Text

Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Terminate OL Proceeding.Issue of Whether OL May Be Granted in Absence of Offsite Emergency Plan Approved by Local Govt Should Be Certified to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl
	ML20071C745
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/04/1983
From:	Brown H; KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
	ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303080054
	Download: ML20071C745 (55)
	v • d • e

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIC1ISSION e

O Before the Atomic Safety and Licensind Board,p+,

g

'g

%"+, ?

=

f Gy 4

)

In the Matter of

)

4

)

/

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket N 22 (OL)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTY'S MOTION TO TERMINATE THE SHOREHAM OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING AND THE COUNTY'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION March 4, 1983 Herbert H.

.own Lawrence Coe Lanpher Christopher M.

Mciurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL,

~

CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 8303080054 830304 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O

PDR

/

F-i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.

Introduction 1

. II.

Summary And Statement of Issues To Be Certified For Commission Decision 2

A.

The Local Government RERP of Suffolk C'unty is a Precondition to Issuance of an Operating License for Shoreham.

3 B.

NRC Regulations Bind the Commission and May Not be Disregarded Because of Section 5 of the Current Authorization Act 4

C.

The Instant Legal Issues Should Be Certified To The Commission For Resolution 6

III. Statement of Facts 8

A.

Suffolk County Has Made a Major And Comprehensive Effort to Develop a Radiological Emergency Response Plan.

8 r

B.

The Suffolk County Legislature Has Held Hearings and Taken the Testimony of Many Experts and Members of the Public on the County's Draft Radio-logical Emergency Response Plan 11 C.

The County Has Resolved That It Will Not Adopt or Implement Any Radio-logical Emergency Response Plan 12 IV.

Discussion 15 A.

Sections 50.33 (g) and 50.47 of The NRC's Regulations Require a RERP of the Local Government 15 1.

The Plain Language of Sections 50.33(g) and 50.47(a) Requires the RERP of the Local Govern-ment, Suffolk County 15 i

i

s 2.

The NRC's Administrative Rulemaking Record Supporting The Emergency Planning Regulations Confirms The Requirement for the.RERP of the Local Government 17 3.

The Commission Has Recognized That The E::ercise of a Local Government'-s Responsibility For Its Citizens Can Affect The Operation of a Nuclear Plant 22 B.

Section 50.47 (c) (1) Is Immaterial To The Present Situation Where There Is Not And Will Not Be A County RERP Or Preparedness For Shoreham 25 C.

Section 5 of the Current NRC Authori-zation Act Does Not Provide A Basis For Licensing Shoreham.

30 V.

Conclusion.

35 I

ii

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322 0.L.

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTY'S MOTION TO TERMINATE THE SHOREHAM OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING AND THE COUNTY'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION I.

INTRODUCTION On February 23, 1983, Suffolk County filed a Motion to Terminate the Shoreham Operating License Proceeding.

The Motion was based upon the absence of a radiological emergency response plan ("RERP") of the local government, Suffolk County.

This lack of a local government's RERP means that the NRC will not be able to find that the Long Island Lighting Company

("LILCO") satisfies the NRC's requirements for an operating license.

Thus, this proceeding should be terminated.

The County also filed on February 23, 1983, a Motion for Certification of this matter to the Commission, since prompt resolution of the important issues of law and policy raised i

by the County would be in the interest of the public and all of the parties.

l On February 24, 1983, the Board requested the County to explain in greater detail the legal issues raised in the County's Motion to Terminate that should "be decided in the abstract in

I'

' advance of any litigation or decision on factual issues, the result of which would moot the need for any emergency planning litigation in the County's view."

Tr. 20,275.

The Board confirmed its request in a Confirmatory Memorandum and Order Directing the Submission of Briefs Addressing Suffolk County's Motion To Terminate This Proceeding, issued on February 28, 1983.

This Supplemental Brief is filed in response to the Board's February 24 request and its February 28 Order.

II.

SUMMARY

AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE CERTIFIED FOR COMMISSION DECISION It is undisputed that Suffolk County has determined that it will not adopt or implement any RERP for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham").

Suffolk County submits that this lack of a local government's RERP compels denial ot an operating license for Shoreham.

A favorable ruling on the County's Motion to Terminate depends solely upon resolution of two purely legal issues, which the County requests be certified to the Commission for prompt resolution:

i' Issue 1.

Do Sections 50.33 (g) and 50.47 of the NRC's regulations require, as a precondition to issuance of an operating license for Shoreham, the RERP of the local govern-ment, Suffolk County?

' l Issue 2.

If the answer to Issue 1 is affirmative -- i.e.,

the local government RERP of Suffolk County is required by the NRC's regulations -- does Section 5 of the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1982-83 permit the NRC to disregard Section 50.47 and Section -50.33 (g) of the NRC's regulations?

~

An affirmative answer to Issue 1 and a negative answer to Issue 2 would, as a matter of law, require this Board to grant Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate, given the uncon-troverted fact that the County has not and will not adopt or implement a local RERP.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

S 2.718(i),

the County seeks certification to the Commission of these issues on the grounds that they pose vital questions of law and policy that would be dispositive of this proceeding.

A.

The Local Government RERP of Suffolk County Is a Precondition to Issuance of an Operating License for Shoreham As discussed in detail in Parts IV.A and B below, 10 C.F.R.

SS 50.35 (g) and 50.47 (a) expressly require that the RERP of the local government be submitted by the applicant and that the NRC's findings on, emergency preparedness be based, inter alia, on that local government's RERP.

The regulatory requirement that there be the NERP of the local government is based upon officina government reports, including the "Kemeny Commission Report" and the "Rogovin Report, and upon the NRC's extensive rulemaking record, all of which emphasize the need for the local government's RERP as a precondition to th issuance of an operating license.

I t

f-

_4 Section 50.47 (c) (1) does not alter the NRC's requirement for the existence of the local government's RERP.

Rather, Section 50.47 (c) (l! provides only for the correction of particular deficiencies in the existing RERP of the local governemnt -- that is, the regulation permits the utility's on-site plan to be used to " compensate" for the failure of the local government's RERP to meet the requirements of a particular Planning Standard in Section 50.47(b).

This is appropriate, because otherwise a single deficiency in a local government's emergency preparedness capabilities would force shut-down of a nuclear power plant, even though every other feature of the local government's RERP is satisfactory to protect the public health and safety and even though the local government's single deficiency could be readily corrected by adding compensating measures to the utility's on-site plan.

However, this is not the situation in the instant proceeding.

Here, there is no RERP of the local government and there is no emergency preparedness for Suffolk County.

Accordingly, Section 50.47 (c) (1) is immaterial to the instant proceeding, because that regulation cannot, as a matter of law, be used to 1 -'

compensate for the total absence of a RERP of the local government.

1 i

B.

NRC Regulations Bind the Commission and May Not be Disregarded Because of Section 5 of the Current Authorization Act The regulations which require tue local government's RERP as a precondition to an operating license are binding upon the

t

_5_

Commission.

It is black letter law that the NRC must follow its own regulations.

La the D.C. Circuit noted in Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 673 F.2d 525, 536 (D.C. Cir. 1982), "[a]n agency is bound by its own regulations and commits procedural error if it fails to abide by them."

See also Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v.

FERC, 613 F.2d 1120, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S.

889 (1980); Teleprompter Cable Communications Corp. v. FCC, 565 F.2d 736, 742 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ("[t] he Commission's notion of the ~public interest cannot justify its failure to abide by its own rules"); Nader v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 513 F.2d 1045, 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1975);

K. Davis Administrative Law S 7:21, at 98 (1979).

As discussed in detail in Part IV.C below, LILCO and the NRC Staff have suggested that Section 5 of the NRC's current Authorization Act may permit tne Commission to disregard its regulations and issue an operating license for Shoreham where there is no RERP of the local government.

This argument has no lawful basis.

In the rulemaking proceeding for the NRC's emergency planning regulations, the Commission was specifically asked by the nuclear industry to promulgate Section 50.47 (c) (1) with language tracking the language of Section 109 of the NRC's 1980 Authorization Act, which is substantively identical to Secticn 5 of the current Authorization Act.

However, the Commission refused to grant that request.

Instead, the Commission implemented the discretionary authority granted to it by Congress j

r i inlSection 109 ofLthe Authorization Act with the current Section 50.47 (c) (1) of the regulations.

Thus, through the proper exercise of its rulemaking authority, the Commission has made the existence of the local government's RERP an indispen-sible requirement for issuance of an operating license for Shoreham.

C.

The Instant Legal Issues Should Be Certified To The Commission For Resolution The Commission encourages certification where, as in this case, vital legal issues of first impression are raised:

If a significant legal or policy question is presented on which Commission guidance is needed, a board should promptly refer or certify the matter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board or the Commission.

Statement of-Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 46 Fed. Reg. 28,533, 28,535 (1981).

As the Board noted at the February 24, 1983 hearing on this matter, the question whether an operating license may issue in the absence of an "off-site emergency plan approved by local government agencies is one of first impression."

Tr. 20,274; see also Board Confirmatory Memorandum (February 28, 1983) at 2.

The public interest would be served by prompt certification.

Uncertainty about the future of Shoreham has already engendered widespread interest among the general public and within the financial community.

Also, Suffolk County has requested commencement of an expeditious proceeding before the New York State Public Service Commission to determine a just and equitable

r-o s resolution of the cost and rate consequences of Shoreham not going on line.

Finally, an answer in favor of the County by the Commission to the two legal issues stated above would obviate the need for further proceedings before this Board.

While the NRC's regulations would permit certification to the Appeal Board, this case presents purely legal issues which only the Commission is in a position to resolve with finality.

This is because the two certified issues require interpretation of specific regulatory requirements which the Commission, following extensive personal involvement of the Commissioners, itself has promulgated.

Moreover, since time is of the essence to eliminating the present state of uncertainty over Shoreham, certification to the Appeal Board and then ultimately appeal to the Commission would simply take too long.

In short, because the rulings sought by Suffolk County would " affect the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner," they are appropriate matters for certification to the Commission.

Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-405, 5 N.R.C.

i 1

I 1190, 1192 (1977); see also Hous+.T Lighting and Power Co.

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Scation, Unit No. 1), ALAB-635, 13 N.R.C.

309, 310 (1981).

For the foregoing reasons, the Board should certify to the Commission the legal issues raised by Suffolk County and the County's Motion to Terminate.

O

' III.

STATEMENT OF FACTS The undisputed fact of direct relevance to resolution of the two legal issues raised by Suffolk County is that Suffolk County has determined that it will not adopt or implement any RERP for Shoreham.- Set forth below is;a brief summary of the record upon which Suffolk County's decision was based.

A.

Suffolk County Has Made A Major And Comprehensive Effort To Develop A Radiological Emergency Response Plan The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, an 820 MWe boiling water reactor, is under construction within Suffolk County at a site on the north shore of Long Island near the village of Wading River.

Shoreham is owned by the Long Island Lighting Company, which is seeking through these proceedings to obtain a license to operate the plant.

By State and local law, Suffolk County is responsible for the protection of the health, welfare and safety of its citizens.

See, e.g.,

Section 10 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law.

Pursuant to this responsibility, on March 23, 1982, the Suffolk County Legislature adopted Resolution No. 262-1982 (Exhibit 1 hereto), which instituted the County's comprehensive program to develop a REF?.

This resolution further required approval by the County Legislature of any RERP before being submitted to Federal authorities for review:

RESOLVED, that said plan shall not be operable and shall not be deemed adequate

_,. e. and capable of being implemented until such time as it is approved by the Suffolk County Legislature; and

r t'

- _9_

RESOLVED, that only after said plan is approved by the Suffolk County Legisla-ture, shall it be submitted to the Federal

' Emergency Management Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for purposes of any findings, determinations, rulings, reviews, or hearings by such Federal agencies.

The County initially appropriated $375,000 for developcent of the RERP.

In total the County expended approximately $600,000 in preparing its draft RERP and in performing the necessary analyses, studies, and surveys.

County Executive Peter F. Cohalan signed Resolution No.

262-1982 on March 25, 1982, and four days later, by Executive Order, established a Steering Committe9 to oversee the development of the RERP.

The Committee, chaired by the Deputy County Executive, proceeded to assemble a team of nationally recognized experts including:

Fred Finlayson, Ph.D., of Finlayson and Associates, an expert in the consequences of radiological accidents; Edward P.

Radford, M.D.,

Professor of Environmental Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh and former Chairman of the Comr ttee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation of the National Academy of Sciences; Philip B.

Herr, Professor of Planning at MIT; Kai T.

Erikson, Ph.D.,

Professor or Sociology, Yale University; James H. Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Geography, UCLA; Donald J.

Zeigler, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Geography, Old Dominion University;

,, g PRC Voorhees of McLean, Virginia, a firm specializing in traffic planning;

r i

- Robert J. Budnitz, Ph.D., of Future Resources Associates, Inc., an expert on the assessment of risks and accident probabilities at nuclear power plants; Stephen Cole, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology,. State University of New York at Stony Brook.

These experts started work on the County's RERP in April.

On May 18, 1982, the Suffolk County Legislature, by Resolution No. 456-1982 (Exhibit 2 hereto), reaffirmed its determination to provide for the protection of its residents in the event of a radiological emergency, stating:

Suffolk County takes this responsi-bility seriously and intends, through good faith and sound planning efforts, to assure that'the best possible emergency plan and preparedness are developed to protect the citizens of Suffolk County.

This Resolution further provided that the Legislature's review of the County draft RERP would include public hearings and that, until the Legislative approved a plan, "Fuffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or implement any radio-logical emergency response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Plant."

The County's experts completed their work in November 1982, conducting studies and analyses in the areas of probabilistic risk assessment, consequence analysis, evacuation time estimates, social and behavicral sciences, health effects of radiation, and planning.

Their efforts focused particularly on the well-established lessons of the accident at Three Mile Island and on the planning and preparedness problems caused by the special circumstances and conditions present on Long Island, such sg 3ba r,a Island's elongated narrow shape, its severly limited roadway system, its quickly changing wind patterns, and its local demographic features.

Their work resulted in the County's Draft RERP, which comprises three large volumes including the underlying analysca, studies, and surveys.

Coun

..,ecutive Cohalan submitted the Draft RERP to the County Legislature for review and public hearings on December 2, 1982.-1/

B.

The Suffolk County Legislature Has Held Hearings and Taken the Testimony of Many Experts and Members of the Public on the County's Draft Radiological Emergency Response Plan For eight days, from January 17 through January 27, 1983, the Suffolk County Legislature held hearings on the County's Draft RERP, as required by Resolution No. 456-1982, and compiled a record consisting of 1,600 pages of testimony and many 1

supplemental materials.

The Legislature heard testimony from the heads and members of County agencies and from expert witnesses, including those presented by LILCO.2/ In addition, three days of hearings were devoted to testimony by members of the public and concerned organization, both in favor of and opposed to the operation of Shoreham.

l/

Courtesy copies of the Draft County RERP were provided to the Licensing Board and the parties in early December 1982.

2/

During LILCO's oral presentation before the County Legisla-ture, its primary witness, Dr. Matthew Cordaro, was accompanied by seven experts who offered their views.

LILCO also submitted an 85-page written presentation to the County Legislature, which LILCO forwarded to this Licensing Board via a letter dated February 1, 1983.

In February 1983, the Legislature traveled to Harrisburg, d

Pennsylvania, to hear testimony from local public officials and residents concerning the accident at Three Mile Island and the emergency planning lessons learned in its aftermath.

C.

The County Has Resolved That It Will Not Adopt Or Implement Any Radiological Emergency Response Plan On February 17, 1983, the Suffolk County Legislature adopted Resolution No. 111-1983, which County:-Executive Cohalan signed on February 23.

(Exhibit 3 hereto).

By this Resolution, the Legislature determined not to adopt or implement the Draft County RERP or any other RERP, because such a plan, "if implemented, would not protect the health, welfare and safety of Suffolk County residents."

-Exhibit 3 at 4-5.

The Legis-lature concluded that:

[S]ince no local radiological emergency response plan for a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham will protect the health, welfare and safety of Suffolk County residents, and since the preparation and implementation of any such plan would be misleading.to the public by indicating to County residents that their health, welfare and safety are being protected when, in' fact, such is not the case, the County's radiological emergency planning-process is hereby terminated, and no local radiological emergency plan for response to an accident at the Shoreham plant shall be adopted or implemented Exhibit 3, p.

5.

(emphasis supplied)

D.

The So-Called Local Radiological Emergency Response Plan Developed by LILCO Without Suffolk County's Approval or Authorization Is Not and Will Not be Adopted or Implemented by the County On May 10, 1982, LILCO submitted to the New York State

,=

Disaster Preparedness Commission ("DPC") a document contained in two loose-leaf binders entitled "Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan."

The LILCO plan contains numerous requirements for action by government departments and organi-zations of Suffolk County in the event of an accident at Shoreham and, in fact, depends upon the County to implement the plan.

LILCO's submission of an alleged Suffolk County plan to the State DPC, ns well as a subsequent resubmission in October 1982, was without County approval or authorization.

Indeed, the County strongly objected to this act of LILCO as tantamount to the usurpation of the County's inherent right and duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the County's citizens.

See Suffolk County Resolutions 456-1982 and 457-1982 (Exhibits 2 and 4 hereto).

Notwithstanding the fact that LILCO's so-called plan was not the l lan of the County developed pursuant to Resolution 262-1982, the Legislature, during its hearings in January 1983, heard testimony from LILCO and others on the adequacy of LILCO's plan, copies of which were submitted to each Iegislator and accepted into the hearing record.

Accordingly, County Resolution No. 111-1983 stated:

WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without County approval or authorization is deficient because it does not deal with the actual local conditions, physical and behavioral, on Long Island that would be encountered during a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham; and

e.

WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without County approval or authorization does not ensure that effective protective action by persons subject to radiation exposure, in the form of evacuation or sheltering, would be taken in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, and thus such document, even if implemented would not protect the health, safety, and welfare of Suffolk County residents, RESOLVED,.the document submitted by LILCO to the [ State of New York Disaster Preparedness Commission].without the County approval or authorization, if implemented, would not protect the health, welfare and safety of Suffolk County residents and thus will not be approved and will not be implemented.

Cherefore, the LILCO plan does not constitute the RERP of Suffolk County and will nec be adopted or implemented by the County.

On February 18, 1983, the Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, announced that he would not impose any independent 3y developed radiological emergency response plan on Suffolk County.

He therefore directed the DPC to refrain from forwarding to the Federal government "any proposed off-site emergency i

evacuation plan for the proposed Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant" (Exhibit 5 hereto).

t I

l l

I i

l

. IV. DISCUSSION A.

Sections 50.33(g) and 50.47 of The NRC's Regulations Require a RERP of the Local Government 1.

The Plain Language of Sections 50.33(g) and 50.47(a) Requires the RERP of the Local Government, Suffolk County.

On August 19, 1980, the NRC adopted 10 C.F.R.

SS50.33(g) and 50.47, which establish emergency planning requirements for nuclear power plants.

These regulations -- the law which must be applied here -- require the existence of the Suffolk County government's RERP and the County's preparedness before Shoreham can operate.

Section 50.33(g) requires for an operating license that:

.the applicant shall submit radio-logical emergency response plans of State and local governmental entities in the United States that are wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

10 C.F.R. 550.33(g) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, it is man-datory that the applicant submit, among other things, the RERP of the local governmental entity.

By its plain meaning, the RERP of the local governmental entity means the plan adopted by the local government.

It does not mean, as is the case with LILCO's so-called plan, a RERP submitted by a utility without local government authorization, approval, or adoption.

'l

,-e

~e e

,a m-~n an.

O I l

After the applicant submits the State and local gevernment plans, 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a)(1) requires findings on the adequacy of onsite and offsite3/ emergency preparedness:

[N]o operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

The Commission has defined preparedness to mean "the actual state of implementation."

Amendments to NRC Emergency Planning Rule, 47 Fed. Reg. 30,232 (1983).

Under 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a)(2), as amended, the NRC's findings on offsite preparedness must be based upon a review of State and local government plans.

The NRC will base its findings on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented, and on the NRC assessment as to whether the applicant's onsite emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented.

(Emphasis added.)

ihese provisions make clear that the NRC's emergency planning evaluation process requires FEMA review of the RERP of the local government (required to be submitted under Section 50.33(g)), as well as State plans, and NRC review of licensee 3/

"Onsite" plant are developed by the licensee.

"The

'offsite' plans are drawn up and adopted by nearby city and county officials.

Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre), LBP-82-39, 15 N.R.C.

1163, 1173 (1982).

. onsite plans.

The findings of each review must be that there is reasonable assurance that the respective plans can be implemented.

Thereafter, the NRC makes a decision on the adequacy of onsite and offsite preparedness, which the Commission has defined as a decision as to "the overall and in-tegrated state of preparedness."

45 Fed. Reg. at 55,407.

The Commission definas overall preparedness as the " integration of the licensee's emergency preparedness as determined by the NRC and of the State / local governments as determined by FEMA and reviewed by NRC

." 45 Fed. Reg. at 55,406.

Thus, the existence of adequate State and loca covernment emergency re-sponse plans is essen'tial to a finding of overall (onsite and offsite) preparedness under 10 C.F.R. S50.47.

2.

The NRC's Administrative Rulemaking Record Supporting The Emergency Planning Regulations Confirms The Requirement for the RERP of the Local Government The accident at Three Mile Island demonstrated the urgent need for significant improvement in emergency planning and preparedness by governments proximate to nuclear power plants.

The Commission recognized that, contrary to its former posi-tion, close attention to emergency planning is as important as l

siting and engineered safety features.

44 Fed. Reg. 75169.

Indeed, in 1980, when the NRC adopted new emergency planning requirements, it stated that "onsite and offsite emergency preparedness

[is] needed to protect the health and safety of the public."

45 Fed. Reg. 55403 (1980).

~

. Official studies and reports on the Three Mile Island ac-cident emphasized the need for upgraded emergency planning and especially for local government involvement.

The NRC relied heavily on these studieo and reports in preparing and later in adopting its emergency planning regulations.

44 Fed. Reg. 75169._ The NRC's own study, conducted by the Special Inquiry Group headed by Mitchel Rogovin, concluded that the participa-tion of local government is essential to adequate emergency planning:

[T]he ability to carry out an evacuation plan in the area of a nuclear plant depends much more on the existence of adequate county and local emergency plans than on a FEMA-approved or NRC-approved State plan.

We believe that too little attention has been devoted to this aspect of emergency planning.

Although the State plan must provide for effective notification and communications between the decisionmakers (the Governor and State agencies) and the localities, for back-up support, and often for planning out beyond a 10-mile zone, the county and local levels are where the action is and where the spe-cific details of the plan must be worked out.

As Oran Henderson,the Director of Pennsylvania's Emergency Management Agency told us:

I could prepare you the most beautiful State plan that I assure you NRC would approve, but if that plan isn't disseminated and the subordinate county and local municipal plans l

prepared that dovetail [with the State plan]

and take the guidance in the State plan, you still don't have anything.

It's the local government and the county government that are going to have the capability to execute any evacuation, if evacuation were neces-sary.

The local municipalities around Three Mile Island had no emergency plans for an accident at the plant and, as it turned out, elected officials in those communities got little or no accurate information about the accident to assist them in making decisions.

. M.

Rogovin, Three Mile Island: A Report To The Commissioners 131-132 (1979) (emphasis added).

Based on the importance of local participation in emergency planning, the Rogovin report concluded "that workable evacuation plans are a prerequisite to continued operation of existing and future reactors."

Id. at 132.

An investigation by the House Committae on Government Operations also focused on the need for vastly improved local emergency planning.

The Committee recommended:

3.

With regard to state and local planning for nuclear emergencies, the NRC should:

(e) require, by rule, as a condition for the issuance of an operating license for a nuclear powerplant, in the case of all plants for which construction permits have already been issued, the existence of both a state emergency plan for the state in which the plant is sited and, for that site and each additional nu-clear plant site in that state, a local plan that comply with the NRC standards contained in the rule described in 3(b).

Emercency Planning Around U.S. Nuclear Powerplants:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oversight, H.R.

Rep. No. 413, 96th Cong.,

1st Sess. 51-52 (1979) (emphasis added).

Similarly, the President's investigatory panel, the Kemeny Commission, recommended that approved State and local government plans be a condition for an operating license.

See J. Kemeny, Report of the President's Commission On The Accident I

l

. At Three Mile Island 76 (1979); 44 Fed. Reg. at 75,169; see also GAO Report, EMD-78-110, " Areas Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be Better Prepared For Radiological Emergencies" (Mar.

30, 1979).

In light of the demonstrated need for improved emergency preparedness, especially by local governments, the NRC issued proposed emergency planning regulations on December 19, 1979, which the Commission expressly acknowledged were based upon the official reports cited above.

44 Fed. Reg. at 75,169.

The regulations proposed by the Commission required state and local government emergency plans to be submitted by the licensee and approved by the NRC "as a condition of operating license issuance."

Id. at 75,168 (emphasis added).

In discussing the rationale for this new licensing requirement, the NRC explained that it had concluded "that in carrying out its statutory mandate to protect public health and safety, the Commission must be in a position to kr.ow that off-site governmental plans have been reviewed and found adequate."

Id. at 75,169 (emphasis added).

The Commission's comments on the proposed emergency planning regulations and the content of the official reports on which these regulations were based make clear that the Commission found the need for both adequate State and local government emergency response plans.

Tne Commission's final regulations, promulgated on August 19, 1980, clearly reflect that finding, as discussed in Section IV.A.1, above.

This

I

. conclusion is further supported by NUREG 0654, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Nov. 1980).

The NRC and FEMA jointly developed NUREG 0654 to guide the de-velopment and review mandated by 10 C.F.R.

S50.47(a)(2) of State, local, and utility plans.

The Commission's emergency planning regulations specifically embrace NUREG 0654, which establishes planning criteria to be met for adequate emergency response and defines the emergency planning responsibilities of the affected State and local governments and of the utilities.

NUREG 0654 leaves no doubt that the NRC considers the local government to be responsible for local offsite planning

-- a fact that is indisputable under New York State law, which provides in Article 2B S23 of the Executive Law that "[e]ach county.

is authorized to prepare disaster preparedness plans."

In allocating emergency planning responsibilities, NUREG 0654 places onsite duties on the utility.

See NUREG 0654 at 25 ("the licensees of nuclear facilities have a primary re-sponsibility for planning and implementing emergency measures within their site boundaries.")

The State's role is to re-spond to less immediate offsite matters.

See id. at 11 (" State response organizations will be principally responsible for the planning associated with the ingestion exposure pathway").

The RERP of the local government, however, is by far the most important, and, indeed, is contemplated by NUREG 0654 as being essential to effective offsite response:

4 e

_~

. Local government plans and response mechan-4 isms are particularly important for the 10-mile EPZ.

This is because relatively shorter times may be available to implement immediate protective measures associated with the plume exposure pathway (sheltering, thyroid blocking, evacuation),

as opposed to the generally longer times available for implementing protective meas-j ures for the ingestion exposure pathway.

4 State government resources may be too far away-from the involved local jurisdictions to be of much immediate help for a plume exposure problem in the early hours of an accident.

Local government emergency plans should be made a part of the State emergency plan.

Id. at 20-21.

Thus, NUREG 0654 confirms the plain meaning of the NRC's regulations that a RERP adopted and implemented by the local governmental entity ic required by 10 C.F.R. 550.47.

3.

The Commission Has Recognized That The Exercise of a Local Government's Responsibility For Its Citizens Can Affect The Operation of a Nuclear Plant i

l Resolution No. 111-1983, which resolved that Suffolk County will not adopt or~ implement a RERP, was enacted by the County pursuant to its municipal duty, under the New York State Constitution to provide for the " government, protection, order, safety, health and well-being of persons" within its l

jurisdiction.

New York State Constitution, Art.

9, S2(10).

In l

short, Suffolk County acted so as to effect the constitutional obligation which it owes to its own citizens.

The NRC has recognized that a local government has obligations to its citizenry and, particularly in the case of local emergency preparedness obligations, the Commission has u-

. dealt with the issue which those obligations raise.

Thus, in proposing, considering, and adopting the NRC's emergency planning regulations, the Commission was alerted to, and indeed was specifically conscious of the possibility that the respon-sibility owed by a local government to its citizens for their welfare could prevent a nuclear power plant from operating.

The Commission acknowledged that " State and local governments have the primary responsibility under their constitutional po-lice powers to protect their public."

44 Fed. Reg. at 75,169.

In response to the NRC's proposed emergency planning regu-lations, many commenters urged revisions because the regula-tions explicitly recognized that State or local government action might prevent operation of a nuclear plant.

See NUREG 0684, " Summary of.Public Comments, and NRC Staff Analysis Re-lating to Rulemaking on Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants" 2-7 (Sept. 1980); NUREG/CP-00ll, " Proceedings of Work-shops on Proposed Rulemaking on Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants" 33-36, 50 (Apr. 1980); NUREG-0628, "NRC Staff Preliminary Analysis of Public Comments on Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Emergency Planning" 2-9 (Jan. 1980).

On June 3, 1980, the Staff issued SECY-80-275, in which it presented to the Commissioners a proposed final emergency planning rule.

In the SECY, the Staff specifically addressed the possibility that the proposed regulations could result in the shutdown of nuclear plants:

f-lt. The staff recognizes this potential for a third party defacto veto power.

The Commission is also aware of this.

SECY-80-275, June 3, 1980, Enclosure L, Analysis of ACRS Comments, at 9.

However, rather than recommending that the NRC attempt to circumvent or in any way invalidate the exercise of State or local government police powers, the Staff concluded that the decision of how best to protect the public, including the pos-

- sibility of plant shutdowns, should be left to the State and local governmental authorities:

The decision of how the public should be protected has been made, i.e.,

either emergency planning and preparedness is ade-quate or a plant must be placed in a condition of safe shutdown.

The State and local authorities have the responsibility to determine which option is in the best interest of their citizens.

NBC Staff, " Environmental Assessment for Effective Changes to 10 CFR Part 50" 27 (June 3, 1980), Enclosure I to SECY-80-275 (emphasis added).

In promulgating the NRC's emergency planning regulations on August 19, 1980, the Commission agreed with the Staff that State and local governments are the proper entities to deter-mine whether and, if so, how the public can be protected in the event of a radiological emergency.

The Commission accepted the possibility that State or local government action could foreclose operation of a plant.

The Commission recognizes there is a possi-bility that the operation of some reactors may be affected by this rule through inaction of State and local governments or

O an inability to comply with these rules.

The Commission believes that the potential restriction of plant operation by State and local officials is not significantly different in kind or effect from the means already available under existing law to prohibit reactor operation, such as zoning and land-use laws, certification of public convenience and necessity, State financial and rate considerations (10 CFR 50.33(f))

and Federal environmental laws.

45 Fed. Reg. at 55,404.

Thus, in adopting Sections 50.33(g) and 50.47(a), the Commission took at face value the possibility of a local government's action sffecting the operation of a nu-clear plant.

B.

Section 50.47(c)(1) Is Immaterial To The Present Situation Where There Is Not And Will Not Be A County RERP Or Preparedness For Shoreham.

10 C.F.R. 550.47(c)(1) provides that:

Faildre to meet the applicable standards set forth in paragraph [50.47)(b)4/ of this subcection may result in the Commission declining to issue an Operating License, however, the applicant will have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfac-tion of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question, that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation.

By its plain meaning, Section 50.47(c)(1) provides the means for an applicant to show that the failure of a required RERP to meet some of the planning standards of Section 50.47(b) need not lead to denial of an operating license.

However,

,.e -

4/

Section 50.47(b) sets forth 16 detailed planning standards which all plans must meet.

. Section 50.47(c)(1) does not exempt an applicant from the requirement of Section 50.33(g), that it submit the emergency response plans of both the State and local governments.

Nor does it exempt an applicant from the requirements of Section 50.47(a), that the State and local governments' plans be reviewed and that they form the basis for the Commission's de-termination that there is " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a ra-diological emergency."

What Section 50.47(c)(1) does is to permit e deficiency in one of the three required emergency plans to be cured -- or

" compensated" for -- by a provision in another of the required plans.

The essential predicate for Section 50.47(c)(1), how-ever, is that all three of the' required emergency plans be in existence and be operational.

That is, Section 50.47(c)(1) is a means through which the NRC can, if necessary, permit States, local governments, and utilities to bolster emergency preparedness capabilities in one plan to compensate for the shortcomings of another, with the ultimate requirement being to l

assure the requisite level of integrated onsite and offsi*a I

preparedness.

Section 50.47(c)(1), however, is immateria(

r the present proceeding, because here there is no local government plan in existence and none will be forthcoming and operational.

Therefore, there is no predicate for the applica-tion of Section 50.47(c)(1).

,.e -

l 1

. The Commission's own explanation of its emergency planning regulations demonstrates that Section 50.47(c)(1) is intended only to cure deficiencies in existing plans and not to attempt the hopeless task of divining the creation of a 1 coal government's RERP vnere none in fact exists.

Thus, with re-spect to Section 50.47(c)(1), the Commission has stated that it:

will examine State plans, local plans, and licensee plans to determine whether features of one plan can compensate for deficiencies in another plan so that the level of protection for the public health and safety is adequate.

Preamble to NRC Emergency Planning Final Rule, 45 Fed. Reg.

55,402, 55,403 (1980) (emphasis added).

Indeed, Commissioner Hendrie made clear that Section 50.47(c)(1) could not compensate for a situation where there was no plan at all:

I can't see looking at a plant in which there is effectively notning out there in the way of emergency planning, you know, above the present level and up to the new guidelines and saying, well, they really need this plant.

It is going to cost them a mint on the one hand and a reserve margin below on the other.

If they don't have it, never mind.

We are not going to have that situation and, yoq know, the Governor call-ing up and saying, don't shut t down, for God sakes, Murtle Beach will go dark and I can't stand it.

I just don't think we are going to have those things, I think what you are going to be looking for are ways in which the licensee can carry out some actions that help to "e "*

compensate for deficiencies in the local plans, in the state plans.

O NRC July 23, 1980 Tr. at 88.

This interpretation, that Section 50.47(c)(1) is immaterial where a required plan does not exist at all, is also confirmed by NRC caselaw interpreting Section 50.47(c)(1).

Thus, the Licensing Board's have held that a u-tility's onsite plan might compensate for deficiencies in an existing State or local plan in a specific area such as radio communication, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Zimmer),

I LBP-82-48, 15 N.R.C.

1549, 1573 (19821, or offsite radiation monitoring, Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre),

LBP-82-39, 15 N.R.C.

1163, 1249 (1982).

The Commission's recent decision in Consolidated Edir.on Co. of New York and the Power Authority of New York (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, CLI-82-38 (Dec.

23, 1982), further supports this conclusion.

The issue in that case was whether the Commission should revoke the operating licenses for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

FEMA had found that there were significant deficiencies in offsite emergency l

planning for the plants due mainly to the incomplece status of a local government plan for Rockland County and the inability of Westchester County to obtain sufficient bus drivers for evacuation of persons who do not own automobiles.

Pockland l

County, which is one of four counties within the Indian Point EPZ, was in the process of devel.oping an acceptable plan, with completion expected in ear 17 1983.

In the meantime, a State plan existed which provided compensating measures on an interim l

l basis until the loca3 plen was completed.

In addition, another l

. State plan provided that the National Guard would drive buses in Westchester County.

Slip op. at 8.

By a 3-2 vote, the Commission decided that continued operation at Indian Point was permissible, pending reconsidera-tion of its decision following an exercise in March of this year.

The Commission's decision was based on the provisions of Section 50.54(s)(2)(ii), a parallel provision to Section 50.47(c)(1), which provides that in determining whether a plant should be shut down, the Commission will take into account:

among other factors, whether the licensee can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction that the deficiencies in the plan are not signifi-cant for the plant in question, or that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation.

The Commission's decision relied upon the existence of the compensatory State plans and Rockland County's imminent devel-opment of its own plan as mitigating circumstances which, under Section 50.54(s), did not compel shutdown.

By contrast, in the present proceeding Suffolk County is the,only county within the Shoreham EPZ and, under Resolution No. 111-1983, the County has resolved that it will implement no emergency response plan.

In addition, the State has determined that it "will not be a party to any effort to impose an independently developed State plan upon Suffolk County" (See Exhibit 5).

These distinctions are particularly significant in light of Commissioner Ahearne's statement in his conentring

. opinion in Indian Point that if by the end of April no approved Rockland County plan exists, "I do not believe I would support continued operation of the plants."

Id., Additional Views of Commissioner Ahearne at 4.

Similarly, Chairman Palladino, as well, was strongly influenced to vote with the majority by the progress being made in the development of Rockland County's plan, a factor not present here.

Id., Chairman's Statement on Indian Point at 3-4.

Thus, in the total absence of a Suffolk County RERP, ano with the Resolution at the County not to adopt or implement a RERP, the strong indication of record is that a majority of the Commission would not permit operation of Shoreham.

C.

Section 5 of the Current NRC Authorization Act Does Not Provide a Basis For Licensing Shoreham The foregoing demonstrates that the NRC's regulations re-quire an operational Suffolk County RERP that will be implemented by Suffolk County for Shoreham as a precondition to NRC issuance of an operating license.

No provision of the NRC's regulations exempts Shoreham from this requirement.

Since such a plan does not and will not exist for Shoreham and since the NRC's emergency preparedness requirements are thus not satisfied, an operating license cannot be granted.

LILCO and the NRC Staff refuse to accept that the NRC is required by law to abide by its own regulations.

Instead, those parties have suggested that Congress, in enacting Section

(

5 of the NRC's Fiscal Year 1982-83 Authorization Act, Pub.

L.

l l

l

. 415, 06 Stat. 2068,2069 (1983), provided a basis for the NRC to disregard the requirements of 10 C.F.R. SS 50.33(g) and 50.47.

See Tr. 20,249-51.

Thus, despite the regulatory requirement for a local government's emergency response plan which will be implemented, these parties argue that Section 5 constitutes a basis on which to grant an operating license to LILCO if "there exists a state, local or utility plan which provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety is not endangered by the operation of the facility.

Tr. 20,251 (Staff counsel) (emphasis supplied).

The argument of LILCO and the Staff must be rejected.

Section 5 does not authorize, let alone mandate, the NRC to disregard its regulations.

Section 5 states:

Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 1, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may use such sums as may be necessary, in the absence of a State or local emergency preparedness plan which has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to issue an operating license for a nuclear power reactor, if it determines that there exists a State, local, or utility plan which provides rea-sonable assurance that public health and cafety is not endangered by operation of the facility concerned.

(Emphasis sup-plied).

Section 5 adopts and continues in effect a provision which originated in Section 109 of the NRC Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1980, Pub.

L.

285, 94 Stat. 780 (1980).

A copy of Section 109 is attached as Exhibit 6.

Indeed, the Conference Report for the 1982-83 Act specified that Section 5

. "reiterat(es) the intent of Congress in enacting Section 109 of P.L.96-295." H.R.

Rep. No. 884, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 27 (1982).

Thus, Section 5 and 109 are identical in purpose and intent.

The County demonstrates below that the NRC has specifically considered Section 109 (and thus Section 5) and has adopted in Section 50.47(c)(1) a standard which does not permit licensing where no local government's plan is submitted and implemented.

The NRC proposed adoption of 10 C.F.R.

SS 50.33(g) and 50.47 in December 1979.

44 Fed. Reg. 75,167 (1979).

After extensive public comments, regional workshops and ACRS meetings, the NRC Staff prepared SECY 60-275, dated June 3, 1980.

Enclosure B of this SECY contained a proposed Final Rule on emergency planning.

With one immaterial exception,5/ the Staff's proposed Final Rule contains the exact same words as were finally promulgated by the NBC as Section 50.47(c)(1).

l See SECY 80-275, Enclosure B, at 34.

On June 25, 1980, the Commission met with nuclear industry spokesmen and other interested parties to receive written and oral comments on the Staff's proposed Final Rule.

Section 109 had not yet been enacted by the Congress, but had already been l

l approved by the Congressional Conference Committee.

The nucle-I ar industry representative, anticipating passage of Section i

l 5/

In the first line of the Staff's proposed Section 50.47(c), the word " objectives" is used, while Section 50.47(c)(1), as finally adopted, uses the word

" standards."

. 109, argued that the NRC's final emergency planning regulations I

would be illegal unless the following language were added to Section 50.47(c)(1):

The NRC will issue an operating license for a nuclear power reactor if there exists a state, local or utility plan which provides reaser;able assurance that public health and safety is not endangered by operation of the facility.6/

At the June 25 meeting, the NRC's General Counsel, Mr.

Bickwit, rejected the nuclear industry's assertion that the Staff's proposed Final Rule was inconsistent with Section 109.

He stated that Section 109 specified minimum requisements for the NRC's emergency preparedness rule and that the proposed Final Rule met those requirements.

NRC June 25, 1980 Tr. at 49.

Mr.

Bickwit reiterated this view during Staff briefings of the Commission on July 3 and July 23, 1980.

See NRC July 3, 1980 Tr. at 41-42; NRC July 23, 1980 Tr. at 5.

Indeed, during the July 25 briefing, which occurred after Congressional enactment of Section 3 09, Mr. Bickwit stated that Section 109 specifies minimum requirements and "therefore the Commission is free from a legal standpoint to be as stringent as it chooses to be under the law."

NRC July 23, 1980 Tr. at 5.

6/

See Statement of Warren H. Owen, Senior Vice President, Duke Power Co.,

for presentatiors before the NRC on Behalf t

l of the Nuclear Industry, p. 11, June 25, 1980, attached to NRC June 25 Transcript (Emphasis supplied).

Response

Plan Steering Committee

(" Steering Committee") and directed it to prepare a County plan for submittal to

the County Executive and County Legislature; and WHEREAS, the Steering Committee assembled a group of highly qualified and l nationally recognized experts from diverse disciplines to prepare such County l plan; and i

dargne5M MPW)

~

MHE REAS,

cuch highly qualified exparts worked in a

diligent and conscientious effort et a coct in excess of

$500,000 to prepare the best

.possible plan for suffolk County, and particularly to ensure that such plan took into account all particular physical and behavioral conditions on Long Island that affect the adequacy of the emergency response plan; and

'WHEREAS, the analyses, studies, and surveys of such experts included:

(a)

Detailed analyses of the possible releases of radiation from Shoreham; (b)

Detailed analyses of the radiological health consequences of such radiation release on the population of Suffolk

County, giventhe meterological, demographic, topographical, and other specific local conditions on Long Island; (c)

A detailed social survey of Long Island residents to determine and assess their intended behavior in the event of a

serious accident at Shoreham; (d)

A detailed survey of school bus drivers, volunteer firemen, and certain other emergency response personnel to determine whether i emergency personnel intend to report promptly for emergency duties, or instead to unite with their own families, in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; (e)

Detailed estimates of the number of persons who would be ordered to evacuate in the event of a serious accident at

Shoreham, as well as the number of persons who intend to evacuate voluntarily even if not ordered to do so; (f)

Detailed analyses of the road network in Long Island and the time required to evacuate persons from areas affected by radiation releases; (g)

Detailed analyses of the protective actions available to Suffolk County residents to evacuate or take shelter from such radiation releases; and (h)

Analysis of the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mile Island on local government responsibilities to prepare for a

radiological emergency; and WHE REAS, on May 10, 1982, LILCO, without the approval or authorization of the Suffolk County Government, submitted to the New York State Disaster i

Preparedness Commisssion

("DPC")

two volumes entitled "Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan" and containing the original planning data, as further revised and supplemented by LILCO, and requested the DPC to review and approve such LILCO submittal as the local radiological emergency response

. plan for Suffolk County; and

WHEREAS, in Resolutions 456-1982 and 457-1982, the County further l addressed the matter of preparing for a radiological emergency at Shoreham and emphasized that:

(a)

The LILCO-submitted document was not and will not be the County's Radiological Emergency Response Plan; and

.(b)

Tha. County's Radiological Emsrgsncy Rasponsa Planning Policy, 20 enunciated in Rosolution 456-1982, is ao followas Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or implement any radio'.ogical emergency response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Plt.nt unless that plan has been fully developed to the best of the County's ability.

Suffolk. County shall not assign funds or personnel to test orl

~

implement any radiological -emergency response plan for the>

Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan.has been subject offat l

least two public hearings, one to be' held in Riverhead, and one to be held in Hauppauge.

Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or implement any radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved, after public hearings, by the Suffolk County Legislature. and the County Executive; and

WHEREAS, on June 9, 1982, the DPC rejected the LILCO-submitted document for the reason that it was deficient; and

WHEREAS, on October 6,

1982, LILCO, again without the approval or authorization of the Suffolk Caunty Government, submitted to the DPC an amended

version of the previously submitted LILCO document which had been rejected by i the DPC; and I

WHEREAS, on December 2,

1982, the Draft County Radiological Emergency

! Response Plan authorized by Resolution 262-1982 was submitted to the County iLegislature for review and public hearings as specified in Resolutions 262-1982,

<456-1982, and 457-1982; and

WHEREAS, in January

1983, the Legislature held hearings on the Draft County plan, which hearings included:

(a)

More than 1,590 pages of transcripts; (b)

Detailed written statements and oral testimony of County expert consultants who prepared the Draft County plan; (c)

Detailed written statements and oral testimony of LILCO officials and expert consultants retained by LILCO; (d)

Detailed written statements and oral testimony of the Suffolk County Police Department, the County Health Department, the County Social Services department, and -the County Public Works Department, all of which would have indispansable roles in responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham; (e)

Detailed written statements and oral testimony of organizations in Suffolk County concerned with radiological emergency preparedness; and (f)

Extensive presentations by nundreds of members of the general public; and

e

,WHEREAS, membara of tho Legiolature also travelled to and hold public hdcrings in the vicinity of the Thren Milo Island Nuclear Power Plant to gain information ca the lessons to be learned by local governments from the accident at Three Mile Island; and

WHEREAS, the Draft County plan identifies evacuation and protective shaltoring as the two primary protective actions which would need to be implemented in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; and

WHEREAS, evacuation of Suffolk County residents in the event of a radiological emergency could take as much time as 14-30 hours because of various

factors, including:

the limited number of appropriate evacuation routes in Suffolk County; difficulties in mobilizing police and other emergency personnel; difficulties ensuing from spontaneous evacuation of large numbers of County residents, thus creating severe traffic congestion; and unavilability of alternate evacuation rcutes for persons residing east of Shoreham and thus the nacecsity for such persons during an evacuation to pass by the plant and possibly through the radioactive plume; and WHE RE AS,

evacuation times in excess of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> and certainly

. evacuation times in the range of 14-30 hours will result in virtual immobilization of evacuation and high exposure of evacuees to radiation such that evacuees' health, safety, and welfare would not be protected; and

WHEREAS, protective sheltering is designed to protect persons from excessive radiation exposure by such persons staying indoors until radiation with the greatest danger to health has passed; and

WHEREAS, if protective sheltering were ordered for Suffolk County residents, unacceptable radiation exposure would still be experienced by substantial portions of the Suffolk County population, thus making it impossible to provide for the health, welf a re, and safety of these residents; and

WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without County l approval or authorization is deficient because it does not deal with the actual local conditions, physical and behavioral, on Long Island that would be encountered during a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham; and

WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without County approval or authorization does not ensure that effective protective action by persons subject to radiation exposure, in the form of evacuation or sheltering,

, would be taken in event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, and thus such ldocumnnt, even if implemented, would not protect the health, safety, and welfare of Suffolk County residents; and

WHEREAS, the extensive data which the Legislature has considered make iclear that the site-specific circumstances and actual local conditions existing on Long

Island, particularly its elongated east / west configuration which requires all evacuation routes from locations east of the plant to pass within a izone of predicted high radiation, the ineffectiveness of protective sheltering, the severe traffic congestion likely to be experienced if a partial or complete evacuation we re

ordered, and the difficulties in ensuring that emergency

' personnel will promptly report for emergency

duties, preclude any emergency response

plan, if implemented, from providing adequate preparedness to protect lthe health, we l f are, and safety of Suf folk County residents; now, therefore, be lit

v

, RESOLVED, thnt tha Draft County plan cubmitted to the County L giclcturo on December 2, 1982, if implemantsd, would not protect the health, welfaro, cnd sofoty of Suffolk County roeidents and thus is not approved and will not be implemented; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without the County' approval or authorization, if implemented, would not protect the

health, welfare, and safety of Suffolk residents and thus will not be approved and will not be implemented; and be it further

RESOLVED, that since no local radiological emergency response plan for a sarious nuclear accident at Shoreham will protect the

health, welfare, and safoty of Suffolk County residents, and since the preparation and implementatica of any such plan would be misleading to the public by indicating to County residents that their health, we lf a re, and safety are being protected when, in fact, such is not the case, the County's radiological emergency planning process is hareby terminated, and no local radiological emergency plan for response to cn accident at the shoreham plant shall be adopted or implemented; and be it further

RESOLVED, that since no radiological emergency plan can protect the health, welfare, safety of Suffolk County residents and, since no radiological emergency plan shall be adopted or implemented by Suffolk County, the County Exscutive is hereby directed to take all actions necessary to assure that actions taken by any other governmental agency, be it State or Federal, are consistent with the decisions mandated by this Resolution.

DATED: February 17, 1983 APP c

BY:

L %

a Counef Executive of Suffolk County Date of Approval:

op,7 3 73 1

'I l

e l

l l

f LEt a l @ I T 4 Intro. Pat 30. 1517-82 i

Introduced ay Leg t slators Prospect, Blass, Folsy, Rosso, Caracappa, Ctes, Al}gH 3

S Richards, Wehrenberg, Rir:0, N21cn Hariton, N3to, Howard, LaDus, e

h 3

Invina, Mra:1k 2

'h RESOLUTION NO. 457 - 1982, AUTHOnt ING THE N

CLERX OF THE LEGISLATURE TO SEND A HOME 4

RULE HESSAGE r,1C5 THE C00tiTY OF SUFFOLK TO THE

)

COVE.11;OR AND THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF

{

UEW YORK IN FORMAL PROTEST OF THE NEW YORX STATE b

DIS ASTER PREPARE 0 NESS CCMMISS EN'S USURPATION OF J

SUFFOLX COUNTY'S AUTHORITY TO ACSPONSIBLY DEVELOP j

ITS RADICLOGICAL EMERGENCY REE:'"NSE PLAN

NdEREAS, Suffolk Caunty adopted ra'aiution 262-82 which directed the\\

Suffolk County Planning Cepartr ent to pecpare a county-wide Radiological y

Emergency Response Plan and appropriated furdr for said purpose; and y

4 UHEREAS, Suffolk County, to further 1*.a sworn duty to protect the healt?

th Y

cnd safety of the pecple of Suffolk Co u n t.y, has commissioned studies

}

determine all planning facets that are cssential in developing a viable Radiological Emergency Response Plan; and a

WHEREAS, Suffolk County resolution 262-02 declared, as official count-policy, that any Radiological Emergency Response proposal developed by th<

Suffolk County Planning Department, shall not be deemed adequate and shall noi g

be implemented unless and until it has been approved by the County Legislatura t

and the County Executive; and 4l 5

WHEREAS; the Long Island Lighting Company has, in a direct affront to th(

3' government and the people of Suffolk County, submitted emergency plannind 2

resource material, developed, in part, by county personnel, to the New York 4

State Disaster Preparedness Commission and has characterized that material as

[.4 '

the complete, draft Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan; now, therefore, be it 4

RESOLVED, that the County of Suffolk officially again confirms anc y}%

declares that the planning resourre material submitted to the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission by the Long Island Lighting Company in no wa) constit.utes the County's Radiological Emergency Response Plan; and-be it furthei I)

RESOLVED, that the County of Suf folk hereby notifies the Covernor of the 4

State of New York, the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission, and the New York State Legislature, that is vehemently opposed to any action by New Yor)

State that would treat in any way, the documents submitted by LILCO as the County's radiological emergency response plan or any other official Count:

document; and be it further RESOLVED, that any action of agencies or departments of New York State tc

},

review, evaluate, approve, or in any other way consider the documents submittet i

by LILCO will to an insult to the people of Saf folk Cotanty and an af front to th.

'~p current good faith program of Suf folk County to prepara a radiological emergenc) plan which protects the health and 84foty of the citizens of Suffolk County.

a f

l J.

DATED: May 18, 1982 g.

APP WV D BY:

i f

l*

(&

aa Cc.c.,4 Eaccutive or Suffolk County i,

y Cate of 4 proval:

g' g pt_

i i

s4

$UFFOI.K COUNTY I

' #"s C V1 ViH n H.

E gers. CIcrk of the Csuay lCrgislata,,

County legislature of the Ccunty of Suffalk, hae c mi the

{

RIVEHilEAD, N. Y. l foregning copy of rew!ation with the original resciution row en (de in

'],

thb uffic:=, and w hich w : 5 July ahnted by the Ccanty L gia 1,re cf und Corty nn Y9 g gfy

[{

nd that the sarne k a true and correct transcript of u id rc.Ati:,a.m; 7

i, the whole thereof.

S A D'ne.. /*he,.f.,3 have hereunto wt rny hand and the o!t.cial Q

rnt of the County legis!. tare of the Ccanty of Suffolk i

.. & h h k a... h... 0. x. g..

1 w

$q f 'y Clerk of the C nty I. Mture f

q,,,w 3..

r emam-nsz,3

-. ~ -. 7. y p

-p -~%.vc.

v us STAIZ Or NEid YORK EyEt*JTIVE CHAMEER M;.J.IO M. CUCMO, GOVERNOR Tress Office 51S-474-8415 212-587-2726 FOR RELEASE:

IPEIDIATE THURSDAY FEERUARY 17, 1983 i

STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR MARIO M.

CUOMO Suf folk County Executive Peter Cohalan and che Suffolk County. Legislature have announced th&t they have concluded that a workable emergency evacuation plan cannot be developed for Shoreham.

After discussions today with members of my senior staff and officials of the State Disaster Preparedness

,pf.

Commissicn, I am directing the Commission to refrain from-~

forwarding to Washington any proposed off-site emergency.

evacuation plan for the proposed Shoreham nuclear power plant.

Federal law requires that before a license to operate a nuclear pouer plant can be issued, an acceptable emergency evacuation plan must be in place'.

In order for an off-site evacuation plan to be acceptable to the federal government, it mdst be both adequate and implementable.

The part_cipation and cocperation of local government is essential if a workable plan is to be developed.

I have stated that I would not support the opening of any new nuclear plant for which an acceptable emergency evacua-tion plan does not exist.

While recognizing that the ultimate determination of acce'ptability rests with the - f ederal government, I stand by my previous statements.

I will not be a party to any effort to As Governor, impose an independently developed State plan upon Suffolk County.

The State stands ready and willing to ccoperate in any way possible with both suffolk County and the Long Is3and Lighting Ccmpany to develop an adecuate and implementable evact ation plan for Shoreham.

i m

e e

.~.u-~,

_,...~..x; 3...

_. % _.w...

. ~.% -.

. m m... -.._ _ % _~

%J

'*W

~.a.m w

,m.ur.~

e _,...c m

ww mnm m,..i - -

-cr--

n

-.,.,,,m.7,3,,

,. =

. n.. m m

~. m W eg pr***T;vr+Wp*C@- ^^*e%'"". T**WMW]*MW AMWr-@y

- ~75~

W W W v**& *b e la. M Rg~m P

~

8@4 3%%

EXHIBIT 6

'J'*L C..; W, M Ck.

1980 Authorization Act M

284 F-H-so Nuclear Safety 3873 5

uch transfer and that it is in the naf yriteria for facility siting, including ma ij i

.G< W hi%.a M w%M

@,"U

? 4Q@

ional interest to make such transfer mum population density and popula on t e President notifie, the Speaker of t.e distribution for zones surrounding th fa.

Vf@y.*+ a y~ '

~M Nouse of Representatives and the Pr i-cility without regard to any design, ngi-M.WW d t of the Senate as soon as possibt of nee' ring, or other ditierences amon such 2

[

su transfer. The provisions of this ec-facilities.

tio shall not apply to, the cleanup and (d) The regulations promulgat pursu-reha thtation of Bikins and Eni etok ant t this section shall take in account r

Atol the fe bility of all actions o side the y*

[I 3130]

faciliu 'which may be necessary o protect s

[Acc, dents] o

/*

public health and safety in t event of i

Sec. 06. Of the' amounts auth zed to any accidental release of rad' etive ma-be appr riated pursuant to this Act, the terial. fro $ the facility whic may endan.

ger public health cr safety.

or purposes Nuclear Regulatory Commissi is au-thorized nd directed to use sucli sums as of this subsection, the term ** accidental may be essary to' develop % plan for release *' includes, but is pot limited to, agency onse to accidents it a utiliza. each potential accidental lease of radio-tion facilit licensed under sedtion 103 or active materi which is required by the section 104 ) of the Atomic / Energy Act Commission to be taker) into account for purposes of fact ity desig' shale provide in-of 1954.

plan required /to be devel-

~

oped by thi section shall/be forwarded (e) The Commissfoo to the Cong ss on or before September formation and recommendations to State and local land uke plannings authorities 30, 1980.-

having jurisdiction \\pver the zones estab-

[V 3131]

[Db of astes].

lished under the r ations promulgated Sec.107. No unds appropriated pursu-pursuant to this ection and over are.s r,

ant to this Ac may used for the beyond the zone which may be affected purpose of provi 'ng fo/be r the licensing or by a radiologica/ cmkgency. The infor-

-4 approval of any di posAl of nuclear wastes mation and recommendations provided un-M in the oceans.

-/.

f der this subsection shall be designed to

(( J32]

~

assist such authorities in making State and

[ Siting R uirements],

I cal land use' decisions which may affect emergency planning in relation to utili-Sec.108. (a) 'Of amounts authorized is sect. k'all'b'e, con-

- - ""I**

to be appropriated p rsuant to this Act, strued to/ng in th.

(f) Nott ion sh the Nuclear Regulato Commission is au.

g that the\\ Commission shall have, provide 97 thorized and dir 'ed t use such sums as

,any authority to preempt any N

may be necess to de clop and promul-Q,h' -

gate regulationsj establis ing demographic State requirement,t, relating to hmd use or

?

requirements for the. sit g of utilization respecting the, si mg of any \\ utilization Me%u$bE facilities. Such/ regulati shall be pro.

facilityt except that no State or local land to the same aspect of facility si(tspg as,a use e facility siting requiremen relatmg YyQ{

mulgated by the Commis 'on after notice m

and opportunify for hearin. in accordance 3'%gg 553 of title 5 f the United regmrement established pursuant to this EDE dg--

with section/ For purposes this section, section shall have any force and \\effect States Code.

q$f"$%.~

the term Milization facility'\\ means a fa.

unless such State or local regturement is 1 s?

cility licensed under section ID3 or 104(b) identical to, or more stingent than the his fequiremnt promulgated pursuant to 3W of the Atornic Energy Act of 54.

][yM" (b) Thef regulations promulg ted pursu- /

[V 3133]

ant to this section shall provi e that no

[ Issuance of Operating Licenses].

,,mw 7 -f construction pernut may be iss ed for a

a. g.M ' /p^

.m utilization facility to which thi section Sec.109. (a) Funds authorized to be ap-

Mkk, applies /after the date of such pro. ulgation propriated pursuant to this Act may be 44bb udesslthe facility complies with \\the re.

used by the Nuclear R,egulatory Commis-4

'd D M quireme its set forth in such regd!ations, sion to conduct proceedmgs and take other g

except that regulations promulgated under actions, with respect to the issuance of an g 'd&gM.. \\

4m xM \\

this section shall not apply to any bility operating license for a utilization facility a Wt**N'" T for which an application for a construction only if the Commission determmes that-p,. y g 14t.WAM*'

9 permit was filed on or before October 1, (1) there exists a State or local emer-ZFkr-dt

.m #ei

(h 1979.

gency preparedness plan d.hh-9py:aQ (A) provides for respondq to accidents

]Q(/M

[*Dh2M

/(c) The regulations promulgated pu u-

'~* "**M nt to this section shall specify demogra ic at the facility concerned, and

- 4 :* Wa+.

-~ #M

. 'w uclear Regulat on Reports 5109 1 3133 i

g __

-n m

4; w

f. 4 Am wsey.

~Nm M L - ~Aes es

~n

,a m m ~57 _. - - Q m.amgn=nnw._

m

^

'^ ~^

nmMQlQgw Q%mM.,,ad- - % m # m.... u,,"" wa[, M._v -

m ses J _ y __- w m:s Q~-

s~

.m w neu-

.. _ __. u. arzn.mu.1

- - C.-. _- --- --, -.,- -g-x- n a.,. _, ;.,,; ;n 2 c 2_;m m

, g 7 --,

yg -

p

.-4 5 " W C. 7 h ~ -+_ M O pn

= n.-y v %.

.w -

Mr iM

% @u m 4 :s:~ellL N

. ~M5 260 7 14-80 1

1.aws f*

.by 3870 G1h__

W*6*4 ission (B) as it applies tc the facility con-(ii) any deterrnination by the Comm..

ZwjNw-krt*

cerned only, complies with the Commis-under subclause (I) may be made only in Q

M eral Emergency Management Agency and.

g g@@ y h"S sion's guidelines for such plans, or consultation with the Director of the Fed-

.g c4 (2) in the absence of a plan which sat-ther appropriate agencies. and 4

g g@

isSes the requirements of paragraph (1),

Nff k h.

there exists a State, local, or utility plan (C) a mechanism to encourage and assist MP lY ~

n!U which provides reasonable assurance that States to comply as expeditiously as practi-M g@ M h - ~ ~ ~

dF public hez!th and safety is not endangered cable with the standards promulgated un-M[

by operation of the facility concerned.

der subparagraph ( A) of this paragraph, A determination by the Commission un.

(2) review all p,ans and other prepara-a g der paragraph (1) may be made only in tions respecting such an emergency which

%d consultation with the Director of the have been made by each State in which h '

Federal Emergency Management Agency. there is located a utilization facility or in Q)@

If, in any proceeding for the issuance of which construction of such a facility has an operating license for a utilization facil-been commenced and by each State which I

ity to which this subsection applies, the may be affected (as determined by the Commission determines that there exists a Commission) by any such emergency,' "'

l,,

and safety is endangered by operat,healthion of. other preparations reviewed under para-reasonable, assurance that public (3) assess the adequacy of the plans and the facility, the Commission shall identify graph (2) and the ability of the States I

the risk to public health and safety and involved to carry out emergency evacua.

provide the applicant with a detailed state-tions during an emergency referred to in h@

ment of the reasons for such determina-paragraph (1) and submit a report of such tion. For purposes of tius section, the

. assessment to the appropriate committees

=.msi term " utilization facility" means a facility of the Congress within 6 months of the required to be beensed under section 103 date of the enactment of this Act,.

or 104(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of

,,e 1954.

(4) identify which, if any, of the States described in paragraph (2) do not have W

(b) Of the amounts authorized to be ap-adequate plans and preparations for such

.g@8 propriated under section 101(a), such sums an emergency and notify the Governor and 9

as may be necessary shall be used by the other. appropriate authorities in each such

7gg Nuclear Regulatory Commission N-State of the respects in which such plans fa g (1) establish by rule--

and preparations, if any, do not conform t the guidelines promulgated under para-I (A) standards for State radiological emer-graph (I), and gency' response plans, developed in con-v sultation with the Director of the Federal (5) submit a report to Congress contain-Q Emergency Management Agency, and other ing (A) the results of its actions under the appropriate agencies, which provide for preceding paragraphs and fB) its recom-E the respvase to a radiological emergency mendations respecting any additional Federal g

involving any utilization facility.

statutory authority which the Commission "P

deems necessary to provide that adequate

~

'~ '

(B) a requirement that-plans and preparations for such radiological

* " ' ' " " " ~ "

7 m

NM (i) the Commission will issue operating emergencies are in effect for each State

~~# E W '. 2 i'i licenses for utilization facilities only if the described in paragraph (2).

Wh* <

^^

"C WT Commission determines that-(c) in carrying out its review and assess-

$.3M (I) there exists a State or local radio-ment under subsection (b)(2) and (3) and g g g- ----

log, cal emergency response plan which m submitting its report under subsection

=-

qfg i

l' provides for responding to any radiological (a)(5), the Commission, shall include a "Tt1 cmergency at the facility concerned and review and assessment, with respect to each utilization facility and each site for which N

which cor, plies with the Commission's a constructson termit has been issued for 2 - -<

~l standards for such plans under subpara-such a facility, of the emergency response

~~

~

,rge 6@

graph (A), or capability of State and local authorities

%7"' "7 U E ' T

45%

(II) in the absence of a plan which and of the owner or operator (or proposed

TE

%W satisfies the requirements of subclause (I),

owner or operator) of such facility. S'rch 9 -

R-

~

/

there exists a State, local, or utility plan review and assessment shall include a de-

~

. m W ' ~ ~"""

which provides reasonable assurance that termination by the Commission of the public health and safety is not endangered maximum zone in the vicinity of each such M

%.f1-1 { f by operation of the facility concerned, and facility for which evacuation of individuals c**g g>ggg

.i S3133 109

@ 1980, Commerce Clearing House,Inc.

M bkMNf tm NfykB"en m.

.u

.- ww 1

]*[&f

.. ~.,. _

--a d'

-Ev=&

MS.,

e www'$sw w-

+ N W S M.E k h *y m yg n $

M.Y 9N'NMY

.kNN' mmh @;

Wtt

^J g g..gpt. m a g n ay -wMumEL mew

~

,gg, EM S ih Nk$ Of & & U & $$i $ " W. m,jW _, _ gr - -

g W,, ^% *17 'N N#W" 5b h

m w.~ n w --n

=

_ _ _ qgq_

s m" m :3_ -y m

7 no r.24 so Nuclear Saiety 3875 8

Alg J

y T

is feasible at various different times corre-203 of the Act amended sec. 223 of t 4

sponding to the representative warning Atomic Energy Act (5 2137). Sec. 204 )

4., g ypa

- yp 2

times for various difierent types of accidents. o( the Act added a new sec. 236 to e

pgu g[e$Q75

y

$ d, Atomic Energy Act (12148b). Sec. 205 t;gggg.

W mgg IU 3I3N.

of the Act amended sec. 274 of the Atomic

' g- _ g-f a

%.g

[ Safety Evaluation)

Energy Act (7 2155). Sec. 206 of the Act

%'S N

\\Sec. 110. (a) Of the amounts authorized amended sec. 234 of the Atomic Energy 94fF.

?

to\\be appropriated pursuant to section 101 Act (5 2148). Sec. 207(a)(1) of the Act C"

W (a) such sums as may be necessary shall added a new see.147 to the Atomic Energy be,used by the Nuclear Regulatory Com-Ac t. Sec. 207(b) of the Act amended sec.

p'5 mission to develop, submit to the Congress, 181 of he Atomic Energy Act (12116).-

and implement, as soon as practicabb ;fter CCH.] {,

(~'

notice sand opportunity for public comment, TITLE III--OTHER PROVISIONS a comprehensive plan for the systematic safety hvaluation of all currently operating

\\

[i3135]

[ ransportation of Waste]

Sec.30}1..

utilization facilities required to be licensed a) The Nuclear Regulatory

~

Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

-/

Commission \\. (within 90 days of enactment under section 103 or section 104(b) of the (b) Thk plan referred to in subsection of this Act,\\ shall promulgate regulations (a) shall include-

/

providing for timely noti 6 cation.to the (1) the id'entification of each current rule Governor of any State prior,to the transport f nuclear waste, includmg spent nuclear and regulation compliance with which the "8

'*****O*

d *" **

Commission specifically determines to be of f s'uch' State. s'Such notificat.ion require-particular significance to the protection of ment sha!! not apply to nuclear waste in the public health, and safety;,

such quantities and of such types as the (2) a determmation by the Comnu.ssion Commission speci5cally determines do not of the extent to which each operating fa-pose a potentially significant hazard to the I

cility complies with each rule and regula-health and safety of,the public.

tion idertified under paragraph (1) of this O subsection, meludmg an mdication of where (b) As used in this section, the term e a

,. State" includes theiseveral States of the such,comphance was, achieved by use of Union, the District of Columbia, the Com-y 4

Division I regulatory guides and staff tech-monwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin meal positions and where compliance was 1s1 nds, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust achieved by equivalent means; Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the (3) a list of the genene safety.. issues Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana set forth m NUREG Ofl0 (includmg cate-Islands *

^

gories A, B, C, and D) for which technical

[H 3137] \\.

solutions have been developed;

[ Review of NRC's Management Structure]

y 3

(4) a determination by the Commissio,n Sec. 302. The Nuclear Regulatory Com-of which techiucal sol,ut,ons for genene mission is authorized and directed to enter i

j safety issues identified in paragraph (3) of into a cortract for an independent review this subetion should be incorporated, int of the Commission's manar_ement structure, g7.

the Commisston's rules and regulations; processes, procedures, and operations. The and review shall include an assessment of the

~

(5) a whedule for developing a technical etfectiveness of all levels of agency man.

_u..-n gg solution to those generic safety issues listed agement in carrying out the Commission's

.y,d,WW m NUREG 0410 which have not yet been statutory responsibilities, in developing and t,

g techrucally resolved, implementing policies and programs, and (c) Not later than 90 days from the date in using the personnel and funding available mAg of enactment of this Act, the Commission to it. The contract shall provide for sub-SL Q *+ ' ~g~

shall report to the Congress the str.tus of mission of a report of.the findings and r --

.-- -i c4 efforts to carry out subsection (a).

recommendations of the review to the

'4 Commission not later than one year from

.m.

D Ek h-TITLE II-AMENDMENTS TO. THE the date of enactment of this Act, and M5 OS$hG ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 the Commission shall promptly transmit 7JgJgy'**

9 71 %

[3 3135]

such report to the Congress.

=n9pgmi@;vis

'Nss k h (Sec. 201(a) of the Act amended sec.103

[53138]

]y{9h ly{Q of the Atomic Energy Act (!20 '3).

$cc. j

[L.2 censes-Pernuts-Costs-Fees]

g l

~

pfg;f-h.wp Marg 202(a) of the Act added a new sec. 235

,Sec. 303. The Nuclear Regulatory Com-

.. 4;anM to the Atomic Energy Act (5 2142a). Sec.

mission shall include in its annua! report \\

ggg Y,N2ibde

' Nuclear Regulation Reports i

5 303 13138 j{ypq i

-Ar s

&f yf

\\

G m,. e,= - -

_D Pf

-%Mi_ _ _. _ _ _ _ =

3,, = : _

t_=

^ ^

~

_ _ _. _ = - _

T4a

~

MUhMNT*NYe Mebl#,Wh i

gd.~h.~3N.,in,GG+M. m_4E..n@d.n;@%*h_iGMw ~ M W f. d _$.

\\MW[NNNNDihlMdMhN$MMSN[DMD ~

M%

$M

$[.4kh.7 v. -

n. -.. s. ~

.m.ny.-

wr.a a mr.;aca.ux,,,_.aw...;/,. s <bg"3.$;pfM*gs*M*

.m.

f r m'F9If '*f"7.L'NMNthr 5 mis.m T4 h X d ( W A gc.ty b 7' y mk;;,y e;yw,ed~%

.g t

g.mg my% Y

h. f. _~ -

?h,

hSH_

f...f4m _fhh__

~

Q?

N5S Y

2

O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Supplemental Brief of Suffolk County in Support of the County's Motion to Terminate the Shoreham Operating License Proceeding and the County's Motion for Certification" were sent on March 7, 1983 by first class mail, except where otherwise noted, to the following:

Lawrence Brenner, Esq.*

Ralph Shapiro, Esq.**

Administrative Judge Cammer & Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing 9 East 40th Street Board New York, New York 10016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Howard L. Blau, Esq.

217 Newbridge Road Dr. James L. Carpenter

Hicksville, New York 11801 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing W.

Taylor Revtiey, III, Esq.***

Board Hunton & Williams U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 707 East Main Street Washington, D.C.

20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dr. Peter A. Morris

Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Administrative Judge New York State Energy Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Building 2 Board Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.

20555 Stephen B.

Latham, Esq.**

Edward M.

Barrett, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea General Counsel Attorneys at Law Long Island Lighting Company 33 West Second Street 250 Old Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Mineola, New York 11501 Marc W. Goldsmith Mr. Brian McCaffrey Energy Research Group, Inc.

Long Island Lighting Company 400-1 Totten Pond Road 175 East Old Country Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Hicksville, New York 11801 By Hand on March 7, 1983 By Federal Express

- - By Hand on March 5, 1983 L

.e.

Joel Blau, Esq.

Hon. Peter Cohalan New York Public Service Suffolk County Executive Commission County Executive / Legislative The Governor Nelson A.

Building Rockefeller Building Veterans Memorial Highway Empire State Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12223 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

David H. Gilmartin, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Suffolk Count'f Attorney Environmental Protection Bureau County Executive / Legislative New York State Department of Law

~ Building 2 World Trade Center Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10047 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.***

Matthew J.

Kelly, Esq.

David A.

Repka, Esq.

Staff Counsel, New York State U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Stuart Diamond Environment / Energy Writer Daniel F.

Brown, Esq.*

NEWSDAY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Long Island, New York 11747 Commission Washington, D.C..20555 Spence Perry, Esq.

Associate General Counsel Stuart Glass, Esq.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Counsel Washington, D.C. 20472 Federal Emergency Management Agency' 26 Federal Plaza Mr. Jeff Smith Roor 1349 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station New York, New York 10278 P.O.

Box 618 North Country Road James Dougherty, Esq.

Wading River, New York 11792 3045 Porter Street, NW Washington, D.C.

20008 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K ff' [' c".f [ %,

San Jose, California 95125

,f],[ -

?

E A,

2., y

/.

Docketing and Service Section*

Christoh~per M. McMurray HILL,j/

Office of the Secretary KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS Washington, D.C.

20555 1900 M Street, NW.

Washington, D.C.

20036 l

y D

e-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

SUPPLEMENTARY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Supplemental Brief of Suffolk County in Support of the County's Motion to Terminate the Shoreham Operating License Proceeding and the County's Motion for Certification" were sent on March 7, 1983 by hand delivery to the following:

Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner John F. Ahearne Commissioner Thomas M.

Roberts Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 t

Christophbr M. ~ McMu'rray '

KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036

-~

ML20071C745

Text

SUMMARY

Response

Navigation menu

Search