUNTON & WILLIAMS EP 7.A. We disagree with the statement in the County's August 5 letter that "except for Wading River Fire Department, no other fire department or ambulance service in the vicinity which is likely to be called in to assist in an emergency has the vaguest idea of what it would be expected to do." Under mutual aid agreements, the other participating fire departments in the vicinity would cover Wading River's routine calls, free-ing Wading River to respond at Shoreham. In addition, LILCO has trained and plans to continue training other response orga-nizations in the Shoreham vicinity. We will provide further information regarding that training program.
EP 7.B, EP 12(A) and (C), EP 13, EP 15, EP 16, EP 17, and EP 18. Draft Resolutions for settlement of these issues are attached.
EP 21. Please review Chapter 9 of the LILCO Plan plus SP 69.070.01, "Re-Entry," contained in Volume 1 of the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures at tab 27. We think EP 21 may be dropped based upon this material.
EP 24. A draft Resolution for settlement of this issue l is attached.
l l
l l
f HUNTON & WILLIAMS We look forward tio hearing from you regarding our pro-posals.
Yours very truly, 4 k' /
d I
- 2 ---
mes N. Christman
'athy E. B. McCleskey Attachments l
1 l
I
8 17 18 dpl:5EP36 parte 19 19 19 19 19 20 August __, 1982 21 21 21 21 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27 27 29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 30 30 31 In the Matter of )
32 )
33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 . Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF 40 SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTIONS EP 3 PART (C) --
41 MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPORT AND 42 EP 6 PART (C) - OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS 45 45 46 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting 47 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 48 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham Opponents 49 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") 1here-50 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolves Suffolk County 51 Contentions EP 3 F. art (C) and EP 6 Part (C) in accordance with t
- 51 the terms stated below, subject to the approval of the Atomic 52 Safety and Licensing Board (" Board").
55 guffolk County EP 3 Part (C) and EP 6 Part (C) concern 56 up-to-date agreements with local fire and ambulance organiza-57 tions that may respond to a radiological emergency at the
+
58 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Suffolk County has contended l
l r ,-- - , , - - ,e - - , .n., ,~ -. - . - . - - - .
10 11 .
12 13 14 15 59 that the LILCO Emergency Response Plan (" Plan") does not 60 contain recent agreements with these organizations, and that 61 the agreements in the Plan do not indicate the services to be 62 provided by those organizations.
1 64 By this Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to obtain 65 and include in the Plan prior to fuel load letters of agreement 66 dated within one year of fuel load. Accordingly, based upon 67 LILCO's agreement to add those letters to the Plan, SC finds 68 that SC Contentions EP 3 Part (C) and EP 6 Part iC) are resol-69 ved. As a result, the Parties jointly urge the Licensing Board 70 to accept this Resolution to terminate litigation of SC 71 Contentions EP 3 Part (C) and EP 6 Part (C).
72 72 72 72 75 76 Counsel for (Date) 77 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 78 78 78 l 78 78 79 80 Counsel for (Date) 81 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF .
82 l 82 82 82 83 84 Counsel for (Date) 85 NORTH SHORE COALITION l
86 86 86 86 86 86
10 '
11 .
12 13 14 15 87 88 Counsel for (Date)
< 89 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 90 90 90 90 91 92 Counsel for (Date) 93 SUFFOLK COUNTY 94 94
- 94 '
94 95 Agreed to and accepted by the 96 Atomic Safety and Licensing 97 Board this day of 98 , 1982.
100 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
8 17 18 dpl:Sec7rco 19
- 19 19 19 19 20 August __, 1982 21 21 21 21
, 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27 27 29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 30-30 31 In the Matter of )
32 )
33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY 40 CONTENTION EP 7 PART (B) -- TRAINING 43 43 44 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham Opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") 1here-48 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolves Suffolk County 49 Contention EP 7, Part (B) in accordance with the terms stated 51 below, subject to the approval of the Atomic Safety and 52 Licensing Board (" Board").
I 54 Suffolk County EP 7 concerns training of emergency re-55 sponse personnel to respond during a radiological emergency at 56 the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Suffolk County has con-i 57 tended that the LILCO Emergency Response Plan does not provide 58 adequate information regarding the training of LILCO personnel.
l t
10 11,
-12 13 14 15 61 Having reviewed the revised Plan of June 28, 1982 and 62 the supporting Training Manual, the County has now concluded 63 that its concerns regarding the training of LILCO personnel are 65 resolved. Accordingly, the Parties jointly urge the Licensing 68 Board to accept this Resolution to terminate litigation of SC 69 Contention EP 7, Part (B).
70 70 70 70 73 74 Counsel for (Date) 75 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 76 76 76 76 76 77 78 Counsel for (Date) 79 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 80 80 80 80 81 _
82 Counsel for (Date) 83 NORTH SHORE COALITION 84 84 84 84 85 86 Counsel for (Date) 87 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
10 ,
11-12 13- '
.14 15 89
,- 90 Counsel for (Date) 91 SUFFOLK COUNTY 92 92 92 92 4
93 Agreed to and accepted by 94 Atomic Safety and Licensing 95 Board this day of 96 , 1982.
97 98 99
- 99-
! 99 99
- 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 -
99
! 99 99 l
99 99 99 99 99 99.
99 99
- 99 99 99 99 99 99 99
-99 99 99 99 99
- p. - ----,y-p,v+c--c+- ,p -- , wv y g. --- . - - 9- -e- m - w- - ----T- %
t -,igw. -
8 17 18 dpl:Scp12roo 19 19 19 19 19 20 August __, 1982 21 21 21 21 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27 27 29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 30 30 31 In the Matter of )
32 )
33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 40 EP 12(A) and (C) -- EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITY 43 43 44 - ' - THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham Opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") 1here-l 48 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolves Suffolk County EP 1
49 12, Parts (A) and (C), in accordance with the terms stated 50 below, subject to the approval of the Atomic Safety and 51 Licensing Board (" Board").
53 Suffolk County Contention EP 12 concerns the Emergency 54 operations Facility (EOF) for the Shoreham Nuclear Power 55 Station. The County has alleged in EP 12(A) and EP 12(C) that 55 the LILCO Emergency Response Plan (" Plan") does not state that 56 the EOF will achieve operational readiness within the time
~
10 11 .
12 13 14 i 15 58 cuggested in NUREG-0696, and that the Plan does not indicate ,
59 that the EOF will be activated at the appropriate period durir.g 61.cn accident.
63 By this Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to replace 64 the second paragraph of 7.1.3 of the Plan (pp. 7-2 to 7-3) with 65 this language:
68 69 The EOF is activated upon the declaration of 69 a Site Area or General Emergency. It may 70 also be activated during an Alert Emergency 71 at the discretion of the Response Manager in 72 concurrence with the Emergency Director.
73 74 Upon declaration of an Alert Emergency, the 74 Emergency Planning Advisor No. I will report 75 to the EOF and either place the facility in a '
76 standby status or activate it 1 mandatory 77 within one hour of a Site Area or General 78 Emergency). The EOF shall achieve operation-78 al readiness one hour after activr and 80 assume the following responsibil!
~
.nder 80 the direction of the Resp 6nse Mana,er:
82 83 1. Management of corporate emergency re-83 sponse resources.
! 85 86 2. Radiological effluent and environs mon-86 itoring, assessment and dose projec-87 tions.
88 '
89 3. Flow of information and protective 89 action recommendations to Federal, ;
90 State and County response organiza-I S.
91 tions.
92 93 4. Management of recovery operations.
- 94 95 The EOF may be activated during an Alert at 95 the discretion of the Response Manager as 96 stated in the Plan.
100 101 Accordingly, based upon LILCO's agreement to add this 102 language to the Plan, SC finds that parts (A) and (C) of SC
10 11 '
12 13 14 15 103 Contention EP 12 are resolved. As a result, the Parties 104 jointly urge the Licensing Board to accept this Resolution to 105 terminate litigation of SC Contention EP 12, Parts (A) and (C).
107 107 107 107 110 111 Counsel for (Date) 112 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 113 113 113 113 113 114 115 Counsel for (Date) 116 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF
, 117 117 117 117 118 119 Counsel for (Date) ~- - -
120 NORTH SHORE COALITION 121 121 121 121 122 123 Counsel for (Date) 1.24 SHOREHAM OPDONENTS COALITION 125 125 125 125 126
, 127 Counsel for (Date) l 128 SUFFOLK COUNTY I 129 129 129 129 130 Agreed to and accepted by the 131 Atomic Safety and Licensing 132 Board this day of 133 , 1982.
134 135 I
1 -- - , --. ._ _
),
8 17 dpl:5$pl3Roo 18' 18 18 18 18 19 August __, 1982 20 '
20 .$ ,
20 20 24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 25 , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 26
~26 28 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 29 29 30 In the Matter of )
31 )
32 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322'(OL) 33 '
)
34 (Shor,eham Nuclear Power Station, )
35 Unit 1) )
36 36 38 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY 39 CONTENTION EP 13 -- NOTIFICATION OF 40 RESPONSE ORGANIZATION AND_, EMERGENCY PERSONNEL 43 43 44 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff .
46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") 1here-48 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolves Suffolk County 49 Contention EP 13 in accordance with the terms stated below, 50 cubject to the approval of thejAtomic Safety and Licensing 51 Board (" Board").
53 Suffolk County Contention EP 13 concerns the notifica-54 tion procedures for offsite response organizations and onsite 55 personnel reporting to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. The 56 County has alleged in EP 13 that LILCO has not developed the 57 notification procedures in a manner consistent with the emer-58 gency classification and action level scheme set forth in NUREG
. . - _ = _ _ - _-- .. --_ . . _ _ _ _ . _ - - -_ - - - - - -
l 10 ,
11 1
12 1 13 ,
14 15 59 0654, 1.ppendix 1, and that the LILCO Emergency Response Plan j 60 (" Plan") does not provide the contents of initial and followup 62 messages to offsite authorities.
64 By this Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to replace 65 the second paragraph of Section 6.2 of the LILCO Plan with this P 66 language:
! 70 The Watch Engineer, based upon valid 70 indications of an exceeded Emergency 71 Action Level (Section 4.0), will an-72 nounce the emergency condition over the 72 page party system, take corrective l 73 actions, approve a completed
- 74 Notification Fact Sheet (Appendix F),
74 and direct the ControlRoom Communicator
. 75 to initiate notifications in accordance -
76 with the EPIP's. The Control Room 76 Communicator will notify appropriate 77 station personnel, offsite response 78 organizations and other personnel in 78 the owner-controlled area (e.g., St.
79 Joseph's Villa) consistent with the 79 emergency classification and the type 80 of release.
81 82 Notification for augmentation of corpo-82 rate Isrsonnel is accomplished by an
, 83 initial call to the Gas Systems 84 Operator from an Onsite Communicator.
84 The Gas Systems Operator will then ini-85 tinte corporate notification procedures 85 consistent with the emergency classifi-86 cation.
87 i 88 Notification to members of the emer-88 gency organization is made by use of
- 89 page-party system, Card Dialer Phone 90 and/or beeper system.
91 94 In addition, prior to fuel load LILCO will develop and 95 include in the Plan the initial and follow-up messages to 96 offsite authorities.
l 98 l
98
! 98 98 i
,,..-m _ . , , _ _ , . . , _ _ , , , , , , , _ ,_ _ . . , , _. , - , , . , _ _ . , . _ , , . , . _ , - - _ m.-,, -r- -_.v,.-- , -- -
r 10 11
- 12 13 14 15 99 Accordingly, based upon LILCO's agreement to carry out 100 these actions, SC finds that SC Contention EP 13 is resolved.
101 As a result, the Parties jointly urge the Licensing Board to 102 accept this Resolution to terminate litigation of SC Contention 103 EP 13.
104 104 104 104 107 108 109 Counsel for (Date) 110 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 111 111 111 111 111 112 113 Counsel for (Date) 114 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 115 115 115 115 116 117 Counsel for (Date) t 118 NORTH SHORE COALITION l 119 119 119 119 120 121 Counsel for (Date) 122 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 123 123 123 l
123 l 123 123 123 123 l 123 123 123 123
- 123 123
10 11 '
12 13 14 15 124 125 Counsel for (Date) 126 SUFFOLK COUNTY 127 127 127 127 128 Agreed to and accepted by the 129 Atomic Safety and Licensing 130 Board this day of 131 , 1982.
132 133 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 -
134 234 134 134 134 134 i 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134
8 17 l 18 dpl:Scp15roo .
19 19
.
- 19 19 19
, 20 August __, 1982 21 21 21 i 21 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27
, 27
! 29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l 30 l 30 31 In the Matter of )
32 )
33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION i 40 EP 15 -- OFFSITE PLANNING COORDINATION 43 43 44 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting
- 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff l
46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") 1here-43 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolvsc Suffolk County 49 Contention EP 15 in accordance with the terms stated below, 50 subject to the approval of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 51 Board (" Board").
53 Suffolk County Contention EP 15 concerns radiological 54 emergency planning and coordination between LILCO and the State i
55 of Connecticut. Suffolk County has contended that LILCO has 56 failed to demonstrate such planning in the LILCO Emergency 57 Response Plan (" Plan") for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
E 10 11 12 13 14 15 59 gection 6.4.1 of the LILCO_ Plan states in part:
63 LILCO will make a protective action recommen-63 dation to guffolk County and New York State 64 authorities for the population at risk. The 65 various protective action options available 66 are detailed in the New York State and 66 Suffolk County emergency response plans. The 67 protective action recommendation is based 68 upon dose projection calculations, field mon-68 itoring data, EPA protective action guide-69 lines, sheltering factors offered by local 70 dwellings and evacuation time estimates for 71 ambient conditions. The emergency plan pro-71 cedure, " General Emergency" immediate imple-72 menting actions, contains protective actions 73 to be recommended during events that are 73 deteriorating rapidly based upon conditions 74 in accordance with NUREG 0654, Appendix 1.
75 The details of this decision process are con-75 tained in the EPIPs. Regarding the protec-76 tiva actions taken on behalf of the general 77 public, notification will be made of an amer-78 gency situation via the use of the Prompt 78 Notification Eystem set up throughout the ten 79 (10) mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
81 84 gy this Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to amend 85 this portion of Section 6.4.1 of the Plan to read:
86 89 LILCO will make a protective action recommen-89 dation to guffolk County and New York State 90 authorities for the population at risk. When 91 notified, the New York State Office of 92 Disaster Preparedness will initiate its noti-92 fication plan as outlined in The New York 93 State Radiological Emergency Preparedness 94 Plan. As stated in the New York State Plan, 94 if appropriate, New York State will contact 95 the State of Connecticut and repeat a message 96 provided by the New York State Department of 97 Health.
98 99 The protective action recommendation is based 99 upon dose projection calculations, field mon-100 itoring data, EPA protective action guide-101 lines, sheltering factors offered by local 102 dwellings and evacuation time etimates for 102 ambient conditions. The emergency plan pro-103 cedures contain protective actions to be
10 11 12 13 14 15 104 recommended during events that are 104 deteriorating rapidly, based upon conditions 105 in accordance with NUREG-0654, Appendix 1.
105 The details of this decision process are con-106 tained in the EPIPs. Regarding the protec-107 tive actions taken on behalf of the general 108 public, notification will be made of an emer-108 gency situation visa the use of the Prompt 109 Notification System set up throughout the ten 110 (10) mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
111 114 Accordingly, based upon LILCO's agreement to add that 115 language to the Plan, SC finds that SC Contention EP 15 is 116 resolved. As a result, the Parties jointly urge the Licensing 117 Board to accept this Resolution to terminate litigation of SC 118 Contention EP 15.
119 119 119 119 122 123 Counsel for (Date) 124 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 125 125 125 125 125 126 127 Counsel for (Date) 128 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 129 129 129 129 130 131 Counsel for (Date) 132 NORTH SHORE COALITION 133 133 133 133 134 135 Counsel for (Date) 136 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 137 137
-o
lo 11 12 13 14 15 138 139 Counsel for (Date) 140 SUFFOLK COUNTY 141 141 141 141 142 Agreed to and accepted by the 143 Atomic Safety and Licensing 144 Board this day of 145 , 1982.
147 148 148 148 148 _
148 148 148 148 148 148 148 ..
s 148 148 148.
148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148
)
l 8 17 18 dpl:5 cpl 6 roc 19 19 19 19 19 20 August __, 1982 21 21 21 21 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27 27 29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 30 30 31 In the Matter of )
32 )
33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY 40 CONTENTION EP 16 -- RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE 43 43 44 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") ihere-48 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolves Suffolk County 49 Contention EP 16 in accordance with the terms stated below, 50 subject to the approval of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 51 Board (" Board").
53 Suffolk County Contention EP 16 concerns the control of 54 radiological exposure to emergency workers during a radiologi-55 cal emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Suffolk 56 County contends that the LILCO Emergency Response Plan (" Plan")
57 (a) inadequately describes provisions for monitoring
10 11
- ' 12 13 '
14 15 58 individuals evacuated from the site, (b) does not describe 59 cction levels for determining the need for decontamination of 60 cmergency response personnel, and (c) does not delineate guide-61 lines for emergency workers to follow to ensure that any expo-62 sures received by workers are not excessive. ,
65 The LILCO Plan currently states the following at pages
! 66 6-12 to 6-13:
4 69 70 Protective action within the plant site will 70 be initiated by actual or imminent radiologi-71 cal conditions or other habitability hazards 72 such.as toxic gas or fire. Upon assessment 73 by the Emergency Director that a situation 73 exists that requires evacuation of areas of 74 the plant, an evacuation signal will be acti-75- vated simultaneously with an announcement of 76 the emergency condition over the party page 76 system indicating the areas to be evacuated.
77 Evacuated personnel will report to designated 78 assembly areas consistent with implementing 79 Erocedures.
80
, 81 When personnel have assembled, personnel ac-81 countability will then proceed following the
, 82 guidance of the personnel accountability pro-cedures. Accountability for onsite personnel 83 84 will be accomplished within 60 minutes.
85 86 In the event of a site evacuation, Figure 6-1 l
l 86 details the onsite assembly areas with pri-87 mary and secondary evacuation routes leading 88 to the LILCO main access road.
88 Transportation for onsite personnel shall be j 89 by personal vehicle as well as car pooling L 90 where conditions warrant.
- 91 92 The extent and nature of personnel and vehi-92 cle monitoring will depend on the amount and 93 physical nature of the Indioactive material
- 94 released. If personnel exit the site via the
! 95 portal monitors in the guardhouse, monitoring
' 95 can be considered complete. If background 96 levels preclude use of the portal monitors,
, 97 monitoring should be performed at the offsite l 98 assembly area. If vehicle monitoring is l
l l
--, ,,,,,,,--_.--,-,-,c.,. .
. , - , _ . , - . . . . . - - . ,,-.,,n..,.
10
,11 12 13 14 15 98 performed, it should be performed along the 99 LILCO main access road at the 69KV substa-100 tion. Vehicles found to be contaminated 100 should be directed into the substation for 101 decontamination.
104 105 By this Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to address the 106 County's EP 16(A) by replacing the second and third paragraphs 107 quoted above with the following language:
111 112. In the event of a site evacuation, an evacuation signal 113 will be activated simultaneously with an announcement 113 of the gmergency condition over the page-party system.
114 The announcement will indicate the means by which eva-115 cuation is to occur and to what offsite assembly area 116 people are to gather for subsequent monitoring, decon-117 tamination, and accountability. _ Transportation for 118 onsite personnel shall be by personal vehicle as well 119 as car pooling where conditions warrant. Station secu-120 rity personnel will direct traffic onsite and at the 121 intersection of both access roads and North Country 121 Road 1See Figure 6-1). More detail is contained in 122 EPIP's.
123 124 The extent and nature of personnel and vehicle monitor-125 ing will depend on the amount and physical nature of 126 the radioactive material released. If personnel exit 127 the site through portal monitors located in the guard-128 house, monitoring can be considered complete. If high 129 radiation levels preclude the use of portal monitors, 129 personnel monitoring will be performed at the offsite
. 130 assembly area by health physics personnel. If vehicle
, 131 monitoring indicates levels in excess of 100 cpm above 132 background Beta-Gamma radiation, decontamination of 133 vehicles shall be performed by health physics personnel 134 at the 69KV substation.
135 t 136 At the remote assembly area, accountability of person-137 nel will be performed by the Administrative Supervisor 138 with the assistance of Security. Any unaccounted for 139 personnel will be paged and, if still missing, search 139 and rescue efforts will commence.
142 142 144 The LILCO Plan currently states at pages 6-14 to 6-15:
147
-148 To the extent possible, the normal station 149 contamination limits shall be adhered to.
~~ - - -
10, 11 12 i 13 '
14 !
15 149 The personnel contamination limits are 100 150 cpm above background as measured by an 151 RM-14/HP-210 or equivalent. Equipment conta-
, 152 mination limits are less than 200 dps/100 cm2 152 removable Beta-Gamma.
154 155 Decontamination of emergency personnel 155 wounds, supplies, instruments and equipment
- 156 shall normally be conducted in the Personnel 157- Decontamination Facility adjacent to the 158 Health Physics office on the 15' elevation of 158 the Turbine Building. This facility contains 159 showers with controlled drains and the neces-160 sary materials for personnel decontamination.
161 The Personnel Decontamination Facility con-162 tains a stainless steel sink and decon area 162 which shall be used for contaminated minor 163 wounds, equipment and instruments.
164 165 If the release has resulted in extensive 165 offsite contamination such that evacuation of 166 the general public is being implemented, mon-167 itoring and decontamination prior to exit 168 from the assembly areas would be superfluous 168 in light of the potential for recontamina-169 tion. Under these circumstances, personnel 170 will be monitored for contamination as pro-170 vided in the emergency plans of the affected 171 jurisdictions.
172 173 In the event that personnel are evacuated to 173 offsite assembly areas, monitoring and decon-174 tamination will be performed along the site access road near the LILCO 69KV Substation.
l 175 177 178 Personnel found to be contaminated will be 178 issued protective clothing and directed to 179 the EOF decontamination facility for further 180 monitoring and decontamination. The same 181 material and equipment utilized in onsite 182 decontamination will be utilized at the EOF.
182 Provisions will be available for radionuclide 183 analysis of the personnel contamination in 184 order to determine the amount of radioiodine
, 185 present. Personnel contamination that cannot 185 be removed by normal Health Physics 186 Procedures will be referred to a medical spe-187 cialist in personnel radiation accidents.
189 191 By this Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to address the
, - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - .~-
11'
- 12 13 14 15 192 County's EP 16(B) by replacing the first garagraph quoted above 194 with the following language:
197 198 During emergency condir. ions, normal station 199 contaminaton limits she.ll be adhered to as 199 much as Rossible. Normal personnel contamin-200 ation limits are 100 cpm above background as 201 measured by an RM-14/HP-210 or equivalent.
202 Normal equipment contamination limits are 202 less than 200 dpm/100 cm2 removal Beta-Gamma 203 activity. Under accident conditions, the 204 Radiation Protection Manager will detemine if 204 a change in contamination levels is warran-205 ted. Actions taken by health physics person-206 nel will include access control for unre-207 stricted areas where excessive contamination 207 levels exist, personnel monitoring at alter-208 nate areas, and vehicle monitoring at offsite 209 assembly areas.
210 211 Personnel performing emergency actions such 211 as search and rescue, first aid, corrective 212 actions, assessment actions, personnel decon-213 tamination, and offsite assistance shall be 214 subject to normal contamination limits unless 214 the Radiation Protection Manager has in-215 creased these limits.
217 217 219 The LILCO Plan curently states in Section 6.5.1:
222 223 All reasonable measures shall be taken to 223 maintain the radiation dose to emergency per-224 sonnel as low as reasonably achievable and 225 within 10 CFR Part 20 limits. Personnel per-226 forming emergency activities involving expo-226 sures which may or will exceed 10 CFR 20 227 limits shall be volunteers and shall be 228 briefed on potential exposure consequences 228 prior to receiving such dose. Authorization 229 to exceed 10 CFR 20 limits shall be made only 230 by the Emergency Director and/or the 230 Radiation Protection Manager. Since this 231 authorization is made only during declared 232 emergencies, this capability is readily 233 available on a 24-hour a day basis (see 233 Section 5.1). Emergency Exposure Criteria, 234 detailed in the Emergency Plan Implementing 235 Procedures, are consistent with EPA Emergency
10
,11 12 13 14 15 236 Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective 236 Action Guides (EPA 520/1-75-001). Table 6-4 237 depicts Emergency Exposure Criteria for var-238 ious activities.
240 242 By this Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to address the 243 County's EP 16(C) by replacing this paragraph with the follow-244 ing language:
246 248 Radiation doses to emergency personnel shall 248 be maintained within 10 CFR 20 limits and be 249 kept as lo',' as reasonably achievable ( ALARA) .
250 Maintenance of exposure records shall be per-251 formed in accordance with normal station gro-252 cedures. Personnel performing emergency 252 activities involving exposures which may or 253 will exceed 10 CFR 20 limits shall be volun-
~
254 teers and shall be briefed on potential expo-254 sure consequences prior to receiving such 255 dose. Authorization to gxceed 10 CFR 20 256 limits shall be made by the Emergency 256 Director and/or the Radiation Protection 1 257 Manager. The means to accomplish this is 258 contained in the EPIPs. Since this authori-259 zation is made only during declared emergen-259 cies, this capability is available on a 24-
, 260 hour / day basis (see Section 5.1). Emergency 261 exposure criteria (Table 6-4) depicts expo-261 sure guidelines for various emergency activi-262 ties and are consistent with EPA Emergency 263 Workers and Lifesaving Activity Protective 264 Action Guides (EPA 520/1-75-001).
266 268 Accordingly, based upon LILCO's agreement to add this 269 language to the Plan, SC finds that SC Contention EP 16 is 270 resolved. As a result, the Parties jointly urge the Licensing 271 Board to accept this Resolution to terminate litigation of SC 272 Contention EP 16.
273 273 273
- 273 l 273 273
{
11'
-12 13 14 15:
276
, 277 Counsel for (Date)
L-278 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 279 279 279 279 279
, 280 281 Counsel for (Date) 282 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 283 283 283 283 284 285 Counsel for (Date) 1 286 NORTH SHORE COALITION 287 2C7 287 287 l 288 289 Counsel for (Date) 290 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 291 291
, 291 l 291 292 293 Counsel for (Date) 294 SUFFOLK COUNTY l 295 -
l 295 l 295
! 295 1
296 Agreed to and accepted by the 297 Atomic Safety and Licensing 298 Board this day of 299 , 1982.
301 302 302 302 302 302
- 302 i 302 l 302 302 302 302 302
f 8 17 18 dpl:5sp17 rom 19 19 19 19 19 20 August __ , 1982 21 21 21 21 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27 27 29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 30 30 31 In the Matter of )
32 )
33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY 40 CONTENTION EP 17 -- EXERCISES 43 43 44 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") 1here-48 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolves Suffolk County 49 Contention EP 17 in accordancc with the terms stated below, 50 subject to the approval of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 51 Board (" Board").
53 Suffolk County Contention EP 17 concerns annual emer-54 gency planning exercises for the Shoreham Nuclear Power 55 Station. Suffolk County contends that it is unclear from the
r 10 11 ,
12 13 14 15 56 LILCO Emergency Response Plan (" Plan") that each annual 56 cxercise for Shoreham will test as much of the Plan "as is rea-57 sonably achievable," as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 58 E.IV.F.1 60 By this Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to amend the 61 first three paragraphs of Section 8.1.3 of the LILCO Plan to 62 read:
63 66 A full scale exercise which tests as much of 66 the site, State and local emergency plans as 67 is reasonably achievable without mandatory 68 public participation shall be held annually.
69 Each State and local government within the 69 plume exposure EPZ shall participate in these 70 annual exercises. Each state within the 71 ingestion pathway EPZ shall participate in at 72 least one exercise every three years. The 72 scenarios will be varied from year to year to 73 allow all major elements of the plans to be 74 tested within a five year period. At least 74 once gvery five years an exercise shall be 75 scheduled to take place between 6 p.m. and 76 midnight and another between midnight and 77 6:00 a.m. Exercises shall be conducted under 77 various seasonal conditions. Some exercises 78 shall be unannounced.
79 80 The scenario for the exercise shall be 80 mutually agreed upon by those involved, and 81 will be structured so as to allow free play 82 for decision making as much as possible, gro-83 viding that the basic objective (s) of the 83 exercise or' drill are satisfied. The scen- .
84 ario shall include 7 but not be limited to the 85 following:
86 87 1. The basic objective of the exercise.
89 90 2. The date, time and place of the exer-91 cise.
92 92
i 10 i 11 '
12-13 14 15 93 3. The organizations participating in the 94 exercise.
95 96 4. The simulated events.
97 98 5.
The time schedule of real and simulated 99 initiating events.
100 101 6. A narrative summary of the exercise, 102 including simulated casualties, offsite 103 assistance, use of protective clothing, 103 deployment of monitoring teams, commun-104 ications, rescue of personnel, and pub-104 lic relations.
106 107 7. Arrangements for qualified observers.
110 112 Accordingly, based upon LILCO's agreemnt to add this 113 language to the Plan, the Parties jointly urge the Licensing 114 Board to accept this Resolution to terminate litigation of SC 115 Contention EP 17.
116 116 116 116 119 120 Counsel for (Date) 121 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 122 122 122 122 122 123 124 Counsel for (Date) 125 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 126 126 126 126 127 128 Counsel for (Date) 129 NORTH SHORE COALITION 130 130
[ 10 11' 12.
13 14 15 j 131 132 Counsel for (Date) 133 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 134 134 134 134 135 136 Counsel for (Date) 137 SUFFOLK COUNTY 138 138 138 138 139 Agreed to and accepted by the 140 Atomic Safety and Licensing 141 Board this day of 142 , 1982.
144 4 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145
- j. 145 i
145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 i 145 145 -
145 l 145 145 145 145
, 145 145 145 145 i
l-
8 17 18 dpl:5 cpl 8 roc 19 19 19 19 19 20 August __, 1982 21 21 21 21 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27 27 29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 30 30 31 In the Matter of )
32 )
33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY 40 CONTENTION EP 18 -~ EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION 43 43 44 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff ~
46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham Opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") ihere-48 inafter collectively the " Parties" resolves Suffolk County 49 Contention EP 18 in accordance with the terms stated below, 50 subject to the approval of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 51 Board (" Board").
53 Suffolk County Contention EP 18 concerns the Emergency 54 Action Levels (EAL's) for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
55 Suffolk County has contended that the LILCO Emergency Response
. I 10 11 12 13 14 15 56 Plan (" Plan") does not include a complete set of EAL's, and 57 that LILCO has not established EAL's for each initiating condi-58 tion listed in NUREG-0654 Appendix 1.
60 Suffolk County has now reviewed the revised Chapter 4 61 of the June 28, 1982 LILCO Plan and has concluded that the 62 EAL's are complete and meet the suggested format of NUREG-0654 63 Appendix 1. Accordingly, the Parties jointly urge the 66 Licensing Board to accept this Resolution to terminate litiga-67 tion of SC Contention EP 18.
68 68 68 68 71 72 Counsel for (Data) 73 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
_ 74 74 74 74 74 75 76 Counsel for (Date) 77 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 78 78 78 78 79 80 Counsel for (Date) 81 NORTH SHORE COALITION 82 82 82 82 83 84 Counsel for (Date) 85 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 86 86
r ,
10 11 -
12 -=-
13 14' 15 87 88 Counsel for (Date) 89 SUFFOLK COUNTY 90 90 90 90 91 Agreed to and accepted by the 92 Atomic Safety and Licensing 93 Board this day of 94 , 1982.
96 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 .,
97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
- n. . - - __ - - . -
8 17 4 18 dpl:5cp24roo 19 j 19 19 ;
19 19 20 Au gu st __ , 1982 21 21 l 21 21
- 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27 l 27 i
29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
! 30 l 30 l 31 In the Matter of )
, 32 )
l 33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) l 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION i
40 EP 24 -- EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES 43 43 44 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting-I
! 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham Opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") ihere-48 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolves Suffolk County 49 Contention EP 24 in accordance with the terms stated below, 50 subject to the approval of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 51 Board (" Board").
53 Suffolk County Contention EP 24 concerns the emergency 53 plan implementing procedures ("EPIP's") for the Shoreham 54 Nuclear Power Station. Suffolk County has contended that the 55 EPIP's are not complete and approved.
- - - --------n-~-a,--,a- - - - , - - - - - - - - - - , - ~~ - +- .-n---- - - - n n ,
10 11 12 13 14 15 58 By this resolution agreement, LILCO represents that all 59 the EPIP's are now complete and have been approved, or will be 60 rpproved by fuel load.
! 62 Accordingly, based upon LILCO's agreement to add that 63 language to the Plan, SC finds that SC Contention EP 24 is 64 resolved. As a result, the Parties jointly urge the Licensing 65 Board to accept this Resolution to terminate litigation of SC 66 Contention EP 24.
67 67 67 67 70 71 Counsel for (Date) 72 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 73 73 73 73 73 74 75 Counsel for (Date) 76 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 77 77 77 77
~8 79 Counsel for (Date) 80 NORTH SHORE COALITION 81 81 81 81 82 83 Counsel for (Date) 84 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 85 85 85 85 J
r r-10 11 12 '
13 '
16 15 86 87 Counsel for (Data) 88 SUFFOLK COUNTY .
89 89 89 89 90 Agreed to and accepted by the 91 Atomic Safety and Licensing 92 Board this day of 93 , 1982.
95 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 C6 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
_______-_____m_______________
a !
- e f HUNTON & WILLIAMS 7o7 EAs7 MAIN STRttf P.o. Box 1535 0 0 & T evnesao Rrcarwown,VrmorwrA aoaaa ,e,e ..... ,,,,,,, . ., .,
p,0. som aos e o.aonsesso catteou, montw camouma ateos waswiwofon, o.c. acose TELepwoNE 804*788*S200 soa aas.geso to.eg e. e37:
rc.T winoimia saan Towen
! IAE".,*.***,...... August 17, 1982 rac o.
co..cs . . .. .. onnECT osAL mo,aos fee.
Cherif Sedky, Esq. John Shea, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips Post Office Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 8th Floor 1900 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
Richard Black, Esq. 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory New York, New York 10016 Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Settlement of Emergency Planning Contentions Gentlemen:
Enclosed are the additional information and questions on emergency planning that we promised yoc in our letter of August 13; we're sorry we didn't provide it yesterday as we had indicated we would. We received yesterday morning your rewrite of the Phase I contentions. The subheads below refer to the original numbering of the contentions, but we have tried to include the new I. umbers in parentheses as well. The numbers of the questions we are asking begin with (46), since our August 13 letter contained questions numbered (1) through (45) .
We still find EP 1 unacceptable as drafted, for these reasons: (1) You have not specified the local conditions you think have not been considered ("where people live," to use (i) as an example, does not provide us with a particular local condition and does not indicate what basis, if any, you have for raising the contention); (2) you have repeated points raised in other contentions; and (3) you have not cited the parts of the LILCO Plan that you find deficient.
HUNToN & WILLIAMS August 17, 1982 ,
Please review pages 2-6 through 2-8, 3-5 through 3-6, G-1, and G-8 of the Wyle Report (WR 82-10). We think this material demonstrates that adverse weather conditions have been considered in the design of the prompt notification system for Shoreham.
What further " demonstration" do you require?
Additionally, from your letter of August 5 plus your rewrite of the Phase I contentions, we understand that you contend that rain, snow, and fog will muffle the sirens and that high winds and thunder ma'f drown out the sound of the sirens. The phrase
" adversely affect the ability to hear the siren" in EP 2.A (new version), however, does not reveal your meaning. Why not write it to say that the sound of wind or thunder will overpower the sound of the sirens, or that the sound of the sirens will not be heard over the sound of wind and thunder?
(46) Please cite the regulation requiring backup power to the prompt notification system.
(47) What events do you anticipate would cause "a loss of power to all or part of the system?"
l (48) What " backup power" do you think is lacking? That is, l do you want backup power in the event Shoreham is l
inoperable, or something else?
We do not understand the distinction between new EP 3. A(1) and new EP 3. A(4) .
(49) What is your basis for,the statement that "large numbers of the public would require hospitalization for radiation injury?" How would these people be contaminated?
How would they be injured?
(50) Please define " radiation injury."
The new draft EP 5 is unacceptable in that it does not state specifically what bases for protective actions the County thinks LILCO has not " adequately discussed," and what "particular
s Hewrow & WILLIAus August 17, 1982 Page 3 conditions existing in the Shoreham vicinity" LILCO has not
" assessed." Additionally, this contention repeats new EP 1.
- (51) What protective ~ action recommendations does the County or the County's experts think should be issued for (a) persons _using~ beaches?
(b) -bedridden persons?
(c) persons on boats?
(d) the handicapped?
(e) people.in hospitals?
- (f) people in other " health care institutions?"
(g) people in penal institutions?
(h) the elderly?
(i) people without their own means of transportation?
The following fire departments have been trained or will be trained by LILCO or RMC personnel in radiation protection, ,
radiation health, and accident response: ,
Wading River Manorville Ridge Rocky Point At the appropriate time, Suffolk County's police force and response officials will also be trained. LILCO is prepared to begin training suffolk County employees at the County's request.
Please answer the following questions:
(52) Do you have any evidence that the Wading River Fire Department's resources are not adequate to respond to emergencies at Shoreham? If so, what is that evidence?
l (53) Do you propose to litigate whether the Wading River Fire Department's training has been adequate, or are your concerns limited to other fire departments and ambulance -
services other than Wading River?
As you know, we have provided you with draft settlement language on EP 7.B. If you find that language unacceptable, we
Huxrow & WILLIAxs August 17, 1982 Page 4 will need the following information:
(54) Have you finished your review of the training materials? If not, when will you?
(55) Are you (that is, legal counsel) doing the review of the training materials yourselves, or do you have technical experts or consultants looking at the materials also? If the latter, who are the experts or consultants?
(56) The rewrite of the contention says you have inadequate information. What information do you want?
EP 8.A (no new number, since this is a Phase II issue)
(57) It looks to us as though the " form" of public education materials are covered very specifically in section 8.4 of the LILCO plan. What more about the form of materials do you need to know? Isn't your real concern with the content?
(58) If the County thinks that some additional form of education materials is needed, please tell us what.
(59) As for " content," please list for us what information needs to be included in the materials. If we knew what the County thinks should be included, it seems there would be a i good chance that LILCO could simply include much or all of it and resolve this contention.
l l (60) With what frequency does the County think each form of educational material should be disseminated?
EP 8.B (no new number) l (61) Can't you be more specific about what social and I psychological factors you think ought to be considered?
Which of the following are you concerned about:
(a) People's ability (education and intelligence) to understand messages?
(b) People's tendency to disbelieve or disregard messages from certain authorities
- (c) Others?
Hurrow & WILLIAus August 17, 1982 Page 5 (62) What precisely do.a person's economic circumstance:
have to do with what emergency messages he should receive?
EP 9.A (new 8.A)
Below is some draft testimony on EP 9.A. Assuming what it says is true, does it alleviate your concerns?
Q. Based on ycur review and knowledge of the LILCO Plan, is there a clear difference between the Emergency Director and the Response Manager?
A. Yes, there is a clear difference between the Emergency Director and the Response Manager. Though both share similar functions,'each have responsibilities unique to their positions.
Q. What responsibilities do the Emergency Director and the Response Manager share?
A. As stated in Section 5.2.1 of the LILCO plan:
l "The responsibility for emergency direction and control, emergency classification, the decision to notify and recommend offsite protective actions, and commitment of corporate resources is held' initially by the Emergency Director and passes to the Response Manager as this individual augments the emergency organization. The responsibilities associated with this oosition are non-delegable."
Q. Do the Emergency Director and the Response Manager perform these shared functions simultaneously?
A. No. As described in Section 5.2.1 of the LILCO plan, i
l the functions pass from the Emergency Director to the Response Manager depending on the severity of emergency classification, and the emergency response facilities l
that have been activated.
When initiating conditions exist that result in one of l
the EALs being reached, the Watch Engineer in the Main l
Control Room assumes the Emergency Director role, declares that an emergency exists, and takes immediate action in accordance with written operating procedures to mitigate the consequences. The emergency direction and control functions remain with the Emergency Director in the Main Control Room during an Unusual Event.
Huxrow & WILLIAxs August 17, 1982 Page 6 \
Should the emergency escalate to an Alert or higher classification, the TSC becomes activated. The Plant Manager reports to the TSC, and after being briefed, assumes the overall direction and control of the response effort from the Watch Engineer.
The EOF becomes activated upon escalation to a Site Area or General Emergency, or at the Alert stage if deemed necessary. A LILCO official reports to the EOF, is briefed, and assumes the overall direction and control of the integrated emergency response effort, taking the title of Response Manager.
Q. At the point that the Response Manager takes over for the Emergency Director, what functions does the Emergency Director assume that are unique to this position?
A. As outlined in CIP-21, " Emergency Organizations," the Emergency Director is responsible for the overall management and implementation of all on-site operations
' and procedures in support of the objectives of the emergency response and recovery operations. He has the authority to immediately and unilaterally initiate any emergency actions that plant conditions may warrant.
This will include:
- 1. Dispatching qualified personnel available to perform corrective actions.
- 2. Assessing the need for additional personnel.
- 3. Ordering required protective actions for on-site personnel.
- 4. Approving the analysis and development of plans and procedures which are conducted in support of operations personnel.
- 5. Evaluating plant and radiological conditions.
- 6. Providing a single source of contact with the NRC per.=onnel or their contacts.
1 4 7. Maintaining the on-site security program in support of the Company (LILCO) for the duration of eg , m, . -+,,--,,,,..-,.--.-w, ,
-%, , . , - - , , , . . . . - - - . - , - , . , ,- , . m- _y-..-w .-- - - - . . , . --,, p - - - . - , - , . - - - - - - -
9 l
\
HUNTow & WILLIAxs August 17, 1982 Page 7 l l
the emergency and will keep corporate management advised of plant status and emergency response i operations.
- 8. Providing information and recommendations to the Response Manager concerning future operations that could affect the plant or the environment.
- 9. Reviewing and approving plans and procedures to process and control liquid and solid wastes in a manner consistent with overall emergency response and recovery operations.
- 10. Ensuring that all on-site injured personnel receive proper aid and medical attention.
- 11. Authorizing radiation doses to emergency workers in excess of normal operational limits when required.
- 12. Keeping a log of all actions starting with the first notification of an emergency.
Q. What are the functions and responsibilities of the Response Manager that are unique to this position?
A. As outlined in CIP-21, " Emergency Organizations," the Response Manager has the following specific responsibilities, in addition to those of emergency direction and control:
! 1. He will implement corporate policy and make decisions on all aspects of emergency mitigation or plant recovery operations without the need for consultation with higher management.
- 2. He will report to the President of LILCO for the duration of the emergency and will keep corporate management advised of plant status and emergency response operations.
l 3. He will function as the principal corporate l interfact between the company and all other organizations.
l
HuwTow & WILLIAxs l
l August 17, 1982 Page 8
- 4. He will request or authorize the request of any-and all Federal assistance considered appropriate for the given situation.
- 5. He will have the option of acting as the principal media spokesman and may leave the EOF for a press conference at the ENC provided that he has appointed an interim Response Manager to take over his functions at the EOF during his absence.
- 6. He will decide which information concerning plant conditions and emergency response operations will be disseminated to the news media.
- 7. He will decide, once an ALERT has been called, whether or not to activate the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) organization.
- 8. He will keep a log of all his actions starting with the--first notification of an emergency.
(63) We asked you whether you agree that NUREG-0654 is not an NRC requirement and you answered (in your August 5 letter) that whether it is or isn't doesn't resolve your concerns. We'd still like an answer to the original question.
(64) How does the County want LILCO to solve the alleged problem of conflicting duties? Or is the County's position that there is no solution?
A draft Resolution for settling this contention is attached.
(65) Why is the statement in LILCO plan section 5.5.1 that "All' announcements on public health and safety will i
originate from the State and local PIOS" not adequate to alleviate your concerns?
(66) We think that 10 CFR SS 50.47 (b) (3) and NUREG-0654 item II.C (and possibly other authorities you've cited) may
r Huwrow & WILLIAxs August 17, 1982 Page 9 not be germane to the contention. Please tell us how they relate to the contention.
There are seismic instruments and indicators in the Control Room. The Control Room is manned continuously, including during and following an accident. The Control Room is linked by a dedicated line and by telephone to the EOF. Any pertinent seismic information can be obtained through the seismic instruments and indicators in tne Control Room and communicated to the EOF if needed.
(68) What NRC regulation requires LILCO to make provision for obtaining information relating to seismic phenomena?
(69) Why do you think it is important for emergency planning that LILCO provide for obtaining information relating to seismic phenomena?
Notification Procedure SP 69.009.01, contained in the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIP's) Volume 1 at tab 3, contains preplanned message statements to allow transfer of information. In addition, five sample messages to the public are attached. Please review these matcrials and tell us if you find any information lacking. LILCO will include the sample messages in the EPIP's if that will resolve this contention.
(70) For EP 13, our technical people think that 10 C.F.R.
50.47 (b) (1) , (b) (3) , and (b) (4) are not germane to the substance of the contention, and neither is NUREG-0654, Item II.C. Can you explain why these authorities are cited for this contention?
(71) Appendix F of the LILCO plan contains specific message forms, and we understand that both the initial and follow-up notification forms used by LILCO are the standardized forms used by all nuclear power plants in the State of New York.
Do you think these forms are inadequate? If so, how do you want them to be improved?
(72) Please review Section 6.2 of the LILCO plan and EPIP SB 69.09.01 and tell us how, if at all, they are inadequate.
Huwrox & WILLIAus August 17, 1982 Page 10 EP 14 (new EP 11) 3 (73) Our technical people feel that 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 (b) (6) and (b) (7) and NUREG-0654, Items II.F and II.G, are not germane here. Can you explain how they are relevant to the contention?
(74) In light of the fact that NUREG-0654, Item II.E(7) at page 46, says "[t]he role of the Licensee is to provide supporting information for the messages," do you believe there is an NRC requirement that the licensee's emergency plan contain the actual text of the messages? g (75) When may LILCO's planning people meet with the County's planning people to formulate the content of messages to the public?
EP 15 (no new number, since this is a Phase II issue)
(76) Our technical people think you may have cited the wrong regulations for this contention. Please tell us how S ' 50.57 (b) (1) , 50.47 (b) (3) , 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, and II.A and II.C of NUREG-0654 relate to the contention.
(77) Section 6 of the LILCO plan provides that workers will be monitored by portal monitors-at the guardhouse or, alternatively, at the off-site assembly area. Tne plan also provides'for vehicle monitoring at the 69 kV substation (see page 6-13 of the plan). In what respects do you find these plans inadequate?
(78) According to Section 6.5.2 of LILCO's plan, personnel contamination limits are 100 cpm above background as measured by an RM-14/HP-210 or its equivalent. What more do you want to know?
(79) Section 6.5.1 of the LILCO plan says that radiation dosage to emergency personnel will be maintained as low as reasonably achievable and within 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limits.
Volunteers may exceed Part 20 limits, but only after being
e HUNTox & WILLIAus August 17, 1982 Page 11 briefed (again, see Section 6.5.1). Also, the EPIP's list emergency exposure criteria that are consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guidelines (EPA 520/1-75-001). Precisely in what ways are these guidelines deficient, in your view?
Certain information is missing from the EAL's in some instances because the equipment has not been fully installed and in others because the information must be taken from startup tests, qualifications and calibrations that are not yet-completed. The information will be filled in prior to fuel load.
LILCO analyzed in FSAR Chapter 15 all the accidents required by the NRC Standard Plan, and established initiating events for those accidents. Some of these events were determined to cause no significant consequences to Shoreham plant parameters; others were determined to be covered by ot.4er initiating events and their associated EAL's. Each of the initiating events listed in the contention included in the LILCO plan in the last pages of Chapter 4 and falls into one of the two categories described above.
(80) Doesn't NUREG-0654 II.B (Table B-1) require'four people for field monitoring, not four teamc!
(81) Are you saying that three field monitoring teams do not meet the recommendation of NUREG-0654, or that NUREG-0654 is insufficient in this particular situation?
(82) What does the population have to do with field monitoring teams? Is it not true that the need for radiological field monitoring is dependent on the size of the plume, not the population?
(83) Table 6-1 of the LILCO plan gives the range in uCi/cc for each monitor used for detecting an abnormal condition in the plant. The EAL's also lists the monitors, their
E HUNTox & WitLIAus August 17, 1982 Page 12 location on the panels, and their setpoints. What further details do you want?
In answer to your questions, we provide the following information.
First, the following is a list of locations between which dedicated lines are installed or will be installed:
Control Room (CR) - TSC CR - OSC CR - EOF TSC - OSC TSC - EOF (2 Lines)
EOF - Support Corporate Headquarters EOF - Emergency News Center (ENC)
Suffolk County EOC (SCEOC) - WALK Radio Station SCEOC - Suffolk County Police Communications Center SCEOC - Brookhaven National Laboratories SCEOC - ENC The hotline and the dedicated phone lines will continue to function if there is a power loss because the telephone company has its own backup generation capability.
Second, Electrical Emergency Restoration Procedure is a four-hundred page document used by LILCO to explain to employees what to do to restore electrical service. We do not know why it We will be glad to make this is referenced in your contentions.
document available for inspection at LILCO's offices.
Finally, we think the footnote to your Contention II, Ralph, should refer to the NRC Policy Statement at 47 Fed. Reg. 31762 (1982), though you should check that Policy Statement to make sure it is what you have in mind.
(84) In addition to the material we mentioned in our August 13 letter, Corporate Implementing Procedure (CIP) 10 (Recovery) contains relevant material, and the Training Manual, Volume 1, Lesson Plan #10, deals with recovery. In what respects, if any, are these materials inadequate, in your view?
r Hurrox & WILLIAxs August 17, 1982 Page 13 EP 22.A (new EP 20.A)
(85) What parameters does the County think are not provided and should be?
New EP 14.C (no old number)
The new EP 14.C, on iodine monitoring, we believe will need to be rewritten to better reflect the settlement agreement on that subject.
We suggest the following:
C. Even though the equipment intended for use by LILCO to monitor iodine released to the environment in the case of a radiological accident meets the specifications of NUREG-0737 and Regulatory Guide 1.97, the accuracy of the equipment is not satisfactory to meet the requirements of [specify the requirement].
New EP 18 (no old number)
! (86) Is the new EP 18 an entirely new contention, or is it l a rewrite or reorganization of some of the old contentions?
If the latter, which if the old contentions are now incorporated into the new EP 187 General (87) Are you still planning to file testimony on the Phase I issues on September 14, 1982?
(88) Does the County still plan to produce an emergency plan of its own by October 1, 1982?
Yours very truly Y $' b '
Kathy E. B. McCleskey l
! James N. Christman 126/586
8 k 17 .. ,
18.dp1:5cc10rac 19 19 19 19 19 20 August , 1982 21 21 21 21 ,
25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 27 27 29 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 30 30 31 In the Matter of )
32 )
33 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) 34 )
35 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
36 Unit 1) )
37 37 39 RESOLUTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 40 EP 10 -- PUBLIC INFORMATION 43 43 44 THIS AGREEMENT by and among Long Island Lighting 45 Company ("LILCO"), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 46 1" Staff"), Suffolk County ("SC"), the Shoreham Opponents 47 Coalition (" SOC"), and the North Shore Coalition ("NSC") 1here-48 inafter collectively the " Parties") resolves Suffolk County 49 Contention EP 10 in accordance with the terms stated below, 50 subject to the approval of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 51 Board (" Board").
53 Suffolk County contends that the LILCO Emergency 54 Response Plan (" Plan") does not adequately describe the role of 55 Suffolk County officials in composing public statements con-56 cerning actions occurring and to be taken during a radiological 57 emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Powr Station. By this
/
e
,10 l 11 ~
12 13 -
14 I 15 57 Resolution Agreement, LILCO agrees to add the following 58 language to the Chapter 5 of the LILCO Plan:
62 Suffolk County officials should take a major 62 role in determining the form and substanc) of 63 public statements concerning protective 64 actions occurring and to be taken during a 65 radiological emergency.
68 69 .Accordingly, based upon LILCO's agreement to add that 70 language to the Plan, SC finds that SC Contention 10 is re-71 solved. As a result, the Parties jointly urge the Licensing 72 Board to accept this Resolution to terminate litigation of SC 73 Contention lo.
74 74 74 74 77 78 Counsel for (Date) 79 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 80 80 80 80 -
80 81 82 Counsel for (Date) ,
l 83 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF l 84 84 84 84 85 -
86 Counsel for (Date) i 87 NORTH SHORE COALITION 88 88 88 88 89 90 Counsel for (Date) 91 SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION 92 92 92
l 10 . ,
I
- 11
~
- 1%
.13 14 15 -
93 f 94 Counsel for (Date) 95 SUFFOLK COUNTY 96 96 96 96 97 Agreed to and accepted by the 98 Atomic Safety and Licensing
.99 Board this day of 100 , 1982.
102 -
103 103 103 103.
-103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 102 -
103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 ,
103 103
~
~
Prepared Sample News Releases and Messages Message No. 4-Emission of Radiological Plume From Stati~on Site I l
General Emergency Status g Mideola/Ronkonkoma,NewYork/Date/. Long Island Li6hting Company and Ecergency Services Authorities in Suffolk County have announced that a general emergency has been declared at the Shoreham Nuclesr Power Station in Shoreham, Long Island.
Residents in zones , , , , _,
are being advised by County and State Emergency officikls to remain indoors and close their doors and windows. It ia recommended that residents in these zones place a common cotton handkerchief or bath room tsuel ever their nose and mouth for respiratory protectio'n.
Members of the general public are ur6ed to r.onitor radio and tele-vision news reporcs for further instructions. Any information regarding possible evacuation will be issued by local and state civil
defense agencies.
Authorized Signature For Release:X Time /Date:
Released By:x Location: Time /Date:
. n l
l Prepared Sample News Releases and Messages -
Message No. 3-Radiological Release Outside Station Site Site Area Emerzency Status Mineola/Ronkonkoma, New York /Date/. A site area emergency has been Beclared at Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in Sho'reham, New York due to a release of radio- g active material at the power station site. LILCO has notified local, state and U.S. government authorities.
If public action is necessary, state or local officials will I
notify you through local emergency broadcast radio and television stations. If you are advised to leave your home please follow instructions from public officials..
Your local emergency broadcast radio and television stations will carry further details of the situation as soon as they are avail-able.
l l
l .
Authorized Signature For Release:X Time /Date: -
Time /Date:
Released By:X Location:
--w-,----,--e+er,-v+-r- - ~ - - --- e - -- -,
Prepared Sample News Relea_ses and Messages .
Message No. 2-Radiological Release within Station Site Alert Status l
i Mineola/Shoreham, New York /Date/. A site emergency has been i decidred at Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in Shorehara, New York.
There has been a release of radioactive material within the power station site, but no impact is expected at this time outside the station boundary. LILCO has notified local, state and U.S.
government authorities.
For further updated information concerning the site emergency, l
LILCO suggests staying tuned to local radio or television stations.
News media will be advised by public health and civil defense offi-cials should any additional precaution be required.
Authorized S$gnature For Release:X Time /Date:
Released By:X Loentient Time / Dater
Prepared Sample' News Releases an'd Messages Message No. 1-Unusual Event Status Mi'neola/Shoreham, New York /Date/. A nonradiological emergency has been declared at Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,in shoreham, New York, NO radiation haa ,
been released and there is no danger to anyone outside the sta-tion boundary. LILCO has notified local, state, and U.S.
government authorities.
The nature of the problem is being investigated by experts at the site and further details will be forthcoming when available.
LILCO urges the public to listen to television and radio news-reports for further information.
S Authorized Signature for Release X Time /Date:
Released By:X Location: Time /Date:
9
m l
- e .- ~ -
- . ,. % ,__.x- .
,_...1 c . , , , . _ ,
CUSTOMER INFORMATI0!i DEPT.
Prepared Sample Telephone Answering Message The following taped message should be relayed to LILCQ oustomers who call their local business district offices during an incident at the Shoreham Huclear Power Station. -
=
This is a recording from the Long Island Li6hting Company. There has been an (incident classification) at our Shoreham Nuclear Power Station; the following message has been prepared for your informa-tion:
l (At this point one of the previous recorded news releases and -
messages would be played.)
Please monitor radio and television news reports for further .
information concerning the incident. If your call concerns a gas cdor.or service emergency, we ask that you please call t
and one of our Custoner Relations personnel will speak with you.
Thank you, i
l l
Huxrox & WztLIAms 707 EAST MAIN STRCET P.o. Box #535 Excamown,VrmoxxxA 2o212 se,e c.a. ,ty.... cuoc, w.
0 e a t evito o e.o.eonsenso o.o.nonsoe waswiwofow, 0.c. aoose ma,6: son. wonta camouma troom Tc Le p w o N C 604-788-8200 aca-aas-seso C@cio esFi
, sect vimoinea mann rowsm ""o-M,7",,'**d , . a s ...
August 20, 1982 coa-cas ssos concet oint No. so. res- 8701 Ralph Shapiro, Esquire Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
9 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016
Dear Ralph:
This letter confirms the phone conversation we-had
- - yesterday concerning your letter of August 10, 1982 and the new
- y. contentions EP 15, 16, 17 and 18.
In your August 10 letter your requested information on a variety of topics related to the emergency planning contentions.
Jim Christman and I provided much of thatNAWAS, information and the in Radiation our letter of August 13. Two items remain:
Monitoring System Computer.
As I mentioned yesterday, the New York Office of Disaster Preparedness is sending you, at LILCO's request, literature on the National Alert Warning System (NAWAS) and a map of the NAWAS has been subcircuit locations in the vicinity of Shoreham.
in existence since the early 60's. It has three subcircuit capabilities: one nationwide, one statewide, and("one subcircuit drops"). For system. A subcircuit may include several phones example, LILCO is part of the subcircuit that includes Nassau County's and Suffolk County's Within a emergency subcircuit, offices; one Brookhaven drop is designated is on another subcircuit. Primary receivers can talk to, as well as as primary receiver.
receive information from, Albany and other primary receivers.
Nassau County is the primary receiver on our subcircuit.
NAWAS has one hundred seventy drops in New York State, and It is a twenty-four hour unlimited drop capability nationwide. Should you require additional service with dedicated lines.
information after reviewing the literature, you might contact the New York Office of Disaster Preparedness.
You also asked whether LILCO has considered that the Radiation Monitoring System computer might not function. As Mark Blauer explained during our conversation yesterday, LILCO has considered that possibility and has a backup computer for that
.- s, Hewrox & WILLIAMS Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
August 20, 1982 Page 2 System. Based on this information,.we do not anticipate that you will find it necessary to file a contention on this topic. I note again that we will object to your now filing contentions you did not raise in your original filing.
We also-discussed contentions EP 15 through 18 during our phone conversation yesterday.
EP 15. I understand that 15.D and 15.F concern the possibility that phone lines may.become overloaded. We will provide further information regarding 15.G, coverage and load capacity of UHF and VHF radio stations, with the hope that 15.G will be settled. It is also our hope-that based upon the information provided on NAWAS, we will settle 15.H.
Please answer these questions on EP 15:
(1) Assuming that the telephone system is inadequate for communications with off-site response organizations, what sort of communication system would NSC consider adequate?
(2) How and by whom does NSC think phone lines will be sabotaged?
EP 16. As I mentioned yesterday, EP 16 seems to deal with-training and with potential role conflict. These topics are ~
discussed in County contentions as well. The contentions should be consolidated.
Please answer these questions:
(3) What kind of psychological and mental stress does NSC think emergency personnel will experience?
(4) How does NSC think LILCO should take that stress into account in its training program?
EP 17. It is my understanding that based upon information provided by LILCO about personnel assignments, NSC may settle this contention. I will send you draft settlement agreements under separate cover.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ l
HuwTox & WILLIAxs Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
August 20, 1982 Page 3 EP 18. EP 18.A, B, C, and D seem to overlap the County's training and medical services contentions. These should be consolidated. In addition, it is my understanding that NSC may settle EP 18.E based upon information about the training level of medical personnel. I will send you a draft settlement agreement under separate cover.
As I mentioned during our phone conversation, LILCO would like NSC to identify as soon as possible the experts NSC plans to use for EP 15 through 18. I understand that you will provide the names of those experts on Monday, August 23.
Please advise me if you need additional information.
Sincerely, C-Kathy E. B. c leskey 301/740 l
w i