ML20211B950
| ML20211B950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1986 |
| From: | Latham S, Letsche K, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1139 OL-3, NUDOCS 8610210232 | |
| Download: ML20211B950 (30) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:: L~., Y //3Y 00tucice USNRC 16 DCT 17 P3:32 October 14, 1986' GFFic lthD,7 i,jjf[rh~ m < 00CXfi BRANCH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD On September 30, 1986, LILCO moved "to reopen the evidentiary record on Contention 24.0 in this proceeding for the purpose of replacing the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a reception center with three LILCO facilities -- the Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn Operations Centers." LILCO's Motion to Reopen Record, September 30, 1986 (hereafter, the " Motion"), at 1. Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (hereafter, the " Governments") now respond to and urge rejection of LILCO's Motion. khdO210232861014 0 ADOCK 050003gg PDR 9303
$g I. Introduction The primary basis.of the Governments' opposition to LILCO'G Motion is LILCO's failure to satisfy the requirements of recently-enacted 10 CFR S 2.734, adopted by the Commission on May 30, 1986. Egg 51 Fed. Reg. 19,535, 19,539. The Governments submit that LILCO has failed to demonstrate compliance with two of the three criteria for reopening a closed evidentiary record; thus, LILCO's Motion must be denied. First,'notwithstanding LILCO's arguments to the contrary, LILCO's Motion is untimely. LILCO has known since at least May 1986 that it could not use the Nassau Coliseum as a reception center for monitoring and decontaminating evacuees in the event of a Shoreham accident; furthermore, the Governments have been asserting since at least February 1985 that LILCO lacked any proper agreement to utilize that facility. Nonetheless, LILCO delayed at least four months from the time it knew the Coliseum was not available for its use before it moved to reopen the record. This delay is made even more inexcusable given the fact that LILCO's "new" reception center scheme involves facilities which LILCO itself owns and controls. LILCO's alleged bases for waiting four months, until September 30, to file its Motion - "the magnitude of plan revisions caused by a change in reception centers, formal sign-off procedures within LILCO, and completion of consultants' work B 0 on the viability of the three new reception centers" (Motion at
- 5) -- constitute no more than conclusory assertions, completely unsupported by any underlying facts.
Such unfounded and factually baseless assertions must be given little or no weight by the Board. This is especially the case here,.where LILCO is attempting for the fifth time to satisfy the NRC's regulatory requirements governing relocation centers, by coming up with yet another entirely new scheme. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.has noted, and as the Commission has quoted with approval, "at some point proceedings must terminate in outcomes." Egg In re Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
- v. NRC, 771 F.2d 720, 740 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cited with acoroval, 51 Fed. Reg. at 19,539 col.
1. LILCO's unexcused delay in filing its Motion, in the context of its four prior failures to meet the NRC's regulatory requirements, serves to underscore the untimeliness of its latest Motion. In addition,'LILCO's Motion does not satisfy the Section 2.734(a)(3) requirement that a materially different result would have been likely had LILCO.'s newly-proffered scheme been considered initially. With LILCO's admission that it has no agreement for the Nassau Coliseum's use during a Shoreham emergency, the record of this proceeding returns to its posture as of August 29, 1984, when the evidentiary record on emergency planning first closed. At that time, there was a " void in the record" with respect to LILCO's relocation scheme then on the,
4 table -- its third -- stemming from LILCO's failure to identify any facilities at which evacuees could be monitored and decontaminated in the event of a Shore'am accident. As a result, h LILCO was found to have failed to sustain its burden of proof on issues concerning the adequacy of its relocation / reception center scheme. Egg Tr. 14,806-07. Although the reasons are different, LILCO's latest proposed new relocation scheme, on its. face, is just as inadequate as was the case in August 1984 when there was a void. It must be concluded, as a matter of law, that LILCO's latest proposal could never result in a finding that the utility has sustained its burden of proof on the reception center issues sought to be r'eopened. Certainly, this Board could never approve of a scheme to monitor and decontaminate up to 100,000 evacuees in three parking lots and four trailers. But, that is what LILCO's new scheme entails. The Governments submit that LlLCO's proffer in its Motion clearly does not satisfy the Section 2.734(a)(3) requirement. The Governments also feel compelled in responding to LILCO's Motion to comment on the scope of the reopening, should the i Board, contrary to this Opposition, decide to grant reopening. .i Simply put, LILCO's Motion must first be viewed in its proper 1 perspective, and then recognized for what it is and what it is not. LILCO's Motion is not, as LILCO would have this 6 card 4 l 1
believe (Motion at 1), simply a motion to reopen the record "for the purpose of replacing the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a reception center with three LILCO facilities -- the Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn Operations Centers." To the contrary, LILCO's proposals as alluded to in its Motion and as contained in Revision 8 of its Plan, constitute a wholesale restructuring of large portions of the Plan and the entire relocation and reception concept and procedures previously presented and litigated. LILCO concedes as,much when it attempts to justify its lack of timeliness in filing its Motion on the asserted " magnitude of plan revisions caused by a change in reception centers Motion at 5. For example, LILCO's Revision 8 proposals include: a change in the Plan from use of a single reception center to the use of three reception centers, thus necessitating new analyses of proposed evacuation routes, evacuation time estimates, numbers of evacuation vehicles necessary, reception center staffing, public information materials, and the whole host of procedures designed by LILCO to support the Nassau Coliseum's use as a reception center; a change in the Plan from using a large building (the Nassau Coliseum) with substantial shower and other facilities necessary to accommodate large numbers of people (e.a.,
- toilets, water fountains, food facilities, space for waiting) to the use of three parking lots and four trailers -- no buildings -- with very limited shower and toilet facilities, and essentially no other space or facilities; and a change in LILCO's evacuee monitoring procedure from one which was relatively comprehensive.
(requiring every evacuee and vehicle to be monitored) to one which essentially calls for only the hands and feet of drivers, and vehicle wheel wells and hoods to'be monitored, and from one which had evacuee monitoring and registration take place indoors, to one where these activities occur outside in a parking lot, regardless of the weather. For reasons detailed in Part II below, if the LILCO Motion is granted, then the Governments submit that the radical changes made by LILCO in Revision 8 will result in the necessity for reanalysis of major portions of LILCO's Plan. Accordingly, for LILCO to suggest that its reopening pertains solely to Contention 24.0 is disingenuous. The Governments were, once before, confronted with LILCO's attempt to limit a reopened record in a way which served only LILCO's interest. At that time, this Board fell victim to LILCO's suggestions and limited the issues then at hand -- concerning the Nassau Coliseum -- to an extraordinarily narrow scope. The Board was reversed by the Appeal Board. Egg ALAB-832, 23 NRC at 161-62. LILCO's Motion invites the Board to make the same error again. This time, should the Board find merit to LILCO's Motion, it should at least not again invite 1 reversal by the Appeal Board by ur. duly limiting the scope of the reopened proceeding. 6-
a e II. LILCO's Motion Should Be Denied Because It Does Not Satisfy the NRC's Criteria for Reocenina the Record A. Overview In 10 CFR S 2.734, the NRC codified the standards which are to be applied.lyr this Board in determining whether to reopen the evidentiary record in this proceeding. Those standards require LILCO's Motion to: (1) be timely; (2) address a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) demonstrate that.a materially-different result would have been likely had LILCO's newly-proffered evidence been considered initially. Eg'g 51 Fed. Reg. at 19,539 col. 3. The underlying purpose of the NRC's codification of its reopening criteria is set forth in the NRC's rulemaking preamble. It is clear that the NRC was frustrated by poorly-organized and overly-generalized submissions in motions to reopen that had the potential for excessive delay in the culmination of licensing proceedings. The Commission thus decided to specify more clearly the documentation required for a motion to reopen and found that J the bases for a reopening request must be set forth "with particularity." 51 Fed. Reg. at 19,535 cols. 2, 3. The Commission stated: The purpose of this rule is not to foreclose the raising of important safety issues, but to ensure that, once a record has been closed and all timely-raised issues have been resolved, finality will attach to the hearing process. Otherwise, it is doubtful whether a proceeding could ever be completed. As the Third Circuit --
e said in upholding a Commission decision not to reopen the record on certain issues involving restart of the Three Mile Island, Unit I reactor, "at some point proceedings must terminate in outcomes." Id. at 19,539 col. 1 (citation omitted). The Commission, however, rejected the suggestion that a distinction be made regarding the standards to be applied in judging the adequacy of an intervenor's motion to reopen and an applicant's attempt to supplement the record via reopening. In the Commission's words, it was " unpersuaded" that any different standards should be applied, since "(p]rinciples of finality should attach equally to applicants and to intervenors." Id. at 19,538 col. 3. This Board is aware, of course, of LILCO's prior efforts to satisfy the NRC's requirements pertaining to relocation centers. In the interest of brevity, the Governments will not repeat here an extensive discussion of LILCO's repeated past failures on that subject.1 The following must be noted, however. The parties and this Board devoted extensive time and resources to LILCO's prior relocation center schemes during the emergency planning litigation which lasted from December 1983 through August 1984. During that time period, LILCO proposed three different schemes, none of which satisfied regulatory requirements. LILCO's a 1 Egg, however, Suffolk County and State of New York Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Reopen the Record, January 18, i 1985.
T failures to prove compliance with the regulations prompted this Board's " void in the record" comment in August 1984. Tr. 14,806-07. I In January 1985, over the Governments' strong objections, the Board permitted LILCO to reopen the record on relocation center issues, in response to LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum.2 The litigation which followed -- concerning LILCO's fourth relocation center scheme -- culminated in the Board's I Concluding Partial Initial Decision of August 26, 1985 (22 NRC 410), and the Appeal Board's subsequent reversal in ALAB-832. The Governments submit that LILCO's Motion -- the l applicant's fifth relocation proposal -- fails to satisfy two of the three criteria recently codified by the Commission in 10 CFR S2.734 for reopening the record. The Governments do not dispute that the Motion addresses a significant safety issue. Egg 10 CFR S 2.734(a)(2). The lack of relocation facilities for evacuees from a Shoreham accident is clearly a significant safety issue which precludes the grant of an operating license. J l i 2 1 Egg Memorandum and Order Granting LILCO's Motion to Reopen Record (Jan. 28, 1985).. -
However, for the reasons set forth below, LILCO has failed to satisfy the other twc Section 2.734 criteria -- that the j Motion be timely and that it demonstrate that a materially different result likely would have been reached had the proffered evidence been considered initially. B. The LILCO Motion Is Untimely f LILCO devotes the largest part of its Motion to arguing that the Motion is timely. LILCO attempts to persuade this Board that it could not have filed its Motion until after the Commission had ruled on the Petitions for Review of ALAB-832, a ruling which was issued on September 19, 1986. In fact, however, as set forth below, this LILCO argument is clearly wrong, and the facts demonstrate that LILCO's Motion is severely untimely. 1. The pendency of LILCO's Petition for Review of ALAB-832 did not.cbviate LILCO's obligation to file its Motion in a timely manner. Arguably, the only effect of that Petition, and the ALAB-832 stay of the remand (23 NRC at 162-63), was the simple one of requiring LILCO to file its Motion with the Commission, i rather than with the ASLB, if filed prior to September 19. The pendency of LILCO's Petition, however, in no way relieved LILCO from its obligation to seek a reopening in a timely manner. i 1 4 ._,,-__-.m. .m__. -.--v.-
1 2. LILCO has been on notice since at least February 1985 that LILCO never had any valid agreement for use of the Nassau Coliseum as a reception center.3 Indeed, the proffered evidence of the Governments -- which the Board at LILCO's urcina improperly rejected (a ruling which was reversed in ALAB-832) -- demonstrated that use of the Nassau Coliseum was not permitted. Thus, LILCO had been on notice that it needed to propose a new relocation center scheme since at least February 1985. 3. Even if one ignores the Governments' proffered evidence and Ms. Robinson's testimony from June 1985, it is clear that LILCO has been on notice of its lack of agreement to use the 3 See Direct Testimony of Langdon Marsh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Proffered Evidence of January 11 (Feb. 19, 1985). The Marsh testimony demonstrated that LILCO's purported agreement for the Coliseum's use was of no legal force or effect because LILCO's proposed use violated New York law and would not be permitted. Although the Board improperly rejected the Marsh testimony, the Governments again made abundantly clear that LILCO had no valid agreement for the Coliseum's use during the reopened hearings in June 1985. For example, during the hearing, Elaine Robinson, LILCO's witness on the Coliseum issues, acknowledged that LILCO had not sought approval from the Nassau County Board of Supervisors for the Coliseum's proposed use as a monitoring and decontamination center. Tr. 15,877, 15,881-82 (Robinson). When this Board at LILCO's urging refused to permit further questioning of LILCO's witness on the subject (Tr. 15,882-84), counsel for Suffolk County made an offer of proof pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.743(e). In its offer of proof, the County alleged, among other things, that if it had been allowed to continue its cross-examination, it would have established that: (1) under the Nassau County Charter, which constitutes the governing law of Nassau County, authority for permitting the use of the Nassau Coliseum rests with the Nassau County Board of Supervisors; (2) the Board of Supervisors had not authorized LILCO's proposed use of the Coliseum; and (3) therefore, LILCO was not legally entitled to use the Coliseum as a monitoring / decontamination facility during a Shoreham emergency. Egg Tr. 15,888-89; SC Exs. 95, 96. 11 -
i its obligation to i LILCO asserts that i Coliseum for a long while. did not begin until come up with a new relocation center proposal 1986, when the Nassau County Board of Supervisors June 16, f the formally adopted its resolution barring LILCO's use o LILCO admits that it knew prior to that Motion at 3. f Coliseum. i uch the Board of Supervisors was considering tak ng s f time that no reason action, but suggests that prior to June 16 there was I The facts, however, are to the Id. for it to take any action. 1986, Edward T. O'Brien, County As early as May 2, di the Commission I contrary. Attorney of Nassau County, wrote the NRC to a v se f the Nassau Veterans that there had been no valid designation o Plan. The Memorial Coliseum for any purpose related to LILCO s i oceeding on O'Brien letter was' served on the parties to th s pr least by then, LILCO Certainly, at Egg Exhibit 1. 1986. May 12, it lacked a basis to rely upon the Nassau Coliseum as a knew that reception center.4 formally The Nassau County Board of Supervisors acted d 4. 1986 to bar LILCO's use of the Nassau Coliseum an on June 16, That was more than three all other Nassau County facilities. f Revision 8 of r i months prior to LILCO's publication and serv ce o
- 1986,
________________f County Attorney O'Brien's letter of May 2,to make some s In light o d is preposterous for LILCO to attemptthat Suffolk County Legislator Devine an 4 e l appeared it New York Consumer Protection Board Director Kessel " issue" out of the fact l June 1986. before the Nassau County Board of Supervisors in ear y Clearly, long before such appearances, the l LILCO on notice that even without 3, 5. Egg Motion at resolution, its purported Nassau County Attorney had put a Nassau County Board of Supervisors' designation of N LILCO's Plan was without effect. , ) i
O its Plan, and almost three and one-half months before the filing f of LILCO's Motion. LILCO fails to provide any meaningful justification for its delay. LILCO's assertion that the delay l resulted from the magnitude of Plan changes, time-consuming i sign-offs, and the need to complete consultants' work on the viability of LILCO's fifth relocation center scheme are grossly conclusory. LILCO's Motion, for example, fails to inform the Board as to when LILCO actually started work on its latest relocation center proposal or*when work actualy was performed and by whom, even though such information is obviously crucial in assessing LILCO's timeliness. Similarly, the Motion never i explains why the magnitude of changes in Revision 8 caused a 3-1/2 month delay. How much time could be involved in the sign-off 4 process? And, LILCO never even identifies, much less gives details about, the allegedly time-consuming consultants' work. ] As previously noted, Section 2.734,'as codified by the NRC, was designed to result in rejection of such summary reopening motions i -- whether filed by intervenors or applicants. 5. Finally, the' timeliness of LILCO's Motion must be judged in the context of the fact that LILCO's fifth relocation center scheme involves parking lots associated with facilities totally within its,own control. LILCO has owned the Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn sites for years, and there is no reason why i 1 i , _ ~. m . -. -., _ _ _ _. - _,,,,, _ _ _ - ~ _ - -. -,... - - _ - ~ _ - _ _. - _ - - - _ - _..., _.. _ _
LILCO could not have decided long ago-that it would rely upon the use of its own parking lots to monitor and decontaminate Shoreham evacuees. The foregoing facts demonstrate that LILCO's Motion is untimely. There is no excuse -- and LILCO's vague and generalized statements in its Motion provide no excuse -- for LILCO's failure to file its Motion f.ar before September 30. As noted in earlier submissions by Suffolk County and New York State on these matters,5 this Board in the past has found County and State motions to reopen untimely when as little as one month has elapsed between the occurrence of an event and the filing of a motion to reopen. Surely, in this instance -- where LILCO is on its fifth attempt to devise a relocation center scheme which fulfills regulatory requirements, and where LILCO is relying solely on its own facilities -- LILCO's delay in filing its Motion is inexcusable. C. LILCO Has Failed to Demonstrate that a Different Result Would Likely Have Been Reached If the Proffered Evidence Had Been Submitted in a Timelv Manner j LILCO's Motion also fails to demonstrate that the criterion of 10 CFR S 2.734(a)(3) is satisfied. In fact, LILCO never I explains at all why it believes that a different result would have been likely had the designation of its three new reception centers been initially submitted in a timely manner. Nor could 5 Egg Suffolk County and State of New York Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Reopen the Record, January 18, 1985, at 15-27. _ - -. _ -,.
O it do so since, in the Governments view, such a showing is not possible. Indeed, LILCO's new reception center scheme is so inadequate on its face that it is only reasonable to conclude that LILCO cannot sustain the burden of proof it must under the NRC's regulations. Thus, the situation faced by LILCO here is reminiscent of the posture of this case in August 1984, when this Board made its " void in the record" finding. Egg discussion above. l The Board need only delve briefly into LILCO's proposed Revision 8 in order to conclude that LILCO's latest proposed scheme is, on its face, ludicrous, and that it cannot, under any circumstances, satisfy regulatory requirements. For example, whereas LILCO previously proposed.to rely on a large building -- the Nassau Coliseum -- with substantial showering and sheltering capabilities as its relocation facility, LILCO now proposes to register and monitor evacuees in oarkina lots and decontaminate them in 60 x 12-foot trailers. More specifically, Revision 8 of LILCO's Plan reveals that evacuees will be registered, monitored, and, if necessary, decontaminated in the parking lots next to LILCO's Hicksville, Bellmore and Roslyn facilities: the Hicksville parking lot will have two trailers; Bellmore and Roslyn will each have one trailer. Each trailer appears to have two 7 x 9-1/2-foot rooms marked " showers," two 7 x 5-1/4-foot rooms, with benches and shelves, marked " monitoring and paper clothing," two 6 x 3-1/2-foot rooms, with benches, marked. r--
" undress'," and two 9 x 5-3/4-foot rooms marked " monitor and sinks." Vehicles will also be monitored and decontaminated in the same parking lots. Egg Exhibit 2, which contains excerpts from Revision 8 (pages 17, 21, 25, and 29 of OPIP 4.2.3). That, in essence, is LILCO's relocation center oroposal. LILCO fails even to attempt to show how its meager facilities and the proposal to register and monitor evacuees in parking lots, and decontaminate them in a tiny trailer, without even providing basic necessities such as toilets, water fountains, and protection from the elments, could possibly be considered adequate for the tens of thousands of evacuees who might seek monitoring and decontamination services from LILCO in an emergency.6 Instead, LILCO's Plan merely asserts, without explanation, the absurd proposition that people will be decontaminated in the parking lots and then provided with paper clothing. What are people to do in the middle of winter given this~ relocation scheme? Such questions are not asked or answered under LILCO's Plan and are not even aluded to in LILCO's Motion or the attached affidavit, despite the clear requirements of Section 2.734(a)(3) and (b). Under any standard, it must be I e 6 Significantly, during the February 13 exercise, LILCO itself determined that approximately 100,000 persons would require monitoring and decontamination following an evacuation from the type of accident postulated in the exercise scenario. The number of persons who would actually seek monitoring in the event of a real Shoreham accident could well be substantially greater. -
acknowledged that LILCO's scheme, including its Motion by which LILCO seeks to get that scheme into this proceeding, is grossly conclusory and on its face preposterous. Given the foregoing, it must' be concluded that LILCO's Motion totally fails to meet the criteria of 10 CFR S 2.734(a)(3), and it must, therefore, be rejected by this Board. In essence, that Motion does little more than assert that LILCO wants yet another opportunity.to meet its burden of proof on . relocation center issues. LILCO does not mention in its Motion or the attached Affidavit, however, that its latest scheme is to direct over 100,000 evacuees through three parking lots, squeeze contaminated persons into four tiny trailers, and then send them back to the parking lots in paper clothes. Nor does LILCO mention that its new Revision 8 involves a modified scheme for monitoring evacuees that requires only drivers, hands and feet, and portions of their vehicles to be monitored. Thus, LILCO's latest scheme asserts that if the drivers' hands and feet are not contaminated, no other vehicle passengers will be monitored. This ridiculous suggestion ignores the very real possibility that occupants of one vehicle came from different places with potentially different exposure to radiation, as well as the human reality that-drivers will not likely tolerate a refusal by LILCO J workers to monitor other family members who are passengers. Numerous other changes in LILCO's Plan -- necessitated by LILCO's new proposal -- also are not even mentioned in LILCO's Motion. -. -. - -
This Board, however, in determining whether LILCO's new proposal would change the result of rejecting the LILCO Plan because there is no reception center, must take cognizance of the context of LILCO's latest scheme.. LILCO's Motion is, in fact, l but a conclusory assertion that LILCO has a new scheme and that the Board must consider it. LILCO makes no more than a cursory effort to address Section 2.734(a)(3), despite the Commission's admonition that an applicant is held to the same " heavy burden" as intervenors in seeking to reopen'a closed evidentiary record. Even a cursory review of the new proposal. reveals that it cannot be proven acceptable or workable under the applicable regulations. Accordingly, LILCO's Motion fails to satisfy the . reopening criteria and should be rejected out of hand by this Board. D. Conclusion on Reccenino Criteria. The Governments demonstrate above that two of the three reopening criteria are not satisfied by LILCO's Motion.
- Further, LILCO's failure to satisfy these criteria must be judged in the l
context of LILCO's fifth attempt to satisfy the applicable relocation center requirements and the NRC's recent admonition that a stringent standard applies to all reopening motions. Under all of the c,ircumstances of this case, the Governments j submit that it is time for this Board to say that enough is enough: the Board should reject LILCO's Motion and enter an order in the Governments' favor on all relocation center contentions previously litigated..
e III. The Scope of Any Proposed Reopening Must Be Far Greater Than What LILCO Has Procosed Should the Board, contrary to this Opposition, grant.LILCO's Motion and permit reopening, the scope of the reopened proceeding must, of necessity, be far greater than suggested by LILCO. LILCO's Motion is not simply a motion to reopen "for the purpose of replacing the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a reception center with three LILCO facilities Motion at 1. Rather, LILCO's Motion, if granted, makes necessary a wholesale re-examination of large portions of the LILCO Plan. For LILCO to suggest otherwise, as it does in moving to reopen the record solely on Contention 24.0, is seriously misleading and, as noted above, invites this Board to repeat the error made with respect to LILCO's last reopening motion, which was reversed by the Appeal Board before. To begin with, as-described briefly above, Revision 8 of LILCO's Plan, in and of itself, completely restructures LILCO's relocation scheme. The Board can be assured that a proposal as preposterous as this will be contested by the Governments in every respect. Similarly, the changes made by Revision 8 to LILCO's evacuee i and vehicle monitoring procedures are dramatic areas which must be examined in depth. Unlike its last proposal, in which LILCO proposed to monitor each evacuee and vehicle, Revision 8 calls
for only drivers' hands and feet, and vehicles' wheel wells and hoods to be monitored. For buses, LILCO now intends to monitor passengers on a random basis. Furthermore, LILCO's' monitors are now expected to scan the drivers and their vehicles within approximately 35 seconds -- about one-third the time allotted by LILCO in earlier versions of its Plan. These changes appear designed to permit LILCO to streamline the monitoring process, and enable them to claim, on paper, that the necessarily large number of evacuees could be sbuttled through the parking lots -- all at the expense of the public's health and safety. Such a trade-off may be acceptable to LILCO; it is not, however, ~ acceptable to the Governments. It should not be acceptable to 'the NRC. LILCO's new monitoring procedures which drastically reduce the protection being offered to the public will be strenuously challenged by the Governments. The above two aspects of LILCO's latest relocation scheme are only examples of the changes to LILCO's Plan, proposed by Revision 8, which will be challenged by the Governments, should LILCO's Motion be granted. In addition, the Governments will pursue the other issues, which were barred in the 1985 reopening, but which the Appeal Board ruled were proper subjects of testimony concerning the adequacy of proposed relocation schemes 1 ( ggg ALAB-832, 23 NRC at 161-62), as well as the following:,
e the adequacy of evacuation routes to the three LILCO facilities proposed as reception centers, including the effects of traffic congestion on the way to and in the vicinity of_the facilities, and LILCO's-Revision 8 proposal to employ traffic guides on Nassau County roadways; the impact of the new relocation scheme upon evacuation time estimates, and. evacuation vehicle requirements; staffing requirements given the new scheme; LILCO's proposal to transport all evacuees travelling on buses to the parking lot next to its Hicksville facility, when that facility itself is also proposed by LILCO to be the LERO Worker relocation center; whether the public would ever comply with LILCO's suggested relocation proposal and registration, monitoring, and decontamination procedures; the adequacy of LILCO's public information and education materials and EBS messages regarding the i locations for monitoring and decontamination and services to be provided evacuees; whether the proposal to send evacuees to LILCO parking lots could or would ever be implemented in a way to protect the public health and safety-The foregoing demonstrates how extensive the scope of reopened hearings pursuant to LILCO's Motion might be, should this Board grant LILCO's Motion. Thus, this Board should-carefully consider the issues raised by LILCO's Motion before deciding whether further hearings on yet another LILCO reception center scheme are warranted. The Governments submit that, if careful consideration is given by the Board to LILCO's Motion and this Opposition, the LILCO Motion must be denied. Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 l(_ b 0 _c Herber t H. Brown f Lawrer ce 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 . l
o k ' ([ b1L L t.d Fabian G. Palomino [ Richard J. Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Robert Abrams Attorney General of the State of New York Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Attorneys for Governor Mario M. Cuomo, and the State of New York 2 Gl W/ Stepfgn B. Latham jTwomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton October 14, 1986 J - -.
( ( U EXHIBIT 1 / " O LO"4i' l-
- d"J,..*,4" L,
. J "J 0,*' =,. _,, 10 r- --. c a, / O .^ COUNTY OF NASSAU OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY NAssAU COUNTY EXECUTIVE BUILDING ( .?. k' MINEoLA. NEW YORK 115o1 ,j % "' g, ,,/ 516 535 3056d6-3 Ve. e n-v.U :' UMBER Ph,00. & UTIL FAC..VM. 3 p ~^ n ;. s May 2, 1 6, - Nuclear Regulatory Commission ggggg Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen: I have been requested by Presiding Supervisor Thomas Gulotta to write to you concerning the Long Island Lighting Company use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum at Uniondale in the County of Nassau, State of New York, in connection with its application for a permit for the utilization of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant at Shoreham, County of Suffolk, State of New York. I wish to advise that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nassau which is the Legislative branchof the County Government has not adopted a Local Disaster Plan and there has never been any designation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum for any purpose related thereto. I have rendered an opinion regarding this matter to the Board of Supervisors and I enclose herewith a copy of that opinion for your records and information. Very truly yours, n i ETOB:tas EDWARD T. O'BRIEN encl. County Attorney ) O,(' Q,O v \\ 6
OPIP %.2.3 Page 17 of 29 y Page 2 of 4 BELLMORE RECEPTION CENTER TRAFFIC FLOW AND ACTIVATION DIAGRAM O
- o H ' ' E
"'GHv'*V m __ D r p o.'i . w. - th r -I 4] r oistaict i "o u., OFFICE i k k __ _ osries4 ruk. ui s j usessa ,,_ _ _ _ Q m' F ~ g r-l i j w;wa;f!;Wlo w lo ol i i n w,4. -{ltra'*;{g;;s... iu= ueL steame r-m-_j er,iajv5aictsli .Lafa <5aia5 pouroan i N'82 J i I lmner,' ui
- 4.... sl.,,i :! lW
- r w isei l
8 l'i [~L _ _ _ _ _ j " " ;L _ _ _ J...l.--_ _L - - i. f.c
- o9l{
- ;jp:':g E
t i """ 7 Ll C_g g J,,,t p;g;,,,, _),Q___,_ _ _ _ _ '...!._,_1(..l!,: : F._i j j g g 73 il 1 1 2 l Il i j g___________=______....u____,-_--____j, -, 7,,_,,,i.j_!g' [_ svevos ,o i .-y 3G ot45tTE TFArric GulOE N RECEPflot4 CEt31ER PICORDER m I uotitT0 Fit 0 LOCATioti y M 4 =- It46 Cult 30 / 00T00199 VEHICLES y . -- CONTAulDATED VEHICLES [ TPAFFIG CCt45 y Rev. 8
M OPIP 4.2.3 Page 21 of 29 Page 2 of 4 y HICKSVILLE RECEPTION CENTER TRAFFIC FLOW AND ACTIVATION DIAGRAM I /',/) f l p>D laf i 0 s *" - /- i i l l I 0%D LAWM I ~ u i I I $h .U 4g6 - !i i / / s l l8 LAWN y %*wle ~'" " i 'd. \\ r.C,,, >, l'km " ~ ~ w ~ i I 19 mu-g I e i gwawus l l , Q_ _
- # y -
w: > b -- -_ _ j,,,,,Jr; OPS *1 ' /s g>> a,.MS NS H6 W6 _ _ _v. p~EA' , * * * *.f % ,. g _o p_s. gN ,g d o et.r AR T e
- s ops *2 lendeltwintiW i
l1*L 6 sta f(wg i \\ t si'" l I FAPKlHG , 3 *- n l 7 y, WAREHOUSE I krbME" b N] 'l I L ui,,s,o,ri,i.i.. _ 3lt~wu ,3 i r, o, i,,., I \\s's l, U b?,l'I: C in i r,, r, g,,,n,. .I 90 mis wrric suioc sN w sectriios ct8tta accanoin s~~'---~'--------- - - - - j +;;g,' G Ei,,l 7 M 908:10 RIH 6 LOCAt108 N'------ 4-- IPc0ulNG / 00100180 VElitCLES i LAM 8 l
- --- 0091AMIFAtED VtHICLES I
Traffic CONE - SUS 7,gg f I I om., a
f Il % Wet t&t.LfLSGM g i ,,/ 7~ y -l / ] l ~ j$ -E mmu" g l ec 5o fl$ !!hnid h { /JfI ! $r N l8'E"U J05m d ( s$$' 9 E f# Fgz AoNe negs 8 te fS)...._.s l ll 9 4 - Mu 2 eas se. o e 2- -;m m. go o g a p~ s 3 _ 3........... ?..r---T h,p e f L t r-- l.i i i Pori- $$t5pt I o l g l ED IEa l i l !w l55, !5$ l $$!5Sb i g t i fo i I,3 l l ia l I IIII I u. di Idl i mi g 16 6152 lat! Ic $Elir g = 2 I 4 Ew-g) g i i ul s i I I 3 e d I#* I I i 8 le'i 2d ls !ed$ lEf 3 I i 3 \\,,. L___!ssi "iso l.L 1 a l u 4 e l, / Jol g m L q, j
- f _o L__J_J 'h a
a
- , jI
~ ,&j' hg /g G8 L[g/. // 0F d (~ ~~ 7
- 9 :w i wm
-ir--i31 zs a 05 lIl !!l' i i i i, l Il l 151* t a 5 / m< k $g e i,iii l j"l L 1 l i m i2 =< ej l, i ii i3 $S E $ lil3si'J / z :r fI 5 /If, S .I A Il jlo$l1 A l I 12 I I I ler Ian nafil -J l I l j t__! ! - >....L_4/ / l
- s c
i L r, ([-- T---- T ;is ! ( I i:s li iq i l f,
- " l j! jalo t
2 2 ! 6--- 7 l \\ ,/ l c l e e l au ^ la o I: m So* j }lf f l N, er ~ t es*
- OFIP 4. 2.3 Page 29 of 29 Fage 1 of 1 DECONTAMINATION TRAILER LAYOUT 40*-O F-3 %'
- 87 Sw" 915 %
, M 3 %', % efw , % a; p,- a %f k' M 's" e \\ / CCCCCCCCC 'N \\, _? / V g ? sty @},- evers maroef.swxs kcu s g 5" ,,, )g suovers unct33 O ~ cLarmer p [ V V y 9 ~ EXIT EXIT FOR CLEAN ENTRANCE EXIT OR EASILY DE-CONTAMINATED PEOPLE s' Rev. 8 t
00LKETED usNHC October 14,'1986 16 0CT 17 P3 32 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFFICL OF f.UAh' 00ChlinhG*2d " RANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 ] 1 I hereby. certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF.NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO REOPEN 4 RECORD have been served on the following this 14th day of October, j 1986 by U.S. mail, first class. Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Joel Blau, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Utility Intervention U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 1020 Albany, New-York-12210 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Spence W. Perry, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William R. Cumming, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472 1 4 --.w-.- .v. .e v --
,---.4--
,-m--
Mr. Frederick J. Shon Anthony ?. Earley, Jr., Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company ~ Washington, D.C. 20555 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Mr. William Rogers W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O. Box 1535 i Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 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 Riverhead, New York 11901 North Country Road 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 of Law Suffolk County Executive 2 World Trade Center, Rm. 4614 H. Lee Dennison Building New York, New York 10047 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 l 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 i Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 l l Mr. Jay Dunkleburger-Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. i New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. l Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plazd Albany, New York 12223 i i
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 John H. Frye, III,. Chairman Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory'Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 744M7K Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: October 14, 1986 l J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _. _ _.. _..,}}