ML20084M606
| ML20084M606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1983 |
| From: | Downey T, Ottinger R HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084M572 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306020248 | |
| Download: ML20084M606 (3) | |
Text
T THIM A3 J. DOWNEY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 2No DistnscT. Nsw Yosur SUSCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 303 CApseu Houss Orru:s sveUMNG C M MITTEE ON THE BUDGET CongTe## Of tIJC Enitch splattg Ts-s, um "'~""
sci.rCT CoMMrTTcc N AmN.
'**'"C '"*
Jponge of Representatibed u
Wrrlsur Nm Yond 11M3 8Bashington, B.C. 20515 T-= nio **'.am April li, 1983 The Honorable Nunzio J.
Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matomic Building 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Palladino:
We are aware of the pending controversy in the Shoreham nuclear power plant proceeding concerning offsite emergency preparedness.
Following an exhaustive nine-month emergency planning study, Suffolk County on February 17 determined that it would not adopt or implement a local radiological emergency response plan.
The county, acting under its constitutional mandate to assure the well-being of its citizens, resolved that the public health, safety and welfare could not be protected if there were a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham.
We are writing to emphasize that the NRC not take undue liberties with the authority granted by Congress in Section 5 of i
the NRC's 1982 Authorization Act.
In particular, we refer you to our colloquy during the final consideration of Section 5.
The colloquy provides:
The reference to a State or local plan is clearly intended to apply only to a plan which l
has been officially submitted by a State or I
local government.
A utility, therefore, cannot submit a local govArnnent plan.
NRC consideration of a utility plan is a last resort and is not intended to preempt a State or local plan.
This legislation does not in any way affect the authority of the Federal Emergency Management Administration with respect to authority and requirements regarding emergency management plans.
(Congressional Record, Page H 8823, December 2, 1982, enclosed.)
In light of this, we wish to bring your attention to the following:
8306020248 830509 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
2 l.
It would be against the law if the NRC were to consider a local government plan which was developed by a utility and not
" officially submitted" by the local government.
The law is clear, and our' colloquy further emphasizes, that a' utility, devoid of any manner of enforcing compliance with plans pertaining to actions of non-utility personnel, cannot submit a plan on behalf of a local government against the wishes of that local government.
2.
Section 5 specifically was "not intended to preempt" a local plan.
Therefore, where a local government has made determination that the public well-being cannot be protected through a local emergency plan, a utility plan cannot be considered under Section 5.
Otherwise, the utility plan would
" preempt" the local plan, which is contrary to the legislative i
intent of Section 5.
3.
We~wish to stress the importance of the NRC's adhering to its own regulations.
The NRC's regulation in section 50.47, which in subsection (a) requires both State and local government emergency plans, was promulgated af ter a thorough NRC rulemaking proceeding in which the public, states, local governments, and utilities participated.
That rulemaking process established the -
regulations to which the NRC is bound in all cases, including Shoreham, and the NRC now has no discretion to ignore those regulations.
If the Commission wishes to reconsider section 50.47, it may do so through another rulemaking proceeding where the public and others affected are.given fair opportunity to l
assert their views.
Short of that, however, we can perceive no L
basis on which the NRC could depart from the clear force of its own properly promulgated regulation in section 50.47.
4.
Section 5 "does not in any way" affect the authority and responsiblility of FEMA with respect to offsite emergency preparedness.
The NRC therefore may not ignore or shortcut FEMA's involvement in the Shoreham case.
Finally, we request your assurances that Congress's intent in Section 5, quoted above, is not_being treated casually by the NRC, particularly in the Shoreham case where a first-of-its-kind issue is pending.
If the NRC views any of the four points I
addressed above differently from how we presented them, we would appreciate your providing us with a most expeditious explanation.
Very truly yours, usf l
f As-HOMAS J. MY RICHARD L.
Member of Congre#s Member of ong ress s
TJD/cb:rc Enclosure
hee 2ber9,JSBS CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE H 8823 would not be endangered. Is this a change from current regulations?
Mr. OTTINGER. Yes. Currently, the NRC requires an approved State or. local government plan. This provi-alon allows the NRC to consider a util.
ity plan only in the absence of a State or local government plan. The refer.
ence to a State or local plan is clearly intended to apply only to a plan which has been officially submitted by a State or local government. A utility, Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. Speaker I thank therefore, cannot submit a local gov-the chairman for yielding this time to ernmer.t plan. NRC consideration of a me.
utility plan is a last resort and is not I would like to have a colloqu' tith intended to preempt a State or local my colleague, the gentlema. 4 rom plan. This legislation does not in any New York (Mr. Orruecza).
way affect the authority of the Feder.
Mr. Speaker, the temporary operat. al Emergency Management Adminis-ing license provision passed last year tration with respect to its authority by the House and contained in the and requirements regarding emergen-conference report was intended to au-cy management plans.
thorize the Commission in its discre-Mr. DOWNEY. I thank the gentle-tion, to issue a limited operating 11-man.
cense to a utility prior to the conduct or completion of any required hearing in order to prevent completed. nuclear powerplants from standing idle pend-ing thecompletion of such hearings. A temporary operating license could not be issued unless, in all other respects, the requirements of law are met, and the Comrnlutan determines that there is reasonable assurance that the oper-ation of the reactor will not adversely affect the public health and safety and the environment; Am I correct to conclurie, therefore. that there is nothing in this provision which would allow the Commission to short-circuit its required safety review, or, in any l
way, to require a less stringent safety l
standard for a reactor which receives a temporary operating license?
[
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, if the rentleman will yield, that is correct.
This bill does not affect the standards and requirements to be applied before a plant goes into operation. The stand-ards the NRC must apply for a plant undergoing temporary operating 11 cense review and review for a "regula.
tor" operating license are exactly the same.
Mr. DOWNEY. The Commission currently makes a distinction in its emergency plan requirements based on authorized reactor power levels. Is there any provision in this act which would allow the Commtuion to make a distinction, for purposes of emergency plan requirements. based on power levels authorized by a temporary oper-ating license and levels authorized by.
a " regular" operating license?
Mr. OTTINGER. The answer is "No." There is no provision in this act which allows the Commission to make any distinction in requirement for re-actor operations authorized by tempo-rary or regular operating !!censas.
Mr. DOWNEY. The conference report a!!ows the NRC to issue an op-erating license if it determines that a State, local or utility plan exists which l
would provide reasonable assurance that the public health and safety
..