ML20079E399
| ML20079E399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1984 |
| From: | Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079E393 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401170278 | |
| Download: ML20079E399 (32) | |
Text
.
,~
- g. '
a 00rMETED UMRC UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ti
" l j f*j :33 j
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
l-l
)
In'the Matter or
)
~
)
L
'LONG' ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY '
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 1)
)
l
)
l I
Memorandum Accompanying Proposed Modified Emergency Planning Contentions Pursuan.t to the terms of the Joint hotion for Adjustment 1
(.
of Schedule filed by LILCO and Suffolk County on January 3, 1984 and accepted by the' Board-during a conference of counsel held-January-4, 1984, Intervenors filed today Proposed Emergen-cy Planning Contentions Modified to Reflect Revision 3 'of the
=
. LILCO l Plan.. The. purpose of this Memorandum is to explain the format of the Proposed Modified Contentions, and to set forth the reasons' for the modifications.
For the convenience of the Board'and parties,-attached to this Memorandum is a table which lists each contention, indicates whether it.has been modified, and the reason for the modification or lack of modification.
In. order to show the modifications in the. context of the original = contentions, the Proposed Modified Contentions are contain'ed in a bound volume which includes all the Revised 8401170278 840112 PDR ADOCK 05000322 1*
G PDR O
--h
---a*-h m>6 sp._
e+_
ge_ g g
- _ge,
_S.m y__g qq, _, p pM_69,,a y,ua6meno
.-mamam--he.
e
-ee
==-- - -------
y
_. ~ -.
u-
_=.
= -- -
2.
S, 9
Emergency Planning Contentions submitted by Intervenors on July 26, 1983.
All modifications to the text of contentions are in-
.dicated using the conventions described below, and other rele-vant matters.such as Borcd rulings on admissibility and with-drawal of contentions by Intervenors are also indicated as de-scribed below.
A.
Contentions'Not Modified The text of certain contentions or subparts of contentions was not modified at all, for one of five reasons:
(1) the con-tention or subpart was not admitted by the ASLB; (2) the con-tention or subpart has been withdrawn by Intervenors; 3) the contention or subpart is part of the Group I contentions as to which testimony has been filed and trial is in progress; (4 )
the contention or subpart involves the LILCO Public Information Brochure, the revision of which is scheduled for distribution in a matter of days; or (5) the revisions to the LILCO Plan required no modification to the contention or subpart.
Each of these categories is discussed separtitely below.
1.
Board Rulings Board rulings on admissibility made in the Special Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and, Establishing Schedule for Discovery, Motions, Briefs, Confer-ence of Counsel, and Hearing), dated August 19, 1983, are _
. 2
in'dicated in bracketed underlined language, generally at the beginning of the relevant contention or subpart.
The following contentions or subparts were not modified because they were not admitted by the Board 12, 13, 16.B, 16.C, 16.F, 16.G, 16.I. 17, 19, 21.A, 21.B, 22, 22.A, 22.B, 22.C,'23.E, 23.F, 23.G, 24.A, 24.C, 24. Q, 26.B, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44.A, 44.B, 44.C, 47, 52, 53, 54, 61.F, 62,
<69. A, 73.B.2, 76, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 97.A.
In addition, the following contentions or subparts contain por-tions that were not admitted or were rewritten by the Board
-(also indicated in the Proposed Modified Contentions by bracketed underlined language), and the portions of the conten-tions to which such rulings apply were not modifieds.
4, 11, 15.D, 16.E, 24 (introductory portion preceding subparts), 24.G, 71.A.2, 74.
2.
Withdrawn Contentions m e.
The following contentions or subparts have been with-drawn by Intervenors because revisions to the LILCO Plan made subsequent to the filing of contentione in July 1983 made the contention no longer applicable to the Plan now being submitted-by LILCO:
14, 24.D, 24.H.,
24.U, 48, 50, 66.E, 67.B, 72.B, 78,- 79,-80, 82, 95.B, 95.C. -
The withdrawal of these contentions is indicated by the inser-tion of the underlined word " Withdrawn" between the contention number and the'beginning of the text.
The text of withdrawn contentions has not been modified.
3.
Group I Contentions The text of Contentions 23.A, 23.B, 23.C, 23.D, 23.h, 25 and 65 was not modified because they are " Group I" conten-tions as to which testimony has already been filed and the hearing is in progress.. Those contentions are stated in. their-original form in the Proposed Modified Contentions.
4.
Contentions Involving Information Brochure Contentions 16.A, 16.D, 16.E, 16.H, 16.J, 18 and 21.C all involve the LILCO Public Information Brochure.
On Monday, January 9 1984, Suffolk County learned from LILCO counsel that
-Revision 3 of the Brochure was in the process of being complet-ed and that it would be distributed to the parties "in a matter of days."
As of Wednesday, January 11, 1984, Suffolk County had not as yet received Revision 3 of the Brochure.
Rather than make tentative modifications which would likely have to be i
changed again upon receipt and review of Revision 3 of the Bro-chure, the listed subparts of Contentions 16, 18 and 21 were l
l.
not modified in the enclosed filing.
However, Intervenors intend to modify them as appropriate to reflect Revision 3 of
- y..
5
,---,--~..-an.,,
-,~,~,-,
,,, -. +,
I' the Brochure,.and will submit such modifications promptly after Revision 3 is received and reviewed.
5.
Contentions Not Affected by Plan Revisions The following contentions were not modified because i
revisions to the LILCO Plan through Revision 3 did not affect them:
.ll, 15.B, 15.D, 15.F, 20, 22.D, 24.R, 24.5, 27.A, 27.B, 27.E, 44.E, 49, 51, 59, 61.A, 61.B, 61.D, 61.E, 61.G, 61.h, 61.1, 66.C, 67.A.2, 69.D, 73.A, 73.B.4, 75, 81.B, 81.D, 81.F, 93, 94,.95.A,.95.D, 95.E, 96.B, 96.C, 97.B.~1, 97.B.3, 97.B.5, 97.B.6.
B.
Modified Contentions The following conventions were used to indicate modifica-tions to the original text of contentions or subparts of con-tentions:
. Language added to the text is underlined.
A dashed line has been drawn through deleted language.
e Modifications were made to contentions or subparts for three reasons:
1).
.To reflect a change in page or section numbers in the-Plan; 2)
To reflect a change in either the text or the substantive proposals contained in the Plan;
.. L f
..,... _ _.,,.. ~ - -
. ~. -
mm..,,,
,.,,,.m,
,w. _y;x.m;, g,. ;
3)
To correct a non-substantive typographical error in the original text of the contention.
In many cases, if the modification was made for the second reason (to reflect a change in text or substantive proposal in the Plan), modifications were also necessary to reflect page or section numbers.
1.
Changes in Plan Page or Section Numbers The only modifications made to the following conten-tions were to reflect a ' change in page nunbers or section numbers of the Plan which were specifically referenced in the contention:
2, 3,
4,l/ 5, 10, 15.G, 55, 56, 63, 67 (in-troductory portion preceding subparts),
69.C, 97.B.2, 97.B.4.
No-other. modi'fications were made to the text of these conten-
~
tions.
The reason these changes were made is obvious:
the original contention referenced a now-outmoded version of the Plan and the change merely corrects the citation so that the contention addresses the version of the plan which the Board
. will in fact be considering.
I 1/
In addition, Footnote 2 was deleted.,
N yM
_e
.7
- _ - _ - _ - - - ~ - -
_,___?
._.w-
2.
Changes in Plan Text or Proposals Modifications were made to the following contentions in order to reflect either changes in Plan text that had been quoted or referenced in the contention or substantive changes in the proposals contained in the Plan, or both:
Legal Authority:
1, 6,
7, 8,
9 Command and Control Preamble to 11-14
- Credibility:
15.A, 15.C, 15.E Lack of Agreements: 24.B, 24.E,-24.F, 24.G, 24.I, 24.J, 24.K, 24.L, 24.M, 24.N, 24.0, 24.P, 24.T Notification of Workers:
26.A, 26.C, 26.D, 26.E Mobilization of Workers:
27.C, 27.D, 27.F Communications Among Workers:
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Training:
39, 40, 41, 44.D, 44.F Accident / Dose Assessment:
45, 46 Notification to Public:
57, 58 Protective Actions Sheltering:
60, 61.C Evacuation:
64 Obstructions and Fuel:
66 (introductory portion),
66.A, 66.B, 66.D, 66.F Persons without Cars:
67.A, 67.C, 67.D School Children:
Preamble to 60-71, 68, 69 (introductory portion), 69.B, 69.E, 70, 71 '. A, 71.B.
Special Facilites:
72 (introductory portion), 72.A
'N 6.
._ (*#_
1__ h I'_h-_*_I_.~dMN_ ?"[
)_(4M4 @ Q * % - _W CF* - [ E N'WF@ $MODa e
C%"8"7 SF 6
h-
Handicapped at Home 73.B.1, 73.B.3 Relocation Centers:
77 Ingestion Pathway:
81 (introductory portion), 81.A, 81.C, 81.E Recovery and Reentry:
85, 88 State. Plan 92 Loss of Offsite Power:
96.A In many instances, the modifications are minor.
Several conList primarily of deletions of portions of the contentions, and others involve the addition of words to make the contention conform to the terms now used in the Plan.
This is true with respect to the following contentions:
1, 6,
7, 8, Preamble to 11-15,' 15.A, 24.J, 24.K, 24.L, 24.M, 24.0, 26.D, 27.D, 27.F, 28, 29, 32, 40, 44.D, 45, 57, 60, 64, 66 (introductory portion), 66.A, 67. A (intro-ductory portion), 69.B, 72 (introductory portion), 72.A, 73.B.1, 61. E, 77, 92, and 96.A.
With respect to these contentions, the reasons for the changes which have been made are, in the County's view, largely self-explanatory on the face of the contention, particularly since the revised contention format includes the language which has been deleted, and the minor nature of the changes that in-volve additions is self-evident.
(For example, Contentions 15.A and 24.P were changed to delete reference to th'e Salva' tion 1
- - _ _ -.. ~
I
~
Army and church and industry groups, since the LILCO Plan no 11onger relies on them.
Similarly, Contention 24.K was changed
- to delete reference to " rescue vehicles" and insert the term "ambulette,"~since the Plan now does not rely on rescue vehi-cles but does propose to use ambulettes.)
The changes which I
have been made-to these contentions do not in any instance change the meaning or thrust of the pre-existing contentions.
s In other. instances, the modifications appear more exten-sive.
Each of these, as well as many of the minor modifica-4 i
tions referenced above are discussed by subject matter groups below.- Before discussing.the individual changes, however, the County stresses at the outset (and thus will avoid repeating with respeet to each individual contention change) that none of these changes, even.the more extensive ones, alters the basic thrust of the pre-existing contentions.
Rather, the thrust of each contention remains the same, with the underlying facts
.I chanced to reflect the changes in LILCO's plan.
The Sample EBS Messages contained in Revision 3 of the i
LILCO Plan are substantially different both in scope and content from those contained in Revitdon O.
LILCO's changes to the' proposed EBS messages required the County primarily to, mod-ify Contention 15.E and to add subparts 1-5 to that contention; the changed EB.S Messages and the procedure relating to them.
J
,._m
,,,,.y-.,,,,.
..w 7
,,,w-r m,.,, w %. w,.7
(OPIP 3.8.2) are also referenced in modifications to Contentions 61.C, 68 and 69.E.
Revision 3 of the Plan contains information regarding agreements or proposed agreements with bus companies, ambulance companies, the American Red Cross, and the U.S.
Coast Guard, which was not contained in Revision O.
LILCO's inclusion of this new information in the Plan necessitated many of the modi-fications to Contentions 24.F, 24.G, 24.P, and 24.T.2/
The LILCO proposals concerning means of communications (e.g., numbers and types of radios and radio frequencies, numbers, locations, and types of telephones, numbers and types of pagers and who is to receive them, etc.) and procedures for the use of communications (e.g., who has access to particular
~
equipment, how equipment relates to or purports to back up other equipment, a system for verification of notification, etc.) have also changed significantly since Revision 0 of the Plan.
The additional equipment now being proposed for use, as i
well as the additional or changed lines of communications and procedures for their use, necessitated the modifications to contentions 26.A, 26.C, 26.E, 27.C, 30, 31, 33 and 34, and gave rise to a new subpart of contention 26 (contention 26.F).
l l
2/
Other modifications to those contentions were either minor or were necessitated by other substantive LILCO Plan changes discussed below...
.w _ _ ~ _ _
-, mgerm _mmmx w ;.__ - = r n_1._-
~w.-e--
m
,__-____z.
,y m m m m w n.--
, Revision 0 of the LILCO Plan relied upon brookhaven National Laboratory (ENL) personnel to fill the LERO position of Radiation Health Coordinator, and to perform all functions related to accident and dose assessment and projection.
In Re-vision 3 of the Plan,-the Radiation Health Coordinator is iden-tified as a representative of an "outside consultant" not iden-tified in the Plan, and BNL has been replaced by the Department of Energy-Radiological Assistance Program (DOE-RAP).
This change in LILCO's Plan necessitated the modifications to Con-tentions 6, 7,
8, Preamble to 11-14, 24.B, 45, and 46.
As:was noted in the original Revised Contentions filed in July, 1983, Revision 0 of the LILCO Plan did not contain much
~information at all about training because at that time LILCO's proposed training materials were still ih the process of being d eveloped.
Revision 3 of the Plan includes slightly more in-i formation' on LILCO's proposed training than did Revision O.
This additional information necessitated the modifications to Contentions 39, 40, 41, 44.D and 44.F.3/
3/.
LILCO has not yet advised the Board that its proposed'
~
' training materials are complete, as required by the i
Board's Order of September 30, 1983.
Accordingly, Suffolk l
County-has not yet submitted additional training conten-tions as contemplated in that Order. __.
o e
Whereas Revision 0 to the LILCO Plan stated that a plan for discributing and allocating fuel to evacuees was being developed, Revision 3 sets forth the actual LILCO proposal on that subject.
Plan revisions also include a provision relating to snow removal (none was included in Revision 0), and specific details concerning the generalized Revision 0 proposal that LILCO vehicles would remove roadway obstructions during an evacuation.
These additions to the LILCO Plan necessitated the modifications to Contentions 9 and 66.
In the revisions to the LILCO Plan, the proposed method of evacuating persons without cars has Laen changed significantly.
All the bus transfer points have been changed, the method of determining how many buses are estimated to be necessary has been clarified, the estimates themselves have changed, and LILCO now proposes to have an additional and separate group of buses to drive from transfer points to relocation centers.. (In Revision 0, the buses which drove the routes, picked up passen-gers and took them to transfer points were also intended to drive from the transfer points to relocation centers.)
These LILCO changes necessitated the modifications to contentions 24.F, 24.I, 67.A.1, 67.C and 67.D, and the addition of new subpart 6 7. A. 3.
12 -
a--
a__.hm Mw hE2.._=._92._m_>_._.me_sh rm me. m M1D A.-A-me t.et:
_.me uc>etemum.rmouse.sesp*-
as e - a-w
C Revision 3 contains completely new provisions relating to protective actions for school children, persons in special facilities and the handicapped.
Thus, the Plan now includes for the first time, provisions for the following:
sheltering school children in schools, evacuating and relocating school children from schools in the EPZ other than those in the Shoreham-Wading River. School District, retaining children outside the EPZ in their schools, and LILCO personnel driving buses for evacuation of nursery schools.
Revision 3 also deleted the identification contained in Revision 0 of a reloca-tion center for school children from the Shoreham-Wading River District.
These changes by LILCO necessitated the modifica-tions ;o Contentions 15.C, 24.E, 24.F, 24.M, 24.N, 24.0, 58, 61.C, Preamble to 68-71, 68, 69 (intrcductory portion), 69.E, 70, 71.A, 71.B, and the addition of new subpart 71.C.
Revision 3 also inc.ludes provisions for:
"ad hoc trans-portati'on planning for evacuation of hospitals ta) follow the evacuation of the rest of the population; elimination of Long Island Railroad assistance; deletion of relocation and recep-tion centers identified in Revision O for hospitals and special facilities; emphasis on sheltering as the protective actio.n for special facilities; notification of the deaf; and changes in the procedure for notification of special facilities.
These L
- _n n,-- _ _
new provisions in the LILCO Plan necessitated the modifications to contentions 24.G, 24.K, 24.N, 58 and 73.B.3,.and the addition of new subparts 61.C.2, 72.C, 72.D, 72.E, and 7 3. B. S.
Subsequent to Revision 0, LILCO changed the procedure for measuring and acting upon thyroid contamination in persons at
, relocation centers.
This change necessitated the modifications made to Contention 77.
Revision 3 includes a substantial rewriting of the pro-posed procedures for. ingestion pathway protective actions.
These LILCO changes necessitated modifications to Contentions 7,
24.B, 45, 81 (introductory portion), 81.A, 81.C, and 81.L, and 92.
Finally, Revision 0 of the LILCO Plan acknowledged that recovery and reentry was a "non-utility decision-making process."
In Revision 3, LILCO has included a proposed proce-dure. for Recovery and Reentry, and apparently, LILCO asserts that this procedure.could be implemented by LILCO.
The new LILCO proposa,l's-for recovery and reentry necessitated the modi-
~
fications to Contentions 85 and 88, and are also reflected in the modifications to Contentions 8 and 24.B.
t l
l a
( i l.
.~.
_. ~.,
.(
4 i
'3.
Typographical Corrections
\\
s s
'One modification in contention 56 was made to correct
- a-non-substantive-typographical error containedfin the original c
text of-that contention (i.e., 45 minutes was corrected to read
-15 minutes).
Such typographical corrections are also contained in' contentions 6 (deletion.of redundancy in second sentence),
26.E (addition to the word " Plan".in next to the last i
sentence)', the title'of Contentions 35-44 (deletion of "SC" from beginning), and 66 (introductory portion) (deletion of "SC" before_ reference t'o Contention 65).
C.
Conclusion
'Suffolk -County proposes that the Proposed Modified Conten-tions which 'are transmitted with this Memorandum be' admitted by the Board -in substitution for the Contentions which the Board s
previously. admitted.
In the event that any. party objects-to any proposed' modification and this Board decides that it wil A sustain such objection, then the County will withdraw the pro-posed objected-to modification and' will rely upon the existing
- ~
. contention or contentions to which the objection pertains.
If any party has any questions regarding these proposed modifications, Suffol?.. County urges that party to contact,coun-3 l
(-
>ty. counsel promptly.
Further, while the County does not fbelieve there.is any basis for an objection to any of the
. t i
J
?
r-e
... =
=m
,: e proposed modifications, the County similarly urges'any party considering an objection to discuss the matter with the Coun-ty's counsel prior to filing such objections so that potential disputes and further filings can be avoided.
Respectfully submitted, David J.
Gilmartin Patricia A.
Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law H.
Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppaug e, New York 11788
/
m,
/
a
,\\ -+
i
_$R/jQ[ b Ak j
~
Herbert 11. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J.
Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys Sor Suffolk County Dated:
January 12, 1984 t
e w
f "I..,
^,
y M
i s.,
/
N e
m
,.eyg.
..w_
-=*e=** war.ar
--,*--.-*.-.,wam.
-...%ey-.**==*=-*-me ge-7-
--s-**=e_e=
--*"eF***-.
Illllll lllj.
ll l
~
ybs P
n N
do E
tei ot s H
Nci X
fw C
e A
h T
f I T
A A
a.
n si e
n*
r s
r=
u n
e= h o
cr c
i nao t
af r n
CnB e
I t
mO I
e g
pu n
us i
os y
rI f
G itxe t
s n r tb mon r e I
d yv r
hbr o
t e
f i
t W n s
I m
rm
)
)
a y
y a
l l
p n
n o
o g
dn n
m r1 o
a1 i
- i. X X o2 L
im BR p
(
(
X X
l ad t
Mo c
r X
ez sr r
r OhE t
s e
n vn o
io i
si t
et n
a a
l tc t
na Ki X
n a-Ef a
l-i C
P v ed o
n u ro t M t
iF S
s er n
go o
n n
i at o
t hm i
r a
Ch t
c i ra i
oc f
ni i
if X
X X X X
l Mi x
d t
o I
M o
r s
c I
f a
n s
neo d
m i gi e
t at a
ePc Y
r e
l m
g e
X X X
X X
e
=
nnS ma d
lr OPo 2
e.
o c
n t
o b
i e
u t
l4 u
n b1 F
e 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
0 m-1 2
3
/
1 t
1 a
1 1
1 n
e1 m
Pr ll1 llll lll'
ybs r
n 2_
w do e
tei s
bts X
X X
a I ciev m
f e T
fR A
A i"
t n
si e
n +-
r s
r a
e m
m c
d X
X X i
nr o
t of r n
cnB e
I tnoC I s e
psu s
i i
os y
rI 8'
G W
s c r t
n o
o a
n N
r e
yv
.Mbr r
X o
t e
f i
t w n s
I nna
)
a y
)y m
l l
a n
m l
o g
n d
m rb o
al i
X X i X X oi L
L Bh s
m
(
(
X X
lacd t
Mor cer s r r
r c%E o
a eim n
v a
i si t
nt n
ea e
l tc t
ne xi X
X n
a Ef ne o
l i
c P
edre o
o l
t iF M
=
er
=
go j
r nmt m
i+
re i
a Ot t
c I ra i
oc f
ni 1
if X
1 Mi x
r d
M o
M ro i
f n
s n o i gi n
t na ePc m
g e
a nnS X
p aa l r QPo L
t n
r o
a i
p tn A.
B.
C.
D.
E. lu)
P.
G.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
e s5 t
4 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 n
1 1
1 1
1 1 wI 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
o e
C n
(
1 1
ll; 1l ll l
~
-3 y
P bs n N
do E
2ei t s S
O 2ci X
X ev D
f a T
fD A
A
=
s4 e
n*r s
rnu e
cmc X
X X
X eah i
noo t
ofk n
cnI a
I t
mO 7
e WI s
uss 4
8=
P s
t t
a r m.on aN r u yv Mbr ro t
a f
i t
w n s
I esae R
g dn ri al X
X X
X X X X X X oa BR 1
=r i.
t l c
r er
- o r
c
- r
-,E c
O yT s
e n
vn o
io i
si t
nt n
ea e
l tc t
na xi n
a= Ef o
l i
v C
P i ed r ro o
nr oM t
iP M
=
er ll
=
go n
r.
i at c
t hx i
a C e t
c T ra i
oc f
ni 1
if 1
M1 m
1x M
t M
ro f
n n
neo w
i gi et
=
ePc g
e nnS aa hlr CPo no i
e J.
A.
B.
C.
A.
B.
C.
D.
tn H.
I.
e 6
6 6
7 8
9 0
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
t 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
noC
(!I!l l
y 4
bs P
n N
do E
tei 9
bt s ci O
ev I
fe D
fR T
A A
na idre u
s mau n
mh o
c
- x. o i
Gfr t
tn nB e
I ttraC I s e
pu r
us i
os X
X X X X
h rI G
l W
s n r t
u o o
a n
N r
e iyv r
hbr o
t e
X X
f itW' n
s I
nosn
- y a
l h
)
n n
o g
e t
n dn t
o ri i
i al X X X r X X
t oa Bh w
r e
o r
p
(
(
X X
lac 1l9 m wa 3u m
- E G
-:yT s
e n
vn o
io i
si t
nt n
e a e
l tc n
xi ap t
Ef X
X X X X
m l
i tO ei P
- o o
nt rM t
iP M
s er n
go o
n n
i at o
t hx i
a C e t
c T ra i
oc f
ni i
ifM1 tx 1
t x
I t
M ro f
n s
neo m
i gi at re ePc a
g e
a nnS D
aa hlr CPo
=
4
+
o n
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
P.
G.
H.
I.
r t
e t
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
n 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
i 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
n tO 4
2 1
i j,
I j;j i j
4
'.l
[
il;I' l
,?k!
t:
.i!li bc 5
y E
n do N
tei bt s I ci X X ev fe fR A
A an ri e
n+r s
rms u n
oul o
or c ss no it cfr n
OnB a
I taz O
I _e g
MI u
n ss X
ik G
i W
s mor to a
n N
r e yv Mbr ro t
e X
f i
t M n s
I ar n
amap g
dn ri al X
X ou BR i
m i
t 2
c r
e r
- o r
rr
-,E o
C yT s
e n
va o
ic si i
.it t
r n
ea a
l tc t
na xi n
am Ef X
X X
X X
O ln i
C Py ed ro r
O nr oM t
iP M
U er go r
n n
et n
i M
Oe t
in i
s ea i
n c f
n i i
i f
X X X X X
X d
Mi t
d t
8 r
o f
n s
m gi eo m
at ra ePc m
g e
ah nnS I
aa hlr CPo no itn J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0 P.
0 R.
S.
T.
0 F
A.
B.
C.
D.
e 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 A
6 6
6 6
t 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 5
2 2
2 2
no 2
C 4
1 j
illl'f
.i *.
!1 l
l i;!i1
,}
4 i'
l'
i y
6 r
bs n
N l
o tai M
bt s O
ci X X X
I ev D
fe T
.f R A
A n
a sie ntr s
raa a n
om o
ond siot 4
i k fr tn
( nB e
I tss tO I
s J
pu n
L s i
os y
rI f
G i
W s
t t
e r n
o o
a n
N r
e 1 yv r
hbr o
t e
f i
t W n w
I
=r anap g
dn ri al X X oa Bk lac
.ia i.J r m -
u
- o a
r X
- r
- E G
-:yT s
e n
vn o
io i
si t
nt n
ea e
l tc t
na ci X X X
X X X X b
n a-I f o
l l
C P
p eix o
n u rM t
iF M
s er m
go r
n
)s mt i
c x
i
- n Oe t
a T ra l
oc f
ni 1
if X
X X X X
1 Mi x
Mc do M
ro f
n s
neo n
i gi n
at a
ePc m
g e
a nnS p
ma lr OPo n
)
o w
i e
tn E.
n A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
(
e 6
7 7
7 7
7 7
8 9
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 t
2 n
F.
'2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 o
6 O
2 4i
+lj l
l 4
4 1
y T
bs 7
N n
E do N
tei ots IC Nci A
ei X
X fe T'
fW I
A A
m sie ntr s
rau m
cnc emh i
noo t
of r n
CnB e
I tnoC I e gn ysu i
a s y
mI 8
1 W
s n
r t
w o
o a
.n N
r a
d yv r
hbr o
t e
X X
f i
t W n s
I m
ram aD g
dn ri al X X X X X X
oat BI l
a d
t agr c.o e -
r r
r r
C%E o
s e
n vn o
io i
si t
nt n
ea a
l t c t
na xi n
a-Ef X
X X
x a
l i
C P
s elx o
n u rM t
iF M
s er m
n n
go i
at o
t x
i t
a Oe t
o T ea dc lf i
r i
if X
X X
^
Mi W
lxR x
f n
s neo ir i g1 n
a e P +r en g
a n
n n e-a I
aa hlr CPo m
i tn C
D.
5 F.
e 7
8 9
0 1
2 3
A 4
4 4
5 6
7 8
9 O
t 3
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 S
n o
4 C
'l3 i,
I i'
I
-![
I i fi - *
$I ib.
- c y
P bs 8
N n
E do S
tei zt s O
t ci X
X X X X X X
I A
T ev T
fe A
fR A
=
si e
nt r
rau emh crc noo ofr CnB I
I
@e N
t s
os rI G
I M
r g
e t
t u
i
)
m r
M r
e yv Mbr M
t e
f i
t W
n h
I g
dn ri al X X X X
oa Bk lac d
t Mor ce r
sr r
r X
C %E o
E e
L vn G
io i
si t
nt n
ea e
l tc n
xi tt a-Ef X
X X N
l i
Q P
s el x
r o
n u oM t
iF M
8 er 1
ge G
n l
at m
t iu i
M Gm t
S ra oc f
f ni 1
if X
X 1
M1 3
1 x
3 M
T f
n s
neo t
1 i gi r
at ra ePc a
g e
m nnS X X 9
aa hl r cPo
)w m
e n
i 1
(
tn A.
8 D.
E.
F.
G.
C.
2 e
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 t
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
6 6
6 1
n C.
6 6
6 6
6 o
1 C
6 i'
j j i' 4
,i
AN s
kaanris for mutifimtions to Otmtentions hamnris for Not putifying Ocritentims I
Otange in Plan Change in Text or Pr e l correct witMrawn W
Not Plan Page Minor More Extensive Typographical Board by Group I Infr*=
- h Affected by Centention or Section Mtx11ficatim Mrx11fication Error R' ling Latarvenors Issus Brochure Revisions 61.H X
h
{?
61.I X
62 X
63 X
64 X
1 4
65 X
t i
66 intro.
X X
f I
66.A X
66.B X
66.C X
66.D X
[
66.E X
66.F X
5 I
i 67 intro.
X 1
67.A intro.
X 1
67.A.1 X
1 I
I j
67.A.2 X
/l l
j
- ?
4i8 s
L'i s
y 01 P
bs F
n 6
teido
) t s H
Mci X
C ev fe lT fR A
A n
n Wfh e
i+
r s
s t
m c
x i
t t
r na na I
tnaC I
e r
pn i n!
us i
os y
rI
'd G
i W
s n r t
w o
o a
n N
r e dyv r
hbr X
o t
e f
i t
W n s
i I
rn=
f g
o dn ri n
al X
o) oa i2 t
BI t
r A.
o p1 (7
X lac i
l a
- c. Mor a
s rr C%E u
s e
n vn o
io i
si t
nt n
ea e
l tc t
n-xi X
X X X X X X X X X X m
a
- Ef t
l-1 O
P s e1x o
n u rM t
iF M
a er n
go n
n m
i at c
ir
+
o i
a Gt t
c 1 ra i
oc f
ni i
if X
X l
Mi x
l M
xM ro f
n u
neo s
i gi ur at a
ePc a
g e
n nnS X
h aa I
i lr OPo
)
n w
o
)
o e
t w
i n
o e
o t
(
n B.
C.
D.
e1 r
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
n r l7 t
(
t e
h=
3 7
7 7
- M n 9
9 9
9 9
0 1
1 n
t 6
6 6
C.
i 6
6 6
6 6
7 7
7 8
i m
A.
6 a
9 1
2 tO 7
r 6
7 7
6 P
1
- ***'^%g*e 6p g,yMg g qqgyg e--
O
- (
b h
l
$>x x
f i
11 i
g J.
8' 35 N
I 9
dla 8
5
!sli l
3lB5 s
$2 hE l
l l 2lI 1
1 u
5 Fi e
i,2 a 2 8
-,y.,
aymy
,-%-.-----------y,-#,--,w-,-
,, +, -, -. -,
--w--
m.-.--*
,,-r,-,vm-
-e y-,,-
i- - '..
- ~ T I,E -
y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'84 Sp 16 All :38 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, n.uts.
m.,;e 00Cr.EiiiG & SEiW' BRAllCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)'
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
~I hereby certify that copies of the Memorandum Accompa-nying Proposed Modified Emergency Planning Contentions and the Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions Modified to Reflect Re-vision 3 of the LILCO Plan have been sent to the following this 12th day of January 1984 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted:
- James A.
Laurenson, Chairman
- Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro
'U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory' Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, New Y rk 10016 o
- Dr. Jerry R.
Kline
- W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 1535 Washington, D.C.
20555 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Shon
- Mr. Frederick J.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Twomey, Latham & Shea Washington, D.C.
20555 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Smithtown, New York 11787
- Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.
MHB Technical Associates Atomic Safety and Licensing 1723 Hamilton Avenue Board Panel Suite K' U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
San Jose, California 95125 Washington, D.C.
20555
David J.
Gilmartin, Esq.
- Stewart M.
Glass, Esq.
' Suffolk County Attorney Regional Counsel H.
Lee Dennison-Building Federal Emergency Management Veterans Memorial Highway Agency Hauppauge, New York 11788 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278
- Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.~
- James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
David A.
Repka, Esq.
3045 Porter Street, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20008 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Johnathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.-
Hon. Peter Cohalan Staff Counsel, New York State Suffolk County Executive Public' Service Commission H.
Lee Dennison Building 4-3 Rockefeller Plaza Veterans Memorial Highway
-Albany, New York 12223 Hauppaug e, New York 11788 Gerald C.
Crotty, Esq.
- Ben Wiles, Esq.
Counsel'to the Governor Assistant Counsel to Executive Chamber the Governor State Capitol Executive Chamber
. Albany, New York -12224
. State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
- ** Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
3-General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country-Road Mineola, New York 11501
/
l!./
/
YJ j
l b
Yf.
'i-
~
Karla J. Letschev KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER &-PHILLIPS
{;
1900 M-Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATED: January 12, 1964 By Hand By-Federal Express By Computer t 4
,_......,._w...
.-_.,-,-r.-,r.
m.m.,,,,
,,m._,..
.,u,,,
y
_,,,