ML20033E693
Text
- - _
- sso see m e j
n AucuO u.o AMAto ;
t80 esem aumes owner i
asw voar.
e ns. von $ssee
'3 -
~
. $13 43&44?)
-. I
- w-
-4.
h tinited states senate
]j y
wAsHmotoN, DC 20510
. o.
l y
H t
January 24,-1990 t
Mr.:Carlton Kammerer
-o-Director-Office ~of Congressional Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Commission t
One White. Flint North Washington, D.C.: 20555
.,t Dear Sirs o
n
-Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to p
all inquiries-and communications, your consideration.of the=
attached ~is requested.
Your.. findings and views, in duplicate form, will~be
]
appreciated.
t Please reply to my Syracuse office.
t
.i Sincerely, g
O N
-Alfonse M. D'Amato United States Senator 7
AMD/mt Attachment l
i 5q,
-WEBER 90-44 PDR l
- e. ; -
- ' ;NEWYORKi
+
? STATE.
SENATE 0:a xa 17 Pa 2: 4 ALaANY.NOWYoRK 12247 December 27, 1989 DoHN M McHUoH -
""*'"5" Honorable Alfonse D'Amato
-w'* "Jc1.e=c.
Room $20 o,
Hart Senate Office Building y o,,,
Washington, D. C.
20510
= = = +
Dear Senator D'Amato:
a$
Mo".,#1lE"vn"o*"J".
./
Attached please find a copy of a letter I recently. received c-
- ""'o's",fiE"JsTo.'*c*** *"
from the St. Lawrence County Environmental Management Council ce,'****
regarding the proposals under consideration-by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to exempt certain low-level radioactive acaicavuas
"*" Evn,*u Ps wastes from containment in certified low-level radioactive waste J
T,",
facilities.
As ~ you will note from the text of this O
correspondence, the Council objects to this contemplated action.
Tous5M 1 would-like to take this opportunity to express my interest in this matter.
While I am cognizant of the intentions of the action _ in question, I am concerned about the possible impact of low-level wastes entering the municipal waste stream.
- Clearly, before such exemptions should be extended, a full analysis _of the~ short and long term effects _ of such wastes on local ecosystems needs to be completed.
Without such an understanding, we would be risking the health and welfare of millions of New York State residents.
Thank you for your atention in this matter.
Should you
\\ l desire any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact
\\ \\
me..
i Best wishes.
S neerely,
\\,
\\
Jhh'3cHugh M
46t Senatorial District JMM:fof Enc.
I
W St. Lawrcnco County 1
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL N
Courthouse Conton, N. Y.13617 (315) 379 2281 December 15, 1989 The Honorable John McHugh New York State Senate Albany, NY 12247
Dear Senator-McHugh:
.The St. Lawrence County Environmental Management Council is writing' to you regarding a
matter with potentially serious implications for waste management in New York State.
That matter
~ is the requirement under - Spction - 10 of. the 1985-Low-Level
. (Radioactive Waste Policy Amendmente Act. (P.L.99-240) that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) develop standards and procedures in order to'act on petitions f rom generators to exempt certain low-level radioactive wastes from the requirement to'be sent to licensed low-level radioactive waste facilities.
If ' the NRC implements an exemption policy for these wastes-
- (which. are known as "below regulatory concern" or - BRC wastes),
- radioactive. wastes previously destined for licensed low-level-radioactive waste management f acilities. could be sent instead-to municipal landfills, incinerators and recycling facilities'.
The public would-thereby be exposed to an unnecessary-risk of i'
undetermined magnitude.
1
-St. Lawrence County has, over the past decade, been coming to grips with the problems of responsibly managing its municipal solid
- waste ' ( MSW ).
State regulations and economics have resulted in the
- consolidation of 32 municipal landfills and-dumps into three interim landfills and a waste collection system under the control of the St. Lawrence County Solid Waste Disposal Authority.
The next few years will see a further consolidation into a' centralized waste recycling and disposal system.
Our County's experience
. parallels that of many other municipalities across the Country.
l l
4 4
+--,-.v
~
e
4 Q,
?. 5 IRC: Low-Level'Radiocctivo WOcto t
December 15, 1989
'Page 2'
>The-huge investment of time, energy and money our County has made~1n planning for responsible. waste management has resulted in heightened awareness on the part of the public and their elected officials with regard'to the particular problems associated with-sach component of. the waste stream, such as contaminants in
]
compost, plastic-coated paper mixed in with recyclable paper and certain wastes which should not be burned.
Never in our collective discussions have we contemplated the prospect of radioactive materials fur' her complicating these problems by introducing a new t
source of contamination.
The Environmental Management Council is opposed to the concept of exempting certain low-level radioactive wastes as "below' regulatory concern".
The Council's principal reasons are as follows:
1.
Radioactive wastes defined as " low-level" are separated.
from municipal solid waste at their source, normally.
It makes little sense to intentionally mix these materials in with MSW and thereby relinquish control over their. environmental fate.
In the event that future research demonstrates a problem f rom BRC wastes, it will
-be virtually impossible to remediate contaminated sites.
4 2.
The risk of exposure to radiation from BRC exempted wastes is essentially unknown due to the large uncertainties involved in extrapolating the effects of high radiation exposures-on populations down to effects due to low exposures..
The important point is that exposure due to BRC wastes must represent 1933 risk and this risk is avoidable with proper management in licensed
. facilities.
Exposing the public to even.a small-risk from low-level radioactive waste -(when.that risk is clearly avoidable) is wrong.
3.
Concerns about the high cost of LLRW management should not be allowed to be the motivating force behind. the designation of wastes which are "below regulatory concern".
There will never be source reduction of these l
wastes until the cost of disposal becomes high enough to l'
produce the incentive.
p
.The Environmental Management Council believes that the public should make the policy on the matter of BRC wastes and that policy should then dictate the economics of proper waste management.
The current Federal law begins with the premise that (primarily due to
~
y'..e *,.
l CRC Low-LOvol-Radionctivo W30to December. 15,-1989 Page 3 cost considerations) there needs to be a mechanism for exempting certain LLRW from current regulations and it is up to the NRC (with advice from the public) to choose potential exposure levels which
.will not be perceived as too high.
The current. philosophy in P.L.99-240 is backwards.
The NRC and the public should first determine whether exemptions are gy.gI warranted.
Depending on this policy-decision, the economics of disposing of these wastes will then be determined.
.The St. Lawrence County Environmental Management Council urges you to petition Congress and have Section 10 of the 1985 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (P.L.99-240) rescinded.
We believe that the State and its communities should strive to keep radioactive contaminants to an absolute minimum in municipal solid l
waste.
There should be no exemptions for low-level radioactive
- wastes, j
i Thank you for your attention.
i l
Sincerely, Edward Fuhr, Chairman St. Lawrence County i
Environmental-Management Council 9
f y"'%g UNITED STATES f
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORYECOMMISSION l
'g ***,/
Offica of Public Affairs Washington, D.C. 20555 No.
82-20 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel.
301/492-7715.
(Friday, February 12, 1982)
NRC CITES OPERATORS AT EIGHT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF EMERGENCY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
~ The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has cited operators.of nuclear power plants at eight sites for alleged violations of NRC requirements for the installation and testing of warning devices to be used to alert the public in the. event of an accident.
The staff said that beginning March 1,1982, fines will be proposed for those utilities not in compliance with the NRC requirements.
The fines would be $1000 per day beginning March 1,
. $2,000 per day for utilities not in compliance by' April 1, and $4,000 per day beginning June 1.
The eight sites with plants affected are:
'(1)' -Beaver Valley, Unit 1, located-near Shippingport, Pa., and operated by Duquesne Light Co.:
(2 ). Haddam Neck, near Meriden, Conn, operated by Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. ;
(3)
Indian Point, Buchanan, N.Y., Unit 2, operated by J
Consolidated Edison Co.; and Unit 3, operated by the Power Authority of the State of New York; (4) Millstone, Units 1 and 2, Waterford, Conn..' operated by Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.;
(5) Oyster Creek, Toms River, N.J., operated by Jersey Central Power and Light Co.;
(6)
Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 near Lancaster, Pa.,
operated by Philadelphia Electric Co. ;
(7)
Pilgrim, Unit 1, Plymouth, Mass., operated by Boston Edison Co.; and (8) Rancho Seco, near Sacramento, Calif., operated by Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
I Q
\\
y
- ., f.
~
f
.i
~
NRC regulations state that utility owners of licensed k
. nuclear power plants were to install and test by February 1, 1982, a system to-alert within 15 minutes of an emergency-situation thost. residents living generally within about 10 miles of the plants.
Utility operators at the eight sites-cited for alleged noncompliance with these requirements are receiving a notice of violation, but those that complete installation and testing of-the system by February 28 will not be subject to fines, i
Written responses to the violation notices are due to the NRC within five days of completion of installation and testing of the public notification system or within 30 days, whichever is later.
The NRC intends to consider, in deter-mining whether~there is justification for reducing the daily
-rate of civil penalties, whether the NRC was kept informed of licensee actions to comply with the regulations, compen-satory measures in effect, percent of the system that was completed by. February 1 and degree of effort to complete the system by that date, and any unique-local problems.
9 Identical Press Release sent to:
The Honorable Toby Moffett, Chairman:
Rep. Theodore Weiss cc:. Rep. Joel Deckard Rep. Hamilton Fish Rep. Richard Ottinger The Honorable Richard Ottinger, Chainnan,
Rep. Peter Peyser cc:
Rep. Carlos Moorhead '
Rep. Charles Schumer Rep. Jonathan Bingham l
The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chairman Rep. Samuel Gejdenson cc:
Sen. Gary Hart Rep.. William Hughes Rep. William Goodling The Honorable Morris Udall, Chairman Rep. Richard Schulze cc:
Rep. Manuel Lujan Rep. Gerry Studds Rep. Eugene Atkinson The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Rep. Mario Biaggi cc:
Rep. John T. Myers Sen. Edward Kennedy Sen. Paul Tsongas The Honorable Mark Hatfield, Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter ec:
Sen. J. Bennett Johnston Sen. John Heinz J
Sen. Harrison Williams The Honorable Edward Markey, Chairman Sen. Bill Bradley l
cc:
Rep. Ron Marlenee Sen. Christopher Dodd Sen. Lowell Weicker LSen. Alfonse D'Amato Sen. Daniel Moynihan
=
i A
u d d d h hi& M a i d E b E 5 k5 d.d G S M S h i k G h u ais u k E G $ hs h a k k i d d4:
y
/
i 3Cnifeb States Senate t
March 2, 1981
'Io:
Nuclear Regulatory Comissioh
.1717 H Street, N.W.
Kashington, D.C.
20555 4
TROM: Alfonse D' Aznato United States Senator Because of the desire of this office to
' be re sponsive to all inquiries and cozunanica-tions, y'our consideration of the attached is requested.-
PLEASE TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN 4 WEEKS O?
YOUR RECEII"T CF THIS REQUEST.
YOUR FINDINGS
+
AND VI1!ES, IN DUPLICATE, ALONG WITH RETURN OF THIS MEMO PLUS ' ENCLCSURE, WILL BE APPRECIATED.
Many thanks.
s I
1058030005 AD:ds } l$~ ~ ~ ~ ' K:
N.i} 7~ ;. f. d. /* 3 \\Wh3 I. I ~.p==. K1 -ocoamics0 esacca sa.isee t y '^ Verplanck Fire District D RAc % 3 couwissioNERs sacRETARY ANo TREAsveER WLUAM J.sAYRCs February 19, 1981 Mr. Brian Grimes U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20055.
Dear Mr. Grimes:
The Verplanck Fire District wishes to register grave concern regarding development of-the ' India'n Point Plan' for dealing with emergency situations .at the site of this nuclear plant. It is our understanding that this proposal is currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for possible action by. April 1, and we hope you will take :he fellowing information into . consideration. before making any final determination. Indian Point is within our fire district and we are part of the first line of defense for emergencies occurring at that location, and yet we have never been consulted at any stage in the development of this plan. 1 The one contact we have had with Indian Point was a request for use of our. hall as a media center in case of emergencies, so Consolidated Edison and the State Power Authority who run the nuclear reactors at the site are obviously' aware of our existence. Despite this awareness, we have-never been included in substantive discussions. - or ay discussions, for that matter - regarding omergency response plans. I It seems to us a blatant oversight that we who are in a role obviously crucial l to the handling of an emergency were not consulted on the formulation of response plans. We cannot help but wonder, therefore, just how many other oversights are ' inherent in the plan. In light of the foregoing consideration, we trust you will agree that NRC approval. of this plan without further comunity input would be a highly irrespon-sible action. We work very diligently around the clock and throughout the year to protect the ITves and property in our districts we hope you will assist our ' efforts by rejecting anything less than a comprehensive program that takes into consideration all the individuals and organizations who would be moet affected by an emergency at ' Indian Point. q We look to your support.
- Y' Board o'f Fire Comissioners cca
[* -J. Burns,-Chief Senators: Moynihan and D' Amato Tg r Congressmen: Fish, Ottinger, Peyser fr Westchester County Executive: DelBello ard of Fire Commissioners' .Legis1 Wt 4 bib .2 4 MU** ,W ?s. - - a J
I;.I 3 [.I,s j L <;, .m r gt c. w-3.KJt' "
- ?'*??,'.".Tk.*.'.
h'k:3.'1'. ' **"* 1"*::?.*.':N:.:L D{m.ieb S{a{es Mcualc , "J..:',;,"... :...
- r,lf,.',a..S..a!./;*i.'t..
a a n= o" **" *""^" "'
- At#" 0;';'%n,.
- =5To" c : 2'HS
%L ';*d'".' at ~ r,':';; ?.i'Cl,7"n. *"- %" "I'll!,;";, r'- il55Yhd[" d$b.5h?" March 16, 1981 . C "!!'la'?.".'#'.'.%',1,"l#A*....n i Mr. Joseph Hendrie Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ Acting Chairman N.W. 1717 H Street, 20505 Washington, D.C. 1
Dear Mr. Hendrie:
il in Westchester County, New York, are con h the d by the Emergency Radiological Response Plan-to be adopte d FEMA for the-Indian Point d unworkable. -Nuclear Regulatory Commission annuclear power facility t d I understand that proposed plans are currently at od s dings.. In with local-community expectations and understan equired by the NRC Westchester, emergency response plans rhave been emergency service, or citizen group input. I would-~ appreciate your informing me of your plans to ii s of Westchester take into account the concerns.and crit c sm l to nold residents with' regard to this plan and your efforts l s in. public hearings on the implementation of safety p an f the' country. .New York as well as the rest o Thank you in advance for responding to this-request. .,j Sincerely ,/ o Alfonse D'Amato c United States Senator AD:dgt =ur ye p e i }b i
- g.
'o 3Cniteb States Senate r WAsMINGTON. O C. 30390 May 20, 1981 TO: Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 FROM: Alfonse D' Amato United states senator Eecause of the desire of this of fice to (; be responsive to all inquiries and communica-tions, y our consideration of the attached is reque s te d. - PLEASE TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN 4 WEEKS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS REQUEST. YOUR FINDINGS l-AND VIERS, IN DUPLICATE, ALONG WITH RETURN OF l THIS ME40 PLUS ENCLOSUPE, WILL BE APPRECI ATED. Many thanks. 1139030017 AD:dg ~ B%
=- r. A( 4 11 Audrey Court. gg h4# Malverne, NY 11565 f7 'W Sg-S March 12,-1981 The Honorable-Alphonse D'Amato United States Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20025 i
Dear Senator D'Amato:
When I read the attached' art.icle, I couldn't believe' .my eyes.. j I I have always been of the opinion (naively perhaps) j f that the government basically was concerned with serving f the best interests of the public. The plan expressed in I D [ this article not only is appalling in itself, but makes one wonder what other things are being planned or, in L ' fact, have already been carried out, which not only do not serve the public good but are detrimental to the public good. Enough problems have inadvertaatly been created by radioactive waste without deliberately creating more potentially dangerous situations. .If we are to place our trust in our government, then they must act in a way which merits that trust. j I urge you to do all that you can to prevent this i plan from becoming a reality. i Sincerely, Ut.1& 610, Miriam Hecht 1 l
'4 t AG~D WantSkillets ' K W >n ~ - ~ ~.#4~ ~~6 at 6 Lc.. g a v memmrtaiases.am im't = = i yd.v.se kne, gt will be assa. It sounds Bke a lousy m.. .Th<. t Co.i'S,. 4 ~.n asn { $ a +. M ~ >.:- ~ ~ ~ ~ a+u monmais epa =..,. :. ' C pn OR.o%C.WGSwe,.r.-4n*teT %.,m sei,ayaisb. n.wN. mm* A( .N1 r so= " ~cv s v"r* ~ .w. 4,qJ be ust the Arst step la relaxing the , t...( ~ By Joaot h.M w.c.). .g WW. H.M me)nt's definluce of Y radioncov , y "...%..p...,. ', t.m ...sa.- ..:..., e Enssuwn&sa sierf Aeporier e/ was was, senasr Jousma . ~ ' ' ' "As a hatbinger of things' to come, it makes i The governmeut would like to get rid af me very nervous," says Jan Beyea, sector.. j some radioacuve waste by turning it over to' energy scientist for the Naticeal Audubca { the public. But the bile hardly seerns/m- ' y-P i ' 'l I *9* a' - M L Society ^,. thusiastic about the + A, h r N'.y E. L.m. V' t ' b - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission'is leviate the centry's mounung proble Selling contaminated scrap could help al-considering an Energy Department pmposal to permit the sale of metals that have been yl Iow im! nuclear garbage. It een emW profitable. The NRC estimates that g contaminated at federal nuclear fuel pro, e cessing plants. Once sold, the steel copper nickel and other metals could be 'used 1o' ernment could earn about 80 miluce hta_ nearly anything. The NRC suggests the met. the sale of about 42,000 metric tons of metal ad might be used in automobiles, frying hem wornout machinery at three federal pans, jewelry, surgical pins and dietary sup, nuclear fuel processing piants.; s.q 3. '. piements, such as iron tonic. The potenual radiation doses to todivide-als would vary widely, depending on Abe y .. Outrageous" Ides'* 'm./ 3. s l metal's use, hiost uses would result la expo..- p NRC officials say the ove doesn't pose sure well below the 100 millirems or so that' a health hazard because the radiation in-me typical person receives yearly fran' yl g volved is extremely small. But some people background sources, according 2 the NRC d j aren t happy about the idea that their text environmental report. For instpnoe, the' } frying pan migbt be a httle hot even befom agency calculates that a person working 1 ' g it reaches the stove. The cornmission has al-000 hows a year in a room made d Se ready received about 3,300 written com-metal would receive a radiation dose of 0.05 k ments on the plan - an agency record. milhrem annually. J
- "4*
Ne all express opposition, often.vehe-But wearing a bracelet of c$ritdminated, (s ( "by don't you"just ea C ur radioacuve !,, n.. .a in d h n s. the waste? suggests a writer. Another calls the NRC concedes mat's "relatively high," tt l plan 'one of the more outrageous ideas to says the dose is safe because it "would be J locallaed to the area in contact with the I bracelet" and wouldn't reach vital organs. a SALE! Buy Now and Savel in the case of a tainted belt buckle, the com-y FABULOUS 8 PIECT COOKWARE SET mission says clothing would provide an I Now Every HousehoW a added safety margia. g j can Be a Nuclear Fammy. Here's What Yew Get... - g, g i j The commission also cor.tends that peo-gi' n oe 'lllll"l','"4llll;. ""=*= ple wouldn't have to worry l' the metal were e inside the body. A surgically fitted stainless 'o'*a=='==='==
- ===>
, 0!E'e". *a **.**.L*.*lll.. u steel pin could gtve a dose of 440 millirems a i' i [ year to the adjacent bone, but one centime-i 1 HOEN.T,OE D m .'e* = a=a a aa-- f ter away from the pin, the dose wouM drop I l to 0.01 milltrem. And the carrier would be 8 coon su rwa namaw u m ovoonsvove. an " essentially negligible" radiation source I l aavs asomet. aava emanov. i " *%"",".ll p[y'"ygg ( to others, the NRC says. In its effort to control the garbage prob-i g lem, the commission recently approved a a i I plan to exempt some wastes from strict bur-A Sah. ical Ad tal rules. There are only three sites-in Ne-r vada, Washington State and South Carolina come out of idiouc bureaucrats." A third -for storing low level radioactive waste. wonders whether some NRC official is in the IAcal politicians and citizens' groups have scrap-metal business. been pressmg to limit the flow of trash to Scientists involved in radiation health those dumps. matters also express concern. Although The new burial rule, which goes into el-none has studied the specifle proposal and feet soon, will allow medical wastes, such as all say the potential radiation sounds small, testing liquids and animal carcasses con-some scienusts contacted about the plan say taining small amounts of radioactivity, to any uncontrolled release of even low level n be dumped in local landfills. The commis-radiation is risky. sion says the material represents about 15% i of the waste that went to the three federal burial sites last year. Each year, about 18.- 000 dogs and 500.000 smaller animals are it i doactively contaminated in medical re-search.
e, \\ ( y r JUN 8 1981 T.hs Honorable 'Alfonse D' Amato
- 3 United States Senate L
Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator D' Amato Thank you for your letter dated May 20, 1981 on behalf of your constituent, Miriam Hecht, concerning amendments now under consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission to exempt from licensing and regulatory requirements-technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium as residual contamination in any smelted alloy. The rul'saking in question was originally undertaken by the Comission at the request of the Department of Energy and pursuant to a 1974 amendment (P.L. 93-377) to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954. The rulemaking would permit the recycling of scrap metal from discarded equipment at DOE's l uranium enrichment plants. This scrap metal is sometimes contaminated with small. amounts of byproduct or special nuclear material resulting from the enrichment process. This contamination cannot practically be removed but is considered too insignificant to constitute a radiation health or safety pmblem. L Until Congress amended the AEA in 1974, it was necessary for the Comission to issue a specific license for the possession of this type of radioactive . material, no matter how small the quantity. In amending the Act, Congress gave the Commission the authority to exempt minute quantities of special nuclear material from its licensing requirements if it finds that a licensing exemption "will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the conrnon defense and security and to the health and safety of the public." We would like to emphasize that under the proposed amendments persons who smelt scrap contaminated with technetium-99 or low-enriched uranium or who are the first transferors of such smelted alloy would not be exempt from licensing requirements. Such persons would be under license and would be required to submit a description of the decontamination and smelting procedures and sampling and analytical procedures to be used. This would assure that the smelted alloys subs'equently to be used under the exemption meet the proposed maximum contamination limits. It also should be noted that the scope of the exemption is narrow permitting only the. technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium as the contaminants. Contami-nants such as plutonium, high-enriched uranium or other transuranics are not included in the exemption. The Tc-99 and low-enriched uranium would be minor constituents (less than 5 parts per million (ppm) and 17.5 ppm, respectively) of representative samples of smelted alloys. 4//74& Ar$- ~ .,,,,,,,,,,,,1 ~A ~~ un .............l,
- w. g
- l r o s- -i. r MUN 8 ggg; i 2 The resulting levels of contamination would be at or below those of many products commonly in use which contain traces of unenriched uranium. For example, most building materials contain some traces of uranium (granite, 4.7 ppm; cement. 3.4 ppm; by-product gypsum,13.7 ppm). Dental porcelain, used in making false teeth, has been found to contain from 10 to 990 ppm uranium. The HRC upper limit for unimportant quantities of unenriched-urantun is 500 ppm. There is essentially no difference in the nature of the radioactivity emitted from this unenriched uranium and the low-enriched uranium being considered for exemption. The NRC staff has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in support of the proposed rule. Without the exemption, thousands of tons of government-owned nickel, copper, iron and steel scrap would have to be disposed of as radioactive waste at substantial cost to the taxpayers. If exempted, this metal could be smelted down and resold for in excess of $40 million. Further, energy sayings from recycle have been estimated at the equivalent of about 170,000 barrels of crude oil or 30,000 Mg of coal. By comparison with these benefits, the risk of cancer from release and unrestricted use of the entire inventory of smelted alloy is estimated to be considerably less than one. This means that it is highly unlikely I that the recycled alloy would cause even one cancer in one person in the total U.S. population. Notice of the proposed rule was made in the Federal Register and the press on October 27, 1980. The coment period expired December 11, 1980. L Over 3,300 public coments were received. Coments will be reviewed and l addressed in the Final EIS before-any' decision is made by the Commission l on promulgation of a final rule, i Your interest in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, i l Carlton Kamerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs Esclos'ure! ~ NUREG-0518 ~~ i " " ' * ' >..... QC A......... sunwawc)..... Kent : rd........... '... "...... ".. '... .............,l DATE) NAC FORM 3te no 80'NRCM C2dC A 5" Bl" l F I A I D E" t"' A D N ("' A DV - ute.>. u s, i
.. ~ -. - ~. - - rg g. - 7, ; ....' [ + 31Cnifeb Stafes Senate w AS M INGTCN. D.C. 40660 January 8, 1982 c-TO: Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 t FROM: Alfonse D'Amato United States Senctor Because of the desire of.this office to 'be responsive to all inquiries and communica-tions, your consideration of the attached is 4 requested. 3 PLEASE TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN 4 WEEKS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS REQUEST. YOUR FINDINGS AND VIEWS, IN DUPLICATE.-ALONG WITH RETURN OF THIS MEMO PLUS ENCLOSURE, WILL BE APPRECIATED. Many thanks. l l-L 2007050006 AD:dg 6
i h,**^ 1 i h.I J -* g [ U-WillaBe af Karfl Katlen ) i gy ry ::;. ;;- 3: F P. 'o. sox 1 toe. l SAo HAmsom. New -YORK 11963 m.m. December 11, 1981' l L Hon. Peter. F. Cohalan * -Suffolk County Executive Veterans Memorial 1 Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
Dear Mr. Cohalan:
Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1981 in which you ad-viseithat the Suffolk County Planning _ Department is in the-process of developing an evacuation plan for the South Fork s of Long-Island in the event of a nuclear accident at the Shore-ham ~ Nuclear Power Station. ~ Please be. advised that this writer is absolutely appalled that the Federal Government permitted the Long Island Lighting Company .to commence the construction of a nuclear power-station-before it'was ascertained whether it will be feasible to evacuate the South Fork in case of a nuclear accident. e You are'therefore urged to act immediately'on the following: 1. As" County Executive,-to do everything in your power to halt the construction of the Shoreham. Nuclear-Power Station. 2. To schedule a meeting with Senator Moynihan, Senator Alfonse D'Amato and Congressman Carney together with-the government officials of the east end of Long Island so we may discuss the necessity of calling for a congressional investigation of the Nuclear-Refulatory Agency for their gross negligence in this matter. In closing, Mr. Cohalan, is it reasonable to think that there is aLpossibility that the Suffolk County Planning Department is i stTTLED OUT t.AsT ON LONO ISLAND IN 1665 AND 1NCORPORATED IN 1933 t-
m h 7 0* N O.. g.f.** r -.
- Hon. Pdtor F. Cohslon 2.
D3combar 11, 1981' s HL o being pressured to tailor the feasibility of an evacuation plan to accommodate the fact that the-Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is.854 completed, especially when the Long Island-Lighting Company is footing the bill for this plan? Best wishes for the Holiday Season, f Sincerely, k / ). &blbcw ^ RICHARD G. McCOLLUM, ! Chairman RGMcC/ged Planning Board cc: Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato Hon. William Carney Hon. Kenneth P. LaValle Hon. John L. Behan Gregory Blass, Legislator Martin Lang, Supervisor Town of Southampton Mary A. Fallon, Supervisor Town:of-East Hampton Ferdinand Runco, Mayor Village of Sag Harbor Roy L.-Wines, Mayor' Village of Southampton Douglas E. Dayton, Mayor Village of East Hampton Irving.Like, Esq. Dr. Lee E. Koppelman 3 Mr..Karl H. Grossman 1 j l i 1 l o. I i 4 1
7, 'C .- pas;g( UNITaD STATBS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N e [ WASHINGTON D. C. 20508 k L,q @# % [ FE ek The Honorable Alfonse D' Amato ed States Senate i Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator D'Amato:
This recponds to your letter of January 8,1982 wherein you forwarded a December ll,1981 letter from Mr. Richard G. McCollum expressing his concern with the feasibility of evacuating the South Fork of Long Island in the event of a nuclear accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, and-indicating that the Suffolk County Planning Department-is developing an evacuation plan which includes that area. u It is our understanding that the detailed evacuation plans for Suffolk County do.not include the South Fork area since it lies well beyond the 10 mile plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone'(EPZ). However..some-consideration was given to the South Fork area in that one of the east-west roads outside of the EPZ was " reserved" for persons who may wish to leave that area. This road was excluded from the evacuation plans _for use by potential evacuees from the EPZ. As a matter of information, evacuation is only one of-the various protective action strategies that copld be taken in the event of a serious accident. In fact, for most of the serious low-probability events., we envision that sheltering would be the more desirable action from a risk-benefit viewpoint. Even for the most serious type release, sheltering followed by a more leisurely relocation may be the optimum choice of protective measures. Here again, as in most disaster situations, the actual measures to be taken at the time of the-event will be influenced by the many variables that bear on the decision-making process. In the case of a nuclear power plant, such factors would include the release characteristics, meteorological conditions, operational time constraints, and the availability of shelter faciltties. The NRC considers it highly un11kely that evacuation wouTd be required as e a protective measure for.the plume exposure pathway beyond the 10 mile EPZ. This position is reflected in the enclosed NRC-Policy Statement published in 'the Federal Register on October 23, 1979 (44 FR 61123), and is discussed in detail in a joint NRC/ EPA Task Force Report (NUREG-0396, copy enclosed) which was endorsed by the Commission for use by State and loca.1 governments. Experience shows that evacuations are a relatively common event in this country. In fact, the records show, at least since 1960, that an evacuation takes place somewhere in the U. S. on almost a weekly basis. The number of people evacuated in these events has ranged from a few to hundreds of thousands and some have occurred in high density urban and suburban 'U
1 W 'The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato EP ' is ' C areas. One. evacuation occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1968 where 150,000 persons were evacuated in two hours. Another occurred in Wilkes-Barre Pennsy)vania in 1972 where 75,000 persons were evacuated in five hours. Also, the metropolitan business district of downtown Portland, Oregon with a population of 101.000 persons and a population density approaching that of New York City, was evacuated in less than one hour during a Civil Defense test exercise in 1955. One of the largest evacuations in our history took place in 1961 as a result of hurricane Carla where over 500,000 people were evacuated from the States of Texas and Louisiana. Even though these are just a few examples. we consider that large scale evacuations are indeed feasible, and are a viable option depending on the constraints imposed by the actual conditions at the time of the emergency. We appreciate having this opportunity to respond to the concern of. Mr. McCollum and hope that this information will be of value to him. -l Sincerely, l '[5TmO T. A. Re'im William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
DISTRIBUTION: 1. NRC Policy Statement' IE Files dtd. October 23, 1979 - i (44 FR 61123) EPLB Reading 2. NUREG-0396 NRC PDR (w/ incoming) 3. Incoming Letter Local PDR (w/ incoming) WDircks HRDenton-GCunningham LUnderwood RCDeYoung JSniezek BGrimes SSchwartz FPagano DMatthews RPriebe SWelch EPeyton BMatosko PBrandenberg (EDO-11398) SECY (82-27)
- For previous concurrences IE:D/DIR:DEP OCA (3)
OCA see attached ORC
- SSchwartz 2/1/82 2/
/82 IE:EPLB IE:EPLS IE:EPLB IE: / P ./DIR IE:D EDO
- RPriebe:espf*DMatthews
- FPagano B'
is J ezek RC g WDircks 1/29/82 1/29/82 ' 1/29/82 2/ 2-/82 2/ /82 2/> /82 2/ /82
p !!ay 5,1983 Enclosed for your infornation is a copy of the order just issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission pertaining to the Indian Point nuclear power plents. Also enclosed are copies of the prepared statements of Chaimen Palladino, Comissioner Ahearna and Comissioner Roberts. Comissioners Gilinsky and Asselstine did not have prepared statements. original signed by: Edward Fay Carlton Kamerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs l 1DENTICALLY SENT TO: Sen. Alan Simoson / Sen. Gary Hart Rep. Richard Ottinger / Rep. Carlos Moorhead Rep. Morrit Udall / Rep. Manuel Lujan Rep. Edward Markey / Rep. Ron Marlenee Rep. Richard Ottinger Rep. Benjamin Gilman Rep. Hamilton Fish . Rep. Ted Weiss Rep. Geraldine Ferraro Rep. Charles Schumer Rep. Mario Biaggi Sen. Daniel Moynihan Ji.e.n. Alfonse D' Amato Rep. Tom Bevill / Rep. John T. Myers Sen. Mark 0. Hatf' eld / Sen J. Bennett Johnston )-h&S. O & j~~~~~~ ..... O.C A ...g...O.g. A...... C emen) ....h..........
- g.......
9 g . su:nm) ...g..g.j.g.....f... .. g.j.g.j.g.g.......... j j C;'.TE ) a...**.aaa.**.****=*
- .********.....a'..
.a..*******...'.a.*.*." n.m,-,e i s.
- e. m m m
- c. n, v
UNITEDSTATESOFkHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N 14 APR 30 P2*d9 Comissioners: Nunzio J. Palladino, Chainnan S. c, Victor Gilinsky Thomas M. Roberts James K; Asselstine ' Frederiek M. Bernthal SEVE) APR 3 0B84 In the Matter of L0i44 ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 8 Docket No. 50 322-OL-4 (ShorehamNuclearGenerating (Low Power) Plant., Unit 1) ORDER On April 25, 1984, the hearing of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducting the proceedings on operation of the Shoreham plant at low power was enjoined by order bf the United States District Court for the ~ District of Columbia. The Comission has now reviewed the question of how the issues involved in that proceeding may most suitably be addressed, and has determined as follows: 1. The schedule adopted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the conduct of the shoreham low power proceeding is hereby vacated. 2. The Comission will hold oral argument on May 7,1984, at 9:30 a.m. in the Comission's hearing room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., on the applicability of the General Design Criteria (in particular. GDC 17) to the proposal of the Long Island Lighting Company to operate the
t ) Shorehar. facility at low power. Ir. particular, the oral argucents should l address the following questions: (1)' The Board's Order states that if public protection at low power operation without the diesel generators required for full power operation is equivalent to (or greater than) the protection afforded to the public at full power operation with such approved generators, then LILCO's motion for low power authorization should.be granted. In these circumstances, what justification is there for waiving the { emergency preparedness requirements applicable to full power j operation? (2) What is the legal basis for holding that General Design l Criterion 17 is not applicable for low power operation?. Would this argument apply to other criteria? (3) What would be the technical justification for authorizing low power operation without the onsite electric power system required bf GDC 177 What would be the basis of any calculation or judgment l that protection to the public at low power under these circumstances ~ l would be greater than or equal to public protection at full power? 3. The Comission intends to make a prompt decision on the applica-bility of the General Design Criteria to low power operation at Shoreham. \\ 4 The Comission will allow a reasonable period of time after that decision for the parties to prepare themselves for any subsequent hearing which may be held. 5. In the event that such a hearing is held, the Comission will establish a reasonable schedule for prehearing a:tivities and for the
3 i c I hearing.*., Coments by the parties on schedules will be entertained at tne t May 7,1984 oral argument. 6. Any written comments on 'the issues in this order must be in the Coassission's hands by noon on. Friday, May 4,1984. I We recognize that this schedule calls for some expedition on the part i of the parties. However, in view of the fact,that the parties have already Briefed and argued most or all of these matters before the Licensing Board, l we believe that this schedule is not unduly burdensome. i This order replaces thg unpublished order of which the parties were advised by telephone on April 26, 1984. l Connissioner Roberts dissents from this Order. His separate coments are attached. It,is so ORDERED. F the Comission. c, e 5AMUEL p..IH;.LK .) ./.Secrptary ofl t.he Comission ,g %++
- Dated at Washington, D.C.
this b a',' of April,1984. v
April 30.19M 0155tWTING VIEWS OF COMMIS$!MER RMERTS M SHOREHAM Having voted with a majority on April 23rd not to take the extraordinary action of stepping into the proceeding at this juncture merely to correct scheduling disagreements between the Licensing' Board and certaiN of the parties that can be taken up' on appeal'if pesse r that stage. I am disinclined to alter ny' view simply because the U.S. District Court has issued, on perceived " Constitutional" grounds, a temporary restraining order. Unlike the present majority, I would await the Court's decision on a preliminary injunction before taking any additional action other than to issue the Order which the entire Comissich ' approved on April 26th. However, the present majority (the former minority and two members of the former mtjority) after hearing a report from the General Counsel on the arguments before Judge Gesell decided to withdraw that order and issue the present order instead. One result, of this action by the present majority was withdrawal by Commissioner Asselstine of the additional views _.that he.had. planned.to issue with the Order that was approved on ANil.26th. I refuse'to succumb to the pressures, both internal and external, which have resulted in this latest action by the ma,iority. - - ~ ~ - ~
, j i l 4/30/84 IDENTICAL NOTICE SENT T0: i i + Sen. Alan Simpson /.cc: Sen. Gary Hart Rep. Richard Ottinger / cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead Rep. Morris Udall / cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan Rep. Edward Markey / cc: Rep. Ron Marlenee i Sen. Daniel Moynihan /Sen. Alfonse D'Amato i -Rep. William Carnef i Rep. Thomas Downey Rep. Robert Mrazek ( Rep. Joseph Addabbo 4 4 3 I I
g DISTRIBUTION EDO 001333 WEThe son FC Co...ral Files M4SS R/F 37 - 562 -1 FCUF R/F JAN 31886 EDO R/F BClausser CCudd VStello ' /utXS. JGDavis /TheHonorableA1'fonseD'Amato DBMausshardt ~ Unnted States Senator RECunningham Suite 1635 SECY (3) One Penn Plaza OCA New York, New York 10001 WTCrow JRCook
Dear Senator D'Amato:
CEMacDonald Your memorandum to the Environmental Protection Agency on the behalf of your constituent, Mr. Jamie Valentino, has been forwarded to us for reply. Mr. Valentino expressed concerns about even the smallest chance of an accident - during spent nuclear fuel shipments through New York City. Mr. Valentino was particularly concerned about the possibility of a 1 percent leak from a spent fuel cask. Some years ago, it had been estimated that about 1 percent of the radioactive noterial in the cask could be released as a result of a deliberate act of sabotage. Since then, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) has employed a laboratory to perform actual tests of the use of various types of explosive attacks on spent fuel casks. After the tests, it was found that the worst damage resulted in only 0.0006 percent'of the radioactivity being released in a respirable fom. Calculations of the worst possible consequences of this type of attack indicate that over the next 30 years after a sabotage incident j the results would cause no fatalities and a maximum of 14 cases of cancer in the total population. We are enclosing a copy of an article from the Bulletin of the Internatical Atomic Energy Agency which provides additional information on the safety of spent fuel shipments. Mr. Valentino also asked about making spent fuel shipments by barge. The NRC has no objection to shipments by barge; in fact, the agency's regulations do not indicate preference for one mode of shipment over another as long as the requirements are met. I hope that this information will be helpful. Sincerely. p eg)T.A. Ret"* CC '" Victor Stello, Jr. Mft/G///* ) Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1. IAEA Journal Article 2. Incoming infomation request memorandum o 'See previous concurrence sheet j .I[..I..........[.I......I......[. .......[......I ... h.. tAMEtWThompson/as:WCrow
- JCook :CMacDonald:DC pell:RCunningham:DMausshardt:
is:VStello 3aTEt1/?3/86
- 1/23/86 :1/24/_86:1/24/86
- 1/ /
- 1/4/86
- 1 86
- 17f/86:1/ /86
- - -. -.. -. - - -... _.. -... ~.. w.. Nh0UUhh7 r... .m._, 3Cnileb hies heels 87 - 558 -8 m ea ami. 4#. QJhP4Mi & W lY W ' nieY 5 % e AM 90Wys% M to*e7 i ta0N: Alfonse D'Amato United states senator tessuse of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and co.munica-tions, your consideration of the attached is i 6 requested. PLEASE TRY TO M! POND WITHIN 4 WEEKS OP YOUR FINDINGS l AND VIEWS. IN DUPLICATE. htM VITM R.,.wiu, OF THIS MEMO PLUS ENCLOSURE. WILI.'SS APPRECIATED. SEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS MATTER-DIRECTLY TO WT NEW YORK CITT OFFICE. SUITE t i635. ONE PENN PLA2A. WEW YORK. NEW TORN .19.t11.. AD nom t 1 i' .-- 001333 EDO +
e 87 - 562 -3 s '4 \\' =. ih e .k $ o9 b-45..@ o n d Ld /w. .r /P5 M a,le.y (e p. I, g . %o k\\p.'9N... nm Ei 7?pW. 4 /the s. N A. L, j ,adb g .2M. &d49,. l, %.,.h C. a w o ...:.i ..v. k m.......l a.<e b. Y J M.'.. .,- l . _r - . bbk um.. g 0-on n .... }ge &. As. L ya 4 M " A u. 4 o d e k u._ A ~, x>u #Jg &Lom s a w%..d.L 4.u.a. 9s.. au t 6 A. en.A .a, ms J ....W o.% on 14 de ? 4 A .pk..h ~ % u M cm t/v. ) 1As. do qs 4a =, u.NL ew A %) k 9Y as y
- a. 6
. % m. % eg. k 3 A .A 4 m.J b qaLn. n sk.a ~ y $6 e aed A d d 4o M- -.== _ ^ ^ " M LEJ A "
l 87 - 562 4 g.. p g x- &nt n us - A ub )m naA a L > n A12.. _L, u s 2,!h ..H L s om 9 k 'a Itoo E $ m L L.A aid ~ ~ Yi h M im k+. ln. no AlY n siz 001 _m i m 0J Mi mi.ms A _b U m Ab U Ai ou t... Ac.U om /m h S_, f. - ) F~ m L _.x A \\ ue,..----.-...:...._\\l., A 1 _._t,I,y g.a, 0. g,.g,: /$AA \\KQ 2M F h We N s_u h k ( 1.u. n -t h.6 & ~ M 41 Lu? w~w d a u u., -s8 w4 r 0 $E 6AsNm ~ we, n n m 1= W % i, L U,, a _ JA d & l@ & L~a L.w % -m &J ,,L. WE M bAw!N, Ars n))s. l h,h3 /J Al 1 3 AniA Q.A.6,u Mk lA3 Ah fm ' + A a L,,, A 54 ) w-weYa \\
- O
/) o /AeltA [/ UAM o l h \\.0 M i n n l $3 D - N/ ~ ,g w l l i l ,.s 4.,. .u -*- -Lama---
i 87 562 -5 " ~ ' ' ..... m u e a:.:s a i u. h l 5.. '.. f h'$*,f
- 5h. o W~ '
.Nf?M i r b i l Honorable Altenne D'Amato United States Senate l Wachi ng ton, D.C. 20510 4 n Dear Senator D' Amato This is in response to your recent letters addressed to thieu i of fice and to our Washington utfice on behalf of your semist'itasats-Mr. Jamie Yalentino, concerning nuclear waste transport -threngt l !aew York City. At thic time, the U.S. Environme ntal Protestise* *: ' Agency (EPA) has no regulatory authority ever the transportaties ~- of nuclear waste. The l' adoral agencias involved with the s-regulation of this matter ares the Department of Transpprtaties, (DOT) which regulates carriers ot nuclear waste and the Amelear'! Regulatory Comminzion (!1RC) which regulates the containers la' which cuch waste is chipped. The Departeent of ::nergy (DOS) is responsible for dusigning shipping containers f or high-level nuclear waste. i ) In the late 1970's, CPA was involved peripherally with this ic.vue when the COT, liRC, and DCE reviewed their rcgulatory programs and the onvironmental impact of dealing with nucfoar waste chip-Lased on the past work deno by these rederal agencies, l monts. CPA believed the transportaticn of nucicar wasta through urban areas such as tiew York City is adequately regulattd. In order to provice you with the most r :,ce nt technical and regula tory inscreation on this matter, your letter hao coen ref erred to l l-the foll; wing Federal agenci.a with ecepon 1bility in this area: a '~ [ ] N[bk)..%rricon, Manager ..tra.asportation operation a nd Traf fic Q.ShDepart.nor.t et Energy Wash 1%gtonc D'.C. 20585 (301)353-53G3 L l Mr. Jc,hn G. Davis, Director i\\ Offiew of :!ucicar :1ateriala safety and safejuards U.S. !!ucicar negulatory Ccmmisrion Wechington, D.C. 20555 (301)427-4063 t-l
.v q ,,s ? 87-562-6 ) I g t 2 !!r. Richard R. Rawl, Chief Radioactive Materials Eranch l Material: Trancportation Bureau Office of' Hazardous !!aterials Regulation l U.S. Department of Transportation Wa s hi ng to n, D.C. 20590 (202)455-2311 I trust that this is rasponsive to your inquiry on behalf of Mr. Valentinv. Your concern for cur anvironment is appreciated. Sincerely, I ,fd C2:rlstophw A Dar-:t Christopher J. Daggett 1 Regional Administrater i ect Ccem16sionvr 1:erity G. Williamt Hww York Stato Department c2 C nvironmental Conservation Commissioner David Axelrcd !;cv York Stato Lopartment et Esalth l Roy F. Carrison, Hut.ager
- 'ransportation Operation and Traf fic, 00E John G.
Davis, Director offico wi 1:ucicar Naterials Safety one safeguards, NRC ilictiard R. EnWl, Chici Racacactivo Materidio Drar:ch, OCT k I F -+
87 - 521 -4 [ April 8, 1985 Atoute Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conaission di Washington, D.C. 205$5 12: Shoreham Nuclear Pouer Station H Unit I Docket No. 50-332-OL-3 f (Emergency Planning) Centleneur A As the Mayor of Glen Cova 1 as also a Supervisor of the County of Massau. Correspondence has been received from individuals concerned with the Shoreham openings specifically regarding the use of the Wassau County Veteraa's Memorial \\Yd Colisoun as part of a proposed emergemey plaa. 9=% My review of the correspondence morely indicates that the County Executive would make any and all County f aellities =L available for any energency whether within Nassau County or for use by others that are not County residents. Any legal agreement between the County of 1,tassau and any ' individual, business etc. aust be approved by tho' Board of Supervisogs before the County Buecutive can sign a specific contract. I As of this time. the Board has not received any assorandue or correspendeans, ats. from the County Exacutive indicating that he seeks their approval for a contract between LILCO and the 4 County for use of the Wassau County-Veteraa's Colleeum. The Charter of Nassau County is very clear as to its intent. The following saamerates the powers of the Board as set forth La lhe Cessay Charter (Seation 103(b) : . make rules and regulations, by ordinance, covering the use of...any sounty owned or county =' leased property..." As the governing body of Nassau County, the Board of Supervisors must act under procedures set f orth in $ 105(1) of the Charter, which states that the Board "...ehall not only by ordinance or resolution. 50... f ranchise or privilese (she&& be) senateds seat property es acanty a&&emat$,,eaege a by,esdhaease,*. Nf&e%Gfl%q$^) i
... _ _... ~ _. _
- ,..O 87 -
521 -5 i See slee Charter $2206 which provides that upon execution of an agreenes't, centreets must be filed with the Board's sterk together with the "ordinanse...upon which the right to make such a contract-rests." l Further support for requiring legislative approval of the county esecutive's deciates to allow LILC0 to use the coliseum is l found in $2103 of the Charter. This eestion gives the Board of Supervisore the power to regulate the goe of eeunty parks, play- ) i grounda, athletic fields, and recreation seaters. { In conclusion, there is no legal agreement between Nassau County and LILSO regarding the use of thin f acility. 8% ente you
- h. ave any further questions, please contact es.
Sincerely, VI!! CENT A. SUOREI VAS/1k Mayor and Supervisor cet Epa. Hannah Komanoff I t l l L l e ~' s-
..~;. .=.a u
- u..v.m.:... r.a an.a. a.a.~a.mxm.u..
.a;.: y.-~.+.... lt 4 q ! 4 At.poNst O. p*AIAATO 07 *' 401 "2 L.. wwvan Mitti $tates 5tnate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 June 4, 1986 The Honorable Munzio J. Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 ) t Dear Mr. Chairman As you know, an issue of ongoing concern to Long Island, New York, residents has been FEMA's recent actions with respect to the Shoreham nuclear power plant. FEMA has' refused to hold a public, post-exercise meeting to receive citizen input regarding the evacuation plan required to be developed, tested, and certified before the Shoreham nuclear power plant can begin full-scale operation. I ask that the Commission intervene to request that FEMA conduct this public meeting in accordance with Part 350 of their regulations. By letters dated March 27, 1986, and April 3,1986, I requested General Becton, Director of FEMA, to conduct this public meeting. Copies of my letters and FEMA's reply are enclosed for your-convenience. You will note that FEMA has refused this request. I do not believe that FEMA should be permitted to deny residents living near Shoreham the same' rights it has afforded citizens living near Ginna, Indian Point, and other nuclear facilities. I believe this is an insult to thoce living near Shoreham. Currently, FEMA's Post-Exercise Assessment is before the PRC. I ask that the NRC not consider FEMA's Assessment until the standard public meeting is held. I ask that the NRC return FEMA's Assessment with the direction that a new Assessment be prepared after the required public meeting is held and the essential.public input received. Nothing short of that can fulfill the Commission's responsibility to the public on Long Island. Uhen FEMA's Region II Director, Frank Petrone, resigned from FEPA, he expressed concern over FEMA headquartero' failure to permit him to hold a public meeting at Shoreham. Public participation is not something to be used by FEMA only when it serves that agency'c convenience or some public relations purpose. In.the Soviet Union, the people of Chernobyl did not have the L chance to participate as our Constitution guarantees United States ~ citizens. In the wake of Chernobyl, the value of the right of public participation is more evident than ever. li
?., 87 - 431 3 The Honorable Nunzio Palladino June 4, 1986 Page 2 Finally, I have reviewed the supplementary motion filed on June 3 by New York State, Suffolk County, and the Tcwn of Southampton. There is no conceivable reason why the Commission should not grant their reasonable request for FEMA to conduct its standard public meeting. The fact is that FEMA's stubbornness has put the NRC in the position of having to make an important decision without proper input and information. The only proper course for the NRC is to face FEMA's omission squarely and to correct it promptly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, f , -, 2>- A onte D'Amato U States Senator AD:ent cc: General Julius Becton I r
354-2l a E 47 - aclo (. , Aposs.eamAnnato e-e v E E l NMhE Nk' l wAsHwaroN,oc nosto e l i 3 July 25, 1986 I The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman i Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW Washington, D'.C. 20555
Dear Chairman tech:
I am writing regarding the NRC's Decision CLI-86-13 issued on July 24, 1986. Although I realize it is up to the NRC to interpret its regulations, I am writing to let you know of my serious concerns with this decision. The Governor of New York and the County Executive-of Suffolk County both have stated emphatically that under no circumstances would they cooperate with LILCO in planning or conducting an evacuation drill for the Shoreham nuclear power plant, nor would they participate in any independently developed and tested LILCO emergency plan. Nevertheless, without a hearing, you have i rejected these statements and have.made conclusive findings to l the contrary. 1 The experiences of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have taught us that ad hoc responses to emergencies are not acceptable. The NRC's own rules adopted after Three Mile Island made that clear. As Commissioner Asselstine indicated in his dissenting views, the Commission's decision "... endorses the idea that a nuclear plant may be allowed to operate without state and local . government participation in or. cooperation with emergency planning. This decision, in effect, takes the ' planning' out of emergency planning and, thereby, undermines the foundation upon which our emergency planning regulations are based. The Commissions' decision is riddled with assumptions which seem to be supported by nothing more than wishful thinking.' The decisions of New York and Suffolk County not to adopt or implement emergency plans constitute the exercise of their police powers. The courts have upheld these decisions. I urge you to respect and accept these decisions.
I[ t 87 - 354 -3 J The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. July 25, 1986 Page Two The. Commission has traditionally recognized the importance of State and local participation in che emergency planning process. To say that the State and local governments will somehow magically be able to participate in the event of an actual emergency is simi]ar to saying that a person who has never 1 earned to swim car. rescue a drowning man simply because it is an emergency. They may want to help, but they would not know how. If an emergency necessitating an evacuation were to occur, we would need trained professionals dealing with it, not amateurs. For the NRC to ignore this fact and simply pretend that everything will work out is grossly irresponsible. This serious decision regarding the health and well-being of the citizens of Long Island must not be taken lightly. I believe that, under these circumstances, in a severe emergency the people could not be protected. ! urge the NRC not to disregard this fact. i Sin
- rely,
) Alfo M. D'Amato United States Senator AMDienm S
, ;A. I l g pxn.&.r 'x(% k? Nw [al, hj l@.h D' n Ja=ag7 v b&Li'c.srs,USNRC kh ug n,.b c. Jo s~sT bu Sir : m,6 h arc <. j am Jf J fr l't 0h ID U411 'I bO'O # D I#J s/uc! fu /t w{ ad on__ ab ka)<. Soda 5 b u oro u_.ss"tj, tL l uks ' we swa ut y c a " lw L uo m all, a u ki,lt. .} idso /e&d r d coach e loco & Inc h ah a ph wa / L % %L ' wcok
.A f 3-i. l a "/w L l u i> ua.>h. 7 wu we, bg>vt ' b$C's i tu aupwl ~ 10 c = R ?cd 61 a (Y 'Ibt0 tot]"rakucahn tom;-< lbf )1%.DDt. c BN; IW (LtL I L D(O C, C 6Yl w ] 00 D,eA/15 t j ) ) f P l,, w ce n ow uwc ta t nm e 14w lovY bt. 4}cuacow) anc cuwc gav, a grono y 1 s i 4-Ya CLC1 n W' ) r lt% )L htM1-brf I)A loitg- /cml 1-b ? r-W %x.. an. /19 v Dru to d At / R 0 e A b $[0 b or. t om a p. h pghu dcur 9" gp gg e -w ,-o +
I e a JOHNKS W n anee.neri,s Enited $tatts $tnatt-wAsMINGToN, DC 20610 l October 28, 1987 i The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
- Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
As you know, on October 23rd a number of our House i Colleagues wrote to the Commission requesting that the NRC make public a log of all of the communications and related documents since October 13, between the senior NRC staff and outside parties on the subject of the Commission's proposed change to its emergency planning regulations. l It is our belief that their request was a reasonable I one, particulary in light of the seriousness of the issue at hand. The proposed rule change represents a significant action on the part of the Commission. It has attracted a I widespread attention and an unp; ea dented number of comments from the public.- We agree with our House Colleagues that any l. NRC communications with outside parties regarding the rule j, should in fact be available and open to the full American j public. We also believe that full and complete disclosure of such a public log is key to maintaining public faith in the i regulatory process. We therefore urge the Commission to comply fully with the request to make public its communications before the Commission votes on the matter of a 5 new rule._ Sincerely, I / ) %QILaw.f I [n] L. v l -l l.. 10/30...To- 0GC for Signature of Chai rman...Date due: 11/9...RF, OCA'to Ack Docket mrs.. 87-1258. }lS5 .#whatf,4v-~.
o October 28, 1987 1 Page Two C ^ ,w w ( W 1 l l } a e i i 4 t 4 1 -+ .m.. _ - ~,..-,..
It '4. I i l %bb States Smale April 20, 1989 Respeetfutar roterred tes-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N. U. Washington, DC 20555 Re Heary Bros. Lightning i Protection Co.. Inc. j Because of the desire of this office to be responstve to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplieste form, along with return of the enclosure, will be apprestated by my Buffalo, New York office. @A"O0+4 U.S.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato re,,, FederalBuilding 111 W.HuronStreet p i,_ A ; 4 _ Room 620 . vrr =tt'T* 2 ) Buffalo,NewYork 14202 0 I (716) 846-4111
a' ^ JAccxLc, FLetocHMANN & MuccL ATTonwtys AT law NonstAm BuiLeewsp TwstvtFouwvAiw P6A A sunALo, New Yonn 642o2 2222 ....s..o.oo e u=oa a sostem April 19, 1989 l no,.e. HAND DELIVER s i Senator D'Amato 111 West Huron { Buffalo, New York 14202 Ret Edwin W. Henry Hearv Bros. Lichtnina Protection Co., Inc. t
Dear Senator D'Amato:
a I am writing to you on behalf of one of your i constituents who has been a loyal supporter in the past. Specifically, Ed Henry of Henry Bros. Lightning Protection Co., l Inc. in Springville, New York has asked that we contact you to i l obtain your assistance with regard to a very critical matter pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which threatens the i very existence of the Henry family's business enterprises in Springville, New York. Specifically, the NRC has taken final regulatory action directing:that the.Neary family cease and desist from the sale of-its product known as the "Preventor" and set up a recall program with respect to the product. We have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant a stay of this final agency action during the pendency of a Court review of the action which we intend to initiate immediately. Our request for a stay is currently under consideration at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the following persons: Mr. Robert M. Bernero, Director of the Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards: Mr. William Briggs, Esq., Solicitor, Office of General Counsel. The foregoing two individuals are located at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's office in Rockville, Maryland. Thus far, we have no. indications that the Commission will be willing to grant the requested relief. The action taken by the Commission has put one of the Henry family's two corporations totally out of business. All of the pertinent facts and circum-stances demonstrating that the stay should be granted are set forth in the enclosed letter which was transmitted both to Mr. Bernero and Mr. Briggs. L
F c: Senator D'Amato. Page 7 April 19,-1989.. We will greatly appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. Very truly yours, JAECKLE, FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL _P. d t. 3 7te N h By Linda H. W s ph LHJ/jm Enclosure ( f a b b m ' ~ '
J AECutt, FLEIOCHM ANN & MuoEL Avvomways av Law j Nonstan Sv Loiwa Twstvt rouwvaiw P6a:A Surrato. New Yoma utet Ratt ......o.oo sm**aa**s'a April 19, 1989 VIA FACSIMILE l Mr. Robert M. Bernero o Director of office of -t Nuclear Material and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-i 0 Ret REQUEST FOR AN EMERGENCY STAY Dear Mr. Bernero This law firm represents Henry Bros. Lightning I Protection Co., Inc. ("Heary Bros.") and Lightning Preventor of J America, Inc. ("LPA"). I am writing at the suggestion of William ) Briggs, Esq., Solicitor of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (*NRC"). The purpose of this letter is to request an immediate, amergency stay of the NRC's final order (1) directing cessation of the distribution of lightning protection terminals containing j thorium-232 ("Preventors") pursuant to 10 CFR $40.22(a); and (2) i further directing the establishment of a recall plan with respect to these products. This final order was effectuated by the l l' following documents: ) 1. The March 20', 1989 Memorandum of Vandy Miller to John McGrath which indicates that the NRC has or r will issue a letter to all
- Agreement' and "Non-Agreement' States informing them that the NRC no longer considers the distribution of lightning rods containing thorium to be an authorised activity pursuant to 10 CFR 40.22(a) and directing John McGrath to obtain a commitment from the State L
of New York to take prompt action to cease the distribution of Preventers by the-general licensee and to request New York to obtain a plan from the general licensee for the recovery of devices already distributed. I f \\ f) k L 'T ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ *
~ ~ Mr. Rcbert M. 53rnoro . April 19, 1989 Page 2 ~ 2. The letter of John R. McGrath to the New York State Department of Labor dated April 6, 1989 asserting that the NRC has develeped a new ' interpretation
- of 10 CFR 40.22(a) regarding the distribution of Preventors *different from that previously posited
- and requesting How York state to order Heary Bros. tos (1) cease distribution of the Preventors; (2) request recovery of devices already distributed; and (3) seek NRC authority for further distribution pursuant to 10 CFR 40.13 which applies to
- unimportant amounts of source gatorials.'
s 3. The March 1, 1989 Nemorandum of John Austin to a Bruce S. Mallett recognizing that the NRC has previously interpreted 10 CFR 40.22 as authorizing the manufacture and distribution of lightning rods containing small quantities of thorium-232 and stating a new and *different perspective' pursuant to which the NRC's position has now become that these products constitute
- consumer products" and therefore are not subject to the general license set forth in 10 CFR 40.22(a).
LEGAL OBJECTIONS TO THE NRC'S FINAL ACTION We believe the NRC's final agency action is both procedurally and. substantively defective and will be set aside if presented to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The grounds upon which we intend to challenge this action, if not voluntr.rily withdrawn in its entirety by the NRC, are as follows: 1. The NRC's action is not an ' interpretation
- but instead is a new substantive ruling that lightning protection terminals containing thorium-232 are
- consumer products' outside the scope of 10 CFR 540.22(a).
Not only is this now ruling in violation of procedural requirements, but the determination that the Preventor is a
- consumer product
- also is lacking in a rational basis because (in all but a few rare instances) the product is sold for commercial and industrial use and not to individual members of the general public.
Furthermore, the Preventor does not come into contact with consumers or the general public and does not constitute the type of item treated as a ' consumer product' under 10 CFR 40.13.
Mr. Rtbert M. Bernoro April.19, 1989 Page 3 s. 2. As a ' commercial product
- and not a ' consumer product,* the Preventor falls squarely within 10 CFR 540.22(a).
Therefore, the NRC's ruling constitutes a revocation of our client's previously-recognized general license without adherence to the necessary notice and opportunity, for hearing requirements of 10 CFR $2.200 31 133 and 42 U.S.C. 52239., 3. As a
- commercial product
- and not a ' consumer product,' the Preventor falls squarely within 10 CFR $40.22(a).
Therefore, the NRC's ruling has effectively amended 10 CFR $40.22(a) without ~ ' compliance with the notice and comment rule making a requirements of 5 U.S.C. 5553, 42 U.S.C. 52239 and 10 CFR S2.800 e_1 sgg. 4. The NRC's ruling is not an ' interpretation' because it purports to have the force and effect of law and alters the substantive rights of our clients under the Atomic Energy Act which rights have been consistently recognised in the past by the NRC and Agreement States. The NRC has further recognized that its action is not an interpre-tation by reason of its failure to comply with 10 CFR $40.6. Because of the NRC's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in issuing this uling, it is invalid. 5. The NRC's demand for a recall plan is arbitrary and capricious and lacking in a rational basis. As explained below, it is an unnecessary, destructive and unworkable ruling. IRREPARABLE MARM LPA's sole product is the Preventor System and the NRC's order directing a cessation of the sale of the Preventor has effectively put LPA out of business. Hence, because NRC's action is immediately effective in all Non-Agreement States, and directs Agreement States immediately to take conforming action in their respective states, this final order is irreparably harming LPA with the likely result that its business will be entirely destroyed unless the NRC's action is stayed, suspended and vacated pending an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals. i 1 O pm we m-- M m...e
y Mre Robert M. Bernero 9-April 19, 1989," s-Page 4 o The NRC's action will adversely affect the public -interest because it will deny.the public the benefits of this technologically advanced and effective type of lightning protection' system which has features far superior to those of traditional lightning rods. For example, the Preventor has capabilities not present in typical lightning rods, including extension of the zone of protection to areas adjacent to the structure, such as park {.ng lots and other areas which cannot otherwise be protected.a/ Thus, the public will be deprived of the protection to life and property afforded by this product. . Further, the destruction of LPA will eliminate frem the marketplace the very company which services and maintains the Preventors currently installed throughout the United States and will render moot any demand on the part of the NRC for a " recall a plan *. This outcome =will be particularly ironic since it appears i that the NRC's objective here is not to ' eliminate
- the product
~ but only to regulate it under 10 CFR 540.13 rather than 10 CFR 540.22(a). In contrast to the irreparable harm to the LPA and the -pubiic which will result from-the NRC's action, there does not appear to be any countervailing public interest in denying the -temporary stay and suspension requested by this letter.
- Indeed, during a telephone conversation on April 17, 1989, I was informed by John Austin, the NRC's staff person responsible for the 'new interpretation" of 10 CFR 40.22(a) that the NRC had made "no
-factual finding one way or the other of a public safety concern" with respect to the Preventor. Moreover, NRC staff have suggested that LPA apply for exemption for the Preventor pursuant 'to 10 CFR 540.13 (* unimportant amounts of source material *). j Additionally, in my conversations with Robert For.ner of the General Counsel's Office on April 17, 1989, Mr. Fonner ' indicated that the NRC ".possibly.had an incomplete factual basis
- ta) render its decision and suggested that the NRC might be willing to reconsider its position upon receipt of information
-bearing on the issue of whether or not the Preventor constitutes a ' consumer product,"-including the specifics of how the product is used, who the users are and a better understanding of-the mechanics of distribution. 1/ The enhanced capabilities of the Preventer which result from the addition of a very small amount of thorium-232 to the unit (a total'of only 13.5 grams per unit) are documented in an article prepared by LPA's outside consultant and published in The IEEE Journal.. This article was the result of extensive product testing conducted by LPA and its outside consultant which has fully established the product's efficacy. 1
L } Mr. Robert M. Bernero 'Apr31.19,' 1989... 7 Page 5 g, We believe that review of such facts will show'that.the n ~ NRC's new ruling with respect to the Preventor is without rational basis and, indeed, would lead the NRC to reconsider its position. It will also show that the " recall plan' is unnecessary, destructive and unworkable. FACTT. DEMONSTRATING THAT THE REpVENi3R IS NOT A CONSUMER PRODUCT The Pre:entor does not come into direct contact with consumers or the general public and is not a ' consumer product
- like those items listed in 10 CFR 540.13 or Table 1.of N.Y.C.R.R.
1 Part 3B which include incandescent gas mantles, finished optical i lenses, glazed ceramic tableware, photographic flim and fire detector units--all of which are handled by and come into direct -a contact with consumers. Instead, the Preventor Terminal is installed on the outside of skyscrapers and commercial buildings on a twenty-foot pole. The unit is handled only by trained employees of LPA. Likewise, the Preventor is serviced only by trained employees of LPA and also is subject to periodic inspectionsbyLPAtraineg/employeestoensurethattheproduct is in good working order.- In short, the very nature of the product is radically different from the typical consumer product. Indeed, once installed, it becomes an integral part of the operational systems of a building. It also should be recognized that, in all but a few instances, the product is sold " commercially" and not to individual members of the general public. Therefore, the 'Preventor falls squarely within the express terms of 10 CFR 1 540.22(a) which grants a general license ' authorizing commercial and industrial firms * *
- to use and transfer quantities not more than fifteen (15) pounds of source material at any one. time
[or a total of 150 pounds in any one year) for commercial-or 1/ By e'xpress contract terms, the installation, servicing and inspection described above are all done exclusively by LPA's trained employees. Likewise, the product is taken by LPA's trained employees to the installation site and never comes into the hands of the customer or anyone other than LPA's trained employees.
i Mr. Robert M. Bernero April 19', 1989: Page 6 c,....i. 1 operational purposes.*l/ In all but a very few instances, these ~ terminals arc installed on commercial and industrial facilities and buildings such as the Citicorp Center in New York and government and military facilities. Once the system is installed, it becomes an integral part of the skyscraper or other. commercial complex on which it is installed. Often'the steel structure of the building itself is incorporated into the lightning protection system. Typically, the Preventor is sold at the time of construction of the building. pursuant to a subcontract with the electrical contracting company which in turn is a contractor to the general contractor on the construction project. The ultimate purchaser of the product does not contract directly with LPA and typically is a commercial or corporate entity which owns the commercial building or industrial facility in question. As these circumstances demonstrate, the Preventor is not being sold to ' individual members of the general L public' except in those rare instances where it is sold to a residence of a private individual.1/ The NRC's final action draws no distinction between residential installations and commercial installations and instead issues a blenket order l directing that our client immediately cease distribution of thorium air terminal lightning preventors and develop a recall plan. Not only is the NRC's recall program unnecessary, but its implementation is virtually impossible and would be highly destructive if pursued. The Preventor System is an integral part of the building and its removal and replacement would be virtually impossible or prohibitively expensive at best. This is because the installation of a lightning protection system on a l commercial building is required to be done in stages during the L construction of the building. Moreover, the removal will' leave L the building unprotected. Thus, the NRC is demanding our clients to take action with regard to the private property of others which could result in loss of life, personal injury and property L 1/ Ae mentioned above, each Preventor contains a total of 13.5 grams of thorium-232. Thus, the limits for amounts of 10 CFR L 40.22(a) are easily met and our client does not even approach the 150 pounds annual limit. 1/ Installation on private residences is rare because the expense of the system limits its availability as practical matter to affluent purchasers who have extremely large homes. There have been only seven installations on private residences and the l hundreds of other installations are all on commercial, industrial l and government buildings and complexes. l l [
4 Mr. Robert M..Bernero April 19, 198.9 C.- Page-1 ' damage in the event an unprotected building or area is struck by lightning. d CONCLUSION In sum, it is difficult to perceive how the destruction l of LPA can meet any of the regulatory objectives of the NRC. We also believe that there is a strong likelihood that Heary Bros. l and LPA will prevail on the merits of the appeal that we intend i to take with respect to this final agency action. Because of the. i immediate and de,,vastating effect of the NRC's action upon LPA, it i-is critical that we obtain immediate relief from the NRC's action 4-during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, we must ask that the NRC respond to our request.for an order staying, suspending and vacating the NRC's action within 48 hours from the receipt of this letter. Otherwise, it will be necessary for us to proceed to seek this relief before the U.S. Court of Appeals. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss in detail our position and would come to your office in Rockville, Maryland for this purpose at your convenience. Again, however, it is critical that we have a reply within 48 hours. Sincerely, JAECKLE, FLEISCHMANN & MUGL':L By: C / Linda H. Joseph i LHJ/jt i ect William H. Briggs, Solicitor { \\ l L -}}