ML20214G499

Supplemental Memorandum of Law on Number of People Who May Be Monitored in Radiological Emergency.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20214G499
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/21/1986
From:	Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1627 OL-3, NUDOCS 8611260117
Download: ML20214G499 (47)

Text

,

{& ,

LZLCO, November 21, 1986 s

C

, 00CKETED 091RC

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 85 00V 24 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal ~ Board n

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power )

Station, Unit 1) )

LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW '

ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE MONITORED IN A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 (804) 788-8200 12 kDR 17 862121 0 D0cn osoooggy PDR DS9

s TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii I. The evacuee issue was not properly raised for litigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 A. Contentions 24.0 and 75 did not fairly raise the issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. The issue was not fairly raised by testimony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Even the Intervenors did not at the time regard the " evacuee issue" as a litigable issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D. The Clarifying Decision changes the burden of proof. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 E. Deference cannot sustain the Licensing Board's decision.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 II. LILCO is not required to estimate the number of evacuees that are likely to arrive at a reception center for monitoring but not for shelter.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Attachments 1

t .

4 4

ii s

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED CASES Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-847, 24 NRC __

(Sept. 19, 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,6,8 Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135, 164 n. 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,5 Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Memorandum and Order Ruling on Suffolk County's Motion for Leave to Pile Modified Contentions 16 and 18 Concerning the LILCO Public Education Brochure, at 5 (Mar. 9, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 4-5 Long Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear-Power Station, Unit 1), Memorandum and Order Concerning Suffolk County's Offer of Proof etc.,

at 8-10 (Aug 13, 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-836, 23 NRC 478, 504-05 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,4 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 708 n. 35,709 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),

CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 536 n. 12 (1983). . . . . . . . . . 10 REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES 10 C.F.R. S 2.760.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 NUREG-0654 . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . 9,10,11,12 Memorandum, Guidance on NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 Evaluation Criteria J.12 (Dec. 24, 1985), at 2 . . . . . . . . . . 11,12

- ~ - -

o LILCO, November 21,1986 -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinz Appeal Board In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1)

)

LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF

. LAW ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE MONITORED IN A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY This Memorandum is in response to the Appeal Board's Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986. In that Memorandum and Order the Appeal Board invited the parties to address two issues:

1. Whether the issue of LILCO's plan for evacuees not seeking sheltering (the " evacuee issue") was properly raised for litiga-tion in this proceeding, and

2. Whether there is an NRC requirement that the applicant esti-mate the number of people who in a radiological emergency might seek monitoring but not shelter (the " regulatory re-quirements" issue ).

LILCO addresses these two questions in Parts I and II below, respectively.

t First, however, a brief word of background is in order. In LBP-85-31,22 NRC

410, 417, 430-31 (1985), the Licensing Board concluded that, in addition to planning for

~

\

l the number of evacuees likely to seek sheltering, LILCO is obliged to estimate and plan .

(

for the number of evacuees likely to come to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum - the then-designated reception center -- for radiological monitoring, and

-ye--- -- _ . - - _

a possible decontamination, alone. LILCO noticed an appeal of the Licensing Board's de-cision on September 5,1985, and supported its appeal in its LILCO's Brief on the Relo-cation Center Issues (Oct. 7,1985). In that brief LILCO raised the two issues set out above.

In ALAB-847,24 NRC at __, slip op. at 8-9, the Appeal Board returned the mat-ter to the Licensing Board to allow it to consider in the first instance whether the

" evacuee issue" had been properly raised for litigation. The Licensing Board responded with its Clarifying Decision on Remand (Monitoring of Evacuees), ASLBP No.

86-533-01-OL (Oct. 29,1986) (unpublished) (hereinaf ter " Clarifying Decision"). The Board concluded that the evacuee issue had been properly raised for litigation.

In its Memorandum and Order of November 4, the Appeal Board said that it is in-clined to give substantial deference to the belief of the Licensing Board that the issue was presented to it. The Appeal Board withheld final disposition of the matter, howev-er, until the parties had had an opportunity to comment. LILCO submits its comments on the October 29 issuance in Part I below.

The Appeal Board also invited the parties to address the regulatory requirements question. LILCO does that in Part II below. This Memorandum is, of course, supple-mental to LILCO's brief cn the relocation center issues of October 7,1985, which is still before the Appeal Board.

I. The evacuee issue was not properly raised for litigation.

The Licensing Board's Clarifying Decision explains why the Board feels that LILCO was on notice, in the summer of 1984, that it should enter into the hearing record a " planning basis for the number of evacuees arriving at a reception center to be l monitored." Clarifying Decision at 21. LILCO submits that the Licensing Board is in l

error, for the reasons stated in LILCO's October 7,1985, brief as supplemented below.

L i

l e _ . _ _ ,

_3 A. Contentions 24.0 and 75 did not fairly raise the issue.

The Board's reasoning is set out most succinctly in its summary on page 19:

As we reasoned above, we agree with the Appeal Board's ear-lier analysis, viz., that "[allthough the relocation center con-tentions were cast in terms of the lack of an agreement evidencing permission for use of designated facilities as relo-cation centers, the Intervenors' essential concern was wheth-er those facilities were adequate to fulfill their purpose . . . this interest is manifest, for example, in Conten -

tion 24.0. . . . The same thought is inherent in Contention 75, which asserts that ("there is no assurance tnat] the reloca-tion centers designated by LILCO will be sufficient in capaci-ty to provide necessary services for the number of evacuees that will require them."

Clarifying Decision at 19-20, citing ALAB-832,23 NRC 135,162 n.104. Relying heavily on the Appeal Board's reasoning, the Licensing Board thus indicates that Contentions 24.0 and 75 themselves gave LILCO adequate notice that the evacuee issue was raised.

See Clarifying Decision at 10 n. 6,18,19-20.

LILCO submits that this conclusion is inconsistent with the rule, set forth in ALAB-819 and A LAB-836, that an Intervenor "is bound by the literal terms of its own contention." Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-836,23 NRC 479,505 (1986)(citing ALAB-819,22 NRC at 709).M '

1/ In Limenck the intervenor had submitted a contention that was directed to the adequacy of the emergency plan's descriptions of the EOF, TSC, OSC, and associated equipment vis-a-vis the Commission's regulatory criteria. Philadelphia Electric Co.

(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,708 n. 35,709 (1985). The Appeal Board therefore held that the contention did not raise the issue of the operability and reliability of the equipment and the conformity of the as-built emergency support facilities with their design. Id. at 709.

In a later decision the Appeal Board again held, with respect to a different con-tention, that the intervenor was attempting to expand the scope of the contention be-yond its bounds. Philadelphia Electric Co. (L'imerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-836,23 NRC 479,504-05 (1986). On appeal, the intervenor was challenging, among other things. the adequacy of treatment at and letters of agreement for mass care centers. % at 503. The contention itself had said that the Bucks County Support Plan might not be approved and that the Montgomery County Plan relied on the Bucks County plan for, among other things, "f acilities for relocation and mass care of (footnote continued)

_4_

s It cannot be both ways: either the Intervenor is bound by the literal terms of its own contention, as ALAB-836 says, or the applicant is required to divine the Intervenors'

" essential concern."

If it is true that the Intervenor is bound by the literal terms of his own conten-tions, then the issue of how many people might come to a relocation center for moni-toring was not fairly raised in this proceeding. Contentions 24.0 and 75, on which the Board relles, do not raise it. Contention 24.0 is part of a lengthy contention alleging the absence of " letters of agreement"; all it says is that there is no agreement to use Suffolk County Community College as a relocation center and that indeed Suffolk Coun-ty refuses to make the College available. See Clarifying Decision at 7. A contention that there is no letter of agreement (or no facility) is completely refuted by producing a letter of agreement for a facility. If the Intervenors believe that the newly designated facility is inadequate in some way, then they are required to amend their contentions.

This is exactly what the Board recognized in ruling on the Intervenors' modified contention on (among other things) the public education brochure. The original Con-tention 18 had allegcd that LILCO's EBS messages did not tell the listener what zone he was in or describe the zones or evacuation routes. The proposed modified contention added the word " adequately." The Board pointed out the difference:

This is not a " modified" contention. A change that effectively goes from "not there" to " inadequate" is not a modification at all, but raises a whole host of new issues. The prof tered modification is denied.

Memorandum and Order Ruling on Suffolk County's Motion for Leave to File Modified

~

(footnote continued) evacuees." Id. at 502 n.41. The Appeal Board found that the contention raised only the very narrow issue of whether Bucks County was likely to approve the support plan and assume its responsibilities thereuncer: it did not challenge the adequacy, scope, or con-tent of the Bucks County plan. Id. at 504.

Contentions 16 and 18 Concerning the LILCO Public Education Brochure, at 5 (Mar. 9,  !

1984) (emphasis in original).

Contention 75 likewise does not raise the evacuee issue. It raises the issue of ad-equate " space, toilet and shower f acilities, food and food preparation areas, drinking water, sleeping accommodstions and other necessary f acilities" in the congregate care centers, and, as the Board has found, this contention does p_ot raise the issue of how many people might be monitored.

It is particularly appropriate to require clear contentions in this case, where the Intervenors are a state and county and have enormous resources and experienced coun-sel. The contentions in this case run to hundreds of pages, took a long time to write, and, it is fair to say, raise every conceivable issue that seemed worth raising to the In-tervenors at the time.2/ Under these circumstances it is fair to take the Intervenors at their literal word.

The Licensing Board relies, in the passage quoted above, on the Appeal Board's remand of several relocation center issues in ALAB-832,23 NRC 136,162 n.104. But the remand in ALAB-832 is distinguishable from the issue addressed in the Clarifying Decision of how many people might need monitoring. Although in neither case was there a contention raising the issues by its literal terms, in the former case (the issues remanded by the Appeal Board) the Intervenors did at least file testimony raising the is-sues, in the latter case (the issue of how many people might need monitoring), the 2/ For example, there was a contention about monitoring, Contention 77, but it, too, does not raise the issue of the number of evacuees who might want monitoring.

What it does, in fact, is to militate against the Intervenors' claim, since it proves that the Intervenors were aware of the need for rilonttoring, thought about it, and submitted such contentions about monitoring as they thought should be litigated. There was also a contention-25.F-that alleged that relocation centers would not be adequately staffed, but the reason claimed was " role conflict," and here again the Intervenors never raised the issue of how many personnel would be needed. Moreover, they conceded this issue in their proposed findings.

-S-1 Intervenors presented no testimony, or any other document, raising the issue.E B. The issue was not f airly raised by testimony.

Although the Board appears to rely most heavily on tne words of the two conten-tions as giving LILCO notice, it also suggests that LILCO was on t.otice because the issue was "directly addressed by Applicant and Intervenors during the hearing on August 21, 1984." Clarifying Decision at 11. The Board appears to rely principally on cross-examination at Tr. 14,714-15. Those pages are Attachment A to this pleading; the questions asked were about " relocation centers that LILCO is counting upon the Red Cross to provide," which means congregate care centers. More to the point, the Board cites (Clarifying Decision at 12) Tr.14,826-28,M which pages are Attachment B to this pleading, where the questions asked by Suffolk County counsel were, in essence, these:

(1) Will there be monitoring and decontamination person-nel at the congregate care centers?

(2) How would people be handled if they arrived at a con-gregate care center without having been monitored first?

(3) Does LILCO propose to monitor and decontaminate people before they reach Nassau County?

J/ As the Clarifying Decision notes, Clarifying Decision at 4, the Appeal Board asked the Licensing Board to canvass the Intervenors' direct testimony to see if it gave notice that the evacuee issue was within the scope of the Intervenors' concerns.

ALAB-847, slip op. at 13. Apparently the Licensing Board did not find this concern ad-dresseriin the Intervenors' direct testimony. Nor have the Intervenors themselves claimed that it was. See Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton j Brief in Opposition to LILCO's Brief on the Relocation Center Issues, at 4-14 (Nov.12, i

1985).

l' 4/ The Board also cites, at 16 of its Clarifying Decision. Tr.14,821 (Weismantle) for the proposition that LILCO's planning basis was traceable to experience and literature describing nonradiological disasters. The radiological or nonradiological nature of the '

disaster is not the point. The planning basis used by LILCO was designed to estimate how many people might need " relocation' centers. that is. temporary housing. This is not likely to be different whether the evacuees are fleeing f rom a radiological disaster or a hurricane:it depends on how many of them have f amilies and friends in the area or can afford to go a hotel.

l . -

(4) Does LILCO intend to advise ali l evacuees to go to the reception centers?

Suffolk County's counsel then asked, at Tr.14,828 and 14,829, whether there was a pos-sibility that the entire population of the EPZ might be directed to the reception centers for monitoring and decontamination.EI The answer was that it is a very remote possi-bility, bordering on impossibility. Tr.14,829 (Cordaro).

In context, these questions all appear to be an attempt to raise issues that had already been denied admission, namely Contention 76, which alleged LILCO should pro-vide a means for monitoring all evacuees, and Contention 103.J, which alleged that all evacuees should be advised to report for monitoring. See LILCO's Brief on the Reloca-tion Center Issues (Oct.' 7,1985), at 19-20. The Board's Clarifying Decision does not ad-

' dress this point.

In any event, a single question on cross-examination, eight days before the end of a nine-month set of hearings, simply does not fairly raise an issue for litigation.

C. Even the Intervenors did not at the time regard the " evacuee issue" as a litigable issue.

LILCO submits that even the Intervenors themselves did not view the " evacuee issue" as a litigation issue until the summer of 1985.

For example, even the Intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, pages 421-32 of which are Attachment C to this plem9ng, do not appear to raise g/ The Board refers to Suffolk County " counsel's assertion that the planning basis should be as large as 160,000 persons." Clarifying Decision at 14 (footnote omitted).

Apparently this " assertion" was the question, at Tr.14,829,"Isn't there that possibility that you might be directing the entire population of the EPZ to these centers for moni-toring and decontamination?" A cross-examination question, in a proceeding of the

~

length of this one, does not give adequate or timely notice of an issue to be litigated. It particularly does not give adequate notice in a proceeding in which the Board made a practice of giving the Intervenors great leeway to ask irrelevant questions. See, e.g.,

Memorandum and Order Concerning Suffolk County's Offer 01 Proof and Motion for Re-consideration of Time Limits on Cross-Examination, at 8-10 (Aug.13,1984)

(unpublished).

l l

l 4

the " evacuee issue"; certainly they do not raise it in a focused manner. They do men-tion FEMA testimony that " reception centers should have the capacity to process the entire population of the EPZ"(Attachment C at 4311642), but they cite a discussion (Tr.14,164,14,168) that was on the subject of the public education brochure and that was expressly not to be relied on for findings. See Tr. 14,163,14,166 (Attachment D to this pleading).

Undoubtedly the Intervenors felt, when they filed their proposed findings, that they had carried the day simply by asserting that there was no reception center at all.

Presumably they thought they could amend their contentions if and when a reception center was designated, and so they did not raise in their proposed findings the issue of how many people might need to be monitored. In fact, however, when a reception cen-ter was designated, the same month as the proposed findings, the Intervenors did not amend their contentions af ter all. Indeed they never did. Even when they filed testi-many on the adequacy of the Coliseum, on February 19.1985, they did not raise this issue.N D. The Clarifying Decision changes the burden of proof From what has been said above, it should be apparent that the Clar1fying Deci-sion is incorrect because it fundamentally changes the intervenor's burden of going 6/ In ALAB-847 the Appeal Board asked the Licensing Board to consider the effect of LILCO's revising the emergency plan during the course of the proceeding. The spe-cific questions were whether the changes affected the Intervenors' ability to formulate issues for litigation and whether the changes raised new or unique concerns regarding the number of evacuees who would seek monitoring. ALAB-847, slip op, at 14-15. The particular change focused on is LILCO's decision to split relocation center functions into two different kinds of f acilities, " reception" centers (for registration, monitoring, and decontamination) and " congregate care" centers (for food, shelter, clothing, etc.).

In LILCO's view, there is no logical reason why this change would have affected the Intervenors' ability to formulate L; sues or raised new or unique concerns about the number of people to be monitored. The number of people needing monitoring depends principally on the nature of the radiological accident and is not af fected by the changes to LILCO's plan.

t I

f l

1 - . -.- -, _.

forward and the applicant's burden of persuasion. The implication of the Clarifying De-cision is that any concern that may be inferred from an admitted contention must be formally disproved at hearing. Another possible implication is that any change in the emergency plan (or in a license application) that is related to an admitted contention must be su:oject to a hearing.

Such has not been the law heretofore. It is r.ot the law that the applicant has automatically the burden of justifying each change in its application, or its emergency plan, to the ASLB. It is the law the ASLB is to review only issues fairly raised by con-tentions, or issues raised s_ua sponte because they are " serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security" matters.10 CFR S 2.760a (1986).

Thus when LILCO designated a reception center and thereby disproved Conten-tion 24.0, it was up to Suffolk County to amend its contentions, or submit new ones, if it thought there were litigable issues about the newly designated f acility.- It was not LILCO's burden to reinterpret old contentions to divine what Suffolk County might want to litigate about the facility. Nor was it LILCO's burden to interpret the Commis-sion's regulations or guidance to decide what must be litigated. It is thus not relevant.

that LILCO was aware of NUREG-0654 (see Clarifying Decision at 13), which of course it wai. The applicant is not required to prove to a Licensing Board that it complies with every regulation and guideline; it must prove compliance to an ASLB (as distin-guished from the Staff) only to the extent challenged by admissible contentions.

E. Deference cannot sustain the Licensing Board's decision.

The Appeal Board has said it is inclined to give deference to the Licensing Board's conclusion. But LILCO submits that ;' deference" cannot be used to uphold the Board in this instance. The Licensing Board's reasoning, quoted above, is based on an 7/ This would be true in any proceeding, but it is particularly true where, as here, the delays in finding a relocation center were themselves caused by the Intervenors.

^

I l

Appeal Board d3 cision in which the Appeal Board did not give deference but rather re-versed the Licensing Board for f ailure to hear severalissues. (In that case both the party that had requested that the record be reopened-LILCO-and the Licensing Board agreed that the issues were not before the Board. Yet the Appeal Board reversed.) The Licensing Board now uses this reasoning as its basis for finding the evacuee issue before it, and the Appeal Board is inclined to give deference to that judgment. Under the cir-

+

cumstances, this " deference" wculd result in reasoning that is both circular and incon-sistent.

In short, LILCO believes that the arguments in "LILCO's Brief on the Relocation Center Issues" of October 7,1985, are still sound and that the Licensing Board should be reversed because it decided an issue that was not fairly raised for litigation.

II. LILCO is not required to estimate the number of evacuees that are likely to arrive at a reception center for monitoring but not for shelter.

The second issue on appeal-whether LILCO is required by NRC regulations to use as a planning basis some estimated number of the evacuees who are likely to arrive at a reception center for monitoring but not sheltering-was adequately addressed in LILCO's Brief on the Relocation Center Issues, October 7,1985, at 23-28. As that brief 8

argued, neither the regulations, nor NUREG-0654, nor any reported NRC decision /i m-poses such a requirement. The issue is really whether there is a requirement for "relo-cation" centers for the homeless (with an attendant requirement to be able to monitor those people) or a requirement for " monitoring and decontamination centers" for the public. NUREG-0654 says the former.

8/ The NRC Staff noted in its earlier brief a statement by the Commission in the San Onofre case that NUREG-0634 requires relocation centers for everyone in the EPZ.

Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),

CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528, 536 n.12 (1983), cited in NRC Staff's Brief in Support of "LILCO's Brief on the Relocation Center Issues," at 14 n. 22 (Nov. 21.1985). This state-ment is unquestionably dictum and is, moreover, incorrect, both in its statement that NUREG-0654 " requires" certain things (NUREG-0654 is merely guidance) and in its in-accurate restatement of Planning Standard J.12. It is obvious that this Commission footnote was intended merely to paraphrase Planning Standard J.12 and cannot be taken as a ruling of law on what J.12 means.

O New light has been shed on this issue subsequent to LILCO's October 7,1985, brief, becsuse un December 24,1985, FEMA issued a guidance memorandum. A copy is Attachment E to this pleading. The guidance memorandum was issued in direct re-sponse to a question raised by FEMA counselin the Shoreham proceeding, so there can be no question but that it is intended to apply to the Shoreham case.

FEMA's guidance is that the reception center should be prepared to monitor 20%

of the estimated population to be evacuated:

The State and local radiological emergency preparedness plans should include provisions at relocation center (s) in the form of trained personnel and equipment to monitor a mini-mum of 20% of the estimated population to be evacuated.

For highly improbable radiological releases involving high lev-els of radiation encompassing a relatively large area, it may be necessary to monitor a greater number of evacuees beyond 20% of the population. In such a situation, State and local governments would be expected to develop and implement ad hoc response measures, supplemented, if needed by Federal and private sector resources.

Memorandum, Guidance on NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 Evaluation Criterion J.12 (December 24,1985). at 2. This memorandum is, LILCO believes, FEMA's only guidance on this issue.

On the existing record, LILCO more than meets this guidance. LILCO showed a planning basis of 20% of the population (32,000 people) and also that in fact the Red Cross was prepared to provide much more, namely 48,000 places. See LILCO's Brief on the Relocation Center Issues, at 28 (Oct. 7,1985).

However, it is obvious, as the Licensing Board pointed out, that LILCO's capacity figures are based on the sleeping and eating space at congregate care centers, whereas the FEMA guidance is based on the "personnsi and equipment" necessary to monitor people. (NUREG-0654 J.12 also says that the " personnel and equipment available" should be capable of monitoring people arriving at relocation centers.) The issue raised by the Licensing Board, now at issue here, is apparently the adequacy of the buildirs (as

m opposed to the equipment or personnel) to monitor a sufficient number of people, since the adequacy of monitoring equipment and personnelis not raised by Contentions 24.0 or 75. And, as LILCO said in its October 7,1985, brief at 17, the issue of whether a building has enough corridors and floorspace to accommodate monitoring is a trivial one, especially for a huge building like the Nassau Coliseum. If that is all the Board was questioning (and its additional question about how the details of monitoring are to be carried out,22 NRC at 418-19, 431111, suggests that it was), then it is an issue, as LILCO has argued, that goes inappropriately into the details of emergency planning betterlef t to FEMA and the NRC Staff.

In light of the new FEMA guidance memorandum, and in light of the fact that the Intervenors have not presented any evidence for a different planning basis, the Ap-peal Board should rule that, whether or not there is any such requirement as the Board imposed, on the existing record LILCO has met or more than met it.

Conclusion For the reasons cited above and in LILCO's Brief on the Relocation Center issues of October 7,1985, the Appeal Board should reverse the Licensing Board on two grounds. First, it should rule that the issue of how many people might have to be moni-tored in a radiological emergency was not fairly raised for litigation in this case. Sec-ond,it should rule that there is no requirement that LILCO estimate the number of peo-pie that might be monitored in a radiological emergency. Alternatively, it should rule that 20% is a reasonable planning basis, that on the existing record LILCO has met at least that standard, and that details of how the monitoring teams use the space avail-able at whatever reception centers are usad is a matter best lef t to FEMA and NRC Staff oversight.

l

Respectfully submitted, 7 er 2 James N. Chriatman Attachments: A. Tr.14,714-15 B. Tr.14,826-28 C. Pages 421-32 from Intervenors' proposed findings D. Tr.14,163-69 E. FEMA Guidance Memorandum of December 24,1985, with attachments Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: November 21,1986 l

l .

l L

l l

l l

l

14,714 Attachment A and monitoring of evacuees within a 12-hour period is set f,~3'e forth in NUREG 0654; isn't that correct?

• 2 A Again, these aren't the exact words in the NUREG.

3 i

4 I suspect it might say approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. And I believe it-does say the evacuees that arrive at the reloca-5 6

tion centers.

7 Q Would you look at Page 10 of the testimony, 3 please?

, A (The witness is complying.)

go Q Mr. Weismantle, in Question and Answer 10, you 11 are asked to describe the means of relocation for evacuees, 12 and in general you rely upon the Red Cross to provide 13 relocation centers, and in LILCO's opinion that satisfies 14 NUREG 0654's requirement as to a means of relocation.

15 Is that a fair statement?

16 A Yes, in general that's a fair statement.

17 Q Is it fair to say then, Mr. Weismantle, that 18 if the Nassau Cosaty Chapter of the Red Cross, for what-19 ever reason, is unable to provide relocation centers for

1. evacuees from an emergency at Shoreham that LILCO will 21 then have failed to comply with NUREG 0654?

A No. I don't think so. Firct of all, as is U indicated in our testimony, the Nassau County Red Cross 24 has agreed to provide means; and, secondarily, they would,

' D as indicated, draw upon other chapters of the Red Cross in

14,715 adjacent areas.

+ 1

.,F

o Yes, sir. My question though is if the Red r*** 2 Cross is unable to provide the relocation centers that 3 i LILCO is counting upon the Red Cross to provide, is it 4

fair to say that LILCO will then have failed to satisfy NUREG 0654's requirement that there be a "means of reloca-tion?"

A (Witness Robinson) Mr. Miller, before Mr.

9 Rasbury grabs this microphone out of our hands here in to his anxaousness to answer, there is something that I think 11 we have to clarify, and that is the fact that LILCO is not 12 relying upon the Nassau Chapter of the American Red Cross.

13 LILCO is relying, as does everyone else, upon the American Ih 14 Red Cross which has procedures for drawing upon personnel 15 and rescurces from adjoining chapters, from region, from 16 national.

17 And to the best of our knowledge, has never i

18 failed to meet any such demand made upon them. And now I I

i 19 will pass this to Mr. Rasbury.

20 MR. MILLER: Before you do, Ms. Robinson, 21 Judge Laurenson, I move that that answer be striken. It's 22 not responsive to my question. My question was very 23 specific.

24 If the Red Cross is unable to provide relocation I

25 centers, will LILCO then have failed to satisfy NUREG o654's l

14,826 Attachment E 1

where these shel'ters were, but if by chance somebody wandered g

in ,

the Red Cross would send them to the initial center, where l g f

we would be doing monitoring and decon.

3 Q Are you going to have monitoring and decontami-nation equipment and personnel at the centers Mr. Rasbury 5

would man, where evacuees would be sheltered?

6 A No, that is not our intent, no.

7

, g Q So if someone wandered in to one of the shelters manned by Mr. Rasbury's personnel, how would you determine 9

to whether that person had been monitored, and if necessary, 11 decontaminated?

A We would be providing the people who had been 12 13 processed through the reception center and monitored and 14 decontaminared if necessary with a clean tag that would 15 identify the f act that they had been processed through 16 there. i l

17 So that a person showing up at a shelter who l

18 had not gone through that processing would have no tag, and 19 therefore be easily identifiable.

1 l 20 Q And you are saying that anyone who would show 21 up without this clean tag, as you say, would be sent back

' 22 to where you are providing the monitoring and decontamination 23 functions?

24 A Yes. The Red Cross would do that.

25 0 Wha: happens, Mr. Weismantle, if evacuees A

l ypassed the entire system. That is, they don 't go to your 1 ;

] monitoring and decontamination locations, and they don't

, go to the shelters. They just simply head west. i

, A Well, that would be perfectly fine under most 8

i 5

circumstances. In the unlikely event that there was a 6

, particulate release and there was evidence that certain 7

limited areas -- from certain limited areas had possibly

, been contaminated, we would, through the EBS system, request g all of those evacuees to go thrcugh the reception center for to monitoring and decontamination, but that would be an unusual 11 case.

12 The usual case would be just those people who is either didn't have their own transporation, or had their 8

14 own transportation and didn't have shelter, would be the 15 ones that showed up at the reception center. {

I IS Q Do you have a proposal, or has LILCO considered 1~

proposals for providing monitoring and decontamination of i

18 evacuees at some time prior to the time they reach Nassau 19 County and if things work out for LILCO, the facilities Mr.

20 Rasbury is now negotiating with? '

21 i j A original proposal we wished to do that in a

' 3 Suffolk County, but for reasons that have been gone into i

23 quite lengthy, they haven't worked out.

24 Q Let me ask you, Mr. Weismantle, does LILCO intend 25 to advise all evacuees to go to the centers Mr. Rasbury is

14,828 pow negotiating with for monitoring and decontamination, or does LILCO intend only to advise evacuees needing shelter to go to the centers Mr. Rasbury is now negotiatin9 with?

I1

MS. McCLESKEY: I object to the question as '

I 8 i i vague, if it does not indicate whether there has been a

, release or not.

MR. MILLER: Let's assume a release, Judge i

., Laurenson.

WITNESS WEISMANTLE:

If there has been a release, 9

go and there is evidence that there have been particulates I g released, that is that there is the possibility that contamination may have occurred to some people , we would 12 g3 advise those who would have been subject to possible f 14 contamination to go to the shelter -- excuse me -- the 15 reception center first for monitoring and decontamination, is but if there has been no release or if there has been a it would only

, 17 release that clearly was a gaseous release, 18 be those people who needed shelter who would go to the 19 reception center and be processed through there.

2 Q Mr. Weismantle, assuming a release and possibility 21 of contamination", what you are telling me is that -- and M I assumign the worse case, evacuation of the entire ten mile 160,000 U EPZ -- that there is a possibility that as many as 24 persons could be sent to the two facilities Mr. Rasbury is if necessary, 2 now negotiating with to be monitored and, 1

. Attechment C 626. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that LILCO will nat have sufficient buses available to implement its Plan if an emergency were to occur while schools are in session. Thus, we rule for Intervenors on Contention 24.F.2.

X. RELOCATION CENTERS (CONTENTIONS 24.0, 24.P. 74, 75, 77)

A. Centers for the Public (Contentions 24.0, 24.P, 74, 75) 627. These four contentions relate to whether relocation centers are available to provide radiological monitoring and decontamination for evacuees and their vehicles, and to provide food and shelter to those evacuees with no other place to stay. The contentions deal with the unavailability of facilities to serve as relocation centers; the inappro-priate location of centers proposed by LILC0; LILCO's failure to obtain letters of agreement from the ARC (to assure that services relied upon in the Plan will be performed) and from facilitf owners (to assure buildings will be available during an emergency); and LILCO's failure to demonstrate that the facilities will have adequate space and facilities to provide nec-essary accommodations and services for the number of evacuees that will re-quire them.431/ As we noted during the hearing on these issues, there is a (Footnote cont'd frcm previous page) have enough huses to provide for the evacuation of school children as well as the transit-dependent population. Tr. 12.222-27 (McIntire).

431/ Every version of the Plan, including Revision 3 which is in evidence, desigt.ated particular facilities as relocatiens centers, and the con-(Footnote cont'd next page)

-421-

" void" in the record resulting from LILCO's failure to designate relocation centers. Tr. 14,806-07. Accordingly, for the reasons we set forth below, we find in favor of Intervenors on these contentions and rule that LILCO has failed to comply with NUREG 0654 Section II.J.10, and 10 CFR

, 5 50.47(a)(1).

1. Identification of Canters 628. The original version and Revisions 1, 2 and 3 of the Plan desig-nated Suffolk County Community College ("SCCC"), BOCES II Occupational Cen-ter ("BOCES II Center"), and SUNY Stony Brook as primary relocation cen-ters, with SUNY Farmingdale and :It. Joseph's College as backup relocation centers. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 14 The primary relocation centers, and Lackup centers if necessary, were to provide mass care, food, shelter, medical counseling and social services, and radiological .noni-toring and decontamination of evacuees and their vehicles. Plan, at 4.2-1, 4.2-3. On March 2, 1984, both the County and LILCO submitted testimony on these contentions addressing the proposals as set forth in Revisica 3.

629. Subsequently, after having recogni=ed that neither SCCC nor SUNY Stony Brook would be available for use by LILCO as relocation centers, (Footnote cont'd from previous page) tantions were drafted to address LILCO's proposals relating to those facilities. Since, as we describe below, LILCO subsequently abandoned the proposals in the Plan, some of the facility-specific issues in the contentions are no longer pertinent. The thrust of the contentions, however, remains valid.

-422-

LILCO abandoned its intention to include SCCC and SUNY Stony Brook in the Plan and instead designated BOCES II Center, SUNY Farmingdale, and St. Joseph's College as primary relocation centers, and Dowling College as a backup center. LILCO submitted testimony supporting this version of its relocation scheme on June 15, 1984. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 14,

24. Soon thereafter, the County filed revised testimeny responding to LILCO's revised proposal. Harris and Hayer, ff. Tr. 14,870. The essence of the revised testimony was that SUNY Farmingdale and BOCES II Centar were unavailable for use by LILCO in a Shoreham emergency based on evidence that officials of chose institutions had never agreed, and had no intention of agrosing, to permit LILCO to use their facilities as relocation centers.

Id., Atts. 2, 3; Tr. 14,901 (Mayer).

630. LILCO's third attempt to come up with a viable relocation scheme was set forth in testimony dated July 30, 1984. LILCO conceded that it could no longer rely upon BOCES II Center and SUNY Farmingdale and instead proposed to " work with" the Nessau Red Cross which, LILCO asserted, wculd sometims in the future designate one or more relocation centers in Nassau County. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 15, 22, and Att. 1.432/

432/ Althcugh LILCO's witnesses testified that they were confident that any State or County facility would respond favorably to a request during an actual emergency that their facilities be made available for use by LILCO (Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 16, 21), they presented no evidence te support those assertions, and the testimony from the offi-cials in charge of several such facilitiss indicated precisely the op-posite. Thes, SUNY Farmingdale has insufficient capacity and insuffi-cient security capability to accommodate evacuees as contemplated by (Footnote cont'd next page)

-423-

,-~ ,m.,-- ,. - , - - , - - - -

~g . - ~ , , -,

631. It became evident during examination of LILCO's witnesses that LILCO's relocation scheme is incomplete, indefinite, and still in the pro-cess of being formulated. It is impossible to determine from the evidence what that scheme actually consists of, must less whether it is adequate or meets the requirements of NUREG 0654. For instance, LILCO witness Rasbury testified that contrary to the statements in the Plan and LILCO's brochure, LILCO's latest intention was to rely on 2 types of relocation facilities --

one or more very large ones called " reception centers," and approximately 50 smaller ones called " congregate care centers." Tr. 14,779 (Rasbury); .

Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, Att. 1. No reception centers have been (Foctnote cont'd from previous page) the Plan. SUNY Farmingdale's administration believes that LILCO's proposed use of that facility would negatively impact the campus com-munity, and Dr. Cipriani testified that it would be irresponsible for him to commit his facility to be available for use during an emergen-cy. Furthermore, SUNY policy prohibits commercial organizations such as LILCO from using SUNY facilities. Tr. 14,929-34, 14,938, 14,942, 15,134 (Cipriani, Coyne) . Similarly, BOCES II Center has insufficient capacity and insufficient facilities (little open floor space, no kitchens, no cafeterias, no showers for bathing), and the BOCES II District Superintendent stated that he had several specific reasons for objecting to LILCO's proposed use of his facility. h*o also note that neither Suffolk Red Cross representatives nor LILCO representa-tives had ever toured BOCES II Center to determine whether it would be adequate as a relocation center. Tr. 15,008-10, 15,016, 15,022-25, 15,034, 15,040-41 (Hines). Thus, we reject LILCO's assertion that its speculation that these facilities would be available "was borne out" by testimony from the facility owners. See LILCO Brief, at 248, n.

106. Furthermore, we note that other State and County buildings pre-viously relied upon by LILCO -- i.e., SUNY Stony Brook and SCCC --

were abandoned by LILCO apparently in recognition of the fact that they were located too close to the EPZ in violation of SUREG 0634 Sec-tion II.J.10.h. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 20-22.

-424-

designated or identified by LILCO. In fact, Mr. Rasbury refused even to identify the candidate facilities under consideration. Tr. 14,793-94 (Rasbury). Mr. Weismantle testified that LILCO would provide radiation monitoring and decontamination services at reception centers, but LILCO could not put together details or identify precise locations because no de-finitive determinations on the subject had been made. Tr. 14,810-11 (Weismantle).433/ The identities and locations of congregate care centers will not be determined until evacuees appear at reception centers during an actual emergency. Tr. 14,801-02 (Rasbury). Several possibilities, all in

~

Nassau County,~were listed in LILCO's testimony, howeve'r. Cordaro et al.,

ff. Tr. 14,707, and Att. 1. Mr. Rasbury agreed that this LILCO scheme rep-resents an "ad hoc approach." Tr. 14,813 (Rasbury). ,

He also testified that the scheme was a developing and growing concept, that he was not com-mitted to it, and that he expressly reserved the right to "think less and less of that option." Tr. 14,804-05 (Rasbury).

632. LILCO's failure to identify any reception or congregate care a

centers leaves a void in the record. We agree with the FEMA witnesses that i

relocation centers must be identified in advance of a radiological emergen-cy. Tr. 14,216 (Kowieski). LILCO's statement in its post-trial filing that it will designate centers in some future revision of the Plan (LILCO 433/ The FEMA witnesses testified that one monitoring and decontamination facility probably would be insufficient because LILCO's evacuation routes lead in different directions, and that LILCO should establish such a facility in close proximity to each of LILCO's major evacuation routes. Tr. 14,209 (Keller).

-423-

Brief, at 247) is plainly no substitute for such identification prior to close of the record so that this Board and the parties could consider its adequacy. Thus, we conclude that the Plan, which fails to identify reloca-tion centers and proposes to identify and direct evacuees to such centers on an ad hoc basis during an actual emergency, is in clear violation of NUREG 0654 Section II.J.10.

2. Location of Centers 633. We have the following observations concerning the proposed loca-tion of the centers; these observations are in the nature of guidance, in light of LILCO's failure to identify the particular facilities it intends to use. LILCO's witnesses testified that LILCO intends to rely exclusively on facilities in Nassau County, even though the distance from Shoreham to

Nassau County's eastern border is at least 30 miles. Tr. 14,816-17 (Weismantle); Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 22. However, FEMA's wit-ness Keller testified that a relocation center should be located as close as possible to the EPZ because, as a general rule, all evacuees should be monitored and decontaminated, if necessary, as quickly as possible.

Tr. 14,621-24 (Keller); cf. Tr. 14,211, 14,575-77 (Keller, Kowieski) (a re-location center located 20 or 25 miles from the EPZ would be too far away).

i We agree with Mr. Keller's general observation, consistent with the NUREG 0654 Section II.J.10.h guideline that the centers should preferably be 10 miles or more outside the EPZ. There is no reliable or probative evidence in this record to demonstrate that there are no available adequate

-426-

facilities located closer to the plant than Nassau County but in the range of 10-15 miles from the EPZ.434/ Accordingly, we are unable to make even the kind of predictive finding requested by LILCO that its proposed use of facilities in Nassau County would be appropriate.

3. Letters of Agreement 634. Contention 24.P asserts that the Plan is inadequate because.

LILCO does not have an agreement with the ARC which assures that the ser-vices LILCO expects the ARC to perform at relocation centers will actually be performed. FEMA's witnesses testified that the ^RC is a support organi-zation within the meaning of Sections II. A.3 and C.4 of SUREG 0654, and if l

the Plan does not contain a letter of agreement that specifies the interface between the two organizations, the Plan is deficient. Tr. 12,192 (Kowieski); 12,271-72 (Keller). 'de agree.

635. In response to this contention, LILCO submitted two letters.

The first, dated June 24, 1983, was sent by LILCO to the Suffolk Red Cross.

It purported to expresa LILCO's " understanding" that in response to a Shoreham emergency, the Red Cross would fulfill its usual emergency re-sponse functions, including setting up and operating relocation centers for 1

434/ Although LILCO assarts that suitable closer facilities are not avail-able "as a result of the political position" of the County and New York (see LILCO Brief, au 249), there is no reliable evidence before us to support that assertion. LILCO's belief as to the reasons that particular facilities are not available is not relevant; what is im-portant is that LILCO has not demonstrated that there are no appropri-ate facilities closer to the plant than Nassau County.

-427-

the public. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, Att. 2. The Suffolk Red Cross never responded in writing to LILCO's letter. Tr. 14,754-55 (Robinson).

The Plan thus contains no statement by the Suffolk Red Cross that it en-dorses or agrees with LILCO's understanding, that it intends to perform the functions assigned to it by LILCO in the Plan, or that the Suffolk Red Cross' " usual" functions coincide with or include all those expected of it under-the Plan. Harris and Mayer, ff. Tr. 9574, at 10-12. .

636. LILCO also submitted a letter from the Nassau Red Cross, which stated that the Nassau Red Cross would set up and staff facilities to be designated in the future. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707. Act. 1. Both the County's and FEMA's witnesses testified, however, that the letter inad-equately addresses the interface between LILCO and ARC personnel which is inherent in relocation center operations as proposed in the Plan. Harris

, and Mayer, ff. Tr. 9574, at 25-26; Baldwin et al., ff. Tr. 12,174, at 20, 84; RAC Report, ff. Tr. 12,174, at 42; Tr. 14,211-12 (Kowieski). Mr.

Keller testified further that a letter of agreement should explicitly de-scribe the extent af the interface at the relocation centers between the two organizations. Tr. 14,573-74 (Keller).435/

435/ Under LILCO's proposal e.o use congregate care facilities, a lesser de-gree of interface may be required at those facilities than would be required at the reception centers. See LILCO Brief, at 116. '/e can-not find, however, that LILCO's proposal moots the need for coordination between LILCO and the ARC and because LILCO's proposal, at present, is pure speculation. Nevertheless, we are skeptical of LILCO's apparent position that no interface between LILCO and the ARC will be required. Accordingly, we find LILCO's letter of agreement to be inadequate.

-428-

637. Based on the foregoing, we find for Intervenors on Contention 24.P. The Plan fails to comply with NUREG 0654 Sections II.A.3 and C.4 be-cause there is no written agreement which satisfactorily establishes and assures that the ARC will perform the necessary services in the manner con-templated by, and necessary to implement, the Plan.

638. FEMA's witnesses testified that the Plan also must identify re-location and/or reception centers where monitoring and decontaminaticn will occur and must contain letters of agreement with the owners of such facili-ties in order to meet the requirements of NUREG 0654. Tr. 12,269-70, 14,201, 14,221-22, 14,574, (Kowieski, McIntire). We agree. See also our find?.ngs on Cen,tention 24.N,Section XI.B. Infra.

639. LILCO has obtained a letter'from the Nassau Red Cross which as-serts that that organization has agreements of some sort with several entities, such as churches and entire school districts. The letter indi-cates that some unidentified buildings would be available to the ARC for use as shelters during emergencies. However, we have not seen any of the actual agreements, most of the buildings and their specific locations have not been identified, nor is there any indication in this record that the

. owners or managers of the facilities have agreed to the use of their facil-ities following a Shoreham emergency as proposed in the Plan, particularly for monitoring and decentamination. See Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, Att. 1.436/ Thus, we find that LILCO has failed to comply with NUREG 0654 4: 6/ Indeed, SUNY Farmingdale and SUNY Old Westbury are contained in the Nassau Red Cross list of relocation centers (Cordaro et al., ff. Tr.

(Footnote cont'd next page)

-429-

Sections II.A.3 and C.4 in that it has failed to submit agreements that as-sure the availability of the facilities necessary to implement the Plan.

Tr. 14,611-12, 14,629-30 (Kowieski). See Consolidated Edison Co.,

LBP-83-68, supra, 18 NRC at 934-35 (1983) (Board finds plans deficient due to lack of letters of agreements with reception and congregate care cen-ters).

4. Capacities and Facilities in Centers 640. Contention 75 alleges that there is no assurance that the relo-cation centers relied upon by LILCO will have sufficient capacities and fa-cilities to provide the necessary services for the number of evacuees that will require them.

641. As a thresnold matter, it is clear that it is impossible for us

. to find in favor of LILCO on this contention since LILCO has not yet iden-tified any specific facilities it intends to use as reception centers, con-gregate care centers, or relocation centers. Clearly, the Board cannot find, in a factual vacuum, that :tnidentified buildings have adequate capac-ity or facilities to make them useful ar.d appropriate for the purposes stated in the LILCO Plan and NUREG 0654. Thus, due to the absence of any (Footnote cont'd from previous page) 14,707, Att. 1) even though Dr. Cipriani and Mr. Coyne testified that there are several specific reasons why SUNY facilities would not be suitable for use as contemplated by the Plan. Tr. 14,929-34, 14,933, 14,942, 15,134 (Cipriani, Coyne) .

-430-

F?

specific facts or data upon which to base a finding, we rule in favor of Intervenors on Contention 75.

642. We recognize that LILCO's' witnesses estimated that the maximum number of persons who would use relocation centers would be approximately 32,000 persons, and that the facilities with which the Nassau Red Cross purportedly has agreements have an aggregate capacity of roughly 48,000 persons. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 14,707, at 18-23. They also stated, how-ever, that although the Red Cross has considered whether there is adequate parking, living space, food facilities, toilets and showers, most of the facilities do not meet all the considerations. Id., at 22-25. Further-more, FEMA's witnesses testified that reception centers should have the ca-pacity to process the entire population of the EPZ in the event that a widespread, radioactive release occurs (see Tr. 14,164, 14,168 (Keller)) '

and the County's witnesses testified as to several public health require-ments of reception or relocation centers, including the capability of safely collecting, storing, or disposing of contaminated and uncontaminated wastes. Harris and Mayer, ff. Tr. 9574, at 27-28. These concerns raised -

by FEMA and the County, which were not addressed by LILCO, further support our finding for Intervenors on Contention 75.437/

437/ We also agree with FEMA's witnesses that LILCO's public information materials are inadequate because they fail to advise potential evacuees that, depending on circumstances surraunding a radiological emergency, it might be necessary for the entire EPZ population, not just those persons needing shelter, to report to reception centers to be menitored and, if necessary, de, contaminated, and because monitoring and decontamination facilities must be identified in those materials.

Tr. 14,164-63, 14,168, 14,208 (Keller, Kowieski).

-431-

643. As we stated at the outset, there is a void in this evidentiary record concerning the important matter of relocation centers. In light of LILCO's failure to identify any such centers, and the vagueness of its ac-tual intentions in this regard, we find for Intervenors on Contentions 24.0, 24.P, 74 and 75.

B. Thyroid Monitoring (Contention 77) 644. Contention 77 alleges that the Plan's provisions for measuring thyroid contamination at relocation centers are inadequate due to improper equipment and deficiencies in LILCO's procedures.

645. Under the Plan, thyroid contamination in evacuees is to be mea-sured with an RM-14 meter and a HP-270 probe, using the lowest meter range of 0-500 cpm. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 13,755, at 6. OPIP 3.9.2 requires monitoring personnel first to measure background radiation levels with the HP-270 shield open', then to monitor individuals with the HP-270 shield closed, and then to subtract the background reading from the survey reading to obtain actual thyroid contamination levels. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr.

13,755, at 6.438/ LILCO and FEMA witnesses agreed that LILCO's procedure would result in an inaccurate and non-conservative measurement of thyroid contamination. Tr. 13,777-80 (Miele); 14,287-88 (Keller); see LILCO Brief, at 256.

438/ With its shield open, the HP-270 probe measures both beta and gamma radiation; when closed, it measures only gamma. Tr. 13,767-68, 13,777 (Miele).

-432-

14,163 10-8-W21 Attachment D 1 to proceed.

( 2 JUDGE LAURENSON: I spend more time arguing 3 about procedures than getting to the matter at hand, so we 4 will accept that suggestion, and do a limited voir dire 5 examination. That is what we are going to call it, a voir 6 dire. It is not part of the record to be relied upon for 7 findings at this point, but ue want Mr. Keller to tell us 8 , on the record, what are your other concerns?

9 WITNESS KELLER: Our concerns are centered around to three issues. First, in the brochure that we reviewed, there 11 were no EBS stations listed. There was a blank in the 12 brochure that doesn't have the EBS stations. There was a 13 statement that said that they would be included before being.

l 14 g mailed to the public, but that was a deficiency as far as I

we were concerned in the brochure we were given to review.

i 15 t

Secondly, the map which is in the brochure that

{ 16 17 we reviewed, which was for Zone R, is not complete. It does i

e 18 not show the complete ten mile EPZ, okay?

r l 19 We felt that this could inhibit the effectiveness i

2 m of this brochure, since people who live in this zone -- the e

i 21 presumption is that this map would be sent to residents of 3

I 22 the Zone R -- if they were in another zone, evacuation zone 23 or planning zone, within the EPZ, should have available to 24 them information about the rest of the zone.

25 The third issue was a little more involved, in

s 14,164 10-9-Wal 1 that we would like to see at least some information given to

t 2 the populace that they might be instructed via EBS to take 3 action other than what is in the brochure at the current time.

4 For example, or specifically, there might be a 5 case where you do not wish the evacuees to leave the f.one 6 and go either to a motel or the home of a friend'or relatiave 7 as is recommended by the brochure. You might want to instruct 8 the evacuees to report ~to reception center first, and be 9 monitored, to assure that they have not become contaminated to during their evacuation. So, th~ey should not be instructed 11 -- there should be something in the brochure which tells the 12 people, for example, under normal circumstances, you just 13 go to a friend -- if you have a friend, or you want to go 14  ; to a motel, go ahead. If you need housing, go to the

I

15 l reception centers.

i However, under some circumstances, the EBS message j 16 0 17 may tell you, even though you intend not to avail yourself i l 18 of the public housing, or the housing provided by the reception 5

h 19 center, we may instruct you to go to the reception center to s

j 20 he monitored to assure that you have not become contaminated, i 21 and language of that nature we thought should be in the 5

22 brochure. We have found that to be a deficiency in other Z3 brochures, and we would find it to be a deficiency in the .

24 brochure that we reviewed.

25 We don't know what is in Revision 4 of the

LO-10-Wal 14,165' I brochure, if there is Revision 4 even. And those are the 2 . three areas -- the three concerns.

JUDGE LAURENSON: Is there something else?

3 WITNESS BALDWIN: There is one other minor one, 4

5 and that is that there is no information in the brochure 6 that we could find regarding the contact for additional 7 information. The Plan states that contact for additional 8 information is the customer service operators, who then in 9 turn call a rumor control number, and then get back with 10 that individual.

11 The number for custome; services should be 12 in the brochure.

13 JUDGE LAURENSON: Continuing with this voir 14 dire examination, we will first allow Mr. Glass to ask any I h i 15 questions on direct examination that he may have based on l

{ 16 what the witnesses have said. }

INDEX 17 DIRECT VOIR DIRE i

- 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. GLASS:

r f 19 Q Just one, just to try to refresh their memory.

i 20 Was there any concern about -- in the brochure -- an indicatio n l

21 that they should retain the brochure. Was that one of your

{

1 j 22 concerns?

I 23 A (Witness Keller) No, that -- the indication that 24 the brochure should be saved is contained in the brochure.

25 MR. GLASS: No further questions.

4 10-11-W21 1 JUDGE LAURENSON: Mr. McMurray?

i / l ZX INDEX 2 CROSS VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION  ;

l 3 BY MR. McMURRAY: l 4 Q Judge Laurenson, I see at least three of these 5 issues are relevant to other contentions. For instance, a the map issue I think is relevant to Contention 18. The 7 issue of people going to decontamination centers before they 8 go to relocation centers I think is probably relevant to the 9 relocation center issues, and maybe we should address them J

l 10 then rather than now.

11 JUDGE LAURENSON: Well, the question is do you 12 have any further questione at this time based upon what this 13 panel has answered thus far on the limited voir dire exam-14 ination to develop further information as to what we do with

, j 15 these concerns.

l 16 MR. McMURRAY: Yes, I do .

f 17 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing)

5

! The second issue, Mr. Keller, regarding the 18 Q I

h 19 map, Zone R, there are -- there is an evacuation map and a I

20 bus route map. I take it you are talking about the evacuation

{

j 21 map?

5 l M A (Witness Keller) No. What I said was, that there i

23 is no map of the entire ten mile EPZ, or at least the land 24 area part of the EPZ in the brochure. We don't find any 25 problem with the map for Zone R that is in the Zone R booklet, i

14,167 10-12-W21 1 but we feel that each one of the booklets, right, for each

(

2 one of the individual zones, should have a rap of the entire 3 zone.

4 O And why is that?

5 A So that people would be familiar with the entire 6 zone.

7 MR. GLASS: I just want to know if you misspoke.

8 Do you mean -- we are using the term, ' zone.'

9 WITNESS KELLER: The entire EPZ, planning zone 10 in that case. People who live in one of the individual planning 11 evacuation zones might very well be visiting a neighboring 12 evacuation zone, and if they had at least general information 13 about the entire EPZ, they would be better informed.

l 14 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing)

[' t

- o i 15 0 0 I would like to go to the third point. You say (

}  !

l j 16 that people, under some circumstances, might be told to go -

l

• 17

, first to a decontamination center before going to the relocatio,n f '

18 center? .

r i

13 A (Witness Keller) If that is what I said, that 20 is not what I intended to say. I thought what I said was that 21 the booklet tells people that as they are evacuating they have j 22 two options; they can either leave the EPZ and find housing on 23 their own, either at a motel or with friends or neighbors or 24 whatever, okay; or secondly, they can report to one of the 25 _ reception centers and then be housed by the LILCO organization.

n - , -

14,168 10-13-W.~:1 1 If you report to a reception center, you will be i

2 monitored. The plan calls for people who come to reception 3 centers to be monitored, okay. Our concern was that there

~

4 may be the potential, under some circumstances, that people 5 who do not wish to be housed by the LERO organization, and 6 they wish to avail themselves of housing at their own 7 discretion, that if an evacuation is in progress during the 8 passage of a plume, events catch up with them, et cetera, 9 or whatever happens, and there is the potential for people 10 to become contaminated while they are evacuating, these 11 people should be informed to report to the reception center, 12 at least the monitoring portion of the reception center, 13 assure thems'ke,ves that they are not contaminated, or free 14 of contamination, and then go on and find housing on their 5 15 own, motels or friends or whatever.

3 16 And there should be in the brochure some language

[ i 0

17 which tells these people that they may be instructed to  ;

l i 18 follow this option, and that this instruction would come via l

$ 19 the EBS message.

5 M There is no, I guess, warning that this may l

E 21 occur.

3 E$d 10. 22 Sua fols.

23 24 26 l i

14,169

.#11-1-Suet MR. MC MURRAY: I have no further questions,

/

2 Judge Laurenson.

3 JUDGE LAURENSON: Any questions, Mr. Zahnleuter?

4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Yes, Judge Laurenson.

5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER:

7 Q Mr. Keller, why is it a deficiency for the 8 brochure to include the EBS stations later rather than 9 now?

10 A (Witness Keller) Well, at the time we reviewed 11 it, the brochure we had in hand was not acceptable.

12 O The brochure that I have says the EBS stations 13 would be inserted prior to mailing.

14  ; A That's right.

j 15 Q Why is that a deficiency?

3

} 16 A Well, we don't know when they are going to be o

" 17 mailed. We don't know whether we would have the opportunity '

i i 18 to review the brochure before it's mailed. We were given a I r

i

19 brochure and said

Review this brochure for adequacy. This E

20 brochure, as it stands, is not adequate.

l

{ 21 Will it be adequate when they add the EBS message, 3

22 the EBS stations? Yes, in that regard.

23 How will we know? Will we get a chance to look 24 at the brochure again to see that they are added before they l

25 are mailed out? I would assume that they would, but what we !

h I

.- Attachment E

.1/C3 10:30 302 xWINCO t1 pp 33"i 525-3499 '

l

~ @ Federal Emergency Manage Washlagten. D.C. 20472 I

M 24198s -

\

3 jammentststl Bis IInt' Division thiefe

..,l g, "'

s Anstatant Assemiete assester state and tosal psegrees i and hepart t

KWET l

taidanse en IGEM454/pgqHp=1 sysluetten Criteeien J.12 i l

Dis assessendue psavides litterpretative pidenne er. tW5',-Z_. E-1 protsetive sospanas evaluation ersteries J.13e i seek esganteetten shall doestihe the smene for seeistering

• end sanitoring of eveeuses at Iglo6ation centers LA 135%

areas. 1he pereennel and equipment available should be caponle of monitoring within aneut a 13-tour period all residente and tretnients in the pin e espesure EFE a:Tivtrg at relaeation centers.

i Se gusetion arises as to the percentage of the everuses that ecuad sessen.

ahiy be cepeated to arrive at a releostion sentsr(s). PreWieue emperience ,

anesgencies is not eenslualvo. Neeen.%.

gathered en evacuation tessenses to e variety of natu revealed that anywhere free 3 to 30 percent of tan evaeuses arrives atinto this matte rolsestian sentese er sheltese. For radiol sonable en asema that addittenal eveeuses,ogical to alleyanesgencies, their irinesens it to am_ noe.

fear over radtaefen. Mn i

have been esposed to radiation.  :, i/Wien sensese unstner er not they ese to 204for radiategisel essagenstes may be eleser to the upper and of the 3 Sun range.

Se eengemente esse issue la reviated u a part of all Atamie safe and s

Licensing aseed hearirge, although it has never been fannelly att I l such a hearing at nuclear gewer p. lants is usually eSe eengregate eere fact 11ty espeetty in the vie ity of I

{ the estiasted reseer of eveouses.tted as being boemeen 5 and 15 geteent of With thees peresetages in sitti, it la esperent thatissue.

stNnding this these is significent divetetty in the frene of refesence sur-

\

i l

l 1 .

l

1/C3 10:30 ?D3 =WINCO ICPP *1' 528-349; 2 **

De guidemo peerided betow is based on the Map factona r$ense vie erneuettens regeedless si the natus M the (1) g ,g

[ineinten of fear aM uneartataty fastees aseestated with mies and (3) pesuantage W f iniee etted in Afta hearings. potential eyesuses, $er eengsegene ateLfgest M ~

. ne siate and to t estategisel enseeney pressewn=e ,tane posesnt of the estimated pophatten to be evenuened.of trat ted p ror hiehly bapsemable ,

1evole of radiatten testa rototively cg niease Amatvine lasgo ame w-ser be nesseeary beyond 30 to nenitor a greater nusmer of ewesuses, it state ant t of the populatten. In eush a ettuenten tapiame ed has nevense meamuses suppgeneraants would to especte6 to dev by Fwtesel and privese asesor seesu, roes.iamented, is needes, Any questions tusnatt at 644-2897 or eensonne eheut this guidance should De disested te ler 3111 .

w.

O

__e.._.. . - - - - - - - - -

o.

t 0

.1/C3 10:30 ?34 x W I N C O f t'D D 33' 523-34gg

- Federal Emergency Management Agency Washingies. D.C. 20472 OCT 22 55 eslsweta nas Messha11 t.

mist, Pol veg v ' '

,.i. e. .. J.

Ch ,, Field ope tens aransh 5278C1't Pelley notermination conseming istWH654 timent 4 la '

Se attashed estater 4,199$ letter from Joe Neller. et the Idahn Nh41enal Engineerin negten M,g Idheretory (INEbb to Stewart Glass, nessansa esweel of Fem 1985. was meelved in this office and in Asvien !! er. 0steher 14, Although Mr. Neller asks his queettens in esmestaan with th Amraham plan avview, tt.e leeue is also applienh3e to other plans. e has sequested that since tate really irwolves W. Class the response to casedinated at Headquartees in th strice, . gelier queetteam, usu14 you please anover Mr. Neller's questione? We have attaehed a supy et the

_crader for.Smenham.4.1905. F94A findire en Revisten 5 et the L!!@ frenoitten Plan Sat finding is referensed in Mr. Neller's 1 steer. ice tould appresiste it if you seuld addrene this taeue esen se that the tunn v11puso panel ama14 have en aneser beteve they have to testify en the Revistan it te 8 firding. No hearig date has been set a tAie seterial tut and e that the panel (Re,teekt - FDE, McIntire = FEMA. Roller . pgL in - Asgenne National !dheretory) will have to give tastiam y, i

l kt M l As Stated l

I .

\

e

- -- . . - - - . - - - - ,, . , - - , . - , , - - - - - , , _, . , - . , . . , , . - . , . . - , - - - . -------..-_-,,-n . - - - - _ - - - , -

0

?35 xWINCO ICPP B3' 52$-3499 1/C3.10:30 g Westinghouse Idaho

% ,, Nucleaf Company. Ino.

Ses 4000

'daes fe:Is. Isane tason Jeet-67-OS Osteeer 4. 1988 Stewart M. Glass .

aegional Counsel, Esq.

Federal toergency Panagement Agency Aegten !! .

26 Federal plaza hw fort. how Yorit 10278

Subject:

Clarificatten of huRES 0684 (1eeent J.12

~

' I believe element that clerification is reeutred as to tse meaning of 4U450 0464 J.12.

State It is very likely tatt the FEM witness sorel will tgain have te aseeer nefore tee Alle on tne Shorente emergency wcreearednese esttener issues. I woule Itus to see tne answers to tne fellowieg 1.

Is taere arrive an NACcenterte) at a reception sesitionforen tne numeer monitoring and if soof evacuees wPs mient  !

west 4 ef tee EPZ sepulation shouls be used in the planning preceos?

2.

Mere iroertently, anat is tne PIM positten en tne same e.#esttenti l i

t raise tnis leave for two reasons.

acaringa ! recall a 48Ce Cann ssten Auling which you aussited cutreure se taFirst suring tne Ind roterial. whicM stated tnat 100% of sne (Pt peouletten must se eenetterse een aselying tPe la neur time frene of elesent J.12.

est recall if inte statement was in tne besy of the Aultog er in oce ofUnfortuPately I san the tadtvteval enintens assentee to smg Aullag.

i statement would nave considerette soaring en the tasse.The 1ecation of t>e RaC has faune the !.!LCC 31u inadeewate wita respect to element J.12. theSecond, wn reason for tne inesequacy to not the tassiitty to mentter arriving evacuees within 12 Pours. The AILS. en sage 10 of the Gesclustag Partial Initial Cecision en Wengency 91erning, Mas foune the LILCO plan to te defective because of tne fatture to teseWately Blan for nSPs Santtoring a d tutor.

b registretten of memoors of t6e general subite arriving at tne asonrently acceptable but tre ASLS soints out tnat the nueser seesing Sentiering ta mot nosessertly the same as tnat s eestng snellet.

l

'o 1/C3 10:30 ?36 x WINCO I C P P. 6 3.7 R28-noc --~.

I l

Stewart M. 81ses. Isg.

Poet 8 b JM4*87 84 Octeter 4. 1948 l

While tne immediate concern is for tPe reevirements to be used in the review ofthethe Therefore PIMA LILCD slen.

peettien, this ame to e14 ewe effects seeswhat the review lessor degree of all elens.

the NRC sositten, saoule De kneem and clearly defined.

I theek you for youe help in obtaining a definitive poststen en g39, issue.

Sincerely,

$W-J. 14. Keller. Staff Scientist Spects) Progress cc: M. Lawless PEMA R. Rewieskt

• FEMA

\

l l

(

~

.~' LILCO, Novsmber 21,1986 o

,l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ga24PS:08 In the Matter of cprin U ' .g LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 60CKUFg

,[j (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 a I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Supplemental Memorandum of Law on the Number of People Who Might be Monitored in a Radiological Emergency were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Ex-press as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coramission Fif th Floor (North Tower) East-West Towers, Rm. 427 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.

4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 4

Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Dr. Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fif th Floor (North Tower) 4350 East-West Hwy.

East-West Towers Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East 'iost Highway Bethesda. M d 20A14

~

Secretary of the Commission

~

Attention DocPeting and Service Gary J. Edles, Esq. Section Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board 1717 H Street, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Fif th Floor (North Tower)

East-West Towers Atomic Safety and Licensing 4350 East-West Highway Appeal Board Panel Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

.- Washington, D.C. 20555 Morton B. Margulies, Chairman

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers, Rm. 407 4350 East-West Hwy.

' Bethesda, MD 20814

V Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Oreste Russ Pirfo. Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Edwin J. Reis, Esq. - 33 West Second Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 298 7735 Old Geor Riverhead, New York 11901 (to mailroom) getown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Pallip McIntire Federal Emergency Management Herbert H. Brown, Esq. .

Agency Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. 26 Federal Plaza Karla J. Letsche, Esq. New York, New York 10278 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Eighth Floor 4 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

1900 M Street, N.W. New York State Department of Washington, D.C. 20036 Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Albany, New York 12223 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

Special Counsel to the Governor Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Chamber Executive Coordinator Room 229 Shoreham Opponents' Coalition State Capitol 195 East Main Street Albany, New York 12224 Smithtown, New York 11787 Mary Gundrum, Esq. Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Counsel to the Governor 4 120 Broadway Executive Chamber Third Floor. Room 3-116 State Capitol New York, New York 10271 Albany, New York 12224 Spence W. Perry,- Esq. Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

William R. Cumming, Esq. Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.

Federal Emergency Management Suffolk County Attorney Agency H. Lee Dennison Building

. 500 C Street. S.W.. Room 840 Veterans Memorial Highway Washington, D.C. 20472 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Dr. Monroe Schneider

- New York State Energy Offico North Shore Committee Agency Building 2 P.O. Box 231 Wading River, NY 11792 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223

~

James N. Chrktman Nh 2 =>

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street

, P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l

DATED: November 21.1986

-- - - - . - - - _ - - . - - - . - - - - . - - _ - - -