ML20084A748

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Statement of Mm Cuomo,Representing State of Ny,In Opposition to Util Motion to Set Schedule for Partial Initial Decision on Group 1 Emergency Planning Issues.Aslb Urged to Deny Util Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20084A748
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 04/23/1984
From: Zahnleuter R
NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8404250259
Download: ML20084A748 (8)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'M,i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD TfD Before Administrative Judges James A. Laurenson, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon 34 APR 25 A10:50

) EEC In the Matter of ) Chig {h*g,F%iM S56"/it f

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power ) April 23, 1984 Statien, Unit 1) )

)

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MARIO M. CUOMO, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN OPPOSITION TO "LILCO MOTION TO SET SCHEDULE FOR PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON ' GROUP I' EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES" The State of New York opposes the "LILCO MOTION TO SET SCHEDULE FOR PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON ' GROUP I' EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES," dated April 13, 1984 (hereinafter, "LILCO's motion").

The State has reviewed the County's memorandum in opposition to LILCO's motion and the State fully' concurs with the position taken by.'the County. The County's analysis is thorough and persuasive. However, the.following points need to be amplified from the perspective of'the State:

1) -Contentions 23, 25 and 65 are so intertwined with other contentions, especially contentions regarding LILCO's

-lack of legal authority,_thatJit is impossible for

~

the parties'to prepare meaningful' findings of fact

. and conclusions of law at,this early_timecin the proceeding; it also_is impossible for the Board to render a meaningful partial. initial decision under such conditions;=

f

]

~

8404250259 840423 .-

PDR ADOCK 05000322 t. .s '

O PDR _, -)-

2) the proposed May 18, 1984, deadline for filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law would allow only 5 nonhearing, business days, right in the midst of an expedited, intense hearing i schedule, to prepare and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; this time frame is extremely prejudicial, unreasonable and unacceptable to the State.

The essence of LILCO's motion is that the parties should submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on Contentions 23, 25 and 65 on May 18, 1984, and the Board should render a partial initial decision as soon as possible thereafter. It appears from LILCO's motion that the underlying logic is that since "all the evidence has been submitted" on these three contentions, it makes sense for the Board to rule on them at this time.

This logic is seriously flawed. Not all shadow phenomenon issues are addressed in Contention 23, not all role conflict issues are addressed in Contention 25, and not all evacuation time estimate issues are addrecsed in Contention 65. The record is not closed on these issues.

The County's memorandum in opposition to LILCO's motion s

adequately identifies some of the shadow phenomenon, role conflict and evacuation time estimate issues which are addressed in the rest of the contentions. The contentions dealing with LILCO's lack of legal authority are an additional example of hou the issues nentioned above are not limited to Contentions 23, 25.and 65, but are dispersed throughout many

contentlons. Contention 1 alleges that LILCO is prohibited by law from directing traffic. This allegation clearly relates to the issues raised by contentions 23.H (LILCO's failure to prevent travel across the EPZ perimeter into evacuated areas) and 65. Contention 1 specifically states:

Further, LILCO's lack of authority to direct traffic renders its evacuation time estimates

... inaccurate, t**

[S]ince LILCO's traffic guides are prohibited by law from directing traffic, LILCO will not be able to ensure that motorists will use only the prescribed routes, rendering the LILCO evacuation time estimates inaccurate.

Without LILCO's assumption that evacuees will follow prescribed evacuation routes, the LILCO evacuation time estimates would increase substantially. (Emphasis added.)

Contention 2 alleges that LILCO is prohibited by law from blocking i

) roadways, setting up barriers in roadways and channeling traffic.

This allegation also clearly relates to issues raised in Contentions 23.11 and 65. Contention 2 specifically.staten:

Because LILCO and its " traffic guides" lack legal authority to implement such traffic controls. . .LILCO cannot rely on the use of traffic control devices to ensure the use of prescribed evacuation routes. As a result, LILCO's evacuation time estimates are unrealistically low.... (Emphasis added.)

Contention 3 alleges that LILCO is prohibi ted by law from posting traffic signs on roadways. Contention 3 specifically states:

LILCO's evacuation time estimates assume that such signs are installed...In face. however, such. signs will not be installed 1 Suffolk County and it is unlawful for LILCo to install ~

such signs. Therefore, LILCO cannot rely on

such signs to ensure the use of prescribed evacuation routes, and its evacuation time estimates are, as a result, unrealistically low. (Emphasis added.)

Contention 9 alleges that LILCO is prohibited by law from dispensing fuel from tank trucks to automobiles along road-sides. Contention-9 specifically states:

Cars running out of gas, and the probable abandonment of vehicles which will follow, will result in obstructions and blockages on roadways in use during the evacuation. LILCO's evacuation time estimatec do not take cars i running out of gas and the resulting road obstructions into account _. If LILCO cannot effectively prevent or remove such obstacles, its evacuation time estimates will increase.

(Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, testimony pertaining to Contentions 23, 25 and 65 is not the last word on shadow phenomenon, role conflict and' evacuation time estimate issues. Any partial initial decision which is based solely on findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Contentions 23, 25 and 65 would be so premature that it would be meaningless.

Nevertheless, should the Board decide to grant LILCO's motion, the proposed deadline of May 18, 1984, would severely prejudice the State's ability to prepare and file whatever findings of fact and conclusions of law might be appropriate under the circumstances. Pursuant to 10 CTR S2.754, the applicant should file proposed findings 30 days after the hearing is over, other parties should file proposed findings 40 days after the hearing is over, and the NRC should file proposed findings 50 days after the hearing is over. LILCO's May.18, 1984 deadline does not meet this requirement. Also, LILCO's

o -

May 18, 1984 deadline only allows 5 nonhearing, business days, right in the midst of an expedited, intense hearing schedule, to prepare and file proposed findings. The 3oard should not accelerate the pace of these proceedings to the point where the parties, particularly the State, are required to perform major tasks simultaneously. The May 18, 1984 deadline pro-posed by LILCO is unreasonable and unacceptable to the State.

For the reasons stated above, the State respectfully urges that the Board deny LILCO's motion.

Respectfully submitted, MARIO CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York FABIAN G. PALOMINO, ESQ.

Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York BY: /// c W /

RICHARD J.fZAHNLEUTER, . ESQ.

Assistant to ,the/Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Albany, New York

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. NUCLEAR REGJLATORY COMMISSION

.* ~.

. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN3ING BOAPI Before Administrative Judges James A. Laurenson, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

) Aoril'23, 1934 (Sitoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that one copy of the statement of Governor !!ario !!. Cuomo, representing the State of New York, in opposition to "LILCO motion to set schedule for partial initial decision on ' Group I' Emergency 21anning Issuer" has been served to each of the following this 23rday of April 1984'by U. S. Mall, first class, except as otherwise noted-

      • James A. Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulator'; Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington,~D. C. 20553- New York, New York 10016

      • Dr. Jerry R. Kline Howard L. Blau, Esq. <

Administrative Judge 217 Newbridge Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville, New York 11801 U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.

Hunton & Williams

      • -Mr. Frederick J. Shon P. O. Box 1535 Administrative Judge 707' East Main Street Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board' Richmond, Virginia 23212 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,-D. C. 20555'

~ ..

'7_ . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . -.

v .

Mr. Ja'y Dunkleberger Marc 1. Goldsmith New York State Energy Office Energy Research Group, Inc.

Agency Building 2 400-1 Totten Pond Road Empire State Plaza Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Albany, New York 12223 MHB Technical Associates James B. Dougherty, Esq. 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K 3045 Porter Street, N. W. San Jose, California 95125 Washington, D. C. 20008 Honorable Peter F. Cohalan Mr. Brian McCaffrey Suffolk County Executive Long Island Lighting Company H. Lee Dennison Building Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Veterans Memorial Highway P. O. Box 618 Hauppauge, New York 11788 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Envirommental Protection Bureau Suffolk County Attorney New York State Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building 2 World Trade Center Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10047 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section Regional Counsel Office of the S^cretary Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission Agency 1717 H Street, N.W. 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Washington, D. C. 20555 Nework, Y New York 10278 Bernard 21. Bordenick, Esq. Nora B;edes David A. Repka, Esq. E:'ecutive Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shoreham opponents Coalition Wasnington, D. C. 20555 195 East East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787 Stuart Diamond Environment / Energy Writer * *

  • Uleanor L. Frucci, Esq.

NEWSDAY Atomic Safety and Licensing Long Island, New York 11747 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Washington, D. C. 20555 Twomey, Latham & Shea P. O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901

Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

1900 M Street, N. W., Suite 800 Washington, D. C. 20036 Spence Perry, Esq.

Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D. C. 20472

/df. A L'& '{.

RICHARD J.f21sHNLEUTER l Assistant tojtlie/Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber State Capitol Albany, New York 12224

  • By Hand
    • By Federal Express
      • By Telecopier

- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20084A748&oldid=2744656"