ML20086R856
| ML20086R856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1984 |
| From: | Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8403010237 | |
| Download: ML20086R856 (19) | |
Text
l 4
a 0-DOCKETED usnac UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
'84 FEB 29 $0:35 I
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.~,7-1
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MODIFIED CONTENTIONS 16 AND 18.
CONCERNING-THE LILCO PUBLIC EDUCATION BROCHURE Introduction In the Revised Emergency Planning Contentions, filed on July'26, 1983, Intervenors challenged the adequacy and effective-ness of[LILCO's-public education program.
(See Revised Emergency Planning' Contentions 16-21 (July 26, 1983) [ hereinafter " original contentions"]).
In particular, a number of the original conten-
'tions, subsequently admitted by the Board, were based on LILCO's public' education brochure then entitled " Emergency Procedures:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station: (Revised)" (hereinafter
" brochure").
Since the filing of the original contentions, how-e v e r,~ LILCO's brochure has undergone two' substantial revisions --
Revision 2 and Revision 3.
8403010237 840227 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR.
0
..s s
M On January 12, 1984, Intervenors filed proposed modified contentions reflecting' revisions'm&de ih the LILCO Plan subse-
- quent to Revision 0 upon which the oriqinal contentio.ns were
- based.- I(See generally, Intervenors' Proposed Emsrgency Planning Contentions-Modified To Reflect Revision 3 of The LILCO Plan (January 12, 1984) [ hereinafter " Modified Contentions").)
How-ever,.as noted'in the Introduction to the Modified Contentions, the' original contentions relating to LILCO's public education brochure (i.e., Contentions 16 and 18) were not modifisd at that
=
time because:
Revision 3 of the Information Brochure has not yet been provided to Intervenors.
We are informed by'LILCO counsel that Revision 3 of
-the Brochure'is expected to be made available in a matter.of days.
Those contentions
[ dealing with the brochure] will be modif.ied promptly after receipt of the revised Brochure.
Modified Contentions at 2.
Counsel forlthe County in fact received. Revision 3 of the brochure on February 14, 1984.
Revision 3 is substantially.
different from Revision 2 and even more different from the ver-
. sion on which:the July 26, 1983 original contentions were based.
Thus,.there is a clear need to update Intervenors' contentions to reflect Revision 3 of LILCO's brochure.
The County therefore I
submits-the attached proposed modified versions of Emergency Planning Contentions 16 and 18.b!
-1! :The County notes that in LILCO's objections to the Inter-venors' Modified Contentions, LILCO did not object to the
. County's proposal to await Revision 3 of the brochure before (footnote continued)
E i
e as 7 -,,
g p-3
-yc
---*--pye--me-my-c
-w,r-w,,-
yy~--
D
',- Discussion The reasons for filing,the attached modified contentions are
-the same as those which led td the parties' Joint Motion for Adjustment of Schedule and which were explained to the Board at the January 4, 1984 Conference of Counsel (Tr. 2209-2218), in the Memorandum Accompanying Proposed Modified Emergency Planning.
Contentions dated January 12, 1984, in the Suffolk County Response to LILCO and NRC Staff Objections to Intervenors' Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions Modified to Reflect Revision 3 of the LILCO Plan, dated January 30, 1984, and in the Suffolk County Objections to Memorandum and Order Ruling on Intervenors' Proposed Modified Emergency Planning Contentions, dated February 9, 1984.
Simply put, the attached modified public education contentions reflect-the latest version (Revision 3) of
-LILCO's emergency planning brochure, rather than the now outdated
.and withdrawn version upon which the original contentions were l(footnote continued from previous page) modifying Contention 16;-however, LILCO apparently took issue with the County's suggestion that Contention 18 be treated similarly.
LILCO asserted that Contention 18 "is not affected by
-the brochure."
(LILCO's Objections To Intervenors' " Proposed
' Emergency Planning Contentions Modified To Reflect Revision 3 Of
~
The LILCO Plan"). 'As noted in the Suffolk County Response to LILCO and NRC Staff ObjectionsEt'o Intervenors' Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions Modified to Reflect Revision 3 of the LILCO Plan,.at 29, LILCO is in error.
Contention 18 pertains, among other things, to LILCO's posters and telephone book inserts.
LILCO included ~ samples of its proposed posters and telephone book inserts in every revision of the public education brochure prior
-to Revision 3.
Revision 3 did not contain any sample telephone
~
book inserts or posters.
Therefore, the issues raised in Con-tention 18 are based on the sample telephone book inserts and
-posters found in Revision 2 of LILCO's brochure.
s l
based.
The modified public education contentions address the same issues presented in the original contentions and have simply been updat'ed to reflect language in the brochure which has
~
recently.been revised by LILCO.
Indeed, as a review'of the attached modified contentions will reveal, Revision 3 of the brochure resulted in the withdrawal of three subparts of Contention 16 (subparts A, D and H), no change in subpart E, and' substantial deletions resulting in the limitation of subpa,rt J.2/
However, four subparts have'been added to Contention 16 (16.K, 16.L, 16.M and 16.N) to address issues which arise out of new
'langunge in' Revision 3 pertaining to traffic routing and conges-tion, signs, and LERO, which did not exist in prior versions of the brochure.
It is the-County's position that the proposed' modified con-
~
tentions merely update existing contentions to address n( w current facts and therefore need not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
Section 2.714 for late-filed contentions.
Nevertheless,
'if.any of the proposed modifications are considered by the Board to be "new" contentions,5! they meet tne' requirements of Section
~
2.714 for the following reasons.
3! ubparts B, C,
F, G and-I, and a portion of subpart E of S
original contention 16 were not admitted by the Board.
E!'See-Memorandum And Order Ruling on Intervenors' Proposed Emer-gency. Planning Contentions Modified To Reflect Revision 3 of The LILCO Plan, dated February 3, 1984.
' k.,.
> 1.
There is good cause for the modified public education contentions to be filed at this time.
Under the three-part te'st_ articulated in Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Sthtion Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16'NRC 460, 469 (1982) and endorsed by the Commission in Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC11041, 1045, 1047 (1983), there is clearly good cause for filing the attached modified public education contentions at this time.
The first element of the Catawba test -- whether the conten-tions are " wholly dependent upon the content of a particular document" -- is plainly satisfied since the proposed modified contentions are based wholly upon the contents of LILCO's public education brochure.
Indeed, in every instance specific page references to the brochure are included in the contention or
.subpart.
-The second part of the Catawba test -- whether the late contentions.could have been advanced-with'any degree of specifi-city-(if at all) in advance of public availability of that
! document -- is also satisfied here.
Intervenors did submit con-
- tentions_on-the public education. brochure on July 26, 1983.
At that. time, Intervenors provided all the detail they could, based cx1 the information available to them.
The modifications. con-tained in the proposed modified contentions reflect revised languageLand additional issues which did not exist in the
,,,m
.,-.-e
t,
b 6-
~. _
brochure upon which the original contentions were based and therefore could not hav'c been foreseen'Vhen the original conten-tions were filed in July 1,983;.
Specifically,'the proposed modification to subpart,J of Contention 16 reflects the fact that Revision 3 of the brochure, unlike the July version upon which the original. contentions were based, now. includes zone and evacuation maps, identification of -
relocation centers, and schools and school districts.
It,also reflects the fact that whereas the criginal version of the brochure-identified WALK as one EBS participant (see cover page and pages 1 and 5) and indicated other participants as follows:
BABAYO' XOYZ(000.0)
AXUVRS RRTV(000.0)
TRRRTS-RVST(000.0) etc.
Revision 3 of the brochure lists no EBS participants at all (see cover page, and pages 1, 5,
6 and 7).
Proposed new subparts K, L and M of Contention 16 address three separate statements made on page 9 of Revision 3 of the brochure, in the section titled "Who Goes.Where?"
The original brochure did not contain any of'the statements quoted in subparts
. K, L or M.'
(See page 11 of that version).
Proposed new subpart N of Contention 16 addresses the numerous references to LERO contained in Revision 3 of the brochure.
It identifies and quotes eight specific statements referring to LERO in the new brochure.
The original version of
,f jsld!L t
s hl?i,A :.:;.,,.
3-
~;
y
_y_
e Lthe brochure' contained'only'one very oblique reference not to
~
- LERO, but to the. Local' Emergency' Response Organization; on page 4
'offthat version'is the folldwing statement:
~
. LILCO will' inform.all-government. agencies of'the Alert condition.
LILCO will also l
provide' press.briefingc.
The Shoreham Eplant staff will. activate the~on-site a?
Technical Support Center;(TSC).
The
- ca
- Local Emergency, Response Organization
. ill.open the. Emergency Operations w
w-Center. jThe team will begin off-site
_ activities.
Radiation monitoring teams
~-
- will.go'into the' community.. Dose lesti. nates'will be made by proper f.
]
. authorities.
~
ep Notother mention of LERO or the Local Emergency Response l Organization is in the orginial version of the Brochure.A/
3-
'Finallyi theJproposed modification'to Contention 18 -- i.e.,
,y ~
the: deletion of_the: word " posters" andLthe addition of the word n;-
f
" adequately" -- was necessitated by LIIf0's inclusion in Revision
- M m
12 of'its poster.andLRevirion.3 of1its EBS messages of information concerningizones and' prescribed routes which-was-not in the oridinal' versions of those items.
The final elementDof the Catawba test is whether the conten-
'tions'are?" tendered withithefrequisite degree of promptness once the document'comes'into existence'and'is. accessible forJpublic
. exam'nstion.".There can be'no doubt'that'in filing the proposed i
~
frl f'; modified (contentions less than two) weeks. af ter having received
. Revision '3 ;of LILCO'si brochure', the, County-has acted promptly.
~
/
a
$! n' deed,Tinfthat version, the public'w.s nstructed to send its I
' questions ~to LILCO ratherothan-to LERO as it is in Revision 3.
- e a_
u t
I 9
~,
2.
There are no other available means whereby the Intervenors' interests will be protected.
There is ru) basis for b'elieving that any means other than litigation of contentions in this proceeding'will adequately protect Intervenors' interests pertaining to the adequacy of LILCO's public information program.E!
The modified contentions identify inadequacies'in LILCO's public education program and brochure.
The issues in the proposed. modifications differ,,from those raised in the other public education contentions admitted by-the Board.
Thus, the modified contentions should be admitted so the Intervenors can pursue in a-full and fair manner their position that the LILCO public education program and brochure are 9-inadequate.
5/.This. argument is also relevant to the fourth factor under
'Section 2.714 (pertaining to whether another. party would repre-Esen; Intervenors' interests in the concerns specifically identi-fied in the proposed contentions).
4 L
9-3.
The County can be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
Suffolk County intends'to,suomit the testimony o,f expert witnesses in support of the proposed modified public education.
contentions.._Specifically, this testimony will explain why the referenced statements in LILCO's brochure are false or misleading and'why.they render the brochure not credible and in violation of referenced NRC regulations as alleged in the proposed modified contentions.
The testimony will also explain why LILCO's tele-phone book inserts and EBS messages do not adegaately inform EPZ residents of important facts as alleged in Contention 18.
The County will thus take an active role in developing a sound record on the proposed contentions.
To bar the County's proposed parti-cipation with respect to the issues raised in the proposed modi-fied contentions would, contrary to the intent of the NRC regula-Tions, result in an incomplete record which would be silent with respect to the crucial' issues raised in the proposed modified contentions.
Thus, to deny the admission of the proposed modi-fied' contentions would constitute an improper refusal to deal with important issues which are plainly raised by LILCO's bro-chure.
e 9
y
.-y.-
4.
Intervenors' interest in the proposed modified contentions will not be adequately represented by other parties.
Theonlycontentions'tohelitigatedinthisproceedingare those submitted by_Intervenors.
No other parties have submitted contentions or given any indication that they otherwise intend to bring the matters addressed in the attached mod'ified contentions.
to the attention of this Board.
Thus, there is no basis to believe that any other parties will adequately represent I'nter-venors' interests.
5..
AdmisGion of the proposed modified contentions would not delay the proceeding.
Admission of the proposed modified public education conten-
. tions would not delay the proceeding in any material way.
Public education contentions have already been admitted by this Board.
Thus, both the Board and the parties have been aware that Intervenors' public education concerns will be involved in the phase of' Group II litigation that will not begin until after March 21.
The proposed modifications wil'1 not delay that litigation.
Rather, they merely focus the attention of the Board and parties on the latest version of LILCO's brochure.
O h r%
. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Board should grant Suffolk County's Motion For Leave To File Modified Contentions Concerning the LILCO Public Education Brochure.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare
~
Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Jennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
- D W
^
Lawrence Coe Lanp g Karla J. Letschef Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036.
?
Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated:-
February 27, 1984 a
0 w
.,y,,
--e
ATTACHMENT.
Proposed Emergency Planni'ng' Contentions 16 and 18 Modified to. Reflect Fevision 3 of the Public Education Brochure Contention 16.
LILCO.has drafted a public education bro-chure entitled " Emergency Procedures: Shoreham Nuc ear Power Station."
The content of LILCO's public informdtion brochure is misleading ~ and ~ incomplete and thus this aspect of the public information program fails to comply with 10 CFR Section 50.47(b)(7), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.2, and
- NUREG 0654, Sections II.G.1 and 2.
In particular:
A.
Withdrawn.
The brochure erroneously states (at page 3) that all leaks of radioactive material vill be held in-side,the containment building.. Such a statement ignores the, fact that severe accidents can cause radioactive materials to be releasedlinto the environment.
B.
[Not admitted by ASLB]
The brochure erroneously states-(at page 4)-that all offsite workers will be in place to
' help the public' when,. in fact, LILCO cannot guarantee that this will be so.
(See Contentions 1, 2,
24, 25, 26, and 27.)
C..
[Not admitted by ASLB3 With, respect to the value
- of sheltering,. the brochure states (at page 6) that:
In most cases, nearby residents would be advised to remain indoors.
This providen safety because buildings block the outside radiation.
This statement is incomplete and misleading because it implies jthat sheltering vill orfer complete or adequate protection.
In O
r
- ',l..
fact, sheltering will reduce doses by only a fraction and thus will not provide adequate protection.
(See Contention 57).
-Indeed, according to LILCO, if one shelters in the typical Long Island home, one will still receive (on the average) 70 percent of the-dose one would receive if standing outside.' (See OPIP 3.6.1 at 21 ( footnote ) ).
Such a dose will result in severe health consequences in many accident scenarios.
Thus, the bro-
- chure.needs to be amended to make clear that sheltering will reduce exposure by only a small fraction and thus for many accidents, sheltering will not provide adequate protection.
D.
Withdrawn The brochure inaccurately implies (at
~
_ page 7) that a bus or automobile will provide effective protection.from radiological exposures.
In fact, a bus or au-tomobile provides almost no protection from radiological expo-sure..
E.
The LILCO brochure's discussion of radiation effects is limited to natural sources and very low levels of radiation.
It does not adequately address the magnitude of
- doses that the public;might receive during a severe accident, such as one requiring EPZ evacuation, nor the health-
/
threatening consequences related to such releases.
Such inade-
. quate disclosure of. essential facts renders the brochure in-credible.
[ Remainder of subpart E not admitted by ASLB]
a.
e
7:
n 4
Further, the brochure does not discuss adequately the health consequences of exposure to low-level radiation, particularly:
1.
The detrimental physiological effects of various levels of exposure;,
2.
The increased risk 5f cancer both to the'popula-
-tion as a whole and to individuals; and 3.
The possibility of genetic defects in future generations.
Such information is necessary so that the public will be aware
- of the seriousness of exposure to radiation and take all
. appropriate protective actions to avoid'such exposure.
F.
[Not admitted by ASLB]
The LILCO brochure does not, inform the public that LILCO itself, in ~ the form of LERO, will~be issuing all'information and protective action recommen-dations, as well as performing almost all emergency response
. tasks.
It is important-that tha public be aware of the source of all emergency information so that it may assess and evaluate the -information it is-receiving.
G.
[Not admitted by ASLB]
Although LILCO has in-formally advised.the County that the brochdre will be
' distributed to :all households within 20 miles of the plant, the
~
Plan does not reflect that information.
In any event, the bro-
'chure ' fails ' t'o inform those outside the EPZ that they may be.
O
exposed to levels of radiation in excers of EPA's Protective Action. Guides and that protective actions may be required
.ootside'the EPZ in some circumsta~nces.
In addition, the bro-i chure does not address the particular needds of persons on the
~
eastern end of Long Island who may seek to evacuate and'thus will need~ routing instructions and directions to appropriate relocation centers.- The. East End population should be informed
'of the danger of traveling toward the plant and, potentially, toward the plume in the event of a release from the plant.
Such information is essential ~ so that people outside the EPZ will be able to take appropriate protective actions if so required.
H.
Withdrawn.
The brochure (at page 5) states that the public will be notified long in advance of any actual danger. This is inaccurate and ignores the possibility that in the case of-a- fast-moving event- ( see NUREG 0654, Appendix 1, at 1-16 an'd 1-17) there may be little time between n'otification and actual danger.
I.
[Not admitted by ASLB].
The brochure does not inform the reader that in the event of an evacuation or after sheltering, he or she should report to a relocation center to be monitored and, if necessary, decontaminated. '
~
.w J.
The brochure is-missing-much-specifie-detaily particularly: does not describe What radio stations are partic-ipants in the EBS system ether-than-WALKt-detailed-mene-end evacuatien-mapet-and-identifi'eatien-ef-releeatsen-centarer
~
echsele-and-scheel-distriebe..
See FEMA Report at 6, citing non-compliance with NUREG-0654,Section II.G.2.
K.
The brochure states (at page 9) that "[y]ou will find it easy to get to your relocation center if you travel along the recommended route."
This is a mischaracterization of the facts.
The suggestion that evacuation will be " easy" makes LILCO's brochure inaccurate, misleading and not credible.
L.
The brochure states (at page 9) that the routes recommended to the evacuees will be the " safest and fastest way out of the emergency planning area."
This statement is inaccu-rate, misleading, and renders the brochure not credible.
Residents of the EPZ will know that-the routes prescribed by LILCO are not the " fastest" way out of the zone.
M.
The brochure states (at page 9) that evacuees should " Follow the blue and White pathfinder sigr s which are located on every major road in the 10-mile' emergency planning area.
They will direct you out of the area."
An almost iden-tical' statement is on page 8 of the Brochure.
These statements are false.
No such pathfind,er signs exist or have been.
O e
O
r J
0 installed.
Moreover, residents of the EPZ will r.now that such signs are not " located on every major road" in the EPZ.
The statements render the brochure not credible.
N.
The brochure mhkes numerous references to LERO
.or "the-Local Emergency Response Organization."
Thus, it states:
1.
"The Local Emergency Response Or-ganization (LERO) will activate the Emer-cency Operations Center (EOC) in Brentwood to assure adequate resources for public protection."
(page 5) 2.
" Local Emergency Response Organi-zation.(LERO) workers will be ready to do their jobs.
They will be - directed from the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Brentwood."
(page 5) 3.
"The Local Emergency Response Or-ganization-(LERO) will be ready to help the public."
(page 5) 4.
"If you are hearing impaired and' shculd r.eed special assistance in the event that the sirens are sounded it is important for you to register with the Local Emergen-cy Response Organization (LERO)."
(page 67 5.
' "If the sirens are sounded due to an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, a LERO worker will come to your home to notify you personally of the emer-gency condition."
(page 6) 6.
"To register with LERO, please complete the post card in the back of the brochure.
(page 6) 7.
"If the Local Emergency Response Organization Director recommends that peo-ple in your zone should leave home.
(page 17) 1
s n
~
8.
"Any questions 7 Please feel free L
to-write to:
Local-Emergency Response Or-ganization, P.O.
Box 624, Wading River, NY 11742."
(page_17)
The brochure thus states that the offsite response to a Shoreham' accident would be directed, and the public ad~quately e
.rotected,-by an organization with an official-sounding title,
- but Whose affiliation, source of authority, legitimacy, man powe r, training, or competence, is not identified or de-scribed anywhere in the brochure.
This aspect of the brochure is incomplete and misleading.
People in the EPZ will not know who or What LERO is, and without_ complete information on that subject the brochure is not credible.
Furthermore, in failing to identify LERO accurately as a LILCO surrogate unilaterally created and staffed by LILCO in an att empt to replace govern-mental authorities, the brochure suggests that LERO is a gov-ernmentally authorized body, which is false.
Contention 18.
The proposed LILCO pesherer telephone book inserts and EBS messages do not adequately tell the reader What zone'he is in nor do they describe the zones in Which protec-tive actions-must be taken or the prescribed routes to take from those zones.
(See FEMA Report at 5, citing non-compliance with NUREG 0654,Section II.E.7.)
Therefore, someone who does not;have access to a' brochure in the event of an emergency will be unable-to identify his or her zone or.to follow the.
'O.
%3, s
. prescribed evacuation route out of the zone of danger.
- Thus, these-items are not effective and do not comply with 10 CFR Sections 50.47(b)(5).and.50.47(b)(.7) and.NUREG'0654 Sections II.E.5,-E.6, E.7, G.1 and-G.2'.. Further, even if people know
~
the prescribed evacua' tion routes f6r the zone in which they
. live, the LILCO plan does not assure that if such people are visiting other zones (such'as to pick up their children at a school'which'is in another zone), they will be able to deter-mine quickly-and reliably the prescribed routes by which to
' evacuate from that zone.
Thus, the Plan fails to comply with
' 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a)(1)-and 50.47(b)(10), and NUREG 0654
- Sections II.J.9 and J.10, because protective actions cannot and will.not be implemented.
b i
4 i
8 8-y a
m.