ML20112D345

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Intervenor Exhibit I-SC-LP-20,consisting of Dec 1983 Rept of Ny State Fact Finding Panel on Shoreham Nuclear Power Facility. Jh Marburger 831214 Forwarding Ltr to Mm Cuomo Encl
ML20112D345
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 08/01/1984
From: Cuomo M, Marburger J
NEW YORK, STATE OF, NEW YORK, STATE UNIV. OF, STONY BROOK, NY
To:
References
I-SC-LP-020, I-SC-LP-20, OL-4, NUDOCS 8501140225
Download: ML20112D345 (33)
v • d • e


Text

~ - -

.f t * '

a s w,. ,

66 D' to

~

![L -

U Shec REPORT ~ OF _. . -

'85 JM -8 All :45 THE NEW YORK STATE .

cmce : man

"~

FACT FINDING PANEL

ON THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY j

W g I(de.mOL =

l [MW*

' - , wg a ? , !!?e n=.rmm v.

l

! EM

$}l;'84M;p!

M i5 31 Q&p

% a Honorable Mario M. Cuomo Governor  ;

Dr. John H. Marburger,111 [

Chairman i i

D ADO O!OO$O22 '

G PDR Stony Brook, New York December 1983 l

s.

. ?

j s

O AY?

/ ,

Lf i

- T C'

S I-L O

D w

n e

mN ca o.

s_

%,x% ,

Y O

,'Q ,, ,,

t i

s o r,,t 2 ,

,c  % ra,e o -c u r t

3 ou t ,

t r ,,

R A t,

- c i c C w b a /< C n D ~

"o4 S

" ,4 ra,

'o'N&N  %% V f-

~  !

l t,

c t

0,

- {+

' g rC>

Q<'N',

)

J. ,,, $. .

'- 9 J .

, ~  %

2o *' u,,,, '" , ,,

m~~

n a

S

n, O:.

. i e c o ch ri t

, %e.M r

  • s .

) 1 C

/,f A d. \

g _ -

, . ..- . 'l

~

( .

.( *y ' ,

Office cf the President State University of New York at Stony Brook StonyBrook

~

T%"le*g!"L .

.... ; .a. -

. .. .m2 ... v .

SHOREHAM COMMISSION

" #- ~

. Decemb'er 14, 1983 Hon.' Mario M. Cuomo Governor State of flew' York -

. Executive Chamber -

State Capitol

. Albany,riew York 12224  %

Dear Governor Cuomo:

Attached heruith is the final report of the Fact Finding Panel you created over six months ago to elucidate issues surrounding the licensing and fihancing of the Shoreham Huclear Power Facility in which the State of New York may play some role. The tardiness of the report'may be attributed to the complexity of these issues, to the diversity of views among the Panel members, and to the difficult logistics of assembling the Panel members as often as necessary to achieve, if not consensus, at least the mutual recognition that further efforts to achieve consensus would bring diminishing returns.

~

What have we accomplished? We have presented responses to nine general i questions related to those you asked in your charge. We have arrived at a number of conclusions which most Panel members support to some extent. -

Individual Panel members have also submitted additional views that provide context for the responses to the questions and given their opinions on how some of the problems surrounding the Shoreham facility should be addressed.

Our report also includes as appendices a variety of papers by staff and by Panel members containi,ng more detailed or more technical material related to the questions. The result is rather inhomogeneous, and in an introductory section I have tried to identify'some of the forces that urged this inhomogeneity of perspective. It is characteristic of the public attitude  ;

toward nuclear power.

The important questions about Shoreham are questions about the future, and about how to predict future events from current knowledge, Unfortunately, current knowledge is incceplete and the models for prediction are imperfect.

For some questions, such as the public health hazards of low level ionizing radiation, there is a high degree of consensus within the ccmmunity of experts, with a small number of dissenters. On other questions, such as the price of foreign oil in 1998, the experts all agree that any estimate is speculative.

s

q s  !

, ~

Hon. .Mario M. Cuomo - December 14, 1983 l

. c

...;.~. _

i Our mos1! important accomplishment may well have been the demonstration '

that any definite policy with respect to Shoreham requires judgment. No single policy can be derived unambiguously from the raw facts ,of the situation.

Onesafety issues we' have majority and minority judgments from the scientific and

. engineering comunities. On economic issues we have diverse judgments from economists, lawyers, brokers, bankers and regulators. In all cases we have secondary and tertiary judgments by the lay public based upon their confidence in and understanding of the expert judgments.

The Shoreham plant's long construction time' and its staggering expense have contributed to a loss of public confidence on Long Island in traditional sources of. judgment on utility planning and regulation. This has created

a. widening gap between the advice of established experts and the convictions

" expressed by the most active members of the law public. Our report reflects that gap and includes material from both sides.

Our Panel grappled for a long time with the host of issues related to public safety and were atle. to devote correspondingly less time to economic issues. 1,'e urge you to appoint a panel of experts to continue the economic studies

  • and to advise you regarding the urgent problem of avoiding massive ,,

rate increases that would' occur if the cost of Shoreham were included suddenly in the LILC0 rate base. .

I hope that you find this report and its attendant docu ents useful as you act to establish a state role in the complex of problems in which Shoreham is now enmeshed. The Panel members labored painfully to produce  !

this result, and I wish to acknowledge their efforts here in what may after

  • all have been an impossible mission.

Sincerely, ,

/

R/If John H. Marburger Chairman Shoreham Commission

. \

., . q {.

v-- ~ . ,,

%. . s p .,. a ,

m. , . .

" M iE:W % Q R Ltt,TnTd' m "m- - - - ~~ .

I~, P!ntroduction * * -MPEdh@M:&2%TchrYi-'W 9M

  • N 6M N W D',"..'W;'

~

n .., %g -. c. c -. ~ .. . ~ m . .. . . . 3. .. .

i.. ,UOn :/AprJ E19F#1983Mithe@Goveirnd$f66.'th'idtik of ; Negiby

<c r:ati o'n toff at"Fa cte.Fi nd i ngtPa nel "udn%thguSho reham nu cl ea Mr;Er," po - i LcngSIsland toa:"developaclearly derivede~ reliable ~?and ' objective"information. on .

~

th2 economic dosts2a'nd.: safety"Cof"th'e f adilit'y'/7The" PanyGaT)forined*in'Ma/?

~

' ~

and met' f or 'th'e fir's'tttime~' onn June'2 'whdn the'- Govern'o'r'chargedltNo 'eiidmidef #~

~ '

_ ...-~.@ w .=.y:n,~x.,. m rr

~

=- .

^

1. Th'e proj ected . : impa~ct on 'l.ong'-' Island- Lighting ~ Company's (LILC0) j i ratepayers assuming" that 5ho~reham would2or would not operate, ~ and i assuming- various7 atemaking i sce.narios._ including ,those .in..which I shareholders may be responsible for a part of the construction cost's; -

l

{

2. The projected revenue impacts on local governments and the projected impacts on the Island's economy under these scenarios,  ;

N i

- 3. The amount and potential sources of revenue required to service the I debt on Shoreham and to enable LILCO to meet its normal operating l costs; j  ;

4. The nature and manner of assessment of risks associated with the I operation of a nuclear power plant and especially the Shoreham i facility, ,

p

5. The requirements of the Federal government with regard _ to the  !

development and implementation of off-site emergency preparedness '

plans, and to what degree Suffolk County has met or exceeded-these '

standards and the rationale therefore. .,

. "The Panel is to avoid anticipating the judgement of'igencies or legally authorized bodies regarding licensing, the setting of fees and tariffs or '4 similar legal determinations. The Panel is expected to provide clarifications and presentations of facts which may, however, inform these legal processes. .(

In its deliberations, the Panel will avoid repeating studies, surveys and data e gathering exercises that have been undertaken previously except where deemed .I k essential by the Panel to compliment existing material. The Panel should i:

sumarize and attempt t o' identify the origins of conflict among existing h studies and to provide a f ramework in which rational decisions might be made - i regarding the role of the local, state and federal governments in the I determination of the Shoreham facility's future." '

N l

The Panel subsequently met 12 times in all-day meetings and conducted four $

public hearings. Three subcommittee meetings on safety, econcmics and plant operations were also held during the course of the study period. Appendix 7 ,

contains a list of all those who appeared in meetings and at public hearings [

to inform the Panel, and Appendix 8 lists docume.its available to Panel a members. The Panel consisted of 13 members, including the chairman, i' representatives selected by the Nassau and Suffolk County Executives, and I

l

e . . . . . -

7, w .

. representatives from the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and the , Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).. the two federal agencies closely involved in the licensing - process.' The latter r;epresentatives abstained f rom votes, Other members brought expertise but did contribute to the Panel discussions.

in public health, consumer affairs, nucl.ea r technology, business affairs, suburban studies, ' economics and' regulation. One " member had served on the federal commission that studied the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility. Several members also brought the perspectives of various citizen's groups that have been organized to address public ' issues including

the problems involving the study of the Shoreham facility.

It became apparent to the Panel early in its deliberations that many

people in the service hrea of the Long Island Lighting Company were seriously questioning whether the Shoreham plant should be allowed to operate, and

- whether its enormous costs should be borne as usual by ratepayers.

D The reason these q'u estions 'are being taken se,riously is that all the people asking them know that they will suf fer financially of the full cost of the Shoreham facility is added to the LILCO rate base, and many of them 1'

believe, in addition, that their health and the health of their descendants 4- will be endangered if the facility operates. They see the Shoreham plant as having been thrust upon them . unnecessarily by a profit seeking entity, and Othey are attempting. to deflect its consequences through the power that they Cbelieve they should have in a democratic society. They believe that their.

i '

.2. elected leaders should heed their concerns and alter the normal processes, if

'.( c :. .

'.~. n e c e s s a ry , to abort the certain financial impact and the possible health

~

impact to which those processes appear to be leading.

r :. C (I) At 'the request of Governor Mario Cuomo, FEMA and NRC designated The representatives to participate in the work of this Panel.

i leadership of both agencies enthusiastically supported thisagencies' unique the of State government. The two

>I initiative on part Both

! involvement with the work of the Panel was technical in , nature.

FEMA and the NRC sought to .of fer the members and staf f of the Panel full access to their experience in the areas of nuclear power plant operation and regulation and ' on-site and off-site emergency preparedness.

'HoGever, ,in' that, the, . Panel!s report deals- with many. issues not directly within the competence or jurisdiction of either Federal agency, and the fact' that both agencies are involved in a separate regulatory process which involves the subject' matter; of' the report--a process that should not in any way be compromised or anticipated--the NRC and FEMA have concluded .that it , would be inappropriate foi them _ to vote upon or i

othersise ' adopt or ' approve this final report. Accordingly,' the NRC and FEMA have abstained from any opinion issue.d by this Panel or its . -

individual members. " . , ,.

L.!

1 -

1 j 2. .

% '6g ' ,

_ \

The governor's fact finding panel was formed to help .'isentangle d and

-clarify the issues contributing to .the Shoreham controversy, and thus to assist the. governor:in. defining;a role and choosing a course of action for the

. State of New York.- In performing 'this task, it? is necessary to distinguish between what the various' parties assert, and what is actually the case. That is unfortunately not an easy task.- It is complicated, first of all, by the universal tendency of .t' hose who seek an end. to' advance. all possible arguments toward that end, secondly because. those with vested interests tend to protect them, and thirdly by the fact that', while most assertions are about what will 4

happen in the future, the future.i's very difficult to predict.

It was certainly the difficulty of predicting the future that led LILCO to  !

embark upon and then pursue a course that could lead to the highest electricity rates in the country for its consumers. Almost no one anticipated the, oil crises of the 70's and the rapid global realignments of industrial  ;

activity that brought regional growth to a halt while the power plant that was i t o' serve that growth was under construction. And no one specifically I predicted either the fact or the consequences of the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility, an . incident that contributed substantially to s the direct costs of the Shoreham plant and to the uneasiness of its neighbors.

Publit actions are usually based on a choice which brings the most benefit to the .most people. However, the dif ficulty in predicting the future when j there are large uncertainties can diminish the clarity with which we view the future benefits of alternate courses of action. There are many ncertainties involved in utility planning in part because it deals with' assumptions far ,

into the future. Oil prices, demand for electricity, the role of inflation, operating and maintenance costs, the percentage of time a nuclear plant ,

operates and other factors could all change in the futur e in a way which had '

then been projected might have resulted in a different choice amongst alternatives. -

In the natural sciences, prediction is more reliable and better defined than in long-range economic planning, but it is also a more technical concept. Scientific prediction is nearly always statistical prediction, whose accuracy depends upon the weight of experience and the ccmpleteness of the

~

predictive model. And ,yet there are great' laws of science, exceptions to which have never been observed. The mix . of certainty and uncertainty in .

science is a source of confusion to a public whose view of science is  ;

idealized. Much of the debate over the safety of nuclear power plants in general, and Shoreham in particular, centers upon the significance of a wide variety of statistical predictions.

The public understanding is further confounded by apparent divisions within the scientific community regarding the interpretation of statistical data. Conclusions supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists are given little public credence if it seems that the scientific enterprise itself relies for its support upon agencies whose aims may be advanced by a particular finding. In this atmosphere of suspicion, minority scientific views may be accorded much more credence by the lay puHic than the rajority vicws of the scientific community.

3 L

p_ -

y * ), - a,,

L w

i .

The Panel attempted to deal with these problems by educating itself regarding the various' issues. Meetings included presentations by staff who provided orientation into the mass of- extant

  • literature, by participants in

-the events- leading to the current state ~ of af fairs, and by experts and others whose testimony .was deemed -valuable by Panel members. Public hearings allowed

' those members who attended them to hear directly from a spectrum of concerned

, citizens. During the final m,eetings, the Panel agreed on general approaches Draft responses to the preparation' of responses to a series of questions.

were prepared .by members and by staf f, and . responses to questions one through j

six were circulated. f or revision and comment. Responses to questions seven through- nine .are derived primarily f rom the Staf f Economics Report (Appendix 6a) which was also circulatad. The chairman assembicd the final version and

~

invited,additionel ' statements f rom each member who wished to disagree with or elaborate upon points made therein. We hope that the result provides the clarification and insight that the governcr expected from this effort.

y

'l n

l

(

I

  • A

_w e

d N

9 L

,- j! ,

e 9

a ,

4

r ~

I t, y ,  ;

IV. General Conclusions - .

The Panel work'ed hard to discover points of agreement and the following

- paragraphs are carefully worded to reflect that agreement These views are not necessarily specific responses to the questions, or even " facts" of the sort that a fact finding group might be expected to, produce. Th'ey are important because they are coagulations of consensus .in the thick stew of interpretive viewpoints set forth in our meetings and hearings. Not every member agrees

(

with each point and the reader must consult Section V, the " Views of Panel y Members" for clarifications of the positions of individual members. i

1. The first point is that Suffolk County adopted its position after commissioning st'udies of reasonable quality. The county consultants are reputable in their fields, and their reports indicate deep and relevant techn.ical knowledge of the issue's with which they dealt. Many Panel members believe that'the consultants tended to be conservative in their approach, but  ;

none feel that the reports are irresponsible or grossly misleading. At the  ;

same time, it is important to understand that the county position is a result i of governmental, not purely scientific or technical, processes. That is, the j county asserted its right to make decisions of government based upon whatever  ;

information its legislative and executive branches have available to them.

This distinction between the County consultant's studies and the actual position "taken by Suffolk County was stressed by the County and seems j significant to the Panel as well.

l

2. The second point is that the Panel does not view nuclear power as i

inherently unsafe, although some believe that the current state of practice in the nuclear industry has not achieved a level of safety appropriate for public  !

use. This view was shared by many who provided testimony. Although the Panel did hear concerns about the commerical use of nuclear power generally, most of {

the concerns were specific to the Shoreham plant its ' location, quality of .}

construction, and quality of management. .

j]

3. The Panel agrees that the Shoreham plant will probably prove to have been a misLeke in the sense that everyone might have been better of f if the plant p had never been built. The Panel believes that the location would probably be i regarded as unsuitable as. a site for a nuclear; power station and would not be o acceptable as a licensable site under current siting practices. Estimates of l demand for electricity, the price of oil, the cost of construction all turned , j out be be grossly inaccurate, leading to a pattern of rates and expenses that . '

no one, including LILCO, wanted. Opinions as to how much blame LILCO must l accept for creating such a situation vary on our Pa~n el . It is certainly I possible to blame the present state of af fairs on the inevitable ignorance we I all have of the future. But, as when in ancient societies a series of disasters led to execution of the monarch regardless of his apparent ability to prevent them, many now feel that LILCO must be held responsible for i allowing the Shoreham disaster to happen.

i l

35 l i

l c., *5 ,

4. This .

b leads to the fourth view,. that LILCO did not prepare i,ts el f q adequately for its foray into the technology of nuclear power, and still lacks credibility as an operator of a nuclear power plant. The Panel views nuclear power as a high technology industry that demands a "zero defects" management attitude similar. to that in the aerospace industry. What the Panel learned ~

about LILCO training programs, . quality assdrance structure, and management experience with relevant nuclear ~ reactor operation led many to question r whether such an attitude is present. LILCO has tended to respond to L criticisms by pointing to its success in satisfying regulatory agencies and seems to us to have relied too much on regulation for guidance rather than, y upon an independent conviction of what needed to be done. The historical role  ;

of the federal agencies has fostered the perception that they are responsible for providing guarantees of the technical quality of plant construction and operations when, by their own admission, they are unable to provide such I gua rantecs'. L

5. The NRC practice of deferring consideration of off-site emergency response p planning feasibility until after completion of construction does not make i;_

sense.

Such considerations were in fact introduced in Shoreham construction licensing hearings but dismissed by the hearing of ficer as irrelevant at that time. It is clear that the existence of a completed nuclear power plant is a 7 powerful incentive to find reasons to grant an operating license. It is too [

late for. a change of construction licensing practice to affect the Shoreham case, but the philosophy of answering significant site-related questions [

before construction is too advanced may be applied to the current low power licensing situation.

The governor's request of the NRC that a low power opera ting license not be issued before the off-site planning impasse is -

resolved is consistent with this philosophy.

6. The incentive to license is created by the signif'icant investment in the plant.

plant asIt is reinforced by the apparent financial advantage of operating the  :

compared with not operating it, as recognized by the economic '

analyses performed by Panel staf f, LILC0 and Suffolk County's consultants. We are impressed by how small that number may actually be relative to the nearly 7

$4 billion that will be invested in the plant regardless of whether it operates: L Event in these circumstances, it is not obvious that failure to operate region.

the plant would be tantamount to economic suicide for the State or the l

7. While the economic analyses available to the Panel do indicate a ' financial -

advantage associated with the operation of Shoreham, none of these analyses I take into account recently announced additional delays in the operation of Shoreham, primarily attributable to problems with generators.

the emergency diesel The Panel recognizes that this delay may eliminate some or all of ,

a the economic benefit associated with operation of Shoreham. We did not have the time to analyze the economic consequences of the delay. The Commission recommends that the Governor make such an economic analysis an immediate ~

priority. . '

.a 36' E

~

n . -

\

8. Although the evaluation of of f-site emergency preparedness plans is the responsibility of FEMA, the Panel does wish to express reservations about LILCO's ability to implement Ja. plan that achieves an adequate state of preparedness Qithout the' assistance of county government. The State's responsibility for emergency preparedness requries that it pay close attention to the subsequent course of the licensing process to . satisfy itself that preparedness is adequate according to its 'own ' standards should a license be awarded. '

t

9. The projections for long Island's future ~ electrical energy needs on '

which the Shoreham construction schedule was originally based were obviously  !

overestimates. The Panel ~ is permaded that ample LILCO generating capacity '

currently exists ~ to satisfy probable demand for at least the next decade, and l '

probably longer. Such estimates are of course subject to the same i uncertainties' that cause the original projections to be so wrong. But at this {

t tirte , it is' difficult to see how the demand for electricity could be so great i l i

as to require a Shoreham-sized plant within a decade or more.

10. Finally, if the plant should eventually receive a license to operate, '

the public would be well served by an objective inspection program by an independent technical firm acceptable to federal, State and local governments, i L as well as the utility. Public confidence in the quality of the plant is very '

low, and further inspections will either reveal problems that should be i j i

addressed . prior to operation or confirm the assertions of previous inspections  !

that found little cause for concern.

^

V. Views'of Panel Members

. I The followingTviews were prepared by individuals or groups of Panel members j after the formal me,ctings and-hearings were completed. "one of the following statements is supported by every Panel r. ember, but some are succorted by more than one member, as indica-ted. in scme cases, these statements contain phrases' such as "the Panel believes" or "the Comission feels that" or "the Cornission concludes that". . Such phrases should be intercreted as signifying the views j l

only of those whose names are associated with that statement. The Panel did not operate in such a way as to generate a perceotible common viewpoint on any  !

i specific issue, excect possible for t: e carefully aorded " General Views" state-ments in the preceding section.

37 i

l

- ', 6 ..s g

- t l

,: .a : :. ? , -

l i

I I

APPENDIX 7-  ;\

A. Appearances before the Panel B. Appearances at the Public Hearings ,

ll '

l j'

t l

i.j,

\

. q

.i V

i 7-1

^

- s. ..

j

., . ,a , - .

e c

APPEARANCE LIST .

! Thomas-Austin ESRG L Dr. Howard Axelrod Consumer Pr.otection Agency Rich Babenecz LILCO  ;

T Roger Blond NRC Counsel, Suffolk County

{j Herbert Brown,~Esq.

William Brown LILCO ,

Edward Christenbury, Esq. NRC l

] Suffolk County Executive ~ j

.h~ Peter Cohalan "

Dr. Mathew Cordero Vice President, LILCO r William Davis .

New York State Energy Office i Dr. Russell Dines Professor of Sociology, University of Delaware l '

William Dircks NRC '

4 Joseph Ferris Assemblyman, New York City

-! Ira Freilicher- Vice President of Pub-lic Af fairs LILCO Lon Fricano Medi-Bus, Inc.

l T. Frank Gerecke Quality Assurance Department Manager, LILCO Paul,Harenberg . Assemblyman, 5th District Dr. David Harris Suffolk County Department of Health

Phillip Herr - MIT l George Hockbreuckner Assemblyman, 4th District Dick Hubbard MHB Professor Michael Jensen University of Rochester, Managerial Economics Research Center j Frank Jones Deputy Suffolk County Executive.

s Dr. Michio Kaku Associate Professor of Physics, CCNY .

h Dr. Pearle Kamer Nassau/Suffolk Regional Planning Board -

l Joseph Kelly .

Field Quality Assurance Division Manager,

LILCO Lawrence King NYU School of Law - 4
Dr.' Lee Koppelman Nassau/Suffolk' Regional Planning Board l Dr. Herbert Kouts BNL

! Arthur Kunz . hassau/Suffolk Regional Planning Board j Lawrence Coe Lampher Coursel , Suffolk County - Kirkpatrick, I

Lockart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips l Martin Lang Supervisor, Town of Southampton '

Darrell Lankford Associate Dirictor of~ Nuclear Information Stephen Latham S~p'ecial Counsel to the Town of Southampton

. Erv Leveson LILCO .

Joseph Logsdon EPA .

l James Madan Adam Masen Manager of Engineering David McLauglin FEMA ,

William Meuseler Director, Of fice of Nuclear - LILCO ,

Eugene Meyers Vice President Corporate Finance, Kidder-

~

. Peabody Dr. Dennis Mileti- Professor of Sociology, University- of

Arthur Muller Operating Quality. Assurance Supervisor, LILCO I[

f) h ,

y -

. -_ ~ . . J

' . , ft 4

~

[

Jack Notaro Chief Operating Engineer, LILCO Joseph Novaro,' Assistant to the Ihairman, LILCO Jerrold Oppenheim, Esq. Assistant

  • Attorney General in charge ~ of Energy and Utility Section, New York Department of Law -

Gregory Palast Union Associates "

. Spence Perry FEMA Pat Piscetelli New York State Public Service Commission Dennis Rapp Senior Deputy Commissioner for Economic ,

Development, Department of Commerce Paul Raskin Dr. Marvin Resn'ikoff Co-director of Sierra Club Radioactive Waste Campaign Dr. Walton A'. Rogers OTHA Inc.

Herman Rose' man

" James Rothschild Principal, Georgetown Consulting Group, Inc.

Frank Rowesome NRC Bernard Sanoff, Esq. Kronish, Lief, Shainswit, Weiner and Hellman Professor' Richard Schuler Commissioner, Public Service Commission Richard Staresecki NRC, Director, Division of Resident Programs Dr. William Stasiuk Director, Field Operations Management Group, New York State Department of Health Roger Taylor Managing Vice President .of Utility Group, Standard & Poors Corporation Conrad Teller Police Chief, Town of Southampton Jeffrey Treiber New York State Public Service Commission Wilfred Uhl . President, LILCO Jim Wheeler LILCO I

4

n. s
., gy ~ .

s APPENDIX 8 -

. . . [ CATALOGdE OF 0FFICIAL DOCUMENTS ,

SHOREHAM COMMISSION

. . .- r, _

l. Book - The Envirorimental Action Foundation: ccidents Will Happen: The Case Against Nuclear Power; 1979. (
2. Report - The President's Commission on "The Accident at Three Mile Island k

- The Need for Change: The Legacy of THI"; October,1979.

3. History - C f W Associates, Westmoreland, New Hampshire: " Crisis k Contained - The Department of Energy at Three Mile Island;" Under the y direction of the Department of Energy, December, 1980.  ;

4.' ' News Articles - Stuart Diamond: "Shoreham: What Went Wrong"; Chronology k d

of Articles for "Newsday", Week of November 15, 1981.

)

5. Report - Torrey Pines Technology: " Final Report - Independent i Verification: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station"; Prepared for LILCO, 1 September 30, 1982.
6. Adve'rtisement - LILCO Community Relations Department: "The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant: An Overview"; Advertising Supplement to  !

"Newsday", October 17, 1982. j i

7. News Release - Torrey Pines Technology: " Summary of Torrey Pines j Inspection of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and a Statement of Lou  :

Johnson, Project Manager; for LILCO, November 4, 1982.  ;

8. Report - Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan Steering l!

Committee: "Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan", j Volumes I, II and III; for review by the Suf folk County Legislature, 1 Novembe r, 1982.

9. Report - Suffolk County Executive Peter F. Cohalan: " Radiological .

Emergency Preparedness in Suffolk County"; February, 1983 2

10. Report - Aronson, D'Agostino and Kouts: 'A "

Report on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant"; Requested by Suf folk County Legislator Gregory i Blass, January 14, 1983. ,

11. Official Transcript - Alderson Reporting: " Proceedings Before the Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan"; January, 1983.
12. Bulletin - LILCO: " Question and Answer on Emergency Plannirg";

February 24, 1983.

13. Editorials - Concerning the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, excerpted f rom "Newsday" and "The New York Times", 1983.

E-1

. - .-. . w. . . . -.

i

'L ?! ,

14. Bulletin - LILCO: "Looking at Emergency Plans Across the Country",

March 24, 1983.

15. Report Coopers & Lybrand: "An Evaluation of LILCO's Economic Analysis

~

of the Impact of the Potential Abandonment of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant"; Prepared for the Action Committee of Long Island, April, 1983. ,

16. Report - LILCO: "The Course of Offsite Emergency Preparedness for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station"; April 15, 1983.
17. Bulletin - LILCO: "Shoreham's Rate Effect Not Unique: New Power Plants Across the Country Create ' Rate Shock'"; May, 1983.
18. Chronology " Chronology of Events Pertaining to Emergency Planning for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station"; May, 1983. ,
19. Report - LILCO Office of Engineering: "Shoreham Operation Versus 4 Shoreham Abandonment"; for the LILCO Division of Public Affairs, May, 1983.
20. Report - Energy Systems Res.earch Group, Inc., "Long Island Without the Shoreham Power Plant: Electricity Cost and System Planning ,

Consequences"; Prepared for the County of Suffolk, May 23, 1983. <

21. Resolution - Bachety, Bivona, Devine, Foley, Hariton, Nolan, Prospect: ,

Regarding Negation of Rate Increase Until Shoreham Plant is Used..and Useful; Introduced before the N. Y. State Assembly, May 24, 1983.

22. Memorandum "LILCO's Memorandum of Service of Supplemental Emergency Planning Information"; Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board c of the NRC, May 26, 1983. ..
23. Report - Bernard C. Rusche: " Safety and Regulation of Nuclear Power";

Presented before the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, May 27, 1983. ,

24. Memorandum - Chuck Guinn to Frank Murray: "SE0's Analytic Capability for -

Shoreham Study"; For the New York State Energy Office, May 27, 1983. ~

25. Testimony and Exhibits - Filed LILCO Testimony to the Public Service Commission, May 27, 1983. .
26. Update " Status of the Shoreham Licensing Case"; Conducted before the.
  • Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, June 1, 1983.
27. Report " Staff Reports to the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island: Public Health and Safety Task Force Summary",

John Kemeny, Chairman; October,1979.

S

~ -

. .- . . . J

,1 5, i1 ,

~~

28. Report-U'.S.NationalReUIrchCouncil: "fhe Role of Science and'

~~

. Technology in , Emergency Management";' Prepared for the Federal i Emergency Management Agency, April, 1982.

.. . . . . . ... .e - .

s,

29. Report - Ronald.W.' Perry: . "Citizen Evacuatkn in Res'ponse to Nuclear and Nonnuclear Threats"; Prepared for the Federal' Emergency Management Agency. September,1981.

I

30. Document - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission/ Federal Emergency. l Management
  • Steering Comittee Agency *: " Criteria for Preparation i and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and -

Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants"; November, 1980. $

NUREG-0654, FEMA - Rep-1, Rev.l.

3f. Report - Claire DeWitt Fields: " Exploratory Study of the Radiation Protection Training Programs in Nuclear Power Plants"; Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, June, 1982.

1

32. Proceedings - Science Application, Inc. & Nuc~1 ear Safety Analysis

.Cente r: "Are Current Emergency Planning Requi'rements Justified--Workshop Proceedings"; for the Electric Power Research

33. Report - Sandia National Laboratories: " Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria Development"; Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, December,1982.
34. Report - Gesellschaft for Reaktorsickerheit (GRS): " German Risk Study -

Main Reports: A Study of the Risk Due to Accidents in Nuclear Power a Plants"; Published by Electric Power Research Institute, April, 1981. .

35. Report - New York State Disaster Preparednes's Comission: " Radiological Emergency Preparedness, Volumes I and II"; for the New York State Governor and Legislature, March 23, 1982.

- 6

36. Report - Stephen N.,'Salomon: "Beyond Defense-In-Depth: Cost and Funding l of State and Local Government Radiplogical Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Commercial Nuclear Power Stations";

Prepared for the Office of State Programs , NRC; October, 1979.

NUREG-0553,

37. Report - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC: "TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force - Final Report"; October, 1979; NUREG-0585.
28. Article - Peter Scully: " Surprise NRC Inspection Reveals Faults at Shoreham"; "Newsday"; January, 1983.
39. Date Estimates - Comittee on Interior and Insular Af f airs, Subcomittee on Oversight & Investigations: " Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (Health Ef fects and Costs)

Conditional on an 'SSTl' Release"; November 1, 1982.

9

r: . ..

3 : ., . -

g :., _

40. Editorial - Philadelphia Inquirer: "Public Must 8e Informed of Higher Nuclear Stakes"; November 6,1982.

'41. Memorandum - Roger M. Blond, Reactor Risk .8 ranch, Division of Risk

. Analysis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, to Ronald M.

Scroggins, Director, Administration and Research Control Staff, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, concerning: " Emergency

-Planning and Source Term Developments"; With Attachme'nts, June 8, 1983.

42. Report - NRC-Inspection Team: 1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation; 2.

NRC Region-I Inspection Report Number.50-332/83-02, January 20, 1983.

43. Lette'r - Richard A. Udell, Staff Consultant, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, to Peter Scully, Suffolk Life Newspapers, concerning: " Emergency Planning and Source Term Developments"; With Attachments, January 28, 1982. -
44. Proceedings - New York Public Service Commission: Case 27563 - Long Island Lighting Company - Proceeding to Investigate the Costs of the Shoreham Nuclear Generating Facility -

Phase II: Motion to the Public Service Commission for Procedures to Ensure the Completion of the Shoreham Prudence Investigation, May 26, 1983.

45. Notice - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Public Affairs, Region 1: "NRC Staf f Proposed $40,000 Fine of Long Island Lighting Company for Alleged Incorrect Testing of a Diesel Generator at Shoreham", April 12, 1983.
46. Survey - Long Is. land Lighting Company, Community Relations Department:

" Population Survey - 1983: Current Population Estimates for Nassau and Suffolk Counties". -

47. Report - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Task Force on Emergency Planning: " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans . in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants"; December, 1978. NUREG-0396. , ,
48. Memorandum - Lester M. Stuzin, Executive Deputy to the Chairman, N. Y.

Public Service Commission Department of Public Service, to the Shoreham Commission concerning current Public Service Commission proceedings pertaining to the Long Island Lighting Company; June 8, 1983.

49. Deleted
50. Summary - Consumer Protection Board: " Summary of the' Regulatory Analysis Model (RAM)".

4 6

S

L  ; ,

. l

i at ,
51. Report - En,ergy Information Administration:" " Nuclear Plant Cancellations: Causes,r Costs and Consequences"; ~ for the U.S.

Department of Energy, April, 1983.

52. Report - G. D. Sa' uter and R.~J. Catlin: " Interrelationships between Emergency Planning Guidance, Source Term Assumptions, .and Accident Consequences"; for the Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, Electric Power Research Institute. ~ -
53. Report - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission: " Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Comercial Nuclear Power Plants, Executive Summary"; October,1975. WASH-1400, NUREG 75/014. SEE #136

[0R COMPLETE WASH 1400

SUMMARY

AND APPENDIX I THROUGH XI.

54': Map - Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., " Electricity f rom Nuclear Power: A 1982 Map of Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S."

55. Critique - Office of Engineering, LILCO: " Preliminary Critique: Suffolk County Study of Shoreham Abandonment (May, 1983)"; June, 1983.
56. NRC rder - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission: " Order (CLI-83-16),
  • Indian Point, Units No. 2 & 3" June 13, 1983.
57. Report - Basic Energy Technology Associates, Inc., "A Review of Current and Projected Expenditures and Manpower Utilization for GPU Nuclear Corporation"; Prepared for GPU Nuclear Corporation, February 28, 1983.
58. Report - Lester M. Stuzin, "(1) long Island Lighting Company Financial ,

Review (2) long Island Lighting Company's 1983 Financings"; for the N. Y. Public Service Commission, June 13 1983.

59. Report - William J. Dircks, " Report of the Review of the Babcock and Wilcox - General Public Utilitie lawsuit Trial Court Record"; for the NRC, March 28, 1983.
60. Report - P. F. D'Arcy, J. R. Sauer: " Priority Concerns of Licensed Nuclear Operatois at a TMI and Oyster Creek and suggested Action Steps", GPU Nuclear Management, March 15, 1993.
61. Sumary - Howard J. Axelrod, "Sumary of Economic Analyses of a Shoreham Abandonment"; for the Shoreham Comission, June. 14, 1983. ,
62. Report - American Nuclear Society, " Nuclear Power and the Environment: l Questions and Anssters - Book 1, Radiation, and Book 2, Fuel / Waste";  !

1982.

63. Report - Mitchell Rogovin: "Three Mile Island: A report to the tcmissioners and to the Public, Volume 1" (Narrative of the Accident); Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Inquiry Group, January, 1960.

p ._ ..

, .,  ?

. e

[

64 Report - Arthur H. Purcell, " Emergency Preparedness and Response

~

Plan'ning: The Kemeny Commission Perspective"; for the Resource Policy Institute, November, 1982

{

65. Article - Zeig"ler, Brunn and Johnson, "Evacution from a Nuclear Technological Disaster"; for the " Geographical Review", January, 1981. r
66. Article - Edward P. Radford,'" Human Health Ef fects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: The BEIR III Controversy"; for " Radiation Res ea rc h" , 1980. r L
67. Report - Risk Assessment Ad Hoc Review Group, " Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September,

1978 (NUREG/CR-0400). u

68. Report - MHB Technical Associates, " Uncertainty in Nuclear Risk Assessment Methodology", January, 1980. .

{

69. Report - D. Okrent, "New Trends in Safety Design and Analysis" (Preprint); for the International Atomic Energy Agency, 20-24 '

October, 1980. "

70. Memorandum - W. J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, U.S. NRC, -

to H. Denton, Director, NRR, to R. Minogue, Director,RES, and to R.

DeYoung, Director, IE, " Accident Source Term Program Plan", for the "~

U.S. NRC, December 17, 1982.

71. Testimony - Testimony of Robert M. Bernero on " Severe Accident Source a Terms" Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in the Matter of Consolidated Edision of New ,-

York and the' Power Authority of the State of New York; March 22, ,

1983. (Docket Nos. 50-247-SP, 50-286-SP) -

72. Report - Robert M. Bernero, " Severe Nuclear Power Reactor Accidents and  !

Reassessment of Radioactive Source Terms"; for the Accident Source -

Term Program Office, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

a

73. Report - W. F. Pasedag, NRR, R. M. Blond, RES, M. W. Jankowski, RES, ,' ._

" Regulatory Impact of Nuclear Reactor Accident Source Term Assumptions"; for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1981. (NUREG-1771) .

~

74. Report - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research & Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Technical Bases for Estimating Fission Product '

Behavior During LWR Accidents"; for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1981. (NUREG-0772)

75. Memorandum - From R. W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director of Of fice of Natural and Technological Hazards, to E. L. J o rd an , Director,
  • Division of Emergency Preraredness and Engineering Response:

" Findings on the LILCO Transition Plan as requested by the NRC J' Licnesing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station" with attachment; for w the Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 23, 1983.

6

=

a

L - -

. _ j

. , c s, t  !

a .

I

76. Report - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, " Consolidated Draft Emergency f Planning Contentions, in the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company"; ,
  • U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 23, 1983. (Docket No. l 3 50-322) -
77. Advertisement - Suffolk County, "Shoreham: The Tru'th about Emergency Planning, Safety and Mismanagement"; advertised in Newsday, April 21, 1983. -
78. Memorandum.- From P. F. Cohalan to F. R. Jones, Deputy County Executive,

" Executive Order Establishing Radiological Emergency Response Plan Steering Comittee"; March 29, 1982.

. 79-Testimony - Testimony of R. B. Hubbard and Dr. F. J. Samaniego, "Regarding Torrey Pines Technology's Inspection of Shoreham Nuclear

. Power Station"; before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, U.S.

NRC, in the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company, December 21, 1982. (Docket No. 50-322, 0.L.)

~

80. Articles - Peter F. Cohalan and John C. Wehrenberg, Jr. concerning the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and Emergency Preparedness in Suffolk County, Newsday, February - March, 1983.
81. Statement - Peter F. Cohalan: "Regarding Offsite Emergency Preparedness for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station"; before the Subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations on the Interior and Insular Affairs Comittee, U.S. House of Representatives, April 18, 1983.
82. Statement - Peter F. Cohalan: Concerning the Draft Suffolk County '

Radiological Emergency Response Plan; Submitted to the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Environment and Public Work Comittee, U.S.

Senate, May 20, 1983.

83. Statements - Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive, D. J. Dilworth, Comissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department, and A.. H. i Purcell, "Regarding Of fsite Emergency Preparedness for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station"; before .the Subcommittee on Energy and Comerce, U.S. House of Representatives, June 8,1983.
84. NRC Order - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Or' der Limiting Scope of Submissions", June 10, 1983. (Docket No. 50-322-OL-3)
85. Brief - LILCO: "LILCO's Brief in Opposition to Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate this Proceeding and for Certification", before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, U.S. NRC, March 18, 1983. (Two volumes; Docket No. 50-322 OL)
86. Letter - From Frank Jones, Deputy Suffolk County Executive, to Ira Freilicher, Vice President, LILCO: Enclosed Views of Suffolk County regarding the ccmplete Design Review and Physical Inspection of the Shoreham Plant that LILCO agreed to perform prior to Fuel Leading; for suffolk County, May 20, 1982.

r, . - - - _._ . ._..

' * ~ *

, ., *y ,

87. Memorandum - Lester' M. Stuzin to members of the Shoreham Comission,'

concerning Bankruptcy, with Attached Document Titled: " Report on Analysis of the Potential Effects of Bankruptcy"; July 15, 1983.

88. Report - LI'LCO: "Shorehau '.uclear_Powe'r Station"; July 11, 1983.
89. Report - Georgetown Consulting Group, Inc., "Long Island Lighting Company without the Shoreham Power Plant: Financial 'and Regulatory Consequences - Sumary of Findings"; prepared for the County of Suffolk, July, 1983.
90. Presentation - LILCO presentation at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station before the Nuclear Regulatory Comission Review Board concerning Management and Training, July 20, 1983.
91. Article - Leon S. Malmud, M.D.: " Nuclear Energy - How Safe Is It?" For the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Sumer/ Fall,1982.
92. ' Articles - Thomas D. Mockler, Terran A. Miller, " Nuclear Power's Legacy",

Carolyn A. Perch, " Investor-Owned Utilities and WPPSS"; From Standard

& Poor's Creditweek, June 27, 1983.

. 93. Report - Energy Systems Research Group, Inc., "Long Island without the '

Plant: Cost and System Planning

~

Shoreham Power Electricity Consequences, 'Tecnical Report A - Long Range Forecast of Electricity Requirements in the LILCO Service Area', ' Technical Report B -

Shoreham Operations and Costs', ' Technical Report C -

The Conservation Investment Option',. ' Technical Report 0 - Sumary of <

Computer Outputs', ' Summary of Findings'"; Prepared for the County of  :

Suffolk, July, 1983. .

1

94. Report " Staff Report to the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island: Report of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Task Force"; John G. Kemeny, Chairman; October, 1979.

f

95. Presentation - Presentation of the Long Island Lighting C.ompany to the '

Governor's Shoreham Comission, June 28, 1983.

96. Memorandum - Dr. William Stasiuk to members of the Shoreham Comission '

concerning Risk Assessment and Federal Requirements for Offsite Emergency Preparedness, with Enclosures, for the NY Department of Health; June 23, 1983.

97. Letter - Leon J. Campo to Governor Mario M. Cuomo concerning the Low Power Test License for SNPS by the,NRC; June 30, 1983.
98. Report - Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., " Status Report on Public Response to
  • Emergency Planning Ef forts", prepared for Long Island '

f Lighting Company; July,.1983.

M

r . 1

, ' .4 y '

99. Inspections - U.S. Nuclear Regulator Comission, " Inspection Process" and

" Request for Economic Analysis by Comission Staf f"; July 28, 1983, 100. Memoranda - David Willmott to Shoreham Comission, " Inspection Process" and " Request for Economic Analysis by Cominission Staff"; July 28,

~

1983. .

101. Articles - Philip Boffey, " Radiation Risk m3y be Higher than Thought",

New York Times, July 26, 1983

@$l 21 102. Letter - William A. Majuk, legislative Aide to Lou Howard, to Dr. John H'. Marburger, Chairman, Shoreham Commission, concerning the Z February 17, 1983 legislative Session at which the Radiological O

. Emergency Response Plan was acted upon, with Enclosures; July 21, $c 1983. M W

M 103. Report - Stasiuk, Hockenbury, Ryan, " Training and Licensing for Shoreham Nuclear Plant", for Shoreham Comission; July 29, 1983. M M4 104. Letter - J. L. Smith, Manager, Special Projects, LILCO, to Har61d R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Q

4 NRC: " Submittal of Revision 1 Pages of local Of fsite Radiological $M Emergency Response Plan", with Enclosures; July 28, 1983.

N 105. Proceeding - Long Island Lighting Company, "The Response of the Long Island Lighting Company to the Staff's Motion to Ensure the r Completion of the Shoreham Prudence Investigation", before the NY El Public Service Comission; June 3,1983. PSC Case No. 27563. il?

35 106. Report - Arthur Young, " Report on Analysis of the Potential Effects of Oi Bankruptcy - An Analysis of Strategic Options for Jersey Central ~ -d Power & Light Company", prepared for New Jersey Board of Public 72?

Utilities; October, 1980. 7l zy Report - Hudson Institu,te, " Principal Areas where Suffolk County and 107.

LILCO disagree on Emergency Planning", with Charts of same points of ]

disagreement, and the " Evolution of Suffolk County's Justification w for the 20-mile EPZ", for LILC0; August 2, 1983. i.y Report - Public Af fairs and Information Program of the Periodical ~N 108. -

"Public Opinion": " Report on Public Understanding of Nuclear Energy";

October, 1982.

109. Orders - NY Public Service Comission, "Long Island Lighting Company -

j

  • Phase II - Shoreham Prudence Investigation: Order Granting in Part

' Staff's Motion; Confirming Order; and Order denying request for PSC rehearing and reconsideration"; June 8, 15 and 24, respectively.

Case No. 27563.

l

V - -

1

. . i

'0

~

. d 110.

Correspondence - Two letters to Pat Roth from Regina Armstrong (July 14, 1983) and John Keith (August 1, 1983) -of Regional Plan Association concerning possible economic simulations which could be performed by RPA in the Long Island Input-Output Model regarding the total and industry-specific ef fects of Shoreham- operation versus abandonment on the Long Island economy; with Enclosures.

111.

Report - Hudson Institute, "The Potential Impact of railure to Open Shoreham", for LILC0; August 8,1983.

112. Resolution - In the Matter of LILCO, Shoreham: " Resolution of Suffolk Count'y Contention 20 -- Human Factors: Simulator Training", Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, US NRC, September 10, 1982.

(Docket No. 50-322 0.L.)

113. Statement - Alan J. Roth: Remarks of A. Roth at the Shoreham Commission meeting of August 8, 1983; August 12, 1983.

114. Letter - from I. W. Bianchi to Pat Roth: enclosed copy of remarks of I.

Bianchi 1983.

to the Public Service Comission on July 21, 1983; 10 August, 115. News Release - LILCO: News Release concerning announcement of LILCO that it has increased from $50 to $75 million the amount of a sale of preferred stock scheduled for August 22; August 18, 1983.

116. Report - Leon J. Camp:

" Position Paper on LILCO's Training and Staffing of Nuclear Shoreham: A Matter of Public Concern", presented to the Shoreham Comission; August 17, 1983. a 117. .

Brief - Robert Abrams, "Brief of Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the I State of New York, as Amicus Curiae, in Response to Suffolk County's '

Motion to Terminate the Shoreham Licensing Proceeding", before the US NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; March 18, 1983. Docket 50-322.

118.

(

5 Document - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission/ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Safety Evaluation Report related to the 1)peration of ,

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station" for Long Island Lighting Company, February, 1983. NUREG-0420. ,

119.

Document - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission/Of fice of Nuclear Reactor ~

Regulation, " Safety Evaluation Report related to the Operation of <=

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station" for Long Island Lightirig Company, February, 1983. NUREG-0420.

120.

Document - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission/Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Safety Evaluation Report related to the Operation of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station: for Long Island . Lighting Company, April, 1981. NUREG-0420.. f(

a.

8-10 E

r -

. 1

-, ~. Q ' ,

121. Document - U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission/Of fice of Nu' clear Reactor Regulation, "Saf ety Evaldation Report related to the Operation of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station" for Long Island Lighting Company, Septen.5er,1981 NUREG-0420. ,-

122. Document - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission/ Office: of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, " Final Environmental Statement related to Operation of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station" for Long Island Lighting Company, October, 1977. NUREG-0285.'

E 123. Report - Hudson Institute final report, "The POTENTIAL IMPACT of failure I to Open Shoreham" Prepar,ed for Long Island Lighting Company, August, I 1983. HI-3623-RR.

124. Report - Daverman & Associates, P. C., " Feasibility Study of Power

,' Services Delivery Options, Municipialization of Electric and Gas g Facilities", May, 1983, DA 8110-18A. j 125. Report - U.S. National Research Council, " Risks Associated with Nuclear l Powar - A Critical Review of the Literature Summary and Synthesis l Chapter" Prepared for Department of Energy, 1979. PB83-158808, 7 126. Report - Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, " Local Of fsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan" - Implementing Procedures.' Volumes I, II & ,

III; Inserts (2), Appendix A Evacuation Plan Addendum. j 127. Plan - Long Island Lighting Company, "For Your Information ... Shoreham Nuclear Power Station".

128. Report - Suffolk County, " Comments on the LIL_C0 Emergency Plan for  :

Shoreham".

129. Critique - Energy Systems Research Group, Inc., & Georgetown Consulting Group, Inc., " Critique of the Hudson Institute /LILCO - Defense of Shoreham Economics" prepared for the County of Suffolk, August, 1983. 83-14/R.

130. Documents - Af fidavit f rom Edward G. Greenman, Chief, NRC, pertaining to allegations made by John W. Huber on July 29, 1983. (1) HRC staff evaluation of the Teledyne indpendent design review commissioned by LILCO, September 1, 1983, under cover of a letter f rom Bernard M.

Bordenick. (2) NRC, " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance -

Long Island Lighting Company", May 2, 1983 (Mr. M. S. Pollock), (3)

Hunton & Williams, Donald Irwin, Esq. - Cover letter describing documents 1, 2 and 3. (4) 131. Report - Union Associates, "The LILCO/ Hudson Institute Report on Shoreham: An Analysis of Errors Concerning Property Taxes and Employment", prepared for the County of Suffolk, August 30, 1983.

c.11

~

. O q

g :. o

.. 132. Letter - Frank R. Jones, Deputy County Executive; evaluation of " Draft final Report" prepared for LILCO by Hudson Institute through review L by ESRG and Georgetown Consulting Grcup " Critique of the Hudson

[' Institute /LILCO Defense of Shoreham Economics" and Union Associates, i "The LILCO/ Hudson Institute Report on Shoreham -

An Analysis of j Errors". August 30, 1983.

!N 133. Letter - Elaine D. Robin' son of LILCO to John D. Marburger, SUSB,

! regarding testimony and agreement of Lon Fricano of Medi-Bus.

J September 2, 1983.

idl" 134. Letter - William J. Dircks, NRC, to Jef f rey S. Bragg, FEMA, requesting

] further information to implementation of LILCO Transition Plan, July t, 22, 1983, and answering letter of Jef frey S. Bragg to William J.

j Dircks, August 29, 1983.

t '

/ 135. Report - Knight /Bonniwell final report for Office of the Governor, State of Washington "What would be the Potential Financial and Economic Impacts on the Northwest should WPPSS Default on Plants #4 and #5?"

March 29,1983.

136. Report - NRC, " Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants", Main Report, Executive Summary, Appendices I through V; Release of Radioactive in Reactor Accidents -

Appendix VII; Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences - Appendix VI; Physical Processes in Reactor Meltdown Accidents - Appendix VIII, IX and X; Analysis of Comments of the Dra f t WASH-1400 Report -

Appendix XI. October, 1975. WASH-1400, NUREG 75/014.

137 Sumary - Dr. Frans C. Verhagen, Sociological Energy Services International, "Shoreham: Choosing a Future", September 9, 1993.

,l 138. Memorandum - Frcm Alfred E. Kahm to Bill David and Les Stuzin (cc:

John Marburger) on the Economic Conclusions of the Report, September 9,1983. .

139. Documents - NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of Long '

Island Lighting Company, " Partial Initial Decison" Volumes I and II, and Unpublished Appendices A through F. Docket No. 50-322-OL, LBP-83-57, September 21, 1983.

l 4

140. Letter - Ira L. Freilicher to Leon Campo, documents relating to LILCO's

] arrangements with health care institutions and QA issues, NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, September 20, 1983.

141. Critique - LILCO Office of Engineering: " Response of the Long Island Lighting Company to the Daverman Report", August, 1983, 142. Report - L. D. Hamilton: " Comparing the Health and Environmental l, Hazards of Differ.ent Energy Systems", Biomedical and Environmental ll Assessment Division. BNL; September 13, 1982.

i

) .

J __

' ~

o ,

I,

'. k ' .

143. Response - W. N. Stasiuk, NY Depa'rtment of Health: Draft Response to Safety Question Number 2 Posed to the Commission, "What are the Nature .and Manner of Risks Associated with the Operation of the Shoreham Facility"., July 28, 1983.

144. Reports - LILCO Annual Meeting Reports, 1974 - 1983. ,

145. Reports - Articles and Testimony" on Public Health Effects of Nuclear li Radiation, Submitted by Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., G.N.S.H. 6 a

146. Revision - Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, Office h

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation: Revision to Item I.A.l.3. of e NUREG-0737, Concerning Nuclear Power Plant Staf f Working Hours; NRC, Y

~

June 15, 1982. j R

147.'

Memorandum - W. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, to members of NRC: " Transportation Article in the Newsletter of the @S i Council on Economic Priorities", plus Enclosures, February 10, 1982.

]

148. Letter - M. Cardaro, Vice President of LILCO to Members of the Shoreham Commission, concerning questions raised at Commission meetings, k August 4, 1983. f. j L.=

s>

149. Letter - Ellyn R. Weiss and Robert D. Pollard, Union of Concerned EN Scientists, to members of the U.S. NRC, concerning Immediate G Shut-Down of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant in New York because of a serious safety hazard, 9

Articles on same; September 12, 1983.

plus enclosures and Press 3

-j y

150. Memorandum - Frank R. Jones, Deputy County Executive, to members of the Shoreham Commission containing ESRG's review of the Hudson Institute d response to criticisms by County consultants, September 29, 1983. -d 151. Memorandum - Energy Systems Research Group, Inc., to Peter Cohalan, N

Suffolk County Executive regarding the September, 1983 Coopers and ;j Lybrand Study of the Economics of Shoreham Abandonment, September 29, 1983. ,

152. Document - Coopers and Lybrand "An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Abandoning the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant", September,1983. i 153. Document - Union Associates, " Abandonment of the Shoreham Nuclear ~'

Plant: The Effect on Local Government Property Tax Revenues"

  • prepared for the County of Suffolk. September, 1983. ~

154. Letter - Herbert J. Kouts to John Marberger in which he states that he will not net with Dr. Kaku in matters of reactor safety, and in which he explains some of the errors in Dr. Kaku's testimony, September 21, 1983.

155. Re;crt - Bill Davis Econcmics Draf t en Shoreham cperating or not operating, with Appendices A through 0. Se p t emb e r, 1983.

n ..

. . .u. . . .- - .. - -

er

  • I. J.b . ..

156. Letter - Brian R. McCaffrey, Nuclear Compliance and Safety Manager, t'o John Marburger, mentioning. enclosure of documents to follow,

. October 6, 1983.

157. Documents 1.. LILCO's response to ASLB Information Requests dated June 25, 1982, Docket N. 50-322 (OL); 2. FSAR Appendix 2J Summary Report of Geotechnical Studies of Reactor Building Foundation, August, 1977. '

158. Memorandum - William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, to Chairman Palladino, Com:issioners Gilinsky, Bradf ord, Ahearne and Roberts, " Transportation Article in the Newsletter of the Council on Economics Priorities", February 10, 1983.

159. Summary - W. J. Museler before the Shoreham Commission Meeting, "LILCO Quality Assurance Summary Remarks", September 30, 1983.

160. Statement - Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive, before the Shoreham Commission in which he summarizes Suf folk County's position on the safety and economic aspects of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, September 30, 1983.

161. Memorandum - LILCO Summary'on the Economic and Financial Impacts of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, September 30, 1983.

162. Letter - Donald P. Insin of Hunton & Williams to Mr. Leon Campo with i

documents to follow, September 26 1983. ,

163. Documents - 1. LILCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Quality Assurance Issues filed with the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Shoreham Procee' ding, Volumes I and II, Docket No. 50-322 (OL), March 28, 1983. ..

2. LILCO's reply findings on QA Issues in that Proceeding (1 Volume), Docket No. 50-322 (OL), April 25, 1983.

164.

Letter - Donald P. Irwin of Hunton & Williams to Ms. Patricia Roth with <

document to follow, September 26, 1983. -

, j 165. Document "NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing card's Partial Initial Decision", Volumes I and II and Appendices A through F, Docket No.  !

50-322-OL, September 21, 1983.

  • 166. . Letter - Jay M. Gutierrez of NRC to Robert Gottlieb, Esq., Sausman and Gottlieb, with attached inspection report of an inspection conducted j i

at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,' September 29, 1983.

167. Letter - Assemblyman George J. Hochbrueckner to William Cotter, I Chairman, New York State Energy- Research and ' Oevelopment Authority, I requesting ' consideration of the Power Transmission Project at-Brookhaven National Laboratory September 23, 1983. ,

Ib 4

8-14 t

i 168. Letter - Peter F.'Cohalan, Suffolk-County Executive to the people of-Suffolk* County who live between 10 and 20 miles from the Shoreham Nuclea'r Power Planti stating Suffolk County's opposition to the NRC's decision not to take into account the , emergency preparedness and evacuation needs of those people living 10 to 20 ' miles f rom the plant, September, 1983. -

169. Letter - Wilf red '1hl of LILCO .to Mr. Leon Campo providing information in .l.

answer to a question asked by Mr. Campo regarding increase in size of d the suppression pool which is under the reactor, July 19, 1983. 3

- Q 170. Letter - Wilfred.Uhl of LILCO to J. Marburger, regarding the Governor's ]

Shore, ham Panel Update on. Diesel Engine Status, October 6, 1983.  ;

~ s 171'. Press Release - Leon Campo, David Willmott, Marge Harrison,

- Legislator Wayne Prospect - October 3, 1983 - re: testimony of I Dr. M. Kaku and J. Huber (and corresponding papers), y n

172. Letter - R. Budnit' of Future Resources Associates, Inc. to Herb Kouts, ]

containing comnents on Final Report of the Shoreham PRA and his ]

thoughts on different issues, July 14, 1983. g j

173. Letter - Scientists and Engineers to Governor Mario Cuomo expressing -

their belief that the Shoreham plant can be operated safely and 1 should be permitted to operate, April 30, 1983. j 1

174. Report - Leon J. Campo, People's Action Coalition of Suffolk County to -

Hon. Frank S. Robinson, Public Service Commission, Case 28252 -  :

Shoreham Nuclear Generating Station Ratemaking Principles, September 3 7, 1983. 1 1

175. Report - Frank H. Rawsome, Assistant Director for Technology, "NRC staf f i Comments on the Presentations at the June 28, 1983 Meeting of the -

Shoreham Commission.

]

u 176. Letters - Wading River School District to . Governor Cuomo and N.Y.S. -

Department of Transportation advocating construction of the North ]

Shore Bicycle Path, running from Port'Jetferson to Wading River along g the LILCO right-of-way. -;

i 177. Report - Bernard C. Rusche, American Association for the Advancement of 1 '

Sciences, " Safety and Regulation of Nuclea'r Power: A Current Assessment of Key Issues in the Nuclear Power Option", May 26 - 31, ,

1983.

178. Letter - Patrick Halpin, NYS Assemblyman, to Dr. John Marburger, expressing his position with regrd to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant September 25, 1983.

179. Testirony - Michael L. Borsuk of coopers & Lybrand at hearings held by the New York State Assembly Energy Committee in which he addressed the issue of the economic consequences of potential Shoreham atcndonment, May 26, 1983.

(

I. '. 4, .

l 180. Letter - Ira Freilicher of LILCO to Dr. John Marburger in which he clarifies the record of the. Commission regarding its September 30, 1983 meeting, with enclosed Memorandum 'of Understanding from John V.

Klein, Suffolk County Executive, to Ira Freilicher, October 12, 1983.

181. Articles - Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter in Public Opinion magazine, "The Nuclear Energy Debate: Scientists, the Media and the Public", August /Septemb'er,1982, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Leon S. .Malmud, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Temple University Medical Alumni Bulletin. "lluclear Energy - How Safe Is It?", Summer / Fall, 1982, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. -

182. News Release - Evidence presented by John Huber and Dr. Michio Kaku charging that "The Shoreham Reactor is more Dangerous than Three Mile Island", October 3, 1983.

183. Letter - Ira Freilicher of LILC0 to Leon Campo, East Meadow Union Free School District, in which he encloses pages f rom the Local' Offsite

. Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Chapter 3, local Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan Implementir.g Procedures Volume II - Implementing Procedures 3.6.5 Special Evacuations, Local Of f site Radiological Emergency, Response Plan Appendix A Evacuation Plan and Local Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan Appendix A Evacuation Plan Addendum. September 20, 1983.

~

184. Report - Dr. William Stasiuk, Dr. Robert Hockenbury, Mr. Robert M., Ryan,

" Progress Report: Training and Licensing for "Shoreham Nuclear Plant", for Shoreham Commission, July 29, 1983.

185. Petitions - Barbara T. Stahlberg, Sayville Parent Teacher Association to Dr. John Ma'rburger, expressing concern of residents of the Sayville School District with regard to the proposed LILCO rate inrease, October 11, 1983.

186. Petition - North Fork Opp-ents of Nuclear Exposure to Governor Marion M. Cuomo, "If taere is a Nuclear Accident at Shoreham the East End is trapped". Shoreham must not be Licensed!", June'17, 1983.

187. Graph - LILCO distribution of customers by consumption intervals and

  • chart on distribution of residential bills by consumption blocks -

1982.

188. Documents - Decision of the United States Court of Appeals in the case of New ' York vs. Department of Transportation, Docket Nos. 82-6094, 82-6200, August 10, 1983. Frank Rowsome's comments on Dr.

Marburger's first draft Commission Re' port.

189. Reports - LILCO: Interim Diesel Generator Status Reports (2), for NRC, Sep tember 21,-1983 & October 7, 1983. .

en

- _ M-1% -

-- x M

! ., , 4' -

190. Letter - John C. Bierwirth, Gruman Corporation, to Dr. John Marburger, on electric power discussions with background on the March-South transmission line, September 28, 1983.

(With attached brochure.)

191. Letter - Union Associates - Gregory A. Palast,' to Hon. Paul Harenberg, recalculating the economic impact of the proposed legislation to divest LILCO's electric operations in answer to a reauest by Frank l Murray, October 7, 1983. ,' L 5

~

192.

Resolution - Middle Island Central School District Board Resolution regarding . licensing of Shoreham Nuclear Plant, September 29, 1983.

h W

193. Letter - Assemblyman George Hochbruecknet to members of the Shoreham M Commission in which he urges that the Final Report of the Shoreham "$

  • ~T  :

' Commission adjust the abandonment scenario calculations to reflect E the use of upstate power, October 20, 1983. (With attached report ,

of September 14, 1983.) 9

N 194. 2 Letter - Arthur McComb to Editors, and elected and appointed of ficials,  ?

regarding the September 30, 1983 letter to the Governor.

195.

~ ,

a A

Documents - Union of Concerned Scientists petition to shut down the Mj Fitzpatrick Plant, the NRC response to this issue, . and related IE J4 Bulletins; Under cover letter dated November 1, 1983 from Brian W McCaffrey, Nuclear Compliance and St.fety Manager, Marburger. to Dr. John Id cSJ 196. . :d Open Letter - Congressman Tom Downey: An Open Letter to the People of Long Island Concerning Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, A Report from M 19J Washington; October 24, 1983.

};'j'.

197. .-;-:

Letter - A. M. Madsen, Manager of Engineering,' LILCo, to J. H. Si Marburger, Chairman, Shoreham Task Force: Concerning Shoreham ";

Economic Analysis; November 2, 1983. .

[

198. Letters - A. M. Madsen, Manager of Engineering, LILCO, to H. Axelrod, W.

David and L. Stuzin: "Shoreham Economics - Staf f Report - LILCO M Revision"; October 28 and 31, 1983. 3

~~

199. 91 Memorandum - F. H. Rowesome, Assistant Director for Technology, Division "

of Safety Technology, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, to W. J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operation's, NRC: "Shoreham: _,d Technical Accuracy of the Marburger Draf t Introduction".

200. Letter - E. S. Christenbury, Chief Hearing Counsel, Office of the '

Executive Legal Director, NRC, to P. Roth, Assistant to the Chairman, -

Shoreham Commission: Concerning the August 10, 1983 Decision of the '

United States Court of Appeals in the Case of New York vs. Department of Transportation, and Frank Rowsome's Comments on Dr. Marburger's First Draf t Commission Report, with Enclosures; September 26, 1983.

/

.s ,

'# (. . J%, -

201. News Circulation - Circulars, Articles and Editorials from LILCO on -

Shoreham, 1983. -

202. Letter and Report - G. Palast to J. Marburger and Panel Members, Governor's Panel on the Shoreham Nuclear Plant: Union Associates Report on th'e Effect of Operating or Abandoning the Shoreham Plant on Long Island Employment, with enclosed Report; Union Asscciates; October 12, 1983. '

4 203. Heeting Program - LILCO/NRC Meeting on SNPS Diesel Generator Crankshaft Failure, Program Outline; November 3, 1983.

204. Reports - Failure Analysis Associate's: Reports on Emergency Diesel Generators at SNPS, October 31, 1983.

205. Report - Robert M. Ryan, Rense.laer Polytechnic Institute: Probabilistic Risk Assessment Briefing. .

206. Letters - Correspondence regarding Stony Brook University Hospital and Shoreham Nuclear Emergency Preparedness; J. H. Oaks, M. Kuschner, J. H. Marburger, LILC0; August,1982 to October,1983.

207. Document - Teledy.ne Engine'ering Services technical report: Executive Summary of Final Report - Independent Design Review for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station; TR-5633-3, June 30, 1983.

208. Letter - Michio Kaku, Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics, CUNY, to Dr. Marburger and Shoreham Commission members, concerning D r,.

Kouts' refusal to meet with him and his responses to some of Dr.

Kouts' comments, October 9,1983.

209. Report - Warren Liebold, " Life Without Shoreham: A Working Paper",.

October 19, 1983.

210. Letter,'M. S. Pollock, Vice President, LILCO, to Harold R. Denton, Director, NRC
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS. REGARDING INSERTION OF REVISION 2 PAGES OF LOCAL OFFSITE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE  ;

PLAN - APPENDIX A; SNRC - 981, DOCKET No. 50-322, with attachments, , -

November 14, 1983.

l 211. Letter - Brian R. McCaffrey, Nuclear Compliance & Safety Manager, LILCO, to Dr. John Marburger, November 11, 1983, with documents to follow.

212. Documents - Shoreham Staffing Issue -

1. W. O. Uhl letter to H. R. Denton,' August 25, 1983.
2. M. S. Pollock to H. R. Denton, SNRC-957, August 26, 1983.
3. E. J. Weinkam III to,LILCO, Summary of August-1,.1983 meeting with LILCO, August 26, 1983.
4. R. Caruso to LILCO, Summary of July 20, 1983 meeting with LILCO, August 25, 1983. ,

9 e

t

^

/ s . 4, A ~

l 213. Letter - Diane Hughes, President, Citizens fo'P Total Energy, o Citizen Advocates.concerning funding of pro-Shoreham campaigns on Long Island

. by nctional utilities; July 8, 1983.

214. Report - Thomas K.. Smith, Planner, Nassau County: " Vacant, Recycled and Demolished School' Buildings in Nassau County, -1970-83", for the Nassau County Planning Commission; July, 1983.

215. Report - Michio Kaku: "Have We L' earned from TMI?", November 23, 1983.

216. Letters - Governor Mario Cuomo to Senator Patrick Moynihan and NRC Chairman Nunzio Palladino concerning emergency response plans; October 4, 1983. .

6 217. * &ata - Division of Rules & Records, Office of Administration, NRC: LER --

, Computer Output for all Reportable Occurrence Reports Received from Reactor Facilities Submitted to NRC for the period 8/24/81 thru .f 9/20/81.

M3 e2 218. Letter - George L. Wessman, Director Torrey Pines, to J. P. Navarro, Chief Executive Representative, LILCO, concerning independent d

verification of SNPS May 17, 1982. EM qf(

kms 219. Article "The Wall Street Journal: Cincinnati G&E Sees Higher Zimmer Cost If Delays Continue"; November 4,1983. Y 7";j 220. Letters - A. F. Farley of Hunton & Williams to L. Brenner, Judge, NRC, 4Nh!

dated September 21, 1983, October 7, 1983, October 20, 1983, and R4 November 3, 1983, all with enclosed LILCO Diesel Generator Status Reports dated same as letters.

M ma

. g 20 221. Book - Harvey Wasserman and Norman Solomon: " Killing Our Own";

Pgs. 246-263. s.3

%d.

~::;

  • 222. Report - P. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive: " Operation Versus  ;?5h Abandonment of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant: The Effect on Long Island E Employment"; Report to the Executive and ' Legislature of the County of Suf folk, October,1983. ~

K M9 X'O

~;:=

$b T:

5. 7, 91

>[

t l 9  %

-i 8-19

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20112D345&oldid=3477516"