ML20203B551
| ML20203B551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1986 |
| From: | Latham S, Letsch J, Letsch K, Letsche K, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203B480 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-832, OL-3, NUDOCS 8604180206 | |
| Download: ML20203B551 (23) | |
Text
?
UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6 Ak? IS P3 p3 Before the Commission C' '
E...
)
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 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-832 Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.786, Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (" Governments") hereby 1
petition the Commission to review the portions of ALAB-832 described below.
The Appeal Board's errors fall into two categories:
(1) the Board violated 10 CFR $ 2.770(b), 5 USC
$ 557(c), and judicial precedents in failing to explain its basis for rejecting the Governments' appeal of many material issues of substantial safety significance; and (2) the Board erred in its rulings on certain of the issues that it addressed in ALAB-832.
1 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-832, NRC (March 26, 1986).
According to Docketing and Service, ALAB-832 was officially served by mail on March 26, 1986; therefore, under 10 CFR 562.786 and 2.710, this Petition must be filed by April 15, 1986.
9604190206 960415ADOCK 05000 22 PDR 0
I.
The Appeal Board Violated NRC Regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Judicial Precedents in Failing to Explain its Basis For Rejecting the Governments' Appeal of Numerous Issues A.
Introduction The ASLB addressed emergency planning issues in its April 17, 1985 Partial Initial Decision, 21 NRC 644, its August 26, 1985 Concluding Partial Initial Decision, 22 NRC 410, and in nany underlying pretrial and trial orders.
The Governments appealed certain of the rulings that were adverse to the Governments' positions.
In four briefs filed with the Appeal Board, they sat forth the ASLB's errors and why its rulings required reversal.2 2
The Governments filed two primary appeal briefs:
one on October 23, 1985, addressing the April 17 decision (hereafter, "Brief I"); and one on November 6, 1985, addressing the August 26 decision (hereafter, "Brief II").
The Governments also filed on January 6, 1986, two reply briefs, one on the appeal of the April 17 decision ("Brief III") and one on the appeal of the August 26 decicion ("Brief IV").
Contrary to the Appeal Board's statement, the Governments' briefs'on appeal did not by any means constitute "an uncritical rehearsal of virtually every claim -- large or small -- that was advanced to and rejected by the Licensing Board below."
ALAB-922, at 9-10.
n:ther, in additicn te not ppealin; ::untic::
i adverse pretrial and trial rulings which were made during the two years of litigation from June 1983 through June 1985, the Governments also did not raise before the Appeal Board issues relating to any of the following contentions, which the ASLB decided adversely (in whole or in part) to the Governments:
67.A and 67.D (telating to evacuation of transit dependent population); 73.A and 73.B.1-3 and 5 (identification and notification of handicapped and deaf); 20 (adequacy of WALK-AM as primary EBS station); 18 (adequacy of public information on evacuation zones and routes); 21.C (public information materials for Hispanics); 64 (whether protective action recommendations adequately account for wind shifts); 97.B (whether evacuation proposals could be implemented in bad weather); 24.I (availability of bus transfer points); 93 and 96 (whether plan could be implemented if there were a loss of offsite power).
(footnote continued)
In ALAB-832, the Appeal Board addressed only five of the issues raised by the Governments on appeal.3 The remaining issues raised by the Governments -- 38 issues involving more than 4
1 50 separate contentions or subparts
-- were purportedly
" addressed" by the Appeal Board in the following single paragraph:
Each claim has received our attention.
But we see no reason to freight this opinion with a cataloguing of those that lack sufficient merit or significance (or both) to requirs further discussion.
We thus confine ourselves to the relatively few substantial assertions of Licensing Board error that have been put forth by the intervenors.
ALAB-832, at 10.
As a review of Attachment I and the Governments' briefs makes clear, the issues ignored by the Appeal Board in ALAB-832 involve important public safety concerns.
They include, for example, whether there exists any preparedness to protect school children, whether any of the communications required to implement the LILCO Plan could take place, whether (footnote continued from previous page)
Moreover, the Governments briefed only certain errors, by no means all. that were embodied in the ASLB's rulings that were the subject of the Government's appeals.
3 The Appeal Board addressed only the ASLB's denial of admission of Contentions 22.A, 22.B, and 22.C (ALAB-832 at 13-22), and the ASLB's rulings relating to the availability of school teachers and school bus drivers to implement LILCO's Plan (two of the three errors raised on appeal concerning Contention 25 - Role Conflict) (id. at 23-33), the evacuation _of hospital patients (a portion of the issues raised concerning aspects of Contentions 24.G, 24.N, and 72) (id. at 33-40), and a portion of the relocation center issues (id. at 40-51).
4 Attachment I hereto contains a table identifying the 38 issues raised by the Governments and ignored by the Appeal Board, the contentions or subcontentions to which they relate, and where those issues were raised before the Appeal Board. )
LILCO's protective action recommendations would be followed, and whether there exists any plan or capability to implement adequate protective actions for a major portion of the ingestion pathway EPZ.
The Appeal Board's unreasoned and unexplained rejection of the majority of the errors identified and briefed by the Governments on appeal constitutes a clear violation of the NRC's regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and judicial precedents.
The Appeal Board's action represents a dramatic and unjustifiable departure from the re'asoned decisionmaking required of administrative agencies.
The Commission cannot sanction the Appeal Board's disregard for serious safety issues and the fundamental requirements of administrative decisionmaking.
It should, therefore, grant the Governments' Petition.
B.
Discussion Absent Commission review, ALAB-832 will constitute the NRC's " Final Decision" on the issues set forth in Attachment I.
Under 10 CFR 2.770(b), the Commission (or in this case the Appeal Board) may " adopt, modify or set aside" the ASLB's initial decisions.
In taking such action, however, as the Appeal Board j
did in ALAB-832, the Board must " state the basis of its action."
That basis must include:
A statement of findings and conclusions, with the basis for them on all material issues of fact, law or discretion presented; and.
ft}herulingoneachmaterialissue.
10 CFR 55 2.770(b)(1) and (3) (emphasis added).
The APA contains a similar requirement.
5 USC 6 557(c).
The Appeal Board's refusal to address the bulk of the issues raised by the Governments on appeal constitutes a blatant violation of the NRC's own regulations and the APA.
The Appeal Board has provided no basis for its. action whatsoever.
Its dismissal of 38 issues, with the offhanded aside that they " lack sufficient merit or significance (or both) to require further discussion," certainly fails to satisfy the requirement that the Board provide a " statement of findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact, law or discretion.
."5 The Governments are not suggesting that the Appeal Board was required to discuss in minute detail every single aspect of each issue raised by the Governments on appeal.
- But, to comply with the requirement that an agency must provide reasons for its actions, a reviewing court must be able to discern the basis for that agency's action.
See Bowman Transport, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Syst., Inc., 419 U.S.
Furthermore, it is no answer that.iith respect to some issues the ASLB purported to provide reasons for its decision --
reasons which in their briefs the Governments demonstrated to be without basis in law or fact.
First, the Appeal Board never even stated that it adopted, approved or even recognized any findings of the ASLB with respect to the issues it ignored.
Second, the NRC's regulations require the Commission -- or the Appeal Board when acting pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.785 -- to explain the basis for its decision, including findings and conclusions on all material issues presented to it.
Third, with respect to some issues raised by the Governments on appeal, the ASLB never stated a reasoned basis for its rulings.
Fourth, in ALAB-832, the Appeal Board did not even identify the issues presented to it, much less explain or set forth its findings and conclusions thereon. -
1 281, 285-86 (1975).
Accord, Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), 6 NRC 33, 41 (1977) ("it is a well accepted principle of administrative law that 'the orderly
- functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds 4
upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained'").
The court must be satisfied that i
the agency has "really taken a 'hard look' at the salient problems" and has " genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making."
Greater Boston Television v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (1971).6 (D.C. Cir. 1970) cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 ALAB-832, however, clearly providee no basis for holding that the Appeal Board took a "hard look" at any of the issues raised on appeal and set forth in Attachment I.
The i
Appeal Board's cavalier assertion that "each claim" received its
" attention," even when combined with its cryptic comment that i
they " lack sufficient merit or significance (or both) to require further discussion," clearly violates the judicial precedents in Harbor 11te v.
ICC, c13 F.2d 1088, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1979),
l the Court explained an agency's obligation as follows:
One basic procedural safeguard requires-the administrative adjudicator, by written opinion, to state findings of fact and reasons that support its decision.
These findings and reasons must be sufficient to reflect a considered response to the evidence and contentions of the losing party and to allow for a thoughtful judicial review if one is sought.
(footnote omitted).
See also Village of Winnetka v. FERC, 678 F.2d 354, 357-58 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("A venerable principle of administrative law admonishes that an agency must set forth clearly the grounds for its decision."). __
.~_..,.
defining an agency's obligation to provide reasons for its decision and the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.770(b).
See SEC v.
Chenery Corp., 332 U.S.
194, 196-97 (1947) ("It will not do for a court to be compelled to guess at the theory underlying the agency's actions
."); Taylor v. Heckler, 595 F. Supp. 489, 492 (D.D.C. 1984) ("It is not enough for the ALJ merely to hold that claimant's complaints and records were given " serious consideration" and say no more.").
Moreover, the facile suggestion that all the issues raised by the Governments and ignored by the Appeal Board are insignificant or meritless "or both," is plainly false.
To give just one example, the record demonstrates that not one of the 17 school districts with children in the EPZ has adopted, or agreed to implement, any plan for a Shoreham emergency.
There exist no plans whatsoever for the evacuation of the over 60,000 school children who are in those districts and who could be in danger.
And, the very school officials who would be responsible for implementing a Shoreham-related emergency plan, if one existed, are on record stating that early dismissal procedures used for
" snow days" -- the so-called " plans" touted by LILCO -- could not i
f and would not be implemented effectively by them during a 1
Shoreham emergency.
See Brief I at 24-33, Brief III at 8-10, and citations to the record therein.
The NRC's own precedents clearly require the existence of plans, approved and adopted by schools; they also uniformly hold unacceptable the suggestion j
that children's safety should be at the mercy of ad hoc..
or based upon mere hopes or assumptions.7 arrangements, The ASLB's rulings in this case on school " plans" and
" preparedness" clearly violated this well-established precedent and Section 50.47.
Moreover, the ASLB's errors and the 3
controlling NRC precedent were discussed at length in the Governments' briefs to the Appeal Board.
See Brief I at 24-33; 4
Brief III at 8-10.
The Governments' briefs also make clear that the other issues ignored by the Appeal Board and listed in Attachment I involve similarly critical safety matters and established NRC precedent.
The Board's refusal even to address these issues of crucial safety significance, and its apparent decision simply to ignore settled NRC precedent without so much as a word on the subject, cannot be countenanced by the Commission.
Therefore, the Governments' Petition should be 1
i Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. (Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-727, 17 NRC 760, 772-73 (1983); Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), LBP-83-68, 18 NRC 811, 982-85 (1983); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Elec.
Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-30, 15 NRC 771, 781-82, 798, sua sponte review, ALAB-702, 16 NRC 1530 (1982); Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP-81-59, 14 NRC 1211, 1640-41 (1981).
See also Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 713-14 (1985); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-818, 22 NRC 651, 674-75 (1985) l (appeal pending); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear j
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-580, 11 NRC 227-(1980).
I lie Court's statement in Brooks v. Atomic Energy Comm.,-476 F.2d 924, 926-27 (D.C. Cir. 1974) applies here and requires action by the Commission:
The necessity for administrative agencies to provide a statement of reasons, especially in cases such as this where the public interest demands close scrutiny of administrative 7
action, is a fundamental principle of administrative law. ;
~
_ ~.. - _., -
granted.9 II.
The Appeal Board Rulings on Specific ALAB-832 Issues Were in Error In deciding the few issues that it addressed in ALAB-832, the Appeal Board committed additional errors which require NRC review.
A.
EPZ Size The Appeal Board correctly ruled that Contentions 22.B and 22.C were wrongly rejected by the ASLB and ordered that litigation be permitted on those contentions.
The Board also ruled, however, that any adjustment of the plume EPZ boundary must be restricted to " minor" adjustments of "a mile or two."
See ALAB-832, at 22, n.41.
The Appeal Board erred in imposing this arbitrary limitation.10 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(2) contains no limitation on the amount of EPZ adjustment that is permissible.
Indeed, the 9
Following the necessary declaration that in ALAB-832 the Appcol Loord violated the legal requiremeuL Lhat it explain the basis for its decision, the Commission has two options:
(1) to remand to the Appeal Board with directione that reasons be given for its rejection of the Governments' appeal on the issues set forth in Attachment I, with the Governments' being afforded an opportunity for Section 2.786 review following the Appeal Board's decision on the remand; or (2) to examine the merits of the issues set forth in Attachment I itself, relying on the briefs of the Governments, LILCO, and the Staff filed with the Appeal Board.
The Governments stress that if the Commission chooses the second course, it will be compelled to_ rule that the issues raised before the Appeal Board are significant and require reversal of the ASLB's decisions.
10 See Brief I at 12 and Brief III at 5 for the Governments' statement to the Appeal Board of their position that an arbitrary 1-2 limitation on EPZ adjustments is not proper..
i regulation states that an approximately-lO-mile plume EPZ is only j
" generally" what is to be provided, and goes on to state that-the exact size of an EPZ for a particular plant "shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities 4
." (emphasis added).
Yet, citing the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon decisions, the Appeal Board arbitrarily decreed, without any supporting rationale or basis, that absent an exception to i
the regulations, adjustments to the Shoreham EPZ beyond two miles
~
i cannot even be considered, presumably even if the facts and
~
evidence presented to the ASLB would support or justify a greater adjustment.11 The ruling prohibiting consideration of adjustments to an EPZ beyond the arbitrary limit of two miles violates the plain meaning of Section 50.47(a)(2).
That regulation'contains no such arbitrary limit, and the Appeal Board's interpretation of the regulation cannot be sustained.
See Guard v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
The Governments submit that under Section 50.47(c)(2), an ASLB must consider whether local conditions requi ra an adjustment to a 10-mila EPZ, regardians of whether the necessary adjustment ends up being 1/2 mile, 3 miles, 4.2 miles, or 1 mile.
Under the existing regulation, the facts and evidence on site-specific local conditions must guide the NRC in such a decision, not arbitrary limits that are not contained 11 ALAB-832 at 18-19, 22, citing Southern Calif. Edison Co.
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP 39, 15 NRC 1163, 1177 (1982) (subsequent history deleted);.
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819, 831 (1984).
! l
_ ~.. -
. ~.. -,, -, _ _
in the regulation.
B.
Congregate Care Centers The ASLB refused to consider the Governments' testimony which demonstrated that contrary to LILCO testimony admitted into evidence and relied upon by the ASLB, facilities proposed as
" congregate care centers" to shelter evacuees after a Shoreham accident are not available to LILCO.
The Appeal Board affirmed this ASLB action.
See ALAB-832, at 48, 50.
Thus, the Appeal Board ruled, without reference to the record or any discussion or explanation, that the Governments' proferred tes'timony on the unavailability of facilities to shelter evacuees after processing at the Naccau Coliseum related to an issue which had already been
" fully litigated."
Id. at 50.
In so ruling, the Appeal Board committed clear error and ignored yet another serious safety issue.
As stressed in the Governments' briefs, the issue presented to the ASLB was not whether LILCO's proposal to rely on
" congregate care centers" had been covered in prior litigation; rather, the key f::t rai: d by the C: tern =ent une that after_the initial relocation center litigation in August 1984, new information came to light which demonstrated that prior statements by LILCO and its witnesses regarding the purported existence and availab$lity of " congregate care centers" were untrue.13 l
1 12 Brief II at 34, 45-46, 52, 53-57; Brief IV at 2-4.
13 Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the Appeal Board (footnote continued).
l This issue was presented to the Appeal Board for decision with unmistakable clarity.
Thus, the Governments' Brief stated:
i Contrary to LILCO's assertion.
Appellants.have not merely ' suggested' that LILCO's witness, Mr. Rasbury, misspoke when.
he said that the Red Cross had agreements with congregate care centers.
- Rather, r
Appellants submit that the representations i
made by Mr. R&sbury concerning the alleged agreements with and availability of congregate care centers for use during a Shoreham emergency were false.
1 Mr. Rasbury's testimony that there exist agreements for the use of facilities as congregate care centers was direct]v 3
contradicted by undisputed facts known to the ASLB.
The direct testimony of Suffolk County witness Leon Campo and the supplement thereto, for example, documented that at least nine of the Nassau County school districts relied upon for use by LILCO and Mr. Rasbury as congregate care centers are, in fact, not available for such purpose.
This evidence was part of that denied admission by the Margulies ASLB.
Furthermore, 30 facility owners (out of the 52 facilities relied upon by LILCO and Mr. Rasbury), which collectively account for approximately 31,000 of the projected 48,000 capacity, sent letters to the ASLB stating that they never agreed to LILCO's or the Red l
(footnote continued from previous page) was correct in stating that the " congregate care center issue" l
had been litigated earlier, the Governments had moved for reopening of the record on that issue and made an offer of proof on the same subject during the litigation permitted on LILCO's motion to reopen.
The basis of the Governments' reopening motion and offer of proof was the need to present to the ASLB evidence that (1) the LILCO testimony in the earlier litigation was false, and (2) a sufficient number of facilities in fact would not be available for congregate care purposes during an emergency. The ASLB erroneously denied the Governments' motion to reopen and offer of proof, however.
The Governments expressly sought.
reversal of these ASLB rulings (Brief II at-47-53, 55-57; Brief IV at 2-4), but in ALAB-832 the Appeal-Board ignored the issue.
This constitutes a further violation of 10 CFR $ 2.770(b).
See discussion in Part I, above.
' 4 i
- -.. ~. -
,. -.... ~,,
, Up'
.---.7,
.,ve,.,--
.,....._.,--.m
-,.cro.,
.-~,9,,m 7 - -
Cross' use of their facilities in a Shoreham emergency.
The Margulies ASLB also ignored this information which was presented directly to it.
In addition, four other facilities, which account for an additional capacity of approximately 3,000, have notified the Red Cross of the unavailability of their facilities.
And, during the reopened proceeding, after the ASLB precluded Appellants from cross-examining LILCO's witness on the existence or the adequacy of the proposed congregate care centers counsel for Suffolk County made an offer of proof which included letters from facilities, with an aggregate capacity of about 33,000, affirmatively stating that they had not agreed to the use of their facilities in a Shoreham emergency.
Thus, this is not a case where there is a " suggestion" that Mr. Rasbury's testimony regarding the alleged availability of congregate care centers during a Shoreham emergency was false, or one where different
" interpretations" of events are offered by opposing parties, as LILCO asserts.
Rather, this is a case of an ASLB closing its eyes to facts which demonstrate the falsity of evidence submitted by LILCO and adopted by the ASLB:
the owners of LILCO-designated
" congregate care centers" assumed to accommodate 33,000 evacuees, have stated unequivocally that there are no agreements authorizing the use of their facilities in a Shoreham emergency.
Brief IV at 2 d (citatien and fectncte c=itted; c=ph::i: in original).14 Clearly, this issue presented by the Governments has serious safety implications since it involves the potential relocation of tens of thousands of individuals.
14 See also Brief II at 45-46 and 53-57, for further discussion of how the testimony submitted by the Governments and denied admission by the ASLB demonstrated that LILCO misrepresented its capability to care for evacuees at congregate care centers. __
e
\\
In ALAB-832 the Appeal Board ignored this issue and permitted the ASLB's acceptance of demonstrably false testi. mony to stand.
Its action is indefensible and must be corrected by the Commission.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 A
./
HefbeYt H. Brown /
j Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J.
Letsche Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County k VM L
~
Fabian G.
Palomino special counsel to tne Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 i
Robert Abrams Attorney General of the i
State of New York Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 i
Attorneys for Governor Mario M.
Cuomo, and the State of New York I.
Steph6n l}{/Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 1
Attorney for the Town of Southampton P
April 15, 1986 l
2 1
l 4
15 -
{
i
~ f4 -
.l
ATTACHMENT I Issues Raised by Governments on Appeal Which Appeal Board Failed to Address Contention (s)
Where Raised Issue Involved Before ALAB Denial of admission of 26.B Brief I at 13-15 contention re reliance on commercial telephones for implementation of LILCO Plan Denial of admission of
[no number]
Brief I at 15-20 l
contention re LILCO labor strike Denial of discovery of all but 25, 23 & 65 Brief I at 20-23; FEMA evidence Brief III at 6-7 Lack of school preparedness 24.E, 24.F, 24.M, Brief I at 23-33;
- 61. C, 68, 69, 70, Brief III at 8-10 Schools have not 71 adopted, or agreed to implement, any LILCO proposals for school children No schools have avacnatinn n!=n= fnr a Shoreham emergency No schools have sheltering plans for a Shoreham emergency Early dismissal plans won't work in a Shoreham emergency No agreements with school bus companiesito implement school evacuations
6 Lack of special 24.J, 60, 63, 72.D Brief I at 34-37, facilities preparedness 40; Brief III at 10-11 No nursery schools, nursing homes, adult homes, hospitals or other special facilities have adopted, or agreed to implement, LILCO proposals Plan lacks guidelines for recommending protective actions for the radiosensitive Plan lacks guidelines for recommending evacuation for hospital patients No facility-3 specific sheltering plans LILCO's lack of 15 Brief I at 41-47; credibility means Brief III at 11-12 protective action 3
recommendations won't be implemented The evacuation shadow 23 Brief I at 47-52; phenomenon will result Brief III at 12-14 in protective action recommendations not being implemented The ASLB ignored 15, 23 Brief I at 53-54; regulatory standards Brief III at 11-14 in basing credibility and evacuation shadow findings on assumptions and theories, not facts
~,
. The ASLB erred in 25 Brief I at 54-56, adopting a speculative 60-62; Brief III. at 14-16 theory, and rejecting factual evidence, re unavailability of emergency workers Sheltering, as proposed 61 Brief I at.62-63 by LILCO, is not an adequate protective action Exclusion of key evidence 65, 23.D, 23.H Brief I at 64-66 demonstrating inadequacy 3
of evacuation as protective action LILCO's evacuation time 65, 23.D, 23.H, 66 Brief I at 69-79; estimates are unrealistic 67.C, 72.A, 73.B.4 Brief III at 17-18 and inaccurate Rejection of
" qualitative" evidence and improper shifting of burden of proof ASLB ignored evidence on route deviation Rejection of Governments' evacuation time estimates and refusal to consider impact of evacuees on Sunrise Highway Improper evaluation of witnesses' expertise Erroneous rulings on likely number of accidents during evacuation Erroneous rulings on implementability of LILCO's fuel allocation proposals
^
..-_...___._,.4
~_
e
ASLB ignored evidence concerning impact of aggressive driver behavior No plans to deal with snow impediments Insufficient number of 24.F.2 Brief I at 79-82 busses to evacuate non-automobile owning population Mobilization of emergency 27 Brief I at 82-84 workers would delay plan implementation Rulings on notification of 26, 55, 56 lirief I at 84-87 emergency personnel and the public ignored regulatory requirements Inadequate provisions for 24.T, 59 Brief I at 87 notifying boaters Communications among 24.L, 28-34 Brief I at 87-91 emergency workers won't work Inadequate training of 24.S, 39-41, 44 Brief I at 91-93 emergency workers98-100 LILCO cannot implement 81 Brief I at 93-95 ingestion pathway protective actions No plan for portion of 24.R, 81 Brief I at 95-97;
)
ingestion pathway in Brief III at 18-20 Connecticut ever submitted by LILCO or reviewed by ASLB No basis for adequacy 24.R, 81 Brief I at 95-97; or implementability Brief III at 18-20 finding for portion,
of ingestion pathwaf,in.
a
. Inadequate planning.for 85 Brief I at 97-99 recovery and reentry Denial of Governments' 24.0, 75 Brief II at'47-53, motion to reopen and 55-57; offer of proof re Brief IV at 2-4 unavailability of congregate care facilities Denial of admission of
[no number]
Brief II at 65-68; contention re LILCO's Brief IV at 9-10 non-compliance with 10 CFR S 50.47(b)(12) i 1Y
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission
)
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 SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON MOTION FOR PAGE LIMIT EXTENSION ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-832 and SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-832 have been served on the following this 15th day of April 1986 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
- Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman Herzal Plaine, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S.
Nuclear Roanlarnrv romm.
Room 1114 10th Floor
~
)
1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555-
- Comm. Frederick M. Bernthal
- Comm. Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Room 1156 Room 1113 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Comm. Thomas M. Roberts
- Comm. James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Room 1103 Room 1136 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
~
, Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Stuart Diamond Atomic Safety and Licensing Business / Financial Appeal Board NEW YORK TIMES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 229 W.
43rd Street Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10036 Mr. Howard A. Wilber Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing New York Public Service Comm.
Appeal Board The Governor Nelson A.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockefeller Building Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Gary J.
Edles
- Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel Appeal Board Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency l
Washington, D.C.
20555 26 Federal Plaza i
)
Mr. William Rogers Anthony F. Earley, Esq.
Clerk General Counsel Suffolk County Legislature Long Island Lighting Company Suffolk County Legislature 250 Old Country Road Office Building Mineola, New York 11501 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
- W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Hunton & Williams
- Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
P.O.
Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
707 East Main Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Spence Perry, Esc.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Associate General Counsel New York State Energy Office Federal Emergency Management Agency Building 2 Agency Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.
20471 Albany, New York 12223 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
. Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Peter Cohalan New York State Department Suffolk County Executive of Law H. Lee Dennison Building 2 World Trade Center, Rm. 4614 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10047 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 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Special Counsel to the Governor Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Appeal Board 1500 Oliver Building U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Washington, D.C.
20555 L
Karla J. LetsAfe KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Straat.
N.W..
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Date:
April 15, 1986 By Hand By Federal Express 1
g y
~
v w
+