ML20149K921
| ML20149K921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1988 |
| From: | Latham S, Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5643 OL-3, NUDOCS 8802240041 | |
| Download: ML20149K921 (11) | |
Text
SH3 o
00CKETED USNRC 53 FEB 19 P3 52 Februarv. 16,;.1988.g.,
C 3C.% 1 W 1 n_ n. :U.
E.R A NJ:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN l
OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S FEBRUARY 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON LILCO'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF THE BOSPITAL EVACUATION ISSUE Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton (hereafter, "the Governments") hereby respond to the Board's February 1, 1988 Order 1/ inviting the Governments and the Staff to submit, if they so choose, an additional response to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the hospital evacuation 1/
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant's Motion of December 18, 1987 for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue)(Feb.
1, 1988)(hereafter, "Feb. 1 Order").
8802240041 880216
^D
'j)f8 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
4 issue.2/
The Feb. 1 Order does not specify precisely what the subject of this additional response should be; however, in light of the Board's rulings concerning the unavailability of Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan (agg Feb. 1 Order at 4), the Governments assume that the Board intended to invite the Governments and the Staff to modify their prior responses to LILCO's Motion, if necessary, in light of the contents of Revision 9 pertaining to the evacuation of the EPZ hospitals.
l LILCO's submission of Revision 9 has absolutely no effect on l
the Governments' previous viewsl/ that the LILCO Motion must be denied because, inter alia:
(1) LILCO's new hospital evacuation l
"plan" continues to adopt the fundamentally ad hqq approach which was rejected by the Appeal Board and by the Commission (agg Gov-ernments' Response at 14-17);d/ (2) LILCO has failed to bear its burden of establishing through its motion for summary disposition and supporting papers that there are no disputed issues of l
l 2/
LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue (Dec. 18, 1987)(hereafter, "LILCO Motion").
i 2/
Egg Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton Response to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue (Jan. 15, 1988) (hereafter, "Governments' Response"); Reply of Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton to the NRC Staff Response in Support of LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue (Feb.
1, 1988) (hereafter, "Governments' Reply").
A/
CLI-87-12, 26 NRC slip op. (Nov.
5, 1987); ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135 (1986).
2-I
material fact (Egg Governments' Response at 21-28); (3) LILCO's new' hospital evacuation plan continues to include significant deficiencies which raise substantial issues of public health and safety, and which, therefore, preclude the grant of summary disposition (see Governments' Response at 33-38); (4) LILCO's new hospital evacuation plan is not sufficiently detailed -- nor has it been the subject of sufficient review -- to make it suscep-title to delegation to the NRC Staff as a mere Staff "confirma-tion item" (ggg Governments' Response at 18-20; Governments' Reply at 14-19);1/ and (5) LILCO cannot reply upon 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) (see Governments' Response at 28-30).
There is no need to repeat these arguments r e..:ecause they remain essentially unaffected by LILCO's f.z. -c mc' tion of Revision 9.
This is so for two reasons.
First, the Revision 9 statement of LILCO's hoapital evacu-ation proposal is substantially the same as the description of it provided in the LILCO Motion.
Thus, it suffers from all the substantive defects which the Governments have already identified.
1/
In any event, the Staff has forfeited all pretense to cbjectivity and neutrality in this proceeding, so that the delegation of decisional responsibility to the Staff would be highly improper and would constitute clear and reversible error.
Sag Governments' Response at 20; Governments' Reply at 20-21 and attached Affidavit of Lawrence Coe Lanpher (Feb.
1, 1988). _
Second, Revision 9 is just as ambiguous, conclusory, and lacking in detail, analyses and bases, as were LILCO's characterizations of that Revision in the LILCO Motion.
As a result, the filing of Revision 9 has done nothing to resolve any of the material issues of fact which are in dispute on the hospital evacuation issue, or to fill the huge gaps in the necessary information, data, analyses and bases which underlie LILCO's conclusory assertions.
Egg Governments' Response at 21-28 and attached Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Exists a Genuine Issue to be Heard on Matters Raised by LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue, Affidavit of Michael S. Miller; Affidavit of David Hartgen, attached to the Governments' Reply.
Thus, despite the publication of Revision 9, LILCO's Motion, and Revision 9 itself, still fail to provide the information, data, or bases necessary to permit any reasoned or intelligent evaluation of LILCO's new proposal, or a determination, particu-larly on a summary basis without hearing, that the flaws identi-fled by the Appeal Board and the Commission have been corrected, that the deficiencies identified by the Governments have been addressed, or that there are no material facts in dispute.
For example:
l 1.
In Revision 9 LILCO still provides no basis, expla-nation, or support, for the validity or applicability to the l
l 4
hospitals at issue, of its 14% vacancy rate assumption, which underlies its new hospital evacuation time estimates.
See Gov-ernments' Response at 24; Miller Affidavit 11 7-8.
2.
Revision 9 still fails to provide the raw data and analyses upon which LILCO's new evacuation time estimat#ts for hospitals are based.
Egg Governments' Response at 25; Miller Affidavit 1 10; Hartgen Affidavit SV 6-7.
Indeed, Revision 9 adds totally new assumed "travel speeds," used in calculating the new estimates, without providing any bases, underlying data, or even textual explanation of their origin.
Egg App. A at IV-186.
3.
Revision 9, while reducing the list o'f "reception hospitals" from 26 to 23, still provides none of the additional information necessary to use such reception hospitals to calcu-late evacuation time estimates.
Egg Governments' Response at 25-26; Miller Affidavit 1 10; Hartgen Afficavit 11 6-7.
- Thus, for example, no information is provided concerning:
how many beds are available, or potentially available, for evacuees at such hospitals; how many of such beds would be available fcr hosoital evacuees who would not arrive until after all the other special facility evacuees and homebound evacuees had already been evacuated to the same reception hospitals; or, how the assumptions, concerning which or how many hospital evacuees would be transported to which reception hospitals, were arrived at in 5-
calculating the new hospital evacuation time estimates.
- Sag, e.Q.,
LILCO Plan, App. A at IV-178.
4.
Revision 9 still fails to provide any basis or explanation for LILCO's assumption that it would be possible to obtain, dispatch, manage and direct all the ambulances, ambulettes, and buses necessary to evacuate the hospitals after the evacuation of the other special facilities in the EPZ and that these actions would and could be completed according to the assumptions upon which LILCO's new hospital evacuation time estimates are based.
Egg Governments' Response at 26; Miller Affidavit 1 10; Hartgen Affidavit 1 6.
- Egg, e.o.,
LILCO Plan, App. A at IV-178.
5.
LILCO fails to specify ambulance route assignments and the details for prioritizing reception hospital selection and evacuation vehicle dispatch and management.
Egg Governments' Response at 16, 26-27; Miller Affidavit H 10; Hartgen Affidavit 1 6.
Thus, the publication of Revision 9 not only fails to address the fatal defects in the substance of LILCO's hospital evacuation proposal which require its denial as already demonstrated in the Governments' Response and Reply; it also fails to address or to cure the additional fatal defects identified in LILCO's Motion -- specifically, the lack of necessary facts and information to permit a finding that there are no material facts in dispute, much less a rational ruling on the adequacy or implementability of LILCO's Revision 9 hospital proposal.
Indeed, as demonstrated above, the statements in the Miller Affidavit and the Hartgen Affidavit concerning the inability of the Governments to present facts to controvert many of the statements and conclusions upon which LILCO's Motion and Revision 9 are premised, remain essentially unaffected by the publication of Revision 9.
Thus, the LILCO Motion must be denied for all the reasons stated in the Governments' Response and Reply.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
\\
eA
}-
e Karla J.
Letsche Ronald R.
Ross KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N. W.
South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D.
C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County l
l
- i
a T4 L A hi OP, AT)
Fabian G. Palo!4Ib 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 cf New York
[M
( s s,^s,. L.)
Stephen' B. Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea Post Office Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Souchampton 8-
COLMEIED February 16, Ikh8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IB FEB 19 P3:52 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina BoahlCE OF Sgcpg 74j,y ggI?G A SERVICf*
vRANCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SER_y_I.Q_R l
l I hereby certify that copies of the SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S FEBRUARY 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON LILCO'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF THE HOSPITAL EVACUATION ISSUE have been served on the following this 16th day of February, 1988 by U.S. mail, first class.
In addition, copies of the SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S FEBRUARY 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON LILCO'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF THE HOSPITAL EVACUATION ISSUE will be served on the members of the Licensing Board by hand delivery on February 17, 1988.
James P. Gleason, Chairman Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 James P.
Gleason, Chairman William R. Cumming, Esq.
513 Gilmoure Drive Spence W. Perry, Esq.
l Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 1
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
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 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas 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 Office 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 New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H.
Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 l
MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider l
1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O.
Box 231 l
San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 i
l Mr. Jay Dunkleburger George E. Johnson, Esq.
l New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Office of the General Counsel Empire State Plaza U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Alcany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.
20555 David A.
Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pi-tsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036
\\
Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall
' Oyster Bay, New York 11771 4
].a..AA,.
3 1-l s
Ronald R. Roda KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 i
i l
l 3
i e
b 1
i i
i.
Y l
1 i
1 b
a i
I i
I
)
I
)
I t
t l
4 i
f i
i <
, _ _. _ _ _ _,... ~..., _, _., _... _ _, _ - _ _. _ _. _ _ _,. _ _ _,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _. _ - _...., _ _ _. _, _. _ _ _ _ _,, _.,. _.. _ _ _...
__