ML20214R680

Memorandum & Order CLI-86-16 Denying Intervenors 860721 Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-86-11 Re Appointment of Licensing Board to Begin Hearing on 860213 Emergency Preparedness Exercise for Plant.Served on 860926

ML20214R680
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/26/1986
From:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#386-870 CLI-86-11, CLI-86-16, OL-5, NUDOCS 8609290247
Download: ML20214R680 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,V 1

F70 DOCKElEC UmRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA mcIsa mouIAIony CcmISSIm ~86 SEP 26 A10:47 OCFMISSIONEPS:

f0 b A $t lI BR m "

Iando W. Zech, Jr. , Chairman muas M. soberts James K. Asselstine SERVED SEP 261986 Robert M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr

)

In the Matter of )

)

IONG ISIAND LIGffING cot 1PANY ) Docket No. 50-322 OIe5 ~

) (Dnergency Planning Exercise)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power )

Station, Unit 1) )

)

MENORANDEM AND OFDER I CLI-86 _16 Backcround and Sumary In CLI-86-11, 23 NFC 577 (1986) , the Ccrmission directed the appointment of a Licensing Board to ccrTaence a hearing on the February 13, 1986 emergency preparedness exercise for Shoreham. A Board was appointed and has already cos*ucted preliminary proceedings. After the issuance of CLI-86-ll, two developments occurred which, intervenors argue in a July 21, 1986 Motion to Peconsider, demand termination of both the exercise hearing and the whole l

prncamiing on T rim's emergency plan. These develqxaents are: 1) the I

j June 16 action of Nassau County denying LIICO the use of the Nassau Coliseun as a reception center for potential evacuees in a Shoreham errergency; and

2) the July 3 enactment by the New York State legislature of legislation creating a rnunicipal power authority (Long Island Power Authority 8609290247 860926 7 {DR ADOCK 0500 2

.Y

' -- LIPA) empowered to purchase LILCO, if that is in the best interest of ratepayers. Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-86-11. The staff and LILC0 oppose the motion. We are not persuaded by intervenors that the relief suggested is warranted, and we deny the motion.

Analysis Intervenors argue that a hearing on the exercise would be a waste of time and resources because Nassau Coliseum was the focal point of the -

exercise. In support of this argument, they assert that all bus drivers were  :

trained to drive routes leading to the Coliseum, and " evacuees" were '

monitored and decontaminated at the Coliseum. More importantly, intervenors add, the lack of a relocation center, and the lack of an agreement for a relocation center, violates NUREG-0654, and thus should lead to a Comission holding that the entire plan fails to comply with the Comission's emergency planning requirements in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47. Motion at 4-8.

Intervenors also argue that the creation of LIPA should lead to termination of the entire Shoreham proceeding because LILC0 is no longer a bona fide applicant, and the Comission "cannot ... have intended ... such pointless and wasteful litigation ...." Id_. at 9-10.

Both the staff and LILC0 oppose the motion, arguing that while knowing the location of a reception center may be important to testing some functions in an exercise, most functions can be tested adequately without knowing the location of a reception center, e.g., how well emergency personnel know correct dosimetry procedures, comunications procedures, and mobilization procedures. As to a state takeover of LILCO, staff and LILC0 l

I also observe that this is no certainty. The bill authorizes acquisition only if it benefits ratepayers, but LILC0 notes that it's "far from free of doubt" that there's an acquisition price that can protect ratepayers and at the same time protect LILC0 shareholders and creditors. Response at 4.

We agree with the staff and LILC0 that we should not reverse our decision to direct the conduct of a hearing on the exercise. While the status of the relocation center in LILCO's plan may not be entirely clear, we are not prepared to agree with intervenors that the Coliseum was such an important focus in the exercise that the ongoing hearing will be wasteful and -

pointless. Much can be accomplished in the ongoing hearing in resolving issues that involve functions not dependent on the exact location of the relocation center or centers.

Nor does the LIPA legislation offer a sound basis on which to terminate hearings. Intervenors present the takeover as a fait accompli, but we believe that rtuch needs to be resolved before any actual takeover can be effected. Thus termination of the hearings on this ground would be premature and unwise.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

For the Commission *

> l q O $

$' n actin o, cb'r.noyle,y of the Comiss$on k, o Dated at Washington, D.C. *****

6-this d day of September, 1986.

Chairman Zech was not present for the affirmation of this order, had he been present he would have approved it.

. . _ - _ , ,