ML20196D272

NRC Staff Response to Lilco Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10 (Access Control at EPZ Perimeter).* Motion Should Be Granted

ML20196D272
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/10/1988
From:	Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20196D196	List: ML20196D194 ML20196D220 ML20196D272 ML20196D319 ML20196D323
References
CLI-86-13, OL-3, NUDOCS 8802170063
Download: ML20196D272 (5)

Text

-

FEB 10 1987

'=

00tXETED V5NRC llNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION llB FEB 12 P3 58 DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEf{ SING BOARD QFFICE U HCRETAp u006EilNG A SEnvict BRANCH in the Matter of )

)  ;

l.ONG ISLAND LICHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

)

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. )  !

Unit 1) )

NRC STAFF Pr.SPONSE TO LlLCO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 10 (ACCESS COM ROL AT THE EPZ PERIMETER)

L

1. INTRODUCTION On December 18, 1987, Applicant filed LILCO's Motion for Surmary risposition of Contention 10 (Access Control at the EP2 Perfreter)

("Motion") . Contention 10, as orl Dinally adriitted, pleaded that LILCO lackea law enforcerrent authority to perform access and security control  ;

functicns at the EOC, re'ocation centers, end at the EP2 perimeter, e

f/otion at 1-2. However, "the cr.ly thing et issue [ remaining under Contenticr.10I is the control of accu.s to the EFI during the time when t peopic are supposed to stay out . " Memorandum and Order,

)

i September 17, 1987, at 39. See Motion at 2.

In its September 17, 1987 rejection of summary disposition of Contention 10, the Licencinq Roard characterized the issues left unresolved as follows:

Whether of not the public can effectively be ! ept out of conteminated areas or areas threatene d wl' h imminent contan ination is clearly a health and safety issue. V' hat would cccur if the local authorities were ettempting to enforce one situation while LILCO was

• advising" another; what standards v/ould the local 8802170063 800210 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C PDR

authorities use for exclusion and over how wide an area; how would these orpenizations interact and to what end?

g. at 40.

As set forth L.elow, the record in this proceeding shows that there is no material fact genuinely oispute relating to Contention 10, and that LILCO's Motion should be granted.

II. DISCUSSig The Commission in CLl-86-13, 24 NPC 22, 31, remench.d this proceenirig to consider, emong other r.10 t te r s , whether accer.s control coulci be adequately performed assuming "sorre Usert ef fo,-t ' State end County response in the event of an accident" tnt % cefd utill;'e the 1.l LCD plan as the best source of errergency panr.mg infermation and o ptions. " See also M. at 33. The Corrmission furthei stated thbt: "1he Board should use the existing evidentiary reccrd to the mar.imun extent possible, but should take additional testimony where necet sur y. M. at 22, 3? (footnott oriiltted).

The evidence in this proceeding already establishes that the Lil.CO Plan in regard to eccess centrol is adce,uate, apart from the questien of legel authority, and subject to the recent findings cunccrning to tirrely l Imptorientat;ori of the Plan by LERO Traffic Guides. PID, LBP-85-12, 21

(

NRC 644, 804-05 (1905); initial Decision, LPP-88-2, February 1,1980, at G6. As found in the PID, the LILCO Plen calls for the assignrrent of Traffic Culdes to major Intersections to discourcge entry Irito the EPZ.

LB P-65-12, pp_ra, at 00 4 At other entrances to the EPZ, signs are to be posted, g. The Roard conclude.d that these measures are sufficient

to generally keep those out of the EP2 who should not be there in an emergency. M. at 805. O On this basis, the Board found the LILCO Plan . in regard to access control reasonable to keep the public out of those portions of the EPZ which had been dcciared to be unsafe. g.

The record in the proceeding also estab!!shes most, if not all, of the facts needed to answer the questler.s posed by the Commission in its CLi-86-13 remano in addressino whether the LILCO-only plan is adequate, assuming a "best effort" government response in an actual eneroency:

the extent of the governments' familiarity with the LILCO Plan, the extent of delay in making decisions and recortmendations, and the extent of L

l' delay in Implementing effective access controls. CLl-80-13, 24 NRC et 31.

Y. ith respect to familiarity with the LILCO Plan , Suffolk County police officers testified and offered exhibits showing not only thct they were fully aware of the points at which LILCO proposed to have eccess  !

control, but identified those roat! Intersections where they bellewd that t l

access control was necessary. Rober ts , tet, lal,, , ff. Tr. 2260 at 65-69, !

end Attachments 12,13 (Suffolk County Testimony on Contentions 65 and 2 3 . 11 ) . Thus, the County police are not only farrillar with the LILCO Plan, but have themselves engaged in a form of planning, by loentifying I Intersections needing controls.

~

1/ While the OL-5 Board found fundamental flaws with respect to timely [

deployment ef Traffic Guides and their training, L*3P-88-2, slip op. I at 86. 250, 252, these findings go to the adequacy of implerrentation  !

of the Plan, rather than to the adequacy of the Plan for contro! of access.

l f

~ ' ^

\ ( j.

(7p, ,$.s ~

, 8( ~

y. /

w'.

%> g j^ '

3;

. a

- 1; -

[/

a With - res pe'c t to '-

tJmcly decistor. making and recommendations for

.y ,

A

~

"'~

protective lactbns, ,the coorDnation issues raised by the Licensing Board ,

'6 4 /

in its September if, yl8Qomorandum and Order, at 40, are largely- j eliminated by (tithe finefing that County police wouid perform normal

]

4 . ..

emergency respp/n,N,

'j.

nfunctions, including limiting access to ' dangerou's areas, and thus'would,be at key roadway intersections u@anded; (2) the presumption that .% ge/ ' police would generally follow the LILCO plan, by s

discouraging access # }/ .t wmselves, with 'or without the assistance of 1.ERO Traffic Guides; 2/ an'd (3) hv the assumption of "best efforts" ccordina-y o ,

tion ard control by ;tbose LILCO. and County personnel responsible for

-v, ,

l emergency corr. mand and cont [di functiores. The regU!atory presumption $f y /

best efforts by the County police yenerally following the LILCO' Plan, and the LILCO Plan provisions fo cooMinatio'n of the LERO respc,nse/ w

, . ith the Ccunty police (OPlP 3.6'.3,, v/dty tach, ment ,.15),6 preclude the _,pos,;:ibility of ,

s .

f' *r >

sn  %'

LERO "advising" . one' reip'6ns'e for access control andc the w Ccunty "enforcing" another 'respons,e. Moreover, to the extent' the County police

. O ,

have testified that additional. intersections would require conirol, such

/ '/

supplementation 'voul,d incre6se access control, rather than hinder it. See -

Roberts, g g. , ff. Tr'. 2260, at 65-69. ,

Fincily, the existing record fully supports a finding that emergency ,

response personnel wilb,be able to achieve effective access control. First, , ,

,i <-

the extensive capabilities anit rciources of the Suffolk County police have already been established'.' See Admittec'l Facts 1, 3, a and 5, of LILCO's March 20, 1987 Motlo'is as adrlatted by the Board's' September 17, 1987 i '$ <

2/ See notc 1, supha.

1 ll  :'

I

t fd

~

' f Memorandum and Order, at 44. Second, the Board has already ruled that there is no. basis for contentions that the police would not perform normal security. and. other functions required to deal with an emergency. See Special Prehearing Conference Ordcr, August 19, 1983, slip op. at 15,

?0.

m Given the capabilities and resources of the County police and the perfcrmance of access control functions as part of their normal work in

.J

[ the event of an emergency, as well as the evidence of pre-planning in the record (see Roberts, g g. testimony, cited supra) and the presumption that either the LILCO Plan er another timely-proffered adequate plan for access centrol would be followed , there is reasonable assurance that adeouato access controls will be achieved, inasmuch as the additionel information sought by the Commission on remand of Contention 10 is contained in the evidentiary record, or presumed by vir tue of the new Section 50.47(c)(1)(lii), there are no rnaterial facts genuinely in dispute and summary disposition of Conten-A tion 10 should be granted.

e 111. CONCLUSION LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10 should be g ra nted .

Resp fully submitted

) .

?

) .fl.() b1 eo ge El Jot - on Counsel 'for ?f .C Staff i.

1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland l's this 10th day of February,1988 s

,}

i