ML20100K334
| ML20100K334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1985 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-502 OL, NUDOCS 8504120448 | |
| Download: ML20100K334 (132) | |
Text
' ks
' Boat LILCO, April 11, 1985 9
3(hED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'85 FR 12 N0:22 Before the Commission 9?'V '. f ~} E E <:Pt: 7m CE uG
- NM' S E p y t.n r-In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
^*
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR INVESTIGATION OF DOE " INFLUENCE" ON SHOREHAM On April 1, Intervenors filed a motion 1/ requesting an "inde-pendent investigation" of assertedly improper activities by the Department of Energy to influence the outcome of these proceed-ings.
These activities, allegedly detailed in documents described in a March 27 New York Times article, are stated to fall into three categories:
(1) efforts to " lobby NRC and FEMA to amend, interpret, issue opinions, or adopt presumptions regarding their regulations and rules which are favorable to DOE's policies."
(Motion at 1).
(2) efforts to " force NRC and FEMA to accept (change rule?) utility exercise of EP without local cooper-ation or presumption that local authority will act in a real emergency."
(Motion at 1).
1/
Suffolk County and New York State Motion for Commencement of Independent Investigation of Department of Energy Influence on Shoreham Proceedings," April 1, 1985 (the " Motion").
8504120448 850411 PDR ADOCK 05000322 h
0 PDR G
e 4 (3) efforts "behind-the-scenes to influence FEMA's on-the-record representations and opinions," which
" undercut the integrity of the Shoreham adjudica-tory proceedings" since " FEMA, as the NRC's evaluator of offsite emergency preparedness, plays a significant role in the adjudicatory process as a purportedly impartial participant."
(Motion at 2).
Though not attached to the Intervenors' Motion, the documents re-ferred.to in the article are apparently in Intervenors' possession since various materials quoted by Intervenors do not appear in the New York Times article.
The documents provided to the New York Times (and, apparently, to other newspapers) are attached collec-tively as Attachment 1 hereto.2/
LILCO cannot, of course, speak for DOE in this matter.
How-ever, the documents, viewed as a whole, appear to be simply the normal internal work product of the Task Force on Nuclear Power Plant Construction, a division within the Secretary's Office of DOE, a line agency of the Executive Branch.
DOE inherited respon-sibility under the DOE Organization Act for the developmental as-pects of nuclear technology from ERDA, which in turn had inherited them upon dissolution of the Atomic Energy Commission.
The 2/
The documents at issue were apparently_provided to staff members of the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce upon request to DOE.
LILCO was permitted to review them at-the Subcommittee staff's office and obtained copies of the documents which had been pro-vided to the New York Times.
LILCO also reviewed there, but did not copy, a lengthier group of documents from DOE which had not been provided to the press.
The documents are attached here in the order and in the same groupings in which reviewed at the Subcommittee's offices.
4 documents disclose. ongoing reviews by the Task Force of develop-ments generally at alnumber of nuclear plants, including but not limited to Shoreham-(e.g., Documents 1, 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20);
analyses of emergency planning problems at Shoreham (and poten-tially elsewhere) and development of potential technical, legisla-tive~and: administrative solutions to them (e.g., Documents 3,-4, i
5, 9, 10, 11, 17); and communications'among representatives of various actors at Shoreham (e.g., Documents 2, 11, 16, 19, 23, 24, 12 6, 27).
.What;the documents reveal is the normal development of ideas and proposals!by a branch of DOE charged as a matter of DOE orga-nization with responsibility for nuclear-industry oversight mat-ters.- Presumably, any deviation from such duties would be an in-
~ternal matter for DOE.
.Of relevance to this case.is what the documents _do not show: -any communication prohibited by the Com-mission's ex parte rules, 10 CFR & 2.780--- off-the-record commu-nications-to Commissioners, Licensing-Board members,-members of their immediate staffs,=or other NRC officials and employees who
-advise ~the Commissioners in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions.
In addition, the documents do not reveal ~ efforts as alleged I by the Motion, but rather only the formulation of proposals.
The document..that refers to " lobbying'NRC and EEMA" (Motion, allega-
. tion 1-) is an eight-page. composite document (Document 4) whose first page is labeled " Emergency Response Plans"; it describes the m
-O
_4 background of emergency planning generally at Shoreham and pro-poses a variety of potential long-and short-term options.
There is no sign in the document that any of the proposals have been even communicated beyond DOE, much less acted on.
In any event, there is nothing improper about the proposals for action as long as they are undertaken pursuant to duly constituted procedure.
Similarly, the document which refers to " forcing NRC and FEMA to accept (change rule?) utility exercise of EP" (Motion, allegation
- 2) (Document 22, fourth page) is a one-page informal memo which merely outlines possible approaches to resolution of a public issue on whiich there is currently an apparent impasse, and recog-nizes the possibility of doing it through an utterly conventional procedure -- a rulemaking.
. Finally,.the dark allegations about "behind-the-scenes" ef-forts to'" influence FEMA's on-the-record representations and opin-ions" (Motion, allegation 3) simply are not borne out on the face of the documents.
The March _8, 1985 letter from Secretary of En-ergy Herrington to FEMA Director Giuffrida (Document 2) shows, at most, an inchoate effort to try to structure arrangements for scheduling a test of the Shoreham Emergency Plan.
Such efforts are clearly discretionary on the part of agencies with overlapping jurisdictions in this area.
Even if such a framework were to be developed,.it would then have to be proposed openly and subjected to opportunity for litigation before the NRC's Licensing Board if it departed from the current LILCO-only plan.3/
There is no f_
3/
The Motion's complaint that Secretary Herrington's March 8
. letter does not discuss the status of LILCO's plan as a matter (footnote continued) m
2 4
-0 evidence on the face of any of the documents of any tainting of, or any attempt to taint, FEMA's review of the Shoreham emergency
- plan presently before the Licensing Board.4/
The long and short of it is that the documents complained of merely appear to chronicle the internal work product of a branch of an agency acting on public-policy matters within its statutory (footnote continued) of New York State law is beside the point since that status is not dispositive of its status as a matter of federal law.
4/
In'any event, FEMA is not an adjudicator or quasi-judicial actor in NRC proceedings but a non-party whose findings are merely submitted to a Licensing Board like those of convention-al parties, subject to a rebuttable presumption.
10 CFR S 50.47(a)(2).
As the Appeal Board observed in this case last summer:
It is also important to place in perspective the significance of the FEMA findings.
First of all, it is the ultimate institutional findings and determinations by FEMA, not the predecisional opinions of various members of the RAC, that are centrally important.
Moreover, although these findings. constitute a rebuttable presumption under the Commission's regulations, the applicant bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the emergency plans are satisfactory and, on the basis of all the information submitted, the Licensing Board must be able to conclude that the state of emergency preparedness provides " reasonable assur-ance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emer-gency."
As we pointed out in our San Onofre opin-ion, the fact that a final FEMA finding is enti-tied to a rebuttable presumption does not convert that agency into a decisionmaker in Commission li-censing proceedings.
Long Island Lighting Comany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-773, 19 NRC 1333, 1346 (1984) (footnotes omitted).
N
- A 44 authority.5/. If any improper efforts to lobby,' force or taint the actorslof other agencies have taken place, they are not disclosed by these_ documents.
Even'if the NRC had authority to undertake an investigation of another entity within the Executive Branch -- a matter:that is,not free from doubt -- these documents do not pro-vide _any basis for it.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY A
^/
W7 Taylor Reveley, III Donald P.
Irwin Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia-23212
- DATED:
April 11, 1985
-Attachments:
(1)
Documents obtained from DOE by House Subcommittee Staff and provided to LILCO (2). Articles in New York Times and Newsday, spring 1984.
'5/.
-DOE's efforts in the public-policy area are nothing new; and
'Suffolk County and New York complained of them'approximately a year ago.(See Attachment 2) and Congressman Markey's Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power held a day of-hearings on the matter last May.
DOE's " efforts" appear no different now than then, and Intervenors' repetitive complaining about the'func-tioning of a governmental entity that simply does not agree with" them is not useful.
~
g s.
l$
l r
I
\\
$8'KETED J
ushtC
'85 IFR 12 NO:22
.. e.,nc=...
)$' ;
'a b5 t
k ATTACHMENT 1 l
l l
l' 0.
q.
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY WASHINGTON. D.C. 2(25 l
March 28,1985
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your letter of March 26, 1985, on the Shoreham Nuclear Plant, I have had an opportunity to review the activities of the Task Force and the letters to which you refer, and believe they are consistent with the President's policy as stated in his letter of October 11, 1984.
My correspondence to the Director of FEMA simply indicates cur belief that testing of the Shoreham Emergency Evacuation Plan should occur as expeditiously as possible.
I also believe the activities of the Task Force are consis-tent'with the President's policies.
The Task Force was created by Secretary Hodel in May 1984 as a mechanism to ensure that problems with nuclear plants are brought to_the Secretary's attention and to facilitate solutions to those problems.
To my knowledge the Task Force has not attempted to force any furisdiction to partic-t ipate in an exercise of_an emergency evacuation plan for the
_Shoreham Nuclear Plant.
I As requested, a copy of the Task Force's activities through 1
1984 is enclosed.
Finally, you requested access to additional De-partmental documents. My staff will be in touch with Mr. Richard Udell to determine specifically which additional material is re-quired.
Yours truly, W~
\\
l John S. Herrington i
Enclosure Honorable Edward J. Itarkey
~ Chairman, Subcornittee en Energy Conservation and Pcwer Ccenittee on Energy and Ccamerce House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
12/31/84
^~
~
3 a
PROGRESS REPORT TASK FORCE ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION
- The Secretary established the Task Force on Nuclear Power Plant Construc-t
' tion in the Spring of 1984 to monitor activities related to the financial and regulatory problems, and public opposition, affecting nuclear power plants under construction and to recommend action that could be taken by the Federal-Government to ensure completion and operation of these plants and to encourage greater public acceptance of nuclear energy.
A.
Initiatives Contained in Secretary Hodel's Speech Before the Nuclear Power l
Assembly in Washington, D.C., on May 8,1984 In his May 8,1984, speech before the Nuclear Power Assembly, Secretary Hodel announced several short-term initiatives by the Department of Energy intended to help ensure that nuclear power plants under construction can be completed.
Following is a list of those initiatives with an update on DOE progress:
- 1.
To encourage and support Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) use of " readiness reviews" for plants under construction to identify potential construction problems early, when remedies are most effec-tive and economical.
This effort has gone extremely well.
Interest in the readiness con-cept has grown through DOE efforts with the Institute for Nuclear
' Power Operations and utilities. The Georgia Power Company has pre-sented the DOE concept to the NRC staff for implementation on their Vogtle power plant. The Washington Public Power Supply System is currently considering the possible use of the " readiness review" concept for their mothballed Units 1 and 3.
Discussions are also under way with the Consumers Power Company for use of the concept on the Midland plant.
2.
To support NRC Chairman Palladino's suggestion that the Commission i-consider adopting a policy to handle last-minute allegations of safety, environmental, and quality problems associated with plants nearing completion.
The NRC has initiated a policy development process to resolve this issue.
The Task Force continues to monitor the development of this policy and will take action as necessary to ensure a constructive.
policy.
3.
To review the status of a construction permit for a plant that has
. been temporarily mothballed in order to make a Departmental judgment on the validity of the permit if and when the responsible utility l
decides it is ready to continue construction.
l
i S
2 There have been several nuclear plants in which construction has been halted, suspended or deferred -- or, in effect, mothballed.. There do not appear to be any significant legal or procedural barriers to main-taining a construction permit during the mothballed period or to resuming the licensing process when construction resumes. However, Federal tax ~ and/or State ratemaking policies may control the decision-making process because of financial considerations which c'ould discourage mothballing a plant.
i One of the issues being considered when deciding on abandonment versus mothballing is the viability of the plant and its NRC license when con-struction is resumed. The Task Force is preparing a letter to the NRC articulating the current situation and seeking the Commission's views on the validity of a license at the time construction of a mothballed plant is resumed.
To review whether and how the operating license procedure can continue 4.
for plants temporarily mothballed.
Utilities with nuclear power plant construction that has been halted, suspended, or deferred but not cancelled, have confirmed that NRC licensing activities have continued.
To provide advice and assistance in the fonnulation of federal policies 5.
and programs which affect the nuclear industry to try to ensure those policies reflect the National Energy Policy goal.
DOE continues to coordinate with affected cabinet departcents and inde-pendent agencies in the development-and implementation of policies affecting the nuclear industry as follows:
NRC on nuclear regulatory policy FEMA on emergency response planning and drills
- -FERC on construction work in progress (CWIP)
REA on funding for electric cooperatives l
t DOC on electricity supply and demand To continue to support the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission's rule 6.
allowing Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) in the rate bases of electric utilities and seek to encourage State regulatory comissions l
to permit inclusion of CWIP in rate bases of utilities under State l
jurisdiction.
The DOE has successfully opposed Congressional efforts to essentially l ~
nullify the FERC rule allowing CWIP in the rate bases of utilities In his speech under their jurisdiction (S. 817, S. 1069 and H.R. 555).
i before the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in l'
27,1984,_ Secretary Hodel pointed out that the l
Los Angeles on November absence of CWIP in rate regulatory practices can contribute to the l
creation of severe, localized rate problems.
3 d
On December 5,.1984, Deputy Secretary Boggs presented Secretary Hodel's testimony before a Joint House and Senate Committee of the Georgia Legislature regarding the Vogtle plant. The Secretary stated that the problem of " rate shock" must be dealt with in a way that is fair to both the utility and its customers.
While not mentioned speciff-cally_ in the Secretary's testimony, the use of all or some CWIP in the rate base during construction and a phasing in of the remaining plant cost into the. rate base during operation was addressed in response to questions.
This would provide a balancing of the benefits to the rate payer and the utility investor of such rate shock reductions.
7.
To-appear in Federal and State regulatory proceedings, where appro-priate, to ensure that the National Energy Policy perspective is included in the record.
Energy Secretary Hodel's July 10, 1984, appearance before the Missis-sippi Public Service Commission on the recertification of Mississippi Power and Light's Grand Gulf Unit 2 was the first opportunity to imple-ment this initiative.
As mentioned above, Deputy Secretary Boggs presented Secretary Hodel's testimony before a Joint Committee of the Georgia Legislature which is evaluating the need for completion of the Vogtle Nuclear Power P1 ant.
Other appearances are being considered.
In addition, as detailed in Section C below, Secretary Hodel has com-municated with State and local officials in support of this initiative on several plants.
B.
Additional Issues Being Followed by the Task Force 1.
Diesel Generators During a pre-operational test of emergency diesel generators manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI) at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, struc-tural defects were found in the crankshaft of one of the engines. This discovery led the NRC to. question the integrity of other TDI diesels and the subsequent inquiry could have resulted in delays in licensing and commercial operation of several other nuclear power plants (Grand Gulf, Catawba, Comanche Peak, River l
' Bend and Shoreham).
l The Task Force and the Office of Nuclear Energy followed this issue L
. closely to determine if the DOE could resolve any technical or procedural uncertainties regarding the acceptability of the TDI diesels.
Subsequently, the NRC approved a full power license for Grand Gulf Unit 1 and fuel loading licenses for Catawba Unit 1 and Shoreham, and it is now apparent that none of the near-term plants will experience delays because of the TDI diesel issue.
2.-
Siting Policy The Task Force and the Office of Nuclear Energy have closely followed the NRC's activities related to possible changes of the Emergency Planning Zone
' from the present 10 miles to something less. Analysis of the actual results
a 4
i of the accident at Three Mile Island and other research studies all indicate justification for such reductions.
Formal change to NRC requirements will have to follow release of results from the NRC source term evaluation studies, including the American Physical Society's review of source tenn research. Of particular interest was the American Nuclear Society Report on the Source Term released in November 1984.
This ANS report concluded that the source term could be reduced from estimates in WASH-1400 by a factor of ten to several factors of ten.
The Task Force will continue to follow such work and will support the appropriate revisions to regulatory requirements.
Secretary Hodel has called attention to this new infonnation on the source term in recent letters and speeches on nuclear issues and has concluded that the risks from nuclear plants are considerably less than previously thought.
3.
Backfit Reform The Task Force and the Office of Nuclear Energy have been following NRC efforts on backfit reform to detennine what actions could or should be taken by the DOE to assure that the process achieves the proper results.
Backfitting requirements for nuclear plants under construction or in operation have resulted in significant cost and schedule penalties -- and until recently the NRC pro-vided no means to document whether or not improvements in safety had taken place.
The Task Force and NE are continuing to monitor NRC action, and will prepare an alternative backfit rule, if necessary, to the draft rule issued by the NRC on November 30, 1984.
4.
Financial Qualifications In February 1984, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the NRC rule exempting utilities from demonstrating financial qualiff-cation was not supported by the reasons offered for its adoption.
The NRC pro-posed a new rule in March 1984 requiring a financial qualifications test for utilities only at the Construction Permit stage.
Comments submitted to the NRC by utilities and by State regulatory bodies supported the rationale behind the NRC's proposal.
The NRC issued its final financial qualification rule following the approach it had proposed. The final rule became effective in October and a petition to review the rule was filed in the D.C. Circuit shortly thereafter.
The briefs are due to be filed in early 1985.
The Task Force will work with the General Counsel to determine our involvement in the litigation based on the briefs to be filed.
5.
Emergency Planning Emergency p1anning is probably the most complicated issue being followed The State of New York and Suffolk County have refused to by the Task Force.
participate in preparing or testing a plan for the Long Island Lighting Company's
. _ 1_ _1_
5 (LILCO) Shoreham nuclear plant. Certain communities in Massachusetts and New i
Hampshire have scheduled town meetings or referenda to detennine if they will The dilemma accept the plans prepared for the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
arises from the cost.of the delay in licensing and, in Shoreham's case, from a possible denial of a full power operating license by the NRC if the plan cannot be tested.
The Task Force has been in communication with officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the NRC, as well as representatives of the State and County, to discuss the testing of the LILCO plan approved by FEMA in November 1984. These contacts are continuing.
Additionally, a member of the Task Force attended the Federal Radiological Capability conference in Atlanta in December 1984 to discuss the need for refonn of this process with utility, State and County representatives.
6.
Impact of Plant Abandonment on Minorities The Office of Minority Economic Impact, in cooperation with the Task Force, is undertaking a study to determine the costs and benefits to minorities of The study will be based on the abandoning an incomplete nuclear power plant.
possible abandonment of the Midland Nuclear Power Plant in Michigan and it will attempt to detennine if there might be a significant difference in the impact on minorities as compared to non-minorities.
Both groups will be identified The as to whether they are ratepayers, taxpayers or stock and bond holders.
Consumers Power Company has agreed to cooperate with the DOE in this study.
Relation of Federal Tax Policy to Incentives to Abandon or Mothball 7.
a Cancelled Plant The Department is conducting a study to detennine if Federal tax policies act as an incentive to either abandon or mothball a partially completed nuclear The DOE would prefer such plants to be mothballed so that con-power plant.
struction could be resumed in the future. However, current Federal tax policies seem to provide an incentive to the utility to abandon the plant.
C.
Specific Activities Related to Critical Plants The Task Force is monitoring the progress and difficulties experienced by certain nuclear power p1 ants under construction.
For those plants experiencing the greatest difficulty, they are followed very closely for appropriate oppor-tunities where DOE or other Federal agencies could assist.
The following actions have been taken or are in process.
1.
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant In addition to the emergency planning issue mentioned earlier, on November 7, 1984, Secretary Hodel wrote Mr. Jack Fassett, Chairman, Executive Committee of Seabrook Owners, to stress the importance of the national perspective on nuclear power as it relates to state and local decisions regarding the future of the Seabrook plant.
He also outlined recent improvements in the stability of the
1 3
6 licensing process, addressing a major concern of the affected states.
The Task Force continues to monitor the State's public utility commission actions regard-ing the prudency of the Seabrook plant.
During November, Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) was seeking t.n interim loan from a consortium of banks to prevent default on public debt due by December 1.
The Task Force discussed the situation with PSNH and lead banks,.
l which indicated these discussions were helpful to arranging the necessary financing.
I 2.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant i
The Task Force continues to be heavily involved in Departmental discussions regarding future operation of the Shoreham plant. The primary issue relates to i
the refusal of Suffolk County and the State of New York to participate with LILCO in a field test of the Emergency Response Plan. Lacking such a test, the NRC cannot certify that the proposed plan will provide adequate protection to the public in the event of a severe nuclear accident at the plant.
With two exchanges of letters between Governor Mario Cuomo and Secretary Hodel between April 25 and June 29, 1984, the Secretary stressed the importance of the national perspective as it relates to operation of the Shoreham plant and he requested the Governor's cooperation in a FEMA /D0E/NRC full field t
exercise of LILCO's emergency evacuation plan.
Neither Governor Cuomo nor Suffolk County Executive, Peter Cohalan, have agreed to take part in such a drill. The President and the Secretary, in separate letters to U.S. Representative William Carney in October 1984, stated l
that the Federal Government does not favor imposition of its authority over the l
objections of state and local governments in matters regarding the adequacy of Shoreham's emergency evacuation plan.
l On November 13, 1984, the Secretary wrote Peter Cohalan to reemphasize the national perspectives on nuclear power and to summarize new infonnation regarding " source tenns" of radioactive releases expected following a nuclear accident. 'After suggesting that such an accident would not be as serious as that conceived by Suffolk County, the Secretary offered additional support from the Department, where. appropriate, to assist the County in an exercise of the emergency plan.
Peter Cohalan replied to the Secretary's letter on December 20, 1984, stating that Suffolk County could not accede to the Secretary's request for the County to approve and participate in an exercise of LILCO's emergency plan.
3.
Midland Nuclear Power Plant The Task Force has retained a continuing interest in the future prospects i
f for the Midland plant. On July 16, 1984, the Board of Directors of Consumers Power Company (CP) announced that construction would cease on both Units 1 and 2 Prior to the shutdown, Secretary Hodel had made a personal plea of the plant.
-4..---
?
I i
i.
I to members of the industrial group opposed to the plant to encourage them to
~
seek an agreement with CP which would allow the plant to be completed and operated. This group and CP were unable to agree to a plan for cost recovery of the plant and CP halted construction on July 16, 1984.
l Following the shutdown.. Secretary Hodel invited representatives of CP, the Michigan Public Service Commission staff, and the industrial group to meet with him for the purpose of encouraging them to resume negotiations to allow the re-start of construction. CP and the PSC staff accepted the invitation promptly. On July. 26, - 1984, the industrial group notified the Secretary that l
t they would not attend because they thought such a meet.ing would not be meaningful.
j The Task Force has remained in elose contact with representatives of CP and the Michigan PSC to detemine if further action by the Secretary would be beneficial. CP representatives have assured the Task Force that the plant is being retained in licensable condition until a decision is made to either resume construction or abandon it completely. A representative of the Task Force visited the PSC and a representative of the Governor, as well as the
' Consumers Power Company offices and the Midland plant on November 15-16, 1984, to review the status of the project.
It is evident that there is strong support from the Governor and the PSC to assure the financial stability of j
Consumers Power Company.
It also appears that support exists for mothballing the p1 ant for two years. The Task Force is working with all parties to preserve the plant for future restart.
4.
Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant On July 10, 1984, Secretary Hodel cestified before the Mississippi Public Service Commission to stress the naticnal perspectives which would be improved
- by the completion of construction ana operation of Unit 2 at Mississippi Power and _ Light Company's Grand Gulf plaat.
Hearings are continuing on the numerous uncertainties that could prever.t. the plant from being completed in a cost effective manner and on schedule'.
Consequently, Secretary Hodel wrote the Chaiman of the Mississippi Public Service Commission on November 29, 1984, to point out recent positive improve-ments in the industry and the regulatory process; the Secretary concluded by l
stating that these improvements have increased DOE's confidence that Grand l
-Gulf Unit 2 can be completed, licensed and operated on a predictable schedule and at reasonable cost.
5.
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant I
The Task Force has had numerous contacts with representatives of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company regarding licensing and start-up of Unit 1 at the Diablo Canyon plant. After the NRC issued a full power operating license for Unit 1 on August 10, 1984, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to prohibit full power operation pending a review of the NRC's action.
The Court granted a stay on August 17 and a subsequent Company appeal to the Supreme Court for relief 1
was denied.
8 i
Since there was no assurance that the legal review would proceed expedi-tiously, Secretary Hodel wrote the Honorable William French Smith, Attorney t~
General, on September 21, 1984, to stress the importance of early operation of Unit I to various national interests and to suggest that the plant should be allowed to operate during the court proceedings. Then, on October 31, 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifted the stay and the l
NRC issued a full power license on November 2,1984.
On December 31, 1984, the Court of Appeals ruled that the NRC acted within its power in issuing the operating license.
Opponents are expected to appeal this ruling.
During the week of October 29, 1984, two representatives of the Task Force visited the Diablo Canyon plant and witnessed an exercise of the Pacific Gas
& Electric's emergency response plan for Unit 2.
i 6.
San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant During a planned outage in 1982, the Southern California Edison Company (SoCalEd) began to upgrade the seismic design of San Onofre Unit 1, which went into commercial operation in 1968, to confonn with the more recent design of Units 2 and 3.
The NRC issued a confinning order in August 1982 requiring the plant to remain shut down until the upgrading was finished.
After it was realized that the upgrading would take longer than expected, the NRC agreed, in February 1984, that the plant could be restarted after the most important work was completed but before all the work was done.
In August 1984, NRC's General Counsel stated that the August 1982 order might be a license amendment which would require a full set of hearings.
Conversations between the Task Force and SoCalEd representatives began in 1
late September and on November 16, 1984, Secretary Hodel wrote the Chairman of
'l the NRC, Nunzio J. Palladino, to urge his careful review of the matter.
The Secretary suggested that it would be poor public policy for the NRC to discourage utilities from voluntarily making safety modifications in their plants, if by doing so they would expose themselves to costly expense and delay as a result of additional hearings.
On November 21, the NRC decided that the 1982 confirming order was not an amendment to the operating license and, on the basis of the significant seismic upgrade already accomplished, gave pennission to resume full power operation of Unit 1.
Startup proceeded immediately and the unit went critical on November 24, 1984.
7.
Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Representatives of the Task Force, the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Georgia Power Company have had extensive discussions regarding Georgia Power's proposed use of DOE-style " Readiness Reviews" during the remaining construction activities at the Vogtle plant. Georgia Power has recently submitted a plan for " Incremental Licensing," or " Readiness Reviews," to the NRC for their review and approval.
Deputy Secretary Soggs appeared before a joint House and Senate committee 1
evaluating the need for completion of the Vogtle plant in the Georgia State legislature on Decemh r 5,1984, to present Secretary Hodel's testimony on the importance of national energy perspectives.
. _ _. _... ~.. _ _ _ _., _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _
9 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)_
8.
Representatives of the Task Force, the Office of Nuclear Energy, and WPPSS have met to discuss the possibility of using DOE-style " Readiness Reviews" on
.10Hz Units 1 and 3 during the period those units will be in a mothballed status.
9.
Three Mile Island Nucl' ear Power Plant - Unit 2 There has been a growing concern that financial contributions from the nuclear utilities to support the cleanup of the damaged Unit 2 at Three Mile Consequently, Secretary Hodel,
. Island were not being made on a timely basis.to the President or Chief Executive Officer in his letter'of Novenber 30, 1984, of each investor-owned nuclear utility, stressed the importance of the research and development program associated with the recovery of Unit 2 and encouraged them to participate in the Edi, son Electric Institute program for cleanup funding.
- 10. Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant Secretary Hodel has been invited to testify in the Spring of 1985 at a hearing of the Kansas Commerce Commission regarding completion of the Wolf Creek nuclear plant.
I i
-. - - - + - -
['
A
~
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
- [
e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20585 7
March 8,1985 1
Honorable Louis 0. Giuffrida Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, SW
~
Washington, DC 20472
Dear Jeff:
Thanks' for your kind note.
I share your interest in resolving the issues surrounding nuclear power generally and the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant in particular.
To succeed in this' effort, our agencies should continue to work together in a spirit of cooperation and shared objectives.
Regarding the testing of the Shoreham Emergency Plan, it is my understanding that some progress has'been made althcugh we have yet to schedule an actual test.
This matter is of vital importance if we are to avoid similar problems on other nuclear plants nearing completion.
The Department of Energy will continue to support the testing of the Shoreham plan as soon as possible.
Being new to the Department of Energy, and facing an extremely heavy schedule of Ccngressional. hearings, I am not going to be able to devote the amount of
. personal time to this issue that I would like.
I would appreciate it very much therefore if you could meet with my Deputy Secretary, Danny Boggs, in my stead.
It is very important that we promptly resolve this matter, and Danny has my full confidence in working with you on it.
Yours truly, b
J hn S. Herrington e
.wa--iws.-*ww
- - -a-s-u,__m-
f f
t' L
s'
[
SHOREHAM (100% Owner)_
( ~
Lona Island Lichtino Company Plant Financing:
The New York Public Service Commission (PSC)
Plant Data Location:
No
- Shore, L.I.
granted Long Island Lighting Size _s; Type: 820 Mwe/BWR NSSS Vendor:1 General. Electric Company (LILCO) a S245 million annual rate increase in August Construction Permit: 5/74 1984, and approved a S150 million Percent Complete: 100%
revolving credit agreement, Cocmercial Operation: 10/85(E) expandable to S200 million under Total Cost:-S4.3 billion certain conditions.
On March 1, 1985, LILCO asked the PSC to let it extend the S150 million credit agree-ment until June 1986.
1985, LILCO submit'ted On February 28, information to the PSC for a rate increase for 1986 and did not include a long range phase-in plan to help pay for Shoreham as originally contemplated.
The rate phase-in hearing will be re-On March opened in the summer of 1985.
14, 1985, two administrative law judges i
recommended to the PSC that $1.2B of Shoreham's S4.2B cost not be allowed to be recouped in rate increases because LILCO " lost" effective control over the construction of Shoreham.
LILCO intends to sell S100 million in bonds in 1985, which should ensure LILCO's tinancial viability provided i
Shoreham is in commercial operation in On March 1, 1985, LILCO October 1985.
stated-it wanted to increase its bond sales to S225 million by April'30.
LILCO's creditors have tentatively agreed, provided S75 million is used to pay debt.
BACKGROC;D:
The plant has been Ccnstruction on Shoreham was completed in May 1984. operating license review since (NRC) under Suelear Regulatory Commission Cecemoer.1977.
- uffolk. County and New York State withdrew from participating inbasing th
. preparing an emergency plan in February 1983, s-,,,,-,-.__
qm-l 2
primarily.on concerns for the safety of.the residents during an svacuation, contending-that the population density of the Island, coupled with the limited highway system and unusual geography, precludes cvacuation ofLa 20-mile radius which the County believes is necessary.
-Ttur NRC currently only requires a capability for evacuation within a 10-mile radius. (See Tab A.)
- LILCO has developed an emergency response plan (LERO) using LILCO with limited federal support, personnel,. facilities and equipment, including Brookhaven personnel.
After initial objections to reviewing a plan submitted by a utility, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agreed to evaluate for the legal issues, on beha.lf of the NRC.
(See Tab B.)
LERO,.except On November 15, 1984, FEMA approved the LERO plan, noting eight minor
- deficiencies.
On November 14, 1984, LILCO, requested NRC to schedule a drill of LERO on February 11-13, 1985.
On December 19, 1984, the NRC forwarded that request to' FEMA along with letters of opposition from Governor Cuomo and Suffolk County, and asked FEMA to "take the lead in preliminary consideration" of (See Tab C.)
To date, no drill has been scheduled by FEMA.
Canexercise.
LILCO has conducted several tabletop drills on its own.
CURRENT STATUS fuel and conduct pre.
The NRC granted an operating license to load 1984.
Fuel has been loaded at the o
operational testing on December 7, Cold criticality testing up to 24 KW plant and testing is under way.
thermal was reached on February 8, 1985.
The.NRC granted a low power license, with an exemption to the diesel generator requirement on February 12, but ordered the issuance delayed A request for to allow challenges to be filed by the State and County.
in the Circuit Court of Appeals on February 13.
a stay was filed t
1985, an Appeals Board mooted the stay request by
-- On February 21, vacating the-low power license and remanding an ASLB ruling which had dismissed security contentions around temporary generators entered by Suffolk County and the State in September 1984.
-- The New-York Supreme Court, in a suit filed by Suffolk County and New York State opposing LILCO's plan, issued a decision on February 21, 1985, stating that LILCO does not have legal authority to test or implement the LERO plan.
(See Tab D.)
f,_
9
==
- =
ew,,
=,,.
.,--.,w.,.,g_
.,-ww,wgw+ w n,-y, y..-.,,y, wry.-,,.--,-.--__-,4,
-,-~,,,
4 3
1985, Judge'Altamari, Eastern District of New York,
-- On March 18, dismissed LILCO's lawsuit against Suffolk County where LILCO was
- seeking to have two Suffolk County resolutions opposing emergency planning at Shoreham declared invalid.
i
_Two ASLBs are considering Shoreham issues for full power operat on:
ccergency planning, where a new chairman was appointed on February 1 cnd a decision is expected in late March; and diesel generators, as a result of the Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI) diesel crankshaft crack, with hearings in March and a decision expected in May.
The major. issue remaining to be resolved for commercial operation is'an adequate emergency resp,onse plan and an exercise of the plan
- o cs' required by the NRC.
-- A May 25, 1984, Circuit Court of Appeais decision currently on appeal to the Supreme Court, requires the NRC to provide the opportunity for a public hearing on the results of the exercise.
Shoreham could be the first case where such a hearing is required..(See Tab E.)
he Department 1of Energy (DOE) has taken an active role in attempting j
to schedule an' exercise of the approved plan and in resolving the o(^
+bb controversy over the LILCO plan.
4 b
~~-- Secretary Hodel'has been in communication with Governor Mario Cuomo and County Executive Peter Cohalan to encourage their (See' Tao F.)
participation and offer DOE resources for a test of the plan.
---President Reagan and Secretary Hodel wrote Representative William favor Carney (R-NY) stating that the Administration "does not imposition.of Federal Government authority over the objections of State'and local in matters regarding the adequacy of emergency response plans."
(See Tab G.)
Carney served for two years in the Suffolk. County legislature.
While NRC's authority appears to federal preemption in this area, it is not clear what provide action the NRC or the Administration will take if the State and County continue to block testing the plan.
l
~
have been
-- Over 3700 letters, primarily from stockholders,
' received by the Administration since July 1984 on operation
.of~cne Shoreham plant; all but about 60 have been supportive of the plant.
-- The Secretary notifiec Sutfolk County Executive Cohalan of new infcrmation showing that the risks-trom nuclear plant accidents are significantly less than previously thought; additional materials have been provided to the County on this.
(See Tab H.)
n........
(
i 4
- k
-- - FEMA anticipates conducting a drill in late May, and will conduct a tabletop' exercise before the actual drill.
W. Mayo Lee Mary-Ann Novak 252-4910 March 18, 1985 s
e J
f
(
s
/~
1
,~
9 y
w---y-
,r' g
y
-n
--v-,
w a-3-,
w e
y
-w.
g
INDEX TO SHOREHAM UPDATE BOOK A.
Tab A -
Report on Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1984 Appropriations FEMA regulations; Part 350
---NRC regulations; Section 50.47 Tab B -- Nemorandum of Understanding Between FEMA and NRC Relating to Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness
-- Executive Order No. 11746 Tab C -- Memorandum for Richard Krimm, FEMA, from Edward Jordon, NRC, regarding Shoreham exercise
-- Letter to Harold Denton, NRC, from John Gallaher, Suffolk County
-- Letter to Harold Denton, NRC, from Governor Mario Cuomo
'A-
-- Letter to John Leonard, Shoreham, from A.
Schwencer, NRC Tab D -- Summary of State Court Cases
-- State court decision
-- Letter from Peter Cohalan to Secretary Hodel, April 23, 1984 Tab E -- Letter to Rex E. Lee, Solicitor General, from Secretary Hodel
-- Union of Concerned Scientist v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S Tab F -- Letter to Governor Mario Cuomo trom Secretary Hodel, June 29, 1984 Letter to Secretary Hodel from Governor Mario Cuomo, May 9, 1984
~
Letter to Governor Mario Cuorao from Secretary Hodel, May 7, 1984 y
Letter to Secretary Hodel from Governor Mario Cuomo,
\\
April 25, 1984
- r
!?
m
- i._
g
--.me w
--vv
-w w-
-.r
-yyn.y g +*
g-r eg -y-g-
~
Tab G -- Letter to Representative Bill Carney from President Reagan, October 11, 1984
-- Letter to Representative Bill Carney from Secretary Hodel, October 2, 1984 Tab H -- Letter to Secretary Hodel from Suffolk County Executive Peter Cohalan, December 20, 1984
-- Letter to Suffolk County Executive Peter Cohalan from Secretary Hodel, November 15, 1984 C
- == **
'#NYe'=---e*--m
~
4 e,-
EMERGENCY PLANNING -- NOCLEAh FACILITIES r
. The' Problem:
Commercial nuclear generating plants are being " held hostage" by the refusal of state or local governments to participate in emergency planning, and by regulatory conflicts between the Federal Emergency 4
Management Agency (FEMA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Emergency planning for defense facilities has so far been a less visible problem, but it may i
quickly become quite visible unless a satisfactory resolution can be found for the related problems of commercial emergency planning.
/
The Solution:
(1) Amend Executive Order 12148 of July 20, 1979 to clarify the eraergency preparedness functions of FEMA, NRC, DOE and DOD in connection with both civilian and defense nuclear facilities, and to direct DOE or FEMA to act as a "last resort" governmental participant in emergency planning, failing f
state or local participation, and (2) m,.
investigate the possibility ot a political solution to this controversy, especially in New York State where it has arisen most h
i dangerously.
free Players:
Administration players involved in the civilian nuclear issues include FE!!A, the NRC, DOE,~and the White House Office of the Science Advisor.
The defense nuclear facilities issues involve the above entities as well as DOD and possibly the NSC.
The National Governors' Association, New York 9-Governor Cuomo and Suffolk County Executive Cohalan are also involved.
i 4
The Problem:
Commerical nuclear generating plants are being
" held hostage" by the refusal of state or local governments to participate in emergency planning, and by regulatory conflicts between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Emergency planning for defense facilities has so far been a less visible problem, but it may quickly become quite visible unless a satisfactory resolution can be found for the related problems of commercial emergency planning.
Civilian nuclear power plants may not generate electricity at commercial levels without an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (which has exclusive authority to determine nuclear issues relating to public nealth and safety); a full power operating license is not granted without an up-to-date off-site emergency plan that usually has 3
been tested and recommended by FEMA.
Following the Three Mile Islaha' Incident, states insisted on an increased role in emergency planning; New York in particular is now attempting to use that role to hold hostage or veto nuclear power plants.
Applicable statutes, Executive Orders 1214S and 12241, and FEMA regulations anticipate that state and local governments will submit emergency plans and actively participate in their review, testing and implementation.
Failing action by state or local governments to submit for federal approval a plan relating to a nuclear power facility, the owner or operator may submit such a L
plan to the NRC which FEMA may (or may not) review under a
" Memorandum of Understanding" between these two agencies., In i
addition to controversy over states' and localities' participation, controversy has arisen recently between FEMA on one hand and the Departments of Defense and Energy on the other, on the scope of any FEMA authority relating to defense nuclear facilities.
This problem may become more visible if a solution to the commercial one is not found.
('and unclear, and FEMA has sought to assume " regulatory" functions The civilian nuclear emergency regulations are confusing in the course of some of these reviews.
In doing so FEMA has intruded on health and safety issues reserved for adjudication before the NRC, and FEMA has failed to promote adequate emergency planning in instances where state or local governments either have proved urjilling or unable to continue to sponsor previously-approved plans (Indian Point Plants Rockland County, New York) or have refused to participate in emergency planning for new plants that they oppose (Shoreham Plant, Suffolk County, l
Long Island, New York).
Last summer, in response to a proposal by Governor Cuomo of New York that the federal government take over all nuclear emergency planning, the National Governors Association adopted a resolution affirming its position that this is a function of l
l
(
l'ocal and state governments and that the federal government should only act as a "last resort" when state and local authorities fail in their duty to act.
(Attachment A).
[,A further legal problem arises when state and local governments do not participate in and sponsor emergency planning.
i While there may be an adequate emergency plan sponsored and manned by the private sector, FEMA has expressed doubt over 1
l whether private sector entities have the legal authority to
. exercise " command and control" functions to order emergency
. sheltering or evacuation, guide traffic, and otherwise fulfill t
emergency governmental functions for testing a plan or implementing it in the event of an emergency.
FEMA has als'o argued that, not only must the plan be adequate, but the owner.or operator of the civilian nuclear facility must ensure on a continuing basis that every participant in the plan is ready, willing and able to act in accordance with l
the plan.
Thus, in the Indian Point situation, where Rockland County refused to participate, FEMA and NRC determined that the plant could not recommence operation until another governmental 4
entity (the state) agreed to step in.
At present, where neither local nor state governments will participate, a vacuum results because there is no clear delegation of' authority to an entity in the federal government to act in their place as a governmental participant of "last resort."
Both FEMA and the NRC have been unwilling to undertake this standby role, although the detailed plan filed with NRC by the Long Island Lighting Co. (LILCO) for Shoreham contained separate modules design'ed to permit either FEMA or the NRC (as well as the state of New York or Suffolk County) to fill the
,/'
" command and control" function that LILCO has had to assume in
/
the plan now before the NRC.
Ip the Shoreham situation, the Republican County Executive, Peter Cohalan,l/ has actively opposed the licensing and operation of this plant by LILCO, 4
claiming that it has no legal authority to test and implement its own emergency plan, and that it is impossible to devise an emergency plan for the island.2/
Democrat Governor Mario Cuomo s_
l 1/
Republican Cohalan won reelection in November of 1983 in r
Suffolk (a county with almost a 2-1 Republican registration) with only 50.4 percent of the vote against a relatively unknown and under-funded Democrat and an independent candidate.
~
i 2/
It is quite feasible to devise such a plan.
Indeed, the
}-
E.anty already has done significant emergency planning to deal with natural disasters; only Miami, New Orleans and Galveston rank higher than Suffolk County in the total number of hurricanes striking since records have been kept in the United States.
l
.._.._m_.,c.m.___,
,,_.,,m,
__,.v,..,-..,.,.
1 l
has refused to act (though he did act at Indian Point) to supplant the county.3/
As a result, LILCO is in serious financial trouble.
A utility in the final stages of construction of a nuclear power plant has limited internally generated capital and thus is heavily reliant on raising outside capital.f'The investmen_t
_ community needs to_see a clear path to final licensing to iuntify
_ taring the risks of nuclear power.
Shorenas represents about half of LILCO's assets, and the company will earn practically nothing on that $3.5 billion investment until the plant obtains a full-power operating license; the critical-path regulatory problem is the approval of an emergency plan.
If FEMA and NRC
-determine that the company is not authorized to act, and no governmental entity is willing and authorized to perform the necessary " command and control" functions for the plan, the i
regulatory delay alone will send a signal that the path to k
r= licensing is cut off.
Without access to the financial markets,
{
the company will soon go past the point where it can continue to meet its obligations.
The Solution:
(1) Amend Executive Order 12148 of July 20, 1979 to clarify the emergency preparedness functions l
of FEMA, NRC, DOE and DOD in connection with both civilian and defense nuclear facilities, and to direct DOE or FEMA to act as a last resort failing state or local government action; and (2) investigate the possibility of a political solution.to the controversy, especially in New York State where it has arisen most dangerously (a solution not discussed here).
Executive Order 12148 of July 20, 1979 consolidates the civil defense and emergency preparedness functions of the Civil Defense Act of 1950, the Defense Production Act of 1950, the Disaster Relief Acts and other authorities, into FEMA.
Amendments to the order should clarify (1) that FEMA has the authority and responsibility to promote and develop emergency f
planning by the private sector in the event that local or state entities are unwilling or unable to plan, develop, test and implement emergency plans for civilian nuclear facilities on a timely basis; (2) that DOE (or FEMA) has standby authority to take action to participate in the testing and implementation of emergency planning for nuclear power plants and other civilian 3/
At Indian Point, electric rates would have increased had the plants not recommenced operation, since they were in the utilities' rate bases and customers would have had to bear the 3
additional cost of replacement power from elsewhere; at Shoreham, the plant is not in the rate base, and allowing it to operate by approving an emergency plan will result ultimately in higher rates when the plant is placed in the rate base.
i
.w.u..
..a..
o.
~.
i nuclear facilities; and (3) that DOE, DOD or FEMA have the primary authority to plan, test and implement any necessary emergency arrangements for defense nuclear facilities (including submarines and other nuclear-powered vessels).
A draft amendment to Executive Order 12148 covering the civilian nuclear issues (but not the defense nuclear facilities) is Attachment B.
(
Alternatives to amending' the Executive Order would entail changes to FEMA's regulations and delegation orders that would prove to be more time-consuming and probably more controversial
}
to the extent a formal rulemaking proceeding might be required.
1 Changes to NRC regulations might also be involved.
C The Players:
Administration players involved in the civilian j
nuclear issues include FEMA, the NRC, DOE, and the White House Office of the Science Advisor.
The defense nuclear facilities issues involve the above entities as well as DOD and possibly the NSC.
The National Governors' Association, New York Governor Cuomo and Suffolk County Executive Cohalan are also involved.
An interagency working group under the direction of the
~
Office of the Science Advisor and including officials of DOE, c
FEMA, the NRC and possibly DOD is considering this problem, but may be bogged down in various bureaucratic confrontations.
Non-administration players in the civilian nuclear issues include New York Democrat Governor Cuomo; Suffolk County Republican Executive Peter Cohalan; and Governor Evans of Idaho (Chairman of the National Governors' Association Committee that rejected Governor Cuomo's proposal for extensive federal involvement in emergency planning and authored the attached substitute adopted by the NGA and used here as a guide in approaching this problem).
Legislative players include Senators Simpson of Wyoming, Stafford of Vermont, Domenici of New Mexico, Baker of Tennessee, and D'Amato and Moynihan of New York; Congressmen Lent, Carney, Ottinger, Stratton and McGrath of New York; also Congressmen Udall of Arizona, Markey of Massachusetts, Lujan of New Mexico and Marlenee of Montana of the Interior Committeer and Congressmen Dingell of Michigan and Broyhill of North Carolina f~ from the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The 1984 NRC j
Authorization Bill, pending in the Senate Environment & Public l-Works Committee and reported out from the House Interior and i
Energy Committees, is a possible vehicle for legislative action
\\,
on the commercial nuclear issues, but it may come too late or be too unlikely of passage.
I
ATTACHMENT B 4
Executive Order of January
,1984 E
Nuclear Emergency Planning By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution l
and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App.
j 2251 et seq. ), the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, as amended (42 U. S. C. Chapter 58 note), the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 143; 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7701 et seq.), Section 4 of Public Law 92-385 (86 Stat. 556), Section 43 of the Act of August o
10, 1956, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2285), the Nstional Security I
L Act of 1947, as amended, the Defense Production act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq. ), Reorganization Pla'n No. 1 of 1958, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973, the Strategic and 4
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, as amended (50 U.S.C.
98 et 4
seq. ), Section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C.
581c), and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and in order to protect the public health and safety in case of incidents at nuclear facilities, it is hereby ordered as follows:
i Section 1-1.
Amendment of Executive Order 12148 of July 20, 1979.
O 9
m
_-_.,____.,..,w._.-,,__..~....-._.._,.m...-
._m-..,..-..
t e.
7_
Section 2-104 of Executive Order 12148 is amended by 1-101.
adding the following language at the conclusion of said section:
"Should state or local governments be unwilling, unable, or otherwise fail to participate in a timely. manner in emergendy planning adequate to meet federal requirements, the Director is i.
authorized and directed to work with private sector organizations to assure adequate civilian emergency planning, testing and implementation with respect to civilian nuclear facilities, and the Director shall utilize the resources of the Secretary of Energy in connection with such facilities.
Section 2-205 of Executive Order 12148 is amended by 1-102.
adding the following language at the conclusion of said section:
i I
- The Secretary of Energy shall provide the Director with support in emergency t
planning for civilian nuclear facilities, and the Secretary of Energy is authorized and directed to take action to participate in the testing and l
- + - - -
.---,.-.-_..._..--,_n,,
,--.,,c.,---,,_
,e
,., -.,.,,,, - -.,.,...,,-n
_s_
implementation of any emergency plan
~
relating to civilian nuclear facilities to the extent that state and local authorities fail to so act in a timely manner to meet federal requirements.
6 9
3.
e 9
r
)
e
~.
I u
~
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS 1
ISSUES:
In response to the current situation at Shoreham, short-term issues may include:
1..
State and local Governments may use the regulatory requirements that emergency response plans be developed and exercised to halt or delay facility operation.
(Shoreham) 2.
Certain common deficiencies in plans may exist which delay FEMA approval of response plans.
3.
DOE's authority and desire to participate in
-leadership roles in utility developed response plans.
After the Shoreham problem is resolved long-term issues may include:-
1.
Need for evacuation elements in respons plans in context of AEA purpose of portecting public health and safety, and public p'erception that evacuation is the control element of a response plan.
l 2.
Cumbersome and divided Governmental functions regarding development and testing of plans.
3.
Preemption of emergency response planning by DOE' or other Federal authorities.
4 r
l'
- DISCUSSION:
I.
Local and State Governments The NRC regulations require that it make a finding that there is a " reasonable assurance that ad. equate protective measures can and will be taken (off-site) in the event of a radiologicial emergency" before it issues an operating
- license.
The NRC bases its finding on FEMA findings (rebuttable presumption) that an emergency response plan is adequate and can be implemented.
FEMA's rules require the plan to be tested.
The plan may be developed by the local or State Government or the utility applicant.
If the State and local Governments refuse to participate in developing and testing the emergency response plan, the utility has no recourse but to develop its own plan or initiate lawsuits to force local and State Governments to 4
act.
A utility developed plan may require State and local Government participation or assume State and local police i
power authorities for itself.
Thus, the legality of a utility developed plan may be challenged.
II.
Shoreham At Shoreham therc are three groups of lawsuits.
- First, Suffolk County, City of Southhampton, and New York State
- allege in State court that the LILCO developed plan usurps the State's police powers.
Second, a pro-Shoreham group and
- LILCO allege in Federal court that the County's resolutions stating no plan will be accepted and thus Shoreham will not i
become operational are illegal because the entire field of nuclear health and safety is preempted by the AEA.
- Third, i
-.,,,. ~,
-,_-,,.,,-n.,-
,__.-,,..,,,,.,,,,.,,-.,,_,,,,,_,.n,,
f e,,,,
.,.--,e,,.n.,
LILCO alleges in Federal court that Suffolk County's attempt to halt the operation of Shoreham is a "taking" of LILCO's
. property by " inverse condemnation" and violates the due process clause of the Constitution.
III. Governmental Review e jurisdiction to approve an emergency response plan ultimately resides with the NRC.
The process begins with the State and local Governments or utility which develops
'the plan.
Next, the plan is submitted to FEMA, which requires the plan be tested, and the findings are forwarded to the NRC.
The review process at FEMA,begins in the Regional Office and involves a review by an inter-agency committee,
~ hich has DOE members.
The FEMA findings constitute a w
rebuttable presumption at the NRC, thus permitting State and local Governments the opportunity. to further criticize a utility developed plan.
In addition, Concerned Scientist holds that the NRC must hold a public hearing on the testing of the plan, thus giving State and local Governments another opporturity to delay the licensing process.
IV.
AEA Purposes:
Evacuation as Key to Plan and Plan Deficiencies l
FEMA's review of the emergency response plans results in FEMA citing deficiencies in the plan which the originator of the plan must correct before the plan receives FEMA i
approval.
There may be common problems with all plans,.such
. _. - -.. - - -... -. -. -... _ - _ _. _ - -., ~. - -., - -. _,. _ _ _
3-as inadequate training of local personnel, which may be addressed at a Federal level rather than on an individual basis as is currently being done.
The public perceives the response plan as an evacuation plan.
In reality, the plan includes many other safety features and evacuation is only one segment to be used in certain circumstances.
Thus, the broader area of the need for and elements of a plan should be reconsidered in light of the objectives of the AEA and public misconceptions.
4 f
4 r-4 r---e--*
c-e-
--+r--
- - - - - * - - " - + - * - - c
-tm'-
e w
e
DOE ROLE:
Irr tiiin short-term with respect to Shoreham:
1.
' Analyze regulatory requirements for local and State Go ernments participation in emergency planning and take step, to lessen their ability to halt or delay operation of a facil ty.
\\~
2.
Monitor litigation and NRC proceedings and participate if appropri,te.
In the sh rt-term:
c 1.
Lob y NRC and FEMA to amend, interpret, issue opinions, or adopt presumptions regarding their regulations
/
and rules which are favorable to DOE's policies.
2.
Determine if there is a common problem with deficiencies FEMA finds with local plans and analyze reasons for the problem and recommend solutions.
In the long-term:
1.
Evaluate the inter-Governmental review process of plans and division of authority for approving plans and recommend structural and authority changes to streamline the process.
2.
Analyze need for evacuation parts of emergency response plans in context of possible nuclear accidents and recommend alternative measures to protect health and safety.
3.
Conduct educational projects to enlighten public regarding dangers and protective measures necessary in nuclear accidents.
w-
+-m.--,,e.-
-4
.----,---g
,,..,,--,,,,-,,.-,,,,r%,n,--,
,m,-.-.,r,,_ym,-r--.w,-,,,m,.-tr
-,-,w..,,,
l.
i INITIATIVES:
In the short-terms 1.
Monitor litigation at Shoreham and recommend DOE participation if appropriate.
[
L(
2.
Concerned Citizens decision has been analyzed.
DOE's
. position on whether to appeal the decision is under review.
3.
Analyze recurring deficiencies with plans and offer solution to eliminate deficiencies.
In the long-term:
1.
Analyze NRC and FEMA regulations regarding plans and sur tst possible measures NRC and FEMA may implement to reduce regulatory burden and expedite plan approval.
Review inter-Governmental structure for review and 2.
approving plans and recommend consolidation or elimination of redundant and unnecessary structures and suggest expanded functions for DOE.
Analyze need for plans and evacuation elements of 3.
plans in context of purposes of AEA and tyvaluate political possibility of amending or eliminating ~ legislatively and administratively any unnecessary health and safety requirements.
b ii-ii r
l l
MBO In the short-term regarding Shoreham:
1.
General Counsel will continue to monitor litigation and advise intervention if appropriate.
l 2.
DOE will initiate other actions to indica +a support for LILCO in Shoreham dispute and offer assistance,
}
as appropriate, to make plant operational.
g
~
In the Short-term generally:
1.
Environmental Health and Safety will analyze recurrent problems with plans.
In the long-term:
1.
General Counsel will develop regulatory reform initiatives.
2.
Environmental Health and Safety, General Counsel, and Congressional Affairs will analyze statutory requirements and. purposes.and relationship to plans.
3.
General Counsel and Environmental, Health, and Safety will develop alternative regulatory schemes and Governmental areas of responsibility.
l I
~
i t-e_--r..-,-,v.----e-w,-.
v Chipman 11/28/84 INDIAN POINT INFO RELATIVE TO SHOREHAM Indian Point.1. 2 and 3 Unit 1 - shut down on 10/31/74, being decommissioned, operating authority revoked on 6/19/80 by NRC.
Unit 2 - 873 MW Consolidated Edison / Westinghouse /PWR 5/73 initial criticality 8/73 commercial operation 6/74 full power
- Unit 3 - 965 MWE Power Authority State of New York / Westinghouse /PWR 4/76 initial criticality 6/76 full power 8/76 commercial operation 5
Yesterday, Suffolk County voted (15 - 3 vote) to continue to fight o
Shoreham with $800,000 more for legal fees through the end of the year.
Population Density Comparison - in parentheses, relative ranking among o
all U.S. plants (based on 1979 NRC report).
Population 4
Radius from Plant Indian Point Shoreham 0 - 10 miles (1) 218 K (18) 54 K O - 30 miles (1) 3.98 M (5) 1.76 M 0 - 50 miles (1) 17.47 M (6) 4.94 M Indian Point today conducting annual test of emergency plan (third such test)..
o Rockland County participating first time; NRC has been reviewing if t
plant can continue to operate because of high population since 1980.
Commission just voted not to shut down plants.
A major concern on Long Island is the ability to evacuate residents.
A similar problem exists in evacuating southern Westchester County from an accident at Indian Point.
In fact, these problems are not real because l
the risk is so small.
~
\\
r
'o State contacts at Indian Point suggest Cuomo feels he was bypassed in current DOE discussions with Suffolk.
Fabian Palomino, Cuomo's legal counsel on Shoreham, has indicated Cuomo will go to court to block fuel load at.Shoreham which has been approved by NRC.
i 7
Unable to confinn what Cuomo will say about Shoreham at his noon / Friday o
speech in Suffolk County, but his office confirmed to another utility i
that he will address Shoreham directly, as well as other issues.
The Governor's office said " blasting" Cohalan was "a bit strong," but not an unlikely event.
m
-ShCQk.9Ad
$~ ?
r.
Departrnent of Enermt Washington, D.C. 20585
~
- (
June 6, 1984 MEXOPJ DUM FOR:
SECRETARY HODEL N
DEPUTY SECRETARY BOGGS ROBERT C.'ODLE, JR.
FROM:
Assistant Secretary for Congressional, Intergovernmental and Public Affairs At a meeting a few days ago, the subject of Lew Lehman's During Lehrman's 1982 bid for position on Shoreham came up. Governor of New York, Shoreham became i
they
.ssue, as confirmed by Wirthlin Associates in poll ng idid for the candidate.
Mr. Lehrman, repeatedly in press releases and TV spots supported the posture taken during the general election, then and now by Suffolk County Executive Peter Cohalan.
Lehrman believes that Shoreham should not be opened until the elected officials and constituents of Suffolk County are assured of its safety and the soundness of the evacuation Although he has " sympathy" for~the financial problems of LILCO, he feels that'the Public Service Commission and plan.
" national experts" have not taken the lead on Shereham and
-thus have compounded the LlLCO situation.
He is on the record that no nuclear plants should ever be constructed in New York State.
Peter Cohalan was a principle supporter of the Lehrman" Committee to Mak campaign.
Mr. Lehrman's PAC, Again," supported Cohalan's successful reelection effort.
0/
q yi i
e
J LILCO otion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1 Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 THEORY:
Assuming arguendo that state courts find for county, three independent federal bases justify summary' disposition in LILCO's favor.
1.
Preemption:
Premption by AEA; 2.
. Realism:
Record establishes that state and county would respond in a real emergency; and 3.
Immaterality:
Action in contentions 1-4, 9, and 10 are not required to meet NRC requirements.
ARGUMENT:
I.
Preemption: to extent state / county law interferes with nuclear health and safety or operation of a nuclear plant they are preempted.
State / county laws are pg null and i
void, but only invalid when used in fashion urged by state /
county.
A.
State law can be preempted in two ways:
1.
Congress intends to occupy field; l
i 2.
Congress has not entirely occupied field but state law " conflicts" with federal law l
1.e. (a) impossible to comply with both state and federal law or (b) state law thwarts purpose-of Congress.
n $.
a Ell @'
2-ib [hi-Mvde !!fG,cina; bud 6. L'i'C th;(led [ M]
NRC'sruling/thatutilitydevelopedplanswere B.
lawful preempted area for federal government.
~
II.
Preemption by AEA under above test.
A.
State laws invade field occupied by federal regulation
.l...
See PG&E,103 S.Ct.1726 (1983) 2'.c
. State laws attempt to regulate operation of nuclear power plant just as California law prohibiting plants.did.in PG&E..
3._,..~, _NR._C,and FEMAj.a\\'s t~4t r.e. fedexal.5standa_rds to. regulate emergency planning, no powers are " expressly ceded" to states by rules or Congress.
. ~.
- Prcertticcongress has. authorized.. uniform:daderah wid.
standards for emergency pb.anning and " utility
., --- plans". : The uniform standards;, are. in - {
-l 10 CFR 50.47 and NUREG 0654.- ~ Congress rejected idea that state-could shut down a plant or veto operation.
See,1980 NRC Authorization Act, 5109 and 1982-83 Acts Reconfirmed in 1984 NRC Authorization Act submitted to Senate on Aug. 1, 1984.
(Senate Committee on Environment and Public l
Works).
i i
5.
State / county are attempting to regulate radiological health and safety.
4 e
- i i
... ~..
a.
See Long Island Lighting Co., LBfP83-22
~
where ASLB rejected county's motion to dismiss NRC proceeding on grounds that county resolutions were an attempt to regulate health and safety and held that
" utility plans" are legal.
6.
State / county's argument that emergency planning is a " traditional" involvement of state and outside field preempted by AEA is irrelevant.
See PG&E for " traditional" test.
a.
LILCO has developed plan, not state, and state is attempting to block it.
b.
Silkwood: Congress did not intend to preempt state tort law.
B.
State law actually " conflicts" with federal law.
s 1.
For contentions 5-8 impossibl.e to comply with state and federal law (public warning and decisionmaking).
Contentionswouldprecluheanyutility a.
developed plan - only way for LILCO to comply is to go out of business.
2.
Contentions 1-10 block congressional objectives of (a) having effective emergency plans; (b) uniform standards of planning, and (c) encouraging nuclear power.
4-C.-
State would respond in actual emergency.
1.
550.47(a) (1) requires NRC to find there is
" reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken".
a.-
Dec. 20,, 1983,Cuomo said would respond
..c....-
in an emergency.
- b.. County says look only at LILCO plan; however, realism says look at Cuomo's s'tatement and constitutional duties of chate officials.
~:
2.
" Assurances" under. 550.47 (c) (1).
a.
LILCO has demonstrated that adequate
" interim conpensating actions" have been taken and deficiencies in. plan are not "significant" and there a,Se other " compelling reasons",to operate plant.
3.
At ASLB proceeding LILCO has argued that LILCO plan complies with 55f.47(a) and i-NUREG-0654 as fully as a state or local plans.
In fact, LILCO need meet a lesser standard - i.e. interim compensating plan under 5 50.47 (c).
a.
Only deficiency is state / county refusal i
to plan - all 10 contentions simply
+
l restate this. fact, " Deficiency" of government nonparticipation is not sienificant at Shoreham.
i
. 4 D.
LILCO plan is adequate without actions challenged in Contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 (1-4, 9 are traffic plan parts; 10 security-at EOC, EPZ perimeter and relocation centers).
LILCO plan provides for " uncontrolled" evacuation a.
in only~1 hour 35 minutes longer than if state 3
helps.
There are no specific time limits in NUREG-0654 and NRC regulations.
IV.
Contention-by-contention analysis - p. 54.
4 9
/
4
hJ<
Technical Resource Contacts Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
1.
UCS -
(822-1063)
Shaw, Pitman, Potts & Trowbridge 2..
Diesel Generators -
J.B. George (Chairman Owner's Group)
V.P. of Texas Utilities Generating Company 3.
Financial Qualifications - Ed Komer (828-7400)
Edison Electric Institute Jay Silberg, Esq.
(822-1063)
Bart Cowan, Esq.
(412-566-6029)
Eckert, Seamans, Charin & Mellott 4.
Degraded Core -
George Edgar, Esq.
(862-8400) 5.
Last Minute Allegations -
Bart Cowan, Esq. -
(412-566-6029) harry-Vo S, Esq.
(457-750 @
LeBouef, Lamb & Leiby 6.
Administrative Licensing Reform
- Bart Cowan, Esq.
(412-566-6029)
George Edgar, Esq.
(862-8400)
Jerry Charnoff, Esq.
(822-1000)
Shaw, Pitman, Potts
& Trowbridge 7.
Energy Policy -
Bart Cowan, Esq.
(412-566-6029)
Marc Rowden, Esq.
(342-3631)
Fried, Frank
~.
8.
Backfitting -
Bart Cowan, Esq.
(412-566-6029)
Don Edwards (617-872-8100)
Yankee Atomic 9.
Mothballing.
Financial Engineering -
Lou Peoples, Esq.
(415-768-1234)
Bechtel Pres Rahe (415-374-4868)
Westinghouse Hun vow l
(457-750 @
Jim Lewis (509-372-5760)
Bonneville Power Administration 10.
Legislation -
Bart Cowan, Esq..
(412-566-6029)
Marc Rowden, Esq.
(342-3631)
George Gleason (484-2670)
Atomic Industrial Forum
- 11.. Price Anderson -
Joe Knotts (857-9569)
Linda Hodge, Esq.
(654-9260)
. General Counsel, AIF
.C George Gleason
/
(484-2670) 12.
Emergency Response 4-George Gleason foi P Planning (484-2670)
Tom Tipton (654-9260)
LfLC0" B:>s 26
.&kr bllA I
h k #'
BelgMt i n(vg
^
. m.
s 8
s
& Mt98ASE CONTAmes wsAP088 BATAP f"X" suropeasse sea. Assessee censer as noe FM fR$$3dgg ganggy age ggg ig gqyggg)
- 1. 3885T A80VL CLAsetMCAftest Lavm. UseCLAte MED.
OFRCIAL Wet casLv C yes UA DEPN OF
& USE WHEN FIEQUm00 l
mm&UG 23 PM I : 2 y s aceuw,
3 Ss.sumuseable AmransammlunaJ CONSISTS OF paans o'
c= =$
A 0.
0
.Ario.,,
,v, 0,.
i d
. g,,,,J ~ ~
- 0m manuat use su Roewey Use OwLv c..
cgv a
a,u a..
o.
ps -
o = ~ o aa o-00193401 i
' "** Ge.c e,S/ehwoand bElintw n u.
( W W aftshf p g, g.g l
.55 S - S'E 4-S' T-33-24
[
l7 a
i N
(
i I
e
.ci j
w a
- M-, 3p s-
- 5# - (97 ih j-i i
l 88 entEP - tuue4 Aft UNastesSSARY WOA00
}
- 0830sesAT.a O. assesse arens ower
- 11. OsmivATNsLY CLAmesmeD Nel IL ORietNALLY CLAsesMfD Ned -
Musin Asiassip Syssinet # fal MM q
I befM M mim M
(
@7vw./
assuantum usemantus
--s.
.g amamups as Summe humamm Asummme and te.ed humamm i
Jr Dettvetive Clemssfiert8*
man OnetemvCwoo w er =
I 35 5 - S fM
,,,,,a,,,,.,a
=
1 o....,i. ci a.a., i,v%,, _
e.m.. _,,
1 ta O sarrimme enfa 14.
O senssina,ammus m ears temme h ammen m in.,,.s.
anamma es ist
-s.-
time humamm j
D6MVATNE 0085VATIVE CLAS$;PiqR CLAGEd'WR --
e thseme and fluel thav. and 71stei N
0 80 MED. OR OPPICnAL Ugg ONLY E 9818547 BELOW, CLASSIMCAAw XCa mMli k
I z
Prelininary Brcft i
EVACURTION ZONE SIZE i
l I
l Project Manager: George Sherwood Problem: llow to assure that the Ep? will change the evacuation zone size required for the plume I
exposure pei^nway, thus greatly reducing current nuclear powerplant problems with emergency planniag.
l Issues:
o hether DOE should take an active role in the IIRC reviews related to evicuation zone size or let the utilities carry the ball.
o mether DOE should petition the NRC for rulemaking en evacuation zone sire now or waft for the NRC to complete its planned reviews related to evacuation zone size at a later date (6 mouths to 1 year from now).
Discussion:
The IstC has been considering changing the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone from the present le miles (see 10 CFR SS.41(c)(2)) to 2 or 3 miles (pins " keyhole"). This change would greatly simplify emergency planning and cuduce the potentf al for litigation and controversy concerning emergency planning. At present, this proposed change is in Ilmbo within INIC awaiting the results of an IntC source term evaluation, teilch will occur 6 months te 1 year from now. This evaluation will depend heavily en the results of the ongoing American Physical Society (APS) review of the source term research, which should be released in IIovember or December,1984 DOE Role:
DOE's technical expertise in nuclear safety matters and ongoing efforts in the TMI-2 damaged fuel tests provide justification for DOE involvement. What remains to be determined is the timing and the estent of such involvement. The DOE role is to assure that the NRC evacuation zone revisions are reillstic and timely, not overly conservative and too late.
]
Initiatives:
N Develop coordinated DOE source term position.
C Potential petition for avlemaking on reduced evacuation zone size.
1
t
- g Prelleinary DrOft EVACIRTION 201E SIZE Completion Date Responsible Task Target Actual Person li 1.
Review existing source term data base (esp. IDCOR) 10/84 G. Sherwood for support for evacuation zone size reductions 2.
Srfefing to Secretary on approaches 10/84 G. Chippin 3.
06diston by Secretary (petitlen for rulemaking now 11/84 Secretary and/or participation in planned lutC review later) 4.
flest steps 0
I Depend upon decision.
\\%
-st Ou
i v' [ . l November 1,1984 x__ Ma SThe06 NOTE T0: James W. Vaughan, Jr. Acting Assistant Secretary ~~~1"= + = for Nuclear Energy
== 1
SUBJECT:
Emergency Preparedness / Source Ters ma sv o6 L i THRU: Thomas A. Werner, NE-10 l-Our conversation on October 29 in regard to the above subjects was focusa[" l primarily on Andy Millunzi's and my concern that the subject related recomendations in this year's management plan for Public Law 96-567 not cause,any problems for the Department of Energy's management prior to our.. - - - - beginning formal coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC F and others, g As became clear in our discussions, there are, of course, broader considerations. Following are some more general thoughts that may be of interest. o -Emergency Preparedness and Source Ters are both important problem
- r,,
areas: ~~ ma sw.o6 Emergency Preparedness is a technical / legal problem ~.;T,"", Source Term is a technical / emotional / political problem o It appears there could be substantial benefits if the two problems ar e worked separately. ma m. .. Emergency Preparedness Approach iur"", sis. o Serious accidents with WASH-1400 source terms meet 10CFR100 "sVi" requirements at 2 miles just as design basis accidents meet 10CFR100 requirements at the site boundary.. ma sv== o There are no legal requirements for evacuation beyond a 2-mile radius:~7E~ o Without a change in the source ters and within legal requirements, NRSiii"~~~ can largely solve emergency response problems with a graded response that is a more technically sound approach to the problem (i.e., mo:=.= evacuate within 2 miles; shelter and move as appropriate from 2 to 10............ miles). o The DOE can help support this approach through Public Law 96-567 and other available avenues. mG SiteDO6 Yi Dee .1o OFFICIAL FILE COW
2 This would more certainly and expeditiously ameliorate the short-tena o problems of operating plants and plants under construction than would ***""*"c efforts to reach scientific consensus on source term reductions. m s=m Source Term Approach
- '= l Beyond the plants under construction, there will not likely be any ne g.g--~~ l o
orders of nuclear powerplants unless and until the public becomes mori comfortable and less emotional about the likelihood of being injured q,,, neclear powerplant accidents. 10CFR100 requirements,while legal, pose two problems to the public: o 'u~&~ Property contamination and financial loss. nragru.QL Doses in excess of occupational exposures (i.e. 25R vs. SR whole $~ body).* It is very likely that the NRC will not find sufficient support in. thmer. o American Physical Society review due in December to reduce accident source terms as much as industry would like. NRC has indicated, in trera.== past, reductions of a factor of 2 to 5. m ue.- A reduction of two orders of magnitude in this dose would place th'e o exposures in the same range as natural background (i.e., 100-200Mr). = =. Many believe this magnitude of reduction is possible. nra m m The public would relate more positively to these doses and improve the o political climate for expansion of economically competitive nuclear
=
power projects through less restrictive design requirements. Power Burst Facility (PBF) Considerations Rr&Sns 0L It is difficult, at this time, to cast PBF as a piece of a total sourc e o Such tem program that demonstrably solve:; the source term problems. l an approach: is not technically credible, due to significant uncertainties, t does not meet NRC's time scale for addressing the problem. ._.g i does not have NRC technical support, and consequently cannot obtain international support. In addition, future source tenn work cannot be credibly shown to be a - - " - o timely solution to the short-term emergency response problems. However, there could be a place for PBF in the above described source f o tem approach. M
- It should be noted that the International Council on Radiation Protection has approved 25R as a.one-time emergency dose limit.
OFFICIAL FILE COPY Dot p 1225 to l rr.7sl
3 - l o There are unique experiments that can be perfomed in PBF that would contribute to the longer tem (3 to 4 years) understanding of source -:-:- = e terms and reduced public concerns. o These unique experiments could be defined within a closed-ended progr un ne like the 1.oss-of-Fluid Test program and conducted with NRC and "j.. g international support. 0'/ 31 / 84
- W m
.m i Juny o. neum .Mm.1.0 ..1 Jerry D. Griffith Wern Acting Deputy Director ~~ t10/g/d Office of Converter Reactor Deploy Office of Nuclear Energy rm.m a i ,-.. n ec: ms t.. Wilcox. HE-50 D. Bunch. NE-50 'un D. Giessing NE-12 A. M111unzi. NE-12 m en.a W. Voigt. NE-20 um Distribution: na *=== Subject NE-73 (4)
==
T. Werner. NE-10 Em N E-10 : J G ri f fi th/ek : 353-3773 :10/ 31/84 msnsa .nmamo un ca.smaa E5 l mamaa l Tham 4 un mu.smaa l \\
- x :;s~
l ~~ Y5 nos F taas to OFFICIA1. FILE COPY D 79)
il SHOREHAM LICENSING AND EMERGENCY PLANNING -
SUMMARY
The Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) receivsd a lo'-power operating license for its 54.3 billion Shoreham v Ndelear Power Station from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December-7, 1984. Once operating at full power, ~ Shoreham vill displace 6-8 million barrels of imported oil per year with cheaper nuclear fuel, thereby reducing Long Island's almost total dependence on imported oil for the generation of electricity. Full power operation of Shoreham is not yet authorized, due principally to the refusal of Suffolk County, joined by New York State, to participate in the federally-mandated off-site emergency preparedness planning process which is required by NRC regulations. This " hostage plant" syndrome is a growing problem, with local governments raising the issue in other states, such as Pennsylvania, Texas and California. New York and the County base their opposition primarily on their concerns for the health and safety of the residents living within a.20-mile radius of the plant in the event of an I accident, and are denying LILCO access to facilities, equipment and personnel normally available in emergencies, arguing that LILCO is prohibited by state and County law from developing or implementing emergency response capabilities on its own. On the other hand New York state stepped in to keep the Indian Point plant operating when Rockland County refused to participate in emergency planning in an areas with twice the population density of Shoreham. The County-State position appears inconsistent with provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, in which Congress legislatively. preempted the field of health and safety regulation of nuclear power plants, and with provisions of NRC Authorization Acts. Moreover, the County-State insistence on a twenty-mile radius emergency planning zone has been undercut by recent evaluations of actual radioactive emissions data from the Three Mile Island incident, and other analyses suggest that accident-caused radioactive releases are much lower than had previously been expected and that a ten-mile emergency evacuation zone is much larger than necessary to protect the public health and safety. ~ Normally, state and local governments prepare and idhle=ent the federally-required emergency plans and forward [ them to NRC and the Federal Emergency, Management Agency'(FEMA) ~ for review, exercise and ultimate licensing approval. Nevertheless, the NRC also has authority -- confirmed -In t' e .h last three NRC Authorization Acts -- to approve utility-sponsored emergency plans in the event a state or' local government is unwilling or unable to participate in the planning process. The NRC, FEMA and the Department of Energy l
- 5 rp 7
e j.mewps..ew-sew-%.
m,we--w-r*mm-w-=------e-u et-rr r - e u--pm+--wFw*sw--s*
- tw-w wew-e-+m eww9-9%-we
-e--we---- NNNWw's-8*--=e-M'--n-r-k-9mmearer w * "m-J--u--L--J--m-?
. further appear to have legal authority to test, exercise and impliment such plans in the absence of state or local.c partJcipation. FEMA has now officially reviewed two versions.f the g o LILCO-sponsored emergency plan that use LILCO persennel,as we facilities and equipment, and has given the nongovernmental personnel and equipment, latest one high marks on all issues except the question ofd LILCO's legal authority to implement its plan without state anThis " lega local government cooperation. is the centerpiece of the opposition to Shoreham which the State and County have mounted by, among other ld the federally-mandated actions contemplated by the plan wou violate state and local laws. The current timetable for Shoreham appears to be very ,< ~~ and LILCO now projects commencing commercial operation ) in the fourth quarter of 1985, and indeed believes that it must 1 tight; l do so within this time frame in order to avoid further financial problems (such as its brush with bankruptcy in th operating license, which cannot be issued until summer of 1984). d Absent an apparently unlikely legal and political compromise f ,~ with the State and County, this process could well take FEMA is now proceeding towards a the year. exercise in February and a full scale, on-location by about February 1985. " tabletop"in the spring, but the " legal authority" issue may be exercise a stumbling block for both it and the NRC. If neither the State nor County is willing to lend legal authority to the exercise, a federal decision vill have i lity to be made on whether to go forward.to exercise the utThe State or County e emergency plan for licensing purposes. might attempt to enjoin the conduct of such an exercise on the Opposing basis that LILCO vould be violating state law. argume tual th~e f ederal licensing process, not a response to an ac emergency; they would futher note that federal law has f
- ulation,
. preempted the field of nuclear health and sa ety rega plans. 9 e ,_--,:,,,_ mvw,---,,-wm-,-,--w,.,w----a.-n-,w-e.,-w,,,- r e.,.,g-w-,re.w---,r,-gppuwym m, o-_ m
2..., p SHOREMAM LICENSING AND EMERGENCY PLANNING TheLongIslandLightingCompany(LILCO)rece$ veda ov-poweroperatinglicenseforits$4.3 billion'Shorkham '{fuelear Power Station from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 7, 1984, commenced loading fuel on December 21, and expects to take the plant critical in January of 1985. Once operating at full power, Shoreham vill displace 6-8 J million barrels of imported oil per year with cheaper nuclear i fuel, thereby reducing Long Island's almost total dependence on imported oil for the generation of electricity, while providing additional needed generating capacity not available through Long Island's very limited transmission ties to New York and New England. nfor nately, full power operation of Shoreham is not yet authorized, due principally to the refusal of Suffolk County, joined by New York State, to participate in the federally-mandated off-site emergency preparedness planning g process which is required by NRC regulations before issuance of a full-power operating license. This " hostage plant" syndrome is a growing problem, with local governments raising the issue in other states, such as Pennsylvania, Texas and Catifornia. ~ The County and State base their opposition on their concerns,for the health,and safety of the residents living within a 20-mile radius of the plant' in the event of a.t
- accident there.
A less frequently articulated reason for this 2 opposition appears to be concern over the local political 9 - - - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ~. _ _ _ _. _ _ _
i 2_
- ffectofrateincreaseslikelytofollowcommercialpperation e
The County and State have manifested tDeir pf the plant. foppositionbothbydenyingLILCOaccesstofacilities equipment and personnel normally available in emergencies, and by arguing that LILCO is prohibited by New York State and County law from developing or implementing emergency response capabilities on its own. The state-county opposition on emergency planning is both unprecedented and anomalous.1/ In the Atomic Energy Act, the Congress legislatively preempted the field of health and ' safety regulation for nuclear pover' plants. Recognizing its proper role under the federal scheme, New York State actively intervened in 1983 and 1984 to assist in emergency planning at the Indian Point nuclear plant vith a population density twice that of Shoreham, when Rockland County, N.Y., refused to participate. Notably, given Suffolk County's opposition, a. -nuclear reactor has been operating for over 20 years not five miles from Shoreham at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory. 'l/- Editorial comment in the New York media, including the l. has been IN.Y. Times, Newsday, the Daily News and the N.Y. Post, in f avor of opening Shoreham for local economic and-energy and has been uniformly critical of democrat policy reasons, N.Y. Governor Cuomo and Republican Suffolk~ County E,xecut'ive f-Peter Cohalan for short-sighted political decisions-to oppose its opening. m
~ t >t In1980,inthewakeofthe1979ThreeMilef51and the NRC promulgated final regulations requiYing that (( Incident, "an emergency plan be in place as a prerequisite to issuance or On the basis of retention of a full power operating license. safety evaluations then available, the NRC established a 10-f- p mile emergency planning zone. More recent evaluations of actual radioactive emissions data from the Three Mile Island ~ l 1 incident and other analyses suggest, however, that accident-caused radioactive releases are much lower than had been expected in 1980.' It thus appears that the public health and safety would be protected by a much smaller zone for emergency i planning than is now required. The policy implications of this new information are currently being studied at the NRC and ' i elsewhere. The normal course in reactor licensing is for state and local gover5 mental entities to sponsor -- i.e,_, prepara and implement -- the federally-required emergency pians and forward them to NRC and FEMA for r'eview, exercise and ultimate Nevertheless, the NRC also has authority licensing approval. -- confirmed in the last three NRC Authorization Acts -- to ! approve utility-sponsored emergener plans in the event a state i is unwilling or unable to partic.ipate in or l'ocal government The NRC, FEMA and the Department of l l the planning process. 5xerIise and Energy appear to have the legal authority to test, [Implemenj)suchplanundertheNRCA'uthorizationActs(suchas N @
f 1950, the,_ ggg.), the Civil Defense Act o p.L. 96-295 31 the delegations of authority from the L \\ Di[4sterReliefAct, 978 (and other Pr6sident in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1i n Act.1/ b related Executive orders) and the DOE organizat o 'd In reliance on the NRC's authority to review an LCO has developed approve utility offsite emergency plans, LI i (LERO), Its own plan and Local Emergency Response Organizat on sing LILC0 with over 2000 members filling 1200 billets, u as well as limited members personnel, facilities and equipment, onnel and of federal (mostly DOE) and nongovernmental pers This plan is also i (g a, ambulances, school buses). h uld it equipment designed to accommodate governmental participation, s o l be forthcoming, on federal, state and county leve s. State oppose the LILCO -Suffolk County and New York t seeking a emergency plan, arid have filed suit in state courlated by declaratory judgment that many of the a'ctions contemp i il and criminal laws the plan would violate state and local c v h as LILCO. The .if undertaken.by a non-governmental entity suc i ublic State and County assert that federal lav govern ng p l ar facilities do not . health and safety regulation at nuc e his issue Attention is invited to the recent summary of t Environment by Senator Alan K. Simpson, C.1 airman of the Senateat p 11/ l ion <fand and Public Works subcommittee on Nuclear Regu at recently elected Republican Waip of the Senate) RC Authoriz of the Senate Report accomp%ying the curre 9 1984), a copy of which is attached.
~ . li preempt the provisions of state and local lav vhich they.c a m 7 t n prlecludetheLILCOplan. e In response to prodding from Congress (and some i ed two Executive Branch agencies) FEMA has now of ficially rev ew d in the versions of the LILCO-sponsored emergency plan an review has given it high marks on all issues except the 1(test ' ques' ion of LILCO's legal authority to implement its plan l without state and local government' cooperation. Wi,th respect d that the to this " legal authority" question, LILCO conten s federal requirement for an emergency plan meeting federal criteria, combined with congressional sanction of public utility emergency plans, authorizes LILCO to act for purposes h of reviewing, drilling and testing the plan as part of t e LILCO licensing process and thereafter pursuant to license. i l ligation also ' contends that the County and State have a legal ob i wer to perform, and would in fact perform, their pol ce-po duties to protect the public in the event of an actual emergency. Expecting continued hostility from the State of New 14, 1984 LILCO requested York and Suffolk County, on November L On the NRC to schedule an exercise of.its emergency plan. EDecember'19, the NRC forwarded that request to FEMA.a letters of opposition from Governor Cuomo and the SGZfolk and asked FEMA to "take the lead-;in ' County government, ~ preliminary consideration" of the exercise. 0
~ ,.- j / be ver.y -.Y The current timetable for LILCO appears to t s k in lhe LILCO avoided bankruptcy by a matter of wee s + tigft. NRC licensing summer of 1984 when favorable actions in the i g an additional proceedings resulted in lender banks advanc n d (as well as the 5150 to $200 million; repayment of those fun s in the plant) requires balance of the $4 billion investment LILCO now into commercial operation. placing the. plant f Shoreham in the projects commencing commercial operation o it must do so fourth quarter of 1985, and indeed believes that id further financial 'within this time frame in order to avo ting Commercial operation requires a full-power opera problems. h emergency license, which cannot be issued until the Shore am portunity plan has been successfully exercised, and an opAbsent an l afforded f,or litigation of its results. k State and Suffolk unlikely political compromise with New Yor f the year even if County, this process could well take most o Thus FEMA must t all goes expeditiously on the licensing fron. February 1985. commence actual testing of the plan by about i rcise in IFEMA is now proceeding towards a " tabletop" exe f i in the spring, February and a full scale, on location exerc se ~ ii in New 'on the assumption that one of the governmental ent t es s. d control" function at the 'Torkwill undertake the " command anf LILCO's legal auth . exercise to avoid the question o l functions.1/' { perform what are claimed to be governmenta l f been affected by The viability of this assumption may haveSuffolk County Execu the attached December 20 letter from 2/ (Footnote cont'd.) l g -. ~ ~- - ~ -. ~ - -.... -
o 7-If neither the state nor County is willing to lend its e i-J have lesal authority to the exercise, a federal decision vilthe i tkbemadeonwhethertogoforwardtoexercse The State or County emergency plan for licensing purposes. i the might~ attempt to enjoin the conduct of such an exerc se on tate law. Opposing bas'is that LILCO vould be violating some s f the arguments.would point out this is an exercise as part o l federal licensing process, not an actual emergency, and d of additionally that iederal law has preempted the fiel its f nuclear health and safety regulation, and specifically perm for utility formulated emergency plans, at the very least, . licensing purposes. L / Eo Attachments 2 i .(Tootnote con't'd from previous page) lier Cohalan to Secretary Model, declining the Secretarfis ear invitation to Suffolk County to participate fully in an J exercise. e ,7 ,-+-y-cw,-,,.,,--,, -, - - - ,,y-. ,.c, ...,,--.-,,,-,.,3,3..y.,- ,--.--y -.,me-,=-
96'Me 90rE CoNGEISS I SE ATE Id Suoisa ] s ? 'e-Y AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS TO THE NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY CO)! MISSION Jcas 29 Ltes.staties dar. Jess ::f).1964.--Crdered to be priated }Ir. Stxtsox, f rom the Committee on Environment and Public Worics, ,4 submitted the fo!!owing REPORT together with SUPPLTMENTAL VIEWS [To accompaar 3.23e41 The Committee on Environment and Public Works. nports an orig-inal bill (5. 2546) to authorize appropriations to the Nuclear Regula-Energy. tory Commission in accordance with wetion 261 of the A e e.- and neommends that the bilido pas. Gzxz Az.STArzmx.w for salaries and ex-The bill. as reported, authorizes M66.800.000 ~ pensas of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for Escal year 19M. the amount toquested be the Commission. T ~ d tion the Commission for Escal year 1983.The Committee's re The bill also authorizes $460.000.000 t re. the agency for Escal year 1985. This amount. which i in January of 1983
- includes funding for 3.325 stad pos tions.
Two-TzAn AcTucazzArsox stncMAsT. This bill provides for a two. year authorization for fiscal years 19H. ~ .r. and 1985. ' is sen seem sn.amena== tenies.xcas:Nmes. st-ete o
1 T ? I i 13 + r 'h t improved signi8 f issue. As a nsult, the state of afairs today as no o cantly since the time of the TMI accident our fits year 3 i h its edorts in gram and urges the Commission to mon forward w th ius the Co l-this ama. Accordingly. this section aut or f cud with a prototype Nuclear Data Link program or t es means of im-i esamining the advantaps and disadvantsps of va that f rious options, this see-the Commission examines a broad rany o vads with such a program. td tion provides that,if the Commission procwit must include electronic nuclear data link. cnmr r.xtacaxcr rasnazoxess reaxs essenox sosi This section provides that the NRC.in the absence of a Summary emerpacy prepandness plan apprend Management Apncy (FEMA), may issue an operating licens l cal, or nuclear powerplant if it determines that there exists a state. o ble assur-utilitt emerency pnpandness plan which provides reasonad by operatio ance that public health and safety is not endangen the plant. This provision is similar to a provision Erst adopted by the Discweios Law W in the NRC Authorization Act for fiscal year 1960 (Public hi 295, section 109) and is identicalto a provision in the NRC A tion Act for fis' cal years 1982 and 1983 (Pub c i an operatinglicense which confirm the Commission's authority to ssue or local emergency pnpandatas plan,the NR h t thera l hich pro-exists a state, local, or utility emerpney preparedness p an wf ty wi d vides reasonable assurancs that public health an sa e dild danpnd by operstion of the plant.\\ inually enry nport on the a ing this Committee's nport entitled " Nuclear Accident a ll levels-- at Thru Mile Island," identi8ed serious shortcomings in a ibility for utility, local, state, and fedeal--<harpd with the nspons The Thne enrunng prompt and adeouste response to an emergency. Mile Island accident highBghted the need for gnater att I. adopted subjut of emerency preparedness. In response.the Congns f emergency pro-compnhensive legislation to add:ess the subject o i pandness at commercial nuclear powerplanta (NRC Au 0) Act for fiscal yeat 1980. Public Law 96-295. sections 106 In accordance with the natuinments establish l 205.the NRC and FEMA initiated a joint edon to establish h ment a compnhensive agulatory program for t e pn a d s plans; mission. review. and tvaluation of emergency prepare nes Estensive ngulatory criteria were established. setting fon d t iled requinments for emerpney pnpandness plan in the process by which FEMA and the NRC wou appron such plans. S
w
-v --a,r--, , - -n--.- ,a1, e-w--,,-a,,,ww,-,w,--m,-,,--~, -w--, w-.,g----r-w n--a n.a ,,.,-m----,-,,g m..~-----n-v----,o-~y
4 M 1- ~ lation coa In April of 1981, the Subcommittee on Nuclear Re NRC and Y t vened a hearing to aview the progress being made J-FEMA in their eforts to implement this important regu story initia. tive. The Subcommittee was pleued to learn that much prognss had, in fact. Wn made, but urpd both the NRC and FEMA to redouble their esorts to ensun continued progress in their review and approval of emerpacy preparedness plans. In April of 1983, the Subcommittee meisited this issue. Again, the Subcommittee heard from both the i NRC and FEMA. In addition, various representatives of state and r testined before loest genrnments. internnor groups. and the indus';'nificant prognes ) the Subcommittee.The NRC and FEMA nported sig in addnsaing many of the concerns that wen identified at the earlier-WCommittee believes that this rneens has, by and larp, fune-tiened very efectinly. State and loca'l emerpacy preparednen pInas han Mn developed and exercised at least twice for all operating plants. Of the 55 sites with operating nuclear powerplants. 24 have now neeind final Federal approval for their emerpacy pnpared. ness plans. For the remaining sites, FEMA is working closely with state and local genrnments in an efort to complete the necessary steps for approval of such plans. In some instanen, these plans will mquirs additional worir. In other instancu. however, the Committee has been advind that plans have been pnpared, exercised, and sub-mitted and are awaiting the formal FEMA evaluation. In the courw of the Subcommittee's hearings, however, two poten-tially signiacant problems han been raind. First. witnesus expressed concern that under the existing process. state or toesi revernments. by acting or failing to set. could keep FEMA and the NRC from evala-ating an emerpney pnparedness plan for a nuclear powerplant that was pnpand or submitted. or both, be the applicant or licensee, and, as a result. prevent the NRC from issu'ing an operating licena to such i applicant or licensu if the NRC determmes that the plan submitted be the applicant or licensee provides reasonable assurance that publie h'ealth and safety is not endanpnd by operation of the plant. The Committee niterates that the a'dootion of this provision is in-tended to neonfrm the authority of the NRC and FEMA to evaluate an emerpact pnpandness plan submitted by an applicant or licensee pursuant to this sectton.In 1980 the Conference Report on the Ascal year 198 i thorization Act,(Public Law 96-995) stated thatt for[T]he conferees sought to avoid penalizing an applica an openting license if a State or locality does not submit L an emerpacy asponse plan to the NRC for neiew or if the i submitted plan does not satisfy all the guidelines or rules. the compromim permits NRC to issue an operating license if it determines that a State. local. or utility plan, such as the emerpney pnoandness plan submitted bv the applicant. providas nasonable assurance that the public hesich and safety is not endanpred by operation of the facility. (H. Rpt. 96-1070. p. 27) - t nder section 108 of this bill, the Committee expects the NRCand FEMA to undertake a review of all emerpney pnparedness, plans,, 9 I f 4
d 15 submitted for evaluation. reg'srdless of whether the plans have bee pnpand oc submitted. or both, by a governmental entity or by t appliennt or licensee for such facility. If a state s lo df state or local emergency preparedness plan which ha i [ plan prepared or submitted. o'perating license if it determines that a, des rea.onable assurance that ~ ~ or both, by an applicant or licensee provi public health and safety is not endanpred by operation of the fa The second concem was entsed in the testimony of various utility representatives and in FEMA's quanerly nport to the Subcommitte ~ on Nuclear Regulation on emergency plannmg.The Subcommittee has nesived evidence that some utilitres an being asked to make financial commitmenta to state and local governments. or to agree to undertake urtain actions requested by state and local governm of emerpncy, preparedness plans. The Committes emphasizes that the process established by NRC and FEMA for the preparation, subminion. evaluation for the purpose of achienng objectives, obtaining agnements. or exact. ing concessions on matters not reasonably related to einergency plan nmg. Accordihgly.the Committee will continue to focus canful atten-tion on this matter and if necessary. consider further cial assistance being sought is not nasonably nlated to the prepara-d tion and implementation of an emergency prepandne owsasszt or sac.uctxszo racu.rrtza tszerso.v seen This section would authorize the Commission to transfer a facility Summary license from a U.S. corporation to a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign cor- . poration. provided certain conditions an satis 6ed. This wetion would authorize the Commission to transfer Facility Discussion License No. R-81 for the Sterling Forest nsearch reactor from Union Carbide. a U.S. corporation. to Cintichem. a U.S. subsidiary of Hof-man.LaRoche, a font'ra corporation. On May 12.1983.th NRC received a draft application for *.he neransfer of Facility Operating License No. R-41. for the Sterling Forest nsearch nactor. submitted ~on behalf of Union Carb 4 B",Inc. and Cintichem. Inc. sidiary" decision rendered in June of 1083. the Commission concluded that, even though Cintichem is a U.S. corporation owned bv another In a U.S. corporation.the ultimate owner of Cintichem.HotYman.T aRoche, is a foreign corporation, and that under existing law the Com=ission concluded that sections 103d. and 104d. of the A Energy Act of 1954, as a= ended, prohibit the Commission from ap-2 e* ~ e s ,-*,---w =,--+-,ew=- e we r - - -ww-v--,--ev- --wwvy--w-,----we,se-w-v--:-,-ev--v=-e,- -w e w e#-wq w ev-- y,--w,-- wey,+y
i s U b [ SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATOR SDIPSON ~ I welcome this opportunity to amplifv on mv understanding of the provssion included in this bill on the subject o't emergency pnparsd-ness at commercial nuclear powerplants (section 108)5'ederal Emer-Section los of this bill confirm the authority of the J gency Mansement Apney (FEMA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission iNRC) to neiew and approve an emergency pnpared. ness plan developect and submitted by an applicant for.or a licensee of. 1 a commercial nuclear powerplant. This pro, vision.,topther with the accompanying report language. ndects an inenasing concern on the part of many on this Committee, i including me, that. in certain isolated instances, the process that has i been established by NRC and FEMA for pnparing. submitting. eval. ulating, and, approving emerpacy preparedness plans is not working as it was originally intended. Accordingly. I am taking this opportu-o nity 'o review the relevant legislation and legislative history on emer-9 gency preparedness-including the discussions of this nry,subj,ect that wen held back in 1980. when the emerpacy planning legulation was firsit adopted-in an erfort to try to clear the air on practsely what Conguss did and did not intend when it passed emerpney planning legislation. . With the adoption of section 108. this Committaa has now made it clear in thrn successive NRC authorization bills that it is not our in-tention to allow a state or locality to prevent a completed facility from operatine by refusing to prepare an emergency pnparedness plan. It necessarily follows that the Committee did not intend to allow such governmental entities to accomplish the same result by nfusing to participate in the exercise or implementation of an otherwise sceept-able emergency plan.To accept such a situation would be to completely frustrate this thrice stated authority and to ignon various other exist-int federal emerpnev response re'sponsibilities and authorities that will. if exercised. ena9e the NRC and FEMA to avoid such an unfor-tunate and unintended result. His Committee did not legislate the nuclear emerpact nsponse provisions in a vacuum. We passed emerenev planning terislation boek in 1980 with full recognition of the various existing federst and state emerpney planning responsibilities and authorities. It is abun-dantly clear, for example that the Governor of a state. as well as other state and local authorities, are under an obligation to act to protect the public health and safety in the event of an actual emerpney. No public odleial to date has stated that he would not fulfill this legst duty and I would be quite surprised if such a claim were to be made in the future. We also recognized, among other thinp. that the federst genrn-ment has extensive authority to render assistance in time of public including such authorities as those set forth in the NRC emerpacy, ion Act for fiscal year 1980 (Public Law 96-295), the Civil Authortzst O e'
3. S Defense Act of 1950, the Disaster Relief Act, and the delegations o 2 authority from the President contained in Reorpnization Plan No. 3" I of 1978 and other n1sted Executive Orders. In adopting emerency - Y preparedness legislation, we did not, ta my judgment.,tn any way dio. tatend to limit these existing authorities. or their application to ra logical emerpacies at commercial nuclear powerplants.In fac rear 1980 provided for a substantial expansion of the feders! gov-Irenment's emerpney response authorities. Section 109 of the Act. for exa,mple, established a pervasive and preemptive federal role for the review and approval of of. site emerpney nsponse plans lishment of a National Continency Plan: itious, escient, and coordinated action t]o provide for es [by appropriate F eral apncies to protect the public he licensed under section 103 or 106b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 19M.. Indeed, section 304 is of particular interest and signi8cance since the should provide for canying out the following asponsi 'D]esigr.stion of an interspney tasic force with FEMA asannel 1aA4 are lead spacy,davailable toand consisting of' e necessary services to eeny preparei.an out tAe plan; assignment o duties and responsibilities a of the lead spacy u tasic force coordinator at the facility ' site; establishment of a national center to provide coontina. and identiScation. tion and dinction in Plan implementation;f equip) ment procurement. maintenace and storap o supplies. (H. Rept. 96-1070. p. 37. emphasis added. In fact. by directing that the responses provided for under the National Continency Plan should be trispred upon N activation of the Commission's own emerpney proced be dinctly involved in the emerpacy nsponse to radiological emer-pncies at the very earliest stage of the emerpney. Based upon these and other provisions. I remam conndent that exist-ing statutory and administrstree authority is suscient to enable NRC sad FEMA tu ensure that an of site emerpney response plan, pre-pared sad submitted by a utility can be approved a established under section 108. It is clear that under the NRC Au ization Act for Escal year 1980 as wellas under the Civil Defense Act of 1950, suSeient authority exists for the Federal Government to I
24 .I earreise a plan pnpand sad rubmitted by a utility, and to impleEent
- -b such a plaa in the event of aa actual e=ergency.'
ai. ..,.u M., e n.:u in,a e.n, l'"x*i w ocs. u.o s.ra.mr u.s ca.: a. n ecu w n su u e.... . u.u.n..n a.to a.au i.tn. u m .a m u.u.. =w u un c nu.n n.. in n..i.m.=....im.u u. nm au.n.e eu m. tu .s.um ..r.:.,n., us. c l".o a...r n.ir ca a.u. c.as t c m. urn. in a. eu t a.....m min,i.u..u.,c.s s.u..=.rw m.r. m= =n e.u.
- u..
ru sure... t n u us, =r.n u. Tscum. =i. *'.u e ...m .n T.
- a..,m.
u aa tu. :.u.i,ct.en. r an u so..e.n.a n.a.i. rw r n. us rcur m tu..c..i.s o a twww.a.c i ...u.w.ewi.. s.run.n..en.no. u ucam. i r.m..n.u.s..in cim o....lu.a.a .u,..u. u. n. .ius a w. .o a.a .ur unna ein....,, a uius .= e.ur..i.sier. in.,it,as. u.un.n .t m. e., m u u,eu c u.nnen i nu ruemu c u c...
- s. u s.u.u u.u.e.r.u
- e. a
.u .a. i
- e i
r ru.u..t ce= u..as.t.u. cu m ui.. tan -sun,ueas uree..o tu runi tre.n er. iia. n m.u.mu.r.u,..l.r u=s =u...nn. a non t,. n um.nrne.n.e.a,i..i.n m -c usum,erm..rr.r mn. mu :.a uu..u. i u.n,. eus.un. an.una t.i um t.u. n r i. u u m .nu r. u i. tu u pu..m.ia s.u. =,nue un. n.a rumu u,e.u u.t.u...u....n u.m urm,i. n.irun, seu: i n- = in r nia. m i. =.t a.u.nn us... u.u.i.c.aw.ua a .u an unfin i cim o.= inn ut.u wa.mr. -ce=r.i.u u i. w m.: tw r f'su r.: u.r.:u.er una. us n i.i,rn cas uusu.. u.cor.pei.n.mu.. i tC.=...u,=.<ietteefe.. top.. usa!.. a u. n.e n. u.ia.ta..r.rt.e..ee a.ewr.. t t.e. u de.te u.e. c.nn u u=i rt.e t - ae n i e 1 c i. 8 " u e.u.t: t t c d.it. t. .e.ta t.u .t ts. sep.ti...t...a.p .i e s. C c.e.s .o.. .t e:Sn i 1t 68. .cu.e.J4 L 3.C. App. 3.eu.
- ali d.e w..taea a s.ar t aus. ta.
..pa.. st tr 6 e.t.ti.i.t... .f the Cl.tl D.f.. Aet..e Es.u.t.t.. O.rd..t.13168 s..s e .t a..f..ey pen.. 6 1. .e.stTh pr. a stter e;r.et e..et . e e.en.s...it.rt.s u.. f.r F.T M.A.et:.4..eth....... .e.. t.r.4 l.l..e.t di.r e.a..fW p.r.t.le.t.e. tie M..rp.. ta.: i..t.Se1 rg. y. Th t.4 t r .uy..t1 f..&fe t. c rt r t fM1 c e..85 1..i rt..p...ft17.f.P e f 4 p n.t6 se t p i t. .pp pr..tTEMA.n .r rt. ser. t a pt.. 14.6. t.d f e f
- t. 31 4
.d..e..t.f.l.. 4 l. t..... s 2 a& 4 it pr.t... e.e.e.rt..e.r.Ath tt i.t.t 3.nr. t.& et e. pia leg 4 t t. e.t . t g ta p. sic. 44 8 ty. 33g u t }1 l e e e .r". e S e
i ~ 25 i In addition to the longoing. I also want to take this oppo nt to clarify a number of pomts rigst, ding the utihty plan option o h which considerable confusion has artsen m recent mont s. rint, this provision was originally adopted in response to Con-T/
- nssional concern over tieo potential probleme: (1) the case w i
d t satisfy all the Y . tate or tocality submits a plan,but that p sa oes no guidelines or rules: and (2) the esse when a state or locality d f t is this latter point that has often leen outlooked or misconstru submit a plan at all, in the debate over the utility plan option and which. accordingly.the Committee has readirmed in this report in one, again endo stag t f utility plan option. In particular. it is worth noting that we have na - Armed the same basic rationale that was stated avoid penalizing en applicant for an operating license if a Stata or utility I locality does not submat an emergency response plan to the NR nview..." (H. Rpt. 06-10 0, p. L. emphasis added). by permit-ring the NRC to issue an operating license band upon a plan 'Tais specine point is particularly evident from the contest of the by the utility applicant. discussions among the various Conferees when this provision was sdopted in 1980. It is apparent from the discussion that follows t f the Contenes approved the utility plan" option bec l to submit a plan: Representatin Strus. (sic) Will the Senator yield on one questioni I.et's say, for example, that tAs stata docen't coop-erste. but the licensee is out there doing everything right along with the state,so this amendment would be a roadblock ~ h whien would hinder going ahead with a plan that may ave many millions of dollars at stake;isn't is possibleiS d the unse consumers are also voting, and if a Genenor an voting stad is not taidag enn minimal steps to prepare for for the startup of the new nuclear power plant desigmd to provide energy for that ans,I think the people know how to i get those neults. We belien, all the people talk about best govemments eleser to the people,I thmk the people know where their state capitals an and how to get ahold of their state government andlet them know they an not happy. Representatin Uou.t )fr.Wesveri Repnsentative Wr.arza. Thankyou. Sir. Chairman. First. I just want to commend Senator Hart and his colleague. Sen. stor Simpson. for the excellent work, and I think a very Sne compromise. I think it does draw a Ane balance between the Luse and Senata ursions, and protects the public health and. safety in,the moet reasonable way. I certataly support the Reprewntative Vsyre. One of the points then, since this compromise. h ~ we , overall state nsponsibility, is there any possibility t at,ild can intiude,nport language, if it won adopted that we l e .i. ,-...._-.,,-e.,,~.,.,...,_...---,..--,,-,.___,...-,-,_,,,,__m,.~,. --.--, - -.,r--.
26 perme tAs.YRC or FEM.i to teork directly neith the utilitirI* We can make clear if an individual utility le being fmetrata'd i by Ihat. tAas tAe.YRC. in the absenee oi state actson. could act 4. to approve a plan. and tAereby avoid tAie partinfar probleh tAat Aae been discussed. I don t know what the disposition of I this is going to be. It seems to me if we do anything on that basis. it would seem to be the reasonably (sic) way to go no we rion't han that impediment. Senator Karr. It is not disagreeable. I think it would be put in an area where it hasn't been before: namelv. emer. pney preparedness. eiril defense. (Transcript. Joint' Confer. ence on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Febntary n. 1980, pp.16-13. emphasis added.) As this discussion clearly indicates, the Conferees did. in fact. con. template a situation where the utility may end up working directly !!l with NRC and FE3IA to get an emerpney prepandness plan apgrored. cecond. I think it is worth emphasizing that. in adopting emerency .~ planning legislation, this Committee has endeavored to ensure that states and' local genrnments become setively involved at the earliest possible stage in both preparing and implementing emerpney plans. i Indeed. emergency plannmg has proven to be most efective in those instances where state and local governments work topther closely with utilities in the development and implementation of emergency pn-paredness plans. On the other hand.the extensin and important aliance on state and local governments contemplated by this approach. and their actin and timely participation in the emergency planning process, was not. in my judgment. intended to confer upon state or local governments the au- ,C thonty to establish their own substantive criteria for emergency pn. paredness plans. to render final judgments on the adequacy of those plans when 2raluated against tha.N RC and FE3IA entena.or to pen-alize applicants or licensees by refusing to submit an emerpney re-sponse plan to the NRC for rettew. Taint, section 108 of this bill authorizes the NRC and FE3IA to nriew, evaluate, and approve an emerrency preparedness plan de-reloped or submitted. or both. by a utility. and. based upon such ap-provsl. for the NRC to issue an operating license to the utility. As the Committee has explained in the report languap accompanying this provision. section 108 congnne the authority that the Commission al-ready hu under the Atomie Energy Act of 1954. as amended. and the Energy Reorgsnization Act of 19 4. to consider and approve utility plans. In the sbaenee of a provision such as wetion 108 the Commis-sion nengtheless has sufficient flexibility. latitude. and authority un-der these other Acts. and will. I trust, esereise this authoritv. if neces-to evaluate and appmre an emerpney neeparedness plan sub. sary,d by a utility, and to issue an opersting license based upon such mitte a plan. FourtA. the Committee has made it clear that FE3IA and FRC een consider and appron utility submitted emergency preparedness plans botA for plants under constnietion. for which an applicant is seeking an operating license from the NRC, as well as for plants allsady m g 0 e
_--_,r-w-------,--.---.
-4.,..e--.w-,--,w-- ,------,-,.-,,-,,-.,,w--,y-.-
l 3 \\ i .e 4 ? y b o$ ration. for which, for whatever reason, the licenme of such repare and submit an emerpacy prepandness plan.I should l e ts to h Finall mittee's action in adopting section 108 to afect in any way NRC's or FIM.4 *s existing emerpncy planning ngulationa. or the substaa-tial ad:ninistrative Aeribihty that the Commission has to modify those nrulations in any nspect. should it deem such action appropriate. TL NRC may. for example, continue its practice of issuing operating licenas. limited to 5 perant of full power. prior to the submusion or speroval of ossite emergency paparedness plana.I.ikewim. the Commis curantly available t.nder then existing rules. Nothing in this prori-sion is intended to limit. modify, or adict that Sezibihty. The NRC's emerpncy planning rule provides pnerally. for example. that utilities can operate nuclear power plans abon 5 percent of rated p(ower only i.e when when there is an adequate emerpacy plan for the plant the emerpacy preparedness plan conforms to the enumerated stand-ards for emerpney, planning set forth in the rule). Certain exceptions to this overall nquinment an.however.provided in the Commission's ngulations. In particular, the Commission's rules provide that, if there are denciencies in a plan. an operating license for the p! ant may still be issued by the Commission if: (a) the de5ciencies m not sig-niSennt. tb) adequate interim compensating actions will be taken. or (e) there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation-These exceptions have been an mtepal part of the rule since it was Ant promulgated in 1980. The Committee's languap in section 108 of the bill. and the languap of earlier statutes ont which it is based, should not be read as afectmg these exceptions in any way. It was not our intent to aquire more than what the existing rules require in terms of acceptable levels of pnparedness, or to override the sub-stantial rlexibility that the Commission has had available to it over t'ne last four Jean in evaluating and approving emerpacy pnpand-ness plana. Czaxons ur Eztstrao I.aw In compliance with section 12 of rulo XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, chanps in existing law made by the bill as reported l an shown as follow: Existinglaw proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is prmtad in italie. existing law in which no chany is proposed is shown in roman: i-Necuas Waars Pouct Act or 1982 (42 U.S.C.10101 er see.) e Sec.116. The provisions of sections, 115.116.117. and !!8 of this sub:itie shall constitute the exclusive rights of participation by an afseted State or indian tribe in the planning. siting, d, retnesd4todevelopment.. ~ c:ms:nution. and operation of a repository or a monitore acility that is nqusred to be tscensed by the Commission: stange . hoscever, That nothing in this Act shall preclude any neog-Pros uit any State or indian tribe under esisting lato saith r.ierd nght o t f nporitory or monitored, nerievoble storage facili~y. nepset to suc o ,,,______-,,__,,__...m ,__,,,o_m,_,_,_.-_,-_,._,,,,m,_,,,.__,,_e.-,_,_,,-m_..m,,
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK hj 1 pere r. cow uu Surrou couMTV E2teuTivt t .so.= c.ca u s=<= cmcz or wa county exscurivt e-se escun cow n anscw=c s December 20, 1984 The Honorable Donald Paul Hodel ~ The Secretary of Energy 'Jashington, D.C. 20585
Dear Secretary'Hodel:
Your letter of November 13, 1984, requested that Suffolk ~ County approve and participate in asi exercise of the offsite radio-1 l logical e=argency response plan prepared by the Long Island Light-This is to inform you l ing Co=pany f or the Shoreham nuclear plant. that Suffolk County cannot acceed to your request. I think is vould be useful to provide sone background ~ i infor=ation concerning the status of the radiological energency response issue in Suf folk County. Suffolk County has approached this issue with great care and seriousness. Indeed, the County has long recognized its obligation to protect the health, velfare, and safety of its citizens. Thul, in Y. arch 1982, the County sig-nificantly upgraded its emergency planning capabilitias by retain-ing a team of nationally recognized experts to prepara a draft radiological emergency plan. These experts were instructed to produce the best possible plan and to pay particular attention to the actual conditions which exist on Long Island, e.g., the narrov .elengated configuration of the land = ass,'the population densities. the road network, the noterological conditions, and the other fac-tors that constituta the framework for realistic radiological ener- ~ The experts were also instructed to apply 4'acever gancy planning. emergency preparedness lessons for local government could be derived f fren the accident at the Three pile Island plant. -6:eos oo.e,seumao..<a-- -
i / ;- f The Honorable Donald faul Hodel Pagf2 i I [ Dece=her 20, 198I. ~ In December, 1982, a draft plan, b'ased on the best I infor=ation available to our team, was prepared and submitted to the Suffolk County Legislature. The Legislature studied the draft plan and the supporting analytical materials for the next two onths, and in January 1983 held eight days of comprehensive hearings on the' plan and issues which it raised. Experts on all aspects of energency preparedness testified. Hundreds of indivi-duals and organizations also testified, expressing virtually every point of view. LILCO itself testified tvice. Following these hearings, members of the County Legislature traveled to Middle-town, Pennsylvan12, where they met with local officials and =e=hers of the public to gain insights into the emergency pre-paredness lessons of the Three Mile Island accident. The result was an infomed and responsible Suffolk County government which, to the best of its ability, had taken every reasonable step to exercise with uc=ost care the police power obligations it owes to its citizens. I have recited these facts to emphasize that Suffolk County's position has been cons-cructive and positive from the ~ We have never taken a posture of unreasonableness or* start. intransigence. At every step, we have proceeded with.delibera-tion and logic as the cornerstone. In short, the County partici-We paced in e=argency planning to an extraordinary degree. v1111msly expended whatever time, manpower, and money have proven The =ecessary to serve the collective interests of our citizens. conclusion we reached is that in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, the public could not be safely evacuated or otherwise protected. We thus have no choice but to tell. the public this fact and to sssert it bef. ore the administrative agen-cies'and the courts. l I trust that you will understand why it is not possible for the County to approve or participate in an exercise of LILCO's offsite emergency plan. Further, County laws prevent County re-sources from being used to i=ple=ent any radiological emergency LILCO's Plan other than one approved by the County Legislature. plan has not received such approval. m. e I l
Pase 3 4 Hodel Hono[able Donald Paul December [-20,1984 Th3 lattar recent Nucisar enclosi:.g a copy of affolk County Exacutive to nci'sely the Finally, I an by the Chief Deputy SuThis letter secs forth co as an of LILCO's planver the objections a FE!'A exercise Regulatory co= mission. opposition to of fadaral authority o sant County'swarranted 1.zPosition Sincarely yours, unof.the County. ~ .u ~ 4'.c e .,v PETIK T. C0FALANSUF70 ??C:71-enc. l' e 6 s ~
- a s
b e 1 n
~ ~ ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ((Q,j 1-s..- f CFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE b JoMN C. GAU.AcNta c=usown Pt-ta F. Cosat.Aw . cunews sew-w sussverve Novanbar 28,,1984 j Mr. Enrold R. ' D'encon, Director' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation p U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Co ission 7920 Norf=1k Avenua l Roem 7-40I.A 20814 3ethesda, Maryland
Dear Mr. Denton:
hi Ce:pany 14, 1984, the Lons Island Lig t ng d d "to support a I By le:ter dated November esquested that you tra'ns=it to TDR natarials inten e k of yebruary 11, gradad exarcise which LILC0 is planning for the vaahis is t d to any ro=ote, assi,st, or such ext::isa and that the NRC should.in no way pf this County gove:n-1 .c33,a concur in such an exercise over the objections.o .e e be sent. LILCO's i=plamentation of its offsite emergency plan vouldd la h i i gainst . unlawful under the Cces:1:ut on an 3c:h Suffolk Coun:y, and New York Stata,have filad lawsu ts a l i ordar l LILCO in State Supra =a Court in ordar to secura a cenc u
- o :ht: effacc.
i I would 7 4n vould be in pursuit of an uni,avful object ve.also s d govern-1 = ant of Suffolk County. d the NRC, as well as the continuing position of this h ef f ee. lear accident at Shoraham is ~ . :ite, ener;;ency preparedness for a nuc forward any 1 possihie, we ask that you reject LILCO's request to ~ f::m caking any ' exercise r.acirials to yDR and that you refrain into the police scaps whi:h, cont:ibuta to an incruzion by LILCO yor your infor=ation I an enclosing -a pratident Reagan which aupressas tho' pcVers of Suffolk Cosnty. .f co'py of a lettar v:itten by L Adninis::a: ion's position. i 51.carely you s, 't .,[ I , John C. Callagh Chiaf Deputy Cp';!nty Inacutive ~ ~ - - - - - ~. _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ '-P
I e- ~ I SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Long Island Lighting Company- (LILCO) I Cgerent Construction of the Shoreham facility is complete. Status: However, financial ~ problems still plague LILCO, even v
- though' it was granted a rate increase from the Public Service Commission (PSC) in August.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a license to load nuclear fuel on December 7. LILCO is currently loading fuel at Shoreham, o-NRC Atomic Safety and Liscensing Boards (ASLB) have taken the following actions: issued a-favorable ruling on a low power license on October 29, 1984; the license is pending before the NRC. held hearings on LILCO's diesel generators and emergency.suply system; a decision is expected in early 1985. have under consideration LILCO's motion for summary disposition of the " police power issues", with a decision due in early 1985. The same issues are being litigated in the New York State Supreme Court, where a decision is due in January. o-Suffolk County and New York State continue to refuse to participate in testing of the off-site emergency plan. Governor Cuomo reiterated the State's opposition to Shoreham at a-town meeting in Suffolk County on' November 30, 1984. o On November 13, 1984, Secretary Hodel wrote Suffolk County Executive Peter Cohalan about new technical information which shows that the risks from nuclear plant accidents are much less than previously thought. In addition, the Secretary offered DOE ~ assistance to conduct an exercise. On December 20, 1984, Mr. Cohalan declined to participate in an - '} exercise. The Task Force is in contact with County officials. ~ o FEMA approved LILCO's emergency plan. LILCO'has ' j requested that FEMA conduct a drill on February 11-13, 1985., FEMA,has.. suggested to DOE that a May _date is ])j,. _ core approp_riate. Discussions betwee6 the agencies are continuing. ~ s Mary Ann Novak -- 1/11/85 252-4910 -.. -. -.-. - -= - - - -
E .L, ghq 5/4/84 ^ o The Shoreham plant faces four regulatory issues (Atch A). Iwo issues are dominant: the refusal of Suffolk Coun'ty to cooperate' with LILb in f-developing and testing an off-site emergency plan has raised _{ serious legal authority i,ssues, and technical problems with their backup electric generators (Transamrica Delavel, Inc. diesels). o The NRC technical staff feels that the existing diesels combined with backup gas turbines are adequate to begin and complete the low power testing phase of start-up. Although the U.S. District Court stayed expedited hearings on this subject by the Atomic Safety Licensing Boa'rd ( ASLB), it may be that the existing record is sufficient for the ASLB to approve low power testing. The permanent solution involving new diesels can be implemented during low power testing. o Thus, the major unresolved issue is the development and testing of an emergency plan. Attachmant B is a summary of the statutory and regulatory issues and a brief discussion of Federal authorities. o In implementing its regulations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has -insisted on FEMA review of emergency plans to determine-that they are acceptable as well as a test of the plan to determine implementability. o FEMA has reviewed the LILC plati for $oreham and identified some deficiencies (not unusual and most can be easily corrected) as whil .as legal issuas associated with ths refusal of state and local offichls to participate. J ( The clear gap 'at this time is t;behd _lfor a test of the LILCO Can. o Recently, FEliA informed NRG (Atch C) that it is " determining the circumstances under which 1.t might prepare a plan to exercise the utility's off-site emergency plan." As part of that letter, FEMA , stated that they had " authority to prepare a plan for comprehersive ',) emergency response by the Federal Government at Shoreham"in conjunc- + tion with the LILCO off-site emergency plan"-and that FEMA "may also undertake an gercise of such a plan under eiisting authority." If FEMA were to deve16n and ta'st such a plan there is a high prabability '. o y it would be a sufficient basis for licensinr4 Shoraham. bwould ~ ~ most likelyTF bitrarly oppcsed by Suffolk County.and is an-issue that would have to be decided by the ASLB, the NRC, and most likely liti-gated in the District Court. s f _l .3 o _ Weir. courage FEMA to devsicp aN test tha' plan. There isna good likeli-nooo tnat such actions would provide a basis for resolv}ng this Federal y licensing barrier to operation of the Shoreham plant. ^ ~ " "
4/25/84 ASM q f Licensing Activities and Status: Shoreham Status: C u o The NRC Staff has approved low power operation. An expedited (SLB hearing .to consider the issue of emergency power for low power operation began on April 24,1984. The same day the D.C. District Court stopped the pro-teeding to consider whether due process was being violated by.the expedited hearing. Several other issues may delay or even preclude granting of a low power or full power license. k Issues: kI o 'Using supplemental offsite power and onsite nonnuclear diesel generators j!; for emergency power sources for low power operation. o Legal authority of LILCO to effectively test the emergency plan. E o Court's decision that NRC must determine utilities to be financially l qualified prior to granting operating license may affect LILCO. E[ o Suffolk County's refusal to provide police protection during fuel loading p and low power operation. ? E ~
Background:
F o Since Suffolk County refused to participate in developing an emergency plan for Shoreham and New York State would not step in to substitute, LILCO prepared and submitted to FEMA its own emergency plan, which FEMA initially declared unacceptable since LILCO did not have the legal authority to imple-ment it. Recently, FEMA appears to have softened its position by ducking j the legality issue and indicating the plan acceptable except for 32 defi-ciencies. These deficiencies appear to be correctable. 1 o Low power operation has been approved by the ASLB provided the emergency ? diesel generator issue is satisfactorily resolved. The ASLB is holding E expedited hearings on the emergency power issue started April 24, 1984, and was expected to last until May 5,1984, with a decision expected 2 weeks thereafter. However, on the same day the U.S. District Court stopped the proceeding to consider whether due process rights were being violated by the expeditedchearings. The Staff's position apparently is that the k supplemental offsite power and onsite nonnuclear diesel generators as F emergency power sources are adequate and low power operation should be 9 all owed. In addition to the diesel shaft r oblem, recently a cracked block f F was discovered in one of the diesels. I-i o Suffolk Co'unty recently indicated they would not supply police enforcement until the plant is at full power. For fuel loading and low power operation, LILCO may have to hire its own police force to meet NRC securiti require- _ cents. Tht,s could become another delaying issue for the hearings. x ? ur
2 Recently the DC District Court issued an order that the NRC must make a o financial qualification determination for a utility to obtain an operating license. This may become an issue requiring reopening of the hearings, LILCOhasestablisheditsownemergencyresponseteamandmust5estthe o smergency plan prior to full power operation. However, LILCO does not have the legal authority to implement some portions, e.g., directing" traffic. This issue 1s before the New York State Supreme Cou.-t. Expected Date Kay Events / Milestones ASLB restarts hearing on low power operation Not known 'S NRC reaction to Suffolk County's refusal Not known of police protection Not known f FEMA approval of emergency plan Not known l Test of emergency plan Not known # New York State Supreme Court legality decision June 1984][- Fuel loading r l l l I
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires, as a , j precondition to the issuance of an operating license for a nuclear powerplant, that there be reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at that powerplant., As explained in greater detail below, this NRC requirement is usually satisfied through a cooperative effort among the NRC, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), $ tate ay$localauthorities,andthelicenseapplicant. Th"p effort of the Long Island Lighting Company (L..0) to obtain an operating license for its nuclear powerplant at shoreham has been. hampered by a breakdown of this process. The government of Suffolk County, af ter concluding that an emergency response plan for the Shoreham plant was not feasible, has steadfastly refused to participate in the preparation or exercise of an emergency plan. The State of New York has indicated:its unwillingness to act in place of local authorities. In an effort to overcome this lack of cooperation,:LILCO has itself prepared an emergency response plan to be implemented using LILCO's own employees and contractors. The LILCO plan includes five alternate scenarios for performance of command and control functions, some of which call for participation by different Federal agencies, including FEMA, NRC and the Department of Energy (DOE). Both the State and the County oppose the LILCO plan because, in their view, implementation of the plan would violate state laws by assigning to LILCO employees or contractors functions (such as traffic control, posting signs, closing schools, etc.) which may only be performed by duly-authorized public officials. Against this factual background, the issue is whether within the framework of existing laws and regulations, it is possible for the NRC's emergency planning requirements to be satisfied for the Shoreham plant. Applicable Legal Authorities As noted above, NRC regulations provide that no operating l license will be issued unless NRC finds that ". .the state of onsite and offsite preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." 10 CFR 550. 47 (a) (1). Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding
- between NRC and FEMA, FEMA assists and advises NRC as to whether an emergency plan is adequate and whether there'is rea'sonable assurance that the plan can be implemented.'
.While NRC is ultimately responsible for making the nec,essary finding, NRC rules provide that,any finding by FEMA constitutes a rebuttable presumption on a question of adequacy.
2-t Tho otandardo by which tha adequacy of a plan is judged are ~ prescribed-in 10 CFR 550.47 (b). These standards and the role played by-FEMA are, in turn, addressed by FEMA regulations - at 44 CFR Part 350 (48 FR 44332, September 28, 1983) and guidance _ jointly issued by FEMA and NRC, entitled Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological EmergeUcy . Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear-Power Plants (.NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November, 1980f. The crlteria require participation by the State and affecEed local governments. ~ Although failure to meet these standards may result in the NRC determining not to issue an operating license, th'at result may be avoided under 10 CFR 550.47 (c) (1), which allows the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of. the Commission that: 1.. deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in-question; 2. adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or 3. there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation. In addition to its just-described responsibility for reviewing emergency response plans, FEMA has broad additional authority to participate in emergency response planning for nuclear facilities. On December 7, 1979, in response to the recommendation of the Kemeny Commission on the accident at Three Mile Island, the President directed that FEMA assume lead responsibility for all offsite' nuclear emergency planning and response . around civilian nuclear powerplants. Pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 and Executive Order 12148 of July 20, 1979, the Director of FEMA establishes policies for, and coordinates civil emergency planning, management, mitigation and assistance functions for Executive agencies. The Executive Order delegates to FEMA, among other functions, certain functions either vested in or transferred to the President under the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. 52251 et seq.; the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 58 Note; and the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 55121 et seg. The Director also represents the President in working with state and local governments an,d-the private sector to stimulate vigorous participation in civil emergency preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery programs. l . Analysis -1 In order for the Shoreham Plant to receive an NRC operating f . license, LILCO must demonstrate that there is reasonable { assurance that adequate protective measures can.and will be taken in the event of a radiological emerge.ncf, even though ^+ e-**t h-,,,,y ew eea w y.w-me---+--e-- -.-me,..ae-
y
---py---y g.,- --=-g..-,--ymp-g. ,,--mwm,.y---m-g 9.-my.--m-qw*mit'"'D+'M WW"T T'1mNC'WW"T'*F'TT89-D"T- -ww--$w, w wtw
I. 3-state and local officia2s refuse to participate in the development or exercise of the plan containing these protective measures. Despite that refusal, it is clear that state and local public officials are responsible by law to protect public health and safety. Accordingly, absent a showing by the State and County of anticipatory non-feasance, it:should be presumed that public officials will discharge thegpublic dGties and responsibilities conferred upon them, and will cpoperate with federal authorities and private enterprise to t4ke reasonable measures to protect public health and safety. i 1 It would appear that the current impasse regarding the 1 I Shoreham plant could be broken if an otherwise acceptable !g LILCO emergency plan were successfully tested on the basis ? f of such a presumption. The purpose of the test would be to i demonstrate that, notwithstanding the present lack of cooperation by state and local authorities, there is an adequate capability i to respond to an amergency at the Shoreham plant, thus allowing LILCO to make the alternative showing required to obtain an operating license under 10 CFR 550.47 (c) (1) described above. In order to ensure that the test involves no violation of state or local law, the test should rely upon simulation of certain tasks expected to be performed by state or local authorities in an actual emergency. If a test of this type is to succeed in demonstrating a credible compliance with NRC requirements, it is important that the command and control function not be exercised by the affected utility, because this could create the appearance f of a conflict of interest. Accordingly, it would appear that, where state and local authorities choose not to participate in a test, a federal agency such as FEMA should exercise t that critical function. Such an assignment of responsibility, as well as the underlying assumption that state and local authorities may be relied upon to act in an actual emergency, is supported by FEMA's recent comment to NRC that offsite safety at nuclear powerplants is a " mosaic that may very well be composed of different pieces at different times and places." 4 4 e e 4 s ~, +~~w >-~...--ns-n-me--,w,------m- ,,,-,,,---ne,----,,,-,w,,,r,.--,,n .,ac, v,gn-,.,-,~--,,,e--,e e.,---m-- n,-een,,--nn,,-,,---
A '@c?$?'%n n)s.3, 'e G wy.y Department of Energy Washiagton, D.C. 20585 Memorandum To: Gordon Chipman Mayo Lee From:
Subject:
Evaluators The number of evaluators needed at an emergency plan exercise depends on the objections of the drill - i.e. the areas of the plan to be tested by the drill and the timoframe. A drill involving only one county and testing a broad range of areas of the plan would normally require about 35-38 ,Rkc CLss-evaluators. For Shoreham, however, Roger Koweski stated,t a j the ASLB hearing that 60 evaluators would be needed because FEMA intended to test'most arcas of the plan in the first drill. At Indian Point, where New York State and four counties were involved, FEMA used 54 evaluators. Six (6) to eight (8) of the evaluators are RAC mcmbers. At Indian Point, approximately fifteen (15) were DOF contractor employees (Argonne and I;lL). The remainder were FEMA Region I and II employees. If sixty (60) cvaluators are required for the Shoreham drill, the same " mix" of personnel could be used.
GC-33 ASLB Hearing on LILCO Emergency Response Plan Lawrence A. Gollomp AGC Regulatory Interventions and Power Marketing Players : ASLB Administrative law judges: James Laurensen, Chief Frederick Shon LJerry Kline (slept whole time and said nothing) FEMA Panel: Paldwin - leader Koweiski McIntire Keller - chief reviewer FEMA Counsel: Stuart Glass, Region 2, Regional Counsel LILCO attorneys: J M:Closky - Hinton & Williams Monmihan - Hinton & Williams NRC attorney: Bordnick - Washington Suffolk Ccunty and N.Y. State attorneys: willer - county v.c Zanlider - state NRC conta: s on motion for summary disposition: Ed Christianberry - Chief of Section Bob Purlis - case attorney 3.eis - case attorney' Eorednick - emergency response plan attorney DRAFT
DMg 2 Hearing
Purpose:
ASLB hearing is on adequacy of LILCO's emergency response plan. County and State are intervenors in proceeding; Hinton and Williams is representing LILCO. FEMA panel presented testimony on Revision 3 of LILCO's plan. Generally they supported adequacy of plan. They were cross examined at length by County and State. August 22-24 and August 28 LILCO and County and State will present additional witnesses regarding various elements of plan. County and State filed over 200 contentions regarding LILCO's plan. Approximately 10 contentions concern the legal issue about police power and are the subject of a motion of summary disposition filed by LILCO (August 6) before ASLB. FEMA testified on Revision 3 of LILCO's plan. LILCO's written testimony was on Revision 4. Therefore the cross examination was confusing in some areas. It appears FEMA (Report 350) never finalizes its revision of a plan. FEMA rates elements of plans as " adequate", " inadequate", or " adequate, provided that certain steps are taken." FEMA submits its review to NRC and NRC determines if plan is adequate over all. Presumably each revision removes additional "in- ~ 4es"~ifid curet!' provisos" to adequate elements. NEXT STEP: FEMA will submit its final review to NRC in November. County and State may move to reopen this hearing then, or earlier as additional revisions are sub.iitted by LILCO. Also, County and State may move to reopen this pro-ceeding after plan is exercised in light of Concerned Scientist. DMR
DE 3 In conjunction with this hearing, LILCO has filed a motion for sumary disposition on " police power" issues with NRC. Arguments on that motion will be heard by an ASLB in September. Issues County and State Raised Regarding Plan Most of the issues raised indirectly go to the police power contentions not discussed at this hearing. County and State questioned FEMA in detail on the following aspects of LILCO's plan: 1. Assurances food supply is safe - i.e., exposed food will not find its way into marketing chain; 2. Coninunications between Brookhaven and command headquarters and field officers; 3. training of training instructions and LILCO employees to be regional personnel; 4. measurement of contamination by LILCO employees and dispute over " thyroid dose" test (Judge Shon appeared to agree with County argument on this issue); .5. determination of number of people exposed; 6. adequacy of LILCO staffing (strikes and attrition; and 7. agreements with supplemental support institutions, (Red Cross, etc.) l FEMA conducted a " spot check" of certain elements of LILCO's plan on ( July 24. This inspection was criticized by County and State as " sloppy" and totally inadequate to judge adequacy of plan. / DOE Role: LILCO will argue the state law suits in state court. They are preserving their preemption arguments for appeal. DOE could participate and make ~._.
DRAFT 4 preemption arguments after suits are decided and are on appeal. LILCO's motion for sumary disposition on " police power" contentions will be appealed in NRC by losing party. DOE could particioate at ACf n level or later within NRC, or once it.gets to district court. Most likely the decision will be appealed to Supreme Court. Attitudes at.~ hearing: ASL3 Judge Laurensen seemed to hold examinations to contentions and sustained LILCO's objections when County and State tried to expand issues. The other judges said little. FEMA's attorney assumed a neutral posture and objected only when questioning directly attacked FEMA regulations. He stated the result "was not his concern." NRC attorney thoughtLILCO plan was adequate, but warmed " politics" would_- be important factor in final outcome. Judge Laurensen supported LILCO by denying County's motion to squash subpoenas and refused to extend various time periods for remainder of hearing as requested by the County and State. ~ William M. Lee Attorney-Advisor cc: Gordon Chipman Bob Davies Mary Ann Novak 4 DRAFT
s' lh i
- /~.
'w -9 e ~ HuwTow & WILLI.a.xs 707 East MAime sTatti P.O. Box 6535 Racmasown, V monwsA esars a e c=we . seco me- ; n awassus. m.w - mas.um.voes e soc tLap o ea.oso we oses ao..es.-esoo TELEmmoNE S04 788 8200 vcLam7.svo. sse.out.i. anno.ve=ws TWX *71O 956 *OC6i e e &, sw,6o,=o
- p. o. som eos
"* '." :'.'o'.:.**".2"';'J.**" ~ "'"7"it. :"'t.*^."fr.".;w.*m " " " ~ ~
- m......=.
a ga;^ *;;;,=" Ju1y 27, 1984 ,,,,ge;,,=,;;,,,,,,
- a n u o...........
7 =g._ .u o.24566.3 o..o.... 8357 Mr. Mayo Lee United States Department of Ener4y Room 6A-141 Forrestal' Building 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585
Dear Mayo:
Pursuant to your request the other day, I. enclose copies -of principal pleadings in each of the three sets of cases now pending in federal and state courts concerning Shoreham. They ares-1. The so-called " state law" cases now pending in New York State Court (Suffolk County v. LILCO, Cuomo v. LILCO, Town of Southampton,v. LILCO). These cases involve the legality, under New York law, of various actions normally undertaken by governmental bodies, but being undertaken by LILCO in their stead. The cases also raise, at this moment, a federal-pre-emption issue, namely, whether any prohibition under New York State law of the actions complained of is pre-empted by federal law if'such prohibition would make adegr. ate emergency planning and response impossible at Shoreham (LILCO had to file a Motion to Dismiss on this basis in order to avoid running the risk of being held to have waived the argument). The cases were re-s moved at one point to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York but were recently remanded by Judge Altimari.- They have been consolidated in New York Supreme - Court in Suffolk County. A hearing on LILCO's Motion to Dis-miss is currently scheduled for August 23. 2. The LILCO federal cour" suit against Suffolk County: LILCO has sued Suffolk County.n U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for inverse condemnation of the Shoreham plant, violation of its civil rights under 28 U.S.C.
HuxTow & WILLIAMD 5 1983, and a pendent-jurisdiction claim of violation of a con-tract with LILCO to prepare and participate in an emergency plan. A hearing was held last Friday before Judge Altimari (who had earlier remanded the " state law" suits). 3. The "COEP" suit in federal district court: This suit, brought as'a citizens' suit last year by a group called Citi-zens for an Orderly Energy Policy, raises, as a matter of fed-eral pre-emption, ~ he issue of whether the Atomic Energy Act c requires New York State and/or Suffolk County to participate in emergency planning at Shoreham. Argument on Suffolk County's motion to dismiss this suit was also held last Friday before Judge Altimari. LILCO appreciates DOE's interest in this litigation. Please let me know if we can provide any further information, and give my best regards to Larry Gollomp. Sincerely yours Donald P. Irwin 91/730
Enclosures:
As Stated cc w/o
Enclosures:
C. King Mallory, III, Esq. s l
r 3-30-TrY
- l':.
O .+ & I A radiological emergency p pically represents the cooperative efforts of Federal, State, local and utility resources, each entity performing functions in their normal area of expertise and sphere of influence. A successful demonstration 92; this intera.ction recently occurre.i during the emergency exercise at St. Lucie, Florida. Each organization demonstrated management of its particular resources and integration of these resources into a total coordinated response. It is presumed that these resources would all be brought to bear in an actual emergency and each entity would discharge its statutory responsibilities as demonstrated at St. Lucie. However,.the actual composition of the emergency response resources may consist of different pieces at different times and places since it is conceivable that at the time of an actual emergency, selected resources may be unavailable. Additionally, during the various stages of plan development from drafting to exercising, all entities may be unable to fully participate. In the event that selected State and local resources could not be brought to bear in an emergency or were unavailable for exercise during the plan development process, and consistent
with the numerous Federal agency responsibilities for overall emergency management and protection of the health and safety ~ of the public, it is appropriate that the Federal. agencies demonstrate their ability to perform needed civil emergency functions'. These would include command and control, communications, public information, and other similar functions. This demonstration would confirm that even in such an event the emergency plans would provide adequate protection of the public health and safety. Although the St. Lucie exercise demonstrated Federal, State, local and utility capabilities, it did not involve management of activities in areas normally outside the various agencies' spheres of influence. An additional exercise should be conducted with the following objectives: (1) to demonstrate that Federal resources can in fact be l used to supplement State or local resources in directing l emergency response actions if such involvement were ever required. (2) to demonstrate that Federal resources can be used to demonstrate plan adequacy, presuming State and local participation at the time of an emergency. 1
t 3'3D-Sf STEPS TO IMPLEMENT A FEMA TEST CONCEPT STEPS RESPONSIBILITY o Agreement on the General Concept DOE /Hodel of FEMA Implementation o FEMA-DOE -g_-- _I Understanding FEMA-DOE on DOE Support Role /OGC o Directive to FEMA that they will test White House implementation of the plan (or alternatively, (FEMA) FEMA statement on their own authority) o Revised Radiological Emergency Response Plan LILCO submitted that addresses FEMA-identified (Support by FEMA, deficiencies DOE-Emergency Ooerations, General Counsel, Nuclear Safety) o Legal Issues Addressed by the " conceptual FEMA simulation approach". Can the exercise of (DOE support " police powers" be simulated? by OGC) o FEMA notifies State of New York and FEMA Suffolk County officials of intention to conduct a test of the Shoreham Plant. o FEMA consults with DOE and other agencies to FEMA determine necessary scope of the test. (DOE support Determine generic elements of Shoreham Plan by Office of that do not require actual test because Nuclear they have already been demonstrated (i.e., Safety) St. Lucie, etc). o Specific Test Plan developed (practical FEMA, NRC approach would be to use the St. Lucie (DOE support Test Plan as a starting point) for the by Office of FEMA exercise. Nuclear Safety, Emergency Oper-ations, Naval React ors) o FEMA, LILCO, DOE, and other agencies plan FEMA practical logistics for the test. Identify (DOE support by specific resources from DOE. Two or three ' Office of meetings of a test management team. Nuclear Safety) o Conduct Test. LILCO, FEMA, DOE (Nuclear Safety) Other Fed. Agencies 1
[d,694_ 3-20-ty -The issuance of an operating license to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is contingent upon the resolution of technical problems with the emergency die generators and the acceptability and implementability of an emergency pl In addition, lack of resolution on these issues has adversely affec' fed LILCO ability to borrow money to solve these problems and obtain the operating Thus, these three issues, diesel generators, emergency plan, and license. LILC0 beli, eves the financial markets finances are inextricably intertwined. are unwilling to lend the money needed to solve the diesel generator problem, if the plant still will not operate because of the lack of an acceptable and implementable emergency plan. This impasse may be unblocked by a demonstration that the emergency plan After this is done preferred by the utility can be effectively implemented. successfully, with FEMd taking the role of the Governmental director of the management of the off-site emergency actions with the support of the DOE and its resources, then FEMA would notify NRC of the results of that test. The NRC would have to accept these results as meeting their requirements. applicant, LILCO, would introduce the test results into the ASLB proceeding FEMA, and possibly 00E, would have ,as proof of meeting NRC requirements. to testify in the Adjudicatory hearing and would be subject to cross-examination When the ASLB makes a finding that a license can be issued by intervenors. since all NRC rules and requirements have been met satisfactorily or with conditions still requiring action, the matter goes to the Comission for their action.
These two issues, diesel generators and the emergency plan, are contentious The intervenors and likely to involve lengthy adjudication before the ASLB. are well-funded and save technical resources, so that they will very likely attack the applicant's testimony on both issues, as well as any testimony supporting the applicant's position. The outcome of such proceedings cannot be forecast, nor can the time to complete them. Our desire to demonstrate the Federal Government's ability to manage the off-site emergency actions for radiological incidents when State and local governments are unable to do so, will be dependent on the outcome of this adjudicatory proceeding. e t
FINANCIAL STATUS OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ~ o Lilco will need about $700.million dollars in 1984 to support the Shoreham project and meet all other cash needs of the company. o They have implemented a program designed to allow them to meet these cash needs without going to financial markets this year -- aspects of this program include: austerity / layoffs noexpendituresonNineMile#2nuclearprodram - no dividends (they skipped their first last week). o They have filed for a $281 million permanent rate increase to take effect 10/1/84 -- (they were granted a temporary $90 million increase last September). o They are unsure at this time whether they can make it through the year without going to financial markets -- the next big problem on the horizon appears to be.a $90 million mortgage bond that comes due 9/1/84. o Positive news regarding the backup generators and the emergency evacuation plan could improve their financial prospects sufficiently to allow them to go to external markets later in the years o Financial Statistics Stock price (3/29/84) 6 5/8 Oividend 0 Price-earnings ratio 2.4 Market / book ratio .34 Bond rating Ba2 (Moody's) BB+ (Standard & Poors) i Herod: 3/30/84
y H ] 0> rap Qs + d% Gnaad A t = y 0m d.1 +$8& k = ,e er Shacham !b""'y 5 = -s (
- *d
- %auxW
? l datas.J w3f OL + f}kwL._ s J%dm CL S&.s & 0nfs4 0lewI /ULCO O b = - s'f6ks 5 ,L-< (ti. dL4 - L a c o.
- ~ 2 f.,; L t.:., )
e 2 g'. ff T A We d h a> A d s3$ w.s = m ei CH-3eoormorn Imers il a a l a s l 2
FINANCIAL STATUS OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY o Lilco will need about $700 million dollars in 1984 to support the Shoreham project and meet all other cash needs of the company, o They have implemented a program designed to allow them to meet these cash needs without going to financial markets this year -- aspects of th4s program include: - austerity / layoffs -noexpendituresonNineMile#2nuclearprohram - no dividends (they skipped their first last week). o They have filed for a $281 million permanent rate increase to take effect 10/1/84 -- (they were granted a temporary $90 million increase last September). o They are unsure at this time whether they can make it through the year without going to financiaa markets -- the next big problem on the horizon appears to be a $90 million tartgage bond that comes due 9/1/84. o Positive news regarding the backup generators and the emergency evacuation plan could improve their financial prospects sufficiently to allow them to go to external markets later in the year. o Financial Statistics Stock price (3/29/84) 6 5/8 Dividend 0 Price-earnings ratio 2.4 Market / book ratio .34 Bond rating Ba2 (Moody's) 88+ (Standard & Poors) Herod: 3/30/84 .e.,~--.
,-n. The issuance of an operating license to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is contingent upon the resolution of technical problems with the emergency diesel generators and the acceptability and implementability of an emergency plar.. In addition, lack of resolution on these issues has adversely affec'ted LILCO's ability to borrow seney to solve these problems and obtain the operating l . license. Thus, these three issues, diesel generators, emergency plan, and finances are inextricably intertwined. LILCO believes the financial markets are unwilling to lend the money needed to solve the diesel generator problem, if the plant still will not operate because of the lack of an acceptable and implementable emergency plan. i This impasse may be unblocked by a demonstration that the emergency plan preferred by the utility can be. effectively implemented. After this is done successfully, with FEMd takir.g the role of the Governmental director of the r. management of the off-site emergency actions with the support of the DOE and its resources, then FEMA would notify NRC, of the results of that test. NRC would have to accept these results as meeting their requirements. The - applicant, LILCO, would introduce the test results into the ASLB proceeding , as proof of meeting NRC requirements. FEMA, and possibly DOE, would have to testify in the Adjudicatory hearing and would be subject to cross-exaniination by intervenors. When the ASLB makes a finding that a license can be issued since all NRC rules and requirements have been met satisfactorily or with conditions still requiring action, the matter goes to, the Comission for their action. ~~
~ ?. 2 l These two issues, diesel generators and the emergency plan, are contentious The intervenors and likely to involve jer.; thy adjudication before the ASLB. are well-funded and have technical resources, so that they will very likely attack the applicant's testimony on both issues, as well as any testimony supporting-the applicant's position. -The outcome of such proceedings cannot Our desire to demonstrate be forecast, nor can the time to complete them. the Federal Government's ability to manage the off-site energency actions for radiological incidents when State and local governmer.ts are unable to do so, will be dependent on the outcome of this adjudicatory proceeding. l l
i A radiological emergency plan typically represents the cooperative efforts of Pederal, State, local and utility i resources, each entity performing functions in their normal area of expertise and sphere of influence. A subcessful demonstration 94 this interaction recently occurred during the emergency exercise at St. Lucie, Florida. Each organization demonstrated management of its particular resources and 1 j integratio.n of these resources into a total coordinated response. It is presuraed that these resources would all be brought to bear in an actual emergency and each entity would discharge its statutory responsibilities as demonstrated at St. Lucie. However,,the actual composition. of the emergency response resources may consist of different pieces at different times and places since it is conceivable that at the time of an actual emergency, selected resources may be unavailable. Additionally,.during the various stages of plan development 4 from drafting to exercising, all entities may be unable to fully participate. In the event that selected State and local resources could not be brought to bear in an amergency or wei.'e unavailable 4 for exercise during the plan development process, and consistent 4 J 5
with the numerous Federal agency responsibilities for overall emergency management and protection of the health and safety of the public, it is appropriate that the Federal agencies ' demonstrate their ability to perform needed civil emergency functions'. These would include command and control, communications, public information, and other similar functions. This - demonstration would confirm that even in such an event the emergency plans would provide adequate protection of the I public health and safety. Although the.St. Lucie exercise demonstrated Federal, State, local and utility capabilities, it did not involve management of activities in areas normally outside the various agencies' i spheres of influence. An additional exercise should be conducted with the following objectives:- (1) to demonstrate that Federal resources can in fact be used to supplement State or local resources in directing emergency response actions if such involvement were ever required. g (2) to demonstrate that Federal resources can be used to demonstrate plan adequacy, presuming State and local participation at the time of an emergency. 4 D 1 3 w, m,w -e ,,rm- _ n-n - -n n -. ,-,,-.---,.-->w,,,,-,- ,---,-meme,,,-<nw-.. -.-,.-,---~.--e ,,., -,_, n ---.-- w-n.-..----,-.-
ST2?S TO IMPLEMENT A FEMA TEST CONCEPT STEPS RESPONSIBILITY o Agreement on the General concept DOE /Hodel of FEMA Implementation o FCMA-DOE Memorandum of Understanding FEMA-DOE on DOE Support Role /OGC o Directive to FEMA that they will test White House implementation of the plan (or alternatively, (FEMA) FEMA statement on their own authority) o Revised Radiological Emergency Response Plan LILCO submitted that addresses FEMA-identified (Support by FEMA, deficiencies DOE-Emergency Operations, General Counsel, Nuclear Safety) o Legal Issues Addressed by the " conceptual FEMA simulation approach". Can the exercise of (DOE support " police powers" be simulated? by OGC) o FEMA notifies State of New York and FEMA Suffolk County officials of intention to conduct a test of the Shoreham Plant. o FEMA consults with DOE and other agencies to FEMA r determine necessary scope of the test. (DOE support L Determine generic elements of Shoreham Plan by Office of I that'do not require actual test because Nuclear they have already been demonstrated (i.e., Safety) St. Lucie, etc). o Specific Test Plan developed (practical FEMA, NRC approach would be to use the St. Lucie (DOE support Test Plan as a starting point) for the by Office of FEMA exercise. Nuclear Safety, Emergency Oper-ations, Naval Reactors) o FEMA, LILCO, DOE, and other agencies plan FEMA l practical logistics for the test. Identify (DOE support b-f specific resources from DOE. Two or three Office of meetings of a test management team. Nuclear Safety) { o Conduct Test. LILCO, FEMA, i. DOE (Nuclear Safety) Other l Fed. Agencies i l
d S E A' il9 - I Date: 5/21 i % of the Deputy Secretary I a:. y onAuensAd re. ~ W ' Jgp h m / l 9'4 TMI. Note page 42 l mon L M -M% & a Md hadus.susoudfed l 2,. L A pr1 fa,a l m Int Of Erierg I M M 252-5500 O- /~ n ) 5 1 h-
,. _ _-,, ~ f.. N.,_. & sI h G /5&EW '1 6. w. G.*. s b s.' i'..* h ....I*--:-....... ~.i.-. g g g.. - p---z.:i::... .i.. I T ,_,.*ir39 tdiH3 stand Tds, acne b,urvey if t / Preliminary Report on Proceduros and Findings .3 5 Marrasuipt Ccmpfstad: Sectember 1979 Oste P'ablened: October 1979 Prepared by C.S.Fhnn M;,untain West Research. Inc. 141; West 8:cedway Tempo. AZ 85 32 N Prepared for - Diviaion of Safeguard::, Fuel Cycle and Environmental Research Off.':e of Nuctur Regulatory Hesearch U.S. Nuc!6ar Requiato:y Commission Wa,hington, D.C. 20555 NRC FIN No. B62CS I .F l mena,m.,:c -m nom.mununu~ l e 9 [ ~ ~ ~."_*_ 3_.;' _.'_,,.g-.,, K. _. m. .s - m = - ~ 3 7,,,_ m.-. g, w_ m,uA T '~2 a., m,,. 4__ 7 _m__. .m. l
l e l cancers projected to occur because of this dose
- 6. Most evacuees stayed with friends or relatives.
over the remainmg Efetime of the population within
- 7. Evacuees traveled an average distance of 100 50 miles of TM is less than one, and had the ac-
- miles, odont not occurred, the number of fatal cancers Immediately followmg the 12:30 p.m. adwoory by that would be normeNy expected in this size popula-the Govemor on Friday, two mass care centers tion over its remomme Efetime is estimated to be m estabEshed for the evacuses: York County 325 000. Tid projected total number of excess opened one in its Central High School in York, health effects, including af cases of cancer (fatal Pa," and Dauphin County operated the second in and nonfatal) and genetic iB health to aR future gen-the Hershey Arena in Hershey, Pa.77 Though scutions,is less than two.M operation of these mass care centers was a county l
This analysis does not support the h respmsibiEty, the Amencan Red Cross prowded that evacuation advisories should not have been substantial assistance to the counties by broviding a made, however. It demonstrates that these ad-persenel and suppEss.m visones were issued because of uncertamty about On Saturday moming, when the evacuation scare the status of the plant and not because of actual or was almost at its peak, the total number of evacu-likely radioactive releases which would result in ex-ees at me two shehers was only about 185.M On posures that would approach the established PAGs. Sunday, AprE 1, the York County Center was closed This poets up the need for better and more prompt because few evacuees had come to this shelter and . Information regarding plant status in an emergency aH w ee et to he homes of friends or rela-situation in order to avoid as much of this uncertain-tives.ao Dunng the next several days the number of ty as rmh. For, while uncertainty about the people at the Dauphm County Center dropped as chance of a postulated release may justifimbly pro-people oder mtumed to be wacuated ama, went vide the basis for a oecision to evacuate, a 5% to stay wih friends or mia#ves, or used advance in-chance should weigh lighter in the balance than a surance payments from the utiEty's insurance 30% chance. underwriters to move into motels.st The Govemor ? did not officiary Eft the evacuation advmory unti
- AD'I 7' 1878'
- c. Aftermath of the Advisories the Dauphm County Center was closed and the 17 Based on an extensive en by an NRC mo 3
contractor after the approximately 144000 of the 370000 people living withm 15 miles of TMI wacuated the ama between Wednesday and
- d. Lifting the Evacuation Advisory i
Sunday. Details of this evacuation and of the resul-tant socioecmomic impacts are provided in Sectim The evacuation advisory for pregnant women and IV of this volume and'are summanzed below. young children and me school closmos remaned in
- 1. Approximately 39% of the people tving within 15 effect from Friday, March 30, until Monday, Apri 9.
miles of TMI evacuated. This ranged from about Dunng this entire penod, the situation at the plant 60% of the people Eving withm 5 miles to about remained stable, but radiation releases continued at 32% of those Rving 10 to15 miles away, a very low level, and the plant never aclieved a cold
- 2. Approximately 14% of the total number who evac-shutdown.
uated did so before Friday. More than 50% 'Iherefore, Govemor Thomburgh could point to evacuated on Friday. no single, major event as demonstrating to the pub-i
- 3. Of those households within 15 miles of TMI that lic such an improvement as would justify bringing had evacuees, about 36% had a pregnant woman people back into the evacuated area.
or a young child; fewer than 5% had a pregnant The basic problem was that on March 30 there woman or a young child and also resided within 5 was no clear and demonstrable physical fact that miles of TMt. served as a basis for issuing the advisory: the basis
- 4. Approximately 65% of the pregnant women and was one of uncertainty as to the future status of the young children living within 15 miles of TMI evac-reactor, since unlikely but possible future events at uated. This ranged from about 93% of those liv-the reactor could release large quantities of ra-ing witnin 5 miles, to about 57% of those living 10 dioactivity that would greatty exceed the population to 15 miles away.
exposures specified in the PAGs. There was neuch
- 5. The median length of time evacuees remained concem about the plant status on Friday, but by aR out of the area was 5 days.
estimates there was no immediate hazard. While 1016 r -~_.,___..,._,....__m ____._--,-,_.___,m
r'R o O v, [4] p LONG ISLAND LIGH TING COMPANY 175 EAST CLD COUNTRY ROAD
- MIC K SVILLE. NEW YORn 11801 3
February 22, 1985 3 e g SNRC-1152 Mr. Harold Denton Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr.-Denton:
Pursuant to our notification to you of November 14, 1984, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) has been undertaking steps preparatory to conducting a graded exercise for the Shoreham Offsite Emergency Plan. We are now working toward holding a tabletop exercise of the LILCO Transition Plan in early March, and hereby extend an invitation to the Commission staff to observe the conduct of this exercise. At the same time, under the NRC-FEMA Memorandum of Understanding on emergency planning, we request that you extend on our behalf an invitation to FEMA to observe the tabletop exercise as well. We will advise both your staff and FEMA of the exact date, time and place of the tabletop exercise, and look forward to your early response to this request. Sincerely, [ o s Vice President uclear Operations cc: Mr. Richard W. Krimm Federal Emergency Management Agency 'f Room 506 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20472 bec: Mr. Gordon Chipsn l
2G w NEW YORK _Q bg top.v% y J. ISSUE: M oh g A major political issue in New York State in general and in Suffolk County, Long Island, in particular, is the operation of the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Shoreham is wholly owned by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), is located near Brookhaven, N.Y., and is a boiling water reactor. Construction is complete, at a cost of approximately $4.2 billion, assuming 'comercial operation in October 1985. The major problem remaining to be resolved is that of an adequate emergency response plan and an exercise of that plan, which is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before granting a full power license to a nuclear facility. SENSITIVITIES: ~ Governor Mario Cuomo, Suffolk County's Republican Executive Peter Cohalan, o and a majority of the Suffolk legislature oppose the operation of the plant, maintaining that it is impossible to fashion an adequate evacuation plan for eastern Long Island. t President Reagan and Secretary Hodel wrote Representative William Carney o I (R-NY) stating that the Administration "does not favor imposition of Federal Government authority over the objections of state and local 4 matters regarding the adequacy of emergency response plans." governments in Carney served for two years in the Suffolk Country L gislature before entering Congress. LILCO has developed an emergency response plan which is currently being o reviewed by the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). -- The public perceives that the central element of an emergency response plan.is total evacuation of'a whole region. Should an extraordinary circumstance warrant evacuation, in reality only a small imediate area L would be affected. Suffolk County and New York State are opposing LILCO's plan at the NRC and in o separate litigation, claimin ' implement the proposed plan.g LILCO does not have legal authority to Further, they will not agree to test the plan. 'to grant an operating license on a State, local or utility plan c o with public safety. Authority to fuel load Shoreham is pending before the NRC Comission; a low o power license is currently under review by a NRC licensing board. These decisions are due any day. A low power license can be authorized without an approved and tested evacuation 5,lan. Suffolk County has indicated that they plan to submit President Reagan's and o Secretary Hodel's letters to the NRC licensing board and the Comission in l order to stop the licensing proceedings, i l n.-n- -nn ---,,,.n ---...--e.-----,-,-,n------, ,.-,,~.-----n n,-------,---,-~..- e.---..,,-.--n-,,.,
Another licensing board is considering the legal authority questions raised o by LILCO's emergency response plan. New York State and Suffolk County have opposed each of the steps in the o without federal, State or local approval of an emergency p 1 point in allowing Shoreham to start-up the plant. ) Over 3,700 letters have been received by the Administration since late July o on operation of the Shoreham plant; only 45 have opposed its operation. Attached is a copy of the " form" response from Secretary Hodel to the thousands of constituents who have written to the Administration about the Shoreham plant. l \\ t i i t i
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY WASHINGTON. O.C. 20545 June.18,1984 Mr. Ken Dollard - President OPEN, Incorporated ~# Box 673 Shoreham, New York 11786.. :
Dear Mr. Dollard:
~ Thank you for your letter concerning the Shoreham nuclear power plant. appreciate and understand your concerns and share your belief in the needI for operation of the Shoreham plant. Nuclear power, and thus Shoreham, is important for a number of reasons. From a national perspective the Reagan Admmistratien believes that a balanced and mixed energy resource, base is critical to achieving energy non-dependenc As our safest energy source, nuclear power is a critical component of that balanced energy system, and has saved us billions of dollars in avoided impor oil costs. From a world perspective, we must keep in mind that the Soviet Union is energ l independent, and is actually an energy exporter. the only highly developed country in the world meeting all of its own fuel andIn fa energy needs from its own resources. During these hazardous times, it makes no sense for the United States, with its vast resources, to be more vulnerable l than the Soviet Union. l From a purely practical standpoint, the Shoreham plant will replace 7 to 9 million barrels of oil now used annually to produce electricity. Those are significant numbers, particularly considering that, in 1983, New York.used 24 percent of the oil burned in the U.S. to produce electricity. In 1983, nuclear power produced 13 percent of U.S. electricity--enough energy to have displaced 1.4 million barrels of oil per day (about a third tf our oil imports last year)--and the nuclear industry employed 225,000 people. For the entire year 1984, nuclear will likely be second only to coal as a source of our electricity. We currently have more than 80 reactors licensed for opera-tion in the United States, and more than 40 have construction pemits. l-The Shoreham plant alone will provide 810 megawatts of safe and reliable electric power to the residents of Long Island and New York for many years to come. It will also guarantee that LILCO will continue to provide electricity to meet the needs of current customers as well as to ensure a sufficient supply for future needs. Island will gain long-term benefits from the operation of Shoreham.A 4..
2 As you probably know.Shoreham cannot open until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines its operation to be safe. The major remaining issue to be resolved, and it is clearly an essential one, is that of a sound emer-gency plan. LILCO has developed a plan that has been reviewed under proper legal requirements and, with some corrections, is considered valid. However, the State has not yet approved it. We are working with other federal agencies and the State to assist in the development of an emergency plan, and have pledged to commit Department of Energy resources. It is our hope that the State of New York will work with us to conduct a test of an emergency plan all parties can agree upon. No one can know if the emergency plan will work without an honest test. It is truly unfortunate that the public perceives that emergency plans for nuclear incidents are synonymous with total evacuation of whole regions. Only a very few accidents of an extraordinary nature would even warrant consideration of a measure as drastic as evacu'ation. And even these would require evacuation of only immediate areas. While good emergency plans are currently required to be able to cope successfully with these extreme events, it should be understood that virtually any accident at nuclear facilities will not impact the public at all. Where there is potential impact, there are adequate means to protect public health and safety that do not require e_vacuation. The Three Mile Island accident is a case in point. Evacuation was not necessary, and there were no casualties. I have been in communication with Governor Mario Cuomo and Suffolk County Executive Peter Cohalan in an effort to effect a solution to the Shoreham controversy. hope that we will be able to satisfy all concerns and ensure operatio valuable asset, consistent with the safety of the people of Long Island. But, I must emphasize that while it is the Reagan idministration's intent to provide all the assistance we can to New York, we are committed to States' rights, and we believe States must make the choices that determine their own future. This is a very complicated issue, and its resolution will not be easy. do appreciate and understand your interest and concern, and I encourage you to make your elected officials aware of your feelings. In making your voice heard, you will be helping to chart the course New York and the Nation will take. Sincerely, I DONALD PAUL HODEL 4 r L
(p C Dcpartm:nt of En:rgy- [ ad States Government @ririOranrd um ORA R
- Shoreham
[FarlGjelde,S-1 ,~ n'nus: Gordon Chipnan e ch eeptember 5,1989, the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granted 2 Iong Island Lighting cyny's (LIIro) request to fuel load and begin o i This order was sent to the Nuclear Regulatory pre-criticality testing.Camission (NRC) for review, and a decision is presently schedul There recains, however, one safeguards and issued on Septaier 21, 1984. security issue to be resolved prior to actual fuel loading, assuming the ccmnission approves the Board's order. 4 o The NRC regulations require that any licensee to operate a nuclear power plant " establish and document liaison with local law enforcemen activities in nuclear power reactors against threats, theft, and The regulations require radiological sabotage, (10 CFR 73.55 (h) (2). a " Licensee Safeguards Congingency Plan" which is to include ~ cmmunication arrangements between the licensee and the local 'Ihe term " local law enforcement" 1aw enforcement authority (s). ( is not defined, and the regulations singly require a plan of the arrangements, including assigned responsibilities, and a ecnmitment by the licensee embodied in the plan to notify the law enforcement agency in the event a threat, theft, or radiological sabotage occurs. LIICO entered into a detailed agreement with the suffolk munty Police 24, 1982. This Departnent (the Police) for this purpose on Novemberagreemen o through ccmnercial operation, as the regulations require. The NRC staff approved this apement in their " Safety Evaluation Report issued earlier this year. In February of 1983, Suffolk County EKecutive Peter Cohalan issued an executive order prohibiting taking "... any action inconsistent with o the County's position that Shoreham should not be permitted to operate." the Police notified LIIro that they would not be Ch March 15, 1983, able to abide by the terrs of the agreement pursuant to Cohalan's order. Despite attenpts by LIICO lawyers and NRC staff to clarify the PoliceMcw v position, it remains ambiguous.that the Police would honor the tezrs of the agre The operation, although not for fuel loading or 1cw powr operation. Police have avoided all omment, but have said that if emergency p,lanning issues were resolved, they would reconsider the natter. ibergencyplanningissuesarenotrequiredtoberesolvednor e they expected to be resolved prior to fuel loading or even low power o operation. The available alternatives to the Police consist of the snell police force of Brookhavan Township, which primarily controls traffic and o
l' protects government buildings, and New York State troopers, which could not be expected to agree to protect Shoreham. o The Atcmic Energy Act (AEA) (Sec.161F) authorizes the NBC 50 utilize or enplay the resources of any government agency (with the c6nsent of the agency), including for purposes of prmating the cumon ilefense f and security, protecting health, and minimizing danger to life and { property. 6 'Ihe Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is mandated by the AEA (Sec. 221(b)) to investigate all alleged violations or suspected criminal violations of the AEA. Furthermore, the FBI's jurisdiction specifically includes investigation of willful and intentional attempts to destroy property at nuclear facilities (Sec. 236). l i o 'Ihe NBC licensing and litigation staff believes that the FBI's authority under the ABC conforms to the " local law enforcement liaison" function in their regulations and that it would be appropriate for them to assume this role under the circu:rstances. o LIICO currently has an agreement with the FBI, dated June 18, 1982, stating the FBI's readiness to perform in the event of a sabatoge event at Shoreham. o LIICO's Shoreham security supervisor met on September 12, 1984, with the FBI's senior supervisory agent on Iong Island, John F. Good, to discuss the above. Good apparently had no problen with taking on the function as it is sinply an extension of their current agreement, but needed direction fran Washington. Contact with senior IBI management by IIICO lawyers in May of this year indicated that the FBI would provide this service and suggested that the request be made through a government agency, such as DOE, which has similar ecurity and safeguard agreements for nuclear facilities with the FBI urxler j the AEA. f Khile the NRC would be the logical agency to initiate this request, they prefer to remain neutral given the Shoreham proceedings so far, and let DOE perfduTthe advocacy role. If the " optics" of the FBI's involvement are ~~ ji acceptable, we recmmend that DOE request FBI support. If the comnission stays with their schedule to make a decision on fuel loading and precriticality testing on Friday, Septaber 21, this issue needs to be l addressed expeditiously. l 4 Maryann Novak i Task Force on Nuclear Ptuer j Plant Construction l l I l l r - - -,..., ~.. w.,
o 4 The NRC _ Authorization Act of 1984 authorizes a utility to ,o develop and bnplement an emergency response plan for a nuclear reactor. -- LILCO has developed a response plan (LERO) for -Shoreham and it has been approved by FEMA except for ten (10) " police power" issues and eight (8) minor deficiencies. -- On February 21, 1985 Judge Geiler, N.Y. State Supreme Court, held the LERO plan illegal. LILCO plans to appeal the decision to a federal court on federal preemption grounds. o State laws are preempted if (1) Congress evidences intent to occupy a field and (2) in partially occupied fields, . there is an " actual conflict." An " actual conflict" occurs when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law or the state law stands as an obstacle to accomplishing Congress' purpose. The narrowest preemption argument is that the state law o cited in contentions 5-8 "actually conflict" with federal . law and are thus preempted with respect to a drill of the j ' LERO plan. Violations of the state laws cited in conten-tions 1-4 and 9-10 are not required for an emergency response 4 plan, but would enhance the plan.. In an actual emergency it is assumed the appropriate authorities will perform their duties. The broadest preemption argument is that the whole field of " health and saf ety" is preempted by the federal government which permits utility response plans. o The Administration must decide the extent, if at all, it l wants to argue the preemption doctrine. Currently the President has stated the f ederal government does not " favor" intervening in local matters when the local govern-ment is in opposition. (Carney letter). -- To what extent does DOE intend to participate in the I emergency plan and drill.
1 The NRC Authorization Act of 1984 permits utility developed emergency-response plans. In instances when a utility develops a plan and it is found to violate state and local law because certain police power functions are performed by other than the appropriate-state and local officials, there are three basic approaches.the utility may take to get NRC approval of the plan, nrjd hence an operating license. -- PRESUMPTION: The NRC rulings and regulations should reflect the statutory requirement. For example, the NRC could adopt a= presumption that in actual emergencies state and local officials will perform their " police power" duties and protect the public. Thus, portions of the plan which violate state and local law in non-emergency situations would not impede NRC approval of the plan because the appropriate state and local officials would be* presumed'to act in a real l emergency. l i b
PREEMPTION: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act the field (or + portions of the field) of health and safety around nuclear 1 . facilities is a federal-one. Hence, state and local laws which conflict with an emergency response plan permitted by the NRC Authorization Act are preempted by the AEA with respect to emergency plans. FEDERAL FIX: Under the Civil Defense Act of 1950, the President has the authority to plan and respond to man-made diasters. He delegated this authorit,y to FEMA under E0 12148, and it may be redelegated. Thus, 00E may intercede and do emergency response planning in the areas whien conflict with state and local laws. I i i . _ _,. _, _ _ _.. ~. _ _. _. _... _ _. _ _. _. _ _.. _. _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _... _. _ _.. _... _ _..
-d 1 I M: Administration will be asked to ensure Shoreham licensing if D o State and local governments do not cooperate in emergency planning. This eventuality is very likely. j Some other plants have geminating emergency planning problems o that could grow to Shoreham proportions if Shoreham vetoed by New York. o Fundamental approaches 4 orce NRC and FEMA to accept (change rule?) utility exercise Fof EP without local cooperation on presumption that local authority will act in real emergency. j c j Prgmpt local law authority and role with substitute government organization (DOE, FEMA) who will act in event of real emergency. - j.@) M M l. /Ar:.:::t n-4 !5~.
- 'rd b
.Gc.% /f np Recent Supreme Court decision on States' rights. i 1 m-When issue come to head? CW /,y o4 r'G t ..s ?eY. / \\. / et.
- <v ! #U,
L 1'00 cix.: y.d f e b ~: l ..; or ew \\ -Es %N.h:e,L y.4ac.gb stdwAuA*A* .p.. r y c M't.s f Lii'D 'n W U N Yh a / A = =,
O O; '2s v u o KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STMIT. N.W. WASHINoToN. D.C.100M oug a m T j '" mm.ons aan.5: me .m til8 BRICEILL AVEMJE N' ann est w uigut,t 3,33 uosi ne4tu lise ouvta evittxho Prmat.tcw. rA itz:2 HERNRT H. BAoWN in mm ocn won March 15, 1985 Caorge Jett, Esq. General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472 j
Dear Mr. Jett:
On February 20, 1985, the New York State Supreme Court ruled that the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) does not have authority under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York to implement the company's proposed off-site radiological emergency plan for the Shoreham nuclear power plant. A copy of this decision is enclosed. Given that LILCO's implementation of its plan is unlawful, Suffolk County would consider any action of FD% that 'osters or approves an exercise of LILCO's plan to be the tartherance of an unlawful objective. Accord-ingly, the Cou..ty would object to FD% observing or in any other way participating in, witnessing, or lendingor credibility to an LILCO S / supper plan. In this regard, enclosed is a letter from the Chief Deputy Suffolk County Executive to the NRC. Sincerely, Herber: H. Brown cc: John C. Gallagher Chief Deputy Suffolk County Executive NRC Service List Attachments (2) -, _..~._.
e l CCCUT M OirKR N p,g s v .I e. it,; J..* i. 'o S uh r t o f N C u <t d s CALCLTivC CHAMbC A A.sauvsaata Man.o M C.C"C *. .... ~ January 16, 1985 i. Cear Mr. Giuffrida: I have been informed that the Nuclear Regulatory Cs=m:ssion has transmitted to FEMA "for information" and.
- preliminary consideration", LILco's request for a graded exercise of tne effsite radio'Ogical emergenef rcsponse This pisn it propcses for a large staa of Su'fcik County.es te advise you t L LCC's request would be an effront tc the sovereienty of the State of New York and damag!,g to the foundation upon which FEMA and the State have bbilt a ecnstructive and j
cooperative working relationship. 4 President Reagan das T.cdc 013sr in a rcatement that the Administration does not f avor the inposition of Tederal ~ f CO*ternment authority ever the ch!c:tions O' State and local govern =ent in the per. din Sherchan siruntion. tha public's *.telfare and through exercise of t 4 to protect their pelice pcwers, Suf falk 2 unty and '.cw York State are cppostng the operr. tion of the gherehan etint und ob!ect to n the exercise cf LILCD's purperrti emergency plan. Censistent thereforo, the State expects the President's st.s cennt, wit.. FEMA will refrain from taking any action which furthers that f LILCO's request for a graded exerciso. Sincerely, l, k* H:ncrable Louis O. G cffr.d; Otractor, Federal Crorger tv :'anagemer. Agency 500 C Street, S.W. 'ashington, D.C. 20*27 l l
Sw N'ed Strt:s Gov:rnm:nt D;pirtm:nt of En:rgy " memorandum OCT 22 984
== napty to A m or: S-2 (Nuclear Task Plant Force) summ" Lmergency Plannirg
- Wade Carroll Carol Jones Tom Grahame Mayo Lee Rex Williams The attached letter and related articles may arise in conversation.with utility contacts on your plants, especially those with emergency planning problems with State and local governments.
We do not have a copy of the letter from the President to Mr. Carney. The Administration had no comment to make on the intent or. extent of the letters. You are requested to do likewise. Mary nn Novak cc: Gordon Chipnan 6 f I QO
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i wetae v. cru asaa. surra. emmTv wire.imve OFFICE OF THE COUNTY Extcurivt Jo.in c. anu.mawra co ver otrun couwn tsteirm. March 14. 1985
- x. Harold Denton. Director Office of Nuclear Rasetor Regulation
[ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dear Mr. Denton By letter to you dated February 22, 1985, LILCO's Vice President for Nuclear Operations extended an invitation to the N1C Staff to observe the con =' duct of a " tabletop exercies" of LTLCO's offsita amargency plan for Shoreham. This is to advise you that Suffolk County object 6 to tha NRC staff obaarving or in any other way participating in. Witnessing, or landing support or credi-bility to any form of exercise of f.It,CO's offsite energency plan. 1 l On February 20, 1985, the New York 8 tate suorama Court ruled that vnder the Constitution and laws of the State of Nos York. LILCO does not have authority to implement its offsite emergency plan. Therefore. any guercise by LILCO of its plan would be an act of practicing and preparing for the in-pienentation of an act contrary to law. Sincerv1y. John C. Galla er Chief Deputy JCGipi cc Service List Mr. Richard W. Kriam Annistant Annnefate Director Federal Emergency Management Agency l Room 306 500 C Street. 5.W. Washiesten. D. C. 20472 e . t t t Otmsome etEthrmt OfflCE euthJMMS a f s paces er $ m0ut446 sett a.gre y .ee ssese ner s., tegav 4 9 Ae Cd4e#EPW% e I
.f, m m a n m comesses A7 2lll"6t::=. E.6. D ouse of h eres W w =l;;:;ll l* llllllln"E"=. .:::l"? cAET Committet on Cuttgp anb Commerte ,,3lL.m. Asom 2125, Rarburn Desse ems: Wedting LT,,;g lll""&",",",,',.O.' Mashington, DC 20515 TJI J'" i' E ". 1"'".'M"' "'c'21b"u " J"" = M O March 26, 1985 llll', .~,,,,%, "" g".*a.". 2,_ Th3 Honorable John S. Herrington Secretary D partment of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Fctrestal Building20585 Washington, D.C. D:ar Mr. Secretary: f the Thank you for providing my staff access to the files o i the D partment of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Task Force concern ng Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island. These documents reveal that the Task Force has taken a i cetive role in running interference for the Long Island Light ng h Company in its attempt to implement an emergency plan for t e t and Shoreham nuclear plant against the wishes of New York Sta e Suffolk County. ith This activity on the part of the Task Force is at odds w i issue. It President Reagan's and your own pronouncements on th s t of raises a serious concern as to whether the Task Force is control. I understand the Administration's position to be that 11, 1984: established by President Reagan on October ii ....this Administration does not f avor the impos t on of Federal Government authority over the objections of state and local governments in matters regardin power plant such as Shoreham. been made The position of the state and local governments hasNew York State and Suf perfectly clear on repeated occasions. d County have stated their opposition to a utility implemente the emergency plan, a federally implemented emergency plan or exercise of any such plan.
-,.c 3 ~ t. Tho sonorable John S. Herrington .M rch126, 1985 LPage 2 t i At the Subcommittee's recent hearing on the Department's budget-authorization, I was gratified to learn that you intended You stated further that to follow the President's policy. subsequent to the establishment of this policy, to the best of your : knowledge, DOE was no longer involved in trying to circumvent l the objections of New York State and Suffolk County on the 3 i asergancy planning issue at Shoreham. In view of your statement at the hearing, I was disturbed to rced your March 8, 1985 letter to Louis 0. Giuffrida, Director of In pertinent part, your the Federal Energy Management Agency."The Department of Energy will continue to sup t lotter stated: In all the testing of the shoreham plan as soon as possible." fairness, however, your March 8, 1985 letter to Director Giuffrida also indicated that because you were new to the Department, you' 1 Perhaps j had delegated the Shoreham issue to others in the agency. this is why you evidently did not recall your letter at the i I hearing or were apparently unaware of the activities of the DOE 3 Nuclear Task Force with respect to Shoreham. I believe that the Shoreham matter and the questionable Any cetions of the Task Force need your personal attention. efforts to hold an exercise of a shoreham emergency plan, without the specific approval of the state and local government, would L appear to constitute a direct violation of the President's mandate j { that you pledged to support. In addition to a clarification of your remarks for the !~ subco=mittee hearing record, I would also request a detailed l report on activities of the Task Force since its inception. Purther, I would request that my staff be provided access to all l .Please have your files of the Task Force and each of its members. 4 staff contact Richard A. Udell of the Subcommittee staff to make d the appropriate arrangments. i Sincerely, I U. Edward J. Mar.ey Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power EJMile 9*
i P,.Mf 'C7.f3 6-w 'd bft '85 AFR 12 (10:22 m, . - u...,l c.. w .C.,1 - f# ~ ^ 9 ". g f. *!' .ss w v. tiv.. gha' = . i 6 M ATTACHMENT 2 m
4 N Y Tl Ws, 4 Pfu L u, m d emergsacy streme, directing traffic, towtas stalled care and ordering mee-I j sages to be sent on the Emergency Brandemme System. l Without an emergency plan, Shore-The company has in alterna-has cannot receive a full opera 11-tive equipment to emergency cease from the N.R.C. "I1se power. But that did not prevent a trane. met of an emergency plea is a re-missica line fauure from causing a quirement forlicensing. blackout at the sitelast weekend. The ^ of Suffolk County, The accelerated hearings, to deter-X whatTm'piaatis einmud, has afmed mhm whomer Shoreham shouid be si. .EOergyDep.GremeOt T, peticip= ia me et stie of mch a =ie, ed caned me me a-io.ed.a i.ow. power utense for.imungy.og p ..=.. - to beg a on T r. of the mactor, whicliis now estimated Friday, however Suffolk County filed a [g M g [ % 00 % 7( l l to cost 84.2 buiten. Governor Cuomo petitico with the Nuclear Regulatory j has that the state, widch does t a-miaa'a= asking for a delay, saytag j see n a, i J0.3008 Ofl0FWAGNI Innthe aumoritytoimphaent s the hearings had been ach=.uw so plan, won not lampou one plan on the abruptly that it had not had time to pro- , casting doubt on the future of pareits case. ByBEAYI5EET L. WARS One staff member of the Department
- a Mac r.
e,,,,gn,,,, .,j - The EvenemalReepenelbility of Energy, in his notes on an Apru 4 moung with officiale fresa the Federal j ... WAGED 8GTUffM 21Mhed. , The Nuclear Regulatory Contr>s. alon, the agency that licenses oe.: lear . eralW W Emergyk heefwed taimesmonessumE me_einee m avmg fo", "M*'"' "" "4y*,""" Fsnergency'g'.was due soon b .w 7 Agene the Sheesham auclear plant en lang is. Dree Mue tr M arch .mted that a land, adensees to documnesse ehtained 1W9, is the body that will evatunny e W two j bya Essee _ ^
- i have to dockle whether the stets taken and bthey The departemi[d u eme
,,y,g Tj',88 7,,, know in u j towel. April 271tneof credit due." docunemas, la eseMug a umy ter the nady decided eat 4 I ' Fedomi Omeeamt h led he legal ning is not needed for -power .SpeelalhyeofImam eushortty to the IAng leIAAd Liddlag bcease. The "line of gegdgg" referred to le Capuy's pin Ier,he empmy to County, widch is a party in special type of loan that Luco obtaine l encesse the ase<s asend the plant in the licensing hearing, maintains that it to pay for its share of manrhae reacto toeventof andeeldeg,T. would not be legal for the Federal Gov. Nine Mile Podat 2, la Scribe, N.Y., s The IJtes ashigemay plan reesmaly p the south shore of lake Ontario, th. Luco le with four other Ne j i inued es.eenbeellen by the Federal ernment to supply pouce authority tej Yorts State .That loan,caued { heseuseof techmimipreb-theutility. and genomeme shout the legal an. Mr. Markey, whose =.hea==4ttee; "constructiesflaana trust "le connir due prematunty, because Luco vi i earleydtsenemployeementaheensps has been investigating de leeue ofl br Saance tmetle'svet U""I'8"'y est would unnay be and sta gov. . (*t ernmente had the pouce powers neces. che that utgittee with poor credit to le8' amethnes use to herme meer ,,'s ikggeissiembyFrissyg. eary to manage a nuclear emergency ti %s ....e plan. "no Federal oevernment does eenereng to naascialemparts. Camp i i immenes that the set have the legal authority to impio, aims with low ratings com bornw ca. o. at high mtes, so they seek leesad i Departmeset,which Assers the meat Luco's plan," he said. of marsham, is eseldes to Mr. Bearbey makt the Department of how a beak guarantee the tems, er ?; esse celuttenby Friday,when Energy and other were look. how the laterest rate est accareeg - heesaeaajor mmaeanttusres, las for a solution they could an-du bank's M rattag, am to utu l a department has beeneageged la @g,,g,,N,,,,,y to $ebank. .h' N ukely censultattees welli the Fed-gaguce is, esse,, g,,,,,,,, geoggg la Linco's case,a consorthamof abei t ) Emergency u==ag==== Assocy, money to Luos. Be called the effort 14 banks - the company rehead i Eeues and IJies aimes the "alismehe and assubstance." give details - was forused to guare: I of thismeath,thedocumente see loans totaling 500 mimon, whi< BlameFromthe Seentary Lucoused to payits18 percent chane j 18 le set clear frema the doce, The Secretary of Emergy, Donald Ntme Mile Point 2. But in Januar- ) Faul Hodel, wrote a memo to ble staff Luco defaulted on its partnerein mate whch party initiated the discus-in April 1983 fevertas resohauen of the agreement with the other utWttee, er a185. Acesse to the d=====*= wee pro. emergency pleamlag dispute at. Shore., stepped matting constructies pa; vtdad by the Deparament of Emergy to has and a etmuar then la ments for Nine Mile. Under the terr I the staff W Eeuse lueerter Conanttee's over theladian reactore of the tmet, that default anows th. estchester, He enki the dispute banks to desmand full repayment or subcommunene se W and laven-ehould be reestved because not operag. April 27. desden. Represamtenw Edward ;* A spokooman for Luce,' Eenmeth J h,,,,the plante would aseen "eeenoeg..ge,,,e,,,7,their respe 4 penalisine $1 mons, said in a telepheme latervies 3derhey, Democmt of m
==*te, j b theimaet of the =d====attee, He eles cited "the : no comanem on the trust or en its pbu j whe6 has jurledicties over the Nuclear potential arent to the vtabuitynot the ity to say the Mll. Analysts believe the i RegulatoryCommiesten. auclear powerladustry." It could not pay, becauseinve . The papere lechade headwritten i asees sa. J meettage, later, The effort by the Department of tore have receouy se lead ) mal easmerendums and lettere between Energy connes as the N.R.C. le about to money because of the ameertaint begin accelerate almut Shoreham. We i N@* tor's remaining.d heartmas on the rene. Whomer anestessianof thetrust wi es'cusethe penettuity that et. .a.a,.rprebhai: the 1 ther Department of Energy or the fauure of its diesel generatore, and the be worted out le set clear.Whom ash * + Emergency Manage===a Agency - resulting lack of an eenergency power about the prospects, Glass Igestseest i whelt is charged wtth coerenattag the source on the one in case of a almul. the lead bank in the trWE. issued a e Pederal respouse to tameous reactor shutdown and blachout a==*==as statement: "We aft 6 i i ga.mm - e.w " reestion emer.we ore,m.sm. ora.u a.ttyon m2 .= um arm w Sho.mham, wwch a a. ecune e.soommeq.,4;, ,uum - o. eme-e etme Apren=*=g i - a,e h pelw. muss east u n.a. so.n on.e nor eu more 1.ng a.d. i.y inhe -. ee,e..uv.uas
E S., LILCO Workingon ag,n Agency repo& 7,y y e-- ,,- n--,a an, y yfj G 'a $._ &_, h $. &*1 W: . -en ,*#.A% a Q- {&5N* e.e -- 7=#r;."L. - 4~ ~ i E C 6 :, 2 7 ! 5 # :. = M_ -*-s '*-.%c._ -- ~ ,. r J W. "~~ y's:$%?m N 5 * $ h h h. 1 5 N b ", N.- - - N.. .2 rWG ,~3 Y-$$, " a r phd m stat.E # "":"~ g,$t yy,::g",g,g-2:"1.'C f $rt. 2 "" G gg- - 6-7, 2 ;t % W'I" g-o MM d ,a 9 9 Y 9 N d 6 M* 12
-3 e 0 Behind the U.S.-LILCO De a Federal agencies seek to show Shoreham crisisplan will won 1 =* = esti Commste - to it. ,i. o.e m.m. o ia,s t a ;., step esthme of hear an erensA.,fn-U3 at seerted with an April 4 asshag at sight and "_. j ^ - docu manes whide uses utility workare in roles ser-y which the same of the Deposement of showing that in tine past three weeks, smelly reserved for gover a.a og. seuid he i r - a.a and St.a n_ a l U Ehssgy and the Padual hangsmey the Deparemsat af Basrgy has bdd eials. tiens weeld have to be andmW i,f P Agumey Assummed the about a halfdamse private unehmes with 'the escasset, a dreA for a DOE, FEREA, the Whste Rws l shWey of doing a Said test of a FIRSA. Iang isiend Laghting Ca. and cites seven problous Muelser Regulatory Causeimnis gr- _g. eussrgener pina hr a meham that ene wtst. Hamseenemis to agree en eruant aman, demenes trame and eder. it mader way. One pensible sin.,,. he asensebat asenbla.* federal insehemsms in an essergumey ing esecushna to amaremmag polise pow-White House "duedive to FIM *. r-C3 Dummaksas aimes them have insied-pism for Sarahass. are beyond the edge of the ovesasties they will esas W 4 F< EE ed a*esmempt paper"by a hW h. 'they aseen to show, assurding to Rep. amme and towng away ears. plan" if FEREA weeld ast a taj essy Deparemsma eEstal that envimmus Eduasd tierboy (D-adant), the subese-1hr decessenes, some of them hand-own. y as amemes is utish it semid"to appro. smasse " _ that "the admuassere-writtaa, rensk me esadusseus but die. 'Ibe papero mise indunes the prises that housel asumenes damsenernes ties is q docussventang the close that federal agencies have are tryingto reneh as agresem ~ w their to portres needed eiwil law rather than - % it.- esundered a venety of sphens, imeled-day, whom LB40 hans a pas Q emergmary wisse a immel pe. Also ektesmed by the sehessumstee ing a ilmW essense ofIJI4Xys evaa==*== fault en SEGO mailhen in een eriumsms would amt he invohed. 'these wee a desumsatdreemd by IJIEO asesr-pisspessely as early June; that the fed-lemme bass the upstate Nine agil it 21
- O Asmahams *ueeld andede esmessed and asy n ad Irwin en the esapeny's eral
^ esedd ' am *umi-medser plant. One Dag brelN"__ for LILCo@n emergency p. amaral, W puhhc inte. amargmary senhas hr the Aret stat =.=h=r alhdad te pm meetum -..* time that are
- areas in which ery====**== made up of y eus-fault in mates of the April 4 Neems hem the===es g and the "ess-IJIEO meeds lapt nothenty esmarred and the pommhildyof which esmeermed asseing up a 1
k engt ase part of desumsmes ab-by daderal ^
- Up to now, warbare invahed ha the emer-between the hende of his ay tais by the House Interier IJIE0hancks._med it heathelagmi right gamey plan.
-Cassimmed en _4 t
== { !.g s'- l 5 N -M ae e,w n s V -t gj o b l ~ et i 4 e e
44.04/24 11:19 F:1 eLERO HICKS ILLE NY UGTAJSb 6 y b Ms e.. a .a The Moves Behind U.S.-LILCO Deal -Centioned ten Page 3 FEMA. "Important hr 1A00 how this se the don't throw in the towel April 27 lies oferedit due.y 1R40, whink is la das, annasial trouble be. esses af doinge la opening its esotroversial 84.1 bil-I lisa sleet, noe basa lobbylag tantically with Wa=Magtan edleisle to get them tavelved la the uti-lity's amargemey plan. Company esedale have said they need to knew whetherto eastians the predest er ebenden the plaat withis the nest several months to amoure the esapany's sarvival. LIILO edleisle would ast osament en the mestiage er the state. mest at ten Federal afan planteeritical to IR40 bessene it le the Nuclear Begulatory thia =laa can great a tieness he eens-mercial aparation of Shoreham. A esmonarcial 11-esses is needed by 1240 behre it saa begin sharging emetessors he the plant's east. Safbik Coen hee refheed to approw an emer-sency plan br , ineleting that Imag Is. lond's smography(and limited reed network make sah eveeustica e the ares around the plant impos. eible. Gov. Marie Cuesne has reAised to impose a plea en SuSelk. New York State and Susb1k han shallenged LII40's right to implement the plea in state sourt, a seit the utility is trying to men to hderalesert. A Markey aide said the m-believes the hderst government does nothw the power to leepleesset an oveeustion plan and eenld not protect the public sehty if it tried. '! heir actione, Markey said, an nnessaly beennes it appeare my are in-a tended to bei Wall Strost and beesues la practies they would severely essapromise public health and l Y doyety Sunbik County esecutin, angrily asked, la all these eseret meetings le representing the le etSufhik Count it is be. how Ibderal sould sit l deare deelding the hte e(1.3 millien l pospie without our side of the story why eveemeties le est Suselh's Herbert Brown, said the statement by e atterney that the utility needs legal authority 90s the federal severnment could han a substantialimpactin e plan-ning hearings. "With that miadirected to they 4 seay han sunk their own ship," said Brown. Gary Freyer, a Cuome ;i-- declined to esament. la a related matter, the NRC has sebeduled a closed meeting this morains to dieeuse Suffolk's complainte about aspedited hearinse on IR40's re-he a lleones fbr !bereham. On Fri-the board eglected New York and 's appeal to delay the heariage se it would have more time to prepare.
n U Y TI M S 1 M A P A.lL M N . S o.sw q *rf#r11 ,im em a,e m.,,,o,y,ea, h h to check the sharing of informart-a "we wouM apWaud that ethrt," he ~ ~ 8e.g"na gnn..ed' e said.; .11P g E Sy h.bhMCy 'We How a Reedes' Governor Cuomo said this week that hewtandpauchaneftert.In alet. at !"4%' si.y5,,',lldlllpra ITs .* AlcJebShowAceident "~ ?e Won'tNeedLocalAid 'J'*M;Il:'"~e'de,,.Lle'2i"1,4 E ^^" ev=='+a=piescanbedoves. ida opedfor Shortham." He said state and my MarrHaW L. WALD county partidpatica coulf not change De the osalook. .g he The Federal Emergency Manage. Mr. Deans, asked whtther the drill ats ment' Agency annnun=d y would be carriedcut one Mr.Cuanso's thatitseepleoning adrillat objecticas.esid,"If we have to." -se to dama==rvate the abutty of the Fed. "We have a mineloatodoemergency ~ eral Government and the Long leland planiung arcued nuclear power plante 1.lghting Company to manage a nu. that can't change becuase an ofncial, clear c 7 without the help of even 16 governor, says erwaathina " Mr. e New York Itate or Suffolk County. Denne said in a telephone interview. / Therproposal, <=affaad la a letter Mh Denne said that at the 48 nuclear frenaths agency to the Federal Nuclear power plante around the country, all was the first drills wre mmhneemd with the partici. Regulatory t'a==8==8= time the Federal Government has said paticacf a"yoverner'e authertendrep. s It would try to esordse local police resentative,' who makes dedeicas ce powere to overcome the opposition of suchjaatters as when to sound emer. N state sad local ofBciale to a nuclear gency strene or order removala. If Goe. ernor Cuomeo does not to a rep. powear plant. 1hrplanforthe esordse to part of an r===arative. Mr. Demos amofBcial effort by the Federal Department of of hi!Lagency would S!! the role. Energy to rescue Shoreham front aben. i domment, which would probably be its l fate if no emergency plan to approved. - af swear quessiaang l The emergsacy agency is in charge of T*comesmer's secretary, Mecanes evalueung plans for nuclear accidents. J. DeiGhedios, whom tafornsed of tas "Wo.would stHI attentyt to get as emessency agemey's lesser, sakt: much moperation front the state se "How.are they to evaluate their posethie," a =rairamman for the emer. ownJartistpation? 't F.E.M.A. the gency agency. Davkl A. Deane, seM. If reviser body?" the state cansansad to be notified of Aalgdwhetherleeduralor om. simulated evente as the drill unfolded, ployees could take such stage as to check the sharing of informarian Ing streme, blocking ronde or directing j "we would applaud that effort," he traf$c, Mr. DelGiudice said: g by said.* "I.ilon't see how. It sounde like a 'let's. pressed' kind of aedom by the .g 'We Have a Miestem' Fedgel Government and a private Governor Cuomo said this week that Contpaar to seerdes pollos power, he wondd such an effort. la a let. which we don't ttdak to legal or desire. ter to the of Energy re, ble la terms of assering ufety." k leased Wednesday, he said that " eves ; In.W Representattve Ed. N with federal resources, I believe it to wart J. , Demoerst of Mases. unlikely that an adequaw and impio, chumsm and chairman of a Hoese sulp. tdoevacuaticaplancanbedevel. compeittee lavestigatirig emnergency m for Shoreham." He said state and planning. said la a statement that he count'y partidpation could not change was.. disappointed that emergency the outlook. agency was"willing to com its Mr. Denne, asked whether the drill technical knowlege for tical ren, would be carried out over Mr. Cuanne's sons.", objections, said, "If we have to " tamayaname by Cemety AMs "We have a mischeto do emergency g,,enlgt':~a'tJ;,,,,ma clu'E:l"ov,e,etal called the letter planiung argued nuclear pour planto .. A Suffolk om that can't change because an official. ',ll'eti",2eae'Mu l i ni, said he the the Federal Mr.Denne said that at the 4R nuclear would be "a viola. " k h, #,d,'o g: =,=, s. d = power plante around the country, all 'a . mun drua we= o-aaed we = panid. "What =rm my=g a u;.y wa.C. rs=d,J,"r;;l=J'., tad =ll C.ou',f;;l-a* -u=== M ui= = a posiu.a &fJ* 'l "' ""- ruch;.anere. when sou.d emer. sa gency me= = mer maman.If Goe.
- "n3ll"J a=s.'e
- 'r:rJg's y,y,;M,"= usuonal 70."Ulll d
M wa.-cy w-M au = *. vs. Mete;'ouca?na " a.. "- 'a ' e a -m_.v-_.._-----~-----w-m,- . w-I. 7,-r,.
/y N
- Q N Ja57
/ J 3 ~ p p y % lH 8f Hodel Sees DOE Role Aidim Nuclear Utilities 0 i By Dale R-alraff issues covered by these reviews wumas== ma sur wear wouki then be closed and.could not Energy Secretary Donald P. be raised later, thereby delsymg'the Hodel, responding to the escalating hcensmg promes as in several recent troubles of the nuclear power indus-cases, he said. try, said yesterday that the Reagan Hodelsaid DOE also would testify ad=laim tion would seek to reduce in more state and federal prooped-a naulatory hardships for nuclear ings on hoensmg and rate' increases, plants but would not sponsor finan-to==pha=== the administration's i ciel bailouts of utihties facing bank-commitment to =elaar power as a ruptcy.. path to less dew 'en foreign i Hodel% speech, to a conferena of oil, nuclear industry esecutives, marked Hodel said be did not believe 1 Lthe administration's' broadest m-DOE's proposed role in headmess sponse so far to the problem of myiews" or in raismg admi=*stion
- stalled nuclear plants, such as Img policy as an issue at h=amr hear-T Island's Shoreham project and New. ings would affect the NRC's inde-
- Hampshire % Seabrook, and the pos-panderw.
- . sible bankruptcy of the utahtus that "Du NRC has been taffeted in e own them.
4 moent times by a great deed of eco-I It appeand"to desopoint soeu trovusy," Hodel told sporhu latw, " ladustry = pal-=== who had sought remarking on =*=lah beeneing - na adal existance, but was termed contess pittme ownns bf pinnes , " encouraging" by the lobbying arm agamst lomi opponents. ".,. I think jthe muiser powerindustry. At tim it's just tina for the Department of ~aanse, time, st drew critician from Energy to be out there to@oint out Ione inseber of tim Nuclear Regu-how thee plants affect [natianal co- . latory 0- '- '=. who said some of ergy] policy." " Hadel's proposals cankl compresuse NRC ran====ianer Vi tor Gilin-l 9 r that agency's ' '; ' 9 sky said, however, that DOE partic- ' Regarding the Rhaaham plant en ipation in the proposed p=arli=== IAng Island, Hodel said he hoped reywws" would " defeat tio purpose that the ad=lai*ation soon would of anindependent safety ~~ " complete plans for testas emergency " DOE is too in with the l l evacuation gooseduns proposed by utilities,* he said."It is proper to the plant's' owner, the Haandally plans troubled Long Island IJahting Co
- conduct safety reviews l
thatyouyourself are (Lilm)- Also yesterday, DOE a That plant may be mothballed plan for disporing of high-level nu-largely bonuse local officials and clear comnwrcial waste tiy 1998 in New York Gov. blario Cuomo (D) an undaground site. ' Die depart-contend thenis no safe way to evac-ment said it will announce_ five po-unte Long Island in the event of a tantialsites by August. l nuclear accident. Hodel yesterday misesed a letter to Cuomo urging him to "give safety a try" by partie-Ipating in the fedwal test. Hodel said his department, in an effort to speed the hoensing of plants, would ha-aa considwably non involved in pecesedess before the NRC, the ladarandaat agency that hcenses and o-the safety of nuclear power plants. He said NRC should perform
- " reediness aviews" of plants under i
construction, pose *bly with DOE help, to flag doescis be*are they be-come too esponelve to repair. Safety
C, 2: L LILCO, April 11,'1985 CERTIFICATE'OF SERVICE + r In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-322-OL '85 AFR 12 #0 @ I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO INTER-VENORS' MOTIONFORINVESTIGATIONOFDOE" INFLUENCE"ONSHOREHAy twere served this date upon the following by U.S. mail, firsth I k j8 03 - class,-postage prepaid,'or by Federal Express (as indicated by 3Rg;cy
- an; asterisk).
Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino* Judge Glenn O. Bright United States Nuclear' Atomic Safety and Licensing Regulatory Commission Board, United States 1717.H Street, N.W. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'DC 20555 Fourth Floor East-West Towers (West Tower) Commissioner James K. Asselstine* 4350 East-West Highway United States Nuclear Bethesda, MD 20814 ' Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Washington,.DC' 20555 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Building 3500 Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal* P.O.. Box X United States Nuclear Oak Ridge, TN 37830 = Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Edwin J. Reis, Esq.* -Washington,,DC 20555 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Office of the Executive Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
- Legal Director
. United States Nuclear United States Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. -Maryland National Bank Building Washington, DC 20555 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 -Commissioner Lando W. Zech,.Jr.* United States Nuclear Herbert H. Brown, Esq.* Regulatory Commission Alan R. Dynner, Esq. 1717 H Street, N.W. Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Washington, DC 20555 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 8th Floor Judge James L. Kelley, 1900 M Street, N.W. Chairman, Atomic Safety Washington, DC 20036 and; Licensing Board United States Nuclear. Fabian Palomino, Esq.* Regulatory Commission Special Counsel to the Governor Fourth Floor . Executive Chamber, Room 229 East-West' Towers (West Tower) State Capitol 4350 East-West' Highway Albany, NY 12224 Bethesda, MD 20814
W w M. i $ James B.'Dougherty,LEsq. Dr. Peter A. Morris 3045 Porter Street Administrative Judge Washington, DC 20008 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, United States Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suffolk County Attorney Washington, DC 20555 .H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Dr. George A. Ferguson ~Hauppauge, NY 11788 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Board Panel John'F. Shea, Esq. School'of Engineering Twomey, Latham & Shea Howard University 33 West Second Street 2300 6th Street, N.W. Riverhead,.NY 11901 Washington, D.C. 20059 The Honorable Peter Cohalan Atomic Safety and Licensing Suffolk County Executive Appeal Board Panel County Executive / U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legislative Building Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Washington, D.C. 20555 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Jay Dunkleberger, Esq. Board Panel .New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Agency Building 2 Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, NY.12223 Jonathan-D. Feinberg, Esq. Mr.' Martin Suubert New York State c/o Congressman William Carney Department of Public Service 1113 Longworth House Office Three Empire State Plaza Building Albany, New York 12223 Washington, DC 20515 Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Docketing and Service Branch (3) Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board United States Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Regulatory Commission Commission 1717:H Street, N.W. East-West Tower, Rm. 402A Washington, DC 20555 4350 East-West Hwy. Bethesda, MD 20814 -Judge Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq. Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, United States Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 427 4350 East-West Hwy. Bethesda, MD 20814' t
J .S s.- Mr. Frederick J. Shon Stewart M. Glass, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel Board Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Commission 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 East-West Tower, Rm. 430 New York, New York - 10278 4350 East-West Hwy. Bethesda, MD 20814 Herzel Plaine, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory MHB Technical Associates Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue 10th Floor Suite K 1717 H Street, N.W. San Jose, California 95125 Washington, D.C. 20555 Spence W. Perry, Esq. Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 L Washington, D.C. 20472 b6nald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 11, 1985 i F -}}