ML20151E274
| ML20151E274 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1987 |
| From: | Jenny Murray NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151E085 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-280 NUDOCS 8807250434 | |
| Download: ML20151E274 (22) | |
Text
.
p & %e,'c, s
e UNITED STATES
'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMWSSION E E WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
%.?;;. '#
rec Io es7 i
VEMORANDL'!.' FOR :
Thomas F.
V.urley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
James P. Murray Deputy General Counsel i
SUBJECT:
SHOREHAM PID FINDING SCOPE OF EMERGENCY EXERCISE INADEQUATE UNDER APPENDlX E TO PART 50 in a Partia! IrItlal Decision (PID) issued December 7,1987, an Atomic Safety Licensing Board found that the February 13, 1986 exercise of the LILCO and emergency plan did not test as much of the plan in four limited areas as was "reasonably achievable."
It therefore found that the exercise failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Par. IV.F.1.
This PID addressed only the threshold question of whether the Shoreham exercise was of sufficient scope to comply with the requirement in the regulations requiring a "full participation exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation" within two years prior to issuance of a full power license.
The Licensing Board issued this partial decision, adverse to both the LILCO and Staff positions, in advance of its rulings on whether inadecuacies demonstrated by the exercise constituted "fundamental flaws" in the LILCO Plan.
The Board agreed with intervenors that the Commission's 1984 amendments to Appendix E indicated an intent that initial full participation exercises should be more cortplete than full participation exercises at operating sites',
it read Par. IV F.1 to require that initial exercises test all major portions of the plans, the dernonstration of which is reasonably acRTevable.
Id. at 17-19.
Thus, the Board examined each of the Intervenor challenges to Ihe scope of
~
the exercise to determine whether the evidence showed, as to any of the FEMA objectives for emergency planning exercises which were not demon-strated or tes ted, that demonstration of such objective was "reasonably achievable. "
The Board found that the testing of the following four objectives was "reasonably achievable", but that these objectives were not tested in the exercise:
(1) transmission of an EBS message to WALK Radio and authentication of that message by \\YALK Radlo; (2) participation by more than one school district in the exercise scenario; 8G07250434 080713 PDR FOIA i
BELAIRBB-200 PDR
_ ~
2 (3) Implementatien of c rotective actions in the Ingestio-exposure pathway in both Connecticut and New York; and (4) coordination and cor munication between LERO (the LILCO offsite response organization) anc special facilities, including a revie w of the preparedness of ambulance cric panies relied on by LERO.
_I d. a t O.
In rejecting Intervenors' cle:ms with respect to the absence of a~.ivation of the alert and notification system, the Board significantly found that "(gliven the County's efforts to precit.de any testing of the alert and actification systen at the exercise, it 11: behooves the Intervenors to conpiain that
[ sounding of the sirens, brcadcast of the EBS message and activaticr: of tone alert radics) were not carried out at the exercise.
Moreover, th:se efforts clearly dictate the conclusior that testing of these portions of the plan was not reasonably achievable."
l_d,. at 26-2 7.
d l discussion of whether LlLCO's failure to comply with Par. IV F.; cf Appe Of possible legal significance is the absence from this partial decision of any
',lE requires a conclusion that there is a "fundamental flaw" in *.he LILCO Plan.
The Commission in CLI_86-13 indicated that it was only the discovery of a fundamental flaw in an emergency plan which might cause it to be rejected,
it appears that the Board considers the legal deficiency fou nd.
to be determinative of the use of the exercise for licensing, arid that a finding of whether "fundamertal flaws" exist in the plan is thereby rencered superfluous.
Support for such a view is found in ALAB-861, 25 NRC 129, 139 n. 38 (1987).
In this connection, it may also be noted that given the requirement of a full participation exercise within *wo years of initial full power licensine and the passage of time since the February 13, 1986 exercise, another full participa-tion exercise will be required if a license above 5% power is not issued by i
February 13, 1988. See 10 C. F. R., Pa r E, Par. IV F.1.
, Jun F.Emay James P. Murray Deputy General Counsel cc:
V. Stello William T. Russell, Regional Administrator, Peg. I DISTRIBUTION:
Wolmstead OCC R/F EReis JCutlerrez, Reg. I CJohnson RCoddard, Reg, ll RBachmann BBerson, Reg. Ill CBarth BBrown, Reg. IV JMurray-c hron 8A41
.O. v
- OGC
- OGC
,:OGg (-
- 0GC
/
- GJohnsof
- EReis i
NAME
- Wp mstead
- JM ry 9 A T F"
. 17 /no f m7
.ti'i to'
- 1.,t o =
.10 / O
'0 7.. '
~
DRAFT TO:
Jim Murray FRO.'.t:
Ed. Reis SUBJEC -
OPEN ISSUES IN SPOREHAM PFCCEEDING 1
Re a-ded by Commission A.
' Realism" ( "Immateriality" CLI-86-13 These issues rise from the reh.se' of the County and State to 1.
cooperate in emergency plannirg.
The Licensing Board found for the Intervenors on 10 contentions which alleged that LILCO did not have legal authority tc-carry out portions of its off-site emergency plan related to:
evacuation control; directing traffic; making protective action decisions; notifying the public of an ernergency; access control to the EPZ: control of ingestion pathway; and recovering and reentry.
The Cor. mission stated in CLI-86-13 that it would not review the lega; authority issue at this tir:c, but d!rected the Licensing Doard to determine "wheth'er there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective actions can and wlil be taken in the event of an emergency" in view of the fact that local and State governments would act to protect their citl. tens in the event of an emergency, and would act on the basis of the utility plan in the absence of any other plan.
2.
The Commission in its recent amendments to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(c)(1) reiterated that reasor.able assurance of adequate
)
protection should be examined under the presu~ ptions that State and :ocal governments would act.to protec* their citizens using the utility plan as the basis of their actio.
3.
Renewed.!LCO motions for summary dispositle-on the basis of "realis " and the "immateriality" of the 'eg 71 authority questions is pending.
The response dealbg with legal questions involved on the Commission's amendment of 10 C.F.P.. ! $0.47(c)(1) are due on January 15, 1918.
Responses on the *irrn.ateriality" questions on February 1, 1988, and responses dealing with the "realism" arguments on February :0, 1988. We shall support LILCO on the dismissal of some of trase contentiens.
P.
Public notificatien of an emergency (CLI-87-05).
This issue arises from the withdrawal of WALK radio in August, 1986 as the principal emergency broadcast system station for Shoreham.
The Commission in CLl-87-05 (June 11,1987), in ruling upon Intervences motion to admit new contentions based on the withdrawal of WALK radio as the principal EBS statkn. stated that the motion was premature and the submition of contentions should await the filing of LILCO's amended EBS plan.
LILCO submitted such a plan on November 10, 1987, and simultaneously moved for summary disposition of issues involving the EBS.
The Licensing Board denied the motion on the ground that there were no admitted contentions to be summarily disposed of, arid the fict that the Commission had stated that the intervenors might hast a reasonable
l.
time to file contentions after LILCO submitted its new EBS plan.
The Doard provided such new cententions were to be filed by about January 15, 1988.
C Hospital Evacuation (CL1-87-12)
In CLl-87-12, November 6,1987, the Commission affirmed an Appeal Board ruling that evacuation p!anning was needed for hospital
~
patients even thouch "sheltering" might be preferred protective action for hospital patients in the Shoreham EPZ.
However it pointed out that the Licensing Board might approve the EP for Shoreham under 1) C.F.R. 50.47(c)(1) If it found that the failure to have a plan or estimated times for the evacuation of hospital patients was not si,c,nificant.
LILCO has since moved for summary disposition of this issue on the basis of now having evacuation time estimctes for hospital patients and on ground that lack of such plans would not be significant for the Shoreham EPZ in any event.
We are supporting the motion.
D.
License for Operation at 25% Power (CLI-87-04)
In CL1-87-04, June 11, 1987, the Commission referred LILCO's motion for a 25% license to the Licensing Board.
By order of January 7, 1988, the censing Board initiated proceedings on this application, and indicated a new Licensing Board or s master should be appointed to determine if existing contentions are relevant to operations at 25% power.
11.
Other Matters t
l 1
A.
_ Scope of tme EP Exercise. The Licensing-Board (Judge Frye) in a PID of Deer-ber 7,1907 (LBP-87-32), determir,ed that the exercise was not a "full participation exercisc" an regtfred by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, sec. IV. F.
It concluded that pre-license exercise r ust test all parts of plan "reasonably achievable without mandatory pub!!c participation. "
LILCO has appealed.
We shall support the appeal on questions involving the receired scope of the exercise a.c questions involving what could hue been reasonably tested.
R.
P.csults of EP Exercise.
Licensing Board (Judge Frye) decision after hear:ng is pending on whether February 1ME exercise showed 1.lLCO pla. can be implemented.
FP.MA found five deficiencies in LILCO's abi.ity to implement the plan, inclucing mobilization of emorgency workers, the ability to respond to unplanned events, and disserination of information to the press.
(FEMA defines a "deficiency' in a plan as the Commisslon has defned a "fundamental flaw" in a plan (See CLI-86-11)).
In proposed findings the Staff did not agree with FEMA that each of its 'teficiencies" was a "fundamental flaw."
C.
Adequacy of P.elocation Centers.
Licensing Boa-d (Jugde Gleason) decision after hearing is pending on adequacy or relocation centers designated by LlLCO and provisions for the monitoring of evacuees.
-l We have maintained the relocation centers and provlslons for monitoring are adequate.
1
7
.., t D.
School evacust!on, in / _A B-832, the Appeal Board remandec fc-further consideration tbt ssue of whether school bus drivers w:c't respond in an emergency *.: evacuate school children.
LILCO m:ved for, and the Staff supp:ated summary disposition of the iss.es.
The Licensing Boerd
' Judge Cleason) denied the motion er Decertber 30, 1987, sayi99 the Appeal Board expected - furt.ne-hearings.
It also set ot.t a 30 day, period for discovery on that issue and the i r *#
c' availability of school buses (a mttter determined adve. t.ly to LlLCO on original consideration of its emergent y plan).
E.
New Exercise Needed.
10 C.F.P.. Part 50, Appendix E, sec. IV.F.
required an off-site emergNincy plan exercise within 2 years before licensing for operation ab:ve 5% power.
The last LILCO exercise was held on February 13,19E6 A new exercise will' be needed for licensing after February 12, 19E9.
LILCO has asked the NRC and FEMA to schedule such a exercise.
F.
Medical Services Contentier.
The Commission has before it a February 25, 1987 Intervenor motion for admission of a rew contention on emergency p'anning for medical services.
The contention relates to FEMA guidance memorandum M5-1.
The Staff opposed this motion.
l t
k+f p q sa t/z -/6 4
1 Issues in OL-3 Remand Proceeding cr-Realism issues (CLI-86-13)
A.
Questions posed by Memorandum & Order denying Summary Disposition of Legal Authority Contentions 1-2, 4-10 (3 mcot), September 17, 1987 ContentionJ
- 1. Sirens:
a.
Whether strens will be sounded?
i b.
When will sirens be sounded (criteria for protective acilon decisions)?
c.
By whom would sirens be activated?
2.
EBS Messages:
i a.
What system will be used?
b.
How will it be act!vated?
c.
At whose direction will it be activated?
d.
What messages wl!! be broadcasted?
Cc.tention 6 (Command & Control) a.
Who will assume charget b.
Who will decide when protect!ve actions are required?
c.
What criteria will be used to decide appropriate protective actions?
_ Contentions 1 & 2 (Traffic Control) a.
How will traffic be guidedt b.
By Whom will traffic be gulded?
ausse d
' Contention 4 (Road Impediments) a.
How wou'd obstructions be removed?
b.
By wher would they be removed?
c.
How wl!' removal coordinate with guiding tra"Ic and selection of alternate evacuation routes?
d.
Who wil: be in overall charge of "well-plannec response"?
Contention 7 (Incestion Pathway) a.
Wculd government actions comply with NRC regulations?
I b.
Would gosernment actions work at cross pu poses with LlLCO actions' Contention 8 (Recovery and Reentry) a.
Who will decide proper reentry and recovery procedures?
b.
What standards will be used to evolve proper procedures?
Contention 9 (Discensing Fue!) !not required by reguls*. ions) a.
How wll! this feature function?
b.
Would this feature function?
[how is either question relevant if not required?)
Contention 10 (Access Control) l a.
What sts edards would be used to decide crclusion over how 1
wide an area?
b.
What would occur if LILCO was advisirg different than authorities 7 c.
How would organizations interact, to what enc' e
6
- - - -a
.a--
--a
.-e
-w, e
-n,
- B.
Other issues from CL1-d6-13 Remand on Realism 1.
Familiarity of State and County officials with local plan?
2.
How much delay can be expected in alerting public and making decisions and recommendations on protective actions?
3.
Mcw about making decisions and recommendations on recovery and reentry?
4.
How abcut achieving effective access controls?
II.
Er ergency Planning Contentions Remended for further hearing A.
Contention 20 (WALK Radlo): Remanded by Commission in CLI-87-45 (June 11,1987):
LILCO intends that EBS messages will~ be broadcast simultare-ously by Y!ALK-AM and FM.
(Plan at 3.3-6).
- However, WALK-AM does not operate at night.
Therefore, those perscris without FM radios (especially people in cars) will be unable to receive adequate information in the event a radiological accident i
occurs at night, contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(5).
This contention was resolved favorably by the Licensing Board in 21 NRC 644, 763-764 (1!85).
However, WALK radio withdrew from parth-k%r ipation in the EBS in OctoMr 1926.
The Commission gbnted a reopeni g of the record on this issue, but stated the admission of co.Senticris should await LILCO's providing updated Information on pub!!c no'.ification procedures.
CL1-87-05 et 4.
The Commission also directed that the Board condition admission of new contentions on the extent they assisted in focusing the litigation of earlier admitted issues.
Id. at 10.
Subsequently, LILCO filed for Summary Disposition on this conte &
tion by providing a new flag station (WPLR-FM in New Haven, Connect-cut) and substituting two other Connecticut stations for the Long Islard stations that also withdrew from the EBS.
In deriying Summa y
'. Disposition er this issue, the Board stated that any new contentions must address the earlier admitted I: sues, that is, the adequacy of the' Plan provisions fer raolo transmission of ERS messages and activation of tone alert rcdios.
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant's Motion of November 6. 1987 for Surrmary Disposition of the WALK Radio issue),
December 21, 1987.
(f?evie d of 1 55 v es o d d M t d b N h d *)
B.
Content;on 25.C (Role Confilet of School Bus Drivers):
Remanded by Appea Board in 23 NRC 135,152-154 (1986).
The LILCO Plan falls to take into account the role confilci that wir be experienced by school bus drivers.
In fact,
a substantial number of school bus drivers are likely to attend to the safety of their own familles before they report (if they re;crt at all) to perform the bus driving duties which LILCO assumes will be performed.
Role confilet of achool bus drivers win swan that neither school buses nor school bus drivers will l
be available to implement the LILCO Plan. Without an adequate nurber of buses or bus drivers, LILCO will be incapable of imp'enenting the following protective actions.
1.
early dismissal of schools (necessary under the LILCO Plan to permit school children to be sheltered or to evacuate with thtir parents);
2.
evacuation of schools; 3.
evacuation of persons without access to cars; and, 4.
evacuation of persons in special facilities.
In rejecting Summary Disposition of this remanded contention, the Licensing Beard stated the errangements made by Lt.'.CO for providing 4
auxiliary bus drivers recruited from its own employees does not requite the submission of new contentions, but the Intervenors must have an opportunity 2 confront this new plan.
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant's Mot 69n of October 22, 1987 for Summary Disposition of Conterition 2!.C, Role Conf!!ct of School Bus Drivers), December 30,19tt7.
0
---m---
- - ---a---eem
,,a,
---w w--nne, man
+,,---,n--,,-
,,,-,----------e,-
q.--,-
l l An additional matter is the issue of the availability of buses, an issue the Licensing Board found as a deficiency in the PlD (21 hRC at 874).
LILCO's arrangements for securing an adequate number of tr.:ses to evacuate school children in cee wave may also be heard in the cor ext of the proceeding regarding bt.s drivers.
Board Order of December 30, 1987 at 6.
4 C.
Contention 72 (Evacuation of Hospitals): Remanded by Appeal Board in ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135,154-15TTI986), affirmed by Commission in CLI-87-12 (November 5,1987).
T ht. LILCO Plan proposes to evacuate all hospitals, nursing homes and other special health care facilities in the EP2, using buses, ambulances. and ambulettes. [ cites to Plan omtted).
This aspect of the Plan cannot be implemented; accordngly, people in special facilities will not be adequately protected in the event of an emergency and the LILCO Plan falls to comply with 10 C.F.P.. I 50.47(a)(1),(b)'3, 8 s 10) for the folowing reasons:
72.A.
Assuming the necessary vehicles were available to LILCO and were mobilized, the time necessary, fo'oming mobillration, to accorrplish the proposed evacuation of special facilities will be too long to provide adequate protection frerr health threatening radiation deses.
Ev.cuation will take too long as a result of: the large number of trips necessary to transport persons individually te relocation centers;the other mobiliza*for of evacuation traffic congestion which the evacuation vehicles will encounter: and the time necessary to load and unload passengers frcen ambulances.
[ cites omitted]
72.C.
The Plan falls to identify any relocation or recep-tion centers for persons evacuated from any hospitals, r.ursing homes, or other special health care facilities other than the United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Suffolk Inc.
- 72. D.
The LILCO Plans recognizes that under cartain circumstance:: the evacuation of John T. Mather Memorial, St. Charles and Central Suffolk Hospitals might be necessary, and that LILCO may recommend such an evacuation. [ cites to Plan omitted.)
However, the Plan falls to specify adequately or accurately the circumstances that would necessitate an evacuation of the hospitals, and does not include adequate procedures to permit the. person in command and control to make an accurate d6termhation
1
-s as to whether or not such an evacuation is needed.
[ cites I
omitted. ]
72.E.
Instead of p!anning to provide adequate protection to hospital patients in the event of such an evacuation, the LILCO Plan simply provides that "LERO will evacuate these facilities using an ad hoc expansion of transportation resources that are presently committed to other aspects of evacuatl(p." [ cites to plan onitted.)
Apparently, this ad hoc plan will not be developed until an emergency actually occurs. [ cites to plan omitted. ) The ad hoc plan will utilize vehicles assigned to implement the evacuation of other segments of the population, but such vehicles will be supplied for the purpose of evacuating hospitals patients only "on an as available basis," and only "as the rest of i
the affected population evacuation nears completion. [ cites to plan omitted. )
Thus, there is no assurance that edequate protective measures could or'would be taken for hospital patients and LILCO has thus failed to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 55 50.47(a)(1) and 50.47(b)(10).
LILCO has filed for Summary Disposition on this matter, (Lilco's Motion for Summary Dispos' tion of the Hospital Evacuation
- issue, Decemt.e r 18 1987) and it is currently pending before the Licensing Board.
!!!. Ene-t;;ency Planning hercise Contentions (pending Licensing Board cKision)
A.
Croupings of Conter.tlons:
1.
Scepe! sampling contentions: EX 15,16, 21 4
2.
Fie'd Worker Contentions: siX 34, 40.a,b, 41 3.
Rad 11ealth/ Monitoring Contentions: EX 22.a, 36, 47, 49 (except c) 4.
Public Information Contentions: EX 38, 39, 40.c, 49.c 5.
Training Contention: EX 50 e
-7' B.
Specifically:
Contentions 15 s 16 allege exerciso didn't include era'uation or demonstration of major portions of plan or of capabilities of nany persons i
and entitles relied upon for implementation.
Contention 19 alleges FEMA's inability to make reasonab'e assurance 1
finding reveals a fundar. ental flaw in plan. (Admitted for leysl argument only) i Contention 21 alleges FEMA used Insufficient data to conclude i
exercise objectives were met f size of sample insufficient).
Contention 22.a alleges Nassau Coliseum not available (noct issue),
i gntention 34 alleges response of route-alerting personrel (in event of stren failure) was slow.
Contention 36 alleges performance error in conduct cf exercise.
(inappropriate protective action recommendations were made in response to wind shift of plume in exeecise scenario)
Contention 38 alleges incompetent performance regarding ernergency nr..:; e. der operbtlons (public information issue).
Contention 39 alleges incompetent performance regarcing rumor control at ENC.
Contentien 40 alleges errors by field workers in exercise of plan.
(M.obilization of Traffic Culdes)
Contention 41 deals with traffic impediments and errors in responding to same by field workers.
Contention 47 deals with decontamination of special populations.
(Registration and monitoring of evacuees from special facilities)
Contention 49 alleges LILCO is incapable of performing registration and monitoring of evacuees with 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
- i.:,
, Contention 50 alleges mistaket es dent during exercise demonstrate an inadequate training program which is fundamental flaw in plan.
l i
1 e
e I
l l
1 i
Document Narre:
PARTY l
Requestor's ID:
BROWN Author's Name:
Mcdonald Document Comnents:
Party Positions i
e 4
Party Positions on Remaining Shoreham Emergency Planning Contentions 1.
Lego! Authority Contentieris 1,2,4-10 A.
FEMA FEMA has consistently found various portions of the LILCO Plan
~
Inadequate as a result of the lack of legal authority to implement the plan as found by New York State Courts.
B.
STAFF The staff has consistently taken the position that LILCO/LERO lacks legal authority to implement some of the elements of the plan cited in these contentions (spacially, directing traffic, sounding sirens, j
l command and control).
C.
APPLICANT Appilcant has maintained that these contentions are either Immaterial (not necessary under the regulations to meet the emergency planning requirements) or that in a real emergency the County and/or State would participate and cure any lack of legcl authority for LERO to respond (realism argument).
D.
INTERVENORS Suffolk County, Town of Southampton and New York State have consistently maintained that the Applicant lacks legal authority to implement the activities cited in these contentions, and that they would not participate in any emergency response that utilized the L1LCO Plan, notwithstanding the' new rule.
l 2-11.
Erne roency Planning Contentions Remanded for tether hearing A.
WALK Radio (Contention 20):
1.
FEMA FEMA found the original broadcast systen adequate except for lece' authority, and has taken no formal :osition as yet on the nev, system.
2.
STAFF Staf' has taken no formal position, but fomd the earlier system edecuate and generally supports the new system.
3.
APPLICANT App'icant maintains the new system is just as serviceable as the earlier system.
l 4.
INTERVENORS Intemenors object to Ccnnecticut stations eplacing Long Island stations and maintain this affords inadea2 ate coverage to the EP2.
B.
Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers (Contertion 25.C):
1.
FEMA FEMA (in testimony filed in the proceedirg) did not find role conflict a significant problem with regard ta bus drivers.
S
.v e
r,-
--r v
w---
c -' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' '
" ^ " ~ '" *
. 2.
STAFF The Staff took ne formal position, but generally supported
)
FEMA and the Appli: ant in not finding role conflict a sign!ficant problem with regarc' *o bus drivers.
s 3.
APPLICANT The App!! cant main.a ned that historically emergency werkers have responded to accidents and role conflict has not been a problerr in disaster research Uterature.
4 INTERVENORS Suffolk County has consistently maintained that role conflict will be a problem among workers in response to a radiological emergency, based en current surveys of residents of Long Island.
C.
Evacuation of Hospita's (Contention 72):
1.
FEMA FEMA found the lack of letters of agreement between receiving hospitals and EPZ Fospitals or LERO a deficiency, but FEMA notes hospitals are 6fferent than nursing homes In the degree of care usually necessary for hospital patients, therefore sheltering is generafly the preferred option for this special population.
)
e
.g 2.
STAFF The Staff has taken no formal position on this issue, but generally supports FEMA in the mattee.
3.
API'LICANT A-pticant maintains it has planned ca efully for hospitals, and the new revision (no. 9) +o the plan contains the evacuation time estimates (ETE's) deemed missing by the Appeal Board.
Applicant also maintains that a list of receiving hospitals is adequate and that letters of agreenent are not required (a position with which FEMA and, hence, the Staff, disagrees).
4.
INTERVENORS trtervenors maintain that evacuation of hospital patients, down te the very smallest detall must be part of the LILCO Plan, notwithstanding the requirement by the New York State ospital code that all hospitals must have written emergen;y and disaster preparedness plans rehearsed and updated blannually.
111. Emergency Planning Exercise Contentions A.
FEk'.A FEMA found five deficiencies in its Post Exercise Assessment (PEA) concerning (1) operations at the emergency news center, (2) mobinzation of bus drivers, (3) training of bus drivers, (4) comfrunications at the EOC with regard to road impediments and the I
l i
i
., response of field wekers thereto, and (5) the deploymen: cf traffic guides.
Ylith regard to spe:ific contentions, FEMA took the position that contentions 15, 16, and 21 regarding the scope of the exercise should not be admitted, and that the scope of the exercise was not a deficiency.
Contunfern dealln0 with the deficiencies clied in the PEA include Contentiens 38 6
39 (emergency news center operations),
Conter. tion 40 (mobilization of traffic g uldes),
Contention 41 (regarding response to road impediments) and Contention 50 (trainirg program inadequacles).
B.
STAFF The Staff also took the position that Contentions 15, 16 and 21 regarding scope of tre exercise were not deficleticles.
The staff did not find operations at the ENC (Contentions 38 and 39) corstituted a deficiency, but did agree with FEMA that Contentions 40, 41, and 50 regardinD mobilizatfor. and response of field workers to road knpedi-ments and the trainire program constituted deficiencies.
C.
APPLICANT The app!! cant maint'sined that none of the deficiencies cited by FEVA were defklencies within the definition set forth by the Conmission in CLt-86-11, 23 NRC ST/ (1986).
Applicant maintains that mistakes on the day of the exercse are correctable and do not provide evidence that the Plan is inherently unworkable.
\\
., D.
lHTERVENORS Suffolk County and New York State raintain that all mistakes or errors in performance by personnet o-the day of the exercise (not firited' by the five deficiencies citec by FEMA, but including all j
areas recormended for corrective actcc [ ARCA's)) are deficienc i
wh;ch make the Plan inherently unw: kable and demonstrate that j
there is no reasonable assurance ade:uate emergency response can j
and will be implemented under the LILCO Plan.
i l
)
4 1
O e
t
'*'"'r--,-
_