ML20148U595

NRC Staff Response to Proferred Intervenor Contention on Adequacy of Emergency Plan Provisions for Radio Transmission of Emergency Broadcast Sys Messages.* Contention Should Be Denied Due to Lack of Basis.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20148U595
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/27/1988
From:	Barth C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#188-5485 CLI-87-05, CLI-87-5, OL-3, NUDOCS 8802040066
Download: ML20148U595 (17)

Text

_ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1/27/88

,. k8I

. . OLE TEr.

UAHc tINITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

% FEB ~1 P3:39 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BQARD ;; mg, M T i m G A ',LRy;ct ,

BRANCg in the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PROFFERED INTERVENORS' CONTENTION ON Ti1E ADEQUACY OF THE EMERGENCY FLAN'S PROVISIONS FOP RADIO TRANSMISSION OF EBS MESSAGES

!. INTRODUCTION On January 12, 1950 Intervenors filed new contentions relating to LILCO's presently purposed emergency broadcast system. O Tbc NRC Staff response follows.

ll. RACKGRO,UND Contention 20 which was originally admitted Iri this proceeding read:

l LILCO intends that EBS messages will be broadcast simultaneously by WALK AM and FM. (Plan at 3.3-6.)

However, WALK AM does not operate at night. Therefore, those persons without FM radios (especially people in cars) will

be unable to receive adequate information in the event a l radiological accident occurs at night, contrary to the t requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(5).

4 21 NPC 644, 970 i

Contentien 57 provided:

j . ~1/ "Emergency Planning Ccntentien Relating To LILCO's New Emergency i

Broadcast Proposed" January 12, 1988.

B802040066 890127 Ny [d l PDR ADOCK 05000322 /

G PDR l .

a The LILCO Plan provides that special facilities organizations with a large number of personnel (such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, handicapped facilities, and major employers) will be equipped with a tone alert radio which, upon activation by the EBS signal from WAI.K radio, is to broadcast automatically the emergency message. (Plan at 3.3-4, 3.4-6 and OPIP 3.4.1, -

Attach. ) However, since notification would coincide with notification to the general public, these special facilities and organizations would not have any additional alerting or preparation time (for evacuation, sheltering, or implerrentation of other protective actions). Moreover, the tone alert radios i depend upon the EDS signal broadcasting from WALK radio station. Should the EBS signal originate from other stations, the radios would not activate and there would not be automatic transmission of the EDS message. Further, WALK radio does not broadcast on its AM frequency 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day. Thus, there is no assurance that tone afert radios will provide adequato nntificatlon of an emergency to SpeClal facilities and other organizations within the EPZ, in violation of 10 C.F.R. 55 50.47(a)(1) and 50.47(b)(5), Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.D, and NUREC-0054 il ll.E.5, E.6, and Appendix 3.

, 21 NRC at 1000 After an evidentiary hearing, the Licensing Board resolved these contentions in favor of LILCO. 21 NRC at 764, 760. Station WALK was the key to LILCO's Emergency Broadcast System (ERS). Subsequent to the PID of April 17, 1985, WALK determined not to participate in the Intervenors sought to reopen the record. U LlLCO EBS. The Commission in its Memorandum and Order C LI-07-0 5, June 12, 1987, granted Suffolk's Motion to reopen the record and stated:

"We remand to the Licensing Board on the reopened issue, with the Board to admit "new" contentions only to the extent they assist in focusing further the litigation on earlier-admitted issues, and only after LILCO provides updated information on pub!Ic notification procedurcs" Slip. op, at 10.

~

2/ Intervenors first requested the Licensing Board to reopen the record. This recuest was denied for lack of jurisdiction. The

< . request was then submitted to the Corrmission. CLl-87-05, June 12, 1987, slip op. at 2, n.2 ,

i On November 6,1987 LILCO moved for Summary Disposition of the f WALK Radio issue. 3# -

In that motion LILCO made known for the first '

time that it intended to use WPLR-FM and some nine other radio stations  !

for its EDS broadcast. The Licensing Board in its Memorandum and ,

Order dated December 21, 1987 b denied LILCO's motion, on the ground that the Commission had provided for the filing of contentions, and set a schedule for these filing of the contentions.

This Poard there stated:

d The issues concerning public notification procedures that were previously litigated in this proceeding concerned the adequacy a of the emergency plan's provision for the radio transmission of -

EBS tr.essages and activation of tone alert redios. Any now contention must focus on these issues as they are impacted by ,

. LILCO's new arrangements for conducting emergency notifications.

At 11-5. r

] On January 12, 1988 Intervenors filed contentions on the LILCO EBS

! proposal. It is those contentions to which the Staff response below is addressed.

fil. DISCUSSION A. The Permitted Scope of New EBS Contentions Under

~

Commission anif Board Orders The Commissions decision of June 12, 1967 (CLl-07-05) and the Licensing Board's Order of December 21, 1987 (ASLBP No.

i i

i 3/

~

"LILCO's Motion For Summary Disposition of the WALK Radio issue" November 6,1987.

4/ "Memorandum and Order Ruling on Applicant's motion of November 6, r

~

1987 for Summary Disposition pf the WALK Issue." December 21, i 1987. ,

4 l

o

.q.

CE-561-02-OLR) together with 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 set the parameters within ,

which the contentions proffered by Intervenors must fit in order for those proffered contentions to he accepted.

The proffered contentions must allege, with the basis and specificity required by 10 C.F.R. 4 2.714, that the defects in the coverage of the now proposed EBS v.ould not provide proper notification within the plume exposure pathway zone. The Intervenors in their letter of January 12, 1987, accompanying the proposed contention state:

( Allthough the contention has been organized into four individual subparts, those subparts cannot be viewed in ,

isolation or without reference to the contention of which they  ;

are a part. Rather, the contention must be read in its entirety, with the subparts viewed as providing the specific bases for the contention's focus.

Thus the Intervenors ask the Board to determine not if any part of the proposed contention and its subparts pass muster, but whether the I

contention "In its entirety" can be admitted.

l In Commonwealth, Edison Co. (Zlon Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-226, 8 AEC 361, 406 (1974) the Appeal Board stated:

j Plainly there is no duty olaced upon a ilcensing board by the Administrative Procedure Act, or by our Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, to recast contentions offered by one of the litigants for the purpose of making those contentions acceptable.

C_f. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Electric Stetion, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 295-96 (1979), where the Board parsed and rewrote unacceptable contentions subtritted early in a proceeding by lay unskilled Intervenors. An examination of this [

contention, its four subparts and the numerous bases for each of these i subparts shows, the contention taken as a whole falls to meet the

standards for a late filed contention and may not be admitted into this

i

- ,_ .._m _.m_ _ - - . , - ,

proceeding. It is against these standards that the Staff has analyzed the [

Suffolk contentions. 7 B. The Specificity and Bases Requirements of to C.F.R. I 2.714(b) l intervenors' proffered F.53 S contentions must also satisfy the Commission's requirement that the basis for the contentions be set forth with reasonable specificity in order to be admitted for controversy in this proceeding. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b).

The purpose of the specificity and basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 are (1) to assure that the contention in question raises a matter appropriate for litigation in a particular proceeding , 5,/ (2) to establish a sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter addressed by the assertion and, (3) to

[ put the other parties sufficiently on notice ". . .so thet they will know [

at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose."

Peach Bottom, supra at 20.

+

~

5/ A contention must be rejected where:

I (a) It constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements;  ;

) (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory i process or is an attack on the regulations;  ;

1 (c) it is nothing trore than a generall:ation regarding the i intervenors's views of what applicable policies ought to be; i (d) it seeks to raise an issue wh;ch is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.

Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and ,

3), ALAB-216, P AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).

l  !

i

, - - - - - - ,- , . , , ,,- - --. _~r - - - - - n g-

C. The Proffered Contention As the Intervenors recognire, the introductory paragraph to the proposed contentien is a generaffred statement of what the LILCO EBF System is to accorrplish and that the system is inadequate. It alone does not have the requisite specificity required by 10 C.F.R. 4 7.714(b) to be admitted. As we have stated an examination of the subparts and the bases for each subpart shows the contention lacks basis.

1. ,Subpert 1 This subpart states that on the bases that follow, LILCO's principal EBS station cannot effectively function. The following examination of those bases shows the contention, and the subpart, are without foundation,

a. Basis 1 A states:

A. WPLR's broadcast signal is too weak to convey a strong and clear broadcast message throughout the EPZ and surrounding areas. WPLR broadcasts at a power of only 14.1 kilowatts. LILCO's previous primary ERS station

-- WALK-FM and -AM -- broadcast power is less than 30%

at; strong as LILCO's former primary ERS station.

No basis is shown for the statericnt that WPLR's signal is too weak.

The statement that the broadenst power of WPLR is 14.1 killowatts does not provide any basis on which to conclude that WPLR and the other nine stations in LILCO's EDS cannot be heard in the EPZ. Further the comparison to WA LK 's broadcast power does nothing to support the proposed contention, as the test is not a comparison to the coverage of another station, but whether LILCO's present ten station EBS is satisfactory. The questien is the receivability of WPLR and the other EBS stations' signals in the EP2. If Intervenors feel WALK should participate in the EBS, it is upon them to encourage its pn.-ticipation.

b. Basis 1 B states:

The geography of Long Island, combined with the location of WPLR's transmitters, exacerbates the weakness of WPLR's broadcast signal with respect to the public in and around the Shoreham EPZ. Long Island radic antennas are typically .

oriented in a nominal east-west direction, in order to facilitate reception of radio signals from the New York City area.

WPLR's signal, however, comes from north of Long Island, and therefore its reception on directional antennas in the EPZ and elsewhere on Long Island can be impaired or attenuated, in addition, the hilly landscupe of the north shore area of the EPZ and other obstructions further dimin!sh the quality of reception of WPLR's signal.

Again, Intervenors fall to provide a basis for the contention, it is not averred that LILCO's new EBS will not be heard, but only that geography and topography will affect the reception of the EBS radio signals. It does not go to whether the r.ew LlLCO EBS is sufficient. It falls to allege, with basis and specificity, any non-compliance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47 or Part 50 Appendix E or with NUREG 0654, Rev 1 FEMA-REP 1 or Supp.1 thereto.

C. Basis 1 C states:

C. WPLR has no AM broadcasting capability. LILCO's previous primary EBS station --

WALK -- could broadcast AM along with FM with the flip of a single switch. LILCO thus falls to comply with the requirement that there be a capability to issue warning messages on a 24-hour basis.

The heart of this basis is that: "WPLR has no AM broadcasting capability.... Iand] LILCO thus falls tc comply with the requirement that there be a capability to issue warning message on a 24-hour basis."

WPLR's lack of AM capacity is unrelated to whether the EBS -- some ten radio stations -- has the capability of providing a radio signal warning in the EP7. In the event of an emergency. The reference to the previous radio station, WALK, is not relevant. The question is whether the

present EBS is su fficient, not if some other system might be better.

Should Intervenors wish WALK to participate they should bend every effort to encouraging that participation.

d. Basis 1.D States:

To bc effective, an EBS station must be generally known and listened to by the public. WPLR has a negligible ilstenership rate within Suffolk County, and, accordingly, within the EPZ. Indeed, WPLR's listenership rate is only about 1% meaning that, at any given time, on average, only about one persen out of every 100 in Suffolk County listening to radios is listening to WPLR. LILCO's previous primary EBS station --

WALK FM and -AM --' has a listenership rate of more than 10%.

Basis 1 D is outside the scope of the issues a.; framed by the Commission in CLi-87-05 and the Licensing Board in its December 21, 1987 Order. It is unrelated to original contentions 20 and 57 which only dealt with the "radio transmission of EBS messages and the activation of tone alert radios . " Board Order at 5. In so far as it asserts that some NRC-FEMA regulation or planning standard requires some numerically quantifiable listening audience, it is in error. Puhile information brochures and other information to be provided to the EPZ populace !n

! regard to the EBS will inform the public of the EBS station and to tune

! to that station in a radiolcgical emergency. The general listenership rate of a station at other times is not relevant. Listenership in the EPZ to the EBS stations may very likely be different after sirens go off and after the extensive LILCO public information campaign has taken place.

No basis is given for the contention,

e. Basis 1 E states:

E. An EBS station must also be preconceived by the public as one likely and able to broadcast authoritative, accurate , re!!able and credible in formation . As a result of i

l .

l l

l _

9_

(i) WPLR's location in Connecticut (more than 30 miles from the EPZ), rather than on Long Island or even in the State of New York, (ii) WPLR's relatively weak broadcast signal which, combined with the location of WPLR's transmitters and the geography of Long Island, reduce the public's ability to receive its broadcasts, and (ill) WPLR's low listenership rate, the ,

public in and around the EPZ would not be familiar with WPLR, and would not consider emergency information or instructions broadcast by that station, about local conditions on Long Island , at the Shoreham plant, or in or around the Shoreham EPZ, to be credible, authoritative, accurate, or reliable.

LILCO's previous primarv EBS station -- WALK -- is Long Island's more powerful radio station, the one most listened to, and the one most regularly relled upon for local and emergency information, such as weather and school closing announcements and traffic conditions. As a result, unlike WPLR, WALK has a high degree of visibility, credibility and familiarity to Long Island residents.

The contention is not germane. The Commission in CLI-87-05 directed that contentions be admitted "to the extent they assist in focusing litigation on earlier admitted issues."

Slip op. at 10. The earlier contentions dealt with the radio

! transmission of EBS messages and the activation of tone alert radios. See Board Order at 5. This part of the contentien in focusing on whether station is perceived as authoritative and credible is beyond the scope of issues to be litigated.

Moreover, Intervenors in basis 1 E have not alleged any violation of NRC-FEMA requirements or any defect in LlLCO's proposed plan for the EBS. Thus no basis is here provided for the contention.

f. Basis 1 F states:

F. WPLR is based on Connecticut, rather than on Long l Island, the location of the Shoreham plant, or even the State of

! New York. WPLR is accordingly not a local broadcast station, and LILCO's reliance on that station is contrary to regulatory requirements. See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E 6 IV.D.2.

1 i The reference in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E 6 IV.D.2, "local l

l broadcast station': is only to stations heard in a locality , it does not refer to stations in any particular political territorial jurisdiction. Such a reading of the regulation would make little sense and not be in accord with its intent.

Nothing in NRC or' FEMA regulations require that any or l

l

t all EBS stations be physically located in the same political territory as the reactor. Further the contention is totally unrelated to the scope of original contentions 20 or 57, or to the Commission and Licensing Board orders which set the parameters for issues which may be heard. The contention should be rejected.

2. Subpart 2.

This subpart states that on the bases that follow , L I LCO's EBS stations other than WPLR could not make up for the inadequacles of WPLR. The following examination of those bases shows that the contention, and the subpart, are without foundation,

a. Basis 2 A states:

A. The new EBS network has significant gaps in its AM coverage of the EPZ at night. WE ll- AM , in New Haven, Connecticut, provides the only regular nighttime coverage to the EPZ. That coverage, however, extends only to the northern portion of the plume exposure EPZ: there is no nighttime AM coverage of the southern part of the EPZ under LILCO's new EBS network. Accordingly, a substantial portion of the population in and around the EPZ might not receive emergency Information via LILCO's new EBS network In the event of a Shoreham emergency. LILCO's previous EBS network, including WA LK, was capable of providing 24-hour AM and FM coverage of not only all of Suffolk County, but also all of Nassau County and much of Connecticut.

This basis alleges that nighttime AM coverage in the EPZ is insufficient in that WELI, which Intervenors maintain is the only AM i station in the EBS broadcasting at night, only covers the northern part of the EPZ. This basis is insufficient . As previously recognized by the l

Board , "FCC broadcast regulations permit daytime AM stations to use their facilities to broadcast emergency information at night. 47 C.F.R.

6 73.1250(f) . " PID, 21 NRC at 764. Further, no factual support is given for the statements that WEll cannot be heard in the southe.rn part

of the EPZ. As we have previously stated references to WALK are not relevant. The requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 are not met. This tasis for the contention may not be accepted.

_b. Basis 2 B states:

B. LILCO's new EBS network, including WPLR and the nine secondary stations , has a collective listenership rate of only about 4% in Suffolk County. LILCO's previous EDS network, comprised of WALK and 11 other Long Island stations, had a collective listenership rate of more than 30% within the County. As a result of the fact that the primary and two of the secondary stations (including the only station that regularly provides AM broadcasting at night) are located in Connecticut, rather than on Long Island or even in the State of New York WPLR's relatively weak brcadcast signal within Suffolk County and the plume exposure EPZ, and the fact that the vast majority of EPZ residents do not generally listen to, and therefore are not familiar with WPLR or the other stations in LlLCO's new EDS network , the public would not consider emergency information or Instructions broadcast over that network to be credible, authoritative, accu rate, or reliable.

LILCO's previous EBS network included, in addition to WALK, WBLl-FM in Patchogue, New York, and WGSM-AM and WCTO-FM in Melvllie, New York -- the second, fourth and fifth most widely listened stations in Suffolk County. Those stations are regularly relled upon for local and emergency information (such as weather and school closing announcements and traffic conditions), and have a far higher degree of visibility, credibility and familiarity to Long Island, Suffolk County, and EPZ residents than the stations now relied upon by LILCO.

As stated in respense to basis ID and 1E to this contention, matters going to "listenership rates" and to the public perception of the credibility of designated radio stations, in contrast to the physical ability of EBS stations to be hearc, is not witnin the scope of the matters the Commission or this Board stated were open for litigation. It does not "assist in focusing litigation on earlier-admitted issues." Slip op 10.

Contention 20 as we have stated focused on when WALK broadcast AM programs, PID, 21 NRC at 970. Contention 57, as here germane, focused on whether radio signals would activate tone alert radios, PID, 21 NRC at l

1000. See also Memorandum and Order, December 21, 1987, at 5.

Moreover, general "listenership" in Suffolk County is not relevant to determining how many persons will tune to designated and publicized EBS stations in the event of an emergency. Further, no regulatory violation of any NRC-FEMA requirement is alleged. This basis for the contention may not be admitted.

c. Basis 2 C states:

C. Ingestion pathway protective action recommendations must be communicated to perscns outside the 10-mile plume 6 50.47(b)(10), NUREG i-exposure EPZ.

0654 6 l l .) .11 ; see g, lly10 C.F.R.

See e genera OPIP 3.6.6. Thus, LlLCO's sample EBS messages contemplate the provision of emergency information in addition to protective action recommendations to persons outside the 10-mlie EPZ, such as identification of the boundaries of the EPZ, and what actions, if any, persons outside the EPZ need to take. See e.g., OPIPs 3.8.2 and 3.6.6. LILCO's new EBS network, however, has virtually no nighttime EBS coverage --

AM or FM --

in the Shoreham ingestion pathway to the west of the 10-mile EPZ. T herefore, -

LILCO has made no provision for communication at night of essential emergency information , including ingestion pathway protective action recommendations, to directly affected persons in the heavily-populated areas immediately adjacent and to the west of the 10-mile EPZ. This failure to provide any means of notification and communication of emergency information to an entire segment of the population at risk violates 10 C.F.R. 66 50.47(a)(1), (b)(6), (b)(10), and NUREG 0654 65 li.E.5 and J.11. It wculd also result in an inability to control the content and flow of emergency information and EBS messages, contrary to the basic premise of the public information portion of the LILCO Plan. See, e.g. , OPIPs 3.8.1 and 3.8.2.

This basis for the proffered contention is objectionable for a number of reasons. 1) There is no NRC or FEMA requirement that the EDS must provide an alert signal beyond plume exposure EPZ of approximately 10 miles. 2) there is no factual basis set out for the bold assertion that the proposed EPZ does not provide a receivable signal outside the EBS.

3) The proffered contention is not remotely related to original contentions 20 and 57 or to the scope of permissible issues as framed by the

Commission in CLi-87-05 and by this Licensing Board. This basis for the contention may not be admitted.

3. Subpart 3 Subpart 3 of the proposed contention states:

3. LlLCO's evacuation plan depends upon the dissemination of clear, euthoritative emergency information to prevent the development of a large evacuation shadow. See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-1271 NRC 644, 670 (1985) (hereafter, "PI D") . LILCO's new EBS proposal has virtually no nighttime EBS coverage west of the EPZ, however. This gap in LILCO's EBS coverage results in a large segment of the population just outside the EPZ having no access to emergency information regarding a Shoreham accident. As a result, there would be substantial confusion, rumor generation, and the dissemination of inaccurate and inconsistent information. This would lead to substantial voluntary evacuation by resicents from outside the plume EPZ, who would perceive themselves to be at risk and, lacking timely and reliable information or instructions, would proceed to evacuate. Indeed, the Licensing Board has previously acknowledged that this would be the case, by declaring that in the absence of the dissemination of clear, non-conflicting and timely notice and instructions to the public at the time of an accident, a large evacuation shadow would likely result:

If for any reasons confused or conflicting information was disseminated at the onset of an accident, the Board accepts that a,large excess evacua_ tion on Long Island could materialize.

PID, 21 NRX at 670 (emphasis added).

Further, LILCO's new EBS proposal would likely cause a significant evscuation shadow from within the EPZ. The factors contributing to this voluntary evacuation would be: (1) gaps in tne EBS' nighttime AM coverage and potentially even daytime FM coverage within the plume exposure EPZ; (2) the absence of credibility and authoritativeness attaching to emergency broadcast information originating largely from a non-local, out-of-sta te EBS station ; (3) the unavailability of emergency Information from familiar local stations; and (4) the substantial likelihood of distorted and, therefore, conflicting emergency information.

The consequences of a significant evecuation shadow would make it impossible for LILCO to irrpfement its Plan as written

and could make inadequate LILCO's planning basis for a Shoreham emergency. See PID, 21 NRC at 670.

Subpart 3 is only another revisitation of the evacuation shadow phenomena issues which was previously passed upon and rejected. See -

PID, 21 NRC 655-71. It has nothing to do with whether WPLR will operate at night or the ability of the signal to be heard by tone alert radios -- the scope of original contentions 20 and 57 -- or to the issues framed by the Commission in CLl-87-05 and this Licensing Board in its December 21, 1987 Order. This subpart has no support and is beyond the scope of the matters permitted to be raised by the Commission and Licensing Board and alleges no violation of NRC FEMA requirements. It should not be admitted.

Subpart 4 of the proposed contention states:

4. LILCO's asserted reliance upon so-called "informal alerting systems," consisting of word-of-mouth communications between and among members of the public, some of whom may have heard emergency broadcasts, to supplement its new EBS network, could not and would not compensate for the inadequacies and ineffectiveness of that network. Such a proposal for providing alerting notification, and essential en ergency information and protective action recommendations to the public is speculative and unreliable, contains no design report or other analysis, is inconsistent with LI LCO's own theories of emergency communications, is inconsistent with the methods of alerting and notifying the public that might otherwise be acceptable in lieu of an EBS network, and falls to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 56 li.E.5 and E.6, and Apper. dix 3 thereto, and PC.MA REP-10.

l l This subpart relates, for the first time, to "informal alerting system" l

which has nothino to do with whether WPLR will operate at night (original contentien 20) or to the activation of tone alert radios (original contention 57). It thus does not assist in "focusing further the litigation on earlier

! . admitted issues" CLl-87-05, relate to the "adequacy of the emergency plan's provision for radio transmitting EBS messages ....i' Board Order, 1

l t

w. __

December 21, 1987, slip op at 5. This subpart does not support the Contention and should not be admitted.

IV. CONCLUSION The contentions proffered by Suffolk County as a result of CLi-87-05 and the Licensing Board's Order of December 21, 1987, lack the basis required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714, and go far beyond the scope of the issues that the Commission and 1.icensing Board authorized to be raised. in general, Suffolk County has not felt itself to be bound by the Commission or LicensinD Board decisions but rather has treated this WALK EBS tratter as an invitation to begin de novo to submit contentions on emergency planning. It is the Sta ff's view that compliance with the Commission's CLi-87-05 and the Licensing Board's December 21, 1987 Order is required. Neither the contention or any of its subparts on basis meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 and the parameters set by the Commission and this Licensing Board as to what issues may be put in controversy. The profferred centention should be denied in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted, harles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of January 1988

' DC(,Kcico USNHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M FEB -1 P3 :39 CT Si.cittr u y DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BgQ:llN'i & SEnvlcE .

SRANCH In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 5 0-3 2 2-O L-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SEP.VICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PROFFERED INTERVENORS' CONTENTION ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE EMERGENCY PLAN'S PROVISIONS FOR RADIO TRANSMISSION OF EBS MESSAGES" in the above-captioned proceedino have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 27th day of January 1988.

James P. Gleason, Chairman

• Joel Blau, Esq.

Administrative Judge Director, Utility intervention Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 1020 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 99 Washington Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12210 Jerry R. Kilne* Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

Administrative Judge Special Counsel to the Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12224 Frederick J. Shon* Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esc.

Administrative Judge New York State Department of Atomic Safety and Licensing Roard Public Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Empire Statt Plaza Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12223 Philip McIntire W. Taylor Reveley 111, Esq.

Federal Emergency Management Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

Agency Hunton 6 Williams 26 Federal Plaza 707 East Main Streat Room 1349 P.O. Box 153$

New York, NY 10278 Richmond, VA 23212 Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman .

Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771

~ - - . -.m.v.

Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

33 Y!est Second Street Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Riverhead, NY 11901 South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, NW Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20036-5891 Board Panel * -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jay Dunkleberger Washington, DC 20555 New York State Energy Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Building 2 Appeal Board Panel

• Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, NY 12223 Washington, DC 20555 Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. General Counsel Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management H. Lee Dennison Building Agency Veteran's Memorial Highway 500 C Street, SW Pauppauge, NY 11788 Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Monroe Schneider Robert Abrams, Esq.

North Shore Committee Attorney General of the State P.O. Box 231 of New York Wading River, NY 11792 Attn: Peter Blenstock, Esq.

Department of Law Hs. Nora Bredes State of New York Shoreham Opponents Coalition Two World Trade Center 195 East Main Street Room 46-14 Smithtown, NY 11787 New York, NY 10047 Anthony F. Earley, Jr. William R. Cumming, Esq.

General Counsel Office of General Counsel I.ong Island Lighting Company Federal Emergency Management 175 East Old Country Road Agency hicksvil!e, NY 11801 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Robert Hoffman Long Island Coalition for Safe Decketing and Service Section*

Living Office of the Secretary P.O. Box 1355 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f.'assapecua, NY 11758 Washington, DC 20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq. Barbara Newman New York State Department of Law Director, Environmental Health 120 Broadway Coalition for Safe Living Room 3-118 Box 944 New York, NY 10271 Huntington, New York 11743

' /

.arles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff i