ML20214Q503
| ML20214Q503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1986 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1742 OL-3, NUDOCS 8612050179 | |
| Download: ML20214Q503 (25) | |
Text
A $42-
.m
\\
DOLMETED December'1, 1986
!!SNRC 6 002 -4 A11 :26 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF G Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board 00CXUim; & 2"v;m 4
ERANDt
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
).
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 l
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING ON LILCO MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD On September 30, 1986, LILCO filed a " Motion to Reopen Record," describing the Motion as being for the purpose of replacing the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a reception center with three LILCO-owned facilities -- the Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn Operations Centers.
Sag LILCO's Motion to 4
Reopen Record,' September 30, 1986, at.1 (hereafter, "LILCO's Motion").
LILCO's Motion concerned proposed changes contained in 4
I Revision 8 of LILCO's Plan, which had been served on the Board and parties during the week of September 15, 1986.
The NRC Staff on October 10 and Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (hereafter, the " Governments") on October 14, 1986, filed pleadings in response to LILCO's Motion.
8612050179 861201 ADOCKOSOOOgg2 PDR 0
\\ Eg c>:?i
S 4
On November 13, 1986, this Board issued a Memorandum and Order (Requesting Briefing on Motion to Reopen Record) (here-after, " Order"), in which it requested further briefing on LILCO's Motion.
The further briefing was to address two issues:
1.
Whether the Licensing Board has jurisdiction over LILCO's Motion to Reopen; and 2.
The scope of any reopened hearings should the LILCO Motion be granted.
The Governments set forth their views on these issues in the sections which follow.
I.
The Licensing Board Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over LILCO's Motion to Reocen For purposes of the instant pleading, the Governments accept as correct this Board's November 5, 1986 Memorandum and Order (Intervenors' Motion to Reopen Record), in which the Board ruled that it was without jurisdiction to rule on an October 15, 1986 motion to reopen filed by the Governmentsl because the new 1
Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of southampton Motion to Reopen Record, October 15, 1986 (hereafter, " Govern-ments' Motion").
The Governments' Motion involved WALK Radio's withdrawal as the primary EBS station under LILCO's Plan, LILCO',s lack of any agreement with the American Red Cross-(" ARC") to pro-vide emergency services or assistance in the event of a Shoreham emergency, as assumed and required under the LILCO Plan, and the lack of congregate care centers under LILCO's Plan and the ARC's inability and refusal to identify, designate, open or operate such centers in a Shoreham emergency.
Under LILCO's Plan, the lack of an ARC agreement is a matter relevant to relocation center issues, since ARC personnel were previously expected to be present at the Nassau Coliseum.
-. 2 -
evidence discussed in that motion and relating to three signif-icant emergency planning issues concerned areas where juris-diction had passed to the Commission.
While the Governments have previously expressed their view that this Board's November 5 Memorandum and Order was not correct,2 it does represent the " law of the case" for this proceeding.
Given that November 5 ruling, the Governments believe that a similar result is required here:
while the facts surrounding LILCO's September 30 Motion are some-what distinguishable from the Governments' October 15 Motion, the basic principles are nonetheless the same and this Board muct find that it lacks jurisdiction over LILCO's Motion.
We explain our reasons below.3 2
Egg Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Motion to Reopen Record, November 10, 1986, at 3, n.
1.
3 The Governments must state that this " result" does not appear to the Governments to make much sense, just as, to the Governments, the results reached in this Board's November 5 ruling also did not make much sense.
The Licensing Board is the entity within the Commission structure which generally is in the best position to have familiarity with the factual matters at issue and thus to be capable of rendering appropriate and careful rulings on motions to reopen.
This particularly is the case in' this instance, where the Board has been dealing with LILCO's proposed relocation / reception center issues for several years.
Nonetheless, from a strict legal point of view, it is our view, given the Board's November 5 ruling, that this Board must rule that it lacks jurisdiction.
The Board stated in its November 13 Order that it did not know whether jurisdiction was a matter that had been agreed to by the parties and thus was not discussed or was simply overlooked.
From the Governments' perspective, the jurisdictional issue was not overlooked; rather, it was initially believed by the Governments that there was jurisdiction over LILCO's Motion.
Similarly, it was the Governments' view that there was jurisdiction over the Governments' October 15 Motion, which was filed one day after the Governments responded to LILCO's Motion. i
o-Consistent with the Board's November 5 ruling, the pertinent inquiry in determining whether the Board has jurisdiction over LILCO's September 30 Motion is to examine what jurisdiction has been vested in the Commission versus what jurisdiction has been vested with this Board.
This inquiry is best presented if sequential steps are reviewed.
1.
During August 1984, the Board completed its hearings on emergency planning matters in the OL-3 Docket.
At that time, the record was closed, despite the Board's on-the-record statement that there was a void in the record due to LILCO's failure to identify a relocation center for Shoreham evacuees.
Egg Tr.
14,806-07.
2.
In January 1985, in view of the foregoing void in the record, the Board granted LILCO's request to reopen the record for the purportedly narrow purpose of considering the " functional adequacy" of the Nassau Coliseum as a reception center.
The reopening in early 1985 did not relate to any other emergency planning issues or facilities; rather, it was solely for the purpose of considering evidence which related to the Nassau Coli-seum.
A hearing was held in June 1985, and the Board issued its Concluding Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning (LBP-85-31, 22 NRC 410) on August 26, 1985.
4 3.
On March 26, 1986, the Appeal Board reversed that portion of the August 26, 1986 Licensing Board decision per-taining to the Nassau Coliseum issues because, inter alia, the Governments had been denied the opportunity to pursue discovery on relevant issues.
ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135, 157-62.
The Appeal Board did not immediately direct a remand; rather, it stayed its order to permit the parties to seek review by the Commission.
4.
LILCO did seek Commission review of the Appeal Board's Nassau Coliseum ruling.
However, on September 19, 1986, the Commission denied review of that portion of LILCO's Petition for Review which contested the Appeal Board's ruling.
The Commission
{
also lifted the stay of the remand proceedings which had been directed by ALAB-832.
5.
The effect of the Commission's September 19 ruling was to vest this Board with jurisdiction over whatever issue had been remanded to the Licensing Board.
Insofar as relocation centers are concerned, it is clear that the " remanded issue" was the Nassau Coliseum matter, and not relocation centers more generally.
This is demonstrated by the fact that LILCO, in seeking to have this Board consider its new relocation centers (the Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn facilities), did not ask the Board to establish procedures for considering those matters and conducting an evidentiary hearing-thereon as part of the remand proceeding, but rather requested the Board to reocen the. -
i:.
4 record to consider that new evidence.
Thus, LILCO, by the filing
^
of its very own motion, has acknowledged that.the new proposed relocation / reception centers constitute something which was n21 cart of the orior reooenina and which accordingly is not part of a
the remand proceeding, absent yet a further reopening of the record.-
l 6.
This Board's jurisdiction extends only to the issue 4
which was remanded by the Appeal Board,.namely, the prior 4
reopened proceeding on the Nassau Coliseum during which the f
Licensing Board committed procedural errors.
This Board's juris-diction does not extend to any other matters.
Thus, even though the proposed reopening by LILCO concerns the same general subject 1
l matter -- that is, reception centers and related activities -- as in the January 1985 reopening and the ALAB-832' remand proceeding, l
the fact is that the requested reopening concerns an entirely different set of facts and circumstances and plainly was not the issue which was remanded to this Licensing Board.
s
}
In this Board's November 5 ruling, the Board stressed that a i
licensing board has limited jurisdiction, particularly once the appeal and Commission review processes have been completed.
That is the case here, with the Commission having denied review on relocation center issues on September 19, 1986.
The only juris-diction this Board has now is over the specific issue which was remanded to it by the Appeal Board -- the Nassau Coliseum issue.
t 6--
i i
e It does not gain broader jurisdiction simply because LILCO's Motion deals with matters generally related to LILCO's former proposal to'use the Nassau Coliseum as a reception center.
In view of the foregoing, this Board must rule that the proper entity to consider LILCO's new scheme of relocation centers is the Commission, since it is the Commission which last had jurisdiction (in denying LILCO's Petition for Review) over OL-3 emergency planning issues.
Thus, this Board must dismiss LILCO's Motion, albeit with the same option as provided to the Governments in the November 5 ruling, namely, to refile the Motion with the Commission.
II.
Discussion of the Scoce of the Reccened Proceedina Assuming arcuendo that this Licensing Board does have juris-diction over LILCO's Motion, and assuming further, arauendo, that the Licensing Board were to grant that Motion,4 -the Board has asked the parties to address the scope of the reopened pro-ceedings.
In the Governments' October 14, 1986, Opposition to LILCO's Motion, the Governments identified a number of areas which would necessarily have to be included in any reopening, assuming l
4 The Governments reiterate their view that LILCO's Motion must be denied if the merits are reached.
Egg Suffolk County, State of New York, and the Town of Southampton Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Reopen Record, October 14, 1986 (hereafter,
" Governments' Opposition").,
4 arauendo that LILCO's Motion were granted.
These included changes made by LILCO to its evacuee and vehicle monitoring procedures at t,he new reception centers, as well as seven other areas identified at pages 21 and 22 of the Governments' Opposi-tion.5 The Licensing Board has apparently assumed that it was the Governments' position that these areas were either ouY_ side,
the scope of the original reopened proceeding in early 1985 concerning the Nassau Coliseum, or were outside the scope of the type of issues identified by the Appeal Board as admissible in ALAB-832.
Thus, the Board requested the Governments to address i
how each purportedly " additional element [the Governments] wish included in the reopening proceeding specifically relates to the reopening issue and is material to its disposition."
Egg Order at 3.
The Board further stated that the Governments did not need to provide such a discussion regarding any areas of inquiry which relate to "the remanded areas ordered in ALAB-832."
14 As is discussed below, the Governments do not believe that any of the matters which were specified in the Governments' October 14 opposition were, in fact, " additional."
Rather, these 5
The eight matters specified in the Governments' Opposition are not.necessarily the only issues related to LILCO's Motion which would need to be addressed if LILCO's Motion were granted.
If LILCO's Motion is granted and after discovery is pursued, the Governments would expect that other relevant matters would be identified as well.
Thus, it is premature to attempt to specify every issue that might be pertinent to LILCO's Motion.
j 4-matters are necessarily encompassed within the type of issues which should have been considered in the original reopened proceeding, as explained by the Appeal Board in ALAB-832.
Before turning to a discussion of why the matters specified in the Governments' Opposition are encompassed within the Appeal Board's remand (assuming arauendo that the Licensing Board has jurisdiction and grants LILCO's Motion), it is important that a more general point be made.
The Board's November 13 Order creates at least the impression that this Board may be headed for the types of serious procedural errors which resulted in the ALAB-832 reversal, i.e.,
an inclination to allow LILCO to define the scope of the proceeding as narrowly as it wishes, despite the fact that LILCO's reception center proposals also necessarily affect other portions of LILCO's Plan.
The Governments, for reasons which already have been discussed, have no desire in the abstract to have LILCO's reception-center issues reopened.
The Governments believe LILCO's Motion is defective on multiple grounds, and that any fair review of the Motion will lead to its denial.
There is, however, an important point of fairness as well.
~
If one assumes arcuendo that LILCO's Motion is going to be granted, then this Board must not put on blinders about what that Motion in fact involves.
LILCO's Motion is not, as LILCO would have this Board believe (LILCO's Motion at 1), simply a motion to l
i i -
a 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.
Indeed, 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.
LILCO's Motion at 5.6 This Board would abdicate its responsibilities if it were to pretend that LILCO's Motion can be viewed in isolation.
The critically important thing is not just the three new facilities 6
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 Massau Coliseum) with substantial shower and other facilities necessary to accommodate large numbers of people (e.g.,
- 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. - -
e proposed by LILCO, but, rather, how these new facilities fit within the overall structure of LILCO's Plan.
If these new facilities result in significant disruption of other elements of the Plan, then their " functional adequacy" must surely be suspect.
Accordingly, any inquiry into the merits of LILCO's Motion will require the Board and parties to assess the changes proposed by LILCO in the context of the LILCO Plan as a whole, not just as a series of fragmented pieces.
Consistent with the foregoing, and also consistent with the Appeal Board's guidance in ALAB-832, the Governments demonstrate below that each matter raised in the Governments' October 14 Opposition is not an " additional" element to be included in the reapened proceeding, but, instead, is well within the scope of LILCO's Motion, assuming arcuendo that the Motion is granted.
First, in their October 14 Opposition, the Governments discuss LILCO's proposed new monitoring procedures as consti-tuting one matter which would necessarily have to be encompassed within the reopening sought by LILCO.
Egg Governments' Opposi-tion at 19-20.
This does not constitute an " additional element";
rather, it is precisely the type of issue which was within the scope of the Nassau Coliseum reopening.
This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that the original reopened proceeding on the Nassau Coliseum matters included detailed examination into the adequacy of LILCO's procedures at the Nassau Coliseum for the,
,n
a monitoring and decontamination of evacuees and vehicles.
Egg 22 NRC at 417-19 for discussion on this matter.
Thus, it is clearly proper in this latest reopening effort for LILCO's procedures regarding evacuee and vehicle monitoring and decontamination at LILCO's proposed new facilities to be scrutinized as well.
It must be emphasized that LILCO's proposed monitoring and decontamination procedures cannot be viewed in isolation.
Those procedures are to be implemented specifically at the three new facilities -- Bellmore, Hicksville, and Roslyn -- which are detailed in Revision 8 of the LILCO Plan.
Whether LILCO's procedures will adequately protect the public health and safety and can in fact be implemented at the facilities proposed by LILCO are necessarily crucial questions related to the functional adequacy of each facility.
Such procedures also tie directly into the scope of the remanded issues enunciated by the Appeal Board in ALAB-832.
As noted by the Appeal Board, the issue is "whether there (are] any factors -- including the location of the Coliseum relative to the various portions of the EPZ --- that might make that facility unsuitable to serve as the sole recep-tion center for EPZ evacuees."
See 23 NRC at 162.
Obviously, the Appeal Board's directive in ALAB-832 cannot be taken precisely literally, since the parties are now not dealing with the Coliseum or even a single reception center, but, rather, are dealing with multiple centers.
However, the Appeal Board's guidance is nevertheless relevant:
it directed that inquiry be made into whether there are any factors that might make whatever facility LILCO might propose to use unsuitable to serve as a reception center for EPZ evacuees.
The Governments intend to present evidence that LILCO's new monitoring procedures, proposed for use by LILCO at the three facilities identified in Revision 8 of LILCO's Plan, constitute factors which make these facilities unsuit'able to serve as reception centers.
There can be no question but that such procedures are material to the disposition of this remanded issue.
Simply put, it is the Governments' position that LILCO's new monitoring procedures are inadequate, in that they will not ensure that all contaminated persons will be identified in a timely manner.
In fact, some persons with contamination may not be identified at all, and may suffer adverse health consequences as a result.
Unquestionably, this would be a material issue, after all, the reason for monitoring persons effectively is to ensure that necessary decontamination procedures can be implemented for those in need.
For the reasons set forth below, the other seven areas identified in the Governments' Opposition (at pages 21-22) are equally material and fall within the scope of any reopening.
1.
The first issue or area of inquiry set forth in the Governments' Opposition as being within the scope of the reopening sought by LILCO was as follows:
. 4
=--v
4 5
[T]he 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 i
proposal to employ traffic guides on Nassau County roadways.
Governments' Opposition at 21.
J 1
This issue, as stated, does not constitute a new issue or an
" additional element" of inquiry.
Included among the prior testi-mony not admitted by the Licensing Board (but which must.now be i
admitted pursuant to ALAB-832) was the' testimony of Messrs.
Roberts and Kilduff.
That testimony concerned transportation and traffic problems that might develop as a result of the Nassau Coliseum's location and its distance from the. plume EPZ.
The above issue addresses the same subject as that prior testimony.
It is thus clear under ALAB-832 that evidence on this subject-I must be deemed admissible.
Egg ALAB-832, 23 NRC at 162.
1
~
Further support for the above conclusion is found when the previously-stricken, but now admissible, testimony of Dr. Johnson (agg ALAB-832, 23 NRC at 162, n. 105) is examined.
That testi-
~
mony dealt with the evacuation shadow phenomenon.-
The issue stated above involves precisely the kinds of evacuation shadow l
problems addressed by Dr. Johnson, since under LILCO's' Revision 8 proposals, there are three areas to which voluntary evacuees can l
be expected to'go.
4 Finally, the Appeal Board's statement that, on remand, inquiry could be made into the location of the Coliseum " relative to the various portions of the EPZ" clearly evidences the Appeal Board's expectation that the Nassau Coliseum remand would look at issues such as the one quoted above from the Governments' Opposi-tion.7 Since this issue is clearly embraced by ALAB-832 and since the Appeal Board directed the Licensing Board to consider such evidence, there can be no question but that it would also be material to the disposition of the issues sought to be reopened by LILCO.
2.
The second issue set forth in the Governments' Opposi-tion as being within the scope of the reopening sought by LILCO was as follows:
The impact of the new relocation scheme upon evacuation time estimates and evacuation vehicle requirements.
Governments' Opposition at 21.
The discussion immediately above concerning the testimony of Messrs. Roberts and Kilduff and that of Dr. Johnson is equally applicable to this. issue:
if evacua-tion times are materially affected by LILCO's proposed new recep-tion center locations or if the requirements for evacuation 7
Had the Appeal Board known of Revision 8 of LILCO's Plan, it presumably would have stated something along the lines of:
the issue before the Licensing Board on remand is whether there are any factors -- including the location of the Bellmore, Hicksville and Roslyn facilities relative to the various portions of the EPZ
-- that might make any of those facilities unsuitable-to serve as
~
reception centers for EPZ evacuees.
4
_A-vehicles are materially impacted, the facilities may be unsuit-able to serve as reception centers for EPZ evacuees.
Such matters certainly affect a facility's " functional adequacy" to serve as a reception center.
Further, the testimony of Dr. Radford -- which the Appeal Board directed to be admitted (23 NRC at 162, n. 105) -- also bears directly on this issue:
Dr. Radford states, in essence, that if evacuation times are increased due to inaccessibility of reception centers or any other factor, this can result in adverse health consequences.
It j
must therefore be concluded that the above issue must be I
encompassed within the scope of the reopening sought by LILCO.
3.
The next issue asserted by the Governments as being 4
within the scope of the reopening sought tur LILCO was:
" staffing requirements given the new. scheme."
Egg Governments' Opposition at 21.
The staffing of the Nassau. Coliseum by LILCO and Red a
Cross personnel was a matter which was directly at issue in LILCO's prior reopening.
Egg, e. a., 2 2 NRC at 419.
Thus, such t
issues must also be deemed to be part of this proceeding,.
assuming arouendo that this Board grants LILCO's Motion in the
~
first place.
Further, there can be no question that if there are substantially increased. staffing requirements for.the new recep-tion centers proposed by LILCO, but LILCO is incapable of meeting these requirements, then the facilities themselves may be unsuit-able to serve as reception centers.
This is a matter.which I
clearly relates to the " functional adequacy"'of LILCO's new 1 _ -.
e A
centers and, again therefore, this matter falls directly within the scope of the remanded proceeding mandated by the Appeal Board.
4.
The next issue set forth in the Governments' Opposition as being within the scope of the reopening sought by LILCO was as follows:
LILCO's proposal to transport all evacuees traveling 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.
Governments' Opposition at 21.
The relevance of this issue is obvious:
if the Hicksville facility lacks necessary capacity because of other uses already designated in LILCO's Plan, then the Hicksville facility would prove unsuitable to serve as a reception center.
Put another way, if the Hicksville facility does not have sufficient capacity but LILCO nevertheless proposes to send evacuees.there, the result would be to prevent evacuees from being monitored and decontaminated in a timely manner.
The issue raised is thus directly pertinent to the functional adequacy of the Hicksville facility, and is clearly relevant and material to the outcome of the reopenirg sought by LILCO.
5.
The next issue asserted by the Governments as being within the scope of the reopening sought by LILCO was as follows:
b Whether the public would ever comply with LILCO's suggested relocation proposal and registration, monitoring, and decontamination procedures.
Governments' Opposition at 21.
This issue also is directly relevant to the matters enunc-i iated by the Appeal Board in ALAB-832 and to the matters raised by LILCO in seeking to reopen.
It is the position of the Govern-ments that the public will be unwilling to utilize a LILCO facility in the event of an emergency, given the great distrust and suspicion felt for LILCO.8 Thus, even assuming arcuendo that these facilities were otherwise adequate (e.c., sufficient capacity, adequate shower and toilet facilities, sufficient staffing, proper location, etc.), there could be no finding by the-Board that LILCO's present reception center scheme is adequate.
Rather, the finding would have to be that there is not reasonable assurance that the public health and safety would be protected.
If LILCO's own deficiencies as an entity preclude the public from utilizing its facilities, then that is something which the Board must take cognizance of as being material to the issue whether LILCO has complied with the Section 50.47(b) requirement that it make adequate provision for the relocation of evacuees.
8 This issue was not as significant when LILCO planned to use a government building (the Nassau Coliseum) which was well known to the public.
In contrast, LILCO now proposes to use three j
LILCO-owned facilities which are not associated by the public as being the types of facilities used in an emergency situation. -
6.
Tne next issue asserted by the Governments as being within the scope of the reopening sought by LILCO was as follows:
The adequacy of LILCO's public information and education materials and EBS messages regarding the locations for monitoring and decontamina-tion and services to be provided evacuees.
Governments' Opposition at 21.
The changes made in Revision 8 of the Plan to LILCO's recep-tion center scheme are clearly substantial:
LILCO is proposing to go from using one institutionally-owned facility (the Nassau Coliseum) to using three LILCO-owned facilities -- the Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn Operations Centers.
This will necessitate substantial changes in LILCO procedures for directing evacuees to these new locations, since all of the LILCO's public information and education materials and EBS messages are designed to send evacuees to the Nassau Coliseum.
It is incumbent upon LILCO to demonstrate that it can develop the necessary procedures in order to get evacuees to go to the proposed new locations.
If such procedures cannot be developed, the facilities themselves may prove to be unsuita' ale to serve as reception centers.. Thus, again, the issue raised by the Governments falls directly within the scope of the remanded issues as enunciated by the Appeal Board in ALAB-832, and would therefore be equally relevant in the reopening sought by LILCO. L
4 7.
Finally, the Governments' Opposition posed the following issue as being within the scope of the reopening sought by LILCO:
Whether the proposal to send evacuees to LILCO parking lots could or would ever be imple-mented in a way to protect the public health and safety.
Governments' Opposition at 22.
This issue relates directly to the testimony previously submitted by Dr. Radford concerning the Nassau Coliseum, namely, whether LILCO's proposal will permit timely monitoring and decon-tamination of evacuees or whether, to the contrary, evacuees will suffer additional adverse health consequences as a result of LILCO's failure to have an adequate monitoring and decontamina-tion facility.
The Appeal Board in ALAB-832 directed the admission of such testimony.
Accordingly, this lasue is also directly relevant to the reopening sought by LILCO.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Governments submit that if the Licensing Board rules in LILCO's favor.in granting LILCO's Motion and permitting reopening, then it would also have to rule that the-scope of that reopening necessarily includes all factors and areas of inquiry dealing with the adequacy of the new facilities proposed by LILCO for use as reception centers, including factors which may exist offsite from those facilities which might make any or all of those facilities unsuitable to. -
4 1
serve as reception centers for EPZ evacuees.
The areas of inquiry raised by the Governments' October 14 Opposition and discussed herein are precisely the kinds of issues that would have to be encompassed within the scope of the proposed LILCO reopening.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York. 11788
' Herbert H.
Brow'n
. Lawrence Coe Lanpher Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County f
k An o u r ej Fabian G.
Palomino Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M.
- Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York 1
l -. _.
- 4 Stephen-B. Latham
~
)
l Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton Dated:
December 1, 1986 i
I r
9 1
4
t COLMETEP U #C December 1, 1986 T6 DEC -4 A11 :26 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 "J GFFICL c -
A 00CKEig![>ENO 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 I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING ON LILCO MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD have been served on the following this 1st day of December 1986 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
Morton B.
Margulies, Esq., 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.,
Rocm 840 Washington, D.C.
20472
3 i
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon*
Anthony F.
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 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 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 M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Peter Cohalan New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 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 Mr.. Jay Dunkleburger Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*
New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 1
l
. \\
k 1-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 l
I M C & -Ci W Lawrence Coe Lanphe r KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.
i Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 t
Date:
ecember 1, 1986 By Hand By Federal Express 1
I I
l