ML20128R075

Confirms Plan to Not Hold Meetings W/Fema Re Radiological Assessment Coordinator Review of Lilco Transition Plan. Meetings W/Fema Will Continue on Regular Basis

ML20128R075
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/09/1984
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Udell R HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
Shared Package
ML20128Q997	List: ML20128Q994 ML20128R030 ML20128R047 ML20128R060 ML20128R075
References
FOIA-85-190, FOIA-85-A-14 NUDOCS 8507270114
Download: ML20128R075 (24)

Text

- - -

r April 9,1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Richard Udell Subcormittee on Oversight and Investigations Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs FROM:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

SHOREHAM RAC REVIEW As we discussed, we are not planning to hold any meetings with the staff of FEMA concerning the RAC review of the LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham.

If we do have one, you and other members of the public will be invited.

As far as other meetings between FEMA and NRC, we will continue to have meetings on a regular government-agency to goverrnent-agency ba si s.

i William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations CC:

RCDeYoung/IE GCunningham/ ELD WJDircks/E00 JWRoe/ DEDO TARehm/0EDO EDO rf Sam Speck / FEMA B507270114 850610 PDR FOIA

)

BELAIR85-A-14 PDR

V

\\

r l

s

/

e e

/

De I

e 4

e q,

e.

e...

eo e * : f.:., - *

<.. e a g

.2

~

.g k-

.r.

• r).4

's,

.e,

. e t,,

P r. ' '.f i,

'.; H.6

... a.

• 1

. 3.

. ~

e f

t p

ENCLOSURE 2 8

.. em.

e 9

9

-o

j' e

SUMMARY

0F RECOLLECTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS 0F CHAIRitAN'S STAFF WITH DOE AND' FEMA RELATING TO EMERGENCY'PLA'NNING OR SHOREHAM Executive Assistant Early 1984 (estimated); one or two conversat' ions'

~

o with an individuai in DOE about news. article

~

suggesting DOE was considering approache's for i

federal assistance in emergency prepa, redness in conjunction with~ FEMA; DOE's commitment seemed *

.1ess than the article indicated.

o' April /May, 1984; commun'ications involvi,ng:

. cal.1 from DOE. requesting.information<about a Commissio'n~mee' ting on Shoreh'a'm (DOE requestor.was referrgd.to Geheral.4ounsel's.

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~

Office) n. -

a returned call to DOE individual who said.

he had learned what he wanted about Shoreham

-and no longer needed to' talk"

' ' ~

~

. - ~.

call from DOE on a ma'tter not'related to

?

emergency planning or Shoreham, but during which caller was referred to'a Washington Post article on Shoreham; DOE individual

~

~

then mentioned but did not discuss a recent letter from Secretary Hodel to Governor Cuomo ca.11 informing Secretary Hodel's office that Congressman Markey's staff had indicated that he would release to the public Chairman Palladino's April 27, 1984 memorandum concerning the Secretary's April 26,.1984 call (copy of memorandum sent, to DOE at that time)

Technical As'sistant February, 1984; contact with DOE representatives o

at the Full Field Exercise at St. Lucie about DOE emergency response facilities demonstrated during the exercise.

May, 1984; contacted by DOE about Commission's o

position on Transamerica Delaval, Inc. diesel generators (most of discussion related to specific problems at Grand Gulf; DOE individual sought verification that Shoreham diesel generator failure first highlighted problems)

rmr 9

s, 9

e e

O e

ENCLOSURE 4 k

EP and Shoreham Correspondence 1/9/84 Letter, Jordan to L. Joe Deal, Acting Director, Radiological Controls Division, DOE re Dose Assessments & Interagency Exchange of Info 1/10/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to Jordan re Federal Assistance with Emergency' Planning

• 1/11/84 Memo, Jordan to Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, FEMA re FEMA Review of LILCO Transition Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant Attachments 12/28/83 - Memo, Jordan to Krimm re FEMA Support for the NRC Licensing of Shoreham Nuclear Station 12/21/83 - Letter, Stuart M. Glass, Regional Counsel, FEMA Region II to Donald Erwin, Hunton &

Williams re-Confirming Telecon re LILCO Transition Plan 12/22/83 - Memo, Krimm to Jordan re RAC Review of LILCO Transition Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 1/11/84 Note, DeYoung to Dircks enclosing Governor Cuomo's emergency response proposals (letter of 6/16/83 to Members of Congress) 1/12/84 Memo, Dircks to Commission, Federal Field Exercise, enclosing memo Joe Winkle, FEMA to Members of the Subcommittee on Federal Response.

FRPCC, i.e.

Invitation of Visitors to the FRERP Field Exercise 1/13/84 Letter, Perkins to Deal, DOE re Meeting on Intercomparisons of Dose

' Assessment Models

• 1/13/84 Memo, Krimm, FEMA, to Jordan, NRC, Regional Assistance Committee (RAC)

Review of Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) Transition Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 1/17/84 Letter to Aubrey V. Godwin, Director, Bureau of Radiological Health, State of Alabama 1/17/84 Memo, B. Weiss to Glen Woodard, FEMA re Supplies Needed for March FFE 1/19/84

-Memo, Jordan, NRC and Jones, FEMA to Principal FFE Participants re FFE 1/22/84 Draft joint Letter (NRC/ FEMA) to Governor Cuomo Regarding Federal Role

• Shoreham Correspondence

f.

l l.

! I F

1/24/84 Memo, Jordan to Krimm re Review of Public Safety Information Borchures

• 1/25/84 Letter, Speck, FEMA to Dircks re NRC-Requested Review of the LILC0 Plan by FEMA

• 1/26/84 Letter, Dircks to Speck re Requesting that FEMA Continue its Review of the LILC0 Plan 1/27/84 Memo, Jordan to Krimm re Review of the Radiological. Emergencies Training Package 1/27/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to Federal Response Subcommittee Members re Meetings of the Federal Response Subcommittee 2/6/84 Memo, Jordan to Krimm re Agenda for NRC/ FEMA Steering Comittee Meeting 2/7/84 Memo, Perkins to L. Joe Deal, DOE; Marvin Rosenstien, HHS; David Jones, EPA; George Bickerton, USDA; William F. Jones, FEMA re Meeting to Formalize Interface Arrangements at the NRC Operations Center 2/7/84 Memo, Winkle to Federal Response Subcommittee Members Participating in,the FFE re Identification of FFE Participants 2/8/84 Memo, Davis, FEMA Region VIII to B. Weiss re FFE Dry-Run 2/9/84 Letter, Jordan to Winkle, FEMA re Procedu're for Emergency Response for Handling a Second Event During the FFE 2/9/84 Memo, Winkle to FFE Participants re Managing Exercise Scenario During Complicating Real World Events 2/10/84 Comment Paper, FEMA, " Unresolved Exercise Frequency Issues" 2/14/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to Federal Response Subcommittee Members re Minutes of Meeting, February 1,1984 2/15/84 Letter, Perkins to Deborah Schilling, FEMA re Visitors at the FFE 2/15/84 Aemo, B. Weiss to Members, National Emergency Preparedness Policy Development Work Group re NRC Role in the Continuity of Government Enclosures - Letters Palladino to Secretaries of Energy, State, Defense, Director of FEMA and Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

• Shoreham Correspondence

6 2/16/84 Memo, B. Weiss to Glenn Woodard, FEMA re Logistics Requirements for March FFE 2/16/84 Memo, Sjoblom, EPA to NRC, DOE FEPA re March 1984 Exercise of the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan 2/17/84 Letter, B. Weiss to John Heard, FEMA Region IV re Attendees at FFE 2/22/84 Letter, DeYoung to Bernard A. Maguire, FEMA re Review of Federal Preparedness Circular 6 2/22/84 Memo, Winkle to FFE Exercise Management Group re FFE Exercise 2/23/84 Letter, Speck, FEMA to Dircks re FRERP and FFE 2/23/84 Memo, B. Weiss to Dick Michener, White House re. Federal Field Exercise -

March 6, 7 and 8, 1984 2/27/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to FFE Participating Organization re Players Material for the FFE 2/29/84 Letter, Vernon Adler, FEMA to B. Weiss re FFE Scenario 3/1/84 Memo, Jordan to 'Krimm re Guidance Memorandum 21 " Acceptance Criteria for Evacuation Plans," Guidance Memorandum 23 "The Ingestion Pathway,"

and. Guidance Memorandum 24 " Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons" 3/8/84 Letter, Xrimm to Jordan re FEMA travel funds 3/12/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to Members of the Subcommittee on Federal Response Subcommittee Meeting on March 20, 1984 3/13/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to FFE Management Group re Final Meeting of the FFE Management Group 3/13/84 Memo, B. Weiss to Scenario Development and Control and Evaluation Work Group re Success of the FFE

• 3/15/84 Letter, Speck, FEMA to Dircks re FEMA Findings on LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham 3/29/84 Letter, Jordan to Krimm re FEMA travel funds 4/6/84 Letter, B. Weiss to Stephen S. Trott, Dept. of Justice re Handling of Resource Compilation Data

• Shoreham Correspondence

+

. 4/9/84 Letter, Perkins to Cecil G. Goal, Dept. of the Army re Designation of Contact for Water Resource Responsibilities in a National Emergency 4/10/84 Letter, Perkins to William Jones, FEMA re Review of the National Contingency Plan for Consequences of an Extraordinary Situation at Special Events 4/11/84 Memo, B. Weiss to Scenario Development and Control and Evaluation Work Group re Report of Work Group lessons Learned 4/16/84 Letter, Jordan to Glen L. Sjoblom, EPA re Review of Proposal Revisions to the Inhalation Exposure Pathway Portions of the EPA PAG Manual (EPA-520/1-75-001, Revised June 1980) 4/20/84 Letter K. Perkins to Duane S. Cooley, NOAA re Distribution List for Technical Procedures Bulletins 4/23/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to Members of the Subcomittee on Federal Response re Minutes of the March 20, 1984 Meeting 4/23/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to Members of the Subcommittee on Federal Response 4/24/84 Memo, DeYoung to Speck, FEMA re Emergency Preparedness Exercises re Minutes of the March 20, 1984 Meeting 4/26/84 Letter, DeYoung to Speck,-FEMA re Success of FFE

~

~

4/26/84 Memo, Krimm, FEMA to Jordan re NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee Meeting Agenda 4/27/84 Memo, B. Weiss to Members, National Emergency Preparedness Policy Development Work Group re NRC Role in the Continuity of Government Enclosing letters from White House, State, Defense, FEMA, Energy 4/30/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to Federal Response Subcommittee re FRERP Comments, Senior Officers Nuclear Accident Course 4/30/84 Letter, Perkins to Vernon Adler, FEMA re NRC Participation in FRERP Training Sessions 5/2/84 Meno, Jordan to Krimm re NRC Agenda Items for NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee Meeting -

5/3/84 Letter, Jordan to Winkle, FEMA re NRC Impressions and Coments Related to the FFE 5/4/84 Memo, Speck, FEMA to Executive Board Members of the Conference of l

Radiation Control Program Directors re Seminars on Federal Emergency

Response

r 5-5/7/84 Letter, Perkins to Hugh Richardson, FEMA re Comments on Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) 5/7/84 Letter, Dircks'to Rep. William J. Hughes re Prompt Public Notification Systems 5/9/84 Memo, Winkle, FEMA to FFE Management Group and Subcommittee on Federal Response re Draft FFE Evaluation Report 5/9/84 Letter, DeYoung to Bernard A. Maguire, FEMA re Review of Federal Preparedness Circulars 7, 11, 22, 41 and 46 5/10/84 Letter, Jordan to Winkle, FEMA re Comments on FRERP

• 5/11/84 Memo, Jordan to NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee Members re Highlights of May 2, 1984 NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee Meeting 5/15/84 Letter, B. Weiss to James C. Williams, FEMA Special Facility re Access to Area B - May 16, 1984

• Shoreham Correspondence a

re b

l l

~t l

'/

/ 'yQ

' ' ' ~

W u m b,.6:{ 4). 99e<.,

y'

u. d i (% !

hk'*Ar dtv.B }

s J kk Me e.~. u. -

mA

^

4 a& %

% 2.n f

/- - -

(.7ER Y h. ~. m Y i u W W

. d% N The' Honorable Mario N. Cuomo s,e j

g, Governor of New York Qp

~

m Albany,'New York 12224 W % G.,1 2

Dear Governor; Cuomo:

iAk!

We recognize that for some time you have been, concerned'about the appropriate response of Federal agencies in a nuclear power plant accident.

We are N,'

that last spring you made several proposals to members of Congress which you believed.would provide a more appropriate role for the Federal government in a nuclear reactor emergency.

We believe that some aspects of your proposals are currently planned for in a Federal radiological response, a'1though they may not be well advertised.

There are other aspects of your proposal that we are less comfortable with, but we recognize the concerns which prompted all of your proposals.

.. ~

We 'ould like first to describe those aspects of your proposals that we believe w

are currently addressed in Federal plans for radiological emergency response.

Under these Federal plans there are extensive resources which would be available to support the State and local authorities in response to any major radiological emergency.

. f?

FEMA has the responsibility for assuring that the Federal response is coordinated under an "unbrella" response plan, i.e., a plan which provides the outline of Federal responsibilities, notifications, deployment of personnel to the site, functions of various facilities, etc.

The current plan is the Master Plan '

(Enclosure 1) which is expected to be superseded in 1984 by the Federal -

Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP).

The FRERP is an expansion of the Master Plan to include guidance for a Federal response to all types of civil radiological' emergencies, including nuclear weapons and transportation accidents.

Under both of these plans, significant Federal resources have been committed to provide assistance to support State and local authorities.

As you are aware, the Federal government has a broad range of resources.

The Federal government

~

is prepared, upon State request, to bring a significant portion of these resources to bear to help protect the public health and safety.

Some of the mejor functions which the Federal government is ready to provide to the State and local authorities are:

Radiological Monitoring Assistance - The Department of Energy (00E) has a mandate to provide radiological assistance to State and local authorities to monitor the offsite effects and evaluate the radiological iapacti.

This is done by providing radiological assistance teams from the National laboratories plus the specialized DOE response teams such as the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST) and the Aerial Measurements System (AMS).

The Environmental Protective' Agency (EPA) and other Federal agencies will also provide similar assistance.

These resources include field radiological survey teams,, sample collectors, analytical capability, aerial surveillance, t

comunications equipment, and means for consolidating, collating, and distributing the data and evaluations to offsite authorities and the other Federal agencies.

At THE Three Mile Island emergency, there were in excess of 150 technicians at the scene performing this function.

This,'was a small portion of the total Federal resources that could have been made available to this effort.

Technical Assistance - The NRC has developed a comprehensive incident response' program in which the NRC will independently evaluate the status of the reactor core and containment, estimate potential offsite impacts, and develop an independent assessment of utility pr'otective action recomendations.

This is accomplished by a continuous exchange of data between NRC and the utility and evaluation of that data by NRC technical expertise with some consultation with other Federal agencies, as necessary.

These evaluations and assessments are continually discussed with State officials in an e'ffort to assure that the protective action decisionmaker is provided with the assessment of the major participants in an appropriate context.

Militarv Assistance - Af ter declaration of a Presidential Disaster; Public Law 92-286 authorizes FEMA to assist the State when their resources have

Q...

-)

, been fully comitted by an emergency cf extraordinary portions.

FEMA can f'

\\

4

, ( ;,

gs/

ive mission assignments to other Federal agencies, including the Depart-ment of Defense (000), to lend thstr resources to this effort.

However,

< ',.,, \\

' r y,F FEMA has never used military forces for police functions or emergency hacuationsofthetypethatwouldbenecessaryintheeventofanaccident

\\

l at a nuclear power plant.

These powers reside with the State and local i

governments.

Prior to the declaration of a Presidential Disaster, FEt'.A can request support from D00.

In accordance with the Federal response plan, D00 has agreed to provide resources in a major radiological emergency.

At TMI, which was not a Declared Disaster, the 000 provided a significant amount of support in transporting emergency supplies and samples, providing comunications support, and locating needed equipment.. 000 radiological expertise was available but not needed.

Other Assistance - Each of the Federal agencies who have a role, i.e.,

either technical response, logistical support, or recovery, have delineated the actions and support they will provide to State and local authorities-in the FRERP.

This assistance will be coordinateJ by FEMA and includes tasks as diverse as:

use of Federal assets and expertise in Peeting Communications requiremer.ts providing guidance and planning assistance for acceptable levels of radiation for the reentry of an evacuated populati'on assist in planning for and placing evacuated individuals in available housing assist in providing livestock feed

3

,e A more complete listing of the assistanct that can be provided by the various Federal agencies is provided in Enclosure 2.

We would also like to point out that FEMA conducts a comprehensive and well-respected program of training to State and local of ficials on radiological emergency response operations at its National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland.

This outline of potential Federal support is rather brief.

However, we wanted to. bring to your attention that the Federal government.has an extensive plan to

~

assist State and local authorities in a major radiological emergency and is prepared to bring these extensive resources and capabilities to bear on the '.

problem in,a coordinated and timely manner.

We are vitally interested in your views on the support that the Federal government is prepared to provide, and what additional support t.he Federal government should consider providir.;.

Further, senior management of FEMA and NRC would be pleased to meet with you or your representatives to' discuss the question of Federal support'If you feel that such a meeting would be useful.

We would appreciate receiving your views on Federal support and the possibility of a meeting at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, 1

Louis 0. Giuffrida Nunzio J. Palladino e

Chairman Director Federal Energency Management Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Document Name:

LETTER 70 GOVERNOR CUO!10 Requestor's ID:

KAY' Author's Name:

3ernie Weiss Document Comments:

ED0-13932 response O

O O

h 4

S

\\

1' I

\\

e t

g I

b 6

e t

r 7HE WHITE 310l*5E '.

sw numem.

.A-

'oct.ober31,.y334

~

Dear Birls,

l I want cu to knew of m) apprecist. ion for your continuing contributions to and suppe,rt for my Adminis t: nt J on.

Your leaoership and ecuravR have heer, determi.ning fr.etors in the progress u have pade in the lat.t'fcv years.

On.a estt.cr of Partleular concern. to you and tha people of Easterre 3 cr.g Is1gnd, I wish to repeat Secretary Medr:1's assurance to you thet. this Administration dort not favor the imposition of Tederal Govermner.t authority over the objections cf state and.lecal govarra.ents in mitters regarding the adequacy ci sn. e-dergency evacuation.

Plan for a nu'= lent power plant such, at Shcrehar..

Your cenearn for the safety of the people of 1.eng Isle.d is paraecunt and shared, by the secretary a r.d m e. -

1 Thank.you.gair. for your support.. I leek forward

.to wrxing with ycu in the years ahead.

Sincerely,.

The lionerablo Ifillire. carne *v Nouse ci hepre entativer

[

k*ashington, D.C 20515 l y. :.!: W t N t

6.

_. -... ~..

• ~

s m vmes none M %IllM(ifstN.

4-October 31,.3paq l

l 1

Dear Bil'1:

I want zcu to kncW cf m) apprecist. ion for your continus.ng cor.tributions te, and suppe,rt. f or my Ad:r.it.is t.-r.t j on.

Your ' leadership and ecurayc have heer, deturnining fr.eters in the progress un h.:ve

.made in the 1at.t fcv years.

on a Eistv.er of particular concern. to you and tha pa6ple of rasterr 2 cr.g Island, I wish to repaat Secretary Mede:1*c assurance to you thet this A3. ministration dort not f avor the imposition of Federal Govern:sent authority over the objections l

cf state and 1ccal govarre.ents 3.n matters I

regarding the adequacy of an.edergency evcewation.

l 73an for a nu= lear power pier.t such er shcrehar.

Your cencarn fer the safety of the empis of 1.eng Islar.d.la paraecunt and shared by t e Secretary a r.d m e.

' ~3 thank.you :.gair. for your support..

2 icek f= rut.rd

.to wlrking with you in the years ahead.

Sincere 57,.

t M

\\

Mouco ci heprcrentativer D$

C5k The 7toneret,le Ilillicr. carne *v k* ashing ton, D.C..

20515 314.*'.'.!.W. h :.!

!.vW."

.I / 1 1. 1 1

.A.'

L.* v v v Another Siisi.,[i.d.1 By Rick BrandFederal omeiah said remerday thatlong bland 13ghtiac Co. probably wn) met be allowed to hold a drul of tu emergesty planis-the Shoreham avelear.

power what the week of Teh.11 the date sought by the stQity.~1 don't thiah tre pracued se keeil dral at that thee,* esid Edward Jordam. head of emergemty pre.

paredaemier the NuclearRegulatory th - w Jordan's feelings were echoed by PraalPetreet,ve.

' gional director ser the Federal Emergency Manage.

• Epent AgTaty.

Jordan aald so metion hasbem taken am121CCTs

'requestbecauseofthe*uaresolvedlegalproblems*er '

whether 121Co has the hgalaneetty te hnpwn.at

'a pha.inwhichempanemployenasmanedutie.

W ww_-

marmany performed by..JM York state a hwa e-+ kve chansages sa-ty's rightso S '

-4 na 4

~.giurt thWe Jerda Mnis -

The only tasagsne xm,asWs J.

,to send a letter to FINA la5orming h,ef.12LCCrs by thestate and request mad subsequent # *farTDdAtoschedule Suffolk.There was no regnest a drG1.Vader an a.. c

• the NRC wouldhave toank

, eversee and grade.

h NRC 1etter does.L.a. maiTEMA%

~

sale slead la any pr 1Wv-% tion af this+Q

~

.'sanassc Petrone saitbe wul schedule = ===

"-*"--d

• with121CO to Eacusswbmea MH.

1o talk about htar dases.~ Jordan could not any.when a drE mig

~

..or w1Gs a decielanoQthe'assne could'bemade.~. _ '

l shd Petrone said his o!!ise moran317 aseds atiensithree -

~

months te prepare a 4:G1 some the NRC,makes a 4-request.3Ee said* epringdete fora drD1 st!!!might be;Mif the unreechedlemuss saa beestdedia :..-- '

the mest month er so.* 3ra Picnicher,IACfZtyise 7.M-at forp's1Aie a!Tairs, amid the emenpaar weafd scoperate with fed.

arm 1 ofseimh. -we're emahto senceed at any* time ith's drG1,* be A LtLCO mast su= 9Weemplete adrG1.kfore - /.:

w h can vet e -- - sis 3 sperating licemme for Shee,.

ham.h stuity hopen ash,e the plantkgia eens.

mercin3 operations Ocs.'lC'.fbe plant anst-he ta e-m na he ee.

~*amial opeistion before c

• ; e,.

~

i

..k,1o pay for the Q'a en$..

~'

.~~~.W.

• \\ '-

- ~ -

i s

g

{

8 o f

i%

I J

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Chairman Palladino FROM:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

SCHEDULING OF EMERtiENCY PLAN EXERCISE FOR SHOREHAM This is in response to your inquiry of January 16, 1985 regarding the scheduling of an exercise for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station referred to in a recent newspaper article.

In a letter dated November 14, 1984, from J. D. Leonard, VP-Nuclear Operations, to H. R. Denton, NRR, LILCO requested the NRC to review and forward to the Federal Emergency Management Agency a statement of objectives to be demonstrated at an exercise of both the onsite and offsite emergency plans fc Sioreham.

LILCO stated that the exercise was planned for the week of February 11, 1985 and, in addition to forwarding the letter to FEMA, requested the staff to d

coordinate the arrangements for a preliminary meeting to begin the detailed U

7

. planning process for the exercise.

4 d

W l

The staff, in accordance with the LILCO request and normal staff practice, 1}

transmitted the LILCO exercise package to FEMA in a letter dated December 19, 1984. A copy of this transmittal is enclosed. In this letter the staff h yb l

sunnarized the previous FEMA /NRC correspondence concerning the review of offsite emergency planning for Shoreham and, recognizing that there are still outstanding plan inadequacies and legal authority issues, requested FEMA to d

0 I

Chairman Palladino,

take the lead in any preliminary consideration of the matter of an exercise of 4

the offsite plans for Shoreham. No schedule was discussed in the letter but the staff recognized in internal discussions that the February 11, 1985 date was

.:tir.

premature. The NRC also fomarded to FEMA, letters to the NRC from Governor Cuomo and John C. Gallagher, Chief Deputy County Executive for Suffolk County, opposing the conduct of an exercise at Shoreham due to the legal authority issue. The staff has responded to these two letters and the responses have been fomarded to FEMA.

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

)

8

s..

I SHOREHAM LETTER July 12, 1984 Comr.issioner Asselstine adds:

I disagreed with the Commission's June 30, 1983 ord'er regarding emergency planning and low-power operation at Shoreham. At the time, I expressed the view that the legal and policy issues involved were not nearly as simple or clear cut as the majority had indicated, and that the Commission should have obtained the views of the parties before i

reaching a decision on this natter. Apart from this dafect in the majority's approach to decision-making, I believe that it would be unwise to allow low-power operation at Shoreham prior to the issuance of an initial decision by the licensing board on the emergency planning and preparedness contentions.

The emergency planning contentions in the Shoreham case differ frcm most contentions in nuclear plant operating license proceedings.

Most

~

such contentions, if sdecided in favor of the intervenor, are correctable through additional inspections, license. conditions or hardware or procedural changes to the plant.

However, the emergency planning contentions in Shoreham, if decided in favor of the intervenors, would likely prevent full-power operation of the plant.

In such circum-stances, it makes little sense to allow low-power operation of the plant--operation that would contaminate the facility and complicate subsequent maintenance--until the emergency planning contentions are reso.lved.

m 9

fl/ AS&s

~

r

.g 3

F-6 7i)

V.

.R*

V MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krism Assistant Associate Director Office of Naturh1 r.nd Technological Federal Emergency Management Agency FRON:

Edward L. Jordan Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response.

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

SHOREHAM EXERCISE We transmit herewith a copy of a letter dated November 14,1984.from J. D. Leonard, LILCO, to H. R. Denton, JtRC, which states the objectives of an exerc\\ise which LILCO is planning for the week of February 11, 1985. The exercise is to be a t

s demonstration of the Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Plan and the Local Emergency Response Organization (LER0) Plan which is referred to as the Transition Plan. -

i

\\

in a 1etter to FEMA dated June 1,1983 wi}ich was subsequently modified in a letter dated June 11,'1983, the NRC requested FEMA to provide separate fp#ndings on whet the LILC0 Transition Plan is adequate, whether it is capable of being implemented and whether LILC0 has the ability to implement the plan. FEMA has provided findings to the NRC relating to the adequacy of the Transitich Plan in several letters, the

'Intest of which is dated November 15, 1984.

In light of FEMA's continuing evalu ation of offsite preparedness for Shoreham, we are providing the LILCO submission e

p.

F/y g

Richard W. Krism -

for your consideration.

Also enclosed are letters to the NRC from Governor Cuomo and John C. Gallagher Chief, Deputy County Executive for*Suffolk k~

that are related to the LILCO letter.

I suggest that we meet to discuss this matter following your review of the en-closed materials.

Ebard L. Jordan. director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

As Stated 5

..- q O

I l

.,. z

,... w s.... -. 4.

.......=...,,,....,,s.,

' e...a

• g

.y.

s r,.

e

.go r.

v.-.; ;.=..

g.

t:P

.r,_.__.

... ; a... --

y.

_..ua

..M....d5'*J..f.7... 'I.'

• * ~:.4:.:7, + :,'.T:.u--

v

• .;;sq

.V

[%

9f...ederal. Emergency Management Agency K

.s New York, New York l0278 2

' Region H 26 Feder:J Pla.:a

~

h =.. M 21, 1933 D=sid 1:: vin, hq.

tr.::n t,-4.111r s 707 Lurt min Street PC Frx 1535 Ric. W, Virgi.ia 23212 Dear.'tr.

I. mein:

2.is le:.ar vill cc #1= c= c=.srsatica cf 9.is rerning.~ Fdrrt, pu infered m that ye.: wrdd be serding to each *,AC n:-bar a fully asseroled er.d collated I IO ' tarsitien* Plan includir.g -F:erisicn 3 with e,.., iate cross-refere.pe te b.- e 0554.

In a htic., ye.: agree.d in de d.terest cf efficiency ard effecti.ie util.1::a:Aca cf m a.d FAC resc.:::es that LUZG will prepare a entrix

-t.ich identifies psge changes affe :ed by ear.h re/isica ef the plan v4,th referr.:e :: E.- e 0554.

-'his nitri.x s.Wdd be t;::iated to include each :e-visi. that h s bee. er vill be sd:r-itted in crder t: preride all reidevers with a c'

nciccical rec =rd of cha.F?tS that hree bfen effected. D.i5 retri.X will fr. ilitste qcick refere.ee to specific pages and allev rr/iews :c

-cre re edly assess de c.ality ard affect Of the changes that h=re imen dr.stit.:.ed as the pir. c.d precedrec hrree e.01vai.tc their current status.

"he s'. ggested f

..at is p..,Mded in Attac.W.t 1.

In >33'tien to de ah- 'e t erix, m aise recuests 92: a nar.ative desrictica of the reasc:.(s) fer each cr2.ee es pr: tided with.:evisi=s 1 a.d 2 be rb'itted vi h eeth revisien of the pir.n e:.d, ced=as. "..i s rarrative descrip icn shc-dd cen inue ta be indo:ed by S.m-0554 ele e-.

b.ar.k you fer y== essistanee in this re :er.

~

~

Sincerely, Q.

?

a

,,e}'.~%! Q s

O

.h2 i,',

Etr ari.'5.

G1e.1s

.. ma Eecic-21 Or.:nsel F rm t'8 o

r n

.n e%

("3 m

. s.n ec:

Ditid A. Tepka, Fsq,

[,t,-,

d ]O, la-Te.:e I W*,er, Fs.

e<

s rie lo 7 'i c 1,. y Stephen 3. I.athen, Fsq.

, res 5. Dcuperty, Tsq.

E E ' r9

"}

Te1ph Shapiro, 7_sq.

QQ Ea e-l'

q,.

. {.. - -

JAff11 124 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Richard W. Krimm

~

Assistant Associate Director

~

Office of Natural and Technological

~ j..

Hazards Programs FROM:

_ Edward L. Jordan, Director

~

Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

FEMA REVIEW OF LILCO TRANSITION PLAN FOR THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT This responds to your memo, same subject, dated December 22, 1983.

In that memo you stated the following conditions for expedited FEMA completion of review of the LILCO Transition Plan including Revisions 2 and 3:

1.

Prompt distribution of the collated LILCO Transiti'on Plan to all RAC members no later than January 3, 1984, including Revision 3, with appropriate cross-references to NUREG-0654.

2.

Preparation by LILCO of a matrix which identifies page changes affected by each revision of the plan with references to NUREG-0654 in accordance with a suggested format.

3.

Postponement of reviews at certain operating power reactors which may delay completion of 44-CFR-350 reviews in the Region.

I understand from discussions with NRC Region I representatives that the collated plan with matrix described above and as requested in FEMA Region II memo, S. Glass to LIL;0 representative D. Irwin, datec December 21, 1983, was forwarded to all RAC members on December 30, 1983.

I further understand that the RAC members have been instructed to submit their input to FEMA RII by January 10, 1984 Further, we understand there will be a January 20, 19E4 meeting of the RAC members to discuss their comments.

I.ap:reciate the expedited actions by FEMA on this matter and would ' urge ~

priority continue to be applied to meet tne February 1,1984 schedule.

~

DISTRIBUTION:

Edward L. Jordan,. Director DC3 Division of Emergency Preparedness-3 DEPER.R/F5 and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc:

See page 2 0:0ELER:!E EP: 0EPER:!E ELD (telephone)

ELJorcan FGPagano E5Christenbury

"[h 1/ /34.jr 1/ /84 1/ /S4 h 9-

~;(i.

l JAM 11 EG4 R. W. Krimm 2-J. G. Paitlow, IE cc:

S. A. Schwartz, IE F. G. Pagano, IE D. B. Matthews, IE C. R. Van Niel, IE F. Kantor, IE E. 5. Christenbury, ELD 6

6 O

9 e

e S

S

DEC 2 81983 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director

~

Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs

(,

Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:

- ' Edward L. Jordan, Director

~

Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) SUPPORT FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) LICENSING OF SHOREHAM NUCLEAR STATION As promised in my December 22, 1983 memorandum to you, I am transmitting herewith one copy of the Long Island Lighting Company's Revision 3 to the LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham.

LILCO informs us that they have transmitted 15 copies of Revision 3 to your Regional RAC Chairman.

LILCO has also stated that this Revision does not make significant changes but rather sets fortti matters of modification and clarification.

We thank you for your continued support and look forward to receiving your report n

on February 1, 1984 as previously agreed.

Edward L. Jordan, Director

~

~

Oivision of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

As' stated DISTRIBUTION cc w/o enc 1:

DCS D. Eisenhut, NRR T. Novak, NRR EPB Rdg.

E. Christenbury, ELD DEPER Rdg.

RVanNiel E. Reis, ELD T. Murley, RI FPagano SSchwartz J. Allan, RI ELJordan

' E ' hq

'a R ERB:DEPER C: ERB:DEPER PER

.tR CRVanNiel FPagano JASchwartz EL rdan 12/

/83 12/

/83

!,2/

/83 12/

/83

pa

~

_ m uw

,p*

3+

i Jederal Emergency Management Agency U~J

\\

~1:~r r

y Nd[.

Washingtop, D.C. 20472

~

m. n..

e

[..:. : Y.

g gg 171-1 ME".ORANDUM FOR:MdvardL. Jordan I)ireetor, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission FROM:

a K

Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs SUPJECI:

Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) Review of Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) Transition Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station On October 27, 1983, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) asked for azr extension of 60 days (i.e.,' until February 1,1984) to complete a thorough, detailed RAC review of Revision 1 of the LILCO Transition Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

Via your memorandum of November 10, 1983, the ~

' Nuclear Regulatory Coc=ission (NRC) granted that extension but requested that FEMA include Revision 2 in the'RAC review.

This had already been delivered to RAC members.

In addition, via a letter of December 8,1983, from Hunton and Williams, legal counsel for LILCO, FEMA received an amended list of effective pages of Revision 2.

Finally, on Decenber 14, 1983, FEMA was notified by Hunton and Williams that Revision 3 of the plan vould be received during the week of December 19, 1983.

FEMA vill make every effort to complete the review of the LILCO Transition Plan including Revisions 2 and 3 as close to February 1,1984 as possible provided we receive the required material from LILCO no later than January 3,1984.

However, based on a preliminary examination of Revision 2 and preliminary information on Revision 3, some additional time beyond the originally projected date of February 1,1984, will probably be needed to assure a comprehensive,

analysis of the plans by a full RAC review.

In order to give FEMA's analysis and finding to NRC as soon as possible, we vill need prompt distribution of the collated LILCO Transition. Plan to all RAC members no later than January 3,1984, including Revision 3, with appropriate cross-references to NURIG-0654.

It is our. understanding that LILCO intends to provide FEMA and the RAC me=bers with.

co=prehens be plans'that incorporate both Revisions 2 and 3.

Upon receipt of these plans and the cross-referencing mentioned belov, a full, independent RAC reviev vill begin.

of efficiency and effective utilization of RAC members and FEMA's In the interest resources, we request that the utility also prepare a matrix which identifies page changes affected by each revision of the plan with references to KURIG-0654.

This matrix should be updated with each revision that is submitted in order to provide all reviewers with a chronological record of changes that have been This matrix vill f acilitate quick reference to specific pages and affected.

allow reviewers to more readily assess the quality and effect of the changes that have been instituted as the plan and procedures have evolved to { heir current The suggested format is provided in the Attachment 1.39u 'd OdU\\

status.

M P'

e' ;

[

14 l'.

.w.

In addition to dEe above matrix, FEMA also requests that a narrative description of the reason (s);for each change (i.e., actions, clarifications, etc. in response to FEKA commentsi contentions, improvements, minor changes, etc.) be, submitted with each revisioh'of the plan and procedures.

This narrative description should also be indexed by NUREG-0654 element.

At present, we have a substantial workload associated with operating nuclear reactors which will have to be postponed if FEMA attempts to meet the February 1, 1984, deadline.

's The Regional Assistance Committee has other agency commitments in addition to the REP work for our Region and cannot devote 100% of their time to Shorehat.

As a result of this effort for Shoreham, FEMA /RAC may delay the completion of 44 CFR 350 reports for the operating nuclear reactors in the Region.

Attachment as Stated O

9 96 e

e e

e

.i

' W,M..z:: E 1

. g S'.. *...

U..,,

a6

~

Emrision m*f c:d e,ffg4 gu '.

criteria e' M I- -..

e I

0 l

1 2

3 l

n

}

f. 1.s e

1.1.b g

9 A.1.e A.1.6.

s A. I. e' s

A.2.s 1

ee

+

s A.2.b e

' A.3 A.4 O

4 e

6 e

e e

e o

e 9

I e

S.

.e y

.. 20,_ _

D G

e o

O O O

G 9

ed e

e t

O e

e, o

e o

1 e

e S

O O

O 9

e e

9 r

e I

e e.

4 9

e' 4

e, e

O e

f 8.

e e G

e 1

9 n.. -.,..

,.

• c -; s - c p //f- (t/ -Z J'o' i

Federal Emergency Management Agency k

5 Washington, D.C. 2002

- ~..

JAN l 31984

.EMORAhTUM FOR:

Edvard L. Jordan Director, Division of E=ergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory /

Co--ission

~

FROM:

Ric ard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director

~

Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Regional Assistance Co==ittee (RAC) Review of Long Island

SUBJECT:

Lighting Company (LILCO) Transition Plan for thr. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station This is to inform you that the Federal Energency Manage =ent Agency (FEMA)

Region II staff has confined the receipt by all RAC ne=bers of the revised transition plan for Shoreham.

The plan (one set) consists of f our volumes and incorporates revisions 0,1, 2, and 3.

The FEMA Region II office received four sets of the revised plan on December 30, 1983.

In addition, a revised hTPIG-0654 cross-reference was provided along vich a clarifying letter from LILCO.

Although the revised cross-reference is helpful, the utility did not provide the carrix (that was requested in FEMA's December,22, 1983, me=orandum) identifying paFe changes af f ected by each revision of the plan with reference to hTFIG-0654 Mecbers of the FEMA Region II staff have cade inquiries into this catter and expect clarification from LILCO's counsel shortly.

We vill, of course, continue the review of the revised Shoreham plan.

As ve noted in our December 22,1983, =enerandu=, we vill cake every effort to co=plete the review as close to February 1,1984, as possible, although some additional time may be needed to assure a comprehensive analysis of the plans by a full RAC review.

19 8 %s s c h. e, m-ss, 1

r o

.f.

} Federal Ernergency Managernent Agency f

Washington, D.C. 20472 5-

1. a,

,S January 25, 1984 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

Dear Mr. Dircks:

Given the recent interpretation of Govepor Cuomo'on behalf' of New York State as to the legal authority of Lilco to implement its emergency plan; should FEMA continue, modify or terminate the NRC requested, review of the Lilco Plan?

Sincerely, OJ.

gamuelW. Speck Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support W %6 m si,ut.

~~

i l

'l f8St&);56g4 '

January 26, 1984

-Mr. Samuel W. Speck Associate Director.

State and Local Programs and Support Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 20472

Dear fir. Speck:

This is in response _to your letter of January 25, 1984, inquiring as to whether FEMA should continue, modify or terminate its review of the LILC0 off-site emer-gency plan for the Shoreham facility.

In that IEPA's review will be an essential ingredient in the Licensing Board's ultimate determination on the adequacy and implementability of LILCO's proposed emergency plan, I would request that FEPA.

continue its review of the plan.

In addition, because of the schedule previously set by the Licensing Board in the ongoing Shoreham proceeding, I would appreciate every effort you could make to insure that FEMA's review of the LILCO plan is completed..by,the previously agreed-upon date of February 1, 1984.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, D?M'li.'!!r1.!. E!.r.b William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:

W.Dircks EDO R/F (14006)

E.Christenbury(Chon)

G.Cunningham J.Murray C ordan 9

. ehm V.Stello s

R.DeYoung Kerr, SP ELD Reading File OELDf g :

D/DEPER EDO OFC v OELD

___..:. p......____.......:........ ___.: b. p g p....._______:..___._____:..__________.

NAME : E.Christenbury/amb : G.Cunningham :

t.Jordah W.Di rcks.

I

.. r.

Federal Ernergency Management Agency,.

Washington,. D.C. 20472 k

L M8R I 51984 Mr. Willia = J. Dircks Rzecutive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co

'ssion Washington, D. C.

20555

Dear Mr. Dircks:

In a June 1,1983 me=orandu=, the Nuclear Regulatory Co 'ssion (NRG) invoked Section II.4 of the November 1, 1980, NRC/ Federal Energency Mahagenen: Agency (FD'.A) Me=orandum of Understanding (MOU) by requesting FD'l to provide the NRC with findings and deter =inations as to whether the Long Island Lighting Co=pany (LILCO)-County plan and/or the interim plans of the Shoreha= Nuclear Power Station are adequate.and capable of i=;1enen:ation.

As a result of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~

(ASLE) order, a subsequen: me=orandu= of June 17, 1983, requested that a provide findings and determinations on the LILCD Transition Plan as a first priority.

This Plan, developed and revised wholly by LILCO; proposes to use primarily LILCO personnel to carry out the offsite preparedness aspects of the plan (to 'nclude the total direction and control.fu:iction) in the case of an emergency involving an accident at the Shorehz= Nuclear Power Station.

On June 23, 1983, TD'A provided findings on the LILCO Transition Plan.

Eevever, pri=arily due to the short ti=e frame available for evaluation of the Plan, it was necessary to obtain the support of Argo ne National Laboratory to perf ern e. technical, review agains: the standards and evaluative criteria of NUREG-0654/FD'.A-REP-1, Rev. 1.

FD'd Headquarters, assisted by the na'l Region II Regional Director and staf f, directed this. technical review.

Whes subsequent developments eventually indicated a change in the timetable for the Shoreha= licensing process, NRC requested on Septe=ber 15,1983, that FD'.A *nitiate a full and independent review by the Regional Assistance Cr# ttee (EAC) of Revision 1 of the Transition Plan.

This reques: vas later modified to include findings on Revision 3 of the Transition Plan.

Those findings are presented 'in this le::er.

The Plc reviewed the Plan against the standards and evaluative criteria of NUREG-0654/FD'A-REP-1, Rev.1-Due to the legal authority issues

~

which arise when some NUREG elenents are applied to a utili:y-based plan, ve have marked with an asterisk any aspect of the plan where, in our view, this legal issue occurs.

The specific legal concern related to tha; part of the plan is identified separately in A :achsen 2 of the FD'.A finding.

With :he exception of plan aspects relating to NUFIG elenen: A. 2. b. (a requirenen: :o sta:e, by reference to specific acts, the s: ate:es, or codes, the legal basis f or the authority to carry ou:

responsibilities listed ':i A.2.a., i.e., all =ajor response func:fons),

he. legal concern did not af sect the FEMA rating given to the technical TS or opera:ional 1:e=s relating to NUFIG elenents.

T (DA 9 4 iu _

vp

-2_

FEMA finds that Revision 3 of the LILCO Transition Plan has 32 inadequacies based on the standards and evaluative criteria of NUF2G-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,

}g Rev. 1.

The analysis resulting from the full RAC review and relating these inadequacies to,the various NUF2G-0654/ FEMA-FIP-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 gover=ments 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 f actors which we do not evaluate in the course,of our analysis tha: in our judgement should be considered by the Co-d ssion in a total assessment of whether successful of fsite 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 poves plant emergencies; the known legal responsibility of S: ate 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 :he deficiencies noted in the enclosed report of FEMA's Region II.

It is our belief, for exa=ple, that in the event of an accident at the Shoreham site, the Governor would request Federal assistance and the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRIRP) 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 Au:horization Act, June 30, 1980 (P.L.96-295), and Executive Order 12241 that a Federal' plan for radiological emergencies be prepared that provides assurance of p'ublic health and safety protection.

The FRERP is applicable to all nuclear power plant sites as a supplemen: to Sta e, 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 tes: = ore thoroughly and comple:ely the capabilities required by the plan.

The developing capability made available by the FRERP should be recognised when NRC considers the M finding on the technical review of the LILCO Transition Plan.

~ Also, consistent with dire'c: ions f rom the President and with FEMA's legal mandates under the Federal Civil Defense Act, we are i=plementing a new emergency planning and assistance concept to enhance Sta:e and local capabilities :o prepare for and respond to a broad range of natural and peace:i=e emergencies.

Under title V of the Act, this applies in particular to improvenents in State and local offsite readiness for commercial nuclear reactors and we are now planning to direct significant levels of new emergency managemen assis:ance resources :Lu FY 1985 in:o :his i=portant area.

Key progra=s will include

- o n.

s:

4 3

t redirection of ' State and local emergency services personnel towards projects that supporr offsite nuclear f acility safety, redirection of assignments to Federal radiological pla--4ng officals to concentrate on offsite safety and enhanced prograns in traini=g and education for Federal, State, local and utility employees f or nuclear saf ety issues regarding protection of the public.

l FEMA is prepared to assist the utility, in conjunction with the NRC', with any technical assistance that it can of fer 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.tri'ed to provide information above on additional f actors which may co=e into play if NRC is to make a total assessment of the offsite preparedness capability at Shorehs=.

I would suggest that the Co=nission may wish to think of offsite safety as a mosaic that may very well be composed of different

~

pieces at different times and places.

Not s11 of the potential components vili necessarily f all within the anbit of the FDiA plan and response evaluation process in all cases. '

'Atetocallme.

If you have any questions, please i.on't hesi:

Sincerely,

~

U lO

. 3L

} ~

amuel V. Speck Associate Directer State and Local Programs and Support Enclosures i

e I

l

1. g %q#o,%

UNITED STATES i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p/,

g E

WASMtNGTr.N, o. C. 20555

• a o,

?

es,,e

[;

MAY 111B4 MEMORANDUM FOR:

NRC/ FEMA Steering Committec Members FROM:

Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

HIGHLIGHTS OF MAY 2, 1984 NRC/ FEMA STEERING Colt 4ITTEE MEETING ATTENDEES:

FEMA:

R. Krimm NRC:

E. Jordan M. Sanders K. Perkins C. Wingo D. Matthews B. Wilkerson The following are the_ highlights from the subject meeting:

1.

The NRC/ FEMA MOU for emergency preparedness was discussed.

FEMA has solicited and received comments on the draft from its regions.

The most substantive comments were addressed with NRC.

FEMA will review the MOU and provide it-to NRC for review by upper management.

2.

The NRC's decision to table the revision of 10 CFR 50.47, Appendix E and NUREG-0654 for about 3 months was disgussed.

The NRC's approach to the exercise frequency rule change was discussed.

It was agreed that Dave Matthews and Marshal Sanders should get together to assure consis-tency of language with FEMA's rule, particularly in the area recuiring remedial exercises.

3.

The status of the alert and notification system review process was dis-cussed.

It was agreed, based on the cooperation experienced, to continue the review based on a case-by-case approach to obtain the submittal to FEMA rather than a generic requirement by bulletin.

4.

The question of transportation guidance and support to State and local governments was discussed briefly and a meeting to address the specific subject is being scheduled.

.5.

The NRC reported the staff's recommendation on the interaction of emergen--

cy preparedness and earthquakes.

The staff's position is that no addi-tional emergency preparedness effort is required.

6.

Casework issues:

a.

The Shoreham proposal described in Speck's letter to Dircks dated April 26, 1984 was discussed.

The initial NRC staff position is that the concept has merit, but there are considerations that must be thoroughly addressed in implementing the approach.

' M [ 2,M h'n d M>i.

e P#

NRC/ FEMA Steering 2-NRY 11 $$4 Committee Members b.

Maine ankee (Route 27) was discussed in the context of the accept-abili,ty of methodology for evaluating evacuation planning and of the demog'raphic information (particularly for the transient population).

c.

Pilgrim (Bridge to Cape Cod) was discussed in a context similar to Maine Yankee.

FEMA expects to provide their evaluation within 2 weeks.

d.

TMI/ Peach Bottom resolution of deficiencies were discussed.

The FEMA region is now reviewing the State's submission.'

e.

The need for a Diablo Canyon interim finding was emphasized.

FEMA 4 expects to meet the May 30 due date.

f.

Indian Point exercise schedule extension was discussed and a target of not later than November 30, 1983 was agr,eed to.

7.

The NRC lessons learned responsibilities at NRC were described with speci'fic mention.of Frank Pagano's special assignment.

l award dan, Director Divis'on of Emergency Preparedness and F gineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement e

4 e

e 1

~

1

J-gt.ut,gy gengg,g

, ant,v som. conomess

.g >

sr.,

...c u 7360A A13 E. UQALL. AR2., CHAARMAN AND Cou.SEs a

% u..u.vo,.c.u, u.=un uu e. = im Rov m.es

'rJ..,.'."_.'.T,.t.'2..u ' 'f.".#f'2"'

c.u.

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR

^"^'""*"'c'"

. ~

u,,c ay,,,

= F,a0 C.T r' AND'lNSULAR AFFAIRS

=~iaat c=~sa U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

" N ucA= N sn Z',"o,',Ti '.'~,

E," "s= vr,

WA$HINGTON, D.C. 20615

%'O'* T.u,.

%CAcs g

_c

- voca g.g,g.c=

March 30, 1984 Ot J,7 ""

• =.:". lllll*,"J*"'

=" ;.J' "

3.'=1%

"""; "T.L*<a The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In light of recent low power licensing cases, I would appreciate an explanation of the risks associated with low power operation at commercial nuclear power reactors.

Additionally, the Commission's response to the following specific questions would be helpful:

1.

What studies, reports or "NUREG" documents has the Commission published concerning the risks of low power operation?

2.

What would be the accumulation of radioactive fission products after 30, 60 and 120 days of 5 percent operation at a typical BWR and at a typical PWR7 3.

What could be the offsite consequences of an accident at low power assuming the accumulation of fission products after 30, 60 and 120 days of 5 percent operation at a typical BWR and at a typical PWR7 Specifically, what, if any, source term assumptions does the NRC use for judging the risk of low power operation?

4.

What does the NRC believe to be the probability of accidents at a typical DWR and at a typical PWR during low power operation?

Identify the dominant accident sequences that could lead to core damage, core melting, or offsite releases.

Additionally, please indicate whether the Commission believes that the probability of mishaps and accidents is higher or lower for plants with a low power license than for plants with a full power license.

Please also indicate

l. @@' t e ( l.->cr. E d T #~f M v ypa u/J\\4

~

i

r Tho Honorcble Nunzio J. Palladino

,/NMarch30, 1984 Page Two what has been the history of operating experience for plants with a low power license and provide any studies or memo-randa concerning this subject.

5.

For all reactors licensed since the accident at Three Mile Island, please provide the following:

(a) the date of issuance of the low power license; (b) the date of initial criticality; (c) the date of 5 percent power operation; (d) the date of issuance of the full power license; (e) the date that power levels of 25 percent or higher were first attained; (f) the date that power levels of 90 percent or higher were first attained; (g) exemptions granted by the NRC to the low power license; and, (h) exemptions granted by the NRC to the full power license.

In advance, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, EDWARD J. MA F

Chairman, Sub nmittee on Oversight and Investigations EJM:rau b

i

._.m.

~

6%

hf6*n I

JAN 111985 4

The Honorable Mario M. Cuomo l

I Governor of New York Albany, NY 12220-i i

Dear Governor Cuomo:

c I am responding to your letter of November 29, 1984 to Harold Denton regarding t,he j

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, LILCO has developed its own offsite emergency response plan and j

organization, with LILCO personnel identified to perform certain duties ordinarily j

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 j

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-i j

mented, and whether LILCO has the ability to implement the plan.

FEMA has provided j

findings to the NRC r. elating to the adequacy of the Transition Plan in several letters, the latest of which is dated November 15, 1984 This letter indicated 4

i that of the 32 inadequacies identified in a previous review of the Transition j

Plan, 8 remain inadequate.

FEMA's letter also identified those aspects of the plan, including some of the l

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 i

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 j

the outcome of these proceedings at this time.

4 j

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 i

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 j

requested them to take the lead in any preliminary consideration of this matter.

i AvMi s 0

% % w/

y I

ENCLOSURE 2

i i

The Honorable Mario M Cuomo.

4 We also fomarded to FEMA copies of your Hovember 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,

[S!gn:S Ydliam J.Dircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION WJDircks, EDO i

JWRoe, EDO TRehm, EDO 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 LTomt, IE EDO-000151 DCS DEPER R/F EPB R/r cihy

\\,[

.;1 0 1

s g

d II ER/IE R/IE E E

D/

EDO atthews:sc t wartz ELJordan ESChrihtenbury aylor RCDeYoung WJDircks 1/g/85

./A / 85 1/g/85 1/1/85 1/g/85 1/j/85 1/ /85 M

e._

N.

/Iww M4 JAN 111985 Mr. John C. Gallagher Chief Deputy County Executive County of Suffolk Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788

Dear Mr. Gallagher:

l I am responding to your letter of November 28, 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 a letter to Congressman Carney from President Reagan and advised us that Suffolk County is opposed to any such exercise and objects to NRC promotion, assistance or concurrence in such an exercise over the objections of the County goverment. -

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 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 identifieJ in a previous review of the Transition Plan, 8 remain inadequate.

l 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 Supr' me Court to which you referred in your letter and are also being considered e

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.

l 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 connents 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 4C $\\\\E

\\ \\.1 ENCLOSURE 3

s.

'g Jnhn C. 411aDher forwarded LILCO's November 14 letter to FEMA for their infomation and have requested them to take the lead in any preliminary consideration of this matter.

We also forwarded to FEMA copies of your November 28 letter and a similar letter to the NRC dated November 29,'1984 from Governor Cuomo.

1 We appreciate your infoming us of Suffolk County'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, E2sse Mas J.Dirsts Wiiliam 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 l

FKantor, IE l

JRSears, IE LToms, IE EDO-000150 DCS DEPER R/F t

l EPB R/F t

/

D/

/IE EL D I ED0

1. atthews:sc $5 wartz E Jordan ESChristenbury JF Tor De ung WJDircks 1/q /85

[/

85 1/$/85 1/q /85 1/ /85 Iq/85 1/ /85 A

.v.

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Joms C. GAu.Asuca e

coasr oscur..urroLx couesT. anscuvivs January 4, 1985 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Dear Mr. Dircks:

There has been considerable discussion in the press recentiv of data

' developed from the Three Mile Island accident on emissions of 6adiouclides3 Sp (the so-called " source terms" issue), and of any possible effects on emer-gency planning for areas around nuclear power plants. Needless to say, Suffolk County continues to have a considerable interest in these matters, and we are presently litigating the planning zone issues before a Com-mission "ASLB" in connection with the licensing of the Shoreham plant.

I am writing to request that you give me a current report on the status of the NRC's analysis of the source term data and on the status of any changes that might result to Commission regulations. I am par-ticularly interested in what affect this new data and analysis might have on your presently postulated 10-mile evacuation zone for nuclear power plants.

The above is a matter of considerable importance and urgency to Suffolk County; we are concerned for the health and safety of the public on Long Island and need to satisfy ourselves and the public on these issues.

I look forward to your early response.

Sincerely, e

-.?

John C. Gallagher Chief Deputy JCG:dsb i

'\\

EDO 000266 3q

\\G'

_..o..<,..

, _ u

%.wwe 5 e a wr.aws-[wm 443,. v;,,v y

yTukak~

j OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETra F. CoMALAll JoMN G. GALLAsuta ca.sr esaure surro6.couwvv snacwwws November 28, 1984 Mr. Harold 1. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-404A Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Dear Mr.'Denton:

By letter dated Novemb'er 14, 1984, the Long Island Lighting Co'apany

~

requested that you transmit to yEMA materials intended "to support a graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of Tabruary 11, 1985." This $s 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 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 ito 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 p'osture of the Shoreham ca,s's before the courts and the NRC,.as well as the continuing position of this County that effee-tive emergency preparedness for a nuclear accident at Shoreham is

. impossible, we ask that you reject LILCO's request to forward any exercise materials to.TDR and that you refrain from taking any steps which, contribute to an intrusion by LILCO 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.

Si carely you s, John C. Callagh Chief Deputy nty Executive p,

gdsb ZD0

- 000150

e.... A.......

...... ~

,STATc or New Yonn Exrcutivt CHAMBER.

ALBANY 12'224 unso M.cuomo November 29, 1984

Dear Mr. Denton:

By letter dated November 14, l'984, 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 Febr6ary 11,1985."

This is to advise you that New York St. ate is opposed to any such exercise and to request that

• the NRC not assist or cooperate in suc.h an exercide over the objections of New York State.

~

LILCo's desirs 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 affrent 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 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 FEMA.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 consistent with Administration O

O, i

, ~d'/g3 p\\ \\ AW Le9 '

ED0 "--- 00 0151

r..

[,

yr. HOrold DantOn 2.-

Nova:nbar 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

youri, g,

Mr. Harold Denton, Director office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

?

7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room P-4D4A Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Enclosure O

e g

t

.G

....g e.

e e

e O

J S

9 8

e 0

O e

e

-...