ML20079J207
| ML20079J207 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1984 |
| From: | Monaghan J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8401240249 | |
| Download: ML20079J207 (28) | |
Text
' '
.f, .
I LILCO, Jcnunry 19, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETED USNRC l Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardM 2d 23 dd da In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS'
" PROPOSED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS MODIFIED TO REFLECT REVISION 3 OF THE LILCO PLAN" On January 12, 1984, Suffolk County served on LILCO the intervenors' " Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions Modified to Reflect Revision 3 of the LILCO Plan." LILCO objects to certain of intervenors' revised contentions au stated below.
I.
LILCO objects to each contention (or part of a contention) listed below on one or more of the following grounds:
- 1. intervenors have not demonstrated that there is a basis for believing that the revised contention may be true;
- 2. the revised contention is lacking speci-ficity;
- 3. there is no legal requirement for the actions that intervenors allege must be taken by LILCO; and
- 4. the r.evised contention is untimely.
LILCO discussed lack of basis, lack of specificity, and no legal l
l 8401240249 840119 i
PDR ADOCK 05000322 ')
O PDR )
requirement as grounds for objections to contentions in "LILCO's Objections to Intervenors' Consolidated Emergency Planning Conten-4 tions," filed with this Board on July 8, 1983. Untimeliness, as a
- ground for objection, has not been discussed in LILCO's prior r
pleadings and is discussed below.
LILCO has objected to the intervenors' contentions as 1
untimely because they raise issues that are not justified by modi-fications to Revision 3 of the LILCO Transition Plan, that could have been raised earlier in the proceeding, and that do not meet .
the requirements for the filing of late-filed contentions as listed in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. Recent Commission decisions have confirmed that the late-filed contention standards of 10 C.F.R.
$_2.714 apply to contentions based on licensing-related documents.
In both Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-23, 17 NRC , slip op. (Sept. 20, 1983),
i and Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983), the Commission affirmed that the admissibility of a late-filed contention must be determined by I
balancing the five factors listed in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714, even when the contention relies solely on information contained in licensing-related documents that were not available early enough to provide a bas 4.s for the timely formulation of the contention.
j E e
.,- , , - - - , .- , , , - . - - , . , - - - , . _ , , . , , , . , - ~ _ , - . , - , . - - . , . - - . , - . .,,.,_w,, ,.,--g., y,e_,g ,, .---,n,- e,- , ,,n,, e---, e
In Catawba, the Commission stated unequivocally that
[T]he institutional unavailability of a licensing-related document does not establish good cause for filing a contention late if information was publicly available early enough to provide the basis for the timely filing of that contenti,on.
17 NRC at 1045. Rejecting the notion that the institutional unavailability of a licensing-related document constitutes " good cause" in and of itself, the Commission specifically endorsed the Appeal Board three-part test for determining whether there is good cause for a late-filed contention. The three-part test requires that the contention:
- 1. is wholly dependent upon the content of a -
particular document;
- 2. could not therefore be advanced with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advance of the public availability of that document; and
- 3. is tendered with the requisite degree o.
promptness once the document comes into existence and is accessible for public i
examination.
I 17 NRC at 1043-44; see also 18 NRC at 117.
l The Catawba test was recently applied in circumstances simi-l lar to those faced by this Licensing Board. In Kansas Gas &
l Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), LBP 81-453-03 OL, 18 NRC , slip op. (Jan. 5, 1984), the Licensing
( Board applied the five-part test endorsed in Catawba to a late-j filed, additional emergency planning contention filed by l
l l
l l
--. ~ - . . - -
intervenors who had been admitted as parties. See also Long Island Lighting C'ompany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-83-42, 18 NRC 112 (1983) (Catawba applied to late-filed peti-tion to intervene based on LILCO Transition Plan). This Board should, likewise, apply the Catawba test to intervenors' revised contentions.
Specific objections to each of the intervenors' contentions appear below.
II.
Contention 15 LILCO's Lack of Credibility Contention 15.E:
Objection. LILCO objects to the proposed revisions to subpart 15.E of Contention 15 because they broaden the contention beyond the scope of its original concern with LILCO's credibility.
In its Order of August 19, 1983, this Board subsumed the subparts of Contention 15 within the main contention and ordered the par-ties to treat the subparts only as reasons in support of the issue of credibility raised by Contention 15. The issues raised by,the modifications to subpart 15.E do not bear on the issue of LILCO's credibility, but rather, on the content of the EBS messages them-selves.
y --
,,y r -wy- - -m -
I l LILCO also objects to specific proposed revisions to subpart i
15.E of Contention 15 as'follows:
LILCO objects to intervenors' new allegation in subp-r .
IS.E that t2un identification of officials, engineers, and scientists who are LILCO employees or contractors will not increase the cred-ibility of the EBS messages. This statement is without basis and ,
should not be admitted.
Subpart 15.E.1 alleges that the EBS radio messages " lack credibility" because they do not explain "what it [LERO] is and who comprises it." The same idea was put forward in Contention
~
'16.F as follows:
The LILCO brochure does not inform the public that LILCO itself, in the form of LERO, will
. be issuing all information and protective
- action recommendations, as well as performing almost all emergency response tasks. It is important that the public be aware of the source of all emergency information so that-it may assess and evaluate the information it is receiving.
In its' Order of August 19, 1933, the Board denied Contention 16.F, saying'that there "is no basis for the Intervenors' suggestion that these types of specific information and in'structions should be included in a brochure.h If this information need not be in the brochure, it certainly need not be in the EBS messages, where 1
unnecessary information would complicate the messages and lengthen the time necessary to read them on the air. Furthermore, a review -
of the sample EBS messages in Revision O of the LILCO Transition 4
, , , - - - - _ - _ . . - _ _ . -_..,_,4, , , ..,.m,,,- . , , .n. _.-_s..- ,y,.rm-,._-n.,- . , , - - . . . _ , -. ,,,y,.w , ,m,,, - , , , ~ , , . , , , , , _ _ _ . , _ , . .
=- .- . . . .__ _ _ -- - .
Plan reveals that, since Revision 0, the sample EBS messages have made reference to activation of'the Local Emergency Response Organization. Plainly, intervenors could have raised this issue in their initial contentions; not having done so,.intervenors must meet the late-filed contention standards of 10 C.F.R. ! 2.714.
Given the fact that the reference to activation of the Local Emer-gency Response Organization was contained in Revision 0 of the Plan, there is no good cause for intervenors having waited until
, this late date to raise this issue.
Subpart 15.E.2 of Contention 15 alleges that the absence of an explanation of the seriousness of each of the four emergency classifications detracts from the credibility of the EBS messages.
LILCO objects to subpart 15.E.2 for two reasons. First, there is no basis for believing that inclusion of such an explanation would 4
enhance the credibility of the EBS messages. Second, there is no legal requirement for inclusion of an explanation of the event I classifications in EBS messages.
Admission of Contention 15.E.3 should be. denied for several reasons.1/ First, the issue of whether the health consequences of
-exposure to projected radiation doses need be explained was raised 1/ As a preliminary matter, LILCO notes that intervenors' subpart.15.E.3 incorrectly states that sample EBS messages D through G set forth the EPA's protective action guides; in t fact, only sample EBS messages E through G contain references to the EPA's protective action guidelines.
l
-- ,. .,,--~s,- - - , , - - - - . - -,- , .-e,-r . - , , , , ,----n-w--., - - , - , - - - ,, - -,,,,..,--.--,r-e-,
by intervenors in Contention 19, and denied by the Board in its Order of August 19, 1983, as lacking basis. Intervenors should not be permitted to use Contention 15.E.3 as a vehicle to resur-rect Contention 19. Second, the issue of whether the credibility of the EBS messages is undermined by the failure to discuss health consequences of exposure to radiation is already at issue in Con-tention 16.E and should be consolidated with that contention.
Third, whether LILCO provides information on the health effects of radiation has no bearing on the issue of LILCO's credibility.
Consequently, if admitted, subpart 15.E.3 would broaden the scope of Contention 15 beyond its original concern of credibility.
Finally, LILCO objects to subpart 15.E.3 as going beyond the emer-gency planning regulations. LILCO will do all it can to assure that clear, accurate, concise, consistent information is given to the public, but it is not obligated to guarantee that every member of the general public will understand the entire EBS message or act in accordance with the recommendations. Therefore, subpart 15.E.3 of Contention 15 should not be admitted.
Intervenors have added subpart 15.E.4 in which they allege that the EBS messages offer no assurance that the school districts will implement LERO's recommendations. LILCO objects to subpart 15.E.4 on the ground that it implies that LILCO cannot show ade-quate emergency planning unless it proves that the public will follow its protective action recommendations. As stated l
l . -- . - . -. - . . - - - -.
previously, LILCO is not obligated by emergency planning regula-tions to guarantee that the public will act in accordance with the recommendations. Subpart 15.E.4 should be denied admission in its entirety as beyond the scope of emergency planning regulations.
At a minimum, the following sentence should be stricken from subpart 15.E.4 for lack of basis: "These inconsistencies are likely to raise doubts in the minds of listeners and will cause many parents to seek to pick up their children -- especially in light of the knowledge that most parents will hear that none of the school districts in the EPZ have evacuation or sheltering plan for a Shoreham emergency."
Subpart 15.E.5, which alleges that EBS messages should include a description of bus routes, should be denied as having no bearing on the issue of credibility. Furthermore, the revision in subpart 15.E.5 is untimely. The sample EBS messages in Revision 0 of the LILCO Transition Plan did not describe the bus routes or inform the public where to obtain a description of the routes.
Thus, subpart 15.E.5 is not justified by any new matter in Revi-sion 3 and should be denied admission as untimely.
Contentions 16 through'21:
Public Education and Information Contention 18:
Objection. In the " Memorandum Accompanying Proposed Modified Emergency Planning Contentions," intervenors claim that they have not modified Contention 18 because it involves the LILCO Public Information Brochure, and that the revised information brochure has not yet been distributed to the parties. It is true that the brochu'e has not yet been distributed. Contention 18, however, is not affected by the brochure. Contention 18 concerns (1) the effectiveness of posters, telephone book inserts, and the EBS mes-sages in i.' forming an individual in which zone he is located, and (2) the ability of persons not in their home zone to determine the evacuation route for the zone they are visiting. The only refer-ence to the brochure in Contention 18 is the provision that "some-one who does not have access to a brochure in the event of an emergency will be unable to identify his or her zone." The Con-tention is premised on the assumption that the brochure is unavailable and, thus, the content of the brochure is not at issue l
in Contention 18. Intervenors should not be permitted to expand the scope of Contention 18 with later revisions to the contention premised on the Public Information Brochure.
Contention 24:
LILCO's Lack of Agreements with Organizations and Personnel Relied Upon in the Pla!
Contention 24.E:
Objection. In their modification to Contention 24.E, inter-venors contend that LILCO has no agreements with nursery schools or parents of children in nursery schools to permit LILCO employ-ees to drive buses transporting nursery school children. Contrary to intervenors' contention, there is no legal requirement that LILCO obtain agreements with nursery schools or with the parents of children in nursery schools to transport nursery school chil-dren in buses. Therefore, the modification to Contention 24.E should not be admitted.
Contention 24.J:
LILCO raises no objection to the statement in Contention 24.J that the LILCO Transition Plan should include special facilities "near the EPZ." LILCO has not objected based on the representa-tion of counsel for Suffolk County that the statement "near the EPZ" should not be construed as alleging that LILCO must add facilities outside the EPZ to its emergency plan.
I l
Contention 24.M:
Objection. Intervenors' revised contention fails to reflect the interpretation placed on that contention by the Board's Order of August 19, 1983. In its Order, the Board stated that this sub-contention is subject to a limiting interpretation that the agree-ments alleged to be missing under the contention are agreement s with companies or institutions and not with individual school bus drivers.
Contention 24.P:
Objection. The proposed modification to the contention alleges that LILCO has no agreement with the American Red Cross to provide services at relocation centers "in the manner or volume . . . assumed in the LILCO Plan." Neither the manner nor volume of services to be provided at relocation centers by the American Red Cross has changed since Revision O of the Plan. As stated in the letter of understanding between LILCO and the Ameri-can Red Cross, which is included in LILCO's Transition Plan at App-B-9 (Rev. 1), "the Red Cross will fulfill its emergency response functions, including setting up and operating relocation centeru for the public." The modification to Contention 24.P is unwarranted by modifications in Revision 3 and, therefore, should be denied as untimely.
Contention 26:
Notification of Emergency Response Personnel Contention 26.C:
Objection. LILCO objects to intervenors' modifications to Contention 26.C to the extent that the modifications allege that the LILCO Transition Plan does not provide adequate details about the verification system or about verification of the content of the messages received by paged emergency personnel. The regula-tions do not require that specific details of the verification process be included in the Plan. In the alternative, LILCO objects.to inclusion of the statement "[s]ince verification under the Plan is only verification that emergeacy personnel have received some paged message, the response to the message may not be the response intended and appropriate (e.g., due to pager mal-function, emergency personnel may be notified to go to standby status, rather than to report)," on the ground that it is without basis.
Contention 26.E:
objection. LILCO objects to revised Contention 26.E on the -
ground that modifications made to the contention are an attempt to revive the issue of the inadequacy of non-dedicated commercial telephone lines for notification of emergency' response personnel; that issue was denied admission by the Board's ruling on i
,__m_, _ _ _ , . _ . - _ . . . , - _ ,
Contention 26.B in its Order of August 19, 1983. The modification concerning the Federal Telephone System as an ineffective backup to commercial telephone contact with the Brookhaven Area office, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the FAA, should be denied on the ground that it is without basis.
Contention 26.F:
Objection. LILCO objects to intervenors' new Contention 26.F, which alleges that the means of communication with WALK-FM radio outlined in the LILCO Transition Plan are inadequate.
First, through Contention 26.F, intervenors have attempted to res-urrect the argument that commercial telephone- lines are an inade-
, quate means of notifying emergency response personnel. That argu-ment was rejected by this Board when it denied admission of Contention 26.B in its Order of August 19, 1983. A second ground for rejecting the new issues raised in Contention 26.F is that they are not justified by any modifications made by Revision 3 of the LILCO Transition Plan. Intervenors have known for some time that the Emergency Broadcasting System could only be activated by communication with WALK-FM radio station and that, until the local EOC is activated, the LILCO Transition Plan provides that non-dedicated commercial telephone lines will be relied upon for noti-fying WALK-FM of the need to activate the EBS system. In short, LILCO's planned method of communicating with WALK-FM radio has not
changed. Intervenors' new Contention 26.F should be denied as untimely.
Contention 27:
Mobilization of Emergency Response Pe.sonnel Contention 27:
Objection. LILCO objects to subpart 27.C of Contention 27 on the ground that the modifications suggested by intervenors not justified by Revision 3 to the LILCO Transition Plan and untimely.
Intervenors have known for some time, both through prior versions of the LILCO Transition Plan and through discovery, that the LILCO Transition Plan contemplates that workers with field assignments will pick up dosimetry equipment, receive briefings before they
, leave for their posts, and, in some cases, will have to install equipment in their vehicles prior to being dispatched. Interve-nors should not be permitted to raise such a contention now with-out meeting the requirements for late-filed contentions.
Contentions 28 through 34:
Communications Among Emergency Response Personnel Contention 30:
Objection. Contention 30 has been modified to allege that LILCO's communications equipment is inadequate because "the vehi-cles must be running, or the ignition switched on, for the radios to operate. Batteries are effective for only a limited time," and
the Plan provides no assurance that " vehicle batteries are not rundown and remain charged." LILCO objects to this modification as untimely. Intervenors have known the model numbers of the mobile radios to be used and that LILCO did not intend to use por-table radios at least since the discovery responses were served on June 30, 1983. The issues re.ised by intervenors' modifications to Contention 30 are not justified by Revision 3 and should be denied as untimely.
Contention 34:
Objection. In subpart 34.C of Contention 34, LILCO objects to the addition of allegations concerning LILCO's ability to com-municate with fire / rescue organizations on the grounds that such a modification is irrelevant and is not justified by Revision 3 to the LILCO Transition Plan. Suffolk County has long known that LILCO will not rely on fire / rescue organizations as part of LERO.
Therefore, LILCO's ability to communicate with such fire / rescue organizations is not relevant to the subject matter of this con-tention, which concerns the coordinated communications link between field and mobile medical support facilities. Moreover, the time for raising the issue of LILCO's ability to co,mmunicate with such organizations has long past. The contention should not be admitted on the grounds that it is irrelevant, untimely, and does not meet the requirements for late-filed contentions.
Contentions 35 through 44:
Training of Emergency Workers Contention 39:
Objection. In subpart 39.A.of Contention 39, intervenors allege that the LILCO Transition Plan fails to deal effectively with attrition. Intervenors now state that LILCO's quarterly training program, by which LILCO will provide training for new members, is insufficient.because it does not assure that trained LILCO employees will be available to fill positions in LERO as the need arises. Such an allegation should be not be admitted on the ground that it lacks basis.
Intervenors' modificction of subpart 39.B of Contention 39, in which they now allege that the Coast Guard and ambulance'compa-nies will not maintain necessary staffing or notify LILCO of understaffing, is also without basis. For the above stated rea-son, subpart 39.B of Contention 39 should not be admitted.
Contention 44:
Objection. LILCO objects to subpart 44.D of Contention 44 on the ground that Revision 3 of the LILCO Transition Plan made no change in the provisions for testing of communications equipment with Federal emergency response organizations or states within the ingestion pathway. Intervenors' modification is not justified by modifications in Revision 3, is untimely, and does not meet the
criteria for late-filed contentions. Accordingly, the modifica-tion to subpart 44.D of Contention 44 should not be admitted.
LILCO also objects to the modification of subpart 44.F of Contention 44, which states "there is no indication in the Plan '
that any such entities have agreed to send observers as required by NUREG-0654," both because there is no legal requirement for an agreement with Federal, State, or local governments to send observers, and because there is no basis on which to assume that Federal, State, and local governments, contrary to their normal procedures, would refuse to provide official observers to evaluate and critique annual exercises. See Board's Order of August 19, 1983, ruling on Contention 24.Q. For the above stated reasons, the modification to subpart 44.F should not be admitted.
Contention 60 through 62:
Sheltering Contention 61:
Objection. LILCO objects to subpart 61.C.2 on several grounds. First, it is repetitive of the County's allegation in Contention 24.J. Both contentions allege that the LILCO Transi-tion Plan should include agreements with special facilities to implement the evacuation procedures set forth in the LILCO Transi-tion Plan. Second, there is no legal requirement that LILCO have agreements with special facilities to develop or implement
._ - ~ __ ._ _ _
y ,
.~~~
- i. ,
j sheltering procedures. Third, intervenors' suggestion that shel-taring could not be implemented by a special facility lacks basis.
For the above stated reasons, the modifications to subpart 61.C.2 j should not be admitted.
i-Contention 66:
4 Removal of Obstacles from the Roadway and Provisions for Fuel Contention 66:
Objection. In subpart 66.D of Contention 66, intervenors I complain that'"LILCO has no agreements with locci jurisdictions or other entities . . . to provide snow removal services during an emergency."
~
LILCO objects to this contention on the ground that there is no basis for the allegation that local jurisdictions will not perform their normal snow removal services. As the Board ,
noted when it denied admission of Contention 24.Q on the similar issue of the likelihood that Suffolk County Police would perform I their normal duties, it is inconceivable that, in an emergency, 4
local jurisdictions would not provide their normal services.
Pl Board Order, August 19, 1983, at 15. Therefore, subpart 66.D r
I raisea no real issue and should be denied admission as lacking basis. Second, there is no legal requirement that LILCO obtain
' agreements with local jurisdictions for the provision of snow removal during an emergency. Finally, intervenors' modification of this contention is untimely. Since the earliest versions of l
-A r.- -
the Plan, it has been stated that LILCO anticipated that snow removal operations within the 10-mile EPZ would be provided by local organizations in their normal fashion during an cmergency.
Intervenors have not established good cause for raising this issue at this late date nor have they demonstrated that they comply with the other four requirements of the late-filed contention regula-tion, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. For the above stated reasons, subpart 66.D of Contention 66 should be denied admission.
Contention 67:
Evacuation of Persons without Access to Automobiles Contention 67.A:
Objection. LILCO objects to the statement in subpart 67.A.3 that " bus capacity factors are likely to be significantly lower than 75%" on the ground that it lacks basis. LILCO also objects to the admission of subpart 67.A.3 on the ground that it is not justified by any modification in Revision 3 of the Plan and ,
4 therefore, is untimely.
Contention 67.D:
Objection. LILCO objects to inte,rvenors' addition to Conten-tion 67.D, which alleges that the eleven new transfer points do not appear to have adequate structures to provide shelter from adverse conditions, on the grounds that it lacks basis and specif-icity. First, intervenors' modification changes the entire focus
~
of the contention from'the location of some transfer points within the 10-mile EPZ to the adequacy of the shelter available at trans-for points. Such an expansion of contention 67.D is not justified by modifications to Revision 3 of the LILCO Transition Plan and should be denied as untimely. Second, intervenors have provided no basis for their statement that "the eleven new transfer points designated by LILCO do not appear to have adequate structures which could provide shelter from adverse radiological or weather conditions." Intervenors merely allege that the transfer points do not " appear" to have adequate structures but provide no reasons for this belief. Furthermore, the revision does not sufficiently specify what intervenors consider " adequate" structures to provide sheltering. A sophisticated party such as Suffolk County should not be permitted to merely contend that an aspect of LILCO's emer-gency plan is not " adequate," but should be required to specify how the shelter provided is inadequate.
I contention 68 through 71:
Evacuation of School Children Contention 69:
l Objection. This contention raises essentially the same issue l
as that presented in subpart 61.C.1 and Contention 69.E, and should be consolidated with those contentions.
(
Contention 69.B:
LILCO raises no objection to the statement in Contention 69.B that the LILCO Transition Plan should include details of school plans for schools "near the EPZ." LILCO has not objected based on the representation of counsel for Suffolk County that the state-ment."near the EPZ" should not be construed as alleging ti. t LILCO must add facilities outside the EPZ to its emergency plan.
Contention 69.E:
Objection. This contention raises essentially the same issues as subpart 61.C.1 of Contention 61 and Contention 69, and should be consolidated with those contentions.
Contention 71.A:
Objection. Intervenors have modified Contention 71.A to change the entire focus of the contention from the availability of evacuation buses and relocation centers for school. children to the availability of those facilities for nursery school children.
Nothing in Revision 3 of the LILCO Transition Plan supports such a change in the focus of Contention 71.A. The modifications to Con-tention 71.A, therefore, should be denied as untimely. LILCO also objects to Contention 71.A to the extent that intervenors now allege that LILCO must obtain agreements with schools and parents that give permission for children to ride evacuation buses.
First, LILCO objects to intervenors' assertion that LILCO must
have agreements with schools or parents permitting children to ride buses on the grounds that there is no legal requirement for such agreements. Second, this modification to Contention 71.A is repetitive of Contention 24.E and more appropriately comes under the heading of letters of agreement covered by Contention 24. For the above stated reasons, the modifications to Contention 71.A should be denied admission.
Contention 71.C:
Objection. The intervenors contend that the LILCO Transition Plan must include details of emergency plans for schools outside the EPZ. LILCO objects to new Contention 71.C on the ground that there is no legal requirement that offsite emergency plans include the details of school emergency plans. Accordingly, Contention 71.C should not be admitted.
Contention 72:
Evacuation of People in Special Facilities Contention 72.D:
Objection. Intervenors state in new Contention 72.D that the LILCO Transition Plan does not provide adequate procedures for determining the circumstances under which an evacuation of hospi-tais might be necessary. LILCO objects to this contention on the ground that it does not specify in what way the procedures pro-vided in the Plan are inadequate. Contention 72.D, therefore, should not be admitted.
Contention 73:
Handicapped People at Home Contention 73.B:
Objection. LILCO objects to subparts 73.B.3 and 73.B.5 of Contention 73.B as follows:
First, with respect to subpart 73.B.3, LILCO objects to the modification which alleges that insufficient numbers of communica-tions and administrative support personnel will be available to assist the home coordinator in contacting handicapped persons.
This contention is without basis and should not be admitted.
Subpart 73.B.5 is a completely new subpart in which interve-nors allege that notification of the deaf by route alert drivers will not be timely because there will be an insufficient number of drivers, and the available drivers will be delayed by mobilization and evacuation traffic. LILCO objects to the admission of this subpart on the ground that intervenors have no basis for stating that an insufficient number of route alert drivers will be as-l l signed to alert the deaf.
I Contentions 78 through 83:
j Food, Milk, Water and Livestock Control l
Contention 81:
Objection. Intervenors contend that the LILCO Transition j Plan contains " insufficient" procedures for implementing l
protective actions for the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ. The contention fails to articulate how the present procedures are insufficent for implementing protective actions for the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ. The modification to Contention 81 should not be admitted because it lacks specificity.
Contention 81.A:
Intervenors allege that the LILCO Transition Plan does not provide. adequate procedures for dealing with lactating dairy ani-mais within the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ. Intervenors do not specify what procedures are inadequate. The contention should be denied due to lack of specificity.
Contention 81.C:
Objection. Intervenors' modification to Contention 81.C alleges that the LILCO Transition Plan is deficient because it does not provide criteria "for a contaminated operations area and how to measure it." This is a substantive change in the conten-tion that could have and should have been raised prior to Revision l 3; it is not responsive to a Revision 3 change and does not meet l
l the criteria for late-filed contentions. This contention should i
be denied as untimely.
I i
l i
Contention 81.E:
' Objection. This contention concerns the absence of provisions-in the LILCO Transition Plan for restricting the diet of the population within the EPZ and restricting export of agri-cultural products from the EPZ. LILCO objects to the addition of Connecticut as an area from which the export of agricultural prod-ucts might have to be restricted. Intervenors have long recog-nized that the State of Connecti at comes within the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Indeed, the original Contentions 24.R and 79 included reference to Connecticut. If the intervenors had wished to include Connecticut in Contention 81.E, they should have done so when the original
' contention was drafted. Addition of Connecticut to Contention 81.E is now untimely and should be denied.
Contentions 84 through 91:
Recovery and Reentry Contention 85:
Objection. Title 10 C.F.R. 5 30.47(b)(13) requires that the local offsite response plan establish that " general plans for recovery and reentry are developed." The detailed plans of the sort intervenors suggest in Contention 85 are not required by the regulations. This contention should not be admitted because there is no legal requirement for LILCO to do what Suffolk County suggests.
~
Contention 92:
State Emergency Plan Contention 92:
Objection. Originally, intervenors' Contention 92 concerned the absence of a New York State emergency plan for Shoreham and the absence of provisions in the LILCO Transition Plan to provide for coordination with the State of New York. Now, intervenors
. attempt to add the State of Connecticut to this contention; this modification should be denied on the ground that it is untimely.
Respectfully submitted, 02&2/'El . &&
games N. Christman //
@essineA.Monaghan[/
Kathy E. B. McCleskey Renee R. Falzone Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 19, 1984
. -. - - = .
~ '
LILCO, January 19, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r
In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,. Unit 1) .
Emergency Planning Proceeding, Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S OBJECTIONS TO INTER-VENORS' " PROPOSED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS MODIFIED TO RE-FLECT REVISION 3 OF THE LILCO PLAN" were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or (as indicated by one asterisk) by hand, or (as indicated by two asterisks) by Federal Express.
James A. Laurenson,* Secretary of the Commission Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-West Tower, Rm. 402A Appeal Board Panel
-4350 East-West Hwy. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline*
Ato.mic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C. 20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*
David A. Repka, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon* Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
. Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Road i Commission (to mailroom)
! East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.**
Regional Counsel Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.* Federal Emergency Management Attorney Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Board Panel New York, New York 10278 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephen B. Latham, Esq.**
East-West Tower, North Tower Twomey, Latham & Shea 4350 East-West Highway 33 West Second Street Bethesda, MD 20814' Post Office Box 398 i
Riverhead, NY 11901 l
l
David J. Gilmartin, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.00 Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq. Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
County Attorney 9 East 40th Street Suffolk County Department New York, New York 10016 of Law Veterans Memorial Highway James B. Dougherty, Esq.**
Hauppauge, New York 11787 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C. 20008 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Howard L. Blau Christopher McMurray, Esq. 217 Newbridge Road Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Hicksville, NY 11801 Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
1900 M Street, N.W. New York State Washington, D.C. 20036 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Albany, New York 12223 Energy Research Group 4001 Totten Pond Road Spence W. Perry, Esq.**
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Associat_ General Counsel Federal Zne gency Management MHB Technical Associates Agency 1723 Hamilton Avenue 500 C Street, S.W.
Suite K Washington, D.C. 20472 San Jose, California 95125 Ms. Nora Bredes Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Executive Coordinator New York State Energy Office Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency Building 2 195 East Main Street Empire State Plaza Smithtown, New York 11787 Albany, New York 12223 Ben Wiles, Esq.
Gerald C. Crotty, Esq. Assistant Counsel to the Counsel to the Covernor Governor Executive Chamber Executive Chamber l
State Capitol State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12224 Os w a d. % d n Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 19, 1984
-