ML20126L015
| ML20126L015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1985 |
| From: | Christman J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#385-017, CON-#385-17 OL-3, NUDOCS 8507310001 | |
| Download: ML20126L015 (11) | |
Text
6\\9 LILCO, July 26, 1985 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bod $dUJD w
53 hf[3g All:04 In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docke#-No.g(Emergedky,50-322-OL-3 Pi"aiining
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Proceeding.li/cy ~ k"O Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S REPLY FINDIhGS ON REOPENED CONTENTION 24.0 (NASSAU COLISEUM) 1.
The following is LILCO's reply to the "Suffolk County and State of New York Proposed Findings of Fact and Con-clusions of Law on Reopened Relocation Center Issues," dated July 15, 1985.1/
The Intervenors' findings are for the most part irrelevant to the issue to be decided, namely the func-tional adequacy of the Nassau Coliseum.
Despite the fact that various issues that the Intervenors want to raise have been ruled at least four times 2/ to be outside the scope of the
"/
LILCO refers to the Intervenors' proposed findings as 1
I.F." and to LILCO's proposed findings of July 10, 1985, as "L.F." For example, "I.F.
120" refers to paragraph 20 -of the Intervenors' findings.
2/
First in the Board's Memorandum and Order (Reopening of the Record) at 5-7 (May 6, 1985); again in the Memorandum and Order Ruling on Motion of Suffolk County and the State of New York for Reconsideration and Other Relief (June 10, 1985); a third time when the Intervenors tried to introduce the issues in cross-examining LILCO's witness (see, e.g.,
Tr. 15,930-32);
and a fourth time during cross-examination of the FEMA witness-es (see, e.g.,
Tr. 15,997-98).
8507310001 850726 hDR ADOCM 05000322 PDR
reopened issue, the Intervenors reargue them yet a fifth time
.in their proposed findings.
For example, the Intervenors, im-properly, argue the following issues:
1 the adequacy of congregate care centers (I.F. 11 17, 18) the distance of the Coliseum from the EPZ (I.F. 1 18) the number of evacuees expected to come to the Coliseum (I.F. 1 19 n.20, 1 25) contamination of groundwater (I.F.
f 1 22).
Hence several of the Intervenors' findings must be dismissed at 1
the outset as irrelevant.
l 2.
Equally irrelevant are the approximately one-third of the Intervenors' findings devoted to history and "back-ground" (I.F. 11 1-8).
They are also misleading.
In detailing LILCO's previous difficulties in securing a relocation center, the Intervenors insinuate that LILCO has been less than compe-tent.
See I.F.
1 5.
As the Board is aware, however, the main obstacle to LILCO's obtaining a suitable relocation center has been the opposition of the State and County.
See LILCO's Pro-posed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Offsite Emer-gency Planning, at 247-49 (Oct.
5, 1984).3/ The Intervenors' 3/
The Intervenors also fail to mention that the relocation centers first designated by LILCO were picked originally by Suffolk County planners, and two of them were endorsed by New York State.
See Testimony of Matthew C.
Cordaro for Phase II Emergency Planning Contention 74 (Location of Reloca-tion Centers), at 8-11 (Mar.
2, 1984) (later withdrawn).
own actions caused LILCO's previous plans to fall through; for the Intervenors to suggest now that LILCO itself is at fault is, to put it mildly, unreasonable.
3.
The fact that a particular point made in the in-tervenors' proposed findings is not specifically addressed here does not mean LILCO agrees with it.
Though LILCO has the ulti-mate burden of proof in this proceeding, it is not required to answer every assertion the Intervenors might raise.
When con-tentions are admitted in NRC proceedings, 10 C.F.R. $ 2.732 does not automatically operate to require an applicant to dis-prove those contentions.
Instead, the proponents of a conten-l tion bear the initial burden.
See Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Elec. Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076 (1983); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
NRDC, 435 U.S.
519, 549-55 (1978).
4.
The Intervenors ask the Board to find that the LILCO witness, Mrs. Elaine Robinson, was not qualified to pro-vide the opinions she offered in her testimony.
I.F.
1 14.
This unfounded claim is refuted in at least two ways.
- First, Contention 24 is about " lack of agreements."
Mrs. Robinson's unrebutted testimony was that, as a then-manager in the Local Emergency Response Implementing Organization ("LERIO"), she was "directly involved" in the negotiations between Nassau County, Hyatt Management, and LILCO.
Tr. 15,858, 15,859-61 (Robinson).
Hence, she was clearly an appropriate and qualified witness on the issue of whether LILCO has obtained permission to use the Coliseum as a relocation center.
Second, the Intervenors are unable to suggest any material information that Mrs. Robinson was not able to provide.
The fact is that she did an admirable job of answering their questions, as anyone present in the courtroom or reviewing the record can attest.
In fact, she displayed a detailed knowledge of how the Coliseum would func-tion as a reception center.
Also, Mrs. Robinson never presumed to make technical comments or assertions unless she was quali-I fied to make them herself or had been informed of their accura-cy by technical consultants.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 15,901-02, 15,906, 15,907 (Robinson).
5.
The Intervenors ask the Board to find that FEMA l
witnesses Baldwin, Keller, Kowieski, and McIntire also were un-1 l
l qualified to speak to the adequacy of the Coliseum.
I.F.
1 14, 15.
This claim, too, is unfounded.
A witness does not have to have studied the Coliseum in detail to see that it is a big building designed to handle large crowds of people.
That is all that is necessary for the extremely narrow issue here.
It is clear that the details of how the Coliseum will be used are unnecessary for this Board's decision in light of the Waterford decision 4/ and in any event will be observed in the 4/
Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Elec. Sta-tion, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076, 1107 (1983); see also MUREG-0654 at 29 (emergency plans should be kept "as concise as possible").
o.
graded exercise that must be held prior to full-power op-eration.
6.
The Board must also dismiss the Intervenors' sug-gestion that "LILCO has only itself to blame for (the] absence" at the hearing of Mr.
E.
B.
- Sumerlin, Jr.,
the General Manager of the Coliseum.
I.F.
1 14.
The Intervenors misapprehend the law regarding burden of proof.
LILCO produced a perfectly com-petent witness.
L.F.
V 8.
If the Intervenors wanted a differ-ent one, it was up to them to S.acure his presence at the hear-ing.
7.
The Intervenors would have the Board find that LILCO has not demonstrated that the Nassau Coliseum can legally be available to LILCO for use as a relocation center.
I.F.
1 16.
Such a finding would be contrary to the evidence.
As a basis for the finding the Intervenors cite nothing more than that approval has not been sought from the Nassau County Board of Supervisors.
I.F.
16 n.18.
If the Intervenors thought this made the agreement between LILCO and Hyatt Management il-legal, there were ways to demonstrate it -- by presenting a witness or by submitting a legal brief, neither of which the Intervenors did.
Moreover, the Board was correct in declining to become involved in local political disputes.
Finally, wa note that New York law provides that a county executive has broad powers in an emergency:
l-Upon the threat or occurrence of a di-
-saster, the chief executive of any po-litical subdivision is hereby authorized l
and empowered to and shall use any and all facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel and other resources of his po-litical subdivision in such manner as may be necessary or appropriate to cope with the disaster or any emergency re-sulting therefrom.
N.Y. Exec. Law 5 25.1 (McKinney 1982).
Even without an agree-ment, then, the County Executive's commitment to help would en-l sure the availability of the Coliseum.
8.
The emphasis the Intervenors place on the fact that the FEMA witnesses found insufficient detail in the LILCO
- plan, I.F.
1 16, is misplaced.
The information that FEMA needs for its review is more detailed than the Board needs for its f-purposes.
See Waterford, supra n.4.
As stated in the FEMA Af-fidavit, ff. Tr. 15,991, at 2, final approval of the Coliseum will be made only after an exercise is held, during which the facility's adequacy and function can be evaluated.
.It is at L
l this time that the various details of the LILCO plan will be put to the test.
For present purposes, the FEMA witnesses have said that the Coliseum " appears to be a suitable facility for use as a reception center."
FEMA Affidavit, ff. Tr. 15,991, at 2.
9.
The Intervenors' assertion that the LILCO witness could only " speculate about the consequences to the Nassau County water supply from any radioactive contaminants which l
. might enter the water supply from the decontamination activi-ties proposed to be carried out at the Coliseum,"
I.F.
1 22, is outside the scope of the reopened issue and, in any event, in-correct.
In fact, the witness relied on technical consultants and a member of the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group of the New York State Department of Health in concluding that any possible radioactive contaminants in wastewater flow from the Coliseum would be dealt with by " vast dilution."
Tr.
15,906 (Robinson).
FEMA agreed fully, relying on advice from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Tr. 16,010-11 (Keller).
10.
The Intervenors would have the Board find that LILCO has no provision for handling and disposing of the radio-active clothing that would be discarded by evacuees.
I.F.
1 23.
No such finding can be made.
First, it is outside the scope of the issue of the functional adequacy of the Coliseum.
Second, it is contrary to the evidence:
the LILCO witness clearly indicated that LILCO has a procedure for dealing with the low-level waste.
L.F.
1 20.
Third, the procedures for disposal of this type of low-level waste material are in the procedures for onsite preparedness, Tr. 15,908 (Robinson),
which are not at issue in this proceeding.
Fourth, such de-tails are minutiae such as the Waterford case tells us are not to be litigated.
.1
e 11.
The Intervenors' findings with respect to the issue of congregate care centers, see, e.g.,
I.F.
VV 17, 19, are irrelevant to this reopened proceeding.
Indeed, the Board ruled that the Intervenors' persistent questioning on this issue during the hearing was "out of order."
Tr. 16,029.
12.
The Intervenors' references to the number of evacuees expected to come to the Coliseum in the event of a Shoreham emergency, I.F.
V 25, are, like the congregate care issue, irrelevant to the reopened issue.
The potential number of evacuees has already been litigated.
Tr. 15,972 (Robinson).
13.
Thus, the Board should reject the proposed find-ings offered by Suffolk County and the State of New York in their entirety.
It is perfectly clear that the Nassau Coliseum is both available as and suitable for a reception center.
There is simply no evidence to the contrary, and nothing the Intervenors can say in their proposed findings can change that.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY I
&l Jh ) A vQ BY f
vv-es N. Chr'is man Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 DATED:
July 26, 1935
LILCO, July 26, 1985 i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S REPLY FINDINGS ON REIPENED CONTENTION 24.0 (NASSAU COLISEUM,- were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid:
Morton B. Margulies, 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 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ccmmission East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C.
20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Oreste Russ Pirfo, 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 Commission (to mailroom)
East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 1
I 3 o.
Donna Duer, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Attorney Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Board Panel Agency U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Commission New York, New York 10278 East-West Tower, North Tower 4350 East-West Highway Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Bethasda, MD 20814 Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.
P.O.
Box 398 Special Counsel to the Riverhead, New York 11901 Governor Executive Chamber Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Room 229 Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
State Capitol 9 East 40th Street Albany, New York 12224 New York, New York 10016 Mary Gundrum, Esq.
James Dougherty, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 3045 Porter Street 2 World Trade Center Washington, D.C.
20008 Room 4614 New: York, New York 10047 Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Depart.nent of Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Public Service, Staff Counsel Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Three Rockefeller Plaza Christopher McMurray, Esq.
Albany, New York 12223 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 8th Floor Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Associate General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20036 Federal Emergency Management Agency MHB Technical Associates 500 C Street, S.W.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Room 840 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 I
l
j l.
Gerald C.
Crotty, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Counsel to the Governor Suffolk County Attorney Executive Chamber H.
Lee Dennison Building State Capitol Veterans Memorial Highway Albany, New York 12224 Hauppauge, New York 11788
$4C VW James N. Chri man Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
July 26, 1985
-