ML20039G741

Affidavit Supporting NRC Motion to Dismiss Ucs & Ny Pirg Petitions for Review of NRC Decision Re Status of Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan.Emergency Planning Evaluation Process Incomplete.Related Correspondence

ML20039G741
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point, FitzPatrick, 05000000
Issue date:	12/07/1981
From:	Pratt C POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
Shared Package
ML20039G742	List: ML20039G741
References
81-4188, NUDOCS 8201190076
Download: ML20039G741 (12)

Text

-

s

.c.p.nrc~

.,.. :1_

L

~

l L..;,..

.....S..o.A W,1 _f k p

~...

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT x,

Docket No. 81-4188 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST *.ES6APCH GROUP, AFFIDAVIT IN INC.,

a SUPPORT ~

" ON Petitioners, a

TO DI' M9 #

'N FOR. VfEW O

~3 gainst-a gf.

z'{

a y

m-

.s s

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS-J M

l0j g '.O O 19h j SION, ard THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, a

Respondents, t

W,

./

-and-a g.,

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW j

YORK and CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY crcInto y,

s

(',

OF NEW YORK, INC.,

t Intervenors-Respondents.

DEC ?1981;!Q x

L*"

t'

r. -

=n.na a I

K m= c.oe (.. */

1" n cy.c:c

<d STATE OF NEW YORK )

Q'

.//j/2 i.,

) ss.t COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

Sf I

• CHARLES M. PRATT, being duly sworn, deposes and sayst 9

Preliminarv Statement 1.

I am Assistant General Counsel of the Power

' Authority of the State of New York (" Power Authority"),,which, together with the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

,(" Con Edison"), is an intervenor herein. I make this affidavit i

, in support of the motion by respondent Nuclear Regulatory

, Commission ("NRC") to dismiss the Petition for Review filed by 8

Petitieners herein on the grounds that this Court lacks juris-1 l

diction to conduct the review requested.

I t

I The Parties l

l q

i

'[

2.

Petitioner Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS")

l t

i i

i i

f S

1. l I

i 8201190076 e11207

yDRADOCK 05000247 PDR f

l t

7._

_.. ~

h-h h

5 Y

h h

k^

t

,?

t s

. i.

U E 4

i-i. *.

L

.i.

4.

1. d. '

i, y

y

.w r

.y p

,t

m m

m_. - - _ _

1 s

s t

i i

i describes itself as a non-profit corporation engaged in perform-f ladependent studies on a range of topics " relating'to advanced ing including safety issues relating to the l

1 technology and energy, f

Indian Point Nuclear Power plants operated by the intervenors.

1

}

1 3.

Petitioner New York Public Interest Research 2

t Group, Inc. ("NYPIRG") describes itself as a not-for-profit, nonpartisan research snd advocacy organization which has tien i

conducting extensive research on problems relating to emergency planning for the region surrounding the Indian Point Nuclear Power plants.

j I

Respondent Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")

4.

1 is an independent federal agency charged with the regulation of 1

civilian use of nuclear energy.

d i

~

4 Intervenor Power Authority is a corporate municipal i

S.

~

instrumentality of the State of New York, a political subdivision of the state exercising governmental and public powers, existing i.

i

~

to provide a continuous, adequate and low-cost supply of depend-i l

able electric power and energy for the benefit of the people of 5

4 4

the State of New York. The Power Authority owns and operates j

1 j

.I i

the Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power plant, located in Buch.anan, New DPR-64.

The Power l

[ York,andholdsFacilityOperatingLicenseNo.

bd Authority is licensed and subject to regulation by Respondent NRC.

d a

I 6.

Intervenor con Edison is a public utility corpora-i

[ tion principally engaged in the generation and transmission of l

lj electric power in the southeastern region of the State of New 2

4 l

j

[' York. Con Edison owns and operates the Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2, also in Buchanan, New York, and holds Facility f

4 CPR-26.

Con Edison is also licensed and i

! Operating License No.

[ subject to regulation by Respondent NRC.

t I

i.

4

~2-i i

i' i

i i

l 1

i I

i 1

I i

q*

n

. ~ - -

. 4..y t. L,W '.'Y

......s n

n.

[

?.:;

9.,.L 2.i '.-.;s, L

i'. i.. ac

p.. I ~. I-i 1

J

i+

._m.r.._._.._...~.._.,'

. ~ ;..

~ u

• se. si, y;.,'

• p. a[,; _. i., p y7'y q-~-

t

}.

t-

1.., '

t~

i., g.g; g J.e

,. j-p. s....,

r...

p u r.-*. -- _-

a. % '. m.. - ~. - "i.

5

- ' -Q ~ j P.,y *; *

.,-Q "f

',-4 5.,

e,

e

, ~~g s

,,4 J...g 8,-

e-e g

s.

f i

4

~ _ - _ -., - - -

~_

.-.m

-. - - - - ~ ~.

1

=

s I.

I I

i The Petition

)

7.

Petitioners herein seek review of an alleged

" final decision" of the !!RC pertaining to the status of of fsite i

radiological emergency response plans (" emergency plans") of 4

tow York State (" State") and of Westchester, Rochland, Orange, and Putnam Counties (the "four count.es").

S.

10 CFR S 50.54(q) requires all licensed opera-I tors of nuclear power reactors to follow and maintain emergency l

plans which meet NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR S 50.47, and Part 50, Appendix E.

These regulations took effect on i

i I

tiovember 3,1980, only one year ago, and prior to that time, NRC 4

t radiological emergency plans were contre,lled by other regulations f

not here involved.

l 9.

The purported " final decision" of which Petitioners ;

c.

seek review is simply a letter dated August 24, 1981, sent by e

Boyce H. Grier ("Grier"), Director,t3RC Office of Inspection and I

3 i

I Enforcement, Region I, to the intervenors, and other interested parties (the "Grier letter").

(Copies of the Grier letter and I its attachments are annexed hereto as Exhibit A.)

Deponent sub-f i

jmits that this letter can in no way be construed as a final agency

.I qdecisien subject to review by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, the i

1 FlNRC has yet to take any final agency action with respect to emergency planning for Indian Point and is not required to do l

l'so at this juncture.

i 4,

I l

i

r...

. _.._ _ _,r 'T..,r ;- r-me-T ; --. _..

m.... ~ m., o.,,. --- ;.. u.f.;

.r

m.

-m,.

- ?.. ~~.c

.....i.,.

y

.r

.s

.c. -

. g..-.. :

y ;,,

3:.-..,

.t_

r i

- y 3..

r.

L m

. 1

[

t

[_

,,,..y 3 g ;7

..j,

.r,c x

. s

,, +

,., -7 1,

c or

?

..n I.-

d i

e a

e l

f i

d I

The Grounds for Dismissal i

A.

The Emergency Planning Evaluation Process Has

]

Not Been Comoleted.

1 10 The NRC emergency planning regulaticns contained in 10 CFR-Part 50, as revised in 1990, leave no doubt that i

l emergency planning is a dynamic process, which the licensees i

are required to effect in several stages. The NRC plainly has

,1 1

not completed the emergency planning evaluation process.

l1 l

11.

The first stage of the ptocess was the submission of revised emergency planning documents to the NRC by licensees.

These documents were to include response plans of State and local governments. (10 CFR S 50.54(s)(1).) Pursuant to NRC regulation (10 CPR F $0.54(s)(1)), licensees submitted in i

]

December, 1980 their on-site emergency response plans, together 1

with the draf t emergency plans of the State and the four coun-i ties.

Copies of the emergency plans for connecticut, New Jersey, I s

and Pennsylvania were also submitted. The regulations further l

require that the plans be implemented by April 1, 1531 (10 CFR l

5 50.54(s)(2)): by letter dated April 24, 1981 '(the " April 24 I

l Iletter"), the NRC* notified the intervenots of certain defi-

}'

l ciencies in the plans. (A copy of the April 24 letter is 1'annexedheretoasExhibitB.)

-i i

l 1

i.

i While the NRC has ultimate jurisdiction over the licensees, i

it is only responsible for evaluating the onsite emergency j

l plans. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA") is j

i assigned primary responsibility for evaluating the offsite plans.

(See paragraph 17, infra.)

I i

i i

_4 i

2 1

i I

l 1

i i

i

}

L a

a l

4 e

L e

1 i

i e

..i. I L T"3

. ;?

E

. i.

i-i t,

i

]

r n..

b'..

- y i

r

.f i

~

na 4

L

,e-

12.

The regulations further direct that any "de-ficiencies" in emergency preparedness be corr'ected within four months of the finding by the MRC of such deficiencies. '. Ijl. )

Nothing in the regulations indicates that the NRC's finding of any such deficiencies or evaluation of the licensee's response constitutes final agency action ap,oroving or disapproving the emergency plans. To the contrary, the regulations preclude any final deternination regarding emergency preparedness until, at the earliest, an exercise of the plan has been conducted.

(See accompanying Memorandum of Law at 5.)

In its most recent comment on the subject, the NRC stated categorically that " FEMA will not consider any state or local plan for final approval until a full scale exercise has been conducted with the site in question."

(Emphasis added.)

(pae letter dated October 26, 1981 g

f rom Ronald C. Haynes of the NRC to the Power Authority, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.)

13.

The intervenors' first exercise pursuant to the l

I

' revised regulations is not scheduled until next year. The planning process and the evaluations by the NRC and FE!1A are clearly in midstream. Not only do the NRC's regulations fail to i

i require a " final decision" at this juncture, but it would make i

I l

I to render one.

jno sense for the NRC to attempt I

i 14.

Indeed, Petitioners' claim that a " final decision" has been rendered is belied by the very documentation upon which

'l:' Petitioners exclusively rely. Contending that the Grier letter represents final agency action reviewable pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

52341, 5 U.S.C. 5705, and 42 U.S.C.

552231 and 2239, Petitioners l! quote only a portion of the letter. We annex hereto as Exhibit l

. t I

I i

3 f.-

?-

i-E-

' ;~

• (

2.

' * ' j ' '.... '

L.,

~v

.'-w"

',s -, s.. _ w. e ' t.,+ ' 4 ;,

e

• w

,m E'

I Y

T'

• a'_',

_;( f ',

4 p -

3

.s

l.

j s

a i

a 1

1, 4

I A the complete text of the letter. Deponent submits, as detailed in the following paragraphs, that the Grier 1*etter and its attach-ments, read in their entirety are susteptible of only one con-d t

I struction, namely that final action on the emergency plans has f

yet to be conpleted.

4 1

15.

The April 24 letter had advised the intervenors of 1

I

" numerous deficiencies" in the emergency plans which precluded

}

a conclusion that the intervenors could respond adequately to a

- radiological emergency. The Grier letter, on its f ace, simply states that the deficiencies have now been adequately addressed, i

and contains no language suggesting that a final determination had been made.

i i

r i

16.

The Grier letter also refers to an annexed J

J August 19, 1981 memorandun f rom Paul Jaske of FEMA to the NRC f

v l

(the "Jaske memorandum"). The Jaske memorandum makes the following conclusion:

i 1

i Based on this information, and our general l

knowledge of the State of planning for the four sites (in New York], FEMA helieves that the present state of planning is gener.11y adequate to carry j

out the responsibilities of the State and local government in the case of an accident at these sites. A iudgment of the overall adequacy of,

j preparedness cannot be provided until the results i

of the exercises are evaluated.

(Emphasis added.)

The Jaske memorandum could not demonstrate any more clearly i

that final agency action has not been taken.

i s

1 i

17.

Petitioners also obviously misunderstand the l

J respective roles of FEMA and the NRC in the emergency planning

't As we demonstrate in our accompanying Memorandum of

iprocess.

1 i

J f l

1 l

t

l l

• ~ - ' l.

__; ~- a. y": ~ '---* m. T.

~1-2 y

..3

.. m

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

,u.;. g g,m,..p-t 3

t.

e 2.; _; _..

• '..*.*_.*.%*?,'_.*

' ' /,

W'. " ?..

n 7

+ --

,--_-m._

m

, _y

__----p,_-,,.

1 i

i Law (at 5-6), FEf!A is charged with the principal role in evaluating offsite emergency planning. Thus contrary to Petitioners' assertion that the NRC must " conduct its own independent review of the (offsitel plans * (Petition, par. 8 ),

deponnat subnits that the NRC is required only to revieV the F EMA f ind ing s.

• And even Petitioners concede that the Grier letter's conclusions are based upon a review of the FEliA

findings.

18.

The only other contention advanced in support of the Petition is based upon an alleged telephone conversation between Mr. Jaske and Petitioners. Such a conversation, of course, hardly provides a basis for review by this Court.**

More importantly, however, the recited substance of that con-versation. f ails in any way to support Petitionecs' assumptien that a " final decision" was rendered. If anything, the conver-

sation suggests that final agency action was noti taken.

I This, of course, contrasts with the requirement that the I

NRC conduct an " assessment" of the onsite emergency plans. (10 CFR S 50.54(s)(3).)

Petitioners do not challenge the onsite components.

l ** Moreover, nothing in the recited substance of that conver-sation supports Petitioners' position. The Petition sta'tes (par. 21) that "Jaske informed petitioners that his August 19 l

memorandum dealt principally with state-wide issues,. espe-cially those relating to the new legislation." Petitioners conspicuously fail to note that most of the deficiencies l

specified in the April 24 letter (Exhibit B) related to state-wide issues, and that FEMA's primary concern, alloca-i tion of responsibility between the state and scunties, was l

addressed in the new legislation. (See 1981 N.Y. Laws ch.

708.) Hence, nothing in the alleged telephone conversation l

suggests that FEMA f ailed to review the state's and four counties' efforts to correct deficiencies.

l l

l 1

m

.;.a.

,. g.

L

.. " --rM.l -~; ~ ~r ; ~ ~; '. :) r;y. ~

. '*,,g

...M :

.v.~.

.n.w;,-

w s.,_.;'_.

' *~

• 3

, ;;.w 4..

,&. q g

.I s

IA

B.

The Commission Has Ordered a Proceeding To Examine, Inter Alia, Emerconev Planning at Indian Point, 19.

Petitioners also ignore the fact that the Commis-sion has ordered an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB")

to conduct an investicatory hearing to examine, inter alta, "the current status and degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines of state and local emergency planning within a 10-mile radius of the site and, of the extent that it is relevant to risks posed by the two plants, beyond a 10-mile radius."*

(Sea NRC Memo-randum and Order dated January 8, 1981, at 10; copies of the relevant NRC Orders are annexed hereto collectively as Exhibit D.)

The pending proceeding was ordered in response to a petition addressed to the NRC by Petitioner UCS.

Union of Concerned Scien-tists' Petition for Decommissioning of Indian Point Unit i and Suspension of Operation of Units 2 & 3, In re Censolidated Edison Co.

(Indian Point, Units 1, 2, and 3) No. 50-3 (filed Sept. 17, 1979) ("UCS Petition").

Petitioner NYPIRG has supported the UCS l Petition and nas filed a joint petition with UCS to intervene in that proceeding. Virtually every contention raisad in their intervention petition (a copy of which is annexed hereto as i

Exhibit E) concerns the very emergency planning issues that l

Petitioners raise herein. The NRC has fixed September '18, 1982 i

as the completion deadline for the examination. The hearing was

ordered on Jep2ary 8, 1981, at the earliest stages el the plan-

'ning process the Grier letter was, of course, dated August 24, i 1981, while the proceeding was pending. The ASLB examination would be meaningless if a " final decision" had already been i rendered on emergency preparedness.

J4

• The ASLB was appointed in September, 1981, and the hearings have.not yet commenced.

[

^

t a

1.,

'l b

g; s

a r

a s

e r

,...,..g-,..,

.s y.

s 7

-le

. ~.. ~-... - - _..

. ~ _ -

l 4

1 i

20.

The forthcoming ASLB examination belies any i

notion that the NRC has rend 3 red a final decision " reviewable 1

by this Cot.tt, Nothing speaks more clearly to a complete lack

[

of final agency action on emergancy planning at Indian Point

(

than the fmet that hearings into that very subj ct have be3n scheduled and are imminent. ?!oreover, the requested review by this Court of ongoing administrative activity governing the

)

same issue will require the Power Authority and Con Edison to appear in two separate proceedings, before two separate tri-bunals, in connection with a single issue. These factors plainly warrant dismissal of the Petition.

C.

Petitioners Have Failed to Follow Proper Procedure.

21.

Petitioners incorrectly assume that the statutes cited (28 U.S.C. 52342 and 5 U.S.C. 5705) permit them to request i

review herein. As deponent notes above, there has been no final

agency action which may be reviewed by the Court. There are

, additional flaws in the Petition which are equally fundamental.

i i

2*.

Even assuming that there has been a reviewable i.

.- administrative agency proceeding, Petitioners do not and can-l 4

4 not dispute that they were not parties' to such a proceeding.

.!Nevertheless, they now effectively seek to appeal the " decision" i

e j

loftheagency. This is not only incongruous, but depon'ent sub-mits that it contravenes the well-established procedure af forded to groups such as Petitioners who wish to challenge NRC action.

l u

23.

Fursuant to 10 CFR S 2.206, "[alny person may file a request for the [NRC Staff] to insti'tute a proceeding i

I

.I l i 1

I 1

r l

l 4

'il 1;.

i.

f i

i i

?

I E.

i i

i j

4-t i.

u e

s 1

p y

t

~

x-.

,_m--

pursuant to S2.202 to modity, suspend or revoke a license, or f or such other action as nay be proper."

Petitioners have not made such a request herein.*

Instead, they are, in effect,

-sppealing a non-existent agency action.

24.

The speciousness of the Petition is further be-trayed by the lack of any record to form the basis for review.

Che only " record" herein consists of the April 24 letter listing deficiencies, and the Grier letter and its attachments which, in fact, expressly postpone any final agency decision at least until the exercise of the plans.

25.

The Petition, in short, is entirely f rivolous.

It is, in essence, an appeal without merit by an improper party from a non-existent decision. Accordingly, the Petition must be dismissed.

Wi!EREFORE, intervenors Power Authority and Con Edison l respectfully request that this Court enter an Order dismissing l

i i

One Petitioner, NYPIRG, did request URC action by letter l

dated April 1, 1981. NYPIRG requested the NRC to " order the immediate suspension of operations at Indian Point on the i

grounds of noncompliance with the NRC's Final Emergency l

Planning Rule."

See 46 Fed. Reg. 28261 ( May 2 6,1981). The NRC treated the letter as a request for action pursuant to 5 2.206, and denied the petition. NYPIRG has not appealed i

that decision, and the time to appeal has expired. (A copy of the Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit F.)

In addition, Petitioner UCS requested a general NRC examina-tion of the Indian Point reactors by petition filed September 17, 1979. This resulted in the NRC's order that an ASLB con-duct the investigatory hearings described in paragraph 19, above. The alleged " final decision" herein, of course, does not arise f rom that proceeding, which has not yet commenced.

1 l

1a d

i I l

l 1

l

-v g-

,g, _--

y 2

...~

..g.

, *, *. ~

W^

i- :'.,,. t5 - R --. -

-e~,

,u

.e

.2,.-

...L:

s 7, u

the Petition for Review in the soove-captione,d action and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including the costs of this rotion.

I

\\

(G 1] '

=

i.

n

~

' CHAR s "M. PRA V

Sworn to before ce this 7w I

day of Dece W r, 1981.

- AML _. W Notar' Pub lic

'va o

he r.

. E.3

=g...:a. I f

t I

I f

4 a

j i

I i

1 l

i l

1 1

1 1

_11_

l l

l l

i 1

I l

l 1

l f,,

e r

,, E a

,_.,,,,m,m n,,.

w a

O.

ref

. *a

I I

I I

l 4

1 I

l t

4 F

i 4

I L

l 1

I i

f l

i e

i I

f i

Exhibit A l

i s

i t

. - s g

e-

I l

1 1

t l

)

I 1

\\

Exhib.t B

'l i

t l

. ~

1 w

s e.

=

l

ga

• F C o, UNITEo STAT!s 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMytts1CN

[$e di accios i

Si{if'I j sai paan awCNGC i Ss 4~4 f

nr.o or revssia ec~~5v tv amia e s os

.r s

Cocket Nos. 50-333 2 4 AUG *:4 50-256 Power Authcrity of the State of New York James A. Fit: Patrick Nuclear Power Plant /

Incian Point 3 Nuclear Pcwer Plant ATTN:

Mr. George T. Eerry President and Chief Cperating Officer 10 Coluccus Circle New York, New York 10019 Gentlemen:

By letter dated April 24, 1981, I transmitted to you a copy of a letter frem the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ca'.ed April 23, 1981 and its attached letter from FEMA to the New York State Disaster Precaredness C:mmission dated April 6, 1951. The attachments to the April 6,1981 letter iisted numerous deficiencies in tne New York State and local emergency respense plans for the area around your reactor site.

The enclosed letter from FEMA dated August 19, 1981, refers to the deficiencies in the aforementioned April 6,1931 letter.

FEMA concludes that "the present state of planning is generally adecuate to carry out the responsibilities of the State and local government in the case of an accident at these sites". We therefore conclude that this issue has been resolved satisfactorily.

Sincerely,

' CC i o ce H. Grier Director

Enclosure:

As stated l

l 5

Pcwer Authcrity of the State of New York Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant 2

3 4 ggg ;gg; cc (w/ encl):

J. C. Brons, Resident Manager, IP-3 R. J. Pasternak, Resident Manager, Fit: Patrick J. P. Bayne, Senior Vice President-Nuclear Generaticn A. Klausmann, Directer, Quality Assurance M. C. Cosgrove, Site Quality Assurance Engineer J. F. Davis, Chairman, Safety Review Committee C. M. Pratt, Assistant General Counsel G. M. Wilverding, Manager-Nuclear Licensing D. Halama, Site Quality Assurance Engineer K. Burke, Direct:r, Regulatory Affairs (Con Ed)

W. D. Hamlin, Assistant to Resident Manager (PASNY)

L. CI:hc=, Prcject Manager Honorable Hugh L. Carey, Governor of New York State of New York, Department of Health V. Tcrde, Acting Regional Director, FEMA D. D. Surer, Chief Executive, Putnam County L. Hei= bach, Chief Executive. Orange Ccunty J. T. Grant, Chief Executive, Reckland County A. B. Celbello, Chief Executive, West Chester County J. Cunkelberger, New York State Energy Office J.

nic==

...e-etne, RES Divisien, FEMA' Public Dov.cument Rocm (PDR)

Local Public Dccument Rocm (LPDR)

Nuciso. "

.~et, Inicimation Center (NSIC)

State of New York NRC ~ :

'or (Fit: Patrick)

~

NRC Resident Inspector (Indian Point 3) 5 0

e O

4 I

i l

1 NEp -

Federal Emergency Management Agencv 1

b Washington, D.C. 2002 1

.)

1 l

August 19, 1981 MDiCRANCUM FOR: Director i Div.ision of Emergency Pr~... ness Of fice of Inspectio nd Enfo/ cement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

'mi s.oien

\\.

Acting Director for FRCH:

Radiological EmergccchEpYre'driass Divisien Status of Off-Site Planning in Ney\\ crk Stats Y

SUS 3ECT:

In prewicus cerrespondence you requested that this of fice furnish a statte:ent l

en the statue of planning in New York State involving the Nine Mile Point, Fittpatrick, G.inna and Indian Point sites which were subject to NHC enforcement actions. I am pleased to report on these f acilities as follona.

4:.'-

Our letter of April 6,1991, which listed deficiencies in the relationship between the State of New York and the site specific counties, has teen partially answersd by the enactment of new legislation by the State of New York.

Chapter 7CB of the New Ycrk Ccde now eliminates the inconsistencies in direction and control.

New York has incorporated the previsions of Chapter 70S into the

• planc end will ensure that any recaining inconsistencies are corrected.

These provisions will be reflected in the site specific plans for the sites listed stove.

FEMA Region II is werking with the State on the resolution of the health physics

. ite.s and we have asourance that these deficiencies will be addressed by the time exercises for these sites are completed.

Fit'zpatrick will exercise Septecter 15, 1981, Ginna November 5,1981, and Indian Point March 3,1982.

Formal plans reviews by the Regional Assistance Committees are now underway witn fitzpatrick/Nine Hils Point as the first priority.

FEMA Region II has now D' i. received the plans for Ginna and Indian Point.

5 Based en this information, and our general knowledge cf the State of planning

'. for the four sites, FEMA believes that the present state of planning is generally.

adequate to carry out the responsibilities of the State and.lecal government in

.th e case of an accident at these sites.

A judgement of the overall adequacy of preparedness cannot be provided until the results of the exercises sre evaluated.

e 2

 : 5

! 4:

w t

Wu'1.i6G0 N

S o

o p*

r.:

G,,

. ? %,

/Dr,?o :lq Lt},l..' e s

e.tmn:::

.' % j',

'};

-.-* A / }s, re x : r. m r.* m e.:.f S : x m 1 w o n

• 1 4

t's.' :', r Q a,y', ';'g.

s,,

'f c t t rs. A et. 4

,,,, (

y a m user. w.re w stva.iAic 8

f, 2 5 6?. @

OXlet' Ho1. 50-33.9 9

50-22.5

.b F;wer Autherity of the state of N.* fort q

Jace;, A. FitzFatrict Odcar Peer riar.J f.

ni!!an Poir.t 3 Ne.leir P..,cr Plant f'

4'TH: Mr. C.:orge T. P.kr y h'

President and Chief Operating Of ficar 10 Colut,us Cl cle Q.

Lv York, New Ycrt 103}S tt

.A.er ilr. Carry:

a

'.. I d

W hue received the att c5M F;deral Er-";. Ny 'tarag

-r.t Agency (ff?A)

'etter d: tad April 23 iv.1, and the at tac'.. ! l:tter.'r : FEM to t.'e.5'ar Yort State Of saster Prepacec..ess Commissic ' 9uJ April 6,1051,.hich lists ruwrevs

1:ficier.cles in ino New' York State ar.d local emergency respons.1 pla-s fnr the j

trea around your reactor site. Attn.v;h.e h;n not cc pleted cur rerf or ard t

astessrent of tne oserall. tate ot *meraanry pre;ared. ?ts we ar= sf the ylew

• Bar. r.tr.y of tr.ese de ficiencies identi":-d by if!% mt te. removed in a :tr f:r us t: ranc h..*o that approariat.t prote.tive sicasares can v.d vill be taien

• 1 in tha tysnt 4 a rarliole::. cal e=:runr; at yc.r fa;!!!!y. W t ave c ncluded

[

.N t a s:;;.-at:e o f both ar.> i t e d etd Of f s i t.' r repa r dra u i s feet!esi to pactect u '. ;' t n a r J s a f t ty o f t.'. ' ;i..$ 11 c. IM :. to nwt !ff yea that shculd tt$e

'*:1c::r.:1r.s rit l e corre:ted vi:st'9 l!J 3y. of the date cf this letter, the

' c::.et r T - d t ory C.':g:i u f en will d..ttr :.-- A. ther yc::r rt:ctor sh311 c::

l

,hu t.%. u.m l t.

h ce ! re ur.c t os a re rt w ! d c.c v' etner uthte en.~a-c.ont j,

t i.an I s at;... opria te.

ka are ve.,ccer.ed i: at t.a.e avalabili'.y rc a:l:c:ti n of rescurros nece*,sa:

t:. 3JJress t':: rL*.\\ d:fleiercies are not.':ce ly ce+ir.e1. Va a.:,1 fully

.i rta.,niae that tha delitienetes t.0 :,e ce rrt: tut

.4y twolve aCticas by other Tarties and political in,titutions which are net un.!6r ycur direct contr:1

,r.rtheless, se wu!d espect thi:. St.dtct (c. bt addrened by yo;; 21 well as 6j tit * :rs.

'j ut.,t iart'.3'1J tt at 6 Yurt Stat.s belhyts that 5t:L': bgisissten 15 reg.,Irrd lu'.ly retoh.? the of f s'te plaae,irg ;sr?rle. s and t.at resolutica of the

.3 1.? rist.rth; is:ves ir.tcived car, be a:ldevd within the persed albcd for l

.'.c

tic) th.: h!!t.ie.c.:1es.

i 1

a are r,:0?sti.i t0 tuMit a vet tten s:.'ts&nt to thir office within 39 days f

Of tn? date ot this letter, de crible.; pl.n fsr correct lcg each of the

-],

..s t eirnc iv ; it..t i fied in the Av.11 5, bdl let t er. This req'est affects t

?J e

'E 2'

)

J a

5 1.*

r i

P. m Aethai.& ' t t State er' 2

l'l d New Tes a E~ ~'

r~ a-t Sra t c, ( IC) I t c en s ;o s n.1 t!.. - '< -

's: Si i ::- 'e

'.e i s rul

.: *. t t e, M t ni F9 (PL 95 5'.1).

'i.,"

.il ;r J.it: J:ve le - - ' air-a.. i l M e it. <,.

r. * :S yen 4-d :'m 5: n

. s i a A h'.. i t ! n a l s

- 1 M r D'A t s. resci. tre p-4 :..x.

WW i t t.n i i n'.1 i f n i a f t r. t. :'. ;4 ; :x.. u. d a s ar ecer.;cncy,n r:. re.:.iess rc vicw e.ii t!'.t ;h is: eri 8L irn :.i 8 e ar.. il j oint e ver.:1.e. a ne e.'s i te in:.r.u.a.. f y.ar e-e ;e.cv prog.

tii,0.

ir.c c. e ly, fsi \\

- # 6. I /

C e

w I

Sp, let e r

,-[ I d.-

t.ir (t.. I ; : :-0, :

!., 5 ;,411 d G wetcCit:

J. r. Cio.u 2-sident M.:nacer, IP 3,

5 R. J. b stercre., mtdent ita.u;er, FItri ti vi.

J. P ? syne, S.'niar *.' Ira President-Nu ;O.- O r:t1Nt A. Klat.W.ar.., Directer. C 4ality A,Strirse M. C. Co. grave, 5 t te 0n i t ty Atsur ance f.n.pr er K. Burte, Ot re :t e.i, Pe:pi t *.ory M f.: Ir (C:nFd)

J..: Lis t s, Cha t'?.n, Sa f aty Revirv C W rie-C. H. Fratt, A.st starit Gen.sral Cocasci G. M. Wt iverdt. 9, ttantgar-Hvelear I.f ressin]

D: Halaca, Site 0. ult ty Assurance En11.--t V. D. ;taalin, As:.istant ta r.e:Ident No.. r (f'3. ?it)

L. 015h:n, Prefect h:.mager it.:rereble Lch L. Carey, Cenrror of E w Ya t i

State cf New Yert, De;artswnt of Healtii V. For@, Actiig Regtunal Of rectir, F9A D. D. 9ruen, Chief Executive, Putnam Cosnty l

L. Hat:ta:h, Chief c.secutive, Orange Cour.ty J. T. Grant, Chief Executive, Ro-kland Covaty l

l 3

A. 3. Delbello, Chief Executive, Vest Chest. - Ceunty J. Dunhelber;er, New Yert itete Energy of fic -

J. Dickey, Otrector, REP Olvision, FE?A I

L i

l l

l l

)

i l

I l

e I

i t

s 2

i j.

u e

2 (

i.

o r,

~p l'

FEDERAL EMERGENCY M'ANAGEMENT AGENCY

-j Region il 26 Federal FWa New York, New York 10278 April 6, 1981 t

r.

Mr. Williar C. Hennessy, Chairman Disnster Preparedness Co= mission State of New York Public Security Building

^

State Campus O

Albany, New York 12226

.RE: Review of New York State Radiological

~

Dear Mr. Hennessy:

Emergency Preparedness (REP) Plan The Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), less the U.S. Department of Energy, has reviewed the draf t State Radiological E=ergency Preparedness (AIP) Plan, using the planning standards contained in FEMA REP-1/NUREG-0654. The detailed comments are attached.

~

While we recognize that the Dece=ber 1980 draf t cubmission was prepared in

~

accordance with the ' Interim" edition of FEMA REP-1. we evaluated the State Plan against the " Revision 1" edition of the planning standards, which clarified several iss'ucs contained in the interin edition. Therefore, the RAC's detailed co=ments regarding the State Plan are based.on'^t'hE'tevised standards.

~'

Noticeable progress has been made in the version-of the State Plan furnished to the RAC for review on Dece=ber 17,.1980. The August 1980 draft submission had no county plans prepared in accordance with FE!n REP-1 standards. The December 1980 draft contains a State level plan and seven county plans. The s+ cad / pro-gress made is indicative of the commitment by the State and local govern =ents towards radiological emergency preparedness for commercial nuclear power. plant accidents. Indeed, the Nuclear Planning Group should be, commended for the energies and attain =ent of its goal in its timely' furnishing to the RAC a draf t of all State and local plans for locati_on's with'opifacing nuclear reactors.

Moreover, we expect that significant and substantive improvements to the sub-mitted plan have already been made.

I

)

However, the RAC found it very time consuming to perform the review due to inaccurate cross-referencing and hasty editing. Consequently, the RAC expended i

a great deal of time trying to locate varfods ' portions of the plan that address the specific planning criteria.

In su= mary, deficiencies in the plan fall into.thren broad categories.

~'

a.

While we recognize the State's efforts to reconcile the conflict between State and county authorities ' nd responsibilities pertaining to radiological a

l e=ergency preparedness, with proposed enactments such as the " Fink Bill,"

this deficiency, nonetheless, pervades the plan. Until resolution to this fundamental planning consideration is attained. the plan vill-remain deficient.

even if all other planning standards are adequately addr'e'ssed.

1 1

j a

l s

1 2_

Mr. William C. Hennessy b.

The Plan still lacks specificity in many cases. Methodologies and i

decision-=sking processes for the following planning standards requira further articulation:

emergency response support, notification methods

~

and procedures, public education, accident assess =ent, radiological t

exposure control, medical and health support, and recovery and re-entry operations. Cross references should clearly identify elements of the

~

p1An as they relate to the planning standards.

Certain planning criteria have not been addressed in the submission.

c.

N Letter agrecrents with Federal agencies and non-government organisations were missing. Means for relocation have not yet been incorporated in the 9

I Plan. Related 9ps and charts are missing. A program for permanent record s

deviess has not been developed. All planning criteria listed in FEMA REP-1/

~.-

hllREG-0654, should be address'ed in the plan.

Ihe detailed commen'ts that the RAC has provided, coupled with a meeting you may request :to discuss these cor=ents, should serve to identify the revisions nidessary in J.he State Plar..

Ve ask that, upon'copletion of these revisions, the Covernor apply for formal

. review and approval of th( State Plan, site specific to each reactor location in order of State priority. Each subnission should be prepared'and furnished in accordance with Section 350.7, FEMA Proposed Rule 44 CFR 350.

Requests for additional infor=al reviews will only da. lay the review process.

's Sincerely, a

s l

[.

ince.t Forde T

V Acting Regional Director s

[9,

~

y

~~

p Atta,chme9er ~ -

e e

""4' k-

, '.s.

s as

• p

'N nY

• g..."

e#

W I

/

m r

\\

e s

d

~3 a

i A

t t

i t

i I

I i

i 1

\\

I l

l Exhibit C 1

i e

e 6

.-.u