ML20215D726
| ML20215D726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1986 |
| From: | Brown H, Latham S, 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-#486-1057, CON-#486-10957 OL-5, NUDOCS 8610140266 | |
| Download: ML20215D726 (13) | |
Text
}'Oh~l
.o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U RC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina abbrBiT 10 P2 :19 Grrt". m~
CCC 3
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
)
MOTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK STATE, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON FOR ADMISSION OF CONTENTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ALFONSE M. D'AMATO By letter dated September 26, 1986, to the Presiding Officer of this Board, Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, as a follow-up to his oral limited appearance statement of September 23, submitted four contentions whichrhe requested the Licensing Board to accept for r
litigation.
(A copy of Senator D'Amato's letter is attached hereto.)
The Senator stated that he believed the contentions
. clearly expose the inadequacy of LILCO's February 13 exercise
" and that each contention satisfies NRC pleading requirements.
On October 6, the Licensing Board served its Prehearing Conference Order, dated October 3, 1986, ruling on the admissibility of contentions submitted by Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (" Governments") on August 1, 1986.
However, the Board did not address the four contentions submitted by Senator D'Amato.
8610140266 861008 PDR ADOCK 00000 2
vso)
In order to assure that the contentions submitted by Senator D'Amato are considered on the record by the Board, the Governments hereby move the Licensing Board to admit these contentions, either (1) by designating the contentions as the Board's own contentions, or (2) by designating them as an adjunct to the contentions submitted by the Governments.
Senator D'Amato's contentions satisfy the admissibility and pleading requirements of NRC regulations, CLI-86-ll, and UCS v.
HEC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 815 (1985), as interpreted and applied by this Board in its October 3 Prehearing Conference Order.
Senator D'Amato's Contention 1 addresses FEMA's assessment of the February 13 exercise and challenges FEMA's failure to mak3 a finding of no reasonable assurance.1 It is clearly admissible under MCE.
This contention cites in particular the limited appearance testimony of Frank Petrone, FEMA's Region I Director at the time of the February 13 exercise, that ".
there is no workable plan for Suffolk County.
" and that ".
the major deficiences cited should have been enough evidence for the NRC to immediately act and deny any operating license for Shoreham."
Accordingly, Mr. Petrone's statement, and the Senator's contention which cites it, are of utmost relevance and importance to this proceeding.
1 Senator D'Amato's Contention 1 is similar to and could be considered in the exercise preceding in conjunction with the Governments' Contention Ex. 19.
-2_
t In short, Senator D'Amato has asked this Board to take I
cognizance of Mr. Petrone's limited appearance teatimony and to bring Mr. Petrone before the Board for examination on the record.
At page 16,223 of the limited appearance transcript, Senator D'Amato stated:
(I]t is essential to the public safety that the conclusion of FEMA's regional office i
under Frank Petrone, be brought into the open, be put on the record, and dealt with squarely before this Board.
I suggest this Board has an obligation to bring Mr. Petrone before it to examine his reasons for his refusal to certify for the adequacy of that test.
Otherwise, we just do the business of the Bureaucrats to keep them happy.
Senator D'Amato's Contention 2 addresses the inadequacy and invalidity of the February 13 exercise in light of the Chernobyl accident and the effects of that accident on the response of Long Island's residents to an accident at Shoreham.
The February 13 exercise was pre-Chernobyl and did not assume a population on Long Island that had witnessed the effects of Chernobyl.
The Chernobyl accident resulted in the immediate evacuation of the population within 18 miles of the plant, and the subsequent evacuation of limited population centers much farther away.
Residents in the area surrounding Chernobyl have been permanently relocated to new housing, built by the government, 30 miles away.
Agricultural lands have been paved-over.
Various radioactive hot spots have been found more than 60 miles from Chernobyl.
A i
i - -_
4 threat to drinking water sources exists to the present.
Livestock have been adversely affected near and far from Chernobyl.
Medical effects on the public have been significant.
Senator D'Amato's Contention 2 recognizes these facts and alleges with specified bases (including a recent Newsday poll which shows massive evacuation of Long Island in an accident at Shoreham) that they would affect the reactions and responses of Long Islanders to an accident at Shoreham.
The public's response in turn, the Senator alleges, would prevent the public from being protected by LILCO's plan.
Therefore, the results of the February 13 exercise are invalid in that they are based on assumed reactions and responses of the public that do not include the actual status of Long Island's population as affected by Chernobyl.
This is an admissible contention under UCS, since the NRC will consider the exercise as a material factor in its licensing decision.2 Senator D'Amato's Contention 3 alleges that the February 13 exercise was so limited that its results prevent a reasonable assurance finding.
The contention points out that the exercise ignored realities on Long Island and that, consequently, the results provide no basis to conclude that the public can and will 2
Senator D'Amato's Contention 2 could be considered in conjunction with the Governments' Contention Ex. 22 which alleges that the exercise was " premised upon certain assumptions
.which conflict with established facts.
be protected in an accident at Shoreham.
This contention is clearly admissible in light of the Board's October 3 rulings on the Governments' contentions.3 Senator D'Amato's Contention 4 alleges that FEMA's evaluation of the February 13 exercise is tainted and, therefore, should be rejected.
This contention rebuts the presumption represented by FEMA's evaluation, and is clearly proper under UCS and 10 CFR $50.47(a)(2).4 Each of Senator D'Amato's contentions raises a matter of serious public safety importance, and does so in accordance with the pleading standards of the NRC's regulations, CLI-86-ll, and MCE.
The Governments support these contentions and intend, as appropriate, to introduce evidence and examine witnesses on each contention.
The Governments submit that if the Board does not admit Senator D'Amato's contentions, the Board will render meaningless the limited appearance peguisions of Section 2.715 of the regulations and the efforts of members of the public to provide constructive information to the Board and parties.
Indeed, the Board itself stated in its opening statement at the first limited appearance session that a purpose of the sessions was to alert the Board and parties to any additional issues 3
Senator D'Amato's Contention 3 could be considered in conjunction with the Governments' Contentions Ex. 15 and 16 which concern the scope of the February 13 exercise.
4 Senator D'Amato's Contention 4, like the Senator's Contention 1, could be considered in conjunction with the Governments' Contention Ex. 19 concerning FEMA's failure to make required findings. -
appropriate for litigation in this proceeding.
Tr. 16,218.
This is precisely what Senator D'Amato has done, and his contentions should accordingly be admitted.5 Respectfully submitted,
[3 Herbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J.
Letsche KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County e
Fdbian 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 5
The Governments believe that other issues of importance were likely identified by the limited appearance statements and will bring them to the Board's attention as soon as passible after the written submissions which supplement the limited appearance transcript became available for review..=
S W $< L /2%x Stephen B. Latham
/
Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton October 8, 1986 t
l l 1 1
,, _, _. _.-. l
M O.D. hh.)N AtJONSE M. D'AMATO
.....g301 E...#
New rcu
-: n,, ~.
snited states senate w
WASHINGTON. DC 20510 16 4kT 1 A10:57 D'
September 26, 1986.
44 GFFlu.
~ ~' 00CKExi%
.ah y 3RAN:H The Honorable Morton B. Margulies Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission SERVED ACT -11986 Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Judge Margulies:
As a follow-up to my limited appearance statement before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on September 23, 1986, I am submitting a series of contentions regarding the Shoreham nuclear power plant.
These are matters which were addressed repeatedly during the statements before the Board on September 23rd, 25th, and 26th, and they constitute issues that must be considered in the licensing hearing for Shoreham.
It is clear from the statements presented to the Board that the people of Long Island are afraid.
They are afraid that no one is truly considering vital safety issues at Shoreham.
They are afraid that there is a pre-existing determination to license Shoreham which will prevent full consideration of these issues during the licensing hearing.
They are afraid that we have not really learned our lessons from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
They are afraid that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Atomic Safety Licensing Board are simply going through the motions and are not really paying any attention to the legitimate concerns of the residents of Long Island.
I share these fears.
I therefore urge the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to accept the following four contentions for litigation.
I believe they are matters that clearly expose the inadequacy of LILCO's February 13 exercise.
Each of these contentions follows the pleading require-ments of NRC regulations:
their bases are NRC regulatory require-ments; they are drafted with specificity; and the parties to the proceeding are given notice of what to litigate.
Contention 1 NRC regulations provide that the NRC "shall" base its emergency preparedness conclusions on the finding of FEMA.
Following the February 13 exercise, FEMA refused to make a finding.
However, the then-Director of FEMA Region II, Mr. Frank Petrone, found and publicly announced that the exercise did not provide a basis to con-clude that there is a reasonable assurance that LILCO's emergency plan can adequately protect the public.
FEMA headquarters in Washington forced Mr. Petrone to resign when he would not retract his
e o
The Honorable Morton B. Margulies September 26, 1986 Page Two statement.
In testimony before the ASLB on September 25, 1986, Mr.
Petrone stated, "My lasting reservations and warnings about the lack of adequate emergency planning for Shoreham continue...."
He also said with rerpect to the February 13 exercise,
"...The scope of the exercise was so limited, the initial findings significant, and the capabilities of government resources impossible to measure, that in any other operating plant, immediate action would be taken.
This test can only conclude that the state of emergency preparedness for Shoreham is virtually nonexistent in light of your own regulations and standards.
It is clear to me that there is no satisfactory or workable plan for Suffolk county...."
Mr. Petrone concluded,
"...The major deficiencies cited should have been enough evidence for the NRC to immediately act and deny any operating license for Shoreham."
Accordingly, ?.he Licensing Board must find either:
(1) that
~
there is no FEMA finding on which the NRC "shall" base its conclusion and, therefore, unless and until FEMA submits such a finding, this proceeding must be summarily ended; or (2) that the FEMA finding was the statement made by FEMA's former Region Director and, therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that LILCO's plan can adequately protect the public.
Contention 2 NRC regulations require that the Licensing Board consider new information relevant to the safety of the public.
The Chernobyl accident is such new information.
In light of Chernobyl, the preponderance of people on Long Island would react to a Shoreham accident by immediately seeking to save themselves and their loved ones from Shoreham's radiation as fast as possible.
The knowledge that people already have about the impossibility of evacuating on Long Island's few and congested roadways, coupled with the fact tha t serious radioactive doses at Chernobyl required the evacuation of all peopl e within at least 18 miles, would cause the public on Long Island to ignore LILCO's emergency plan and would create an uncontrollable situation where the public would be trapped.
A ecent Newsday poll showed that if the public were informed of an accident at Shoreham, roughly 1.8 million of Long Island's citizens would immediately rush to evacuate.
This obviously would lead to a gridlock.
Long Islanders, therefore, would be endangered by the very radiation that the emergency plan is designed to help them escape.
Contention 3 NRC regulations provide that an emergency planning exercice be a basis for determining whether adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
The February 13 exercise provides no such basis, because (1) it was irrelevant to the actual conditions on Long Island; (2) it made believe that 130,000 people were evacuated
The Honorable Morton B. Margulies September 26, 1986 Page Three without major problems; (3) it ignored the effects of a large-scale voluntary evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people; and (4) it was based on a scenario that LILCO wrote for itself and which did not include difficult tasks for LILCO.
Therefore, there is no basis for the results of the exercise to support a finding that LILCO's plan can be implemented so as to adequately protect the public.
Contention 4 FEMA's evaluation of the February 13 exercise was wholly inadequate.
Instead of performing its duties in accordance with FEMA's obligation to the public and its enabling legislation, FEMA acted as a mere puppet for LILCO.
The NRC is going along with the exercise and is using its personnel and resources to further this deception.
FEMA's evaluation of the exercise is, therefore, tainted, and it must be rejected as such by the Licensing Board.
I ask that you consider these contentions in the forthcoming licensing hearings for Shoreham.
I believe it is vital that these issues be fully addressed so that the safety of the residents of Long Island may be protected.
I realize that a request for the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to " slow down, stop, and think" may seem unnecessary when dealing with a plant that is already more than ten years behind schedule, but I assure you that it is not.
It is time that the concerned citizens of Long Island whom I represent not just be heard, but be listened to.
It is time that we deal with the facts of this particular, unusual case.
(
Sincerely, Alfo
'e M. D'Amato Unite States Senator cc.:
The Honorable Lando W. Zech The Honorable Jerry R. Kline The Honorable Frederick J. Shon
00LKETED C
October 8, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFILE OF EE. t 3ity 00CKEf t b g Levicf.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MOTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK STATE, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON FOR ADMISSION OF CONTENTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ALFONSE M.
D'AMATO have been served on the following this 8th day of October, 1986 by U.S.
mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
- 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
e
- 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 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 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
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 Tierbert H.
Brown, Esq.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036
- llAND DELIVERED
- TELECOPIED Date:
October 8, 1986
. _ _ -. - -.