ML20207Q300
| ML20207Q300 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1987 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207Q294 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-855, OL-3, NUDOCS 8701270136 | |
| Download: ML20207Q300 (6) | |
Text
- __
O LILCO, Janu;ry 20,1987 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)
)
\\
LILCO'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S AND INTERVENORS' OPPOSITIONS TO REVIEW OF ALAB-855
=
LILCO has asked the Commission to review ALAB-855, which rules that LILCO must predict how many people might need to be monitored (and perhaps decontaminated) in a radiological emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
LILCO's Petition for Review of ALAB-855 (January 2,1987). Both the Intervenors and the NRC Staff have now said that they oppose Commission review. See Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Opposition to LILCO's Petition for Re-view of ALAB-855 (January 14, 1987); NRC Staff Response in Opposition to LILCO's Pe-tition for Review of ALAB-855 (January 14, 1987).
Both the Staff and the Intervenors take the position that ALAB-855 is nothing much - merely a requirement that LILCO go back and present evidence on the number of people who might need monitoring, and possibly decontamination, in an emergency.
But it is much more than that. ALAB-855 requires the Licensing Board to decide, with-out guidance, the following issues:
1.
Must the applicant estimate the number of people who will be actually ad-vised to be monitored in a radiological emergency because they have been in areas exposed to particulate contamination?
2.
Must the applicant estimate the number of people who might want to be monitored, whether or not there is any objective need for them to be?
0701270136 070120 PDR ADOCK 05000322 g
?6
./ ; t 3.
Must the monitoring of all these people be done within "about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />"?
4.
Must the applicant predict the number of people who would actually have to be decontaminated 5.
Must the applicant be able to decontaminate this number of people?
6.
Must the applicant (or the authorities, in the usual case) be able to decontaminate them in "about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />"?
7.
If the answer to question 6 above is "yes," how long should planners assume it will take to decontaminate each person?
.Both the Staff and the Intervenors ignore the fact that the issues on which they are so eager to have further litigation are generic. There is nothing peculiar about Shoreham or Long Island that makes these issues any different there from anywhere else. With the possible exception of question 7, these questions are legal and not f actu-al. They are precisely the type of questions on which generic guidance is needed, not extended hearings in a single unduly protracted case.
That guidance is needed is emphasized by the fact that the Staff and Intervenors decline to state their views on most of these issues. The Staff appears to say that the 20 percent FEMA guidance is correct:
The Staff for its part is confident that with a properly developed factual record, demonstrating the validity of apply 1 ing experience based on natural phenomena emergencies and the conservative nature of the guideline values, the reason-ableness of the guidelines values generally used to assess relo-cation center monitoring capability will be sustained in this t.
j proceeding.
l NRC. Staff Response at 10. Apart from that, the Staff keeps its views on the merits largely to itself. It does say that the Appeal Board did not hold that LILCO must be able to monitor the entire population of the EPZ and did not hold that there is any fixed i
period of time to complete decontamination. E at 9. The Staff declines to say wheth-l er there is such a requirement, only that ALAB-855 did not say so either. Nowhere does j
the Staff suggest that in its view the answer to these questions will be any different for
(
Shoreham than for any other plant.
i l
i
a J The Intervenors are incensistent in stating their own views on the merits. On the one hand, they say that ALAB-855 "is not a per se requirement that LILCO be pre-pared to monitor all EPZ residents." Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Opposition at 8. At the same time, they say that LILCO is trying to
" avoid the plain meaning" of a San Onofre dictum that suggests that the entire EPZ must be monitored. Id: at 4. Although they may agree that there is no "per se rule,"
this is probably a meaningless concession; they will undoubtedly argue on remand that, for some reason, LILCO must be prepared to monitor the entire EPZ. As for decontamination, the Intervenors say that " monitoring must entall eventual decontamination of those found to be contaminated." Id: at 8. Intervenors decline to say whether they think this must be done within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, again leaving themselves free to argue on remand that it must. Nowhere do the Intervenors suggest that the answer for Shoreham ought to vary from those for any other plant.
The real harm done by ALAB-855 is the same as ALAB-832 - furthering the pro-cess of creating a "perpetuallitigation machine" out of this proceeding. See LILCO's Petition for Review of ALAB-832, Apr.10,1986, at 14. The Licensing Board will be called upon to resolve each of the above seven questions, a process that will no doubt prove lengthy. This process will be followed by further appeals and possibly further re-mands. The unfairness and lilogic of such a course is illustrated by the total absence of l
any suggestion that the issues set out above are anything but generic. It is simply not in the public interest to send these many questions of interpretation back for a trial-level hearing that will take months before it again reache.3 the Commission, as it inevitably i
will. Commission-level guidance is needed, and now.
l i
I l
I
Q Respectfully submitted,
_;^A W.
4J mes N. Chrlitman
]
Hunton & Williams 707 East Iviain Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginie 23212 1
DATED: January 20,1987 l
l
LILCO, January 20,1987 COL f,E ILE U3NPr CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'87 JAN 21 P? ;iO In the Matter of N'
o LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY h k.2 "
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Motion to File Reply on the Need for Commission Review of ALAB-855 and LILCO's Reply to NRC Staff's and Intervenors' Oppdsitions to Review of ALAB-855 were served this date upon the following by Feder-al Express as indicated by an asterisk, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 1717 H Street, N.W.
Appeal Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fif th Floor (North Tower)
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
- East-West Towers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway 1717 H Street, N.W.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Washington, DC 20555 Gary J. Edles, Esq.
Commissioner James K. Asselstine
- Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board 1717 H Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Fif th Floor (North Tower)
East-West Towers Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal
- 4350 East-West Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr
- Appeal Board
)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
1717 H Street, N.W.
Fif th Floor (North Tower)
Washington, DC 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway William C. Parler, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 General Counsel j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H. Frye, III, Chairman 1717 H Street, N.W.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814
o y> '
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Board Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers 7735 Old Georgetown Road 4350 East-West Hwy.
(to mallroom)
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
- Atomic Safety ard Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Board Kirkpatrick & Lockhart U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor East-West Towers, Rm. 430 1800 M Street, N.W.
4350 East-West Hwy.-
Washington, DC 20036-5891 Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Special Counsel to the Governor.
Board Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 East-West Towers, Rm. 407 State Capitol 4350 East-West Hwy.
Albany, New York 12224 Bethesda, MD 20814 Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Dr. Jerry R. Kline Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing 120 Broadway Board Third Floor, Room 3-116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10271 East-West Towers, Rm. 427 4350 East-West Hwy.
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 William R. Cumming, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Secretary of the Commission Agency Attention Docketing and Service 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Section Washington, DC 20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Mr. Philip McIntire l
Washington, DC 20555 Federal Emergency Management l
Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing 26 Federal Plaza Appeal Board Panel New York, New York 10278 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Building 2 Board Panel Empire State Plaza l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12223
-Washington, DC 20555 l
l
1 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Counsel to the Governor 33 West Second Street Executive Chamber P.O. Box 298 State Capitol Riverhead, New York 11901 Albany, New York 12224 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
New York State Department of Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Public Service, Staf f Counsel Suffolk County Attorney Three Rockefeller Plaza H. Lee Dennison Building Albany, New York 12223 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Coordinator Dr. Monroe Schneider Shoreham Opponents' Coalition North Shore Committee 195 East Main Street P.O. Box 231 Smithtown, New York 11787 Wading River, NY 11792 le James N. Ch14stman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 20,1987