ML20138A766
| ML20138A766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1985 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#485-730 OL-3, NUDOCS 8510110057 | |
| Download: ML20138A766 (37) | |
Text
73 9
- LILCO, October 7, 1985 fNAf,'IED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 65 CCT -9 A10:12 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing AppeglrBgard r
l'0CN(T?$jj%4it,y"RVic n
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,) Proceeding)
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S BRIEF ON THE RELOCATION CENTER ISSUES Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 (804)788-8200 8510110057 esloo7 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C PDR TSO3
=
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND................................ 2 j A. The Contentions.................................. 2 B. Relocation in Suffolk County..................... 5 i C. Relocation in Nassau County...................... 7 D. Identification of a Reception Center............ 10 II. ARGUMENT............................................ 13 i
A. The Licensing Board Decided an Issue That i Was Not Raised by Contention 24.0 or Any Other Admitted Contention....................... 14 l 1. The original contention (24.0) was
- about lack of agreements; the re-1 opened issue explicitly excluded the expected number of evacuees................. 14 ,
- 2. None of the other contentions raised the
" number needing monitoring" issue........... 16
- 3. An issue almost the same as the Board decided was ruled inadmissible.............. 19
- 4. The Board's timing gave LILCO no opportunity to present evidence............. 21 B. The Licensing Board Misinterpreted NRC Requirements.................................... 23
, 1. The regulations and guidelines contain, on their face, no requirement such as the Board has imposed........................... 23
- 2. There is no precedent for the Board's in-l terpretation of NRC Requirements............ 25
- 3. The requirement imposed by the Board is impossible.................................. 26
, 4. LILCO's planning basis is adequate even taking into account the Board's rationale... 28 Y
o
- -ii-
- 5. The Board's finding of inadequate detail is improper under the Waterford decision. . . . 29 III. CONCLUSION..........,,,,,,,,, ................. 39 i
t 1
l
o TABLE OF AUTHORITIES NRC CASES Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-84-29B, 20 NRC 389 (1984)....... 18-19 i
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-48, 15 NRC 1549, 1589 1 d (1982), aff'd with modifications, ALAB-727, 17 NRC 760 (1983).................................................. 26 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-770, 19 NRC 1163 (1984).................. 21
- Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2),
LBP-84-37, 20 NRC 933, 956 (1984), aff'd, ALAB-813, 22 NRC 59 (1985)............................................... 26 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 22 NRC (slip op. Aug. 26, 1985).............. 1,13 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, l Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644 (1985)........... 15,16,17,20,27 j Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Elec. Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076 (1983)....................... 29 OTHER 1
10 C.F.R. $ 2.760(a)........................................ 22 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a)(2)..................................... 13 ,
10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(10).................................... 23 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E................................ 23 NUREG-0396.................................................. 18 NUREG-0654.......................................... 5,18,23,24 I
n m -.- . --- - _ , _ , -- - :-_ g.
- t 5
LILCO, October 7, 1985 t
- I WNEED r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA03 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OI 99 a
Of((0. s 2 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing App'dal' Board
! ~ . ys .e p
! In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning i
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,) Proceeding)
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S BRIEF ON THE RELOCATION CENTER ISSUES I
1 This brief supports LILCO's September 5, 1985 notice of appeal of the Licensing Board's August 26, 1985 Concluding Par -
] tial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning, Long Island I Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 22 NRC (slip op. Aug. 26, 1985). LILCO objects-to that pc.rtion of the decision requiring LILCO to estimate the number of people
- likely to arrive at the reception center for monitoring only.
i j As detailed below, the Board's decision should be reversed be- !
l cause (1) the Board imposed a requirement that is outside NRC regulations and guidelines and (2) that issue is outside the scope of issues admitted for litigation in this proceeding.
i i
l I
- I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The history of relocation centers in this proceeding is complicated; an understanding of it is helpful in determining the correctness of the Licensing Board's decision on monitoring and decontamination under the LILCO Plan.
A. The Contentions The original contentions admitted in the Shoreham pro-ceeding relating to relocation centers for the public are Con-
- tentions 24.0, 24.P, 74, 75, and 77. They provide as follows:
Contention 24.0 The Plan designates Suffolk County Community College as the relocation center to be used by evacuees from eight of the 19 zones in the EPZ -
(zones A-E, H-J). LILCO estimates the population of these zones to be 18,599 (26,574 in the summer). (See Plan, Ap-pendix A, at IV-75 to 1621 Suffolk County Community College is an entity of the Suffolk County government. LILCO has no agreement with suffolk County to use Suffolk County Community College as a re-4 location center. Furthermore, pursuant
! to Suffolk County Resolution No. 456-1982 and Resolution No. 111-1983, the Suffolk County Community College will not be i available for use in implementing the
- LILCO Plan. Therefore, there is no relo-f cation center designated for a signifi-
- cant portion of the anticipated evacuees.
Thus, the proposed evacuation of zones A-E, cannot and will not be implemented.
Contention 24.P LILCO relies upon the ARC to provide services, including medical and counselling services, at re-location centers. (Plan 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 3.6-7 and at 4.2-1). However, LILCO has no agreement with the ARC to provide such services in the manner or volume, or ac-cording to the procedures, assumed in the LILCO Plan. In the absence of such
- . . - - -- --- -- , - . _ , , . _ = - . .
-- ~ ~ - . . .-
i
- agreements, LILCO's proposed protective action of evacuation cannot and will not be implemented.
Contention 74. Two of the three pri-mary relocation centers designated by LILCO are well within 20 miles from the Shoreham site. Both Suffolk County Ccm-munity College and the State University
~
of New York at Stony Brook are only three miles beyond the EPZ. In addition, many evacuees who need relocation services will not use the relocation centers pro-posed by LILCO because they will perceive those centers as being too close to the plant (e.g., only 13 miles). According-ly, LILCO's relocation centers will not provide the necessary services to evacuees and accordingly, the LILCO Plan does not comply with NUREG-0654,Section II.J.10.h.
Contention 75. The LILCO Plan pro- '
vides no estimates of the number of evacuees who may require shelter in a re-location center, and the Plan fails to demonstrate that each such facility has adequate space, toilet and shower facili-ties, food and food preparation areas, drinking water, sleeping accommodations and other necessary facilities. Accord-ingly, there is no assurance that the re-I location centers designated by LILCO will be sufficient in capacity to provide nec-essary services for the number of evacuees that will require them. Thus, LILCO fails to comply with NUREG-0654, 4 Sections II.J.10.g and J.12.
Contention 77. The equipment used by LILCO to measure thyroid contamination at relocation centers -- RM 14 with HP270 probe -- (see 3.9.2) will be incapable of differentiating the required signal from background readings. The instruments' most sensitive scale (0-500 cpm) is in-sufficiently sensitive for the accurate measurement of 150 cpm or 0.13 mR/hr (the threshold for requiring hospital care) in the presence of background readings which are likely to be elevated above the 50 l
l
. l l
i cpm maximum (10-15 cpm nominal) assumed by LILCO. (OPIP 3.9.2 and Plan, at 3.9-4). In addition, the Plan provides 4 no information or instruction on how to make a measurement if the background reading exceeds 50 cpm. Accordingly, the LILCO plan fails to con.?ly with NUREG-0654 Section II.J.12.
In addition, the Intervenor s submitted Contentions 16.I, 23.F, and 76 regarding monitoring and decontamination of the public at relocation centers. Thase contentions provide as 1
follows:
Contention 16.I. 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 cen-ter to be monitored, and, if necessary, decontaminated. .
Contention 23.F. The LILCO Plan pro-vides no estimates of the number of evacuees who may require shelter in a re-location center, but the Plan fails to l take into account the large number of voluntary evacuees who will increase sub-stantially the demand for relocation ser-vices. Accordingly, there is no assur-ance that the relocation centers designated by LILCO will be able to ac-commodate or provide necessary services and facilities for the number of persons likely to require monitoring, decontamination, sheltering, food and other such services. (See also Conten-
- tion 75). Thus, LILCO fails to comply with NUREG 0654, Sections II.J.10.g and J.12, and there is no assurance that the protective action of evacuation can or will be implemented, in violation of 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(lO) and NUREG 0654 Sections II.J.9 and J.lO.
! Contention 76. LILCO's Plan limits j the facilities for radiological moni-
+
toring and decontamination of the evacu-l ated public to only the five relocation l
l l
^
t - l centers designated in the Plan. (See Plan, at 3.6-7, 4.2-2 to 4.2-4). The Plan provides for monitoring and decontamination only of those evacuees who stop at the relocation centers.
Thus, there is no provision for moni-toring or decontamination of evacuees and vehicles who leave the EPZ but choose not to go to relocation centers. However, based on the TMI experience, it appears likely that many evacuees will bypass the centers in favor of a destination more distant from the radiation hazard. In order to provide adequate protection to the public as required by 10 CFR Section 50.47(a)(1) and 50.47(b)(10), LILCO must provide a means for monitoring and decontaminating all evacuees.
The Licensing Board did not admit these three conten-tions (see Board Order dated August 19, 1983), after objections
~
by LILCO and the NRC Staff that these contentions are outside the scope of the monitoring requirements and guidelines set out in NUREG-0654. See NRC's Staff Response to Revised Emergency Planning Contentions dated August 2, 1983, and LILCO's Objec-i tions to Intervenors' " Revised Emergency Planning Contentions" dated. August 2, 1983.
B. Relocation in Suffolk County j LILCO and Suffolk County each filed direct written tes-t timony on Contentions 24.0, 24.P, 74, 75, and 77 on March 2, t
- 1984; those contentions related to Revisions O through 3 of the i
LILCO Plan, which relied upon five named relocation centers in Suffolk County, three of which are state and county buildings.
l The American Red Cross, Suffolk County Chapter, was to provide services at the relocation centers. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr.
i E
- i l
-- - , . - . .x - .
1
- I 14,707, at 13-14. At the time (in contrast to the present ,
Plan), evacuees were to be both monitored for radiation and housed in each of the designated facilities. LILCO estimated that space should be available for 32,000 people; that planning basis, and the rationale for it, have not changed.
The issues were scheduled for hearings, and the origi-nal LILCO testimony on Contentions 24.0 and 24.P was heard, see Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 1654, Vol. 2 at 23-27, Tr. 6358-64, 6368-71 (Robinson). Shortly before the remaining issues were j heard, however, the Red Cross informed LILCO that SUNY Stony Brook and Suffolk County Community College, previously relied I
upon by LILCO, had to be changed, because state and county of- .
4 ficials refused to make the facilities available to the Red a
Cross for use in emergency planning for Shoreham. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 13-14. By agreement of the parties, the relocation center issues were taken out of the sequence of issues to be heard, see Tr. 9573-74; after the parties were un-i able to agree on a schedule for filing additional testimony, 1
I the Board ordered on June 8, 1984 that LILCO file supplemental testimony on June 15, and the County on June 26.
In its supplemental testimony on June 15, LILCO an-nounced changes to the Plan that included reliance on the BOCES Occupational Center, SUNY Farmingdale, St. Joseph's College in Patchogue, and Dowling College as relocation centers. The June 26 revised testimony filed by the County consisted primarily of
two letters, one from the District Superintendent of BOCES II and one from the President of SUNY Farmingdale, both New York State institutions, disavowing any intention to allow their fa-cilities to be used as relocation centers in offsite emergency planning for Shoreham, see Harris & Mayer, ff. Tr. 14,870 at 2, Att. 23.1/
C. Relocation in Nassau County Due to this new round of refusals by state and county officials to make public buildings available, the Board allowed LILCO to withdraw its previously filed testimony on Contentions 24.0, 74, and 75, including the supplemental testimony filed on those issues on June 15, and to replace it with the testimony .
that eventually was heard in the proceeding in 1984. See Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707. The new testimony abandoned the former concept of specific fixed relocation centers in Suffolk County; the entire relocation center operation was moved to Nassau County, due to the continued political problems 1
in obtaining large (usually public) buildings for use as relo-cation centers in Suffolk County. See Tr. 14,760-63, 14,783-85 (Robinson).
1/ LILCO and the Red Cross had not seen either letter prior to their testimony being filed. Tr. 14,789-90, 14,839-40 (Rob-inson, Rasbury).
l l
i
. In its revised approach, LILCO committed to designate l
s in Nassau County one central location called a " reception cen-j ter" to which all evacuees needing shelter will be directed by public information materials. LILCO will perform monitoring and, if necessary, decontamination at the reception center; pursuant to written agreements with LILCO, the American Red Cross will then send evacuees needing public shelter to " con-i i
gregate care centers" in the Nassau County area, from a list of centers (typically churches and schools) with which the Red Cross has agreements to provide shelter during emergencies.
Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 15-16, Att. 1 at 1-3; Tr.
i
, 14,805 (Rasbury); see Tr. 14,761-63, 14,779 (Rasbury). Congre-l j gate care centers are to be operated by the Red Cross following
] their usual procedures that have been implemented many times in emergency situations. Tr. 14,747 (Rasbury). No monitoring or i
- decontamination will be done at the congregate care centers; j those activities will take place at the central reception cen-i ter only. Tr. 14,807-08 (Weismantle). They will be done en- -
i tirely by LERO, not the Red Cross.
[
During the first set of hearings on the relocation cen-
- ter issues in 1984, the following subjects were discussed in
- direct testimony and on cross-examination 6f LILCO, Suffolk l County, and FEMA witnesses
- sheltering people 40-50 miles from I
their homes, see Tr. 14,816-17; monitoring and decontamination,
, see Tr. 14,825-30, 14,854 (Weismantle), Tr. 14,878-82, 14,888 i
.._. - . - - - - - _ - - __ ~. - - . . -- - .
. 4 (Harris); see also LILCO Plan OPIP 3.9.2; the location of Red Cross relocation centers and the manner in which they are run, see LILCO's Testimony on Phase II Emergency Planning Conten-tions 24.0, 74 and 75 (Relocation Centers), ff. Tr. 14,707; Tr.
14,747, 14,801 (Rasbury); written agreements for relocation centers, see Tr. 14,818-20 (Rasbury, Robinson); the basis of relocation center capacity used in planning, see Tr. 14,744-46 (Rasbury), Tr. 14,886-87 (Harris); the adequacy of the reloca-tion center facilities, see Tr. 14,775-78 (Rasbury); and the distance of relocation and reception centers from the EPZ, ree i Tr. 14,616-18, 14,620 (Keller), 14,625 (McIntire).
During cross-examination, Suffolk County attempted to ,
i obtain the names of the facilities with which LILCO and the Red Cross were negotiating for use as a reception center for the j Plan; the Board declined to instruct LILCO witnesses to name facilities under negotiation, but noted during the hearings that the failure to identify a central reception center was a
" void in the record." Tr. 14,806-07 (Judge Laurenson). The record closed on August 29, 1984. Tr. 15,714. The parties filed findings on Contentions 24.0, 24.P, 74, 75, and 77, along l
with the other emergency planning findiags, on November 14, 1984.
l l
. -.__J_,,_ - _ . . , . _ . _ _ - _ - - . _ _ - . - .
D. Identification of a Reception Center On October 8, 1984, Hyatt Management Corporation of New York, Inc., the lessee of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Colise-um, signed a letter of agreement for use of the Coliseum as a reception center (Robinson Affidavit, ff. Tr. 15,870, Att. 2), J and on October 24, 1984, a letter of agreement between LILCO and the American Red Cross for use of the Coliseum was fi-nalized (Robinson Affidavit, ff. Tr. 15,870, Att. 3). On October 30, 1984, LILCO forwarded those agreements, as well as the October 1, 1984, letter from the Nassau County Executive authori=ing use of the Coliseum as a reception center, to the Board and parties. LILCO noted in its cover letter that it be- .
lieved these agreements merely confirmed the fulfillment of commitments already reflected in the record, and therefore it was not necessary to formally reopen the record in order to re-ceive confirmatory information. Suffolk County wrote the Board on November 7, 1984, disagreeing that the identification of the Coliseum was merely confirmatory.
At a conference of counsel on January 4, 1985, LILCO reiterated its argument that the identification of the Coliseum was merely confirmatory and did not require a reopening of the record. Tr. 15,729 (Irwin). The NRC Staff agreed. Tr. 15,734 (Bordenick). Suffolk County and the State of New York dis-agreed. Tr. 15,737 (Lesche), 15,738-39 (Zahnleuter). The Board rejected LILCO's and the NRC Staff's position. Tr.
l 1
. . . - - . . . - . - -. n _. - . - - - -
1 l -
. l, 15,739-40 (Judge Laurenson). Accordingly, LILCO submitted a motion to reopen the record on January 11, 1985.
The Board ruled in an order dated January 28, 1985 that
, it would " reopen the record for the limited purpose of as-i' sessing the adequacy of.LILCO's proffered evidence concerning
- the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a relocation center to be used in the event of an emergency at Shoreham." In an order j dated May 6, 1965, the Board reiterated that it had
, granted 'LILCO's Motion to Reopen the Record 1
on Contention 24.0.' The reopening-is limit-ed in scope to that Contention. It does not extend to the other contentions in the pro-ceeding which bear on the topic of reloca-
., tion. The record is closed on those conten-l tions ..nd they have been briefed in the parties' proposed findings of fact and con- '
i clusions of law.
1
] The Board further held in its May 6 order that an oral hearing i
! was needed to resolve the contested issue on Contention 24.0,
, as to whether the designated relocation cen-
! ter at the Coliseum is itself functionally 3
adequate to serve as a relocation center for
! the anticipated general evacuees. The number of general evacuees that can be expected to use the relocation center has already been
- litigated and that subject will not-be reheard. The Board will only consider evi-
- dence that goes primarily and directly to the j question of whether the Coliseum is adequate i
for use as a relocation center. Collateral matters will not be heard.
i The Board further denied admission of testimony prof-fered by Suffolk County and the State of New York on the fol-
! lowing issues: adequacy of the shelters procured by the Red i
- Cross for the public, " shadow phenomenon," number of evacuees
I
. , expected at the Coliseum, traffic congestion on routes to the Coliseum, legality under state law of decontamination and moni-toring activities to take place at the Coliseum, and possible groundwater pollution resulting from decontamination activities l to be performed at the Coliseum. Board Order of May 6, 1985.
j The Board also denied a subsequent request by Suffolk County and New York State for reconsideration of the Board's ruling
{
or, alternatively, for reopening of the record on Contentions i 24.N, 74, and 75 to admit this testimony. See Suffolk Cour.ty and State of New York Motion for Reconsideration of May 6, ASLB l
i Order or, in the Alternative, Motion to Reopen the Record on LILCO's Relocation Center Scheme, dated May 17, 1985; LILCO's ,
Response in Opposition to Suffolk County and State of New York's Motion for Reconsideration or Reopening on Relocation Center Issues, dated May 30, 1985; Board Order dated June 10, '
! 1985.
A hearing on the issue of the adequacy of the Coliseum as a reception center was held on June 25-26, 1985, in i .
l Hauppauge, New York. LILCO and FEMA presented testimony, while i
- the State of New York and Suffolk County attempted to make
- their case by cross-examination alone. LILCO's written testi-1 l mony consisted of an affidavit of Elaine D. Robinson on Nassau t
l Coliseum with six attachments; FEMA's written testimony con-a sisted of an affidavit of Thomas E. Baldwin, Joseph H. Keller,
! Roger B. Kowieski, and Philip H. MacIntire. The FEMA witnesses l
i
,..,.. _ _ ..__ _ .-.~..--,-., , . _ . , . . ,
. t 1
concluded that the Coliseum " appears to be a suitable facility
Tc. 15,991, at 2. FEMA findings constitute a " rebuttable pre--
sumption" on the questions of adequacy and implementation ca-pacity. 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(2) (1985). No direct evidence was presented by the intervenors to show that the Coliseum is inad-equate, and they elicited no evidence on cross-examination to that effect.
On August 26, 1985, the Board issued its Concluding Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning (cited hereinaf-ter as " slip op."). LILCO thereafter took this appeal from the particular feature of the Board's decision described below.
II. ARGUMENT 1 The essence cf the Board finding with which LILCO dis-agrees is on pages 9-10 of the slip opinion:
4 The maximum population of the EPZ is i 160,000, thus LILCO's planning is based on a maximum of 32,000 seeking shelter.
LILCO did not justify how this number could be related to the number of persons who might seek monitoring. The Board finds that the number of persons expected to seek shelter in the event of a disas-ter is not necessarily the same as the number of persons who might seek moni-toring in the event of a radiological ac-j cident.
See also slip op. at 32-33. Thus the Board is objecting to :
LILCO's planning basis. Instead of determining the needed ca-pacity of relocation centers by the number of people expected
. ; to need shelter, the Board would require that, in addition, LILCO estimate the number of people likely to show up for moni-l toring only.
l The Board is in error for two reasons. First, the I issue that the Board decided is not one of the issues that were admitted for litigation in this proceeding. Second, the Board has imposed a requirenent that is not found in NRC regulations or even guidelines.
A. The Licensing Board Decided an Issue That Was Not Raised By Contention 24.0 Or Any Other Admitted Contention
- The first reason the Licensing Board should be reversed
- is that the issue of accommodating evacuees who might seek mon- . ,
4 itoring but not housing is not raised by any of the admitted contentions. There was therefore no notice to LILCO of what -
was at issue and no real opportunity to present evidence on the issue.
- l. The original contention (24.0) was about lack of agreements; the re-
! opened issue explicitly excluded the
! expected number of evacuees 1
The Board indicated that this issue arises under Con-
! tention 24.0, but that is incorrect. Contention 24.0 was part l
l of Contention 24, which is that LILCO has " failed to obtain I agreements" with various organizations. Subpart 24.0 alleges i that, due to the unavailability of Suffolk County Community College, "there is no relocation center designated for a sig-nificant portion of the anticipated evacuees":
I _ __. _ . _ , _ . . - - . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ .
Contention 24.0. The Plan designates Suffolk County Community College as the relocation center to be used by evacuees from.eight of the 19 zones in the EPZ (zones A-E, H-J). LILCO estimates the population of these zones to be 18,599 (26,574 in the summer). (See Plan, Ap-pendix A at IV-75 to IV-162). Suffolk County Community College is an entity of the Suffolk County government. LILCO has
! no agreement with Suffolk County to use Suffolk County Community College as a re-location center. Furthermore, pursuant to Suffolk County Resolution No. 456-1982 and Resolution No. 111-1983, the Suffolk County Community College will not be available for use in implementing the LILCO Plan. Therefore, there is no relo-cation center designated for a signifi-cant portion of the anticipated evacuees.
Thus, the proposed evacuation of zones A-E and H-J cannot and will not be imple-mented.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit
- 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 979 (Appendix C) (1985). -After LILCO named Nassau Coliseum as its proposed reception center, the record was reopened on the narrow issue of whether that fa-cility is " functionally adequate to accommodate the general
- evacuees that can be anticipated resulting from a radiological i
emergency at Shoreham." Tr. 15,843-44 (Judge Margulies); Memo-randum and Order (Reopening Of The Record), May 6, 1985, at 3.
The reopened issue expressly did not include the planning basis of 32,000 people.2/ Memorandum and Order (Reopening Of The 2/ Furthermore, Contention 24.0 concerns only " anticipated evacuees." " Anticipated evacuees" cannot reasonably be inter-preted to mean all persons of the general public who might de-cide to show up at the Coliseum to be monitored. The people
" anticipated" to show up are those who need shelter. See Tr.
14,827 (Weismantle).
- i i
, Record), May 6, 1985, at 5-6. Hence, at no time, either before or after Contention 24.0 was reopened, did it include the issue of dealing with people who needed to be monitored but not shel-tered.
- 2. None of the other contentions raised the " number needing monitoring" issue l Nor did any of the other relocation center contentions (24.P, 74, 75, or 77) raise the issue. Contention 24.P (21 NRC at 979) addresses only the services of the American Red Cross, which services do not include monitoring or decontamination.
Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 15-16; Tr. 14,854 (Rasbury).
Contention 74 (21 NRC at 1021) says that three (former) reloca-tion centers are too close to the EPZ. Contention 75 (21 NRC at 1021) explicitly addresses the number of evacuees who might need " shelter" and includes a list of living requirements such as toilets and showers,3/ food preparation areas, and sleeping accommodations. As the Board said, "[t]he Board understands this contention [75] to challenge the adequacy of congregate care centers that have been designated by the Red Cross, and not of the Coliseum, which we addressed under Contention 24.0."
Slip op. at 15. The Intervenors did submit contentions about c
monitoring and decontamination, but the only one admitted was Contention 77 (21 NRC at 1021), which raises a very narrow 3/ To be sure, showers are used for decontamination, too.
But in context, the mention of showers in Contention 75 refers to their conventional use, for persons seeking shelter.
O I
. issue about the sensitivity of a particular monitoring instru-ment.4/ In short, it is apparent from a reading of the conten-I tions that none of them claims that relocation centers are in-adequate to monitor sufficient numbers of people.
4 It is not surprising that none of the parties, in a proceeding noted for raising every conceivable issue, raised the issue the Board decided, because the issue is not a signif-
- icant one. Features of the building chosen as a relocation center are not likely to inhibit the monitoring of large num-bers of people; as long as there is a large amount of floor space (as there is in the Nassau Coliseum), there is nothing about a building that would prevent emergency workers from ,
passing a probe over each person in a line. The limiting fac-tors are rather (1) the number of emergency workers and (2) the i
number of monitoring instruments, but the Board was apparently i
i not concerned about these; the Board raised the issue only in the context of deciding whether the facility is adequate. It is true that the number of showers and wash basins in the relo-cation center will tend to determine the speed with which peo-ple can be decontaminated,-but there is no regulation and no NUREG-0654 guideline calling for decontamination (as distin-guished from monitoring) of the general public.5/
6 4/ There is also an aamitted contention, 81.C (21 NRC at 1022), about decontamination of fruits, vegetables, and grain. ,
i l 5/ The emergency planning guidelines do not call for decontaminating the general public, as distinguished from emer-(Continued) r !
. _= _-. --
a o
l (Continued From Previous Page) gency workers. NUREG-0654 Standard K covers decontamination of 1
" emergency personnel wounds, supplies, instruments and equip-ment" (K.5.b) and " relocated onsite personnel" (K.7). Criteri-on J.12 provides for registering and " monitoring" (but not
! decontaminating) evacuees.at relocation centers.
More telling still, NUREG-0396 provides that no special decontamination provisions for the general public need be pro-l vided:
The EPZ guidance does not change the re-quirements for emergency planning, it only
(
sets bounds on the planning problem. The Task Force does not recommend that massive emergency preparedness programs be estab-lished around all nuclear power stations. -
The following examples are given to further clarify the Task Force guidance on EPZs:
No special local decontamination provisions for the general public (e.g., blankets, changes of clothing, food, special showers)
NUREG-0396, Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Sup-port of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants, at 14 (Dec. 1978)
(emphasis in original.) Consequently licensing boards have not required specific decontamination materials, methods, sched-ules, etc. for the public. For example, in Shearon Harris 1&
2, the licensing board refused to admit a contention insofar as it questioned the availability of materials for evacuee decontamination:
i The ERPs do not give, and are not called upon by regulation or guidance to give, an accounting of materials available for evacuee decontamination. Indeed, neither regulations nor guidance even mention [ sic]
evacuee decontamination. Rather, NUREG-0654 focuses on providing for decontamination of emergency workers, who would be likely to face greater contamina-tion dangers than evacuees would. See the evaluation criteria under S II.K in NUREG-0654.
(Continued)
- 3. An issue almost the same as the Board decided was ruled inadmissible Moreover, the Board refused to admit a contention rais-ing an issue very like the one the Board finally decided against LILCO. "SC Contention 58" of the July 7, 1983 conten-tions, later renumbered 76 in the July 26, 1983 version, com-plained that the LILCO plan provided radiological monitoring only for people at relocation centers:
Contention 76. LILCO's Plan limits the facilities for radiological moni-toring and decontamination of the evacu-ated public to only the five relocation centers designated in the Plan. (See Plan, at 3.6-7, 4.2-2 to 4.2-4). The Plan provides for monitoring and decontamination only of those evacuees
- who stop at the relocation centers.
Thus, there is no provision for moni-toring or decontamination of evacuees and vehicles who leave the EPZ but choose not to go to relocation centers. However, based on the TMI experience, it appears likely that many evacuees will bypass the (Continued From Previous Page)
Therefore Contention 240 is admitted, but only on the following questions:
(1) What agency of Chatham County govern-ment is responsible for the decontaminaton of evacuees at the Chatham County Shelters?
and (2) Which emergency response organiza-tions are assigned the responibility of providing support for the decontamination of evacuees? Perhaps all that is needed to answer these questions is authoritative clarification of the relevant sections of the ERPs.
Carolina Power & Light Co.'(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-84-29B, 20 NRC 389, 397, 398 (1984).
2
. centers in favor of a destination more distant from the radiation hasard. In order to provide adequate protection to the public as required by 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a)(1) and 50.47(b)(10), LILCO must provide a means for monitoring and decontaminating all evacuees.
l Contention 76 of the " Revised Emergency Planning Contentions,"
July 26, 1983, at 155-56. The NRC Staff opposed admission of this contention, arguing that "[t]here is no legal basis for <
asserting that monitoring and decontamination is required other than at relocation centers or for all evacuees." NRC Staff Re-sponse to Draft Emergency Planning Contentions, July 7, 1983, at 18; NRC Staff Response to Revised Emergency Planning Conten-tions, Aug. 2, 1983, at 39. The Licensing Board denied the ad ,
mission of this contention, saying that there was "no basis for
- the suggestion that monitoring and decontamination facilities should be provided for those evacuees who choose to bypass the designated relocation centers." Special Prehearing Conference Order, August 19, 1983, at 23.s/ The Board's Concluding Deci-f sion reversed this ruling.
t s/ Similarly, SC Contention 103.J of the draft emergency planning contentions of June 7, 1983 (later numbered 16.I) as-serted that the emergency planning brochure should inform eve-ryone who had evacuated or sheltered to report to a relocation center for monitoring. The NRC Staff opposed the admission of this contention. NRC Staff Response to Draft Emergency Plan-ning Contentions, July 7, 1983, at 30. In its August 19, 1983 Special Pre-Hearing Conference Order, the Board denied admis-sion of 16.I, saying that there was "no basis for the Interve-nors' suggestion that these types of specific information and instructions should be included in a brochure." Special Prehearing Conference Order, August 19, 1983, at 7.
l
.- . , _ . , .. , - - ., . . . _ - , . . . _ , , , , ~ . , _ , . - . - . . - - - _ _ - _ . - _ . , _ . , ,.n. .n, -.
. -21_
l
- 4. The Board's timing gave LILCO no opoortunity to present evidence The Board gave no indication that it was dissatisfied with the basis on which LILCO had determined relocation center capacity until it was too late to present evidence on the issue. The contentions were admitted on August 19, 1983;
, LILCO's testimony was heard about a year later, on August 21, 1984. In January 1985 the Board made clear that it required further evidence about the physical attributes of the Nassau Coliseum, and it held a hearing in June 1985. At no time did
. it ever express any dissatisfaction with the 32,000-evacuee i
planning basis; indeed, it excluded consideration of that basis I '
from the scope of the reopened hearing.7/
To the extent the issue was raised in the hearings at all, it was only in passing, and no one showed any particular interest. It came up, LILCO believes, only at Tr. 14,326-30 (Weismantle, Cordaro) and Tr. 14,163-65 (Keller), the latter a voir dire examination not to be relied on for findings, Tr. >
i 7/ Why the Board held a hearing in June 1985 to determine whether the Coliseum is adequate to handle 32,000 people when it believed the 32,000 was an incorrect (or at least an inade-quately justified) number is unclear. LILCO believes the Board should at least have given some warning that it was dissatis-fied, as it did with respect to the physical attributes of the reception center, since no contention existed on the issue.
Cf. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units
~
1 & 2), ALAB-770, 19 NRC 1163, 1169 (1984). In Byron the Ap-peal Board said that the ASLB should have informed the parties of its views and provided for further proceedings where the ap-plicant's evidence was inadequate but additional evidence (the
- applicant's reinspection report) was about to surface.
4
- ~ < -
. ~ ...n- ,---,w - -- -- -m ~~-e- - -- Q '- n - - - - - - , ~ ~ , - - ----,+--.n ,-
14,163 (Judge Laurenson), giving the FEMA witnesses' reaction to the public information brochure. See also Tr. 14,167-68 (Keller).
Had the issue of monitoring capacity been fairly.
4 raised,g/ LILCO could have explained how it plans to deal with numbers of evacuees that might exceed the 32,000 planning basis. Section 5.11 of the present (Rev. 5) " Reception Center
! Activation and Operation" procedure, OPIP 4.2.3, outlines the procedure for monitoring evacuees if their numbers are "much greater than the 32,000 planned for." Moreover, a second-best but still workable method for dealing with unexpectedly large 1
l numbers of people is to advise evacuees by EBS (Emergency ,
Broadcast System) message to discard their clothes and take a shower as soon as they reach their destination. See Tr.
14,829-30 (Cordaro).9/
4
, @/ LILCO recognizes that a licensing board may sua sponte consider and decide issues, but only where the presiding offi-cer determines that a " serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter" exists. 10 C.F.R. 9 2.760a (1985). In the absence of such " serious"' matters, the board may only consider and decide issues put into controversy by the parties or matters determined to be issues by the Commission.
LILCO asserts that the absence of specific planning provisions to accommodate persons seeking only processing is not a "seri-ous safety issue" of the type that can be raised by a board sua sponte.
9/ "According to FEMA, a normal shower is a typical decontamination method." Slip op. at 11.
I 1
e
- _m._. _ , -v ,. ._ - . . . - -. . - . , ,,,._,,,_._,,.y.-, , < . ....,_-y. . . . , , - --,,,y., ,,. _.-.-m. -_, e_...,, m
B. The Licensing Board Misinterpreted NRC 5
Requirements The second reason why the Licensing Board should be re-versed is that the Board erred in_ interpreting the Commission's regulations and guidelines: contrary to the Board's findings, the NRC does not require emergency planners to estimate the number of people who might desire monitoring but not require r
shelter.
- 1. The regulations and guidelines contain
! on their ' ace, no requirement such as the Board has imposed The relevant regulation, 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(10), says nothing at all about the capacity of relocation centers. It says that emergency plans must meet the following standard:
(10) A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume expo-sure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guid-ance, are developed and in place, and
! protective actions for the ingestion ex-posure pathway EPZ appropriate to the lo-cale have been developed.
f 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(10) (1985). Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 likewise contains no requirement to predict the number of people wanting or needing monitoring.
That leaves only the guidelines of NUREG-0654, and these, too, contain no requirement such as the Board has im-posed. NUREG-0654 provides, in Criterion J.10.g, that emergen-I cy response organizations' plans should include "[m]eans of l
. ~ ~ _ --
l 1
relocation." Evaluation Criterion J.10.g. The next subsection is the provision about " relocation centers"-
- h. Relocation centers in host areas which are at least 5 miles, and pre-ferably 10 miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume exposure emergency planning zone; (See K.8)
Evaluation Criterion J.10.h. Finally, J.12 contains the provi-
~
sion about registering and monitoring evacuees:
- 12. Each organization shall describe i the means for registering and monitoring d
of evacuees at relocation centers in host
- areas. The personnel and equipment available should be capable of monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period all resi-dents and transients in the plume expo-sure EPZ arriving at relocation centers.
~
Evaluation Criterion J.12.
These various provisions, when read together and in f
context, suggest that emergency planners should provide a "re-location" center, not a monitoring center. A " relocation" cen-l ter is a place for " relocating" people who have had to leave their homes without another sufficient predetermined destina-tion. In context, these provisions suggest that planners should provide for housing temporarily homeless people and then 1
also for registering and monitoring these people. If what the drafters of NUREG-0654 had meant was that the planners must arrange for monitoring anyone who might need monitoring or who
! might think he needed monitoring, but not require housing, they a
q would have written NUREG-0654 qlite differently.
4 1
i
_ . _ . . , _,, _, . _ _ , - ,,- -,___m,- - _ , , _ - , _ _ _ _ - . , . . , _ . , . , _ _ _
, . - . _ . - , _ . . ~ . . . . , - _ .
M l
. The FEMA testimony appears to support the argument that the requirement imposed by the Board does not exist, or at
, least that the adequacy of the capacity of relocation centers is something to be decided only after an exercise:
1 An assessment of the number of individu-als estimated to use the various reloca-tion centers and an analysis of the ac-commodations and facilities at these centers was not undertaken as part of the RAC review. Criteria elements J.lO.h and J.12 of NUREG-0654 consider only the dis-tance of the relocation centers from the plume exposure EPZ and the adequacy of equipment, personnel and procedures for monitoring and registering evacuees.
Based on these considerations, the relo-cation centers identified in the LILCO
- Transition Plan [i.e., the now-discarded i Suffolk County facilities) are considered '
inadequate to meet the requirements of NUREG-0654.
! Baldwin et al. (FEMA witnesses), ff. Tr. 12,174, at 84. See also Tr. 14,218-20 (Kowieski, McIntire).
1 i 2. There is no precedent for the Board's interpretation of NRC requirements l
The Licensing Board cited no caselaw or other authority for its conclusion that LILCO must determine the number of evacuees who might desire or be advised to be monitored in an emergency. Nor has LILCO found any. To the contrary, the same planning basis used by LILColO/ was once used by Suffolk County i
10/. LILCO judges that no more than 20% of the EPZ population l
, can be expected to need shelter. This planning basis is well l justified in the record. It is based on experience in actual 4
emergencies. See Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. Tr. 14,707, at 18-20; )
i
)
(Continued)
- , -- , ,- , ,,n- , . .,vn-. -
planners (Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 20).11/
I
- 3. The requirement imposed by the Board
- is imcossible In addition to the flaws outlined above, the planning i
basis that the Board requires is irrational, because it is
! probably impossible to estimate the number of people who might be monitored in an actual emergency. LILCO is unaware of any facts from which it could determine the number of " evacuees of i the general population who will seek monitoring and processing, aside from those seeking shelter." Slip op. at 10.
4 (Continued From Previous Page)
Tr. 14,821 (Weismantle, Robinson). By contrast, neither the Board nor the intervenors offered any guidance as to the size or significance of the group that the Board would now have LILCO plan for. The Board concluded that LILCO must show how the Coliseum could accommodate evacuees of the general popula-tion who would seek monitoring and processing only. But no
, factual support is offered to sustain the conclusion that such persons would exist, much less to show that they would exist in i numbers significant enough that LILCO should be required to plan for them.
11/ Also, while LILCO has not found any reported decisions resolving this issue, two licensing boards appear to-have ac-4 cepted 20% (the number used by LILCO) as the proportion of peo-
! ple in the EPZ who would go to relocation centers. See Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Sta-j tion, Unit 1), LBP-82-48, 15 NRC 1549, 1589 36 (1982), aff'd with modifications, ALAB-727, 17 NRC 760 (1983); Duke Power Co.
j (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-84-37, 20 NRC 933, j 956 (1984), aff'd, ALAB-813, 22 NRC 59 (1985). The issue of whether the relocation centers had enough capacity was decided in the latter case, but so many facilities were available.(more than enough to take in the entire population of the EPZ, appar-ently), that there appears to have been no serious question about the matter.
o
. f If the Board has in mind those persons who, on their l.
own initiative, might show up at the Coliseum fearing contami-nation and asking to be monitored, the task is impossible. It would depend heavily on the circumstances at the time of the accident, particularly the emergency information broadcast at
! the time. One might ask people to predict what they would do, i
{ but that would be futile; LILCO has already demonstrated that polls cannot be used to predict emergency behavior. The use-fulness of polls, in fact, was a hotly contested issue in this very case. See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear i
Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 666-67 (1985).
If the Board means that LILCO must plan for the number 1
of people who might be directed by LERO to report for moni-l toring, that requirement is also unreasonable.12/ That number (like the number of people who might ask to be monitored on i
their own initiative) would necessarily be accident-specific.
It would depend on the nature of the accident, the weather, and l the success of protective actions. It might be possible to 12/ LILCO witnesses testified that evacuees would be directed to report to the Coliseum for processing only in the "unlikely event" of a particulate release and if there was evidence that certain limited areas had possibly been contaminated. Tr.
14,827 (Weismantle). In other cases -- for example, if there had been no release or if there had only been a gaseous release 4 --
it would only be those people who needed shelter who would be advised to report to the Coliseum. Tr. 14,828 (Weismantle).
- It is extremely unlikely that the entire EPZ population would l be directed to report for monitoring and processing. Tr.
j 14,829-30 (Cordaro) ("a very, very remote possibility"; "essen-l tially an impossibility").
4 l
c 1
_ __ _ , _ _ - _ _ - . _ . . - . . . _ . . . , . _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . _ _ - . . _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . , _ . _ _ _ ,
I i -
- approach the task of estimating this number by performing a _
i probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), but a licensing board in this case has already ruled that a PRA is not required for emergency planning.13/
- 4. LILCO's planning basis is adequate even taking into account the Board's rationale Finally, the planning basis of 32,000 people used by LILCO can be expected to cover, in most cases, both evacuees i
j who need housing and others who want monitoring or are advised to be monitored, because the 32,000 is conservative. It as-sumes that the entire EPZ is evacuated, a highly conservative assumption.14/ And the record shows that 49,000 places have 6 '
been provided, well in excess of 32,000.15/ See slip op, at 19; Tr. 14,744 (Rasbury).
l l
13/ Prehearing Conference Order (Phase I -- Emergency Plan-ning), July 27, 1982, at 20 (unpublished). That doing a PRA is not an NRC requirement is obvious, since many operating plants
- do not have PRA's.
14/ Even if the entire EPZ were evacuated, 32,000 is a conser-
, vative figure. It is believed to be the maximum number of peo-l pie who would need shelter. See Cordaro et al., ff. Tr.
- 14,707, at 18-20.
J I
- 15/ Long aft 2r the hearing on this issue was held, various i facilities on Long Island designated by the Red Cross as con-gregate care centers, having been contacted by a Suffolk County witness, wrote in to object to their being associated with the
- Shoreham emergency plan. The Board noted, at slip op. 19-20,
, that it would expect the Red Cross to find other suitable fa-i cilities if some of the existing ones were unavailable.
l i
4
- . s 5. The Board's finding af inadequate detail is improper under the Waterford decision
{
! On pages.12-13 and 15 of its. slip opinion the Board found that the lack of detail about how the Nassau Coliseum would be used is a deficiency in the plan. See also slip op.
at 33, item 11. This finding should be reversed for two rea-sons. First, to the extent this finding means that there is 4
inadequate detail about how LILCO plans to handle more than 32,000 people, the finding is subject to the same two flaws ar-f gued above. Second, the Board's desire for more information goes to a level of detail inappropriate for litigation before j licensing boards and better left to implementing procedures and
Co. (Waterford Steam Elec. Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC i 1076, 1107 (1983).
2 III. CONCLUSION l
j The Licensing Board's finding that LILCO must in some '
1 manner anticipate how many people might be monitored in an emergency should be reversed. It is a finding on an issue that
- was not raised by any contention or sua sponte by the Board.
l It is not supported by any regulation, guideline, NRC decision s
J
}
i 1
1
w
\
or substantial record basis. And it imposes a requirement that is probably impossible to meet.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY BY .
ames N. Christman Kathy E. B. McCleskey Scott D. Matchett Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 DATED: October 7, 1985
LILCO, October 7, 1985~
s I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1.
- In the Matter of l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) i Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 i
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Brief on the o e-t location Center Issues were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Morton B. Margulies,
, Chairman Chairman j Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing l Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Commission Commission j Fifth Floor (North Tower) East-West Towers, Rm. 402A
- j. East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy. !
4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 i Bethesda, MD 20814 2
Dr. Jerry R. Kline j Gary J. Edles, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board .
Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 427 j Fifth Floor (North Tower) 4350 East-West Hwy.
j East-West Towers Bethesda, MD 20814
- 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing
! Dr. Howard A. Wilber Board i Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fifth Floor (North Tower) 4350 East-West Hwy.
j East-West Towers Bethesda, MD 20814 ,
4350 East-West Highway l' Bethesda, MD 20814 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555 i________.___ _ , - _ _ _ . -_-__.- _ _, _ . _ ._. _ __,.......____,-__.- _ _.. , ._
- . .- - , _ , . -- ~ . _ _ . .
i
,o
- e. .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Acting General Counsel i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal Emergency Commission Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20555 501 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel MHB Technical Associates U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1723 Hamilton Avenue Commission Suite K '
Washington, D.C. 20555 San Jose, California 95125 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger i
Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq. New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Empire State Plaza Commission Albany, New York 12223 7735 Old Georgetown Road (to mailroom) Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Donna Duer, Esq. Agency Attorney 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Atomic Safety and Licensing New York,'New York 10278 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Commission Twomey, Latham & Shea East-West (North Tower) 33 West Second Street 4350 East-West Hwy. P.O. Box 298 Bethesda, MD 20814 Riverhead, New York 11901 1
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
Governor 9 East 40th Street Executive Chamber New York, New York 10016 i Room 229
! State Capitol James Dougherty, Esq.
l Albany, New York 12224 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C. 20008 l Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
2 World Trade Center New York State Department of l Room'4614 . Public Service, New York, New York 10047 Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 .
}
2 I
i i
, Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Ms. Nora Bredes Suffolk County Attorney Executive Coordinator H. Lee Dennison Building Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Veterans Memorial Highway 195 East Main Street Hauppauge, New York 11787 Smithtown, Nsw York 11787 William E. Cumming, Esq. Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Asrociate General Counsel Counsel to the Governor Federal Emergency Management Executive Chamber Agency State Capitol 500 C Street, S.W. Albany, New York 12224 Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472 l .
f, 2 :- J James N. Chfistman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 DATED: October 7, 1985
.