|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20093G4541995-10-18018 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning Procedures for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20058K7381993-12-0303 December 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-25.* Commission Denies State of Nj Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Hearing Filed on 931008.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931203 ML20058E0151993-11-14014 November 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Exemptions in Accident Insurance for Nuclear Power Plants Prematurely Shut Down ML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057G2141993-10-14014 October 1993 Order.* Requests for Simultaneous Responses,Not to Exceed 10 Pages to Be Filed by State,Peco & Lipa & Served on Other Specified Responders by 931020.NRC May File by 931022. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931014 ML20059A4581993-10-14014 October 1993 Order Requesting Answers to Two Questions Re State of Nj Request for Immediate Action by NRC or Alternatively, Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Operations Plans for Marine Transportation Withheld ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057F2191993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(q) Eliminating Licensee Requirement to Follow & Maintain in Effect Emergency Plans ML20059B1291993-09-14014 September 1993 Affidavit of Jh Freeman.* Discusses Transfer of Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel from Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Limerick Generating Station.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095H5611992-04-28028 April 1992 Affidavit of Lm Hill.* Affidavit of Lm Hill Supporting Util Position That Circumstances Exist Warranting Prompt NRC Action on NRC Recommendation That Immediately Effective Order Be Issued Approving Decommissioning Plan ML20094G3971992-02-26026 February 1992 Notice of State Taxpayer Complaint & Correction.* NRC Should Stay Hand in Approving Application for License Transfer as Matter of Comity Pending Resolution of Question as Util Continued Existence in Ny State Courts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086T7541992-01-0303 January 1992 Memorandum of Long Island Power Authority Concerning Supplemental Legislative History Matls.* Supports Legislative History & Argues That License Not Subj to Termination Under Section 2828.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086M0791991-12-16016 December 1991 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Petitioner Notice of Appeal & Brief in Support of Appeal in Proceeding to Listed Individuals ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094E1041991-12-0909 December 1991 Response to Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091G1971991-12-0303 December 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Informs of Appeal of LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39 in Facility possession-only License Proceeding ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* 1995-10-18
[Table view] Category:OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENT
MONTHYEARML20094G3971992-02-26026 February 1992 Notice of State Taxpayer Complaint & Correction.* NRC Should Stay Hand in Approving Application for License Transfer as Matter of Comity Pending Resolution of Question as Util Continued Existence in Ny State Courts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086T7541992-01-0303 January 1992 Memorandum of Long Island Power Authority Concerning Supplemental Legislative History Matls.* Supports Legislative History & Argues That License Not Subj to Termination Under Section 2828.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086M0791991-12-16016 December 1991 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Petitioner Notice of Appeal & Brief in Support of Appeal in Proceeding to Listed Individuals ML20094E1041991-12-0909 December 1991 Response to Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition ML20091G1971991-12-0303 December 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Informs of Appeal of LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39 in Facility possession-only License Proceeding ML20083B7331991-09-13013 September 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Informs of Notice of Appeals from Memos & Orders Denying Petitions for Intervention & Requests for Hearings ML20082G8551991-08-0606 August 1991 Notice of Relevant Decision & Significance.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B2271991-06-28028 June 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Denies School Districts Petition for Intervention & Request for Hearings in Matter as Well as ASLBs Dismissal of School District from Participation in above-captioned Proceeding ML20029A0231991-01-25025 January 1991 Notice of Typos in Petitioners Notice of Appeal & Petitioner Brief in Support of Appeal of ASLB 910108 Memorandum & Order (Both Filed on 910123).* W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 910125 ML20066E1331991-01-15015 January 1991 Requests limited-scope Exemption from Seismic Qualification Requirements of Criterion 2,App A,10CFR50 to Permit Deletion of 125-volt Dc Batteries 1R42*BA-A1 & 1R42*BA-C1 ML20029A0281991-01-0808 January 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Provides Notice of Appeal of 910108 Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Request for Intervention) in Proceeding Re Confirmatory Order Mod & Security Plan & Emergency Preparedness Amend ML20029A0111991-01-0808 January 1991 Application for Stay of Board 910108 Order.* Petitioners Move for Stay of 20-day Period to Amend Petitions Until Commission Decides on Appeal of Order or Pending Petition for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058K4291990-11-28028 November 1990 Comment on Proposed NSHC Determination,Request for Hearing, Notice of Intent to Intervene & Opposition to Issuance of Amend by & on Behalf of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc ML20062F7601990-11-15015 November 1990 Notice of Appearance.* Notice of Withdrawal & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062C2501990-10-18018 October 1990 Establishment of Aslb.* Board Will Preside Over Proceeding Re Actions Taken by NRC & Long Island Lighting Co Re Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1,per Commission 901017 Memo.Served on 901022.W/Certificate of Svc ML20012C7601990-03-15015 March 1990 Request for Limited Scope Exemption from fitness-for-duty Requirements Imposed by 10CFR26.2 & That Exemption Be Granted & Remain in Effect Until NRC Approves Final Disposition of OL ML19332G6071989-12-15015 December 1989 Requests Exemption from Emergency Preparedness Requirements of 10CFR50.54(q) & to Implement Defueled Emergency Plan,Per Util Settlement Agreement W/State of Ny ML19353A9441989-12-0505 December 1989 Requests Exemption from Requirement of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) to File Annual Copy to Updated SAR by 891207.Required Update to Be Submitted on or Before 900601 & Will Reflect Condition of Plant as of Time Settlement Agreement Took Effect ML20244C2891989-04-17017 April 1989 Pages Affected by Rev 10A,890411.* Related Correspondence ML20235N2451989-02-24024 February 1989 Professional Qualifications of Lilco Witnesses on Exercise Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20206M8951988-11-23023 November 1988 Notice of Appearance.* Author Enters Appearance in Proceeding on Behalf of Suffolk County.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196F7381988-11-21021 November 1988 Errata to Board Decision LBP-88-24,changing Yr on Page III, Line 8 from 1988 to 1986.Served on 881205 ML20205D6871988-10-24024 October 1988 Notice of Appearance.* Author Enters Appearance in Proceeding on Behalf of Suffolk County.W/Certificate of Svc ML20205E0621988-10-21021 October 1988 Lilco Rept to Appeal Board on Progress & Effect of Town of Hempstead Case.* Article 2-B Re State & Local Natural & man-made Disaster Preparedness & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9341988-10-0707 October 1988 Memorandum.* Advises That NRC Interpretation of ASLB 881006 Memorandum & Order That 24-h Period to Respond to Intervenors Motion Does Not Include Saturdays,Sundays & Federal Holidays Correct.Served on 881011 ML20154P5281988-09-27027 September 1988 Notice of Appeal.* Notices Appeal from ASLB Initial Decision LBP-88-24.Notices of Appeal from State of Ny & Town of Southampton,Govts Motion for Bifurcation of Appeal & Expedited Treatment of Issue & Brief on Appeal Encl ML20154P8021988-09-26026 September 1988 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.Cn Kohl,Chairman & as Rosenthal & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 880927 ML20207E5551988-08-15015 August 1988 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument Will Be Heard on 880914 in Bethesda,Md Re Lilco Appeal of ASLB Initial Decision LBP-88-2.Served on 880816 ML20207E4401988-08-15015 August 1988 Notice of Oral Argument.* Notifies That Oral Argument on Joint Appeal of Suffolk County,State of Ny & Town of Southampton from Board 880509 Partial Initial Decision LBP-88-13 Will Be Heard on 880917.Served on 880816 ML20207E4801988-08-12012 August 1988 Reconstitution of Aslab.* TS Moore,Chairman & as Rosenthal & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 880815 ML20196A9391988-06-20020 June 1988 Govts Notice of Appeal.* Appeal Board 880610 Order as Reconfirmed on 880617,resolving Legal Authority Contentions in Favor of Applicant,Per CLI-86-13.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20197E0541988-05-25025 May 1988 Memorandum.* Lists Conclusions on Issues Raised by Lilco Appeal from ASLB 871207 Partial Initial Decision Re Scope of Feb 1986 Emergency Preparedness Exercise at Facility.Appeal Technically Moot.Served on 880525 ML20154H6941988-05-20020 May 1988 Notice of Appeal.* Suffolk County,State of Ny & Town of Southampton Notice of Appeal from ASLBP 880509 Partial Initial Decision on Suitability of Reception Ctrs. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151E9411988-04-0808 April 1988 Memorandum (Extension of Board Ruling & Opinion on Lilco Summary Disposition Motions of Legal Authority Realism Contentions & Guidiance to Parties on New Rule 10CFR50.347(c)(1)).* Served on 880411 ML20151F0341988-04-0808 April 1988 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Lilco Appeal of ASLB 871207 Partial Initial Decision LBP-87-32 Will Be Heard on 880428 in Bethesda,Md.Served on 880411 ML20148K2591988-03-29029 March 1988 Memorandum to Parties.* Attached Memo from Bp Cotter,Chief Administrative judge,self-explanatory.Parties to Proceeding Requested to Conform to Svc Request.Served on 880329 ML20150C6421988-03-15015 March 1988 Notice of Appearance.* Notice of Appearance of Ma Young in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20150C6451988-03-15015 March 1988 Notice of Appearance.* Advises That Ma Young Will Enter Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20150C7311988-03-15015 March 1988 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20150C7621988-03-10010 March 1988 Notice of Withdrawal of Gs Johnson as Counsel for Nrc. W/Certificate of Svc ML20196H8981988-03-0909 March 1988 Notice of Appearance.* Notice of Appearance of RA Sheffey in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196J2231988-03-0707 March 1988 Notice of Appearance of LB Clark as Counsel for Nrc. W/Certificate of Svc ML20196H5551988-03-0707 March 1988 Notice of Appearance of Cl Ingebretson as Counsel for Lilco. W/Certificate of Svc ML20147H8341988-03-0404 March 1988 Notice of Deposition.* Oral Exam of J Sobotka on 880307 in Suffolk County,Ny Re Rev 9 to Plant Emergency Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20196J0571988-03-0101 March 1988 NRC Staff Proposed Schedule for Hearing on Remaining Remand Issues.* Schedule for FEMA Review of Recent Revs to Util Plan Also Encl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148U4611988-01-25025 January 1988 Notice of Deposition.* Notice of Deposition Upon Oral Exam of DM Crocker on Lilco Proposal for Evacuating School Children from Plant 10 Mile EPZ During Radiological Emergency.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20195J0941988-01-15015 January 1988 Response of Govts to Board 871223 Confirmatory Memorandum & Order.* Ref Portions of Govts Previous Filings Make Clear That NRC Use of Word May in Providing Guidance to Boards Appears to Be Quite Delibrate.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20147B9041988-01-13013 January 1988 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.Cn Kohl,Chairman & as Rosenthal & WR Johnson Members.Served on 880114 ML20234C6841988-01-0404 January 1988 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* CN Kohl,Chairman & as Rosenthal & WR Johnson,Members.Served on 880105 ML20237E8321987-12-17017 December 1987 Notice of Appeal by Lilco from LBP-87-32.* Util Intends to Move Imminently for Expedited Consideration of Appeal by Immediate Certification to Commission or Expedited Briefing, Argument & Decision by Aslab.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-02-26
[Table view] |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5:"925f7Fr:no,.
) "' ' - M ,
In the Matter of ) M'v.
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
DOCKET NUMBER
}
PROD. & UTIL FAC..b b _?
SUFFOLK COUNTY MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO BOARD INQUIRY REGARDING CONTENTION 22 At the Prehearing Conference on August 9, 1983, the Board posed a number of questions concerning Intervenors' Contention
- 22. These questions were designed to elicit the parties' views regarding whether Contention 22 was admissible under the NRC's regulations and the related issue why a Section 2.758 waiver petition had not been filed. See generally Tr. 412-35.
After reviewing the April 9 transcript, Suffolk County is concerned that the County's position on Contention 22 may not l l
be clearly understood by the Board. See, e.g., Tr. 412 where !
the Board characterized the County's position on Contention 22
, as being " kind of indefinite . . . as to'what it was really after in this contention . . . . It is important, in the County's view, to clarify the record on this issue so that the Board does understand what the County is "after" and so that the Board can provide necessary guidance in the event the Board rules that any parts of Contention 22 are not admissible absent 8308190314 830016 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR
N W
a Section 2.758 waiver. Accordingly, the County provides the following clarification.
(1) The issue presented by Contention 22 is whether a contention which puts into controversy the very local conditions set forth in the regulations is acceptable. The County submits that such a contention is acceptable. Other-wise, the Board would be denied the ability to consider the factualbasesuponwhichtheCommissionhasdeterminedddjust-ments should be made~to the EPZ.
Thus, the essence of Contention 22 is Intervenors' asser-tion that there are particular local conditions existing on Long Island which must be addressed, evaluated and used in setting the boundaries of thetEPZ. Section 50.47(c)(2) of the NRC's regulations specifies that local conditions shall be con-sidered when the precise size of the EPZ for a particular plant is being determined. What Intervenors ask for in Contention 22 is an opportunity to, demonstrate the impact of local Long Is-land conditions on the appropriate size of the shoreham EPZ.
The EPZ defines those persons who must be planned for, edu-cated , notified', and otherwise infccmed and protected. Unless the County is given the opportunity to present evidence on the impact of local conditions, there will be no consideration given to planning for the very persons whose safety would be 5
2-N 4
I
affected by Shoreham. Moreover, the County will show that LILCO's 10 mile EPZ ignores important local conditions and that when those conditions are considered (as required by 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(c)(2)), the Board must rule that an EPZ greater than 10 milec is essential. Thus, the focus of Contention 22 is on local conditions and whether, as alleged by Intervenors, these conditions compel an adjustment to the EPZ which has been pro-posed by LILCO.
Confusion has been caused regarding Contention 22 because parties neve focused on whether the regulations permit a 20 mile EPZ. However, to focus on a 20 mile EPT. is to mischaracterize Contention 22. Wnat Intervenors are "after" (Tr. 412) is the opportunity to make the Board aware of local conditions on Long Island that should determine the location of the EPZ boundary but which, contrary to Section 50.47(c)(2),
have been ignored by LILCO. The regulations clearly do not prohibit the presentation of evidence regarding local conditions which may affect the EPZ boundary.
Contention 22 does not specify precisely what size the EPZ should finally be, because its focus is on particular local conditions and their effects on the need to protect public safety. What is clear to Intervenors at the outset -- and what they request an opportunity to demonstrate at the hearing -- is
l that specific local conditions and emergency response capabilities which relate to Shoreham compel the conclusion that an EPZ greater than 10 miles be established.
The evacuation shadow phenomenon is a good example of a local condition on Long Island which Intervenors contend will affect EPZ size. First, Suffolk County will present evidence to show that if there is an accident, there will be wide-spread voluntary evacuation from areas within and beyond LILCO's 10 mile EPZ. Due to the geography of Long Island, the demographic characteristics of Long Island (particularly in the peak summer season), and the limited Long Island road network, these volun-tary evacuees will cause a massive traffic gridlock both within the 10 mile EPZ and in areas outside the 10 mile EPZ. Second, Suffolk County will show that due to wind and topographic conditions on Long Island, persons stranded in traffic both within and beyond the 10 mile LILCO EPZ will be exposed to harmful radiation doses. Finally, the County will show that LILCO's LERO organization lacks the capability on an ad hoc basis to augment the emergency response. Thus, persons beyond 10 miles who are exposed to harmful radiation will not be protected. Therefore, the County's evidence will demonstrate that there is a need for advance EPZ planning and preparedness in an area beyond 10 miles from the plant.
j l
d Contention 22 does not challenge any regulatory require-ments or assumptions. The regulations specify that the precise size of the EPZ shall be determined in relation to emergency response needs and capabilities, as these may be affected by local conditions. The County simply seeks the opportunity to show that: (a) there are particular local conditions on Long Island that significantly affect emergency response needs and capabilities; (b) LILCO has effectively ignored these local conditions; and (c) when the local conditions are considered, as required by 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(2), adjustments must be made in LILCO's proposed EPZ.
(2) Contrary to the implication of one Board question (Tr. 434), an EPZ of greater than 10 miles is permitted under the NRC regulations. Indeed, depending on local conditions, a Board may be compelled to require that the EPZ be greater than 10 miles.
Section 50.47(c)(2) does state that the EPZ will " general-ly" consist of an area of "about" 10 miles in radius. The same regulation then specifies that:
[T]he exact size and configuration of the EPZs surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and ju-risdictional boundaries. (emphasis supplied).
- t i
l l
- - _ m .
Thus, the NRC's regulations require that the EPZ for a particular power reactor be site specific -- that is, deter-mined in the context of specific local conditions which may in-dicate a need for a larger or smaller EPZ. The regulations therefore mandate that the Board accept a contention which puts such local conditions into controversy. Indeed, local conditions are the essential ingredient of the EPZ and thus i must be subject to being disputed among the parties to the pro-l ceeding.
Further, the ASLB which previously presided over emergency l
l planning matters clearly recognized that for Shoreham, an EPZ greater than 10 miles might be required due to local conditions en Long Island. Thus, the ASLB stated in March 1982 (appar-ently with the evacuation shadow / East End of Long Island problems in mind):
l
[0]ur ruling does not preclude a contention that because of the geography of Long Is-land, evacuation planning within an approx-imate 10 mile EP" may not be adequate be-cause of the impact of persons outside and to the east of the EPZ choosing to evacuate and having to do so by coming through the EPZ.
March 15, 1982 Order at 25. See also id. at 25 (Board indicating that even if contentions were not filed regarding adequacy of 10 mile EPZ in view of East End problems, the Board itself would pursue the issue.)
Accordingly, based on the plain words of Section 50.47(c)(2) and the ASLB's own prior ruling, it is clear that a contention putting local conditions into controversy is accept-able whether or not the evidence presented and facts proven might require an EPZ larger than 10 miles.
(3) Staff counsel suggested on August 9 that while an EPZ does not need to be fixed precisely at 10 miles, it may be var-ied from 10 miles only in small amounts in order to allow for
" logistical" factors such as tracking a topographic feature like a river. See Tr. 431. This view is not supported by the regulation. The regulation states that the NRC must look at local conditions. Staff counsel presumably would permit an EPZ adjustment to 10.4 miles to have the EPZ track a major river.
This, in the Staff's words, would make the EPZ " conform to re-ality." Tr. 431. But what if that important topographic feature was at one point 10.4 miles from the plant, but at an-other point 12.2 miles and at yet another point 14 miles?
Would the regulations somehow bar the Board from considering that " reality"? Of course not. The regulations direct the Board to look at local conditions; the regulations do not say look at local conditions only if they result in an EPZ change of only plus or minus 0.5 miles.
i
\
(4) The Board asked whether local meteorological conditions which might affect plume dispersion are the kind of local conditions which may be considered under 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(2). See Tr. 414-15. The County believes that the answer is "yes." First, Section 50.47(c)(2) does not specify an exclusive list of local conditions which should be assessed.
Thus, the fact that meteorological conditions are not explic-itly mentioned is of no importance. Further, as a matter of logic, it is clear that the NRC cannot have intended the Board to ignore factors which may significantly affect local plan-ning. For example, if the Shoreham site had a strong, steady wind which predominently blew in the direction of Port Jefferson and if given that wind, one could predict major plume dispersion in an area 7-13 miles to the west of the plant, the County does not believe there could be any basis for ignoring such a local condition which significantly affects public health and safety and the need for protective actions in a particular area. See NUREG-0654, Appendix 2.
The County intends to present evidence that wind and topographic factors on Long Island will result in radioactive plume dispersion in excess of PAG 1evels in areas beyond 10 miles from the plant. This challenges no regulatory assump-tions; rather, this evidence will demonstrate that local real
life conditions on Long Island (given so-called generic accident assumptions such as postulated in NUREG-0396) will result in significant plume dispersion to areas which the LILCO Plan has ignored. The County merely desires the opportunity to demonstrate to the Board that LILCO has ignored these local conditions, with the result that LILCO has proposed an EPZ which fails to comply with regulatory requirements.
(5) LILCO persists in asserting that Contention 22 is im-proper because it will result in what LILCO characterizes as litigation of the Shoreham PRA. Tr. 427-29. This argument is a red herring. As the County has noted in its prior filings, if consequence analysis or risk assessment data are available, they should not be ignored in determining the dimensions of an EPZ. However, the mere fact that some of the evidence which may be presented in litigating Contention 22 are derived from consequence analyses or risk assessments, in no way compels the conclusion that the contention is inadmissible. If LILCO de-sires to dispute the facts concerning the existence and effect of local conditions, which the Intervenors' intend to put into l evidence in this contention, it may do so at the hearing. How-ever, whether such facts may be based in part upon a PRA is ir-relevant to the question of admissibility of the contention.
l
.(6) The Board correctly noted that Contention 22 "is one of the important issues in this case . . . . Tr. 416. The County is concerned that LILCO and the Staff are taking posi-tions which would have the effect of denying Intervenors the opportunity to present these local conditions to the Board for its consideration. The contention has been drafted by Interve-nors to be consistent with NRC regulations. If the Board is concerned, however, with particular words in the Contention, the County suggests that it so advise the parties so that it can be reworded in a manner that obviates these concerns.
~
In short, the County does not want technical niceties of contention writing to become an issue in this case. The local conditions on Long Island must be considered by the NRC in determining whether the LILCO Plan meets minimal NRC require-ments. The County believes Contention 22 as presently written presents those local conditions for Board consideration in a '
proper manner. We will certainly consider use of any other words which ensure that a hard look is taken at emergency plan-ning realities on Long Island.
Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 l
l
i & OA -
Herbert H. Brown" f Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County August 16, 1983 l
11 -
~,~ ~~'- , --~7,'.. __
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 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 MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO BOARD INQUIRY REGARDING CONTENTION 22, dated August 16, 1983, were served to the following this 16th day of August, 1983, by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
o James A. Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq. #
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10016 O Dr. Jerry R. Kline Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. #
0 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 707 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger General Counsel New York State Energy Office Long Island Lighting Company Agency Building 2 250 Old Country Road Empire State Plaza Mineola, New York 11501 Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B. Latham, Esq. #
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea 175 East Old Country Road 33 West Second Street Hicksville, New York 11801 Riverhead, New York 11901
1
! Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
, 195 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Smithtown, New York 11787 Hon. Peter Cohalan Marc W. Goldsmith Suffolk County Executive Energy Research Group, Inc. H. Lee Dennison Building 400-1 Totten Pond Road Veterans Memorial Highway Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHS Technical Associates Eleanor'L. Frucci, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panal San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Joel Blau, Esq.
New York Public Service Comm. Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Assistant Attorney General Building Environmental Protection Bur.
Empire State Plaza. New York State Dept. of Law Albany, New York 12223 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing H. Lee Dennison Building Appeal Board Veterans Memorial Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Board Panel Staff Counsel, New York State U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 0 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
David A. Repka, Esq. Stewart M. Glass, Esq..
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency Stuart Diamond 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Environment / Energy Writer New York, New York 10278 NEWSDAY
- Long Island, New York 11747 James B. Dougherty, Esq.
3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008 l
l
__m__ . . . - . _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . . , _ . .._ -- _ _ . _ , _ . _ . . _ . .
)
t Spence Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency f Washington, D.C. 20472 Mr. Jeff Smith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 618 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 dre___&_'_b__________
Lawrence Coe Lanpher KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOEBER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 DATED: August 16, 1983
(*) By Hand
(#) By Federal Express 3-N ' - - , - ..n ,
, ,_