ML20151S056

Suffolk County,State of Ny & Town of Southampton Response to Lilco Renewed Opposition to Govts Proposed Contention on Emergency Medical Svcs for Contaminated Injured Individuals & Suggestion of Mootness.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20151S056
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/09/1988
From:	Latham S, Mark Miller, Palomino F HAMPTON, NH, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#388-6901 OL-3, NUDOCS 8808150047
Download: ML20151S056 (23)

Text

F

'{pfdf COL Ki; iip Au a u s t+ 9, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '86 AUS 11 P2:23 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Ccmmission CNiiN((Tjn/g' I DR A Nt.H

)

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 OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO LILCO'S RENEWED OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENTS' PROPOSED CONTENTION ON EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR CONTAMINATED INJURED INDIVIDUALS AND SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton (hereafter, the "Governments") hereby respond to "LILCO's Renewed Opposition to Intervenors' Proposed Contention on Emergency Medical Services for Contaminated Injured Individ-uals and Suggestion of Mootness" (July 28, 1988) (hereafter,  ;

"LILCO's Renewed Opposition"). LILCO's Renewed Opposition is an l untimely, unauthorized pleading which rehashes arguments already ,

put before the Commission and which improperly seeks a decision on the merits of the Governments' proposed contention.

Accordingly, LILCO's pleading is entitled to no consideration by the Commission and should be rejected in ius entirety.

8808150047 000009 DR ADOCK05000g2

,# 4 1

I. Backaround The instant dispute commenced almost 18 months ago when the Governments filed a motion to admit a late-filed contention. The proposed contention alleges that LILCO's Plan fails to make adequate provisions for emergency medical services for contaminated injured individuals. Sgg Motion of Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton to Admit New Contention (Feb. 25, 1987) (hereafter, "Governments' Motion").

The basis for the proposed contention is LILCO's failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(12), as interpreted by FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services (Nov. 13, 1986)

(hereafter, "MS-1").

Section 50.47(b)(12) requires that radiological emergency plans include arrangements for medical services for contaminated injured individuals. 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(12). Prior to February 12, 1985, the Commission had found that Section 50.47(b)(12) could be satisfied if an applicant simply provided a list of local medical facilities which were capable of treating '

persons exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. See Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 534-36 (1983). However, on that date the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of i

Coluinbia Circuit held that Section 50.47(b)(12) required pre-  :

accident arrangements for medical services -- not merely a l l

1 1

.,_.,.__.__,.m,. , , _,,..,.,,_,,,.-...y,__ ..

. ~ . --

1 listing of existing medical facilities. Guard'v. U.S. Nuclear Peculatory Commission, 753 F.2d 1144, 1145-46-(D.C. Cir.11985).

The Court rejected as irrational the Commission's interpretation of Section 50.47(b)(12)'s requirements, stating:. ,

[t]he petition for review questions whether it is rational to qualify, as a form of "arrangements . . ' . made for medical services" for persons "exposed to dangerous levels of radiation," mere identification of whatever facilities happen to exist. We hold that the Commission did not-r_easonably interoret the section 50.47(bifl2) ohrase "arranaements . . . made for medical services" when it declared, aenerically, tha_t a simple list of treatment facilities already in olace constitutes such arranaements.

Guard, 753 F.2d at 1146 (emphasis added). Thus, the Court suggested that Section 50.47(b)(12) required the development of.

specific plans and training for the emergency personnel-who would be relied upon to render the medical services for contaminated

) injured individuals. Id. at 1150 n.7. In light ~o f its ruling, j the Court vacated the Commission's interpretation of Section 1

50.47(b)(12), and remanded the matter to the Commission for further consideration. Id. at 1150.  :

I l I

Pending final Commission action in response to the Guard remand, the Commission issued a statement of interim guidance.

Egg 50 Fed. Reg. 20,892 (May 21, 1985). This statement of interim guidance permitted the issuance of full power licenses l j

where the applicant satisfied the requirements of Section 50.47(b)(12), as interpreted by the Commission prior to Guard, so l l

l 4

._, _ _ , . _ _ .. . , . _ _ . , - _ _ . . .__ _, ,.,_._,m. .,__,.__.,-,.,_--.,,,,m.,,_4,.m

long as the applicant committed to full compliance with the Commission's final response to the Guard remand.

Before the Commission issued its interim guidance, Suffolk County and New York State sought admission of a new contention concerning the adequacy of LILCO's arrangements for medical services. Egg Motion of Suffolk County and New York State to Admit New Contention (Feb. 25, 1985). This proposed contention, based on the Guard decision, asserted that becaune LILCO's Plan did nothing more than list available hospitals, and because LILCO had neither developed specific plans nor assured that adequate resources and personnel were in place to provide medical services for contaminated injured members of the public in the event of a Shoreham accident, LILCO's Plan failed to comply with Section 50.47(b)(12)'s requirements.

LILCO opposed the motion as premature, see LILCO's Answer to "Motion of Suf folk County and New York State to Admit New Contention" (Including a Request that the New Issues be Severed from the Rest) (March 11, 1985), and the NRC Staff requested the Licensing Board to defer any ruling on the County's and State's motion until such time as the Commission had issued guidance in light of the Guard decision. Egg NRC Staff Response to "Motion of Suffolk County and New York State to Admit New Contention" (March 12, 1985). Adopting the Staff's position, the Licensing Board denied the County's and State's motion, holding that:

I 1

_4- I L

l <

Litigation of the question of what consti-tutes adequate arrangements for medical services for contaminated individuals, if warranted at all, must be deferred until the Commission has issued a rule or other ceneric cuidance on the matter. LILCO will, of course, have to comolv with the Commission's final rule __or cuideline.

Memorandum and Order (Denying Suffolk County's and State of New York's Motion to Admit New Contention) (August 21, 1985)

(hereafter, "August 21 Order"), at 7 (emphasis added). Thus, the Licensing Board's August 21 Order plainly precluded any litigation of LILCO's compliance with Section 50.47(b)(12) until i

the issuance of final guidance by the Commission.

That guidance came in two stages. First, the Commission 4

issued a Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(12) on September 17, 1986. There, the Commission I reaffirmed its earlier holding that the term "contaminated injured individuals" encompasses those members of the public exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. 51 Fed. Reg. 32,904 l (Sept. 17, 1986). The Commission's Statement also left to "the informed judgment of the NRC Staff, subject to general guidance by the Commission, the exact parameters of the minimally i

necessary arrangements for medical services." Id. In this {

regard, the Commission indicated that it expected the NRC Staff to develop, with FEMA, specific guidance on the application of Section 50.47(b)(12). Id.

l 1

l i

i

. , . __ _ - _I

Such guidance was provided in the second stage, when FEMA issued Guidance Memorandum MS-1, which was forwarded to NRC l licensees by IE Notice 86-98 (Dec. 2, 1986). MS-1 established the guidelines for the provision of medical services for the '

contaminated injured individuals described in the Commission's Statement of Policy. Specifically, it established five prerequisites for compliance with Section 50.47(b)(12):

(1) There must be written agreements with medical facili-ties and transportation providers. These agreements must contain assurances that the medical facilities and transportation providers "have adequate technical information (e.g. treatment protocols) and treatment capabilities for handling ' contaminated injured' individaals." (MS-1 at 2).

(2) There must be lists of public, private and military hospitals which have the capability to "radiologically monitor contaminated injured persons." The listing shall include the name, location, type of facility and capacity, and an annotation of its special radiological  :

capabilities. (14. at 3). l There must be arrangements for the transportation of i

(3) victims of radiological accidents to medical support facilities, with provisions for the "use of contamina-tion control in trans medical facilities." porting (14.).contaminated persons to i

j (4) There must be radiological emergency response training for instructing and qualifying those who will implement radiological emergency response plans. The training program must ensure: (a) that each hospital shall have I at least one physician and one nurse on call within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> who can supervise the evaluation and treatment of radiologically contaminated injured members of the general public; and (b) that transportation providers I have basic training in contamination control. (Id. at I 4).  !

(5) Periodic exercises and drills must be conducted to '

evaluate major portions of emergency response capabili-ties and to develop and maintain key skills and identify deficiencies. (Id.).  ;

L

Following the issuance of MS-1, the Governments filed their February 25, 1987 Motion. In response, both LILCO and the NRC Staff urged the Commission to refuse admission of the proposed contention. Egg LILCO's Opposition to Intervenors' Motion to Admit a New Contention (March 9, 1987) (hereafter, "LILCO's Opposition"); NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Motion to Admit a New Contention (March 17, 1987) (hereafter, "Staff's Response"). LILCO opposed the Governments' Motion on three grounds: (1) that-the Motion was allegedly premature, since MS-1 was not then applicable to licensees with licenses for less than full power operation (see LILCO's Opposition at 2-3); (2) that I

the Motion was allegedly premised on an inappropriate legal

( theory, referring to LILCO's belief that the appropriate co' arse .

for the Governments to pursue would be to seek to reopen the record pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.734 (agg id. at 4-7); and (3) that the Governments had failed to meet the standards for admission of a late-filed contention (seg is. at 7-9). The Staff's Response substantially agreed with the second and third arguments cet forth in LILCO's opposition. Staff's Response at 5-12.

In the absence of Commission action on the Governments' Motion, LILCO seeks to take advantage of the situation by filing a "Renewed Opposition" which: (1) reasserts arguments it has already made; and (2) injects alleged new facts which, besides being largely inaccurate, cannot be considered by the Commiss.on, but rather must be evaluated by a Licensing Board in a properly-i

Instituted, fact-finding proceeding. Thus, LILCO's Renewed

,1 Opposition should be rejected out of hand and the matter remanded f to the OL-3 Licensing Board for further proceedings.  !

II. LILCO's Realewed Opposition Is a Thinly-Velled Attempt to Dispose Summarily of the Governments' Proposed Contention on the Merits In oppcsing the Governments' Motion, LILCO argues _that the Governments' proposed contention should be dismissed as moot, based upon alleged actions taken by LILCO which LILCO has i

unilaterally declared are sufficient to comply with MS-1. Egg LILCO's Renewed Opposition at 5-7. The notion that LILCO can immunize contested issues f rom challenge merely by alleging facts prior to the admission of any contention on those issues is utterly lacking in merit. In fact, LILCO is actually seeking to dispose of the Governments' proposed contention through summary disposition on the merits -- but at the wrong phase of the proceeding and without complying with the standards set forth in the Commission's regulations. Egg 10 CPR S 2.749s For the reasons set forth below, the Commission must : eject LILCO's ploy out of hand.

4 A. LILCO Improperly Seeks to A3 dress the Merits of the Governments' Proposed Contention LILCO suggests that the Governments' Motion "has been overtaken by events and is now moot." LILCO's Renewed Opposition at 5. This claim is based upon LILCO's belief, which no 4

objectica body has scrutinized, that it has taken steps over the past 18 months to satisfy fully the requirements of Section 50.47(b)(12), as interpreted in MS-1. In short, LILCO seeks a decision on the merits of the Governments' proposed contention, ,

before it has even been admitted. NRC precedent, however,.makes clear that LILCO cannot defeat the admission of a contention in this manner.

Indeed, it is well-established that the merits of a contention cannot be reached in determining whether the proposed contention is admissible. q_leveland Electric Illuminatina Co.

f (Perry Ncelear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175, 181 (1981), Mississioni Power and_ Licht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423 (1973).  :

Moreover, "great care should be taken before rejecting a i i

potentially important contention . "

. . . Cleveland Electric Illuminatino Co., 14 NRC at 183.

f

)

In its 10 page argument alleging that it has complied with MS-1 and that this renders the Governments' Motion moot, LILCO fails to cite a single authority to support the novel I proposition that it can defeat the Governments' proposed contention on the merits. Eeg LILCO's Renewed Opposition at 5-

14. Rather, LILCO simply seeks to argue the merits of its case, 1 l

and then asserts that it is entitled to prevail on the issues J

raised by the contention. This argument clearly conflicts with the NRC authority cited above.

B. LILCO's Renewed Opposition Is Legally Deficient to Serve as the Basis for Summarv_ Disposition In setting forth facts which attempt to demonstrate that events subsequent to the filing of the Governments'-Motion have rendered the issue of LILCO's compliance with MS-1 moot, LILCO's Renewed Opposition is an effort to obtain summary disposition on the merits of the proposed contention. However, summary disposi-tion is not appropriate on the basis of the present record and the pleadings before the Commission.

First, there is no precedent for filing a motion for summary disposition prior to the admission of a contention. Second, LILCO has failed to comply with 10 CFR Section 2.749(a), which sets forth the requirements governing motions for summary disposition. Thus, for example, LILCO has failed to provide a separate statement of the material facts as to which it contends there is no genuine dispute. Dairvland Power Cooperative (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor), LBP-82-58, 16 NRC 512, 520 (1982).

10 -

l I

l l

i Third, even if LILCO's Renewed Opposition were to be construed as a motion for summary disposition,1/ LILCO has the 1

burden of proof to demonstrate the absence of any genuine dispute as to a material fact. Dairvland Power Co20erativg, 16 NRC at

.519. Sgg also Houston Lichtina and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-15, 23 NRC 595, 632 (1986); J C6mm6nWealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-12, 23 NRC 414, 417 (1986). It is clear, however, that LILCO cannot now satisfy the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine dispute as to material facts, i

For example, one glaring dispute between the Governments and LILCO concerns the adequacy of the training which LILCO asserts is sufficient to satisfy MS-1. LILCO contends that it has adequately provided for the training of emergency medical and transportation personnel, and has thus complied with the training requirements in MS-1. Ege LILCO's Renewed Opposition at 11-13.

In so claiming, LILCO has misled the Commission. Indeed, although FEMA has not yet completed its review of the recent June 1988 Shoreham exercise, PEMA has preliminarily determined that the exercise revealed in_adeauate trainino with respect to handlino the contaminated iniured aeneral oublic. See Transcript -

i 1/ As stated above, any consideration of the "facts" alleged in LILCO's Renewed Opposition would be contrary to NRC authority, since a merits determination is inappropriate in the context of a motion for admission of a late-filed contention. j l

l i

l l

)

j

. . _ . ~. .. - . . . . .

4 of PEMA Region II, Regional Assistance Committee Public Meeting (June 15, 1988), at 53 (copy attached as Attachment 1 hereto).

Thus, LILCO is hard-pressed to contend at this point that it has met the training requirement of MS-1.

Furthermore, only recently the shoreham OL-5 Licensing Board

, issued a comprehensive opinion on the merits of the earlier February 13, 1986 Shoreham exercise. In that decision, the Board concluded that LILCO's training is fundamentally flawed. Lono Island Lichtino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),

LBP-88-2, 27 NRC 85, 89, 212 (1988) (the "deficiencies in LILCO's training preclude a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at SNPS and therefore constitute a '

fundamental flaw in the Pir.n") (emphasis added). LILCO's claim that it has provided adequate training of emergency medical and tran portation personnel rings hollow in the face of this finding.

LILCO also concedes that lecal police and public rescue personnel have not participated in LILCO's training for the handling of radiologically contaminated individuals; nonetheless, LILCO suggests that there is evidence that these personnel receive appropriate training in the normal course of their duties. LILCO's Renewed Opposition at 13 n.10. More particularly, LILCO asserts that suffolk County's rescue service

4-personnel "would logically require training for the handling and  ;

transportation of contaminated injured members of.the general public" in fulfilling their "mission." This assertion is mere ,

supposition, which is contradicted by'the fa,.its. Indeed, l information from County emergency response personnel reveals that-the "training" provided to County rescue personnel with respect  ;

to radiation injuries is virtually nonexistent. In essence, it ,

\

does.not advance beyond an elementary introduction to the general properties of radiation.

In addition, LILCO argues that it has invited i representatives of Suffolk and Nassau County law enforcement and rescue personnel to participate in emergency response training, drills and exercises. Egg LILCO's Renewed Opposition at 12-13.

4 LILCO asserts that it "need not do more" in order to satisfy

! MS-l's training requirements. Id. at 13. But the fact remains that there is no local governmental preparedness, since no county i

officials have undergone this training.2/

There are other serious flaws in LILCO's contention that it l has now fully met the requirements of MS-1. LILCO alleges, for example, that it has complied with the MS-1 guidance requiring 1/ Clearly, this matter raises a genuine dispute when the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the Governments.

Further, LILCO's apparent reliance on the Commission's "realism" doctrine, agg LILCO's Fnnewed Opposition at 12-13, is misplaced, since even that doctrine does not compel a conclusion that a "best efforts" response by untrained County emergency personnel is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of MS-1.

4 l

3

- - - ,= _

4 b

drills and exercises to develop, test and maintain emergency response skills related to the provision of medical service for j contaminated injured members of the general public. LILCO's i

Renewed Opposition at 13-14. As set forth above, however, the  ;

facts in the present record do not bear this assertion out.

j LILCO also claims that FEMA has judged every major aspect of LILCO's compliance with MS-1 to be adequate. LILCO's Renewed ,

Opposition at 2.2/ In support of this claim, LILCO relies upon the FEMA Regional Assistance Committee ("RAC") Review of Revision 9 to the LILCO Plan (April 28, 1988) (hereafter, "RAC Review").

t It is not necessary even to contest the truth of this LILCO l

, claim. The simple fact i s that Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan is

, outdated, since on May 24, 1988, LILCO issued Revision 10 to its

)

l Plan. To date, there has been no final RAC review of Revision 1

10. In any event, the fact that FEMA may have accepted certain (

provisions of the LILCO Plan as adequate in no way diminishes the right of other parties to contest the adequacy of those l provisions and to have their concerns heard.  !

1 Similarly, LILCO asserts that various aspects of the Plan on which LILCO currently relies to comply with MS-1 have been reviewed and approved by the OL-3 Licensing Board. LILCO's l Renewed Opposition at 2. In support of this assertion, LILCO

l/ Significantly, LILCO fails to support this bald assertion with an identification of the so-called major aspects which FEMA has allegedly judged to be in compliance with MS-1.

I J

,-,--..e,,e- - -,-- - ---r-, - , - - ~ .. , --y .-,---

---

,a- - , , , , _ , , , , , - - - - , - - . - , . - , , , ,

cites the OL-3 Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision from the 1983-84 emergency planning litigation. Lono Island Lichting Cg2 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC

644 (1985) (hereafter, "PID"). Yet the PID was issued long

[

before MS-1 and long before the Governments' proffer-of the '

proposed contention at issue here. Thus, LILCO's reliance on the r

PIO is misplaced.

1 III. The Governments Have Established that Their

,' Proposed Contention Meets the Standards for Admission of a Late-Filled Contention LILCO argues that the Governments' Motion falls to meet the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.734 governing motions to reopen a  :

closed evidentiary record. LILCO's Renewed Opposition at 15-17.

The Commission should summarily reject this argument, as it i ,

merely repeats the allegations previously set forth in LILCO's

! initial opposition to the Governments' Motion. Egg LILCO's Opposition at 4-7. LILCO adds nothing new to its previous arguments, and demonstrates no compelling reason why it should be permitted to reargue its case at this late date.

i Moreover, in arguing that the Governments' Motion does not J

comply with NRC requirements for reopening a closed record, LILCO

! misleads the Commission. LILCO asserts that the Governments'

{ Motion fails to meet the requirements of ' action 2.734 because j the motion: (1) fails to show that a different result would i

I 15 -

1 occur; and (2) is not accompanied by affidavits. Egg LILCO's Renewed Opposition at 15. However, LILCO ignores the fact that the Governments' Motion is not subject to Section 2.734; rather, '

it is subject to the requirements of Section 2.714, which governs the admission of late-filed contentions.d/

4 J

As set forth in the Governments' Motion, the Governments have demonstrated compliance with the standards for the admission of a late-flied contention pursuant to Section 2.714.5/ The Governments' arguments in support of their compliance with the applicable standards will not be reargued here.5/

Since '.t is Section 2.714, and not Section 2.734, which governs the Governments' Motion, the Commission should dismiss j this argument in its entirety and admit the Governments' proposed j contention on the basis of the facts and law already briefed by the parties.

d/ Because Section 2.734 is inapplicable to the Governments' Motien, the Governments do not address here the question of '

whether the Motion satisfies the standards for reopening a closed evidentiary record. The Governments in no way concede, however, '

that LILCO's assertion is supported by the facts and the relevant case law.

5/ Curiously, LILCO's Renewed opposition does not argue that the Governments' Motion fails to satisfy the standards set forth l in 10 CFR Section 2.714 for admission of a late-filed contention.

While LILCO attempted to argue this point in its initial 4

pleading, agg LILCO's Opposition at 15-17, it has abandoned the ,

argument in its Renewed Opposition. '

! i l 5/ Egg Governments' Motion at 7-11.  !

1 i

i l f 1 1

- - . = - - . - . - _ .

IV. Conclusica Based on the foregoing, the Commission should reject LILCO's Renewed Opposition as an untimely and unauthorized pleading. The Commission should further admit the contention proposed by the Governments on Februaty 25, 1987, and remand the matter to the OL-3 Licensing Board for appropriate proceedings.

Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788  :

].d . -

Michael S. Miller Christopher M. McMurray Ronald R. Ross i KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART i 1800 M Street, N. W. '

South Lobby, Ninth Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 )

Attorneys for Suffolk County M Fabian G.

A' 6?da Palomino ex)

Richard J. Zahnleuter 4 Special Ceancel to the Governor l of the State of New York  !

Executive Chamber, Room 229 l Capitol Building l Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York 4

-- _ - __ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ~ . __ _ - . _ _

. b i

t Y j

'stepften B. Latham

' ~

l l Twomey, Latham & Shea  !

5 33 West Second Street '

Riverhead, New York 11901 s l

^

Attorneys for the Town of Southampton

'l ,

August 9, 1988 i

1 h

n I

1 Y

f i  !

r l

] >

1 h

A i

1

' t d

1 I

f .

l l

'j i i

j l

[

J l

18 - I I

l l i

. _ _ _ . - . . . . _ _ . . _ , - _ _ , _ _ _ _ - - . , _ , , . , . _ , _ . . ____._-_._,._,.__,,,.____-.__,......-...__,__.._.,.J .

BT.C UN i yk Q41 D

v^ 2  ?.0 g BS 1 3

FEMA PUBLIC MEETING 5 Patchougue, N.Y.

Wed., June 15, 1988 6

a DAIS:

7 Ihor W. Husar, FEMA Region II 8

Chairman RAC

• 9 John Weismantle 10 Charles Daverio l

John D. Leonard, Jr.

Ronald Bellamy 12 1

13 14 15 16 l 17 ,

1 1

18 j 19 TANKOOS REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

2 150 Nassau Street 223 Jericho Turnpike New York, N.Y. 10038 20 (212)349-9692 Mineola, N.Y. 11501 (516)741-5235 21 I

22 23 24 1 p~O

{

l, 25 \

I i

m uitmro arnen -o...,,,,,.., ,

EXCERPT FROM STATEMENT BY IHOR W. HUSAR, FEMA REGION II RAC CilAIRMAN i

I h

2 53

) This activity was part of the out-of-sequen ce t 3

demonstration on day two of the exercise .

The 4

facility was adequate. Monitoring and 5

6 decontamination personnel demonstrated adequ ae t '

techniques.

7 The monitoring activity dealt with monitoring 40 emergency workers by 15 8 individuals at a rate of about 90 -

9 seconds for a sustained \

period of time. p 10 Medical drill: Two medical drills 11 were evaluated, ,

12 one on the first day and one on the 1 second dsy. In summary, 13 with the two hospitals, the two hospitals were evaluated, 14 one June 7th and the other June 8th.

15 The evaluation was to 16 ascertain emergency room staff and their skills to treat a contaminated and 17 injured person or persons.

It was to ascertain the 18 skills of the ambulance .

personnel in treatment 19 of a contaminated injured patient.

20 There were some problem areas 21 identified at the hospital by the .i 22 staff, the hospital staff: k 21 Inappropriate handling of H contaminated injured individuals. ,

l

,1 24 There is a need for additional 25 training at both hospitals.  !

H Demonstrated skills on the part of ambulance COMPUTER A I DE D TD h ucco T ne'^" "- - -

'O Ab$tE9, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '88 ale 11 ' P2 :23  ;

I Before the Commission .

• yf'b a. 4 u, r uGCKEI N s. Hesin '

BRANU-i

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) ) ,

)

l I

CERTIFICATE OF__ SERVICE 4

I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO LILCO'S RENEWED OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENTS ' PROPOSED CONTENTION ON EMERGENCY MIDICAL SERVICES FOR CONTAMINATED INJURED INDIVIDUALS AND '

SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS have been served on the following this 9th day of August, 1988 by U.S. mail, first class.

l f

l Lando W. Zech, Jr. , Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Atomic Safety and Licensing i One White Flint North l Board 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. l l

Reckville, Maryland 20814 Washington, D.C. 20555 l Ccamissioner Thomas M. Roberts Mr. Frederick J. Shon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Atomic Safety and Licensing

, One White Flint North Board 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Reckville, Maryland 20814 Washington, D.C. 20555 1

i Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Appeal Board Panel

One White Flint North U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coma.

11555 Rockville Pike Washington, D.C. 20555 J

Rockville, Maryland 20814 )

4 a

i i 1 1 l

O ,

Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr James P. Gleason, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Atomic Safety and Licensing One White Flint North Board 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Rockville, Maryland 20814 513 Gilmoure Drive Silver Spring, Maryland 20901

-t Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers William C. Parler, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. General Counsel '

One White Flint North U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

11555 Rockville Pike 1717 H Street, N.W.

Rockville, Maryland 20814 Washington, D.C. 20555 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. Hunton & Williams Special Counsel to the Governor P.O. Box 1535 Executive Chamber, Room 229 707 East Main Street State Capitol Richmond, Virginia 23212 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 Talbbi, 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 l 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 1 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-118 Veterans Memorial Highway  ;

New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 i i

MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider  !

1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee  :

Suite K P.O. Box 231 I San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 i l

1

)

4

Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

New York State Energy Office Richard G. Bachinann, Esq.

Agency Building 2 Office of the General Counsel Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

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  !

Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Adjudicatory Pile

• Town Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing ,

Town Hall Board Panel Docket Oyster Bay, New York 11771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 William R. Cumming, Esq. Mr. Philip McIntire rederal Emergency Managency Federal Emergoney Management Agency Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 26 Federal Plaza Washington, D.C. 20742 New York, New York 10278 1 i

Michael S. Mill. hd er Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1800 M Street, N.W.

South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 i

l