ML20235T812

Suffolk County,State of Ny & Town of Southampton Motion for Mod of Ruling.* Motion for Mod on One Aspect of Board 870917 Decision.Jd Papile Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20235T812
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/05/1987
From:	Latham S, Mcmurray C, 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-#487-4565 OL-3, NUDOCS 8710130232
Download: ML20235T812 (14)

Text

_ .

.J . .  :

lJ q154.5 ,

. i c )

i October- , 987 I l

-7 Pii55 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'hy(MEC.yfyv

. 3 h L iity;( ~

'Before the' Atomic Safety and Licensino Board 'A +

4 , ,

1

)

'In.the Matter of )

)

'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 1

) (Emergency Planning) )

r (Shoreham Nuclear Power ) i Station, Unit 1) ) {

}

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND T'WN O OF SOUTHAMPTON MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF RULING-On September 17, 1987, this Board issued a Memorandum and Order 1/ rull'ng on LILCO's Second Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition on the " Legal Authority" Issues (Contentions EP 1-10)

(March 20, 1987) ("LILCO Motion"). Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (the " Governments") hereby move for. modification of one aspect of the Board's decision.

1/ Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicants' Motions of March 20, 1987 for Summary Disposition of the Legal Authority Issues and of May 22, 1987 for Leave to File a Reply and l Interpreting Rulings Made by the Commission in CLI-86-13 l Involving the Remand of the Realism Issue and Its Effect on the Legal Authority Question) (Sept. 17, 1987) (" Memorandum and Order").

8710130232 871005 PDR C

ADOCK 05000322 cO 3 I

PDR ,

- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - a

~(

DISCUSSION  !

i I

In its Memorandum and Order, the Board found that the Governments had disputed five of the 63 facts which LILCO had claimed were not in dispute. Memorandum and Order, at 41-44.

Egg LILCO Motion, Attachment A, Statement of the Material Facts l As To Which LILCO Contends There Is'No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on Contentions EP 1-10 (" Statement"). The Board then held that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(a) the remaining 58 facts offered .

I by LILCO were admitted by the Governments. Memorandum and Order, at 44. The Governments do not contest that facts not contro-verted in an opposition to a motion for summary disposition are admitted.2/ However, in addition to the five facts which the Board found to be in controversy, three other allegedly

" undisputed" facts were actually contested by the Governments.

Specifically, the three facts in issue here concern LILCO's RECS lines. In paragraphs 8-10 of LILCO's Statement, LILCO alleges the following:

1

8. The Radiological Emergency Communications System (RECS) line connects the Shoreham control room; LERO (both the Supervising Service Operator and LERO EOC); the Suffolk County Police Department Headquarters in Yaphank; the suffolk County Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services; New l York State officials in Albany (see No. 9 2/ This does not mean, however, that the Governments concede that the " admitted" facts are relevant to the Contention 1-10 l issues. {

l j

.s o.

below); and the New York State Office of

' Disaster: Preparedness Southern District Warning Point;in.Poughkeepsie.-

9.. LILCO is currently' maintaining (that is, paying the telephone company for) three RECS lines to state officials in Albany:

'a. One.line to the State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group in the State Department of Health, I

b. One line to.the building in which the State Police operate the State Warning Point, and

c. One line to the State EOC.]

10. When the RECS line receiver is picked up in the Shoreham Control Room (or in the LERO EOC once it is activated) and the

-ring button is depressed, the RECS phones ring simultaneously in the other locations.

These alleged " undisputed" facts were, however, disputed in the Affidavit of James Papile, which was submitted with'the Governments' Answer to LILCO's Motion.2/ In his Affidavit, Mr. Papile stated:

4. It is my understanding that LILCO's Motion contends that oral authorization to sound the sirens or to take other action can be readily obtained from , e ,

State. The bases for LILCO's conte. ion I are that the Radiological Emergency Communications System (RECS) lines connect Shoreham and LERO to:

)

2/ Answer of Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton to "LILCO's Second Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of the ' Legal Authority' Issues (Contentions EP l-10)" (May 11, 1987) (" Governments' Answer").

y 1

i REPG in Albany; i a) b) the State Police in Albany; c) the State EOC in Albany; .

d) the State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) district office in Poughkeepsie (SEMO is the current name for what LILCO refers to as the Office of Disaster Preparedness).

However, none of these four RECS lines l are capable of functioning. First, there is no RECS line-that-connects Shoreham and LERO to REPG because REPG's offices have changed locations and the Shoreham RECS line has remained in the same place. This Shoreham RECS line terminates in an office that has no u role whatsoever in radiological emergency )

preparedness and is miles away from REPG's  !

current location. In addition, the wires for this line are not operational in any event.

Second, there is no RECS line that connects Shoreham and LERO to the State Police Commur.ications Center in A.1bany because the State Police's Communications Center has changed locations and the Shoreham RECS line hap remained in the same place. This Shoreham RECS line also terminates in an office that has no role in radiological emergency preparedness and the wires are not operational. Third, there is no RECS line that connects Shoreham and LERO to the State EOC in Albany and SEMO district office in Poughkeepsie because the wires are not operational. Even if the wires were operational, these two offices are only staffed during ordinary business hours.

Thus, LILCO cannot rely on the Shoreham RECS lines to seek oral authorization from the State to sound the sirens or to take any other action.1/

A/ The Governments have noticed that Mr. Papile's Affidavit, which is the last attachment to the Governments' Answer, is not mentioned in the Board's Memorandum and Order. Because the Governments' Answer included a large volume of attachments, the Affidavit may have been overlooked by the Board -- or it may have become unattached. In any event, for the Board's convenience, a copy of the Papile Affidavit is attached hereto.

_4_

t

(

l-3 Governments' Answer, Papile Affidavit, at 2-3. The points made by Mr. Papile in his Affidavit,were reiterated in.the text of the Governments' Answer, at 52.

It is plain from the above-quoted portions of the Papile Affidavit and the text of the Governments' Answer that the Governments disputed LILCO's assertions in paragraphs 8-10 of its

. Statement concerning the availability of LILCO's RECS lines. For instance, it is clear from Mr. Papile's statement that RECS phones will not. ring in other locations when activated by LILCO.

Egg Statement, paragraph 10.

Admittedly, the Governments' dispute with LILCO's three alleged facts concerning the RECS lines was not emphasized as strongly as the Governments' dispute with the other five facts which the Board found were controverted; nor were the three facts at issue specifically cited in the section of the Governments' brief citing examples of incorrect LILCO factual assertions. Eeg Governments' Answer, at 39-42. Nevertheless, it is clear that 4

the facts asserted by LILCO were actually disputed by the Governments both in Mr. Papile's Affidavit and in the text of the Governments' Answer itself, and thus were placed into controversy 1 by the Governments.

i 1

1 1

a l

l I

j

l l

Accordingly, the Governments move this Board to modify its Memorandum and Order to recognize that paragraphs 8-10 of LILCO's Statement were disputed, and therefore not admitted, by the Governments.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Governments' Motion for Modification of the Board's ruling should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158' North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 d ,

hristopher M. McMurray /

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART /

1800 "M" Street, N. W.

South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D. C. 20036-5891  :

Attorneys for Suffolk County 1

4' Fabian G. Palpyf(ino//

Richard J. ZannleMe r -

Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany,.New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New Yo:k A '

Stephen 4. Latham /

Twomey, Latham &-Shea Post Office Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton October 5, 1987

4-A t h 't .iert t '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board r

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power )

Station, Unit 1) ) _

)

AFFIDAV_IT OF JAMES D. PAPILE James D. Papile, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. I am the Director of the State of New York's Radialvgical Emergency l Preparedness Group (REPG). REPG, under the auspices of the State of New i s

York's Disaster Preparedness Commission, is responsible for emergency planning and preparedness for radiological emergencies pertaining to commercial nuclear power plants.

2. It is my understanding that LILCO's Second Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of the Legal Authority Issues (Contentions EP 1-10)

(Motion) notes the existence of a generic State radiological emergency response plan and seeks to infer from this fact that the State is prepared and-able to respond adequately to a Shoreham emergency. LILCO's attempted inference is wrong.

1

k .

3. It is true that a generic State plan exists. However, detailed site-specific addenda which exist for each plant located in New York State except Shoreham are an integral part of that plan. The site-specific addenda provide the details, procedures, and specific data and information necessary i to permit the State to respond as equired to the needs of a particular site, 4

within both the 10c11e and 50 ei11e planning zones. The State could act respond adequately to a Shoreham emergency in the absence of a detailed i Shoreham-specific off-site plan appended to the State generic plan, without the training of State personnel concerning those specifics, and without the evaluation of State personnel during exercises and drills. Since the State plan lacks a Shoreham-specific off-site plan, REPG cannot assure that a fully integrated, coordinated and effective State and local response to a Shoreham emergency could be implemented.

4. It is my understanding that LILCO's Motion contends that oral authorization to sound the sirens or to take other action can be readily  %

obtained from the State. The bases for LILCO's contention are that the Radiological Emergency Communications System (RECS) lines connect Shoreham and LERO to:

a) REPG in Albany; b) the State Police in Albany c) the State EOC in Albany; d) the State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) district office in Poughkeepsie (SEMO is the current name for what LILCO refers to 1

as the Office of Disaster Preparedness). 1 o

4 However, none of these four RECS lines are capable of functioning.

First, there is no RECS line that connects Shoreham and LER0 to REPG because REPG's offices have changed locations and the Shoreham RECS line has repained in the same place. This Shoreham RECS line terminstes in an office that has no role whatsoever in radio"ogical emergency preparedness and is miles away from REPG's current location. In addition, the wires for this line are not operational in any event. Second, there is no RECS line that connects Shoreham and LERO to the State Police Communications Center in Khany because the State Police's Communications Center has changed locations and the Shoreham RECS line has remained in the same place. This Shoreham RECS line also terminates in an office that has no role in radiological emergency preparedness and the wir6s are not operational. Third, there is no RECS line that connects Shoreham and LERO to the State E0C in Albany and SEMO district office in Poughkeepsie because the wires are not operational. ben if the wires were operational, these two offices are only staffed during ordinary business hours. Thus, LILC0 cannot rely on the Shoreham RECS lines to seek N oral authorization from the State to sound the sirens or to take any other action.

6. Additionally, it is my understanding that LILCO maintains that oral authorization to sound the sirens or to take other action can be recdily obtained by using back-up commercial telephones, if necessary. However, reliance by LILCO upon backwp commercial telephones would be misplaced, unless, among other things, verification and authentication procedures had ,

been adopted. No such verification and authentication procedures exist.

3

_-------_- _ _ t

s

6. It [s my understanding that the LILCO Motion also argues that certain State employees have become " familiar" with LILCO's Plan as a result of the litigMicn in this proceeding. LILCO suggests that such " familiarity" means that the State could implement or work with LILC0 to implement LILCO's Man. It is true that certain individual members of REPG have reviewed portions of the LILCO Plan for purposes of testifying before this Board and the OL-5 Board regarding 4

certain flaws in the Plan and in LILCO's exercise of that Plan. Such review has been limited, however, to the extent necessary to provide truthful and accurate testimony. Most of REPG's members have no knowledge of the LILC0 Plan as it exists today or as it existed at the time of the Shoreham exercise. To my l knowledge, no State employee or official is sufficiently familiar with LILCO's Flan to implement all or any portion of it, with or without LILCO assistance.

Nor have any State personnel been drilled, trained, or evaluated in exercises regarding the LILCO Plan, which would be absolutely essential for a successful response to a Shoreham emergency.

7. I understand that the LILCO Motion states further that the State has seven controlled copies of the LILCO Man. Four recipients of those copies are attorneys who are using the Plan in connection with the State's litigation efforts, me recipient is the State's equivalent of the NRC's public document  !

room. REPG and other State agencies that have substantive response roles do not l

have anything more than scattered remnants of out of-date transmittals from LILCO. Thus, REPG and key State agencies are not sufficiently familiar with the j LILC0 Plan to implement all or any portion of it, with or without LILCO's a ss istance. ,

-Ja

)o s D. Papil e '

Sworn to before me thi -

f a se in '  ?*

ec 4

.m._, m m.

nI2Het i

I o__ _ - I

{,. O 4

' t--

J ISCKET '

4

'Octobef ,ED 1987 1 T1 of,7 -7 Pl2:34 UNITED STATES OF_ AMERICA - -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION #igCfb.4Ag y gMVICl.

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Boar -

)

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 the SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE 0F NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON MOTION'FOR MODIFICATION OF RULING have been served on the following this 5th day of October, 1987, by United States mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.

Morton B. Margulies, Esquire Joel Blau, Esquire Chairman Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Utility Intervention United States Nuclear Regulatory New York State Consumer Commission Protection Board Washington, D. C. 20555 Suite Mumber 1020 Albany, New York 12210 Dr Jerry R. Kline William R. Cumming, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. Perry, Esquire United States Nuclear Regulatory Office of the General Counsel Commission Federal Emergency Mansgement Washington, D. C. 2055a Agency 500 "C" Street, S. W.

Room Number 840 Washington, D. C. 20472 l

l

.. o

.A Mr. Frederick J. Shon Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General ~ Counsel United States Nuclear Regulatory Long' Island Lighting Company Commission 175 East Old Country Road Washington,-D. C. 20555 Hicksville, New York 11801 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esquire

• Clerk Hunton and Williams Suffolk County Legislature Post Office 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, Esquire-Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham and 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 Exccutive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition United States Nuclear Regulatory 195 East Main Street Commission Smithtown, New York 11787 1717 "H" Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esquire Honorable Michael A. LoGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway H. Lee Dennison Building Third Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Room Number 3-116 Hauppauge, New York 11788 New York, New York 10271 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite "K" Post Office Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esquire Fabian G. Palomino, Esquire Suffolk County Attorney Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esquire

• Building Number 158 Special Counsel to the Governor North County Complex of the State of New York Veterans Memorial Highway Executive Chamber Hauppauge, New York 11788 Room Number 229 Capitol Building Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Albany, New York 12224 New York State Energy Office <

Agency Building Number Two Richard G. Bachmann, Esquire l l

i. Empire State Plaza United States Nuclear Regulatory Albany, New York 12223 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1

m ,.

. I '.

. David A..Brownlee, Esquire Mr. Stuart Diamond

'Kirkpatrick and Lockhart Business / Financial' 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 15222' 229 West 43rd Street-New York, New York 10036-

-Douglas.J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART' 1800 "M" Street, N. W.

South Lobby - Ninth Floor.

Washington, D. C. 20036-5891

• Via Federal Express

' October 5, 1987

+_. _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __-