ML20128Q966
| ML20128Q966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1984 |
| From: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B321 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-190 NUDOCS 8507270083 | |
| Download: ML20128Q966 (28) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _, - - _ _ _ _ _
P.
F. Kantor, IE jf UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
j wasuisaTom. o. c. 2 ossa s '
\\,
j January 3,1984 NOTE TO: James M. Taylor FROM:
Edward L. Jordan
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR BRIEFl!4G PAPER Attached is a briefing paper regarding Topic 7 as listed in Attachment 1 of T. Rehm's December 28, 1984 note to you. This information was developed jointly with ELD (E. Christenbury).
.E rd L. J dan, Director ivision of Emergency Preparedness m
and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Attachment:
Response to Topic 1 cc:
S. A. Schwartz. IE D. B. Matthews, IE F. Kantor, IE C. R. Van Niel. IE E. S. Christentury, ELD S. E. Turk, ELD '
4 8507270003 050506 i
.s-+-
QUESTION 7.
What are NRC's views on implementation of the authority to approve emergency planning without local / State support?
ANSWER.
NRC regulations place the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the ade-quacy of offsite emergency preparedness on NRC applicants and licensees, while recognizing that State and local authorities bear substantial responsibility for protecting the health and safety of their citizens.
Experience to date has shown that the State and local governments have, for the most part, recognized and accepted their responsibilities in this regard and, as partners in undertaking to protect the public health and safety, may be expected to cooperate in the development and imple-mentation of adequate radiological emergency response plans.
Nonethe-less, the NRC recognizes that the licensing or continued operation of some reactors may be affected by inaction or inability on the part of State or local governments to develcp adequate emergency plans on a timely basis.
A provision was included in the 1984/85 NRC Authorization Act. Section 108, which permits the NRC to issue an operating license in the absence of a State or local plan approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), if the NRC finds that a utility-sponsored offsite plan provides reasonable assurance that operation of the plant will not endanger the public health and safety. This provision is similar to provisions contained in the two prior NRC authorization acts.
The Connission has adopted a regulation,10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1), which pennits consideration of 4 utility-sponsored offsite plan, consistent with this authority.
FEMA is the agency at the Federal level which has been assigned lead responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency pre-paredness. Accordingly, while the NRC is responsible for making the ultimate reasonable assurance finding with respect to both onsite and offsite emergency preparedness, the NRC relies heavily on FEMA's find-ings and determinations as to offsite matters. This applies with respect to the review of State and local governmental plans, as well as to the review of utilit plans where State or loca]y-sponsored offsite emergency preparedness plans have not been prepared.
While the 1984/85 NRC Authorization Act and NRC regulations permit the NRC to issue a license in the absence of a FEMA-approved offsite plan, the NRC has not yet had occasion to reach a decision on the adequacy of an offsite plan in the absence of a FEMA determination that the plan was adequate.
The adequacy of a utility-sponsored offsite emergency plan is being litigated in the Shoreham operating license proceeding, now pending before an Atomic safety and Licensing Board. Two related legal issues have arisen in that proceeding: (1) whether the utility has the legal authority, under State law, to perform certain functions which we normally would expect State and local officials to perform during an
2-emergency situation, and (2) whether, if State law withholds such legal authority from the utility, there exists any Federal statute or regulation which would preempt the operation of that State law.
These questions are pending for resolution both before the ASLB and the New York State courts, and it would be difficult and inappropriate to predict the outcome of these questions.
It is not presently possible to predict whether the NRC would approve an offsite emergency plan in the absence of State or local su However, depending on the circumstances of a particular case,pport.
there may exist legal impedimerts to the implementation of an offsite plan without such support, and these legal impediments could prevent the NRC from reaching a favorable finding on offsite emergency preparedness.
O e
e sp e
e
38 MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director DISTRIBUTION Division of Licensing DCS Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DEPER R/F EPB R/F FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director ELJordan, IE Division of Emergency Preparedness CRVanNiel, IE and Engineering Response FKantor, IE Office of Inspection and Enforcement JRSears, IE
SUBJECT:
LOW-POWER LICENSE FOR SHOREHAM
\\
l The staff's review of onsite emergency planning and preparedness at Shoreham has been completed and a supplementary SER is being prepared to document the results of the IE and Region I evaluations. Previded that the completion of
{
several hardware items is confirmed through re Hspection, we have determined I
that the state of onsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance I
that adequate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency that may occur during fuel loading and low-power operations (up to 5% rated power).
The above detennination would normally be a sufficient basis insofar as emergency planning and preparedness requirements are concerned, to issue an i
l operating license authorizing only fuel loading and/or low-power operations.
However, in view of the status of the development of the offsite emergency plans and response capabilities, I am unable to support the issuance of a low-power license to Shoreham. My views on this matter are based upon con-siderations that extend beyond the technical and legal findings called for l
by Section 50.47(d) of Part 50. While I am in complete agreement with the l
Commission's Mptier of mind generic requiremerts permitting fuel loading l
and low-power operations without NRC or FEMA findings regarding offsite l
e:nergency preparedness (47 FR 30232), I cannot at this time conclude that the present circumstances at Shoreham will lead to the development of an emergency response program that is sufficiently effective to support full-power cperation.
In the absence of such a conclusion, I am opposed to taking a final action that would lead to fuel irradiation and the attendant contamination with no guarantee of the subsequent benefits of full power operation.
I am closely involved with the ongoing FEMA and NRC review of the offsite plans for Shoreham and am hopeful that the present impediments to the development and implementation of an effective response program can be overcome, i
Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc: See Attached EPB:IE DD:DEPER:IE D:DEPER:IE DBMatthews:dh SASchwartz ELJordan s
04/ /84 04/ /84 04/ /84
- i j
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL $UP f~ y P y' initials Date l
TO: {Name. ofHee symbC!, room number, iMing, Agencijht)
. - ~,,
h Tc.,9M / WALL vLxx d
2.
3.
- a. $ :
h'AC - L IL c o &
+. '
~
WMn T/I l'1 s.
Action I
File Note and Retum Approval For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Information See Me Comment investigate Signature Coordination Justify
' REMARKS L 13 % :
4 p y Mc. Pm n
mu~T%A%
n yo -ro g 3
-Q 1 w k *> UdGO i'
< n a A p
- TA
/Mc. 3m g M l
r at i
fd' & )
0
%: g4 n A~1 4 ~Td4 4l m4 a
yas a RECORD of NOT s this fo prevals, concurrences, disposals, i
clearances. and similar actions MOM:(Name, org. symbol, Agency Post)
R, No.-BI.
&g
.t----
l
% mLA.~
nu-1 'fl q,,b,A. /* !EniFdC""' '-*
i m n n m.
Jat l
(YY f*~
l' UNITED STATES a
5.,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS'SION WASHINGTON.D.C. 20666
'%,,,,,/
MEMORANDUM OF CALL Prevksus editions usable TO:
e M
' /'[ t
'). d,'-(YJ-h YOU WERE cal. LED BY-YOU WERE VtSITED BY-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Uilkerson OF iOrganizationg 287-0200 b PLEASE PHONE >
FTs AUTOVON lf. e /!
/ C 5'
' O WittcAtt acAiN is WAiriNo 10 sEE v0U r & ],fl 4 n*A.,
RETURNED YOUR CALL WISHES AN APPOINTMENT j
~
LCO got in touch w/ fella to set up a utg.
[7
/
on RAC coctaents on their plant.
-informed them that they had to go thru
[/p.v
~ [ '
the NRC for this since we requested fem i
e to do the study.
If you have a problem
,/g/ Z 7 [
with this pls. call.
l DATE TIME RECEIVED BY
~l /f Ag 4l
/!V(
gp l
l
...u.
...->.4.
.1...,,,o.......i>
7
. u.s.......>. ni s1 m.
E'M7Ei2l? i_.n va
()vftY (f,.h
\\
A l
w c
,t e
ei Draft For Meeting Notice 0
SUBJECT:
Meeting to Dau4 - Federal Emergency Management Agency Agf Regional Assistance Committee Sommen+e on the Shoreham Offsite Emergency Plan v
/y DATE:
Fri
, May 11, 1984 g
.(w
) N, te:ev TIME:
9-69
.m.
3 LOCATION:
Federal Emerge.ncy Management Agency Region II 6
,N 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 For the representatives /"f the Long Island Lighting 1
PURPOSE:
Company (LILCO) to -^^
ith representatives of the
'l{
/
/
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)jt: m;i n.
j, etf/q LILC0 proposals to remedy the deficiencies identified
- i by -
in the LILC0 offsite emergency plan f,or. thy %.7 jb p oreham Nuclear Power Station.
FEMA is A f,== ane LILCO offsite plans in response to a request from'tne (f@
se ghg k
Nuclear Regulatory ommission (NRC) in accordance with Section II 4 of the November 1,1980 NRC/ FEMA Memorandum of Understanding.
PARTICIPANTS:
FEMA fh LILC0 h
cA b
cc:
E. Christenbury, ELD I
v*p'.,f /[ fpegi b
/
R. Udell, Interior Committee Staff R. C. DeYoung, IE A,
D. B. Matthews, IE
,8 C@a- / 'p' E. L. Jordan, IE 7
}( i.
G. Cunningham, ELD s
W. J. Dircks, ED0 J. W. Roe, EDO
(
T. A. Rehm, OED0 ED0 rf Sam Speck, FEMA
~,d j
@v/
T..,'.
U~Cv
?,. a '(
Congressional Research Service
/
a The Library of Congress
%,, f Washington, D.C.
20540 May 4, 1984 TO
- House Subco=mittee on Oversight and Investigations Attn: Richard Udell FROM
- American Law Division SUBJECT : Whether the Department of Energy or Federal Emergency Management Agency Has Authority Under Existing Law to Conduct "Cocnnand and C,ontrol" Activities In the Event of a Civilian Nuclear Powerplant Emergency 4
This memorandum responds to your request for analysis of the issue captioned above.
It is understood that your interest in this issue arises from the refusal of the State of New York and Suffolk County to participate in offsite emergency planning in connection with the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in Suffolk County.
In the absence of an offsite emergency plan containing adequate protective measures, regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1/
(NRC) bar the issuance of an operating license for the reactor."
To resolve this impasse, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) have stated in two draft memoranda 2_/
1 of understanding supplied'us by your subcocanittee that during an emergency at Shoreham, DOE of ficials could invoke exis' ting legal authority to perform " command and control" activities normally undertaken by state and local officials.
The legal authorities in these draf t MOUs which we have reviewed, however, appear unlikely to encompass the federal conduct of such command-and-control functions.
1/ 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(1).
2/ One draft MOU,' dated March 14, 1984, is entitled " DOE / FEMA Memorandum of Understanding" (hereinaf ter " dated MOU"). The other draf t MOU, undated, is captioned " Memorandum of Understanding Between DOE and FEMA Relating to Federal Radiological Emergency Response Capabilit.f" (hereinaf ter " undated MOU").
s CRS-2 The dated MOU (see footnote 2) would. delegate to DOE the claimed authority of FEMA to participate in --
(1) command and control... functions'in connection with the Shoreham Of fsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan; and (2) any other emergency response functions exercised or reasonably exercisable by governmental entities..., as may be mutually agreeable to LILCO and DOE.3/
4/
Authorities cited for such functions are Executive Order No. 12148 and an
~
unspecified executive order apparently still to be signed b'y the President.
Not possessing a copy of the unsigned executive order, we comment below only on Executive Order 12148.
Executive Order 12148 enlarges FEMA authority through transfers of existing federal-agency functions, creation of new authorities, and delegations of presidential authority. We have reviewed all provisions creating new autho-rities, and'those transfers and delegations most likely to contain authority for direct participation of agency personnel in co= mand-and-control linked to a commercial nuclear powerplant emergency.
No clear authority for the afore-mentioned command-and-control emerges from this qualified review.
It is unlikely that any TEMA claim of command-and-control authority would be sustained by a court in the absence of unequivocal statutory grant.
An example of an equivocal authority. for command-and-control in Exec-utive Order 12148 is the authority vested by the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, delegated to FEMA by section 4-103(a) of the Order. That Act authorizes the Federal Civil Defense Administration to --
3/ Dated MOU at 3.
'4/ 44 Fed. Reg 43239 (July 24, 1979).
Amendments to Exec. Order 12148; not pertinent here, were made by Exec. Orders 12155, 44 Fed. Reg. 53071 (Sept. 12, 1979) and L2156, 44 Fed. Reg. 53073 (Sept. 12, 1979). The as-amended version can be found at 50 U.S.C. App. 5 2251 note.
s
~
l CRS-3
~~
5/
prepare national plans and p'rograms for the civil defense
~
of the United States... ; sponsor and direct such plans and-programs....
The better argument would seem to be that the directing authorized above refers to administrative direction, not to assumption of local-government command-and-control duties. A court would be unlikely to infer congressional authorization of such a substantial federal intrusion into a traditional arena of state authority without the clearest of statutory indications.
The undated MOU is not entirely clear as to whether it seeks to delegate FEMA command-and-control authority to DOE or whether it contemplates FEMA's invoking, in the event of a radiological emergency, authorities already vested in DOE.
One sentence in the MOU strongly suggests the latter:
Whenever FEMA... determines that... the Federal government capability residing with DOE can and should be utilized, FEMA vill advise DOE of its determination to implement this MOU, 6/
Other discussion of authority in the MOU can be read to support the authori-ties-already-vested-in-DOE interpretation.
For example, the MOU states --
. The assignment effected by this Me=orandum of Under-standing between FEMA and DOE is in furtherance of Section 2-202 of Executive Order 12148 and paragraph 6 of the FEMA-NRC Memorandum of-Understanding.
7/
The " assignment" would appear to be the act of' assigning emergency functions among federal agencies acting under their own statutes.
If so, the
. question of interest is whether DOE can find authority for the assumption of 5/ " Civil defense" is defined in the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 5 2252(c), to include the evacuation of personnel, and the control of traffic and panic.
6/ Undated MOU at 6-7 (emphasis added).
7/ Undated MOU at 4.
The reference to "the FEMA-NRC Memorandum of Un' erstand-d ing" appears to mean the MOU noted at page 2 of the undated MOU, cited to 45 Fed. Reg. 82713. The MOU at 45 Fed. Reg. 82713, however, deals only with planning matters.
So, " paragraph 6 of the FEMA-NRC Memorandum of Understanding" would seem to have no application to any ce= mand-and-control responsibilities of DOE.
1 I
e CRS-4 command-and-control powers pursuant to its 'o'wn statutory authority, rather than that of FEMA.
None of the DOE authorities cited in the undated MOU support an exercise of co==and-and-control authority by DOE personnel during a civilian 8/
nuclear powerplant emergency.
For example, Atomic Energy Act 5 31 cited by
~
the MOU allows DOE to provide for only R&D activities.
Section 33 of that 9/
- Act, cited by the MOU, is similarly confined to R&D, training, and studies.
The Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan, also cited, declares that 10/
"[n]o new authorities are provided by this plan."
"~'
In addition to the two draf t MOUs, 'we note a document entitled 1
" Pre-decisional Executive Summary of Issues on Exercise at Shoreham," prepared.
11/
~~~
by FEMA.
In sharp contrast with the draft MOUs, this document concedes the existence of " questions that arise regarding the legal authority for both Federal (sic) and LILCO to conduct of f-site emergency operations in the case of an actual crisis...."
No co==ent is made to elucidate this shift in position.
The document further asserts that FEMA does have authority to precare a plan for emergency federal response at Shoreham and undertake an exercise of such plan, though no specifics as to this ' authority are set forth.
Preparation and exercise of a plan reportedly involve no command-and-control activity, so the doubts expressed above as to the existence of legal authority for actual occur-rences cannot necessarily be extended to these preliminary phases. Nonetheless, 8/ 42 U.S.C. 5 2051.
9,/ 42 U.S.C. 5 2053.
10/ 49 Fed. Reg. 3578, 3580 (January, 27, 1984) (draft Plan). The MOU appears to envision that this draft Plan will have been issued as a final. document by the time the MOU taker ef fect.
11,/ Attachment, letter fro = Samuel Speck, FEMA, to Willia = Dircks, NRC, dated April 26, 1984.
?.
~
CRS-5 it seems anomalous that FEMA should assert authority for the expendit ure of substantial funds to prepare / exercise a plan the agency is unsure it e= powered to carry out in the event of an actual nuclear emergency b}
Robert M tz Legislative Attorney American Law Division s
e e
me j
- .., ?
~
)
I 8 l ' '.
i
,f. raL.i>g y
g q[
. t
!* 3'll o 'e d.!
v{49 qj
_s ant he u t
- a. ~
,e royt s
oh ot cn V.<
'.V
'p i' g
I
.wi me r
t r n r
s t
f omd el o
i kp..
pp tdan n
I
. a n M
a f
eui ul o nent wa e s Y
- J 8
p o
s t
pi aguamt r
esqc 9
m s
afhgc e 'y g roca uys 1
,]%%*s L
6 Q).
n e td
's
.8 h.
.?
nl ma hc e
t
,p'-
4p.
-[
T) po i
t nc n u ci da a k
t nnm eMtnaya t ga f
t en 4{
.I QF n
hen i se a i
y negm m
l o w h
r t
1 kW.*%Ca,.,
h n
e ct pulf l ai oet o eyal Y
ro N.
t s
f t el cae J
eC s nb n
dhl i
t r A
J.,lM %r"' y, q. *p'. '
e.d., [' $.
J.
my' t
e%. m^
7" se et a lhan t
,N
e e
u ni v ". s d e f
l u
r gs c
ni ui v e r I
b h
r t
l n eie l e wv a p
ide" i e yised" ohan j \\g eo
, O. v, b n c
b l t mdserh c n a F s. a, e l W
d]
- l l..
2 Y,
tl 4a Y,
1 a
ai sEerncut n ec ues p
A u
sae t
gt,
tpg ye pe nl g m yi robeyy
. E D
n il ee dhsx ut r eeocdctnn s
a M
ar c
I 43.&,g>%h.A. ?a
- t*
t) e u
h cR ut o/so etklidn ee R
i c
l ar t rt i ymt e
b'..
r m o 'gd g e
o F
soyryres ao b',.
f nr n a e
c acr aMf"I wa e e*
A
/-
.p e
h "u g r g r
l t
al npn a e pm' S,
i" se ee c eirsli a ed e-an.al l
f c se 3
ou H
\\
ol Mor hnf-o A pa t c nN t
i)-
pd
,t M
u ti o d
ee i,g,. ~
4. d *,
s eo I
r r hg yyt q
mh eoht
.b e cn bc rm0 td T
K Vn
'b,.
ei] ',
'p t
p dct ddu ui n ao0, eioFs v lom rt e la e pC 0
- oa ivd ad e ig sge 0
f.
p eo y5 vr lh g e s shf oADr$
N
,/
.j 3-at e eit o w p
o ef U
3 de tni nton i
Y
-g/p '
ot yt me' ctd a
ii,l nl rnga r yv es o o perl o edaici y@l 3
rd h n ur.
t d
e hio amengfse W
e T. l 2
er s a pt n i
h_
,a%
$./g.gl@9 r
st c ph h s u pc yd m i oeEe c
ipo e
[,1/
e l
g Rt -
s tI r
M s
I' ag ct aamuseyiat s a u-3 l
n Psaturll u r
e
.e n e r b r.
V hai.
n
,i
- /
h'7'. j 't I
lpi st o et osr t er.
. d.
i er t
j, t
e i n e s s w a e i c M
,l t
cn i_
- % r'/
r hrr y u o n, ra oohe e o
.'t t
r-
,S oyc u
t r t
t r~ Fc t
4' # #/.j. t, gg we thd h r 's hs i
.2. ~ #ny!.ag,)
, /i et icnNc f
l
?, s, y op tat s
ueet o
s ueeh,oic unneeht g
't po saci r
rl el nc!t, t' c c n a y e gh c
\\
~
d, l
ha en! y ae stdrgat a0
~
ni eg" f7 y- #
, ~ ~
F!
aueedc0
\\
a u
= E~ a==s r
=
a gd e i nn gd " t 0
g n n cf t
e
,ht
. N 4,=== E
.t L o nhao0 e
f a ast s 0
/.-
f-t t
A.Qf r
ca ul ma a0h r
f emheE u
ti 7
]
'b.
ns$
a Bd io nMt aw l
x t
Di ne n
n s
aa&.W; s
l eI e aei v
ewu cI art ur oh' hnmmt
\\
s s
u mi o
H: e)ua 13' n
e r
f e pt tI a!
tnt
,i ki i
a c gg eoe s
I-z.
h e nn M
']h, '
e cr ind ive ac n
et h
g r
i ct r r
nrc e wa er ee aat a
X'.:~E:)t= a '. m ]?
5ty
,f l
on nn rl s ll momp r
s,
ma Sc ha au eb g a, c E c t d 'ol t
?.,
i s
t wq 1,e-j*.W*"
o Sa!n e zmdautry l
- 1. E s{
M' t
pr rl l
et hia!
Ah a po m e
b t
r h n yu c vma lt hecin
- i't t
ni%"
- f. pj+. -g,
[*
me rn ecI e a
c r
lb a
t
/
s fl n
aaie s
h.
u =M:na" yds c e op e
e sd M 'e t
a c edk gd syt r i h n yi n a t c oh ea Rn
.y evt grn ar egc t
pf oi q-ot m
esl brd l'
l o e eet e Angmd r e s
a l
gs a g
oo n
n a et s e et
. z., MesW'-
tnb inl n
rs R l r Eao m "'-
Uu t t a
% i.W""~MwI hon u
rf ga ingi o
ng ycne e e
sa e
ly' b.a etmhw ml r
e t' t p ss ol o
t a
eiC
}i^
.e o a '-
m cd gr rt n
s gh e c m'H
~
I t's '
{,
r1i ne ia ga0 yenat h'
n psd dro ni ir tsl aM' e
i wtw "e n I ra ai sm o
o u
e c nr e uesa W~
mq v u Coe s hiMdoh s' e e n ns enbu tst s
v I
ah e n d yleht i
e~
iereTamn l
1 h
r hi cv rmi' I
e r
t md i
t.
eor et Trwnoe r i 'm imf e
s l
a e pv tf a el r
l y'n. -
o v i
o yl gsof y
haa a xh sl f
se,..
i leegysad l a a
c a u esct s ru eeo t
ei a
S
.t odacoh ep tacf vS boiohhn n ekse et grg.
t. - -.
i ay f ecl nlS r nra e
i r h
nan v s e.Jtu tif i
I e r a
.s r
r evut o g e ai taf t t r
tcg pb r l u c.
g m
z h
e o D c F e n "yd ci e
.i e i o e r t
rsh Se r ea a l
I mrm l
nCrl t
iDe dem g
r Li eat xt o
t an e euyse ef ma nucc g
rs rh ve nmt e mwl d e gi ti r
i,i s u u l nsaum y
c pgtnnd t
es o e n n ni a oawha c
A rha ard Et t
i a
te dnms cdoe i a a e uosn y al ncd ani rmc Cwdce t
r A u Ws tho e il ct ia nba rt n ada 1 oectd nu l Ro au e t
h u ch e ir n u
- l. ac irl e
r o
c F r,h a ail e l
a ol l
s u
ckho ab t
o sA f
c e,E s t
o ecf s ph r
r c aMn e
pf ie 1
L c wrna aq a oe S
oyt et n
f s
h i
ou s r
amhar s
e ay n o t
ea<
r rh e
gspi o
ech ah ic pctohaitney r s s
e iao eaeewt e s
t gy ycv e
i e Wa oS e
d t
h yd l r f
s r
l sn a ai nb n b,i i M t csc r
eyx t
t CfS ch Ess eaw Fce r
o vu rS e
is t
t f
t t tl vt o
ae si e
ebl yr e s gd u
ii insbv o
cethco n n
.l,e raf n t
>n i n sh y nicN hkc u c gnni r a d i i yi yet oi t
nt ip c e l
rt e
c ut mla P nlyr s amn neae tshe i rr t
t c
c t
i sl r c d Sn r
e T e ggd e
b glytnaEe n
l eit u
et yna gh Nt nce r
u e m aahBuYp g gamanle aol sj s aa el t a I h inoc t,Ar ad f wt g pl e
ri cdic yl p psb oku al yC c o "n H c
f d
ht epe ooyr lopnt. owr eic r
n ndu c as oeo f
ae A a Mhier p
t n r
o m c po o c
yh t pr e I
a nccec e n etnm e c m nd e o mf her n sae n ell t r
o e,rpe e
a a a M N U. tS. L t
h eR m n y y n's l ve.
f o
u e a n e c i vy vo oNt cmo nh mi u
a gh el Eo m d u gmliet e cmf d
s e a yei ahl a
t dn n t
D lshtl issmc afh o
.cse yD m st oge dn u
n t
r t
t g oi t o e ot yf esmRb o
aiicdt ea i
e a c gh e i d ni I
S
.~
rcsme a, ep ygodt sa aCr i
r i s d a. ng u i.n pnh s
cn hest vth
,i rn n
i e
Aben. ice 1 anlk D ph t t ern s
ec n e a eI raf
,o nS d ya
%mhcofo e m :. n thni
- i. g oil s t oh a s e
cs cl eeh s
uag rh s.
e w n nu c e
n nlsm Mio t
,1
'at pct s e a i n % m, t s
l a
k c a
i nf.Dshh
. cSlCs plo*
' gego o1.
s i
el i oip1hl r
e ad
~ Avt hl i i u n ss aat pd e isqMa i
)!
e%
C5 01 M
- Io rc, gag ag.
ME CUESTE A'S M AILING. DOR ES$
u.s. NUCLEAR mEGULATORY cCMM6SSION.
r,o== see v..s.
nc.sve FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
. R EQUEST
" E T W "" g# "o'D" * ' T' n.rt u
] was no vs.orie.fie.e e. ens av. nase i MESSAGE to r.cos.esLa eno n s wwusa m se.a.s.No one. mis.,sose 7g_
k 55 W
1 i
..e................
s.v..e
] ves
] no MESSAGE PROM van,ric. vion,skseMons quassam PAceime6s anons Nu.sess m.na s l es6sen.ma me. w1en.epu s o t.,,e e m...)
Low.spuso (
).k b= =J f77/3
. u..... s
.u.....
_7,,,7,,
..i..
i-.....
',?
$l;%..
kh5)eo
/'V-2%
?.'
~
reacEosuce l.v s...,
l l u.
u..
I 1,we wou=.
I le== nova l
Ie-us..es
...si.u.. v.u s,i o.
TIME /D ATE (5temej
'"*"8'"'TT88 messevse e
O
.El
,o M
9
=
~ C2
- a sT
- a SE j
re;
=a
- ,=
s a
g
o es. ci s:
15:19 rc.009 ce2 i
l Question:.
In these circumstances, what justification is there for waiving the energency preparedness requirements applicable to full power operation?
Answer:
The Comission has previously determined that no NRC or FEMA review, findings, or determinations concerning the state of offsite emergency preparedness are required prior to the issuance of an operating license authorizing only fuel loading and/or low power operations (up to 5% of the rated power). This determination was reaffirmed by the Comission course of the full power proceeding (y the ASLB during the in response to a question certified badd citation by ELD).
The applicant has not requested nor has the NRC staff proposed that any existing emergency planning requirements applicable to either low power or full power operation be waived. Insofar as the Comission's question seeks the staff's views on whether the circumstances at Shoreham raise doubts regarding the Comission's earlier justification for adoption of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(d) that permit the issuance of operating licenses for low-power operation in the absence of a finding concerning the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness, the staff has reviewed the continued appropriatness of the technical bases provided in the Supplementary Information that was published with the pertinent amendments (47 FR 30232, Comission Response to Issue 2).
Based on the technical justification contained in 47 FR 30232, and the information presented by the staff in response to Question (1), the staff concludes that the level of public protection during low power operation at Shoreham supports a finding that the risks associated with low power operation are significantly reduced compared with those at full power, and that the circumstances at Shoreham do not contradict the bases for the Comission's present requirements regarding the extent of the emergency preparedness findings that must be made preceeding the issuance of license authorizing only fuel handling and/or low power operation.
. ~
8 M
q oom i
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP J/2T/7'f 70: {Name. ofHee symbol, room number, initials Date e % Agency /
ff W / (
1.
W
/
1 CC 3.
N: b34 hOct ee/tP 4.
V Gy S.
Action File Note and Retum Approval For Clearance Por Conversation As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Information See Me Comment Investigste Signature Coordination Justify n MARX.
R A 1%.Lpf %, fm
& 34 W y AERP Nm W /
7 G N 4 c. 4 h b 2 /4 c v,
.eG4L It/2I/73, -9C' L J A*~ W.
q 4,G4H MA i
- g sw 3 ; J
- 3,. % 4 4
~ g fa w/ /L-3 L d u-a ki 4 A G,
DO NOT use this form as e R CORD of approwels, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM: Name, org. symbol Agency / Post, Room No.
Idg.
k M
wLLA f Mwa & EP.k.
h sost-set OPDONAL FOftM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
"II "
.cro i sist o - *=1-52s (10 1
/
md
L_OYP4m F4m4 Sm. y cruo AP o
- a. PJ OMn)
!?ELULUTfar/ DIFF1cacT
- 1.,s. Q...vi>u M.i,i '.e.v'.h
.IU W d/',/<1if
~
r
.,. w.
op $ w LG -c d b :9 ), f w.';b,L o i G
& Q ( t>a g
u Q~.ty..;f.'Gj-(h),.aAy'p&(nyMgA.s.)
rl mO wf yk EPz.
s q., a 64.3yc.dg' JL L %, &o.o,
Il ED WTI O d R&LAT/v'ELY EAS _
b'aLJ4 (z b LL) n Od J, /ubt in W g, u# 9.Lg:),w k : u - c. a e q u A ( :. n. 4 q
-;L
>,nt k..L naigs.:(,/ a ~ a.1, n X T aJ 3.u. x..
v.w,, ;i %>. f,.i.7./dwd//./
$j'i,b, 4 -'l w a a a r!;.a i i L6SGL TmPL/MRM5 cW Ab69Mi TEIT5rt.5 t
~
,. 0 32 e,.s.ab :.
.r.. :
j~&,, A.k Q. L/ /.
b; /> 5 '. L : s. i,
. i. LIV.
Wp..v.
y;,h Zim yf.yf oA L-w
(
e
/
/W
~ h M $.'~,.: l
,. w ivk W 5, !i
,,,lJ.1a > p Af,-
$+!
., n.s >
- n. L &,,. 0 e c :
1%.
A.a : 4 L.4bf.a s~-hy.h3.. :( /.8 33
_O d 4 l'A.,
af 6'y,. u,
chemc co
-s 3 3g 1.-
u m ap
+ auo a p pk % 6.
4 s $L y?). 1 4~ m,s - % + ttMu m A y & a s xt A
->/b>Ne. ~ : -l l1.u?g.,,,,.Z s'
YOu -
S Y'E
}&~
dL jf,,.g
/). / s..
d'9 e
- o. l.s
/
fl, I, b.
/&
- 9. c
/
/1,/. c v'
t
- 9. m d
/'
- h. l. A f, 5
/
V A.2. b V${h(c)(i)l A.5
<^*'sl
/'
C. I,c
.h - :.u.
1 0*V,)
f f,5 b
El, c.
v'I l'
?,83 V
085 $$A ldAl4&
19 V
f d k &..;; 4/4,t k
.?.t l0 V
To ?-
i V
fl. l. d W/v1. rap up-phis< d
- bE
$<9 v'
. C. I. a.
it
~
- 7. /0,6
/
g, s ees 3.11, c.
/
E.'o A NS d yd wY 7, t c. /.
/
E3
/
l
/
i7
- u. 0. !=
v-f Cr. 3. a.
, W w,w k
' @d &q
(
H. 4
$0.v ' 3 E.8 V
l%,'s.
- j; 5.II
~5.10. s P t' 7,i2 v' l J.10, c
- N~ #%fM" l
Z. I2b KLyQ K. 3.a.
'/
w&L K,5. x
/
- 3. !?. 3 l
X. 5. o V
H. I.a.
4 2146 L.I
/*
y,1, b QW Ug
- l., 3 H} % P. 5 -
p
/h, /
/'
p1, f
/'
A l
4
t
&O g %.
0/L ; p.1tiLi a ox M f-os w ao D Q w J%ZF_
b M.Ffe W & M
/
w j
J >f2 a M,
%/hs,kO. r, F6m y, d
,A 9 a
wh L J
- r d &,"
y y' wW tG,wK, Lw,p#L fo2L '; qa y:
w D fd Wa Fenn 4 6 LIL c 9 J M,lIL C0 4 4 FentA ;, f =D &,,Jd~4 Y 8
&O &
hXs-6 w.~ M k W O 15,/fn, u Hs E Te~/A%c 27 m
4, M
N D y x st m a aez/y; J q &a,yM
,+-g saa po an
&Q Wnw y
i J d&%
,G Te a i !A s $eNu,-
u i
)
3
(
1 Av
- l es -
3 a
3 FEM D % % 6 i s % >r a rn
>/'
La LyJ.m%'t.' - - A G j,A, udt.$ ?
SWA' isAaaR.
usu p,* p + a,n a s - 4 m gm
h9 r
,f R
s!i!b!!!I!!rlI!i1 8
.n
.l!
e,kh !ll fl f
j' @
l!!!f0
!i l3 jli!i!!
i $l !!!!
1-
- ww
$!!!!Oi$!$!p$k 1
~
'T 11
~
~
- ~ " =
.r gw _xo =
umu.
c =
= = =
~ M"
- *' %*~
~""
'=
m':l'll:':'**
ll".".' C '"^
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
- u. ===
=a':
T:l'l %
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
=ca
y*S M *"."
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESen ATNES d h* "a O ' %""""g h E"',,",",*m"*,,,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 21516
."' M.,.".s's.m Lean.A.ms =r.
,m. gv m
'"'.'c."o'.* O m" t
'1l':* 21':ll""."'"
==
lll'L"" 'A^.#
TO:
is K. Udall, Chairman Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs RE:
Emergency Preparedness FROM:
ard J. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on oversight and Investigations DATE:
March 23, 1984 As you know, the Senate is apparently considering the appropriateness of federal implementation of offsite emergency plans for commercial nuclear reactors during radiological emergencies.
Recently, Senator Alan K. Simpson, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Environ-ment and Public Works Committee, proposed conferring the traditional governmental roles of state and local authorities 4
upon a federal surrogate in circumstances where those authori-ties have declined to participate in the radiological emergency planning and preparedness process.
If enacted, such "last resort federal response" legislation would mark a significant, and I think a regressive, departure from the post-Three Mile Island (TMI) emergency preparedness philosophy and practice.
During the Subcommittee's investigation of emergency preparedness, similar proposals have been discussed, but none have appeared workable or desirable.
Significantly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has stated its opposition to the last resort federal response proposal citing its informed belief that the federal government could not provide reasonable assurance of protecting the public health and safety.
Similarly, several Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have stated that protecting the public would be difficult, if not impossible, without the active participation of either a state or local government.
_,___._.._._._____..___m..
Morris K. Udall March 23,1984 Page Two Beyond the important concern of whether federal " pinch-hitters" could adequately assure public health and safety, there is the question of what circumstances would justify federal pre-emption of the responsibility and authority normally assigned to state and local governments.
In support of federal stand-ins, Senator Simpson has pointed to the controversy surrounding the licensing of the Shoreham nucleat reactor on Long Island.
It is Senator Simpson's apparent position that this particular case and the financial hardships of the nuclear power industry in general, justify a fundamental change in the federal, state and local government relationship that has governed emergency planning efforts since TMI.
I (irmly disagree.
I do not think there is the need for last resort federal response legislation.
Clearly, passage of such " private legislation"--on behalf of one nuclear utility--would be inappropriate in the context of the authorization process.
At the same time, the impact of such legislation could short-circuit existing planning efforts at other reactor sites.
No doubt other states will question why they should expand resources on emergency preparedness if the federal government is offering bail-outs.
Finally, it is apparent from the record compiled by the Subcommittee, that the perceived economic needs of the nuclear industry, or any particular utility, are not and should not be the controlling factor in analyzing whether an entity other than a state or local government should step into the traditional role of exercising governmental powers in a particular political subdivision or region.
The compelling question is not
{
whether a utility wants or needs a federal surrogate, but, rather, can a federal substitute perform the tasks necessary to effectively protect the public health and safety.
This, I believe, is dubious.
To help facilitate your review of this matter, my staff and I have prepared the following analysis based on the record of the Subcammittee's three oversight hearings and other investigative efforts.
8
LAST RESORT FEDERAL RESPONSE The "last resort federal response" concept, proposed by Senator Alan K. Simpson, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in a February 21, 1984, letter to ranking minority member George J. Mitchell, would fundamentally alter current emergency
- planning philosophv and practice.
Senator Simpson has furthered the idea of a last resort federal response as a solution to the ongoing emergency planning controversy at Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) proposed Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
In this case, Suffolk County has chosen not to develop or implement an emergency plan af ter concluding it would be impossible to adequately protect the public if there were a major accident at Shoreham. New York State has decided not to impose a state emergency plan on the county and has intervened in the licensing process and has filed a lawsuit in State Court (as has Suffolk County) to prevent LILCO from implementing an exclusively utility developed emergency plan.
While Section 5 of Public Law 97-415, the 1982/83 NRC Authorization Act, does provide for the development of utility emergency plans, it does not delegate governmental authority for utility implementation of such plans.
LILCO has developed an emergency plan that the company and its employees would implement.
But the police powers necessary to execute an emergency response plan are not conferred upon LILCO by Section 5.
As the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service has concluded in a recent legal analysis prepared for the Sub-committee:
It is most improbable that the delegation of uniquely governmental power to a private entity would be inferred from Section 5, for numerous reasons.
Most obviously, there is no express statement of delegation.
Nor is such a delegation a necessary implication of Section 5....Nor do pertinent committee reports offer any clear support for a delegation argument.
- Finally, it is unlikely that a court would infer such delegation to a private entity without the clearest of textual indications that such was Congress' intent.
As you may recall, the possibility of federalizing emergency preparedness responsibilities wa s specifically addressed by the Senate in its 1979 deliberations.
Senator Simpson, along with Senator Gary Hart, then-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, opposed and defeated an amendment relating to this issue.
And, as CRS has noted, it is apparent that specific Congressiona* intent has not been subsequently expressed.
It is worth noting in this context that LILCO apparently believes that it has the authority to implement an emergency 6
response plan.
However, the legal rationale offered by the company is suspect.
LILCO has maintained that neither federal or state law " prevents" the company from performing governmental tasks during a radiological emergency.
Moreover, as discussed in another legal report prepared for the Subcommittee by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, this is not a correct formulation of the authority question:
it is inappropriate to ask what prevents LILCO from unilaterally assuming these powers; rather, the question is what allows LILCO to do so.
It is axiomatic that a nongovernmental entity has no authority to exercise governmental powers in the absence of clear legislative authorization to that effect.
Research reveals no cannon law or other legal doctrine under which the existence of a civil emergency such as a major nuclear accident could be argued to create an exception to this authorization requirement.
t In light of the need for affirmative authorization, t
the "What prevents us?" approach taken by LILCO i
in its Transition Plan seems misdirected.
Moreover, the federal and state law provisions held out by LILCO as conferring some affirmative authority contain little more than indirect suggestion to that effect.
FEMA's February 10, 1984, Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) review of the LILCO Transition Plan appears to support this view.
Of 32 deficiencies identified by FEMA in the LILCO plan, 24 are. attributable to FEMA's apparent view that LILCO does not have the legal authority necessary to implement an emergency response plan.
The last resort federal response concept is totally incon-sistent with the lessons learned from the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island (TMI).
Indeed, the post-TMI emergency planning regulations authorized by Congress and promulgated in rulemaking by the Nucidar Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are virtually dependent upon state and local government implementation.
~
Of the 212 criteria set forth by NRC and FEMA for evaluating emergency plans, 169 are applicable to state governments and 96 are applicable to local governments (See NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants").
These criteris were established because subsequent to the TMI accident it was universally recognized that emergency.
+
e
y._
,_.r_.,,
___.._._-...___,_,,____,._..,,._,__,..y.
.,,-,.m
,___,__g,
_,.,____,,._-,_.,__._.,_,_7_.m,_.
plans could only protect the public if local and state govern-ments were integrally involved.
For example, the NRC's own investigation into the TMI accident, the Special Inquiry Group's "Rogovin Report", concluded:
The principle planning responsibility for pro-tactive action including evacuation lies with the state, with FEMA's assistance.
- However,
{
the ability to carry out an evacuation plan in l
the area of a nuclear plant depends much more on the existence of adequate county and local emergency plans that on a FEMA-approved cr NRC-approvad state plan.
We believe that too little attention has been devoted to this aspect of emergency planning....the county and local levels are where the action is and where the specific details of the plan must be worked out.
More recently, at Senator Simpson's April 6, 1983, hearing, four NRC Commissioners, including the Chairman, expressed grave resarvations about whether any emergency plan that did not include state or local participation could adequately protect the public.
Similarly, FEMA Associate Director, Richard W. Krimm, testified before the Subcommittee on April 8, 1983, that:
...you can have the most beautiful plan in the world but unless that plan can be exercised and a local government can be adequately prepared, it is not going to be able to respond in an emergency.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) expressed similar concerns at the Subcommittee's August 2, 1983, hearing.
While these statements certainly appear to condemn the concept of a last resort federal response, it should be noted that they were originally made in the context of consideration of an exclusively designed and implemented utility emergency plan.
Because of the consensus of opinion recognizing the necessity of local emergency response that emerged after TMI, there is relatively little literature on the question of federal implementation.
There are, however, two documents that are particularl worthy of note.
First, is a June 6., 1983, letter from FEMA Director Louis O.
Giuffrida to Westchester County Executive Andrew P. O'Rourke.
In his letter, Director Giuffrida firmly rejected a proposal that a unit of the military be trained to respond to local radiological emergencies in general and at the Indian Point i
reactor site specifically.
FEMA. stated that it had no expertise in this area and that the powers necessary to accomplish such a task "... rightfully reside with the state and local governments."
i i 1
I n
1 I
Most significantly, however, Director Giuffrida stated his view that there would be " practical problems" with any possible federal implementation:
First, evacuation planning is site-specific in nature, taking into consideration local road networks, traffic flows, etc.
Local personnel would, of necessity, be better trained and most knowledgeable in the command and control of the evacuation of an area they know.
It is unlikely that a core group' of Federal personnel could ever become thoroughly knowledgeable of the site-specific evacuation planning requirements for the 53 nuclear reactor sites licensed to operate and the 33 potential sites.
Finally,... mobilization of Federal resources in a timely fashion to direct and control an evacuation is questionable particularly in a fast-developing accident.
This letter, in effect, represents a policy statement by FEMA that federal implementation of emergency respense could probably not offer reasonable assurance that public health and safety would be protected, l
Second, there is an even more recent and definitive state-ment on the issue by FEMA, the nation's " experts" on emergency preparedness.
In response to the National Governors' Association (NGA) endorsement of the last resort federal response concept, Director Giuffrida wrote the following rebuttal in a December 28, 1983, letter to Governor John V.
l Subcommittee on Nuclear Power:
Evans, Chairman of the NGA's FEMA does not support the idea that the Federal government should be empowered as the "last resort" to develop a plan even if all other responsible entities fail to do so.
The role of the Federal government is to enhance, not supplant, State and local government capabilities to prepare for and respond to radiological and other types of emergencies.
In striving to accomplish its preparedness mission, FEMA coordinates the efforts of other Federal agencies to provide assistance relating to these emergencies.
For example, FEMA and the other Federal agencies comprising the Regional Assistance Committees provide guidance and expertise to State and local governments in developing radiological emergency preparedness (REP) plans.
This assistance does not include Federal government preparation of REP plans for ;
l
..--..,,..,.,,n-,.,.w..,--
^
a 1
the following reasons.
First, since the REP plans are site specific, State and local government authorities have the requisite knowledge of the environs of the nuclear power plant to more effectively and accurately tailor these plans to local conditions.
- Second, the Federal government is not in a position, in terms of policy, authority, or resources to assume the responsibilities of State and local governments for protecting the health and safety of citizens in the event of an accident at a commercial nuclear power facility.
It is worth noting in this context that while Senator Simpson cites the NGA position to support his initiative, he i
is apparently unaware that it has been specifically and emphatically rejerted by FEMA.
The paramount concern stated by FEMA in these two letters, is that it is unlikely that a federal response could offer sufficient protection to the public in the event of a radiological emergency.
Even if a federal response were feasible in general, however, it could be argued that since Shoreham is unquestionably.
one of the mosr difficult sites to plan for in terms of 1ccal conditions (i.e., demography, geography, meteorology and road networks) that it would be especially difficult to develop an adequate federal response effort in this particular case.
there has been some discussion of whether the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) could in some way provide a basis for licensing Shoreham in the absence of an 4
otherwise inadequate utility emergency plan.
This suggestion, however, ignores the fact that the purpose of FRERP is only to support the emergency response activities of state and local governments during an actual emergency.
It is not designed or inrended to replace local emergency response efforts.
Its substitution could not realistically accomplish these tasks in a manner consistent with public health and safety.
With regard to the wording of the proposal itself, the last resort, federal response initiative drafted by Senator Simpson lacks specificity.
Its language is imprecise and vague.
For example, the relevant section of the proposal reads:
In the event that the Commission is unable to determine that a state or local government will bnplement a plan that the Commission has determined would otherwise provide reasonable assurance that public health and safety will not be endangered by operation of the facility concerned, the President is authorized to perform those governmental functions necessary for, and shall, as he deems appropriate, participate or assist in, the implementation of such plan..
3.
It is not apparent from this delegation what a federal response would actually look like, whether it would require advance planning and testing to assure its adequacy, or whether it would be practical.
There would be hundreds of goverrmental personnel involved in an actual emergency response operation.
Key tasks requiring legal authority include:
directing traffic; controlling egress and ingress of offsite personnel; declaration of a state of emergency; coordination with continuous state and local governments; alerting and notifying the public and making recommendations for taking protective action; and, backing orders with coercive force, etc.
However, the draft wording sets no minimum standards or limits on any federal response effort.
This would leave open the possibility that only a handful of federal personnel would be involved and that police powers and governmental functions normally performed only by state and local governments would be assigned to private utility employees in an ad hoc fashion without any clear delegation of legal authority Teat the proposal does
~~
not require advance planning and testing is of particular concern, because it would appear that the federal role would only be determined during an actual emergency.
As many high consequence accident scenarios are fast-breaking in nature, and would require an intimate knowledge of local conditions, it is extremely doubtful that any federal response could provide reasonable assurance that public health and safety would be protected.
In his call for legislation providing for federal implementation of emergency response plans in situations where state and local governments choose not to, Senator Simpson repeatedly emphasizes the economic need for changing the regulatory framework and fundamentally altering the relationships between the federal government and various segments of state and local governments.
Financial considerations appear to be the foundation 1
of Senator Simpson's belief that legislation is necessary.
In his February 21, 1984, letter to Senator Mitchell, Senator Simpson writes, "... billions of dollars in investments are now in jeopardy" and "the uncertainty over who will implement the amargency plan l
at Shoreham has had tremendous adverse financial consequences 4
for the company."
Senator Simpson states further, "...aside from
^
Shoreham, it is essential...that we act promptly to stem the rising tide of investor wariness over the emergency planning issue, so that we avoid any future problems of this magnitude."
These statements are troubling because they do not provide a sufficient or compelling rationale for Congress to relax the f
existing standard (i.e., local readiness) of emergency preparedness.
i While it is always difficult to balance safety and economic con-l siderations in regulatory matters, FEMA's unequivocal statements I
as to the apparent inability of a federal response plan to adequately i
assure public health and safety do not provide a context for which financial considerations should play a deciding role.
1 9
,.,,.,_.,m., _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _,.
Further, because Shoreham is the exception rather than the rule--as' Senator Simpson has aptly pointed out--the peculiar circumstances of this particular case cannot justify national legislation.
Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude that a last resort federal response legislative proposal will be viewed as private legislation specifically tailored to permit the licensing and operation of one plant.
As such, it is clearly inappropriate that such legislation would be considered in the context of the authorization or appropriation process This is not to suggest, however, that last resort federal response legislation would not have any national ramifications.
To be sure, a significant consideration should be whether it would act as a disincentive for state and local participation in emergency response planning in other cases.
For exampic, states and local governments may question why they should allocate the resources necessary for emergency response planning if it 1.s perceived that the federal government is offering ball-outs.
Ironically, passage of last resort federal response legislation might lead to more "Shorehams".
In closing, it should be recalled that the situation at Shoreham, while unique, was not unforseen by the post-TMI emergency planning rulemaking process.
In concluding that emergency preparedness was absolutely " essential" to the safe operation of nuclear reactors, the NRC formally acknowledged the possibility that a situation such as Shoreham could arise:
The Ccmmission recognizes there is a possibility that the operation of some reactors might be affected by i
this rule through inaction of State and local govern-ments or an inability to comply with these rules.
(45 FR 55404, August 19, 1980)
In this particular case, Suffolk County's unwillingness to participate in the planning and preparedness process is driven
{
by their belief--which was based on extensive study and public hearings--that it is impossible to adequately protect the health and safety of the public.
A comment similar to the NRC's was made by GAO in its 1979 Report to Congress, " Areas Around Nuclear Facilities Should be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies."
GAO had recommended that the granting of an operating license be made contingent upon a workable emergency response plan.
In response to criticism that this recommendation would provide opponents of nuclear power with a mechanism for shutting down plants, GAO concluded:
public health and safety must be the primary consideration rather than whether this will provide intervenors with a means of preventing the operation of nuclear powerplants.
A carefully
._,3----___-.
i prepared and viable emergency plan should be able to withstand detailed scrutiny on its own merits.
Both Congress and the NRC agreed with GAO.
Congressional authorization and NRC rulemaking - subsequently made adequate and approved emergency response plans a prerequisite to obtaining a nuclear reactor operating license.
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, I am opposed to the proposition of enacting legislation that would provide for federal government implementation of emergency plans as a last resort in circumstances I
where state and local authorities choose not to do so.
This opinion is grounded on my firm belief that a federal response to a local radiological emergency could not offer reasonable assurance that public health and safety will be protected.
The need for this legislation simply does not exist and passage of it might actually hurt existing planning efforts.
1 i
e d
1
[ y J Federal Ernergency Managernent Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 M8R I 51984 Mr. William J. Dircks l
Executive Director for Operations l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Dear Mr. Dircks:
In a June 1,1983 memorandum, the Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission (NRC) invoked Section II.4 of the November 1, 1980, NRC/ Federal Emergency Manegement Agency (FEMA) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by requesting FEMA to provide the NRC with findings a d determinations as to whether the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO)-County plan and/or the interim plans of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station are adequate and capable of it:plementation.
As a result of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board sASLB) order, a subsequent memorandum of June 17, 1983, requested that FEMA provide findings and dererminations on the LILCO Transition Plan as a first priority.
This Plan, developed and revised wholly by LILCO,-
ptsposes to use primarily LILCO personnel to carry out the offsite prepareciness aspects of the plan (to include the total direction and control function) in the case of an emergency involving an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
On June 23, 1983, FEMA provided findings on the LILCO Transition Plan.
However, primarily due to the short time frame available for evaluation of the Plan, it was necessary to obtain the support of Argonne National Laboratory to perform a technical review against the standards and evaluative criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-l', Rev. 1.
FEMA Headquarters, assisted by the FEMA Region II Regional Director and staff, directed this. technical review.
When subsequent developments eventually indicated a change in the timetable for the Shcreham licensing process, NRC requested on September 15, 1983, that TEMA initiate a full and independent review by the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) of Revision 1 of the Transition Plan.
This request was later modified to include findings on Revision 3 of the Transition Plan.
TL:.se findings are presented in this letter.
The RAC reviewed the Flan against the standards and evaluative criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Eev. 1.
Due to the legal authority issues which arise when some NUREG elements are applied to a utility-based plan, we have marked with an asterisk any aspect of the plan where, in our view, this legal issue occurs. The specific legal concern related to that part of the plan is identified separately in Attachment 2 of the FEMA finding. With the exception of plan aspects relating to NUREG element A.2.b. (a requirement to state, by reference to specific acts, statutes, or codes, the legal basis for the authority to carry out the responsibilities listed in A.2.a., i.e., all major response fructions),
the legal concern did not affect the FEMA rating given to the technical or operational items relating to NUREG elements.
=
n 4 Q ~)7 Q U f,3 9
r y
f
. FEMA finds that Revision 3 of the LILCO Transition Plan has 32 inadequacies 4,
based on the standards and evaluative criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.
The analysis resulting from the full RAC review and relating these inadequacies to the various NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, criteria is enclosed as Attachment 1.
The FEMA approach to evaluation of offsite emergency planning and preparedness under 44 CFR 350 and the MOU has been closely focused on the relationship between State and local governments and the licensee, as well as State and local plans and implementing capability.
Notwithstanding the legal authority issue and the need for an adequate exercise of the offsite plan, there are many other factors which we do not evaluate in the course,of our analysis that in our judgement should be considered by the Commission in a total assessment of whether successful offsite emergency operations at a given nuclear power plant are possible in an actual emergency to provide adequate assurance of public health and safety protection.
Among the additional factors to be reasonably weighed are the existence of a Federal radiological response plan and implementing capability for nuclear power plant emergencies; the known legal responsibility of State and local officials to. respond to emergencies and known resources available to these entities for making an effective response; and, in the case of the Shoreham nuclear power plant, the existence of company plans and resources albeit with the deficiencies noted in the enclosed report of FEHA's Region II.
It is our belief, for example, that la the event of an accident at the Shoreham site, the Governor would request Federal assistance and the Federal Radiological Emergency Pesponse Plan (FRERP) could well be activated.
That Federal plan has been under development for several years pursuant to a requirement of Section 304 of the NRC Appropriation Authorization Act, June 30, 1980 (P.L.96-295), and Executive Order 12241 that a Federal plan for radiological emergencies be prepared that providos assurance of p'ublic health and safety protection.
The FRERP is applicable to all nuclear power plant sites as a supplement to Stata, local and utility resources.
A full field exercise of.the FRERP was conducted from March 6-8, 1984, at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station in Florida, to test more thoroughly and completely the capabilities required by the plan.
The developing capability made available by the FRERP should be recognized when NRC consfders the FEMA finding on the technical review of the LILCO Transition Plan.
Also, consistent with directions from the President and with FEMA's legal mandates under the Federal Civil Defense Act, we are implementing a new emergency planning and assistance concept to enhance State and local capabilities to prepare for and respond to a broad ra;ge of natural and peacetime emergencies.
Under title V of the Act, this applies in particular to improvements in State and local offsite readiness for commercial nuclear reactors and we are now planning to direct significant levels of new emergency management assistance resources in FY 1985 into this important arca. Key programs will include
t 4 redirection of State and local emergency services personnel towards projects that support offsite nuclear facility safety, redirection of assignments to Federal radiological planning officals to concentrate on offsite safety and enhanced programs in training and education for Federal, State, local and utility employees for nuclear safety issues regarding protection of the public.
FEMA is prepared to assist the utility, in conjunction with the NRC, with any technical assistance that it can offer to improve the plan which the company has prepared.
Relevant FEMA training courses can be made available to utility emergency workers on a reimbursable basis.
We have tried to provide information above on additional f actors which may come into play if NRC is to make a total assessment of the offsite preparedness capability at Shoreham.
I would suggest that the Commission may wish to think of offsite safety as a mosaic that may very well be composed of different piecas at different times and places.
Not all of the potential components will necessarily f all within the ambit of the FEHA plan and response evaluation process in all cases.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely, amuel W. Speck Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support Enclosures
i' DRAFT Docket No.
50-322 Gentlemen:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has reviewed the Long Island i
Lighting Company (LILCO) Transition Plan (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Local Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan), Revision 3, and trans-mitted its findings to the NRC by letter dated March 15, 1984. The FEMA findings have been served on all parties to the Shoreham proceedings and an advance copy was transmitted to you by NRC Region I on March 20, 1984.
We are now requesting your evaluation and response to the inadequacies and legal concerns identified in the FEMA report.
The FEMA review of the LILC0 Transition Plan was performed by the Regional Assistance Ccmmittee (RAC) against the evaluation criteria in NUREG-0654/
FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, that are applicable to State and local jurisdictions.
FEMA finds that the LILCO Transition Plan, Revision 3, has 32 iradequacies related to the NUREG-0654 evaluation criteria.
A discussion of each of the inadequacies is provided in Attachment 1 of the FEMA repor.t.
We request that you review the identified inadequacies and inform the NRC of your planned corrective actions and schedule.
The FEMA report also identified certain areas in the Transition Plan where, in FEMA's view, legal authority issues arise.
The specific legal concerns are discussed in Attachment 2 of the FEMA report.
FEMA notes that with the
O Shoreham Draft a' exception of criterion A.2.b (which refers to the legal authority of offsite organizations to carry out emergency response functions), legal concerns did not affect the FEMA review of the adequacy of each planning element. We request that you review the legal concerns identified by FEMA and inform the NRC of the results of your review.
Your response to the above requests should be provided to the NRC by May 1,1984.
Sincerelh, Albert Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch #2 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
FEMA ltr. dated 3/15/84
MA W
[dM@"Nd a meo UNITED STATES n8 og NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556
,:g-l March 29, 1985
^
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Edward L. JQrdan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness.
and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
LILCO SHOREHAM PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM DESIGN REPORT 21, 1985 from John D. Leonard, LILCO, to By the enclosed < letter dated February Harold R. Denton, NRC, the Long Island Lighting Company informed NRC that on January 7, 1985, LILCO had forwarded six copies of the Long Island Lighting Company Shcreham Nuclear Power Station Prompt Notification System Design Report to Philip McIntire, Chief, Natural and Technological Hataros Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Region II) in accordance with verbal instructions received from FEMA.
Accordingly, FEMA should consider this report in conjunction with their ongoing program for evaluation of alert and notification systems at nuclear power plants as outlined in FEMA-43.
I oward rdan, Director Division Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Ltr. from J. D. Leonard, LILCO, to H. R. Denton, NRC, dtd. 2/21/85 cc: see page 2
=
QC/vi.c
/o,
-j ~ tw -p y c
~.
\\
March 20 i cc:
W. J. Dircks, EDO H. R. Denton, NRR E. S. Christenbury, ELD J. M. Taylor, IE R. H. Vollmer, IE J. G. Partlow, IE B. K. Grimes, IE K. E. Perkins, IE
'S. A. Schwartz, IE D. B. Matthews, IE -
A. Schwencer,f4RR C. R. Van Niel, IE F. Kantor, IE J. R. Sears, IE T. E. Murley, Region I R. R. Bellamy, Region I l~
f
~~
l
/gg'O LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMpm
.....,,.,;,,.i SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. BOX S18. NORTH COUNTRY RO AD
- WADING 'UVER. N.Y.11792 JOHN D. LEONARD.JR.
q VICE PRES 10ENT. NUCLEAR 0PERATIONE f t.
February 21, 1985 SNRC-ll51 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Submission of Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Prompt Notification System Design Report
Dear Mr. Denton:
On January 7, 1985 LILCO forwarded six copies of the Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Nuclecr Power Station Prompt Notification Design Report to Mr. Philip McIntire, Chief, Natural and Technological Hazardous Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (see January 7 letter attached).
This was done in accordance with verbal instruc-s tions received from FEMA.
We have recently been informed by FEMA that we should formally submit this report to your office. LILCO, therefore, asks that your office request FEMA to review the report in an expeditious manner consistent with the NRC/ FEMA Memorandum of Understanding.-
Ver ruly yours,
- ~.
[. D&)tY W
/
Joan D. Leonard, Jr.
i Vi ce President - Nuclbar Operations W/kv
\\_.)
Attachments cc:
P. Eselgroth
\\ ?'
na Lo
(; -
LONG ISI_AND LIGHTING COMPAN I[g/gg"Ob SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. BOX S18 NORTM COUNTRY ROAD e WADING RIVGR. N.Y.11792 JOHN D. LEON ARD,JR.
VICI PRE 5:08ttf.88uCLEAA OPtRATOS January 7, 1985 Mr. Philip McIntire Chief, Natural and Technological Hazards Division Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 Submission of Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Prompt Notification System Desien Report
Dear Mr. McIntire:
As a result of the issuance of FEMA's Standard Guide for th'e Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants (FEMA-43), licensees are responsible for drafting a Prompt Notification System Design Report.
By this letter we submit the Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Prompt Notification Design Report written to conform to the FEMA-43 guidelines.
Should you have any questions, please contact this office.
Very Aruly your,
lb
'M \\
JoITn D. Leonard, Jr.
Vi e President - Nucl a Operations
- ck Enclosure l:
cc:
P. Eselgroth
w 4\\
,{c5# "%jo g
UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\
/
Rarch 15, 1985 liEMORANDUP. FOR:
Richard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
SHOREHAM EXERCISE By letters dated February 8,1985 and February 22, 1985 from John D. Leonard, LILCO, to Harold R. Denton, NRC, the Shoreham licensee (LILCO) has informed the NRC and FEi A of the current status of its preparations for an exercise of the Shorenam Offsite Emergency Plan. This information is subsequent to their letter dated I;cvember.14,19E.4 transmitted to you via my letter dated December 19, 1984 The Feoruary 8 lettsr in'dicated that in accordance with FEf;A Guicance Memorandum
- 17. Rev.1, the next step would involve the review t'y fella anc hRC cf the sub-nitted exercise objectives. 'LILCO incicated a readiness to meet with FEMA perscnnel to discuss technical issues related to offsite matters at Shoreham and a possibie table top exercise. The February 22 letter indicates their intent to hold the table top exercise in early March 1985 and invites both the NRC and FEMA to observe.
We request that FEMA review the LILCO letters with respect to further apprcpriate actions, taking into consideration the recent New York State court finding with respect to LILCO's authority to carry out an offsite response plan.
A
~
owa iian, Director
~
Divis-of Emergency Preparedness and' ngineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
~
- 1. Ltr. from J. D. Leonard to H. R. Denton, dtd. 2/8/85
- 2. Ltr. from J. D. Leonard to H. R. Denton, dtd. 2/22/85 q a -t m n c.J J r I
mo s ~)oya s t -
0 g
4C"O '
LONG 1SLAND LIGHTING COMPANY L..
._~_....
cxecurivc' omces: 2so oLO COUNTRY RCAD a MIN COLA. N ew YORK 115ol
$*S
-February 8, 1985
,3 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814
Dear Mr. Denton:
The purposes of this l'etter are to review the current status of planning for a graded exercise of the Shoreham Emergency Plan and to stimulate the actual federal cooperation necessary to achieve progress toward conduct of such an exercise.
On November 14, 1984, LILCO wrote to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to the NRC-FEMA Memorandum of Understanding, to request the NRC's good offices in undertaking, with *EMA, to plan for a graded emergency planning exercise for the Shoreham Offsite Emergency Plan.
(Letter, Leonard (LILCO) to Denton (NRC) SNRC-1107]
That letter stated that LILCO had prepared, and was offering to make available, three exercise scenarios which were'being kept in the meantime under security restrictions by LILCo.
It also attached a five-page set of proposed exercise objectives and a four-page table cross referencing those proposed objectives to standard FEMA exercise. objectives.
The letter proposed an exercise during the week of February 11, 1985, and asked the NRC-to assist in setting up the necessary initial contacts with FEMA.
A copy of_that. letter was also sent directly to Stewart Glass, Esq., counsel for FEMA, Region II.
On December 19, 1984, the NRC officially forwarded LILCO's letter to FEMA, along with various other comment letters from New York State and Suffolk County.
[ Letter, Jordan (NRC) to Krimm (FEMA)]
The NRC's letter requested FEMA-to take the lead in preliminary consideration of LILCO's request.
Finally, on January 16, 1985, LILCO provided the NRC with its comments on the RAC review of Rev.
4 of the Shoreham Emergency Plan, as had been requested by the NRC on November 28, 1984. [ Letter, Leonard (LILCO) to
~
Denton (NRC), SNRC-1133]
For your convenience, I enclose duplicate copies of LILCO's November 14 and January,16 letters.
Y[
'p'p*kEL3n"n*e50Ccc f0 ADOCK 0500o3gg
{)>{}
,g i
F
- LONG* lCt.AND 1.JGHTING CCM AANY Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Page 2 February 8, 1985 A graded exerc3.se no longer appears practicable during the week of February 11.
However, LILCO is, and believes that it has been for some time, fully ready for a graded exercise of its Shoreham Emergency Plan.
LILCO has also taken substantial steps to facilitate this goal.
This can be seen from the following tabulation summarizing the pre-exercise milestones of FEMA Guidance Memorandum 17 (Rev. 1), with an indication of their current status at Shoreham.
POTENTIAL SHOREHAM EXERCISE SCHEDULE PER FEMA GUIDANCE' MEMORANDUM 17 (REV. 1)
SHOREHAM Days before Action Exercise Current Status Licensee submission of 120 Submitted 11/14/84 exercise objectives t'o FEMA /NRC
~
Unknown FEMA /NRC Completion of Review 105 s
of exercise objectives Licensee submission of 90 '
In LILCO's posses-exercise scenario sion; Offered to FEMA 11/14/84 Table top exercise Any time Not yet done FEMA /NRC meet with, licensee 60 Not yet done Controller's exercise 40 Not yet done coordination meeting FEMA /NRC develop post-30 Not yet done exercise schedule i
FEMA /NRC meeting 15 Not yet done Federal observers' meeting 1
Not yet done Exercise O
Not yet done t
4 e
, +,,,,.,,. - ~,..
-.. -,.., ~.,,.,... - - - - - - - - -...,, - -, - -, - -, -,,,,.
--,,----en_
--,,,.e,,
..-----,.--n,vn..,--e
' LONG'CLAND UGHTING COMPANY Mr. Harold R. Denton,. Director Page 3 February 8, 1985 As yo6 can see, LILCO has taken, more than two months ago, all of the actions that are within its sole control.
If the NRC and FEMA have reviewed the exercise objectives submitted in November and have found them appropriate, and desire to commence review of the scenarios promptly, it still appears that an exercise in May might be practicable using FEMA's guidelines.
However, progress at this point is in FEMA's, not LILCO's, control.
I would appreciate your help in creating an
~
opportunity for cognizant LILCO personnel to meet at the earliest possible date with their FEMA counterparts for a technical meeting on off-site matters including the possibility of a table top exercise in February.
LILCO believes that it is ready and that all concerned would benefit from the opportunity to witness this fact.
Very truly yours,
~/,
e A. -
~
'Sohn D ecnard, Jr.
/ /ViNuclearOperationsl[
ce President f( 3./
JDL:MF Enclosures cc:
Mr. Richard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Federal Emergency Management Agency o
O e
q e
- O j
t
,,--r
,------,,,.~,..,-----,,,-,-,y,.,--,,.---
---_wne,.
,m
,,,yv.,
g,-
,nn--m...,
.,-w,
.p---
fL O
O 1
/4fC LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY SHOREHA## NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.o. sox esa. NORTH COUNTRY ROAD. WAOING RwtR. N.Y 11792 JOHN O. LEONARD.JR.
vict eessist erf. sevcLEAn ope nanons November 14,.1984 SNRC-1107 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, D.C.
20555 Exercise Objectives for Emergency Plan Exercise Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Denton:
Attached for your review and forwarding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency,pur Understanding dated a,suant to the FEMA-NRC Memorandum of s of November 1, 1984, 45 Fed. Reg. 02713 (1980), is a statement of objectives to be demonstrated.at an exercise of the Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Plan and the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) Plan.
This at'tachment is in two parts:
first, a statement, in LILCO's terms, of the i
objectives of the exercise labeled "LERO Objectives", and second, a correlation of these objectives with the standard FEMA " Core Objectives."
It is being submitted to you in order to support a graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of February 11, 1985.
LILCO has also dev. eloped three potential scenarios for the exercise, which have been kept under security provisions.
We would appreciate y,our transmitting this document promptly to FEMA and your good officas in arranging the preliminary meeting neces-sary to commence the detailed planning orocess for the exercises.
i If you have any questions, pleas.e contact this office.
}f Very truly
- ours, f')
i
.l Jo n D. Leonard, Jr.
Vi President - Nuc ar erations R1fG:ck Attachment p
cc:
P. Eselgroth
\\\\
'N C.
Petrone (FEMA Region II)
(M Robert DeYoung (I&E)
\\
Edward Jdrdan (I&E)
All Parties Listed in Attachment I
_ &r o p e r s,,,.
s
(
(
Attachm2nt I James A. Laruenson, Chairman' Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq., Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Panel East-West Tower, Room 402A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 East-West Tower, North Tower
~4350 East-West Highway 3
Bethesda, MD 20814 i
Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Attorney East-West Tower, Room 427 Suffolk County Department of Law 4350 East-West Bwy.
Veterans Memorial Highway Bothesda, MD 20814 Hauppauge, NY 11787 Mr. Frederick J. Shen Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lawrence Coe Lanphcr, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christopher McMurray, Esq.
East-West Tower, Room 430 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill 4350 East-West Hwy.
Christopher & Phillips Bothesda, MD 20814 8th Floor 1900 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC
- 20555,
,MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K 4
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal San Jose, California 95125 Board Panel
+
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger i
New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Empire State Plaza Panel Albany, NY 12223 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:r.ission Washington, DC 20555 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Barnard'M. Bordenick, tsq.
Public Service.
David A. Repka, Esq.
Albany, NY 12223 3.Rockefeller Plaza Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
7735 Old Georgetown Road
~
,, ~
(to mailroom)
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
4 B3thesda, MD 20814 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Albany, NY. 12224 Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 N3w York, NY 10278
(
(
, Attcchment.i Pcge 2 4
Stephen-B. Latham, Esq.
Gerald C. Crotty Twomey, Latham & Shea Counsel to the Governor,.
33 West Second Street P.O. Box 398 Executive Chamber
~
State Capitol Riverhead, NY 11901
' Albany NY 12224 Jcnss Dougherty, Esq.
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
3045 Porter Street Associate General Counsel Washington, DC 20008 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, SW Room 840 Ma. Nora Bredes Washington, DC 10472 Executive Coordinator Shoreham opponents Coalition 195 East Main Street Smithtown, NY 11787 O
no e
e s
8 e
f r-,
n
-n.
.---------w,-------,,.--,n--,--,
,,m e_m-o,.,r--,---4,m.
_m-,-s vvr-,-,
---w-,-
(
(
LILCO SHOREHAM/LERO PLAN A.
Emergency Response Facilities and Equipment 1.
Demonst ate the prompt activation, adequacy of the staffing and set up as appropriate of emergency response facilities as follows:
- o. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Control Room i
Shorehas Nuclear Power Station Technical Support. Center o
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Operations Support Center o
Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat.1on Emergency Operations Facility o
Local Emergency Response Organization Emergency Operations o
Center in Brentwood (LER0 EOC)
Local Emergency Response Organization Staging Areas in o
Riverhead, Patchogue arid Port Jefferson (LERO SA) o Emergency News Center (ENC)
Emergency Worker Decontamination Facility o
i 2
Demonstrate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station comunication capabilities among the Control Room Technical Support Center, j
Emergency Operations Facility, Cperations Support Center, and the Emergency News Center.
3 Demonstrate the capabtlity to comunicate effectively between Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization and LERO.
4 Demonstrate effective comunications among the LERO EOC in Brentwood, and the various 3taging Areas, the Emergency News Center Control Points and Field locations.and among Staging Areas, Bus Transfer 5.
Demonstrate the ability of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, and LERO communications to:
o Perform a 24-hour per day notification o Trarismit accurate and timely information 6
Demonstrate the ability of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Erargency Response Organization and LER0 to deploy, coordinate and control radiological monitoring teams.
7.
Demonstrate exposure control capabilitie.s for onsite corrective action teams.
8 Demonstrate comunication of technical information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission via the NRC hotlines.
(
(
~
9.
Demonstrate the adequacy of internal comunications within the Emergency Response Facilities as defined in A.1 above.
- 10. Demonstrate adequacy of facilities and displays to support emergency operations.
B.
Notification and Mobilization of Key Personnel and Staff 1.
Demonstrate the ability of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station staff to properly classify actual or potential emergencies in 1
accordance witn LILCO Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures, j
2.
Demonstrate the capaht11ty of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization to notify the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) through the established notification system.
3 Demonstrate the capability of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization and LERO to notify emergency response personnel.
4 Demonstrate the capability of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization and LERO to mobilize staff and activate the emergency response facilities in a timely manner and maintain staffing around the clock.
5.
Demonstrate, as appropriate the ability to identify the need for, notifyr and request assistance from Federal agencies.
6.
Demonstrate, as appropriate, the ' notification of and coordination with counties and states within the ingestion pathway EPZ and with agencies such as FEMA, NRC, DOE, Red Cross, Federal Aviation Administration, and Coast Guard.
C.
Emergency Operations Management 1.
Demonstrate the capability of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization and LERO to implement their radiologics1 emergency preparedness plans.
Demonshate the ability of key emergency personnel within the 2
Shoreham Nucitar Power Station Emergency Response Organization and LERO to initiate, coordinate and implement timely and effective decisions during a radiological emergency and clearly demonstrate 'who is in charge."
I i
yp M
/ W vt **
r*'
- a i
3l, b,[
ggEgo !,LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l'
f ; s zAsv ei.o countav. noAo. wiensviu.a. w f
n uses 5'ik#
! ;' 1.
February.22,1985
- i'.
. u. r..[
i
. l.
SNRC-1152 i,,.l d
.r, Mr. Harold Denton),
Director, officiv.of Nuclear
.i
^
Reactor Regulations U. S. Nuclear Regulat',ory J.
commission 5
..,~
Washington, D. :C/,] 20555 -
Dear Mr. Denton:
t Pursuant.t-our notification to you of November.14, 1984, the Long I" Lighting company (LILco) has been
- i -
undertaking. steps.
d iparatory to con ucting a graded exercise for the Shoreham 0.4 site Emergency Plan.
17 We are now working toward holding a tabletop exercise) +-
of the LILco Transition Plan in early March, and hereby extend. -
.tn 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 exercisa as well.
WewillddvisebothyourstaffandFEMAofthe' exact date, time and' place of the tabletop exercise, and look forward.
to your early r,esponse to this request.
c i
sincerely, l
i 9
o l
hn V ce President uclear operations j
cc Mr. Richard W. Krimm Federal Emerge'ncy Management Agency Room 506.
s.
500 C. Street,l 5.W.
Washington', D. C. 20472 8
s bee Mr. W4iiimm.J.!.Dircks
.7.l.
i p'
I,,' :
-.-.-----.n------.---------__,,-_,s
--.n.
,_,,,,,,_e-,-
m-w, - -
w
e'm i
,1978 Seaf;rd Wale 2 Pree scho41 Dist.
- =ts %. -.
A-2147 Jackson Ave.
CA 2.0700 3
searsed,m;T. 12783 tFis sevanhans central.s. Dist.
?* "78
- co 555 Ridge Rd.
E1mont,N.Y. 31003 t
.975 i
' Ryosset Central sobsol Dist.
A soph tingletan no Pell Imma 52-5500 R.....
4posset 3.L 2173L -
- .976 Daseadale publia sehe.as 485 35c4
- Jos Geeeriah strost Walsadale.,E.T. 21553
- C'78 smited Met.).dist cheek Rev. Gestge tsar, '-
M 40 thshlagten Strost.
~ 465 6353
.J.
sempstead, B.T. 11550 4
N Seited Met 2ddist Charsh George Elitan 2
15 newmemy tit 2 4 +5 Bethpage E.T.
21714 nit 1 2P77 3
Ya21er stream U.F.E.B.
825 8545 8
ham Av%
Ta21sy st.resa. B.T.
2150 80 Ta21er strema W.F.s.n. f30
., ha Ciarvo -
8 Talley strema. E.T. 2}S,o 46).3963 78
~
Westbury W.F.S.B.
need tiebste.
Jeriaho T Westbury,phs. & Wi+=k.=ak h 8 %.20i6 E.T.,12590 75 West Bempstead B.F.E.B.
Barry Eatow a
450 Essaan Elvd.
44SJil5 W. Sampstead,,E T. 21532 r
- U NN
- AM:222V 2. TBA!:EE2 j)
SURT
$3.6 476 RW Bus
";,g 433 3499 ggggg e
CG UtiTNURY N.T Mr '
vM Lk.(suiW)
T.h he. 4,d v.p.
?- =d.W A.tl
- so -
sAy y
% yL.Q Nyun W
.<* v
- ; y. ~..'.' e 3
APP-Be-loE
\\*W'
\\
/-
i 9*
?
i
,g
i
+
(
(
3.
Denonstrate that there is effective organizational direction and centrol and integrated radiological energency respcnse including deployment of field m6nitors, acquisition, receipt and analysis of,
field data.
4.
Derenstrate the e 414ty to cceedinate actions (internally /
externally) meng organizations in order to obtain support and to make appropriate decisiens.
5.
Denenstrate the capability of responsible psw 41 to recomand and/or inglemnt %, late iu.wJ.ve acticos.
D.
Public Alertim and Notifica+4m 1.
Denonstrate that the Shoreham Nnelaar Power Station (SNPS) Boar-i gency Response Or==ai'= tion and IZRO authorities can effectively provide accurate informaticn to the public in a timely fashion.
2.
Denenstrate the a=a=h414ty of IZRo to activate the p&wvi notifi-cation system within 15 minutes of the decision to implement protective actions to sinulate using sirens, EBS and tone alert radios. In addition, demonstrate the ema=M14ty of IZRO to inplement route alerting and sim21 ate the notificaticn provided by the t.Inited States coast Guard to boaters.
3.
Defenstrate the capability of the SNPS Emergency Response Organi-zation and IZRO to provide initial and follow up info:maticn to l
the public in a timely fashion.
E.
Public and Media Relations 1.
Derronstrate staffing of the E-w.;y News Center by Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Dnergency Response Organization and IZRO persennel and the capability to issue coordinated periodic public information releases.
~
2.
Denonstrate ability to provide rumor control and. responses to
]
irsp'4"i=? frcm the general 7 14e in a coordinated fashion.
3.
Denenstrate'the.ahitity to provide clear, timely and accurate i
briefings to the news nodia and public relative to the energency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
l j
F.
Accident Assessment l
1.
Dunenstrate the ability of both the Shoreham Nuclear Pawar Station he y Response organizaticn and Ino to receive and assess c
4 radiol g e=1 data.
i 2.
Demonstrate the ability of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Liieupcy Response organization and IZRO to respectively project and ccupare dose projections to the public via the plume exposure pathway, ocmpare their projections to the Protective Action Guides, available shelter, evacuation tima estimates and determine
.w.giate protective action roccamandations..... - -. -. -
a=-.-
l
(
(
3.
Dammstrate the ability of LERO to project doses to the public via the ingestion pathway and to detamine appropriate protective measures ~ based on PAG's and other relevant factors.
4.
Dammstrate the activation, equipnent and ph of both the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station m e. p cy Response Organization and LERO field radiation nonitoring teams.
5.
Dammstrate the ability of in-plant personnel to safely draw and analyze post-accident liquid and g=== sanples.
6.
Demonstrate equipment and 84. Mares for =%.we of mid-e radioicdine concentrations as low as 10~' uci/cc in the presence of noble gases.
G.
Actions to Prbtect the Public 1.
Dunenstrate the inplementatim of.w.giate protective action response options by IZRO, including (all shaltaring and evacuation to be sinulated):
Sheltering and evacuation of offsite areas 4m-1w'4ng schools and special facilities; Infoming the public m tha develaprunt of the accident and any required pMve acticms; Identification, notificatim and evacuation of non-institu-tionalized nobility-inpaired persons; Analyzing and detemining ingestion exposure pat.5way censiderations; Provision for renoval of LW4=mnts fran e$'acuation ' routes; Provision to guide traffic during a sirrastated evacuatient Provision to evacuate nenbers of the public without transportatimi; Activation of Reception Centar; Coordination with the American Red Cross for the provision of Cs w ate Care Centers.
2.
Demonstrate the capability of amargency www.el toTdentify requi.-As, evaluate data and inplement g-d'm for re-entry.
3..
Danonstrata the M414ty of amargency Ww..el to identify 1
requi.
As, programs and policies governing recryvery.
4.
Danonstrate ability to effect an orderly evacuation of protected area personnel (on sita only).
5.
Demonstrate adequacy of procedures for registration and radiological nonitoring of evacuees (off site only).
4 l
i
,,,,na.,-
n.
-,_,....-n-,,
,,nc.,------.
,c
1
(
(
l H.
Health. Medical and Exposure Control Measures i
1.
Demonstrate the decision making process for limiting exposure of.
emergency workers.
i 2.
Demonstrate processing of local emergency workers and vehicles
~
through personnel monitoring and decontamination facility, o
3 Demonstrate the decision making process for recomending the use of Potassium Iodide for emergency workers.
4.
Demonstrate methods and resources for distributing dosimetry and i
thyroid blocking agents, if appropriate, to emergency workers.
i 5.
Demonstrate the record keeping of radiation exposure and use of i
dosimetry and thyroid blocking agents for the protection of
~
emergency workers.,
6.
Demonstrate knowledge, on the part of the emergency worker, of I
dostmetry and Potassium Iodide usage procedums and of the individual authorized to allow worker exposures above j
permissible limits.-
9 9
e O
I e
de e
8 ed e
e 0
e WO e
d I
. -...-.o----
n.-----
(
(
LILC0 SHOREHAFf7 Celt 0 PLAN EXERCISE OBJEcIIVE WORKSHEET FEMA I
LERO Com Objective
- l Objective (s)
I 1.
Demonstrate ability to mb1112e staff and activate i 8.4 facilities promptly.
I I
I 2.
Demonstrate ability to fully staff facilities and 1 A.1, 8.4 maintain staffing around the clock.
l 1
I 3.
Demonstrate ability to make decisions and to l C.2 coordinate emergency activities.
l l
I 4.
Demonstrate adequacy of facilities and displays
! A.10 to sepport emergency operations.
5.
Demonstrate ability to consunicate with all i A.3,4,6 appropriate locati.ons, organizations, and field j
personnel.
6.
Demonstrate ability to mobilize and de monitoring teams in a time 1/ fashion. ploy field A.6 l
I 7.
Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures i F.4 for determining an6 tent radiation levels.
8.
Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures F.6
~
for measurement..of airborne adiofodine l
concentrations, as low as 10- uC1/CC in the presence of noble gtses.
l I
Source - Modular Format for Uniformity of Radiological Emergenc Preparedness Exercise eservations and Evaluations (June 1983) yAttaciunent 2 to letter from Dave McLoughlin (Deputy Associate Director, State and Local Programs Support) to Regional Directors, Acting Regional Directors, Regions
!!I, V; Concerning Procedural Policy on Radiological Emegency Freparedness Plan Reviews, Exercise observations and Evaluations, and Interim Find ngs.
A
(
(
4 i
LILC0 t
i SH0REHAR7tTR0 PLAN j
EXERCISE OBJECTIVE W0kKSHEET i
1 l
l 1
FDR LERO Core Objective Objective (s)
I l
9.
%nstrate appropriate equipment and procedures for L
collection, transport and analysis of samples of soil, vegetation, snow, water, and milk.
l I
10.
Demonstrate ability to project dosage to the public I F.2 via pitme exposure, based on plant and field data.
and to detemine appropriate protective reasures based on PAG's, available shelter evacuation time l
]
estimates, and all other appropriate factors l
l' l
1 1
11.
Demonstrate ability to project dosage to the public F.3 via ingestion pathway exposure based on field data, and to detemine appropriate protective seasures 1
based on PAG's and other relevant factors.
4 I
12.
Demonstrate ability to implement protective actions for-ingestion pathway hazards.
I
.13.
Demonstrate ability to alert the pihlic within the i D.2, 3 10-mile EPZ, and disseminate an initial l
instructional message within 15 minutes.
14.
Demonstrate ability to formulate and distribute lD.1,E.3, i
appropriate instructions to the public. in G.1' a timely fashion.
t l
I 15.
Demonstrate the organizational cility and resources G.1 necessary to manage an orderly evacuation of all or part of the plume EPZ.
I e
u
(
(
LILCD SHOREHAK7CER0 PLAN EXERCISE OBJECTIVE WORKSHEET FEMA LERO.
Cort Objective
' Objective (s)
I 16.
C:n,nstrate the organizational inbility and resources t E.1 necessary to deal with impediments to evacuation, I
such as inclement weather or traffic obstructions.
I 17.
Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources I
necessary to control access to an evacuated area.
I I
I 18.
Deonstrate the organizational ability and resources l G.1 necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of I
mobility-impaired individuals within the plume EPZ.
l I
I 19.
Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources l G.1 necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of schools within the plume EPZ.
~
l I~
20.-
Dec.onstrate ability.to continuously monitor and control H.5, 6 emergency worker exposure.
21.
Demonstrate the ability to make the decision, based on l H.3 predetermined criteria, whether to issue KI to I
emergency workers and /or the general population.
1 22.
Demonstrate the ability to supply and administer l H.4 KI, once the decision i:as been made to do so.
I 1
I l
23.
Demonstrate ability to effect an orderly evacuation l G.4 of onsite personnel.
~
l 1
I 24.
Demonstr.te ability to brief the media in a clear.
l E.3 accurate and timely manner.
I l
l d
G
~w
.-, - _. ----,---n---
n.- -
-_._,,-----.---._----,-,-.v
.w.-,,-
(
{
s..
i LILC0 SHOREHE7CT.1t0 PLAN EXERCISE OBJECTIVE WORKSHEET i
FDE LERO Core Objective Objective (s)
I 25.
C =nstrate ability to provide savance coordination i E.1 of information released.
1 I
I 26.
Demonstrate ability to establish and operata rumor i E.2 control in a coordinated fashion.
i 27.
Demonstrate adequacy of procedures for registration I G.5 and radiological monitoring of evacuees.
1 I
I 28.
Demonstrate adequacy of facilities for mass care of evacuees.
I 29.
Demonstrate adequate equipment and procedures l H.2 for decontamination of emergency workers, i
equipment and. vehicles.
\\
30.
Demonstrate adequacy of ambulance facilities and prB-I cedures for handling contaminated individuals.
i I
31.
Demonstrate adequacy of hospital facilities and I
procedures for handling contaminated individuals.,
I l
y 32.
Demonstrate ability to identify need for, request, l' C.4 and obtain Federal assistance.
I
~
l l
t 3 3.'
Demonstrata ability to mlocate to and, operate the.
[Not alternate E0F/E0C.
applicable 34.
Demonstrate ability to estimate total population exposure.
35.
Demonstrate ability to determine and implement l G.2, 3 i
appropriate measures for controlled recovery I
j and reentry.
l 0
Date: 11 /9/84' I
i g
^
t w*}
,1 f- [, fig @.
L.ONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY i,
._ m
. SHOREHAM NUCt. EAR POWER STATION P.O. SOX Sie. NORTM COUNTRY ROAD. WADING RtygR. N.Y.11782
.o n= c. u o=4ao.JR.
,am n.-
-mum January 16, 1985 SNRC-1133 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC, 20555
~
FEMA Findings on LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Dentons,
Your November 28, 1984 letter redpiests that LILCO-review and inform the NRC by Jani.tary 1,1985 of its intended response to each of the eight inadequacies relative to NUREG-0654 criteria, and to the legal concerns, identified by the FEMA Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) in its review of Revision 4 to the LILCO Transition Plar. for Shoreham.
Attachnent 1 entitled " Summary of Response to Consolidated RAC Review of LILCO Transition Plan Rev. 4 for Shoreham: Items Graded Inadequate" summarized, for each of the ei~ght listed deficiencies, its NUREG-0654 criterion number, thh RAC comment, and LILCO's proposed resolution.
These resolutions will be contained in th next revision to the shoreham offsite emergency plan.
No date has yet been set for issuance of that revision.
With respect to the RAC concerns involving LILCO's legal authority to implement its offsite emergency plan, they various aspects of them, are presently among the issues,being or raised in litigation before one Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this case (Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)),. as well as in lawsuits pending before the United States District Court for the F, astern District of New York-(Citizens for an Orderly Enercy Policy, et al., v. Suffolk County, Docket No. 83-4966) and the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County _((Cuomo, et al. v. LILCO, Consolidated Index No. 84-4615).
LILCO's view on these issues -- namely,
\\\\'
l n.
.,i
-,i g,(
,,mme m
SNRC-1133,
.Pcgo 2 l
l that it possesses'the legal authority to implement all necessary j
aspects of the Transition Plan -- is set forth at length in pleadings before.each of.those bodies.
Under present circumstances, further resolution of " legal authority" issues must abide the results of this litigation.
Very truly yours, DRIGINAl' SIGNED gy, John D. Imonard, Jr.
Vice President Nuclear Operations CAD /kv
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Mr. P. Eselgroth bec: Dr. M. C. Cordaro w/ enclosure Measrs. gg.ig&c;4]sfsaantle:
C. A. Daverio
- 3. Aidikoff D. P. Irwin LERO File J. W. Dye w/o enclosurt J. D. Leonard B. R. McCaffrey Chairman NRB w/ enclosure l
W. E. Steiger J. L. Smith L. F. Britt R. A. Kubinsk A. F. Earley J. A. Scalice L. Klan J. G. Wynne -
E. J. Youngling ~
D. Toner R. T. Misiaszek J. M. Kelly NOSD File SR2 9
0 e
e I
P
6 e
e f
e e6 8
0 e
J.'.
t ATTACHMINT 1
t 44 g
o O
b se e
O O
e e
9 9
9
- ? e e
0 l
t S
Page 1
~
SIMtMtf W REsiutSF310 00ta0LIIM1TD RAC REVIBf w IJim '11tANSITIGt PIAff REV. 4 HR Sit)ItBW1 11Dt3 QtADED IIIMKYllh1E Itna Ib.
RAC n-mt Resolution A.2b(1)
LIII0 has indicated in their stannary of responses See cover letter to the consolidated RAC review for Revision 3 of '
the plan (see page 2 of 13), that this is a le6a1 authority issue to be addressed elsewhere and there is no modifientim to Revision 4 of a
the alan. Therefore, the legal authorities / bases of tw IDO plan are not yet defined and for this N
ressa, the element has been rated inadequate.
A.3(1)
A determinatim of the overs 11 adequacy of these A coy of the confidential couputerized abulace and abulette resourtes samt aw.it lionexasul Evacuation Listing will be tabulation of the tr -gai.ation needs of available for FDE's review during the non-institutional 12ed ambility lepaired (see upconhg Fam/lmc observed excemise.
exmple Imalid/ Disable 8 Evacuation Listing, Zone q, Procedure OPIP.l.6.5, Attachment 1).
A.3(2) ~
1he letter of taderstanding with FAA should A letter of agreenent with the FAA is being be a letter of agresient fms the agency to requested and will be included with the LIIID (see Appendix B. B-54).
letters of Ar,6..it, Appendix B.
If the letter cannot be obtained, FAA suport will be requested through FDR under t ie auspices of the FRERP.
,A.3(3) 1here are no letters of agreement incitsled in LIIED has arranged for the use of the the LIIOD Transition Plan with the facilities R1ssau County Veteran's H morial designated to serve as relocation centers.
Coliseun as a reception center. LIIID 1his element has been rated inadequate because has obtained a letter of agressent fmn the plan sust catain letters of agreenent with Ilyatt Managenent to allow 130 to umitor the facilities to be used for the conitoring and decontaminate evacuees at the facility.
and decontadnation of evacuees.
In addition, Nassau County has written a letter to Ilyatt M1nagenent Corporation approving the use nf the facility in case of a Shoreluun emergency. These letters are enclosed in
\\
~
Page 2 l
SMS3Y W RE5fGEES to GIGOLIDR11!D RAC REVIDI.
b-
)
w utm 1mAft51TH)tt FIAtt REY. 4 IGL SIIOuani
?
?
l ITUS M i
i
)
l Itna Tb. _ -
RAC Ossumt Resoluthus i
~
1 j
C 4(1)
The letters of agressant with facilities to be.
See element A 3(3). In addition, a letter j
used as relocation cenpers are adasirs. This of ap it with the Nassau Cotmty Red Cross,
element has been rated inadequata because the has ieen obtained, is enclosed in Attachrent 2.
pimi must contain latitors of agreener-with 1his letter identifies the Congregate Care the facilities to be used for the monitoring and Centers that will be activated in
)
i decentmaination of evacuees. Also see analysis Nassau County to shelter evacuees. Elle a mts for elammt A.3.
smalliamber.of facilities listed are.operateld by New York State, the rummainlog facilities j
provide sore that enough capacity for the samber of evacuees expected to require shelter assistance.
I 1.7(1)
It should be noted that the IDO rodfological OPIP 3.5.1, Dounwind Rawring, will.
l procedures are att11 included in the nian.
be removed fmn the pr=caderes.
1hese procedimus apperantly. resin frum Revision.
Apport organizations providing this 3 wherein IDD ens to provide field teams if service will use their own procedines.
needed. In Revision 4, there is no plan to use IDO personnel since DG!-RAF will one field sonitoring factiones therefore, ISO radiolagical proce& ass shpuid be deleted'f m n '
the pist.
i I.7(2)
Pece 7 in FrucMare CPIP 3.5.1 has not been OPIP 3.5.2 will be revised to state that the survey team willrif instructed d-d in Revision 4.
The plan at page 3.5-2a, I
lines 3-6, states that labora analysis can by the RAP Tema Captain tn expedite l
be performed. 'Ihe potential las alluded to return of samples, pocca directly to the in line 3 of page 3.5-2a (i.e., the calculation DOE-RAF headquarters prior to going to the of thyroid dose fmn the lodine amples taken in Bnergency Wrker Decontamination Facility, the field) has not been addressed by any charges in the ting proemarres set forth in Pro-s I
cedure 3.5.1, which should provide for I
expedited. laboratory analysis.
Pago 3 Sit 1MN Gr RESNRISES 10 ERNE.IBMD RAC REVIPM.
>p w 0F LIIID TeW61TKri IUN BEV. 4 REL SENtHW1 l
l' IDS QtAIID IfWEIBEIE Itr i Ib.
RAC nam-
- Resolutton
~
I.9(1)
Althmgh 1Rm's s-==ry.of the consolidated Section 3.3 of OPIP 3.5.2 will be nodified RAC rwiew cr===rits foriRevision 3 stated to pmvide for expedited retum of fleid that er edited laboratory analysis will be samples to Brookhaven National Imboratory sn&r, t a Procedtam (OPIP 3.5.2, Section 3.3) for analysis. See also item 1.7(2).
does mt include provisions for expeditirg this mislysis. Further, Procedtere OPIP 3.5.1 does not call for an Mited retum of these N
saples to the 1mbora ". In fact, the dis-crepancies about wture location of the Dwirorummtal Servey Function, discussed in the cr===rit for element 1.8, is also of concern here. 'Ihn instructions in Procedure OPIP 3.5.1 are to be returned to the Enker Decontamination Center at the oca BOC there they will be transferred to the Dwiruinental Survey function and taken into the EOC for further analysis. 'ihe plan should be revised to clarify that assple sedia will be taken to Brookhaven National Laboratory for analysis.
I.9(2)-
Attactamts 5 and 6 of Procedtere OPIP 3.5.2 1he RAC concerns identified in the Rev. 3 review about OPIP 3.5.2 Attactments 5 and 6 have been runsved and inwieviated into a.for were that the heading of the tables should be computerized procedure. h RAC comnents I
Revision 3 of the plan with regard to the
' changed to read, multiply results by 10E-6' neogram are still valid. The assumptions When these values were transferred to the used in the computerized approach say not be couputer senery they were inputted with the realistic.
correct units. h RAC concerns on the use of the rumogran for calculation of thyroid dose using the 'ICS. air sampler were addressed in Rev. 4.
/-
l
9
Page 4 r
StftSRY W RESIRISES 10 UNI 90LIIWID RAC REVIHf w Lum 1RANSITIGi PIAN REV. 4 MR SEEElWi 11Dt3 GUWED IfWWUME l.
I j
. Iles Ib.
RAC th-sse Resolution i
I.10(1)
As noted above in the discussim for elemmt 1.9, 1he DOE-RAP Tess uses the IRIWI dose inclusion of the re$ aired infomation in a assessment model on a portable Osbome j
cxmputerised procedrre may not be adequate, since Computer. h development of this dose the previous zwiston of the plan did not contain assessment model was sponsored by tle NRC i
the required neograne, and in the current and publisted in NUREG/CR-3012. IED uses -
revision this information has been fre q u ated the NXIX)S done assessment model described i
i into a program. IB O anticipates that in OPIP 3.5.2, on an IIP-85b le j
DOE-RAP 1
out dose assessment computatiam conputer. 1his model is as tically, the and,therefore, 150 computerized methodology same that was previously included in the i
may not be necessary. FB R will evaluate the manual calculation method of Rev. 3.
1he capability to obtain mensrata dose assesammt infounscion prwicuely r.xJ.ed to couplete the l
calculatlans ering an exercise of off-sita missing nonograns has been developed and radiological meersecy preparedness, h current included in the computerized software. Both i
I version of the plan does not contain a method for of these systass may be used in tle EOC dich manual emiadation of dose. A procedure for has a back-up ponte supply.
IJ100 feels that annumi calculatim was contained in Reviaim 3 of the availability of two independent proven the plan in the event of computer malfmetim.
and reliable dose assessment systems
. It cppears that Revision 4 addresses a problas precludes the necessity of having a l
- by repring the affected pages of the p Lan not manual backup.
l necessarily by correcting the problas. If IDO decides to retain theli procedire described in l
b the plan, docuumtation of the couputer progras should be prwided to FDR for review.
i J.9(1) 1hs RE Ibergency PACS for ingestion are for h Plan will be zwised to reference projected doses of 5 rem dole body and 15 run the correct HE PAGs and Co-134 has to the thyroid: not 25 ran thyroid as stated been added to the list of nuclides in the plan. Also the interpretation of how to evaluated. The discussion in the Plan use the response level tables (i.e., instructions will also be revised to correctly quote contained in the footnotes) has been freucctly the Federal Register.
transcr$b4d fms the Federal Register referenced i
in the plan.. In. addition, page 3.6-2 lines 46 and 47, should state "5" nuclides, and incitxte Cn-134.
i Page 5 i
1 1
smar or msrmsrs m maumun we mnw.
L j
or imm 1RANSITIm Pun REV. 4 RR SIDREW1 IHMS CRALYD InerIlUME 1
I Itr., Tb.
MC newmt Renolution b
i J.10.K(1)
TRm relies on local snow renoval organizatims-lum has idmtified the roads having the.
who say be acm==nied by 1D0 personnel who will highest levels of traffic flow and will a&l thes I
provide dosimetry to ensure that untrained workers as an attaciment to the proce&re. The Brook-l do not receiva doses in excess of PAGs for the havrn and Riverhead Townships, Suffolk Comty j
general phlic (see comumt for elment A.I.b),
and New York State t of Public Works l
the need to coordinata pre-energency planning for will be notified of se road priorities in ~
j snow renoval along evacuation muutes is greater in case of an evacuation ering or innediately this parHed== case. This is especially true in following a snowfall.
view of the fact that since resources any be limited, there is a need to ensure that these resources would be used in an effective muunux 1
where sheltering may not be tw-.aed. For exenple, it would be advisable to ensure that i
efforts are concetrated on keeping evacuation i
arteries rather than side streets, driveways.
i etc. clear. The plan la not clear as to lunt j
IDO could coordinata snow removal by norant l
response factions in the event, however tulikely, they would be needed during an quergency (see pages 2.2-4 and h of the plan).,therefore pre-energency for snow renoval +on the evacuation routes should further developed to include adninistrative proraneres SDPs, etc. 1hese proce &res are re===mded to ensure that the snow rwoval strategy would coincide with any evacuation schane that might be chosen.
9
O t
O e
o e
t a
e O
- 9 6
1.*
- O 9
O e
i ATTACIDENT 8
9 2
9 9
s O
49 O
9 e
=@
O O
O e
0 e
YO e
9 d
t O
s
. F.
MO LONG ISL AND LIGHTING COMPANY mamammer EstCUTivt erfaCES:RSO OLD COUNTRY meas e esINEOLA. NEW Toast 1930s
' [g September 25, 1984
~
? ~.
Mr. E. B. Smerlin, Jr.
General Manager
~
Nassau Yeterans Memorial Coliseum Hyatt Manageinent Corporation of N.Y., Inc.
c/o Nassau Coliseum Uniondale, NY 11553
Dear Sir:
LETTER OF AGREEMENT FOR USE OF NASSAU VETERANS MEMORIAL COLISEUM i
BY LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY This letter confims our recent discussions regarding the use of Nassau Veterans Mecerial Coliseum by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) 1 as a reception center during a radiological emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Use of Facility. Hyatt Managementi conoration of New York. Inc.,
the lessee of the Massau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, agrees to allow LILCD to use the Coliseum, consisting of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum building and all parking lots and irrnediately surrounding property, as a l
reception center for the general public in planning for and responding to a radiological amargene Radiological Emergency bat Shoreham,(pursuant to the Local Offsite sponse Plan LILC0 Plan) developed by LILCO.
i LILC0's use of the Coliseum pursuant to the LILCO Plan shall include the l
following activities:
^
1.
Identifying the Coliseen, in the LILCO Plan ahd brochures and 4
other infomation distributed to the public, as a reception center for 3
. Joint use by LILC0 and the American Red Cross in the event of a
'I endiological amargency at Shoreham, where (1) LILCO will register, monitor
- N decontaminate (if necessary), and issue ' clean tags" to evacuees, and (2)
K the Red Cross will provide information and assist:.nce to
.w.
acuees as yequird 2.
Perfore:in and decontamination, if necessary, in the bradiological monitorinkng property in the event of a lisen and/or surround radiological.c=ergency at Shoreham, including using showers in the building and waterworts on the property for decontamination.
APP-B-12
l Mr. E. B. Smer'11n. Jr.
September 25. 1984 Page 2
~
{
3.
Developing layouts and implementing procedures for use of the Colise,um, in cooperation with Nassau County employees to allow LILCO to develop these items expeditiously.
l N
4.
Identifying, in cooperation with Coliseum employees, an area in
.- which to store any necessary amounts of equipment and supplies on the property at the facility, and storing such equipment and supplies upon
-m asonable terms to be agreed to by the parties.
Access. LILCO will be given M '
ss to the Coliseum upon notification by LILC0 to Hyatt or the Coun that a radiological if.
emergency exists at Shoreham. LILC0 will also be granted access to the Colisen to plan for and conduct drills and exercises of the Local Emergency Response Organization. These activities will be scheduled on a time-to-tism basis by the parties so as not to interfere with the normal operation of the Coliseum.
l Expenses. LILCO will be responsible for any expenses (1) incurred in the development of plans for use of the Coliseum, and (2) in using the Coliseum for planning, drills, exercises, or an emergency response. LfLCO will reis6urse Nassau County and/or Hyatt, as appropriate, for any expenses incurred by them in connection with such activities.
j Insurance and Indemnity. LILC0 will be liable for all damage to i
the Coliseum, normal wear and tear excepted, as a result of LILCO's use of the Coliseum pursuant to this Letter of Agreement, and LILC0 will indemnify and hold the County and Hyatt harmless from any claims or suits arising out of injury or death to any person or damage to property resulting from LILCO's use of the Coliseum pursuant to this Letter of Agreement. For all contractual and noncontractual non-nuclear liability arising out of either (1) the training of emergency response members or (2) response to a simulated or actual radiolog' cal emergency at Shoreham, LILCO will furnish a statement of self-insurance and/or an appropriate certificate of insurance showing that there is in effect', ar.d will remain
" in effect thcoughout the ters of this agreement, counrehensive' general liability insurance., including property damage. in tie following amounts:
Casprehens'ive General.Lieb111ty (including Personal Injury and ContractualLiability)-$1,000.000.
j,[
BodilyInjury(eachoccurrence)-$1.000.000.
~
),t;f,
Property Damage (each occurrence) - $300.000.
?,-
S LILCD will name, as additional insured. Hyatt Management Corporation of r.ew Yort. Inc.. its officers, directors, agents, and employees, and the County of Nassau and its cognizant officials, as their interests may appear. Within 10 days after the signing of this Letter of Agreement by the County and Hyctt. LILCO will deliver to Hyatt and the County certificates of insurance or evidence of self-insurance with the limits specified above, evidencing that the policies or self-insurance required feon LILCO are in full force ehd effect.
AFP-B-12A
Kr. E. 3. Sumerlin Jr.
September 25, 1984 Page 3 If you find that this La'tter of Agreement accurately represents our understanding regarding LILCO's use of the Coliseum during an emergency at Shoreham, please sign the Letter below and return it to me.
Thank you very much for allowing us to use the Coliseum in our efforts to aid the public in the unlikely event that an emergency were to occur at Shoreham.
Very truly yours.
1 A Q wn Dr.
iam J. Catacosinos Chai of the Board and i
Chief Executive Officer Long Island Lighting Company
(
f 5
rw HYATT MANAGEMENT CORPORAUON OF NEW YORX, INC.
lo[g[Bd.
DATE:
k pt p.
3, ;.);
,. ' t.
4 s
l APP-B-123
i
"/,;:ll'lllll'
.i NASSAU COUSEUM CFFICE OF THE EXECUTIV E wassAu couwrv ex1Euvive sun.oimo gg g
'#s.
- out west atmast V
usuaoi,4. w. y. ii g.. c
)
W.*'.
October 1, 1984 ot.
Mr. E.8. Sumerlin,.1r.
Vice President / General Manager Nassau Veterans Nemorial Coliseum
- Hyatt Management Corporation of New York, Inc.
Uniondale, New York 11553
Dear Mr. Sumerlin:
This letter will confira discussions between seabers of my staff 1
with you and officials of the Long Island Lighting Company regarding the use of the Nassau Vg.terans Hemorial Coliseus as a reception center. for the public in the event of a radiological amargen,cy,at. the Shoreham. Nuclear Power Station.
I en aware of and approve the use of the Coliseus as a reception center for members of the public requiring assistance from the Local Emergency Response Organization' and/or the American Red Cross as a result of any accident at Shorehan which results in the recommendation that the public evacuate from part or all of the Emergency Planning Zone around Shoreham., Included will be:
a.
The identification in public informati6n of.
, the Col 1seum as the reception center, b.
,The use of the Coliseus for performing
. radiological nomitoring and decontamination as necessary, and
'4 I.
c.
Cooperation with LILCD in planning, training
..dj.
and exercises es well as in the event of an 3
A accident.
.="w.
G :.
- ~.. u ;
3....;
,1' i :
P APP-B-24
.. s.
o i
-=-
Or Mr. E. B. Sumer1[n, Jr.
~~
- October 1, 1984
,,.P, age 2
- .e I* vant to assure you that in the event of an energency at
- Shoreham, as at all times, the Nassau County Police Department i
will be prepared to protect 'the public welfare of all those in Massau County.
The Department will, therefore, be available to provide assistance with security at the Coliseum, and to l
facilitate traffic flow and. parking at the Coliseum and its p*.
approaches.
I hope that an skreement can be reached promptly with the Nassau County Chapter or the American Red Cross to formalize their relationship with the Coliseum for its use by the Red Cross during any emergency, including a radiological accident at Shor m.
Ver truly your,
N [,a.-
-e Francis T. Purcel1 FTP:ser County Executive,
cc:
Dr. Willian 3. Catacosinos Long Island Lighting Company kr. Frank Rasbury American Red Cross l
l
.s i
~
e 9Y
~
1.~i%G AL%*..t.
.'q.p...
..d ;. y.....;w.,3. p.
n...
i t.
j-
+
l APP-B-24A
...1'....s*..'.
...,,.1. o....
- ;.. s-s ::s
- . i:.
......4
. s.E*.. *...
j f
t.**,'..*.
4 *e.*
,,..4*...
..,p
,.~
e..
'7'
.1.--....'. s 3 ;.,-. -
i 1
!L
,Q r[#5CO e.>
u
,,ONG ISL.AND LJGHTING n.....e.e,,.V e e..,
ese e o e
.e. e e.e.
.e ee.,m e,
i
~
m
- s. e
, e, uma summever October 23, 1984
.4
?
k.,..*.
Mr.' Frank M. Rasbury Ex.ecutive Director American Red Cross Nassau County Chapter 1
264 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 I
j Letter of Agreement for Use of Naamau Veterans Memorial Colis'eum by American Red Cross j
Dear Mr. Rasbury:
i As you know, Iong Island I.tghting Co npany has entered into an
)
agreement with Hyatt Management Corporation for the use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (Coliseum) as a reception center pursuant to the Zacal Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan (I.ILCO Plan) developed l
1 by I.ILCO. A copy of that agreement, dated September 25, 1984, is attached l
to this letter. The purpose of this letter is to set out our understanding regarding 1.ILCO's and the American Red Cross' use of the Coliseum as a j
1 reception contar pursuant to the I.ZLCO Plan..
i I.ILCO wC1 identify the Nasisau Veterans Memorial Coliseum in the '
I.ILCO Plan, brochures, and other information distributed to the Red Cross i
in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, where 1) the local Emergency Response Organisation (LERO) wSI register, monitor, decontaminate (if necessary), and issus ' clean tags" to evacuees, and 2) the American Red Cross will provide information and assistance to evacuees as required. The American Red Cross wC1 provide Red Cross staff to assist evacuees and to direct evacuees to congregate care centers operated by the. Red Cross, chosen' l
from among those on the list provided with the Letter.of Agreement between l
Imag Island Idghting Company and the American Red Cross. dated July 25, 1984.
)
l Red Cross Staff at the Nassau Cr.,'iseum wS1 anordinate with LERO moni-dortng and decontamination personnat to define a ' clean" area frun which the Red Cross wGt operate at the Coliseum; evacuees wS1 he monitored and, if l
l neemssary, decontaminated by LERO personnel prior to being directed to Red American Red Cross staff at congregate -
i '. Cross staff members at the Coliseum..h centers wol be trained to send any evacuse
' Ashould any find his way to e songregate omre conter without Srst coing to i
the Coliseum) back to the Coliseum for monitoring prtor to ecoepting him into d..
i O
APP-3-11 l
I
- q. :. -. *.
_,;;. _ t. :... ::
. ~.,.. _ -
2-October 23, 1984 Mr. Frank M. Rasbury f
the gangregata care centers. The location of specific congregate care centers wl21 not be included in public information materials; all evacuees will be direc ted to go to the Coliseum.
If you Snd that this letter accurately represents our understanding regarding the American Red Cross' use with.LILCO of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum during an emergency at Shoreham, please sign the letter i
bc. low and return it to me. Thank you very much for your continued afforts to provide aid to the public in the unlikely event that'an emergency were to occur at shoreham.
Very truly yours, 1
Matthew C. Cordaro, Ph.D.
Vice President W
rank M. Rasbury '
/
Executive Director
/
American Red Cross Nassau County Chapter j
DATED: October 4, IN4 4
y n6 e
0
- .2
,,. e e,
.s
+
O APP-B-11A e
5 3 AmhMh w
- c.,,,,cm,,,,,
I w
M4 Old Couary Read
~
Winsola. N.Y. !!$CI 4
(514) 147 3800 i
..y -
4,.L.
July 25,1984 Mrs. Elaine D. itobinson Long Island Lighting Company e.' -
i 100 East Old Country Road Micksville, N.Y.
11801 Re: Letter of Agreement letween LILC0 and the American Red Cross i
i j
Dear Mrs. Robinson:
J This letter confirms our recent discussions regarding the role of the American Red Cross, as determined by Charter of the U. 3. Congress, during an energency at the shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Upon notification of an emergency at Shoreham the Red Cross will set up energency centers at a predesignated facility (or facilities) to be listed in the LILC0 Transition Plan. The Red Cross will work with LILCO to identify the facility or facilites to be designated; any facility chosen will be to miles or more from the Shorehen site. The Red Cross will staff the designated facilities and will if necessary dispatch evacuees from these to additional 4
facilities for sheIter. It is agreed that the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) will provide monitoring and, if necessary, decontamination at the designated facilities.,,
In' addition, there exist agreements between the~ Nassa'u 4
County Chapter of the American Red Cross and the facilities named on i
the attached list, allowing the Red Cross to use the facilities for shelter during an emergency. These facilities will be relied.upon by i
l the Red Cross to provide additional space.as relocation centers in the event of a radiological emergency at shoreham and it is to these
- . facilities that evacuees would be directed if necessary fran the desipnated facilities in the LILC0 Plan. Ifthe'spaceinthese P
- t
. fact ities is needed during an mergency at Shoreham, the Red Cross would Mf1111 its usual emergency response functions at these i
facilities, including staffing than and providing supplies as needed.
It is estincted that these facilities could hold up to 48 033 people.
j All facilities are 20 miles or more frem the Shorehen KucIcar Power Station.-
l var m==== cs==r med o =
- h. eumatist seen car rf ased.
e
,:lgg, e e me.e uw.d c
==*r ased air. nw re as (Amed war.
ate d rr th e rd in d. hue.
--.L
$ $ $ - ~- - ---
-~
l Mrs. Elaine Robinson Long Island Lighting Comparty Page 2.
t 100 East Old Country Road Hicksville. New York 11801
<t.
LILCO has agreed to provide any training the Red Cross may require.
Red Cross personnel will participate as appropriate in emergency planning drills u.J exercises to assure a successful response in an actual emergency.
ely.
h,A l s
Frank M. Rasbury
/
Executive Director FM:tm6 e
.e e
e g'.I e
d
.9 g
[
~
i AFF-B-10A
./
SEi1FER 2NPDRrAIDs 19521p>
264 OLD C0bNTRY ROAD
^
..e NINEDLA, my 11501 i.
i 152 r ci & CAPy.T.TT 1
i Contact sholden Pushs.
1975 Baldwin Publis seheels 22M00 set. 207/208 533 Eigh seheelIrive 3aldwin. New York 11510 2973 SelassreJiarr.isk Central E.3. Dist.
Mr. Ellinger
- 2691 MenestAreek Bead 623 8900
. gozo
,s 11566
. M.2.
Marrask. E.T.
1978 Carlo Flase Unisa Free Seheel '
George Soph 1 gas Carla Flace. 5.T.
115 3 -
3$.1900 est. 224 1979 East Meadow Balsa Free seheel Dist.
C3&ude stringhna Mr. Caspe 300 Carman Ave.
?$.7000 art. 206't.
.. East Easdow.,New Tark 115$
1978 East Reclammy Publis Sehnisla Edware lattare t
579 7589 uoo East Res1miny E.C.
Aabet Merse t'
Geesa Ave.
399 75Bp
..Esst Roslainy. B.T. 11513 1981 East W1111 sten Echsel Distrist 3 7 4ct0
~
900 110 E. Willistea Ave.
Eset h111 sten. N.I. 11596 syys' Elmost Publia Seheels 3S.AEL7 E2most asad ge E1 asst. E.Y& 11003 1f75 Farmingdale Publia seheels 752.4512 1300 Yan ontt & Grant Ave.
s349 7660 Tarminadale, n.T. 11735 1981 F3sen1. Park.3e11rese Unisa Pree askel Dist.
Mr. Russe 21 352.0768 400
,1 Peppy Flaes
. F3eral Park. 3.Y. 1100L Franklin spre assen Free seheel Dist.
..Sestse Reyveles 1981 2 600 Eskington street,
.334.104)
Franklin aqdare 5.T. 1150 s
Robert summana
- ~
Freeport Putate asleets 1976
( SMD 235 parth Seena Ave.
62).2100
(
Freepris 5.T.
11520 ar. Beietseh 5 1980...'-;... *. Sarden City Publis schools l 1300,. *;..
sarden City. 5.Y. 11530 244 7Foo
. Anthmar Friaalais 1978 Eien hve Publia Anneels 1300 Bedsris Emme 471 372 Clas cave. 3.T. 11$3 ij t
, gyp.g.10s o.
~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
. ~. < - - - - -
,- 'e
~
,'.h Necriaks Publia seheels b:.tcet 741 7800 g
gggo shelte Esek Read se, x8e Park, s.Y. yoko l
2,sz sed st nun s. hot rred neral.
saco 60 avarit Ave.
374 5200 Gus Erane Eadstt.E.T. 11557 t
1974 Bedett-46dmare Onisa Free seheel Dist.
Earry 11ahter i
200 1 Ashasen F1ase 3?4 5200 art. 213 i
g.
bdaaraqr.R.L 11595 i
1975 Eisksville Publia sehsels 733 2100 Enthleen Engan 3400 Divisina Ave.
Eisksvills. 5.T.
118E 1
4 32.8933
,{.
1980 1sland Park scheela j
.. Island Park, s.I. 11558 43L.aloo 480 Island Trees Unian Free'ashool Dist.
Mr. Fred Beist i
i 1M
- 04. Flaeo a conder Read 731l.A020 ID 1,evittom. 5.L 11736 stdla Clark 731-7247 I
1m Zawrense Jr. E.S.
Bertan Thorp j
323 14urenee. 5.T.
295 2'00 est. 283/253 o
1975 Zeenst Valler centesi schnel James Dissenamel 1400 Zeesst Taller B.I.
11560 Rishard saith 676.8430 j
1981 1ang Beseh E.B.
W1211aa h 1dna 800 7.1de Elvd. & Allevard street 889 2410 t
Zeng Besah. 5.T.
Zarry Deurger 88p.2167 l
1974 Eaumbeoek Baaen Free sensel Dist.
Immis Pearsall i
1000
. Watwir Ave.
3.T 3.A861 ra.s n.eme.r. n.T. 115:s 1976 Massapequa Sense spissepal Chursh father John Jobsen f
100 4750 marraak asad 7381122 masapequa. 5.L 11738 19y5 Massapequa Rich ashnel William A. Eldard 13os 43t3 marrask send
'341.4600
,q,,s masampaqua, 5.7. 31358 lawenee Chapman
!l pas J ',Malverse W.F.S.h 19b3.".
usedraald saad 887-7733 t
seekryssa centes, s.L 3157o t'.ankmeest Publie ashools ar. Deum Isla I
1975 l;
3:33 Eamerial ramme -
627A400 Imahneest. C.T. 2103o Dr. haald Grote i.
627.A400 j li APP-B-10C.
t e
e
.-.mvvw,-,-,_
,978'.
Ein=2a h a tall contact: Enyor amith
- s0*. i Jeriste Turnpike
$7 2232 s hee 3a..E.Y.
115cL Einels b$a Free.Scheel Dist.
$7 6700
.g 200 Emery *Esad
/
.g Ess=2a. 5.L 115a1 4
- o
,,gg Rasma Ortsty 3.D.C.E.3.
FF7 8700
. gap salisbury Center..
Valentimes Ed. & The 72ata Ed.
, Westbury. 5.L 22590
,..u
- yyy Es. Se22ames W.F.S.R.
222 2200 E.6c0 2626 Martaa Ave.
1 Es. Se13ases. 3.L 31724 i
Earth Merriak U.F.3.3..
37pJHrto i
, 576 1775 02d Mill nead
.Y.
..' Es. Merrisk. 3.L 32366 i..40 Berth Ehere Sehmels 672-3500 W.
Sea C1122' 3.L Seesaside Marie Ave. Selmel 67L2200 1982 Marls Ave.
P0 Seeanside. 3.L 21572 1
1 i :.776 Syster Bay.2last Herwish sebeel Dist, st2 3L70 i *J20 Syster Bay 3.T.
11771 1
932 72ainedse Puh2.is 'Seteels 3erman 32ask 735 4100 art l%
T.600 Eiskrille Road Set.hynge. E.L 12724 if76 Fisinesse.cid Sethpage Central seheel F38.$00 cao 72asseist. 3.L 22503 stat m akingtes D.F.5.3.
I.saold Champs 1 2938
=72.
1 x.a4 i
. 4.=5t7 Awt Washimstaa, s.T. 11050..
Franeis Easta l.
88).4000
- 2776 anoseTuG.t Publis anhsols 3F8-730E
! 4c0 308 Basmas Band amesseelt, s.L
- asta
.. andra Publie ashmels 422,4900 aus,,.. Isenst same andra see arte
.:.i*.
1961 '.'.,'st.' fanations Eastarr.
Father Narre *
! 320 -
, set as.eamr 33L.0036 31sters12s. 5.L tiset l
' m -a-loo l'
l
=. - -.. -
- - - - = =.
ghg4 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ft# 3
([
NY $ebu6m&
Pttee F..cpaeatam surrota cotwev escc.imys CPFICE OF THE COUa(YY Extcutivt,,
Jona c. asu.4 cure cater esevre couwrv sascim,e March 14. 1985
- x. Harold Denton. Director Office of Nuclear Raactor Regulation U.S. Woclear Regulatory Commiteion Washington, D. C.
20555 Dest Mr. Denton By letter to you dated Febniary 22. 1985. L1LCO's Vice President for Nuclear Operations extended an invitation to the N10 $teff to observa the con =
Just of a " tabletop exercise" of LILCO's offsita amargency plan for Shoreham.
This is to advisa you that Suffolk County objects to the NRC staff aboarving or in any other way participating in, witriessing, or lending support or credi-bility to any form of exercise of f.11,00's offsita emergency plan.
On February 20, 1985. the New York 8 tate suorama court ruled that under the Constitution std laws of the State of Ne* York. LILCO does not hava authority to implerrent its of fsite emergency plan. Therefore. any exercisa by 2.ILCO of its plan would b'e an act of practicing and preparing for the in-piementation of an act contrary to law.
Sincervly.
John C. Galle er Chief Deputy JCGipi ces Service List Mr. Richard W. Krian Assistant Assnefate Efrar.ror Federal Emergency Management AAency Room 506
$00 C 8treet. 8.W.
WeehtoAten. D. C.
20472
~ tea wennsen succums omes euuue welf 318 9 M9mestaak mscan.49
,;.;;;= " -
d
'4 ji%
m (Q.
f& f I'SW $l4ftr(
r..Z k :
- 'r -
f T6AOM i SewuM:tE INSERT FOR THE RECORD DW SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT p,( w FEBRUARY 28, 1985
{} dhea N" Insert for page
,line l
At the hearing before the Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment held on February 28, 1985 concerning NRC's budget request for fiscal years 1986 and 1987, a question was raised regarding emergency planning. Specifically, we were asked to identify the amount NRC spent on reviewing LILCO's offsite emergency plan.
l In May 1983, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) submitted interim offsite plans for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Staticn.
In December 1983 and July 1984, Revisions 3 and 4, respectively, of the currently identified LILCO Transition Plan (one of the plans submitted in May 1983) were received for review. All of these plans were submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for review, '
as FEMA has the respcnsibility for evaluating the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness.
The NRC has also reviewed these plans, because of our interest in their interface with the LILCO onsite emergency plan and the NRC's respon-sibility to provide an overall assessment of adequacy of both onsite and offsite emergency preparedness. Approximately 480 hours0.00556 days <br />0.133 hours <br />7.936508e-4 weeks <br />1.8264e-4 months <br /> have been spent by the NRC for this review, which includes 160 hours0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> by the NRC member of the Regional Assistance,.,
~
Comittee in support of the FEMA review activities.
=-
['
.1
(,-
/
UNITED STATES 4
,,... c, s u
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v
2, iL,S wAsmmorow.o.c.aoses t
/
~
/
Cvs: Dircks Roe February 26, 1985 Rehm Stello r,Cunninnham Denton dv, wg' The Honorable Alan K. Simpson, Chairman -
k Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation gg Committee en Environment and Publis Works United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
,b M
Dear Mr. Chairman:
i This responds to your and Senator Johnston's letter ofwhichrequ t
October 31, 1984
\\
O three questions concerning Department of Energy (00E) and i
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) authority to dip s
implement emergency plans for nuclear power plants.
Your f quest, tons and our replies follow:
s y
1.
Does the Commission interpret its regulations on i
emergency planning for nuclear reactors (10 CFR 50.47 and 50.54) as permitting or precluding a i
federal agency, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Department of Energy, from participating in the implementation of (including, i
but not limited to, providing the necessary " legal authority" to implement) an offsite emergency preparedness plan?
The Commission interprets its regulations as not precluding a Federal agency from participating in the implementation of a utility offsite emergency. plan, and as requiring full consideration of the merits of any utility plan.
The Commission's emergency preparedness regulations (10 CFR 1 50.47 and i 50.54(s)) require a finding for operation of a power reactor above five percent of rated power that there is
" reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency."
While the regulations were generally based on the assumption that State and local governments would participate fully in both the development and the implementation of offsite emergency plans, the Commission clearly contemplated the possibility of considering a utility sponsored offsite plan if l:
a State or local government decided not to adopt or implement a plan of its.own.
Accordingly, a utility plan would be considered under 10 CFR I 50.47(c)(1), which provides that an
/
) M i }/S[ [O I: r c-h
applicant will have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plan
)
are not significant for the plant in question, that adequate interim compensating action has been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation.
10 CFR l 50.54(s)(2)(ii), applicable to o'perating reactors, provides comparable flexibility.
Anth provisions allow consideration of a utility plan as a possibly adequate compensating measure for the lack of State or local government participation.
There is no basis in the regulations for distinguishing a utility plan which includes Federal agency im'plementation from any other utility plan.
An under 10 CFR l 50.47(c)(1) y utility plan wot2d be evaluated and i 50.54(s)(2)(11).
The Commission believes that this interpretation of its regulations is fully consistent with section 108 of the SY$~.
1984-1985 Authorization Act, P.L.98-553.
- -".s#
4 2.
If either or both of these two agencies (the Department of Ener Management Agency)gy and the Federal Emergency were to conclude that they have the statutory authority to participate in the implementation of an offsite emergency preparedness plan, and further undertake to do so, would it be the Commission's position that the Commission would defer to such agency's determination regarding the scope of that agency's statutory authority to undertake such action?
Under these circumstances, as a practical matter, the Commission would defer to'an agency's or department's General Counsel's interpretation of the agency's or department's governing statutes.
However, such deference would not also extend to interpretations by an agency or department of statutory authority which also would have a bearing on our own statutory authority and responsibility.
Thus, in summary, while we ordinarily would defer to the legal views of FEMA and 00E on matters relating to the scope of their statutory authority, we must always reserve to ourselves the final decision of whether, in a specific case, such deference would be consistent with our own statutory authority and responsibility.
Commissioner Bernthal believes that, as a general principle, the Commission should not enmesh itself in the interpretation of another agency's statutory authority on matters where the NRC's own enabling legislation is silent.
While he agrees that the Commission must, as a practical matter, always reserve to itself the final decision on whether deference to another agency's interpretation of that agency's statutes is
l 3
j I
consistent with the Commission's own statutory authority and i
responsibility, in this case the Commission has already determined that both NRC statute and regulations are silent on the issue of the legal authority of DOE or FEMA to implement an emergency plan.
Therefore, the Commission should resolve to deal with this matter in one of two ways:
either 1) ask 00J at the outset for an interpretation of the statutory authority of all agencies involved in the matter, or alternatively, 2) defer to 00E or FEMA's interpretation and let the courts settle the matter, as they' inevitably will.
The Commission's letter could have and should have stated unambiguously which of the above policy options the Commission finds preferable.
3.
If not, please provide a complete and detailed legal analysis setting forth the Commission's views with respect to the statutory authority of any federal agency or department to participate in the implementation (including, but not limited to, providing)the necessary " legal authority" to implement of an offsite emergency preparedness
'~
plan.
In view of our answer to question 2, we understand that no answer to this question is needed.
Commissioner Asselstine has the following comments:
"I agree with the Commission's response to your first question, but I disagree with the response to your second question.
As our General Counsel noted in preparing the draft response to your letter, there are several significant problems with an NRC deferral to a 00E or FEMA determination that those agencies have the legal authority to participate in the implementation of an offsite emergency preparedness plan.
First, as the Commission has long recognized, offsite emergency planning and preparedness is a safety requirement for operation of a nuclear power plant.
The ability to implement an emergency plan depends upon whether the implementing entities have the legal authority to carry out their responsibilities.
Therefore, the question of the legal authority of the implementing agencies is clearly relevant to the Commission's safety responsibilities and findings.
Deferral to 00E or FEMA on this issue would therefore amount to an abdication of the Commission's safety responsibilities.
Second, our emergency planning regulations do not support a deferral to FEMA and 00E findings on their legal authority to s-
'/
implement an offsite plan.
Our regulations, by noting that FEMA findings (and, by inference. 00E findings) are rebuttable in NRC licensing proceedings, provide expressly for an independent NRC determination on the issues addressed by the FEMA findings.
- Third, I
-4 srftfon 189 a. of the Atomic Energy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act can be read as providing an opportunity to submit argument to the Commission on legal issues such as this.
Given these objections to an NRC deferral to FEMA or 00E, our General Counsel advised that the Commission should defer to a finding by 00E or FEMA that those agencies have sufficient legal authority to implement an offsite plan only if the DOE or FEMA finding is supoorted by a written and publicly available opinion by the Department of Justice.
I agree with our General Counsel.
Requiring a formal written opinion by the Attorr.ey General on this subject has several advantages.
First, an Attorney General's opinion generally provides a thorough, well-reasoned and well-researched evaluation of
(
the legal issue involved.
Second, an Attorney General's opinion is made public, thereby providing for public scrutiny and review.
Third, an Attorney General's opinion provides a definitive legal intr pretation within j
the !!xecutive Branch.
Since the Department of Justice i
must ultimately defend the government's position in court, it simply makes good sense to have the formal opinion of the Attorney General before the NRC makaa Ltt decision on the issue.
For these reasons, I believe $4sW the Commission must insist upon a formal opinion of the-Attorney General before it can rely on a 00E or FEMA assertion that those agencies have the legal authority to implement an offsite emergency plan."
Sincerely,
- s., s pUx -
Nunzio
. Palladino Identical Letter sent to:
The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United states senate Washington, D. C.
20510 o~
1
I
(
/
o
~g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
i
,I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556
\\+..../
February 8, 1985 4
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard W. Krinun Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
LILCO RESPONSE TO FEMA FINDINGS ON SHOREHAM TRANSITION PLAN Enclosed is a letter dated January 16, 1985 from John D. Leonard, Jr., Vice Presi-dent-Nuclear Operations, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) to Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, which transmits LILCO's responses to the FEMA findings developed as a result of the review by the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) of Revision 4 to the LILCO offsite Transition Plan for Shoreham. Attachment 1 to the LILCO letter presents LILCO's proposed resolution for each of the eight remaining inadequacies in the Transition Plan identified by FEMA.
With respect to the FEMA /RAC concerns involving LILCO's legal authority to imple-ment the Transition Plan, LILCO states that these concerns are among the issues presently in litigation before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Further, LILCO's view that it possesses the legal authority to implement all necessary aspects of the Transition Plan is contained in pleadings before these bodies and resolution of legal authority issues must await the results of this litigation.
We request that you review LILCO's proposed resolutions and infonn us as to whether this information satisfactorily responds to the identified inadequacies in the Shoreham Transition Plan. Based on discussions between Robert Wilkerson of FEMA and David Matthews of NRC on February 1,1985, I understand that FEMA j
will provide the results of this review by April 1,1985.
s ware L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Ltr. dtd. 1/16/85 from J.D. Leonard to H.R. Denton cc: See Attached
_/_
/\\
gr, a o e, % f, -,e EY
i February 8, 1985
.. cc:
J. M. Taylor, IE R. H. Vollmer, IE l
J. G. Partlow, IE S. A. Schwartz, IE D. B. Matthews IE C. R. Van Niel, IE F. Kantor, IE J. R. Sears, IE E. S. Christenbury, ELD R. Caruso, NRR R. R. Bellamy, Region I R. S. Wilkerson, FEMA l
l
fghq W
~
sanu ssq T'_fgfC LONG 1SLAND LVGHTING COMPANY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. SOX G15, NORTH, COUNTRY RO AD. WADING RIVER. N.Y.11792 JOHN D. LEONARD.JR.
vtCE P#tli0ENT. NUCLE AR OPERATIONS I
January 16, 1985 SNRC-1133 I
l
{
i Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC, 20555 FEMA Findings on LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Denton:
Your November 28, 1984 letter requests that LILCO review and inform the NRC by January 1, 1985 of its intended response to each of the eight inadequacies relative to NUREG-0654 criteria, and to the legal concerns, identified by the FEMA Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) in its review of Revision 4 to the l
LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham.
. Attachment 1 entitled " Summary of Response to Consolidated RAC Review of LILCO Transition Plan Rev.4 for Shoreham: Items Graded Inadequate" summarized, for each of the eight listed i
i l
deficiencies, its NUREG-0654 criterion number, the RAC comment, I
and LILCO's proposed resolution.
These resolutions will be contained in the next revision to the Shoreham offsite emergency i
I plan.
No date has yet been set for issuance of that revision.
With respect to the RAC concerns involving LILCO's legal authority to implement its offsite emergency plan, they, or various aspects of them, are presently among the issues being raised in litigation before one Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
in this case (Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)), as well as in lawsuits pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, et al., v. Suffolk County, Docket No. 83-4966) and the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County ((Cuomo, et al. v. LILCO, Consolidated Index No. 84-4615).
LILCO's view on these issues -- namely, l
~YOh[ \\'t '
l
~
SNRC-1133 Page 2 that it possesses the legal authority to implement all necessary aspects of the Transition Plan -- is set forth at length in pleadings before each of those bodies.
Under present circumstances, further resolution of " legal authority" issues must abide the results of this litigation.
Very truly yours,
{
\\.
k onar, Jr.
Vi e President i
Nuc ear Operations CAD /kv
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Mr. P. Eselgroth m
l l
.~
E
- 9 c
e I
l ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 i
SlH1ARY OF RESPONSES *ID (I)NSULIDh1ED RAC REVIHf 0F LIIOD 1RANSITION PIAN REV. 4 FOR SK)RBIAM IDNS mADB) INAIE]tIATE
[tes No.
RAC ('memt Resolution
\\.2b(1)
LIlO0 has indicated in their sumnry of responses See cover letter 1
to the consolidated RAC review for Revision 3 of the plan (see page 2 of 13), that this is a legal authority issue to be addressed elsewimre and there is no nodification to Revision 4 of j
the llan. Therefore, the legal authorities / bases of tw IERO plan are not yet defined and for this reason, the elenent has been rated inadequate.
A.3(1)
A detennination of the overall adequacy of tlese A copy of the confidential conputerized anbulance and anbulette resources nust await Homebomd Evacuation Listing will be j
tabulation of the transportation needs of available for FHE's review during the non-institutionalized mobility impaired (see upcoming FEMA /NRC observed excercise.
)
exsiple Invalid / Disabled Evacuation Listing, l
Zone Q, Procedure OPIP 3.6.5, Attaciment 1).
A.3(2) h letter of mderstanding with FAA should A letter of agreenent with the FAA is being be a letter of agreenent from the agency to requested and will be included with the LIIDO (see Appendix B, B-54).
letters of Agreenent, Appendi-3.
If the letter cannot be obtained, FAA su) port will be requested through FR n under t m auspices of the FRERP.
A.3(3)
There are no letters of agreenent included in LIILO has arranged for the use of the the LIIOD Transition Plan with the facilities Hassau County Veteran's Memorial designated to serve as relocation centers.
Coliseum as a reception center. LIILO 1his elenent has been rated inadequate because has obtained a letter of agreement frun
. the plan nust contain letters of agreenent with Ilyatt Managenent to allow LERD to monitor i
the facilities to be used for the monitoring and decontaminate evacuees at the facility.
and decontanination of evacuees.
In addition, Nassau Comty has written a letter to llyatt Managenent Corporation approving tie use of the facility in case of a Shoreham emergency. These letters are enclosed in Attaciment 2.
1
Ibgc 2 SutMRY OF RESIMSES 'ID ONH.inGD RAC REVIBi 0F IJILO 'IRANSITION PIAN REV. 4 RR SIERBIAN TIB13 CRADED INADITitRTE
't Itna No.
RAC n==nmt Resolution C.4(1) h letters of agreenent with facilities to'be See elenent A.3(3). In addition, a letter used as relocation centers are missing. 'Ihis of Agreenent with the Nassau County Red Cross elenent has been rated inad~=mte because the has >een obtained, is enclosed in Attacirent 2.
plan sust contain letters of agrement with
'Ihis letter identifies the Congregate Care the facilities to be used for the monitoring and Centers that will be activated in decontandnation of evacuees. Also see analysis Nassau County to shelter evacuees. While a cannents for element A.3.
sun 11 nunber of facilities listed are operated i
by New York State, the ransining facilities provide sore than enough capacity for the ntaber of evacuees expected to require shelter assistance.
I.7(1)
It should be noted that the IDO radiological OPIP 3.5.1, Downwind Surveying, will j
procedures are still included in the plan.
be renaved fran the procedures.
'Ihese procedures apparently. remain fran Revision Support organizations providing this 3 dwrein IDO was to provide field teams if service will use their own procedures.
needed. In Revision 4, there is no plan to use IRO personnel since DOE-RAP will -)erfona field monitoring fmetions: therefore, tie IBO radiological procedures should be deleted frun the plan.
I.7(2)
Page 7 in Procedure OPIP 3.5.1 has not been OPIP 3.5.2 will be revised to state i
changed in Revision 4.
h plan at page 3.5-2a, that the survey team will,.if instructed i
lines 3-6, states that laboratory analysis can by the RAP Tema Captain to expedite l
be perfonned, h potential problan alluded to return of sanples, proceed directly to the l
in line 3 of page 3.5-2a (i.e., the calculation DOE-RAP headquarters prior to going to the l
of thyroid dose fran the iodine saples taken in Bnergency Worker Decontandnation Facility.
the field) has not been addressed by any changes in the operating procedures set forth in Pro-cedure OPIP 3.5.1, which should provide for expedited laboratory analysis, j
J
lig,e 3 SlitMRY OF RESl0NSES '10 00NSOLIIWI1D RAC REVilM OF LIIID 'llMNSITION PLAN REV. 4 FOR SIERBIAH T1DtS G MDED INADif)lINIE tan No.
RAC thement Resoluthm i
.9(1)
Although LIIID's sunmary of the consolidated Section 3.3 of OPIP 3.5.2 will be modified RAC review ccanents for Revision 3 stated to provide for expedited retum of fie.1d that exydited laboratory analysis will be sanples to Brookhaven National Laboratory made, t m Procedure (OPIP 3.5.2, Section 3.3) for analysis. See also item I.7(2).
does not include provisions for expediting this analysis. Ebrther, Procedure OPIP 3.5.1 does not call for an expedited return of these sanples to the laboratory. In fact, the dis-crepancies about where the location of the Environnental Survey Function, discussed in the conment for element I.8, is also of concern here. 'Ihe instructions in Procedure OPIP 3.5.1 are to be returned to the Dnergency Worker Decontamination Center at the local EOC where they will be transferred to the Enviromental Survey Ebnction, and taken into the EOC for
~
further analysis."h plan should be revised to clarify that sanple media will be taken to Brookhaven National Laboratory for analysis.
1.9 (2)-
Attachments 5 and 6 of Procedure OPIP 3.5.2
'1he RAC concerns identified in tim Rev. 3 have been renoved and incorporated into a review about OPIP 3.5.2 Attaciunents 5 and 6 conputerized procedure. 'Ihe RAC couments for were that the heading of the tables should be Revision 3 of the plan with regard to the
' changed to read, nultiply results by 10E-6' nomogran are still valid. 'Ihe asstmptions When these values were transferred to the used in the couputerized approach may not be conputer memory they were inputted with the realistic.
correct units. h RAC concerns on the use of the nomogram for calculation of thyroid dose using the 'ICS air sapler were addressed in Rev. 4.
Page 4 SENARY OF RESIMSES 'IO 00NSOLIIKITD RAC PEVIDi 0F LIIID 'IRANSITIG4 FIAN REV. 4 FOR SEEllAN j
TRNS GADED INADEQlWIE Itan No.
RAC fhunent Resolution
!i l
1.10(1)
As noted above in the discussion for element I.9, h DOE-RAP Team uses the IRDAM dose inclusion of the required information in a assessment model on a portable Osborne caputerized procedure may not be adequate, since Canputer. h development of this dose the previous revision of the plan did not contain assessment model was sponsored by tim NRC the required nomograms, and in the current and published in NUREG/CR-3012. IIRO uses revision this information has been incorporated the ACQOS dose assessment model described
)
into a ter progran. LERO anticipates that in OPIP 3.5.2, on an HP-85b portable DOE-RAP 1
out dose assessment conputations couputer. 'lhis model is matlusnatically the and, therefore, IDO caputerized methodology same that was previously included in the may not be necessary. FEHA will evaluate the manual calculation metlu>d of Rev. 3.
h capability to obtain accurate dose assessment information previously needed to conplete tle calculations during an exercise of off-site missing nomograms has been developed and radiological emergency preparedness. '1he current included in the cmputerized software. Both version of the plan does not contain a method for of these systens may be used in the EOC which mamal calculation of dose. A procedure for has a back-up po m e supply.
LIIID feels that nanual calculation was contained in Revision 3 of the availability of two independent proven the plan in the event of cmputer malfunction.
and reliable dose assessment systems
. It appears that Revision 4 addresses a problan precludes the necessity of hav'ing a by renoving the affected pages of the manual backup.
necessarily by correcting the problen. plan not If 1D0 l
decides to retain their procedure described in the plan, h=mtation of the caputer progran should be provided to FEHA for review.
J.9(1) h IDA Bnergency PAGs for ingestion are for h Plan will be revised to reference projected doses of 5 ran whole body and 15 ran the correct EDA PAGs and Cs-134 has to the thyroid: not 25 ran thyroid as stated been added to the list of nuclides in the plan. Also the interpretation of how to evaluated. h discussion in the Plan will also be 'evised to correctly quote use the response level tables (i.e., instructions r
contained in the footnotes) has been incorrectly the Federal Register.
transcribed from the Federal Register referenced 1
in the plan. In addition, page 3.6-2 lines 46 and 47, should state "5" nuclides, and include Cs-134.
Page 5 SutMRY OF RESKNSES 'IU 00N90LIIKIED RAC REVIEW OF LIIID 'IRANSITION PIAN REV. 4 HR SiK)RBIAM 11THS mADm IMDHQUNIE from No.
RAC P-nmt Resolution LILOO has identified the roads Imving tle J.10.K(1)
LIIID relies on local snow ramval organizations who may be accoupanied by IIRO personnel who will highest Icvels of traffic flow and will add tlxsn provide dosimetry to ensure that untrained workers as an attaciment to the procedure. 'Ihe Brook-do not receive doses in excess of PAGs for tim haven and Riverhead Townships, Suffolk Comty general public (see coument for element A.1.b),
and New York State Deartment of Public lbrks the need to coordinate pre-energency planning for will be notified of twse road priorities in snow renoval along evacuation routes is greater in case of an evacuation during or inmediately this particular case. 'Ihis is especially true in following a snowfall.
view of the fact that since resources may be limited, there is a need to ensure that timse l
resources would be used in an effective mamer where sheltering may not be reconmended. For t
exanple, it would be advisable to ensure that efforts are concentrated on keeping evacuation arteries rather than side streets, driveways, etc. clear. 'Ihe plan is not clear as to low 13 0 could coordinate snow removal by normal response functions in the event,lowever unlikely, they would be needed during an energency (see pages 2.2-4g and h of the plan). 'Iberefore pre-anergency i
plaming for snow renoval on the evacuation routes should :)e further developed to include adninistrative procedures, SOPS, etc. 'lhese procedures are recoumended to ensure that the snow renoval strategy would coincide with any evacuation scheme that i
might be chosen.
i.
ATTACHMENT 2
1 f
1 4
.i
~. -.
i l
l
\\
ME,d,"0 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 250 OLD COUNTRY ROAD
- hilNEOLA. NEW YORK 11501 1
September 25, 1984 Mr. E. B. Sumerlin, Jr.
General Manager Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Hyatt Management Corporation of N.Y., Inc.
c/o Nassau Coliseum Uniondale, NY 11553
Dear Sir:
LETTER OF AGREEMENT FOR USE OF NASSAU VETERANS MEMORIAL COLISEUM BY LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY This letter confims our recent discussions regarding the use of Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) as a reception center during a radiological emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Use of Facility. Hyatt Management Corporation of New York, Inc.,
the lessee of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, agrees to allow LILCO to use the Coliseum, consisting of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum building and all parking lots and insnediately surrounding property, as a reception center for the general public in planning for and responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, Radiological Emergency Response Plan (pursuant to the Local OffsiteLILCO Plan LILC0's use of the Coliseum pursuant to the LILCO Plan shall include the following activities:
1.
Identifying the Coliseum, in the LILC0 Plan and brochures and other infonnation distributed to the public, as a reception center for Joint use by LILCO and the American Red Cross in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, where (1) LILCO will register, monitor
. decontaminate (if necessary), and issue " clean tags" to evacuees, and (2) the Red Crtss will provide infonnation and assistance to evacuees as required.
2.
Perfonning radiological monitoring and decontamination, if necessary, in the Coliseum and/or surrounding property in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, including using showers in the building and waterworks on the ' property for decontamination.
APP-B-12 I
<-~e
.---.e,-
e
,w
--,,--,r--,-,
,-,,s--,,-,,
a------
Mr. E. B. Sumerlin, Jr.
September 25, 1984 l
Page 2 3.
Developing layouts and implementing procedures for use of the Colise,um, in cooperation with Nassau County employees to allow LILCO to develop these items expeditiously.
4.
I;1entifying, in cooperation with Coliseum employees, an area in which to store any necessary amounts of equipment and supplies on the property at the facility, and storing such equipment and supplies upon reasonable tems to be agreed to by the parties.
Access. LILCO will be given Mi ess to the Coliseum upon notification by LILCO to Hyatt or the Count that a radiological emergency exists at Shoreham. LILCO will also be granted access to the Coliseum to plan for and conduct drills and exercises of the Local Emergency Response Organization. These activities will be scheduled on a time-to-time basis by the parties so as not to interfere with the normal operation of the Coliseum.
Expenses. LILC0 will be responsible for any expenses (1) incurred in the development of plans for use of the Coliseum, and (2) in using the Coliseum for planning, drills, exercises, or an emergency response. LI1.C0 will reimburse Nassau County and/or Hyatt, as appropriate, for any expenses incurred by them in connection with such activities.
Insurance and Indemnity. LILCO will be liable for all damage to the Coliseum, nomal wear and tear excepted, as a result of LILCO's use of the Coliseum p'ursuant to this Letter of Agreement, and LILCO will indemnify and hold the County and Hyatt hamless from any claims or suits arising out of injury or death to any person or damage to property resulting from LILCO's use of the Coliseum pursuant to this Letter of Agreement. For all contractual and noncontractual r.on-nuclear liability arising out of either (1) the training of emergency response members or (2) response to a simulated or actual radiological emergency at Shoreham, LILCO will furnish a statement of self-insurance and/or an appropriate certificate of insurance showing that there is in effect, and will remain in effect throughout the tem of this agreement, comprehensive general liability insurance, including property damage, in the following amounts:
Comprehensive General Liability (Including Personal Injury and Contractual Liability) - $1,000,000.
Bodily Injury (each occurrence) - $1,000,000.
Property Damage (each occurrence) - $300,000.
LILC0 will name, as additional insured, Hyatt Management Corporation of New York, Inc., its officers, directors, agents, and j
employees, and the County of Nassau and its cognizant officials, as their interests may appear. Within 10 days after the signing of this Letter' of Agreemer.t by the County and Hyatt. LILCO will deliver to Hyatt and the County certificates of insurance or evidence of self-insurance with the limits specified above, evidencing that the policies or self-insurance required from LILCO are in full force and effect.
APP-B-12A
Mr. E. B. Sumer.lin, Jr.
September 25, 1984 Page 3 If you find that this Letter of Agreement accurately represents our understanding regarding LILCO's use of the Coliseum during an emergency at Shoreham, please sign the Letter below and return it to me.
Thank you very much for allowing us to use the Coliseum in our efforts to aid the public in the unlikely event that an emergency were to occur at Shoreham.
Very truly yours.
b.'. C b w Dr.
tam J. Catacosinos Chat of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Long Island Lighting Company
(
i e-x _.
HYATT MANAGEMENT CORPORAU ON OF NEW YORK, INC.
DATE: 10 / 9 [Ed.
e go 9
9 3
APP-B-12B
s.
r
~
o l
~ ~ " ~
NASSAU COUSEUf OFFICE OF THE' EXECUTIVE g2 Eb NASSAU COUNTY EXidUTIVE Bun. DING O N E WEST STR E ET MIN EOL.A. N. Y.1150f
'l-4_..
s October 1, 1984 Mr. E.B. Sumerlin, Jr.
Vice President / General Manager i
Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum
- Hyatt Management Corporation of New York, Inc.
Uniondale, New York 11553
Dear Mr. Sumerlin:
This letter will confirm discussions between members of my staff with you and officials of the Long Island Lighting Company regarding the use of the Nassau Vg.terans.Nemorial Coliseum as a reception center for the'public in the event of a radiological emergency,at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
I am aware of and approve the use of the Coliseum as a reception center for members of the public requiring assistance from the Local Emergency Response Organization' and/or the American Red Cross as a result of any accident at Shoreham which results in the recommendation that the public evacuate from part or all of the
+
Emergency Planning Zone around Shoreham.. Included will be:
a.
The identification in public information of the Coliseum as the reception center, b.
The use of the Coliseum for performing
,. radiological monitoring and decontamination as necessary, and c.
Cooperation with LILCO in planning, training and exercises as well as in the event of an i'
accident.
.v.
1 6
8 APP-B-24
....c
-e e
4
~.
ca v.musu.
emprTT W a m FUrt
" ' ~
Mr. E. B. Sumerlin, Jr.
' Detober 1, 1984
.Page 2 I want to assure you that in the event of an emergency at Shoreham, as at all times, the Nassau County Police Department
. will be prepared to protect ~the public welfare of all those in Nassau County.
The Department will, therefore, be available to provide assistance with security at the Coliseum, and to facilitate traffic flow and parking at the Coliseum and its appr.oaches.
I hope that an agreement can be reached promptly with the Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross to formalize their relationship with the Coliseum for its use by the Red Cross during any emergency, including a radiological accident at Shor m.
Ver truly your,
n
$.l~
Francis T. Purcel1 8
FTP:ser County Executive cc:
Dr. William J. Catacosinos Long Island Lighting Company Mr. Frank Rasbury American Red Cross 9V
-1 1
.p 3
_. -3.
- n..
3,
- i
~
. APP-B-24A
.4 L
M__C_O t - LONG ISLAND LIGHTING #
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmes _
17 5 E A 5T O L D C O U N T R Y R O A O. NiC M S VILL E, N E W Y C R M 11 g O t m en.c. c.co = = =a, m et m ma.
.a October 23, 1984 Mr. Frank M. Rasbury Executive Director American Red Cross Nassau County Chapter
~
264 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Letter of Agreement for Use of Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum by American Red Cross
Dear Mr. Rasbury:
As you know, Long Island Lighting Company has entered into an agreement with Hyatt Management Corporation for the use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (Coliseum) as a reception center pursuant to the i
Local Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan (LILCO Plan) developed by LILCO. A copy of that agreement, dated September 25, 1984, is attached to this letter. The purpose of this letter is to set out our understanding regarding LILCO's and the American Red Cross' use of the Coliseum as a reception center pursuant to the LILCO Plan.
LILCO will identify the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum in the LILCO Plan, brochures,.and other information distributed to the Red Cross in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, where 1) the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) will register, monitor, decontaminate (if necessary), and issue " clean tags" to evacuees, and 2) the American Red Cross will provide information and assistance to evacuees as required. The American Red Cross will provide Red Cross staff to assist evacuees and to direct evacuees to congregate care centers operated by the Red Cross, chosen from among those on the list provided with the Letter.of Agreement between l
Long Island Lighting Company and the American Red Cross dated July 25, 1984.
4 Red Cross Staff at the Nassau Coliseum will coordinate with LERO moni-toring and decontamination personnel to define a " clean" area from which the Red Cross will operate at the Coliseum; evacuees will be monitored and, if necessary, decontaminated by LERO personnel prior to being directed to Red
' Cross staff members at the Coliseum. American Red Cross staff at congregate
.eare centers will be trained to send any evacuee who has not been monitored (should any find his way to a congregate care center without first going to the Coliseum) hack to the Coliseum for monitoring prior to accepting him into I
e f
. APP-B-11
Mr. Frank M. Rasbury October 23, 1984 the congregate care centers. The location of specific congregate care centers will not be included in public information materials; all evacuees will be direc-ted to go to the Coliseum.
If you find that this letter accurately represents our understanding regarding the American Red Cross' use with.LILCO of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum during an emergency at Shoreham, please sign the letter below and return it to me. Thank you very much for your continued efforts to provide aid to the public in the unlikely event that an emergency were to occur at Shoreham.
Very.truly yours, -
Matthew C. Cordaro, Ph.D.
Vice President rrank M. Rasbury ~
f Executive Director
/
i American Red Cross i
Nassau County Chapter DATED: October 4,1984
- w e
O s
APP-B-llA l
a
-,--_v.
+ AmhMh N
.c ntycm. pier 264 Old Country Road Mincola. N.Y. I1501 (516) 747 3500 4
l July 25, 1984 Mrs. Elaine D. Robinson Long Island Lighting Company 100 East Old Country Road j
iiicksville, N.Y.
11801 Re: Letter of Agreement Between LILCO and the American Red Cross
Dear Mrs. Robinson:
This letter confirms our recent discussions regarding l
the role of the American Red Cross, as determined by Charter of the U. S. Congress, during an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Upon notification of an emergency at Shoreham the Red Cross will set up emergency centers at a predesignated facility (or facilities) to be listed in the LILCO Transition Plan. The Red Cross will work with LILCO to identify the facility or facilites to be designated; any facility chosen will be 20 miles or more from the Shoreham site. The Red Cross will staff the designated facilities and will, if necessary, dispatch evacuees from these to additional facilities for shelter.
It is agreed that the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) will provide monitoring and, if necessary, decontamination at the designated facilities.
In addition, there exist agreements between the Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross and the facilities named on the attached list, allowing the Red Cross to use the facilities for shelter during an emergency. These facilities will be relied upon by
)
the Red Cross to provide additional space as relocation centers in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, and it is to these facilities that evacuees would be directed, if necessary from the
' designated facilities in the LILCO Plan.
If the space in these facilities is needed during an emergency at Shoreham, the Red Cross would fulfil 11 its usual emergency response functions at these facilities, including staffing them and providing supplies as needed.
It is estimated that these facilities could hold up to 48,000 people.
All facilities are 20 miles or more from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
The Nassau County Red Cross is also affiliated mich Garden City Commanity Fund.
.,y%
Great Neck United Community Fund ine.. Five Towns United Way.
Manhasset United fund. Inc.
a
~.
Mrs. Elaine Robinson Page 2.
Long Island Lighting Company 100 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 4
3 LILCO has agreed to provide any training the Red Cross may require.
Red Cross personnel will participate as appropriate ~1n emergency planning drills and exercises to assure a successful response in an actual emergency.
- ely, h{r, if-f Frank M. Rasbury
/
Executive Director F
FMR:bmb s
4 i
A?P-B-10A
I ski!IER INFORf%T2)N 19t$2190) 264 OLD C00kTRY ROAD
~
MINEOLA. NY 11501
t.GR~ x 277 ra captcT:Y
Contact:
Sheldon Fuchs 1975 Baldwin Publia Schools 22M100 est. 207/208 W
Iigh Seboel Drive Baldwin, New York 11510 Mr. Y111ager Benonce.4ierriak Central I.S. Dist.
623 8900 1978 1 91 Headowbroek Road 6
- oco Merrisk,N.T. 11566 George Boyh1 1978 Carlo Flame Union Free Jobsol 334-1900 art. 224 Carlo Flace N.Y.
11514 -
900 C2&ude stringhas 1973 East Meadow Union Free school Dist.
Hr. Campo 300 Carman Ave.
794-7000 ext. 206 East Meadow.,New York H554 2
Edward Iattare 1978 East Rookaway Publis Schools 599-7389 o
1103 East Boekaway E.3.
Robert Norse t'
Osean Ave.
599 7589
. Zast Raakmway, N.Y.
22518 334 8020 1981 East Winistan School District 900 no E. Williston Ave.
East W1111 sten N.Y.
11596 354 A917 E2mont Publia Schools 1973 Elmont Road 14co i
Elmont, N.T.
21003 752 512 Farmingdale Public Schools 249 7680 i
4 00 Van Cott & Grant Ave.
Farmingdale. N.T.
11735 Mr. Russe 31 F2mral Park Be11 rose Union Free school Dist.
352.0768 1981 23 1 Poppy Flase F2aral Park, N.T.
11001 George Reynolds 1961 Franklin Square Union Free school Dist.
354-1045 600 Washington street Franklin square, N.Y. 21010 Robert sunnssa 1976 Freeport Publia ashnels 6232100 2o00 235 North ceaan Ave.
Freeprt. M.Y.
11520 Mr. Beimisch 198o Garden City Publis schools 248 7700 1500 sarden City. N.T.
11530 Anthony FrissSo3e 1978 Glen Cove Publia ashools 6713t72 1500 Dederas Iane Glen Cove, N.T.
21542
, 3pp.B-lon
~
,_,,,-,--,,_,-,_n,
.--a---,
g*
contact: 741 7800 ib
- Esarisks Publia Schools shelter Rook Road l
14co l
New Byde Park, N.I.
H040 Fred BePalma 1
1931 Newlett'Righ so)ool 774 5200 14co 60 Evarit Ave.
Gus Bruns z
Iowlett, N.Y.
21557 t
1974 Newlett Woodaare Union Free school Dist.
Barry Richter 374 5200 azt. 213 1 Johnson P2ase 500 l
Modmara;,N.Y.
22598
)
1975 Esaksvin e Publia Schools 733 2100 Esthleen Kogna 2400 Division Ave.
Eisksv121e, N.Y.
1280L t
432.8933 1980 Island Park Sabools 600 Island Park, N.T.'
21558 431 8100 Island Trees Unian Free' School Dist.
Mr. Fred Neist l
1975 Oul F2 ace & Conder Road 731;AQ20 1400 Levittown, N.T.
21756 ste22a Clark i
731-7247 Berten Thorp 1975 14wr* nee Jr. E.3 295 2700 art. 283/253 3co 14vranoe, N.Y.
James DiGionamel 1975 Iseust Vaney, Central sobsol l
1400 Isenst Valley, N.Y.
21560 Richard Smith 676.8430 Winism Soldan 19S1 Iang Beach E.3.
889 2410 Soo Lido Elvd. & Allevard Street Iarry Bourger l
Zang Beach, N.Y.
889 2167 Imuis Pearsall l
1974 Lynnbroek Union Free salmel Dist.
I.T.).4861 1000 Watar2p Ave.
East Roskaway, N.Y.
22518 Tather John Jobson 1978 Massapequa Grace Episcopal Church 7ena"*
100 4750 Marriak Band Massapoqua, N.T.
21758 j
William A. Eldard Masaspequa Righ School 5424600 1975 4925 Marriak Bond 13ao Masaspequa, N.Y.
22358 Imurense Chapana 1980
.Malverne U.F.3.3.
887 7733
- df183d 88*4 i
500 Reekrius centre, N.Y. 31570 Dr. Owen ES21 Lnhasset Publie ashoals 1975 627.A400 3co Memorial F1ase Ir. Ibnald Grote hanhasset N.Y.
21030 627 4400 4
J APP-B-10C
,----m-~~-,,--
_,.w nnn -
-.-n.,
n,-
,--.,-. ~. ---
97'8 Mineola Town Ball
Contact:
F.ayor amith Jarsehe Turnpiko 747 2232
, oo Mines 3a N.Y.
21501 "973 Miam2a Union Free school Dist.
747 6700
~ Goo 200 Emory' Road Miam2a,N.I. 21501 231
- Nassau county 3.o.C.E.3, 997 8700 Ti;oo salisbury Center Yalentines Rd. & The Finia Rd.
Westbury, N.Y.
11590
- .775 Be. Be22more U.F.S.D.
221 2200
- 600 2616 Martin Ave.
No. Be22more E.T.
22710
,97g North Merriak U.F.3.D..,
3794070 1775 Old Mill Road Mo. Marrink N.I.
21566 530 Berth shore schools 672-5500 w
a enar,
.I.
Geenaside Marie Ave. School 678.2200
- eS2 Merle Ave.
i 533 cesanside, N.Y.
11572
- .978 Oyster Bay East Norwich scheel Dist.
922-317 0 233 Cister Bay, N.I.
21771 4
Norman 33ack est P2ainedge Publia Selmols
'joo Rickv121e Road 735 8100 art.%
3cthpage. N.I.
21714 l
4
.973 Fiainvies.02d Bethpage Central School 938-5400 Lao F2ainview, N.Y.
21803
- .S78 Port Washington U.F.3.D. -
Enreld Chaajol Sco 27 Iangriew Road 886.2517 Port Washinstan. N.Y.
21050 Francis Ianta 889000 1978 Emeserelt Fablia Schools 378 7302 400 288 Massau Road aEsesovelt. N.Y.
1981 Bestra Fab 11e ashmola 621.4900 1400 Isenst Imme Baslya, New Tark 1981 St.' fanat$ sus Eastery Father Marrer
- 300 229 Eseadumy 931 0056 Bishar$21e, N.Y.
31SQL APP-B-10D
- e a~ * ~.
97II Seaford Union Free Schel Dist.
CA 2 0700 1600 2147 Jackson Ave.
seaford, N.I.
21783 328J878 h=k=Im Centra 2, E.S. Dist.
1978 555 Ridge Rd.
3:o E2mont, 3.T.
21003 Josoph Singleton t
Syosset Central school Dist.
921 5500 1975 300 PellIane Syosset N.T.
2173L -
485 9804
'1978 Ua$nadale Publia Sehools Goodriah Street 2300 Ua$sadale E.T.
22553
- Rev. George Czar tlaited Methodist Chursh 485 6363
1 40 *=h4=* ton street,
Bespstead. N.T.
22550 George Bilton
~
.-1978 United Mstindist Church M 2A$5 f 200 192 Broadmy m 2.2977 nothpage, E.T.
21714 825 895 1975
.Va21ey stream U.F.3.D.
'00 Corona Ave.
Ya21ey Stress, N.T.
22580 Dom Ciarvo -
1900 Va21er Strema U.F.3.D. f30 4853969 Va21ey stiesa. N.T.
22580 Elumed Webster.
1978 West W U.F.S.D.
876.20'6 1
1 Jericho Tphs. & Hitcheook lane Westhey, N.Y.
21590 Barry Natow West Mempstead U.F.S.D.
489 8435 1975
- 1200 450 Nassau Blvd.
8 W. Iempstead,,3.7. 22552 4
AM33 Ell 3. TERAMSEZ l
t,
- t V!sTEURT CAMPUB 516 876 3146 aus
- . 1981
'96 433 5459 Nc.'el:
500 swT C:.D UESTRURT N.T
!Inw h414,.,(sum)
% C-rw ent v P.
3 4
L *=kW %.tt se.;,47 m
.c SDo E**'*sh.&g Nf Il'1W i
APP-Be10E l
4 e
E a
hh T
Y ggO LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
. r.;,..;.
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.o. sox sie, NORTH CoWNTRY RoAO. % FADING RIVER. N.Y.11792 l
.own o. Laowano.m.
0 va
.aa=
0 7
November 14, 1984 S
C-1107 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Exercise Objectives for ' Emergency Plan Exercise Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station - Unit 1
]
Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Denton:
Attached for your review and forwarding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency pursuant to the FEMA-NRC Memorandum of Understanding dated as of November 1, 1984, 45 Fed. Reg. 02713 (1980), is a statement of' objectives to be demonstrated at an exercise of.the Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Plan and the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) Plan.
This attachment is in two parts:
first, a statement, in LILCO's terms, of the objectives of the exercise labeled "LERO Objectives", and second, a correlation of these objectives with the standard FEMA " Core Objectives."
It is being submitted to you in order to support a graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of February 11, 1985.
LILCO has also developed three potential scenarios for the exercise, which have been kept under security provisions.
We would appreciate your transmitting this document promptly to FEMA and your good offices in arranging the preliminary meeting neces-eary to c - ar= the detailed planning process for the exercises.
If you have any questions, please coatact this office.
i very truly s,
0
~'
/, I i
i
- Te D.-
, Jr.
Vi a President - Nuc ar rations g[
^
4 N
1 Qbt s
?,
j Attachment cc:
P. Eselgroth C. Petrone (FEMA Region II)
-Richard DeYoung (I&E)
Edward Jordan, _(Ish,
I a, 11 STArc or Ncw Yonx EXECUTIVE CHAMBER.
M4mio M.Cuomo em..
November 29, 1984
Dear Mr. Denton:
By latter dated November 14, 1984, rhe Long Island Lighting Company requested that you forward to FEMA materials "to support"a.gr'ded exercise which LILCo is planning for the a
week of February 11, 1985."
This is to advise you that-New York State is3ep!cosed to any such exercise and to request that the NRC not gssist or cooperate in sue.h an exercise over the.
objections of New York State.
l LILCO's desire to implement its off-site emergency evacuation plan would be. unlawful under the constitution and the laws of the State of'New York.
Both New York State and Suffolk County have filed a consolidated law suit against LILCO which is pending in the state Supreme Court in order to secure a conclusive judicial ruling to that effect.
It is our view, therefore, that LILCO's exercise of its plan would be a premature pursuit of an unlawful objective.
It would also constitute an r.ffront to the sovereignty of the State of New York.
l Given the posture of that case before the courts, as well as the continuing position of suffolk County that an effective 1
emergency evacuation plan for a nuclear accident at shoreham is impossible, I ask that you reject LILCO's request to transmit any' exercise material to Wand that you refrain from taking any steps which contribute to a usurpation by LILco of the police powers of Suffolk County and the State of New York.
Such rejaction on your part would be consi, stent with Administration e#
., T 7 71
Mr. Harold Denton 2.-
November 29, 1934 policy as expressed in a letter kritten by President Reagan to Congreisman Carney, dated October 11, 1984, a copy of which is annexed.
Sinceral
- yours, IA Mr. Harold Denton, Director office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room P-4D4A Bethesda,. Maryland 20814 Encle' sura I"
k e
e
,o G
4 ee-
- ,o l'*
6
.e s
e
THE WHITE 1tol'3E M%IllNCITCTN.
Cetober 11,.3334 l
Dear Birl s,
I went p6u to knew cf m emntinuing-epntribution:)s to and support f or myappreciaf.ien for your Ad:dinis trnt-d en.
Your leadership and ecuratic have heer, detwemining fneters ir, the progress vri have
~
.inde in the lact fr.V years.
i on a matt.cr of particular concern. to you and tha paepa r cf rasterr. 2 cr.g.Triand, I wish to repeat Secretary Nedr:18 c assufAnce to you thet,this A.d.-.iniceratien d=et not f avor the i=positics o'
{
i Fede=al Governmar.t authority over the objecticas of state and.lecal governments 3.n mi=ters regarding tha' adequacy et an. em~ergency evacuation.
plan f or a nu= lear power plant such, as Shcrehar..
Your ccncarn fer t.hw safety c,i the aeople of Leng "slar.d is parsecunt and shared by tke secretary a r.d :me.
thank.you :.galr. for your support..
I lock f=:verg
.so we.,rking with ycu in'the years ahead.
~
Sincerely,.
M The 7tenerable 121111r, carney Hou=e ci h3peccer.tativer k*ashingten, D.C.,
20515 j
.e
)
l
~'
p y
1 9'
u 1
THE sicRETARY OF INE AQY wa2 =+stoy. a.:. aws t
Cc A 2,13t4 t
7tarcrahle k'!,111am Carney
)t:xase of Papresentatives Ashington, D, c.
20515 Daar Bills e
I var.t to take this a
i Rcreham nuclea: ;=w: plant.e :r.i*y to qx:ats yw en cur acevities rega.:ii.g the AA w assursi y:u last spri:q a.M at ot.%: t!, en J
sea w dime.aaed' the conce.ns of the citizens of I.cig Islard rega. f.,ing E the Department ef.
act)crity ever the,Ine:Ty cbas tot fave.:
Meetions of ag stata a.-d Iccal ges.strnent in rnatta:sthe regardity the a,$e:Naey et a.n enargency evaet.atien plan fcr a nuelaar sc such as D c &.cr..
cur posities is elaar.
The Peagan' kirir.istration has a.1vays had faith in the ability cf knerican citizens aid Icet1 elee.ad efficia.ls to hardle t.he p.:ble Wich c=r.fr=nt then directly.
As e e of I.c,g !ala.-d's res: capable a.d viger:us W.icti affeet the fut.:.ru of y>= ccratituev.s have bem ex wc4: policies President Reagan a.-d us.
a d cover:Tnent landers of the First I:istrict to v e to in i.d:strial,.1aher re, y:x.: have 1:een a v, ige::us a:M:cata of the 'intarests of 7.cn in tahalf cf 2::ckhaven National 145= rate:y a.-d et.her Federal facilities.
2 look fc=vard to your ccritir=.ad wise c=unsel cri these a d other dama:s in the years ahead.
l Sirum. rely,.
s tcHM.F PM L HCO L
,.s."
.. T
Offico of the Governor
,. c.
State of New York
';N-g
~
$.' 'f:
.s p DY MESSENGER
. :F 6
g
~
Md.' p, e ilarold R.
Denton, Director Office *of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room P-404A Dethesda, Maryland'20814
,I -
h 9
e-i,
.t 3
1
,e-g e
g
\\
1 e
l f
e
g/
de De 8/
~-
COUNTY Oir SUFiro'LK ggg. bM -
O WM OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. CoMALAN sunouc couwry caccuws JOHN C. GALLAGHER c crocnny 1
November 28, 1984 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-404A I
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Dear-Mr. Den' ton:
~,
.~
By letter' dated November 14, 1984, the Long Island Lighting Co'pany reque'sted th : you tra'usmit 'to FDfA materials intended "to support a m
4 graded exercise which LILCO is. planning ~for the week of February 11, 1985."
This is to advise you that suffolk County is opposed to any such, exercise and that the NRC should in no way promore, assist, or concur in such an exercise over the objections of this County govern-y ment.
LILCO's i=plementation of its offsite emergency plan would be unlawful under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
Both Suffolk County and New York State have filed lawsuits against LILCO in State Supreme' Court in order i:o secure a conclusive order' to that effect.
In our view, therefore, LILCO's exercise of its j
plan would be in pursuit of an unlawful objective.
I would t
also stress that it would be an insult to the people and govern-ment of Suffolk County.
Given the posture of the Shoreham ca,s's before the courts and the NRC,.as well as the continuing position of this County that effee-tive amargency preparedness for a nuclear accident at Shoreham is impossible, we ask that you reject LILCO's request to forward any exercise materials to.FDfA and that you refrain from taking any steps which contribute to an intrusion by LILCO into the police powers of Suffolk County. For your information, I an enclosing a copy of a letter written by President Reagan which expresses the AA= h eration's position.
Si cerely you s,
, A b il W
u~..U}
n,r, co Iq-)
John C. Gallagh Chief Deputy C nty Executive
{
g,:dsb
/
.. r IDO - 000150
THE WHITE !!Ol'5E WS%IllMUTCTN.
l l
Cetober 21,.3334 Dear Eirl I want 1cu'.to' knc4 cf M apprecist.lon for your continuing..eentributic2:s tc, and support ice my M:ndnist. ntd in.
Your leadership and ecurat c have hacia dete:pnin'ing fneters in the progress wr;i hcve
.made in the last few years, on a matt.cr of particular eencern. to you and tha pacple cf Eastern.1cf.g.7sidnd, I wish to repeat Secretary Medn1*c assurance to you thrt. this M.v.inistratien dort not f avor the impositics of i
Tederal Government authority over the objecticas ci state and 1ccal governments.!n matters regarding tha' Adequacy cf an. em'ergency evccuation.
plan f or a nu=inar pcuer plant such at Shcrehar..
Ycur ccncarn fer the safety of the people of Long
{
"slar.d is parancunt and shared Ly the Secretary ar.d =e.
i thank.you agal.r. for your support..
I lock f= wcrg to wl.,rking with ycu in the years ahead.
1 Sincerely,.
M i
The 7tonerabic trillier, carney Hou=e ci hepre cer.tativer Wa sh i n g t en, - p. e.,
20515 e
JAN 111985 The Honorable Mario M. Cuomo Governor of New Y,ork Albany, NY 12224
Dear Governor Cucmo:
I am responding to your letter of November 29, 1984 to Harold Denton regarding the November 14, 1984 request by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) that NRC for-ward materials to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) related to an emergency preparedness exercise plar.ned by LILCO for the week of February 11, 1985.
You attached letters to Congressman Carney from President Reagan and Secretary Hodel, and advised us that New York State is opposed to any such exercise and cbjects to NRC assistance or cooperation in such an exercise over the objections of New York State.
As you are aware, LILCO has developed its own offsite emergency response plan and organization, with LILCO personnel identified to perform certain duties ordinarily performed by State and County employees in the event of an emergency.
Consistent with fella's responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness,,the NRC requested FEMA to provide findings on whether the LILCO offsite plan (Transition Plan) is adequate, whether it is capable of being imple-mented, and whether LILCO has the ability to implement the plan.
FEMA has provided findings to the NRC relating to the adequacy of the Transition Plan in several letters, the latest of which is dated November 15, 1984.
This letter indicated that of the 32 inadequacies identified in a previcus review of the Transition Plan, 8 remain inadequate.
FEMA's letter also identified these aspects of the plan, including some of the remaining inadequacies, where legal authority issues continue to be of concern.
The legal authority issues are the subject of the lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Ccurt to which you referred in your letter and are also being considered by an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Shoreham operating license proceeding.
It would, of course, be difficult and inappropriate to try to predict the outccme of these proceedings at this time.
Regarding the exercise proposed by LILCO in their November 14 letter, the normal i
practice of NRC and FEMA in response to an applicant's proposal is to review the submitted objectives, provide comments to the involved parties and prepare to observe and evaluate the scheduled exercise.
In this instance there are out-standing plan inadequacies and legal authority issues.
Accordingly, we have forwarded LILCO's November 14 letter to FEMA for their information and have requested them to take the lead in any preliminary consideration of this matter.
i;
,ab i
o_
9.k Y Y h
({
)
PM 7-
,,.r--
.-w------,
,v_y
1 The Hencrable Mario M. Cuomo.
We also forwarded to FEMA copies of your November 29 letter and a similar letter to the NRC dated November 28, 1984 from John C. Gallagher, Chief Deputy County Executive of Suffolk County.
We appreciate your informing us of New York State's views on this important matter and hope this information is useful to you in understanding the respective MRC and FEMA responsibilities with regard to evaluating emergency preparedness for Shoreham.
Sincerely,
($1psilWilliam ).M William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIElj7:0N WJDircks, ED0 JWRee,E}C
- Rehm, m
.Stel',c, E:0 HRDent:n, NRR TEfiurley, Region I GCunni.ghar, ELD RCDeYcung, :E JMTaylc r, :E JNGrace, IE ELJordar., IE SASchwartz, IE DBMatthews, IE CRVan Niel, IE FKantor, IE JRSears, IE Lioms, IE ED0-000151 DCS DEPER R/F
,EPB R/F
...s
.g.
W
/h gO.,
LONG ISLAND LJGHTING COMPANY
,.,. 3... g.,
SHOREHAM NUCt. EAR POWER STATION p.o. som sie, mostyn couwTwy noAo. wAotNe ReVER. N.Y.11733
[C men o.s,sonano.an.
s r.
==
p 04 i
U November 14, 1984 g
S C-1107 Mr. Barold R. Denton, Director office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Exercise Objectives for ' Emergency Plan Exercise Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322 Dear Mr. Denton
~
Attached for your review and forwarding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, pursuant to the FEMA-URC Memorandum of Understanding dated as of November 1, 1984, 45 Fed. Reg. 02713
. (1980), is a statement.of objectives to be demonst; rated at an exercise of the Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Plan'and the Local rmergency Response Organization (LERO) Plan.
This attachment is in two parts:
first,.a statement, in LILCo's terms, of the objectives of the exercise labeled "LERO Objectives", and second, a correlation of these objectives with the standard FEMA " Core objectives."
It is being submitted to you in order to support a graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of February 11, 1985.
LILCO has also developed three potential scenarios for the exercise, which have been kept under security provisions.
We would appreciate your transmitting this document prestptly to FEMA and your good offices in arranging the pre 14=4a m meeting neces-sary to commence the detailed planning process for the exercises.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
[I
~
~'
Very truly s,
.I D. M1 f!b M! 4 d I
-Leonard,"Jr.
~
o
.-An q
vi President - Nuc ar rations
~ M %} OT v
88A s
Attachment cc:
P. Eselgroth
~
C. Petrone (FEMA Region II)
. Richard DeYoung (I.EE) l Edward Jordan (Isk.,
l
. M t
STATc or New Yonn Exscunvt CHAMatn ALsANY13334 uansa M.cuomo e.
November 29, 1984
Dear Mr. Denton:
By letter dated November 14, 1984, the Long Island Lighting company requested that you forward to FEMA materials "to support a graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of February 11, 1985."
This is to advise you that New York State is opposed to any such exercise and to request that the NRC not assist or cooperate in such an exercise over the objections of New York State.
- LILCo's desire to implement its off-site emergency evacuation plan would be unlawful under the constitution and the laws of the State of New York.
Both New York State and Suffolk County have filed a consolidated law suit against LILCO which is pending in the State Supreme court in order to secure a conclusive judicial ruling to that effect.
It is our view, therefore, that LILCo's exercise of its plan would be a premature pursuit of an unlawful objective.
It would also constitute an affront to the sovereignty of the State of New York.
Given the posture of that case before the courts, as well as the continuing position of Suffolk County that an effective a:nergency evacuation plan for a nuclear accident at Shoreham is impossible, I ask that you reject LILCo's request to transmit any exercise material to FFJE and that you refrain from taking any steps which contribute to a usurpation by LILCO of the police powers of Suffolk County and the State of New York.
Such rejection on your part would be consiistent with Administration i
i 2
6(I / o l ' E" Y h1 m
-q' 7 0 FJ 2pg 9
200 - 000151
l Mr. Harold Denton 2.-
November 29, 1934 policy as expressed in a letter kritten by President Reagan to Congraisman Carney, data ~d October 11, 1984, a copy of which is annexed.
Sinceral
- yours, Mr. Harold Denton, Director office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room P-4D4A Aethesda, Maryland 20814 Enclosure 9
e e
e 1
6 t
- l. M 9
^
4 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ggE. kb -
WTM
~
A g
OFFICE OFTHE COUNTY EXECUTIVE II!E PrrEn F. CoMALAN sureux couwer ansevviva JOHN C. GAU.AGMER e,seresnure November 28, 1984 Mr. Barold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
7920 Norfolk Avenue
~
i Room P-404A Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Dear Mr. Denton:
i By letter dated November 14, 1984, the Long Island Lighting Company requested that you transmit to FEMA materials intended "to support a graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of February 11, 1985."
This is to advise you that Suffolk County is opposed to any such exercise and that the NRC should in no way promote, assist, or concur in such an exercise over the objections of this County govern-ment.
LILCO's impismentation of its offsite amargency plan would be unlawful under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
Both Suffolk County and New York State,have filed lawsuits against LILCO in State Supreme' Court in order to secure a conclusive order to that effect. In our view, therefore, LILCO's exercise of its Plan would be in pursuit of an unlawful objective. I would also stress that it would be an insult to the people and govern-ment of Suffolk County.
Given the posturs of the Shoreham ca,se before the courts and the NRC,-as well as the continuing position of this County that effee-tive amargency preparedness for a nuclear accident at Shoreham is impossible, we ask that you reject' LILCO's request to forward, any exercise materials to.7EMA and that you refrain from taking any steps which, contribute'to an intrusion by LILC0 into the police powers of Suffolk Cosnty. For your information, I an enclosing a copy of a letter written by President Reagan which expresses the Administration's position.
5 carely you s, qQ5cfyJf 7 PM 0
f John C. Callagh fey Chief Deputy nty Executive g,:dsb RDO ~ 000150 vu w.
nau aues.mv.mee e
seien -
JAN 111985 The Honorable Mario M. Cuomo
~
Governor of New York Albany, NY 12224"
Dear Governor Cuomo:
I am responding to your letter of November 29, 1984 to Harold Denton regarding the November 14, 1984 request by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) that NRC for-ward materials to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) related to an emergency preparedness exercise planned by LILCO for the week of February 11, 1985.
You attached letters to Congressman Carney from President Reagan and Secretary Hodel, and advised us that New York State is opposed to any such exercise and objects to HRC assistance or cooperation in such an exercise over the objections of New York State.
As you are aware, LILCO has developed its own offsite emergency response plan and organization, with LILCO personnel identified to perform certain duties ordinarily performed by State and County employees in the event of an emergency. Consistent with FEMA's responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness, the NRC requested FEMA to provide findings on whether the LILCO offsite plan (Transition Plan) is adequate, whether it is capable of being imple-mented, and whether LILCO has the ability to implement the ' plan. FEMA has provided findings to the NRC r. elating to the adequacy of the Transition Plan in several letters, the latest o.f which is dated November 15, 1984 This letter indicated that of the 32 inadequacies identified in a previous review of the Transition Plan, 8 remain inadequate.
FEMA's letter also identified these aspects of the plan, including some of the remaining inadequacies, where legal authority issues continue to be of concern.
The legal authority issues are the subject of the lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court to which you referred in your letter and are also being censidered by an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Shoreham operating license proceeding.
It would, of course, be difficult and inappropriate to try to predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
Regarding the exercise proposed by LILCO in their November 14 letter, the normal practice of NRC and FEMA in response to an applicant's proposal is to review the submitted objectives provide conenents to the involved parties and prepare to observe and evaluate the scheduled exercise.
In this instance there are out-standing plan inadequacies and legal authority issues.
Accordingly, we have l
fonvarded LILCO's November 14 letter to FEMA for their information and have requested them to take the lead in any preliminary consideration of this matter.
Q h
y9 t
ENCLOSURE 2
The Honorable Mario M.- Cuomo We also forwarded to FE A copies of your November 29 letter and'a similar letter to the NRC dated November 28, 1984 from John C. Gallagher, Chief Deputy County Executive of Suffolk County.
We appreciate your informing us of New York State's views on this important matter and hope this information is useful to you in understanding the respective NRC and FEMA responsibilities with regard to evaluating emergency preparedness for Shoreham.
Sincerely, l Signs:D William J.D!rtks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION WJDircks, EDO JWRoe, EDO TRehm EDO VStello, EDO HRDenton, NRR TEMurley, Region I GCunningham, ELD RCDeYoung, IE JMTaylor, IE JNGrace, IE ELJordan, IE SASchwartz, IE DBMatthews, IE CRVan Niel, IE FKantor, IE JRSears IE LToms, IE EDO-000151 DCS DEPER R/F EP8 R/F ii
\\I
'M
- i
/
f d
CD fER/IE
/IE Ett E
D/W EDO atthews:sc $
twartz ELJordan ESChriktenbury aylor RCDeYoung WJDircks 1/g/85 1,/j 185 1/g/85 1/1/85 1/g/85 1/j/85 I/ /85 8Wc.
m
\\
-Wit UAM CARNEY h
-f esem.w. arn vous g
no.n uw,u m--
=c a
e misarmum sinausses.wease comuse variose
~~'% ""
Congress Of tk HHitEf $tatt!
~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
hanse of Rtprestatatitts
" " " * " * ~ " " " "
n,.
Gashin,atan, D.E. 20m
""-=r-Decenber 3, 1984 Cys: Dircks Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Roe Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rehm 1717 H Street, NW Stello
'Jashington, DC 20555 Denton v(feYoung
Dear Mr. Palladino:
Murley GCunningham As the Representative of the First Congressional District of New York I am vriting to you on an issue of great importance to my constituents In my Distric't, as you know, there is great concern over the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Procegs, and in particular, the question of whether a utility should be perniitted to proceed to phases three and four of low power testing before the issue of emergency planning is fully resolved.
I believe that the NRC should exercise extreme caution in its upcoming consideratics of the next steps in low power testing of the Shoreham facility.
The next two phases of low power testing should not proceed until the re=aining issue of emergency plannira has been fully considered by the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I have tried to maintain a fair and balanced approach to this important and controversial issue.
has always been that the plant should not be licensed to operate untilMy v
'all safety issues have been fully resolved.
I have always felt that the regulatory process should be completed in a manner that is fair to all parties.
Questions remain over the legal and practical implementation of an emergency preparedness plan.
Therefore, I believe that the visest course would be one that would not allow the contamination of the reactor be it is certain that the plant can meet operating license.
the requirements for a full As you know, both the President and Energy Secretary Hodel have indicated that they do not favor the imposition of federal authority over the objections of state and local governments regarding the adequacy of 12/10...To OGC for Direct Reply... Suspense:
12/19...RF, EDO, OCA to Ack.. 84,-2039.
j,, g PAO
~OVWAW"Y' Q
,g
-fr Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino December 3, 1984 Page Two.
emergency preparedness plans.
Enclosed please find their correspondence to me on this topic.
Mr. Chairman, the Shoreham situation can be resolved constructively if there is greater cooperation between all parties. Keeping this in mind, I do not believe that the level of testing of Shoreham should proceed further until the issue of emergency planning is clarified.
With best regards, I am Sine r ly yours, WILLIAM CARNEY, M.C.
WC:pik Enclosures I
h
T THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY v
WASHINGTOW. D.C. 20585-October 2, 1984 Ibnorable William Carney 1buse of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Bill:
I want to take this whanity to update you on our activities regarding the Shoreham nuclear pcuer plant. As we assured you last spring and at other t.unes when we discussed the concerns of the citizens of Iong Island regarding Shoreham, the Department of Energy does not favor the imposition of Federal Goverrrnent authority over the objections of any state and local goverrrnant in matters regarding the adequacy of an emergency evacuation plan for a nuclear power plant such as Shoreham.
Cur position is clear. 'Ibe Reagan Administration has always had faith in the ability of American citizens and local elected officials to handle the problens which confront thern directly. As one of Iong Island's most capable and vigorous elected officials, your advice and counsel regarding energy and econcmic policies which affect the future of your constituents have been extremely valuable to President Reagan and me. As I mentioned to you earlier this year when you brought in industrial, labor, and Goverrrnent leWn of the First District to visit with me, you have been a vigorous advocata of the interests of Inng Island, especially in behalf of Brookhaven National Lal: oratory and other Federal facilities.
I look forward to your continued wise counsel cm these and other issues in the years ahead.
S Sincerely, DCNAID PAUL IOCEL e
e 4
h e
a 9
THE WHITE HOL*SE
.wwussuroN October 11, 1984
Dear bill:
I want ;cu to knew ci m) apprecir.t ion f or ycur continuine centribution:s to and support for my Adn.ini strr.t i on.
Your leadership and ccurage have beer. deterr.in:nq f neters ir the progress wr hcJe made in the lart few years.
On a' n.atter of particular concern to you cnd the people cf Eastern ler.g Island, I wish to repeat Secretary Hedc1'c assurance to you thrt this Adminictration does not favor the imposition of Federal Government authority over the objections cf state and 1ccal governments in matters regarding the adec:uacy of an emergency evtcuation plan for a nuclear power plant such as Shcreham.
Your ccncern fcr the safety of the people of Lcng Island is parcncurt and shared by the Secretary i
and cie.
l I Icek forwcrd Thank ycu c.gair. for your support.
to sc,rking with : cq.in the years ahead.
Sincere'.y, t! =
m D
The Honcretle Uilliam Carney f
House ci keprczentativew Washingten, D.C.
20515
Cys: Dircks i
Roe Rehm h**
7 cit tello Y
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
[nb"$
i n
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Murley WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 GCunningham ROBERT J. MRAZEK COMMrTTEE ON me Osmer. sov van APPROPRIATIONS December 3, 1984 i
Mr. Nunzio Palladino, Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory k
Commission f/ W f 1717 H Street, N.W.
/
- W ingt n, D.C.
20555
[
~bb E
Dear Mr. Chairman:
'm
~
I am writing to again express my deep concern that the interests g
of hundreds of thousands of Long Island residents are being ig-nored in the licensing process at the Shoreham nuclear power m
5 station.
c.
E In recent we'aks the Nuclear Regtilatory Commission has moved per-
,9 captibly closer to bringing Lilco's Shoreham facility on line j
with the issuance of Phase I and II licenses.
Unfortunately for the citizens and ratepayers of Long Island, neither the State nor
'E o*
County government was afforded the opportunity to present its gg views in oral arguments before the Commission.
N Ud
.Once again, as the Commission prepares to decide on Phases III 2*
and IV, it appears that the governmental bodies empowered to g
represent the residents of New York will not be given the chance j
to make an oral submission on this critical matter.
o a:
It is my sincere hope that the Commission will waste no time in a
inviting, representatives of both suffolk County and the State of u*
E.c New York to appear before the Commission.
Whether or not Shoreham o8 ever opens, it is the residents of Long Island who will pay both q,
the social and economic costs associated with this nuclear power
.o plant.
Surely, the interests of fairness and democracy would c;8 dictate that their voice be heard.
C'.
mw-Sincerely yours,
-l f
RobertJ.Mrazk Member of Congress l
RJM/dj
% Q',,_d M ACd N" -
4
.i e f) 17 MAIN STREET, ROSLYN, N.Y.11576 ($18) CH44 e 14 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON. N.Y. 1174 (516) 67Htoo
TJ4OMASJ. N w7,gh7O
==== s== v
T :.e c. - -<e - w e = =a m m,-.
)
i Congregg. f th;e Enitch fetated eo = = n gsm o,,es au a. i
= - - - -
o
-u.
EC
%CuntofR2preitutStibtg Dircks
+s w e i.,.,=. v i m.
Roe va = **
O W
\\
Mastfagina,D.C. 20515 Rehm
)
h December 1, 1984 Denton T
Stello 1
en. g urley 3onorable Nunzio J. Palladino j
GCunningham i
Chairman Huclear Regulatory Commission i
1 1717 E Street, N.W.
)
- Jashington, D.C. 20055
/
On November 21, the NRC authorized the issuance to LILCO of licenses load fuel and perform cold criticality testing of the shoreham plant.
understanding is that the Commission.will soon consider whether to permit My '
LILCO to undertake low power testing of shoreham.
I am writing to inform 1 you of my opposition to the issuance of a low power license for shoreham. l di As you know, both the state of New York and the County of Suffolk are opposing th'e low power testing of shoreham.
Their position is that it is.
unjustified to contaminate shoreham and incur the attendant large costs while there is such great uncertainty as to whether the plant should ever permitted to operate at commercial. power levels given existing barriers t,
effective emergency preparedness on Long Island.
In light of this, I request that the Commission (1) explain'how it could possibly be in the public interest for the commission to license shoreham for low power test:i l
at this time, and (2) advise me whether the commission has performed any analyses of the costs and benefits of issuing a low power license at this I tice, and if so, I would like to see copies of such analyses.
I ask tht you immediately grant the request of New York State andAt the vers
- least, Suffolk County to present their views in oral arguments before the Commission.
The Commission should welcome the opportunity to hear and tio discuss the views of those concerned governments.
The Commission should consider all of the implications on the public interest of LILCO's request to contaminate shoreham through low power testing.
Governor Cuomo's shoreham Commission found that electricity in t amount represented by'shoreham 'will not be needed for at least a decade
.~
GLven this absence of time pressure, why should the Commission even cons. id the question whether to issue a low power license until the emergency
., l preparedness issue is finally settled?
Sincerely, k.
f n c-s - I a s-7 9
/
/LDQ,t4'otin
,?, '
d y
))
g THOMAS J.!DOWNEY Member of congress i
- JD:cb
~
12/6...To OGC for Direct Reply... Suspense: Dec. 18...
ec NRC Commissioners RF, Docket. EDO, OCA to' Acknowledge.. 84-2034
/ D~
3 ab Federal Emergency Management Agency ld' I Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 November 20, 1984 Samuel W. Speck Associate Director Federal Emergency Managemect Agency 500 "C" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20472
Dear Mr. Speck:
As per your request enclosed please find a copy of the letter to Mr. Harold R. Denton from the Long Island Lighting Company on Exercise Objectives for Emergency Plan Exercise Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Very truly yours, tewart M. Glass ional Counsel (212) 264-8980 Encl.
j-
-70; 5 A 4-Lm w
g.v. W A
- p. I g
L ONG ISl_AND UGKMNG COMPMY SHOREHAM NUCL. EAR POWER STATION l
m as o imo aan.an.
l
- ~ ~ ~.
November 14, 1984 SNRC-1107 l
Mr. Barold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor segulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossa:.esion Washington, D.C.
20555 Exercise Objectives for BasrTency Plan Esercise Shoraham Nuclear. Power Station - Unit 1 Docket wo. 50-222
)
Dear Mr. Dentoa Attached for your review and forwarding to the Federal Emergency Managessent Agency pursuant to the FSNA-Wpc Neunerandum of Understanding dated as of movember 1, 1984,domeestra 45 Fed.
02713 (1980), is a statement of objectives to be at an esercies of the Shoreham Bunstgesey Prepare 4aeas Plao and the Local amargeney Response Organisation (LERO) Plan.
This attachumant is in two parts:
first, a statesset, in L1Ws terms, of the ehjeetives of the amaroise labeled "LERO Gbjectives", and second, a correlation of these objectives with the standard FMA ' Core objoetives."
It is being sahmitted to you in order to support a graded emerates which LIIco is planalag for the week of February 11, 1985.
LILCO has also developed three potential noenarios for the exercise, which have been kept under security provisions.
We would appreciate your transmitting this document promptly to YEMA and your good offlees in arranging the preliminary meeting neces-sary to commenoe the detailed planning process for the esercises.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
very truly y a,
f g"
7 o
D. Leonard, Jr.
i V1 President - Nuc ar rations y,. dT I
sck b
.2 'N~a Attachment
~ N31
(
l C. Petrone (FMA Lon II) a E l' 7
~M" ce:
P. Eselgroth
?
N Robert DeYoung (I U
Edward Jordan (ISE)
All Parties Listed in Attachment I i
l l
---.m....,
_,I _ _. _ _.
NttachmentI Page 2
{
Stephen 5. T,atham, Esq.
Gerald C. Crotty Tironey, Latham & shea Counsel to the Governor 33 west second Street Executive Chamber P.O. Box 398 State capitol Riverhead, NY 11901 Albany, NY 12224 James Dougherty, Esq.
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
3045 Porter Street Associate General Counsel Washington, DC 20008 Pederal W rgency Management Agancy 500 C Street, SW Boom 840 Ms. Wora Erodes Weekington, DC 10472 mascutive Coordinator shoreham opponents coalition 195 samt Main street Smithtoon, NY 11707 89 I
p.
6 4
O
,p
Attachrnent I I
James A. Laruenson, Chairman Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq., Attorney i
Atomic safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Wuelear Regulatory corneission Panel i
East-West Tower, Room 402A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coactission 4350 EastaWest Hwy.
East-West Tower, North Tower l
Sethesda, MD 20014 4350 East-West Righway Sethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic safety and Licensing soard Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
I U.S. Nucisar Regulatory Cassaission County Attorney East-West Tower, Room 427 suffolk County Department of Law 4350 East-West Ewy.
Veterans Memorial Nighway Bethesda, MD 20814 Wauppauge, NY 11787 i
i 1
Mr. Frederick'J. shon Norbert E. Brown, Esq.
Atomic safety and Liesneing Board Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christopher McMurray, Req.
East-west Tower, Room 430 Eir trick, IdM:khart, Bill 4350 East-West Nwy.
C istopher 8 Phillips Bethesda, MD 20814 8th Floor 1900 N Street, NW i
Washington, DC 20034 secretary of the Comunission i
U.S. Nuclear hogulatory ComuLission Washington, DC 20555 ass Teobaioal Associates 1723 Namilton Avenue Suite R Atamwie safety and Licensing Appeal San Jose, California 95125 soard Panel U.S. Nuclear ReTulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Jay DunkleNerger New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Atomis Safety and Licensing Board ire State Plaza Panel
, NY 12223 U.S. muelear Refutatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Josethan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of sernard N. sordenick, Esq.
Public Service David A. Repka, seg.
3 Rockefeller Plasa Eswin J. Reis, Esq.
Albany, NY 12223 U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 014 SecrTetown Road (to mailroom)
Fabian G. Falomino, Net.
sathesda, MD 20814 speelal Counsel to the Governor Emeoutive Chamber, poem 229 state Capitol stewart M. Glass, Bog.
Albany, NY 12224 magional Counsel Federal Baerfeney ManaTement A9cRCy 28 Federal Plass, Room 1349 I
Wow York, NY 10278 l
. __ _L I
- _ _. i E[_.*. * *
- _ _ _ _,,. _ _ _. _. _ _ ~
4 I
l 1
LILCO $N0ntHasuttn0 PLAN i
A.
faergency Ge nente Fttt11 ties and Emissent
.1.
Osmanstmte the prompt activatten, adognacy of the stafffog ered est up as appropriate of meegency roepease fac11f ties as felleus o Shoreham husleer Peuer Stetten Centeel Rose e shoreham musteer poner Stetise Teofuiteal Suppset Center-e Shorehes Musleer Peuer Station Opemtfees support Center e Shen husteer Puner 3 Imerysasy Operettees Fest11ty e Lees' toegenee action Emergenry operettens Caster in rentsmed (LIS
}
e Local thergenny Resposee Organisatten 3 1
Ames in Rivertised, Petehegue and Port Jeffersen (
SA) e amerysasy hous Center (SC) e Energsasy Wetter basentesteetten Facility i
2.
tensestrate the giorehse Musleer Peuer Stetten sammunicatten i
flies egeng the Centrol Ress. Technfsal Center.
l Opentfees Festlity. Operettens support ter, and De tous Center.
I i
3.
Summastrete the sepsb111W to seemisfeste effortively between l
Stemhan tesleer Pomer Stetten Amorgency Response Orgsafsation i
and LES.
4.
Benestrete effective sammunicattees among the LtR0 ESC in-Sventeesd. and the serieme staties Ames, tas %otate,
'refffs r uses Center Centrolandessag8 og Areet. 8mm Trenefer P l
i poists and F1 dleastfens.
5.
Summmetrets the shitit of the therches Mosleer Peuer Stattan.
sad LSD summmeiestions tot e Perform a 24 hser per day notifisetten e fresselt asserete and ttesty teformation l
l 8
Buenasteste the ability of > Shoreham Westear Peuer Station i
energamey aesponse ergentention and lea 0 te deplay, seertinate -
}
and sentrol radiotegtsel menf tortog teams.
7.
Samsestrete empeevre senteel capahtlities for ensite serrective i
setten some.
l 8.
Demonstrete esmuunication of toshnical inforestion to the musleer Angelatory Counfeeien via tee NBC hotlines.
f I
1
-1
-.ew--.
6.
9.
Demonstreto the adequecy af fnternal communicatfons within the Emergency Response Fact 11tfes as defined in A.1 abcVe,
- 10. Demonstrate edesuecy of facilitfee end displays to supeert emergency operettene.
5.
notificatten end Mobiltaation of ter pereennel and Staff 1.
Osmenstrate the chility of the shorehen hecteer Pouer Statten t
staff to properly clasof fy acteal or potential emergencies in escordance wtth LILCO Imergency Plan Implementing Precedores.
2.
Demonstrate the cepebility of the shoreham Muclear Power station Insegency Response organisation te petify the Local taeryoney Response Orgestseties (LERO) erwegh the estahltshed notifiestfen erstem.
3 Demonstrate the capahitity of the shocates Nuclear Pouer Station Imergoesy neaponse,0rganisatten and LERO to notify esorgency roepense pereennel.
4.,.
temmastrete the cepehilf ty of the shorehme Nuclear Peuer Stetten tuergener Response Drysefeetten and lea 0 to ushilias staff and actisate the emergency response fact 11tfee in a tfeely manner and unistain etsfrfog around the ciech.
5.
Demeestrete, se approprfste the ehtlity te identify the need for, settfy and regsset assistenes free Federal ageestes.
i 6
Demonstrate, as appropriate, the settffcetten of and coortisetten with constfes and states within the fneestfen peteamy EPI and with egencfes auch as FDen, MC, Oct, med Cross, i
Federal Arfatta Adoteistretten, and coast, cuera.
C.
Eseregner hemtf.ees h 1.
teamstrwte the espebility of the shorehe Neeleer Poser Station Emergeser Response Orgentsatten and LInc to taplement their rettelegte41 emergesey ptspergdness plans.
2.
temenstrate the et11ty of hay emergency personnel within the shorehas thselaer Peuer Station toergency Response Organisatten and LERO to feittate, esordfnete end iglement timely and effecties doctstone errfes a rodfelegical emergency and clearly duessetrete "abe fe fa energe."
l.
e.
l
6 c
3.
Dumonstrate that thare is effective organisational dizaction ard aantaol and integrated el-ical mangency rempanen inciating g of simid munitors, W-4tfan, W=t and analysis of 4.
Deanstrate the capability to anastinues actions (internally /
{
autumnally) amene -
e-"i-in ander to ahtain agyart and to sera appegraats ensla_ims.
l l
3.
ammenstzute the ampshility of Pwa paremmal to recommand ad/or laplemnt appssyriate puntestive aprJane.
i D.
Peus A2mrtina and notitisunim 1.
Demunstante that the menemham maalaar poser Statian (ess) tune-Dumpanas Onpuntaatian and Iso astherities een of$notively assuaets ;mensmetim to the p@lic in a timely samedan.
2.
Dammstrate the af 1m0 to activate the seempt notifi-esta m aretum wi 15 of the declaian to taphment
, protnotive astians to aindats using misens, as and tone alert 4
= dias. m meditia, emusastames the amenknity of smo to isolament soute alarties and mianlate the notitientian pooridad by the mited States coast esmed to haeture.
1 3.
Demanstrate the agshility of ths a' se amagensy organi-natian.and smo to pueriam initial and sount g to I
the p 11m in a tiamly Smeda.
i E.
7411s yd fedda @
1.
Dunsustzute statting of tfee Rose cesear by resenham Weslaar Bauer Statim.hugusy l
and Im a
awim
=%,.
uity t. sa.m. -
~.arsac.
ue i
1 2.
Dumonetsuto ability to peeries meer sentaal and segmanas to AnguLrias tuem the ganasal pelia in a a===d4==ted enddam.
3 Deenstusta the ahiuty to pswid.e slaar, tianly and esauruta heist to the name media and p 11e aulative to the amargency at the lesclaar sener stataan.
j F.
Agaidget Asemempent 1.
Damenstruen the ability of hath the eersham Walmar pomme station capadastian and 150 to teemive and ammans 2
Dumanstants ths dility of sammahm maelaar femur stataan j
Bistynney Dumpanum eigenisatian ad 250 to sesymotively psejmet a d a w amme to the p us via the phen ayamme i
- poenmy, annieme,jestems to the preemative accian pse
- edams, mesentim the estimens and esteadas
}
4penpriate protestive astian N.
1
-Sa i
}
. - - - - - ~, - - - - - _,
7 3.
Duunnetzsts the ability of Imac te project dooms to the pelic via the inemettan pathay and to deessedne approprimes puotsett,.
-- based on PNa's and other as1meent fanators.
4.
Dammstzata the activation, med4lmmnt and pecomentes of both the Suomehm maclear Pomme station amargency % vimme im and 1510 tiald mdiation maattertag timens.
l Dumonstrate the ability of in9 ant pasuomel to sa$aly demar and 5.
1 analyse -
-% 1hedd and gassues esqpLee.
6 Dominutzste egdamumt and punantees dug' cuac in the pegmenos J. of alzboms wu== annountratians as saw as to i
of noble gname.
G.
Astions to protect the 7611e 1.
Dumanstmate the suplemntatian of psammative action yg by smo, 4-=
is (
mattering and evenetian maltering and wi== oc oedmits ammes 4*ing schmola and genial ancilitians Y= w the public en tem devalapumnt of the anoident and auer puseastige estammes hi = tim, antitismeism and euemmatism of amurisestite=
tasmalised suMLity=
perumes Analping and 1symatism agamus pattemy t
Puerialen eur summel of japedissues Anni eveemettan scummer l
peerimian to gm&de emarais enring a atenstad sessentimap PsN to summaste malhuse et the public without trumspartatiaat i
mettimalan of ammytian centert comediastian trith the muurimum med Csons $ne the puertaion of Omgueysts care Cunemes.
i L
Dumanstrate the empshility at emangsmir posuunmal tuo identify sagsisemmets, evaluate data and implammet puummesras ear.;..W.
~
3.
Dumonetante the ampshility of emerysney peremruent to identify regainments, pesyrums and poliales gossentag numevery.
4.
Demonstrate dility to afsmet an orderly evementian of puotsetad area perummuni (an alta caly).
S.
Demanutants adspancy of pressemos ear seghrtzetlan and -duk-4=1 munitariry of evenuens (off site only).
t 0
e,
I e
0
4
{
l W.
Ne61th Itsdfeel and Esseswe Centml Itosmees 8
1.
Ramonstrate the desfefan making prosese for Ifwitf ag espeswo of i
emo g masy uurters.
2.
Sensastrete processfes of lesel emergeety sorters and vehicles tasuugh persensel assiterf ag and eseawtamfastian festitty, l
3.
Osammetrete tem deciefen sakias presses fWe resemmeedtog the see
]
of potesete ledtde for amergemsy sortiers.
i 4
Summmetrete methods and rumeuroes fer distrftstfag desteatry and i
%d bloottog aparte, if appropriots. to emergemsy sorters.
'i 5.
Raummetrate the record keeptag of redtatten egoemre and see of I
destestry and thyroid blastieg agents for the pesteetten of enquey h, 4.
Osmametrete taustedge, en es poet of the emergeety sorter, of i
destestry and Peteselen leefde peessesses and of the l
1estetdust arthertand to elles egeneros ehese
,poredsetale 19stte, i
l l
4 6
0 1
i l
i l
4 l
i
I I
PLAN EXI t 6m us e its - i PW LIRA Com kJeetise*
lhjertise(s)
- 1. '
eummusJreFe seliter en euefife seer 7 ene ech e.,
facflities efemptly.
L tusswerste dilit sefweste n:fff ag e;*vemed the sleek.* M1y staff fes111 ties and A.1,8.4 3.
tummmewste ehtlity to mehe destefame and to c.t seenMaete amoreaney estivtties.
4.
lisuudeerwee adspety of fes11fties and diaplays A.10 te espre9 dusegemer operetfame.
1 5.
Besseseven elith y to seumr4sges wi e e11 A.3.4.6 espegreste 'hiettfens, argestantese, and field passenet.
8.
SummasWete ellit is ashflise and depig field A.6
. usettertag teams 1e e steely feeMae 7.
Benenetrees appnerf4u e'yfguest end
' F.4 for detwafetes reiset neeletkii lesefs.C L
)
o f.
Summastete ate optpuest and precedures F.4 for er etveense Mn eserworet$ees as 1aa es 1,rQt# es 1e ine premesse af sable gesHw..
1 t
\\
31erse -Ihdader Pavest $se h(femIW of testolerfeel huseredmans tenetse teoreettens and Evelastfees (Jane 1
)
t W 1sterr free seen Instamp19e__(espesy Aseeriete Megeter stata and Lasal W tupport) to Reffemel Meerence.teefel Surtemelkreeters,heefees Ast!
!!! 18 fneereHee Pressespel Pelfw as eel Proporehese Plan, aerfase, taereise heergottene end feel ene, and Pfattage.
e e
,e
's G
^
i (0
l pus s--
I X a ve, m u _... M VM Com hjeettee SJ se(s) s.
meseawenn appropriese oprismars me presseres ree solleette of set), en tresoport and aestyefe of samples geteties, seau, enter, and st1L 10.
tonnestrete etitty to project desets to to pelfs Ft vie a)ses egesem. bened en plast and field etc.
- and to eterates to protestice sensores bened en PAR's,i lete stolter senerettes time estlastes, and eL1 emer appropriate festure 11.
Bessemente etlity to predest a to put)fe F.3 vie tegnettes pegner se field etc.
and to etereles ets pressettee useneren beend es pet's and rolesent flectors.
I i
IL tusenstrate st1fgres.lesmet preteettee settees for tup tegnettes petamir la.
Susenitrete efitW to alert to puhtte witte the 8.1, 3 1 M e Ept,t assesse vt ete N etestes.
and steensteete se fettlet teatrusttens 14.
Bemesseuree ettttr to focustets and distrfterte 3.1 a
fees to the pelfs in 4.1,E.3, 15.
tegenstate the ergentaational et11tr and ressureen 4.1 anseenery to sesops as orderts eseemettes of all er part of the p1em EP1.
ll l
9 g
e
r
((
P in-aa an.m.uw -LAt
-==.e.1 FEtt Core ejectfwe U30 6,1ective(s) w.
samensween me ertanisassensi ente ans resenroes 7enen as aclament usator er traffic ehearurttees,.
s.i to deal wie supedfmeets to eveematten 17.
Summastrate the argenfastfemal abtitty and researcos
- a-y to centrel acesas to en eveemsted area.
18.
temenswete the ergentaattomal ability and resserees
- t.1 m to effect an ereely evesention of astility-tapefred indlyftels wttin me pluma EPZ.
19.
EmmausWete to fastiemal ability and resources emessaary to en ortr1 3.1 sekeets vtteria the ptsee EFZ s esecuaties of i
30.
temonstrate aM11ty to esa emergency uurter esposure.ttenessly nowiter and centrol W.5, i fl.
Ramsentrate the dility to mehe the desistem, based aii M.3 preerterWiend erfteria uheese to fosse Et to emergener useere and Jer me general populaties.
22.
Summastute the aM11tr to supply and omfHeter I
KI, esse the dartslen has been made to de es.
u.4 23.
Basemewete stility te effect en orderly esecuatten of eastle pereenne 8.4 1
24.
I humangste gbflity to brief the media Tm a sleer, E.3 asterste and tfaafy mesmee.
b e
I i
9
m.
{
(2 e
LILCO
$2KMM30 M.AN insu La Ge4GTIvE :---M E
W Core & #settse ajestise(s)
Es.
spanst'est m111ty et prov1e acesse ageM1ee31en of foreruttee released.
g,j i
1 28.
anaestrete ef tfty to estelfsk and operate rumer I
centrol is a esordfasted feskies.
E.1 17.
Sansmetrate adequacy of me for re and rettelegfeel usef og of evesseen. gf atrettes i 4.5 l
28.
Reemmetrate edegency of feeflitfee for sees care of egesesse.
29.
Samenehte edagnete egrfpment and presehNe N.2 for desentasfeetten of emergemey verture, eqstposet med veMales.
i 30.
Sensestrete of asbolesse feeftftfes and pre-eedores for tog eastenfested faffefdeale.
31.
Buseastrete of bespita) 9eef1ftfes eng presederte for fog sentefeated feffvf tale.
{
38.
Dessentrate ellf ty to identif and ettets Plederal asefstesse.y need for, regeset,
.i t.4 33.
RemuneW'ete ef1f ty to relocate to and operate the last alterente teF/ ESC.
', applicable 34.
Bessestate ebf11ty to entfeste total populettes egenere.
as.
maammetrete et11ty te dreemfas and festament appreyrtete asessme fler sentre11od resseery I a.3, 3 and fesMey.
4 O
tete: 11/9/04'
q.
I l
i JAN 111985 The Honorable Mario M. Cuomo Governor of New York Albany, NY 1222 4
Dear Governor Cuomo:
I am responding to your letter of November 29, 1984 to Harold Denton regarding the November 14, 1984 request by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) that NRC for-ward materials to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) related to an emergency preparedness exercise planned by LILCO for the week of February 11, 1985.
You attached letters to Congressman Carney from President Reagan and Secretary Hodel, and advised us that New York State is opposed to any such exercise and objects to NRC assistance or cooperation in such an exercise over the objections of New York State.
As you are aware, LILC0 has developed its own offsite emergency response plan and organization, with LILCO personnel identified to perform certain duties ordinarily performed by State and County employees in the event of an emergency. Consistent with FEMA's responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness, the NRC requested FEMA to provide findings on whether the LILC0 offsite plan (Transition Plan) is adequate, whether it is capable of being imple-mented, and whether LILC0 has the ability to implement the plan. FEMA has provided findings to the NRC relating to the adequacy of the Transition Plan in several letters, the latest of which is dated November 15, 1984 This let.ter indicated that of the 32 inadequacies identified in a previous review of the Transition Plan, 8 remain inadequate.
FEMA's letter also identified those aspects of the plan, including some of the remaining inadequacies, where legal authority issues continue to be of concern.
The legal authority issues are the subject of the lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court to which you referred in your letter and are also being considered by an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Shoreham operating license proceeding.
It would, of course, be difficult and inappropriate to try to predict l
the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
Regarding the exercise proposed by LILC0 in their November 14 letter, the normal practice of NRC and FEliA in response to an applicant's proposal is to review the submitted objectives, provide comments to the involved parties and prepare to observe and evaluate the scheduled exercise.
In this instance there are out-standing plan inadequacies and legal authority issues. Accordingly, we have forwarded LILCO's November 14 letter to FEMA for their information and have requested them to take the lead in any preliminary consideration of this matter.
l'
\\
- l 1
m J,. ' r l
,_ e 3J
The Honorable Mario M. Cuomo.
We also forwarded to FEMA copies of your November 29 letter and a similar letter to the NRC dated November 28, 1984 from John C. Gallagher, Chief Deputy County Executive of Suffolk County.
We appreciate your *.nforming us of New York State's views on this important matter and hope this information is useful to you in understanding the respective NRC and FEMA responsibilities with regard to etaluating emergency preparedness for Shoreham.
Sincerely, (Signes William J.Dircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION WJDircks, ED0 JWRoe, ED0 TRehm ED0 VStello, EDO HRDenton, NRR TEMurley, Region I GCunningham, ELD RCDeVoung, IE JMTaylor, IE JNGrace, IE ELJordan, IE SASchwartz, IE DBMatthews, IE CRVan Niel, IE FKantor, IE JRSears, IE LToms, IE EDO-000151 DCS DEPER R/F EPB R/F
's i b,[
, lk ig g
Y fER/IE R/IE Ett I
D/
.atthews:sc rwartz ELJordan ESchrihtenbury 4 Taylor RCDeYoung WJDircks 1/g/85
/}/85 1/g/85 1/1/85 1/g/85 1/j/85 1/ /85 D
d't e
1 JAN 111985 The Honorable Mario M. Cuomo Governor of New York Albany, NY 12224
Dear Governor Cucmo:
I am responding to your lettar of November 29, 1984 to Harold Denton regarding the November 14, 1984 request by the Long Island Lighting. Company (LILCO) that NRC for-ward materials to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) related to an emergency preparedness exercise planned by LILCO for the week of February 11, 1985.
You attached letters to Congressman Carney from President Reagan and Secretary Hodel, and advised us that New York State is opposed to any such exercise and objects to HRC assistance or cooperation in such an exercise gver the objections of New York State.
As you are aware, LILC0 has developed its own offsite emergency response plan and organization, with LILCO personnel identified to perform certain duties ordinarily performed by State and County employees in the event of an emergency.
Consistent with FEMA's responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness, the NRC requested FEMA to provide findings on whether the LILC0 offsite plan (Transition Plan) is adequate, whether it is capable of being imple-mented, and whether LILCO has the ability to implement the plan. FEPA has provided findings to the NRC relating to the adequacy of the Transition Plan in several letters, the latest of which is dated November 15, 1984 This letter indicated that of the 32 inadequacies identified in a previous review of the Transition Plan, 8 remain inadequate.
FEMA's letter also identified those aspects of the plan, including some of the remaining inadequacies, where legal authority issues continue to be of concern.
The legal authority issues are the subject of the lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court to which you referred in your letter and are also being considered by an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Shoreham operating license proceeding.
It would, of course, be difficult and inappropriate to try to predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
Regarding the exercise proposed by LILC0 in their November 14 letter, the normal practice of NRC and FEliA in response to an applicant's proposal is to review the submitted objectives, provide comments to the involved parties and prepare to observe and evaluate the scheduled exercise.
In this instance there are out-standing plan inadequacies and legal authority issues. Accordingly, we have famarded LILCO's November 14 letter to FEMA for their information and have requested them to take the lead in any preliminary consideration of this matter.
s g) ( r6 G I g
2f 9
I The Honorable Mario M. Cuomo.
We also forwarded to FEMA copies of your November 29 letter and a similar letter to the NRC dated November 28, 1984 from John C. Gallagher, Chief Deputy County Executive of Suffolk County.
We appreciate your informing us of New York State's views on this important matter and hope this information is useful to you in understanding the respective NRC and FEMA responsibilities with regard to evaluating emergency preparedness for Shoreham.
Sincerely, (Sips:1)Wmlas!.M William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION WJDircks, ED0 JWRoe, ED0 TRehm, ED0 VStello, EDO HRDenton, NRR TEllurley, Region I GCunningham, ELD RCDeYoung, IE JMTaylcr, IE JNGrace, IE ELJordan, IE SASchwartz, IE DBMatthews, IE CRVan Niel, IE FKantor, IE JRSears, IE LToms. IE EDO-000151 DCS DEPER R/F EPB R/F
- p 6'd y.! J>'j
(.s t
4
\\
f dD EFER/IE 9/
R/IE ELT d-E D/
EDO atthews:sc SMchwartz ELJordan ESChristenbury M aylor RCDeYoung WJDircks 1/g/85 I/j/85 1/y/85 1/q/85 1/g/85 1/j/85 1/ /85 O
dY e
/. Hg.9 T
/
4 COUNTY OF !sUFFdLK g g T,. b M -
TYh OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE Prna F. CoMAuN JOHN C. GALMGHEn suerPOLM CoustTY EXECUTfvt CMIEF DEPUTY November 28, 1984 s
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nucleai Reactor Regulation
.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-404A Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Dear-Mr. Desdon:
m_
By letter' dated Novembe'r 14, 1984, the Long Island Lighting Company
~
requested that you transmit to FINA materials intended "to support a graded exercise which LILCO is. planning for the week of February 11, 1985."
This is to advise you that Suffolk-County is opposed to any such, exercise and that the NRC should in no way promote, assist, or concur in such an exercise over the wbjections of this County govern-meat.
LILCO's implementation of its offsite emergency plan would be unlawful under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
Both Suffolk County and New York State,have filed lawsuits against,
LILCO in State Supreme' Court in order to secure a conclusive order to that effect.
In our view, therefore, LILCO's exercise of its plan would be in pursuit of an unlawful objective.
I would also stress that it would be an insult to the people and govern-ment of Suffolk County.
Given the posture of the Shoreham ca,se before the courts and the NRC,.as well as the continuing pesition of this, County that effec-tive emergency preparedness for a nuclear accident at Shoreham is impossible, we ask that you reject LILCO's request to forvard any exercise materials to. FEMA and that you refrain from taking any l
steps which contribute to an intrusion by LILCO into the police I
powers of Suffolk Cosnty. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a letter written by President Reagan which expresses the Administration's position.
S cerely you s, C
[),],
,7, v John C. Callagh
\\
Chief peputy nty Executive
( c t
,.s
.r g,:dsb L
ZDO - 00015.0
.,, e THE WMitg -]f 0(*3g ST%IllNUT rW.
Cetober 11,.2334
Dear Birir,
I want yeu'.to' knew cf ng apprectM. ion for your continuin g.c;en ributiet:s to and support f or my M:rdnistrn116n.
Your leadership and ccurage have heeh determining fr.etors in the progress wri h.:ve nade in the lar.t few years.
i on a matt.e of particular concern.to you and the pample cf Eastern.1 cr.g Isidad, I wish to repeat Secretary Medt:1*c assurance to you thet this M:ninistration does not f avor the imposition of Tederal Govern:nent authority over the objections j
cf state and 1ccal governments. In matterra regarding tha' adequacy of an.em'ergency evacuation.
plan f or a nu= lear power plant such sr Shcrehar,.
Your ccncarn for thw aafety of the people of Long "slar.d is parancunt and sha=ed by the secretary ar.d =e.
1 Thank. you :.gelr. fer your support..
I lock forv.rg
~
to we.,rking with ycu in the years ahead.
Sincerely,.
Q i.
The Renereble 121111er. Carnev Houco et heprc rer.tatives Vashington, D.c.,
20515 p
e 4-
,, - ~ -.,
.g.vw= f. ytas. WT. S simmes r
.m a,
~
"l: M
- '.'.=..%
="l":.2.
",g.t.".*
=l%".". l:
Ti$itd.,MEEEESMUIEEE g,
,",ar -
a""*"**'
t so wrreonawne=uerrme,unurmens j
an ema=====
c wres.n a a.s =
october 31, 1984 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino chairman i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D.C.
Dear Joe:
has devoted considerable time and thought to the issue o We now have in place a framework that is,inteadma to p for offactive emergency piaaa4ag.
In an offort to ensure that all parties concerned with the emergency p1===4ag process have a clear and concise understanding of the commission's approach to this issue, and in order'that intelligent'and informed decisions may be made.hy the
- 4 congress with respect to what further legislation might be required, we would appreciate the commission's response to the fellowing questions.
1.
Does the cctmmission. interpret its regtlations'on emergency planning for nuclear reactors (10 CFR t
50.47 and 50.54) as permitting or precluding a federal agency, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Department of Energy, from participating in the implementation of but not limited to, providing the necessazy (including,
" legal authority" to implement) an offsite emergency preparedness. plan?
2 If either or both of these two agencies (the Department of Ener Management Agency)gy and the Federal Emergency were to conclude that they have the statutory authority to participate in the im Plan, plementation of an offsite emergency preparedness i
and further undertake to' do so, would it he the commission's position that the connaission would
'j, defer to such agency's determination regarding the scope of that agency's statutory authority to
[
undertake such action?
GhC,43hCP39 P3M2 3
2p)
Q
1 n
Chairman Palladino Page Two
.e 3.
If not, pisase provide a complete and detailed
~
legal analysis setting forth the commission's views with respect to the statutory authority of any federal agency or department to participate in the implementation (including, but not limited to, providing the necessary " legal authority" to i
implement) of an offsite emergency preparedness plan.
We look forward to your prompt response to the above questions, and thank you for your attention to this important i
matter.
~
Ses s
- carely, I
J. Bennett Johnston Ranking Minority Member Alan K. Simpson Chairman Committee on Energy and Subconnittee on Nuclear Regulatier Natural Resources e
e as I
'e l'
e
=
e u
\\
,fgjO LCeNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
,,...3-..,.,
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l
P.O. eOx eie. NORTM COUNTRY ROAD
- WADING RWER. N.Y.11792
[G mu o. uonano.an.
vicer eseent.-memeo Oi l
f
- November 14, 1984 S
C-1107 g
i Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~
Exercise Objectives for Emergency Plan Exercise Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Denton:
Attached for your review and forwarding to the iederal Emergency i
6.
Management Agency pursuant to the FEMA-ERC Memorandum of Understanding dated as of November 1, 1984, 45 Fed. Reg. 02713
. (1980), is a statement.of objectives to be demonstrated at an 4
exercise of the Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Plan and the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) Plan.
This attachment is in two parts:
first, a statement, in LILCO' s terms, of the objectives of the exercise labeled "LERO Objectives", and second, a correlation of these objectives with the standard FEMA " Core Objectives."
It is being submitted to you in order to support a graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of February 11, 1985.
LILCO has also developed three potential scenarios for the exercise, which have been kept under security provisions.
We would appreciate your transmitting this document promptly to FEMA and your good offices in arranging the prel4=4n=a meeting neces-sary to commence the detailed planning process for the exercises.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
0
~'
very truly y s,
Jo D. Leonard,"Jr.
f [ h l@ yL v Q)\\f o
t
~~
Vi President - Nuc ar rations
\\,
- ck Attachment cc:
P. Eselgroth C. Petrone (FEMA Region II) ltichard DeYoung (I.&E)
Edward -Jordan (Ish,
=y.
-w
--,,---,,.,y--
-,.,.,=..s_-,-.,*m--w,%.w.
,pg
,,,3-...,__-,._,4,.
._g_w-,.--.3,
,ym,,y
.--.,.._.ym,+w-9-.
y
W
\\
i.
,k i
STArc or Ncw Yonx executive CHAMBER Hsmo H. Cuomo ao c..
November 29, 1984
~
Dear Mr. Denton:
By letter dated November 14, 1984, uhe Long Island Lighting Companyt requested that you forward to FIMA materials "to support' a. graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of Febrhgry 11, 1985."
This is to advise you that New York State isyopiposed to any such exercise and to. request that the NRC not assist or cooperate in sue.h an exercise over the -
objections of New York State.
l
~LILCO's desire to implement its off-site emergency evacuation plan would be unlawful.under the constitution and the laws of the State of'New York.
Both New York State and Suffolk County have filed a consolidated law suit against LILOO which is pending in the State Supreme Court in order to secure a conclusive judicial ruling to that effect.
It is our view, therefore, that LILCO's exercise of its plan would be a premature pursuit of an unlawful objective..It would also constitute an affront to the sovereignty.of the State of New York.
1 Given the posture of that case before the courts, as well as the continuing position of Suffolk County that an effective' e:nergency evacuation plan for a nuclear accident at Shoreham is
-impossible, I ask that you reject LILCO's request to transmit ~
any exercise material to FWnd that you refrain from taking any steps which contribute to a usurpation by LILCO of the police powers of Suffolk County and the State of New York.
Such rejection on your part would be consistent with Administration q
Jg $L{
[vp4 n
h y
p
~... - -.
.-...------,,.-..,,.,,.-n n.,-.-
,s Mr. Harold Denton 2,-
November 29, 1984 policy as expressed in a letter kritten by President Reagan to Congreise.an Carney, dated October 11, 1984, a copy of which is annexed.
Sincerel
- yours, l
,l 1
Mr. Harold Denton, Director Offica of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission
?
7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room P-4D4A Bethesda, Mar.yland 20814 O
Enclosure h,
. C.'.
t.r b
p a-e
)
e.
O m*
^*,y f
e r-
=
s
f.
l
.g
)
THE WHITE !go(*gg WbillN(27 CTN.
October 11,.3334 Dear Bil'It.
I y nt :;cu tN kncW cf m) apprecicf.lon for your continuingf-egntributio2:c to and support f or :ny Ad.v,~.in i s t.-n t-d e n.
Your leadership And ecuraVe have been t.leter:nining fr.eters in the progress wri h.:ve nade in the lact Tcv yeart.
of partf eular goncern. to you and the..
on.a matt.e pacple cf Eastern Ieng.Triand, I wish to repeat Secretary Medr:1*c assurance to you thet. this M?.inistration d=rt not f av== the i= position of Fede:al Government authority over the objecticas ef state and decal governments in mitters regarding ths' Adequacy of an. emergency evccuation.
plan f or a nu=1sse power plant such. ar Shcrehar..
Your cencarn fcr the safety of the aceple of Ler.g Islar.d is parcocunt and sha:ed Ly the Secretary a r.d m e.
. thank. you :.galr. for your support..
- lock f=rucrg
.to wrking with ycu in' the years ahead.
Sincerely,.
The Renerabic liiilice, carney Hou=e - ci heprc renta tivcu k*ashington, D.t 20515 f
x-
-r
,c
,--4,,---,,-----m--,--.-.-,..,_-...--,,-----,-.--,--,,--,.---m----r
1 THI EECRETARY OF INE AQY w o w nto w. p.g. m.as CA2r13M i
e 7brerable William Carray l
H:use of %presentatives h.shingt=n, D. C.
20515 Dn.a.r Bill.:
I want b tAka this a:Alty to Mte you en cur ked.vities rega.r.'ing the e
&creham nucim: so.or pla..t.
AA we assured y:u last sprirg ard at ohr ti,w l
h, w psecasd.tM e=rcerrs of the citizes of Ieq Islard regard 1hp Ehcreha'=.'
the Depa.rtrent ef-aut>cria.y cyer t%_Zne.rgy cbas rxat faver the I. ;:osition et Fa$eral ceve: ent-
-&.',ections of ary stata arzi accal gcuarment i l
regad**r t% Waef of an e v.rgency eva:uation plan fer.a nuelur ps er plant n raatta..s 1
such as Sherehen.
cur pesiti=n is casar.
ability of American citizens.and Iccal.elec*s:The Peagad Asti.nistration h
- 8. efficia.ls to handle the p:+lat s
- .f ch c::cfr::nt then directly. As cre of Icrq Isla.-d's rest **~Me ard vigor:us elected efficials, ycur advice aid ecun.sel.m.sgaritirny e.w aid w-de polieles W.icts affect the future of yee c=natituents ha.ve bec en:tre ely valuable to President Reagan arzi no.
in itzfustrial, lab =r, arri (bve.mmnt leaders of t.% rirst Cintrict to v ne, y:o have bee a viger:us L'.vcx:ata cf t.he 'i.ntarests of.'.cesy Islard, aW in ::ehalf cf 2:=ckArven National Ie.1=ratcry arri ether rederal facilities.
I 1 x* fc=wrd te y:ur c=ntL:.md vise c=umel en eese afd ccher issve:s 1.n t.%
year:t a. head.
Si. w sly,.
i ed e
1 e
l e
M e
8
_7,_.,..._.,_.._...,,,,.,,._,---.m-,
. ~ -, _ _, _..., _ _ _, _, _ _, _..
.. c.
t,'
offics.of thm Governor
. ' p*,
State of N::w York
.~
, J.*,.r.
+j:.
s
- J 4v
~
t' BY MESSENGER
. t.
j
,,i,.
Md.YllaroldR. Denton, Director I
Office 'of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room P-404A Dethesda, Maryland'20814
.i.
i 9
d b
e a
y
- 's.
t t.
a 1
-t r.
-1 i
j t
~
g S
(
4 l
s i
i y
0 6
I.
g
I l
le l%I) 4 COUNTY OF SUFFdLK 4gS.bM-
,0 W
8Q\\
OFFICE OF'THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. CoHALAN JOHN C. GALLAGHER surrouc cow <re cascurrve emer oce November 28, 1984 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nucleai Reactor Regulation
.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-404A Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Dear-Mr. Denton:
l Byletterdit(dNovemb'r 14, 1984, the Long Island Lighting Coinpany e
~
~
requested that you transmit to FEMA materials intended "to support a graded exercise which LILCO is,pimuning for the week of February 11, 1985." This is to advise you that suffolk; County is opposed to any such, exercise and that the NRC should in no way promote, assist, or concur in such an exercise over the objections of this County govern-ment.
LILCO's implementation of its offsite emergency plan vould be unlawful under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
Both Suffolk County and New York State have filed lawsuits against LILCO in State Supreme' Court in order to secure a conclusive order '
to that effect.
In our view, therefore, LILCO's exercise of its plan vould be in ptirsuit of an unlawful objective.
I would also stress that it would be an insult to the people and govern-ment of Suffolk County.
Given the posture of the Shoreham en,s's before the courts and the NRC, as well as the continuing position of this County that effec '
cive emergency preparedness for a nuclear accident at Shoreham is impossible, we ask that you reject LILCO's request to forward any exercise materials to. FEMA and that you refrain from taking any steps which, contribute to an intrusion by LILCO into the police powers of Suffolk Co6nty.
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a letter written by President Reagan which expresses the Administration's position.
Si cerely you s, d
1 Q'
,(, ) ho rn - ~A
^
i
_ v ((, q M( T
/ f/ y John 7. Gallagh Chief Deputy C nty Executive 3
-e g,:dsb L P P, ZD0 ~ 000150
THE WHi f g !!O(*gg ww stumem.
October 11,.233(
De a r Diri r.
I want cu".to' kney cf q apprecitt.lon for your continuing.centributio2:e tc, and support f or my Ad:rdnistrnt3 En.
Your leadership and ecurage have bee?, determining freters in the progress un h ve nade'in~the lar.t few years.
on a matter of partieckar concern, to you and the I
pacple cf rastern.lcr.g Isisnd, I wish to repeat Secretary Medr:1*c avaurance to you thet. this ad.:iniceration does not f avor the imposition of rederal Government authority over the objecticas of state ans ;!.ccal gevarre.ents. 3.n matterrs regarding tha' adequacy cf an. em'ergency evccuation.
plan for a nu= lear power plant such ar Shcrehar..
Your ecnearn fer thw safety of the people =f Leng
- sla.nd is parsecunt and shared by the Secretary ar.d me.
Thank. you : galr.* fer your support..
I lock forut.rd to we.,rking with ycu in the years ahead.
Sincerely,.
The Tenerabia 1111110r. Carney Hou=e ci heprc rentatives Washingten, D.C.,
20515
- p..
N
- --- - --