ML20084B929

Memorandum in Opposition to Lilco 840413 Motion to Set Schedule for Partial Initial Decision on Group I Emergency Planning Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20084B929
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/23/1984
From:	Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20084B927	List: ML20084B925 ML20084B929
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8404260466
Download: ML20084B929 (26)

Text

, ..

DOCKETED USNRC ]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO IS g gg.38 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

)

• SUFFOLK COUNTY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LILCO MOTION TO SET SCHEDULE FOR PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON " GROUP I" EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES On April 13, 1983, LILCO filed a Motion to set Schedule for Partial Initial Decision on " Group I"' Emergency Planning Issues" (hereinafter, LILCO " Motion"). Suffolk County opposes the LILCO Motion.

-A. Introduction In its Motion LILCO requests the Board to set a schedule .

for the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to three of the emergency planning contentions

-- Contentions 23, 25, and 65 -- known as " Group I" issues be-cause they were the first three contentions to come to hearing.

LILCO suggests that' all parties should be required to file such 1

l findings on May 18, 1984, with reply findings due June 1, 1984, 8404260466 840423

• _ PDR ADOCK 05000322  :

G PDR )

L

in order to produce a Partial Initial Decision by July.

(Motion at 1-2). LILCO suggests that there are three " compel-ling" needs for such a schedule: (1) writing findings will be

" easier and more reliable" if the record is fresh in the par-ties' minds; (2) the size and complexity of the record " virtu-ally compels" breaking the finding process into parts; and, (3) findings related to the health and safety issues in this pro-ceeding were submitted in three phases. (Motion at 2).1/

The County has previously stated on the record several specific reasons why a Partial Initial Decision on only three emergency planning contentions would be inappropriate prior to completion of the hearing on all emergency planning issues, and impractical in any event if proposed findings were to be sub-mitted during the hearing process without. building into the hearing schedule additional time for that purpose. (See Tr.

703-704; 2199-2203). LILCO's Motion fails to address any of the problems previously identified by the County, and as the County will demonstrate below,-those problems substantially outweigh LILCO's arguments in favor of its proposal. In 1/-

~

For the reasons discussed in Section B.5 below, LILCO's characterization of the " precedent" in this proceeding.is incorrect.and misleading; in fact the " precedent", supports

.the' County's position on this matter.

. l z  ;

addition, LILCO provides no justification at all in its Motion for its suggested shortening of the time limits and change in the order of filing proposed findings which are set forth in 10 CFR $ 2.754 for the submission of proposed findings. Finally, LILCO fails to explain how or why its proposal could or should be implemented by the parties or the Board in light of the hearing schedule already set by this Board.

B. Discussion

1. Portions of the " Group II" Reco*rd are Essential to Proposed Findings and a Partial Initial Decision on " Group I" Contentions The contentions at issue concerning LILCO's pr.oposed emer-gency plan are interrelated and in many cases _ overlap. With very few exceptions, each contention involves factual premises, provisions or assumptions in LILCO's Plan, factual allegations, and legal issues, that are also discussed in other contentions.

Such interrelationships and overlapping issues are manifest on the face of the contentions themselves, and they include both the so-called " Group I" and " Group II" contentions. According-Ely, it would be impossible to brief the " Group I"1 issues with-out having the benefit of and making detailed reference to;the

" Group II" record.. Since the'" Group II" record is still being developed, no adequate brief could now be prepared. Some

examples set forth below document that the " Group II" record is essential to any brief or Partial Initial Decision on " Group I" issues.

a. The issues raised in " Group I" and Group II contentions are interrelated.

Contention 23 (Group I) alleges that people in the EPZ will evacuate even if advised to do nothing or to shelter.

Contention 15 (Group II) raises the related issue that people will not believe or follow protective action recommendations that come from LILCO. Clearly, the two issues are closely re-lated, and this Board cannot make a finding that protective actions under the LILCO Plan could or would be implemented, as required by 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(1) which is referenced in both Contentions 23 and 15, without consideration of the evidence as to both issues.

Similarly, contention 25 (Group I) alleges that role conflict will result in inadequate numbers of personnel being available to implement the LILCO Plan, including school and school bus personnel, ambulance drivers, and medical and paramedical personnel. Contention 24 (Group II) alleges that LILCO has failed to obtain agreements nece5sary to assure the availability of sufficient personnel to implement protective 4-O

actions, including evacuation, for school children or patients in hospitals or special facilities. Contention 70 (Group II) alleges that the LILCO Plan fails to indicate either how a school evacuation could or would be implemented, or that schools have performed " preplanning" for an implementable evac-uation; similarly, Contention 72 (Group II) alleges that the Plan fails to provide how an evacuation of special facility patients could be implemented. Once again, it is clear that all these issues are closely related. This Board cannot make a finding that the protective action of evacuation for school children and persons in special facilities could or would be implemented under the LILCO Plan, as required by 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1)-which is referenced in Contentions-25, 24, 70 and L 72, without considering the evidence on all these issues.

Finally, Contention 65 (Group I) alleges that LILCO's-evacuation time estimates for the regularopopulation are inac -

~

curate, unreliable,-and far too low for several reasons, including' inadequate consideration of mobilization, times (65.A and B), inability-of LILCO's traffic guides toLeontrol traffic ,

or reduce congestion (65.C), improper assumptions about. road blockages (65.D), and - failure to take into account special evacuation of schools = and health . facilities (65.E). Contention 69-(Group II), which is expressly referencedin" Contention.65,

-S-

i discusses the length of time necessary to complete an early dismissal of school children, a prerequisite to family mobili-i

zation for evacuation which is discussed in Contention 65.

Contention 15 (Group II) alleges that motorists will not follow instructions from LILCO's traffic guides, and Contentions 40, 99 and 100 (Group II) allege that LILCO's training program will not produce traffic guides who are capable of directing or con-trolling traffic. Contention 27 (Group II) alleges that LILCO-

-t will be unable to mobilize traffic guides, road crews and other necessary personnel in a timely manner. Contention 66 (Group i~ II) alleges that LILCO will be unable to remove obstacles from roadways or to provide fuel to prevent cars from' running'out of gas and blocking roadways,. and thus, congestion will resultfin

+

reduced roadway capacities and longer evacuation. times. Con-tentions'67, 71, 72, and 73 all allege that evacuation times for persons without vehicles, school children, handicapped persons'and-persons'in special facilities will be Ltoo long to -

provide adequate protection.- It cannot be disputed that.the-issues raised in.these " Group II" Contentions (69, 15, 40, 99, 100,-27, 66, : 67, 71, 72-and 73) are directly.related to the issues _ raised in Contention.65. Thus, this Board'cannot make a

~

finding on Contention:651without' consideration:of the' evidence on these other contentions which bear directly on: Contention-

~65.

i l

(-

Clearly, the three " Group I" contentions cannot be viewed in isolation from the remaining " Group II" contentions.

b. Testimony on " Group II" issues -

relates to " Group I" contentions.

The testimony filed by the parties in this proceeding further evidences the interrelated and overlapping nature of

, " Group I" and " Group II" issues. Several specific examples follow.

First, LILCO's testimony on Contention 23 (Group I) includes a lengthy discussion about LILCO's EBS messages, their credibility, and whether people will believe or follow them.

See Testimony of Matthew C. Cordaro et al., on Behalf of.the Long Island Lighting Company on Phase II Emergency Planning Contentions 23 (Shadow Phenomenon) and 65.C.2 and 65.F (Panicked Drivers) (hereinafter "LILCO Testimony on Contention 23") at 24-32, 44-45,.50-52. ame County's witnesses address those matters in their testimony'on Contention 15 (Group-II).

See, e.g., Testimony of Arthur H. Purcell.et al. Regarding Con-tentions 11 and 15, at 35-72.. Similarly, LILCO's testimony on Contention 23 (Group I) discusses the way emergency infor-mation, including LILCO's public information brochure,_may affect evacuation behavior. See LILCO Testimony on Contention

. - . - - - . - .- - . . - ~ _- .

l 1

= .

l l

'23 at 22-52, 63-66. The parties have not yet submitted testimony on Contention 16 (Group II); however, the issue that will be addressed in such testimony is whether LILCO's brochure is accurate and credible and thus whether it can be relied upon to elicit appropriate emergency responses from the public. Fi-T nally, in their testimony on Contention 23, the LILCO witnesses discuss the question whether people will tend to evacuate be-cause they see their neigh'b ors evacuating, and they assert that public education is the primary way to prevent inappropriate" 1 evacuation. See LILCO Testimony on Contention 23 at 121-124.

i The County's testimony on Contention 22.D (Group II) rebuts this LILCO testimony by explaining how the selection of emer-gency planning zone boundaries can affect " appropriate" and 1 2" inappropriate" responses to evacuation orders. See Direct Testimony of Philip B. Herr on Behalf of Suffolk County

< Regarding Emergency Planning _ Contention.22.D -- Inadequacy of LILCO's EPZ, at 5-8, 10-11.

In their testimony on contention 25 (Group I), the LILCO witnesses discuss various aspects of.the LILCO training pro-gram, and assert that because LILCO's proposed tra'ning i will-be effective, there will be qua'lified emergency workers available.

~

to implement the LILCO Plan. See Testimony of Matthew C.

Cordaro .<et al. on Behalf of. Long Island Lighting Company. on _

i 8-

~

9 T r- e

• V -* - t *F T*

'*I*-*'" -P' *Wr~f'- k f+ - 'P' M ~ -

• Phase II Emergency Planning Contention 25 (Role Conflict), at 18, 26-27, 32-38, 100-102. The County's witnesses address the LILCO training program in their testimony on the training Con-tentions 39, 40, 41, 44, 98, 99 and 100 (Group II). See Testi-mony of Deputy Inspector Peter F. Cosgrove et al. in Support of Emergency Planning Contentions 39, 40, 41, 44, 98, 99 and 100

-- Training of Offsite Emergency Response Workers.

In their testimony on Contention 65 (Group I), the County's witnesses discuss the fact that 'without coordination between and among LILCO's traffic guides, there will be con-flicting traffic flows and congestion, thereby further delaying evacuation times. See Amended Direct Testimony of Inspector Richard C. Roberts et al. on Behalf 'of Suffolk County Regarding

. Emergency Planning Contentions 65 and 23.H -- Evacuation Time Estimates and EPZ Access Control, at 42-44. . Die fact that LILCO's traffic guides will be unable to coordinate their , traf-fic control efforts, because they will be unable to ' communicate with each other, is addressed in the County's' testimony on Con- ,

tentions 28-32 and 34 (Group II). 'See Direct Testimony of Dep- ,

uty Inspector Kenneth J. .Regensburg et al. on Behalf of Suffolk'

~

County Regarding Emergency: Planning Contentions 28, 29, 30, 31, ,

- 32 andL34 -- Communications Among Emergency ~ Response Pesonnel, at.10-21,~23-36, 41-43. The issues addressed in the County's

^

k .u --_-.-___.-.-_L--___.___--___._--- --_ ----.-_--.-_-- -_-- --_--_ -_ - --. _ --__- -.- - - - .- _._ _ - ---__ - - -__ _ .--- --____._._ - - - - ____- - - __- -

. , l l

l i testimony on subpart C of Contention 65 -- that LILCO's traffic

, guides will be unable to control traffic and will add to rather 1

than reduce congestion; thus increasing evacuation times -- are further explained in the County's Testimony on Contention 27 1

j' (Group II) and Contentions 39, 40, 41, 44, 98, 99 and 100 j (Group II). This " Group II" testimony addresses the facts that (1) LILCO's traffic guides will not be timely mobilized at

their posts so they can co'ntrol traffic during an evacuation, l

.and (2) LILCO's traffic guides will be unable to control traf-fic because of inadequate training. The County's " Group II" testimony on Contentions 66, 69, 72 and 73 also discuss in de-tail the factors identified in the Contention 65 (Group I) tes-timony as impacting evacuation time estimates. Due LILCO witnesses also further address the factors impacting the accu-racy and reliability of-LILCO's evacuation time estimates discussed in their Contention 65'(Group I) testimony, in their

" Group II" testimony on Contentions 27, 67,.69, 66,'72 and 73.2_/

l 2/ See also, the following portions of the County's and l LILCO's " Group I" testimony, where the witnesses expressly j refer to related " Group II" testimony: LILCO Testimony'on i

, Contention 65, at 11-and 12; LILCO Testimony on Conten- l tions 23;-65.C.2, and 65.F, at 27; Suffolk County Testimo-ny (Erikson and Johnson) on Contention 25, at 30,31; Suffolk County Testimony (Harris) on Contention--25, at 4, 6, 7 and 10; Suffolk County Testimony-(Zeigler and' Johnson) - on Contention '23, at 36; Suffolk County. Testimony .

(Footnote cont'd next page).

_ .10 _

t_________ .

l The above discussion demonstrates that a Partial Initial Decision based, as suggested by LILCO, solely on the "

Group I" record could not properly or accurately reflect the actual evi-dentiary record in this proceeding. Instead, it would be based on a blatantly incomplete record. As just one example, in ruling on the credibility of LILCO's EBS messages and Whether the public would be likely to follow the advice in those mes-sages, Which LILCO asserts as an argument in support of its'po-sition on the " Group I" Contention 23, a partial Initial Deci-sion on Contention 23 would of necessity be completely one-sided. The decision could be based only on LILCO's testi-mony on that subject; the County's testimony, Which rebuts the opinions of LILCO's witnesses in their Contention 23 testimony, is contained in the " Group II" record (on Contention 15), Which has not yet come to hearing. Thus, the proposed . findings and the resulting' Board opinion suggested by LILCO would be devoid of half the relevant evidence on a major issue. raised in the litigation of the Contention 23 issue. .The same would be-true with respect to all the other examples cited'above.'

(Footnote cont'd from previous ~page)

'(Pigozzi) on Contentions 65 and 23.D, at 19 Suffolk County-Testimony (Herr)'on Contentions 65 and 23.D, at 9, 17; Suffolk County Testimony (Saegert)Lon Contention 6i5, at 9.

11 -

m.____-.m.__._____E_______m.___.___-___m_m_ -

u__'

i

)

The County submits that issuing a Partial Initial Decision based on such a clearly incomplete record would be improper and in violation of 10 CFR $ 2.760(c), which requires that such a decision "will be based on the Whole record . . . ." LILCO's proposal must be rejected because the contents of the emergency planning contentions and testimony require that the " Group II" record be considered in connection with the " Group I" issues.

2. There are no FEMA Findings in the " Group I" Record and Therefore no Partial Initial Decision is Possible on that Record Section 50.47(a)(2) provides in pertinent part as follows :

The NRC will base its finding on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and Whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be imple-mented. . . . In any NRC licensing pro-ceeding, a FEMA finding will constitute a rebuttable presumption on questions of ade-quacy and implementation capability.

The FEMA findings relating to Revision 3 of the LILCO Plan were not provided to the NRC until March-15, 1984. They are not yet in evidence in this proceeding, and, under LILCO's. proposal, could not be a basis for any proposed findings or the Partial Initial Decision on " Group I" issues.

i

Moreover, the FEMA testimony which is part of the " Group I" record is not related to the Shoreham plant or the LILCO

~

Plan; the FEMA witness expressly stated that he had not reviewed the LILCO Plan, that at the time of that testimony FEMA was only beginning its review of the LILCO Plan, and that the ultimate FEMA findings resulting from that review would supercede any prior Shoreham-related findings or opinions by FEMA. See Tr. 2087-88; 2161-64.

The FEMA findings relating to Revision 3 of the LILCO Plan will be submitted into evidence, presumably on May 29, 1984, as part of the FEMA testimony filed on April 19, 1984. The FEMA witnesses state that their April 19, 1984 testimony represents "the current FEMA evaluation" of the LILCO Plan, Revision 3.

The FEMA testimony which is in the " Group I" record does not contain such a statement. Clearly, the FEMA findings are not in the " Group I" record.

Because this Board's decision on the " Group I" contentions must be based on FEMA findings, any Partial-Initiai Decision based only on the " Group I" record, as suggested by LILCO, would violate 10 CFR $ 50.47(a)(2).

i l

3. The Proposed Findings Suggested by LILCO l Would be Useless '

This Board has already seen the result of the parties' ef-forts to prepare proposed findings based on a partial, rather than a complete record. On November 28, 1983, before the hear-1 ing commenced and therefore prior to any cross-examination, the ,

parties submitted proposed findings on the three " Group I" con-tentions based just on the written testimony of the parties on those three contentions, pursuant to the Board's Order'of October 26, 1983. The Board subsequently observed that the submissions were of little if any value. See Tr. 682-83; 2219-20.

LILCO's proposal for submission of yet another incomplete

~

set of proposed findings would result in documents Which, While more voluminous than the previous versions, would, of necessi-ty, be:of similar value. First, they would not be able to-present all the facts relevant to the issues raised in the

" Group I" contentions because, as just described, many of the issues in " Group II" contentions, and the testimony filed on the " Group II" issues'(not yet in-the record) are directly re-lated to the " Group I" contentions. Thus, any proposed find-ings limited to the " Group ~I" record would have to.be. amended and supplemented, perhaps several times, as the " Group II" record-comes into being.

, e ~m - - w, w- - - * -

Second, as noted above, the " Group I" record does not include any FEMA findings. Accordingly, any proposed findings based on the " Group I" record would have to be amended and sup-

.1 plemented not only to reflect the FEMA findings after they be-come part of the record, but also to reflect the evidence to be submitted by the other parties to the proceeding in order to rebut the FEMA findings Which, as stated in 10 CFR

$ 50.47(a)(2), are a rebuttable pr.esumption in this proceeding.

Third, the " Group I" contentions wer'e based on Revision 0 of the LILCO Plan. LILCO has since created'a' Revision 3, upon Which the " Group II" contentions and the County's and New York State's " Group II" testimony is based. And, in their " Group II" written testimony, as well as during cross examination, LILCO witnesses have discussed many Plan changes that,-While not contained in Revision-3, are " anticipated," " expected,"

" planned," or already exist someWhere other than in a revision of the Plan that has been submitted to the Board and ' parties.

In addition, the NRC has expressly requested LILCO_to re-

~

~

vise its Plan in response:to the FEMA findings.of March 15, 1984 (see letter dated March 20, 1984, from Thomis T. . Martin, Director NRC Region I Division of Engineering and Technical Programs,.to M.S. Pollock, former LILCO'Vice

\,.

o

4.

v President-Nuclear), and LILCO has asked to meet with FEMA for f the purpose of proposing various additional changes in its Plan j which are, apparently; intended to respond to the numerous I deficiencies in the Plan identifie'd by FEMA.

1

! The precise effect'of all these Plan revisions (including

- all those Which LILCO has stated it intends to make in tue fu-ture but has not'~yet identified for the County or the Board),

on-the " Group I" -issuet cannot be stated at this point. Clear -

'- ly, however, as LILCO continues to revise its Plan, the revi-sions will.be-discussed on the record of this proceeding. None of the revisions made' subsequent to January 1984 are in the

- " Group I" record; however, such revisions ~are certain to affect the' proposed findings to be submitted by the parties, and the Board's ultimate decision on the " Group I" issues, since those issues are' dependent-upon-specific provisions in the LILCO Plan, and'auch provisions have been in a: constant state of

- flux.

s7 There is:no indication'either that LILCO intends to stop.

i

= changing its Plan an'd the' '" plans" .or " expectations" ~ for' its Plan as long as this proceeding continues,1or that this Board

- .. .w-

-intends to require LILCO 3 to rely.in.its license application on-

. a particular defined version of a Plan; despite the County's s

% T 0

'16.-

A s

i

! ~

> w.

, a

repeated requests that the Plin being litigated in'this proceeding be identified and defined. Accordingly, until the record is closed (which the County presumes will be done when,

'he hearing is'completqd), any proposed findings based solely a the " Group I" record will have to be amended and supple-i mented as LI'JO's past and anticipated future Plan revisions become known, piecemeal, during the " Group II" liearing process.

The proposed findings and Partial Initial: Decision suggested by LILCO literally would be out of date be ore they were written.-

! 3 l Fourth, .LILCO fails either to suggest or to demonstrate any purpose that would be served by this Board's preparation of a Partial Initfal Decision on-three ebtergency planning conten-7 tions consi'dered in isol'ation,'when it will subsequently have to prepare a second Partial' Initial-Decision on the remaining

). .

65 admitted contentions which are inextricably intertwined with ,,

c.

the first three.. The first Partial Initial Dei:ision would not  ; -

result in an earlier issuance of a license to LILCO, or serve any other useful purpose that the County can imagine. Thus, ,3 c ~ ,y e p.3 ev g"

-the LILCO proposal would result;i,n 6 waste of' time and ~

. ' ./ s. f c .. /

resources without servin,g any usefhl.'purpcse d '

3 ,,1 y' i

-c

,  ; ]f Y #

+ h In sum, it would b$ wasteful and inefficient stoIgo through :y)

. . - ,c s j

.a process of.;preparingj with the Board. reviewing',,the proposed j/ - q y j

i

't ;i f ,., rf o~ -

. l / 'f r, f ' G

- ., a a i 5 y

,w a , , < .e , ,, b l s' ~

SI \

l l

-l i . ; ; f g

. i 3 1 ' ll l

} j  ; A, i' 1 l .f' , O 4 )

y ,

3 t[ t a -

d,/

p

,. 6 16 . .

4 N]j['

h. E) ,

g

2

~

findings suggested by LILCO because they would have to be substantially revised and supplemented beginning shortly after their submission, and probably continually throughout the

-remainder of this proceeding. Such an exercise would also serve no useful purpose. LILCO's Motion should therefore be denied.

4. It would be Impo,ssible to Implement LILCO's Proposal without a Change in the Schedule Already Set by this Board In its Motion, LILCO suggests that all parties should sub-mit proposed findings on May 18. That is 35 days after the date of LILCO's Motion, and 25 days after the date of this Mem-orandum. Under the Board's existing schedule, the parties will-actually be in hearings for 12 of those days, and the remainder

'.- will be used to prepare for those hearing sessions andLthe k%

J' three week session scheduled to begin.on May 29, 10' days after-LILCO's proposed filing /date. .LILCO also suggests that all parties should file reply. findings to the other parties' find-ings on June 1, 1984, 14Ldays later, and assumes the Board

/

9{

could issue-~a decision "by July." Under the Board's current-schedule, the Board and part,ies-will actually;be in hearings from May 29 through June 15, and presumably also in July, al-

'though no precise dates have been set.

b- .

E' it .

j;c

LILCO's proposal is absurd. The Group I issues involve 1,980 pages of prefiled testimony, and 3,205 pages of hearing transcript. The proposed findings on those issues will obvi-ously be lengthy (the preliminary findings already filed by the parties were very lengthy and they did not include any references to the contents of the hearing record). It will take a substantial amount of time to review the voluminous record, draft the findings, have them reviewed by witnesses, and finalize them. The process simply cannot be accomplished while the hearing is in progress and certainly not under the schedule LILCO proposes. The County's lawyers Who are inti-mately familiar with the emergency planning issues are all in-volved in the litigation of the " Group II" issues Which are now in hearing, and all were alsa involved.with the " Group I" issues Which LILCO suggestb snould be briefed while the hearing 11s going on. These people cannot do two things at once, and

! certainly not with the quality that this' extensive record _will demand.

l LILCO similarly fails to state any basis for its sugges- ,

tion that proposed findings in this case should or could be prepared and' submitted on a non-staggered and much shorter L

schedule than that set-forth in.10 CFR $ 2.754. 'naat section states that proposed findings should be filed by the Applicant y c.r. -

ir. en . .

s . . . .

c .

g o

I 30 days after the hearing is over and the record is closed, by other parties 40 days after the record is closed, and by the NRC Staff 50 days after the close of the record. Without ex-planation or justification, LILCO proposes to cut approximately in half (to 25 days) the time available for Intervenors and the Staff to submit findings, apparently believes everyone should submit findings at the same time despite the fact that LILCO has the burden of proof, and then suggests that during the 3

short time it arbitrarily alots to Intervenors and the Staff, those parties should also be participating in ongoing litiga-tion before the NRC. Again, LILCO's proposal defies reality and is supported by no bases.

If this. Board were to determine that it is possible to issue a Partial Initial Decision on three emergency planning contentions prior to completion of the hearings on the re-

! maining contentions on related issues, it would be necessary to stop the hearings and set'aside a block of at least'55 days for

. the preparation and submission of proposed findings by all parties pursuant.to 10 CFR S 2.754. Presumably, the break in the. hearings would have to be even larger, however, .in order to

~

allow time for the Board to' review the parties' submissions and the evidentiary record, and to prepare a decision.

5. LILCO Mischaracerizes the " Precedent" in this Proceeding LILCO's description of the findings schedule on health and safety issues in this proceeding (see Motion at 2, n.1), is misleading. What happened in that phase was the following.

hearings were held on all contentions from May 1982 through January 1983, and during four days in April 1983. The hearings on all health and safety contentions except Quality Assurance (QA) and Environmental Qualification (EQ). were held from May to September, 1982; QA hearings ran from approximately September through November, 1982; Operational QA and EQ issues were heard in January, 1983. Findings on issues other than QA and EQ were prepared during a break in the hearings from December 22 to January 10, 1983.3/ Findings on those-issues were filed by LILCO on January 17, by Suffolk County on January 31, 1983, by the Staff on February 11, 1983, and LILCO's reply findings were filed on February 22, 1983. The QA and EQ findings were prepared during March and April and submitted on March 28 (LILCO), April 7 (County),' April 18 (Staff), and April 25 (LILCO's reply). Operational QA was settled and was therefore not briefed. One non-QA issue that had been briefed in January 3/ From January 10.to January 25 hearings were held on-one specific QA issue and EQ, neither of_which were related to the findings filed in. January.

O was re-opened in March, 1983. That matter was heard during four days in April, 1983 (after the main OA findings were sub-mitted), and supplemental findings on that issue were submitted sequentially by the parties from May 2 through May 24, 1983. A Partial Initial Decision was issued, after all the findings had been submitted on all health and safety issues, on September 21, 1983.

This past history is significant for several reasons in addition to the fact that it does not support LILCO's argument that there is precedent in this proceeding for its suggestion that there be a Partial Initial Decision on only three of the emergency planning contentions. The health and' safety issues, like the emergency planning issues, involved a " mountain of.

transcripts" to use LILCO's-words, and complex litigation. In-deed, that litigation involved over a thousand pages of written testimony, 26 weeks of hearings, and 20,000 transcript pages.

Nonetheless, the findings were prepared and submitted at the end of the hearing process. The issues were not arbitrarily broken into bits and ' pieces for purposes of preparing findings in a piece-meal: fashion.. In addition, the normal time _ limits and' order of filing set forth in-10 CFR { 1.754 were adhered ~to in scheduling the filing of proposed and_ reply findings,~and a time during which there wereuno hearings or other proceedings

- - '22'-

O O

related to the findings then being prepared was set aside for the preparation of findings. Finally, one Partial Initial De-cision was issued on all the issues, after all proposed find-ings had been submitted. Thus, contrary to LILCO's suggestion, the " precedent" in this proceeding supports the submission of proposed findings on emergency planning issues, upon completion of the hearing on all those issues, followed by the issuance of one Partial Initial Decision on emergency planning issues based on a complete evidentiary record. .

C. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny LILCO's Motion.

Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 i

-,,1 N Herbett H. Brownf Lawrence Coe Lanpher- -

Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated: April 23, 1984

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safety And' Licensing Board

) -

In the Matter of )

)-

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

}- (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) ) ,

)

CERTIFICATE OF-SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County Response to LILCO's Motion to Set Deadline for Submission of New Contentions

Relating to MRAC Review and Suffolk County Memorandum in Opposition to' LILCO Motion to Set Schedule for Partial Initial Decision on

" Group I" Emergency Planning Issues have been served on the follow-ing by U.S. Mail, first class, except where noted, this 23rd day of April, 1984. ,

• 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 York l10016 Dr.' Jerry R. Kline- **W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton &-Willaims U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D. . C . 20555 707 East Main-Street

. Mr'.-Frederick J. Shon .

- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr.~ Jay Dunkleberger.

U.S. . Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State-Energy Office Washington, D.C. 20555 Agency' Building 2

. Empire State Plaza.

Edward M. Barrett, Esq. -

Albany, New York 12223 -

General Counsel '

Long Island Lighting _ Company

- 250 Old Country' Road Mineola, New York 1150l!

0 6 e

• +

9 D e - - - - - s - , - - - + ,,, ,r ~ r ,

Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power. Station P.O. Box 398 P.O. Box 618 33' West Second Street North Country Road. Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham opponents coalition 1717 H Street, N.W.

195 East Main Street' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. Peter F.'Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc. Suffolk County Execu$ive 400-1 Totten Pond Road H. Lee Dennison Building

. Veterans Memorial Highway Waltham, Massachusetts 02154

• Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.

1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Joel Blau, Esq. Martin Bradl-ey Ashare, Esq.

New York Public Service Commission Suffolk County Attorney The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller H. Lee Dennison Building Building Veterans Memorial Highway Empire State Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12223 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Wa s hing to,n , D.C. 20555-Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. ,

Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Staff Counsel, New York. State U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York :12223 Stuart Diamond ** Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Business / Financial Regional Counsel NEW YORK TIMES Federal Emergency Management 229~W. 43rd Street Agency New York, New York 10036 26. Federal Plaza New York, New Y,ork' 10278

.g

Spence Perry, Esq. James B. Dougherty, Esq..

Associate General Counsel 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

Federal Emergency Management Agen6y Washington, D.C. 20008 Washington, D.C. 20471 Fabian Palomino,.Esq. ,

Special Counsel to the Governor '

Executive Chamber Room 229 .

, State Capitol Albany, New York 12224

. /

s 1 YJ[W >

. Ka'rl F J. LetjH5+(e '

KIRKPATRIC M LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS L 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite'800 Washi'ngton, D.C. 20036 DATE: April 23, 1984

• By Hand

• • By Federal Express e e O

9

. . e G

6

. i .

-j