ML20149D790
| ML20149D790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1988 |
| From: | Letsche K, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149D766 | List: |
| References | |
| LBP-88-2, OL-3, NUDOCS 8802100018 | |
| Download: ML20149D790 (9) | |
Text
4 000KETED USNRC February 4, 1988 g,g pj {g UNITEpcSTATES.- OF... AMERICA NUCLEARQipllLATORYVCOMMISSION BRtalDt Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY-
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
GOVERNMENTS' MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONFERENCE CALL TO DISCUSS POSTPONEMENT OF FILING FEBRUARY 10 DEADLINE PENDING CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT OF LBP-88-2 ON MATTERS PENDING IN THIS PROCEEDING The Governments (Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton) hereby request that the Board schedule a telephone conference call for Friday, February 5, 1988 to address the impact of LBP-88-2, the Initial Decision issued February 2, i
l 1988 in the OL-5 docket, upon the responses to LILCO's pending summary disposition motions on Contentions 1-10, which are due to be filed February 10.
l LBP-88-2 and the findings and conclusions contained therein, l
are directly relevant to many of the matters currently pending before this Board.
Given its length (263 pages), the fact that it only became available midday on February 2, and the press of other filing and discovery obligations in this proceeding, it is l
l I
8802100018 880204 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
PDR l
l
safe to assume that no one is yet in a position to discuss in detail what impact it has or should have on the various matters pending before this Board. The following facts are immediately obvious, however.
First, the responses to LILCO's sudmary disposition motions on Contentions 1-10 are due to be filed Wednesday, February 10, 1988.
Second, those motions rely upon 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) as recently amended, as well as numerous LILCO arguments that the existence of its Plan and trained "LERO" workers, and the record in this proceeding about the adecuacy of its Plan, support its request for summary disposition of Contentions 1-10.1/
They are also fundamentally premised on LILCO's assertion -- obviously made prior to issuance of LBP-88-2 -- that during an emergcncy trained LERO workers could and would communicate necessary and 1/
- Egg, e.o.,
"Introduction:
Memorandum of Law on LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1-2 and 4-10" (December 18, 1987) at 9:
Perhaps no emergency plan can be the "best."
But if there are better ways to perform the nine functions in the "legal authority" contentions than LILCO has proposed, this agency's exhaustive processes have failed to reveal them.
Thus, the attached motions for summary disposition are based on what the record shows about how decisions should and would be made, traffic controlled, and so on.
Egg also, e o., Ld. at 18 (NRC has not decided LILCO Plan is inadequate); LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion on Contentions 5 and 6 at 13 ("The existing record offers a clear description of how a coordinated response, using the LILCO Plan, would occur.
.");
LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion on Contentions 1 and 2 at 8 (traffic control under LILCO's Plan has been examined and approved). a
i appropriate information to various government officials, and that such workers could and would be mobilized and capable of imple-menting in the field various provisions of the LILCO Pltn (e.o.,
guiding traffic, driving buses, disseminating emergency informa-tion to the public and the media).2/
Third, LBP-88-2 held that the LILCO Plan is fundamentally and pervasively flawed in many respects.
Among other fundamental flaws identified and discussed in its opinion, the Board found LILCO's communications system fundamentally flawed, including its structure and procedures; it found LILCO's LERO trainino orocram fundamentally flawed, including the portions relating to communi-
]
cations, timely dispatch and response of field workers, functions of Traffic Guides and bus drivers, communication of emergency information to the public and the media, how to follow the LILCO Plan and procedures, and how to respond to unanticipated and unrehearsed events; and it found LILCO's ability,to mobiliz_q Traffic Guides fundamentally flawed, because large numbers of Traffic Control Posts were not staffed until well after traffic congestion would have occurred.3/
l 2/
- Egg, e.o.,
LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion on Contentions l
5 and 6, which asserts, throughout, that LERO personnel would i
provide all appropriate and necessary emergency information to l
government officials and would "obtain permission" to begin implementing certain elements of the LILCO Plan; LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion on Contentions 1 and 2 at 8 (best efforts l
response would be based on "advice" from trained LERO Traffic Guides); LILCO's Introduction at 8 ("it is wildly implausible to l
suppose that in an emergency the authorities would ignore an j
organization like LERO that was trained to respond
.").
3/
- Egg, e.o.,
LBP-88-2 at 53, 63-64, 86, 88, 138, 148, 167-68, 1
171, 183-84, 194, 216, 217, 224, 249-52.
l
! t l
l l
-^Aa
9 Fourth, the findings in LBP-88-2 are pertinent to the issues raised and discussed in LILCO's pending summary disposition motions, and need to be add:essed in any response to those motions.
Indeed, the findings in LBP-88-2 clearly refute many of the bases for LILCO's motions.
Fifth, there is not sufficient time between now and February 10 for the Governments to review and analyze LBP-88-2 and to address it as required in the responses to LILCO's six summary disposition motions which are due to be filed by that date.
For these reasons, the Governments request that the Board schedule a conference call for Friday February 5, 1988, so the parties and the Board can discuss the need, at a minimum, to extend the summary disposition response date to allow time to review and include in such responses an analysis of the impact of LBP-88-2.
The Governments emphasize that LBP-88-2 is directly relevant to other pending matters in addition to the pending summary disposition motions.d/
The Governments are not yet in a position A/
First, LBP-88-2 is relevant to LILCO's Request for Authorization to Operate Shoreham at 25% power.
As set forth in LILCO's April 14, 1987, Request (e.o., at pages 11, 14), one of the measures upon which LILCO depends in its effort to operate Shoreham at 25% power is the alleged existence of a "fully" and "rigorously" trained LERO organization.
LBP-88-2 establishes that such a highly-trained and capable organization does not exist.
LILCO relies on other aspects of LERO as well in its Request (e.o., pages 10-18); the Decision makes clear that LILCO's claims about an adequate Plan are simply untrue.
Second, on January 19, 1988, the Governments filed a response to LILCO's summary disposition motion on 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1)(1)-(ii).
One of the issues addressed therein was (footnote continued)
-4
I to set-forth in detail the impact of the decision.on such other f
i matters, particularly given the number of other filings that are currently due in the immediate future.
But, it would appear to be in the interest of all parties and the Board to address that I
matter as expeditiously as possible.
Therefore, the Governments suggest that if the summary disposition response date were extended, the parties could instead file on February 10 their views concerning the impact of LBP-88-2 on all matters pending before this Board, and file replies as appropriate a week later, so the Board could determine how to proceed in light of the new decision.
The Governments will be prepared to discuss this proposal during the conference call.
l i
(footnote continued from previous page) whether LILCO's failure to comply with the Section 50.47(b) standards was wholly or substantially the result of non partici-pation of the Governments.
The Governments brought to the Board's attention many Section 50.47(b) non-compliances which were unrelated to governmental non-participation.
LBP-88-2 demonstrates that there are multiple additional fundamental flaws in LILCO's Plan which are wholly unrelated to governmental non-participation.
Thus, the Section 50.47(c)(1)(i) finding cannot be made.
Third, the Board and the parties have recently received Revision 9 of LILCO's Plan.
That Revision does not address the Plan _ flaws identified in LBP-88-2.
It makes no sense to proceed with review of Revision 9, or to litigate any issues related to Revision 9 (including the various remanded issues), because LBP-88-2 makes clear that LILCO's Plan, including Revision 9, is i
fundamentally flawed.
No review or further litigation should be i
conducted unless or until LILCO revises its Plan to address the i
multiple flaws identified in LBP-88-2.
- 4 I
I l
This Motion is being telecopied to LILCO and the Staff.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 b
J i,
La4ronce Coe Lanpher Karla' J.
Letsche Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County Fabian G. Palomino Richard J.
Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York f
(
StepheA B.
Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O.
Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton l
l l l t
l
e l
i D0tKCIEC*
05NFC
.Februarv 4, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 18 F09 -8 P4 :01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION andLicensineBoahyd.~jtI Before the Atomic Safety BRANCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of GOVERNMENTS' MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONFERENCE CALL TO DISCUSS POSTPONEMENT OF FILING FEBRUARY 10 DEADLINE PENDING CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT OF LBP-88-2 ON MATTERS PENDING IN THIS PROCEEDING have been served on the following this 4th day of February, 1988 by U.S. mail, first Class.
James P. Glea-Chairman
- Mr. Frederick J.
Shon*
Atomic Safety sf Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear RegaAatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 James P. Gleacon, Chairman
- William R. Cumming, Esq.**
513 Gilmoure Drive Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Dr. Jerry R.
Kline*
500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
Hunton & Williams Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.**
P.O. Box 1535 Richard J.
Zahnleuter, Esq.
707 East Main Street Special Counsel to the Governor Richmond, Virginia 23212 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229
-State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
1 c
1 Joel Blau, Esq.
Anthony F.
Earley, Jr., Esq.
Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 17210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thohias Boyle, Esq.
Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L.
F.
Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Ottice of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Hon. Patrick G. Halpin Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Executive New York State Department of Law H.
Lee Dennison Building 120 Broadway, Room 3-118 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger George E. Johnson, Esq.**
New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Empire State Plaza Office of General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.
20555 David A.
Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036 i
s i'
. Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman I
Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 i-By Hand By Telecopier Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK te L KHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, C.C.
20036-5891 f
!l' I \\
-