ML20140C716
| ML20140C716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1986 |
| From: | Latham S, Letsche K, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#186-835, CON-186-835 OL-3, NUDOCS 8601280389 | |
| Download: ML20140C716 (109) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:G: g':
'4 .f> ,
- o
- da - ' ' - /q lll /
~?
<6 Q.,wy' W' ;_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
h "G h5 j f7-( W ., - d\qq
- v. '
Before the Commission Ib
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) )
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON NOTICE AND MOTION CONCERNING PROPOSED EMERGENCY PLANNING EXERCISES On December 24, 1985, Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (hereafter, the " Governments") filed with the Commission a Motion for Cancellation of Emergency Planning Exercise for Shoreh'am. To date, the Commission has taken no action with respect to that pending motion. The Governments understand, however, that a FEMA-observed tabletop exercise has been tentatively scheduled for January 29, 1986, and a FEMA-graded
" formal" exercise has been scheduled for February 13, 1986. For the reasons set forth in their Motion for Cancellation, the 4
Governments believe these exercises should not take place. The purpose of this pleading, however, is to put all parties on notice that if the Governments' Motion is denied, or if either or both of the exercises actually occur, the Governments intend to have D K 2
r 1 V > 4 ' representatives in the field and at buildings, action-centers, and other important locations for'The purpose of monitoring elements of the exercise. The Governments will do this in order to gain personal access to indispensable information and data related to the exercise that may be relevant to post-exercise litigation. The Governments accordingly notify the other parties that they intend to preserve and protect their rights for any such litigation. The Governments have attempted to obtain basic factual information about the proposed exercises including documents and correspondence relating to the exercise and to proposed and actual exercise objectives, and have requested advance notice of meetings concerning the proposed exercises so the Governments' representatives could attend them to monitor them and learn what will happen during the proposed exercises should they occur. To date, these efforts have been unsuccessful; FEMA, the NRC Staff, and LILCO have all refused to respond to the requests, or have refused to provide the requested information. The Governments have not been permitted to attend any meetings concerning the proposed exercises. No legitimate bases for these refusals have been stated by FEMA, the NRC Staff, or LILCO. See the attached correspondence. The Governments need the requested information in order to determine how to prepare to attend the proposed exercises in a way that would enable them effectively (a) to monitor the exercises,
r ,
'o
- and (b) to protect and pursue their rights in the Shoreham proceeding, including litigation concerning the exercise results, as those rights are defined in the NRC's rules and in court decisions. The refusal of all knowledgeable parties to this proceeding to provide the requested basic information to the Governments, and the continued ex parte communications between the NRC/ FEMA and LILCO concerning the proposed exercises, are violations of the Governments' discovery rights under 10 CFR
@ 2.740 and 2.741, and their fundamental due process rights, and are unlawfully preventing the Governments from effectively pursuing and protecting their rights and interests in the.shoreham proceeding.
By this Motion, and pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740(f), the Governments request the Commission to order the NRC Staff, FEMA, and LILCO, to produce the requested documents, to provide the requested information, and to permit the Governments to attend meetings, concerning the proposed Shoreham exercises. Since all knowledgeable parties have refused to provide the requested basic factual information concerning the proposed exercises, the Governments are not able at this time to provide detailed inf:'rmation concerning precisely how they intend to monitor the proposed exercises. By this Notice, however, the Governments state their intention to have their representatives, as necessary and appropriate to enable the Governments to protect their right to litigate the results of the exercise: (1) attend
) >
0 '
-4_
the exercises in a number sufficient to enable the Governments effectively to monitor fixed and field locations where FEMA or other exercise controllers, evaluators or observers will be present, and (2) record, film, photograph or otherwise take note of activities during the exercises. Because the Appeal Board also has jurisdiction of matters pertinent to the Shoreham emergency planning litigation, simultaneously herewith this Notice and Motion is also being filed with the Appeal Board. The Governments request the Appeal Board to grant the requested relief if the Commission fails to do so. Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
/
fl N 6 ( 7 .f'.-{.)(_' Herbegt H. Brown / ' Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County a . - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
) = fl %L L vu t suc' b; ,) Fabian G. Palomino / Special Counsel to the Governor / of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York f -1
~
l D /b ~ /4 A R a ~ Steph4n B. Latham' Twomey, Latham & Shea (/J<j
/
[. P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton January 22, 1986
a__,m__a a4AAA....L - _ - -4 A J.-. --_-. . _ mn-ma_ _ . - -_. u.- ._ a i e O ' 4
)
i i
.s N
f, h I I
,i '1 1
4 1 i I ATTACHMENTS 4 i I, 4 l
.)
1 I l i I L l I I 4 i i 1 I i i l I l 4 1 j . 3 J 1 I [ i i t I 1 i I e 4 4 i .
- - - - - - - .-..e-. ---. -__ ,,,,,-n,. . , _
,_._-w--
I 1 )
~~
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i PsTEm F. COHAL.AN ) surroLx COUNTY EXECUTIVE l DEPARTMENT OF LAW MARTIN eMADLEY A5HAma , ,,,, couwry AnonNew December 3, 1985 Mr. Samuel W. Speck Associate Director
- State & Local Programs & Support Directorate Federal Baergency Management Agency Washington, D. C. 20472
Dear Mr. Speck:
It is our understanding that FEMA is moving for-ward to hold an exercise of LILCO's emergency plan for the As stated in my letter to you Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.Suffolk County opposes such an dated November 12, 1985, exercise and will pursue appropriate legal remedies. There is a related matter, however, that requires your prompt attention. In testimony presented at the hear-ing chaired by Congressman Markey on November 14, you indi-cated that FEMA and its consultants plan to meet with LILCO and others on matters related to the exercise. Given the adversarial context in which FEMA is proceeding to hold the exercise, it is essential thatThere all such is no legitimate basis for meetings be open to observation by the public. PEMA to engage in secrecy with LILCO or others on this matter of public importance. Accordingly, without waiving any objection to the exercise itself, Suffolk County hereby reyuests w;.th FEMA to reasonable provide representatives of the County advance notice of all meetings concerning the exercise. include, but are not limited to, meetings Such meetings among FEMA personnel (including FEMA's contractor, Theodore Barry and Associates, FEMA regional personnel and members of FEMA's RAC for Shoreham), as well as meetings between FEMA and personnel of LILCO (including its attorneys and contrac-tors), the NRC, the Red Cross, or others.
= isi si -
v m 2,.. w ., . *vmues. s=v =isvee
o r I
, i I
December 3, 1985 samuel W. Speck Page 2 The County also wishes to receive as soon as possible copies of all documents which pertain to the exer-cise. We particularly request documents which in any way address matters related to the simulation of roles of State or local government officials. We will shortly be in con-tact with your General Counsel to arrange for this. Please send advance written notice of all meetings to the undersigned and to the County's outside counsel for I Shoreham-related matters: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart - Attn: Herbert H. Brown, Esq. 1900 M. Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 For any meeting that at least 5 days advance written notice cannot be provided, please provide telephone notice to me (516/360-4049) and to Mr. Brown (202/452-7005). 4 Thank you for your attention to these matters. ry truly yours gf FV e %a f Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney NBA:sm cc Berbert H. Brown, Esq. Spence Perry, Esq. '_,
- e e*
4.!. : ' . <. *
?. - .
.1 **
P i i
- - - - ---- - -- -- , -,,,~-.......n.-r.
- - - - - -,,----c.-,-n,-_n -_-n_. - , ~ , - . , - - - - - - - _ , - - - - - , - - - - , . . , _ - - . - - - -
./ 4L e
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET. N.T.
- - WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M mmm TfuPHONE GOD .52 20 nux .<uo. HFH U
^"
nucoma aan .52.m2 "E".4112,,}[i IXm 17 KARI.A J. LETSCHE g non eszau December 17, 1985 ,,u. BY TELECOPIER Stewart M. Glass, Esquire g Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1349 New York, New York 10248
Dear Stewart:
This is to confirm the substance of our telephone conversation this morning, in which you agreed to provide me with the following information as soon as possible:
- 1. List of attendees at the December 12, 1985 meeting involving LILCO and FEMA (and perhaps other entities) concerning the proposed Shoreham exercise;
- 2. Summary of what occurred at the December 12 meeting;
- 3. List of all future meetings, scheduled, tentatively scheduled, or likely to be scheduled, concerning the proposed Shoreham exercise, and for each, a list of expected or likely attendees / invitees and the subject matter of the meeting;
- 4. Identification of NRC representatives involved in the proposed Shoreham exercise and/or preparation therefor; and -
- 5. Copy of FEMA Guidance Memorandum No. 17 Revision 1, and any subsequent revisions.
In addition, please provide a list of all meetings between FEMA and LILCO (and/or other entities) prior to the one held December 12 concerning a proposed Shoreham exercise, their attendees, and a summary of what was discussed.
I t e ' KRKPA11UCK & LOCKHART , Stewart M. Glass, Esq. December 17, 1985 Page 2 -', s This letter does not alter our insistence, set forth in the December 3, 1985 letter from Martin B. Ashare to Spence Perry, and the letter of December 11, 1985 from Herb Brown to Spence Perry, that County personnel be advised in advance of all meetings concerning the proposed exercise and be permitted to attend all such meetings. Thank you. Sincerely,
/
Karl J. Letsche
tuRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET. N.T. WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M CNE a& Tow et.Act ,
~ ~
nurHoNE G02) 452 mod h"^
" " * " i :s sarxtu AVENU N M) *1222 uggut pg 3333 009) 1** 4112 tw ot.nu a>motso H!ERBERT H. BROWN rrmautcH.FA H222 002) ** 4.m nua BY TELECOPIER December 11, 1985 Spence Perry, Esq.
General Counsel , Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Rm 840 Washington, D.C. 20472
Dear Mr. Perry:
Particularly in light of the revelations in Congressman Markey's letter of yesterday to Director Becton, Suffolk County hereby requests that FEMA's meeting scheduled for tomorrow with LILCO and Theodore Barry and Associates, which you described by telephone this morning as " scenario planning", be cancelled. Counsel for the State of New York, Fabian G. Palomino, Esq., and for:the Town of Southampton, Stephen B. Latham, Esq. , have authorized me to state that they join in this request. Moreover, in the event any meetings are held by FEMA with LILCO, Theodore Barry and Associates, or others concerning emergency planning for Shoreham, Suffolk County, New York State, and Southampton request advance notice and the opportunity to attend the meetings, for the purpose of monitoring, in accord-ance with the letter dated December 3, 1985, from Suffolk County Attorney Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq., to Mr. Samuel Speck. In this regard, your statement by telephone today that County and State officials would not be invited to attend tomorrow's meeting, assuming it were held, is unacceptable. The County, State and Town oppose FEMA's efforts These to impose govern-an exercise of LILCO's plan over their objections. ments wish to be fully informed of any and all actions proposed
e ,
, iGRkPATRICK & LOCKHART Spence Perry, Esq.
December 11, 1985 Page Two by FEMA that in the judgment of these governments consti Gce an affront to their sovereignty. We request your prompt reply. Sincerely, Y) p- - W
.e m
Herbert H. Brown cc: The Honorable Julius Becton ' Martin B. Ashare, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. i 1 m
o E +> bs ~3, y Federal Emergency Management Agency 9g# - - 1 Washington, D.C. 20472 December 17, 1985 Martin Bradley Ashare Attorney, County of Suffolk Building 158 # North Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788'
'Ihis letter is intended to confirm cur verbal coumitment regarding your letter request of December 3 that representatives fran Suffolk County be invited to attend metings related to the Shorehan exercise. We recognize the concerns of both the County and State in the exercise requested by the NRC. FENA continues to advocate any passible participation by Suffolk County in questions of offsite safety around the Shorehan Nuclear Power .
Plant. During the developnent of any exercise scenario strict confidentiality is necessary. Participating organizations are always required to preclude any - possible biasing of results by unauthorized public release prior to the event of discussiens or materials pertaining to the exercise. In addition, they are also required to specifically identify and insulate persons partici-pating in the scenario develognent process fran other menbers of their organizations. W would expect similar conmitments of confidentiality on matters relating to scenario developnent fran State of New York and Suffolk County representatives until after the exercise. With respect to the range of meetings included in your request, we think there are neetings which are very appropriate for your participation.
'Ihose meetings that normally would involve either local or State partici-
- pants muld be enhanced by your participation. 'Ihese meetings should provide you with every opportunity to be fully aware of matters concerning the content and conduct of the exercise. hhile these meetings do not go to the full extent of your request, they will allow your participation in a manner consistent with our standard practices.
'Ihe docu:mr.ts surrounding an exercise are similarly shielded to protect the validity of the exercise. Any docunantation is limited to access by exercise euluators and controllers. Of course, much of the docu anthion surrcunding an exercise is discoverable, follcwing the actual exercise, during review proceedings of the Nuclear Regulatory Caumission.
e i By copy of this' letter, I am askirg the FDR Region 2 Regional Assistance Committee Chaianan to invite attendance by your representatives at appro-priate meetirgs. 'Ihis action will be initiated imediately upon receipt of identification of those representatives by nane and your conmitment to confidentiality.
,. Sin,cerely,
) . . W s-J .er,c... v VJ -l' [ '
Sanuel W. Speck Associate Director State and Incal Programs and Support O e
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK e.Ch..i fy - F. 3!
~ ',
'-y PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLM COUNTY EXECUTIVE MARTIN BRAOLEY ASH ARE DEPARTMENT OF LAW COUNTY ATTORNEY Accatss ALL couwuNicAtion.s IN THIS M ATTER TO e
December 20, 1985 Mr. Samuel E. Speck Associate Director State & Local Programs and Support Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D. C. 20472 ,
Dear Mr. Speck:
I request an immediate reply to my letter dated December 3, 1985. There is reason to believe that FEMA is holding discussions with its contractors and LILCO concern-ing an exercise of LILCO's plan. FEMA is not justified to do so secretly, barring the County and other governments from monitoring such discussions. This is particularly offensive in the present situation, where FEMA is imposing its authority concerning emergency planning for Shoreham over the objections of Suffolk County, Very truly yours, Martin Bradle Ash e Suffolk County Attorney MBA:sm cc: Hon. Julius Becton Spence Perry, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq. yLTEN AN$ WEMONI AL MiGMW AY e HauppauGE. NEw vomit t17ee a (S t 6s 360-4049 4
, m
. o
. . Federal Emergency Management Agency u
Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 December 20, 1985 Karla J. Letsche, Esquire Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M S'reet, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Letsche:
Enclosed please find the information requested in your letter of December 17, 1985:
- 1. Roger Kowieski, FEMA Robert Acerno, FEMA -
Joseph Keller,INEL Chuck Daverio, LILCO Dennis Behr, 'mpell Raymond Seiter, lapell
- 2. Though it should be clarified that this office did not agree to provide information regarding the subject matter of the December 12, 1985 meeting the following information should address your concerns.
Discussed FEMA's comments on exercise scenario. Discussed activities to be demonstrated during the February 13, 1986 exercise.
- 3. There are no specific meetings scheduled as of this date. I have attached for your information the milestone dates for the completion of the exercise scenario as proposed a few weeks ago. It should be noted that the RAC Chairman held meetings on December 18 and 19 with Bernard Weiss of the NRC, Tom Baldwin of Argonne National Laboratories and William J.
Stokes of Theodore Barry Associates. Information concerning future meetings will be coordinated with New York State and Suffolk County pursuant to the terms set forth in the attached letter to Mr. Martin B. Ashare.
t 1 0 l l 4.Mr. Bernard H. Weiss, Incident Response Branch, Office of Irispection and Enforcement of the Nuclear Regulatory ! Commission is responsible for providing assistance to the lead l FEMA controller in staffing for control of the exercise.
- 5. Attached please find a copy of FEMA Guidance Memorandum No. 17, and Revision 1 thereto.
If you hava any additional questions please do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, g /$.A Stewart M. Glass Regional Counsel Encl:
-- - -- -~
e
- s t
O 4 IV. PROPOSED MILESTONE DATES FOR THE COMPLETION OF TH SCENARIO DAYS PRIOR PROPOSED i TO DATE ACTIVITY { EXERCISE 80 11/25/85 FEMA provides the utility with the proposed exercise objectives, e 80 11/25/85 Meeting with the utility to establish' the exercise scenario requirements. 71 12/4/85 Utility about will advise FEMA in writing suggested modification to the exercise objectives, if any. l l 69 12/6/85 Utility submits the draft exercise scenario to FEMA and NRC Region for review. This submission will include the on-site (radiological data) and off-site portions of the exercise scenario. i 69 12/6/85 Proposed exercise objectives and utility comments / modifications are submitted to the Regional Assistance Committee for review and comments. ( I l 6: l
! 12/12/e5 l ;
l Taking into account the utility input
,i j and RAC comments, FEMA will provide the utility with the revised exercise
}
l l cb3 ectives. In addition, FEMA provides!! i ! l
; ! LEPO with a list of items to be
,' l deconstrated (e.g., numcer of TCPs, l . '
l evacuation routes, etc.). f
i
, P 1 '
, I i f DAYS PRIOR ,
PROPOSED { ACTIVITY EXERCISE r 57 12/13/85 Utility submits the final exercise t i ob]ectives to FEMA and NRC Regional l office. 55 12/20/85 i RAC comments on the exercise scenario are provided to the uti?.ity. If necessary, FEMA and NRC Region will meet with the utility representatives to discuss modifications necessary to 4 complete the scenario. 41 1,3/86 Utility submits the final exercise ' scenario which will include, at a minimum: o a comprehensive description of all activities to be demonstrated.4 consistent with exercise objec-tives: , t o a full schedule of all events at * ! each classification level (matrix); o dosimetry values to be supplied to the field monitoring and sampling teams by exercise controllers; o calculation of all offsite doses, including those that trigger pro-tective responses, and applicable meteorological data. , 38 1/6/66 Utility submits the starting locations g ' and times of field activities to be i
, l demonstrated in chronological order. !
The locations of all facilities and field activities will be also indicated!
! cn the county maps.
i + 35 1,9.'56 Ftnal date for the approval of the I l I exercise scenario and field activities.; I i
, , - - ,... - - ,.m,- . , . --.------m~,- _m.-, .-----_v- - - - -
, - - - - , - - - - - , ~ - - - -
e e e
- CAYS PRICE PECFOSED Ac;;y:77 TO CATE EXERCISE ,
i ,' , i i
)
1 1 1 1 15 1/29/66 ,f Table-top exercise. , 0 - 2/13/o6 I l ExEac:SE DAY. ! i i I ' 9 4 l
. r. ' , , DEC.ir *65 Ir:0r fem MiM FED CTP 2 l
[it i Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20+72 N December 17. 1985 l Ma'rtin Bradley A8 hart Attorney, County of Suffolk Building 158 North Ca plex i Veterans Memorial Highway I Hauppauge, New York 11788 l l
Ris letter is intended to confirm cur verbal omsnitment regarding your : letter request of December 3 that representatives frun Suffolk (bunty be invited to attend meetings related to the Shoreham exercise. We recognize the concerns of both the County and State in the exercise requested by the NRC. FD4A contirues to advocate any pasible participation by Suffolk (bunty in questions of offaite safety around the Shortham Nuclear Power Plant. Durin3 the developnent of any exercise scenario strict confidentiality is necessary. Participating organizations are always required to preclude any passible biasing of results by mauthorized pWlic release prior to the event of discussions or materials pertaining to the exercise. In addition, they are also required to specifically identify and insulate persons partici-pating in the scenario develognent process fran other mar:bers of their organizations. We would expect similar oarmitznents of confidentiality on matters relating to scenario developfent frun State of New York and Suffolk County representatives mtil after the exercise. With respect to the range of meetings included in your request, we think i there are meetings which are very appropriate for your participation. Rose meetings that normally would involve wither local or State partici-pants wxild be enhanced by your participation. Rosa noetings sh:x11d provide you with every opportunity to be fully aware of matters concerning the content and conduct of the exercise. Wille these neetings do not go I to the full extent of your request, they will allow your participation in a manner consistent with our standard practices. I 2e documents surruunding an exercise are similarly shielded to protect the slidity of the exercise. Any doommentation is limited to access by exercise sealustors and controllers. of coarse, such of the documentation st: =.:Wn3 an esercise is diaooverable, flallmeing the actual etercise, during review Wings of the leuclear angulatocy M=1on. l l I
EEC.17 '65 17:08 fella WASH FED CTP Z .- ~ P.03 By copy of this letter, I am askirg the FD% Region 2 Regional Assistance Canmittee Chait: nan to invite attendance by your representatives at appro-priate meetings. This action will be initiated innediately upon receipt of' identification of ttese representativen by name and your commitment to confidentiality.- Sincerely, i .
.i....
.. t t.. .
[)y. . . . , 4 Sanuel W. Speck Associate Director State and Iccal Prograns arx3 Support e
[*, ~
~
Guidance Memorandum 17, Revision 1 Technological Hazards CONDUCTING PRZ-EXERCISE AND POST-EXERCISE ACTIVITIES , l Purpose I This Guidance Memorandum provides guidelines for conducting pre-exercise and post-exercise activities. ; i Background ; l Under 44 CFR 350, it is the responsibility of a State and its local l governments to conduct joint exercises as a condition of initial and continued Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval. The original Guidance Memorandum (GM) 17, dated January 8,1981, provided procedural guidance intended to improve the conduct of exercises and to establish greater uniformity among the FEMA Regions in this activity. While progress has been made, there is still auch diversity among Regions in the quality of exercises conducted. This revision is a further effort at achieving uniformity in preparir.g for and conducting exercises. It supe. edse the January 8,1981, GM 17. It is to be used in conjunction , wiPh the August 5, 1983, memorandum from Dave McLoughlin entitled "Ptccedural Policy on Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan Reviews, Exercise Observations and Evaluations, and Interim Findings" in all joint ; exercises required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and FEMA regulations. Guidance
- 1. Pre-exercise Activity Past experience has shown that joint exercises must be planned considerably in advance and each step scheduled. In order to ensure ,
optimum results, the following silestones should be set, at a minimum. l More frequent contacts are at the discretion of the Region. NOTE: These milestones are predicated on adherence to the biennial exercise frequency. If, for any reason, exercises will be more frequent, the milestone dates shown in parentheses should be used. MILESTONES POR EXERCISE PREPARATION No Later Than the Day Prior to Exercise 1 120 days State and licensee jointly develop and (75) submit exercise objectives to FEMA and NRC Regional Offices. 105 days FEMA and NRC Regional Offices complete (60) reviews of objectives and extent of play af ter meeting with licensee / State, if neces sa ry.
_2- -
*
- 90 dcyo Secto end lican3c= submit exercisa
- scenario to FEMA and NRC Regions (45) for review.
60 days ', FEMA and NRC Regions contact or meet (35) with State and licensee to discuss modifications and complete the scenario. 40 days Controller's meeting to develop (30) coordination of exercise. 2 FEMA and NRC Regions develop specific 30 days ' (25) post-exercise activity schedule with the State and advise FEMA and NRC Headquarters. 15 days Optional - The RAC Chairman and NRC team lesder meet to develop observer (15) action plan (where stationed, how many from each organization, what to look for). I day All Federal observers, both onsite (1) and offsite, meet in the exercise area to finalize assignments and receive instructions. Whenever an exercise is scheduled, the Region should immediately available assure construction of a time line based on the above and make it to the State, NRC Region, and FEMA Headquarters. Where a plant is located on a Regional boundary, the Region in which the plant is actually located is considered the lead Region for purposes of scheduling and coordination. Establishing the time line is the responsibility of the lead Region. Adhering to the time line should permit ample time to review and negotiate However, any changes to the exercise objectives and the exercise scenario. should delays occur which may affect the scheduled exercise date, the Regional Director must so advise the State, the utility, the NRC Region, and FEMA Headquarters. The FEMA Regional Office should make every effort to rectify slips in the timetable to avoid rescheduling the exercise date. The basic objectives for the exercise should be taken from the list of 36 in Attachment I. The objectives have been developed to generally correspond to the observable elements of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, as well as the modules contained in the " Modular Format for Uniformity of Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Observations and Evaluations." Objectives should be chosen to test a major portion of emergency response capabilities. Objectives related to deficiencies of record scheduled for correction from the previous exercise should be included. In addition, each of the 36 objectives should be tested at least once within a five-year period. ,
* ^ ~ '
\ - 3_. The objectives for each exercise must be reviewed by both the FEMA and NRC Regional Offices before specific scenarios are written. Once reviewed, the State'and licensee will develop a scenario for submission which will include, at a minimua:
- a full schedule of all events,
- all dosimetry and monitored values to be supplied to the monitoring teams,
- all release data from the plant,
- calculations of offsite dose, and
- applicable meteorological data.
FEMA and NRC Regions will coordinate review of the scenario and notify the State and licensee of any necessary modifications. If necessary, a meeting to discuss modifications should be held. If agreement cannot be reached, FEMA and NRC Headquarters assistance should be sought. II. Post-exercise Meetings A. Three audience groups are to be involved in post-exercise meetings:
- obse rve rs ,
- exercise participants, and
- public/ media.
The approach to each audience's meeting vill usually vary. In addition, the timing and intent of the meetings may vary depending upon whether the exercise is conducted in advance of FEMA ~350 approval (" qualifying exercise") or for continued ~350" approval. B. The following chart illustrates post-exercise meeting requirements for qualifying exercises and exercises for continued FEMA approval. Guidance on each type of meeting follows. QUALIFYING EXERCISE CDNTINUED-APPROVAL EXERCISE Observer Debriefing Observer Debriefing Esercise Participants Exercise Participants Briefirg Briefing Public Meeting Meeting
, .n 4
- 1. observer Debriefing (for qualifying and continued-approval exercises).
- a. 'Immediately following the exercise, the RAC Chairman should convene the FEMA and RAC evaluators to debrief them and to consolidate their observations and comments. The separate observer debriefing is not specified under 44 CFR 350 but should be incorporated as standard procedure. During this same period, che NRC team leader should parallel this process with the NRC observers.
- b. As soon as possible af ter their independent debriefings, the RAC Chairman and the NRC team leader should meet to coordinate and arrange Federal participation in the joint exercise participant's briefing.
- 2. Exercise Farticipants' Briefing (for qualifying and continued-approval exercises).
- a. Within 48 hours of the completion of an exercise, a briefing involving the exercise participants and Federal observers should be held to discuss the preliminary results of the exere se. This briefing should be held in accordance with 44 CFR 350.9(a) and (d).
- b. A recommended agenda to be used is as follows:
Review of onsite actions by NRC, Licensee presents their views (clarifying questions or comments), f Review of offsite actions by RAC Chairman, State and locals present their views (clarifying questions or comments), Review of Federal response (if applicable) by RAC Chairman, and Opportunity for clarifying questions or comments by licensee, State, and locals.
- c. The presentations should each be a brief, integrated overview covering the highlights of the exercise. The most important j deficiencies observed must be included and appropriate commendation for good perf ormance can be included. However, the RAC Chairman must noc indicate whether the State or local preparedness is adequate or inadequate.
- 3. Meeting For Continued FEMA Approval Exercises.
- a. Following an exercise for continued FEMA approval, a meeting involving exercise participants, representatives from the NRC and other appropriate Federal agencies and the public and the media should be held in accor' dance with 44 CFR 350.9(e) in the vicinity of the nuclear power f acility. At the discretion of the Regional Director, this meeting may be combined with the exercise participants' briefing.
l
o '
- b. The public and media may attend the meeting as observers.
However, at 'the discretion of the Regional Director, written questions from the public and media may be submitted at or af ter the meeting for consideration in the exercise evaluation. Also, the Regional Director i may further use his/her discretion to solicit and respond to oral questions and comments during this meeting. Under no circumstances should ft be : indicated whether State or local preparedness is adequate or inadequate. l
- c. During the meeting, the RAC Chairman should offer an !
~ovefview of the exercise and should provide his/her obsarvations. Comment s 1 from the RAC members and FEMA observers may be solicited at che discretion of the RAC Chairman.
- 4. Public Meeting.
- a. Prior to the submission by the Regional Director of the evaluation of the plan and exercise to FEMA Headquarters, a public meeting in accordance with 44 CFR 350.10 should be held in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility. Exercise participants, representatives from the NRC, and other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies should attend. .
- b. The meeting should acquaint members of the public with appropriate State and local emergency plans, the results of the exercise and indicate actions on corrective measures, answer any questions about FEMA's review and evaluation, and receive suggestions from the public for improvement or changes.
- c. For situations in which a public meeting has been held during the 350 approval process and prior to both the qualifying exercise and the effective date (October 28, 1983) of the final rule, 44 CFR 350, the requirement for conducting a public meeting under 350.10 will be considered by FEMA to have been met if a " briefing" was held for the initial, qualifying exercise.
- 5. " Meetings" for exercises conducted during 350 approval process.
Requirements in 44 CFR 350 do not address the conduct of " meetings" for exercises . held af ter the initial, qualifying exercise and bef ore the completion of the l 350 approval process. For such exercises, a meeting as described in 350.9(e) l should be held even though the context of this meeting in the rule is for I exercises conducted for continued FEHA approval. FEMA's evaluation of such
" interim" exercises is an integral part of our overall 350 approval process; >
therefore, an opportunity should be provided to the exercise participants, the public, media, and other Federal agencies to discuss the performance of the exercise and our preliminary evaluation. l
. i *^ ~ ."
ATTACRMENT I
. GM 17 CORRESPONDING
' PART(S) of FORM NURIC-0654 OBJECTIVE EOC Sec. I E.1, E.2
- 1. Demonstrate ability to mobilize atff and activate facilities EOF Sec. I prospely. MEDIA Sec. I RELOC Sec. I jl! Sec. I EOC Sec. I A.2.a.
2" . D sonstrate ability to fully A. 4 staff facilities and maintain EOF Sec. I staffing around the clock. MEDIA Sec. I RELOC Sec. I A.1. d , Demonstrate ability to make EOC sec. II
- 3. A. 2. a decisions and to coordinate emergency activities.
G.3.a,
- 4. Demonstrate adequacy of facilities EOC Sec. III H.2, and displays to support emergency EOF Sec. II MEDIA Sec. II H.3 operations.
F Demonstrate ability to communicate EOC Sec. IV
- 5. EOF Sec. III with all appropriate locations ,
organizations, and field personnel. MEDIA Sec. III RELOC Sec. III FA Sec. I, II _FM Sec. IV E.2, I.8
- 6. Demonstrate ability to mobilize J2! Sec. I and deploy field monitoring teams in a timely fashion.
I.8, I.11
- 7. Demonstrate appropriate equipment J2( Sec. II, III and procedures for determining ambient radiation levels.
I.9
- 8. Demonstrate appropriate equipment J01 Sec. II, III RADLAB Sec. I, II and procedures for measurement of airborne radiolodine concentrations as low as 10-7 uci/CC in the 9 presence of noble gases.
J21 Sec. II, III I.8
- 9. Utmonstrate appropriate equipment RADLAB Sec. I, II and procedures for collection and transport of samples of soil, vegetation, snow, water, and milk.
RADLAB Sec. I, II C.3
- 10. Demonstrate appropriate lab ,
operation functions for measuring and analyzing all types of samples.
~
e ATTACHMENT I GN 17 CORRESPONDING 0 EJECTIVE PART(S) of FORM NUREG-0654
- 30. Demonstrate adequate equipment DECON all K.S.a, b and procedures for decontamination of emergency workers, equipment
.. and vehicles.
- 31. Demonstrate adequacy of ambulance MEDIC Sec. III L.4 facilities and procedures for handling contaminated individuals.
- 32. Demonstrate adequacy of hospital MEDIC Sec. II L.1 facilities and procedures for handling contaminated individuals.
- 33. Demonstrate ability to identify (to be developed) C. l . a b need for, request, and obtain Federal assistance.
- 34. Demonstrate ability to relocate to (to be developed) H.2, H.3 and operate the alternate EOF /EOC.
- 35. Demonstrate ability to estimate EOC Sec. V M.4 total population exposure. EOF Sec. VI
- 36. Demor. strate ability to determine EOC Sec. X M.1 and implement appropriate measures for controlled recovery and reentry.
1 i i l
\
~ ., s-ATTACHMENT I GM 17 CORRESPONDING OBJECTIVE PART(S) of PORM NUREG-06 54
- 19. Demonstrate the organizational EOC Sec. VII, 8 J.10.d ability and resources necessary FA Sec. II.B to effect an orderly evacuacion of mobility-impaired individuals within the plume EPZ.
- 20. Demonstrate the organizational EOC Sec. VII.B J.9, J.10.g ability and resources necessary j]L Sec. II. A to ef fect an orderly evacuation of schools within the plume EPZ. ;
> 21. Demonstrate ability to continuously EOC Sec. VIII K.3.a. b monitor and control emergency j]t Se c. IV worker exposure. J31 Sec. V
- 22. Demonstrate the ability to make the EOC Sec. V J.10.f decision, based on predetermined EOF Sec. VI ,
criteria, whether to issue KI to emergency workers and/or the general population.
- 23. Demonstrate the ability to supply EOC Sec. VIII J.10.e and administer KI, once the decision J2L Sec. IV has been made to do so. J2( Sec. V
- 24. Demonstrate ability to effect an EOC Sec. VII.B J.2 orderly evacuation of onsite personnel.
- 25. Demonstrate ability to brief the EOC Sec. IX G.3.a media in a clear, accurate and MEDIA Sec. IV G.4.a timely manner. EOF Sec. IV
- 26. Demonstrate ability to provide EOC Sec. IX G.4.5 advance coordination of information MEDIA Sec. IV released.
- 27. Demonstrate ability to establish EOF Sec. II G.4.c and operate rumor control in a MEDI A Sec. VI coordinated fashion.
- 28. Demonstrate adequacy of procedures RELOC Sec. II J.12 for registration and radiological sonitoring of evacuees.
I
- 29. Demonstrate adequacy of f acilities RELOC Sec. III . J.10.h for mass care of evacuees.
---.-,-.---,,n-,--, -
- - -.,,----c , - - - . . - , .- - - - - - - , . - - - - . , , , , - - - - , - - -.---,.n-
4 i s.
...,- e.,- .- , . .,. - . . - ,, , n ,. . .
p .T C ,G , . A .L '.* i . . il i . C I. i \' t..
! . ,' t I s
- g ' . . . i; .r \ t . . (;, ;, , , (.,), ,
\.'. L- Q u .. ..
- c n () C. 2 0 ' r 2 J'n: :l tv M sh-
- . :: . ;3:::JM. FOR: Dennis Kwiatkowski Director Regional Coordination FRO 4 : John E. Dickey, Director R-dielcgical Emergency Preparedness Divisicn p THRU: John W . McCennell M [#'J A Assistant Associate Direct sr for Population Preparedness
SUBJECT:
Joint Exercise Procedures - REP Guidance Memorandum # 17 Please arrange to have the attached guidance memorandu:t published in the Director's Memorandum as soon as practicable . The following text should acccmpany the guidance memorandum. In coordination with NRC, the attached joint exercise procedures have bees developed. The objective is to establish more unifomity in the Radiological Emergency Preparedness exercises under the proposed FE4A Rule 44 CFR 350. Since the FE4A " Rule" speaks to off-site activity, the exercise procedures emphasize that aspect. However, in reccgnition of the parallel involvement of the NRC, their activity is shown in direct relation to FIMA's . We hava also ciscussed with tr.e NRC our desire for completion of all plans and exercises by April 1, 1981. This is apparently causing a problem with some licensees who will not be ready to exercise effectively until after this date. Therefore, while FE4A must contiraue to press for implementation of State and local plans by April 1, Regions must be flexible in scheduling of joint exercises in support of the " Rule". Facilities should not be forced into pre-April exercises if they are not ready, since premature involvement of the facility works against the develcpment of integrated preparedness . I lope that this approach will h g in schedul_i,ng,your exercises =cre effectivel'*. If you have any questions about this memorandum please contact Harold U. Gaut at 523-1781. /
Attachment:
PIP Guidance:lemorandurt # 17 /
/ - . '. / ,,
e.. i To * , :,.)
. .I '
%_ g e-so I r. jI i()e)" -
,. i -,. h ,. , ' .. r ,
,~ -f
) 's g.'I.s<'
I. l'
, ' i
.f,
6 , s, e *
; - fa des;rable to ccadue: the cri .que e :n all the princ;;.21 par.:.e s
;:esent, ' c . g. the RAC, the involvcd 5 ste anu local u;;h:_ :. ties , tha There may be situati:ns where cuch a jorat criti ;a
; . ce n.sve and GRC).
is not feasible and separate sessione (One related to licensee participa-ien t.nd one related to State and local participction) are neccusary due to icgistical or funding constraints. The:e situations are te he cleared in advance thru the FE? A/URC Steering Ccemitte s. In such cases the RAC . Chairman should be available for both critiques. The joint critique should be chaired by the RAC chairmen and shculd he within or near the 10 mile IP2. As pa:t of tn . overall format the RAC Chairman will diccuss observations of the offsite response and the NRC will discuss observations of the onsite response. The State, local at this meeting to mako pre-governments and utility should be present sentations. For the joint critique to be effective, it should take place within the 24-hour period immediately following the exercise. There should also be opportunity for clarification, questions or ccanents by licensee, State and local of ficials. The RAC Chairman's overview statement should be based on comments frca It RAC members and other FE4A observers as well as his own observation. should include the strong points as well as a general statement en the deficiencies noted. Under no circumstances will the RAC Chairman's ccaments indicate that the State or local plans passed or f aile .. He/she should indicate that the comments are preliminary to be followed by a comprehensive evaluation within 14 days. The final FEM A findings and determination, as well as approval of a State and/or local plan, submitted according to 44 CFR 350 of which the exercise is a part, is reserved to the Associate Director for Plans and Preparedness in Washington. , The principal milestones for 'FEdA and NRC exercise obser ati'on and critique a're given in Enclosure 1. These milestones are for planning purposes and actual schedules may need to be dif f erent because of local circumstanc2c. i l l 1
e
* =
~ , l i f ,'i L . i. ~. '*\ 11
.: . cy 'rgaredness D1?irin JOI:'T EXERCISE ?{gC:DURES the public In the interest of assuring that the health *and safety of it is pro:ected in the event of an accident at to a nuclear power plant, conduct an emergency is necessary for the licensee (applicant),
preparedness exercise jointly with appropriate State and local agencias . The role of the Federal government at such exercises is to evaluate the capability of the utility and the State and local governments to protect the public health and safety in the event of an accident at the f acility . The FEIA of ficial responsible for this activit'y is the appropriate Regional Director. over the last few months there have been several joint exercises and in where En'. A written and NRC have made reviews both orally in an open meeting, form. We find however, significant variation anong regions in the proceduren used for providing the evaluation. The need for a standardized approach is evident and the following is a guide for both FCiA and NRC personnel involved in exercise evaluation. Casite Assignments for of fsite observers will be made by the RAC Chairman. A meeting cf observers will be assigned locations by the NRC Team Leader. all parties should be conducted prior to '.he exercise t.o assure that ell observer locations are staffed by an evaluator, as well us to make whatever last minute changes are necessary based on field conditions, number of , evaluators available, etc. The The exercise should be followed as soon as possible by a critique . critique is a working session for preliminary review of the exercise betweer the participants (State and local ef ficials and utility representatives It should be open and the Federal observer teams headed by FC A and the NRC) . attend as observers, an: to the public and the media. Chey should, however, a not participate in the discussions. If local circumstances dictate that private session be held with the State authorities, it must be scheduled in advance and the information provid+ d by the RAC Chairman at the private ) meeting chould be repeated in the epan session. 1 I i i l l l l
n a s' t i O
.;._.._..- . . - _ . - . . .: 7._ _ .; _ e. . -
- 75 dayc* State and '.icensee jointly submit exercise eb ecti.2 u rr:A and ':RC neg*cnal Offices.
- 60 days FE A and UnC Regional Of fices diccuss and meet with licensee /Sta:e ce necessp.ry and prapare res onse.
- 45 days St:te and licensee scenario fevelcpers submit 2:<c rcis e scenario to FCIA and ::RC Regions fer review.
- 35 days Fr:A and MRC Regions notify State and licensee of scenario acceptability.
- 30 days Fr1A and URC Regions develop specific pest er.ercise critique schedule with the State and advise Fr4A and NRC headq,uarters.
- 15 days Che RAC Chairman and MRC team leader vili r.eet to develep observer action plan (where stationed, how =any from each organi=ation, what to look for).
- i day 51e eting , in the exercise area, of all Federal observers bech onsite and offsite to finalize assignments, and give instrue i E day Exercise MEC E day FE-1A and RAC c'bservers caucus to collate observations.
observers also caucus to ecllate cbservations. E day R7.C Chairman and !!RC tear. leader meet, da,scon after their respective caucuses as practical, to ccordinste Federal participation in critiq'se. E to + 1 day Joint RAC/NRC critique General Acanda A. state, locals and licensee present their views.
- 3. Critique of offsita actiens, by RAC Chairman.
C. Critique of onsite actions, by MRC. O. Critique of Federal response (if applicable), by RAC Chairman. E. Opportunity for clarification questions or ceccants by licensee, State and locals (press and public questiens will not be entertained during the critique).
'C' l
+ 15 days Uritten critiques by FETA negica to Sta:c, with copics t
~~
W' th : hwadquarters a-d :30 and by MRC Regica to licenocc to UnC headquarters end FEI A.
, _ . _ _ _, _ . . ,, - -. - - . + _ _ - .
~
- KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET, N.W.
- - WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M cNE SosroN PLACE Bostos, uA 02:08 TELEPHONE aca 4524000 4613 971 5400 1428 BRICKELL A%ENCE TELEccesRaca ines2 utAu!. n. noi exm r.mu 1900 OLIVER SUILDING P!TTS8URCH. FA 45222 WRITER 1 DIRECT DtAL NUMBEA tela H54500 (412) 355-6446 By Hand December 26, 1985 Mr. Samuel W. Speck Associate Director, State & Local Programs & Support Directorate Federal Emergency Planning Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 Re: Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1): LILCO Emergency Plan, Rev. 5 Exercise
Dear Mr. Speck:
By letter dated December 3, 1985, Martin B. Ashare, Suffolk County Attorney, stated Suffolk County's request that the County, as an Intervenor in the above-captioned licensing proceedings, be kept apprised of actions taken or contemplated by FEMA in connection with its announced intention to hold an exercise of the offsite emergency response plan (the " Plan") submitted by LILCO to the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.33(g) as part of its operating license application for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel 'W Speck December 26, 1985 Page 2 As you know, Suffolk County has indicated its oppost-tion to an exercise of the Plan. The New York State Supreme Court has held that LILCO cannot legally implement that Plan, and there is no legitimate reason to exercise an illegal Plan. Without waiving that fundamental objection, we raise now cor-tain basic questions concerning FEMA's plans for the antici-pated exercise. Our questions involve basic policy issues and do not deal with any questions concerning the " exercise scenar-io" that might implicate matters which FEMA believes must be kept confidential. The State of New York and the Town of Southampton join in this request. As an initial matter. It is appropriate to outline the background to the anticipated exercise. First, on November 14, 1984, LILCO requested a graded exercise of its Plan and outlined specific objectives for such an exercise.1/ In re-sponse and by a December 19, 1984 memorandum to FEMA, the NRC Staff declined to request an exercise of the Plan because of 1/ Letter from John D. Leonard, Jr., Vice President-Nuclear Operations, LILCO, to Harold R. Denton, . Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, dated November 14, 1984. Leonard's letter was written prior to a judicial determination that LILCO has no authority to carry out the Plan and that the Plan encompasses governmental functions that LILCO is prohibited from performing. 4
a . KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuef W., Speck December 26, 1985 Page 3 identified inadequacies in the Plan as submitted, including LILCO's failure to demonstrate its legal authority to carry out the Plan.2/ FEMA has also stated that all identified deficiencies in the Plan must be resolved before a FEMA-evaluated exercise is conducted. Although the Plan repre-sents that LILCO has authority to implement the Plan, the New York State Supreme Court has held that LILCO is prohibited from implementing its Plan. See Cuomo v. LILCO, Consol. Index No. 84-4615 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 20, 1985), N.Y. Law Journal, April 19, 1985, p. 16, col. 3, appeal docketed (N.Y. App. Div., April 26, 1985). In the Shoreham licensing proceedings, LILCO has accepted the Cuomo v. LILCO decision "as a binding inter-pretation of state law." Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 'l), ALAB-818, 22 NRC (slip op., p. 8, Oct. 18, 1985). Second, on June 4, 1985, a majority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that it saw no reason why LILCO should not be allowed to exercise those parts of the Plan 2/ Memorandum from Edward L. Jordan, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, NRC, to Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards, FEMA, dated December 19, 1984. i
,' l 1
I
~
o
- KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel W.' Speck December 26, 1985 Page 4 "which it may legally exercise." The Commission majority indicated that such an exercise might, at a minimum, " identify the impact of the limitations of LILCO's plan when executed under the state and county restrictions."3/ Given the Cuomo v.
LILCO holding that LILCO cannot implement the Plan, it is clear that an exercise is not necessary to identify the impact of State law restrictions on LILCO's Plan: LILCO cannot implement that Plan. See infra at pp. 10-21. Third, by letter dated June 20, 1985, Mr. Jordan com-municated the request of the Commission majority "that FEMA schedule as full an exercise of the LILCO local emergency re-sponse organization ("LERO") plan as is. feasible at the present time giving appropriate consideration to the Suffolk County Ex-ecutive's May 30, 1985 Executive Order and subsequent develop-ments relating to emergency planning activities by the Coun-ty."4/ In fact, the May 30, 1985 Executive Order was invali-dated by the New York State Supreme Court on June 10, 1985, that ruling was subsequently affirmed on appeal.5/ There are l l 3/ Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commis- ) sion, to William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, dated June 4, 1985. Letter from Edward L. Jordan, NRC, to Richard W. Krimm,
-4/ ,
FEMA, dated June 20, 1985. l 5/ See In re Prospect v. Cohalan (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 10, j I985), aff'd 109 A.D. 2d 210, 490 N.Y.S. 2d 795, aff'd, 65 l N.Y. 2d 867, 493 N.Y.S. 2d 867 (1985).
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. SamueI W.', Speck December 26, 1985 Page 5 no material " subsequent developments" concerning emergency planning. As of this date, County law provides that the County will not adopt, test, or implement any emergency response plan for Shoreham. See Suffolk County Resolution Nos. 456-1982, 111-1983. Fourth, by letter dated October 29, 1985, you advised Mr. Dircks of the NRC that two basic options existed for a Plan exercise. Option 2 was described as follows: Ootion 2 - This option would include all func-tions and normal exercise objectives. This op-tion would exercise Revision 5 of the LERO Plan. Exercise controllers would simulate the roles of key State or local officials unable or unwilling to participate. It would be desirable that State and local government personnel actually play. However, such a simulation mechanism would at least test the utility's ability to re-spond to ad hoc participation on the part of State and local governments. Your letter reiterated that offsite jurisdictions, including the County and the State, are not willing to participate in an exercise of the Plan. Moreover, your letter stated and restated FEMA's basic position: any exercise that does not in-volve State and local government participation will not permit FEMA to reach a finding of reasonable assurance with respect to the LILCO Plan.6/ 6/ Letter from Samuel W. Speck, Associate Director, State and Local Programs and Support, FEMA, to William J. Dircks, dated October 29, 1985.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
~
Mr. Samuel W., Speck December 26, 1985 Page 6 Fifth, by letter dated November 12, 1985, Mr. Dircks stated the Commission's conclusion that "an exercise should be conducted consistent with the approach outlined in Option 2," stating that " Option 2 would include all functions and normal exercise objectives, recognizing that some offsite response roles may be simulated."l/ We understand that FEMA, in response to the NRC's re-quest, has initiated plans for an exercise along the lines de-scribed in Option 2 of FEMA's October 29 letter. Option 2 in-volves at least three separate components. First, Option 2 en-visions an exercise of LILCO's Plan, Revision 5. Second, Op-tion 2 envisions an exercise of all Plan functions and normal exercise objectives. Third, Option 2 contemplates that " exer-cise controllers would simulate the roles of key State or local officials unable or unwilling to participate." Any exercise of the LILCO Plan would be without legal basis, particularly since it appears that the proposed exercise would include an attempt, in contravention of Cuomo v. LILCO, for persons other than State or local government officials to 7/ Letter from William J. Dircks to Samuel W. Speck dated November 12, 1985.
. s KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel W.' Speck December 26, 1985 Page 7 perform or " simulate" police power functions. Moreover, given FEMA's repeated statements that no reasonable assurance finding could result from any such exercise, the exercise results would have no meaning whatever. Finally, an exercise is not needed to identify the impact of any State law limitations on LILCO's ability to implement the Plan. Cuomo v. LILCO clearly holds that LILCO cannot implement the Plan. LILCO itself han con- , ceded that "unless the New York State Court Decision is overridden on federal law grounds, LILCO will not be able, by itself, to implement its emergency plan regardless cf its sub-stantive merits." Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 919 (1985). It is necessary,to clarify the nature of the proposed exercise to ensure that the State and local government police powers are not usurped, to ensure that State laws and court rulings are not violated and to enable the State and County to pursue all available legal remedies should an exercise actually be conducted. Such clarification is also a necessary predicate to Intervenors' right to test the exercise in NRC administra-tive proceedings. See Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 P. 2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 815 (1985). Accordingly, we pose the following basic questions and request your timely response. 1 l
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuei W' e Speck December 26, 1985 Page 8
- 1. Does FEMA Intend to Exercise LILCO's Plan, Rev. 5?
First, FEMA has stated that it intends to exercise the LILCO Plan. That Plan, by its terms, is to be carried out entirely by LILCO, its employees and con'sultants and private agencies. The Plan does not rely upon actions by State or County officials. The ASLB has stated that the LILCO Plan relies " wholly upon the services of LILCO personnel for the i performance of emergency functions." See LBP-85-12, 21 NRC at 550, 895; ALAB-818, 22 NRC at (slip op. at 5-6). In addition, at an early stage of the emergency plan-ning proceeding, the ASLB specifically held that it would not consider (and that Intervenors were not to submit contentions or litigate) alternative LILCO emergency plans that provided for implementation by LILCO personnel with the participation of Suffolk County or the State of New York "until such time as LILCO can establish that one or more of the governmental entities designated in its emergency plan consent to partici-pate in such a venture." See Order Limiting Scope of Submis-e sions dated June 10, 1983, pp. 2-3, attached hereto as Exhibit A; LBP-85-12, 21 NRC at 650.3/ Accordingly, the 8/ Neither LILCO's Notice of Appeal from the ASLB's Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning nor its Petition (footnote continued)
1 l KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuei S.', Speck 1 December 26, 1985 l Page 9 ' proceedings in this matter have only concerned LILCO's Plan and LILCO's ability to implement that Plan without governmental participation. Those proceedings have never dealt with any plan involving a response by State or local governments to a Shoreham emergency. Clearly, the NRC can only consider a plan that has been submitted to it and tested in administrative proceedings. The Plan, and its provision for implementation solely by LILCO, is the only emergency response plan that is before the NRC and that has been the subject of litigation. Similarly, FEMA can only review, and conduct an exercise of, an emergency response plan that is before the NRC.9/ A decision to exercise some plan variant that has not been tested in the NRC litigation would be unwarranted and present insurmountable due process problems. Accordingly, we trust that FEMA's Option 2 exercise (footnote continued) for Review of ALAB-818 has cited as error the ASLB's adju-dication that only LILCO's Plan is at issue in these pro-ceedings. Accordingly, that determination is now binding upon all participants in the Shoreham licensing proceed-ing, including FEMA. 9/ See 44 C.F.R. 4350.1 et seq.; 50 Fed. Reg. 15485-88 (April 18, 1985).
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART f
~
Mr. Samuel We Speck December 26, 1985 Page 10 1 involves only the LILCO Plan, as submitted to the NRC. We specifically request that FEMA confirm in writing that the an-ticipated exercise will involve Revision 5 of the Plan, as it is now before the NRC.
- 2. Does FEMA Intend to Exercise Functions LILCO Cannot Legally Perform?
FEMA's October 29, 1985 letter states that an Option-2 exercise would include "all functions and normal exercise ob-jectives." That statement suggests that FEMA does not under-stand the New York State Supreme Court's ruling in Cuomo v. LILCO, supra. That ruling and the Partial Declaratory Judgment entered thereon determined that LILCO cannot legally implement its Plan. The Court's opinion identifies specific functions that are embraced by the Plan, including the following: 1
- 3. Determination of the action to be taken in order to protect the public.
- 4. The declaration of an emergency.
- 5. Notification of the public . . . .
- 6. The instruction of the public by means of EBS messages as to protective measures to be taken, including selective and general evacuation of the EPZ.
- 7. Implementation of traffic control measures in order to evacuate the public along specified routes . . . .
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
~
Mr. Samuel W., Speck December 26, 1985 Page 11
- 9. The removal of stalled cars and other obsta-cles from the roadway by tow trucks.
- 10. The formulation of protective action recom-mendations which are to be broadcast to the public present in the ingestion exposure pathway . . . .
- 11. The making of decisions and recommendations with reference to recovery and re-entry to the EPZ after a nuclear accident.
Cuomo v. LILCO. slip. op., pp. 4-5; N.Y. Law Journal, April 19, 1985, p. 16, col. 5. The Court's opinion holds that LILCO's performance of the functions summarized above and set forth at greater length in LILCO's Plan are " inherently governmental in nature and fall clearly within the ambit of the STATE's police power."10/ The Court found that " implementation of the PLAN amounts to an ex-
- ercise of the police power . . . . The exercise of such power by LILCO wotid . . . violate the public policy of this state."ll/ Accordingly, the Court held that LILCO's efforts to perform the Plan functions listed above would be illegal. The Court also held that no provision of the State Constitution and no state statute authorized LILCO or any other private 10/ Id., slip op., p. 12.
11/ Id., slip op., pp. 14-15.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel W.-Speck December 26, 1985 Page 12 corporation to exercise any portion of the. state's police power; it concluded that any attempted delegation of that po-lice power to LILCO would be an unlawful delegation of govern-mental powers and a violation of the public policy of New York State. Finally, the Court held that LILCO, as a state-chartered corporation, has only those powers specifically conferred upon it. The Court rejected LILCO's claim that it had corporate authority to implement the Plan, and it held that LILCO has no corporate authority to carry out the Plan or to perform basic Plan functions. A fortiori, LILCO has no corpo-rate authority to test its ability to carry out these illegal acts. Thereafter, the New York Supreme Court entered a Par-tial Declaratory Judgment rejecting LILCO's legal authority claims. That Judgment specifically decrees that "the contested acts, enumerated more fully in the complaints, contemplated by LILCO in implementin3 its Plan, are acts which are inherently governmental in nature and are embraced by the State's police powers and are therefore prohibited." Partial D'-laratory Judgment dated March 25, 1985, 92 (attached hereto as Exhibit B).
u KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel h., Speck December 26, 1985 Page 13 The contested acts set forth in the Complaints filed by the County, State, and Town of Southampton enumerate the following specific functions:
- 1. Exercise of basic command and control functions in tha of ite area during a nuclear emergency;
- 2. Determination of how to protect the health, safety and welfare of persons within the EPZ and ingestion pathway;
- 3. Determination of whether EPZ residents should be evacuated or sheltered and, if so, where and how;
- 4. Notification of the public concerning the emer-gency and communication of recommendations concerning evacua-tion or sheltering;
- 5. Direction of any evacuation effort and control and management of evacuation traffic;
- 6. Determination of protective measures throughout the ingestion pathway concerning food, produce and other health and safety issues and notification of the public concerning such measures;
g e KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel W.. Speck December 26, 1985 Page 14
- 7. Determination of decisions concerning recovery and re-entry steps after a nuclear accident and notification of d
the public concerning such decisions. County of Suffolk v. LILCO Complaint, fl7; Cuomo v. LILCO Com-plaint, 1 Fifteenth; Town of Southampton v. LILCO Complaint, 119. Under the terms of the Partial. Declaratory Judgment, LILCO is specifically prohibited from exercising each of the functions set forth above. In light of FEMA's refusal to per-mit State or County representatives to attend the December 12 meeting which we understand involved discussion of activities to be demonstrated during the proposed exercise and in the ab-sence of concrete information about the plans for the proposed exercise, we do not know the precise objectives which are cur-rently under consideration for the proposed exercise. As of February 8, 1985, however, LILCO had asserted that its exercise objectives would include a demonstration of its ability to per-form functions that are specifically prohibited under the Judg-ment in Cuomo v. LILCO.12/ For example, LILCO proposes to test See letter from John D. Leonard, Jr., LILCO, to Harold R. 12/ Denton, NRC, dated November 14, 1984, attached hereto as Exhibit C. This letter was attached to a February 8, 1985 (footnote continued) l
s KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel W.-Speck December 26, 1985 Page 15 T 1 its ability to exercise basic command and control functions in the offsite area during a nuclear emergency. See LILCO's
" Emergency Operations Management" Objectives, Exhibit C at 2-3.13/ Such functions are prohibited under the Partial De-claratory Judgment.
LILCO also seeks to test its ability to determine how to protect the health, safety and welfare of persons within the EPZ and ingestion pathway, including decisions relating to evacuation and sheltering. Again, that is a prohibited func-tion. Thus, LILCO's " Accident Assessment" Objectives include I these prohibited objectives: Demonstrate the ability of both the Shoreham Nu-clear Power Station Emergency Response Organiza-tion and LERO to receive and assess radiological 4 data. (footnote continued) letter from John D. Leonard to Harold R. Denton, which re-iterated LILCO's request for a FEMA graded exercise and indicated that no objectives other than those in the November I4 Leonard letter had been submitted to FEMA /NRC. Both letters were written before the Cuomo v. LILCO deci-sion was rendered. 13/ See, for example, LILCO will " demonstrate the ability of key emergency personnel within the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization and LERO to initi-ate, coordinate and implement timely and effective dect-sions during a radiological emergency and clearly demonstrate who is in charge." (Emphasis supplied.)
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART l Mr. Samuel W.. Speck December 26, 1985 Page 16 Demonstrate the ability of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization and LERO to respectively project and compare dose projections to the public via the plume ex-posure pathway, compare their projections to the Protective Action Guides, available shelter, evacuation time estimates and determine appro-priate action recommendations. Demonstrate the ability of LERO to project doses to the public via the ingestion pathway and to determine appropriate protective measures based on PAG's and other relevant factors. Exhibit C at 3-4. Next, LILCO seeks to test its ability to notify the public in the event of a radiological emergency and to communt-cate to the public its recommendations concerning evacuation or sheltering. Public notification is a prohibited function under the Partial Declaratory Judgment. Indeed, even NRC emergency planning regulations specifically provide that the responsibil-ity for public notification rests with governmental bodies. See 10 C.F.R. Part 50,' Appendix E (IV, D, 3). Thus, LILCO's "Public Alerting and Notification" Objectives include these , prohibited objectives: i Demonstrate that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Sta-
> tion (SNPS) Emergency Response Organization and LERO authorities can effectively provide accurate information to the public in a timely 1
fashion. 1
. . t KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel W.' Speck December 26, 1985 Page 17 Demonstrate the capability of LERO to activate the prompt notification system within 15 minutes of the decision to implement protective actions to simulate using sirens, EBS and tone alert radios. In addition, demonstrate the capability of LERO to implement route alerting and simulate the notification provided by the United States Coast Guard to boaters. Demonstrate the capability of the SNPS Emergency Response Organization and LERO to provide ini-tial and follow up information to the public in a timely fachion. Exhibit C at 3. Finally, LILCO seeks to test its ability to implement an evacuation of the area surrounding Shoreham including the control and management of evacuation traffic, the determination and communication of protective measures throughout the inges-tion pathway, and the determination and communication of deci-sions concerning recovery and re-entry. Even though Cuomo v. LILCO clearly holds that evacuation management is a function that a private company has no legal authority to perform, LILCO's " Actions to Protect the Public" Objectives include the following objectives: Demonstrate the implementation of appropriate protective action response options by LERO, including (all sheltering and evacuation to be simulated): j
- Sheltering and evacuation of offsite areas including schools and special facilities; i l
a o . KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel W: Speck December 26, 1985 Page 18
- Informing the public on the development of the accident and any required protective actions;
- Identification, notification and evacuation of non-institutionalized mobility-impaired persons;
- Analyzing and determining ingestion expo-sure pathway conciderations;
- Provision for removal of impediments from evacuation routes;
- Provision to guide traffic during a simu-lated evacuation;
- Provision to evacuate members of the public without transportation;
- Activation of Reception Center;
- Coordination with the American Red Cross for the provision of Congregate Care Cen-ters.
Demonstrate the capability of emergency person-nel to identify requirements, evaluate data and implement procedures for re-entry. Demonstrate the capability of emergency person-nel to identify requirements, programs and policies governing recovery. Exhibit C at 4. While Cuomo v. LILCO clearly prohibits LILCO trom ex-ercising these functions, LILCO must demonstrate its ability to func-perform these functions in any exercise ithich tests "all tions and normal exercise objectives. FEMA's 35 Core Exercise
e b KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel'W., Speck December 26, 1985 Page 19 Objectives are set forth in FEMA's Modular Format for ^ Uniformity of Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Ob-servations and Evaluations (June 1983), Attachment 2 to Letter from Dave McLoughlin, FEMA Deputy Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support, to Regional Directors, Acting Re-gional Directors, Regions III, V, August 5, 1983. These objec-tives generally set the standard by which graded exercises are measured by FEMA. Such objectives include the following:
- 3. Demonstrate ability to make decisions and to coordinate emergency activities.
- 10. Demonstrate ability to project dosage to the public via plume exposure, based on plant and field data, and to determine ap-propriate protective measures based on PAG's available shelter evacuation time es-timates, and all other appropriate factors.
l
- 11. Demonstrate ability to project dosage to the public via ingestion pathway exposure based on field data, and to determine ap-propriate protective measures based on PAG's and other relevant factors.
I 12. Demonstrate ability to implement protectiye , actions for ingestion pathway hazards.
- 13. Demonstrate ability to alert the public within the 10-mile EPZ, and to disseminate an initial instructional message within 15 minutes.
3
- 14. Demonstrate ability to formulate and dis-tribute appropriate instructions to the public in a timely fashion.
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________l
K RKPATRICK & LOCKHART 4 Mr. Samuer W.. Speck December 26, 1985
~
Page 20
- 15. Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources necessary to manage an orderly evacuation of all or part of the plume EPZ.
- 16. Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources necessary to deal with impedi-ments to evacuation, such as inclement weather or traffic obstructions.
- 17. Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources necessary to control access to an evacuated area.
- 18. Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of mobility-impaired individuals i within the plume EPZ.
- 19. Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of schools within the plume EPZ.
l .
- 21. Demonstrate the ability to make the deci-sion, based on predetermined criteria, whether to. issue KI to emergency workers and/or the general population.
- 22. Demonstrate the ability to supply and ad-minister KI, once the decision has been made to do so.
l
- 35. Demonstrate ability to determine and imple-r ment appropriate measures for controlled recovery and re-entry.
i 1 I 1 I l l
s o KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr.SamuebW.0 Speck December 26, 1985 Page 21 In light of the New York State Supreme Court's ruling in Cuomo v. LILCO, LILCO cannot implement these functions and cannot satisfy any of these FEMA Core Exercise Objectives. Ac-cordingly, there can be no legal basis for the exercise of LILCO's Plan to include "all functions and normal exercise ob-jectives." Given the Cuomo v. LILCO decision and Judgment, the anticipated exercise presents a basic question. Does FEMA in-tend to assist LILCO in carrying out, or testing its ability to carry out, acts or functions that the courts of New York have specifically found (1) that LILCO cannot legally perform; (11) that would violate the public policy of New York State; and (iii) that LILCO has no corporate authority to carry out? In-tervenors trust that the answer is "No." To clarify this issue, however, we specifically request that FEMA state in writing whether an Option 2 exercise (a) will involve functions that the New York State courts have prohibited LILCO from per-forming, or (b) will involve any of the above listed FEMA exer-cise objectives. If FEMA intends to participate in LILCO's ex-ercise of functions prohibited by Cuomo v. LILCO and the Par-tial Declaratory Judgment entered therein, we specifically re-quest that FEMA state the basis for (i) FEMA's purported legal authority to do so and (ii) LILCO's legal authority to carry out such functions.
s KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel N.7, Speck December 26, 1985 Page 22 Assuming that FEMA does not intend to participate in LILCO's exercise of illegal functions, we specifically request ! that FEMA identify in writing those particular functions or FEMA exercise objectives that the anticipated exercise will em-brace.
- 3. Will Private Parties Perform the Roles of State and County Government Officials?
Option 2 states that exercise controllers would,simu-late roles of key State or local officials. That concept is seriously flawed for several reasons. First, as previously noted, the Plan does not specify roles for State or local gov-ernments. In the words of the ASLB Order of June 10, 1983, the Plan relies " wholly upon the services of LILCO personnel for the performance of emergency functions." Because the Plan does not prescribe roles for State or local governmental officials, exercise controllers have no identifiable governmental role to simulate during a Plan exercise. Second, it is clear that no one, except State or County officials, can lawfully identify the roles or actions that governments would take in response to a radiological emer-
, I gency or submit or create a " plan" setting forth those roles.
t 1 k l 4
- 1
6 KIkKPATRICK & LOCKHART
~
Mr. Samue1 E., Speck December 26, 1985 Page 23 See, e.g., May 9, 1983 Letter from Chairman Palladino to Con-r gressman Ottinger ("the Commission agrees with your statement that a utility cannot sub. nit a plan on behalf of the local gov-ernment against the wishes of that local government"); 10 CFR
$3f0.6(b) (FEMA " assistance does not include the actual writing of state and local government plans . . . . "). Thus, any
" plan" or " scenario" written or submitted by LILCO or FEMA, which purports to set forth State or local government responses to a Shoreham emergency, would be unauthorized and without legal basis.
" Third, the intended simulation is apparently premised upon a misconstruction of the County's position and the law ap-plicable thereto. Suffolk County Resolution No. 456-1982 spe-cifically provides that suffolk County "shall not assign funds or personnel to test or implement any radiological emergency response plan" for Shoreham unless that plan has been approved by the Suffolk County Legislature and the County Executive. Ob-viously, neither the LILCO Plan nor any other plan has been so approved. In addition, County Resolution No. 111-1983 specif1-cally provides that the County shall not adopt or implement any 13 cal radiological emergency plan for response to an accident at the Shoreham plant. LILCO has tested the validity of those
6
. i i .
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel' W. Speck , December 26, 1985 Page 24 Resolutions in both federal and state courts. The Resolutions have been upheld as valid, rational, governmental actions. Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, et al. v. County of Suffolk, 604 F. Supp. 1084, 1093-99 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). Moreover, the N.Y. Court of Appeals has held that any test of the LILCO Plan using County resources is illegal under County law. In re Prospect v. Cohalan, 493 NYS 2d 293 (Ct. App. 1985). Accord-ingly, any effort to simulate County actions in implementation-of the Plan would involve a simulation of governmental activi-ties that the Suffolk County government is expressly prohibited from performing due to duly adopted, valid County Resolutions now in force. Such an effort is nonsensical as well as without legal basis. Finally, as previously noted, the New York Supreme Court has held that private parties cannot carry out or arro-gate to themselves governmental functions. Cuomo v. LILCO, supra. If FEMA intends to have private consultants carry out governmental functions, that exercise will conflict directly with the Cuomo v. LILCO holding. To clarify FEMA's intentions in this regard, we spe-cifically request that FEMA identify in writing: (i) what roles will be " simulated" in the anticipated exercise of the Plan; i
k!RKPATRICK & LOCKHART l 1 Mr. Samuel W. Speck December 26,-1985 Page 25 (ii) who will determine the actions to be simulated; (iii) who , will do the actual " simulation"; (iv) whether Suffolk County governmental actions or New York State government actions will be " simulated"; (v) whether there will be simulation of sup-posed actions of Suffolk County personnel despite the fact that Suffolk County personnel, under existing County Resolutions, are prohibited from testing or implementing LILCO's Plan; and [ (vi) whether the roles or actions that will be " simulated" are set forth in the Plan itself. l As indicated above, we request an early and defini-I tive clarification of FEMA's position on the three questions raised in this letter. We wish to determine (1) whether FEMA proposes to undertake an exercise of the LILCO Plan that is the subject of 1.tigation in this proceeding and not of any variant i l or alternative to that Plan; (2) whether FEMA proposes to exer-i cise only those functions that LILCO may legally undertake in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Cuomo v. LILCO: and (3) whether FEMA proposes to simulate Stata or County actions that are not spelled out in the Plan and that the Suffolk County government is prohibited from taking under the terms of valid and existing County Resolutions. If FEMA proposes (1) to
s o e KkRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel W. Speck December 26,'1985 Page 26 participate in an exercise of some plan other than the Plan, (2) to assist LILCO in carrying out functions that are prohib-ited by New York State law or the laws of Suffolk County, or (3) to assist private entities to simulate governmental ac-tions, we wish to be so advised at the earliest opportunity and, in all events, well before any exercise of LILCO's Plan within the jurisdiction of New York State and Suffolk County. Sincerely yours, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Herbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 DJ A rt_a my David A. Brownlee
~
Kenneth M. Argentieri Michael J. Lynch Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, PA 15222 cc Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Stephan B. Latham, Esq. Spence Perry, Esq. Donald P. Irwin, Esq. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
.' . EXHIDIT A l tjMO-1
~~
83 J 13 P2 30 l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges James A. Laurenson, Chainnan Dr. Jerry R. Kline - Dr. M. Stanley Livingston - gll; gi ; 7 c
)
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 83-488-03-OL
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Statior, ) Unit 1) ) June 10, 1983 ,
)
ORDER LIMITING SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS On April 20, 1983, a " Memorandum and Order Denying Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate the Shoreham Operating License Proceeding" LBP-83-22, 17 NRC , was issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Therein, that Board ruled that the Applicant, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), should be allowed the opportunity to prove that, notwithstanding Suffolk County's refusal to participate in preparation or implementation of any radiological emergency plan for that County, adequate protective measures could and would be taken in the event of an emergency at LILCO's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. By an " Order Confirming Adjustment in Schedule to File Contentions," May 5, 1983 (unpublished), that Board revised the submissions schedule imposed upon the parties by that Board's previous ruling. On May ll, this Board o
s 2 was established to preside over the emergency planning portion of this proceeding. The Commission on May 12, 1983 affirmed the Board's denial of Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate this Proceeding. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-13,17 NRC (May 12, 1983). On May 26, 1983, LILCO filed its emergency plan consisting of a series of five alternatives. Under four of those alternatives, offsite emergency procedures would be implemented by LILCO personnel with the participation of a different governmental entity: Suffolk County, State of New York, FEMA, or NRC. To date, LILCO has not established that any ' of these four governmental entities has indicated that it will assume the responsibilities assigned to it pursuant to the LILCO alternative plan that bears its name. LILCO's fifth alternative plan, "The LILCO Transition Plan," would rely wholly upon the services of LILCO personnel for the performance of emergency functions. Intervenors complain, inter alia, that it would be a waste of resources to spend effort to evaluate all five alternatives and to draft contentions as to each when there appears to be no likelihood that the governmental entities designated in the plan would consent to implement any such plan. We also note that we are today denying Suffolk County's request for an eight week extension of time to submit draft contentions. The Board is also concurrently issuing a notice of a prehearing conference in this matter to be heard on July 13, 1983; at that time we will hear all relevant matters raised by the parties and, thereafter, we will rule on the admissibility of emergency planning contentions.
\
3 The Board has considered the reasons advanced by LILCO for filing its plan with five alternatives and the objections by Intervenors to such a procedure. If Intervenors were required to submit contentions as to all five alternatives, this proceeding would suffer a significant delay. Under these circumstances we agree with Intervenors that it would be unproductive to require them to consider and address all five alternatives. Until such time as LILCO can establish that one or more of the governmental entities designated in its energency plan consent to participate in such a venture, the Intervenors need not submit contentions dealing such such alternatives. WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that urtil such time as LILCO can establish the consent of one or more of the governmental entities (Suffolk County, State of New York, FEMA, or NRC) to participate in the relevant function of the LILC0 emergency plan, no party shall be required to file any draft or final contentions dealing with such alternative plans. However, all parties are required to proceed with the plan designated "LILCO Transition" pursuant to the Order of April 20, 1983 as amended by the Order of May 5, 1983. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD D J G. - E5 A . LAUREN W CHAIRMAN d inistrative Law Judge Bethesda, Maryland
E?a. ELECCP*E? 425;25- !-35: 4:Cd '1 , , , , . _ . . . . _ . ..m.. . - .. m. u hXutBIT
..t.u m m . ..B. .~ ,... . . -.~ * . s ICI"II~0TI * - , . . .,.- ,....,,._,. _ ,u._ _ ,,-
r li SOPREME COURT OF THE STATS CF NEW YORK 11 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 10
- - ~
! KARIO M. CUOMO, )
' )
Plaintiff, )
)
-against- )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPMW, )
)
,- De fendant . )
I I COIJNTY OF SUFFOLK, _) Consolidated Index No. 84-4615
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-against- )
)
LON ISLAND LIGHTING COMPM."I, ) ' h , ) Defendant. ) l
) ',
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, ) PARTIAL i
) DECLARATORY JUDOMENT Plaintiff, ) i
)
-against )
I ) j3 LONG ISLAND LICHTING COMPAtlY, )
.! )
' Defendant. )
0 -
)
ll ' 16 Il Plaintiff, Mario '1. Cu o.n o , having filed a Complaint for
'. Declarntory Judgment on . March 8, 1984 in the Supreme Court for l thes Stato of New Yolk, Albnny County, muuking a det:l.ir. Lion (i) l.'; that Long Island Lighting Company's ("LILCO") implementation of II an offsite emergency rumponse plan (the " Transition Olan") for Il. it:s shoreham Nuclear Power Station would be in violation of New n
= - :. E E::s5= as:li- :-is: ; .2 : + : -
2 -i _ 2 . = .
's aa n e sita m. uu ies . e u ano.... 2, m ,,,,,,, ,,, , ,
sa c,a ins asu,am o .a. ,
'~ '
11 II York State law and (ii) that LILCO lacked legal authority to implement the Transition Plan; and . Il 11 ll Plaintiff, County of Suffolk, having filed a Complaint on March 8, 1984 in the Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, seeking a declaration that LILCO's implementation of the Transition Plan is unlawful and illegal under the ' i I I t Constitution and laws of New York State; and . LILCO having moved to dismiss both actions on April 6, , 1984; and
.i.
LILCO having removed both actions to the U.S. District . Court for the Eastern District of New York; and e Plaintiffs thereaftar having moved to remand both actions to the New York supreme Court; and . Il n By Memorandum and Order dated June 15, 1984, the U.S. l
!i District Court for the Eastern District of New York ( Al tiinari, l J.) having granted Plaintiffa' Motion to Remand; and r
Plaintiff, Town of Southampton, havinri filed in Ve ri fl eti that Complaint on May 16, 1984 which sought a declaration (i)
'l .
Gl
e.. :E._scce;d -r:;is- :-15: ..='t : - Ic2-fi cil:= : inc a smaasu aui sama .c sa n = = u - a. a m mo u mon a.n m u unisurus u n y sna m a==a - a - - -,
.: in
[ LILCo's implementation of its Transition Piar would be unlawful and illegal under the Constitution and laws of the state of New , York and (ii) that LILCO lacked the legal aut.'tority to under-Il take such action; and . l Defendant, LILCO, having moved to dismiss Southampton's 1984; and Complaint by Notice of Motion dated June 29, . in Following remand of the Cuomo and County actions to this Court and upon stipulation of all parties, the actions . filed by Plaint 2ffs Cuomo, County of Suffolk and Town of Southampton having been consolidated in the supreme Court of - the State of New York, Suffolk County, as Consolidated Index No. 84-4615: and LILCO having renewed its Motion to Dismise Plaintiffs' Il actions on August 13, 1984 pursuant to Section 3311(a)(2) and i. l,'I ( 7 ) of the CPLR on the ground that (1) the Court lacked subject g il' matter jurisdiction because the actione did not present a the Complaints failed to state
/ ju:sticiable controversy and (11) a cause of action because New York law did not prohibit LILCO forth in the Transition Plan;
' f rom perforniing the functions set y'and i
ii l
-3 ,
e 6
EFO. TELE:CF IEP Ji.5;15- -55; -; ;!P' ; - 201 51 C52;= eco sanaanseus aimme "naicain m ou s m o u.un o u w.a t uatini 14t A e tt i g M t ma % .MQ a n h* u.a m s m .m a
. . l j
l 1 Plaintiffs having filed a Cross Motion pursuant to N Sectione 2215 and 3211(c-) of the CPLR requesting that the Court (i) treat LILCO's pending Motion to Dismise as a motion for l Summary Judgment and (ii) grant summary judgment in favor of fPlaintiffe; and Ali parties having entered into a Stipulation to make a y part of the record in this came LILGO's Transition Plan ll (Revision 3) consist 2ng of: (1) a volume entitled "Shoroham Nuclear Power Station -- Local Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan"; (ii) a two-volume set designated "Offsite Preparedness Implementing Procedures" and (iii) a volume entitled " Appendix A -- Evacuation Plan"; and Plaintiffe having cubmitted the Affidavite of Martin Bradley Ashara, Esq. dated September, 1984, Gregory C. Minor ' If Palomino, Esq. dated dated Septentbar 5, 1984, and Fabian G. ll September 12, 1984 in support of their Cross Motion for Summary 11 Judgment; LILCO having submitted the Affidavat of Matthew C. i l i Cordaro dated August 13, 1984 in support of its Motion to il} Dismiss; and all parties have agreed in open court that (i) for
. purponen of addressing the LII.C0 Motion to Dimmina baueril on r.he .
t.hu Court could. if O lack of a justiciablo controvurey.
'Inecessary, look to the pleadings and affidavits filed by the j
e
~
. l
)
. 1
)
- . : 4.c .: -:.a:- .-::; -..:-> . -
_ ;-: .:. .. : _ ; = - . . o . ima ni 4 vi n .a.i "m i m as = eu u z u . n o m.m4_4 s w t e t - ' V ~ ' ~ ~ "
~ , ,.
- z n .
I f parties as to whether the State of New York and Suffnik County would, in fact, respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, and (ii) for purposes of resolving any material issue - of fact which might exist as to whether LILCO, in implement 2ng I its proposed Transition Plan, would be undertaking actions which might be characterized as the exercies of compulsion, and therefore the exercise of impermissible governmental police p power, the Court could look to the text of the Plan itself and ! I the affidavits submitted by the parties, and (iii) that ot ho r-wise, there were no material facts in dispute with regard to issues presented by LILCO's Motion to Dismins; and [ A pretrial conference having been held on September 18. . 1985 for the purpose of determining which issues should be I addrenced in further briefs, wlah Plaintiffs arguing that all issues, including questions of federal preemption, should be y briefed and resolved simultaneously, and LTLCO arguinn that LILCO's Motion to Diamlas based on (i) lack of a justiciable l l controversy and (12) LILCO's authority under state law to carry , out actions contemplated under the Transition Plan should be ! i p resolved prior to consideration of any other issues rassed.
.t I
!! including federal praemption; and l p By order dated October 2, 1984, the Court having 4
e I
_. c.= . r . s- ...._; -;;, -..;- .
. ......- ...-.. ..-... .- ...- .. ~ ..; - . -.....-...... - .-..- .
. n a
I'f I determined that it tiotild dispose of the issue.s presented [ 6eparately anQ Would first addre8S 7 the justiciable Controversy { issue and the issue of LILCO's legal authority under state labi to carry out its Transition Plan; and ! i ts Bl Pursuant to'that Order, all parties having subtnitted extensive Briefs, Memoranda and supporting exhibits and having had a full opportunity to be heard on the issue of lit,CO'n a' legal authority under state law to carry out its Plan; and il y This Court having heard oral argument of tha parties on January 15, 1988; and l' All parties having had a full opportunity to be heard. ' the Court, upon consideration of the.LILCO Transition Plan and the pleadings, atipulatione, affidavits, briefs and arguments i of the parties, having rendered a decision on February 20, 1985 ilfdenyingDefendant'spendingMotiontoDi,smisaandgrantingpar-
!' tial sum?.ary judgment in favor of Plaintiffa I and against Defen- -
.t; dant in each of the consolidated casen, and directing settle- f Il gi m u n t of judgment; n
MOW, on motion of Martin Bradley A. share. County i ei Attorney, County of Suffolk, and Kirkpatr2ck & Lockhart, il e si .
. .c . c.c. -:._: -::. -.ar.. . -
... : .:.=
g g g giam an a e ina na . a. . J en na a in m a a - r g,gg4,ggg g aam- e t , , am a n-, a e em e e se e n a 2__ ma gJ
- _s a am n- , a m an e r; e ,, e r i 1a a a
~ .
I.': Attorneys for Plaintiff, Suffolk County, Fabian G. Palomino, [SpecisiCounsel to the Governor of New York State, and Robert lAbrams,AttorneyGeneralofthestateofNewYork, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Mario M. Cuomo, and Twomey, Latham and Shea, , Attorneys for Plaintiff, Town of Southampton, and over the objection of Hunton & Williams, Attorneye for LILCO, to the entry of this Partial Declaratory Judgment, such objection
, being duly noted, it is I ORDERED. ADJUDCED AND DECREED; }
i
- 1. The Court declares that a justiciable controversy ,
exists as to whether LILCO has legal authority under stata law to execute the Transition Plan.
- 2. The Court declares that by reason of operation of Executive Law Sect 2ons 22(3)(b) and (c), 23(7)(b) and (c),
! 28(1), 28(2)(a) and (b), 28-Al Penal Law section 195.05; Public Health Law Sections 206(1)(k), 201(1)(r), 201(1)(1), 1110, ,
206(1)(a); Vehicle and Traffle Law sections 1110, 1114 1002: Section 30 of the Transportation Corporations Law; and Agricul-5, tuvo anti MarRote I.aw Gectiona 16 ( :!4 ) , 36(27). ( 16 ( 3 ', ) , 71 - f., . I Ju U 202-B, and by further reason of the polico power i nh e n ' n 8- . l the : state and local governpient pursuant to New York State I: 7 e 1
E:0 TELE:CF E5 495:25- I-55: : l l rt : - Ic; 7; cy;;= - e e Constitution Articles III and IX; Municipal Home Rule Law Section 10; and Executive Lat article 2-B, the contestod acts, enumerated more fully in the Complaints, contemplated by LILCO l . I in implementing its Transition Plan are acts which are inher-ently governmental in nature and are embraced by the State's police power, and are therefore prohibited.
- 3. The Court declaras that the New York State '
constitution, Article IX, Section 2, and the New York Mun2cipa1 , Home Rule Law, Section 10.la(12) delegate the State's police power to local governments, including specifically the County and Town. l
- 4. The Court declares that New York State law, including specifically Executive Law, Article II-B, does not delegate the State's police power to LILC0 empowering LILCO to
'l 9 implement the Transition Plan.
f ,
- 5. The court declares that LILCo, as a corporation, ,
- 1 f possesses only those powers that have been conferred upon it by hthelawoftheStateofitsincorporation. The New York Stato
- Transportation Corpneation Law anel the Ne.W York Stato lhesineu l
l! Corporation Law do not expressly or impliedly authorim ol' era-l! power LILCO to exercise guvornmental powerr. in implurne n t.i ng the , d Transition Plan. II . . et *
- + TELElGNcP *:: - A- :: -'-" * -
,.,m..-m.._. ......- - .
.a_u - . .
-. 7 - *.- - " - -
~. *
... . :~*
g,r.:. ,
'l
- ? M.....
6. Defendaht's Motion to Dismies Plaintiffs' Complainta pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (7) is hereby e' DENIED;
,1 7.
Plaintiffs' Cross Motion to convert Defendant's t Motion to Dismise to a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby CRANTED:
'i 8.
The Court declares that this judgment is a partial ' I declaratory , judgment that does not resolve all the issues in ! l this litigation. Judgment is expressiy reserved as to riny da- ' fansen that may be raised, including federal preemption, o j 9. g '.tr/{ S/,ffi--t (if.sg j f' Defendant shall within twenty (20) days?N y, gg f 7/s r . r: f M A y e44emy of this Partial Declaratory Judgment Mcr -'
- n y. . , -( V C.
f.$ AHSw ll clon.pukeery co//t l unt+eclaima._ag raita or renew any defenses that i t "-'j M - +Mn--IMS, 2:g peding n Complaints, inchding the aosus of- ' t fedecel p eo p u eft, *nd- shall'*ftie its Memorandum of Law in -
~
at&rt the:st, and Pl =tnti"fr r,hati-"fils their mrply Brzef -in , respons+-thasa.ta.within twenty (20) days of service of Defen- ' dant M'Il*% h .._, 4
-9 ~
9
E*0 TELE;OF:EF . }$; 15- - 5 ; J : i"F' t ; - IC2 52 C52;::;.; s
.. . . . ... . . , . . . . . . . . ..........-....... c.. ...av.m..ca.. = . = :s i:.s............,. .. .
- a. :. . .
ll ENTER: . n. A/
. - - A .
Justice of the Supreme Cotirt Stffolk County g Judgment entered this d'Y Of , 1985
.f.i .
8 Clee rk ll s . 11 II . ll l' 11 n ; e
- b 5.
a 8 11 . Il lf e S l
'. ,10 I
l 1
t l s > EXHISIT C -
, 1. -
[ *
\
$,2f l ':.
l g j
*M
/
e
' LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY SHOREMAM NUCl EAR POWER STATION i
i e. . som eie. =oava countav moao . wamine nivsm. m.v. $t tes b >s maae o 6 o=ano.en. li m e.u.ese mua msam t .*
)
November 14, 1984 SNRC-1107 I . i i Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
} U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j washington, D.C. 20555
]
Exercise Objectives for Emergency Plan Exercise [(3 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1
-a Docket No. 50-322 3
H
Dear Mr. Denton:
i
- Attached for your review and forwarding to the Federal Emergency i Fanagement Agency pursuant to the FEMA-NRC Memorandum of 8 Understanding dated as of November 1, 1984, 45 Fed. Reg. 02713 j (1980), is a statement of objectives to be demonstrated at an
. exercise of the Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Plan and the Local E..ergency Response organization (LERO) Plan. This attach. Tent is
",j in two parts:
first, a statement, in LILCO's teres, of the 1 objectives of the exercise labeled "LERO Ob]ectives", and second, j a correlation of these objectives with the standard FEMA
- Core Ob]eettves."
d It is being submitted to you in order to support a 4 s; graded exercise which LILCO is planning for the week of February 11, 1985.
- LILCo has also developed three potential scenarios fer the exercise, which have been kept under security provisions. We
.j would appreciate your transmitting this document promptly to FEMA and your good offices in arranging the prelle: nary e.eet nq neces-J sary to commence the detailed planning process for the exercises.
il* If you have any questions, please contact this off:ce. Very truly youra, 9, -
'} ,
(
*fI...g -
Ij - 4 Jo n D. Leonard, Jr. QW)
'I Vice I President - Nuc' ear erations 4 RWC:ck
-}. Attachment
, cc: P. Eselgroth C. Petrone (FEMA Region II) i Robert DeYoung (I6El i Edward Jordan (I&E1
, All Parties Listed in Attachment I 3
, , . ( (
Attachment I
?
I. - James A. Laruenson, Chairman Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq., Attornev Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Scarh U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Panel East-West Tower, Room 402A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Hwy. East-West Tower, North Tower Pethesd,a , MD 20814 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
) Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
.' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Attorney
- East-West Tcwer, Room 427 Suffolk County Department of Law
. 435n East-West Hwy. Veterans Memorial Highway
[ Bethesda, MD 20814 Hauppauge, NY 11787
; Mr. Frederick J. Shon Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christopher McMurray, Esq. East-West Tower, Room 430 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill 4350 East-West Hwy. Christopher & Phillipa Bethesda, MD 20814 8th Floor 1900 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036
- Secretary of the Commission i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'. Washington, DC 20555 MMB Technical Associates
; 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal San Jose, California 95125
, Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, DC 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Atcmic Safety and L'icensing Board Empire State Plaza Pa.nel Albany, NY 12223 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department cf Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Public Service David A. Repka, Esq. 3 Rockefeller Plaza Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Albany, NY 12223 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road (to mailroom) Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Bethesda, MD 20814 Special Counsel to the C:ver.:: Executive Chamber, Rcen 229 State Capitol Stewart M. Class, Esq. Albany, NY 12224 Pegional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 rederal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, NY 10278
**s We _ waneggge m ed.M *WD9.* e s. m .ae e - . emmo ss enummes . _ eacammums**.mmum
* *me .eges .**08
( (
., ' Attachment I g' rage 2 ,
) . .
; stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Gerald C. Crotty I 33 West Second Street Counsel to the Governor ) P.O. Box 398 Executive Chamber State Capitol
- Riverhead, NY 11901 Albany, NY 12224 j James Dougherty, Esq.
3045 Porter Street Spence W. Perry, Esq.
,4 Washington, DC 20008 Associate General Counsel 2 Federal Emergency Management Age..cy 500 C Street, SW Rona 840 l Ms. Nora Bredes Washington, DC 10472 y Executive Coordinator i
Shoreham Opponents Coalition
} 195 East Main Street j Smithtown, NY 11787 1
I J
.. "***:"'-~~'-
.=T':?~.~.~.~~~~.'.~=.*=*********~~-
-~~'a*--- -~
{ ( [ LILC0 SHCRENAM/LERO PLAW
. A, Emergency Response Facilities and Equipment
? -
- 1. Demonstrate the prompt activation, adequacy of the staffing and
~ set up as appropriate of emergency response facilities as follows:
I o Shoreham Wuclear Power Station Control Room o Shoreham Wuclear Power Station Technical Support Center j o Shoreham Wuclear Power Station Operations Support Center
; o Shoreham Wuclear Power Station Energency Operations Facility
- o Local Emergency Response Organization Energency Operations i Center in Brentwood (LER0 E0C)
. g. o Local Emergency Response Organization Staging Areas in Riverhead, Patchogue and Port Jefferson (LERO SA) o Energency News Center (ENC) j o Emergency Worter Decontamination Facility
' 2. Demonstrate the Shoreham Wuclear Power Station corr.unication capabilities among the Control Rocsi, Technical support Center, Emergency Operations Facility, Operations Support Center, and
;, the Emergency News Center.
', 3. Demonstrate the capability to consnunicate effectively between Shoreham Wuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization i
and LERO.
't 4 Demonstrate effective corsnunications among the LER0 EOC in
- Brentweed, and the various itaging 3reas, the Emergency News Center and among Staging Areas, Tus Transfer Points. Traffic l' Controi Points and Field locations.
- 5. Demonstrate the ability of the Shorehart Nuclear Pcwer Station.
and LERO coer.unications to:
; o Perform a 24-hour per day notification ; o Transmit accurate and timely inferination l 6 Devonstrate the ability of the Shoreham Wuclear Power Station j Emergency Response Organization and LERO to deploy, coordinate and control radiological sonitoring teams, a
i 7. Demonstrate exposure control capabilities for onsite corre:tive
} action teams. ; 8. Demonstrate coerunication of technical infor ation to the Nuclear Regulatory Cossnission via the NRC hotlines.
f.. . 1
..........~
~~~": . . . ~ ..-. . . 4:
* ~ ~ '
( (
- 9. ' Demonstrate the adequacy of internal communications within the Energency Response Facilities as defined in A.1 above.
- 10. Demonstrate adeousey of facilities and displays to support emergency operations.
k 8. Notification and Mobilitation of Key Personnel and Staff
- 1. Demonstrate the ability of the Shoreham Wuclear Power Station i
staff to properly classify actual or potential emergencies in
; accordance with LILCO Emergency Plan loplamenting Procedures.
- 2. Demonstrate the capability of the Shorthas Muclear Power Station
! Leergency Response Organization to notify the Local Energency i Response Celanization (LER0) through the estabitshed notification systas.
! 3. Demonstrate the capability of the Shoreham Wuclear Power Station
; Emergency Response Organization and LERO to notify emargency 4
response personnel. I 4 Demonstri e the capability of the Shoreham Wuclear Power Station [ Emergene, Response Organization and LERO to aobtiize staff and activate the toergency response facilities in a timely canner i and maintain staffing around the clock.
$ 5. Demonstrate, as appropriate the ability to identify the need
, for, notify and request assistance from Federal agencies.
. 6. Demonstrate, as appropriate, the notification of and coordination with counties and states within the ingestion 6
pathway EPZ and witn agencies such as FEMA, WRC, DCE, Red Cross, i Federal Aviation Administration, and Coast Guard.
- C. Daee;ency Coerations Manage-ent
- 1. Deecnstrate the capability of the Shoreham Wuclear Powe- Statien Emergency Response Organization and LERO to implement their radiological emergency preparedness plans.
- 2. Demonstrate the ability of key emergency personnel within the Shoreham Wuclear Power Station Emergency Response Organization and LER0 to initiate, coordinate and irplement timely and effective decisions during a raciological emergency anc clearly demonstrate 'who is in charge.'
4 2
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . _ _ ..- -.. . - ..- ~_ . . . - - .-
(
- 3. ' Dummstrate that there is effective organizatier.a1 di:vetien aM camtrol arsi integrated radiological em29ency res;xnse irclud:.nq deploy-ent of field trenitors, acquisition, receipt and analys s of field data.
- 4. Denenstrate the capability to ceerdinata actions (intemally/
i externally) anong organizatims in order to obtain support and to saka apprepriata decisions.
. 5. Denonstrate the capability of responsible personnel to recxrrerd j and/or brplerent apprcpriata protective actions.
D. Public Alertire a.M Netificatim - I j
. 1.
Derenstrate that the Shorsham Welear Power Staticn (SNPS) Dner-gercy Respcr.se Organizaticri ars! IDO authorities can effectively provide accurata informaticri to the public in a tinely fashion. i *2. Derenstrate the capability of IDO to activate the prempt retifi- ! cation system within 15 minutes of the decision to inplement prtrtective actions to sirulate using sirena, EBS and tme alert radios. In addition, dancr. strate the capability of Ico to irplerant rcuta alerting and sirulate Os notificaticm provided by the t.hited States Coast CL:ard to boetarr*.
- 3. Derenstrate the capability of the SNPS D'ergency Ans;cr.se Orgard-zation at:1 IDO to provide initial and follow up infonnaticm to the public in a tirely fashicm.
1 E. Public and %!dia Melatiens ! l
. 1. Durca. strate staffing of the Dvrgercy News Center by ShcMm I Nuclear PtMer Statien Dv.rgwq iespense Organization ard IDO i perscr.nel arr! the capabilaiv ,,: Assue occ:dirated ;mricxiie pt:: lie infOzmat.1CE rele4 Sea.
- 2. Durcr. strate ability to provide r.rcr centr:1 and responses to I irq.:iries frern the general pub 1:.e in a coerde.ated fash =.
- 3. Derenstrata the ability to provide clear, tiely a .d acerate briefings to the news redia c.td public relative to the are.v.cy at the Shore.han kelear PcMtr Statacm. l F. Accident Assess ent l l
- 1. Derenstrate the ability of both the S?creha:. Nuclear Poie.- Stat.;= l D'e.w Respense Organization and IDO to receive arxi assess radiological data.
- 2. Dere . strate the ability of ShcM.a:- Nuclear Pewtr Station Dergency Bespea.se organization and IDO to respectively pre ect and ex:rpare dose pro;ecticr.s to the public via the phre ex; cree pat?nvey, acrpare their p:c;ections to the Pretective Action i CAlides, available shelter, evac.;ation ti e esti. ates and deter- ane I apprepriate protective action re<xrrendations. I i
l I
. . , . _ . . .s . _. ... l
l ( (
- 3. Detenstrate the ability of IDO to project doses to the public via the ingestion patMy and to detama.ne appropriata protective sensures based cm PAG's and other relevant factors.
- 4. Decmstrate the activation, equipent and precedures of both the ShoreNun Nuclear Pwer Staticn Drargency Response Organizaticn aM
- IDD field rad.tatien ironitoring tems, l
! 5. Dam:nstrate the ability of in-plant personnel to safely draw aM i l analyze post-accident liquid and gaseous suples. l 6. Derenstrata equipent and procedures forfmasurennt of airborne radiciedine concentrations as lw as 10 uCi/cc in the presance of noble gases. C. Actions to Protmet the Public
- 1. Deronstrate the irplanantation of appropriata protective actien
, respcase optir.s by IDO, includs.ng (all sheltering and evacuation to be sim21stad):
- sheltering and evacuatien of offsita armas includ2.ng schools' and special facilities:
- Infoe.irq the public cm the develcyrant of the accident and any recruired protective acticms;
- Identificaticn, not.ificatien and evacuation of non-institu-tionalized m2ility-arpaired persons
- Analyzing and detae.itu.ng angestion exposure pat.Nay ecmsideratiens:
- Provisicn for rwoval of irpedirents frt:rn evacuation routes
- Prevision to garde traffic during a sir-alated evacuatien;
- Provision to evacuata nurte.rs of the public without transportatist;
- Activaticn of Reception Canter:
- Ccerdination with the Arerican Rad Cross for the previsien of Ccngregate Care Centers.
- 2. Dertr. strate the capability of surgency perscnnel to identify req.:.rements, evaluate data and 2.pleent preceires fer re-e.ntry.
- 3. Derenstrata the capability of surgency persornel to identify requitwents, programs ardpolicies governing recovery.
- 4. Dart:nstrate ability to effect an orderly evacuation of protected area personnel (on site caly) .
- 5. Deronstrate adequacy of procedures fer registratien and radiologic.al ronitori.ng of evacuees (off sits cnly) .
i
- e
(
.a H. - Noelth. Medical and Exposure Control Measures
- 1. Demonstrate the decision making process for limiting exposure of emergency workers. l
- 2. Demonstrate processing of local energency worters and vehicles through personnel sonitoring and decontamination facility.
.' 3. Demonstrate the decision asking process for recommending the use 1
of Potassia lodide for energency worters. I 4 3 Deennstrate methods and resources for distributing dosimetry nnd d thyroid blocting agents, if appropriate. to emergency worters. j 5. Demonstrate the record keeping of radiation exposure and use of i dosimetry and thyroid blocking agents for the protection of emergency workers. t 6 Deeenstrate knowledge, on the part of the emergency worter, of j destantry and Potassim fodide usage procedures and of the 8 individual authorized to allow worker exposures above
, permissible limits.
f 5'
. l I
I L ! I I l
. . . . . . . , , - -- g g.g g. .y.,.x 7 - 5 :,,y. ___ _ . - , ,g. c y - , , .:,, w =r ' -
\
T.' e'- . ; ( (
- c. .
l
' LILC0 i SMORENK7tTR0 PLAN l
- EYERCI5L OBJECTIVE wcRx5HEET
..ii
>M '
. FEMA I LERO Cort h jective* 10bjective(s)
I l 1. Demonstrate ability to anbilize staff and activate i B.4 i facilities promptly. l
- l g
- 2. Demonstrate ability ta fully staff facilities and i A.1, 5.4 i maintain staffing around the clock. l
. 1 I
! 3. Demonstrats ability ta aske decisions and to I C.2 I . coordinata energency activities. ! ,
s !
? l l i 4. Queenstrate adequacy of facilities and displays I l A.10 l to support emergency operations. l
; i 1
- 5. Demonstrate ability to ecomunieate vith all i A.3,4,6 appropriate locations, organizations, and field I personnel . I i l l, 6. Demonstrate ability to mobilize and deploy field i A.6
; sonitoring teams in a timely fashion. l
- I i l i 7. Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures i F.4 for detersining ambient radiation levels. l
. l I
-! 8. Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures l F.6 for measurement of airtporne adiciodine l
[ l concentrations as low as 10- uC1/CC in 1 i the presence of noble gases. ! l I . I f
- Source - Modular Format for Uniformity of Radiological Emergency i
Preparedness E.xercise eservations and Evaluations (June 1983) Attactenent 2 to letter frea Dave McLoughlin (Deputy Associate Director, State and Local
- Progeses Support) to Regional Directors. Acting Regional Directors, Regiens l !!!, Y; Concerning Procedural Policy on Radiological Emergency Preparedness
. Plan Reviaws, Exercise Observations and Evaluations, and Interim Find-:ngs.
. . . . . . . .v m . ,. v. _ . = , ,~ r. mm a., _ . _ _
. (
LILCD j ~
. SHOREHF7ETR0 Pt.AW
, EXERCISE OBJECT!YE WORKSHEET
?
I FEMA l 15 0 3 Core Objective 10bjective(s )
- I
- 9. Demonstrate appropriata equipment and procedures for i j collection, transport and analysis of samples i
; of soil, vegetation, snow, water, and eilt.
)
-y 1 4 I
. 10. Demonstrata ability to project dosage to the public I F.2 1 via plume exposure, based on plant and field data, I y
and to detersine appropriate protective esasures based on PAG's, available shelter evacuation time
- l estimates, and all other appropriata factors i I I
4- 1
- I d
- 11. Demonstrata ability to project dosage to the public I F.3 i via ingestion pathway exposure based on field data, I
( and to detamine appropriata protective measures I based on PAC's and other relevant factors. I
?', I l
- 12. Demonstrate ability to implement protective actions for l l l ingestion pattaray hazards. l I 1
-i* I :'
1 13. Deaonstrate ability to ale'.t the pelic within the 1 0.2, 3 10-eile EPZ, and disseeinata an initial l ; instructional message within 15 minutes. I I
- I l
14 Deeenstrata ability to fomulata and distributa l D.1, E.3, appropriata instructions to the public in G.1 i a timely fashion. I
- 1 i
- 15. Queenstrate the organizational ability and resources i G.1 necessary to manage an orderly evacuation I of all or part of the plume EPZ.
i I t
- l I
. .. . . . . . . . . , . _ ... - ---.~.- - - - - - .
. i e *e
- 3 1 ~
L1LC0
, SHORIHK7CIllo PLAN EXERCI5E OBJECTIVE WORXSHEET I
i - FEMA . LEAo 3 Core Objective objective!s)
$ I i 15. Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources l E.1 1
) necessary to deal with tapediments to evacuation, j such as inclement weather or traffic obstructions.
I l l T 2 1
- 17. Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources 1 j necessary to control access to an evacuated area.
l 1 l j 18.
- Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources l E.1
- . necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of (
} mottlity-tapaired individuals within the plume EPZ. 1 l
I 2 l t 19. Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources i G.1 s necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of ~ j. schools witAin the pine EPI. _ t I 20. 1-
.! Osmonstrata ability to continuously monitor and control H 5, 6 ti energency worker exposure.
' I 21 . Demonstrate the ability to make the decision, based on l H.3 predetaruined critaria, whether to issue K! to j energency worters an.d /or the general population.
4 ~ 1 I 22. Demonstrate the ability to supply and administer i H.4 i KI, once the decision has been made to do so. I
! l
$ I
- 23. Dumonstrate ability to effect an orderly' evacuation l G.4 I of ensita personnel. I j l I
{ 24. Demonstrata ability to brief the media in a clear, l E.3
; accurata and timely manner. l
' l I
t. 4 I i 1 . . . . . ... -
- , . . . . . . . . , . . - - . = w sa..- .,..~ _ _ - . = ,-
f . . ,
, .,,...- ( (
i.
, , L!LCO
; SHOREMAR7EERO PLAN i EXEncT3t. iBJECTIVE WORK 5HEET,
?
1 . i - 1 FDE ' LERO j Com Objective Objective (s) - t I 2 i 25. Demonstrate ability to provide advance coordination E.1 3 of inforention released.
- I 1 f 26. Demonstrate ability to establish and operata rumor E.2 i control in a coordinated fashion.
t 1
- 27. ; Demonstrate adequacy of procedures for registration i G.5 .
and radiological monitoring of evacuees. l I ' s 1 I ; j 28. Demonstrate adequacy of facilities for mass care l of evacuees. l
) I i I
- 29. Demonstrate adequata equipment and prc<edurws i H.2 i
i for decontamination of energency worters, l i equipment and vehicles. l 1 1
! 30. Demonstrate adequacy of ambulance fact 11ttes and pro. l cedures for handitag contaminated individuals. !
I* ) I l l* 1
- 31. Deeonstrate adequacy of hospital facilities and l
. procedures for hand 11ag contastnated individuals. I I
i. I
! 32. Demonstrata ability to identify need for, request. 1 C.4 and obtain Federal assistance. I i !
- 33. Damenstrata ability to relocate to and operata the IMot alternate EOF /E0C. japplicable
- I
! I
- 34. Besonstrata ability to estimata total population exposure. ,
I i 35. Demonstrate ability to detamine and toplement i G.2. 3 appropriate measums for controlled recovery I and reentry. l Data: 11/9/8a 1
, W KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART ()
1900 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M ONE BOSTON PLAC1
., soSTUN. MA 02108 N (202) 852M (613 973 900 mn 4e2n Hrw u i.2a sarxzu. avam.t TELECOPER (202) 452@S2 m pt 3g3g 0 05) 3744 112 ism ouvtm eaunc N j. N PfTT38ULCH. PA 15222 (202: 452.m December 30, 1985 ,4u, m m BY TELECOPIER Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278
Dear Stewart:
One of the enclosures to your letter of December 20, 1985 indicates that there has been a substantial amount of correspondence between FEMA and LILCO concerning objectives for the proposed January 29 tabletop exercise and the February 13 exercise of the LILCO Plan for Shoreham. See "IV. Proposed Milestone Dates for the Completion of the Exercise Scenario" which shows the following: Proposed Date Activity 11/25/85 FEMA provides the utility with the proposed exercise objectives 12/4/85 Utility will advise FEMA in writing about suggested modifications to the exercise objectives, if any 12/6/85 Proposed exercise objectives and utility comments / modifications are submitted to the Regior.al Assistance Committee for review and comments 12/13/85 Taking into account the utility input and RAC comments, FEMA will provide the utility with the revised exercise objectives. In addition, FEMA provides LERO [ sic] a list of items to be demonstrated (e.g., number of TCPs, evacuation routes, etc.).
4 O IGRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Stewart M. Glass, Esq. December 30, 1985 Page 2 ~'., In the past, LILCO's proposed exercise objectives and related correspondence with NRC/ FEMA were provided to the NRC service list, and thus to the County, State and Town of Southampton as a routine matter. See, e.g., November 14, 1984 Letter from John D. Leonard to Harold R. Denton (SNRC-1107) with copies to C. Petrone and service list; December 19, 1984 Memorandum from Edward L. Jordan to Richard W. Krimm, with copies to service list; February 8, 1985 Letter from John D. Leonard, Jr. to Harold R. Denton (SNRC-1133) with copies to Richard Krimm and service list. As parties to the Shoreham license proceeding, the State, County and Town of Southampton are entitled to receive copies of such materials, particularly in light of their right to litigate the results of an exercise as articulated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 815 (1985). To date, however, we have received no information, copies of correspondence, or other documents concerning the proposed or actual objectives of the January 29 tabletop exercise or the February 13 exercise, even though, according to the proposed milestone dates you provided, such objectives have been the topic of considerable recent correspondence and discussion. Accordingly, on behalf of the County, the State, and the Town of Southampton, I request that you provide copies of all documents and correspondence concerning the proposed or actual objectives for the January 29 and February 13 exercises as soon as possible. In addition, the copy of Revision 1 of FEMA Guidance Memorandum No. 17 which you sent me is missing the second page of Attachment II (which apparently discusses objectives 11-19). Please provide a copy of that page. Sincerely,
/
Karla . Letsche KJL:so cc: Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
~
~,
Petan F. COMALAN surrOLn cocNTv exscuTive 4 l MANTIN sRADLay AsHAns OP:PARTMENT OF LAW COUNTY ATTORNEY AcoRese ALLCOeseepsenGATOne
. =rwi. nA m a m 1
January 2,1986 s Samuel E. Speck Associate Director State & Local Programs & Support Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C. Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20472
Dear Mr. Speck:
Your December 17 letter provides no satisfactory response to my letter of December 3. You have invoked an all-encompassing shield of secrecy around the proposed Shoreham exercise. Such secrecy is completely improper for the vast majority of Shoreham-related meetings and docu-ments, and consititutes a furtherance of FEMA's efforts to impose an exercise of LILCO's plan over the objections of State and local governments. In your letter you purport to be sensitive to the County's concerns. However, you'make unwarranted assump-tions regarding the County's " participation" in a Shoreham exercise and never respond directly to the matters raised in my December 3~1etter. I find it necessary, therefore, to correct your statements and assumptions and to request again that there be a prompt agreement by FEMA to eliminate the unwarranted secrecy with which FEMA is proceeding. 1 You state that "[wle recognise the concerns of both-the County and State in the exercise requested by the NRC." FEMA may " recognize the concerns" but FEMA has pro-vided no reasoned explanation why it continues to plan for an exercise of an emergency plan which LILCO cannot imple-ment and for a plant that has been denied an operating license. It is not enough for FEMA to hide behind an NRC
" request." FEMA is not " obligated" under its Memorandum of Understanding or its regulations to conduct an exercise undsr these circumstances. FEMA owes a detailed explanation TOQJJe) b6Eh6CRIA6 aft $MWAY E M AQ,P AQGS. edEW YORGE I $ TSS 5 (3)$l M $
e
l
~
January 1, 1986 I Samuel E. Speck Page 2 l of why it is proceeding on its present course over State and i local government objections. In this connection, I trust l that there will be a prompt and complete reply to the letter ! to you dated December 26, 1985, from David A. Brownlee, l 4 counsel to Suffolk' County. 2 Suffolk County will not participate in an exercise of LILCO's Plan. This was made clear in the County Executive's letter to the NRC of November 7, 1985, my letter to you dated November 12, 1985 and Mr. Brownlee's letter of December 26. This was further reiterated in the December 24, 1985 Motion of suffolk County, New York State and the Town of Southampton for Cancellation of the Emergency Plan- , ning Exercise. Therefore, the only " participation" which i Suffolk County will have in the exercise or in events lead-ing up to it will be as a party in the Shoreham proceeding seeking to protect its ability to represent its citizens in any proceeding which may be held to consider the adequacy or relevance of the exercise.
- 3. The County does not accept or agree with FEMA's assertion that County personnel can be present at certain " scenario developpment" meetings or review certain
" scenario development" documentsFEMA only ife "penchant commitments for secrecy on confidentiality" are received.
is unbecoming and serves only to foster a further lack of trust on Shoreham matters. Suf folk County will not be part of any such secrecy.
- 4. If FEMA believes certain meetings and docu-ments -- specifically those related to scenario development
-- need to be kept confidential, the County requests that .
FEMA explain specifically the criteria which are being applied to shield some meetings and documents from public scrutiny. In this regard, we note that matters such as
" exercise objectives" have always been pubic in the past; there would be no reason to shield them from review prior to a Shoreham exercise. Thus, your statement -- "[t]he docu-ments surrounding an exercise are similarly shielded to protect the validity of the exercise" -- goes much too far.
Similarly, there can be no legitimate basis to shield from the County under a claim of confidentiality and documents or meetings which pertain to the proposed " simulation" of County roles or governmental functions.
- 5. I reiterate the County's request that Suffolk County representatives -- myself and Herbert H. Brown -- be advised in advance of gli meetings, we wish to attend all l
.- r ,- ,- - - - , - - - . , , - - - - - - . , - , --- - - - - - , - - , - - - - - - . - - - , . . - - - - - - - - - - - , - - -
= ,.
Samuel E. Spe'ck . January 2,1986 Page 3 4 such meetings. If FEMA intends to bar County representa-1 tives from particular meetings due to alleged 'confiden-tiality" concerns, we still wish to attend all other
- meetings. -
! 6. I also reiterate the County's request that all exercise-related documents produced to date be identified and provided to suffolk County. We have thus f ar received no such documents from FEMA, the NRC or LILCO despite the Yact that many documents have been generated and exchanged over the last three months. If FEMA invokes a "confiden-tiality" concern related to any, particular documents, the County requests that FEMA explain its, basis for refusing to produce the document. I request that the same procedure apply to all documents created in the future.
7 The County is informed that LILCO personnel are playing a central role in development of the exercise scenario. Even if LILCO purportedly shields exercise
" players" from persons involved in scenario development, I cannot perceive any legitimate basis why LILCO should be
, involved in this process. LILCO can be expected to propose a scenario which will be most suited to " success" by its LERO personnel. Your words about " strict confidentiality" and "possible biasing of results" ring hollow when one focuses on LILCO's role in devising the test. There is no reason that FEMA -- or a FEMA contractor (if lawfully retained) -- could not develop the scenario without LILCO. l You have clearly biased the results by involving LILCO. I l request that any LILCO-based scenario be immediately rejected. -
8.. Finally, I am compelled, as well, to raise a related issue. It was reported in Newsday on Saturday, ! December 28, that FEMA has been considering exercise options for County " participation" in a Shoreham exercise but that FEMA has hen concerned about ' disruptive' behavior by i
" locals" and that " inclusion will expose locals to prelim- ,
'l inary evaluation discussions which may be taken out of con- ) text and publicized for self-serving purposes". FEMA also was concerned that " delay (of an exercise) would cause excessive financial burden to LILCO. " I am shocked by such statements. FEMA is supposed to work cooperatively with local governments. Instead, these revelations make it clearGiven that FEMA FEMA's conduct, the is on a mission ! designed only to help LILCO. I I I
1 Samuel E. Sheck January 2, 1986 Page 4 exercise "results" appear preordained -- any adverse results would be contrary to LILCO's financial well-being which FEMA places ahead of the interests of the general public. Again, in light of such revelations, you purported concern for possibly biasing tMe results of an exercise are indeed suspect. . I request your prompt written response to each of
. the points discussed above, very truly yours,
.s/
vW Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney MBA:sm cc The Hon. Julius W. Bacton Stewart Glass, Esq. Spence W. Perry, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Donald P. Irwin, Esq. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. e i . I s
OMICE ^F THEcoume, COUNTYor num LEGIS* ATURE 1 h j t -
- . l l
l Gr*1 pry J. Biene " Presiding Officer January g. IIB 6 3604 088 Honorable Julius Secton Director Federal Emergency Management Agency
!IOD C Strimet. S.W.
Wamhirigtan. D.C. 208172 Deer W. Sectan: l As Prs:Jding Officer of the Suffolk County Legislature. I arn writing to object to FEMA's continuing indifference to the interente of Suffolk County and its citizens concoming emergency pi-i- .c r issume at the 91ersham nuclear power plant. The actions of FEMA officials display a systematic bias in favor of the Long Island Lighting Comoeny and e i commitment to help LILCO put Stioreham into operation et any cost to the safety interests l of the pahlic. Indes d. FEMA has tntrayed Its obligation to fue en objectiv9 servet of ) the public% interest. i Staffolk County hee repostedly atterupted to gain FEMA's understimding that there is no ) legitimeta rummon for FEMA to conduct a test of LILCO's emergency plan for !Dioraharn. LILCO's plan has been declared unlawful and uninglementabte by the New York Stata l Supreme Court. and the NRC's Licensing said Appose Boarchs have denied LILCO a ficanse l to operata IRiorel%sm. How can FEMA justify conducting a test of an unlawful emergency plan for a nuclear plant that ciennot operste? l Larader the law of New York State. it is the Suffolk County Legislature which sete Consity l policy on emergency properedians issues. To data. FEMA hee entirely ignored the Suffolk l Consity Legislature mid has even acted with hostility toward the Legislature's carefully l considered resolutione ard policies. I hereby ask that you pomonelly rectify this unacceptable situation by taking the following actione: First, cancelling FEMA's agreement to cor=k= r an exercise of LILCO's pien. Second, coming to Suffolk County. et a rnutually ; convenient aerly deto. to appear before and diecisma with the Suffolk Coarity Legislature vital ernergency preparedneen leeuse concerning the Epioreturn nuclear power plant. Pleaes have your staff contact my office in order that we may proceed swiftly to schedule such a soumion of the County Legislature. I look forward to your early personal reply. Sincerety. .-
~
oregar _ng eff,c., Suffolk County Legisteture , GJtugh COPY TO: 0FFICE OF HERB bR0=H, ATT: JAfiE
e ,
. % 1 j ' %y :
Federal Emergency Management Agency
\
. , Washington, D.C. 20472 I O O '#
l JAN 9 1986 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Ftrkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Lanpher:
In view of litigation initiated by your client now pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with regard to the Commission's request for an exercise at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not feel that it would be appropriate for this Agency to respond to the questions raised in your letter of December 26, 1985. As you know, FEMA performs its tasks as consultant on offsite emergency response at fixed nuclear generating facilities at the request of the NRC. FEMA has reviewed your letter with great care and I can assure you that the Agency intends to meet its obligations under the FEMA /NRC Memorandum of Understanding in a way consistent with that agreement and in accordance with the state of the law at the time an exercise takes place. Sincerely,
^
e
' eiTce d. e r r' Acting Genera Counsel
s , 1 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART /i 1900 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 om nosroN PLAcz
~" 806 ton, MA 02108 mewom aan tu no .m ms.co 1428 BluC3211 AVDeu N QoD 412-M2 M1AML FL 33111 009 3744112 1500 OUVER BUILDENG NbN FITTSBL1tCH. PA 15222 con 4u m January 13, 1986 i4m imsoo BY TELECOPIER Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278
Dear Stewart:
I have yet to receive from you a response to my letter of December 30, 1985 requesting documents relating to the proposed and -actual objectives for the February 13 Shoreham exercise. Your refusal to respond is unacceptable and highly prejudicial to Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton, on whose behalf my request was made, since as you know time is of the essence with respect to this matter. When I called you on January 6 to inquire about your failure even to acknowledge receipt of my letter, you promised a full response by January 7. You stated that your response would consist of identification of all documents relevant to my request, and an indication of which ones you would produce and which, if any, would be withheld. On January 7, you indicated that your production of the documents would ue delayed, but that you nonetheless would provide the promised response by January 8. Since then, I have tried to reach you several times and have left messages requesting that you contact me, and I still have received no response.
. I 1
1 i l
g . KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Stewart M. Glass, Esq. January 13, ~'1986
~
Page 2 ' This situation is unacceptable. I understand from your secretary that you are not expected back in the office today, January 13. I expect to hcar from you tomorrow morning. Sincerely, m I KarqaJ.4#7 Lets KJL:so cc: Fabian G. Palomino Stephen B. Latham 1 I S l O *
& ~ e no
, ._ y _ - - ~ ,
1
* ' KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M oNE 80 stow FLAcs SOSTON. MA 02100 TEIL' HONE 00n *$N000 totn 973 5400 1928 BluCKELL AVENUE TE11COPEA CC21912-7052 MIAML FL lli31 (305) )?4 4112 1500 OLIVEA BUILDING LAWRENCE CoE I.ANPHER riTTsat1tcH.PA t$222 am *5Moti January 15, 1986 ma isua BY HAND Spence W. Perry, Esquire Acting General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472
Dear Mr. Perry:
Your letter of January 9 contains no response to our December 26 letter and, indeed, even raises questions whether you intend it to be a serious reply. Citing the existence of
" litigation" before the NRC and FEMA's perception of its role as an NRC " consultant," FEMA asserts that it would not be
" appropriate" to respond to the questions posed in our December 26 letter. I ask you to reconsider your assertion, and submit that the " litigation" and " consultant" role are irrelevant to the need for a serious, substantive response to our questions, namely:
- 1. Does FEMA intend to exercise LILCO's Plan, Rev. 5?
- 2. Does FEMA intend to exercise functions LILCO cannot legally perform?
- 3. Will private parties perform the roles of State and County government officials?
Sincer ly, Lawrence Coe Lanpher cc: Julius Becton Samuel W. Speck Martin B. Ashare, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
r A s , KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M oNE m etAcs Borrow, uA 02tos
, m m a s con u m i.n, mm 1828 8AJCKILL A%TNUE macorum oon *um m n. m n 009) H44tl2 1502 OtJNTA BL1LDING KAA1.A J. LETSCHE riftselllCH, /A 15222 aan *um January 16, 1986 ..in nwa3 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278
Dear Stewart:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation this afternoon, in which you apologized for the delay in responding to my letter of December 30, 1985 requesting documents related to the proposed and actual objectives for the February 13 Shoreham exercise. You stated that tomorrow, January 17, 1986, you will: (1) identify all documents responsive to my request-(at this time 22 documents have been identified but there may be some additional ones); (2) identify which, if any, of those documents you believe the County, State and Town of Southampton are "not entitled" to receive, and the basis for that belief with respect to each document; and, (3) send me copies of all the responsive documents to which you believe we are " entitled." I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow. Sincere,1y, Ka 1 J. Letsche KJL:so l 1
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 200M ONE N PLACE ntzrHOwE ac2i s2 mo $Z'" 1428 BitJCKELL A%TNUE HLECOPIE1:2021452 22 bcAML FL 33111 i n n.4 n 150o OUVEA BUILDING NIN PITT38URCH. PA 15222 (2c2: 452.m4 January 17, 1986 i.u, msco b Donald P. Irwin, Esq. Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 E. Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Don:
This is to confirm the requests I made in our telephone conversation on January 15, 1986, and my understanding of your responses. First, I asked when the LILCO tabletop exercise, to be observed by FEMA, was scheduled to take place. (As I told you, I was informed by Stewart Glass that, at one point, the " projected date" for such a tabletop exercise was January 29, 1986.) I told you that Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton intended to attend that exercise to monitor it in order to protect their rights in any NRC proceeding concerning exercise results. You said that you did not know the date of such an exercise or whether a date had been set. You also said that you did not know what LILCO's position would be concerning the attendance of County, State and Town representatives at such an exercise. You did state, however, that you would see if you could find out about the scheduling of the tabletop exercise and would get back to me on the subject. You were not able to promise that you would give me the ccheduling information I requested. Second, I indicated that despite repeated requests to FEMA and to the NRC on behalf of the County, State and Town, we have been unable to obtain any factual information about the proposed February 13 exercise, including correspondence and other documents relating to proposed or actual objectives for that exercise, despite the fact that we had received as a routine matter copies of LILCO/ FEMA /NRC exercise-related correspondence and proposed objectives in the past (i.e., before the decision to schedule a Shoreham exercise). I requested that you have an appropriate or knowledgeable LILCO representative provide copies of LILCO-FEMA
]
s 1 1 KHUGYGluCK & LCCIGtNRT l
- Donald P. Irwin, Esq. i January 17, 1986 l Page 2 l F !
1 I l l correspondence and other documents relating to proposed and actual exercise objectives to me. I also made clear that while we disagree with FEMA's and LILCO's position that documents related to the exercise scenario must be withheld from County, State, and Town representatives unless they sign confidentiality pledges, my present request did not seek.such documents; rather, I asked only for documents concerning the facts and objectives relative to the exercise, not the scenario. You replied that you personally had never seen any documents or correspondence of the type I requested. You stated, further, i that you and your client are operating under strict FEMA-imposed absolute secrecy requirements, according to which LILCO cannot reveal any information at all relt.tv1 to the February 13 exercise
! or FEMA will not participate in the exercise as LILCO has requested. You indicated that you understood the FEMA secrecy j requirement, which you described as a " policy" you had discussed with FEMA lawyers, to be based on a concern by FEMA that providing
] ' any information to the State, County or Town could result in an argument that the exercise was not " valid," or could result in
" contamination" of the exercise. By this letter, I reiterate our request for all exercise-related documents except for the
- scenario.
Third, I told you that again despite repeated requests, we have not been informed by FEMA of scheduled FEMA /LILCO/NRC 4 meetings (including drills or tabletop exercises) relating to the proposed exercise. I told you that the County, State and Town had stated several times an intention to attend such meetings, in order to monitor them for purposes of protecting their rights in the ongoing and future Shoreham proceedings, and that we had requested notice of the meetings even if FEMA w3uld not permit the governments' representatives to attend. You indicated an awareness of those requests and intentions. You also indicated that you would check to see if there was a schedule of meetings, and while you would get back to me on that subject, you could not promise to provide me the requested information. Finally, I told you that the State, County, and Town intended to attend the February 13 exercise should it actually take place, in order to monitor it and be in a position to effectively pursue their rights in any subsequent NRC proceedings. I also stated that the factual information sought was necessary to enable us to prepare adequately and properly for such attendance and to make i 4 4 j _ _ - - _ _ , . ~ _ . - - . - - _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ - .
o . A I KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Donald P. Irwin, Esq. January 17, 1986 Page 3 our attendance effective for purposes of the subsequent litigation. Sincerely, \ Karla J. Letsche l KJL:so cc: Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Stewart M. Glass, Esq. e
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M ONE BOSTON PLACI sosTow. wA c2tos 002) 412 M 1617) 97L5400 1428 BfUCKILL AVENUE TELECOPER 002) 452 7052 gag pt 333): 1105) 1744 112 ism otnu suitom KARI.A J. LETSCHE PITTssencH. PA is222 uo2 452 7o.4 January 17, 1986 ..a issex Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Bernie:
This is to confirm the substance of our two telephone conversations on January 15, 1986, in which, on behalf of Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton, I requested the NRC Staff to provide copies of correspondence and other documents related to the proposed Shoreham tabletop and February 13 exercises, and proposed and actual objectives relating to those exercises. As we discussed, I have requested such materials from Stewart Glass of FEMA; however, to date Stewart has refused to respond to my request. I indicated to you that we needed this information in order to be able effectively to protect'the interests of Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton who are parties to the ongoing NRC license proceeding. I also noted that in the past, we received copies of FEMA-LILCO and FEMA-NRC Shoreham-related correspondence, including that relating to proposed exercise objectives and tabletop exercises, as a routine matter. See, for example, the November 14, 1984 Letter from John D. Leonard to Harold R. Denton, with copies to C. Petrone and NRC service list; the December 19, 1984 Memorandum from Edward L. Jordan to Richard W. Krimm, with copies to service list; and the February 8, 1985 Letter from John D. Leonard Jr. to Harold R. Denton, with copies to Richard Krimm and service list. As I explained, however, since the decision was made to schedule the February 13 Shoreham exercise, we have not been provided by FEMA, the NRC, or LILCO, with any factual information about the proposed exercise; thus, we are being precluded from effectively pursuing I and protecting the rights of the County, the State and the Town, ' under the NRC's regulations and U.S. Court of Appeals decisions, in the NRC license proceeding and in the litigation concerning the exercise results, should the exercise take place. i
s ? KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. January 17, 1986 Page 2 I also told you of (1) our repeated requests to FEMA that we be notified in advance of any meetings between FEMA and LILCO representatives concerning the proposed Shoreham exercises; (2) our expressed intention to attend such meetings, as well as the tabletop and February 13 exercises, for the purpose,of monitoring them to protect the rights of the County, State, and Town in the NRC proceeding; and (3) FEMA's failure to notify us of any meetings other than one on December 12 (of which we learned on December 11 and were not permitted to attend) and ones on December 18 and 19 (of which we learned on December 24) or of the date of the tabletop exercise. I requested that the NRC provide the requested scheduling information and advance notice to us. You stated that your " management" has taken the position that I the requested documents are FEMA documents, and that we must obtain them from FEMA, not the NRC. I stated in response, however, that: (1) FEMA has consistently characterized itself as only a " consultant" to the NRC, and as acting at the request, or on behalf, of the NRC, in connection with the Shoreham exercise , and the Shoreham litigation; and (2) the NRC, at a minimum in the ! person of Bernard Weiss and probably other individuals as well, I surely has copies of the requested FEMA /LILCO/NRC correspondence ! and other documents relating to the exercises, and knows of ; scheduled meetings and exercise dates, particularly since apparently Mr. Weiss, and according to you Mr. Christenbury, are active participants in the exercise preparations. It seems clear that the NRC is in a position to provide the requested information, and, as a party to the litigation and under the NRC's ex parte rules, is obligated to do so. You reiterated what you described as "the Agency's" position to me in our telephone conversation on January 16, 1986. It is that the documents and information I have requested belong to FEMA, and therefore we must obtain them from FEMA. You have not yet provided any basis to support the NRC's refusal to produce the documents and information which the NRC itself possesses. Accordingly, I hereby reiterate my request that the NRC Staff: (1) identify all documents and correspondence, related to the proposed tabletop and February 13 Shoreham exercises, of which it is aware; (2) provide copies of all such documents and, if any are withheld, provide an explanation for the refusal to provide copies; and (3) provide advance notice of all meetings relating to the exercises (including any tabletop or other exercises or drills themselves) so that representatives of Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton can attend and monitor them in order to protect their rights in the ongoing litigation.
. t KIRKPATRICK 6. LOCKHART Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
January 17, 1986 Page 3 l According to a dccument provided to me by Stewart Glass on December 24, 1985, at one point, the tabletop exercise was tentatively scheduled for January 29; I understand the larger exercise is scheduled for February 13. Since time is so short, and since the requested information is essential to enable us to prepare adequately to attend the exercises (should they occur) and to make such attendance effective for purposes of the subsequent litigation, I request that you respond to this letter at your earliest convenience, but no later than January 22, 1986. Sincerply,
, Ka la J. Letsche KJL:so cc: Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Donald P. Irwin, Esq. Stewart M. Glass, Esq. k e e
n
- KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 200% ONE BOSTON PLACE aoSTON, MA 02108 mErwoNE mus2 m . 3 ,,% 1928 BluCKELL AVENUE N @) 452 22 M1AML FL 331)I 0 05) 174 4 112 1500 OUVER SUILDING KAlu.A J. LETSCHE PrTTsauncH. rA 15222 ce2ns2** January 21, 1986 m2n55m FEDERAL EXPRESS Stewcrt M. Glass, Esq. Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278
Dear Stewart:
This is to confirm the substance of our telephone conversa-tion on January 17 regarding documents which I requested by letter of December 20, 1985. You told me that you believe Suffolk Coun-ty, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (hereafter, the " Governments") may be " entitled" to receive copies of only five documents of those you have identified as being responsive to my request for documents' relating to the facts, and proposed and actual objectives, concerning the proposed Shoreham exercise. The five documents, as identified by you, are:
- 1. October 24, 1985 Memorandum from Krimm to Jordan concern-ing corrections to the RAC Report on LILCO Plan Revision 5.
- 2. November 20, 1985 Memorandum from Jordan to Krimm con-cerning the exercise "in general," the NRC/ FEMA Memoran-dum of Understanding, and FEMA GM-17.
-3. A letter from John Meismantle to Roger Kowieski " submit-ting something."
- 4. A lettur from Roger Kowieski to the RAC concerning
" schedules."
- 5. A letter from "someone from LILCO" to Roger Kowieski concerning "a meeting about the Nassau Coliseum."
1
a KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Stewart M. Glass, Esq. January 21, 1986 Page 2 For your information, we received a copy of document number 1 through the service list when it was sent. Furthermore, you said that you would not provide copies of three of these five documents unless and until the NRC (for docu-ment number 2) and LILCO (for document numbers 3 and 5) give you
" permission" to do so. As a result you could not say when, or if, I would actually receive any documents from you.
You also stated that the remaining responsive documents were being withheld from the Governments because they either discuss the exercise scenario or they have to do with preliminary or pro-posed versions of the exercise objectives. You confirmed, how-ever, that these documents have been provided to LILCO. You said you would telecopy to me a listing of all the documents being withheld, and that the listing will include, for each such docu-ment, the author, date, recipients, and subject. I have not yet received that listing. In addition, af ter having confirmed that as of January 17 you intended to provide me with no documents relating to the objec-tives for the proposed February 13 exercise, you stated that you believed the " final" exercise objectives would be completed, and that you would "probably" provide me with a copy, during the week of January 20. I hereby reiterate my request that they be pro-vided as soon as possible. In response to my question as to when the FEMA-observed tabletop exercise was scheduled, you stated that your " latest impression" was that "there may not be one." I hereby reiterate my request that you determine and inform me, whether, and when, such an exercise is scheduled to take place, since representatives of the Governments intend to attend it for purposes of monitoring it, if it occurs. During our January 17 conversation, you still did not provide me with a schedule of maetings concerning the proposed Shoreham exercises, despite the fact that our request for such a schedule has been outstanding since December 3, 1985. I again reiterate that request, as well as the intention of the Governments to attend all such meetings in order to monitor then to protect their rights in the Shoreham proceeding. In response to my reiterated notice to you that representa-tives of the Governments intend to attend the February 13 exer-cise, should it occur, in order to monitor it to enable them to protect and pursue their rights in the Shoreham proceeding, you told me that with respect to other FEMA-graded exercises of which
A K!P.KPATRICK & LOCKHART Stewart M. Glass, Esq. January 21, 1986 Page 3 you were aware, FEMA has never objected to the presence of Inter-venors at both fixed and field locations during the exercises. Indeed, you explained that in other exercises, FEMA has provided Intervenors in advance with information about the " fixed loca-tions" and the types and locations of field activities to take place during an exercise, so Intervenors can arrange to be at the appropriate locations to observe the exercise activities. You stated, however, that you could not state the FEMA " policy" with respect to the attendance by the Governments' representatives at the proposed Shoreham exercise. And, as discussed above, you have refused to provide any of the factual information about the exer-cise that would enable the Governments to determine how we can effectively attend and monitor the exercise activities. In response to my inquiry as to when, or if, the Governments would be provided with even the most basic factual information about the exercise (for example, the locations where. controllers and observers will be) you stated that you did not know. FEMA's continued refusal (1) to provide the Governments with relevant documents and factual information concerning the proposed Shoreham exercise and its objectives, and (2) to provide adequate notice of meetings and to permit the Governments to attend meet-ings concerning the proposed exercise, is without basis. More-over, such actions by FEMA are contrary to the NRC's Rules of Practice to which FEMA is subject in its self-described role as the NRC's agent in the Shoreham proceeding, and constitute a violation of the due procese rights of the Governments with t respect to litigation of em.ergency planning exercises, as those rights have been articulated by the courts. I hereby reiterate the request for the referenced information, and request that you respond as soon as possible. Sincerely, Karl I etsche KJL:so cc: Martin B. Ashare, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Donald P. Irwin, Esq. l l
~
n s N 4
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission a
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) )
)
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE 8,F NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON NOTICE AND MOTION CONCERNING PROPOSED EMERGENCY PLANNING EXERCISES have been served on the following this 22nd day of January, 1986, by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Stuart Diamond Atomic Safety and Licensing Business / Financial Appeal Board NEW YORK TIMES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 229 W. 43rd Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10036 Mr. Howard A. Wilber Joel Blau, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing New York Public Service Comm. Appeal Board The Governor Nelson A. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockefeller Building Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Gary J. Edles Stewart M. Glass, Esq.* Atomic Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel Appeal Board Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Washington, D.C. 20555 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Anthony F. Earley, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C. 20555 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501
- - - - , , , , - - - . - m - --,-- - - , - -
t - n s T Dr. Jerry R. Kline W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.* Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C. 2055? 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 398 North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W. Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Donna D. Duer Hon. Peter Cohalan Atomic Safety and Licensing Suffolk County Executive Board Panel H. Lee Dennison Building U.S.
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission Veterans Itamorial Highway Washington, D.C. 20555 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Martin.Bradley Ashare, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Staff Counsel, New York State Bldg. 158, North County Complex Public Service Commission Veterans Memorial Highway 3 Rockefeller Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12223 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.** Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Special Counsel to the Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Chamber, Room 229 Washington, D.C. 20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 l
~...- -- .- - - - . - - . - ~ - - - - -
, ),
y J,* . Spence Perry, Esq. Mary Gundrum, Esq. Associate General Counsel New York State Department Federal Emergency Management Agency of Law Washington, D.C. 20471 2 World Trade Center, Rm. 4614 New York, New York 10047 Mr. William Rogers David A. Brownlee, Esq. Clerk Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Suffolk County Legislature 1500 Oliver Building Suffolk County Legislature Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Herzal Plaine, Esq. Hauppauge, New York 11788 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 10th Floor Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman 1717 H Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 1114 1717 H Street, N.W. Comm. Frederick M. Bernthal Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Room 1156 Comm. Lando W. Zech, Jr. 1717 H Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 1113 1717 H Street, N.W. Comm. Thomas M. Roberts Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Room 1103 Comm. James K. Asselstine 1717 H Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 1136 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
-~g -
, l. - L Karla (. Letsch KIRKPATRICK & w_ p/ /dKHART 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: January 22, 1986
- By Federal Express, 1/22/86
** By Hand Delivery, 1/23/86 l
l l I l I l}}